Yerushalmi Maasrot 3:1 ירושלמי מעשרות ג׳:א׳

MISHNAH: If somebody transports figs through his courtyard to cut them into pieces¹They are not fully processed and the courtyard does not induce ṭevel., his children and companions²This certainly includes his wife; it may also include hired domestic servants. may eat and they are free³Since the figs are not fully processed there is no reason to require them to tithe.; the same holds for laborers who work for him⁴They work on other tasks, not in processing the figs. Therefore, there is no biblical law that permits them to eat. If their meals are part of their wages the employer would pay his debts with untithed fruits and this is forbidden. as long as they cannot claim their meals from him. But those who can claim their meals from him may not eat.
If somebody takes his workers out to the field, if they have no claim to meals from him, they eat and are free³⁴They do not work on the fig trees and do not eat by biblical decree. The farmer may offer them figs on the field but this does not have the status of a gift or a sale and does not create ṭevel.. But if they can claim meals from him they may eat single fruits from the fig tree but not from the basket or the box or the muqẓeh³⁵Since any food they eat between meals reduces the amount he has to give to them, the owner cannot discharge a monetary obligation using heave and tithes. Therefore, they may eat only in the way a recipient of a gift may eat untithed food..
If somebody hires a laborer to work with him on olive trees and said to him “on condition to be able to eat olives,⁴¹The Halakhah will explain that the laborer is hired to work around the tree but not on the tree itself. He cannot eat by biblical law; therefore his contract is treated as a sale and is subject to heave and tithes if he takes more than one piece at a time.” he eats one by one and if he takes them together he is obligated. To thin out onions, if he said to him “on condition to be able to eat vegetables” he snips off leaf by leaf and eats but if he takes them together he is obligated.

HALAKHAH: May he himself eat⁵Without tithing since his status is not mentioned in the Mishnah.? Rav said, he is forbidden to eat; Ulla ben Rebbi Ismael said in the name of Rebbi Eleazar, this one is permitted to eat. Rav follows Rebbi Meїr⁶Who declares a sale before the end of processing to induce the status of ṭevel. Certainly he will hold that the presence of produce in the courtyard makes it ṭevel., Rebbi Eleazar the rabbis. Does Rav follow Rebbi Meїr? Then even his children and domestics should be forbidden! But Rav follows Rebbi, Rebbi Eleazar the rabbis. As Rebbi Simon said in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi, Rebbi Yose ben Shaul in the name of Rebbi: The Sages say, one eats from what is going to the muqẓeh only in its place⁷At the place where the cut-up figs are fermenting and drying, everybody sees that processing is not finished and one may eat without tithing. But at other places, sliced figs may look like finished food subject to tithing.. Rebbi Jacob ben Idi in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi: one eats from what is going to the muqẓeh in its place and in other places. Rebbi Yose ben Shaul objected to Rebbi: Did we not state⁸Mishnah 4: As long as the carob pods have not been stored on the roof, they may be used as animal feed without tithing. Since nobody by looking at a carob can tell whether it has been stored or not, the distinction which Rebbi makes is not applied uniformly., “carob pods until he collected them on top of his roof?” He said to him, do not object to me about carobs; carobs are animal feed⁸Mishnah 4: As long as the carob pods have not been stored on the roof, they may be used as animal feed without tithing. Since nobody by looking at a carob can tell whether it has been stored or not, the distinction which Rebbi makes is not applied uniformly..

