Commento su Demai 3:8

מאכילין את העניים דמאי – even if they are members of the order for the observance of Levitical laws to daily intercourse and one needs to inform them and the one who wishes to tithe will tithe them.

Introduction This mishnah discusses various people to whom one might legitimately give demai. As we have seen already, since treating the produce of an am haaretz as demai, that is doubting whether it was tithed, was only a rabbinic stringency, the rabbis allowed the law to be lenient in certain circumstances.

ואת אכסניא – army of the king of Israel that passes from place to place and it is upon the people of that place to support them, they feed them doubtfully tithed produce, at the time when it passes, but if he stayed there overnight, it is obligatory to make things legally fit for use by giving the priestly dues.

They may feed demai to the poor and to guests (alt. passing. Rabban Gamaliel used to feed demai to his workmen. Since the rules of demai are only stringencies, for as we have said deoraita, from Torah law, one can eat demai without tithing it, there are certain leniencies. One is that a person may use demai to feed the poor and to feed his guests. It is a mitzvah to feed both the poor and to treat guests hospitably and hence one can use demai. Others explain that the Hebrew word which I have translated and explained as for “guests” actually mean passing troops, who are treated like the poor because they have no home to call their own. Rabban Gamaliel would even feed demai to his workers, probably because there is a mitzvah for an employer to feed his workers.

רבן גמליאל היה מאכיל את פועליו דמאי – they were poor. But the Halakha is not according to Rabban Gamaliel for since he is liable for their food, it is found that he repays his obligation with doubtfully tithed produce.

[As for] charity collectors: Bet Shammai says: they should give tithed [produce] to one who doesn’t tithe, and untithed [produce] to one who does tithe. In this way it will turn out that every one will eat [produce] that has been fixed (. But the sages say: they may collect indiscriminately and distribute indiscriminately. And one who wishes to fix [his produce by tithing it], let him fix it. According to Bet Shammai, when charity collectors collect produce to give to the poor, they should separate the tithed produce from the untithed produce and give the tithed produce to those who won’t tithe it, and the untithed produce to those who will. In other words, the charity collector has a responsibility to make sure that those receiving the charity observe the laws of tithing. Bet Hillel, on the other hand, gives greater trust and freedom to people. Charity collectors can collect either tithed or untithed produce and then it will be up to the person buying it to decide whether to tithe or not. Perhaps we might even say that there is something beneficial about leaving the choice to tithe in the hands of the purchaser. By choosing to tithe he is making a more active choice as to his religious observance, as opposed to Bet Shammai’s system, in which a person has to tithe (or at least his produce will end up being tithed) without having any choice in the matter.

ואת שאינו מעושר למעשר – and the give him at a higher price because of his tithings, and it would be found that every person is eating that which is legally fit for use by having given the priestly dues. But the School of Shammai, according to their reasoning that states, they don’t feed the poor people doubtfully tithed produce.

הרוצה לתקן יתקן – for the doubtfully tithed produce was not permitted to the poor other than when they eat one meal with the owner, but the produce that would come into their hands, it is obligatory for them to tithe the doubtfully tithed produce. You can also deduce it from as it is taught in the Mishnah: “We feed the poor doubtfully tithed produce,” but it does not teach that the poor eat doubtfully tithed produce. Such Maimonides wrote.

לחזום (to trim leaves of vegetables for the sake of lightening the burden) – to cut and to sever but there is nothing similar to it in the Mishnah.

Introduction This mishnah teaches that in certain cases a person must tithe produce even if he is getting rid of that produce or it is not yet even his.

להקל ממשאו – that it will it will not weigh upon him.

One who wants to cut off leaves of vegetables in order to lighten his burden, he may not throw them down until he has [first] tithed them. A person while traveling might discard leaves of vegetables because he doesn’t intend to eat them. Discarding them will lighten his load. The problem is that a poor am haaretz might come by and pick up the leaves and eat them because he has nothing else to eat. To prevent the am haaretz from unwittingly eating untithed produce he should tithe the leaves before he discards them. One should always be cautious that his actions don’t cause others to stumble.

לא ישליך עד שיעשר – lest those not observing religious customs regarding tithes and Levitical cleanness find them and eat them when they are not legally fit for use by giving the priestly dues, and it is found that he places a stumbling-block [before them]. But these words concern vegetables that are put up in bunches (which are subject to tithes from the time they are tied), for if they are not gathered in bunches, they are not yet obligated in tithes.

