Jerusalem Talmud Demai Chapter 6

הַמְּקַבֵּל שָׂדֶה מִיִּשְׂרָאֵל מִן הַנָּכְרִי מִן הַכּוּתִי חוֹלֵק בִּפְנֵיהֶן. הַחוֹכֵר שָׂדֶה מִיִּשְׂרָאֵל תּוֹרֵם וְנוֹתֵן לוֹ. רִבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר אֵימָתַי בִּזְמַן שֶׁנָּתַן לוֹ מֵאוֹתָהּ הַשָּׂדֶה וּמֵאוֹתוֹ הַמִּין. אֲבָל אִם נָתַן לוֹ מִשָּׂדֶה אֲחֶרֶת אוֹ מִמִּין אַחֵר מְעַשֵּׂר וְנוֹתֵן לוֹ. הַחוֹכֵר שָׂדֶה מִן הַנָּכְרִי מְעַשֵּׂר וְנוֹתֵן לוֹ. רִבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר אַף הַמְּקַבֵּל שְׂדֵי אֲבוֹתָיו מִן הַגּוֹי מְעַשֵּׂר וְנוֹתֵן לוֹ. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן זוּ דִבְרֵי רַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל. אֲבָל דִּבְרֵי חֲכָמִים מִיִּשְׂרָאֵל חוֹלֵק מִן הַגּוֹי תוֹרֵם. וְתַנִּי כֵן הַחוֹכֵר שָׂדֶה מִן הַגּוֹי תוֹרֵם וְנוֹתֵן לוֹ. אָמַר רַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל מַה אִם יִרְצֶה הַגּוֹי הַזֶּה שֶׁלֹּא לִתְרוֹם פֵּירוֹתָיו אֵינוֹ רְשַׁאי. אֶלָּא חוֹלֵק וּמֵנִיחַ לְפָנָיו. רִבִּי זְעִירָא רִבִּי יוֹסֵי רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן בְּשֵׁם רִבִּי יַנַּאי אַתֶּם גַּם אַתֶּם לְרַבּוֹת שְׁלוּחֲכֶם. מַה אַתֶּם בְּנֵי בְרִית אַף שְׁלוּחֲכֶם בְּנֵי בְרִית. אַתֶּם עוֹשִׂין שָׁלִיחַ וְאֵין הַגּוֹי עוֹשֶׂה שָׁלִיחַ. רִבִּי יָסָא סָבַר מֵימַר אֵין הַגּוֹי עוֹשֶׂה שָׁלִיחַ בְּיַד אַחֵר חֲבֵירוֹ הָא בְיִשְׂרָאֵל עוֹשֶׂה. אָמַר רִבִּי זְעִירָא וּמִינָהּ אַתֶּם עוֹשִׂין שָׁלִיחַ וְלֹא בְיִשְׂרָאֵל. וְדִכְוָותָהּ אֵין הַגּוֹי עוֹשֶׂה שָׁלִיחַ אֲפִילוּ בְיִשְׂרָאֵל. הָתִיב רַב הוֹשַׁעְיָה וְהָא מַתְנִיתָא מְסַיְיעָא לְרִבִּי יוֹחָנָן. אָמַר רַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל מַה אִם יִרְצֶה הַגּוֹי הַזֶּה שֶׁלֹּא לִתְרוֹם אֵינוֹ תוֹרֵם. אָמַר רִבִּי בָּא בְּמַאֲמִין עַל יָדָיו. הַחוֹכֵר בְּפֵירוֹת הַשּׂוֹכֵר בְּמָעוֹת הַמְקַבֵּל לְמֶחֱצָה לִשְׁלִישׁ וְלִרְבִיעַ. עַד כְּדוֹן נָכְרִי כּוּתִי. נִישְׁמְעִינָהּ מִן הָדָא הַנּוֹתֵן שָׂדֵהוּ בְקַבָּלָה לְגוֹי וּלְכוּתִי וּלְמִי שֶׁאֵינוֹ נֶאֱמָן עַל הַמַּעְשְׂרוֹת עַד שֶׁלֹּא בָאוּ לְעוֹנַת הַמַּעְשְׂרוֹת אֵינוֹ צָרִיךְ לְעַשֵּׂר עַל יָדָיו מִשֶּׁבָּאוּ לְעוֹנַת הַמַּעְשְׂרוֹת צָרִיךְ לְעַשֵּׂר עַל יָדָיו. עַד כְּדוֹן בְּמָקוֹם שֶׁיִּשְׂרָאֵל מְצוּיִין. בְּמָקוֹם שֶׁאֵין יִשְׂרָאֵל מְצוּיִין. נִישְׁמְעִינָהּ מִן הָדָא רִבִּי סִימוֹן הָיוּ לוֹ שָׂדוֹת בְּהַר הַמֶּלֶךְ. שָׁאַל לְרִבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָמַר לֵיהּ יוֹבִירוּ וְאַל תַּשְׂכִּרֵם לְגוֹי. שָׁאַל לְרִבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בֶּן לֵוִי וְשָׁרָא לֵיהּ. סָבַר רִבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בֶּן לֵוִי מָקוֹם שֶׁאֵין יִשְׂרָאֵל מְצוּיִין כְּהָדָא סוּרִיָּא. דְּהָדָא סוּרִיָּא נִישְׁמְעִינָיהּ מִן הָדָא רִבִּי חַגַּיי נְחַת לְחָמְץ אֲתוּן שָׁאֲלוּן לֵיהּ אִילֵּין דְּבַר עַשְׁתּוֹר בְּגִין דְּלֵית יִשְׂרָאֵל שְׁכִיחִין וַאֲנָן מוֹגְרִין לְעַמִּים צְרִיכִין לְעַשֵּׂר אֲנָן עַל יְדֵיהוֹן. שָׁלַח שָׁאַל לְרִבִּי זְעִירָא. שָׁאַל רִבִּי זְעִירָא לְרִבִּי אִימִּי. אָמַר לֵיהּ אֵינוֹ צָרִיךְ לְעַשֵּׂר עַל יְדֵיהֶן. מִינָהּ אַתְּ שְׁמַע לְהַשְׂכִּיר כְּרִבִּי יוֹסֵי. וְעוֹד מִן הָדָא דְּאָמַר רִבִּי חֲנִינָא בְּרֵיהּ דְּרִבִּי אַבָּהוּ. אַבָּא הֲוָה לֵיהּ עוּבְדָּא שָׁלַח שָׁאַל לְרִבִּי חִיָיא וּלְרִבִּי יָסָא וּלְרִבִּי אִימִּי וְהוֹרוּן לֵיהּ לְהַשְׂכִּיר כְּרִבִּי יוֹסֵי הָא לְעַשֵּׂר עַל יְדֵיהֶן אֵינָן מְעַשְּׂרִין עַל יְדֵיהֶן. קִיבֵּל מִמֶּנָּה שָׂדֶה לִקְצוֹר בְּחִיטִּים עֲנָבִים לִבְצוֹר בְּיַיִן זֵתִים לִמְסוֹק בְּשֶׁמֶן מְעַשֵּׂר וְנוֹתֵן לוֹ. אִיתָא חֲמִי עַד שֶׁלֹּא זָרַע תּוֹרֵם מִשֶּׁזָּרַע מְעַשֵּׂר. אָמַר רִבִּי חִינְנָא תִּיקְּנוּ בִּמְקַבֵּל שֶׁלֹּא תָבוּר אֶרֶץ יִשְׂרָאֵל. בְּרַם הָכָא זְרוּעָה הִוא. קִיבֵּל מִמֶּנּוּ שָׂדֶה לִקְצוֹר בְּשַׁחֲרֵי שִׁבּוֹלִים עֲנָבִים לִבְצוֹר בְּסַלֵּי עֲנָבִים זֵתִים לִמְסוֹק בְּסַלֵּי זֵתִים מֵנִיחַ כְּמוֹת שֶׁהֵן. הָא מֵאוֹתָהּ הַמִּין שֶׁלֹּא מֵאוֹתָהּ הַשָּׂדֶה מֵאוֹתָהּ הַשָּׂדֶה שֶׁלֹּא מֵאוֹתוֹ הַמִּין מְעַשֵּׂר וְנוֹתֵן לוֹ. תַּנִּי רִבִּי חִיָיא מֵאוֹתָהּ הַשָּׂדֶה בֵּין מֵאוֹתוֹ הַמִּין בֵּין מִמִּין אַחֵר תּוֹרֵם וְנוֹתֵן לוֹ. שָׂדֶה אֲחֶרֶת בֵּין מֵאוֹתוֹ הַמִּין בֵּין מִמִּין אַחֵר מְעַשֵּׂר וְנוֹתֵן לוֹ. מַתְנִיתִין כְּרַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל. מַה דְתַנִּי רִבִּי חִיָיא כַּחֲכָמִים וּפְלִיגָא. אֲתִינָן מַתְנֵי מַתְנִיתִין בְּמָקוֹם פְּלוֹנִי שֶׁלֹּא נָהֲגוּ לַעֲשׂוֹת שְׂעוֹרִין כִּפְלַיִים כְּחִיטִּים. מַה דְתַנִּי רִבִּי חִיָיה בְּמָקוֹם שֶׁנָּהֲגוּ לַעֲשׂוֹת שְׂעוֹרִים כִּפְלַיִים כְּחִיטִּים. הָכָא אַתְּ אָמַר תּוֹרֵם וְנוֹתֵן לוֹ. וְכֹא אַתְּ אָמַר מְעַשֵּׂר וְנוֹתֵן לוֹ. חֲבֵרָיָא בְשֵׁם רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן קָנְסוּ חֲכָמִים בְּחוֹכֵר מִן הַגּוֹיִם וְלֹא קָנְסוּ בְּחוֹכֵר מִיִּשְׂרָאֵל. רִבִּי לָא בְשֵׁם רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן תָּפְשָׂה מִידַּת הַדִּין בְּחוֹכֵר מִן הַגּוֹי וְלֹא תָפְשָׂה בְּחוֹכֵר מִיִּשְׂרָאֵל. מַתְנִיתָא מְסַיְיעָה לְדֵין וּמַתְנִיתָא מְסַיְיעָא לְדֵין. מַתְנִיתָא מְסַיְיעָא לַחֲבֵרָיָה הַחוֹכֵר שָׂדֶה מִן הַגּוֹי תּוֹרֵם וְנוֹתֵן לוֹ. רִבִּי מֵאִיר אוֹמֵר מְעַשֵּׂר וְנוֹתֵן לוֹ הָא רַבָּנִין אָמְרִין קָנְסוּ חֲכָמִים בְּחוֹכֵר מִן הַגּוֹי. וְלֹא קָנְסוּ חֲכָמִים בְּחוֹכֵר מִיִּשְׂרָאֵל. וְיֵשׁ קְנַס בְּיִשְׂרָאֵל. אֶלָּא הָא הָכֵנִי רַבָּנִין אָמְרֵי תָּפְשָׂה מִידַּת הַדִּין בְּחוֹכֵר מִיִּשְׂרָאֵל. וְרִבִּי מֵאִיר אָמַר אֵין תָּפְשָׂה מִידַּת הַדִּין בְּחוֹכֵר מִיִּשְׂרָאֵל. מַתְנִיתָא מְסַיְיעָא לְרִבִּי לָא הַחוֹכֵר שָׂדֶה מִן הַגּוֹי מְעַשֵּׂר וְנוֹתֵן לוֹ. רִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֵר תּוֹרֵם וְנוֹתֵן לוֹ. הָא רַבָּנִין אָמְרִי[ן] תָּפְשָׂה מִידַּת הַדִּין בְּחוֹכֵר מִן הַגּוֹי וְלֹא תָפְשָׂה מִידַּת הַדִּין בְּחוֹכֵר מִיִּשְׂרָאֵל. רִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֵר לֹא תָפְשָׂה מִידַּת הַדִּין בְּחוֹכֵר מִן הַגּוֹי. אִית בַּר נַשׁ דְּיֵימַר הָדָא מִילְתָא. אֶלָּא הָכֵנִי קָנְסוּ חֲכָמִים בְּחוֹכֵר מִן הַגּוֹי וְלֹא קָנְסוֹ חֲכָמִים בְּחוֹכֵר מִיִּשְׂרָאֵל. רִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֵר לֹא קָנְסוֹ חֲכָמִים בְּחוֹכֵר מִן הַגּוֹי לְפִיכָךְ אִם חָזַר הַגּוֹי וְנִתְגַּיֵיר אוֹ שֶׁמְּכָרָן לְיִשְׂרָאֵל אַחֵר מוּתָּר. מָאן דְּאָמַר תָּפְשָׂה נִיחָא. מָאן דְּאָמַר קָנְסוּ בְיָדוֹ אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן מִן הַמַּסִּיקִין שָׁנוּ מִתּוֹךְ שֶׁאַתְּ אוֹמֵר לוֹ כֵן אַף הוּא דּוֹחֵק עַצְמוֹ וּפוֹדֶה אוֹתָהּ.

