משנה: לוּלָבֵי זְרָדִים וְהֶחָרוּבִין יֵשׁ לָהֶן שְׁבִיעִית וְלִדְמֵיהֶן שְׁבִיעִית. יֵשׁ לָהֶן בִּיעוּר וְלִדְמֵיהֶן בִּיעוּר. לוּלָבֵי הָאֵלָה וְהָבּוֹטְנָא וְהָאֲטָדִים יֵשׁ לָהֶן שְׁבִיעִית וְלִדְמֵיהֶן שְׁבִיעִית. אֵין לָהֶן בִּיעוּר וְלֹא לִדְמֵיהֶן בִּיעוּר. אֲבָל לֶעָלִים יֵשׁ לָהֶן בִּיעוּר. מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהֵן נוֹשְׁרִין מֵאָבִיהֶן. הָװֶרֶד וְהַכּוֹפֶר וְהַקְּטָף וְהַלּוֹטֶת. יֵשׁ לָהֶן שְׁבִיעִית וְלִדְמֵיהֶן שְׁבִיעִית. רִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֵר אֵין לִקְטָף שְׁבִיעִית מִפְּנֵי שֶׁאֵינוֹ פֶּרִי. װֶרֶד חָדָשׁ שֶׁכְּבָשׁוֹ בְשֶׁמֶן יָשָׁן יִלָּקֵט הַװֶרֶד. וְיָשָׁן בְּחָדָשׁ חַייָב בְּבִיעוּר. חָרוּבִים חֲדָשִׁים שֶׁכְּבָשָׁן בְּיַיִן יָשָׁן וִישֵׁנִים בְּחָדָשׁ חַייָבִין בְּבִיעוּר. זֶה הַכְּלָל כָּל־שֶׁהוּא בְּנוֹתֵן טַעַם חַייָב לְבָעֵר מִין בְּשֶׁאֵינוֹ מִינוֹ. וּמִין בְּמִינוֹ כָּל־שֶׁהוּא. שְׁבִיעִית אוֹסֶרֶת כָּל־שֶׁהוּא בְּמִינוֹ וּשְׁלֹא בְמִינוֹ בְּנוֹתֵן טַעַם. MISHNAH: Bundles of new sprouts44Mishnah Uqeẓin 3:4. The translation follows the text there: לוּלָבֵי וְרָדִים וְשֶׁל עָדָל וַעֲלֵי הַלּוּף הַשּׁוֹטֶה since the text enclosed in parenthesis, של ערלה “of orlah”, makes no sense. Orlah is forbidden for any use, certainly for food. Soft new shoots (mainly of vines) can be used as food, but for most people they are simply pieces of wood. Hence, they do not have the status of food unless somebody takes them as such. and carobs are subject to the Sabbatical and so are their proceeds; they are subject to removal and so are their proceeds. Branches of terebinth, pistachio, and thornbushes are subject to the Sabbatical and so are their proceeds; they are not subject to removal nor are their proceeds92If nobody took them they would stay on the trees which are perennial. It follows that pine needles, if they could be used as food, would not be subject to removal.. But the leaves are subject to removal since they fall from their stems.
Roses, henna101Definition of Maimonides. Arukh and Geonim: cloves., balsamum, and chestnut are subject to the Sabbatical and so are their proceeds. Rebbi Simeon says, balsamum is not subject to the Sabbatical because it is not a fruit102But a sap. He implies that no sap falls under sabbatical prohibitions.. If new roses were preserved in old oil, the roses should be taken out114If no rose leaves are left for the wild animals, the preserved Sabbatical leaves have to be given to the poor to eat but the oil, pressed from non-Sabbatical olives, may be retained by the owner. But if Sabbatical rose leaves are preserved in post-Sabbatical oil, everything has to be removed since the older leaves, which should have been removed, immediately give taste to the oil. One cannot explain "old in new" by "sixth year roses in Sabbatical oil" since these never would be subject to removal.. Old in new are subject to removal. New carobs preserved in old wine and old ones in new are subject to removal115Since the carobs will quickly leave their taste in the oil. The Tosephta (5:15) states identical rules for carob pods and rose leaves; the author of the Tosephta must hold that the hard carob pods leave taste in the oil only if they are steeped in it a very long time.. This is the principle: Anything that gives flavor to another kind is subject to removal, in its own kind in the minutest amount116Since the taste of forbidden and permitted food cannot be distinguished if they are of the same kind, a minute admixture of forbidden food makes permitted food of the same kind also forbidden.. The Sabbatical makes forbidden in the minutest amount in its own kind, and by giving taste in another kind.
