3. If water was [so polluted that it was] unfit for cattle to drink, if it was in vessels it is invalid [for the washing of hands], but if it was on the ground it is valid. If ink, gum, or copperas6 fell therein and its colour was changed, it becomes invalid. If a man did any act of work therewith, or if he soaked his bread therein, it becomes invalid. Simeon of Teman says: If it was his intention to soak it in other water but it fell in this water, the water remains valid.
4. If he rinsed vessels therein or if he scrubbed measures therein, it becomes invalid. If he rinsed therein vessels that had been already rinsed or that were new, it remains valid. R. Jose declares it invalid if the vessels were new.
5. The water in which the baker dips loaves of fine flour is invalid; but if he rinsed his hands therein [and wetted the loaves with his hands] it remains valid. All are eligible to pour water over the hands, even one that is a deaf-mute or an imbecile or a minor. A man may put the jar between his knees and so pour out the water; he may turn the jar on its side and so pour out the water; and an ape may pour out the water over a man’s hands. R. Jose declares the water invalid in these [last] two cases.
2. 1. If a man poured water over the one hand with a single rinsing, his hand is clean; but if over both hands with a single rinsing, R. Meir declares them unclean unless he pours over them a quarter-fog' or more. If a loaf of Heave-offering fell [on the water]7 it remains clean.8 But R. Jose declares it unclean.9 2. If he poured the first water10 over one place and the second water over another, and the loaf of Heave- offering fell on the first water, it becomes unclean; but if it fell on the second it remains clean. If he poured both the first water and the second over the same place and the loaf of Heave¬ offering fell thereon, it becomes unclean. If he poured the first water [over his hands] and a piece of wood or gravel was found on his hands, his hands remain unclean [even after he has poured over them the second water], since the second water renders clean only the water that is on the hand. R. Simeon b. Gamaliel says: Any creature that lives in water is not sus¬ ceptible to uncleanness.11 3. The hands are susceptible to uncleanness, and they are rendered of the first quantity, but if there was not enough to reach the wrist at the first rinsing, the water may not be added to, but a fresh quarter-fog \t supply must be used.
7 A quarter-fog in quantity and poured over the hands in a single rinsing. The same also applies if he touches a loaf of Heave-offering with his wet hands.
8 Since his hands are clean. 9 Since the water is unclean.
SIXTH DIVISION: TOHOROTH clean [by the pouring over them of water] up to the wrist. Thus if a man had poured the first water up to the wrist and the second water beyond the wrist, and the water flowed back to the hand, the hand becomes clean; but if he poured both the first wrater and the second beyond the wrist, and the water flowed back to the hand, the hand remains unclean. If he poured the first water over the one hand alone and then bethought himself and poured the second water over both hands, they remain unclean. If he poured the first water over both hands and then bethought himself and poured the second water over the one hand, his one hand [alone] is clean. If he had poured the water over the one hand and rubbed it on the other, it becomes unclean; but if he rubbed it on his head or on the wall [to dry it] it remains clean. The water may be poured over [the hands of] four or five persons side by side or one above the other, provided that they lie but loosely together so that the water may flow between them.
4. If it is in doubt whether an act of work was done with the water or not, or whether it was of the prescribed quantity or not, or whether it was un¬ clean or clean, its condition of doubt is deemed clean, for they have said:1 If there is doubt about the hands, whether they have contracted uncleanness or have conveyed uncleanness or have become clean, they are deemed clean. R. Jose says: If [it is in doubt] whether they have become clean, they are deemed unclean. Thus, if the hands of a man u'ere clean, and before him were two unclean loaves, and it is in doubt whether he touched them or not; or if his hands were unclean, and before him were two clean loaves, and it is in doubt whether he touched them or not; or if his one hand was unclean and the other clean, and before him were two clean loaves, and he touched one of them and it is in doubt whether he touched them with the unclean hand or with the clean; or if his hands were clean and before him were two loaves, the one unclean and the other clean, and he touched one of them and it is in doubt whether he touched the unclean loaf or the clean; or if one of his hands was unclean and the other clean, and before him were two loaves, the one unclean and the other clean, and he touched both of them, and it is in doubt whether what was unclean touched what was unclean, or whether what was clean touched what was clean, or whether what was clean touched what was unclean, or whether what wras unclean touched what was clean, the hands remain as they were before and the loaves remain as they! were before. j 3. 1. If a man put his hands within a house afflicted with leprosy,2 his j hands suffer first-grade uncleanness.3 So R. Akiba. But the Sages say: His hands suffer second-grade uncleanness only. Whatsoever renders garments unclean at the time that it touches them,4 also conveys first-grade uncleanness to the hands.5 So R. Akiba. But the Sages say: Second-grade uncleanness only. They said to R. Akiba, Whence do we find that hands anywhere suffer first-grade uncleanness? He said to them, But how is it possible (save only in this case)6 for the hands to suffer first-grade unclean¬ ness without his whole body also becoming unclean?7 Foodstuffs and 2 Lev. i45>a. 1 Since the house is a 'Father of Uncleanness' and it conveys uncleannesa through its contained space. * Specified in Zab. j’.
