Yerushalmi Maaser Sheni 4 ירושלמי מעשר שני ד׳

MISHNAH: If somebody transports Second Tithe produce from a place of high prices to one of low prices¹. For some reason, Maimonides translates “from a clean to a dirty place”, implying that dirty places have cheap prices, clean places high prices. or vice versa, he redeems at the level of his place²At the place where the redemption is actually taking place, outside Jerusalem.. If he brings produce from the threshing floor to town or from the wine-press to town, the excess value³The difference between produce, etc., in town and out in the fields is added to Second Tithe money but the cost of transportation from the field to town is on him and cannot be deducted from tithe money. belongs to the Second but the expense is on him.
One redeems Second Tithe following the low rate at which the grocer buys³⁹At wholesale., not at which he sells; the one at which the banker gives small coins, not at which he assembles large coins⁴⁰The banker engaged in exchange operations makes money on the spread between buying and selling rates. For redeeming tithe one values bronze coins as if one were a banker selling copper coins against silver.. One does not redeem Second Tithe en bloc⁴¹Cf. Demay Chapter 2, Note 198.; if the price is known it is redeemed by the information of one person, if the price is not known by the information of three, as e. g., wine getting sour, fruit rotting, or coins rusting.

HALAKHAH: “If somebody transports Second Tithe produce,” etc. Rebbi Mana said, they said only “if somebody transports”; therefore originally it is forbidden⁴. If people were encouraged to transport heave from place to place (except on the way to Jerusalem), the Mishnah would have been formulated: מוליכין פירות “One transports produce”. The formulation: If somebody does it, then … is only used for actions which are disapproved of but which are not actually forbidden.. This is about Second Tithe produce, but for produce which is ṭevel for Second Tithe⁵Produce for which heave and First Tithe had already been given. it is originally permitted, following this: Rebbi had produce here and in Batanaia⁶Cf. Ma‘serot 4, Note 82.; he fixed the tithes of here there and redeemed them according to the going price there.

It was stated: Whether it was expensive and became cheap or cheap and became more expensive⁷It seems that the baraita permits redeeming at the lowest rate between the time Second Tithe was given and the time it was redeemed.. We understand “expensive and became cheap⁸Since in this case, the price of redemption is the actual price at the time of redemption.”. “Cheap and became more expensive”? There is a difference because he could use a trick and free it from the fifth⁹As explained in Mishnah 4, if a third party redeems the tithe, he does not have to add a fifth..

It was stated¹¹In the Tosephta, 3:1, R. Joshua ben Qorḥa states the opposite rule: Demay follows the rules of the Mishnah, but certain produce always is redeemed by the higher tariff.: “Abba Ḥilfai the small-town man¹²In the Babli, Baba Batra 123a, there appears a אבא חליפא קרויא, Abba Ḥalifa Small-Towner, who, however, was a student of R. Ḥiyya bar Abba and cannot be identical with the person mentioned here. said, when has this been said? For certain [produce], but for demay whether it was expensive and became cheap or was cheap and became expensive, he may sell it cheaply.” Why? Is it because it always may be sold cheaply or because it may not be returned to its place¹³So that it always could be redeemed at the cheaper place.? What is the difference? If later it rose in price again at its place¹⁴At the moment of redemption there is no cheap place.. If you say, because it may not be returned to its place, did it not increase in value? If you say, because it always may be sold cheaply also in this case it can be sold cheaply. Like this: Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba was in Rome and he saw them redeem there Nicolaos dates¹⁵Cf. Berakhot 6, Note 162; Demay 2, Notes 15,16. from here at the price here¹⁶At the much lower rate of the Land of Israel.. He said, who taught them? Ḥilfai the small-town man taught them.

It was stated: A person¹⁸A money changer or money dealer. This paragraph should belong to Baba Meẓi‘a. may earn up to a šeqel¹⁹2 (silver) denars per gold denar? or aureus? The rate of 2000 denars to one aureus points to the early fourth Century., a person may earn up to a quarter²⁰A quarter of a tetradrachma, one denar. Probably the larger amount is for retail transactions, the smaller for wholesale.. How is this done²¹Without transgressing the interest prohibitions.? A denar here is worth 2000, but in Arbel 2000 and a laqan²²A word of uncertain origin and meaning. Following M. Zuckermann, Talmudische Münzen und Gewichte, Breslau 1862, most Talmudic Dictionaries derive this word from Greek λευκόν “a white [thing]”, supposed to mean “a small silver coin”. (Jastrow, deriving the word from the root לקי “to hit, smite”, takes it as translation of Greek λεπτόν, “a small copper coin.”)
However, there never was a Greek coin λευκόν (whose transliteration moreover would have to be לבקן or לוקן)- The efforts of H. J. Sheftel (ערך מלין לשעורי תורה Berdičev 1907, p. 39b/c) and D. Sperber (cf. Note 24) to determine the monetary value of the supposed coin are inconclusive.
The apparent meaning of לקן here and in Baba Meẓi‘a 4:1, fol. 9c, “a small indeterminate amount of money” rather suggests a connection with Arabic لَقَن “small dish, cup” which is used in the composite عِوَض لقن “small thing given in exchange”, or “trifle given as agio”.
{Perhaps cf. Greek λεκάνη, ἡ and λέκος, -εως, τό, “dish, pot, pan” from which a late diminutive λεκίσκιον, τό, “small measure or weight” (E. G.)}.. He wants to give 50 myriads²³500’000 denar = 250 aurei. and brings it up, here by 2000 and in Arbel by 2[000] and laqan²⁴Cf. also D. Sperber, Roman Palestine 200–400, Money and Prices, Ramat-Gan 1974, Chap. 14..

It was stated: One does not redeem Second Tithe as Second Tithe but as profane²⁵Unless the person who redeems states that the produce shall be profane and the holiness of tithe transferred to the coins, there is no transfer.. Rebbi Saul asked: Think of it, if everybody knew that it was Second²⁶What else could he do with it? Even so, there is no transfer without declaration.? Even so. It was stated: One redeems Second Tithe only from its own kind²⁷Tithes do not have to be given from earmarked produce; the farmer may give tithe from one part of his harvest for all other produce of the same harvest but at other places.. Otherwise, what would we say? One might redeem wheat for barley, barley for wheat; even fine wheat for coarse wheat²⁸Cf. Peah 2, Notes 85,86., coarse wheat for fine wheat.

Rebbi Ḥanania said: Rebbi took early ripe green melons³⁰Cf. Kilaim 1:2, Note 38. for the government³¹To invite (Augustus or Caesar) Antoninus, cf. Kilaim 9:4, Note 79. and fixed their Second Tithe in each peduncle³²He then redeemed them together.. He considered them as if cut³³The peduncle with some fruit flesh cut off from the melon.. Rebbi Joḥanan asked, they were whole and you say cut? Rebbi Jonah said, that is correct! If two people were partners in a green melon, one having one part and the other two, can he say, take your part and I shall take mine? But for the two together it is sold more dearly; here also together it is sold³⁴I. e., redeemed. more dearly. Like this: Rebbi Simeon ben Rebbi commanded those Southerners who were disregarding it³⁵They disregarded Second Tithe (which without a Temple cannot be used for anything) and which, at least for produce other than grain, wine, and olive oil, was rabbinic even in the Times of the Temple.. Bar Qappara lifted them and before him cut them into little pieces. He said to him, is that worth anything³⁶If it has no monetary value, it is not subject to tithes.? So far, some things are cut into little pieces and they are no good, other things are cut into little pieces and are good³⁷The argument of Rebbi against Bar Qappara..

