Talmud Yerushalmi
Yerushalmi Demai 4:1 ירושלמי דמאי ד׳:א׳
Part of: Chapter 4
Reading: Hebrew · Simple EnglishHebrew · Faithful translationHebrew onlyHebrew · Simple EnglishHebrew · Faithful translationHebrew onlySimple English onlyFaithful translation onlySide by side
משנה: הַלּוֹקֵחַ פֵּירוֹת מִמִּי שֶׁאֵינוֹ נֶאֱמָן עַל הַמַּעְשְׂרוֹת וְשָׁכַח לְעַשְּׂרָן שׁוֹאֲלוֹ בְשַׁבָּת וְאוֹכֵל עַל פִּיו. חֲשֵׁיכָה מוֹצָאֵי שַׁבָּת לֹא יֹאכַל עַד שֶׁיְּעַשֵּׂר. לֹא מְצָאוֹ אָמַר לוֹ אֶחָד שֶׁאֵינוֹ נֶאֱמָן עַל הַמַּעְשְׂרוֹת מְעוּשָּׂרִין הֵן אוֹכֵל עַל פִּיו. חֲשֵׁיכָה מוֹצָאֵי שַׁבָּת לֹא יֹאכַל עַד שֶׁיְּעַשֵּׂר. תְּרוּמַת מַעֲשֵׂר שֶׁל דְּמַאי שֶׁחָזְרָה לִמְקוֹמָהּ רִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן הַשְּׁזוּרִי אוֹמֵר אַף בְּחוֹל שׁוֹאֲלוֹ וְאוֹכֵל עַל פִּיו.
MISHNAH: He who buys produce from a person who is not trustworthy for tithes and forgot to tithe them1Friday afternoon, and now, on the Sabbath, he has no other produce to eat. may ask the seller on the Sabbath and eats on the seller’s information2Even though on weekdays, when tithing is possible, the seller’s information would not be trusted.. At nightfall, when Sabbath ends, he may not eat until he tithed.
If he did not find the seller, but another person who is not trustworthy for tithes told him that it is tithed, he may eat on that information10On the Sabbath only.. At nightfall when Sabbath ends, he may not eat until he tithed.
Heave of the tithe that returned to its origin25If heave falls into profane food of the same kind, the entire lot cannot be eaten except by Cohanim. If heave falls into ṭevel, in general the produce cannot be fixed since heave cannot be used to take heave for other produce. (If the heave which falls into profane food is less than .99%, something can be done.) All rules are given in Terumot 5. If heave of the tithe falls into the produce from which it was taken, there results a major complication and a potential great monetary loss since Cohanim will pay little for produce containing heave. If the heave should be impure, the entire batch would be a total loss since, in the case which is described in the Mishnah, the heave (1%) falls into the remainder (99%) and, therefore, is turning everything into dema‘. In that case, and since most amē haäreẓ are supposed to tithe, if the untrustworthy seller asserts that heave was taken, no heave fell into the produce and all is permitted for profane use.. Rebbi Simeon from Shezur26A Tanna, student of Rebbis Joshua, Eliezer, and Tarphon from lower Galilee, today’s village of Sejur. said, even on weekdays he asks the seller and eats on his information.
MISHNAH: He who buys produce from a person who is not trustworthy for tithes and forgot to tithe them1Friday afternoon, and now, on the Sabbath, he has no other produce to eat. may ask the seller on the Sabbath and eats on the seller’s information2Even though on weekdays, when tithing is possible, the seller’s information would not be trusted.. At nightfall, when Sabbath ends, he may not eat until he tithed.
If he did not find the seller, but another person who is not trustworthy for tithes told him that it is tithed, he may eat on that information10On the Sabbath only.. At nightfall when Sabbath ends, he may not eat until he tithed.
Heave of the tithe that returned to its origin25If heave falls into profane food of the same kind, the entire lot cannot be eaten except by Cohanim. If heave falls into ṭevel, in general the produce cannot be fixed since heave cannot be used to take heave for other produce. (If the heave which falls into profane food is less than .99%, something can be done.) All rules are given in Terumot 5. If heave of the tithe falls into the produce from which it was taken, there results a major complication and a potential great monetary loss since Cohanim will pay little for produce containing heave. If the heave should be impure, the entire batch would be a total loss since, in the case which is described in the Mishnah, the heave (1%) falls into the remainder (99%) and, therefore, is turning everything into dema‘. In that case, and since most amē haäreẓ are supposed to tithe, if the untrustworthy seller asserts that heave was taken, no heave fell into the produce and all is permitted for profane use.. Rebbi Simeon from Shezur26A Tanna, student of Rebbis Joshua, Eliezer, and Tarphon from lower Galilee, today’s village of Sejur. said, even on weekdays he asks the seller and eats on his information.
