MISHNAH: If somebody transports figs through his courtyard to cut them into pieces [They are not fully processed and the courtyard does not induce ṭevel.] , his children and companions [This certainly includes his wife; it may also include hired domestic servants.] may eat and they are free [Since the figs are not fully processed there is no reason to require them to tithe.] ; the same holds for laborers who work for him [They work on other tasks, not in processing the figs. Therefore, there is no biblical law that permits them to eat. If their meals are part of their wages the employer would pay his debts with untithed fruits and this is forbidden.] as long as they cannot claim their meals from him. But those who can claim their meals from him may not eat. If somebody takes his workers out to the field, if they have no claim to meals from him, they eat and are free [They do not work on the fig trees and do not eat by biblical decree. The farmer may offer them figs on the field but this does not have the status of a gift or a sale and does not create ṭevel.] . But if they can claim meals from him they may eat single fruits from the fig tree but not from the basket or the box or the muqẓeh [Since any food they eat between meals reduces the amount he has to give to them, the owner cannot discharge a monetary obligation using heave and tithes. Therefore, they may eat only in the way a recipient of a gift may eat untithed food.] . If somebody hires a laborer to work with him on olive trees and said to him “on condition to be able to eat olives, [The Halakhah will explain that the laborer is hired to work around the tree but not on the tree itself. He cannot eat by biblical law; therefore his contract is treated as a sale and is subject to heave and tithes if he takes more than one piece at a time.] ” he eats one by one and if he takes them together he is obligated. To thin out onions, if he said to him “on condition to be able to eat vegetables” he snips off leaf by leaf and eats but if he takes them together he is obligated.
HALAKHAH: May he himself eat [Without tithing since his status is not mentioned in the Mishnah.] ? Rav said, he is forbidden to eat; Ulla ben Rebbi Ismael said in the name of Rebbi Eleazar, this one is permitted to eat. Rav follows Rebbi Meїr [Who declares a sale before the end of processing to induce the status of ṭevel. Certainly he will hold that the presence of produce in the courtyard makes it ṭevel.] , Rebbi Eleazar the rabbis. Does Rav follow Rebbi Meїr? Then even his children and domestics should be forbidden! But Rav follows Rebbi, Rebbi Eleazar the rabbis. As Rebbi Simon said in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi, Rebbi Yose ben Shaul in the name of Rebbi: The Sages say, one eats from what is going to the muqẓeh only in its place [At the place where the cut-up figs are fermenting and drying, everybody sees that processing is not finished and one may eat without tithing. But at other places, sliced figs may look like finished food subject to tithing.] . Rebbi Jacob ben Idi in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi: one eats from what is going to the muqẓeh in its place and in other places. Rebbi Yose ben Shaul objected to Rebbi: Did we not state [Mishnah 4: As long as the carob pods have not been stored on the roof, they may be used as animal feed without tithing. Since nobody by looking at a carob can tell whether it has been stored or not, the distinction which Rebbi makes is not applied uniformly.] , “carob pods until he collected them on top of his roof?” He said to him, do not object to me about carobs; carobs are animal feed [Mishnah 4: As long as the carob pods have not been stored on the roof, they may be used as animal feed without tithing. Since nobody by looking at a carob can tell whether it has been stored or not, the distinction which Rebbi makes is not applied uniformly.] .
According to Rav, what is the difference between himself and his children? He is forbidden because he depends on muqẓeh [Since he is the owner of the courtyard, without the evidence of continued processing the courtyard would induce ṭevel and the duty of tithes.] . His children who do not depend on muqẓeh are permitted. We understand his children, but his wife? Does she not have a claim for food against him [It is forbidden to pay one’s debts with untithed produce. The marriage contract explicitly notes that the husband will “work for, honor, feed, and provide for” his bride “in the manner of Jewish husbands.” The language seems to imply that this is a contract following rabbinic guidelines; this is the position of Nachmanides and R. Asher ben Ieḥiel (Rosh Ketubot Chap. 13, Sec. 6.) Maimonides holds that nevertheless the obligation is biblical, Hilkhot Išut 12:2.] ? Following him who says, the wife’s food is not from the Torah. Following what we have stated: “The court will not determine food [Tosephta Ševiït 5:22, quoted also in Yerushalmi Ketubot 7:1 (fol. 31b), 13:1 (fol. 34d). The husband left for an overseas trip, stayed longer than anticipated, and now the wife needs money to survive. She may sell some of the husband’s property or take a loan under the supervision of the court. She may not sell Sabbatical produce for her needs since Sabbatical produce may not be used to pay debts of any kind. But if the husband is present, she may eat of his Sabbatical fruits; since his obligation to feed his wife is only rabbinical, this is not considered paying his debts with Sabbatical produce. Similarly here, her eating from figs destined for muqẓeh is not considered paying a debt with untithed fruit.] for a wife from Sabbatical money, but she may be given Sabbatical produce to eat at her husband’s.” Can she not be considered like a worker whose work is not worth a peruṭah [The smallest bronze coin, about 2 grams in weight. Amounts less than a peruṭah are not recognized in law. The worker cannot eat according to biblical law; what he gets is a gift and the rabbis agreed earlier that a gift has the status of a sale for the obligation of tithes. Even though the obligation of the husband to feed his wife might not be biblical, it is the consequence of a contract volontarily entered upon and it should not be possible to discharge the obligation with untithed produce (except when the wife’s income from her work is more than what she would get from her husband, in which case she is free to stipulate that she will keep her earnings for herself and not be fed by him.)] ? It implies that she is not considered like a worker whose work is not worth a peruṭah. Even according to him who says, the wife’s food is not from the Torah, does she not have a claim to a dwelling [Since she has the biblical right to live in her husband’s house and courtyard, if the courtyard creates ṭevel for him it should do the same for her; this seems to contradict Rav’s position.] ? Following what we stated: “If men participate [In order to turn the dead-end street where they live into a space in which one may carry on the Sabbath, cf. Demay Chapter 1, Note 193.] with food without the knowledge of their wives, the participation is valid. But if wives participate without the knowledge of their husbands, the participation is invalid [Tosephta Eruvin 6:4. The wife’s right to the dwelling is derivative; there is no reason that the courtyard should create ṭevel for her. This argument is peculiar to the Yerushalmi; in the Babli (Eruvin 80a) the Tosephta is restricted to the case where the husband disapproved of participation beforehand.] ”.
