Jerusalem Talmud Terumot 2:1:1

הלכה: אֵין תּוֹרְמִין מִן הַטָּהוֹר כו׳. רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן בְּשֵׁם רִבִּי יַנַּאי וְנֶחְשַׁב לָכֶם תְּרוּמַתְכֶם כְּדָגָן מִן הַגּוֹרֶן וְכִמְלֵאָה מִן הַיֶּקֶב. מַה גּוֹרֶן וְיֶקֶב אֵיפְשָׁר שֶׁיְּהֵא מִקְצָתוֹ טָמֵא וּמִקְצָתוֹ טָהוֹר. וְזֶה אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁאֶיפְשָׁר לְמֵידִין אֶיפְשָׁר מִשֶׁאֵי אֶיפְשָׁר. מֵעַתָּה לֹא יְהֵא תְרוּמָתוֹ תְּרוּמָה מִמֶּנּוּ כְְּתִיב. HALAKHAH: “One does not give heave from pure produce”, etc. Rebbi Joḥanan in the name of Rebbi Yannai (Num. 18:27): “Your heave will be counted as if it were grain from the threshing-floor and what was drawn off from the wine-press..” Since for threshing-floor and wine-press it is impossible that part of it be impure and part pure⁴For fluids it is obvious that if part of it became impure, all is impure. The case of grain is more complicated but in two cases the assertion is certainly true. If the grain is prepared for impurity (Demay, Chapter 2, Note 141) before threshing, then in sweeping the grains together to form an orderly heap, any impurity will be spread through the entire heap. If the grain is not prepared, then any moistening of the heap will make the entire heap prepared., even so one infers what is possible from what is impossible⁵The verse quoted refers to heaves of the tithe for grain and wine. For these, it is impossible to give Great Heave (Chapter 1, Note 64) from pure for impure since Great Heave is given only from earmarked produce; it is inferred that nowhere may one give heave from pure produce on impure.
The statement that abstract principles can be transferred from impossible to possible cases is not found in the Babli but Tosaphot refer to it several times to explain the background of talmudic reasoning (Beẓah 13b, s. v. כשם; Giṭṭin 30b, s. v. וכי; Menaḥot 54b, s. v. כך; Bekhorot 59b, s. v. אף).. In that case, the heave given should not be heave! It is written: “From itself⁶“From itself” is repeated in Num. 18 several times, verses 26, 28, 29, 30, 32. While it is asserted in the next paragraph that heave of the tithe, the subject of that paragraph, need not be from the particular batch of tithe for which it is given, it is emphasized sufficiently to point out that Great Heave may be given from any part of the batch, even if part of it is pure and the remainder impure.”.

כָּל־הַדְּבָרִים לְמֵידֵין וּמְלַמְּדִין תְּרוּמַת מַעֲשֵׂר הִיא מְלַמֶּדֶת וְאֵינָהּ לְמֵידָה תְּרוּמַת מַעֲשֵׂר לִימְּדָה עַל תְּרוּמָה גְדוֹלָה שֶׁלֹּא תְּהֵא נִיטֶּלֶת מִן הַטָּהוֹר עַל הַטָּמֵא וְהִיא נִיטֶּלֶת מִן הַטָּהוֹר עַל הַטָּמֵא. מְנַייִן רִבִּי יוֹסֵי בְשֵׁם חִזְקִיָּה. רִבִּי יוֹנָה בְשֵׁם רִבִּי יַנַּיי וּנְתַתֶּם מִמֶּנּוּ אֶת תְּרוּמַת י֙י לְאַהֲרֹן הַכֹּהֶן עֲשֵׂה שֵׁיִּנָּֽתְנוּ לְאַהֲרֹן הַכֹּהֶן בְּכְהוּנָּתוֹ. כַּהֲנָא אָמַר מִכָּל־חֶלְבּוֹ אֶת מִקְדְּשׁוֹ מִמֶּנּוּ טוּל מִן הַמְקוּדָּשׁ שֶׁבּוֹ. תְּרוּמַת מַעֲשֵׂר לִימְּדָה עַל תְּרוּמָה גְדוֹלָה שֶׁהִיא נִיטֶּלֶת מִן הַמּוּקָּף וְהִיא נִיטֶּלֶת שֶׁלֹּא מִן הַמּוּקָּף. מְנַייִן שֶׁתְּרוּמַת מַעֲשֵׂר נִיטֶּלֶת שֶׁלֹּא מִן הַמּוּקָּף. מִכָּל־מַעְשְׂרוֹתֵיכֶם אֶחַד בִּיהוּדָה וְאֶחַד בְּגָלִיל. תְּרוּמַת מַעֲשֵׂר לִימְּדָה עַל תְּרוּמָה גְדוֹלָה שֶׁלֹּא תְהֵא נִיטֶּלֶת אֶלָּא מִן הַגָּמוּר וְאַף הִיא נִיטֶּלֶת מִן הַגָּמוּר. Everything teaches for itself and for others⁷Every verse of the Torah first is needed for its subject but then can be used to deduce rules for other cases by the standard rules of inference, either following R. Ismael or R. Aqiba., the heave of the tithes teaches for others what it does not teach for itself⁸While very few verses speak about the obligation of the Great Heave and no details are given, the verses dealing with the heave of the tithe are many and partially contradictory. As explained in the paragraph, the general expressions are taken to refer to the Great Heave and the detailed instructions for the heave of the tithe.. The heave of the tithe teaches for Great Heave that it should not be taken from pure produce for impure but itself can be taken from pure produce for impure. From where? Rebbi Yose in the name of Ḥizqiah, Rebbi Jonah in the name of Rebbi Yannai (Num. 18:28): “You shall give from it the Eternal’s heave to Aharon the priest;” it should be given to Aharon in his status as priest⁹Sacral meals, the main duty of a Cohen, must all be eaten in strict purity.. Cahana said (Num. 18:29): “From its best, the sanctified part from it;” take from its sanctifiable part. The heave of the tithe teaches for Great Heave that it should be taken from earmarked produce⁶“From itself” is repeated in Num. 18 several times, verses 26, 28, 29, 30, 32. While it is asserted in the next paragraph that heave of the tithe, the subject of that paragraph, need not be from the particular batch of tithe for which it is given, it is emphasized sufficiently to point out that Great Heave may be given from any part of the batch, even if part of it is pure and the remainder impure. but itself may be taken from non-earmarked. From where that heave of the tithe may be taken from non-earmarked produce? (Num. 18:28) “From all of your tithes,” one in Judea and one in Galilee. The heave of the tithe teaches for Great Heave that it should be taken only from finished produce, itself also should be taken from finished produce¹⁰Chapter 1, Note 206..