הלכה: בְּרֹאשָׁה דְפִירְקָא אַתְּ אָמַר אֵין אוֹכְלִין עַל הָעִיקָּר. וָכָא אַתְּ אָמַר אוֹכְלִין עַל הָעִיקָּר. אָמַר רִבִּי פִּינְחָס תַּמָּן אֵין סוֹפָן לְהַקְשׁוֹת. בְּרַם הָכָא סוֹפוֹ לְהַקְשׁוֹת מִכֵּיוָן שֶׁהֻקְּשׁוּ נַעֲשֹוּ כָאָבִיהֶן. HALAKHAH: At the beginning of the chapter you said that one does not eat because of the roots93In Mishnah 2, arum, mint, etc., were made subject to removal even though their roots remain in the ground and will produce again the next year. Here the young shoots of vines and carobs are exempted from removal. and here you say one does eat because of the roots? Rebbi Phineas said, there they will not ultimately harden; here they will ultimately harden; after they hardened they become part of the stem.
תַּנֵי וְכוּלָּן שֶׁנִּכְנְסוּ מִשִּׁשִּׁית לַשְּׁבִיעִית שִׁשִּׁית. חוּץ מִן הֶעָדָל. מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהוּא כְיֶרֶק. רִבִּי אַבָּהוּ בְשֵׁם רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן לֵית כָּאן מִשִּׁשִּׁית לַשְּׁבִיעִית שִׁשִּׁית אֶלָּא שְׁבִיעִית. וְהָתַנֵי הַסִּיאָה וְהָאַזוֹב וְהַקּוּרְנִית שֶׁהוֹבִילוֹ לֶחָצֵר. אֲבָל אִם הָֽיְתָה שְׁנִייָה נִכְנֶסֶת לַשְּׁלִישִׁית שְׁלִישִׁית מִשִּׁישִּׁית לַשְּׁבִיעִית שִׁישִּׁית. הָכָא אַתְּ מָנֵי לַחוֹרֵיהּ. וָכָא אַתְּ מָנֵי לְקוֹמֵיהּ. אָמֵר רִבִּי יוֹסֵי שְׁלִישִׁית וְשִׁשִּׁית אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁאֵין בָּהֶן מַעֲשֵׂר שֵׁינִי יֵשׁ בָּהֶן מַעְשְׂרוֹת שְׁבִיעִית אֵין בָּהּ מַעְשְׂרוֹת כָּל־עִיקָּר. לֹא כֵן אָמַר רִבִּי אַבָּהוּ בְשֵׁם רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן לֵית כָּאן מִשִּׁישִּׁית לַשְּׁבִיעִית שִׁישִּׁית אֶלָּא שְׁבִיעִית. תַּמָּן בִּרְשׁוּת הַבְּעָלִים בְּרַם הָכָא בִּרְשׁוּת הֶעָנִי הֵן. מוּטָּב לוֹ אֶחָד בְּוַדַּאי וְלֹא שְׁנַיִם בְּסָפֵק. It was stated95Tosephta 5:11 has a similar text. The baraita quoted here must have had a beginning similar to the Tosephta: “Branches of terebinth, pistachio, thornbushes, and nasturtium…”: “And all those which remained from the sixth year into the Sabbatical belong to the sixth except for nasturtium which is like a vegetable96The status of trees is determined by the time of blossoming, that of vegetables by the time of the harvest..” Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: There is no [rule that] “from the sixth year into the Sabbatical they belong to the sixth” but [they belong] to the Sabbatical. But did we not state: “Calamint, hyssop, and thyme he brought to the courtyard97These plants grow as weeds in Galilee, but if they are collected as spices and stored they are subject to tithes (Mishnah Ma‘serot 3:9)., (but) if it was from the second year into the third they belong to the third; from the sixth year into the Sabbatical they belong to the sixth?” Here, you count the past [year], there the coming! Rebbi Yose said, in the third and sixth years, even though there is no second tithe, there are tithes; in the Sabbatical there is no tithe whatsoever. But did not Rebbi Abbahu say in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: There is no “from the sixth year into the Sabbatical they belong to the sixth” but they belong to the Sabbatical? There it is in the possession of the landowners, here it is in the possession of the poor98Since in the Sabbatical everybody has the right to enter the fields and take the produce.. He prefers one which is certain to two which are possible99There is little to be taken by the poor in the Sabbatical since nothing is sown, but it is in the poor’s hand to take. The tithe of the poor may be larger but it is in the farmer’s hand to decide whom to give; a sparrow in the hand is better than a pigeon on the roof..
