משנה: הָאוֹמֵר לַפּוֹעֵל הֵילָךְ אִיסוּר זֶה וְלַקֵּט לִי יֶרֶק הַיּוֹם שְׂכָרוֹ מוּתָּר. לַקֵּט לִי בּוֹ יֶרֶק הַיּוֹם שְׂכָרוֹ אָסוּר. לָקַח מִן הַנַּחְתּוֹם כִּכָּר בְּפוֹנְדִיּוֹן כְּשֶׁאֶלְקוֹט יַרְקוֹת שָׂדֶה אָבִיא לָךְ מוּתָּר. לָקַח מִמֶּנּוּ סְתָם לֹא יְשַׁלֵּם מִדְּמֵי שְׁבִיעִית שֶׁאֵין פּוֹרְעִין חוֹב מִדְּמֵי שְׁבִיעִית. MISHNAH: Is somebody says to a day-laborer: “Here you have an as51A quarter of a drachma. If the laborer is hired for some wages and only afterwards given the task to collect vegetables from Sabbatical growth, his wages are profane and he may spend them in any way he wants. But if the wages are given for the explicit purpose of collecting Sabbatical growth, the wages become Sabbatical and may be used only to buy Sabbatical produce. The Babli (Avodah Zarah 62b) does not accept this fine distinction but declares all limitations imposed on payment for the explicit purpose of working during the Sabbatical as fines. Cf. also Notes 94,95. and collect vegetables for me today”, these wages are permitted. “For its value collect vegetables for me today”, these wages are forbidden. If somebody bought from the baker a loaf in the value of a dupondius52Half a drachma. It is permitted to exchange Sabbatical produce for other produce. But if food was bought on credit one may not pay with Sabbatical produce or its proceeds. [and says], when I collect vegetables from the field I shall bring to you, that is permitted. If he took from him silently he should not pay with the proceeds of Sabbatical [produce] since one may not pay a debt with proceeds of the Sabbatical.
הלכה: מַה בֵּין הָאוֹמֵר לַקֵּט לִי מַה בֵּין הָאוֹמֵר לַקֵּט לִי בּוֹ. רִבִּי אָבִין בְשֵׁם רִבִּי יוֹסֵי בֶּן חֲנִינָה מֵהִלְכוֹת שֶׁל עִימְעוּם הִיא. תַּמָּן תַּנִּינָן לֹא יֹאמַר אָדָם לַחֲבֵירוֹ הַעַל אֶת הַפֵּירוֹת הָאֵלֶּה לִירוּשָׁלֵם לְחַלֵּק. אֶלָּא אוֹמֵר לוֹ הַעֲלֵם שֶׁנֹּאכְלֵם וְנִשְׁתֵּם בִּירוּשָׁלֵם. מַה בֵּין הָאוֹמֵר לְחַלֵּק מַה בֵּין הָאוֹמֵר הַעֲלֵם שֶׁנֹּאכַל וְנִשְׁתֶּה בִּירוּשָׁלֵם. רִבִּי זְעִירָא בְשֵׁם רִבִּי יוֹנָתָן מֵהִלְכוֹת שֶׁל עִימְעוּם הוּא. תַּמָּן תַּנִּינָן שׁוֹאֵל אָדָם מֵחֲבֵירוֹ כַדֵּי יַיִן וְכַדֵּי שֶׁמֶן. וּבִלְבַד שֶׁלֹּא יֹאמַר לוֹ הַלְוֵנִי. מַה בֵּין הָאוֹמֵר הַלְוֵינִי מַה בֵּין הָאוֹמֵר הַשְׁאִילֵינִי. אָמַר רִבִּי זְעִירָא בְשֵׁם רִבִּי יוֹנָתָן מֵהִלְכוֹת שֶׁל עִימְעוּם הִיא. HALAKHAH: What53This paragraph and the next appear (with minor changes in the order of subjects) in Ma‘aser Šeni 3:1 (fol. 54a), Šabbat 1:6 (fol. 3c), Avodah Zarah 2:9 (fol. 41d). In the Babli (Avodah Zarah 62a/b), all prohibitions are explained as fines. is the difference between him who says “collect for me” and him who says “for its value collect for me”? Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina, this is one of the practices of obfuscation54Compare Arabic ע̇מע̇ם, Hebrew גמגם “to mutter, to stutter”. While the reason was explained in Sheviit 8:4:1" href="/Jerusalem_Talmud_Sheviit.8.4.1">Note 51, the difference in practice is purely semantic and one should not permit an action whose intent is to circumvent the law. The answer is that as a practical necessity, the rabbis found a way to legitimize popular behavior by obscuring the strict interpretation of the law.. There, we have stated55Mishnah Ma‘aser Šeni 3:1. It is forbidden to pay one’s debt with Second Tithe. Therefore