משנה: הָאוֹמֵר תְּרוּמַת הַכְּרִי הַזֶּה בְּתוֹכוֹ וּמַעְשְׂרוֹתָיו בְּתוֹכוֹ וּתְרוּמַת מַעֲשֵׂר זֶה בְּתוֹכוֹ רִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֵר קוֹרֵא שֵׁם. וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים עַד שֶׁאוֹמֵר בִּצְפוֹנוֹ אוֹ בִדְרוֹמוֹ. רִבִּי אֶלְעָזָר חִסְמָא אוֹמֵר הָאוֹמֵר תְּרוּמַת הַכְּרִי מִמֶּנּוּ עָלָיו קוֹרֵא שֵׁם. רִבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר בֶּן יַעֲקֹב אוֹמֵר הָאוֹמֵר עִישּׂוּר מַעֲשֵׂר זֶה עָשׂוּי תְרוּמַת מַעֲשֵׂר עָלָיו קָרָא שֵׁם. הַמַּקְדִּים תְּרוּמָה לַבִּיכּוּרִים. מַעֲשֵׂר רִאשׁוֹן לַתְּרוּמָה וּמַעֲשֵׂר שֵׁנִי לָרִאשׁוֹן אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁהוּא עוֹבֵר בְּלֹא תַעֲשֶׂה מַה שֶׁעָשָׂה עָשׂוּי שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר מְלֵאָֽתְךָ וְדִמְעֲךָ לֹא תְאַחֵר. וּמְנַיִין שֶׁיִּקְדְּמוּ הַבִּיכּוּרִים לַתְּרוּמָה. זֶה קָרוּי תְּרוּמָה וְרֵאשִׁית וְזֶה קָרוּי תְּרוּמָה וְרֵאשִׁית. אֶלָּא יִקְדְּמוּ הַבִּיכּוּרִים שֶׁהֵן בִּיכּוּרִים לַכֹּל וּתְרוּמָה לָרִאשׁוֹן שֶׁהִיא רִאשׁוֹנָה וּמַעֲשֵׂר רִאשׁוֹן לַשֵּׁנִי שֶׁיֵּשׁ בּוֹ רֵאשִׁית. MISHNAH: He who says the heave of this heap is contained in it, the tithes are contained in it and the heave of this tithe is contained in it, Rebbi Simeon says he gave it a name52In that case, the entire heap becomes dema‘ and can be used only by a Cohen since the heaves are valid but their place is indeterminate. The Sages hold that dema‘ can be created only by heave falling into profane food; heave and dema‘ can never be created simultanously. They hold that designating heave without indicating its place is an invalid action. but the Sages say, only if he said in its Northern or Southern part. Rebbi Eleazar Ḥisma53Tanna of the second generation, student of R. Joshua. He admits even more possibilities than R. Simeon since the latter at least requires a declaration that the heave be “contained in it” whereas R. Eleazar Ḥisma already makes the declaration valid if only “from it” is declared. Since tithes and the heave of the tithe do not have to be earmarked, he will hold that tithes and heave of the tithe can be declared without specifying any place. says, he who says, the heave of this heap is from it for itself, gave it a name. Rebbi Eliezer ben Jacob says, he who says, one tenth of this tithe is made heave of the tithe for it, gave it a name54R. Eliezer ben Jacob holds with the Sages for heave, which must be earmarked, and possibly for the first tithe. But he rejects the restrictions for heave of the tithe which may be given from any place (Terumot 2:1:3" href="/Jerusalem_Talmud_Terumot.2.1.3">Chapter 2, Note 6)..
One who gives heave before First Fruits, First Tithe before heave, Second Tithe before First, even though he transgresses a prohibition what he did is done since it is said (Exodus.22.28">Ex. 22:28): "Your fullness72In Mekhilta Mišpaṭim 19, Temurah.4a">Babli Temurah 4a, it is explained that “your fullness” refers to First Fruits because they are taken when the harvest is still full and nothing had been taken yet. you should not make follow your dema ’ ”.