According to Rav, what is the difference between himself and his children? He is forbidden because he depends on muqẓeh¹⁰Since he is the owner of the courtyard, without the evidence of continued processing the courtyard would induce ṭevel and the duty of tithes.. His children who do not depend on muqẓeh are permitted. We understand his children, but his wife? Does she not have a claim for food against him¹¹It is forbidden to pay one’s debts with untithed produce. The marriage contract explicitly notes that the husband will “work for, honor, feed, and provide for” his bride “in the manner of Jewish husbands.” The language seems to imply that this is a contract following rabbinic guidelines; this is the position of Nachmanides and R. Asher ben Ieḥiel (Rosh Ketubot Chap. 13, Sec. 6.) Maimonides holds that nevertheless the obligation is biblical, Hilkhot Išut 12:2.? Following him who says, the wife’s food is not from the Torah. Following what we have stated: “The court will not determine food¹²Tosephta Ševiït 5:22, quoted also in Yerushalmi Ketubot 7:1 (fol. 31b), 13:1 (fol. 34d). The husband left for an overseas trip, stayed longer than anticipated, and now the wife needs money to survive. She may sell some of the husband’s property or take a loan under the supervision of the court. She may not sell Sabbatical produce for her needs since Sabbatical produce may not be used to pay debts of any kind. But if the husband is present, she may eat of his Sabbatical fruits; since his obligation to feed his wife is only rabbinical, this is not considered paying his debts with Sabbatical produce. Similarly here, her eating from figs destined for muqẓeh is not considered paying a debt with untithed fruit. for a wife from Sabbatical money, but she may be given Sabbatical produce to eat at her husband’s.” Can she not be considered like a worker whose work is not worth a peruṭah¹³The smallest bronze coin, about 2 grams in weight. Amounts less than a peruṭah are not recognized in law. The worker cannot eat according to biblical law; what he gets is a gift and the rabbis agreed earlier that a gift has the status of a sale for the obligation of tithes. Even though the obligation of the husband to feed his wife might not be biblical, it is the consequence of a contract volontarily entered upon and it should not be possible to discharge the obligation with untithed produce (except when the wife’s income from her work is more than what she would get from her husband, in which case she is free to stipulate that she will keep her earnings for herself and not be fed by him.)? It implies that she is not considered like a worker whose work is not worth a peruṭah. Even according to him who says, the wife’s food is not from the Torah, does she not have a claim to a dwelling¹⁴Since she has the biblical right to live in her husband’s house and courtyard, if the courtyard creates ṭevel for him it should do the same for her; this seems to contradict Rav’s position.? Following what we stated: “If men participate¹⁵In order to turn the dead-end street where they live into a space in which one may carry on the Sabbath, cf. Demay Chapter 1, Note 193. with food without the knowledge of their wives, the participation is valid. But if wives participate without the knowledge of their husbands, the participation is invalid¹⁶Tosephta Eruvin 6:4. The wife’s right to the dwelling is derivative; there is no reason that the courtyard should create ṭevel for her. This argument is peculiar to the Yerushalmi; in the Babli (Eruvin 80a) the Tosephta is restricted to the case where the husband disapproved of participation beforehand.”.

It was stated: All that was brought from the field to town became ṭevel. The baraita is Rebbi’s, as it was stated: “¹⁷Tosephta 2:8: “If somebody brought figs from the field to eat them in a courtyard exempt from tithes, then forgot and brought them into his house, he may bring them back to their intended place and eat.” If somebody brought figs from the field to eat them in his unprotected courtyard¹⁸Which does not belong to a house and does not induce ṭevel., then forgot and brought them into his house or the children brought them¹⁹Without his knowledge., he may bring them back to their intended place and eat.” They said that only concerning error; therefore, if intentional it is forbidden. Who stated this? Rebbi! As it was stated: “²⁰A different text in Tosephta 2:10. There, the opinion ascribed here to Rebbi is anonymous. If somebody brought figs from the field to eat them on his roof, Rebbi obligates²¹Being exposed to the birds, this is no place of storage; the intention is to eat the figs more or less immediately. Since the figs are transported through the courtyard of the house, Rebbi declares them to be ṭevel; R. Yose ben R. Jehudah frees them since there was no intention of storing. It is also implied that the figs were lifted to the roof directly from the back of the house, so that they never were in the house, not even in front of the entrance door. In this case, they never can become ṭevel and are permanently exempt from heave and tithes according to everybody, as made explicit in the next paragraph., Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Jehudah frees.” It is as it was stated, “if somebody transports figs through his courtyard to cut them into pieces¹They are not fully processed and the courtyard does not induce ṭevel.;” therefore, if it is not to cut into pieces he is obligated.