Rebbi Joshua ben Levi said, one redeems Second Tithe only up to thirty six times [the coin’s] worth. And Rebbi Ḥizqiah said, one who exchanges should not exchange for half a peruṭah so he should not be like one who exchanges for a blank³⁸The peruṭa was an Hasmonean copper coin; in Talmudic times it was purely a unit of computation. According to Yerushalmi Qiddušin 1:1 (fol. 58d), one as(obolus) was counted as 6 peruṭot. The statement then means that for redemption purposes, a denar can be represented by a peruṭah.
Half a peruṭah never was an official coin; for blanks cf. Chapter 1, Note 45.; it must be worth a peruṭah.

Rebbi Immi said, Kama came before Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish. They said to him, go and pay according to those Tannaїm: “One redeems Second Tithe when it is cheap, not when it is expensive; at the rate at which the grocer buys, not at which he sells; the one at which the banker gives small coins, not at which he assembles large coins.” So far for large quantities, what about small ones? Even so, at the rate at which the grocer buys, not at which he sells; the one at which the banker gives small coins, not at which he assembles large coins.

Rebbi Naḥman bar Jacob⁴³The only known Naḥman bar Jacob is Rav Naḥman bar Jacob, Chief Judge in Babylonia and son-in-law of the Resh Galuta. Since carpenters do not make baskets from leaves, they were certainly incompetent to testify to their volume or value. The story therefore notes that in Babylonia, where tithes are rabbinic practice only, any estimate is good. showed a basket of palm leaves to a carpenter and redeemed following his opinion. Rebbi Yannai showed a quarter [qab] wheat to a wheat dealer⁴⁴In the Rome ms. סיטונאי “grain wholesaler”. While the Mishnah takes as standard the selling price of the wholesaler, he asked his buying price. and redeemed following his opinion. Rebbi Simon showed produce to Rebbi Ḥilqiah who asked him, by their true value? He answered, yes. Rebbi Ḥilqiah said in the name of Rebbi Simon, one does not redeem Second Tithe following the opinion of imbeciles. Rebbi Phineas showed produce to a grits-maker who asked him, by their true value? He said to him, so said Rebbi Ḥilqiah in the name of Rebbi Simon, one does not redeem following the opinion of imbeciles. Rebbi Shammai said, how much a person wants [to pay] on a clear noontime at the summer solstice when the bath master⁴⁵He runs a thermal bath which will not have many customers in the summer heat; he will sell his supplies cheaply. takes up his bunches, he brings coins and redeems. Rebbi Jeremiah said, as much as a person wants Friday afternoon from women braiders⁴⁶They are fully occupied and will react only if they get an extraordinarily cheap buy. R. Jeremiah seems to have no compunctions to go to a women’s hairdresser shop! when he passes by, he brings coins and redeems. Rebbi Yudan bar Gadya⁴⁷He seems to be R. Yudan bar Guria. said, Rebbi Jacob bar Abun left it lying until it got moldy and redeemed it immediately after the Sabbath.

Rebbi Mana had oil which he brought down to Acco⁴⁸Where olive oil is more expensive than at the place of production in Galilee.. Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Ada said to him, if your oil there at the parapet⁴⁹Second Tithe money oil at your house in Galilee. is still there, it is your time that you should redeem it for [there] it is not worth six minas⁵⁰Instead of שיתא מני the Rome ms. has מינך “from you”; a corruption..

Rebbi Joḥanan said, one redeems Second Tithe by the offers of three buyers, even if one of them is a Gentile, even if one of them is an owner. Rebbi Jonah asked: Not two Gentiles, not two owners; also not one Gentile and one owner? No, it was said separately⁵¹Only one Gentile, only one owner, but one Gentile and one owner is acceptable. This is also accepted in the Babli, Sanhedrin 12b, where the owner and his wife are accepted, in Rashi’s interpretation on condition that the wife have her own business and not be dependent on her husband for her upkeep..

MISHNAH: If the owner says⁵²He offers for redemption of his Second Tithe. He has to add a fifth of the amount, Lev. 27:31. a tetradrachma and another says a tetradrachma, the owner is preferred since he adds a fifth. The owner says a tetradrachma and someone else says a tetradrachma and an as, the one who offers a tetradrachma and an as is preferred since he adds to the capital⁵³By contrast, for redemption of property dedicated to the Temple, the other person would have to offer more than 125% of the owner’s offer before his offer would be considered. The difference between the Second Tithe and Temple dedication is (a) that redemption money of tithe remains in the hand of the owner (Babli Arakhin27b) and (b) for Second Tithe, the owner can get out of the obligation to pay the additional fifth (Mishnah 4).. He who redeems his own Second Tithe adds a fifth, whether it is his own or was given to him as a gift⁵⁴The meaning of the last clause depends on whether one holds that Second Tithe is the owner’s money, then Second Tithe may be a gift, or whether it is Heaven’s money in the hand of the farmer, when it can be given only as ṭevel but not as tithe..

HALAKHAH: Is not the fifth of this more than the addition of that one⁵⁵The “fifth” is a full drachma, an as is only 1/96 of a tetradrachma.? Rebbi Abin said, there is a difference that he can circumvent and free it from the fifth⁵⁶As explained in the next Mishnah..

“A tetradrachma and an as is preferred since he adds to the capital”. Rebbi Jacob bar Idi in the name of Rebbi Simai: One does not add a fifth for any Second Tithe which itself is not worth a peruṭa. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Simon in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: One does not add a fifth for any Second Tithe for which the fifth is not worth a peruṭa⁵⁷The Yerushalmi Baba Meẓi‘a4:5, fol. 9d, finds a basis for both rules in Lev. 27:31.. Rebbi Abba bar Mamai objected: Did we not state⁵⁸Mishnah Baba Meẓi‘a, Mishnah 4.6: One cannot force an oath if the defending party has not admitted owing at least a peruṭa; a woman can be preliminarily married only for a gift worth a peruṭa; a person deriving a peruṭa’s worth of benefit from anything dedicated to the Temple has committed larceny; if a find is worth a peruṭa it must be publicized; if somebody robs another of at least a peruṭa and swears falsely, he cannot atone for it unless he makes restitution even if that means a very long trip. “there are five peruṭot”, should one not state “six” according to Rebbi Simai, “Second Tithe which is worth a peruṭa!” And “seven” according to Rebbi Joḥanan, “the fifth of Second Tithe worth a peruṭa.”⁵⁹The Yerushalmi Baba Meẓi‘a 4:5, fol. 9d, considers this a contradiction to the Mishnah. The Babli, Baba Meẓi‘a 55a, notes that the Mishnah is restricted to original obligations. In addition, from what Rebbi Yose said in the name of Rebbi Mana bar Tanḥum, Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Real estate cannot be acquired for less than a peruṭa⁶⁰This is a principle accepted everywhere in the Yerushalmi, Eruvin6, fol. 23c; Qiddušin 1:3, fol. 59d; 1:5, fol 60c. In the Babli, Qiddušin 13a, it is noted that the statement holds only for acquisition by money but not for barter.. In addition, from the following: If the value of Second Tithe is not known⁶¹It is unknowable because it is less than a peruṭa and cannot be measured by money’s worth., it is enough that one say: it and its fifth shall be exchanged for this tetradrachma. Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Crispus, Rebbi Jonah in the name of Rebbi Zeïra: this baraita deals with a tetradrachma of tithe money where it is impossible that it not contain some profane⁶²This presupposes the statement of R. Joḥanan in the next paragraph that coins given for tithe money are holy only up to the actual value of the tithe exchanged for that coin. The argument is logical since nobody would offer a tetradrachma for anything valued less than a peruṭa, less than 0.2% of the value of the coin..

