MISHNAH: They established a comprehensive principle [A discussion of the notion “comprehensive principle” is in Šabbat7:1 (Babli Šabbat 68a).] for the Sabbatical: Everything that is food for humans or animals or material for dye and cannot be preserved in the ground [Roots that stay edible in the ground until after the Sabbatical are not subject to removal since they are always available to wild animals.] is subject to the Sabbatical and its proceeds are subject to the Sabbatical [If Sabbatical produce is sold, its proceeds become Sabbatical and must be used to buy other produce that has to be eaten in the Land under the rules of the Sabbatical.] ; it is subject to removal and its proceeds are subject to removal [If nothing of the kind for which the money was obtained is left on the fields for wild animals, the money must be spent for food that has to be distributed to the poor. In the unlikely case that there are no poor, the money has to be thrown into the Dead Sea.] . What are these? This is the leaf of wild arum [Cf. Kilaim 2:5, Note 69.] , mint [Definition of Maimonides and Arukh (אלנענע). All sources except the Leyden ms. read הדנדנה.] , endives [Cf. Kilaim 1:2, Note 41.] , leeks [Cf. Kilaim 1:2, Note 42.] , purslain [Definition of Maimonides and Arukh, Arabic דגלה.] and milk bud [. Definition of Maimonides in the majority of mss.: “parsley”. Some Maimonides mss.: “Mahaleb.” Arukh: White flowers, some say a grass producing wolf’s milk. The Gaonic commentary to Uqeẓin: Arabic ח̇דשף “artichoke; anything rough and hard”. Since artichokes for human food are קינרס, the thistles referred to here are animal feed.] . Animal feed, thistles and thorns. Dyestuffs, the wild growth of isatis and safflower [Maimonides notes that “some commentators explain קוצה as safflower;” he expresses no opinion. Arukh defines as “madder”, but madder appears in Mishnah 4 as פואה under a different legal category.] . These are subject to the Sabbatical and their proceeds are subject to the Sabbatical; both they and their proceeds are subject to removal. They established another principle for the Sabbatical: Everything that is [This is the reading of the Leyden ms., many of the best Mishnah mss., and R. Simson but not of Maimonides, the Mishnah mss. in the Maimonides tradition, and the Rome ms. These all read: Everything that is not …; cf. The Mishnah with variant readings, vol. Zeraïm II (Jerusalem 1975) p. 57, Note 14.] food for humans or animals or dyestuff and is preserved in the ground is subject to the Sabbatical; its proceeds are subject to the Sabbatical; it is not subject to removal [It cannot be subject to removal since there always remains something in the ground.] nor are its proceeds subject to removal. What are these? These are the root of wild arum, the root of mint [Definition of Maimonides and Arukh (אלנענע). All sources except the Leyden ms. read הדנדנה.] , ceterach [In all manuscript sources except the Leyden ms., the name is עקרבלין or עקרבנין. This corresponds to Arabic עֻקרֻבַּאן.] , ḥalbiẓin [These are mentioned in Mishnah 4. Maimonides declares the word to be unexplained. Arukh explains: “Egg shaped seeds developing like ferula(Italian, meaning ‘gigantic fennel’). Some people say, eggs of milk buds and that is a white flower.” In Syriac, the word means “Bethlehem star” (a flower). Arukh’s note, “some people say”, indicates that he had two Yerushalmi versions: the one before us from the Leyden ms./Venice print, and the reading of the Rome ms. in Halakhah 4: חלבנין, Arabic חֻלבּוּן “mercury” (Mercurialis, a plant); in Löw’s opinion Euphorbia tinctoria, a close relative of mercury.] , and wild nard [Latin baccar,baccaris, Greek βάκχαρις, an aromatic root also called nardum rusticum (Pliny), used against evil spells. Arukh: Arabic בנגר “beet”. Maimonides: Meaning unclear.] . Kinds of dyestuffs: madder and campeachy-wood [Reseda luteola, definition of Maimonides, Arabic בקם. Definition of Arukh: Arabic שגרה̇ מרים “Miriam’s tree”, a tree, known to Arabic writers, used for dye.] . These and their proceeds are subject to the Sabbatical; these and their proceeds are not subject to removal. Rebbi Meïr says, their [The plants mentioned in the preceding Mishnah.] proceeds have to be removed before New Year’s Day. They said to him, they do not have to be removed, a fortiori their proceeds. Pomegranate skins [Tanning material and dyestuff.] and its peduncles, nut shells [Tanning material and dyestuff.] , and pits are subject to the Sabbatical and so are their proceeds. The dyer dyes for himself; he should not dye for payment [He may work for wages if he has vegetable dyes from the preceding year.] because one does not treat the produce of the Sabbatical as merchandise, nor firstlings or heaves, carcasses, torn animals, abominations [E. g., seafood and reptiles.] , and crawling things [Invertebrates.] . One may not buy vegetables to sell them on the market but he may collect and his son sells for him. If he bought for himself and has leftovers, it is permitted to sell them. If somebody bought a first-born animal [A first-born calf or lamb becomes the property of the Cohen. If the first-born develops a defect it may be eaten by everybody (Deut. 15:21); it may be sold by the Cohen to a layman. But since the first-born is a sacrifice from birth, it must be treated with respect and cannot become an object of trade. However, an occasional private sale is permitted under special circumstances.] for his son’s wedding or for a holiday and now does not need it, he may sell it. Catchers of wild animals, birds, or fish who accidentally caught impure species may sell them. Rebbi Jehudah says, even one who incidentally has such an opportunity [He is not a professional bird catcher or fisherman. An impure animal or fish crosses his way and he has the opportunity to grab it with the intent to sell it to Gentiles. For professionals it is clear that they may take impure species only if they accidentally catch them in their nets.] may take and sell them on condition that this not be his profession, but the Sages prohibit it.
