Yerushalmi Maasrot 2:1 ירושלמי מעשרות ב׳:א׳

MISHNAH: If somebody¹A person not certified as trustworthy or a Fellow, see the Introduction to Demay. A trustworthy person will not give away anything not fully tithed. passed by the market place and said: “take some figs²As is a gift, cf. Note 5.,” one may eat without tithing³Since he offers single figs, we assume that they are freshly harvested and never were near the offerer’s house. Therefore, they are not yet under the obligation of heave and tithes. When they become obligated upon being brought to the recipient’s house, they must be treated as fully untithed.. Therefore, if they brought to their houses, they must put in order as certain produce. “Take some figs and bring them home,” one should not eat them as a snack⁴If the vulgar offers figs as fully tithed, one has to assume that only heave was given but not tithes as explained in Tractate Demay.. Therefore, if they brought to their houses, they have to put in order only as demay.
If they were sitting in a gate or in a store and he⁴⁹The person of Mishnah 1 who is giving away figs. said, take some figs, they may eat and are free, but the owners of the gate or the store are obligated⁵⁰Since for them “the figs see the house” and, therefore, are subject to heave and tithes.. Rebbi Jehudah frees them⁵¹Since one is not supposed to be eating in public, he defines the house which induces the duty of tithes as a place in which the owner can eat without embarassment. unless they turn their faces away or change their places⁵²In order to eat in privacy..

HALAKHAH: Samuel said, this is Rebbi Meїr’s opinion since Rebbi Meїr says a gift is not like a sale⁵It is stated in Halakhah 4:1 that produce which would become obligated when brought to storage also becomes obligated if it is sold on the field; the buyer may not eat a snack without giving heave and tithes. In general, we hold that the formal rules of transfer of property by a gift are the same as by sale in all respects. R. Meїr is quoted here and in Ma‘ser Šeni1:1 to hold that, while a gift is only valid if it were valid also as a sale, a gift does not induce the obligations of heave and tithes.. Rebbi Yose said, it is the opinion of everybody. This was asked of those from Rebbi Yannai’s house and they said, we used to give to one another in the fields and ate without putting in order⁶Since practice follows the Mishnah, the Mishnah cannot describe a minority opinion. R. Yose is proven correct.. How can this be? Following him who held that they accepted tithes voluntarily⁷Following R. Eleazar, Ševi‘it 6:1, Notes 11–13..

Our Mishnah⁸This refers to the first part of the Mishnah. If the farmer is a Fellow and he brings his figs directly to market he has to tithe (by the rules of fellowship) so that the vulgar who buys from him will not become guilty when he takes the figs home. Therefore, if the seller is not trustworthy, he still can be assumed to have given heave even if the figs never got near the house since collecting the figs is the last act of harvest, comparable to threshing for grains. [deals with] the case that most people bring to their houses but in case most people bring directly to market one has to put in order only as demay. If we were dealing with the case that most people bring to their houses⁹Before going to market. Then the fruits are subject to heave and tithes by biblical standards., is that not what we have stated¹⁰The second part of the Mishnah. Therefore, the first part cannot refer to the same case.: “ ‘Take some figs and bring them home,’ one should not eat them as a snack?” Since he said, “take some figs and bring them home,” it is as if he said, “take, I am taking care of the tithes for you¹¹Since the giver is not trustworthy, the recipient still has to treat the gift as demay..” But if most people bring directly to market he is not trusted if he says to somebody, I did tithe, nor is he trusted if he says to him, I am bringing mine to my house¹²If he were trustworthy, in the first case one would also require tithing only as demay, not as certain as required by the Mishnah..

If he gave much, even if he said, take and eat, it is as if he said, take and store¹³Even if he uses the language specified in the Mishnah for the first case, the rule to be followed is that of the second case if a typical person will not be able to eat all of it on the spot. Similar arguments hold for the next two cases.. If he gave him anything that usually is not eaten raw, even if he said, take and eat, it is as if he said, take and store. If [the recipient] was an important personality who does not usually eat in public, if he said, take and eat, it is as if he said, take and store. If there were two people; to one he said, take and eat; to the other he said, take and store. The one to whom he said, take and eat, is free¹⁴The first case of the Mishnah.; the one to whom he said, take and store, is obligated¹⁵The second case.. Rebbi Yose said, is that not a Mishnah (2:2): “They eat and are free but the owners of the gate or the store are obligated?¹⁶If a passer-by gives fruits to a group of people gossiping at a place where the owner’s own produce would become obligated, the visitors may eat them as a snack but not the owners. R. Jehudah also permits the owners to eat as long as they stay in the group. He must disagree with the rules just given.” Rebbi Jonah said, it is everybody’s opinion¹⁷Mishnah 2 speaks of untithed fruits, Mishnah 1 of demay. R. Yose’s argument is invalid; the rules must be spelled out and cannot be inferred from the Mishnah.; here for demay, there for certain.

