## Jerusalem Talmud Demai Chapter 2

###### Jerusalem Talmud Demai 2:1:1
[Jerusalem Talmud Demai 2:1:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Demai/r/2:1:1)

**משנה:** אֵלּוּ דְּבָרִים מִתְעַשְּׂרִין דְּמַאי בְּכָל מָקוֹם. הַדְּבֵילָה וְהַתְּמָרִים וְהֶחָרוּבִין הָאוֹרֶז וְהַכַּמּוֹן. הָאוֹרֶז שֶׁבְּחוּצָה לָאָרֶץ כָּל הַמִּשְׁתַּמֵּשׁ מִמֶּנּוּ פָטוּר.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
**MISHNAH:** The following must be tithed as *demay* everywhere¹: Fig cakes, dates, carobs, rice, and cumin. Rice from outside the Land² even if imported and used in the land occupied by the returnees from Babylonia. is free for everybody who uses it.

footnotes:
¹ Every place that ever belonged to the Biblical Land of the Twelve Tribes, but only if the produce is from a kind which grows in the Land of Israel. These kinds are export articles and one may expect to find them in all surrounding countries.
² Rice from strains not grown in the Land are free from demay


###### Jerusalem Talmud Demai 2:1:2
[Jerusalem Talmud Demai 2:1:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Demai/r/2:1:2)

**הלכה:** תַּמָּן תַּנֵּינָן שׁוּם בַּעַל בֶּכִי וּבָצֵל שֶׁל רִכְפָּה וּגְרִיסִין הַקִּילִקִּין וַעֲדָשִים הַמִּצְרִיּוֹת. הַמִּינִין הַלָּלוּ עַל יְדֵי שֶׁיֵּשׁ כְּיוֹצֵא בָּהֶן בְּאֶרֶץ יִשְׂרָאֵל צָרְכוּ חֲכָמִים לִיתֵּן לָהֶן סֵימָן. אֲבָל הָאֶלַּצַּרִין וְהָאַפִּסְטֻקִּין וְהָאִצְטְרוֹבֳלִין עַל יְדֵי שֶׁאֵין כְּיוֹצֵא בָּהֶן בְּאֶרֶץ יִשְׂרָאֵל לֹא צָרְכוּ חֲכָמִים לִיתֵּן לָהֶן סֵימָן. אָמַר רִבִּי אָבִין הָדָא מַתְנִיתָא חִילּוּפָא חִיּוּב הַמִּינִין הָאֵלּוּ עַל יְדֵי שֶׁאֵין כְּיוֹצֵא בָּהֶן בְּחוּצָה לַאָרֶץ צָרְכוּ חֲכָמִים לִמְנוֹתָן. וְהָא דְּבֵילָה בְּבוֹצְרָה. שְׁחִיקָה הִיא. וְהָא תְמָרִין בְּאַלֶכְסַנְדְּרִיָּא. דְּקִיקִין אִינּוּן. וְהָא חָרוּב בְּבִיָּארִי גִּידּוּד הוּא. וְהָא אוֹרֶז בְּחוֹלָתָה אַכְּתַר הוּא סִימוּק הוּא. וְהָא כָּמוּן בְּקִיפְּרוֹס. עָקוּם הוּא.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
**HALAKHAH:** There, we have stated³ 4:8. All these kinds are not subject to tithes since they are not produced in the Land of Israel.: “Garlic from Baalbek, onions from Rikhpah⁴, split beans from Cilicia, and Egyptian lentils.” Because these kinds⁵ also grow in the Land of Israel, the Sages had to attach marks to them⁶. “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.⁷ 4:10, from a statement of R. Yose. There (in all Tosephta manuscripts) it is implied that these nuts are also produced in the Land of Israel, but Baalbek onions etc. do not grow in the Land. R. Isaac ben Malchisedek Simponti notes that he has Yerushalmi manuscripts of both traditions.” Rebbi 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 them⁸ even outside the Land, in contrast to the first Mishnah which enumerated the kinds exempt from *demay* even if grown in the Land.. But is there not fig cake from Bosra⁹? It is pounded. But dates from Alexandria? They are thin. But carob from Kiari⁴? It is cut. But rice from the Ḥolata¹⁰? It has more numerous kernels and is reddish. But cumin from Cyprus? It is curved.

footnotes:
³ Mishnah Ma‘serot
⁴ This place has not been identified.
⁵ Garlic, onions, beans, and lentils, but not these sorts.
⁶ Greek σημεῖον “mark, symbol.”
⁷ Tosephta Ma‘serot
⁸ That they are subject to demay
⁹ This probably is Bosra or Bostra, on the main road that goes South from Damascus, just outside the boundaries of the domain settled by the returnees from Babylonia.
⁴ This place has not been identified.
¹⁰ Rice from the dunes (חולה) of Antiochia is mentioned at the end of this Halakhah (fol. 22d), but there it is implied that it is undistinguishable from rice grown in the Land, in opposition to the text here. (אכתר is Arabic אכת̇ר “more numerous”, there are more kernels to a stalk.) R. Simson of Sens reads: Rice from Ḥolata Aktar? It is reddish. No locality Ḥolata Aktar is known. It is also impossible to identify חולתה with Ḥuleh, since according to all versions of the Tosephta detailing the borders of the land settled by the returnees from Babylonia, Lake Ḥuleh is inside the Land.


###### Jerusalem Talmud Demai 2:1:3
[Jerusalem Talmud Demai 2:1:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Demai/r/2:1:3)

אָמַר רִבִּי לָעְזָר לֹא שָׁנוּ אֶלָּא הַלּוֹקֵחַ מִן הַגּוֹי אֲבָל הַלּוֹקֵחַ מִיִּשְׂרָאֵל דְּמַאי. רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָמַר לֹא שַׁנְיָיא הִיא הַלּוֹקֵחַ מִיִּשְׂרָאֵל הִיא הַלּוֹקֵחַ מִן הַגּוֹי דְּמַאי. רִבִּי לָעְזָר סָבַר מֵימָר רוֹב אֶרֶץ יִשְׂרָאֵל נְתוּנָה בְיַד גּוֹיִם. רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן סָבַר מֵימָר רוֹב אֶרֶץ יִשְׂרָאֵל נְתוּנָה בְיַד יִשְׂרָאֵל. וַאֲפִילוּ יִסְבּוֹר רִבִּי לָעְזָר כְּרִבִּי יוֹחָנָן רוֹב אֶרֶץ יִשְׂרָאֵל נְתוּנָה בְיַד יִשְׂרָאֵל. רִבִּי לָעְזָר חָשׁ לְמִיעוּט. כַּהָדָא כּוֹרְכִיָּא שֶׁהִיא מִסְתַּפֶּקֶת יוֹם אֶחָד מִן הָאָסוּר נַעֲשֶׂה אוֹתוֹ הַיּוֹם הוֹכִיחַ לְכָל הַיָּמִים. רִבִּי יוֹסֵי בְּעֵי מֵעַתָּה גֵּר שֶׁבָּא לְהִתְגַּיֵיר אֵין מְקַבְּלִין אוֹתוֹ אֲנִי אוֹמֵר מֵעַמּוֹן וּמוֹאָב הוּא. וְנַעֲשֶׂה אוֹתוֹ הַגֵּר הוֹכִיחַ לְכָל הַגֵּרִים. אֶלָּא כֵּינִי הָא רִבִּי לָעְזָר סָבַר מֵימָר רוֹב אֶרֶץ יִשְׂרָאֵל נְתוּנָה בְיַד גּוֹיִם. וְרִבִּי יוֹחָנָן סָבַר מֵימָר רוֹב אֶרֶץ יִשְׂרָאֵל נְתוּנָה בְיַד יִשְׂרָאֵל.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
Rebbi Lazar said, they stated the Mishnah only for him who buys from a Gentile, but for him who buys from a Jew it is *demay*¹, if the text is allowed to stand there would be no difference between R. Eleazar and R. Joḥanan. So either R. Eleazar must say that produce of a Gentile is certain and only that of a Jew is *demay* (following R. Meïr who declares that a Gentile cannot acquire arable land in the Land of Israel to exempt it from heave and tithes) or that the produce of the Jew is certain and that of the Gentile is *demay*. The second version is impossible since only a Jew will be expected to give heave and tithes but not a Gentile. In light of the following it is also impossible to assume that the Gentile is only the seller, not the producer. So only the first possibility remains. (Since practice follows R. Joḥanan, as indicated in the next paragraph, the problem is not mentioned in Maimonides and we do not know his reading.). Rebbi Joḥanan said, there is no difference, whether one buys from a Jew or from a Gentile it is *demay*. Rebbi Eleazar holds that most of the Land of Israel is in the hands of the Gentiles¹¹. Rebbi Joḥanan holds that most of the Land of Israel is in the hands of Jews. But even if Rebbi Eleazar agrees with Rebbi Joḥanan that most of the Land of Israel is in the hands of Jews, Rebbi Eleazar is anxious about a minority. Like that fortification¹² p. 663). In the Babli it appears as כרך. The garrison in the palisades is Gentile and lives off the *annona*, a tax to be paid in agricultural products. They will sell their surplus; if all surroundings are Jewish, one buys their surplus as if it were Jewish produce, but not if some of the farmers sending their *annona* to the garrison are Gentiles. Then a testimony that one day the supply came from a Gentile source makes all their surplus subject to all tithes for him who holds that produce grown by a Gentile in the Land is subject to heave and tithes., if for one day it got supplies from a forbidden source, that day will become proof for all days. Rebbi Yose asked: If that is so, a prospective proselyte who comes to convert should not be accepted¹³. 23:4. Since practice rules this out, according to Mishnah *Yadaim* 4:4, every male proselyte is permitted to marry a Jewish woman and the alternative reason given for R. Eleazar is unacceptable.; I say he is from Ammon and Moab, and one proselyte would become proof for all proselytes. Hence, Rebbi Eleazar must hold that most of the Land of Israel is in the hands of Gentiles and Rebbi Joḥanan must hold that most of the Land of Israel is in the hands of Jews.

footnotes:
¹ This is the text in all Yerushalmi manuscripts but it cannot be correct. Since the Mishnah speaks of demay
¹¹ Any produce is assumed to be untithed except if it is known to come from a Jewish producer.
¹² Palisades, Greek χάραξ (cf. Berakhot
¹³ He can be accepted but would be prohibited from marrying a Jewish woman, Deut


###### Jerusalem Talmud Demai 2:1:4
[Jerusalem Talmud Demai 2:1:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Demai/r/2:1:4)

וְעוֹד מִן הָדָא רִבִּי זְעִירָא שָׁלַח שָׁאַל לְרִבִּי אֲלֶכְסַנְדְּרָא דִּצְדוֹקָא אִילֵּין נִיקְלֶוְוסִיָא דְּהָכָא מַה אַתּוּן מְשַׁעֲרִין בְּהוֹן רוֹב מִן הַגּוֹיִם אוֹ רוּבָּן מִיִּשְׂרָאֵל. אָמַר לֵיהּ לֵית אֲנָן יָכְלִין מְשַׁעֲרִין בְּהוֹן.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
Moreover from the following: Rebbi Zeïra sent to ask Rebbi Alexander from Ẓedoqa¹⁵, those Nicolaus dates from here, what you estimate about them, mostly from Gentiles or mostly from Jews? He said to him, we are not able to estimate about them¹⁶.

footnotes:
¹⁵ An unidentified place in Galilee. Nothing is known about this R. Alexander.
¹⁶ If there were a need, they certainly would have decided. Hence, practice follows R. Joḥanan.


###### Jerusalem Talmud Demai 2:1:5
[Jerusalem Talmud Demai 2:1:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Demai/r/2:1:5)

מַתְנִיתָא מְסַיְיעָא לְדֵין וּמַתְנִיתָא מְסַיְיעָא לְדֵין. מַתְנִיתָא מְסַיְיעָא לְרִבִּי לָעְזָר. הַתַּגָּר בְּכָל מָקוֹם דְּמַאי. אֵימָתַי בִּזְמַן שֶׁרוֹב מִכְנָסוֹ מִיִּשְׂרָאֵל אֲבָל אִם הָיָה לוֹקֵח מִן הַגּוֹי וַודַּאי. מַתְנִיתָא מְסַיְיעָא לְרִבִּי יוֹחָנָן. תַּנִּי רִבִּי נְחֶמְיָה אָמַר אֶחָד גּוֹי וְאֶחָד יִשְׂרָאֵל כּוּתִי וְאֶחָד עַם הָאָרֶץ פְּעָמִים שֶׁהוּא לוֹקֵח פַּעַם אַחַת מִן הַגּוֹי פַּעַם אַחַת מִיִּשְׂרָאֵל דְּמַאי.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
One statement supports this and a second statement supports Rebbi Eleazar. “The trader’s produce everywhere is *demay*. When is that? If most of his supply is from Jews. But if he buys from Gentiles, it is certain¹⁷.” A statement supports Rebbi Joḥanan: “Rebbi Neḥemiah stated: “Whether from a Gentile, a Jewish Samaritan¹⁸ 3:1, fol. 27a) against Rebbi; cf. also Chapter 3, Note 98. A Samaritan observes all Biblical laws. However, since his brand of Judaism was adopted by the Sadducees, we know that he takes the verse (*Lev*. 19:14): “Do not put an obstacle before a blind man” literally, not as a general injunction not to trap the unwary; he will not take heave and tithes from his harvest for sale. His produce is certainly subject to all the laws if we accept Samaritans as Jews., or an *am haareẓ* seller, if at times he buys from the Gentile, at times from the Jew, it is *demay*.”

footnotes:
¹⁷ This supports our reconstruction of R. Eleazar’s text above, Note 11.
¹⁸ All commentators change the text here, to treat ישראל either as a separate entry or to move it as qualifier to עם הארץ. However, there is no manuscript evidence for such a change. Rather Rebbi Neḥemiah seems to take sides in the quarrel on whether to consider Samaritans as Jews and sides with Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel (Ketubot


###### Jerusalem Talmud Demai 2:1:6
[Jerusalem Talmud Demai 2:1:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Demai/r/2:1:6)

רִבִּי חִיָיא בַּר אָדָא בְּעָא קוֹמֵי רִבִּי מָנָא מִמִּי לָקַח הָאִישׁ הַזֶּה נֹאמַר מִיִּשְׂרָאֵל דְּמַאי מִן הַגּוֹי וַדַּאי. תִּיפְתָּר שֶׁהָיָה הַתַּגָּר גּוֹי. וְיִשְׂרָאֵל וְגוֹי מַטַּיְילִין לְפָנָיו דְּמַי. הָתִיב רַב הוֹשַׁעְיָה וְהָא מַתְנִיתָא מְסַיְיעָא לְרִבִּי יוֹחָנָן דְּתַנִּי אָמַר רִבִּי יוּדָא לֹא הוּזְכְּרוּ רִימּוֹנֵי בַּדָּן וַחֲצִיר גֶּבַע אֶלָּא שֶׁהֵן מִתְעַשְּׂרִין וַדַּאי בְּכָל מָקוֹם. מַה נָן קַיָימִין. אִם בְּלוֹקֵחַ מִיִּשְׂרָאֵל כְּהָדָא דְתַנֵּינָן וַדַּאי. אֶלָּא כִּי נָן קַיָימִין בְּלוֹקֵחַ מִן הַגּוֹי. הָא שְׁאָר כָּל הַדְּבָרִים דְּמַאי. אָמַר רִבִּי שְׁמוּאֵל בַּר רַב יִצְחָק בְּוַדַּאי אֲנָן קַיָימִין וּבְלוֹקֵחַ מִיִּשְׂרָאֵל אֲנָן קַיָימִין. תִּיפְתָּר שֶׁהָיָה אֲגוֹרָנֵימוֹס גָּדוֹל וְדָחַק עָלָיו לִהְיוֹת מוֹכֵר בְּזוֹל. וְהִתִּירוּ לוֹ לִהְיוֹת מוֹכֵר טְבָלִים וְהַלּוֹקֵחַ יָחוּשׁ לְעַצְמוֹ.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Ada asked before Rebbi Mana: From whom did this man buy¹⁹? If from a Jew it is *demay*, from a Gentile certain. Explain that if the trader was a Gentile and both Jew and Gentile deliver to him²⁰, it is *demay*. Rav Hoshaia objected, does not the Mishnah support Rebbi Joḥanan? As it was stated²¹ 17:5. Badan (*Wadi Badyah*) and Geba were places in Samaria (Tosephta *Kelim Baba Meẓi‘a* 6:10). While these varieties were mainly grown in Samaria, some were grown by Jews. But since the Jews were a minority among the Samaritans, the produce must be treated as Samaritan, subject to tithes but certainly not tithed.: “Rebbi Jehudah 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 *demay*. Rebbi Samuel bar Rav Isaac said, we deal with certain produce from a Jew. Explain it that there was a powerful overseer of markets²² who exerted pressure to sell at low prices, and they²³ permitted him to sell *ṭevel* and let the buyer beware for himself.

footnotes:
¹⁹ The trader who has no single source of supply.
²⁰ The farmers bring him their produce and he does not care who it is.
²¹ Kelim
²² Greek ἀγορανόμος, the market supervisor. Usually, his function was only to act as police for correct weights and measures and fair trading practices.
²³ The local rabbis, to save the livelihoods of the Jewish merchants. If the buyer buys below regular cost, it is common prudence to assume that the produce is untithed.


