Peah1

1MISHNAH: These are the matters that have no measure [These are obligations spelled out in the Torah, so one has to fulfill them; but the Torah did not specify either minimum or maximum obligation. However, there are rabbinic minima and sometimes maxima established for all obligations.] : Peah [In harvesting a field, one is not permitted to harvest the last corner (פאה); that must be abandoned to be harvested by the poor (Lev. 19:9,23:22). There is no minimum mentioned in the Torah; the Talmud will discuss whether one may declare one’s entire field as Peah.] , first fruits [There is an obligation to bring the first fruits of one’s land to the Temple, Lev. 23:19, 34:26; Neh. 10:36. No amount has been specified. This obligation is the subject of tractate Bikkurim.] , appearance [There is an obligation to appear in the Temple on the three holidays of pilgrimage (Ex. 23:17, 34:23–24, Deut. 16:16). It is forbidden to appear in the Temple emptyhanded (Ex. 23:15, 34:20, Deut. 16:16), i. e., without bringing a sacrifice. The Torah does not directly spell out the value of the sacrifice, but the verse in Deuteronomy requires it to be “proportional to the blessing that the Eternal has bestowed on you.” The Talmud will discuss which of the two obligations (appearance or sacrifice) is meant here.] , works of kindness [Charity has two aspects: one is giving money and valuables to the needy; this has no explicit lower and upper limit, but it does have rabbinic limits in both directions. This, in addition to the laws of Peah, is one of the topics of the tractate. The other aspect is giving one’s time to attend funerals, weddings, visiting the sick and mourners, to work for the public good, and similar deeds. That aspect has no limits, upper or lower, expressed anywhere.] , and Torah study [It is written of the Torah (Jos. 1:8): “You should meditate upon it day and night.” Hence, there is no upper limit. The obligation of Torah study can be fulfilled by the recitation of Shema‘, but that recitation is also an independent obligation. Hence, Torah study per se has no lower limit.] . These are the matters whose product a person eats in this world and whose capital remains for him [As deeds which merit reward in the future life.] in the future world: Honoring father and mother, works of kindness, making peace between people; the study of Torah is worth all of these.

2HALAKHAH: Rebbi Benjamin ben Levi [As deeds which merit reward in the future life.] said: Rebbi Isaac and Rebbi Immi [He is Rebbi Ammi.] were sitting and asking: Why did they not state terumah [The gift to the Cohen from the harvest, cf. Berakhot, Chapter 1, Note 3. There are two kinds of terumah. The first one, terumah gedolah “the great terumah” must be given to the Cohen as absolutely first gift after the completion of the harvest. Then a tithe of ten percent, maäser, must be given to the Levite who in turn has to give ten percent, one percent of the original, to the Cohen. The two terumot must be eaten in ritual purity by the priestly families; in contrast the tithe is a civil obligation and is profane food in the hands of the Levite. An infraction of the rules of purity for terumah is a deadly sin. One speaks here about terumah gedolah for the quantity of which the Torah does not give any rules; hence, one grain may be given for an entire silo full of grain. Today, this grain, being ritually impure, has to be burned.] with these? Rebbi Immi said, because of the disagreement [In Mishnah Terumot 3:5 we find a disagreement between Tannaïm. Rebbi Eliezer is of the opinion that one may not give more than 10% of the crop as terumah gedolah. Rebbi Ismael gives 50% as upper limit, and Rebbis Aqiba and Tarphon permit one to give as much as one likes on condition that some profane food be left over. Hence, one cannot say that terumah gedolah has no upper limit from the Torah, at least not according to Rebbis Eliezer and Ismael.] . Rebbi Yose said [Rebbi Yose (the fourth generation Amora) explains that even according to Rebbis Aqiba and Tarphon, who are followed in practice, terumah has no place in the Mishnah.] , one may declare one’s entire field first fruits but one may not declare one’s entire field terumah. They objected: Look, it mentions peah, but nobody may make his entire field peah [Tosephta 1:1.] , but it was stated! Rebbi Yose said: The cutting of the first ear is compared to smoothing [In harvesting grain, the last operation is smoothing the heap of grain (so that theft could be easily detected. In modern terms, the equivalent would be storing the grain in a silo.) Terumah is not due before the end of the harvesting process since it is an obligation only for food. The implication is that workers may eat from the kernels before the end of the harvesting process (cutting, threshing, winnowing, and storing); after that one may not eat from it before terumot are separated.] . Before he cut the first ear, the field was not obligated for peah. After he cut the first ear, the entire field became obligated for peah and if he then wants to declare his entire field as peah he may do so [It is not “the entire field,” only “the entire field that is obligated for peah;” hence, the Tosephta that forbids the entire field will permit the field minus one stalk.] . But here, before he smoothed his grain heap, the heap was not obligated for terumah. When he wants to declare his entire heap as terumah, he may not do so since we have stated there (Ḥallah 1:9): “He who says: My whole threshing floor shall be terumah or my entire dough shall be ḥallah [Ḥallah is the obligatory gift to the Cohen from a (large enough) batch of bread dough, discussed in tractate Ḥallah. It has the status of terumah; hence, today is must be burned.] did not say anything unless he reserves part of it [Even though the remainder may be a single grain; the difference to peah is in the theoretical basis, not the practical side.] .”

3Is the first ear obligated for peah? It is impossible to say that it obligated the entire field for peah and itself should be obligated for peah [As explained in the preceding paragraph.] . If he cut the first ear and it was burned, does he have to cut another one a second time [If he wants to give his entire field to the poor as peah, must the ear he cut first be in existence at the moment of dedication?] ? Let us hear it from the following [A statement similar to this baraita is in Tosephta 1:9; the reference is to Mishnah 2:7: “If he cut half the field and sold the other half, the buyer gives peah for everything. If he cut half the field and dedicated the other half, the one who redeems it gives peah for everything.” In both cases, the field is given or dedicated as is, with all obligations on the harvest, since peah must be given at the last corner to be harvested.] : “If he cut half the field and sold the other half, or he sold what he had cut, if he cut half the field and dedicated [To the Temple, the proceeds to be used for the upkeep of the Temple. While the material is in the hands of the Temple authorities, any private use of it is forbidden.] what he had cut, he gives from the leftover for everything.” If it is dedicated is it not as if it was burned [Since no benefit whatsoever may be derived from it at this stage.] ? This says that if he cut the first ear and it was burned, he does not have to cut a second time [Because if he dedicated the first half and cut the second half for himself, he must give peah for the entire field from his part. If we replace the dedicated half by the burned ear, we have exactly the case that we are dealing with.] .

4If he finished the field [He harvested the entire field without leaving peah for the poor. The reference is to Tosephta 1:5: “If he did not give from standing grain, he must give from sheaves. If he did not give from sheaves, he must give from stacks. If he did not give from stacks, he must give from the grain heap. If he did not give from the grain heap before it was smoothed, he must first give terumah and tithes and only then peah.” See also Mishnah 1:6, Halakha 7:2, 4:1; an extended version is in Babli Baba qama94a.] , you say that peah devolves on the sheaves. Would peah turn back to the first ear [That the first cut also may be peah from its sheaf if the entire field was cut.] ? Rebbi Yose said, let us learn peah of sheaves from peah of standing grain. Since peah from standing grain does not return to the first ear [As explained in the preceding paragraph, the first cut is not subject to the laws of peah at all since it enables the laws to be applied.] , peah of sheaves likewise should not return to the first ear.

5Peah has a minimum measure but no maximum measure. First fruits and appearance have neither minimum nor maximum measures. There are those who state: Peah, first fruits and appearance have no measure, neither minimum nor maximum. What is the difference between them, is it not one in sixty [Mishnah 2 states that the rabbinic minimum for peah is one sixtieth of the field, 1 2/3 percent. In both formulations it is agreed that peah has no minimum from the Torah but it has a minimum by rabbinic usage.] ? According to him who says that peah has a minimum measure but no maximum measure: What he gave [When he harvested but left less than 1 2/3% of the harvest standing on the field. The standing grain certainly has the status of peah and, no longer being the property of the farmer, is not subject to the requirement of terumah and tithes. [The interpretation of R. Simson of Sens is that, while as Biblical commandment there is no lower limit to what he must give, by rabbinic decree any gift of less than 1⅔% is not considered peah and is subject to the laws of tithes even though it is the property of the poor and not of the farmer.]] , he gave; if he had second thoughts and added to it, it is subject to tithes until he makes up for it [Any amount he adds which together with the standing peah does not add up to 1 2/3% of the yield of the entire field, is a voluntary gift, rather than peah, and has the status of grain given after threshing and smoothing the heap. The farmer is obliged to separate from it terumah and tithes. Only if he reaches the rabbinic threshhold of 1 2/3% [according to R. Simson of Sens, only if he gives all of 1 2/3% at one time] does the rule of peah apply again and the produce may be taken by the poor without further obligation.] . According to him who says peah, first fruits and appearance sacrifices have no measure, neither minimum nor maximum: What he gave already freed from the obligation; if he has second thoughts and adds, that is subject to tithes [To the Temple, the proceeds to be used for the upkeep of the Temple. While the material is in the hands of the Temple authorities, any private use of it is forbidden.] .

6Rebbi Berekhiah asked: Why did we not state the dust for the straying [The straying wife who was seen in a secret rendez-vous with another man. The jealous husband may bring his wife to the Temple where she has to drink water mixed with some dust from the Temple floor as an ordeal (Num. 5). There is no minimum amount of that dust prescribed.] ? Why did we not state the ashes of the heifer [The ashes of the red heifer must be strewn on the water with which people defiled by contact with a dead body could be purified for entrance to the Temple (Num. 19). Since these ashes are extremely valuable, using more than a minimum amount is a misdeed.] ? Why did we not state the spittle of the sister-in-law [The childless widow who is not married by her brother-in-law becomes free to marry outside the family only by removing a shoe from the foot of the unwilling brother-in-law and spitting out before him (Deut. 25:9). The spittle falling to the earth must be seen by the court but no minimum is established.] ? Why did we not state the blood of the bird for the “leper” [The bird needed for the ritual cleansing of the “leper” (Lev. 14:1–7). The symptoms of the “leper” have no relation to what today is called leprosy.] ? Our [In old French sources, R. Simson of Sens and Tosaphot Ḥagigah 7a, this is a statement of the Amora R. Yose mentioned in the previous paragraphs, contemporary of R. Berekhiah.] Mishnah deals only with things to which he may add and adding is a worthy deed. As for those, even though he may add to them, doing so is no worthy deed.

7“Appearance” [Quote from the Mishnah that introduces a new subject.] . Our Mishnah [R. Simson of Sens already noted that this is a scribal error and that the subsequent discussion shows that it is the value of the obligatory sacrifice which has a fixed minimum. Hence, one should read: “Our Mishnah is about appearance with a sacrifice but appearance in person has no measure.”] is about appearance with a sacrifice, but appearance in person has a measure. This agrees with what R. Joḥanan said: “One silver obolus and two silver coins are words of the Torah” [Mishnah Ḥagigah 1:2 fixes the minimum amount to be spent on the two obligatory sacrifices as, respectively, one silver obolus and two silver coins. [The two sacrifices are the holocaust for the altar and a family sacrifice of which only a small part was burned on the altar. The houses of Shammai and Hillel disagree on the distribution of these sums but not on the principle that the first has to be a silver obolus and the second two silver coins.] According to most commentators, the “silver coins” mentioned also are oboli [6 oboli equal one drachma (denar) and four drachmas equal one tetradrachma (סלע)]. In the Roman empire only the emperor could mint silver coins. The Eastern mint was at Tyre; hence, silver coins are also called Tyrian money. Before the inflation of the military anarchy, local coinage was of copper and worth one eighth of the corresponding silver coinage. The following discussion will determine whether these minimal amounts have rabbinic or biblical status.] .