MISHNAH: He who receives a field as sharecropper from a Jew, a Gentile, or a Samaritan, distributes in their presence. He who leases a field from a Jew separates heave and delivers to him. Rebbi Jehudah says, when is that? When he gives from that field and from that kind. But if he gives from another field or from another kind, he must tithe and give him. He who leases a field from a Gentile tithes and delivers to him. Rebbi Jehudah says, also he who is a sharecropper for a Gentile on a field that used to belong to his family tithes and delivers to him. HALAKHAH: Rebbi Joḥanan said, these are the words of Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel. But the words of the Sages are: From a Jew, he splits; from a Gentile, he gives heave. We have stated 6:1 : “He who receives a field as sharecropper from a Gentile tithes and gives to him. Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel said, what if the Gentile does not want to tithe his produce? But he distributes and gives before him.” It is clear that the Yerushalmi does not speak about a lease for a fixed amount, because then the Gentile would not be interested in what the Jewish tenant does, but about a sharecropper who will diminish the landlord’s part if he gives heave or tithes prior to distribution. : “He who leases a field from a Gentile separates heave and then gives to him. Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel said: If the Gentile does not wish to give heave, I have no right to it, but he distributes and puts it before him.” Rebbi Zeïra, Rebbi Joḥanan in the name of Rebbi Yannai ( Num. 18:28 ): “You, also you,” to include your plenipotentiary shall lift, also you , the heave of the Eternal.” The expression also you is superfluous; since “also” always means an addition, “also you” means a stand-in. Since he is titled “also you”, it follows that he takes the place of the person authorizing him. The same explanation is given in Terumot 1:1 (fol. 40b/c), Babli Qiddušin 41b, Baba Meẓia‘ 22a. . Just as you are in the covenant, so your plenipotentiary must be in the covenant. You appoint a plenipotentiary, the Gentile may not. Rebbi Yasa wanted to say that the Gentile cannot appoint as plenipotentiary another Gentile, but he can appoint a Jew. Rebbi Zeïra said, from the baraita itself: You appoint a plenipotentiary, does that not mean Jews? Similarly, the Gentile cannot appoint a plenipotentiary, not even a Jew. Rav Hoshaia objects: Does the baraita support Rebbi Joḥanan? “Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel said: If the Gentile does not wish to give heave from his produce, he cannot give heave” Rebbi Abba said, if he confirms it after him 1:15 : “If a Gentile separated heave for a Jew, even with his permission, it is not heave. … Rebbi Isaac says, if a Gentile separated heave for a Jew and the owner confirms his action, it is heave.” For a Jew, once permission is given, it does not require an additional action on the part of the owner. But the Gentile’s action is not valid unless it is explicitly confirmed by the Jewish owner afterwards; the Gentile does the mechanical work and the Jew gives the separated amount the status of heave. . “ ‘He who leases,’ means he pays in produce, ‘he who rents,’ means he pays money, ‘he who receives,’ as sharecropper for a half, a third, or a quarter 6:2 . ”. So far a Gentile; a Samaritan? Let us hear from the following 7:25: “He who gives a field to a Gentile sharecropper, a Samaritan, or to somebody who is not trusted with tithes, even though one is not permitted to do so, he has to tithe for him.” Here the obligation to tithe seems to be a kind of fine imposed upon someone who does not let his field to a trusted Jew. If it is imposed on someone who gives his field to a sharecropper, a fortiori on him who leases his field to a Gentile. : “He who gives a field to a Gentile sharecropper, a Samaritan, or somebody who is not trusted with tithes, before they come to the time of tithes he does not have to tithe for him; after they come to the time of tithes he has to tithe for him.” That is, at a place where Jews are present. At a place where no Jews are available? Let us hear from the following: Rebbi Simon had fields at King’s Mountain 1:9, fol. 40b. . He asked Rebbi Joḥanan, who told him: Let them lie fallow, but do not lease them to a Gentile. He asked Rebbi Joshua ben Levi who permitted it to him. Rebbi Joshua ben Levi is of the opinion that a place where no Jews are available has the status of Syria Chapter 7, Note 119 . The argument implies that Neḥemiah’s covenant applies only to those regions of the Holy Land outside the immediate neighborhood of Jerusalem actually settled by Jews. The territory subject to tithes and Sabbatical therefore is variable over time [S. Klein, HUCA 5(1928) 197–260.] . For Syria, we hear from the following: Rebbi Ḥaggai descended into Homs. The family Astor asked him: Since no Jews are available here, we lease to Gentiles; do we have to tithe for them? He sent and asked Rebbi Zeïra. Rebbi Zeïra asked Rebbi Immi, who told him that they did not have to tithe. From this you hear that the rules of leasing follow Rebbi Yose 1:9: “One does not lease houses in Israel to Gentiles, not to mention fields. In Syria one leases to them houses but not fields, and outside the Land one sells them houses and leases fields to them. These are the words of Rebbi Meïr. Rebbi Yose says, even in the Land of Israel one does lease houses to them and in Syria one sells to them houses and leases fields to them. Outside the Land one sells both to them.” Since one may lease fields to Gentiles, the act of leasing does not remove a field from the duty of tithes. Hence, there is no such duty on the field itself and the Gentile’s part does not have to be tithed by the Jewish landlord. The Yerushalmi’s decision is repeated in Babli Avodah Zarah 21a . . Also from the following: Rebbi Ḥanina, the son of Rebbi Abbahu, said my father had a case; he sent and asked Rebbi Ḥiyya, Rebbi Yasa, and Rebbi Immi, and they taught him that the rules of leasing follow Rebbi Yose; hence, as far as tithing for them is concerned, they do not tithe for them. “If 1:6 . The rule applies both to the sharecropper and to the lessee. Since the preceding Tosephta states the rules for sharecropper and lessee of a Jewish landlord, it follows that this Tosephta (and the one discussed in the following paragraph) deal with a Gentile landlord, which fits in the context of the present Halakhah. he received a field to harvest for wheat, grapes to harvest for wine, olives to harvest for oil, he tithes before he delivers.” Come and see: Before he sows, he separates heave; after it was sown, he tithes? Rebbi Ḥinena said, they made a special decree for the sharecropper, so that the Land of Israel should not lie fallow. But here it is already sown. “If 1:6 . In this case, the payment is given before any obligation of heave and tithes was incurred. he received a field to harvest for early ears, grapes to harvest for baskets of grapes, olives to harvest for baskets of olives, he delivers as is.” That means, if (he is paid) in the same kind; but from another field, or from that field but not from the same kind, he must tithe before he delivers. Rebbi Ḥiyya stated 1:5 . : “From the same field, whether it be the same kind or another kind, he separates heave and delivers. From another field, whether it be the same kind or another kind, he tithes and delivers.” The Mishnah follows Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel; what Rebbi Ḥiyya stated follows the Sages, and they disagree. We also may come and state that the Mishnah deals with some place where barley usually does not yield twice as much as wheat 9:8): “He who receives a field to sow it with barley should not sow it with wheat; wheat, he may sow it with barley. Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel forbids it.” In the opinion of the Yerushalmi, this depends on the relative cash value of the crops raised; if barley yields enough to offset its cheaper price relative to wheat, the lessee is permitted to change the crop. “The Mishnah” in our text means the opinion of Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel, representing actual practice. [In the opinion of the Babli ( Baba Meẓia‘ 106b), wheat needs a more frequent crop rotation and lying fallow than barley and the landlord can always object.] Tosephta Baba Meẓia‘ 9:32, dealing with the subject matter of Mishnah 9:8, does not mention the point of view of Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel. ; what Rebbi Ḥiyya stated refers to a place where barley usually yields twice as much as wheat. There you say, he separates heave and delivers to him. Here you say, he tithes and delivers to him. The colleagues in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: The Sages fined the one who leases from a Gentile but they did not fine the one who leases from a Jew. Rebbi La in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: The strict law, or any observant Jew, should not deliver any produce not completely tithed to a third person. applies to him who leases from a Gentile but not to him who leases from a Jew. One baraita supports one and one baraita supports the other. One baraita 5:2 : “He who leases a field from a Gentile must tithe before delivering to him. Hence, if the lessee bought from a Gentile, or the Gentile sold his crop to another Jew, it is demay .” The anonymous author of the Tosephta is R. Meïr in our baraita. supports the colleagues. “He who leases a field from a Gentile separates heave and delivers to him. Rebbi Meïr says, he tithes and delivers to him.” Could the rabbis say, the Sages fined him who leases from a Gentile but they did not fine him who leases from a Jew? How can a fine apply to leasing from a Jew? But so it is: The rabbis say, the strict law applies to him who leases from a Jew, but Rebbi Meïr said, the strict law does not apply to him who leases from a Jew. One baraita supports Rebbi La: “He 5:2 : “He who splits the yield of a field with a Gentile tithes before delivering the Gentile’s part. Rebbi Simeon says, he separates heave and delivers the Gentile’s part. Hence, if the Gentile converted or sold to another Jew, he has to tithe before delivering.” (R. S. Liebermann explains that Tosephta as dealing with the problem of retroactive clarification, ברירה, but that explanation is impossible since heave and tithes are due only at storage time, see מנחת ביכורים ad loc. In general, the commentaries on the entire paragraph rely too much on unsupported emendations to be taken seriously.) who leases a field from a Gentile tithes and delivers to him. Rebbi Simeon says, he separates heave and delivers to him.” Could the rabbis say, the strict law applies to him who leases from a Gentile, but the strict law does not apply to him who leases from a Jew; Rebbi Simeon said, the strict law does not apply to him who leases from a Gentile? Can anybody make such a statement? But so it is, the Sages fined him who leases from a Gentile but they did not fine him who leases from a Jew. Rebbi Simeon said, the Sages did not fine him who leases from a Gentile; hence, if the Gentile converted or sold to another Jew, it is permitted. Him who says that the law applies, one can understand. He who says, they fined in the Babli ( Baba Meẓia 101a), with מציק instead of מסיק (identical sounds in Galilean dialect; Babylonian spelling as a rule is more historically correct.) ? Rebbi Joḥanan said, one has stated this only in the case of oppressors. Since you say so to him, he exerts himself and buys the land back.