###### Jerusalem Talmud Demai 2:1:7
[Jerusalem Talmud Demai 2:1:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Demai/r/2:1:7)

אֵי זֶהוּ הַתַּגָּר. כָּל שֶׁהֵבִיא וְשִׁנָּה וְשִׁילֵּשׁ. רִבִּי יוֹנָה בְּעֵי הֵבִיא שְׁלֹשָׁה מַשּׂוּאִין כְּאַחַת אֵין זֶה תַּגָּר. זֶה אַחַר זֶה תַּגָּר. רִבִּי יוֹנָה בְּעֵי לְמַפְרֵיעוֹ הוּא נַעֲשֶׂה תַּגָּר אוֹ מִיכָּן וּלְהַבָּא. מַה נַפְקָא מִבֵּינֵיהוֹן. בָּא וְהִתְקִין. אִין תֵּימַר מִיכָּן וּלְהַבָּא מְעַשֵּׂר זֶה עַל זֶה. רִבִּי מָנָא בְּעֵי הוּא וּבְנוֹ וּפוֹעֲלוֹ מַהוּ שֶׁיִּצְטָרְפוּ לִשְׁלֹשָׁה מַשּׂוּאִין כְּאַחַת. רִבִּי יוֹנָה בְּעֵי סְפִינָה הַבָּאָה מֵרוֹמֵי כַּמָּה מִינִין יֵשׁ בָּהּ אַתְּ רוֹאֶה אוֹתָהּ כְּאִילּוּ אֶחָד.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
Who is a trader²⁵ supporting R. Eleazar.? Everyone who brought, repeated, and came a third time. Rebbi Jonah asked, if he brought three loads together, is he not a trader²⁶; one after the other, is he a trader? Rebbi 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 other²⁷. Once he is a trader, one cannot tithe one *demay* for another since the one chosen may have been in order and the tithing is invalid. If the title of trader is not retroactive, he may give from the certain also for the *demay*. The question is not answered.! Rebbi Mana asked: Can he, his son, and his worker combine for three loads²⁸? Rebbi Jonah asked, a ship that comes from Rome and carries many kinds, do you count this only as one²⁹?

footnotes:
²⁵ Discussion of the baraita
²⁶ “Three loads” means that he either brings three carriers or three donkeys with him, each with a full load. A rhetorical question to show that this would be an unreasonable restriction.
²⁷ If somebody bought before he became a professional trader, the produce is certain; after that, it is demay
²⁸ Since they are all extensions of the trader himself, would R. Jonah agree that these three do not count separately.
²⁹ If the ship’s owner is the seller, does he have professional status already the first time around or not?


###### Jerusalem Talmud Demai 2:1:8
[Jerusalem Talmud Demai 2:1:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Demai/r/2:1:8)

הַפֵּירוֹת לֹא הִילְּכוּ בָהֶן לֹא אַחַר הָרֵיחַ וְלֹא אַחַר הַמַּרְאֶה וְלֹא אַחַר הַטַּעַם וְלֹא אַחַר הַדָּמִים אֶלָּא אַחַר הָרוֹב. רִבִּי יַעֲקֹב בַּר אָחָא בְשֵׁם רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן אִם הָיָה יַיִן כְּגוֹן חָדָשׁ וְיַיִן יָשָׁן הִילְּכוּ בוֹ אַחַר הַטַּעַם.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
“For fruits they did not consider either smell, or looks, or taste, or value, but only plurality³⁰ 4:11. If fruits are mixed the obligations of tithes follow the status of the group which forms a plurality..” Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: If it was wine, for example new wine and old wine, they judged according to taste.

footnotes:
³⁰ Tosephta Demay


###### Jerusalem Talmud Demai 2:1:9
[Jerusalem Talmud Demai 2:1:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Demai/r/2:1:9)

אָמַר רִבִּי מָנָא אָזְלִית לְקֵיסָרִין וַחֲמִיתוֹן נְהִיגִין בְּהָדָא דְבֵילָתָה שׁוֹרַיי. שְׁאֶלִית לְרִבִּי יִצְחָק בַּר אֶלְעָזָר וְאָמַר לִי כָּךְ נָהַג זוּגָה שׁוֹרַיי. רִבִּי יִצְחָק בַּר אֶלְעָזָר בְּשֵׁם זוּגָא דְקֵיסַרִין כָּל דַּחֲמֵי מַיָא שׁוֹרֵיי. אִית דְּבָעֵי מֵימַר עַד מִגְדַּל מִלְחָא. וְאִית דְּבָעֵי מֵימַר עַד מְעָרַת טְלֵימוֹן. אָמַר רִבִּי אַבָּמַרִי מִילֵּיהוֹן דְּרַבָּנִין אָמְרֵי כָּל הַמִּינִין הָאֲסוּרִין בְּקֵיסָרִין. הַחִטִּים וְהַפָּת וְהַיַּיִן וְהַשֶּׁמֶן וְהַתְּמָרִים הָאוֹרֶז וְהַכַּמּוֹן. וְלָא פָרְשִׁינָן דְּבֵילָה. בְּגִין דְּתַנֵּיתָהּ. וְהָא תַנֵּינָן אוֹרֶז וְכַמּוֹן וּפֵרַשְׁתְּנוּן. הָוֵי שְׁיָירֵיהּ הִיא. הֲרֵי אֵילּוּ בִשְׁבִיעִית הֵיתֵר בִּשְׁאָר שְׁנֵי שָׁבוּעַ דְּמַאי. הֲרֵי אֵלּוּ בִשְׁבִיעִית הֵיתֵר וְיִהְיוּ בִּשְׁבִיעִית שְׁבִיעִית. יִשְׂרָאֵל מְשַׁמְּטִין וְגוֹי פָטוּר יִשְׂרָאֵל וְגוֹיִם רָבִים עַל הַכּוּתִים. בִּשְׁאַר שְׁנֵי שָׁבוּעַ דְּמַאי דִיהוּדָאֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל מְתַקְּנָן וְגוֹיִם פְטוּרִין יִשְׂרָאֵל וְגוֹיִם רָבִים עַל הַכּוּתִים. עַד הֵיכָן. פּוּנְדָּקָא דַעֲמוּדָא פוּנְדָּקָא דְּטַיְבְּתָא עַד כְּפַר סָבָא. וְצִורָן וַדַּאי בְּקֵיסָרִין.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
Rebbi Mana said, I went to Caesarea³³, Caesarea in the Yerushalmi is usually Caesarea Philippi near the source of the Jordan river. Caesarea here is Caesarea maritima, whose leading authority was R. Isaac ben Eleazar. The Land in which all duties on produce are due is the land occupied by the returnees from Babylonia, Judea and Galilee, and, if we accept Samaritans as Jews, their land, Samaria. In the plain East of Samaria, the region between the *via maris* connecting Damascus and Egypt and the sea was mostly malaria swamps, except for the healthy strip between the first dunes and the sea. Herod built an elevated highway from the *via maris* to the sea, where he built Caesarea maritima for a Gentile population, separate from the Jewish centers. Hence, the region of Caesarea and its sand marshes never fell under the laws attached to the Land. and I saw them using fig cake as free. I asked Rebbi Isaac bar Eleazar; he said to me that Zeugos³⁴ used to permit it. Rebbi Isaac bar Eleazar in the name of Zeugos of Caesarea: All that sees the water³⁵ is free. Some want to say, up to the salt tower, some want to say, up to the Telamon cave³⁶. Rebbi Abba Mari said, the words of the rabbis imply that all kinds are forbidden in Caesarea. “Wheat, bread, oil, dates, rice, and cumin³⁷ whose end is quoted later in the paragraph. The implication is that only these products are *demay* because they are imported; all others are free, since it does not simply say: everything in Caesarea is *demay*. In the synagogue mosaic from Reḥov, the text reads:
הפירות הללו מתעסרין דמיי בקסרין החטין והפת
חלה לעולם והיין והשמן והתמרין והאורז והכמן
הרי אלו מותרין בשביעית בקסרין ובישאר שני 
שבוע הן מתקנין דמיי ויש אוסרין בולבסין
הלבנין מהר המלך.
“The following produce is tithed as *demay* in Cesarea: Wheat (bread always needs *ḥallah*), wine, oil, dates, rice, and cumin; these are permitted in the Sabbatical year, in the other years they must be fixed as *demay*. Some authorities forbid white bulbs (onions) from King’s Mountain.”.” Fig cakes are not included? It is in the Mishnah³⁸ “everywhere.” The sentence is the answer to the preceding question.. 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 *demay*.” 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 Samaritans³⁹; Gentile produce is *demay* because maybe it is locally grown and exempt; this outnumbers the produce that may be certain if produced by Samaritans.. In all other years of the Sabbatical cycle they are *demay*, the Judean Jews put them in order, Gentiles are free, Jews and Gentiles outnumber Samaritans. How far? The inn of the pillars⁴⁰ 45, 54–63) concludes from the last sentence that the principle of applying the Laws of the Land to the territory held by the returnees from Babylonia meant that any real estate ever held by a Jew within the territory of Biblical Israel after the return is forever subject to the Laws of the Land., the inn at Tayibeh⁴¹ North of Kefar Saba (which probably was near modern Juljulia), which in its turn was North of Antipatris, the Northern border fortress of Judea., as far as Kefar Saba. Their juices are certain in Caesarea.

footnotes:
³³ As shown in tractate Berakhot
³⁴ An otherwise unknown sage. That the authority is such a minor figure again shows that we are not dealing with Caesarea Philippi. The fig cakes at Caesarea probably had a peculiar form so that they were immediately recognized.
³⁵ In the Rome manuscript: ימה, “the sea.” This might be the better reading.
³⁶ Probably the salt pans at the Northern end of the sands. The place of the cave is unknown; the only caves in the neighborhood are (burial) caves in the petrified first row of dunes North of the aqueduct from the Carmel range. Τέλαμων is a Greek mythological figure; also “base of στήλη”, Τελαμῶνες the name of colossal figures supporting pillars (E. G.).
³⁷ First half of a baraita
³⁸ Which requires demay
³⁹ Since Samaritans will not hesitate to supply others for money with Sabbatical fruits that they themselves would not use; they are a minority and we may assume that all produce offered for sale at Cesarea is Gentile. Similarly, Jewish produce in the other years is demay
⁴⁰ Its position is unknown. In the mosaic of Reḥov, the text reads: ועד איכן סביב לקיסרין עד צוורנה ופנדקה דטיבתא ועמודה ודור וכפר סבה ואם יש מקום שקנו אותו ישראל חוששין לו רבותינו שלום. “What is the extent of the vicinity of Cesarea? As far as Ṣavranah, the inn at Ṭaybeta, the pillar, Dor, Kefar Sabah, and any land which a Jew ever bought, our teachers worry about it; Peace (upon you).” R. Saul Lieberman (Tarbiẓ
⁴¹ On the via maris


###### Jerusalem Talmud Demai 2:1:10
[Jerusalem Talmud Demai 2:1:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Demai/r/2:1:10)

רִבִּי אַבָּהוּ בְשֵׁם רִבִּי יוֹסֵי בַּר חֲנִינָא כּוּלְכַּסִּין הַנִּמְכָּרִין בְּקֵיסַרִין הֲרֵי אֵילּוּ אֲסוּרִין מִפְּנֵי שֶׁרוּבָּן בָּאִין מֵהַר הַמֶּלֶךְ. רִבִּי חִיָיא בַּר אָדָא אָמַר בִּלְבָנִין. וְרַבָּנִין דְּקֵיסַרִין אָמְרִין בַּאֲדוּמִין.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Yose bar Ḥanina: bulbs (onions) sold in Cesarea are forbidden because most of them come from King’s Mountain⁴³. Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Ada said, the white ones, but the rabbis of Cesarea say, the red ones.

footnotes:
⁴³ Probably this is the hill region between Judea and Samaria proper.


