Jerusalem Talmud Terumot 3:5

משנה: הַנָּכְרִי וְהַכּוּתִי תְרוּמָתָן תְּרוּמָה וּמַעְשְׂרוֹתָן מַעֲשֵׂר וְהֶקְדֵּישָׁן הֶקְדֵּשׁ. רִבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר אֵין לְנָכְרִי כֶּרֶם רְבָעִי. וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים יֵשׁ לוֹ. תְּרוּמַת הַנָּכְרִי מְדַמַּעַת וְחַייָבִין עָלֶיהָ חוֹמֶשׁ. וְרִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן פּוֹטֵר. MISHNAH: The heave of the Gentile and the Samaritan is heave, their tithes are tithes, and their dedications are dedications⁹³The dedications of Gentiles are valid dedications by biblical decree (Leviticus.22.25">Lev. 22:25). Heave and tithes of Gentiles are accepted by analogy. The problem of Samaritans is that they are Sadducees and do not follow rabbinic rules; it is decreed that any heave and tithes given by them under their rules are valid.. Rebbi Jehudah says, a Gentile cannot have a fourth year vineyard⁹⁴The yield of the fourth year of a newly planted vineyard is holy and must be redeemed before consumption, Leviticus.19.24">Lev. 19:24. For R. Jehudah, the obligation of the fourth year is tied to the possession of the Land; for the Sages, it is an extension of the duty of ‘orlah which also applies outside the Land. but the Sages say, he may have. The Gentile’s heave creates dema‘ and one is obliged to a fifth^3,Cf. Mishnah 6:4 and Terumot 1:1:15" href="/Jerusalem_Talmud_Terumot.1.1.15">Chapter 1, Note 71. In the interpretation of Maimonides (Terumot 5:22), the last sentence refers both to wine and to melons.⁹⁵Since Lev. 22:25 implies that dedication by a Gentile is a meritorious action, it follows that all stringencies of dedications have to be applied. for it, but Rebbi Simeon frees from the obligation.

הלכה: הוֹצִיא לָהֶן תְּרוּמָה מִתּוֹךְ בֵּיתוֹ נוֹהֲגִין בָּהּ בְּטֵבֵל וּבִתְרוּמָה גְדוֹלָה דִּבְרֵי רִבִּי. רַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל אוֹמֵר הֲרֵי זוֹ תְרוּמָה װַדַּאי. הוֹצִיא לָהֶן מַעֲשֵׂר רִאשׁוֹן מִתּוֹךְ בֵּיתוֹ נוֹהֲגִין בְּטֵבֵל וּבְמַעֲשֵׂר רִאשׁוֹן דִּבְרֵי רִבִּי. רַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל אוֹמֵר אֵינוֹ צָרִיךְ לְהַפְרִישׁ אֶלָּא מַעֲשֵׂר רִאשׁוֹן בִּלְבַד. הוֹצִיא לָהֶן מַעֲשֵׂר שֵׁנִי מִתּוֹךְ בֵּיתוֹ נוֹהֲגִין בָּהּ בְּטֵבֵל וּבְמַעֲשֵׂר שֵׁנִי דִּבְרֵי רִבִּי. רַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל אוֹמֵר אֵינוֹ צָרִיךְ לְהַפְרִישׁ אֶלָּא מַעֲשֵׂר שֵׁנִי בִלְבַד. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹסֵי בֵּי רִבִּי בּוּן רִבִּי חָשַׁשׁ שֶׁמָּא הִפְרִישׁ מִמִּין עַל שֶׁאֵינוֹ מִינוֹ. וְרַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל חָשַׁשׁ שֶׁמָּא הִקְדִּים. HALAKHAH: “⁹⁶Tosephta 4:13. The entire Halakhah deals only with Gentiles. For the treatment of Samaritans either as Jews or as Gentiles cf. Demay 3:4, p. 467. If he brought heave from his house⁹⁷The preceding Tosephta stated that heave and tithes given by the Gentile from the threshing floor are unquestionably valid since they were given in the open and following the rabbinic rules. The problem is only with gifts given from the barn where we do not know how these were separated. one treats it as ṭevel and Great Heave, the words of Rebbi⁹⁸Rebbi requires that the produce be treated as heave, to be consumed only by a Cohen, but also as ṭevel, that even the Cohen may use it only if he gave heave for it from another batch of the same produce. Similarly, in the other cases Rebbi requires that heave and tithes be given from the Cohen’s own produce.; Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel says, it is certainly heave. If he brought First Tithe from his house, one treats it as ṭevel and First Tithe, the words of Rebbi; Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel says, he needs only to separate First Tithe. If he brought Second Tithe from his house, one treats it as ṭevel and Second Tithe, the words of Rebbi; Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel says, he needs only to separate Second Tithe.” Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, Rebbi worries that maybe he gave from one kind on another⁹⁹In that case, the heave and tithes would be invalid. but Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel worries thay maybe he inverted the order¹⁰⁰He does not have to worry, but if the Gentile might have separated tithe before heave nothing bad has happened since heave and tithes are valid by Mishnah 6 and the Gentile is not subject to the rabbinic prohibitions..