הלכה: חֲבֵרָיָא בְשֵׁם רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן מִפְּנֵי כְבוֹד שַׁבָּת הִתִּירוּ. אִם מִפְּנֵי כְבוֹד שַׁבָּת לָמָּה לִי שׁוֹאֲלוֹ. עַל יְדֵי עִילֵּי עִילָּה. רִבִּי בִּיבִי בְשֵׁם רִבִּי חֲנִינָא אֵימַת שַׁבָּת עָלָיו וְהוּא אוֹמֵר אֱמֶת. וְאִם אֵימַת שַׁבָּת עָלָיו בְּדָה תַנֵּינָן חֲשֵׁיכָה מוֹצָאֵי שַׁבָּת לֹא יֹאכַל עַד שֶׁיְּעַשֵּׂר. מִפְּנֵי אֶחָד שֶׁאֵין אֵימַת שַׁבָּת עָלָיו. תַּנִּי שׁוֹאֲלוֹ בְחוֹל לֹא יֹאכַל בְּשַׁבָּת. מָאן דְּאָמַר אֵימַת שַׁבָּת עָלָיו נִיחָא. מָאן דְּאָמַר מִפְּנֵי כְבוֹד שַׁבָּת אֲפִילוּ שׁוֹאֲלוֹ בְחוֹל יֹאכַל בְּשַׁבָּת.
HALAKHAH: The colleagues in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: They permitted it because of the glory of the Sabbath. If it is because of the glory of the Sabbath, why does he have to ask him4Since the seller is not trustworthy, his testimony is irrelevant. The answer is that some reason must be given to lift the strict rules of demay if those rules should be followed at all.? By way of finding a cause. Rebbi Bibi in the name of Rebbi Ḥanina: The fear of the Sabbath is on him5On the am haäreẓ, who will not desecrate the Sabbath. and he will speak the truth. If the fear of the Sabbath is on him, why did we state that at nightfall, when the Sabbath ends, he may not eat until he tithed? Because of one who does not fear the Sabbath. It was stated6Tosephta Demay 5:1.: “If he asks him on weekdays, he may not eat on the Sabbath.” According to him who says that the fear of the Sabbath is on him, this is fine. According to him who says that it is because of the glory of the Sabbath; when he asks him on weekdays, should he not eat on the Sabbath7R. Joḥanan’s argument seems weak. But in the next Halakhah, the tables are turned.?
HALAKHAH: The colleagues in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: They permitted it because of the glory of the Sabbath. If it is because of the glory of the Sabbath, why does he have to ask him4Since the seller is not trustworthy, his testimony is irrelevant. The answer is that some reason must be given to lift the strict rules of demay if those rules should be followed at all.? By way of finding a cause. Rebbi Bibi in the name of Rebbi Ḥanina: The fear of the Sabbath is on him5On the am haäreẓ, who will not desecrate the Sabbath. and he will speak the truth. If the fear of the Sabbath is on him, why did we state that at nightfall, when the Sabbath ends, he may not eat until he tithed? Because of one who does not fear the Sabbath. It was stated6Tosephta Demay 5:1.: “If he asks him on weekdays, he may not eat on the Sabbath.” According to him who says that the fear of the Sabbath is on him, this is fine. According to him who says that it is because of the glory of the Sabbath; when he asks him on weekdays, should he not eat on the Sabbath7R. Joḥanan’s argument seems weak. But in the next Halakhah, the tables are turned.?
לֹא אָמַר אֶלָּא שׁוֹגֵג. הָא מֵזִיד אָסוּר דְּתַנֵּינָן שָׁכַח לְעַשְּׂרָן כְּשֶׁאֵין עִמּוֹ תְּנַאי אֲבָל אִם יֵשׁ עִמּוֹ תְּנַאי אוֹכֵל עַל תְּנָאוֹ שֶׁל חֲבֵירוֹ.
It was stated only for someone acting in error, not intentionally, as we have stated: If he forgot to tithe8The leniencies are only admitted if somebody actually forgot to prepare, not if it was an intentional effort to seek leniencies., if he had made no previous stipulation9This is explained in Mishnah 7:1: If somebody is invited to eat at another person’s house and he does not trust his host with tithes, he can stipulate that after he returns home he will give tithes on what he ate there. While such a condition is forbidden for ṭevel, where heave can be given only from what clearly is in the tither’s possession, this kind of stipulation is permitted for demay. It is even permitted for one person to make the stipulation for a whole group of people eating together.. But with a stipulation, one eats even on the stipulation by a friend.
It was stated only for someone acting in error, not intentionally, as we have stated: If he forgot to tithe8The leniencies are only admitted if somebody actually forgot to prepare, not if it was an intentional effort to seek leniencies., if he had made no previous stipulation9This is explained in Mishnah 7:1: If somebody is invited to eat at another person’s house and he does not trust his host with tithes, he can stipulate that after he returns home he will give tithes on what he ate there. While such a condition is forbidden for ṭevel, where heave can be given only from what clearly is in the tither’s possession, this kind of stipulation is permitted for demay. It is even permitted for one person to make the stipulation for a whole group of people eating together.. But with a stipulation, one eats even on the stipulation by a friend.
