Comentario sobre Demai 6:11
אהַמּוֹכֵר פֵּרוֹת בְּסוּרְיָא, וְאָמַר מִשֶּׁל אֶרֶץ יִשְׂרָאֵל הֵן, חַיָּב לְעַשֵּׂר. מְעֻשָּׂרִין הֵן, נֶאֱמָן, שֶׁהַפֶּה שֶׁאָסַר הוּא הַפֶּה שֶׁהִתִּיר. מִשֶּׁלִּי הֵן, חַיָּב לְעַשֵּׂר, מְעֻשָּׂרִין הֵן, נֶאֱמָן, שֶׁהַפֶּה שֶׁאָסַר הוּא הַפֶּה שֶׁהִתִּיר. וְאִם יָדוּעַ שֶׁיֶּשׁ לוֹ שָׂדֶה אֶחָד בְּסוּרְיָא, חַיָּב לְעַשֵּׂר:
Quien vende fruta en Siria y dice: "Estas [frutas] son de la Tierra de Israel", uno debe diezmar [la fruta comprada]. [Si el vendedor dice:] "Se han tomado diezmos de estas [frutas]", se le confía, ya que la boca que causó la prohibición [al decir que son de Israel y por lo tanto requieren diezmos] es la boca que los permitió [ diciendo que ya se han tomado los diezmos]. [Si el vendedor dice:] "Son míos", hay que diezmar. [Si el vendedor dice:] "Han sido diezmados", se le confía, ya que la boca que causó la prohibición es la boca que los permitió. Sin embargo, si se sabe que él [el vendedor] tiene un campo en Siria, uno debe diezmar.
Bartenura on Mishnah Demai
סוריא – these are the lands that [King] David conquered that were not from the Land of Israel as for example, Aram Naharyim and Aram Zoba, and because all of the Land of Israel was not yet conquered . therefore, they were not sanctified with the sanctity of the Land [of Israel] even though it was the conquest of the majority [of the people] but in some of the laws it is like the Land of Israel and in some of the laws it is like outside the Land of Israel (see also Tractate Gittin 8a). And a person who purchases produce in Syria is not liable to separate from them doubtfully tithed produce because most of the produce that is sold in Syria comes from outside the Land of Israel, therefore if he said that they are tithed, he is believed because if he had desired, he could have said that they are from outside the Land of Israel and he would be believed, as it is taught in the Mishnah in Chapter 1 [Mishnah 3 of Tractate Demai] and elsewhere he is believed, here also, when he said: “they were from the Land of Israel and that I tithed them,” he is believed.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
English Explanation of Mishnah Demai
Introduction
In rabbinic language “Syria” refers to the land that borders the land of Israel to the North and East but is not considered fully part of Israel. The rules of tithing and terumah do apply to produce grown by a Jew in Syria but one who purchases produce in Syria can assume that it grew on gentile land and is therefore exempt from the laws of tithing and terumah. Our mishnah deals with a person who is buying produce in Syria and with the question of whether or not he has to separate tithes.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Bartenura on Mishnah Demai
שהפה שאסר – when he said that they are from the Land of Israel and they are liable for tithing, this is the [same] mouth that permitted when he said: “I have tithed them,” for just as we believe him in what he forbids when he stated that they are from the Land of Israel, he is believed also in what he permits when he said, “I tithed them.”
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
English Explanation of Mishnah Demai
One who sells produce in Syria and declared “It was grown in the land of Israel,” the purchaser must tithe it. If the seller says that the produce was grown in the land of Israel then the purchaser must tithe it. The status of such produce is “demai” for the seller may indeed be telling the truth.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Bartenura on Mishnah Demai
משלי הן – from the field that I have here in Syria, he is obligated to tithe as the produce of Syria they (i.e., the Rabbis) decreed concerning the doubtfully tithed produce that was known to have grown there.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
English Explanation of Mishnah Demai
[But if he also said], “It has been tithed,” he may be trusted, because the mouth that forbade is the same mouth that permitted. However, if the seller also says that he tithed the produce, he is believed. This is based on the principal “the mouth that forbade is the same mouth that permitted.” When the seller said “It was grown in the land of Israel” he forbade the produce. Had he not said anything, it would have been permitted under the assumption that the produce grew in Syria in a gentile’s field. When he says, “It has been tithed” he is permitting. Since he was believed to prohibit something, he is also believed to permit it.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Bartenura on Mishnah Demai
ואם ידוע שיש לו שדה – and there isn’t here: “the mouth that prohibited is the mouth that permitted,” for since it is known that he has a field, it is not explicitly stated, that he brought the produce from his field but he was not trustworthy to state that they come from outside the Land of Israel, therefore, when he said, “I tithed them,” he is not believed, for there is the lack of a מיגו – he could have made an argument more advantageous for himself.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
English Explanation of Mishnah Demai
[If he said: The produce is] from my own field,” the purchaser must tithe it. If the seller is a Jew and he says that the produce was grown in his own field here in Syria, the purchaser must tithe the produce, as we explained in the introduction.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
English Explanation of Mishnah Demai
[But if he added:] “It has already been tithed,” he may be trusted, because the mouth that forbade is the same mouth that permitted. If the seller then adds that he already tithed the produce, he is believed under the same principle employed in section two. He forbade the produce (until it was tithed) by saying that it grew in his field, and he is the same one permitting the produce by saying that he had tithed it.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
English Explanation of Mishnah Demai
If it was known that he had a field in Syria, the purchaser must tithe it. The principle of the “mouth that forbade is the same mouth that permitted” only works when there is no external reason to “forbid.” If we know that the seller was not just a producer seller but also owned a field in Syria, then we have reason to think that the produce grew in his land. If it grew on his land then it is liable to be tithed. In this case, it was not “his mouth that forbade” but rather our knowledge that he owned a field which made the produce liable for tithes. Since it was not his mouth that forbade, he is not believed to permit.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy