Jerusalem Talmud Demai Chapter 4

הַלּוֹקֵחַ פֵּירוֹת מִמִּי שֶׁאֵינוֹ נֶאֱמָן עַל הַמַּעְשְׂרוֹת וְשָׁכַח לְעַשְּׂרָן שׁוֹאֲלוֹ בְשַׁבָּת וְאוֹכֵל עַל פִּיו. חֲשֵׁיכָה מוֹצָאֵי שַׁבָּת לֹא יֹאכַל עַד שֶׁיְּעַשֵּׂר. לֹא מְצָאוֹ אָמַר לוֹ אֶחָד שֶׁאֵינוֹ נֶאֱמָן עַל הַמַּעְשְׂרוֹת מְעוּשָּׂרִין הֵן אוֹכֵל עַל פִּיו. חֲשֵׁיכָה מוֹצָאֵי שַׁבָּת לֹא יֹאכַל עַד שֶׁיְּעַשֵּׂר. תְּרוּמַת מַעֲשֵׂר שֶׁל דְּמַאי שֶׁחָזְרָה לִמְקוֹמָהּ רִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן הַשְּׁזוּרִי אוֹמֵר אַף בְּחוֹל שׁוֹאֲלוֹ וְאוֹכֵל עַל פִּיו. חֲבֵרָיָא בְשֵׁם רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן מִפְּנֵי כְבוֹד שַׁבָּת הִתִּירוּ. אִם מִפְּנֵי כְבוֹד שַׁבָּת לָמָּה לִי שׁוֹאֲלוֹ. עַל יְדֵי עִילֵּי עִילָּה. רִבִּי בִּיבִי בְשֵׁם רִבִּי חֲנִינָא אֵימַת שַׁבָּת עָלָיו וְהוּא אוֹמֵר אֱמֶת. וְאִם אֵימַת שַׁבָּת עָלָיו בְּדָה תַנֵּינָן חֲשֵׁיכָה מוֹצָאֵי שַׁבָּת לֹא יֹאכַל עַד שֶׁיְּעַשֵּׂר. מִפְּנֵי אֶחָד שֶׁאֵין אֵימַת שַׁבָּת עָלָיו. תַּנִּי שׁוֹאֲלוֹ בְחוֹל לֹא יֹאכַל בְּשַׁבָּת. מָאן דְּאָמַר אֵימַת שַׁבָּת עָלָיו נִיחָא. מָאן דְּאָמַר מִפְּנֵי כְבוֹד שַׁבָּת אֲפִילוּ שׁוֹאֲלוֹ בְחוֹל יֹאכַל בְּשַׁבָּת. לֹא אָמַר אֶלָּא שׁוֹגֵג. הָא מֵזִיד אָסוּר דְּתַנֵּינָן שָׁכַח לְעַשְּׂרָן כְּשֶׁאֵין עִמּוֹ תְּנַאי אֲבָל אִם יֵשׁ עִמּוֹ תְּנַאי אוֹכֵל עַל תְּנָאוֹ שֶׁל חֲבֵירוֹ. מַהוּ שֶׁיֹּאכַל עַל שְׁאֵילַת חֲבֵירוֹ. הֵיךְ עֲבִידָא לָקְחוּ מִמֶּנּוּ שְׁנֵי בְנֵי אָדָם כְּאַחַת שָׁאֲלוֹ עַל אַחַת מֵהֶן הַשֵּׁנִי לֹא יֹאכַל עַד שֶׁיְּעֲשֵּׂר וְעַד שֶׁיִּשְׁאָלֶנּוּ. אֲנִי אוֹמֵר שֶׁל זֶה עִישֵּׂר וְשֶׁל זֶה לֹא עִישֵּׂר. לָקַח מִמֶּנּוּ אָדָם אֶחָד שְׁתֵּי כַלְכָּלוֹת כְּאַחַת שָׁאֲלוֹ עַל אַחַת מֵהֶן הַשְּׁנִיָיה לֹא יֹאכַל עַד שֶׁיְּעַשֵּׂר וְעַד שֶׁיִּשְׁאָלֶנּוּ אֲנִי אוֹמֵר זֶה עִישֵּׂר וְזֶה אֵינוֹ עִישֵּׂר. חֲשֵׁיכָה מוֹצָאֵי שַׁבָּת מְעַשֵּׂר מִזֶּה עַל זֶה. מָאן דְּאָמַר מִפְּנֵי כְבוֹד שַׁבָּת נִיחָא. וּמָאן דְּאָמַר מִפְּנֵי שֶׁאֵימַת שַׁבָּת עָלָיו לָמָּה