Jerusalem Talmud Demai Chapter 7

הַמַּזְמִין אֶת חֲבֵירוֹ שֶׁיֹּאכַל אֶצְלוֹ וְהוּא אֵינוֹ מַאֲמִינוֹ עַל הַמַּעְשְׂרוֹת. אוֹמֵר מֵעֶרֶב שַׁבָּת מַה שֶׁאֲנִי עָתִיד לְהַפְרִישׁ לְמָחָר הֲרֵי הוּא מַעֲשֵׂר וּשְׁאָר מַעְשֵׂר סָמוּךְ לוֹ. זֶה שֶׁעָשִׂיתִי מַעֲשֵׂר עָשׂוּי תְּרוּמַת מַעֲשֵׂר עָלָיו וּמַעֲשֵׂר שֵׁנִי בִצְפוֹנוֹ וּבִדְרוֹמוֹ וּמְחוּלָּל עַל הַמָּעוֹת. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן מַתְנִיתָא בִדְמַאי הָא בְּוַדַּאי לֹא. מַתְנִיתָא אָמַר אֲפִילוּ בְּוַדַּאי זוֹ תַנֵּינָן תַּמָּן הָיוּ לוֹ תְאֵנִים שֶׁל טֵבֵל בְּתוֹךְ בֵּיתוֹ וְהוּא בְּבֵית הַמִּדְרָשׁ אוֹ בַשָּׂדֶה. אִין תֵּימַר בִדְמַאי אֲנָן קַיָימִין לֵית יָכִיל דְּתַנֵּינָן הָ[יוּ] דְמַאי מַה אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן בִּדְמַאי לֹא בְּוַדַּאי לֹא אָמַר אֶלָּא מַתְנִיתָא בִדְמַאי. מַה בֵין דְּמַאי וּמַה בֵין וַדַּאי. דְּמַאי אָדָם מַתְנֶה עַל דָּבָר שֶׁאֵינוֹ בִרְשׁוּתוֹ וַדַּאי אֵין אָדָם מַתְנֶה אֶלָּא עַל דָּבָר שֶׁהוּא בִרְשׁוּתוֹ. רִבִּי יַנַּאי הֲוָה לֵיהּ תְּנַאי וַדַּאי שְׁאַל לְרִבִּי חִיָיא רוּבָּה מַהוּ מְתַקְּנָהּ בְּשׁוּבְתָא. אָמַר לֵיהּ לְמַעַן תִּלְמַד לְיִרְאָה אֶת יי אֱלֹהֶיךָ כָּל הַיָּמִים וַאֲפִילוּ בְשַׁבָּת. מַהוּ דְחָמַת מֵיקַל בַּלָּשִׁי תָלוּי בִּי. אָמַר לֵיהּ עָתִיד אַתְּ לְהַנְהִיג שְׂרָרָה עַל יִשְׂרָאֵל. רִבִּי הוֹשַׁעְיָא הָיָה לוֹ תְּנַאי וַדַּאי. חָדָא אִיתָא בִשְּׁלָה יֶרֶק אַנְשִׁיָית מְתַקְּנָתָהּ. אֲתַת לְגַבֵּי רִבִּי הוֹשַׁעְיָא וְשָלַח לְזַבְדִּי בֶּן לֵוִי דִּיתַקֵּן לֵילָא. רִבִּי בָּא בַּר מַמָּל בְּעֵי וְלָא הֲוָה זַבְדִּי בַּר לֵוִי צְרִיךְ מְזַכֵּיא לְרִבִּי הוֹשַׁעְיָא בְּיַרְקָא. רִבִּי זְעִירָא בְּעֵי מַה נָן קַיָימִין. אִי בְּשֶׁיֵּשׁ לוֹ תְּנַאי עָלָיו וְעַל אֲחֵרִים אֵינוֹ צָרִיךְ לְזַכּוֹתוֹ בְּיֶרֶק. וְאִם בְּשֶׁאֵין לוֹ תְּנַאי לֹא עָלָיו וְלֹא עַל אֲחֵרִים צָרִיךְ לְזַכּוֹתוֹ בְּיֶרֶק. רִבִּי יַעֲקֹב בַּר זַבְדִּי בְשֵׁם רִבִּי אַבָּהוּ אִיתְתָבַת וְלֹא זְכִי זַבְדִּי בֶּן לֵוִי לְרִבִּי הוֹשַׁעְיָא בְּיַרְקָא. אָמַר רִבִּי יַנַּאי צָרִיךְ שֶׁיְּהֵא זָכוּר תְּנַייוֹ. שִׁמְעוֹן בַּר וָוא בְשֵׁם רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן וְצָרִיךְ לְהַלְחִישׁ בִּשְׂפָתָיו. רִבִּי יִרְמְיָה בְּעָא קוֹמֵי רִבִּי זְעִירָא וְלֹא נִמְצָא כִּמְתַקֵּן בְּשַׁבָּת. אָמַר לֵיהּ אַדְהִיתְנֵיהּ. רִבִּי יִרְמְיָה בְּעָא קוֹמֵי רִבִּי זְעִירָא וְאֵינוֹ אָסוּר מִפְּנֵי אוֹבְדָן אוֹכְלִים. אָמַר לֵיהּ מְפָרְרֵי כָּל שֶׁהוּא וְאוֹכֵל. רִבִּי יִרְמְיָה בְּעָא קוֹמֵי רִבִּי זְעִירָא וְאֵינוֹ אָסוּר מִשּׁוּם גֶּזֶל. אָמַר לֵיהּ רוֹצֶה הוּא שֶׁיְּהֵא לוֹ נַחַת רוּחַ. מִילֵּיהוֹן דְּרַבָּנִין פְּלִיגִין דְּאָמַר רִבִּי שְׁמוּאֵל בַּר רִבִּי יִצְחָק רִבִּי וְרִבִּי יוֹסֵי בֵּי רִבִּי יְהוּדָה נִתְאָרְחוּ אֶצֶל בַּעַל הַבַּיִת אֶחָד. אֲזַל לִישְׁנָא בִישָׁא אֲמַר לֵיהּ הַב דַּעְתָּךְ דְּאִינּוּן מְחַשְׁדּוּנָךְ יְתִיב לֵיהּ מְעַיְינֵי לוֹן וַהֲווֹן עָבְדִין נַפְשִׁין מִזְרְקִין אִילֵּין לְאִילֵּין וּמְתַקְּנִין. וְאֵינוֹ רוֹצֶה הֲנָחַת רוּחַ. רוֹצֶה הוּא אֶלָּא דְלָא בְּעֵי דְחַשְׁדּוּנֵיהּ. תַּנִּי רִבִּי יוּדָה אוֹסֵר. מַה טַעְמָא דְּרִבִּי יוּדָה וְיֵשׁ אָדָם מַתְנֶה עַל דָּבָר שֶׁאֵינוֹ בִרְשׁוּתוֹ. מוֹדֶה רִבִּי יוּדָה שֶׁהוּא הוֹלֵךְ וְלוֹקֵחַ מִמָּקוֹם שֶׁלָּקַח זֶה וּמְעַשְּׂרָן. וְיֵשׁ אָדָם מַפְרִישׁ עַל דָּבָר שֶׁאֵינוֹ שֶׁלּוֹ. רִבִּי אַבָּהוּ בְשֵׁם רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן עָשׂוּ אוֹתוֹ כְּמוֹכֵר פֵּירוֹת טְבוּלִין לַחֲבֵירוֹ. כְּהָדָא דְתַנִּי הַמּוֹכֵר פֵּירוֹת טְבוּלִין לַחֲבֵירוֹ הֲרֵי זֶה רָץ אַחֲרָיו וּמְתַקְּנוֹ. לֹא מְצָאוֹ אִם יָדוּעַ שֶׁהַפֵּירוֹת קַיָימִין מְעַשֵּׂר עֲלֵיהֶן וְאִם לָאו אֵינוֹ צָרִיךְ לְעַשֵּׂר עֲלֵיהֶן. סָפֵק קַיָימִין סָפֵק אֵין קַיָימִין מְעַשֵּׂר עֲלֵיהֶן וְקוֹרֵא שֵׁם לְמַעְשְׂרוֹתֵיהֶם.

