MISHNAH: In a place where one was used to work on Passover Eve before noon one works; in a place where one was used not to work on Passover Eve before noon one does not work [Since on Passover Eve one has to eliminate leavening, bake mazzot, prepare for the evening celebration, and in Jerusalem slaughter the Pesaḥ sacrifice, there were places where the day was considered a kind of holiday. “Work” here is not to be understood in the technical sense of the rules of Sabbath and holidays but as “gainful employment”.] . If one goes from a place where he works to one where he does not work, or from a place where he does not work to one where he works, one puts on him the restrictions of the place he left and the restrictions of the place to which he comes, but a person should not change because of the controversy [As a matter of principle one should not use the leniencies of one place to avoid stringencies of another, but if this would lead people to question the person’s behavior or their own usage, one has to refrain from stringencies which are not based on well-founded practice. The Babli reads this Mishnah differently and takes “one puts on him the restrictions of the place he left and the restrictions of the place to which he comes” as absolute rule.] .
HALAKHAH: “In a place where one was used to work,” etc. It is written, there you shall slaughter the Pesaḥ in the evening [Deut. 16:6.] . Not only he, from where his agent? The verse says, and you shall cook and you shall eat [Deut. 16:7. Since the Pesaḥ sacrifice must be eaten in a group (Ex. 12:3–4), the singular in these verses cannot mean that the slaughter has to be done by the eater; this is proof that it may be delegated.] . Why does the verse say, there you shall slaughter the Pesaḥ in the evening? It is not in order that he should be occupied by his work while his sacrifice is offered [The singular is interpreted that even if the sacrifice is presented by an agent, the owner still has to behave as if he himself were present.] . As what was stated [The first sentence is a quote from Megillat Taˋanit. The entire text is copied in Ḥagigah 2:4.] , “therefore anybody who has an obligation for wood and first fruits. He who says, I am taking upon me [to bring] wood for the altar and logs for the arrangement [The arrangement of the firewood on the altar.] on that day is forbidden funeral orations, and fasting, and working.”
[From here on there also is a parallel in Taˋaniot 4:2 (נ).] Rebbi Jonah said, these daily sacrifices are the offerings of all of Israel [By the statement of the preceding paragraph, no man in Israel would be permitted to work both in the morning and in the evening.] . Could all of Israel ascend to Jerusalem? Is it not written [Deut. 16:16. G instead quotes Ex.23:14.] , three times a year all your males shall be seen? If all of Israel would sit there and do nothing, is there not written [Deut. 11:14.] , you shall harvest your grain? Who would harvest their grain? But the early prophets [David, Asaph, Heman, and Yedutun, 1Chr. 25:1.] instituted 24 watches; from each watch there were [Cohanim, Levites, and Israel] present in Jerusalem. It was stated, twenty-four thousand [1Chr. 27:1. The verse is read as meaning that every month there were 24’000 representatives of the people at the Temple.] . A stand-by group [Since the Cohanim were changed every week, the people’s representatives also were changed every week; only one quarter of the 24’000 on stand-by were actually needed for one week. The Babylonian term for עָמוּד is מַעֲמָד (Taˋanit 27a). The actual numbers in Second Temple times were small.] from Jerusalem, and half a stand-by group from Jericho. Jericho also could have produced a full stand-by group, but to give precedence to Jerusalem it only produced half a stand-by group. The Cohanim for service, the Levites for the podium [For the musical accompaniment of the Temple service.] , and the Israel as proof that they are the agents for all of Israel [These are forbidden any work while the Daily Sacrifice is offered but everybody else may work.] .
[The first sentence is also in Eruvin 10 (Note 141,ר). The text there reads “musical instruments”, which is required by the context there and must be understood here also since the choir is subsumed under “Levites”.] It was stated: “Rebbi Simeon ben Eleazar said, Cohanim, Levites, Israel, and song invalidate the sacrifice [A sacrifice requiring a wine offering is invalid if not accompanied by the Levite’s song.] .” Rebbi Abbin [In the other sources: Abun.] in the name of Rebbi Eleazar, the reason of Rebbi Simeon ben Eleazar: [2Chr. 29:28. Since this is not a pentateuchal verse it only can prove what people did or, as explained there in v. 25, what was prophetic instruction.] The entire congregationwere bowing down, these are Israel, and the song was sung, these are the Levites, and the trumpets were trumpeting, these are the Cohanim, everything up to the end of the elevation offering, all are indispensable for the sacrifice. Rebbi Tanḥuma in the name of Rebbi Eleazar understood it from here [Num. 8:19.] : And I gave the Levites to Aaron and his sons from the midst of the Children of Israel, these are the Levites, to work the service of the Children of Israel in the Tent of Meeting, these are the Cohanim, and to atone for the Children of Israel, that is the song [In this version the implication is incomprehensible. It is understandable in the Babli, Arakhin 11a, where it is a tannaitic statement: “Song invalidates the sacrifice, the words of R. Meïr, but the Sages say, it does not invalidate. What is R. Meïr’s reason? The verse says, and I gave the Levites to Aaron and his sons from the midst of the Children of Israel, to work the service of the Children of Israel in the Tent of Meeting, and to atone for the Children of Israel.” Since the Levites had three biblical obligations in the Sanctuary, viz., to carry the Tent, to be its watchmen, and to sing. Since only the third can be classified as ritual service, it must be what is referred to as atoning.] , so there shall be no plague when the Children of Israel approach the Sanctuary, these are Israel.
From where that the song is called atonement? Ḥinena the father of (Rav Yanta) [Bar Nata] [The version of G and Taˋaniot in brackets must be preferred over that of the text here in parentheses since a Galilean cannot carry the title “Rav”.] in the name of Rebbi Banaia: and to atone for the Children of Israel, that is the song. From where that the song invalidates? Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa, Rebbi Simeon βουλευτής [“The city councillor”.] , in the name of Rebbi Ḥanina, and to atone for the Children of Israel, that is the song.
Is not Pesaḥ a sacrifice of all of Israel and they made it dependent on usage [Work should be biblically forbidden.] ? Rebbi Abbahu said, there is a difference, since the Pesaḥ cannot be offered before noontime. Rebbi Abbahu asked, if one said, I have the obligation to bring an elevation offering in the afternoon, is he permitted to work in the morning [As stated earlier (Note 7), the entire day he is forbidden gainful work until he has discharged his obligation.] ? Rebbi Yose said, a Pesaḥ which he brought in the morning is no Pesaḥ; an elevation offering which he brought in the morning is an elevation offering [The sacrifice is valid even though he has to bring another one to fulfill his vow.] .