From where that First Fruits should precede heave since either one is called heave and first. First Fruits should precede since they are due before everything else, heave before First Tithe because it is first, First Tithe before the Second because it contains “first”73Commentary of Maimonides: “The Eternal called heave ‘first’ when He said (Deuteronomy.18.4">Deut. 18:4): ‘The first of your grain, your cider, and your oil.’ He called it heave (Numbers.18.8">Num. 18:8): ‘Lo, I gave to you the guarding of My heaves.’ The Eternal called First Fruits first when He said (Deut. 26:22): ‘You shall take from the first of any produce of the Land.’ He called it heave (Deuteronomy.12.27">Deut. 12:27): ‘You must bring there … and your hand’s heave.’ They said in Sifry (Deut. 62,73): ‘Your hand’s heave means First Fruits.’ This proves that the verse speaks of First Fruits since it deals only with what has to be brought to the Temple and no heave has to be brought to Jerusalem except First Fruits for which there is an explicit verse. They said that First Tithe contains ‘first’, i. e., the heave of the tithe about which the Eternal said (Numbers.18.26">Num. 18:26): ‘You shall lift from it the Eternal’s heave,’ and heave is called ‘first’ ”. {The statement in Sifry is quoted in Bikkurim 2:1:2-15" href="/Jerusalem_Talmud_Bikkurim.2.1.2-15">Bikkurim 2:1 (fol. 64c), Pesachim.36b">Babli Pesaḥim 36b, Yevamot.73b">Yebamot 73b, Makkot.17a">Makkot17a, Chullin.120b">Ḥulin 120b, Meilah.15b">Me‘ilah 15b.].
הלכה: רִבִּי יוֹסֵי בֵּי רִבִּי בּוּן בְּשֵׁם רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן אַתְיָיא דְּרִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן כְּבֵית שַׁמַּאי דְּבֵית שַׁמַּאי אָֽמְרִין קִדְּשׁוּ מְדוּמָעִין. כֵּן רִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֵר קִדְּשׁוּ מְדוּמָעִין. HALAKHAH: Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Rebbi Simeon goes with the House of Shammai since the House of Shammai say it is sanctified as dema‘55While this statement is repeated in Halakhah 4:5, it is difficult to find its origin. The commentaries refer to Mishnah 1:4, which is inapplicable since there no dema‘ is created. and so Rebbi Simeon says it is sanctified as dema‘.
עַד כְּדוֹן בְּאוֹמֵר בְּתוֹכוֹ אָמַר בּוֹ מָה. נִישְׁמְעִינָהּ מִן הָדָא מַעֲשֵׂר שֵׁנִי שֶׁבְּחֵפֶץ זֶה מְחוּלָּל עַל הַמָּעוֹת הַלָּלוּ וְלֹא קָרָא לוֹ שֵׁם. רִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֵר קוֹרֵא לוֹ שֵׁם וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים לֹא עָשָׂה כְּלוּם עַד שֶׁיֹּאמַר בִּצְפוֹנוֹ אוֹ בִדְרוֹמוֹ. הָדָא אָֽמְרָה הִיא תוֹכוֹ הִיא בוֹ. So far if he says “contained in it”. What if he said “in it”? Let us hear from the following56Tosephta Ma‘aser Šeni 3:17.:“The second tithe in this property shall be redeemed by those coins” and he did not specify57In the Tosephta: He did not specify its place. The Tosephta deals with the case that the owner wants to redeem second tithe at the moment he is tithing his produce. While he does not have to separate the tithe, as explained in Tractate Demay, he must indicate its place., Rebbi Simeon said he gave it its name but the Sages say he did not do anything unless he says, in its Northern part, or in its Southern part.” That means there is no difference between “contained in it” and “in it”.
דִּבְרֵי חֲכָמִים. רִבִּי זְעִירָא בְשֵׁם רִבִּי אֶבוּדַמָא דְחֵיפָה בְשֵׁם רִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן לָקִישׁ וְנֶחְשַׁב לָכֶם תְּרוּמַתְכֶם. וַהֲרֵמוֹתֶם. מַה מַחֲשָׁבָה בִמְסוּייָם. אַף הַתּוֹרֵם בִּמְסוּייָם. The words of the Sages58This refers to the sentence of the Mishnah starting “but the Sages say.”. Rebbi Zeїra in the name of Rebbi Eudaimon from Haifa in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish (Numbers.18.27">Num. 18:27): “Your heave will be thought of;” (Numbers.18.26">Num. 18:26) “you shall lift.” Just as thought has to be definite, so your giving heave has to be definite59The order of the verses should be reversed: Because your heave is thought of, it must be parallel to what you would do if you lifted the heave out of the produce. Since what you lift is well defined, what you think of also must be well defined..