מַהוּ שֶׁיֹּאכַל עַל שְׁאֵילַת חֲבֵירוֹ. הֵיךְ עֲבִידָא לָקְחוּ מִמֶּנּוּ שְׁנֵי בְנֵי אָדָם כְּאַחַת שָׁאֲלוֹ עַל אַחַת מֵהֶן הַשֵּׁנִי לֹא יֹאכַל עַד שֶׁיְּעֲשֵּׂר וְעַד שֶׁיִּשְׁאָלֶנּוּ. אֲנִי אוֹמֵר שֶׁל זֶה עִישֵּׂר וְשֶׁל זֶה לֹא עִישֵּׂר. לָקַח מִמֶּנּוּ אָדָם אֶחָד שְׁתֵּי כַלְכָּלוֹת כְּאַחַת שָׁאֲלוֹ עַל אַחַת מֵהֶן הַשְּׁנִיָיה לֹא יֹאכַל עַד שֶׁיְּעַשֵּׂר וְעַד שֶׁיִּשְׁאָלֶנּוּ אֲנִי אוֹמֵר זֶה עִישֵּׂר וְזֶה אֵינוֹ עִישֵּׂר. חֲשֵׁיכָה מוֹצָאֵי שַׁבָּת מְעַשֵּׂר מִזֶּה עַל זֶה. מָאן דְּאָמַר מִפְּנֵי כְבוֹד שַׁבָּת נִיחָא. וּמָאן דְּאָמַר מִפְּנֵי שֶׁאֵימַת שַׁבָּת עָלָיו לָמָּה לִי מְעַשֵּׂר מִזֶּה עַל זֶה.
May one eat on the question of another person? How is that understood? If two persons bought at the same time from him11In the first two sentences, “he” and “him” always refer to the seller; in the last three to the buyer., if one of them asked him, the other may not eat until he tithed or also asked; I say he tithed one batch, but not the other. If one person bought from him two fig cakes and asked him about one of them, he may not eat from the second cake until he tithed or asked him; I say that he tithed one but not the other. At nightfall when Sabbath ends, he tithes from one on the other. According to him who says that it is because of the glory of the Sabbath, this is fine13We might assume that the leniencies expressed in the first two Mishnaiot apply only where the Sabbath enjoyment would be severely curtailed because nothing of the same kind is available in the buyer’s house. However, even if other produce of the same kind is available the taste of that particular bunch might be preferred.. According to him who says that the fear of the Sabbath is on him, why should he be able to tithe from one on the other?
May one eat on the question of another person? How is that understood? If two persons bought at the same time from him11In the first two sentences, “he” and “him” always refer to the seller; in the last three to the buyer., if one of them asked him, the other may not eat until he tithed or also asked; I say he tithed one batch, but not the other. If one person bought from him two fig cakes and asked him about one of them, he may not eat from the second cake until he tithed or asked him; I say that he tithed one but not the other. At nightfall when Sabbath ends, he tithes from one on the other. According to him who says that it is because of the glory of the Sabbath, this is fine13We might assume that the leniencies expressed in the first two Mishnaiot apply only where the Sabbath enjoyment would be severely curtailed because nothing of the same kind is available in the buyer’s house. However, even if other produce of the same kind is available the taste of that particular bunch might be preferred.. According to him who says that the fear of the Sabbath is on him, why should he be able to tithe from one on the other?
עַד כְּדוֹן בְּשֶׁאֵין לוֹ מֵאוֹתוֹ הַמִּין. וַאֲפִילוּ יֵשׁ לוֹ מֵאוֹתוֹ הַמִּין. הֵי צַד תִּאוּב.
So far, if he has nothing of the same kind13We might assume that the leniencies expressed in the first two Mishnaiot apply only where the Sabbath enjoyment would be severely curtailed because nothing of the same kind is available in the buyer’s house. However, even if other produce of the same kind is available the taste of that particular bunch might be preferred.. Even if he has of the same kind, that is a matter of preference.
So far, if he has nothing of the same kind13We might assume that the leniencies expressed in the first two Mishnaiot apply only where the Sabbath enjoyment would be severely curtailed because nothing of the same kind is available in the buyer’s house. However, even if other produce of the same kind is available the taste of that particular bunch might be preferred.. Even if he has of the same kind, that is a matter of preference.
