Yerushalmi Demai 6:2 ירושלמי דמאי ו׳:ב׳

MISHNAH: A Cohen or a Levite who received a field (as sharecroppers) share in the tithe³⁹Cohen and Levite who are farmers are required to separate heave and tithe like everybody else. If they are the owners they may donate the sanctified parts to themselves. in the same proportion as they share in a profane yield. Rebbi Eliezer says, the tithe⁴⁰The Cohen gets all the heave from this field and the Levite all the tithe since they expect it for their work. is theirs because they came because of it.

HALAKHAH: The rabbis object to Rebbi Eliezer: How did they acquire⁴²If the landlord must give his heave to the tenant, there must be a legal reason why he has lost his right to give it to any Cohen he prefers (the usual example being that of a landlord whose daughter married a Cohen and who wants to give all his heave to his grandson the Cohen.)? He said to them, do you not agree with me that if they agreed⁴³In the sharecropping contract. In that case, the act which validates the contract also validates the stipulation. A Tosephta (Demay 7:1) authorizes that kind of stipulation. among themselves, tithes go to the workers? Even if they made a condition, how did they acquire? If there is nothing said, it is as if somebody said: Harvest from this land so that its tithes should be yours⁴⁴This is the end of R. Eliezer’s argument.. They said to him, there is no stipulation here; if nothing is said there is no stipulation. It is⁴⁵If there is a stipulation, it is a simple contract of payment for work done but not one for heave since the Cohen is not permitted to work for heave. Hence, there must be a contract for this to work. as if he said, harvest this land on condition that you take one tenth for yourselves.

It was stated⁴⁷Tosephta Demay 7:1: “An Israel {a Jew who is neither Cohen nor Levite} who received {as sharecropper} a field from an Israel, a Cohen from a Cohen, a Levite from a Levite, divide among themselves.”: “A Cohen from a Cohen, a Levite from a Levite, an Israel⁴⁷Tosephta Demay 7:1: “An Israel {a Jew who is neither Cohen nor Levite} who received {as sharecropper} a field from an Israel, a Cohen from a Cohen, a Levite from a Levite, divide among themselves.” from an Israel, split the tithes.” Who needs this statement? Rebbi Eliezer; even though Rebbi Eliezer says that the tithe is theirs because they came because of it, here he agrees that they divide up the tithes.

“An⁴⁸In Tosephta Demay 7:3–4, one reads: “An Israel who received a field (as sharecropper) from a Cohen, if he said to him, on condition that the tithes be mine, or yours, or mine and yours; this is forbidden. A Cohen who received a field (as sharecropper) from an Israel, if he said to him, on condition that the tithes be mine, that is permitted. That they be yours, or that they be mine and yours, if he received it under the standard sharecropping contract, it is permitted, otherwise it is forbidden.” Israel who received a field (as sharecropper) from a Cohen, if he⁴⁹The landlord who is the active party in all these cases. said to him, on condition that the tithes be mine, or yours, or mine and yours; this is permitted⁵⁰Since the tithes belong to the landlord, he can give them to whom he wants.. A Cohen who received a field (as sharecropper) from a Cohen, if he said to him, on condition that the tithes be mine, that is permitted. That they be yours, that is forbidden⁵¹“Tithes” here naturally must include heave and heave of the tithe. What is forbidden is that the Cohen landlord gives the heaves to the Cohen sharecropper as part of the latter’s wages for his services, since heave may never be used to liquidate an obligation.. That they be mine and yours, that is forbidden. If he received it under the standard sharecropping contract⁵²Any distribution of heaves that follows the local standard and is not different for a Cohen than for an Israel cannot be considered a special payment made with heave and is permitted., it is permitted, otherwise it is forbidden.” Even without that, do not the tithes belong to them⁵³To the landlord and the sharecropper, as explained in Mishnah 1. What does the baraita tell us as new information?? But so it must read: “My part is mine, your part is mine and yours, if he received it under the standard sharecropping contract, it is permitted, otherwise it is forbidden⁵⁴The Cohen landlord may reserve the heaves of his own field for himself only if this is common practice; otherwise, it is exploitation of the defenseless status of the sharecropper..”