תְּרוּמַת מַעֲשֵׂר נִיטֶּלֶת מִן הַטָּהוֹר עַל הַטָּהוֹר וּמִן הַטָּמֵא עַל הַטָּמֵא מִן הַטָּהוֹר עַל הַטָּמֵא וְאֵינָהּ נִיטֶּלֶת מִן הַטָּמֵא עַל הַטָּהוֹר. רִבִּי נְחֶמְיָה אוֹמֵר כְּשֵׁם שֶׁאֵינָהּ נִיטֶּלֶת מִן הַטָּמֵא עַל הַטָּהוֹר כָּךְ אֵינָהּ נִיטֶּלֶת מִן הַטָּמֵא עַל הַטָּמֵא וּמוֹדֵי רִבִּי נְחֶמְיָה בִדְמַיי. עַד כְּדוֹן בְּשֶׁהָיָה לוֹ מֵאוֹתוֹ הַמִּין לֹא הָיָה לוֹ מֵאוֹתוֹ הַמִּין נִישְׁמְעִינָהּ מִן הָדָא. רִבִּי חֲנִינָה עֵנְתָּנָיָא סְלַק עִם רִבִּי זְעִירָא לְחַמַּת גָּדֶר זְבַן לֵיהּ קְלוֹסְקִין בְּעָא מְתַקְּנֵהּ מִיּוֹם לְחַבְרֵיהּ אֲמַר לֵיהּ לֵית אֲנָן צְרִיכִין חֲשָׁשִׁין לִיחִידָא אִית לָךְ מֵימַר בְּשֶׁהָיָה לוֹ מֵאוֹתוֹ הַמִּין. Heave of the tithe is taken from pure produce for pure, from impure for impure, from pure for impure, but not from impure for pure⁹Sacral meals, the main duty of a Cohen, must all be eaten in strict purity.. Rebbi Neḥemiah says, just as it may not be taken from impure for pure, so it may not be taken from impure for impure. Rebbi Neḥemiah agrees in the case of demay¹¹In Babylonian sources (Baba Qama 115b, Tosephta 3:19) this is formulated as: “R. Neḥemiah says, one gives from impure produce for impure only in the case of demay,” since then the obligation is not clear-cut.. That is, if he has from the same kind¹²The consensus of the commentators is that this refers to R. Neḥemiah’s prohibition of giving heave of the tithe from impure for impure food.. If he does not have anything from the same kind, let us hear from the following: Rebbi Ḥanina Eyntanaya went with Rebbi Zeïra to Ḥammat Gader. He bought him a roll¹³Greek, cf. Berakhot Chap. 6, Note 103. and wanted to put it in order from one day to the next¹⁴Since it was baked, one can be sure that the Great Heave had been given. The question is only about the heave of the tithe of demay which has to be given for bread from an uncertified baker (Demay Halakhah 5:1). Since the roll was for next morning’s breakfast, R. Ḥanina was wondering whether R. Neḥemiah would permit giving heave now since a roll handled by the unobservant certainly was impure, having been prepared for impurity by the water needed to make the dough.. He said to him: We do not have to worry about a single opinion! Can you say that he had from the same kind¹⁵Since R. Ḥanina is told not to worry, this implies that R. Neḥemiah forbids giving heave of the tithe of impure demay if some pure food of the same kind is in his possession. However, the question remains open since the only pure roll R. Ḥanania could possibly have bought the next day would have to be one made with fruit juice (Demay Halakhah 5:1, Note 8) and it is most unlikely that such rolls would be available commercially.?

בֶּאֱֱמֶת אָמַר רִבִּי לָֽעְזָר כָּל־מָקוֹם שֶׁשָּׁנִינוּ בֶּאֱמֶת הֲלָכָה לְמֹשֶׁה מִסִּינַי. “In truth;¹⁶Quote from the Mishnah. This statement is also in Kilaim Chapter 2, cf. Note 36.” Rebbi Eleazar said that every place where they stated “in truth,” it is practice going back to Moses on Mount Sinai.

וְעִיגוּל שֶׁל דְּבֵילָה שֶׁנִּיטְמָא מִקְצָתוֹ מִכֵּיוָן שֶׁנִּיטְמָא מִקְצָתוֹ אֵין כּוּלּוֹ טָמֵא בִּמְחוּבָּר בְּמֵי פֵּירוֹת הִיא מַתְנִיתָא. וְאֵין סוֹפוֹ לֵיחָלֵק וְלַעֲשׂוֹתוֹ שְׁנַיִם. תִּיפְתַּר שֵׁקָּרָא לָהּ שֵׁם בִּמְחוּבָּר. “If a cake of dried figs became partially impure one may give heave from its pure part for its impure part;” but if part of it becomes impure is not all of it impure¹⁷Since figs usually are washed before drying, they are susceptible for impurity and the water will connect all parts of the cake.? The Mishnah deals with the case that they are connected only by fruit juice¹Fig cakes are not strings of figs put together when they are completely dry but made of fresh figs formed into cakes and then put out to ferment and dry. The sap of figs is not one of the fluids that make food susceptible to impurity (Demay Chapter 5, Note 8); if no water touched the cake before it was dry and the individual figs are still recognizable, then if later it is prepared for impurity and one fig was touched by an impure person, this fig will be impure by one degree more than the person who touched and the figs touching this fig will be impure by still one more degree, and so on, cf. Demay Chapter 2, Note 137 (higher degree meaning lesser impurity). Since profane food can acquire only impurity in the first and second degrees, all figs not directly touching the impure fig will remain pure (if the cake is dry).. But will it not be cut into two parts in the end¹⁸Since nobody swallows an entire fig cake whole, could not the cake be put in order once a pure part was cut off? The answer is that this is preferred but one cannot take it for granted.? Explain it if he gave it a name when it still was connected.

וְכֵן אֲגוּדָה שֶׁל יָרָק. מַתְנִיתָן שֶׁנִּיטְמָאָת וְעוֹדָהּ אֲגוּדָה אֲבָל נִיטְמָאָת קְלָחִין וַאֲגָדָן לֹא בְדָא. וְאֵין סוֹפָהּ לֵיחָלֵק וְלֵעָשׂוֹת שְׁתַּיִם. תִּיפְתַּר שֶׁקָּרָא לָהּ שֵׁם בִּמְחוּבָּר. אֶגֶּד שֶׁנִּיטְמָא וְהִתִּירוֹ וַאֲגָדוֹ מַהוּ. “And similarly for a bunch of vegetable.” The Mishnah deals with the case that it became impure as a bunch but when the single stalks were impure and he bound them together, this does not apply¹⁹Since unbound it would be giving pure heave for the impure, a later bunching cannot change the situation.. But will it not be split and made into two parts in the end¹⁸Since nobody swallows an entire fig cake whole, could not the cake be put in order once a pure part was cut off? The answer is that this is preferred but one cannot take it for granted.? Explain it if he gave it a name when it still was connected. What is the situation if a bundle became impure, he unbound it²⁰In that stage, it would be giving from impure for impure. The question is not answered. and bound it again?

וְלִיתְנֵי עִיגּוּל וְלָא לִיתְנֵי אֲגוּדָה וְנִיתְנֵי אֲגוּדָה וְלָא לִיתְנֵי עֲרֵימָה. אִילּוּ תַנִּינָן עִיגּוּל וְלָא תַנִּינָן אֲגוּדָה הֲוֵינָן אָֽמְרִין עִיגּוּל שֶׁכּוּלּוֹ גוּף אֶחָד תּוֹרֵם. אֲגוּדָה שֶׁאֵין כּוּלָּהּ גוּף אֶחָד אֵינוֹ תּוֹרֵם. הֲוֵי צוֹרְכָה מִיתְנֵי אֲגוּדָה. וְאִילּוּ תַנִּינָן אֲגוּדָה וְלָא תַנִּינָן עֲרֵימָה הֲוִינָן אָֽמְרִין אֲגוּדָה שֶׁכּוּלָּהּ תְּפוּשָׂה אַחַת תּוֹרֵם עֲרֵימָה שֶׁאֵין כּוּלָּהּ תְּפוּשָׂה אַחַת אֵינוֹ תוֹרֵם. הֲוֵי צוֹרְכָא מִיתְנֵי עִיגּוּל וְצוֹרְכָא נִיתְנֵי אֲגוּדָה וְצוֹרְכָא מִיתְנֵי עֲרֵימָה. Should we have stated only fig cake and neither bunch nor heap? If we had stated about fig cake and not bunch we would have said he may give heave for the fig cake which is all one body but not for the bunch which is not one body. So it is necessary to state also “bunch”. If we had stated bunch not heap, we would have said he may give heave for the bunch because it is all held together but not for the heap which is not held together in one piece. So it is necessary to state fig-cake, necessary to state bunch, and necessary to state heap.