8Rebbi Yasa stated before Rebbi Joḥanan: The appearance is with anything [One may appear in the Temple with one sacrifice for the appearance and one for the family holiday; no minimal expenditure is required. The monetary minimum is purely a rabbinic one.] ; the sages only said: “One silver obolus, two silver coins.” He said to him: Is there anything like [Yerushalmi כן is contracted from כְּעֵין “in the kind of.”] that? Rebbi Jonah said, are not all measures determined by the sages [There are many biblical precepts that are applied only to some minimal amount and volume. None of these are spelled out in the Torah; they are all rabbinic formulations.] ? They said: “The volume of an olive from a corpse [All rules of defilement by parts of a corpse apply only if a minimum size of the volume of one olive is present. Hence, somebody in a house in which less than that volume of a corpse is present may go to the Temple without the purification procedure of the ashes of the red heifer even though going there in impurity is a strict biblical prohibition.] , the volume of an olive from a cadaver [To bring a sin offering for having eaten from a cadaver needs this minimum amount; the same minimum applies to the impurity caused by touching or carrying pieces of the cadaver of an otherwise kosher animal.] , the volume of a lentil from a dead reptile [The minimum volume from a carcass that causes the severe impurity incurred by touching dead reptiles.] .” The question here is only what Rebbi Hoshaia stated: (Ex. 23:15, 34:20) “They should not be seen before Me empty-handed,” with anything [No minimal amount required.] ; the sages only said: “A silver obolus, two silver coins.” The difficulty is that this [Two verses (and an additional one in Deut.) insist that one may not appear empty-handed; this must mean that a negligible amount is counted as nothing and, therefore, forbidden by the Torah.] is support for the opinion that [the rule] is based on words of the Torah. He said that only the sages instituted [The text in parentheses is the one of the Venice print here; the text in brackets is from the word-by-word parallel in Ḥagigah 1:2 (fol. 76b). The translation is that of the Ḥagigah text which alone makes sense. It may be assumed that the copyist of the manuscript used for printing had before him a manuscript in which the entire sentence was only indicated by “etc.” and the copyist chose the wrong statement to complete.] : “One silver obolus, two silver coins.” Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said: Rebbi Johanan follows his own opinion since Rebbi Joḥanan said that all measures [Including those stated by R. Jonah and all similar ones.] are practice taught by Moses at Sinai;

9he says that “one obolus and two silver coins are the word of the Torah.” Rebbi Hoshaia follows his own opinion since Rebbi Hoshaia said: He who eats forbidden food in the present time has to note down the quantities [Since one is required to bring a sin-offering only if he ate more than the volume of an olive, he is forbidden to bring one if he ate less than that volume. Hence, the determination of that volume is essential. The statement of R. Hoshaia here is attributed to R. Eleazar, student and colleague of R. Johanan, in Babli Yoma 80a. There, the interpretation is that not the rule of “volume of an olive” might change but rather its interpretation. A. Y. Greenfield, in his article “The Connection Between the Measures of an Olive and an Egg,” תחומין 14 (5754) 396–411 shows that modern interpretations of the “volume of an olive” vary on a scale of 1 to 30. Hence, once the Temple is rebuilt, an authoritative interpretation is needed even according to R. Joḥanan.] ; maybe a new court will arise and change the measures for him; then he will know what measure he ate.

10They said, Rebbi Joḥanan changed his mind about this. Rebbis Jonah and Yose said, he did not change his mind; additionally, Rebbi La said in the name of Rebbi Ammi: Ḥizqiah and Rebbi Joḥanan disagreed. Ḥizqiah said, a man may split his obligation for two animals [He has to spend an obolus and two silver coins on animals for his pilgrimage but, since this is a rabbinic ordinance, it does not matter if the amount is split to pay for several animals.] . Rebbi Joḥanan said, nobody may split his obligation for two animals, but for each one he has to have two silver coins in his hand [Since it is the practice from the days of Moses to spend two silver coins for one sacrifice of the larger kind, this has the status of a biblical command and cannot be abrogated. Similarly, a full obolus must be spend on one animal of the smaller kind.] .

11Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish in the name of Ḥizqiah: A person adjoins an animal to an animal but no person may adjoin money to money [The parallel is in Babli Ḥagigah8a (and Yerushalmi Ḥagigah 1:2). In the Babli, it is explained that the obligation to spend an obolus and two silver coins must be satisfied by unencumbered money. Now four years out of seven there is a second tithe on agricultural produce of the Land of Israel. That second tithe is the property of the farmer but it must be consumed in Jerusalem; it also may be redeemed by money and the money taken to Jerusalem and there spent on food to be consumed in Jerusalem. In addition, the tenth newborn calf or lamb in a herd must be taken to Jerusalem and offered as a sacrifice (only some blood is sprinkled on the altar, the rest is to be eaten by the family of the rancher.) So one may assume that many people on their pilgrimage for the holiday have money and animals of the tithe that they want to eat in Jerusalem to absolve themselves at the same time of the obligations of pilgrimage and (second) tithe. According to Ḥizqiah, on the first day of the holiday one may bring small and cheap animals as obligatory sacrifices and then use the money or the animal of tithes for additional ḥagigah offerings but one may not add the money of second tithes to profane money to buy one large animal for any of the two obligations. In the text, the corresponding statement by R. Joḥanan is missing, viz., that one may add money (if only the basic amount is profane) but not animals (since no animal worth less than two pieces of silver is acceptable as ḥagigah). The statement appears in Ḥagigah.] . What may be done [A rhetorical introduction to the main question, corresponding to: “They asked themselves” in the Babli.] ? There were before him ten animals, he sacrificed five of them on the first holiday. May the remainder push aside the last holiday [If these animals retain the status of ḥagigah, they may be sacrificed on the last day of Pesaḥ or Sukkot which are also full holidays. If, however, they have only the status of sacrifices in fulfillment of a vow (since any dedication as sacrifice is a vow to bring the animal to the Temple), then they may be slaughtered only during the intermediate days of the holiday or after its conclusion, and they do not push aside holiday prohibitions.] ? Rebbi Crispus said, Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish have differing opinions. One said, they push; the other one said, they do not push. We do not know who said what. Rebbi Zeïra said, we may explain the words of the rabbis through the words of Rebbi Joḥanan, who [Aramaic דּוּ is a contraction of דְּהוּא.] said: A person may adjoin coins to coins but not animals to an animal. He must say, they push [Since each animal was bought with money dedicated for ḥagigah, they all have the status of ḥagigah.] . But Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, a person adjoins an animal to an animal but no person may adjoin money to money. He must say, they do not push [Since one may not adjoin money, only the first animal was ḥagigah, the rest are not and cannot be used for holiday sacrifices.] . Simeon bar Abba came in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: He adds [Even during the intermediate days of the holiday, when one’s biblical obligation of appearing in the Temple with a sacrifice has already been satisfied, he can add money to the original money and still the animals bought will fall under the category of ḥagigah. But when he declares that it is enough, the next money spent will no longer buy ḥagigah sacrifices. This extension of R. Joḥanan’s statement is not a logical consequence of his earlier one.] and pushes the holiday further until he says: I do not intend to add further.

12“Works of kindness. [Quote from the Mishnah, introduction of the next subject.] ” That means with his person [Charity has two aspects: one is giving money and valuables to the needy; this has no explicit lower and upper limit, but it does have rabbinic limits in both directions. This, in addition to the laws of Peah, is one of the topics of the tractate. The other aspect is giving one’s time to attend funerals, weddings, visiting the sick and mourners, to work for the public good, and similar deeds. That aspect has no limits, upper or lower, expressed anywhere.] . But with his money it has a measure. This parallels what Rebbi Simeon bar Laqish said in the name of Rebbi Jehudah ben Ḥanina [An Israeli Amora of the first generation. All his known statements were transmitted by R. Simeon bar Laqish. [In the Babli, the Amora is Rebbi Illaï, i. e., R. La who was mentioned earlier in this Halakha, a student of R. Simeon ben Laqish.]] : They voted at Usha [Usha in lower Galilee was the place of residence of R. Jehudah bar Illaï who, through his good relations with the Roman authorities, obtained permission for the reconstitution of the Synhedrion. This decree must have been one of the first acts of the new Synhedrion; it is explained later that the formal decree was only a formalization or reaffirmation of earlier practice.] that a person may give a fifth of his property for good deeds. How far down? Rebbi Gamliel bar Ininia [A Galilean Amora of the third generation, student of R. Mana I.] and Rebbi Abba bar Cahana; one said corresponding to terumah and the terumah of the tithe [Terumah gedolah has to be given by estimate, not by measure (Terumot 1:7). A generous farmer will give one part in forty (2.5%), the average person one in fifty (2%), the stingy person one in sixty (1 2/3%) (Terumot 4:3). The terumah of the tithe has to be given exactly as 1%. Hence, the minimal amount of charity one is obliged to give from his gross income varies between 2.67% and 3.5%, with 3% recommended.] , the other said (Prov. 3:9): “Honor the Eternal with your property and with the first of all your yield;” corresponding to the first of all your yield [Terumah gedolah is called “first of your grain and oil” in Deut. 18:4; in this opinion one is only required to spend for charity the 2% of his gross earnings equivalent to terumah gedolah.] .

13Rebbi Gamliel bar Ininia asked before Rebbi Mana: Does it mean one fifth every year? In five years he will have lost everything [But, as Rashi explains in Babli Ketubot 50a, the entire rule was only enacted to make sure that nobody would bring on himself the need to accept welfare.] ! He said to him: The first time from the capital, from there on from net gain.

14Rav Huna [In the parallel in the Babli (Bava qama 9a), the statements of Rav Huna and Rav Ḥabiba are both reported in the name of Rebbi Zeïra, student of Rav Huna.] said, for religious purposes up to a third. What does he mean, for all religious purposes or just for one purpose? They thought that this means, for all religious purposes up to one third [For religious articles one may spend up to one third of one’s net worth. In that interpretation, Rav Huna would exempt religious articles from the decree of Usha.] . Rebbi Abun said, even for one purpose only. Rav Ḥabiba [He must have been a Babylonian Amora of the third generation, a student of Rav Huna. The Rav Ḥabiba mentioned in the Babli belongs to the sixth generation, after the compilation of the Jerusalem Talmud and, therefore, he cannot be identical with the Rav Ḥabiba mentioned here.] in the name of the rabbis from there: What means “up to a third?” For its cost! How is that done? A man buys a religious article and sees another one which is more beautiful, until when does one bother him? Up to one third [Of the original cost. If one has a religious object, such as an etrog or tefillin, he should not spend for another one more than 133% of the cost of the object he already has. In this interpretation, the statement of Rav Huna has no relation to the decree of Usha.] .

15Rebbi Ismael stated [This is a side remark: why should one spend much money on religious articles? It is a short quote of a long statement in Mekhilta deR. Ismael, Parshat Hashirah 3 (6 authors mentioned), Mekhilta deR. Simeon bar Ioḥai pp. 78–79, shortened in Massekhet Sopherim 3:12, Massekhet Sepher Torah3:10, in Babli sources Sabbath 133b, Nazir 2b, and, very much shortened, Sukkah 11b. In the latter sources, the name of R. Ismael is never mentioned.] : (Ex. 15:2) “This is my God and I will glorify Him!” Is it possible for a human to glorify his God? Rather I shall appear beautiful before Him with religious articles. I shall make before Him a beautiful lulab, a beautiful sukkah, a beautiful shofar, beautiful ẓiẓit, beautiful tefillin. Abba Shaul [A Tanna of the generation of students of R. Aqiba who collected the traditions of prior generations; his collection is one of the sources of the Mishnah.] said, I want to be like Him! Just as He is merciful and gracious, so you also should be merciful and gracious!

16It happened that Rebbi Yeshebab [A Tanna of the third generation, student of R. Joshua and colleague of R. Aqiba. He was one of the Ten Martyrs and was executed after the war of Bar Kokhba, at age 90, probably because he continued to teach in Judea.] went and let his entire property be distributed to the poor. Rabban Gamliel [In the parallel Babli, Ketubot 50a, it is R. Aqiba who objects and prevents him from executing his wishes.] sent to him: Did they not say one fifth of one’s property for good deeds? And was not Rabban Gamliel before Usha [Rabban Gamliel died before the war of Bar Kokhba but the assembly at Usha was long after that war. In addition, the language of Rabban Gamliel implies that “they”, not “we”, instituted the limitation; hence, it was an old rule (but, as the text here shows, not one that was generally observed.)] ? Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun, Rebbi Levi: That was the current practice, they forgot it [The first two generations after the destruction of the Temple, at the least. The same statement by R. Yose ben R. Abun and R. Levi is quoted in Ketubot 8:11 (fol. 32c) on another practice.] , but the later ones got up and agreed to the opinion of the earlier ones, to teach you that everything the Court [The Synhedrion or any court whose authority is accepted by all of Israel.] insists on will come to be in the end, just as Moses was told on Sinai; as Rebbi Mana said (Deut. 32:47): “For it is not an empty word, from you,” if it is empty it is from you because you do not exert yourself about it. “Because it is your life,” when is it your life? At the time that you exert yourself!