אָמַר תְּרוּמַת הַכְּרִי הַזֶּה וְזֶה בְזֶה. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן מָקוֹם שֶׁנִּסְתַּייְמָה תְרוּמָתוֹ שֶׁל רִאשׁוֹן שָׁם נִסְתַּיְּימָה תְרוּמָתוֹ שֶׁל שֵׁינִי. רִבִּי יִצְחָק בַּר לָֽעְזָר בָּעֵי סְאָה תְרוּמָה שֶׁנָּֽפְלָה לְתוֹךְ הַכְּרִי וְאָמַר תְּרוּמַת הַכְּרִי הַזֶּה בְּתוֹכוֹ מָקוֹם שֶׁנָּֽפְלָה אוֹתָהּ סְאָה שָׁם נִסְתַּייְמָה תְרוּמָה שֶׁל כְּרִי. If he said, the heave of this and that heap should be in this one; Rebbi Joḥanan said, the place where the heave of the first ended, there the second also ends60Since this follows the rules of the Sages for whom no dema‘ is created, it is understood that both times he indicated that the heave should be, e. g., in the Northern part of the heap. Then we assume that he intended to lift the two heaves together; the two heaves must be contiguous. The rules of lifting in this case of vague determination are spelled out in the next paragraph.. Rebbi Isaac ben Eleazar asked: If a seah of heave fell into a heap61Here it is assumed that the original volume of the heap is at least 100 seah. In that case, no dema‘ is created but the original heave or its equivalent may simply be lifted out as explained in Chapter 5. If the argument of R. Joḥanan is correct, here also the new heave should be adjacent to the heave to be lifted. and he said, the heave of this heap is contained in it62Assuming that the heave fell into the center of the heap; in that case the declaration is acceptable also to the Sages., does the heave of the heap end at that seah?
אָמַר תְּרוּמַת הַכְּרִי הַזֶּה בִצְפוֹנוֹ מֵחֶצְיוֹ וּלְצָפוֹן מְדֻמָּע דִּבְרֵי רִבִּי וְנָסַב פַּלְגָּא. וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים עוֹשֶׂה אוֹתָהּ כְּמִין כִי חַד מִן אַרְבָּעָה. רַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל אוֹמֵר נוֹטֶל תְּרוּמָתוֹ מִצְּפוֹן צְפוֹנוֹ חַד מִן תּוֹמַנִייָא. “63Tosephta 4:9. Everybody agrees that “the Northern part” is not specific enough to denote the place of heave; the reasonable thing would be to remove the grain for heave first and then give it a name; in that way only 2% has to be given. If he said, the heave of this heap shall be in its Northern part, the Northern half is dema‘, the words of Rebbi;” he takes one half. “But the Sages say, like a X64Capital Greek letter χ.;” one quarter. “Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel says, he takes its heave from the Northernmost part;” one eighth65It is assumed that the heap is in the form of a perfect cone with circular base. It is easy to understand the positions of Rebbi and the Sages. Rebbi draws a plane perpendicular to the base plane in East-West direction through the center. Anything in the Northern half of the heap now may be heave; therefore, the entire Northern half is demaʻ. The Sages draw a plane perpendicular to the base plane in North-South direction through the center and then two planes perpendicular to the base plane, making ±45° angles with the North-South plane, cutting the base plane in two lines forming a χ. The volume cut out by the Northern half of these planes is 1/4th of the entire volume.
It is more difficult to reconstruct the Talmud’s interpretation of the argument of Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel. If the idea is that in the base plane one draws a chord of the base circle so that it cuts off 1/8th of the area of the circular disk, let 2α be the angle of the circular sector subtended by the segment measured in radians and choose the radius of the circle as unit of measurement. Then the area of the segment is the area of the sector minus the area of the triangle from the center:
A = α - sin α cos α = π/8
or α = .8832 rad = 50.63°. In that case, the height h of the segment is 1 - cos α = .365 of the radius of the base circle. However, if the idea is that the volume cut off from the cone by a plane, perpendicular to the base plane, through the chord, should be one eighth of the total volume then the problem is indeterminate since the ratio of radius of the circle to the height of the cone is not given. If this is assumed to be 1, the equation to be solved is
(α - sin α cos α)(1-cos α) = 3 π/8
or α = 1.4526 rad = 83.22°. However, the most likely explanation seems to be that in a heap of base radius r and height H, the total volume is computed as 1/3 πr2H and one eighth of this is taken from the northernmost part of the heap..
תְּרוּמַת שְׁנֵי כְּרִייִם כְּאַחַת מַהוּ. רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָמַר קִדְּשׁוּ מְדוּמָעִין. רִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן לָקִישׁ אָמַר לֹא קִדְּשׁוּ מְדוּמָעִין. What if the heave of two heaps [was given] together66He gave heave for two heaps together which is perfectly legal. But he used the language of the Mishnah, “in the Northern part of one of them” and either he did not specify which of them or he did and forgot what he specified.? Rebbi Joḥanan said, they are both forbidden as dema‘, but Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, they are not forbidden67This sentence is from Demay 7:9 and explained there, Note 135..