¹⁸Tosephta 2:6.“ ‘Go and collect for yourself 20 figs from my tree and I will eat my fill from yours,’ he who eats his fill is free¹⁹He eats as a snack, untithed. and he who eats a fixed number is obligated²⁰The fixed number makes it a business deal for which the fruits have to be tithed..” Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya asked before Rebbi Zeїra: Can a person not eat one by one with permission and be free? He said to him, yes. Then why is he obligated here? He said to him, when he takes them together²¹If he first collects 20 figs and then eats them, he must tithe first. If he eats every fig before he picks the next one, it is a snack and needs no tithing.. If he takes them together, even he who eats his fill should be obligated²²If the answer stands, the Tosephta is misleading. It should say, he who eats while collecting is free but he who collects and then eats is obligated.! Is he not forbidden because of barter²³There is no difference whether one picks and then eats or eats while picking. The person who gets 20 figs gets them by barter and has to tithe in any case; the question of R. Abun bar Ḥiyya seems irrelevant.? Rebbi Shammai said, there is no barter since this man only wanted to make him hungry that he should eat²⁴20 figs to eat in one sitting is a large amount. The person who wants to eat his fill is afraid the other person, who probably is poor, would not eat enough. So he induces him to eat a large quantity; there are two snacks and no barter. The objection of R. Abun bar Ḥiyya is supported; the Tosephta cannot represent practice..

²⁵Tosephta 2:5, Babli Eruvin 32a.“ ‘Go and collect for yourself 20 figs from my tree’, he eats as usual and is free²⁶In the Tosephta and Babli (printed editions and Munich ms.): “He may eat a snack and tithes as certainly untithed.” But R. Ḥananel reads in the Babli: “He may eat a snack and tithes as demay.” The Yerushalmi does not deal with the problem; the baraita simply states that he “is free” to eat an untithed snack.. ‘Go and fill a basket,’ he should not eat before tithing²⁷In the Tosephta and Babli: He may eat a snack and tithes as demay”; since the giver specifies a measure he might have given tithes for his gift from another batch. Here R. Ḥananel reads: “tithes as certainly untithed.” The Yerushalmi does not deal with the problem: According to Mishnah 1:5, a filled basket subjects all figs in it to heave and tithes. It is clear that then the figs cannot be eaten untithed. But the status of the tithing, whether demay or certain, is not determined.. When has this been said? About a vulgar. But from a Fellow he can eat and does not have to tithe, the words of Rebbi. Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel says, when has this been said? About a vulgar. But from a Fellow he has to put it in order as certainly untithed since Fellows are not suspected to tithe what is not earmarked²⁸See Terumot 4:3, Note 21; 2:1, Notes 3,6.. Rebbi said, I prefer my words to those of Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel²⁹This is the formulation of the editor. Rebbi would have said “my father”.. It is preferable that they should tithe what is not earmarked³⁰Transgressing a positive biblical injunction. than to feed ṭevel to the vulgar³¹Committing the grave sin of “putting a stone in the path of a blind man.” Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel holds that the just should never sin to save the wicked; this is his position everywhere, cf. Demay 3:8, Note 135, Mishnah Ma‘aser Šeni 5:1; Babli Baba Qama 69a..” Rebbi Zeїra said, from both their opinions [it follows that] even a Fellow who sends to another Fellow must tithe³²See Demay 2:2, Note 125 (R. Zeїra in the name of R. Joḥanan). In Halakhah 5:1, the rule is attributed to R. Simeon ben Laqish.. They ventured to say, he who said that Fellows are not suspected to tithe what is not earmarked, when somebody is a Fellow he has to tithe³³The recipient has to tithe as certainly untithed if circumstances indicate that the produce could not have been tithed by the giver, as in the case here since the figs collected in the recipient’s basket could not have been delineated by the giver; cf. Demay 3:3, Notes 79 ff.. And he who said, it is better to tithe what is not earmarked than to feed ṭevel to the vulgar, if he is a Fellow he has to tithe³⁴The giver has to tithe by the rule of Rebbi; the recipient has to tithe by the rules of demay.. Rebbi Jonah asked: Here you declare him to be a Fellow, there you declare him to be a vulgar³⁵The recipient is treated as a Fellow since he is required to tithe demay. On the other hand, he is treated as a vulgar in Rebbi’s argument.. Rebbi Yose said, in both cases, he is a vulgar. But because of the rare one who puts in order he is called a Fellow³⁶If somebody is not a Fellow, he nevertheless may not be a vulgar in the legal sense of the word..