s Even though they do not render the man himself unclean.
4 Putting the hands into a house afflicted with leprosy.
7 Since, to suffer first-grade uncleanness, a man must have touched a Father of Unclean¬ ness; and if the hands touch a Father of Uncleanness the whole body becomes unclean.
vessels that have contracted uncleanness from liquids convey second-grade uncleanness to the hands. So R. Joshua. But the Sages say: If aught is rendered unclean by a Father of Uncleanness1 it can render the hands unclean;2 but if [aught is rendered unclean] only by an Offspring of Uncleanness3 it cannot render the hands unclean.4 Rabban Simeon b. Gamaliel said: It once happened that a woman came before my father and said to him, ‘My hands entered into the airspace of an earthenware vessel’. He said to her, ‘My daughter, from what was its uncleanness?’ But I did not hear what she said to him. The Sages said: The matter is manifest: if it was made unclean by a Father of Uncleanness it can render the hands un¬ clean, but if only by an Offspring of Uncleanness it cannot render the hands unclean.
2. Whatsoever renders Heave-offering invalid5 can convey second-grade uncleanness to the hands; the one hand can render the other unclean. So R. Joshua. But the Sages say: That which suffers second-grade unclean¬ ness cannot convey second-grade uncleanness to aught else. He said to them, But do not the Holy Scriptures,6 which suffer second-grade unclean¬ ness, render the hands unclean? They answered, Ye may infer nothing about the words of the Law from the words of the Scribes7 and nothing about the words of the Scribes from the words of the Law, and nothing I about the words of the Scribes from [other] words of the Scribes.
3. The straps of phylacteries [while they are still joined] with the phylacteries render the hands unclean.8 R. Simeon says: The straps of phylacteries do not render the hands unclean.
4. The blank spaces in a scroll [of the Scriptures] that are above [the writing] and that are below,9 and that are at the beginning10 and at the end,1 1 render the hands unclean. R. Judah says: The blank space at the end does not render [the hands] unclean until the roller is joined to it.12 5. If the writing in a scroll was erased yet there still remained eighty- five letters, as many as are in the paragraph And it came to pass when the ark set forward...,13 it still renders the hands unclean. A [single] written sheet14 [in a scroll of the Scriptures] in which are written eighty-five letters, as many as are in the paragraph And it came to pass when the ark set forward, renders the hands unclean. All the Holy Scriptures render the hands unclean. The Song of Songs and Ecclesiastes render the hands unclean. R. Judah says: The Song of Songs renders the hands unclean, but about Ecclesiastes there is dissension. R. Jose says: Ecclesiastes does not render the hands unclean, and about the Song of Songs there is dissension. R. Simeon says: Ecclesiastes is one of the things about which the School 1 Thereby contracting first-grade uncleanness.
1 Since they are sufficiently susceptible to suffer second-grade uncleanness.
s Thereby contracting second-grade uncleanness.
4 Since if they touch second-grade uncleanness they remain clean and do not suffer third grade uncleanness - i.e. whatever suffers second-grade uncleanness (Zab. 5 u).
~ The uncieanness of the Scriptures is a rabbinical injunction.
8 They count as connectives with the Scripture within the capsules of the phylacteries (see p. 104, n. 16). 9 A space three fingerbreadths must be left above, and one handbreadth below. 10 A blank space must be left sufficient to wrap around the entire scroll.
1 * Sufficient to cover the core or central roller around which the entire scroll is wrapped.
** Only then does this blank section count as an essential part of the scroll.
Num. ioM1.