[The following two paragraphs are also in Taˋaniot 1:6 (נ); in a slightly different order it is copied in Raviah §495 (vol. 2, p. 119).] Everything they made dependent on usage. If women use not to work after the end of the Sabbath, it is no [{legitimate} usage]; until the end of the seder [The additional prayer at the end of the evening service at the end of the Sabbath.] it is [{legitimate} usage]. On Monday and Thursday [Which were common fast-days of the pious in Palestine (cf. L. Ginzberg, Genizah Studies in Memory of Doctor Solomon Schechter, vol. 1, p. 483, §6.)] , it is no [{legitimate} usage], to the end of the fast-day prayers it is [legitimate] usage. On the day of the willow twigs [The Seventh Day of Tabernacles. Since the following day is a holiday, it is appropriate that the preparations be finished by the time of the afternoon prayers.] it is not {legitimate} usage, after afternoon prayers it is {legitimate} usage. On the day of the New Moon it is {legitimate} usage. Rebbi Zeˋira said, if women use not to weave [Between the first and the tenth of Av.] from the start of Av it is {legitimate} usage, for the šetiah stone stopped to exist [The stone in the Holiest of Holies in the Temple.] . What is the reason? For the woofs will be torn down [Ps. 11:3. If read as the foundations will be torn down it is appropriate for the anniversary of the destruction of the Temple.] .
Rebbi Ḥinena said, everything they made dependent on usage. There were acacia trees in Migdal Sevaya [Since by a Galilean tradition the Tabernacle was built in the desert from perfect logs of acacia wood (Mimosa nilotica L.) cut for this purpose by Jacob and his sons when they travelled to Egypt [Gen. rabba 94(4).]] . They came and asked Rebbi Ḥanania, the colleague of the rabbis, may one use them for work? He told them, since your ancestors used to treat them as forbidden, do not change the usage of your deceased ancestors. Rebbi Eleazar in the name of Rebbi Abbin [In the other sources: Abun.] [Even though all three sources have R. Eleazar in the name of ... , it must be ... in the name of R. Eleazar.] . In any case which is permitted but in error he treats it as forbidden, if he asks they will permit him. But in any case where he knows that it is permitted but he has the usage to treat it as forbidden, if he asks they will not permit him [Since he intentionally accepted an unnecessary stringency, it has the status of a vow.] .
[Babli 51a.] One may sit on a Gentile’s bench on the Sabbath. It happened that Rabban Gamliel [Gamliel III, son of Rebbi.] was sitting on a Gentile’s bench at Acco on a Sabbath. They said to him, it is not our usage to sit on a Gentile’s bench on a Sabbath. He did not want to tell them that it is permitted to do this but got up and went away.
It happened that Jehudah and Hillel, Rabban Gamliel’s [Gamliel III, son of Rebbi.] sons, went to bathe in the bathhouse of Kabul [Jos. 19:27.] . They said to them, it is not our usage that two brothers should be bathing together. They did not want to tell them, so it is permitted, but entered one after the other. Also they went to promenade in gilded bark sandals [Latin corticea] at Biro [In Upper Galilee.] in the night of the Sabbath. They said to them, it is not our usage to promenade in gilded bark sandals on the Sabbath. They did not want to tell them, so it is permitted, but sent them by their slaves.
Not only the Pesaḥ but also usage [Religious observances which have no basis in codified practice.] . The net-fishermen [They fish with boats on Lake Genezareth. The following also is in Moˋed qaṭan 2:5 (מ, Genizah text g)..] of Tiberias, and the farina millers of Sepphoris, and the grain splitters [They pound grain to split it into two or three parts for the preparation of cereal.] of Acco, accepted not to work on the intermediate days of a holiday [When preparation of food and provisions is permitted without restriction.] . One understands the farina millers of Sepphoris, and the grain splitters of Acco. The net-fishers of Tiberias, do they not diminish the enjoyment of the holiday [Since they leave the people of Tiberias without fish for the latter parts of the holiday week.] ? He may fish with a hook; he may fish with a stationary net. Even so, do they not diminish the enjoyment of the holiday? Rebbi Immi cursed them because they diminish the enjoyment of the holiday [Baseless religious observances of private groups are to be rejected if they interfere with public needs. The Babli Moˋed qaṭan 13b approves of the action of the fishermen’s guild which they base at Acco.] .
If they were exiled from one place to another and wanted to change their ways [If the certain restriction is particular to a place and the people from this place migrate to another where there is no established usage, are they bound by their prior usage?] ? Would it be as Rebbi Abba said, the people of Mesha [From the context it seems that this place was in Palestine on the coast and the question is whether they are permitted to go by sea to another port on the coast when they could go by land (in a more laborious way) without leaving the Land.] took it upon themselves not to travel on the ocean. They came, asked Rebbi, and said to him, our forefathers used not to travel by sea; what is our situation? He said to them, since your forefathers treated it as a prohibition, do not change the usage of your deceased ancestors. May a person not ask about his vow [Most of Tractate Nedarim deals with the modalities of rabbinic annulment of vows.] ? There he asks when he made the vow, but here their ancestors made the vow. Then they should be permitted a fortiori [If restrictive usage is considered a vow then automatically it cannot oblige people who were not present when the vow was made.] . Rebbi Ḥanania said, it is not because of this but because of the following. Rebbi was the student of Rebbi Jehudah, and Rebbi Jehudah said, one is forbidden to travel by sea [In order to avoid leaving the Land (Moˋed qaṭan 3:1). R. Jehudah forbids leaving the rabbinic Land of Israel even though he defines the biblical land of Canaan as including most islands of the Mediterranean (Ševiˋit 6:1 Note 93, Ḥallah 4:8 Note 99, Babli Giṭtin 8a.)] .
Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish asked Rebbi Joḥanan: Is it not forbidden because of “do not split into sects” [How can the Mishnah require people who move from place to place to follow the more restrictive practice? Does this not violate the basic principle of uniform practice based on an aggadic interpretation of Deut. 14:1. Babli Yebamot 13b.] ? He said to him [He wants to restrict the prohibition of concurrent different practices to cases of fundamental differences in the formulation of rules, not to differing interpretations of existing rules.] , in case these follow the House of Shammai and those the House of Hillel. But between the House of Shammai and the House of Hillel does practice not follow the House of Hillel [The answer is unsatisfactory since in post-Jabneh Judaism, practices of the House of Shammai are not recognized anyhow.] ? He said to him, in case these follow Rebbi Meïr and those follow Rebbi Yose. But between Rebbi Meïr and Rebbi Yose, does practice not follow Rebbi Yose? He answered him, there are two Tannaim regarding Rebbi Meïr and two Tannaim regarding Rebbi Yose [While it is agreed as general rule that between R. Meïr and R. Yose practice follows R. Yose (Maˋserot 1:7 Note 200; Babli Eruvin 46b), this is only a general rule, not an invariable principle. There are many examples where other Tannaim follow the lines of argument of R. Meïr and R. Yose and practice was decided only in later generations.] . He said to him, is there not New Year’s Day and the Day of Atonement, where in Judea one used to follow Rebbi Aqiba and in Galilee Rebbi Joḥanan ben Nuri [Mishnah Roš Haššanah 4:6,7 explains their differences in the way prayers and shofar blowings are combined on New Year’s day and the Day of Atonement in a Yovel year.] . He told him, there is a difference since if he changed and in Judea acted as in Galilee or in Galilee as in Judea he discharged his obligation [Everybody will agree that either way fulfills the biblical requirement.] . But is there not Purim, where these read on the fourteenth and those on the fifteenth [Days of reading of the Esther scroll in the month of Adar. Since the date of reading is determined by the place of reading, it is obvious that a visitor has to read with the local people.] ? He told him, he who edited the Mishnah based it on Scripture [Esth. 9:28. Since the differences are of biblical origin, the example is irrelevant for the rabbinic prohibition.] : Family and family, country and country, and town and town.
