משנה: מִי שֶׁיֵּשׁ לוֹ מָאתַיִם זוּז לֹא יִטּוֹל לֶקֶט שִׁכְחָה וּפֵיאָה וּמַעֲשֵׂר עָנִי. הָיוּ לוֹ מָאתַיִם חָסֶר דֵּינָר אֲפִילוּ אֶלֶף נוֹתְנִים לוֹ כְּאַחַת הֲרֵי זֶה יִטּוֹל. הָיוּ מְמוּשְׁכָּנִין בִּכְתוּבַת אִשְתּוֹ אוֹ לְבַעַל חוֹבוֹ הֲרֵי זֶה יִטּוֹל. אֵין מְחַייְבִין אוֹתוֹ לִמְכּוֹר אֶת בֵּיתוֹ וְאֶת כְּלֵי תַשְׁמִישָׁיו. MISHNAH: He who owns 200 zuz109This is the usual name for the silver denar. [According to the definition of Shulḥan Arukh that a pĕruṭah, 1/192 of a denar, is one-half grain of sterling silver, 200 zuz would be 80 oz. of sterling silver. Its buying power would be much more since in Antiquity the ratio of silver to gold was at most 1:12; it was an amount on which a person could live comfortably for one full year.] should not take gleanings, forgotten sheaves, peah, and tithes of the poor. If he had 199, even if a thousand people gave him at the same time, he should take. If they were mortgaged for his wife’s ketubah110Cf. Peah 3:7:1" href="/Jerusalem_Talmud_Peah.3.7.1">Chapter 3, Note 151. The ketubah is a general lien on all his property. The Mishnah supposes that specific money is set aside for the satisfaction of the ketubah. This is permitted only in special cases such as an impending divorce or death. In the same way, the surety for a loan here is not a general mortgaging of property but a definite lien attached to cash. or for a creditor, he may take. One does not require him to sell his house or the vessels of daily use111The rules of this Mishnah apply only to one who takes gleanings, forgotten sheaves, peah, and tithes of the poor. The protection does not apply to people asking for public assistance..
הלכה: חַד תַּלְמִיד מִן דְּרִבִּי הָיוּ לוֹ מָאתַיִם חָסֵר דֵּינַר וַהֲוָה רִבִּי יְלֵיף זְכִי עִימֵּיהּ חָדָא לִתְלַת שְׁנֵי מַעֲשֵׂר מִסְכֵּינִין. עַבְדּוּן בֵּיהּ תַּלְמִידוֹי עֵינָא בִישָׁא וּמָלוּן לֵיהּ. אֲתַא בְּעָא מַזְכֵּי עִימֵּיהּ אֲמַר לֵיהּ רִבִּי אִית לִי שֵׁיעוּרָא. אָמַר זֶה מַכַּת פְּרוּשִׁים נָֽגְעוּ בוֹ. רְמַז לְתַלְמִידוֹי וְאַעֲלוּנֵיהּ לְקַפֵּילִין וְחַסְרוּנֵיהּ חַד קִרַט וּזְכָה עִימֵּיהּ הֵיךְ מַה דַהֲוָה יְלִיף. HALAKHAH: A student of Rebbi had 199 denar; Rebbi used to let him receive the tithe of the poor once every three years. His students cast an evil eye on him and completed for him112That he had exactly 200 denar.. The next time, when he wanted to let him receive, he said: My teacher, I have the measure. He said, this one was hit by a beast of prey113In Sotah 3:4:1-13" href="/Jerusalem_Talmud_Sotah.3.4.1-13">Mishnah Sotah 3:4, a list is given of those who destroy the world, and beasts of prey (not “the pious”) are part of the list. The story is repeated there. The main definition given for “hit by a beast of prey” are tricks by learned people who think that by scrupulously observing all formal legal rules they can hurt other people with impunity, for example those who advise heirs how to manipulate their property legally so that nothing is left to sustain their father’s widow (assuming she is not their mother.) The derivation here assumes that the Hebrew has the same root as Arabic פרשׂ “to devour, tear apart,” said of a beast of prey.. He gave a hint to his student who took him to a store114Greek καπηλεῖον., made him spend a carat1151/24 of a denar, in Mishnaic Hebrew called איסר. The student still had 199 23/24 denar left, so he could take the tithe and still keep most of the gift that was maliciously given to him. (Note that while the story is told in Aramaic, Rebbi is quoted speaking only pure Hebrew. This fits in with what we know about Rebbi’s household from other sources.), then he (Rebbi) let him receive as he was used to do.
