משנה: הַלּוֹקֵחַ יַיִן מִבֵּין הַכּוּתִים אוֹמֵר שְׁנֵי לוֹגִין שֶׁאֲנִי עָתִיד לְהַפְרִישׁ הֲרֵי הֵן תְּרוּמָה. וַעֲשָׂרָה מַעֲשֵׂר וְתִשְׁעָה מַעֲשֵׂר שֵׁנִי וּמֵיחַל וְשׁוֹתֶה. MISHNAH: If someone buys wine from Samaritans60If one accepts the Samaritans as Jews, the wine is kosher but it certainly is not tithed. he may say: Two log that I shall separate in the future are heave, ten tithe61It really should be only 9.8 log per one hundred, but one does not require him to go into details. Similarly, Second Tithe should be 10% of the remaining 89.2 log., and nine Second Tithe; then he redeems62He redeems the Second Tithe with a peruṭah from a designated coin; the redemption is effected by his declaration. and drinks.
הלכה: תַּנִּי רִבִּי יוֹסֵי וְרִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹסְרִין שֶׁמָּא תִיבָּקַע הַנּוֹד וְנִמְצָא שׁוֹתֶה טְבָלִים לְמַפְרֵעוֹ. לֹא כְטַעֲמֵיהּ דְּהָדֵין טַעֲמֵיהּ דְּהָדֵין. טַעֲמָא דְּרִבִּי יוֹסֵי שֶׁמָּא יַסִּייעַ. טַעֲמָא דְּרִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן שֶׁמָּא יִשְׁכַּח וְיִשְׁתֶּה אֶת הַשְּׁאָר. כְּהָדָה דְתַנִּי מַעֲשֵׂר שֵׁנִי שֶׁבְּחֵפֶץ זֶה מְחוּלָּל עַל סֶלַע שֶׁבְּכִיס זֶה חִילֵּל. רִבִּי יוֹסֵי אוֹמֵר לֹא חִילֵּל. מַאי טַעֲמָא דְּרִבִּי יוֹסֵי שֶׁאִם אָמַר עַל הַסֶּלַע הַיְּשָׁנָה וְעַל הַדֵּינָר הַיָּשָׁן שֶׁחִילֵּל. מוֹדִים חֲכָמִים לְרִבִּי יוֹסֵי שֶׁאִם אָמַר עַל הַסֶּלַע שֶׁאֶטּוֹל מִיַּד בְּנִי וְעַל הַדֵּינָר שֶׁאֶטּוֹל מִיַּד בְּנִי שֶׁלֹּא חִילֵּל. שֶׁלֹּא הָיוּ בְיָדוֹ בְאוֹתָהּ שָׁעָה. HALAKHAH: It was stated63Tosephta Demay 8:7: “If someone buys wine from Samaritans on Fridays and he forgot to tithe, he may say: Two log that I shall separate in the future are heave, the next ten tithe, and the next nine Second Tithe; then he redeems and drinks immediately; the words of R. Meïr. R. Jehudah, R. Yose, and R. Simeon forbid it. They said to R. Meïr, do you not agree that if his wine bag would spring a leak he would drink ṭevel? He said to them, if it would spring a leak.” R. Jehudah is not mentioned in the Halakhah; since he is the senior among those who disagree, the argument with R. Meïr is his and does not obligate the other two authorities who agree with R. Jehudah on the practical rule but not on the theoretical reason. Note that in the version of the Tosephta, the wine bag is already transported to the buyer’s house and, therefore, the risk of the bag springing a leak is minimized.: “Rebbi Yose and Rebbi Simeon prohibit to do so, maybe the wine bag will spring a leak and it turns out retroactively that he drank ṭevel.” But the reason of one is not the reason of the other. The reason of Rebbi Yose is that maybe he will pour64At home, he will pour out the contents of the leather wine bag into a clay amphora for storage. Then the text of his declaration is no longer applicable and the buyer drank ṭevel.. The reason of Rebbi Simeon is that maybe he will forget and drink the remainder65Then he actually drank heave and heave of the tithe!. As it was stated66A similar statement is in Tosephta Maäser Šeni 3:17: “If somebody said, the Second Tithe in this container should be redeemed by that as, and he did not define its place, R. Simeon says, he gave it its rightful name {and it is redeemed.} The Sages say, {it is not redeemed} until he says, at the North or South end.” The next Tosephta shows that the “Sages” here follow the opinion of R. Yose. The problem is that without a clear definition, the owner may spend the redemption coin on other things. Therefore, one requires him to spell out where the coin will be taken and, since coins move around in a wallet, it is clear that he has to remove the coin from the wallet immediately and separate it.: “The Second Tithe in this container should be redeemed by the tetradrachma in that wallet, it is redeemed. Rebbi Yose says, it is not redeemed.” What is the reason of Rebbi Yose? “67Tosephta Maäser Šeni 4:12: “If somebody says, the Second Tithe shall be redeemed by a tetradrachma that will come out of this wallet, or the denar that will come out of that wallet, R. Yose says, he did not redeem, but the Sages say, he did redeem. R. Yose agrees with the Sages that if he says that the Second Tithe shall be redeemed by the new tetradrachma which will come out of this wallet, or the new denar that will come out of that wallet, he did redeem. The Sages admit to Rebbi Yose that if he said [it shall be redeemed] by the tetradrachma that was in my son’s hand, the denar that was in my son’s hand, it is not redeemed since perhaps it was not in his hand at that time.” We have to assume that R. Yose agrees only in case the owner had only one new coin of that type at the moment of the declaration. If he said, the old tetradrachma or the old denar, he did redeem. The Sages admit to Rebbi Yose that if he said, the tetradrachma I shall take from my son’s hand, or the denar I shall take from my son’s hand, it is not redeemed since it was not in his hand at that time.”