It was stated: All that was brought from the field to town became ṭevel. The baraita is Rebbi’s, as it was stated: “ [Tosephta 2:8: “If somebody brought figs from the field to eat them in a courtyard exempt from tithes, then forgot and brought them into his house, he may bring them back to their intended place and eat.”] If somebody brought figs from the field to eat them in his unprotected courtyard [Which does not belong to a house and does not induce ṭevel.] , then forgot and brought them into his house or the children brought them [Without his knowledge.] , he may bring them back to their intended place and eat.” They said that only concerning error; therefore, if intentional it is forbidden. Who stated this? Rebbi! As it was stated: “ [A different text in Tosephta 2:10. There, the opinion ascribed here to Rebbi is anonymous.] If somebody brought figs from the field to eat them on his roof, Rebbi obligates [Being exposed to the birds, this is no place of storage; the intention is to eat the figs more or less immediately. Since the figs are transported through the courtyard of the house, Rebbi declares them to be ṭevel; R. Yose ben R. Jehudah frees them since there was no intention of storing. It is also implied that the figs were lifted to the roof directly from the back of the house, so that they never were in the house, not even in front of the entrance door. In this case, they never can become ṭevel and are permanently exempt from heave and tithes according to everybody, as made explicit in the next paragraph.] , Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Jehudah frees.” It is as it was stated, “if somebody transports figs through his courtyard to cut them into pieces [They are not fully processed and the courtyard does not induce ṭevel.] ;” therefore, if it is not to cut into pieces he is obligated.
Rebbi Ulla ben Rebbi Ismael in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: Rebbi and Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Jehudah brought the harvesting basket over the back of the roofs [Reading גגות for גנות “the gardens” in both mss. and the editio princeps.] . Rebbi Jehudah ben Rebbi Ilaї saw them and said, look what the difference is between you and the earlier generations. Rebbi Aqiba bought three different kinds for a peruṭah in order to tithe every kind separately but you bring the harvesting basket over the back of the roofs [A similar story, also in the name of R. Jehudah bar Ilaï, in Babli Berakhot 35b. In the Yerushalmi, the change from earlier to later generations is from before and after the war of Bar Kokhba. In the Babli, R. Jehudah considers his own generation (before and after the war) as late, the generations in the time of the Temple as early. Since his own son uses the subterfuge, he cannot object to the latter as a matter of law.] ! Why over the back of the roofs, even if he brings them into his courtyard with the intention to eat them on the roof! Is that not the opinion of Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Jehudah? Because of Rebbi who was with him [Being exposed to the birds, this is no place of storage; the intention is to eat the figs more or less immediately. Since the figs are transported through the courtyard of the house, Rebbi declares them to be ṭevel; R. Yose ben R. Jehudah frees them since there was no intention of storing. It is also implied that the figs were lifted to the roof directly from the back of the house, so that they never were in the house, not even in front of the entrance door. In this case, they never can become ṭevel and are permanently exempt from heave and tithes according to everybody, as made explicit in the next paragraph.] . An old man saw [Speaking Aramaic, he is characterized as ignorant. He disapproves of rabbinical subterfuges.] them and said to them, would you give me some of these? They said, yes. He said to them, you did not give to your father in Heaven, only to me!
Rebbi Joḥanan follows Rebbi, Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Jehudah [This refers to the discussion in Chapter 2, Notes 99–102, whether the Sabbath or a secure courtyard induce ṭevel independent of any intention of the owner.] . Does Rebbi Joḥanan follow Rebbi? Even if he would hold with Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Jehudah, the Sabbath is more powerful since windfall which falls by itself is forbidden [Since food for the Sabbath has to be prepared beforehand (Ex. 16:5), fruits which fall from a tree on the Sabbath are forbidden even though collecting them is not harvesting.] . Does Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish follow Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Jehudah? Even if he would follow Rebbi, since a secure courtyard [Chapter 2, Note 101. The rest of the paragraph is also found there, Notes 101–102.] is more powerful as Rebbi Joḥanan said, buying, courtyard, and Sabbath are not biblical. Rebbi Immi in the name of Rebbi Simeon [ben Laqish], the most reasonable of these is the secure courtyard.
Rebbi Joḥanan in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Ioḥai: If someone had two courtyards [Both enclosed and guarded, potential sources of ṭevel.] , one in Magdala [On Lake Genezareth, less than 2000 cubits from Tiberias.] and one in Tiberias, and transported it to the one in Magdala intending to eat them in Tiberias; since he transported it in a permitted [Since the storage in Magdala is provisional, the processing is not finished and the courtyard does not induce ṭevel. Since one courtyard is inactive, so is the second and the fruits become ṭevel only when brought into storage in house or barn.] way it is permitted. It turns out that Rebbi Simeon ben Ioḥai holds with Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Jehudah but is stronger than the latter since Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Jehudah speaks about an exempt place [The roof which never induces ṭevel.] but Rebbi Simeon ben Ioḥai about a place of obligation [A courtyard which usually induces ṭevel. In the Venice print and the Leyden ms., the reference is to R. Simeon ben Laqish. In the Rome ms. it is correctly R. Simeon ben Ioḥai.] , but since he transported it in a permitted way it is permitted [Since the storage in Magdala is provisional, the processing is not finished and the courtyard does not induce ṭevel. Since one courtyard is inactive, so is the second and the fruits become ṭevel only when brought into storage in house or barn.] . Rebbi Eliezer’s statement [Terumot 8:4, Note 74, about a person who started eating a bunch of grapes as a snack and with them entered his courtyard.] is stronger than either of them, since Rebbi Eliezer said, since he started in a permitted way it is permitted.
We understand “not from the basket or the box [Since the harvested fruits are assembled there, they cannot be eaten as a snack; cf. Chapter 2, Note 21.] ”, but “or the muqẓeh? [The cut-up figs are lying there singly.] ” Not “ [Mishnah 3.] he eats one by one and if he takes them together he is obligated”? Rebbi Isaac said, they considered muqẓeh as being taken together [A muqẓeh of figs is like a heap of grain.] .
