Talmud for Terumot 3:13

There²⁸Mishnah Menaḥot 12:2., we have stated: “If somebody says, ‘I undertake [to bring] on a pan²⁹A cereal offering fried in oil on a flat clay pan, Lev. 2:5–6.’ and he brought in a deep vessel³⁰A cereal offering cooked in boiling oil in a deep clay vessel, Lev. 2:7., in a deep vessel and he brought on a pan.³¹“What he brought is acceptable but he did not fulfill his vow.”” Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: This is the House of Shammai’s³²Why should a flour offering be acceptable if it was not properly dedicated? Since it is forbidden to bring profane food into the Temple precinct (Deut. 12:26), the House of Hillel should hold that an offering which does not fulfill the specification of the donor’s vow has to be rejected by the officiating priests. But for the House of Shammai, who hold that a dedication is always valid, even if made in error, the nonconforming offering is not profane., since the House of Shammai say, “dedication in error is dedication.” Rebbi Ze‘ira asked before Rebbi Yose³³Since R. Yose was R. Ze‘ira’s student’s student, one has to read: R. Yasa (Assi).: Why do we not explain it according to everybody, if he said, “I said, on a pan”?³⁴If the person who made the vow agrees that the present offering does not satisfy his vow, there is no reason why it should not be accepted as a separate offering. But if he said, “I undertake [to bring] on a pan,” and then he changed his mind³⁵Immediately. and said, “in a deep vessel”, he fulfilled his duty. Rebbi Ḥanina³⁶It seems that one has to read “R. Ḥinena”. and Rebbi Yasa came in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: it is everybody’s opinion. Rebbi Jeremiah asked: If he said, “I undertake [to bring] on a pan or in a deep vessel,” turned around³⁵Immediately. and said, “on a pan”, and turned around and said, “in a deep vessel”?³⁷Since he demonstrates that he did not make up his mind, do we hold him to his last statement or can he satisfy his vow with any of the kinds mentioned as possibilities? Rebbi Jehudah bar Pazi in the name of Rebbi Aḥa, Rebbi Hama in the name of Rebbi Yose: He determines even orally³⁸This is an independent statement. From the Mishnah in Menaḥot it follows that the donor’s statement determines the kind of cereal sacrifice he is required to bring, even if as yet he owes no flour.. They thought to say, even holidays determine³⁹If he vows the sacrifice for a holiday, he cannot satisfy his vow on a workday., even vessels determine⁴⁰If he vowed a cereal sacrifice without specifying its kind and then put the flour into one of the acceptable vessels without saying a word, the vessel determines the kind of offering he vowed and he cannot change it any longer..

A person brought a back-pack¹⁰⁸Rome ms: מפשלתה; the hif‘il of פשל means: to let hang down (in Arabic: to fail, be unsuccessful.) of leeks to Rebbi Isaac bar Tevele. He asked Rebbi Joḥanan. He said to him, go and ask Ḥananiah ben Samuel¹⁰⁹A Tanna in the academy of R. Joḥanan, whose task was to memorize all known tannaïtic statements. R. Isaac bar Tevele is otherwise unknown. who knows statements about this. He went and asked. He said, they did not show me^109aThe expression יחמי לי is discussed in detail by Y. Sussman in Mehqerei Talmud, vol. 3, Jerusalem 2005, pp. 219-224. (Addenda and Corrigenda by Guggenheimer) a statement, but he told me an Amoraic tradition, since Rebbi Yasa said in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Rebbi and Rebbi Eleazar ben Rebbi Simeon disagree: one says after its place of production, the other says, after its current stand. Rebbi Abbahu said that Rebbi said, after its place of production, and they taught him following Rebbi Eleazar ben Rebbi Simeon, after its current stand¹¹⁰Produce that may be from the Land of Israel is under the laws of the Sabbatical everywhere in the Land if carried by a human.. This means for back packs, but for animal loads everybody agrees after its place of production. If its place of production and of current placement are free but he is going to transport it through forbidden territory, that forbidden territory is as if he did not traverse it. Rebbi Abba bar Cohen asked before Rebbi Yose: Did not Rebbi Ḥiyya say in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, between Rebbi and his colleague, practice follows Rebbi. But Rebbi Jonah said, even Rebbi with Rebbi Eleazar ben Rebbi Simeon¹¹¹Since R. Eleazar ben R. Simeon was Rebbi’s teacher; he could not be counted as a “colleague.” It is said that after the death of R. Eleazar, Rebbi, who at that time was a widower, asked his widow to marry him. She answered: “Should a vessel that was used in the Sanctuary ever be used for profane purposes?”? He said to him, what do you want from Rebbi Joḥanan! Rebbi Joḥanan follows his own opinion, for Rebbi Joḥanan said, they were very lenient regarding the Sabbatical, which is of their words¹¹²Even though the observation of the Sabbatical year is among the duties that the returnees from Babylonia took upon themselves voluntarily (Neh.10:32), it cannot be considered a Biblical commandment since it is intrinsically connected with the Jubilee year which presupposes that every family hold the grounds alotted to it in Joshua’s distribution. Since there can be no Jubilee, the Sabbatical stands only on popular acceptance.. Some want to say¹¹³These object to R. Joḥanan and say that even if the Sabbatical cannot be considered a part of the Jubilee institution, at least it is to be kept in fulfillment of the vow registered by Nehemiah and, as such, it is Biblical., the opinion of Rebbi Joḥanan is added to that of Rebbi and they form a majority against Rebbi Eleazar ben Rebbi Simeon.