HALAKHAH: Does the sanctity of the Sabbatical fall on dyes for humans [Cosmetics.] ? Let us hear from the following (Lev. 25:6): “For you”, all that is needed by you [“The Sabbath of the Land shall be for you (plural) to eat, for you (singular), your slave, and your hand-maiden, your hired hand and your (Gentile) resident who dwell with you.” The first “for you” seems to be superfluous. Since the verse gives permission to a slave owner to eat Sabbatical produce, it follows that the rich may eat. The poor are given permission to eat in Ex. 23:11: “The Seventh Year you shall let lie fallow and abandon it so that the needy of your people may eat; the remainder the wild animals of the field shall eat.” It is inferred that “for you” means all legitimate human needs that apply to all equally.] . We have stated on that: For example eating, drinking, anointing, and coloring. This excludes wound dressing which is only for the sick. This excludes olentia [See Berakhot, pp. 87, 501. תפילין is derived from Arabic תַּפִֹל “mal odorous”.] which are only for the malodorous. Rebbi Jonah asked: Why does one exclude wound dressing because the sanctity of the Sabbatical cannot fall on it? But did we not state [A related text is in Tosephta 5:7: “Din,Bṣr, and indigo usually are sown after the end of the Sabbatical.” As R. S. Lieberman notes, the identity of the first two plants can no longer be established. The isatis plant is used as dye (indigo) but the seeds are good only for sowing. Hence, seeds harvested in the Sabbatical retain their Sabbatical quality even after the end of the year. {For דן cf. Arabic דאן “to be of inferior quality”, for צד Arabic צדא “rust”.} The argument goes as follows: It is stated in Mishnah 8:1 that animal feed may be used to make wound dressing; only Sabbatical human food may not be used. In itself, animal feed has the sanctity of the Sabbatical and cannot be used for industrial purposes. Then one cannot understand why dyestuff seeds retain their sanctity but wound dressing does not. The answer is that the next argument will show that human needs have precedence over animal needs but once the product is no longer available for all of mankind it cannot have sanctity attached.] : “Sanctity of the Sabbatical falls on din, sad, and indigo seed that one sows after the end of the Sabbatical.” What is that? “For you”, for all of you equally. Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Hila understood it from the following (Lev. 25:7) [Sifra Behar Pereq 1(10). “For your domestic animal and the beast in your Land shall be all its yield as feed.” It is clear from the preceding verse that not all growth of the Sabbatical is for animals since humans were given prior permission to eat it. Therefore, the expression “shall be” is interpreted as: All that is not used for humans shall be animal feed.] : “Shall be”, even to kindle the light and to dye. Does this not destroy animal feed? Rebbi Mana said, explain it if animal feed is used for human needs and you cannot infer anything from it [For potential human food.] .
