Pesachim 52
בַּיִּישּׁוּב לָא עָבֵידְנָא מִפְּנֵי שִׁינּוּי הַמַּחְלוֹקֶת. בַּמִּדְבָּר מַאי? אֲמַר לֵיהּ: הָכִי אָמַר רַב אַמֵּי: בַּיִּישּׁוּב אָסוּר, בַּמִּדְבָּר מוּתָּר.
we do not perform labor in the settled area due to the need to avoid deviation that causes dispute, as it is the custom in the Diaspora to refrain from performance of labor on those days. However, in the desert outside the Jewish community, what is the halakha? He said to him that this is what Rav Ami said: In a settled area it is prohibited; in the desert it is permitted.
רַב נָתָן בַּר אָסְיָא אֲזַל מִבֵּי רַב לְפוּמְבְּדִיתָא בְּיוֹם טוֹב שֵׁנִי שֶׁל עֲצֶרֶת. שַׁמְתֵּיהּ רַב יוֹסֵף. אֲמַר לֵיהּ אַבָּיֵי: וּלְנַגְּדֵיהּ מָר נַגֹּידֵי! אֲמַר לֵיהּ: עֲדִיפָא עֲבַדִי לֵיהּ, דִּבְמַעְרְבָא מִימְּנוּ אַנִּגְידָּא דְּבַר בֵּי רַב, וְלָא מִימְּנוּ אַשַּׁמְתָּא.
Tangentially, it is reported that Rav Natan bar Asya relied upon his knowledge of the calendar and traveled from Rav’s study hall to Pumbedita on the second day of the festival of Assembly, i.e., Shavuot, and thereby desecrated the second day of the Festival by traveling beyond the town limits. Rav Yosef excommunicated him as punishment for this act. Abaye said to Rav Yosef: Let the Master flog Rav Natan bar Asya for this grave sin. Rav Yosef said to him: I punished him more severely, as in Eretz Yisrael they vote to flog a Torah scholar, but do not vote to punish him with excommunication, in deference to the Torah. Apparently, excommunication is a more severe punishment than lashes.
אִיכָּא דְּאָמְרִי: נַגְּדֵיהּ רַב יוֹסֵף. אֲמַר לֵיהּ אַבָּיֵי: נְשַׁמְּתֵיהּ מָר, דְּרַב וּשְׁמוּאֵל דְּאָמְרִי תַּרְוַיְיהוּ מְנַדִּין עַל שְׁנֵי יָמִים טוֹבִים שֶׁל גָּלִיּוֹת! אֲמַר לֵיהּ: הָנֵי מִילֵּי — אִינִישׁ דְּעָלְמָא. הָכָא, צוּרְבָּא מִדְּרַבָּנַן הוּא — דְּטָבָא לֵיהּ עֲבַדִי. דִּבְמַעְרְבָא מִימְּנוּ אַנִּגְדְּתָא דְּבַר בֵּי רַב, וְלָא מִימְּנוּ אַשַּׁמְתָּא.
Some say: Rav Yosef ordered the court officer to flog him. Abaye said to Rav Yosef: Let the Master excommunicate him, as it is Rav and Shmuel who both say that one excommunicates for desecration of the second day of the Festival in the Diaspora. Rav Yosef said to him: That applies to an ordinary person. Here, he is a Torah scholar. I did what was best for him, as in Eretz Yisrael they vote to flog a Torah scholar but do not vote to punish him with excommunication. Rav Yosef did not wish to sentence him to so severe a punishment.
כַּיּוֹצֵא בּוֹ הַמּוֹלִיךְ פֵּירוֹת שְׁבִיעִית וְכוּ׳. וְלֵית לֵיהּ לְרַבִּי יְהוּדָה הָא דִּתְנַן: נוֹתְנִין עָלָיו חוּמְרֵי הַמָּקוֹם שֶׁיָּצָא מִשָּׁם וְחוּמְרֵי הַמָּקוֹם שֶׁהָלַךְ לְשָׁם?!
