משנה: רִבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר אוֹמֵר אֵין אָדָם צָרִיךְ לִקְרוֹת שֵׁם עַל מַעֲשֵׂר עָנִי שֶׁל דְּמַאי. וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים קוֹרֵא שֵׁם וְאֵינוֹ צָרִיךְ לְהַפְרִישׁ. מִי שֶׁקָּרָא שֵׁם לִתְרוּמַת מַעֲשֵׂר שֶׁל דְּמַאי וּלְמַעֲשֵׂר עָנִי שֶׁל וַדַּאי לֹא יִטְּלֵם בַּשַּׁבָּת וְאִם הָיָה כֹהֵן אוֹ עָנִי לִמּוּדִים לוֹכַל מִמֶּנּוּ אֶצְלוֹ יָבוֹאוּ וְיֹּאכְלוּ וּבִלְבַד שֶׁיּוֹדִיעֵם. MISHNAH: Rebbi Eliezer says, nobody has to give a name to the tithe of the poor from demay45The tithe of the poor is due in years 3 and 6 of the Sabbatical cycle. Sincedemay is only ṭevel by doubt, no poor man can go to court and sue to collect the tithe. The tithe of the poor is only a civil obligation and no sanctity is attached to it. R. Eliezer says that in years 3 and 6 the tithe is nonexistent for demay but the Sages, according to Maimonides in his Mishnah Commentary, hold that in order to protect the separation and redemption of Second Tithe in other years, one has at least to indicate that the tithe of the poor, if given, would have to be at a fixed part of the stored produce (e. g., at the Northern or Southern end.). But the Sages say, he has to give a name but does not have to separate. He who gave a name64If he said, for example, that the heave of the tithe should be the Northernmost 1% of the produce, or the heave of the poor the 10% next to a given corner. If this is not done, nothing at all from that produce can be eaten on the Sabbath. to his heave of the tithe of demay65The heave of the tithe for certain tevel must be given by the Levite receiving the First Tithe, not the farmer. In contrast, the heave of the poor is given only from produce that is certain., or to the certain tithe of the poor, should not separate them66R. Simson of Sens proves from Mishnah 7:1, and it is also clear from the next paragraph, that once a name is given to heave and tithes, the actual handling of it on the Sabbath is permitted. What is questionable is taking it and handing it over to the recipients since transfer of property on the Sabbath is not permitted. on the Sabbath. But if a Cohen or a poor person were used to eat from his food at his table, they may come and eat it67He and they sit at the same table and eat from the same produce on condition that Cohen or poor eat from the corner that was declared to be their part. In that way, the produce is no longer demay or tevel and the owner may eat simultaneously with his guests as long as the guests know that they are eating heave or tithe. on condition that he inform them.
הלכה: רִבִּי בָּא בַּר הוּנָא בְשֵׁם רַב הָאוֹכֵל פֵּירוֹתָיו טְבוּלִין לְמַעֲשֵׂר עָנִי חַייָב מִיתָה. מַה טַעַם דְּרִבִּי לִיעֶזֶר מִכֵּיוָן שֶׁהוּא יוֹדֵעַ שֶׁהוּא בַּעֲוֹן מִיתָה מַפְרִישׁ. מַה טַעַם דְּרַבָּנָן בְּלֹא כָךְ קוֹרֵא שֵׁם וְאֵינוֹ צְרִיךְ לְהַפְרִישׁ. HALAKHAH: Rebbi Abba bar Huna47In the Babli, he is called Rabba bar Rav Huna, son of the Amora Rav Huna, and fourth head of the Yeshivah at Sura founded by Rav. In the Midrash (Ekhah rabbati on Thr. 1:3), this tradition is ascribed to Rav Bibi and Rav Huna. The title is incorrect; it should be רב but because of the elided א in the name Abba the text cannot be emended. in the name of Rav: He who eats his produce without having separated the tithe of the poor commits a deadly sin48In the Makkot.16b">Babli, Makkot 16b, Rav is quoted as saying that such a person is whipped, implying that it is not a deadly sin.. What is the reason of Rebbi Eliezer? Because he49The farmer knows that not separating the tithe of the poor makes his food a deadly affair; he will separate it. (Since most farmers consider themselves poor, he probably will eat the tithe himself. If he is not actually poor he has overstepped a positive commandment, not a prohibition.) As a consequence, demay in the years of the tithe of the poor will not contain that tithe. Such an argument were impossible if we would read “Second Tithe” in the statement attributed to Rav. knows that it would be a deadly sin, he will separate it. What is the reason of the rabbis? He only has to give a name but does not have to separate it47In the Babli, he is called Rabba bar Rav Huna, son of the Amora Rav Huna, and fourth head of the Yeshivah at Sura founded by Rav. In the Midrash (Ekhah rabbati on Thr. 1:3), this tradition is ascribed to Rav Bibi and Rav Huna. The title is incorrect; it should be רב but because of the elided א in the name Abba the text cannot be emended..
