•>w pD πονιηπ

inw^i wpini πγρο )yi»n οη^νατη npmriri :h nive (foi. 64c)

ililö] π^·>η-) pyiyoi ΠΝΚ» tn^? ιτρ ·>υ?·>) in·) on-tb

.nwvQ? ρ ρκψ no •ms'iii ruoi-upi tow n.D

Mishnah 1: For heave and First Fruits one incurs the penalty of death1 or a fine of a fifth2; they are forbidden to lay persons, are Cohen's property3, may be lifted by one in 100, need washing of the hands4 and sundown5. This applies to heave and First Fruits but not to tithe6.

1 Eating them in impurity is a always impure in the second degree deadly sin. unless washed and watched after 2 If misappropriated, the cleansing. Since heave and First Fruits restitution must be 125% of what was can become impure in the third degree, taken; cf. 6, Note 1. touching heave or First Fruits with 3 They might be traded from one unwashed hands makes them unusable. Cohen to another and a Cohen may use 5 An impure person who cleansed them as gifts to marry a wife since, himself by immersion in a miqweh is no even if she was a lay person before, longer impure, but he becomes pure for she becomes a member of the Cohen's hallowed food only at sundown, cf. family by marriage and may eat heave Terumot 5, Note 68. and First Fruits. 6 First of which heave of the 4 By rabbinic practice, hands are tithe was taken is totally profane.

Γηρψ» JUS >rtro rnn i>ri3 .'^ID "inis^n·! npm^n :n mbn vty i>rp-r rupnip .m^ani nnn^n ηίηηη ^πψ /»πίηη^ 590 CHAPTER TWO i!?>n n)a\j> n^irn D>TO'?ri .im^n? >? io in»! Non

.-mp mron o>\?niia w .qi»» Ni\pn ^an ni?!?"! i>rp·} on^an

.npi inn-! no \y> >?") .o'vy-Ti?! rro-! DJVÖ Νπη .o^vn;?? rno :i>xp

^»ψ nrpp ο^Γΐψ1) .rn^n? π» m\y o'wrpri^ N7? o>3iovy> .Γφη!?ψ rm>n .mTini nnw^n DJVÖ .N>a3n

Halakhah 1: "For heave and First Fruits," etc. It is written {Num.

18.8): "Behold, I gave to you the watch over My heaves." Two heaves, heave and First Fruits7. About heave it is written8 (Lev. 22:9): "They should not carry sin because of it and die if they desecrate it." First fruits as it is written (Deut. 12:6): "There you shall bring your elevation offerings," these are First Fruits, as it is written {Deut. 26:4): "The Cohen shall take the basket from your hand.9"

Maybe we should say that the verse10 refers to sacrifices? Extirpation is already written in regard to sacrifices11.

Should sacrifices be subject to death and extirpation? Can somebody die and die again? As we have stated12: "If somebody dies at age 50, he dies of extirpation. At 52, the death of the prophet . At 60, it is the death written in the . At 70, a death of love. At 80, death of old age. After that, a life of suffering."

7 In the Babli (Sabbat 25a, 26a; autochthonous Babylonian tradition. In Yebamot 74a; and in slightly different the Yerushalmi tradition, the verse form 34a), the two heaves are determines the rules of First Fruits as pure and impure (or pure and quest- those of heave. ionable), respectively. That tradition is 8 The paragraph deals with the in the name of the Davidic Rabba bar prohibition of impure hallowed food. Abuha and may represent the 9 This statement is fragmentary HALAKHAH 1 591 and unintelligible in the form pre- 11 Lev. 22:3 imposes the penalty of sented. The full text is in Sifry Deut. extirpation on any Cohen coming close 63: There you shall bring your elevation to sacrifices while impure. offerings, private and public, your well- Traditionally, extirpation is considered being offerings, private and public, more of a punishment than death by your ; R. Aqiba said, the verse the hand of Heaven. deals with two different tithes, grain 12 A slightly extended form in tithes and animal tithes, and your Semahot 3:8. The main change is in the hand's heaves, these are First Fruits, as first clause: "if somebody dies up to age it is written: The Cohen shall take the 50." In the Babli, Mo'ed Qatan 28a, the basket from your hand. Other heaves text "at 60", is corrected to read "from do not have to be brought to the 50 to 60" and the note on life after 80 Temple. is missing.

10 Lev. 22:9 which imposes death The following paragraphs discuss by the hand of Heaven for desecrators. this statement.

Tiis innpri bN .rn.3>n:a rin D'wpqb nn u?·»« jvpq np ropnbw *m onl? i\yy .im»> n!?i i>ni ort? wy dn>i 'in >i!?n riinawn τ'τ - : ν TT VT τ τ : ν τ ... - nis V^i? πίκ-ι> iNin> Ν!?Ι a>rpi .ο'γπ^η nra» iov>>y υιη ιΟψ

•'Träift iwj row ο'ψρΓ) ΐ3)3ΐ a>3i?i ,ιηοι ντρρη

Nil .nw cpyayj ora ι^Γΐίίψ .ion ρ rb y»\i> liano cnnirt riön ιηίΝ tin*»?} .ρπ-ρ! pvöiy ρτ ri>a ρκψ nw οηψν ιηο

.rn^rn η» row D'wnrte

From where do you understand that if somebody dies at age 50, he dies of extirpation? It is written (Num. 4:18-19): "Do not extirpate the tribe of the families of (Levi), etc. Do the following for them that they should live and not die." Organize them that they should not enjoy seeing the holiest of holies. And it is written (Num. 4:20): "They should not come to look, when the holies are wrapped, and die." And it is written (Num. 8:25): 592 BIKKURIM CHAPTER TWO

"At age 50, he should retire from the work force." Rebbi Abin, the son of Rebbi Tanhum ben Rebbi Tryphon, understood it from here (Ps. 90:10): "The days of our lives here are 70 years." Subtract from these 20 years during which the Heavenly Court does neither punish not extirpate13, and you will find that one who dies at up to 50 years dies in extirpation.

13 This tradition is also in the older than 20 were punished. One has Babli, Sabbat 89b. While a male to assume that until then the parents becomes a full member of the religious are not absolved from responsibility community at age 13, a female at age for their children. 12, they are treated as adults before Neither "proof" has any logical the Heavenly court only at age 20 since consistency. in the story of the spies only the men

,·>33 N3N '1*1 ,Ν>23ΓΙ ^Νψ ΓΙΓίη? Ο'ΓίψΙ mn ο>Γΐ3"ψ -α*!1» η>η> i^rlm ,η> own *τν D\y avyv) moNvy vn'i mipp nri^flm rimnvy >*p by τ - τ : τ : IT ·· : : ν τ τ : τ : ' · τ τ τ : · ν ·· : row D>\y»p Ί^ νη^Ί row o>vy»D Ν1?^ Ίϊ?^ iö^iv Τ»Ν Ν'^ΓΠ .o!?iy •pa >a-va 'pv ΙΏΝ ."rnrn ρψρη ή!?! "&Ί .ιη^ψ ο'Γίψι "At 52, the death of the prophet Saul14." Rebbi Abba the son of Rebbi Pappai in15 the name of Rebbi Levi; Rebbi Joshua from Sikhnin in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi (Prov. 14:23): "From all toil there will be gain but from talk of lips only want." Hannah, because she prayed too much, shortened Samuel's life, since she said (IS. 1:22): "He shall dwell there forever.16" But the "forever" of a is only 50 years, as it is written {Num. 8:25): "At the age of 50 years he shall retire from the workforce.17" But this one lived 52 years? Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, two years until she weaned him. HALAKHAH 1 593

14 Error for "Samuel", found haired." uncorrected in ms. and the editio 15 An Amora of the fifth Galilean princeps. The tradition is from Seder generation, usually reporting sayings of 'Olam 13 (cf. the author's edition, R. Levi. Northvale N.J. 1998, pp. 129-135) and is 16 However, this statement is not reported in the Babli Ta'anit 5b, Mo'ed part of Hannah's prayer but her argu- Qatan 28a. The material is Tannaitic in ment to her husband. Samuel was a Seder 'Olam and the Babli, a further Levite from the family of Gersom argument that Seder 'Olam is a com- (.IChr. 6:13). pilation of the Babylonian academies. 17 In verse 8:26 it is stated that the Samuel at his retirement describes retired Levite may continue as a watch- himself (IS. 12:2) as "old and white- man.

i'jp ,νπν ι? >1-) ow} rpp^n .rnira rnioyin rm>p o>vyvy>

on*»» trnsy rvan .'w γκπ jnri -ό^η n!wn d>\wn:i \y>N γιν-ρ dn • - : • · τ τ ν 'τ ·. - - - ν - ^ τ τ - ν ·· τ · τ -: τ nan -ΙΟΊΝ ΓΙΝ*>?? .rijoi row n>va-»N 13701 rwy tiV! row οηψ}> 13

.up νίιπ .mim miöNn rm>» nw D'vyvyi» ν »τ •· - ν τ τ - τ τ τ ττ · · s

"At 60, it is the death written in the Torah18." Rebbi Hizqiah in the name of Rebbi Jacob bar Aha: It is written (Deut. 1:35): "If any male among these people, this evil generation, should see." Think of it, if anybody left Egypt at age 20 and then was in the desert for 40 years when he died, you find that the death written in the Torah is at age 60.

And it is written {Job. 5:26): "You shall come into your grave bklh19."

18 As punishment. things. The Babli, Mo'ed Qatan 28a, 19 The word appears twice in quotes only this verse as proof and Job, its etymology is unknown. The notes that the (Alexandrian) numerical corresponding Arabic ςΐί" means value of n'jia is 60. This seems to be "having a stern countenance" as applied the interpretation here also, the Yeru- to people but "being shiny, bright" for shalmi being the source of the Babli. 594 BIKKURIM CHAPTER TWO rm'tt D'iinw!? .row o>ya\y DO? υ^τιύψ .na>n>w nrp» o>ya\y>

τπ> iniN "^"»a ·η3Ψ ni-na?a on) ηο^ίψ .riij

y-p aio pa vino ovn row (foi. 64d) ο>3ίοψ

At 70, a death of love. (Ps. 90:10): "The days of our lives are then 70 years." At 80, death of old age, as it is said: "At most, 80 years." Also thus Barzilai20 said to David (2S. 19:36): "I am today 80 years of age, do I still know good from bad?"