We learned in the mishna: Similarly, one who transports Sabbatical Year produce from a place where a crop has ceased in the fields to a place where it has not yet ceased, or from a place where it has not yet ceased to a place where it has already ceased, is obligated to remove the produce from his possession, in accordance with the stringencies of both locations. Rabbi Yehuda says that one need not remove the produce, as he can say to a local resident: You too go out and bring this produce from a place where it remains in the field. Therefore, he may partake of the produce that he brought with him. The Gemara asks: And is Rabbi Yehuda not in agreement with that which we learned in the mishna: The Sages impose upon him the stringencies of both the place from which he left and the stringencies of the place to which he went?
אָמַר רַב שִׁישָׁא בְּרֵיהּ דְּרַב אִידִי: מִילְּתָא אַחֲרִיתִי קָאָמַר רַבִּי יְהוּדָה, וְהָכִי קָאָמַר: אוֹ מִמָּקוֹם שֶׁלֹּא כָּלוּ לְמָקוֹם שֶׁלֹּא כָּלוּ, וְשָׁמַע שֶׁכָּלוּ בִּמְקוֹמוֹ — חַיָּיב לְבַעֵר. רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: צֵא וְהָבֵא לְךָ אַף אַתָּה מֵהֵיכָא דְּאַיְיתִינְהוּ, וְהָא לָא כָּלוּ לְהוּ.
Rav Sheisha, son of Rav Idi, said: Rabbi Yehuda is stating a different matter, and this is what the mishna is saying: Or if one went from a place where a crop has not ceased in the fields to a place where it has also not ceased in the fields, and he heard that it now ceased in the fields in his original location, he is then required to remove the fruits from his possession. Rabbi Yehuda says: He need not remove it and can say to the people of his location of origin: You, too, go out and bring these fruits from a place where they remain in the field, as they have not ceased in the fields here, and I may continue eating this produce.
לְמֵימְרָא דְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה לְקוּלָּא קָאָמַר? וְהָאָמַר רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר: לֹא אָמַר רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אֶלָּא לְחוּמְרָא! אֶלָּא אֵיפוֹךְ — אֵינוֹ חַיָּיב לְבַעֵר, רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: צֵא וְהָבֵא לְךָ אַף אַתָּה מֵהֵיכָא דְּאַיְיתִינְהוּ, וְהָא כָּלוּ לְהוּ.
The Gemara asks: Is that to say that Rabbi Yehuda is stating his opinion as a leniency in his dispute with the Rabbis? Didn’t Rabbi Elazar say: Rabbi Yehuda stated his opinion as a stringency? Rather, reverse the statements in the mishna: If one travels from a place where a crop has not ceased in the fields to another place where it has not ceased in the fields, and hears that it has ceased in the fields in his original location, he is not required to remove that produce from his house. Rabbi Yehuda says: You, too, go out and bring these fruits from the place where I brought them, and the crop has ceased in the fields there, and therefore he is required to remove the produce from his house.
אַבָּיֵי אָמַר: לְעוֹלָם כִּדְקָתָנֵי, וְהָכִי קָאָמַר: אוֹ מִמָּקוֹם שֶׁלֹּא כָּלוּ לְמָקוֹם שֶׁכָּלוּ, וְהֶחְזִירָן לִמְקוֹמָן וַעֲדַיִין לֹא כָּלוּ — אֵינוֹ חַיָּיב לְבַעֵר, רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: צֵא וְהָבֵא לְךָ אַף אַתָּה מֵהֵיכָא דְּאַיְיתִינְהוּ, וְהָא כָּלוּ לְהוּ.
Abaye said: Actually, maintain the dispute in the mishna as it is taught, and this is what the mishna is saying: Or, if he brought it from a place where it has not ceased in the fields to a place where it has ceased in the fields, and he returned the fruits to their original place where they have still not ceased from the fields, he is not required to remove the produce. Rabbi Yehuda says: You, too, go out and bring these fruits from the place where I brought them, and hasn’t the crop ceased from the fields there? When he brought the produce back, he took it from a location where the fruit had ceased to be available, and he is required to remove it.
