MISHNAH: He who buys produce from a person who is not trustworthy for tithes and forgot to tithe them¹ may ask the seller on the Sabbath and eats on the seller’s information². At nightfall, when Sabbath ends, he may not eat until he tithed. If he did not find the seller, but another person who is not trustworthy for tithes told him that it is tithed, he may eat on that information¹⁰. At nightfall when Sabbath ends, he may not eat until he tithed. Heave of the tithe that returned to its origin²⁵, in general the produce cannot be fixed since heave cannot be used to take heave for other produce. (If the heave which falls into profane food is less than .99%, something can be done.) All rules are given in Terumot 5. If heave of the tithe falls into the produce from which it was taken, there results a major complication and a potential great monetary loss since Cohanim will pay little for produce containing heave. If the heave should be impure, the entire batch would be a total loss since, in the case which is described in the Mishnah, the heave (1%) falls into the remainder (99%) and, therefore, is turning everything into dema‘. In that case, and since most amē haäreẓ are supposed to tithe, if the untrustworthy seller asserts that heave was taken, no heave fell into the produce and all is permitted for profane use.. Rebbi Simeon from Shezur²⁶ said, even on weekdays he asks the seller and eats on his information.

footnotes: ¹ Friday afternoon, and now, on the Sabbath, he has no other produce to eat. ² Even though on weekdays, when tithing is possible, the seller’s information would not be trusted. ¹⁰ On the Sabbath only. ²⁵ If heave falls into profane food of the same kind, the entire lot cannot be eaten except by Cohanim. If heave falls into ṭevel ²⁶ A Tanna, student of Rebbis Joshua, Eliezer, and Tarphon from lower Galilee, today’s village of Sejur.

HALAKHAH: The colleagues in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: They permitted it because of the glory of the Sabbath. If it is because of the glory of the Sabbath, why does he have to ask him⁴ if those rules should be followed at all.? By way of finding a cause. Rebbi Bibi in the name of Rebbi Ḥanina: The fear of the Sabbath is on him⁵, who will not desecrate the Sabbath. and he will speak the truth. If the fear of the Sabbath is on him, why did we state that at nightfall, when the Sabbath ends, he may not eat until he tithed? Because of one who does not fear the Sabbath. It was stated⁶ 5:1.: “If he asks him on weekdays, he may not eat on the Sabbath.” According to him who says that the fear of the Sabbath is on him, this is fine. According to him who says that it is because of the glory of the Sabbath; when he asks him on weekdays, should he not eat on the Sabbath⁷?

footnotes: ⁴ Since the seller is not trustworthy, his testimony is irrelevant. The answer is that some reason must be given to lift the strict rules of demay ⁵ On the am haäreẓ ⁶ Tosephta Demay ⁷ R. Joḥanan’s argument seems weak. But in the next Halakhah, the tables are turned.

It was stated only for someone acting in error, not intentionally, as we have stated: If he forgot to tithe⁸, if he had made no previous stipulation⁹, where heave can be given only from what clearly is in the tither’s possession, this kind of stipulation is permitted for demay. It is even permitted for one person to make the stipulation for a whole group of people eating together.. But with a stipulation, one eats even on the stipulation by a friend.

footnotes: ⁸ The leniencies are only admitted if somebody actually forgot to prepare, not if it was an intentional effort to seek leniencies. ⁹ This is explained in Mishnah 7:1: If somebody is invited to eat at another person’s house and he does not trust his host with tithes, he can stipulate that after he returns home he will give tithes on what he ate there. While such a condition is forbidden for ṭevel

May one eat on the question of another person? How is that understood? If two persons bought at the same time from him¹¹, if one of them asked him, the other may not eat until he tithed or also asked; I say he tithed one batch, but not the other. If one person bought from him two fig cakes and asked him about one of them, he may not eat from the second cake until he tithed or asked him; I say that he tithed one but not the other. At nightfall when Sabbath ends, he tithes from one on the other. According to him who says that it is because of the glory of the Sabbath, this is fine¹³. According to him who says that the fear of the Sabbath is on him, why should he be able to tithe from one on the other?

footnotes: ¹¹ In the first two sentences, “he” and “him” always refer to the seller; in the last three to the buyer. ¹³ We might assume that the leniencies expressed in the first two Mishnaiot apply only where the Sabbath enjoyment would be severely curtailed because nothing of the same kind is available in the buyer’s house. However, even if other produce of the same kind is available the taste of that particular bunch might be preferred.

So far, if he has nothing of the same kind¹³. Even if he has of the same kind, that is a matter of preference.

footnotes: ¹³ We might assume that the leniencies expressed in the first two Mishnaiot apply only where the Sabbath enjoyment would be severely curtailed because nothing of the same kind is available in the buyer’s house. However, even if other produce of the same kind is available the taste of that particular bunch might be preferred.