מִשְפַּחַת אנטבילא הָֽיְתָה בִּירוּשָׁלִַם וְהָֽיְיתָה מִתְייַחֶסֶת שֶׁל אָרְנָן הַיְּבוּסִי. פַּעַם אַחַת פָּֽסְקוּ לָהֶן חֲכָמִים שֵׁשׁ מֵאוֹת כִּיכְּרֵי זָהָב שֶׁלֹּא לְהוֹצִיאָן חוּץ לִירוּשְׁלִַם דַּהֲווֹן דָּֽרְשִׁין בִּשְׁעָרֶיךָ בִּשְׁעָרֶיךָ לְרַבּוֹת יְרוּשָׁלִַם. A116This and the following stories illustrate the principle that if one knows the recipient of charity one has to support him so that his prior dignity is not impaired. family from Nevallat117In Tosephta Peah 4:11, the reading is בית נבלטה, in Sifri Deut. 110,303 בית נבטלה. The best explanation is given by I. Löw; the reference is to a town in Benjamin, Nehemiah.11.34">Neh. 11:34. in Jerusalem traced its descent from Oman the Yebusite118The last king of the Yebusites who sold the Temple site to David (2Sam. 24:20–24, 1Chr. 21:15).. Once the Sages alotted them six hundred talents of gold119The enormous sum of 1’800’000 gold sheqel. In the Tosephta it is 300 gold sheqel (Erfurt manuscript: 600), in the Rome manuscript 600 talents silver gold, a confluence of two versions. The number given in the Yerushalmi also appears in Sifri Deut. 110, but in #303 it is 600 talents of silver. The amount given here probably is an adaptation of the original amount to the hyperinflation of the military anarchy; it would correspond approximately to 1’800 honest gold sheqel. to avoid causing them to leave Jerusalem, since they interpreted “in your gates, in your gates120The repetition of “in your gates” in Deuteronomy.26.12">Deut. 26:12, Deuteronomy.16.11">16:11,Deuteronomy.26.14">14, Deuteronomy.14.21">14:21,27,29 is taken to include Jerusalem. The verse Deuteronomy.26.12">Deut. 26:12, referring to tithes one has to give to the Levite, the stranger, the orphan, and the widow, so that “they should eat in your gates and be satisfied,” is explained in Sifri Deut. 303: “‘In your gates’ teaches that one may not export tithes from the Land of Israel. They said that a family from Nevallat was in Jerusalem and the Sages alotted them six hundred talents of silver and did not want to permit them to leave Jerusalem.” (Similar in Sifri Deut. 110). In Sifri Deut. 71, the repetition “in your gates, in your gates” is explained as reference to dedicated animals that may be slaughtered outside of Jerusalem; hence, a special inclusion of Jerusalem is needed.,” to include Jerusalem.
