MISHNAH: One lets the poor and the stranger¹ p. 619). eat demay. Rabban Gamliel let his laborers², and this is not permitted. eat demay. The House of Shammai say, the administrators of charity give the tithed food to those who do not tithe, and the untithed food to those who tithe, so that it turns out that everybody eats produce that is in order³, quoted in Babli Eruvin 17b, that the House of Shammai disagree with the first sentence of the Mishnah and forbid to give demay to the poor.. But the Sages say, one collects⁴ and chest, as described in Peah 8:7, is collected and distributed without inquiring into the degree of religious observance of either donor or recipient. without asking and one distributes without asking, and he who wants to put in order should put in order.

footnotes: ¹ Greek ξένος, meaning either a non-resident or a passer-by (Berakhot ² If these were not poor, they would not be working as day laborers. However, since it was usual that the employer feed his journeymen, Rabban Gamliel saved by giving them demay ³ It is stated explicitly in a baraita ⁴ Tamḥui

HALAKHAH: Rebbi Jonah said, our Mishnah speaks about poor ḥaverim, and about guests following Rebbi Joshua. It was stated⁶ 2:1: “Donkey drivers and private persons on the road from place to place may eat and they are free (from the obligation to tithe) until they reach their destination. Therefore, if their host gave them a separate room and they stayed there overnight, they have to tithe, otherwise they are exempt. It happened that Rebbi Joshua went to Rabban Joḥanan ben Zakkai at Beror Ḥayil, and some inhabitants of these localities brought them figs. They asked him, do we have to tithe? He said to them, if we stay overnight, we are obligated to tithe; otherwise, we are not obligated to tithe.” Because R. Joshua was such an important personality he and his students certainly were placed in a separate room; therefore, staying overnight alone creates the obligation of tithes. The obligation for heave and tithes only starts with the storage of the harvest. Since R. Joshua would not travel without a large group of students, keeping him overnight creates the duty to give heave and tithes. This is the explicit interpretation given in Yerushalmi Ma‘serot 2:3.: “It happened that Rebbi Joshua went to Rabban Joḥanan ben Zakkai in Beror Ḥayil⁷, and some local people brought them fruits. Rebbi Joshua said to them, if they⁸ stay overnight, we are obliged to tithe; otherwise, we are not obliged to tithe.” Rebbi Yose said, the Mishnah speaks about am haäreẓ poor. If you restrict to poor ḥaverim, you lock the door before am haäreẓ poor⁹ poor, nobody will give to them.. How does Rebbi Yose hold about “the stranger?¹⁰ who will put their food in order. But why does R. Yose need to mention the traveller?” Following what was stated: “(Lev. 25:45) ‘Those who dwell among you,’ to include the stranger; Rebbi Eliezer said, that means the Gentile stranger.¹¹ even though one may not satisfy a formal obligation with demay.”

footnotes: ⁶ Tosephta Ma‘serot ⁷ Neither name nor location of this place are certain but it is known that it was the home town of Rabban Joḥanan ben Zakkai. ⁸ His students. ⁹ If it becomes expensive to give to the am haäreẓ ¹⁰ For R. Jonah, there is no problem; since the traveller is not really poor it is necessary to say that the Mishnah applies only to ḥaverim ¹¹ It is permitted to buy oneself goodwill with demay

It was stated: “One has to declare.” In the opinion of Rebbi Jonah, it is understood¹² so that he may bring it in order. that the Mishnah speaks about poor ḥaverim. In the opinion of Rebbi Yose, the Mishnah speaks about am haäreẓ poor; even if he informs him, what does he gain¹³ haäreẓ does not care, what has one gained by informing the recipient? The answer is that only a minority of the amē haäreẓ do not care, so why should he hurt the decent majority because of the actions of a few nonobservant persons?? Because of one who does not put in order?

footnotes: ¹² One has to inform him that he receives demay ¹³ Since the am

Rebbi Mana said, this means that he who gives in his home¹² so that he may bring it in order. may not give from Sabbatical value because he would pay his debt with Sabbatical value. As it was stated¹³ haäreẓ does not care, what has one gained by informing the recipient? The answer is that only a minority of the amē haäreẓ do not care, so why should he hurt the decent majority because of the actions of a few nonobservant persons?: “Neither Sabbatical produce nor Second Tithe may be used to satisfy a loan or a debt. One does not use them for best men’s meals¹⁴. One does not pay with them obligatory payments. One does not use them to pledge for charity in the synagogue. But one may use them for goodwill; then one has to notify.”

footnotes: ¹² One has to inform him that he receives demay ¹³ Since the am ¹⁴ Since these meals are due in reciprocity, they constitute a debt that can not be satisfied either with Sabbatical fruits, which are ownerless even if grown on the farmer’s own field, or Second Tithe, which is Heaven’s money.

There¹⁵ 7:3: “A worker who does not trust his employer should take one fig and say: This fig and the nine following shall be tithe on the 90 remaining that I will eat; this one will be heave of the tithe, the others will be redeemed by coins. (Mishnah 4) Then he saves one fig (assuming the employer gave him 100 for lunch.) Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel said, he should not save (but buy one with his own money and give it to the Cohen) because he reduces the work of the employer (by eating less than the allotted ration, he has less strength to work.) Rebbi Yose said, he should not save because this is a condition of the Court (that the employer must pay for the heave of the tithe.)” The argument here refers to what Rabban Gamliel did. Since he is mentioned by name, what he did is not accepted. The Sages conclude that the employer must give his farmhands fully tithed food. we have stated: “The worker who does not trust the employer.” There you say, the worker separates. But here you say that the employer separates¹⁶. Rebbi Jonah said, there if he serves him counted portions, here if he lets him eat from the bowl¹⁷.

footnotes: ¹⁵ Mishnah Demay ¹⁶ Since the action of Rabban Gamliel is not quoted as opinion of the Sages. ¹⁷ Cooked food, or figs and dates, in a big bowl from which each farmhand scoops up what he can. Then it is impossible for the worker to determine what the heave of tithe should be.