20 In verse 33, he is described as "extremely old, 80 years of age."

ηψνΐ V^V* HO an inN rnsvia Νΐηψ lai nwj» row cpvy>?D

ipt -inw OippriK ia rij^n >a*i .nn ϊαΝ TWO "pyi κιηψ -αϊ riawn Jiis ^ηψ IN Nin? .ηη?^? wn^ wyniö PI a>nn ri2S

γιγρ» tpivyb .oytbvy nn>« *τπν ovb non n!?n .msvia nn τ · - : • - : ν τ τν s .. - ... τ .. .. τ . . D'jwa *rriNa ηκ> .i'wvy ia Nn3l?n υπ .naaoa nn πνϊνϊ .nbnabw • - : · τ ν : τ I ν τ : - -: .... - τ .. _ _ .. τ . . τ τ ..

Λΐί* ΙΤΪ .nanr) rijvp nwppb nya-iN> .rm>na 7w!?y>a

.•p*V)t>»a no ·)3>» .na>n!?w ruvp nya\y>

If he had passed22 the age of 50 and did something punishable by extirpation, is he truly very happy23? If he had passed the age of 60 and did something punishable by death24, can he truly be happy? It was stated:

Rebbi Hanina ben Antigonos said, if an old man ate fat, who will show us that he is subject to extirpation? As we have stated, or if he desecrated the Sabbath25 he dies by extirpation. But it must be the following26: He who dies in one day dies by rage, in two by urgency, in three by plague.

Rebbi Halafta ben Shaul stated: He who dies in one, two, three [days], dies by extirpation. Four or five is a hurried death, six a usual death, seven a death of love, longer he dies in pain27. HALAKHAH 1 595

21 Identifying 1BK and with all 25 In case there are no witnesses commentators. It is generally that the perpetrator had been duly recognized that » had disappeared warned (cf. Kilaim 8, Note 9), the from speech long before the Amoraic punishment is in the hand of Heaven. period; it appears in the Talmudim only The basis of this statement is Ex. 34:14 as historical spelling. But that /3/ = /b/ which decrees the judicial death is not usually recognized, though it penalty for the person who publicly appears, e. g., in "?OBD = subsellium. desecrates the Sabbath and extirpation 23 Most commentators change "?3X for doing work on the Sabbath. into VJX without gaining anything. The 26 Also stated in Semahot 3:9. In meaning of "?3X here is standard the Babli, Mo'ed Qatan 28a, the person Mishnaic: "truly". If the punishment for who dies after 5 days of illness dies a a crime punishable by extirpation is normal death. death before age 50, is punishment 27 His soul avoids punishment by waved for persons over age 50? the Heavenly Court since he was made 24 Death by Heaven's action. to suffer on Earth.

ΙΓΏΝ fin? -a .naj^a nn n« ίφϊ? γρ»Ο ΓΙ» nbri ,nb»i riis * «μ'ΐ o>n»ri ro/ψν? ·>ηη vrn 'rvj n>y>?\y ΊΏΝ oy ίΟψ i^iN n^w nid vmpn ü?

15 o\i>5 "an >ΐΊ .naaea n»i D'p> ηψ!?ψ τίν pnsn

^NA VMPN Η!?Π .O>»>N ΠΊΨ^? INS ρκ CPÖ> ΤΙΗΨΝ^

NOW DVYIAOO DI> VI> ROWN ΝΫΊΌ •PAY O>>?> RN/YV? RNWY NID

,ηψν Ν!?Ί niwjp What did you see to assert that he who dies in three days dies from the plague28? Hilfai the grandson of Rebbi said, I heard the voice of my grandfather29 who preached (IS. 25:38): "It was like the ten days that the Eternal smote Nabal and he died." The Holy One, praise to Him, suspended His judgment during the seven days of mourning for Samuel30, that mourning for him and for the just person should not overlap; then he 596 BIKKURIM CHAPTER TWO lingered another three days and died. Rebbi Haggai in the name of Rebbi

Samuel bar Nahman: It is not written "after ten days" but "like the ten days"; The Holy One, praise to Him, suspended His judgment for ten days, like the Ten Days between New Year's Day and the Day of Atonement31, that he should repent, but he did not.

28 In the Babli (loc. cit. 26), death compilation of excerpts, without from the plague is within one day, editorial comments, is almost a ms. based on Ez. 24:18. witness.) 29 Reading with Midras Semuel In the Babli, Ros Hassanah 18a, 23[9] 'ae for ότ. The passage is quoted only the explanation of R. Haggai is in Midras Soher Tob in the name of R. given but by Rav Jehudah in the name Hoshaia, in Yalqut Sim'oni 2 #705 in the of Rav; copied in Yalqut Sim'oni 2 #134. name of R. Halaphta in the name of R. 30 Noted in IS. 25:1. Abbahu. (Yalqut Sim'oni, being a 31 The Days of Repentance.

Ι» ήν? .η>?ηπ it i?N\y ϊογ)3

DDi-in ioNvy it ·ρην dwi n»n m .i»:>yn p>osn * on mb nm τ - τ τ 'τ τ · *· : τ ·τ : · τ ' · : · · -: - τ iONyj lino ,ήτη ηηνυρ >>?ίΝ ,·)3πν ^»pp Ντνοπη .njvn -p^a

ΉΝ^ ."tino I?DN\Y ΝΟΟΙ .NÖO !?0NVY linoi .NÖO IONW NOOI ,-iino ' -: τ τ -τ·.· •• τ : ·· τ - τ τ : τ ~ τ ν •· τ : τ i?DNvy -lino .iriiisns ->ino ^dnw -ήηο .o>3nbi nomn ^DiN .nn>» - τ ν τ τ : • : τ - τ ·.· τ · -: τ τ

η>»η ηη .n"\yyn ΗΪΖ Ν»Ο IONW NÖOI -ιίηο !?3Ν\!> Ν»Ο .nvwa NÖO • -: - ν - --τ - τ ·· τ : τ - τ ·· τ .. «ε.- .. τ ρ !?ΟΝ> -ΙΠΝΙ bön NA ·>ΖΊ ΊΟΝ .nwya NÖO ioN\y -ιίηο -i»>n ι · - - - : TT - τ - τ •· - ·· τ - τ ν τ - nwv niD» Νΐ Νΐηψ ηψνιι .pNnon ·)» ρ-ιίηοη ι» .ο>ν!Πί3η

.Nin DW

Cahana asked Rebbi Zeira32: A layman who ate heave? He said to him, it is a deadly sin. After he had prayed, he said to him (Lev. 22:3): "I am the Eternal" closed the statement33. Rebbi Hiyya in the name of Rebbi

Johanan: A layman who ate heave committed a deadly sin34. A baraita HALAKHAH 1 597 supports Rebbi Johanan: "Those who eat heave intentionally35, whether pure [person] eating pure [heave], or impure eating impure, or pure eating impure, or impure eating pure, have commited a deadly sin. Cohanim eating heave, pure [person] eating pure [heave] fulfills its commandment; pure eating impure [has violated] a positive commandment; impure eating pure or impure eating impure [has violated] a prohibition. What did you see to say that a pure [person] eating impure [heave has violated] a positive commandment? Rebbi Abba bar Mamal said, (Lev. 22:7) "Afterwards he shall eat of the hallowed [food]", of what is pure but not of what is impure. Any prohibition which is implied by a positive commandment has the status of a positive commandment36.

32 Since Cahana preceded R. Lev. 22:10. For R. Zeira it is a simple by at least one generation, the text is violation; for R. Johanan it falls under impossible. Later (Note 42) the the punishment stated in verse 3. statement is referred to as Rav's. Since 35 In the Constantinople print:

Rav was teacher and colleague of DOTS Π»ΊΊΠ 'Vais "lay persons eating Cahana, one has to read "Rav" instead heave". of "R. Zeüra". 36 This is generally accepted also 33 Lev. 22 deals with the rules of in the Babli (e. g„ Yebamot 54b,73b; heave. In verse 3, Cohanim are Pesahim 71b; Zebahim 34a, Hulin 81a). subjected to the penalty of extirpartion The proof is in the next paragraph. for neglecting the rules of impurity. The transgression of a positive This verse closes with the remark "I am commandment is not prosecutable by a the Eternal", which usually appears at human court; the violation of a the conclusion of a commandment. R. prohibition is.

Zeira (Rav) concludes that no penalty The distinction between pure and has been spelled out for the rules given impure food is read into the verse since in verses 4 ff. 1» "of" is partitive; there must be a 34 The prohibition is spelled out category which is not included. 598 BIKKURIM CHAPTER TWO pN ΐ!7?ΚΓ1 ηψι^ψί?·) -)>33p Ü7 ν»ψ)0)ρ .Ν^ΙΪ* DON

N!?·) nvyv ·)ΓΙ>> .Ί^ονπ Nb "vsoo ^ V*

ηπ .Nin a^ri? rnr) n'!? νγι .rpJpT v?? ,D>Npvpn ty nv^ri

.Nin nwv nwy row NI Νΐηψ nwyn N'b-!??

Rebbi Avina37 said: Would one not understand that, since it is said

(Lev. 11:9): "Any [creature in the water] having fins and scales you shall eat" we know that any creature having no fins and scales you shall not eat. To give both positive commandment and prohibition on the impure.

Because it38 is written. If it were not written, it would be a positive commandment. Therefore, any prohibition which is implied by a positive commandment has the status of a positive commandment39.