“If an Israel received (as sharecropper) a field from another Israel on condition that the tithes go to a certain person, that clause is forbidden⁵⁵Distribution of tithes cannot become part of a financial package.; on condition that I shall take them and deliver them to a certain person, that clause is permitted.⁵⁶In the Tosephta (Demay 7:1) there is a positive prescription that between sharecropper and landlord of similar status, tithes must be evenly split. There is no prescription on how the tithes should be given to Levite or Cohen.” Is the second version not identical with the first? Rebbi Aḥa said, “if you agree” makes the difference⁵⁷For R. Aḥa, the landlord may not prescribe the distribution of the sharecropper’s tithes but he can ask the latter’s consent to distribute them in a certain manner.. Rebbi Yose⁵⁸R. Yose agrees with the objection that the two clauses are indistinguishable; he must find another reason why one is permitted and the other forbidden. said, you say it is permitted if it follows the standard sharecropper’s contract. You say it is forbidden if it does not follow the standard sharecropper’s contract. It turns out that Rebbi Yose holds with Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Aḥa with Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Ḥanina. As Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Ḥanina said, a person gives his tithes for the benefit of goodwill⁵⁹While a person cannot trade his heaves or tithes, he can use them to create goodwill and so reap an indirect monetary benefit, or even a direct benefit if the party involved is not a Cohen. While an Israel may not take money from a Cohen for his heaves, he may take from an Israel for the promise to give all future heaves to the latter’s grandson who is a Cohen. But since it is not possible to trade this kind of goodwill, it is not considered to be money in the Babli (Nedarim 64b–65a); hence, if the Cohen takes heave without consent of the owner, he cannot be sued for monetary damages (Maimonides Terumot 12:15). This is the only opinion mentioned in the Babli and the only one in Sifry Naśo (6). (Starting here, the next four paragraphs are also found in Qiddušin 2:10.). Rebbi Joḥanan said, a person may not give his tithes for the benefit of goodwill⁶⁰Rebbi Joḥanan does not allow any monetary advantage from giving heaves and tithes.. What is the reason of Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Ḥanina? (Num. 5:10) “Everybody shall be the owner of his holy things.” What does Rebbi Joḥanan with this? He may give them to whomever he likes⁶¹No Cohen or Levy may take heave or tithe by force; only the owner can decide to whom to give [Sifry Naśo (6)]..

A Mishnah disagrees with Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Ḥaninah: “A vow that no Cohanim or Levites should have any advantage from me, they should take against his will⁶²Mishnah Nedarim 3:11. This is one of the vows the husband cannot dissolve if made by his wife since dissolution is unnecessary; any recipient of the obligatory gifts to Cohen and Levite may take them by force in this case, and the owner has no monetary gain. It seems to disagree with R. Joḥanan who says that the owner has the choice of recipient. But since the owner does not want to give what he is obligated to, he transgresses commandments of the Torah and the situation can be saved only by others disregarding his rights..” He explains it about a person who says, I cannot possibly give them any gifts. You should know that this is so, since we have stated: “These Cohanim and Levites, let others take⁶³Same Mishnah; if the vow excludes a certain group of people, he always can give to others..” A baraita disagrees with Rebbi Joḥanan: “An Israel can say to another Israel, here you have a tetradrachma and give this first born to my daughter’s son, a Cohen⁶⁴Speaking of the firstborn of a cow or ewe. In the Babli (Bekhorot27a) a similar statement is made for future heave. Both statements are taken together in Tosephta Demay 5:18: “An Israel may say to a Cohen {it seems that it should read: another Israel, but there is absolutely no manuscript evidence for that} here you have a tetradrachma and give heave to my daughter’s son, the Cohen, or give a firstborn to my daughter’s son, the Cohen.” The Babli does not want to accept the statement about the firstborn since the Cohen might think the tetradrachma is redemption money and the firstborn does not have to be treated as a sacrifice..” He explains, if he already wanted to give it to two Cohanim and that daughter’s son was one of them; then one said, here you have a tetradrachma and give all of it to my daughter’s son, a Cohen⁶⁵Indirect usufruct is permitted by R. Joḥanan..

