Talmud for Orlah 3:1

טפילתה חייבת. רב הונא שאל אתרוג שנטעו למצותו מהו שיהא חייב בערלה. חזר רב חונא ואמר אתרוג שנטעו למצותו חייב בערלה. ולא כן תנינן (ויקרא כ״ג:מ׳) ולקחתם לכם ולא מן המצוה תמן ולקחתם לכם בדמים לא מן המצוה. ברם הכא כמה דתימר גבי שופר (במדבר כ״ט:א׳) יום תרועה יהיה לכם מ"מ. וכא שלש שנים יהיה לכם ערלים לא יאכל מ"מ. מה בינו למשמר פירותיו לעצים. כשם שהוא רוצה בפריו כך הוא רוצה בעצו. ברם הכא רוצה הוא בפריו ואינו רוצה בעצו. ועוד מן הדא דא"ר חנינא פרי אם אומר עצמו אין אדם יוצא בה ידי חובתו בחג. מה דמי לה זית שנטעו להדליק בו בחנוכה. א"ר יוסי בר בון זה דבר תורה וזה מדבריהן ואת אמר הכין. מה דמי לה זית שנטעו להדליק בו את המנורה זה דבר תורה וזה דבר תורה. ר"ש בן יקים בעא קומי רבי יוחנן נטעו צד התחתון לסייג והעליון למאכל. צד התחתון למאכל והעליון לסייג. א"ל היא הדא היא הדא. היא צד התחתון לסייג והעליון למאכל. היא צד העליון לסייג והתחתון למאכל. כיצד הוא יודע אמר רבי יונה מביא זמורה ומסיים עד כאן לסייג מכאן ואילך למאכל. צד התחתון למאכל והעליון לסייג גדל מתוך איסור ואת אמרת הכין. ר"ז כדעתיה דאמר ר"ז בשם רבי יונתן בצל של כלאי הכרם שעקרו ושתלו אפילו מוסיף כמה אסור שאין גידולי איסור מעלין את האיסור. נטעו לסייג וחישב עליו למאכל בא במחשבה. למאכל וחישב עליו לסייג לא כל הימינו. נטעו שנה ראשונה לסייג מכאן ואילך חישב עליו למאכל מכיון שחישב עליו מחשבת חיוב יהא חייב. והתנינן רבי יוסי אומר אפילו הפנימי למאכל

a creative task, he should bring a sin offering. Two--he should bring a conditional sin offering. Three--he is exempt [from bringing a sacrifice of any sort.]” Rabbi Yose bar Bon raised the question [thus]: “If you were to say that two [stars indicate] doubt [as to whether it is day or night, then] if one saw two stars on the eve of the Sabbath and [others] warned him [that it was the Sabbath, thus making him liable for its violation], yet he [nonetheless] performed a creative task; [and if he subsequently] saw two stars on the departure of the Sabbath and [others] warned him [that it was still the Sabbath], yet he performed a creative task; then either way you like [he is liable for a violation of the Sabbath]. If the first [set of stars] were [an indication that it was still] daytime [and not yet the Sabbath], then the last stars were also [an indication that it was still] daytime [and still the Sabbath], then he is liable [for a violation of the Sabbath] on account of the last set [of stars]. If the last [set of stars] were [an indication that it was now] night time [and the Sabbath had begun], then the first stars were also [an indication that it was now] night time [and no longer the Sabbath], then he is liable [for a violation of the Sabbath] on account of the first set [of stars]. [Another example:] If he saw two stars on the eve of the Sabbath and partially harvested a fig, [and] if he [subsequently returned] in the morning and harvested another part, and if he saw two stars on the departure of the Sabbath and harvested the [last] part of the fig, then either way you like [he is liable for a sin offering]. If the first [set of stars] were [an indication that it was still] daytime [and not yet the Sabbath], then the last stars were also [an indication that it was still] daytime [and still the Sabbath] and the morning harvest joins with that of the departure of the sabbath, and he is liable [for a sin offering] on account of the last set [of stars]. If the last [set of stars] were [an indication that it was] night time [and now the Sabbath], then the last stars were also [an indication that it was] daytime [and no longer the Sabbath] and the morning harvest joins with that of the night of the Sabbath, and he is liable [for a sin offering] on account of the first set [of stars].” These [stars] that you are speaking of are [only] those whose way is not to appear in the daytime. However, we do not count those whose way is to appear in the daytime. Rabbi Yose bar Bon said: “Just so long as three stars may be seen aside from that [one we call] Kokhvata (prob. Venus).” (This may be a scribal error and the original version may have been: “Just so long as three stars may be seen [in one place, just] as one star [can be so seen.]”) Rabbi Yaakov of Romana in the name of Rabbi Yehuda ben Pazi: “One star, surely day. Two, night.” But does he [truly] have no [time period of] doubt!? He has doubt about [discerning] one star from another. A baraita teaches: “So long as the eastern horizon is reddened, it is daytime. What has been said about the stars, applies to those which are not generally seen until nightfall; for, no note is taken of those which appear before the day is terminated. Therefore, R. Yosse bar R. Aboon says: It means three stars not counting, R. Jacob from Darom (south) says: One star indicates that it is still day; but two stars certainly show that it is night. Is there any doubt of this? No; the doubt can only exist between the stars visible by day, and the other stars. With regard to this, we are taught that it is still day as long as the sky is red towards the east;