The house of Rebbi stated: He eats normally [If he is hired to work on olives. This statement is not in the Tosephta.] and is free. Rebbi Jonah asked, where do we hold? If he hired him to work with him on the olives [To harvest them.] , everybody agrees that he eats normally and is free. If he hired him to work the olive trees, everybody agrees that he eats one by one and if he takes them together he is obligated [Since it is not harvest time, he cannot eat by biblical law and must eat under the rules of commercial transactions.] . But we must hold that he hired him to thin out the olives [To remove those whose growth is below normal in order to direct the sap of the olive tree to the good olives. Since he removes olives he can be said to harvest and eat them by biblical decree; this is the position of the House of Rebbi. But since the thinning is a long time before the real harvest, this cannot be considered harvesting: the position of the Tanna of the Mishnah. The House of Rebbi holds that a poor worker will be ready to eat unripe, bitter, raw olives.] . Since the latter part is about thinning out onions, if he said to him “on condition to be able to eat vegetables” he tears them out leaf by leaf and eats but if he takes them together he is obligated.
Rebbi Ḥaggai asked the colleagues: What is the reason we stated here that “he is free” [When he eats from the fruits.] ? They said to him, because he is eating a snack in the field and is free. He said to them, is our Mishnah needed for that, because he is eating a snack in the field and is free [This was already stated in Mishnah 1:4 and often since.] ? It must be because of abandoned property since if he brings it to his house he still is free. As it is stated [Tosephta 2:17.] : “If somebody found a harvesting basket covered with leaves, that is forbidden because of robbery and is subject to tithes.” It is forbidden because of robbery since it is something with distinguishing marks [An object found belongs to its original owner if it carries a distinguishing mark which the owner could indicate as proof of ownership; Mishnah Baba Meẓi‘a 2:1.] . It is subject to tithes since the owners still have it in mind [It is not abandoned but subject to heave and tithes as private property.] . How far, that he could give heave from abandoned property [Does he have to wait before eating the fruits until it is clear that the owners will not come back and have abandoned the fruits? Probably the fruits will have spoiled by that time.] ? He cannot give heave from abandoned property [Since fruits abandoned before the end of processing can never become subject to heave and tithes and it is forbidden to tithe what is obligated from what is not obligated (Terumot1:5).] ! “He turns it into money’s worth and eats. [He estimates the commercial value of the fruits due to the owners should they return for their property.] ”
Rebbi Jonah asked: Does the fixing of the price create ṭevel in a sale [This is a general question since a sale of movables is consummated only by taking possession, not by paying the amount agreed on (cf. Kilaim 8, Note 46). This is held to be a rabbinic decree; by biblical law a sale can be concluded also by paying the amount agreed on. In no case does the fixing of a price conclude the sale. The particular question here is what are the legal implications of the finder putting a monetary value on the fruits he found.] ? Or maybe, since the owners can take it back there is no ṭevel? Rebbi Mana asked: Think of it if one was put [The queer formulation as a passive is necessary here since if the finder takes one fruit by all opinions he is taking possession, becomes the owner irrevocably, and incurs a monetary debt to the original owner. For the question to have meaning, a third, uninterested, person must have put the fruit into the finder’s mouth.] in his mouth! Is it not unappetizing? Can he give it back? If you say so, is he not eating ṭevel retroactively? That means, the fixing of the price is like a sale.
‘If he found a harvesting basket in a place where most people bring to market [Then the processing is completed and is subject to heave and tithes. Since the owner might have tithed before he lost that basket, it must be tithed as demay.] , it is forbidden to eat a snack from them and he must put it in order as demay. In a place where most people bring to their houses [Then the obligation starts only when the harvest is brought to storage. In this case, one assumes that it was not tithed at all.] , it is permitted to eat a snack from them and he must put it in order as certain. Half and half, he puts in order as demay [As spelled out later, this is if he wants to eat in the field.] but if he brings it to his house he must put it in order as certain.’ Rebbi Jonah asked, does demay create ṭevel for certain [The rule given for a harvest basket found in a place where 50% move to market makes sense only if either all or none of the fruits are eaten in the field. If some are eaten in the field and tithed as demay, how can they then lose their status as profane and return to that of ṭevel for Great Heave. This seems to be impossible; cf. Terumot 1:4.] ? If you would say so, does he not invert the order? Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun, Rebbi Joḥanan in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Yoẓadaq, he must spell out a condition and say: “If this is from those who bring to market, what I did is valid, otherwise, I did not do anything,” so that heave of the tithe should not contain ṭevel of the Great Heave [If heave of the tithe was taken as demay on the field under the reservation spelled out here and the great heave and another heave of the tithe in the house, the three heaves may be eaten by a Cohen and the remainder is fully profane. If there were no reservation made the first heave of the tithe would be forbidden even to the Cohen as ṭevel.] . ‘Half and half on the field he puts in order as demay but if he brings it to his house he must put it in order as certain.’ Should one not be afraid that it was from those who bring to their houses and its Great Heave would contain ṭevel of heave of the tithe [This is the text in both mss. and the editio princeps but it is difficult to accept since in this case the first heave of the tithe has been declared to be profane and is given to the Cohen only because of the doubt. All commentators emend the text but their emendations do not help much. One has to say that the (slightly varied) text of the baraita introduces a new argument (in preparation for the answer of R. Mattaniah) which does not take the stipulation of R. Joḥanan into account. It is pointed out that not only does one run into difficulty if the basket was destined for the market but even if it was destined for the house. In that case, the first heave of the tithe (given as demay) is ṭevel for the Great Heave and cannot be eaten by the Cohen.] ? Rebbi Mattaniah said, if he gives a name to his tithes [Since Great Heave has no minimum volume by biblical standards, if the basket which was put in order as demay now is tithed as certain, it is sufficient to declare that some minute amount of the heave of the tithe is to be eaten as Great Heave. Since for the Cohen the rules of both are identical, no difficulty is created and the solution of R. Joḥanan is unnecessary.] .
So far something that has no threshing floor; but of produce from the threshing floor one separates heave of the tithe but does not need to give Great Heave as it was stated: “ [A related text in Tosephta 2:17. According to the Tosephta, the question in the next paragraph is pointless since tithes may be taken either from the grain or from storage.] If he found cleaned [Cleaned from chaff after threshing.] grain on the field, in a heap it is forbidden because of robbery, dispersed it is permitted because of robbery [These grains are leftovers from threshing which were not collected. Therefore, they are abandoned property and legally may be taken up by any passer-by.] . In any case it is subject to tithes but free from Great Heave because no threshing floor is cleared unless Great Heave was taken.”