כֹּהֵן וְלֵוִי שֶׁקִּיבְּלוּ שָׂדֶה מִיִּשְׂרָאֵל כְּשֵׁם שֶׁחוֹלְקִין בְּחוּלִין כֵּן חוֹלְקִין בִּתְרוּמָה. רִבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר אוֹמֵר הַמַּעֲשֵׂר שֶׁלָּהֶן שֶׁעַל מְנָת כֵּן בָּאוּ. מְתִיבִין רַבָּנִין לְרִבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר בְּמַה קָנוּ. אָמַר לָהֶן אֵין אַתֶּם מוֹדִין לִי שֶׁאִם הִתְנוּ לוֹ בֵּינֵיהֶן שֶׁהֵן חוֹלְקִין בְּמַעְשְׂרוֹת. אֲפִילוּ הִתְנוּ בְּמַה קָנוּ. סְתָמוֹ נַעֲשֶׂה כְּאוֹמֵר תְּלוֹשׁ מִן הַקַּרְקַע הַזֶּה שֶׁתִּיקְנוּ לָךְ מַעְשְׂרוֹתָיו. אָמַר לֵיהּ אוֹפְנָא לֵית לוֹן אוֹפְנָא לֵית לִסְתָמָא נַעֲשֶׂה כְּאוֹמֵר תְּלוֹשׁ מִן הַקַּרְקַע הַזֶּה שֶׁיַּקְנֶה לָךְ אֶחָד מֵעֲשָׂרָה שֶׁבּוֹ. תַּנִּי כֹּהֵן מִכֹּהֵן לֵוִי מִלֵּוִי יִשְׂרָאֵל מִיִּשְׂרָאֵל חוֹלְקִין לְמַעְשְׂרוֹת. לְמִי נִצְרְכָה לְרִבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר אַף עַל גַּב דְּרִבִּי לִיעֶזֶר אָמַר מַעֲשֵׂר שֶׁלָּהֶן עַל מְנָת כֵּן בָּאוּ. מוֹדֵי הוּא הָכָא שֶׁהֵן חוֹלְקִין בְּמַעְשְׂרוֹת. יִשְׂרָאֵל שֶׁקִּיבֵּל שָׂדֶה מִכֹּהֵן אָמַר לוֹ עַל מְנָת שֶׁיְּהוּ הַמַּעְשְׂרוֹת שֶׁלִּי אוֹ שֶׁלָּךְ אוֹ שֶׁלִּי וְשֶׁלָּךְ מוּתָּר. כֹּהֵן שֶׁקִּיבֵּל שָׂדֶה מִיִּשְׂרָאֵל אָמַר לוֹ עַל מְנָת שֶׁיְּהוּ הַמַּעְשְׂרוֹת שֶׁלִּי מוּתָּר. שֶׁלָּךְ אָסוּר. שֶׁלִּי וְשֶׁלָּךְ אָסוּר. קִיבְּלָהּ מִמֶּנּוּ כֶּדֶּרֶךְ הַמְּקַבְּלִין מוּתָּר וְאִם לָאו אָסוּר. בְּלֹא כַךְ אֵין הַמַּעְשְׂרוֹת שֶׁלָּהֶן. אֶלָּא הָכֵנִי שֶׁלִּי שֶׁלִּי שֶׁלָּךְ שֶׁלִּי וְשֶׁלָּךְ אִם קִיבְּלָהּ מִמֶּנּוּ כֶּדֶּרֶךְ הַמְּקַבְּלִין מוּתָּר וְאִם לָאו אָסוּר. יִשְׂרָאֵל שֶׁקִּיבֵּל שָׂדֶה מִיִּשְׂרָאֵל עַל מְנָת שֶׁיְּהוּ הַמַּעְשְׂרוֹת שֶׁל זֶה אָסוּר. שֶׁאֶטְּלֵם אֲנִי וְאֶתְּנֵם לְזֶה מוּתָּר. וְלֹא דָא הִיא קַדְמִיָיתָא. אָמַר רִבִּי אָחָא אִם תִּירְצֶה בֵּינֵיהֶן. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹסֵי הָא דְתֵימַר מוּתָּר בְּשֶׁקִּיבְּלָהּ כְּדֶרֶךְ הַמְקַבְּלִין. וְהֵן דְּאַתְּ אָמַר אָסוּר בְּשֶׁלֹּא קִיבְּלָהּ מִמֶּנּוּ כְּדֶרֶךְ הַמְקַבְּלִין. אֲתְיָא דְּרִבִּי יוֹסֵי כְּרִבִּי יוֹחָנָן. וּדְרִבִּי אָחָא כְּרִבִּי יוֹסֵי בֵּי רִבִּי חֲנִינָה. דְּרִבִּי יוֹסֵי בֵּי רִבִּי חֲנִינָא אָמַר אָדָם נוֹתֵן מַעְשְׂרוֹתָיו בְּטוֹבַת הֲנָיָיה. רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָמַר אֵין אָדָם מֵבִיא מַעְשְׂרוֹתָיו בְּטוֹבַת הֲנָאָה. מַאי טַעְמָא דְּרִבִּי יוֹסֵי בֶּן חֲנִינָא וְאִישׁ אֶת קֳדָשָׁיו לוֹ יִהְיוּ. מַה עֲבַד לֵיהּ רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן יִתְּנֵם לְכָל מִי שֶׁיִּרְצֶה. מַתְנִיתָא פְלִיגָא עַל רִבִּי יוֹסֵי בֵּי רִבִּי חֲנִינָא קוֹנָם כֹּהֲנִים לְוִיִּם נֶהֱנִין לִי יִטְּלוֹ בְעַל כָּרְחוֹ. פָּתַר לָהּ בְּאוֹמֵר אֵי אֵיפְשִׁי לִיתֵּן מַתָּנָה כָּל עִיקָּר. תֵּדַע לָךְ שֶׁהוּא כֵן דְּתַנֵּינָן כֹּהֲנִים אֵלּוּ לְוִיִים אֵלּוּ נֶהֱנִין לִי יִטְּלוּ אֲחֵרִים. מַתְנִיתָא פְלִיגָא עַל רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן אֹמֵר הוּא יִשְׂרָאֵל לְיִשְׂרָאֵל הֵילָךְ סֶלַע זֶה וְתֵן בְּכוֹר זֶה לְבֶן בִּתִּי כֹהֶן. פָּתַר לָהּ בְּרוֹצֶה לִיתְּנוֹ לִשְׁנַיִם כֹּהֲנִים וּבֶן בִּתּוֹ אֶחָד מֵהֶן וְהוּא אָמַר הֵילָךְ סֶלַע זוֹ וְתֵן כוּלָּן לְבֶן בִּתִּי כֹהֶן. בָּעוּן קוֹמֵי רִבּי זְעִירָא כְּהָדָא כֹּהֵן לְיִשְׂרָאֵל מַה. דְּרִבִּי יוֹסֵי אָמַר לֹא אֲגִיבוּן. רִבִּי חִזְקִיָּה בְשֵׁם רִבִּי אָחָא אָמַר הָכֵין אֲמַר לוֹן עַל דַּעְתֵּיהּ דְּרִבִּי יוֹסֵי בֶן חֲנִינָה כֹּהֵן לְיִשְׂרָאֵל לָמָּה הוּא אָסוּר לֹא מִפְּנֵי מַרְאִית הָעַיִן אוֹף רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן אִית לֵיהּ יִשְׂרָאֵל לְיִשְׂרָאֵל אָסוּר מִפְּנֵי מַרְאִית הָעַיִן. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹסֵי בֵּי רִבִּי בּוּן חִילּוּל קֳדָשִׁים יֵשׁ כַּאן וְתֹמַר מִפְּנֵי מַרְאִית הָעַיִן. וְעוֹד מִן הָדָא דְתַנִּי הַכֹּהֲנִים וְהַלְּוִיִם הַמְסַיְיעִין בְּבֵית הַגְּרָנוֹת אֵין לָהֶן לֹא תְרוּמָה וְלֹא מַעְשֵׂר וְאִם נָתַן הֲרֵי זֶה חִלּוּל שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר וְלֹא יְחַלְלוּ אֶת קָדְשֵׁי בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל וְהֵן מְחַלְלִין אוֹתָן יוֹתֵר מִיכֵּן אָמְרוּ תְּרוּמָתָן אֵינָהּ תְרוּמָה וּמַעְשְׂרוֹתָן אֵינָן מַעְשְׂרוֹת וְהֶקְדֵּישָׁן אֵינָן הֶקְדֵּשׁ וַעֲלֵיהֶן הַכָּתוּב אוֹמֵר רָאשֶׁיהָ בְּשׁוֹחַד יִשְׁפּוֹטוּ וְכֹהֲנֶיהָ בִּמְחִיר יָבוֹאוּ. הַמָּקוֹם מֵבִיא עֲלֵיהֶן שָׁלֹשׁ פּוּרְעָנִיּוֹת. הַהוּא דִּכְתִיב לָכֵן בִּגְלַלְכֶם צִיּוֹן שָׂדֶה תֵּחָרֵשׁ וגו׳. מַתְנִיתָא פְלִיגָא עַל רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן הַמְקַדֵּשׁ בִּתְרוּמוֹת וּבְמַעְשְׂרוֹת וּבְמַתָּנוֹת וּבְמֵי חַטָּאת וּבְאֶפֶר חַטָּאת הֲרֵי זוּ מְקוּדֶּשֶׁת אַף עַל פִּי יִשְׂרָאֵל. פָּתַר לָהּ בְּתְרוּמָה שֶׁנָּפְלָה לוֹ מִשֶּׁל אֲבִי אִמּוֹ כֹהֵן. כֹּהֵן שֶׁמָּכַר שָׂדֶה לְיִשְׂרָאֵל וְאָמַר לוֹ עַל מְנָת שֶׁיְּהוּ הַמַּעְשְׂרוֹת שֶׁלִּי הַמַּעְשְׂרוֹת שֶׁלּוֹ. מַהוּ שֶׁיִּמְכְּרֵם לְכֹהֵן. נִישְׁמְעִינָהּ מִן הָדָא. דְּאָמַר רִבִּי אַבָּהוּ בְשֵׁם רִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן לָקִישׁ הַמּוֹכֵר מַעְשְׂרוֹת שָׂדֵהוּ לַחֲבֵירוֹ לֹא עָשָׂה כְלוּם. וְולָדֵי שִׁפְחָתוֹ לַחֲבֵירוֹ לֹא עָשָׂה כְלוּם. עוּבְּרֵי בְהֶמְתּוֹ לַחֲבֵירוֹ לֹא עָשָׂה כְלוּם. אַוֵּיר חוֹרֵבָתוֹ לַחֲבֵירוֹ לֹא עָשָׂה כְלוּם. אֶלָּא מוֹכֵר לוֹ שָׂדֶה וּמְשַׁיֵיר לוֹ מַעְשְׂרוֹתֶיהָ. מוֹכֵר לוֹ שִׁפְחָה וּמְשַׁיֵיר לוֹ וְולָדָהּ. מוֹכֵר לוֹ בְהֵמָה וּמְשַׁיֵיר לוֹ עוּבְּרָהּ. מוֹכֵר לוֹ חוֹרֵבָה וּמְשַׁיֵיר ל[וֹ] אַוֵּירָהּ. וְהֵיךְ אֵיפְשַׁר לָאָדָם לִמְכּוֹר אַוֵּיר חוֹרֵבָתוֹ לַחֲבֵירוֹ. תִּיפְתָּר בְּאוֹמֵר לוֹ תְּלוֹשׁ מִן הַחֻרְבָה הַזּוּ שֶׁתִּקְנֶה לְךָ אַוֵּירָהּ. וְכָא קַרְקַע לְפָנָיו שֶׁהוּא אוֹמֵר לוֹ תְּלוֹשׁ מִן הַקַּרְקַע הַזֶּה שֶׁתִּקְנֶה אֶחָד מֵעֲשָׂרָה שֶּׁבּוֹ. כֹּהֵן שֶׁמָּכַר שָׂדֶה לְיִשְׂרָאֵל וְאָמַר לוֹ עַל מְנָת שֶׁיִּהְיוּ הַמַּעְשְׂרוֹת שֶׁלִּי הַמַּעְשְׂרוֹת שֶׁלּוֹ. מֵת אֵין לְבָנָיו בְּמַעְשְׂרוֹת. לִי וּלְבָנַי וְלִי וּלְיוֹרְשַׁי יֵשׁ לוֹ בְמַעְשְׂרוֹת וּלְבָנָיו בְּמַעְשְׂרוֹת וּלְיוֹרְשָׁיו בְּמַעְשְׂרוֹת. רִבִּי יוּדָן בָּר שָׁלוֹם בְּעָא קוֹמֵי דְּרִבִּי יוֹסֵי עַד כְּדוֹן בְּיוֹרְשִׁין שֶׁהֵן מִדְּבַר תּוֹרָה אֲפִילוּ בְיוֹרְשִׁין שֶׁאֶינָן מִדְּבַר תּוֹרָה. שֶׁיְּהוּ כָּל הַמַּעְשְׂרוֹת שֶׁלִּי כָּל זְמָן שֶׁהוּא לְפָנָיו יְהוּ הַמַּעְשְׂרוֹת שֶׁלּוֹ כָּל זְמָן שֶׁהוּא לְפָנָיו. מְכָרָהּ לְאַחֵר אֵין לוֹ בְּמַעְשְׂרוֹת. חָזַר וּלְקָחָהּ מִמֶּנּוּ. תַּנִּי רִבִּי חִיָיא אֵין לוֹ בְמַעְשְׂרוֹת. תַּנִּי רִבִּי הוֹשַׁעְיָא יֵשׁ לוֹ בְמַעְשְׂרוֹת. אַתְיַָין אִילֵּין פְּלוּגְוָותָא כְאִילֵּין פְּלוּגְוָותָא. דְּתַנֵּינָן תַּמָּן שֶׁהַמְגָרֵשׁ אֶת הָאִשָּׁה וְהֶחֱזִירָהּ עַל שֵׁם כְּתוּבָתָהּ הָרִאשׁוֹנָה הֶחֱזִירָהּ. תַּנָּא רִבִּי חָנִין קוֹמֵי רִבִּי לָא תְּרֵין אֲמוֹרָאִין חַד אָמַר לִכְתוּבָה אֲבָל לֹא לִתְנָאִין וְחָרָנָה אָמַר בֵּין לִכְתוּבָה בֵּין לִתְנָאִין. מָאן דְּאָמַר לִכְתוּבָה אֲבָל לֹא לִתְנָאִין יֵשׁ לוֹ בְמַעְשְׂרוֹת. וּמָאן דְּאָמַר בֵּין לִכְתוּבָה בֵּין לִתְנָאִין אֵין לֹו בְמַעְשְׂרוֹת. וְהָתַנִּי קִיבֵּל שָׂדֶה מִכּוֹהֶנֶת הַמַּעְשְׂרוֹת שֶׁלָּהּ. נִישְׂאֵת לְיִשְׂרָאֵל חוֹלְקִין בְּמַעְשְׂרוֹת. נִתְאַרְמְלָה אוֹ נִתְגָּרְשָׁה חָזְרָה לִתְחִילָּתָהּ. כָּאן שֶׁמָּכַר כָּאן שֶׁקִּיבֵּל. וְהָתַנִּי רִבִּי חִיָיא מָכְרָה. אָמַר רִבִּי שְׁמוּאֵל בַּר אֶבְדַּוּמָא תַּמָּן יָצָאת מֵרְשׁוּת שְׁנֵֵיהֶן. בְּרַם הָכָא יָצָאת מֵרְשׁוּת מוֹכֵר וְלֹא יָצָאת מֵרְשׁוּת לוֹקֵחַ. כֹּהֵן שֶׁמָּכַר שָׂדֶה לְיִשְׂרָאֵל וְאָמַר לוֹ עַל מְנָת שֶׁיְּהוּ הַמַּעְשְׂרוֹת שֶׁלּוֹ אַרְבַּע אוֹ חָמֵשׁ שָׁנִים יָכוֹל הוּא לִמְחוֹת בְּיָדוֹ שֶׁלֹּא לִיטְעָהּ כֶּרֶם שֶׁלֹּא לְזוֹרְעָהּ אִ[י]סָּטִיס שֶׁלֹּא לַעֲשׂוֹתָהּ שְׂדֵה קָנִים. שֶׁלִּי לְעוֹלָם אֵינוֹ יָכוֹל לִמְחוֹת בְּיָדוֹ שֶׁלֹּא לִיטְעָהּ כֶּרֶם שֶׁלֹּא לְזוֹרְעָהּ אִיסָּטִיס שֶׁלֹּא לַעֲשׂוֹתָהּ שְׂדֵה קָנִים. אֲתָא עוּבְדָא קוֹמֵי רִבִּי אָחָא בַּר עוּלָּא וְחִיְיבָהּ מִיתַּן לֵיהּ חַד מִן עֲשַׂרְתֵּי דְקָנְיָא. יִשְׂרָאֵל שֶׁמָּכַר שָׂדֶה לְכֹהֵן וְאָמַר לוֹ עַל מְנָת שֶׁיְּהוּ הַמַּעְשְׂרוֹת שֶׁלּוֹ אַרְבַּע וְחָמֵשׁ שָׁנִים מוּתָּר. לְעוֹלָם אָסוּר שֶׁאֵין כֹּהֵן עוֹשֶׂה כֹהֵן. כֹּהֵן שֶׁמָּכַר שָׂדֶה לְיִשְׂרָאֵל וְאָמַר לוֹ עַל מְנָת שֶׁיְּהוּ הַמַּעְשְׂרוֹת שֶׁלָּךְ אַרְבַּע אוֹ חָמֵשׁ שָׁנִים אָסוּר. הָכָא אַתְּ אָמַר מוּתָּר. וְהָכָא אַתְּ אָמַר אָסוּר. כַּאן זִיכֵּהוּ בַדָּבָר שֶׁהוּא בִרְשׁוּתוֹ. וְכַאן זִיכֵּהוּ בַדָּבָר שֶׁאֵינוֹ בִרְשׁוּתוֹ.

