## Jerusalem Talmud Demai Chapter 7

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

**משנה:** הַמַּזְמִין אֶת חֲבֵירוֹ שֶׁיֹּאכַל אֶצְלוֹ וְהוּא אֵינוֹ מַאֲמִינוֹ עַל הַמַּעְשְׂרוֹת. אוֹמֵר מֵעֶרֶב שַׁבָּת מַה שֶׁאֲנִי עָתִיד לְהַפְרִישׁ לְמָחָר הֲרֵי הוּא מַעֲשֵׂר וּשְׁאָר מַעְשֵׂר סָמוּךְ לוֹ. זֶה שֶׁעָשִׂיתִי מַעֲשֵׂר עָשׂוּי תְּרוּמַת מַעֲשֵׂר עָלָיו וּמַעֲשֵׂר שֵׁנִי בִצְפוֹנוֹ וּבִדְרוֹמוֹ וּמְחוּלָּל עַל הַמָּעוֹת.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
**MISHNAH:** If somebody invites his friend for a meal¹ but the latter does not trust him with tithes, the friend should say on Friday eve: That which I will separate in the future shall be tithe, the rest of tithe near to it². That which I made tithe shall be the heave of the tithe for everything, and the Second Tithe shall be to the North (or South) and be redeemed by coins³, one-eighth of an obolus, must be deducted from the value of the coin. If all value has been used, the coin should be destroyed..

footnotes:
¹ On the Sabbath, when tithing is forbidden.
² The nine tenths of the tithe that one is not required to give.
³ It is understood that the prospective guest must have some coins at home, reserved for redemptions. Each time some Second Tithe is redeemed, a peruṭah


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

**הלכה:** אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן מַתְנִיתָא בִדְמַאי הָא בְּוַדַּאי לֹא. מַתְנִיתָא אָמַר אֲפִילוּ בְּוַדַּאי זוֹ תַנֵּינָן תַּמָּן הָיוּ לוֹ תְאֵנִים שֶׁל טֵבֵל בְּתוֹךְ בֵּיתוֹ וְהוּא בְּבֵית הַמִּדְרָשׁ אוֹ בַשָּׂדֶה. אִין תֵּימַר בִדְמַאי אֲנָן קַיָימִין לֵית יָכִיל דְּתַנֵּינָן הָ[יוּ] דְמַאי מַה אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן בִּדְמַאי לֹא בְּוַדַּאי לֹא אָמַר אֶלָּא מַתְנִיתָא בִדְמַאי. מַה בֵין דְּמַאי וּמַה בֵין וַדַּאי. דְּמַאי אָדָם מַתְנֶה עַל דָּבָר שֶׁאֵינוֹ בִרְשׁוּתוֹ וַדַּאי אֵין אָדָם מַתְנֶה אֶלָּא עַל דָּבָר שֶׁהוּא בִרְשׁוּתוֹ.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
**HALAKHAH:** Rebbi Joḥanan said: The Mishnah deals with *demay*. Hence, not with certain produce⁴ or produce from which heave was taken but one is certain that no tithe was taken.? A Mishnah⁵ 2:7, but the discussion here shows that the execution of a tithing plan already spelled out on Friday may be permitted. says, even for certain produce, as we have stated there: “If he had *ṭevel* figs in his house and he was in the House of Study or on the field.” If you want to say that we deal with *demay*, you cannot do so, since it is stated⁶: “If it was *demay*.” What Rebbi Joḥanan said was that it deals with *demay*. He did not say, not with certain produce, but that this Mishnah deals with *demay*⁷; he did not state that provisos can only be made for *demay*. Hence, the problem lies not in the possibility of a proviso but in its nature.. What is the difference between *demay* and certain produce? For *demay*, a person may make a proviso for something that is not in his possession; for certain produce, he may only make a proviso for something that is in his possession.

footnotes:
⁴ Either ṭevel
⁵ Mishnah 7:6. Since the possibility of tithing while he is out in his fields is discussed, that Mishnah must deal with weekdays. One discusses here only the possibility of tithing at a distance, which may apply also to produce which is certain. Tithing on the Sabbath is explicitly forbidden by Mishnah Sabbath
⁶ Mishnah 7, a direct continuation of Mishnah 6.
⁷ R. Joḥanan asserted that this Mishnah deals with demay


###### Jerusalem Talmud Demai 7:1:3
[Jerusalem Talmud Demai 7:1:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Demai/r/7:1:3)

רִבִּי יַנַּאי הֲוָה לֵיהּ תְּנַאי וַדַּאי שְׁאַל לְרִבִּי חִיָיא רוּבָּה מַהוּ מְתַקְּנָהּ בְּשׁוּבְתָא. אָמַר לֵיהּ לְמַעַן תִּלְמַד לְיִרְאָה אֶת יי אֱלֹהֶיךָ כָּל הַיָּמִים וַאֲפִילוּ בְשַׁבָּת. מַהוּ דְחָמַת מֵיקַל בַּלָּשִׁי תָלוּי בִּי. אָמַר לֵיהּ עָתִיד אַתְּ לְהַנְהִיג שְׂרָרָה עַל יִשְׂרָאֵל.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
Rebbi Yannai had made a proviso for certain produce⁸ 93a, reports that his sharecropper used to bring him fruits every Friday afternoon, and that time he was so late that R. Yannai got nervous and made a proviso since the fruits would spoil if not eaten on the Sabbath.) Since provisos for certain produce were mentioned last, they are discussed first.. He asked the Great Rebbi Ḥiyya, may one fix this on the Sabbath? He said to him (*Deut*. 14:23): “That you should learn to fear the Eternal, your God, all the days,” including the Sabbath⁹ 93a/b, the verse is taken to prove that one should make provisos so that certain produce on the Sabbath does not diminish one’s enjoyment of the Sabbath (interpretation of Rashi).}. How did you see a way to be so lenient, my initiative¹⁰ 15:4) used to check whether a load of grain does not hide taxable goods.] depends on me! He said to him, in the future you will carry leadership in Israel.

footnotes:
⁸ He had no time to tithe before the start of the Sabbath. (The Babli, Yebamot
⁹ “You shall eat before the Eternal, your God, at the place that He shall choose to let His Name dwell there, the tithe of your grain, your wine, and your oil, the first-borns of your cattle and sheep, so that you should learn to fear the Eternal, your God, all the days.” Since the verse speaks of tithes, one may tithe on the Sabbath. {In the parallel version in Babli Yebamot
¹⁰ The reading בלשי is attested to by all manuscript sources. The consensus of the commentators is that one should read בשלי, “it (a possible sin) hangs on me.” But then the final בי would be unnecessary. I am taking the word parallel to Arabic בלשׁ, “to initate, show initiative.” R. Yannai is reluctant to follow the lenient ruling of R. Ḥiyya, who praises him for his independent and careful position. [J. Levy reads מַקִּיל בַּלָּשֵי “the stick of the investigators”, the instrument of customs officials (Mishnah Kelim


###### Jerusalem Talmud Demai 7:1:4
[Jerusalem Talmud Demai 7:1:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Demai/r/7:1:4)

רִבִּי הוֹשַׁעְיָא הָיָה לוֹ תְּנַאי וַדַּאי. חָדָא אִיתָא בִשְּׁלָה יֶרֶק אַנְשִׁיָית מְתַקְּנָתָהּ. אֲתַת לְגַבֵּי רִבִּי הוֹשַׁעְיָא וְשָלַח לְזַבְדִּי בֶּן לֵוִי דִּיתַקֵּן לֵילָא. רִבִּי בָּא בַּר מַמָּל בְּעֵי וְלָא הֲוָה זַבְדִּי בַּר לֵוִי צְרִיךְ מְזַכֵּיא לְרִבִּי הוֹשַׁעְיָא בְּיַרְקָא. רִבִּי זְעִירָא בְּעֵי מַה נָן קַיָימִין. אִי בְּשֶׁיֵּשׁ לוֹ תְּנַאי עָלָיו וְעַל אֲחֵרִים אֵינוֹ צָרִיךְ לְזַכּוֹתוֹ בְּיֶרֶק. וְאִם בְּשֶׁאֵין לוֹ תְּנַאי לֹא עָלָיו וְלֹא עַל אֲחֵרִים צָרִיךְ לְזַכּוֹתוֹ בְּיֶרֶק. רִבִּי יַעֲקֹב בַּר זַבְדִּי בְשֵׁם רִבִּי אַבָּהוּ אִיתְתָבַת וְלֹא זְכִי זַבְדִּי בֶּן לֵוִי לְרִבִּי הוֹשַׁעְיָא בְּיַרְקָא.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
Rebbi Hoshaia had made a proviso for certain produce. One woman cooked vegetables she had forgotten to put in order. She came to Rebbi Hoshaia who sent Zavdi ben Levi¹¹ to put it in order for him and for her. Rebbi Abba bar Mamal asked, would Zavdi ben Levi not have to give Rebbi Hoshaia property rights on these vegetables¹²? Rebbi Zeïra asked, where do we hold? If his proviso was meant for him and for others, he does not have to give him property rights on the vegetable¹³. If his proviso was not meant for him and for others, he has to give him property rights on the vegetable. Rebbi Jacob bar Zavdi in the name of Rebbi Abbahu: It was answered, Zavdi ben Levi did not give Rebbi Hoshaia property rights on the vegetable¹⁴..

footnotes:
¹¹ An Amora of the first generation, possibly a son of Levi ben Sissi; most of his original statements are in Aggadah.
¹² Since this is forbidden on the Sabbath, how could Zavdi ben Levi possibly tithe on R. Hoshaia’s proviso, considering that for certain produce one may not make a proviso for produce not in one’s possession.
¹³ What had been excluded was a proviso valid solely for another’s produce, as described in the Mishnah. It is a general principle accepted in all of Talmudic legislation that anything one can do for himself he can do for himself and others. Hence, a proviso valid for him and for all Jews of his locality will be perfectly legal even under the restriction outlined at the start.
¹⁴ Hence, if one makes such a proviso (or, if the rabbi does,) it is advisable to make it for oneself and for all inhabitants of one’s town, as in the formula for an eruv


###### Jerusalem Talmud Demai 7:1:5
[Jerusalem Talmud Demai 7:1:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Demai/r/7:1:5)

אָמַר רִבִּי יַנַּאי צָרִיךְ שֶׁיְּהֵא זָכוּר תְּנַייוֹ. שִׁמְעוֹן בַּר וָוא בְשֵׁם רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן וְצָרִיךְ לְהַלְחִישׁ בִּשְׂפָתָיו.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
Rebbi Yannai said, he must remember his proviso. Simeon bar Abba in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, he must whisper with his lips¹⁶.

footnotes:
¹⁶ Return to the discussion of the Mishnah. At the meal, the guest must remember that he tithes according to his prior proviso or whisper that he acts on that premise.


###### Jerusalem Talmud Demai 7:1:6
[Jerusalem Talmud Demai 7:1:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Demai/r/7:1:6)

רִבִּי יִרְמְיָה בְּעָא קוֹמֵי רִבִּי זְעִירָא וְלֹא נִמְצָא כִּמְתַקֵּן בְּשַׁבָּת. אָמַר לֵיהּ אַדְהִיתְנֵיהּ. רִבִּי יִרְמְיָה בְּעָא קוֹמֵי רִבִּי זְעִירָא וְאֵינוֹ אָסוּר מִפְּנֵי אוֹבְדָן אוֹכְלִים. אָמַר לֵיהּ מְפָרְרֵי כָּל שֶׁהוּא וְאוֹכֵל. רִבִּי יִרְמְיָה בְּעָא קוֹמֵי רִבִּי זְעִירָא וְאֵינוֹ אָסוּר מִשּׁוּם גֶּזֶל. אָמַר לֵיהּ רוֹצֶה הוּא שֶׁיְּהֵא לוֹ נַחַת רוּחַ.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
Rebbi Jeremiah¹⁸ asked before Rebbi Zeïra: Is he not like somebody who makes repairs on the Sabbath¹⁹? He said to him, because of his proviso²⁰. Rebbi Jeremiah asked before Rebbi Zeïra: Is it not forbidden because of destruction of edibles²⁰? He said to him, he crumbles a small amount and eats²¹. Rebbi Jeremiah asked before Rebbi Zeïra: Is it not forbidden because of robbery²³ and, hence, is not claimable in court).? He said to him, the host desires the satisfaction of his guest²⁴.

footnotes:
¹⁸ All his questions deal with the problem that the rabbis cannot institute rules which contradict Biblical prohibitions; they can only abrogate rabbinical rules under certain circumstances.
¹⁹ To repair something otherwise unusable on the Sabbath is a capital crime under the heading of מכה בפטיש.
²⁰ The essence of giving heave is to give it the name of heave, not the actual separation. Since the name was given on Friday, the actual separation is not the act that makes the food edible and is not Biblically forbidden.
²⁰ The essence of giving heave is to give it the name of heave, not the actual separation. Since the name was given on Friday, the actual separation is not the act that makes the food edible and is not Biblically forbidden.
²¹ It is a general prohibition, בל תשחית, to wantonly destroy usable things. In particular, foodstuffs may not be destroyed. The tiny amount the guest set aside for heave of the tithe must somehow be destroyed since under the circumstances it cannot be given to a Cohen.
²³ To take some of the host’s property without the latter’s knowledge is a violation of the host’s property rights and therefore should be forbidden (even if its value is less than a peruṭa
²⁴ Since without it, the guest would not eat at his place, the invitation implies the host’s acquiescence to the guest’s actions. Hence, it is not against the will of the host.


