משנה: כְּלָל גָּדוֹל אָֽמְרוּ בַשְּׁבִיעִית כָּל־הַמְיוּחָד לְאוֹכֶל אָדָם אֵין עוֹשִׂין מִמֶּנּוּ מָלוּגְמָא לְאָדָם וְאֵין צוֹרֶךְ לוֹמַר לִבְהֵמָה. וְכָל־שֶׁאֵינוּ מְיוּחָד לְאוֹכֶל אָדָם עוֹשִׂין מִמֶּנּוּ מָלוּגְמָא לְאָדָם אֲבָל לֹא לִבְהֵמָה. וְכָל־שֶׁאֵינוּ מְיוּחָד לֹא לְאוֹכֶל אָדָם וְלֹא לְאוֹכֶל בְּהֵמָה חִישֵּׁב עָלָיו אוֹכֶל אָדָם וְאוֹכֶל בְּהֵמָה נוֹתְנִין עָלָיו חוּמְרֵי אָדָם וְחוּמְרֵי בְהֵמָה. חִישֵּׁב עָלָיו לְעֵצִים הֲרֵי הוּא כְעֵצִים כְּגוֹן הַסִּיאָה וְהָאֵזוֹב וְהַקּוּרְנִית. MISHNAH: They established a comprehensive principle for the Sabbatical: Nothing that is exclusively food for humans may be used for a wound dressing1Or any other medical use except medicines that are ingested. for humans or, it goes without saying, for animals. Anything that is not exclusively food for humans may be used for a wound dressing for humans but not for animals. Anything that is not exclusively food, for humans or for animals, if intended as food for humans or animals one puts on it all restrictions regarding humans or animals; if intended as wood then it is wood. Examples are calamint, hyssop2Cf. Sheviit 7:1:9" href="/Jerusalem_Talmud_Sheviit.7.1.9">Chapter 7, Note 51. These plants grow as weeds., and thyme.
הלכה: כְּלָל גָּדוֹל אָֽמְרוּ בַשְּׁבִיעִית כו׳. רִבִּי בּוּן בַּר חִייָה בָּעָא קוֹמֵי רִבִּי זְעִירָא אוֹכְלֵי אָדָם וְאוֹכְלֵי בְהֵמָה הָיוּ בַפָּרָשָׁה. מַה חָמִית מֵימַר אוֹכְלֵי אָדָם אֵין עוֹשִׂין מֵהֶן מָלוּגְמָא וְאוֹכְלֵי בְהֵמָה עוֹשִׂין מֵהֶן מָלוּגְמָא. אָמַר לֵיהּ וְהָֽיְתָה שַׁבַּת הָאָרֶץ לָכֶם לְאָכְלָה מִיעוּט. מִיעֵט אוֹכְלֵי אָדָם אֵין עוֹשִׂין מֵהֶן מָלוּגְמָא. וּמִיעֵט אוֹכְלֵי בְהֵמָה. אָמַר רִבִּי בּוּן בַּר חִייָה כָּל־מִדְרָשׁ שֶׁאַתְּ דּוֹרֵשׁ וְשׁוֹבֵר מִדְרָשׁ רִאשׁוֹן אֵין זֶה מִדְרָשׁ. רִבִּי יוֹסֵי לֹא אָמַר כֵּן אֶלָּא וְהָֽיְתָה שַׁבַּת הָאָרֶץ לָכֶם לְאָכְלָה מִיעֵט. לְךָ וּלְעַבְדְּךָ וְלַאֲמָתֶךְ מִיעוּט אַחַר מִיעוּט. לְרַבּוֹת אוֹכְלֵי אָדָם שֶׁאֵין עוֹשִׂין מָלוּגְמָא. וְרִבָּה אוֹכְלֵי בְהֵמָה. כַּיי דְּאָמַר רִבִּי בּוּן בַּר חִייָה כָּל־מִדְרָשׁ שֶׁאַתְּ דּוֹרֵשׁ וְשׁוֹבֵר מִדְרָשׁ רִאשׁוֹן אֵין זֶה מִדְרָשׁ. אָמַר רִבִּי מַתַּנְייָה כְּשֶׁמִּיעַטְתָּה אוֹכְלֵי אָדָם מִיעַטְתָּה וּכְשֶׁרִיבִּיתָה אוֹכְלֵי בְהֵמָה רִיבִּיתָה. HALAKHAH: “They established a comprehensive principle for the Sabbatical,” etc. Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya asked before Rebbi Zeïra: Human and animal food is mentioned in the paragraph3Leviticus.25.6-7">Lev 25:6–7 “The Land’s Sabbath shall be for you (pl.) as food, for you (sing.), your slave, and your handmaid, your hired hand and your sojourner who are dwelling with you. Also for your (sing.) domestic animals, as well as the wild animals in your land, shall all its yield be food.”. What reason do you have to say that from human food one cannot make a wound dressing but from animal feed one may make a wound dressing? He said to him (Leviticus.25.6">Lev. 25:6): “The Land’s Sabbath shall be for you as food”, an exclusion. It excludes human food that cannot be made into wound dressing. It also excludes animal feed! Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya said, any interpretation you give which contradicts the prior interpretation is not valid5R. Bun bar Ḥiyya refutes the arguments of R. Zeïra and R. Yose: Since “for you, your slave, and your handmaid,” is a necessary addition, as explained above, to permit the rich person to eat, it cannot be treated as an exclusion. The explanations are invalid.. Rebbi Yose did not say so, but (Leviticus.25.6">Lev. 25:6): “The Land’s Sabbath shall be for you as food”, an exclusion, “for you, your slave, and your handmaid”, an exclusion after an exclusion, to add that human food cannot be made into wound dressing4Here we find an essential difference between the exegesis of Babli and Yerushalmi. In the Babli, a double restriction always means an addition, no restriction at all. For the Yerushalmi, any exclusion remains an exclusion; one adds exclusions that otherwise would not be thought of. The verse really contains more exclusions and inclusions: “The Land’s Sabbath shall be for you (pl.)”, not for the Gentile (Tosephta 5:21) but for all your needs (Mishnah 8:2), “as food”, not for industrial use and not for sacrifices [Sifra Behar 1(10)]. “For you (sing.), your slave, and your handmaid,” seems to be an addition since this allows rich people to eat Sabbatical produce [Sifra Behar 1(10)], even though it is written (Exodus.23.11">Ex. 23:11): “Abandon the yield of the Sabbatical, so it may be eaten by the destitute of your people …” The verse here permits slaveholders, i. e., people of means, to eat Sabbatical produce. According to Mekhilta Mišpaṭim 20, still only poor people may eat Sabbatical produce under the obligation of removal. It follows that “you, your slave, and your handmaid,” is stated on condition that there be food for the wild animals, and can be considered a restriction. “Your hired hand and your sojourner who are dwelling with you” are Gentile employees hired for a period of time (“dwelling with you”), not hourly workers. They are exempt from the ban to give Sabbatical fruit to Gentiles. “Also for your domestic animals, as well as the wild animals in your land, shall all its yield be food,” domestic animals can be fed stored food in the stable only as long as they could find it in the fields by themselves.
The argument in the Halakhah seems to be the following: Since Sabbatical produce is “for you”, one could think that this (1) only excludes the Gentile, but a Jew may use Sabbatical produce for anything he needs. It is specified “for you, your slave, and your handmaid,” which (2) excludes use of Sabbatical produce for any but human use. Wound dressings (as well as emetics) are used for human needs. If there were only one exclusion, I would include medical uses. But since there are two, one has to give an expansive interpretation of the exclusion; the only uses permitted are those needed equally by master and slave, the healthy and the sick. Therefore, medical (non-food) uses are forbidden, washing and heating is permitted. This argument is diametrically opposed to any Babylonian argument which treats two consecutive exclusions as inclusion.. He added animal feed! As Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya said, any interpretation you give which contradicts the prior interpretation is not valid5R. Bun bar Ḥiyya refutes the arguments of R. Zeïra and R. Yose: Since “for you, your slave, and your handmaid,” is a necessary addition, as explained above, to permit the rich person to eat, it cannot be treated as an exclusion. The explanations are invalid.. Rebbi Mattaniah said, when you did exclude, you excluded from human food; when you included, you included animal feed6It is enough to have one exclusion mentioned for humans; since there is no similar exclusion for animals, which have the right to Sabbatical produce whether owned by a Jew or not, it is reasonable to have a restrictive tradition for human food but not for animal feed..