תַּמָּן תַּנֵּינָן הַמֵּנִיחַ פֵּירוֹת לִהְיוֹת מַפְרִישׁ עֲלֵיהֶן מַעֲשֵׂר שֵׁנִי. וְהָדָא מַתְנִיתָא דְּלֹא כְרִבִּי יוֹסֵי וּכְרבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן. אָמַר רִבִּי זְעִירָא תַּמָּן לְמַפְרְעוֹ נִתְקַלְקְלוּ. בְּרַם הָכָא מֵאוֹבְדָּן וְהֵילַךְ נִתְקַלְקְלוּ. There, we have stated68Mishnah Giṭṭin 3:8: “If somebody puts aside produce to serve for heave or tithes, or coins to serve for Second Tithe, he refers to them {to redeem produce or to put produce in order with the intention that all sanctity should devolve on produce and coins set aside} based on the prior knowledge that they still exist. If they are lost, he worries for 24 hours, the words of R. Eleazar (ben Shamua‘.)” In both the Babli (Giṭṭin 31a/b) and the Yerushalmi (Giṭṭin 3:8), there is a discussion whether the tithing is questionable for the 24 hours preceding the discovery of the loss or whether the tithing is not questionable only for the first 24 hours after produce or coins were set aside. In any case, there is no opposition noted by either R. Yose or R. Simeon. Since transporting wine from Samaria presumably takes less than 24 hours, such opposition would have been expected.: “If somebody puts aside produce … to serve for Second Tithe.” Does69This and the next sentence are copied from Giṭṭin. Therefore, our baraita is referred to as “there”, and the Mishnah as “here.” that Mishnah disagree with Rebbi Yose and Rebbi Simeon? Rebbi Zeïra said, there they become spoiled retroactively, but here they become spoiled only starting from the moment of loss70Even if the heave was lost, since it was legal heave at the time it saves the produce from ever being ṭevel again..
תַּמָּן תַּנֵּינָן פְּרוּטָה שֶׁל הֶקְדֵּשׁ שֶׁנׇּֽפְלָה לְתוֹךְ הַכִּיס אוֹ שֶׁאָמַר פְּרוּטָה בְּכִיס הַזֶּה הֶקְדֵּשׁ תַּנָּה עַל הָרִאשׁוֹנָה מָעַל בְּסָפֵק וְעַל הַשְּׁנִייָה מָעַל בְּוַדַּאי דִּבְרֵי רִבִּי עֲקִיבָא. וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים עַל כּוּלָּן מָעַל בְּסָפֵק וְעַל הָאַחֲרוֹנָה מָעַל בְּוַדַּאי. אָמַר רִבִּי יוּדָן אָבוֹי דְרִבִּי מַתַּנְיָא הָדָא דְּתֵימַר כְּשֶׁהָיוּ עֶשֶׂר. אֲבָל אִם הָיוּ שְׁתַּיִם עַל הָרִאשׁוֹנָה מָעַל בְּסָפֵק וְעַל הַשְּׁנִייָה מָעַל בְּוַדַּאי. רִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן לָקִישׁ בְּעָא קוֹמֵי רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן מַה בֵּין הָאוֹמֵר בַּכִּיס מַה בֵּין הָאוֹמֵר מִן הַכִּיס. רִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן לָקִישׁ אָמַר אֲפִילוּ הוֹצִיא אֶת כָּל־הַכִּיס לֹא יִמְעוֹל כְּמָה דְתֵימַר לְמַפְרֵעוֹ טֵבֵל שָׁתָה וְאָמַר אוּף הָכָא לְמַפְרֵעוֹ חוּלִין הוֹצִיא אֶלָּא כָאן תָּלוּי בְּהַפְרָשָׁה. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹנָה כָאן וְכָאן תָּלוּי בְּהַפְרָשָׁה נַעֲשֶׂה כְאוֹמֵר אַל יֵצֵא הַכִּיס הַזֶּה יְדֵי פְרוּטָה הֶקְדֵּשׁ. מֻחְלְפָה שִׁיטָּתֵיהּ דְּרִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן לָקִישׁ תַּמָּן הוּא אָמַר מוֹעֲלִין בִּפְרוּטָה לְפִי חֶשְׁבּוֹן שְׁלֹשֶׁת לוֹגִין. וְהָכָא הוּא אָמַר הָכֵין. מִן דְּאַצְרַכְתְּ לֵיהּ חָזַר וּפָֽשְׁטָהּ. There, we have stated71Mishnah Meїlah 6:6: “If a peruṭah of Temple property fell into somebody’s wallet, or if somebody said, a peruṭah in this wallet shall be Temple property, then the moment he spent the first coin he committed larceny, the words of Rebbi Aqiba. But the Sages say, not until he spent the entire wallet. Rebbi Aqiba agrees that if he said, ‘a peruṭah from this wallet shall be Temple property,’ he may go and spend the entire contents of the wallet.” מעל refers to the particular case of larceny involving Temple property, whose private use is forbidden even if it does not impair its value (Lev. 5:15). Our text is a baraita that combines the Mishnah with Tosephta Meїlah 3:1: “If a peruṭah of Temple property fell into somebody’s wallet, or if somebody said, a peruṭah in this wallet shall be Temple property, then the moment he spent the first coin he must bring an ašam sacrifice for a possible sin, for the second coin an ašam sacrifice for a certain sin, the words of