משנה: אִילָן שֶׁנֶּעֱקַר וְהַסֶּלַע עִמּוֹ אִם יָכוֹל לִחְיוֹת פָּטוּר וְאִם לָאו חַייָב. נֶעֱקַר הַסֶּלַע מִצִּידּוֹ זִיעְזְעָתוֹ הַמַּחֲרֵישָׁה אוֹ שֶׁזִּיעְזְעָתוֹ וְעָשָׂאוֹ כְעָפָר אִם יָכוֹל לִחְיוֹת פָּטוּר וְאִם לָאו חַייָב. אִילָן שֶׁנֶּעֱקַר וְנִשְׁתַּייֵר בוֹ שׁוֹרֶשׁ פָּטוּר. וְכַמָּה יְהֵי בְשׁוֹרֶשׁ רַבָּן גַּמְלִיאֵל מִשּׁוּם רִבִּי לָֽעְזָר בֶּן יְהוּדָה אִישׁ בִּירְתּוֹתָא כְּמַחַט שֶׁלְמִתּוֹן. אִילָן שֶׁנֶּעֱקַר וּבוֹ בְּרִיכָה וְהוּא חָיֶה מִמֶּנּוּ חָֽזְרָה זְקֵינָה לִהְיוֹת כִּבְרִיכָה. הִבְרִכָהּ שָׁנָה אַחַר שָׁנָה וְנִפְסְקָה מוֹנֶה מִשָּׁעָה שֶׁנִּפְסְקָה. סִיפּוּק הַגְּפָנִים סִיפּוּק עַל גַּבֵּי סִיפּוּק אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁהִבְרִיכָן בָּאָרֶץ מוּתָּר. רִבִּי מֵאִיר אוֹמֵר מָקוֹם שֶׁכּוֹחָהּ יָפָה מוּתָּר. וּמָקוֹם שֶׁכּוֹחָהּ רַע אָסוּר. בְּרִיכָה שֶׁנִּפְסְקָה וְהִיא מְלֵיאָה פֵירוֹת אִם הוֹסִיף בְּמָאתַיִם אָסוּר. MISHNAH: If a tree was moved with its lump52Literally “the rock”. It means the roots with the earth compacted by them. If the roots are totally contained in the earth moved with the tree, it is not a new planting and no ‘orlah is created. But if the roots are moved without sufficient earth then a new count of ‘orlah has to start., if it can survive it is exempt, otherwise obligated. If the lump was partially moved, or the plough displaced it and turned it into dust53Maimonides (autograph), R. Simson, the Cambridge, Munich, and Parma mss. of the Mishnah, as well as the first hand of the Kaufmann ms. and the editio princeps all read בעפר “it was repaired with dust”, i. e., the hole created when the tree was pushed aside by the plough was filled with earth. If the tree could have survived without the new earth, it is not a new planting. Or zarua‘ (#215) reads כעפר with the Yerushalmi mss. and the corrector of the Kaufmann ms. but explains as if it were written בעפר., if the tree can survive it is exempt, otherwise obligated.
If a tree was cut but there remained a root, it93The new growth from the existing root. is exempt. How large shall the root be? Rabban Gamliel94It must be Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel, as read in some Mishnah mss., since Rebbi Eleazar ben Jehudah from Birtota was younger than Rabban Gamliel and a teacher of Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel; cf. J. N. Epstein, מבוא לנוסח המשנה2, p. 1199. in the name of Rebbi Eleazar ben Jehudah from Birtota: Like a tenter’s needle95Definition of Arukh, Maimonides, and R. Simson. The tenter is the frame holding the warp in clothmaking; the needle is used to stretch the threads. In the Halakhah, the word appears as מיתוי. In Kelim 13:5" href="/Mishnah_Kelim.13.5">Kelim 13:5, the Gaonim read מיתח, “to stretch”, and explain that the weavers use broken needles to stretch the warp. Buxtorf derives the word from Greek μιτόω “to stretch”..
If a tree was uprooted but it had a sunken branch105A branch of the tree had been bent down to the earth and part of it covered with earth so that it grew new roots from which a new tree started to grow. As long as everything remains connected, the new tree is considered part of the old and is exempt from ‘orlah. But if now the original tree is separated from its roots and the new tree must live off the new roots of the sunken branch, it reverts to ‘orlah for the next three years. and now lives off that, the original trunk becomes like the sunken branch. If he sank year after year and it was interrupted, one counts106The new parts, no longer connected to the original trunk, become ‘orlah. from the moment it was interrupted. Attachment of vines107This term covers sinking of shoots of vines and grafting new shoots on branches of an old vine., attachment after attachment, even if he sank them into the earth, are permitted. Rebbi Meïr says, where it is in its force it is permitted, where it is weak it is forbidden108According to him, repeated grafting exempts the new limb from ‘orlah only if the previous graft had become one with the tree before the last graft.. A sunk branch which became separated but is full of fruits, if it increased by one twohundredth it is forbidden109Since it was stated at the beginning of the Mishnah that sinking does not create an obligation of ‘orlah, the fruits grown before the new roots were separate from the original trunk grew exempt from ‘orlah. It now is stated that ‘orlah fruits are permitted only if the exempt parts of any fruit are more than 200 times the forbidden; cf. also Mishnah 2:1; Kilayim 5:5:2-4" href="/Jerusalem_Talmud_Kilayim.5.5.2-4">Kilaim 5:6..
