Talmud sur Makhshirin 2:14

A baraita¹⁹Tosephta Demay 1:1: “The easy ones for demay,shitin, lotus fruit, and the fruit of the service tree, may be trusted everywhere to be free (from obligation of tithes), but if they are kept in storage they are obligated.” disagrees with Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: “If they were kept in storage they are obligated.” Did they not essentially come from abandoned property? He explains it, if most people keep them in storage²⁰At such a place, nobody abandons the fruits and they are not free from tithes.. Come and see, if most people keep them in storage, it is everybody’s opinion²¹Both R. Joḥanan and R. Simeon ben Laqish. that they are obligated, be it demay or certain. If most people do not keep them in storage, it is everybody’s opinion that they are free, be it demay or certain. Half and half you cannot consider²²This would be the only practical point of difference between R. Joḥanan, who frees the fruits from tithes, and R. Simeon ben Laqish, who submits them to tithes. since we have stated²³Mishnah Makhshirin 2:10: “If someone finds produce on the road, if most people store it in their houses, it is free” (since, then, everybody must give heave and tithes at his barn and the few things lost on the road are included,) “if most people transport it to sell on the market, it is obligated” (since the seller may nibble from it occasionally without tithes and the future buyer, who has no relationship to the harvester, is obligated for tithes,) “half and half is demay.” Hence, there seems to be no way to relax the standard for a fifty-fifty doubt.: “Half and half is demay.” Rebbi Zeïra said, not only the easy ones for demay but even demay itself²⁴The Mishnah Makhshirin does not deal with our case, but with commercial produce; hence, it has no implications here and we may reduce the difference between R. Joḥanan and R. Simeon ben Laqish to this particular case..

It is written: “Any slave who is a man bought by money⁵⁷Ex. 12:44: “Any slave who is a man bought for money, when you have circumcised him, then he may eat from [the Passover sacrifice].” In the Babli (Yebamot 48a) the anonymous opinion here is the minority opinion of R. Simeon ben Eleazar. The Mekhilta dR. Simeon ben Ioḥai follows the Yerushalmi; the Mekhilta dR. Ismael follows the Babli (Yebamot 71a) in referring the sentence “then he may eat from [the Passover sacrifice]” to the owner who in that interpretation is barred from the sacrifice as long as not all his slaves are circumcised. (Cf. Note 41, the position of R. Aqiba)..” You circumcise by force a slave who is a man⁵⁸The verse notes only the activity of the owner., you do not circumcise by force a son who is a man⁵⁹A proselyte may only circumcise his minor sons with him.. Rebbi Joḥanan asked, does this imply that you may circumcise a minor by force? Even like one of undescended testicles⁶⁰The word אורכניס. has a number of explanations in the dictionaries which do not fit since they denote persons of high social standing. It is difficult to see how a foundling can be a son of a “ruler” (Mussaphia) or a “chief leader” (Kohut), etc. According to the context, one may translate בן not as “son” but “endowed with a certain quality” and take אורכניס as a composite of Greek ὀρχίς “testicles”, such as ὀρχιπέδη “restraint of testicles, impotence” (E. G.).? Rebbi Ḥizqiah in the name of Rebbi Abba: It is so. “If he found there a foundling. If he immersed him as a slave, he circumcises him as a slave; [if he immersed him] as a free person, he circumcises him as a free person.⁶¹Mishnah Makhshirin 2:7 explains that in a city where Jews and Gentiles dwell together, a foundling has the status of the majority (according to R. Jehudah the majority of those who abandon their children; in Tosephta Makhshirin 1:8 he declares the foundling to be a Gentile or a slave if only one Gentile or female slave of childbearing age lives there.)” Rebbi Joḥanan asked, as a slave, he circumcises him as a slave; even like one of undescended testicles? Rebbi Abbahu and Rebbi Eleazar in the name of Rebbi Hoshaia did not say so, but “any slave who is a man bought by money.” If your slave is a man, you circumcise him by force. If your son is a man, you do not circumcise him by force. This refers to what Rebbi Hila said in the name of Rebbi Yasa: If somebody buys uncircumcised slaves from Gentiles on condition that he will circumcise them, in any case if they are slaves who are men, you circumcise them by force. On condition⁶²A condition negotiated with the slave trader. that he will not circumcise them, he is like a son who is a man, you do not circumcise him by force.