³⁹The paragraph has a parallel in Eruvin 3, fol. 20d. Rebbi Yose⁴⁰This must be R. Yose ben R. Ḥanina since R. Eleazar quotes in his name. No Rebbi Sheshet is known from another source; Rav Sheshet holds in Babli Eruvin 32a that one always may trust an agent to fulfill the duties of his agency. This is rejected here. The older R. Yose ben Ḥanina is not likely to quote from the younger Rav Sheshet. in the name of Rebbi Sheshet, Rebbi Eleazar in the name of Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Abin: If somebody says to another I shall tithe for you, he does not have to be with him. There⁴¹Mishnah Eruvin 3:3. For the notion of eruv, cf. Peah 8, Note 56., we have stated: “If he put it in a tree, higher than ten hand-breadths it is not an eruv, lower than ten hand-breadths it is an eruv.” Rebbi Eleazar said, he has to be with him⁴²The previous Mishnah states: “An eruv sent through an insane, a deaf and dumb, or a minor is invalid. If the eruv will be delivered to a competent person, it is valid.” In the interpretation of the Yerushalmi, the two Mishnaiot belong together; the person who puts the eruv into a tree at the border of the Sabbath domain is an agent of the person who intends to use the eruv. The latter has to check that the agent executed the terms of his agency.. And here, you say so? Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Ada said, here about an adult, there about a minor. Rebbi Ḥananiah said in the name of Rebbi Ḥanina, you may even say in both cases we deal with an adult or in both cases we deal with a minor. There, when he says, make an eruv for me! But here, he says I shall tithe for you⁴³The initiative is the agent’s, not the beneficiary’s.. This learns from that and that learns from this. This learns from that, if he says I shall make an eruv for you, he does not have to be with him. That learns from this, if he says tithe for me, he has to be with him.

“ ‘²⁵Tosephta 2:5, Babli Eruvin 32a. Go and collect for yourself 20 figs from my tree’, he eats one after the other and is free. ‘Go and fill a basket.’ ” Rebbi says, I say that he has to show him the basket⁴⁴He follows the Tosephta and disagrees with the Amoraїm who fix standard sizes of baskets.. What is the measure of a basket? Rebbi Samuel bar Naḥman in the name of Rebbi Jonathan⁴⁵In the Rome ms: R. Joḥanan in the name of R. Simeon ben Yehoẓadaq.: A standard basket is four qab, a large one a seah, a small one three qab⁴⁶In Tosephta 2:7, a large basket is ≥ a seah, an average one ≥ three qab, a small one ≥ two qab. For the volumes of seah and qab, cf. Peah 3:7, Note 108.. Rebbi Jonah asked: Has this been said for tithes or for contract law⁴⁷If the seller contracts to deliver a basket of a commodity, is he bound to deliver the standard volume even if this is not specified in the contract? The question is impossible for the Tannaïm who specify only minimal sizes; for them, the measures must refer to tithes.? If you say for tithes⁴⁸For Rebbi, it gives the donor an indication which quantity to tithe for his gift to be collected., then certainly also for contracts. If for contracts, then not for tithes. It was obvious to Rebbi Yose that this was said for tithes, and certainly also for contracts.

That means⁵³The opinion of the anonymous majority. that the house creates ṭevel for its owner but not for others. Rebbi Eleazar said, Rebbi Jehudah and Rebbi Neḥemiah said the same thing as we have stated⁵⁴Mishnah 3:5, reporting the opinions of various rabbis about the definition of a courtyard which induces the obligation of heave and tithes. R. Jehudah also is quoted in this Mishnah in a statement which does not necessarily conflict with R. Eleazar’s opinion.: “Rebbi Neḥemiah says, every [courtyard] in which a person is not ashamed to eat obligates.” Rebbi Yose said, we thought that Rebbi Neḥemiah and the other rabbis disagree about a courtyard in which he would be ashamed to eat anywhere. That means, not one in which he would be ashamed at some place but not at another. Since Rebbi Eleazar said Rebbi Jehudah and Rebbi Neḥemiah said the same thing, this implies that a place where he would be ashamed is free and one where he would not be ashamed is obligated.

Rebbi Joḥanan said, Rebbi Jehudah implies that they made it like a branch hanging into the courtyard⁵⁵As long as the fruits hang on the branch, they are not obligated. Once harvested, they become immediately obligated unless they are eaten as snack singly (Note 21), in a place free according to Rebbis Jehudah and Neḥemiah, and before the harvest is completed, i. e., while some fruits remain on the branch.. In the opinion of Rebbi Joḥanan, if he eats single ones, eats in a public place, and leaves some remainder. In the opinion of Rebbi Eleazar, even if he does not eat single ones, even if he does not eat in a public place and leaves no remainder⁵⁶The character of the courtyard alone determines the obligation..