MISHNAH: The easy ones for demay² is given in the Introduction. The “easy ones” are those to which the laws of demay do not apply and which may be bought from any source without separating heave or tithe. are shitin³ 2:5, Note 86.) It will be explained that these are figs growing under the leaves. Since figs need much sun to ripen, normally figs grow on top of the leaves, exposed to the sun. Those growing under the leaves remain hard and inedible at harvest time and are not usually harvested. Hence, these figs are to be considered abandoned property after the harvest and are not subject to any laws of heave and tithes., lotus fruit⁴, ed. Luncz, Jerusalem 1899, p. 526, notes that in Falastini Arabic the fruit is called אַלדוּם., the fruit of the service tree, white figs⁵ 40b)., and sycamore figs, fallen dates⁶, fennel⁷ 3, p. 462. Maimonides declares it to be “a relative of dill.” The Arukh declares it to be wild grapes, Italian lambrusco. This follows the Babli (Berakhot 40b) which defines it to be grapes that ripen only after the harvest., and capers⁸) and Maimonides. This refers to the fruit only.. Also in Judea sumac, vinegar, and coriander. Rebbi Jehudah says, all shitin are free except those from a tree bearing fruit twice a year, all lotus fruit are free except lotus fruit from Shiqmanah⁹, and all sycamore fruits are free except those cracked open¹⁰, Book XIII, §56. In all these instances, R. Jehudah insists that the fruits do not grow wild and/or are not abandoned..

footnotes: ² The definition of demay ³ S. Lieberman has convincingly argued that שיתין is a contraction of שחיתין “garbage fruit” in the Galilean dialect which had no ח sound (compare Peah ⁴ Definition of Maimonides, Arabic אַלנַבַּק. In some Mishnah and Tosephta manuscripts the reading is דימין and Caftor Waperach ⁵ Identification of R. Joḥanan in the Babli (Berakhot ⁶ Either fallen because they are rotten or wormy inside or knocked down by a windstorm. ⁷ See later, Note 55; cf. I. Löw, Flora der Juden ⁸ Concurrent definition of Arukh (cappero ⁹ Identified as a village Sycaminon at the foot of Mt. Carmel, South of Haifa. ¹⁰ Cracked open while still on the tree, they will become sweet enough to qualify as human food. The others are only considered animal fodder. The sweetness of cracked sycamores was already noted by Pliny, Naturalis Historia

HALAKHAH: Rebbi Joḥanan said, the Sages enumerated them because the majority of these kinds are collected only from abandoned property¹¹.

footnotes: ¹¹ Either they are leftovers after the harvest and actually abandoned, or they are from shrubs and trees that are never harvested and, therefore, the fruits can be treated as abandoned even though they grow on private property.

Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, only demay is mentioned, hence one is obligated¹² can one get away with giving only 1%. (This argument appears anonymously in Babli Berakhot40b.) if they are certain. Rebbi Joḥanan said, they are free whether demay or certain¹³. It is difficult for Rebbi Joḥanan, didn’t they mention only demay? Hence if it is certain, is it not obligated¹⁴ or Ma‘serot, but here it refers explicitly to demay.? Rebbi La said, since at every place¹⁵ is a mnemotechnic device which starts tractate Demay. It has no intrinsic meaning. he considers only demay, here he quotes only demay.

footnotes: ¹² If it is certain that the tithes were not given, one is obligated to give them in full in any case, including the kinds mentioned in the Mishnah. Only if it is demay ¹³ The kinds enumerated in the Mishnah are not subject to any tithes. ¹⁴ R. Joḥanan’s position would be acceptable if the Mishnah were in one of the tractates Terumot ¹⁵ In this tractate. The mention of demay

The Mishnah supports Rebbi Joḥanan: “From Akhzib¹⁶. 19:29, Jud. 1:31. Along the seashore, Kezib or Akhzib denotes the northernmost point of contiguous settlement by Jews during the Second Commenwealth. As explained in the Introduction, agricultural land outside this area is in principle free from all obligations imposed on the Land. (Exceptions are discussed in Chapter 2, Halakhah 1 and, for the Tithe of the Poor only, in Tractates Ma‘serot and Ševiït.) and further on¹⁷ it is free from demay.” Is not from Akhzib and further on no difference between demay and certainty? Here also there is no difference between demay and certainty¹⁸.

footnotes: ¹⁶ A place whose ruins are on the seashore, just South of the Lebanese border, mentioned in Jos ¹⁷ To the North, into Phoenician territory. ¹⁸ Certainty that no tithes were given.

A baraita¹⁹ 1:1: “The easy ones for demay,shitin, lotus fruit, and the fruit of the service tree, may be trusted everywhere to be free (from obligation of tithes), but if they are kept in storage they are obligated.” disagrees with Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: “If they were kept in storage they are obligated.” Did they not essentially come from abandoned property? He explains it, if most people keep them in storage²⁰. Come and see, if most people keep them in storage, it is everybody’s opinion²¹ that they are obligated, be it demay or certain. If most people do not keep them in storage, it is everybody’s opinion that they are free, be it demay or certain. Half and half you cannot consider²² since we have stated²³ 2:10: “If someone finds produce on the road, if most people store it in their houses, it is free” (since, then, everybody must give heave and tithes at his barn and the few things lost on the road are included,) “if most people transport it to sell on the market, it is obligated” (since the seller may nibble from it occasionally without tithes and the future buyer, who has no relationship to the harvester, is obligated for tithes,) “half and half is demay.” Hence, there seems to be no way to relax the standard for a fifty-fifty doubt.: “Half and half is demay.” Rebbi Zeïra said, not only the easy ones for demay but even demay itself²⁴ does not deal with our case, but with commercial produce; hence, it has no implications here and we may reduce the difference between R. Joḥanan and R. Simeon ben Laqish to this particular case..

footnotes: ¹⁹ Tosephta Demay ²⁰ At such a place, nobody abandons the fruits and they are not free from tithes. ²¹ Both R. Joḥanan and R. Simeon ben Laqish. ²² This would be the only practical point of difference between R. Joḥanan, who frees the fruits from tithes, and R. Simeon ben Laqish, who submits them to tithes. ²³ Mishnah Makhshirin ²⁴ The Mishnah Makhshirin

It was stated²⁵: If one enters a town inhabited mostly by Gentiles, if there is a doubt whether the majority keep them in storage²⁶ or not, everybody agrees²⁷ everywhere, even outside the Land of Israel, since usually these are produce of the Land. There R. Joḥanan asserts that the requirement to treat them as demay equally applies to fruits bought from Gentiles or from Jews, but R. Eleazar only treats produce bought from Jews as demay and insists that produce bought from Gentiles is certainly not in order and one also has to give the heave. Everybody agrees with R. Meïr that Gentile ownership of land in the domain settled by the returnees from Babylonia does not free the land from the obligation of heaves and tithes, against the ruling of the Babli (cf. Peah, Chapter 4, Notes 129–131). “Everybody” referred to here, however, are R. Joḥanan and R. Simeon ben Laqish, whose disagreement is explained in a second case. that they are obligated, be it demay or certain²⁸ always for R. Joḥanan, certain for R. Eleazar if bought from a Gentile. Even these are “easy ones”, since the Gentiles certainly did not give heave and tithes; the twofold doubt which is the basis of the leniencies of demay, as explained in the Introduction, does not apply. There is only a single doubt, viz., whether the produce is obligated for tithes or not, and this, being of Biblical origin, must in case of doubt be resolved in a restrictive way.. If one enters a town inhabited mostly by Jews, if there is a doubt whether the majority keep them in storage or not, everybody agrees that they are free, be it demay or certain²⁹. If there is any doubt whether there is a majority of Gentiles or a majority of Jews, that is the disagreement between Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish.

footnotes: ²⁵ As R. M. Margalit points out, this passage seems to be Amoraic, not Tannaitic as usually associated with the expression “stated.” ²⁶ The kinds mentioned in the Mishnah. ²⁷ In Halakhah 2:1, in reference to a list in the Mishnah about produce that must be treated as demay ²⁸ Demay ²⁹ As explained in the preceding paragraph.

These³⁰ are the shitim: Rebbi Simeon, the son of Rebbi Abba³¹: Those appearing under the leaves.

footnotes: ³⁰ Here starts the detailed discussion of the Mishnah. ³¹ In the Rome manuscript: R. Ayvu. However, R. Ayvu was a later aggadic preacher and nothing is known of his family. R. Simeon bar Abba was a Galilean scholar of the second generation, a relative of Samuel of Nahardea; he was a great scholar and always very poor. When Nahardea was destroyed by Odenatus, two of Samuel’s daughters were taken captive and redeemed in Galilee. R. Simeon bar Abba married first one, then after the early death of his wife the other, who also died soon.

