Talmud su Shevi'it 2:14

It was stated⁷⁴In Tosephta 5: “If a Gentile grafted a food tree on a futile tree, one counts from the moment it was planted.” In this version, it is clear that the count starts with the planting of the futile tree, not the grafting of the fruit tree. The Tosephta was not known to the editors of the Yerushalmi.: “If a Gentile grafted a food-tree on a futile⁷⁵A tree either without edible fruits or whose fruits are not generally objects of trade; cf. Mishnah Kilaim6:6. tree, even though a Jew is not permitted to do this, it is obligated for ‘orlah.” From when does one count ‘orlah? From the moment it⁷⁶The futile stem. is planted. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, only those for which intent is important⁷⁷Trees whose fruits are usually considered animal feed and only the intent of the grower can give them the status of human food.; for example carob trees from Ẓalmon or Gidud⁷⁸These places and the kinds of carob referred to have not been identified.; but on a willow⁷⁹“Willow” is taken as example of a tree whose fruits are neither human food nor animal feed. it is as if planted in the earth. Rebbi Joḥanan said, even on a willow. But did we not state⁸⁰Mishnah Ševi‘it 2:6; Note 42. “Sinking” is bending a branch down to the soil to have it grow roots.: “One does not plant, sink, or graft in the year preceding a Sabbatical year later than thirty days before the New Year; if he planted, sank, or grafted it should be uprooted.” According to Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish who will explain it by grafting on a willow it is understandable⁸¹The forbidden graft is graft of a fruit tree on a willow.. According to Rebbi Joḥanan who said even on a willow, why should it be uprooted? There is a difference because they unite in the Sabbatical year⁸²אחה is usually used for “invisible mending”. The two trees unite; this is forbidden agricultural activity in the Sabbatical. It has nothing to do with the rules of ‘orlah.. And that is what has been said, ⁸³Tosephta Ševi‘it 2:3, Roš Haššanah 1:8; Ševi‘it 2:6 (Notes 50–52), Roš Haššanah 1:2 (fol. 57a); Babli Roš Haššanah 9b. The Tosephta adds: “If it is ‘orlah it remains ‘orlah, fourth year remains fourth year [until the 15th of Ševaṭ.]”“If somebody planted, sank, or grafted 30 days before the New Year, it counts for him as a full year and he is permitted to keep it in the Sabbatical year. Less than 30 days before the New Year, it does not count for him as a full year and he is not permitted to keep it in the Sabbatical year. Truly, they said, the fruits from this planting are forbidden until the fifteenth of Shevaṭ.” Rebbi Joshua from Ono⁸⁴An early Amora acting as “Tanna”, memorizing baraitot. stated: There is no “grafted” here⁸⁵According to R. Joḥanan, grafting never creates a problem of ‘orlah.. Rebbi Abba Mari said, even for Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish there is no “grafted” here; for the past, certainly not to start out with⁸⁶Since grafting a fruit tree on a fruitless tree is forbidden, the Tosephta cannot speak only about somebody coming to ask whether he might graft on a fruit tree before Roš Haššanah. But in that case, R. Simeon ben Laqish agrees that orlah is counted for the root tree. R. Simeon ben Laqish has not stated how he would rule if somebody grafted on a willow and only afterwards came to ask..

The following is obvious: If somebody dedicated First Fruits not from the Seven Kinds it was not sanctified¹The thanksgiving declaration Deut. 26:5–10. It is forbidden to bring profane food into the Temple. If there is no obligation to bring First Fruits then there is a prohibition to bring. If there is an obligation, a dedication must sanctify the First Fruits as Temple offerings.. Where is there a disagreement? About mountain dates and valley fruits. Rebbi Zeïra, Rebbi Assi in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: They were not sanctified. Rebbi Hila in the name of Rebbi Immi: Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish disagree. Rebbi Joḥanan said they were not sanctified, Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said they were sanctified. Rebbi Jonah said, the reason of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish is that if somebody transgressed and gave heave from bad for good produce, his heave is heave⁵⁹Mishnah Terumot 2:6.. Rebbi Yose said, we have heard that bad produce is subject to tithes; did we hear that bad produce is subject to First Fruits?⁶⁰The argument of R. Jonah is disproved. A baraita supports Rebbi Yose: “One does not bring [fruits] from Sepphoris⁶¹On a hilltop. and Bet Shean⁶²In a deep valley. It is not specified why fruits from these two places are unacceptable as First Fruits., and if he brought they are not sanctified.” Rebbi Zeïra said, but there it is stated: “Figs pierced on the branch and grapes dusted and smoked⁶³Cf. Mishnah Ševi‘it 2:2. one does not bring. But one brings bat šeba figs⁶⁴White figs, cf. Demay 1, Note 5. (L. Goldschmidt, in his notes to Levy’s dictionary, explains that in Babli Nedarim27a, bat šeba figs are a kind different from “white figs”. But “white figs” are really green ones, in contrast to “black” or purple ones.) and white grapes.” The latter are highest quality. What can you say? But Rebbi Abba Mari said, one should not say that one should not bring these because they are late⁶⁵Tosephta 1:5..