One understands “one goes from a place where he works to one where he does not work.” “From a place where he does not work to one where he works,” why should he not be idle? Are there not may idlers at that place? Rebbi Simon in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: If he causes to wonder [The question is about the last sentence in Mishnah 1, “but a person should not change because of the controversy.” It is clear that when one comes to a place where nobody works, he cannot work there, and “one puts on him the restrictions of the place he left and the restrictions of the place to which he comes.” But if he comes to a place where one works, why should he not be required to be idle? If he is required to be idle in all circumstances then the last clause, “but a person should not change because of the controversy” would be pointless. The answer is that the person who comes from a place where he does not work should not work at the other place if he might appear as an idler; he may not stay idle if he would have to declare this as a religious principle. The Babli 51b disagrees.] .
MISHNAH: Similarly, he who brings Sabbatical produce from a place where it was exhausted [Since the laws of the Sabbatical state (Lev. 25:6–7) that Sabbatical produce be food for “you, …, your domestic animals, and the wild animals on your fields” it is inferred that Sabbatical produce stored in one’s house must be eliminated (by being eaten or given to the poor) when nothing is left of the same kind on the fields for wildlife. According to Mishnah Ševiˋit 9:2 the dates are determined separately for each region where in particular Galilee is divided into three, Upper Galilee, Lower Galilee with Sepphoris, and the Jordan valley with Tiberias. For the anonymous majority it is not possible to keep produce by moving it to another region where it still is in abundance.] to one where it was not exhausted or from a place where it was not exhausted to one where it was exhausted is obligated to eliminate. Rebbi Jehudah says, go and get it for yourself [He denies that Galilee is split into three different regions in this respect (an opinion attributed to R. Simeon in Mishnah Ševiˋit 9:3) and in general that artificial boundaries are to be disregarded between places of easy commerce.] .
HALAKHAH: If they run out in Tiberias but did not run out in Sepphoris [One explains the argument of R. Jehudah; the implication being that practice follows him. The Babli disagrees, 52a.] . He says to him [These words are part of the Babli Mishnah.] , 1 brought it from Sepphoris; if you do not believe me, go and bring for yourself. Rebbi Ḥanania and [G: In the name of.] Rebbi Phineas: Rebbi Jehudah and Rebbi Yose both said the same, as we have stated there [Mishnah Ševiˋit 9:4.] : “One eats based on what is abandoned but not on what is guarded [“One eats” means “one does not have to eliminate”. “Guarded” according to Maimonides means that it grows in a fenced-in field, whose Sabbatical produce is not private property and available to all comers.] . Rebbi Yose says, also on what is guarded.” He says to him [Text of G; text here “them”. The reasoning of R. Yose is parallel to that of R. Jehudah. Since R. Yose is the preeminent authority in the generation after R. Aqiba, practice follows him.] , I brought it from what is guarded; if you do not believe me, there is field x guarded before you, go and bring for yourself.
MISHNAH: At a place where they used to sell small cattle to Gentiles one sells [At places where sheep and goats are not sacrificed in pagan rites.] ; at a place where they used not to sell one does not sell; nobody should change this because of controversy [Even if the situation changes one should not change old usage since this will destroy communal peace.] . Nowhere does one sell to them large animals, calves, and donkey foals, whole or damaged [Cattle and donkeys were used as animals for work and beasts of burden. Belonging to Jews, these animals have a right to rest on the Sabbath. If they are sold to Gentiles, the seller deprives them of this right; depending on circumstances this might be counted as violation of the Sabbath by the seller. Calves and foals do not work but are raised for work.] . Rebbi Jehudah permits damaged ones; Ben Bathyra permits horses [In antiquity horses were used only for riding, not for work. Even if the horse is used for hunting, he holds that transporting live animals or birds is not a breach of biblical Sabbath law. Missnah and Halakhah are also in Avodah zarah 1:6, where the different readings are noted. It is difficult to determine which text is original.] .
HALAKHAH: Is it permitted to raise them [Since it is forbidden to raise sheep and goats in the Land of Israel (Mishnah Bava qamma 7:10, Note 97), from where does one get them to sell them to a Gentile?] ? Rebbi Abba said, for example Mahir which is sixteen by sixteen mil [The Mishnah permits to raise goats and sheep in places unfit for agriculture. Mahir is described in Eccl. rabba 1(34) as situated in the domain of the tribe of Reuben in Trans jordan, a country of sheep and goats (Num. 32:4 ). B. Z. Lurie (Sinai 83, 1978, pp. 24-29 finds Mahir in the Syrian village of Mahin, on the via Diocletiana from Syria to Iraq, on the border of the desert.] . They wanted to say, he who said it is permitted to sell [says] it is permitted to leave it alone. But he who says, it is forbidden to sell [says] it is forbidden to leave it alone [Gentiles are suspected of bestiality (Mishnah Avodah zarah 2:1).] . Rebbi Jonah, Rebbi Eleazar in the name of Rav [In the Babli, Avodah zarah 14b/15a, this is R. Eleazar’s statement opposing Rav.] : Even one who says it is permitted to sell it [says] it is forbidden to leave it alone. What is the difference between selling and leaving alone? There, because he intends to sell it to him it is like the Gentile’s animal. But here it is the Jew’s animal and he is suspected about it.
“At a place where they used not to sell one does not sell.” Why? Because he eliminates the duty of shearing [The first wool of shearing sheep should be given to a Cohen, Deut. 18:4. But goats are not raised for wool and are included in the prohibition.] . Think of it, if it was a goat! Because he eliminates the duty of the first-born [Which must be given to a Cohen, Deut. 15:19. But a male animal does not bear lambs and also is included in the prohibition.] . Think of it, if it was a male! Because he eliminates the gifts [The parts of the animal to be given to a Cohen, Deut. 18:3.] . Then one should not sell wheat to him because he eliminates the duty of ḥallah; then one should not sell wine and oil to him because he eliminates the duty of benedictions [Which are pronounced before and after food, as described in the later Chapters of Tractate Berakhot. The problem treated here is that in the next paragraph it is stated that one does not sell large animals to Gentiles because of problems with the laws of the Sabbath. Therefore one is inclined to say that the prohibitions of Mishnah Avodah zarah 1:5 are because of pagan worship and those of our Mishnah, which also is Mishnah Avodah zarah 1:6, because of Jewish worship. It is shown that this does not hold; the first part of the Mishnah is about pagan worship, about places where sheep or goats are sacrificed by pagans; only the second part is about Jewish matters.] .
