Jerusalem Demai

Mishnah

1 The easy ones for demai are shitin, lotus fruit, the fruit of the service tree, white figs, and sycamore figs, fallen dates, fennel, and capers. Also in Judea sumac, vinegar, and coriander. Rabbi Judah says, all shitin are free except those from a tree bearing fruit twice a year, all lotus fruit are free except lotus fruit from Shikmona, and all sycamore fruits are free except those cracked open.

Halakhah

Rabbi Joḥanan said, the Sages enumerated them because the majority of these kinds are collected only from abandoned property.

Rabbi Simeon ben Lakish said, only demai is mentioned, so they are subject to tithing if their untithed status is certain. Rabbi Joḥanan said, they are free whether demai or certain. This poses a difficulty for Rabbi Joḥanan, didn’t they mention only demai? So if their untithed status is certain, are they not subject to tithing? Rabbi La said, since everywhere he discusses only demai, here he quotes only demai.

The Mishnah supports Rabbi Joḥanan: “From Achzib onward it is free from demai.” From Achzib onward, is there not the same rule for demai and produce certainly untithed? Here also there is no difference between demai and certainty.

A baraita disagrees with Rabbi Simeon ben Lakish: “If they were kept in storage they are obligated.” Did they not essentially come from abandoned property? He explains that this applies if most people keep them in storage. Come and see, if most people keep them in storage, it is everybody’s opinion that they are obligated, whether demai or certainly untithed. If most people do not keep them in storage, it is everybody’s opinion that they are free, whether demai or certainly untithed. You cannot consider an even split since we have stated: “Half and half is demai.” Rabbi Zeira said, not only the easy ones for demai but even demai itself.

It was stated: If one enters a town inhabited mostly by Gentiles, if there is a doubt whether the majority keep them in storage or not, everybody agrees that they are obligated, whether demai or certainly untithed. If one enters a town inhabited mostly by Jews, if there is a doubt whether the majority keep them in storage or not, everybody agrees that they are free, whether demai or certainly untithed. If there is any doubt whether there is a majority of Gentiles or a majority of Jews, that is the disagreement between Rabbi Joḥanan and Rabbi Simeon ben Lakish.

These are the shitim: Rabbi Simeon, the son of Rabbi Abba: Those appearing under the leaves.

“Early and late fruits are exempt. These are the early fruits, before one appoints a watchman.” But does this depend on the watchman? Rabbi Yose said, if they are not worth the attention of a watchman. “These are the late fruits, after they folded up the mats. Rabbi Illai said in the name of Rabbi Eliezer, the early ones are obligated because of an assumption that they are being watched.” Rabbi Yose ben Ḥalafta said, shitin in Sepphoris are obligated because of an assumption that they are watched.

If the fig harvest was finished and he watches his field because of grapes, or the grape harvest was finished and he watches his field because of vegetables, if a worker enters there and the owner is offended, they are forbidden because of robbery.

Ulla bar Ishmael in the name of Rabbi Joḥanan: Rabbi and Rabbi Yose ben Rabbi Judah went in to eat late fruits; the watchman shouted at them, and Rabbi Yose ben Rabbi Judah stopped. Rabbi told him: eat, because the owners already gave up their expectations for them! Rabbi Joḥanan asked: He shouted, and you say so? Rabbi Jonah said, he objects rightfully. But does a Mishnah not disagree: “Calamint, hyssop, and thyme in the courtyard are obligated if they are tended.” Hence, in the garden they are free even if they are watched. There, he may say, the entire world is before you, but here, there is one basketful and I am watching it for my employer.

It was stated: “Rabbi Yose ben Rabbi Judah says, fallen dates sold with regular dates are free.” Is it about two boxes, one beside the other or one on top of the other? No, here we deal with a mixed bunch. Did they start to ferment or did they not start to ferment? Rabbi Mana said, we deal with fermenting ones. If they started to ferment, they should be subject to tithing in their own right! You cannot say that, since Rabbi Joḥanan said, the Sages detailed them because the majority of these kinds are collected only from abandoned property. Rabbi Ḥanina said, we deal with nonfermenting ones. If we deal with nonfermenting ones they should be free even when mixed. You cannot say that, since it was stated: “Rabbi Ishmael ben Rabbi Yose said in his father’s name that a bunch of grapes of which one berry ripened, is all connected for tithes.” Rabbi Yose ben Rabbi Abun said, Rabbi Zeira and Rabbi Illai, one adopted the first opinion, the other the second opinion. But the Sages say one does not follow either of them. Those fermenting are obligated, those not fermenting are free.

Gufnān is šāmērāh. What is the difference between Judea and Galilee? Since one has a popular saying in Galilee: šāmērāh, šĕmar mārāh its owner should watch it, would anybody compare it to spices? That means, in Galilee it is free but in Judea it is obligated.

Coriander is kusbārātā. What is the difference between Judea and Galilee? Since one has a popular saying in the South: Coriander is kusbārātā, would anybody compare it to spices? That means, in Galilee it is obligated but in Judea it is free.

It was stated: “Rabbi Judah said, in earlier times, vinegar in Judea was exempt from tithes. Since they made all their wine in purity for Temple offerings, it never turned sour. They made vinegar from the skins of grapes. But now, since wine turns sour, it is obligated.” The argument of Rabbi Judah is inverted since we stated there: “If one makes after-wine and puts in a given volume of water, if he finds exactly the same volume it is free, but Rabbi Judah obligates him.” And here he says so! Rabbi La said, in earlier times when grapes were plentiful, their skins were not counted as anything, but now that grapes are not plentiful, the skins are important.

Rabbi Huna said: Rabbi Jeremiah asked, does this not contradict Rabbi Simeon ben Lakish? Should the total of all lotus fruit not exceed the lotus fruit of Shikmona, making them exempt? Rabbi Yose said, explain it at a place where most people store it. Rabbi Yose the Great asked: Is the entire world not before him? Should the total of all lotus fruit not exceed the lotus fruit of this place, making them exempt?

Mishnah

2 Demai is not subject to a fifth or to elimination, it may be eaten by a strict mourner, it may enter Jerusalem and leave it, and one may destroy a small part of it on the road; he may give it to the am haʾaretz if he eats correspondingly, he may redeem silver for silver, copper for copper, silver for copper, and copper for produce if he again redeems the produce, the words of Rabbi Meir. But the Sages say, produce should be brought up and eaten in Jerusalem.

Halakhah

Not following the High Priest Joḥanan who abolished the declaration of tithes. He abolished the declaration but one still has to eliminate, that is, eliminate the sure tithes. But demai one does not have to eliminate.

It was stated: It may be eaten in strict mourning but not in impurity. What is the difference between strict mourning and impurity? Rav Naḥman said, impurity is frequent, strict mourning is infrequent. They made a decree for a frequent situation, they did not decree for an infrequent situation. Rabbi Yose said, they did not even make it similar to a case of possible tevel. Since for a case of possible tevel, whether Second Tithe was properly separated or perhaps was not properly separated, is that not forbidden for the strict mourner? But here, it is permitted to the mourner.

There, we have stated: “Heave, the heave of the tithe, and the heave of the tithe of demai.” And here you say so! Rabbi Zeira said, there we have stated heave of the tithe of demai but here Second Tithe of demai. Rabbi Immi said, the Mishnah does not stop to deal with the heave of the tithe of demai. What is that? There it is Rabbi Meir, but here the rabbis. Rabbi Zeira said in the name of the rabbis: It would have been logical that for the heave of the tithe of demai one would not have to add a fifth; why did they say that one has to add a fifth? As a safeguard for it, for if you tell him that he does not have to add, he will not treat it as holy. It would have been logical that for the Second Tithe of demai one would have to add a fifth; why did they say that one does not have to add a fifth? As a safeguard for it, for if you tell him that he has to add, he will not separate it at all.

Rabbi Abun bar Ḥiyya asked Rabbi La: Why demai and not also what is certain, why a little bit, maybe the greater part? Did we not state: One does not bring the heave from the threshing floor to town, or from the prairie to cultivated land, except in a place where an animal would drag it away; in that case he brings it and takes money from the tribe. He said to him, is there not a commandment to return lost property? Rabbi Yose said, it is a commandment to return lost property in small matters; it is not a commandment to return in large matters, except if it is certain; it is not a commandment to return demai since we have stated: “one may destroy a small part of it on the road.” So far, if he had no money in hand. What if he had money in hand? Rabbi Neḥumai, the son of Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba, said, my father had money in a double sack and he did not redeem. It turns out that Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba holds with Rabbi Zeira and Rabbi Aḥa with Rabbi Immi.

In the house of Rabbi Yannai they said, if it is in crumbs one is permitted to waste in amounts less than a meal, but whole foods only up to the volume of a dried fig. Rabbi Joḥanan in the name of Rabbi Simeon ben Jehozadak: If it is whole, up to the volume of a dried fig, in crumbs any amount. Is that their difference? Rabbi Mana said, is not the following their difference: In the house of Rabbi Yannai they said, if it is in crumbs one is permitted to waste in amounts less than a meal, whole foods only up to the volume of a dried fig. Rabbi Joḥanan in the name of Rabbi Simeon ben Jehozadak, whether it is whole or in crumbs, up to the volume of a dried fig.

Rabbi Hoshaiah asked: May one allow a small amount to go to waste? One may give it to the am haʾaretz and eat from demai accordingly. But not for certain food, since one does not hand over certain food to the am haʾaretz.

Mishnah

3 Anyone who buys produce for seed or animal fodder, flour for tanning, oil for lighting, or oil to rub on vessels, is free from demai. From Achzib onward he is free from demai. Ḥallah of the am haʾaretz, food containing heave, food bought with money of the Second Tithe, and the remainders of flour sacrifices are free from demai. Sweet oil, the House of Shammai declare it obligated but the House of Hillel declare it free.

Halakhah

Since he bought it as seeds there is no difference whether it is something of which the seed disappears or something of which the seed does not disappear. Rabbi Johanan said, we have stated this: “If he bought as seeds and then changed his mind to use them for consumption, they become subject to tithing through his intention. If he bought for consumption and then changed his mind to use them as seeds, not all is from him.”

It was stated: One does not sow tevel, one may not cover tevel, but one covers tevel with a Gentile. If one forgot and sowed tevel, he is free, for it is already lost if it is something that usually is not collected; but for something that usually is collected, he is fined to collect it before it sprouts. But if it sprouted, it becomes something that is not usually collected.

They said that Rabbi Joḥanan was putting in order everything he ate, even red meat, even an egg. His students said to him: Did our teacher not teach us: “You shall certainly tithe all the yield of your field.Deuteronomy 14:22” He was worried about the fluids in it.

Rabbi Jeremiah sent Rabbi Zeira a basket of figs that were not put in order. Rabbi Jeremiah said to himself, would Rabbi Zeira eat anything that was not put in order? Rabbi Zeira said to himself, it is impossible that Rabbi Jeremiah would send me anything that was not put in order. In the meantime, tevel was eaten. The next day, when he was with him, he asked him: Was that basket you sent me put in order? He answered him, I said, would Rabbi Zeira eat anything that was not put in order? He answered, I also said, would Rabbi Jeremiah send me anything that was not put in order? Rabbi Abba bar Zemina said in the name of Rabbi Zeira: If the earlier generations were angels, we are men; if they were men, we are donkeys. Rabbi Mana said, at that moment they said, we are not even comparable to the female donkey of Rabbi Phinehas ben Yair.

Thieves stole the female donkey of Rabbi Phinehas ben Yair at night. She was hidden with them for three days during which she did not eat anything. After three days, they decided to return her to her master. They said, let us send her to her master so that she does not die here and foul up the cave. They let her out; she stood at her master’s door and started braying. He said to them, open to that poor creature because she has not tasted anything for three days. They opened for her and she entered. He said to them, give her something to eat. They put oats before her but she did not eat. They said to him, rabbi, she does not want to eat. He asked them, did you put it in order? They said: Yes. He asked them, did you remove its demai? They said, did the rabbi not teach us: “Anyone who buys produce for seed or animal fodder, flour for tanning, oil for lighting, or oil to rub vessels, is free from demai.” He said to them, what can we do with this poor creature since she is very restrictive for herself? They removed the demai and she ate.

Two poor people entrusted two se’ah of barley to Rabbi Phinehas ben Yair; he sowed them and harvested them. They came to him and wanted to take their barley. He said to them, bring camels and donkeys to carry their barley.

Rabbi Phinehas ben Yair went to a place where they came to him and said, rats are eating our grain. He commanded them; they assembled and started to whistle. He asked them, do you understand what they are saying? They said, no. He said to them, they say that it is not put in order. They said to him, be our guarantor. He promised and they had no further losses.

A pearl of the king of the Saracens fell and was swallowed by a rat. He came to Rabbi Phinehas ben Yair, who said to him, am I a sorcerer? He answered, I came because of your good name. He commanded them; they assembled. He saw one coming that was hunchbacked. He said, it is in this one; he gave the rat a command and it spat out the pearl.

Rabbi Phinehas ben Yair went to a place where they came to him and said, our water source is not sufficient for us. He said to them, perhaps you do not put in order? They said to him, be our guarantor. He promised them and it became sufficient for them.

Rabbi Phinehas ben Yair went to the House of Assembly when Ginai overflowed. He said: Ginai, Ginai, why do you prevent me from going to the House of Assembly? It split before him and he crossed it. His students asked him, may we cross also? He said to them, anyone who knows that he has never slighted a Jew may cross and will not be harmed.

Rabbi wanted to permit the Sabbatical year. Rabbi Phinehas ben Yair went to him. He said to him: how is the grain doing? He answered him: endives are doing fine. He said to him: how is the grain doing? He answered him: endives are doing fine. From this, Rabbi understood that he did not agree with him. He said to him: Would the rabbi care to eat a bite with me today? He said to him, yes. When he came, he saw the female mules of Rabbi standing. He said, are all these fed by Jews? He will not see me again! They went and told this to Rabbi. Rabbi sent and wanted to pacify him. They found him in his city. He said, the people of my city should come close to me. The people of his city came and surrounded him. They said to them, Rabbi wants to make peace with him. They left him and went away. He said, my cousins should come close to me. Fire descended from Heaven and surrounded him. They returned and told Rabbi. He said, since we did not deserve to eat our fill from him in this world, may we be worthy to eat our fill from him in the World to Come.

Rabbi Ḥaggai in the name of Rabbi Samuel bar Naḥman: It happened that a pious person used to dig cisterns, ditches, and caves for travelers. Once, his daughter traveled to marry and she was swept away by a river. Everyone came to him and wanted to console him, but he refused to be consoled. Rabbi Phinehas ben Yair came to him and wanted to console him, but he refused to be consoled. He told them, is that your pious man? They said to him: Rabbi, he did such and such, and such and such happened to him. He replied: It is impossible that he would honor his Creator through water and He would hurt him through water! Immediately, a rumor started in the town that the pious man’s daughter had returned. Some say, she got trapped in a hedge of thorns, others say that an angel came in the appearance of Rabbi Phinehas ben Yair and saved her.

Rabbi Ḥanina ben Dosa was sitting down to eat on Friday night when the table sank before him. They said to him, what is that? She said to him, I borrowed spices from my neighbor and forgot to give tithes from it. He mentioned a condition and the table rose by itself.

Rabbi Tarfon sat down to eat when he dropped his bread. They asked him, what is this? He said to them, I borrowed an axe and I prepared food in purity with it.

“Wine for brine, wine for perfume, legumes to make into powder are subject to demai, not to mention if they are certain. They themselves are free from demai.” What case are we discussing? According to Rabbi, they should be subject to demai, according to Rabbi Eleazar ben Rabbi Simeon, even if certain they should be free. But we follow Rabbi, we say we are dealing with the easy ones, for which they eased the rules of demai.

“Wine for eye medication, flour to make into wound dressing, are obligated if they are certain and one does not have to mention that they are under the rules of demai. They themselves are free if certain.” Here you say, free if certain, and there you say, free from demai. Here it disappears by itself, there it disappears when used.

Did we not state: “Eye medication from a pagan temple is forbidden to use”? There is a difference, since it is written: “Nothing banned should stick to your hands.Deuteronomy 13:17” What is the difference between this and grape skins from Gentiles? Are these not also forbidden to use? But dried skins are not forbidden because of idolatrous use.

“From Achzib onward it is free from demai.” What is the status of Achzib itself? It was stated: “Achzib itself is free from demai.”