“³² 1:3: “Early and late fruits in a garden are obligated; on the field they are exempt. These are the early fruits, before one appoints a watchman, the late fruits, after they folded up the mats. Rebbi Illaï said in the name of Rebbi Eliezer, the early ones are obligated because of an assumption that they are being watched.” Early³³ and late fruits are exempt. These are the early fruits, before one appoints a watchman.” But does this depend on the watchman³⁴? Rebbi Yose said, if they are not worth the attention of a watchman. “These are the late fruits, after they folded up the mats³⁵. Rebbi Illaï said in the name of Rebbi Eliezer, the early ones are obligated because of an assumption that they are being watched³⁶..” Rebbi Yose ben Ḥalaphta said, shitin in Sepphoris are obligated because of an assumption that they are watched³⁷.

footnotes: ³² Tosephta Demay ³³ They are ripe before there is a market for them. The late ones are unripe at harvest time, so they are abandoned on the field. Here one speaks of valuable fruits, not those mentioned in the Mishnah. ³⁴ Since it is an individual decision, it is not a legal standard. ³⁵ To store the fruits on the field, to shield them from dirt and dust before they are transported to the farmhouse. ³⁶ Since there always is a market for primeurs ³⁷ Probably, to make vegetable rennet. This statement is also Tannaitic; it is not in our Tosephta but may come from a Yerushalmi version of the Tosephta.

If the fig harvest was finished and he watches his field because of grapes, grape harvest and he watches his field because of vegetables, if a worker enters there and the owner is offended, they are forbidden because of robbery³⁸ 3:12 and Babli Pesaḥim 6b, but it deals with the obligation to give tithes.) By Biblical ordinance (Deut. 23:25), a worker is entitled to eat from the produce he is harvesting. This implies that without the owner’s consent he cannot eat from produce he is not harvesting. Hence, if the owner objects to his workers going through those parts of his property that are already harvested, the owner retains all property rights to the unripe produce still standing on the field and, a fortiori, the unripe produce is not abandoned, may not be taken by other people, and is not freed from the obligations of heave and tithes..

footnotes: ³⁸ (There is a similar text in Tosephta Ma’serot

Ulla bar Ismael³⁹ in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Rebbi and Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Jehudah⁴⁰ entered to eat of late fruits; the watchman shouted at them, and Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Jehudah stopped. Rebbi told him: eat, because the owners already gave up their expectations for them⁴¹! Rebbi Joḥanan asked: He shouted, and you say so⁴² of the previous paragraph bars people from taking late fruits if they are guarded. How could Rebbi permit taking these fruits?? Rebbi Jonah said, he objects rightfully. But does not a Mishnah disagree: “⁴³ 3:9. The plants mentioned are weeds used as spices. If they are close to the house and tended, they are kitchen herbs and as private property obligated for tithes. In all other circumstances, they are treated as weeds and free from heave and tithes. Calamint, hyssop, and thyme in the courtyard are obligated if they are tended.” Hence, in the garden they are free even if they are watched. There⁴⁴ to his case., he may say, the entire world is before you, but here, there is one basketful and I am watching it for my employer.

footnotes: ³⁹ In the Babli, he is simply called Ulla. A student of R. Joḥanan, he was a frequent traveller to Babylonia and an important link between the Galilean and Babylonian sages. He died during one of his trips there. ⁴⁰ A son of R. Jehudah bar Illaï, constant companion of Rebbi, and influential in the composition of the Mishnah. ⁴¹ יאוש is the technical term for giving up hope to regain a lost article. Rebbi seems to imply that the law made them give up hope. (Arabic איאס “giving up hope”.) ⁴² The baraita ⁴³ Ma’serot ⁴⁴ Spice-weeds are everywhere but late fruits are watched; Rebbi was in error when he applied the ruling of the Mishnah in Ma’serot

It was stated⁴⁵ 1:1. The next sentence there reads: “But the Sages say, they are free as long as they do not ferment; once they start to ferment they are obligated.” Fermented dates are used for date wine.: “Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Jehudah says, fallen dates sold with regular dates are free⁴⁶. “Obligated” means that they fall under both kinds of laws. The reading “free” is in all Yerushalmi manuscripts except that of R. S. Cirillo, but the latter most probably represents an emendation by its author. In all Tosephta texts, the reading is “obligated.” Since the reading is “free” in both the Leyden and the Rome manuscripts, it must be very old. Nevertheless, it must represent a scribal error, and the reading must be “obligated;” otherwise the statement would be superfluous and contradicting the following discussion..” Is it about two boxes, one beside the other or one on top of the other⁴⁷? No, here we deal with a mixed bunch. Did they start to ferment⁴⁸ or did they not start to ferment? Rebbi Mana said, we deal with fermenting ones. If they started to ferment, they should be obligated for themselves⁴⁹ even if not mixed with good dates.! You cannot say that, since Rebbi Joḥanan said, the Sages detailed them because the majority of these kinds are collected only from abandoned property⁵⁰. Rebbi Ḥanina said, we deal with nonfermenting ones. If we deal with nonfermenting ones they should be free even when mixed⁵¹. You cannot say that, since it was stated⁵²: “Rebbi Ismael ben Rebbi Yose said in his father’s name that a bunch of grapes of which one berry ripened, is all connected for tithes⁵³.” Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, Rebbi Zeïra and Rebbi Illaï, one adopted the first opinion, the other the second opinion. But the Sages say one does not follow either of them; those fermenting are obligated, those not fermenting are free⁵⁴ 13:1). The statement of the Mishnah is qualified to apply only to dates that are so devoid of sugar that they do not ferment..

footnotes: ⁴⁵ Tosephta Demay ⁴⁶ “Free” means not under the laws of either heave and tithes or those of demay ⁴⁷ Is it restricted to a case where the buyer can directly check what he is getting (if good and fallen dates are in separate boxes)? ⁴⁸ In that case, the fallen dates can be used to make date liquor and are commercially valuable. If they are fallen and did not start to ferment probably they are not sweet enough to qualify as human food and are valueless. ⁴⁹ And subject to demay ⁵⁰ Abandoned property is exempt even if valuable. ⁵¹ Since they have no value. ⁵² This statement does not appear in any other collection. ⁵³ One good grape makes the entire bunch subject to the laws of heave and tithes. Hence, one good fruit in a box makes the entire box subject to the laws of heave and tithes. ⁵⁴ An adaptation of the Tosephta text quoted at the start of this paragraph, turned into a statement of Amoraic practice, adopted by Maimonides (Maäser

Gufnān is šāmērāh⁵⁵. What is the difference between Judea and Galilee? Since one has a popular saying in Galilee: šāmērāh,šĕmar mārāh (its owner should watch it), would anybody compare it to spices⁵⁶? That means, in Galilee it is free but in Judea it is obligated.

footnotes: ⁵⁵ Arabic שַמרַה, fennel. ⁵⁶ That a weed can be used in the kitchen does not make it a spice. Hence, in Galilee where fennel grows wild, it is not a cultivated plant, in contrast to arid Judea where it needs tending.

Coriander is kusbārātā⁵⁷. What is the difference between Judea and Galilee? Since one has a popular saying in the South: Coriander is kusbārātā⁵⁸ for a guide, this form means wild growing adiantum (or it may mean kuzbarat alṯalab, pimpernel, kuzbarat ḵaḍra’, chervil, kuzbarat alṣaḵr, haircap-moss, kuzbarat alḥamām, Fumaria officinalis). Kusbārātā is not considered cultivated., would anybody compare it to spices? That means, in Galilee it is obligated but in Judea it is free.

footnotes: ⁵⁷ Formally, the feminine form of the word for coriander, but, as seen in the next Note, denoting a weed. ⁵⁸ Taking the Arabic kuzbara(t)

It was stated: “Rebbi Jehudah said, in earlier times, vinegar in Judea was exempt from tithes. Since they made all their wine in purity for Temple offerings⁵⁹, it never got sour; they made vinegar from the skins of grapes. But now, since wine turns sour⁶⁰ 1:2: “In earlier times, vinegar was exempt in Jehudah since it was presumed to be made from after-wine, but now it is presumed to be from wine and is obligated.”, it is obligated.” The argument of Rebbi Jehudah is inverted since we stated there⁶¹ 5:6.: “If one makes after-wine and puts in a given volume of water, if he finds exactly the same volume it is free, but Rebbi Jehudah obligates him⁶²..” And here he says so! Rebbi La said, in earlier times when grapes were plentiful, their skins were not counted as anything⁶³, but now that grapes are not plentiful, the skins are important.

footnotes: ⁵⁹ In the time of the Second Temple, all wine and oil for the Temple had to come from Judea since the two blocks of Jewish settlement, Judea and Galilee, were not contiguous. Hence it was impossible to transport wine or oil from Galilee to Judea without passing over impure Gentile territory, since even Samaritan Samaria was separated from Galilee by a strip of land occupied by Gentiles. ⁶⁰ Wine-vinegar is really wine turned sour; it is subject to all rules of wine. A similar anonymous statement appears in Tosephta Demay ⁶¹ Mishnah Ma‘serot ⁶² According to the first Tanna, after-wine is water which absorbed some taste from the grape skins. According to Rebbi Jehudah, it is wine mixed with water. Since they always drank their wine mixed with water, this is regular wine and subject to its rules. This contradicts Rebbi Jehudah’s statement in the earlier baraita ⁶³ Afterwine was worthless and thus not subject to tithes; now it is traded as merchandise.