14 Of the many sheets which are sewn together side by side to make the long strip which forms the scroll.
782 SIXTH DIVISION: TOHOROTH of Shammai adopted the more lenient, and the School of Hillel the more stringent ruling.1 R. Simeon b. Azzai said: I have heard a tradition from the seventy-two elders on the day when they made R. Eleazar b. Azariah head of the college [of Sages],2 that the Song of Songs and Ecclesiastes both render the hands unclean. R. Akiba said: God forbid!-— no man in Israel ever disputed about the Song of Songs [that he should say] that it does not render the hands unclean, for all the ages are not worth the day on which the Song of Songs was given to Israel; for all the Writings3 are holy, but the Song of Songs is the Holy of Holies. And if aught was in dispute the dis¬ pute was about Ecclesiastes alone. R. Johanan b. Joshua, the son of R. Akiba’s father-in-law, said: According to the words of Ben Azzai so did they dispute and so did they decide.
4. 1. On that day4 they voted and decided that if a footbath, which held from two logs'1 to nine kabs,5 was cracked, it becomes susceptible to midras- uncleanness,6 whereas R. Akiba used to say: A footbath is according to its name.7 2. On that day they said: All animal-offerings8 that have been slaughtered under the name of some other offering remain valid (but do not count to their owner in fulfilment of his obligation) excepting a Passover-offering and a Sin-offering. [This rule applies to] a Passover-offering at its ap¬ pointed time and to a Sin-offering at any time. R. Eliezer says: Excepting also the Guilt-offering; [this rule therefore applies to] a Passover-offering at its appointed time, and to a Sin-offering and a Guilt-offering at any time. R. Simeon b. Azzai said:9 I have heard a tradition from the seventy-two elders on the day when they made R. Eleazar b. Azariah head of the college [of Sages] that all animal-offerings which must be consumed remain valid although slaughtered under some other name (but do not count to their owner in fulfilment of his obligation) excepting a Passover-offering and a Sin-offering. And Ben Azzai added the Whole-offering only; but the Sages did not agree with him.
3. On that day they said: What of Ammon and Moab in the Seventh Year?10 R. Tarfon decreed: [They must give] Poorman’s Tithe.11 And R. Eleazar b. Azariah decreed: [They must give] Second Tithe. R. Ishmael said to him, Eleazar b. Azariah, thou must bring forth proof since thou givest the more stringent ruling;12 for every one that would give a more stringent ruling must bring forth proof. R. Eleazar b. Azariah said to him, Ishmael my brother, it is not I that have changed the order of the years:13 1 See Eduy. 5'. 2 Cf. Zeb. i3; Yad. 43. 3 Heb. ketidnm, i.e. the Hagiographa.
+ When they made R. Eleazar b. Azariah head of the college of Sages. See p. 468, n. 13.
s App. II, D.
6 See App. I. 26. It can be sat upon and none will interfere and say ‘Get up and let us do our work’, i.e. put it to its proper use. See Kel. 203.
7 It is a bath, and so not a thing ever liable to midras- uncleanness. 8 Zeb. i1.
10 i.e. what Tithes must be paid by Israelites living in Ammon and Moab in the Seventh Year (Lev. 254ff) when no harvest is reaped in the Land of Israel, and what grows is owner¬ less property and exempt from Tithes; but what Israelites grow outside the Land of Israel is not subject to the same rules. See Shebi. 61.
11 The tithe which is given to the poor in the third and sixth years of the seven-year cycle, taking the place of the Second Tithe which is set apart (see p. 73, n. 6) in the first, second, fourth, and fifth years.
12 Since Second Tithe is holy, and must be consumed in Jerusalem, or redeemed with money and its value consumed in Jerusalem.
13 i.e. they always give Second Tithe in a year that follows after a year in which Poorman’s Tithe has been given. Deut. 1428 specifies ‘at the end of every three years’ as the years for Poorman’s Tithe; therefore in other years Second Tithe must be given.