“He who buys from a donkey caravan at Tyre and from the chest at Sidon is obligated.” Hence, from the donkey caravan at Sidon and from the chest at Tyre it is free. From a single donkey at Tyre. A donkey caravan that entered Tyre through Achzib? Come and see, if it were standing at Achzib it would be free, now that it entered Tyre would it be obligated?

Rabbi Joḥanan said: When they decreed demai, they did not decree about these matters. Rabbi Hoshaiah said, the fear of sacred things is on him and he will not give to the priest anything that is not in order. “Ḥallah of the am haʾaretz,” according to Rabbi Hoshaiah, the Mishnah deals with the ḥallah of an am haʾaretz. But a ḥaver who bought dough from an am haʾaretz and gave ḥallah is not covered. According to Rabbi Joḥanan, the two cases are identical. “And food containing heave,” according to Rabbi Hoshaiah, the Mishnah deals with produce of an am haʾaretz. But if a ḥaver bought produce from an am haʾaretz and it became mixed with heave, he is not covered. According to Rabbi Joḥanan, the two cases are identical. What is the difference between their views? One seah that was lifted from among 100 seah, according to Rabbi Joḥanan it is obligated, according to Rabbi Hoshaiah it is free.

It was stated: “All of these, if he gave a name to their heave of the tithe or Second Tithe, what he did is done.” According to Rabbi Joḥanan, this is fine. According to Rabbi Hoshaiah, they are in order, and you say so? Because of one who is unscrupulous about sacred things. It was stated: “All of these, if he gave a name to their heave of the tithe or Second Tithe, what he did is done, because of one who does not put in order.”

Rabbi Abun bar Ḥiyya asked Rabbi Zeira: So far with money of tithes of demai? Even if it is certain!

It was stated: “All of these, if he gave a name to their heave of the tithe or Second Tithe, what he did is done.” Rabbi Eleazar said, with the exception of the remainders of flour sacrifices. Rabbi Jeremiah said, the rest is in dispute. Rabbi Yose asked, what dispute? What case are we discussing? If according to Rabbi Meir, both for tithes and for the remainders of flour sacrifices, he did not do anything. If according to Rabbi Judah, what he did is done. Rabbi Mana said, I went to Caesarea and heard Rabbi Ḥizkiah who was sitting there, stating: “If a priest marries by means of his share in the holiest sacrifices or simple holy sacrifices, the marriage is not valid.” Rabbi Eleazar said, that is everybody’s opinion. Rabbi Joḥanan said, it is in dispute. I said to him, from whom did the rabbi hear this, and he said, from Rabbi Jeremiah. I said, this explains the matter! Rabbi Jeremiah, who heard that Rabbi Eleazar said, it is everybody’s opinion, he says it is in dispute. Rabbi Yose, who did not hear that, asked which dispute? If according to Rabbi Meir, both for Second Tithe and for the remainders of flour sacrifices, he did not do anything, if according to Rabbi Judah, what he did is done.

It was stated: Rabbi Judah said, the House of Hillel freed only spikenard oil. Others say in the name of Rabbi Nathan, the House of Hillel obligated oil perfumed with rose or iris.

Mishnah

4 With demai, one may make eruv, participate, recite grace, and recite grace in a group. One may separate it while naked or at twilight. And if one lifted the Second Tithe before the First, it is also acceptable. The oil the weaver puts on his hands is obligated for demai, the oil that the carder puts on wool is free from demai.

Halakhah

One may separate it while naked because it does not need a blessing.

Around twilight, that is what we have stated: “If it is doubtful whether it is night or not.”

Rabbi Ḥalafta ben Shaul stated: One may redeem demai in the bathhouse since it does not need a blessing. Hence, if the produce is certain it needs a blessing. Rabbi Mana asked Rabbi Judan, what does he recite? If it was produce, “on the redemption of Second Tithe,” if it was money, “on turning Second Tithe profane.”

“If one lifted the Second Tithe before the First, it is also acceptable.” Hence, one should not do it on purpose. Rabbi Abba, son of Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba, Rabbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rabbi Joḥanan, one may make the Second precede the First in demai. Rabbi Jacob bar Aḥa bar Idi in the name of Rabbi Joshua ben Levi: One should not do it, but if he did, what he did is valid.

May one determine the Second in place of the First? His sharecropper brought fruits to Rabbi Yose ben Shaul. He said to him, go and fix a place for the Second. He returned, and he told him, go and fix a place for the First. Should he not worry that maybe the Second was fixed at a place reserved for the First? This means that it is permitted to determine the Second in place of the First.

Ulla bar Ishmael in the name of Rabbi Joḥanan: A person may free his tevel with one seah of tevel. How does he do it? He brings one seah of tevel and declares it to be Second Tithe, redeems it, and returns to make it heave of the tithe for any other place. Ulla descended there and said this in the name of Rabbi Joḥanan, but they united against him. Rav Sheshet objected, does not a Mishnah contradict: “If he had before him two baskets full of figs.” And we have stated about this: “He takes from the second basket two figs and two tenths, and a tenth of a tenth.” Why can he not take two figs, declare them to be Second Tithe, redeem them, and return to make them heave of the tithe for any other place? Rabbi Mana said, is not the Second Tithe in the first basket containing First Tithe of the second basket? Rabbi Ḥananiah said, there it is tevel for the First and Second. But here, Second Tithe that was put in order after First, can you return and make it First?

“The oil that the weaver puts on his hands is obligated for demai, the oil that the carder puts on wool is free from demai.” What is the difference between one case and the other? The first disappears on his body, the latter disappears on the wool.

Mishnah

1 The following must be tithed as demai everywhere: Fig cakes, dates, carobs, rice, and cumin. Rice from outside the Land is free for everybody who uses it.

Halakhah

There, we have stated: “Garlic from Baalbek, onions from Rikhpah, split beans from Cilicia, and Egyptian lentils.” Because these kinds also grow in the Land of Israel, the Sages had to attach marks to them. “But filberts, pistachios, and pine nuts, since these kinds do not grow in the Land of Israel, the Sages did not have to attach marks to them.” Rabbi Abun said, the Mishnah is the opposite regarding the obligation of these kinds; since these kinds do not grow outside of the Land, the Sages had to enumerate them. But is there not fig cake from Bosra? It is pounded. But dates from Alexandria? They are thin. But carob from Kiari? It is cut. But rice from the Ḥolata? It has more numerous kernels and is reddish. But cumin from Cyprus? It is curved.

Rabbi Lazar said, they stated the Mishnah only for him who buys from a Gentile, but for him who buys from a Jew it is demai. Rabbi Joḥanan said, there is no difference, whether one buys from a Jew or from a Gentile it is demai. Rabbi Eleazar holds that most of the Land of Israel is in the hands of the Gentiles. Rabbi Joḥanan holds that most of the Land of Israel is in the hands of Jews. But even if Rabbi Eleazar agrees with Rabbi Joḥanan that most of the Land of Israel is in the hands of Jews, Rabbi Eleazar is concerned about a minority. Like that fortification, if for one day it got supplies from a forbidden source, that day will become proof for all days. Rabbi Yose asked: If that is so, a prospective proselyte who comes to convert should not be accepted; I say he is from Ammon and Moab, and one proselyte would become proof for all proselytes. Hence, Rabbi Eleazar must hold that most of the Land of Israel is in the hands of Gentiles and Rabbi Joḥanan must hold that most of the Land of Israel is in the hands of Jews.

There is more evidence from the following: Rabbi Zeira sent to ask Rabbi Alexander from Tzedoka, what is your estimate of those Nicolaus dates here: are they mostly from Gentiles or mostly from Jews? He said to him, we cannot estimate them.

One statement supports this and a second statement supports Rabbi Eleazar. “The trader’s produce everywhere is demai. When is that? If most of his supply is from Jews. But if he buys from Gentiles, it is certain.” A statement supports Rabbi Joḥanan: “Rabbi Neḥemiah stated: ‘Whether from a Gentile, a Jewish Samaritan, or an am haʾaretz seller, if at times he buys from the Gentile, at times from the Jew, it is demai.’”

Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Ada asked before Rabbi Mana: From whom did this man buy? If from a Jew it is demai, from a Gentile certain. Explain that if the trader was a Gentile and both Jew and Gentile deliver to him, it is demai. Rav Hoshaiah objected, does not the Mishnah support Rabbi Joḥanan? As it was stated: “Rabbi Judah said, they only mentioned pomegranates from Badan and grain from Geba because they must be tithed as certain everywhere.” What are we talking about? If he bought from a Jew, can it be pronounced certain? But we must deal with a Gentile. Hence, all other things are tithed as demai. Rabbi Samuel bar Rav Isaac said, we deal with certain produce from a Jew. Explain it that there was a powerful overseer of markets who exerted pressure to sell at low prices, and they permitted him to sell tevel and let the buyer beware for himself.

Who is a trader? Anyone who brought goods, came again, and came a third time. Rabbi Jonah asked, if he brought three loads together, is he not a trader; one after the other, is he a trader? Rabbi Jonah asked, does he become a trader retroactively or only for the future? What is the difference? If someone came and brought his things in order, if you say only for the future, can he tithe from one on the other! Rabbi Mana asked: Can he, his son, and his worker combine for three loads? Rabbi Jonah asked, a ship that comes from Rome and carries many kinds, do you count this only as one?

“For fruits they did not consider either smell, or looks, or taste, or value, but only the majority.” Rabbi Jacob bar Aḥa in the name of Rabbi Joḥanan: If it was wine, for example new wine and old wine, they judged according to taste.

Rabbi Mana said, I went to Caesarea and I saw them treating fig cake as free. I asked Rabbi Isaac bar Eleazar; he said to me that Zeugos used to permit it. Rabbi Isaac bar Eleazar in the name of Zeugos of Caesarea: All that sees the water is free. Some say, up to the salt tower, some say, up to the Telamon cave. Rabbi Abba Mari said, the words of the rabbis imply that all kinds are forbidden in Caesarea. “Wheat, bread, oil, dates, rice, and cumin.” Fig cakes are not included? It is in the Mishnah. But we have also mentioned rice and cumin; these are in the Mishnah and we have spelled them out! Those are the ones which are left out. “These are permitted in the Sabbatical year, in all other years of the Sabbatical cycle they are demai.” These are permitted in the Sabbatical year; why are they not Sabbatical fruits in the Sabbatical year? The Jews treat them as Sabbatical, the Gentiles are free, Jews and Gentiles outnumber Samaritans. In all other years of the Sabbatical cycle they are demai, the Judean Jews put them in order, Gentiles are free, Jews and Gentiles outnumber Samaritans. How far? The inn of the pillars, the inn at Tayibeh, as far as Kefar Saba. Their juices are certain in Caesarea.

Rabbi Abbahu in the name of Rabbi Yose bar Ḥanina: onion bulbs sold in Caesarea are forbidden because most of them come from King’s Mountain. Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Ada said, the white ones, but the rabbis of Caesarea say, the red ones.

Rabbi Zeira, Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba in the name of Rabbi Joḥanan: Rabbi permitted Beth Shean on the testimony of Joshua ben Zeruz, the son of Rabbi Meir’s father-in-law, who said, I saw Rabbi Meir buy vegetables from a garden in the Sabbatical year. He permitted all of it! Rabbi Zeira said, this implies that nobody should act in public; I say that this garden was a particular case for him; should he have permitted it completely? Rabbi permitted Beth Shean, permitted Caesarea, permitted Bet Guvrin, permitted Kefar Tzemaḥ. Rabbi permitted to buy vegetables after the end of the Sabbatical year and all were saying bad things about him. He said to them, come and let us discuss the matter. It is written: “He smashed the brass snake.2 Kings 18:4” Was there no just person between Moses and Hezekiah to remove it? But the Holy One, praise to Him, reserved that crown to him so he could crown himself with it. We also had this crown reserved by the Holy One, praise to Him, to crown ourselves with it.

Rabbi Joshua ben Levi commanded his attendants: Do not buy me vegetables except from Sisera’s garden. He, may he be remembered for good, stood nearby and said to him: Go tell your teacher that this is not Sisera’s garden; it did belong to a Jew but he killed him and took it away from him. If you want to be restrictive for yourself, permit it to your friend.

Rabbi Yose of Kefar Dan in the name of Rabbi from Meadiah, the kinds forbidden in Beth Shean: Nigella, sesame, mustard, garlic, bulbs, black peas, commercial onions, local ones that are sold by weight, Egyptian beans bound with bast, mint bundled separately, carrot always, leeks from Pentecost to Ḥanukkah. Rabbi Zeira said, from Pentecost to Ḥanukkah the forbidden ones outnumber the permitted ones, from Ḥanukkah to Pentecost the permitted ones outnumber the forbidden ones. In the matter of aftergrowth, from New Year’s Day to Ḥanukkah prohibition of aftergrowth, from Ḥanukkah to Pentecost permission of aftergrowth, from Pentecost to New Year’s Day questionable. Zucchini, squash, water melon, apple melon, wine, oil, Ephesian dates, some also say lupines. Bread always requires ḥallah. These are Sabbatical in a Sabbatical year. In the other years of the cycle? Rabbi Jonah said, demai; Rabbi Yose said, certain. They have no disagreement over tithes; Rabbi Jonah said demai for him who buys from a door-to-door seller, Rabbi Yose said certain for him who bought from the garden.

How far? The crossroads of Rẓyfta, the mausoleum of Pgvṭiah and Kefar Karnaim, Kefar Karnaim being like Beth Shean.

Rabbi Jonah in the name of Rabbi Simeon ben Zachariah: The kinds forbidden in Paneas: Walnuts, rice, sesame, and Egyptian beans. Gamliel the twin says, early ripening atriplex. Rabbi Jonah said, that means, higher than the Rooster of Caesarea. But below the Rooster of Caesarea it has the status of the Land of Israel. Rabbi Jonah asked: If his field was sown with vegetables and he came and found it full of rice, is the vegetable permitted and the rice forbidden? If the rice is high and the vegetable low, is the vegetable permitted and the rice forbidden? In fact, most of these fields produce these species! Even if you say that most of these fields produce these species, most of these kinds only come from forbidden areas.

It was stated: The rice in the sands of Antiochia is permitted in its place. Rabbi Eleazar ben Rabbi Yose permitted it as far as Kdvn. Rabbi Jonah asked: This distance in every direction?

“The following are the forbidden towns in the district of Tyre: ṡẓt, Al-Baṣa, the source at Maʿaṣuba, upper and lower Ḥanuta, Bet Badia, the water spring, Hamun, and Mazy.”

Rabbi Mana said, what you enumerate was earlier. But now there are other towns that were held by Israel and they are forbidden. “These are the towns forbidden in the district of Susita: Al ʿAwaniš, Eyn Taraʿ, the heights of Barin, the spring Yaʿriṭ, Kefar Yaḥrib, Nab, Ḥasfin, and Kefar Tzemaḥ. Rabbi permitted Kefar Tzemaḥ.” Rabbi Immi asked: Are these not of the taxpayers? Rabbi Immi is of the opinion that taxpayers count as if they were conquered.

“The following are the towns that were permitted in the district of Naveh: Ṣaria, Ṭeriya, Jasim, Zizun, the stone heaps of ḥṭm, Aldanba the ruin, the palisades of Bar hzrg.”

A load of raisins came up to Tiberias. Gamliel the twin asked Rabbi Abba bar Kahana. He said to him: All of the Land of Israel does not produce a load of raisins. Does all of the Land of Israel not produce a load of raisins? But so he said to him: No single place in the land of Israel produces a load of raisins.

A person brought a backpack of leeks to Rabbi Isaac bar Tevele. He asked Rabbi Joḥanan. He said to him, go and ask Ḥananiah ben Samuel who knows statements about this. He went and asked. He said, they did not show me a statement, but he told me an Amoraic tradition, since Rabbi Yasa said in the name of Rabbi Joḥanan: Rabbi and Rabbi Eleazar ben Rabbi Simeon disagree: one says after its place of production, the other says, after its current stand. Rabbi Abbahu explained: Rabbi said, after its place of production and Rabbi Eleazar ben Rabbi Simeon, after its current stand. Rabbi Abbahu said that Rabbi said, after its place of production, and they taught him following Rabbi Eleazar ben Rabbi Simeon, after its current stand. This means for backpacks, but for animal loads everybody agrees after its place of production. If its place of production and of current placement are free but he is going to transport it through forbidden territory, that forbidden territory is as if he did not traverse it. Rabbi Abba bar Cohen asked before Rabbi Yose: Did not Rabbi Ḥiyya say in the name of Rabbi Joḥanan, between Rabbi and his colleague, practice follows Rabbi. But Rabbi Jonah said, even Rabbi with Rabbi Eleazar ben Rabbi Simeon? He said to him, what do you want from Rabbi Joḥanan! Rabbi Joḥanan follows his own opinion, for Rabbi Joḥanan said, they were very lenient regarding the Sabbatical, which is a rabbinic rule. Some say, the opinion of Rabbi Joḥanan is added to that of Rabbi and they form a majority against Rabbi Eleazar ben Rabbi Simeon.