Rebbi Joḥanan said, if somebody redeemed dedications⁶³Gifts for the upkeep of the Temple, to be redeemed by the giver or to be sold by the Temple treasurer. for more than their worth, [the Temple] grabs everything⁶⁴The entire sum becomes Temple property.. If somebody redeemed Second Tithe for more than its worth, it does not grab everything. What is the difference between dedications and Second Tithe? Rebbi Immi said, because a person usually adds to his dedications⁶⁵Since dedications are voluntary gifts, in contrast to tithe which is an obligation.. Rebbi Zeïra asked before Rebbi Immi: If the person⁶⁶Redeeming tithe. If he is asked and declares the entire amount as holy, his word stands. But nobody has to ask. was checked and he said, that was not what I intended? He said to him, when he will be checked.

Rebbi Jonah asked, that is following him⁶⁷R. Meїr. One can understand the reluctance to give more if the money is Heaven’s money in an obligation imposed. But for R. Jehudah, who holds that tithe money is property of the farmer, why should he care which label is attached to his money since all will be spent for his own benefit? who said that it is not his property. But for him who says that it is his property, what is the difference between dedications and Second Tithe? Rebbi Yose said, the reason has already been explained, because a person usually adds to his dedications.

Rebbi Joḥanan said, if somebody redeemed his dedication without adding a fifth, it is redeemed. If somebody redeemed his Second Tithe without adding a fifth, it is not redeemed. What is the difference between dedications and Second Tithe? Rebbi Hila said, dedications have claimants, Second Tithe has no claimants⁶⁸The Temple treasurer has an organization dedicated to collect monies due the Temple; Second Tithe is a matter purely between the farmer and Heaven. In the Babli, Baba Meẓi‘a54a, R. Eliezer holds that the fifth never precludes redemption but the Sages hold that the fifth always precludes redemption and R. Joḥanan decides with R. Eliezer for dedications because of the reason given here by R. Hila. In the Tosephta (4:5), Rebbi holds with R. Eliezer for Second Tithe on the Sabbath but not on weekdays. The argument shows that according to everybody, the position of the Sages only represents a rabbinic institution.. Rebbi Jonah asked, that is following him⁶⁷R. Meїr. One can understand the reluctance to give more if the money is Heaven’s money in an obligation imposed. But for R. Jehudah, who holds that tithe money is property of the farmer, why should he care which label is attached to his money since all will be spent for his own benefit? who said, it is not his property. But for him, who says it is his property, what is the difference between dedications and Second Tithe? Rebbi Yose said, the reason has already been explained, dedications have claimants, Second Tithe has no claimants.

“He who redeems his own Second Tithe adds a fifth, whether it was his own or was given to him as a gift.” Our Mishnah is Rebbi Meїr’s since Rebbi Meїr says, a gift is not like a sale⁷⁰Ma‘serot 5:1, Note 5. If a gift were a moneyless sale, the produce would not be his and be free from the fifth.. Rebbi Jonah said, it is the opinion of everybody, explain it with produce still ṭevel for tithes⁷¹Since it was his property at the moment the Second Tithe became due, even without the Mishnah we would have known that he has to add the fifth.. But did we not state⁷²Mishnah 5:5. Lev. 19:23–24 requires that the fruit of a newly planted tree not be eaten for the first three years. In the fourth year, “all its fruit shall be holy as a praise to the Eternal.” The rules of this holiness are given in the next Chapter. Fruits far from Jerusalem have to be redeemed but, being intrinsically the Eternal’s, they are not subject to heave and tithes and can never be ṭevel.: “He who redeems his own fourth-year tree adds a fifth, whether it is his own or was given to him as a gift”? Can you say that this speaks about produce still ṭevel for (Second Tithe? We have stated)⁶⁹Missing in Rome ms., probably correctly. “fourth-year tree!” That means the fourth-year tree itself! So here, you will end up saying “tithe”⁷³Since the wording in Mishnah 5:5 speaks about produce to be redeemed, the parallel language in the Mishnah here must also speak about tithe, not ṭevel, and the Mishnah must be R. Meїr’s..

MISHNAH: One may circumvent about Second Tithe⁷⁴Circumvent the payment of the fifth.. How is this? A person may say to his neighbor, his adult son or daughter, his Hebrew male or female slave⁷⁵This rule is purely theoretical since the institution of Hebrew slavery was intrinsically bound to the land distribution by Joshua and automatically disappeared with the destruction of the first Temple, never to be re-instituted. The male Hebrew “slave” is not a slave but a servant indentured for six years (Deut. 15:18) and remains a legal person. The female Hebrew slave is necessarily a minor and supposed to be married by a member of the master’s family.: Take these coins and redeem this tithe for yourself. But he should not say so to his minor son or daughter or his Canaanite male or female slave⁷⁶They are not Canaanites but originally Gentile slaves or their offspring who became semi-Jewish by circumcision and/or immersion in water. If manumitted, they will automatically become full Jews but as slaves they have no independent legal standing. because their hand is like his hand.
If somebody was standing on the threshing floor and no coins were in his hand⁹⁸If the coins were in his hand, he could give them to another person and let him redeem the Second Tithe without paying a fifth., he says to a friend, this produce is given to you as a gift; then he goes on and says to him, it is redeemed⁹⁹Since now the produce is not his own, he does not have to pay the fifth. For what has to be formally given to the neighbor, cf. Note 54. by coins in the house.

HALAKHAH: Rebbi Abun said, Rebbi Eleazar and Rebbi Yose bar Ḥanina disagree. One said, why may one circumvent it? For “blessing” is written about it⁷⁷Deut. 14:24, “because the Eternal, your God, will bless you.” This is taken as authorization to be lenient in several respects.. The other said, why is it redeemed at a cheap rate? For “blessing” is written about it.

How do we hold? If he said to him, go and redeem for me, he is his agent⁷⁸The status of the agent is the status of his employer; a fifth is due.; go and redeem for yourself, they are the other’s property⁷⁹A fifth is due for the gift as stated in Mishnah 3.. But we have to hold that he said to him, redeem for me of your property, or redeem for yourself of my property. We have stated thus: “Redeem for me of your property, or redeem for yourself of my property, he does not add a fifth.” Rebbi Joḥanan said, for any tithe, where neither it nor its redemption money is his, he does not have to add a fifth. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun in the name of Rebbi Ḥanina, the reason of Rebbi Joḥanan (Lev. 27:31): “If a person goes to redeem of his own tithes, his own fifth he shall add to it;” both it and its redemption money must be his.