Rebbi Zeriqan, Simeon bar Abba, in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: A medical doctor who is a ḥaver, if he feeds a sick person who is an am haäreẓ, shall put the food into his patient’s hand¹⁸ will eat demay but the ḥaver is forbidden to serve others anything not fully tithed. but not into his mouth. That is, if it is demay, but if it is certain¹⁹ since it would clearly be forbidden (assuming that the sickness is not life-threatening and some other remedy is available.), it is forbidden even to put it in his hand. This means, if it is the patient’s property, but the doctor’s is forbidden²⁰, or even simply the person trustworthy for tithes, is not permitted to serve others anything that is not in order. “Descendant of Noah” means a Gentile, since all mankind is descended from Noah. The expression is used here to indicate that all of mankind are obligated by the Seven Commandments given to Noah (prohibition of murder, idolatry, incest and adultery, eating limbs taken from a living animal, blasphemy, and anarchism.) for a Jew; for a descendant of Noah²¹57b, cf. Rashi on Gen. 9:4). it is permitted even if it is certain and the patient’s property, but the doctor’s is forbidden. But if it was a limb taken from a living animal it is forbidden even if it is the patient’s property, that he should not be caused to stumble²².

footnotes: ¹⁸ The am haäreẓ ¹⁹ That no heave of the tithe has been given. In that case, the doctor would commit a sin and lose his fellowship standing in handing such food to the am haäreẓ ²⁰ Since the ḥaver ²¹ Since parts cut from live animals are forbidden not only to Jews but to all mankind (Babli Sanhedrin ²² Here starts the discussion of the rules for the adminstrators of charity.

It is difficult for the House of Shammai²², should he lose because he is worthy²³? He adds what he has to put in order. What is the reason of the House of Shammai? Even if you regulate him now, can you regulate him in the future²⁴ will eat it untithed, and it will turn out that the administrator has led a fellow Jew into sin by giving him untithed food.? You cannot regulate him. What is the reason of the rabbis? If you investigate him²⁵ he will reduce his charity giving.

footnotes: ²² Here starts the discussion of the rules for the adminstrators of charity. ²³ Assuming that everybody gets the same, the observant end up with less to eat than the nonobservant. Hence, the observant should get slightly more than the nonobservant. ²⁴ If he takes it home untithed, the am haäreẓ ²⁵ If you ask people whether they follow the rules of fellowship or not, the nonobservant will not give and you have committed two evils: you have reduced the amount of food available for the poor and you have prevented fellow Jews from fulfilling the commandment of charitable giving.

“²⁶ 3:16,17. The administrators of charity should not publicly announce on a holiday²⁷ in the way they announce on weekdays, but they collect in private, carry it in their bosom, and distribute for each quarter separately. The administrators of the charity chest²⁸ 8:7. In the Tosephta, this is the majority opinion, against R. Meïr who holds that one does not take from questionable sources during the Sabbatical year. should not be inquisitive in the courtyards of those who eat from the yield²⁹ of the Sabbatical year. If one gave them bread it is permitted, because Jews are not suspected of giving anything other than money or eggs³⁰.” Rebbi Ḥananiah in the name of Rebbi Phineas: That means, at a place where people sow³¹ but do not eat. Since they are not suspected to eat, a fortiori not to feed.

footnotes: ²⁶ Tosephata Demay ²⁷ On weedays, they announce in the synagogue how many poor they have to feed and how much they need from every householder. On holidays, when money transactions are forbidden, even charity cannot be collected publicly. ²⁸ See Peah ²⁹ Everybody may eat from the yield of the Sabbatical year the spontaneous growth of fallow fields. Here, the reference is to produce grown for cash in the Sabbatical. ³⁰ Money received for a crop in the Sabbatical year or eggs, not subject to Sabbatical rules, bought with such money. If somebody gives bread, one may assume that it was not from grain grown for cash in the Sabbatical year. ³¹ For cash, to be able to pay their taxes.

“Cohanim who prepare dough in purity³² has to be taken from bread dough under the rules of the heave and be eaten in purity, and the am haäreẓ by his touch would give primary impurity to the wet dough, as explained in Halakhah 2:3, it was customary to hire a Cohen to knead the dough in purity, take ḥallah to eat it, and then hand the dough over to the am haäreẓ to bake it. should not be inquisitive in the courtyards of those who eat from the yield of the Sabbatical year.” Some Tannaïm³³ 3:17. stated: “They should be inquisitive.” Rebbi Phineas said, he who says that they should be inquisitive, because of their ḥallah³⁴ So the Tosephta requires the Cohen not only to take ḥallah, but also to check whether the grain might be demay.; he who says that they should not be inquisitive, for he would save him from the simple sin and lead him to a deadly one. Ṭevel is a deadly sin, the Sabbatical year is a simple prohibition³⁵, the nonobservant would knead the dough himself and not give ḥallah. However, dough from which ḥallah was not taken is ṭevel, and its consumption is as bad a sin as consuming grain from which heave was not taken. Since the Cohen by his action leads the nonobservant into sin, the sin is the Cohen’s..

footnotes: ³² Since ḥallah ³³ Tosephta Demay ³⁴ Produce of the Sabbatical year, being legally abandoned property, is exempt from heave and tithes. But dough prepared from grain grown in the Sabbatical year, even if the grain was legally harvested, is always subject to ḥallah. ³⁵ If the Cohen would refuse to knead the dough of the nonobservant and to take ḥallah