Does the sanctity of the Sabbatical fall on dyes for animals? Let us hear from the following [In Tosephta 5:3, rose root is mentioned together with pine roots; in Tosephta 5:6, thornbush root is mentioned with carob tree root. The Tosephta agrees that these have no sanctity in the Sabbatical. Perhaps these roots were used as dye for animals (to designate the owner?). For sumac, cf. Peah, Chapter 1 Note 243.] : “Roots of rose, thornbush, and sumac have no sanctity of the Sabbatical.” Does the sanctity of the Sabbatical fall on cleansing materials [Reading כְּבִיסוֹת “cleaning agents” instead of כניסות “entrances” with all commentators. Rome ms: סְכוּכוֹת “glasses”.] ? Let us hear from the following: Asphodel [A plant used by Palestinian Bedouin to clean their hands [E. Hareubeni, מצמחי הארץ, Sinai 4(1939) 622–624.]] , potash [Potash obtained by burning salty plants.] , and aloë fall under the sanctity of the Sabbatical. Does the sanctity of the Sabbatical fall on perfumes? Let us hear from the following: Parḥalabin [The identity of this plant has not been determined. In the Tosephta (5:6): הפדחבלין. It is possible to read in the Leyden ms. הפדח לבן which Kohut takes as “flower of the styrax (لبني)”. This fits the context but not the grammar, since it would have to be פדח הלֻבָּן.] and laurel trees have no sanctity of the Sabbatical. The colleagues: This is by Rebbi Simeon, since Rebbi Simeon said [Mishnah 7:9.] : Balsamum has no sanctity of the Sabbatical since it is no fruit. Rebbi Samuel in the name of Rebbi Abbahu: Explain it according to everybody referring to jonquil [Persian and Arabic נסרין, a very aromatic flower.] . What about fuel, for example oakum [The answer to this question, from the Tosephta, is given at the end of the Halakhah.] ?
About roses, three things were stated: Their leaves are subject to the Sabbatical and so are their proceeds; they are subject to removal and so are their proceeds. Their spine [Translation by Musaphia. Usually, פיקה means “small globe”. Rose wood may be used industrially and is subject to the Sabbatical. The plant is a perennial and need not be removed.] is subject to the Sabbatical and so are its proceeds; it is not subject to removal, neither are its proceeds. Its root is not subject to the Sabbatical nor are its proceeds; it is not subject to removal, neither are its proceeds [Tosephta 5:3.] . Rebbi Jeremiah asked before Rebbi Abbahu: May one make preserves from roses [In Mishnah 7:10, it is stated that rose leaves were preserved in olive oil. In general, Sabbatical produce may not be cooked if it can be eaten raw. R. Abbahu notes that rose leaves cannot be eaten raw. But as human food they fall under the rules of the Sabbatical; this implies that it must be permitted to make preserves from rose leaves.] ? He said to him, do they have any other use? Rebbi Ḥiyya stated that it is human food.
Rebbi Mana taught: orosatin [Probably rosatum,i, n. “rose wine”, also “preserves of roses” (Apicius). The Leyden ms. has a second form אודורוסטין (in the Rome ms. אודורודוסטין) which Musaphia has explained as ὑδρορόσατον “rose water”, in medical use in his time.] is permitted, kitraton [Latin citratus,a,um, adj., “steeped in citrus oil” (Pliny). Compare also citreum “citron”; citrium “a kind of gourd.”] is permitted, myrsinaton [Cf. Latin myrtites,ae, m., from Greek μυρτίτης οἶνος, “myrtle wine”.] is permitted, drmynwn [No reasonable explanation of this word has been offered; Musaphia conjectures Greek ῥοδόμυρον, ῥόδινον μύρον “rose ointment.” {Kohout thinks of absinth, Farsi درمنة darmneh. But the word cannot mean a plant; it designates food or drink made from the plant whose name would be a composite like درمنه رومى.}] is permitted, hydromyron [The Venice print has אידרוטירון but the Leyden ms. אידרומירון as already conjectured by most Hebrew lexicographers. Kohout notes that the closest word is ὑδρόμηλον, τό “drink of water and μηλόμηλι, honey flavored with quinces”. He conjectures that it should be *ὑδρόμυρρον for “myrrh water” but notes that this word is not found in the dictionaries. {Cf. Greek ὑγρόμυρον “liquid ointment” (E. G.)}] is forbidden, diomelon [Reading of the Leyden ms. Cf. perhaps Greek διὰ μελίτων “salve made from honey.” (E. G.) The Venice print and Rome ms. Have דיומידן which the lexicographers read with Musaphia as דימורון (Syriac רימירו), Greek διά μόρων “medicine from black mulberry juice and honey”.] is forbidden.
The Sepphoreans asked Rebbi Immi: May one keep moist with thistles [This is noted in Mishnah Makhširin 3:5; people used to collect grasses to put on top of their grain heaps to keep the latter from losing moisture. Since thistles are camel food, the question is about use of Sabbatical animal food for humans. In the Mishnah, and the Tosephta corresponding to the quote in the next paragraph, the spelling is להטין.] ? He said to them, you say in the name of Rebbi Ḥanina [In the Rome ms: R. Yose ben R. Ḥanina.] , even leaves of artichokes [Edible thistles.] are permitted. Rebbi Yoshaia said, this is to act on, you may rely on me. Rebbi Yoshaia said, the only food exclusively for animals is green grass; if it was bought to moisturize one may use it to keep moist.