MISHNAH: If somebody invites his friend for a meal but the latter does not trust him with tithes, the friend should say on Friday eve: That which I will separate in the future shall be tithe, the rest of tithe near to it. That which I made tithe shall be the heave of the tithe for everything, and the Second Tithe shall be to the North (or South) and be redeemed by coins, one-eighth of an obolus, must be deducted from the value of the coin. If all value has been used, the coin should be destroyed. . HALAKHAH: Rebbi Joḥanan said: The Mishnah deals with demay . Hence, not with certain produce or produce from which heave was taken but one is certain that no tithe was taken. ? A Mishnah 2:7, but the discussion here shows that the execution of a tithing plan already spelled out on Friday may be permitted. says, even for certain produce, as we have stated there: “If he had ṭevel figs in his house and he was in the House of Study or on the field.” If you want to say that we deal with demay , you cannot do so, since it is stated: “If it was demay .” What Rebbi Joḥanan said was that it deals with demay . He did not say, not with certain produce, but that this Mishnah deals with demay ; he did not state that provisos can only be made for demay . Hence, the problem lies not in the possibility of a proviso but in its nature. . What is the difference between demay and certain produce? For demay , a person may make a proviso for something that is not in his possession; for certain produce, he may only make a proviso for something that is in his possession. Rebbi Yannai had made a proviso for certain produce 93a , reports that his sharecropper used to bring him fruits every Friday afternoon, and that time he was so late that R. Yannai got nervous and made a proviso since the fruits would spoil if not eaten on the Sabbath.) Since provisos for certain produce were mentioned last, they are discussed first. . He asked the Great Rebbi Ḥiyya, may one fix this on the Sabbath? He said to him ( Deut . 14:23 ): “That you should learn to fear the Eternal, your God, all the days,” including the Sabbath 93a/b , the verse is taken to prove that one should make provisos so that certain produce on the Sabbath does not diminish one’s enjoyment of the Sabbath (interpretation of Rashi).} . How did you see a way to be so lenient, my initiative 15:4 ) used to check whether a load of grain does not hide taxable goods.] depends on me! He said to him, in the future you will carry leadership in Israel. Rebbi Hoshaia had made a proviso for certain produce. One woman cooked vegetables she had forgotten to put in order. She came to Rebbi Hoshaia who sent Zavdi ben Levi to put it in order for him and for her. Rebbi Abba bar Mamal asked, would Zavdi ben Levi not have to give Rebbi Hoshaia property rights on these vegetables? Rebbi Zeïra asked, where do we hold? If his proviso was meant for him and for others, he does not have to give him property rights on the vegetable. If his proviso was not meant for him and for others, he has to give him property rights on the vegetable. Rebbi Jacob bar Zavdi in the name of Rebbi Abbahu: It was answered, Zavdi ben Levi did not give Rebbi Hoshaia property rights on the vegetable. . Rebbi Yannai said, he must remember his proviso. Simeon bar Abba in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, he must whisper with his lips. Rebbi Jeremiah asked before Rebbi Zeïra: Is he not like somebody who makes repairs on the Sabbath? He said to him, because of his proviso. Rebbi Jeremiah asked before Rebbi Zeïra: Is it not forbidden because of destruction of edibles? He said to him, he crumbles a small amount and eats. Rebbi Jeremiah asked before Rebbi Zeïra: Is it not forbidden because of robbery and, hence, is not claimable in court). ? He said to him, the host desires the satisfaction of his guest. The words of the rabbis disagree since Rebbi Samuel bar Rebbi Isaac said: Rebbi and Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Jehudah were guests of a private person. Evil rumors told the latter, watch out, they are suspecting you! He sat near them and was watching them. . They pretended to throw food against each other and in that way were putting the food in order. Does he not desire their satisfaction? He does, but he does not want to be suspected. . It was stated 8:5 : “R. Jehudah said, can a person make a proviso about something not in his possession? But Rebbi Jehudah agrees that he may go and buy from the place from which his host bought.” Since the argument is Amoraic in our text, the Tosephta must represent a Babylonian edition. : “Rebbi Jehudah forbids.” What is the reason of Rebbi Jehudah? Can a person make a proviso about something not in his possession? “But Rebbi Jehudah agrees that he may go, buy from the place from which his host bought, and tithe.” Can a person give for something that is not his? Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: they considered him as one who sold ṭevel produce to another person, as was stated 3:7, in slightly different language but identical meaning. R. Jehudah’s restriction that the tithing must be from the same source as the ṭevel is not mentioned. : “He who sells ṭevel produce to another person has to run after him and put the produce in order. If he does not find him, if it is known that the produce still exists, he has to tithe for him; if not, he does not have to tithe for him. If it is doubtful whether the produce exists or not, he tithes for it and gives a name to the tithes.”

מָזְגוּ לוֹ אֶת הַכּוֹס אוֹמֵר מַה שֶׁאֲנִי עָתִיד לְשַׁיֵיר בְּשׁוּלֵי הַכּוֹס הֲרֵי הוּא מַעֲשֵׂר וּשְׁאָר מַעְשֵׂר סָמוּךְ לוֹ. זֶה שֶׁעָשִׂיתִי מַעֲשֵׂר עָשׂוּי תְּרוּמַת מַעֲשֵׂר עָלָיו וּמַעֲשֵׂר שֵׁנִי בְּפִיו וּמְחוּלָּל עַל הַמָּעוֹת. כֵּינִי מַתְנִיתָא לְעִנְיָין מְזִיגַת הַכּוֹס. מַה נָן קַיָימִין. אִם בְּאוֹמֵר מִכְּבָר מַשְׁקֶה מְעוּרָב הוּא. וְאִם בְּאוֹמֵר לִכְשֶׁיִּשְתֶּה לְמַפְרְעוֹ טֵבֵל שָׁתָה. אֶלָּא כִּי נָן קַיָימִין בְּאוֹמֵר מִכְּבָר לִכְשֶׁאֶשְׁתֶּה. וְלֹא נִמְצָא מְטַלְטֵל תְּרוּמָה טְמֵאָה בְשַׁבָּת. אָמַר רִבִּי לָעְזָר מְשַׁיֵיר כָּל שֶׁהוּא חוּלִין כְּהַהִיא דְּתַנֵּינָן תַּמָּן מְטַלְטְלַין תְּרוּמָה טְהוֹרָה [עִם הַטְּמֵאָה] עִם הַחוּלִין וְלֹא דָמְיָין. תַּמָּן טְמֵאָה לְצוֹרֶךְ טְהוֹרָה. בְּרַם הָכָא חוּלִין לְצוֹרֶךְ טְמֵאָה. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹסֵי בֵּי רִבִּי בּוּן עִם יְצִיאָתוֹ מִן הַכּוֹס קָדִישׁ. תַּמָּן תַּנֵּינָן הַלּוֹקֵחַ יַיִן מִבֵּין הַכּוּתִים. תַּנִּי רִבִּי יוֹסֵי וְרִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹסְרִין שֶׁמָּא תִּיבָּקַע הַנּוֹד וְנִמְצָא זֶה שׁוֹתֶה טְבָלִים לְמַפְרֵעַ. וְהָדָא. מִתְנִיתָא לֹא כְּרִבִּי יוֹסֵי וְרִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן הִיא. אָמַר רִבִּי יַעֲקֹב בַּר אִידִי הַכֹּל מוֹדִין עַל הַכּוֹס שֶׁהוּא עַל אֲתַר.

MISHNAH: When they mixed him a cup, he says: What I shall leave at the rim of the cup shall be tithe, the rest of tithe near to it. What I made tithe shall be the heave of the tithe for everything, and the Second Tithe shall be on its top and be redeemed by coins. HALAKHAH: So is the Mishnah: Concerning the mixing of the cup. Where are we at? If he says it beforehand, the drink is mixed. If he says, when I shall have drunk, before that he drank ṭevel . . What we are dealing with is that he says beforehand: When I shall have drunk. On the other hand, he cannot designate heave before he finished, in order to avoid drinking heave. Hence, he has to designate heave on Friday to be separated after he finished drinking. . But does he then not move impure heave on the Sabbath’s, all the food is considered impure. Hence, the heave also is impure and must be destroyed. But this cannot be done on the Sabbath; the impure heave is therefore of no use on the Sabbath and under the rules of muqẓeh cannot be moved. ? Rebbi Eleazar said, he leaves some profane, as what we have stated there 21:1 : “One moves impure heave with pure and with profane food.” It seems that the switch impure/pure in our text is a scribal error since the following argument requires the order of subjects in the Mishnah. In the parallel Pesaḥim 3:3 (fol. 30a), the quote of the Mishnah is correct. {Because of that switch, successive editors have mutilated the text in newer editions.} : “One moves pure heave with impure one and with profane food.” But that does not compare. There, the impure is for the needs of the pure3:3 (fol. 30a) has exactly the same text. The explanation of the Yerushalmi seems to be the same as that of the Babli ( Šabbat 142a ), that impure heave can be moved on the Sabbath only if it is necessary to remove it in order to get at usable food, be it pure heave or profane. , but here the profane is for the needs of the impure. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, when he sets down the cup it will be holy. There, we have stated 8:7 , this is R. Meïr’s opinion, restricted to somebody who bought on Friday and had no time to tithe it before sundown. : “Is somebody buys wine from the Samaritans.” It was stated 8:7 . R. Meïr’s position is he never had a case of a broken wine bag; he would worry if a bag broke and was emptied without some drops remaining that could be designated as heave of the tithe. : “Rebbi Yose and Rebbi Simeon forbid it, for the wine bag may spring a leak and it will turn out retroactively that he drank ṭevel .” Is our Mishnah not following Rebbi Yose and Rebbi Simeon? Rebbi Jacob bar Idi said, all agree that the cup is at its place.