לִי מְעַשֵּׂר מִזֶּה עַל זֶה. עַד כְּדוֹן בְּשֶׁאֵין לוֹ מֵאוֹתוֹ הַמִּין. וַאֲפִילוּ יֵשׁ לוֹ מֵאוֹתוֹ הַמִּין. הֵי צַד תִּאוּב. יוֹם טוֹב שֶׁהוּא סָמוּךְ לַשַּׁבָּת בֵּין מִלְּפָנֶיהָ בֵּין מִלְּאַחֲרֶיהָ וְכֵן שְׁנֵי יָמִים טוֹבִים שֶׁל גָּלִיּוֹת. מָאן דְּאָמַר קְדוּשָׁה אַחַת הִיא אוֹכֵל. מָאן דְּאָמַר שְׁתֵּי קְדוּשׁוֹת הֵן אֵינוֹ אוֹכֵל. אֲפִילוּ לְמָאן דְּאָמַר שְׁתֵּי קְדוּשׁוֹת הֵן אוֹכֵל עַד שֶׁלֹּא נִרְאֶה לְעַשֵּׂר בֵּנְתַיִם. וְתַנִּי כֵן שׁוֹאֲלוֹ בְיוֹם טוֹב אוֹכֵל בַּשַּׁבָּת. בַּשַּׁבָּת אוֹכֵל בְּיוֹם טוֹב. רִבִּי יוֹנָה בְשֵׁם רִבִּי זְעִירָא תִּיפְתָּר בְּפֵירוֹת שֶׁנִּסְמְכָה דַעְתּוֹ עֲלֵיהֶן מֵעֶרֶב שַׁבָּת. אֲבָל בְּפֵירוֹת שֶׁלֹּא נִסְמְכָה דַעְתּוֹ עֲלֵיהֶן מֵעֶרֶב שַׁבָּת לֹא בְדָא. אָמַר רִבִּי מָנָא מִילֵּיהוֹן דְּרַבָּנִין מְסַיְיעִין לְרִבִּי יוֹנָה אַבָּא. דְּתַנֵּינָן תַּמָּן הַמַּדִּיר אֶת חֲבֵירוֹ שֶׁיֹּאכַל אֶצְלוֹ וְהוּא אֵינוֹ מַאֲמִינוֹ עַל הַמַּעְשְׂרוֹת. רִבִּי יַנַּאי בֵּי רִבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל בְּשֵׁם רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן בְּשַׁבָּת שֶׁל פְּרוֹטָגַּמִּיָיא הִתִּירוּ מִפְּנֵי אֵיבָה. בְּשַׁבָּת שֶׁל פְּרוֹטָגַּמִּיָיא לֹא כְפֵירוֹת שֶׁנִּסְמְכָה דַעְתּוֹ עֲלֵיהֶן מֵעֶרֶב שַׁבָּת הִיא. לֹא אָמַר אֶלָּא מִפְּנֵי אֵיבָה. שָׁאֲלוֹ שַׁבָּת הָרִאשׁוֹנָה וְלֹא בָא הַשְּׁנִיָיה לֹא יֹאכַל עַד שֶׁיְּעַשֵּׂר אוֹ עַד שֶׁיִּשְׁאָלֶנּוּ. וְלֹא כְבָר שָׁאֲלוֹ. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹנָה תַּמָּן בְּהַהוּא דְּשָׁאַל עַל נַפְשֵׁיהּ. בְּרַם הָכָא בְּהַהוּא דְשָׁאַל חוֹרָן עָלוֹי. וְרִבִּי יוֹנָה בְּעֵי מַהוּ שֶׁיִּשְׁאָלֶנּוּ דֶּרֶךְ עֲקַלָּתוֹן. רִבִּי יוֹנָה כְדַעְתֵּיהּ. רִבִּי יוֹנָה זְבַן חִיטֵּי מִן דְּבַר חֲקוּלָא נְפַק לְגַבֵּיהּ אֲמַר לָיהּ לָא דְאֲנָא חֲשֵׁיד לָךְ. אֶלָּא בְגִין דִּזְבַנִּית מִינָּךְ חִטִּין וַחֲמִית אוֹכְלוֹסָא עָלָךְ וְאָמְרִית דִּילְמָא דְּאַנְשִׁיתֵיהּ מְתַקְּנָהּ מְתַקְּנָן הֲוִיָין. טְעַן מְחַזְּקָה עָלוֹי אֲמַר