one has to formulate a transportation contract in such a way as to give to the transporter a claim to part of the food before the start of the contract.: “One should not say to another person, bring these fruits to Jerusalem to distribute, but he should say: bring them that we should eat and drink them there.” What is the difference between him who says “to distribute” and him who says “bring them that we should eat and drink them in Jerusalem?” Rebbi Zeïra in the name of Rebbi Jonathan, this is one of the practices of obfuscation. There, we have stated56Shabbat 23:1:1" href="/Jerusalem_Talmud_Shabbat.23.1.1">Mishnah Šabbat 23:1. It is forbidden to make commercial transactions on the Sabbath. Exchanges between neighbors are permitted but any mention of monetary values is forbidden. {There is no Yerushalmi extant for the last four chapters of Šabbat. In the Shabbat.148a">Babli (Šabbat 148a) this is not one of the obscure practices; the mention of monetary values is forbidden as rabbinic ordinance to avoid any temptation to write things down. It seems that the Babli considers even monetary transactions between neighbors as friendly exchanges, permitted under biblical law.}: “A person may borrow from another pitchers of wine or oil but he should not say: lend me.” What is the difference between him who says “let me borrow” and him who says “lend me”? Rebbi Zeïra in the name of Rebbi Jonathan, this is one of the practices of obfuscation.
פִּיתָּן רִבִּי יַעֲקֹב בַּר אָחָא בְשֵׁם רִבִּי יוֹנָתָן עוֹד הִיא מֵהִלְכוֹת שֶׁל עִימְעוּם. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹסֵי קַשְׁייָתָהּ קוֹמֵי רִבִּי יַעֲקֹב בַּר אָחָא. מַהוּ מֵהִלְכוֹת שֶׁל עִמְעוּם הוּא כָּךְ אֲנִי אוֹמֵר בְּמָקוֹם שֶׁאֵין פַּת יִשְׂרָאֵל מְצוּיָה בְּדִין הָיָה שֶׁתְּהֵא פַּת גּוֹי מוּתֶּרֶת וְעִימְעַמּוּ עָלֵיהָ וְאָֽסְרוּהָ. אָמַר רִבִּי מָנָא וְיֵשּׁ עִימְעוּם לְאִיסּוּר. וּפַת לֹא כְתַבְשִׁילֵי גוֹיִם הִיא. כָּךְ אָנוּ אוֹמְרִים בְּמָקוֹם שֶׁתַּבְשִׁילֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל אֵינָן מְצוּייִן שָׁם בְּדִין הָיָה שֶׁיְּהוּ תַבְשִׁילֵי גּוֹיִם מוּתָּרִין וְעִימְעַמּוּ עָלֵיהֶן וְאָֽסְרוּם. אֶלָּא כֵן הָיָה בְּמָקוֹם שֶׁאֵין פַּת יִשְׂרָאֵל מְצוּיָה בְּדִין הוּא שֶׁתְּהֵא פַּת גּוֹיִם אֲסוּרָה וְעִימְעַמּוּ עָלֵיהָ וְהִתִּירוּהָ מִפְּנֵי חַיֵּי נֶפֶשׁ. רַבָּנִין דְּקֵיסָרִין בְּשֵׁם רִבִּי יַעֲקֹב בַּר אָחָא כְדִבְרֵי מִי שֶׁהוּא מַתִּיר וּבִלְבַד מִן הַפְּלָטֵר. וְלָא עָֽבְדִין כֵּן. Their57Gentile bread. Anything cooked or baked by a Gentile is forbidden, according to the Yerushalmi (Šabbat1:6, fol. 3c) as one of the “eighteen decrees” enacted at the start of the first revolt against the Romans to separate Jews from Gentiles; according to the Babli (Avodah Zarah 35b) it is an older rabbinic prohibition enacted to cut down on intermarriage. In biblical law, food prepared by Gentiles according to Jewish dietary laws is permitted (Deuteronomy.2.6">Deut. 2:6,Deuteronomy.2.28">28). bread. Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Jonathan: This also belongs to the practices of obfuscation. Rebbi Yose said, I objected before Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa: Why should it belong to the practices of obfuscation? I say that at a place where no Jewish bread is available it is logical that Gentile bread should be permitted, but they59According to the Mishnah (Avodah Zarah 2:9), Rebbi and his court permitted Gentile bread. obfuscated the matter and forbade it. Rebbi Mana said: Does there exist obfuscation for prohibition58There do exist prohibitions whose origin is most unclear, such as the prohibition of Gentile cheese made with vegetable rennet. But the technical term “obfuscation” is only used in connection with practices the rabbis had to condone and permit.? Is bread not like Gentile cooking? So we say: At a place where no Jewish cooking is to be found it is logical that Gentile cooking should be permitted, but they obfuscated the matter and forbade it60According to the Babli (loc.cit.), in this case Gentile cooking is certainly forbidden because of the dangers of intermarriage.. But so it was: At a place where no Jewish bread is available it is logical that Gentile bread should be forbidden, but they obfuscated the matter and permitted it as a necessity of life. The rabbis of Caesarea in the name of Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa [hold] with the one who permits, but only from a store61The Babli (loc.cit.) agrees that this was the original meaning of Rebbi’s ruling, but the people interpreted it to permit any Gentile bread, as implied here by the next sentence.. But one does not follow this62The Babli accepts the original statement of the Yerushalmi that Gentile bread is permitted only in the absence of a store selling bread baked by Jews. {“Baked by Jews”in the Babli means that the oven was lit by a Jew; all other work may be done by Gentiles.} A statement attributed to R. Joḥanan in the Babli even forbids all Gentile bread in town and allows it only for consumption in the fields..
רִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן לָקִישׁ אָמַר בְּמַרְאֶה לוֹ אֶת הַקּוֹלֵחַ שֶׁאֵינוֹ אֶלָּא כְּנוֹתֵן לוֹ שְׂכַר רַגְלוֹ. רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָמַר אֲפִילוּ לֹא הֶרְאָה לוֹ כְּמִי שֶׁהֶרְאָה לוֹ. מַתְנִיתָא פְלִיגָא עַל [רִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן] לָקִישׁ. דְּתַנֵּי הַשּׂוֹכֵר אֶת הַפּוֹעֵל לְהָבִיא יַיִן לְחוֹלֶה אוֹ תַפּוּחַ לְחוֹלֶה אִם הֵבִיא חַייָב לִיתֵּן לוֹ וְאִם לָאו אֵינוֹ חַייָב לִיתֵּן לוֹ. אֲבָל אִם אָמַר לוֹ יַיִן לְחוֹלֶה מִמָּקוֹם פְּלוֹנִי תַּפּוּחַ לְחוֹלֶה מִמָּקוֹם פְּלוֹנִי בֵּין שֶׁהֵבִיא בֵּין שֶׁלֹּא הֵבִיא חַייָב לִיתֵּן לוֹ שְׂכַר רַגְלָיו הוּא נוֹתֵן לוֹ. מַה עֲבִד לָהּ רִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן לָקִישׁ פָּתַר לָהּ בְּמַרְאֶה לוֹ. מַתְנִיתָא פְלִיגָא עַל רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן. דְּתַנֵּי לֹא יֹאמַר אָדָם לַחֲבֵירוֹ הָא לָךְ דֵּינָר זֶה וַהֲבֵא לִי לֶקֶט הַיּוֹם. הֲבֵא לִי פֵּיאָה הַיּוֹם אֶלָּא אוֹמֵר לוֹ בְּלֶקֶט שֶׁתָּבִיא לִי הַיּוֹם בְּפֵיאָה שֶׁתָּבִיא לִי הַיּוֹם. וְכֵן אַתְּ מוֹצֵא בְּבֶן לֵוִי. וַהֲרֵי לֹא הֶרְאָה לוֹ וְאַתְּ אָמַר כְּמִי שֶׁהֶרְאָה לוֹ. מַה עֲבַד לָהּ רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן קַל הֵיקִלוּ בַּשְּׁבִיעִית שֶׁהִיא מִדְּרַבָּנָן. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, if he shows him the stump63This means, if he indicates the places where the worker should go and collect. Most commentators delete the word but it is confirmed by both mss.; then he pays him only the wages of his feet64Since the contract was only for the transport, the wages are not Sabbatical.. Rebbi Joḥanan said, even if he did not show it to him it is as if he had. A baraita disagrees with Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish, as it was stated65This baraita is also quoted Avodah Zarah 5:1 (fol. 44c). In the first case, it is a contract for delivery, in the second case a contract for work. Since the expression used by R. Simeon ben Laqish, “wages of his feet”, are used in the baraita regarding an unrestricted contract for work, the restrictive use of R. Simeon ben Laqish seems to be unjustified.: “If somebody hires a worker to bring wine for a sick person, or an apple for a sick person, if he delivered it, he must pay, otherwise he does not have to pay. But if he said to him, wine for a sick person from place X, or an apple for a sick person from place X, he has to pay him whether he delivered or not because he pays him the wages of his feet.” What does Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish do with this? He explains that he showed him. A baraita disagrees with Rebbi Joḥanan, as it was stated: “Nobody should say to his neighbor66The rich person says to the poor one that he is willing to pay for the gleanings the poor will collect. Since gleanings and peah become the unrestricted property of the poor, the transaction is legitimate if the poor man is paid for delivery of the produce; it is illegitimate if the poor man is hired to collect as agent for the rich person. The same rules apply for a Levite and First Tithe., here you have a denar and bring me gleanings today, bring me peah today. But he may say to him, for gleanings you will bring today, for peah you will bring today. The same rules apply to a Levite.” Here, he did not show him; is it considered as if he showed him? What does Rebbi Joḥanan dowith this? They were particularly lenient with the Sabbatical because it is rabbinical67Cf. Sheviit 1:5:2" href="/Jerusalem_Talmud_Sheviit.1.5.2">Chapter 1, Note 7..
לָקַח מִן הַנַּחְתּוֹם כִּכָּר בְּפוֹנְדִיּוֹן כְּשֶׁאֶלְקוֹט יַרְקוֹת שָׂדֶה אָבִיא לָךְ מוּתָּר. תַּנֵּי רִבִּי יוּדָה וְרִבִּי נְחֶמְיֵה אוֹסְרִין. מַה נָן קַייָמִין כְּהַהוּא דְאָמַר הַב לִי וּבָרִי לִי אֲנָא יְהַב לָךְ רִבִּי יוּדָה וְרִבִּי נְחֶמְיָה אוֹסְרִין שֶׁאֵין יַרְקוֹת שָׂדֶה מְצוּיִין. וַחֲכָמִים מַתִּירִין מִפְּנֵי שֶׁיַּרְקוֹת שָׂדֶה מְצוּיִין. “If somebody bought from the baker a loaf in the value of a dupondius[and says], when I collect vegetables from the field I shall bring to you, that is permitted.68Quote from the Mishnah.” It was stated: “Rebbi Jehudah and Rebbi Neḥemiah forbid it69Tosephta 6:21. The discussion here is fragmentary; the full text is in Ma‘aser Šeni 3:1 (fol. 54a): If the baker says, here it is, bring me later, this is forbidden according to everybody (since one may not pay a debt with Sabbatical produce). If the buyer says, give it to me and I shall give to you (what I already have collected), that is permitted according to everybody. But if the buyer says, give it to me and I know where to find, that is the disagreement between Rebbis Judah and Neḥemiah and the Sages, as described here..” What are we talking about? About one who says, give it to me and it is clear to me [where to find it], I shall bring it to you; Rebbi Jehudah and Rebbi Neḥemiah forbid it because vegetables on the field are rare; but the Sages permit it because vegetables on the field are abundant.