17Rebbi Tanḥuma [These homilies are inserted as examples of the previous statement that deep involvement with the words of the Torah leads to such a way of life that even in situations not covered by what one has learned, he will act as it was indicated to Moses on Mount Sinai.] in the name of Rav Huna: It does not say (Ex. 38:22) “Bezalel ben Uri ben Ḥur of the tribe of Judah made everything Moses had commanded him,” but “that the Eternal had commanded Moses.” Even matters he did not hear from Moses he did by himself in the way it was said to Moses on Sinai. Rebbi Joḥanan in the name of Rebbi Benaiah [A scholar of the generation of transition between Tannaïm and Amoraïm who, in the Babylonian form ר׳ בנאה, is quoted in halakhic baraitot. His homilies are transmitted mostly by R. Joḥanan.] (Jos. 11:15): “As the Eternal had commanded His servant Moses, so Moses commanded Joshua, and so Joshua executed it.” It does not say “he did not omit anything Moses had commanded him,” but “everything the Eternal commanded Moses.” Even matters he did not hear from his teacher, he did by himself in the way it was said to Moses on Sinai. Rebbi Joḥanan in the name of Rebbi Benaiah, Rebbi Ḥuna in the name of Rebbi [In Yalqut Shim‘oni Prophets#588, the reading is “R. Jehudah” instead of Rebbi (Jehudah the Prince.)] : (Mal. 2:6) “True teaching was in his mouth [While the person described is called “Levi” by the prophet, the traditional interpretation is that the reference is to Aaron who learned Torah from Moses.] ,” these [It seems that אפילוּ here and in the next clause is a scribal error by dittography from the earlier homilies and that one should read אלוּ. This is the reading of Yalqut Shim‘oni Prophets#588. In the next clause this reading is also supported by the Rome manuscript of the Yerushalmi.] are the things he heard from his teacher, “injustice was not found on his lips,” even in matters he did not hear from his teacher.”

18And the rabbis say (Prov. 3:26): “For the Eternal will stand by your confidence and prevent your foot from being caught.” Even in matters in which you are stupid, He will prevent your foot from being caught. Rebbi Dosa said, in religious decisions [The verse is one of a group praising the student of Torah. The explanation is based on identifying כסל “confidence” with כסל “stupidity”. The different opinions define the object in which one’s foot might otherwise be caught. R. Dosa’s opinion continues the statements of the earlier homilies that the true student of Torah will render the correct decision if confronted with a religious question for which he knows no precedent.] . The rabbis say, in sin. Rebbi Levi said, from damaging spirits. Rebbi Abba said, if you gave charity from your wallet [Replacing כסל “confidence, hope” by כיס “wallet.” This opinion is mentioned last because it leads back to the main theme, the importance of charity and charitable works.] , the Holy One, praise to Him, will guard you from taxes [An Aramaic (Syriac) word, פסא, “piece, portion”, here used in the sense of the amount apportioned by the local council among the different householders to pay the taxes imposed en bloc on the community by the government.] , penalties [Greek ζημία.] , head taxes, and contributions [Latin annona, obligations to deliver provisions, usually for the army.] .

19King Monobaz [A king of Adiabene, in modern Kurdistan, who converted to Judaism together with his mother Helena during the last century of existence of the Second Temple. In the parallel sources, Tosephta Peah 4:18, Babli Baba batra 11a, it is spelled out that he spent his treasures on emergency relief during a famine. Hence, the story here does not contradict the rule, declared as much older than Usha, that one should not give away more than one fifth of one’s property. It is rather an endorsement of deficit spending by the government during times of emergency.] distributed all his property to the poor. His relatives sent to him: Your forefathers added to what they had and to what their forefathers had, and you wasted yours and that of your forefathers. He said to them, that is correct! My forefathers locked it up in the earth, I locked it up in Heaven, as it is said (Ps. 85:12): “Truth will sprout from the earth, but charity [In the entire paragraph, צדק “justice” is identified with צדקה “charity”, and צדיק “the just” is taken to mean “giver of charity.”] will gaze from Heaven.” My fathers locked up treasures that bring no interest, but I locked up treasures that bring interest as it is said (Is. 3:10): “Say to the giver of charity that he did a good deed, that they will eat the fruits of their intentions.” My forefathers collected in a place over which a (human) hand rules, but I collected in a place over which no hand rules, as it is said (Ps. 97:2): “Charity and truth are the foundations of His throne.” My forefathers collected money but I collected souls, as it is said (Prov. 11:30): “He who acquires souls is wise [The entire verse reads: “The fruit of the giver of charity is a tree of life and he who buys souls is wise.”] .” My forefathers collected for others but I collected for myself, as it is said (Deut. 24:13): “Charity will be your property [The plain sense of the clause is: It will be considered a good deed by you (before the Eternal, your God.)] .” My forefathers collected in this world but I collected for the future world, as it is said (Prov. 10:2): “But charity will save from death.” And does he not die [The last three sentences are not in the (Babylonian) parallels, where the argument is based on Is. 58:8 (speaking about him who breaks his bread with the poor): “Your charity will walk before you, the glory of the Eternal will gather you in.” The Aramaic sentence ולא מית should not be corrected into Hebrew in order to remain in style with the rest of the paragraph.] ? But that he should not die an eternal death in the future world.

20Charity and works of kindness [This paragraph also appears in Babli Sukkah 39b, Tosephta Peah 4:19. In both sources the formulation is such that the rhetorical question of the next paragraph is answered before it may be asked.] are as important as all commandments of the Torah. Charity applies to the living, works of kindness apply to the living and the dead. Charity applies to the poor, works of kindness apply to poor and rich. Charity is through a person's money, works of kindness through his money and his person. Rebbi Johanan bar Maria [A Galilean Amora of the fourth generation.] in the name of Rebbi Johanan: We do not know what is more beloved, charity or works of kindness. Since it says (Ps. 103:17): "The kindness of the Eternal is from eternity to eternity on those who fear Him, and His charity towards men," that means that works of kindness are more beloved than charity.

21And Torah study [Quote from the Mishnah.] . They asked Rebbi Joshua [This also appears in Yerushalmi Soṭa 9:9, the first sentence also in Tosephta Avodah zarah 1:20. In Babli Menaḥot 59b, not only are different persons involved but there the question is about Greek wisdom, not the Greek language.] : May a person teach Greek to his son? He said to them, he may teach him at an hour that is neither day nor night as it is written (Jos. 1:8): “You shall meditate about it day and night.” If it is so, a man would be forbidden to teach a profession to his son since it is written: “You shall meditate about it day and night.” But Rebbi Ismael stated (Deut. 30:19): “Choose life!” That refers to a profession [Since only a profession will sustain a person; otherwise he will be forced to become a robber and commit capital crimes.] . Rebbi Abba, son of Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba, Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Because of informants [Greek-speaking Jews become intimate with Greek-speaking officials and will be hired as government officials. In the Babli, the verse in Joshua is explained not as a commandment but as a blessing, that Joshua will be able to meditate about Torah day and night.] . Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: A person may teach Greek to his daughter since it is an ornament for her. Simeon bar Abba heard that and said: Because he wants to teach his daughters, he attaches it to Rebbi Joḥanan. It should come over me [A curse: if I now say that R. Joḥanan never said this but I really heard it from him and forgot. In the parallel Sabbat 6:1 (fol. 7c), Rebbi Abbahu retorts that a curse should come over him if he said that and did not hear it from Rebbi Joḥanan. [It seems that R. Joḥanan made that statement only in Caesarea, never in Tiberias.]] if I ever heard it from Rebbi Joḥanan.

22“Honoring father and mother. [Quote from the Mishnah to start a new section.] ” Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: They asked Rebbi Eliezer, how far does honoring father and mother go? He said to them, you are asking me? Go and ask Dama ben Netinah. Dama ben Netinah was the head of the city council [A mixed expression, ראש πατὴρ βουλής, “head, father of the Senate.” Cf. the Hebrew אב בית דין “father of the court,” used for the president of Jewish courts of law, and the Latin pater senatus. [The two stories here also appear in Yerushalmi Qiddushin 1:7 in slightly improved spelling (here the title is an unintelligible פטרכולי) and, in a shortened and less natural version, in Babli Qiddushin 31a/b.]] . Once his mother was slapping him in front of the entire council and a slipper [The Arukh explains the word as Italian pappucce “houseshoes”. Rashi explains in Yebamot 102b: “Thin sandals one binds under thick shoes to protect them from water; they are called underschuoch in (Middle High) German.” Also cf. Latin chorda, Greek χορδή “string, rope” (E. G.), see below, Note 105. [In a papyrus from Oxyrhynchus from Mishnaic times, κορδίκιον is mentioned as “an article of furniture”.]] fell from her hand, and he handed it back to her so that she should feel no inconvenience. Rebbi Ḥizqiah said: He was a Gentile from Ascalon and the head of the city council. He never sat on the stone on which his father used to sit and when his father died, he worshipped the stone. Once the jaspis of Benjamin was lost [From the breast-plate of the High priest.] . They [The Temple authorities.] inquired, who would have one of similar quality? They were informed that Dama ben Netinah did. They went to him and and agreed on 100 denars [In early Roman imperial money, when the coins were still honest, this amounted to 22 oz. of gold, an enormous sum since the buying power of gold was much larger than it is today. The amount mentioned in the Babli by authors living during the early military anarchy is 60’000 or 80’000 denar. According to the monetary reform of Diocletian, one Roman pound (12 ounces), 500 fine, would be 48’000 denar. At the end of the inflationary period, 100 early denar would therefore be the equivalent of 880’000 denar. Hence, the sums mentioned in the Babli are rather on the low side.] . He went to the upper floor to bring it and found his father sleeping. Some say that the key to the chest was in his father’s fingers; some say his father’s foot was resting on the chest. He descended to them and told them: I could not bring it to you. They thought, maybe he wants more money, and raised the price to two hundred, then to a thousand. When his father woke up from his sleep, he went up and brought it to them. They wanted to give him according to the amount mentioned last, but he refused. He said: Do I sell my father’s honor for money? I will not have any advantage from honoring my father. What reward did the Holy One, praise to Him, give him? Rebbi Yose bar Abun said: The following night, his cow gave birth to a red heifer and Israel gave him its weight in gold and took it. Rebbi Sabbatai said (Job 37:23): “Justice and much charity He will not suppress.” The Holy One, praise to Him, will not wait to give the reward for good deeds to the Gentiles [Since they do not believe in the Future World and, therefore, do not have part in it and must be rewarded in this word.] .

23Rebbi Tarphon’s mother went to promenade in her backyard on the Sabbath [“And her shoe-string (or, her slippers) broke.” This is missing here but appears in the parallel Qiddushin1:7 (fol. 61b): נפסק קורדייקין שלה. [A different story is in Babli Qiddushin31b.] Since we cannot assume that an authority of the stature of R. Tarphon had no eruv made if one was needed for the backyard, one might ask why he could not bring a new pair of slippers to his mother. But if the word means “shoe-string”, the reason would be clear since repairing the slippers on the Sabbath by putting in a new string would be a desecration of the Sabbath.] . Rebbi Tarphon went and put his two hands under her feet and she walked on them until she got to her couch. Once he fell ill and the sages came to visit him. She told them: Pray for my son Tarphon because he honors me too much. They asked her [Although she spoke to them in Hebrew, they answered in Aramaic; it seems that they did not expect a woman to be educated enough to converse in Hebrew. Her explanation must have been in Hebrew since their final answer was again in Hebrew.] , what did he do for you? She told them what had happened. They said to her, even if he did this a million times, he did not yet reach even half of the honor that the Torah requires.

24Rebbi Ismael’s mother came and complained to our teachers about him. She said to them: Scold my son Ismael because he does not honor me! At that, the faces of our teachers became saffron colored [כַּרְכּוֹם “saffron,” also used as yellow dye.] . They said, is it possible that Rebbi Ismael does not honor his parents? They said to her, what did he do to you? She said, when he [כְּדוּ = כְּשֶׁהוּא.] comes from the house of assembly, I want to wash his feet and drink from it [The water used for washing. It is clear that R. Ismael’s mother was uneducated; she spoke Aramaic and did not know the rules of good taste. (“Water” is always a plural in Hebrew and Aramaic.)] , and he refuses. They said to him, since it is her wish it is her honor.

25Rebbi Mana said: The millers are correct when they say that each and every person has in his chest that which is appropriate for him [In moral matters, there are no universally valid standards, only individual circumstances.] . Rebbi Tarphon’s mother said so and they answered her appropriately, Rebbi Ismael’s mother said so and they answered her appropriately. Rebbi Zeïra was sorry and said, if only I had father or mother that I could honor them and inherit paradise [In the second version of the Ten Commandments (Deut. 5:16), honoring father and mother is explicitly rewarded with the promise that “one will be well off” in the future world. Rebbi Zeïra’s case is identical with R. Abun’s.] . When he heard these two instructions, he said: Praise to the All-Merciful that I have neither father nor mother. I could not have done as Rebbi Tarphon did and I could not accept what Rebbi Ismael accepted. Rebbi Abun said, I am free from honoring father and mother. They said, his father died when his mother was pregnant and she died in giving birth.

26Some person might serve his father fattened meat and inherit hell. Some person might bind his father to the grindstone and inherit paradise. How does one serve his father fattened meat and inherit hell? A person used to serve his father fattened chickens. One day, his father said to him: My son, from where do you get the money for these? He said to him: Old man, old man, eat and shut up just as dogs eat and are silent. It turns out that he serves his father fattened meat and inherits hell. How does one bind his father to the grindstone and inherits paradise? A person was a miller at a grindstone; there came a requisition for millers. He said: Father, go and grind in my stead. If it should come to pass that someone is degraded, it is better that it should happen to me rather than to you. If it should come to pass that someone is beaten, it is better that it should happen to me rather than to you. It turns out that he binds his father to the grindstone and inherits paradise.