37 In the Babli, Hulin 67b, the who never eats fish transgresses the argument, in different style, is declared positive commandment of v. 9. to be tannai'tic; the same in Therefore, the positive formulation Semini Parasa 3(1) in a text closely must have a negative implication. The parallel to the Yerushalmi. eater of seafood is obligated for a 38 The prohibition "any having no purification offering as atonement for fins or scales you shall not eat" is the violation of the prohibition and an spelled out in Lev. 11:10. elevation offering for the violation of 39 It is impossible to say that a Jew the positive commandment.

tinuτ m- : N»o•·τ-n Ρin sτ .i-j^dnν -ί ' TOτ: - -linoτ-m: ν»ο·• τπ - Ν3τΠ τ ί'» - ni?τ VMr - τ ΗΌ·>ττ ·>ΆΊ··

- πηΝ rnTVi?a V>?iN -ήηοη ! Νρ\?Ό ν* ηιοηπι ,πηΝ mTyi?a ρ!??ίΝ

ΊψΝΙ "IWin-! 11D V?3 VN Νη» ·)ίην '1-1 Ί«Ν

>DN> Nb NOO"!7Da y-P ·· τ •· "τ τ ·. r - ·

Rebbi Assi understood it from the following (Deut. 12:22): "The impure and the pure shall eat it together." Here, the impure and the pure shall eat it40 from the same platter, but heave the impure and the pure may not eat HALAKHAH 1 599 from the same platter. About sacrifices41? Rebbi Johanan ben Marius said, if about sacrifices it is already written {Lev. 7:19): "Meat touching anything impure may not be eaten.42"

40 Profane meat slaughtered away cannot be directed towards sacrifices from the sanctuary. but towards sanctified food eaten away 41 The verse points out the differ- from the sanctuary. This can only ence between profane and sacrifice mean heave since the prohibition of meat. impure sacrificial meat is already in 42 While verse 12:22 may also Lev. 7:19. apply to sacrifices, its main emphasis

vö -ma .rm>n VTi^ani rinmriri .11 Ksn^aapio

vn*!? .70 -ma .oorpa vypin Φ >?"! .wpin i^iri Nm .o>3rp3

,·|3Γ0> N^^pp Ν^Ρ"! ΠΡίΓρΐ ΗψΊ .NTPi^g

riina rö iris .ont> ν*νιο>ο

The disagrees with Rav43: "For heave and First Fruits one is liable to penalty of death." He explains it, for Cohanim44. But did we not state: "fifth"? Is there a fifth for Cohanim45? He explains that the Mishnah is case by case. The first clause for Cohanim, the last for . Does the Mishnah support Rebbi Johanan: "They are forbidden to lay persons"?46 He explains it, less than a legal quantity47.

43 He denies that lay persons eat- 22:14. ing heave incur a deadly guilt, cf. Note 46 If the Mishnah disagrees with 32. Rav, it should support R. Johanan. But 44 Since this is explicit in Lev. 22:3, for him it is not necessary to state the one would not need a Mishnah. prohibition to lay persons separately; it 45 The duty of restitution of 125% is included in the cases where mis- is restricted to lay persons by Lev. handling heave and First Fruits is a 600 BIKKURIM CHAPTER TWO deadly sin! rifice; therefore it is assumed that the 47 Mishandling a minute quantity Heavenly Court will not treat this as a of hallowed food is not prosecutable by deadly sin. a human court or atonable by a sac-

,πηψ»> vririi .ijnv own n^n NI >:n "ΙΓό in·) va iniN .nptnni? nnwnt? nnwöb ,n!m:t!? nnwob I·· ·· · · τ 'τ τ:-: τ:τ: τ·· τ:τ: τ :· τ : τ :

-pyig .i3)3p Ί^ην >3Ί oyn ιγών .oninv? Ρ3 ο>ν»ο

13)30 Η1? 1ÖÜ7 Tlölpri ΛΖ ΡΡ>>7£ NiPVW

.Ν)?\?>3ψ Yvyyn IV?? Ciip^? iN N'^i Ni7 .ν?η invrab

.bbn ni^r p-psu? <ρκ rmn> nm

"They are the Cohen's property." Rebbi Abba, Rebbi Hiyya in the name of Rebbi Johanan {Num. 18: 8): "To you I gave it48 as moshä." As moshä, for importance49. As moshä, for anointing. As moshä, as fuel50.

I would say, both for impure and pure. Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Johanan, (Deut. 26:14) "I did not burn any of it51," but one liquidates heave in impurity. Rebbi Zeira in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: From where for proper which became impure that one may not use it as fuel? The verse says, "I did not burn any of it in impurity". One may redeem it and you are saying this52? One may only interpret it as referring to what was bought with Second Tithe money53. Rebbi Jehudah said54, but for First Fruits which became impure it is the opinion of everybody.

48 In the verse n*nnj "I gave them." 50 In Aramaic, nu>a is "oil". 49 The root being nvn "to anoint" 51 The declaration at the distrib- as symbol of elevation. ution of the tithe of the poor and the HALAKHAH 1 601 consumption of Second Tithe in fuel.

Jerusalem, including a reference to 53 In this case, R. Jehudah holds in First Fruits. There is a difference in Mishnah Ma'aser Seni 3:10 that pro- rules between heave and First Fruits in duce bought with tithe money in this respect. which became impure cannot

The argument as reported in Babli be redeemed but must be buried. Yebamot 73b is to take una as partitive: 54 The statement is an Amoraic This hallowed food cannot be burned interpretation of what R. Jehudah but other (heave) can. might have said, that Mishnah 52 Since Second Tithe may always Bikkurim 1:8 implies that impure First be redeemed for money, impure Second Fruits must be destroyed even for those Tithe is redeemed and becomes totally who permit redemption of fruits profane. It may be burned as profane bought with tithe money.

.-ivyyo? 1? "ρΝψ η» -p-vo'iii nion^i nr)

"w^Eti VN vnip>i ripm^·! .-fvyy»!?1) V^rtj»

•pyo •Vwyari -ikpjh in ^ni "P^o n?™ nyrn "pyo

•)5>2>ri ·))3Γΐ .iwn ^O"! "py\? γπ "Μ^ίΠ ID -^ΟΊ nön^n ms ^ciai vy^ipri m nöo)ρ nyp? ο>» τινή •pyvpn-!??

ν'!?ι p-ioiN o>pDrp_ "w» ηηι "Vvyypni irnoi

ίου ."Vvyp? τηυίΝ o>nDrp_ ^nn ,rnT>y\ owa ^κιηψ "ιώνι

ID ri^iii -pyo "'VVöti "U^iTT ID ."pi:? "» ">vyyö:a nsin nid nid N'b ,ya>> nsi-a nyrn γινο ">V^>?0 PN "»»'in ri£n?:i dwo nnn^ Φ p-j .ropn^ "i^rim n^'oo own n!w yp1?

N'b νπίρη wya^ "plpin") .w-ppn wyiy v^n:; tpP

•>N .pns 'IT? -rtyb >N >a-p -ιπα'π on "p^n?

•VN» Dwo iniN Ί? Ίίνρψ "»ari^r "rtybN 15 "pypvy

15>3Ti'7 ρίτ* .nnnjp!? rtrowi p>in> n!?>n^ onjn piis ·>ΆΊ·>Ά V^n? nr) vy-ppri !?y wya^ pbin·) ·)»γι

,-τηκ !?ioa>·) α^ψ νώο> ηοητρ ηη ιαίΝ 602 BIKKURIM CHAPTER TWO

55"This applies to heave and First Fruits but not to tithe." There56, we have stated: "One washes his hands for profane, tithe, and heave; but for sacrifices one immerses57." There58, you say that tithe does not need washing and here you say, tithe needs washing! Those who say, tithe needs washing, the rabbis; he who says, tithe does not need washing, Rebbi Meir. There59, we have stated: "Anything needing immersion in water by rabbinic decree60 makes sacrifices impure and heave unusable61 but is permitted for profane food and tithe. But the Sages forbid for tithe62." Is that not explained by what Rebbi Samuel says in the name of Rebbi Zeira, what means the Sages forbid for tithe? His body is disqualified from eating tithe. What is that? May you say tithe needs washing, if he wants to eat; may you say tithe does not need washing, if he wants to touch? No, wanting to touch is the same as wanting to eat63. So it must be washing as discipline64. But we have stated: "heave"! Is there washing as discipline for heave65? But it is about profane food prepared by the rules of sacrifices66. Is profane food prepared by the rules of sacrifices not profane? Explain it either67 following Rebbi Simeon ben Eleazar or following Rebbi Eleazar ben Rebbi Zadoq. Either following Rebbi Simeon ben Eleazar as it was stated: Rebbi Simeon ben Eleazar says in the name of Rebbi Meir: Hands are [impure] in the first degree for profane food, in the second for heave68. Or following Rebbi Eleazar ben Rebbi Zadoq as it was stated there69: "Profane food prepared by the rules of sacrifices is profane. Rebbi Eleazar ben Rebbi Zadoq says it is like heave, it may be impure in two degrees and invalidates a third."

55 The origin of this paragraph is Babli 18b. The statement in Hagigah 2:5; a parallel discussion in discussed is that tithe, in contrast to HALAKHAH 1 603 heave and First Fruits, may be eaten 62 Second Tithe cannot be eaten with unwashed hands. "Tithe" here with unwashed hands. always means Second Tithe since First 63 Nobody can expect a food Tithe whose heave of the tithe was handler not to eat. separated is totally profane. 64 Washing one's hands for 56 Mishnah Hagigah 2:5. profane food (in the Babli restricted to 57 One has to immerse his hands in eating bread) is to teach people the 40 seah of water. "Washing" means discipline needed to handle heave that at least a quarter log (V96 seah) of (sources cf. Note 55). water flows over the hands. 65 For heave, washing is a biblical 58 "There" is the Mishnah Bikkurim requirement. If heave is mentioned in 2:1, "here" is Mishnah Hagigah 2:5. a Mishnah, it cannot be dealing with 59 Mishnah 11:5. washing because of rabbinic discipline. 60 Any impurity not explicitly 66 This was practiced, e. g., by the stated in the Pentateuch. Qumran sect who ate all their food 61 Unwashed hands are always under the strict rules of impurities impure in the second degree by applicable to sacrifices. Usually, strict rabbinic decree (cf. 8, Note Pharisees prepared their food under 46). Profane food can only become the rules of heave. impure in two degrees; the second 67 This use of 'N is a Babylonism cannot induce impurity in other not usually found in the Yerushalmi. profane food. Heave can become 68 They will transfer impurity to impure in three degrees; the third is any food but that food cannot induce called "unusable" since it cannot induce other impurity. impurity in other food (except 69 Mishnah Tahorot 2:8. sacrifices which have four degrees.) 604 BIKKURIM CHAPTER TWO

"»ν^ηψ .nnmjpi ·)? ρκψ ηρ onwani vy> Λ tijvö (foi. 64c)

•pypw >3-) .piNb miwii p^vvi oip>? τίϊοπ v^yv? onis^ni o>\ih-va b?i!?>? ΐηψ-!?? moiN-! "pypyJ >ι*η pi^n) ."vriö n» onisirn te'N nq ήν>?Ψ .r»?ri:i> in-) IN

.n^nra ·)? ρκψ

Mishnah 2: Some rules apply to tithe70 and First Fruits but not to heave since tithe and First Fruits need to be brought to the Place71; they need a declaration73 and are forbidden to the current mourner74, but Rebbi Simeon permits75. They are subject to removal, but Rebbi Simeon frees from the obligation75. They forbid in Jerusalem the most minute amount76 to be eaten by the unauthorized and animals; Rebbi Simeon permits.77 These rules apply to tithe and First Fruits but not to heave.

