משנה: הַמְקַבֵּל עָלָיו לִהְיוֹת נֶאֱמָן מְעַשֵּׂר אֶת שֶׁהוּא אוֹכֵל וְאֶת שֶׁהוּא מוֹכֵר וְאֶת שֶׁהוּא לוֹקֵחַ וְאֵינוֹ מִתְאָרֵחַ אֶצֶל עַם הָאָרֶץ. רִבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר הַמִּתְאָרֵחַ אֶצֶל עַם הָאָרֶץ נֶאֱמָן. אָֽמְרוּ לוֹ עַל עַצְמוֹ אֵינוֹ נֶאֱמָן כֵּיצַד יְהֵא נֶאֱמָן עַל שֶׁל אֲחֵרִים. MISHNAH: He who takes it upon himself to be trustworthy114To guarantee that all his produce is tithed and free from the rules of demay. gives tithes for what he eats, what he sells, and what he buys, and he is not a guest of an am haäreẓ. Rebbi Jehudah said, he who is a guest of an am haäreẓ may be trustworthy. They said to him, for himself he is not trustworthy115Since it is assumed that the am haäreẓ will serve him demay from which the heave of tithes was not taken, and by eating it he potentially commits a deadly sin, how can he be trusted by his customers that tithes were taken according to all rules?, how can he be trusted for others?
הלכה: מַה שֶׁהוּא לוֹקֵחַ עַל מְנָת לֶאֱכוֹל. וְהָא תַנֵּינָן אֶת שֶׁהוּא אוֹכֵל. אֶלָּא אֶת שֶׁהוּא לוֹקֵחַ עַל מְנָת לִמְכּוֹר. וְהָתַנֵּינָן אֶת שֶׁהוּא מוֹכֵר אֶלָּא אֶת שֶׁהוּא לוֹקֵחַ עַל מְנָת לִמְכּוֹר אֶת שֶׁהוּא מוֹכֵר מִפֵּירוֹת מִכְנָסוֹ. HALAKHAH: “What he buys,” to eat it. But did we not state: “What he eats?” Hence, “what he buys” in order to sell it. But did we not state: “What he sells?” Hence, “what he buys” in order to sell it and “what he sells” from his own gathering.
תַּנִּי אָמַר רִבִּי יוּדָה מִימֵיהֶן שֶׁל בַּעֲלֵי בַּתִּים לֹא נִמְנְעוּ לִהְיוֹת מִתְאָֽרְחִין אֶצֶל בַּעֲלֵי בַּתִּים חֲבֵירֵיהֶם. אַף עַל פִּי כֵּן נוֹהֲגִין הָיוּ בְּפֵירוֹתֵיהֶן מְתוּקָּנִין לְתוֹךְ בָּתֵּיהֶן. It was stated116Tosephta Demay 2:1. As usual, the opinion of the anonymous author of the Mishnah is attributed to R. Meïr. The position taken in the Mishnah and here by R. Jehudah in the Tosephta is the collective opinion of the Sages. The sentence here is R. Jehudah’s (or the Sages’) reply that one never objected to any private person’s being the guest of an am haäreẓ. (What the observant person has to do in this case is described at the end of this Halakhah. The Yerushalmi accepts this relaxed standard for private persons but not for traders.): Rebbi Jehudah said, private persons never refrained from being guests of private persons of their acquaintance. Nevertheless, they used to put in order all their produce in their own houses.
אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹנָה חֲבֵירִין אֵינָן חֲשׁוּדִין לֹא לֶאֱכוֹל וְלֹא לְהַאֲכִיל. רִבִּי יוֹסֵי אוֹמֵר חֲבֵירִין חֲשׁוּדִין לֶאֱכֹל וְאֵינָן חֲשׁוּדִין לְהַאֲכִיל. מַתְנִיתָא פְלִיגָא עַל רִבִּי יוֹסֵי. אָֽמְרוּ לוֹ עַל עַצְמוֹ אֵינוֹ נֶאֱמָן כֵּיצַד יְהֵא נֶאֱמָן עַל שֶׁל אֲחֵרִים. מִילֵּיהוֹן דְּרַבָּנִין מְסַייְעִין עַל רִבִּי יוֹסֵי. דְּאָמַר רִבִּי חֲנִינָא רִבִּי יָסָא בְשֵׁם רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן לֹא אָמַר רִבִּי יוּדָה אֶלָּא בְסוֹף אֲבָל בִּתְחִילָּה אוּף רִבִּי יוּדָה מוֹדֵי. אִין תֵימַר חֲבֵירִים אֵין חֲשׁוּדִין לֹא לוֹכַל וְלֹא לְהַאֲכִיל מַה בֵּין בִּתְחִילָּה מַה בֵּין בְּסוֹף. דְּתַנִּי הַמְקַבֵּל עָלָיו לִהְיוֹת נֶאֱמָן חוּץ מִדָּבָר אֶחָד אֵין מְקַבְּלִין אוֹתוֹ הֶחָשׁוּד עַל דָּבָר אֶחָד חָשׁוּד הוּא עַל הַכֹּל. רִבִּי יוּדָה אוֹמֵר אֵינוֹ חָשׁוּד אֶלָּא עַל אוֹתוֹ דָבָר בִּלְבַד. Rebbi Jonah said, ḥaverim117As explained in the next Mishnah, a ḥaver is a person who takes it upon himself to observe the rules of ritual purity in his private life, away from the Sanctuary, and to avoid becoming impure if at all possible. With the disappearance of the last ways to cleanse oneself from the impurity induced by the dead (see the Notes to Berakhot 1:1:1" href="/Jerusalem_Talmud_Berakhot.1.1.1">Mishnah Berakhot 1:1), fellowship was slowly transformed into the fraternity of those who followed ritual law scrupulously. Since Rebbi Jonah and Rebbi Yose are late Amoraïm, we have to assume that for them, fellowship and trustworthiness are practically identical; see the story about R. Simeon ben Laqish in the next Halakhah, Note 154. are not suspected either to eat or to serve to others118According to R. Jonah, a ḥaver who is seen eating at an am haäreẓ’s home or inviting an am haäreẓ to eat with him loses his standing. There is no imputation that the home of the am haäreẓ would not be kosher, but his food may be impure and eating it might break the vow of fellowship. That would not apply to fruits eaten dry, for example. But the food presented by the am haäreẓ is demay by definition and it will be made clear that the vow of fellowship is a step above that of being trustworthy for tithes; hence, eating demay breaks trustworthiness and, a fortiori, fellowship. If one gives of one’s food to an am haäreẓ, it becomes impure by contact with the impure person which is a sure break of the vow of fellowship.. Rebbi Yose said, ḥaverim are suspected to eat but not to serve to others119R. Yose holds that a ḥaver who is seen eating from a source considered as demay does not lose his standing since he might have put his food in order mentally as explained at the end of the Halakhah. In the next Halakhah, however, the statement of R. Yose is qualified to apply to trustworthy persons only, not to recognized ḥaverim.. The Mishnah disagrees with Rebbi Yose: “They said to him, for himself he is not trustworthy, how can he be trusted for others?” The words of the rabbis support Rebbi Yose, for Rebbi Ḥanina, Rebbi Yasa, said in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Rebbi Jehudah spoke only of the end, but at the start even Rebbi Jehudah will agree.120If somebody takes the vow (publicly, as explained later) of trustworthiness, he must accept the rules spelled out in the Mishnah as the majority opinion. If later he is seen eating from the am haäreẓ’s, there is disagreement between R. Jehudah and the Sages. If you say that ḥaverim are not suspected either to eat or to serve to others, what is the difference between start and end? As we have stated121A similar statement is in Tosephta Demay 2:3, reproduced Bekhorot.30b">Babli Bekhorot 30b, but speaking of fellowship instead of trustworthiness. Again, the anonymous opinion here is R. Meïr’s in the Tosephta, and R. Jehudah’s here is that of the anonymous majority there. (Maimonides Miškav Umošav 10:9 follows the Babli and, hence, the opinion expressed here by R. Jehudah.): “He who takes it on himself to be trustworthy except for one thing cannot be accepted; he who is suspect in one thing is suspect in everything. Rebbi Jehudah said, he is only suspect in that thing alone.”
