משנה: עַם הָאָרֶץ שֶׁאָמַר לְחָבֵר קַח לִי אֲגוּדַת יֶרֶק קַח לִי קְלוֹסְקִין אֶחָד לוֹקֵחַ סְתָם פָּטוּר. אִם אָמַר זוּ שֶׁלִּי וְזוּ שֶׁל חֲבֵירִי וְנִתְעָֽרְבוּ חַייָב לְעַשֵּׂר אֲפִילוּ הֵן מֵאָה. MISHNAH: An am haäreẓ who said to a ḥaver, buy for me a bunch of vegetables, buy for me a loaf188Greek κόλλιξ, “roll, loaf of coarse bread.”, if he buys anonymously, he is free189Since the produce or the roll never was the property of the ḥaver, he is not under the obligation to tithe before he delivers the goods. (Explanation of R. S. Lieberman.). If he says, this one is for me190Therefore, if they became mixed up they become the ḥaver’s property before delivery and must be tithed. and that one is for my friend, if they became mixed up he has to tithe, even if there are a hundred.
הלכה: תַּמָּן תַּנֵּינָן נֶאֱמָנִין עַל הַלֶּקֶט וְעַל הַשִּׁכְחָה וְעַל הַפֵּיאָה בְּשָׁעָתָן. וְהָכָא אַתְּ אָמַר הָכֵן. תַּמָּן שֶׁתִּיקֻּנוֹ פָטוּר בְּרַם הָכָא שֶׁתִּיקּוּנוֹ חַייָב. וְתַנִּי כֵן אֶת שֶׁתִּיקּוּנוֹ פָטוּר נֶאֱמָן לְהַחֲמִיר בְּרַם הָכָא פֵּירוּשׁוֹ לְהָקֵל נֶאֱמָן. HALAKHAH: 174Halakhah 12 in Venice print.: There175Mishnah Peah 8:2. There, everybody knows that the person is poor; hence, it is not the mouth which forbade the produce, asserting that it was not tithed, that could permit it without tithing as gifts to the poor. Nevertheless, the Mishnah asserts that the poor can be trusted., we have stated: “They can be trusted about gleanings, forgotten sheaves, and peah at harvest time.” And here you say so176In Syria, nobody is trusted if his negative information can be verified by other sources. [All commentators here follow the different interpretation of R. Eliahu Fulda which, however, is based on a forced emendation of the text.]? There, his assertion is for exemption, but here his assertion is for obligation. And we have stated so177This baraita is not found in parallel sources, but a similar statement appears in the quote from the Tosephta in the next paragraph.: “If his assertion is for exemption, he may be trusted in restrictions.” But here, he can be trusted even if his explanation is to make it easier178Hence, he can only be trusted if his initial information is not available from other sources..
תַּנִּי גּוֹי שֶׁהָיָה צוֹוֵחַ וְאוֹמֵר בּוֹאוּ וּטְלוּ לָכֶם מִמֶּנִּי פֵּירוֹת הֶן פֵּירוֹת עָרְלָה הֵן נֶטַע רְבָעִי אֵינוֹ נֶאֱמָן. אִם אָמַר מִגּוֹי פְּלוֹנִי הֵבֵאתִים נֶאֱמָן לְהַחֲמִיר דִּבְרֵי רִבִּי. וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים דִּבְרֵי הַגּוֹי לֹא מַעֲלִין וְלֹא מוֹרִידִין. רִבִּי יוּדָן בְּעֵי הָיָה צוֹוֵחַ לְפִי תוּמּוֹ. רִבִּי יוּדָן בְּעֵי מִמָּה דְּתֵימָא כּוּתִי כְגוֹי. דְּאִיתְפַּלְּגוּן כּוּתִי כְגוֹי דִּבְרֵי רִבִּי. רַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל אוֹמֵר כּוּתִי כְ[יִשְׂרָאֵל] לְכָל דָּבָר. It was stated179Tosephta Demai 5:2: “A Gentile who was calling out, ‘come and buy fruits, they are from Azeqa, from an orlah tree, from a vineyard in its fourth year,’ cannot be believed because he intends to advertise. But if he says, ‘I bought them from a certain Gentile,’ he is to be trusted for restrictions, the words of Rebbi. Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel says, he cannot be trusted since the words of a Gentile are irrelevant.”: “A Gentile who was calling out, ‘come and buy fruits from me, they are from an orlah tree180A tree in the first three years after planting, when its fruits are forbidden for all use (Leviticus.19.23">Lev. 19:23)., they are from a vineyard in its fourth year181See Peah 7:6.,’ cannot be believed. If he says, ‘I brought them from a certain Gentile,’ he may be trusted for restrictions182He can be believed in that the produce is untithed; he cannot be believed that the produce is not subject to heave and tithes., the words of Rebbi. The Sages say, the words of a Gentile are irrelevant183As far as Jewish religious obligations are concerned..” Rebbi Judan asked, what if he calls out when he is uninformed184If he never heard of Jewish restrictions, or calls out in a place without any Jewish inhabitants. The questions are not answered, so they must be answered in a restrictive sense.? Rebbi Judan asked, what if one holds that a Samaritan is like a Gentile, since they disagreed: “A Samaritan is like a Gentile, the words of Rebbi. Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel says, a Samaritan is like a Jew in all respects185Cf. Demay 3:4, Berakhot 7:1:2-8" href="/Jerusalem_Talmud_Berakhot.7.1.2-8">Berakhot 7:1.”?
אָמַר רִבִּי בּוּן בַּר חִייָא וְהוּא שֶׁיְּהֵא רוֹב מִכְנָסוֹ מִשֶּׁלּוֹ. Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya said, that is only if most of what he takes in comes from his own186This refers to the last statement in the Mishnah, that he will not be trusted for tithes if it is known that he has a field in Syria. If most of his fields are outside both Syria and the Holy Land, he still will be believed..
יִשְׂרָאֵל שֶׁהָיָה לוֹ אָרִיס בְּסוּרִיָּא וְשִׁילַּח לוֹ פֵּירוֹת וְאָמַר הֲרֵי אֵילּוּ מְעוּשָּׂרִין. אֲנִי אוֹמֵר מִן הַשּׁוּק לָקַח וְהוּא שֶׁיְּהֵא אוֹתוֹ הַמִּין מָצוּי בַשּׁוּק. לֹא סוֹף דָּבָר בְּשֶׁאֵין לוֹ מֵאוֹתוֹ הַמִּין לְתוֹךְ שָׂדֵהוּ אֶלָּא אֲפִילוּ יֵשׁ לוֹ מֵאוֹתוֹ הַמִּין לְתוֹךְ שָׂדֵהוּ מִכֵּיוָן שֶׁאוֹתוֹ הַמִּין מָצוּי בַשּׁוּק מוּתָּר. If a Jew had a sharecropper187An am haäreẓ who, in general, cannot be trusted in matters of tithes. But since in Syria most produce on the market comes from Gentile farmers who are exempt from tithes, it is to be assumed that the fruits come from a Gentile source and are permitted without tithing. in Syria who sent him fruits and said that they were tithed; I say that he bought them on the market, if that kind is found on the market. Not only if he does not grow that kind on his field, but even if he does grow that kind on his field; since that kind is found on the market it is permitted.