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

מִילֵּיהוֹן דְּרַבָּנִין פְּלִיגִין דְּאָמַר רִבִּי שְׁמוּאֵל בַּר רִבִּי יִצְחָק רִבִּי וְרִבִּי יוֹסֵי בֵּי רִבִּי יְהוּדָה נִתְאָרְחוּ אֶצֶל בַּעַל הַבַּיִת אֶחָד. אֲזַל לִישְׁנָא בִישָׁא אֲמַר לֵיהּ הַב דַּעְתָּךְ דְּאִינּוּן מְחַשְׁדּוּנָךְ יְתִיב לֵיהּ מְעַיְינֵי לוֹן וַהֲווֹן עָבְדִין נַפְשִׁין מִזְרְקִין אִילֵּין לְאִילֵּין וּמְתַקְּנִין. וְאֵינוֹ רוֹצֶה הֲנָחַת רוּחַ. רוֹצֶה הוּא אֶלָּא דְלָא בְּעֵי דְחַשְׁדּוּנֵיהּ.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
The words of the rabbis disagree since Rebbi Samuel bar Rebbi Isaac said: Rebbi and Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Jehudah were guests of a private person. Evil rumors told the latter, watch out, they are suspecting you²⁵! He sat near them and was watching them²⁶.. They pretended to throw food against each other and in that way were putting the food in order²⁷. Does he not desire their satisfaction? He does, but he does not want to be suspected²⁸..

footnotes:
²⁵ They do not trust you with tithes. It seems that they could not have refused the invitation, in particular as R. Yose ben R. Jehudah follows the teachings of his father, cf. Halakhah 2:2, second paragraph, even though he does not follow him in his opposition to anybody fixing the food which is another’s property, as in the next paragraph.
²⁶ The guests noticed that they were watched whether they would behave as if the host was an am haäreẓ
²⁷ They threw little pieces of food against each other. These little pieces were not eaten but served as heave of the tithe without the host’s knowledge.
²⁸ The produce probably was tithed but since the host was not publicly part of the circle of the trustworthy persons, his food must be considered demay


###### Jerusalem Talmud Demai 7:1:8
[Jerusalem Talmud Demai 7:1:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Demai/r/7:1:8)

תַּנִּי רִבִּי יוּדָה אוֹסֵר. מַה טַעְמָא דְּרִבִּי יוּדָה וְיֵשׁ אָדָם מַתְנֶה עַל דָּבָר שֶׁאֵינוֹ בִרְשׁוּתוֹ. מוֹדֶה רִבִּי יוּדָה שֶׁהוּא הוֹלֵךְ וְלוֹקֵחַ מִמָּקוֹם שֶׁלָּקַח זֶה וּמְעַשְּׂרָן. וְיֵשׁ אָדָם מַפְרִישׁ עַל דָּבָר שֶׁאֵינוֹ שֶׁלּוֹ. רִבִּי אַבָּהוּ בְשֵׁם רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן עָשׂוּ אוֹתוֹ כְּמוֹכֵר פֵּירוֹת טְבוּלִין לַחֲבֵירוֹ. כְּהָדָא דְתַנִּי הַמּוֹכֵר פֵּירוֹת טְבוּלִין לַחֲבֵירוֹ הֲרֵי זֶה רָץ אַחֲרָיו וּמְתַקְּנוֹ. לֹא מְצָאוֹ אִם יָדוּעַ שֶׁהַפֵּירוֹת קַיָימִין מְעַשֵּׂר עֲלֵיהֶן וְאִם לָאו אֵינוֹ צָרִיךְ לְעַשֵּׂר עֲלֵיהֶן. סָפֵק קַיָימִין סָפֵק אֵין קַיָימִין מְעַשֵּׂר עֲלֵיהֶן וְקוֹרֵא שֵׁם לְמַעְשְׂרוֹתֵיהֶם.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
It was stated²⁹ 8:5: “R. Jehudah said, can a person make a proviso about something not in his possession? But Rebbi Jehudah agrees that he may go and buy from the place from which his host bought.” Since the argument is Amoraic in our text, the Tosephta must represent a Babylonian edition.: “Rebbi Jehudah forbids³⁰.” What is the reason of Rebbi Jehudah? Can a person make a proviso about something not in his possession? “But Rebbi Jehudah agrees that he may go, buy from the place from which his host bought, and tithe.” Can a person give for something that is not his? Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: they considered him as one who sold *ṭevel* produce to another person, as was stated³¹ 3:7, in slightly different language but identical meaning. R. Jehudah’s restriction that the tithing must be from the same source as the *ṭevel* is not mentioned.: “He who sells *ṭevel* produce to another person has to run after him and put the produce in order. If he does not find him, if it is known that the produce still exists, he has to tithe for him³²; if not, he does not have to tithe for him. If it is doubtful whether the produce exists or not, he tithes for it and gives a name to the tithes³³.”

footnotes:
²⁹ Tosephta Demay
³⁰ He forbids these provisos even on weekdays and requires tithing by the guest before going to the party.
³¹ Tosephta Maäser Šeni
³² Also for something that is not in the tither’s possession. The case discussed by R. Jehudah is parallel to the doubtful case here.
³³ Since all tithes have to be named even if only the heave of the tithes actually has to be separated and given.


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

**משנה:** מָזְגוּ לוֹ אֶת הַכּוֹס אוֹמֵר מַה שֶׁאֲנִי עָתִיד לְשַׁיֵיר בְּשׁוּלֵי הַכּוֹס הֲרֵי הוּא מַעֲשֵׂר וּשְׁאָר מַעְשֵׂר סָמוּךְ לוֹ. זֶה שֶׁעָשִׂיתִי מַעֲשֵׂר עָשׂוּי תְּרוּמַת מַעֲשֵׂר עָלָיו וּמַעֲשֵׂר שֵׁנִי בְּפִיו וּמְחוּלָּל עַל הַמָּעוֹת.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
**MISHNAH:** When³⁴ they mixed him a cup, he says: What I shall leave at the rim of the cup shall be tithe, the rest of tithe near to it. What I made tithe shall be the heave of the tithe for everything, and the Second Tithe shall be on its top and be redeemed by coins.

footnotes:
³⁴ This Mishnah is a continuation of the first and refers to the proviso he makes both on Friday and at the meal.


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

**הלכה:** כֵּינִי מַתְנִיתָא לְעִנְיָין מְזִיגַת הַכּוֹס.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
**HALAKHAH:** So is the Mishnah: Concerning the mixing of the cup³⁵.

footnotes:
³⁵ Not that the proviso would be spelled out when they mix the cup, which would be on the Sabbath and forbidden; it is the proviso which has to be spelled out on Friday and then repeated, in a whisper, on the Sabbath.


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

מַה נָן קַיָימִין. אִם בְּאוֹמֵר מִכְּבָר מַשְׁקֶה מְעוּרָב הוּא. וְאִם בְּאוֹמֵר לִכְשֶׁיִּשְתֶּה לְמַפְרְעוֹ טֵבֵל שָׁתָה. אֶלָּא כִּי נָן קַיָימִין בְּאוֹמֵר מִכְּבָר לִכְשֶׁאֶשְׁתֶּה. וְלֹא נִמְצָא מְטַלְטֵל תְּרוּמָה טְמֵאָה בְשַׁבָּת. אָמַר רִבִּי לָעְזָר מְשַׁיֵיר כָּל שֶׁהוּא חוּלִין כְּהַהִיא דְּתַנֵּינָן תַּמָּן מְטַלְטְלַין תְּרוּמָה טְהוֹרָה [עִם הַטְּמֵאָה] עִם הַחוּלִין וְלֹא דָמְיָין. תַּמָּן טְמֵאָה לְצוֹרֶךְ טְהוֹרָה. בְּרַם הָכָא חוּלִין לְצוֹרֶךְ טְמֵאָה. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹסֵי בֵּי רִבִּי בּוּן עִם יְצִיאָתוֹ מִן הַכּוֹס קָדִישׁ.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
Where are we at? If he says it beforehand, the drink is mixed³⁶. If he says, when I shall have drunk, before that he drank *ṭevel*³⁷.. What we are dealing with is that he says beforehand: When I shall have drunk³⁸. On the other hand, he cannot designate heave before he finished, in order to avoid drinking heave. Hence, he has to designate heave on Friday to be separated after he finished drinking.. But does he then not move impure heave on the Sabbath³⁹’s, all the food is considered impure. Hence, the heave also is impure and must be destroyed. But this cannot be done on the Sabbath; the impure heave is therefore of no use on the Sabbath and under the rules of *muqẓeh* cannot be moved.? Rebbi Eleazar said, he leaves some profane⁴⁰, as what we have stated there⁴¹ 21:1: “One moves impure heave with pure and with profane food.” It seems that the switch impure/pure in our text is a scribal error since the following argument requires the order of subjects in the Mishnah. In the parallel *Pesaḥim* 3:3 (fol. 30a), the quote of the Mishnah is correct. {Because of that switch, successive editors have mutilated the text in newer editions.}: “One moves pure heave with impure one and with profane food.” But that does not compare. There, the impure is for the needs of the pure⁴²3:3 (fol. 30a) has exactly the same text. The explanation of the Yerushalmi seems to be the same as that of the Babli (*Šabbat* 142a), that impure heave can be moved on the Sabbath only if it is necessary to remove it in order to get at usable food, be it pure heave or profane., but here the profane is for the needs of the impure⁴³. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, when he sets down the cup it will be holy⁴⁴.

footnotes:
³⁶ Since fluids move, if he declares the place of the heave at one moment, its molecules will have wandered away by the time he drinks, and he also drank of the heave, a deadly sin.
³⁷ If he declares after he drank, he drank only ṭevel
³⁸ He must make the declaration beforehand in order to avoid drinking ṭevel
³⁹ Since he is eating at an am haäreẓ
⁴⁰ When he declares that the wine near the designated tithe should be tithe, he really does not want it to be all tithe but some drops of profane non-tithe must also remain. Since the profane wine may be moved, and since we have a principle that anything usable may be moved, the impure heave also can be moved.
⁴¹ Mishnah Šabbat
⁴² There is no Yerushalmi on the Mishnah, and a parallel quote in Pesaḥim
⁴³ Hence, there is no need to move the impure heave and it should not be permitted.
⁴⁴ Since we have to stipulate from the start that wine should become heave only when the guest has finished drinking, one may also stipulate that this should happen only when the guest has put down the cup and does not move it again. Then the question does not arise.


###### Jerusalem Talmud Demai 7:2:4
[Jerusalem Talmud Demai 7:2:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Demai/r/7:2:4)

תַּמָּן תַּנֵּינָן הַלּוֹקֵחַ יַיִן מִבֵּין הַכּוּתִים. תַּנִּי רִבִּי יוֹסֵי וְרִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹסְרִין שֶׁמָּא תִּיבָּקַע הַנּוֹד וְנִמְצָא זֶה שׁוֹתֶה טְבָלִים לְמַפְרֵעַ. וְהָדָא. מִתְנִיתָא לֹא כְּרִבִּי יוֹסֵי וְרִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן הִיא. אָמַר רִבִּי יַעֲקֹב בַּר אִידִי הַכֹּל מוֹדִין עַל הַכּוֹס שֶׁהוּא עַל אֲתַר.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
There, we have stated⁴⁵ 8:7, this is R. Meïr’s opinion, restricted to somebody who bought on Friday and had no time to tithe it before sundown.: “Is somebody buys wine from the Samaritans.” It was stated⁴⁶ 8:7. R. Meïr’s position is he never had a case of a broken wine bag; he would worry if a bag broke and was emptied without some drops remaining that could be designated as heave of the tithe.: “Rebbi Yose and Rebbi Simeon forbid it, for the wine bag may spring a leak and it will turn out retroactively that he drank *ṭevel*.” Is our Mishnah not following Rebbi Yose and Rebbi Simeon⁴⁷? Rebbi Jacob bar Idi said, all agree that the cup is at its place.

footnotes:
⁴⁵ Mishnah 7:5. “He who buys wine from the Samaritans, since he buys wine which certainly is not tithed, he may declare that he will give designated amounts in the future and drink immediately.” In the Tosephta, Demay
⁴⁶ Tosephta Demay
⁴⁷ The guest may drink before the heave was declared. Since the cup is filled at the place where one drinks, nothing bad can happen since even if something is spilled, the heave is in the drops clinging to the wall.