It was stated [Tosephta 5:16 following the Erfurt ms. The traditional text and the Vienna ms. have “permitted” and “forbidden” switched.] : “Green grass and any other vegetables he took to moisturize may be used to moisturize. When he thought about them as human food it is forbidden to use them to moisturize.” Bar Qappara stated: One may use them [Vegetables collected or bought as human food. They cannot be squeezed for their moisture because this would destroy the plants so that they would no longer be food.] to moisturize but he may not squeeze out from them because the holiness of the Sabbatical is on them. But there is no Sabbatical holiness on animal feed since you say one may use them to make wound dressing for humans. Rebbi Yose said, we understand that one may use them to make wound dressing for humans, and we understand that one may press them to prepare medication for humans.
There, we have stated [Mishnah Uqeẓin 3:4. The translation follows the text there: לוּלָבֵי וְרָדִים וְשֶׁל עָדָל וַעֲלֵי הַלּוּף הַשּׁוֹטֶה since the text enclosed in parenthesis, של ערלה “of orlah”, makes no sense. Orlah is forbidden for any use, certainly for food. Soft new shoots (mainly of vines) can be used as food, but for most people they are simply pieces of wood. Hence, they do not have the status of food unless somebody takes them as such.] : “Sprouts of new shoots, [of nasturtium,] and the leaves of wild arum cannot receive impurity of food until they become sweet.” Why? Because they are bitter. But are lupines not also bitter [The question refers to a text close to Tosephta Uqeẓin 3:9: “Sprouts of new shoots of vines and carob trees cannot receive impurity of food until they become sweet. But arum, mustard, lupines, and all other foods that need to be cooked {before they can be eaten} can receive impurity of food whether they have become sweet or not.” (cf. Demay, Chapter 2, Note 141.)] ? It is different with lupines since they are human food from the start [They are only cultivated as human food.] . It is different for these [The kinds mentioned in Mishnah Uqeẓin.] ; we would not know that the sanctity of the Sabbatical would not fall on them unless they become sweet.
[Here starts the discussion of the examples given in the Mishnah. Why do these plants have to be singled out?] Did not Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina say: Endives are important enough in the Sabbatical to become susceptible to impurity of food? [Chapter 5, Note 143.] The reason was spelled out: This is, before Rebbi permitted the importation of vegetables from outside the Land into the Land. But after Rebbi permitted the importation of vegetables from outside the Land into the Land, there is no difference between the Sabbatical and the other years of the sabbatical cycle. Then they should not be important unless somebody thinks about them! Do we find anything on which from the start the sanctity of the Sabbatical (falls) [does not fall] but in the end the sanctity of the Sabbatical (does not fall) [may fall] on them [All commentators switch the statements here (and in the following Tosephta) since it is clear that anything that is sanctified cannot lose its status as long as it is in existence. Both mss. have the text as it is given here but R. Simson quotes as his text וּמָצִינוּ דָּכָר בַּתְּחִילָּה קְדוּשַּׁת שְׁבִיעִית חָלָה עָלָיו. וּבְסוֹף אֵין קְרוּשַּׁת שְׁבִיעִית חָלָה עָלָיו, this is the text translated in brackets.] ? They objected: “The sanctity of the Sabbatical does not fall on calamint, hyssop [Maimonides defines אזוב as معتر ṣaʻtar “wild thyme;” this seems to be the acceptation in Yerushalmi and Tosephta. (In commercial usage today, zaʻtar is oregano.)] , and thyme if one collected them as wood [In Mishnah 8:1, the three kinds mentioned here are counted as weeds that become food only by the intention of the harvester.] . If he considered them as food, the sanctity of the Sabbatical falls on them.” Rebbi Ḥananiah said, if he collected them first as food, the sanctity of the Sabbatical falls on them immediately [While one would expect clear rules what is and what is not covered by the sanctity of the Sabbatical, so that belated switches between profane and holy should be excluded, it is enough that the possibility of such a clear-cut decision exists even if in this particular case it becomes only clear retroactively which possibility was chosen.] .