They asked before Rebbi Zeïra, in that situation⁶⁶To give money to an Israel so that he should give his heave or the firstborn of his flock to a designated Cohen., a Cohen to an Israel, what is the rule? At Rebbi Yose’s they said that he did not answer. Rebbi Ḥizqiah in the name of Rebbi Aḥa said, so he said to them: In the opinion of Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Ḥanina, why is a Cohen to an Israel forbidden, not because it looks badly⁶⁷That people could think that he buys the gifts for himself; this would be forbidden. He should not do it lest he get a reputation as a sinner.? Also Rebbi Joḥanan holds that from an Israel to an Israel it is forbidden because it looks badly⁶⁸In the opinion of R. Yose ben R. Ḥanina the rabbis, not the Bible, prohibited the farmer from having any material gain from his heave and tithes.. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, there is desecration of sacrifices and you said because it looks badly? Because of the following, as it was stated:⁶⁹Tosephta Demay 5:20, a slightly longer version. “Cohanim and Levites who help at the threshing floor have no right either to heave or to tithe, and if the farmer gave, it is desecrated, as it is said (Lev. 22:15): ‘They should not desecrate the sanctified things of the Children of Israel,’ but they desecrate them! In addition, they said⁷⁰By a decree of the Court, which has the power of removing property rights, anything that the Cohen receives is tevel and he has to give its heave and tithes to another Cohen. This is made explicit in the Tosephta. that their heave is no heave, their tithes are no tithes, their dedications are no dedications, and about them the verse says (Micha 3:11): ‘Their heads judge for bribes and their priests come for a price⁷¹And their prophets perform witchcraft for money. The three punishments for the three sins are: Zion will be ploughed as a field, Jerusalem will be desolate, and the Temple Mount a wooded hill..’ The Omnipresent brings over them three catastrophies; that is what is written (Micha 3:12): ‘Therefore, because of you Zion will be ploughed over as a field, etc.’”

A Mishnah disagrees with Rebbi Joḥanan⁷²Qiddušin 2:10.: “If somebody marries⁷³The first of the marriage ceremonies, קידוּשין, requires that the groom give the bride something of value and declare that with this gift she becomes his bride. Hence, the materials enumerated must have monetary value. If the groom is an Israel, how can heave have a monetary value if he does not even have the right to goodwill? giving heave, tithes, ‘gifts’⁷⁴These “gifts” are parts of an animal slaughtered for profane food that are given to a Cohen (Deut. 18:3). They are profane food and may be sold by the Cohen to anybody., water for sprinkling, or ashes of the red heifer⁷⁵The water and the ashes are used to cleanse people from the impurity imparted by a corpse. Water and ashes have no monetary value and it is a desecration to take money for sprinkling water with the ashes on impure persons. However, it is permitted to take money for the time spent in transporting both (and keeping all the rules for this transport.) So the groom does not transfer ownership of the ashes since there is no ownership, but he transfers his claim to be paid for his exertions which is a lien on water and ashes (Babli Qiddušin 58b)., she is married, even if the groom is Israel.” He explains it with heave he inherited from his maternal grandfather, a Cohen⁷⁶If the grandfather died before he had time to consume the heave, the grandson may sell the heave to another Cohen; in that case, everybody agrees that the heave has monetary value..