How do we hold? If she⁸¹The female Hebrew slave who when she becomes an adult either is a wife or a free adult; cf. Note 75. The Babli (Giṭṭin 65a) restricts the female Hebrew slave to redeeming heave of produce not grown in the soil (in a flower pot without a hole). This answer is very questionable for many reasons. is an adult, she acquired [her freedom] by the signs [of puberty]⁸²It is argued (Mekhilta Mišpaṭim3) that the verse (Ex. 21:7) which gave the father the right to sell his daughter also restricted her servitude to the period in which the father had this right, before she became an adult.; if she is a minor, may a minor acquire? Rebbi Yudan bar Shalom said before Rebbi Yose, explain it following him who said, a minor may give heave⁸³Cf. Terumot 1:1, Notes 56–58.. He said to him, even following him who said, a minor may give heave, may a minor acquire? Following the opinion of the rabbis there⁸⁴In Babylonia. it is acceptable since there, they say in the name of Rav Naḥman bar Jacob: One to whom one gives a nut and he throws it away, a pebble and he keeps it, what is found in his hand is as if found on a garbage heap; a nut and he keeps it, a pebble and he throws it away, what is robbed from him is robbed because of communal peace; a nut or a pebble he takes, hides them, and produces them later, what is robbed from him is total robbery. He can acquire for himself but not for others⁸⁵In the Babli, Giṭṭin 65a, the formulation (by Rava, student of Rav Naḥman) is: “There are three stages for minors. If he throws away a pebble and takes a nut, he can acquire for himself but not for others; for school children, their buying is buying and their selling selling, for movables; if they reached the time of vows (cf. Terumot, Mishnah 1:3, Note 105) their vows and dedications are valid; but to sell inherited real estate {without permission of the court} one must be 20 years old.”. Rav Huna said, just as he can acquire for himself so he can acquire for others. Everybody agrees⁸⁶The Babli, Baba Qama 106b, concurs. that his gift is not a gift since it is written (Ex. 22:6): “If a man give.” The gift of a man is a gift, but the gift of a minor is no gift, the words of the Sages. Rebbi Jehudah bar Pazi in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, robbing from him is not total robbery unless he grew two pubic hairs. Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, that is, to recover from him by a law suit, but to have to bring a sacrifice for [a false] oath only if he grew two pubic hairs⁸⁷The minor, or an adult representing him, can successfully prosecute the robber from a minor in court but if in the course of the proceedings the accused swears falsely that he did not take anything, he is not obliged to bring (or, if he has a guilty conscience, he is barred from bringing) a guilt sacrifice since his robbery was forbidden by police law, not biblical law.. But following the rabbis here, Rebbi Yose asked that even for himself he should not be able to acquire since it is written (Ex. 22:6): “To his neighbor”, until he be like his neighbor. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun in the name of Samuel ben Rav Isaac explained it by the method of small children. As we have stated there⁸⁸Mishnah Giṭṭin 5:9. The quote here shows that ה and א were both silent.: “For school children, their buying is buying and their selling selling, for movables.” But did we not state⁸⁹Mishnah Eruvin 7:6. In order to turn a dead-end street into a private domain for the purpose of carrying on the Sabbath, one has to affix to it a symbolic gate and then all residents of the dead-end street have to contribute to the food for a common meal. It is acceptable that one person designate the food, e. g., a wine barrel, and then appoints somebody to acquire for the other dwellers their part for this Sabbath. The qualifications in that Mishnah are the same as in the Mishnah here, with the same questions about the qualifications of the female Hebrew slave. {Since the devices of participation and eruv are ascribed to King Solomon, the mention of the Hebrew slave can be justified in that case.}: “He cannot make them acquire through his minor son or daughter or his Canaanite male or female slave, because their hand is like his hand.” The rabbis of Caesarea say, here a minor with knowledge⁹⁰It seems that a “minor with knowledge” is a minor who reached the time of vows, cf. Tosaphot Sanhedrin68b, s. v. קטן., there a minor without knowledge.

⁹¹Parallels to this paragraph and the next are in Eruvin 7, Qiddušin 1:3, fol. 60a. There, we have stated⁹²Mishnah Baba Meẓi‘a 8:4; Babli 98b. If the borrowed animal dies, the borrower is liable to pay. Therefore, it is important to determine the exact time at which the obligation of the borrower starts. This is the moment in which disposal of the cow is transferred from lender to borrower. The Mishnah states that if the borrower asks that the cow be brought to him by the lender’s slave, he becomes liable as soon as the slave goes on his way. But this seems to contradict the Mishnah here; if the slave’s hand (in the legal sense) is his owner’s then the cow should not leave the lender’s domain until she is handed over to the borrower since nobody doubts that if the owner himself drives the cow to the borrower, the latter’s responsibility starts only at the moment of delivery, not during the trip.: “If somebody borrows a cow and [the lender] sent her to him through his son, his slave, or his agent.” Does this not say that a slave is able to transfer rights from his master to another person? Rebbi Eleazar⁹³In the Babli, Baba Meẓi‘a 99a, the position of R. Eleazar is Samuel’s, that of R. Joḥanan is Rav’s. said, explain it about a Hebrew slave. Rebbi Joḥanan said, you can even explain it for a Canaanite slave, it he told him, open the gate for her and she will go by herself, as we have stated: If he led her, drew her, called her⁹⁴In the Babli: Hit her with a stick. and she followed him, he is required to pay as a borrower.

Rebbi Zeïra understood it from here: “But he cannot make them acquire through his minor son or daughter or his Canaanite male or female slave, because their hand is not like his hand.” Does this not imply that a slave is not able to transfer rights from his master to another person? Explain it following Rebbi Meïr since Rebbi Meïr makes the hand of the slave the hand of his master⁹⁵Everywhere in the Mishnah. The baraita denies legal standing to minors and slaves.. But did we not state⁹⁶Mishnah Eruvin 7:6; cf. Note 89. In the list of people empowered, the wife is noted together with the adult children since her husband cannot make an eruv for her without her consent. “his wife”? Rebbi Meïr holds that the hand of the wife is the hand of her husband! Rebbi Ḥananiah said in the name of Rebbi Phineas, explain it following the Tanna who stated⁹⁷Tosephta 4:7. In the Babli, Rava restricts the statement of R. Simeon ben Eleazar to the case that the wife inherited Second Tithe. Since R. Meïr holds that Second Tithe is Heaven’s money, the Second Tithe does not become part of the estate. If the wife now redeems the tithe with household money, the money is the husband’s but the tithe is not; therefore, no fifth is due. The Babli rejects the conclusion of the Yerushalmi here.: “His wife cannot redeem Second Tithe for him. Rebbi Simeon ben Eleazar says in the name of Rebbi Meïr, his wife can redeem Second Tithe for him.” For that Tanna, Rebbi Meïr makes the hand of the slave the hand of his master but not the hand of the wife the hand of her husband!

In earlier times, they were doing so with coins¹⁰⁰The farmer gave coins to a third party as a gift that the recipient should redeem his Second Tithe.. They took them and fled¹⁰¹In the Tosephta (4:3), R. Joshua ben Qorḥa reports that the practice was discontinued since many people did not give the coins as gifts.. They instituted that one does it with produce¹⁰²The procedure explained in the Mishnah.. Nevertheless, they took and ate it. They instituted that he should give him the right to one in ten on the ground¹⁰³As explained in Peah 3:8, a square inch of ground can be given to the recipient and the ownership of the produce transferred with it. In that case, ownership can be transferred without the produce actually coming into the hands of the second person who, therefore, cannot eat it. This sentence is not in the Tosephta..