אָמַר רִבִּי הוֹשַׁעְיָה בַּר שַׁמַּאי הָיוּ לְפָנָיו שְׁתֵּי סָאִין וּכְרִי אֶחָד וְאָמַר אֶחָד מִן הַסָּאוֹת הַלָּלוּ עֲשׂוּיָה תְרוּמָה עַל הַכְּרִי הַזֶּה קִידְּשָם וְאֵין יוֹדֵעַ אֵי זֶהוּ. הָיוּ לְפָנָיו שְׁנֵי כְּרִייִם וּסְאָה אַחַת וְאָמַר הֲרֵי זֶה תְרוּמָה עַל אֶחָד מִן הַכְּרִייִם הַלָּלוּ נִיתְקָן וְאֵין יָדוּעַ אֵי זֶהוּ. Rebbi Hoshaia bar Shammai said, if he had before him two seot and one heap68Assuming that the heap contains 50 seot. and said, one of the seot is heave for this heap, he sanctified them and it is not known which one is sanctified69Hence, both have to be given to the Cohen who may be required to pay for one of them.. If he had before him two heaps70Of 25 seah each. and one seah and said, this is heave for one of the heaps, one is put in order but we do not known which one71Heave has to be taken a second time from both heaps with a declaration: “If this heap is already put in order I did not do anything and the grain is profane. But when the heap is still ṭevel it shall be heave.” All three heaves must be given to the Cohen who may be asked to pay for one of them..
רִבִּי חָמָא בַּר עוּקְבָּה בְשֵׁם רִבִּי יוֹסֵי בַּר חֲנִינָה מִן מַה שֶׁעוֹבֵר בְּלֹא תַעֲשֶׂה אַתָּה יוֹדֵעַ מַה שֶׁעָשָׂה עָשׂוּי. רִבִּי חָמָא בַּר עוּקְבָּא בְשֵׁם רִבִּי יוֹסֵי בֵּי רִבִּי חֲנִינָא אָמַר לוֹקֶה. אָמַר רִבִּי זְעִירָא מֵתִיבִין קוֹמֵי רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן וְשָׁתִיק. מַה עוֹבֵר לוֹקֶה אוֹ אֵינוֹ לוֹקֶה. אָתָא רִבִּי יַעֲקֹב בַּר אָחָא בְשֵׁם רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן אֵינוֹ לוֹקֶה. מַה קִייֵם רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן מְלֵאָֽתְךָ וְדִמְעָתְךָ לֹא תְאַחֵר. פָּתַר לָהּ בְּבִעוּר. Rebbi Ḥama bar Uqba in the name of Rebbi Yose bar Ḥanina: Since he transgresses a prohibition it follows that what he did is valid. Rebbi Ḥama bar Uqba said in the name of Rebbi Yose bar Ḥanina: He is whipped74In Temurah.4a">Babli Temurah 4a, the position of the Yerushalmi is rejected and it is proved that R. Yose ben R. Ḥanina holds that the person is not whipped but R. Eleazar says, he is whipped. The argument ascribed to those who hold with the Yerushalmi is that a simple transgression committed by speech only can never be punished by a court (לאו שאין בו מעשׂה). Since R. Yose ben R. Ḥanina holds here that the fact that he committed a sin proves that the status of the grain has changed from ṭevel to heave and tithes, in the interpretation of the Yerushalmi the transgression is one of fact rather than of speech.. Rebbi Zeïra said, they objected before Rebbi Joḥanan and he remained silent: If he transgresses, is he whipped or not? Rebbi Aḥa bar Jacob in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: He is not whipped75He disagrees with R. Zeїra and holds that R. Joḥanan articulated his position.. How does Rebbi Joḥanan explain (Exodus.22.28">Ex. 22:28): “Your fullness you should not make follow your dema‘”. He explains it for removal76He takes דמע to mean “fluid”, derived from דמעה “tear” and reads: Your fullness and your fluids you should not keep too long, referring to tithes of grain, wine, and olive oil which have to be removed from his house and delivered to the poor at the end of the third and sixth years of the Sabbatical cycle..