אוֹכְלֵי בְהֵמָה מַהוּ לַעֲשׂוֹת מֵהֶן צְבוּעִין לָאָדָם. מַה אִם אוֹכְלֵי אָדָם שֶׁאֵין עוֹשִׂין מֵהֶן מָלוּגְמָא לְאָדָם עוֹשִׂין מֵהֶן צְבוּעִין לָאָדָם אוֹכְלֵי בְהֵמָה שֶׁעוֹשִׂין מֵהֶן מָלוּגְמָא לְאָדָם לֹא כָּל־שֶׁכֵּן שֶׁעוֹשִׂין מֵהֶן צְבָעִין לָאָדָם. מִינֵי מָלוּגְמִיּוֹת מַהוּ לַעֲשׂוֹת מֵהֶן צְבָּעִים לָאָדָם. מַה אִם אוֹכְלֵי אָדָם שֶׁאֵין עוֹשִׂין מֵהֶן מָלוּגְמָא לְאָדָם עוֹשִׂין מֵהֶן צְבָעִין לְאָדָם מִינֵי מָלוּגְמִיּוֹת שֶׁעוֹשִׂין מֵהֶן מָלוּגְמָא לְאָדָם לֹא כָּל־שֶׁכֵּן שֶׁתֵּעָשֶׂה מֵהֶן צְבָעִין לְאָדָם. לֹא צוּרְכָה דְלֹא אוֹכְלֵי אָדָם מַהוּ לַעֲשׂוֹת מֵהֶן צְבָעִין לִבְהֵמָה. כְּמַה דְאַתְּ אָמַר בְּאוֹכְלֵי אָדָם. שֶׁאֵין עוֹשִׂין מֵהֶן מָלוּגְמָא לְאָדָם עוֹשִׂין מֵהֶן צְבָעִין לְאָדָם וְדִכְװָתָהּ אוֹכְלֵי בְהֵמָה שֶׁאֵין עוֹשִׂין מָלוּגְמָא לִבְהֵמָה נַעֲשֶׂה צְבָעִין לִבְהֵמָה. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹסֵי מִפְּנֵי מַה אוֹכְלֵי אָדָם עוֹשִׂין מֵהֶן צְבָעִין לְאָדָם שֶׁכֵּן צִיבְעֵי אָדָם יֵשׁ לָהֶן קְדוּשָׁה נַעֲשָׂה מֵאוֹכְלֵי בְהֵמָה צְבָעִין לִבְהֵמָה וּצְבָעִין לִבְהֵמָה אֵין עֲלֵיהֶן קְדוּשָׁה. May one make dyes7Cosmetics. They fill a need equal for all humans. for humans from animal feed? Since one may make dyes for humans from human food even though one may not use human food for a wound dressing, one certainly may make dyes for humans from animal feed since one may use animal feed for a wound dressing. May one make dyes for humans from materials for wound dressings? Since one may make dyes for humans from human food even though one may not use human food for a wound dressing, one certainly may make dyes for humans from wound dressing materials since one may use wound dressing materials for a wound dressing. The only question8The previous argument about wound dressing materials was trivial. is: May one make animal dyes9Probably to paint owner‘s marks on animals. from human food? Just as you say for human food that one may use it to make human dyes even though one may not use it for wound dressing, similarly animal feed, though one may not use it for animal wound dressing, should be usable for animal dyes. Rebbi Yose said, why may one make dyes from human food? Because human dyes have holiness10Since they fill a genuine human need, they fall under all restrictions of the use of Sabbatical produce and cannot be exported or sold to Gentiles.. Should one be able to make animal dyes from animal feed when animal dyes have no holiness11The answer to the question is negative.?
נִיחָא חוּמְרֵי אָדָם וְחוּמְרֵי בְהֵמָה. שֶׁאָסוּר לְשׁוֹלְקָן. תַּנֵּי הַמּוֹכֵר מוֹכֵר לְאוֹכְלִין וְהַלּוֹקֵחַ לוֹקֵחַ לְעֵצִים לֹא הַכֹּל מִמֶּנּוּ. הַמּוֹכֵר מוֹכֵר לְאוֹכְלִין וְהַלּוֹקֵחַ לוֹקֵחַ לְאוֹכְלִין וְחִישֵּׁב עֲלֵיהֶן לְעֵצִים לֹא הַכֹּל מִמֶּנּוּ. הַמּוֹכֵר מוֹכֵר לְעֵצִים וְהַלּוֹקֵחַ לְאוֹכְלִין וְחִישֵּׁב עֲלֵיהֶן לְעֵצִים. מַה נָן קַייָמִין אִם בְּשֶׁנָּתַן לוֹ מָעוֹת וְאַחַר כָּךְ מָשַׁךְ דְּמֵי עֵצִים נָתַן לוֹ. אִם בְּשֶׁמָּשַׁךְ וְאַחַר כָּךְ נָתַן לוֹ מָעוֹת דְּמֵי אוֹכְלִין נָתַן לוֹ. אֶלָּא כִּי נָן קַייָמִין בְּשֶׁנָּתַן לוֹ מָעוֹת וְאַחַר כָּךְ מָשַׁךְ תַּפְלוּגְתָא דְּרִבִּי יוֹחָנָן וְרִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן לָקִישׁ. עַל דַּעְתֵּיהּ דְּרִבִּי יוֹחָנָן דּוּ אָמַר אֵין הַמָּעוֹת קוֹנִין דְּבַר תּוֹרָה דְּמֵי אוֹכְלִין נָתַן לוֹ. עַל דַּעְתֵּיהּ דְּרִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן לָקִישׁ הַמָּעוֹת קוֹנִין דְּבַר תּוֹרָה דְּמֵי עֵצִים נָתַן לוֹ. הַמּוֹכֵר מוֹכֵר לְעֵצִים וְהַלּוֹקֵחַ לוֹקֵחַ לְאוֹכְלִין. We understand “one puts on it all restrictions regarding humans and animals” that it is forbidden to boil them to a pulp12Here starts the discussion of the third part of the Mishnah about produce used both as food (human or animal) or as wood.. We have stated: If the seller sells as food and the buyer buys as wood, the latter is not