MISHNAH: He who buys from the baker¹. The seeming contradiction of this Mishnah and Mishnah 2:4 is discussed in Halakhah 2:4 and referred to again in the Halakhah here., how does he tithe? He takes the heave of the tithe and ḥallah², if it can be eaten in ritual purity, has a rabbinic ratio of 2.0833% = 1/48. Today ḥallah is a symbolic little piece. All must be designated (but should not actually be separated) before the declaration. and says: One percent here on that side is tithe, the rest of the tithe is adjacent to it. That which I turned into tithe is made heave of the tithe for it and the rest is ḥallah³. The Second Tithe is North (or South) of it and is redeemed by coins⁴.

footnotes: ¹ Who is not trusted for tithes and whose bread is demay ² Heave of the tithe is 1%; ḥallah ³ The rest of first tithe does not have to be given or separated. ⁴ See Chapter 4, Note 56.

HALAKHAH: Also ḥallah? Is ḥallah due for demay? Did we not state⁵: “Ḥallah of the unobservant and food containing heave are free from demay.” Rebbi Aḥa, Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya, in the name of Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina: This is from the House of Shammai. We have stated accordingly⁶ 1:28 we read: “Replacements for heave and its fifth {from a layman who ate heave in error, who has to replace it together with a 25% fine, measured from below, *Lev.*5:16}, the fifths of the fifth {if the layman then took the fifth by error, he has to restitute it with an additional fifth, Lev. 5:26}, the leftover of the ‘omer sacrifice, the two breads {leavened breads for the priests, offered on Pentecost}, the show breads, the leftovers of flour sacrifices, and additions to First Fruits; Rebbi Simeon ben Jehudah says in the name of Rebbi Simeon that the House of Shammai obligate but the House of Hillel exempt.” It is difficult to make coherent sense of this Tosephta (cf. תוספתא כפשוטה p. 206–207), but the general tenor is that the House of Shammai treat as demay anything that may be food for human consumption.: “Rebbi Simeon ben Jehudah says in the name of Rebbi Simeon that the House of Shammai obligate for ḥallah and the House of Hillel exempt it.” Did the House of Shammai include seed goods? But he who buys for sowing or animal feed, flour for tanning or oil for lighting, is he not free from demay⁷? But it must be for somebody who kneads his dough with fruit juice⁸ However, the Mishnah, Ḥallah 2:4, declares that dough made with fruit juice is subject to ḥallah even though it cannot become impure. [Maimonides, in his Code (Bikkurim 6:12), not in his Commentary to the Mishnah, restricts the obligation of ḥallah to dough made with grape juice and olive oil; he follows the Yerushalmi Ḥallah 2:2 which seems to indicate that practice does not follow the Mishnah.] If we follow the Mishnah in Ḥallah, we should require the person who buys such bread from the baker to separate ḥallah in order to make public the obligation to give ḥallah from such “bread.”. Did not Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Ḥanina say that this follows Rebbi Eleazar ben Jehudah from Bartota⁹ 3:4: “Dough prepared with some fluid {i. e., that came into contact with some of the fluids that prepare food to become impure, cf. Chapter 2, Notes 136–137} and was kneaded with fruit juice {other than grape juice or olive oil} and was touched by a person who went to the ritual bath that day {but will be pure for heave and sacrifices only at sundown (Lev. 22:7)}, R. Eleazar ben Jehudah from Bartota said in the name of R. Joshua that he made all of it unfit; R. Aqiba said in his {R. Joshua’s} name that he made {heave} unfit {for consumption) only at the place he touched.” Since practice follows R. Aqiba in his dispute with a single opponent, practice must be that fruit juice does not transmit impurity and, hence, does not impart impurity to ḥallah. R. Eleazar ben Jehudah from Bartota, Tanna of the third generation, was a student of R. Joshua and teacher of Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel. The name Bartota has been tentatively identified in Upper Galilee.. R. Eleazar was known to give to charity more than he could afford, so that the administrators of charity tried to avoid being seen by him., hence it does not follow the rabbis¹⁰. But it agrees with Rebbi Joḥanan, since Rebbi Joḥanan said¹¹ to knead his dough in purity, he will also be careful with heave and tithes, and the baker should tithe. If he prepares his dough in impurity, the buyer should tithe, and this is the case here. R. Eleazar holds that the Mishnah means a wholesaler, who does not have to tithe, but Mishnah 1:3 deals either with a retail baker or a private person baking for his family and guests., one case for him who works in purity and one case for him who works in impurity. But what following Rebbi Eleazar, since Rebbi Eleazar said, in both cases if he works in purity? It must be that he is a guest. Was it not stated¹².: “He who is trustworthy for purities is trustworthy for tithes?” Rebbi Yannai ben Rebbi Ismaël stated and said: That is, if one is his guest, but for the public he is not trustworthy unless he accepts it publicly. And here we deal with the public¹³.

footnotes: ⁵ Mishnah 1:3. The opinions of Rebbis Joḥanan and Eleazar are detailed in Halakhah 1:3. ⁶ Not in other Tannaitic sources. But in Tosephta Demay ⁷ Mishnah 1:3, accepted also by the House of Shammai. ⁸ Pure fruit juice, other than grape juice and olive oil, without a drop of water added, is not one of the fluids that make food ready to become ritually impure. Also, dough made with fruit juice is really cake dough, not bread dough, and therefore should not be subject to ḥallah. ⁹ Mishnah Ṭebul Yom ¹⁰ Since our Mishnah is anonymous, it is difficult to accept that it represents an opinion that clearly is not the practice. ¹¹ In Halakhah 1:3, R. Joḥanan says that, if the baker hires a ḥaver ¹² Quoted in Halakhah 2:2 together with the following sentences, qq. v ¹³ Since the Mishnah states explicitly that one buys from the baker who offers baked goods to the public.

Rebbi Abin, Rebbi Shammai, in the name of Rebbi Aḥa, understood this from the following¹⁴ is subject to the laws of demay but that the 1% for heave of the tithe is to be measured only after regular ḥallah was taken.. “He who wants to separate heave and the heave of the tithe together.” As you will say there, except for that which may become sanctified as heave, here also except for that which may become sanctified as ḥallah.

footnotes: ¹⁴ Mishnah 5:2 states that a person who wants to separate heave and heave of the tithe together must separate 1% for heave of the tithe. Heave of the tithe has to be given as 10% of the tithe which in itself is 10% of the produce left after heave was taken. Hence, the 1% mentioned in the next Mishnah is 1% of what is left after heave was taken. Similarly, the Mishnah does not imply that ḥallah