תַּנִּי הַנֶּאֱמָן רָאוּ אוֹתוֹ מַפְרִישׁ שֵׁנִי. תַּנִּי לַשֵּׁנִי נֶאֱמָָן לָרִאשׁוֹן דִּבְרֵי רִבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר. וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים הַנֶּאֱמָן לָרִאשׁוֹן נֶאֱמָן לַשֵּׁנִי. הַנֶּאֱמָן לַשֵּׁנִי אֵינוֹ נֶאֱמָן לָרִאשׁוֹן. מַה טַעַם דְּרִבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר מִשּׁוּם שֶׁאֵינוֹ חָשׁוּד לְהַקְדִּים אוֹ מִשּׁוּם שֶׁהִפְרִישׁ שֵׁנִי חֲזָקָה שֶׁהִפְרִישׁ רִאשׁוֹן. וְהָתַנֵּינָן רִבִּי לִיעֶזֶר אוֹמֵר אֵין אָדָם צָרִיךְ לִקְרוֹת שֵׁם לְמַעֲשֵׂר עָנִי שֶׁל דְּמַאי. הָא שֵׁנִי צָרִיךְ מַה אִם שֵׁנִי שֶׁאֵין לְרַבּוֹ טוֹבַת הֲנָייָה צָרִיךְ לְהַפְרִישׁ. רִאשׁוֹן שֶׁיֵּשׁ לְרַבּוֹ טוֹבַת הֲנָייָה לֹא כָל־שֶׁכֵּן. It was stated51Tosephta Maäser Šeni 3:6: “If somebody was seen separating the Second Tithe, he is trustworthy for the First Tithe, the words of R. Eliezer. But the Sages say, if he is trustworthy for the First, he is trustworthy for the Second; he who is trustworthy for the Second is not trustworthy for the First. If he separated heave, First and Second Tithes, and ate from it, he is trustworthy for that kind of food but not for any other kind, the words of Rebbi Eliezer. But the Sages say, even for that kind he is not trustworthy {unless he passes the formal tests of trustworthiness}; you cannot trust him for he might put in order for himself but leads others astray {by eating kosher produce but selling ṭevel.}”
The text here makes little sense. It seems that the first two words of the next clause are dittography. The implication is that the formal induction into ḥaverut, described in Chapter 2, does solve all problems in theory but not in practice since many people will be reluctant to wear a badge that proclaims their superiority over fellow Jews. Hence, we need some guidelines to recognize people who follow the rules without ostentation.: He is trustworthy if they saw him separate the Second Tithe. It was stated: For the Second, he is trustworthy for the First, the words of Rebbi Eliezer. But the Sages say, if he trustworthy for the First, he is trustworthy for the Second. He who is trustworthy for the Second is not trustworthy for the First. What is the reason of Rebbi Eliezer?52Since the Yerushalmi discusses R. Eliezer but not the Sages, it endorses R. Eliezer’s stand in principle. Is it because he is not suspected of advancing the tithe53Cf. Chapter 1, Note 208., or because if he separated the Second it is a standing presumption that he separated the First54Since not separating the heave of the tithe is much more severe a transgression than not separating the Second Tithe.? But did we not state: “Rebbi Eliezer says, nobody has to give a name to the tithe of the poor from demay.” Hence, for the Second it is needed55R. Eliezer certainly agrees that separating the Second Tithe is part of the procedure needed to fix demay.. Since he has to separate the Second, on which the owner earns no goodwill56Each time he redeems Second Tithe, he loses a peruta's worth of value in the coin set aside for these redemptions. If all perutot in the coin are used up, he has to destroy it. he certainly will separate the First, on which he earns goodwill57While he has to give the First Tithe to a Levite or a Cohen (at least as long as they had documentary proof that their male ancesters were admitted to service in the Temple), the choice of the person who receives his tithes is his and it is perfectly legitimate to use the First Tithe and the {pure} heave of the tithe to cement friendships and commercial ties.!