פּוֹעֵל שֶׁאֵינוֹ מַאֲמִין לְבַעַל הַבַּיִת נוֹטֵל גְּרוֹגֶרֶת אַחַת וְאוֹמֵר זוּ וְתֵשַׁע הַבָּאוֹת אַחֲרֶיהָ עֲשׂוּיוֹת מַעֲשֵׂר עַל תִּשְׁעִים שֶׁאֲנִי אוֹכֵל וְזוּ עֲשׂוּיָה תְרוּמַת מַעֲשֵׂר עֲלֵיהֶן. מַעֲשֵׂר שֵׁנִי בְּאַחֲרוֹנָה וּמְחוּלָּל עַל הַמָּעוֹת. וְחוֹסֵךְ גְּרוֹגֶרֶת אַחַת. רַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל אוֹמֵר לֹא יַחְסוֹךְ מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהוּא מְמַעֵט אֶת מְלַאכְתּוֹ שֶׁל בַּעַל הַבַּיִת. וְרִבִּי יוֹסֵי אוֹמֵר לֹא יַחְסוֹךְ מִפְּנֵי שֵׁהוּא תְּנַאי בֵּית דִּין. רִבִּי לָעְזָר בְּשֵׁם רִבִּי הוֹשַׁעְיָה עָשׂוּ אוֹתוֹ שֶׁאֵינוֹ מַאֲמִין לְבַעַל הַבַּיִת. פְּשִׁיטָא הָדָא מִילְתָא נִשְׂרְפוּ הַפֵּירוֹת הַתְּרוּמָה בְטִיבּוּלָהּ. נִישְׂרְפָה הַתְּרוּמָה לִכְשֶׁיֵאָכְלוּ הַפֵּירוֹת קָדְשָׁה הַתְּרוּמָה לְמַפְרֵעַ. מָהוּ חָשַׂ[ךְ] מִן מֵיכְלֵהּ הוּא מַפִּיק תְּרוּמַת מַעֲשֵׂר. תַּנִּי לֹא יַחֲרוֹשׁ אָדָם בְּפָרָתוֹ בַלַּיְלָה וְיַשְׂכִּירֶנָּה בַיּוֹם לֹא יַעֲשֶׂה בְתוֹךְ שֶׁלּוֹ בַלַּיְלָה וְיַשְׂכִּיר עַצְמוֹ בַיּוֹם. לֹא יַרְעִיב עַצְמוֹ וְלֹא יְסַגֵּף עַצְמוֹ מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהוּא מְמַעֵט בִּמְלַאכְתּוֹ שֶׁל בַּעַל הַבַּיִת. רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן אֲזַל לְחַד אֲתַר אַשְׁכַּח סַפְרָא אַיַינֵיס אֲמַר לָהוּ מַהוּ כֵן. אָמְרוּ לֵיהּ צַיָים. אָמַר לֵיהּ אָסִיר לָךְ. וּמַה אִם מְלַאכְתּוֹ שֶׁל בָּשָׂר וְדָם אַתְּ אָמַר אָסוּר מְלַאכְתּוֹ שֶׁל הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא לֹא כָל שֶׁכֵּן. רַב חִיָיא בַּר אַשִּׁי בְשֵׁם רַב תְּנַיי בֵּית דִּין שֶׁתְּהֵא תְרוּמַת מַעֲשֵׂר מִשֶּׁל פּוֹעֵל וּמַעֲשֵׂר שֵׁנִי מִשֶּׁל בַּעַל הַבַּיִת.

MISHNAH: A worker and has to be fed by his employer during the day. who does not believe his employer takes one dried fig. and says: This one and the next nine shall be tithe for ninety that I shall eat. This one is made heave of the tithe for them. The Second Tithe is at the end and it is redeemed by a coin in a coin. . He saves one fig. Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel says, he should not save because he reduces the work he will be able to do for his employer. But Rebbi Yose said, he should not save because that is a stipulation of the Court. HALAKHAH: Rebbi Eleazar 2:4, where the text is identical except for בטילה instead of בטיבולה. The Mishnah in Terumot assumes that somebody gives a seah to a Levite and a seah to the poor; according to R. Meïr then he, or his worker, can eat eight seah based on the tithes he gave. The Sages permit only to eat according to the percentage of the tithe that still exists. Maimonides and R. Simson give two possible interpretations, one that the Mishnah there is a corollary to the Mishnah here and deals with a worker who receives food from his employer and sees the employer give to the Levite and the poor but does not know whether he gave as tithes or as gifts. R. Hoshaiah declares that the position of the Sages in that Mishnah is identical with the position of the Tanna in our Mishnah. in the name of Rebbi Hoshaiah: They considered him a worker who does not trust his employer. The following is obvious: If the produce was burned, the heave is ṭevel . If the heave is burned, when the produce is eaten the heave will have been sanctified retroactively. What did he save? From his food he separates the heave of the tithe. It was stated‘ 8:2: “A worker is not permitted to work for himself at night and rent himself out during the day, or plough with his cow in the evening and rent her out in the morning; he should not starve himself, torment himself, or give his food to his children, because he robs his employer of the work he will be able to do.” : “A man should not plough with his cow at night and rent her out during the day, he should not work for himself at night and rent himself out during the day, he should not starve himself and not torment himself because he reduces the work he will be able to do for his employer.” Rebbi Joḥanan went to some place where he found the schoolteacher weak on Maimonides Śekhirut 13:6 reads אטימוס, ἄθυμος “feeble” (M. Sachs), in Cafṭor Waperaḥ Chap. 39, אטמיאס. The translation follows Hagahot Maimuniot. . He asked them, what has happened? They said to him, he is fasting. He said to him, that is forbidden to you. If one says that it is forbidden for the work one does for flesh and blood, so much more for the work of the Holy One, praise to Him! Rav Ḥiyya bar Ashi in the name of Rav 8:6 : “R. Yose says that it is a stipulation of the Court that the heave of the tithe should be from the employer and the Second Tithe from the worker.” R. Simson reads the text of the Tosephta in the Yerushalmi. Cafṭor Waperaḥ Chap. 39 quotes the Tosephta, not the Yerushalmi. Maimonides Maäser 9:11 follows the Tosephta as current practice. It seems that the Yerushalmi gives the position of the anonymous Tanna, in contrast to the Tosephta which explicitly refers to R. Yose; the reading in the Yerushalmi should not be changed for the (probably Babylonian) Tosephta. Rav explains the position of the anonymous Tanna as practice; he must assume that Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel and R. Yose disagree, so both are single opinions that are disregarded in face of a majority. : It is a stipulation of the Court that the heave of the tithe should be from the worker and the Second Tithe needed to redeem the second tithe. from the employer.

הַלּוֹקֵחַ יַיִן מִבֵּין הַכּוּתִים אוֹמֵר שְׁנֵי לוֹגִין שֶׁאֲנִי עָתִיד לְהַפְרִישׁ הֲרֵי הֵן תְּרוּמָה. וַעֲשָׂרָה מַעֲשֵׂר וְתִשְׁעָה מַעֲשֵׂר שֵׁנִי וּמֵיחַל וְשׁוֹתֶה. תַּנִּי רִבִּי יוֹסֵי וְרִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹסְרִין שֶׁמָּא תִיבָּקַע הַנּוֹד וְנִמְצָא שׁוֹתֶה טְבָלִים לְמַפְרֵעוֹ. לֹא כְטַעֲמֵיהּ דְּהָדֵין טַעֲמֵיהּ דְּהָדֵין. טַעֲמָא דְּרִבִּי יוֹסֵי שֶׁמָּא יַסִּייעַ. טַעֲמָא דְּרִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן שֶׁמָּא יִשְׁכַּח וְיִשְׁתֶּה אֶת הַשְּׁאָר. כְּהָדָה דְתַנִּי מַעֲשֵׂר שֵׁנִי שֶׁבְּחֵפֶץ זֶה מְחוּלָּל עַל סֶלַע שֶׁבְּכִיס זֶה חִילֵּל. רִבִּי יוֹסֵי אוֹמֵר לֹא חִילֵּל. מַאי טַעֲמָא דְּרִבִּי יוֹסֵי שֶׁאִם אָמַר עַל הַסֶּלַע הַיְּשָׁנָה וְעַל הַדֵּינָר הַיָּשָׁן שֶׁחִילֵּל. מוֹדִים חֲכָמִים לְרִבִּי יוֹסֵי שֶׁאִם אָמַר עַל הַסֶּלַע שֶׁאֶטּוֹל מִיַּד בְּנִי וְעַל הַדֵּינָר שֶׁאֶטּוֹל מִיַּד בְּנִי שֶׁלֹּא חִילֵּל. שֶׁלֹּא הָיוּ בְיָדוֹ בְאוֹתָהּ שָׁעָה. תַּמָּן תַּנֵּינָן הַמֵּנִיחַ פֵּירוֹת לִהְיוֹת מַפְרִישׁ עֲלֵיהֶן מַעֲשֵׂר שֵׁנִי. וְהָדָא מַתְנִיתָא דְּלֹא כְרִבִּי יוֹסֵי וּכְרבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן. אָמַר רִבִּי זְעִירָא תַּמָּן לְמַפְרְעוֹ נִתְקַלְקְלוּ. בְּרַם הָכָא מֵאוֹבְדָּן וְהֵילַךְ נִתְקַלְקְלוּ. תַּמָּן תַּנֵּינָן פְּרוּטָה שֶׁל הֶקְדֵּשׁ שֶׁנׇּפְלָה לְתוֹךְ הַכִּיס אוֹ שֶׁאָמַר פְּרוּטָה בְּכִיס הַזֶּה הֶקְדֵּשׁ תַּנָּה עַל הָרִאשׁוֹנָה מָעַל בְּסָפֵק וְעַל הַשְּׁנִיָיה מָעַל בְּוַדַּאי דִּבְרֵי רִבִּי עֲקִיבָא. וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים עַל כּוּלָּן מָעַל בְּסָפֵק וְעַל הָאַחֲרוֹנָה מָעַל בְּוַדַּאי. אָמַר רִבִּי יוּדָן אָבוֹי דְרִבִּי מַתַּנְיָא הָדָא דְּתֵימַר כְּשֶׁהָיוּ עֶשֶׂר. אֲבָל אִם הָיוּ שְׁתַּיִם עַל הָרִאשׁוֹנָה מָעַל בְּסָפֵק וְעַל הַשְּׁנִיָיה מָעַל בְּוַדַּאי. רִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן לָקִישׁ בְּעָא קוֹמֵי רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן מַה בֵּין הָאוֹמֵר בַּכִּיס מַה בֵּין הָאוֹמֵר מִן הַכִּיס. רִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן לָקִישׁ אָמַר אֲפִילוּ הוֹצִיא אֶת כָּל הַכִּיס לֹא יִמְעוֹל כְּמָה דְתֵימַר לְמַפְרֵעוֹ טֵבֵל שָׁתָה וְאָמַר אוּף הָכָא לְמַפְרֵעוֹ חוּלִין הוֹצִיא אֶלָּא כָאן תָּלוּי בְּהַפְרָשָׁה. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹנָה כָאן וְכָאן תָּלוּי בְּהַפְרָשָׁה נַעֲשֶׂה כְאוֹמֵר אַל יֵצֵא הַכִּיס הַזֶּה יְדֵי פְרוּטָה הֶקְדֵּשׁ. מֻחְלְפָה שִׁיטָּתֵיהּ דְּרִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן לָקִישׁ תַּמָּן הוּא אָמַר מוֹעֲלִין בִּפְרוּטָה לְפִי חֶשְׁבּוֹן שְׁלֹשֶׁת לוֹגִין. וְהָכָא הוּא אָמַר הָכֵין. מִן דְּאַצְרַכְתְּ לֵיהּ חָזַר וּפָשְׁטָהּ. אָמַר רִבִּי יִצְחָק בַּר אֶלְעָזָר אָדָם עוֹמֵד מֵעֶרֶב שַׁבָּת וְאוֹמֵר הֲרֵי זוּ תְרוּמָה לְמָחָר וְאֵין אָדָם עוֹמֵד בְּשַׁבָּת וְאוֹמֵר הֲרֵי זוּ תְרוּמָה לְמָחָר. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹסֵי בֵּי רִבִּי בּוּן אֵין אָדָם עוֹמֵד מֵעֶרֶב שַׁבָּת וְאוֹמֵר הֲרֵי זוּ תְרוּמָה לְמָחָר. מַתְנִיתָא פְלִיגָא עַל רִבִּי יוֹסֵי בֵּי רִבִּי בּוּן לָגִין שֶׁהוּא טְבוּל יוֹם וּמִילְאֵהוּ מִן הֶחָבִית מַעֲשֵׂר טֵבֵל אִם אָמַר הֲרֵי זוּ תְּרוּמַת מַעֲשֵׂר לְמָחָר מִשֶּׁתֶּחְשָׁךְ הֲרֵי זֶה תְרוּמָה אִם אָמַר הֲרֵי זֶה עֵירוּב לֹא אָמַר כְּלוּם. פָּתַר לָהּ לְשֶׁעָבַר. וְהָתַנִּי רִבִּי חִיָיא אָמַר אִית לָךְ מֵימַר לְשֶׁעָבַר. וְחָזַר בָּהּ רִבִּי יוֹסֵי בֵּי רִבִּי בּוּן מֵהָדָא.