We have stated ḥallah between First and Second Tithes¹⁵ together, and only then to give a name to Second Tithe and to redeem it. Both tithes should have been given when the grain was first stored at the farm barn. The obligation of ḥallah comes much later, when grain is first made into flour and then the flour into bread dough.. Rebbi Jonah in the name of Rebbi Zeïra: This means that ḥallah is not subject to “do not give too late¹⁶ you should not give too late,” Ex. 22:28. From this one concludes that a person who gave heave of the tithe before the first heave cannot declare that he followed all the rules of tithing. No similar rule seems to exist for ḥallah..” Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Zeïra: The Mishnah is not formulated in sequence, do we not deal with demay¹⁷ is in itself in the wrong order.? Did not Rebbi Abba, son of Rebbi Ḥiyya, say in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan that the Mishnah deals with demay; hence, not with certain produce¹⁸ is irrelevant, that one may separate the heave of the tithe (which is part of the First Tithe) after the Second Tithe. R. Joḥanan notes that this is one of the special leniencies for demay.? And here¹⁹ we deal with demay. Rebbi Ḥiyya stated²⁰ 5:6: “He who wants to separate heave, heave of the tithe, and ḥallah together …” There the order of the declaration is heave, heave of the tithe, ḥallah, Second Tithe. Since the first heave is mentioned, one speaks about produce from which nothing at all was yet taken. Nevertheless, ḥallah appears between First and Second tithes.: Also for certain. On that, Rebbi Jonah in the name of Rebbi Zeïra said, this means that ḥallah is not subject to “do not give too late.” Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Zeïra: The Mishnah is not formulated in sequence, should not ḥallah precede the First Tithe²¹ has the status of heave, once the obligation has started it should take the place of heave that must be given before any tithe.? Then ḥallah should be subject to tithes but not tithes to ḥallah, because everything that precedes another, the other is obligated for it²² should be taken from dough made from grain from which heave and tithes were taken would be put on its head.. And we have stated in this respect²³ 4:10. It follows that heave and ḥallah are coordinate, not subordinate one to the other. Hence, each of them needs to be put in order with respect to the other. But definitely this should give ḥallah a status prior to tithes.: “He who makes dough from ṭevel, whether he takes ḥallah before heave or heave before ḥallah, what he did is done. Ḥallah should not be eaten until he take heave for it, heave should not be eaten until he separate ḥallah for it.” But why does First Tithe²⁴ have precedence? Because it started at the threshing floor. But does the Second Tithe not start at the threshing floor? Rebbi Mattaniah said, it would have been logical that ḥallah should precede everything else²⁵, i. e., comes after heave.. Why does First Heave have precedence? Because it started at the threshing floor and it is called “beginning²⁶ 18:12. Ḥallah also is called “beginning” (Num. 15:20,21) but its obligation does not start at the threshing floor..” Second Tithe, even though it started at the threshing floor, is not called “beginning.”

footnotes: ¹⁵ The Mishnah prescribes taking heave of the tithe and ḥallah ¹⁶ “From your storage and your dema‘ ¹⁷ Since heave and tithes should have been given at the threshing floor, any fixing of demay ¹⁸ This refers to Mishnah 1:4 which states that the order of separation for demay ¹⁹ In Mishnah 5:1. ²⁰ Tosephta Demay ²¹ Since ḥallah ²² Just as if one would transgress giving First Tithe before the heave, the heave given later must be not only from the remaining produce but also from the tithe, since anything that comes later needs to be put in order by fulfillment of the prior obligation. Then the requirement that ḥallah ²³ Tosephta Terumot ²⁴ I. e., the heave of the tithe that must be given from the First Tithe. ²⁵ Not quite everything else, but everything else which has to be given for demay ²⁶ Num.

MISHNAH: He who wants to separate heave and heave of the tithe together takes one in thirty-three and one third²⁹ 1:7, fol. 40d) that all heave may be given by estimate and that heave of the tithe may also be given by the owner himself, not only by the Levite who is the recipient of the First Tithe. Since the heaves are given by estimate, one has to increase the amount somewhat, to 3% or 1 in 331/3. and says: One percent of what is here on this side is profane³⁰ and the remainder is heave for everything. The profane here on that side is tithe; the rest of the tithe is adjacent to it. That which I have declared as tithe is made heave of the tithe for it, (the rest is ḥallah,) the Second Tithe is either North or South of it and is redeemed by coins.

footnotes: ²⁹ Heave is 2% given by estimate, heave of the tithe is 1% exactly of the remainder, or .98% of the original amount. So together they would be 2.98% or 1 in 33.557, not 1 in 33.3333. This Mishnah follows the ruling of Abba Eleazar ben Gimel (Terumot ³⁰ Since the first heave must be given before the heave of the tithe, the amount designated for heave of the tithe must be declared to be profane until after heave has been designated.

HALAKHAH: “³¹ 5:6. He who wants to separate heave, heave of the tithe, and ḥallah together takes for heave, heave of the tithe, and ḥallah, that is one in 20³² is 1/48 of the dough (in our case, of the grain), or 2.0833% of the remainder, 2.02125% of the original amount. Hence, the total taken should be 5.00125% of the original amount, not 5% as stated in the Tosephta. However, 1/800 of one percent is not a quantity that is verifiable by eyesight; as the Halakhah will state later, it is disregarded. Also, it is required that both heave and ḥallah be given by estimate, not by measurement; hence, the natural error in such an estimate is much larger than the small overshoot we should require for the heave of the tithe, as indicated in the Mishnah. Today, when no heave can be eaten in the absence of the ashes of the red heifer, both heave and ḥallah are given in minute amounts to avoid destroying food. The modified declaration for putting in order demay, produce bought on a market in Israel, can be found in most of current prayer books printed in Israel. Produce sold by the farmers’ cooperative Tenuvah in Israel (but not produce for export) is all tithed., and says: One percent of what is here on this side³³ which also is a heave. is profane ṭevel and another one in 48 next to it; the remainder is heave for everything. The profane which is in it and that which I made profane ṭevel is made tithe; the rest of the tithe is adjacent to it. That which I have declared as tithe is made heave of the tithe for it³⁴ is missing. It should be deleted from the Mishnah and inserted here., the Second Tithe is North or South of it and is redeemed by coins.”

footnotes: ³¹ Tosephta Demay ³² The computation is not quite exact. If full amounts are taken, i. e., if it is possible to eat heave in ritual purity, heave is supposed to be 2%. Then heave of the tithe is 1% of the remaining 98%. The grain put in order therefore is 97.02% of the original amount. Ḥallah ³³ Of the 5% set aside, 1% is for heave of the tithe (to be generous, since it should be only .98%); 1 in 48 is ḥallah ³⁴ Both here and in the Tosephta, the declaration that the rest is ḥallah

Rebbi Samuel bar Naḥman in the name of Rebbi Jonathan: He has to recite five benedictions³⁵ Rebbi Ḥiyya prescribes a collective benediction: Praised are You, Eternal, our God, King of the Universe, Who sanctified us by His commandments and commanded us to separate heaves and tithes. (Maimonides Maäser 1:17).. Rebbi Ḥiyya stated: He subsumes them all in one benediction.

footnotes: ³⁵ One for heave, one for the First Tithe, one for the heave of the tithe, one for Second Tithe, and one for ḥallah.