“⁷⁷Tosephta Demay 7:14; there the condition is that the buyer be trustworthy for tithes. A similar baraita, dealing with a Levite selling to an Israel, is in Babli Baba Batra 63a. Since a Cohen is required to separate heave and tithes but is permitted to take them for himself in order to eat the heaves in purity, his heaves are a kind of lien on the field and he may sell the field without selling the lien. If a Cohen sold a field to an Israel and made the condition that the tithes should be his, the tithes are his.” May he sell them to a Cohen⁷⁸May the owner of these heaves sell them to another Cohen?? Let us hear from the following. Rebbi Abbahu said in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: He who sells the tithes of his field to another person did not do anything⁷⁹Since the tithes are not his; the goodwill represented by them is not money., the future children of his slave girl to another person, he did not do anything⁸⁰This and the following case are based on the principle that nobody can sell anything that does not yet exist., the fetus of his animal to another person, he did not do anything, the airspace of his dry land to another person, he did not do anything⁸¹Since the airspace is not material, it cannot be bodily acquired. However, if the seller grants the buyer the right to build in the airspace, he sells the right to set the building on walls or pillars and that is a valid transaction (Babli Baba Batra 64b, Šulḥan Arukh Ḥošen Mišpaṭ 212.). But he may sell him a field and reserve the tithes for himself, a slave girl and reserve her children for himself, an animal and reserve her fetus for himself. Is it not impossible for a person to sell the airspace of his dry land to another person⁸²Why does R. Abbahu include in the list something that seems to be obvious?? Explain it if he tells him, tear out some grasses in that dry land⁸³This is a positive action which everywhere confirms acquisition of real estate and liens on real estate. R. Abbahu has to inform us that here it does not work because the land is not an object of the sale. Similarly, in the case of the Cohen selling his right, the tithe is not fixed at 10% of the field but is only a lien that cannot thereby be acquired. to acquire its airspace. And here there is real estate before him and he says, pluck something from the ground so that you acquire one tenth of it.

“⁸⁴Cf. Tosephta Demay 7:14; there the condition is that the buyer be trustworthy for tithes. There is no mention of heirs other than sons. A similar baraita, dealing with a Levite selling to an Israel, appears in Babli Baba Batra 63a. Since the Cohen may stipulate before the sale, he may stipulate anything he wishes. If a Cohen sold a field to an Israel on condition that the tithes should be his, the tithes are his. If he dies, his sons have no right to the tithes. ‘For me and my sons, for me and my heirs,’ his sons have the tithes, his heirs have the tithes.” Rebbi Yudan bar Shalom asked before Rebbi Yose: So far only for heirs whose claim is from the Torah? Even for heirs whose claim is not from the Torah⁸⁵For example, the husband inheriting from his wife whose marriage is only rabbinical, e. g. a man marrying an underage girl after her father’s death.!

“⁸⁶Tosephta Demay 7:14, the text is R. Ḥiyya’s. A similar baraita, dealing with a Levite selling to an Israel, appears in Babli Baba Batra 63a, also following R. Ḥiyya only. That all tithes should be mine as long as you own it, he gets its tithes as long as the buyer owns it.” When he sold it to a third party, he has no tithes. If the buyer then bought it back from the third party, Rebbi Ḥiyya states that he has no tithes, Rebbi Hoshaia states that the tithes are his. This disagreement turns out like the other disagreement, as we have stated there⁸⁷Mishnah Ketubot 9:13: “A woman who presents two letters of divorce and two ketubot collects two ketubot. Two ketubot and one letter of divorce, or one ketubah and two letters of divorce, or one ketubah, one letter of divorce, and a death, she collects only one ketubah since ‘he who divorces his wife and then remarries her, remarries her on the basis of the first ketubah.’ ” The ketubah is explained in Peah, Chapter 3, Note 151. The individual stipulations are obligations the groom takes upon himself in addition to the obligatory ketubah. “that he who divorces his wife and then remarries her, remarries her on the basis of the first ketubah.” Rebbi Ḥanin⁸⁸An Amora of the third Galilean generation, student of R. Samuel bar Isaac; a frequent author of aggadic statements. The statement here, which appears in identical form in Ketubot 9:13 (fol. 33c), is his only known halakhic statement. stated before Rebbi La: Two Amoraïm, one says for ketubah but not for individual stipulations, and the other says, both for ketubah and individual stipulations. For him who says, for ketubah but not for individual stipulations, he has the tithes⁸⁹This refers to the Mishnah and the case that the husband dies and the widow presents two ketubot and one bill of divorce. If one assumes that the argument of the Mishnah applies only to the obligatory ketubah, she collects the amount of one obligatory ketubah but both individual stipulations; hence, the remarrying does not eliminate the validity of the first ketubah. In our case, the repurchasing of the field does not eliminate the first contract and the Cohen re-enters into his rights to tithes. (The Babli, Ketubot 90a, which does not consider the case of demay presented by R. Hoshaia, holds that if the date of the letter of divorce is between the dates of the two ketubot, she collects both ketubot in full.). For him who says, both for ketubah and for individual stipulations, he has no tithes⁹⁰In that case, the first ketubah is invalidated completely, as is the Cohen’s contract of sale. (This is the only case considered by the Babli, Baba Batra 63a.). But did we not state⁹¹Tosephta Demay 7:9; there it is spelled out: בת כהן.: “If somebody received (as sharecropper) from the daughter of a Cohen, she has the tithes⁹²Since heave is eaten not only by a Cohen but also by his entire family, her claim is as good as her father’s.. If she married an Israel⁹³She becomes a member of her husband’s family and loses her priestly status. Hence, all rules for the Israel apply to her., they split the tithes. If she was widowed or divorced⁹⁴It is implied that she has no surviving descendants from her Israel husband. Otherwise, her status remains that of an Israel (Lev. 22:13)., she returns to her prior status.” There when he sold, here when he received⁹⁵Since the sharecropper never had title to the land, it is only her status that decides in matters of tithes.. But did not Rebbi Ḥiyya state: “When she sold?⁹⁶This baraita is not in the Tosephta. R. Ḥiyya, who holds that the Cohen loses all his rights when the Israel sells the field to a third party, states that the daughter of a Cohen who sells her field to an Israel while retaining her rights to tithes, and who loses half of the tithes on her marriage to an Israel, can reclaim all her rights as a childless divorcee or widow. The problem is to reconcile the two statements of R. Ḥiyya; the answer is that in the second case the rights of the seller are only suspended, not eliminated.” Rebbi Samuel bar Eudaimon said, there it left the power of both parties; here, it left the power of the seller but not that of the buyer.