70 Second tithe only. food and First Fruits by 1 in 100, this 71 The Temple for First Fruits, applies only outside of Jerusalem. Jerusalem for second tithe. 77 The Babylonian Mishnah has 73 For second tithe, Deut. 26:13-15. here another sentence, stating that For First Fruits, Deut. 26:3-10. plants grown in Jerusalem from second 74 A person who has to arrange for tithe or First Fruits also forbid in the the burial of a close relative, between most minute amounts; but R. Simeon the time of death and the burial. permits. It is the general wisdom since 75 Since the piN is explicitly the time of R. Eliahu Kramer of Wilna forbidden second tithe (Deut. 26:14) that the sentence is missing by an and the declaration is one of removal oversight of the scribe. But since the (Deut. 26:13), R. Simeon can disagree Halakhah corrects the Mishnah to only regarding First Fruits. Removal insert the sentence, it is clear that it means that first and poor people's was missing in the accepted Mishnah tithes were given away and second text. In general it is safe to assume tithe brought to Jerusalem. that textual corrections by R. Eliahu of 76 While second tithe becomes Wilna are unwarranted. insignificant in a majority of permitted HALAKHAH 2 605

ΓΙβψ OJ^iOrn .Dip>p ΠίΟΓ) "Piiyo (fol. 64d)

DD7> npmjp ,o:>7> ποη^ ΓΙΝ") OD>riv->\pyö γινι ο^ηιη

Ν?νρπ insn ηφ) n^rgi

Halakhah 2: "They need to be brought to the Place." Because it is written (Deut. 12:6): "There, you shall bring your elevation offerings, your family sacrificies, your tithes78, and your hand's heave." "Your hand's heave" are First Fruits since it is written (Deut. 26:4): "The Cohen shall take the basket from your hand."79

78 Animal and second tithes. 79 Sifry Deut. 63.

oyn N«n ig apv? .p>3>p πρ-η^ι .-ivyy» lit?

WlipD Wlipri

So far tithe, from where First Fruits80? As Rebbi Jacob bar Hama81 said in the name of Rebbi Eleazar (Deut. 26:13): "The hallowed food." That hallowed food is meant which was described in the preceding paragraph82.

80 What implies that First Fruits, lowing R. S. Cirillo read "R. Jacob bar while they have their own declaration, Aha" since this name is quoted in the have to be delivered on time? The next paragraph. farmer cannot read the declaration of 82 Deut. 26:1-11. second tithe if he has undelivered First This contradicts the tannaitic

Fruits at home. tradition (Mishnah Ma'aser Seni 5:10,

81 No R. Jacob bar Hama is other- Sifry Deut. 303) that the reference is to wise known; the commentators fol- second tithe and fourth-year yield.

•p-nsva "pis *TJ) * πΊακ) n^jn n>rpT >ντη γοινο^

wiipn \!φρο >3n ow? νπν na apy? ^Ί imi ,p>i>? 606 BIKKURIM CHAPTER TWO

,νηψηι

"They need a declaration." Since it is written (Deut. 26:5): "You should formally declare83 before the Eternal, your God84." So far tithe, from where First Fruits? As Rebbi Jacob bar Hama said in the name of Rebbi Eleazar {Deut. 26:13): "The hallowed food." That hallowed food is meant which was described in the preceding paragraph.

83 Or: "You shall answer and de- 84 This introduces the declaration clare", repeating the text of the declar- of First Fruits. The next two sentences ation recited by the priest. This verse are copied from the preceding para- deals only with First Fruits. Cf. Hala- graph, most likely in error. They are khah 3:5; Sifry Deut. 301. The declar- appropriate again in the next para- ation for tithes is prescribed in v. 13. graph.

•p-ns'i ή*τ? ΊΧ .13)3)? ^wa N'b n>rp"7 ."iJiNb inwisi

vnipn vnipn >11 Dyn ΝΠΝ -»5 vri -imi »? .p>3>?

νοψηι

"They are forbidden to the current mourner." Since it is written (Deut. 26:14): "I did not eat from it in my deep mourning." So far tithe, from where First Fruits? As Rebbi Jacob bar Aha said in the name of Rebbi Eleazar (Deut. 26:13): "The hallowed food." That hallowed food is meant which was described in the preceding paragraph.

.ΓΗ2Ν"!3V3J» I'rp"? "pypvy rn n>>i .n»-jj? ύ ^πη In all these cases we stated that Rebbi Simeon disagrees. For the declaration Rebbi Simeon does not disagree. The declaration is the reading; there, Rebbi Simeon does not disagree since it is written (Deut. 26:5): "You should formally declare." HALAKHAH 2 607

·)Γ)>>ι-ρ?Ί ,Ύ>™? ήνρψ rn .o^wrpa ϊοψϊϊ "inywi

ποπη!? in-) (foi. 65a) ont> .-νπρ ήνρψ 'ΠΙ oiwinri miw

Vlio djjin vn .ή!? 2'πο it i» >ντίο p^p. .-prip >a*i on* nb'DNib nsnrp .nnn^i p-irnn ιηψ ynmo im

.rupn? nsnp ρκ -ρ ont> nsnr? ρκψ qv? .nnn? nsnp

-»IT i»>ri7 nn? .wne ρΝψ -m? rmiN voy ojwi-p V1W

.ΝΙΠψ-ΪΟ ηοίκ Π>Γΐη?7·! .ΝΙΠψ"!?? ΊΌΝ 1>Ύ>Τ1>? Ü7 ρκψ

So is the Mishnah: "They forbid in Jerusalem in the most minute amount; Rebbi Simeon permits. Their growth85 in Jerusalem is forbidden to be eaten and Rebbi Simeon permits. Also by the unauthorized or by animals does Rebbi Simeon permit." Do not the rabbis agree with him since he asked them86: Do you not agree that if they are permitted for the unauthorized, they are permitted as animal feed? Does one need walls87 for unauthorized eating or for feeding animals? Just as one does not need walls for unauthorized eating, one does not need walls for feeding animals! The rabbis say, they made Jerusalem something which has no possibility to become permitted88. Anything which has no possibility to become permitted prohibits in the most minute amounts; similarly, Jerusalem prohibits in the most minute amounts.

85 Plants growing from second mixed with profane food they still can tithe or First Fruits used as seeds. Even be eaten in Jerusalem by the people though it is stated in Mishnah Terumot entitled to eat the original hallowed

9:4 that growth from First Fruits or food, Cohanim for First Fruits and pure second tithe is profane, this holds only Jews for second tithe. outside of Jerusalem. Since both First The Tosephta (1:7) has a different

Fruits and second tithe have to be version: "R. Simeon says they did not consumed in Jerusalem, if they are forbid the growth of First Fruits to 608 BIKKURIM CHAPTER TWO require them to be eaten in Jerusalem." "something which has a possibility to This speaks of growth of First Fruits become permitted". The language of outside of Jerusalem and contradicts the Babli is straightforward: For Mishnah Terumot 9:4. something which may become 86 In a baraita not otherwise permitted without invoking the rules of transmitted. insignificance (1 in 60, 100, or 200), 87 Food that has to be consumed in those rules were not instituted. The the holy precinct outside the Temple standard example is that of an egg domain must be consumed inside the freshly laid on the Sabbath which is city walls (possibly defined as the walls not food prepared for the Sabbath but of the city in First Temple times.) becomes automatically permitted at the Since growth from dedicated seeds is end of the Sabbath. If such an egg intrinsically profane and does not need disappears in a barrel containing l'OOO city walls if used as animal feed, walls eggs, all are forbidden for use until the are not needed and the restriction to end of the Sabbath. those authorized is without basis (cf. The language of the Yerushalmi, Tosafot Pesahim 34a, s. v. ηηολ "something which has no possibility to 88 The rabbis agree that R. Simeon become permitted", presupposes the might have a logical point but their knowledge of the rule: [f the rules of position is that leniencies here are insignificance were not instituted for a uncalled for since any food in question certain case, they are not applicable can be eaten in Jerusalem. even in the case of the smallest pos- The formulation used here, fw ist sible admixture. Since First Fruits and •pvnn V? "something which has no pos- second tithe can be eaten in Jerusalem, sibility to become permitted", appears they are always permitted for author- in the Babli (Bezah 3b,39a; Yebamot ized people and are therefore "some- 82a; Baba Mezia 53a) and the Tosephta thing which has no possibility to (:Terumot 5:15) as iV νί'ψ -m become permitted".