A holiday next to the Sabbath, be it before the Sabbath or after the Sabbath, and likewise the two holidays of the diaspora, according to him who says they are one sanctity, he may eat; according to him who says that they are two sanctities, he may not eat¹⁴ 3, fol. 21b, and Yom Tov 1:1, fol. 60a, Babli Erubin 38a–39a, in connection with eruv teḥumin as explained in Peah, Chapter Eight, Note 56. The question is now whether one may make one eruv for the Sabbath and another one for another direction for the Sunday following which is a holiday. If the sanctities fit together smoothly, this is not possible. If there is a clean break, it is possible.. Even according to him who says that they are two sanctities, he may eat as long as there was no possibility to tithe between them¹⁵, it certainly is not possible to tithe. Hence, there is no legal “nightfall after the Sabbath” as envisaged by the Mishnah.. It was stated¹⁶ 5:1.: “If he asks him on the holiday, he eats on the Sabbath; if he asks him on the Sabbath, he eats on the holiday.” Rebbi Jonah in the name of Rebbi Zeïra, explain it regarding produce he had intended to use on Sabbath eve. But produce he had not intended on Sabbath eve (to use during the Sabbath) is not included¹⁷. Rebbi Mana said, the words of the rabbis support Rebbi Jonah, my father, since we have stated there¹⁸ declares that under the penalties of breaking a vow he will have no relations with the other person, a ḥaver, unless that other person comes to his house to eat with him on the Sabbath but the ḥaver does not trust the am haäreẓ with the tithes, the ḥaver may eat at am haäreẓ’s the place the first Sabbath even though he is not trustworthy for tithes, on condition that he tell him that all is tithed. On the second Sabbath, even though he makes a vow to abstain from all benefit from him, he shall not eat until he tithed. {Since tithing must be done before the Sabbath, it seems that the question also must be asked before the Sabbath.} This somewhat contrasts with Mishnah 7:1: “One who is invited by a person whom he does not trust with tithes says on Friday afternoon: Anything that I shall in the future separate for what I am going to eat shall be First and Second Tithes. The First Tithe shall become the heave of the tithe and the Second Tithe shall be redeemed with coins.” Hence, it is possible to tithe mentally under the right circumstances. In the case of a holiday following a Sabbath, if one is mentally prepared, one may transfer the permission of Sabbath to the holiday.: “He who takes a vow regarding his friend that he will eat at his place but he does not trust him with the tithes.” Rebbi Yannai ben Rebbi Ismaël in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: On the Sabbath of the preliminary marriage¹⁹, Chapter 6, Note 46). A big meal was given for the community on the Sabbath preceding קידושין and not to appear would have been an insult to the families of the young couple. The invited guest could retroactively tithe what he ate, according to Mishnah 7:1. If he forgot, he could rely on the assertion of the untrustworthy. In medieval Germany, the festivity was called spinholz (from Italian sposalizio). they permitted because of hatred. Is the Sabbath of the preliminary marriage not comparable to produce that on Sabbath eve he intended to use (later on the Sabbath)²⁰? Nevertheless, he²¹ only said “because of hatred.”

footnotes: ¹⁴ Everybody agrees that the sanctity of Sabbath is greater than the sanctity of holidays and that the sanctity of the Biblical first day of holidays is greater than that of the rabbinic second day of the diaspora. Here the question is whether these different degrees of sanctity fit together smoothly or whether there is a clean break between them even if that break has no temporal extension. The problem is discussed in Erubin ¹⁵ Even if it is possible to have two eruvin ¹⁶ Tosephta Demay ¹⁷ One cannot extend the validity of the query of an untrustworthy person beyond the original intent. ¹⁸ Mishnah 4:4: If an am haäreẓ ¹⁹ πρωτογαμία, ἡ, Greek word in a Latin inscription from Carthage, “the Jewish celebration of the preliminary marriage” (cf. Peah ²⁰ Since he already knew on Friday that he had to attend. ²¹ R. Joḥanan said, if it were not necessary for peace in the community, the rabbis would not have permitted to accept the word of an untrustworthy person. Similarly, the permission to use on holidays the assertion of tithes by an untrustworthy person given on the Sabbath must be restricted to food also intended for the Sabbath.

If he invited him the first Sabbath but he did not come, the second time he should not eat unless he tithes or asks him²². Did he not already ask him? Rebbi Jonah said, there he asked for himself. But here a third party asked about it.

footnotes: ²² Mishnah 4:4 states that on the first Sabbath he actually eats there he may rely on his host’s word. But the second time around, the untrustworthy person’s word is not good enough. Why is it accepted here since actually it is now the second time that the guest asks about tithing? The answer is that the first question did not concern him personally since he was somehow prevented from attending the meal.