Rebbi Inaya bar Sisai¹⁰⁴He is R. Ḥanina bar Sisai; cf. Berakhot p. 493. came to Rebbi Jonah and said to him, shall I redeem for you with that tetradrachma¹⁰⁵With R. Jonah’s coin, in the style of earlier times, as given in the previous baraita.? He said, if you want to take it, take it. Then he took it back from him. Rebbi Jonah said, I had judged his opinion that if I took it back he would not say anything; therefore I gave it to him¹⁰⁶If there was no danger that the other person would run away with the money, the earlier practice is preferable to that of the Mishnah..

MISHNAH: If [somebody] took from [another] tithe in the value of a tetradrachma¹⁰⁷A takes from B Second Tithe produce with the understanding that he will pay B one tetradrachma which will become tithe money and which B will be obliged to take to Jerusalem and spend there. As far as the civil contract is concerned, the act of taking concludes the contract and the monetary obligation is fixed. But the verse Deut. 14:25 decrees that redemption of Second Tithe is the giving of money. Therefore, the redemption is carried out only at the moment of payment and an additional tetradrachma from the buyer should become tithe money for the buyer, not the seller. Then the Second Tithe becomes profane in the hand of the buyer but not before. (Explanation of כסף משנה to Maimonides, Ma‘aser Šeni8:7.) and did not pay to redeem it until it became worth two, he gives him a tetradrachma, gains a tetradrachma, and the Second Tithe is his. If [somebody] took from [another] tithe in the value of two and did not pay to redeem it until it became worth one tetradrachma, he gives him a tetradrachma of profane money and a tetradrachma of his Second Tithe [money]¹⁰⁸The situation is essentially the same as before but, since it was stated in Halakhah 3 that Second Tithe cannot be redeemed for more than its market value, only one tetradrachma can be tithe money but naturally he has to fulfill his contract and pay two tetradrachmas. Therefore, the buyer must give at least one tetradrachma of profane coin which becomes tithe money; the other coin he may pay either in profane money and it remains profane or in tithe money which remains tithe money and has to be taken to Jerusalem.. If he is a vulgar, he gives him from his demay¹⁰⁹This reading is the Maimonides tradition (the vocalization follows the Yemenite tradition) and the first explanation of R. Simson. Since tithe money may not be delivered to a vulgar, the second coin due has to be profane or from money reserved from demay tithe. The second explanation of R. Simson reads מִדָּמָיו (with the corrector of the ms.) “from his money” and requires that the vulgar be paid 100% in profane money where only one coin becomes tithe money..
If somebody redeemed Second Tithe and did not give it a name¹¹⁴He thought to redeem the tithe but did not voice his intention., Rebbi Yose says it is sufficient, Rebbi Jehudah says he has to be explicit. If a man was talking with a woman about her bill of divorce or her preliminary marriage and gave her [the valuable for] preliminary marriage and did not spell it out¹¹⁵The usual interpretation is that he gave the valuable and said, take this to be married, but not: take this to be married to me. While in general it is required that the person should be named, if it is clear from the context, one may dispense with it following R. Yose., Rebbi Yose says it is sufficient, Rebbi Jehudah says he has to be explicit.

HALAKHAH: The Mishnah does not follow Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel, as we have stated¹¹⁰In the Tosephta, 4:14, this is the majority opinion: “The redemption of Second Tithe is its sale. Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel and R. Ismael ben R. Joḥanan ben Beroqa say, also for a dedicated thing, its being taken up is its redemption.” For these authors, the matter of payment is purely an affair of civil, not religious, law between the parties.: “Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel says, always the taking up of Second Tithe is its redemption.”

Rebbi Assi in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: One does not add a fifth to the second tetradrachma¹¹¹The one which remains in the hand of the buyer in the first case.. Rebbi Eleazar¹¹²This name tradition, found in both mss., is impossible since R. Eleazar, the originator of the rule in question, died before R. Yose’s time. “Staring” is always a sign of disapproval. stared at him. He said to him, why do you stare at me? Rebbi Hila also agrees with it, following what Rebbi Joḥanan said, for any tithe, where not it and its redemption money is his¹¹³While in this case the Second Tithe was acquired by being handed over by the seller to the buyer, this acquisition is not counted for the Second Tithe which may not be sold except for redemption. It follows that by biblical standards, the tithe at the moment of its redemption by A was still B’s tithe, even if it was not B’s property., he does not add a fifth.

How must he be explicit? “This is your bill of divorce, or this is for your preliminary marriage,” and here: “This is for redemption of Second Tithe.”

Rebbi Zeïra, Ḥiyya bar Abun, Abba bar Taḥlifa, in the name of Rebbi Hoshaia, when do they differ? If they thought about other things but if they still were on the same subject, it is a bill of divorce¹¹⁷In the Babli, Qiddušin 6a, the statement is in the names of Samuel and R. Hoshaia..

¹¹⁸The parallel to this and the next paragraph is in Giṭṭin 6:1, fol. 47d. Rebbi Ḥaggai asked before Rebbi Yose: Rebbi follows Rebbi Yose and Rebbi Nathan Rebbi Jehudah, as we have stated there¹¹⁹Mishnah Giṭṭin 6:1, referring to the delivery of a bill of divorce if husband and wife are at different places. Since the verse decrees (Deut. 24:1): “He shall write her a bill of divorce and give it into her hand,” a divorce is not valid unless the bill of divorce is written on the order of the husband and delivered into the hand of the wife. If she appoints an agent, all depends on the instruction of the agent. If he is appointed to receive the bill in her stead, she is divorced the moment the agent receives it. If he is appointed to bring her the bill, she is divorced only when the bill is delivered into her hand. In the second case, it is the majority opinion that the husband may change his mind and annul the divorce anytime the bill has not yet been delivered. Cf. Peah 4. Note 119; Demay 4, Note 83.
In the case mentioned here, the husband refuses to recognize the commission of the agent to receive the bill but appoints him his own agent to deliver the bill. Since the wife’s commission was explicitly refused, the agent is now exclusively the husband’s agent; there are no legal complications. The complications arise if either the agent does not exactly repeat his instructions to the husband or if the husband appoints him his agent without explicitly repudiating the wife’s commission.: “I cannot accept that you accept it for her, but here you have it and give it to her, if he wants to take it back, he may take it back.” The Mishnah is Rebbi’s, as it was stated¹²⁰Tosephta Giṭṭin 6:1. The opinion ascribed in the Yerushalmi to R. Nathan is reported in the Tosephta as that of Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel. But the baraita quoted in the Babli, Giṭṭin 63a, is the same as the text in the Yerushalmi. The Babli also notes that Mishnah Giṭṭin 6:1 states Rebbi’s opinion.: “If she said, bring me my bill of divorce, but he said to him, your wife said, accept my bill of divorce for me. ‘Bring it to her, give it to her, acquire it for her, receive it for her’, if he wants to take it back, he may not take it back, the words of Rebbi. Rebbi Nathan says, ‘bring it to her, give it to her,’ if he wants to take it back, he may take it back; ‘acquire it for her, receive it for her’, if he wants to take it back, he may not take it back.” Rebbi says, in any of these cases he may not take it back except if he says, “I cannot accept that you accept it for her, but give it to her.” It is difficult for Rebbi, “here you have it from my word”, if he wants to take it back, he may not take it back. It is difficult for Rebbi Nathan, “here you have it from her word”, if he wants to take it back, he may not take it back¹²¹The last two sentences are R. Ḥaggai’s argument: If he says, “here you have it from my word,” is that not invalidating the wife’s commission? In that case, “give it to her” is also invalidating the wife’s commission and he should be able to change his mind. For R. Nathan, the argument is the opposite: “bring it to her, give it to her,” can be read as accepting the wife’s commission; he should not be able to change his mind.. Rebbi Ḥuna¹²²In the Babli, Giṭṭin 63b, this is the opinion of Rebbi Abba in the name of Rav Huna in the name of Rav. said, he becomes his and her agent¹²³The Babli explains that in this case, it is doubtful which commission the agent executes and, therefore, whether his action is legal.. Assi¹²⁴Reading of the parallel in Giṭṭin. said, everywhere we have stated “his and her agent”, she is divorced and not divorced¹²⁵She cannot remarry without a second bill of divorce and, if she is childless and the husband dies before executing the second bill, she cannot marry her brother-in-law.. He¹²⁶This is now R. Yose’s (the Amora) response to R. Ḥaggai, that the situation described in the Mishnah here is not comparable to that in Giṭṭin 6:1. said to him, what do you have in your hand, did not Rebbi Zeïra, Ḥiyya bar Abun, Abba bar Taḥlifa, say in the name of Rebbi Hoshaia, when do they differ? If they thought about other things but if they still were at the same theme, it is a bill of divorce.

