Yerushalmi Maaser Sheni 5:1 ירושלמי מעשר שני ה׳:א׳

MISHNAH: One marks a fourth-year vineyard with lumps of earth, one of ‘orlah with potsherds¹The fruits of newly planted trees, including vines, are forbidden for all use during the first three years; this is called ‘orlah. In the fourth year, the fruits are (Lev. 19:24) “holy exultation for the Eternal”, they have to be eaten under the rules of Second Tithe in Jerusalem or be redeemed and the redemption money treated under the rules of tithe money.
The anonymous Tanna requires that such a vineyard be marked so that people would not inadvertently take from its fruits and sin. For him, one marks the fourth-year vineyard with temporary markings but ‘orlah, which extends over a few rainy seasons, with markers that remain after the rains. Rabban Gamliel holds that we are not responsible for thieves, cf. Demay 3:5, Note 135; therefore, it is only necessary to mark forbidden orchards or vineyards in the Sabbatical where everybody has the right to take the fruits.; graves with whitewash which is thinned and poured²Single graves in an agricultural area must be made easily recognizable so that Cohanim can avoid them.. Rebbi Simeon ben Gamliel said, when has this been said? In a Sabbatical year. But discreet religious persons set aside some coins and say, what is taken from here is exchanged for these coins³If the fourth year of the vineyard is a Sabbatical, the obligation of redemption is not lifted. In that year, scrupulous followers of Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel nevertheless take precautions lest people sin inadvertently. In that case, the vineyard does not have to be marked..

HALAKHAH: Zenon asked Rebbi: How should we state, fourth-year vineyard or fourth-year orchard? He said to them, go out and ask Rebbi Isaac the Elder⁵A Tanna of the fourth generation, companion of R. Nathan, older than Rebbi. with whom I checked the entire Mishnah. He said to them, the first ones fourth-year vineyard, the second ones fourth-year orchard. Rebbi Zeïra complained about the old people from the time of Rebbi Isaac the Elder, that they did not check all Mishnaiot with him.

It was stated: One marks a fourth-year vineyard with lumps of earth because it is temporary, one of ‘orlah with potsherds because it has to last longer; graves with whitewash because it has to last still longer. Rebbi Ḥalaphta ben Shaul stated: If [the ‘orlah trees] were isolated, one hangs amphora handles on them.

Rebbi Zeïra asked, why do we not enumerate all for what they are: As we have stated⁶Tosephta 5:13.: “A dedicated tree one colors with vermilion, houses of idol worship one blackens with charcoal, a leprous house one indicates by burned ashes, the place of a slain person by blood, the place where the neck of a calf was broken⁷To atone for an unsolved murder case, Deut. 21:1–9. The place is permanently forbidden for agricultural use, v. 4. by a stone enclosure.” Is one not afraid that it will be said it is a tree which sheds its fruits⁸The tree painted vermilion; one might come to profanely use its fruits.? Did we not state⁹Ševi‘it Chapter 4, Notes 65–69; cf. Babli Šabbat 67a, Ḥulin 77b.: “If a tree sheds its fruits, one colors it red with vermilion, loads it with stones, and frightens it into producing.” They said, there that it should not loosen its fruits, here that it should start to produce¹⁰This sentence is copied from Ševi‘it; it makes no sense here. The correct answer is given in the next sentence.. Rebbi Jonah asked: Why do we not teach “a line”, like the vermilion line as remembrance of the altar, as we have stated there¹¹Mishnah Middot 3:1, describing the altar in the courtyard of the Temple. The blood of burnt offerings and animal purification offerings has to be poured on the upper wall of the altar; the blood of all other sacrifices goes on the lower part. The borderline is indicated by a red line, one cubit below the walkway around the altar. R. Jonah proposes to make the dedication mark narrow in contrast to the coloring of a misbehaving tree.: “A vermilion line is like a belt in the middle to distinguish between upper and lower blood.” Rebbi Ḥiyya stated, one writes on it with vermilion: “dedicated.”