מַתְקֵיף לַהּ רַב אָשֵׁי: לְרַבִּי יְהוּדָה אַטּוּ אַגַּבָּא דְחַמְרָא קַלְטִינְהוּ?! אֶלָּא אָמַר רַב אָשֵׁי: בִּפְלוּגְתָּא דְהָנֵי תַנָּאֵי, דִּתְנַן: הַכּוֹבֵשׁ שְׁלֹשָׁה כְּבָשִׁין בְּחָבִית אַחַת, רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר אוֹמֵר: אוֹכְלִין עַל הָרִאשׁוֹן.
Rav Ashi strongly objects to this: Is that to say that, according to Rabbi Yehuda, did the back of the donkey absorb these fruits? In other words, should this fruit be prohibited just because he transported the fruits on a donkey’s back through a place where it no longer exists in the field, even though it was neither grown there nor is he eating it there? Rather, Rav Ashi said: The dispute between the Rabbis and Rabbi Yehuda is parallel to the dispute of these tanna’im, as we learned in a mishna: With regard to one who preserves three types of vegetable preserves in one barrel during the Sabbatical Year, Rabbi Eliezer says: One may eat all three vegetables based on the status of the first. One may eat all three only until the date that the first of those vegetables ceases in the field. Thereafter, he is required to remove all the vegetables because they form a mixture of the prohibited and the permitted.
רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ אוֹמֵר: אַף עַל הָאַחֲרוֹן. רַבָּן גַּמְלִיאֵל אוֹמֵר: כׇּל שֶׁכָּלָה מִינוֹ מִן הַשָּׂדֶה — יְבַעֵר מִינוֹ מִן הֶחָבִית, וַהֲלָכָה כִּדְבָרָיו.
Rabbi Yehoshua says: One may even continue eating all of them based on the status of the final type of those vegetables, until it is no longer present in the field. Rabban Gamliel says: Any of the vegetables whose type has ceased from the field, he will remove its type from the barrel and it may not be eaten; and the halakha is in accordance with his statement. The parallels between the dispute in this mishna and the dispute between the Rabbis and Rabbi Yehuda are: The unattributed opinion in the mishna is parallel to the opinion of Rabbi Yehoshua: As long as there is an element of leniency, it is all permitted. Rabbi Yehuda’s opinion is parallel to the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer: As long as there is an element of stringency, it is all prohibited (Rabbeinu Ḥananel).
רָבִינָא אָמַר: בִּפְלוּגְתָּא דְהָנֵי תַנָּאֵי, דִּתְנַן: אוֹכְלִין בִּתְמָרִין עַד שֶׁיִּכְלֶה הָאַחֲרוֹן שֶׁבְּצוֹעַר. רַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל אוֹמֵר:
Ravina said: The dispute between the Rabbis and Rabbi Yehuda is parallel to the dispute of these tanna’im, as we learned in a mishna: One may eat dates in all of Judea until the last palm tree, which produces the latest dates, in Tzoar, has ceased producing dates. Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says:
אוֹכְלִין עַל שֶׁל בֵּין הַכִּיפִּין, וְאֵין אוֹכְלִין עַל שֶׁבֵּין הַשִּׁיצִין.
One may continue eating dates based on those that have fallen off the tree and are stuck between the palm branches. But one may not continue eating on the basis of the dates that have fallen between the thorn branches, as animals are unable to reach them there. According to the first tanna in the mishna cited, one may continue eating fruit as long as an animal has access to its type, parallel to the opinion of the Rabbis with regard to removal. Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel’s opinion is parallel to the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda: If the fruit from a certain place is not available to all, one is required to remove it.
תְּנַן הָתָם, שָׁלֹשׁ אֲרָצוֹת לְבִיעוּר: יְהוּדָה, וְעֵבֶר הַיַּרְדֵּן, וְגָלִיל. וְשָׁלֹשׁ אֲרָצוֹת בְּכׇל אַחַת וְאַחַת. וְלָמָה אָמְרוּ שָׁלֹשׁ אֲרָצוֹת לְבִיעוּר? שֶׁיִּהְיוּ אוֹכְלִין בְּכׇל אַחַת וְאַחַת עַד שֶׁיִּכְלֶה הָאַחֲרוֹן שֶׁבָּהּ.