מַתְנִיתִין דְּרִבִּי יוֹסֵי דְּתַנִּי הַלּוֹקֵחַ סְתָם צָרִיךְ לְעַשֵּׂר. מַה נָן קַייָמִין. אִם בְּשֶׁאָמַר לוֹ צֵא וּלְקַח לִי שְׁלוּחוֹ הוּא. צֵא וּלְקַח לָךְ שֶׁלּוֹ הֵן. אֶלָּא כִּי נָן קַייָמִין בִּסְתָם רִבִּי יוּדָה אוֹמֵר לֹא נִתְכַּווֵן הַמּוֹכֵר לְזַכּוֹת אֶלָּא לַלּוֹקֵחַ. רִבִּי יוֹסֵי אוֹמֵר לֹא נִתְכַּווֵן הַמּוֹכֵר לְזַכּוֹת אֶלָּא לְבַעַל הַמָּעוֹת. לְפִיכָךְ אִם נָתַן אַחַת יְתֵירָה רִבִּי יוּדָה אוֹמֵר שֶׁל לוֹקֵחַ. רִבִּי יוֹסֵי אוֹמֵר שֶׁל שְׁנֵיהֶן. מִחְלְפָה שִׁיטָּתֵיהּ דְּרִבִּי יוֹסֵי. תַּמָּן הוּא אוֹמֵר לֹא נִתְכַּווֵן הַמּוֹכֵר לְזַכּוֹת אֶלָּא לְבַעַל הַמָּעוֹת וְכָא אַתְּ אָמַר הָכֵין. כַּאן עַל יְדֵי מָעוֹתָיו שֶׁל זֶה וְעַל יְדֵי רַגְלָיו שֶׁל זֶה שְׁנֵיהֶן חוֹלְקִין. Our Mishnah follows Rebbi Yose, as we have stated: “He who buys anonymously has to tithe191This statement itself is not found in other sources, but there are two versions of the underlying baraita that explain the situation. Tosephta Demay 8:1: “If an am haäreẓ said to a ḥaver, buy for me a bunch of vegetables, buy for me a loaf, Rebbi Yose says the ḥaver does not have to tithe, Rebbi Jehudah says he does.” Eruvin.37b">Babli Erubin 37b: “If an am haäreẓ said to a ḥaver, buy for me a bunch of vegetables, buy for me a loaf, Rebbi Yose says the ḥaver does not have to tithe, but the Sages say he does.”.” What are we talking about? If he said to him, go and buy for me, he is his agent192According to all opinions, he should not have to tithe since in all respects he represents the am haäreẓ who had commissioned him.; go and buy for yourself, they are his property193According to all opinions he has to tithe before he delivers to the am haäreẓ. There seems to be no place for the disagreement between R. Yose and R. Jehudah.. But in our case nothing was spelled out. Rebbi Jehudah says that the seller wants the person who buys to get the property rights194Since in handing over the merchandise, the seller also agrees to transmit the rights to the merchandise, it matters to whom the seller wants to transmit those rights., Rebbi Yose says that the seller wants the owner of the money to get the property rights. Therefore, if he added a piece195If the seller delivered a little more than was ordered for the price of the goods ordered, it depends on who is considered the recipient of the seller’s gift. This depends on our interpretation of the disagreement between Rebbis Jehudah and Yose. A slightly different version is quoted in Ketubot.98b">Babli Ketubot 98b. There, Rashi refers to Tosephta Demay; it should read: Yerushalmi Demay., Rebbi Jehudah says, it belongs to the buyer, Rebbi Yose says, it belongs to both of them. The argument of Rebbi Yose seems to be inverted. There he says that the seller wants the owner of the money to get the property rights, and here you say so196Why should the agent get anything if the property is given to the owner of the money? The Ketubot.98b">Babli, Ketubot 98b, gives a different answer: If the unit price of the merchandise is fixed, then any addition is a gift and is jointly owned. If the unit price is not fixed, then the additional amount is part of the sale and totally belongs to the owner of the money.? Here the transaction is through the money of one and the feet of the other, therefore they split.
תַּנִּי רַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל אוֹמֵר אִם הֶחֱלִיף אֶת הַמָּעָה צָרִיךְ לְעַשֵּׂר. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹסֵי הָדָא אָמְרָה הַנּוֹתֵן מָעוֹת לַחֲבֵירוֹ לְהַחֲלִיפָן וְאָֽבְדוּ חַייָב בְּאַחֵרָיוּתָן. It was stated197Tosephta Demay 8:1. If the buyer took the coin for himself, it becomes his property and he owes the original owner money. Hence, if he buys, he acquires the merchandise and as a ḥaver, he has to tithe.: “Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel says, if he exchanged the coin he has to tithe.” Rebbi Yose198The Amora. The alienation means that the coins fall in unauthorized hands (that they are lost or stolen.) said, this means that if somebody gives coins to another person to exchange them, when they are lost the recipient is answerable for their alienation.