מִכֵּיוָן דְּתַנִּינָן הָיוּ שְׁנֵי עִיגּוּלִין וּשְׁתֵּי אֲגוּדוֹת וּשְׁתֵי עֲרֵימוֹת. מַה צוֹרְכָא דְּהָהִיא דָּמַר רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן בְּשֵׁם רִבִּי יַנַּיי וְנֶחְשַׁב לָכֶם תְּרוּמַתְכֶם כְּדָגָן וגו׳. אָמַר רִבִּי חִייָה בַּר אָדָא בַּעֲרֵימָה שֶׁל קִישּׁוּאִין וְדִילוּעִין הִיא מַתְנִיתָא. Since we stated: “If there were two fig-cakes, two bunches, and two heaps,” why do we need this since Rebbi Joḥanan said in the name of Rebbi Yannai (Num. 18:27): “Your heave will be counted as if it were grain⁴For fluids it is obvious that if part of it became impure, all is impure. The case of grain is more complicated but in two cases the assertion is certainly true. If the grain is prepared for impurity (Demay, Chapter 2, Note 141) before threshing, then in sweeping the grains together to form an orderly heap, any impurity will be spread through the entire heap. If the grain is not prepared, then any moistening of the heap will make the entire heap prepared.,” etc.²¹Either this part of the Mishnah or the statement of R. Joḥanan is superfluous.? Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Ada said, the Mishnah speaks about heaps of green melons²²Cf. Kilaim Chapter 1, Note 38. or squash²³Since these are large individual fruits, the argument of R. Joḥanan is not applicable; neither does R. Joḥanan’s statement follow from the Mishnah..

הָיוּ שְׁנֵי עִיגוּלִין אֶחָד מִקְצָתוֹ טָמֵא וְאֶחָד מִקְצָתוֹ טָהוֹר מָהוּ שֶׁיִּתְרוֹם מִזֶּה עַל זֶה. וְיֵיבַא כְּהָדָא. הָיוּ לְפָנָיו שְׁנֵי כְּרִייִם אֶחָד הִפְרִישׁ מִמֶּנּוּ מִקְצָת תְּרוּמוֹת וּמַעְשְׂרוֹת. וְאֶחָד הִפְרִישׁ מִמֶּנּוּ מִקְצָת תְּרוּמוֹת וּמַעְשְׂרוֹת. מָהוּ שֶׁיִּתְרוֹם מִזֶּה עַל זֶה. תַּלְמִידוֹי דְרִבִּי חִייָה רוֹבָה שָׁאֲלוֹן לְרִבִּי חִייָא רוֹבָא וְאָמַר לוֹן הַכְּסִיל חוֹבֵק אֶת יָדָיו וְאוֹכֵל אֶת בְּשָׂרוֹ. רִבִּי לָֽעְזָר בְּשֵׁם רִבִּי חִייָה רֹבָה אֵין תּוֹרְמִין וּמְעַשְּׂרִין מִזֶּה עַל זֶה. If there were two fig cakes, one partially impure and one partially pure¹Fig cakes are not strings of figs put together when they are completely dry but made of fresh figs formed into cakes and then put out to ferment and dry. The sap of figs is not one of the fluids that make food susceptible to impurity (Demay Chapter 5, Note 8); if no water touched the cake before it was dry and the individual figs are still recognizable, then if later it is prepared for impurity and one fig was touched by an impure person, this fig will be impure by one degree more than the person who touched and the figs touching this fig will be impure by still one more degree, and so on, cf. Demay Chapter 2, Note 137 (higher degree meaning lesser impurity). Since profane food can acquire only impurity in the first and second degrees, all figs not directly touching the impure fig will remain pure (if the cake is dry)., may one give heave from one for the other²⁵Since the Mishnah permits taking pure heave also for the impure parts of the same fig cake, may one put both cakes together on a table where they are earmarked and give one heave for both of them?? If he had two heaps²⁶כרי is a heap of freshly threshed grain, ערימה one of totally dry grain., and from both of them he had given part of heaves and tithes²⁷Mishnah 4:1 states that if only partial heave and tithes were taken from a heap they would have no status as heave and tithes but, even though they would now be separated from the heap, they would still count as one for giving heave from an earmarked heap. May one give one heave for both in this case? The two cases are treated as similar., may he give heave from one for the other? The students of the elder Rebbi Ḥiyya asked the elder Rebbi Ḥiyya and he said to them (Eccl. 4:5): “The fool folds his hands and eats his own flesh.²⁸The answer, “no”, is too simple and a thinking person should not have to ask.” Rebbi Eleazar in the name of the elder Rebbi Ḥiyya: He may not give heave from one for the other.

הֲרֵי שֶׁהֵבִיא מִינִין הַרְבֶּה בְקוּפָּה וּכְרוּב מִלְּמַעֲלָן וּכְרוּב מִלְּמַטָּן וְדָבָר אַחֵר בְּאֶמְצַע אֵין תּוֹרְמִין וְלֹא מְעַשְּׂרִין מִזֶּה עַל זֶה. הָּדָא דְתֵימָא בְּשֶׁאֵין שָׁם חָלָל. אֲבָל אִם יֵשׁ שָׁם חָלָל תּוֹרְמִין וּמְעַשְּׂרִין מִזֶּה עַל זֶה. כָּל־בֵּית הַגִּיתּוֹת אֶחָד. כָּל־בֵּית הַגְּרָנוֹת אֶחָד. תַּנֵּי אָמַר רִבִּי יוּדָה וְהִיא שֶׁתְּהֵא תּוֹפֶסֶת הַגּוֹרֶן בְּאֶמְצַע, עַד כְּדוֹן חִיטִּין וַאֲפִילוּ קַשׁ וַאֲפִילוּ תֶּבֶן. ²⁹Tosephta 3:8, cf. Tosephta ki-fshutah for the textual variants.“If somebody brought many kinds in a box, cabbage on top and cabbage on the bottom but something else in between, he may not give heave or tithe from one for the other.” That means, if there is no empty space. But if there is empty space he may give heave or tithe from one for the other³⁰If the entire box is filled up, the two layers of cabbage are not earmarked together. But if there is free space where the walls of the box hold together just the two layers of cabbage, they are earmarked and can be tithed together.. ³¹Tosephta 3:7, in the name of R. Yose.“The entire house of the wine press is one³²All wine barrels in the house of the wine press are earmarked together..” The entire threshing house is one. It was stated: Rebbi Jehudah said, only if the main threshing place is in the middle. So far this is for wheat; [it is] the same even for stubbles, even for straw.