What does he do³⁷ from dough he suspects to be from grain raised during the Sabbatical year, from which one cannot partake.? Rebbi Huna said, he brings a suspect Cohen³⁸ in purity; hence, he has to send him to the miqweh (and, as R. Mana points out, watch him in purity until sundown.) See Mishnah Berakhot 1:1., lets him immerse himself, and serves it to him. But then does he not deliver pure foods to an am haäreẓ³⁹.”) In this case, the observant Cohen would lead the nonobservant into sin.? Rebbi Mana said, he brings a suspect Cohen, lets him immerse himself, watches him until sundown and then serves it to him. But then does he not support the sinners? Rebbi Simeon from Carsan in the name of Rebbi Aḥa: He keeps it until the day before Passover and then burns it⁴⁰ and ḥallah must be eaten; they may be burned only if they are either impure or on Passover eve if they contain leavened material. Since it is forbidden to make holy things impure intentionally, the Cohen has to keep ḥallah in purity until he is forced to burn it on Passover eve..

footnotes: ³⁷ The Cohen who has taken ḥallah ³⁸ He is suspected to eat from produce commercially grown in the Sabbatical year. Still, the observant Cohen must make sure that he eats ḥallah ³⁹ Who can be assumed to make everything impure (except in Jerusalem, during the time of the Temple, on holidays when “all of Israel are ḥaverim ⁴⁰ Pure terumah

MISHNAH: He who wants to cut off greens of vegetables⁴¹ in order to lighten his load should not throw them away before he tithed. He who buys vegetables on the market⁴² and then decides to return them should not return them before he tithed, because nothing is missing⁴³ but counting⁴⁴. If he stopped to buy but saw another, better, load, he may change his mind because⁴⁵ he did not take it up.

footnotes: ⁴¹ For example turnip greens which usually are not used but may be used as vegetables by the poor. Hence, since it is likely that the leaves will be collected as food, the preparation of the vegetables for transportation and sale signifies the end of the harvest and requires tithing from then on. ⁴² These vegetables have a fixed price per unit. The moment the buyer takes up a bunch, he is obliged to pay a fixed amount. Hence, the act of lifting up bunch transfers property rights to the buyer in exchange for a debt incurred. Since now the bunch belongs to the buyer, he cannot return it untithed without losing his standing as being trustworthy for tithes. ⁴³ The Mishnah manuscripts of the Yerushalmi tradition and the Munich ms. of the Babli have מעושר. The manuscripts of the Babylonian tradition and the Rome ms. have מחוסר, which explains the word used here. In Galilee, ח was pronounced like ה and ע. ⁴⁴ The number of bunches the buyer took up. ⁴⁵ Or better: As long as he did not lift up any of the bunches. Then they never were his property and he is not responsible.

HALAKHAH: Rebbi Eleazar said⁴⁶, it is Rebbi Meïr’s, since Rebbi Meïr said, they permitted to sell demay only to the commissioned grain wholesaler. Rebbi Joḥanan said, it is according to everybody; there is a difference because the one who takes it up takes it up in retail quantity and the one who abandons does not abandon wholesale⁴⁷. But does this not disagree with Rebbi Meïr⁴⁸6:1 (Babli Nedarim 43a–44a)., since Rebbi Meïr is the one who says that as soon as a person abandons anything of his property, it is legally abandoned as soon as it leaves his power. There is a difference because the one who takes it up takes it up in retail quantity and the one who abandons does not abandon wholesale. It does not even disagree with Rebbi Yose, for Rebbi Yose says that nothing may leave the power of its owners except if it is taken up; otherwise it was not legally abandoned. There is a difference here, because the one who abandons abandons wholesale, and the one who takes it up, takes up only retail quantities⁴⁹.

footnotes: ⁴⁶ The discussion refers to the first statement of the Mishnah that he who separates greens from bunches of vegetables must tithe first. Since the leaves are thrown away, they are legally abandoned, and anybody who collects abandoned property is free from all obligations of tithing. This being the case, how could the poor who collect the leaves possibly incur any guilt in not tithing and why should the transporter be liable for tithes?Rebbi Meïr’s statement was discussed in Halakhah 2:4. ⁴⁷ Hence, while he might get away without tithing from the point of view of Biblical law, he cannot get away if he wants to retain his standing as being trustworthy for tithes. ⁴⁸ This disagreement between R. Meïr and R. Yose is discussed in Peah ⁴⁹ According to R. Yose, if a large quantity was abandoned, it does not become abandoned property by being collected in small quantities by different persons.

Ḥizqiah said⁵¹, nothing is missing for the owners but the credit by counting.

footnotes: ⁵¹ The reference is to the middle part of the Mishnah, that if somebody took from the farmer’s stall (who is neither wholesaler nor retail grocer) a bunch with a clearly marked price, he cannot return it without tithing. Ḥizqiah notes that מעוּשר should be מחוּסר as noted before. In normative Hebrew, זכייה מניין would be a construct state זכית מנין.

How does he do it⁵²? He takes from the uppermost layer and puts it in order. Is that not forbidden because of robbery⁵³? Like that of Rebbi Simeon bar Cahana⁵⁴ who was supporting Rebbi Eliezer⁵⁵. They passed by a vineyard. He said to him, bring me a sliver⁵⁶ (one sixth or one eighth of a copper as) is not considered robbing. as a toothpick. He changed his mind and told him, do not bring me anything; if everybody would do that, the fence of this man would be gone. Rebbi Ḥaggai was supporting Rebbi Zeïra. A person passed by who was carrying a load of chips. He said to him, bring me a chip as a toothpick. He changed his mind and told him, do not bring me anything; if everybody would do that, the load of this man would be gone. Is not Rebbi Zeïra particularly pious? No, he told us that we should observe the words of our Creator. Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: When he took one stalk, nothing was missing but counting them⁵⁷. How does he do it? He pays for one of them⁵⁸ without tithing and the seller can sell it as such. and puts it in order.