From where are tithes taken, from the house or from the field [The question is difficult to understand since it was shown in Terumot 2:1 that only Great Heave must be given from the harvest at a well defined place but tithes and the Heave of the Tithe may be given from any untithed produce of the same kind. The question seems to be whether the grain collected after somebody else’s threshing is subject to tithes as a biblical law, in which case it can be used to tithe others and other grains can tithe for it, or it is rabbinic and a special case which needs special handling.] ? Let us hear from the following [This baraita is quoted in Babli Pesaḥim 4b,9a; Avodah Zarah 41b, Niddah 15b. It is asserted there that the fact that the grain is in a chest is in itself proof that the grain was fully tithed before storage. In contrast, the Yerushalmi seems to permit a fellow to deposit his grain in the chest and tithe from it.] : If a fellow died and in his estate was a chest full of grain, even if he filled it the same day it is supposed to be in order. Is it impossible that he should not have been of clouded mind at least for an hour [Then the grain might be un-tithed even though it belonged to a fellow who was true to his obligations.] ? Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya said, explain it if he died with a clear mind. Rebbi Ḥananiah in the name of Rebbi Phineas understood it from the following [Mishnah Ma‘aser Šeni 5:9, speaking of Rabban Gamliel and his entourage on a voyage from Rome to the Land of Israel who had to tithe his grains before the holiday and did this by a promise of future delivery from storage. This proves that, in general, tithes can be given from anywhere, also from storage for grain found on the road.] : “One tenth which I shall separate in the future is given to Aqiba ben Joseph that he should distribute it to the poor.” That means, from the house. Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba understood it from the following [Mishnah Terumot 4:2, cf. Note 14. It is implied by the Mishnah that both for R. Meїr and the Sages, tithes can be given from another storage facility.] : “If somebody’s produce was in a storage bin and he gave a seah to a Levite and a seah to a poor person;” that means, from the house. Rebbi Abba Mari understood it from the following [Mishnah Ma‘aser Šeni 5:10. The Mishnah contains a midrash on Deut. 26:13: “I did remove the sanctified food” refers to Second Tithe and the fourth-year growth, “from the house,” refers to ḥallah, “and also gave it” refers to heave and heave of the tithe, “to the Levite,” refers to the Levite’s tithe, “the sojourner, the orphan, and the poor,” refers to the tithe of the poor, “following all commandments You commanded me;” therefore, if he gave heave of the tithe before the Great Heave he cannot recite the declaration, “I did not transgress Your commandments and I did not forget.” Since the house is mentioned in connection with ḥallah heave from dough, it is clear that heaves and tithes are supposed to be taken outside the house, i. e., in the field.] : “(Deut. 26:13) ‘From the house’, that is ḥallah.” That means, from the field.
MISHNAH: If he found single fruits [This is the reading of all Yerushalmi sources. The Babli mss. here and in Baba Meẓi‘a 21b read קציעות “cut-up figs.”] on the road, even next to a field from which the single fruits may have come, or a fig tree that extends over the road and he found figs under it [The figs which overhang the public domain are not public property but the owners, knowing some figs will fall down and be spoiled, are resigned to their being taken by passers-by. Therefore, these figs are abandoned property.] they are permitted under the category of robbery [Eveybody is free to take them. Abandoned property is not “your harvest”; therefore, they are exempt from heave and tithes.] and free from tithes. Olives and carobs are obligated [They usually do not fall down from the tree, and if they do they are recognizable as fruits from a specific tree. Therefore, the owners have reasonable hope of recovering all of them at harvest time and do not abandon them (Explanation of the Babli, Baba Meẓi‘a 21b).] . If he found dried figs, if most people are pressing theirs he is obligated, otherwise he is free [If the figs have been dried and pressed into fig cakes in the field, their processing is finished and the finder has to tithe them as demay. If people of that region do not press their fig cakes in the field, the dried figs are like any other figs found on the road.] . If he found slices of a fig-cake it is obvious that this is post-processing [They have to be tithed as demay.] . Carobs, as long as he did not make heaps on his roof he may take down for his animals and is free because he will return the excess [While, in general, the roof is not a storage place for food, it is used for carob pods which are so hard as to be virtually safe from birds. These pods are first spread out for drying; the end of processing is that they are collected into orderly heaps. If during the drying process some carobs are taken as animal feed, this does not imply that even for these the processing is completed since the remainder will be returned to be used as food for both humans and animals.] .
HALAKHAH: Rebbi Jonah said; only on a road, not between a person and his neighbor [There the olives remain property of the owner of the tree.] . Rebbi Jonah said; only olives under an olive tree, carobs under a carob tree, but not olives under a carob tree, carobs under an olive tree [These belong to the finder.] .
Are they not pressed in the houses [This refers to the statement of the Mishnah that a dried fig is subject to tithes “if most people already pressed their figs.” It is agreed that for figs taken to be dried, the end of processing is the formation of fig cakes but it is not stated where the figs were pressed. If the final processing is done in the houses, a dried fig found in the fields is a forgotten fig which may be eaten as a snack untithed.] ? Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya said, explain it where most people press in the fields. Rebbi Zeїra asked: Is it not recognizable whether it is pressed or not [In that case, the Mishnah should have stated that “if it was pressed, it is obligated, if not pressed, it may be eaten as a snack.”] ? Rebbi Saul [No R. Shaul is known from any other Talmudic source. The reading of the Rome ms.: R. Samuel, seems to be preferable.] said, sometime it jumps from under the roller [During the pressing process.] , then it is pressed [It is not pressed but it has the legal status of “pressed”, i. e., processed.] and looks as if not pressed. Sometimes a foot squeezes it, then it is not pressed and looks like pressed. Rebbi Eleazar said, that is [There the legal status of a found dried fig is questionable. But if in the end most people will have pressed their fig cakes in the fields, even in the midst of the processing period any dried fig found in the fields is considered to be processed and subject to tithes.] , at a place where most people are not pressing in the fields. But at a place where most people are pressing in the fields, those who pressed and the minority who will press in the future are added together.
