Талмуд к Эдуйот 1:20

If it is so, why was it said: One ploughs until the New Year⁵From some baraita. The statement of R. Joḥanan is a Tosephta (Ševi‘it 1:1). In the Babli (Mo‘ed qaṭan3b) the statement is attributed to R. Joshua ben Levi; in neither Talmud is it presented as a tannaïtic statement.? Rebbi Crispus in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Rabban Gamliel and his court abolished the prohibition of the first two terms. Rebbi Joḥanan asked: Did we not state: No court may annul the words of another court unless it is greater in wisdom and numbers⁶Mishnah Idiut 1:5. Rabban Gamliel and his court are inferior to the Men of the Great Assembly both in stature and in numbers.? Rebbi Crispus in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: If they wanted to plough, they may plough⁷Since the institution of the Sabbatical year is interwoven with that of the Jubilee year and the Jubilee is possible only if the Twelve Tribes are living on their ancestral lands, the Sabbatical in the times of the Second Commonwealth is not a biblical but a rabbinic institution. It is a general rule in dealing with institutions of the Men of the Great Assembly that one is restrictive in interpretation while the Temple exists and lenient when the Temple does not exist. Since one hopes that the Temple will be re-established, the rules have to be stated in the Mishnah for future generations (Interpretation of Rav Ashi in Babli Mo‘ed Qaṭan 4a).. Then it should have been eliminated from the Mishnah! Rebbi Crispus in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: If they wanted to re-establish it, they may do so.

Rebbi Jonah objected: There is the chapter on the induction and the chapter on the generation of the deluge which will have no future use⁸The induction of Aaron and his sons into the priesthood is decribed twice in the Torah, once as commandment (Ex. 29) amd once in its execution (Lev. 8–9). The rules given there have no future application since the priesthood of the descents of Aaron is permanent. Similarly, since God has sworn that there will be no more global deluge (Gen. 9:11), the story of the deluge has no future applications.. Should they have been eliminated from what is studied? They are there to inform you. So here also to inform you. Rebbi Mana said, as we stated there⁹Mishnah Idiut 1:6, explaining why the Mishnah also transmits opinions which are rejected in practice. The information about rejected opinions is necessary for the future.: “If a person says, so is my tradition, one will say to him, you heard the opinion of Rebbi X.” And so, if somebody should say, I heard that it is forbidden to plough until the New Year, they will say to him, you heard the prohibition of the first two terms.

Rebbi Benjamin ben Gidal and Rebbi Aḥa were sitting together. Rebbi Aḥa mentioned the statement of Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina. Rebbi Benjamin bar Gidal said to him: Or maybe: Since with respect to “in addition” which was said there⁴³Lev. 18:18: “Do not take a woman in addition to her sister to be ‘bundle’ together, to uncover her genitals in addition [to the sister’s] in her lifetime.” Cf. also Note 51., the verse speaks about one who is not a sister-in-law, so with respect to “in addition” which was said here⁴⁴Deut. 25:5., does the verse speak about one who is not a sister-in-law⁴⁷Since an argument based on the invariable meaning of words in legal texts must work both ways and Lev.18:18 obviously includes the prohibition of a sister-in-law who is not a brother’s wife, R. Yose ben Ḥanina’s argument seems illogical.? Rebbi Aḥa said to him: The Torah mentions⁴⁴Deut. 25:5. the brother’s wife and you say, the verse speaks about one who is not a sister-in-law! Rebbi Benjamin bar Gidal said to him: The Torah mentions⁴³Lev. 18:18: “Do not take a woman in addition to her sister to be ‘bundle’ together, to uncover her genitals in addition [to the sister’s] in her lifetime.” Cf. also Note 51. one who is not a sister-in-law and you say a sister-in-law⁴⁸The implication from Deut. to Lev. would restrict the prohibition of the sister-in-law to a brother’s widow!! Rebbi Aḥa was offended by him. Rebbi Yose said, not that Rebbi Aḥa disagreed but he insisted on the formulation he had heard from his teacher. What about it? Since “in addition” mentioned there⁴⁴Deut. 25:5. is about a brother’s widow, so “in addition” here⁴³Lev. 18:18: “Do not take a woman in addition to her sister to be ‘bundle’ together, to uncover her genitals in addition [to the sister’s] in her lifetime.” Cf. also Note 51. is even about a brother’s widow⁴⁹The correct implication, parallel to the argument of R. Yose ben Ḥanina, is that Lev. 18:18 applies even to the widow of the childless brother as claimed in the Mishnah..