לֵיהּ מַה אַתְּ חֲשַׁד לִי. תַּנִּי תְּרוּמַת מַעֲשֵׂר שֶׁל דְּמַיי שֶׁחָזְרָה לִמְקוֹמָהּ מְדַמַּעַת שֶׁלֹּא לִמְקוֹמָהּ אֵינָהּ מְדַמַּעַת. רִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֵר בֵּין לִמְקוֹמָהּ בֵּין שֶׁלֹּא לִמְקוֹמָהּ אֵינָהּ מְדַמַּעַת. רִבִּי בוּן בַּר חִיָיא בְּעָא קוֹמֵי רִבִּי זְעִירָא מָאן דְּאָמַר מְדַמַּעַת מְדַמַּעַת. וּשְׁאֵינָהּ מְדַמַּעַת אֵינָהּ מְדַמַּעַת נִיחָא. מַאן דְּאָמַר לִמְקוֹמָהּ מְדַמַּעַת שֶׁלֹּא לִמְקוֹמָהּ אֵינָהּ מְדַמַּעַת. מַה בֵּין לִמְקוֹמָהּ מַה בֵּין שֶׁלֹּא לִמְקוֹמָהּ. עָל רִבִּי חַגַּיי. אָמְרִין. בְּדֵין הוּא מֵימַר מֹשֶׁה דַּאֲנָא אֲמַר טַעֲמָא אֲמַר מֹשֶׁה דַּאֲנָא אֲמַר טַעֲמָא מַאן דְּאָמַר מְדַמַּעַת שֶׁהִיא מַתֶּרֶת אֶת הַשְּׁיָרַיִים לַאֲכִילָה. מָאן דְּאָמַר אֵינָהּ מְדַמַּעַת שֶׁאֵינָהּ מַתֶּרֶת הַשְּׁיָרַיִים לַאֲכִילָה. הוֹרֵי רִבִּי לָא כְּהָדָא דְּרִבִּי חַגַּיי. אָמַר רִבִּי זְעִירָא אֲתָא עוּבְדָא קוֹמֵי דְּרִבִּי חֲנִינָא וְהוֹרֵי כְּרִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן שְׁזוּרִי. רִבִּי אָחָא בְשֵׁם רִבִּי יוֹנָתָן אֵין הֲלָכָה כְּרִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן שְׁזוּרִי. יוֹתֵר מִיכֵּן הָיָה רִבַּי שִׁמְעוֹן הַשְּׁזוּרִי אוֹמֵר הִפְרִישׁ תְּרוּמַת מַעֲשֵׂר וְנִשְׂרְפָה הֲרֵי זֶה שׁוֹאֲלוֹ וְאוֹכֵל עַל פִּיו. לֹא בְדָא אָמַר רִבִּי זְעִירָא אֲתָא עוּבְדָא קוֹמֵי דְּרִבִּי חֲנִינָא וְהוֹרֵי כְּרִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן שְׁזוּרִי. אָמַר רִבִּי אָבִין לֹא דָמְיָא הַהִיא שְׁאִילְתָּא לְהַהִיא קַדְמִיָיתָא. תַּמָּן לָא בְּגִין חֲשֵׁיד לָךְ. אֶלָּא בְגִין דִּזְבִינַתְּ מִינָּךְ אִיתְמֹל חִיטִּין וַחֲמִית אוֹכְלוֹסִין עָלָךְ וְאָמְרִית דִּילְמָא דְּאַנְשִיתָהּ מְתַקְּנָהּ מְתַקְּנָן הֲוִיָין. בְּרַם הָכָא בְּגִין דְּחֲשַׁדְתָּךְ וְתִיקַּנְתִּין וְאִיתּוֹקְדִּין מְתַקְּנָן הֲוִיָין. רִבִּי שְׁמוּאֵל בְּרֵיהּ דְּרִבִּי יוֹסֵי בֵּי רִבִּי בּוּן אָמַר תַּנִּי בַּר קַפָּרָא כֵּן אֵימַת הַדִּימּוּעַ עָלָיו וְהוּא אָמַר אֱמֶת.