רִבִּי חַגַּיי בְּעָא קוֹמֵי רִבִּי יוֹסֵי הָיָה טָמֵא בְאֶמְצַע אָמַר לֵיהּ וְהַיְינוּ נָשׁוּךְ. חֲבֵרַיָּא בָּעוֹן קוֹמֵי רִבִּי יוֹסֵי הָֽיְתָה מַפָּה בְאֶמְצַע אָמַר לוֹן וְהַייְנוֹ חֲמִשָּׁה שַׂקִּין בְּגוֹרֶן דְּתַנֵּי חֲמִשָּׁה שַׂקִּין בְּגוֹרֶן אֵין תּוֹרְמִין וְלֹא מְעַשְּׂרִין מִזֶּה עַל זֶה. Rebbi Ḥaggai asked before Rebbi Yose: Was impure [produce] between them? He said to him, is that biting³³If three layers are in the box but the middle layer is impure, bottom and top are not prepared for impurity, and there is no empty space, then top and bottom do not go together because they do not physically touch. For the notion of “biting”, cf. Kilaim Chapter 9, Note 172, Mishnah Ḥallah 2:4.? The colleagues asked before Rebbi Yose: If there was a blanket between them? He said to them, that is the case of the five sacks, as it was stated: “Five sacks on the threshing floor, one does not give heave and tithes from one for the other.³⁴This text contradicts the previous statement that the entire enclosed area of the threshing floor is earmarking for heave. In the parallel text in Tosephta 3:10 and Yerushalmi Ma‘aser Šeni 3:11, the text reads: “One gives heave and tithes from one for the other.” While the reading of the Tosephta does not prove anything for the Yerushalmi, the text in Ma‘aser Šeni indicates that the text here is corrupt. Maimonides (Terumot 3:18) and Roš (Hilkhot Ḥallah 4) follow the text in Ma‘aser Šeni.”

תַּנֵּי רִבִּי לַעִאיי אוֹמֵר מִשּׁוּם רִבִּי לִיעֶזֶר תּוֹרְמִין מִן הַטָּהוֹר עַל הַטָּמֵא בְּלַח. כֵּיצַד כָּבַשׁ זֵיתִים בְּטוּמְאָה וְהוּא רוֹצֶה לְתוֹרְמָן בְּטָהֳרָה מֵבִיא מַשְׁפֵּךְ שֶׁאֵין בְּפִיו כְּבֵיצָה וּמְמַלֵּא אוֹתוֹ בֵּיצִים וְנוֹתְנוֹ עַל פִּי חָבִית. וְנִמְצָא תוֹרֵם מִן הַמּוּקָּף. לָמָּה לִי פָּחוֹת מִכְּבֵיצָה. אֲפִילוּ כְבֵיצָה לֹא פֵּירוּרִין אִינּוּן שֶׁלֹּא יְטַמֵּא זֵיתִין הַרְבֶּה. אָֽמְרוּ לוֹ אֵין לְךָ כָּל־לַח קָרוּי לַח אֶלָּא יַיִן וְשֶׁמֶן בִּלְבַד. הֵיךְ עֲבִידָא קוֹרָה אַחַת לִשְׁנֵי בּוֹרוֹת. שְׁנֵי קוֹרוֹת לְבוֹר אֶחָד. נִיחָא קוֹרָה אַחַת לִשְׁנֵי בּוֹרוֹת. אֶלָּא שְׁנֵי קוֹרוֹת לְבוֹר אֶחָד לֹא מִתּוֹךְ שֶׁנִּיטְמָא מִקְצָתָן נִיטְמְאוּ כוּלָּן. רִבִּי לָא בְשֵׁם רִבִּי לָֽעְזָר תִּיפְתַּר שֶׁהָיָה בְלִיבּוֹ לַעֲשׂוֹת תְּפוּשָׂה אַחַת וְנִמְלַךְ לַעֲשׂוֹתוֹ שְׁתֵּי תְפוּסוֹת. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹסֵי בֵּי רִבִּי בּוּן הָדָא דְתֵימַר בְּשֶׁנִּיטְמָא מִשֶּׁיִּשְׁלֶה וּמִשֶּׁיַּקִּיפָהּ שֶׁכְּבָר נִרְאוּ לְתוֹרְמָן בְּטָהֳרָה. אֲבָל אִם נִיטְמָא עַד שֶׁלֹּא שִׁילֶּה וְעַד שֶׁלֹּא קִיפֶּה לֹא בְדָא. רִבִּי טָבִי רִבִּי יֹאשַׁיָּה בֵּי רִבִּי יַנַּאי הֲלָכָה כְרִבִּי לִיעֶזֶר. רִבִּי יִצְחָק בַּר נַחְמָן בְּשֵׁם רִבִּי הוֹשַׁעְיָא הֲלָכָה כְרִבִּי לִיעֶזֶר. רִבִּי הוּנָא רִבִּי חֲנַנְיָה אֵין הֲלָכָה כְרִבִּי לִיעֶזֶר. רִבִּי יוֹסֵי בֵּי רִבִּי בּוּן רַב יְהוּדָה בְשֵׁם שְׁמוּאֵל אֵין הֲלָכָה כְרִבִּי לִיעֶזֶר. אָתָא עוּבְדָא קוֹמֵי רִבִּי אִימִּי וְלֹא הוֹרֵי אָמַר תְּרֵין כָּל־קֳבֵיל תְּרֵין אִינּוּן. אָֽמְרִין לֵיהּ וְהָא רִבִּי יִצְחָק בַּר נַחְמָן הוֹרֵי. אֲפִילוּ כֵן לֹא הוֹרֵי. It was stated³⁵Tosephta 3:18; in Ḥallah 2:8 (fol. 58d) the entire paragraph.: “Rebbi Illaï³⁶The father of Rebbi Jehudah, one of the few known students of R. Eliezer. says in the name of Rebbi Eliezer: For food in fluids, one gives heave from pure for impure³⁷A fluid becomes impure in its entirety if any drop of it becomes impure.. How is this? If somebody pickled olives in impurity and wants to give heave in purity, he brings a funnel whose opening is less than [the width of] an egg³⁸An opening smaller than the diameter of an egg lets impurity enter but not leave. Hence, anything in the funnel may become impure but it cannot transmit impurity to the food in the barrel., fills it with eggs³⁹In the Tosephta and in Ḥallah, “olives”. This reading is required since eggs are not subject to heave. Also, the width of an egg is only an upper bound on the diameter of the funnel; since all olives touching the impure olives or their brine will become impure, one certainly is interested in minimizing the number of impure olives generated. In addition, unless the diameter of the funnel is less than the width of an olive, the pure olives filled into the funnel must be completely dry, otherwise they all become impure. and puts it on top of the amphora; it turns out that he gives heave from what is earmarked⁴⁰The amphora and the funnel touching it form a well-defined domain in space..” Why does it have to be less than [the width of] an egg? Are these not single pieces⁴¹Cf. Note 1. Since the lowest layer of olives becomes impure, only it and the layer directly above will be impure; all others will be pure and usable for heave.? It is only that not many olives should become impure. “³⁵Tosephta 3:18; in Ḥallah 2:8 (fol. 58d) the entire paragraph. They said to him, the only food fluid called fluid is wine and olive oil⁴²The position of R. Eliezer may be accepted but the interpretation given it by R. Illaï is certainly wrong. One has to consider fluids, not wet solid food..” How is that? One beam for two pits or two beams for one pit⁴³For mechanical pressing, grapes or olives are put into a vat and are covered by a circular cover. On top of it is a beam which is depressed either manually or by a viselike device. If two adjacent vats are pressed simultaneously, this certainly is considered earmarked. The beam itself, wood without cavities, cannot become impure.. One understands one beam for two pits, but two beams for one pit? Is it not that if it is partially impure it is totally impure³⁷A fluid becomes impure in its entirety if any drop of it becomes impure.? Rebbi La in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: Explain it, if he had intended to process it in one batch, and he changed his mind to make it in two batches⁴⁴Two beams for one vat are impractical; that case has to be thrown out. R. Eliezer permits giving heave from pure for impure if the vintner (or olive grower) originally had the intention of processing his entire harvest in one press. Then they become one batch. If later he decides to process in two different presses and it turns out that one is pure, the other impure, he may give heave for his entire harvest from the pure lot.. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, this applies if it became impure after he syphoned off [the froth] and [the seeds] formed lumps. But if it became impure before he syphoned off and lumps were formed, it does not apply. Rebbi Tabi, Rebbi Joshia the son of Rebbi Yannai: Practice follows Rebbi Eliezer. Rebbi Isaac bar Naḥman in the name of Rebbi Hoshaia: Practice follows Rebbi Eliezer. Rebbi Ḥuna, Rebbi Ḥanania: Practice does not follow Rebbi Eliezer. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun in the name of Samuel: Practice does not follow Rebbi Eliezer. There came a case before Rebbi Immi and he did not decide; he said there are two against two. They said to him, but Rebbi Isaac bar Naḥman decided! Nevertheless, he gave no opinion.