MISHNAH: If someone buys wine from Samaritans he may say: Two log that I shall separate in the future are heave, ten tithe per one hundred, but one does not require him to go into details. Similarly, Second Tithe should be 10% of the remaining 89.2 log . , and nine Second Tithe; then he redeems from a designated coin; the redemption is effected by his declaration. and drinks. HALAKHAH: It was stated 8:7 : “If someone buys wine from Samaritans on Fridays and he forgot to tithe, he may say: Two log that I shall separate in the future are heave, the next ten tithe, and the next nine Second Tithe; then he redeems and drinks immediately; the words of R. Meïr. R. Jehudah, R. Yose, and R. Simeon forbid it. They said to R. Meïr, do you not agree that if his wine bag would spring a leak he would drink ṭevel ? He said to them, if it would spring a leak.” R. Jehudah is not mentioned in the Halakhah; since he is the senior among those who disagree, the argument with R. Meïr is his and does not obligate the other two authorities who agree with R. Jehudah on the practical rule but not on the theoretical reason. Note that in the version of the Tosephta, the wine bag is already transported to the buyer’s house and, therefore, the risk of the bag springing a leak is minimized. : “Rebbi Yose and Rebbi Simeon prohibit to do so, maybe the wine bag will spring a leak and it turns out retroactively that he drank ṭevel .” But the reason of one is not the reason of the other. The reason of Rebbi Yose is that maybe he will pour. . The reason of Rebbi Simeon is that maybe he will forget and drink the remainder. As it was stated 3:17: “If somebody said, the Second Tithe in this container should be redeemed by that as , and he did not define its place, R. Simeon says, he gave it its rightful name {and it is redeemed.} The Sages say, {it is not redeemed} until he says, at the North or South end.” The next Tosephta shows that the “Sages” here follow the opinion of R. Yose. The problem is that without a clear definition, the owner may spend the redemption coin on other things. Therefore, one requires him to spell out where the coin will be taken and, since coins move around in a wallet, it is clear that he has to remove the coin from the wallet immediately and separate it. : “The Second Tithe in this container should be redeemed by the tetradrachma in that wallet, it is redeemed. Rebbi Yose says, it is not redeemed.” What is the reason of Rebbi Yose? “ 4:12: “If somebody says, the Second Tithe shall be redeemed by a tetradrachma that will come out of this wallet, or the denar that will come out of that wallet, R. Yose says, he did not redeem, but the Sages say, he did redeem. R. Yose agrees with the Sages that if he says that the Second Tithe shall be redeemed by the new tetradrachma which will come out of this wallet, or the new denar that will come out of that wallet, he did redeem. The Sages admit to Rebbi Yose that if he said [it shall be redeemed] by the tetradrachma that was in my son’s hand, the denar that was in my son’s hand, it is not redeemed since perhaps it was not in his hand at that time.” We have to assume that R. Yose agrees only in case the owner had only one new coin of that type at the moment of the declaration. If he said, the old tetradrachma or the old denar, he did redeem. The Sages admit to Rebbi Yose that if he said, the tetradrachma I shall take from my son’s hand, or the denar I shall take from my son’s hand, it is not redeemed since it was not in his hand at that time.” There, we have stated 3:8 : “If somebody puts aside produce to serve for heave or tithes, or coins to serve for Second Tithe, he refers to them {to redeem produce or to put produce in order with the intention that all sanctity should devolve on produce and coins set aside} based on the prior knowledge that they still exist. If they are lost, he worries for 24 hours, the words of R. Eleazar (ben Shamua‘.)” In both the Babli ( Giṭṭin 31a/b ) and the Yerushalmi ( Giṭṭin 3:8 ), there is a discussion whether the tithing is questionable for the 24 hours preceding the discovery of the loss or whether the tithing is not questionable only for the first 24 hours after produce or coins were set aside. In any case, there is no opposition noted by either R. Yose or R. Simeon. Since transporting wine from Samaria presumably takes less than 24 hours, such opposition would have been expected. : “If somebody puts aside produce … to serve for Second Tithe.” Does. Therefore, our baraita is referred to as “there”, and the Mishnah as “here.” that Mishnah disagree with Rebbi Yose and Rebbi Simeon? Rebbi Zeïra said, there they become spoiled retroactively, but here they become spoiled only starting from the moment of loss again. . There, we have stated 6:6: “If a peruṭah of Temple property fell into somebody’s wallet, or if somebody said, a peruṭah in this wallet shall be Temple property, then the moment he spent the first coin he committed larceny, the words of Rebbi Aqiba. But the Sages say, not until he spent the entire wallet. Rebbi Aqiba agrees that if he said, ‘a peruṭah from this wallet shall be Temple property,’ he may go and spend the entire contents of the wallet.” מעל refers to the particular case of larceny involving Temple property, whose private use is forbidden even if it does not impair its value ( Lev . 5:15 ). Our text is a baraita that combines the Mishnah with Tosephta Meїlah 3:1: “If a peruṭah of Temple property fell into somebody’s wallet, or if somebody said, a peruṭah in this wallet shall be Temple property, then the moment he spent the first coin he must bring an ašam sacrifice for a possible sin, for the second coin an ašam sacrifice for a certain sin, the words of Rebbi Aqiba. But the Sages say, an ašam sacrifice for a possible sin is brought only for an offense which if deliberate is punished by being cut off (כרת, cf. J. Milgrom, Leviticus 1–16 , New York 1991, pp. 457–460) or, if in error, must be atoned for by a sin-offering.” : “If a peruṭah of Temple property fell into somebody’s wallet, or if somebody said, a peruṭah in this wallet shall be Temple property,” it was stated that “with the first coin he committed probable larceny, with the second one certain larceny, the words of Rebbi Aqiba. But the Sages say, with any of them he committed probable larceny, except that with the last one he committed certain larceny.” Rebbi Yudan, the father of Rebbi Mattania said, that is, if there were ten coins. But if there were only two, with the first coin he committed probable larceny, with the second one certain larceny. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish asked before Rebbi Joḥanan: What is the difference between him who says “in the wallet” and him who says “from the wallet?” Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, even if he spent the entire wallet he would not have committed larceny; just as you say ‘that he drank ṭevel retroactively,’ here also ‘retroactively he spent profane money.’ But here it depends on the act of separation can be removed only by an actual declaration fixing place and modality of heave and tithes. . Rebbi Jonah said, in both cases it depends on the act of separation; it is as if he said, this wallet should not be freed from a peruṭah of Temple property 34a), this answer is given by R. Joḥanan. But the thrust of the Babli is about retroactive clarification that is excluded here and in the entire discussion of the Yerushalmi, as recognized by Sefer Nir . . Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish’s argument is inverted. There 13b, in explanation of Mishnah Meїlah 3:7: “From water {drawn from the water canal flowing through the Temple courtyard on Friday afternoon of the festival of Tabernacles, to be used next morning for the water libation} in the golden barrel {that was not a sanctified vessel and in which the water would not become forbidden by standing in a vessel overnight} one may not have any use, but use is no larceny. Once it is poured into the pitcher {the holy vessel in which the water was transported to the altar} its use becomes larceny.” R. Simeon ben Laqish holds that there is no larceny from the water of the golden barrel if one uses the excess over the three log that are to be filled into the holy pitcher. The interpretation of the Yerushalmi seems to be that if the barrel contained x log and somebody drew y log , even if x-y > 3 one would commit larceny in the amount of the cost of 3y/x log of water. , he says that one commits larceny with a peruṭah corresponding to the computation of three log . And here, he says so? After he asked, he returned and gave the simple answer. Rebbi Isaac ben Eleazar 18:1. said, a person can say on Friday, this shall be heave tomorrow, but nobody can say on the Sabbath, this shall be heave tomorrow. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, nobody can say on Friday, this shall be heave tomorrow. A Mishnah disagrees with Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun 4:4. The exact text of the Mishnah reads: “If a vessel which was immersed that day {and will be pure only after sundown} was filled from an amphora with ṭevel tithe, if he said that its contents should be heave of the tithe after nightfall, then this is heave of the tithe. If he said that it should be eruv , he did not say anything.” Tithe can be ṭevel only if the heave of the tithe was not taken; hence, ‘heave’ in our text should always mean ‘heave of the tithe’ as in the Mishnah. : “If a vessel, lagaena , lagona , lagoena , - ae , f . “large earthen vessel with neck and handles; flask, bottle”; same as Greek λάγηνος, perhaps identical with Κνίδιον, τὸ, “a measure of wine.” was immersed that day and somebody filled it from an amphora with ṭevel tithe, if he said, its contents should be heave of the tithe tomorrow, i. e., after nightfall, then this is heave. If he said, that should be eruv , Chapter 7, Note 56. The eruv must be deposited on Friday afternoon and be at the right spot at sundown, so that he can acquire the Sabbath rest at that spot. But in our case, at sundown the wine is still ṭevel ; since it may not be eaten it is not food, and the eruv is invalid. , he did not say anything.” Explain it if he transgressed. But Rebbi Ḥiyya stated: “He says in which R. Ḥiyya presents the text of the declaration to be recited in the case considered by R. Isaac ben Eleazar. R. Ḥiyya unconditionally permits the declaration. ,” and you say, if he transgressed? Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun retracted that.