“A⁹⁷Tosephta Demay7:15. Cohen who sold a field to an Israel on condition that the tithes be his for four or five years can oppose the buyer’s planting it as a vineyard⁹⁸Since the vineyard is orlah for the first three years and its fruits forbidden for all use, the Cohen would lose most of the tithes he had contracted for., sowing woad⁹⁹Greek ἰσάτις, Latin isatis tinctoria, a plant used to make dark blue dye. Since woad is not food, it is exempt from tithes and the Cohen would lose all income from the field., or turning it into a field of reeds¹⁰⁰Reeds were used to make pens and mats and were a commercial crop, exempt from tithes. As was established in the preceding paragraphs the Cohen, while forbidden to pay for tithes, may reserve some income from the field as a lien on the field; R. Aḥa bar Ulla interpreted the contract to mean that the Cohen reserved for himself one tenth of the yield, whether sacred or profane.. Mine forever, he cannot oppose the buyer’s planting it as a vineyard, sowing woad, or turning it into a field of reeds.” There came a case before Rebbi Aḥa bar Ulla¹⁰¹An Amora of the third and fourth generations. He was a Babylonian, student of Rav Ḥisda, who immigrated to Galilee and was still alive in the days of R. Jonah. and he obligated him to turn over to him one tenth of the reeds.

“If an¹⁰²Tosephta Demay 7:15, the first two sentences only. Israel sold a field to a Cohen on condition that the tithes be his¹⁰³That the Israel has the right to the tithes and may give them to any Cohen or Levite he pleases. for four or five years, it is permitted. Forever, it is forbidden, since no Cohen can make a Cohen¹⁰⁴No Non-Cohen can have a permanent right to tithes. While the Israel obviously has the right to demand such a clause, since the Cohen as seller has the right to reserve the tithes for himself forever, here it is the buyer who is told that he may not agree to such a contract.. If a Cohen sold a field to an Israel on condition that the tithes be the Israel’s for four or five years, it is forbidden¹⁰⁵Since the Cohen is automatically the owner of his heave and tithes the moment he separates them from his harvest, but since the ownership is a gift from God and not the result of his farming, he may not desecrate heave and tithes by turning them over to an Israel..” There you say it is permitted, here you say it is forbidden! There, he gave him rights to something he had the right to dispose of, here, he gave him rights to something he had no right to dispose of.