Rebbi Ulla ben Rebbi Ismael in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: Rebbi and Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Jehudah brought the harvesting basket over the back of the roofs²²Reading גגות for גנות “the gardens” in both mss. and the editio princeps.. Rebbi Jehudah ben Rebbi Ilaї saw them and said, look what the difference is between you and the earlier generations. Rebbi Aqiba bought three different kinds for a peruṭah in order to tithe every kind separately but you bring the harvesting basket over the back of the roofs²³A similar story, also in the name of R. Jehudah bar Ilaï, in Babli Berakhot 35b. In the Yerushalmi, the change from earlier to later generations is from before and after the war of Bar Kokhba. In the Babli, R. Jehudah considers his own generation (before and after the war) as late, the generations in the time of the Temple as early. Since his own son uses the subterfuge, he cannot object to the latter as a matter of law.! Why over the back of the roofs, even if he brings them into his courtyard with the intention to eat them on the roof! Is that not the opinion of Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Jehudah? Because of Rebbi who was with him²¹Being exposed to the birds, this is no place of storage; the intention is to eat the figs more or less immediately. Since the figs are transported through the courtyard of the house, Rebbi declares them to be ṭevel; R. Yose ben R. Jehudah frees them since there was no intention of storing. It is also implied that the figs were lifted to the roof directly from the back of the house, so that they never were in the house, not even in front of the entrance door. In this case, they never can become ṭevel and are permanently exempt from heave and tithes according to everybody, as made explicit in the next paragraph.. An old man saw²⁴Speaking Aramaic, he is characterized as ignorant. He disapproves of rabbinical subterfuges. them and said to them, would you give me some of these? They said, yes. He said to them, you did not give to your father in Heaven, only to me!

Rebbi Joḥanan follows Rebbi, Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Jehudah²⁵This refers to the discussion in Chapter 2, Notes 99–102, whether the Sabbath or a secure courtyard induce ṭevel independent of any intention of the owner.. Does Rebbi Joḥanan follow Rebbi? Even if he would hold with Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Jehudah, the Sabbath is more powerful since windfall which falls by itself is forbidden²⁶Since food for the Sabbath has to be prepared beforehand (Ex. 16:5), fruits which fall from a tree on the Sabbath are forbidden even though collecting them is not harvesting.. Does Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish follow Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Jehudah? Even if he would follow Rebbi, since a secure courtyard²⁷Chapter 2, Note 101. The rest of the paragraph is also found there, Notes 101–102. is more powerful as Rebbi Joḥanan said, buying, courtyard, and Sabbath are not biblical. Rebbi Immi in the name of Rebbi Simeon [ben Laqish], the most reasonable of these is the secure courtyard.

Rebbi Joḥanan in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Ioḥai: If someone had two courtyards²⁸Both enclosed and guarded, potential sources of ṭevel., one in Magdala²⁹On Lake Genezareth, less than 2000 cubits from Tiberias. and one in Tiberias, and transported it to the one in Magdala intending to eat them in Tiberias; since he transported it in a permitted³⁰Since the storage in Magdala is provisional, the processing is not finished and the courtyard does not induce ṭevel. Since one courtyard is inactive, so is the second and the fruits become ṭevel only when brought into storage in house or barn. way it is permitted. It turns out that Rebbi Simeon ben Ioḥai holds with Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Jehudah but is stronger than the latter since Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Jehudah speaks about an exempt place³¹The roof which never induces ṭevel. but Rebbi Simeon ben Ioḥai about a place of obligation³²A courtyard which usually induces ṭevel.
In the Venice print and the Leyden ms., the reference is to R. Simeon ben Laqish. In the Rome ms. it is correctly R. Simeon ben Ioḥai., but since he transported it in a permitted way it is permitted³⁰Since the storage in Magdala is provisional, the processing is not finished and the courtyard does not induce ṭevel. Since one courtyard is inactive, so is the second and the fruits become ṭevel only when brought into storage in house or barn.. Rebbi Eliezer’s statement³³Terumot 8:4, Note 74, about a person who started eating a bunch of grapes as a snack and with them entered his courtyard. is stronger than either of them, since Rebbi Eliezer said, since he started in a permitted way it is permitted.

We understand “not from the basket or the box³⁶Since the harvested fruits are assembled there, they cannot be eaten as a snack; cf. Chapter 2, Note 21.”, but “or the muqẓeh?³⁷The cut-up figs are lying there singly.” Not “³⁸Mishnah 3. he eats one by one and if he takes them together he is obligated”? Rebbi Isaac said, they considered muqẓeh as being taken together⁴⁰A muqẓeh of figs is like a heap of grain..

The house of Rebbi stated: He eats normally⁴²If he is hired to work on olives. This statement is not in the Tosephta. and is free. Rebbi Jonah asked, where do we hold? If he hired him to work with him on the olives⁴³To harvest them., everybody agrees that he eats normally and is free. If he hired him to work the olive trees, everybody agrees that he eats one by one and if he takes them together he is obligated⁴⁴Since it is not harvest time, he cannot eat by biblical law and must eat under the rules of commercial transactions.. But we must hold that he hired him to thin out the olives⁴⁵To remove those whose growth is below normal in order to direct the sap of the olive tree to the good olives. Since he removes olives he can be said to harvest and eat them by biblical decree; this is the position of the House of Rebbi. But since the thinning is a long time before the real harvest, this cannot be considered harvesting: the position of the Tanna of the Mishnah. The House of Rebbi holds that a poor worker will be ready to eat unripe, bitter, raw olives.. Since the latter part is about thinning out onions, if he said to him “on condition to be able to eat vegetables” he tears them out leaf by leaf and eats but if he takes them together he is obligated.

