“From all of that is given to you, you shall set apart that which is the Lord’s teruma” (Numbers 18:29). God’s teruma, teruma gedola, must be taken from all of the Levites’ gifts. The Gemara asks: And what did you see that led you to require teruma gedola from first tithe that was taken from grain in piles and not from first tithe that was taken from grain on stalks? Abaye answers: This, after it was threshed and placed into piles, is completely processed and has become grain, and that, which remained on the stalk, did not yet become grain. The verse regarding teruma gedola states: “The first of your grain” (Deuteronomy 18:4), is given to the priest. Once it is considered grain, the right of the priest takes effect and the Levite is required to separate teruma gedola.

The mishna states that if, among the diners, one ate second tithe and consecrated food that were redeemed, he may be included in a zimmun.The Gemara remarks: It is obvious that if these items were redeemed that one could participate in a zimmun. The Gemara responds: With what are we dealing here? We are dealing with a case where the consecrated property was not completely redeemed, i.e., where one gave payment for the principal, the value of the tithe, but he did not give payment for the fifth that he must add when redeeming items that he consecrated; and the mishna teaches us that failure to add the fifth does not invalidate the redemption.

We learned in the mishna: The waiter who ate at least an olive-bulk from the meal may join in a zimmun. The Gemara remarks: It is obvious. Why was it necessary for the mishna to teach this halakha? The Gemara answers: Lest you say that the waiter who stands and serves the diners did not establish himself as a participant in the meal and, therefore, cannot join the zimmun, the mishna teaches us that even the waiter is considered to have established himself as a participant in the meal.

The mishna states that a Samaritan [Kuti] may be included in a zimmun. The Gemara asks: Why? Even if you consider him a member of the Jewish people, let him be merely an am ha’aretz, one who is not scrupulous in matters of ritual purity and tithes, and it was taught in a baraita: An am ha’aretz may not be included in a zimmun.

The Gemara offers several answers: Abaye said: The mishna is referring to a Kuti who is a ḥaver, one who is scrupulous in those areas. Rava said: Even if you say that the mishna refers to a Kuti who is an am ha’aretz, and here the prohibition to include an am ha’aretz in a zimmun refers to an am ha’aretz as defined by the Rabbis who disagree with Rabbi Meir, as it was taught in a baraita: Who is an am ha’aretz? Anyone who does not eat non-sacred food in a state of ritual purity. This is the statement of Rabbi Meir. And the Rabbis say: An am ha’aretz is anyone who does not appropriately tithe his produce. And these Kutim tithe their produce appropriately, as they are scrupulous with regard to that which is written in the Torah, as the Master said: Any mitzva that the Kutim embraced and accepted upon themselves, they are even more exacting in its observance than Jews.

The Gemara cites a baraita with additional opinions with regard to the defining characteristics of an am ha’aretz: The Sages taught: Who is an am ha’aretz? One who does not recite Shema in the evening and morning. This is the statement of Rabbi Eliezer. Rabbi Yehoshua says: An am ha’aretz is one who does not don phylacteries. Ben Azzai says: An am ha’aretz is one who does not have ritual fringes on his garment. Rabbi Natan says: An am ha’aretz is one who does not have a mezuza on his doorway. Rabbi Natan bar Yosef says: An am ha’aretz is one who has children but who does not want them to study Torah, so he does not raise them to engage in Torah study. Aḥerim say: Even if one read the Bible and studied Mishna and did not serve Torah scholars to learn from them the meaning of the Torah that he studied, that is an am ha’aretz. Rav Huna said: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Aḥerim.

The Gemara relates: Rami bar Ḥama did not include Rav Menashya bar Taḥlifa, who studied Sifra, Sifrei, and halakhot, in a zimmun because he had merely studied and did not serve Torah scholars. When Rami bar Ḥama passed away, Rava said: Rami bar Ḥama died only because he did not include Rabbi Menashya bar Taḥlifa in a zimmun. The Gemara asks: Was it not taught in a baraita: Aḥerim say: Even if one read the Bible and studied mishna and did not serve Torah scholars, that is an am ha’aretz? Why, then, was Rami bar Ḥama punished? The Gemara answers: Rav Menashya bar Taḥlifa is different, as he served the Sages. And it was Rami bar Ḥama who was not precise in his efforts to check after him to ascertain his actions. Another version of the Gemara’s answer: Anyone who hears halakhot from the mouths of Sages and studies them is considered a Torah scholar.

The mishna states that one who ate untithed produce and first tithe etc. is not included in a zimmun. The Gemara remarks: It is obvious as one is forbidden to eat untithed produce. The Gemara responds: It was only necessary to teach this halakha with regard to a case where it is only considered untithed produce by rabbinic law, although by Torah law it was permitted. What are the circumstances? Where the produce grew in an unperforated flowerpot, as anything grown disconnected from the ground is not considered produce of the ground and is exempt by Torah law from tithing. It is only by rabbinic law that it is considered untithed.

We learned in the mishna that one who ate first tithe from which its teruma was not separated may not be included in a zimmun. The Gemara remarks: It is obvious. The Gemara responds: It was only necessary for the mishna to teach this with regard to a case where the Levite preceded the priest after the kernels of grain were placed in a pile. Lest you say as Rav Pappa said to Abaye, that in that case, too, the produce should be exempt from the obligation to separate teruma gedola, the tanna of the mishna teaches us as Abaye responded to Rav Pappa, that there is a difference between the case when the grain was on the stalks and the case when the grain was in a pile.