Rebbi Aqiba. But the Sages say, an ašam sacrifice for a possible sin is brought only for an offense which if deliberate is punished by being cut off (כרת, cf. J. Milgrom, Leviticus 1–16, New York 1991, pp. 457–460) or, if in error, must be atoned for by a sin-offering.”: “If a peruṭah of Temple property fell into somebody’s wallet, or if somebody said, a peruṭah in this wallet shall be Temple property,” it was stated that “with the first coin he committed probable larceny, with the second one certain larceny72The argument of the Mishnah, that with the first coin he already committed certain larceny, is easier to understand. The difference between possible and certain larceny is in the kind of sacrifice that must be brought for atonement, as stated in the Tosephta. R. Moses Margalit explains the argument of R. Aqiba that the first coin, which was on top of the coins in the wallet, is not really “in” the wallet,” but the second coin certainly is “in the wallet.”, the words of Rebbi Aqiba. But the Sages say, with any of them he committed probable larceny, except that with the last one he committed certain larceny.” Rebbi Yudan, the father of Rebbi Mattania said, that is, if there were ten coins. But if there were only two, with the first coin he committed probable larceny, with the second one certain larceny. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish asked before Rebbi Joḥanan: What is the difference between him who says “in the wallet” and him who says “from the wallet?73This refers to the Mishnah and the distinction which R. Aqiba makes, that in the second case there is no larceny unless all coins are spent.” Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, even if he spent the entire wallet he would not have committed larceny; just as you say ‘that he drank ṭevel retroactively,’ here also ‘retroactively he spent profane money.74If he separated the coin after he spent some of the money, the stigma of possible larceny should be removed from the rest he spent earlier.’ But here it depends on the act of separation75Everybody agrees that ṭevel can be removed only by an actual declaration fixing place and modality of heave and tithes.. Rebbi Jonah said, in both cases it depends on the act of separation; it is as if he said, this wallet should not be freed from a peruṭah of Temple property76The remaining coins cannot become profane except by either removing the dedicated piece from the wallet or designating it unequivocally as old or new, as in the preceding paragraph. In the Babli (Meїlah 34a), this answer is given by R. Joḥanan. But the thrust of the Babli is about retroactive clarification that is excluded here and in the entire discussion of the Yerushalmi, as recognized by Sefer Nir.. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish’s argument is inverted. There77Babli Meїlah 13b, in explanation of Mishnah Meїlah 3:7: “From water {drawn from the water canal flowing through the Temple courtyard on Friday afternoon of the festival of Tabernacles, to be used next morning for the water libation} in the golden barrel {that was not a sanctified vessel and in which the water would not become forbidden by standing in a vessel overnight} one may not have any use, but use is no larceny. Once it is poured into the pitcher {the holy vessel in which the water was transported to the altar} its use becomes larceny.” R. Simeon ben Laqish holds that there is no larceny from the water of the golden barrel if one uses the excess over the three log that are to be filled into the holy pitcher. The interpretation of the Yerushalmi seems to be that if the barrel contained x log and somebody drew y log, even if x-y > 3 one would commit larceny in the amount of the cost of 3y/x log of water., he says that one commits larceny with a peruṭah corresponding to the computation of three log. And here, he says so? After he asked, he returned and gave the simple answer78His statement was a question and not a declaration; he himself gave the same answer later given by R. Jonah..