תַּנִּי הַנֶּאֱמָן עַל הַטָּהֳרוֹת נֶאֱמָן עַל הַמַּעְשְׂרוֹת. תַּנִּיתָהּ רִבִּי יַנַּאי בֵּי רִבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל וְאָמַר טַעְמָא. הָדָא דְּתֵימַר בְּמִתְאָרֵחַ אֶצְלוֹ אֲבָל בְּרַבִּים אֵינוֹ נֶאֱמָן עַד שֶׁיְּקַבֵּל עָלָיו בְּרַבִּים. רִבִּי אַמִּי בְשֵׁם רִבִּי יַנַּאי אֲפִילוּ אֲנִי אֵינִי נֶאֱמָן עַד שֶׁנְּקַבֵּל עָלָיו בְּרַבִּים. רִבִּי זְעִירָא רִבִּי יָסָא בְשֵׁם רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן אֲפִילוּ חָבֵר שֶׁשָּׁלַח לְחָבֵר צָרִיךְ לְעַשֵּׂר. רִבִּי זְעִירָא בְּעָא קוֹמֵי רִבִּי יָסָא כְּגוֹן אֲנִי לְרִבִּי שְׁמוּאֵל בַּר רַב יִצְחָק וְרִבִּי שְׁמוּאֵל בַּר רַב יִצְחָק לִי. אָמַר לֵיהּ מַה אַתְּ בְּעֵי מֵרִבִּי שְׁמוּאֵל בַּר רַב יִצְחָק דְּכָל־מַה דְּהוּא אֹכֶל מִן שׁוּקָא הוּא אֹכֶל. It was stated: “He who is trustworthy for purity is trustworthy for tithes.122This implies that one is not accepted for fellowship until he be trustworthy for tithes; see the next Halakhah.” Rebbi Yannai ben Rebbi Ismaël stated it and explained his reason: That means, if one is a guest of his, but for the public he is not trustworthy until he accepts it publicly123Usually, “publicly” means before at least ten adult males. Similarly, the Tosephta (Demay 2:14) speaks of “him who accepts before the fellowship.” However, the Bekhorot.20b">Babli (Bekhorot 20b) requires “before three people” (who form a court of law.). Rebbi Ammi in the name of Rebbi Yannai: Even I am not trustworthy until we accept it in public124The Tosephta (Demay 2:13) and the Bekhorot.30b">Babli (Bekhorot 30b) exempt a member of a Rabbinic court since he would not have been accepted into the court had he not given a vow of fellowship.. Rebbi Zeïra, Rebbi Yasa, in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Even a ḥaver who sent to another ḥaver, the recipient must tithe125In order to avoid situations as that described in Halakhah 1:3 between R. Zeïra and R. Jeremiah, where each trusted the other to put the food in order.. Rebbi Zeïra asked before Rebbi Yasa, for example, I to Rebbi Samuel ben Rav Isaac, and Rebbi Samuel ben Rav Isaac to me? He answered him, what do you want from Rebbi Samuel ben Rav Isaac, because all he eats, he eats from the market126He was Babylonian in origin and, in contrast to R. Zeïra, never acquired land in Galilee. Hence, all he ate was bought from the market as demay and immediately put in order..