Mishnah

2 He who takes it on himself to be trustworthy gives tithes for what he eats, what he sells, and what he buys, and he is not a guest of an am haʾaretz. Rabbi Judah said, he who is a guest of an am haʾaretz may be trustworthy. They said to him, for himself he is not trustworthy, how can he be trusted for others?

Halakhah

“What he buys,” to eat it. But did we not state: “What he eats?” Hence, “what he buys” in order to sell it. But did we not state: “What he sells?” Hence, “what he buys” in order to sell it and “what he sells” from his own gathering.

It was stated: Rabbi Judah said, private persons never refrained from being guests of private persons of their acquaintance. Nevertheless, they used to put in order all their produce in their own houses.

Rabbi Jonah said, ḥaverim are not suspected either to eat or to serve to others. Rabbi Yose said, ḥaverim are suspected to eat but not to serve to others. The Mishnah disagrees with Rabbi Yose: “They said to him, for himself he is not trustworthy, how can he be trusted for others?” The words of the rabbis support Rabbi Yose, for Rabbi Ḥanina, Rabbi Yasa, said in the name of Rabbi Joḥanan: Rabbi Judah spoke only of the end, but at the start even Rabbi Judah will agree. If you say that ḥaverim are not suspected either to eat or to serve to others, what is the difference between start and end? As we have stated: “He who takes it on himself to be trustworthy except for one thing cannot be accepted; he who is suspect in one thing is suspect in everything. Rabbi Judah said, he is only suspect in that thing alone.”

It was stated: “He who is trustworthy for purity is trustworthy for tithes.” Rabbi Yannai ben Rabbi Ishmael stated it and explained his reason: That means, if one is a guest of his, but for the public he is not trustworthy until he accepts it publicly. Rabbi Ammi in the name of Rabbi Yannai: Even I am not trustworthy until we accept it in public. Rabbi Zeira, Rabbi Yasa, in the name of Rabbi Joḥanan: Even a ḥaver who sent to another ḥaver, the recipient must tithe. Rabbi Zeira asked before Rabbi Yasa, for example, I to Rabbi Samuel ben Rav Isaac, and Rabbi Samuel ben Rav Isaac to me? He answered him, what do you want from Rabbi Samuel ben Rav Isaac, because all he eats, he eats from the market.

“If he is trustworthy but his wife is not, one buys from him but one cannot be his guest. But they said, he is like one who lives with a snake in the same basket. If his wife is trustworthy but he is not, one can be his guest but not buy from him. But they said, a curse should fall on him whose wife is trustworthy while he is not.”

It was stated: “A ḥaver should not serve as waiter at the wedding feast of an am haʾaretz or the dinner of an am haʾaretz except when everything was in order and tithed under his control, even the wine ladle. But if a ḥaver acted as waiter at the wedding feast of an am haʾaretz or the dinner of an am haʾaretz this is prima facie evidence for tithes. If one saw him lying on a couch it would not be prima facie evidence, since I say that he is lying on the couch after making the required mental stipulations. If his son is lying down next to him, he has to tithe for him; he does not have to tithe for another ḥaver.”

Mishnah

3 He who accepts on himself to be a ḥaver will not sell to the am haʾaretz wet or dry and will not buy wet from him, is not a guest of an am haʾaretz and does not have him as a guest in his clothing. Rabbi Judah says, moreover he should not raise animals of the flock, should not be excessive in vows and frivolity, should not defile himself with the dead, and should be a regular in the house of study. They said to him, these are not included.

Halakhah

“He will not buy wet from him,” hence dry is permitted since the ammei haʾaretz are trustworthy as to preparation. And it was stated: “The am haʾaretz is trustworthy to say, these fruits were never prepared. But he is not trustworthy to say that they were prepared but did not accept impurity.”

By the first statement he invalidated the second. Does this not disagree with Rabbi Jonah, since Rabbi Jonah said, ḥaverim are not suspect to eat or to serve to others? He should not go, defile his body and come to defile pure food. It does not disagree even with Rabbi Yose, since Rabbi Yose said, ḥaverim are suspect to eat but not to serve to others. There one speaks about purity but here about tithes. “He who is trustworthy for purities is trustworthy for tithes.”

It was stated: “Everybody who comes has to accept, even a learned ḥaver; but a rabbi who has been sitting in rabbinical court does not have to accept because he did it at the moment he joined the court.” Rabbi La said, only if he really accepted it from the first hour on. Rabbi Yose asked, if it was from the first hour, what is the difference between a ḥaver and an am haʾaretz? The position of Rabbi La parallels that of Rabbi Simeon ben Lakish, for Rabbi Simeon ben Lakish came to those of the house of Rabbi Yannai; the women saw him and removed themselves from before him. He said to them, I will come to your house; I am an am haʾaretz with respect to purities.

It was stated: “He answers to the fellowship, his sons and household answer to him.” Some Tannaim state: “He, his sons, and his household answer to the fellowship.” They do not disagree: the first, if they are dependent on their father, the second, if they do not depend on their father. Rabbi Ḥalafta ben Saul stated, adults answer to the fellowship, minors answer to him.

It was stated: “One brings close for ‘wings’ and after that one teaches about purity.” Rabbi Isaac ben Eleazar said, wings, smells, pushings, purity, tithes.

“In earlier times, they said: One removes from fellowship a ḥaver who became tax collector. They changed to say, one removes him from fellowship for the entire time he acts as tax collector. Once he left his collectorship, he is again treated as a ḥaver.”

Ḥiyya ben Rabbi Abun in the name of Rabbi Joḥanan: One does not remove from fellowship a ḥaver who went outside the Land. Hence, a minor does not need to be brought close.

Mishnah

4 The sages did not obligate bakers to separate more than the heave of the tithe and ḥallah. Grocers are not permitted to sell demai. All who sell wholesale in large quantities may sell demai. The following sell wholesale in large quantities, for example grain buyers and sellers.

Halakhah

There, we have stated: “If one buys from the baker, how does he tithe?” There you say, the buyer separates, and here you say, the baker separates. Rabbi Jonah said, Rabbi Eleazar and Rabbi Joḥanan disagree. One says, here if he works in purity, there if he works in impurity. The other says, here in retail, there in wholesale. We did not know who said what. Since Rabbi Joḥanan said, because of purity, it follows that Rabbi Eleazar is the one who said, here in retail, there in wholesale. It is difficult for Rabbi Joḥanan, if he works in purity, let him separate everything. It would be logical that he should not give anything because one does not deliver certain grain to the am haʾaretz. It is difficult for Rabbi Eleazar, if it is in retail, let him separate everything. Grocers are not permitted to sell demai!

The colleagues in the name of Rabbi Eleazar: It is Rabbi Meir’s, since Rabbi Meir said, they permitted to sell demai only to the commissioned grain merchant. Rabbi Yose objected, does not the Mishnah disagree? “The following sell wholesale in large quantities, for example commissioners and grain merchants.” Hence, there must be others! Rabbi Yose said, this is not what Rabbi Eleazar referred to, but the following, as we have stated: “When is this statement operative, if he sells in his bakeshop or at the door of his bakeshop. But if he was selling in the bakery or in his bakeshop adjacent to the bakery, he must give all tithes on it.” The colleagues in the name of Rabbi Eleazar: It is Rabbi Meir’s, since Rabbi Meir said, they only permitted to the commissioned grain merchant to sell demai. Which statement of Rabbi Meir? The one we have stated next: “Rabbi Meir says, something which usually he measured wholesale and he measured retail, the retail is adjunct to the wholesale.” Rabbi Ḥiyya stated: “Something which usually is measured wholesale and he measured it retail, the retail is adjunct to the wholesale.” And so the bakery is retail but the bakeshop is wholesale, there the wholesale is adjunct to the retail.

The colleagues in the name of Rabbi Joḥanan: Because of the children so that they will not eat tevel. Rabbi La in the name of Rabbi Joḥanan, in retail, because the seller takes the large margin, the seller separates. In wholesale, because the buyer will take the large margin, the buyer separates. One statement supports one and another statement supports the other. A statement supports the colleagues: “Rabbi Neḥemiah said, that which is connected to a retail outlet is like retail, connected to a wholesale outlet it is wholesale.” A statement supports Rabbi La. It was stated: “Rabbi Ishmael ben Rabbi Joḥanan ben Beroka said, if he measured with a retail measure, he is obligated. Even if he did measure only one seah and a quarter kab, he must tithe the quarter kab.” Rabbi Zeira said, computation of gain is between them. If he measured for him the seah at the rate of quarter kabs, since the seller takes the large margin, the seller separates. If he measures the quarter kab at the rate of seahs, since the buyer will take the large margin, the buyer separates.

Mishnah

5 Rabbi Meir says, something which usually is sold retail and he sold wholesale, the wholesale is adjunct to the retail; something which usually is sold wholesale and he sold retail, the retail is adjunct to the wholesale. What is wholesale? For dry produce, three kab, for liquids, the value of one denarius. Rabbi Yose says, baskets of figs, baskets of grapes, and boxes of vegetables, all these if sold en bloc are free.

Halakhah

In the opinion of this Tanna, they gave a measure for dry produce but not for fluids, they gave a value for fluids but not for dry produce. Rabbi Ḥiyya stated: “A hin is wholesale, less than a hin is retail. A nummus is retail, more than a nummus is wholesale.” In the opinion of that Tanna, they gave a measure for fluids but not for dry produce, they gave a value for dry produce but not for fluids.

Rabbi Joḥanan in the name of Rabbi Simeon ben Jehozadak: It is a condition imposed by the Court that the heave of the tithe is on the seller and Second Tithe on the buyer. Where do we stand? If in retail, because the seller takes the large margin, the seller separates. If in wholesale, because the buyer will take the large margin, the buyer separates. Rabbi Abun bar Ḥiyya said, explain it if he says it is of his own harvest. Rabbi Yose said, even if you say it is not his own harvest, if he says in my opinion it was brought in order, even so they tell him that it is a condition imposed by the Court that the heave of the tithe be on the seller and Second Tithe on the buyer.

Rabbi Eleazar in the name of Rabbi Hoshaiah: It is a condition imposed by the Court that the fat be on the butcher and the sciatic tendon on the buyer. Rabbi Abbahu made it common usage in Caesarea that both should be on the buyer, so that they would remove them thoroughly.

Mishnah

1 One lets the poor and the stranger eat demai. Rabban Gamliel let his laborers eat demai. The House of Shammai say, the administrators of charity give the tithed food to those who do not tithe, and the untithed food to those who tithe, so that it turns out that everybody eats produce that is in order. But the Sages say, one collects without asking and one distributes without asking, and he who wants to put in order should put in order.

Halakhah

Rabbi Jonah said, our Mishnah speaks about poor ḥaverim, and about guests following Rabbi Joshua. It was stated: “It happened that Rabbi Joshua went to Rabban Joḥanan ben Zakkai in Beror Ḥayil, and some local people brought them fruits. Rabbi Joshua said to them, if they stay overnight, we are obliged to tithe; otherwise, we are not obliged to tithe.” Rabbi Yose said, the Mishnah speaks about am haʾaretz poor. If you restrict to poor ḥaverim, you shut the door on am haʾaretz poor. How does Rabbi Yose explain “the stranger”? Following what was stated: “‘Those who dwell among you,Leviticus 25:45’ to include the stranger; Rabbi Eliezer said, that means the Gentile stranger.”

It was stated: “One has to declare.” In the opinion of Rabbi Jonah, it is understood that the Mishnah speaks about poor ḥaverim. In the opinion of Rabbi Yose, the Mishnah speaks about am haʾaretz poor; even if he informs him, what does he gain? Because of one who does not put in order?

Rabbi Mana said, this means that he who gives in his home may not give from Sabbatical value because he would pay his debt with Sabbatical value. As it was stated: “Neither Sabbatical produce nor Second Tithe may be used to satisfy a loan or a debt. One does not use them for best men’s meals. One does not pay with them obligatory payments. One does not use them to pledge for charity in the synagogue. But one may use them for goodwill; then one has to notify.”

There we have stated: “The worker who does not trust the employer.” There you say, the worker separates. But here you say that the employer separates. Rabbi Jonah said, there if he serves him counted portions, here if he lets him eat from the bowl.

Rabbi Zeriqan, Simeon bar Abba, in the name of Rabbi Joḥanan: A doctor who is a ḥaver, if he feeds a sick person who is an am haʾaretz, should put the food into his patient’s hand but not into his mouth. That is, if it is demai, but if it is certain, it is forbidden even to put it in his hand. This means, if it is the patient’s property, but the doctor’s is forbidden for a Jew; for a descendant of Noah it is permitted even if it is certain and the patient’s property, but the doctor’s is forbidden. But if it was a limb taken from a living animal it is forbidden even if it is the patient’s property, so that he is not caused to stumble.

It is difficult for the House of Shammai, should he lose because he is worthy? He adds what he has to put in order. What is the reason of the House of Shammai? Even if you regulate him now, can you regulate him in the future? You cannot regulate him. What is the reason of the rabbis? If you investigate him he will reduce his charity giving.

“The administrators of charity should not publicly announce on a holiday in the way they announce on weekdays, but they collect in private, carry it under their cloaks, and distribute for each quarter separately. The administrators of the charity chest should not be inquisitive in the courtyards of those who eat from the yield of the Sabbatical year. If one gave them bread it is permitted, because Jews are not suspected of giving anything other than money or eggs.” Rabbi Ḥananiah in the name of Rabbi Phinehas: That means, at a place where people sow but do not eat. Since they are not suspected of eating it, all the more so they are not suspected of feeding it to others.

“priests who prepare dough in purity should not be inquisitive in the courtyards of those who eat from the yield of the Sabbatical year.” Some Tannaim stated: “They should be inquisitive.” Rabbi Phinehas said, he who says that they should be inquisitive, because of their ḥallah; he who says that they should not be inquisitive, for he would save him from the simple sin and lead him to a deadly one. Tevel is a deadly sin, the Sabbatical year is a simple prohibition.

What does he do? Rabbi Huna said, he brings a suspect priest, lets him immerse himself, and serves it to him. But then does he not deliver pure foods to an am haʾaretz? Rabbi Mana said, he brings a suspect priest, lets him immerse himself, watches him until sundown and then serves it to him. But then does he not support the sinners? Rabbi Simeon from Carsan in the name of Rabbi Aḥa: He keeps it until the day before Passover and then burns it.

Mishnah

2 He who wants to cut off greens of vegetables in order to lighten his load should not throw them away before he has tithed them. He who buys vegetables on the market and then decides to return them should not return them before he has tithed them, because nothing is missing but counting. If he stopped to buy but saw another, better, load, he may change his mind because he did not take it up.

Halakhah

Rabbi Eleazar said, it is Rabbi Meir’s, since Rabbi Meir said, they permitted to sell demai only to the commissioned grain wholesaler. Rabbi Joḥanan said, it is according to everybody; there is a difference because the one who takes it up takes it up in retail quantity and the one who abandons does not abandon wholesale. But does this not disagree with Rabbi Meir, since Rabbi Meir is the one who says that as soon as a person abandons anything of his property, it is legally abandoned as soon as it leaves his power. There is a difference because the one who takes it up takes it up in retail quantity and the one who abandons does not abandon wholesale. It does not even disagree with Rabbi Yose, for Rabbi Yose says that nothing may leave the power of its owners except if it is taken up; otherwise it was not legally abandoned. There is a difference here, because the one who abandons abandons wholesale, and the one who takes it up, takes up only retail quantities.

Ḥizkiah said, nothing is missing for the owners but the credit by counting.