הוֹצִיא לָהֶן מַעֲשֵׂר שֵׁינִי מִתּוֹךְ בֵּיתוֹ אָמַר לָהֶן פָּדוּי הוּא נֶאֱמָן. פְּדוּ לוֹ וּפְדוּ לָכֶם אֵינוֹ נֶאֱמָן. מַתְנִיתָא דְּרִבִּי לִיעֶזֶר דְּרִבִּי לִיעֶזֶר אוֹמֵר הַנֶּאֱמָן עַל הַשֵּׁנִי נֶאֱמָן עַל הָרִאשׁוֹן. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹסֵי דִּבְרֵי הַכֹּל הִיא עָשׂוּ אוֹתוֹ כְתוֹסֶפֶת הַבִּיכּוּרִים מַה תּוֹסֶפֶת הַבִּיכּוּרִים נֶאֱכֶלֶת בְּטָהֳרָה וּפְטוּרָה מִן הַדְּמַאי אַף זֶה נֶאֱכֶלֶת מִשּׁוּם שֵׁנִי וּפָטוּר מָשׁוּם רִאשׁוֹן. אָתָא רִבִּי חֲנַנְיָה בְשֵׁם רִבִּי אִיסִּי דְּרִבִּי לִיעֶזֶר הִיא. “If somebody brought out Second Tithe from his house to somebody and said: ‘It is redeemed,’ he is trustworthy; ‘redeem for me and yourself,’58R. Abraham ben David (Maimonides, Maäser 12:5) reads פדוי לי ופדוי לכם “it is redeemed for me and is redeemed for you,” interpreted to mean “it is redeemed following my standards and I hope that is good enough for you.” He declares himself not to follow generally accepted standards and makes himself untrustworthy. The classical commentators follow this reading. he is not trustworthy59In the second case, when he says, redeem it for me, it is clear that Second Tithe was not given. Hence, if it is spelled out that he is not trustworthy, it implies that he is not trustworthy for First Tithe and the heave of the tithe. It follows that the first “trustworthy” has exactly the same meaning and in the first case he is declared to be trustworthy for First because he is believed to be trustworthy for Second..” The baraita is Rebbi Eliezer’s, since Rebbi Eliezer said, he who is trustworthy for the Second is trustworthy for the First. Rebbi Yose said, everybody agrees, they made it like additions to First Fruits60First Fruits are presented to the Temple and eaten there by the Cohen under the laws of purity of sacrifices. First Fruits are chosen when the farmer sees a first fruit forming in his orchard; then he binds a string of bast around that twig to recognize the fruit later. If he thinks that it is shabby to bring just one fruit to the Temple, he will add other fruits of the same kind to his basket. The First Fruit itself, as a sacrifice, is exempt from all heaves and tithes; the additions are not. But if the Cohen in the Temple asks the am haäreẓ farmer whether the additional fruits are tithed, he is by law required to believe what the farmer tells him (Maimonides Maäser 13:14).. Just as additions to First Fruits are eaten in purity and are free from demay, so this is eaten as Second Tithe and is free from the First. Rebbi Ḥananiah confirmed in the name of Rebbi Issi61R. Assi.: it is Rebbi Eliezer’s62There is no support in any Tannaitic material for R. Yose’s creation of a new category of fruits exempt from demay. Hence, the baraita is R. Eliezer’s and the Sages make trustworthiness dependent exclusively on the rules given in Chapter 2..
