Yerushalmi Demai 3:4 ירושלמי דמאי ג׳:ד׳

MISHNAH: Wheat brought to be milled⁸⁶Reading of the Venice print and the Leyden manuscript. Most Mishnah manuscripts haveהַמּוֹלִיךְ חִיטָּיו לְטָחוּן כּוּתִי “he who brings his wheat to a Samaritan miller.” This text is also confirmed by Rashi, Giṭṭin 61b. by a Samaritan or by an am haäreẓ remains in its prior state for tithes⁸⁷This must refer to the Second Tithe, since grain from which tithe was not taken is referred to as ṭevel or demay. and Sabbatical year⁸⁸They are not suspected of switching grain they know belongs to a ḥaver.. By a Gentile, it is demay⁸⁹Since he does not care about these things, he will just deliver the correct quantity, irrespective of its source; it may be from the grain delivered by a nonobservant Jew.. Produce deposited with a Samaritan or with an am haäreẓ remains in its prior state for tithes and Sabbatical year; with a Gentile, it is like his produce⁹⁰Produce harvested by a Gentile is not subject to tithes and Sabbatical restrictions. However, produce bought by a Jew before it was warehoused is considered to come under the obligation of tithes when it is stored by the Jew. Hence, it depends on when the Jew acquires the Gentile’s produce and one cannot simply say “obligated” or “not obligated.”. Rebbi Simeon says, it is demay⁹¹If the Gentile accepts produce for storage, he also accepts from nonobservant Jews and may store everything together. R. Simeon holds that the produce of the Gentile is exempt from tithes and heave; hence, his problem is only with Jewish produce in storage. [This is the interpretation of the Yerushalmi; according to the Babli (Menaḥot 67b) R. Simeon holds that the rabbis decreed demay for Gentile produce so that Jewish landowners should not have an incentive to hand their land over to Gentile sharecroppers.].

HALAKHAH: Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan⁹²The text is also in Ketubot 1:10, fol. 25d.: If his box was exchanged at the miller’s, if it was established that an am haäreẓ gave to be milled there that day, he has to worry⁹³He has to worry that the grain is the am haäreẓ’s and therefore demay; then he has to tithe a second time.; otherwise, he does not have to worry. Should he not worry? What is the difference between this and the Saracens? Was it not stated: “If a group of Saracens one day provisioned themselves from forbidden supplies⁹⁴From Jewish suppliers who do not tithe., then that day becomes a proof for all days⁹⁵All the produce they sell is demay even though the greater part of it may be Gentile and exempt. Hence, if we see that an am haäreẓ uses that mill one day, why should we not assume that an am haäreẓ uses it every day?.” It is impossible for Saracens not to supply themselves. But here it was not established that the am haäreẓ was milling there that day⁹⁶The Saracens showed that their persons are not to be trusted. In our case, we know that the am haäreẓ cannot be trusted, which is nothing new and does not need proof. But the mill does not become an amē haäreẓ’ mill by that..

Rebbi Taypha the Red⁹⁷An Amora of the fourth generation, student of R. Abbahu and sometimes mentioned in connection with the Amora R. Yose. in the name of Rebbi Abbahu: Samaritans can be trusted with deposits. Is that not the Mishnah: “With a Samaritan”? Our Mishnah before they became suspect, he comes to tell us even after they became suspect⁹⁸The Yerushalmi always refers the question whether Samaritans are counted as Jews or as Gentiles to the disagreement between Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel and his son Rebbi, as reported below. However, it is stated in ‘Avodah zarah 5:3, fol. 44d (quoted in Babli Ḥulin 6a) that in the times of Rebbis Ammi, Assi, and Abbahu, Samaritans were found to use Gentile wine (or to adopt Gentile behavior), and from that moment on Samaritans were considered as Gentiles. However it seems from the Yerushalmi that up to the end of the Talmudic period in Galilee, the separation of Jews and Samaritans was not universally accepted. (One also may assume that parts of Jewish Sadducee communities changed to a Samaritan affiliation after the destruction of the Temple.). How is it, should he be trusted to say, I took it and replaced it by other deposits that were put in order? If you believe him in that he took it, you should believe him in what he gave. If you do not believe that he took, do not believe that he gave⁹⁹In the Tosephta (Demay 4:22), this argument is given in reference to deposits with an am haäreẓ.. You believe a Samaritan that he gave¹⁰⁰Grain from another source, but you do not believe him that he exchanged. In the Tosephta (Demay4:24) one reads: “If he says, I took it and replaced it with some that was put in order, one does not worry either about tithes or about the Sabbatical.” and you do not believe that he took. Rebbi Jonah asked: What are we talking about? If he says, they are my own, even an am haäreẓ should not be trusted. If he says, X¹⁰¹A person recognized as a ḥaver. took tithes for me, even the Samaritan should be believed. Rebbi Abba said, explain it according to him who says that a Samaritan is like a Gentile. As they disagreed: A Samaritan is like a Gentile, the words of Rebbi. Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel said, a Samaritan is like a Jew in every respect.