Tarfon, my brother, has changed it, and he must bring forth proof. R. Tarfon answered, Egypt is outside the Land [of Israel] and Ammon and Moab are outside the Land [of Israel]; therefore as in Egypt Poorman’s Tithe must be given1 in the Seventh Year, so in Ammon and Moab Poor- man’s Tithe must be given in the Seventh Year. R. Eleazar b. Azariah answered, Babylon is outside the Land [of Israel] and Ammon and Moab are outside the Land [of Israel]; therefore as in Babylon Second Tithe must be given in the Seventh Year,2 so in Ammon and Moab Second Tithe must be given in the Seventh Year. R. Tarfon said, On Egypt, because it is near, have they imposed Poorman’s Tithe that the poor of Israel might be stayed thereby in the Seventh Year; so, too, on Ammon and Moab, which are near, have they imposed Poorman’s Tithe, that the poor of Israel might be stayed thereby in the Seventh Year. R. Eleazar b. Azariah answered, Lo, thou art as one that would bestow on them worldly gain, yet thou art but as one that would suffer souls to perish; 5 thou wouldest rob the heavens so that they send down neither dew nor rain, for it is written, Will a man rob God? yet ye rob me. But ye say, Wherein have we robbed thee? In tithes and heave offerings.* R. Joshua said, Lo, I am as one that will answer on behalf of Tarfon my brother, but not according to the subject of his words. [The rule touching] Egypt is a new work, and [the rule touching] Babylon is an old work, and the argument before us is a new work; let us argue concerning a new work from a new work, but let us not argue concerning a new work from an old work. [The rule touching] Egypt is the work of the elders; but [the rule touching] Babylon is the work of the Prophets, and the argument before us is the work of the elders; let us argue concerning a work of the elders from a work of the elders, but let us not argue concerning a work of the elders from a work of the Prophets. They voted and decided that Ammon and Moab should give Poorman’s Tithe in the Seventh Year. And when R. Jose the son of the Damascene came to R. Eliezer5 in Lydda, he said to him, ‘What new thing had ye in the House of Study to-day?’ He said to him, ‘They voted and decided that Ammon and Moab must give Poorman’s Tithe in the Seventh Year’.
R. Eliezer wept and said, 'The secret of the Lord is with them that fear him, and he will show them his covenant!6 Go and tell them, Be not anxious by reason of your voting, for I have received a tradition from Rabban Johanan b. Zakkai, who heard it from his teacher, and his teacher from his teacher, as a Halakah 7 given to Moses from Sinai,8 that Ammon and Moab should give Poorman’s Tithe in the Seventh Year.’
4. On that day came Judah, an Ammonite proselyte, and stood before them in the House of Study. He said to them, May I enter into the congregation?9 Rabban Gamaliel said to him; Thou art forbidden. R. Joshua said to him: Thou art permitted. Rabban Gamaliel said to him. Scripture says, An Ammonite or a Moabite shall not enter into the assembly of the Lord; even to the tenth generation...I0 R. Joshua said to him, But are the Ammonites and the Moabites [still] where they were? — long ago Sennacherib, king of Assyria, came up and put all the nations in confusion, ' So it was ordained by the elders after the time of Ezra.
1 A rule ordained by the Prophets.
* Through their profaning the sanctity of Second Tithe. * Mai. 3*.
5 Who, because of heresy, was under a ban and so forbidden to have any part in the Court’s discussions and decisions. 6 Ps. 15’*. 7 App. I. 11.
784 SIXTH DIVISION: TOHOROTH as it is written, I have removed the bounds of the peoples and have robbed their treasures, and I have brought down as a valiant man them that sit [on thrones].1 Rabban Gamaliel answered, Scripture says, But afterward I will bring again the captivity of the children of Ammon,2 and so they have returned. R. Joshua said to him: Scripture says, And I will turn again the captivity of my people Israel and Judah, saith the Lord,2 and they have not yet returned. And they permitted him to come into the congregation.
5. The [Aramaic] version that is in Ezra and Daniel4 renders the hands unclean. If an [Aramaic] version [contained in the Scriptures] was written in Hebrew,5 or if [Scripture that is in] Hebrew was written in an [Aramaic] version, or in Hebrew script,6 it does not render the hands unclean. [The Holy Scriptures] render the hands unclean only if they are written in the Assyrian character, on leather, and in ink.
6. The Sadducees say, We cry out against you, O ye Pharisees, for ye say, ‘The Holy Scriptures render the hands unclean’, [and] ‘The writings of Hamiram7 do not render the hands unclean*. Rabban Johanan b. Zakkai said, Have we naught against the Pharisees save this! — for lo, they say, ‘The bones of an ass are clean, and the bones of Johanan the High Priest are unclean’. They said to him, As is our love for them so is their unclean¬ ness — that no man make spoons of the bones of his father or mother. He said to them, Even so the Holy Scriptures: as is our love for them so is their uncleanness; [whereas] the writings of Hamiram which are held in no account do not render the hands unclean.