footnotes: ⁵² How does one give tithes from the vegetables one returns to the market stall. ⁵³ If he declares one of the vegetables as tithes, he takes away from the seller. Even if we say that the seller as retailer should be required to tithe himself, if enough customers act like this one, there will be only tithe and heave of the tithe left, and nothing to sell, without the seller having made a single sale. (There are other complications which will be discussed in the next paragraph.) ⁵⁴ A Tanna of the third generation, student of R. Eliezer. ⁵⁵ Rebbi Eliezer was leaning on his arm while walking. ⁵⁶ Taking the sliver from the wooden fence, since taking property worth less than a peruṭa ⁵⁷ Rebbi Joḥanan repeats the opinion of his teacher Ḥizqiah. ⁵⁸ If the seller is paid, no robbery has occured. The one stalk now is taken as heave of the tithe. The rest of the bunch is permitted to a ḥaver

But does it not turn out that he creates an obstacle for those who come after him⁵⁹ or ṭevel. One may not give heave from produce already tithed and if the next buyer would use from the already tithed produce for heave of the tithe, that act would be void and he would in fact be eating ṭevel.? Let him make a separate heap. But why can he not fix them in his own produce⁶⁰? Did we not state⁶¹ 4:8: “One may give the heave of the tithe for produce of an am haäreẓ, even if this creates an obstacle for those who will come later,” meaning later buyers from the am haäreẓ who is the seller; the buyers might treat the produce that was put in order as demay and use it for illegitimate tithing of other produce.: “A person may fix his tithes for someone else, even if he creates an obstacle for those who come after him.” Rebbi Ḥinena said, they made that ordinance for the buyer⁶² who has no choice but to buy from an am haäreẓ seller, in the absence of a ḥaver on the market. Since the ḥaver is prohibited from buying produce that is not in order, he is forced to stipulate that he will put the seller’s produce in order before concluding the deal. He naturally will tell the seller that his produce will be put in order, but he has absolutely no guarantee that the seller will transmit this information to the other buyers. However, since everything will be fine if the seller really warns the next buyers not to use his produce for tithing, no blame can be attached to the ḥaver who uses his own to put the am haäreẓ’ s produce in order. But this is permitted only to a bona fide buyer, not to one who changes his mind alter already acquiring the produce. but not for him who returns [produce].

footnotes: ⁵⁹ If the produce is demay ⁶⁰ Why should the buyer give the seller money to be able to put that bunch in order; let him return it as is with a remark that the prospective buyer will give the heave of the tithe (and redemption of the Second Tithe) from his own produce at home. ⁶¹ There is a similar text in Tosephta Maäser Šeni ⁶² This particular exception was meant only for the ḥaver

So says the Mishnah⁶³ but saw another, better batch, he may change his mind because he did not take it up.” Since “to buy” has a connotation of “taking it,” the word is changed to “selecting.”: “If he stood selecting.” So far, of the same kind. Also, from a different kind.

footnotes: ⁶³ This refers to the last part of the Mishnah: “If he stopped to buy

MISHNAH: He who finds produce on the road and takes it to eat it⁶⁴, but then changed his mind to store it, should not store it until he tithed it⁶⁵. If from the start he took it up only so that it should not be spoiled⁶⁶, he is free. Anything a person is not permitted to sell as demay, he may not send to a friend as demay. Rebbi Yose permits certain produce⁶⁷ on condition that he inform him.

footnotes: ⁶⁴ To eat it on the spot. One may assume that the produce was lost before it was brought to the farmer’s house to be stored. Hence, no heave or tithes are due. ⁶⁵ Since the first act of storing subjects the produce to heave and tithes. ⁶⁶ One may not let food lie on the road to be spoiled by people trampling upon it. If he simply takes that produce and puts it near the road where it will not go to waste, he did not acquire anything and has no obligation for heave and tithes. ⁶⁷ Produce from which at least the heave of tithe certainly was not taken, may be sent as is to another person on condition that the latter would be informed, since he will not have certain produce lying around his house without putting it in order immediately.

HALAKHAH: It was stated: “One does not pass by foodstuffs.⁶⁹ 64b) to R. Joḥanan in the name of R. Simeon bar Ioḥai.” Rebbi Jacob bar Zavdi in the name of Rebbi Abbahu: That means, in earlier times. But now it is permitted because of sorcery⁷⁰.

footnotes: ⁶⁹ But one has to take them up from the road and put them in a safe place. The statement of R. Abbahu is credited in the Babli (Erubin ⁷⁰ As one might come under a spell and get hurt by taking it up.

There⁷¹ 3:3., we have stated: “He who turns over cow dung in the public domain and a third party was hurt, is liable for damages.” It was also stated⁷² 2:8: “He who turns over cow dung in the public domain in order to acquire it, and another person was hurt by it, he is liable, and it is forbidden because of robbery. Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel says, it is not robbery to impair the public domain.” The person who acquired the dung is liable but, since he acquired it, one is forbidden to take it from him, but he may take it from the owner of the cattle since it was in the public domain and an obstacle to travelers.: “It is forbidden because of robbery.” Cahana⁷³ p. 247. said, only if he turned it over in order to acquire it. But if he did not turn it over in order to acquire it, about that one does not speak. But as regards damages, there is no difference whether he turned it over in order to acquire it or he did not turn it over in order to acquire it; if a third party was hurt, he is liable for damages⁷⁴ 3:3, fol. 3c, and of R. Eleazar in Babli Baba Qama 29b.. And here, you say so? Rebbi Abun said, there it is written (Ex. 21:34): “The one responsible for the pit⁷⁵ shall pay,” the one responsible for the damage shall pay. But here (Deut. 14:22): “You shall give tithes,” you give tithes from your property but not from other people’s property.

footnotes: ⁷¹ Mishnah Baba Qama ⁷² Tosephta Baba Qama ⁷³ It is impossible to decide whether Cahana here is Rav Cahana I, a companion of Rav in Babylonia, or Rav Cahana II; see note in Berakhot ⁷⁴ This contradicts statements of Ḥizqiah in Yerushalmi Baba Qama ⁷⁵ An unauthorized open pit in the public domain.

