Talmud zu Sheviit 6:7

HALAKHAH: Samuel said, this is Rebbi Meїr’s opinion since Rebbi Meїr says a gift is not like a sale⁵It is stated in Halakhah 4:1 that produce which would become obligated when brought to storage also becomes obligated if it is sold on the field; the buyer may not eat a snack without giving heave and tithes. In general, we hold that the formal rules of transfer of property by a gift are the same as by sale in all respects. R. Meїr is quoted here and in Ma‘ser Šeni1:1 to hold that, while a gift is only valid if it were valid also as a sale, a gift does not induce the obligations of heave and tithes.. Rebbi Yose said, it is the opinion of everybody. This was asked of those from Rebbi Yannai’s house and they said, we used to give to one another in the fields and ate without putting in order⁶Since practice follows the Mishnah, the Mishnah cannot describe a minority opinion. R. Yose is proven correct.. How can this be? Following him who held that they accepted tithes voluntarily⁷Following R. Eleazar, Ševi‘it 6:1, Notes 11–13..

“The following are the forbidden towns in the district of Tyre⁸¹Even though the Mishnah states that Akhzib is the Northern border of the Land, there are isolated villages that always had a Jewish population and, therefore, are obliged to follow the rules of the Sabbatical. The list is in Tosephta Ševiït 4:9. The text of the Reḥov mosaic reads: העיירות האסורות בתחום צור שצת ובצת ופי מצובה וחנותה עלייתה וחנותה ארעייתה וביברה וראש מייה ואמון ומזה היא קסטלה וכל מה שקנו ישראל נאסר.. “The towns forbidden in the district of Tyre: ṡẓt, Al-Baṣa, the source at Ma‘aṣuba, upper and lower Ḥanuta, the house of Bara (or Badia), the water spring, Hamun, and Mazy, that is the water tower [castellum, cf. Y. Sussman, Tarbiẓ45 (5736), 213–257]; and all that was acquired by Jews becomes forbidden.”: ṡẓt⁸²Unidentified; in the Rome ms. שיצת, in the Tosephta mss. אשנץ, שנץ., Al-Baṣa⁸³Just South of Rosh Haniqra., the source at Ma‘aṣuba⁸⁴Khirbet Ma‘aṣuba, SE of Al-Baṣa., upper and lower Ḥanuta⁸⁵Khirbet Ḥanuta, NE from Khirbet Ma‘aṣuba., Bet Badia⁸⁶Unidentified; in the Erfurt ms. of the Tosephta: בית כריא., the water spring, Hamun⁸⁷Khirbet Mazy is near Rosh Haniqra; Ḥamun (Jos. 19:28) is North of it at the source Ḥamul, so maybe ראש מיא and עמון are one and the same. In Galilean speech, ח, ע, א were undifferentiated., and Mazy⁸⁸Khirbet Mazy near Rosh Haniqra..”

Rebbi Ḥiyya [bar] Abba said: If one sold a slave into Acco, the latter was set free⁹³In the Babli, 8a, he is quoted pointing out that R. Meïr declares all of Acco to be of the Land only for bills of divorce; therefore not for the laws of slaves. It is forbidden to sell slaves from the Land to places outside the land; any such sale frees the slave.. Rebbi Ismael, the father of Rebbi Yudan, asked: Even from Acco to Acco? ⁹⁴From here to the end of the Halakhah, the text is from Ševi‘it 6:1, explained there in Notes 23–30. Variant readings from there are noted ש. All indications are that the text in Sevi‘it is the original. This follows what Rebbi Aḥa bar Jacob said in the name of Rebbi Immi: From two actions of Rebbi we learn that Acco is partly of the Land of Israel and partly outside the Land. Rebbi was in Acco when he saw them eating clean bread; he asked them, how did you knead [the dough]? They said to him, a student came here and instructed us that egg water does not prepare. We are boiling eggs and use their water to knead. They thought he was talking about cooking water of eggs when he spoke only of the eggs themselves. Rebbi Jacob bar Idi said, at that moment they decreed that a student may not render decisions. Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Ḥuna: If a student gives instructions even according to practice, his instructions are no instructions.