So far for a Cohen or a Levi³⁶ 18:26): “You also shall separate the heave of the Eternal,” and explained in Sifry Num. #120. He and the Levite are owners both of the grain and the tithe, and can separate both heave and heave of the tithe. However, an Israel should not be owner of the tithe; how can he ever give heave of the tithe?, but an Israel? If he will declare heave of the tithe, does he not separate for something that is not his³⁷?

footnotes: ³⁶ Normally the Israel farmer gives heave to the Cohen and tithe to the Levite (or Cohen, who also is a Levite) and then the Levite gives heave of the tithe to the Cohen. The Cohen himself, if he is a farmer, has to separate heave, tithe, and heave of the tithe, even though he keeps everything for himself, as is written (Num. ³⁷ The question is not answered. If one follows Abba Eleazar ben Gimel, quoted in the Note to the Mishnah, there is no question. If one does not follow him, in fact an Israel cannot separate heave and heave of the tithe together.

If one gives tithe and after that heave, one has preceded³⁸. First heave and after that tithe, might he not give too little tithe or add to his tithe³⁹? As we have stated⁴⁰ 8:13; there the text is similar but the statements are switched in error., he who gives too little tithe, his tithes are in order but his produce is damaged⁴¹, if he gives too much tithe, his tithes are damaged⁴² but his produce is in order. Rebbi Yose said, he relies on a stipulation by the Court. What is the stipulation by the Court? As far as one’s mind might err⁴³.

footnotes: ³⁸ It is forbidden to tithe before giving heave; this explains the language of the Mishnah. ³⁹ Since tithe is supposed to be exactly 10%, and the heave of the tithe exactly 10% of the tithe, do Mishnah and Tosephta, which permit heave and heave of the tithe to be separated together by estimate, not lead into sin since it is almost impossible to guarantee that the heave of the tithe should be exactly 1% and, hence, the implied tithe should be exactly 10%? ⁴⁰ Tosephta Demay ⁴¹ Since the produce still contains some unseparated tithe and with it tithe of the heave; its consumption by a non-Cohen would be a deadly sin. ⁴² Since the superfluous part in it contains 10% Second Tithe or tithe of the poor. ⁴³ Even in measurements, a perfect result is not possible. Hence, any estimate that is not clearly in error is accepted as exact and the pedantic argument from before is not accepted. This argument is not directly applicable to heave of the tithe; since the Torah prescribes exactly 1%, it is not clear from where the Court should have the authority to stipulate that we accept deviations from the Biblical norm. Hence, the stipulation must refer to tithe. While tithe has to be 10% by Biblical decree, and using the food before tithe was given is a deadly sin, tithe in the hand of the Levite or Cohen is profane food after heave of the tithe was given; in contrast to Second Tithe, which retains its status of holiness until consumed in Jerusalem or redeemed, First Tithe is the absolute possession of Cohen or Levite. Hence, the amount transferred to the Levite is a transfer of profane goods and subject to the eminent power of the Court which may declare property forfeit. Since the Court has the power to set the standards for tithe, the amount of heave of the tithe is a derivative of the amount set aside for tithe.

What is a stipulation by the Court? That one should fix the First Tithe to the North, Second Tithe to the South, and the heave of the tithe at the extreme North⁴⁴. What is a stipulation by the Court? It is that if the Second Tithe is redeemed, that which is in excess is also redeemed⁴⁵. All this refers to dry produce; for fluids⁴⁶?

footnotes: ⁴⁴ That one always should proceed in the same way any time one has produce to put in order as a matter of discipline lest one forget a step. For anybody following these rules, the first stipulation applies and good faith estimates are as valid as exact measurements. Consequently, if one does not follow this particular way of doing things, even the first stipulation is not valid. ⁴⁵ The possibility of estimating is given not only for First, but also for Second Tithe. ⁴⁶ The method of Mishnah and Tosephta is not applicable to those fluids, wine and olive oil, which have to be tithed as Biblical commandment since these fluids will not remain static. The question is not answered; it seems that wine and olive oil must be tithed separately, the slow way.

If somebody had 100 figs, 50 large ones and 50 small ones. If he takes from the large ones, should he take nine? If he takes from the small ones, should he take eleven? If he takes ten large ones, there might be one profane among them and we would worry lest perhaps he use that one to make it heave of the tithe for another place, but it is written (Num. 18:26): “The heave of the Eternal, tithe from tithe,” not profane from tithe⁴⁷. Rebbi Abun bar Cahana⁴⁸ said, he stipulates and says, the tithe due from this produce should be fixed from the tip of each stem und continue until it reaches⁴⁹; in each of the ten there is heave of the tithe and a tiny bit of profane.

footnotes: ⁴⁷ Probably a scribal error; it would be more reasonable to say “not tithe from profane,” since once produce is put in order, nothing of it can ever become heave or tithe again. But there is no manuscript evidence for this and the problem is not taken up in Sifry. ⁴⁸ Galilean Amora of the third generation, a student of R. Joḥanan who lived until the time of R. Mana. ⁴⁹ If the total volume of all figs is V and that of the ten equal selected large figs is ε + V/10, then in each fig there is a volume of ε/10 profane and the rest is tithe. Hence, there is no fig selected that cannot be used for heave of the tithe.

That takes care of large quantities. If there was little, if he had ten figs, five large ones and five small ones? If he takes from the large ones, he has to take one minus⁵⁰, adv., “too little, not enough.” a little. From the little ones, he has to take one plus a little. If he took one of the large ones, it contains a little bit of profane and one has to worry that maybe he turns that profane part into heave of the tithe for another place, and it is written (Num. 18:26): “The heave of the Eternal, tithe from tithe,” not profane from tithe. Rebbi Abba from Carthage said, he stipulates and says, the tithe due from this produce should be fixed from the tip of each stem and he marks it and says to the Cohen, as far as where I marked it⁵¹.

footnotes: ⁵⁰ Cf. Latin parum ⁵¹ The heave extends only from the stem to the mark on the fig.

“What is here on this side is profane ṭevel⁵² is understood to qualify “profane.” The question is, why is the language of the declaration so involved, and could it not be simplified by omitting this step?.” Why does he not say, what is here on this side is tithe? He would precede⁵³. Why does he not say, that on this side is heave⁵⁴? It would turn out that either he diminishes or increases the heave⁵⁵, 10% can be declared to be tithe following the stipulation of the Court mentioned earlier and the stipulation will cover any deviation from the exact 1% for the grain actually separated from the harvest.. Since he says, what is here on this side is profane ṭevel, whether he diminishes or increases the heave does not matter.

footnotes: ⁵² Quote from the Tosephta at the start of the Halakhah; it is possible that it also refers to the Mishnah, where the word ṭevel ⁵³ He would give a name to the tithe before the heave, which is forbidden. ⁵⁴ Not on the 1% mentioned in Mishnah and Tosephta, but the 2% left out of the designation. ⁵⁵ This “heave” cannot refer to the first heave which has no measure from the Torah and must be given by an estimate; the 2% are only a guideline for the average person. It must refer to the heave of the tithe which should be exactly 1%. If everything is declared ṭevel