Rebbi Jonah asked: May he ask him in a roundabout way? Rebbi Jonah asks in this way. Rebbi Jonah bought wheat from Bar Ḥaqulah. He went to him and said, not that I suspect you, but since I bought wheat from you and I saw a multitude²⁴, p. 612). with you, I said maybe you forgot to put them in order. Were they put in order? He complained strongly about him and said: Why do you suspect me?

footnotes: ²⁴ Greek ὄχλος “multitude, troups” (Berakhot

It was stated: “Heave of the tithe from demay that returned to its origin makes dema‘²⁷‘ (a word of unclear etymology, *Ex.*22:28) describes profane produce mixed with heave, which is unfit for human consumption if heave and food are impure, and is food only for Cohanim and their families if both the heave and the food are pure. It can be put in order only if the amount of heave in the total is less than 1 in 101. Since heave from demay is genuinely holy only in a minority of cases, that heave does not necessarily create dema‘. (Maimonides Maäser 12:4 and R. Abraham ben David ad loc.), not to its origin does not make dema‘. Rebbi Simeon from Shezur said, both at its origin and not at its origin it does not make dema‘.” Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya asked before Rebbi Zeïra: For one who says, it makes dema‘, it makes dema‘; for one who says, it does not make dema‘, it does not make dema‘; this is reasonable²⁸ cannot create dema‘. I also could understand the position that, once the name of heave was attached to any produce, it must be treated like heave in all respects.. But if one says, in its origin it makes dema‘, not in its origin it does not make dema‘; what is the difference between in its origin and not in its origin? Rebbi Ḥaggai came up. They said, this one will say, “by Moses, I shall explain the reason²⁹.” He said, by Moses, I shall explain the reason: He who says, it makes dema‘, because it permits the rest to be eaten³⁰ may not be eaten by rabbinic ordinance, it should in this respect be treated like heave taken according to Biblical precept.. He who says, it does not make dema‘, because it does not permit the rest to be eaten³¹. Rebbi La taught according to that of Rebbi Ḥaggai³².. Rebbi Zeïra said: A case came before Rebbi Ḥanina and he taught according to Rebbi Simeon from Shezur. Rebbi Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Jonathan: Practice does not follow Rebbi Simeon from Shezur³³ 75b, both R. Ḥanina and R. Jonathan endorse the ruling of R. Simeon from Shezur as valid practice..

footnotes: ²⁷ Dema ²⁸ That means, I can understand R. Simeon from Shezur, that we always follow the majority of cases and, therefore, heave from demay ²⁹ R. Ḥaggai’s standard answer to questions of this type. ³⁰ Since without tithing, demay ³¹ For other produce, it simply is food of questionable status. ³² He declares practice to follow the anonymous Tanna in the baraita ³³ In Babli Ḥulin

“In addition, Rebbi Simeon from Shezur said: If he separated the heave of the tithe and it was burned, he asks the seller and eats on his information³⁵ 5:2: “Heave of the tithe which returned to its origin. Rebbi Simeon from Shezur said, even on weekdays he asks the seller and eats on his information. In addition, Rebbi Simeon from Shezur said: If he separated heave and tithes and the produce was stolen, he asks the seller and eats what he separated on his information, because just as the fear of the Sabbath is on the am haäreẓ, so the fear of dema‘ is on him.” The different baraita here has to be interpreted in the same way, viz., that the main body of produce was burnt and he was left only with heave and tithes. Because of the monetary loss, he was permitted to treat heave and tithes as profane food on the untrustworthy seller’s word..” Did Rebbi Zeïra not say that a similar case came before Rebbi Ḥanina and he taught according to Rebbi Simeon from Shezur? Rebbi Avin said, this question does not compare to the first question. There it was, not that I suspect you, but since I bought wheat from you yesterday and I saw a multitude with you, I said maybe you forgot to put them in order. Were they put in order? But here, because I suspected you, I put them in order but they went up in fire. Were they put in order³⁶? Rebbi Samuel, the son of Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun³⁷ said that Bar Kappara stated: The fear of dema‘ is on him and he will tell the truth³⁸‘ are, even if he himself is only aware that he must separate the first heave, he will not be a party to such a grave sin. It follows that the Tosephta before us is in the tradition of Bar Kappara, and that it is part of the original statement of R. Simeon from Shezur..

footnotes: ³⁵ Tosephta Demay ³⁶ How can he expect to get an honest answer if the question is an insult to the seller? ³⁷ An Amora of the fifth generation, student of his father and of R. Nasa, also mentioned together with Rebbi Mattaniah. ³⁸ Since everybody knows how bad the consequences of dema

MISHNAH: He³⁹’s place, in our case when the human relationship is endangered, when the am haäreẓ vowed to cease all relations with the trustworthy person unless he accepts his invitation, and it is on a Sabbath, when the fear of the Sabbath is on the am haäreẓ, an exception was made. But the following Sabbaths, he may eat only if either the am haäreẓ tithes before him or he tithes the am haäreẓ’ s produce. who takes a vow concerning his friend that he should eat at his place but he does not trust him with the tithes, he may eat at his place the first Sabbath even though he is not trustworthy for tithes, on condition that he tell him that all is tithed. On the second Sabbath, even though he makes a vow to refuse any benefit from him, he shall not eat until he tithed.”