“Nowhere does one sell large animals to them.” What is the difference between large and small animals? For a large animal there might be an obligation for a purification offering [If the Gentile does work with the Jew’s animal on the Sabbath, it is a violation of the Sabbath by biblical standards.] ; for a small animal there can be no obligation for a purification offering. But does he not shear, does he not milk? There he is liable; here would it be liable [It is clear that shearing a sheep on the Sabbath is a violation of biblical law (Mishnah Šabbat 7:2). The Yerushalmi holds that milking a goat also is a biblical prohibition. But giving the animal rest on the Sabbath in an obligation of the owner; he is liable even if another person does the work with his consent. But the Gentile who shears or milks the animal violates no prohibition; since the animal is passive the owner also does not violate any biblical statute.] ? But if it is sold, is it not the Gentile’s animal? The Babylonian Rebbi Immi [A Babylonian who immigrated to Galilee in the generation after R. Immi the Galilean. In the Babli Avodah zarah 15a he is called Rami ben Rebbi Yeva.] in the name of the rabbis there: Sometimes he sells it on trial and returns it after three days, then it turns out that he did forbidden work with the Jew’s animal [If the Gentile takes the animal on Friday and returns it on Sunday he will have worked with it on the Sabbath with the agreement of the Jew who it turns out still is the owner.] . Then on trial it should be forbidden, not on trial permitted. One is because of the other [This is a rabbinic “fence around the law,” far from biblical prohibitions.] .
If he transgressed and sold one fines him. Just as one fines for practice so one fines for custom. From where that one fines for custom? A person sold his camel to an Aramean [A Gentile. While “Gentile” is used to emphasize the pagan character of a person, “Aramean” simply characterizes him as Non-Jew.] . The case came before Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish who fined him double to make him take back the camel. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, they fined the broker and called him son who brokers to an Aramean. Does Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish follow Rebbi Jehudah [Could R. Simeon ben Laqish act against accepted practice in this case?] ? As it was stated in the name of Rebbi Jehudah [Tosephta Bekhorot 2:1, Babli Bekhorot2b.] : “If somebody buys an animal from a Gentile and it gave birth to a firstling, he buys it up to its worth and gives half of its worth to a Cohen. If it was given to him as contractor, he has to pay for up to ten times its worth and gives all of its worth to the Cohen. But the Sages say, since the finger of the Gentile in involved it is no longer liable as firstling [Undisputed practice follows the Sages, cf. Note 94.] .” Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish follows Rebbi Jehudah and says more than Rebbi Jehudah. What Rebbi Jehudah said because of the practice of firstlings; but what Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said because of practice regarding a large animal [The two cases have nothing in common.] .
“Rebbi Jehudah permits damaged ones.” Rebbi Jehudah said this only for a damaged one which cannot be healed [To ever work again.] . They told him, may they not bring a male to her, she is fertilized and gives birth? He said to them, I also said this only about a male damaged one which cannot be healed. They told him, may they not bring a female to him, he fertilizes her and she gives birth? Rav Abun in the name of the rabbis there: This implies that one is forbidden to provide them with semen [Since the argument of the rabbis has nothing to do with Sabbath prohibitions. The Babli, Avodah zarah 16a and Bekhorot2b, disagrees and reports that R. Jehudah denies that a disabled cow will accept a male.] . There [Mishnah Bekhorot 1:1.] , we have stated: “If somebody buys a Non-Jew’s donkey fetus or who sells one to him even though he is not authorized, or one who enters into partnership, or accepts from him as contractor, or lets it in contract, is not liable for firstling.” Rebbi Haggai asked before Rebbi Yose, does this [The note that one is not authorized to sell a pregnant animal to a Gentile.] not imply that one is forbidden to provide them with (slaves) [fetuses] [The word עבדים “slaves” in the Leiden ms. is a scribal error for עוּבָּרִין “fetuses” in G and Avodah zarah.] ? He said to them, Rebbi Abun in the name of the rabbis there already preceded you, since Rebbi Abun said in the name of the rabbis there, this implies that one is forbidden to provide them with semen.
“Ben Bathyra permits horses.” Rebbi Jehudah [R. Jehudah ben Bathyra.] said this only about a male horse because it kills [its owner] in war. Some say, because it runs after a female, and some say, because it stands still to urinate [At this moment the horse will not obey its master and therefore be dangerous.] . What is between them? A gelding. He who says because it runs after a female, [this one] does not run after a female. He who says because it stands still to urinate, this one also stands still to urinate. Rebbi Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Tanḥum bar Ḥiyya: If it gets old he binds it to the grindstone [Then it is used like a beast of burden and the same restriction may apply as to the sale of cattle. Babli Avodah zarah 16a.] . Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun in the name of Rebbi Ḥuna: Ben Bathyra and Rebbi Nathan both said the same [For the laws of Sabbath. Everybody agrees that “a living person carries himself’; it is permitted to carry a human baby from private to public domains. The rabbis restrict this to humans; R. Nathan explicitly and Ben Bathyra implicitly (Note 73) extend the rule to animals. Babli Šabbat 94a.] , as it was stated [Tosephta Šabbat 8:34 Babli Šabbat94a.] : “If he carried domestic animals, wild animals, or birds, whether alive or dead, he is liable. Rebbi Nathan says, dead he is liable, alive he is not liable.” The rabbis hold that he is liable for a purification sacrifice and they answer him so [Why do they object because of the use of old horses which only implies a violation of rabbinic rules but not to the possible use of a younger horse in hunting, which would violate biblical rules? It seems clear that in contrast to the Babli, the Yerushalmi does not consider riding on a horse on a Sabbath or a holiday as a violation.] ? They answer following his own argument. Following your argument, since you are saying because of rabbinic Sabbath prohibition, also we hold that if it gets old he binds it to the grindstone. Rebbi says, I am saying that it is forbidden for two reasons, as a weapon [Which makes the seller of the weapon an accessory to murder before the fact. Babli 16a.] and as a large animal. It was stated so: A large wild animal is like a large domestic animal [A horse is considered a tamed wild animal, not domesticated by nature.] . Who stated this? Rebbi. The words of the Sages: Rebbi Bisna, Ḥanin bar Abba in the name of Rav [The Genizah text has the statement in the name of Rebbi Ḥiyya, Rav’s uncle and foremost teacher.] : A wild animal is like a small [The Genizah text has the statement in the name of Rebbi Ḥiyya, Rav’s uncle and foremost teacher.] domestic animal.