Rebbi Huna said: Rebbi Jeremiah asked, does this not contradict Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish⁶⁴ in all these cases.? Should not all lotus fruit be more than the lotus fruit of Shiqmana, should they not be free? Rebbi Yose said, explain it at a place where most people store it⁶⁵. Rebbi Yose the Great⁶⁶ asked: Is not the entire world before him, should not all lotus fruit be more than the lotus fruit of this place and be free?

footnotes: ⁶⁴ This question seems directed both to the problem of vinegar just discussed and the statement of R. Jehudah in the Mishnah, that all lotus fruit is exempt except that of Shiqmana, since R. Jehudah and the anonymous Tosephta exempt all vinegar, even when it is known not to have been tithed. Similarly, a doubt whether lotus fruit is valued at some place should not make them obligated since there still is a twofold doubt: perhaps these fruits come from another place, and if they do come from Shiqmana, perhaps they are not gathered to be stored. This is exactly the case in which R. Simeon ben Laqish declares them to be free. There is no problem for R. Joḥanan since he equates the rules for untithed and demay ⁶⁵ Not only do they store it but, since it is an object of trade only at this place. There is no doubt that the fruits in question are local. ⁶⁶ Not known otherwise. Possibly it should read: Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi X. But the second name is also missing in the Rome manuscript. The question is not answered.

MISHNAH: Demay⁶⁷ is not subject to a fifth⁶⁸. 27:31). This does not apply to the Second Tithe of Demay. or to elimination⁶⁹. 26:13)., it may be eaten by a strict mourner⁷⁰. 26:14). Since the Second Tithe of demay does not have the sanctity of Second Tithe, it is not deemed subject to that prohibition., it may enter Jerusalem and leave it⁷¹ 3:5. [According to Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel, all Second Tithe may leave Jerusalem. In the Babli (Baba Meẓia‘ 54b) the prohibition is given rabbinic character only. Maimonides (Maäser Šeni 2:9) restricts this part of the Mishnah to demay itself, not the Second Tithe taken from demay, on the basis of a discussion in tractate Maäser Šeni 3:4, as explained by the commentators of Maimonides.], and one may destroy a small part of it on the road⁷²; he may give it to the am haäreẓ if he eats correspondingly⁷³ is a person who cannot be presumed to eat his food, other than sacrifices, in ritual purity; cf. the definition of am haäreẓ in the Introduction. The Second Tithe is not a sacrifice but nevertheless must be eaten in ritual purity (Deut. 24:16); hence, genuine Second Tithe may not be shared with the am haäreẓ. For the Second Tithe of demay, if it is too little for a meal, the owner may give that to the am haäreẓ in preference to have it entirely wasted, but nevertheless the owner has to spend of his own money to buy pure food in the same amount to eat in purity (Maimonides Maäser Šeni3:9)., he may redeem silver for silver, copper for copper, silver for copper⁷⁴. 14:25); it may not be redeemed in copper, neither may the silver be exchanged for copper. [As a matter of practice, it is permitted to exchange silver coins for gold coins to reduce their weight (Maäser Šeni 2:7).], and copper for produce⁷⁵ if he again redeems the produce, the words of Rebbi Meïr. But the Sages say, produce should be brought up and eaten in Jerusalem.

footnotes: ⁶⁷ The subject is the Second Tithe. How far the Mishnah might be applicable to the heave of the tithe will be discussed in the Halakhah. ⁶⁸ If the Second Tithe is redeemed by money so that the produce itself becomes profane, one fifth (from above, a quarter from below) must be added (Lev ⁶⁹ The Second Tithe must be consumed at the latest during the year when the Tithe of the Poor is due, i. e., the tithes of years 1, 2 of the Sabbatical cycle must be eaten before the end of year 3, those of years 4,5 by the end of year 6 (Deut ⁷⁰ The אונן, the strict mourner, is a close relative of a deceased person from the time of death to the end of the day of burial when he must concentrate on the duties of burial and is excluded from all other religious rites (Deut ⁷¹ Genuine Second Tithe may not leave Jerusalem after having entered but must be consumed there. This is the position of the anonymous Tanna in Mishnah Maäser Šeni ⁷² Genuine Second Tithe must be brought to Jerusalem intact. The Halakhah will define “small part”. ⁷³ The am haäreẓ ⁷⁴ Genuine Second Tithe must be redeemed with silver coins (Deut ⁷⁵ Outside of Jerusalem; R. Meïr permits these vegetables to be redeemed again; the Sages require them to be eaten in Jerusalem. By contrast, everybody agrees that it is possible to exchange coins many times for other coins.

HALAKHAH: Not following the High Priest Joḥanan who abolished the declaration of tithes⁷⁷ 5:13: “The High Priest Joḥanan removed the declaration of tithes.” Since at the return from Babylonia the priests returned en masse but almost no Levites came, the returnees decreed to give the First Tithe to the Cohen (who automatically also is a Levite.) The declaration of tithes, to be recited when the Second Tithe was brought to Jerusalem, is Deut. 26:13–14: “You shall say before the Eternal, your God: I have eliminated the holy matter from my house, I gave it to the Levite (the First Tithe), the stranger, the orphan, and the widow (the Tithe of the Poor), following all Your ordinances that You commanded me, I did not transgress Your ordinances and I did not forget. I did not eat from it in my strict mourning, I did not eliminate it (by eating) in impurity, I did not give of it to the dead. I listened to the voice of the Eternal, my God, I did all that You commanded me.” The High Priest found it inappropriate to declare that tithes were given to the Levite when in fact they went to the Cohen.. He abolished the declaration but one still has to eliminate, i. e., eliminate the sure tithes. But demay one does not have to eliminate⁷⁸.

footnotes: ⁷⁷ Mishnah Maäser Šeni ⁷⁸ There is no contradiction to the Mishnah in Maäser Šeni.

It was stated: It may be eaten in strict mourning but not in impurity. What is the difference between strict mourning and impurity? Rav Naḥman said, impurity is frequent, strict mourning is infrequent. They made a decree for a frequent situation, they did not decree for an infrequent situation⁸⁰56b, Nazir 55a.. Rebbi Yose said, they did not even make it similar to a doubt of ṭevel⁸¹ is defined in Peah, Chapter 1, Note 303. Produce that may be Ṭevel must be treated as if the holy parts were still in it.. Since for a doubt of ṭevel, whether Second Tithe was given in order, or maybe Second Tithe was not given in order, is that not forbidden for the strict mourner⁸²? But here, it is permitted to the mourner.

footnotes: ⁸⁰ This principle is also invoked several times in the Babli, cf. Ketubot ⁸¹ Ṭevel ⁸² Since a doubt in matters of Biblical prohibitions always must be treated as prohibition.