Rebbi Ismael ben Rebbi Yose stated in the name of his father: If there was a daughter, she enables to eat⁶⁰Tosephta 9:1; Babli 67a. In both sources it is emphasized that only a daughter lets mortmain slaves eat during the pregnancy of her mother but not sons. As R. Moses Margalit points out, the thrust of the argument of the Babli (not its details) must be understood also in the Yerushalmi that a daughter enables only in the presence of a son. By biblical rules (Num. 27:6–11), a daughter inherits only in the absence of sons, but the standard marriage contract assures the upkeep of unmarried daughters as a lien on the estate (Mishnah Ketubot 4:11). This means that the claim of the daughter to be fed as a member of the priestly clan is prior to and independent of any claim of the male heirs; since she is fed, the slaves who secure her claim also may eat. But if there are no male heirs, the daughters are heirs according to biblical standards. If the fetus is male, he becomes the sole heir. If female, she becomes a co-heir and the slaves cannot eat because of her part. If there are male heirs, a female fetus has no influence since the marriage contract stipulates only support for living daughters.. Rebbi Immi in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Because she is able to take her upkeep away from them. Is a wife not also able to take her upkeep away from them⁶¹The widow has a choice of either claiming her ketubah or staying in her house and being supported by the estate (Mishnah Ketubot 4:12).? She might request her ketubah be paid or lose her ketubah⁶²By any of the transactions mentioned in Mishnah Ketubot.. This is difficult! The ketubah is a biblical institution⁶³At least for a virgin bride, Ex.22:16. The rabbinic document is reported to be an institution of Simeon ben Šetaḥ, cf. Ketubot, Yerushalmi 8:11 (fol. 32c), Babli 82b. The opinion that the origin of the ketubah of a virgin (not the details of the text) is rabbinic is found only in the Babli, attributed to R. Jehudah (Ketubot 56a, 10a)., the upkeep of the daughters is rabbinical; do their institutions uproot a word of the Torah? It follows him who said that they accepted tithes voluntarily⁶⁴The laws connected with the distribution of land alter the first conquest became moot with the Babylonian exile. They were voluntarily reintroduced in the times of Ezra; cf. Ševi‘it 7:1, Note 11..