footnotes: ³⁹ See Note 18. Even though Mishnah 2:2 stated that the trustworthy person may not eat at an am haäreẓ

HALAKHAH: Rebbi Yannai ben Rebbi Ismaël in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: On the Sabbath of a protogamia⁴⁰ they permitted because of hatred. Rebbi Avin said, here they permitted ṭevel because of human relations. Rebbi Ḥanina said, Rebbi Jeremiah asked: If it is because of human relations, why is it only on condition that the host tell him that it was tithed⁴¹? If he invited him on the first Sabbath but he did not come, can the second Sabbath become the first⁴². The question was answered in Halakhah 2.? Rav Ḥisda said, here we have learned that a ḥaver may not eat at a meal that has no name⁴³ may not eat at a meal offered by an am haäreẓ except at a particular religious festivity, such as the protogamia. The statement refers to the pronouncement of R. Yannai, not the Mishnah. A similar statement, in the name of the Tanna R. Simeon, is in the Babli Pesaḥim49a, with a different thrust since the Babli, in contrast to Mishnah and Yerushalmi, frowns upon marriages between ḥaverim and amē haäreẓ. The restrictive statement here also is from a Babylonian author..

footnotes: ⁴⁰ See Note 19. ⁴¹ Since probably the question about tithes will offend the host. No answer is given. ⁴² This refers back to the Mishnah, not to the protogamia ⁴³ A ḥaver

MISHNAH: Rebbi Eliezer says, nobody has to give a name to the tithe of the poor from demay⁴⁵ is only ṭevel by doubt, no poor man can go to court and sue to collect the tithe. The tithe of the poor is only a civil obligation and no sanctity is attached to it. R. Eliezer says that in years 3 and 6 the tithe is nonexistent for demay but the Sages, according to Maimonides in his Mishnah Commentary, hold that in order to protect the separation and redemption of Second Tithe in other years, one has at least to indicate that the tithe of the poor, if given, would have to be at a fixed part of the stored produce (e. g., at the Northern or Southern end.). But the Sages say, he has to give a name but does not have to separate. He who gave a name⁶⁴ to his heave of the tithe of demay⁶⁵, or to the certain tithe of the poor, should not separate them⁶⁶ on the Sabbath. But if a Cohen or a poor person were used to eat from his food at his table, they may come and eat it⁶⁷ or tevel and the owner may eat simultaneously with his guests as long as the guests know that they are eating heave or tithe. on condition that he inform them.

footnotes: ⁴⁵ The tithe of the poor is due in years 3 and 6 of the Sabbatical cycle. Sincedemay ⁶⁴ If he said, for example, that the heave of the tithe should be the Northernmost 1% of the produce, or the heave of the poor the 10% next to a given corner. If this is not done, nothing at all from that produce can be eaten on the Sabbath. ⁶⁵ The heave of the tithe for certain tevel must be given by the Levite receiving the First Tithe, not the farmer. In contrast, the heave of the poor is given only from produce that is certain. ⁶⁶ R. Simson of Sens proves from Mishnah 7:1, and it is also clear from the next paragraph, that once a name is given to heave and tithes, the actual handling of it on the Sabbath is permitted. What is questionable is taking it and handing it over to the recipients since transfer of property on the Sabbath is not permitted. ⁶⁷ He and they sit at the same table and eat from the same produce on condition that Cohen or poor eat from the corner that was declared to be their part. In that way, the produce is no longer demay

HALAKHAH: Rebbi Abba bar Huna⁴⁷ on Thr. 1:3), this tradition is ascribed to Rav Bibi and Rav Huna. The title is incorrect; it should be רב but because of the elided א in the name Abba the text cannot be emended. in the name of Rav: He who eats his produce without having separated the tithe of the poor commits a deadly sin⁴⁸ 16b, Rav is quoted as saying that such a person is whipped, implying that it is not a deadly sin.. What is the reason of Rebbi Eliezer? Because he⁴⁹ in the years of the tithe of the poor will not contain that tithe. Such an argument were impossible if we would read “Second Tithe” in the statement attributed to Rav. knows that it would be a deadly sin, he will separate it. What is the reason of the rabbis? He only has to give a name but does not have to separate it⁴⁷ on Thr. 1:3), this tradition is ascribed to Rav Bibi and Rav Huna. The title is incorrect; it should be רב but because of the elided א in the name Abba the text cannot be emended..

footnotes: ⁴⁷ In the Babli, he is called Rabba bar Rav Huna, son of the Amora Rav Huna, and fourth head of the Yeshivah at Sura founded by Rav. In the Midrash (Ekhah rabbati ⁴⁸ In the Babli, Makkot ⁴⁹ The farmer knows that not separating the tithe of the poor makes his food a deadly affair; he will separate it. (Since most farmers consider themselves poor, he probably will eat the tithe himself. If he is not actually poor he has overstepped a positive commandment, not a prohibition.) As a consequence, demay ⁴⁷ In the Babli, he is called Rabba bar Rav Huna, son of the Amora Rav Huna, and fourth head of the Yeshivah at Sura founded by Rav. In the Midrash (Ekhah rabbati