MISHNAH: If somebody gives ḥallah from flour it is not ḥallah and will be robbery in the hand if the Cohen. The dough itself is subject to ḥallah; the flour, if it is a full measure⁶⁴The flour given as ḥallah measures more than 5/4 qab., is obligated for ḥallah and forbidden to laymen, the words of Rebbi Joshua. They said to him, it happened that a layman rabbi grabbed⁶⁵קבש stands for כבש, showing that the ק had lost its guttural sound. He took and ate it without it being given to him to show that it had no holiness. it. He said to them, he destroyed himself⁶⁶He sinned. and put others in order⁶⁷Others who follow his teaching will not sin since they would follow rabbinical instructions; their sins in this matter will all be charged to the rabbi who gave the wrong instructions..
Five quarters⁷¹The measure involved is discussed in the Halakhah. of coarse flour⁷²The same holds for fine flour which never contains bran. It is stated here that milled grain is called “coarse flour” before being sifted. are obligated for ḥallah; including hulls and bran it is obligated by five quarters. If the bran was sifted out and later returned⁷³Usually the bran is sifted out before the flour is used for bread dough. Since normally bran is not returned, the rules for flour mixed with bran are like those for flour mixed with rice flour., it is free.
The rate⁸²If a dough is subject to ḥallah, the amount to be taken is 1/24 by rabbinic decree. Since ḥallah is a heave, it has no lower limit in biblical law. The rabbinic amount is more than twice the rabbinic rate of heave which is one in 50. of ḥallah is one in 24. If somebody makes dough for himself or his son’s wedding feast, one in 24. A baker who makes to sell on the market, and also a woman⁸³In contrast to the baker she has no store but bakes at home to sell out of her basket on the market. who makes to sell on the market, one in 48. If the dough became impure⁸⁴In this case, the ḥallah must be burned and there is no reason to give the Cohen a larger portion. Today, when all dough is impure, these rabbinic rules have been disestablished and biblical law reinstated. by error or accident, one in 48. If it became impure intentionally, one in 24 so the sinner should not be rewarded.
Rebbi Eliezer says, it may be taken from pure for impure⁹⁵This is forbidden for heave, Terumot 2:2.. How is this? With pure and impure dough, he takes the amount needed for ḥallah from dough from which ḥallah was not yet taken and gives less than the volume of an egg in the middle⁹⁶Since food less in volume than an egg cannot transmit impurity (Terumot 5:1), the two doughs can be put in the same vessel to be earmarked for heave together (Terumot 2, Note 6). The Mishnah is quoted in Babli Soṭah30a/b; there a version is quoted which has “gives the volume of an egg”. The explanation is that the impure dough is impure in the first degree (cf. Berakhot Chapter 8, Note 46). It makes the dough in between impure in the second degree. The pure dough, while ṭevel, is under the rules of profane food for which no third degree exists. Therefore, the dough in the middle cannot transmit impurity to the pure dough irrespective of size. This is the position taken by Maimonides in his Code (Bikkurim 7:12). so he should take from the earmarked. But the Sages forbid it.

MISHNAH: He who gives a tetradrachma for change of Second Tithe money¹¹⁴Cf. Note 109. In this interpretation, the House of Hillel require bronze coins to be exchanged into silver coins at the earliest possible moment since bronze coins are more likely to deteriorate., the House of Shammai say small change for the entire tetradrachma but the House of Hillel say one šeqel¹¹⁵Two drachmas (silver denars), half a tetradrachma. This change is outside of Jerusalem. As R. Abraham ben David explains in his commentary to the Mishnah (Idiut 1:9), the House of Hillel think that if everybody brings only silver coin to Jerusalem, the money changers there will raise the price of bronze coins relative to silver. silver coin and one šeqel small coin. Rebbi Meïr says, one does not exchange silver coin and produce for silver coin¹¹⁶If somebody has three silver denars and produce in the value of one denar of Second Tithe, he should not exchange them together for a tetradrachma., but the Sages permit it.
He who gives a tetradrachma for change of Second Tithe money¹¹⁴Cf. Note 109. In this interpretation, the House of Hillel require bronze coins to be exchanged into silver coins at the earliest possible moment since bronze coins are more likely to deteriorate., the House of Shammai say small change for the entire tetradrachma but the House of Hillel say one šeqel¹¹⁵Two drachmas (silver denars), half a tetradrachma. This change is outside of Jerusalem. As R. Abraham ben David explains in his commentary to the Mishnah (Idiut 1:9), the House of Hillel think that if everybody brings only silver coin to Jerusalem, the money changers there will raise the price of bronze coins relative to silver. silver coin and one šeqel small coin. Rebbi Meïr says, one does not exchange silver coin and produce for silver coin¹¹⁶If somebody has three silver denars and produce in the value of one denar of Second Tithe, he should not exchange them together for a tetradrachma., but the Sages permit it.
If part of one’s children were pure and part impure¹²³All are forbidden Second Tithe., he puts down the tetradrachma¹²⁴Of tithe money. and says, this tetradrachma shall be exchanged for what the pure are drinking. It turns out that the pure and the impure may drink from the same pitcher¹²⁵The wine must be pure so that it can become Second Tithe the moment it is poured into the cups of the pure children..

