משנה: וְתוֹרְמִין זֵיתֵי שֶׁמֶן עַל זֵיתֵי כֶבֶשׁ וְלֹא זֵיתֵי כֶבֶשׁ עַל זֵיתֵי שֶׁמֶן. וְיַיִן שֶׁאֵינוֹ מְבוּשָּׁל עַל הַמְבוּשָׁל וְלֹא מִן הַמְבוּשָׁל עַל שֶׁאֵינוֹ מְבוּשָּׁל. זֶה הַכְּלָל כָּל־שֶׁהוּא כִלְאַיִם בַּחֲבֵירוֹ לֹא יִתְרוֹם מִזֶּה עַל זֶה אֲפִילוּ מִן הַיָּפֶה עַל הָרַע. וְכָל־שֶׁאֵינוֹ כִלְאַיִם בַּחֲבֵירוֹ תּוֹרֵם מִן הַיָּפֶה עַל הָרַע אֲבָל לֹא מִן הָרַע עַל הַיָּפֶה וְאִם תָּרַם מִן הָרַע עַל הַיָּפֶה תְּרוּמָתוֹ תְרוּמָה חוּץ מִן הַזְּוָנִים עַל הַחִיטִּים שֶׁאֵינָן אוֹכֶל. וְהַקִּישׁוּת וְהַמְּלַפֶּפּוֹן מִין אֶחָד. רִבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר שְׁנֵי מִינִין. MISHNAH: Also, one may give oil olives as heave for pickling olives but not pickling olives for oil olives, uncooked wine for cooked wine but not cooked wine for uncooked wine112Olives chosen for pickling are those with too little oil for pressing. Cooked wine has lost its alcohol but became sweet.. This is the rule: All that is kilaim with another kind, one may not give as heave one for the other, not even good for bad. But all that is not kilaim with another kind, one may give the good as heave for the bad but not the bad for the good; if he gave bad for good, his heave is heave except for zĕwānîn113Kilaim Chapter 1, Note 1. for wheat because they are not food. Green melons and sweet melons114Kilaim Chapter 1, Notes 38,39. As noted in the Halakhah, the last statement is redundant. are one kind; Rebbi Jehudah says two kinds.
הלכה: אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן דְּרִבִּי יוּדָה הִיא רִבִּי יוּדָה מַתִּיר מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהוּא מַשְׁבִּיחוֹ. וְאָמַר רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן מִחְלְפָא שִׁיטָּתֵיהּ דְּרִבִּי יוּדָה. רִבִּי לָֽעְזָר אָמַר אֵינָהּ מִחְלְפָה תַּמָּן בְּכֹהֵן וְכָאן בִּבְעָלִים. רִבִּי אֶלְעָזָר וְרִבִּי יוֹחָנָן חָד אָמַר מִפְּנֵי שֶׁמְּמַעֲטוֹ מִשּׁוֹתָיו וְחָד אָמַר מִפְּנֵי שֶׁמְּמַעֲטוֹ מִמִּידָּתוֹ וְלֹא יָֽדְעִין מָאן אָמַר דָּא וּמָאן אָמַר דָּא. מִן מַה דְּאָמַר רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן מִחְלְפָא שִׁיטָּתֵיהּ דְּרִבִּי יוּדָה וְאָמַר רִבִּי אֶלְעָזָר אֵינָהּ מוּחְלֶפֶת תַּמָּן בְּכֹהֵן וְכָאן בִּבְעָלִים הֲוֵי רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן דְּהוּא אָמַר מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהוּא מְמַעֲטוֹ מִשּׁוֹתָיו. רִבִּי יְהוּדָה בֶּן רִבִּי אִימִּי בְּשֵׁם רֵישׁ לָקִישׁ מִפְּנֵי שֶׁמְּמַעֲטוֹ מִשּׁוֹתָיו. מַתְנִיתָא פְלִיגָא עַל רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן וְאַף מִשֶׁאֵינוֹ מְבוּשָּׁל עַל הַמְּבוּשָׁל וְכָל־שֶׁכֵּן מֵהַמְּבוּשָׁל עַל שֶׁאֵינוֹ מְבוּשָּׁל. אָמַר רִבִּי אִימִּי לֹא תַנֵּי רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן. HALAKHAH: Rebbi Joḥanan said, [the Mishnah] is Rebbi Jehudah’s. “Rebbi Jehudah permits since he improves it116Mishnah 11:1: “One may not cook heave wine because he diminishes its volume; Rebbi Jehudah permits since he improves it.” Since R. Jehudah is not recorded as protesting the rule that cooked wine may not be given for uncooked, it follows that the first part of the Mishnah must be acceptable to R. Jehudah. In slightly shortened form, this paragraph is also in Halakhah 11:1..” On this, Rebbi Joḥanan said, Rebbi Jehudah inverted his reasoning117R. Salomo ben Adrat (Responsa, vol. 1, #24; Responsa ascribed to Naḥmanides, #190) explains that R. Joḥanan insists that Mishnah 11:1 must read: “Rebbi Jehudah says, one may not cook heave wine because he diminishes its volume; the Sages permit since he improves it.” This is difficult to accept since the Yerushalmi elsewhere (e. g., Ševi‘it Chapter 8, Note 35) accepts Mishnah 11:1 in its original form. Therefore, it seems that R. Joḥanan sees a real inconsistency in the positions of R. Jehudah.. Rebbi Eleazar said, Rebbi Jehudah did not invert his reasoning, there for the Cohen, here for the owners118The Cohen may drink his heave wine in any way he wishes. R. Joḥanan rejects the distinction made by R. Eleazar; Mishnah 11:1 also applies to the vintner and we have to find out why R. Jehudah does not allow him to cook the wine.. Rebbi Eleazar and Rebbi Joḥanan, one of them said because he reduces the number of drinkers, the other says because he diminishes its volume. We did not know who said what. Since Rebbi Joḥanan said, Rebbi Jehudah inverted his reasoning but Rebbi Eleazar said, Rebbi Jehudah did not invert his reasoning, there for the Cohen, here for the owners, it follows that Rebbi Joḥanan said because he reduces the number of drinkers119Since cooked wine is not to everybody’s taste, the vintner might have difficulty in finding a Cohen willing to drink his heave and the heave might have to be destroyed. There is no problem for R. Eleazar since according to him, the Cohen cooks his own drink.. A baraita disagrees with Rebbi Joḥanan: “Even from uncooked for cooked and certainly from cooked for uncooked120This baraita is not recorded elsewhere; in the Tosephta (4:4) Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel permits cooked to be given for uncooked but only as second choice. R. Joḥanan declares the baraita invalid..” Rebbi Immi said, Rebbi Joḥanan did not state that.