HALAKHAH: “In earlier times, he could go to court,” etc. Does this¹⁵This question is based on the interpretation of the term “court” in the Mishnah as an ad hoc court, that the husband was able ad hoc to assemble three people as a court, and declare before them that he was revoking the agency given to the agent. This is the explanation accepted in the Babli in the name of Rav Naḥman, 32b. not disagree with Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish, since Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said that nobody can annul an agency by speech^2,If a person can declare the agency void by a declaration at his place without informing the agent, why does the Mishnah accept voiding the agency only if either the agent for delivery or the recipient of the bill is informed of the annulment? R. Joḥanan’s statement is also in Qiddušin 4:9; in the parallel in the Babli, Qiddušin 59a, his reason is that words can be invalidated by words; he is opposed by R. Simeon ben Laqish. As an Amora, R. Joḥanan should not have the authority to contradict a Mishnah.¹⁶For money transactions, this is credited to R. Johanan in the Babli, 32b.. Explain it in a fully constituted court¹⁷He will hold that even in earlier times the agency could be revoked only by a public act of the local court who was presumed to transmit a copy of the document to the court at the wife’s place of residence..

HALAKHAH: There¹⁴⁰Mishnah Ševi‘it 8:8. One might as well have quoted the Mishnah here since the question is, why in Mishnah 7 the transaction is valid but the tithe money has to be restituted and used for food and in Mishnah 6 a similar transaction is declared invalid., we have stated: “One does not buy slaves, real estate, or unclean animals from Sabbatical money. If he did buy them, he has to eat their worth.” And here, you say so? Rebbi Jonah said, Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Josef and Samuel disagreed. One said here as a sale¹⁴¹What is invalid as a sale is valid as redemption., there as redemption. The other one said here if the seller is present¹⁴²The money has to be returned., there if the seller went away. We did not know who said what. Since Rebbi Yose said in the name of Samuel, the buy is acquired¹⁴³If he bought slaves with tithe money. He must hold that “bought” is an inexact expression since the farmer exchanged tithe money for slaves., that means he is the one who said here as a sale, there as redemption.

HALAKHAH: ¹³¹In the Venice print, Halakhah 8.: Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, one has to specify a stipulation and say: If ṭevel is in my hands, it shall be tithe, but if tithe is in my hands, it shall be heave of the tithe¹³²This refers to the case where ṭevel and tithe were mixed together and one takes 101 parts for the ṭevel of which the one part in excess is to be addititional heave of the tithe. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish states that heave can only be taken if it is specified from where it is to be taken. In our case, heave of the tithe can only be taken if the produce was first designated to be tithe. Hence, it is necessary to stipulate that it should be designated tithe if part of the grain originated from what was ṭevel.. Rebbi Jonah said, one has to add the converse stipulation and say, otherwise I did not do anything¹³³R. Jonah’s remark is a technicality. Since the rules of stipulations in Jewish law are derived from the stipulation Moses made with the tribes of Gad and Reuben (Num.32:29–30) in which it was spelled out first what would happen if the conditions were met and second what would happen if they were not, any stipulation in Jewish law is valid only if it is formulated both in the positive and the negative sense. So R. Jonah simply means that the stipulation has to be legally valid.. Rebbi Joḥanan said, one does not have to add the converse stipulation¹³⁴One does not need a stipulation at all; a simple declaration is sufficient.. Either one of them follows his own opinion, since they disagreed¹³⁵In Terumot, Chap. 3. The obligation of heave starts when grain, after threshing, is formed into heaps or put into a silo. If somebody has two heaps and he says, the heave of both heaps should be in one of them, without specifying in which one, then R. Joḥanan is of the opinion that both heaps are potentially profane mixed with heave, and both of them fall under the strict rules of dema‘ until heave is taken. But R. Simeon ben Laqish holds that heave can only be taken from a designated spot; hence, the declaration is invalid and nothing has changed. It follows that, in our case, R. Simeon ben Laqish must require a declaration which fixes the exact part from which heave of the tithe may be taken, but R. Joḥanan holds that any produce that is potentially heave may be turned into heave by simple declaration.: Two heaps of grain, in one of them. Rebbi Joḥanan said, they are both forbidden as dema‘, but Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, they are not forbidden.