determining. If the seller sells as food and the buyer buys as food and then thinks of them as wood, the latter is not determining. If the seller sells as wood13While wood usually costs less than food, the seller has an interest in selling as wood since then the proceeds are not under Sabbatical restrictions and can be used for any purpose (R. H. Kanievski). and the buyer buys as food and then thinks of them as wood? Where do we hold? If he gave him the money and afterwards took it up, he paid for wood14It is agreed that by rabbinic practice, handing over the money does not transfer property rights to the buyer; only taking possession (either actual or symbolic) can do that. However, the baraita slates that the opinion of the seller counts. Since the seller is not a party to the buyer’s taking possession, his opinion can be determining only if he is the owner at the moment of payment.. If he took it up and afterwards gave him the money, he paid for food. We must hold that he gave him the money and afterwards took it up; this is the disagreement between Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish15According to one opinion, since לוקח “to take” also means “to buy”, rabbinic practice simply follows the biblical decree. In this case, ownership is vested in the seller until the buyer actually takes possession. The other opinion notes that Abraham bought the field of Makhpela by paying money; it follows that the Torah recognizes payment as effecting transfer of ownership. According to this opinion, rabbinic practice was introduced to cut down on fraudulent transactions, so that the seller could not sell non-existing goods and later claim that they did exist at the time of payment but before delivery were destroyed in a fire.
The position ascribed here (and in Yerushalmi Erubin 7:11, fol. 24d) to R. Joḥanan is that of R. Simeon ben Laqish in the Babli (Baba Meẓia‘ 46b–47a, Eruvin.81b">Erubin 81b) and vice-versa. However, the Talmud of Caesarea (Yerushalmi Baba Meẓia‘ 4:2, fol. 9d) states that R. Joḥanan asked (and followed) R. Yannai’s opinion in the matter and the latter stated that payment transfers property rights by Torah law and that rabbinic practice was only instituted to cut down on fraud. Since practice almost always follows R. Joḥanan against R. Simeon ben Laqish, Tiberian practice followed the opinion of R. Joḥanan in the text here, Babylonian and Caesarean that of R. Simeon ben Laqish.. According to Rebbi Joḥanan, who said that [transfer of] money does not mean acquisition by Torah law, he paid for food. According to Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish who said that [transfer of] money does mean acquisition by Torah law, he paid for wood.
הָיָה זֶה מַעֲמִיד וְזֶה מַעֲמִיד ייֵבָא כְּהָדָא אִם הַמּוֹכֵר תּוֹבֵעַ לְלוֹקֵחַ יַעֲשׂוּ כְדִבְרֵי הַלּוֹקֵחַ. וְאִם הַלּוֹקֵחַ תּוֹבֵעַ לְמוֹכֵר יַעֲשׂוּ כְדִבְרֵי הַמּוֹכֵר. וָכָא כֵן. If each one keeps to his word, it should be treated as follows17Tosephta Qiddušin 2:9. “One says for 100, the other says for 200. Each went to his own house and then they sued one another. If the seller sues the buyer one follows the buyer, if the buyer sues the seller, one follows the seller.” This cryptic text was explained by Maimonides (Hilkhot Mekhirah20:1): “If somebody wants to buy from another person and the seller says I will sell for 200, the buyer says I shall buy only for 100. They separate without a deal and when they come together again, the buyer takes the article without saying anything. If the seller sues the buyer after he handed over the article, the latter has to pay only 100. If the buyer came and took the article, he has to give 200.”: “If the seller sues the buyer one follows the buyer, if the buyer sues the seller, one follows the seller.” And here [one follows] the same [rule].