###### Jerusalem Talmud Demai 7:3:1
[Jerusalem Talmud Demai 7:3:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Demai/r/7:3:1)

**משנה:** פּוֹעֵל שֶׁאֵינוֹ מַאֲמִין לְבַעַל הַבַּיִת נוֹטֵל גְּרוֹגֶרֶת אַחַת וְאוֹמֵר זוּ וְתֵשַׁע הַבָּאוֹת אַחֲרֶיהָ עֲשׂוּיוֹת מַעֲשֵׂר עַל תִּשְׁעִים שֶׁאֲנִי אוֹכֵל וְזוּ עֲשׂוּיָה תְרוּמַת מַעֲשֵׂר עֲלֵיהֶן. מַעֲשֵׂר שֵׁנִי בְּאַחֲרוֹנָה וּמְחוּלָּל עַל הַמָּעוֹת. וְחוֹסֵךְ גְּרוֹגֶרֶת אַחַת. רַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל אוֹמֵר לֹא יַחְסוֹךְ מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהוּא מְמַעֵט אֶת מְלַאכְתּוֹ שֶׁל בַּעַל הַבַּיִת. וְרִבִּי יוֹסֵי אוֹמֵר לֹא יַחְסוֹךְ מִפְּנֵי שֵׁהוּא תְּנַאי בֵּית דִּין.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
**MISHNAH:** A worker⁴⁸ and has to be fed by his employer during the day. who does not believe his employer takes one dried fig⁴⁹. and says: This one and the next nine shall be tithe for ninety that I shall eat. This one is made heave of the tithe for them. The Second Tithe is at the end and it is redeemed by a coin⁵⁰ in a coin..
He saves one fig⁵³. Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel says, he should not save because he reduces the work he will be able to do for his employer. But Rebbi Yose said, he should not save because that is a stipulation of the Court.

footnotes:
⁴⁸ An agricultural worker who is a ḥaver
⁴⁹ Of those supplied by his untrustworthy employer. Again, the tithes have to be named but only the heave of the tithe has actually to be taken out and separated for demay
⁵⁰ One peruṭah
⁵³ The worker of Mishnah 3. Since he has declared one fig to be heave of the tithe, that fig must be given to the Cohen. The anonymous Tanna requires the worker to give the fig from his allotment. Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel requires the worker to give a fig, but one he buys, not one given to him by his employer since he is required to eat all the food he receives from his employer in order to be strong. Rebbi Yose requires the employer to give a fig to the Cohen if the worker so requires since that is a stipulation of the Court and automatically incorporated in all work contracts.


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

**הלכה:** רִבִּי לָעְזָר בְּשֵׁם רִבִּי הוֹשַׁעְיָה עָשׂוּ אוֹתוֹ שֶׁאֵינוֹ מַאֲמִין לְבַעַל הַבַּיִת. פְּשִׁיטָא הָדָא מִילְתָא נִשְׂרְפוּ הַפֵּירוֹת הַתְּרוּמָה בְטִיבּוּלָהּ. נִישְׂרְפָה הַתְּרוּמָה לִכְשֶׁיֵאָכְלוּ הַפֵּירוֹת קָדְשָׁה הַתְּרוּמָה לְמַפְרֵעַ.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
**HALAKHAH:** Rebbi Eleazar⁵¹ 2:4, where the text is identical except for בטילה instead of בטיבולה. The Mishnah in *Terumot* assumes that somebody gives a *seah* to a Levite and a *seah* to the poor; according to R. Meïr then he, or his worker, can eat eight *seah* based on the tithes he gave. The Sages permit only to eat according to the percentage of the tithe that still exists. Maimonides and R. Simson give two possible interpretations, one that the Mishnah there is a corollary to the Mishnah here and deals with a worker who receives food from his employer and sees the employer give to the Levite and the poor but does not know whether he gave as tithes or as gifts. R. Hoshaiah declares that the position of the Sages in that Mishnah is identical with the position of the Tanna in our Mishnah. in the name of Rebbi Hoshaiah: They considered him a worker who does not trust his employer. The following is obvious: If the produce was burned, the heave is *ṭevel*⁵². If the heave is burned, when the produce is eaten the heave will have been sanctified retroactively.

footnotes:
⁵¹ The paragraph does not belong here but in Terumot
⁵² Since heave is taken to permit the rest to be eaten, if nothing can be eaten there is no heave, and heave and tithes have to be separated anew from the remainder. This refers to the case where the produce burned before the heave was delivered to the Cohen. If the heave burned after he declared it, the farmer did his duty.


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

מָהוּ חָשַׂ[ךְ] מִן מֵיכְלֵהּ הוּא מַפִּיק תְּרוּמַת מַעֲשֵׂר.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
What did he save? From his food he separates the heave of the tithe.


###### Jerusalem Talmud Demai 7:3:4
[Jerusalem Talmud Demai 7:3:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Demai/r/7:3:4)

תַּנִּי לֹא יַחֲרוֹשׁ אָדָם בְּפָרָתוֹ בַלַּיְלָה וְיַשְׂכִּירֶנָּה בַיּוֹם לֹא יַעֲשֶׂה בְתוֹךְ שֶׁלּוֹ בַלַּיְלָה וְיַשְׂכִּיר עַצְמוֹ בַיּוֹם. לֹא יַרְעִיב עַצְמוֹ וְלֹא יְסַגֵּף עַצְמוֹ מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהוּא מְמַעֵט בִּמְלַאכְתּוֹ שֶׁל בַּעַל הַבַּיִת.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
It was stated⁵⁴‘ 8:2: “A worker is not permitted to work for himself at night and rent himself out during the day, or plough with his cow in the evening and rent her out in the morning; he should not starve himself, torment himself, or give his food to his children, because he robs his employer of the work he will be able to do.”: “A man should not plough with his cow at night and rent her out during the day, he should not work for himself at night and rent himself out during the day, he should not starve himself and not torment himself because he reduces the work he will be able to do for his employer.”

footnotes:
⁵⁴ A similar text appears in Tosephta Baba Meẓia


###### Jerusalem Talmud Demai 7:3:5
[Jerusalem Talmud Demai 7:3:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Demai/r/7:3:5)

רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן אֲזַל לְחַד אֲתַר אַשְׁכַּח סַפְרָא אַיַינֵיס אֲמַר לָהוּ מַהוּ כֵן. אָמְרוּ לֵיהּ צַיָים. אָמַר לֵיהּ אָסִיר לָךְ. וּמַה אִם מְלַאכְתּוֹ שֶׁל בָּשָׂר וְדָם אַתְּ אָמַר אָסוּר מְלַאכְתּוֹ שֶׁל הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא לֹא כָל שֶׁכֵּן.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
Rebbi Joḥanan went to some place where he found the schoolteacher weak⁵⁵ on Maimonides *Śekhirut* 13:6 reads אטימוס, ἄθυμος “feeble” (M. Sachs), in *Cafṭor Waperaḥ* Chap. 39, אטמיאס. The translation follows *Hagahot Maimuniot.*. He asked them, what has happened⁵⁶? They said to him, he is fasting. He said to him, that is forbidden to you. If one says that it is forbidden for the work one does for flesh and blood, so much more for the work of the Holy One⁵⁷, praise to Him!

footnotes:
⁵⁵ R. Simson reads אטימוייס, Hagahot Maimuniot
⁵⁶ It seems that he suspected the school board of not paying a living wage.
⁵⁷ The elementary school teacher, who turns illiterates into literates and uncivilized into civilized, finishes the work of creation and therefore does God’s work.


###### Jerusalem Talmud Demai 7:3:6
[Jerusalem Talmud Demai 7:3:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Demai/r/7:3:6)

רַב חִיָיא בַּר אַשִּׁי בְשֵׁם רַב תְּנַיי בֵּית דִּין שֶׁתְּהֵא תְרוּמַת מַעֲשֵׂר מִשֶּׁל פּוֹעֵל וּמַעֲשֵׂר שֵׁנִי מִשֶּׁל בַּעַל הַבַּיִת.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
Rav Ḥiyya bar Ashi in the name of Rav⁵⁸ 8:6: “R. Yose says that it is a stipulation of the Court that the heave of the tithe should be from the employer and the Second Tithe from the worker.” R. Simson reads the text of the Tosephta in the Yerushalmi. *Cafṭor Waperaḥ* Chap. 39 quotes the Tosephta, not the Yerushalmi. Maimonides *Maäser* 9:11 follows the Tosephta as current practice. It seems that the Yerushalmi gives the position of the anonymous Tanna, in contrast to the Tosephta which explicitly refers to R. Yose; the reading in the Yerushalmi should not be changed for the (probably Babylonian) Tosephta. Rav explains the position of the anonymous Tanna as practice; he must assume that Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel and R. Yose disagree, so both are single opinions that are disregarded in face of a majority.: It is a stipulation of the Court that the heave of the tithe should be from the worker and the Second Tithe⁵⁹ needed to redeem the second tithe. from the employer.

footnotes:
⁵⁸ Tosephta Demay
⁵⁹ The peruṭah


###### Jerusalem Talmud Demai 7:4:1
[Jerusalem Talmud Demai 7:4:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Demai/r/7:4:1)

**משנה:** הַלּוֹקֵחַ יַיִן מִבֵּין הַכּוּתִים אוֹמֵר שְׁנֵי לוֹגִין שֶׁאֲנִי עָתִיד לְהַפְרִישׁ הֲרֵי הֵן תְּרוּמָה. וַעֲשָׂרָה מַעֲשֵׂר וְתִשְׁעָה מַעֲשֵׂר שֵׁנִי וּמֵיחַל וְשׁוֹתֶה.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
**MISHNAH:** If someone buys wine from Samaritans⁶⁰ he may say: Two *log* that I shall separate in the future are heave, ten tithe⁶¹ per one hundred, but one does not require him to go into details. Similarly, Second Tithe should be 10% of the remaining 89.2 *log*., and nine Second Tithe; then he redeems⁶² from a designated coin; the redemption is effected by his declaration. and drinks.

footnotes:
⁶⁰ If one accepts the Samaritans as Jews, the wine is kosher but it certainly is not tithed.
⁶¹ It really should be only 9.8 log
⁶² He redeems the Second Tithe with a peruṭah


###### Jerusalem Talmud Demai 7:4:2
[Jerusalem Talmud Demai 7:4:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Demai/r/7:4:2)

**הלכה:** תַּנִּי רִבִּי יוֹסֵי וְרִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹסְרִין שֶׁמָּא תִיבָּקַע הַנּוֹד וְנִמְצָא שׁוֹתֶה טְבָלִים לְמַפְרֵעוֹ. לֹא כְטַעֲמֵיהּ דְּהָדֵין טַעֲמֵיהּ דְּהָדֵין. טַעֲמָא דְּרִבִּי יוֹסֵי שֶׁמָּא יַסִּייעַ. טַעֲמָא דְּרִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן שֶׁמָּא יִשְׁכַּח וְיִשְׁתֶּה אֶת הַשְּׁאָר. כְּהָדָה דְתַנִּי מַעֲשֵׂר שֵׁנִי שֶׁבְּחֵפֶץ זֶה מְחוּלָּל עַל סֶלַע שֶׁבְּכִיס זֶה חִילֵּל. רִבִּי יוֹסֵי אוֹמֵר לֹא חִילֵּל. מַאי טַעֲמָא דְּרִבִּי יוֹסֵי שֶׁאִם אָמַר עַל הַסֶּלַע הַיְּשָׁנָה וְעַל הַדֵּינָר הַיָּשָׁן שֶׁחִילֵּל. מוֹדִים חֲכָמִים לְרִבִּי יוֹסֵי שֶׁאִם אָמַר עַל הַסֶּלַע שֶׁאֶטּוֹל מִיַּד בְּנִי וְעַל הַדֵּינָר שֶׁאֶטּוֹל מִיַּד בְּנִי שֶׁלֹּא חִילֵּל. שֶׁלֹּא הָיוּ בְיָדוֹ בְאוֹתָהּ שָׁעָה.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
**HALAKHAH:** It was stated⁶³ 8:7: “If someone buys wine from Samaritans on Fridays and he forgot to tithe, he may say: Two *log* that I shall separate in the future are heave, the next ten tithe, and the next nine Second Tithe; then he redeems and drinks immediately; the words of R. Meïr. R. Jehudah, R. Yose, and R. Simeon forbid it. They said to R. Meïr, do you not agree that if his wine bag would spring a leak he would drink *ṭevel*? He said to them, if it would spring a leak.” R. Jehudah is not mentioned in the Halakhah; since he is the senior among those who disagree, the argument with R. Meïr is his and does not obligate the other two authorities who agree with R. Jehudah on the practical rule but not on the theoretical reason. Note that in the version of the Tosephta, the wine bag is already transported to the buyer’s house and, therefore, the risk of the bag springing a leak is minimized.: “Rebbi Yose and Rebbi Simeon prohibit to do so, maybe the wine bag will spring a leak and it turns out retroactively that he drank *ṭevel*.” But the reason of one is not the reason of the other. The reason of Rebbi Yose is that maybe he will pour⁶⁴.. The reason of Rebbi Simeon is that maybe he will forget and drink the remainder⁶⁵. As it was stated⁶⁶ 3:17: “If somebody said, the Second Tithe in this container should be redeemed by that *as*, and he did not define its place, R. Simeon says, he gave it its rightful name {and it is redeemed.} The Sages say, {it is not redeemed} until he says, at the North or South end.” The next Tosephta shows that the “Sages” here follow the opinion of R. Yose. The problem is that without a clear definition, the owner may spend the redemption coin on other things. Therefore, one requires him to spell out where the coin will be taken and, since coins move around in a wallet, it is clear that he has to remove the coin from the wallet immediately and separate it.: “The Second Tithe in this container should be redeemed by the tetradrachma in that wallet, it is redeemed. Rebbi Yose says, it is not redeemed.” What is the reason of Rebbi Yose? “⁶⁷ 4:12: “If somebody says, the Second Tithe shall be redeemed by a tetradrachma that will come out of this wallet, or the denar that will come out of that wallet, R. Yose says, he did not redeem, but the Sages say, he did redeem. R. Yose agrees with the Sages that if he says that the Second Tithe shall be redeemed by the new tetradrachma which will come out of this wallet, or the new denar that will come out of that wallet, he did redeem. The Sages admit to Rebbi Yose that if he said [it shall be redeemed] by the tetradrachma that was in my son’s hand, the denar that was in my son’s hand, it is not redeemed since perhaps it was not in his hand at that time.” We have to assume that R. Yose agrees only in case the owner had only one new coin of that type at the moment of the declaration. If he said, the old tetradrachma or the old denar, he did redeem. The Sages admit to Rebbi Yose that if he said, the tetradrachma I shall take from my son’s hand, or the denar I shall take from my son’s hand, it is not redeemed since it was not in his hand at that time.”