Some Tannaїm state [This refers to the last statement of the Mishnah, that carobs may be used for animal feed without tithing. The language of the Mishnah implies that humans may not eat these carobs as untithed snacks. But since it is stated that processing is not finished, neither courtyard nor house should make it subject to tithes as human food.] : Because it is not proper for a learned person to eat in public [A learned person, for whom the Mishnah was formulated, would not take the carobs to eat them outside the house or a walled-in courtyard. But in house or walled courtyard, the particular carob pod would be processed and subject to heave and tithes. This paragraph is quoted in paraphrased form in Tosaphot Qiddušin40b, s. v. ויש, and in a different form by R. Asher ben Ieḥiel Qiddušin 1, #65. The Babylonian version (Babli Qiddušin 40b, Derekh Ereẓ 10) reads: He who eats in public is the companion of the dog; some say he is unacceptable as a witness.” This belongs to the Babylonian tradition of enmity towards the vulgar, cf. the Introduction to Demay, or to a tradition which accuses cynics of contempt for courts. A confluence of the Yerushalmi and Babli texts appears in Sefer Ha‘iṭṭur p. 116, a prime example why quotes of early Medieval authors cannot be used as testimonies for the text. Cf. also Maimonides,Edut 11:5, Ṭur and Šulḥan Arukh,Ḥošen Mišpaṭ 34, and their commentators. The text of R. Ḥananel reads (as quoted by R. Yom Ṭob ben Abraham al-Išbili, Qiddušin 40b): “Rebbi Eleazar ben Rebbi Simeon was eating in public and was seen by Rebbi Meїr who said to him, it is not proper for a learned person to eat in public of his own food.” This must belong to a text tradition of the Yerushalmi quite different from the two extant mss.] . As for example, Rebbi Eleazar ben Rebbi Simeon who was eating in public and was seen by Rebbi Meїr who asked him, are you eating in public [He made a point of addressing the learned rabbi in Aramaic, the language of the uneducated.] ? He effaced himself.
MISHNAH: Which courtyard is obligated for tithes? Rebbi Ismael says, a Tyrian courtyard [Defined in the Halakhah and the Babli (Niddah 47b) as having a permanent doorman.] in which vessels are guarded. Rebbi Aqiba says, one where one person opens and another one locks it [If the courtyard opens into two dwellings and the occupants use the common yard independently, the courtyard is not comparable to a house and cannot be considered an extension of the house.] , is free. Rebbi Neḥemiah says, [a courtyard] where one is not ashamed to eat is obligated. Rebbi Yose says, one into which anybody may enter and nobody asks, what are you doing here, is free. Rebbi Jehudah says, if one courtyard is inside another, the inner one is obligated [It may be obligated if it belongs just to one house. Since the inhabitants of the inner yard have a right-of-way through the outer one, the outer one is free by R. Aqiba’s criterion.] , the outer one is free. Roofs are exempt even if they are in an obligated courtyard. A porter’s lodge, a covered walkway [Greek ἐξέδρα, a covered walkway in front of the house.] , and a gallery [To which the apartments of the upper floor open, connected by a stair to the courtyard.] are like the courtyard: obligated if the latter is obligated and free if the latter is free [If fully processed produce is brought there.] . Sheds [A wooden shed with a slanted roof (Gaonic Commentary Ahilut 18:10; Maimonides).] , watchtowers [Greek πύργος, ὅ, “tower”; Syriac בָרגֻנָן “small tower”.] , and summer shelters [Permanent huts to live there the entire summer (Maimonides).] are free. Genezareth huts [Permanent huts during harvest time (Maimonides). R. Simson identifies Genezareth huts with summer huts.] even though they contain a hand mill or chickens are free. Potter’s huts [A double hut; the outer one being the workshop, the inner one dwelling and storage facility.] , the inner one is obligated, the outer one free. Rebbi Yose says, any which is not a dwelling in summer and winter is free [In Maimonides’s autograph Mishnah and some mss. of the Maimonides tradition: Either in winter or in summer.] . A holiday hut on the holiday [A greenery-covered hut, or sukkah, for the festival of Sukkot (Lev. 23:42–43).] Rebbi Jehudah obligates but the Sages free.
HALAKHAH: Which courtyard is obligated? It was stated: Rebbi Ismael says, any with a watchman sitting and watching at the door.
Rebbi Samuel ben Naḥman in the name of Rebbi Jonathan: All of them learned it from the house [A courtyard induces ṭevel if and only if a house would induce ṭevel under the same circumstances.] . The house creates ṭevel by biblical decree; it says (Deut. 26:13) “I removed the holy food from the house [This means that the heave, the sanctified food, is in the house, not in the open.] .”
They heard before Rebbi Joḥanan that he said to them, practice follows all of them restrictively [A courtyard creates ṭevel except if it is exempt according to everybody.] . Why do they not say it in his name [Why is the statement not directly attributed to R. Yoḥanan? In the Babli, Niddah 47b, the statement is a baraita attributed to Rebbi.] ? That not a word of Rebbi Joḥanan should disagree with another word of his. It was stated [Tosephta 2:20. There, the reading is: For example two partners, two tenants.] : “Rebbi Simeon ben Eleazar said in the name of Rebbi Aqiba, one where one person opens and another one locks it is free; two partners but not two tenants.” What is the difference between a partner and a tenant? Just as a partner may object so a tenant may object [R. Aqiba seems to indicate that the courtyard is only free if one party may open or close over the objections of the other party. This excludes both the text of the baraita here and the Tosephta.] ! Rebbi Jonah said, the Mishnah refers to a landlord and his tenant. The landlord may object to the tenant, the tenant may not object to the landlord. About that they heard before Rebbi Joḥanan, practice follows Rebbi Simeon ben Eleazar in the name of Rebbi Aqiba [The interpretation of R. Joḥanan is more lenient than what would follow from the logical argument of (the much later) R. Jonah. It follows that on the same subject, R. Joḥanan is both restrictive and lenient.] . Rebbi Jonah said, Zeïra and Rebbi Immi in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Practice follows Rebbi Simeon ben Eleazar in the name of Rebbi Aqiba. Rebbi Immi said, the house of Rebbi Yannai instructed that practice follows Rebbi Simeon ben Eleazar in the name of Rebbi Aqiba.
Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya asked before Rebbi Zeїra: What does Rebbi Jehudah add to the words of his teacher Rebbi Aqiba? He said to him, nothing.