Since the Gemara discussed the point when Sabbatical Year produce must be removed in different places, it cites a mishna from tractate Shevi’it that deals with a similar topic. We learned there in a mishna: Eretz Yisrael is divided into three separate lands with regard to removal, Judea, Transjordan, and the Galilee. And there are three lands in each and every one of them: The valley, the mountains, and the plains, in which the halakhot of removal differ. And why did the Sages say that there are three lands with regard to removal if those lands themselves are further divided? It is so that people will eat in each and every one until a certain crop ceases from the field in the last of the regions that comprise it. Therefore, even if a certain fruit is no longer available in a particular region within the land, it may still be eaten there as long as it is available in one of the other regions.
מְנָא הָנֵי מִילֵּי? אָמַר רַב חָמָא בַּר עוּקְבָא אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹסֵי בַּר חֲנִינָא: אָמַר קְרָא ״וְלִבְהֶמְתְּךָ וְלַחַיָּה אֲשֶׁר בְּאַרְצֶךָ״. כׇּל זְמַן שֶׁחַיָּה אוֹכֶלֶת מִן הַשָּׂדֶה — הַאֲכֵל לַבְּהֵמָה שֶׁבַּבַּיִת, כָּלָה לְחַיָּה אֲשֶׁר בַּשָּׂדֶה — כַּלֵּה לִבְהֶמְתְּךָ מִן הַבַּיִת.
The Gemara asks: From where are these matters derived, that it is permitted to continue eating a type of fruit that has ceased from the fields in a region, as long as it has not ceased elsewhere in the land, but that once it has ceased from the fields in the entire land it is prohibited, despite the fact that it has not ceased from the fields in the other lands? Rav Ḥama bar Ukva said that Rabbi Yosei bar Ḥanina said: The verse says with regard to land during the Sabbatical Year: “And for the cattle and the beasts that are in your land, all its produce may be eaten” (Leviticus 25:7), from which it is derived: As long as the undomesticated animals eat a type of produce from the field, one may feed that type to the domesticated animal in his house, as it still remains in the field. Deriving benefit from that type of produce is permitted. However, if that type of produce has ceased for the undomesticated animals in the field, cease providing it to your domesticated animal in the house.
וּגְמִירִי: דְּאֵין חַיָּה שֶׁבִּיהוּדָה גְּדֵילָה עַל פֵּירוֹת שֶׁבַּגָּלִיל, וְאֵין חַיָּה שֶׁבַּגָּלִיל גְּדֵילָה עַל פֵּירוֹת שֶׁבִּיהוּדָה.
And we learned as a tradition that an undomesticated animal in Judea does not develop on the produce of the Galilee, and an undomesticated animal in the Galilee does not develop on the fruits of Judea. In each region there are conditions uniquely suited to the species that live there (Sefat Emet). Animals wander from region to region within Judea or within the Galilee in search of food, but they do not stray beyond the borders of the land of their habitat.
תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: פֵּירוֹת שֶׁיָּצְאוּ מֵאֶרֶץ יִשְׂרָאֵל לְחוּצָה לָאָרֶץ — מִתְבַּעֲרִין בְּכׇל מָקוֹם שֶׁהֵן. רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן אֶלְעָזָר אוֹמֵר: יַחְזְרוּ לִמְקוֹמָן וְיִתְבַּעֲרוּ, מִשּׁוּם שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״בְּאַרְצֶךָ״. הָא אַפֵּיקְתֵּיהּ?
The Sages taught: Sabbatical Year fruits that left Eretz Yisrael and went to the Diaspora must be removed in any place that they are located. Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar says: That is not so. Rather, the fruits should return to their place of origin in Eretz Yisrael and be removed there. According to his opinion, removal may not be performed outside Eretz Yisrael because it is stated: “In your land,” indicating that this activity may be performed only in Eretz Yisrael. The Gemara asks: Didn’t you derive from this verse that each of the three lands in Eretz Yisrael has a different halakhic status?
קְרִי בֵּיהּ: ״בָּאָרֶץ״ ״בְּאַרְצֶךָ״, אִי נָמֵי: ״מֵאֲשֶׁר בְּאַרְצֶךָ״.