How does he do it? He takes from the uppermost layer and puts it in order. Is that not forbidden because of robbery? Like that of Rabbi Simeon bar Kahana who was supporting Rabbi Eliezer. They passed by a vineyard. He said to him, bring me a sliver as a toothpick. He changed his mind and told him, do not bring me anything; if everybody did that, the fence of this man would be gone. Rabbi Ḥaggai was supporting Rabbi Zeira. A person passed by who was carrying a load of chips. He said to him, bring me a chip as a toothpick. He changed his mind and told him, do not bring me anything; if everybody did that, the load of this man would be gone. Is not Rabbi Zeira particularly pious? No, he told us that we should observe the words of our Creator. Rabbi Abbahu in the name of Rabbi Joḥanan: When he took one stalk, nothing was missing but counting them. How does he do it? He pays for one of them and puts it in order.

But does it not turn out that he creates an obstacle for those who come after him? Let him make a separate heap. But why can he not fix them in his own produce? Did we not state: “A person may fix his tithes for someone else, even if he creates an obstacle for those who come after him.” Rabbi Ḥinena said, they made that ordinance for the buyer but not for him who returns produce.

So says the Mishnah: “If he stood selecting.” So far, of the same kind. Also, from a different kind.

Mishnah

3 He who finds produce on the road and takes it to eat it, but then changed his mind to store it, should not store it until he has tithed it. If from the start he took it up only so that it should not be spoiled, he is free. Anything a person is not permitted to sell as demai, he may not send to a friend as demai. Rabbi Yose permits certain produce on condition that he inform him.

Halakhah

It was stated: “One does not pass by foodstuffs.” Rabbi Jacob bar Zavdi in the name of Rabbi Abbahu: That means, in earlier times. But now it is permitted because of sorcery.

There, we have stated: “He who turns over cow dung in the public domain and a third party was hurt, is liable for damages.” It was also stated: “It is forbidden because of robbery.” Kahana said, only if he turned it over in order to acquire it. But if he did not turn it over in order to acquire it, about that one does not speak. But as regards damages, there is no difference whether he turned it over in order to acquire it or he did not turn it over in order to acquire it; if a third party was hurt, he is liable for damages. And here, you say so? Rabbi Abun said, there it is written: “The one responsible for the pit shall pay,Exodus 21:34” the one responsible for the damage shall pay. But here: “You shall give tithes,Deuteronomy 14:22” you give tithes from your property but not from other people’s property.

“Anything a person is not permitted to sell as demai, he may not send to a friend as demai.” Retail quantities which one is not permitted to sell as demai, one may not send to a friend as demai. Wholesale quantities which one is permitted to sell as demai, one may send to a friend as demai. “Rabbi Yose permits certain produce,” be it retail or wholesale quantities, but he forbids retail quantities that are demai.

Rabbi Abbahu in the name of Rabbi Joḥanan: They permitted demai in wholesale quantity because of its being fenced in.

This is a baraita: “Rabbi Yose says, baskets of figs, baskets of grapes, and boxes of vegetables, as long as they are sold en bloc, are free. Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel said, the great Rabbi Yose sent me an etrog and said to me: this came into my hand from Caesarea. I understood from this three things: That it was certain, could become impure, and he did not have another one. That it was certain, because the fruits of Caesarea are certain. That it could become impure, because they sprinkle water on it. That he did not have another one, because if he had, he would have tithed from one on the other.” Why could he not have tithed from itself on itself? Because he was mindful of the saying of Bar Kappara, for Bar Kappara said that people do not send things that are defective to their friends. But is that not our Mishnah? “Rabbi Yose permits certain produce on condition that he inform him.” This tells you that, even though he disagreed with the rabbis, he did not act according to his own opinion.

Rabbi Zeira asked before Rabbi Yasa: Is this not from the fruits that are exempt at Caesarea? He said to him, did not Rabbi permit fruits at Caesarea? But Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel preceded Rabbi!

Mishnah

4 Wheat brought to be milled by a Samaritan or by an am haʾaretz remains in its prior state for tithes and Sabbatical year. By a Gentile, it is demai. Produce deposited with a Samaritan or with an am haʾaretz remains in its prior state for tithes and Sabbatical year; with a Gentile, it is like his produce. Rabbi Simeon says, it is demai.

Halakhah

Rabbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rabbi Joḥanan: If his box was exchanged at the miller’s, if it was established that an am haʾaretz gave to be milled there that day, he has to worry; otherwise, he does not have to worry. Should he not worry? What is the difference between this and the Saracens? Was it not stated: “If a group of Saracens one day provisioned themselves from forbidden supplies, then that day becomes a proof for all days.” It is impossible for Saracens not to supply themselves. But here it was not established that the am haʾaretz was milling there that day.

Rabbi Taypha the Red in the name of Rabbi Abbahu: Samaritans can be trusted with deposits. Is that not the Mishnah: “With a Samaritan”? Our Mishnah before they became suspect, he comes to tell us even after they became suspect. How is it, should he be trusted to say, I took it and replaced it by other deposits that were put in order? If you believe him in that he took it, you should believe him in what he gave. If you do not believe that he took, do not believe that he gave. You believe a Samaritan that he gave and you do not believe that he took. Rabbi Jonah asked: What are we talking about? If he says, they are my own, even an am haʾaretz should not be trusted. If he says, X took tithes for me, even the Samaritan should be believed. Rabbi Abba said, explain it according to him who says that a Samaritan is like a Gentile. As they disagreed: A Samaritan is like a Gentile, the words of Rabbi. Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel said, a Samaritan is like a Jew in every respect.

Here you say, “by a Gentile miller, they are demai,” there you say, “with a Gentile, they are like his produce.” In the first case, a box among boxes, there, produce among his produce.

Rabbi Jeremiah asked before Rabbi Zeira: Does it mean, really like his produce? Freeing what would be tevel at another place? He said to him, for all that is in it. Rabbi Ḥanina was uselessly opposing Rabbi Aḥa.

Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abin in the name of Rabbi Yose ben Ḥanina: Rabbi Simeon said, only for one box. If he handed over two boxes, one of them is demai and one is certain if they are still in existence; but if the first one was consumed, the second one is demai. If a hundred people took from him 100 seah at one time, each one puts his produce in order as demai. If they gave it all to one person, it should be considered as certain. If one person took many seahs together, the first one is demai, the rest certain. If he then gave the rest to a hundred people, it should be considered as certain. Did we not state in the name of Rabbi Simeon in the name of Rabbi Tarfon: “They made the produce of this Jew like the produce of that Samaritan, demai.” That again is the same; Rabbi Simeon said, only for one box.

“Rabbi Joshua ben Qabusai said, all my life I read this verse: ‘The pure shall sprinkle on the impure,Numbers 19:19’ that one pure person sprinkles on one impure person, until I learned it from the storage facility at Jabneh. This means that one pure person sprinkles on many impure persons.”

“But the Sages say, it is demai even if all the contributors are Gentile except one Jew.” But we have stated: “With a Gentile, they are like his produce.” Rabbi Eleazar said, the Sages who follow the line of Rabbi Meir. Rabbi Joḥanan said, these are really the Sages. They asked him, what is the reason? He told them, when you have white hair, I might tell you. What would he have told them? That they accepted tithes voluntarily. Samuel bar Abba asked: It is understandable that he did not tell them about pure food, because of a fence for pure food. He did not tell them about tithes, as a fence for tithes. He did not tell them about sacrifices; if he had told them, what would he have told them? For tithes, following him who says that they accepted tithes voluntarily.

Rabbi Jeremiah, Rabbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rabbi Joḥanan: Rabbi Simeon agrees that one must separate tithes as a matter of practice. Hence, Rabbi Simeon says that one separates, and the rabbis say that one separates.

What is the difference between them? Rabbi Simeon says, he separates and takes money from the tribe. The rabbis say that he separates and does not take money from the tribe. But is it not even like heave from outside the Land, does he not take money from the tribe? Maybe it was said on the principle of tevel for produce of the Gentile? Since we have stated: Rabbi Judah and Rabbi Simeon say, a Gentile may acquire real estate in the Land of Israel to free it from the tithes imposed on it. Rabbi Jeremiah, Rabbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rabbi Joḥanan: Rabbi Simeon agrees that nevertheless he must separate tithes as a matter of practice.

Mishnah

5 He who gives to the innkeeper’s wife, tithes what he gives her and what he takes from her because she is suspected of switching. Rabbi Yose said, we are not responsible for the dishonest; he tithes only what he receives from her.

Halakhah

Both Rabbi Yose and Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel said the same thing. Just as Rabbi Yose said, we are not responsible for the dishonest, so Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel said, we are not responsible for the dishonest. It is reasonable that Rabbi Yose will agree with Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel, but Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel will not agree with Rabbi Yose. Rabbi Yose will agree with Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel that we are not responsible for the dishonest. But Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel will not agree with Rabbi Yose, because it is not fitting for a ḥaver that anything not in order should leave his house.

Mishnah

6 He who gives to his mother-in-law tithes what he gives to her and what he receives from her because she is suspected of switching spoiled food. Rabbi Judah says, she wants to put her daughter in a good light and is ashamed before her son-in-law. Rabbi Judah agrees that if he gives to his mother-in-law in the Sabbatical year she is not suspect of switching to feed her daughter from Sabbatical produce.

Halakhah

Rabbi Joḥanan said, the first sentence also gives the opinion of Rabbi Judah. But the rabbis say, one who gives to his mother-in-law is like one who gives to his neighbor. As we have stated: “He who gives bread to his neighbor to bake for him, or a dish to cook for him, has to worry neither about the Sabbatical year nor about tithes. That is, if he also gave her sourdough or spices. But if he did not give sourdough and spices, he worries about the Sabbatical year and about tithes.”

Does it mean his mother-in-law after the first or the second marriage ceremony? Let us hear from the following: “Rabbi Judah agrees that if he gives to his mother-in-law in the Sabbatical year she is not suspect of switching to feed her daughter from Sabbatical produce.” Is there a difference between first and second marriage ceremony? Here also, there is no difference between first and second marriage ceremony.

Mishnah

1 He who buys produce from a person who is not trustworthy for tithes and forgot to tithe them may ask the seller on the Sabbath and eats on the seller’s information. At nightfall, when the Sabbath ends, he may not eat until he has tithed. If he did not find the seller, but another person who is not trustworthy for tithes told him that it is tithed, he may eat on that information. At nightfall when the Sabbath ends, he may not eat until he has tithed. Heave of the tithe that returned to its origin. Rabbi Simeon from Shezur said, even on weekdays he asks the seller and eats on his information.

Halakhah

The colleagues in the name of Rabbi Joḥanan: They permitted it because of the glory of the Sabbath. If it is because of the glory of the Sabbath, why does he have to ask him? By way of finding a cause. Rabbi Bibi in the name of Rabbi Ḥanina: The fear of the Sabbath is on him and he will speak the truth. If the fear of the Sabbath is on him, why did we state that at nightfall, when the Sabbath ends, he may not eat until he has tithed? Because of one who does not fear the Sabbath. It was stated: “If he asks him on weekdays, he may not eat on the Sabbath.” According to him who says that the fear of the Sabbath is on him, this is fine. According to him who says that it is because of the glory of the Sabbath; when he asks him on weekdays, should he not eat on the Sabbath?

It was stated only for someone acting in error, not intentionally, as we have stated: If he forgot to tithe, if he had made no previous stipulation. But with a stipulation, one eats even on the stipulation by a friend.

May one eat on the question of another person? How is that understood? If two persons bought at the same time from him, if one of them asked him, the other may not eat until he has tithed or also asked; I say he tithed one batch, but not the other. If one person bought from him two fig cakes and asked him about one of them, he may not eat from the second cake until he has tithed or asked him; I say that he tithed one but not the other. At nightfall when the Sabbath ends, he tithes from one on the other. According to him who says that it is because of the glory of the Sabbath, this is fine. According to him who says that the fear of the Sabbath is on him, why should he be able to tithe from one on the other?

So far, if he has nothing of the same kind. Even if he has of the same kind, that is a matter of preference.

A holiday next to the Sabbath, be it before the Sabbath or after the Sabbath, and likewise the two holidays of the Diaspora, according to him who says they are one sanctity, he may eat; according to him who says that they are two sanctities, he may not eat. Even according to him who says that they are two sanctities, he may eat as long as there was no possibility to tithe between them. It was stated: “If he asks him on the holiday, he eats on the Sabbath; if he asks him on the Sabbath, he eats on the holiday.” Rabbi Jonah in the name of Rabbi Zeira, explain it regarding produce he had intended to use on Sabbath eve. But produce he had not intended on Sabbath eve to use during the Sabbath is not included. Rabbi Mana said, the words of the rabbis support Rabbi Jonah, my father, since we have stated there: “He who takes a vow regarding his friend that he will eat at his place but he does not trust him with the tithes.” Rabbi Yannai ben Rabbi Ishmael in the name of Rabbi Joḥanan: On the Sabbath of the preliminary marriage they permitted because of hatred. Is the Sabbath of the preliminary marriage not comparable to produce that on Sabbath eve he intended to use later on the Sabbath? Nevertheless, he only said “because of hatred.”

If he invited him the first Sabbath but he did not come, the second time he should not eat unless he tithes or asks him. Did he not already ask him? Rabbi Jonah said, there he asked for himself. But here a third party asked about it.

Rabbi Jonah asked: May he ask him in a roundabout way? Rabbi Jonah asks in this way. Rabbi Jonah bought wheat from Bar Ḥaqulah. He went to him and said, not that I suspect you, but since I bought wheat from you and I saw many people with you, I said maybe you forgot to put them in order. Were they put in order? He complained strongly about him and said: Why do you suspect me?

It was stated: “Heave of the tithe from demai that returned to its origin makes demaʿ, not to its origin does not make demaʿ. Rabbi Simeon from Shezur said, both at its origin and not at its origin it does not make demaʿ.” Rabbi Abun bar Ḥiyya asked before Rabbi Zeira: For one who says, it makes demaʿ, it makes demaʿ; for one who says, it does not make demaʿ, it does not make demaʿ; this is reasonable. But if one says, in its origin it makes demaʿ, not in its origin it does not make demaʿ; what is the difference between in its origin and not in its origin? Rabbi Ḥaggai came up. They said, this one will say, “by Moses, I will explain the reason.” He said, by Moses, I will explain the reason: He who says, it makes demaʿ, because it permits the rest to be eaten. He who says, it does not make demaʿ, because it does not permit the rest to be eaten. Rabbi La taught according to that of Rabbi Ḥaggai. Rabbi Zeira said: A case came before Rabbi Ḥanina and he taught according to Rabbi Simeon from Shezur. Rabbi Aḥa in the name of Rabbi Jonathan: Practice does not follow Rabbi Simeon from Shezur.

“In addition, Rabbi Simeon from Shezur said: If he separated the heave of the tithe and it was burned, he asks the seller and eats on his information.” Did Rabbi Zeira not say that a similar case came before Rabbi Ḥanina and he taught according to Rabbi Simeon from Shezur? Rabbi Avin said, this question does not compare to the first question. There it was, not that I suspect you, but since I bought wheat from you yesterday and I saw many people with you, I said maybe you forgot to put them in order. Were they put in order? But here, because I suspected you, I put them in order but they went up in fire. Were they put in order? Rabbi Samuel, the son of Rabbi Yose ben Rabbi Abun said that Bar Kappara stated: The fear of demaʿ is on him and he will tell the truth.

Mishnah

2 He who takes a vow concerning his friend that he should eat at his place but he does not trust him with the tithes, he may eat at his place the first Sabbath even though he is not trustworthy for tithes, on condition that he tell him that all is tithed. On the second Sabbath, even though he makes a vow to refuse any benefit from him, he may not eat until he has tithed.

Halakhah

Rabbi Yannai ben Rabbi Ishmael in the name of Rabbi Joḥanan: On the Sabbath of a protogamia they permitted because of hatred. Rabbi Avin said, here they permitted tevel because of human relations. Rabbi Ḥanina said, Rabbi Jeremiah asked: If it is because of human relations, why is it only on condition that the host tell him that it was tithed? If he invited him on the first Sabbath but he did not come, can the second Sabbath become the first? Rav Ḥisda said, here we have learned that a ḥaver may not eat at a meal that has no name.

Mishnah

3 Rabbi Eliezer says, nobody has to give a name to the tithe of the poor from demai. But the Sages say, he has to give a name but does not have to separate. He who gave a name to his heave of the tithe of demai, or to the certain tithe of the poor, should not separate them on the Sabbath. But if a priest or a poor person usually ate from his food at his table, they may come and eat it on condition that he inform them.