###### Jerusalem Talmud Demai 2:1:11
[Jerusalem Talmud Demai 2:1:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Demai/r/2:1:11)

רִבִּי זְעִירָא רִבִּי חִיָיא בַּר אַבָּא בְשֵׁם רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן רִבִּי הִתִּיר בֵּית שְׁאַן מִפִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בֶּן זֵירוּז בֶּן חָמִיו שֶׁל רִבִּי מֵאִיר שֶׁאָמַר אֲנִי רָאִיתִי אֶת רִבִּי מֵאִיר לוֹקֵחַ יֶרֶק מִן הַגִּינָּה בַשְּׁבִיעִית וְהִתִּיר אֶת כּוּלָּהּ. אָמַר רִבִּי זְעִירָא הָדָא אָמְרָה אָסוּר לְבַר נַשׁ מֵיעֲבַד מִילָּה בְּצִיבּוּרָא אֲנִי אוֹמֵר אוֹתָהּ הַגִּינָּה הָיְתָה מְיוּחֶדֶת לוֹ דְּהִתִּיר אֶת כּוּלָּהּ. רִבִּי הִתִּיר בֵּית שְׁאַן רִבִּי הִתִּיר קֵיסָרִין רִבִּי הִתִּיר בֵּית גּוּבְרִין רִבִּי הִתִּיר כְּפַר צֶמַח. רִבִּי הִתִּיר לִיקַח יֶרֶק בְּמוֹצָאֵי שְׁבִיעִית וְהָיוּ הַכֹּל מְלִיזִין עָלָיו. אָמַר לָהֶן בּוֹאוּ וּנְדַיֵין כְּתִיב וְכִתַּת נְחַשׁ הַנְּחוֹשֶׁת. וְכִי לֹא עָמַד צַדִּיק מִמֹּשֶׁה וְעַד חִזְקִיָּהוּ לְהַעֲבִירוֹ. אֶלָּא אוֹתָה עֲטָרָה הִנִּיחַ לוֹ הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא לְהִתְעַטֵּר בָּהּ. וַאֲנָן הָעֲטָרָה הַזֹּאת הִנִּיחַ הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא לָנוּ לְהִתְעַטֵּר בָּהּ.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
Rebbi Zeïra, Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Rebbi permitted Beth Shean⁴⁵ 6b), the reading is that R. Meïr ate a leaf of vegetable without tithing for the same kind of argument. on the testimony of Joshua ben Zeruz, the son of Rebbi Meïr’s father-in-law, who said, I saw Rebbi Meïr buy vegetables from a garden in the Sabbatical year. He permitted all of it!⁴⁶ Rebbi Zeïra said, this implies that nobody should act in public; I say that this garden was a particular case for him⁴⁷; should he have permitted it completely⁴⁸? Rebbi permitted Beth Shean⁴⁹, permitted Caesarea⁵⁰, permitted Bet Guvrin⁵¹, permitted Kefar Ẓemaḥ⁵². Rebbi permitted to buy vegetables after the end of the Sabbatical year⁵³ 6:4, Tosephta *Ševiït* 4:17. The reason is detailed in *Peah* 7:4, note 81. and all were saying bad things about him⁵⁴. He said to them, come and let us discuss the matter. It is written (*2Kings* 18:4): “He⁵⁵. 21:9), because the people worshipped it as a divinity. The argument given here is also in Babli *Ḥulin* 6a. smashed the brass snake.” 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.

footnotes:
⁴⁵ He permitted produce from the entire valley of Beth Shean in the Sabbatical year for commercial use because it seems not to have been settled by the returnees from Babylonia. In the Babli (Ḥulin
⁴⁶ Even though the testimony was only from one spot.
⁴⁷ Maybe that particular plot of land never had a Jewish owner since Bet Shean was a Philistine city.
⁴⁸ As the ruins of ancient synagogues with mosaic floors show, in the time of R. Zeïra the valley of Beth Shean was settled by Jews and should not have been permitted, but his authority was not sufficient to overturn Rebbi’s ruling.
⁴⁹ The Jews of Beth Shean (Scythopolis) were murdered in a progrom of 66 C. E. and we have no record of the re-establishment of a community in that city.
⁵⁰ Caesarea maritima.
⁵¹ Near Lakhish, Northwest of Hebron.
⁵² Kafr Samekh just South of the Sea of Genezareth; it is counted in the neighborhood of Susita.
⁵³ Mishnah Ševiїt
⁵⁴ In the Tosephta: His family united against him.
⁵⁵ Hezekiah destroyed the brass snake Moses had made (Num


###### Jerusalem Talmud Demai 2:1:12
[Jerusalem Talmud Demai 2:1:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Demai/r/2:1:12)

רִבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בֶּן לֵוִי הֲוָה מְפַקֵּד לְטַלָּיָיא לֹא תִיזְבּוּן לִי יֶרֶק אֶלָּא מִן גִּינְתָא דְּסִיסְרָא. קָם עִימֵּיהּ זָכוּר לַטּוֹב אָמַר לֵיהּ זִיל אֱמוֹר לְרַבָּךְ לֵית הָדָא גִּינְתָא דְּסִיסְרָא דִיהוּדָיי הֲוָת וּקְטָלֵיהּ וּנְסָבָת מִינֵיהּ וְאִין בְּעִית מַחְמְרָא עַל נַפְשָׁךְ אִישְׁתְּרֵי לְחַבְרָךְ.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
Rebbi Joshua ben Levi commanded his lads: Do not buy me vegetables except from Sisera’s garden⁵⁶. He, may he be remembered for the good⁵⁷ 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 friend⁵⁸.

footnotes:
⁵⁶ Sisera’s headquarters were somewhere in the valley of Bet Shean. R. Joshua ben Levi wanted vegetables only from a place that was neither distributed by Joshua nor settled by the returnees from Babylonia; such a place certainly is free from all obligations on the Land.
⁵⁷ A common appellation of Elijah. Since he did not die, one cannot mention for him the blessing of the dead, “may his remembrance be a blessing.”
⁵⁸ Elijah rebuked R. Joshua ben Levi on two points: The names attached to plots are no guarantee for their past, and restrictive action should be taken in private, not declared publicly. The story shows clearly that R. Joshua ben Levi was living in Bet Shean valley, South of Galilee.


###### Jerusalem Talmud Demai 2:1:13
[Jerusalem Talmud Demai 2:1:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Demai/r/2:1:13)

רִבִּי יוֹסֵי דִכְפַר דָּן בְּשֵׁם רִבִּי בֶּן מְעָ‍דְיָה הַמִּינִין הָאֲסוּרִין בְּבֵית שְׁאַן. הַקֶּצַח וְהַשּׁוּמְשּׁוּם וְהַחַרְדַּל וְהַשּׁוּם וְהַבּוּלְכָּסִין הָאֲפוּנִין הַשְּׁחוֹרִין וּבְצָלִים הַנִּמְכָּרִים וּבְנֵי הַמְּדִינָה הַנִּמְכָּרִים בְּמִידָּה וּפוּל הַמִּצְרִי הַנֶּאֱגָד בְּשִׁיפָה וּמֵינְתָה הַנֶּאֱגָד בִּפְנֵי עַצְמָהּ וְהָאִסְטָפֻנִינֵי לְעוֹלָם וְקֶפַלּוֹטוֹת מִן הָעֲצֶרֶת וְעַד חֲנוּכָּה. אָמַר רִבִּי זְעִירָא מִן הָעֲצֶרֶת וְעַד חֲנוּכָּה אִיסּוּר רָבָה עַל הַהֵיתֵר. מִן הַחֲנוּכָּה וְעַד הָעֲצֶרֶת הֵתֵּר רָבָה עַל הָאִיסּוּר. וּלְעִנְיַין סְפִחִים מֵרֹאשׁ הַשָּׁנָה וְעַד חֲנוּכָּה אִסּוּר סְפִחִין. מִן הַחֲנוּכָּה וְעַד הָעֲצֶרֶת הֵתֵּר סְפִחִין. מִן הָעֲצֶרֶת וְעַד רֹאשׁ הַשָּׁנָה צְרִיכָה. הַקִּישּׁוּאִין וְהַדִּילּוּעִין וְהָאֲבַטִּיחִין וְהַמְּלַפֶּפּוֹנוֹת וְהַיַיִן וְהַשֶּׁמֶן וּתְמָרִין אֶפֶּסִּיוֹת וְיֵשׁ אוֹמֵר אַף הַתּוּרְמוֹסִין וּפַת חַלָּה לְעוֹלָם הֲרֵי אֵילּוּ בַשְּׁבִיעִית שְׁבִיעִית. בִּשְׁאָר שְׁנֵי שָׁבוּעַ מַה. רִבִּי יוֹנָה אָמַר דְּמַאי רִבִּי יוֹסֵי אוֹמֵר וַדַּאי. וְלֹא פְּלִיגִין. מָה דְּרִבִּי יוֹנָה אָמַר דְּמַאי בְּלוֹקֵחַ מִן הַבַּלּוֹנְקֵי. וּמַה דְּרִבִּי יוֹסֵי אוֹמֵר וַדַּאי בְּלוֹקֵחַ מִן הַגִּינָּה.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
Rebbi Yose of Kefar Dan in the name of Rebbi from Meadiah⁶⁰, the kinds forbidden in Beth Shean⁶¹: Green melon, water melon and sweet melon, mint {Greek μίνθα, μίνθη, Latin menta,*mentha*} bundled separately, Egyptian beans bundled with bast, leeks from Shavuot to Hanukkah, seeds of nigella, sesame, mustard, rice, cumin, dry lupines, large peas sold by measure {cf. Mishnah *Kilaim* 3:2}, garlic, local onions, βολβός {perhaps truffles}, Ephesian dates; wine and oil are Sabbatical produce in the Sabbatical year, in the other years *demay*. Bread always needs *ḥallah*.”: Nigella, sesame, mustard, garlic, bulbs, black peas, commercial onions⁶², local ones that are sold by weight, Egyptian beans bound with bast, mint bundled separately, carrot⁶³”. always, leeks⁶⁴., called *allium capitatum*, corresponding to Greek κεφαλωτός [Pliny XX. 6. 22]; cf. *Berakhot* p. 484. from Pentecost to Ḥanukkah. Rebbi Zeïra 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 aftergrowth⁶⁵. 25:5,11)., 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 melon⁶⁶, Greek μηλοπέπων. The modern meaning of the word, “cucumber”, is found in Maimonides and *Caftor waPeraḥ* (ed. Luncz, Jerusalem 1899 p. 485), see Mishnah *Kilaim* 1:2. The identification of all these fruits from the *cucurbitaceae* family is tentative; see the detailed discussion in the commentary to Mishnah *Kilaim* 1:2., wine, oil, Ephesian dates, somebody also says lupines. Bread always requires *hallah*⁶⁷ is an obligation of the Land (Mishnah *Ḥallah* 2:1), but by rabbinical ordinance it has to be taken everywhere (Mishnah *Ḥallah* 4:8). It seems from the repeated insistence on the obligation to give *ḥallah* in the Yerushalmi and the mosaic from Reḥov that this rabbinic ordinance was not generally observed by the population of districts outside the holdings of the returnees from Babylonia.. These are Sabbatical in a Sabbatical year. In the other years of the cycle? Rebbi Jonah said, *demay*; Rebbi Yose said, certain. They have no disagreement over tithes; Rebbi Jonah said *demay* for him who buys from a person making house calls⁶⁸, cf. Arabic בלנקע “paved road.” The produce bought on the road is of uncertain origin., Rebbi Yose said certain for him who bought from the garden⁶⁹.

footnotes:
⁶⁰ Nothing is known about these two authorities nor about their localities. In the Rome manuscript, the last place name is spelled מעזיה, showing that the vowel under ע is long.
⁶¹ The kinds of vegetables forbidden as objects of trade in the Sabbatical year because they are imported from regions under the Sabbatical law. The text is now confirmed by the mosaic inscription from the synagogue of Reḥov in the Beth Shean valley:הפירות הללו אסורין בבית שאן ובשאר שני שבוע מתאסרין (!) דמי הקישואין והאבטיחין והממלפפונות והמינתה הנאגדת בפני עצמה ופול המצרי הנאגד בשיפה והקפלוטות מן העצרת עד החנוכה והזירעונין והקצע והשמשמין והחרדל והאורז והכמון והתורמסין היבשין והאפונין הגמלונין הנמכרין במידה והשום ובצלין בני מדינה הנמכרין במידה והבולבסין והתמרין אפסיות והיין והשמן בשביעית שביעית שני שבוע דמי והפת חלה לעולם. “The following are forbidden in Bet Shean and in the other years of the Sabbatical cycle they are tithed as demay
⁶² Probably imported from Galilee or Samaria. The “local ones” must mean the ones of the same type as the local produce but since they are sold wholesale they are not considered local.
⁶³ In the Beth Shean inscription, אסטפליני, Greek σταφυλῖνος “carrot, Daucus carota
⁶⁴ Allium porrum L
⁶⁵ Produce that started growing by itself in the Sabbatical year and which is to be treated as Sabbatical in the following year (Lev
⁶⁶ Latin melopepo
⁶⁷ Ḥallah
⁶⁸ Explanation of A. Kohut in Aruch Completum
⁶⁹ Local produce is from a Gentile grower, certainly exempt.


###### Jerusalem Talmud Demai 2:1:14
[Jerusalem Talmud Demai 2:1:14](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Demai/r/2:1:14)

עַד הֵיכַן. פּרשתא ורציפתא ונפשא דפנוטיה עד כפר קרנים וכפר קרנים כבית שאן.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
How far⁷⁰) gate (πύλη) to the white smooth place (the shale rocks at the foot of the Gilboa mountains). In the West, from the Ziara gate to the end of the paved road. In the North, from the Sakota gate to Kefar Qarnos (quoted in *Lev*.*rabba* 17 as grazing place of Job’s cattle; ms. Rome also reads קרנוס); Kefar Qarnos has the status of Beth Shean. In the East, from the dung gate to the mausoleum of Panokatia (?), the gates of Kefar Zimrin and the pond gate; inside the gate it is permitted, outside it is forbidden.”? (The cross roads of *Rẓyfta*, the mausoleum of *Pgvṭiah* and Kefar Karnaim, Kefar Karnaim being like Beth Shean.)

footnotes:
⁷⁰ How far does the exemption of the Beth Shean valley extend? The text is garbled, the places have not been identified. The list is better preserved in the mosaic from Reḥov:אילוּ המקומות המותרין סביבות בית שאן מן הדרום שהיא פילי דקמפון עד חלקה חיורתה מן המערב שהיא פילי דזיירא עד סוף הרצפה מן הצפון שהיא פילי דסכותא עד כפר קרנוס וכפר קרנוס כבית שאן ומן המזרח שהיא פילי דזבלייה עד נפשיה דפנוקטייה וּפילי דכפר זימרין ופילי דאגמה לפנים מן השער מותר ולחוץ אסור. “These are the places permitted in the neighborhood of Beth Shean: In the South, from the Stadium (campus


###### Jerusalem Talmud Demai 2:1:15
[Jerusalem Talmud Demai 2:1:15](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Demai/r/2:1:15)

רִבִּי יוֹנָה בְשֵׁם רִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן זְכַרְיָה הַמִּינִין הָאֲסוּרִין בְּפַּנַּיַיס וְהָאֶגּוֹזִין וְהָאוֹרֶז וְהַשּׁוּמְשְּׁמִין וּפוּל הַמִּצְרִי. גַּמְלִיֵיל זוּגָה אָמַר אַחְיָנִיוֹת הַבְּכוֹרוֹת. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹנָה הָדָא דְּתֵימַר מִתַּרְנְגוֹל קֵיסָרִיוֹן וּלְמַעְלָן. אֲבָל מִתַּרְנְגוֹל קֵיסָרִיוֹן וּלְמַטָּן כְּאֶרֶץ יִשְׂרָאֵל הִיא. רִבִּי יוֹנָה בְּעֵי הָיְתָה שָׂדֵהוּ זְרוּעָה יֶרֶק וּבָא וּמְצָאָהּ אוֹרֶז. יֶרֶק מוּתָּר וְהָאוֹרֶז אָסוּר. אֱגוֹז מִלְּמַעְלָן וְיֶרֶק מִלְּמַטָּן יֶרֶק מוּתָּר וְהָאוֹרֶז אָסוּר. אֲבָל רוֹב הַשָּׂדוֹת הַלָּלוּ עוֹשׂוֹת הַמִּינִין הַלָּלוּ. וַאֲפִילוּ תֵימַר רוֹב הַשָּׂדוֹת הַלָּלוּ עוֹשׂוֹת רוֹב הַמִּינִין הַלָּלוּ רוֹב הַמִּינִין הַלָּלוּ אֵינָן בָּאִין אֶלָּא מִן הָאִיסּוּר.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
Rebbi Jonah in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Zachariah⁷²: The kinds forbidden in Paneas⁷³: Rice, walnuts, sesame, Egyptian beans; some also say early ripening *atriplex*. These have sabbatical status in the Sabbatical year, in the remaining years they must be tithed as certain, even outside the Upper Rooster.” The identity of “complete *demay*” and “certain” is discussed by R. S. Lieberman in *Tarbiẓ* 45 (5776), 54–63. He quotes several passages in which “certain” means “to be treated as certain because of doubt.”: Walnuts, rice, sesame, and Egyption beans. Gamliel the twin says, early ripening *atriplex*⁷⁴ 6:2, Note 125.. Rebbi Jonah said, that means, higher than the Rooster of Caesarea⁷⁵ 6:1, fol. 36c), one of the border marks is “the Upper Rooster over Cesarea Philippi”; from there to the Northeast is the Trachonitis and Syria, to the Southwest is the Holy Land.. But below the Rooster of Caesarea it has the status of the Land of Israel. Rebbi 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 areas⁷⁶.

footnotes:
⁷² An otherwise unknown author.
⁷³ Banias, at the Jordan source, a Greek town just upstream from Caesarea Philippi. The text of Reḥov reads: הפירות הללו אסורין בפניס בשביעית ובישאר שני שבוע הן מתעסרין דמיי משלם האורז והאגוזין והשמשמין ופול המצרי יש אומרין אוף אחוניות הבכירות הרי אלו בשביעית שביעית ובשאר שני שבוע הן מתעסרין ודיי ואפילו מן תרנגולה עלייה ולחוץ. “The following produce is forbidden at Paneas in the Sabbatical year; in the other years their are tithed as complete demay
⁷⁴ Cf. Berakhot
⁷⁵ In the Tosephta on the borders of the Holy Land (Ševiït
⁷⁶ Since the imports outnumber local produce, we have to follow the majority in all cases, as established earlier.