MISHNAH: He who buys from the baker may tithe from the warm on the cold and from the cold on the warm⁵⁶., even from many types⁵⁷, the words of Rebbi Meïr. Rebbi Jehudah forbids it; I say that the wheat of yesterday was from one source and today’s is from another⁵⁸.. Rebbi Simeon forbids for heave of the tithe and permits for ḥallah⁵⁹ becomes obligated at the baker’s; hence, everybody will agree that all bread from one baker can be fixed with one ḥallah. It follows that R. Jehudah, who does not mention ḥallah, will agree, and if R. Jehudah and R. Simeon disagree, R. Simeon must be the more restrictive since he forbids all tithing from one batch to another, even of the same day..

footnotes: ⁵⁶ That means, from old bread for fresh, even though it may be not only from two different batches but also from the lesser quality on the better, which is a questionable but legal practice, as will be explained in tractate Terumot ⁵⁷ Greek τύπος. It is not clear whether “type” or “shape” is the form of a baking pan or the form of bread baked on sheets. The commentators take “shape” to be the baking mould even though it forces Maimonides to note that the technique of baking bread had changed from Mishnaic times to his time. It seems more likely that “type” refers to the kind of the bread since different kinds of bread require different kinds of flour. This is the position of R. Jehudah. ⁵⁸ One could be from a source that was tithed and another from a source that was not, since all the tithing here is for demay ⁵⁹ Ḥallah

HALAKHAH: How long? A student of Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi, up to 30 days⁶¹. How is that? If he bought from him at the beginning of 30 days, in the middle, and at the end. The first and the second are one kind, the first and the third are two kinds.

footnotes: ⁶¹ Not including the thirtieth day.

“Rebbi Simeon forbids for heave of the tithe and permits for ḥallah⁶².” Then Rebbi Jehudah forbids for ḥallah⁶³ for different batches from the same bakery.. Does it not become ṭevel at his place⁶⁴ starts when he makes his dough and only depends on the baker’s actions.? But perhaps he borrows impure sour dough to make his bread-dough⁶⁵ who does not care whether his food is ritually pure or not as long as it is not dedicated to the Temple. But the am haäreẓ does not take the heave of the tithe seriously, so we are back to the situation described by R. Jehudah that one batch of flour is from a source which was tithed, the other from a source not tithed.. Even so, does it not become ṭevel at his place⁶⁶.? But perhaps he borrows an impure loaf⁶⁷ baker. to fill up his oven. If he borrows an impure loaf to fill up his oven, must he then not tithe every single loaf⁶⁸ on its dough and after baking the loaves are indistinguishable; one may not separate heave (ḥallah) from a loaf already put in order, and there would be no way out but to take demay ḥallah from every single loaf and not from one for all.? That is for Rebbi Joḥanan, since Rebbi Joḥanan said, there⁶⁹ if he works in purity, here if he works in impurity. But for Rebbi Eleazar, who says that in both cases if he works in purity⁷⁰ for all?? Rebbi Yudan, the father of Rebbi Mattaniah⁷¹ said, we refer to one who works in impurity⁷² and it becomes ṭevel at his place, and Rebbi Jehudah also agrees. We have stated accordingly: “Rebbi Jehudah and Rebbi Simeon forbid for heave of the tithe and permit for ḥallah.” Hence, Rebbi Jehudah forbids for heave of the tithe and permits for ḥallah; Rebbi Simeon forbids for heave of the tithe and permits for ḥallah⁷³. What is the difference between them? In the opinion of Rebbi Jehudah, one may not separate from today’s for yesterday’s or from yesterday’s for today’s, but one may separate from one oven batch on another oven batch⁷⁴. In the opinion of Rebbi Simeon, even from one oven batch on another one may not separate.

footnotes: ⁶² Quote from the Mishnah. ⁶³ Since R. Simeon is quoted as disagreeing with R. Jehudah (otherwise the Mishnah would say, R. Jehudah and R. Simeon say …); it seems that R. Jehudah forbids to give one ḥallah ⁶⁴ It is irrelevant from where the baker bought his flour; the obligation of ḥallah ⁶⁵ “Impure” does not mean literally impure, but that he bought from an am haäreẓ ⁶⁶ The distinction made in the preceding sentence is relevant for heave of the tithe, irrelevant for ḥallah ⁶⁷ A loaf from another am haäreẓ ⁶⁸ The other source could have given ḥallah ⁶⁹ Mishnah 2:4, see Halakhah 2:4, 3:1. ⁷⁰ How could R. Jehudah forbid taking one ḥallah ⁷¹ A Galilean Amora of the third generation, father of the better known R. Mattaniah of the fourth generation. His teachers are unknown. ⁷² We also refer to one who works in impurity; he who cares for purity also cares for tithes. ⁷³ What is the difference between them? ⁷⁴ He states clearly that one may not tithe from one day to another; batches of the same day may be taken together.

MISHNAH: He who buys from a merchant⁷⁵ and requires separate tithing. tithes from each type⁵⁷ separately, the words of Rebbi Meïr. Rebbi Jehudah says, from one for everything. Rebbi Jehudah agrees about him who buys from a store with a monopoly⁷⁶ that he tithes from each single loaf.

footnotes: ⁷⁵ Greek πρατήρ “seller”; he might buy from different bakeries, and everybody agrees that bread from different sources incurs different obligations of ḥallah ⁵⁷ Greek τύπος. It is not clear whether “type” or “shape” is the form of a baking pan or the form of bread baked on sheets. The commentators take “shape” to be the baking mould even though it forces Maimonides to note that the technique of baking bread had changed from Mishnaic times to his time. It seems more likely that “type” refers to the kind of the bread since different kinds of bread require different kinds of flour. This is the position of R. Jehudah. ⁷⁶ Greek μονοπώλιον “right of monopoly,” certain to have more than one source, as explained in the Halakhah.

HALAKHAH: Rebbi Meïr says, a baker makes one type and a merchant uses several bakers⁷⁷ 56a.. Rebbi Jehudah says, a baker makes several types and a merchant uses only one baker.

footnotes: ⁷⁷ Quoted in Babli Baba Meẓia‘

What is a monopoly? At the House of Rebbi Yannai they say, nine sellers and ten bakers. Eight buy from eight and one from two⁷⁸.

footnotes: ⁷⁸ A store has monopoly character if it outsells its closest rival by a ratio of two to one, or if it sells products from twice as many manufacturers.

Rebbi Jonah asked: If he had before him two types, it would be evident that they are two. If all bakers agreed to make one and the same type, does he have to tithe each loaf separately⁷⁹? Rebbi Jonah asked: As you said, nine stores and ten bakers, eight buy from eight and one from two. Similarly, nine bakers and ten stores; eight buy from eight and one from two, or nine from the nine and one buys from all of them? He must tithe each loaf separately.⁸⁰

footnotes: ⁷⁹ In that case, are all stores together one monopolist chain? ⁸⁰ The definition of the monopoly is only a paradigm; the rule is applicable to every similar case.