הלכה: כֵּינִי מַתְנִיתָא אִם הָיָה יָכוֹל לִחְיוֹת פָּטוּר וְאִם לָאו חַייָב. HALAKHAH: So is the Mishnah: If it could92This is the discussion of Mishnah 3. If the transplanted tree could survive depending only on the earth transferred with it, without help from the earth surrounding it at the new site, no new ‘orlah is created. Cf. J. N. Epstein, מבוא לנוסח המשנה2, p. 450. survive it is exempt, otherwise obligated.
חִזְקִיָּה שָׁאַל פָּחוֹת מִיכֵּן כְּתָלוּשׁ הוּא. הִשְׁתַּחֲוֶה לוֹ אֲסָרוֹ. כּוֹתְבִין עָלָיו גִּיטֵּי נָשִׁים. אָֽמְרִין חָזַר בֵּיהּ חִזְקִיָּה. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹנָה מִן הָדָא חָזַר בֵּיהּ דְּאָמַר רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן בְּשֵׁם רִבִּי יַנַּאי מִכֵּיוָן שֶׁיֵּשׁ כְּמַחַט שֶׁל מִיתּוּי דָּבָר בָּרִיא שֶׁיֵּשׁ לוֹ שָׁלֹשׁ שָׁנִים. Ḥizqiah asked: Less than that96If the root is not as thick as a tenter’s needle. While any object of idolatrous worship is forbidden for usufruct, this excludes the earth and anything permanently affixed to it (Mishnah Avodah Zarah 3:5). It is talmudic theory that holy trees are forbidden only because statues are buried between their roots., is it as if torn out? If he worshipped it, is it forbidden? Does one write on it women’s bills of divorce97Since it is written: (Deuteronomy.24.3">Deut. 24:3) “He shall write for her a bill of divorce and hand it over to her,” one concludes that a bill of divorce may not be written on anything that cannot be delivered immediately after signing, e. g., on a leaf connected to the ground which would have to be cut before delivery is possible (Sifry Deut. 269, Gittin 3:2:2-4" href="/Jerusalem_Talmud_Gittin.3.2.2-4">Giṭṭin 3:2, Gittin.19b">Babli Giṭṭin 19b).? They say, Ḥizqiah retracted this. Rebbi Jonah said: Ḥizqiah retracted because Rebbi Joḥanan98Who was Ḥizqiah’s student and would not have transmitted a teaching rejected by his teacher. said in the name of Rebbi Yannai, if it is [thick] like a tenter’s needle it is certain that it is three years old99If it is thinner, it is obligated for ‘orlah, which means it is planted in the earth..
חִזְקִיָּה שָׁאַל שְׁלִישׁ מַחַט שָׁנָה שְׁנֵי שְׁלִישֵׁי שְׁתֵּי שָׁנִים. חֲבֵרַייָא בָּעֵיי מַחַט וּשְׁלִישׁ דָּבָר בָּרִיא שֶׁיֵּשׁ לוֹ אַרְבַּע שָׁנִים. אִין תֵּימַר לֹא חָזַר בֵּיהּ לָמָּה שָׁאַל כֵּן. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹנָה מִן מִלְתֵיהּ חָזַר בֵּיהּ דְּאָמַר רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן בְּשֵׁם רִבִּי יַנַּאי מִכֵּיוָן שֶׁיֵּשׁ כְּמַחַט שֶׁל מִיתּוּי דָּבָר בָּרִיא שֶׁיֵּשׁ לוֹ שָׁלֹשׁ שָׁנִים. Ḥizqiah asked: A third of a needle [means] one year, two thirds two years100Is the thickness proportional to the time passed after planting? The negative answer is in Sheviit 5:1:6" href="/Jerusalem_Talmud_Sheviit.5.1.6">Ševi‘it 5, Notes 20–21.? The colleagues asked: A needle and a third, is it obvious that it is four years old? If you say, he did not retract, why would he have asked this101If a thin root is not in the earth it cannot count for ‘orlah. The second of Ḥizqiah’s questions cannot be asked if the first is answered in the affirmative.? Rebbi Jonah said: Ḥizqiah retracted this, because Rebbi Joḥanan said in the name of Rebbi Yannai. if it is [thick] like a tenter’s needle it is certain that it is three yeards old102The condition of the Mishnah is sufficient but not necessary to characterize a three-year-old tree..
אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹסֵי אֲפִילוּ יֵשׁ בּוֹ שָׁלֹשׁ שָׁנִים אֵין בּוֹ כְּמַחַט שֶׁל מִיתּוּי. אָמַר רִבִּי יוּדָן מַתְנִיתָא מְסַייְעָא לְרִבִּי יוֹסֵי אָמַר רִבִּי אַף כְּשֶׁאָֽמְרוּ בְּנוֹת חָמֵשׁ בְּנוֹת שֵׁשׁ בְּנוֹת שֶׁבַע אֶלָּא בִגְפָנִים בְּנוֹת חָמֵשׁ. בִּתְאֵנִים בְּנוֹת שֵׁשׁ. בְּזֵתִים בְּנוֹת שֶׁבַע. וַאֲנָ[ן] חָמֵיי הָדֵין מֻרְוִיתָא דִתְאֵינָה אַתְיָא בְּפֵירֵי. אָמַר רִבִּי יוּדָן בְּרִבִּי טְרִיפוֹן לְעוּבְיָהּ. Rebbi Yose said, even three years old it will not have the thickness of a tenter’s needle. Rebbi Yudan said, a baraita supports Rebbi Yose: 103From here to the end of the Halakhah, the text is from Ševi‘it 1:9, Notes 72–79. The baraita explains the Mishnah defining how long a tree is called “sapling.” A tree which is a sapling for seven years cannot have very impressive roots after three years.“Rebbi says, when they said five, six, or seven years old, for vines five years old, for figs six years old, for olives seven years old.” 104These two sentences belong to Ševi‘it 1:9 and have no meaning here. In any case, the size of the root is no direct indication of a tree’s age. But do we not see the growth of the fig tree come with fruits? Rebbi Yudan said, according to Rebbi Tryphon we throw it on its width.
אִילָן שֶׁנֶּעֱקַר וּבוֹ בְּרֵיכָה וּבוֹ בְרָכָה. רִבִּי חוּנָא בְשֵׁם רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן וּבוֹ בְּרִיכָה. אָמַר רִבִּי מָנָא אִית בְּנֵי נָשׁ שְׁמוֹן בְּרִיכָה כְּמָאן דְּאָמַר בּוֹא בְּרוּךְ יי֨. “If a tree was uprooted but it had a sunken branch;” blessing is in it. Rebbi Ḥuna in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: There is bĕrîkhâ in it. Rebbi Mana said, some people are called Bĕrîkhâ as you say (Genesis.24.31">Gen. 24:31): “Come, the Eternal’s blessed.”110Both homiletic versions, that sinking branches brings blessing to the farmer, are identical. The Aramaic translation of the phrase from Gen. is עוּל בְּרִיכָא דַה֗ both in Onqelos (Eastern) and Yerushalmi (Pseudo-Jonathan, Western). The modern Ashkenazic version of the name is Brick, Bruck. Cf. E. and H. Guggenheimer, Jewish Family Names and Their Origins, Ktav, 1992.
רִבִּי זְעִירָא רִבִּי יַסִּי רִבִּי לָֽעְזָר בְשֵׁם רִבִּי חֲנִינָא. רִבִּי בָּא רִבִּי חִייָה רִבִּי לָֽעְזָר רִבִּי חֲנִינָה בְשֵׁם רִבִּי חֲנִינָה בֶן גַּמְלִיאֵל יַלְדָּה שֶׁסֻּפְּקָה לִזְקֵינָה טֻהֲרָה הַיַּלְדָּה. אָמַר רִבִּי חִייָה בַּר בָּא מַתְנִיתָא אָֽמְרָה כֵן סִיפּוּק גְּפָנִים סִיפּוּק עַל סִיפּוּק אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁהִבְרִיכָן לָאָרֶץ מוּתָּר. וְחָשׁ לוֹמַר שֶׁמָּא הִשְׁרִישָׁה הַיַּלְדָּה עַד שֶׁלֹּא תִּתְאַחֶה מִן הַזְּקֵינָה. רִבִּי חֲנַנְיָה בְּרֵיהּ דְּרִבִּי הִלֵּל דְּרִבִּי יְהוּדָה הִיא. דְּרִבִּי יְהוּדָה אָמַר מִתְאָחָה הִיא עַד שֶׁלֹּא תַשְׁרִישׁ. Rebbi Zeïra, Rebbi Assi in the name of Rebbi Ḥanina; Rebbi Abba, Rebbi Ḥiyya, Rebbi Eleazar, Rebbi Ḥananiah in the name of Rebbi Ḥanina ben Gamliel: If a young tree was attached to an old one, the young one was cleansed111If an ‘orlah twig was grafted on an old vine, it is no longer ‘orlah. In the Sotah.43b">Babli, Soṭah 43b, this is a purely Amoraic statement by R. Abbahu. {The Bablylonian equivalent of ספק is סבך.}. Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba said, the Mishnah says so: “Attachment of vines, attachment after attachment, even if he sank them into the earth, are permitted.” Should we not say that maybe the young tree formed roots before it was well connected112The term מאחה usually means mending a tear in a garment so that it looks like new. to the old one113In case the newly grafted branch was at the same time sunk into the ground.? Rebbi Ḥananiah the son of Rebbi Hillel: This follows Rebbi Jehudah, since Rebbi Jehudah says it connects well more quickly than it forms roots.
רִבִּי יוֹסֵי בְשֵׁם רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן שָׁרָשִׁים אֵין בָּהֶן מַמָּשׁ. אָמַר רִבִּי זְעִירָא לְרִבִּי יוֹסֵי בְּפֵירוּשׁ שְׁמַעְתָּנָהּ מִן רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן אוֹ מִן שִׁיטָּתֵיהּ דְּאָמַר רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן וְתַנֵּי כֵן הִקְדִּישׁ וְאַחַר כָּךְ נָטַע פָּטוּר מִן הֶעָרְלָה. נָטַע וְאַחַר כָּךְ הִקְדִּישׁ חַייָב בְּעָרְלָה. וְאַתּוּן סָֽבְרִין מֵימַר הֶקְדֵּשׁ פָּטוּר וּזְקֵנָה פָּטוּר. וְלָא דָמְיָא הֶקְדֵּשׁ רָאוּי הוּא לִפְדּוֹתוֹ וּלְחַייְבוֹ הוֹאִיל וְרָאוּי לַחֲשׁוֹב וּלְחַייְבוֹ אִית לָךְ גַּבֵּי זְקֵינָה רָאוּי לַחֲשׁוֹב עָלֶיהָ וּלְחַייְבָהּ. Rebbi Assi in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Roots do not count114Cf. Note 42. R. Assi rejects R. Ḥananiah ben R. Hillel’s solution and holds that, according to R. Joḥanan, nobody cares whether the healing of the graft or the development of new roots is faster.. Rebbi Zeïra said to Rebbi Assi, did you hear that explicitly from Rebbi Joḥanan or from his argument? As Rebbi Joḥanan said, moreover it was stated115Tosephta 4.: “If someone dedicated116Both the sapling and the ground in which it will be planted are dedicated to the upkeep of the Temple. and then planted, it is exempt from ‘orlah; planted and then dedicated, it is subject to ‘orlah.” You wanted to say, dedicated is exempt from ‘orlah, old is exempt from ‘orlah. But this is not comparable! Dedicated things can be redeemed and become obligated since he might think about it to obligate117The Tosephta states that redemption of dedicated plants induces ‘orlah to be counted from the moment of planting. This means that the obligation was latent even in the state of dedication.; can you [say] about an old tree that one might think about it to obligate?
רִבִּי אַבָּהוּ בְשֵׁם רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן אֶתְרוֹג שֶׁחָנַט בִּשְׁנַת עָרְלָה וְיָצָא בִשְׁנַת הֵיתֵר וְסִיפְּקוֹ לַחֲבֵירוֹ אֲפִילוּ מוֹסִיף כַּמָּה אָסוּר שֶׁאֵין גִּידוּלֵי אִיסּוּר מַעֲלִין אֶת הָאִיסּוּר. הָא יַלְדָּה שֶׁסִּיפְּקָהּ טְהוֹרָה הַיַּלְדָּה. אִין תֵּימַר לֹא טֻהֲרָה אֲפִילוּ מוֹסִיף כַּמָּה אָסוּר. רִבִּי זְעִירָה בְשֵׁם רַבָּנִין אֶתְרוֹג שֶׁחָנַט בִּשְׁנַת עָרְלָה וְיָצָא בִשְׁנַת הֵיתֵר וְסִיפְּקוֹ לַחֲבֵירוֹ אֲפִילוּ מוֹסִיף כַּמָּה אָסוּר. לוֹקִין עָלָיו בִּכְזַיִת. Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: A citrus medica tree which formed flower buds subject to ‘orlah and the fruits grew when it was permitted118Its fruits stay on the tree longer than one season; therefore, for ‘orlah the determining factor is the formation of the flower, for tithes the time of collection (Bikkurim 2:4:1" href="/Jerusalem_Talmud_Bikkurim.2.4.1">Mishnah Bikkurim 2:6). A flower fertilized in the third year cannot produce permitted fruit.; if [the tree] was attached to another tree even if [the fruit] grows much it is forbidden because growth of something forbidden cannot lift what is forbidden119Even if the growth after the end of the third year is more than 200 times the volume in existence at the end of the third year, the etrog is forbidden.. Therefore, an attached young twig must be permitted because, if you say it is not permitted, even if it grows much it will be forbidden120This explains the Mishnah.! Rebbi Zeïra in the name of the rabbis: A citrusmedica tree which formed flower buds subject to ‘orlah and the fruits grew when it was permitted; what was attached to another tree even if it grows much is forbidden; one whips for the size of an olive121This is taken to be another formulation of the reasoning of R. Joḥanan: If eating the volume of an olive from this etrog (the edible kind, citrus medica cedrata) is criminal then all that grew after the third year must be forbidden by biblical law since otherwise there would not be the volume of an olive of biblically forbidden fruit..