###### Jerusalem Talmud Demai 2:1:16
[Jerusalem Talmud Demai 2:1:16](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Demai/r/2:1:16)

תַּנִּי הָאוֹרֶז שֶׁבְּחוֹלַת אַנְטוֹכִיָּא מוּתָּר בִּמְקוֹמוֹ. רִבִּי לָעְזָר בֵּי רִבִּי יוֹסֵי הִתִּיר עַד כדון. רִבִּי יוֹנָה בְּעֵי וּכְמִידָּתָהּ לְכָל רוּחַ.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
It was stated: The rice in the sands of Antiochia⁷⁷ is permitted in its place. Rebbi Eleazar ben Rebbi Yose permitted it as far as *Kdvn*⁷⁸. Rebbi Jonah asked: This distance⁷⁹ in every direction?

footnotes:
⁷⁷ Antakia on the Orontes. It seems that the rice from there was the same kind as that from the Holy Land; since the local production was enough and nothing or very little was imported, the decree of the Mishnah does not apply to Antiochia.
⁷⁸ R. Simson of Sens reads בורן. The place is unidentified.
⁷⁹ Measured from the dunes.


###### Jerusalem Talmud Demai 2:1:17
[Jerusalem Talmud Demai 2:1:17](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Demai/r/2:1:17)

אֵילּוּ עַיָירוֹת אֲסוּרוֹת בִּתְחוּם צוֹר שצת וּבצת וּפי מצובה וחנוּתא עֲלִיָיתָא וחניתא תַּחְתִּיָּה וּבֵית בריא וראש מיא ואמון וּמזי.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
“The following are the forbidden towns in the district of Tyre⁸¹ 4:9. The text of the Reḥov mosaic reads: העיירות האסורות בתחום צור שצת ובצת ופי מצובה וחנותה עלייתה וחנותה ארעייתה וביברה וראש מייה ואמון ומזה היא קסטלה וכל מה שקנו ישראל נאסר.. “The towns forbidden in the district of Tyre: *ṡẓt*, Al-Baṣa, the source at Ma‘aṣuba, upper and lower Ḥanuta, the house of Bara (or Badia), the water spring, Hamun, and Mazy, that is the water tower [*castellum*, cf. Y. Sussman, *Tarbiẓ*45 (5736), 213–257]; and all that was acquired by Jews becomes forbidden.”: *ṡẓt*⁸², Al-Baṣa⁸³, the source at Ma‘aṣuba⁸⁴, upper and lower Ḥanuta⁸⁵, Bet Badia⁸⁶, the water spring, Hamun⁸⁷. 19:28) is North of it at the source Ḥamul, so maybe ראש מיא and עמון are one and the same. In Galilean speech, ח, ע, א were undifferentiated., and Mazy⁸⁸.”

footnotes:
⁸¹ Even though the Mishnah states that Akhzib is the Northern border of the Land, there are isolated villages that always had a Jewish population and, therefore, are obliged to follow the rules of the Sabbatical. The list is in Tosephta Ševiït
⁸² Unidentified; in the Rome ms. שיצת, in the Tosephta mss. אשנץ, שנץ.
⁸³ Just South of Rosh Haniqra.
⁸⁴ Khirbet Ma‘aṣuba, SE of Al-Baṣa.
⁸⁵ Khirbet Ḥanuta, NE from Khirbet Ma‘aṣuba.
⁸⁶ Unidentified; in the Erfurt ms. of the Tosephta: בית כריא.
⁸⁷ Khirbet Mazy is near Rosh Haniqra; Ḥamun (Jos
⁸⁸ Khirbet Mazy near Rosh Haniqra.


###### Jerusalem Talmud Demai 2:1:18
[Jerusalem Talmud Demai 2:1:18](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Demai/r/2:1:18)

אָמַר רִבִּי מָנָא הָדָא דְּאַתְּ אָמַר בָּרִאשׁוֹנָה. אֲבָל עַכְשָׁיו יֵשׁ [עַיָירוֹת אַחֵרוֹת שֶׁהֶחֱזִיקוּ בָּהֶם יִשְׂרָאֵל שֶׁהֶם אֲסוּרוֹת. אֵילּוּ עַיָירוֹת אֲסוּרוֹת בִּתְחוּם] סוּסִיתָה. עיינוש ועין תרע ורם ברין ועיון ויעדוט וּכפר וחרוב ונוב וחספיה וּכְפַר צֶמַח. רִבִּי הִתִּיר כְּפַר צֶמַח. רִבִּי אִימִּי בְּעִי וְלֹא מִמַּעֲלֵי מִסִּין הֵן. סָבַר רִבִּי אִימִּי מַעֲלֵי מִסִּין כְּמִי שֶׁנִּתְכַּבְּשׁוּ.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
Rebbi Mana said, what you enumerate was earlier. But now there [are other towns that were held by Israel and they are forbidden. “⁹⁰ 4:10 is: “Towns obligated for tithes in the district of Susita.” R. S. Lieberman points out that the obligation of tithes also extends to places freed from the obligation of the Sabbatical year. The text of the mosaic of Reḥov: העיירות אסורות בתחום סוסיתה. עיינוש ועין חרה ודמבר ועיון ויערוט וכפר יחריב ונוב .וחספייה וּכפר צמח. ורבי התיר כפר צמח. “These are the towns forbidden in district Susita: Al ‘Awaniš, Eyn Ḥara‘ (probably a pejorative name for a spring holy to a pagan deity), Dambar, Iyun (not the one in Lebanon) and Ya‘ruṭ, Kefar Yaḥrib, Nab, Ḥasfin, and Kefar Ẓemaḥ. Rebbi permitted Kefar Ẓemaḥ.” These are the towns forbidden in district] Susita⁹¹: Al ‘Awaniš⁹² עושית., Eyn Tara‘⁹³, the heights of Barin⁹⁴, the spring Ya‘riṭ, Kefar Yaḥrib⁹⁵, Nab, Ḥasfin⁹⁶, and Kefar Ẓemaḥ. Rebbi permitted Kefar Ẓemaḥ.” Rebbi Immi asked: Are these not of the taxpayers⁹⁷? Rebbi Immi is of the opinion that taxpayers count as if they were conquered.

footnotes:
⁹⁰ The text in Tosephta Ševiït
⁹¹ The city of Hippos overlooking the Eastern shore of lake Genezareth. Even though the description of the boundaries of the Land includes all of the Golan heights, Hippos and its surroundings were formerly Greek and exempt.
⁹² North of Susita. In the Erfurt ms. עינישת, in Caphtor Waperaḥ
⁹³ Unidentified, the name is misspelled as seen in the Reḥov mosaic. Missing in the list of Caphtor Waperaḥ.
⁹⁴ In the Rome ms. בריך, in the Vienna ms. of the Tosephta: ורומברך. Identified by S. Klein as Barīqa S. of Susita; in view of the Reḥov mosaic, that identification cannot be sustained.
⁹⁵ These two are unidentified. Rome ms.: ועיין ויעריט וכפר יחריב. In the Tosephta ms. עין יעריט וכפר יערים.
⁹⁶ Nab is E. of ‘Awaniš and Ḥasfin N. of Nab (S. Klein).
⁹⁷ Taxpayers of the mainly Jewish district.


###### Jerusalem Talmud Demai 2:1:19
[Jerusalem Talmud Demai 2:1:19](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Demai/r/2:1:19)

אֵילּוּ עַיָירוֹת שֶׁהָיוּ מוּתָּרוֹת בִּתְחוּם נַבִּי. צור וצייר וגשמיי וזיויין ויגדי חטם ודבב חרבתיה וכרכה דבר הזרג.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
“The following are the towns that were permitted in the district of Naveh⁹⁹ 1:1), in the center of the Bašan plateau. The text is also in Tosephta *Ševiït* 4:8. In the Tosephta: “Towns that were permitted in the district of Nave and became forbidden.” As Arab village, Nowa. The text from Reḥov reads: העיירות שהן ספק בתחום נווה ציר וצייר וגשמיי וזיזון ורנב .וחרבתה ואיגרי חותם וכרכרה דבר הרג. “The towns that are questionable (whether Jewish or Gentile) in the district of Naveh: Ṣaria, Ṭeriya, Jasim, Zizun, Regeb (?), the ruin and wall of *ḥṭm*, the palisades of *Bar hrg*.”: Ṣaria¹⁰⁰, Ṭeriya, Jasim¹⁰¹, Zizun, the stone heaps of *ḥṭm*¹⁰². 31.47. Identified by S. Klein as ‘Otman, E. of Zizun., Aldanba the ruin¹⁰³, the palisades of *Bar hzrg*¹⁰⁴ as Nabatean (maybe from زرج “shoot of vine”)..”

footnotes:
⁹⁹ Appears in the Yerushalmi also as Nineveh (Taäniot
¹⁰⁰ Tosephta mss.: ציר וצייר, Rome ms. צורן צייר. The identifications here are S. Klein’s. The place is E. of Nave, N. of Ṭeriya.
¹⁰¹ The reading of the Rome Yerushalmi and Vienna Tosephta mss. is גשמי וזיזיון, the Erfurt ms. has גושמי וזיזין. Jasim is N. of Naveh, Zizun to the SE.
¹⁰² In the Tosephta: ויגרי טב. For יגר, cf. Gen
¹⁰³ Rome ms. ונדב חרבותה, Tosephta mss. ודנב חורבתא. Aldanba is E. of Naveh (S. Klein).
¹⁰⁴ Rome ms.: דבר הורג. Tosephta mss.: דבית הרב. The place of this fortification has not been identified. S. Klein identifies the name ḥzrg


###### Jerusalem Talmud Demai 2:1:20
[Jerusalem Talmud Demai 2:1:20](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Demai/r/2:1:20)

חַד טְעִין דְּצִימּוּקִין עָאַל לְטִיבֵּרִיָּא שְׁאַל גַּמְלִיֵיל זוּגָה לְרִבִּי בָּא בַּר כַּהֲנָא. אָמַר לֵיהּ אֵין כָּל אֶרֶץ יִשְׂרָאֵל עָשׂוּי מַשּׂוּי אֶחָד שֶׁל צִימּוּקִין. וְאֵין כָּל אֶרֶץ יִשְׂרָאֵל עָשׂוּי מַשּׂוּי אֶחָד שֶׁל צִימּוּקִין אֶלָּא כֵן אָמַר לֵיהּ אֵין מָקוֹם בְּאֶרֶץ יִשְׂרָאֵל עוֹשֶׂה מַסּוּי שֶׁל צִימּוּקִין.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
A load of raisins¹⁰⁶ came up to Tiberias. Gamliel the twin asked Rebbi Abba bar Kahana¹⁰⁷. 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.

footnotes:
¹⁰⁶ Either a full donkey load or a full camel load. Since it says “ascended,” it must have come up the Jordan valley from the Beth Shean valley, or from Transjordan. It seems from the following that the question was whether in a Sabbatical year one was permitted to trade in these raisins.
¹⁰⁷ Rome ms: Rebbi Abba bar Zavda. This reading is more likely since the latter was the Halakhic authority.