תַּמָּן תַּנִּינָן הַתּוֹרֵם אֶת הַבּוֹר וְאָמַר הֲרֵי זוֹ תְרוּמָה עַל מְנָת שֶׁתַּעֲלֶה בְשָׁלוֹם שָׁלוֹם מִן הַשֶּׁבֶר שָׁלוֹם מִן הַשְּׁפִיכָה אֲבָל לֹא מִן הַטּוּמְאָה. רִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אָמַר אַף מִן הַטּוּמְאָה. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹסֵי בֶּן חֲנִינָה בְּטוּמְאַת טְבוּלֵי יוֹם הִיא מַתְנִיתָא. אָמַר רִבִּי אִילָא שֶׁכֵּן טְבוּלֵי יוֹם מְצוּיִין בֵּין הַגִּיתּוֹת. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹסֵי אֵין לִטְבוּל יוֹם מַגַּע אֶצֶל טֵבֵל. There⁴⁸Mishnah Ṭevul Yom 4:6., we have stated: “If somebody gives heave from a wine cistern and says: ‘This should be heave on condition that it be removed whole’, it means whole from breakage and whole from spillage⁴⁹If the amphora containing the heave wine breaks or some of its contents are spilled before the amphora is safely removed from the cistern, the wine that flows back into the cistern is ṭevel in breakage and profane in spillage, never heave, and does not make the remaining wine dema‘ (cf. Demay Chapter 1, Note 175, Chapter 4, Note 25; Terumot Chapter 5). Dema‘ wine is almost worthless. but not from impurity. Rebbi Simeon says, also from impurity.” Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina said, this Mishnah speaks of the impurity of ṭevul yom⁵⁰A person freed from impurity by immersion in water who will become pure at sundown. His touch does not make impure but it invalidates heave and sacrifices, cf. Demay Chapter 6, Note 136.. Rebbi Ila said, since ṭevulê yom may be present around wine presses. Rebbi Yose said, a ṭevul yom has no touch for ṭevel⁵¹The touch of a ṭevul yom invalidates heave but not ṭevel and certainly not profane wine. Therefore, a ṭevul yom may work in a winery producing pure wine and R. Simeon is right when he assumes that a reservation concerning the touch of a ṭevul yom is in the mind of the person taking heave, even if this is not consciously expressed. Cf. also Ḥallah 3:2, Note 43..

תַּנֵּי אָמַר רִבִּי יוּדָן בְּמַה דְבָרִים אֲמוּרִים בִּתְרוּמָה גְדוֹלָה שֶׁהִיא צְרִיכָה לִתְרוֹם מִן הַמּוּקָּף. אֲבָל בִּתְרוּמַת מַעֲשֵׂר אֲפִילוּ שְׁאָר כָּל־הַדְּבָרִים שָׁלוֹם הֵם. הָיָה תוֹרֵם תְּרוּמָה וּתְרוּמַת מַעֲשֵׂר כְּאַחַת אֵינָהּ שָׁלוֹם. יְהוּדָה בְּרִבִּי אוֹמֵר לֹא עָֽלְתָה עַל דַּעְתּוֹ שֶׁל זֶה לַעֲבוֹר עַל דִּבְרֵי תוֹרָה לְהַקְדִּים תְּרוּמַת מַעֲשֵׂר לִתְרוּמָה גְדוֹלָה. מָתִיב רִבִּי בָּא בַר מָמָל וְהָא תַנִּינָן אֵין תּוֹרְמִין מִן הַטָּמֵא עַל הַטָּהוֹר הַגַּע עַצְמָךְ שֶׁתָּרַם וְאָמַר לֹא עָֽלְתָ עַל דַּעְתּוֹ לַעֲבוֹר עַל דִּבְרֵי תוֹרָה. אָמַר רִבִּי בָּא בַר מָמָל אִם אָמַר אַתְּ כֵּן נִמְצֵאת מַבְרִיחוֹ מִן הַקַּלָּה וּמַכְנִיסוֹ לַחֲמוּרָה. טֵבֵל בַּעֲוֹן מִיתָה. טָמֵא שֶׁאָכַל אֶת הַטָּהוֹר בַּעֲשֵׂה. It was stated⁵²Tosephta Ṭevul Yom 2:16–17, formulated as anonymous statement. {In the Rome ms., the name of the tradent is R. Yose. This reading is proven false in the next paragraph.} The Tosephta cannot represent the Yerushalmi tradition since for תרומה גדולה it has תרומת ראשית “beginning heave”, a reference to Num. 18:12.: “Rebbi Jehudah said, about what was this said? About Great Heave which must be given from what is earmarked. But for the heave of the tithe, everything is supposed to be whole. If he gave Great Heave and heave of the tithe together, it is not whole.” Jehudah ben Rebbi said, he certainly did not want to overstep the words of the Torah in giving heave of the tithe before the Great Heave⁵³He explains why heave of the tithe is under the rules of Great Heave in case both are taken together. If Great Heave were invalidated but not heave of the tithe, it would turn out retroactively that heave of the tithe was given before the Great Heave, which not only is forbidden but also is very difficult to rectify. Therefore, we assume that he did not want any complications and, if made aware of this problem, would himself want to nullify the entire transaction.. Rebbi Abba bar Mamal objected: Did we not state that “one may not give heave from impure produce for pure”? Think about it, when he did it and said, I did not intend to transgress the words of the Torah⁵⁴Since one may not give impure heave for pure produce, why do we not stipulate that if the person giving in error would be made aware of what he did, he automatically would want to nullify the transaction. The answer is that in this case, the remedy would be worse than the problem.! Rebbi Abba bar Mamal said, if you say so, you let him flee from a minor sin to a major one! Ṭevel is a deadly sin, but an impure person who ate pure food oversteps a positive commandment⁵⁵This is the text in both mss. but it is impossible since the impure Cohen who eats heave transgresses a karet prohibition. It must read: “a pure person who ate impure food”, cf. Num. 18:11: “Every pure person in your house shall eat it,” viz., pure heave. The details are given in Bikkurim 2:1; there the text is as corrected here..