Calamint is ṣatra, hyssop is esoba, thyme is qornita. What are ḥalbiẓin [These are mentioned in Mishnah 4. Maimonides declares the word to be unexplained. Arukh explains: “Egg shaped seeds developing like ferula(Italian, meaning ‘gigantic fennel’). Some people say, eggs of milk buds and that is a white flower.” In Syriac, the word means “Bethlehem star” (a flower). Arukh’s note, “some people say”, indicates that he had two Yerushalmi versions: the one before us from the Leyden ms./Venice print, and the reading of the Rome ms. in Halakhah 4: חלבנין, Arabic חֻלבּוּן “mercury” (Mercurialis, a plant); in Löw’s opinion Euphorbia tinctoria, a close relative of mercury.] ? Eggs of milk bud [. Definition of Maimonides in the majority of mss.: “parsley”. Some Maimonides mss.: “Mahaleb.” Arukh: White flowers, some say a grass producing wolf’s milk. The Gaonic commentary to Uqeẓin: Arabic ח̇דשף “artichoke; anything rough and hard”. Since artichokes for human food are קינרס, the thistles referred to here are animal feed.] .
“ [A parallel, speaking about other plants, is in Tosephta 5:3–4.] Rebbi Meïr said to them: I am more restrictive with the proceeds than with the main [produce]. For one may light with Sabbatical oil but if one sold it and bought oil with it he may not light with it.” Rebbi Ammi in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: If one exchanged oil for oil, both of them are forbidden [Since Sabbatical produce may be traded only as food, Sabbatical olive oil that was food, fuel, and ointment, after the sale is food only. Even if the money was used to buy profane (pre-Sabbatical) oil, the sanctity of the Sabbatical is transferred to the profane oil by the money, which may be used only for food. Therefore, in order to obtain fuel, the Sabbatical oil must be bartered, not sold, against profane oil. The following statements are applications of the same principle.] . What can he do? Rebbi Ḥizqiah in the name of Rebbi Jeremiah: He barters both for profane [oil]. If he exchanged wine for oil; just as you say that he may not anoint with wine so he may not light with oil. If he exchanged leaves for sprouts, just as you say that leaves are subject to removal so sprouts are subject to removal. If he exchanged human food for animal feed, just as one may not make a wound dressing from human food so he may not make a wound dressing from animal feed. We also have stated [The text as it stands is difficult to accept. A similar text is in Tosephta 5:19. The Vienna ms. of the Tosephta reads: “One may sell human food and animal feed to buy human food with the proceeds; one does not sell animal feed to buy animal feed and human food; it is not necessary to mention that one does not sell human food to buy animal feed.” The Erfurt ms. reads: “One may sell human food and animal feed to buy human food with the proceeds; one does not sell animal feed to buy animal feed and one does not sell human food to buy animal feed.” The text of the Venice print of the Tosephta is very close to the Erfurt text. However, the Yerushalmi text cannot be emended following the Tosephta texts (which might represent a Babylonian tradition); there is no reason to believe that the Yerushalmi would forbid trading animal feed for animal feed and human food. The best option is to disregard the clause put in parentheses.] : “One may sell human food and animal feed to buy human food with the proceeds,animal feed to buy animal feed and certainly human food (to buy animal feed).”
The leaves removed from vegetables one puts on the roof and they dry up by themselves [Wilted leaves and greenery of vegetables that would detract from the value of the vegetables are removed before the vegetables are sold or used. They also have to be removed at the end of the Sabbatical but they may be stored somewhere where they by themselves dry out (or rot) and are no longer human food.] . Rebbi Joḥanan in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Yoẓadaq: Wine until Passover, oil until Pentecost, dried figs until Purim. Rebbi Bibi in the name of Rebbi Ḥanina: Dates until Ḥanukkah [The deadline after which Sabbatical produce must be eaten or destroyed after the end of the Sabbatical. The corresponding text in the Babli (Pesaḥim 53a) is formulated as a baraita: “One eats grapes until Passover, olives until Pentecost, dried figs until Ḥanukkah, dates until Purim. Rav Bibi: Rebbi Joḥanan switches two in the baraita”. (Rebbi Joḥanan follows the text of the Yerushalmi for figs and dates.)] .
Rebbi Joḥanan and his colleagues were sitting and discussed the problem whether these are subject to removal or not [This refers to the second part of the Mishnah and Tosephta 5:3, giving examples of fruits and produce subject to the rules of Mishnah 3.] . Rebbi Yannai was passing by. They said, this is a man worth asking. They asked him and he said to them: Everything that normally falls from the tree is subject to removal, but what does not normally fall is free from removal. Which ones normally fall, or normally do not fall, the Tanna refrained from [stating].
May one dye for goodwill [Not for money but for the prospect of future business.] ? Since it was stated: “Milk thistle [According to I. Löw, Crozophora tinctoria, a plant used to produce dye, mentioned Tosephta 5:5 as subject to the rules of the Sabbatical.] and ḥalbiẓin the trader prepares for himself [Since it does not say, “but not for wages”, this implies that all commercial use is forbidden.] ”, that means that it is forbidden to dye for goodwill.