MISHNAH: A Cohen or a Levite who received a field (as sharecroppers) share in the tithe in the same proportion as they share in a profane yield. Rebbi Eliezer says, the tithe is theirs because they came because of it. HALAKHAH: The rabbis object to Rebbi Eliezer: How did they acquire? He said to them, do you not agree with me that if they agreed 7:1 ) authorizes that kind of stipulation. among themselves, tithes go to the workers? Even if they made a condition, how did they acquire? If there is nothing said, it is as if somebody said: Harvest from this land so that its tithes should be yours. They said to him, there is no stipulation here; if nothing is said there is no stipulation. It is as if he said, harvest this land on condition that you take one tenth for yourselves. It was stated 7:1 : “An Israel {a Jew who is neither Cohen nor Levite} who received {as sharecropper} a field from an Israel, a Cohen from a Cohen, a Levite from a Levite, divide among themselves.” : “A Cohen from a Cohen, a Levite from a Levite, an Israel 7:1 : “An Israel {a Jew who is neither Cohen nor Levite} who received {as sharecropper} a field from an Israel, a Cohen from a Cohen, a Levite from a Levite, divide among themselves.” from an Israel, split the tithes.” Who needs this statement? Rebbi Eliezer; even though Rebbi Eliezer says that the tithe is theirs because they came because of it, here he agrees that they divide up the tithes. “An 7:3–4 , one reads: “An Israel who received a field (as sharecropper) from a Cohen, if he said to him, on condition that the tithes be mine, or yours, or mine and yours; this is forbidden. A Cohen who received a field (as sharecropper) from an Israel, if he said to him, on condition that the tithes be mine, that is permitted. That they be yours, or that they be mine and yours, if he received it under the standard sharecropping contract, it is permitted, otherwise it is forbidden.” Israel who received a field (as sharecropper) from a Cohen, if he said to him, on condition that the tithes be mine, or yours, or mine and yours; this is permitted. A Cohen who received a field (as sharecropper) from a Cohen, if he said to him, on condition that the tithes be mine, that is permitted. That they be yours, that is forbidden. That they be mine and yours, that is forbidden. If he received it under the standard sharecropping contract, it is permitted, otherwise it is forbidden.” Even without that, do not the tithes belong to them tell us as new information? ? But so it must read: “My part is mine, your part is mine and yours, if he received it under the standard sharecropping contract, it is permitted, otherwise it is forbidden.” “If an Israel received (as sharecropper) a field from another Israel on condition that the tithes go to a certain person, that clause is forbidden; on condition that I shall take them and deliver them to a certain person, that clause is permitted. 7:1 ) there is a positive prescription that between sharecropper and landlord of similar status, tithes must be evenly split. There is no prescription on how the tithes should be given to Levite or Cohen. ” Is the second version not identical with the first? Rebbi Aḥa said, “if you agree” makes the difference. Rebbi Yose said, you say it is permitted if it follows the standard sharecropper’s contract. You say it is forbidden if it does not follow the standard sharecropper’s contract. It turns out that Rebbi Yose holds with Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Aḥa with Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Ḥanina. As Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Ḥanina said, a person gives his tithes for the benefit of goodwill 64b–65a ); hence, if the Cohen takes heave without consent of the owner, he cannot be sued for monetary damages (Maimonides Terumot 12:15). This is the only opinion mentioned in the Babli and the only one in Sifry Naśo (6). (Starting here, the next four paragraphs are also found in Qiddušin 2:10 .) . Rebbi Joḥanan said, a person may not give his tithes for the benefit of goodwill. What is the reason of Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Ḥanina? ( Num. 5:10 ) “Everybody shall be the owner of his holy things.” What does Rebbi Joḥanan with this? He may give them to whomever he likes (6)]. . A Mishnah disagrees with Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Ḥaninah: “A vow that no Cohanim or Levites should have any advantage from me, they should take against his will 3:11 . This is one of the vows the husband cannot dissolve if made by his wife since dissolution is unnecessary; any recipient of the obligatory gifts to Cohen and Levite may take them by force in this case, and the owner has no monetary gain. It seems to disagree with R. Joḥanan who says that the owner has the choice of recipient. But since the owner does not want to give what he is obligated to, he transgresses commandments of the Torah and the situation can be saved only by others disregarding his rights. .” He explains it about a person who says, I cannot possibly give them any gifts. You should know that this is so, since we have stated: “ These Cohanim and Levites, let others take.” A baraita disagrees with Rebbi Joḥanan: “An Israel can say to another Israel, here you have a tetradrachma and give this first born to my daughter’s son, a Cohen27a ) a similar statement is made for future heave. Both statements are taken together in Tosephta Demay 5:18 : “An Israel may say to a Cohen {it seems that it should read: another Israel, but there is absolutely no manuscript evidence for that} here you have a tetradrachma and give heave to my daughter’s son, the Cohen, or give a firstborn to my daughter’s son, the Cohen.” The Babli does not want to accept the statement about the firstborn since the Cohen might think the tetradrachma is redemption money and the firstborn does not have to be treated as a sacrifice. .” He explains, if he already wanted to give it to two Cohanim and that daughter’s son was one of them; then one said, here you have a tetradrachma and give all of it to my daughter’s son, a Cohen. They asked before Rebbi Zeïra, in that situation, a Cohen to an Israel, what is the rule? At Rebbi Yose’s they said that he did not answer. Rebbi Ḥizqiah in the name of Rebbi Aḥa said, so he said to them: In the opinion of Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Ḥanina, why is a Cohen to an Israel forbidden, not because it looks badly? Also Rebbi Joḥanan holds that from an Israel to an Israel it is forbidden because it looks badly. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, there is desecration of sacrifices and you said because it looks badly? Because of the following, as it was stated: 5:20 , a slightly longer version. “Cohanim and Levites who help at the threshing floor have no right either to heave or to tithe, and if the farmer gave, it is desecrated, as it is said ( Lev. 22:15 ): ‘They should not desecrate the sanctified things of the Children of Israel,’ but they desecrate them! In addition, they said and he has to give its heave and tithes to another Cohen. This is made explicit in the Tosephta. that their heave is no heave, their tithes are no tithes, their dedications are no dedications, and about them the verse says ( Micha 3:11 ): ‘Their heads judge for bribes and their priests come for a price.’ The Omnipresent brings over them three catastrophies; that is what is written ( Micha 3:12 ): ‘Therefore, because of you Zion will be ploughed over as a field, etc.’” A Mishnah disagrees with Rebbi Joḥanan 2:10 . : “If somebody marries giving heave, tithes, ‘gifts’ 18:3 ). They are profane food and may be sold by the Cohen to anybody. , water for sprinkling, or ashes of the red heifer 58b ). , she is married, even if the groom is Israel.” He explains it with heave he inherited from his maternal grandfather, a Cohen. “ 7:14 ; there the condition is that the buyer be trustworthy for tithes. A similar baraita , dealing with a Levite selling to an Israel, is in Babli Baba Batra 63a . Since a Cohen is required to separate heave and tithes but is permitted to take them for himself in order to eat the heaves in purity, his heaves are a kind of lien on the field and he may sell the field without selling the lien. If a Cohen sold a field to an Israel and made the condition that the tithes should be his, the tithes are his.” May he sell them to a Cohen? Let us hear from the following. Rebbi Abbahu said in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: He who sells the tithes of his field to another person did not do anything, the future children of his slave girl to another person, he did not do anything, the fetus of his animal to another person, he did not do anything, the airspace of his dry land to another person, he did not do anything 64b , Šulḥan Arukh Ḥošen Mišpaṭ 212.) . But he may sell him a field and reserve the tithes for himself, a slave girl and reserve her children for himself, an animal and reserve her fetus for himself. Is it not impossible for a person to sell the airspace of his dry land to another person? Explain it if he tells him, tear out some grasses in that dry land to acquire its airspace. And here there is real estate before him and he says, pluck something from the ground so that you acquire one tenth of it. “ 7:14 ; there the condition is that the buyer be trustworthy for tithes. There is no mention of heirs other than sons. A similar baraita , dealing with a Levite selling to an Israel, appears in Babli Baba Batra 63a . Since the Cohen may stipulate before the sale, he may stipulate anything he wishes. If a Cohen sold a field to an Israel on condition that the tithes should be his, the tithes are his. If he dies, his sons have no right to the tithes. ‘For me and my sons, for me and my heirs,’ his sons have the tithes, his heirs have the tithes.” Rebbi Yudan bar Shalom asked before Rebbi Yose: So far only for heirs whose claim is from the Torah? Even for heirs whose claim is not from the Torah! “ 7:14 , the text is R. Ḥiyya’s. A similar baraita , dealing with a Levite selling to an Israel, appears in Babli Baba Batra 63a , also following R. Ḥiyya only. That all tithes should be mine as long as you own it, he gets its tithes as long as the buyer owns it.” When he sold it to a third party, he has no tithes. If the buyer then bought it back from the third party, Rebbi Ḥiyya states that he has no tithes, Rebbi Hoshaia states that the tithes are his. This disagreement turns out like the other disagreement, as we have stated there 9:13 : “A woman who presents two letters of divorce and two ketubot collects two ketubot. Two ketubot and one letter of divorce, or one ketubah and two letters of divorce, or one ketubah , one letter of divorce, and a death, she collects only one ketubah since ‘he who divorces his wife and then remarries her, remarries her on the basis of the first ketubah .’ ” The ketubah is explained in Peah , Chapter 3, Note 151 . The individual stipulations are obligations the groom takes upon himself in addition to the obligatory ketubah. “that he who divorces his wife and then remarries her, remarries her on the basis of the first ketubah .” Rebbi Ḥanin 9:13 (fol. 33c), is his only known halakhic statement. stated before Rebbi La: Two Amoraïm, one says for ketubah but not for individual stipulations, and the other says, both for ketubah and individual stipulations. For him who says, for ketubah but not for individual stipulations, he has the tithes and one bill of divorce. If one assumes that the argument of the Mishnah applies only to the obligatory ketubah , she collects the amount of one obligatory ketubah but both individual stipulations; hence, the remarrying does not eliminate the validity of the first ketubah. In our case, the repurchasing of the field does not eliminate the first contract and the Cohen re-enters into his rights to tithes. (The Babli, Ketubot 90a , which does not consider the case of demay presented by R. Hoshaia, holds that if the date of the letter of divorce is between the dates of the two ketubot , she collects both ketubot in full.) . For him who says, both for ketubah and for individual stipulations, he has no tithes is invalidated completely, as is the Cohen’s contract of sale. (This is the only case considered by the Babli, Baba Batra 63a .) . But did we not state 7:9 ; there it is spelled out: בת כהן. : “If somebody received (as sharecropper) from the daughter of a Cohen, she has the tithes. If she married an Israel, they split the tithes. If she was widowed or divorced 22:13 ). , she returns to her prior status.” There when he sold, here when he received. But did not Rebbi Ḥiyya state: “When she sold? is not in the Tosephta. R. Ḥiyya, who holds that the Cohen loses all his rights when the Israel sells the field to a third party, states that the daughter of a Cohen who sells her field to an Israel while retaining her rights to tithes, and who loses half of the tithes on her marriage to an Israel, can reclaim all her rights as a childless divorcee or widow. The problem is to reconcile the two statements of R. Ḥiyya; the answer is that in the second case the rights of the seller are only suspended, not eliminated. ” Rebbi Samuel bar Eudaimon said, there it left the power of both parties; here, it left the power of the seller but not that of the buyer. “A7:15 . Cohen who sold a field to an Israel on condition that the tithes be his for four or five years can oppose the buyer’s planting it as a vineyard for the first three years and its fruits forbidden for all use, the Cohen would lose most of the tithes he had contracted for. , sowing woad, a plant used to make dark blue dye. Since woad is not food, it is exempt from tithes and the Cohen would lose all income from the field. , or turning it into a field of reeds. Mine forever, he cannot oppose the buyer’s planting it as a vineyard, sowing woad, or turning it into a field of reeds.” There came a case before Rebbi Aḥa bar Ulla and he obligated him to turn over to him one tenth of the reeds. “If an 7:15 , the first two sentences only. Israel sold a field to a Cohen on condition that the tithes be his for four or five years, it is permitted. Forever, it is forbidden, since no Cohen can make a Cohen. If a Cohen sold a field to an Israel on condition that the tithes be the Israel’s for four or five years, it is forbidden.” There you say it is permitted, here you say it is forbidden! There, he gave him rights to something he had the right to dispose of, here, he gave him rights to something he had no right to dispose of.