וְהָתַנִּי מַעֲשֶׂה בְּהִלֵּל הַזָּקֵן שֶׁלָּקַח לְעָנִי בֶּן טוֹבִים סוּס אֶחָד לְהִתְעַמֵּל בּוֹ וְעֶבֶד לְשַׁמְּשׁוֹ. שׁוּב מַעֲשֶׂה בְּאַנְשֵׁי הַגָּלִיל שֶׁהָיוּ מַעֲלִין לְזָקֵן אֶחָד לִיטְרָא בָּשָׂר פִּי צִפּוֹרִין בְּכָל יוֹם. וְאֵיפְשָׁר כֵּן אֶלָּא דְלֹא הֲוָה אֲכַל עִם חוֹרָנִין. Also122Tosephta Peah 4:11, Ketubot.67b">Ketubot67b., we have stated: It happened that Hillel took for a poor son of a prominent family a horse for his exercise and a slave to serve him. Also, it happened that the people of Galilee brought a Sepphoris pound of meat123In Babli and Tosephta, the text reads: “Daily a pound of meat for a poor man from Sepphoris”. We do not know how much a Sepphoris pound was; it is also mentioned in Sifri Deut. 317. Rashi in Babli Ketubot 67b reads: בליטרא בשר, “meat for a pound (of coins).” However, the pound as unit of currency is not found before Charlemagne. to an old man every day. Is this not impossible124That an old man would need so much meat.? It was because he did not eat except in company.
תַּנִּי מִשְׁתַּמֵּשׁ בִּכְלֵי זָהָב נוֹתְנִין לוֹ כְלֵי כֶסֶף. כְּלֵי כֶסֶף נוֹתְנִין לוֹ כְלֵי נְחוֹשֶׁת כְּלֵי נְחוֹשֶׁת נוֹתְנִין לוֹ כְלֵי זְכוּכִית. אָמַר רִבִּי מָנָא כְּלֵי כֶסֶף וּכְלֵי זְכוּכִית בְּגוּפֵיהֶן. וְהָתַנִּי הָיָה מִשְׁתַּמֵּשׁ בִּכְלֵי מִילַת נוֹתְנִין לוֹ כְלֵי מִילַת. כַּאן בְּגוּפוֹ וְכַאן בִּשְׁאֶינוֹ גוּפוֹ. It was stated125Tosephta Peah 4:11: “If he was used to golden vessels, he has to sell them and use silver vessels,” in Ketubot.68a">Babli Ketubot 68a: “If he was used to golden vessels, he should use silver vessels.” Tosephta and Babli make a condition for public support that he first should sell his luxury items; the Yerushalmi speaks of what public charity has to provide for him.: “If he was used to golden vessels, one gives him silver vessels, silver vessels one gives him brass vessels, brass vessels one gives him glass vessels.” Rebbi Mana said, silver vessels and glass vessels of personal use126If the Mishnah said, one does not require him to sell the vessels of daily use, that refers only to utensils used on his body, like combs etc. The Tosephta that requires him to sell his precious belongings refers to tableware and other vessels that are not used on his body.
Glass vessels were luxury items in ancient Rome. One has to assume that the cheap glass vessels referred to here are those products of Phoenician glass making that were not of export quality.. But was it not stated: If he was used to silk clothes, one gives him silk clothes. Here it is on his body, there it is not on his body.
חַד מִן אִילֵּין דִּנְשִׂייוּתָא אִיתְנְחָת מִן נִיכְסוֹי וַהֲווֹן זָכִין לֵיהּ בְּמָאן דִּחְסָף וְהוּא אֲכַל וּמוֹתִיב. אָמַר לֵיהּ אַסְיָא עִיקָּר תַּבְשִׁילָה לָא מִן גַּוְא לָפַּסָּא הוּא אֲכִיל מִן לָפַצָּא. One from the family of the Patriarch lost his possessions; they provided for him in pottery vessels, he ate and threw up127Since he was so disgusted by the ugly tableware.. The doctor told him, is not the main preparation of food in the cooking pan? Eat out of the pan128Greek λοπάς, cf. Peah 7:3:7" href="/Jerusalem_Talmud_Peah.7.3.7">Chapter 7, Note 69. There was no difference heard between ס = s and צ = ss.!