It is written (Lev. 11:28): “They are impure for you”. Why does it say (Lev. 11:35) “they shall be impure for you”? One is for the prohibition of eating, the other for the prohibition of usufruct [The argument is also found in Orlah 3:1 (fol. 63d), Pesaḥim 2:1 (fol. 28c), Baba Qama 7:10 (fol. 6a), Babli Pesaḥim 21b, Qiddušin 56b, Baba Qama41a, Ḥulin 114b. The formulation in the Babli is: R. Abbahu said, every place where it is stated “it should not be eaten, do not eat” implies both prohibition as food and of usufruct unless the Torah details the permission of usufruct as for cadavers (Deut. 14:21). One has to assume that “anything forbidden” mentioned here also means “anything forbidden as food.”] . Anything forbidden by the Torah is forbidden for trade but everything whose prohibition is rabbinical is permitted for trade. But is there not the donkey [Donkey meat is forbidden. The camel should have been mentioned first since it is mentioned explicitly as forbidden animal; donkey meat is forbidden by the general clause permitting only ruminants.] ? It is raised for work. Is there not the camel? It is raised for work. Rebbi Yehoshaiah traded in muries [Brine possibly made with wine (cf. Demay Chapter 1, Note 156). The nature of the prohibition is discussed in Terumot 11:1 (fol. 47c); it is agreed that the prohibition is rabbinical.] , Rebbi Ḥuna traded in asafoetida [It is not clear how and why asafoetida would be prohibited. The best explanation is that of Pene Moshe(Margalit) that medicines are neither food nor dyestuff and, hence, may be traded in the Sabbatical year.] .
It was stated [Tosephta 6:21–22. There, the text is: “If five people were collecting there should not be one selling for them, but one may sell his own and theirs. Five brothers may collect and one sells for them but they should not open a store.” The reading “50” may be an error for “5”, but the Yerushalmi definitely does not permit a person to sell more than what he and one other person collects.] : “There should not be five people collecting and one selling for them, but one may sell his own and that of a colleague. 50 brothers may collect and one sells for them.” Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, but only should they not have a store [Greek πρατήρ, cf. Demay, Chapter 5, Note 75. The Rome ms. has here an addition: “What means ‘that they not have a store’? That he should not sell.…”] , [i. e.], that he should not sell at the same place all year round; some say that he should not sell at all hours.
It was stated [Tosephta 6:22.] : “The store owner [He sells raw and cooked food.] who was cooking vegetables during the Sabbatical should not compute his profit on the value of Sabbatical [produce] but rather compute it on wine, oil [Presumably oil and wine are from the preceding year.] , and lost time “Rebbi La commanded the makers of fried food [They make חליטא, dough baked swimming in oil. In this case, one has to assume that the oil is Sabbatical but the wheat is not.] : “Do not compute your gain on the oil but on the wheat.”
There, we have stated [Mishnah Sanhedrin 3:6. The Mishnah gives a list of people whose testimony cannot be trusted in court: Gamblers, usurers, organizers of animal fights, and traders in Sabbatical produce. R. Jehudah says, these are unacceptable as witnesses (since they will sin for monetary gain and, therefore, are open to bribery) only if they make their living from these activities, not if gambling, etc., is done only on the side. The entire discussion appears word by word in Sanhedrin 3:6, fol. 21a–b.] : “Rebbi Jehudah said, when is that? If he has no other, different profession. But if he has another, different profession it is permitted.” How is this implemented? If he was sitting idle all the years of the sabbatical cycle but when the Sabbatical began he became active and traded in forbidden produce, if he has another profession on the side he is acceptable, otherwise he is unacceptable. But if he was working in his profession all the years of the sabbatical cycle and when the Sabbatical began he became active and traded in forbidden produce, even if he has no other profession on the side he is permitted. Rebbi Abba bar Zavda, Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: Practice follows Rebbi Jehudah of our Mishnah. Rebbi Abba bar Zavda was publicly praised for presenting a tradition in the name of a younger person. It was stated [In Sanhedrin, “R. Ḥiyya stated”.] : Rebbi Jehudah is restrictive. How is this implemented? If he was working in his profession all the years of the sabbatical cycles but when the Sabbatical began he became active and traded in forbidden produce, if he has another profession on the side he is permitted, otherwise he is forbidden. (But if he was working in his profession all the years of the sabbatical cycles and when the Sabbatical began he became active and traded in forbidden produce, even if he has no other profession on the side he is forbidden.) [The text in parentheses is missing in Sanhedrin and in the quotes of this paragraph by Maimonides, R. Simson, and R. Isaac Simponti. It is dittography and should be disregarded.] With this we are not concerned. Rebbi Abba bar Zavda, Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Eleazar [Even though the Babli holds (in the name of the first generation R. Joshua ben Levi) that all statements of R. Jehudah in the Mishnah which start with אימתי are explanations of the anonymous text, not disagreements, and are always practice to be followed (Sanhedrin 24b, Erubin 81b–82a); the Babli (Sanhedrin 26b) states explicitly in the name of R. Abbahu and R. Eleazar that practice follows R. Jehudah. One has to take that as an echo of the discussion in the Yerushalmi.] : Practice follows Rebbi Jehudah of our Mishnah. Rebbi Abba bar Zavda was publicly praised for presenting a tradition in the name of a younger person. Here also should it be so [Do the restrictive rules of R. Jehudah effectively apply to dealers in Sabbatical produce? R. Yannai permitted growing crops in the Sabbatical (Halakha 4:2) because of the tax burden on farmers; the tannaitic rules cannot be enforced as long as the tax is collected whether there is a crop or not.] ? Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, there the government is not oppressive, here the government is oppressive.