MISHNAH: He who buys produce from a person who is not trustworthy for tithes and forgot to tithe them may ask the seller on the Sabbath and eats on the seller’s information. 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 information. At nightfall when Sabbath ends, he may not eat until he tithed. Heave of the tithe that returned to its origin, 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 Shezur said, even on weekdays he asks the seller and eats on his information. 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 him 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 him, 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 stated 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 Sabbath? It was stated only for someone acting in error, not intentionally, as we have stated: If he forgot to tithe, if he had made no previous stipulation, 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. May one eat on the question of another person? How is that understood? If two persons bought at the same time from him, 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 fine. 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? So far, if he has nothing of the same kind. Even if he has of the same kind, that is a matter of preference. 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 eat 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 them, it certainly is not possible to tithe. Hence, there is no legal “nightfall after the Sabbath” as envisaged by the Mishnah. . It was stated 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 included. Rebbi Mana said, the words of the rabbis support Rebbi Jonah, my father, since we have stated there 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 marriage, 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)? Nevertheless, he only said “because of hatred.” If he invited him the first Sabbath but he did not come, the second time he should not eat unless he tithes or asks him. Did he not already ask him? Rebbi Jonah said, there he asked for himself. But here a third party asked about it. 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 multitude, 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? It was stated: “Heave of the tithe from demay that returned to its origin makes dema ‘‘ (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 reasonable 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 reason.” He said, by Moses, I shall explain the reason: He who says, it makes dema ‘, because it permits the rest to be eaten 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 eaten. Rebbi La taught according to that of Rebbi Ḥaggai. . 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 Shezur 75b , both R. Ḥanina and R. Jonathan endorse the ruling of R. Simeon from Shezur as valid practice. . “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 information 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 order? Rebbi Samuel, the son of Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said that Bar Kappara stated: The fear of dema ‘ is on him and he will tell the truth‘ 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. .

הַמַּדִּיר אֶת חֲבֵירוֹ שֶׁיֹּאכַל אֶצְלוֹ וְהוּא אֵינוֹ מַאֲמִינוֹ עַל הַמַּעְשְׂרוֹת וְאוֹכֵל עִמּוֹ בַּשַּׁבָּת הָרִאשׁוֹנָה אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁאֵינוֹ נֶאֱמָן עַל הַמַּעְשְׂרוֹת בִּלְבַד שֶׁיֹּאמַר לוֹ מְעוּשָּׂרִין הֵן. וּבְשַׁבָּת שְׁנִיָיה אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁהוּא נוֹדֵר הִימֶּינּוּ הֲנִיָיה לֹא יֹאכַל עַד שֶׁיְּעַשֵּׂר. רִבִּי יַנַּאי בֵּי רִבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל בְּשֵׁם רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן בְּשַׁבָּת שֶׁל פְּרוֹטָגַּמִּיָיא הִתִּירוּ מִפְּנֵי אֵיבָה. אָמַר רִבִּי אָבִין כָּאן הִתִּירוּ טְבָלִים מִשּׁוּם דַּרְכֵּי שָׁלוֹם. רִבִּי חֲנִינָא אָמַר רִבִּי יִרְמְיָה בְּעֵי אִם מִפְּנֵי דַּרְכֵּי שָׁלוֹם לָמָּה לִי בִּלְבַד שֶׁיֹּאמַר לוֹ מְעוּשָּׂרִין הֵן. שָׁאֲלוֹ בַּשַּׁבָּת הָרִאשׁוֹנָה וְלֹא בָא הַשְּׁנִיָיה מַהוּ שֶׁתֵּיעָשֶׂה רִאשׁוֹנָה. אָמַר רַב חִסְדָּא כָּאן שָׁנִינוּ שֶׁאָסוּר לְחָבֵר שֶׁיֹּאכַל בִּסְעוּדָה שֶׁאֵין לָהּ שֵׁם.

MISHNAH: He’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.” HALAKHAH: Rebbi Yannai ben Rebbi Ismaël in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: On the Sabbath of a protogamia 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 tithed? If he invited him on the first Sabbath but he did not come, can the second Sabbath become the first. 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 name 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 Pesaḥim 49a , 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. .

רִבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר אוֹמֵר אֵין אָדָם צָרִיךְ לִקְרוֹת שֵׁם עַל מַעֲשֵׂר עָנִי שֶׁל דְּמַאי. וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים קוֹרֵא שֵׁם וְאֵינוֹ צָרִיךְ לְהַפְרִישׁ. מִי שֶׁקָּרָא שֵׁם לִתְרוּמַת מַעֲשֵׂר שֶׁל דְּמַאי וּלְמַעֲשֵׂר עָנִי שֶׁל וַדַּאי לֹא יִטְּלֵם בַּשַּׁבָּת וְאִם הָיָה כֹהֵן אוֹ עָנִי לִמּוּדִים לוֹכַל מִמֶּנּוּ אֶצְלוֹ יָבוֹאוּ וְיֹּאכְלוּ וּבִלְבַד שֶׁיּוֹדִיעֵם. רִבִּי בָּא בַּר הוּנָא בְשֵׁם רַב הָאוֹכֵל פֵּירוֹתָיו טְבוּלִין לְמַעֲשֵׂר עָנִי חַיָיב מִיתָה. מַה טַעַם דְּרִבִּי לִיעֶזֶר מִכֵּיוָן שֶׁהוּא יוֹדֵעַ שֶׁהוּא בַּעֲוֹן מִיתָה מַפְרִישׁ. מַה טַעַם דְּרַבָּנָן בְּלֹא כָךְ קוֹרֵא שֵׁם וְאֵינוֹ צְרִיךְ לְהַפְרִישׁ. תַּנִּי הַנֶּאֱמָן רָאוּ אוֹתוֹ מַפְרִישׁ שֵׁנִי. תַּנִּי לַשֵּׁנִי נֶאֱמָָן לָרִאשׁוֹן דִּבְרֵי רִבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר. וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים הַנֶּאֱמָן לָרִאשׁוֹן נֶאֱמָן לַשֵּׁנִי. הַנֶּאֱמָן לַשֵּׁנִי אֵינוֹ נֶאֱמָן לָרִאשׁוֹן. מַה טַעַם דְּרִבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר מִשּׁוּם שֶׁאֵינוֹ חָשׁוּד לְהַקְדִּים אוֹ מִשּׁוּם שֶׁהִפְרִישׁ שֵׁנִי חֲזָקָה שֶׁהִפְרִישׁ רִאשׁוֹן. וְהָתַנֵּינָן רִבִּי לִיעֶזֶר אוֹמֵר אֵין אָדָם צָרִיךְ לִקְרוֹת שֵׁם לְמַעֲשֵׂר עָנִי שֶׁל דְּמַאי. הָא שֵׁנִי צָרִיךְ מַה אִם שֵׁנִי שֶׁאֵין לְרַבּוֹ טוֹבַת הֲנָיָיה צָרִיךְ לְהַפְרִישׁ. רִאשׁוֹן שֶׁיֵּשׁ לְרַבּוֹ טוֹבַת הֲנָיָיה לֹא כָל שֶׁכֵּן. הוֹצִיא לָהֶן מַעֲשֵׂר שֵׁינִי מִתּוֹךְ בֵּיתוֹ אָמַר לָהֶן פָּדוּי הוּא נֶאֱמָן. פְּדוּ לוֹ וּפְדוּ לָכֶם אֵינוֹ נֶאֱמָן. מַתְנִיתָא דְּרִבִּי לִיעֶזֶר דְּרִבִּי לִיעֶזֶר אוֹמֵר הַנֶּאֱמָן עַל הַשֵּׁנִי נֶאֱמָן עַל הָרִאשׁוֹן. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹסֵי דִּבְרֵי הַכֹּל הִיא עָשׂוּ אוֹתוֹ כְתוֹסֶפֶת הַבִּיכּוּרִים מַה תּוֹסֶפֶת הַבִּיכּוּרִים נֶאֱכֶלֶת בְּטָהֳרָה וּפְטוּרָה מִן הַדְּמַאי אַף זֶה נֶאֱכֶלֶת מִשּׁוּם שֵׁנִי וּפָטוּר מָשׁוּם רִאשׁוֹן. אָתָא רִבִּי חֲנַנְיָה בְשֵׁם רִבִּי אִיסִּי דְּרִבִּי לִיעֶזֶר הִיא. כֵּנִי מַתְנִיתָא לֹא [יִתְּנֵם] בְּשַׁבָּת דְּתַנֵּינָן תַּמָּן בֵּית שַׁמַּיי אוֹמְרִים אֵין מוֹלִיכִין חַלָּה וּמַתָּנוֹת לַכֹּהֵן בְּיוֹם טוֹב בֵּין שֶׁהוּרְמוּ מֵאֶמֶשׁ בֵּין שֶׁהוּרְמוּ מֵהַיּוֹם וּבֵית הִלֵּל מַתִּירִין. הָדָא יַלְּפָא מִן הַהִיא וְהַהִיא יַלְּפָא מִן הָדָא. הָדָא יַלְּפָא מִן הַהִיא הִיא יוֹם טוֹב הִיא שַׁבָּת. וְהַהִיא יַלְּפָא מִן הָדָא בְּלִימּוּדִין אֲבָל בִּשֶׁאֵין לִימּוּדִין לָא סְלַק עָל בָּר נַשָּׁא מֵיכוּל פִּיסָּתֵיהּ בְּבֵיתֵיהּ דְּחַבְרֵיהּ. תַּנִּי לֹא יְסָרֵב אָדָם בַּחֲבֵירוֹ לְאָרְחוֹ בְּשָׁעָה שֶׁהוּא יוֹדֵעַ שֶׁאֵינוֹ רוֹצֶה. וְלֹא יַרְבֶּה לוֹ בְתַקְרוֹבֶת בְּשָׁעָה שֶׁהוּא יוֹדֵעַ שֶׁאֵינוֹ מְקַבֵּל. מַהוּ בְתַקְרוֹבֶת יְדַע דְּהוּא רָחֵיץ וְהָא מַטְרַח עֲלוֹי. וּבִירוּשָׁלֵם הֲוָה מַפִּיךְ פִּילְכֵּיהּ דִּשְׂמָלָא לִימִינָא. תַּנִּי אֵין מוֹלִיכִין לְבֵית הָאֵבֶל בִּכְלֵי זְכוּכִית צְבוּעָה מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהוּא טוֹעֲנוֹ טַעֲנַת חִנָּם. תַּנִּי עִיר שֶׁיֵּשׁ בָּהּ גּוֹיִם וְיִשְׂרָאֵל הַגַּבָּיִּים גּוֹבִין מִשֶּׁל יִשְׂרָאֵל וּמִשֵּׁל גּוֹיִם וּמְפָרְנְסִין עֲנִיֵּי יִשְׂרָאֵל וַעֲנִיָּי גּוֹיִם וּמְבַקְּרִין חוֹלֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל וְחוֹלֵי גוֹיִם וְקוֹבְרִין מֵתֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל וּמֵתֵי