27It [The exact parallel is in Sifra Qedoshim 2–7; an almost identical quote is in Babli Qidddushin 30b.] is said (Lev. 19:3): “Everybody must fear his mother and his father,” and it is said (Deut. 6:13): “You must fear the Eternal, your God, and serve Him.” This brackets the fear of father and mother with the fear of Heaven. It is said (Ex. 20:12): “Honor your father and your mother,” and it is said (Prov. 3:9): “Honor the Eternal with your property.” This brackets the honor of father and mother with the honor of the Omnipresent. Is is said (Ex. 21:17): “He who curses his father or his mother shall be put to death,” and it is said (Lev. 24:19): “Everybody who curses his God must bear his sin.” This brackets cursing father and mother with cursing the Omnipresent. It is impossible to speak about hitting relative to the Deity [It is written (Ex. 21:15): “He who hits his father or mother must be put to death.” This law cannot have a parallel in relation to the Deity.] . All this is logical since all three of them are partners in his creation [Since father and mother contribute the animal part of his being and God gives soul, spirit, and life (Babli Niddah 31a).] .

28What is fear [Sifra Qedoshim 10, Babli Qiddushin 61b. What is classified here as “honor” is described in Tosephta Qiddushin 1:11 as “obligation of the son towards his parents.”] ? He may not sit in his place and may not speak in his stead [If the father is present.] nor contradict his words. What is honor? He feeds and gives him to drink, clothes him and puts on his shoes, leads him out and in [If the parent can no longer do these things.] . From whose money? Huna bar Ḥiyya [A Babylonian Amora of the second/third generation, student of Rav Huna and Rav Jehudah, and son-in-law of Rav Jeremiah bar Abba. In the Babli, his statement is attributed to Rav Nathan bar Oshaia, a minor authority contemporary with Rav Huna bar Ḥiyya, and the statement that “some want to say” is attributed to Rav Jehudah. Even though Rav Jehudah is the much more important authority, his opinion is rejected in the Babli, in contrast to the Yerushalmi two paragraphs down.] said, from the old man’s. Some want to say, from his own. Did not Rebbi Abbahu say in the name of Rebbi Yose bar Ḥanina: From where do we know that even if his father tells him to throw the wallet into the sea that he should obey him [In the Babli, this is one of the examples of Rebbi Eliezer about the seriousness of the obligation of honoring father and mother. The question is, why should the son be obliged to throw his own wallet (full of money) into the sea when he has to feed and clothe his parents from his own money? Hence, R. Abbahu must agree that the old parents must be cared for from their own money.] ? That is [The proof from the statement of R. Abbahu is not conclusive. There are two conditions to be fulfilled in order that the son should follow his father’s command: First, that the implications for the wealth of either parent or child are negligible and, second, that the act will have a positive influence on the mental health of the disturbed parent [otherwise, as the Babli points out explicitly, the son would infringe on the Biblical prohibition of wanton destruction and, as the verse Lev. 19:3 makes clear, one is not permitted to follow one’s parents orders to commit a sin.]] , if he has another one and if it helps to quiet his father’s spirit.

29Both men and women [Even though the verse Lev. 19:3 is formulated: “A man must fear his mother and his father,” a woman is also obligated. It is then explained why the obligation of the man only is unconditional and spelled out.] . Only the man has the power in his hand, but the woman does not have the power in her own hand because others have disposition over her [She can only care for her parents with the consent of her husband who has the administration of her property.] . If she is widowed or divorced, the power is in her own hand.

30The words of Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba disagree [The text of the first sentence is that of the parallel Qiddušin 1:7, fol. 61b. R. Ḥiyya bar Abba disagrees with the words of Huna bar Ḥiyya that all the children have to give to their parents is their time and attention but not their money.] , for Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba said that Rebbi Yudan, son of Rebbi Simeon bar Ioḥai’s daughter [He is not mentioned anywhere else in the Talmud.] , stated that Rebbi Simeon bar Ioḥai stated: Honoring father and mother is great because the Holy One, praise to Him, preferred it over His own honor. It is said (Ex. 20:12): “Honor your father and your mother,” and it is said (Prov. 3:9): “Honor the Eternal with your property.” When do you start to honor Him? When He was gracious to you! One gives gleanings, forgotten sheaves, and peah, one gives terumah, the First and Second Tithes [The Second Tithe is not for the poor but for one’s own family, to be eaten in Jerusalem. It is supposed that at any family festival one also lets the poor eat from the festive meal. The Second Tithe is due in years 1,2,4,5 of the shemiṭṭah cycle, the tithe for the poor in years 3,6.] and the tithe for the poor, ḥallah, one makes a sukkah,lulav, and shofar,tefillin and ẓiẓit, one feeds the poor and hungry and gives to drink to the thirsty. If you have the wherewhithal, you are obliged for all of these; if you have nothing, you are not obliged even for one of them. But when it comes to honoring father and mother, whether you own property or you do not own property, you must honor father and mother, even if you are a beggar at people’s doors [Who takes charity instead of giving it] .

31Rebbi Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Abba bar Cahana: It is written (Prov.5:6): “She [The strange woman, symbolizing non-Jewish attitudes. The rewards of good deeds have been removed to the World to Come.] does not smooth the way of life, her tracks deviate and you will not notice it.” The Holy One, praise to Him, moved the rewards of those who fulfill the commandments (to the future world) so that they should act in faith. Rebbi Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Isaac: It is written (Prov. 4:23): “Observe carefully all which must be kept, for from it comes life,” observe carefully all you were told in the Torah, for you do not know from which of them will life come to you. Rebbi Abba bar Cahana said, the verse equals the easiest commandment with the most difficult one. The easiest commandment is sending away the mother [If one happens to find a bird’s nest, one may take the eggs or the chicks but not the mother (Deut. 22:6–7).] . The most difficult one is honoring father and mother. For both of them it is written: “Your days will be lengthened.” Rebbi Abun said, if for something that is repayment of debt [Honoring father and mother for raising the child.] it is written (Deut. 5:16): “That you shall be well and that your days shall be lengthened,” so much more something that involves monetary loss and personal danger [Sending away the mother is a potential loss; climbing a ladder to get the eggs or the chicks is a potential danger. [Rebbi Abun was in personal danger for refusing to worship the Roman emperor as a god; Yerushalmi Berakhot 5:1).]] . Rebbi Levi said, this one is greater; repaying a debt is greater than fulfilling an obligation that does not involve repaying a debt. Rebbi Simeon ben Ioḥai stated: Just as their rewards are the same, so their punishments are identical. (Prov.30:17) “The eye that scoffs at the father and despises to obey the mother,” the eye that scoffs about honoring father and mother and despises the commandment not to take the mother with the chicks [In the verse it is written ליקהת “referring to obeying;” in the Talmud text, this is shortened to לקהת and, apparently under the influence of the dialect of lower Galilee, which makes no difference between ה and ת, reads לקחת “to take.” It must be noted that the writing of the letter hē as ה is a new development; in old texts its left leg touches the top but is displaced towards the right; it looks very much like ח.] , “the river ravens should pick it out,” the cruel raven [Which is reputed not to feed its young (Ps. 147:9, cf. Babli Ketubot 49b).] should come, pick it out, and not have any enjoyment from it, “the sons of the eagle should eat it,” the merciful eagle should come and enjoy it.

32Rebbi Jonathan and Rebbi Yannai were sitting together [In Babli Ketubot 49b/50a, a similar story is told about Rebbi Jonathan and Rebbi Ḥanina, but there one deals with a special situation that does not imply anything for our case here.] . There came a man and kissed Rebbi Jonathan’s foot. Rebbi Yannai said to him: What kindness did he pay you back for from former days? He said to him: He once came and complained to me about his son that he should support him and I told him, go, assemble a congregation and humiliate him [Apply moral force to get him to support his penniless father. According to a Gaonic responsum edited by S. Asaf, the meaning of the sentence is: Prevent the congregation from praying until they deal with his complaint (Addenda and Corrigenda by Guggenheimer).] . He said to him, why did you not force him [By a decree of the Rabbinical court, following R. Simeon bar Ioḥai.] ? He said to him, does one force him? He said to him, you still have questions about that? Rebbi Jonathan changed his opinion and fixed it as a tradition in his own name. The result is: Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa, Rebbi Samuel bar Naḥman in the name of Rebbi Jonathan, one forces the son to feed his father. Rebbi Yose bar Abun said, if only all traditions were so clear to me as this one: One forces the son to feed his father.

33“Works of kindness [Quote from the Mishnah, to introduce the next theme.] .” As it is written (Prov. 21:21): “He who pursues charitable donations and works of kindness will find life, justification, and honor.” Honor in this world and life in the world to come. Rebbi Samuel bar Rav Isaac [The story is told at length in Bereshit rabba 59, and in a shortened version, which shows R. Zeïra in a better light, in Babli Ketubot 17a. The essence of the story is that personal effort, in particular for weddings and burials, will not go unrewarded.] used to take branches and danced while singing [From a root that appears inArabic as קלס “to dance while singing, from the standards of dignity upheld singing harmoniously.” He deviated by rabbis.] before brides. Rebbi Zeïra saw him and hid himself before him; he said, look at that old man, how does he make us ashamed! But when he died there were three hours of thunder and lightning in the world. An echo came from Heaven and said: Rebbi Samuel bar Rav Isaac, the worker of charity, died, come out to do charity for him! Fire came down from Heaven that was formed like a fiery branch and separated between the bier and the people; the creatures were saying: Look, his branch stood up for the old man!

34“Making peace between people. [Quote from the Mishnah, to introduce the next theme.] ” It is written (Ps. 34:15): “Move away from evil and do good, look for peace and pursue it.” Look for peace at your place, pursue it at another place. Rebbi Tavyome said: It says pursuing, pursuing [Both the verse from Psalms here and the verse from Proverbs in the preceding paragraph use the root רדף “to pursue.” Hence, one may assume that the meaning is the same in both cases.] . Just as it was said there, honor in this world and life in the world to come.

35“And Torah study. [Quote from the Mishnah, to introduce the next theme.] ” Rebbi Berekhiah and Rebbi Ḥiyya from Kefar Teḥumin [An Amora of the third generation, possibly from Capernaum. The statement here is the only one preserved from him (unless he is identical with R. Ḥama from Kefar Teḥumin, mentioned sometimes in Midrashim.)] . One said that the entire world is not worth even one saying of the Torah. The other said that even all commandments of the Torah are not worth even one saying of the Torah [He asserts that study is more important than doing, an attitude that is challenged below. [The contrary position is quoted without opposition in the Babli.]] . Rebbi Tanḥuma and Rebbi Yose ben Zimra, one said like the first and one said like the second. Rebbi Abba, father of Rebbi Abba bar Mari [At first glance, it seems impossible that Rebbi Abba should be the father of Rebbi Abba bar Mari. Now it is possible that one should read: “Rebbi Abba, father of Rebbi Abba Mari.” It is also possible that Rebbi Abba bar Mari is the posthumous son of Rebbi Abba but did not want to be called Abba bar Abba to indicate by his name the unhappy circumstance of his birth; Mari would not be a personal name but a word meaning “my lord (father).”] , in the name of Rebbi Aḥa: One verse says (Prov. 8:11) “all desirables do not equal it;” the other verse says (Prov. 3:15) “your desirables do not equal it.” “Desirables” are gems and pearls, “your desirables” are the words of the Torah, for it is written (Jer. 9:23): “For these I desire - saying of the Eternal. [The verse ends: “understanding and knowing Me,” i. e., studying Torah. Even the words of the Torah are not equal to the commandments of the Torah and executing these is of higher value than study only, parallel to the position of the Babli.] ”

36Artaban [Artaban IV, the last ruler of the Parthian empire.] sent a priceless [Greek ἀτίμητος, adj., “priceless”; τιμή “worth, price.”] precious pearl to our holy teacher [Rav, who has this title in several passages of the Yerushalmi.] and said to him: Send me a thing of equal value. He sent him a mezuzah. He said to him: I sent you a priceless thing and you send me something worth a follis [Latin follis, Greek φόλλις, -εως, ὁ, in the late Roman empire a small copper coin (1/288 of a solidus or 1/1728 of an ounce of gold), under the (much later) Byzantine emperor Anastasius equal to 40 units of the smallest coin called nummus. Originally, follis means “bellows”, then “bag, small coin”, later “money bag” representing a standard value. Follis as a coin appears only after Diocletian’s currency reform. The use of the term reflects the time of the edition of the Yerushalmi, not the time of the actors in the story. (For a similar adaptation in a Babylonian source, cf. Note 102.)] ! He said to him, your possessions and mine together are not equal to it! Not only that, but you sent me something that I have to watch over and I sent you something that watches over you while you are sleeping, as it is written (Prov. 6:22): “I will make you rest when you are rambling.”