יוֹם טוֹב שֶׁהוּא סָמוּךְ לַשַּׁבָּת בֵּין מִלְּפָנֶיהָ בֵּין מִלְּאַחֲרֶיהָ וְכֵן שְׁנֵי יָמִים טוֹבִים שֶׁל גָּלִיּוֹת. מָאן דְּאָמַר קְדוּשָׁה אַחַת הִיא אוֹכֵל. מָאן דְּאָמַר שְׁתֵּי קְדוּשׁוֹת הֵן אֵינוֹ אוֹכֵל. אֲפִילוּ לְמָאן דְּאָמַר שְׁתֵּי קְדוּשׁוֹת הֵן אוֹכֵל עַד שֶׁלֹּא נִרְאֶה לְעַשֵּׂר בֵּנְתַיִם. וְתַנִּי כֵן שׁוֹאֲלוֹ בְיוֹם טוֹב אוֹכֵל בַּשַּׁבָּת. בַּשַּׁבָּת אוֹכֵל בְּיוֹם טוֹב. רִבִּי יוֹנָה בְשֵׁם רִבִּי זְעִירָא תִּיפְתָּר בְּפֵירוֹת שֶׁנִּסְמְכָה דַעְתּוֹ עֲלֵיהֶן מֵעֶרֶב שַׁבָּת. אֲבָל בְּפֵירוֹת שֶׁלֹּא נִסְמְכָה דַעְתּוֹ עֲלֵיהֶן מֵעֶרֶב שַׁבָּת לֹא בְדָא. אָמַר רִבִּי מָנָא מִילֵּיהוֹן דְּרַבָּנִין מְסַיְיעִין לְרִבִּי יוֹנָה אַבָּא. דְּתַנֵּינָן תַּמָּן הַמַּדִּיר אֶת חֲבֵירוֹ שֶׁיֹּאכַל אֶצְלוֹ וְהוּא אֵינוֹ מַאֲמִינוֹ עַל הַמַּעְשְׂרוֹת. רִבִּי יַנַּאי בֵּי רִבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל בְּשֵׁם רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן בְּשַׁבָּת שֶׁל פְּרוֹטָגַּמִּיָיא הִתִּירוּ מִפְּנֵי אֵיבָה. בְּשַׁבָּת שֶׁל פְּרוֹטָגַּמִּיָיא לֹא כְפֵירוֹת שֶׁנִּסְמְכָה דַעְתּוֹ עֲלֵיהֶן מֵעֶרֶב שַׁבָּת הִיא. לֹא אָמַר אֶלָּא מִפְּנֵי אֵיבָה.
A holiday next to the Sabbath, be it before the Sabbath or after the Sabbath, and likewise the two holidays of the diaspora, according to him who says they are one sanctity, he may eat; according to him who says that they are two sanctities, he may not eat14Everybody agrees that the sanctity of Sabbath is greater than the sanctity of holidays and that the sanctity of the Biblical first day of holidays is greater than that of the rabbinic second day of the diaspora. Here the question is whether these different degrees of sanctity fit together smoothly or whether there is a clean break between them even if that break has no temporal extension. The problem is discussed in Erubin 3, fol. 21b, and Yom Tov 1:1, fol. 60a, Babli Erubin 38a–39a, in connection with eruv teḥumin as explained in Peah, Chapter Eight, Note 56. The question is now whether one may make one eruv for the Sabbath and another one for another direction for the Sunday following which is a holiday. If the sanctities fit together smoothly, this is not possible. If there is a clean break, it is possible.. Even according to him who says that they are two sanctities, he may eat as long as there was no possibility to tithe between them15Even if it is possible to have two eruvin, it certainly is not possible to tithe. Hence, there is no legal “nightfall after the Sabbath” as envisaged by the Mishnah.. It was stated16Tosephta Demay 5:1.: “If he asks him on the holiday, he eats on the Sabbath; if he asks him on the Sabbath, he eats on the holiday.” Rebbi Jonah in the name of Rebbi Zeïra, explain it regarding produce he had intended to use on Sabbath eve. But produce he had not intended on Sabbath eve (to use during the Sabbath) is not included17One cannot extend the validity of the query of an untrustworthy person beyond the original intent.. Rebbi Mana said, the words of the rabbis support Rebbi Jonah, my father, since we have stated there18Mishnah 4:4: If an am haäreẓ declares that under the penalties of breaking a vow he will have no relations with the other person, a ḥaver, unless that other person comes to his house to eat with him on the Sabbath but the ḥaver does not trust the am haäreẓ with the tithes, the ḥaver may eat at am haäreẓ’s the place the first Sabbath even though he is not trustworthy for tithes, on condition that he tell him that all is tithed. On the second Sabbath, even though he makes a vow to abstain from all benefit from him, he shall not eat until he tithed. {Since tithing must be done before the Sabbath, it seems that the question also must be asked before the Sabbath.} This somewhat contrasts with Mishnah 7:1: “One who is invited by a person whom he does not trust with tithes says on Friday afternoon: Anything that I shall in the future separate for what I am going to eat shall be First and Second Tithes. The First Tithe shall become the heave of the tithe and the Second Tithe shall be redeemed with coins.” Hence, it is possible to tithe mentally under the right circumstances. In the case of a holiday following a Sabbath, if one is mentally prepared, one may transfer the permission of Sabbath to the holiday.: “He who takes a vow regarding his friend that he will eat at his place but he does not trust him with the tithes.” Rebbi Yannai ben Rebbi Ismaël in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: On the Sabbath of the preliminary marriage19πρωτογαμία, ἡ, Greek word in a Latin inscription from Carthage, “the Jewish celebration of the preliminary marriage” (cf. Peah, Chapter 6, Note 46). A big meal was given for the community on the Sabbath preceding קידושין and not to appear would have been an insult to the families of the young couple. The invited guest could retroactively tithe what he ate, according to Mishnah 7:1. If he forgot, he could rely on the assertion of the untrustworthy.