.»Tin ·ρν>?Ψ >3-) pai^ya tnK .pim^a "ρνρψ ·>ιί ·ρρ>£> no nm .tooa -α? pbvpa on ^»ya pnwy /pbrpj pa pawy pa no

OD iniD>a ni-pya ^ .-wyo WJQ p?a"i> ήν>?Ψ >a*n HALAKHAH 2 609

lAtoi-ry) "iD'iwy nis VioiN p-n^an pN .-ittiN py>?\y rpn pi

•i"ptov to pn nwv» .p-ns'a pi n» pi πη .obm-pi !??to>?

to ΡΝψ -aia '"Ρ» pypw η» η.Γ) .rvtoy to1? w? onm

roiyp Nin^ riNp rpnp ηtyyyy mtpn nnw? ρνρψ Hi» .rrtoy

.Γρ·υη rmiyvpi nynp rmiy\p y^s pi>?N miyoi nynp About what do Rebbi Simeon and the rabbis disagree? About growth. But in mixtures even Rebbi Simeon agrees. What is the difference between growth and mixtures? In mixtures all exists. In growth it already has disappeared. Where Rebbi Simeon agrees with the rabbis is in mixtures of tithe, but mixtures of First Fruits are treated like growth. And so did Rebbi Simeon say89: "First fruits do not forbid their mixtures or growths to be eaten in Jerusalem." What is the difference between tithe and First Fruits? Tithe cannot be lifted90, First Fruits can be lifted91. Rebbi Simeon agrees that the seah lifted for another seah needs walls and needs use92. But the rabbis say, all93 need walls and need use.

89 Cf. 1:7 (Note 85.) defined by its walls) and it may not be 90 Second tithe is never mentioned destroyed in small quantities as second among foods that may be lifted; cf. tithe of demay may be; cf. Demay 1, ' 1, Note 174. Notes 105 ff. 91 By one in 100, cf. Mishnah 2:1. 93 Both second tithe and First 92 It must be eaten in Jerusalem (as Fruits.

.nto !?N\I> no in νγιν ,ΪΟΓΠ ρ ION Ί»Ν ->ΠΝ trto ΪΗΝ pnv m -τ r - ττ TTs »v τ-: -τ ττ τ: - τ 'τ τ

ϊν^οι ^ιο ,ρ>ιη itorp? ton'?·) nprvp nnmj] ton'? -im

ρ-η^ιη·; vöttpo χ^ϊΟ ^n τιηΐΊ^ι rpyny wapi pvyN*·» Ywypi IDton'J "t£N Γ1Ν NDri") .ρΊ^Ο ^>>^>31 ΊΟΝ "IÖFI ltom "ifltovp?

1Π*) .ito? ilia p-inw iDtov™ -iepjh in .nto -iqn .p-WN 610 BIKKURIM CHAPTER TWO

-ατ in* >N ι^ίπη-! n>> ΊΟΚ töo ήη* ρΝψ til? mwy: yp^™

1>n^n own·) ηι-»η-! .ovarii οινϋτη η^π "ρχρ .rto iy-i* ρΝψ

ΓΡ> .·>ηϊι ϊπϋ .IÖΝ J^N iom 13 .onrana

töo ίνηϊ Ί'Νψ iif ηιψιη

Rebbi Johanan went to a place and said, I am Ben Azai94 here. There came an old man to ask him. He said, 95"the growth from heave is heave; the growth from their growth is profane. But the growths from tevel, second tithe and , aftergrowth of the Sabbatical, heave from outside the Land, dema', and First Fruits are profane." There, you say their96 growth is permitted, why do you say here, their growth is forbidden? He said to him, where do we say their growth is permitted? For things whose seeds disappear. Where do we say their growth is forbidden? For things whose seeds do not disappear. He saicl to him, but did we not state97: "What is one whose seeds do not disappear? For example arum, garlic, and onions." Are arum, garlic, and onions obligated for First Fruits98? He99 said, the Ben Azai from here went away as you say. He99 asked Rebbi Yannai who told him, for tithe everything was classified as things whose seeds do not disappear.

94 The student of R. Joshua and 95 Mishnah 9:4 (but there, colleague of R. Aqiba who could second tithe is not mentioned.) immediately answer all questions of 96 Second tithe and First Fruits. Jewish law. The Talmudim (Peak 6:3, 97 Mishnah Terumah 9:6. Note 79; Babli Erubin 29a, Qiddusin 98 They are not acceptable as First 20a) report that any other outstanding Fruits. scholar who tried to imitate Ben Azai 99 R. Johanan. was quickly put down. HALAKHAH 2 611

.>·)> ι? ywin? >a7 -»»ν ι»*) ,^ην >377 n>ri\p>\y ns>p>?

ΪΟΪΊ 1W Ί0Ν1 ,Ε3'3ψ 1?>>Ν Ρ .ΠΙψΙΠ

η* .qm "wyp .ΝΙ·? Ρ -ΐη^™! Ν*τη «liNi .n^ji o?b\in*v> fpsy "ήη\?η wy I'v^aa ί")»?* "wyo V97 n"vyi>ön\ii "Vvyyoa w? Ίίνρψ >a7 owa .ήνρψ" >a7 rö '357 ίρνί .ia V^l Niny-!?? ia^-py P9V1 mi .ι>*ρ_ viwn ln^ypa "»o^Jff in N^n >37 1? V^t^a W7i?n Ι?1?™?! .n>> I-DON .ήνρψ >a7 inmn ln^i™ nump N'i» .iniN n^iQ wn -117 m >N> .iyn? l»\a DJIIN niiai ρ>ιη >an >an .ina ηψπρ '33» η^ηρ υ^ν?1 ϊοη ona .n^np )niON ΐη^ιτ? IÖ>JI7 in ia liypvy >an owa no inisaai "Wi>£a nn .nm* iri>n ιηηι» in^n'j ">2^7 mi

.nipn^a 1? Rebbi Johanan's argument seems inverted. There100, Rebbi Joshua ben Levi said, it was quoted for the horns of a cadaver. He said to him, did the teacher not teach: "I saw" the size of two beans101? Should he have said here also, "their growths"? In addition, from the following (Deut. 12:17): "You may not eat your grain's tithe in your gates." About which tithe has this been said? About pure second tithe which entered Jerusalem and left102. Also from the following which Rebbi Simeon stated. It was stated103 in the name of Rebbi Simeon: "Tithe is special in that tithe forbids its money, mixtures, and vessels; the doubt of an admixture forbids in the most minute amount and one may not use it for lighting." He should say, the same holds for growth! Rebbi Hila said, he who says growth is permitted, Rebbi Simeon. Those who say growth is forbidden, the rabbis. They said to him, did we not state104: "Growths from dedicated 612 BIKKURIM CHAPTER TWO

[seeds] and Second Tithe are profane; one redeems them corresponding to the time of sowing." Why does he have to redeem? Not because of their inherent sanctity? Here also they should require walls because of their inherent sanctity! Rebbi Jeremiah, Rebbi Ammi, in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: When one says the growth is forbidden, the prohibition of walls105. When one says the growth is permitted, the permission for unauthorized persons106. "These rules apply to tithe and First Fruits but not to heave."

100 It is unknown what this state- forbidden. What does mean: "The ment refers to. Since the tentative owner of the ox is free"? Ben Azai explanation of R. Eliahu Fulda is the said, he is freed from his property; the only one not based on emendation of entire animal is forbidden for all the text, it is followed here. The usufruct. On that, R. Joshua ben Levi statement of R. Joshua ben Levi is adds that not only the meat but (hide based on the explanation of Ex. 21:28 and) horns are forbidden even if it died given in Mekhilta deR. Simeon ben before slaughter. R. Johanan objects Iohai which contains the teachings of and notes that if the verse deals with Hizqia, the teacher of R. Joshua ben two cases (stoned or slaughtered), the Levi and the young R. Johanan (ed. rules have to apply to bolh. In the case Epstein-Melamed, p. 178): "If an ox of R. Joshua ben Levi this means that gores a man or a woman and they die, the verse is needed to forbid hide and the ox should be stoned, its meat may horns also for a correctly slaughtered not be eaten, and the owner of the ox ox; therefore, one does not understand is free." If the ox is stoned, it becomes why he did not object to R. Yannai that a carcass whose meat is forbidden both second tithe and First Fruits anyhow; why the remark "its meat may should have the same rules. not be eaten"? This means that if the 101 This deals with the impurity of ox has been condemned in court to be houses by mold disease (Lev. 14:33-57). stoned but the owners slaughtered it Mold disease is considered impure if it before execution, the meat is still is the size of a Cilician bean. It is said HALAKHAH 2 613

(v. 35) that the owner has to tell the have been removed.

Cohen, "like a plague it appears to me 103 In Tosephta 1:6, an anonymous in the house." But since it is written in statement is close to the text here. v. 37 that the Cohen has to see "the 104 Mishnah Terumot 9:4; Notes 61- plague in the walls of the house", the 62. house is impure only if two impurities 105 It is forbidden to eat Jerusalem appear, each of the size of a bean. growth from either second tithe or

102 The origin of this statement is First Fruits outside of Jerusalem. unknown. In the Sifry the verse is 106 In this respecl, growth is interpreted to mean that grain may not profane as stated in Mishnah Terumot. be consumed unless heave and all tithes rmyv? nomjp ίον J^n ΊΏΓΙ ."wyo njorupi ηοηη it vnri? t»i psri -pari •)öri »in Nb>n >η •>,n>'! rmy\? vn npn^ -ion j?N iorn .'ΐτη

,^τη ·)>3ΐνρ in^l "|3jpi3n -τηκ xp-nsaro rioi-upn

.rmrio "wyo ft Φψ >p Ή0Ν NDm V?3tll V~)2V "|>3ii

.p γπον njtojio >oi> >a-i -ion .ητηπο io^y >3?3 ft >o

-ivyyoi non^a dk ."|>o>>i? ^ no ny vy> -ιοίΝ >pi> >a-i

-iwyo ft wy >o υνοψ ν!?>π >a-i -ion .nonjpa VP>>j? >? n!?n OD

>o υνοψ .niOjpo ιο^ϋ p-yora i>-yD,3 ft >o .rrjino io^y >33?

.niirio no^y >33i noiup ft

There107, we have stated: '"Also I gave it,' includes heave and heave of the tithe." There, you say that heave needs declaration but here108 you say, heave does not need declaration. Rebbi Hila said, there10'' they stated:

Heave and First Fruits, both the one who gives and the one who takes need to declare110. Rebbi Zeira said, the rabbis there think, and the rabbis here say, if a person has only tithe, he declares; if a person has only heave, he does not declare. Rebbi Yose said, a Mishnah111 says so: "Rebbi Yose says, they have their cities of refuge." Where do we hold? If about heave 614 BIKKURIM CHAPTER TWO and tithe, they are his. But it must deal with heave112. Rebbi Hila said, we [did] understand that if a person has only tithe, he declares; if a person has only First Fruits, he declares. We [now] understand that if a person has only heave, he declares.