footnotes:
⁶³ Tosephta Demay
⁶⁴ At home, he will pour out the contents of the leather wine bag into a clay amphora for storage. Then the text of his declaration is no longer applicable and the buyer drank ṭevel
⁶⁵ Then he actually drank heave and heave of the tithe!
⁶⁶ A similar statement is in Tosephta Maäser Šeni
⁶⁷ Tosephta Maäser Šeni


###### Jerusalem Talmud Demai 7:4:3
[Jerusalem Talmud Demai 7:4:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Demai/r/7:4:3)

תַּמָּן תַּנֵּינָן הַמֵּנִיחַ פֵּירוֹת לִהְיוֹת מַפְרִישׁ עֲלֵיהֶן מַעֲשֵׂר שֵׁנִי. וְהָדָא מַתְנִיתָא דְּלֹא כְרִבִּי יוֹסֵי וּכְרבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן. אָמַר רִבִּי זְעִירָא תַּמָּן לְמַפְרְעוֹ נִתְקַלְקְלוּ. בְּרַם הָכָא מֵאוֹבְדָּן וְהֵילַךְ נִתְקַלְקְלוּ.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
There, we have stated⁶⁸ 3:8: “If somebody puts aside produce to serve for heave or tithes, or coins to serve for Second Tithe, he refers to them {to redeem produce or to put produce in order with the intention that all sanctity should devolve on produce and coins set aside} based on the prior knowledge that they still exist. If they are lost, he worries for 24 hours, the words of R. Eleazar (ben Shamua‘.)” In both the Babli (*Giṭṭin* 31a/b) and the Yerushalmi (*Giṭṭin* 3:8), there is a discussion whether the tithing is questionable for the 24 hours preceding the discovery of the loss or whether the tithing is not questionable only for the first 24 hours after produce or coins were set aside. In any case, there is no opposition noted by either R. Yose or R. Simeon. Since transporting wine from Samaria presumably takes less than 24 hours, such opposition would have been expected.: “If somebody puts aside produce … to serve for Second Tithe.” Does⁶⁹. Therefore, our *baraita* is referred to as “there”, and the Mishnah as “here.” that Mishnah disagree with Rebbi Yose and Rebbi Simeon? Rebbi Zeïra said, there they become spoiled retroactively, but here they become spoiled only starting from the moment of loss⁷⁰ again..

footnotes:
⁶⁸ Mishnah Giṭṭin
⁶⁹ This and the next sentence are copied from Giṭṭin
⁷⁰ Even if the heave was lost, since it was legal heave at the time it saves the produce from ever being ṭevel


###### Jerusalem Talmud Demai 7:4:4
[Jerusalem Talmud Demai 7:4:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Demai/r/7:4:4)

תַּמָּן תַּנֵּינָן פְּרוּטָה שֶׁל הֶקְדֵּשׁ שֶׁנׇּפְלָה לְתוֹךְ הַכִּיס אוֹ שֶׁאָמַר פְּרוּטָה בְּכִיס הַזֶּה הֶקְדֵּשׁ תַּנָּה עַל הָרִאשׁוֹנָה מָעַל בְּסָפֵק וְעַל הַשְּׁנִיָיה מָעַל בְּוַדַּאי דִּבְרֵי רִבִּי עֲקִיבָא. וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים עַל כּוּלָּן מָעַל בְּסָפֵק וְעַל הָאַחֲרוֹנָה מָעַל בְּוַדַּאי. אָמַר רִבִּי יוּדָן אָבוֹי דְרִבִּי מַתַּנְיָא הָדָא דְּתֵימַר כְּשֶׁהָיוּ עֶשֶׂר. אֲבָל אִם הָיוּ שְׁתַּיִם עַל הָרִאשׁוֹנָה מָעַל בְּסָפֵק וְעַל הַשְּׁנִיָיה מָעַל בְּוַדַּאי. רִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן לָקִישׁ בְּעָא קוֹמֵי רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן מַה בֵּין הָאוֹמֵר בַּכִּיס מַה בֵּין הָאוֹמֵר מִן הַכִּיס. רִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן לָקִישׁ אָמַר אֲפִילוּ הוֹצִיא אֶת כָּל הַכִּיס לֹא יִמְעוֹל כְּמָה דְתֵימַר לְמַפְרֵעוֹ טֵבֵל שָׁתָה וְאָמַר אוּף הָכָא לְמַפְרֵעוֹ חוּלִין הוֹצִיא אֶלָּא כָאן תָּלוּי בְּהַפְרָשָׁה. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹנָה כָאן וְכָאן תָּלוּי בְּהַפְרָשָׁה נַעֲשֶׂה כְאוֹמֵר אַל יֵצֵא הַכִּיס הַזֶּה יְדֵי פְרוּטָה הֶקְדֵּשׁ. מֻחְלְפָה שִׁיטָּתֵיהּ דְּרִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן לָקִישׁ תַּמָּן הוּא אָמַר מוֹעֲלִין בִּפְרוּטָה לְפִי חֶשְׁבּוֹן שְׁלֹשֶׁת לוֹגִין. וְהָכָא הוּא אָמַר הָכֵין. מִן דְּאַצְרַכְתְּ לֵיהּ חָזַר וּפָשְׁטָהּ.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
There, we have stated⁷¹ 6:6: “If a *peruṭah* of Temple property fell into somebody’s wallet, or if somebody said, a *peruṭah* in this wallet shall be Temple property, then the moment he spent the first coin he committed larceny, the words of Rebbi Aqiba. But the Sages say, not until he spent the entire wallet. Rebbi Aqiba agrees that if he said, ‘a *peruṭah* from this wallet shall be Temple property,’ he may go and spend the entire contents of the wallet.” מעל refers to the particular case of larceny involving Temple property, whose private use is forbidden even if it does not impair its value (*Lev*. 5:15). Our text is a *baraita* that combines the Mishnah with Tosephta *Meїlah* 3:1: “If a *peruṭah* of Temple property fell into somebody’s wallet, or if somebody said, a *peruṭah* in this wallet shall be Temple property, then the moment he spent the first coin he must bring an *ašam* sacrifice for a possible sin, for the second coin an *ašam* sacrifice for a certain sin, the words of Rebbi Aqiba. But the Sages say, an *ašam* sacrifice for a possible sin is brought only for an offense which if deliberate is punished by being cut off (כרת, cf. J. Milgrom, Leviticus 1–16, New York 1991, pp. 457–460) or, if in error, must be atoned for by a sin-offering.”: “If a *peruṭah* of Temple property fell into somebody’s wallet, or if somebody said, a *peruṭah* in this wallet shall be Temple property,” it was stated that “with the first coin he committed probable larceny, with the second one certain larceny⁷², the words of Rebbi Aqiba. But the Sages say, with any of them he committed probable larceny, except that with the last one he committed certain larceny.” Rebbi Yudan, the father of Rebbi Mattania said, that is, if there were ten coins. But if there were only two, with the first coin he committed probable larceny, with the second one certain larceny. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish asked before Rebbi Joḥanan: What is the difference between him who says “in the wallet” and him who says “from the wallet?⁷³” Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, even if he spent the entire wallet he would not have committed larceny; just as you say ‘that he drank *ṭevel* retroactively,’ here also ‘retroactively he spent profane money.⁷⁴’ But here it depends on the act of separation⁷⁵ can be removed only by an actual declaration fixing place and modality of heave and tithes.. Rebbi Jonah said, in both cases it depends on the act of separation; it is as if he said, this wallet should not be freed from a *peruṭah* of Temple property⁷⁶ 34a), this answer is given by R. Joḥanan. But the thrust of the Babli is about retroactive clarification that is excluded here and in the entire discussion of the Yerushalmi, as recognized by *Sefer Nir*.. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish’s argument is inverted. There⁷⁷ 13b, in explanation of Mishnah *Meїlah* 3:7: “From water {drawn from the water canal flowing through the Temple courtyard on Friday afternoon of the festival of Tabernacles, to be used next morning for the water libation} in the golden barrel {that was not a sanctified vessel and in which the water would not become forbidden by standing in a vessel overnight} one may not have any use, but use is no larceny. Once it is poured into the pitcher {the holy vessel in which the water was transported to the altar} its use becomes larceny.” R. Simeon ben Laqish holds that there is no larceny from the water of the golden barrel if one uses the excess over the three *log* that are to be filled into the holy pitcher. The interpretation of the Yerushalmi seems to be that if the barrel contained *x log* and somebody drew *y log*, even if *x-y* 3 one would commit larceny in the amount of the cost of 3y/x *log* of water., he says that one commits larceny with a *peruṭah* corresponding to the computation of three *log*. And here, he says so? After he asked, he returned and gave the simple answer⁷⁸.

footnotes:
⁷¹ Mishnah Meїlah
⁷² The argument of the Mishnah, that with the first coin he already committed certain larceny, is easier to understand. The difference between possible and certain larceny is in the kind of sacrifice that must be brought for atonement, as stated in the Tosephta. R. Moses Margalit explains the argument of R. Aqiba that the first coin, which was on top of the coins in the wallet, is not really “in” the wallet,” but the second coin certainly is “in the wallet.”
⁷³ This refers to the Mishnah and the distinction which R. Aqiba makes, that in the second case there is no larceny unless all coins are spent.
⁷⁴ If he separated the coin after he spent some of the money, the stigma of possible larceny should be removed from the rest he spent earlier.
⁷⁵ Everybody agrees that ṭevel
⁷⁶ The remaining coins cannot become profane except by either removing the dedicated piece from the wallet or designating it unequivocally as old or new, as in the preceding paragraph. In the Babli (Meїlah
⁷⁷ Babli Meїlah
⁷⁸ His statement was a question and not a declaration; he himself gave the same answer later given by R. Jonah.


###### Jerusalem Talmud Demai 7:4:5
[Jerusalem Talmud Demai 7:4:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Demai/r/7:4:5)

אָמַר רִבִּי יִצְחָק בַּר אֶלְעָזָר אָדָם עוֹמֵד מֵעֶרֶב שַׁבָּת וְאוֹמֵר הֲרֵי זוּ תְרוּמָה לְמָחָר וְאֵין אָדָם עוֹמֵד בְּשַׁבָּת וְאוֹמֵר הֲרֵי זוּ תְרוּמָה לְמָחָר. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹסֵי בֵּי רִבִּי בּוּן אֵין אָדָם עוֹמֵד מֵעֶרֶב שַׁבָּת וְאוֹמֵר הֲרֵי זוּ תְרוּמָה לְמָחָר. מַתְנִיתָא פְלִיגָא עַל רִבִּי יוֹסֵי בֵּי רִבִּי בּוּן לָגִין שֶׁהוּא טְבוּל יוֹם וּמִילְאֵהוּ מִן הֶחָבִית מַעֲשֵׂר טֵבֵל אִם אָמַר הֲרֵי זוּ תְּרוּמַת מַעֲשֵׂר לְמָחָר מִשֶּׁתֶּחְשָׁךְ הֲרֵי זֶה תְרוּמָה אִם אָמַר הֲרֵי זֶה עֵירוּב לֹא אָמַר כְּלוּם. פָּתַר לָהּ לְשֶׁעָבַר. וְהָתַנִּי רִבִּי חִיָיא אָמַר אִית לָךְ מֵימַר לְשֶׁעָבַר. וְחָזַר בָּהּ רִבִּי יוֹסֵי בֵּי רִבִּי בּוּן מֵהָדָא.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
Rebbi Isaac ben Eleazar⁸² 18:1. said, a person can say on Friday, this shall be heave tomorrow⁸³, but nobody can say on the Sabbath, this shall be heave tomorrow. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, nobody can say on Friday, this shall be heave tomorrow. A Mishnah disagrees with Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun⁸⁴ 4:4. The exact text of the Mishnah reads: “If a vessel which was immersed that day {and will be pure only after sundown} was filled from an amphora with *ṭevel* tithe, if he said that its contents should be heave of the tithe after nightfall, then this is heave of the tithe. If he said that it should be *eruv*, he did not say anything.” Tithe can be *ṭevel* only if the heave of the tithe was not taken; hence, ‘heave’ in our text should always mean ‘heave of the tithe’ as in the Mishnah.: “If a vessel⁸⁵,*lagaena*,*lagona*,*lagoena*, -*ae*, *f*. “large earthen vessel with neck and handles; flask, bottle”; same as Greek λάγηνος, perhaps identical with Κνίδιον, τὸ, “a measure of wine.” was immersed that day and somebody filled it from an amphora with *ṭevel* tithe, if he said⁸⁶, its contents should be heave of the tithe tomorrow, i. e., after nightfall, then this is heave. If he said, that should be *eruv*⁸⁷, Chapter 7, Note 56. The *eruv* must be deposited on Friday afternoon and be at the right spot at sundown, so that he can acquire the Sabbath rest at that spot. But in our case, at sundown the wine is still *ṭevel*; since it may not be eaten it is not food, and the *eruv* is invalid., he did not say anything.” Explain it if he transgressed⁸⁸. But Rebbi Ḥiyya stated: “He says⁸⁹ in which R. Ḥiyya presents the text of the declaration to be recited in the case considered by R. Isaac ben Eleazar. R. Ḥiyya unconditionally permits the declaration.,” and you say, if he transgressed? Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun retracted that.