There, we have stated⁸³‘ 3:7. The Mishnah enumerates five cases in which one has to add a fifth to the redemption money.: “Heave, the heave of the tithe, and the heave of the tithe of demay.” And here you say so⁸⁴, it would be an obvious contradiction of one Mishnah against the other.! Rebbi Zeïra said, there we have stated heave of the tithe of demay but here Second Tithe of demay⁸⁵. Rebbi Immi said, the Mishnah does not stop to deal with the heave of the tithe of demay. What is that? There it is Rebbi Meïr, but here the rabbis⁸⁶. Rebbi Zeïra said in the name of the rabbis⁸⁷: It would have been logical that for the heave of the tithe of demay one would not have to add a fifth⁸⁸ as stated in the Mishnah.; why did they say that one has to add a fifth? Because of a fence for it⁸⁹ 1:1). Babylonian גזירה “rabbinic ordinance” is a derivative of Galilean גדירה “fence”, z for ð., for if you tell him that he does not have to add, he will not treat it as holy. It would have been logical that for the Second Tithe of demay one would have to add a fifth⁹⁰; why did they say that one does not have to add a fifth? Because of a fence for it, for if you tell him that he has to add, he will not separate it at all⁹¹, in contrast to the First Tithe and the tithe of the poor, since the Second Tithe will not burden the buyer. Anything that makes it burdensome (and, in the absence of the Temple, when the coin used for redemption has to be destroyed, also costly) will cause people to ignore their duty..

footnotes: ⁸³ Mishnah Baba Meẓia ⁸⁴ If the Mishnah here also deals with the heave of the tithe of demay ⁸⁵ The Mishnah does not deal with heave at all. ⁸⁶ Usually, an anonymous Mishnah gives the opinion of R. Meïr. R. Immi asserts that as an exception, this Mishnah does not. ⁸⁷ He gives the argument to support his own position. Since it is undisputed, it represents practice. ⁸⁸ Since one does not add a fifth for demay ⁸⁹ Rabbinic ordinances are always described as “a fence around the Law” (Mishnah Abot ⁹⁰ If one adds one for the heave of the tithe, since the Second Tithe also has to be consumed in purity. ⁹¹ One requires the separation of Second Tithe of demay

Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya asked before Rebbi La⁹³: Why demay and not also what is certain⁹⁴., why a little bit, maybe the greater part? Did we not state: One does not bring the heave from the threshing floor to town, nor from the prairie to cultivated land⁹⁵, except in a place where [an animal⁹⁶] would drag it away; in that case he brings it and takes money from the tribe⁹⁷.. He⁹⁸ said to him, is it not a commandment to return a find? Rebbi Yose said, it is a commandment to return a find in small matters⁹⁹; it is not a commandment to return in large matters, except if it is certain; it is not a commandment to return demay since we have stated: “one may destroy a small part of it on the road”. So far, if he had no money in hand¹⁰⁰. If he had money in hand? Rebbi Neḥumai¹⁰¹, the son of Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba, said, my father had money in a double sack¹⁰² p. 319. and he did not redeem. It turns out that Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba holds with Rebbi Zeïra¹⁰³ to go to waste, he explains the Mishnah here to refer exclusively to Second Tithe. Since in the times of R. Ḥiyya bar Abba heave already had to be burned because all Cohanim were ritually impure in the absence of the ashes of the red heifer, the reference could not possibly be to heave. and Rebbi Aḥa¹⁰⁴ by the duty of conserving other people’s property in the same way as something found. Hence, R. La accepts that the Mishnah here also speaks of the heave of the tithe of demay, as proposed by R. Immi. with Rebbi Immi.

footnotes: ⁹³ Here starts the discussion of the Mishnah: “one may destroy a small part of it on the road.” The question is again whether this refers only to the Second Tithe or also to the heave of the tithe. It seems that the same interpretation given to the question of the fifth applies here also. ⁹⁴ Heave or Second Tithe, which are unquestionably holy, being given straight from the harvest, or on information that the produce is still ṭevel ⁹⁵ The recipient of heave is required to collect it where it is due and remove it himself. ⁹⁶ While there is no direct manuscript evidence, it seems that היתה גררתה is a misspelling for חיה גררתה. The reading היתה is an old one since R. Simson of Sens reads היתה גדודתה and explains “it was in danger of armies (or groups of robbers).” גררתה seems to be the better reading. ⁹⁷ The Cohen who took the heave has to pay the cost of transportation. The question presupposes that the Mishnah also applies to the heave of the tithe from demay ⁹⁸ Rebbi La to Rebbi Abun. If the heave is abandoned until some Cohen will come to pick it up, it probably will be lost. ⁹⁹ If presenting the heave to the Cohen involves little effort and little expenditure, one is certainly obligated to hand over the heave to the Cohen to prevent it from being lost. However, if the effort or expenditure were large, one has no such obligation. (Explanation of R. Eliahu Wilna.) ¹⁰⁰ If someone has difficulty handling the Second Tithe, rather than let some of it get lost as authorized in the Mishnah, would it not be better to have the owner redeem it for money which will not get spoiled or lost? Should we restrict the Mishnah to the most unlikely case where the owner has no money for redemption? ¹⁰¹ Nothing else is known about him. Neḥumai is a Babylonian name; the family of R. Ḥiyya bar Abba was Babylonian. ¹⁰² Byzantine Greek δισάκκιον “double sack”, hanging down on both sides of a donkey; cf. Berakhot ¹⁰³ Since he permits the Second Tithe of demay ¹⁰⁴ Since Rebbi Aḥa is not mentioned in the entire Halakhah, this must be a scribal error for Rebbi La, who explains the Mishnah in Baba Meẓia‘

In the house of Rebbi Yannai they said, if it is in crumbs one is permitted to waste in amounts less than a meal¹⁰⁵, but whole foods only up to the volume of a dried fig. Rebbi Joḥanan in the name of R. Simeon ben Yoẓadaq: If it is whole, up to the volume of a dried fig, in crumbs any amount¹⁰⁶. Is that their difference? Rebbi Mana said, is not the following their difference: In the house of Rebbi Yannai they said, if it is in crumbs one is permitted to waste in amounts less than a meal, whole foods only up to the volume of a dried fig. Rebbi Joḥanan in the name of R. Simeon ben Yoẓadaq, whether it be whole or in crumbs, up to the volume of a dried fig.

footnotes: ¹⁰⁵ Generally taken to be the volume of a chicken egg. ¹⁰⁶ In this version, R. Joḥanan is more lenient than the House of R. Yannai; in the alternative version he is more restrictive. Maimonides interprets “up to” as “less than,” R. Abraham ben David as “not more than.”

Rebbi Hoshaia asked: May one allow a small amount to go to waste¹⁰⁷ or does he have the right to directly throw it away? (R. Eliahu Fulda and his followers change לאבד into להפריש, “to separate”, but this emendation is unnecessary.) Since the question is not answered it should be answered in the negative (Maimonides Maäser Šeni 3:9, with concurrence of R. Abraham ben David.)? One may give it to the am haäreẓ and eat from demay accordingly. But not for certain food¹⁰⁸, since one does not hand over certain food to the am haäreẓ.

footnotes: ¹⁰⁷ If one has to give only a small amount, less than the volume of a dried fig, and he has no other use for it, may he give it to the am haäreẓ ¹⁰⁸ Food for which it is certain that it has to be consumed in ritual purity.

MISHNAH: He who buys as seeds or animal fodder, flour for tanning, oil for lighting, or oil to rub on vessels¹⁰⁹, since rubbing on is everywhere equated to drinking., is free from demay¹¹⁰. From Akhzib and further he is free from demay¹¹¹. Ḥallah¹¹² of the am haäreẓ, food containing heave¹¹³. 22:28., food bought with money of the Second Tithe, and the remainders of flour sacrifices¹¹⁴ was never intended as it would make no sense. are free from demay. Sweet oil¹¹⁵, the House of Shammai declare it obligated but the House of Hillel declare it free.

footnotes: ¹⁰⁹ However, oil used as lotion is subject to demay ¹¹⁰ The obligation of heave and tithes falls only on foodstuffs, not on industrial materials. ¹¹¹ Explained in Halakhah 1. ¹¹² The heave of the dough made for bread, which is given to the Cohen. ¹¹³ Which either has to be consumed by the priest or heave has to be taken from it as certain heave. Heave is called דמע in Ex ¹¹⁴ The offering of a handful for the altar was taken and the rest eaten by male Cohanim in the Temple precinct under the strict rules of sacrifices. For all of these, demay ¹¹⁵ Perfumed oil for the House of Shammai is a lotion, for the House of Hillel it is a perfume. Cf. Note 155.