MISHNAH: Bundles of new sprouts [Mishnah Uqeẓin 3:4. The translation follows the text there: לוּלָבֵי וְרָדִים וְשֶׁל עָדָל וַעֲלֵי הַלּוּף הַשּׁוֹטֶה since the text enclosed in parenthesis, של ערלה “of orlah”, makes no sense. Orlah is forbidden for any use, certainly for food. Soft new shoots (mainly of vines) can be used as food, but for most people they are simply pieces of wood. Hence, they do not have the status of food unless somebody takes them as such.] and carobs are subject to the Sabbatical and so are their proceeds; they are subject to removal and so are their proceeds. Branches of terebinth, pistachio, and thornbushes are subject to the Sabbatical and so are their proceeds; they are not subject to removal nor are their proceeds [If nobody took them they would stay on the trees which are perennial. It follows that pine needles, if they could be used as food, would not be subject to removal.] . But the leaves are subject to removal since they fall from their stems. Roses, henna [Definition of Maimonides. Arukh and Geonim: cloves.] , balsamum, and chestnut are subject to the Sabbatical and so are their proceeds. Rebbi Simeon says, balsamum is not subject to the Sabbatical because it is not a fruit [But a sap. He implies that no sap falls under sabbatical prohibitions.] . If new roses were preserved in old oil, the roses should be taken out [If no rose leaves are left for the wild animals, the preserved Sabbatical leaves have to be given to the poor to eat but the oil, pressed from non-Sabbatical olives, may be retained by the owner. But if Sabbatical rose leaves are preserved in post-Sabbatical oil, everything has to be removed since the older leaves, which should have been removed, immediately give taste to the oil. One cannot explain "old in new" by "sixth year roses in Sabbatical oil" since these never would be subject to removal.] . Old in new are subject to removal. New carobs preserved in old wine and old ones in new are subject to removal [Since the carobs will quickly leave their taste in the oil. The Tosephta (5:15) states identical rules for carob pods and rose leaves; the author of the Tosephta must hold that the hard carob pods leave taste in the oil only if they are steeped in it a very long time.] . This is the principle: Anything that gives flavor to another kind is subject to removal, in its own kind in the minutest amount [Since the taste of forbidden and permitted food cannot be distinguished if they are of the same kind, a minute admixture of forbidden food makes permitted food of the same kind also forbidden.] . The Sabbatical makes forbidden in the minutest amount in its own kind, and by giving taste in another kind.
HALAKHAH: At the beginning of the chapter you said that one does not eat because of the roots [In Mishnah 2, arum, mint, etc., were made subject to removal even though their roots remain in the ground and will produce again the next year. Here the young shoots of vines and carobs are exempted from removal.] and here you say one does eat because of the roots? Rebbi Phineas said, there they will not ultimately harden; here they will ultimately harden; after they hardened they become part of the stem.
It was stated [Tosephta 5:11 has a similar text. The baraita quoted here must have had a beginning similar to the Tosephta: “Branches of terebinth, pistachio, thornbushes, and nasturtium…”] : “And all those which remained from the sixth year into the Sabbatical belong to the sixth except for nasturtium which is like a vegetable [The status of trees is determined by the time of blossoming, that of vegetables by the time of the harvest.] .” Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: There is no [rule that] “from the sixth year into the Sabbatical they belong to the sixth” but [they belong] to the Sabbatical. But did we not state: “Calamint, hyssop, and thyme he brought to the courtyard [These plants grow as weeds in Galilee, but if they are collected as spices and stored they are subject to tithes (Mishnah Ma‘serot 3:9).] , (but) if it was from the second year into the third they belong to the third; from the sixth year into the Sabbatical they belong to the sixth?” Here, you count the past [year], there the coming! Rebbi Yose said, in the third and sixth years, even though there is no second tithe, there are tithes; in the Sabbatical there is no tithe whatsoever. But did not Rebbi Abbahu say in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: There is no “from the sixth year into the Sabbatical they belong to the sixth” but they belong to the Sabbatical? There it is in the possession of the landowners, here it is in the possession of the poor [Since in the Sabbatical everybody has the right to enter the fields and take the produce.] . He prefers one which is certain to two which are possible [There is little to be taken by the poor in the Sabbatical since nothing is sown, but it is in the poor’s hand to take. The tithe of the poor may be larger but it is in the farmer’s hand to decide whom to give; a sparrow in the hand is better than a pigeon on the roof.] .