יִשְׂרָאֵל שֶׁקִּיבֵּל מִכֹּהֵן וּמִלֵּוִי הַמַּעְשְׂרוֹת לִבְעָלִים. רִבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל אוֹמֵר הַקַּרְתָּנִי שֶׁקִּיבֵּל שָׂדֶה מִירוּשַׁלְמִי מַעֲשֵׂר שֵׁנִי שֶׁל יְרוּשַׁלְמִי. וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים יָכוֹל הוּא הַקַּרְתָּנִי לַעֲלוֹת וּלְאוֹכְלוֹ בִּירוּשָׁלֵם. עַל דַּעְתֵּיהּ דְּרִבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל אִילּוּ כֹהֵן טָמֵא שֶׁהָיָה שׁוּתָף עִם כֹּהֵן טָהוֹר שֶׁמָּא אֵין חוֹלְקִין בְּמַעְשְׂרוֹת. תַּמָּן יָכוֹל הוּא לְמוֹכְרָן לְכֹהֵן טָהוֹר אַחֵר. בְּרַם הָכָא יָכוֹל הַקַּרְתָּנִי לַעֲלוֹת וּלְאוֹכְלוֹ בִּירוּשָׁלֵם.

MISHNAH: If an Israel received (as sharecropper) from a Cohen or a Levite, the tithes are for the owners. Rebbi Ismael says, if a villager received a field from a Jerusalemite, the Second Tithe is the Jerusalemite’s. But the Sages say, the villager can make pilgrimage be redeemed. and eat his part in Jerusalem. HALAKHAH: According to the opinion of Rebbi Ismael, if an impure Cohen and a pure Cohen were partners, would they not split the tithes? There he may sell the tithes to another pure Cohen, here can the villager make pilgrimage and eat his part in Jerusalem?

הַמְּקַבֵּל זֵיתִים לַשֶּׁמֶן כְּשֵׁם שֶׁחוֹלְקִין בַּחוּלִין כַּךְ חוֹלְקִין בִּתְרוּמָה. רִבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר יִשְׂרָאֵל שֶׁקִּיבֵּל מִכֹּהֵן וּמִלֵּוִי זֵתִים לַשֶּׁמֶן אוֹ לְמַחֲצִית שָׂכָר הַמַּעְשְׂרוֹת לַבְּעָלִים. רִבִּי יוּדָה עֲבַד זֵתִים כְּקַרְקַע וְרַבָּנִין לָא עָבְדִין זֵתִים כְּקַרְקַע. מֵעַתָּה אִין יִסְבּוֹר רִבִּי יוּדָה כְרִבִּי לִיעֶזֶר. דְּרִבִּי לִיעֶזֶר אָמַר הַמַּעְשְׂרוֹת שֶׁלָּהֶן שֶׁעַל מְנָת כֵּן בָּאוּ. וְהָכָא כֹּהֵן וְלֵוִי שֶׁקִּיבְּלוּ שָׂדֶה מִיִּשְׂרָאֵל הַמַּעְשֶׁרוֹת שֶׁלָּהֶן שֶׁעַל מְנָת כֵּן בָּאוּ. פָּרָתוֹ שֶׁל כֹּהֵן שֶׁהָיְתָה שׂוּמָה אֵצֶל יִשְׂרָאֵל וְיָלְדָה בְכוֹר הַבְּכוֹר לַכֹּהֵן דִּבְרֵי רִבִּי יְהוּדָה. וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים אֵין הַבְּכוֹר אֶלָּא לִשְׁנֵיהֶן. אָמַר לָהֶן רִבִּי יְהוּדָה אֵי אַתֶּם מוֹדִין לִי בְמַעְשְׂרוֹת שָׂדֵהוּ שֶׁהוּא שֶׁלּוֹ. אָמַר לוֹ מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהַשָּׂדֶה גוּפָהּ לַכֹּהֵן וְהַפָּרָה גוּפָהּ לִשְׁנֵיהֶן. אַף הַפָּרָה אִם הָיְתָה גוּפָהּ לַכֹּהֵן הַבְּכוֹר לַכֹּהֵן. וְתַנִּי כֵן הַשָּׂם בְּאַחֵרָיוּת שְׁנֵיהֶן וְהַמּוֹכֵר בְּאַחֵרָיוּת הַנּוֹתֵן. כֹּהֵן שֶׁנָּתַן מָעוֹת לְיִשְׂרָאֵל לִיקַּח לוֹ בָהֶן פֵּירוֹת לְמַחֲצִית שָׂכָר אָמַר לוֹ הוֹתִירוּ אוֹ פָּחְתוּ שֶׁלִּי וְהַמַּעְשְׂרוֹת שֶׁלָּךְ מוּתָּר. יִשְׂרָאֵל שֶׁנָּתַן מָעוֹת לְכֹהֵן לִיקַּח לוֹ בָהֶן פֵּירוֹת לְמַחֲצִית שָׂכָר אָמַר לוֹ הוֹתִירוּ אוֹ פָּחְתוּ שֶׁלִּי וְהַמַּעְשְׂרוֹת שֶׁלָּךְ אִם נָתַן לוֹ שְׂכָרוֹ מוּתָּר וְאִם לָאו אָסוּר. יִשְׂרָאֵל שֶׁהָיָה מוֹכֵר זֵתִים בְּשִׁשִּׁים לוֹג טְבוּלִים. אָמַר לוֹ תְּנֵם לִי וַאֲנִי נוֹתֵן לָךְ שִׁשִּׁים לוֹג מְתוּקָּנִין מוּתָּר. שִׁשִּׁים לוֹג טְבוּלִין וַאֲנִי וְאַתְּ חוֹלְקִין אֶת הַמַּעְשְׂרוֹת אָסוּר. כְּדִי יְהַב לָהּ כּוּלֵּיהּ מוּתָּר. כְּדִי יְהַב לֵיהּ פַּלְגָּא אָסוּר. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹסֵי כָּאן בְּמַרְוִיחַ לוֹ. וְתַנִּי כָּאן אִם הָיָה מַרְוִיחַ לוֹ אָסוּר מִשּׁוּם רִבִּית וּמִשּׁוּם בִּזְיוֹן קֳדָשִׁים.

MISHNAH: If somebody receives olives to make oil, they split heave just as they split the profane. Rebbi Jehudah says, if an Israel received olives from a Cohen or a Levite for oil or for half the yield as his wages, the tithes are for the landlords. HALAKHAH: Rebbi Jehudah treats olives like fields but the rabbis do not treat olives like fields. Now it seems that Rebbi Judah is thinking like Rebbi Eliezer, as Rebbi Eliezer says, “the tithe is theirs because they came because of it.” So here, if a Cohen or a Levite received a field (as sharecroppers), the tithes are theirs because they came because of them. “ 7:10 . As explained later in this paragraph, the technical term “to put in care” is applied only to an animal that is the joint property of the rancher and an investor. A cow of a Cohen that was put in an Israel’s care and gave birth to a firstborn calf, the firstborn calf is the Cohen’s, the words of Rebbi Jehudah. But the Sages say, the firstborn is their common property. Rebbi Jehudah said to them, do you not agree with me that the tithes of his field are his? They said to him, because the body of the field is his property, but the body of the cow is joint property. If the body of the cow were sole property of the Cohen, the firstborn would be the Cohen’s.” We have stated accordingly, “ put in care means joint responsibility, selling is the sole responsibility of him who gives.” “If a 7:7 . In this case, the Cohen is the owner and heave and tithe are his. The tithe, after heave of the tithe is removed, is profane in the hand of the Cohen and he may give them to anybody he wishes, even an Israel. Cohen gave money to an Israel to buy produce for half the profit and he (the Cohen) said to him: If they go up or down in price, it is on my account, and the tithes are yours, this is permitted. If an 7: 8 . The Israel is the owner of everything, the Cohen is only his agent. Heave and tithes may not be part of the payment, otherwise the Cohen’s standing would be that of a Cohen helping with the harvest; see Halakhah 3 above. Hence, the Cohen has to be paid in full before heave and tithe are given to him. Israel gave money to a Cohen to buy produce for half the profit and he (the Israel) said to him: If they go up or down in price, it is on my account, and the tithes are yours, if he had paid the wages, it is permitted, otherwise it is forbidden. An 5:18 . R. Saul Lieberman conjectures that “sold” really means “leased his olive trees for one year,” to be paid a fixed amount of olive oil as rent. One may assume that olives growing on trees are meant, to be harvested and pressed by the contractor. In that sense, “sold” is applicable. Israel who sold olives against 60 log of ṭevel . If one said to him, sell them to me and I shall give you 60 log that are in order, that is permitted. 60 log ṭevel , and both of us will share in the tithes, that is forbiden.” If he gives him everything, it is permitted, if he gives him half, it is forbidden? Rebbi Yose said, if he extends credit to him of oil immediately after they are pressed but only later, while another bidder would have to deliver promptly, not only does he give to the Israel landlord part of his tithes as hidden interest for the extension of credit but he uses tithes (of which heave of the tithe has not been removed and which still retains its holy status) to pay a debt and this is contempt of holy gifts. [In the Tosephta dealing with the first case, the Cohen who delivers 60 log of tithed oil, it is stated explicitly that there is no transgression either of the laws of interest or of those of honoring holy things.] . We also have stated in this respect: If he extends credit to him it is forbidden because of interest and because of degradation of holy things.