“Anything a person is not permitted to sell as demay, he may not send to a friend as demay” Retail quantities which one is not permitted to sell as demay, one may not send to a friend as demay. Wholesale quantities which one is permitted to sell as demay, one may send to a friend as demay. “Rebbi Yose permits certain produce,” be it retail or wholesale quantities, but he forbids retail quantities that are demay⁷⁶.

footnotes: ⁷⁶ Even if the recipient is informed, since it falls under the blanket prohibition of the Mishnah. The exception he makes is for certain produce only.

Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: They permitted demay in wholesale quantity because of its being fenced in⁷⁷, no ḥaver will refrain from giving the appropriate tithes..

footnotes: ⁷⁷ Because everybody knows that wholesale quantities are demay

This is a baraita⁷⁸ 11:4) takes everything together as one statement. Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel in Tosephta Demay 2:12 quotes Rebbi Yose that the kinds mentioned in the Mishnah fall under the monetary limitations spelled out in Halakhah 2:5. Maimonides seems to think that the final statement in this paragraph (that R. Yose himself did not act according to his own opinion but deferred to that of his colleagues), applies to the entire Tannaitic statement here. In the opinion of R. Abraham ben David, the first sentence is a quote from the Mishnah, but the following text is from some Tosephta collection. Hence, he thinks that practice should follow R. Yose in 2:5, but not in 3:3.: “Rebbi Yose says, baskets of figs, baskets of grapes, and boxes of vegetables, as long as they are sold en bloc, are free. ⁷⁹ 2:14: “Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel said, it happened that the great Rebbi Yose sent me an etrog(citrus medico) from Sepphoris and said to me: this came into my hand from Caesarea. And I understood from this three things: That it was certain, could become impure, and he did not have another one, because if he had, he would have tithed from one on the other.” A discussion of this text appears in Tosaphot ‘Avodah zarah58b–59a. Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel said, the great Rebbi Yose sent me an etrog and said to me: this came into my hand from Caesarea⁸⁰ came from Caesarea maritima.. I understood from this three things: That it was certain, could become impure, and he did not have another one. That it was certain, because the fruits of Caesarea are certain. That it could become impure, because they sprinkle water on it⁸¹. That he did not have another one, because if he had, he would have tithed from one on the other.” Why could he not have tithed from itself on itself⁸²? Because he was mindful of the saying of Bar Kappara, for Bar Kappara said that people do not send things that are defective to their friends. But is that not our Mishnah? “Rebbi Yose permits certain produce on condition that he inform him.” This tells you that, even though he disagreed with the rabbis, he did not act according to his own opinion.

footnotes: ⁷⁸ While the first sentence is Mishnah 2:5, Maimonides (Maäser ⁷⁹ A similar text in Tosephta Demay ⁸⁰ Since this was sent from Sepphoris in Galilee, it is likely to come from Caesarea Philippi on the slopes of the Golan heights; cf. Halakhah 2:1. However, the next paragraph might mean that the etrog ⁸¹ Cf. commentary to Halakhah 2:3, Note 137. ⁸² Taken out a small piece as heave of the tithe.

Rebbi Zeïra asked before Rebbi Yasa: It this not from the fruits that are exempt at Caesarea⁸³ is not on the list given in Halakhah 2:1 of demay fruits at Caesarea. Hence, it is not excluded that the etrog came from the Land of Israel near Caesarea Philippi (Banias),? He said to him, did not Rebbi permit fruits at Caesarea? But Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel preceded Rebbi⁸⁴!

footnotes: ⁸³ Etrog ⁸⁴ Since he was Rebbi’s father.

MISHNAH: Wheat brought to be milled⁸⁶ 61b. by a Samaritan or by an am haäreẓ remains in its prior state for tithes⁸⁷ or demay. and Sabbatical year⁸⁸. By a Gentile, it is demay⁸⁹. Produce deposited with a Samaritan or with an am haäreẓ remains in its prior state for tithes and Sabbatical year; with a Gentile, it is like his produce⁹⁰. Rebbi Simeon says, it is demay⁹¹ 67b) R. Simeon holds that the rabbis decreed demay for Gentile produce so that Jewish landowners should not have an incentive to hand their land over to Gentile sharecroppers.].

footnotes: ⁸⁶ Reading of the Venice print and the Leyden manuscript. Most Mishnah manuscripts haveהַמּוֹלִיךְ חִיטָּיו לְטָחוּן כּוּתִי “he who brings his wheat to a Samaritan miller.” This text is also confirmed by Rashi, Giṭṭin ⁸⁷ This must refer to the Second Tithe, since grain from which tithe was not taken is referred to as ṭevel ⁸⁸ They are not suspected of switching grain they know belongs to a ḥaver. ⁸⁹ Since he does not care about these things, he will just deliver the correct quantity, irrespective of its source; it may be from the grain delivered by a nonobservant Jew. ⁹⁰ Produce harvested by a Gentile is not subject to tithes and Sabbatical restrictions. However, produce bought by a Jew before it was warehoused is considered to come under the obligation of tithes when it is stored by the Jew. Hence, it depends on when the Jew acquires the Gentile’s produce and one cannot simply say “obligated” or “not obligated.” ⁹¹ If the Gentile accepts produce for storage, he also accepts from nonobservant Jews and may store everything together. R. Simeon holds that the produce of the Gentile is exempt from tithes and heave; hence, his problem is only with Jewish produce in storage. [This is the interpretation of the Yerushalmi; according to the Babli (Menaḥot