About leaves preserved with sprouts, some Tannaïm state: both of them are subject to removal. Some Tannaïm state: neither of them is subject to removal. Leaves are subject to removal, sprouts are not subject to removal. He who says [both] are not subject to removal is Rebbi Joshua; he who says [leaves] are subject to removal but sprouts are not subject to removal is Rabban Gamliel [This refers to Mishnah 9:5: “If somebody preserves three kinds in one barrel, R. Eliezer says, one eats according to the first; R. Joshua says, according to the last; Rabban Gamliel says everything whose kind has disappeared from the field should be removed from the house. Rebbi Simeon says, all kinds of vegetables have the same status; one eats purslain until sinariot disappear from the Bet Neṭofa valley.” R. Eliezer demands that all be removed if one of the kinds has to be removed. In our case, he requires that the sprouts be removed if the leaves have to be removed. R. Joshua requires that all kinds be removed together when the last has to be removed. Since sprouts do not have to be removed, nothing has to be removed. Rabban Gamliel thinks that the requirement of removal is on the produce, not on its taste. The taste of one absorbed by the other is irrelevant; therefore, each kind has to be removed in its time: Leaves have to be removed but not sprouts.] .
Rebbi Pedat, Rebbi Assi, in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Rebbi Simeon follows that of Rebbi Joshua, as we have stated there [Mishnah Orlah: 1:7; its topic is the use of any part of an orlah plant (cf. Kilaim Chapter 5, Note 93).] : “Rebbi Joshua said, I heard that making curds [To make cheese with vegetable rennet.] with the sap of leaves or roots is permitted, with the sap of unripe fruits it is forbidden because that is a fruit.” Rebbi Zeïra said to Rebbi Pedat, since we say there that practice follows Rebbi Joshua, would you have to say here that practice follows Rebbi Simeon [The opponent of R. Joshua in Mishnah Orlah is R. Eliezer; therefore practice has to follow R. Joshua. In the parallel in the Babli, Niddah 8b, the disagreement is explained that for R. Eliezer sap has the status of fruit and for the Sages who oppose R. Simeon in the Mishnah here, sap of a tree which produces no edible fruit has the status of fruit, whereas for R. Joshua no sap has the status of fruit. Therefore, the Babli accepts the position of R. Pedat which here is questioned. The verse (Lev. 19:23) restricts the holiness of orlah to fruits only.] ? Rebbi Jonah said, are the situations similar? It is the other way [כל רבה corresponds to Babylonian אדרבא.] : Balsamum is essentially sap, a tree is essentially in its sap. The holiness of the Sabbatical falls on animal feed, but the holiness of orlah never falls on it. Rebbi Abun said, there is another one: Rebbi Joshua quoted it as a tradition, Rebbi Simeon said it in his own name [Since he gives a reason, it is his own argument and not one he was taught by his teachers.] .
Sap may be fruit, unripe fruits may be fruit [This refers to the statement of R. Joshua in Mishnah Orlah. Is the cheese forbidden because the sap of unripe fruits is considered fruit or is sap not fruit but for orlah and derivative use of a fruit is also forbidden.] . If you say that sap has the status of fruit, if he did it with heave it is forbidden [Cheese made with sap of heave is forbidden to anybody who is not a Cohen since rennet, which turns milk into cheese, cannot be considered nonexistent even if it is only a minute part of the final volume.] . If you say that unripe fruits are fruit, if he did it with heave it is permitted [Since only fruit is subject to heave, the sap would be profane.] . Why? Because usufruct of heave is permitted but usufruct of orlah is forbidden.
In the first case, you say “the roses should be taken out”, in the second case “all is subject to removal”? Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: This is from two [different] Tannaïm. Rebbi Yose said, I can explain those roses by two conditions: “If new roses are preserved in old oil”, Sabbatical roses preserved in oil of the sixth year; “old in new”, Sabbatical roses preserved in eighth year’s [oil].