בֵּית שַׁמַּאי אוֹמְרִים לֹא יִמְכּוֹר אָדָם אֶת זֵיתָיו אֶלָּא לְחָבֵר. בֵּית הִלֵּל אוֹמְרִים אַף לִמְעַשֵּׂר . וּצְנוּעֵי בֵּית הִלֵּל הָיוּ נוֹהֲגִין כְּדִבְרֵי בֵית שַׁמַּאי. שְׁנַיִם שֶׁבָּצְרוּ כַרְמֵיהֶן לְתוֹךְ גַּת אַחַת אֶחָד מְעַשֵּׂר וְאֶחָד שֶׁאֵינוֹ מְעַשֵּׂר הַמְּעַשֵּׂר מְעַשֵּׂר אֶת שֶׁלּוֹ וְחֶלְקוֹ בְּכָל מָקוֹם שֶׁהוּא. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן טַעְמָא דְּבֵית הִלֵּל דֶּרֶךְ בְּנֵי אָדָם לוֹכַל זֵיתֵיהֶן עֲטוּנִין אֶלָּא עַל יְדֵי עִילָּה. בֵּית הִלֵּל כְּדַעְתֵּין דְּתַנֵּינָן לֹא יִמְכּוֹר לוֹ פָּרָה חוֹרֶשֶׁת בַּשְּׁבִיעִית. וּבֵית הִלֵּל מַתִּירִין מִפְּנֵי שֶׁיָּכוֹל לְשׁוֹחֲטָהּ. וְאוֹרְחֵיהּ דְּבַר נַשׁ מֵיכוֹס תּוּרָא דִידֵּיהּ עַל יְדֵי עִ[י]לָּה. שָׁוִין שֶׁהוּא מוֹכֵר לוֹ שִׁיבֳּלִין לְעִיסָּתוֹ אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁיּוֹדֵעַ שֶׁאֵינוֹ עוֹשֶׂה אוֹתָן בְּטָהֳרָה. תַּנִּי שָׁוִין שֶׁאֵין מוֹכְרִין גָּדִישׁ שֶׁל חִטִּין וְעָבִט שֶׁל עֲנָבִים וּמַעֲטָן שֶׁל זֵתִים אֶלָּא לְחָבֵר וּלְמִי שֶׁהוּא יוֹדֵעַ שֶׁהוּא עוֹשֶׂה אוֹתָן בְּטָהֳרָה. וְעָבִט שֶׁל עֲנָבִים לֹא תוֹרָה הִיא. לֵית הָדָא פְלִיגָא עַל רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן דְּרִבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָמַר כְּשֵׁם שֶׁאָמַר קָטָן חוּמָרִין כָּךְ אָמַר מַעֲטָן שֶׁל זֵתִים חוּמָרִין. רִבִּי חִזְקִיָּה אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹנָה בְשֵׁם רִבִּי יִרְמְיָה מַה פְלִיגִין בְּחִיבּוּרִין. לְפִי שֶׁבְּכָל מָקוֹם נָשׁוּךְ חִיבּוּר מָעוּךְ אֵינוֹ חִיבּוּר וְכָא אֲפִילוּ מָעוּךְ חִיבּוּר הָא הֶכְשֵׁירָן תּוֹרָה. קָם רִבִּי יוֹנָה עִם רִבִּי יִרְמְיָה אָמַר לוֹ אַתְּ אָמְרָת הָדָא מִילְתָא אָמַר לֵיהּ אֵין מִנִּי אֲפִילוּ הֶכְשֵּׁירָן וְהֵן חוּמָרִין. וְהָתַנִּי שָׁוִין שֶׁאֵין מוֹכְרִין גָּדִישׁ שֶׁל חִטִּים וְעָבִט שֶׁל עֲנָבִים וּמַעֲטָן שֶׁל זֵיתִים אֶלָּא לְחָבֵר וּלְמִי שֶׁהוּא יוֹדֵעַ שֶׁהוּא עוֹשֶׂה אוֹתָן בְּטָהֳרָה. וְעָבִט שֶׁל עֲנָבִים לֹא תוֹרָה הִיא. וְדִכְוָותָהּ מַעֲטָן שֶׁל זֵתִים תּוֹרָה הִיא. מַיי כְדוֹן. תִּיפְתָּר כְּרִבִּי מֵאִיר דְּרִבִּי מֵאִיר אָמַר הַמּוֹהֵל כְּמַשְׁקֶה. אָמַר רִבִּי זְעִירָא טַעְמָא דְּבֵית שַׁמַּאי אֵין דֶּרֶךְ חָבֵר לִהְיוֹת מוֹכֵר זֵיתִים אֶלָּא לִמְּעַשֵּׂר. מַהוּ צְנוּעֵי כְּשֵׁירֵי. אָמַר רָב חִסְדָּא כָּךְ שָׁנִינוּ שֶׁהַכָּשֵׁר נִקְרָא צָנוּעַ. אָמַר רִבִּי לָעְזָר דְּרִבִּי מֵאִיר הִיא דְּרִבִּי מֵאִיר אָמַר לֹא הִתִּירוּ לִמְכּוֹר דְּמַאי אֶלָּא לְסִיטוֹן בִּלְבַד. הוּא פָּתַר לָהּ הַמְּעַשֵּׂר מְעַשֵּׂר אֶת שֶׁלּוֹ וַדַּאי וְחוֹלְקוֹ בְכָל מָקוֹם שֶׁהוּא דְּמַאי. רִבִּי יוֹנָה בְּעֵי מוֹכֵר וַדַּאי וּמְתַקֵּן דְּמַאי. אֵין לָךְ אֶלָּא כְּהַהִיא דְּאָמַר רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן דִּבְרֵי הַכֹּל הִיא הַמְּעַשֵּׂר מְעַשֵּׂר אֶת שֶׁלּוֹ וַדַּאי וְחוֹלְקוֹ בְכָל מָקוֹם שֶׁהוּא דְּמַאי וַחֲצִי חֶלְקוֹ שֶׁבְּיַד חֲבֵירוֹ מִשֶּׁלּוֹ דְּמַאי.

MISHNAH: The House of Shammai say, one should sell one’s olives only to a ḥaver will prepare his olive oil in ritual purity. The House of Shammai forbid causing impurity to food grown in the Land of Israel, but the House of Hillel permit this after the destruction of the Temple. . The House of Hillel say, also to one who tithes. But the modest ones of the House of Hillel used to follow the words of the House of Shammai. If two people put the yield of their vineyards into one wine press and one tithes but the other does not, then he who tithes must tithe his own and what could be his at any place. HALAKHAH: Rebbi Joḥanan said, the reason of the House of Hillel is that people eat from their olives while they are being loaded into the oil vat, as a subterfuge. The House of Hillel follow their own opinion, as we have stated 5:8. The first sentence is labelled as opinion of the House of Shammai in the Mishnah. The House of Shammai argue that nobody would buy cattle trained for ploughing in a Sabbatical year unless he intends to use it then. : “One should not sell him a ploughing cow in the Sabbatical year, but the House of Hillel permit this because he may slaughter it.” Do people really slaughter their cattle? As a subterfuge. They agree that one may sell ears of grain for dough even though one knows that the buyer will not prepare the dough in purity. It was stated 3:13. : “They agree that one does not sell a wheat stack, a grape vat, or an olive vat 9:1 : “When do olives become susceptible to impurity? When they start oozing sap in the vat but not in boxes, following the House of Shammai. Rebbi Simeon says, the term for oozing is three days. The House of Hillel say, if three olives cling together. Rabban Gamliel says, when the work is complete {i. e., if no more olives are added to the vat}, and the sages accept his position.” to anybody but a ḥaver or to somebody who is known to process in purity.” Is the grape vat not from the Torah? This does not disagree with Rebbi Joḥanan; just as Rebbi Joḥanan said, the little one is a restriction 80a on Mishnah Ṭahorot 3:8 : “If a toddler was found with a piece of dough near a dough made in purity, that dough is pure in the opinion of R. Meïr, impure in the opinion of the Sages, since toddlers will grab everything they see.” On this R. Joḥanan notes that the impurity is rabbinic and one may not burn heave if it was made impure in this way. “Little one” then would refer to a toddler. According to R. Moses Margalit, the statement refers to Mishnah Ṭevul Yom 3:1: “All handles of food which would transmit impurity from its original source transmit impurity for Ṭevul Yom . Food that is almost separated, R. Meïr says, if he takes a large piece and a small one is lifted with it, the small piece goes with the large one. R. Jehudah says, if he takes a small piece and a large one is lifted with it, the large goes with the small one. R. Neḥemiah says, that refers to purity, the Sages say, to impurity.” In this case, “small one” refers to a piece of food and R. Joḥanan notes that the restrictive attitude of the Sages represents a rabbinic decree, not an interpretation of Biblical law. {A “handle” of a fruit is an inedible part by which the fruit may be moved, such as the stalk of a pear or an apple. The stalk is wood and not subject to impurity, but as handle it transmits impurity both from an impure person to the fruit and from an impure fruit to any person handling it. The detailed rules are spelled out in Tractate Uqeẓin . Ṭevul Yom means a person who had been impure, had immersed himself in water for cleansing, and now is in an intermediate state until sundown when he will be pure ( Lev . 22:7 ). In the state of Ṭevul Yom , any heave or sacrifices he touches become unusable; the Mishnah discusses transmission of that disability.} , so “vat of olives” is a restriction. Rebbi Ḥizqiah said to Rebbi Jonah in the name of Rebbi Jeremiah: They disagree about connections. Because everywhere “biting” is a connection, squeezing is not a connection. But here even squeezing is a connection 9:1 , if the olives are squeezed so that three cling together as one clump, their sap prepares for impurity and the olives are enabled to receive impurity in the Biblical sense. ; hence from the Torah they are enabled. Rebbi Jonah met Rebbi Jeremiah and asked him, did you say that? He said, that is not from me, even their enablings are restrictions. Did we not state: “They agree that one does not sell a wheat stack, a grape vat, or an olive vat to anybody but a ḥaver or to somebody who is known to process in purity?” Is the grape vat not from the Torah? Then the olive vat should be from the Torah! What about this? Explain it following Rebbi Meïr, since Rebbi Meïr said, sap is counted as a fluid. Rebbi Zeïra said, the reason of the House of Shammai is that a ḥaver should never sell olives to anybody but one who tithes before selling, since a ḥaver is always bound by the rules of the trustworthy person. . Who are the modest ones? Those of noble conduct. Rav Ḥisda said, here we have taught that those of noble conduct are called modest. : Rebbi Eleazar said, this follows Rebbi Meïr, since Rebbi Meïr said, they permitted to sell demay only to the grain wholesaler. He explains the Mishnah: The one who tithes must tithe his own part as certain, and that part of his which could be spread anywhere as demay . Rebbi Jonah objected: He sells it as certain and tithes only demay , since it is required that everything be completely in order. ? It is only possible in the way Rebbi Joḥanan said, the Mishnah is the word of everybody: The one who tithes must tithe his own part as certain, and his part anywhere as demay ; that means one half of his part in his partner’s hand as demay (assuming that both of them put exactly the same amount of grapes into the press; otherwise, he tithes an amount proportional to his partner’s share in the whole.) .

שְׁנַיִם שֶׁקִּיבְּלוּ אֶת הַשָּׂדֶה בַּאֲרִיסוּת אוֹ שֶׁיָּרְשוּ אוֹ שֶׁנִּשְׁתַּתְּפוּ יָכוֹל הוּא לוֹמַר לוֹ טוּל אַתָּה חִטִּים שֶׁבִּמְקוֹם פְּלוֹנִי וַאֲנִי חִטִּים שֶׁבִּמְקוֹם פְּלוֹנִי אַתָּה יַיִן שֶׁבִּמְקוֹם פְּלוֹנִי וַאֲנִי יַיִן שֶׁבִּמְקוֹם פְּלוֹנִי. אֲבָל לֹא יֹאמַר לוֹ טוּל אַתָּה חִטִּים וַאֲנִי שְׂעוֹרִים טוּל אַתָּה הַיַּיִן וַאֲנִי אֶטּוֹל אֶת הַשֶּׁמֶן. חָבֵר וְעַם הָאָרֶץ שֶׁיָּרְשׁוּ אֲבִיהֶן עַם הָאָרֶץ יָכוֹל הוּא לוֹמַר לוֹ טוּל אַתָּה חִטִּים שֶׁבִּמְקוֹם פְּלוֹנִי וַאֲנִי חִטִּים שֶׁבִּמְקוֹם פְּלוֹנִי. אַתָּה יַיִִן שֶׁבִּמְקוֹם פְּלוֹנִי וַאֲנִי יַיִן שֶׁבִּמְקוֹם פְּלוֹנִי. אֲבָל לֹא יֹאמַר לוֹ טוּל אַתָּה חִטִּים וַאֲנִי שְׂעוֹרִים טוּל אַתָּ[ה] הַלַּח וְאֲנִי אֶטּוֹל אֶת הַיָּבֵשׁ. תַּנִּי יִשְׂרָאֵל וְגוֹי שֶׁקָּנוּ שָׂדֶה בְסוּרִיָּא הֲרֵי הוּא כְטֵבֵל וְכִמְעֻשָּׂר מְעוּרָבִין זֶה בְזֶה דִּבְרֵי רִבִּי. רַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל אוֹמֵר חֶלְקוֹ שֶׁל יִשְׂרָאֵל חַיָיב. חֶלְקוֹ שֶׁל גּוֹי פָּטוּר. רִבִּי יָסָא בְשֵׁם רִבִּי חֲנִינָא מַה פְלִיגִין בְּשֶׁחִלְּקוּ שָׂדֶה בְקָמָתָהּ. אֲבָל אִם חִלְּקוּ גָּדִישׁ אַף רַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל מוֹדֶה לְרִבִּי שֶׁכָּל קֶלַח וְקֶלָח שֶׁל שׁוּתָפוּת הוּא. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹנָה רִבִּי יוֹסֵי בְשֵׁם רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן מַה פְלִיגִין בְּשֶׁחִלְּקוּ שָׂדֶה בְקָמָתָהּ. אֲבָל אִם חִלְּקוּ עֳמָרִים אַף רַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל מוֹדֶה לְרִבִּי שֶׁכָּל קֶלַח וְקֶלַח שֶׁל שׁוּתָפוּת ה[וּ]א. עַל דַּעְתֵּיהּ דְּרִבִּי יוֹנָה מַה בֵּין גָּדִישׁ מַה בֵּין עֳמָרִים. בְּקוֹצֵר כָּל שֶׁהוּא וּמֵנִיחַ לְפָנָיו. אָמַר רִבִּי הוֹשַׁעְיָא הָדָא דְתֵימָא עַל מְנָת שֶׁקָּנוּ שֶׁלֹּא לַחֲלוֹק. אֲבָל אִם קָנוּ עַל מְנָת לַחֲלוֹק אוּף רִבִּי מוֹדֶה לְרַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל שֶׁזֶּה חֵלֶק מַגִּיעַ לוֹ מִשָּׁעָה רִאשׁוֹנָה. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹסֵי מִילֵּיהוֹן דְּרַבָּנִין פְּלִיגִין דְּאָמַר רִבִּי אַבָּהוּ בְשֵׁם רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן הַשּׁוּתָפִין מַחְלוֹקֶת רִבִּי וְרַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל. הָאַחִין הַשּׁוּתָפִין לֹא לַחֲלוֹק הֵן.