גּוֹיִם. וּמְנַחֲמִין אֲבֵילֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל וַאֲבֵילֵי גּוֹיִם. וּמַכְנִיסִין כְּלֵי גּוֹיִם וּכְלֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל מִפְּנֵי דַּרְכֵי שָׁלוֹם. גִּירְדָּאֵי שָׁאֲלוּן לְרִבִּי אִימִּי יוֹם מִשְׁתֶּה שֶׁל גּוֹיִם מַהוּ. סְבַר מִישְׁרֵי לוֹן מִן הָכָא מִפְּנֵי דַּרְכֵי שָׁלוֹם. אָמַר לוֹן רִבִּי בָּא וְהָתַנִּי רִבִּי חִיָיא יוֹם מִשְׁתֶּה שֶׁל גּוֹיִם אָסוּר. אָמַר רִבִּי אִימִּי אִילוּלֵי רִבִּי בָּא הָיָה לָנוּ לְהַתִּיר עֲבוֹדָה זָרָה שֶׁלָּהֶן וּבָרוּךְ שֶׁרִיחֵקָנוּ מֵהֶם.

MISHNAH: Rebbi Eliezer says, nobody has to give a name to the tithe of the poor from demay 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 name to his heave of the tithe of demay , or to the certain tithe of the poor, should not separate them 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 it 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. HALAKHAH: Rebbi Abba bar Huna 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 sin 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 he 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 it 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. . It was stated 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? Is it because he is not suspected of advancing the tithe, or because if he separated the Second it is a standing presumption that he separated the First? 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 needed . Since he has to separate the Second, on which the owner earns no goodwill he certainly will separate the First, on which he earns goodwill! “If somebody brought out Second Tithe from his house to somebody and said: ‘It is redeemed,’ he is trustworthy; ‘redeem for me and yourself,’ 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 trustworthy.” 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 Fruits 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 Issi: it is Rebbi Eliezer’s Hence, the baraita is R. Eliezer’s and the Sages make trustworthiness dependent exclusively on the rules given in Chapter 2. . This is the Mishnah: 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 gifts 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 Sabbath, 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 they are used to. But if they are not used to, no person comes to eat his piece of bread at another’s house. It was stated 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 clasp 1:3, fol. 39a, an unexplained word עיכלה is used, in Ekhah rabbati 4(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. It was stated: “One does not carry to the mourner’s house in colored glass containers because he carries a false load27a) 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. .” It was stated 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 zarah 1:3, 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 vessels 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.” The weavers asked Rebbi Ammi, what about a Gentile wedding feast? He wanted to permit it to them from this: “Because of peaceful coexistence.” Rebbi Abba told them, did not Rebbi Ḥiyya state 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 worship; praised be He Who distanced us from them.