שְׁמוּאֵל אָמַר בִּמְחַלֵּיק בְּיָדָיו. אָמַר רִבִּי לָֽעְזָר וְהוּא שֶׁנָּטַל חֶלְקוֹ בְסוֹף. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹנָה צוּרְכָה לְדֵן וְצוּרְכָה לְדֵן. חִילֵּק בְּיָדוֹ וְנָטַל חֶלְקוֹ בַתְּחִילָּה אֵינוֹ צָרִיךְ לְעַשֵּׂר אֶלָּא עַל שֶׁלּוֹ. לֹא חִילֵּק בְּיָדיוֹ וְנָטַל חֶלְקוֹ בַסּוֹף אֵינוֹ מְעַשֵּׂר אֶלָּא עַל שֶׁלּוֹ. Samuel199This refers to the last case in the Mishnah: he bought explicitly for himself and his partner but then the produce was mixed up. says, if he distributes it himself200If the seller gave the two lots separately the ḥaver did not acquire the am haäreẓ’s part and might not have to tithe.. Rebbi Eleazar said, only if he took his share last201In some situations, the ḥaver might have to tithe only his own share if he took it last.. Rebbi Jonah said, both statements are necessary202Samuel and R. Eleazar do not disagree but speak about different scenarios.. If he203The seller; the next “he” is the ḥaver buyer who never acquired the produce destined for the am haäreẓ and is not responsible for it. distributes it himself and took his share first he only has to tithe his share. If he204The seller did not divide but the ḥaver who bought resolved in his mind that all produce would be the am haäreẓ’s except the last bunch that would be for himself. did not distribute it but took his share last, he only has to tithe his share.
תַּנִּי אוֹמֵר הוּא אָדָם לְפוֹעֵל הֵילָךְ דֵּינַר זֶה אֲכוֹל בּוֹ. הֵילָךְ דֵּינַר זֶה שְׁתֵה בּוֹ וְאֵינוֹ חוֹשֵׁשׁ עַל שְׂכָרוֹ לֹא מִשּׁוּם שְׁבִיעִית וְלֹא מִשּׁוּם מַעְשְׂרוֹת וְלֹא מִשּׁוּם יַיִן נֶסֶךְ. אֲבָל אִם אָמַר לוֹ צֵא וּלְקַח לָךְ כִּכָּר וַאֲנִי נוֹתֵן לָךְ דָּמִים. צֵא וּלְקַח לָךְ רְבִיעִית שֶׁל יַיִן וַאֲנִי נוֹתֵן לָךְ דָּמִים חוֹשְׁשִׁין עַל שְׂכָרוֹ מִשּׁוּם שְׁבִיעִית וּמִשּׁוּם מַעְשְׂרוֹת וּמִשּׁוּם יַיִן נֶסֶךְ. אָמַר רִבִּי זְעִירָא נַעֲשֶׂה הַחֶנְווָנִי שְׁלוּחוֹ שֶׁל בַּעַל הַבַּיִת לְזַכּוֹת לַפּוֹעֵל. אָמַר רִבִּי הִילָא פּוֹעֵל זִכֶּה לְבַעַל הַבַּיִת מִשֶּׁל חֶנְווָנִי וְחוֹזֵר וְזוֹכֶה לְעַצְמוֹ. מַה נְפַק מִבֵּינֵיהוֹן. הָיָה הַחֶנְווָנִי חֵרֵשׁ עַל דַּעְתֵּיהּ דְּרִבִּי זְעִירָא לֹא חָשַׁשׁ שֶׁאֵין שְׁלִיחוּת לְחֵרֵשׁ. עַל דַּעְתֵּיהּ דְּרִבִּי הִילָא חוֹשֵׁשׁ. It was stated205Tosephta Demay 5:14, Avodah zarah 8:10, quoted in Babli Avodah zarah 63a, where, however, the second case is formulated so that the employer offers to pay the store for the purchases of the employee. The version discussed here, that the employer guarantees the employee’s expenses, is also in Yerushalmi Qiddušin 2:1 (fol. 62c), together with the interpretations of Rebbis Zeïra and Hila (Illa, La).: “One may say to his worker207That the am haäreẓ worker would buy produce grown in the Sabbatical year which is forbidden for commercial transactions, or demay food and not tithe it. Since the money was given beforehand, it is spent on the responsibility of the worker alone.: Here you have a denar, use it for food, here you have a denar, use it for drink, and not be worried about either the Sabbatical year208If the worker is a Gentile, one assumes that he pours out a small libation before he drinks and the wine is forbidden for usufruct since it was used for a pagan rite., tithes, or wine for libations209Since food and drink were bought on the employer’s credit, it is sinful for the employer to let the employee transgress religious laws on his behalf, or to have the Gentile worker use on his behalf wine of which all usufruct is forbidden to a Jew.. But if he told him, go and buy yourself a loaf and I shall give you the money, go and buy yourself a reviït of wine and I shall give you the money, he