עַד כְּדוֹן בְּבַעַל חוֹב שֶׁהוּא דוֹחֵק אֲפִילוּ בְּבַעַל חוֹב שֶׁאֵינוֹ דוֹחֵק. נִישְׁמְעִינָהּ מִן הָדָא הָיוּ מְמוּשְׁכָּנִין לִכְתוּבַת אִשְתּוֹ אוֹ לְבַעַל חוֹבוֹ. וְדָא אִשָּׁה לֹא כְּבַעַל חוֹב שֶׁאֵינוֹ דוֹחֵק הוּא אֵין מְחַייְבִין אוֹתוֹ לִמְכּוֹר. So129This refers to the part of the Mishnah which prescribes that mortgaged debts can be deducted from the net worth before the limit of 200 zuz is computed. far a creditor who pushes for payment. Also for a creditor who does not push for payment? Let us hear from the following: “If they were mortgaged for his wife’s ketubah or for a creditor.” Is the wife not like a creditor who does not push for payment130Since the ketubah is not due as long as she is married.? “One does not require him to sell.”
אָמַר רִבִּי חֲנִינָא צָרִיךְ אָדָם שֶׁיְּהוּ לוֹ שְׁנֵי עֲטִיפִין אֶחָד לְחוֹל וְאֶחָד לְשַׁבָּת. מַה טַעְמָא וְרָחַצְתְּ וָסַכְתְּ וְשַׂמְתְּ שִׂמְלוֹתַיִךְ וְכִי עֲרוּמָּה הָֽיְתָה אֶלָּא אֵלּוּ בִגְדֵּי שַׁבָּתָהּ. כַּד דְּרָשָׁהּ רִבִּי שִׂמְלַאי בְּצִיבּוּרָא בָּכוּן חֲבֵרָייָא לְקוֹבְלֵיהּ אָֽמְרוּ לֵיהּ רִבִּי כַּעֲטִיפָתֵינוּ בְּחוֹל כֵּן עֲטִיפָתֵינוּ בְּשַׁבָּת. אָמַר לוֹן אַף עַל פִּי כֵן צְרִיכִין אַתֶּם לְשַׁנּוֹת מִן הָדָא וְרָחַצְתְּ וְסַכְתְּ וְשַׂמְתְּ שִׂמְלוֹתַיִךְ עָלַיִךְ וְיָרַדְתְּ הַגּוֹרֶן. וְיָרַדְתִּי כְּתִיב אָמַר לָהּ זְכוּתִי תֵּרֵד עִמָּךְ. וְעַרְטִילָא הֲווָת אֶלָּא אָֽמְרָה לָהּ לְבוֹשׁ מָאנֵךְ דְּשׁוּבְתָּא. Rebbi Ḥanina said: A person has to have two outer garments, one for weekdays and one for the Sabbath. What is the reason (Ruth.3.3">Ruth 3:3): “Wash, rub yourself with oil, and put on your clothes131In Shabbat.113b">Babli Sabbath 113b, this is a saying of R. Eleazar, a frequent tradent of sayings by R. Ḥanina. The explanation of Rashi is taken straight from this Yerushalmi or from the (Yerushalmi) parallel in Midrash Ruth rabba 5:12. The speaker is Naomi, the person addressed Ruth. It is spelled out in Ruth that they were poor enough to go and collect gleanings; hence, even if somebody is on welfare he needs separate outer garments for weekdays and Sabbath, and these must be provided by public assistance. Hence, this paragraph belongs to the current Halakhah..” Was she naked? But that refers to her Sabbath clothes. When Rebbi Simlai preached this in public, the companions132The members of his yeshivah. cried and said to him, our teacher, as our garments are on weekdays so our garments are on the Sabbath. He said to them, nevertheless, you have to change, from this: “Wash, rub yourself with oil, and put your clothes on yourself and descend to the threshing floor.” (It is written “I will decend,” she said to her, my merits will go down with you.133This aggadic insert is appropriate in Midrash Ruth but is intrusive here. However, R. Simlai, the famous preacher, will not let the occasion for a sermon pass by. Was she naked? No, she said to her: put on your Sabbath garments.)