HALAKHAH: Since he bought it as seeds there is no difference whether it is something of which the seed disappears or something of which the seed does not disappear¹¹⁶ 9:5).. Rebbi Johanan said, we have stated this¹¹⁷ 1:18, the first part of the statement discussed in the next paragraph.: “If he bought as seeds and then changed his mind to use them for consumption, they enter¹¹⁸ by his thought. by thought. If he bought for consumption and then changed his mind to use them as seeds, not all is from him¹¹⁹ but cannot remove it..”

footnotes: ¹¹⁶ In contrast to certain heave, where seeds which do not disappear in the new growth never lose their status as heave (Mishnah Terumot ¹¹⁷ Tosephta Demay ¹¹⁸ They enter into the obligation of demay ¹¹⁹ Meaning, nothing results from his thought; his intentions may introduce the obligation of demay

It was stated¹²¹ 1:18: “One does not sow ṭevel, nor does one cover ṭevel; one does not work ṭevel with a Gentile. A Jew who forgot and sowed ṭevel, before it sprouted he is obligated, after it sprouted he is free because it already is lost.” The language of the Yerushalmi (Rome ms.) is preferable; since if one does not work on ṭevel with a Gentile, it is obvious that one cannot do it alone. [Maimonides (Maäser 3:6) omits the mention of the Gentile, possibly because of the two contradictory sources.]: One does not sow ṭevel, one may not cover ṭevel¹²², but one covers ṭevel with a Gentile¹²³. If one forgot and sowed ṭevel, he is free¹²⁴, for it is already lost if it is something that usually is not collected; but for something that usually is collected¹²⁵, he is fined to collect it before it sprouts. But if it sprouted, it turns into something that usually is not collected.

footnotes: ¹²¹ Tosephta Demay ¹²² Produce lying on the ground (or in a ditch) may not be covered with earth before heaves have been given. ¹²³ In joint ownership. ¹²⁴ From giving heave and tithes from the seeds, since they no longer exist. ¹²⁵ Which can be recovered from the soil in usable (edible) state. In that case, he must remove the produce from the soil, give heaves, and only then may he return the remainder to the ground.

They said that Rebbi Joḥanan was putting in order¹²⁶ was used in cooking, he gave heave of the tithe and redeemed the Second Tithe for everything. “Putting in order” everywhere means giving heave and tithes to permit the food for consumption. everything he ate, even red meat, even an egg. His students said to him: Did our teacher not teach us (Deut. 14:22): “You shall certainly tithe all the yield of your field¹²⁷.” He was worried about the fluids¹²⁸ in it.

footnotes: ¹²⁶ If anything of demay ¹²⁷ Excluding anything not vegetal. ¹²⁸ Wine and oils used in cooking; because of the part absorbed in the meat, he gave heave from everything.

Rebbi Jeremiah sent Rebbi Zeïra a basket of figs that were not put in order. Rebbi Jeremiah said to himself, would Rebbi Zeïra eat anything that was not put in order? Rebbi Zeïra said to himself, it is impossible that Rebbi Jeremiah would send me anything that was not put in order. In the meantime, ṭevel was eaten. The next day, when he was with him, he asked him: Was that basket you sent me put in order? He answered him, I said, would Rebbi Zeïra eat anything that was not put in order? He answered, I also said, would Rebbi Jeremiah send me anything that was not put in order¹³⁰ is automatically put in order by the rules of demay; this story extends the duty ofdemay to food from the observant unless there is a declaration.? Rebbi Abba bar Zemina¹³¹ said in the name of Rebbi Zeïra: If the earlier generations were angels, we are men; if they were men, we are donkeys¹³² 112b. The parallel is Šeqalim fol. 48c, Midrash Gen. rabba 60.. Rebbi Mana said, at that moment¹³³ was eaten and nobody suspected that it was not in order. they said, we are not even comparable to the she-ass of Rebbi Phineas ben Yaïr¹³⁴.

footnotes: ¹³⁰ The moral of the story is that among observant Jews it is necessary to spell out whether food is tithed or not. Food originating with the am haäreẓ ¹³¹ An Amora of the Fourth Generation, student of R. Zeïra. ¹³² Quoted in Babli Sabbat ¹³³ When ṭevel ¹³⁴ A Tanna of the Fifth Generation, son-in-law of R. Simeon bar Ioḥai. No halakhic statements of his are known. He is the paradigm of a holy man.

Thieves stole the she-ass of Rebbi Phineas ben Yaïr at night. She was hidden with them for three days during which she did not eat anything. After three days, they took counsel to return her to her master. They said, let us send her to her master lest she die with us and foul up the cave. They let her out; she stood at her master’s door and started braying. He said to them¹³⁶, open to that poor creature because for three days now she did not taste anything. They opened for her and she entered. He said to them, give her something to eat. They put oats before her but she did not eat. They said to him, rabbi, she does not want to eat. He asked them, did you put it in order? They said: Yes. He asked them, did you remove its demay? They said, did the rabbi not teach us: “He who buys for seeds or animals, flour for tanning, oil for lighting, or oil to rub vessels, is free from demay.” He said to them, what can we do with this poor creature since she is very restrictive for herself¹³⁷ 7a/b; the first part of the story is told of the she-ass of R. Ḥanina ben Dosa in Aboth de Rabbi Nathan, Version 1, end of Chapter 8. Both stories are referred to in Babli Šabbat112b. The Yerushalmi version is also in Gen. rabba 60.? They removed the demay and she ate.

footnotes: ¹³⁶ “He” is always R. Phineas, “they” his family and servants. ¹³⁷ The she-ass refused to eat anything she could not eat if she were a Jewish human. A Babylonian version of the second part of the story is in Babli Ḥulin

Two poor people entrusted two se’ah of barley to Rebbi Phineas ben Yaïr; he sowed them and harvested them. They came to him and wanted to take their barley. He said to them, bring camels and donkeys to carry their barley¹³⁸ 3(4). There, he replanted the crop for seven years..

footnotes: ¹³⁸ This story and the following one are told, in Hebrew, also in MidrashDeut. rabba

Rebbi Phineas ben Yaïr went to a place where they¹³⁹ came to him and said, rats are eating our grain. He commanded them¹⁴⁰; they assembled and started to whistle. He asked them, do you understand what they are saying? They said, no. He said to them, they say that it is not put in order. They said to him, be our guarantor. He promised¹⁴¹ and they had no further losses.

footnotes: ¹³⁹ The farmers of that place. ¹⁴⁰ The rats. ¹⁴¹ That the rats would leave if all tithes were taken. It is implied that the townspeople complied and correctly gave all heave and tithes.

A pearl of the king of Saracens¹⁴² fell and was swallowed by a rat. He came to Rebbi Phineas ben Yaïr, who said to him, am I a sorcerer? He answered, I came because of your good name. He commanded them¹⁴⁰; they assembled. He saw one coming that was hunchbacked. He said, it is in this one; he gave the rat a command and it spat out the pearl.

footnotes: ¹⁴² It is not clear whether Arabs were already called Saracens at that time; related words arc Arabic שרק “Eastern” and סרּאק “big robber.” ¹⁴⁰ The rats.

Rebbi Phineas ben Yaïr went to a place where they¹³⁹ came to him and said, our water source is not sufficient for us. He said to them, perhaps you do not put in order? They said to him, be our guarantor. He promised them¹⁴¹ and it became sufficient for them.

footnotes: ¹³⁹ The farmers of that place. ¹⁴¹ That the rats would leave if all tithes were taken. It is implied that the townspeople complied and correctly gave all heave and tithes.

Rebbi Phineas ben Yaïr went to the House of Assembly¹⁴³ when Ginai¹⁴⁴ 7a, probably Wadi Jenin. overflowed. He said: Ginai, Ginai, why do you prevent me from going to the House of Assembly? It split before him and he crossed it. His students asked him, may we cross also? He said to them, he who knows of himself that he never slighted a Jew may cross and will not be harmed.

footnotes: ¹⁴³ Probably the place at Ḥamat Gader at which the intercalation of months was decided. ¹⁴⁴ A river, called “river Ginai” in the Babli, Ḥulin

Rebbi wanted to permit the Sabbatical year¹⁴⁵ 4:2, Babli Sanhedrin26a, cf. Rashi there.) The parallel to the entire story is in Taäniot 3:1.. Rebbi Phineas ben Yaïr went to him. He said to him: how is the grain doing? He¹⁴⁶ answered him: endives¹⁴⁷ are doing fine. He said to him: how is the grain doing? He answered him: endives are doing fine. From this, Rebbi understood that he did not agree with him. He said to him: Would the rabbi care to eat a bite with me today? He said to him, yes. When he came, he saw the she-mules¹⁴⁸ 8:5, it is stated that a white mule’s kick is life-threatening. Hence, white mules should not be kept by Jews. of Rebbi standing. He said, are all these fed by Jews? He will not see me again! They went and told this to Rebbi. Rebbi sent and wanted to pacify him. They found him in his city. He said, the people of my city should come close to me. The people of his city came and surrounded him. They said to them, Rebbi wants to make peace with him. They left him and went away. He said, my cousins¹⁴⁹: “My sons.” should come close to me. Fire descended from Heaven and surrounded him. They returned and told Rebbi. He said, since we did not have merit to eat our fill from him in this world, may we be worthy to eat our fill from him in the World to Come.