Halakhah

Rabbi Abba bar Huna in the name of Rav: He who eats his produce without having separated the tithe of the poor commits a deadly sin. What is the reason of Rabbi Eliezer? Because he knows that it would be a deadly sin, he will separate it. What is the reason of the rabbis? He only has to give a name but does not have to separate it.

It was stated: He is trustworthy if they saw him separate the Second Tithe. It was stated: For the Second, he is trustworthy for the First, the words of Rabbi Eliezer. But the Sages say, if he is trustworthy for the First, he is trustworthy for the Second. He who is trustworthy for the Second is not trustworthy for the First. What is the reason of Rabbi Eliezer? Is it because he is not suspected of advancing the tithe, or because if he separated the Second it is a standing presumption that he separated the First? But did we not state: “Rabbi Eliezer says, nobody has to give a name to the tithe of the poor from demai.” Hence, for the Second it is needed. Since he has to separate the Second, on which the owner earns no goodwill, he certainly will separate the First, on which he earns goodwill!

“If somebody brought out Second Tithe from his house to somebody and said: ‘It is redeemed,’ he is trustworthy; ‘redeem for me and yourself,’ he is not trustworthy.” The baraita is Rabbi Eliezer’s, since Rabbi Eliezer said, he who is trustworthy for the Second is trustworthy for the First. Rabbi Yose said, everybody agrees, they made it like additions to First Fruits. Just as additions to First Fruits are eaten in purity and are free from demai, so this is eaten as Second Tithe and is free from the First. Rabbi Ḥananiah confirmed in the name of Rabbi Issi: it is Rabbi Eliezer’s.

This is the Mishnah: He should not hand them over on the Sabbath, since we have stated there: “The House of Shammai say that one does not bring ḥallah and gifts to the priest on a holiday, whether they were separated the day before or on the day itself, but the House of Hillel do permit this.” The first statement implies the second, the second implies the first. The first statement implies the second; there is no difference between holiday and Sabbath. The second implies the first; that is, if they are accustomed to it. But if they are not accustomed to it, no person comes to eat his piece of bread at another’s house.

It was stated: “One should not importune anybody to be his guest if he knows that the other person will not accept. He should not offer many gifts of closeness if he knows that the other person will not accept.” What are gifts of closeness? He knows that the other person expects that he would exert himself for him. In Jerusalem one turned his clasp from left to right.

It was stated: “One does not carry to the mourner’s house in colored glass containers because he carries a false load.”

It was stated: “In a town where Gentiles and Jews live together, the overseers of charity collect from Jews and Gentiles and provide for Jewish and Gentile poor, visit Jewish and Gentile sick, bury Jewish and Gentile dead, and console Gentile and Jewish mourners. Also, one takes in vessels from Gentiles and from Jews for the sake of peaceful coexistence.”

The weavers asked Rabbi Ammi, what about a Gentile wedding feast? He wanted to permit it to them from this: “Because of peaceful coexistence.” Rabbi Abba told them, did not Rabbi Ḥiyya state that the holiday of a Gentile wedding feast is forbidden. Rabbi Ammi said, if it had not been for Rabbi Ba, we would have come to permit their idolatry; praised be He Who distanced us from them.

Mishnah

4 He who tells somebody who is not trustworthy, buy for me from somebody who is trustworthy, or from somebody who tithes, is not trustworthy; from X, he is trustworthy. If he went to buy from him and said, I did not find him, but I bought for you from somebody who is trustworthy, he is not trustworthy.

Halakhah

It was stated: “Rabbi Yose said, even if he specified, from X, he is not trustworthy, unless he said, you buy and I will pay.” What is the reason of Rabbi Yose? I say that he found someone close by and bought from him, as we have stated there: “Receive my bill of divorce at such and such a place; she may eat heave until the bill of divorce reaches that place. Rabbi Eleazar prohibits her immediately.” What is the reason of Rabbi Eleazar? I say that he found it behind the door. It turns out that Rabbi Eleazar is like Rabbi Yose and Rabbi Yose is like Rabbi Eleazar. Rabbi Yose says more than Rabbi Eleazar; does not Rabbi Eleazar agree that if she says to him, do not accept it except at such and such a place, that she continues eating until the bill of divorce reaches that place? But here, even if he says, only from X, he is not trustworthy, except if he said, you buy and I will pay.

Mishnah

5 If someone enters a town, does not know anybody there, and asks: Who is trustworthy here, who tithes? If somebody told him, I am not trustworthy, but Mr. X is trustworthy, he may be believed. If he went and bought there and asked, who is selling old produce here? If the seller said, the one who sent you to me, they may be believed even though they act as if they were doing each other favors. Donkey drivers who entered a town and one of them said, my produce is new, my colleague’s is old, mine is not in order, my colleague’s is in order, are not to be believed. Rabbi Judah says, they are to be believed.

Halakhah

But is a single witness trustworthy? Rabbi Joḥanan said, they were very lenient for a guest because of the necessities of life.

It was stated: “He who enters a town and does not know anybody there, or stands by a threshing floor and does not know anybody there, may ask either a ḥaver or an am haʾaretz, the words of Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel. Rabbi says, about heave one may ask only a ḥaver.” It turns out that Rabbi follows Rabbi Meir and Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel follows his own reasoning. As we have stated there: “About any bodily defects that may be caused by humans, lay shepherds are trustworthy, priestly shepherds are not. Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel said, he is trustworthy about another’s flock but not his own. Rabbi Meir said, whoever is suspect in a matter may neither judge nor testify about it.” Rabbi Jonah said, they disagree only if it is a matter of taking, but in distributing even Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel agrees. What is the difference between taking and distributing? A distribution is public knowledge.

It was stated: “If somebody entered a town, found there groups of people, and asked, who is trustworthy here, who tithes here? If one person told him that he himself was trustworthy, and the others told him that he was trustworthy, that one is trustworthy. If they told him in the person’s presence that he was not trustworthy, he is not trustworthy; but in his absence, he is trustworthy.” Rabbi Jonah said, if that somebody was from that town, the group must be of ḥaverim, if he is a stranger, the group may be composed of ammei haʾaretz. It is difficult for Rabbi Yose, you say that ḥaverim are not trustworthy in his presence?

What is the reason of Rabbi Judah? Because of the lives of the townspeople. What is the reason of the rabbis? They can provision themselves in another town.

Mishnah

1 He who buys from the baker, how does he tithe? He takes the heave of the tithe and ḥallah and says: One percent here on that side is tithe, the rest of the tithe is adjacent to it. That which I turned into tithe is made heave of the tithe for it and the rest is ḥallah. The Second Tithe is north or south of it and is redeemed by coins.

Halakhah

Also ḥallah? Is ḥallah due for demai? Did we not state: “Ḥallah of the unobservant and food containing heave are free from demai.” Rabbi Aḥa, Rabbi Abun bar Ḥiyya, in the name of Rabbi Yose ben Ḥanina: This is from the House of Shammai. We have stated accordingly: “Rabbi Simeon ben Judah says in the name of Rabbi Simeon that the House of Shammai obligate for ḥallah and the House of Hillel exempt it.” Did the House of Shammai include seed goods? But he who buys for sowing or animal feed, flour for tanning or oil for lighting, is he not free from demai? But it must be for somebody who kneads his dough with fruit juice. Did not Rabbi Yose ben Rabbi Ḥanina say that this follows Rabbi Eleazar ben Judah from Bartota, hence it does not follow the rabbis. But it agrees with Rabbi Joḥanan, since Rabbi Joḥanan said, one case for him who works in purity and one case for him who works in impurity. But what about following Rabbi Eleazar, since Rabbi Eleazar said, in both cases if he works in purity? It must be that he is a guest. Was it not stated: “He who is trustworthy for purities is trustworthy for tithes”? Rabbi Yannai ben Rabbi Ishmael stated and said: That is, if one is his guest, but for the public he is not trustworthy unless he accepts it publicly. And here we deal with the public.

Rabbi Abin, Rabbi Shammai, in the name of Rabbi Aḥa, understood this from the following. “He who wants to separate heave and the heave of the tithe together.” As you will say there, except for that which may become sanctified as heave, here also except for that which may become sanctified as ḥallah.

We have stated ḥallah between First and Second Tithes. Rabbi Jonah in the name of Rabbi Zeira: This means that ḥallah is not subject to “do not give too late.” Rabbi Yose in the name of Rabbi Zeira: The Mishnah is not formulated in sequence, do we not deal with demai? Did not Rabbi Abba, son of Rabbi Ḥiyya, say in the name of Rabbi Joḥanan that the Mishnah deals with demai; hence, not with certain produce? And here we deal with demai. Rabbi Ḥiyya stated: Also for certain. On that, Rabbi Jonah in the name of Rabbi Zeira said, this means that ḥallah is not subject to “do not give too late.” Rabbi Yose in the name of Rabbi Zeira: The Mishnah is not formulated in sequence, should not ḥallah precede the First Tithe? Then ḥallah should be subject to tithes but not tithes to ḥallah, because everything that precedes another, the other is obligated for it. And we have stated in this respect: “He who makes dough from tevel, whether he takes ḥallah before heave or heave before ḥallah, what he did is done. Ḥallah should not be eaten until he takes heave for it, heave should not be eaten until he separates ḥallah for it.” But why does First Tithe have precedence? Because it started at the threshing floor. But does the Second Tithe not start at the threshing floor? Rabbi Mattaniah said, it would have been logical that ḥallah should precede everything else. Why does First Heave have precedence? Because it started at the threshing floor and it is called “beginning.” Second Tithe, even though it started at the threshing floor, is not called “beginning.”

Mishnah

2 He who wants to separate heave and heave of the tithe together takes one in thirty-three and one third and says: One percent of what is here on this side is profane and the remainder is heave for everything. The profane here on that side is tithe; the rest of the tithe is adjacent to it. That which I have declared as tithe is made heave of the tithe for it,... the Second Tithe is either north or south of it and is redeemed by coins.

Halakhah

“He who wants to separate heave, heave of the tithe, and ḥallah together takes for heave, heave of the tithe, and ḥallah, that is one in 20, and says: One percent of what is here on this side is profane tevel and another one in 48 next to it; the remainder is heave for everything. The profane which is in it and that which I made profane tevel is made tithe; the rest of the tithe is adjacent to it. That which I have declared as tithe is made heave of the tithe for it, the Second Tithe is north or south of it and is redeemed by coins.”

Rabbi Samuel bar Naḥman in the name of Rabbi Jonathan: He has to recite five blessings. Rabbi Ḥiyya stated: He subsumes them all in one blessing.

So far for a priest or a Levite, but an Israelite? If he will declare heave of the tithe, does he not separate for something that is not his?

If one gives tithe and after that heave, one has preceded. First heave and after that tithe, might he not give too little tithe or add to his tithe? As we have stated, he who gives too little tithe, his tithes are in order but his produce is damaged, if he gives too much tithe, his tithes are damaged but his produce is in order. Rabbi Yose said, he relies on a stipulation by the Court. What is the stipulation by the Court? As far as one’s mind might err.

What is a stipulation by the Court? That one should fix the First Tithe to the north, Second Tithe to the south, and the heave of the tithe at the extreme north. What is a stipulation by the Court? It is that if the Second Tithe is redeemed, that which is in excess is also redeemed. All this refers to dry produce; for fluids?

If somebody had 100 figs, 50 large ones and 50 small ones. If he takes from the large ones, should he take nine? If he takes from the small ones, should he take eleven? If he takes ten large ones, there might be one profane among them and we would worry that perhaps he would use that one to make it heave of the tithe for another place, but it is written: “The heave of the Eternal, tithe from tithe,Numbers 18:26” not profane from tithe. Rabbi Abun bar Kahana said, he stipulates and says, the tithe due from this produce should be fixed from the tip of each stem and continue until it reaches; in each of the ten there is heave of the tithe and a tiny bit of profane.

That takes care of large quantities. If there was little, if he had ten figs, five large ones and five small ones? If he takes from the large ones, he has to take one minus a little. From the little ones, he has to take one plus a little. If he took one of the large ones, it contains a little bit of profane and one has to worry that maybe he turns that profane part into heave of the tithe for another place, and it is written: “The heave of the Eternal, tithe from tithe,Numbers 18:26” not profane from tithe. Rabbi Abba from Carthage said, he stipulates and says, the tithe due from this produce should be fixed from the tip of each stem and he marks it and says to the priest, as far as where I marked it.

“What is here on this side is profane tevel.” Why does he not say, what is here on this side is tithe? He would precede. Why does he not say, that on this side is heave? It would turn out that either he diminishes or increases the heave. Since he says, what is here on this side is profane tevel, whether he diminishes or increases the heave does not matter.

Mishnah

3 He who buys from the baker may tithe from the warm on the cold and from the cold on the warm, even from many types, the words of Rabbi Meir. Rabbi Judah forbids it; I say that the wheat of yesterday was from one source and today’s is from another. Rabbi Simeon forbids for heave of the tithe and permits for ḥallah.

Halakhah

How long? A student of Rabbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rabbi Joshua ben Levi, up to 30 days. How is that? If he bought from him at the beginning of 30 days, in the middle, and at the end. The first and the second are one kind, the first and the third are two kinds.

“Rabbi Simeon forbids for heave of the tithe and permits for ḥallah.” Then Rabbi Judah forbids for ḥallah. Does it not become tevel at his place? But perhaps he borrows impure sourdough to make his bread dough. Even so, does it not become tevel at his place? But perhaps he borrows an impure loaf to fill up his oven. If he borrows an impure loaf to fill up his oven, must he then not tithe every single loaf? That is for Rabbi Joḥanan, since Rabbi Joḥanan said, there if he works in purity, here if he works in impurity. But for Rabbi Eleazar, who says that in both cases if he works in purity? Rabbi Yudan, the father of Rabbi Mattaniah, said, we refer to one who works in impurity and it becomes tevel at his place, and Rabbi Judah also agrees. We have stated accordingly: “Rabbi Judah and Rabbi Simeon forbid for heave of the tithe and permit for ḥallah.” Hence, Rabbi Judah forbids for heave of the tithe and permits for ḥallah; Rabbi Simeon forbids for heave of the tithe and permits for ḥallah. What is the difference between them? In the opinion of Rabbi Judah, one may not separate from today’s for yesterday’s or from yesterday’s for today’s, but one may separate from one oven batch on another oven batch. In the opinion of Rabbi Simeon, even from one oven batch on another one may not separate.

Mishnah

4 He who buys from a merchant tithes from each type separately, the words of Rabbi Meir. Rabbi Judah says, from one for everything. Rabbi Judah agrees about him who buys from a store with a monopoly that he tithes from each single loaf.

Halakhah

Rabbi Meir says, a baker makes one type and a merchant uses several bakers. Rabbi Judah says, a baker makes several types and a merchant uses only one baker.

What is a monopoly? At the House of Rabbi Yannai they say, nine sellers and ten bakers. Eight buy from eight and one from two.

Rabbi Jonah asked: If he had before him two types, it would be evident that they are two. If all bakers agreed to make one and the same type, does he have to tithe each loaf separately? Rabbi Jonah asked: As you said, nine stores and ten bakers, eight buy from eight and one from two. Similarly, nine bakers and ten stores; eight buy from eight and one from two, or nine from the nine and one buys from all of them? He must tithe each loaf separately.

Mishnah

5 He who buys from a poor person, and similarly, the poor to whom bread slices or pieces of fig cake were given, tithe from each piece separately. But he mixes together dates and dried figs and then gives. Rabbi Judah said, when is that? If the gift is large. But if the gift is small, he tithes from each single one. He who buys from the grain wholesaler and later buys from him a second time should not tithe from one batch for any other, not even if they are from the same crate, not even if they are the same kind. But the grain wholesaler is trustworthy to say that they are from the same source.

Halakhah

Rabbi Yose in the name of Rabbi Pedaiah, Rabbi Jonah in the name of Ḥizkiah, there is no mixing except for wine and oil. Rabbi Joḥanan says, they can be mixed up to the size of olives. Our Mishnah disagrees with Rabbi Joḥanan: “But he mixes together dates and dried figs and then gives.” He explains it up to olive-sized bits.

Rabbi Yose in the name of Rabbi Zeira: They permitted for demai following Rabbi Judah, since “Rabbi Judah says, when is that? If the gift is large. But if the gift is small, he tithes from each single one.”