Here you say, “by a Gentile miller, they are demay,” there you say, “with a Gentile, they are like his produce.” In the first case, a box among boxes¹⁰²The miller may mistakenly have given his customers a wrong box. In the second sentence of the Mishnah, the produce is stored not in separate boxes but with the Gentile’s produce., there, produce among his produce.

Rebbi Jeremiah asked before Rebbi Zeïra¹⁰⁴The better reading is: R. Ḥanania before R. Mana; see the preceding note.: Does it mean, really like his produce? Freeing what would be ṭevel at another place¹⁰⁵It would be a cheap way of tithing to deposit one’s produce with a Gentile and then reclaiming it without taking heave and tithes!? He said to him, for all that is in it¹⁰⁶It is only equal to the Gentile’s produce if it is in it, i. e., if the produce was in order it does not become even demay at the Gentile’s, but it cannot lose its status of either demay or ṭevel.. Rebbi Ḥanina was uselessly opposing Rebbi Aḥa¹⁰⁷As explained above, this might be “R. Mana.”.

Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abin in the name of Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina: Rebbi Simeon said, only for one box. If he handed over two boxes, one of them is demay and one is certain¹⁰⁸We have to assume that here, “certain” does not mean that certainly the heave of the tithe was not taken, but to the contrary, that all heave and tithes were taken and the produce is ready to eat. if they are still in existence¹⁰⁹Then one remains demay and one is certain.; but if the first one was consumed, the second one is demay¹¹⁰We do not say that this may be the one which was put in order.. If a hundred people took from him 100 seah at one time, each one puts his produce in order as demay. If they gave it all to one person, it should be considered as certain¹¹¹Since R. Simeon suspects the Gentile only to substitute at most one box; if there are 100, of which 99 are in order, there is no reason to treat this as demay.. If one person took many seot together, the first one is demay, the rest certain. If he then gave the rest to a hundred people, it should be considered as certain. Did we not state in the name of Rebbi Simeon in the name of Rebbi Ṭarphon: “They made the produce of this Jew like the produce of that Samaritan¹¹²In the Tosephta (Demay 4:25): “Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel and Rebbi Simeon: The Jew’s produce made this Gentile’s produce demay.” The word “Samaritan” in the Yerushalmi seems to be a scribal error. The question is about the interpretation of the Tosephta (or an equivalent baraita), and the answer is that the Tosephta is exactly parallel to the Mishnah and gives the reason for the Mishnah, but it does not extend R. Simeon’s disagreement with the Tanna of the Mishnah., demay.” That again is the same; Rebbi Simeon said, only for one box.

“¹¹⁴Toesephta Demay 1:12–14 {commentary in braces}: “12. A storage facility into which Jews and Gentiles contribute; if the majority are Gentile it is certain, if the majority are Jewish, it is demay; these are the words of R. Meïr {who holds that produce of the Holy Land is subject to heave and tithes even if grown by a Gentile.} But the Sages say, it is demay even if all the contributors are Gentile except one Jew {since produce of the Holy Land is not subject to heave and tithes if grown by a Gentile.} 13. Rebbi Yose said, when are these words said, for a private storage facility, but at a government storage facility {for storing taxes paid in kind} one follows the majority. They said to him, you taught us about the storage facility of Jabneh, which is inside the walls, that it is demay, and most of the contributors are Samaritans {who are subject to tithes but certainly will not tithe what they personally do not use}; but a storage facility outside the Land, e. g., that of Ragab {a place in Jordan} is obligated only according to percentages {of the supply coming from the Land.} 13. Rebbi Joshua ben Qabusai said, all my life I read this verse (Num. 19:19): ‘The pure shall sprinkle on the impure,’ and I did not understand it until the storage at Jabneh; I learned from the storage facility at Jabneh that one pure person sprinkles on many impure persons.” Rebbi Joshua ben Qabusai¹¹⁵A Tanna of the Fourth generation, son-in-law of R. Aqiba. His father-in-law considers Samaritans as true converts (Babli Qiddušin 75b) but thinks one cannot intermarry with them because of their deviating interpretation of some incest prohibitions. said, all my life I read this verse (Num.19:19): ‘The pure shall sprinkle on the impure,’ that one pure person sprinkles on one impure person, until I learned it from the storage facility at Jabneh. This means that one pure person sprinkles on many impure persons.¹¹⁶Since one rabbinic Jew makes demay in the presence of many Samaritans.
{In the Babli, Nazir 61b, the verse is taken to mean that only a person who may become impure by Biblical standards, i. e., a Jew, can sprinkle the water with the ashes of the red heifer to cleanse another Jew from the impurity of the dead. In Sifry,Num.129, R. Aqiba infers that the water was purifying only if a pure person sprinkles on an impure one but sprinkling on a pure person makes him impure. This is accepted by the Yerushalmi, Yoma 1:2 (fol. 38d); a Babli source (Yoma 14a) quotes and follows a dissenting opinion of the Sages. Sifry zuta,Ḥuqqat 19, notes that only a pure person becomes impure; a person impure but not through a corpse is not influenced by being sprinkled. Since Sifry zuta in general follows R. Ismael, this supports the position of the Yerushalmi that R. Aqiba’s statement is accepted by everybody.}”