תְּרוּמַת הַנָּכְרִי מְדַמָּעַת וְחַייָבִין עָלֶיהָ חוֹמֶשׁ. רִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן פּוֹטֵר. אָמַר רִבִּי זְעִירָא אָֽמְרָהּ קוֹמֵי רִבִּי אַבָּהוּ בְשֵׁם רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן מַה פְלִיגִין בִּתְרוּמַת גּוֹרְנוֹ. אֲבָל גּוֹי שֶׁלָּקַח מִפֵּירוֹת יִשְׂרָאֵל אַף רִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן מוֹדֵה אָמַר לֵיהּ רִבִּי אַבָּהוּ בְשֵׁם רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן הִיא מַחְלוֹקֶת. וְקַשְׁיָא עַל דְּרִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן פּוֹטֵר טִיבְלוֹ דְּבַר תּוֹרָה וְאַתְּ אָמַר הָכֵן. וְכִי קֳדָשִׁים אֵינָן תּוֹרָה וְרִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן פּוֹטֵר. וְתַנִּינָן תַּמָּן קָדְשֵׁי גוֹיִם אֵין חַייָבִין עֲלֵיהֶן מִשּׁוּם פִּיגּוּל וְנוֹתָר וְטָמֵא הַשּׁוֹחְטָן בַּחוּץ פָּטוּר דִּבְרֵי רִבִּי יוֹסֵי. וְרִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן מְחַייֵב. הֲווֹן בָּעֵיי מֵימַר מַה פְלִיגִין בְּחוֹמֶשׁ הָא בְדִימוּעַ לֹא. אַשְׁכָּח תַּנֵּי הִיא הָדָא הִיא הָדָא. “The Gentile’s heave creates dema‘ and one is obligated to a fifth^3,Cf. Mishnah 6:4 and Terumot 1:1:15" href="/Jerusalem_Talmud_Terumot.1.1.15">Chapter 1, Note 71. In the interpretation of Maimonides (Terumot 5:22), the last sentence refers both to wine and to melons.⁹⁵Since Lev. 22:25 implies that dedication by a Gentile is a meritorious action, it follows that all stringencies of dedications have to be applied. for it, but Rebbi Simeon frees from the obligation.” Rebbi Zeïra said, I said this before Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: They disagree only for the heave of his threshing floor. But for a Gentile who bought the produce of a Jew¹⁰¹After it was harvested. R. Simeon teaches that real estate in the Land of Israel held by Gentiles is free from all obligations of the Land, cf. Peah 4:6:9" href="/Jerusalem_Talmud_Peah.4.6.9">Peah Chapter 4, Note 129, Demay Chapter 5, Note 102., even Rebbi Simeon will agree. Rebbi Abbahu said to me in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, the disagreement is about the latter case. It is difficult according to Rebbi Simeon, does he free his ṭevel from the Torah and you say so¹⁰²If the Gentile bought produce after threshing, obligated for heave but before heave was taken, then his heave will free the grain for consumption by Jews. Since his heave has all the force of heave given by a Jew, why should it not be subject to all rules of heave?? But are sacrifices¹⁰³Sacrifices given to the Temple by Gentiles are accepted by biblical law, cf. Terumot 3:5:1" href="/Jerusalem_Talmud_Terumot.3.5.1">Note 93. not from the Torah, and nevertheless Rebbi Simeon frees, as we have stated there¹⁰⁴Zevachim 4:5" href="/Mishnah_Zevachim.4.5">Mishnah Zebaḥim 4:5, and similarly Zevachim 5:4" href="/Tosefta_Zevachim.5.4">Tosephta Zebaḥim 5:6. In all these texts, R. Simeon is quoted as freeing from punishment and R. Yose as declaring guilty. This is also a necessary reading here since the argument is that R. Simeon considers the Gentile’s sacrifice to be a genuine sacrifice acceptable to Heaven but not subject to any of the restrictions imposed on Jewish sacrifices; in parallel, the Gentile’s heave is heave but subject to its rules. (In some Mishnah mss. and editions, “R. Simeon” is replaced by “R. Meїr.”) Maimonides, both in his Commentary and his Code (Pesule Hammuqdašim 18:24) follows R. Simeon, against the rule that R. Yose prevails over R. Simeon. As R. Aqiba Eiger points out, the Babli quotes two instances (Zevachim.116b">Zebaḥim 116b, Menachot.109b">Menaḥot109b) of actual sacrifices performed for Gentiles outside the Land. Since the action of a respected authority, in this case Rava, the unquestioned leader of his generation, overrides all decision rules, Maimonides is justified.: “Sacrifices of Gentiles are not subject to piggul¹⁰⁵A sacrifice brought with the intent of eating it at an inappropriate time or inappropriate place, a deadly sin (Leviticus.7.18">Lev. 7:18, Leviticus.19.7">19:7)., left-overs¹⁰⁶Leftovers from sacrificial meat remaining after the allotted time, whose consumption is sinful., and impurity and one who slaughters them outside¹⁰⁷Sacrificed outside the Temple, a prohibition restricted to “the Children of Israel”, Leviticus.17.3">Lev. 17:3. is free [from punishment], the words of Rebbi Yose, but Rebbi Simeon declares him guilty.” They wanted to say that they disagree only about the fifth but not about dema‘. They found stated: It is all the same.