אָמַר רִבִּי מַייְשָׁא לְרִבִּי זְעִירָא תַּרְתֵּין מִילִּין אַתּוּן אָֽמְרִין וְאִינּוּן פְּלִיגִין חָדָא עַל חָדָא. הָכָא אַתּוּן אָֽמְרִין שֶׁאֵין גִּידוּלֵי אִיסּוּר מַעֲלִין אֶת הָאִיסּוּר. וְהָכָא אַתּוּן אָֽמְרִין לוֹקִין עָלָיו בִּכְזַיִת. וְיִלְקֶה לְפִי חֶשְׁבּוֹן שֶׁיֵּשׁ בּוֹ. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹנָה כָּאן מַחְמַת עַצְמוֹ הוּא חַי. וְכָאן מַחְמַת הַסִּיפּוּק הוּא. מֵעַתָּה אֶתְרוֹג שֶׁחָנַט בִּשְׁנַת עָרְלָה וְיָצָא בִשְׁנַת הֵיתֵר וְסִיפְּקוֹ לַחֲבֵירוֹ וְכֵן חֲבֵירוֹ סִיפְּקוּ זֶה לָזֶה טִהֲרוּ זֶה אֶת זֶה. Rebbi Maisha said to Rebbi Zeïra: You say two things which contradict each other. Here you say, because growth of anything forbidden cannot lift what is forbidden122One does not say “all growth is forbidden” but “[permitted] growth of something forbidden cannot lift the prohibition inherent in the fruit.” Therefore, the essentially forbidden thing is only the fruit as it exists at the end of the ‘orlah period. Then the argument outlined in Note 121 is faulty.; there you say one whips for the size of an olive. Should he not be whipped only in the proportion123If the volume of the fruit at the end of the ‘orlah period is a and the final volume is b (measured in volumes of olives) then using a piece of the fruit is criminal only if the size of the piece is at least b/a > 1. it contains? Rebbi Jonah said, in the first case it lives because of itself124No attaching or grafting; in this case the entire fruit is forbidden., in the second because of the attachment125The rabbinic argument that “[permitted] growth of anything forbidden cannot lift the prohibition inherent in the fruit” applies only if the ‘orlah tree is attached to an older tree. While the act of attaching lifts the condition of ‘orlah from future fruits of the young tree, it is ineffective for the fruits already growing on the sapling at the moment of attachment.. Then if a citrus medica, which blossomed in an ‘orlah year and grew in an exempt year, is attached reciprocally126The two trees keep their own roots but two branches, one of each tree, are grafted together. to a tree of the same kind they will cleanse one another127If both of them are ‘orlah, both will be exempt at the moment one of them becomes exempt..
רִבִּי אַבָּהוּ בְשֵׁם רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן וְרַב חִסְדָּא תְּרֵיהוֹן אָֽמְרִין בִּסְתָם חֲלוּקִין. מַה נָן קַייָמִין אִם דָּבָר בָּרִיא הוּא שֶׁהוּא חַי מִכֹּחַ הַזְּקֵנָה דִּבְרֵי הַכֹּל מוּתָּר. וְאִם דָּבָר בָּרִיא שֶׁהוּא חַי מִכֹּחַ הַיַּלְדָּה דִּבְרֵי הַכֹּל אָסוּר. אֶלָּא כִּי נָן קַייָמִין בִּסְתָם. כֵּיצַד הוּא יוֹדֵעַ. רִבִּי בִּיבַי בְשֵׁם רִבִּי חֲנִינָה אִם הָיוּ הֶעָלִים הֲפוּכִין כְּלַפֵּי הַיַּלְדָּה דָּבָר בָּרִיא שֶׁהוּא חַי מִכֹּחַ הַזְּקֵנָה וְאִם הָיוּ הֶעָלִים הֲפוּכִין כְּלַפֵּי הַזְּקֵנָה דָּבָר בָּרִיא שֶׁהוּא חַי מִכֹּחַ הַיַּלְדָּה. אָמַר רִבִּי יוּדָן בַּר חָנִין סֵימָנָא דְּאָכִל מִן חַבְרֵיהּ בְּהִית מִסְתַּכְּלָא בֵיהּ. אָמַר רִבִּי יוּדָן אָבוֹי דְּרִבִּי מַתַּנְייָה תִּיפְתָּר שֶׁנָּֽשְׁרוּ הֶעָלִין. Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan and Rav Ḥisda, both say: they128Rebbi Meïr and the anonymous majority, whether attaching a young tree to an old one always frees the young one from ‘orlah or not. differ in the uninformed129The information required by R. Meïr is not available. case. What are we dealing with? If it is certain that it130The ‘orlah tree. lives off the old tree, everybody agrees it is permitted. If it is certain that it lives off the young tree, everybody agrees it is forbidden131It remains ‘orlah.. We must be dealing with the uninformed case. How could one know132How could one measure the flow of sap?? Rebbi Vivian in the name of Rebbi Ḥanina: If the leaves are turned towards the young tree one may be sure that it lives from the old one; if the leaves are turned towards the old tree one may be sure that it lives from the young one. Rebbi Yudan bar Ḥanin133One of the last authors mentioned in the Yerushalmi, a student of R. Berekhiah. said, a sign: He who eats from his neighbor’s is ashamed to look at him. Rebbi Yudan, the father of Rebbi Mattaniah said, explain it if the leaves have fallen off.
