Yerushalmi Maasrot 5:1 ירושלמי מעשרות ה׳:א׳

MISHNAH: If somebody lifts out plants from his own property and replants them in his own property, it is free¹This is neither harvesting nor selling; no obligation of tithe is created. שתלים means “saplings” but this is not the meaning here since it is implied that the young trees transplanted already carry usable fruits and, therefore, are more than three years old. The word שתלים denotes any plant planted, not produced directly from seeds.. If somebody bought standing produce, it is free²While a sale creates ṭevel (Halakhah 4:1), this holds only for produce already harvested.. If somebody collected in order to send to a friend, it is free³Since this is not a sale.. Rebbi Eleazar ben Azariah says, if similar [produce] is sold on the market, he is obligated⁴In that case, the produce could be considered fully processed as far as the original farmer is concerned and is ṭevel..
Someone who uproots turnips or radishes in his own property and replants them in his own property for seeds is obligated because that was their threshing floor¹⁷These vegetables are not processed since they are grown for seeds. Therefore, they are considered harvested. If grown for consumption or sale, they cannot become subject to tithes by being transplanted since that would free the later growth from heave and tithes.. Onions which developed roots in storage¹⁸בעליה “when stored on the upper floor of the farmhouse.” became pure¹⁹They became new plants which in their growing phase are immune to any kind of impurity. and cannot become impure again. If a mudslide fell on them and they are uncovered they are as if planted in the field²⁰Subject to the laws of heave, tithes, kilaim, and the Sabbatical year..

HALAKHAH: “If somebody lifts out plants from his own property”, etc. Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: This is Rebbi Aqiba’s. As we have stated there⁶Mishnah Peah 1:6; Notes 275–276., “He may take from the threshing floor and sow and it is free from tithes until he smoothes, the words of Rebbi Aqiba.” Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, it is the opinion of everybody. The Sages agree with Rebbi Aqiba in the matter of young plants⁷In no way can taking young plants be compared to taking grains from the threshing floor.. What is the difference between wheat and young plants? For wheat, it was the end of processing⁸Threshing is really the end of processing for wheat. Smoothing the heap helps the farmer to know how much grain he has; it is not processing the food.; for plants it is not the end of processing⁹It is not even the beginning since no fruits have been plucked.. Rebbi Aqiba agrees with the Sages in the matter of turnips and radishes because they spoil¹⁰Taking them out of the ground is the end of processing since in the absence of refrigeration they have to be consumed immediately.. Does wheat not also spoil? Wheat admits another threshing floor¹¹The smoothing of the heaps., these have no other threshing floor.

“If somebody collected in order to send to a friend, it is free.” Rav said, he¹²The sender. is forbidden to eat. Rebbi Shammai said before Rebbi Yose in the name of Rav Aḥa: Rav said this in case he brought it into a secure courtyard, following Rebbi Meїr¹³Chapter 2, Halakhah 5.. Rebbi Mana said, our Mishnah implies this: “If somebody bought standing produce, it is free.” Therefore, after it was cut it is obligated. Who is the person who holds that a sale induces ṭevel for produce not fully processed? Is this not Rebbi Meїr¹⁴Chapter 2, last paragraph.? Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, it is from Rebbi Jehudah. It was stated so¹⁵Tosephta 3:8. There, instead of “bundles of fenugreek” it speaks of “bundles of untreated flax.” The Sages hold that people usually tithe these before they send them.: “Rebbi Jehudah says in the name of Rebbi Eleazar ben Azariah, also he who sends to his friend olives from the press, young plants, and bundles of fenugreek, should not eat before he tithed since people usually send these things to their friends as ṭevel.” Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, even if a Fellow sent to a Fellow¹⁶See Introduction to Tractate Demay; even a vulgar will always give heave; cf. Demay 1:3, Note 130., he has to tithe. The colleagues asked, we can understand a vulgar who is suspect; is a Fellow suspect? Rebbi Yose said, is the vulgar not like a Fellow in matters of heave? It really is so: People usually send these things as ṭevel to their friends.

There is no difference, whether for sowing seeds, to abandon property, or [to plant] outside the Land²¹Tosephta 3:8: “If somebody lifts out plants on his own property to replant them outside the Land, either to produce seeds, or to abandon the produce, or to sell it to a Gentile, he is obligated because he intends to remove them from tithes.”. There²²Mishnah Peah 1:6, Note 275. The main objection is from the next clause in the Mishnah: “If he takes seeds from the threshing floor he is free from tithes until he smoothes.”, we have stated: “Forever he gives as peah and it is free from tithes until he smoothes.” And here you say so? There, he abandons everything, here he abandons only the future growth²³This implies that “to abandon the produce” in the Tosephta (and here in the Halakhah) means that he retains ownership of the plant (in the Tosephta) and the core of the turnip (in the Halakhah) and intends only to free the future growth. This is illegal. But irrevocable abandoning a plant to public use frees the plant from all heave and tithes legally and, since the poor profit from it, cannot be subject to rabbinic sanctions.
The Rome ms. has here an addition: תדע לך שהוא כן דתנינן לזרע וזרע לא כגידולין הוא “You should know that is so since we have stated ‘for seeds’. Are seeds not equal to later growth?”. But did we not state “outside the Land?” There is a difference, outside the Land both for the stem and future growth²⁴Since the stem of a plant outside the Land is also outside the Land, he takes produce subject to heave and tithes by the act of taking them out of the ground and removes them completely from obligations of heave and tithes for private gain; this is subject to sanction.; is here not a difference between the stem and future growth?