הָיוּ לוֹ תְאֵנִים שֶׁל טֵבֵל בְּתוֹךְ בֵּיתוֹ וְהוּא בְבֵית הַמִּדְרָשׁ אוֹ בַשָּׂדֶה אוֹמֵר שְׁנֵי תְאֵנִים שֶׁאֲנִי עָתִיד לְהַפְרִישׁ הֲרֵי הֵן תְּרוּמָה וַעֲשָׂרָה מַעֲשֵׂר וְתִשְׁעָה מַעֲשֵׂר שֵׁנִי. הָיוּ דְמַאי אוֹמֵר מַה שֶׁאֲנִי עָתִיד לְהַפְרִישׁ לְמָחָר הֲרֵי הוּא מַעֲשֵׂר וּשְׁאָר מַעֲשֵׂר סָמוּךְ לוֹ. זֶה שֶׁעָשִׂיתִי מַעֲשֵׂר עָשׂוּי תְּרוּמַת מַעֲשֵׂר עָלָיו וּמַעֲשֵׂר שֵׁנִי בִצְפוֹנוֹ אוֹ בִדְרוֹמוֹ וּמְחוּלָּל עַל הַמָּעוֹת. מַיי כְדוֹן מִכְּבָר לִכְשֶׁאַפְרִישֶׁנָּה. הַגַּע עַצְמָךְ שֶׁהָיְתָה תְרוּמָה טְהוֹרָה מִכְּבָר לִכְשֶׁאוֹכְלֶנָּה הַגַּע עַצְמָךְ שֶׁהָיְתָה תְרוּמָה טְמֵאָה מִכְּבָר לִכְשֶׁאֲנִיחֶנָּה בְּזָוִית. תַּנִּי מְטַלְטְלָהּ אֶחָד תְּרוּמָה טְהוֹרָה וְאֶחָד תְּרוּמָה טְמֵאָה. אָמַר רִבִּי זְעִירָא הָדָא אָמְרָה טֵבֵל שֶׁיֵּשׁ עָלָיו תְּנַיי מוֹתָּר לְטַלְטְלוֹ בְשַׁבָּת. כֵּיצַד הוּא עוֹשֶׂה. נוֹתֵן עֵינָיו בְמִקְצָתוֹ וְאוֹכֵל אֶת הַשְּׁאָר.

MISHNAH: If somebody had ṭevel figs in his house but was in the House of Study or on the field, he says: Two figs that I shall separate in the future shall be heave, ten tithe, and nine heave of the tithe. If they were demay , he says: That which I shall separate in the future shall be tithe tomorrow, the rest of tithe near to it. That which I made tithe shall be heave of the tithe for all, and the Second Tithe shall be to the North (or to the South) and be redeemed by coins declaration is identical with that of Mishnah 1 and all the rules explained there apply here also. . HALAKHAH: What is done? ‘From before I shall separate it.’ Think about it, if it was pure heave, ‘from before I shall eat it.’ Think about it, if it was impure heave, ‘from before I shall deposit it in a corner.’ We have stated: “One may move both pure and impure heave.” Rebbi Zeïra said, it means that one is permitted to move ṭevel that has a condition on it edible. In that case, the ṭevel is food and certainly may be moved on the Sabbath. on the Sabbath. What does he do? He thinks about a part of it and eats the rest.

הָיוּ לְפָנָיו שְׁתֵי כַלְכָּלוֹת שֶׁל טֵבֵל וְאָמַר מַעְשְׂרוֹת שֶׁל זוּ בְזוּ וְשֶׁל זוּ בְזוּ הָרִאשׁוֹנָה מְעוֹשֶּׂרֶת. מַעְשְׂרוֹתֵיהֶם מַעְשְׂרוֹת כַּלְכָּלָה בַחֲבֵירָתָהּ קָרָא לָהּ שֵׁם. וְתַנִּי עֲלָהּ נוֹטֵל מִן הַשְּׁנִיָיה שְׁתֵּי תְאֵנִים וּשְׁתֵּי עִישּׂוּרִין וְעִישּׂוּרוֹ שֶׁל עִישּׂוּר. שְׁמוּאֵל אָמַר לָא מָצֵי תַנִּיתָהּ. אִין יְסַב חָדָא לְעֶשֶׂר. צָרִיךְ מֵיסַב חָדָא לְמֵאָת. אִין יְסַב חָדָא לְמֵאָת. צָרִיךְ מֵיסַב חָדָא לְאֶלֶף. אִין יְסַיב חָדָא לְאֶלֶף. צָרִיךְ מֵיסַב חָדָא לַעֲשָׂרָה אֲלָפִין. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹסֵה בַּר חֲנִינָא עַל הָרִאשׁוֹנָה עוֹבֵר בַּעֲשֵׂה וְעַל הַשְּׁנִיָיה בַּעֲשֵׂה וְלֹא תַעֲשֶׂה. עַל הָרִאשׁוֹנָה עוֹבֵר בַּעֲשֵׂה שֶׁקָּבַע שְׁנֵי שֵׁמוֹת כְּאַחַת וְעַל הַשְּׁנִיָיה בַּעֲשֵׂה וְלֹא תַעֲשֶׂה שֶׁקָּבְעוּ שְׁנֵי שֵׁמוֹת כְּאַחַת וְשֶׁהִקְדִּים שֵׁנִי שֶׁבָּרִאשׁוֹנָה לָרִאשׁוֹן שֶׁבִּשְׁנִיָיה. אָמַר רִבִּי לָעְזָר דְּרִבִּי מֵאִיר הִיא דְּרִבִּי מֵאִיר אָמַר אֵין אַתְּ תּוֹפֵס אֶלָּא רִאשׁוֹן רִאשׁוֹן בִּלְבַד. תַּמָּן תַּנֵּינָן הֲרֵי זוּ תְּמוּרַת עוֹלָה וּתְמוּרַת שְׁלָמִים הֲרֵי זוּ תְּמוּרַת עוֹלָה דִּבְרֵי רִבִּי מֵאִיר. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹסֵי הֲוֵינָן סָבְרִין מֵימַר מַה פְלִיגִין רִבִּי מֵאִיר וְרַבָּנִין לְאַחַר כְּדֵי דִיבּוּר אֲבָל בְּתוֹךְ כְּדֵי דִיבּוּר לֹא. מִן מַה דְאָמַר רִבִּי לָעְזָר רִבִּי מֵאִיר הִיא. הָדָא אָמְרָה אֲפִילוּ בְּתוֹךְ כְּדֵי דִיבּוּר אֵינוֹ חוֹזֵר בּוֹ. דִּי מַתְנִיתָא מַעְשְׂרוֹתֵיהֶן מַעְשְׂרוֹת כַּלְכָּלָה וַחֲבֵירָתָהּ קָרָא שֵׁם. מִפְּנֵי שֶׁקָּבַע שְׁנֵי שֵׁמוֹת כְּאַחַת. הָא זֶה אַחַר זֶה אֵין אַתְּ תּוֹפֵשׂ אֶלָּא רִאשׁוֹן רִאשׁוֹן בִּלְבַד. אָמַר רִבִּי אָבוּנָא מוֹדִין חֲכָמִים לְרִבִּי מֵאִיר בְּאוֹמֵר תְּרוּמָה זוּ תַּחַת שֵׁנִי חַיָיב. בְּהֵמָה זוּ תַּחַת זְבָחִים שֵׁנִי חַיָיב מִפְּנֵי שֶׁקָּבַע שְׁנֵי שֵׁמוֹת כְּאַחַת הָא זֶה אַחַר זֶה אֵין אַתְּ תּוֹפֵשׂ אֶלָּא רִאשׁוֹן רִאשׁוֹן בִּלְבַד. לֹא כֵן אָמַר רִבִּי שְׁמוּאֵל בַּר רַב יִצְחָק בְּשֵׁם רַב הוּנָא אָמַר זוּ תְמוּרַת עוֹלָה חוֹזֵר בּוֹ אֲפִילוּ בְּתוֹךְ כְּדֵי דִיבּוּר. כָּאן בְּמִתְכַּוֵּין לִפְחוֹת. כָּאן בְּמִתְכַּוֵּין לְהוֹסִיף. אָמַר הֲרֵי זוּ תְּרוּמָה אֲפִילוּ בְּתוֹךְ כְּדֵי דִיבּוּר אֵינוֹ חוֹזֵר בּוֹ. אָדָם נִשְׁאַל עַל הֶקְדֵּישׁוֹ וְאֵין אָדָם נִשְׁאַל עַל תְּרוּמָתוֹ. כֵּיצַד הוּא עוֹשֶׂה נוֹטֵל עֶשְׂרִים תְּאֵנִים מֵאֵי זוּ מֵהֶן שֶׁיִּרְצֶה. וְכָל עֶשֶׂר דִּיסַב אִית בְּהוֹן תְּרוּמַת מַעֲשֵׂר. עַד כְדוֹן בְּשָׁווֹת. הָיָה בְזוּ מֵאָה וּבְזוּ מָאתַיִם אִם לְשֵׁם מֵאָה הוּא נוֹטֵל אַחַת עֶשְׂרֵה. אִם לְשֵׁם מָאתַיִם הוּא נוֹטֵל ששים תְּאֵנִים. בְּזוּ מֵאָה וּבְזוּ אֶלֶף אִם לְשֵׁם מֵאָה הוּא נוֹטֵל חֲמֵשׁ עֶשְׂרֵה. אִם לְשֵׁם אֶלֶף הוּא נוֹטֵל אֲפִילוּ הוּא נוֹטֵל אֶת כּוּלָּהּ אֵינוֹ מַשְׁלִים. מִי שֶׁיֵּשׁ לוֹ כַלְכָּלָה וְהוּא מְבַקֵּשׁ לְעַשְּׂרָהּ נוֹטֵל שְׁנֵי תִישּׁוּעִין וְתִישּׁוּעַ שֶׁל תִישׁוּעַ שֶׁהֵן עֶשֶׂר מַעֲשֵׂר וְתֵשַׁע מַעֲשֵׂר שֵׁנִי. וְיֹאמַר תְּשַׁע עֶשְׂרֵה. אָמַר רִבִּי זְעִירָא דִּבְרֵי חֲכָמִים וְחִידּוֹתָם. הָרוֹצֶה לְהַכְנִיס מֵאָה תְאֵנִים מְתוּקָּנוֹת לְתוֹךְ בֵּיתוֹ הֲרֵי זֶה נוֹטֵל עַל כָּל תְּאֵינָה וּתְאֵינָה שְׁנֵי תִישּׁוּעִין וְתִישּׁוּעַ שֶׁל תִישׁוּעַ שֶׁהֵן עֶשְׂרִים וְשָׁלֹשׁ תְּאֵינָה אַרְבָּעָה אָמַר תִּישּׁוּעוֹ שֶׁל תִישׁוּעַ.