107 Mishnah Ma'aser Seni 5:10. First Fruits according to I he rules. 108 Mishnah Bikkurim 2:2. 111 Mishnah Ma'aser Seni 5:14. The 109 In Babylonia. Mishnah, referring to , speaks of 110 The farmer has to make the "cities and their (agricultural) sur- declaration Deut. 26:3-10 for first fruit roundings." The quote here, referring and to include in his tithe declaration to Cohanim, speaks of cities of refuge (Deut. 26:13-14) the assertion that he (for the unintentional homicide) which duly gave his heave to the Cohen. The were given to the Cohanim. Cohen has to mention in his tithe 112 Of which he is the recipient. declaration that he treated heave and

nnn^ny .onis'ii ·ρ ρκψ η» nnm^a vi? :> mw» (foi. 64c)

Tii-parrbD} ν?Γ)ίη "πνψ ίο!? 11^0 rw F)pw Yv^ön"! to'N HL! •"teP3^ lip>")i?,p3!l Jlllton^ VpniOl man '332 ίΟψΙ

."in^a? ρ ρκψ ηη "wy«:^ ropnapa

Mishnah 3: Some rules apply to heave and tithe but not to First Fruits since heave and tithe forbid on the threshing floor113, they have a fixed measure114, apply to all produce115, are due whether the Temple exists or not, and apply to sharecroppers, tenant farmers, sicarii, and robbers. They apply to heave and tithe but not to First Fruits116. HALAKHAH 3 615

113 Once grain has been threshed 114 Tithes by biblical decree, heave and cleaned, one may not eat from it by rabbinic standard. unless heave and tithes were separated. 115 By rabbinic standard for all For produce other than grain, the produce except grain, wine, and olive equivalents of the threshing floor are oil. defined in Ma'serot, Chap. 1. 116 Cf. Mishnah 1:2.

-oinpa οη^ιηψ nonrn ρΝψ η» in^aa :i πιν»

*νψ·) ppivpi oriinnNa i»n"! onis'a ιϊττϋγϊο ΟΪΝ ηψίν νχτφ.

.ny>!?i nimm τ τ Mishnah 4: Some rules apply to First Fruits but not to heave and tithe. For First Fruits acquire [hallowed status] when connected to the ground, a person may dedicate his entire field as First Fruits, he is responsible for them, and they need a sacrifice, song, weaving, and staying overnight.

.Tpan ri2s rnpiN njpn^n Nn>? > nabn (foi. 65a)

ίαηρπψ ·ρν>Ν-| ·)ΐ ήνρψ r-n owa imN 'ai ."p^vsa

.n'm? ηητυρ» -iwa

It is true that heave makes the threshing floor forbidden117? Explain it if he gave it118 early, from ears, as Rebbi Abbahu said in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: First Tithe given early, from ears, is free from [the obligation of] great heave.

117 Since heave must be given first, ligation as implied in the formulation the obligation of heave is the one "makes forbidden"? which triggers the prohibition. It is 118 First tithe, which cannot be true that the obligation of heaves may consumed unless heave of the tithe is stop the prohibition from being lifted, given. The sentence is from Hallah 1:4, but can tithes anywhere trigger the ob- Note 123. 616 BIKKURIM CHAPTER TWO

.o^-jN? ιψίΓ^? nwi "iiinjpg p?i?i

"They acquire [hallowed status] connected to the ground", as it is written (Num. 18:13): "The First Fruits of anything on their land."

nm-^? ΓΡψίαι n>rpT .onisa ms οικ τίψίν

"A person may dedicate his entire field as First Fruits." As it is written

(Ez. 44:30): "The first of all First Fruits of everything."

.qrarfN nm τν>ψία imnnN? "pi^ni

"One is responsible for them," for it is written (Ex. 23:19): "The beginning of the First Fruits of your land.119" ιΟΝίίψ πηρψ no .ηηρψ -donji nnpw ins piiyoi

·)Ν3 IN D

"And they need a sacrifice." Joy is mentioned here and elsewhere.

Since joy there means a well-being sacrifice, so joy mentioned here means a well-being sacrifice120.

.o>niy "vvy? •n'? qarn Ί^Ί -p\y ins ,τ>ψ]

"And song." Song is mentioned here and it is said there (Ez. 33:32):

"Behold, you are for them like an erotic song.121"

vi:)3>5ri .irviro :ji?>? Ν5\?π ΊΠΞ>η n^b") η>τρ"7 .naw^i 15 ^i?

"And weaving122," as it is written (Deut. 26:4) "The Cohen shall take the basket from your hand and deposit it123," to add that First Fruits require weaving, following Rebbi Eliezer ben Jacob124. n?ia njwy rmiarr!?3 ΝΓΙ .;j>nw> rp^m i^ian jvdai .ro>>"!

\y> biN .·|η-)ί? "ioöV Dp'rii Ν*τη rov »an .n^iai H^y in> Nb

n»o» "pyo HALAKHAH 3 617

"And staying overnight." As it is written (Deut. 16:7): "In the morning, you may leave and return to your tent." That is, all your leaving should only be in the morning125. Rebbi Jonah said, that is only said if there is no sacrifice accompanying them. But if there is an accompanying sacrifice, without [that Mishnah] he needs to stay overnight because of the sacrifice.

119 Cf. Mishnah 1:9. ent from the Venice text. 120 It is written about First Fruits 122 The movements prescribed for (Deut. 26:11): "Enjoy all the good things presenting well-being offerings (Lev. the Eternal gave to you and your 7:30) to the altar and for those public house," and it is written about holidays flour offerings (Lev. 23:11,17) which of pilgrimage (Deut. 16:15): "You have to be presented. should certainly enjoy." Since a pil- 123 "And deposit it before the altar grimage requires both an elevation of the Eternal, your God." This implies offering and a well-being offering, the a presentation before the altar. enjoyment of the holiday means eating 124 Quoted with the reasoning the meat of the well-being offering. behind R. Eliezer ben Jacob's statement 121 As it stands, the text is unin- in Babli 47b, 18b, telligible. R. Isaac Simponti and after Menahot 61a/b; Yalqut Sim'oni Torah him R. Simson of Sens and Yalqut §938. Sim'oni Torah §938 read: aiu |ND ION: 125 A baraita Sifry Deut. #134 μ: 2'oai Vij? nsp fm1? i»nji "it says here states that this refers to bird sacrifices, (Deut. 26:11) good things, and it is said as well as flour, wine, incense, and there (Ez. 33:32): "a beautiful voice wood offerings. Whether all animal and good in music." Frequently only sacrifices need staying overnight is in the first words of a verse are quoted dispute, in Sifry between R. Jehudah while the reference is to another part and the anonymous majority, in the of the verse. Babli (Pesahim 95b) between two Yalqut Sim'oni Torah §938 adds different interpretations of what R. another derivation which ostensibly is Jehudah meant. The argument of R. taken from Babli 11a but Jonah shows that he follows the represents a text tradition quite differ- anonymous majority in Sifry. 618 BIKKURIM CHAPTER TWO

nonnin onm >nvya d>TO!j nw *V\yyo riüi-in :ii nswe (foi. 64c) .... T · - - · τ : •• · ~ TT - • ipiN") .ο>-η3>ι:? i^iön ·)ρ ΠΝ)?\ρη rnirnpn yia .o>:m

.nonri? "ny>v> rb \y>i "pian rus

Mishnah 5: Heave of the tithe is similar to First Fruits in two ways and to heave in two ways. It may be taken from pure for impure and from produce not earmarked, like First Fruits126. It forbids the threshing floor118 and it has a measure like heave127.

126 This is explained in Terumot 2:1, of the tithe is 1% by biblical decree Notes 7-15. and that of heave is between 2.5% and 127 The required amount for heave 1/3% by rabbinic usage.

·ρη3>η *τη .pjan yo ini rov rr» :t fiaifi (foi. 65a)

1WN1 ivyv» ION n^nm .Dnisn? p:i»n pisoon nvvariw πηρίκ nw

Rebbi Jonah said, Rebbi Maisha and one of the rabbis. One said, this means that impure fruits are subject to First Fruits128 and the other one said, first tithe given early, from ears, is free from [the obligation of] great heave118·129.

128 But impure fruits cannot be 129 This explains how heave of the brought to the Temple. Therefore, first tithe can cause the original prohibition fruits for presentation must be taken of use of threshed produce. from pure fruits. HALAKHAH 5 619 nw .fnis "ivri cp?*n ηψ!?ψ:α l^N^ nw jvupn Λ r»w» (foi. 64c)

ηητ i->V\i»'N ίπυ>ρ> π^ψιψ .π'νιψιι ^vrvii

ib'isl? nw "ιοίΝ

Mishnah 6: A citron130 follows the rules of trees in three aspects and those of vegetables in one. It follows the rules of trees in 'orlah, the fourth year, and the Sabbatical, and those for vegetables in that the moment it is harvested determines its tithe, the words of Rabban Gamliel.

Rebbi Eliezer says, it follows the rules of trees in all respects.

130 The fruit of the tree Citrus fruits of a tree, whether it is subject to medica var. cedrata. In Mishnah second tithe (in years 1,2,4,5 of the Ma'serot 1:4 (Note 86), citron is Sabbatical cycle) or to tithe of the poor enumerated among vegetables, showing (in years 3,6). R. Eliezer requires the that the position of Rabban Gamliel is owner of the orchard to collect fruits accepted as practice. The problem is from different years in separate that the fruit may stay on the tree for batches. The Mishnah is also discussed several years; therefore, the time of the in Babli Qiddusin 2b, Sukkah 29b, Ros budding of the fruit should not Hassanah 14b. determine its status as required for

VI·|)3Γΐ pyö on ·Ρΐ£ γι«!? on :n fia^n (foi. 65a)

•pi? .p-vs rii-Tvpv»» "wai I1?'*? Jryriy^ rp\y>vyp

•I^nd npiri Nin nr) ^'»V^ rpy>i\y>? coro ΉΡί* Njupn

Halakhah 5: If a tree why a vegetable, if a vegetable, why a tree?