בְּרִיכָה שֶׁנִּפְסְקָה. אָמַר רִבִּי יוּדָן לֹא סוֹף דָּבָר בְּרִיכָה אֶלָּא אֲפִילוּ אִילָן דְּאָמַר רִבִּי יָסִי בְשֵׁם רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן בָּצָל שֶׁעֲקָרוֹ וּשְׁתָלוֹ כֵּיוָן שֶׁהִשְׁרִישׁ מְעַשֵּׂר לְפִי כּוּלוֹ. רִבִּי חִייָה בְשֵׁם רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן בָּצָל שֶׁעֲקָרוֹ וּשְׁתָלוֹ כֵּיוָן שֶׁהִשְׁרִישׁ מְעַשֵּׂר לְפִי כּוּלוֹ דְּלָא תִיסְבּוֹר מֵימַר אוֹף הָכָא כֵן. “A sunk branch which became separated.” Rebbi Yudan said, not only a sunk branch but even a tree134A tree older than 3 years, full of fruits, becomes ‘orlah again if uprooted (with its roots exposed) and replanted, and the fruits will become forbidden if they grow by more than one 200th.; as Rebbi Assi said in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, if an onion which one uprooted and replanted grows roots he has to tithe for everything135Discussed in Sheviit 6:3:3" href="/Jerusalem_Talmud_Sheviit.6.3.3">Ševi‘it 6:3, Note 113. The parallel statement in the Nazir.54b">Babli (Nazir 54b, Menachot.70a">Menaḥot 70a), R. Isaac in the name of R. Joḥanan, makes it clear that the onion was fully tithed before being replanted.. Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, if an onion which one uprooted and replanted grows roots he has to tithe for everything, but you should not say it applies to here also136The quote from R. Joḥanan is correct, the inference is faulty; trees do not have the same rules as onions..
חִילְפַיי שָׁאַל לְרִבִּי יוֹחָנָן וּלְרִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן תֵּבֵל מַהוּ שֶׁיֶּיאֱסֹר בְּיוֹתֵר מִמָּאתַיִם. אָֽמְרוּ לֵיהּ אֵין תֵּבֵל בְּיוֹתֵר מִמָּאתַיִם. וְהָתַנִּינָן כָּל־הַמְּחַמֵּץ וְהַמְּתַבֵּל וְהַמְּדַמֵּעַ. אִין תֵּימַר לְמֵאַה מָאתַיִם אֲפִילוּ לֹא חִימֵּץ. אֲפִילוּ לֹא תִיבֵּל. אֶלָּא בָּעֲנָבִים אֲנָן קַייָמִין. רִבִּי יוֹסֵי בְשֵׁם רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן בְּשֶׁלֹּא צָֽמְקוּ אֲבָל אִם צָֽמְקוּ יֵשׁ תֵּבֵל בְּיוֹתֵר מִמָּאתַיִם. רִבִּי חִייָה בְשֵׁם רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן בְּשֶׁלֹּא בִּישְּׁלוֹ. אֲבָל אִם בִּישְּׁלוֹ יֵשׁ תֵּבֵל בְּיוֹתֵר מִמָּאתַיִם. 137From here to the last paragraph of the Halakhah the text is also in Nazir 6:8:2-4" href="/Jerusalem_Talmud_Nazir.6.8.2-4">Nazir 6:10 (fol. 55c). It is clear from the later paragraphs that the original place of the text is in Nazir.Ḥilfai asked Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Simeon [ben Laqish]138Missing here, supplied from the text in Nazir., do condiments forbid with more than 200139The Mishnah implies that ‘orlah does not forbid food if the forbidden part is less than 1/200 of the total. Does this also apply to spices which might be tasted in smaller amounts?? They said to him, condiments are not in more than 200140The 1/200 rule also applies to condiments.. But did we not state141Mishnah 2:4. The Mishnah states that these ingredients, if from ‘orlah, make everything forbidden. Since no quantities are mentioned one has to infer that there is no minimal quantity below which they are not active.: “Anything which sours, spices, or creates dema‘?” If you say about 100 or 200, even if it does not sour, spice, or create dema‘142Defined Demay Chapter 1, Note 175.! But we deal with grapes143Used as condiment for another dish. The 200 rule does not apply to spices proper.. Rebbi Assi in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, if they were not raisins, but if they were raisins they are condiments in more than 200. Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, if they were not cooked, but if they were cooked they are condiments in more than 200.