MISHNAH: In a place where usually one eats roast meat in the Passover nights one eats; in a place where one does not usually eat [Since this would suggest eating the Pesaḥ sacrifice outside the sacred precinct, a deadly sin.] one does not eat. In a place where one is used to ignite a candle in the night of the Day of Atonement [The Day of Atonement follows the rules of the Sabbath, but the reasons for illuminating the house for the festive Friday evening meal do not apply to the fast day.] one ignites, in a place where one is used not to ignite one does not ignite. One ignites in synagogues, and in houses of study [Since on the day of Atonement long evening prayers are conducted in synagogues and houses of study, these have to be illuminated.] , and in dark passages [Since late in the night people will return to their houses from the synagogue.] , and near sick persons.
HALAKHAH: Rebbi Abba asked before Rebbi Immi: Even calf meat? He said to him, even calf meat [Since already in his time nowhere was roast meat eaten in the Passover night, the question is whether the customary prohibition is restricted to lambs’ or kid goats’ meat, which would imitate the Pesaḥ sacrifice, or applies to meat in general.] . Even fowl meat? He said to him, even fowl meat. They wanted to say, even an egg, even colocasia [Colocasia antiquorum Schott., an edible fruit.] . Rebbi Yudan ben Rebbi Ḥanin said, but only what needs slaughter [Only roast meat is forbidden. In fact, on modern seder plates, many communities use roasted egg.] .
It was stated: Rebbi Simeon ben Eleazar says, on a Day of Atonement which falls on a Sabbath, even in a place where one is not used to ignite one ignites. Rebbi Simon in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi, Rebbi Yose ben Saul in the name of Rebbi: Practice follows Rebbi Simeon ben Eleazar [In the Babli 53b R. Joḥanan disagrees.] . Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba [In G, “R. Ḥiyya the Elder”, a most unlikely reading.] preached to the Tiberians following Rebbi Simeon ben Eleazar. Rebbi Yose said it in the name of Rebbi Samuel bar Nahman in the name of Rebbi Jonathan, Rebbi Ḥizqiah, but some say Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa, in the name of Rebbi Samuel bar Nahman: A place where one is used to ignite is better than a place where one is used not to ignite. Rebbi Jeremiah said, you should know that this is so since on a Day of Atonement which falls on a Sabbath, even in a place where one is not used to ignite one ignites. Rebbi Abba and Rebbi Simon both are saying, you should know that this is so since a man is modest and will not engage in sexual activity when a light is burning [Sexual activity is forbidden on the Day of Atonement. It is presumed that the light is burning the entire night in the one-room house, or in the bedroom in a multi-room apartment. Babli 53b.] . Both he who said, one lights, as he who said, one does not light, because of leading into sin [Tosephta 3:16, Babli 53b.] . He who said that one lights, because he will see and be ashamed. But he who said that one does not light, that he should not see and become desirous. It was stated: Even in (synagogues) [privies] [The reading of G [in brackets] is preferable to that of the Leiden ms. (in parentheses). A related text in Tosephta 3:16.] and wash rooms. For that it is necessary: One ignites even in a place where one is not used to ignite [The reason here is the same as for illuminating dark passages. The statement applies to all Days of Atonement, not only on a Sabbath.] .
On a Day of Atonemement which falls on a Sabbath may one soak pickles [Any food preserved in vinegar.] and preserves [Food preserved in water after extensive cooking.] starting from the time of afternoon prayers [On a regular Sabbath or holiday it is forbidden to prepare food for use after the end of the day. The exception is the Day of Atonement where one is encouraged to start preparing for the end of the fast in the late afternoon in order to minimize the time between nightfall and the evening meal, the “danger” from an extension of the fast.] ? Rav said, it is forbidden [Babli Šabbat 114b.] ; Rebbi Eleazar said, it is permitted. Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Eleazar, why did they say, one may soak pickles and preserves starting from the time of afternoon prayers? Because of danger. Is there a difference between the danger on a Day of Atonement which falls on a Sabbath and a Day of Atonement which falls on a weekday [There is no reason to distinguish between Sabbath and weekday in this respect.] ? Rebbi Ḥanania the colleague of the rabbis [G switches the attributions between him and R. Phineas.] objected, a Mishnah disagrees with Rebbi Eleazar: “On a Day of Atonemement which falls on a Sabbath, the shew-breads are distributed in the evening. [Mishnah Menaḥot11:7. The shew-breads are changed every Sabbath (Lev. 24:8); the previous week’s bread must be eaten by the Cohanim in the Temple precinct. Since the consumption of the bread is part of the Temple service (v. 9), if this cannot be prepared before the end of the Day of Atonement then certainly profane food cannot be prepared.] ” There is a difference. Since this is a small matter, he might forget and eat. Rebbi Phineas objected:: A baraita of Rebbi Eleazar disagrees with him. The Day of Atonemement which falls on a Sabbath is a day of rest; on a weekday it is a day of rest [Sifra Emor Pereq 14(4); Babli Šabbat114b. The Day of Atonement is called שַׁבַּ֨ת שַׁבָּת֥וֹן. The expression Šabbat refers to all activity biblically forbidden on the Sabbath; שַׁבָּת֥וֹן therefore must refer to additional restraint from permitted activity incompatible with the nature of the day. The verse does not distinguish between a Day of Atonement on a Sabbath or on a weekday.] . If one is resting on a weekday, not so much more on a Sabbath? Is it not necessary that even things which you are permitted to do on a weekday you have to refrain from on a Sabbath? What would this be? This is soaking pickles and preserves [This implies that according to everybody on a Day of Atonement on a weekday one prepares for the end of the fast before the end of the day.] . Rebbi Jacob bar Zavdi in the name of Rebbi Abbahu. The matter is evident for anything which is served with cold food but for anything which is served with hot food while it is heated he can trim it [Since cooking is biblically forbidden on the Sabbath and on the Day of Atonement, hot food never can be prepared before the end of the day. The translation follows G; the text of the Leiden ms. is rather unintelligible.] . Rebbi Mana said, if you are saying so, also he will be embarrassed and will not trim; it will turn out that he will become endangered [Here ends G.] . Rebbi Abba asked before Rebbi Immi: May one soak pickles and preserves starting from the time of afternoon prayers? He said to him, it is permitted. Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa asked Rebbi Ḥiyya and Rebbi Yasa, may one soak pickles and preserves starting from the time of afternoon prayers? They said to him, it is permitted. Rebbi Zeˋira asked before Rebbi Immi, may one say to the maker of fried food [A Gentile. It is obvious that on a regular Sabbath this is forbidden.] make me some fried food? He said to him, it is permitted. Make me baked goods? Permitted. Prepare me a wick? No. What is the difference between one and the other? This is food, the other is not food [In all matters not pertaining to the preparation of food, the regular Sabbath rules have to be followed.] .