###### Jerusalem Talmud Demai 2:1:21
[Jerusalem Talmud Demai 2:1:21](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Demai/r/2:1:21)

חַד בַּר נַשׁ אַיְיתֵי חֲדָא אַשְׁפָלָה דְקֵפַלּוֹטִין לְרִבִּי יִצְחָק בַּר טֶבְלַיי. שְׁאַל לְרִבִּי יוֹחָנָן. אָמַר לֵיהּ פּוּק שְׁאַל לַחֲנַנְיָה בֶּן שְׁמוּאֵל דִּתְנִּיָיתָהּ. נְפַק וּשְׁאַל לֵיהּ. אָמַר מַתְנֵי לָא יַחְמֵי לִי שְׁמוּעָה אָמַר לִי. דְּאָמַר רִבִּי יָסָא בְשֵׁם רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן אִיתְפַּלְּגוּן רִבִּי וְרִבִּי אֶלְעָזָר בֵּי רִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן חַד אָמַר אַחַר מְקוֹמוֹ וְחָרָנָה אָמַר אַחַר מַעֲמָדוֹ. רִבִּי אָבָּהוּ מְפָרֵשׁ. רִבִּי אוֹמֵר אַחַר מְקוֹמוֹ וְרִבִּי אֶלְעָזָר בֵּי רִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֵר אַחַר מַעֲמָדוֹ. רִבִּי אַבָּהוּ אָמַר רִבִּי אוֹמֵר אַחַר מְקוֹמוֹ וְהוֹרֵי לֵיהּ כְּהָדָא דְּרִבִּי אֶלְעָזָר בֵּי רִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אַחַר מַעֲמָדוֹ. הָדָא דְּתֵימַר בְּאִילֵּין אַפְשָׁלָתָא בְּרַם בְּאִילֵּין טְעוּנָיָא כָּל עַמָּא מוֹדֵיי אַחַר מְקוֹמוֹ. הָיָה מְקוֹמוֹ וּמַעֲמָדוֹ הֵיתֵר וְהוּא עָתִיד לְהַעֲבִירוֹ דֶּרֶךְ אִיסּוּר אוֹתוֹ הֵאִיסּוּר כְּמִי שֶׁלֹּא הֶעֱבִירוֹ. רִבִּי בָּא בַּר כֹּהֶן בְּעָא קוֹמֵי רִבִּי יוֹסֵי לֹא כֵן אָמַר רִבִּי חִיָיא בְשֵׁם רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן רִבִּי וַחֲבֵירָיו הֲלָכָה כְּרִבִּי. וְאָמַר רִבִּי יוֹנָה וַאֲפִילוּ רִבִּי אֶצֶל רִבִּי לָעְזָר בֵּי רִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן. אָמַר לֵיהּ מַה אַתְּ בָּעֵי מֵרִבִּי יוֹחָנָן. רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן כְּדַעְתֵּיהּ. [דְּ]רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָמַר קַל הֵיקִילוּ בַּשְּׁבִיעִית שֶׁהִיא מִדִּבְרֵיהֶם. אִית דְּבָעֵי מֵימַר נִצְטָרְפָה דַעְתּוֹ שֶׁל רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן עִם רִבִּי אֶלְעָזָר בֵּי רִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן וְרָבוּ עַל רִבִּי.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
A person brought a back-pack¹⁰⁸ of פשל means: to let hang down (in Arabic: to fail, be unsuccessful.) of leeks to Rebbi Isaac bar Tevele. He asked Rebbi Joḥanan. He said to him, go and ask Ḥananiah ben Samuel¹⁰⁹ who knows statements about this. He went and asked. He said, they did not show me¹ a statement, but he told me an Amoraic tradition, since Rebbi Yasa said in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Rebbi and Rebbi Eleazar ben Rebbi Simeon disagree: one says after its place of production, the other says, after its current stand. Rebbi Abbahu explained: Rebbi said, after its place of production and Rebbi Eleazar ben Rebbi Simeon, after its current stand. Rebbi Abbahu said that Rebbi said, after its place of production, and they taught him following Rebbi Eleazar ben Rebbi Simeon, after its current stand¹¹⁰. This means for back packs, 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. Rebbi Abba bar Cohen asked before Rebbi Yose: Did not Rebbi Ḥiyya say in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, between Rebbi and his colleague, practice follows Rebbi. But Rebbi Jonah said, even Rebbi with Rebbi Eleazar ben Rebbi Simeon¹¹¹? He said to him, what do you want from Rebbi Joḥanan! Rebbi Joḥanan follows his own opinion, for Rebbi Joḥanan said, they were very lenient regarding the Sabbatical, which is of their words¹¹²10:32), it cannot be considered a Biblical commandment since it is intrinsically connected with the Jubilee year which presupposes that every family hold the grounds alotted to it in Joshua’s distribution. Since there can be no Jubilee, the Sabbatical stands only on popular acceptance.. Some want to say¹¹³, the opinion of Rebbi Joḥanan is added to that of Rebbi and they form a majority against Rebbi Eleazar ben Rebbi Simeon.

footnotes:
¹⁰⁸ Rome ms: מפשלתה; the hif‘il
¹⁰⁹ A Tanna in the academy of R. Joḥanan, whose task was to memorize all known tannaïtic statements. R. Isaac bar Tevele is otherwise unknown.
¹ The expression יחמי לי is discussed in detail by Y. Sussman in Mehqerei Talmud, vol. 3, Jerusalem 2005, pp. 219-224. (Addenda and Corrigenda by Guggenheimer)
¹¹⁰ Produce that may be from the Land of Israel is under the laws of the Sabbatical everywhere in the Land if carried by a human.
¹¹¹ Since R. Eleazar ben R. Simeon was Rebbi’s teacher; he could not be counted as a “colleague.” It is said that after the death of R. Eleazar, Rebbi, who at that time was a widower, asked his widow to marry him. She answered: “Should a vessel that was used in the Sanctuary ever be used for profane purposes?”
¹¹² Even though the observation of the Sabbatical year is among the duties that the returnees from Babylonia took upon themselves voluntarily (Neh.
¹¹³ These object to R. Joḥanan and say that even if the Sabbatical cannot be considered a part of the Jubilee institution, at least it is to be kept in fulfillment of the vow registered by Nehemiah and, as such, it is Biblical.


###### Jerusalem Talmud Demai 2:2:1
[Jerusalem Talmud Demai 2:2:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Demai/r/2:2:1)

**משנה:** הַמְקַבֵּל עָלָיו לִהְיוֹת נֶאֱמָן מְעַשֵּׂר אֶת שֶׁהוּא אוֹכֵל וְאֶת שֶׁהוּא מוֹכֵר וְאֶת שֶׁהוּא לוֹקֵחַ וְאֵינוֹ מִתְאָרֵחַ אֶצֶל עַם הָאָרֶץ. רִבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר הַמִּתְאָרֵחַ אֶצֶל עַם הָאָרֶץ נֶאֱמָן. אָמְרוּ לוֹ עַל עַצְמוֹ אֵינוֹ נֶאֱמָן כֵּיצַד יְהֵא נֶאֱמָן עַל שֶׁל אֲחֵרִים.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
**MISHNAH:** He who takes it upon himself to be trustworthy¹¹⁴. gives tithes for what he eats, what he sells, and what he buys, and he is not a guest of an *am haäreẓ.* Rebbi Jehudah said, he who is a guest of an *am haäreẓ* may be trustworthy. They said to him, for himself he is not trustworthy¹¹⁵ will serve him *demay* from which the heave of tithes was not taken, and by eating it he potentially commits a deadly sin, how can he be trusted by his customers that tithes were taken according to all rules?, how can he be trusted for others?

footnotes:
¹¹⁴ To guarantee that all his produce is tithed and free from the rules of demay
¹¹⁵ Since it is assumed that the am haäreẓ


###### Jerusalem Talmud Demai 2:2:2
[Jerusalem Talmud Demai 2:2:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Demai/r/2:2:2)

**הלכה:** מַה שֶׁהוּא לוֹקֵחַ עַל מְנָת לֶאֱכוֹל. וְהָא תַנֵּינָן אֶת שֶׁהוּא אוֹכֵל. אֶלָּא אֶת שֶׁהוּא לוֹקֵחַ עַל מְנָת לִמְכּוֹר. וְהָתַנֵּינָן אֶת שֶׁהוּא מוֹכֵר אֶלָּא אֶת שֶׁהוּא לוֹקֵחַ עַל מְנָת לִמְכּוֹר אֶת שֶׁהוּא מוֹכֵר מִפֵּירוֹת מִכְנָסוֹ.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
**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.


###### Jerusalem Talmud Demai 2:2:3
[Jerusalem Talmud Demai 2:2:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Demai/r/2:2:3)

תַּנִּי אָמַר רִבִּי יוּדָה מִימֵיהֶן שֶׁל בַּעֲלֵי בַּתִּים לֹא נִמְנְעוּ לִהְיוֹת מִתְאָרְחִין אֶצֶל בַּעֲלֵי בַּתִּים חֲבֵירֵיהֶם. אַף עַל פִּי כֵּן נוֹהֲגִין הָיוּ בְּפֵירוֹתֵיהֶן מְתוּקָּנִין לְתוֹךְ בָּתֵּיהֶן.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
It was stated¹¹⁶ 2:1. As usual, the opinion of the anonymous author of the Mishnah is attributed to R. Meïr. The position taken in the Mishnah and here by R. Jehudah in the Tosephta is the collective opinion of the Sages. The sentence here is R. Jehudah’s (or the Sages’) reply that one never objected to any private person’s being the guest of an *am haäreẓ.* (What the observant person has to do in this case is described at the end of this Halakhah. The Yerushalmi accepts this relaxed standard for private persons but not for traders.): Rebbi Jehudah 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.

footnotes:
¹¹⁶ Tosephta Demay


###### Jerusalem Talmud Demai 2:2:4
[Jerusalem Talmud Demai 2:2:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Demai/r/2:2:4)

אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹנָה חֲבֵירִין אֵינָן חֲשׁוּדִין לֹא לֶאֱכוֹל וְלֹא לְהַאֲכִיל. רִבִּי יוֹסֵי אוֹמֵר חֲבֵירִין חֲשׁוּדִין לֶאֱכֹל וְאֵינָן חֲשׁוּדִין לְהַאֲכִיל. מַתְנִיתָא פְלִיגָא עַל רִבִּי יוֹסֵי. אָמְרוּ לוֹ עַל עַצְמוֹ אֵינוֹ נֶאֱמָן כֵּיצַד יְהֵא נֶאֱמָן עַל שֶׁל אֲחֵרִים. מִילֵּיהוֹן דְּרַבָּנִין מְסַיְיעִין עַל רִבִּי יוֹסֵי. דְּאָמַר רִבִּי חֲנִינָא רִבִּי יָסָא בְשֵׁם רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן לֹא אָמַר רִבִּי יוּדָה אֶלָּא בְסוֹף אֲבָל בִּתְחִילָּה אוּף רִבִּי יוּדָה מוֹדֵי. אִין תֵימַר חֲבֵירִים אֵין חֲשׁוּדִין לֹא לוֹכַל וְלֹא לְהַאֲכִיל מַה בֵּין בִּתְחִילָּה מַה בֵּין בְּסוֹף. דְּתַנִּי הַמְקַבֵּל עָלָיו לִהְיוֹת נֶאֱמָן חוּץ מִדָּבָר אֶחָד אֵין מְקַבְּלִין אוֹתוֹ הֶחָשׁוּד עַל דָּבָר אֶחָד חָשׁוּד הוּא עַל הַכֹּל. רִבִּי יוּדָה אוֹמֵר אֵינוֹ חָשׁוּד אֶלָּא עַל אוֹתוֹ דָבָר בִּלְבַד.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
Rebbi Jonah said, *ḥaverim*¹¹⁷ is a person who takes it upon himself to observe the rules of ritual purity in his private life, away from the Sanctuary, and to avoid becoming impure if at all possible. With the disappearance of the last ways to cleanse oneself from the impurity induced by the dead (see the Notes to Mishnah *Berakhot* 1:1), fellowship was slowly transformed into the fraternity of those who followed ritual law scrupulously. Since Rebbi Jonah and Rebbi Yose are late Amoraïm, we have to assume that for them, fellowship and trustworthiness are practically identical; see the story about R. Simeon ben Laqish in the next Halakhah, Note 154. are not suspected either to eat or to serve to others¹¹⁸ who is seen eating at an *am haäreẓ*’s home or inviting an *am haäreẓ* to eat with him loses his standing. There is no imputation that the home of the *am haäreẓ* would not be kosher, but his food may be impure and eating it might break the vow of fellowship. That would not apply to fruits eaten dry, for example. But the food presented by the *am haäreẓ* is *demay* by definition and it will be made clear that the vow of fellowship is a step above that of being trustworthy for tithes; hence, eating *demay* breaks trustworthiness and, *a fortiori*, fellowship. If one gives of one’s food to an *am haäreẓ*, it becomes impure by contact with the impure person which is a sure break of the vow of fellowship.. Rebbi Yose said, *ḥaverim* are suspected to eat but not to serve to others¹¹⁹ who is seen eating from a source considered as *demay* does not lose his standing since he might have put his food in order mentally as explained at the end of the Halakhah. In the next Halakhah, however, the statement of R. Yose is qualified to apply to trustworthy persons only, not to recognized *ḥaverim*.. The Mishnah disagrees with Rebbi Yose: “They said to him, for himself he is not trustworthy, how can he be trusted for others?” The words of the rabbis support Rebbi Yose, for Rebbi Ḥanina, Rebbi Yasa, said in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Rebbi Jehudah spoke only of the end, but at the start even Rebbi Jehudah will agree.¹²⁰’s, there is disagreement between R. Jehudah and the Sages. 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 stated¹²¹ 2:3, reproduced Babli *Bekhorot* 30b, but speaking of fellowship instead of trustworthiness. Again, the anonymous opinion here is R. Meïr’s in the Tosephta, and R. Jehudah’s here is that of the anonymous majority there. (Maimonides *Miškav Umošav* 10:9 follows the Babli and, hence, the opinion expressed here by R. Jehudah.): “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. Rebbi Jehudah said, he is only suspect in that thing alone.”

footnotes:
¹¹⁷ As explained in the next Mishnah, a ḥaver
¹¹⁸ According to R. Jonah, a ḥaver
¹¹⁹ R. Yose holds that a ḥaver
¹²⁰ If somebody takes the vow (publicly, as explained later) of trustworthiness, he must accept the rules spelled out in the Mishnah as the majority opinion. If later he is seen eating from the am haäreẓ
¹²¹ A similar statement is in Tosephta Demay


###### Jerusalem Talmud Demai 2:2:5
[Jerusalem Talmud Demai 2:2:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Demai/r/2:2:5)

תַּנִּי הַנֶּאֱמָן עַל הַטָּהֳרוֹת נֶאֱמָן עַל הַמַּעְשְׂרוֹת. תַּנִּיתָהּ רִבִּי יַנַּאי בֵּי רִבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל וְאָמַר טַעְמָא. הָדָא דְּתֵימַר בְּמִתְאָרֵחַ אֶצְלוֹ אֲבָל בְּרַבִּים אֵינוֹ נֶאֱמָן עַד שֶׁיְּקַבֵּל עָלָיו בְּרַבִּים. רִבִּי אַמִּי בְשֵׁם רִבִּי יַנַּאי אֲפִילוּ אֲנִי אֵינִי נֶאֱמָן עַד שֶׁנְּקַבֵּל עָלָיו בְּרַבִּים. רִבִּי זְעִירָא רִבִּי יָסָא בְשֵׁם רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן אֲפִילוּ חָבֵר שֶׁשָּׁלַח לְחָבֵר צָרִיךְ לְעַשֵּׂר. רִבִּי זְעִירָא בְּעָא קוֹמֵי רִבִּי יָסָא כְּגוֹן אֲנִי לְרִבִּי שְׁמוּאֵל בַּר רַב יִצְחָק וְרִבִּי שְׁמוּאֵל בַּר רַב יִצְחָק לִי. אָמַר לֵיהּ מַה אַתְּ בְּעֵי מֵרִבִּי שְׁמוּאֵל בַּר רַב יִצְחָק דְּכָל מַה דְּהוּא אֹכֶל מִן שׁוּקָא הוּא אֹכֶל.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
It was stated: “He who is trustworthy for purity is trustworthy for tithes.¹²²” Rebbi Yannai ben Rebbi Ismaël 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 publicly¹²³ 2:14) speaks of “him who accepts before the fellowship.” However, the Babli (*Bekhorot* 20b) requires “before three people” (who form a court of law.). Rebbi Ammi in the name of Rebbi Yannai: Even I am not trustworthy until we accept it in public¹²⁴ 2:13) and the Babli (*Bekhorot* 30b) exempt a member of a Rabbinic court since he would not have been accepted into the court had he not given a vow of fellowship.. Rebbi Zeïra, Rebbi Yasa, in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Even a *ḥaver* who sent to another *ḥaver*, the recipient must tithe¹²⁵. Rebbi Zeïra asked before Rebbi Yasa, for example, I to Rebbi Samuel ben Rav Isaac, and Rebbi Samuel ben Rav Isaac to me? He answered him, what do you want from Rebbi Samuel ben Rav Isaac, because all he eats, he eats from the market¹²⁶ and immediately put in order..