It was stated⁵¹ 3:6: “If somebody was seen separating the Second Tithe, he is trustworthy for the First Tithe, the words of R. Eliezer. But the Sages say, if he is trustworthy for the First, he is trustworthy for the Second; he who is trustworthy for the Second is not trustworthy for the First. If he separated heave, First and Second Tithes, and ate from it, he is trustworthy for that kind of food but not for any other kind, the words of Rebbi Eliezer. But the Sages say, even for that kind he is not trustworthy {unless he passes the formal tests of trustworthiness}; you cannot trust him for he might put in order for himself but leads others astray {by eating kosher produce but selling ṭevel.}” The text here makes little sense. It seems that the first two words of the next clause are dittography. The implication is that the formal induction into ḥaverut, described in Chapter 2, does solve all problems in theory but not in practice since many people will be reluctant to wear a badge that proclaims their superiority over fellow Jews. Hence, we need some guidelines to recognize people who follow the rules without ostentation.: He is trustworthy if they saw him separate the Second Tithe. It was stated: For the Second, he is trustworthy for the First, the words of Rebbi Eliezer. But the Sages say, if he trustworthy for the First, he is trustworthy for the Second. He who is trustworthy for the Second is not trustworthy for the First. What is the reason of Rebbi Eliezer?⁵² Is it because he is not suspected of advancing the tithe⁵³, or because if he separated the Second it is a standing presumption that he separated the First⁵⁴? But did we not state: “Rebbi Eliezer says, nobody has to give a name to the tithe of the poor from demay.” Hence, for the Second it is needed⁵⁵. Since he has to separate the Second, on which the owner earns no goodwill⁵⁶ he certainly will separate the First, on which he earns goodwill⁵⁷!

footnotes: ⁵¹ Tosephta Maäser Šeni ⁵² Since the Yerushalmi discusses R. Eliezer but not the Sages, it endorses R. Eliezer’s stand in principle. ⁵³ Cf. Chapter 1, Note 208. ⁵⁴ Since not separating the heave of the tithe is much more severe a transgression than not separating the Second Tithe. ⁵⁵ R. Eliezer certainly agrees that separating the Second Tithe is part of the procedure needed to fix demay. ⁵⁶ Each time he redeems Second Tithe, he loses a peruta's worth of value in the coin set aside for these redemptions. If all perutot in the coin are used up, he has to destroy it. ⁵⁷ While he has to give the First Tithe to a Levite or a Cohen (at least as long as they had documentary proof that their male ancesters were admitted to service in the Temple), the choice of the person who receives his tithes is his and it is perfectly legitimate to use the First Tithe and the {pure} heave of the tithe to cement friendships and commercial ties.

“If somebody brought out Second Tithe from his house to somebody and said: ‘It is redeemed,’ he is trustworthy; ‘redeem for me and yourself,’⁵⁸ 12:5) reads פדוי לי ופדוי לכם “it is redeemed for me and is redeemed for you,” interpreted to mean “it is redeemed following my standards and I hope that is good enough for you.” He declares himself not to follow generally accepted standards and makes himself untrustworthy. The classical commentators follow this reading. he is not trustworthy⁵⁹.” The baraita is Rebbi Eliezer’s, since Rebbi Eliezer said, he who is trustworthy for the Second is trustworthy for the First. Rebbi Yose said, everybody agrees, they made it like additions to First Fruits⁶⁰ farmer whether the additional fruits are tithed, he is by law required to believe what the farmer tells him (Maimonides Maäser 13:14).. Just as additions to First Fruits are eaten in purity and are free from demay, so this is eaten as Second Tithe and is free from the First. Rebbi Ḥananiah confirmed in the name of Rebbi Issi⁶¹: it is Rebbi Eliezer’s⁶² Hence, the baraita is R. Eliezer’s and the Sages make trustworthiness dependent exclusively on the rules given in Chapter 2..

footnotes: ⁵⁸ R. Abraham ben David (Maimonides, Maäser ⁵⁹ In the second case, when he says, redeem it for me, it is clear that Second Tithe was not given. Hence, if it is spelled out that he is not trustworthy, it implies that he is not trustworthy for First Tithe and the heave of the tithe. It follows that the first “trustworthy” has exactly the same meaning and in the first case he is declared to be trustworthy for First because he is believed to be trustworthy for Second. ⁶⁰ First Fruits are presented to the Temple and eaten there by the Cohen under the laws of purity of sacrifices. First Fruits are chosen when the farmer sees a first fruit forming in his orchard; then he binds a string of bast around that twig to recognize the fruit later. If he thinks that it is shabby to bring just one fruit to the Temple, he will add other fruits of the same kind to his basket. The First Fruit itself, as a sacrifice, is exempt from all heaves and tithes; the additions are not. But if the Cohen in the Temple asks the am haäreẓ ⁶¹ R. Assi. ⁶² There is no support in any Tannaitic material for R. Yose’s creation of a new category of fruits exempt from demay.