There131, they say that if it grows from the sixth [year] into the Sabbatical

[year] it belongs to the owners as if from a tree and is free from tithes as if a vegetable. Rav Hamnuna told them, look at the following [year]! If it grows from the Sabbatical to the eighth year, it should be ownerless as if 620 BIKKURIM CHAPTER TWO from a tree and subject to tithes as if a vegetable. Is anything ownerless subject to tithes132?

131 In Babylonia, they read the one of the leniencies becomes an Mishnah as permitting two contra- impossible stringency, the original dictory leniencies. statement cannot be true. 132 Cf. Peah 1:4. Since in this case

coro .n>\y\y n>y>nv^ nwp .riw n>ww> n>\yon« .Nfny }>π

.Ti>wnn π'ΨΨ» ")\?i?> .Ji'wvy rpyuvpa 1\?i?> .n>y>avj£ rpyjöp» n|n wrii:n ,η^'ρψ η>3>»ψ5 χρψψβ vipi

.rpy^y) iiV\y>N ixi\?>j?> nyvpa

Rebbi Johanan said, in the remaining years of the Sabbatical cycle you treat it as a vegetable but in the Sabbatical as a tree. How is that? From the fifth to the sixth, sixth. From the sixth to the Sabbatical, sixth. If it stayed from the fifth to the sixth to the Sabbatical, if he harvested it in the Sabbatical [it is tithed for the] sixth; if he harvested it in the sixth [it is tithed for the] fifth. If it stayed from the sixth to the Sabbatical to the eighth, if he harvested it in the eighth [it is tithed for the] eighth. "Our teachers took the problem up a second time and voted that for a citron the moment it is harvested determines its tithe and Sabbatical status.133"

133 According to the version of the the end of the persecutions following Tosephta (Sevi'it 4:21) quoted in the the war of Bar Kokhba. The same Babli (Ros Hassanah 10a, Sukkah 40a) sources note that this rule was propa- this happened at Usha in Galilee where gated in Babylonia by Rav Hamnuna. the Synhedrion was reconstituted after HALAKHAH 5 621

173D .•>")> üwin? ·>!-) ο γη ήο'Ρ >51 ."linv ^ own ήί rpp-p

ΤϊΤΡ? ^ΐ!? ito Υ!?ψ rown νίίΜ^ψ γνη

(fol. ΓΟψ 0>ίψ!ρψ ΠΙ*?? ,ΠίΑΐρ^ψ ΓΠΡ? w

65b)

Rebbi Jeremiah, Rebbi Ammi, in the name of Rebbi Johanan. Rebbi Simon in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi: Everybody agrees that its New Year is the 15th of Sebat134. Rebbi Johanan asked Rebbi Jonathan: According to years or according to seasons135? He said to him, according to years and even in an intercalary year136.

134 One cannot tithe the produce of ate from the solar seasons by close to one year for that of a different year. thirty days, does "the 15th of Sebat" Even though the moment of its harvest mean just what it says or is it a stand-in determines its status for tithes, the year for "32 days after the winter solstice" does not start on the first of Tishre as which was its average position relative for vegetables but on the 15th of Sebat to the Julianic year in talmudic times? as for trees (according to the House of 136 When the 15th of Sebat is , the 1st of Sebat); cf. Mishnah approximately 25 days aiter the winter Ros Hassanah 1:1. solstice. 135 Since the lunar year may devi-

,^η γρι npin"! γρι n.pin vty >rm Ji-iJW νφϋ >3*15 ηWr? npinrn njpin? >ari ικψ [JVI^JS] >> n^

-ION .iiri ηΡΝ ·)« N'b >511 bN>>>?a "irij

fit»?}-! ^ DTP ^ΟΨ? i???^ "P^ ^ no wv r>V\i»y -»$})>> ^If n>rivi ϊχ "oy i-nvsny ^y^m 1517 rrayi ϊχ

vvjai wv ΝΊ^ .i^ my

137"It happened that Rebbi Aqiba picked a citron and observed for it the stringencies of the House of Shammai and those of the House of 622 BIKKURIM CHAPTER TWO

Hillel.138" Why about a citron139 and not about any tree? It was stated140

"the stringencies of Rabban Gamliel and those of Rebbi Eliezer." But are

Rabban Gamliel and Rebbi Eliezer not from the House of Hillel141? Rebbi

Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, explain it that it budded before the 15th of

Sebat of the second year and the third year came. In the opinion of

Rabban Gamliel it is subject to tithe of the poor142; in the opinion of

Rebbi Eliezer it is subject to second tithe. How did he handle this? He gave a name to the second tithe in it, redeemed it, and gave it to the poor.

137 Almost the same text is in Ros Rabban Johanan ben Zakkai of the Hassanah 1:1, fol. 57a. House of Hillel, irrespective of their 138 Tosephta Sevi'it 4:21; quoted in prior affiliations. The wholehearted Babli Ros Hassanah 14a, Erubin 7a, support both of Rabban Gamliel and of Yebamot 15a. In these sources, the R. Eliezer for the doctrines of the citron was taken on the 1st of Sebat. former House of Hillel is doubtful. 139 Word missing here, supplied The Ros Hassanah text: "Do not from the text in Ros Hassanah. Rabban Gamliel and Rebbi Eliezer 140 In the Tosephta this is the refer to the House of Hillel?" makes tradition of R. Yose ben R. Jehudah. better sense. He will not read "on the first of Sebat " 142 The tithe of the third year of 141 After the destruction of the the Sabbatical cycle. The statement "it Temple, the authorities who developed budded before the 15th of Sebat" seems rabbinic were all students of to be irrelevant here.

.o'y*nn m ο?ΐΐψ dt :t tdv» (foi. 64c)

y>N ^qwn ο-η HALAKHAH 6 623

Mishnah 7: The blood of two-legged beings143 is similar to the blood of animals in that it prepares plants, but one is not guilty because of the blood of crawling beings144.

143 Humans and possibly big apes. 7:26), not to humans. Vegetables cannot become impure 144 "Crawling beings" are the eight unless "prepared" by a desired contact species enumerated in Lev. 11:29-30. with fluids (cf. Terumot 1, No. 7; Since they are classified as "impure" Demay 2, Notes 136-141). Since all without reference to body parts, there human body fluids are preparing, the is no distinction made between their assertion here is rather that blood of flesh and their blood. Eating their kosher animals prepares like human blood is classified as eating their flesh, blood. On the other hand, the a simple transgression, not punishable prohibition of blood as food extends by extirpation like earing blood of only to birds and kosher animals (Lev. kosher animals {Lev. 17:10).

Ι^ίΓΐ νγπ in mjpn on .an owa n^d an N3 rri mbn (foi. 65b)

^ΓΙΠ"! .JVTD V^ VL^N VN NA >3*1 V1?)) VL^D ")>N ^ΊΨΓΙ D"!

DON .rrpQO DNjpiO ρΝψ ^ΊψΓ) Ol .VBP_ ΠΝρίΟ ia γ>Νψ Ο'ΓΙψ ia linn on !?aν ,ΌΊ dwo ia nnnvn "»»'πι ν*τπ ntn na ν»π >an : · τ τ : · ν s ·· : τ τ τ τ - τ ·

.Π0!? D1W?

Halakhah 6: Rebbi Abba, Rav Huna in the name of Rav: If he was warned, he is whipped145. But did we not state: "But one is not guilty because of the blood of crawling beings"? Rebbi Abba said, one is not subject to extirpation for it146. But was it not stated: "The blood of two- legged beings which have no minor impurity, the blood of crawling things which have no major impurity"?147 Rebbi Hiyya bar Ada said, that is, if they warned him because of blood. But if they warned him because of abomination, he is whipped148. 624 BIKKURIM CHAPTER TWO

145 A person cannot be criminally be the source of minor impurity (which prosecuted unless he was duly only affects foodstuffs) and of major informed about the criminality of his impurity (which affects humans, their intended action; cf. Kilaim 8, Note 9. garments and vessels), some are In the Babli, Keritut 21b, the statement forbidden (as carcasses) and some are is by Rav Jehudah in the name of Rav. permitted (if slaughtered correctly), 146 But he might be whipped for and they are meat. This excludes the committing a misdemeanor. In the blood of two-legged beings who cannot Babli, this argument is without be the source of minor impurity attribution. (according to biblical standards), the 147 This cryptic argument is some- blood of crawling things who cannot be what expanded in the Babli, Keritut a source of major impurity, the blood 20b; the full statement is in Sifra Zav of eggs which are not meat, the blood Parasah 10(11): "{Lev. 7:26) 'Any blood of locusts and fish who are always per- you should not eat'. I could also think mitted." The implication is that there the blood of two-legged beings, the is no biblical injunction against eating blood of crawling things, the blood in blood of crawling things. eggs, the blood of locusts, and the 148 Since blood is a part of the blood of fish, are all included, but the animal. In the Babli, this is reported in verse says 'of birds and animals'. Birds the name of R. Ze'ira. and animals are special in that they can

γρι n»ra!7 nw οό"π ia vy>t n>n!? nw twm ia \y> :n ηjvö (foi. 64c) ... T ...... T · τ : τ - - ν τ τ : N'in nnnii? N'b nw i:PN\y οοττ in vm rpnbi n»ra!? mvy d>dtt ii : τ ·· : - vt ·· ·.· · τ : ·· : τ - - : τ ·· : ~ ·.• τ · τ :

•TTjnb

Mishnah 8: The koy154 in some ways follows the rules for wild animals and in some those for domestic animals, in some the rules for HALAKHAH 7 625 both domestic and wild animals, and in some those for neither domestic nor wild animals.

iniN o'PDW VN"! n»n tn:> γινο nw ty? fuwo

TiNrpioi NÖ\?» ia^ni .107 rizs I>N ίοηψ ON-) .nio ov?

.Tiori ip? ia piia v*"! paw iriNpio] ,n»n?