רִבִּי יָסָא בְשֵׁם רִבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בֶּן לֵוִי בְשֵׁם בַּר פְּדָיָה [נוֹתְנֵי טְעָמִים אֶחָד מִמֵּאָה. {רִבִּי חִייָה בְשֵׁם} רִבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בֶּן לֵוִי בְשֵׁם בַּר פְּדָיָה] נוֹתְנֵי טְעָמִים אֶחָד מִשִּׁשִּׁים. אָמַר רִבִּי שְׁמוּאֵל בַּר רַב יִצְחָק לְרִבִּי חִייָה בַּר בָּא הָא רִבִּי יוֹסֵי פְלִיג וּמַתְנִיתָא פְלִיגָא עַל תְּרֵיכוֹן כָּל הַמְּחַבֵּץ הַמְּתַבֵּל וְהַמְּדַמֵּעַ. אִין תֵּימַר לְמֵאָה מָאתַיִם אֲפִילוּ לֹא חִימֵּץ. אֲפִילוּ לֹא תִיבֵּל. אֶלָּא בְּיוֹתֵר אֲנָן קַייָמִין. אָמַר רִבִּי יִרְמְיָה תִּיפְתָּר בָּשָׂר בְּבָשָׂר. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹסֵי הִיא בָּשָׂר בְּבָשָׂר הִיא שְׁאָר כָּל הָאִיסּוּרִין. דְּאָמַר רִבִּי אַבָּהוּ בְּשֵׁם רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן כָּל הָאִיסּוּרִין מְשַׁעֲרִין אוֹתָן כִּילּוּ כֵן. Rebbi Assi in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi in the name of Bar Pedaiah: [All sources of taste one in a hundred149A forbidden substance which can be tasted will make food forbidden if it represents more than 1% (for R. Ḥiyya, more than 1⅔%) of the total.. Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi in the name of Bar Pedaiah:] All sources of taste one in sixty. Rebbi Samuel ben Rav Isaac said to Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba: Rebbi Assi disagrees with you and the Mishnah disagrees with both of you: “Anything which sours, spices, or creates dema‘? If you say about 100 or 200, even if it does not sour, spice, or create dema‘142Defined Demay Chapter 1, Note 175.! Therefore, we hold even more. Rebbi Jeremiah said, explain it for meat in meat150He applies the 1%/1⅔% rule only to forbidden meat cooked with permitted, cf. Terumot 10:6:3" href="/Jerusalem_Talmud_Terumot.10.6.3">Terumot 10:9, Notes 106–109. The discussion in the next paragraph centers on this case.. Rebbi Yose said, meat in meat is the same as all other prohibitions since Rebbi Abbahu said in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, one estimates as if they were so151“So” are onions and leeks since R. Abbahu said in the name of R. Joḥanan that all forbidden [food] is estimated as if it were onion, as if it were leeks (Terumot 10:1:6" href="/Jerusalem_Talmud_Terumot.10.1.6">Terumot 10:1, Notes 10–11). Since onions and leeks are used for their taste, it follows that admixtures of spices also follow the same 1%/1⅔% rule..