אָמַר רִבִּי יִצְחָק בַּר אֶלְעָזָר אָדָם עוֹמֵד מֵעֶרֶב שַׁבָּת וְאוֹמֵר הֲרֵי זוּ תְרוּמָה לְמָחָר וְאֵין אָדָם עוֹמֵד בְּשַׁבָּת וְאוֹמֵר הֲרֵי זוּ תְרוּמָה לְמָחָר. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹסֵי בֵּי רִבִּי בּוּן אֵין אָדָם עוֹמֵד מֵעֶרֶב שַׁבָּת וְאוֹמֵר הֲרֵי זוּ תְרוּמָה לְמָחָר. מַתְנִיתָא פְלִיגָא עַל רִבִּי יוֹסֵי בֵּי רִבִּי בּוּן לָגִין שֶׁהוּא טְבוּל יוֹם וּמִילְאֵהוּ מִן הֶחָבִית מַעֲשֵׂר טֵבֵל אִם אָמַר הֲרֵי זוּ תְּרוּמַת מַעֲשֵׂר לְמָחָר מִשֶּׁתֶּחְשָׁךְ הֲרֵי זֶה תְרוּמָה אִם אָמַר הֲרֵי זֶה עֵירוּב לֹא אָמַר כְּלוּם. פָּתַר לָהּ לְשֶׁעָבַר. וְהָתַנִּי רִבִּי חִייָא אָמַר אִית לָךְ מֵימַר לְשֶׁעָבַר. וְחָזַר בָּהּ רִבִּי יוֹסֵי בֵּי רִבִּי בּוּן מֵהָדָא. Rebbi Isaac ben Eleazar82Probably, this and the following paragraph refer to Mishnah 6. The same text in its main context appears in Šabbat 18:1. said, a person can say on Friday, this shall be heave tomorrow83As explained in the Mishnah below, a person may not be pure for heave on Friday but he may be pure on the Sabbath. If his impurity (or that of his vessel) is derivative he contaminates holy things but not profane food. Hence, he must keep his food in profane state until nightfall. But at nightfall it will be Sabbath and he will not be permitted to change the status of food and separate heave and tithes. He must make a declaration on Friday to separate heave on the Sabbath automatically., but nobody can say on the Sabbath, this shall be heave tomorrow. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, nobody can say on Friday, this shall be heave tomorrow. A Mishnah disagrees with Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun84Tevul Yom 4:4. The exact text of the Mishnah reads: “If a vessel which was immersed that day {and will be pure only after sundown} was filled from an amphora with ṭevel tithe, if he said that its contents should be heave of the tithe after nightfall, then this is heave of the tithe. If he said that it should be eruv, he did not say anything.” Tithe can be ṭevel only if the heave of the tithe was not taken; hence, ‘heave’ in our text should always mean ‘heave of the tithe’ as in the Mishnah.: “If a vessel85Latin lagena,lagaena,lagona,lagoena, -ae, f. “large earthen vessel with neck and handles; flask, bottle”; same as Greek λάγηνος, perhaps identical with Κνίδιον, τὸ, “a measure of wine.” was immersed that day and somebody filled it from an amphora with ṭevel tithe, if he said86On Friday., its contents should be heave of the tithe tomorrow, i. e., after nightfall, then this is heave. If he said, that should be eruv87Cf. Peah, Chapter 7, Note 56. The eruv must be deposited on Friday afternoon and be at the right spot at sundown, so that he can acquire the Sabbath rest at that spot. But in our case, at sundown the wine is still ṭevel; since it may not be eaten it is not food, and the eruv is invalid., he did not say anything.” Explain it if he transgressed88R. Yose ben R. Abun would agree that if someone incorrectly followed R. Isaac ben Eleazar’s prescription the declaration was valid.. But Rebbi Ḥiyya stated: “He says89There is a baraita in which R. Ḥiyya presents the text of the declaration to be recited in the case considered by R. Isaac ben Eleazar. R. Ḥiyya unconditionally permits the declaration.,” and you say, if he transgressed? Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun retracted that.