In medieval Germany, the festivity was called spinholz (from Italian sposalizio). they permitted because of hatred. Is the Sabbath of the preliminary marriage not comparable to produce that on Sabbath eve he intended to use (later on the Sabbath)20Since he already knew on Friday that he had to attend.? Nevertheless, he21R. Joḥanan said, if it were not necessary for peace in the community, the rabbis would not have permitted to accept the word of an untrustworthy person. Similarly, the permission to use on holidays the assertion of tithes by an untrustworthy person given on the Sabbath must be restricted to food also intended for the Sabbath. only said “because of hatred.”
A holiday next to the Sabbath, be it before the Sabbath or after the Sabbath, and likewise the two holidays of the diaspora, according to him who says they are one sanctity, he may eat; according to him who says that they are two sanctities, he may not eat14Everybody agrees that the sanctity of Sabbath is greater than the sanctity of holidays and that the sanctity of the Biblical first day of holidays is greater than that of the rabbinic second day of the diaspora. Here the question is whether these different degrees of sanctity fit together smoothly or whether there is a clean break between them even if that break has no temporal extension. The problem is discussed in Erubin 3, fol. 21b, and Yom Tov 1:1, fol. 60a, Babli Erubin 38a–39a, in connection with eruv teḥumin as explained in Peah, Chapter Eight, Note 56. The question is now whether one may make one eruv for the Sabbath and another one for another direction for the Sunday following which is a holiday. If the sanctities fit together smoothly, this is not possible. If there is a clean break, it is possible.. Even according to him who says that they are two sanctities, he may eat as long as there was no possibility to tithe between them15Even if it is possible to have two eruvin, it certainly is not possible to tithe. Hence, there is no legal “nightfall after the Sabbath” as envisaged by the Mishnah.. It was stated16Tosephta Demay 5:1.: “If he asks him on the holiday, he eats on the Sabbath; if he asks him on the Sabbath, he eats on the holiday.” Rebbi Jonah in the name of Rebbi Zeïra, explain it regarding produce he had intended to use on Sabbath eve. But produce he had not intended on Sabbath eve (to use during the Sabbath) is not included17One cannot extend the validity of the query of an untrustworthy person beyond the original intent.. Rebbi Mana said, the words of the rabbis support Rebbi Jonah, my father, since we have stated there18Mishnah 4:4: If an am haäreẓ declares that under the penalties of breaking a vow he will have no relations with the other person, a ḥaver, unless that other person comes to his house to eat with him on the Sabbath but the ḥaver does not trust the am haäreẓ with the tithes, the ḥaver may eat at am haäreẓ’s the place the first Sabbath even though he is not trustworthy for tithes, on condition that he tell him that all is tithed. On the second Sabbath, even though he makes a vow to abstain from all benefit from him, he shall not eat until he tithed. {Since tithing must be done before the Sabbath, it seems that the question also must be asked before the Sabbath.} This somewhat contrasts with Mishnah 7:1: “One who is invited by a person whom he does not trust with tithes says on Friday afternoon: Anything that I shall in the future separate for what I am going to eat shall be First and Second Tithes. The First Tithe shall become the heave of the tithe and the Second Tithe shall be redeemed with coins.” Hence, it is possible to tithe mentally under the right circumstances. In the case of a holiday following a Sabbath, if one is mentally prepared, one may transfer the permission of Sabbath to the holiday.: “He who takes a vow regarding his friend that he will eat at his place but he does not trust him with the tithes.” Rebbi Yannai ben Rebbi Ismaël in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: On the Sabbath of the preliminary marriage19πρωτογαμία, ἡ, Greek word in a Latin inscription from Carthage, “the Jewish celebration of the preliminary marriage” (cf. Peah, Chapter 6, Note 46). A big meal was given for the community on the Sabbath preceding קידושין and not to appear would have been an insult to the families of the young couple. The invited guest could retroactively tithe what he ate, according to Mishnah 7:1. If he forgot, he could rely on the assertion of the untrustworthy.
In medieval Germany, the festivity was called spinholz (from Italian sposalizio). they permitted because of hatred. Is the Sabbath of the preliminary marriage not comparable to produce that on Sabbath eve he intended to use (later on the Sabbath)20Since he already knew on Friday that he had to attend.? Nevertheless, he21R. Joḥanan said, if it were not necessary for peace in the community, the rabbis would not have permitted to accept the word of an untrustworthy person. Similarly, the permission to use on holidays the assertion of tithes by an untrustworthy person given on the Sabbath must be restricted to food also intended for the Sabbath. only said “because of hatred.”