תַּנֵּי בְשֵׁם רִבִּי יוֹסֵי אִם תָּרַם מִן הַטָּמֵא עַל הַטָּהוֹר בֵּין בְּשׁוֹגֵג בֵּין בְמֵזִיד מַה שֶׁעָשָׂה עָשׂוּי. רִבִּי פִינְחָס בְּעָא קוֹמֵי רִבִּי יָסָא עַד כְּדוֹן בְּסָבוּר בָּהֶן שֶׁהֵן טְהוֹרִין וְהָיָה יוֹדֵעַ שֶׁהֵן טְמֵיאִין וְסָבַר שֶׁמּוּתָּר לִתְרוֹם מִן הַטָּמֵא עַל הַטָּהוֹר. אָמַר לֵיהּ יְאוּת רִבִּי סָבַר כְּרִבִּי יוּדָה בְּרַם כְּרִבִּי יוֹסֵי הִיא הָדָא הִיא הָדָא. It was stated in the name of Rebbi Yose: “If somebody gave heave from impure for pure produce, whether it was in error or intentionally, what he did is done⁵⁶Tosephta 3:19..” Rebbi Phineas asked before Rebbi Assi: There⁵⁷He asks about the statement of R. Jehudah in the Mishnah that previous knowledge invalidates later acts of absentmindedness. It is agreed that this holds if he forgets facts; what if he is in error about the law? One must assume that sometime in the past, he had been informed of the correct practice., it is when he thought that it was pure when he had known that it was impure, but he was of the opinion that one may give heave from impure for pure produce? He said to him, that is so, Rebbi⁵⁸The editor of the anonymous Mishnah. holds with Rebbi Jehudah. But for Rebbi Yose it would not make any difference.

מַתְנִיתָא בְּכֵלִים גְּדוֹלִים אֲבָל בְּכֵלִים קְטַנִּים מַעֲרִים עֲלֵיהֶן וּמַטְבִּילָן. וְתַנֵּי רִבִּי הוֹשַׁעְיָה מְמַלֵּא הוּא אָדָם כֵּלִי טָמֵא מִן הַבּוֹר וּמַעֲרִים עָלָיו וּמַטְבִּילוֹ. וְתַנֵּי נָפַל דְּלָייוֹ בְּתוֹךְ הַבּוֹר נָפַל כֵּלָייו לְתוֹךְ הַבּוֹר מַעֲרִים עֲלֵיהֶן וּמַטְבִּילָן. תְּרֵין אֲמוֹרִין חַד אָמַר בְכֵלִים שֶׁנִּיטְמְאוּ בְּאַב הַטּוּמְאָה. וְחָרֵינָה אָמַר בְכֵלִים שֶׁנִּיטְמְאוּ בִּוְלַד הַטּוּמְאָה. מָתִיב מָאן דְּאָמַר בִּוְולַד הַטּוּמְאָה לְמָאן דְּאָמַר בְּאַב הַטּוּמְאָה וַאֲפִילוּ בְחוֹל טָעוּן הַעֲרֵב שֶׁמֶשׁ. אָמַר לֵיהּ בְּרוֹצֶה לְהִשְׁתַּמֵּשׁ בָּהֶן חוּלִין בְּטָהֳרָה. ⁶²This paragraph and the next are also in Šabbat 2:7, this paragraph also in Beẓah 2:1. Our Mishnah is about large vessels, but with small vessels one may use a ruse and immerse them, as Rebbi Hoshaia had stated⁶³Tosephta Šabbat 16:12, Beẓah2:9; a similar baraita quoted in Babli Beẓah 18a. The Tosephta makes the procedure explicit: “Vessels impure in original impurity may not be immersed on a holiday, and certainly not on the Sabbath. But one may fill a cup, or a pail, or a bucket in order to drink at the same time one thinks about it” [that it should be a valid immersion.] Impurity can be removed only by conscious immersion.: “A person may fill an impure vessel from the cistern as a ruse and immerse it.” Also, we have stated: “If his pail or garment fell into the cistern, one may use this as a ruse and immerse them⁶⁴At the moment he goes to pull the things out of the cistern, he may intend to have the immersion count for removal of impurity even though the immersion itself was accidental..” Two Amoraïm, one says [one may use a ruse] for vessels impure in original impurity; but the other one says [only] for vessels impure in derivative impurity⁶⁵For original and derivative impurity, cf Demay Chapter 2, Note 137. The language of the Tosephta shows that it was unknown to the editors of the Yerushalmi.. The one who said in derivative impurity objected to the one who said in original impurity: Even on weekdays, would it not need sundown⁶⁶The vessels are Ṭevulê Yom. As stated in Note 51, immersion purifies immediately for all profane food and purposes.? He said to him, if he wants to use them in purity for profane food.

רִבִּי ירְמְיָה רִבִּי זְעִירָא בְשֵׁם רִבִּי חִייָה בַּר אַשִּׁי אִשָּׁה פִיקָחַת מַדִּיחָה כּוֹס כָּן קְעָרָה כָן תַּמְחוֹי כָן. נִמְצֵאת מַרְבֶּצֶת בֵּיתָהּ בַַּשַּׁבָּת. Rebbi Jeremiah, Rebbi Zeïra in the name of Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Ashi: An intelligent woman washes a cup here, a bowl there, a dish there; it turns out that her entire house was wetted on the Sabbath⁶⁷The parallel is in Šabbat 15:3 (fol. 15b). The house has a dirt floor, and periodic wetting is needed to keep the air dust free. The Babli (Šabbat95a) notes that this trick is superfluous in Babylonian practice. The Babli follows R. Simeon for whom any work is permitted on the Sabbath if its intention is legitimate and permitted, even if some side effect would constitute a forbidden action if done by itself, unless the forbidden action is unavoidable. In our case, wetting the floor to strengthen the ground and the adobe house would be an action derivative of building and forbidden. But wetting the floor lightly to avoid dust is a legitimate action and, since in this case the water will evaporate quickly and any building effect would be temporary, it will be permitted outright. It follows that the Yerushalmi rejects the point of view of Rebbi Simeon..