The Gemara answers: Read the phrase as both in the land and in your land. It is possible to derive two halakhot from this verse; one halakha is with regard to Eretz Yisrael in general, i.e., one may not perform removal outside of Eretz Yisrael, the land, and one is with regard to the different lands within Eretz Yisrael, your land. Alternatively, the second halakha can be derived from the extraneous words in the expression: “That are in your land,” as the Torah could have sufficed with the phrase: “In your land.”
רַב סָפְרָא נְפַק מֵאֶרֶץ יִשְׂרָאֵל לְחוּצָה לָאָרֶץ. הֲוָה בַּהֲדֵיהּ גַּרְבָּא דְחַמְרָא דִּשְׁבִיעִית, לַוּוֹ בַּהֲדֵיהּ רַב הוּנָא בְּרֵיהּ דְּרַב אִיקָא וְרַב כָּהֲנָא, אָמַר לְהוּ: אִיכָּא דִּשְׁמִיעַ לֵיהּ מִינֵּיהּ דְּרַבִּי אֲבָהוּ הֲלָכָה כְּרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן אֶלְעָזָר אוֹ לָא? אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַב כָּהֲנָא, הָכִי אָמַר רַבִּי אֲבָהוּ: הֲלָכָה כְּרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן אֶלְעָזָר. אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַב הוּנָא בְּרֵיהּ דְּרַב אִיקָא, הָכִי אָמַר רַבִּי אֲבָהוּ: אֵין הֲלָכָה כְּרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן אֶלְעָזָר.
The Gemara relates: Rav Safra left Eretz Yisrael and went to the Diaspora, and he had with him a jug of Sabbatical Year wine. Rav Huna, son of Rav Ika, and Rav Kahana accompanied him. He said to them: Is there anyone who heard from Rabbi Abbahu whether the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar or not? According to his opinion, Rav Safra would be required to return the wine to Eretz Yisrael. Rav Kahana said to him that this is what Rabbi Abbahu said: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar, and one is required to return and perform removal of the Sabbatical Year produce in Eretz Yisrael. Rav Huna, son of Rav Ika, said that this is what Rabbi Abbahu said: The halakha is not in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar, and one may perform removal wherever he may be.
אֲמַר רַב סָפְרָא: נְקוֹט הָא כְּלָלָא דְּרַב הוּנָא בִּידָךְ, דְּדָיֵיק וְגָמַר שְׁמַעְתָּתָא מִפּוּמֵּיהּ דְּרַבֵּיהּ כְּרַחֲבָה דְפוּמְבְּדִיתָא. דְּאָמַר רַחֲבָה אָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה: הַר הַבַּיִת סְטָיו כָּפוּל הָיָה סְטָיו לְפָנִים מִסְּטָיו. קָרֵי עֲלֵיהּ רַב יוֹסֵף: ״עַמִּי בְּעֵצוֹ יִשְׁאָל וּמַקְלוֹ יַגִּיד לוֹ״. כׇּל הַמֵּיקֵל לוֹ — מַגִּיד לוֹ.
Rav Safra said: Take that principle of Rav Huna in your hand, i.e., rely on it, as he is scrupulous and he learned the halakha well from the mouth of its originator, as the Sage Raḥava from the city of Pumbedita would do. Raḥava was famous for the precision with which he would transmit material that he learned from his teacher. The Gemara cites an example: Raḥava said that Rav Yehuda said: The Temple Mount was a double colonnade [stav], as there was a colonnade within a colonnade there. Here Raḥava used his teacher’s language in describing the structure of the Temple and the rows of columns. He did not employ the common term used for a colonnade, itztaba, but rather stav, using the language he heard from his teacher. With regard to the case where Rav Safra relied on Rav Huna’s opinion and was lenient, Rav Yosef mockingly read the verse: “My nation ask counsel of their stock, and its staff [maklo] tells to them” (Hosea 4:12) and interpreted it homiletically with regard to Rav Safra: Anyone who is lenient [mekel] tells him the halakha. He listens to the opinion of only the Sage who rules leniently.