footnotes:
⁸² Probably, this and the following paragraph refer to Mishnah 6. The same text in its main context appears in Šabbat
⁸³ As explained in the Mishnah below, a person may not be pure for heave on Friday but he may be pure on the Sabbath. If his impurity (or that of his vessel) is derivative he contaminates holy things but not profane food. Hence, he must keep his food in profane state until nightfall. But at nightfall it will be Sabbath and he will not be permitted to change the status of food and separate heave and tithes. He must make a declaration on Friday to separate heave on the Sabbath automatically.
⁸⁴ Tevul Yom
⁸⁵ Latin lagena
⁸⁶ On Friday.
⁸⁷ Cf. Peah
⁸⁸ R. Yose ben R. Abun would agree that if someone incorrectly followed R. Isaac ben Eleazar’s prescription the declaration was valid.
⁸⁹ There is a baraita


###### Jerusalem Talmud Demai 7:5:1
[Jerusalem Talmud Demai 7:5:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Demai/r/7:5:1)

**משנה:** הָיוּ לוֹ תְאֵנִים שֶׁל טֵבֵל בְּתוֹךְ בֵּיתוֹ וְהוּא בְבֵית הַמִּדְרָשׁ אוֹ בַשָּׂדֶה אוֹמֵר שְׁנֵי תְאֵנִים שֶׁאֲנִי עָתִיד לְהַפְרִישׁ הֲרֵי הֵן תְּרוּמָה וַעֲשָׂרָה מַעֲשֵׂר וְתִשְׁעָה מַעֲשֵׂר שֵׁנִי. הָיוּ דְמַאי אוֹמֵר מַה שֶׁאֲנִי עָתִיד לְהַפְרִישׁ לְמָחָר הֲרֵי הוּא מַעֲשֵׂר וּשְׁאָר מַעֲשֵׂר סָמוּךְ לוֹ. זֶה שֶׁעָשִׂיתִי מַעֲשֵׂר עָשׂוּי תְּרוּמַת מַעֲשֵׂר עָלָיו וּמַעֲשֵׂר שֵׁנִי בִצְפוֹנוֹ אוֹ בִדְרוֹמוֹ וּמְחוּלָּל עַל הַמָּעוֹת.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
**MISHNAH:** If somebody had *ṭevel* figs in his house but was in the House of Study or on the field⁹⁸, he says: Two figs that I shall separate in the future shall be heave, ten tithe, and nine heave of the tithe. If they were *demay*, he says: That which I shall separate in the future shall be tithe tomorrow, the rest of tithe near to it. That which I made tithe shall be heave of the tithe for all, and the Second Tithe shall be to the North (or to the South) and be redeemed by coins⁹⁹ declaration is identical with that of Mishnah 1 and all the rules explained there apply here also..

footnotes:
⁹⁸ On Friday afternoon.
⁹⁹ The demay


###### Jerusalem Talmud Demai 7:5:2
[Jerusalem Talmud Demai 7:5:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Demai/r/7:5:2)

**הלכה:** מַיי כְדוֹן מִכְּבָר לִכְשֶׁאַפְרִישֶׁנָּה. הַגַּע עַצְמָךְ שֶׁהָיְתָה תְרוּמָה טְהוֹרָה מִכְּבָר לִכְשֶׁאוֹכְלֶנָּה הַגַּע עַצְמָךְ שֶׁהָיְתָה תְרוּמָה טְמֵאָה מִכְּבָר לִכְשֶׁאֲנִיחֶנָּה בְּזָוִית.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
**HALAKHAH:** What is done⁹⁰? ‘From before I shall separate it⁹¹.’ Think about it, if it was pure heave, ‘from before I shall eat it⁹².’ Think about it, if it was impure heave, ‘from before I shall deposit it in a corner⁹³.’

footnotes:
⁹⁰ What is the text of R. Ḥiyya’s declaration?
⁹¹ When I shall separate it (on the Sabbath), the separation shall be valid from the moment of declaration (on Friday).
⁹² If a Cohen makes the declaration, he may say so since then he does not have to separate once it was declared to be heave. If another person makes the declaration, he may say: From the moment that a Cohen eats it.
⁹³ Since impure heave must be burned, which is forbidden on the Sabbath, the only thing one can do with impure heave on the Sabbath is putting it away so that it should not be used.


###### Jerusalem Talmud Demai 7:5:3
[Jerusalem Talmud Demai 7:5:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Demai/r/7:5:3)

תַּנִּי מְטַלְטְלָהּ אֶחָד תְּרוּמָה טְהוֹרָה וְאֶחָד תְּרוּמָה טְמֵאָה. אָמַר רִבִּי זְעִירָא הָדָא אָמְרָה טֵבֵל שֶׁיֵּשׁ עָלָיו תְּנַיי מוֹתָּר לְטַלְטְלוֹ בְשַׁבָּת. כֵּיצַד הוּא עוֹשֶׂה. נוֹתֵן עֵינָיו בְמִקְצָתוֹ וְאוֹכֵל אֶת הַשְּׁאָר.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
We have stated: “One may move⁹⁴ both pure and impure heave.” Rebbi Zeïra said, it means that one is permitted to move *ṭevel* that has a condition on it⁹⁵ edible. In that case, the *ṭevel* is food and certainly may be moved on the Sabbath. on the Sabbath. What does he do⁹⁶? He thinks about a part of it⁹⁷ and eats the rest.

footnotes:
⁹⁴ On the Sabbath. Since impure heave cannot be used, one would expect that it could not be moved.
⁹⁵ That heave is taken retroactively on the Sabbath to make the ṭevel
⁹⁶ This refers to the next Mishnah, or to the declaration implied by R. Isaac ben Eleazar, that a person may say on Friday that a certain part of food shall become heave or heave of the tithe on the Sabbath without actually separating heave and profane food on Friday.
⁹⁷ The part destined to be heave has to be kept in mind all the time while the rest is consumed.


###### Jerusalem Talmud Demai 7:6:1
[Jerusalem Talmud Demai 7:6:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Demai/r/7:6:1)

**משנה:** הָיוּ לְפָנָיו שְׁתֵי כַלְכָּלוֹת שֶׁל טֵבֵל וְאָמַר מַעְשְׂרוֹת שֶׁל זוּ בְזוּ וְשֶׁל זוּ בְזוּ הָרִאשׁוֹנָה מְעוֹשֶּׂרֶת. מַעְשְׂרוֹתֵיהֶם מַעְשְׂרוֹת כַּלְכָּלָה בַחֲבֵירָתָהּ קָרָא לָהּ שֵׁם.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
**MISHNAH:** If he had before him two baskets of *ṭevel* and he said, the tithes of one are in the other and those of the other in the one, the first one is tithed¹⁰⁰; (if he said) their tithes are tithes of each basket in the other one, he gave it a name¹⁰¹ 25b) have a longer text of the Mishnah which, however, brings nothing new..

footnotes:
¹⁰⁰ At the moment when he said that the tithes of the first basket are in the second one, the first basket was in order and is fully profane food. Hence, when he comes to tithe the second basket, he cannot use the first one since profane food never can become tithe. Hence, what he says of the first basket is valid; what he says about the second basket is invalid, it is as if he never said it. He is in trouble with the second basket since he must separate the Second Tithe before he tithes the second basket, which is forbidden. In addition, Second Tithe must be given from tithed produce; hence the tithe of the second basket has to include the produce taken for Second Tithe from that basket. How to compute the amount of tithe to be taken for the first basket is discussed in the Halakhah.
¹⁰¹ In this case, everything is simultaneous. Hence, the designations of tithes are valid and he must separate the tithe of the first basket from the second, those of the second basket from the first, and he may not change his mind.Most Mishnah codices (including the Rome ms. of the Yerushalmi but excluding the quote of the Mishnah in Babli Temurah


###### Jerusalem Talmud Demai 7:6:2
[Jerusalem Talmud Demai 7:6:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Demai/r/7:6:2)

**הלכה:** וְתַנִּי עֲלָהּ נוֹטֵל מִן הַשְּׁנִיָיה שְׁתֵּי תְאֵנִים וּשְׁתֵּי עִישּׂוּרִין וְעִישּׂוּרוֹ שֶׁל עִישּׂוּר. שְׁמוּאֵל אָמַר לָא מָצֵי תַנִּיתָהּ. אִין יְסַב חָדָא לְעֶשֶׂר. צָרִיךְ מֵיסַב חָדָא לְמֵאָת. אִין יְסַב חָדָא לְמֵאָת. צָרִיךְ מֵיסַב חָדָא לְאֶלֶף. אִין יְסַיב חָדָא לְאֶלֶף. צָרִיךְ מֵיסַב חָדָא לַעֲשָׂרָה אֲלָפִין.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
**HALAKHAH:** 8¹⁰²: We have stated for this¹⁰³ 8:15–16 has a similar wording but cannot possibly be the basis of the quote here and either represents a different tradition from that of the Yerushalmi or is hopelessly corrupt. The latter is likely since the second part of 8:16, discussed here in Halakhah 7, is corrupt, as noted by all commentators from R. M. Margalit to R. S. Lieberman. The relevant part of the Tosephta reads: “If he had before him two baskets of *ṭevel*, in each one a hundred, of which heave was taken. ‘The tithes of one are in the other one,’ the first one is tithed. ‘The tithes of one are in the other, and those of the other in the one’ the first one is not tithed. He takes two figs and two tenths and a tenth of a tenth. ‘Their tithes are tithes of each basket in the other one,’ he gave it a name.”: “He takes from the second one two figs and two tenths and a tenth of a tenth¹⁰⁴.” Samuel says, you cannot state that; when he takes one in ten he has to take one in a hundred, when he takes one in a hundred he has to take one in a thousand, when he takes one in a thousand he has to take one in ten thousand.

footnotes:
¹⁰² Halakhah 6 in the Venice print.
¹⁰³ Tosephta, Demay
¹⁰⁴ How does one tithe the first basket out of the second one? First he takes two figs (assuming 100 figs are there in all) for heave. Then he takes two tenths for the two tithes. But tithe should be taken from the produce itself; after tithe was taken, the profane remainder is nine times the tithe. Hence, ten figs of the second basket free only 90 figs of the first basket; 1/10 from above is 1/9 from below. The Tanna then requires one fig to be taken in addition to free the remaining 10 figs. Samuel protests, since 1/9 = 0.1111…, if one includes tenths, the tithing will never end since one always has to add another tenth of the preceding amount.


###### Jerusalem Talmud Demai 7:6:3
[Jerusalem Talmud Demai 7:6:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Demai/r/7:6:3)

אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹסֵה בַּר חֲנִינָא עַל הָרִאשׁוֹנָה עוֹבֵר בַּעֲשֵׂה וְעַל הַשְּׁנִיָיה בַּעֲשֵׂה וְלֹא תַעֲשֶׂה. עַל הָרִאשׁוֹנָה עוֹבֵר בַּעֲשֵׂה שֶׁקָּבַע שְׁנֵי שֵׁמוֹת כְּאַחַת וְעַל הַשְּׁנִיָיה בַּעֲשֵׂה וְלֹא תַעֲשֶׂה שֶׁקָּבְעוּ שְׁנֵי שֵׁמוֹת כְּאַחַת וְשֶׁהִקְדִּים שֵׁנִי שֶׁבָּרִאשׁוֹנָה לָרִאשׁוֹן שֶׁבִּשְׁנִיָיה.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
Rebbi Yose bar Ḥanina said, for the first basket he transgresses a commandment, for the second a commandment and a prohibition. For the first basket he transgresses a commandment since he gave both names simultaneously¹⁰⁶ 3:7 states that the First Tithe is called “beginning” since it contains heave of the tithe, but the Second Tithe is never called “beginning.” Hence, the beginning should precede the non-beginning., and for the second a commandment and a prohibition since he gave both names simultaneously and he put the Second Tithe of the first basket before the First Tithe of the second basket¹⁰⁷4a/b, both R. Yose bar Ḥanina and R. Eleazar agree that declaring the Second Tithe before the First is a violation. R. Yose bar Ḥanina holds that transgressing a prohibition by words alone is not punishable in criminal law while R. Eleazar declares it punishable..

footnotes:
¹⁰⁶ Mishnah Terumot
¹⁰⁷ In the parallel in Babli Temurah


###### Jerusalem Talmud Demai 7:6:4
[Jerusalem Talmud Demai 7:6:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Demai/r/7:6:4)