37Rebbi Mana understood all of them from this verse (Deut. 32:47): “Because it is not an empty word from you,” that is the study of Torah, “because it is your life,” that is honoring father and mother, “and by this you will have a long life,” that are works of kindness, “on the earth,” that is making peace between men.

38Correspondingly [Tosephta Peah 1:2.] , there are four things that a person has to pay for in this world and the principal remains for him in the future world: Idolatry, incest and adultery, and murder. But slander is equivalent to all of these. Idolatry from where? (Num. 15:31) “This soul shall certainly be cut off, its sin is inside it.” Why does the verse say “its sin is inside it?” This teaches that the soul is destroyed and its sin is still inside it. And it is written (Ex.32:21): “Please, this people has committed a grave sin, they made for themselves golden gods. [The first verse proves that the sin stays in the soul at death, the second verse is a paradigm that such a sin is called “grave;” the latter expression is then used to characterize the other deadly sins.] ” Incest and adultery from where? (Gen. 39:9) “How can I commit that grave evil and sin before God.” Murder from where? (Gen. 4:13) “Cain said to the Eternal, my sin is grave, it cannot be removed.” When he comes to calumny, it does not say in the singular “grave” or “the grave” but in the plural “grave” (Ps. 12:4): “May the Eternal cut off all slippery lips, all tongues peaking grave words [This is the introduction to a lengthy section on the sin of calumny.] .”

39In its written (Gen. 37:2): “And Joseph reported their evil slander to their father.” What did he say? Rebbi Meir, Rebbi Jehudah, and Rebbi Simeon. Rebbi Meir said, they are suspected of eating flesh from a living animal [This is forbidden for all mankind as one of the Seven Commandments to the Sons of Noah.] . Rebbi Jehudah said, they abuse the sons of the handmaidens and treat them like slaves. Rebbi Simeon said, they are infatuated with local girls [Canaanites whom they are forbidden to marry.] . Rebbi Judah ben Pazi said, (Prov. 16:11) “Balance and scales of justice are the Eternal’s; all weight-stones are His work. “What did he say, they are suspected of eating flesh from a living animal? The Holy One, praise to Him, said: So I testify for them that they first slaughter and then eat, (Gen. 37:31) “they slaughtered the he-goat and dipped the coat into the blood.” What did he say, they abuse the sons of the handmaidens and treat them like slaves? (Ps. 105:17) “Joseph was sold as a slave.” What did he say, they are infatuated with local girls? Lo, a she-bear will attack you, (Gen. 39:7) “his master’s wife lifted her eyes to Joseph, etc.”

40Rebbi Yasa in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: He who calumniates does not speak until he has disowned the principle [The principle of the Jewish faith, that God is the Ultimate Judge.] . What is the reason? (Ps.12:5) “Who said, by our tongues we shall overcome, our lips are with us, who is master over us [This is a declaration of atheism.] ?” All sins a person commits on earth, but this one they commit both in heaven and on earth. What is the reason? (Ps.73:9) “They put their mouths in heaven and their tongue wanders about the earth.” Rebbi Isaac said157 (Ps. 50:22): “Understand that, those who are forgetting God, lest He will tear [In the Biblical text: Lest I shall tear.] and nobody may rescue.” Rebbi Joshua ben Levi said (Ps. 50:20): "You sit, talk against your brother, you find fault with your mother’s son.” What is written there? (Ps. 50:16) “God said to the evildoer, what right do you have to speak about My laws, to keep My covenant in your mouth?”

41Where is a warning about calumny159? (Deut. 23:10) “Keep yourself from every evil word!” Rebbi La said that Rebbi Ismaël stated (Lev.19:10): “Do not walk around as slanderer among your people,” that is slandering, calumny. Rebbi Nehemiah stated that you should not be like a trader who carries things from one person to another and vice versa.

42Rebbi Ḥanina said: Come and see, how hard is even a hint of calumny that the verses spoke untruth in order to make peace between Abraham and Sarah. (Gen. 18:12) “Sarah laughed to herself, saying: After having wilted I became dainty [Her wrinkles had disappeared and her period restarted.] , but my master is old.” To Abraham He does not say so, but rather (Gen. 18:13): “Why now did Sarah laugh, saying how can I give birth, being old?” It is not written “my master is old” but “I am old”. Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel said [The formulation in Bereshit rabba 100(9) is easier to understand: We have stated: Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel said, peace is great because even the tribes spoke untruth to obtain peace between themselves and Joseph.] : Come and see, how hard is even a hint of calumny that the verses spoke untruth in order to make peace between Joseph and his brothers. That is what is written (Gen.50:16–17): “They empowered [a messenger] to Joseph to say: Your father commanded before his death, saying: So you shall say to Joseph, please forgive etc.” We do not find that he (Jacob) commanded anything.

43Rebbi Samuel bar Naḥman in the name of Rebbi Jonathan: One may calumniate disruptive persons. What is the reason? (1K. 1:14) “I shall come after you and confirm your words. [While Bat Sheba told the truth, the intervention of Nathan is intended to cause trouble to Adoniah. Hence, the sin of calumny extends even to true statements unless their publication has some value for the public peace.] ” Rebbi Zeïra asked before Rebbi Yasa: Why was Adoniah ben Ḥaggit killed? Because he asked for Avishag of Shunem [What was a problem for the Yerushalmi was none for the Babli, Sanhedrin 22b, where the Galilean Rebbi Jacob in the name of R. Joḥanan explains that Avishag, while she was not a concubine of David, had the legal status of one and, therefore, could not be married to anybody but a king.] ? He said to him, they were looking for a pretext to proscribe the lives of disruptive persons.

44They asked before Rebbi Joḥanan: Who is guilty of calumny? He who says it and he accepts it [The person who accepts information which he recognizes as calumny without protesting is as guilty as the one who disseminates it.]

45The linen traders had an assembly [The root is צמת “to take, squeeze, together.”] . There was one whose nickname was Bar Ḥovez (son of the cheesemaker) who did not appear. They said: What are we going to eat today? One said: cheese, then the cheeser will come. Rebbi Joḥanan said, this one was calumniating in secret [By making fun of a nickname.] . The city councilmen [Greek βουλευταί “councilmen”.] of Sepphoris had an assembly. There was one by the name of Joḥanan who did not appear. One said to the other, let us visit Rebbi Joḥanan today. They said [This seems to be a scribal error since it follows from the next remark that a single person said so.] , Joḥanan will come [When he hears that he is given the title of Rebbi.] . Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, this one calumniated justly.

46Rebbi Abba bar Cahana said, the generation of David were all just [At least on the surface they were no idolaters.] but because there were informers [Latin delator “informer,” delatio, later form delatura “denunciation.”] among them they went to war and were falling. That is what David said (Ps. 57:9–10): “My soul, among lions I am lying down with blazing fires.” “My soul, among lions,” these are Abner and Amasah who were lions in Torah; “I am lying down with blazing fires;” these are Doeg and Aḥitophel who were eager for calumny. “The people, their teeth are spear and arrows,” these are the owners of Qe‘ilah, as it is written (1Sam. 23:11): “Will the owners of Qe‘ilah deliver me in his hand, will Saul come?” “Their tongue is a sharp sword,” these are the people of Ziph (Ps. 54:1): “When the people of Ziph came and told Saul. “At that moment, David said before the Holy One, praised be He: Master of the Universe, why should Your glory descend among them? Remove Your glory from them! That is what is written (Ps. 57:6): “Rise over the Heavens, o God, higher than all earth Your glory!” The generation of Ahab were idolaters but since there was no informing among them they went to war and were victorious. That is what Obadiahu said to Elijah (1K. 18:13): “Certainly it was told to my lord what I did when Izebel slew all prophets of the Eternal etc., and I provided them with bread and water.” [If bread, why does he have to mention water [Since “bread” may mean “food”.] , and if water, why does he have to mention bread. This teaches you that it was more difficult for him to provide them with water than with bread.] But Elijah was standing on Mount Carmel and declaring (1K.18:22): “I remained alone as prophet for the Eternal,” and everybody knew and nobody informed the king [That there were another hundred prophets hidden by Obadiahu.]

47Why is it called “triple [In all Yerushalmi Targumim, calumny is called לִישָׁן תְּלִיתָאִי “triple tongue.” The same explanation is given in Babli Arakhin 15b.] ?” Because it kills three: The one who says it, the one who accepts it, and the one calumniated. And in the days of Saul, four were killed: Doeg who said it [That the priests of Nob had given David the holy bread.] , Saul who accepted it, Aḥimelekh who was calumniated, and Abner. Why was Abner killed? Rebbi Joshua ben Levi, Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish, and the rabbis. Rebbi Joshua ben Levi said, because he made fun of the lives of his squires as it is said (2Sam. 2:14): “Let the squires get up and play before us, and Joab [The reading of the text, אבנר, not only contradicts the reading of the verse but makes no sense here since Abner was the instigator of the duel.] said, let them get up.” R. Simeon ben Laqish, because he prefaced his name before that of David; that is what is written (2Sam. 3:12) “Abner sent messengers to David the underling, saying: Whose is the land?” He wrote: From Abner to David [A letter addressed to the king would read: “To David from Abner.” The supposed inversion is intended to show that Abner considered himself a king maker, not an executor of God’s will as declared by Samuel.] . The rabbis say, because he did not let Shaul make peace with David. That is what is written (1Sam. 24:5): “My father, see, but see the corner of your coat in my hand!” He said to him, what do you want from the prattling [It seems that Yerushalmi גלגל is the same as Babylonian לגלג.] of this one, it was torn off by thorns [Rabbinic feminine סירה is the same as Biblical masculine to סיר “thorn.”] . But when they came to the circle, he said to him (1Sam. 26:14): “Can you answer, Abner?” About the corner, you said it was torn off by a thorn; were spear and pitcher cut off by a thorn? But some say, because he had it in his power to intervene for Nob, the city of priests, and he did not intervene.

48(Ps. 120:4) “The arrows of a hero are sharpened over hot broom coals.” All weapons kill at their place but this kills [Rabbinic feminine סירה is the same as Biblical masculine to סיר “thorn.”] at a distance. All other charcoal that is extinguished on the outside, is also extinguished on the inside, but these, even though they are extinguished on the outside, are still burning on the inside. It happened to one that he put down burning charcoal on Sukkot and came and found them still burning on Pesaḥ.

49Rebbi Samuel ben Naḥman said: One says to the snake, why when you move does your tongue flow? It said to them, that [דְּהוּא = דּוּ.] caused it for me [Because of my evil talk (and calumny about God) I was turned into a snake.] . What profit do you have from biting? A lion tears up and eats, a wolf tears up and eats; you, what profit do you have from biting [A human who is much too big to swallow.] ? It said to them (Eccl. 10:11): “If the snake would bite without a whisper,” I would not bite unless it was said to me from heaven: bite! Why do you bite one limb and all limbs feel it? It said to them: Why do you ask me? Ask the master of the tongue [The calumniator.] who speaks here and kills in Rome [Hebrew spelling perhaps derived from Greek Ρ́ώμη, “Rome”. The Latin locative Romae, “in Rome”, since the word is preceded by בְּ, “in”, is probably not meant. But redundant constructions involving foreign words are found in the Yerushalmi.] , speaks in Rome and kills in Syria. Why are you found among fences? It said to them, I broke the fence of the world [By being the first to commit adultery [cf. the author’s The Scholar’s Haggadah (Northvale 1995), pp. 308–309.]]

50Merit has capital [It determines the reward in the world to come. (The entire paragraph is from Tosephta Peah, 1:2–3, also quoted Babli Qiddušin 40a).] and yield [The rewards in this world that are given without diminishing the rewards in the world to come.] ; sin has capital but no yield. Merit has capital and has yield, as it is said (Is. 3:10): “Tell the just that it is very well, that they will eat the fruit of their actions.” Sin has capital but no yield, as it is said (Is. 3:11): “Woe to the bad criminal, the retribution for his actions will be come upon him.” How can I confirm (Prov. 1:31): “They [Evildoers.] will eat from the fruits of their way?” Every sin that produces fruit has yield [The adulterer who produces a bastard child will be punished for the child in this world while all the punishment for adultery is reserved for the future world.] , that which does not produce fruit has no yield.