One who takes vegetables from the market [with the intention of buying them], and then decides to put them back, he should not put them back until he has [first] tithed them, for nothing is missing [after they are tithed] except for their quantity. There are two conflicting interpretations of this section. According to Albeck (according to whose interpretation I translated), when the person in our mishnah picks up the vegetables he has not yet bought them, but is only considering buying them. When he changes his mind and decides not to buy them, he shouldn’t return them to the seller until he tithes them. The mishnah explains that tithing doesn’t cause a loss to the seller because the seller, or the one who later on buys from him, is going to have to tithe in any case. This is the meaning of “nothing is missing except for their quantity” the value has not gone down. Although this is the rule, a person should not intentionally put himself in such a situation because the seller probably doesn’t want others tithing his produce. According to the Bavli and the commentators who explain accordingly, the purchaser has acquired the vegetables by picking them up even though he hasn’t counted them yet. This is the meaning of “nothing is missing except [counting] the quantity.” Since they belong to him, he can’t return them until he tithes them.

הלוקח ירק מן השוק – and he took tied up bundles of vegetables in his hand whose value was known as such and -such bundles for a penny, and after he had taken them, he changed his mind upon them to return them to the seller.

But if he was standing [there and deciding what to] buy and then saw another load of better quality, he may put them back [untithed], since he had not yet drawn them into his possession. In this section the person has not yet picked up the vegetables. He can “put them back,” meaning he can change his mind, since they have not yet become his. When he puts them back he need not tithe them.

לא יחזיר עד שיעשר – and he will give him the cost of the tithing that he sets aside, for when when he lifts them they became his, and he is liable for them to tithe them.

שאינו מעושר אלא מנין – this [word] "מעושר" its meaning is "מחוסר"/lacking, meaning to say, he already bought them through lifting them and nothing was lacking other than to count them, for he already knew such-and-such bundles for a penny.

היה עומד ולוקח – but he did not take them in his hand and he did not lift them up.

טוען אחר – another load of vegetables.

לא יצניע עד שיעשר – since it is forbidden to remove from his hand something that is not legally fit for use by giving the priestly dues.

If one finds produce on the road and picks it up in order to eat it, and then decides to hide it, he may not hide it unless he has [first] tithed it. In this scenario, he is liable to tithe the produce because he picked it up in order to eat it. He can’t store or hide the produce away without first tithing it, lest someone come by and find the food and eat it while it is untithed. This is similar to what we learned in section one of mishnah two. Again, a person has to make sure he doesn’t cause someone else to unwittingly eat untithed produce.

But if from the outset he picked it up only in order to guard it against being destroyed, he is exempt [from tithing it]. However, if he picks the produce up only to prevent it from being destroyed, without having the intention of eating it, he is not liable to tithe it. In this case he can put it back down without tithing it. This is similar to the end of mishnah two.

שאין אדם רשאי למכרו דמאין – as for example at a small quantities (i.e., retail) as we stated in the chapter above (Tractate Demai, Chapter 2, Mishnayot 4-5).

Any produce which one may not sell [in the condition of] demai, he may not send it [as a gift] to his friend [in the condition of] demai. We learned in chapter 2, mishnayot 4-5, that it is forbidden to sell certain types of produce while they are in the state of demai. Our mishnah teaches that just as one is not allowed to sell such food, so too one is not allowed to send it as a gift to one’s friend. We might have thought that since it is a gift, we do not force him to tithe the produce before he sends it. Our mishnah demonstrates that the reason that he must tithe the produce before he sends it to someone else is lest the recipient it eat while it is untithed. Such a reason exists whether he is selling it or giving it away.

לא ישלח לחבירו דמאי – in a small measuer, but he sends him a large measure, since he is permitted to sell it in a large measure.

Rabbi Yose permits [one to send as a gift produce] that is certainly untithed, on condition that he makes the matter known to the recipient. Rabbi Yose disagrees and allows one to send untithed produce as a gift to one’s friend, as long as he informs his friend that the produce needs to be tithed. However, Rabbi Yose allows one to send only produce which has definitely not been tithed. If the produce is only demai (doubtfully tithed), he can’t send it without first tithing it, lest the recipient act too leniently with regard to demai. We can see here that the rabbis feared that not everyone would observe the laws of demai, and that a person might act leniently when it comes to demai, even though he generally does tithe. It is of course hard to tell what other Jews, non-rabbis, thought about the entire concept of demai, but one can easily imagine that it may not have made them all that enthusiastic.

רבי יוסי מתיר – permits sending to his friend something that is definitely tithed, even in a small measure, as long as he informs him. But Rabbi Yossi agrees that with something doubtfully tithed, it is forbidden with a small measure. But the Halakha is not according to Rabbi Yossi.

לטוחן כותי – to a Cuthean who mijlls grain.

Introduction This mishnah discusses situations in which a Jew who has tithed his produce gives over the produce to a Samaritan, an am haaretz or a Gentile for them to either mill the wheat or guard it. The question is: do we fear that the Samaritan, am haaretz or Gentile switched the produce with their own? If we do have such a fear, then when the Jew gets his produce back he must tithe it again.

הרי אלו בחזקתן – - they do not suspect that perhaps they switches those that were made legally fit for use by giving the priestly dues with others that are not legally fit for use.