Rebbi Eleazar said, the Mishnah deals with a roof surrounded by the airspace of the courtyard [Even if it is impossible to bring anything to the roof without crossing the courtyard.] . Did [the produce] not become ṭevel when it was transported through the courtyard? Explain it either following Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Jehudah or Rebbi [Halakhah 1, Notes 21 ff.] , when he wanted to cut them up for drying and then changed his mind not to cut. [This condition is needed only for Rebbi; for R. Yose ben R. Jehudah it suffices if he intends to store everything on the roof.]
Rebbi Abin said, only if the roof is at least four [cubits] square. Just as a house does not induce ṭevel unless it is at least four [cubits] square, so the roof does not exempt unless it is at least four [cubits] square, as it is stated [A similar baraita in Babli Sukkah 3a/b.] : A house less than four [cubits] square is free from the obligations of mezuzah [Deut. 6:9, 11:20.] and the parapet [Deut. 22:8.] , from the obligation of eruv [If a courtyard belongs to a single owner except that a hut enclosing an area less that four cubits square belongs to another person, that courtyard may be used on the Sabbath by the majority owner without an eruv (cf. Demay 1, Notes 192–193).] , does not induce ṭevel, is not counted as a connection to a town [On the Sabbath, one may not go outside one’s town more than 2000 cubits (cf. Peah 8, Note 56). Any house which is within 70 cubits of a house of the town is also counted as part of the town; the count of 2000 cubits starts only at the outermost house. A small building does not count as a house.] ; he who makes a vow not to be in a house may sit there; one does not give it four cubits before its entrance door [In a courtyard belonging to several owners, the four cubits in front of the entrance of each house are the private domain of this house, to be used to load and unload. This does not apply to a small hut.] ; it does not remain with the buyer in the Jubilee [Lev. 25:30.] ; it cannot become impure by scale disease [Lev. 14:34 ff.] , and its owner does not return from the army because of it [Deut. 20:5.] .
Do they [The watchtowers mentioned in Mishnah 7.] induce ṭevel for the dweller in watch towers? From what it is stated [Tosephte 3:20: “One does not eat a snack in a synagogue or in a Talmud school if they also contain a dwelling; otherwise, one may eat a snack there.”] : An elementary school and a Talmud school induce ṭevel for the elementary and the Mishnah teacher, but not for others. That means, they induce ṭevel for the dweller in watch towers.
[This paragraph explains why R. Jehudah holds that a sukkah creates ṭevel; for him a sukkah must be a complete house since one is required to dwell in it. The paragraph is also in Sukkah 1:1, fol. 52a; Rebbi’s standpoint is quoted Babli Sukkah 3b.] Rebbi says, four cubits even though there are not four walls. Rebbi Simeon says, four walls even though there are not four cubits. Rebbi Jehudah says, four walls and four cubits [He requires that a sukkah be a complete dwelling; quoted in Babli Sukkah 3b, Yoma 10a.] . Similarly, Rebbi Jehudah requires it to have a mezuzah. It is reasonable that Rebbi Jehudah agrees with these rabbis [He does not agree but he requires everything any other authority requires.] , but these rabbis will not agree with Rebbi Jehudah: Even if it has four cubits and four walls it is not required to have a mezuzah and it does not create ṭevel for tithes [Since it must be temporary.] .
MISHNAH: From a fig tree standing in a courtyard [If the figs are collected for eating raw, their processing is completed with picking and the courtyard obligates for heave and tithes.] , one may eat one by one and if he took them together he is obligated. Rebbi Simeon says, one in his right hand, one in his left hand, and one in his mouth [If no two figs are simultaneously in a hand or in a vessel, they are not “taken together.”] . If he climbed to the top of the tree [Then he is no longer in the courtyard. The top of the tree is supposed to be more than 10 handbreadths above the ground; cf. Kilaim 6, Note 31.] he may fill the fold of his toga [Hebrew חיק “bosom” is used as an equivalent of Latin sinus, ūs, m., which in addition to “bosom” also means “fold, pocket, purse” (E. G.).] and eat. From a vine planted in a courtyard one may take an entire bunch; the same holds for a pomegranate and a watermelon, the words of Rebbi Ṭarphon. Rebbi Aqiba says, he takes single grape berries, single seeds of a pomegranate, and picks [Enough for one bite; cf. Mishnah 2:6, Note 109.] from the watermelon. Of coriander sown in the courtyard [The restriction does not apply to coriander growing as a weed. For the other three spice plants mentioned, it is enough that they be guarded as valuable plants even if they started as weeds and were not sown by the owners of the courtyard; cf. Ševiїt 7:7, Note 51; 8 Mishnah 1.] he snips off leaf by leaf and eats; when he takes them together they are obligated. Calamint, hyssop, and thyme in the courtyard are obligated if they are guarded. If a fig tree was standing in a courtyard but its crown was hanging over a vegetable garden, one eats [Standing in the unwalled garden and picking the fruit there, as explained in the Mishnah.] as usual and is free. If it was standing in a vegetable garden but its crown was hanging over a courtyard, one eats one by one and if he takes them together he is obligated. If it was standing in the Land and hanging over outside the Land or standing outside the Land and hanging over the Land, everything is determined by the stem. For houses of walled cities [Which can be bought back by the seller only during the first year of the sale, Lev. 25:29–30. The rule given there for houses is extended to trees growing in the city.] , everything is determined by the stem. For cities of refuge [Num. 35. If the homicide reaches the crown of a tree whose stem is inside 2000 cubits from the wall of a city of refuge, he is safe.] , all goes by the crown, for Jerusalem [Second tithe can be redeemed outside Jerusalem; in Jerusalem it must be consumed in purity. Once it is brought under the crown of a tree of Jerusalem, it cannot any longer be redeemed. The Babli (Makkot 12a) notes that the two last statements are parallel but the reasons are different.] all goes by the crown.