footnotes: ¹⁴⁵ Since in the absence of a Temple and the distribution of land as ordered in the Torah, the Sabbatical year is observed as a Rabbinic ordinance, Rebbi wanted to allow cultivation of the land to help pay real estate taxes that were imposed irrespective of the yield. A generation later, R. Yannai did permit the cultivation of land for the payment of taxes and delivery of requisitioned produce to the Roman army (Yerushalmi Ševiït ¹⁴⁶ R. Phineas ben Yaïr. ¹⁴⁷ They are irrelevant for taxes or the army. ¹⁴⁸ Latin mulus. Yoma ¹⁴⁹ In Taäniot

Rebbi Ḥaggai in the name of Rebbi Samuel bar Naḥman¹⁵⁰ 5:2 and in slightly different form in Midrash Deut. rabba 3.: It happened that a pious person used to dig cisterns, ditches, and caves for travellers. Once, his daughter travelled to marry and she was swept away by a river. All people came to him and wanted to console him, but he refused to be consoled. Rebbi Phineas ben Yaïr came to him and wanted to console him, but he refused to be consoled. He told them, is that your pious man? They said to him: Rabbi, such and such he did, such and such happened to him. He replied: It is impossible that he would honor his Creator by water and He hurts him by water! Immediately, there started a rumor in the town that the pious man’s daughter had returned. Some say, she got trapped in a hedge of thorns, others say that an angel came in the appearance of Rebbi Phineas ben Yaïr and saved her.

footnotes: ¹⁵⁰ The text also appears in Šeqalim

Rebbi Ḥanina ben Dosa was sitting down to eat on Friday night when the table sank before him. They said to him¹⁵¹, what is that? She said to him, I borrowed spices from my neighbor and forgot to give tithes¹⁵² and Tosafot Yešenim to Yoma 87b. from it. He mentioned a condition¹⁵³ during the twilight hours of Friday night (Mishnah Sabbath2:6). The story is inserted to show that a just person will not stumble unwittingly over a prohibition. and the table rose by itself.

footnotes: ¹⁵¹ Since the Yerushalmi is notoriously inexact with genders and numbers, it might mean: He asked her (his wife). ¹⁵² It follows that the Yerushalmi requires tithing of spices, whereas the Babli requires it only when the spice may serve as food in itself; cf. Tosafot ¹⁵³ He mentioned the place from which he would give tithes after the Sabbath; this is an acceptable form of tithing of demay

Rebbi Tarphon sat down to eat when he dropped his bread. They asked him, what is this? He said to them, I borrowed an axe and I prepared food in purity with it¹⁵⁴.

footnotes: ¹⁵⁴ Apparently the axe was not ritually pure and the bread that was made impure by this fell before he could eat it. As a Pharisee, R. Tarphon ate all his food in purity.

“¹⁵⁵ 1:24. There, the text continues: “If one buys wine and oil to put on abscesses, black peas to make powder, they are subject to demay but R. Simeon ben Eleazar declares it free.” Wine for brine¹⁵⁶,muria, shortened from Greek ἁλμυρίς, ίδος, ἡ, “salty thing; salt land; saltiness” (E. G.)., wine for perfume¹⁵⁷, cf. Berakhot pp. 87, 510. According to the Babli (Šabbat 140 a) a mixture of olive oil, wine, and balsamum., legumes to make into powder¹⁵⁸ are subject to demay, not to mention if they are certain. They themselves¹⁵⁹ are free from demay.” Where are we standing? According to Rebbi, they should be subject to demay, according to Rebbi Eleazar ben Rebbi Simeon, even if certain they should be free¹⁶⁰ 11:1 (fol. 47c) “Wine of terumah {heave} to use for brine, Rebbi permits it {since the wine remains wine}, R. Eleazar ben R. Simeon forbids it {since it is a use of the heave not for direct consumption.} Hence, Rebbi forbids such brine for non-Cohanim {since the sanctity of the heave permeates all}, R. Simeon ben Eleazar permits it to non-Cohanim {since the wine has disappeared.}” Here also, if the wine etc. has disappeared, and if brine bought on the market is not subject to demay, for R. Eleazar ben R. Simeon even wine bought expressly for the production of brine cannot be subject to demay.. But we follow Rebbi, we say we are dealing with the easy ones, for which they eased the rules of demay.

footnotes: ¹⁵⁵ A similar text in Tosephta Demay ¹⁵⁶ Latin muries ¹⁵⁷ Latin olentia ¹⁵⁸ Pea or bean meal to be used as powder. ¹⁵⁹ If one buys them ready-made. ¹⁶⁰ The disagreement between Rebbi and R. Eleazar ben R. Simeon is stated in Terumot

“Wine for eye medication¹⁶¹ 1:25 reads: “He who buys wine to put into eye medication or flour to put into wound dressing, is free from demay and obligated if it is certain. They themselves are free from demay.” It seems that this is a Babylonian text., flour to make into wound dressing¹⁶², are obligated if they are certain and one does not have to mention that they are under the rules of demay. They themselves are free if certain.” Here you say, free if certain, and there¹⁶³ you say, free from demay. Here it disappears by itself, there it disappears when used.

footnotes: ¹⁶¹ Greek κολλύριον. The text in Tosephta Demay ¹⁶² Greek μάλαγμα. If wine and flour are produced, they are subject to the duties of heave and tithes, no matter what the final use is. But if one buys medication which definitely is not food, no obligation exists even if heave was not given from grain or wine. ¹⁶³ In the previous paragraph, where wine and flour are used for exempt foods, but foods nevertheless. In medication, wine and flour are denatured; in foods, only their status is changed.

Did we not state: “Eye medication from a pagan temple is forbidden to use?”¹⁶⁴ There is a difference, since it is written (Deut. 13:16): “Nothing banned should stick to your hands.” What is the difference between this and grape skins from Gentiles? Are these not also forbidden to use¹⁶⁵? But dried skins are not forbidden because of idolatrous use¹⁶⁶ 2:4, skins remaining after pressing grapes for wine are forbidden to use if moist but not if completely dry. The question is not answered, probably because the answer is obvious: totally dry eye medication is unusable..

footnotes: ¹⁶⁴ This implies that eye medication is valuable; why should it be free from heave and tithes? ¹⁶⁵ Since the pagan Gentile is assumed to have offered a libation from his newly pressed wine to his gods, all pagan wine is forbidden for any use whatsoever. (This is different from the prohibition to drink any Gentile wine, even from non-pagans.) ¹⁶⁶ As stated in Mishnah Avodah zarah

“¹⁶⁷ From Akhzib and further on it is free from demay.” What is the status of Akhzib itself? It was stated (Tosephta Demay 1:4): “Akhzib itself is free from demay.”

footnotes: ¹⁶⁷ Continuation of the discussion of the Mishnah.

“He who buys from a donkey caravan at Tyre and from the chest¹⁶⁸ 13:6). at Sidon is obligated¹⁶⁹ 1:10, the statement is inverted: “He who buys from a donkey caravan at Tyre and from the chest at Sidon is free, from the chest at Tyre and the donkey caravan at Sidon is obligated. R. Yose ben R. Jehudah says, he who buys from the chest at Tyre is free, and certainly from the donkey caravan. From one donkey driver at Tyre he is obligated. R. Jehudah says, the donkey caravan that descends to Akhzib is obligated because it may be assumed that it comes from Galilee. {If it “descends”, it comes either from Galilee or from Tyre.} But the Sages say, it is in its prior state, free until you have ascertained from where it comes.”.” Hence, from the donkey caravan at Sidon and from the chest at Tyre it is free. From a single donkey at Tyre¹⁷⁰ 13:6).. A donkey caravan that entered Tyre through Akhzib? Come and see, if it were standing at Akhziv it would be free, now that it entered Tyre would it be obligated?

footnotes: ¹⁶⁸ The drawer of a trader, who sells staple goods which may come from any nearby region that is a major producer, including Galilee. It seems that in Tyre, which is much closer to Galilee, Galilean grain was usually sold directly by the transporter who brought the grain, not by the local merchant (Maimonides Maäser ¹⁶⁹ Quote from a Tosephta. In our Tosephta, Demay ¹⁷⁰ The status is not indicated. Since the Yerushalmi contradicts the Tosephta the inference is that it is free (Maimonides Maäser