51The [The first clause of this paragraph is also in the Tosephta and Babli mentioned in Note 186. The second part is different both in the Babli and the Tosephta which both make a difference between good deeds that produced yield and those that did not. The Tosephta clearly represents the position of the Babli.] Holy One, praise to Him, adds good intention to deeds; the Holy One, praise to Him, does not add bad intention to deeds. The Holy One, praise to Him, adds good intention to deeds as it is written (Mal. 3:16): “Then those who fear the Eternal will speak together, each man with his neighbor [The proof is from the part of the verse not quoted: “The Eternal will be attentive and listen and write it into a book of remembrance before Him,” simply for the good intention.] .” The Holy One, praise to Him, does not add bad intention to deeds (Ps. 66:12): “If I saw mischief in my heart, the Eternal would not listen.” That refers to Israel, but for Gentiles it is the reverse; the Holy One, praise to Him, does not add good intention; bad intention the Holy One, praise to Him, does add. The Holy One, praise to Him, does not add good intention, as it is written (Dan. 6:15): “Until sundown he tried to rescue him;” it does not say “to save him [Even though the first part of the verse, not quoted here, declares that Darius tried to save Daniel from the lions’ den.] .” The Holy One, praise to Him, adds bad intention: (Obad. 9–10) “From killing [In the masoretic text, the word belongs to the previous verse, stating that nobody from Mount Seïr will escape being killed. Here the word is taken as explanation of the following verse.] . Because of the oppression of your brother Jacob.” But did he kill him? This teaches that he thought about killing him and the verse counts it as if he had killed him.

52Rebbi Simeon ben Ioḥai stated: If a person was perfectly just all his days and at the end he rebelled, he lost all he worked for his entire life. What is the reason? (Ez. 33:18) “If a just person reverts from his justness and does mischief [His prior merit will not be counted.] .” Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, if he wonders about his earlier deeds. If a person was perfectly evil all his days and at the end he repents, the Holy One, praise to Him, receives him. What is the reason? (Ez. 33:27) “If a sinner returns from his wickedness [His prior wickedness will not be counted.] .” Rebbi Joḥanan said, not only that but all transgressions are counted as merits for him. What is the reason? (Ps. 45:9) “Myrrh, aloe, cassia, all your faithlessness [In the context of the verse, the word means “your clothes.” The Hebrew double root בגד “clothing-dealing treacherously” cannot be explained from cognate languages.] .” All faithless acts in which you were faithless towards Me are like myrrh, aloe, and cassia.

53From one who has mostly merit and a minority of sins they [The Heavenly Court.] collect in this world for the minority of light sins in order to give him his complete reward in the future. But to one who has mostly sins and a minority of merits they give the reward for light merits in this world in order to collect from him his complete punishment in the future world. But [Similar but different statements in the name of R. Eliezer Hamodaï are in Mishnah Avot 3:11, Avot dRebbi Natan A 26. The meaning of the terms in this statement is explained in the next paragraph.] from one who tears away the yoke, who breaks the covenant, and who finds aspects in the Torah, even though he has meritorious deeds to his credit, they exact payment in this world and the capital remains for him in the future world. Idolatry and incest and adultery, Rebbi Jonah and Rebbi Yose: One says, among the easy ones [The easy sins are punished in this world, the hard ones in the World to Come.] , and one says, among the hard ones. What are we talking about? If he repented, there is nothing that stands in the way of those who repent. But what we are talking about is one who did not repent but died in pain [The question is whether an idolater or adulterer who dies in pain has received his punishment or whether he has to expect his main punishment in the World to Come. The Babli, Yoma 86a, sides with the first opinion and reserves eternal punishment only for those who desecrate the Holy Name, i. e., bring disgrace upon the Jewish religion.] .

54There (Sanhedrin 10:1) we have stated: The following have no part in the Future World: He who says there is no resurrection of the dead [However, in the Mishnah in Sanhedrin, the reading of the Yerushalmi is like the Babli, “He who says that there is no resurrection of the dead from the Torah.” The entire paragraph also appears in Sanhedrin.] , that the Torah is not from Heaven, and the Epicurean [Epicure was an avowed atheist; hence, in Jewish sources, an Epicurean is an atheist.] . Rebbi Aqiba says, also he who reads apocryphal books [Books that pretend to Biblical status but have been excluded from the canon as spurious and pernicious.] . And he who recites magical spells over a wound and says (Ex. 15:26): “Any disease that I put upon Egypt I shall not put on you because I am the Eternal, your Healer. [Using the Torah for magic or exorcisms is equivalent to not believing in the Torah.] ” Abba Saul [A Tanna of the third generation, younger than Rebbi Aqiba.] says, also he who pronounces the Name [The Divine Name YHWH whose vocalization is a secret not following grammatical rules.] by its letters. They added him who tears away the yoke, him who breaks the Covenant, and him who finds aspects in the Torah to those who have no part in the Future World. He who breaks the yoke is one who says the Torah is obligatory but I cannot stand it. He who breaks the Covenant is one who pulls himself a prepuce. He who finds aspects in the Torah is one who says that the Torah was not given from Heaven. But did we not state separately: “He who says that the Torah is not from Heaven [Has no part in the Future World.] ?” Rebbi Ḥanania [In Berakhot and Sanhedrin he is called R. Ḥanina Entanayah.] Entanayah stated before Rebbi Mana: That is one who publicly transgresses the words of the Torah in the manner of Joiakim, king of Judah, and his circle.

55He who has a preponderance of merit inherits paradise. He who has a preponderance of sins inherits hell. Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina said: It does not say “He lifts sins,” but rather (Ex. 34:7, Michah 7:18) “He lifts sin.” The Holy One, praise to Him, seizes one document from the sins and the merits tilt [The merits tilt the scales of justice to their side. This argument is given in cryptic brevity in Babli Rosh Hashanah 17a. The text follows the parallel in Sanhedrin 10:1 (in the Venice text, .נושה עון אין כתיב כאן)] . Rebbi Eleazar said (Ps. 62:13): “Kindness is Yours, o Master, because You repay to everyone according to his deeds,” and if he has none, You give him from Yours. That is the opinion of Rebbi Eleazar, because Rebbi Eleazar said [In Babli Rosh Hashanah 17a, this is quoted in the name of the House of Hillel.] (Ex. 34:6): “And much kindness,” He turns towards kindness.

56Rebbi Jeremiah said that Rebbi Samuel bar Rav Isaac asked: (Pr. 13:6) “Justice protects the one on the straight path but sin destroys the sinner.” (Pr. 13:21) “Evil deeds will pursue sinners but He will reward the just.” (Pr. 3:4) “While He makes scoffers targets of scoffing, He will bestow grace on the meek.” (1Sam. 2:9) “He will watch over the feet of His pious, but evildoers will be silent in the darkness.” (Pr. 3:35) “The wise will inherit honor, but shame will mark the stupid ones.” Fences are made fences and doors doors [A similar thought is expressed in Babli Shabbat 104a: “If somebody wants to live in sin, one opens for him the door [to sin] from Heaven; if he wants to live in purity, one helps him from Heaven.”] . Rebbi Jeremiah in the name of Rebbi Samuel bar Rav Isaac: If a person watches himself the first, second, and third times not to commit a sin, then in the future the Holy One, praise to Him, will watch over him. What is the reason? (Job 33:29) “All this God will do twice, three times, with a man.” Rebbi Zeïra said, but only if the person does not revert [Change his ways from good to bad.] . What is the reason? It does not say “The triple thread will never snap” but rather (Eccl. 4:12) “The triple thread will not quickly snap.” If you work on it, it will split.

57Rebbi Ḥuna said in the name of Rebbi Abbahu: There is no forgetting before the Holy One, but for Israel He becomes forgetful. What is the reason? It is written (Ex. 34:7, Michah 7:18) “He forgets [Replacing נשׂא “to lift, carry” by נשׁה “to forget”.] sin.” And so David says (Ps. 85:3): “You forgot your people’s sin, You covered up all their misdeeds, Selah.”

58MISHNAH: One never gives peah less than one in sixty [1 2/3% of the yield of the field.] . Even though they said that peah has no measure, everything is according to the size of the field, the poor, and the humility [In the Rome manuscript הענבה “the size of the berries;” in the Munich manuscript of the Babli as well as the Code of Maimonides, הענייה “the answer” (of the field to the farmer’s effort.) Both Maimonides and R. Simson explain that if one part of the field has a large yield and another part a meager one, one should not give all of peah from the meager part. The two readings imply that the religiosity of the farmer is no matter to consider here.] .

59HALAKHAH: It was stated: One does not say to him, bring camels and load up. The baraita speaks if he wants to give more than the measure [The measure is the amount fixed by the rabbis, 1 2/3%. If there is a large field and only one poor person one tells the poor to bring camels and load up the peah. The restriction on more than 1 2/3% is introduced because peah is not subject to the laws of terumah and tithes; hence, what is given to the poor diminishes what is given to priests and Levites. On the other hand, one does not allow the farmer to get away with less than 1 2/3% peah.] , but if he gives according to the measure then one says to the poor to bring camels and load up. If his field is large and the poor few, he gives according to the field. His field is small and the poor many, he gives according to the poor. Rebbi Simeon explained two things to make it easy for the owner: If his field is large and the poor few, he gives according to the poor; if his field is small and the poor many, he gives according to the field. The Mishnah does not say so, but “everything is according to the size of the field, the poor, and the humility (yield). [The implication is that the Mishnah, which is followed in practice, requires the farmer to give more than the minimum 1 2/3% unless there is only one poor person and he would need a camel to remove the peah. This is also the interpretation of Maimonides (Mattenot ‘Aniïm 1:16).] ”

60MISHNAH: One may give peah from the head of the field and from its middle [At the start and during the actual harvest.] . Rebbi Simeon says, only on condition that he give the measure [The rabbinically prescribed 1 2/3%; the Halakhah will discuss how this peah is computed. In the Tosephta (1:6), quoted later (4:3), Rebbi Simeon explains his position that peah must be given at the end only, because not only is this the simple meaning of the verses speaking of the obligation of peah(that one may not finish cutting one’s field) but also to exclude favoritism and give all poor the same chance by setting a reasonably fixed time-table when they may come and pluck the remaining stalks from the field. Maimonides is of the opinion that R. Simeon makes the view of the tanna explicit, not that he disagrees with the first statement.] at the end. Rebbi Jehudah says, if he left one stalk standing he adds to it [The Halakhah will explain what he may add as peah.] for peah; otherwise, he gives only as abandoned property [Peah is reserved for the poor (with the legal definition of the poor entitled to charitable gifts given in the last chapter); the House of Hillel rules that abandoned property is abandoned (and free from terumah and tithes) only if it is ownerless and abandoned to absolutely everybody. Arukh brings Aramaic expressions to show that the root בקר means “to be without master,” in a human moral sense also “licentious.”] .

61HALAKHAH: “One may give peah from the head of the field and from its middle.” Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Simeon bar Laqish: (Lev. 19:9) “And at your harvesting,” why does the verse have to say “to harvest” [The expression is considered redundant: “And on the occasion of your harvesting the harvest of your land, do not finish the corner of your field during your harvesting but abandon it for the poor and the stranger.”] ? Even if he has still more to harvest [Hence, peah can be given at any time after the harvest has started. (It was already discussed in Halakha 1 that the very first stalk can never be peah).] . Rebbi Jonah in the name of Rebbi Simeon bar Laqish: (Lev. 19:9) “And at your harvesting,” why does the verse have to say “to harvest”? One for the beginning and one for the end [The disagreement seems to be that according to R. Jonah some peah must be given at the end (as explained by R. Simeon bar Ioḥai in the Mishnah) but that according R. Yose all peah might be given earlier. According to R. Jonah, R. Simeon explains the first sentence; according to R. Yose, he disagrees with the first sentence.] . Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi: (Lev. 19:9) “And at your harvesting,” why does the verse have to say “to harvest”? One for sacred property and one for private persons [R. Joshua ben Levi does not consider the second “to harvest” redundant but referring to a different kind of harvest. הדיוֹט “private person”, Greek ἰδιώτης.] . Rebbi Yudan asked, do not coins redeem sacred property only when it is cut; maybe when it is standing [While real estate donated to the Temple may be sold to private persons (and the proceeds used for the needs of the Temple), it is clear from many sources (e. g. Mishnah 4:5) that as long as the field is in the possession of the Temple, the rules of peah do not apply. Hence, any peah taken would have to come from a field that was bought with the grain standing, not after harvest when the grain was already cut by the Temple staff and is exempt.] ? Rebbi Ḥaninah said, you should not say that harvest of sacred property should be treated like harvest of a private person [The argument of R. Joshua ben Levi differs from that of R. Simeon ben Laqish that the second “to harvest” adds something; it eliminates harvest that is not “yours” but public property. Hence, anybody who buys a field with its crop from the Temple is required to leave peah, but anybody who buys the field with its crop after it was cut by the personnel of the Temple has no obligation to give peah from his grain (Chapter 4, Mishnah 5).] .

62What is the standing of the first batch [According to Rebbi Simeon, who says that in any case one has to give peah in full measure at the end, does the amount given earlier have the status of peah or is it simply abandoned property, not reserved for the poor?] ? Since we have stated [In the name of Rebbi Simeon himself. The implication is that the peah given at the end has to add up to 1⅔% of the yield cut after the earlier peah was given.] (Tosephta 1:5): “It is peah and he has to give the measure at the end.” That means it becomes holy as peah. What means “the measure?” The measure of the entire field or the measure of the remainder? Is it possible to say, this lot becomes holy as peah and say, according to the measure of the entire field? Certainly the remaining measure!