עָלִין שֶׁכְּבָשָּׁן עִם לוּלָבִין אִית תַּנָּיֵי תַנֵּי בֵּין אֵילּוּ וּבֵין אֵילּוּ יֵשׁ לָהֶן בִּיעוּר. וְאִית תַּנָּיֵי תַנֵּי בֵּין אֵילּוּ וְאֵילּוּ אֵין לָהֶן בִּיעוּר. וְאִית תַּנָּויֵי תַנֵּי עָלִין יֵשׁ לָהֶן בִּיעוּר לוּלָבִין אֵין לָהֶן בִּיעוּר. מָאן דְּאָמַר אֵין לָהֶן בִּיעוּר רִבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ. מָאן דְּאָמַר עָלִין יֵשׁ לָהֶן בִּיעוּר לוּלָבִין אֵין לָהֶן בִּיעוּר רַבָּן גַּמְלִיאֵל. About leaves preserved with sprouts, some Tannaïm state: both of them are subject to removal. Some Tannaïm state: neither of them is subject to removal. Leaves are subject to removal, sprouts are not subject to removal. He who says [both] are not subject to removal is Rebbi Joshua; he who says [leaves] are subject to removal but sprouts are not subject to removal is Rabban Gamliel100This refers to Mishnah 9:5: “If somebody preserves three kinds in one barrel, R. Eliezer says, one eats according to the first; R. Joshua says, according to the last; Rabban Gamliel says everything whose kind has disappeared from the field should be removed from the house. Rebbi Simeon says, all kinds of vegetables have the same status; one eats purslain until sinariot disappear from the Bet Neṭofa valley.” R. Eliezer demands that all be removed if one of the kinds has to be removed. In our case, he requires that the sprouts be removed if the leaves have to be removed. R. Joshua requires that all kinds be removed together when the last has to be removed. Since sprouts do not have to be removed, nothing has to be removed. Rabban Gamliel thinks that the requirement of removal is on the produce, not on its taste. The taste of one absorbed by the other is irrelevant; therefore, each kind has to be removed in its time: Leaves have to be removed but not sprouts..
רִבִּי פְּדָת רִבִּי יוֹסָה בְשֵׁם רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן אַתְיָיא דְרִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן כְּרִבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ. דְּתַנִּינָן תַּמָּן אָמַר רִבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ שָׁמַעְתִּי שֶׁהַמַּעֲמִיד בִּשְׂרַף הֶעָלִין וּבִשְׂרַף הָעִיקָּרִין מוּתָּר בִּשְׂרַף הַפַּגִּין אָסוּר מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהוּא פֶּרִי. אָמַר רִבִּי זְעִירָא לְרִבִּי פְּדָת כְּמַה דְתֵימָר תַּמָּן הֲלָכָה כְרִבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ. וָכָא אָמַר הֲלָכָה כְרִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹנָה וְדַמְיָא הִיא כָּל־רַבָּה קְטָף בָּטֵל עַל גַּבֵּי שְׂרָפוֹ. אִילָן אֵינוֹ בָטֵל עַל גַּבֵּי שְׂרָפוֹ. אוֹכְלֵי בְהֵמָה קְדוּשַּׁת שְׁבִיעִית חָלָה עֲלֵיהֶן וְאֵין קְדוּשַּׁת עָרְלָה חָלָה עֲלֵיהֶן. אָמַר רִבִּי אָבִין אִית לָךְ חוֹרִי. רִבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ אָֽמְרָהּ שְׁמוּעָה. וְרִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בְּשֵׁם גַּרְמֵיהּ אָֽמְרָהּ לְמָה. Rebbi Pedat, Rebbi Assi, in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Rebbi Simeon follows that of Rebbi Joshua, as we have stated there104Mishnah Orlah: 1:7; its topic is the use of any part of an orlah plant (cf. Kilaim Chapter 5, Note 93).: “Rebbi Joshua said, I heard that making curds105To