MISHNAH: If he had before him two baskets of ṭevel and he said, the tithes of one are in the other and those of the other in the one, the first one is tithed; (if he said) their tithes are tithes of each basket in the other one, he gave it a name 25b ) have a longer text of the Mishnah which, however, brings nothing new. . HALAKHAH: 8: We have stated for this 8:15–16 has a similar wording but cannot possibly be the basis of the quote here and either represents a different tradition from that of the Yerushalmi or is hopelessly corrupt. The latter is likely since the second part of 8:16, discussed here in Halakhah 7, is corrupt, as noted by all commentators from R. M. Margalit to R. S. Lieberman. The relevant part of the Tosephta reads: “If he had before him two baskets of ṭevel , in each one a hundred, of which heave was taken. ‘The tithes of one are in the other one,’ the first one is tithed. ‘The tithes of one are in the other, and those of the other in the one’ the first one is not tithed. He takes two figs and two tenths and a tenth of a tenth. ‘Their tithes are tithes of each basket in the other one,’ he gave it a name.” : “He takes from the second one two figs and two tenths and a tenth of a tenth.” Samuel says, you cannot state that; when he takes one in ten he has to take one in a hundred, when he takes one in a hundred he has to take one in a thousand, when he takes one in a thousand he has to take one in ten thousand. Rebbi Yose bar Ḥanina said, for the first basket he transgresses a commandment, for the second a commandment and a prohibition. For the first basket he transgresses a commandment since he gave both names simultaneously 3:7 states that the First Tithe is called “beginning” since it contains heave of the tithe, but the Second Tithe is never called “beginning.” Hence, the beginning should precede the non-beginning. , and for the second a commandment and a prohibition since he gave both names simultaneously and he put the Second Tithe of the first basket before the First Tithe of the second basket4a/b , both R. Yose bar Ḥanina and R. Eleazar agree that declaring the Second Tithe before the First is a violation. R. Yose bar Ḥanina holds that transgressing a prohibition by words alone is not punishable in criminal law while R. Eleazar declares it punishable. . Rebbi Eleazar said, this is from Rebbi Meïr since Rebbi Meïr says that you accept only the very first version. There, we have stated 5:4 : “This one {animal} shall be a substitute for a burnt offering {another animal already dedicated} and a substitute for an offering of well-being, then it is a substitution for a burnt offering, the words of Rebbi Meïr. Rebbi Yose said, if this was his original intention then his words stand since it is impossible to pronounce two names at the same time. But if he changed his mind after he said, this one shall be a substitute for a burnt offering, and said, this one should be a substitute for an offering of well-being, then it is a substitute for a burnt offering.” Our Mishnah cannot be R. Yose’s since he would accept both the first and second versions if the original intention was the same. In the Babli, Temurah 25b/26a , the difference between R. Meïr and R. Yose is reduced to the stylistic nicety whether there is a difference in meaning between “a substitute for a burnt offering and a substitute for a peace offering” and “a substitute for a burnt offering and an offering of well-being.” It is difficult to square that approach with that of the Yerushalmi. : “This one shall be a substitute 27:9–10 ), nevertheless once done it is a valid dedication. for a burnt offering and for an offering of well-being, then it is a substitute for a burnt offering, the words of Rebbi Meïr.” Rebbi Yose 3:5 ) there are three opinions, that of R. Meïr (who takes only the first statement) and R. Yose (the Tanna, who asks to investigate what was in the mind of the speaker) as in the Mishnah, and that of the Sages who say that the animal should be put out to graze until it develops a bodily defect (and no longer could become a sacrifice) when it should be sold and the money received be split 50-50 to buy burnt and well-being offerings. said, we were of the opinion that Rebbi Meïr and the Sages disagree only after the time for speech 2:1, fol. 4b (Notes 50–51). , but not within the time for speech. Since Rebbi Eleazar said, the Mishnah is Rebbi Meïr’s, it means that even within the time of speech he cannot retract. This is the Mishnah: “Their tithes are tithes for each basket in the other one, he gave it a name,” because he declared both names at the same time. One after the other you accept only the very first version. Rebbi Abuna said, the Sages agree with Rebbi Meïr about him who says “this heave substitutes for Second” (that he is guilty). “This animal instead of well-being offerings,” he is obligated for two since he declared two names, Chapter 3, Note 78 . at the same time; hence, one after the other you accept only the very first version. Not so, said Rebbi Samuel bar Rav Isaac who said in the name of Rav Huna: “This one shall be a substitute for a burnt offering,” he may retract that within the time for speech. That is, if he wants to retract, there if he wants to add. If one said, “this is heave,” even within the time of speech he cannot retract. A person can be asked about his dedication but nobody can be asked about his heave. How does one act 8:16 , in badly garbled form: “Their tithes are tithes of each basket in the other one, he gave it a name. One takes 20 figs from the one he chooses. In one 100, in one 200, if he takes from the small one, he takes 11, if from the large one, he takes it all and it is not enough. In one 100, in the other 1000, if he takes from the small one he takes 16, if he takes from the large one he takes all of 60. In other cases, by this computation.” In the computation, the second number in either case was switched. ? “One takes 20 figs from any basket one chooses.” And in any 10 one takes there is one of heave of the tithe only heave of the tithe has to be given away; the Second Tithe is redeemed by a coin. In the current baraita , only First Tithe is considered. . That is, if they were equal. “If in one basket there were 100 and in the other 200, if he takes for the one with a hundred, he takes 11. If for the one with 200 he takes 30. “If in one basket there were 100 and in the other 1000, if he takes for the one with a hundred, he takes 15. If for the one with a thousand, even if he takes the entire basket he does not complete taking.” “ 8:17 . In all these cases, it is supposed that heave was already taken and only tithe with its heave has to be taken. If someone has a basket and wants to tithe it, he takes two ninths and a ninth of a ninth, corresponding to ten tithe and nine Second Tithe.” Why does he not say 19? Rebbi Zeïra said, the words of the Sages and their riddles. He who wants to bring a hundred figs in order into his house takes for ever single fig two ninths and a ninth of a ninth, 23 figs in all, four called ninth of a ninth.