Jerusalem Talmud Orlah

Some state this¹⁰⁷Mishnah 3. in the name of Rebbi Meїr. Some do not state this in the name of Rebbi Meїr. Those who state this in the name of Rebbi Meїr hold that ten things sanctify¹⁰⁸They sanctify in the most minute amounts and cannot be lifted. These include the six items listed in Mishnah 7 and the items forbidden in Mishnaiot 3,4,5,6, where Mishnah 3 is counted as one item.. According to those who do not state this in the name of Rebbi Meїr, could we know that he holds that ten things sanctify? Rebbi Meїr follows Rebbi Aqiba, as Rebbi Aqiba said “also privately baked loaves¹⁰⁹This would leave seven items in Mishnah 7 and Mishnaiot 4,5,6 for a total of 10..”

Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy

Jerusalem Talmud Demai

Rebbi Mana said, they differ with Rebbi Eleazar ben Arakh¹³⁶One of the foremost students of Rabban Joḥanan ben Zakkai, whose influence on the development of the Mishnah is minimal since after the fall of Jerusalem he did not go to Jabneh but to Emmaus in the foothills of the Judean mountains. The problem here does not come from the position of R. Eleazar but from the baraita in which he is mentioned.. As he stated¹³⁷Tosephta Terumot 5:15: “Ṭevel mixed with profane produce makes it forbidden even in the tiniest amounts. If it can be provided from another place, one takes it out in proportion. Otherwise, Rebbi Eliezer and Rebbi Eleazar ben Arakh say, he gives a name to the heave of the tithe and takes it out by 101; the same holds if it falls into tithe.” The baraita in the Yerushalmi expresses the same but from another source. The assertion in the Tosephta that one always tithes in proportion contradicts the Mishnah since no penalty is incurred in form of heave of the tithe of the profane produce, as in the Mishnah.: “Ṭevel mixed with profane produce, if it can be provided from another place, one takes it out in proportion. Otherwise, Rebbi Eleazar ben Arakh says, he gives a name to the heave of the tithe and takes it out by 101.” Rebbi Abba bar Mamal said, explain it with kinds one cannot take out¹³⁸Special kinds of nuts and pomegranates and a few other kinds, enumerated in Mishnah Orlah 3:7; they are always sold by the piece and cannot become absorbed by anything into which they fall. Hence, no substitute can be taken out from any other produce and R. Eleazar ben Arakh himself precribes for them the remedy explained in the Mishnah.. Rebbi Hillel ben Pazi¹³⁹A Galilean Amora of the fourth generation, usually quoted in discussions with R. Jonah and R. Yose. His son, R. Simeon ben R. Hillel ben Pazi, is quoted once in the Talmud. asked: Why can he not crack them? Rebbi Jonah said, is one permitted to crack them¹⁴⁰Mishnah Orlah 3:8: If the nuts were cracked, or the pomegranates split,…, they may be taken out (like any other produce.)” In reference to tithes, the same is stated in Tosephta Terumot 5:10.? Did we not state: “If the nuts were cracked,” in the past. That means, not to start out with¹⁴¹If nuts are forbidden because of heave nuts fallen among them, one may not shell all the nuts to reduce them to regular produce..

Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy

Full Chapter