אָמַר רִבִּי לָעְזָר דְּרִבִּי מֵאִיר הִיא דְּרִבִּי מֵאִיר אָמַר אֵין אַתְּ תּוֹפֵס אֶלָּא רִאשׁוֹן רִאשׁוֹן בִּלְבַד. תַּמָּן תַּנֵּינָן הֲרֵי זוּ תְּמוּרַת עוֹלָה וּתְמוּרַת שְׁלָמִים הֲרֵי זוּ תְּמוּרַת עוֹלָה דִּבְרֵי רִבִּי מֵאִיר. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹסֵי הֲוֵינָן סָבְרִין מֵימַר מַה פְלִיגִין רִבִּי מֵאִיר וְרַבָּנִין לְאַחַר כְּדֵי דִיבּוּר אֲבָל בְּתוֹךְ כְּדֵי דִיבּוּר לֹא. מִן מַה דְאָמַר רִבִּי לָעְזָר רִבִּי מֵאִיר הִיא. הָדָא אָמְרָה אֲפִילוּ בְּתוֹךְ כְּדֵי דִיבּוּר אֵינוֹ חוֹזֵר בּוֹ.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
Rebbi Eleazar said, this is from Rebbi Meïr since Rebbi Meïr says that you accept only the very first version. There, we have stated¹⁰⁸ 5:4: “This one {animal} shall be a substitute for a burnt offering {another animal already dedicated} and a substitute for an offering of well-being, then it is a substitution for a burnt offering, the words of Rebbi Meïr. Rebbi Yose said, if this was his original intention then his words stand since it is impossible to pronounce two names at the same time. But if he changed his mind after he said, this one shall be a substitute for a burnt offering, and said, this one should be a substitute for an offering of well-being, then it is a substitute for a burnt offering.” Our Mishnah cannot be R. Yose’s since he would accept both the first and second versions if the original intention was the same. In the Babli, *Temurah* 25b/26a, the difference between R. Meïr and R. Yose is reduced to the stylistic nicety whether there is a difference in meaning between “a substitute for a burnt offering and a substitute for a peace offering” and “a substitute for a burnt offering and an offering of well-being.” It is difficult to square that approach with that of the Yerushalmi.: “This one shall be a substitute¹⁰⁹ 27:9–10), nevertheless once done it is a valid dedication. for a burnt offering and for an offering of well-being, then it is a substitute for a burnt offering, the words of Rebbi Meïr.” Rebbi Yose¹¹⁰ 3:5) there are three opinions, that of R. Meïr (who takes only the first statement) and R. Yose (the Tanna, who asks to investigate what was in the mind of the speaker) as in the Mishnah, and that of the Sages who say that the animal should be put out to graze until it develops a bodily defect (and no longer could become a sacrifice) when it should be sold and the money received be split 50-50 to buy burnt and well-being offerings. said, we were of the opinion that Rebbi Meïr and the Sages disagree only after the time for speech¹¹¹ 2:1, fol. 4b (Notes 50–51)., but not within the time for speech. Since Rebbi Eleazar said, the Mishnah is Rebbi Meïr’s, it means that even within the time of speech he cannot retract.

footnotes:
¹⁰⁸ Mishnah Temurah
¹⁰⁹ While substituting one sacrifice for another is forbidden (Lev.
¹¹⁰ The Amora. In the Tosephta (Temurah
¹¹¹ The measure of “time of speech,” the unit for a simple sentence, is defined in Berakhot


###### Jerusalem Talmud Demai 7:6:5
[Jerusalem Talmud Demai 7:6:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Demai/r/7:6:5)

דִּי מַתְנִיתָא מַעְשְׂרוֹתֵיהֶן מַעְשְׂרוֹת כַּלְכָּלָה וַחֲבֵירָתָהּ קָרָא שֵׁם. מִפְּנֵי שֶׁקָּבַע שְׁנֵי שֵׁמוֹת כְּאַחַת. הָא זֶה אַחַר זֶה אֵין אַתְּ תּוֹפֵשׂ אֶלָּא רִאשׁוֹן רִאשׁוֹן בִּלְבַד. אָמַר רִבִּי אָבוּנָא מוֹדִין חֲכָמִים לְרִבִּי מֵאִיר בְּאוֹמֵר תְּרוּמָה זוּ תַּחַת שֵׁנִי חַיָיב. בְּהֵמָה זוּ תַּחַת זְבָחִים שֵׁנִי חַיָיב מִפְּנֵי שֶׁקָּבַע שְׁנֵי שֵׁמוֹת כְּאַחַת הָא זֶה אַחַר זֶה אֵין אַתְּ תּוֹפֵשׂ אֶלָּא רִאשׁוֹן רִאשׁוֹן בִּלְבַד. לֹא כֵן אָמַר רִבִּי שְׁמוּאֵל בַּר רַב יִצְחָק בְּשֵׁם רַב הוּנָא אָמַר זוּ תְמוּרַת עוֹלָה חוֹזֵר בּוֹ אֲפִילוּ בְּתוֹךְ כְּדֵי דִיבּוּר. כָּאן בְּמִתְכַּוֵּין לִפְחוֹת. כָּאן בְּמִתְכַּוֵּין לְהוֹסִיף. אָמַר הֲרֵי זוּ תְּרוּמָה אֲפִילוּ בְּתוֹךְ כְּדֵי דִיבּוּר אֵינוֹ חוֹזֵר בּוֹ. אָדָם נִשְׁאַל עַל הֶקְדֵּישׁוֹ וְאֵין אָדָם נִשְׁאַל עַל תְּרוּמָתוֹ.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
This is the Mishnah: “Their tithes are tithes for each basket in the other one, he gave it a name,” because he declared both names at the same time. One after the other you accept only the very first version. Rebbi Abuna¹¹² said, the Sages agree with Rebbi Meïr about him who says “this heave substitutes for Second”¹¹³ (that he is guilty). “This animal instead of well-being offerings,” he is obligated for two since he declared two names¹¹⁴, Chapter 3, Note 78. at the same time; hence, one after the other you accept only the very first version. Not so, said Rebbi Samuel bar Rav Isaac who said in the name of Rav Huna: “This one shall be a substitute for a burnt offering,” he may retract that within the time for speech. That is, if he wants to retract¹¹⁵, there if he wants to add. If one said, “this is heave,” even within the time of speech he cannot retract. A person can be asked about his dedication¹¹⁶ but nobody can be asked about his heave.

footnotes:
¹¹² Usually called Rebbi Abun.
¹¹³ Since heave cannot become tithe; if he first declares it to be heave and then tithe, the second declaration is void. The words in parenthesis seem to be a scribal error induced by the next clause.
¹¹⁴ By using a plural. An unspecified plural always means two, cf. Peah
¹¹⁵ Rav Huna does not refer to our case but to a person making a substitution and retracting it. In our case, the speaker makes a substitution and then adds to it; he compounds his sin, and the rule of “time for speech” does not apply.
¹¹⁶ All dedications of sacrifices are vows, which are subject to annullment by a court if the circumstances change in which the vow was made. Hence, there is reason to allow a time of reflection. Heave is holy by declaration, not by vow, and no retraction is possible.


###### Jerusalem Talmud Demai 7:6:6
[Jerusalem Talmud Demai 7:6:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Demai/r/7:6:6)

כֵּיצַד הוּא עוֹשֶׂה נוֹטֵל עֶשְׂרִים תְּאֵנִים מֵאֵי זוּ מֵהֶן שֶׁיִּרְצֶה. וְכָל עֶשֶׂר דִּיסַב אִית בְּהוֹן תְּרוּמַת מַעֲשֵׂר. עַד כְדוֹן בְּשָׁווֹת. הָיָה בְזוּ מֵאָה וּבְזוּ מָאתַיִם אִם לְשֵׁם מֵאָה הוּא נוֹטֵל אַחַת עֶשְׂרֵה. אִם לְשֵׁם מָאתַיִם הוּא נוֹטֵל ששים תְּאֵנִים. בְּזוּ מֵאָה וּבְזוּ אֶלֶף אִם לְשֵׁם מֵאָה הוּא נוֹטֵל חֲמֵשׁ עֶשְׂרֵה. אִם לְשֵׁם אֶלֶף הוּא נוֹטֵל אֲפִילוּ הוּא נוֹטֵל אֶת כּוּלָּהּ אֵינוֹ מַשְׁלִים.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
How does one act¹¹⁹ 8:16, in badly garbled form: “Their tithes are tithes of each basket in the other one, he gave it a name. One takes 20 figs from the one he chooses. In one 100, in one 200, if he takes from the small one, he takes 11, if from the large one, he takes it all and it is not enough. In one 100, in the other 1000, if he takes from the small one he takes 16, if he takes from the large one he takes all of 60. In other cases, by this computation.” In the computation, the second number in either case was switched.? “One takes 20 figs from any basket one chooses¹²⁰.” And in any 10 one takes there is one of heave of the tithe¹²¹ only heave of the tithe has to be given away; the Second Tithe is redeemed by a coin. In the current *baraita*, only First Tithe is considered.. That is, if they were equal. “If in one basket there were 100 and in the other 200, if he takes for the one with a hundred, he takes 11¹²². If for the one with 200 he takes 30¹²³. “If in one basket there were 100 and in the other 1000, if he takes for the one with a hundred, he takes 15¹²⁴. If for the one with a thousand, even if he takes the entire basket he does not complete taking.”

footnotes:
¹¹⁹ This refers to the last part of Mishnah 8, if he has two baskets and says, “their tithes are tithes of each basket in the other one; he gave it a name.” The parallel is in Tosephta Demay
¹²⁰ Since the name of tithe was given for both simultaneously, the tithes have to be taken together. If one took tithes for one of the baskets alone, then the rest of the baskets would be profane and could no longer be used to tithe anything.
¹²¹ In all these computations of the preceding Halakhah and the current one, one separates all the tithes but in case of demay
¹²² If he takes the tithe of the smaller basket out of the larger basket, he has to take 11 since there remain 100 profane and not 90 as there would be if he tithed the basket for itself. (To be mathematically exact, he should take 11.1111… figs, but if at all possible, tithing other than whole fruits is avoided.)
¹²³ In this case, the smaller basket is treated as appendix of the larger one, and the two are tithed together.
¹²⁴ This is incomprehensible (as is the explanation of R. Moses Margalit.) R. Eliahu Fulda, R. Eliahu Wilna and R. S. Lieberman emend and read 11 instead of 15, as in the previous sentence.The last case is again clear; he would need 110.


###### Jerusalem Talmud Demai 7:6:7
[Jerusalem Talmud Demai 7:6:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Demai/r/7:6:7)

מִי שֶׁיֵּשׁ לוֹ כַלְכָּלָה וְהוּא מְבַקֵּשׁ לְעַשְּׂרָהּ נוֹטֵל שְׁנֵי תִישּׁוּעִין וְתִישּׁוּעַ שֶׁל תִישׁוּעַ שֶׁהֵן עֶשֶׂר מַעֲשֵׂר וְתֵשַׁע מַעֲשֵׂר שֵׁנִי. וְיֹאמַר תְּשַׁע עֶשְׂרֵה. אָמַר רִבִּי זְעִירָא דִּבְרֵי חֲכָמִים וְחִידּוֹתָם. הָרוֹצֶה לְהַכְנִיס מֵאָה תְאֵנִים מְתוּקָּנוֹת לְתוֹךְ בֵּיתוֹ הֲרֵי זֶה נוֹטֵל עַל כָּל תְּאֵינָה וּתְאֵינָה שְׁנֵי תִישּׁוּעִין וְתִישּׁוּעַ שֶׁל תִישׁוּעַ שֶׁהֵן עֶשְׂרִים וְשָׁלֹשׁ תְּאֵינָה אַרְבָּעָה אָמַר תִּישּׁוּעוֹ שֶׁל תִישׁוּעַ.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
“¹²⁵ 8:17. In all these cases, it is supposed that heave was already taken and only tithe with its heave has to be taken. If someone has a basket and wants to tithe it, he takes two ninths and a ninth of a ninth, corresponding to ten tithe and nine Second Tithe¹²⁶.” Why does he not say 19? Rebbi Zeïra said, the words of the Sages and their riddles. He who wants to bring a hundred figs in order into his house takes for ever single fig two ninths and a ninth of a ninth, 23 figs in all, four called ninth of a ninth¹²⁷.

footnotes:
¹²⁵ The text is very close to Tosephta Demay
¹²⁶ Since 2/9 + 1/81 = 19/81, one takes 19 figs for any 81 remaining. For all other numbers of figs, one has to multiply by this ratio.
¹²⁷ By the preceding computation, for a remainder of 100 one has to take 19×100÷81 = 23.4568 figs. Hence, the interpretation of the final statement must be “23 whole figs, four tenths, and 4/81 = 23.4494” The word אמר was emended by all commentators but the text is confirmed by the arithmetic.