This is the Mishnah⁶⁸: He should not hand them over on the Sabbath, since we have stated there: “The House of Shammai say that one does not bring ḥallah and gifts⁶⁹ 18:3). to the Cohen on a holiday, whether they were separated the day before or on the day itself, but the House of Hillel do permit this.” The first statement implies the second, the second implies the first. The first statement implies the second; there is no difference between holiday and Sabbath⁷⁰, and to slaughter, hence to create new gifts for the Cohen. But property may not be transferred at all according to the House of Shammai, and according to the House of Hillel only in a roundabout way, when the Cohen eats his part at the table of the giver.. The second implies the first; that is, if they⁷¹ are used to. But if they are not used to, no person comes⁷² to eat his piece of bread at another’s house.

footnotes: ⁶⁸ A clarification of what the Mishnah means; cf. J. N. Epstein, מבוא לנוסח המשנה, 2nd ed., p. 445. ⁶⁹ The parts of a profane, slaughtered animal that should be given to the Cohen (Deut. ⁷⁰ There is an obvious difference between holiday and Sabbath in that on holidays one is permitted to bake, hence to create ḥallah ⁷¹ Cohen and poor person eating at the householder’s Sabbath table. They may eat unseparated tithe or heave only if they are regular guests and the householder knows that they will come. ⁷² The text has two synonyms, סלק “comes up,” על “ascends.”

It was stated⁷³ 7:8:“There are seven kinds of thieves and the worst of them is the thief of opinons: He who importunes another person to be his guest while he knows that the other will not accept, he who offers many gifts while he knows that the other will not accept, he who opens a new barrel for a guest when from its contents he will sell to a grocer, etc.” In these cases, the person invited, offered gifts, or wine from a brand new barrel, thinks that the other party is ready to go to real expense on his behalf when in reality the pretending giver knows that it will cost him nothing. This paragraph is added because in the Mishnah, Cohen and poor have to be informed that they are eating heave and tithe which is forbidden to their host.: “One should not importune anybody to be his guest if he knows that the other person will not accept. He should not offer many gifts of closeness if he knows that the other person will not accept.” What are gifts of closeness? He knows that the other person expects that he would exert himself for him. In Jerusalem one turned his clasp⁷⁴ 1:3, fol. 39a, an unexplained word עיכלה is used, in Ekhah rabbati4(2) יד אונקלי שלו. The commentary מתנות כהונה to Ekhah rabbati indicates that in his Yerushalmi manuscript the word is פיבליה, identified by A. Kohut as Latin fibula, “clasp” to hold the toga together. The Yerushalmi spelling corresponds to the late Greek form φίβλα. Kohut conjectures that on the way to a dinner one wore the clasp inverted as a sign that no other invitation could be accepted. [Babylonian sources (Tosephta Berakhot 4:9, Baba batra 93b) deal with preparations of the host, not the guest, for the dinner. The word appearing here, פילכיה “his distaff, spindle” does not fit.] from left to right.

footnotes: ⁷³ Tosephta Bava Qama ⁷⁴ In the parallel text, Avodah zarah

It was stated: “One does not carry to the mourner’s house in colored glass containers because he carries a false load⁷⁵27a) prescribes that all food be brought in simple baskets woven from leaves of the date palm (so that the poor also could take part in this good deed); the baraita there must be of Babylonian origin. Colored glass is frowned upon because is looks expensive but may contain very little food since it is opaque..”

footnotes: ⁷⁵ After a burial, the mourners may not prepare a meal for themselves but must receive their first meal from the neighbors. The Babli (Moëd qaṭan

It was stated⁷⁶ 3:13–14, partially quoted in Babli Giṭṭin 61a. Since a Jewish community is required to have organized charity, if the Gentiles do not have similar services, the Jewish social services must be offered also to the Gentiles to advance intercommunal relations. The paragraph is inserted here probably from the parallel text in Avodah zarah1:3, since the next paragraph is dependent on this one and belongs to Avodah zarah.: “In a town where Gentiles and Jews live together, the overseers of charity collect from Jews and Gentiles and provide for Jewish and Gentile poor, visit Jewish and Gentile sick, bury Jewish and Gentile dead, and console Gentile and Jewish mourners. Also, one takes in vessels⁷⁷ 22:1–3). This is extended to vessels lost by Gentiles for the sake of intercommunal peace. from Gentiles and from Jews for the sake of peaceful coexistence.”

footnotes: ⁷⁶ Tosephta Giṭṭin ⁷⁷ If one finds a usable vessel that has some distinguishing mark, if it was lost by a Jew it is the duty of a fellow Jew who finds it to take it with him, advertise for the loser, and return it (Deut.