MISHNAH: In a place where usually one works on the Ninth of Av, one works. In a place where usually one refrains one does not work, but everywhere the scholars are idle. Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel says, should everybody make himself a scholar?
HALAKHAH: Rebbi Abun, Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish in the name of Rebbi Yudan the Prince: With a question mark, “should everybody make himself a scholar?” The Sages themselves did not decree idleness [Since according to the anonymous majority, it is recommended that everybody be idle on the Ninth of Av, the day of mourning for the destruction of the Temple, the original intent of the Mishnah, that this be a matter of local custom, would be contradicted. Therefore he requires that scholars do not behave differently from anybody else. R. Salomon Adani in his Mishnah Commentary מלאכת שלמה quotes a reading במתמיה “if he causes people to wonder” (cf. Note 61); in this version Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel only forbids idleness if it is noticed in public. The Babli 54b–55a has a slightly different reading in Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel’s text and reads it as a straight declarative sentence.] .
MISHNAH: Also the Sages say, in Judea one did work on Passover Eve until noon, but in Galilee one did not work at all. In the night, the House of Shammai forbid, but the House of Hillel permit until sunrise [Since the Mishnah is formulated in the past tense, it must refer to the time of the Temple, where the afternoon of the 14th of Nisan was the time of slaughter of the Passover lamb, which was slaughtered for everybody, and where nobody could work (Note 5). Then the question remains whether the difference in pharisaic practice between Judea and Galilee has to be considered a difference in the interpretation of the law by different schools or a matter of popular usage.] .
HALAKHAH: Therefore, the day is forbidden [The Mishnah contradicts itself. If even the House of Hillel permit work only until sunrise, then nobody should be allowed to work in the morning of the 14th. There should be some biblical support for this conclusion.] . Rebbi Eleazar in the name of Rebbi Hoshaia: “A day of Pesaḥ it is for the Eternal. [Such a verse does not exist; it is a combination of Num. 28:16, (In the first month, on the fourteenth) day (of the month,) a Pesaḥ for the Eternal, and Ex.12:27: (And you shall say, a sacrifice) of Pesaḥ it is for the Eternal. This kind of scriptural argument is not proof; it is a hint to support popular usage.] ” Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, Rebbi La in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: Two students formulated it. Rebbi Zeˋira said, I found to say that they are three. One said, it is forbidden, another said, it is permitted, and another said it is a matter of usage [The Babli 55a identified R. Meïr as the one who holds that it is a matter of usage but keeps open the possibility of reading R. Jehudah’s opinion either following the action in Judea or that in Galilee.] .
MISHNAH: Rebbi Meïr says, any work which one started before the Fourteenth he may finish on the Fourteenth. But he may not start one on the Fourteenth even if he can finish it. But the Sages say, three trades are permitted working on Passover Eve, the tailors, and the barbers, and the laundrymen. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Jehudah says, also the cobblers.
HALAKHAH: [Babli 55a/b, slightly different.] “Rebbi Meïr says, any work which one started before the Fourteenth he may finish on the Fourteenth,” but only what is needed on the holiday. “But he may not start one on the Fourteenth,” even something needed for the holiday. “But the Sages say, three trades are working on Passover Eve, the tailors,” since a non-professional [Greek ἰδιώτης, ὁ.] may sew normally on the intermediate days of the holiday [When necessary non-agricultural work is permitted. In the following, “holiday” always implies “intermediate days of”.] . “The barbers,” since nezirim [If the vow of a nazir expires during the holiday, his shaving is part of the required ceremony.] and lepers [If a sufferer from skin disease is healed during the holiday, his shaving is part of the required ceremony of purification (Lev. 14:8).] shave on the holiday. “The laundrymen,” since usually people who ascend from impurity to purity launder on the holiday [Since in most cases, the impure person makes his garments impure, the garments also have to be immersed in a miqweh and have to be washed to be free of dirt.] . “Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Jehudah says, also the cobblers,” since the pilgrims are used to repair their boots and sandals on the holiday. But the rabbis say, they were rich and made the pilgrimage on animals [This argument also restricts the Mishnah to Temple times.] .
MISHNAH: One sets hens on brooding stalls on the Fourteenth [But not during the intermediate days of the holiday.] ; and a hen which fled one returns to its place, or if it died one installs another in its place. One cleans under the feet of animals on the Fourteenth; on the holiday one sweeps to the side [One sweeps the manure away but one may not transport it to the dungheap.] . Vessels one delivers to and brings from the artisan’s house [The entire day of Passover Eve, even in the afternoon.] even though they are not needed on the holiday.
HALAKHAH: “One installs hens on brooding stalls on the Fourteenth,” therefore not during the holiday [“Holiday” always implies “intermediate days of the holiday”.] . One does not breed an animal on the holiday but may lead it to the corral [One may not bring the male on the female but one may bring an animal in heat to a corral where there are many males and it can find a mate on its own. Babli Moˋed qaṭan 12a.] . Rebbi Jehudah says, one breeds a female donkey in heat on the holiday, lest it cool down; all other animals one leads to the corral. One bleeds humans and animals on the holiday [“Holiday” always implies “intermediate days of the holiday”.] , and does not refrain from any medical procedure for humans or animals on the holiday.
“A hen which fled one returns to its place [The hen left the eggs on which it was sitting.] ,” only if one returns it within three days of its escape [Reading with the Babli 55b מֵרְדָּהּ instead of the text מדורה “dwelling”.] . “Or if it died one installs another in its place,” only it sat on its eggs three days of 24 hours. Rebbi Mana said, the Mishnah implies this, the 13th, 14th, 15th, and part of a day is counted as a whole day [The argument is reasonable but the numbers are wrong. If the eggs were laid on the 14th, and the hen sat on it on the 14th, on the full holiday the 15th, and ran away the first of the intermediate days, the 16th, it is the third day of breeding. The requirement of 3 times 24 hrs. is not proven.] . Rebbi Abun said, explain it if it sat down by itself and it implies nothing [The chicken could have started in the morning of the day on which it ran away.] .
[Babli 55b.] Manure in an alley one sweeps aside, in a cowshed and a courtyard one takes it out to the dungheap. Rebbi Abba said, this is for a small courtyard, but in a large courtyard one sweeps it aside. In a cowshed, whether large or small, one takes out to the dungheap. Rebbi Abba said, because its ugliness is dangerous.