In the House of Rabbi Yannai they said: The Mishnah speaks of threshing time, when everybody was giving from a hundred seah. If all were giving from a hundred seah but one only from fifty, he must tithe from fifty. If all were giving from fifty but one only from forty, he must tithe from forty. If all were giving from forty but one only from thirty, he must tithe from thirty. If all were giving from twenty but one only from ten, he must tithe from ten. If all were giving from ten but one only from one, he must tithe every single one.

Rabbi Jeremiah asked: Even if he declares the buy to be good? “That wheat I bought from you yesterday was good!” “These are the same!”

It was stated: “He who buys from the retail merchant and returns to buy a second time. If he recognizes that the amphora is the same, he tithes from one on the other.” But if he does not recognize it, he does not. That means, in the case of ʾydtyqrymʾ, but not in the case of vessels used to draw wine, which usually are refilled one from the other.

Mishnah

6 He who buys from a farmer and then buys from him a second time tithes from one batch for the other, even if they are from two crates, even if they are from two different hamlets. If the farmer sells vegetables on the market, if his supply comes from his own vegetable gardens, one tithes from one for all others, from other vegetable gardens, one has to tithe each bunch separately.

Halakhah

Rabbi Jonah asked: According to Rabbi Meir, should he not tithe each stem separately? As we have stated there: “Rabbi Meir said, why did it become impure? Only because of spittle!” As you will say, there it is usual to open bundles and he binds using his mouth, but here, is it usual to open bundles to risk having the outer ones inside and the inner ones outside?

Rabbi Jonah said, not only from his own vegetable gardens, but even from vegetable gardens of others, if they tithe under his instruction, he tithes from one for the other, but if they do not, he has to tithe each bunch separately.

Mishnah

7 He who buys tevel from two sources may tithe from one for the other even though they said that nobody is permitted to sell tevel except in case of need.

Halakhah

Rabbi Jonah said, this is the Mishnah: Nobody is permitted to sell tevel except in case of need, and only to a ḥaver. In that case, if tevel of an am haʾaretz was mixed with profane, can that never be fixed? What should he do? He goes to a ḥaver who buys tevel for him and tithes for him.

Mishnah

8 One tithes from a Jew’s produce for that of a Gentile and from a Gentile’s for that of a Jew; from that of a Jew for that of a Samaritan, and from that of a Samaritan for that of a Samaritan. Rabbi Eleazar prohibits from that of a Samaritan for that of a Samaritan. A flower pot with a hole is like earth. If he gave heave from the earth for a pot with a hole, or from a flower pot with a hole for produce of the earth, his heave is heave. From a pot without a hole for one with a hole it is heave, but he must take heave a second time. From a pot with a hole for one without a hole, it is heave that should not be eaten unless heave and tithes were taken for it. If he took heave from one demai for other demai, or from demai for certain produce, it is heave, but he must take heave a second time. From certain produce for demai, it is heave that should not be eaten unless heave and tithes were taken for it.

Halakhah

The Mishnah is Rabbi Meir’s, since Rabbi Meir says that a Gentile may not acquire real estate in the Land of Israel to remove it from tithe; Rabbi Judah and Rabbi Simeon say, a Gentile may acquire real estate in the Land of Israel to free it from tithe. Rabbi Immi in the name of Rabbi Simeon ben Lakish: The reason of Rabbi Meir: “You shall transmit them by inheritance to your sons after you, to inherit by the rules of real estate.Leviticus 25:46” This brackets real estate with slaves. Just as you may buy slaves from them but they cannot buy from you, so real estate you may buy from them but they cannot buy from you. Rabbi Eleazar ben Rabbi Yose said before Rabbi Yasa, the following supports Rabbi Meir: “The land shall not be sold permanently, because the land belongs to Me,Leviticus 25:23” absolutely. He said to him, that in itself supports Rabbi Simeon. “It shall not be sold,” because if it was sold, it would be sold absolutely.

The Great Rabbi Ḥuna from Sepphoris said, Rabbi Ḥanina instituted in Sepphoris following Rabbi Simeon. Rabbi Zeira said, Rabbi Ḥanina instituted in Sepphoris following Rabbi Simeon.

Rabbi Zeira said before Rabbi Abbahu in the name of Rabbi Eleazar: Even though Rabbi Meir says that a Gentile may not acquire real estate in the Land of Israel to free it from tithes, he agrees here that he may acquire property rights. Rabbi Abba said, in order to eat its fruits. Did we not state: “The buyer brings First Fruits for the good of the world.” Why does he not bring it as a Biblical obligation?

Rabbi Jonah, Rabbi Simon in the name of Rabbi Joshua ben Levi: He who buys loose produce from a Gentile separates heave and heave of the tithe as a matter of practice, gives it to the tribe, and receives money from the tribe. But he who buys produce still in the ground from a Gentile separates heave and heave of the tithe as a matter of practice, gives it to the tribe, and does not take money from the tribe. What is the reason? “If you remove the tithe from the Children of Israel.Numbers 18:26” From the Children of Israel you remove the tithe, but not from the acquaintances of priests or Levites. From the Children of Israel you remove the tithe, but not from the hand of a Gentile.

Rabbi Aḥa said, in the days of Rabbi Hoshaiah they wanted to vote on King’s Mountain, to free it from tithes. They said, let Rabbi Hoshaiah come. Before he could come, the opportunity was lost.

Rabbi Judah ben Pazi in the name of Rabbi Hoshaiah: Practice follows Rabbi Simeon. Otherwise, we would say, between Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Simeon, practice does not follow Rabbi Simeon. But because it was stated: “Rabbi Simeon from Shezur said, once some produce that was tevel was mixed up with my produce. I asked Rabbi Tarfon, and he told me: Go and buy from a Gentile and tithe for it.” On that we have stated: “Rabbi Judah and Rabbi Simeon say, a Gentile may acquire real estate in the Land of Israel to free it from tithe.” So that you would not think that this case has two opposed by two. Therefore, he had to say that practice follows Rabbi Simeon.

In addition, from the following: Rabbi Zeira said, Abba the Anatolian bought produce from an Aramean; he came before Rabbi Judah ben Levi who sent his son Menaḥem to put it in order; he gave him his tithes. When he returned, Rabbi Joshua ben Levi met him and said, who else but your father would do such a thing? The arguments of Rabbi Joshua ben Levi are inverted. There, he says that he who buys loose produce from a Gentile, separates heave and heave of the tithe as a matter of practice, gives them to the tribe, and receives money from the tribe; and here he says so! Rabbi Abba bar Zamina said before Rabbi Zeira, Rabbi Simon does not say so, but when he returned, Rabbi Joshua ben Levi met him and said, this does not belong to your father. Rabbi Zeira was offended.

Rabbi Aḥa, Rabbi Tanḥum bar Ḥiyya in the name of Rabbi Joshua ben Levi, three may tithe without permission: He whose tevel was mixed with profane produce. And he who buys from the division of the Samaritans. Rabbi Zeira said, this implies that he does not take money from the tribe. If you say that he takes money from the tribe, he tithed with permission!

Rabbi Joḥanan said, the reason of Rabbi Eleazar: Just as they declared the produce of the Land of Israel demai notwithstanding the majority and one may not give heave or tithe from one for the other, so they declared the produce of Samaritans certain, notwithstanding the majority one may not give heave or tithe from one for the other.

Rabbi Abun bar Ḥiyya in the name of Rabbi Zeira: They declared a pot to be of doubtful status. But did we not state: “A pot with a hole sanctifies in the vineyard, a pot without a hole does not sanctify in the vineyard.” Because of doubt.

Just as you say, “from certain produce for demai, it is heave that should not be eaten unless heave and tithes were taken for it,” should one say so also for “from one demai for other demai”? Rabbi Abun bar Ḥiyya in the name of Rabbi Samuel bar Rav Isaac, this means that a case of doubtful demaʿ is like a case of doubt about heave of the tithe from demai; it is free from the rules of certain produce.

Mishnah

1 He who receives a field as sharecropper from a Jew, a Gentile, or a Samaritan, distributes in their presence. He who leases a field from a Jew separates heave and delivers to him. Rabbi Judah says, when is that? When he gives from that field and from that kind. But if he gives from another field or from another kind, he must tithe and give him. He who leases a field from a Gentile tithes and delivers to him. Rabbi Judah says, also he who is a sharecropper for a Gentile on a field that used to belong to his family tithes and delivers to him.

Halakhah

Rabbi Joḥanan said, these are the words of Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel. But the words of the Sages are: From a Jew, he splits; from a Gentile, he gives heave. We have stated: “He who leases a field from a Gentile separates heave and then gives to him. Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel said: If the Gentile does not wish to give heave, I have no right to it, but he distributes and puts it before him.”

Rabbi Zeira, Rabbi Joḥanan in the name of Rabbi Yannai: “You, also you,Numbers 18:28” to include your agent. Just as you are in the covenant, so your agent must be in the covenant. You appoint a agent, the Gentile may not. Rabbi Yasa wanted to say that the Gentile cannot appoint as agent another Gentile, but he can appoint a Jew. Rabbi Zeira said, from the baraita itself: You appoint a agent, does that not mean Jews? Similarly, the Gentile cannot appoint a agent, not even a Jew. Rav Hoshaiah objects: Does the baraita support Rabbi Joḥanan? “Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel said: If the Gentile does not wish to give heave from his produce, he cannot give heave.” Rabbi Abba said, if he confirms it after him.

“‘He who leases,’ means he pays in produce, ‘he who rents,’ means he pays money, ‘he who receives,’ as sharecropper for a half, a third, or a quarter.”

So far a Gentile; a Samaritan? Let us hear from the following: “He who gives a field to a Gentile sharecropper, a Samaritan, or somebody who is not trusted with tithes, before they come to the time of tithes he does not have to tithe for him; after they come to the time of tithes he has to tithe for him.” That is, at a place where Jews are present. At a place where no Jews are available? Let us hear from the following: Rabbi Simon had fields at King’s Mountain. He asked Rabbi Joḥanan, who told him: Let them lie fallow, but do not lease them to a Gentile. He asked Rabbi Joshua ben Levi who permitted it to him. Rabbi Joshua ben Levi is of the opinion that a place where no Jews are available has the status of Syria. For Syria, we hear from the following: Rabbi Ḥaggai went down to Homs. The Astor family asked him: Since no Jews are available here, we lease to Gentiles; do we have to tithe for them? He sent and asked Rabbi Zeira. Rabbi Zeira asked Rabbi Immi, who told him that they did not have to tithe. From this you hear that the rules of leasing follow Rabbi Yose. Also from the following: Rabbi Ḥanina, the son of Rabbi Abbahu, said my father had a case; he sent and asked Rabbi Ḥiyya, Rabbi Yasa, and Rabbi Immi, and they taught him that the rules of leasing follow Rabbi Yose; hence, as far as tithing for them is concerned, they do not tithe for them.

“If he received a field to harvest for wheat, grapes to harvest for wine, olives to harvest for oil, he tithes before he delivers.” Come and see: Before he sows, he separates heave; after it was sown, he tithes? Rabbi Ḥinena said, they made a special decree for the sharecropper, so that the Land of Israel should not lie fallow. But here it is already sown.

“If he received a field to harvest for early ears, grapes to harvest for baskets of grapes, olives to harvest for baskets of olives, he delivers as is.” That means, if he is paid in the same kind; but from another field, or from that field but not from the same kind, he must tithe before he delivers. Rabbi Ḥiyya stated: “From the same field, whether it be the same kind or another kind, he separates heave and delivers. From another field, whether it be the same kind or another kind, he tithes and delivers.” The Mishnah follows Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel; what Rabbi Ḥiyya stated follows the Sages, and they disagree. We also may come and state that the Mishnah deals with some place where barley usually does not yield twice as much as wheat; what Rabbi Ḥiyya stated refers to a place where barley usually yields twice as much as wheat.

There you say, he separates heave and delivers to him. Here you say, he tithes and delivers to him. The colleagues in the name of Rabbi Joḥanan: The Sages fined the one who leases from a Gentile but they did not fine the one who leases from a Jew. Rabbi La in the name of Rabbi Joḥanan: The strict law applies to him who leases from a Gentile but not to him who leases from a Jew.

One baraita supports one and one baraita supports the other. One baraita supports the colleagues. “He who leases a field from a Gentile separates heave and delivers to him. Rabbi Meir says, he tithes and delivers to him.” Could the rabbis say, the Sages fined him who leases from a Gentile but they did not fine him who leases from a Jew? How can a fine apply to leasing from a Jew? But so it is: The rabbis say, the strict law applies to him who leases from a Jew, but Rabbi Meir said, the strict law does not apply to him who leases from a Jew. One baraita supports Rabbi La: “He who leases a field from a Gentile tithes and delivers to him. Rabbi Simeon says, he separates heave and delivers to him.” Could the rabbis say, the strict law applies to him who leases from a Gentile, but the strict law does not apply to him who leases from a Jew; Rabbi Simeon said, the strict law does not apply to him who leases from a Gentile? Can anybody make such a statement? But so it is, the Sages fined him who leases from a Gentile but they did not fine him who leases from a Jew. Rabbi Simeon said, the Sages did not fine him who leases from a Gentile; hence, if the Gentile converted or sold to another Jew, it is permitted.

One can understand the one who says that the law applies. But the one who says, they fined? Rabbi Joḥanan said, one has stated this only in the case of oppressors. Since you say so to him, he exerts himself and buys the land back.

Mishnah

2 A priest or a Levite who received a field as sharecroppers share in the tithe in the same proportion as they share in a profane yield. Rabbi Eliezer says, the tithe is theirs because they came because of it.

Halakhah

The rabbis object to Rabbi Eliezer: How did they acquire? He said to them, do you not agree with me that if they agreed among themselves, tithes go to the workers? Even if they made a condition, how did they acquire? If there is nothing said, it is as if somebody said: Harvest from this land so that its tithes should be yours. They said to him, there is no stipulation here; if nothing is said there is no stipulation. It is as if he said, harvest this land on condition that you take one tenth for yourselves.

It was stated: “A priest from a priest, a Levite from a Levite, an Israelite from an Israelite, split the tithes.” Who needs this statement? Rabbi Eliezer; even though Rabbi Eliezer says that the tithe is theirs because they came because of it, here he agrees that they divide up the tithes.

“An Israelite who received a field as sharecropper from a priest, if he said to him, on condition that the tithes be mine, or yours, or mine and yours; this is permitted. A priest who received a field as sharecropper from a priest, if he said to him, on condition that the tithes be mine, that is permitted. That they be yours, that is forbidden. That they be mine and yours, that is forbidden. If he received it under the standard sharecropping contract, it is permitted, otherwise it is forbidden.” Even without that, do not the tithes belong to them? But so it must read: “My part is mine, your part is mine and yours, if he received it under the standard sharecropping contract, it is permitted, otherwise it is forbidden.”

“If an Israelite received as sharecropper a field from another Israel on condition that the tithes go to a certain person, that clause is forbidden; on condition that I will take them and deliver them to a certain person, that clause is permitted.” Is the second version not identical with the first? Rabbi Aḥa said, “if you agree” makes the difference. Rabbi Yose said, you say it is permitted if it follows the standard sharecropper’s contract. You say it is forbidden if it does not follow the standard sharecropper’s contract. It turns out that Rabbi Yose holds with Rabbi Joḥanan and Rabbi Aḥa with Rabbi Yose ben Rabbi Ḥanina. As Rabbi Yose ben Rabbi Ḥanina said, a person gives his tithes for the benefit of goodwill. Rabbi Joḥanan said, a person may not give his tithes for the benefit of goodwill. What is the reason of Rabbi Yose ben Rabbi Ḥanina? “Everybody shall be the owner of his holy things.Numbers 5:10” What does Rabbi Joḥanan do with this? He may give them to whomever he likes.

A Mishnah disagrees with Rabbi Yose ben Rabbi Ḥanina: “A vow that no priests or Levites should have any advantage from me, they should take against his will.” He explains it about a person who says, I cannot possibly give them any gifts. You should know that this is so, since we have stated: “These priests and Levites, let others take.” A baraita disagrees with Rabbi Joḥanan: “An Israelite can say to another Israel, here you have a tetradrachma and give this firstborn to my daughter’s son, a priest.” He explains, if he already wanted to give it to two priests and that daughter’s son was one of them; then one said, here you have a tetradrachma and give all of it to my daughter’s son, a priest.