MISHNAH: If two people received a field as sharecroppers or inherited it or bought it as partners, one can say to his partner, take your wheat on this side and I shall take on that side, take your wine from this side and I shall take from the other side. But he should not say to him, take the wheat and I shall take the barley, take the wine and I shall take the oil but to money matters. In his opinion, a splitting of the first kind, designating parts of the same crop for the benefit of either party, can be enforced in court on condition that it not hurt the other party, but a proposal of the second kind, exchanging rights to different kinds of crops, will not be supported by a court. To oppose a settlement that benefits one party without being in any way detrimental to the other is called “sin of Sodom.” According to R. Simson of Sens, all this deals with the laws of demay ; in a division of the first kind, this is simply a necessary splitting of produce. The agreement must have been reached before the harvest, when no heaves and tithes were yet due. Hence, “wine” and “oil” must mean “grapes” and “olives;” nevertheless the unequal splitting is forbidden because it too closely resembles a sale that is questionable if one of the partners is a ḥaver and the other an am haäreẓ. The position of Maimonides seems to be more acceptable since the inheritance of ḥaver and am haäreẓ is treated in the following. . If a ḥaver and an am haäreẓ inherited from their am haäreẓ father, the ḥaver may say, take your wheat on this side and I shall take on that side, take wine from this side and I shall take from the other side. But he should not say to him, take wheat and I shall take barley, take the moist produce and I shall take the dry aspects of the situation discussed above. The splitting is permitted since each partner is taking his own. This ruling follows the position taken in the Babli ( Baba Batra 107a ) as practice that brothers who split an inheritance cannot be considered as buying from one another. It is as if each of the brothers received what was bequeathed to them even before their father’s death. However, if they switch barley for wheat or oil for wine, they certainly have to be considered as buyers from one another and a ḥaver is not permitted to sell anything not fully tithed to an am haäreẓ. The ḥaver would have a natural inclination to take dry produce not subject to ritual impurity. [In Tosephta Demay (6:8 ) even the splitting according to different places is forbidden if one side is pure and the other impure, since for the ḥaver these are two different kinds.] . HALAKHAH: It was stated 2:10 . The status of Syria is explained in Peah , Chapter 7, Note 119 . : “If a Jew and a Gentile bought a field in Syria, it is as if ṭevel and tithed produce were mixed together, the words of Rebbi. Rebbi Simeon ben Gamliel says, the Jew’s part is obligated, the Gentile’s part is free.” Rebbi Yasa in the name of Rebbi Ḥanina: When do they disagree? If they split the field while the grain was standing. But if they split grain stacks, even Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel will agree with Rebbi that every single stalk belongs to the partnership. Rebbi Jonah said, Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: When do they disagree? If they split the field while the grain was standing. But if they split sheaves, even Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel will agree with Rebbi that every single stalk belongs to the partnership. According to Rebbi Jonah, what is the difference between stacks and sheaves? If he harvests a small amount and shares with his partner. Rebbi Hoshaia said, that is, if they bought with the idea that they would not split. But if they bought with the idea that they always would split, Rebbi will agree with Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel that his part already belonged to him from the first moment. Rebbi Yose said, the words of the rabbis disagree since Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan said that partners are the subject of the disagreement between Rebbi and Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel1:7, Bekhorot 9:3 , about the tithes on newborn calves and lambs and the agio to be paid the agents of the Temple when the yearly Temple tax of one-half sheqel was due (fee for the banker, amounting to 1/24th of the coins exchanged, to exchange half-sheqels into full sheqels.) Partnerships are not subject to tithes on animals or to the agio ; partners contribute full sheqels that need no exchanging. The Mishnah states at both places that the rules for agio and tithes are opposite. If heirs never divided up the inheritance, they are subject to tithes because the flock is still their father’s, but are free from agio because they pay as one entity. If they divide the inheritance and afterwards form a new partnership they are free from tithes as partners but subject to agio because each one pays for himself. Rebbi Joḥanan points out that the rule on the undivided inheritance is not accepted by everybody. . Are brothers who split not like these partners?

גֵּר וְגוֹי שֶׁיָּרְשׁוּ אֶת אֲבִיהֶן גּוֹי יָכוֹל הוּא לוֹמַר לוֹ טוּל אַתָּה עֲבוֹדָה זָרָה וַאֲנִי אֶטּוֹל אֶת הַמָּעוֹת אַתָּה יַיִן נֶסֶךְ וַאֲנִי פֵירוֹת. אִם מִשֶּׁבָּאוּ לִרְשׁוּת הַגֵּר אָסוּר. הַמּוֹכֵר פֵּירוֹת בְּסוּרִיָּא וְאָמַר מִשֶּׁל אֶרֶץ יִשְׂרָאֵל הֵן חַיָיב לְעַשֵּׂר. מְעוּשָּׂרִין הֵן נֶאֱמָן שֶׁהַפֶּה שֶׁאָסַר הוּא הַפֶּה שֶׁהִתִּיר. מִשֶּׁלִּי הֵן חַיָיב לְעַשֵּׂר. מְעוּשָּׂרִין הֵן נֶאֱמָן שֶׁהַפֶּה שֶׁאָסַר הוּא הַפֶּה שֶׁהִתִּיר. אִם יָדוּעַ הוּא שֶׁיֵּשׁ לוֹ שָׂדֶה בְסוּרִיָּא חַיָיב לְעַשֵּׂר. יִשְׂרָאֵל וְגוֹי שֶׁקָּנוּ בֵיתוֹ שֶׁל גּוֹי וְהָיָה שָׁם יַיִן נֶסֶךְ וַעֲבוֹדָה זָרָה וּמָעוֹת לֹא יֹאמַר לוֹ טוּל אַתְּ יַיִן נֶסֶךְ וַעֲבוֹדָה זָרָה וַאֲנִי מָעוֹת. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן לֹא סוֹף דָּבָר יַיִן נֶסֶךְ וַעֲבוֹדָה זָרָה וּמָעוֹת אֶלָּא אֲפִילוּ הָיוּ לוֹ שָׁם שְׁנֵי צְלָמִין אֶחָד עָשׂוּי כְּמִין דֶּלְופִקֵי וְאֶחָד שֶׁאֵינוֹ עָשׂוּי כְּמִין דֶּלְופִקֵי לֹא יֹאמַר לוֹ טוּל אַתָּה אֶת שֶׁאֵינוֹ עָשׂוּי כְּמִין דֶּלְופִקֵי וַאֲנִי נוֹטֵל הֶעָשׂוּי כְּמִין דֶּלְופִקֵי. אָמַר רִבִּי זְעִירָא וְיֵאוּת אִילּוּ חָבֵר וְעַם הָאָרֶץ שֶׁיָּרְשׁוּ אֶת אֲבִיהֶן עַם הָאָרֶץ וְהָיוּ שָׁם פֵּירוֹת מוּכְשָׁרִין וּפֵירוֹת שֶׁאֵינָן מוּכְשָׁרִין שֶׁמָּא אוֹמֵר לוֹ טוּל אַתָּה אֶת הַמּוּכְשָׁרִין וַאֲנִי נוֹטֵל אֶת שֶׁאֵינָן מוּכְשָׁרִין. וְהָא מַתְנִיתִין פְּלִיגָא טוּל אַתָּה עֲבוֹדָה זָרָה וַאֲנִי מָעוֹת אַתָּה יַיִן נֶסֶךְ וַאֲנִי פֵירוֹת. אֱמֹר סוֹפָא וְלֵית הִיא פְלִיגָא אִם מִשֶּׁבָּאוּ לִרְשׁוּת הַגֵּר אָסוּר וְהָכָא מִכֵּיוַן שֶׁקָּנָה כְּמִי שֶׁנִּכְנַס לִרְשׁוּתוֹ. עַקִּילַס הָגֵּר חִילֵּק עִם אֶחָיו וְהֶחֱמִיר עַל עַצְמוֹ וְהוֹלִיךְ הֲנָיָיה לְיַם הַמֶּלַח. תְּלָתָא אֲמוֹרִין חַד אָמַר דְּמֵי עֲבוֹדָה זָרָה הוֹלִיךְ לְיַם הַמֶּלַח. וְחָרָנָה אָמַר דְּמֵי חֶלְקוֹ שֶׁל עֲבוֹדָה זָרָה הוֹלִיךְ לְיַם הַמֶּלַח. וְחָרָנָא אָמַר עֲבוֹדָה זָרָה עַצְמָהּ הוֹלִיךְ לְיַם הַמֶּלַח. אֶלָּא בִּשְׁבִיל לַעֲקוֹר עֲבוֹדָה זָרָה מִבֵּית אַבָּא.

MISHNAH: If a proselyte and a Gentile inherited from their Gentile father, the proselyte may say, take the idols and I shall take money, take the wine for libations and I shall take produce64a ) treats it as a special leniency, rather than a general law. . After they came into the proselyte’s possession, this is forbidden. He who sells produce in Syria and says: ‘They are from the Land of Israel,’ must tithe them. ‘They are tithed,’ one believes him because the mouth that forbade is the mouth that permits. ‘They are from my field,’ he must tithe them. ‘They are tithed,’ one believes him because the mouth that forbade is the mouth that permits. If it is known that he has a field in Syria, he must tithe. HALAKHAH: a Jew and a Gentile bought a Gentile’s house and found there idols, libation wine, and coins, he should not tell him, take the idols and libation wine, and I shall take the coins.” Rebbi Joḥanan said, not only idols, libation wine, and coins, but even if there were two idols, one shaped as a tripod and one not shaped as a tripod, he should not tell him, take the one that is not shaped as a tripod and I shall take the one shaped like a tripod. Rebbi Zeïra said, that is correct, since even in the case of a ḥaver and an am haäreẓ who inherited from their am haäreẓ father and found there produce which might become impure and produce which might not, may he say to him, you take the produce which might become impure and I shall take that which might not, must be assumed to be impure and unfit for consumption by a ḥaver. According to Rashi (Babli Ḥagigah 25b), the ḥaver would be guilty of transgressing the prohibition to put an obstacle before a blind person if he steered his brother the am haäreẓ to produce which, by the ḥaver’ s rules, should not be eaten by a Jew. ? But our Mishnah disagrees: “Take the idols and I shall take money, take the wine for libations and I shall take produce.” But the end shows that there is no disagreement: “After they came into the possession of the proselyte, this is forbidden;” here, from the moment he acquired it it is as if it entered into his possession 64a . . “Aquila the Proselyte 6:13 . Aquila was a student of Rebbis Eliezer and Joshua and the author of a very literal translation of the Bible. He did not avail himself of the permission given in the Mishnah but took his share of the idols (or their price) and threw them into the Dead Sea, which was the ultimate way of making sure that nobody would derive any benefit from them. split with his brothers; he restricted himself and brought his gain to the Dead Sea.” Three Amoraïm; one said that he brought the price of the idols to the Dead Sea, another said that he brought the price of his part in the idols to the Dead Sea, and another said that he brought the idols themselves to the Dead Sea, in order to remove them from his father’s house.