has to worry209Since food and drink were bought on the employer’s credit, it is sinful for the employer to let the employee transgress religious laws on his behalf, or to have the Gentile worker use on his behalf wine of which all usufruct is forbidden to a Jew. because of the Sabbatical year, tithes, and wine used for libations.” Rebbi Zeïra said210Why does the employer sin when the employee buys forbidden foods with his money?, the grocer becomes the plenipotentiary of the employer to let the worker acquire211Hence, it is as if the employer himself gave the forbidden food to his employee and the employer is guilty of transgressing the prohibition to put a stone into the path of a blind man.. Rebbi Hila said, the worker acquired for the employer from the grocer212In most cases, the opinion of R. Hila is not materially different from that of R. Zeïra, but in his opinion the grocer does not have any responsibility. (In the Babli version, the role of the grocer is the only question and it leads to rather forced solutions. The position of R. Hila is explicitly rejected in the Babli, Qiddušin 8b, as explained in חידושי הרשב״א ad loc.) and then acquires it himself. What is the difference between them? If the grocer was deaf-mute. According to Rebbi Zeïra, he213The employer. does not have to worry because a deaf-mute cannot become a plenipotentiary214The deaf-mute cannot act without a guardian.; according to Rebbi Hila, he has to worry.
תַּנִּי לֹא יֹאמַר אָדָם לַחֲבֵירוֹ הֵילָךְ מָאתַיִם דֵּינַר וּשְׁקוֹל עַל יָדִי לָאוֹצָר אֶלָּא אוֹמֵר הוּא לוֹ פָּֽרְשֵׁנִי מִן הָאוֹצָר. וְכֵן לֹא יֹאמַר אָדָם לַחֲבֵירוֹ הֵילָךְ מָאתַיִם זוּז וּשְׁקוֹל עַל יָדִי לָאוֹמָנוּת אֶלָּא אוֹמֵר הוּא לוֹ פָּֽרְשֵׁינִי מִן הָאוֹמָנוּת. It was stated215Tosephta Demay 6:4: “A Jew should not say to a Gentile, a Samaritan, or to one who cannot be trusted with tithes, here you have 200 zuz and pay for me to the treasury, but he says to him, free me from the treasury. Similarly, a person should not say to his friend, here you have 200 zuz and pay the leiturgia, but he says to him, separate me from the leiturgia.” The parallel is in Babli Avodah zarah71a.: “A person should not say to his friend, here you have 200 zuz and pay for me to the treasury, but he says to him, free me from the treasury216The government requires taxes not in money but food and wine, where the Jew cannot appoint a plenipotentiary who for him buys untithed produce or, if he is a Gentile, wine for libations. He has to formulate it so that the other party (those described in the Tosephta) will not be appointed plenipotentiary. In the interpretation of R. Solomon ben Adrat (תשובות הרשב״א חלק א, תרפו), the king has wine which he forces the citizens to buy at fixed prices. Since this is all wine for libations, the Jew is unable to buy the wine for himself, so he gives money to his Gentile friend and tells him, not to buy for him, but to free him from his obligation. It is possible that the treasury will be satisfied with money and will not insist on delivery of the wine, but if it delivers, the wine will be the Gentile’s.. Similarly, a person should not say to his friend, here you have 200 zuz and pay the leiturgia217Greek λειτουργία, ἡ. “public service”, offices and obligations forced upon private citizens by the government. Obligations included providing food and wine to officials or troups. The Jew himself could not satisfy his obligations with cheaper untithed produce and Gentile wine. (Cf. R. Solomon ben Adrat loc. cit.; בעל התרומות שער מו ח״ד יח in the name of Nachmanides.), but he says to him, free me from the leiturgia.”