They asked before Rabbi Zeira, in that situation, a priest to an Israelite, what is the rule? At Rabbi Yose’s they said that he did not answer. Rabbi Ḥizkiah in the name of Rabbi Aḥa said, so he said to them: In the opinion of Rabbi Yose ben Rabbi Ḥanina, why is a priest to an Israelite forbidden, not because it looks bad? Also Rabbi Joḥanan holds that from an Israelite to an Israelite it is forbidden because it looks bad. Rabbi Yose ben Rabbi Abun said, there is desecration of sacrifices and you said because it looks bad? Because of the following, as it was stated: “priests and Levites who help at the threshing floor have no right either to heave or to tithe, and if the farmer gave, it is desecrated, as it is said: ‘They should not desecrate the sanctified things of the Children of IsraelLeviticus 22:15,’ but they desecrate them! In addition, they said that their heave is no heave, their tithes are no tithes, their dedications are no dedications, and about them the verse says: ‘Their heads judge for bribes and their priests come for a price.Micah 3:11’ The Omnipresent brings on them three catastrophes; that is what is written: ‘Therefore, because of you Zion will be plowed over as a field, etc.Micah 3:12’”

A Mishnah disagrees with Rabbi Joḥanan: “If somebody marries giving heave, tithes, ‘gifts,’ water for sprinkling, or ashes of the red heifer, she is married, even if the groom is an Israelite.” He explains it with heave he inherited from his maternal grandfather, a priest.

“If a priest sold a field to an Israelite and made the condition that the tithes should be his, the tithes are his.” May he sell them to a priest? Let us hear from the following. Rabbi Abbahu said in the name of Rabbi Simeon ben Lakish: He who sells the tithes of his field to another person did not do anything, the future children of his slave girl to another person, he did not do anything, the fetus of his animal to another person, he did not do anything, the airspace of his dry land to another person, he did not do anything. But he may sell him a field and reserve the tithes for himself, a slave girl and reserve her children for himself, an animal and reserve her fetus for himself. Is it not impossible for a person to sell the airspace of his dry land to another person? Explain it if he tells him, tear out some grasses in that dry land to acquire its airspace. And here there is real estate before him and he says, pluck something from the ground so that you acquire one tenth of it.

“If a priest sold a field to an Israelite on condition that the tithes should be his, the tithes are his. If he dies, his sons have no right to the tithes. ‘For me and my sons, for me and my heirs,’ his sons have the tithes, his heirs have the tithes.” Rabbi Yudan bar Shalom asked before Rabbi Yose: So far only for heirs whose claim is from the Torah? Even for heirs whose claim is not from the Torah!

“That all tithes should be mine as long as you own it, he gets its tithes as long as the buyer owns it.” When he sold it to a third party, he has no tithes. If the buyer then bought it back from the third party, Rabbi Ḥiyya states that he has no tithes, Rabbi Hoshaiah states that the tithes are his. This disagreement turns out like the other disagreement, as we have stated there: “He who divorces his wife and then remarries her, remarries her on the basis of the first ketubah.” Rabbi Ḥanin stated before Rabbi La: Two Amoraim, one says for ketubah but not for individual stipulations, and the other says, both for ketubah and individual stipulations. For him who says, for ketubah but not for individual stipulations, he has the tithes. For him who says, both for ketubah and for individual stipulations, he has no tithes. But did we not state: “If somebody received as sharecropper from the daughter of a priest, she has the tithes. If she married an Israelite, they split the tithes. If she was widowed or divorced, she returns to her prior status.” There when he sold, here when he received. But did not Rabbi Ḥiyya state: “When she sold?” Rabbi Samuel bar Eudaimon said, there it left the power of both parties; here, it left the power of the seller but not that of the buyer.

“A priest who sold a field to an Israelite on condition that the tithes be his for four or five years can oppose the buyer’s planting it as a vineyard, sowing woad, or turning it into a field of reeds. Mine forever, he cannot oppose the buyer’s planting it as a vineyard, sowing woad, or turning it into a field of reeds.” There came a case before Rabbi Aḥa bar Ulla and he obligated him to turn over to him one tenth of the reeds.

“If an Israelite sold a field to a priest on condition that the tithes be his for four or five years, it is permitted. Forever, it is forbidden, since no priest can make a priest. If a priest sold a field to an Israelite on condition that the tithes be the Israel’s for four or five years, it is forbidden.” There you say it is permitted, here you say it is forbidden! There, he gave him rights to something he had the right to dispose of, here, he gave him rights to something he had no right to dispose of.

Mishnah

3 If an Israelite received as sharecropper from a priest or a Levite, the tithes are for the owners. Rabbi Ishmael says, if a villager received a field from a Jerusalemite, the Second Tithe is the Jerusalemite’s. But the Sages say, the villager can go on pilgrimage and eat his part in Jerusalem.

Halakhah

According to the opinion of Rabbi Ishmael, if an impure priest and a pure priest were partners, would they not split the tithes? There he may sell the tithes to another pure priest, here can the villager go on pilgrimage and eat his part in Jerusalem?

Mishnah

4 If somebody receives olives to make oil, they split heave just as they split the profane. Rabbi Judah says, if an Israelite received olives from a priest or a Levite for oil or for half the yield as his wages, the tithes are for the landlords.

Halakhah

Rabbi Judah treats olives like fields but the rabbis do not treat olives like fields. Now it seems that Rabbi Judah is thinking like Rabbi Eliezer, as Rabbi Eliezer says, “the tithe is theirs because they came because of it.” So here, if a priest or a Levite received a field as sharecroppers, the tithes are theirs because they came because of them.

“A cow of a priest that was put in an Israelite’s care and gave birth to a firstborn calf, the firstborn calf is the priest’s, the words of Rabbi Judah. But the Sages say, the firstborn is their common property. Rabbi Judah said to them, do you not agree with me that the tithes of his field are his? They said to him, because the body of the field is his property, but the body of the cow is joint property. If the body of the cow were sole property of the priest, the firstborn would be the priest’s.” We have stated accordingly, “put in care means joint responsibility, selling is the sole responsibility of him who gives.”

“If a priest gave money to an Israelite to buy produce for half the profit and he, the priest, said to him: If they go up or down in price, it is on my account, and the tithes are yours, this is permitted. If an Israelite gave money to a priest to buy produce for half the profit and he, the Israelite, said to him: If they go up or down in price, it is on my account, and the tithes are yours, if he had paid the wages, it is permitted, otherwise it is forbidden. An Israelite who sold olives against 60 log of tevel. If one said to him, sell them to me and I will give you 60 log that are in order, that is permitted. 60 log tevel, and both of us will share in the tithes, that is forbidden.” If he gives him everything, it is permitted, if he gives him half, it is forbidden? Rabbi Yose said, if he extends credit to him. We also have stated in this respect: If he extends credit to him it is forbidden because of interest and because of degradation of holy things.

Mishnah

5 The House of Shammai say, one should sell one’s olives only to a ḥaver. The House of Hillel say, also to one who tithes. But the modest ones of the House of Hillel used to follow the words of the House of Shammai. If two people put the yield of their vineyards into one wine press and one tithes but the other does not, then he who tithes must tithe his own and what could be his at any place.

Halakhah

Rabbi Joḥanan said, the reason of the House of Hillel is that people eat from their olives while they are being loaded into the oil vat, as a subterfuge. The House of Hillel follow their own opinion, as we have stated: “One should not sell him a plowing cow in the Sabbatical year, but the House of Hillel permit this because he may slaughter it.” Do people really slaughter their cattle? As a subterfuge. They agree that one may sell ears of grain for dough even though one knows that the buyer will not prepare the dough in purity.

It was stated: “They agree that one does not sell a wheat stack, a grape vat, or an olive vat to anybody but a ḥaver or to somebody who is known to process in purity.” Is the grape vat not from the Torah? This does not disagree with Rabbi Joḥanan; just as Rabbi Joḥanan said, the little one is a restriction, so “vat of olives” is a restriction. Rabbi Ḥizkiah said to Rabbi Jonah in the name of Rabbi Jeremiah: They disagree about connections. Because everywhere “biting” is a connection, squeezing is not a connection. But here even squeezing is a connection; hence from the Torah they are enabled. Rabbi Jonah met Rabbi Jeremiah and asked him, did you say that? He said, that is not from me, even their enablings are restrictions. Did we not state: “They agree that one does not sell a wheat stack, a grape vat, or an olive vat to anybody but a ḥaver or to somebody who is known to process in purity?” Is the grape vat not from the Torah? Then the olive vat should be from the Torah! What about this? Explain it following Rabbi Meir, since Rabbi Meir said, sap is counted as a fluid.

Rabbi Zeira said, the reason of the House of Shammai is that a ḥaver should never sell olives to anybody but one who tithes.

Who are the modest ones? Those of noble conduct. Rav Ḥisda said, here we have taught that those of noble conduct are called modest.

Rabbi Eleazar said, this follows Rabbi Meir, since Rabbi Meir said, they permitted to sell demai only to the grain wholesaler. He explains the Mishnah: The one who tithes must tithe his own part as certain, and that part of his which could be spread anywhere as demai. Rabbi Jonah objected: He sells it as certain and tithes only demai? It is only possible in the way Rabbi Joḥanan said, the Mishnah is the word of everybody: The one who tithes must tithe his own part as certain, and his part anywhere as demai; that means one half of his part in his partner’s hand as demai.

Mishnah

6 If two people received a field as sharecroppers or inherited it or bought it as partners, one can say to his partner, take your wheat on this side and I will take on that side, take your wine from this side and I will take from the other side. But he should not say to him, take the wheat and I will take the barley, take the wine and I will take the oil. If a ḥaver and an am haʾaretz inherited from their am haʾaretz father, the ḥaver may say, take your wheat on this side and I will take on that side, take wine from this side and I will take from the other side. But he should not say to him, take wheat and I will take barley, take the moist produce and I will take the dry.

Halakhah

It was stated: “If a Jew and a Gentile bought a field in Syria, it is as if tevel and tithed produce were mixed together, the words of Rabbi. Rabbi Simeon ben Gamliel says, the Jew’s part is obligated, the Gentile’s part is free.” Rabbi Yasa in the name of Rabbi Ḥanina: When do they disagree? If they split the field while the grain was standing. But if they split grain stacks, even Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel will agree with Rabbi that every single stalk belongs to the partnership. Rabbi Jonah said, Rabbi Yose in the name of Rabbi Joḥanan: When do they disagree? If they split the field while the grain was standing. But if they split sheaves, even Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel will agree with Rabbi that every single stalk belongs to the partnership. According to Rabbi Jonah, what is the difference between stacks and sheaves? If he harvests a small amount and shares with his partner. Rabbi Hoshaiah said, that is, if they bought with the idea that they would not split. But if they bought with the idea that they always would split, Rabbi will agree with Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel that his part already belonged to him from the first moment. Rabbi Yose said, the words of the rabbis disagree since Rabbi Abbahu in the name of Rabbi Joḥanan said that partners are the subject of the disagreement between Rabbi and Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel. Are brothers who split not like these partners?

Mishnah

7 If a proselyte and a Gentile inherited from their Gentile father, the proselyte may say, take the idols and I will take money, take the wine for libations and I will take produce. After they came into the proselyte’s possession, this is forbidden. He who sells produce in Syria and says: “They are from the Land of Israel,” must tithe them. “They are tithed,” one believes him because the mouth that forbade is the mouth that permits. “They are from my field,” he must tithe them. “They are tithed,” one believes him because the mouth that forbade is the mouth that permits. If it is known that he has a field in Syria, he must tithe.

Halakhah

“If a Jew and a Gentile bought a Gentile’s house and found there idols, libation wine, and coins, he should not tell him, take the idols and libation wine, and I will take the coins.” Rabbi Joḥanan said, not only idols, libation wine, and coins, but even if there were two idols, one shaped as a tripod and one not shaped as a tripod, he should not tell him, take the one that is not shaped as a tripod and I will take the one shaped like a tripod. Rabbi Zeira said, that is correct, since even in the case of a ḥaver and an am haʾaretz who inherited from their am haʾaretz father and found there produce which might become impure and produce which might not, may he say to him, you take the produce which might become impure and I will take that which might not? But our Mishnah disagrees: “Take the idols and I will take money, take the wine for libations and I will take produce.” But the end shows that there is no disagreement: “After they came into the possession of the proselyte, this is forbidden.” Here, from the moment he acquired it, it is as if it entered into his possession.

“Aquila the Proselyte split with his brothers; he restricted himself and brought his gain to the Dead Sea.” Three Amoraim; one said that he brought the price of the idols to the Dead Sea, another said that he brought the price of his part in the idols to the Dead Sea, and another said that he brought the idols themselves to the Dead Sea, in order to remove them from his father’s house.

Mishnah

8 An am haʾaretz who said to a ḥaver, buy for me a bunch of vegetables, buy for me a loaf, if he buys anonymously, he is free. If he says, this one is for me and that one is for my friend, if they became mixed up he has to tithe, even if there are a hundred.

Halakhah

There, we have stated: “They can be trusted about gleanings, forgotten sheaves, and peah at harvest time.” And here you say so? There, his assertion is for exemption, but here his assertion is for obligation. And we have stated so: “If his assertion is for exemption, he may be trusted in restrictions.” But here, he can be trusted even if his explanation is to make it easier.

It was stated: “A Gentile who was calling out, ‘come and buy fruits from me, they are from an orlah tree, they are from a vineyard in its fourth year,’ cannot be believed. If he says, ‘I brought them from a certain Gentile,’ he may be trusted for restrictions, the words of Rabbi. The Sages say, the words of a Gentile are irrelevant.” Rabbi Judan asked, what if he calls out when he is uninformed? Rabbi Judan asked, what if one holds that a Samaritan is like a Gentile, since they disagreed: “A Samaritan is like a Gentile, the words of Rabbi. Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel says, a Samaritan is like a Jew in all respects”?

Rabbi Abun bar Ḥiyya said, that is only if most of what he takes in comes from his own.

If a Jew had a sharecropper in Syria who sent him fruits and said that they were tithed; I say that he bought them on the market, if that kind is found on the market. Not only if he does not grow that kind on his field, but even if he does grow that kind on his field; since that kind is found on the market it is permitted.

Our Mishnah follows Rabbi Yose, as we have stated: “He who buys anonymously has to tithe.” What are we talking about? If he said to him, go and buy for me, he is his agent; go and buy for yourself, they are his property. But in our case nothing was spelled out. Rabbi Judah says that the seller wants the person who buys to get the property rights, Rabbi Yose says that the seller wants the owner of the money to get the property rights. Therefore, if he added a piece, Rabbi Judah says, it belongs to the buyer, Rabbi Yose says, it belongs to both of them. The argument of Rabbi Yose seems to be inverted. There he says that the seller wants the owner of the money to get the property rights, and here you say so? Here the transaction is through the money of one and the feet of the other, therefore they split.

It was stated: “Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel says, if he exchanged the coin he has to tithe.” Rabbi Yose said, this means that if somebody gives coins to another person to exchange them, when they are lost the recipient is answerable for their alienation.

Samuel says, if he distributes it himself. Rabbi Eleazar said, only if he took his share last. Rabbi Jonah said, both statements are necessary. If he distributes it himself and took his share first he only has to tithe his share. If he did not distribute it but took his share last, he only has to tithe his share.

It was stated: “One may say to his worker: Here you have a denarius, use it for food, here you have a denarius, use it for drink, and not be worried about either the Sabbatical year, tithes, or wine for libations. But if he told him, go and buy yourself a loaf and I will give you the money, go and buy yourself a reviʾit of wine and I will give you the money, he has to worry because of the Sabbatical year, tithes, and wine used for libations.” Rabbi Zeira said, the grocer becomes the agent of the employer to let the worker acquire. Rabbi Hila said, the worker acquired for the employer from the grocer and then acquires it himself. What is the difference between them? If the grocer was deaf-mute. According to Rabbi Zeira, he does not have to worry because a deaf-mute cannot become a agent; according to Rabbi Hila, he has to worry.

It was stated: “A person should not say to his friend, here you have 200 zuz and pay for me to the treasury, but he says to him, free me from the treasury. Similarly, a person should not say to his friend, here you have 200 zuz and pay the leiturgia, but he says to him, free me from the leiturgia.”

Mishnah

1 If somebody invites his friend for a meal but the latter does not trust him with tithes, the friend should say on Friday: That which I will separate in the future will be tithe, the rest of the tithe next to it. That which I made tithe will be the heave of the tithe for everything, and the Second Tithe will be to the north or south and be redeemed by coins.