שָׁאֲלוֹ שַׁבָּת הָרִאשׁוֹנָה וְלֹא בָא הַשְּׁנִיָיה לֹא יֹאכַל עַד שֶׁיְּעַשֵּׂר אוֹ עַד שֶׁיִּשְׁאָלֶנּוּ. וְלֹא כְבָר שָׁאֲלוֹ. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹנָה תַּמָּן בְּהַהוּא דְּשָׁאַל עַל נַפְשֵׁיהּ. בְּרַם הָכָא בְּהַהוּא דְשָׁאַל חוֹרָן עָלוֹי.
If he invited him the first Sabbath but he did not come, the second time he should not eat unless he tithes or asks him22Mishnah 4:4 states that on the first Sabbath he actually eats there he may rely on his host’s word. But the second time around, the untrustworthy person’s word is not good enough. Why is it accepted here since actually it is now the second time that the guest asks about tithing? The answer is that the first question did not concern him personally since he was somehow prevented from attending the meal.. Did he not already ask him? Rebbi Jonah said, there he asked for himself. But here a third party asked about it.
If he invited him the first Sabbath but he did not come, the second time he should not eat unless he tithes or asks him22Mishnah 4:4 states that on the first Sabbath he actually eats there he may rely on his host’s word. But the second time around, the untrustworthy person’s word is not good enough. Why is it accepted here since actually it is now the second time that the guest asks about tithing? The answer is that the first question did not concern him personally since he was somehow prevented from attending the meal.. Did he not already ask him? Rebbi Jonah said, there he asked for himself. But here a third party asked about it.
וְרִבִּי יוֹנָה בְּעֵי מַהוּ שֶׁיִּשְׁאָלֶנּוּ דֶּרֶךְ עֲקַלָּתוֹן. רִבִּי יוֹנָה כְדַעְתֵּיהּ. רִבִּי יוֹנָה זְבַן חִיטֵּי מִן דְּבַר חֲקוּלָא נְפַק לְגַבֵּיהּ אֲמַר לָיהּ לָא דְאֲנָא חֲשֵׁיד לָךְ. אֶלָּא בְגִין דִּזְבַנִּית מִינָּךְ חִטִּין וַחֲמִית אוֹכְלוֹסָא עָלָךְ וְאָמְרִית דִּילְמָא דְּאַנְשִׁיתֵיהּ מְתַקְּנָהּ מְתַקְּנָן הֲוִיָין. טְעַן מְחַזְּקָה עָלוֹי אֲמַר לֵיהּ מַה אַתְּ חֲשַׁד לִי.
Rebbi Jonah asked: May he ask him in a roundabout way? Rebbi Jonah asks in this way. Rebbi Jonah bought wheat from Bar Ḥaqulah. He went to him and said, not that I suspect you, but since I bought wheat from you and I saw a multitude24Greek ὄχλος “multitude, troups” (Berakhot, p. 612). with you, I said maybe you forgot to put them in order. Were they put in order? He complained strongly about him and said: Why do you suspect me?
Rebbi Jonah asked: May he ask him in a roundabout way? Rebbi Jonah asks in this way. Rebbi Jonah bought wheat from Bar Ḥaqulah. He went to him and said, not that I suspect you, but since I bought wheat from you and I saw a multitude24Greek ὄχλος “multitude, troups” (Berakhot, p. 612). with you, I said maybe you forgot to put them in order. Were they put in order? He complained strongly about him and said: Why do you suspect me?
תַּנִּי תְּרוּמַת מַעֲשֵׂר שֶׁל דְּמַיי שֶׁחָזְרָה לִמְקוֹמָהּ מְדַמַּעַת שֶׁלֹּא לִמְקוֹמָהּ אֵינָהּ מְדַמַּעַת. רִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֵר בֵּין לִמְקוֹמָהּ בֵּין שֶׁלֹּא לִמְקוֹמָהּ אֵינָהּ מְדַמַּעַת. רִבִּי בוּן בַּר חִיָיא בְּעָא קוֹמֵי רִבִּי זְעִירָא מָאן דְּאָמַר מְדַמַּעַת מְדַמַּעַת. וּשְׁאֵינָהּ מְדַמַּעַת אֵינָהּ מְדַמַּעַת נִיחָא. מַאן דְּאָמַר לִמְקוֹמָהּ מְדַמַּעַת שֶׁלֹּא לִמְקוֹמָהּ אֵינָהּ מְדַמַּעַת. מַה בֵּין לִמְקוֹמָהּ מַה בֵּין שֶׁלֹּא לִמְקוֹמָהּ. עָל רִבִּי חַגַּיי. אָמְרִין. בְּדֵין הוּא מֵימַר מֹשֶׁה דַּאֲנָא אֲמַר טַעֲמָא אֲמַר מֹשֶׁה דַּאֲנָא אֲמַר טַעֲמָא מַאן דְּאָמַר מְדַמַּעַת שֶׁהִיא מַתֶּרֶת אֶת הַשְּׁיָרַיִים לַאֲכִילָה. מָאן דְּאָמַר אֵינָהּ מְדַמַּעַת שֶׁאֵינָהּ מַתֶּרֶת הַשְּׁיָרַיִים לַאֲכִילָה. הוֹרֵי רִבִּי לָא כְּהָדָא דְּרִבִּי חַגַּיי. אָמַר רִבִּי זְעִירָא אֲתָא עוּבְדָא קוֹמֵי דְּרִבִּי חֲנִינָא וְהוֹרֵי כְּרִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן שְׁזוּרִי. רִבִּי אָחָא בְשֵׁם רִבִּי יוֹנָתָן אֵין הֲלָכָה כְּרִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן שְׁזוּרִי.