מֵאָה טֵבֵל מֵאָה חוּלִין נוֹטֵל מֵאָה וְאַחַת. מֵאָה טֵבֵל מֵאָה מַעֲשֵׂר נוֹטֵל מֵאָה וְאַחַת. מֵאָה חוּלִין מְתוּקָּנִין מֵאָה מַעֲשֵׂר נוֹטֵל מֵאָה וְעֶשֶׂר. מֵאָה טֵבֵל וְתִשְׁעִים מַעֲשֵׂר תִּשְׁעִים טֵבֵל וּשְׁמוֹנִים מַעֲשֵׂר לֹא הִפְסִיד כְּלוּם. זֶה הַכְּלָל כָּל זְמַן שֶׁהַטֵּבֵל מְרוּבָּה לֹא הִפְסִיד כְּלוּם. רִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן לָקִישׁ אָמַר צָרִיךְ לְהַתְנוֹת וְלוֹמַר אִם טֵבֵל עָלָה בְיָדִי הוּא מַעֲשֵׂר. וְאִם מַעֲשֵׂר עָלָה בְיָדִי הֲרֵי הוּא עָשׂוּי תְרוּמַת מַעֲשֵׂר. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹנָה צָרִיךְ לִכְפּוֹל תְּנָייוֹ וְלוֹמַר וְאִם לָאו לֹא עָשִׂיתִי כְּלוּם. רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָמַר אֵינוֹ צָרִיךְ לִכְפּוֹל תְּנָייוֹ. דֵּין כְדַעְתֵּיהּ וְדֵין כְדַעְתֵּיהּ. וְאִיתְפַּלְּגוּן שְׁנֵי כְרִיִים וְאֶחָד מֵהֶן. רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָמַר קִדְּשׁוּ מְדוּמָעִין וְרִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן לָקִישׁ אָמַר לֹא קִדְּשׁוּ. אָמַר רִבִּי מָ[נָא] חוֹלְקִין עַל רִבִּי לָעְזָר בֶּן עֲרָךְ דְּתַנִּי מַעֲשֵׂר טֵבֵל שֶׁנִּתְעָרֵב בְּחוּלִין אִם יֵשׁ לוֹ פַרְנָסָה מִמָּקוֹם אַחֵר מוֹצִיאוֹ לְפִי חֶשְׁבּוֹן. וְאִם לָאו רִבִּי לָעְזָר בֶּן עֲרָךְ אוֹמֵר יִקְרָא שֵׁם לִתְרוּמַת מַעֲשֵׂר שֶׁבּוֹ וְיַעֲלֵם בְּאֶחָד וּמֵאָה. אָמַר רִבִּי בָּא בַּר מָמָל תִּיפְתָּר בִּדְבָרִים שֶׁאֵין לָהֶן עֲלִיָיה. רִבִּי הִלֵּל בֶּן פָּזִי בְּעֵי וְיִפְצַע. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹנָה מוּתָּר לְפַצֵּעַ. לֹא כֵן תְּנִינָן נִתְפַּצְּעוּ הָאֶגּוֹזִין בְּשֶׁעָבַר. הָא בִתְחִילָּה לֹא. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹנָה כֵּינִי מַתְנִיתָא כָּל זְמַן שֶׁהַטֵּבֵל מְרוּבָּה עַל הַמַּעֲשֵׂר מַעֲשֵׂר לֹא הִפְסִיד כְּלוּם. רִבִּי לְוִינְטִי בְשֵׁם רִבִּי יוֹנָה כָּל טֵבֵל דַּאֲנָן קָיְימִינַן הָכָא טֵבֵל לָרִאשׁוֹן וְלַשֵּׁנִי. רִבִּי אַבָּהוּ אָמַר אִיתְפַּלְּגוּן רִבִּי וְרִבִּי דּוֹסְתַּי בֵּי רִבִּי יַנַּאי. חַד אָמַר עוֹשֶׂה אוֹתוֹ שֵׁנִי לְמָקוֹם אַחֵר. וְחָרָנָה אָמַר עוֹשֶׂה כּוּלּוֹ שֵׁנִי לְמָקוֹם אַחֵר וּמַפְרִישׁ עָלָיו רִאשׁוֹן לְמָקוֹם אַחֵר. מַה נָן קַיָימִין מֵאָה טֵבֵל וְתִשְׁעִים מַעֲשֵׂר נוֹטֵל תִּשְׁעִים וּשְׁתַּיִם חָסֵר עִישּׂוּר אֶחָד. מֵאָה טֵבֵל וּשְׁמוֹנִים מַעֲשֵׂר נוֹטֵל שְׁמוֹנִים וְשָׁלֹשׁ חָסֵר שְׁנֵי עֶשְׂרוֹנִים. מִיכָּן וְהֵילָךְ לְפִי חֶשְׁבּוֹן.

MISHNAH: A hundred ṭevel in a hundred profane, he removes 101 3:9, where it is stated that if tithed and untithed produce are mixed together, it is preferable to tithe the untithed part from other produce, but if that proves impossible the whole turns into titheable produce as far as heaves are concerned, but not for other tithes. Since we are dealing with demay , it is always assumed that the first heave was taken and the only problem is heave of the tithe. Hence, in our case, one has to remove the 100 as equivalent of the ṭevel to be tithed, and, since the profane returns to the status of untithed as far as heave of the tithe is concerned, another 1% for heave of the tithe. . A hundred ṭevel in a hundred tithe, he removes 101. A hundred profane fully in order and a hundred tithe, he removes 110, and “profane fully in order” is produce of which it is known that both tithes were actually removed according to the rules of certain produce. . A hundred ṭevel and ninety tithe, ninety ṭevel and eighty tithe, he did not lose anything. That is the rule: Anytime that ṭevel is more, he did not lose anything, an application of that rule would make the tithe forever dema‘ . . HALAKHAH: : Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, one has to specify a stipulation and say: If ṭevel is in my hands, it shall be tithe, but if tithe is in my hands, it shall be heave of the tithe and tithe were mixed together and one takes 101 parts for the ṭevel of which the one part in excess is to be addititional heave of the tithe. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish states that heave can only be taken if it is specified from where it is to be taken. In our case, heave of the tithe can only be taken if the produce was first designated to be tithe. Hence, it is necessary to stipulate that it should be designated tithe if part of the grain originated from what was ṭevel. . Rebbi Jonah said, one has to add the converse stipulation and say, otherwise I did not do anything32:29–30 ) in which it was spelled out first what would happen if the conditions were met and second what would happen if they were not, any stipulation in Jewish law is valid only if it is formulated both in the positive and the negative sense. So R. Jonah simply means that the stipulation has to be legally valid. . Rebbi Joḥanan said, one does not have to add the converse stipulation. Either one of them follows his own opinion, since they disagreed, Chap. 3. The obligation of heave starts when grain, after threshing, is formed into heaps or put into a silo. If somebody has two heaps and he says, the heave of both heaps should be in one of them, without specifying in which one, then R. Joḥanan is of the opinion that both heaps are potentially profane mixed with heave, and both of them fall under the strict rules of dema ‘ until heave is taken. But R. Simeon ben Laqish holds that heave can only be taken from a designated spot; hence, the declaration is invalid and nothing has changed. It follows that, in our case, R. Simeon ben Laqish must require a declaration which fixes the exact part from which heave of the tithe may be taken, but R. Joḥanan holds that any produce that is potentially heave may be turned into heave by simple declaration. : Two heaps of grain, in one of them. Rebbi Joḥanan said, they are both forbidden as dema‘ , but Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, they are not forbidden. Rebbi Mana said, they differ with Rebbi Eleazar ben Arakh in which he is mentioned. . As he stated 5:15 : “ Ṭevel mixed with profane produce makes it forbidden even in the tiniest amounts. If it can be provided from another place, one takes it out in proportion. Otherwise, Rebbi Eliezer and Rebbi Eleazar ben Arakh say, he gives a name to the heave of the tithe and takes it out by 101; the same holds if it falls into tithe.” The baraita in the Yerushalmi expresses the same but from another source. The assertion in the Tosephta that one always tithes in proportion contradicts the Mishnah since no penalty is incurred in form of heave of the tithe of the profane produce, as in the Mishnah. : “ Ṭevel mixed with profane produce, if it can be provided from another place, one takes it out in proportion. Otherwise, Rebbi Eleazar ben Arakh says, he gives a name to the heave of the tithe and takes it out by 101.” Rebbi Abba bar Mamal said, explain it with kinds one cannot take out 3:7 ; they are always sold by the piece and cannot become absorbed by anything into which they fall. Hence, no substitute can be taken out from any other produce and R. Eleazar ben Arakh himself precribes for them the remedy explained in the Mishnah. . Rebbi Hillel ben Pazi asked: Why can he not crack them? Rebbi Jonah said, is one permitted to crack them 3:8 : If the nuts were cracked, or the pomegranates split,…, they may be taken out (like any other produce.)” In reference to tithes, the same is stated in Tosephta Terumot 5:10 . ? Did we not state: “If the nuts were cracked,” in the past. That means, not to start out with. Rebbi Jonah said, so is the Mishnah: Anytime that ṭevel is more than the tithe, tithe does not lose anything exceeds the tithe by at least 10, one does not lose anything.” Maimonides and R. Abraham ben David clearly read the Yerushalmi as given in the text. . Rebbi Levinti in the name of Rebbi Jonah: Any ṭevel mentioned here is ṭevel for first and second tithes mentioned in the entire chapter refers to produce of which heave was taken and the question is only about tithes and heave of the tithe. . Rebbi Abbahu said, Rebbi and Rebbi Dositheos the son of Rebbi Yannai 4:15 . disagree. One says, he takes the second tithe from another place, but the other one says, he makes all of it second tithe and takes the first tithe from another place quoted in the following sentences, in which the Tanna disagrees with the Tanna of the Mishnah and applies the rule of Mishnah 9 also to our case. If tithe returns to the state of untithed, then Second Tithe also is due, but it cannot be taken out here without disturbing the entire computation. Hence, it must be taken, and then redeemed, from other sources. . What are we talking about? “A hundred ṭevel and ninety tithe, he takes 92 minus one tenth From this, he can legally only take 9 for heave of the tithe. But he has to take in all 10.9 by the rules of the previous Mishnah which the Tanna here also follows in case tithe is less than ṭevel. Hence, he has to take another 2-0.1 and then give 10.9 as heave of the tithe. If ṭevel is 100 and tithe 80, he has to take 8 + 2.8 as heave of the tithe in order to put tithe and ṭevel in order. In general, for 100 ṭevel and n tithe, he takes n + (1000 - 9n)/100. (Explanation by R. Z. Frankel, the only rational explanation of this paragraph.) . A hundred ṭevel and eighty tithe, he takes 83 minus two tenths. 5:17–18 , which certainly is garbled but might in addition represent a Babylonian tradition opposed to that of the Yerushalmi: “100 tithe and 80 ṭevel , he takes 91.9. 100 tithe and 90 ṭevel , he takes 92.8. Other quantities proportionally.” Other quantities proportionally.”