HALAKHAH: It was stated: One gives him time to hit it a first, second, and third time. Rebbi Jonah in the name of Rebbi Zeїra: If he collected the second one during the time allotted for the first, both became ṭevel [The meaning of this paragraph is unclear; the subject is not mentioned in Maimonides’s Code. According to R. Eliahu Fulda, one speaks of unripe figs which need to be softened to become edible. The new information would be that in order to eat a fruit as a snack, it is not necessary to swallow it as soon as it is taken but one may take all the time necessary to make it edible. However, if the second is picked while the first one is still there, both become ṭevel. According to R. Moses Margalit, there is a standard time allotted for the eating of each fig (irrespective of its ripeness). According to him, if the second fig is picked while the first still exists, both become ṭevel. Then one wonders what the statement of R. Zeїra means. According to R. Eliahu Kramer of Wilna, if the second fig is picked during the time allotted to the first, if the first still exists, both become ṭevel. But if he second fig is picked after the time allotted to the first, even if the first still exists, only the second one becomes ṭevel; the first remains permitted. According to Sefer Nir, the first sentence refers to Tosephta 2:22: “A fig tree standing in a garden which extends a branch into a window, he (mss: eats) (editio princeps: picks) it normally and is free. If he picked and put it on a table, even a single one is obligated.” The first sentence of the paragraph states that even if he did not put it on a table but waited after softening the fig three times, he is obligated. This interpretation is the only one giving the Mishnaic expression “one gives him time” the usual restrictive meaning of “so much but not more.” The second sentence is then taken to mean that if the second fig is picked after the time allotted for the first, if the first is not yet completely eaten the existing remainder becomes obligated but the second remains free unless held together with the first.] .
Rebbi Jeremiah asked: If he threw the first higher in the air than 10 [hand-breadths [Then he is no longer in the courtyard. The top of the tree is supposed to be more than 10 handbreadths above the ground; cf. Kilaim 6, Note 31.] ] and it did not descend below 10 [hand-breadths] when he collected the second one, did both of them become ṭevel [This is one of R. Jeremiah's famous hair-splitting questions which deserves no answer. If the first fig comes to rest on a ledge, it becomes obligated by the Tosephta quoted in the preceding Note. If it descends, the second fig was collected within the time allotted to the first and both become ṭevel. The statement can be taken as supporting the interpretation of the preceding paragraph given by Sefer Nir.] ?
Rebbi Eleazar ben Rebbi Simeon says, three in his right hand, three in his left hand, and three in his mouth [He extends his father’s rule from one to three figs each, in contradiction to our general rule that even two at the same place become obligated.] . Since Rebbi Eleazar ben Rebbi Simeon was a glutton, he estimated so for himself. [A slightly extended version of this story is in Pesiqta deRav Kahana, p. 91a/b. The Babli (Pesaḥim 86b) has a similar story attributed to R. Ismael ben R. Yose, who had a reputation of being as obese as R. Eleazar ben R. Simeon.] Rebbi Eleazar ben Rebbi Simeon went to his father-in-law Rebbi Simeon ben Rebbi Yose ben Laqonia who repeatedly mixed wine for him which he gulped down. He said to him, did you not hear from your father how one swallows from a cup? He said to him, one gulp if it is unmixed, two gulps [if mixed] with cold water, three with hot water. But the Sages did not estimate this with your wine which is good, or with your cup which is small, or with my belly which is large.
[The first part from the story in Babli Baba Meẓi‘a 83b is missing: R. Eleazar ben R. Simeon, known for his psychological profiling of thieves, was forced by the Roman government to act as a detective to discover thieves and robbers. R. Joshua objected: the Roman government executed all robbers and thieves while Jewish law only required double restitution in the case of a thief and simple restitution in the case of a robber. Therefore, collaboration with the Roman Government would be possible murder.] Rebbi Joshua ben Qorḥah called him “vinegar son of wine.” He said to him, why do you call me that? He said to him, you should have gone to Laodicea. He said to him: Do I not mow mowable thorns from the garden [The people of Israel. The imagery is from the Song of Songs.] ? He said to him, you should have gone to the end of the world to let the owner of the garden cut his thorns.
If it [A fig from a tree in a walled courtyard which he picked with the intention of eating it right away. Now the fig is lying in the courtyard subject to heave and tithes.] rolled away by itself, can he bring it back as you say there [Halakhah 1, about figs from an exempt courtyard which were brought into the house by error; Notes 17–19.] , may he bring them back to their intended place and eat? Is it the same here? There, he brings it back to an exempt place but here he brings it back to a place of obligation. To what do you compare if he stood in the crown of a fig tree [Which is an exempt domain by itself.] , to one who stands in town or in a field? It refers to the following [Peah 5:6, Note 123. No answer is given. It is difficult to understand the quote since the case in Peah is not decided on the basis of logic but of a narrow biblical decree restricted to the case of a forgotten sheaf.] : If he stood in town and said: I know that the workers are forgetting a sheaf at place X; if they forgot it is not a forgotten sheaf. If he stood in a field and said: I know that the workers are forgetting a sheaf at place X; [if they forgot] it is a forgotten sheaf, since it says (Deut. 24:19): “In your field and you forget a sheaf.” In the field you forget, but in town you do not forget.
There [Terumot 7, Mishnah 3, Halakhah 4; Notes 73–75, the entire paragraph with slight variations in wording.] , we have stated: “If he was eating a bunch of grapes and entered into the courtyard from the garden. Rebbi Eliezer said, he should finish, but Rebbi Joshua said, he should not finish.” Rebbi Zeїra in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Either Rebbi Ṭarphon says following Rebbi Eliezer or Rebbi Ṭarphon says, one makes the cut of food equal to its start. Rebbi Illa, Rebbi Assi in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Either Rebbi Ṭarphon follows Rebbi Eliezer or Rebbi Ṭarphon makes one snack containing two or three snacks equal to one snack. What is the reason of Rebbi Eliezer? Because he started with permission. It was stated: “Rebbi Nathan said, not that Rebbi Eliezer said because he started with permission but Rebbi Eliezer holds he should wait until the end of the Sabbath or he should leave the courtyard again and finish.”
It was stated [Tosephta 2:20.] in the name of Rebbi Neḥemiah: “A courtyard which regularly is being weeded is like a vegetable garden.” Rebbi Simlai said, practice follws Rebbi Neḥemiah. It was stated: If most of it was sown it is obligated, if planted it is free [This is a very difficult text but it is confirmed by Maimonides (Ma‘aser 4:14), R. Abraham ben David (ad loc.) and Caphtor va-Pherach (Chap. 32, p. 504). R. Joseph Caro (Kesef Mishneh ad loc.) explains that a courtyard is always obligated except if it is planted with trees for its beautification since this (a) is permanent and (b) establishes the courtyard as a separate entity, rather than as working space for the house. Since the biblical law requires tithing only when produce is brought to the house, the transformation of the courtyard into a pleasure garden removes the obligation of tithing. The emendation of R. Abraham ben David, followed by R. S. Cirillo, is unnecessary.] . Rav Ḥisda said, only if he planted to embellish the courtyard. This infers from that and that infers from this. This infers from that, if most of it was sown, it is obligated if [Even if.] it is weeded. That infers from this, if it was weeded [The pleasure garden was tended regularly.] it is acceptable only if most of it was weeded.