Rebbi Ezra asked before Rebbi Mana: Is it the same for a gift¹²⁷Are the rules of agency for receiving a gift the same as for receiving a bill of divorce.? Can a person appoint an agent for something that is not his? He said to him, there the Torah gave her the right to a bill of divorce and she appoints an agent to receive what rightfully is hers¹²⁸The husband cannot divorce her without handing her a bill of divorce.. Can you say in regard to a gift that a person can appoint an agent for something that is not his? ¹²⁹From here to the end of the Halakhah, the text is also in Ševi‘it 10:9, Notes 133–134. In addition, from what Rebbi Yose, Rebbi Jacob bar Zavdi, Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan said, if somebody said to give a gift to another and he wants to take it back, he may take it back. Rebbi Yose stood near to Rebbi Jacob bar Zavdi and said to him, is that a just “yes”? They said, at the moment he said it, it was a just yes.

MISHNAH: He who put aside an as and ate for half of its worth, then went to another place where it is worth a dupondius, has to eat another as for it¹³⁰He put aside a profane as to redeem Second Tithe and ate from his redeemed Second Tithe but it was worth only half an as, then half of the as is still profane. If now he goes to a place where his copper coin is worth a local dupondius, or 2 as, then half the coin there is worth a full as and he has to eat another as’s worth of Second Tithe since it was stated in Halakhah 4:3 that Second Tithe cannot be redeemed for more than its wholesale value. (Explanation of Maimonides’s first version, R. Simson, and R. Isaac Simponti.). He who put aside a dupondius and ate for half of its worth, then went to another place where it would be worth an as, has to eat another half¹³¹By the same argument as before, he has to redeem Second Tithe in the worth of half the coin, which now is half an as.. He who put aside an as of Second Tithe eats for it 11 as and 1/100 of an as¹³²Maimonides reads אוֹכֵל עָלָיו אַחַד עָשָׂר בְּאִיסָּר “he eats 11/10 of an as.” This is not the reading of the Leyden ms. of the Yerushalmi, the Mishnah in the Babli ms. Munich, and the Cambridge and Kaufmann mss. of the Mishnah. Therefore, it seems that one has to explain the Mishnah following R. Simson and R. Isaac Simponti, that this part of the Mishnah speaks about tithe money which is spent in Jerusalem. The produce is bought from a vulgar who was seen to have separated (unprepared, therefore pure) Second Tithe but who then put the Second Tithe back into his profane produce since he is in Jerusalem. If the fellow then buys from him, nine parts are presumed to be profane and one Second Tithe. Since 1/9 = .1̄, an infinite decimal, in order to turn the as into profane coin, he has to buy for 10/9 as. This means that “11 as and 1/100 of an as” has to be read as “11 as and 11 times 1/100 of an as”.; the House of Shammai say, 10 in total¹³³The House of Shammai always, and the House of Hillel in the case of demay, do not believe that the vulgar separated First Tithe. Therefore, he has separately to give 1/10 as First Tithe., but the House of Hillel say, if it is certain 11¹³⁴They mean, 11.1̄. and for demay 10.

HALAKHAH: Rebbi Ḥiyya stated, two as equal a dupondius¹³⁵In the military anarchy and later, as and dupondius had long vanished from circulation and their relationship was no longer generally known.. Rebbi Yose¹³⁶Who lived after Diocletian’s currency reform. said, the Mishnah says so: “He who put aside an as and ate for half its worth, went to another place where the coin is worth a dupondius, has to eat another as for it.”

Samuel says, you cannot state that; when he takes one in ten, he has to take one in a hundred. When he takes one in a hundred he has to take one in a thousand, when he takes one in a thousand he has to take one in ten thousand¹³⁷He refers to the statement of the House of Hillel who qote only 11 instead of 11.11111 … The same argument and a similar text is in Demay 7:8, Note 104..

The House of Shammai¹³⁸It is possible that this is an error for “The House of Hillel”. Since both mss. have the same reading, the error must already have been in the common Vorlage. It is more likely that this is a baraita which disagrees with the Mishnah. say, if it is certain 11¹³⁴They mean, 11.1̄. and for demay 10. Bar Qappara stated, both for demay and for certain 11. Rebbi Yudan ben Rebbi Shalom taught what Bar Qappara had stated. The House of Shammai follows Rebbi Eliezer, ¹³⁹From here to the end of the paragraph, the text is from Demay 4:5, Notes 60–62. Since the text there reads: “The baraita follows R. Eliezer,” one has to accept that the text discussed here is a baraita. since Rebbi Eliezer said, he who is trustworthy for the Second is trustworthy for the First. Rebbi Yose said, everybody agrees, they made it like additions to First Fruits. Just as additions to First Fruits are eaten in purity and are free from demay, so this is eaten as Second Tithe and is free from the First. Rebbi Ḥananiah confirmed in the name of Rebbi Issi: it is Rebbi Eliezer’s.