MISHNAH: Six things used the people of Jericho to do; on three of them they [The rabbinic authorities of the day did not interfere even though the actions were somewhat against the rules. The Jewish settlement of Jericho came to an end at the latest in the aftermath of the war of Bar Kokhba.] interfered, about three they did not interfere. The following are where they did not interfere: They grafted date palms during the entire day [The 14th of Nisan. “Grafting” here means cutting male flowers and hanging them in female trees for pollination by the wind. This operation has to be done in a very narrow time frame in the spring.] , and they bundled the šemaˋ [Different opinions about this are given in the Halakhah.] and they cut grain and tied it into sheaves before the ˋomer [The start of the barley harvest. Consumption of new barley is strictly forbidden before the ceremony (Lev. 23:14).] ; they did not interfere. The following are where they did interfere: They permitted sycamore figs [Arabic جُمّينر, in modern Hebrew also the ג is pronounced “j”. Cf. Peah Chapter 7, Note 159.] of dedicated trees [Old sycamores whose trunks were dedicated to the Temple; they were of the opinion that it was possible to dedicate a trunk while excepting new shoots from the dedication.] , and they ate wind-fall on the Sabbath [Fruit still on the tree at sundown is muqṣeh the entire Sabbath (or holiday) even after it fell from the tree.] , and they gave peah from vegetables [It is obligatory to leave the last corner of a field unharvested for the poor to collect only for produce that is similar to grain in that it is harvested all at once and is stored for use during the year (Mishnah Peah 1:4). Legal peah is freed from the obligation of heave and tithes; illegitimate peah is not. People giving illegal peah lead the poor into deadly sin by making them eat ṭevel produce.] ; here they did interfere.
HALAKHAH: Who is the Tanna of “cutting”? Rebbi Meïr. Who is the Tanna of “binding into sheaves”? Rebbi Jehudah. Rebbi Jacob ben Rebbi Sosai said before Rebbi Yose: Everybody agrees that one may cut [The verse Lev. 23:9: the beginning of your harvest for the Cohen is interpreted (Sifra Emor Parašah 10(2)) that cutting grain before the ˋomer is forbidden only in places whose grain is acceptable in the Temple, which excluded grain grown in irrigated fields (including those of Jericho). Therefore cutting the grain these could not have been a problem. Mishnah Menaḥot10:8; Babli 56a, Menaḥot 71a.] , and everybody agrees that one may not tie into sheaves [Only the offense did not warrant interference.] . Where did they disagree? About grafting of date palms. Rebbi Meïr says, one grafts date entire day, and they acted following the will of the rabbis. Rebbi Judah says, they were not acting following the will of the rabbis [Tosephta 3:19.] .
How did they bundle the šemaˋ? Rebbi Aḥa said, Rebbi Zeˋira said, Rebbi La said: [The discussion is about the formulation of a text close to Tosephta 3:19; cf. Babli 56a. The sequence of three “said” is Babli style.] Hear, o Israel, the Eternal, our God, the Eternal is One [Deut. 6:4.] , only they did not stop between words, the words of Rebbi Meïr. Rebbi Jehudah said, they did stop but they did not say “Praised be the Name of the Glory of His Kingdom for ever and ever. [The customary insert between the recitation of v. 4 and vv. 5–9.] ” Rebbi Yose said, Rebbi Zeˋira, Rebbi La said: Hear, o Israel, the Eternal, etc., only they did not stop between One and “Praised”, the words of Rebbi Meïr. Rebbi Jehudah said, they did stop but they did not say “Praised be the Name of the Glory of His Kingdom for ever and ever.”
[From here on, the Halakhah also is Peah7:8 (פ).] “How did they permit sycamore figs of dedicated trees? The Sages said to them, do you not agree with us that growth of dedicated [plants] is forbidden? They told them, when our forefathers dedicated them, they dedicated only the tree stems because of the strong men who came and took them by force. [Tosephta 3:22 (Babli 56b). Sycamores produce inferior fruits but superior building material. The “strong men” are probably the Hasmonean rulers or Herod. The people protected their sycamore groves by putting them out of bounds of any human government.] ” Do the rabbis mean to say that they dedicated tree stems and fruits? Even if you say that they dedicated the tree stems but not the fruits, the rabbis wonder if somebody dedicates an orchard, may he reserve the growth for himself [In Mishnah Meˋilah 3:6 the anonymous Tanna declares that taking the fruits of a Temple tree does not constitute the crime of meˋilah, larceny committed on Temple property. But R. Yose declares the fruits to be covered by meˋilah. The Babli 56b points out that the Sages of the Tosephta, while agreeing that no felony is committed by taking the sycamore figs, nevertheless must assume that taking them means overstepping a prohibition. No such prohibition is written in the Torah. While any stipulation contradicting a commandment of the Torah is invalid (Peah 6:9), one violating a rabbinic prohibition may be valid. It remains unresolved whether the people of Jericho had permission to reserve the right to use the jummiz.] ? Let us hear from the following [Mishnah Peah 7:8, about a vineyard dedicated to the Temple (i. e., its fruits to be sold by the Temple and the proceeds to be given to the Temple treasury).] : “After the gleanings are recognizable, the gleanings belong to the poor.” That is different because nobody may dedicate anything that is not his own [Since gleanings on vines belong to the poor by Divine decree (Deut. 24:21).] . Does that not mean that even if the gleanings were not yet recognizable, they should belong to the poor? This is different, because it is a vineyard for the Temple, as it was stated [Tosephta Peah 3:15. Here starts a Genizah fragment, edited by L. Ginzberg in Ginze Schechter, vol. 1, New York 1928, pp. 442–448 (ג).] : “It somebody plants a vineyard for the Temple, it is exempt from single berries [Which in secular growth belong to the poor (Lev. 19:10). Addition by the corrector, supported by a lacuna in ג.] , and from ˋoriah [The fruits growing in the first three years after planting, forbidden for use (Lev.19:23).] , and from the Fourth Year [Where the fruit has to be redeemed (Lev. 19:24).] , but it is subject to the Sabbatical year.” Rebbi Zeˋira in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: The land shall observe a Sabbath for the Eternal [Lev. 25:2.] . The sanctity of the Sabbatical falls even on anything that is the Eternal’s.
Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba [While this is the text here and in Peah, it is impossible since the third generation R. Ḥiyya bar Abba cannot be a student either of the first generation R. Mana I nor of the fifth generation R. Mana II. Therefore with ג one has to read “R. Ḥiyya bar Ada” (second generation).] asked before Rebbi Mana: It is impossible [Here the corrector, trained in Babylonian Aramaic, corrupted the text. Following the other two sources, both times “אי” has to be deleted since the Yerushalmi distinguishes between אֶפשַׁר “possible” and אֵיפְשַׁר “impossible”.] to eat without redemption [This refers to the statement earlier that produce dedicated to the Temple is subject to the rules of the Sabbatical. Sabbatical produce must he eaten (Lev. 25:6) but Temple produce cannot be eaten without first being redeemed and the sanctity transferred to the redemption money.] since Temple property cannot leave without redemption. If one redeems and eats it, it would be as if one bought an axe with Sabbatical money [The Temple has no need for money for food since the public sacrifices must be paid from the Temple tax of half a šeqel and private sacrifices are paid by the donors. Valuables donated to the Temple are used for building upkeep, vessels, and implements. Any monetary gain from Sabbatical produce for these purposes is forbidden; how can the Temple accept illegal money?] . He said to him, the treasurer [The Temple treasurer has the right and the obligation to sell all Temple property which is not directly used for sacrifices in order to raise money for the upkeep of the Temple. The Sabbatical produce is not sold but directly exchanged for vessels or implements needed by the Temple. This exchange is permitted; it removes the holiness of Temple property but has no influence on the Sabbatical status of the produce. The third party may use or sell the produce as Sabbatical food.] exchanges it through a third person. Rebbi Mattaniah said, why do we not explain it [That the laws of the Sabbatical year apply to Temple property.] according to everybody, as Rebbi Joḥanan said [This refers to Mishnah Nedarim 6:10: Two people A and B are on the road. B had made a vow not to use anything belonging to A. A has food with him, B has nothing to eat. A gives food to a third person C as a gift; C gives the food to B who may use it. If no third person is present, A puts the food up on a fence or on a rock and says, this is abandoned to anybody who wants it. B may take and eat it, but R. Yose forbids. R. Joḥanan notes that R. Yose only forbade because the food was forbidden to B before it was abandoned. But if anything was abandoned before a vow was made, R. Yose agrees that a vow cannot retroactively influence the status of abandoned property.] , the words of Rebbi Yose because his vow precedes his declaration of abandonment. But here [In the cases of the vineyards (Notes 174 and 178), the abandonment both of the gleanings and the Sabbatical year are written in the Torah and certainly precede any dedication.] the vow of abandonment precedes his dedication [Since the abandonment of the Sabbatical year is not invalidated by the dedication, the Sabbatical produce should not need any redemption.] . Rebbi Joḥanan said, it happened that they gave instructions following Rebbi Yose [Who requires in Mishnah Peah 4:8 that the Temple be reimbursed for the produce grown in its possession, deciding with R. Ḥiyya bar Ada against R. Mattaniah.] .
[The following paragraph refers only to the last part of Mishnah Peah 7:8: “What are forgotten grapes? On a trellis, anything one cannot stretch out his hand and take; on a single growing vine once he is done with it.” The paragraph is copied from there and has no relevance for Pesaḥim, nor is it related to the statement of R. Joḥanan just quoted.] Does this not contradict Rebbi Joḥanan, since Rebbi Joḥanan said, if he passed over it and forgot it, it is forgotten. There is a difference, for a trellis is usually checked [On a trellis the branches are stretched out widely; one can go over the branches as many times as he wants as long as he does not move away.] . And it does not even contradict Rebbi Hoshaia, for Rebbi Hoshaia said, when I was mashing olives with the great Rebbi Ḥiyya, he told me that any olive you can reach when stretching out your hand is not forgotten [But Mishnah Peah 7:8 makes it clear that one may go around a free-standing vine as many times as he wants, as long as he does not move away.] . There is a difference, since every single freestanding vine is a separate planting.
Rebbi Abba bar Cahana asked before Rebbi Immi: If one leased his house to another and needs the money? He said to him, it is unthinkable that he should have to starve to death [He accepts the rule of Roman law that sale breaks lease.] . Rebbi Zeˋira, Rebbi [Il]la both say, μίστωσις like ὠνή is acquired by buying [S. Liebermann’s remark is convincing that they choose to formulate the statement in Greek terms, “lease is acquired like a buy by acquisition” to make the point of their rejection of the Roman law clear to all traders. They consider the right to use leased property as a valuable asset which once acquired in due form cannot be taken away.] . It was stated [Babli Arakhin 21a. Since property donated to the Temple is given only for its money’s worth, not the house was given but the future income.] : If one leased his house to another and went and dedicated it, [the renter] lives in it and pays the rent to the Sanctuary. When? If he did not pay the rent in advance, but if he paid the rent in advance he lives there for free. In the days of Rebbi Mana there was a company [Latin numerus; a military unit of native auxiliaries in the late Roman Empire. For nonpayment, the government threatened to enslave the children.] in Sepphoris, and their children were taken as pledges. When they were about to leave, Rebbi Mana published (so) [a proclamation] [The text of ג [in brackets] seems preferable.] following Rebbi Immi. He said, not that I am of his opinion, but because of the Sepphoreans that they should not permanently lose their children [This was an emergency measure (probably to permit sale of houses to Gentiles). He could not have agreed with the underlying principle since he was a student of his father R. Jonah, student of R. Jeremiah, student of R. Zeˋira.] .
“They ate wind-fall.” Where do we hold? If it fell off before the holiday, everybody agrees that it is permitted; if it fell off on the holiday, everybody agrees that it is forbidden. But we must hold if it is unknown [Since fruit on the tree at nightfall of a Sabbath or holiday is muqṣeh, it cannot become permitted on the Sabbath or holiday. The only problem is whether muqṣeh is to be considered as rabbinic prohibition, which would require a case of doubt to be treated leniently as permitted, or as biblical, which requires a case of doubt to be treated restrictively as prohibited. Since the principle of muqṣeh is recognized by Sadducees (cf. Introduction to Tractates Šabbat and Eruvin), the Mishnah treats it as biblical prohibition. Quoted by Tosaphot 56b s. v. מחלוקת.] .
“They gave peah from vegetables.” [Tosephta 3:20.] “They only gave for beets and leeks [Greek κεφαλωτόν “headed”.] since these are harvested once. Rebbi Yose said, also cabbage.” [Esther rabba 2, on v. 1:4.] It happened that the son of Ben Meviyayin [“Importer of wine”.] gave peah of vegetables to the poor. His father came and found them standing at the door of the garden plot. He told them, put down what is in your hands, they put down what was in their hands. He gave them double from what had been tithed. Not that he was a miser, but he was concerned about the words of the Sages. Once the rabbis needed contributions; they sent to him Rebbi Aqiba and another rabbi with him. When they came to enter at his place they heard the voice of a lad saying to him, what shall we buy for you today? He said, endives [Greek τρώξιμον vegetable “eaten raw”.] , not from today but from yesterday which are wilted and cheap. They left him and went away. After all people had (acquired merit) [contributed] [The text from the Leiden ms. is in parentheses, from ג in brackets.] , they came to him. He said to them, why did you not come to me first, as you were used to? They told him, we already came but heard the voice of a lad saying to you, what shall we buy for you today? You said, endives, not from today but from yesterday which are wilted and cheap. He said, you know what was between me and the lad; do you know what is between me and my Creator? Nevertheless, go and tell her [His wife.] to give you a modius [A measure of volume; Roman 8.5 1, Syrian 17 1.] of denars. They went and told her. She said to them, what did he say to you, heaped or flat? They answered her, he said it vaguely. She told them, I am giving you heaped. If he said so, I filled it. If not, I shall account for the excess from my dowry [Greek φερνή, ἡ.] . When her husband heard this, he doubled her ketubaḥ.