MISHNAH: He who buys from a poor person, and similarly, the poor to whom bread slices or pieces of fig cake were given, tithe from each piece separately. But he mixes together dates and dried figs and then gives. Rebbi Jehudah said, when is that⁸¹? If the gift is large. But if the gift is small, he tithes from each single one. He who buys from the grain wholesaler and later buys from him a second time should not tithe from one batch for any other, not even if they are from the same crate, not even if they are the same kind⁸⁸ with rabbinic permission, his statement may be believed.. But the grain wholesaler is trustworthy to say that they are from the same source.

footnotes: ⁸¹ Usually, statements of R. Jehudah introduced by “when is that?” give the reason for the preceding statement and do not express disagreement. ⁸⁸ Since the wholesale commissioner surely buys from several farmers, two batches of the same kind of grain will probably come from two different sources and maybe one of them was already tithed but the other was not; then it is impossible to tithe from one for the other. Since the wholesaler has no monetary interest in telling whether the two batches of grain came from the same source or not, and as a wholesaler he sells demay

HALAKHAH: Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Pedaiah, Rebbi Jonah in the name of Ḥizqiah, there is no mixing except for wine and oil⁸³ 13b. It probably means that only fluids can be tithed when mixed because fluids from different sources quickly diffuse and material from each source is contained in every volume element in the fluid.. Rebbi Joḥanan says, they can be mixed up to the size of olives. Our Mishnah disagrees with Rebbi Joḥanan: “But he mixes together dates and dried figs and then gives⁸⁴ 4:8). R. Simson in his commentary requires that figs and dates be mashed together into cakes. This contradicts both the Yerushalmi and the Mishnah, because mashed figs are not גרוגרת but דבילה.}.” He explains it up to olive-sized bits.

footnotes: ⁸³ Statement of Samuel in Babli Roš Hašanah ⁸⁴ R. Joḥanan notes that dry matter may also be mixed if the parts are small enough. Dates and figs, fresh and dried, are much larger than olives. The answer is that figs and dates, in order to be tithed together, must be in pieces, each of them smaller than the volume of an olive. Then these pieces must be mixed. {Maimonides does not mention any cutting into pieces either in his Commentary to the Mishnah or in his Code (Maäserˊ

Rebbi Yose⁸⁵ was never under this rule. in the name of Rebbi Zeïra: They permitted for demay following Rebbi Jehudah, since “Rebbi Jehudah says, when is that? If the gift is large⁸⁶. But if the gift is small, he tithes from each single one.”

footnotes: ⁸⁵ He restricts his statement in the first paragraph, that fluids only may be tithed mixed, to cases where a Biblical commandment is involved. In his opinion, rabbinic demay ⁸⁶ The meaning of this condition is explained in the next paragraph.

In the House of Rebbi Yannai they said: The Mishnah speaks of threshing time⁸⁷ allow for special leniencies. But if not all farmers at the place give in equal amounts, the poor recipient must split his gifts into packets corresponding in size to the smallest packet he received, and if this consists of a single fruit he must tithe all his gifts singly (or, giver by giver.) [The Tosephta (Demay 5:9) has another explanation, that “big gifts” are given only in years of a bumper crop; in that case, everybody may be assumed to tithe.], when everybody was giving from a hundred seah. If all were giving from a hundred seah but one only from fifty, he must tithe from fifty. If all were giving from fifty but one only from forty, he must tithe from forty. If all were giving from forty but one only from thirty, he must tithe from thirty. If all were giving from twenty but one only from ten, he must tithe from ten. If all were giving from ten but one only from one, he must tithe every single one.

footnotes: ⁸⁷ When R. Jehudah makes a difference between large and small gifts, he refers only to times when the harvest is brought to the threshing floor or the barn and all farmers give equally. In that case, we say that probably they also gave tithes and the rules of demay

Rebbi Jeremiah asked⁸⁹: Even if he declares the buy to be good? “That wheat I bought from you yesterday was good!” “These are the same!”

footnotes: ⁸⁹ Is the grain wholesaler also to be believed if the client expresses satisfaction with the earlier buy? In that case, the wholesaler has a monetary interest in the answer and should not be believed.

It was stated: “He who buys from the retail merchant and returns to buy a second time. If he recognizes that the amphora is the same, he tithes from one on the other⁹⁰ 5:11, has an opposite statement: “He who buys from the retail merchant and went back and bought a second time, even if he recognizes the amphora that it is the same, he may not tithe from one on the other.”.” But if he does not recognize it, he does not. That means, in the case of *’ydtyqrym’*⁹¹, but not in the case of vessels (used to draw wine) which usually are refilled one from the other.

footnotes: ⁹⁰ The Tosephta, Demay ⁹¹ This word has not been identified. The Rome ms. has אורתי קדמיתא, [Cirillo (ed. Luncz) has אולותוקרימא.] Lieberman (תוספתא כפשוטה p. 254–255) is correct in insisting that the word designates a kind of barrel; his emendation οἴνου κεράμια is unsupported by the evidence. D. Sperber (Sinai 78, 40–41) reads *ὄρθοκεράμια, “upright standing jar.” But he takes שְׁפָייָא to mean “flat lying vessels,” not parallel to the usual שפיתא “vessel used to draw wine.” It is difficult to imagine a clay vessel lying with its opening horizontal, even if closed by a clay stopper, without losing all its contents. Liebermann quotes a Syriac source showing that the שפיתא used to draw wine from the storage tank was also used to transport the wine from the producer to retail stores.Perhaps the word is a combination of ὑδρία, ἡ “water pot”, but also used for a vessel or urn of any kind, including “wine pot”, and κέραμος, ὁ “clay”, but also anything made of clay, including “wine jar” (E. G.).

MISHNAH: He who buys from a farmer and then buys from him a second time tithes from one batch for the other, even if they are from two crates, even if the are from two different hamlets⁹² is a formality for all his produce. If he does not tithe, all his produce needs tithing and it is possible to tithe from one for the other.. If the farmer sells vegetables on the market, in case that his supply comes from his own vegetable gardens, one tithes from one for all others, from other vegetable gardens, one has to tithe each bunch separately.

footnotes: ⁹² If the farmer tithes, demay

HALAKHAH: Rebbi Jonah asked⁹³: According to Rebbi Meïr, should he not tithe each stem separately? As we have stated there⁹⁴ 6:2: “All bundled vegetables on the market are impure. R. Jehudah declares the fresh ones pure. R. Meïr said, why did they declare them impure? Only because of spittle!” The first Tanna holds that on the market one sprinkles water on the vegetables to keep them fresh. Hence, they are subject to impurity and, since everybody touches them, we must assume that an unclean person may have touched them and treat the vegetables as impure. R. Jehudah disagrees for those fresh vegetables which do not need refreshing; hence, they are not subject to impurity and it does not matter who touched them. R. Meïr restricts the impurity to bundles; since in binding them the farmer will have taken the string into his mouth the bundle was wetted intentionally, and, unless the farmer is a ḥaver, the bundle will certainly be impure. If the farmer is a ḥaver, the bundle still will probably become impure on the market.: “Rebbi Meïr said, why did it become impure⁹⁵? Only because of spittle!” As you will say, there it is usual to open bundles and he⁹⁶ binds using his mouth, but here, is it usual to open bundles to risk⁹⁷ having the outer ones inside and the inner ones outside?

footnotes: ⁹³ The entire discussion is about the farmer who sells not only his own produce on the market. ⁹⁴ Mishnah Makhširin ⁹⁵ Elided א, for טמאו. ⁹⁶ The producer of the bundles. ⁹⁷ Does the seller risk to open bundles? Is it not usual to have the good-looking vegetables outside and the lesser quality inside? Who would risk losing his sales by having less fresh vegetables visible from the outside?