MISHNAH: Jews were sharecroppers for Gentiles in Syria⁶¹The parts of David’s kingdom not conquered by the 12 tribes under Joshua; cf. Peah 7, Note 119. R. Eliezer holds that the laws of the Holy Land extend to Syria but Rabban Gamliel holds that Syria is essentially outside the Land and only selected laws of the Land are extended to apply there.; Rebbi Eliezer obligates their produce for tithes and the Sabbatical but Rabban Gamliel exempts them. Rabban Gamliel says there are two ḥallot in Syria⁶²As explained in Mishnah 8. Biblical law restricts the duty of ḥallah to the Land (Num. 15:18–19). Rabbinic practice extends the obligation to the rest of the world but, since the soil outside the Land is intrinsically impure, any ḥallah outside the Land is impure and must be burned. Nevertheless, in order to remind people that the original duty is to give ḥallah to a Cohen, it was established that some dough should be given to a Cohen. This dough cannot be sanctified, otherwise it would be forbidden to the recipient. but Rebbi Eliezer says one ḥallah⁶³He denies that Syrian soil is impure.. They took the leniency of Rabban Gamliel and the leniency of Rebbi Eliezer but then returned to follow Rabban Gamliel in both cases.
Rabban Gamliel says: There are three domains for ḥallah⁸⁵In the biblical Land of Israel.. The Land of Israel⁸⁶The actual Land of Israel of the Second Commonwealth; cf. Mishnah Ševi‘it 6:1, Note 3, for the geographic details. up to Akhzib, one ḥallah. From Akhzib to the Euphrates or Amanus⁸⁷One has to add, with Mishnah Ševi‘it 6:1, “any place held by the immigrants from Egypt,” i. e., the regions North of Akhzib described as tribal territories in the book of Joshua., two ḥallot, one for the fire and one for the Cohen. The one for the fire has a measure⁸⁸The true ḥallah which cannot be eaten since the impurity of Gentile lands is extended rabbinically to any region not inhabited by Jews. The “measure” is that for ḥallah of the Land, Mishnah 2:7., the one for the Cohen has no measure⁸⁹A purely symbolic ḥallah to be eaten in impurity, as a remembrance of the rules to be restored in the times of the Messiah.. From Euphrates or Amanus inside⁹⁰The rest of Syria, domain of biblical promise; cf. Ševi‘it 6:1, Note 3., two ḥallot, one for the fire and one for the Cohen. The one for the fire has no measure⁹¹Both ḥallot are symbolical since that region was not under obligation of ḥallah even during the First Commonwealth., the one for the Cohen has a measure but a ṭevul yom may eat it⁹²He is forbidden true ḥallah.. Rebbi Yose says one does not need immersion⁹³This also shows that the symbolic ḥallah is no true heave, cf. Berakhot 1, Note 3..
But it⁹⁴The purely symbolic ḥallah mentioned last in Mishnah 8. By rabbinic ordinance, it is forbidden for people whose impurity originates in their own body. is forbidden to people suffering from genital flux⁹⁵Lev. 15:1–15, 25–30., and to women during menstruation⁹⁶Lev. 15:19–24. or after childbirth⁹⁷Lev. 12:1–8.. It may be eaten at one table with a layman and may be given to any Cohen⁹⁸Even a vulgar who cannot be expected to follow all rules of purity..
The following may be given to any Cohen¹²²Irrespective of his level of observance and knowledge of the Law. Some of the prescribed gifts are given to priests serving in the Temple; there, they are under supervision and instruction. The other gifts are purely profane; they cannot be impaired by the impurity of the Cohen.: ḥērem-dedications¹²³Num. 18:14. According to most sources, this special dedication is not for the upkeep of the Temple but for the Cohanim [Sifra Beḥuqotay Pereq12(9), Babli Sanhedrin 88a, Arakhin28a]. However, Babylonian practice follows the dissenting opinion (Arakhin29a)., firstlings¹²⁴Ex. 13:1, Num. 18:15., the redemption money for a [firstborn] son¹²⁵Ex. 13:1,13, Num. 3:47, 18:15., the redemption value of a firstling donkey¹²⁶Ex. 13:1,13., foreleg, jawbone, and first stomach¹²⁷Deut. 18:3., the first shearing¹²⁸Deut. 18:4., oil to burn¹²⁹Impure heave olive oil., Temple sacrifices, and First Fruits¹³⁰Deut. 26:1–11.. Rebbi Jehudah forbids First Fruits¹³¹Since they have to follow rules of heave, Mishnah Bikkurim 2:1.. Heave vetch¹³²This is animal fodder except in times of famine. Rebbi Aqiba permits but the Sages forbid.

“But the Sages say, it is demay even if all the contributors are Gentile except one Jew¹¹⁷Tosephta 1:12, given above.”. But we have stated: “With a Gentile, they are like his produce¹¹⁸Why is it not demay as in a storage facility?.” Rebbi Eleazar said, the Sages who follow the line of Rebbi Meïr. Rebbi Joḥanan said, these are really the Sages¹¹⁹They disagree with R. Meïr on the status of Gentile-grown produce and hold that it is exempt from all tithes.. They asked him, what is the reason? He told them, if you get whitehaired, I might tell you¹²⁰But by that time, R. Johanan would have died long ago.. What would he have told them? That they accepted tithes voluntarily¹²¹The returnees from Babylonia accepted the obligation of tithes voluntarily, since these obligations were originally bound to the land distributed by Joshua, and that distribution was obliterated by the exile. See the author’s The Scholar’s Haggadah, Northvale NJ 1995, p. 280–281. Since the obligation is similar in nature to a rabbinic ordinance, it follows the rules of leniency valid for such ordinances.. Samuel bar Abba¹²²The Babylonian Sage Samuel. asked: It is understandable that he did not tell them about pure food, because of a fence for pure food¹²³He did not want to imply that heave does not have to be watched according to the standards of Biblical purity because of its rabbinic status, because then they would have disregarded the rules of purity altogether. The same applies to the tithes.. He did not tell them about tithes, as a fence for tithes. He did not tell them about sacrifices; if he had told them, what would he have told them¹²⁴They seemed to have asked about some leniencies in the treatment of Gentiles’ sacrifices; the question is not preserved. Samuel asked, why did he not answer that question since the answer could not have any practical consequence.? For tithes, following him¹²⁶“Practice” in the language of the Yerushalmi is similar to the notion of “practice going back to Moses on Mount Sinai” in the Babli; it means a rule established by the returnees from Babylonia, the “Men of the Great Assembly,” as part of the establishment of rabbinic Judaism. It is part of the original decree of demay. who says that they accepted tithes voluntarily.