footnotes:
¹²² This implies that one is not accepted for fellowship until he be trustworthy for tithes; see the next Halakhah.
¹²³ Usually, “publicly” means before at least ten adult males. Similarly, the Tosephta (Demay
¹²⁴ The Tosephta (Demay
¹²⁵ In order to avoid situations as that described in Halakhah 1:3 between R. Zeïra and R. Jeremiah, where each trusted the other to put the food in order.
¹²⁶ He was Babylonian in origin and, in contrast to R. Zeïra, never acquired land in Galilee. Hence, all he ate was bought from the market as demay


###### Jerusalem Talmud Demai 2:2:6
[Jerusalem Talmud Demai 2:2:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Demai/r/2:2:6)

הוּא נֶאֱמָן וְאִשְׁתּוֹ אֵינָהּ נֶאֱמָנֶת לוֹקְחִין מִמֶּנּוּ וְאֵין מִתְאָרְחִין אֶצְלוֹ. אֲבָל אָמְרוּ הֲרֵי הוּא כְדָר עִם הַנָּחָשׁ בִּכְפִיפָה. אִשְׁתּוֹ נֶאֱמָנֶת וְהוּא אֵינוֹ נֶאֱמָן מִתְאָרְחִין אֶצְלוֹ וְאֵין לוֹקְחִין מִמֶּנּוּ אֲבָל אָמְרוּ תָבוֹא מְאֵירָה לְמִי שֶׁאִשְׁתּוֹ נֶאֱמָנֶת וְהוּא אֵינוֹ נֶאֱמָן.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
“If¹²⁷ 3:9, in slightly different language. The curse on the man whose wife is trustworthy while he is not is missing there. he is trustworthy but his wife is not, one buys from him¹²⁸ but one cannot be his guest. But they said, he is like one who lives with a snake in the same basket¹²⁹ that was not brought in order if he forgot to ask.. 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.”

footnotes:
¹²⁷ Tosephta Demay
¹²⁸ On the market.
¹²⁹ Since she will serve him demay


###### Jerusalem Talmud Demai 2:2:7
[Jerusalem Talmud Demai 2:2:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Demai/r/2:2:7)

תַּנִּי לֹא יְשַׁמֵּשׁ חָבֵר בְּמִשְׁתֶּה עַם הָאָרֶץ וְלֹא בִסְעוּדַת עַם הָאָרֶץ אֶלָּא אִם כֵּן הָיָה הַכֹּל מְתוּקָּן וּמְעוּשָּׂר מִתַּחַת יָדוֹ וַאֲפִילוּ מֵינֶיקֶת שֶׁל יַיִן. וְאִם שִׁימֵּשׁ חָבֵר בְּמִשְׁתֶּה עַם הָאָרֶץ וּבִסְעוּדַת עַם הָאָרֶץ הֲרֵי זוּ חֲזָקָה לְמַעְשְׂרוֹת. רָאוּ אוֹתוֹ מֵיסַב אֵינָהּ חֲזָקָה אֲנִי אוֹמֵר עַל הַתְּנָאִין שֶׁבְּלִבּוֹ הוּא מֵיסַב. בְּנוֹ מֵיסַב אֶצְלוֹ צָרִיךְ לְעַשֵּׂר עַל יָדָיו. חֲבֵירוֹ אֵינוֹ צָרִיךְ לְעַשֵּׂר עַל יָדָיו.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
It was stated¹³⁰ 3:6–7.: “A *ḥaver*¹³¹” here is the trustworthy person, not necessarily a full member of the fellowship, but the language both here and in the Tosephta does not support this explanation. Maimonides, in Chapter 10 of *Maäser*, identifies trustworthy person and *ḥaver*, but he writes for practical use and in his time the difference between the two had disappeared since nobody was able to eat in purity. However, as will be explained in the next Halakhah, one facet of fellowship, the washing of one’s hands before a meal, is still valid and this has to be added to the conditions of trustworthiness in any case. should not serve as waiter at the wedding feast of an *am haäreẓ* or the dinner of an *am haäreẓ* except when everything was in order and tithed under his control, even¹³² the wine ladle. But if¹³³ may not serve at a dinner of untithed food, his presence is a guarantee of the kosher status of the entire meal. a *ḥaver* acted as waiter at the wedding feast of an *am haäreẓ* or the dinner of an *am haäreẓ* this is *prima facie* evidence for tithes. If one saw him¹³⁴ was not a waiter but a guest; his participation is not proof of anything since before the meal he could have made a mental stipulation to give the necessary tithes for what he ate from his own provisions at home when he returned; this is an acceptable way of tithing *demay* in emergencies (Mishnah 7:1). But he is not responsible for anybody else at the dinner, except for his dependents. 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*.”

footnotes:
¹³⁰ Similar text is in Tosephta Demay
¹³¹ According to R. S. Lieberman, the “ḥaver
¹³² Including the wine that might be in the ladle separate from the amphora from which the heave of the tithe is taken.
¹³³ Since a ḥaver
¹³⁴ The ḥaver


###### Jerusalem Talmud Demai 2:3:1
[Jerusalem Talmud Demai 2:3:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Demai/r/2:3:1)

**משנה:** הַמְקַבֵּל עָלָיו לִיהְיוֹת חָבֵר אֵינוֹ מוֹכֵר לְעַם הָאָרֶץ לַח וְיָבֵשׁ וְאֵינוֹ לוֹקֵחַ מִמֶּנּוּ לַח וְאֵינוֹ מִתְאָרֵחַ אֶצֶל עַם הָאָרֶץ וְלֹא מְאָרְחוֹ אֶצְלוֹ בִכְסוּתוֹ. רִבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר אַף לֹא יְגַדֵּל בְּהֵמָה דַקָּה וְלֹא יְהֵא פָרוּץ בִּנְדָרִים וּבִשְׂחוֹק וְלֹא יְהֵא מִיטָּמֵא לְמֵתִים וּמְשַׁמֵּשׁ בְּבֵית הַמִּדְרָשׁ. אָמְרוּ לוֹ לֹא בָאוּ אֵלּוּ לִכְלָל.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
**MISHNAH:** He who accepts upon himself to be a *ḥaver* will not sell to the *am haäreẓ* wet or dry¹³⁵ is characterized by his disregard for ritual purity (except in Jerusalem during the three annual pilgrimages when the Temple was standing, when “all of Israel are *ḥaverim*”), food sold to the *am haäreẓ* will certainly become defiled. and will not buy wet from him¹³⁶ can be assumed not to wash his hands before handling either drinks or wet food (such as olives); the food therefore is impure in the first degree and unfit for the *ḥaver*. (Fluids that cause impurity are water, human body fluids, grape juice or wine, olive oil, and date honey.), is not guest of an *am haäreẓ* and does not have him as a guest in his clothing¹³⁷ have to be considered sources of original impurity and a *ḥaver* can have an *am haäreẓ* person as a guest only if he sends him first to the ritual bath to be purified and then clothes him in his own pure clothing. The stages of impurity are, in order, 1) “grandfather of impurity,” a dead person and the house in which there is a corpse, 2) original impurity, anything in contact with a corpse or in a house in which there is a corpse (with a few exceptions), and any other impurity described in the Torah, 3) impurity in the first degree, imparted by contact with original impurity or any impure fluid (because fluids might be in contact with impure human discharges, as above), 3) impurity in the second degree, imparted by contact with impurity of the first degree, also the status of any unwashed hands unless the person was careful that his hands should not touch anything absentmindedly, 4) impurity in the third degree, imparted by contact with impurity of the second degree, applicable to sacrifices and heave only, not to profane food (including profane food eaten under the rules of the heave), and 5) impurity in the fourth degree, imparted by contact with impurity of the third degree, applicable to sacrifices only, but not to heave or to profane food.. Rebbi Jehudah says, moreover he should not raise animals of the flock¹³⁸, should not overstep bounds by vows¹³⁹ and laughter, should not defile himself with the dead¹⁴⁰ 21:1). However, for the majority view, burying the dead is a most sacred duty because its reward is entirely in the hands of Heaven since the object of the duty can no longer give thanks., and be a regular in the house of study. They said to him, these are not included.

footnotes:
¹³⁵ The entire essence of fellowship is to preserve food grown or raised in the Land of Israel from ritual impurity. Since the am haäreẓ
¹³⁶ There is a rabbinic decree (explained in the next Note) that any fluid which becomes impure in any degree becomes impure in the first degree. In particular, unwashed hands are always impure in the second degree; the am haäreẓ
¹³⁷ The impurities caused by certain human discharges, such as gonorrhea and menstrual blood, impart original impurity not only to the human himself but also to his clothes. Hence, the clothes of an am haäreẓ
¹³⁸ Sheep or goats. The prohibition applies only to goats whose grazing is destructive to young trees and should be permitted in semi-desert conditions only, never near cultivated land.
¹³⁹ The scrupulous should not make vows for fear of not fulfilling them to the letter. Laughter might be considered a sacrilege; since nobody would laugh in the presence of a king, how could one laugh in the always present fear of the Almighty King of Kings.
¹⁴⁰ Since priests may not defile themselves unless it be for a close relative (Lev.


###### Jerusalem Talmud Demai 2:3:2
[Jerusalem Talmud Demai 2:3:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Demai/r/2:3:2)

**הלכה:** אֵינוֹ לוֹקֵחַ הִימֶּינּוּ לַח. הָא יָבֵשׁ מוּתָּר שֶׁעַמֵּי הָאָרֶץ נֶאֱמָנִין עַל הֶכְשֵׁירוּת. וְתַנִּי כֵן נֶאֱמָן עַם הָאָרֶץ לוֹמַר הַפֵּירוֹת הַלָּלוּ לֹא הוּכְשְׁרוּ. אֲבָל אֵינוֹ נֶאֱמָן לוֹמַר הוּכְשְׁרוּ אֶלָּא שֶׁלֹּא קִיבְּלוּ אֶת הַטּוּמְאָה.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
**HALAKHAH:** “He will not buy wet from him,” hence dry is permitted since the *amē haäreẓ* are trustworthy as to preparation¹⁴¹ 11:38. Since the *pu‘al* verb יתן is written defective, orthographically identical to the active *pi‘el* form, it is concluded that even passive wetting must have an active ingredient, *viz.*, that the wetting should be agreeable to the owner. Since the status of the produce depends on the owner and the rules were known to the *am haäreẓ*, his word in this matter can be trusted.. And it was stated: “The *am haäreẓ* is trustworthy to say, these fruits were never prepared. But he is not trustworthy to say that they were prepared but did not accept impurity¹⁴² by his person will make it most likely that it is impure..”

footnotes:
¹⁴¹ Fluids always become impure by contact. Produce in the ground cannot become impure. Produce harvested dry can become impure if first it was “prepared” by contact with water (or any of the fluids mentioned above), Lev.
¹⁴² If the produce is prepared, the am haäreẓ


###### Jerusalem Talmud Demai 2:3:3
[Jerusalem Talmud Demai 2:3:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Demai/r/2:3:3)

הָא מִכְּלָל דּוּ מוֹדֵי עַל קַמָּיָיתָא. לֵית הָדָא פְלִיגָא עַל דְּרִבִּי יוֹנָה דְּרִבִּי יוֹנָה אָמַר חֲבֵירִין אֵינָן חֲשׁוּדִין לֹא לֶאֱכֹל וְלֹא לְהַאֲכִיל שֶׁלֹּא יֵלֵךְ וִיטַּמֵּא גוּפוֹ וְיָבֹא וִיטַמֵּא טָהֳרוֹת. וַאֲפִילוּ עַל דְּרִבִּי יוֹסֵי לֵית הָדָא פְלִיגָא. דְּרִבִּי יוֹסֵי אָמַר חֲבֵירִין חֲשׁוּדִין לוֹכַל וְאֵין חֲשׁוּדִין לְהַאֲכִיל. תַּמָּן לְטָהֳרוֹת אֲבָל הָכָא לְמַעְשְׂרוֹת. הַנֶּאֱמָן עַל הַטָּהֳרוֹת נֶאֱמָן עַל הַמַּעְשְׂרוֹת.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
By the first statement he invalidated the second¹⁴³’s, accepts all restrictions given in Mishnah 3. Why can he not accept that the *ḥaver* will eat only dry produce not prepared for impurity?. Does this not disagree with Rebbi Jonah, since Rebbi 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 food¹⁴⁴ must be presumed to be originally impure (*Lev*. 15:6, 20), the *ḥaver* will not be able to remain undefiled in that house; returning, he might defile all pure food in his own house.. It does not disagree even with Rebbi Yose, since Rebbi Yose said, *ḥaverim* are suspect to eat but not to serve to others. There one speaks about purity but here about tithes¹⁴⁵” of R. Yose is not really a *ḥaver* but a person trustworthy for tithes.. “He who is trustworthy for purities is trustworthy for tithes¹⁴⁶.”

footnotes:
¹⁴³ Rebbi Jehudah, who in Mishnah 2 permitted to be a guest at the am haäreẓ
¹⁴⁴ If the problem were only food, R. Jehudah could disagree. But since the chairs and couches in the house of the am haäreẓ
¹⁴⁵ It follows that the “ḥaver
¹⁴⁶ See the previous Halakhah.