רִבִּי שְׁמוּאֵל בְּשֵׁם רִבִּי אַבָּהוּ בְּשׁוֹגֵג בְּאִיסּוּר וּבְמֵזִיד בְּאִיסּוּר. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹסֵי מַתְנִיתָא אָֽמְרָה כֵּן הַמְעַשֵּׂר וְהַמְבַשֵּׁל בַּשַּׁבָּת שׁוֹגֵג יֵאָכֵל מֵזִיד לֹא יֵאָכֵל. בְּשׁוֹגֵג בְּאִיסּוּר וּבְמֵזִיד בְּאִיסּוּר. תַּנֵּי הַמְבוּשָּׁל בְּשַׁבָּת שׁוֹגֵג יֵאָכֵל מֵזִיד לֹא יֵאָכֵל דִּבְרֵי רִבִּי מֵאִיר. רִבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר בְּשׁוֹגֵג יֵאָכֵל לְמוֹצָאֵי שַׁבָּת. בְּמֵזִיד לֹא יֵאָכֵל עוֹלָמִית. רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן הַסַּנְדְּלָר אוֹמֵר בְּשׁוֹגֵג יֵאָכֵל לְמוֹצָאֵי שַׁבָּת לַאֲחֵרִים וְלֹא לוֹ. בְּמֵזִיד לֹא לוֹ וְלֹא לַאֲחֵרִים. שְׁמוּאֵל כְּרִבִּי יוֹחָנָן הַסַּנְדְּלָר. רַב כַּד הֲוֵה מוֹרֵי בַּחֲבוּרָתֵיהּ מוֹרֵי כְּרִבִּי מֵאִיר. בְּצִיבּוּרָא כְּרִבִּי יוֹחָנָן הַסַּנְדְּלָר. אָמַר רִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בַּר כַּרְסָנָא כְּרִבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל בְּנוֹ שֶׁל רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן בֶּן בְּרוֹקָה הוֹרֵי לוֹן. דְּתַנֵּי רִבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל בְּנוֹ שֶׁל רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן בֶּן בְּרוֹקָה כָּל־דָּבָר שֶׁחַייָבִין עַל זְדוֹנוֹ כָרֶת וְעַל שִׁגְגָתוֹ חַטָּאת וַעֲשָׂאוֹ בַּשַּׁבָּת בֵּין בְּשׁוֹגֵג בֵּין בְמֵזִיד אָסוּר בֵּין לוֹ בֵּין לַאֲחֵרִים לֹא יֵאָכֵל וְכָל־דָּבָר שֶׁאֵין חַייָבִין עַל זְדוֹנוֹ כָרֶת וְעַל שִׁגְגָתוֹ חַטָּאת וַעֲשָׂאוֹ בַּשַּׁבָּת בְּשׁוֹגֵג יֵאָכֵל לְמוֹצָאֵי שַׁבָּת לַאֲחֵרִים וְלֹא לוֹ בְּמֵזִיד לֹא לוֹ וְלֹא לַאֲחֵרִים. בָּעוּן קוֹמֵי רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן אַתְּ מַה אַתְּ אָמַר אָמַר לוֹן אֲנִי אֵין לִי אֶלָּא מִשְׁנָה הַמְעַשֵּׂר וְהַמְבַשֵּׁל בַּשַּׁבָּת בְּשׁוֹגֵג יֵאָכֵל בְּמֵזִיד לֹא יֵאָכֵל. שָׁמַע רַב חִסְדָּא וָמַר הוּתְּרוּ שַׁבָּתוֹת לֹא כֵן אָמַר רַב הוּנָא בְשֵׁם רַב וְתַנֵּי רִבִּי חִייָה כֵן בָּרִאשׁוֹנָה הָיוּ אוֹמְרִים הַשּׁוֹכֵחַ תַּבְשִׁיל עַל גַּבֵּי כִירָתוֹ בַשַּׁבָּת בְּשׁוֹגֵג יֵאָכֵל בְּמֵזִיד לֹא יֵאָכֵל. נֶחְשְׁדוּ שֶׁהָיוּ מַנִּיחִין מֵזִידִין וְאוֹמְרִים שְׁכֵיחִין הָייִנוּ וְאָֽסְרוּ לָהֶן אֶת הַשּׁוֹכֵחַ. וְאַתְ אָמַר הָכָא הָכֵין. אָמַר רִבִּי הִילָא נֶחְשְׁדוּ לִהְיוֹת מַנִּיחִין וְלֹא נֶחְשְׁדוּ לִהְיוֹת מְבַשְּׁלִין. קָֽנְסוּ בְמַנִּיחַ וְלֹא קָֽנְסוּ בִמְבַשֵּׁל. Rebbi Samuel in the name of Rebbi Abbahu: “Unintentionally”, when it is forbidden, “intentionally” when it is forbidden⁶⁸The two parts must be parallel, the difference between “intentional” and “unintentional” can be only in the mind of the agent. There are two possibilities, either that he forgot that it was Sabbath or that he was unaware that cooking is forbidden on the Sabbath.. Rebbi Yose said, the Mishnah states this: “He who tithes or cooks on the Sabbath, if unintentionally it may be eaten, if intentionally it may not be eaten”; “unintentionally”, when it is forbidden, “intentionally”, when it is [equally] forbidden⁶⁹Since intentionally he must have known that it was Sabbath, the unintentional case must be the same.. It was stated⁷⁰Tosephta Šabbat 2:15; Babli Ketubot 34a, and partially in Šabbat38a, Beẓah 17a, Baba Qama 71a, Ḥulin15a, Giṭṭin 52b. From here to the end of the Halakhah, the text is also in Šabbat 3:1, fol. 5d.: “What was cooked on the Sabbath, if it was done unintentionally it may be eaten, intentionally it may not be eaten, the words of Rebbi Meïr. Rebbi Jehudah said, unintentionally it may be eaten at the end of the Sabbath, intentionally never. Rebbi Joḥanan the Alexandrian⁷¹A student of R. Aqiba, Tanna of the fourth generation. It seems that the name Sandlar already then meant “Alexander’s”. said, unintentionally it may be eaten at the end of the Sabbath by others but not by himself, intentionally neither by him nor by others.” Samuel followed Rebbi Joḥanan the Alexandrian. Rav in his own group instructed following Rebbi Meïr⁷²Rav stated the exact rules to his students as theory. But in public he followed more restrictive rules. In Babli Ḥulin 15a, Rav is reported to publicly proclaiming R. Jehudah’s rule., in public following Rebbi Joḥanan the Alexandrian. Rebbi Simeon bar Karsana⁷³A Galilean Amora of the fourth generation, student of R. Aḥa. His appearance as reporting Rav’s direct instructions to his students seems anachronistic. said, he instructed us following Rebbi Ismael, the son of Rebbi Joḥanan ben Beroqa. As it was stated⁷⁴Tosephta Šabbat 2:16.: “Rebbi Joḥanan ben Beroqa said, in any case where an intentional sin is punished by extirpation and an unintentional sin by an expiatory offering⁷⁵Cooking on the Sabbath., if the sin was committed on the Sabbath unintentionally or intentionally, the result is forbidden both for him and for others; it may not be eaten. In any case an intentional sin is not punished by extirpation and for the unintentional sin no expiatory offering is due⁷⁶Tithing on the Sabbath.; if it was done on the Sabbath unintentionally the result may be eaten by others after the end of the Sabbath but not by him, intentionally neither by him nor by others.” They asked before Rebbi Joḥanan: What do you say? He said, I have only the Mishnah: “He who tithes or cooks on the Sabbath, if in error it may be eaten, if intentionally it may not be eaten”. Rav Ḥisda heard this and said, the Sabbaths have been permitted! Did not Rav Huna say in the name of Rav and did not Rebbi Ḥiyya state⁷⁷The first sentence here, without the introductory “in earlier times they said”, is the first sentence of Tosephta Šabbat 2:14. The remainder of that Tosephta, in the name of R. Jehudah, parallels the tannaitic text in the next paragraph.: “In earlier times they said, one who forgets some dish on his stove on the Sabbath, unintentionally it may be eaten, intentionally it may not be eaten. People were suspected that they left it intentionally and said, it was forgotten; they forbade it to them when it was forgotten.” And here, you say so? Rebbi Ila said, they were suspected to leave it on, they were not suspected to cook. They imposed a fine for forgetting but not for cooking.