כֵּנִי מַתְנִיתָא לֹא [יִתְּנֵם] בְּשַׁבָּת דְּתַנֵּינָן תַּמָּן בֵּית שַׁמַּיי אוֹמְרִים אֵין מוֹלִיכִין חַלָּה וּמַתָּנוֹת לַכֹּהֵן בְּיוֹם טוֹב בֵּין שֶׁהוּרְמוּ מֵאֶמֶשׁ בֵּין שֶׁהוּרְמוּ מֵהַיּוֹם וּבֵית הִלֵּל מַתִּירִין. הָדָא יַלְּפָא מִן הַהִיא וְהַהִיא יַלְּפָא מִן הָדָא. הָדָא יַלְּפָא מִן הַהִיא הִיא יוֹם טוֹב הִיא שַׁבָּת. וְהַהִיא יַלְּפָא מִן הָדָא בְּלִימּוּדִין אֲבָל בִּשֶׁאֵין לִימּוּדִין לָא סְלַק עָל בָּר נַשָּׁא מֵיכוּל פִּיסָּתֵיהּ בְּבֵיתֵיהּ דְּחַבְרֵיהּ. This is the Mishnah68A clarification of what the Mishnah means; cf. J. N. Epstein, מבוא לנוסח המשנה, 2nd ed., p. 445.: He should not hand them over on the Sabbath, since we have stated there: “The House of Shammai say that one does not bring ḥallah and gifts69The parts of a profane, slaughtered animal that should be given to the Cohen (Deuteronomy.18.3">Deut. 18:3). to the Cohen on a holiday, whether they were separated the day before or on the day itself, but the House of Hillel do permit this.” The first statement implies the second, the second implies the first. The first statement implies the second; there is no difference between holiday and Sabbath70There is an obvious difference between holiday and Sabbath in that on holidays one is permitted to bake, hence to create ḥallah, and to slaughter, hence to create new gifts for the Cohen. But property may not be transferred at all according to the House of Shammai, and according to the House of Hillel only in a roundabout way, when the Cohen eats his part at the table of the giver.. The second implies the first; that is, if they71Cohen and poor person eating at the householder’s Sabbath table. They may eat unseparated tithe or heave only if they are regular guests and the householder knows that they will come. are used to. But if they are not used to, no person comes72The text has two synonyms, סלק “comes up,” על “ascends.” to eat his piece of bread at another’s house.
תַּנִּי לֹא יְסָרֵב אָדָם בַּחֲבֵירוֹ לְאָֽרְחוֹ בְּשָׁעָה שֶׁהוּא יוֹדֵעַ שֶׁאֵינוֹ רוֹצֶה. וְלֹא יַרְבֶּה לוֹ בְתַקְרוֹבֶת בְּשָׁעָה שֶׁהוּא יוֹדֵעַ שֶׁאֵינוֹ מְקַבֵּל. מַהוּ בְתַקְרוֹבֶת יְדַע דְּהוּא רָחֵיץ וְהָא מַטְרַח עֲלוֹי. וּבִירוּשָׁלֵם הֲוָה מַפִּיךְ פִּילְכֵּיהּ דִּשְׂמָלָא לִימִינָא. It was stated73Tosephta Bava Qama 7:8:“There are seven kinds of thieves and the worst of them is the thief of opinons: He who importunes another person to be his guest while he knows that the other will not accept, he who offers many gifts while he knows that the other will not accept, he who opens a new barrel for a guest when from its contents he will sell to a grocer, etc.” In these cases, the person invited, offered gifts, or wine from a brand new barrel, thinks that the other party is ready to go to real expense on his behalf when in reality the pretending giver knows that it will cost him nothing. This paragraph is added because in the Mishnah, Cohen and poor have to be informed that they are eating heave and tithe which is forbidden to their host.: “One should not importune anybody to be his guest if he knows that the other person will not accept. He should not offer many gifts of closeness if he knows that the other person will not accept.” What are gifts of closeness? He knows that the other person expects that he would exert himself for him. In Jerusalem one turned his clasp74In the parallel text, Avodah zarah 1:3, fol. 39a, an unexplained word עיכלה is used, in Ekhah rabbati4(2) יד אונקלי שלו. The commentary מתנות כהונה to Ekhah rabbati indicates that in his Yerushalmi manuscript the word is פיבליה, identified by A. Kohut as Latin fibula, “clasp” to hold the toga together. The Yerushalmi spelling corresponds to the late Greek form φίβλα. Kohut conjectures that on the way to a dinner one wore the clasp inverted as a sign that no other invitation could be accepted. [Babylonian sources (Tosephta Berakhot 4:9, Baba batra 93b) deal with preparations of the host, not the guest, for the dinner. The word appearing here, פילכיה “his distaff, spindle” does not fit.] from left to right.