###### Jerusalem Talmud Demai 2:3:4
[Jerusalem Talmud Demai 2:3:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Demai/r/2:3:4)

תַּנִּי כָּל הַבָּא צָרִיךְ לְקַבֵּל עָלָיו אֲפִילוּ חָבֵר אֲפִילוּ תַּלְמִיד חָכָם אֲבָל חָכָם שֶׁיָּשַׁב בִּישִׁיבָה אֵינוֹ צָרִיךְ לְקַבֵּל עָלָיו שֶׁכְּבָר קִיבֵּל עָלָיו מִשָּׁעָה שֶׁיָּשַׁב. אָמַר רִבִּי לָא וְהוּא שֶׁקִּיבֵּל עָלָיו מִשָּׁעָה רִאשׁוֹנָה. רִבִּי יוֹסֵי בְּעֵי אִי מִשָּׁעָה רִאשׁוֹנָה לָמָּה לִי חָבֵר אֲפִילוּ עַם הָאָרֶץ. אַתְיָא דְּרִבִּי לָא כְּרִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן לָקִישׁ. דְּרִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן לָקִישׁ הֲוָה סְלַק לְגַבֵּי אִילֵּין דְּבֵי רִבִּי יַנַּאי וַהֲווֹ נְשָׁיָיא חַזְיָין לֵיהּ וְעָרְקָן מִן קוֹמוֹי. אָמַר לוֹן אָבֹא לְכוֹן בַּיְיתָא עַם הָאָרֶץ אֲנִי אֶצֶל הָטָּהֳרוֹת.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
It was stated¹⁴⁷ 2:13, Babli *Bekhorot* 30b.: “Everybody who comes has to accept¹⁴⁸., even a learned *ḥaver*¹⁴⁹” by “trustworthy person.”; but a rabbi¹⁵⁰ who has been sitting in rabbinical court does not have to accept because he did it at the moment he joined the court.” Rebbi La said, only if he really accepted it from the first hour on¹⁵¹. Rebbi Yose asked, if it was from the first hour, what is the difference between a *ḥaver* and an *am* *ḥaäreẓ*? The position of Rebbi La parallels that of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish, for Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish came to those of the house of Rebbi Yannai¹⁵²; the women saw him and removed themselves from before him¹⁵³. He said to them, I shall come to your house; I am an *am haäreẓ* with respect to purities¹⁵⁴ in the sense of the Mishnah even though he was number two in the rabbinical establishment of his time..

footnotes:
¹⁴⁷ Tosephta Demay
¹⁴⁸ As explained in the Tosephta of the next paragraph, he has publicly to accept the restrictions imposed on a ḥaver
¹⁴⁹ One is forced to explain this “ḥaver
¹⁵⁰ The חכם everywhere is the acting rabbi.
¹⁵¹ Rebbi La, student of R. Simeon ben Laqish, represents the later generations when abstinence from ritually unclean food was no longer a prerequisite for a rabbinical position.
¹⁵² The yeshivah of R. Yannai, after the latter’s death.
¹⁵³ So that he should not come in contact with any of their clothes and become impure.
¹⁵⁴ He was not a ḥaver


###### Jerusalem Talmud Demai 2:3:5
[Jerusalem Talmud Demai 2:3:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Demai/r/2:3:5)

תַּנִּי הוּא נֶעֱנֶה לַחֲבוּרָה וּבָנָיו וּבְנֵי בֵיתוֹ נֶעֱנִין לוֹ. אִית תַּנָּיֵי תַּנִּי הוּא וּבָנָיו וּבְנֵי בֵיתוֹ נֶעֱנִין לַחַבוּרָה. וְלֹא פְלִיג. כָּאן בְּטְפוּלִין לַאֲבִיהֶן וְכָאן בְּשֶׁאֵינָן טְפוּלִין לַאֲבִיהֶן. תַּנִּי רִבִּי חֲלַפְתָּא בֶּן שָׁאוּל גְּדוֹלִים נֶעֱנִין לַחֲבוּרָה קְטָנִים נֶעֱנִים לוֹ.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
It was stated¹⁵⁵ 2:14, a substantially different text in Babli *Bekhorot* 30b.: “He answers¹⁵⁶; his wife, servants, and minor children will accept before him. to the fellowship, his sons and household answer to him.” Some Tannaïm state: “He, his sons, and his household answer to the fellowship.” They do not disagree: the first, if they are dependent on their father¹⁵⁶; his wife, servants, and minor children will accept before him., the second, if they do not depend on their father. Rebbi Ḥalaphta ben Saul stated, adults answer to the fellowship, minors answer to him¹⁵⁷.

footnotes:
¹⁵⁵ A different text with the same meaning in Tosephta Demay
¹⁵⁶ The acceptance of the rules of fellowship has to be in public in front of the resident ḥaverim
¹⁵⁶ The acceptance of the rules of fellowship has to be in public in front of the resident ḥaverim
¹⁵⁷ R. Ḥalaphta ben Saul disagrees with the explanation just given; according to him, only minors do not have to appear personally before the fellowship. In the Babli, Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel is reported to require appearance of the (adult) sons before the fellowship because that is the more impressive ceremony.


###### Jerusalem Talmud Demai 2:3:6
[Jerusalem Talmud Demai 2:3:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Demai/r/2:3:6)

תַּנִּי מְקָרְיבִן לִכְנָפַיִם וְאַחַר כָּךְ מְלַמְּדִין לְטָהֳרוֹת. אָמַר רִבִּי יִצְחָק בְּרִבִּי לָעְזָר כְּנָפַיִים מַדָּפוֹת הַסָּטוֹת טָהֳרוֹת מַעְשְׂרוֹת.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
It was stated¹⁵⁸ 2:11 and Babli *Bekhorot* 30b: “One accepts for ‘wings’ and after that one accepts for purities.”: “One brings close¹⁵⁹ for ‘wings’¹⁶⁰ 30b). The institution of washing one’s hands for profane food follows the discipline of the heave (*Bikkurim* 2:1, fol. 64d). The washing required here is for any food since even dry food may become wet by saliva. The Babylonian version of the same discipline is to wash only for meals taken with bread (*Ḥulin* 106a), but there fellowship was unknown. and after that one teaches about purity¹⁶¹.” Rebbi Isaac ben Eleazar said, wings, smells¹⁶² 4:6). The Biblical original impurities produced by a person with gonorrhea refer not only to things he touches but also those on which he sits or which he carries or moves otherwise. A lesser impurity is imparted to things above him but which he does not move. These are called מדף, “a smell of impurity.” The list given is a syllabus of the different kinds of impurity the novice has to learn about., pushings¹⁶³, the person with gonorrhea, pushes or moves. These become impure even if never touched by the *zav*., purity¹⁶⁴., tithes.

footnotes:
¹⁵⁸ In Tosephta Demay
¹⁵⁹ People who are interested in following the strict rules are first trained to follow the strict discipline of washing their hands before they are taught the intricacies of the rules of pure food.
¹⁶⁰ “Wings” are the hands the person who is a candidate for fellowship has to promise to wash before eating (Rashi in Bekhorot
¹⁶¹ Pure food. Taking טהרות as a plural of abstraction.
¹⁶² From נדף “to give smell” (Maimonides to Zavim
¹⁶³ Vessels and foodstuffs that the zav
¹⁶⁴ All other impurities treated in Mishnah tractate Ṭahorot


###### Jerusalem Talmud Demai 2:3:7
[Jerusalem Talmud Demai 2:3:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Demai/r/2:3:7)

בָּרִאשׁוֹנָה הָיוּ אוֹמְרִים חָבֵר שֶנַּעֲשֶׂה גַּבַּיי דּוֹחִין אוֹתוֹ מֵחֲבוּרָתוֹ. חָזְרוּ לוֹמַר כָּל זְמָן שֶׁהוּא גַּבַּיי דּוֹחִין אוֹתוֹ מֵחֲבוּרָתוֹ. יָצָא מִגַּבַּיָיתוֹ הֲרֵי הוּא כְּחָבֵר.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
“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.*¹⁶⁵ 3:4, Babli *Bekhorot* 31a. Since taxes in antiquity were usually farmed out, the tax collector had to pay the anticipated taxes up front to the government and then try to recover them from the population. Since he incurred expenses for the collection, he was forced to collect more than what he had paid to the government. Any amount taken above his expenses is possibly theft, and certainly any amount taken above the official rate is robbery. The tax collector would not be in business if he did not make money. Hence, he probably is a thief and a robber and disqualified as member of a religious fellowship. However, in the absence of bidders the Roman government would force people to become tax collectors; the prior rule was therefore no longer enforceable or applicable.”

footnotes:
¹⁶⁵ Tosephta Demay


###### Jerusalem Talmud Demai 2:3:8
[Jerusalem Talmud Demai 2:3:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Demai/r/2:3:8)

חִיָיא בֵּרִבִּי בּוּן בְּשֵׁם רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן חָבֵר שֶׁיָּצָא לְחוּצָה לָאָרֶץ אֵין דּוֹחִין אוֹתוֹ מֵחֲבוּרָתוֹ. הָא קָטָן אֵין צָרִיךְ קֵירוּב.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
Ḥiyya ben Rebbi Abun¹⁶⁶ in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: One does not remove from fellowship a *ḥaver* who went outside the Land¹⁶⁷ 7:17); the person who leaves the Land automatically becomes impure. But this impurity is not from the Torah and is easily removed upon return; hence, leaving the Land on trips was not frowned upon (except for priests who had no compelling reason to go abroad.) Because of this impurity, the Israeli fellowship was impossible in Babylonia at all times.. Hence¹⁶⁸, a minor does not need to be brought close.

footnotes:
¹⁶⁶ He probably is R. Ḥiyya ben Abba.
¹⁶⁷ The land outside the Land of Israel is impure (Amos
¹⁶⁸ The place of this sentence is not here but three paragraphs earlier (but it possibly is a statement by R. Joḥanan.) Since the minor takes the obligation of fellowship through his father, his father, not the fellowship, is required to teach him.


###### Jerusalem Talmud Demai 2:4:1
[Jerusalem Talmud Demai 2:4:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Demai/r/2:4:1)

**משנה:** הַנַּחְתּוֹמִין לֹא חִיְיבוּ אוֹתָן חֲכָמִים לְהַפְרִישׁ אֶלָּא כְדֵי תְּרוּמַת מַעֲשֵׂר וְחַלָּה. הַחֶנְוָונִין אֵינָן רְשָָׁאִין לִמְכּוֹר אֶת הַדְּמַאי. וְכָל הַמְּשׁוּפָּעִין בְּמִידָּה גַסָּה רְשָׁאִין לִמְכּוֹר אֶת הַדְּמַאי. וְאֵלּוּ הֵן הַמְּשׁוּפָּעִין בְּמִידָּה גַסָּה כְּגוֹן הַסִּיטוֹנוֹת וּמוֹכְרֵי תְבוּאָה.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
**MISHNAH:** The sages did not obligate bakers to separate more than the heave of the tithe and *ḥallah*¹⁶⁹. Grocers are not permitted to sell *demay*. All who sell wholesale in large quantities may sell *demay*¹⁷⁰.. The following sell wholesale in large quantities, for example grain buyers¹⁷¹,*ae*,*m*., “purchaser of grain, commissioner, purveyor”, from Greek σιτώνης “public buyer of grain,” wholesale grain merchant who worked with or for the government (E. G.). and sellers.

footnotes:
¹⁶⁹ They do not have to take the Second Tithe, not even in order to redeem it, in order to keep prices down. The Halakhah will address the questions raised by such a policy.
¹⁷⁰ Since the buyer knows that he buys demay
¹⁷¹ Latin sitona


###### Jerusalem Talmud Demai 2:4:2
[Jerusalem Talmud Demai 2:4:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Demai/r/2:4:2)

**הלכה:** תַּמָּן תַּנֵּינָן הַלּוֹקֵחַ מִן הַנַּחְתּוֹם כֵּיצַד הוּא מְעַשֵּׂר. הָכָא אַתְּ אָמַר הַלּוֹקֵחַ מַפְרִישׁ וְהָכָא אַתְּ אוֹמֵר הַנַּחְתּוֹם מַפְרִישׁ. רִבִּי יוֹנָה אָמַר אִיתְפַּלְּגוּן רִבִּי לָעְזָר וְרִבִּי יוֹחָנָן. חַד אָמַר כָּאן בְּעוֹשֶׂה בְטָהֳרָה וְכָאן בְּעוֹשֶׂה בְטוּמְאָה. וְחָרָנָה אָמַר כָּאן בְּמִידָּה דַקָּה וְכָאן בְּמִידָּה גַסָּה. וְלָא יָדְעִין מָאן דַּאֲמַר דָּא וּמָאן דַּאְמַר דָּא. [מִן] מַה דְּאָמַר רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן מִפְּנֵי הַטָּהֳרוֹת. הֲוֵי רִבִּי לָעְזָר הוּא דְּאָמַר כָּאן בְּמִידָּה דַקָּה וְכָאן בְּמִידָּה גַסָּה. וְקַשְׁיָא עַל דְּרִבִּי יוֹחָנָן אִם בְּעוֹשֶׂה בְטָהֳרָה יַפְרִישׁ עַל הַכֹּל. בְּדִין הָיָה שֶׁלֹּא יַפְרִישׁ כְּלוּם שֶׁאֵין מוֹסְרִין וַדַּאי לְעַם הָאָרֶץ. וְקַשְׁיָא עַל דְּרִבִּי לָעְזָר אִם בְּמִידָּה דַקָּה יַפְרִישׁ עַל הַכֹּל. הַחֶנְוָונִי אֵין רְשָׁאִין לִמְכּוֹר דְּמַאי.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
**HALAKHAH:** There¹⁷², heave of the tithe, and redeem the Second Tithe. The Mishnah here demands that the baker himself give *ḥallah* and heave of the tithe., we have stated: “If one buys from the baker¹⁷³, a stove in the form of a truncated cone, the fire burning on the bottom. The bread dough is brought in from the top and slapped onto the walls to be baked into pittah; this motion of “slapping down” is expressed by the root נחת. The seller of baked goods, either the baker in a separate store adjacent to his baking establishment, or an independent dealer, is the פְּלָטֵר, from Greek πρατήρ. The baker will also bake other people’s dough for a fee; that case is not considered here., how does he tithe?” There you say, the buyer separates, and here you say, the baker separates. Rebbi Jonah said, Rebbi Eleazar and Rebbi Joḥanan disagree. One says, here if he works in purity¹⁷⁴, but he has hired a *ḥaver* to knead the dough so that it should not become impure. If the baker handles dry flour or dry bread, nothing happens since profane dry food can be made impure only by original impurity. Therefore, the *ḥaver* may take the heave of the tithe and *ḥallah*., there if he works in impurity¹⁷⁵ following the rules.. The other says, here in retail, there in wholesale. We did not know who said what. Since Rebbi Joḥanan said¹⁷⁶, because of purity, it follows that Rebbi Eleazar is the one who said, here in retail, there in wholesale. It is difficult for Rebbi Joḥanan, if he works in purity, let him separate everything¹⁷⁷. It would be logical that he should not give anything because one does not deliver certain grain¹⁷⁸ since we already have stated that the *ḥaver* may not sell *demay* at all. Hence, in the majority of cases, the Second Tithe, together with the heave of the tithe, are already taken and there would remain only *ḥallah* which is a duty upon bread dough only. to the *am haäreẓ*. It is difficult for Rebbi Eleazar, if it is in retail, let him separate everything. Grocers are not permitted to sell *demay*¹⁷⁹!

footnotes:
¹⁷² Mishnah 5:1 requires that he who buys from a baker has to give ḥallah
¹⁷³ The baker is the craftsman who does the actual baking in his tannur
¹⁷⁴ The baker is not a ḥaver
¹⁷⁵ One does not trust him to handle impure heave and ḥallah
¹⁷⁶ In a related discussion, Halakhah 5:1. (The reading מה is from the Rome ms., Venice print: מאן.)
¹⁷⁷ Why should he be exempt from Second Tithe?
¹⁷⁸ Grain from which it is known with certainty that the Heave of the Tithe was not taken. The baker here must be an am haäreẓ
¹⁷⁹ There is no reason why the bread retailer should be treated in any way different from other retailers.