“But the Sages say, it is demay even if all the contributors are Gentile except one Jew¹¹⁷Tosephta 1:12, given above.”. But we have stated: “With a Gentile, they are like his produce¹¹⁸Why is it not demay as in a storage facility?.” Rebbi Eleazar said, the Sages who follow the line of Rebbi Meïr. Rebbi Joḥanan said, these are really the Sages¹¹⁹They disagree with R. Meïr on the status of Gentile-grown produce and hold that it is exempt from all tithes.. They asked him, what is the reason? He told them, if you get whitehaired, I might tell you¹²⁰But by that time, R. Johanan would have died long ago.. What would he have told them? That they accepted tithes voluntarily¹²¹The returnees from Babylonia accepted the obligation of tithes voluntarily, since these obligations were originally bound to the land distributed by Joshua, and that distribution was obliterated by the exile. See the author’s The Scholar’s Haggadah, Northvale NJ 1995, p. 280–281. Since the obligation is similar in nature to a rabbinic ordinance, it follows the rules of leniency valid for such ordinances.. Samuel bar Abba¹²²The Babylonian Sage Samuel. asked: It is understandable that he did not tell them about pure food, because of a fence for pure food¹²³He did not want to imply that heave does not have to be watched according to the standards of Biblical purity because of its rabbinic status, because then they would have disregarded the rules of purity altogether. The same applies to the tithes.. He did not tell them about tithes, as a fence for tithes. He did not tell them about sacrifices; if he had told them, what would he have told them¹²⁴They seemed to have asked about some leniencies in the treatment of Gentiles’ sacrifices; the question is not preserved. Samuel asked, why did he not answer that question since the answer could not have any practical consequence.? For tithes, following him¹²⁶“Practice” in the language of the Yerushalmi is similar to the notion of “practice going back to Moses on Mount Sinai” in the Babli; it means a rule established by the returnees from Babylonia, the “Men of the Great Assembly,” as part of the establishment of rabbinic Judaism. It is part of the original decree of demay. who says that they accepted tithes voluntarily.

Rebbi Jeremiah, Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Rebbi Simeon agrees that one must separate tithes as a matter of practice¹²⁶“Practice” in the language of the Yerushalmi is similar to the notion of “practice going back to Moses on Mount Sinai” in the Babli; it means a rule established by the returnees from Babylonia, the “Men of the Great Assembly,” as part of the establishment of rabbinic Judaism. It is part of the original decree of demay.. Hence, Rebbi Simeon says that one separates, and the rabbis say that one saparates¹²⁷Assuming that the statement of R. Joḥanan refers to the Mishnah, viz., that the Sages say produce deposited with a Gentile is like his own produce, the assertion that R. Simeon requires tithing is trivial since demay certainly must be tithed. The only inference to be drawn is from “agrees”, which would imply that the Sages also require tithing and that the declaration of “his own produce” can only be used in a negative, not in a positive sense. Hence, the Sages also require tithing.

.What is the difference between them? Rebbi Simeon says, he separates and takes money from the tribe¹²⁸He separates heave of the tithe and sells it (cheaply, because there are few qualified buyers) to the Cohen. The Sages would require the heave to be given as a gift.. The rabbis say that he separates and does not take money from the tribe. But is it not even like heave from outside the Land, does he not take money from the tribe¹²⁹In those parts of the Land conquered and sanctified by Moses and Joshua but not settled by the returnees from Babylonia, heave and tithes were taken as a remembrance and sold to the Cohanim. Outside the Biblical boundaries, no heave was ever taken (and could not be taken because that land is impure.)? Maybe it was said on the principle of ṭevel for produce of the Gentile¹³⁰The statement of R. Joḥanan never was meant as commentary on our Mishnah but as a remark on the status of produce grown by a Gentile in the Land of Israel. Hence, the inference about the stand taken by the Sages in our Mishnah is invalid.? Since we have stated: Rebbi Jehudah and Rebbi Simeon say, a Gentile may acquire real estate in the Land of Israel to free it from the tithes imposed on it¹³¹They disagree with R. Meïr who holds that all land in the Land of Israel is subject to heave and tithes, irrespective of the owner; cf. Peah Chapter 4, Notes 129–131.. Rebbi Jeremiah, Rebbi Ḥiyya. in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Rebbi Simeon agrees that nevertheless he¹³²The Jew who buys produce grown in the Land by a Gentile. This obligation is one of tradition. must separate tithes as a matter of practice.