Rebbi Joḥanan said: When they decreed demay, they did not decree about these matters¹⁷¹ of the am haäreẓ, food containing heave, food bought with money of the Second Tithe, and the remainders of flour sacrifices are free from demay” were never included in a duty of demay; there is no need for an explanation why these are excluded.. Rebbi Hoshaia said, the fear of sacred things is on him and he will not give to the Cohen anything that is not in order¹⁷² even if the original decree did not mention this exclusion.. “Ḥallah of the am haäreẓ,” according to R. Hoshaia, the Mishnah deals with the ḥallah of an am haäreẓ. But a ḥaver who bought dough from an am haäreẓ and gave ḥallah is not covered¹⁷³, since his case is not mentioned in the Mishnah.. According to R. Joḥanan, the two cases are identical. “And food containing heave,” according to R. Hoshaia, the Mishnah deals with produce of an am haäreẓ. But if a ḥaver bought produce from an am haäreẓ and it became mixed with heave, he is not covered. According to R. Joḥanan, the two cases are identical. What is the difference between them¹⁷⁴? One seah that was lifted from among 100 seah¹⁷⁵., according to R. Joḥanan it is obligated, according to R. Hoshaia it is free.

footnotes: ¹⁷¹ The cases enumerated at the end of the Mishnah, “Ḥallah ¹⁷² Any one of these is connected with the Sanctuary and their consumption in violation of the rules is a deadly sin, the farmer’s sin if he tricks the Cohen into thinking that the produce was brought in order. Hence, it is rational to exclude these items from demay ¹⁷³ His heave of the tithes must include 10% of the amount given as ḥallah ¹⁷⁴ Is there a case where the difference is in the opposite direction, that R. Joḥanan requires putting in order and R. Hoshaia does not? ¹⁷⁵ If heave fell into profane food (of the same kind, so that the heave is no longer recognizable) the entire food becomes מדומע and is no longer usable by laymen. But if the volume of the profane food is at least 100 times that of the heave, one may lift food in the volume of the heave out of the mixture and declare this now to be the heave; the rest is profane and may be used by everybody. This is true only if the rest is truly profane food which may be used by everybody. Hence, before designating the lifted amount as heave, the owner has to be sure that the rest is profane, so he has to remove the heave of the tithe from it first. According to R. Hoshaia, the owner will do that, so that the remainder is in order even in the hands of the unobservant. R. Joḥanan does not accept the argument and any produce in the hands of the unobservant remains demay

It was stated: “All of these¹⁷⁶., if he gave a name to their heave of the tithe or Second Tithe, what he did is done.¹⁷⁷ 1:28 which, however, as noted by R. S. Lieberman, deals exclusively with matters of the Temple and, therefore, excludes the heave of the tithe.” According to R. Joḥanan, this is fine¹⁷⁸. According to R. Hoshaia, they are in order, and you say so¹⁷⁹? Because of one who is unscrupulous about sacred things¹⁸⁰. It was stated¹⁸¹ was found expressing the last argument.: “All of these, if he gave a name to their heave of the tithe or Second Tithe, what he did is done, because of one who does not put in order.”

footnotes: ¹⁷⁶ Mentioned in the Mishnah as not under the laws of demay ¹⁷⁷ A similar text is in Tosephta Demay ¹⁷⁸ He is not required to give, but if he gives there is no objection. ¹⁷⁹ Since one cannot give heave from produce that was already tithed and if he is sure the produce was tithed, he should declare that calling anything from it heave of the tithe is invalid. ¹⁸⁰ According to R. Hoshaia, his assertion is one of probability that the produce will be in order, so that one may base one’s actions on it, not of total certainty. ¹⁸¹ A baraita

Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya asked¹⁸² or also includes regular tithe. The answer is that all tithe money is exempt (R. Simson.) before Rebbi Ze'ira: So far with money of tithes of demay? Even if it is certain!

footnotes: ¹⁸² He asked whether the exemption of food bought with money of the Second Tithe refers only to money from demay

It¹⁸³ 2:8, fol. 63a, which is its main place. was stated: “All of these, if he gave a name to their heave of the tithe or Second Tithe, what he did is done.” Rebbi Eleazar said, with the exception of the remainders of flour sacrifices¹⁸⁴. Rebbi Jeremiah said, the rest is in dispute. Rebbi Yose asked, what dispute? Where are we standing, if according to Rebbi Meïr¹⁸⁵ 2:8: “If a priest marries by his share in the holiest sacrifices or simple holy sacrifices, the marriage is not valid. With Second Tithes, be it with or without knowledge, the marriage is not valid, the words of R. Meïr. Rebbi Jehudah said, if in error, the marriage is not valid, if with knowledge, the marriage is valid.” In order to marry, the groom has to give the bride something valuable of his property while declaring before two witnesses that by accepting the gift she is married to him (cf. Peah Chapter 6, Note 46). Rebbi Meïr declares that holiest sacrifices, the Cohen’s share of simple sacrifices, and the Second Tithe are all Heaven’s property offered, as the case may be, to the Cohen, his family, or the layman and his family for consumption in Jerusalem. Hence, for R. Meïr, the basic conditions for a valid marriage are not satisfied., both for tithes and for the remainders of flour sacrifices, he did not do anything. If according to Rebbi Jehudah¹⁸⁶, Chapter 7, Note 135., what he did is done. Rebbi Mana said, I went to Caesarea and heard Rebbi Ḥizqiah who was sitting there, stating: “If a priest marries by means of his share in the holiest sacrifices or simple holy sacrifices, the marriage is not valid.” Rebbi Eleazar said, that is everybody’s opinion. Rebbi Joḥanan said, it is in dispute¹⁸⁷. I said to him, from whom did the rabbi hear this, and he said, from Rebbi Jeremiah. I said, this explains the matter! Rebbi Jeremiah, who heard that Rebbi Eleazar said, it is everybody’s opinion, he says it is in dispute¹⁸⁸ to Demay.. Rebbi Yose, who did not hear that, asked which dispute? If according to Rebbi Meïr, both for Second Tithe and for the remainders of flour sacrifices, he did not do anything, if according to Rebbi Jehudah, what he did is done.

footnotes: ¹⁸³ The entire paragraph is also in Qiddušin ¹⁸⁴ Since the flour sacrifice must be eaten by male priests in the Temple precinct but heave of the tithe can be eaten by all members of the Cohen’s family anywhere, it is clear that strict sanctity cannot be replaced by a less stringent one. ¹⁸⁵ The dispute is in Mishnah Qiddušin ¹⁸⁶ R. Jehudah agrees that under normal circumstances, Second Tithe in Jerusalem cannot be redeemed. However, since it must be redeemed if it became ritually impure, it can also be redeemed unlawfully. His position is explained in Peah ¹⁸⁷ Rebbi Jehudah states that the Cohen’s share of the sacrifices is his personal property. Hence, at least as far as simple sacrifices are concerned, the woman becomes his wife through the marriage and can legally consume the meat given to her. In that case, R. Jehudah also asserts that Second Tithe is always the owner’s property, even before redemption. However, it cannot be used as a marriage gift as is since there is a lien on it that it should be used only for consumption, and that lien must first be removed by redemption. ¹⁸⁸ Transferring R. Joḥanan’s opinion from the Mishnah in Qiddušin

It was stated¹⁸⁹1:26–27. As R. S. Lieberman points out, it follows that putting some (not too much) natural perfume in oil does not make the oil unfit for human consumption even though it is destined for rubbing into the skin.: Rebbi Jehudah said, the House of Hillel freed only spikenard oil¹⁹⁰, cf. Pliny, Hist. Nat. XIII, 2.. Others say in the name of Rebbi Nathan, the House of Hillel obligated oil perfumed with rose or iris¹⁹¹.

footnotes: ¹⁸⁹ This is the discussion of the last statement in the Mishnah. A different text, in the name of R. Nathan and not mentioning iris, is Tosephta Demay ¹⁹⁰ Latin foliatum ¹⁹¹ Greek ἴρινον “made from the iris”.