הוּא נֶאֱמָן וְאִשְׁתּוֹ אֵינָהּ נֶאֱמָנֶת לוֹקְחִין מִמֶּנּוּ וְאֵין מִתְאָֽרְחִין אֶצְלוֹ. אֲבָל אָֽמְרוּ הֲרֵי הוּא כְדָר עִם הַנָּחָשׁ בִּכְפִיפָה. אִשְׁתּוֹ נֶאֱמָנֶת וְהוּא אֵינוֹ נֶאֱמָן מִתְאָֽרְחִין אֶצְלוֹ וְאֵין לוֹקְחִין מִמֶּנּוּ אֲבָל אָֽמְרוּ תָבוֹא מְאֵירָה לְמִי שֶׁאִשְׁתּוֹ נֶאֱמָנֶת וְהוּא אֵינוֹ נֶאֱמָן. “If127Tosephta Demay 3:9, in slightly different language. The curse on the man whose wife is trustworthy while he is not is missing there. he is trustworthy but his wife is not, one buys from him128On the market. but one cannot be his guest. But they said, he is like one who lives with a snake in the same basket129Since she will serve him demay that was not brought in order if he forgot to ask.. If his wife is trustworthy but he is not, one can be his guest but not buy from him. But they said, a curse should fall on him whose wife is trustworthy while he is not.”
תַּנִּי לֹא יְשַׁמֵּשׁ חָבֵר בְּמִשְׁתֶּה עַם הָאָרֶץ וְלֹא בִסְעוּדַת עַם הָאָרֶץ אֶלָּא אִם כֵּן הָיָה הַכֹּל מְתוּקָּן וּמְעוּשָּׂר מִתַּחַת יָדוֹ וַאֲפִילוּ מֵינֶיקֶת שֶׁל יַיִן. וְאִם שִׁימֵּשׁ חָבֵר בְּמִשְׁתֶּה עַם הָאָרֶץ וּבִסְעוּדַת עַם הָאָרֶץ הֲרֵי זוּ חֲזָקָה לְמַעְשְׂרוֹת. רָאוּ אוֹתוֹ מֵיסַב אֵינָהּ חֲזָקָה אֲנִי אוֹמֵר עַל הַתְּנָאִין שֶׁבְּלִבּוֹ הוּא מֵיסַב. בְּנוֹ מֵיסַב אֶצְלוֹ צָרִיךְ לְעַשֵּׂר עַל יָדָיו. חֲבֵירוֹ אֵינוֹ צָרִיךְ לְעַשֵּׂר עַל יָדָיו. It was stated130Similar text is in Tosephta Demay 3:6–7.: “A ḥaver131According to R. S. Lieberman, the “ḥaver” here is the trustworthy person, not necessarily a full member of the fellowship, but the language both here and in the Tosephta does not support this explanation. Maimonides, in Chapter 10 of Maäser, identifies trustworthy person and ḥaver, but he writes for practical use and in his time the difference between the two had disappeared since nobody was able to eat in purity. However, as will be explained in the next Halakhah, one facet of fellowship, the washing of one’s hands before a meal, is still valid and this has to be added to the conditions of trustworthiness in any case. should not serve as waiter at the wedding feast of an am haäreẓ or the dinner of an am haäreẓ except when everything was in order and tithed under his control, even132Including the wine that might be in the ladle separate from the amphora from which the heave of the tithe is taken. the wine ladle. But if133Since a ḥaver may not serve at a dinner of untithed food, his presence is a guarantee of the kosher status of the entire meal. a ḥaver acted as waiter at the wedding feast of an am haäreẓ or the dinner of an am haäreẓ this is prima facie evidence for tithes. If one saw him134The ḥaver was not a waiter but a guest; his participation is not proof of anything since before the meal he could have made a mental stipulation to give the necessary tithes for what he ate from his own provisions at home when he returned; this is an acceptable way of tithing demay in emergencies (Mishnah 7:1). But he is not responsible for anybody else at the dinner, except for his dependents. lying on a couch it would not be prima facie evidence, since I say that he is lying on the couch after making the required mental stipulations. If his son is lying down next to him, he has to tithe for him; he does not have to tithe for another ḥaver.”