רַבִּי אִילְעַאי קַץ כַּפְנְיָיתָא דִשְׁבִיעִית. הֵיכִי עָבֵיד הָכִי?! ״לְאׇכְלָה״ אָמַר רַחֲמָנָא, וְלֹא לְהֶפְסֵד. וְכִי תֵּימָא: הָנֵי מִילֵּי הֵיכָא דְּנָחֵית לְפֵירָא, אֲבָל הֵיכָא דְּלָא נָחֵית לְפֵירָא — לָא. וְהָאָמַר רַב נַחְמָן אָמַר רַבָּה בַּר אֲבוּהּ: הָנֵי מְתַחֲלֵי דְעׇרְלָה — אֲסִירִי, הוֹאִיל וְנַעֲשׂוּ שׁוֹמֵר לְפֵירֵי.
The Gemara continues to discuss the halakhot of the Sabbatical Year: Rabbi Elai chopped down a palm tree containing unripe dates of the Sabbatical Year. The Gemara asks: How did he do this? The Merciful One says: “And the Sabbatical produce of the land shall be for you to eat” (Leviticus 25:6), from which it is inferred: To eat and not to destroy. It is prohibited to destroy Sabbatical Year produce, and it is permitted only to eat it. And if you say that this restriction applies only in a case where it has reached the status of fruit, but in a case where it has not yet reached the status of fruit, no, it does not apply; didn’t Rav Naḥman say that Rabba bar Avuh said: Those orla date coverings are prohibited like other orla fruit, as their legal status is that of food because they became protection for the fruit? They are not considered part of the tree that may be eaten in the orla years.
וְשׁוֹמֵר לְפֵירֵי אִימַּת הָוֵה? בְּכוּפְרֵי וְקָא קָרֵי לְהוּ פֵּירֵי! רַב נַחְמָן דְּאָמַר כְּרַבִּי יוֹסֵי. דִּתְנַן, רַבִּי יוֹסֵי אוֹמֵר: סְמָדַר אָסוּר, מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהוּא פֵּירֵי, וּפְלִיגִי רַבָּנַן עֲלֵיהּ.
The Gemara analyzes this: And when do these coverings serve as protection for the fruit? When the fruit is still young and one nevertheless calls them fruit. Dates are considered fruit even when they are undeveloped. Just as it is prohibited to eat these dates during the orla period, it is similarly prohibited to destroy them during the Sabbatical Year. The Gemara answers: It is Rav Naḥman who stated his opinion in accordance with the individual opinion of Rabbi Yosei, contrary to the majority opinion. As we learned in a mishna that Rabbi Yosei says: The grape bud, i.e., a cluster of grapes in its earliest stage, immediately after the flowers drop from the vine, is prohibited due to orla because it is already considered a fruit. However, the Rabbis disagree with him, explaining that fruit at that stage is not considered fruit.
מַתְקֵיף לַהּ רַב שִׁימִי מִנְּהַרְדְּעָא: וּמִי פְּלִיגִי רַבָּנַן עֲלֵיהּ דְּרַבִּי יוֹסֵי בִּשְׁאָר אִילָנוֹת? וְהָא תְּנַן: מֵאֵימָתַי אֵין קוֹצְצִין אֶת הָאִילָנוֹת בַּשְּׁבִיעִית? בֵּית שַׁמַּאי אוֹמְרִים: כׇּל הָאִילָנוֹת מִשֶּׁיּוֹצִיאוּ, וּבֵית הִלֵּל אוֹמְרִים: הֶחָרוּבִין מִשֶּׁיְּשַׁרְשְׁרוּ, וְהַגְּפָנִים
Rav Shimi of Neharde’a strongly objects to this: Do the Rabbis disagree with Rabbi Yosei with regard to the fruits of all other trees besides grapes, that even in the very first stage of ripening, they are considered fruit? Didn’t we learn in a mishna: From when may one no longer chop down trees during the Sabbatical Year, as he thereby damages the fruit? Beit Shammai say: In the case of all the trees, from when the blossoms fall and fruit begins to emerge in its earliest stage. And Beit Hillel say: There is a distinction between different types of trees. The carob trees may not be chopped down from when they form chains of carobs; and the vines,