Rebbi Ḥaggai asked the colleagues: What is the reason we stated here that “he is free”⁵³When he eats from the fruits.? They said to him, because he is eating a snack in the field and is free. He said to them, is our Mishnah needed for that, because he is eating a snack in the field and is free⁵⁴This was already stated in Mishnah 1:4 and often since.? It must be because of abandoned property since if he brings it to his house he still is free. As it is stated⁵⁵Tosephta 2:17.: “If somebody found a harvesting basket covered with leaves, that is forbidden because of robbery and is subject to tithes.” It is forbidden because of robbery since it is something with distinguishing marks⁵⁶An object found belongs to its original owner if it carries a distinguishing mark which the owner could indicate as proof of ownership; Mishnah Baba Meẓi‘a 2:1.. It is subject to tithes since the owners still have it in mind⁵⁷It is not abandoned but subject to heave and tithes as private property.. How far, that he could give heave from abandoned property⁵⁸Does he have to wait before eating the fruits until it is clear that the owners will not come back and have abandoned the fruits? Probably the fruits will have spoiled by that time.? He cannot give heave from abandoned property⁵⁹Since fruits abandoned before the end of processing can never become subject to heave and tithes and it is forbidden to tithe what is obligated from what is not obligated (Terumot1:5).! “He turns it into money’s worth and eats.⁶⁰He estimates the commercial value of the fruits due to the owners should they return for their property.”

Rebbi Jonah asked: Does the fixing of the price create ṭevel in a sale⁶¹This is a general question since a sale of movables is consummated only by taking possession, not by paying the amount agreed on (cf. Kilaim 8, Note 46). This is held to be a rabbinic decree; by biblical law a sale can be concluded also by paying the amount agreed on. In no case does the fixing of a price conclude the sale. The particular question here is what are the legal implications of the finder putting a monetary value on the fruits he found.? Or maybe, since the owners can take it back there is no ṭevel? Rebbi Mana asked: Think of it if one was put⁶²The queer formulation as a passive is necessary here since if the finder takes one fruit by all opinions he is taking possession, becomes the owner irrevocably, and incurs a monetary debt to the original owner. For the question to have meaning, a third, uninterested, person must have put the fruit into the finder’s mouth. in his mouth! Is it not unappetizing? Can he give it back? If you say so, is he not eating ṭevel retroactively? That means, the fixing of the price is like a sale.

‘If he found a harvesting basket in a place where most people bring to market⁶³Then the processing is completed and is subject to heave and tithes. Since the owner might have tithed before he lost that basket, it must be tithed as demay., it is forbidden to eat a snack from them and he must put it in order as demay. In a place where most people bring to their houses⁶⁴Then the obligation starts only when the harvest is brought to storage. In this case, one assumes that it was not tithed at all., it is permitted to eat a snack from them and he must put it in order as certain. Half and half, he puts in order as demay⁶⁵As spelled out later, this is if he wants to eat in the field. but if he brings it to his house he must put it in order as certain.’ Rebbi Jonah asked, does demay create ṭevel for certain⁶⁶The rule given for a harvest basket found in a place where 50% move to market makes sense only if either all or none of the fruits are eaten in the field. If some are eaten in the field and tithed as demay, how can they then lose their status as profane and return to that of ṭevel for Great Heave. This seems to be impossible; cf. Terumot 1:4.? If you would say so, does he not invert the order? Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun, Rebbi Joḥanan in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Yoẓadaq, he must spell out a condition and say: “If this is from those who bring to market, what I did is valid, otherwise, I did not do anything,” so that heave of the tithe should not contain ṭevel of the Great Heave⁶⁷If heave of the tithe was taken as demay on the field under the reservation spelled out here and the great heave and another heave of the tithe in the house, the three heaves may be eaten by a Cohen and the remainder is fully profane. If there were no reservation made the first heave of the tithe would be forbidden even to the Cohen as ṭevel.. ‘Half and half on the field he puts in order as demay but if he brings it to his house he must put it in order as certain.’ Should one not be afraid that it was from those who bring to their houses and its Great Heave would contain ṭevel of heave of the tithe⁶⁸This is the text in both mss. and the editio princeps but it is difficult to accept since in this case the first heave of the tithe has been declared to be profane and is given to the Cohen only because of the doubt. All commentators emend the text but their emendations do not help much. One has to say that the (slightly varied) text of the baraita introduces a new argument (in preparation for the answer of R. Mattaniah) which does not take the stipulation of R. Joḥanan into account. It is pointed out that not only does one run into difficulty if the basket was destined for the market but even if it was destined for the house. In that case, the first heave of the tithe (given as demay) is ṭevel for the Great Heave and cannot be eaten by the Cohen.? Rebbi Mattaniah said, if he gives a name to his tithes⁶⁹Since Great Heave has no minimum volume by biblical standards, if the basket which was put in order as demay now is tithed as certain, it is sufficient to declare that some minute amount of the heave of the tithe is to be eaten as Great Heave. Since for the Cohen the rules of both are identical, no difficulty is created and the solution of R. Joḥanan is unnecessary..