הָאוֹמֵר לְמִי שֶׁאֵינוֹ נֶאֱמָן עַל הַמַּעְשְׂרוֹת קַח לִי מִמִּי שֶׁהוּא נֶאֱמָן וּמִי שֶׁהוּא מְעַשֵּׂר אֵינוֹ נֶאֱמָן. מֵאִישׁ פְּלוֹנִי הֲרֵי זֶה נֶאֱמָן. הָלַךְ לִיקַח מִמֶּנּוּ אָמַר לוֹ לֹא מְצָאתִיו וְלָקַחְתִּי לְךָ מֵאֶחָד שֶׁהוּא נֶאֱמָן אֵינוֹ נֶאֱמָן. תַּנִּי אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹסֵי אֲפִילוּ אָמַר לוֹ מִפְּלוֹנִי אֵינוֹ נֶאֱמָן עַד שֶׁיֹּאמַר לוֹ קַח וַאֲנִי נוֹתֵן מָעוֹת. מַה טַעֲמָא דְּרִבִּי יוֹסֵי אֲנִי אוֹמֵר אֶחָד קָרוֹב מָצָא וְלָקַח מִמֶּנּוּ דְּתַנֵּינָן תַּמָּן הִתְקַבֵּל לִי גִיטִּי בְּמָקוֹם פְּלוֹנִי אוֹכֶלֶת בִּתְרוּמוֹת עַד שֶׁיַּגִּיעַ גֶּט לְאוֹתוֹ מָקוֹם רִבִּי לָעְזָר אוֹסֵר מִיַּד. מַה טַעֲמָא דְּרִבִּי לָעְזָר אֲנִי אוֹמֵר אַחַר הַדֶּלֶת מְצָאוֹ. אָתָא דְּרִבִּי אֶלְעָזָר כְּרִבִּי יוֹסֵי וּדְּרִבִּי יוֹסֵי כְּרִבִּי לָעְזָר. דְּרִבִּי יוֹסֵי רִיבָּה מִן דְּרִבִּי לָעְזָר וְלֹא מוֹדֶה רִבִּי לָעְזָר שֶׁאִם אָמַר לוֹ אַל תְּקַבְּלֵהוּ לִי אֶלָּא בְמָקוֹם פְּלוֹנִי שֶׁהִיא אוֹכֶלֶת בִּתְרוּמָה עַד שֶׁיַּגִּיעַ גֶּט לְאוֹתוֹ מָקוֹם. וְהָכָא אֲפִילוּ אָמַר לוֹ מִפְּלוֹנִי אֵינוֹ נֶאֱמָן עַד שֶׁיֹּאמַר לוֹ קַח וַאֲנִי נוֹתֵן לוֹ מָעוֹת. מַה טַעֲמָא דְּרִבִּי יוֹסֵי אֲנִי אוֹמֵר אֶחָד קָרוֹב מָצָא וְלָקַח מִמֶּנּוּ.

MISHNAH: He who tells somebody who is not trustworthy, buy for me from somebody who is trustworthy, or from somebody who tithes, is 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. HALAKHAH: It was stated 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 there 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 Eleazar. 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 place, 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.