Halakhah

Rabbi Joḥanan said: The Mishnah deals with demai. Hence, not with certain produce? A Mishnah says, even for certain produce, as we have stated there: “If he had tevel figs in his house and he was in the House of Study or in the field.” If you want to say that we deal with demai, you cannot do so, since it is stated: “If it was demai.” What Rabbi Joḥanan said was that it deals with demai. He did not say, not with certain produce, but that this Mishnah deals with demai. What is the difference between demai and certain produce? For demai, a person may make a proviso for something that is not in his possession; for certain produce, he may only make a proviso for something that is in his possession.

Rabbi Yannai had made a proviso for certain produce. He asked the Great Rabbi Ḥiyya, may one fix this on the Sabbath? He said to him: “That you should learn to fear the Eternal, your God, all the days,Deuteronomy 14:23” including the Sabbath. How did you see a way to be so lenient, my initiative depends on me! He said to him, in the future you will be a leader in Israel.

Rabbi Hoshaiah had made a proviso for certain produce. A woman cooked vegetables she had forgotten to put in order. She came to Rabbi Hoshaiah who sent Zavdi ben Levi to put it in order for him and for her. Rabbi Abba bar Mamal asked, would Zavdi ben Levi not have to give Rabbi Hoshaiah property rights on these vegetables? Rabbi Zeira asked, what is the situation? If his proviso was meant for him and for others, he does not have to give him property rights on the vegetable. If his proviso was not meant for him and for others, he has to give him property rights on the vegetable. Rabbi Jacob bar Zavdi in the name of Rabbi Abbahu: It was answered, Zavdi ben Levi did not give Rabbi Hoshaiah property rights on the vegetable.

Rabbi Yannai said, he must remember his proviso. Simeon bar Abba in the name of Rabbi Joḥanan, he must whisper with his lips.

Rabbi Jeremiah asked before Rabbi Zeira: Is he not like somebody who makes repairs on the Sabbath? He said to him, because of his proviso. Rabbi Jeremiah asked before Rabbi Zeira: Is it not forbidden because of destruction of edibles? He said to him, he crumbles a small amount and eats. Rabbi Jeremiah asked before Rabbi Zeira: Is it not forbidden because of robbery? He said to him, the host desires the satisfaction of his guest.

The words of the rabbis disagree since Rabbi Samuel bar Rabbi Isaac said: Rabbi and Rabbi Yose ben Rabbi Judah were guests of a private person. Gossips told the host, watch out, they are suspecting you! He sat near them and was watching them. They pretended to throw food at each other and in that way were putting the food in order. Does he not desire their satisfaction? He does, but he does not want to be suspected.

It was stated: “Rabbi Judah forbids.” What is the reason of Rabbi Judah? Can a person make a proviso about something not in his possession? “But Rabbi Judah agrees that he may go, buy from the place from which his host bought, and tithe.” Can a person give for something that is not his? Rabbi Abbahu in the name of Rabbi Joḥanan: they considered him as one who sold tevel produce to another person, as was stated: “He who sells tevel produce to another person has to run after him and put the produce in order. If he does not find him, if it is known that the produce still exists, he has to tithe for him; if not, he does not have to tithe for him. If it is doubtful whether the produce exists or not, he tithes for it and gives a name to the tithes.”

Mishnah

2 When they mixed him a cup, he says: What I will leave at the rim of the cup will be tithe, the rest of the tithe next to it. What I made tithe will be the heave of the tithe for everything, and the Second Tithe will be on its top and be redeemed by coins.

Halakhah

So is the Mishnah: Concerning the mixing of the cup.

What is the situation? If he says it beforehand, the drink is mixed. If he says, after I have drunk, before that he drank tevel. What we are dealing with is that he says beforehand: After I have drunk. But does he then not move impure heave on the Sabbath? Rabbi Eleazar said, he leaves some profane, as what we have stated there: “One moves pure heave with impure one and with profane food.” But that does not compare. There, the impure is for the needs of the pure, but here the profane is for the needs of the impure. Rabbi Yose ben Rabbi Abun said, when he sets down the cup it will be holy.

There, we have stated: “If somebody buys wine from the Samaritans.” It was stated: “Rabbi Yose and Rabbi Simeon forbid it, for the wine bag may spring a leak and it will turn out retroactively that he drank tevel.” Is our Mishnah not following Rabbi Yose and Rabbi Simeon? Rabbi Jacob bar Idi said, all agree that the cup is at its place.

Mishnah

3 A worker who does not believe his employer takes one dried fig and says: This one and the next nine will be tithe for ninety that I will eat. This one is made heave of the tithe for them. The Second Tithe is at the end and it is redeemed by a coin. He saves one fig. Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel says, he should not save because he reduces the work he will be able to do for his employer. But Rabbi Yose said, he should not save because that is a stipulation of the Court.

Halakhah

Rabbi Eleazar in the name of Rabbi Hoshaiah: They considered him a worker who does not trust his employer. The following is obvious: If the produce was burned, the heave is tevel. If the heave is burned, when the produce is eaten the heave will have been sanctified retroactively.

What did he save? From his food he separates the heave of the tithe.

It was stated: “A man should not plow with his cow at night and rent her out during the day, he should not work for himself at night and rent himself out during the day, he should not starve himself and not torment himself because he reduces the work he will be able to do for his employer.”

Rabbi Joḥanan went to some place where he found the schoolteacher weak. He asked them, what has happened? They said to him, he is fasting. He said to him, that is forbidden to you. If one says that it is forbidden for the work one does for flesh and blood, so much more for the work of the Holy One, praise to Him!

Rav Ḥiyya bar Ashi in the name of Rav: It is a stipulation of the Court that the heave of the tithe should be from the worker and the Second Tithe from the employer.

Mishnah

4 If someone buys wine from Samaritans he may say: Two log that I will separate in the future are heave, ten tithe, and nine Second Tithe; then he redeems and drinks.

Halakhah

It was stated: “Rabbi Yose and Rabbi Simeon prohibit doing so, maybe the wine bag will spring a leak and it turns out retroactively that he drank tevel.” But the reason of one is not the reason of the other. The reason of Rabbi Yose is that maybe he will pour. The reason of Rabbi Simeon is that maybe he will forget and drink the remainder. As it was stated: “The Second Tithe in this container should be redeemed by the tetradrachma in that wallet, it is redeemed. Rabbi Yose says, it is not redeemed.” What is the reason of Rabbi Yose? “If he said, the old tetradrachma or the old denarius, he did redeem. The Sages admit to Rabbi Yose that if he said, the tetradrachma I will take from my son’s hand, or the denarius I will take from my son’s hand, it is not redeemed since it was not in his hand at that time.”

There, we have stated: “If somebody puts aside produce... to serve for Second Tithe.” Does that Mishnah disagree with Rabbi Yose and Rabbi Simeon? Rabbi Zeira said, there they become spoiled retroactively, but here they become spoiled only starting from the moment of loss.

There, we have stated: “If a peruṭah of Temple property fell into somebody’s wallet, or if somebody said, a peruṭah in this wallet will be Temple property,” it was stated that “with the first coin he committed probable larceny, with the second one certain larceny, the words of Rabbi Akiva. But the Sages say, with any of them he committed probable larceny, except that with the last one he committed certain larceny.” Rabbi Yudan, the father of Rabbi Mattaniah, said, that is, if there were ten coins. But if there were only two, with the first coin he committed probable larceny, with the second one certain larceny. Rabbi Simeon ben Lakish asked before Rabbi Joḥanan: What is the difference between him who says “in the wallet” and him who says “from the wallet”? Rabbi Simeon ben Lakish said, even if he spent the entire wallet he would not have committed larceny; just as you say “that he drank tevel retroactively,” here also “retroactively he spent profane money.” But here it depends on the act of separation. Rabbi Jonah said, in both cases it depends on the act of separation; it is as if he said, this wallet should not be freed from a peruṭah of Temple property. Rabbi Simeon ben Lakish’s argument is inverted. There, he says that one commits larceny with a peruṭah corresponding to the computation of three log. And here, he says so? After he asked, he returned and gave the simple answer.

Rabbi Isaac ben Eleazar said, a person can say on Friday, this will be heave tomorrow, but nobody can say on the Sabbath, this will be heave tomorrow. Rabbi Yose ben Rabbi Abun said, nobody can say on Friday, this will be heave tomorrow. A Mishnah disagrees with Rabbi Yose ben Rabbi Abun: “If a vessel was immersed that day and somebody filled it from an amphora with tevel tithe, if he said, its contents should be heave of the tithe tomorrow, that is, after nightfall, then this is heave. If he said, that should be eruv, he did not say anything.” Explain it if he transgressed. But Rabbi Ḥiyya stated: “He says,” and you say, if he transgressed? Rabbi Yose ben Rabbi Abun retracted that.

Mishnah

5 If somebody had tevel figs in his house but was in the House of Study or in the field, he says: Two figs that I will separate in the future will be heave, ten tithe, and nine heave of the tithe. If they were demai, he says: That which I will separate in the future will be tithe tomorrow, the rest of the tithe next to it. That which I made tithe will be heave of the tithe for all, and the Second Tithe will be to the north or to the south and be redeemed by coins.

Halakhah

What is done? “From before I separate it.” Think about it, if it was pure heave, “from before I eat it.” Think about it, if it was impure heave, “from before I put it in a corner.”

We have stated: “One may move both pure and impure heave.” Rabbi Zeira said, it means that one is permitted to move tevel that has a condition on it on the Sabbath. What does he do? He thinks about a part of it and eats the rest.

Mishnah

6 If he had before him two baskets of tevel and he said, the tithes of one are in the other and those of the other in the one, the first one is tithed; if he said their tithes are tithes of each basket in the other one, he gave it a name.

Halakhah

We have stated for this: “He takes from the second one two figs and two tenths and a tenth of a tenth.” Samuel says, you cannot state that; when he takes one in ten he has to take one in a hundred, when he takes one in a hundred he has to take one in a thousand, when he takes one in a thousand he has to take one in ten thousand.

Rabbi Yose bar Ḥanina said, for the first basket he transgresses a commandment, for the second a commandment and a prohibition. For the first basket he transgresses a commandment since he gave both names simultaneously, and for the second a commandment and a prohibition since he gave both names simultaneously and he put the Second Tithe of the first basket before the First Tithe of the second basket.

Rabbi Eleazar said, this is from Rabbi Meir since Rabbi Meir says that you accept only the very first version. There, we have stated: “This one will be a substitute for a burnt offering and for an offering of well-being, then it is a substitute for a burnt offering, the words of Rabbi Meir.” Rabbi Yose said, we were of the opinion that Rabbi Meir and the Sages disagree only after the time for speech, but not within the time for speech. Since Rabbi Eleazar said, the Mishnah is Rabbi Meir’s, it means that even within the time of speech he cannot retract.

This is the Mishnah: “Their tithes are tithes for each basket in the other one, he gave it a name,” because he declared both names at the same time. One after the other you accept only the very first version. Rabbi Abuna said, the Sages agree with Rabbi Meir about him who says “this heave substitutes for Second” that he is guilty. “This animal instead of well-being offerings,” he is obligated for two since he declared two names at the same time; hence, one after the other you accept only the very first version. Not so, said Rabbi Samuel bar Rav Isaac who said in the name of Rav Huna: “This one will be a substitute for a burnt offering,” he may retract that within the time for speech. That is, if he wants to retract, there if he wants to add. If one said, “this is heave,” even within the time of speech he cannot retract. A person can be asked about his dedication but nobody can be asked about his heave.

How does one act? “One takes 20 figs from any basket one chooses.” And in any 10 one takes there is one of heave of the tithe. That is, if they were equal. “If in one basket there were 100 and in the other 200, if he takes for the one with a hundred, he takes 11. If for the one with 200 he takes 30.” “If in one basket there were 100 and in the other 1000, if he takes for the one with a hundred, he takes 15. If for the one with a thousand, even if he takes the entire basket he does not complete taking.”

“If someone has a basket and wants to tithe it, he takes two ninths and a ninth of a ninth, corresponding to ten tithe and nine Second Tithe.” Why does he not say 19? Rabbi Zeira said, the words of the Sages and their riddles. He who wants to bring a hundred figs in order into his house takes for every single fig two ninths and a ninth of a ninth, 23 figs in all, four called ninth of a ninth.

Mishnah

7 A hundred tevel in a hundred profane, he removes 101. A hundred tevel in a hundred tithe, he removes 101. A hundred profane fully in order and a hundred tithe, he removes 110. A hundred tevel and ninety tithe, ninety tevel and eighty tithe, he did not lose anything. That is the rule: Anytime that tevel is more, he did not lose anything.

Halakhah

Rabbi Simeon ben Lakish said, one has to specify a stipulation and say: If tevel is in my hands, it will be tithe, but if tithe is in my hands, it will be heave of the tithe. Rabbi Jonah said, one has to add the converse stipulation and say, otherwise I did not do anything. Rabbi Joḥanan said, one does not have to add the converse stipulation. Either one of them follows his own opinion, since they disagreed: Two heaps of grain, in one of them. Rabbi Joḥanan said, they are both forbidden as demaʿ, but Rabbi Simeon ben Lakish said, they are not forbidden.

Rabbi Mana said, they differ with Rabbi Eleazar ben Arakh. As he stated: “Tevel mixed with profane produce, if it can be provided from another place, one takes it out in proportion. Otherwise, Rabbi Eleazar ben Arakh says, he gives a name to the heave of the tithe and takes it out by 101.” Rabbi Abba bar Mamal said, explain it with kinds one cannot take out. Rabbi Hillel ben Pazi asked: Why can he not crack them? Rabbi Jonah said, is one permitted to crack them? Did we not state: “If the nuts were cracked,” in the past. That means, not from the outset.

Rabbi Jonah said, so is the Mishnah: Anytime that tevel is more than the tithe, tithe does not lose anything.

Rabbi Levinti in the name of Rabbi Jonah: Any tevel mentioned here is tevel for first and second tithes.

Rabbi Abbahu said, Rabbi and Rabbi Dositheos the son of Rabbi Yannai disagree. One says, he takes the second tithe from another place, but the other one says, he makes all of it second tithe and takes the first tithe from another place. What are we talking about? “A hundred tevel and ninety tithe, he takes 92 minus one tenth. A hundred tevel and eighty tithe, he takes 83 minus two tenths. Other quantities proportionally.”

Mishnah

8 If somebody had ten rows of ten wine jugs each, and he said that one from an outer row was tithe but he no longer knows which one, he takes two diagonally opposite amphoras. One of half an outer row was tithe but he no longer knows which one, then he takes the four amphoras at the four corners. One row was tithe but he no longer knows which one, then he takes one diagonal row. Half a row was tithe but he no longer knows which one, then he takes from the two diagonal rows. One amphora was tithe but he no longer knows which one, then he takes from each amphora.

Halakhah

Why does he not take two? Rabbi Cohen in the name of the rabbis of Caesarea: When he separated half of the heave from another place.

It was stated: “If there were two amphoras before him, one of pure tithe which was tevel and one of impure tithe which was tevel, he brings two vessels and takes from each of them heave of the tithe for both of them. He then turns and lifts one vessel and says: If this one is pure, I am making it heave of the tithe; else I did not do anything. Then he turns, does the same for the second vessel, immerses himself and drinks, the words of Rabbi. Rabbi Simeon ben Eleazar says, he takes it only at the end.” What is the reason of Rabbi? I say, maybe he started drinking the impure one first. And what is the reason of Rabbi Eleazar ben Rabbi Simeon? Maybe he drank the impure one at the end. Everybody agrees that he who drinks impure liquids may not even eat heave that is in doubt. If the liquids were possibly impure, everybody agrees that he may eat what certainly is heave. But here we deal with another Mishnah. What is the reason of Rabbi Eleazar ben Rabbi Simeon? Since according to both the impurity is certain, he needs immersion. What is the reason of Rabbi? That he should not be led into drinking a reviʾit. According to the reason of Rabbi Eleazar ben Rabbi Simeon, he drinks less than a reviʾit. Is Rabbi Eleazar ben Rabbi Simeon not afraid that he would be led into drinking a reviʾit? Rabbi Yose ben Rabbi Abun said, the only explanation you have is our first one. Rabbi is afraid that he drank the impure liquid first and Rabbi Eleazar ben Rabbi Simeon is afraid that he drank the impure liquid at the end.