63Rebbi Ḥiyya [R. Ḥiyya bar Abba. This paragraph deals with the last part of the Mishnah, the statement of R. Jehudah that one may add to peah as long as at least one stalk remains uncut on the field (and the additional peah is not subject to the laws of terumah and tithes.) Cf. also Mishnah 6.] in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: when it is still standing [One may only add standing patches of grain, not cut grain. Rebbi Yasa is of the opinion that one even may designate grain already cut as peah.] . Rebbi Yasa in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: when it is cut. What is his intention [Does R. Jehudah only say that one may add until one has given the required 1⅔% of the yield (implying that if one starts out with less than 1⅔% and then adds in one batch over that limit it is acceptable and even commendable) or does R. Jehudah apply the laws of peah even to produce given after the rabbinic threshold of 1⅔% clearly has already been exceeded?] , to free his field from the obligation or not? Let us hear from the following: Rebbi Yasa said in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: He may always add. What are we talking about? If it is his intention to free his field from the obligation, it already has been freed [One could not say מוֹסיף והוֹלך “he keeps adding” if he had to stop after reaching the threshold.] . So we must speak about the case where it is not his intention to free his field from the obligation [But the obligation was already fulfilled before he started to add.] !

64MISHNAH: They established a principle for peah: Everything that is food [But not industrial plants like flax, cotton, or indigo.] , is treated as private property [Not anything that is usually taken only from the commons.] , grows from the earth [Not mushrooms that grow on rotting wood, nor hydroponics.] , is harvested at one time [Not produce that ripens slowly so that the same field or tree has to be harvested many times; as, for example, figs.] , and is stored [But not vegetables that are only sold green.] , is subject to peah. Grain [Since קציר means not only “harvest” but also “grain”, the characteristics of crops subject to peah are derived from those of grain. “Grain” in the Talmud means only grain that may be leavened to make bread and in a leavened state is forbidden on Passover.] and legumes [The talmudic definition of legumes covers all fruits other than grains which can be ground into a kind of flour: rice, millet, peas, beans, etc.] are included. And among trees [In the opinion of Maimonides, all peah of trees is a Biblical obligation. According to Rabbenu Simson, the only peah that is a Biblical obligation is that of grain, wine, and olives. Everything else is a rabbinical obligation.] sumac [Identification of Maimonides. The leaves of the sumac (Rhus coriaria L.) were used in tanning leather and as black dye but the fruits, very rich in citric and related acids, were eaten and used for the preparation of lemonade. Today, ground sumac seeds mixed with thyme are used as condiment (sa‘tar). Hence, the fruits are subject to peah but not the leaves.] and carob, walnut and almond, vine and pomegranate, olive and date palm are subject to peah.

65HALAKHAH: (Lev. 19:9) [The derivation is given, with some variations, in Sifra Kedoshim,Pereq1, Babli Ḥullin137a, Yalqut Shim‘oni #604.] “And at your reaping, [The full verse reads: “At your reaping the harvest of your land, do not finish reaping the corner of your field, and do not pick up isolated stalks; do abandon them to the poor and the sojourner; I am the Eternal, your God.”] ”not only reaping; from where do we add plucking? The verse says “to harvest.” From where do we add uprooting [This is the reading of the parallel sources and of S. Cirillo; the Venice print has “reaping”, which certainly is incorrect.] ? The verse says “your harvest.” Not only grain, from where do we add legumes? The verse says “in your land.” From where do we add trees, the verse says “your field [An orchard in which the trees allow for plowing between them is called “a field of trees.”] .”

66It was stated [Tosephta Kilaïm 1:15.] : One may sow vegetable seeds and tree seeds together. But he who sows with grape kernels is whipped 40 times [“40 times” means 39 times, the maximal punishment for the transgression of a Biblical prohibition (Deut. 25:3).] . Rebbi Zeïra said, it is written (Deut. 22:9): “Do not sow your vineyard with two kinds;” the main produce [The main produce are grapes and the part used for sowing is grape seed.] of your vineyard you should not sow with two kinds. Rebbi Yudan from Kappadokia asked before Rebbi Yose: There [In the rules of ritual impurity, e. g. Mishnah Makhshirin 1:2, all rules that apply to vegetables and grain also apply to tree fruits. “Here” refers to the rules of kilaïm. This shows that the main place of these paragraphs is in tractate Kilaïm (8:1).] they say that tree seeds are called seeds but here you say that tree seeds are not called seeds. He said to him: There [In the answer, “there” and “here” should be switched; the first answer deals with kilaïm (and refers to the question dealt with there whether one transgresses the prohibition of sowing different kinds in a vineyard only if one sows there two kinds different from vines or only one.)] the verse excluded them since usually people do not call them “seeds,” but here the verse added (Lev. 11:37) “any sown seed that may be sown.”

67Some would understand it from here: (Deut. 24:21) “When you harvest your vineyard.” How do you understand this [The entire verse reads: “If you harvest your vineyard, you should not go back to pluck the single berries; it should be for the convert, the orphan, and the widow.” The definition of a single berry is given in Mishnah Peah 7:4. The question is about the meaning of the word עוֹלל “to go over it a second time”. The root עלל means “go over a second time, do anything a second time.” In Arabic, علل means “to harvest fruits a second time”. For example, עלילה means doing something following a well thought-out plan. Rebbi Jonah reads the verse in Lamentations as: “May all their evil come before You and may You repeatedly punish them, just as You repeatedly punished me for all my sins.” One is not allowed to go over the vines a second time after one has harvested the bunched grapes; that is the equivalent of peah for vines, (מתעלל is usually translated “to abuse, to mistreat,” it should be taken to mean “to mistreat repeatedly” with emphasis on the repetition of abuse.)] ? Rebbi Jonah said, do not be punctilious, as you say (Lament. 1:22) “to punish them repeatedly.” (Deut. 24:21) “When you shake your olive tree.” How do you understand this [The verse reads: “If you shake your olive tree, do not investigate every branch afterwards; it should be for the convert, the orphan and the widow.” The way of harvesting olives for pressing oil is to shake every branch, then the ripe olives will fall off and are collected under the tree in a cloth [translation of R. Saadiah Gaon]. The root פאר appears only here in the meaning “to glean”; usually it means “to appear in splendor”. The first meaning reappears in the nouns פֻּארָה “crown of the tree”, פֹֹּארוֹת “tree branch”. Rebbi Jonah identifies first and second meanings, and reads: “Do not remove its splendor.” Then he compares the splendor of the tree, פֻּארָה, to the splendor of one’s head, the hair, that in the second verse also is called peah; hence it follows that the remaining olives on the tree have the status of peah and go under its rules. Accordingly, the rules of peah apply both for olive trees and vines.] ? Rebbi Jonah said (Lev. 19:27): “Do not round off the peah of your head.” Since olive and vineyard are special in that they are harvested at one time for storage, so also everything that is harvested at one time for storage is obligated [By the principle בנין אב משני כתובים “principle established by two verses”. If two necessary verses establish a common consequence, it will apply in general to all cases that are covered by their common antecedents (unless explicitly negated by another verse.) If the verses are partially overlapping in content, the principle is denied by some. The next paragraph will establish that there is no overlap in content in the case under consideration.] . But olive and vineyard are special in that they are subject to first fruits and subject to peah, so only that which is subject to first fruits should be subject to peah [This would exclude rice, peas, etc., which are explicitly included in the Mishnah (and would include figs).] . The verse says (Lev. 19:9): “Your harvest,” even the harvest of rice and millet.

68It should mention the olive tree but not the vineyard. If it would mention olive tree but not vineyard, I would say that the olive tree, which is not subject to the rule of isolated berries [It is stated in Lev. 19:10: “Isolated berries of your vineyard (grape berries that do not grow in a bunch but sit directly on the branch and are not part of a row of such grape berries) you should not collect but abandon to the poor.”] , is subject to peah, but that vines, which are subject to the rule of isolated berries, are not subject to peah. Lo, the mention of the vineyard is needed. Or if it would mention vineyard but not olive tree, I would say that vines which are subject to the rule of isolated berries are subject to peah, but that the olive tree which is not subject to the rule of isolated berries is not subject to peah. Lo, the mention of the olive tree and of the vineyard is needed.

69From [This is a second version of the proof that the two verses are really needed, that they are not “two parallel laws” which by their parallelism indicate that they express only these two cases and no general principle. The argument is: If the mention of peah for the olive tree alone would allow one to infer the duty of peah for all trees then from the verse in Lev. the duty of not collecting single fruits would apply to all trees. That is patent nonsense since most trees do not produce bunches of fruit but only isolated fruits. The sentence in parenthesis is dittography, or it may have been an attempt to explain the argument in a marginal note which subsequently entered the text.] the olive tree one may infer peah for all trees. From the vineyard one should infer the rule of isolated berries for all trees. (Just as from the olive tree one infers peah for all trees so one should infer the rule of isolated berries for all trees from the vineyard.) Rebbi Abun said, any property that is common to both yields an inference but any property that is [not [Missing in the Venice print but clearly a scribal error already corrected by R. S. Cirillo.] ] common to both yields no inference [Since it was established above that both verses are necessary, neither of them by itself would have a generally valid inference.] .

70It is fine according to the opinion of Rebbi Ismael. Since Rebbi Ismael established: Everything that was in a set and left the set to be applied to a new rule, is removed from the set and forms a new one [This is the formulation of the Yerushalmi. In the Babylonian version, (Introduction to Sifra and Zebaḥim 49a), the reading is: “Anything that was in a set and was taken out for an additional law, cannot be returned to its set except if the verse returns it explicitly.” The example there is about different kinds of sacrifices (חטאת, אשם) which in some respect follow the same rules, while in other aspects they do not. Therefore, a special verse is needed for taking the two kinds together to imply that they form one set of sacrifices with common rules. Here, the rule of the single berry clearly separates the vine from all other trees. Hence, it is necessary that there be a separate verse to apply the rule of peah to vines.] ; it is necessary that peah should be mentioned for the vineyard. But for the rabbis [These rabbis are not mentioned in the Babli.] who say, it remains in its set and keeps its special status, why is peah mentioned for the vineyard? Rebbi Abin said, if only the vineyard were singled out, the question would be valid. But now that vineyard and olive tree are singled out [For the rule of peah, which is not mentioned for any other tree.] , if it would mention olive tree but not vineyard, I would say that the olive tree, which is not subject to the rule of isolated berries [Reading of the Rome manuscript. The Leyden manuscript and Venice print have “peah” by an obvious scribal error.] , is subject to peah, but that vines, which are subject to the rule of isolated berries, are not subject to peah [While this argument was brought earlier, the situation is slightly different here.] .

71Just [Here starts the discussion of the conditions imposed on produce that should be subject to peah.] as you say for the harvest that its collection must be at one time in order to qualify for peah, should one say that the same is true for the laborer [The hired agricultural laborer, who is poor, may eat while harvesting or working in the field. May he eat only from fruits that qualify for peah, reserved for the poor?] ? Rebbi Jonah said, there is a difference since it says (Deut.23:26): “You may pluck rubbed ears,” even of something that is not stored [Both conditions, that certain produce is harvested at one time, and that it usually is harvested for storage (or, in the case of wine and oil, is produced for storage), are necessary conditions for peah. Since rubbed ears are not stored, the verse makes a point to extend the right of the farmhand.] .

72It was stated (Tosephta Peah 1:7): “Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Jehudah says [Since this is quoted in his name, it follows that it is not generally accepted like an anonymous statement.] , moist dates [Arabic רֻטַב, “moist and ripe dates.” The author of Kaphtor Waperaḥ (Chapter 52, p. 706) notes that these dates are also called in Arabic בַּלַח, but that means “unripe dates”, the verbal root בלח means “to be dry”, the opposite of רטב.] are free from peah because the first among them does not wait for the last one. “Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Jehudah seems to say what is correct, what is the reason of the rabbis? Rebbi Zeïra said, because they all need moisture at the same time [Fruit becomes eligible for the rules of the gifts to the poor when it becomes fruit, and for dates that is the moment where moisture appears around the pit, so that it can be separated from the fruit. R. Zeïra asserts that, while these dates ripen outwardly at separate times, the ripening process starts at the same time for all of them and they could be harvested and left to ripen in storage after the moisture first appears. Maimonides follows the rabbis in practice.] .

73Rebbi Isaac ben Ḥaqolah and Rebbi Joshua ben Levi both say taro [Colocasia, Greek κολοκασία, Arabic קֻלקָאס. Its root is used to produce a kind of flour in Africa; hence, it is an intermediate between a vegetable and a legume. The only problem is that of vows (e. g., if a person makes a vow to abstain from vegetables), since in matters of vows one does not follow technical usage but the meaning in local dialects. Hence, there may be places where taro is commonly subsumed under vegetables and other places where it is not.] is like a vegetable for tithes, the sabbatical year, peah, and first fruits. For vows it is questionable.