Rebbi Jonah said, not only from his own vegetable gardens, but even from vegetable gardens of others, if they tithe under his instruction⁹⁸ without worry., he tithes from one for the other, but if they do not, he has to tithe each bunch separately.

footnotes: ⁹⁸ Then all vegetables are either tithed or not tithed; in both cases, one can tithe demay

MISHNAH: He who buys ṭevel from two sources may tithe from one for the other even though they said that nobody is permitted to sell ṭevel except in case of need⁹⁹ arises if some grain that was tithed fell into a heap of ṭevel. In that case, heave can no longer be taken from that heap, because what one takes out may be from the profane grain and cannot become heave. Then it is necessary to take the heave for this heap from some other heap. But nobody can take heave for another person’s property. Hence, a transfer of property may be necessary..

footnotes: ⁹⁹ If the first heave was not taken, it is clearly possible to take heave from one batch for the other, as long as they are of the same kind. The need to sell ṭevel

HALAKHAH: Rebbi Jonah said, this is the Mishnah: Nobody is permitted to sell ṭevel except in case of need, and only to a ḥaver¹⁰⁰ not only must be observant but also knowlegeable in all the rules concerning ṭevel. [This כיני מתניתא is not discussed in the systematic study of the term in R. J. N. Epstein’s מבוא לנוסח המשנה.]. In that case, if ṭevel of an am haäreẓ was mixed with profane, can that never be fixed? What shall he do? He goes to a ḥaver who buys ṭevel for him¹⁰¹ can be sold to a ḥaver acting not only for himself but also as trustee for others. and tithes for him.

footnotes: ¹⁰⁰ Since the ḥaver ¹⁰¹ R. Jonah implies that ṭevel

MISHNAH: One tithes from a Jew’s produce for that of a Gentile¹⁰² and from a Gentile’s for that of a Jew; from that of a Jew for that of a Samaritan, and from that of a Samaritan for that of a Samaritan. Rebbi Eleazar¹⁰³ 5:22), the statement and the reasoning behind it are attributed to R. Eliezer (ben Hyrkanos); this is reasonable there since his opponent is his contemporary, R. Ṭarphon. prohibits from that of a Samaritan for that of a Samaritan. A flower pot with a hole is like earth¹³³. If he gave heave from the earth for a pot with a hole, or from a flower pot with a hole for produce of the earth, his heave is heave. From a pot without a hole¹³⁴ 7:6, fol. 31a.) But since it is not heave from the Biblical point of view, heave must be taken a second time from the produce subject to heave. for one with a hole it is heave¹³⁵‘ (Tosephta Demay 5:25, Yerushalmi Kilaim 7:6)., but he must take heave a second time. From a pot with a hole for one without a hole¹³⁶ and heave and tithes must be removed. The rest should be treated as heave by rabbinical decree, as in the previous case., it is heave that should not be eaten unless heave and tithes were taken for it¹³⁷ 89b, it says “heave and tithes from another place,” considering it similar to dema‘. This definitely is not the position of the Yerushalmi.. If he took heave from one demay for other demay, or from demay for certain produce, it is heave, but he must take heave a second time¹³⁸. From certain produce for demay¹³⁹ was tithed, the heave taken would remain ṭevel. Hence, it must be treated as if it were certain ṭevel., it is heave that should not be eaten unless heave and tithes were taken for it.

footnotes: ¹⁰² This Mishnah represents only the opinion of R. Meïr, as stated in the Halakhah. ¹⁰³ R. Eleazar bar Shamua, cf. מבוא לנוסח המשנה ע׳ תתשעז. The attribution is reasonable here since the first Tanna is identified as R. Meïr, contemporary of R. Eleazar. The reason of R. Eleazar is that Samaritans always tithe what they eat but not what they sell, but it could happen that a Samaritan farmer tithes for his own use and then for some reason sells that produce which is already in order and cannot be used to tithe any other. In the Tosephta (Demay ¹³³ If a root can grow out through the hole, the soil in the pot is considered part of the earth and in all respects the produce grown in such a pot is produce grown on a field. ¹³⁴ The produce of a pot without hole is not “produce of the field;” there is no Biblical commandment to give heave and tithes from such produce. The amount separated for heave, therefore, is not heave in Biblical law; only the rabbis ordered that heave and tithes should be given also from produce not grown on the earth (Kilaim ¹³⁵ However, it does not create dema ¹³⁶ Since the pot without a hole cannot cause heave to be given by Biblical law, the “heave” still is ṭevel ¹³⁷ In Babli Yebamot ¹³⁸ Since we do not know whether the produce from which heave was taken was already tithed or not. ¹³⁹ Since in the majority of cases demay

HALAKHAH: The Mishnah¹⁰⁴ 4:12, Babli Giṭṭin47a; there the dispute is between two Amoraim, Rabba (in Babylonia, holding that Gentile land is subject to tithes) and R. Eleazar (in Galilee, holding that the Gentile’s land is free from tithes.) The verses quoted also are totally different. Tosaphot (Giṭṭin 47a, s. v. אמר רבה) prove that in the opinion of the Babli, R. Meïr frees Gentile land from heave and tithes except if it is leased to a Jewish sharecropper. In Tosephta Demay 5:21, the position of R. Meïr is the same as here, the opposition consists of R. Jehudah, R. Simeon, R. Yose. The Tosephta is quoted in Babli Menaḥot 66b; there, R. Meïr and R. Jehudah agree with R. Meïr here; R. Simeon and R. Yose oppose. In the interpretation of the Babli Menaḥot, the disagreement is not about the status of the Land; it is universally held that ownership of real estate by a Gentile does not free the Land from its obligations. Rather, it is the ownership of the grain at the moment the obligation of heave and tithes starts, i. e., when the grain is stored. Since a Gentile is not subject to the laws of the Torah, R. Simeon and R. Jehudah hold that his grain cannot be subject to those laws. Cf. also Peah, Chapter 4, Notes 129–131. is Rebbi Meïr’s, since Rebbi Meïr says that a Gentile may not acquire real estate in the Land of Israel to remove it from tithe; Rebbi Jehudah and Rebbi Simeon say, a Gentile may acquire real estate in the Land of Israel to free it from tithe. Rebbi Immi in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: The reason of Rebbi Meïr (*Lev.*25:46): “You shall transmit them¹⁰⁵ by inheritance to your sons after you, to inherit by the rules of real estate.” This brackets real estate with slaves. Just as you may buy slaves from them but they cannot buy from you¹⁰⁶ 46a, this is derived from the verse Lev. 25:45: “ ‘Also from the children of the inhabitants that live among you, from them you may buy;’ you, but not they.” As a matter of practical law, since the Jewish buyer of a non–Jewish slave is required to convert him, and the slave then is subject to the commandments of the Torah; if his owner would sell him to a Gentile, the slave automatically would go free., so real estate you may buy from them but they cannot buy from you. Rebbi Eleazar ben Rebbi Yose said before Rebbi Yasa, the following supports Rebbi Meïr (Lev. 25:23): “The land shall not be sold permanently, because the land belongs to Me,” absolutely¹⁰⁷,Parashah 4(8): לצמיתות לחולטנית, “permanently means absolutely.” See R. Shaul Israeli, ספר ארץ חמדה⁴ Jerusalem 1999, p. 195 ff.. He said to him, that in itself supports Rebbi Simeon. “It shall not be sold”¹⁰⁸, because if it was sold, it would be sold absolutely.