It was stated: “Heave of the tithe from demay that returned to its origin makes dema‘27Dema‘ (a word of unclear etymology, Ex.22:28) describes profane produce mixed with heave, which is unfit for human consumption if heave and food are impure, and is food only for Cohanim and their families if both the heave and the food are pure. It can be put in order only if the amount of heave in the total is less than 1 in 101. Since heave from demay is genuinely holy only in a minority of cases, that heave does not necessarily create dema‘. (Maimonides Maäser 12:4 and R. Abraham ben David ad loc.), not to its origin does not make dema‘. Rebbi Simeon from Shezur said, both at its origin and not at its origin it does not make dema‘.” Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya asked before Rebbi Zeïra: For one who says, it makes dema‘, it makes dema‘; for one who says, it does not make dema‘, it does not make dema‘; this is reasonable28That means, I can understand R. Simeon from Shezur, that we always follow the majority of cases and, therefore, heave from demay cannot create dema‘. I also could understand the position that, once the name of heave was attached to any produce, it must be treated like heave in all respects.. But if one says, in its origin it makes dema‘, not in its origin it does not make dema‘; what is the difference between in its origin and not in its origin? Rebbi Ḥaggai came up. They said, this one will say, “by Moses, I shall explain the reason29R. Ḥaggai’s standard answer to questions of this type..” He said, by Moses, I shall explain the reason: He who says, it makes dema‘, because it permits the rest to be eaten30Since without tithing, demay may not be eaten by rabbinic ordinance, it should in this respect be treated like heave taken according to Biblical precept.. He who says, it does not make dema‘, because it does not permit the rest to be eaten31For other produce, it simply is food of questionable status.. Rebbi La taught according to that of Rebbi Ḥaggai32He declares practice to follow the anonymous Tanna in the baraita.. Rebbi Zeïra said: A case came before Rebbi Ḥanina and he taught according to Rebbi Simeon from Shezur. Rebbi Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Jonathan: Practice does not follow Rebbi Simeon from Shezur33In Babli Ḥulin 75b, both R. Ḥanina and R. Jonathan endorse the ruling of R. Simeon from Shezur as valid practice..
It was stated: “Heave of the tithe from demay that returned to its origin makes dema‘27Dema‘ (a word of unclear etymology, Ex.22:28) describes profane produce mixed with heave, which is unfit for human consumption if heave and food are impure, and is food only for Cohanim and their families if both the heave and the food are pure. It can be put in order only if the amount of heave in the total is less than 1 in 101. Since heave from demay is genuinely holy only in a minority of cases, that heave does not necessarily create dema‘. (Maimonides Maäser 12:4 and R. Abraham ben David ad loc.), not to its origin does not make dema‘. Rebbi Simeon from Shezur said, both at its origin and not at its origin it does not make dema‘.” Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya asked before Rebbi Zeïra: For one who says, it makes dema‘, it makes dema‘; for one who says, it does not make dema‘, it does not make dema‘; this is reasonable28That means, I can understand R. Simeon from Shezur, that we always follow the majority of cases and, therefore, heave from demay cannot create dema‘. I also could understand the position that, once the name of heave was attached to any produce, it must be treated like heave in all respects.. But if one says, in its origin it makes dema‘, not in its origin it does not make dema‘; what is the difference between in its origin and not in its origin? Rebbi Ḥaggai came up. They said, this one will say, “by Moses, I shall explain the reason29R. Ḥaggai’s standard answer to questions of this type..” He said, by Moses, I shall explain the reason: He who says, it makes dema‘, because it permits the rest to be eaten30Since without tithing, demay may not be eaten by rabbinic ordinance, it should in this respect be treated like heave taken according to Biblical precept.. He who says, it does not make dema‘, because it does not permit the rest to be eaten31For other produce, it simply is food of questionable status.. Rebbi La taught according to that of Rebbi Ḥaggai32He declares practice to follow the anonymous Tanna in the baraita.. Rebbi Zeïra said: A case came before Rebbi Ḥanina and he taught according to Rebbi Simeon from Shezur. Rebbi Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Jonathan: Practice does not follow Rebbi Simeon from Shezur33In Babli Ḥulin 75b, both R. Ḥanina and R. Jonathan endorse the ruling of R. Simeon from Shezur as valid practice..