¹²This is from Demay 3:5, Notes 135–136, where R. Yose states that one does not have to give tithes to save the nonobservant from sin. The statement of Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel is in the Mishnah here. Both Rebbi Yose and Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel said the same thing. Just as Rebbi Yose said, we are not responsible for the dishonest, so Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel says, we are not responsible for the dishonest. It is reasonable that Rebbi Yose will agree with Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel; Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel will not agree with Rebbi Yose. Rebbi Yose will agree with Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel that we are not responsible for the dishonest. Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel will not agree with Rebbi Yose, because it is not fitting for a ḥaver that anything not in order should leave his house¹³This is quoted in the Babli (Erubin 32a, Pesaḥim 9a) in the name of R. Ḥanina (there called R. Ḥanina from Khusistan.).

¹⁷This and the following two paragraphs are also in Šeqalim 1:1, fol. 46a; Mo‘ed Qaṭan 1:1, fol. 80b/c. Similar arguments, in the name of different authorities, in Babli Mo‘ed Qaṭan 5a. The discussion is about the note in the Mishnah that graves have to be marked. From where about marks? Rebbi Berekhiah, Rebbi Jacob the son of the daughter of Jacob¹⁸A third generation Galilean Amora., in the name of Rebbi Onias from Hauran. Rebbi Yose said it in the name of Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Onias from Hauran. Rebbi Ḥizqiah, Rebbi Uziel the son of Rebbi Onias from Hauran in the name of Rebbi Onias from Hauran (Lev. 13:45): “impure, impure, he shall call out;” the impurity itself has to call out and say to you: go away! Rebbi Hila in the name of Rebbi Samuel bar Naḥman (Ez. 39:15): “The emissaries shall crisscross the land; if one sees a bone of a human he builds a sign near it.” [A bone,] from here that one makes signs for bones. A human, from here that one makes signs for spine and skull. He builds, from here that one makes signs on fixed stones. If you say on loose ones, it would move and make other places impure. Near it, on a place of purity. A sign, from here the marks.

It was stated²⁰Tosephta Šeqalim 1:5. This Tosephta follows the Yerushalmi, against the Babli, Moëd Qaṭan 6a, which reads “impure” in the first sentence.: If one found a single marked stone, even though one should not keep it so, if somebody forms a tent over it he is pure; I say a compressed corpse²¹A corpse buried with its head between the legs, so it fitted under the stone. This is not a Jewish burial custom. If the body is not that of a Jew, a person standing over him and forming a “tent” (Num. 19) with his body does not become impure (Babli Yebamot 60b–61a). If only one stone was needed, the corpse must be under it and cannot be Jewish since the previous baraita explained that the mark must be on a pure place. But then at least two markers are needed to define the impure spot. was under it. If there were two, he who forms a tent over any one of them is pure; between them he is impure. If between them was a ploughed strip they are single stones, between them the area is pure and around them²²Any place the whitewash was splashed on the earth around the stone. impure.

It was stated²³In Tosephta Šeqalim 1:5, the reading is: One does not mark flesh or bones which do not induce tent-impurity.: One does not mark flesh, for perhaps it will decompose²⁴Then it is no longer impure.. Rebbi Justus bar Shunem asked before Rebbi Mana: Will that not cause pure food to be retroactively made impure²⁵If the carrier of pure food learns that he has crossed a place where human flesh (without a bone) was buried.? He said to him, it is better that these should become unusable for a limited time than that [the earth] become unusable forever.

The colleagues said, Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel says it correctly, it is difficult for the rabbis! Does one not mark for the day, does he not steal in the night²⁶What use is marking forbidden fruit if they are stolen in the dark of night.? Rebbi Mana said to them, following what Rebbi Ḥanina²⁷In the Babli, Sanhedrin 109a, the explanation is by the Babylonian Rava and the sermon by R. Yose the Tanna. In Gen Rabba 27, the explanation is anonymous, the sermon by R. Ḥanina. said (Job 24:16): “He dug in the darkness under houses, by day they designated for them, they did not see light²⁸In the masoretic text, לֹא יָדְעוּ אוֹר. The version לא ראו אור is in both Talmudim..” That is what the generation of the flood did, they were making signs with balsamum²⁹Greek ὀποβάλσαμον, τό, “juice of the balsam-tree”. resin and came to steal in the night. So did Rebbi Ḥanina preach in Sepphoris; there were 300 houses undermined.