Mishnah 9: How does it follow the rules of wild animals? Its blood must be covered like the blood of a wild animal149; one does not slaughter it on a holiday150 but if it was slaughtered one does not cover its blood. Its fat can become impure in the impurity of a carcass like a wild animal151; that impurity is one of doubt152. One may not use it to redeem the first-born of a donkey153.

149 Lev. 17:13. The blood of 11:39); cf. Mishnah Uqezin 3:9. domestic kosher animals (cattle, sheep, 152 Since the koy might be a and goats) may be used for industrial domestic animal. If a person who has purposes but not that of wild animals become impure by touching fat from a or birds. koy carcass visits the Temple enclosure, 150 While one may slaughter on a he cannot be prosecuted but he will holiday for immediate consumption and induce impurity by his touch. This rule may cover the blood of a wild animal and the one about covering the blood or bird, one may not move earth on the on a holiday are really rules distinct holiday for a questionable case. from those valid for domestic or wild 151 Since all fat of a wild animal animals. can be eaten, it is not distinguished 153 Ex. 13:13 requires that the first- from its body and, unless the animal is born of a female donkey be redeemed correctly slaughtered, its entire body by a sheep or goat given to a Cohen. becomes impure as a carcass {Lev. 626 BIKKURIM CHAPTER TWO

to?,? M^l vij^y wn V» m>?i< ^ ntyy

.νϊ» Τ *T Halakhah 7: What is a Rebbi Eleazar said, [the offspring of] a he-goat which mated with a hind or of a stag which mated with a she- goat. But the rabbis say it is a separate kind and the Sages could not determine its nature154.

154 Since no cognate language has he-goat which mated with a hind or a any animal name close to 'is, its stag which mated with a she-goat. The identity cannot be determined. It might Babli quotes a baraita which ascribes exist only for the sake of argument. the opinion of R. Eleazar to anonymous The Babli (Hulin 80b-81a) has a authors, the opinion of the rabbis to R. long discussion about the legal Yose, and a third, anonymous, opinion differences between the offspring of a that 'is is a wild goat.

vby i-piDE id» "TI™ no ON .ηψ} rrpai ->ήη 'na

,ΓΡίοΤΤ : ηIT If it was redeemd by a koy, one has to redeem again by a sheep. Therefore, if one of them died, the claimant has to bring proof155.

155 If the koy died, the Cohen a sheep or goat. If the koy lives, the cannot ask for a replacement since he Cohen has to return it to receive the cannot prove that what he got was not sheep or goat.

VW iion ia>o .ruprin^ nw :»fijve (foi. 64c)

a^ni iVV» IV??

ri>N-|n itoy i-virio Νηήαηψ .nn^ai HALAKHAH 8 627

Mishnah 10: How does it follow the rules of domestic animals? Its fat is forbidden like the fat of domestic animals156, but one is not punished for it by extirpation. It cannot be bought with tithe money to be eaten in Jerusalem157 and it is subject to the foreleg, the lower jaw, and the first stomach [to be given to a Cohen]158. Rebbi Eleazar frees159 since the claimant has to bring proof.

156 Lev. 7:23, prohibition restricted goats. to "cattle, sheep, and goats." 159 The person slaughtering does 157 Since tithe money should be not have to give away the foreleg, jaw, used to buy well-being sacrifices and stomach. Since these gifts are (Ma'aser Seni 1:4) and a koy cannot be profane, the Cohen can collect only if a sacrifice. he can prove that the koy is subject to 158 Deut. 18:3, the part Cohen's of these rules. R. Eleazar quoted here is profane slaughter of cattle or sheep or the Tanna R. Eleazar ben Shamua.

iniN >51 >3717 'i-p nVt njv^ö :n tis^n (foi. 65b)

161 h£N] 117 .1*1D Ν!?! .^ΓΙ ΟψΝ ia!po ϊν V-i^D 160(VN) rb -iris ,>i!?ri own ^ Ρ5Γ0 1ri? IN™ ϊχ

Halakhah 8: The Mishnah does not follow Rebbi Eleazar, as it was stated: Rebbi Eleazar says one must bring a "hung" sacrifice for the fat of a koy161. Is the Mishnah not following Rav? Since Rav said, for anything that can never be ascertained, one shall not be obliged for a "hung" sacrifice for this doubt. Explain it, they disagree with the words of Rebbi Eleazar.

160 Word missing in the parallel 161 Word added in the parallel Yebamot 4:2 (fol. 5c). Yebamot 4:2 (fol. 5c). 628 BIKKURIM CHAPTER TWO

162 The "hung sacrifice" is the expi- reparation sacrifice. R. Eleazar (who ation sacrifice {Lev. 5:17-19) to be must be the Tanna) disagrees. Since an brought by a person who suspects that expiation sacrifice can be brought only he is guilty of an offense punishable by for an offense subject to the penalty of extirpation. If he knew clearly that he extirpation, the anonymous Tanna of is guilty, he must bring a reparation the Mishnah must disagree with R. sacrifice {Lev. 4:27-35). If he brought a Eleazar. It follows that R. Eleazar "hung" sacrifice and later ascertains disagrees with the majority in two that he indeed broke the law, he has in statements of the Mishnah, about fat addition to bring a reparation sacrifice. and gifts, but the disagreement is noted In Yebamot, Rav holds that there is no only for one. expiation sacrifice if there cannot be a

ioN>> "Vvyyö ni?>3 nwri nnna ρηρί!? νηψ nywa

.o^wrtr·· τ a And even in the time they were buying animals for meat of desire it could not be bought with tithe money to be eaten in Jerusalem163.

163 This refers to the statement that statement here means that even when it a koy cannot be bought with tithe was permitted to buy "meat of desire" money. This is obvious once the rule is (an expression for profane meat from enforced that tithe money can only be Deut. 12:20), only animals that are used to buy well-being sacrifices either fit for the altar or are clearly {Ma'aser Seni 1:3, Mishnah 1:4). The wild animals could have been bought.

vwdv IT ·>ΆΊ ,-iüia nyi? .ni'pm D^n^a1) vim i»m τ : - τ τ : IT τ : IT Τ >·· - · - τ : · - τ - :

113'Ν .np'V Νΐη ρη ρι» yon pprv) .mos -ιρκ η i!? paripj Νίπ

apn pirn

"It is subject to the foreleg, the lower jaw, and the first stomach [to be given to a Cohen], Rebbi Eleazar frees." Since Rebbi Eleazar says that HALAKHAH 9 629 now he is in doubt, he says "free". But the Sages, who teach that it is an original species, say "obligated.154"

dv · - : • dwö hünτ .nnnabτ ·· : - i : n>niτ - ?- nwν τ ·· - ηιν» (foi. 64c) on ,>isn γιν ib ariD ν'!? tob ίπηηη ίπ»η inisn .nwnan dv» η»ηη - τ : • τ ·• : τ - - τ ·• : - r· ·. τ - - o>w vrmn-bs iNvyi ,τυ NID ηη η»ηη ΪΝ n»n mvJ "vo >3nn • τ τ τ : - τ τ : • τ •• -: τ •• : τ ~ ν ν · τ · •· -: ~ τ ·)>? -11Ν dwöi η^?? οιιϋρ Niao)?1) .no-) ηρ ηο^ηψ "pyv?·» n?nb

.noν τ t : no: τ τι- η- Mishnah 11: How does it differ from both a wild and a domestic animal? It is forbidden as kilaim with wild animals and domestic animals.

If somebody writes his wild or domestic animals over to his son164, he did not include the koy165. If somebody said, I am a if that is neither a wild nor a domestic animal, he is a nazir165. In all other ways it is like wild and domestic animals; it needs slaughtering by cutting its throat166 like both, and as carcass it is impure like both.

164 In a gift document. domestic animal. 165 Since it is neither a wild nor a 166 Lev. 11:39.

Nb in»n?i in»n v>ni?n >3117 .ri-p ν!τ? Njvijpp :o n^ii (foi. 65b)

,·>ί3η τι!* \yni?n nciN /»ian rizs vyn^n

Halakhah 9: The Mishnah does not follow Rebbi, as it was stated: If somebody dedicated his wild and domestic animals to the Temple, he did not dedicate the koy. Rebbi said, he dedicated the koy166. 630 BIKKURIM CHAPTER TWO

166 In the Babli, 18b, the question is not whether a koy is a opinion of the rabbis here is attributed hybrid or a separate species but to R. Eliezer and the opinion of Rebbi whether vows should be interpreted in to the anonymous rabbis. But there, the restricted or expansive ways.

.-p•o r ,n»r n- m ν'···.vnw· .ι>·υ τ ,πηητ ·· ι: nw .in· jτ .n»τ n- rnwν ν m)· τ >in·· n-: i- mτ

,ηηηι Νΐη γρπ τη vw .inj .nörpi η»η τηψ .-νυ .πηηι τη ρΝψ

.-ρυ • τ

"If somebody said, I shall be a nazir if that is a wild animal, he is a nazir. That this is a domestic animal, he is a nazir. That this is not a wild animal, he is a nazir. That this is not a domestic animal, be is a nazir.

That this is a wild and a domestic animal, he is a nazir. That this is neither a wild nor a domestic animal, he is a nazir.161"

167 Mishnah Nazir 4:9. Since all in Nazir. The these statement are partially true, the interpretation of (Nazir 34a) vow of the nazir is valid in all cases. cannot be squared with the Yerushalmi. This is the interpretation of

.i^n 13)3>? yi-prn yni">n i^ari N'b rua!? .*t?i> >3-1 Nya »an

'.nora!?·) γρπ!? vw vott^s inw naioi nrpin -ion τ ·· : - : τ τ - 1 · τ ττ: τ τ: τ τ··- -τ

Rebbi Haggai asked before Rebbi Yose: Why did we not state that the human having active or passive sex with a koy is guilty? He told him, it was stated: "In all other ways it is like wild and domestic animals.168"

168 According to R. Haggai, the list the cases enumerated are only given as of ways in which a koy is equal to both examples; almost no lists in the wild and domestic animals is intended Mishnah are exhaustive. to be exhaustive. R. Yose notes that