אָמַר רִבִּי בּוּן בַּר כַּהֲנָא בְשֵׁם רִבִּי הִילָא וְלֹא תִשְׂאוּ עָלָיו חֵטְא מִמָּה שֶׁהוּא בִנְשִׂיאַת עָוֹן אַתָּה יוֹדֵעַ מַה שֶׁעָשָׂה עָשׂוּי. Rebbi Abun bar Cahana said in the name of Rebbi Hila (Num. 18:32): “You should not carry sin because of it.” Since he is subject to carrying sin, you know that what he did is valid122The verse declares irregularities in giving heaves as sinful. If irregularly given heave were invalid, it would not be considered given and its giver could not incur sin. This argument is also accepted in Babli Baba Batra 143b..
הָא דָבָר שֶׁהוּא אוֹכֶל מוּתָּר. Hence, something that is food is permitted123This refers to the Mishnah, that zewanin are unacceptable since they are not human food..
מַתְנִיתִין דְּרִבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל בֵּי רִבִּי יוֹסֵי. דְּאָמַר רִבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל בֵּי רִבִּי יוֹסֵי מִשּׁוּם אָבִיו תּוֹרְמִין מִן הַיַּיִן עַל הַחוֹמֶץ אֲבָל לֹא מִן הַחוֹמֶץ עַל הַיַּיִן. עָבַר וְתָרַם תְּרוּמָתוֹ תְרוּמָה. רִבִּי אוֹמֵר יַיִן וְחוֹמֶץ שְׁנֵי מִינִין אֵין תּוֹרְמִין וְלֹא מְעַשְּׂרִין מִזֶּה עַל זֶה. אָמַר רִבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בֶּן לֵוִי מִסְתַּבְּרָה יוֹדֶה רִבִּי לִדְבַר תּוֹרָה. מַה טַעֲמָא דְרִבִּי שֶׁאִם אוֹמֵר אַתְּ כֵּן שֶׁמּוּתָּר לִתְרוֹם מִן הַיַּיִן עַל הַחוֹמֶץ אַף הוּא סָבַר מֵימַר שֶׁמּוּתָּר לִתְרוֹם חוֹמֶץ עַל הִיַּיִן. Our Mishnah is from Rebbi Ismael ben Rebbi Yose, as it was stated124The statement of R. Ismael ben R. Yose is in Tosephta 4:6; the statement is quoted in Kilaim 1:1, Note 21.: “Rebbi Ismael ben Rebbi Yose says in the name of his father that one may take heave from wine for vinegar but not from vinegar for wine. If somebody transgressed, his heave is heave. Rebbi says that wine and vinegar are two distinct kinds and one does not give heave nor does one tithe from one for the other.” Rebbi Joshua ben Levi said, it seems that Rebbi would agree as to biblical law125That one may give heave from good wine for bad vinegar. He forbids it because giving from vinegar for wine is sinful.. What is Rebbi’s reason? If you say so, that one may give heave of wine for vinegar, he will think that one is permitted to give vinegar for wine.
הַקִּישּׁוּת וְהַמְּלַפֶּפּוֹן מִין אֶחָד. רִבִּי יוּדָה אָמַר שְׁנֵי מִינִין. רִבִּי יוּדָה כְדַעְתֵּיהּ וְרַבָּנִין כְּדַעְתֵּין דְּתַנִּינָן תַּמָּן. הַקִּישּׁוּת וְהַמֵּלָפֶּפּוֹן אֵינָן כִּלְאַיִם זֶה בְזֶה. רִבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר כִּלְאַיִם. “Green melons and sweet melons114Kilaim Chapter 1, Notes 38,39. As noted in the Halakhah, the last statement is redundant. are one kind; Rebbi Jehudah says two kinds.” Rebbi Jehudah keeps to his opinion, the rabbis keep to their opinion, as we have stated (Mishnah Kilaim 1:2): “Green melon and sweet melon are not kilaim one with the other. Rebbi Jehudah says, they are kilaim.”