עַם הָאָרֶץ שֶׁאָמַר לְחָבֵר קַח לִי אֲגוּדַת יֶרֶק קַח לִי קְלוֹסְקִין אֶחָד לוֹקֵחַ סְתָם פָּטוּר. אִם אָמַר זוּ שֶׁלִּי וְזוּ שֶׁל חֲבֵירִי וְנִתְעָרְבוּ חַיָיב לְעַשֵּׂר אֲפִילוּ הֵן מֵאָה. תַּמָּן תַּנֵּינָן נֶאֱמָנִין עַל הַלֶּקֶט וְעַל הַשִּׁכְחָה וְעַל הַפֵּיאָה בְּשָׁעָתָן. וְהָכָא אַתְּ אָמַר הָכֵן. תַּמָּן שֶׁתִּיקֻּנוֹ פָטוּר בְּרַם הָכָא שֶׁתִּיקּוּנוֹ חַיָיב. וְתַנִּי כֵן אֶת שֶׁתִּיקּוּנוֹ פָטוּר נֶאֱמָן לְהַחֲמִיר בְּרַם הָכָא פֵּירוּשׁוֹ לְהָקֵל נֶאֱמָן. תַּנִּי גּוֹי שֶׁהָיָה צוֹוֵחַ וְאוֹמֵר בּוֹאוּ וּטְלוּ לָכֶם מִמֶּנִּי פֵּירוֹת הֶן פֵּירוֹת עָרְלָה הֵן נֶטַע רְבָעִי אֵינוֹ נֶאֱמָן. אִם אָמַר מִגּוֹי פְּלוֹנִי הֵבֵאתִים נֶאֱמָן לְהַחֲמִיר דִּבְרֵי רִבִּי. וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים דִּבְרֵי הַגּוֹי לֹא מַעֲלִין וְלֹא מוֹרִידִין. רִבִּי יוּדָן בְּעֵי הָיָה צוֹוֵחַ לְפִי תוּמּוֹ. רִבִּי יוּדָן בְּעֵי מִמָּה דְּתֵימָא כּוּתִי כְגוֹי. דְּאִיתְפַּלְּגוּן כּוּתִי כְגוֹי דִּבְרֵי רִבִּי. רַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל אוֹמֵר כּוּתִי כְ[יִשְׂרָאֵל] לְכָל דָּבָר. אָמַר רִבִּי בּוּן בַּר חִיָיא וְהוּא שֶׁיְּהֵא רוֹב מִכְנָסוֹ מִשֶּׁלּוֹ. יִשְׂרָאֵל שֶׁהָיָה לוֹ אָרִיס בְּסוּרִיָּא וְשִׁילַּח לוֹ פֵּירוֹת וְאָמַר הֲרֵי אֵילּוּ מְעוּשָּׂרִין. אֲנִי אוֹמֵר מִן הַשּׁוּק לָקַח וְהוּא שֶׁיְּהֵא אוֹתוֹ הַמִּין מָצוּי בַשּׁוּק. לֹא סוֹף דָּבָר בְּשֶׁאֵין לוֹ מֵאוֹתוֹ הַמִּין לְתוֹךְ שָׂדֵהוּ אֶלָּא אֲפִילוּ יֵשׁ לוֹ מֵאוֹתוֹ הַמִּין לְתוֹךְ שָׂדֵהוּ מִכֵּיוָן שֶׁאוֹתוֹ הַמִּין מָצוּי בַשּׁוּק מוּתָּר. מַתְנִיתִין דְּרִבִּי יוֹסֵי דְּתַנִּי הַלּוֹקֵחַ סְתָם צָרִיךְ לְעַשֵּׂר. מַה נָן קַיָימִין. אִם בְּשֶׁאָמַר לוֹ צֵא וּלְקַח לִי שְׁלוּחוֹ הוּא. צֵא וּלְקַח לָךְ שֶׁלּוֹ הֵן. אֶלָּא כִּי נָן קַיָימִין בִּסְתָם רִבִּי יוּדָה אוֹמֵר לֹא נִתְכַּוֵון הַמּוֹכֵר לְזַכּוֹת אֶלָּא לַלּוֹקֵחַ. רִבִּי יוֹסֵי אוֹמֵר לֹא נִתְכַּוֵון הַמּוֹכֵר לְזַכּוֹת אֶלָּא לְבַעַל הַמָּעוֹת. לְפִיכָךְ אִם נָתַן אַחַת יְתֵירָה רִבִּי יוּדָה אוֹמֵר שֶׁל לוֹקֵחַ. רִבִּי יוֹסֵי אוֹמֵר שֶׁל שְׁנֵיהֶן. מִחְלְפָה שִׁיטָּתֵיהּ דְּרִבִּי יוֹסֵי. תַּמָּן הוּא אוֹמֵר לֹא נִתְכַּוֵון הַמּוֹכֵר לְזַכּוֹת אֶלָּא לְבַעַל הַמָּעוֹת וְכָא אַתְּ אָמַר הָכֵין. כַּאן עַל יְדֵי מָעוֹתָיו שֶׁל זֶה וְעַל יְדֵי רַגְלָיו שֶׁל זֶה שְׁנֵיהֶן חוֹלְקִין. תַּנִּי רַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל אוֹמֵר אִם הֶחֱלִיף אֶת הַמָּעָה צָרִיךְ לְעַשֵּׂר. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹסֵי הָדָא אָמְרָה הַנּוֹתֵן מָעוֹת לַחֲבֵירוֹ לְהַחֲלִיפָן וְאָבְדוּ חַיָיב בְּאַחֵרָיוּתָן. שְׁמוּאֵל אָמַר בִּמְחַלֵּיק בְּיָדָיו. אָמַר רִבִּי לָעְזָר וְהוּא שֶׁנָּטַל חֶלְקוֹ בְסוֹף. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹנָה צוּרְכָה לְדֵן וְצוּרְכָה לְדֵן. חִילֵּק בְּיָדוֹ וְנָטַל חֶלְקוֹ בַתְּחִילָּה אֵינוֹ צָרִיךְ לְעַשֵּׂר אֶלָּא עַל שֶׁלּוֹ. לֹא חִילֵּק בְּיָדיוֹ וְנָטַל חֶלְקוֹ בַסּוֹף אֵינוֹ מְעַשֵּׂר אֶלָּא עַל שֶׁלּוֹ. תַּנִּי אוֹמֵר הוּא אָדָם לְפוֹעֵל הֵילָךְ דֵּינַר זֶה אֲכוֹל בּוֹ. הֵילָךְ דֵּינַר זֶה שְׁתֵה בּוֹ וְאֵינוֹ חוֹשֵׁשׁ עַל שְׂכָרוֹ לֹא מִשּׁוּם שְׁבִיעִית וְלֹא מִשּׁוּם מַעְשְׂרוֹת וְלֹא מִשּׁוּם יַיִן נֶסֶךְ. אֲבָל אִם אָמַר לוֹ צֵא וּלְקַח לָךְ כִּכָּר וַאֲנִי נוֹתֵן לָךְ דָּמִים. צֵא וּלְקַח לָךְ רְבִיעִית שֶׁל יַיִן וַאֲנִי נוֹתֵן לָךְ דָּמִים חוֹשְׁשִׁין עַל שְׂכָרוֹ מִשּׁוּם שְׁבִיעִית וּמִשּׁוּם מַעְשְׂרוֹת וּמִשּׁוּם יַיִן נֶסֶךְ. אָמַר רִבִּי זְעִירָא נַעֲשֶׂה הַחֶנְוָונִי שְׁלוּחוֹ שֶׁל בַּעַל הַבַּיִת לְזַכּוֹת לַפּוֹעֵל. אָמַר רִבִּי הִילָא פּוֹעֵל זִכֶּה לְבַעַל הַבַּיִת מִשֶּׁל חֶנְוָונִי וְחוֹזֵר וְזוֹכֶה לְעַצְמוֹ. מַה נְפַק מִבֵּינֵיהוֹן. הָיָה הַחֶנְוָונִי חֵרֵשׁ עַל דַּעְתֵּיהּ דְּרִבִּי זְעִירָא לֹא חָשַׁשׁ שֶׁאֵין שְׁלִיחוּת לְחֵרֵשׁ. עַל דַּעְתֵּיהּ דְּרִבִּי הִילָא חוֹשֵׁשׁ. תַּנִּי לֹא יֹאמַר אָדָם לַחֲבֵירוֹ הֵילָךְ מָאתַיִם דֵּינַר וּשְׁקוֹל עַל יָדִי לָאוֹצָר אֶלָּא אוֹמֵר הוּא לוֹ פָּרְשֵׁנִי מִן הָאוֹצָר. וְכֵן לֹא יֹאמַר אָדָם לַחֲבֵירוֹ הֵילָךְ מָאתַיִם זוּז וּשְׁקוֹל עַל יָדִי לָאוֹמָנוּת אֶלָּא אוֹמֵר הוּא לוֹ פָּרְשֵׁינִי מִן הָאוֹמָנוּת.

MISHNAH: An am haäreẓ who said to a ḥaver , buy for me a bunch of vegetables, buy for me a loaf, if he buys anonymously, he is free, he is not under the obligation to tithe before he delivers the goods. (Explanation of R. S. Lieberman.) . If he says, this one is for me’s property before delivery and must be tithed. and that one is for my friend, if they became mixed up he has to tithe, even if there are a hundred. HALAKHAH: : There 8:2. There, everybody knows that the person is poor; hence, it is not the mouth which forbade the produce, asserting that it was not tithed, that could permit it without tithing as gifts to the poor. Nevertheless, the Mishnah asserts that the poor can be trusted. , we have stated: “They can be trusted about gleanings, forgotten sheaves, and peah at harvest time.” And here you say so? There, his assertion is for exemption, but here his assertion is for obligation. And we have stated so is not found in parallel sources, but a similar statement appears in the quote from the Tosephta in the next paragraph. : “If his assertion is for exemption, he may be trusted in restrictions.” But here, he can be trusted even if his explanation is to make it easier. It was stated 5:2 : “A Gentile who was calling out, ‘come and buy fruits, they are from Azeqa, from an orlah tree, from a vineyard in its fourth year,’ cannot be believed because he intends to advertise. But if he says, ‘I bought them from a certain Gentile,’ he is to be trusted for restrictions, the words of Rebbi. Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel says, he cannot be trusted since the words of a Gentile are irrelevant.” : “A Gentile who was calling out, ‘come and buy fruits from me, they are from an orlah tree 19:23 ). , they are from a vineyard in its fourth year 7:6. ,’ cannot be believed. If he says, ‘I brought them from a certain Gentile,’ he may be trusted for restrictions, the words of Rebbi. The Sages say, the words of a Gentile are irrelevant.” Rebbi Judan asked, what if he calls out when he is uninformed? Rebbi Judan asked, what if one holds that a Samaritan is like a Gentile, since they disagreed: “A Samaritan is like a Gentile, the words of Rebbi. Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel says, a Samaritan is like a Jew in all respects 3:4, Berakhot 7:1 . ”? Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya said, that is only if most of what he takes in comes from his own. If a Jew had a sharecropper who, in general, cannot be trusted in matters of tithes. But since in Syria most produce on the market comes from Gentile farmers who are exempt from tithes, it is to be assumed that the fruits come from a Gentile source and are permitted without tithing. in Syria who sent him fruits and said that they were tithed; I say that he bought them on the market, if that kind is found on the market. Not only if he does not grow that kind on his field, but even if he does grow that kind on his field; since that kind is found on the market it is permitted. Our Mishnah follows Rebbi Yose, as we have stated: “He who buys anonymously has to tithe that explain the situation. Tosephta Demay 8:1 : “If an am haäreẓ said to a ḥaver , buy for me a bunch of vegetables, buy for me a loaf, Rebbi Yose says the ḥaver does not have to tithe, Rebbi Jehudah says he does.” Babli Erubin 37b : “If an am haäreẓ said to a ḥaver , buy for me a bunch of vegetables, buy for me a loaf, Rebbi Yose says the ḥaver does not have to tithe, but the Sages say he does.” .” What are we talking about? If he said to him, go and buy for me, he is his agent who had commissioned him. ; go and buy for yourself, they are his property. There seems to be no place for the disagreement between R. Yose and R. Jehudah. . But in our case nothing was spelled out. Rebbi Jehudah says that the seller wants the person who buys to get the property rights, Rebbi Yose says that the seller wants the owner of the money to get the property rights. Therefore, if he added a piece 98b . There, Rashi refers to Tosephta Demay ; it should read: Yerushalmi Demay . , Rebbi Jehudah says, it belongs to the buyer, Rebbi Yose says, it belongs to both of them. The argument of Rebbi Yose seems to be inverted. There he says that the seller wants the owner of the money to get the property rights, and here you say so 98b , gives a different answer: If the unit price of the merchandise is fixed, then any addition is a gift and is jointly owned. If the unit price is not fixed, then the additional amount is part of the sale and totally belongs to the owner of the money. ? Here the transaction is through the money of one and the feet of the other, therefore they split. It was stated 8:1 . If the buyer took the coin for himself, it becomes his property and he owes the original owner money. Hence, if he buys, he acquires the merchandise and as a ḥaver , he has to tithe. : “Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel says, if he exchanged the coin he has to tithe.” Rebbi Yose said, this means that if somebody gives coins to another person to exchange them, when they are lost the recipient is answerable for their alienation. Samuel says, if he distributes it himself did not acquire the am haäreẓ ’s part and might not have to tithe. . Rebbi Eleazar said, only if he took his share last might have to tithe only his own share if he took it last. . Rebbi Jonah said, both statements are necessary. If he buyer who never acquired the produce destined for the am haäreẓ and is not responsible for it. distributes it himself and took his share first he only has to tithe his share. If he who bought resolved in his mind that all produce would be the am haäreẓ ’s except the last bunch that would be for himself. did not distribute it but took his share last, he only has to tithe his share. It was stated 5:14 , Avodah zarah 8:10, quoted in Babli Avodah zarah 63a , where, however, the second case is formulated so that the employer offers to pay the store for the purchases of the employee. The version discussed here, that the employer guarantees the employee’s expenses, is also in Yerushalmi Qiddušin 2:1 (fol. 62c), together with the interpretations of Rebbis Zeïra and Hila (Illa, La). : “One may say to his worker worker would buy produce grown in the Sabbatical year which is forbidden for commercial transactions, or demay food and not tithe it. Since the money was given beforehand, it is spent on the responsibility of the worker alone. : Here you have a denar, use it for food, here you have a denar, use it for drink, and not be worried about either the Sabbatical year, tithes, or wine for libations. But if he told him, go and buy yourself a loaf and I shall give you the money, go and buy yourself a reviït of wine and I shall give you the money, he has to worry because of the Sabbatical year, tithes, and wine used for libations.” Rebbi Zeïra said, the grocer becomes the plenipotentiary of the employer to let the worker acquire. Rebbi Hila said, the worker acquired for the employer from the grocer 8b, as explained in חידושי הרשב״א ad loc .) and then acquires it himself. What is the difference between them? If the grocer was deaf-mute. According to Rebbi Zeïra, he does not have to worry because a deaf-mute cannot become a plenipotentiary; according to Rebbi Hila, he has to worry. It was stated 6:4 : “A Jew should not say to a Gentile, a Samaritan, or to one who cannot be trusted with tithes, here you have 200 zuz and pay for me to the treasury, but he says to him, free me from the treasury. Similarly, a person should not say to his friend, here you have 200 zuz and pay the leiturgia , but he says to him, separate me from the leiturgia .” The parallel is in Babli Avodah zarah 71a . : “A person should not say to his friend, here you have 200 zuz and pay for me to the treasury, but he says to him, free me from the treasury. Similarly, a person should not say to his friend, here you have 200 zuz and pay the leiturgia , but he says to him, free me from the leiturgia .”