We also learned in the mishna that if one ate second tithe and consecrated food that had not been redeemed, he may not be included in a zimmun. The Gemara remarks: It is obvious? Why was it necessary for the mishna to teach this halakha? The Gemara responds: It was only necessary for the mishna to teach this halakha with regard to a case where they were redeemed, but not redeemed properly, i.e., second tithe that was redeemed with an unminted coin [asimon], a silver bullion that had not been engraved. And the Torah says: “And bind up [vetzarta] the money in your hand” (Deuteronomy 14:25), which the Sages interpreted as follows: Vetzarta refers to money that has a form [tzura] engraved upon it. Consecrated property; in a case where he redeemed it by exchanging it for land instead of money, and the Torah states: “He will give the money and it will be assured to him” (Leviticus 27:19).

The mishna states that a waiter who ate less than an olive-bulk may not join a zimmun. The Gemara remarks: It is obvious. Why was it necessary for the mishna to teach this halakha? The Gemara answers: Since the first clause of the mishna taught the halakha with regard to a waiter who ate an olive-bulk, the latter clause taught the halakha with regard to a waiter who ate less than an olive-bulk. Although it is obvious, in the interest of arriving at a similar formulation in the two parts of the mishna, it was included.

The mishna further states that a gentile is not included in a zimmun. The Gemara remarks: It is obvious. Why was it necessary for the mishna to teach this halakha? The Gemara answers: With what are we dealing here? We are dealing with a case of a convert who was circumcised but did not yet immerse himself in a ritual bath, as Rabbi Zeira said that Rabbi Yoḥanan said: One is never considered a proselyte until he is circumcised and immerses himself. As long as he did not immerse himself, he is a gentile.

We also learned in the mishna that women, slaves, and minors are not included in a zimmun. Rabbi Yosei said: A minor lying in a cradle is included in a zimmun.

The Gemara objects: Didn’t we learn in the mishna that women, slaves, and minors are not included in a zimmun?

The Gemara responds: Rabbi Yosei stated his opinion in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi, as Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi said: Although a minor lying in a cradle is not included in a zimmun, one may make him an adjunct to complete an assembly of ten people, enabling them to invoke God’s name in a zimmun.

On the subject of completing a zimmun, Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi said: Nine Jews and a slave join together to form a zimmun of ten. The Gemara raises an objection: There was an incident involving Rabbi Eliezer, who entered a synagogue and did not find a quorum of ten, and he liberated his slave and he completed the quorum of ten. From this we may infer that if he freed his slave, yes, he may join the quorum of ten, but if he did not free him, no, he may not join the quorum of ten. The Gemara responds: In that case, two were required to complete the quorum; Rabbi Eliezer freed one and fulfilled his obligation with another one, who completed the quorum of ten without being freed.

With regard to this incident, the Gemara asks: How did he do that? Didn’t Rav Yehuda say: Anyone who frees his Canaanite slave violates a positive mitzva, as it is stated with regard to Canaanite slaves: “You will keep them as an inheritance for your children after you, to hold as a possession; they will serve as bondsmen for you forever” (Leviticus 25:46)? How, then, could Rabbi Eliezer have freed his slave? The Gemara answers: The case of a mitzva is different. The Gemara asks: It is a mitzva that comes through a transgression, and a mitzva fulfilled in that manner is inherently flawed. The Gemara responds: A mitzva that benefits the many is different, and one may free his slave for that purpose.

In praise of a quorum of ten, the Gemara states that Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi said: One should always rise early to go to the synagogue in order to have the privilege and be counted among the first ten to complete the quorum, as even if one hundred people arrive after him, he receives the reward of them all, as they are all joining that initial quorum. The Gemara is perplexed: Does it enter your mind that he receives the reward of them all? Why should he take away their reward? Rather, emend the statement and say: He receives a reward equivalent to the reward of them all.

With regard to the laws of joining a quorum, Rav Huna said: Nine plus an ark in which the Torah scrolls are stored join to form a quorum of ten. Rav Naḥman said to him: Is an ark a man, that it may be counted in the quorum of ten? Rather, Rav Huna said: Nine who appear like ten may join together. There was disagreement over this: Some said this halakha as follows: Nine appear like ten when they are gathered. And some said this halakha as follows: Nine appear like ten when they are scattered, the disagreement being which formation creates the impression of a greater number of individuals.

Similarly, Rav Ami said: Two people and Shabbat join to form a zimmun. Rav Naḥman said to him: Is Shabbat a person, that it may be counted in a zimmun? Rather, Rav Ami said: Two Torah scholars who hone each other’s intellect in halakhic discourse join together and are considered three. The Gemara relates: Rav Ḥisda pointed to an example of two such Torah scholars who hone each other’s intellect: For example, me and Rav Sheshet. Similarly, Rav Sheshet pointed: For example, me and Rav Ḥisda.

With regard to a minor’s inclusion in a zimmun, Rabbi Yoḥanan said: A mature minor, i.e., one who is still a minor in terms of age, but is displaying signs of puberty, is included in a zimmun. That opinion was also taught in a baraita: A minor who grew two pubic hairs, a sign of puberty, is included in a zimmun; and one who did not grow two hairs is not included in a zimmun. And one is not exacting with regard to a minor. The Gemara comments: This baraita itself is difficult. You said that a minor who grew two hairs, yes, he is included, one who did not grow two hairs, no, he is not included, and then it taught that one is not exacting with regard to a minor. What does this last clause come to include? Is it not