So far something that has no threshing floor; but of produce from the threshing floor one separates heave of the tithe but does not need to give Great Heave as it was stated: “⁷⁰A related text in Tosephta 2:17. According to the Tosephta, the question in the next paragraph is pointless since tithes may be taken either from the grain or from storage. If he found cleaned⁷¹Cleaned from chaff after threshing. grain on the field, in a heap it is forbidden because of robbery, dispersed it is permitted because of robbery⁷²These grains are leftovers from threshing which were not collected. Therefore, they are abandoned property and legally may be taken up by any passer-by.. In any case it is subject to tithes but free from Great Heave because no threshing floor is cleared unless Great Heave was taken.”

From where are tithes taken, from the house or from the field⁷³The question is difficult to understand since it was shown in Terumot 2:1 that only Great Heave must be given from the harvest at a well defined place but tithes and the Heave of the Tithe may be given from any untithed produce of the same kind. The question seems to be whether the grain collected after somebody else’s threshing is subject to tithes as a biblical law, in which case it can be used to tithe others and other grains can tithe for it, or it is rabbinic and a special case which needs special handling.? Let us hear from the following⁷⁴This baraita is quoted in Babli Pesaḥim 4b,9a; Avodah Zarah 41b, Niddah 15b. It is asserted there that the fact that the grain is in a chest is in itself proof that the grain was fully tithed before storage. In contrast, the Yerushalmi seems to permit a fellow to deposit his grain in the chest and tithe from it.: If a fellow died and in his estate was a chest full of grain, even if he filled it the same day it is supposed to be in order. Is it impossible that he should not have been of clouded mind at least for an hour⁷⁵Then the grain might be un-tithed even though it belonged to a fellow who was true to his obligations.? Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya said, explain it if he died with a clear mind. Rebbi Ḥananiah in the name of Rebbi Phineas understood it from the following⁷⁶Mishnah Ma‘aser Šeni 5:9, speaking of Rabban Gamliel and his entourage on a voyage from Rome to the Land of Israel who had to tithe his grains before the holiday and did this by a promise of future delivery from storage. This proves that, in general, tithes can be given from anywhere, also from storage for grain found on the road.: “One tenth which I shall separate in the future is given to Aqiba ben Joseph that he should distribute it to the poor.” That means, from the house. Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba understood it from the following⁷⁷Mishnah Terumot 4:2, cf. Note 14. It is implied by the Mishnah that both for R. Meїr and the Sages, tithes can be given from another storage facility.: “If somebody’s produce was in a storage bin and he gave a seah to a Levite and a seah to a poor person;” that means, from the house. Rebbi Abba Mari understood it from the following⁷⁸Mishnah Ma‘aser Šeni 5:10. The Mishnah contains a midrash on Deut. 26:13: “I did remove the sanctified food” refers to Second Tithe and the fourth-year growth, “from the house,” refers to ḥallah, “and also gave it” refers to heave and heave of the tithe, “to the Levite,” refers to the Levite’s tithe, “the sojourner, the orphan, and the poor,” refers to the tithe of the poor, “following all commandments You commanded me;” therefore, if he gave heave of the tithe before the Great Heave he cannot recite the declaration, “I did not transgress Your commandments and I did not forget.” Since the house is mentioned in connection with ḥallah heave from dough, it is clear that heaves and tithes are supposed to be taken outside the house, i. e., in the field.: “(Deut. 26:13) ‘From the house’, that is ḥallah.” That means, from the field.