מִי שֶׁהָיוּ לוֹ עֲשָׂרָה שׁוּרוֹת שֶׁל עֶשֶׂר כַּדֵּי יַיִן וְאָמַר שׁוּרָה הַחִיצוֹנָה אַחַת מַעֲשֵׂר וְאֵינוֹ יוֹדֵעַ אֵיזוֹ הִיא נוֹטֵל שְׁתֵּי חָבִיּוֹת לוֹכְסוֹן חֲצִי שׁוּרָה הַחִיצוֹנָה אַחַת מַעֲשֵׂר וְאֵינוֹ יוֹדֵעַ אֵיזוֹ הִיא נוֹטֵל אַרְבַּע חָבִיּוֹת מֵאַרְבַּע זָוִיּוֹת שׁוּרָה אַחַת מַעֲשֵׂר וְאֵינוֹ יוֹדֵעַ אֵיזוֹ הִיא נוֹטֵל שׁוּרָה אַחַת לוֹכְסוֹן. חֲצִי שׁוּרָה אַחַת מַעֲשֵׂר וְאֵינוֹ יוֹדֵעַ אֵיזוֹ הִיא נוֹטֵל שְׁתֵּי שׁוּרוֹת לוֹכְסוֹן. חָבִית אַחַת מַעֲשֵׂר וְאֵינוֹ יוֹדֵעַ אֵיזוֹ הִיא נוֹטֵל מִכָּל חָבִית וְחָבִית. וְיִטּוֹל שְׁתַּיִם. רִבִּי כֹהֵן בְּשֵׁם רַבָּנִין דְּקֵיסָרִין בְּשֶׁהִפְרִישׁ חֶצְיָין מִמָּקוֹם אַחֵר. תַּנִּי הָיוּ לְפָנָיו שְׁתֵּי חָבִיּוֹת אַחַת שֶׁל מַעֲשֵׂר טֵבֵל טָהוֹר וְאַחַת שֶׁל מַעֲשֵׂר טֵבֵל טָמֵא הֲרֵי זֶה מֵבִיא שְׁנֵי לָגִינִין וְנוֹטֵל מִזּוּ כְדֵי תְרוּמַת מַעֲשֵׂר מִשְּׁתֵּיהֶן וּמִזּוּ כְדֵי תְרוּמַת מַעֲשֵׂר מִשְּׁתֵּיהֶן. וְחוֹזֵר וּמַגְבִּיהַּ אֶת הַלָּגִין וְאוֹמֵר. אִם זֶהוּ טָהוֹר הֲרֵי הוּא עָשִׂיתִיו תְּרוּמַת מַעֲשֵׂר. וְאִם לָאו לֹא עָשִׂיתִי כְלוּם. וְחוֹזֵר וְעוֹשֶׂה כֵן בַּשֵּׁנִי וְטוֹבֵל וְשׁוֹתֶה דִּבְרֵי רִבִּי. רִבִּי לָעְזָר בֵּי רִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֵר אֵינוֹ נוֹטֵל אֶלָּא בְסוֹף. מַה טַעֲמָא דְרִבִּי אֲנִי אוֹמֵר שֶׁמָּא שָׁתָה מַשְׁקִין טְמֵאִין תְּחִילָּה. וּמַה טַעֲמָא דְרִבִּי לָעְזָר בַּר שִׁמְעוֹן אֲנִי אוֹמֵר שֶׁמָּא שָׁתָה מַשְׁקִין טְמֵאִין בְּסוֹף. הַכֹּל מוֹדִין בְּשׁוֹתֶה מַשְׁקִין טְמֵאִין שֶׁהוּא אָסוּר לוֹכַל אֲפִילוּ סָפֵק תְּרוּמָה. סָפֵק מַשְׁקִין כָּל עַמָּא מוֹדֵיי שֶׁהוּא מוּתָּר לוֹכַל אֲפִילוּ תְרוּמָה וַדַּאי. אֶלָּא כָא אֲנָן קַיָימִין כְּהָדָא מַתְנִיתָא. מַה טַעֲמָא דְרִבִּי אֶלְעָזָר בַּר שִׁמְעוֹן מֵאַחַר שֶׁעַל יְדֵי זֶה וְעַל יְדֵי זֶה נִתְבָּרְרָה הַטּוּמְאָה טָעוּן טְבִילָה. מַה טַעֲמָא דְרִבִּי שֶׁלֹּא יָבוֹא לִידֵי רְבִיעִית. לְמַה טַעֲמָא דְרִבִּי לָעְזָר בֵּי רִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בְּשׁוֹתֶה פָּחוֹת מֵרְבִיעִית. וְלֵית לֵיהּ לְרִבִּי לָעְזָר בֵּי רִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן שֶׁלֹּא יָבוֹא לִידֵי רְבִיעִית. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹסֵי בֵּרִבִּי בּוּן אֵין לָךְ אֶלָּא כְהָדֵין פִּיתְרָא קַדְמָיָא. דְּרִבִּי חָשַׁשׁ שֶׁמָּא שָׁתָה מַשְׁקִין טְמֵאִין תְּחִילָּה. וְרִבִּי לָעְזָר בֵּי רִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן חָשַׁשׁ שֶׁמָּא שָׁתָה מַשְׁקִין טְמֵאִין בְּסוֹף.

MISHNAH: If somebody had ten rows of ten wine jugs 27a , notes that the Mishnah starts with “jugs” and continues with “amphoras,” to indicate that Biblical כד corresponds to rabbinic חבית. each, and he said that one from an outer row was tithe but he does no longer know which one, he takes two diagonally opposite amphoras= 1, 2,…,10 and the amphoras in each row by j = 1, 2,…,10. Then the position of each amphora is uniquely described by a couple ( i , j ) and the amphoras are filling a square. Also, let * denote any number from 1 to 10. The outer rows are (1,*), (10,*), (*,1), (*,10). Since the problem is not the tithe but the heave of the tithe, if one takes both amphoras (1,1) and (10,10) [or (1,10) and (10,1)] he will have taken one amphora from each boundary row and have valid heave of the tithe. From the last sentence of the Mishnah it becomes clear that in all cases, only one amphora has to be given as heave of the tithe. Hence, the interpretation here is that one takes half of each amphora chosen and pours into a new one, so that the full new amphora will be the heave of the tithe. . One of half an outer row was tithe but he does no longer know which one, then he takes the four amphoras at the four corners. One row was tithe but he does no longer know which one, then he takes one diagonal row, i ) for i = 1,…, 10 or (10- i +1, i ) for i = 1,…, 10 then he will have taken one amphora from each row counted in either direction. Here, he takes one tenth out of each amphora chosen. . Half a row was tithe but he does no longer know which one, then he takes from the two diagonal rows, i) and (10- i +1, i ) for i = 1,…, 10. Then one amphora for each half-row starting at the border will have been taken. Here, one takes one twentieth of each amphora chosen. . One amphora was tithe but he does no longer know which one, then he takes from each amphora. HALAKHAH: Why does he not take two, and the method proposed is impossible. (Explanation of R. Eliahu Fulda.) ? Rebbi Cohen in the name of the rabbis of Caesarea: When he separated half of the heave from another place. It was stated 5:22–23, which first explains how to take two pitchers and the declarations to make, as in the baraita here. But then there is no disagreement reported but it is stated that the Cohen who drinks must immerse himself not only before drinking but between the drinks and after them, combining the rules of Rebbi and R. Eleazar ben R. Simeon. That Tosephta explains the practical rule and not the background as does the baraita here. Nevertheless, the text of the Tosephta cannot stand as it is in manuscript and print: “The pitchers, one of impure ṭevel tithe, the other of pure ṭevel tithe. He drinks from one and immerses himself, and drinks from the other and immerses himself, and drinks from both of them together, and needs an immersion at the end.” All commentators of the Tosephta feel compelled to rearrange the Tosephta according to the Yerushalmi. : “If there were two amphoras before him, one of pure tithe which was ṭevel and one of impure tithe which was ṭevel , he brings two vessels and takes from each of them heave of the tithe for both of them. He then turns and lifts one vessel and says: If this one is pure, I am making it heave of the tithe; else I did not do anything. Then he turns, does the same for the second vessel, immerses himself and drinks, the words of Rebbi. Rebbi Simeon ben Eleazar says, he takes it only at the end.” What is the reason of Rebbi? I say, maybe he started drinking the impure one first. And what is the reason of Rebbi Eleazar ben Rebbi Simeon? Maybe he drank the impure one at the end. Everybody agrees that he who drinks impure liquids may not even eat heave that is in doubt, about 135 cm) then, by rabbinic decree ( Zavim 5:12), his body becomes impure even if the impurity was only secondary. (Biblical impurity is transferred to a person only by original impurity.) If the impurity is certain, then by rabbinic decree he is impure even if it is in doubt whether the food is heave or not. But if the drink is only suspected of being impure there is no rabbinic decree and impurity is imparted only by original impurity. The discussion here assumes that all impurities discussed are rabbinic in character. . If the liquids were possibly impure, everybody agrees that he may eat what certainly is heave. But here we deal with another Mishnah 5:12. . What is the reason of Rebbi Eleazar ben Rebbi Simeon? Since according to both the impurity is certain, he needs immersion. What is the reason of Rebbi? That he should not be led into drinking a reviït of a questionable liquid. . According to the reason of Rebbi Eleazar ben Rebbi Simeon, he drinks less than a reviït , the other about one who drinks more. . Is Rebbi Eleazar ben Rebbi Simeon not afraid that he would be led into drinking a reviït ? Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, the only explanation you have is our first one. Rebbi is afraid that he drank the impure liquid first and Rebbi Eleazar ben Rebbi Simeon is afraid that he drank the impure liquid at the end.