make cheese with vegetable rennet. with the sap of leaves or roots is permitted, with the sap of unripe fruits it is forbidden because that is a fruit.” Rebbi Zeïra said to Rebbi Pedat, since we say there that practice follows Rebbi Joshua, would you have to say here that practice follows Rebbi Simeon106The opponent of R. Joshua in Mishnah Orlah is R. Eliezer; therefore practice has to follow R. Joshua. In the parallel in the Babli, Niddah 8b, the disagreement is explained that for R. Eliezer sap has the status of fruit and for the Sages who oppose R. Simeon in the Mishnah here, sap of a tree which produces no edible fruit has the status of fruit, whereas for R. Joshua no sap has the status of fruit. Therefore, the Babli accepts the position of R. Pedat which here is questioned. The verse (Lev. 19:23) restricts the holiness of orlah to fruits only.? Rebbi Jonah said, are the situations similar? It is the other way107כל רבה corresponds to Babylonian אדרבא.: Balsamum is essentially sap, a tree is essentially in its sap. The holiness of the Sabbatical falls on animal feed, but the holiness of orlah never falls on it. Rebbi Abun said, there is another one: Rebbi Joshua quoted it as a tradition, Rebbi Simeon said it in his own name108Since he gives a reason, it is his own argument and not one he was taught by his teachers..
שְׂרָף פֵּירִי פַּגִּין פֵּירֵי. וְאִין תֵּימַר שְׂרָף פֵּירִי עָשָׂה כֵן בִּתְרוּמָה אָסוּר. וְאִין תֵּימַר פַּגִּין פֵּירֵי עָשָׂה כֵן בִּתְרוּמָה מוּתָּר. לָמָּה שֶּׁהַנָּייַת תְּרוּמָה מוּתֶּרֶת וַהַנָּייַת עָרְלָה אֲסוּרָה. Sap may be fruit, unripe fruits may be fruit111This refers to the statement of R. Joshua in Mishnah Orlah. Is the cheese forbidden because the sap of unripe fruits is considered fruit or is sap not fruit but for orlah and derivative use of a fruit is also forbidden.. If you say that sap has the status of fruit, if he did it with heave it is forbidden112Cheese made with sap of heave is forbidden to anybody who is not a Cohen since rennet, which turns milk into cheese, cannot be considered nonexistent even if it is only a minute part of the final volume.. If you say that unripe fruits are fruit, if he did it with heave it is permitted113Since only fruit is subject to heave, the sap would be profane.. Why? Because usufruct of heave is permitted but usufruct of orlah is forbidden.
הָכָא אַתְּ אָמַר יִלָּקֵט הַװֶרֶד. וָכָא אַתְּ אָמַר חַייָב בְּבִיעוּר. רִבִּי אַבָּהוּ בְשֵׁם רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן תְּרֵין תַּנָּייָן אִינּוּן. אָמַר רִבִּי זְעִירָא יָכִיל אֲנָא פְתַר לְהוֹן װֶרֶד בִּתְרֵי תְּנַיֵּי װֶרֶד חָדָשׁ שֶׁכְּבָשׁוֹ בְשֶׁמֶן יָשָׁן. װֶרֶד שֶׁל שְׁבִיעִית שֶׁכְּבָשׁוֹ בְשֶׁמֶן שֶׁל שִׁשִּׁית וְיָשָׁן בְּחָדָשׁ װֶרֶד שְׁבִיעִית שֶׁכְּבָשׁוֹ שֶׁל שְׁמִינִית. In the first case, you say “the roses should be taken out”, in the second case “all is subject to removal”? Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: This is from two [different] Tannaïm. Rebbi Yose said, I can explain those roses by two conditions: “If new roses are preserved in old oil”, Sabbatical roses preserved in oil of the sixth year; “old in new”, Sabbatical roses preserved in eighth year’s [oil].