HALAKHAH: Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan⁹² 1:10, fol. 25d.: If his box was exchanged at the miller’s, if it was established that an am haäreẓ gave to be milled there that day, he has to worry⁹³’s and therefore demay; then he has to tithe a second time.; otherwise, he does not have to worry. Should he not worry? What is the difference between this and the Saracens? Was it not stated: “If a group of Saracens one day provisioned themselves from forbidden supplies⁹⁴, then that day becomes a proof for all days⁹⁵ even though the greater part of it may be Gentile and exempt. Hence, if we see that an am haäreẓ uses that mill one day, why should we not assume that an am haäreẓ uses it every day?.” It is impossible for Saracens not to supply themselves. But here it was not established that the am haäreẓ was milling there that day⁹⁶ cannot be trusted, which is nothing new and does not need proof. But the mill does not become an amē haäreẓ’ mill by that..

footnotes: ⁹² The text is also in Ketubot ⁹³ He has to worry that the grain is the am haäreẓ ⁹⁴ From Jewish suppliers who do not tithe. ⁹⁵ All the produce they sell is demay ⁹⁶ The Saracens showed that their persons are not to be trusted. In our case, we know that the am haäreẓ

Rebbi Taypha the Red⁹⁷ in the name of Rebbi Abbahu: Samaritans can be trusted with deposits. Is that not the Mishnah: “With a Samaritan”? Our Mishnah before they became suspect, he comes to tell us even after they became suspect⁹⁸ 5:3, fol. 44d (quoted in Babli Ḥulin 6a) that in the times of Rebbis Ammi, Assi, and Abbahu, Samaritans were found to use Gentile wine (or to adopt Gentile behavior), and from that moment on Samaritans were considered as Gentiles. However it seems from the Yerushalmi that up to the end of the Talmudic period in Galilee, the separation of Jews and Samaritans was not universally accepted. (One also may assume that parts of Jewish Sadducee communities changed to a Samaritan affiliation after the destruction of the Temple.). How is it, should he be trusted to say, I took it and replaced it by other deposits that were put in order? If you believe him in that he took it, you should believe him in what he gave. If you do not believe that he took, do not believe that he gave⁹⁹ 4:22), this argument is given in reference to deposits with an am haäreẓ.. You believe a Samaritan that he gave¹⁰⁰4:24) one reads: “If he says, I took it and replaced it with some that was put in order, one does not worry either about tithes or about the Sabbatical.” and you do not believe that he took. Rebbi Jonah asked: What are we talking about? If he says, they are my own, even an am haäreẓ should not be trusted. If he says, X¹⁰¹ took tithes for me, even the Samaritan should be believed. Rebbi Abba said, explain it according to him who says that a Samaritan is like a Gentile. As they disagreed: A Samaritan is like a Gentile, the words of Rebbi. Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel said, a Samaritan is like a Jew in every respect.

footnotes: ⁹⁷ An Amora of the fourth generation, student of R. Abbahu and sometimes mentioned in connection with the Amora R. Yose. ⁹⁸ The Yerushalmi always refers the question whether Samaritans are counted as Jews or as Gentiles to the disagreement between Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel and his son Rebbi, as reported below. However, it is stated in ‘Avodah zarah ⁹⁹ In the Tosephta (Demay ¹⁰⁰ Grain from another source, but you do not believe him that he exchanged. In the Tosephta (Demay ¹⁰¹ A person recognized as a ḥaver.

Here you say, “by a Gentile miller, they are demay,” there you say, “with a Gentile, they are like his produce.” In the first case, a box among boxes¹⁰², there, produce among his produce.

footnotes: ¹⁰² The miller may mistakenly have given his customers a wrong box. In the second sentence of the Mishnah, the produce is stored not in separate boxes but with the Gentile’s produce.

Rebbi Jeremiah asked before Rebbi Zeïra¹⁰⁴: Does it mean, really like his produce? Freeing what would be ṭevel at another place¹⁰⁵? He said to him, for all that is in it¹⁰⁶, i. e., if the produce was in order it does not become even demay at the Gentile’s, but it cannot lose its status of either demay or ṭevel.. Rebbi Ḥanina was uselessly opposing Rebbi Aḥa¹⁰⁷.

footnotes: ¹⁰⁴ The better reading is: R. Ḥanania before R. Mana; see the preceding note. ¹⁰⁵ It would be a cheap way of tithing to deposit one’s produce with a Gentile and then reclaiming it without taking heave and tithes! ¹⁰⁶ It is only equal to the Gentile’s produce if it is in it ¹⁰⁷ As explained above, this might be “R. Mana.”

Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abin in the name of Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina: Rebbi Simeon said, only for one box. If he handed over two boxes, one of them is demay and one is certain¹⁰⁸ if they are still in existence¹⁰⁹ and one is certain.; but if the first one was consumed, the second one is demay¹¹⁰. If a hundred people took from him 100 seah at one time, each one puts his produce in order as demay. If they gave it all to one person, it should be considered as certain¹¹¹. If one person took many seot together, the first one is demay, the rest certain. If he then gave the rest to a hundred people, it should be considered as certain. Did we not state in the name of Rebbi Simeon in the name of Rebbi Ṭarphon: “They made the produce of this Jew like the produce of that Samaritan¹¹² 4:25): “Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel and Rebbi Simeon: The Jew’s produce made this Gentile’s produce demay.” The word “Samaritan” in the Yerushalmi seems to be a scribal error. The question is about the interpretation of the Tosephta (or an equivalent baraita), and the answer is that the Tosephta is exactly parallel to the Mishnah and gives the reason for the Mishnah, but it does not extend R. Simeon’s disagreement with the Tanna of the Mishnah., demay.” That again is the same; Rebbi Simeon said, only for one box.

footnotes: ¹⁰⁸ We have to assume that here, “certain” does not mean that certainly the heave of the tithe was not taken, but to the contrary, that all heave and tithes were taken and the produce is ready to eat. ¹⁰⁹ Then one remains demay ¹¹⁰ We do not say that this may be the one which was put in order. ¹¹¹ Since R. Simeon suspects the Gentile only to substitute at most one box; if there are 100, of which 99 are in order, there is no reason to treat this as demay. ¹¹² In the Tosephta (Demay