74MISHNAH: Forever [A person who cuts his entire field without leaving peah has later to give peah to the poor. “Smoothing" is a technical term that designates the end of processing the grain harvest, when after threshing and cleaning from chaff, the grain is put into orderly heaps to be stored. The Mishnah states that the obligation of giving peah must be fulfilled as long as the relevant produce is in the hand of the farmer, but if it is given before smoothing then it is free from terumah and the two tithes. If peah is given later, the farmer has first to give terumah and tithes before he can discharge his obligation for peah. [In the Mishnah manuscripts there is a second sentence, that he who declares part of his crop as abandoned is freed from the relative terumah and tithes if it is abandoned before smoothing. This sentence is missing in the Yerushalmi and in the Munich manuscript of the Babli.] The Halakhah takes the expression: “Forever he gives,” as meaning that he can give under the rules of peah until he has smoothed the heap, even if he gave peah from grain standing on the field, and avoid the obligation of terumah and tithes for that amount. That seems to contradict our understanding of Mishnah 3.] he gives as peah and it is free from tithes until he smoothes. He may take from the threshing floor and sow and it is free from tithes until he smoothes [Since seed grain is not food.] . And he feeds domestic animals, wild animals, and fowl and is free from tithes until he smoothes, the words of Rebbi Aqiba [In the Mishnah manuscripts the sentence is anonymous; the previous one about seed grain is attributed to R. Aqiba. From the Halakhah later on (Note 287) it will be clear that the original Mishnah in the Yerushalmi also attributed only the statement about seed grain to R. Aqiba.] . If a Cohen or a Levite bought all the grain of a threshing floor, the tithes belong to them until it was smoothed [There is nothing in the Torah which states that a Cohen could not give his own terumah and tithes to himself. But the rabbis ordained that Cohen and Levite have to give their tithes away in order to create a level playing field, lest Cohen and Levite farmers could drive the others out of business since they have a built-in 10% advantage in costs over the non-Levitic farmer. In the opinion of Maimonides, the rule was established in order to prevent the monopolizing of tithes by a few wealthy priests. However, if a priest bought produce before it was obligated for tithes, he may keep the tithe but not terumah.] . He who dedicates [His crop or his field.] to the Temple and then redeems is obligated for tithes unless it was smoothed by the Temple administrator [Temple property is not subject to the laws of tithes. Hence, if the obligation of giving terumah and tithes arose in private properly, it must be fulfilled; but if it arises in the property of the Temple, it does not apply even if the produce is later sold to private individuals.] .

75HALAKHAH: Rebbi Yose, Rebbi Jacob bar Zabdi in the name of Rebbi Abbahu, Rebbi Nehemiaḥ bar Uqban turned it in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: If someone separated first fruits from a smoothed heap [Which now falls under the obligation of separating terumah and the first tithe. (While the first tithe is a civil obligation of the farmer towards the Levite, the terumah of the tithe is a religious obligation and it is a deadly sin to eat from the produce as long as that terumah of the tithe is still not separated from the rest of the grain. The first terumah is called the great terumah.) It is now asserted that First Fruits, which are brought to the Temple and will be eaten there by the priests, are not subject to terumah even though peah, which is eaten by the poor, can no longer be separated from the heap before the farmer separates the two terumot from his grain.] , it is free from the great terumah. Rebbi Ḥaggai said before Rebbi Yose: Does not the Mishnah say so: “Forever he gives peah and it is free from tithes until he smoothes.” Hence, if he smoothed he is obligated, but this does not apply to terumah [Since the Mishnah speaks only of the obligation of tithes, not terumah.] ? It should say that he also is obligated for first fruits even though he did not smooth yet [This is the answer of R. Yose to R. Haggai, refuting his argument: If the Mishnah is supposed to mention every detail, it certainly should have mentioned First Fruits since they are really supposed to be designated when grain or fruits are still on field or tree. Hence, “tithes” is a catchword for all obligations and the Mishnah does not prove anything for the rule under discussion.] ! But he [Rebbi Abbahu or Rebbi Joḥanan, whoever is the author of the statement about First Fruits, referred to the Mishnah Terumot 3:7: “From where do we know that First Fruits precede terumah? Each of them is called (in the Torah) terumah and beginning’, but First Fruits should precede everything because they are first before everything.”] is the one who said this: “Why are they called firstlings? Because they are first before everything else.” And anything which precedes something else, the latter is obligated for it [This is a general principle which will be discussed at length in Demai 5:1. The fixed order of Biblical obligations is First Fruits (where applicable), terumah, First Tithe, Second Tithe. Hence, if somebody gave First Tithe before he gave terumah, he has to separate terumah from this First Tithe and he may not include terumah for the First Tithe in the terumah that he will give from the remaining grain, but terumah carries no obligation of tithe. As a consequence, First Fruits carry no obligation of terumah and even the fact that the heap now is under the obligation of terumah and tithes has no influence. This is the justification of R. Joḥanan/Abbahu.] .

76Our Mishnah [The Mishnah declares that “forever one may give as peah,” meaning even after the prescribed 1 2/3% have been given. But earlier, it was agreed that once this amount is given, there is no more peah to be given separately. Hence, one must consider that the amount given before the heap was smoothed was given as property abandoned to the poor. Even for the House of Shammai, calling this peah strictly speaking would be a misnomer but, since for the House of Shammai property abandoned to the poor follows exactly all the rules of peah, it is free from all obligation of terumah and tithes; this is an admissible freedom in the use of language.] is from the House of Shammai, since the House of Shammai say (Mishnah 6:1): “Property abandoned to the poor is ownerless property.”

77It turns out that Rebbi Aqiba [This refers to the part of the Mishnah in which R. Aqiba permits the use of grain for seeds and animal feed without the duty of tithing. While R. Aqiba disagrees with the practice of the Bene Ḥanun, he will agree that tithes are applicable only to produce used for human food.] is like the stores of Bene Ḥanun as it has been stated [Sifra Deut. #105, quoted in Babli Bava Meẓia‘ 88a where the name of the locality is corrupted to Bet Hini. It seems that these stores were located at or near the Mount of Olives and were destroyed at the start of the Roman siege of Jerusalem.] : Why were the stores of Bene Hanun destroyed three years before the destruction of the Temple? Because they eliminated produce from the duty of tithes since they were inferring (Deut. 14:22) “You should certainly give tithes [The verse reads: “You should certainly give tithes from all produce of your seed.” Since the buyer did not sow, he is not included in the command. (As usual, only the first words of the verse are quoted; this never implies that the inference necessarily is from these words.)] ,” that excludes the buyer, (Deut. 14:23) “You should eat,” that excludes the vendor [This excludes the farmer who sells his produce which then he cannot eat. The people of Bene Ḥanun were punished since the Jewish people under Ezra and Nehemiah had accepted the duty to give tithes and observe the laws of the Land in their rabbinic interpretation (Shevi‘it 6:1, fol. 36b). Rebbi Aqiba will agree that according to all interpretations, produce that is not used as food is freed from the obligations.] .

78Rebbi Joḥanan said, they fined them so that they should not run after wine presses and threshing floors [This sentence refers to the statement of the Mishnah that a Cohen or a Levite, who had received or bought grain before it was made a staple in a smooth heap, has to give terumah to another Levite or Cohen, even though from the Torah there seems to be no reason to assume that the Cohen cannot eat his own terumah. The reason given is that we do not want Cohen or Levi to go and help with the harvest in order to exert moral pressure on the farmer to give terumah and tithes to him personally, since the Torah declares (Num. 5:10): “Everybody shall have control over his own Holy Things.” The prohibition for a Cohen to exert pressure to force a non-Cohen to give him the required gifts is emphasized in Tosephta (Demai5:20) and in both Talmudim stating that terumah and tithes may not be given to the Cohen or Levi as payment for helping in the harvest. One does not really talk about fines here but about preemptive rules to avoid monopolization of priestly emoluments in the hands of a few individuals. The same reasoning applies to the Cohen butcher in the next paragraph.] .

79A butcher who is a Cohen [Following Deut 18:3, the Cohen has to receive one front leg, the lower jaw, and the rennet bag from every slaughtered animal. Butcher here means a person who buys animals, slaughters them and then sells their meat. From the Torah, the Cohen might give the dues to himself. But as rabbinic decree this is allowed only during the first week after opening the store; all other parts destined for Cohanim he has to give away to other Cohanim.] . The colleagues in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi: One frees him for one week. Rebbi Yose said, I went to the South and I heard Rebbi Hanan, the father of Rebbi Simeon [Neither Rebbi Ḥanan nor Rebbi Simeon are known otherwise from rabbinic literature; probably the name is garbled and the next “R. Simeon” should be “R. Joshua” as indicated in the translation.] in the name of Rebbi (Simeon) [Joshua] ben Levi: One frees him for one week. Rebbi Yudan compares it to the statement of Rebbi Joḥanan, they fined them. Rebbi Yose said to him, if it is because of a fine, even one week should not be free for him [And nobody ever prohibited Cohanim from being butchers. [R. Joseph mentioned in the text is R. Yose, the colleague of R. Yudan.]] . A grocer [Who buys meat from a wholesale butcher to sell it in his retail store.] who is a Cohen, Rebbi Yudan said, one frees him for one week. Rebbi Yose said, one does not free him for one week. According to Rebbi Yose, what is the difference between the grocer and the butcher? The grocer may cheat [By mixing meat from a Cohen butcher with that from non-Cohen butchers he may make his customers believe that all meat is from a Cohen butcher and, therefore, is exempt from the gifts to the Cohen. But the butcher sells only meat that he slaughtered himself and, therefore, everybody knows the amount of his obligation. Hence, since from the Torah he may take the gifts for himself, he may take them for one week.] , the butcher cannot cheat.

80It was stated [Usually, “stated” refers to a tannaïtic statement. The statement here is amoraïc; it does not refer to any tannaïtic source.] : Rebbi [The Patriarch R. Jehudah I, in the Babli usually called “R. Jehudah the Prince”. R. Jehudah the Prince is the Patriarch R. Jehudah II, grandson of R. Jehudah I and Amora of the second generation. In the Babli, he usually is referred to as ר יהוּדה נשׂיאה.] and Rebbi Jehudah the Prince did not disagree about produce bought on the field from a Gentile that it is subject to tithes because the Jew takes his [The Gentile’s place. Since the harvest determines the obligations and the harvest was Jewish, the obligations of Jewish law fall on the harvest.] place, nor about harvested produce bought from the Gentile that it is free from tithes. What did they disagree about? About him who buys harvested produce from his fellow in a year of tithes for the poor [Second Tithe and tithe of the poor were defined in Note 127. The definition of “poor” for eligibility of tithe and public assistance will be given in the last chapter.] . Rebbi Judah the Prince said, one takes it from him whether he be poor or rich. But Rebbi said, one takes it from the rich, one does not take it from the poor [In contrast to the Cohen, the poor man who separates the tithe of the poor from the grain may then repossess it, not as owner but as poor person.] . What is the reason of Rebbi Jehudah the Prince? Just as nobody has any rights on the single stalks, the forgotten sheaves, and the peah of his own field [Mishnah 5:4. However, that Mishnah also denies the sharecropper the right to the tithe of the poor, hence the argument attributed to Rebbi Jehudah the Prince is redundant. While this is not stated explicitly, it is implicit in the fact that one looks for a second reason to sustain R. Jehudah’s ruling.] , so he should have no right to his tithe for the poor. What is the reason of Rebbi? Single stalks, the forgotten sheaves, and peah do not cause tebel [Ṭebel is a technical term of unknown etymology which designates produce under obligation of terumah and tithes from which terumah has not been taken in both forms. To eat such produce is a deadly sin. It is stated in Demai 4:3 that eating produce under obligation for the tithe of the poor similarly is a deadly sin.] , but the tithe for the poor creates ṭebel. It became ṭebel already in the possession of the first owner [Since the obligation for the tithes of the poor is created by the act of harvesting, the corresponding amount is no longer a property of the farmer and cannot be sold; the buyer cannot acquire it even if he is poor! Hence, the argument attributed to Rebbi does not hold.] ! What is the reason of Rebbi Jehudah the Prince? Because of a fine [That poor people should not distort the market to the detriment of farmers because they get 10% more value for their money in buying grain than rich people.] ! What is the reason of Rebbi? Only the rich person has the power to buy [There will be no distortion of markets because the poor neither have the money nor (as explained in the next sentence) can they find credit for such buys. [It might be that loans were more readily taken on in the time of R. Jehudah the Prince, in the inflationary environment of the military anarchy, than in the time of Rebbi, when currency and prices were stable under the Severan dynasty.]] ; it is not in the power of the poor to buy. As Rebbi Jehudah the Prince says, he may take a loan; but Rebbi says that he will not be able to borrow.