חָֽזְרוּ לוֹמַר תַּבְשִׁיל שֶׁהוּא מִצְטַמֵּק וְיָפֶה לוֹ אָסוּר מִצְטַמֵּק וְרַע לוֹ מוּתָּר. אֵי זֶהוּ תַּבְשִׁיל שֶׁהוּא מִצְטַמֵּק וְיָפֶה לוֹ כְּרוּב וַאֲפוּנִין וּבָשֶָׂר טָרוּף. אָמַר רִבִּי תַּנְחוּם בַּר עִילַאי אַף רָאשֵׁי לִפְתּוֹת וְרָאשֵׁי קֵפַלּוֹטוֹת עָשׂוּ אוֹתָן כְּתַבְשִׁיל שֶׁהוּא מִצְטַמֵּק וְיָפֶה לוֹ. בֵּצִים מָה הֵן. רִבִּי יוֹסֵי בְשֵׁם רִבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל. רִבִּי יִרְמְיָה רִבִּי חֲנִינָה בְשֵׁם רִבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל בֵּי רִבִּי יוֹסֵי אַבָּא עָלָה לְבֵיתוֹ וּמָצָא שָׁם בֵּצִים וְאָסַר חַמִּין וְהִתִּיר. רִבִּי שְׁמוּאֵל בַּר נָתָן בְּשֵׁם רִבִּי חָמָא בַּר חֲנִינָה אֲנִי וְאַבָּא עָלִינוּ לְחַמַּת גָּדֵר וְהֵבִיאוּ לְפָנֵינוּ בֵּצִים קְטָנוֹת כְּחִזְרִרִין וְטַעֲמוֹן יָפֶה כְּפִינְקְרֵסִין. “⁷⁷The first sentence here, without the introductory “in earlier times they said”, is the first sentence of Tosephta Šabbat 2:14. The remainder of that Tosephta, in the name of R. Jehudah, parallels the tannaitic text in the next paragraph. They came back to say, a dish which will improve the more it shrinks is forbidden, deteriorate the more it shrinks is permitted. What is a dish better the more it shrinks? Cabbage, peas, and chopped meat.” Rebbi Tanḥum bar Illa said, they also considered heads of turnips and leeks as dishes better the more they shrink. What about eggs? Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Ismael: Rebbi Jeremiah, Rebbi Ḥanina in the name of Rebbi Ismael ben Rebbi Yose: My father came home and found eggs and forbade them, hot water and permitted it⁷⁸In the Tosephta, R. Jehudah permits hot water to stay on an open fire only if it came to a boil before the Sabbath.. Rebbi Samuel bar Natan in the name of Rebbi Ḥama bar Ḥanina: I went with my father to Ḥammat Gader where they brought before us eggs small like ḥizrar apples⁷⁹Cf. Mishnah Kilaim 4:1. The eggs must have been boiled a very long time to shrink to this small size. The statement might disagree with the Babli which reports that Samuel used eggs dipped alternatingly into boiling and cold water 1000 times as a diagnostic device for ulcers and intestinal bleeding since they were so hard that they were not digested and could be examined after evacuation but were small enough to be swallowed whole (Nedarim 50b). and they tasted delicious like sweet bread⁸⁰Probably Greek πάγκρεας, -ατος, τό “sweet bread, pancreas” (E. G.)..

תַּנֵּי לֹא תְמַלֵּא אִשָּׁה קְדֵירָה עֲסָסִיּוֹת וְתוֹרְמוֹסִין וְתִתְּנֵם לְתוֹךְ הַתַּנּוּר עֶרֶב שַׁבָּת עִם חֲשֵׁיכָה. וְאִם נָֽתְנָה אֲסוּרִין לְמוֹצָאֵי שַׁבָּת עַד כְּדֵי שֶׁיֵּעָשׂוּ. רִבִּי אָחָא אָמַר בְּמֵזִיד כְּרִבִּי מֵאִיר רִבִּי יוֹסֵי אוֹמֵר בְּשׁוֹגֵג כְּרִבִּי יְהוּדָה. אָמַר רִבִּי מָנָא יֵאוּת. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹסֵי הַנּוֹטֵעַ בְּשׁוֹגֵג בַּשַּׁבָּת יְקַייֵם בְּמֵזִיד יַעֲקוֹר בַּשְּׁבִיעִית בֵּין בְּשׁוֹגֵג בֵּין בְּמֵזִיד יַעֲקוֹר. רִבִּי יוּדָה אוֹמֵר חִילּוּף הַדְּבָרִים בַּשְּׁבִיעִית בְּשׁוֹגֵג יְקַייֵם בְּמֵזִיד יַעֲקוֹר בַּשַּׁבָּת בֵּין בְּשׁוֹגֵג בֵּין בְּמֵזִיד יַעֲקוֹר מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהֲנָייַת שַׁבָּת עָלָיו. וְכָאן מִכֵּיוָן שֶׁאַתָּה אוֹמֵר הַמְתֵּן לְמוֹצָאֵי שַׁבָּת עַד כְּדֵי שֶׁיֵּעָשׂוּ כְּמִי שֶׁלֹּא נֶהֱנֶה מַחְמַת שַׁבָּת כְּלוּם. מַה טַעַם דְּרַבָּנִין נֶחְשַׁד עַל הַשְּׁבִיעִית וְלֹא נֶחְשְׁדוּ עַל הַשַּׁבָּתוֹת. דָּבָר אַחֵר מוֹנִין לַשְּׁבִיעִית וְאֵין מוֹנִין לְשַׁבָּתוֹת. הֵיךְ עֲבִידָא נָטַע פָּחוֹת מִשְּׁלֹשִׁים לִפְנֵי שְׁבִיעִית וְנִכְנְסָה לַשְּׁבִיעִית. אִין תֵּימַר חֲשָׁד אֵין כָּאן חֲשָׁד. אִין תֵּימַר מוֹנִין יֵשׁ כָּאן מוֹנִין. נָטַע פָּחוֹת מִשְּׁלֹשִׁים יוֹם לִפְנֵי שְׁמִינִית וְנִכְנְסָה שְׁמִינִית אִין תֵּימַר חֲשָׁד יֵשׁ כָּאן חֲשָׁד וְאַתְיָא כְּמָאן דְּאָמַר מִפְּנֵי מוֹנִין בְּרַם כְּמָאן דְּאָמַר מִפְּנֵי חֲשָׁד וְקָֽנְסוּ שׁוֹגֵג מִפְּנֵי מֵזִיד. It was stated⁸²Tosephta Šabbat 3:1. ‘Assasiot are an undetermined kind of legumes (in the words of the Gaonim: they exist in the Land of Israel but not in Babylonia) which need very long cooking to become edible, similar to lupines. Compare Arabic عصّ “to harden”.: “A woman should not fill a pot with ‘assasiot and lupines and put them into the oven at the start of the Sabbath, at nightfall. If she did, they are forbidden after the end of the Sabbath until the time they could have been done.” Rebbi Aḥa said: intentionally, following Rebbi Meïr; Rebbi Yose said: unintentionally, following Rebbi Jehudah. Rebbi Mana said, that is correct, did not Rebbi Yose say, “⁸³Tosephta Šabbat 2:21. Both reasons are given in the Tosephta as basis of the decision of the anonymous majority but R. Jehudah’s statement is left without explanation. The baraita in the Babli (Giṭṭin 53b) gives no reasons at all. He who is planting on the Sabbath, if unintentional, he may keep it, if intentional, he must tear it out. In the Sabbatical year, he must tear it out whether [planting was] unintentional or intentional. Rebbi Jehudah says, it is the other way around. In the Sabbatical, if unintentional, he may keep it, if intentional, he must tear it out, on the Sabbath he must tear it out whether [planting was] unintentional or intentional because the profit of the Sabbath [is forbidden] to him.” And here, since you say that after the end of the Sabbath he has to wait until the time it could have been done, he did not gain anything from the Sabbath. What is the reason of the rabbis⁸⁴The anonymous opinion in the Tosephta.? People are suspected about the Sabbatical but not about the Sabbath. Another explanation: One counts Sabbaticals, one does not count Sabbaths⁸⁵Since the fruits of trees are forbidden the first three years as ‘orlah and must be redeemed in the fourth year, everybody will realize that the tree was illegally planted in the Sabbatical.. What is this about? If somebody planted less than thirty days before the Sabbatical and now it is the Sabbatical, if it is because of suspicion, there is no suspicion; if it is for counting, it is counted⁸⁶The first year of ‘orlah is the Sabbatical, the 30 days are not counted; cf. Ševi‘it 2:6, Mishnah and Note 45.. Less than thirty days before the eighth year and now it is the eighth year, if it is because of suspicion, there is suspicion; can it be explained for counting⁸⁷Since the first year counted is the first year of the Sabbatical cycle, nobody will notice that the tree was planted in the last month of the Sabbatical.? But you have to say because of suspicion; they fined for the unintentional because of the intentional⁸⁸A reason usually attributed to R. Meïr, cf. Orlah 3:7. The text of the last clause in Šabbat is longer but the formulation here seems to be the original one..