footnotes: ¹⁰⁴ Parallels Giṭṭin ¹⁰⁵ Non–Jewish slaves. ¹⁰⁶ In Babli Yebamot ¹⁰⁷ This cryptic note refers to Sifra Behar ¹⁰⁸ If it could not be sold, there would be no sin in selling it, since the transaction would be void. But since selling agricultural real estate in the Land of Israel to a Gentile is a sin, by necessity the sale would be valid and would imply unrestricted transfer of title.

The Great Rebbi Ḥuna from Sepphoris said, Rebbi Ḥanina instituted in Sepphoris following Rebbi Simeon¹⁰⁹. Rebbi Zeïra said, Rebbi Ḥanina instituted in Sepphoris following Rebbi Simeon.

footnotes: ¹⁰⁹ That produce grown by a Gentile on his own land, or the land of another Gentile, is free from any duty of heave and tithes and cannot be used for any tithing. Since two authorities testify to it, this is the received practice. See in Note 104 that the names of R. Simeon’s partners vary with the sources; this might be the reason that he alone is quoted.

Rebbi Zeïra said before Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: Even though Rebbi Meïr says that a Gentile may not acquire real estate in the Land of Israel to free it from tithes, he agrees here that he may acquire property rights. Rebbi Abba said, in order to eat its fruits. Did we not state: “The buyer¹¹⁰4:9. The Jew who bought agricultural land in Israel from a Gentile can bring its First Fruits to the Temple even though this is not his inheritance from the land distribution by Jouhua. For Rebbi Meïr, who holds that possession by a Gentile cannot change the status of the Land relative to the duties imposed on it by the Torah, it should be clear that just as heave and tithe were not lifted from the Land, so the duty of First Fruits was not lifted. Why then is the bringing of First Fruits classified as a rabbinical ordinance, “for the good of the world,” in order to encourage people to buy land in Israel, and not as original Biblical obligation? brings First Fruits for the good of the world.” Why does he not bring it as a Biblical obligation?

footnotes: ¹¹⁰ Mishnah Giṭṭin

Rebbi Jonah, Rebbi Simon in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi: He who buys loose produce from a Gentile separates heave and heave of the tithe as a matter of practice, gives it to the tribe, and receives money from the tribe¹¹¹ 11b). Since heave and heave of the tithe may be eaten only by Cohanim, presumably they will make a very low offer for the food, but they must pay.. But he who buys produce still in the ground from a Gentile separates heave and heave of the tithe as a matter of practice, gives it to the tribe, and does not take money from the tribe¹¹². What is the reason? (Num. 18:26) “If you remove the tithe from the Children of Israel.” From the Children of Israel you remove the tithe, but not from the acquaintances of Cohanim or Levites¹¹³#26): “From the Children of Israel you remove the tithe, but not from Cohanim or Levites.” In that case, the quote has no direct connection with the discussion here.. From the Children of Israel you remove the tithe, but not from the hand of a Gentile¹¹⁴ 11b) reports in the name of R. Joshua ben Levi that only heave, not heave of the tithe, must be given as a matter of practice. This is a serious disagreement between the two Talmudim..

footnotes: ¹¹¹ See Chapter 3, Notes 131–132. Since heave is taken as a matter of common practice, heave and heave of the tithe remain the property of the owner (Babli Bekhorot ¹¹² Since the obligation of heave and tithes comes only when the harvest is stored, the obligation devolves on the Jew and the tithes are the immediate property of the Cohanim; the owner only has the choice of whom to give. ¹¹³ This refers to the second case, when the owner can decide to whom to give. However, it is possible that the sentence should read (Sifry Zuṭa Qoraḥ ¹¹⁴ This refers to the first case, when the harvest was the Gentile’s and no Biblical obligation of heave and tithes was incurred. The Babli (Bekhorot

Rebbi Aḥa said, in the days of Rebbi Hoshaiah they wanted to vote on King’s Mountain¹¹⁵, to free it from tithes. They said, let Rebbi Hoshaiah come. Before he could come, the opportunity was lost¹¹⁶.

footnotes: ¹¹⁵ A conquest of king Alexander Yannai, not part of the settlement of Judea and Galilee by the returnees from Babylonia, but part of the Jewish state in the later Hasmonean times. It seems that in early Amoraic times King’s Mountain was entirely in Gentile hands. ¹¹⁶ A war was going on and the assembly was dispersed.

Rebbi Judah ben Pazi in the name of Rebbi Hoshaiah: Practice follows Rebbi Simeon. Otherwise, we would say, between Rebbi Meïr and Rebbi Simeon, practice does not follow Rebbi Simeon¹¹⁷ 46b, the question about whose opinion prevails remains unanswered. In rabbinic tradition (Maḥzor Vitry p. 490, see the sources quoted there, note חֹ), between R. Meïr and R. Simeon practice follows the one who is more restrictive. However, R. Asher ben Yeḥiel (Roš,Abodah Zarah 2, #34) holds that between R. Meïr and R. Simeon practice follows R. Simeon.. But because it was stated: “Rebbi Simeon from Shezur said, once some produce that was ṭevel was mixed up with my produce. I asked Rebbi Ṭarphon, and he told me: Go and buy from a Gentile¹¹⁸ and tithe for it.” On that we have stated: “Rebbi Jehudah and Rebbi Simeon say, a Gentile may acquire real estate in the Land of Israel to free it from tithe.” Lest you think that this case has two¹¹⁹ opposed by two¹²⁰ 46b, Yerushalmi Terumot 3:1, fol. 42a, Pesaḥim 4:1, fol. 30b), and even if one agrees to count R. Jehudah with R. Meïr as in the Babli text, R. Yose has precedence over R. Jehudah (Babli Erubin 46b, Yerushalmi Yebamot 4:11, fol. 6a).]. Therefore, he had to say that practice follows Rebbi Simeon.