This means “one eats as usual and is free”, when he is standing in the garden; this means “if one eats one by one he is free but if he takes them together he is obligated” if he stands in the courtyard [Explanation of the Mishnah. The text here is that of most Mishnah mss. and the Mishnah in the Munich ms. of the Babli.] .
Rebbi Jeremiah asked before Rebbi Zeїra: If it was taken with a dwqny [The meaning of the word is unclear. The consensus of the commentators is that it is some instrument to harvest fruits that plucks more than one fruit at a time. The question is whether then the fruits are automatically obligated for heave and tithes even if the primary intent was to get one only as a snack. The negative answer is obvious. This is another example of R. Jeremiah’s questions; cf. Terumot 10, Note 110. Possibly דוקני is corrupted from דוקרני “pitchfork”, cf. Kilaim 4:4, Note 60.] ? Example [Berakhot 1:1, Note 72.] : Rebbi Zeїra, Rebbi Abba bar Cahana, and Rebbi Levi were sitting together when Rebbi Zeїra was goading [Berakhot 2:3, Note 96.] those of Agadah [The allegorical explanation of Scripture which is not based on anything.] and called them books of sorcery. Rebbi Abba bar Cahana said to him, why are you goading us? Ask and they will answer you. He said to him, what means that which is written (Ps. 76:11): “For the rage of man brings thanks to You, the leftover rages You will gird?” He said to him, for the rage of man brings thanks to You in this world, the leftover rages You will gird in the future world. He said to him, why can we not say, for the rage of man brings thanks to You in the future world, the leftover rages You will gird in this world? Rebbi Levi said, when You awaken Your rage on the wicked, they will see what You are doing and they will bring thanks to Your name [Midrash Psalms (ed. Bóber, p. 342) explains: ‘For the rage, man brings thanks to You’, when You decreed judgment on Israel by dispersing them, they have to thank You that You did not punish them with all Your Divine might, but ‘the leftover rages You will gird’ to judge the Gentiles on the Day of Judgment.] . Rebbi Zeїra said, the same turns and turns around and one does not understand anything from it [None of the explanations is necessary.] . Jeremiah my son, go to Tyre, wrap your dwqny because it is better than anything.
There [Mishnah Arakhin 9:5, Babli Arakhin 32a. Here starts the discussion of the last two sentences of the Mishnah, Notes 149–151.] , we have stated: “Everything inside the wall is like houses of a walled city except fields [In Sifra Behar Parašah 4(5), the statement is attributed to R. Jehudah. This is confirmed by Babli Arakhin 32a.] . Rebbi Meïr says, including fields.” “ [Sifra Behar Parašah 4(5–6).] What is the reason of the rabbis? (Lev. 25:30) ‘The house stands.’ Not only houses; from where do we include oilpresses, cisterns, ditches, caves, bathhouses, dovecots, and towers? The verse says, ‘which is in the city’. I could think, also fields? The verse says, ‘the house.’ The house is special in that it is a dwelling, that excludes fields which are not for dwelling [According to the opinion of Rav Ḥisda in Babli Arakhin 32a, even R. Meїr will agree that an agricultural field is excluded. The only “fields” he includes are sand quarries and fish ponds which have the character of “ditches and caves”. In the Tosephta, Arakhin 5:14, R. Meїr admits gardens and orchards as entities which cannot be reclaimed by the seller later than one full year after the sale.] . What is the reason of Rebbi Meїr? ‘The house stands.’ Not only houses; from where do we include oilpresses, cisterns, ditches, caves, bathhouses, dovecots, towers, and fields? The verse says, ‘which is in the city’.”
(Lev. 25:30) 168“ ‘Which has a wall’, this excludes a house which is built as a wall, the words of Rebbi Jehudah. Rebbi Simeon says, its outer wall is the city wall.” Rebbi Jehudah explains ‘which has a wall [The Qere in the verse; the Ketib is “the house in a city which has no wall.” Since עיר is feminine and לוֹ masculine, the relative pronoun should belong to בית: The house in the city which (i. e., the house) has/does not have a wall. In this interpretation, the positions of R. Jehudah and R. Simeon should be interchanged. In the Babli, the difference between the authors is explained by their different interpretations of the description of Rahab’s house (Jos. 2:15).] ’; Rebbi Simeon explains ‘which has no wall’.
Rebbi Ḥinena said, this is only if he arrived by the crown. But if he arrived by the stem, the stem already received him [This refers to the cities of refuge. As Maimonides puts it in his Commentary, the Mishnah should be read as: For cities of refuge, the crown also counts.] .
Our Mishnah [The last statement, that ritual Jerusalem is bordered by the wall and all crowns of trees overhanging the wall.] follows the House of Shammai who say [Mishnah Ma‘aser Šeni 3:7; Tosephta Ma‘aser Šeni 2:12: “Oil presses [built into the wall] open towards the city whose building extends outside, or built inside and opening to the outside, the House of Shammai say, all is counted as inside but the House of Hillel say, what is in the wall and the interior is inside, what is outside is outside.”] , all has the status of inside. It was stated [A similar statement in Tosephta Ma‘aser Šeni 2:12: “If a tree stands inside with its crown extending outside, its Second Tithe can be redeemed {as being harvested outside Jerusalem}. If one turned the crown to be inside, its Second Tithe cannot be redeemed. If [the tree] was standing outside with its crown extending inside, its Second Tithe cannot be redeemed {as being harvested inside Jerusalem}. If he turned the crown so as to be outside, its Second Tithe can be redeemed.”] : If he turned the crown towards the inside, all is counted as inside. The earlier Tannaїm follow the House of Shammai [Tosephta Ma‘aser Šeni 2:12: “Rebbi Yose said, this {the preceding statements about trees and olive presses} are the teachings of R. Aqiba. The earlier Mishnah: The House of Shammai [say] one does not redeem there {in or at the oil presses} as if it were inside and one does not eat sacrifices there as if it were outside. But the House of Hillel say, what is open to the inside is inside, what is open to the outside is outside.” For the earlier Mishnah, the Mishnah here is not following the House of Shammai.] .13