תַּנִּי אֵין מוֹלִיכִין לְבֵית הָאֵבֶל בִּכְלֵי זְכוּכִית צְבוּעָה מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהוּא טוֹעֲנוֹ טַעֲנַת חִנָּם. It was stated: “One does not carry to the mourner’s house in colored glass containers because he carries a false load75After a burial, the mourners may not prepare a meal for themselves but must receive their first meal from the neighbors. The Babli (Moëd qaṭan27a) prescribes that all food be brought in simple baskets woven from leaves of the date palm (so that the poor also could take part in this good deed); the baraita there must be of Babylonian origin. Colored glass is frowned upon because is looks expensive but may contain very little food since it is opaque..”
תַּנִּי עִיר שֶׁיֵּשׁ בָּהּ גּוֹיִם וְיִשְׂרָאֵל הַגַּבָּיִּים גּוֹבִין מִשֶּׁל יִשְׂרָאֵל וּמִשֵּׁל גּוֹיִם וּמְפָֽרְנְסִין עֲנִיֵּי יִשְׂרָאֵל וַעֲנִיָּי גּוֹיִם וּמְבַקְּרִין חוֹלֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל וְחוֹלֵי גוֹיִם וְקוֹבְרִין מֵתֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל וּמֵתֵי גּוֹיִם. וּמְנַחֲמִין אֲבֵילֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל וַאֲבֵילֵי גּוֹיִם. וּמַכְנִיסִין כְּלֵי גּוֹיִם וּכְלֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל מִפְּנֵי דַּרְכֵי שָׁלוֹם. It was stated76Tosephta Giṭṭin 3:13–14, partially quoted in Gittin.61a">Babli Giṭṭin 61a. Since a Jewish community is required to have organized charity, if the Gentiles do not have similar services, the Jewish social services must be offered also to the Gentiles to advance intercommunal relations. The paragraph is inserted here probably from the parallel text in Avodah zarah1:3, since the next paragraph is dependent on this one and belongs to Avodah zarah.: “In a town where Gentiles and Jews live together, the overseers of charity collect from Jews and Gentiles and provide for Jewish and Gentile poor, visit Jewish and Gentile sick, bury Jewish and Gentile dead, and console Gentile and Jewish mourners. Also, one takes in vessels77If one finds a usable vessel that has some distinguishing mark, if it was lost by a Jew it is the duty of a fellow Jew who finds it to take it with him, advertise for the loser, and return it (Deuteronomy.22.1-3">Deut. 22:1–3). This is extended to vessels lost by Gentiles for the sake of intercommunal peace. from Gentiles and from Jews for the sake of peaceful coexistence.”
גִּירְדָּאֵי שָׁאֲלוּן לְרִבִּי אִימִּי יוֹם מִשְׁתֶּה שֶׁל גּוֹיִם מַהוּ. סְבַר מִישְׁרֵי לוֹן מִן הָכָא מִפְּנֵי דַּרְכֵי שָׁלוֹם. אָמַר לוֹן רִבִּי בָּא וְהָתַנִּי רִבִּי חִייָא יוֹם מִשְׁתֶּה שֶׁל גּוֹיִם אָסוּר. אָמַר רִבִּי אִימִּי אִילוּלֵי רִבִּי בָּא הָיָה לָנוּ לְהַתִּיר עֲבוֹדָה זָרָה שֶׁלָּהֶן וּבָרוּךְ שֶׁרִיחֵקָנוּ מֵהֶם. The weavers asked Rebbi Ammi, what about a Gentile wedding feast78Whether one may be a guest at such a celebration.? He wanted to permit it to them from this: “Because of peaceful coexistence.” Rebbi Abba told them, did not Rebbi Ḥiyya state79In Tosephta Avodah zarah 1:4 it is noted that one may not trade with a Gentile on the day of his wedding or the day he was appointed to a post in local government (since on these occasions religious ceremonies are unavoidable.) that the holiday of a Gentile wedding feast is forbidden. Rebbi Ammi said, if it had not been for Rebbi Ba, we would have come to permit their strange worship80I. e., idolatry.; praised be He Who distanced us from them.