And who permitted it? Rebbi and his court permitted it. At three places is Rebbi Jehudah the Prince called “our teachers,” in divorce documents, oil, and a sole. They should have called him “a permissive court”, for any court which permits three [previously forbidden] things is called “permissive court.” Rebbi Yudan ben Rebbi Ismael said, his court disagreed with him about bills of divorce.Rebbi Joḥanan asked: Did we not state³²⁸Mishnah Idiut 1:5., “for no court may invalidate the words of another court unless it be greater in wisdom and numbers”? And Rebbi and his court permit what Daniel and his companions forbade? Rebbi Joḥanan follows his own opinion, for Rebbi Joḥanan said in the name of Rebbi Eleazar ben Rebbi Ṣadoq, I have a tradition that any restrictive edict passed by a court which is not accepted by the majority of the public is not an edict. They checked and found in the matter of the edict about oil and did not find that a majority of the public followed it.

Samuel said, they taught this only about the eighteen. Therefore, other than the eighteen even a lesser [court] may abolish³³⁹A court of lesser standing than the one which issued a decree may abolish it as long as it is not of the Eighteen Decrees described earlier.. They objected, is there not the Sabbatical year? This is not of the eighteen items, and Rebbi Joḥanan (said it)³⁴⁰The word was written by the scribe; it was deleted by the corrector. As S. Liebermann has shown, the deletion is unjustified. R. Joḥanan both formulated a tradition and questioned its validity. The following text is from Ševiˋit 1:1, Notes 6–7. and asked about it. Rebbi Krispedai³⁴¹In Ševiˋit 1:1, his name is Crispus. in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Rabban Gamliel and his court abolished the prohibitions of the first two terms³⁴²Agricultural work is forbidden in the Sabbatical year. In Tractate Ševiˋit, rabbinic interpretation infers from verses that also the preparation of fields or orchards for the new sowing or planting season, in summer and early fall, is forbidden in the months preceding New Year’s day of the Sabbatical. These terms are different for sowing and planting; they are referred to as “the two periods.”
However, since the biblical commandment of the Sabbatical is intrinsically connected with that of the Jubilee, it cannot be in force when the Jubilee is not in force, i. e., if not all of Israel dwells on the ancestral land distributed by Joshua. Therefore during the Second Commonwealth the Sabbatical was a rabbinic institution. Rabban Gamliel (of Jabneh, the first Patriarch after the destruction of the Second Temple) decided that in the absence of the Temple the rabbinic institution of the Sabbatical should continue without extensions. While his Court was the highest authority in his time, he could not compete in standing with the Men of the Great Assembly who established the rules for the Second Commonwealth.. Rebbi (Jonathan) [Joḥanan]³⁴³The text in parentheses is that of the Leiden ms., the [correct] one in brackets is from the Geniza fragment which is legible at this place. asked. Did we not state³²⁸Mishnah Idiut 1:5., “for no court may invalidate the words of another court unless it be greater in wisdom and numbers”? There came Rav Abun, Rav Jehudah in the name of Samuel: they taught this only about other [decrees] than the eighteen. Therefore, the eighteen even a greater one cannot abolish, because they fought for it with their lives. Rebbi Mana said, this makes it reasonable that it is not so; since this is a case of force it is invalid³⁴⁴The first argument was that the 18 decrees must be inviolate because people were killed for it; R. Mana’s argument is that the decrees were imposed by force and therefore are intrinsically invalid.. They objected, is there not oil which is of the eighteen? And Rebbi (Jonathan) [Joḥanan]³⁴³The text in parentheses is that of the Leiden ms., the [correct] one in brackets is from the Geniza fragment which is legible at this place. objected! Rav Cahana the son of Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba; Rebbi Aḥa bent it in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Oil, they abolished what was abolished³⁴⁵As stated earlier, the decree about Gentile olive oil never was accepted by the people; it never became enforceable law..

MISHNAH: A person who is half slave and half free works for his master one day and for himself one day, the words of the House of Hillel. The House of Shammai say, you provided for his master but you did not provide for him. He can marry neither a slave woman¹³¹The free part in him is forbidden any sexual relation with a slave. nor a free woman¹³²The free woman is forbidden any sexual relation with the slave part in him.: shall he be alone? But the world was created only for procreation and increase, as it is said¹³³Is. 45:18.: “He did not create it to be empty, He formed it to be settled.” For the public good one forces his master to manumit him and he writes a bond for half his value¹³⁴This entered Roman law by a decree of Justinian, c. 1. C. 7,7. Most earlier jurists rejected the idea of partial manumission; cf. R. Taubenschlag (Note 104), p. 75.. The House of Hillel changed and instructed following the House of Shammai.

Rebbi Joḥanan asked: Did we not state, “for no court may invalidate the words of another court unless it be greater in wisdom and numbers”³⁸⁷Mishnah Idiut1:5.? And Rebbi and his court permit what Daniel and his companions forbade? Rebbi Joḥanan follows his own opinion: Rebbi Joḥanan said, I have a tradition in the name of Rebbi Eleazar ben Rebbi Ṣadoq that any restrictive edict passed by a court which is not accepted by the majority of the public is not an edict³⁸⁸In the Babli 36a: It is forbidden to promulgate a decree that the majority of the public cannot accept.. They checked and found in the matter of the edict about oil and did not find that a majority of the public followed it³⁸⁹Babli 36a. This proves conclusively that the original prohibition of oil was relatively recent and purely rabbinic..