The weavers asked Rebbi Ammi, what about a Gentile wedding feast⁷⁸? He wanted to permit it to them from this: “Because of peaceful coexistence.” Rebbi Abba told them, did not Rebbi Ḥiyya state⁷⁹ 1:4 it is noted that one may not trade with a Gentile on the day of his wedding or the day he was appointed to a post in local government (since on these occasions religious ceremonies are unavoidable.) that the holiday of a Gentile wedding feast is forbidden. Rebbi Ammi said, if it had not been for Rebbi Ba, we would have come to permit their strange worship⁸⁰; praised be He Who distanced us from them.

footnotes: ⁷⁸ Whether one may be a guest at such a celebration. ⁷⁹ In Tosephta Avodah zarah ⁸⁰ I. e., idolatry.

MISHNAH: He who tells somebody who is not trustworthy, buy for me from somebody who is trustworthy, or from somebody who tithes, is⁸¹ If the untrustworthy emissary did not execute his job to the letter, the produce he bought is still demay. not trustworthy; from X, he is trustworthy. If he went to buy from him and said, I did not find him, but I bought for you from somebody who is trustworthy, he is not trustworthy.

footnotes: ⁸¹ The untrustworthy person who was sent to buy produce. In such a case, the store from which he has to buy must be specified, otherwise all he bought is demay.

HALAKHAH: It was stated⁸² 5:3; the discussion here in the Halakhah is part of the statement: “He who says to somebody who is not trustworthy, buy for me from somebody who is trustworthy, or from somebody who tithes, is not trustworthy; from X, he is trustworthy. Rebbi Yose {the Tanna, ben Ḥalaphta} says, he is not trustworthy; maybe he found a source that is closer. Rebbi Yose agrees that if he said, go, eat the loaf, and I shall pay for it, go, drink a glass, and I shall pay for it, he is trustworthy.”: “Rebbi Yose said, even if he specified, from X, he is not trustworthy, unless he said, you buy and I will pay.” What is the reason of Rebbi Yose? I say that he found someone close by and bought from him, as we have stated there⁸³ 6:6. A bill of divorce is not valid until it is delivered into the hand of the wife (Deut. 24:1,3). However, the wife can appoint an agent and the hand of a duly appointed agent is like the hand of the principal. If she is the wife of a Cohen, she may eat heave as long as she is his wife but not when she is a divorcee. Hence, the exact moment when she is divorced is identical with the exact moment in which the wife of a Cohen may no longer eat heave.: “Receive my bill of divorce at such and such a place; she may eat heave until the bill of divorce reaches that place. Rebbi Eleazar⁸⁴. He is the authority for bills of divorce. prohibits her immediately.” What is the reason of Rebbi Eleazar? I say that he found it behind the door. It turns out that Rebbi Eleazar is like Rebbi Yose and Rebbi Yose is like Rebbi Eleazar. Rebbi Yose says more than Rebbi Eleazar; does not Rebbi Eleazar agree that if she says to him, do not accept it except at such and such a place⁸⁵, that she continues eating until the bill of divorce reaches that place? But here, even if he says, only from X, he is not trustworthy, except if he said, you buy and I will pay.

footnotes: ⁸² In Tosephta Demay ⁸³ Mishnah Giṭṭin ⁸⁴ R. Eleazar ben Shamua‘, one of the last students of R. Aqiba, discussed in the introduction to Berakhot ⁸⁵ If the authorization contains such a restriction, the commission of the agent is not valid outside that place, and if the agent receives the bill of divorce at any other place she is not divorced.

MISHNAH: If someone enters a town, does not know anybody there, and asks: Who is trustworthy here, who tithes? If somebody told him, I am not trustworthy, but Mr. X is trustworthy, he may be believed⁸⁶. If he went and bought there and asked, who is selling old produce here⁸⁷ 12:7). R. Abraham ben David, and Rashi (Ketubot 56b) is that the buyer is looking for old (better quality) wine and is ready to buy demay and tithe it if only he gets the quality desired. The interpretation of the Mishnah would be that the first informant, who directed the buyer to the second one’s store, was not an uninterested bystander, but in effect was indirectly paid for steering the stranger to the second one’s store. The plural “they may be believed” in the last sentence then would include the seller who asserted to the stranger that he was trustworthy by the rules. His trustworthiness is not invalidated by the kickback. R. Simson of Sens refers “old produce” to that grown before the Sabbatical year if the question was asked in the Sabbatical. But the question here is about tithes, not the Sabbatical. Usually, “old” refers to grain that started to grow before the last Passover, since “new” grain, summer wheat planted after Passover, may not be eaten until after the next Passover (Lev. 23:14). But Rashi (loc. cit.) shows that this notion cannot apply here and summer wheat cannot be grown in the Land of Israel.? If the seller said, the one who sent you to me, they may be believed even though they act as if they would do reciprocal favors to each other. Donkey drivers who entered a town and one of them said, my produce is new, my colleague’s is old⁹³, mine is not in order, my colleague’s is in order, are not to be believed⁹⁴. Rebbi Jehudah says, they are to be believed.

footnotes: ⁸⁶ Even though the speaker himself is not trustworthy, in this case he may be believed, as explained in the Halakhah. ⁸⁷ The meaning of “old produce” is difficult to establish. The traditional explanation, represented by Maimonides (Maäser ⁹³ All commentators agree that the meaning of “old” and “new” here is identical with the meaning in Mishnah 7. ⁹⁴ Since they come in a group, they had ample time to devise a strategy by which each one of them gets the business of a specified place.