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

**משנה:** מֵאָה טֵבֵל מֵאָה חוּלִין נוֹטֵל מֵאָה וְאַחַת. מֵאָה טֵבֵל מֵאָה מַעֲשֵׂר נוֹטֵל מֵאָה וְאַחַת. מֵאָה חוּלִין מְתוּקָּנִין מֵאָה מַעֲשֵׂר נוֹטֵל מֵאָה וְעֶשֶׂר. מֵאָה טֵבֵל וְתִשְׁעִים מַעֲשֵׂר תִּשְׁעִים טֵבֵל וּשְׁמוֹנִים מַעֲשֵׂר לֹא הִפְסִיד כְּלוּם. זֶה הַכְּלָל כָּל זְמַן שֶׁהַטֵּבֵל מְרוּבָּה לֹא הִפְסִיד כְּלוּם.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
**MISHNAH:** A hundred *ṭevel* in a hundred profane, he removes 101¹²⁸ 3:9, where it is stated that if tithed and untithed produce are mixed together, it is preferable to tithe the untithed part from other produce, but if that proves impossible the whole turns into titheable produce as far as heaves are concerned, but not for other tithes. Since we are dealing with *demay*, it is always assumed that the first heave was taken and the only problem is heave of the tithe. Hence, in our case, one has to remove the 100 as equivalent of the *ṭevel* to be tithed, and, since the profane returns to the status of untithed as far as heave of the tithe is concerned, another 1% for heave of the tithe.. A hundred *ṭevel* in a hundred tithe, he removes 101¹²⁹. A hundred profane fully in order and a hundred tithe, he removes 110¹³⁰, and “profane fully in order” is produce of which it is known that both tithes were actually removed according to the rules of certain produce..
A hundred *ṭevel* and ninety tithe, ninety *ṭevel* and eighty tithe, he did not lose anything. That is the rule: Anytime that *ṭevel* is more, he did not lose anything¹⁴², an application of that rule would make the tithe forever *dema‘* ..

footnotes:
¹²⁸ The basis of these computations is Mishnah Ḥallah
¹²⁹ The tithe here is First Tithe, of which heave of the tithe has been taken. First Tithe of which heave has been taken is fully profane in the hands of the Levite. Hence, the rules are the same as for profane produce.
¹³⁰ Obviously, the tithe here did not have its heave removed, otherwise it would be profane. Hence, the status of the profane now equals that of tithe and heave of the tithe must also be removed from the profane. It turns out that he removes 100 for tithe and another 10 for heave of the tithe, so that the entire heave of the tithe will be 20.In this Mishnah, “profane” means produce tithed according to the rules of demay
¹⁴² Maimonides explains that the general rule of taking out a replacement for heave from any produce into which it fell needs a minimum of 101 to be taken out. Since here the tithe is less than the ṭevel


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

**הלכה:** רִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן לָקִישׁ אָמַר צָרִיךְ לְהַתְנוֹת וְלוֹמַר אִם טֵבֵל עָלָה בְיָדִי הוּא מַעֲשֵׂר. וְאִם מַעֲשֵׂר עָלָה בְיָדִי הֲרֵי הוּא עָשׂוּי תְרוּמַת מַעֲשֵׂר. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹנָה צָרִיךְ לִכְפּוֹל תְּנָייוֹ וְלוֹמַר וְאִם לָאו לֹא עָשִׂיתִי כְּלוּם. רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָמַר אֵינוֹ צָרִיךְ לִכְפּוֹל תְּנָייוֹ. דֵּין כְדַעְתֵּיהּ וְדֵין כְדַעְתֵּיהּ. וְאִיתְפַּלְּגוּן שְׁנֵי כְרִיִים וְאֶחָד מֵהֶן. רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָמַר קִדְּשׁוּ מְדוּמָעִין וְרִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן לָקִישׁ אָמַר לֹא קִדְּשׁוּ.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
**HALAKHAH:** ¹³¹: Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, one has to specify a stipulation and say: If *ṭevel* is in my hands, it shall be tithe, but if tithe is in my hands, it shall be heave of the tithe¹³² and tithe were mixed together and one takes 101 parts for the *ṭevel* of which the one part in excess is to be addititional heave of the tithe. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish states that heave can only be taken if it is specified from where it is to be taken. In our case, heave of the tithe can only be taken if the produce was first designated to be tithe. Hence, it is necessary to stipulate that it should be designated tithe if part of the grain originated from what was *ṭevel.*. Rebbi Jonah said, one has to add the converse stipulation and say, otherwise I did not do anything¹³³32:29–30) in which it was spelled out first what would happen if the conditions were met and second what would happen if they were not, any stipulation in Jewish law is valid only if it is formulated both in the positive and the negative sense. So R. Jonah simply means that the stipulation has to be legally valid.. Rebbi Joḥanan said, one does not have to add the converse stipulation¹³⁴. Either one of them follows his own opinion, since they disagreed¹³⁵, Chap. 3. The obligation of heave starts when grain, after threshing, is formed into heaps or put into a silo. If somebody has two heaps and he says, the heave of both heaps should be in one of them, without specifying in which one, then R. Joḥanan is of the opinion that both heaps are potentially profane mixed with heave, and both of them fall under the strict rules of *dema*‘ until heave is taken. But R. Simeon ben Laqish holds that heave can only be taken from a designated spot; hence, the declaration is invalid and nothing has changed. It follows that, in our case, R. Simeon ben Laqish must require a declaration which fixes the exact part from which heave of the tithe may be taken, but R. Joḥanan holds that any produce that is potentially heave may be turned into heave by simple declaration.: Two heaps of grain, in one of them. Rebbi Joḥanan said, they are both forbidden as *dema‘*, but Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, they are not forbidden.

footnotes:
¹³¹ In the Venice print, Halakhah 8.
¹³² This refers to the case where ṭevel
¹³³ R. Jonah’s remark is a technicality. Since the rules of stipulations in Jewish law are derived from the stipulation Moses made with the tribes of Gad and Reuben (Num.
¹³⁴ One does not need a stipulation at all; a simple declaration is sufficient.
¹³⁵ In Terumot


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

אָמַר רִבִּי מָ[נָא] חוֹלְקִין עַל רִבִּי לָעְזָר בֶּן עֲרָךְ דְּתַנִּי מַעֲשֵׂר טֵבֵל שֶׁנִּתְעָרֵב בְּחוּלִין אִם יֵשׁ לוֹ פַרְנָסָה מִמָּקוֹם אַחֵר מוֹצִיאוֹ לְפִי חֶשְׁבּוֹן. וְאִם לָאו רִבִּי לָעְזָר בֶּן עֲרָךְ אוֹמֵר יִקְרָא שֵׁם לִתְרוּמַת מַעֲשֵׂר שֶׁבּוֹ וְיַעֲלֵם בְּאֶחָד וּמֵאָה. אָמַר רִבִּי בָּא בַּר מָמָל תִּיפְתָּר בִּדְבָרִים שֶׁאֵין לָהֶן עֲלִיָיה. רִבִּי הִלֵּל בֶּן פָּזִי בְּעֵי וְיִפְצַע. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹנָה מוּתָּר לְפַצֵּעַ. לֹא כֵן תְּנִינָן נִתְפַּצְּעוּ הָאֶגּוֹזִין בְּשֶׁעָבַר. הָא בִתְחִילָּה לֹא.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
Rebbi Mana said, they differ with Rebbi Eleazar ben Arakh¹³⁶ in which he is mentioned.. As he stated¹³⁷ 5:15: “*Ṭevel* mixed with profane produce makes it forbidden even in the tiniest amounts. If it can be provided from another place, one takes it out in proportion. Otherwise, Rebbi Eliezer and Rebbi Eleazar ben Arakh say, he gives a name to the heave of the tithe and takes it out by 101; the same holds if it falls into tithe.” The *baraita* in the Yerushalmi expresses the same but from another source. The assertion in the Tosephta that one always tithes in proportion contradicts the Mishnah since no penalty is incurred in form of heave of the tithe of the profane produce, as in the Mishnah.: “*Ṭevel* mixed with profane produce, if it can be provided from another place, one takes it out in proportion. Otherwise, Rebbi Eleazar ben Arakh says, he gives a name to the heave of the tithe and takes it out by 101.” Rebbi Abba bar Mamal said, explain it with kinds one cannot take out¹³⁸ 3:7; they are always sold by the piece and cannot become absorbed by anything into which they fall. Hence, no substitute can be taken out from any other produce and R. Eleazar ben Arakh himself precribes for them the remedy explained in the Mishnah.. Rebbi Hillel ben Pazi¹³⁹ asked: Why can he not crack them? Rebbi Jonah said, is one permitted to crack them¹⁴⁰ 3:8: If the nuts were cracked, or the pomegranates split,…, they may be taken out (like any other produce.)” In reference to tithes, the same is stated in Tosephta *Terumot* 5:10.? Did we not state: “If the nuts were cracked,” in the past. That means, not to start out with¹⁴¹.

footnotes:
¹³⁶ One of the foremost students of Rabban Joḥanan ben Zakkai, whose influence on the development of the Mishnah is minimal since after the fall of Jerusalem he did not go to Jabneh but to Emmaus in the foothills of the Judean mountains. The problem here does not come from the position of R. Eleazar but from the baraita
¹³⁷ Tosephta Terumot
¹³⁸ Special kinds of nuts and pomegranates and a few other kinds, enumerated in Mishnah Orlah
¹³⁹ A Galilean Amora of the fourth generation, usually quoted in discussions with R. Jonah and R. Yose. His son, R. Simeon ben R. Hillel ben Pazi, is quoted once in the Talmud.
¹⁴⁰ Mishnah Orlah
¹⁴¹ If nuts are forbidden because of heave nuts fallen among them, one may not shell all the nuts to reduce them to regular produce.


###### Jerusalem Talmud Demai 7:7:4
[Jerusalem Talmud Demai 7:7:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Demai/r/7:7:4)

אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹנָה כֵּינִי מַתְנִיתָא כָּל זְמַן שֶׁהַטֵּבֵל מְרוּבָּה עַל הַמַּעֲשֵׂר מַעֲשֵׂר לֹא הִפְסִיד כְּלוּם.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
Rebbi Jonah said, so is the Mishnah: Anytime that *ṭevel* is more than the tithe, tithe does not lose anything¹⁴⁴ exceeds the tithe by at least 10, one does not lose anything.” Maimonides and R. Abraham ben David clearly read the Yerushalmi as given in the text..

footnotes:
¹⁴⁴ In contrast to the preceding Mishnah, the rule given here applies only to tithe, not to profane produce.R. Simson reads: “Whenever the ṭevel


###### Jerusalem Talmud Demai 7:7:5
[Jerusalem Talmud Demai 7:7:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Demai/r/7:7:5)

רִבִּי לְוִינְטִי בְשֵׁם רִבִּי יוֹנָה כָּל טֵבֵל דַּאֲנָן קָיְימִינַן הָכָא טֵבֵל לָרִאשׁוֹן וְלַשֵּׁנִי.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
Rebbi Levinti¹⁴⁵ in the name of Rebbi Jonah: Any *ṭevel* mentioned here is *ṭevel* for first and second tithes¹⁴⁶ mentioned in the entire chapter refers to produce of which heave was taken and the question is only about tithes and heave of the tithe..

footnotes:
¹⁴⁵ All that is known about him is that he was a fifth generation Amora, student of R. Jonah.
¹⁴⁶ All ṭevel


###### Jerusalem Talmud Demai 7:7:6
[Jerusalem Talmud Demai 7:7:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Demai/r/7:7:6)

רִבִּי אַבָּהוּ אָמַר אִיתְפַּלְּגוּן רִבִּי וְרִבִּי דּוֹסְתַּי בֵּי רִבִּי יַנַּאי. חַד אָמַר עוֹשֶׂה אוֹתוֹ שֵׁנִי לְמָקוֹם אַחֵר. וְחָרָנָה אָמַר עוֹשֶׂה כּוּלּוֹ שֵׁנִי לְמָקוֹם אַחֵר וּמַפְרִישׁ עָלָיו רִאשׁוֹן לְמָקוֹם אַחֵר. מַה נָן קַיָימִין מֵאָה טֵבֵל וְתִשְׁעִים מַעֲשֵׂר נוֹטֵל תִּשְׁעִים וּשְׁתַּיִם חָסֵר עִישּׂוּר אֶחָד. מֵאָה טֵבֵל וּשְׁמוֹנִים מַעֲשֵׂר נוֹטֵל שְׁמוֹנִים וְשָׁלֹשׁ חָסֵר שְׁנֵי עֶשְׂרוֹנִים. מִיכָּן וְהֵילָךְ לְפִי חֶשְׁבּוֹן.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
Rebbi Abbahu said, Rebbi and Rebbi Dositheos the son of Rebbi Yannai¹⁴⁷ 4:15. disagree. One says, he takes the second tithe from another place, but the other one says, he makes all of it second tithe and takes the first tithe from another place¹⁴⁸ quoted in the following sentences, in which the Tanna disagrees with the Tanna of the Mishnah and applies the rule of Mishnah 9 also to our case. If tithe returns to the state of untithed, then Second Tithe also is due, but it cannot be taken out here without disturbing the entire computation. Hence, it must be taken, and then redeemed, from other sources.. What are we talking about? “A hundred *ṭevel* and ninety tithe, he takes 92 minus one tenth¹⁴⁹ From this, he can legally only take 9 for heave of the tithe. But he has to take in all 10.9 by the rules of the previous Mishnah which the Tanna here also follows in case tithe is less than *ṭevel.* Hence, he has to take another 2-0.1 and then give 10.9 as heave of the tithe. If *ṭevel* is 100 and tithe 80, he has to take 8 + 2.8 as heave of the tithe in order to put tithe and *ṭevel* in order. In general, for 100 *ṭevel* and *n* tithe, he takes *n +*(1000 - 9n)/100. (Explanation by R. Z. Frankel, the only rational explanation of this paragraph.). A hundred *ṭevel* and eighty tithe, he takes 83 minus two tenths.¹⁵⁰ 5:17–18, which certainly is garbled but might in addition represent a Babylonian tradition opposed to that of the Yerushalmi: “100 tithe and 80 *ṭevel*, he takes 91.9. 100 tithe and 90 *ṭevel*, he takes 92.8. Other quantities proportionally.” Other quantities proportionally.”