“¹¹⁴ 1:12–14 {commentary in braces}: “12. A storage facility into which Jews and Gentiles contribute; if the majority are Gentile it is certain, if the majority are Jewish, it is demay; these are the words of R. Meïr {who holds that produce of the Holy Land is subject to heave and tithes even if grown by a Gentile.} But the Sages say, it is demay even if all the contributors are Gentile except one Jew {since produce of the Holy Land is not subject to heave and tithes if grown by a Gentile.} 13. Rebbi Yose said, when are these words said, for a private storage facility, but at a government storage facility {for storing taxes paid in kind} one follows the majority. They said to him, you taught us about the storage facility of Jabneh, which is inside the walls, that it is demay, and most of the contributors are Samaritans {who are subject to tithes but certainly will not tithe what they personally do not use}; but a storage facility outside the Land, e. g., that of Ragab {a place in Jordan} is obligated only according to percentages {of the supply coming from the Land.} 13. Rebbi Joshua ben Qabusai said, all my life I read this verse (Num. 19:19): ‘The pure shall sprinkle on the impure,’ and I did not understand it until the storage at Jabneh; I learned from the storage facility at Jabneh that one pure person sprinkles on many impure persons.” Rebbi Joshua ben Qabusai¹¹⁵ 75b) but thinks one cannot intermarry with them because of their deviating interpretation of some incest prohibitions. said, all my life I read this verse (*Num.*19:19): ‘The pure shall sprinkle on the impure,’ that one pure person sprinkles on one impure person, until I learned it from the storage facility at Jabneh. This means that one pure person sprinkles on many impure persons.¹¹⁶ in the presence of many Samaritans. {In the Babli, Nazir 61b, the verse is taken to mean that only a person who may become impure by Biblical standards, i. e., a Jew, can sprinkle the water with the ashes of the red heifer to cleanse another Jew from the impurity of the dead. In Sifry,*Num.*129, R. Aqiba infers that the water was purifying only if a pure person sprinkles on an impure one but sprinkling on a pure person makes him impure. This is accepted by the Yerushalmi, Yoma 1:2 (fol. 38d); a Babli source (Yoma 14a) quotes and follows a dissenting opinion of the Sages. Sifry zuta,Ḥuqqat 19, notes that only a pure person becomes impure; a person impure but not through a corpse is not influenced by being sprinkled. Since Sifry zuta in general follows R. Ismael, this supports the position of the Yerushalmi that R. Aqiba’s statement is accepted by everybody.}”

footnotes: ¹¹⁴ Toesephta Demay ¹¹⁵ A Tanna of the Fourth generation, son-in-law of R. Aqiba. His father-in-law considers Samaritans as true converts (Babli Qiddušin ¹¹⁶ Since one rabbinic Jew makes demay

“But the Sages say, it is demay even if all the contributors are Gentile except one Jew¹¹⁷”. But we have stated: “With a Gentile, they are like his produce¹¹⁸ as in a storage facility?.” Rebbi Eleazar said, the Sages who follow the line of Rebbi Meïr. Rebbi Joḥanan said, these are really the Sages¹¹⁹. They asked him, what is the reason? He told them, if you get whitehaired, I might tell you¹²⁰. What would he have told them? That they accepted tithes voluntarily¹²¹, Northvale NJ 1995, p. 280–281. Since the obligation is similar in nature to a rabbinic ordinance, it follows the rules of leniency valid for such ordinances.. Samuel bar Abba¹²² asked: It is understandable that he did not tell them about pure food, because of a fence for pure food¹²³. He did not tell them about tithes, as a fence for tithes. He did not tell them about sacrifices; if he had told them, what would he have told them¹²⁴? For tithes, following him¹²⁶ who says that they accepted tithes voluntarily.

footnotes: ¹¹⁷ Tosephta 1:12, given above. ¹¹⁸ Why is it not demay ¹¹⁹ They disagree with R. Meïr on the status of Gentile-grown produce and hold that it is exempt from all tithes. ¹²⁰ But by that time, R. Johanan would have died long ago. ¹²¹ The returnees from Babylonia accepted the obligation of tithes voluntarily, since these obligations were originally bound to the land distributed by Joshua, and that distribution was obliterated by the exile. See the author’s The Scholar’s Haggadah ¹²² The Babylonian Sage Samuel. ¹²³ He did not want to imply that heave does not have to be watched according to the standards of Biblical purity because of its rabbinic status, because then they would have disregarded the rules of purity altogether. The same applies to the tithes. ¹²⁴ They seemed to have asked about some leniencies in the treatment of Gentiles’ sacrifices; the question is not preserved. Samuel asked, why did he not answer that question since the answer could not have any practical consequence. ¹²⁶ “Practice” in the language of the Yerushalmi is similar to the notion of “practice going back to Moses on Mount Sinai” in the Babli; it means a rule established by the returnees from Babylonia, the “Men of the Great Assembly,” as part of the establishment of rabbinic Judaism. It is part of the original decree of demay.