Why can’t he mark³⁰This refers to the last statement of the Mishnah, that discreet people in the Sabbatical put coins aside so that everybody may take the fourth-year fruits.? If it [his vineyard] is marked, how can he be called discreet?

Rebbi Joḥanan said, Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel parallels him who says “in the evening”, as we have stated³¹Tosephta Peah 2:5: “R. Jehudah says, in the morning the farmer has to say: Everything the poor did collect (ms. Erfurt: will collect) from the sheaves shall be abandoned; R. Dosa says, in the evening. But the Sages say, a declaration of abandonment under duress is not an abandonment, for we are not responsible for tricksters.” Since the rules for collecting single stalks are rather restrictive, RR. Jehudah and Dosa hold that the farmer should declare that anything the poor take in excess of what is legal shall be abandoned to them to protect the poor from sin. The Sages hold that we can only force all the poor to strictly follow the rules if they have to fear sinning when they overstep the legal bounds.
The parallel discussion to this paragraph is in Babli Baba Qama 69 a/b. There are major differences between Yerushalmi and Babli. The name tradition of the Tosephta is that of the Babli, the opposite of the Yerushalmi. In the text, the main (Vienna ms.) text, “will collect”, is the original reading of the Babli, the Erfurt text is the (conditionally) corrected reading of the Babli and the original reading of the Yerushalmi. The Babli (in the name of R. Joḥanan) rejects the notion that the “discreet religious ones” follow Rabban Simeon, the position implied by R. Joḥanan’s statement in the Yerushalmi.: “Rebbi Dosa says, ‘everything the poor will collect between the sheaves shall be abandoned’, it is abandoned. Rebbi Jehudah says, in the evening. But the Sages say, a declaration of abandonment under duress is not an abandonment, for we are not responsible for tricksters.” But he is not parallel to him who says “in the morning”. Can one abandon anything if it is standing on the ground³²“In the morning” means before the day’s harvest. Then the grain is still standing and no stalks lie on the ground that it should be possible to define what can be abandoned. Since the farmer does not want to abandon the field, his declaration is void.? Rebbi Jeremiah said, it is even parallel to him who says “in the morning”. Is it not Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel’s³³Chapter 4:6. Even if the declaration by the farmer in the morning is legally invalid, it becomes activated once the stalks are taken up if we hold that the rules of Second Tithe and abandoned stalks are identical.? In addition, he holds that taking Second Tithe is its redemption³⁴He thinks that the entire declaration is unnecessary; but if somebody wants to do it out of religious scruples, he may put aside something of value for people to take.. Rebbi Yose said, is that (Lev. 27:19): “It shall be his³⁵(Lev. 27:19): “If the person dedicating his field will redeem it, he shall add a fifth of its value and it shall be his.” This verse clearly ties the transfer of title to the property to the payment of money. If we hold that the rules of redemption are the same for dedicated property and Second Tithe, then taking up the tithe cannot be its redemption.”? If somebody saw a loaf floating in a river and said, that loaf shall be dedicated, did he say anything³⁶Since he cannot dispose of the loaf, he cannot dedicate it. Similarly, he cannot dedicate stalks to the poor if it is totally unknown which ones they will be.? Rebbi Jeremiah said, before you ask all these questions regarding “in the morning”, ask them regarding “in the evening!” He answered him, he who holds “in the evening” does not have all these questions³⁷Since in the evening all grain has been cut for the day and bound in sheaves, it is now well-defined what is there for the poor and the owner can make any declaration he wishes. The same holds for the discreet religious ones who can redeem the well-defined fruits of their fourth-year vineyard or orchard..