###### Jerusalem Talmud Demai 2:4:3
[Jerusalem Talmud Demai 2:4:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Demai/r/2:4:3)

חֲבֵרָיָיא בְשֵׁם רִבִּי לָעְזָר דְּרִבִּי מֵאִיר הִיא דְּרִבִּי מֵאִיר אָמַר לֹא הִתִּירוּ לִמְכּוֹר דְּמַאי אֶלָּא לְסִיטוֹן בִּלְבַד. הָתִיב רִבִּי יוֹסֵי וְהָא מַתְנִיתָא פְלִיגָא אֵילּוּ הֵן הַמְּשׁוּפָּעִין בְּמִידָּה גַסָּה כְּגוֹן הַסִּיטוֹנוֹת וּמוֹכְרֵי תְבוּאָה. הוֹי אִית חוֹרָנִין. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹסֵי לֹא עַל הָדָא רִבִּי אֶלְעָזָר אָמַר הָדָא מִילְתָא אֶלָּא עַל הָדָא. דְּתַנִּי בְּמַה דְּבָרִים אֲמוּרִים בִּזְמַן שֶׁהָיָה מוֹכֵר בַּחֲנוּתוֹ אוֹ עַל פֶּתַח חֲנוּתוֹ. אֲבָל אִם הָיָה מוֹכֵר בִּפְלָטֵר אוֹ בַּחֲנוּתוֹ שֶׁהִיא סְמוּכָה לִפְלָטֵר מְעַשֵּׂר עַל הַכֹּל עָלֶיהָ. חֲבֵרָיָיא בְשֵׁם רִבִּי לָעְזָר דְּרִבִּי מֵאִיר הִיא דְּרִבִּי מֵאִיר אָמַר לֹא הִתִּירוּ לִמְכּוֹר דְּמַאי אֶלָּא לְסִיטוֹן בִּלְבַד. הֵיְידָן רִבִּי מֵאִיר הָהִיא דְתַנֵּינָן לְבַתְרָהּ. רִבִּי מֵאִיר אוֹמֵר אֶת שֶׁדַּרְכּוֹ לִמָּדֵד בְּגַסָּה וּמְדָדוֹ בְּדַקָּה טְפֵילָה דַקָּה לְגַסָּה. תַּנִּי רִבִּי חִיָיא כֵּן אֶת שֶׁדַּרְכּוֹ לְהִימָּדֵד בְּגַסָּה וּמְדָדוֹ בְּדַקָּה טְפֵילָה דַקָּה לְגַסָּה. וְכֵן פְּלָטֵר מִידָּה דַקָּה וְחָנוּת מִידָּה גַסָּה טְפֵילָה הִיא הַגַּסָּה לַדַּקָּה.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
The colleagues in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: It¹⁸¹ is Rebbi Meïr’s, since Rebbi Meïr said, they permitted to sell *demay* only to the commissioned grain merchant¹⁸² 56a.. Rebbi 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! Rebbi Yose said, this is not what Rebbi Eleazar referred to, but the following, as we have stated¹⁸³ 3:10, on the statement of the Mishnah, “The Sages did not obligate bakers to separate more than the heave of the tithe and *ḥallah*,” in slightly different wording.: “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 Rebbi Eleazar: It is Rebbi Meïr’s, since Rebbi Meïr said, they only permitted to the commissioned grain merchant to sell *demay*. Which (statement of) Rebbi Meïr? The one we have stated next¹⁸⁴: “Rebbi Meïr says, something which usually he measured wholesale and he measured retail, the retail is adjunct to the wholesale.” Rebbi Ḥiyya¹⁸⁵ 3:10. stated: “Something which usually is measured wholesale and he measured it retail, the retail is adjunct to the wholesale¹⁸⁶..” And so the bakery is retail but the bakeshop is wholesale, there¹⁸⁷ the wholesale is adjunct to the retail.

footnotes:
¹⁸¹ The statement of Mishnah 2:4.
¹⁸² But not any other wholesaler of foodstuffs. The full statement is quoted in Babli Baba Meẓi‘a
¹⁸³ Tosephta Demay
¹⁸⁴ The next Mishnah, in abbreviated form.
¹⁸⁵ The Great Rebbi Ḥiyya, collector of Tosephtot. His formulation, which in contrast to the Mishnah refers not to the standing of the seller but to the goods sold, is in Tosephta Demay
¹⁸⁶ Somebody who buys a retail quantity from a wholesaler must expect to receive demay
¹⁸⁷ If the bakery, or the baker’s workshop physically connected to the retail operation, would sell wholesale, it nevertheless would be a retail operation.


###### Jerusalem Talmud Demai 2:4:4
[Jerusalem Talmud Demai 2:4:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Demai/r/2:4:4)

חֲבֵרָיָיא בְשֵׁם רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן מִפְּנֵי הַתִּינּוֹקוֹת דְּלָא יֵיכְלוּן טֵבֵל. רִבִּי לָא בְשֵׁם רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן מִידָּה דַקָּה הוֹאִיל וְהַמּוֹכֵר מִשְׂתַּכֵּר הַמּוֹכֵר מַפְרִישׁ. מִידָּה גַסָּה הוֹאִיל וְהַלּוֹקֵח מִשְׂתַּכֵּר הַלּוֹקֵח מַפְרִישׁ. מַתְנִיתִין מְסַיֵיעַ לְדֵין וּמַתְנִיתִין מְסַיֵיעַ לְדֵין. מַתְנִיתִין מְסַיֵיעַ לַחֲבֵרָיָיא רִבִּי נְחֶמְיָה אָמַר אֶת שֶׁהוּא טָפֵל לְדַקָּה כְדַקָּה וְאֶת שֶׁהוּא טָפֵל לְגַסָּה כְגַסָּה. מַתְנִיתִין מְסַיֵיעַ לְרִבִּי לָא תַּנִּי רִבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל בְּנוֹ שֶׁל רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן בֶּן בְּרוֹקָה אָמַר מָדַד לוֹ בְדַקָּה חַיָיב אֲפִילוּ לֹא מָדָד לוֹ אֶלָּא סְאָה וְרוֹבָע צָרִיךְ לְעַשֵּׂר אֶת אוֹתוֹ הָרוֹבָע. אָמַר רִבִּי זְעִירָא חֶשְׁבּוֹן שָׂכָר בֵּינֵיהֶן. מָדַד לוֹ סְאָה לְעִנְיָין רְבָעִין הוֹאִיל וְהַמּוֹכֵר מִשְׂתַּכֵּר הַמּוֹכֵר מַפְרִישׁ. מָכַר לוֹ רְבָעִים לְעִנְיָין סְאָה הוֹאִיל וְהַלּוֹקֵח מִשְׂתַּכֵּר הַלּוֹקֵח מַפְרִישׁ.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
The colleagues in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan¹⁸⁸. The colleagues say that it is a religious law to protect the innocent. Rebbi La says, it is a commercial law that the one who takes the larger margin is better able to absorb the costs.: Because of the children lest they should eat *ṭevel*. Rebbi La in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, in retail, because the seller takes the large margin, the seller separates¹⁸⁹. 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: “Rebbi Neḥemiah said, that which is connected to a retail outlet is like retail, connected to a wholesale outlet it is wholesale.¹⁹⁰. The opposite statement is ascribed to R. Neḥemiah in the Tosephta, *Demay* 3:11: “R. Neḥemiah says, anything sold in retail quantity is retail, in wholesale quantity it is wholesale,” supporting R. La.” A statement supports Rebbi La. It was stated: “Rebbi Ismael ben Rebbi Joḥanan ben Beroqa¹⁹¹ said, if he measured with a retail measure, he is obligated. Even if he did measure only one seah and a quarter *qab*¹⁹² = 1/24*seah*., he must tithe the quarter *qab.*” Rebbi Zeïra said, computation of gain is between them¹⁹³. If he measured for him the *seah* at the rate of quarter *qabs*, since the seller takes the large margin, the seller separates. If he measures the quarter *qab* at the rate of *seahs*, since the buyer will take the large margin, the buyer separates.

footnotes:
¹⁸⁸ Here starts the discussion of the Mishnah’s statement that the retailer but not the wholesaler must tithe demay
¹⁸⁹ He separates heave of tithes and Second Tithe and redeems the Second Tithe.
¹⁹⁰ Anything which the retailer sells must be tithed because it is accessible to the general public, but anything the wholesaler sells, even an occasional retail quantity to the limited circle of his customers, may be demay
¹⁹¹ A Tanna of the fourth generation, associate of Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel.
¹⁹² ¼qab
¹⁹³ The argument between R. Neḥemiah here and R. Ismael ben R. Joḥanan ben Beroqa is whether price plays any role. R. Ismael negates the role of price; R. Neḥemiah’s argument is detailed by R. Zeïra.


###### Jerusalem Talmud Demai 2:5:1
[Jerusalem Talmud Demai 2:5:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Demai/r/2:5:1)

**משנה:** רִבִּי מֵאִיר אוֹמֵר אֶת שֶׁדַּרְכּוֹ לִמָּדֵד בְּדַקָּה וּמְדָדוֹ בְגַסָּה טְפֵילָה גַסָּה לְדַקָּה בְּגַסָּה וּמְדָדוֹ בְּדַקָּה טְפֵילָה דַקָּה לְגַסָּה. אֵי זוּ הִיא מִידָּה גַסָּה בְּיָבֵשׁ שְׁלֹשֶׁת קַבִּין וּבְלַח דֵּינַר. רִבִּי יוֹסֵי אוֹמֵר סַלֵּי תְאֵינִים וְסַלֵּי עֲנָבִים וְקוּפּוֹת שֶׁל יֶרֶק כָּל זְמַן שֶׁהוּא מוֹכְרָן אֲכַסָּרָא פָּטוּר.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
**MISHNAH:** Rebbi Meïr says, something which usually is sold retail and he sold wholesale, the wholesale is adjunct to the retail¹⁹⁵; something which usually is sold wholesale and he sold retail, the retail is adjunct to the wholesale. What is wholesale? For dry produce, three *qab*¹⁹⁶, for liquids, the value of one *denar*¹⁹⁷. Rebbi Yose says, baskets of figs, baskets of grapes, and boxes of vegetables, all these if sold *en bloc*¹⁹⁸ gives two interpretations. 1) “Anything that is neither weighed nor measured is called אכסרה.” 2) “ ‘At a loss’, for in Arabic loss (or damage) is called כֹסארה خسارة”. The first interpretation seems to be appropriate here; according to the second one, all produce should be exempted if sold at a loss. Since the Halakhah does not discuss R. Yose’s statement, his opinion is not followed in practice. are free.

footnotes:
¹⁹⁵ And must be tithed; in the following case, the retail quantity may be sold as demay.
¹⁹⁶ About 6.4 liter or 1.7 US gals.
¹⁹⁷ According to Maimonides, one gold denar which equals 24 or 25 silver denar.
¹⁹⁸ Arukh


###### Jerusalem Talmud Demai 2:5:2
[Jerusalem Talmud Demai 2:5:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Demai/r/2:5:2)

**הלכה:** עַל דַּעְתֵּיהּ דְּהָדֵין תַּנָּיָא נָתְנוּ שֵׁיעוּר לְיָבֵשׁ לֹא נָתְנוּ שֵׁיעוּר לְלַח. נָתְנוּ דָמִים לְלַח וְלֹא נָתְנוּ דָמִים לְיָבֵשׁ. תַּנִּי רִבִּי חִיָיא הִין מִידָּה גַסָּה מִן הַהִין וּלְמַטָּן מִידָּה דַקָּה. נִימָן מִידָּה דַקָּה מִנִּימָן וּלְמַעְלָן מִידָּה גַסָּה. עַל דַּעְתֵּיהּ דְּהָדֵין תַּנָּיָיא נָתְנוּ שֵׁיעוּר לְלַח וְלֹא נָתְנוּ שֵׁיעוּר לְיָבֵשׁ נָתְנוּ דָמִים לְיָבֵשׁ וְלֹא נָתְנוּ דָמִים לְלַח.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
**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. Rebbi Ḥiyya stated²⁰⁰ 3:12.: “A *hin*²⁰¹, equal to the three *qab* mentioned in the Mishnah as dry measure. is wholesale, less than a *hin* is retail. A *nummus*²⁰², also called *nummus sestertius*, “a small coin.” 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.

footnotes:
²⁰⁰ Tosephta Demay
²⁰¹ A fluid measure, half a seah
²⁰² In R. Ḥiyya’s time of honest coinage and stable prices. Latin nummus


###### Jerusalem Talmud Demai 2:5:3
[Jerusalem Talmud Demai 2:5:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Demai/r/2:5:3)

רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן בְּשֵׁם רִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן יוֹצָדָק תְּנַיי בֵּית דִּין הוּא שֶׁתְּהֵא תְּרוּמַת מַעֲשֵׂר שֶׁל מוֹכֵר וּמַעֲשֵׂר שֵׁנִי מִשֶּׁל לוֹקֵחַ. מַה נָן קַיָימִין אִם בְּמִידָּה דַקָּה הוֹאִיל וְהַמּוֹכֵר מִשְׂתַּכֵּר הַמּוֹכֵר מַפְרִישׁ. אִם בְּמִדָּה גַסָּה הוֹאִיל וְהַלּוֹקֵח מִשְׂתַּכֵּר הַלּוֹקֵח מַפְרִישׁ. אָמַר רִבִּי בּוּן בַּר חִיָיא תִּיפְתָּר בְּאוֹמֶר לוֹ מִכְּנִיסוֹ. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹסֵי אֲפִילוּ תֵימַר שֶׁלֹּא מֵהַכְּנִיסוֹ בְּאוֹמֵר בְּדַעְתּוֹ נִיתְקִין אַף עַל פִּי כֵּן אָמְרוּ לוֹ תְּנַיי בֵּית דִּין הוּא שֶׁתְּהֵא תְּרוּמַת מַעֲשֵׂר מִשֶּׁל מוֹכֵר וּמַעֲשֵׂר שֵׁנִי מִשֶּׁל לוֹקֵחַ.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
Rebbi Joḥanan in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Yoẓadaq: 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 separates²⁰³. Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya said, explain it if he says it is of his own harvest²⁰⁴. Rebbi Yose said, even if you say it is not his own harvest, if he says in my opinion it was brought in order²⁰⁵ 10:5)., 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.

footnotes:
²⁰³ In both cases, one party pays for both heave and Second Tithe.
²⁰⁴ Not classifiable as either wholesale or retail.
²⁰⁵ If the seller says that the produce is in order it only means that the heave of the tithe was taken (reading and interpretation of R. Abraham ben David.) Maimonides does not read נתקון here but נְתַקֵּן, “let us put in order;” if both parties agree to put the produce in order at the point of sale, the heave is on the seller and the Second Tithe on the buyer, irrespective of a wholesale or retail transaction. (Maimonides Maäser


###### Jerusalem Talmud Demai 2:5:4
[Jerusalem Talmud Demai 2:5:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Demai/r/2:5:4)

רִבִּי לָעְזָר בְּשֵׁם רִבִּי הוֹשַׁעְיָה תְּנַיי בֵּית דִּין הוּא הַחֵלֶב מִשֶּׁל טַבָּח וְגִיד הַנָּשֶׁה מִשֶּׁל לוֹקֵח. הִנְהִיג רִבִּי אַבָּהוּ בְקֵיסָרִין שֶׁיְּהוּ שְׁנֵיהֶן מִשֶּׁל לוֹקֵח. בְּגִין דִּיהֲווֹן מַרְבִּין טַבָּאוֹת.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
Rebbi Eleazar in the name of Rebbi Hoshaiah: It is a condition imposed by the Court that the fat²⁰⁶ be on the butcher and the sciatic tendon²⁰⁷. 32:33). It must be cut out together with all the fat in which it is embedded. The butcher would naturally cut out only the minimum of fat in order to maximize his profit. on the buyer. Rebbi Abbahu made it common usage in Caesarea that both should be on the buyer, so that they would amply take out.

footnotes:
²⁰⁶ That fat of a four-legged animal, which in a sacrifice would go on the altar, is forbidden for profane use (Lev. 3:17). It has to be cut out before the piece of meat is sold.
²⁰⁷ It may not be eaten (Gen