HALAKHAH: ⁷⁴Here starts the discussion of the second part of the Mishnah, about the tithing of coriander. The two paragraphs refer to Ševiїt2:8. The second paragraph is practically identical (except for the order of subjects) with a paragraph there; Notes 80–81.Ḥizqiah said, if he collected two or three modii⁷⁵This is the reading here in both mss. and the Venice print. A Roman modius is a dry measure, corresponding to the seah. Because of the parallel with Ševiït, the commentators change מודייות into מורביות morbiot, a word that seems to indicate watering periods, cf. Ševiït 2:8, Note 83. This must be the intended meaning in the next sentence: If the farmer stops watering in order to hasten the ripening of the seeds, he cannot be interested in the vegetable. Also, one cannot withhold bushels from vegetables. But it does not make much sense to change the reading in the first sentence which speaks of harvesting vegetables. In the second sentence, the expression “two or three” must have slipped in as parallel to the first sentence since the discussion in Ševiїt 2:8 shows clearly that only the withholding of three waterings determines the crop as seeds. from it, it comes under the category of vegetable. Also for seeds it is so: If he withheld from it two or three morbiot⁷⁵This is the reading here in both mss. and the Venice print. A Roman modius is a dry measure, corresponding to the seah. Because of the parallel with Ševiït, the commentators change מודייות into מורביות morbiot, a word that seems to indicate watering periods, cf. Ševiït 2:8, Note 83. This must be the intended meaning in the next sentence: If the farmer stops watering in order to hasten the ripening of the seeds, he cannot be interested in the vegetable. Also, one cannot withhold bushels from vegetables. But it does not make much sense to change the reading in the first sentence which speaks of harvesting vegetables. In the second sentence, the expression “two or three” must have slipped in as parallel to the first sentence since the discussion in Ševiїt 2:8 shows clearly that only the withholding of three waterings determines the crop as seeds., it comes under the category of seeds. If one sowed it for seeds it is tithed for the past; if he sowed it as vegetable it is tithed for the future. If he sowed it for both seeds and vegetable, or if he sowed for seeds and then wanted it as vegetable, one may tithe from its seed on vegetable and from vegetable on seeds, on condition that it was collected before the New Year; but if some of it was collected after the New Year, its seed is tithed for the past and its vegetable is tithed at the moment of its being harvested if it was one-third ripe before the New Year. But if it was only ripe one-third after the New Year, both seed and vegetable are tithed for the future.

Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: There are six unresolved doubts. The caper-bush among trees following the House of Shammai⁸⁶In Halakhah 5:6, the House of Shammai make the capeṛbush subject to the restrictions both of vegetables and of trees (Note 92)., clay vessels like potash vessels following the House of Shammai⁸⁷Tosephta Kelim Baba Qama 2:1: “Vessels made of potash, the House of Shammai say they may become impure from the inside and their airspace like clay vessels and from the outside like metal vessels.” Clay vessels cannot become impure if an impurity touches their outside, cf. Berakhot Chapter Eight, Note 51., the squirrel mole among the crawling things following the House of Shammai⁸⁸In the Mishnah here.; the Egyptian bean among seed-vegetables⁸⁹Halakhah 3:2., the hermaphrodite among humans⁹⁰Whether he is treated as a male or a female. This is detailed in Tosephta Bikkurim 2., the koi among wild animals according to everybody⁹¹Tosephta Bikkurim 2:1. Hulin 80a: "Koi is the wild goat; some people say it comes from a male goat and a female deer. Rebbi Yose said, koi is a separate species and the Sages were unable to decide whether it follows the rules of domesticated animals or those of wild animals." The difference between domesticated and wild kasher animals is explained in Chapter 1, Note 104.. Rebbi Ḥama bar Uqba said, also the ṭrīqsīn cubit⁹²The space in the Temple between the holy and the holiest of holies parts. The problem is whether it is part of the Temple hall or of the holiest of holies.. What is the ṭrīqsīn cubit? Rebbi Jonah from Bostra said, confusion⁹³Jastrow’s explanation is Greek τάραξιν, accusative of τάραξις “confusion”. [Maimonides (Commentary to Middot 4:7) declares the word to be the name of the dividing wall in the first Temple.] A Gaonic commentary to Yoma explains טרקסין by an Arabic word בראסתג of unknown meaning. Arukh and Rashi declare טרקסין (spelling of Mishnah Middot 4:7) to be a Greek word and “inside-outside” its meaning. Compare Latin intro, adv. “inside” and extra, adv. “outside” for composite inTREXtra (E. G.)., “what is inside-outside?” Rebbi Yose said, since it is written (1K. 6:17) “forty cubits was the House, that is the inner Temple,” it means it is counted inside⁹⁴Since no provision is made for the wall, the wall is not part of the main part of the main room of the Temple but must be under the rules of the holiest of holies.. Rebbi Mana said to him, but it is written (2Chr. 3:8) “He made the holiest of holies twenty cubits long and ten wide,⁹⁵That verse is badly misquoted: ויעש את בית קדשי הקדשים ארכו על פני רחב הבית אמות עשרים ורחבו אמות עשרים. It makes no difference for the objection.” that means it is counted outside.

“One may plant melon”, etc. It was stated⁸⁸Tosephta Kilaim 2:9. There, the text reads “four kinds,” somewhat more explicit and less restrictive than the wording given here.: “One may make a small hole in one’s field, one hand-breadth deep, sow in it four seeds, and turn them to the four directions of the compass.” Rebbi Abba bar Cahana, Simeon of Nerash in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: That was taught regarding those which lean towards a dry spot⁸⁹See above, Halakhah 1. One can turn each growing plant away from the others only if outside there is space, not in a field. Hence, the Mishnah, if interpreted according to this statement, disagrees with the Tosephta.. Rebbi Mana asked, if we deal with those that lean towards a dry spot, should we not state “eight,” two on each of the edges⁹⁰The hole is square. An “edge” of the square is a semi-open interval which contains one of its endpoints but not the other. Then one may plant one seed at the endpoint and one at the midpoint of the edge, let the seed in the corner grow in the opposite direction of the diagonal, and the one planted in the middle of the edge perpendicular to the edge towards the outside. The question is not answered, but for broad-leaved plants the scenario is impossible.?