footnotes: ¹¹⁷ In the Babli, Eruvin ¹¹⁸ R. Ṭarphon also holds that any produce grown in the Holy Land is subject to heave and tithes. The Gentile cannot separate heave and tithes; even if he wants to follow the Jewish rules and donate his tithes to Jewish priests, his heave is no heave. Hence, produce grown by a Gentile is certainly untithed and can be used to tithe other produce. ¹¹⁹ R. Ṭarphon and R. Meïr, belonging to two separate generations. ¹²⁰ R. Simeon and R. Jehudah in our text, R. Simeon and R. Yose in the Babli. All three belong to the same generation. [One has to wonder why one tries to insist here on the status of R. Simeon since it is agreed that both R. Jehudah and R. Yose have precedence over R. Meïr (Babli Erubin

In addition, from the following: Rebbi Zeïra said, Abba the Anatolian bought produce from an Aramean¹²¹; he came before Rebbi Judah ben Levi¹²² who sent his son Menaḥem to put it in order; he¹²³ gave him his tithes. When he returned, Rebbi Joshua ben Levi met him and said, who else but your father would do such a thing¹²⁴? The arguments of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi are inverted. There, he says that he who buys loose produce from a Gentile, separates heave and heave of the tithe as a matter of practice, gives them to the tribe, and receives money from the tribe; and here he says so! Rebbi Abba bar Zamina said before Rebbi Zeïra, Rebbi Simon does not say so, but when he returned, Rebbi Joshua ben Levi met him and said, this does not belong to your father¹²⁵. Rebbi Zeïra was offended.

footnotes: ¹²¹ In both Talmudim, “Aramean” means Gentile. ¹²² A contemporary of R. Joshua ben Levi. Since the story implies that he was a Levite who could receive tithes, “ben Levi” simply means “Levite.” The same probably applies to R. Joshua ben Levi, and no relationship between R. Jehudah and R. Joshua is implied except for the fact that both were Levites. ¹²³ Abba gave to Menaḥem. ¹²⁴ To tithe produce grown and harvested by a Gentile. Hence, R. Joshua ben Levi must agree with R. Simeon, and the former is the great authority. ¹²⁵ The tithes were given by a misunderstanding that they were regular tithes. Since R. Joshua ben Levi requires that the Levite pay for these tithes, they cannot become the property of R. Judah ben Levi unless Menaḥem paid for them. In this version, R. Joshua ben Levi is consistent.

Rebbi Aḥa, Rebbi Tanḥum bar Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi, three¹²⁶ may tithe without permission: He whose ṭevel was mixed with profane produce¹²⁷ produce. Hence, any farmer who uses his own ṭevel produce to take care of his neighbor’s problem, does his neighbor a great favor and we are justified in decreeing that the neighbor’s consent is implied and he does not have to be asked beforehand. “Permission” in the text means consent by the owner of the produce.. And he who buys from the division of the Samaritans¹²⁸ 3:4 explains that in Temple times, in Judea everybody has to be believed in matters of ritual purity of wine and olive oil used in the Temple. This implies that in Galilee only ḥaverim are trustworthy. The reason is explained in Halakhah Taäniot 3:4 (fol. 79c), because “the division of Samaritans” separates Judea from Galilee and it is impossible to bring wine and olive oil in purity from Galilee to Judea (since Samaritans, like Gentiles, do not bury still-births in cemeteries but anywhere at roadsides, and one cannot exclude the possibility that one might step over such a grave which imparts the impurity of the dead to wine and oil.) [In the Babli (Taänit 25a), it is asserted that a strip of Gentile land separates Galilee from Judea.] The division of the Samaritans therefore is the region of Samaria inhabited exclusively by Samaritans and produce from there is certainly ṭevel in all respects. Anybody who removes heave from this produce and turns it into regular demay removes a hidden stumbling block from the unwary buyer.. Rebbi Zeïra said, this implies that he does not take money from the tribe. If you say that he takes money from the tribe, he tithed with permission¹²⁹!

footnotes: ¹²⁶ The list contains only two entries. But since the application here is to show that R. Zeïra was rightly offended, the case of produce bought from Gentiles has to be added. ¹²⁷ As noted before, since every Jewish farmer did give the first heave which may be given in a minimal amount, it is impossible to buy on the market Jewish produce that can be used to fix a mixture of profane and ṭevel ¹²⁸ Mishnah Taäniot ¹²⁹ If money was to be given to the owner of the produce for heave and the heave of the tithe, he would be happy if somebody else did the work for him practically without cost to him. Hence, this would have the status of tithing with the knowledge of the owner; R. Simon cannot be correct in his transmission of the tradition of R. Joshua ben Levi and the latter must hold that practice follows R. Simeon.

Rebbi Joḥanan said, the reason of Rebbi Eleazar¹³⁰: Just as they declared the produce of the Land of Israel demay notwithstanding the majority¹³¹ farmers did tithe, there would have been no need for demay. Now that there is demay, we have to worry that the bunch before us is not in order but all others, the greater part, are in order. Therefore, demay may not be tithed from one batch on the other. and one may not give heave or tithe from one for the other, so they declared the produce of Samaritans certain¹³², notwithstanding the majority one may not give heave or tithe from one for the other.

footnotes: ¹³⁰ Discussion of the statement of R. Eleazar in the Mishnah. ¹³¹ Since most of the amē haäreẓ ¹³² Since Samaritans are not obligated by their rules to give heave and tithe from produce they sell, we declare all their produce to be certain that no heave or tithes were given, even though there might be a sizeable minority, in particular in regions where Jews and Samaritans farm together, who tithe. Because of that minority, we may not permit tithing from one farmer’s produce for that of another.

Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Zeïra: They declared a pot¹⁴⁰ to be of doubtful status. But did we not state: “A pot with a hole sanctifies in the vineyard¹⁴¹ 7:8. The language is from Deut. 22:9: “Do not sow two kinds in your vineyard, lest the fullness of the seeds that you are sowing together with the yield of the vineyard be sanctified.” Sanctified here means that it becomes like dedicated sacrifice, forbidden for all use; קרבן “sacrifice” has the same meaning in non-sacrificial context (Mishnah Nedarim 1:2,Matthew 15:5)., a pot without a hole does not sanctify in the vineyard¹⁴².” Because of doubt¹⁴³ 5:16)..

footnotes: ¹⁴⁰ A pot without a hole, since a pot with a hole is not doubtful at all. ¹⁴¹ Mishnah Kilaim ¹⁴² The Mishnah implies that a pot without hole, put in the earth in a vineyard, certainly is not considered growing in the vineyard. ¹⁴³ The Mishnah expresses the Biblical law, but because of doubt there is still a rabbinic prohibition to grow grain in a pot without holes in a vineyard (Maimonides Kilaim

Just as you say, “from certain produce for demay, it is heave that should not be eaten unless heave and tithes were taken for it,” should one say so also for “from one demay for other demay?¹⁴⁴ probably is in order, why should the two cases have different rules?” Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Samuel bar Rav Isaac, this means that a case of doubtful dema‘ is like a case of doubt about heave of the tithe from demay; it is free from the rules of certain produce¹⁴⁵, containing the forbidden heave of the tithe. Here all the leniencies of demay given in the first two chapters do apply..

footnotes: ¹⁴⁴ Since demay ¹⁴⁵ We do not whether the produce is dema‘