מַיי כְדוֹן הָהֵן אָמַר נוֹתְנֵי טְעָמִים אֶחָד מִמֵּאָה. וְהֵן אָמַר נוֹתְנֵי טְעָמִים אֶחָד מִשִּׁשִּׁים. מָאן דְּאָמַר נוֹתְנֵי טְעָמִים אֶחָד מִשִּׁשִּׁים אַתְּ עוֹשֶׂה הַזְּרוֹעַ אֶחָד מִשִּׁשִּׁים בָּאַיִל. וּמָן דְּאָמַר אֶחָד מִמֵּאָה אַתְּ עוֹשֶׂה הַזְּרוֹעַ אֶחָד מִמֵּאָה לָאַיִל. מָאן דְּאָמַר אֶחָד מִמֵּאָה אַתְּ מוֹצִיא הָעֲצָמוֹת מֵהַזְּרוֹעַ. וּמָאן דְּאָמַר אֶחָד מִשִּׁשִּׁים אֵין אַתְּ מוֹצִיא אֶת הָעֲצָמוֹת מִן הַזְּרוֹעַ. וּכְשֵׁם שֶׁאַתְּ מוֹצִיא אֶת הָעֲצָמוֹת מִן הַזְּרוֹעַ כָּךְ הוֹצִיאֵם מִן הָאַיִל. לֵית יְכִל דְּתַּנֵּי אֵין טִנּוֹפֶת שֶׁלְתְּרוּמָה מִצְטָרֶפֶת עִם הַתְּרוּמָה לֶאֱסוֹר אֶת הַחוּלִין. אֲבָל טִנּוֹפֶת שֶׁלְחוּלִין מִצְטָרֶפֶת עִם הַחוּלִין לְהַעֲלוֹת אֶת הַתְּרוּמָה. רִבִּי בִּיבַי בָּעֵי טִינּוֹפֶת שֶׁלְתְּרוּמָה מָהוּ שֶׁתִּצְטָרֵף עִם הַחוּלִין לְהַעֲלוֹת אֶת הַתְּרוּמָה. מִן מַה דְאָמַר רַב חוּנָא קִלְיפֵּי אִיסּוּר מִצְטָֽרְפְוֹת לְהֵיתֵר. הָדָא אָֽמְרָה טִינּוֹפֶת שֶׁלְתְּרוּמָה מִצְטָרֶפֶת לַחוּלִין לְהַעֲלוֹת אֶת הַתְּרוּמָה. How is this? One says, all sources of taste by one in 100; the other one says, all sources of taste by one in 60. For him who says all sources of taste by one in 60, you take the forearm as one in 60 of the ram152The entire idea that biblical law permits to disregard minute amounts of forbidden food in otherwise permitted food is derived from the ceremony which releases the nazir from his vow (Numbers.6.19">Num. 6:19). In general, from a well-being sacrifice a hind leg and the breast has to be given to the Cohen to be eaten by him and his family; that part then is forbidden to lay persons (Numbers.18.18">Num. 18:18). But the ram which is the nazir’s well-being offering has to be cooked before the Cohen’s part, a foreleg, is separated and given to him; the remainder of the sacrifice is permitted to lay persons. From this one concludes that if in anything cooked the ratio of forbidden to permitted is no greater than that of the forarm to the entire ram, the food remains permitted.. For him who says all sources of taste by one in 100, you take the forearm as one in 100 of the ram. For him who says one in 100, you remove the bones from the forearm. But if you remove the bones from the forearm, remove them from the ram! This you cannot do, as it was stated153This and the rest of the paragraph is from Terumot 5:3:2" href="/Jerusalem_Talmud_Terumot.5.3.2">Terumot 5:9, Notes 103–106, and has been explained there. Since the bones of the forearm, being inedible, are not forbidden to lay persons, not only are they not counted as forbidden but they are added to the amount of permitted food.: “The waste of heave does not combine with heave to forbid the profane, but the waste of profane combines with the profane to lift the heave.” Rebbi Vivian asked: Does the waste of heave combine with profane to lift the heave? Since Rav Ḥuna said, the husks of what is forbidden combine to permit, that means waste of heave combines with profane to lift the heave.
תַּנֵּי רִבִּי חִייָה כָּל־מַה שֶׁאָסַרְתִּי לָךְ מִמָּקוֹם אַחֵר הִתַּרְתִּי לָךְ כָּאן. לְפִי שֶׁבַּכֹּל מֵאָה אִיסּוּר וּמֵאָה וְעוֹד מוּתָּר בְּרַם הָכָא אֲפִילוּ מֵאָה מוּתָּר. Rebbi Ḥiyya stated: All I forbade to you at other places I permitted to you here. Since everywhere 100 is a prohibition, more than 100 is permitted, but here even 100 is permitted154In Nazir and the Rome ms., the statement is in the name of Ḥizqiah, R. Ḥiyya’s (the elder’s) son. The previous argument is not quite conclusive since as a matter of practice we require that the amount of forbidden material should be strictly less than 1% (in the opinion adopted by the Babli, < 1⅔%). But nobody asserts that the edible part of the foreleg is less than 1% of the entire ram; so one has proved only the requirement ≤ 1%. Therefore, the rule remains one of traditional practice..
(ותוּב) אִם הוֹסִיף בְּמָאתַיִם אָסוּר. דְּבֵית יַנַּאי מְשַׁעֲרִין בְּהָדֵין יַרְבּוּזָה. כֵּיצַד הוּא יוֹדֵעַ. רַב בִּיבַי בְשֵׁם רִבִּי חֲנִינָה לוֹקֵט אֶחָד וּמֵנִיחַ אֶחָד מַה שֶׁזֶּה פּוֹחֵת זֶה מוֹסִיף. (In addition,)155Missing in the text in Nazir; the entire paragraph is from Kilaim 5, end of Halakhah 6. “if it increased by one twohundredth it is forbidden.” Those of the house of Rebbi Yannai estimate by purslain. How does one know? Rav Vivian in the name of Rebbi Ḥaninah: He takes one out and leaves one in [the ground]; what the first one is less, the other did increase.