Rebbi Jeremiah, Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Rebbi Simeon agrees that one must separate tithes as a matter of practice¹²⁶. Hence, Rebbi Simeon says that one separates, and the rabbis say that one saparates¹²⁷ certainly must be tithed. The only inference to be drawn is from “agrees”, which would imply that the Sages also require tithing and that the declaration of “his own produce” can only be used in a negative, not in a positive sense. Hence, the Sages also require tithing.

footnotes: ¹²⁶ “Practice” in the language of the Yerushalmi is similar to the notion of “practice going back to Moses on Mount Sinai” in the Babli; it means a rule established by the returnees from Babylonia, the “Men of the Great Assembly,” as part of the establishment of rabbinic Judaism. It is part of the original decree of demay. ¹²⁷ Assuming that the statement of R. Joḥanan refers to the Mishnah, viz., that the Sages say produce deposited with a Gentile is like his own produce, the assertion that R. Simeon requires tithing is trivial since demay

.What is the difference between them? Rebbi Simeon says, he separates and takes money from the tribe¹²⁸. The rabbis say that he separates and does not take money from the tribe. But is it not even like heave from outside the Land, does he not take money from the tribe¹²⁹? Maybe it was said on the principle of ṭevel for produce of the Gentile¹³⁰? Since we have stated: Rebbi Jehudah and Rebbi Simeon say, a Gentile may acquire real estate in the Land of Israel to free it from the tithes imposed on it¹³¹ Chapter 4, Notes 129–131.. Rebbi Jeremiah, Rebbi Ḥiyya. in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Rebbi Simeon agrees that nevertheless he¹³² must separate tithes as a matter of practice.

footnotes: ¹²⁸ He separates heave of the tithe and sells it (cheaply, because there are few qualified buyers) to the Cohen. The Sages would require the heave to be given as a gift. ¹²⁹ In those parts of the Land conquered and sanctified by Moses and Joshua but not settled by the returnees from Babylonia, heave and tithes were taken as a remembrance and sold to the Cohanim. Outside the Biblical boundaries, no heave was ever taken (and could not be taken because that land is impure.) ¹³⁰ The statement of R. Joḥanan never was meant as commentary on our Mishnah but as a remark on the status of produce grown by a Gentile in the Land of Israel. Hence, the inference about the stand taken by the Sages in our Mishnah is invalid. ¹³¹ They disagree with R. Meïr who holds that all land in the Land of Israel is subject to heave and tithes, irrespective of the owner; cf. Peah ¹³² The Jew who buys produce grown in the Land by a Gentile. This obligation is one of tradition.

MISHNAH: He who gives to the innkeeper’s wife, tithes what he gives her and what he takes from her because she is suspected to switch¹³³ never hands anything demay over to a fellow Jew. This Mishnah (and the next) are quoted in Babli Ḥulin 6a–b; there, the interpretation is that the innkeeper will try to please her guests and maybe substitute fresher produce or spices for him, whereas R. Yose takes a dim view of innkeepers and thinks that if she takes anything it is in order to steal.. Rebbi Yose said, we are not responsible for the dishonest¹³⁴, it is her own fault if she commits a deadly sin.; he tithes only what he receives from her.

footnotes: ¹³³ The motives imputed to the innkeeper’s wife (or the female innkeeper) are not clear. She is supposed to cook for her guests the food they provide. The anonymous Tanna holds that a ḥaver ¹³⁴ If she steals and eats ṭevel

HALAKHAH: Both Rebbi Yose and Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel¹³⁵ 5:1 states that a vineyard in the fourth year (whose fruits may not be eaten without redemption) is signalized by lumps of earth placed around it, and any orchard in the first three years after planting (whose fruits are forbidden for any use) by lumps of clay. Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel notes that this has to be done only in the Sabbatical year, when all growth is ownerless, but that in all other years, when taking from enclosed orchards and vineyards is theft, no signalizing is required since we are not responsible for the salvation of thieves. said the same thing. Just as Rebbi Yose said, we are not responsible for the dishonest, so Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel said, we are not responsible for the dishonest. It is reasonable that Rebbi Yose will agree with Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel, but Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel will not agree with Rebbi Yose. Rebbi Yose will agree with Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel that we are not responsible for the dishonest. But Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel will not agree with Rebbi Yose, because it is not fitting for a ḥaver that anything not in order should leave his house¹³⁶ 32a, Pesaḥim 9a) in the name of R. Ḥanina (there called R. Ḥanina from Khusistan.).

footnotes: ¹³⁵ Mishnah Maӓser Šeni ¹³⁶ This is quoted in the Babli (Erubin

MISHNAH: He¹³⁷ who married the daughter of an am haäreẓ. who gives to his mother-in-law tithes what he gives to her and what he receives from her because she is suspect to switch spoiled food¹³⁸. Rebbi Jehudah says, she wants to put her daughter in a good light and is ashamed before her son-in-law. Rebbi Jehudah agrees that if he gives to his mother-in-law in the Sabbatical year she is not suspect of switching to feed her daughter from Sabbatical produce.

footnotes: ¹³⁷ The ḥaver ¹³⁸ If something that the daughter cooks in her mother’s kitchen is spoiled, the mother will take from her own stores to produce a perfect meal for her son-in-law. R. Jehudah does not disagree with the first sentence; he just gives the reasoning behind the rule.

HALAKHAH: Rebbi Joḥanan said, the first sentence also gives the opinion of Rebbi Jehudah. But the rabbis say, one who gives to his mother-in-law is like one who gives to his neighbor. As we have stated¹³⁹ 4:31, speaking of a ḥaver who gives something to bake or cook to his am haäreẓ neighbor. The Tosephta is a little more explicit, reading in the last sentence: “he worries about the sour dough and spices for the Sabbatical year and tithes,” not the foods he gave her.: “He who gives bread to his neighbor to bake for him, or a dish to cook for him, has to worry neither about the Sabbatical year nor about tithes. That is, if he also gave her sour dough or spices. But if he did not give sour dough and spices, he worries about the Sabbatical year and about tithes.”

footnotes: ¹³⁹ Tosephta Demay

Does it mean his mother-in-law after the first¹⁴⁰ Chapter 6, Note 46. or the second marriage ceremony? Let us hear from the following: “Rebbi Jehudah agrees that if he gives to his mother-in-law in the Sabbatical year she is not suspect of switching to feed her daughter from Sabbatical produce¹⁴¹.” Is there a difference between first and second marriage ceremony? Here also, there is no difference between first and second marriage ceremony.

footnotes: ¹⁴⁰ Cf. Peah ¹⁴¹ In case the mother herself will not eat from Sabbatical produce used as merchandise.