footnotes:
¹⁴⁷ A Tanna of the fifth generation, probably a student of R. Meïr, chiefly prominent as a preacher. It is possible that his father was the Tanna quoted in Avot
¹⁴⁸ This cannot refer to the Mishnah, since there the tithe is reconstituted as it was before. It must refer to the baraita
¹⁴⁹ If he takes 90 out of the container, it might be that all he takes was originally ṭevel.
¹⁵⁰ A similar text appears in Tosephta Demay


###### Jerusalem Talmud Demai 7:8:1
[Jerusalem Talmud Demai 7:8:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Demai/r/7:8:1)

**משנה:** מִי שֶׁהָיוּ לוֹ עֲשָׂרָה שׁוּרוֹת שֶׁל עֶשֶׂר כַּדֵּי יַיִן וְאָמַר שׁוּרָה הַחִיצוֹנָה אַחַת מַעֲשֵׂר וְאֵינוֹ יוֹדֵעַ אֵיזוֹ הִיא נוֹטֵל שְׁתֵּי חָבִיּוֹת לוֹכְסוֹן חֲצִי שׁוּרָה הַחִיצוֹנָה אַחַת מַעֲשֵׂר וְאֵינוֹ יוֹדֵעַ אֵיזוֹ הִיא נוֹטֵל אַרְבַּע חָבִיּוֹת מֵאַרְבַּע זָוִיּוֹת שׁוּרָה אַחַת מַעֲשֵׂר וְאֵינוֹ יוֹדֵעַ אֵיזוֹ הִיא נוֹטֵל שׁוּרָה אַחַת לוֹכְסוֹן. חֲצִי שׁוּרָה אַחַת מַעֲשֵׂר וְאֵינוֹ יוֹדֵעַ אֵיזוֹ הִיא נוֹטֵל שְׁתֵּי שׁוּרוֹת לוֹכְסוֹן. חָבִית אַחַת מַעֲשֵׂר וְאֵינוֹ יוֹדֵעַ אֵיזוֹ הִיא נוֹטֵל מִכָּל חָבִית וְחָבִית.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
**MISHNAH:** If somebody had ten rows of ten wine jugs¹⁵¹ 27a, notes that the Mishnah starts with “jugs” and continues with “amphoras,” to indicate that Biblical כד corresponds to rabbinic חבית. each, and he said that one from an outer row was tithe but he does no longer know which one, he takes two diagonally¹⁵² opposite amphoras¹⁵³= 1, 2,…,10 and the amphoras in each row by *j =* 1, 2,…,10. Then the position of each amphora is uniquely described by a couple (*i*,*j*) and the amphoras are filling a square. Also, let * denote any number from 1 to 10. The outer rows are (1,*), (10,*), (*,1), (*,10). Since the problem is not the tithe but the heave of the tithe, if one takes both amphoras (1,1) and (10,10) [or (1,10) and (10,1)] he will have taken one amphora from each boundary row and have valid heave of the tithe. From the last sentence of the Mishnah it becomes clear that in all cases, only one amphora has to be given as heave of the tithe. Hence, the interpretation here is that one takes half of each amphora chosen and pours into a new one, so that the full new amphora will be the heave of the tithe.. One of half an outer row was tithe but he does no longer know which one, then he takes the four amphoras at the four corners¹⁵⁴. One row was tithe but he does no longer know which one, then he takes one diagonal row¹⁵⁵,*i*) for *i* = 1,…, 10 or (10-*i*+1,*i*) for *i* = 1,…, 10 then he will have taken one amphora from each row counted in either direction. Here, he takes one tenth out of each amphora chosen.. Half a row was tithe but he does no longer know which one, then he takes from the two diagonal rows¹⁵⁶,*i)* and (10-*i*+1,*i*) for *i* = 1,…, 10. Then one amphora for each half-row starting at the border will have been taken. Here, one takes one twentieth of each amphora chosen.. One amphora was tithe but he does no longer know which one, then he takes¹⁵⁷ from each amphora.

footnotes:
¹⁵¹ The Babli, Baba Qama
¹⁵² Greek λοξός, ή, όν “slanting, crosswise”.
¹⁵³ Let the rows be numbered by i
¹⁵⁴ Since each semi-row ends at a corner, if he takes one quarter of any of the four at the corners, one of them will be the right one.
¹⁵⁵ If he takes either (i
¹⁵⁶ The rows (i
¹⁵⁷ He takes 1% of the volume of each amphora, then he gets the required amphora out of the 100 given and from each amphora some wine is in the new barrel.


###### Jerusalem Talmud Demai 7:8:2
[Jerusalem Talmud Demai 7:8:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Demai/r/7:8:2)

**הלכה:** וְיִטּוֹל שְׁתַּיִם. רִבִּי כֹהֵן בְּשֵׁם רַבָּנִין דְּקֵיסָרִין בְּשֶׁהִפְרִישׁ חֶצְיָין מִמָּקוֹם אַחֵר.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
**HALAKHAH:** Why does he not take two¹⁵⁹, and the method proposed is impossible. (Explanation of R. Eliahu Fulda.)? Rebbi Cohen in the name of the rabbis of Caesarea: When he separated half of the heave from another place.

footnotes:
¹⁵⁹ This refers to the second sentence in the Mishnah, when he made half a row tithe on 50 of the 100 amphoras. Why can he not declare that the other half is also tithe for the remaining 50 amphoras and reduce this case to the preceding one where he has to take only from two diagonally opposed amphoras? The answer is that the remaining amphoras are already profane, not ṭevel


###### Jerusalem Talmud Demai 7:8:3
[Jerusalem Talmud Demai 7:8:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Demai/r/7:8:3)

תַּנִּי הָיוּ לְפָנָיו שְׁתֵּי חָבִיּוֹת אַחַת שֶׁל מַעֲשֵׂר טֵבֵל טָהוֹר וְאַחַת שֶׁל מַעֲשֵׂר טֵבֵל טָמֵא הֲרֵי זֶה מֵבִיא שְׁנֵי לָגִינִין וְנוֹטֵל מִזּוּ כְדֵי תְרוּמַת מַעֲשֵׂר מִשְּׁתֵּיהֶן וּמִזּוּ כְדֵי תְרוּמַת מַעֲשֵׂר מִשְּׁתֵּיהֶן. וְחוֹזֵר וּמַגְבִּיהַּ אֶת הַלָּגִין וְאוֹמֵר. אִם זֶהוּ טָהוֹר הֲרֵי הוּא עָשִׂיתִיו תְּרוּמַת מַעֲשֵׂר. וְאִם לָאו לֹא עָשִׂיתִי כְלוּם. וְחוֹזֵר וְעוֹשֶׂה כֵן בַּשֵּׁנִי וְטוֹבֵל וְשׁוֹתֶה דִּבְרֵי רִבִּי. רִבִּי לָעְזָר בֵּי רִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֵר אֵינוֹ נוֹטֵל אֶלָּא בְסוֹף. מַה טַעֲמָא דְרִבִּי אֲנִי אוֹמֵר שֶׁמָּא שָׁתָה מַשְׁקִין טְמֵאִין תְּחִילָּה. וּמַה טַעֲמָא דְרִבִּי לָעְזָר בַּר שִׁמְעוֹן אֲנִי אוֹמֵר שֶׁמָּא שָׁתָה מַשְׁקִין טְמֵאִין בְּסוֹף. הַכֹּל מוֹדִין בְּשׁוֹתֶה מַשְׁקִין טְמֵאִין שֶׁהוּא אָסוּר לוֹכַל אֲפִילוּ סָפֵק תְּרוּמָה. סָפֵק מַשְׁקִין כָּל עַמָּא מוֹדֵיי שֶׁהוּא מוּתָּר לוֹכַל אֲפִילוּ תְרוּמָה וַדַּאי. אֶלָּא כָא אֲנָן קַיָימִין כְּהָדָא מַתְנִיתָא. מַה טַעֲמָא דְרִבִּי אֶלְעָזָר בַּר שִׁמְעוֹן מֵאַחַר שֶׁעַל יְדֵי זֶה וְעַל יְדֵי זֶה נִתְבָּרְרָה הַטּוּמְאָה טָעוּן טְבִילָה. מַה טַעֲמָא דְרִבִּי שֶׁלֹּא יָבוֹא לִידֵי רְבִיעִית. לְמַה טַעֲמָא דְרִבִּי לָעְזָר בֵּי רִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בְּשׁוֹתֶה פָּחוֹת מֵרְבִיעִית. וְלֵית לֵיהּ לְרִבִּי לָעְזָר בֵּי רִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן שֶׁלֹּא יָבוֹא לִידֵי רְבִיעִית. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹסֵי בֵּרִבִּי בּוּן אֵין לָךְ אֶלָּא כְהָדֵין פִּיתְרָא קַדְמָיָא. דְּרִבִּי חָשַׁשׁ שֶׁמָּא שָׁתָה מַשְׁקִין טְמֵאִין תְּחִילָּה. וְרִבִּי לָעְזָר בֵּי רִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן חָשַׁשׁ שֶׁמָּא שָׁתָה מַשְׁקִין טְמֵאִין בְּסוֹף.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
It was stated¹⁶⁰ 5:22–23, which first explains how to take two pitchers and the declarations to make, as in the *baraita* here. But then there is no disagreement reported but it is stated that the Cohen who drinks must immerse himself not only before drinking but between the drinks and after them, combining the rules of Rebbi and R. Eleazar ben R. Simeon. That Tosephta explains the practical rule and not the background as does the *baraita* here. Nevertheless, the text of the Tosephta cannot stand as it is in manuscript and print: “The pitchers, one of impure *ṭevel* tithe, the other of pure *ṭevel* tithe. He drinks from one and immerses himself, and drinks from the other and immerses himself, and drinks from both of them together, and needs an immersion at the end.” All commentators of the Tosephta feel compelled to rearrange the Tosephta according to the Yerushalmi.: “If there were two amphoras before him, one of pure tithe which was *ṭevel* and one of impure tithe which was *ṭevel*¹⁶¹, he brings two vessels and takes from each of them heave of the tithe for both of them. He then turns and lifts one vessel and says: If this one is pure, I am making it heave of the tithe; else I did not do anything. Then he turns, does the same for the second vessel, immerses himself and drinks, the words of Rebbi¹⁶². Rebbi Simeon ben Eleazar says, he takes it¹⁶³ only at the end.” What is the reason of Rebbi? I say, maybe he started drinking the impure one first¹⁶⁴. And what is the reason of Rebbi Eleazar ben Rebbi Simeon? Maybe he drank the impure one at the end. Everybody agrees that he who drinks impure liquids may not even eat heave that is in doubt¹⁶⁵, about 135 cm³) then, by rabbinic decree (*Zavim* 5:12), his body becomes impure even if the impurity was only secondary. (Biblical impurity is transferred to a person only by original impurity.) If the impurity is certain, then by rabbinic decree he is impure even if it is in doubt whether the food is heave or not. But if the drink is only suspected of being impure there is no rabbinic decree and impurity is imparted only by original impurity. The discussion here assumes that all impurities discussed are rabbinic in character.. If the liquids were possibly impure, everybody agrees that he may eat what certainly is heave. But here we deal with another Mishnah¹⁶⁶ 5:12.. What is the reason of Rebbi Eleazar ben Rebbi Simeon? Since according to both the impurity is certain, he needs immersion¹⁶⁷. What is the reason of Rebbi? That he should not be led into drinking a *reviït*¹⁶⁸ of a questionable liquid.. According to the reason of Rebbi Eleazar ben Rebbi Simeon, he drinks less than a *reviït*¹⁶⁹, the other about one who drinks more.. Is Rebbi Eleazar ben Rebbi Simeon not afraid that he would be led into drinking a *reviït*? Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, the only explanation you have is our first one. Rebbi is afraid that he drank the impure liquid first and Rebbi Eleazar ben Rebbi Simeon is afraid that he drank the impure liquid at the end¹⁷⁰.

footnotes:
¹⁶⁰ There is a similar Tosephta, Demay
¹⁶¹ Only pure heave may be consumed; impure heave of oil may be used as fuel but impure heave of wine cannot be used at all. Hence, if the Cohen is the owner of the tithe, he wants to take heave so that he can drink everything.
¹⁶² Since no Cohen may eat or drink heave without first immersing himself, it is obvious that here the Cohen did immerse himself first. Hence, the immersion required by Rebbi is between the drinks from both vessels.
¹⁶³ A scribal error for טובל “he immerses himself.”
¹⁶⁴ Then he has to purify himself again for the heave since the first pitcher was profane drink.
¹⁶⁵ If somebody drinks impure fluids (in a minimum of a reviït
¹⁶⁶ Zavim
¹⁶⁷ At the end, the contents of one of the vessels certainly was impure and made his body impure.
¹⁶⁸ If he drinks less the immersion is not really necessary; it is a reminder not to make one’s body impure by drinking a reviït
¹⁶⁹ In that case, no immersion at the end would be necessary. Hence, the argument is faulty because otherwise Rebbi and R. Eleazar would not quarrel, one speaking about a person drinking less than a reviït
¹⁷⁰ Hence, the practical rule is the one given in the Tosephta.