MISHNAH: All found coins¹⁴⁰The Maimonides autograph Mishnah and the Cambridge codex of the Galilean Mishnah add: “in Jerusalem”. But in Jerusalem during the holidays, all coins found are considered tithe money, and the rest of the year coins found in the animal market are presumed to be tithe money since the main use of tithe money is for well-being sacrifices; Mishnah Šeqalim7:2. Therefore, the text here is preferable and the meaning is that coins found anywhere, except in Jerusalem in the few instances enumerated in Šeqalim 7:2, are to be considered profane. are profane, even gold denars with silver or change¹⁴¹Here one could argue that silver and change are the tithe exchange for the gold coin which was the original tithe money.. If one found with them a potsherd reading “tithe”, it is tithe.
If one finds a vessel inscribed “sacrifice”, Rebbi Jehudah said, if it was pottery it is profane and its contents sacrifice¹⁴²A clay pot is too cheap to have been dedicated to the Temple. Therefore, only its contents are dedicated. The Sages do not oppose this statement., but if it was metal it is sacrifice and its contents profane¹⁴³Everybody agrees that metal vessels are valuable enough to be dedicated. Therefore, the vessel has to be considered Temple property (it cannot be a sacrifice). R, Jehudah holds that without further evidence, the contents of the vessel have to be considered profane, but the anonymous Sages hold that nobody uses a dedicated vessel to store profane material.. They said to him, people do not put profane in sacrifice [vessels].
If one finds a vessel inscribed ק it means sacrifice, מ tithe, ד demay, ט ṭevel, ת heave since in times of danger one wrote ת for heave¹⁴⁴This proves the status of anything in the vessel. Again “sacrifice” means “dedicated to the Temple”.. Rebbi Yose says, all these are people’s names¹⁴⁵Everything is profane.. Rebbi Yose said, even if he found an amphora full of produce and inscribed “heave”, these are profane since I say last year it was full of tithe produce but he emptied it.
If somebody said to his son, “Second Tithe is in that corner” but he found it in another corner, that is profane¹⁴⁶We assume the tithe was removed and what was found in another corner is other produce. Since 100 denar (a talent) are a part of 200, one assumes that 100 was taken and 100 remains. On the other hand, 100 cannot grow to 200; 100 must be new money.. “There is a talent” but he found 200, the remainder is profane. “200” and he found 100, all is tithe.

HALAKHAH: That you should not say, since people do not usually act like this, one has to say “profane¹⁴⁷The second part of Mishnah 9; it is not usual that people use an ostracon in a money bag.”.

It was stated¹⁴⁸Cf. Tosephta 5:1: If one found a vessel inscribed alef dalet reš tav, it is heave. Yod mem is tithe. Pe šin is Second. But the Sages say, all of them are people’s names.: Alef dalet ḥet ṭet mem tav heave. א “first”¹⁴⁹Heave is called “beginning” in Num. 18:12.. ד “demay”. ח “its fat”¹⁵⁰An expression for heave in Num. 18:12, 29.. ט “its best”. ר “beginning”¹⁴⁹Heave is called “beginning” in Num. 18:12.. ת “heave”. ב ש “Second Tithe”¹⁵¹Either ב for 2^nd or ש for שני., פ ש “Second Tithe”¹⁵²פ for פדיון or פורקן “redemption”. In that case, the vessel should contain coins of the redemption money (or produce in Jerusalem).. י מ¹⁵³י, numerical value 10, stands for 10%. “tithe”. Tithe for the City¹⁵⁴In Talmudic texts, “City” stands for Jerusalem, not Byzantion., redemption. Those on the name of Yose, on the name of Simeon, to take it up to eat in Jerusalem, are profane; I am saying contributions¹⁵⁵Greek συμβολή. they arranged among themselves.

So far new ones¹⁵⁷Containers with markings on them.. Old ones, I am saying yesterday it was full of heave but he empties it, like this: Rebbi Jonah and Rebbi Yose were partners in a cellar of (wine)-barrels. When Rebbi Jonah died, Rebbi Mana¹⁵⁸R. Jonah’s son. said to Rebbi Yose: Any barrel on which is written “Rebbi Jonah” is mine. He said to him, yesteryear is was yours, this year it is mine. But if he found that on the lid was written “tithe”, it is tithe¹⁵⁹Since the lid is easily exchanged, he would not have reused one that said “tithe”..

Were these exchanged¹⁶⁰Here starts the discussion of Mishnah 12. Why do we assume that what was found was what was deposited?? We have stated there¹⁶¹Mishnah Beẓah 1:4. From here to the end of the paragraph, the text is found in Beẓah 1:5, fol. 60c.
It is a rule that on holidays, only food may be prepared that was designated as holiday food before the start of the day; cf. Ševiʻit 9:1, Note 24. The Mishnah deals with pigeon chicks in one’s dovecot which cannot yet fly. The problem is that he designated some of these chicks to be taken the next day to be slaughtered and cooked and now on the holiday he finds others.: “If he prepared black ones and found white, white and found black, two and found three, they are forbidden, three and found two they are permitted.” Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Assi, this¹⁶²The last clause, that 2 from 3 is permitted. is Rebbi’s, as we have stated¹⁶³Tosephta 5:7 and Babli Beẓah10b, in slightly changed wording.: “Two hundred and he found a talent, a talent was taken, the word of Rebbi, but the Sages say, it is profane.” He turned around and said, this is everybody’s opinion since pigeon chicks usually start to fly¹⁶⁴In the Babli, Beẓah 10b, this opinion is attributed to R. Joḥanan and R. Eleazar and is the final statement. The next baraita is not in the Babli sources.. But did not Rebbi Ḥalaphta ben Shaul state: The same rule applies to pigeon chicks and to eggs¹⁶⁵If he designated eggs in his chicken coop without taking them before the holiday.. Therefore, it is Rebbi’s. There¹⁶⁶To show that there is comparison between the cases in Beẓah and here. The text in Beẓah reads: “there, his father put it there, he found it.”, he put it there and he found, here, his father put it there, did his father find it? Rebbi Abun bar Cohen said before Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Aḥa: Rebbi Abba bar Zavda taught according to Rebbi for Second Tithe.

¹⁶⁷In the Rome ms.: If somebody was worried about tithe monies. In the Tosephta, 5:6, the text is: Somebody was worried about his father’s Second Tithe; the dream spirit appeared to him and said, they are so and so much and at place X. This happened in a case; they found monies there and asked the rabbis who said, they are profane for dreams do not improve or detract. In the Babli, Sanhedrin 30a: If somebody was worried about the monies his father left him, the dream spirit appeared to him and said, they are so and so much, at place X, and are of Second Tithe. This case came before the rabbis who said, dreams do not improve or detract. Somebody was worried about his father’s monies; it appeared to him in a dream that they were so and so much and at place X. This case came before the rabbis who said, dreams do not improve or detract. Rebbi Jonah asked: He is worried and you say so? Rebbi Yose said, is it not reasonable that it does not apply to somebody who is not worried but sees; but here, what the person is he sees. Rebbi Avin said, whoever wants to act, should act following Rebbi Yose¹⁶⁸Dreams are of importance if they are unconnected to the daily activities of the dreamer. A similar statement in the name of the early R. Jonathan is in Babli Berakhot 55b. This is the introduction to the next section, dealing with the importance of dreams and their interpretation. The fact that all interpretations are given in Aramaic seems to indicate that only for scholars are dreams unimportant..

¹⁷⁰The main parallel of this and the following paragraphs is Midrash Qohelet Rabbati 1(15) ff.; the Babylonian parallels are in Babli Berakhot55b–57b. This particular paragraph is in Qohelet Rabbati 1(18), Berakhot 56b. A man came before Rebbi Yose ben Ḥalaphta and said to him, I saw in my dream that it was said to me, go to Cappadocia and you will find your father’s property. He asked him, did the father of this man ever go to Cappadocia? He said to him, no. He said to him, go and count 20 rows in your house and you will find your father’s property, κάππα δοκία¹⁷¹“κ (kappa, the Alexandrian notation for 20) beams”..