According to Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish who said²⁵The disagreement between R. Simeon ben Laqish and R. Joḥanan is in Terumot 4:1, Note 10., ṭevel becomes voided by plurality, it is intelligible²⁶If he replants in a way which will eliminate the duty of tithing from the ripe fruits, it is intelligible that we require him to tithe now since otherwise also the part which grew under a potential obligation will be free if the new growth is more than what is already grown.. According to Rebbi Joḥanan who said, ṭevel does not become voided by plurality, he should wait until it is fully grown and tithe for everything²⁷Since the original ṭevel will not disappear, replanting will never free the current crop and no tithing now should be necessary, in obvious disagreement with the Mishnah!. Or might we say that Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish disagree about ṭevel which has this status by a word of the Torah²⁸Wine, olive oil, and threshed grain brought to storage. but for ṭevel which has this status by their word²⁹By rabbinical tradition. everybody agrees that ṭevel becomes voided by plurality. Rebbi Abba bar Cohen objected: Did we not state³⁰Mishnah Ḥallah 3:7: “Similarly, olives for pressing {harvested by the owner by shaking the tree} which were mixed with picked olives {gleaned by the poor and exempt from tithes}, harvest grapes {subject to tithes} which were mixed with grapes of gleanings {of the poor and exempt from tithes}, if he can provide for {the obligated} from another place, he should do so; otherwise, he takes heave and Heave of the Tithe for everything but the tithes only in proportion.”: “Similarly, olives for pressing which were mixed with picked olives, harvest grapes with grapes of gleanings”? Is that not ṭevel by their words³¹The obligation for heave and Heave of the Tithe even for the proportion gleaned by the poor cannot be biblical; if the exempt amount is more than the obligated, the entire obligation is rabbinical.? Rebbi Mana³²R. Mana II. said, I upheld this: Oil from olives for pressing³³Obligated by biblical decree. which was mixed with oil from picked olives.

Rebbi Mana³⁵R. Mana I. In the Rome ms., the statement is attributed to R. Ammi (Immi). The reference is to the first sentence of the Mishnah, turnips and radishes grown for seeds. said, they taught only “for seeds”; therefore, for eating he is free. Rebbi Ḥiyya said in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: There is no difference; he is obligated for seeds or for consumption because this is their threshing floor³⁶Since a vegetable is always tithed when harvested.. Rebbi Ḥanina³⁷He is R. Ḥinena. said, because he would transfer it from second to the poor or from the poor to second³⁸If the vegetable is replanted in one of the years 2,3,5 of the Sabbatical cycle and finally harvested the next year, second tithe of the already grown part would be changed into tithe of the poor or vice-versa..

Rebbi Joḥanan in the name of Rebbi Yannai: If a heap of onions produced roots, if one takes from them on the Sabbath he is free³⁹While the onions are growing, taking them is not harvesting. since he does not want their growing roots. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said to him: What is the worry⁴⁰About the verb אכפל see H. L. Fleischer’s article in Levy’s Dictionary, vol. 2, p. 454. of Sabbath compared to tithes? Did we not state⁴¹Mishnah Kilaim 1:9, Notes 161–162; speaking of harvested vegetables stored in a pit and covered with loose earth.: “He does not have to worry either because of kilaim, or because of the Sabbatical year, or because of tithes, and they may be removed on the Sabbath.” Rebbi Zeїra said to Rebbi Abbahu: Look, what did he say! He said only, what is the worry of Sabbath compared to tithes? So he would worry about the Sabbatical for if he would like them to grow roots they would be forbidden⁴²The next year if that happened to be a Sabbatical year. Cf. Kilaim 1:9, Note 166, that the Mishnah is accepted only for vegetables which did not grow new roots after being harvested. Therefore, the Mishnah there contradicts R. Joḥanan’s statement here. because of aftergrowth; otherwise they are permitted because of aftergrowth. Rebbi Maisha said to Rebbi Zeїra, is that the strongest? If he had stated about a single onion in the hand⁴³The word יד “in the hand” is missing in the Rome ms. it would be fine⁴⁴He certainly does not want to lose a whole heap but a single onion which grew new roots he might replant. If the statement had been about a single onion we could have inferred that there is a presumption that nobody wants harvested onions to start growing again (and wasting their bulbs) unless there is a clear indication to the contrary..

⁴⁵Tosephta 3:9. The Tosephta reads: “If they grew one on top of the other, growing roots in a box;” the roots are feeding on other onions. Even so, they are not considered planted if in a box.“If they grew roots in a box they are in their previous state for tithes and Sabbatical and if they were impure they did not lose their impurity. If they grew roots in storage¹⁸בעליה “when stored on the upper floor of the farmhouse.” they are in their previous state for tithes and Sabbatical and if they were impure they lost their impurity.” They are in their previous state and you say they lost? Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi La: The Torah emphasized the purity of growing plants (Lev. 11:37): “If from their carcass anything fell on any sown seed which may be sown⁴⁶The multiple expression shows that anything remotely similar to sown plants is covered by the purity of growing plants., it is pure.”

In addition, it was stated⁴⁶The multiple expression shows that anything remotely similar to sown plants is covered by the purity of growing plants.: “He should not take out.” If he transgressed and took out? There are Tannaїm who state “he is guilty” and there are Tannaïm who state “he is permitted.” Could he who says “it is forbidden” permit?⁴⁷This is the language of the Tosephta; it obviously was not the language of the baraitot before the compilers of the Yerushalmi. A baraita which reads: “It is forbidden to take out from them on the Sabbath, and if he did he is permitted,” is inconsistent. Could he who says “guilty”, declare free from punishment? It is clear that it should not be: “permitted”. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish holds that he is guilty⁴⁸Since above (Note 40) he questions the dependence of the status regarding the Sabbath from the status in matters of tithes..