Does it follow him who says the Pesaḥ of women is voluntary¹⁹⁴That they refused to let Joseph the Cohen bring the Second Pesaḥ for his entire family. The same discussion in Pesaḥim 8:1 (fol. 35d), Qiddušin 1:8 (fol. 61c); cf. Babli Pesaḥim 93a, Mekhilta R. Ismael Ba 3, Mekhilta R. Simeon bar Ioḥai p. 10.? It was stated¹⁹⁵Tosephta Pesaḥim 8:10. There, the opinion of R. Meïr is attributed to R. Jehudah.: “A woman may make the First Pesaḥ by herself and the Second joining others¹⁹⁶Joining a group of men who are biblically obligated; cf. Note 177., the words of Rebbi Meïr. Rebbi Yose says, a woman may make the Second Pesaḥ by herself, even on the Sabbath¹⁹⁷If the 14th of Iyar is a Sabbath, the sacrifice has precedence over the Sabbath., and certainly the First. Rebbi Simeon ben Eleazar says, a woman may make the First Pesaḥ joining others but does not make the Second.” What is the reason of Rebbi Meïr? (Ex. 12:3) “Every man a sheep for the family,” if they want “a sheep for the house¹⁹⁸Everywhere in rabbinic Hebrew, “house” of a family is the wife..” What is the reason of Rebbi Yose, “Every man a sheep for the family,” a fortiori “a sheep for the house.” What is the reason of Rebbi Simeon ben Eleazar? “Every man”, not woman. How do the rabbis uphold “man”? A man, not a minor¹⁹⁹In the Tosephta (Note 195) the reason they turned back Joseph the Cohen was not that he brought his wife and children but his minor grandson. In that version, there is no place for disagreement or special situation.. Rebbi Jonah said, even according to him who says it is an obligation, it is different here since the occasion was news, that it should not become an obligation²⁰⁰If a renowned authority does something, everybody will rush to emulate him and in the next generation it will already be a common standard and acquire the status of “practice of the forefathers from time immemorial”. Even R. Yose will agree that in such a situation one should not allow a public display of special devotion. The Babli Pesaḥim 93a quotes a Tosephta which includes women impure because of childbirth in the list of persons obligated to observe the Second Pesaḥ.. Did we not hold²⁰¹Mishnah Menaḥot 10:6, Babli Menaḥot 69a, speaking of First Fruits. There seems to be no reason why the people from Hyena Mountain should not be permitted to bring their first fruits early. The answer is, they would have been permitted had some of them come as individuals. But that the people from an entire region should come publicly to do what is only tolerated is unacceptable.: “Before the Two Breads one should not bring but if somebody brought it is acceptable?” It is different here since the occasion was news, that it should not become an obligation. Did we not state²⁰²Mishnah Temurah 3:5. Why should Ben-Atitas not be permitted to bring his firstlings?: “If they were without blemish they should be sacrificed”? It is different here since the occasion was news, that it should not become an obligation.

MISHNAH: Any commandment which does not refer to the Land is obligatory both in the Land and outside the Land. But any commandment which does refer to the Land is obligatory only in the Land, except ‘orlah⁶³⁸Even though the commandment is formulated with a reference to the Land (Lev. 19:23), it has to be applied in a modified form outside the Land; cf. Mishnah ‘Orlah 3:9. and kilaim⁶³⁹The prohibitions of cross-breeding of animals and wearing a mixture of wool and linen (a prerogative of the priests serving in the Sanctuary) do not refer to the Land. The prohibition of kilaim in agriculture outside the Land is rabbinic in character.. Rebbi Eliezer says, also new grain⁶⁴⁰The prohibition of grain of the new harvest before the ‘Omer sacrifice, while referring to the Land, is written in the holiday catalogue of Lev. 23 which is presumed not to be bound to the Land. In Mishnah ‘Orlah 3:8, the obligation of ‘orlah outside the Land is tradition, not Holy Writ..