הַנִּכְנַס לְעִיר וְאֵינוֹ מַכִּיר אָדָם שָׁם וְאָמַר מִי כַּאן נֶאֱמָן וּמִי כַּאן מְעַשֵּׂר. אָמַר לוֹ אֶחָד אֲנִי אֵינִי נֶאֱמָן אִישׁ פְּלוֹנִי נֶאֱמָן הֲרֵי זֶה נֶאֱמָן. הָלַךְ וְלָקַח הִימֶּינּוּ. אָמַר לָהֶן מִי כַּאן מוֹכֵר יָשָׁן אָמַר לוֹ מִי שֶׁשָּׁלְחָךְ אֶצְלִי אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁהֵן כְּגוֹמְלִין זֶה אֶת זֶה הֲרֵי אֵילוּ נֶאֱמָנִין. הַחַמָּרִים שֶׁנִּכְנְסוּ לָעִיר אָמַר אֶחָד מֵהֶן שֶׁלִּי חָדָשׁ וְשֶׁל חֲבֵירִי יָשָׁן. שֶׁלִּי אֵינוֹ מְתוּקָּן וְשֶׁל חֲבֵירִי מְתוּקָּן אֵינָן נֶאֱמָנִין. רִבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר נֶאֱמָנִין. וְעֵד אֶחָד נֶאֱמָן. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן קַל הֵיקִלוּ בָּאַכְסְנַאי מִפְּנֵי חַיֵּי נֶפֶשׁ. תַּנִּי נִכְנַס לְעִיר וְאֵינוֹ מַכִּיר אָדָם אוֹ שֶׁהָיָה עוֹמֵד בְּגוֹרֶן וְאֵינוֹ מַכִּיר אָדָם שָׁם. הֲרֵי זֶה נִשְׁאַל בֵּין לְחָבֵר בֵּין לְעַם הָאָרֶץ דִּבְרֵי רַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִאֵל. רִבִּי אוֹמֵר אֵין נִשְׁאֲלִין עַל הַתְּרוּמָה אֶלָּא לְחָבֵר בִּלְבַד. אַתְיָא דְּרִבִּי כְּרִבִּי מֵאִיר וּדְרַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל בְּשִׁיטְתֵיהּ. דְּתַנֵּינָן תַּמָּן כָּל הַמּוּמִין הָרְאוּיִן לָבוֹא בִידֵי אָדָם רוֹעִין יִשְׂרָאֵל נֶאֱמָנִין רוֹעִין כֹּהֲנִים אֵינָן נֶאֱמָנִין. רַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִאֵל אוֹמֵר נֶאֱמָן הוּא עַל שֶׁל חֲבֵירוֹ וְאֵינוֹ נֶאֱמָן עַל שֶׁל עַצְמוֹ. רִבִּי מֵאִיר אוֹמֵר הֶחָשׁוּד עַל הַדָּבָר לֹא דָנוֹ וְלֹא מֵעִידוֹ. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹנָה מַה פְּלִיגִין לִיקַּח אֲבָל לְחַלֵּק אוֹף רַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל מוֹדֶה. מַה בֵּין לְחַלֵּק מַה בֵּין לִיקַּח. קוֹל יוֹצֵא לְחִילּוּק. תַּנִּי הַנִּכְנַס לְעִיר וּמָצָא סִיעוֹת שֶׁל בְּנֵי אָדָם אָמַר מִי כָּאן נֶאֱמָן מִי כָּאן מְעַשֵּׂר. אָמַר לוֹ אֶחָד אֲנִי נֶאֱמָן. אִם אָמְרוּ לוֹ שֶׁהוּא נֶאֱמָן הֲרֵי זֶה נֶאֱמָן. אָמְרוּ לוֹ שֶׁאֵינוֹ נֶאֱמָן בְּפָנָיו אֵינוֹ נֶאֱמָן. שֶׁלֹּא בְּפָנָיו נֶאֱמָן. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹנָה בְּבֶן עִיר בְּסִיעוֹת חֲבֵירִים וּבְאַכְסְנַאי בְּסִיעוֹת עַם הָאָרֶץ. וְקַשְׁיָא עַל דְּרִבִּי יוֹנָה חֲבֵרִין וְאַתְּ אָמַר אֵינוֹ נֶאֱמָן בְּפָנָיו. מַה טַַעַם דְּרִבִּי יוּדָה מִפְּנֵי חַיֵּיהֶן שֶׁל בְּנֵי הָעִיר. מַה טַעֲמֵיהוֹן דְּרַבָּנִין מְצוּיִין הֵן לְהִתְפָּרְנֵס מֵעִיר אַחֶרֶת.

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 believed. If he went and bought there and asked, who is selling old produce here 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 old, mine is not in order, my colleague’s is in order, are not to be believed. Rebbi Jehudah says, they are to be believed. HALAKHAH: But is a single witness trustworthy 56b ). ? Rebbi Joḥanan said, they were very lenient for a guest because of the necessities of life. It was stated 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 there 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 suspect 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 knowledge. It was stated 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 presence to lie in this matter to please somebody? The question is not answered. ? What is the reason of Rebbi Jehudah? Because of the lives of the townspeople. What is the reason of the rabbis? They can provision themselves in another town.