יוֹתֵר מִיכֵּן הָיָה רִבַּי שִׁמְעוֹן הַשְּׁזוּרִי אוֹמֵר הִפְרִישׁ תְּרוּמַת מַעֲשֵׂר וְנִשְׂרְפָה הֲרֵי זֶה שׁוֹאֲלוֹ וְאוֹכֵל עַל פִּיו. לֹא בְדָא אָמַר רִבִּי זְעִירָא אֲתָא עוּבְדָא קוֹמֵי דְּרִבִּי חֲנִינָא וְהוֹרֵי כְּרִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן שְׁזוּרִי. אָמַר רִבִּי אָבִין לֹא דָמְיָא הַהִיא שְׁאִילְתָּא לְהַהִיא קַדְמִיָיתָא. תַּמָּן לָא בְּגִין חֲשֵׁיד לָךְ. אֶלָּא בְגִין דִּזְבִינַתְּ מִינָּךְ אִיתְמֹל חִיטִּין וַחֲמִית אוֹכְלוֹסִין עָלָךְ וְאָמְרִית דִּילְמָא דְּאַנְשִיתָהּ מְתַקְּנָהּ מְתַקְּנָן הֲוִיָין. בְּרַם הָכָא בְּגִין דְּחֲשַׁדְתָּךְ וְתִיקַּנְתִּין וְאִיתּוֹקְדִּין מְתַקְּנָן הֲוִיָין. רִבִּי שְׁמוּאֵל בְּרֵיהּ דְּרִבִּי יוֹסֵי בֵּי רִבִּי בּוּן אָמַר תַּנִּי בַּר קַפָּרָא כֵּן אֵימַת הַדִּימּוּעַ עָלָיו וְהוּא אָמַר אֱמֶת.
“In addition, Rebbi Simeon from Shezur said: If he separated the heave of the tithe and it was burned, he asks the seller and eats on his information35Tosephta Demay 5:2: “Heave of the tithe which returned to its origin. Rebbi Simeon from Shezur said, even on weekdays he asks the seller and eats on his information. In addition, Rebbi Simeon from Shezur said: If he separated heave and tithes and the produce was stolen, he asks the seller and eats what he separated on his information, because just as the fear of the Sabbath is on the am haäreẓ, so the fear of dema‘ is on him.” The different baraita here has to be interpreted in the same way, viz., that the main body of produce was burnt and he was left only with heave and tithes. Because of the monetary loss, he was permitted to treat heave and tithes as profane food on the untrustworthy seller’s word..” Did Rebbi Zeïra not say that a similar case came before Rebbi Ḥanina and he taught according to Rebbi Simeon from Shezur? Rebbi Avin said, this question does not compare to the first question. There it was, not that I suspect you, but since I bought wheat from you yesterday and I saw a multitude with you, I said maybe you forgot to put them in order. Were they put in order? But here, because I suspected you, I put them in order but they went up in fire. Were they put in order36How can he expect to get an honest answer if the question is an insult to the seller?? Rebbi Samuel, the son of Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun37An Amora of the fifth generation, student of his father and of R. Nasa, also mentioned together with Rebbi Mattaniah. said that Bar Kappara stated: The fear of dema‘ is on him and he will tell the truth38Since everybody knows how bad the consequences of dema‘ are, even if he himself is only aware that he must separate the first heave, he will not be a party to such a grave sin. It follows that the Tosephta before us is in the tradition of Bar Kappara, and that it is part of the original statement of R. Simeon from Shezur..
“In addition, Rebbi Simeon from Shezur said: If he separated the heave of the tithe and it was burned, he asks the seller and eats on his information35Tosephta Demay 5:2: “Heave of the tithe which returned to its origin. Rebbi Simeon from Shezur said, even on weekdays he asks the seller and eats on his information. In addition, Rebbi Simeon from Shezur said: If he separated heave and tithes and the produce was stolen, he asks the seller and eats what he separated on his information, because just as the fear of the Sabbath is on the am haäreẓ, so the fear of dema‘ is on him.” The different baraita here has to be interpreted in the same way, viz., that the main body of produce was burnt and he was left only with heave and tithes. Because of the monetary loss, he was permitted to treat heave and tithes as profane food on the untrustworthy seller’s word..” Did Rebbi Zeïra not say that a similar case came before Rebbi Ḥanina and he taught according to Rebbi Simeon from Shezur? Rebbi Avin said, this question does not compare to the first question. There it was, not that I suspect you, but since I bought wheat from you yesterday and I saw a multitude with you, I said maybe you forgot to put them in order. Were they put in order? But here, because I suspected you, I put them in order but they went up in fire. Were they put in order36How can he expect to get an honest answer if the question is an insult to the seller?? Rebbi Samuel, the son of Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun37An Amora of the fifth generation, student of his father and of R. Nasa, also mentioned together with Rebbi Mattaniah. said that Bar Kappara stated: The fear of dema‘ is on him and he will tell the truth38Since everybody knows how bad the consequences of dema‘ are, even if he himself is only aware that he must separate the first heave, he will not be a party to such a grave sin. It follows that the Tosephta before us is in the tradition of Bar Kappara, and that it is part of the original statement of R. Simeon from Shezur..