HALAKHAH: But is a single witness trustworthy⁸⁸ 56b).? Rebbi Joḥanan said, they were very lenient for a guest because of the necessities of life.

footnotes: ⁸⁸ Since the informant himself is not trustworthy, should not his information be treated as testimony which is invalid unless corroborated by two witnesses. The explanation of R. Joḥanan is ascribed to Rava (Rav Abba bar Rav Joseph bar Ḥama of the fourth generation) in the Babli (Ketubot

It was stated⁸⁹ 5:4: “He who enters a town with heave in his hand, does not know anybody there, [or stands by a threshing floor with heave in his hand] {and wants to give the heave to a trustworthy Cohen,} and does not know anybody there, may ask either ḥaverim or amē haäreẓ, the words of Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel. Rebbi says, about heave one may only ask a ḥaver.” One has to interpret the baraita in the Yerushalmi similarly, that the question is about heave. But the interpretation of the Yerushalmi, given by R. Jonah, is the opposite, that the stranger wants to know whether he may take without worry, not to whom to give. The phrase in brackets is not in the Vienna ms. of the Tosephta and R. S. Liebermann explains this as scribal omission. However, while the thrust of the Tosephta is not that of the Yerushalmi, a Yerushalmi version would not have the phrase, or does not have the phrase, as asserted by R. Jonah at the end of this paragraph. The Vienna scribe probably did not make an error here.: “He who enters a town and does not know anybody there, or stands by a threshing floor and does not know anybody there, may ask either a ḥaver or an am haäreẓ, the words of Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel. Rebbi says, about heave one only may ask a ḥaver.” It turns out that Rebbi follows Rebbi Meïr and Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel follows his own reasoning. As we have stated there⁹⁰ 5:4. The firstborn of a cow, sheep, or goat must be given to a Cohen. If it is without blemish, it is dedicated as sacrifice from birth. If it develops a defect, the Cohen may slaughter and eat it at home (Deut. 15:19–23). Hence, the Cohen has a monetary interest in finding a defect in such a firstborn.: “About any bodily defects that may be caused by humans, laymen shepherds are trustworthy, Cohen shepherds are not. Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel said, he is trustworthy about another’s flock but not his own. Rebbi Meïr said, whoever is suspect⁹¹ in a matter may neither judge nor testify about it.” Rebbi Jonah said, they disagree only if it is a matter of taking, but in distributing even Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel agrees. What is the difference between taking and distributing? A distribution is public knowledge⁹².

footnotes: ⁸⁹ Tosephta Demay ⁹⁰ Mishnah Bekhorot ⁹¹ And this includes absolutely all Cohanim in matters regarding firstborn animals. ⁹² Since a distribution of tithes is publicly announced, even the stranger would find enough information about the person who is making the distribution.

It was stated⁹⁵ 5:5 again has a thrust opposed to the baraita of the Yerushalmi: “If he was standing in a group of people and asked, who here is trustworthy, who here tithes? If one person told him that he himself was trustworthy, he is not trustworthy, about another one that he tithes, he is trustworthy. If they told him that this one tithes, in his presence he is not trustworthy; but in his absence, he is trustworthy; in a court of law, he is trustworthy.” The question asked against the thesis of R. Jonah clearly refers to the last clause of the Tosephta, not the baraita quoted in the text.: “If somebody entered a town, found there groups of people, and asked, who is trustworthy here, who tithes here? If one person told him that he himself was trustworthy, and the others told him that he was trustworthy, that one is trustworthy. If they told him in the person’s presence that he was not trustworthy, he is not trustworthy; but in his absence, he is trustworthy.” Rebbi Jonah said, if that somebody was from that town, the group must be of ḥaverim, if he is a stranger, the group may be composed of amē haäreẓ. It is difficult for Rebbi Yose, you say that ḥaverim are not trustworthy in his presence⁹⁶ to lie in this matter to please somebody? The question is not answered.?

footnotes: ⁹⁵ Tosephta Demay ⁹⁶ As noted above, this refers to the Tosephta or a similar text, when somebody is declared trustworthy only if others declare him so in his absence. Does one suspect ḥaverim

What is the reason of Rebbi Jehudah? Because of the lives of the townspeople⁹⁷. What is the reason of the rabbis? They can provision themselves in another town.

footnotes: ⁹⁷ Donkey drivers should be encouraged to visit the place to increase the supply of foodstuffs While we have translated עיר as “town,” it is often used in the sense of “hamlet.”