אֵימָתַי הוּא עוֹבֵר. רִבִּי חִייָא בַּר בָּא אָמַר מִתְּחִילָּה. רִבִּי שְׁמוּאֵל בַּר רַב יִצְחָק אָמַר בְּסוֹף. מַה נְפִיק מִבֵּינֵיהוֹן לְסִירוּף הַכְּרִי נְפַק מִבֵּינֵיהוֹן. עַל דַּעְתֵּיהּ דְּרִבִּי חִייָה בַּר װָא עוֹבֵר. עַל דַּעְתֵּיהּ דְרִבִּי שְׁמוּאֵל בַּר רַב יִצְחָק אֵינוֹ עוֹבֵר. When does he transgress? Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba says, from the start77The moment he separated what should be given second without giving the first he is guilty. For R. Samuel bar Rav Isaac, a formal transgression is caused only if the first also is given later.; Rebbi Samuel bar Rav Isaac says, at the end. What difference comes between them? The burning of the heap is between them78He gave First Tithe from a heap which burned before he could give heave. For R. S. Lieberman the meaning is that, according to the second opinion, he has to burn the entire heap in order to avoid committing a sin.; for Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba he transgressed, for Rebbi Samuel bar Rav Isaac he did not transgress.
רִבִּי שְׁמוּאֵל בַּר אַבָּא בָּעֵי מַעֲשֵׂר רִאשׁוֹן שֶׁהִקְדִּימוֹ שִׁיבֳּלִין עוֹבֵר אוֹ אֵינוֹ עוֹבֵר אֶלָּא עַל סֵדֶר. Rebbi Samuel bar Abba asked: First Tithe which he preceded to ears, does he transgress or is he transgressing only the right order79Since the obligation of heave starts only after threshing, First Tithe given from ears of grain is free from the obligation of heave and cannot be said to be given before heave; but giving it certainly does not follow the prescribed order.?
תַּנִּייָן קוֹמֵי דְרִבִּי אַבָּהוּ תְּרוּמָה אֵינָהּ מְעַכֶּבֶת אֶת הַבִּיכּוּרִין. אָמַר לוֹן דְּאַבָּא פַּנַימוֹן הִיא. רִבִּי יוֹסֵי בָּעֵי הֵייְדָא דְּאַבָּא פַּנַּימוֹן. אָמַר לֵיהּ רִבִּי מָנָא שְׁמָעִית אַבָּא תַנֵּי בִּיכּוּרִים בִּימִינוֹ וּתְרוּמָה בִשְׂמֹאלוֹ. אִית תַּנָּיֵי תַנֵּי עוֹבֵר אִית תַּנָּיֵי תַנֵּי אֵינוֹ עוֹבֵר. מָאן דָּמַר עוֹבֵר רַבָּנִין. מָאן דָּמַר אֵינוֹ עוֹבֵר אַבָּא פַּנַימוֹן. They stated before Rebbi Abbahu: “Heave does not interfere with First Fruits.80Tosephta 4:10. Even if heave was taken, First Fruits still may be given from the same crop.” He said to them, this is from Abba Palaemon81A Tanna of the fifth generation; in Babylonian sources he appears as פלימו. In Sotah 1:2:2-10" href="/Jerusalem_Talmud_Sotah.1.2.2-10">Soṭa 1:2 (fol. 16c), corresponding to Babli 4a, his name is Minyamin (a form of Binyamin).
[Palaemon, Greek Παλαίμων, name of a sea-god, also epithet of Heracles a. o., also used in Roman times (e. g. Remmius Palaemon, Roman grammarian in the time of Tiberius and Claudius.)
Because of the acoustic similarities between Palaemon and its counterpart Binyamin in the parallel passages, the Greek name might be a כינוי for the Biblical name, which would explain the apparent discrepancy. On the use of specific, traditional substitutes, כינוים, for a person’s Hebrew name, see also E. & H. Guggenheimer, Jewish Family Names and their Origins, an Etymological Dictionary, Hoboken N.J. 1992, pp. xiv–xv; Etymologisches Lexikon der jüdischen Familiennamen, München 1996, p. xv. (E. G.)]. Rebbi Yose asked, which [statement of] Abba Palaemon? Rebbi Mana said to him, I heard my father stating: “First fruits in his right hand, heave in his left hand.” Some Tannaїm state, “he transgresses,”, some Tannaїm state, “he does not transgress.” He who says he transgresses, the rabbis; he who says he does not transgress, Abba Palaemon82This refers to the disagreement between R. Ḥiyya bar Abba and R. Samuel bar Rav Isaac: For Abba Palaemon, a sin can be committed only in changing the prescribed order of heave and tithes, but changing the order between First Fruits and heave means disregarding a positive commandment, not transgressing a prohibition..