MISHNAH: With demay, one may make eruv¹⁹² (“mixing”) on the Sabbath. If many houses open into a common courtyard, in order to carry from the houses to the courtyard it is necessary to turn the courtyard into common property. This is done by putting into the courtyard some food to which all houses contributed. The second kind is “mixing of domains”, explained in Peah, Chapter 8, Note 56., participate¹⁹³ in giving food for a common meal. Since the rules for the dead-end street are different from those for a courtyard, the word eruv is not used., recite grace¹⁹⁴ wine has not been put in order and one wants to use it for the cup of blessing. If a transgression of a Biblical commandment were involved, using it for a benediction would constitute blasphemy., and recite grace in a group¹⁹⁵. One may separate it while naked¹⁹⁶ does not require a benediction and no invocation of the Name, and, hence, may be separated while one is naked (Cf. Berakhot Halakhah 8:2). or at twilight¹⁹⁷ which in any case is food of the poor, may be put in order during twilight (Mishnah Šabbat 2:7).. And if one lifted the Second Tithe before the First, it is also acceptable¹⁹⁸. The oil the weaver puts on his hands²⁰⁰ 2:7: “If it is doubtful whether it is night or not, one does not tithe the certain, one does not immerse vessels (to remove impurity), one does not kindle lights, but one may tithe demay, make an eruv, and cover warm food (to keep it warm for the next morning.)” is obligated for demay, that which the carder puts on wool is free from demay.

footnotes: ¹⁹² There are two kinds of eruv ¹⁹³ In order to turn a dead-end street into a common domain in which one may carry on the Sabbath, the residents of the courtyards opening into the dead-end street have to participate ¹⁹⁴ Even if demay ¹⁹⁵ The longer form of Grace with an additional invocation. ¹⁹⁶ In contrast to separating heave and tithes from certain produce, demay ¹⁹⁷ Friday night after sundown when it is still light but possibly already Sabbath. Certain food cannot be put in order then because this would make it usable now when before it was not at the start of the Sabbath. But demay ¹⁹⁸ For untithed food, lifting the Second Tithe before the First is forbidden; here it is permitted. Maimonides points out that in any case the heave of the tithe must be a full one percent of the original amount. ²⁰⁰ Mishnah Šabbat

HALAKHAH: One may separate it while naked because it does not need a benediction.

Around twilight, that is what we have stated²⁰⁰ 2:7: “If it is doubtful whether it is night or not, one does not tithe the certain, one does not immerse vessels (to remove impurity), one does not kindle lights, but one may tithe demay, make an eruv, and cover warm food (to keep it warm for the next morning.)”: “If it is doubtful whether it is night or not.”

footnotes: ²⁰⁰ Mishnah Šabbat

Rebbi Ḥalaphta ben Shaul stated: One may redeem demay in the bathhouse²⁰¹ since it does not need a benediction. Hence, if the produce is certain it needs a benediction. Rebbi Mana asked before Rebbi Judan, what does he recite? If it was produce, “on the redemption of Second Tithe²⁰²,” if it was money²⁰³, “on turning Second Tithe profane.”

footnotes: ²⁰¹ Where most people are naked, even if he himself is not. ²⁰² Praised are You, Eternal, our God, King of the Universe, Who sanctified us by His commandments and commanded us on the redemption of Second Tithe. ²⁰³ Money from the redemption of Second tithe which is sacred and, therefore, cannot be exchanged for other coins, or for produce in Jerusalem to consume in purity, without a ceremony of profaning the first coins and substituting new ones as holy.

“If one lifted the Second Tithe before the First, it is also acceptable.” Hence, one should not do it on purpose²⁰⁴. Rebbi Abba, son of Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba, Rebbi Ḥiyya²⁰⁵ in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, one may make the Second precede the First in demay²⁰⁶ 9:6, even though for practical decisions one prefers R. Joshua ben Levi over R. Joḥanan, probably because the practical rule which the Halakhah gives, in the paragraph following the next, works only according to R. Joḥanan.. Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa bar Idi²⁰⁷ in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi: One should not do it, but if he did, what he did is valid.

footnotes: ²⁰⁴ Since it is formulated as a conditional, if it happened, nothing bad has happened. It does not say that one is invited to do it. ²⁰⁵ R. Ḥiyya bar Abba. ²⁰⁶ This is accepted by Maimonides, Maäser ²⁰⁷ He cannot be identical either with R. Jacob bar Aḥa of the fourth generation, or with R. Jacob bar Idi, companion of R. Joḥanan. He is quoted only here and nothing else is known about him.

May one determine the Second in place of the First²⁰⁸ but about produce from which no tithes were taken. It is forbidden to change the order in which the tithes are to be taken; if one takes the Second before the First, one may not recite in the Temple the declaration of tithes, containing the assertion (Deut. 26:13); “I did not overstep Your commandments.” Here, the question is whether this also applies simply to the designation of the place from which the tithe will be taken in the future. This is important if somebody wants to consume fruits or wine for which he will give tithes in the future from some other batch, under circumstances that prevent the actual separation now, e. g., on the Sabbath. Then he must spell out the location from which tithes will be taken. Does this preliminary determination also have to follow the strict rules of precedence?? His sharecropper brought fruits to Rebbi Yose ben Shaul. He said to him, go and fix a place for the Second. He returned, and he told him, go and fix a place for the First. Should he not worry that maybe the Second was fixed at a place reserved for the First²⁰⁹? This means that it is permitted to determine the Second in place of²¹⁰ the First.

footnotes: ²⁰⁸ This is not a question about demay ²⁰⁹ If the tithes had actually been taken, would some of the produce now designated as Second Tithe actually have become First and would then be forbidden to the owner? Note that the sharecropper understood Hebrew, not only Aramaic; he was educated and did not object to what he was told. ²¹⁰ I. e., prior to.

Ulla bar Ismael in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: A person may free his ṭevel²¹¹ denotes produce from which nothing yet was given but, as R. Abraham ben David points out in his notes to Maimonides, Maäser 7:3, one must assume that heave already was taken; otherwise, the entire operation would be impossible. with one seah of ṭevel. How does he do it? He brings one seah of ṭevel and declares it to be Second (Tithe), redeems it²¹² for the First Tithe only and can be used as First Tithe or as heave of the tithe. Since this Second Tithe is different from the produce to be tithed, no transgression was committed in designating the Second Tithe first., and returns to make it heave of the tithe for any other place. Ulla descended there²¹³ and said this in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, but they united against him. Rav Sheshet objected, does not a Mishnah contradict: “If there were before him two baskets full of figs²¹⁴ 7:6: “If he had before him two baskets of ṭevel; if he said, the tithes of one of them are in the other, the tithes of the first one are given. Of the first in the second and of the second in the first, the tithes of the first one are given. The tithes of each of the baskets are in the other one, he named them correctly.” In the second case, the second basket is not in order since the first basket is in order and one may under no circumstances give tithes from produce from which tithes were already given. In the third case, however, the fixing of the places of tithes is simultaneous for both baskets and that is possible since it was permitted in the first case (and we have established that there is no sin in giving names or fixing places simultaneously as long as the actual lifting of the tithes is done in good order.).” And we have stated about this²¹⁵ 8:15: “If two baskets of ṭevel were before him, each containing 100 figs, if their heave was taken and the tithes of each, the first gives its tithes. If he takes the tithes of each from the other, the first does not give tithes (as explained in the previous note). He takes two figs, two tithes, and a tenth of a tenth.” If he takes the tithes from each basket, he takes from each basket 19 figs (10 for First Tithe, 9 for Second Tithe, since heave was already taken.) If he takes all tithes from one basket, he takes 20 for First Tithe, 16 for Second Tithe. Hence, he has to add another 2 figs to get to the required 38 figs. Then from the First Tithe, he takes one tenth as heave of the tithe.: “He takes from the second basket two figs and two tenths, and a tenth of a tenth.” Why can he not take two figs, declare them to be Second (Tithe), redeem them, and return to make them heave of the tithe for any other place²¹⁶? Rebbi Mana said, is not the Second Tithe in the first basket containing First Tithe of the second basket²¹⁷? Rebbi Ḥananiah said, there²¹⁸ it is ṭevel for the First and Second. But here, Second Tithe that was put in order after First, can you return and make it First²¹⁹?

footnotes: ²¹¹ Produce from which tithes were not yet given. In general, ṭevel ²¹² Since the heave of the tithe was not yet taken, the redeemed Second Tithe is now ṭevel ²¹³ Babylonia. ²¹⁴ Demay ²¹⁵ Tosephta Demay ²¹⁶ Following the recipe of R. Joḥanan. ²¹⁷ Since everything comes from the second basket, the second basket would have to be fixed first but then it will be unusable to fix any other. Hence, the method of R. Joḥanan is not applicable here. ²¹⁸ In the case of Ulla. ²¹⁹ Since First was already taken, one cannot take something that is exempt from further obligations in order to make it heave of the tithe anywhere. (The explanations to this paragraph given in the commentaries, from R. Simson of Sens to R. S. Lieberman, are unintelligible.)

“The oil that the weaver puts on his hands is obligated for demay, that which the carder puts on wool is free from demay.” What is the difference between one case and the other? The first disappears on his body²²⁰, the latter disappears on the wool.

footnotes: ²²⁰ It supports the body and is titheable as food.