7. The Sadducees say, We cry out against you, O ye Pharisees, for ye declare clean an unbroken stream of liquid.8 * The Pharisees say, We cry out against you, O ye Sadducees, for ye declare clean a channel of water that flows from a burial ground. The Sadducees say, We cry out against you, O ye Pharisees, for ye say, ‘If my ox or my ass have done an injury they are culpable, but if my bondman or my bondwoman have done an injury they are not culpable’ — if, in the case of my ox or my ass (about which no commandments are laid upon me) I am responsible for the injury that they do, how much more in the case of my bondman or my bondwoman (about whom certain commandments are laid upon me) must I be responsible for the injury that they do! They said to them, No! — as ye argue concerning my ox or my ass (which have no understanding) would ye likewise argue concerning my bondman or my bondwoman which have understanding? — for if I provoke him to anger he may go and set fire to another’s stack of corn, and it is I that must make restitution!
4 The portions (Ezra 48 to 718; Dan. 24 to 628) of these books written in Aramaic.
5 i.e. if the Aramaic portions of Ezra and Daniel, or the Aramaic passages in Jeremiah (io11) and Genesis (3i4J) were translated into Hebrew, the same sanctity does not attach to them. 6 Meaning the ancient Hebrew characters (as found, e.g., in the Siloam and Moabite inscriptions, and on Jewish coins, and, in modified form, in Samaritan writing). After the time of Ezra, the ‘Assyrian’ character (the immediate precursor of the modern square character) was used in writing the Scriptures, while the ‘Hebrew’ character was confined to secular use. According to the Tosefta (Sanh. 47) the Law was originally given to Israel in the Assyrian writing; when Israel sinned it was changed to ‘rugged’ writing (referring to the characteristic form of the letters in the Samaritan script; there is a variant reading which may mean ‘wedge-shaped’ writing); but when Israel repented in the days of Ezra it was changed back again into the ‘Assyrian’ character.
~ Variant: Hamiros, Miras, Mirarn. It is variously explained as ‘books of the heretics (Minim)' or ‘the books of Homer’.
8 When a liquid is poured out from a clean to an unclean vessel it does not serve as a connective, and the upper vessel remains clean. See Maksh, 5®.
8. A Galilean heretic1 said, I cry out against you, O ye Pharisees, for ye write in a bill of divorce the name of the ruler together with the name of Moses.2 The Pharisees said, We cry out against thee, O thou Galilean heretic, for ye write the name of the ruler together with the Name [of God] on the [same] page, and, moreover, ye write the name of the ruler above, and the Name [of God] below; as it is written, And Pharaoh said, Who is the Lord that I should hearken unto his voice to let Israel go?3 But when he was smitten what did he say? The Lord is righteous /4 UKTZIN5 (‘STALKS’) UKTZIN5 (‘STALKS’) 1. 1. Any part [of a fruit] that serves as a handle but not as a protection contracts uncleanness and conveys uncleanness, but it is not included together [with the rest of the fruit to make up the egg’s bulk that conveys uncleanness]. If it serves as a protection, even if it does not serve as a handle, it contracts uncleanness and conveys uncleanness and it is included together with the rest. If it serves neither as a protection nor as a handle it neither contracts uncleanness nor conveys uncleanness.
2. The roots of garlic, onions, or leeks, if they are yet moist, and the nipple-end thereof, whether moist or dry, and the scape that is close to the bulb;6 and the roots of lettuce, the long radish and round radish (so R. Meir; but R. Judah says that a large root of the long radish is included together with the rest but not so its fibre-like roots), and the roots of mint and rue, wild herbs and garden-herbs that can be uprooted and trans¬ planted, and the [middle] spine of an ear [of corn] and its husk (R. Eliezer says: Also the downy growth) — these contract uncleanness and convey uncleanness, and they are included together with the rest [to make up the bulk that conveys uncleanness].
