Yerushalmi Demai 4:5 ירושלמי דמאי ד׳:ה׳

MISHNAH: If someone enters a town, does not know anybody there, and asks: Who is trustworthy here, who tithes? If somebody told him, I am not trustworthy, but Mr. X is trustworthy, he may be believed⁸⁶Even though the speaker himself is not trustworthy, in this case he may be believed, as explained in the Halakhah.. If he went and bought there and asked, who is selling old produce here⁸⁷The meaning of “old produce” is difficult to establish. The traditional explanation, represented by Maimonides (Maäser 12:7). R. Abraham ben David, and Rashi (Ketubot 56b) is that the buyer is looking for old (better quality) wine and is ready to buy demay and tithe it if only he gets the quality desired. The interpretation of the Mishnah would be that the first informant, who directed the buyer to the second one’s store, was not an uninterested bystander, but in effect was indirectly paid for steering the stranger to the second one’s store. The plural “they may be believed” in the last sentence then would include the seller who asserted to the stranger that he was trustworthy by the rules. His trustworthiness is not invalidated by the kickback.
R. Simson of Sens refers “old produce” to that grown before the Sabbatical year if the question was asked in the Sabbatical. But the question here is about tithes, not the Sabbatical. Usually, “old” refers to grain that started to grow before the last Passover, since “new” grain, summer wheat planted after Passover, may not be eaten until after the next Passover (Lev. 23:14). But Rashi (loc. cit.) shows that this notion cannot apply here and summer wheat cannot be grown in the Land of Israel.? If the seller said, the one who sent you to me, they may be believed even though they act as if they would do reciprocal favors to each other.
Donkey drivers who entered a town and one of them said, my produce is new, my colleague’s is old⁹³All commentators agree that the meaning of “old” and “new” here is identical with the meaning in Mishnah 7., mine is not in order, my colleague’s is in order, are not to be believed⁹⁴Since they come in a group, they had ample time to devise a strategy by which each one of them gets the business of a specified place.. Rebbi Jehudah says, they are to be believed.

HALAKHAH: But is a single witness trustworthy⁸⁸Since the informant himself is not trustworthy, should not his information be treated as testimony which is invalid unless corroborated by two witnesses. The explanation of R. Joḥanan is ascribed to Rava (Rav Abba bar Rav Joseph bar Ḥama of the fourth generation) in the Babli (Ketubot 56b).? Rebbi Joḥanan said, they were very lenient for a guest because of the necessities of life.

It was stated⁸⁹Tosephta Demay 5:4: “He who enters a town with heave in his hand, does not know anybody there, [or stands by a threshing floor with heave in his hand] {and wants to give the heave to a trustworthy Cohen,} and does not know anybody there, may ask either ḥaverim or amē haäreẓ, the words of Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel. Rebbi says, about heave one may only ask a ḥaver.” One has to interpret the baraita in the Yerushalmi similarly, that the question is about heave. But the interpretation of the Yerushalmi, given by R. Jonah, is the opposite, that the stranger wants to know whether he may take without worry, not to whom to give.
The phrase in brackets is not in the Vienna ms. of the Tosephta and R. S. Liebermann explains this as scribal omission. However, while the thrust of the Tosephta is not that of the Yerushalmi, a Yerushalmi version would not have the phrase, or does not have the phrase, as asserted by R. Jonah at the end of this paragraph. The Vienna scribe probably did not make an error here.: “He who enters a town and does not know anybody there, or stands by a threshing floor and does not know anybody there, may ask either a ḥaver or an am haäreẓ, the words of Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel. Rebbi says, about heave one only may ask a ḥaver.” It turns out that Rebbi follows Rebbi Meïr and Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel follows his own reasoning. As we have stated there⁹⁰Mishnah Bekhorot 5:4. The firstborn of a cow, sheep, or goat must be given to a Cohen. If it is without blemish, it is dedicated as sacrifice from birth. If it develops a defect, the Cohen may slaughter and eat it at home (Deut. 15:19–23). Hence, the Cohen has a monetary interest in finding a defect in such a firstborn.: “About any bodily defects that may be caused by humans, laymen shepherds are trustworthy, Cohen shepherds are not. Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel said, he is trustworthy about another’s flock but not his own. Rebbi Meïr said, whoever is suspect⁹¹And this includes absolutely all Cohanim in matters regarding firstborn animals. in a matter may neither judge nor testify about it.” Rebbi Jonah said, they disagree only if it is a matter of taking, but in distributing even Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel agrees. What is the difference between taking and distributing? A distribution is public knowledge⁹²Since a distribution of tithes is publicly announced, even the stranger would find enough information about the person who is making the distribution..

It was stated⁹⁵Tosephta Demay 5:5 again has a thrust opposed to the baraita of the Yerushalmi: “If he was standing in a group of people and asked, who here is trustworthy, who here tithes? If one person told him that he himself was trustworthy, he is not trustworthy, about another one that he tithes, he is trustworthy. If they told him that this one tithes, in his presence he is not trustworthy; but in his absence, he is trustworthy; in a court of law, he is trustworthy.” The question asked against the thesis of R. Jonah clearly refers to the last clause of the Tosephta, not the baraita quoted in the text.: “If somebody entered a town, found there groups of people, and asked, who is trustworthy here, who tithes here? If one person told him that he himself was trustworthy, and the others told him that he was trustworthy, that one is trustworthy. If they told him in the person’s presence that he was not trustworthy, he is not trustworthy; but in his absence, he is trustworthy.” Rebbi Jonah said, if that somebody was from that town, the group must be of ḥaverim, if he is a stranger, the group may be composed of amē haäreẓ. It is difficult for Rebbi Yose, you say that ḥaverim are not trustworthy in his presence⁹⁶As noted above, this refers to the Tosephta or a similar text, when somebody is declared trustworthy only if others declare him so in his absence. Does one suspect ḥaverim to lie in this matter to please somebody? The question is not answered.?

What is the reason of Rebbi Jehudah? Because of the lives of the townspeople⁹⁷Donkey drivers should be encouraged to visit the place to increase the supply of foodstuffs While we have translated עיר as “town,” it is often used in the sense of “hamlet.”. What is the reason of the rabbis? They can provision themselves in another town.