A person came to Rebbi Yose ben Ḥalaphta and said to him, I saw in my dream that I was wearing a crown of olives. He said to him, you will rise to greatness in the future. Another person came and said to him, I saw in my dream that I was wearing a crown of olives. He said to him, you will be whipped. He said to him, to the other man you said you will rise to greatness and to me you say you will be whipped? He said to him, that other was at blossoming, you at hitting [time]¹⁷²The Rome text is: בוצינא ואת באבטיחיא that other was “at light, but you among water melons.” This makes no sense. In Qohelet Rabbati 1(16), reads: דין חמא בשעת נצבא ודין בשעת חבטה “That one saw at the time of blossoming and this at the time of hitting.” The time the tree is shaken and its branches hit is harvest time. This story has no Babylonian equivalent..

A person came before Rebbi Ismael ben Rebbi Yose¹⁷³In Qohelet Rabbati and Babli Berakhot, the author is always R. Ismael. and said to him, I saw in my dream that I was watering an olive tree with oil. He said to him, the spirit of that person should be blown away, he made love to his mother. A person came before Rebbi Ismael ben Rebbi Yose and said to him, I saw in my dream that my eye kissed its companion. He said to him, the spirit of that person should be blown away, he made love to his sister¹⁷⁴In Qohelet Rabbati, one eye swallowed the other and the interpretation was that his children slept with one another. In the Babli, this and the preceding paragraph speak of the same person.. A person came before Rebbi Ismael ben Rebbi Yose and said to him, I saw in my dream that I had three eyes. He said to him, you are an oven maker; your two eyes and the opening of the oven¹⁷⁵In Qohelet Rabbati, a baker with the glowing opening of his oven.. A person came before Rebbi Ismael ben Rebbi Yose and said to him, I saw in my dream that I had four ears. He said to him, you are filling [amphoras]; your two ears and the two ears of the amphora. A person came before Rebbi Ismael ben Rebbi Yose and said to him, I saw in my dream that people got out of my way. He said to him, you are carrying thorns and everybody gets out of your way¹⁷⁶In Qohelet Rabbati, this and the preceding paragraph are amalgamated to an unintelligible whole.. A person came before Rebbi Ismael ben Rebbi Yose and said to him, I saw in my dream that I was wearing a wooden notebinder with twelve tablets. He said to him, the stone bench of this person has twelve tatters¹⁷⁷In Qohelet Rabbati, the cover of his donkey has 12 tears.. A person came before Rebbi Ismael ben Rebbi Yose and said to him, I saw in my dream that I swallowed a star. He said to him, the spirit of that person should be blown away, he killed a Jew as it is written (Num. 24:17): “A star went out from Jacob.¹⁷⁸In Qohelet Rabbati, the proof is from Gen. 15:5. In the Babli, Berakhot56b, he is accused of selling a Jew into slavery.” A person came before Rebbi Ismael ben Rebbi Yose and said to him, I saw in my dream the vineyard of this man grow bitter lettuce. He said to him, all your wine will be sour and you will bring bitter lettuce and dip it in the cups¹⁷⁹In Qohelet Rabbati, all people will come to buy his vinegar to pickle the bitter lettuce..

A person came to Rebbi Ismael ben Rebbi Yose and said to him, I saw in my dream that it was said to me, throw your fingers, descend. He said to him, give me my fee and I shall tell you. He said to him, I saw in my dream that it was said to me, blow with your mouth. He said to him, give me my fee and I shall tell you. He said to him, I saw in my dream that it was said to me, straighten your fingers upwards. He said to him, did I not say to you, give me my fee and I shall tell you! When it was said to you [first], [the rain] dripped down on your wheat. When it was said to you next, they became swollen. When it was said to you next, they sprouted¹⁸⁰In Qohelet Rabbati 1(15), the same story is much more wordy, finding R. Ismael in competition with a Samaritan interpreter of dreams. In the Babli, Berakhot 56a/b, there is a story about a Babylonian interpreter who took money and came to a bad end..

A Samaritan said, I shall make fun of this elder of the Jews. He went to him and said, I saw in my dream four cedars, four sycamores, a stand, the skin of a cow¹⁸¹This is then interpreted as a pun, reading תורתא either as feminine of תור “ox, cattle”, Hebrew שוֹר, or of תורא “row”, Hebrew שוּר., and this man sits and steps on it. He said to him, the spirit of that person should be blown away, this is no dream! Nevertheless, you should not go away empty-handed. The four cedars are the four sides of his bed, the four sycomores the four legs of his bed, the stand with a skin, the basis for straw, and the rows the fingers. And this man sits and steps on it: this man lies on them, he cannot live and cannot die. And that happened to him¹⁸²The text in Qohelet Rabbati 1(16) is quite different..

¹⁸³The original story is in Qohelet Rabbati 1(19); a text parallel to the Yerushalmi in Gen. rabba 89(10). A woman came before Rebbi Eliezer. She said to him, I saw in my dream the pillar¹⁸⁴The unexplained word תיניתא is translated following the text in Gen. rabba which has שוריתא. of the house breaking. He said, you will give birth to a male child. She went and gave birth to a male. After some time she came and asked for him. His students said, he is not here. They asked her, what do you want from him? She said to them, this woman¹⁸⁵I. e., I. saw in my dream that the pillar of the house was breaking. They said to her, you will give birth to a male child¹⁸⁶The version here is telescoped from the text in Qohelet Rabbati. There, R. Eliezer himself told her twice that she would have a son; the students made the bad interpretation only the third time. and the husband of that woman¹⁸⁷I. e., you. dies. When Rebbi Eliezer came, they told him what happened. He said to them, you killed a person for the dream goes only after its interpretation as it is said (Gen. 41:13): “It was just as he had interpreted it for us, so it happened.”

Rebbi Joḥanan said, all dreams follow their interpretations except for wine. There is one who drinks and it is good for him and one who drinks and it is bad for him. A scholar drinks and it is good for him, a vulgar drinks and it is bad for him¹⁸⁸This is the end of the story of R. Eliezer in both Qohelet Rabbati 1(19) and Gen. rabba 89(10). In the latter text, R. Abbahu dissents and states that dreams do not improve or detract..

¹⁸⁹In Qohelet Rabbati 1(17), the author is R. Joḥanan. The last story, of the student, is told in the Babli, Berakhot 56b, of Bar Qappara and Rebbi. A person came to Rebbi Aqiba and said to him, I saw in my dream my foot shrinking. He said to him, holiday¹⁹⁰A holiday of pilgrimage, which in biblical Hebrew is called “foot”. is coming but you will not eat read meat¹⁹¹As Sifry Deut. 141 explains, the biblical command of rejoicing on a holiday can only be fulfilled by the consumption of meat from animals acceptable as holiday sacrifices.. Another person came and said, I saw in my dream my foot swelling. He said to him, holiday is coming and you will have plenty of red meat. A student of Rebbi Aqiba was sitting making a queer face. He said to him, why is that? He said to him, I saw in a dream three hard things: In Adar you will die, Nisan you will not see, and what you will sow you will not collect. He said to him, all three are good. In the glory¹⁹²A pun of אדר and הדר is possible only if ה has lost all sound. of the Torah you will be lifted, wonders you will not see¹⁹³In Qohelet Rabbati and Babli Berakhot, “you will not undergo temptations”., and what you will sow you will not collect, what you will have born to you you will not bury.