3. These contract uncleanness and convey uncleanness, but they are not included together with the rest: the roots of garlic, onions, and leeks when they are dry, and the scape that is not close to the bulb, and the branch from which the grape-cluster hangs, one handbreadth to either side, and the stem of the cluster, whatsoever its length, and the tail of a cluster that is stripped [of grapes]; and the stem of the ‘brush’ of the palm-tree to a length of four handbreadths; and the stalk of an ear [of corn] to a length of three handbreadths; and the stalks of aught that is reaped, to a length of three handbreadths; and, in the case of what it is not usual to reap, their stalks and their roots, whatsoever their length; and the glumes of ears of corn — these contract uncleanness and convey uncleanness, but they are not included together with the rest [to make up the bulk that conveys uncleanness].
4. These neither contract uncleanness nor convey uncleanness and they are not included together with the rest [to make up the bulk that conveys 1 Modem editions read ‘Sadducee’.
2 The document gave the date according to the year of the reigning king, and concluded: ‘according to the religion of Moses’; the name of the ruler was thus, it was alleged, given an importance equal to that of Moses.
3 Ex. 5-. Thus in the Law itself the name of the ruler, Pharaoh, occurs together with, and before, the name of God, without implying disrespect. 4 Ex. 9'“’.
5 ‘Stalks’ of fruits and plants. The tractate treats, mainly, of the various parts in plants, defining which are susceptible to uncleanness, and which parts serve as ‘connectives’ for uncleanness (so that if such a part suffers uncleanness it conveys uncleanness to the rest, or if the rest suffers uncleanness it also suffers uncleanness); and which parts can be included together with the edible parts to make up the egg’s bulk which is the minimum quantity of foodstuff that suffices to convey food uncleanness.
6 Lit. ‘food’, i.e. the edible portion.
786 SIXTH DIVISION: TOHOROTH uncleanness]: cabbage stalks, shoots of beetroots and turnips, [namely] such that it is usual to chop off yet they were taken out with the roots. R. Jose declares all of them susceptible to uncleanness, but the stalks of cabbages and turnips he declares insusceptible.
5. The stalks of all foodstuffs that are threshed in a threshing-floor are insusceptible to uncleanness; but R. Jose declares them susceptible. If a sprig from a grape-cluster is stripped of its grapes it is insusceptible to unclean¬ ness; but if one grape alone remains on it it is susceptible. If the fruit-stalk of a date-palm is stripped of its dates it is insusceptible to uncleanness, but if one date alone remains on it it is susceptible. So, too, with pulse:1 if a stalk is stripped it is insusceptible to uncleanness, but if one pod alone remains on it it is susceptible. R. Eleazar b. Azariah declares the stalk of the bean insusceptible to uncleanness, but the stalks of [other] pulse he declares susceptible, since they are of use in the handling of them.
6. The stalks of figs and dried figs, acorns2 and carobs contract unclean¬ ness and convey uncleanness. R. Jose says: Also the stalk of the gourd, the stalks of pears and pippins3 and quinces and medlars. The stalk of the gourd [is susceptible to a length of] one handbreadth, and the stalk of an artichoke [to a length of] one handbreadth. R. Eliezer b. R. Zadok says: Two handbreadths. These contract uncleanness and convey uncleanness, but they are not included together with the rest [of the fruit to make up the bulk that conveys uncleanness]. The stalks of all other fruits neither contract uncleanness nor convey uncleanness.
2. 1. If olives are pickled together with their leaves, the leaves are not susceptible to uncleanness, since they were only pickled for the sake of appearance. The fine hair on a cucumber and the sprouting end thereof are not susceptible to uncleanness. R. Judah says: So long as it lies before the merchant it is susceptible to uncleanness.4 2. All fruit-stones contract uncleanness and convey uncleanness, but they are not included together with the rest [to make up the bulk that con¬ veys food-uncleanness]. The stones of fresh dates, even if they are detached [from the edible part] are included together with the rest, but those of dried dates are not included; therefore the skin around the stone of dried dates is included [with the edible part] but that around the stone of fresh dates is not included. If only part of a fruit-stone is detached, that which lies near to the edible part is included together with the rest. If there is any flesh on a bone [to one end only], the part of the bone that lies near to the edible part is included together with it; if it lies but to one side of it, R. Ishmael says: It is regarded as though it encompassed it like a ring. But the Sages say: [Only] the part that lies near to the edible part is included together with it. And the same applies to savory, marjoram and calamint.5