One who takes his wheat to a Samaritan miller or to an am haaretz miller, [the wheat when ground] retains its former status in respect of tithes and the law of seventh year produce. [But if he carried it] to a Gentile miller, [the wheat when ground has the status of] demai. The mishnah assumes that the Samaritan or am haaretz miller did not switch the tithed produce that was given to him by the Jew, and therefore we need not fear lest the grain is untithed or that it is grain that comes from the Sabbatical year. Produce from the Sabbatical year (shmita) has certain restrictions, which we will learn about in greater length in Tractate Sheviit. However, if he gives the grain to a Gentile miller, he must fear that the Gentile mixed it up with his own produce, and hence it has the status of demai. The difference between giving the produce to a Gentile and giving it to a Samaritan or an am haaretz seems to be that we know that the Gentile’s produce is untithed whereas the Samaritan or am haaretz might have tithed their produce. Therefore in the case of the Gentile there is only one doubt did he switch it with his own grain. In the case of the Samaritan or am haaretz there are two doubts. Did he switch it with his own grain, and if he did, was his grain tithed? Since there are two doubts, the law is lenient.

לטוחן עובד כוכבים דמאי – for an idolator is suspected of exchanging. But after [the effigy] of a dove was found at the top of Mount Gerizim that they were worshipping it, a Cuthean is [considered] like an idolater.

One who deposited his produce with a Samaritan or am haaretz, [the produce] retains its former status in respect of tithes and the law of seventh year produce. [But if he left it] with a Gentile, it is like the produce of the Gentile. Rabbi Shimon says: [it becomes] demai. The first part of this section is the same as the first part of section one. However, the rule with the Gentile is slightly different. Here, according to the first opinion, we must treat the produce as if it was certainly switched with the Gentile’s own produce. When he gets his produce back, the Jew will be obligated to separate terumah and all tithes, not just those which one is obligated to separate from demai. The difference between this scenario and the case of the Gentile miller above seems to be that this is just a friend with whom one has left something to guard. A person who is doing a favor for a friend might not care so much if he switches the produce with his own. However, the miller might be more cautious in switching the grain he was given with other grain because as a professional, he doesn’t want to upset his clients. Since it is more doubtful that he switched it around, the status of the grain is only demai. Rabbi Shimon says that in the case of the deposit the returned produce is only demai, because it is still only doubtful whether the Gentile switched the Jew’s produce with his own. Since it is only doubtful whether the Gentile switched it, the Jew takes out tithes and terumah, but he doesn’t have to give the terumah to a priest, because the priest can’t prove that the Jew owes him this terumah. The Jew may sell the terumah to a priest and keep the proceeds for himself but he may not eat it.

אצל העובד כוכבים כפירותיו – and the produce of idolaters are exempt from tithing. But the first clause [of the Mishnah] because it was the manner of people to bring many baskets of wheat and to leave them with the miller, we suspect lest this basket was exchanged with other baskets of Israelites which are doubtfully tithed, but regarding produce one is not able to say lest he exchanged them with produce of an Isaelite but rather lest the idolater exchanged them with his produce, therefore they are like the produce of the idolater. But Rabbi Shimon holds that even with produce we suspect lest they were exchanged in the house of the idolater with produce of another Israelite, for just as this Israelite deposited his produce in the hands of an idolater, so there is reason to suspect lest another Israelite is among those who are suspect sn tithing, he also deposited [produce] in his care and these were exchanged with those. But the Halakha is not according to Rabbi Shimon.

פונדקית – mistress of the inn and those who travel on the way lodge with her [at the inn].

Introduction This mishnah deals with a person who is at an inn and gives the innkeeper produce for her to cook and prepare for him.

מעשר את שהוא נותן לה – a person who is a member of the order for the observance of Levitical laws in daily intercourse doesn’t release anything from his hand that is not made legally fit for use by giving the priestly dues.

One who gives [produce] to an innkeeper [to prepare it for food], he must tithe what he gives to her and what he takes back from her, because she is suspected of exchanging it [with her own produce]. The innkeeper is suspected of exchanging the produce that the guest gives her for lesser quality produce that belongs to her. Occasionally, if she is generous, she may even do the opposite, exchanging the lower quality produce that she receives for higher quality stuff. In any case, we must suspect that she doesn’t tithe her own produce. Therefore, whatever the guest gives to her he should first tithe, lest she eat the untithed produce herself. According to this opinion, a person is responsible to make sure that he doesn’t cause others to transgress. The guest must also tithe anything that he gets from her, under the assumption that she did not already tithe it.

ואת שהוא נוטל ממנה – for even though someone not observing certain religious customs concerning tithing is not suspected of exchanging as we stated above (in Mishnah 4), the mistress of an inn is suspected of exchanging, which she intends for good and gives from her own which is better to a person who is a member of the order for the observance of Levitical laws in daily intercourse, for she says to her heart that it appropriate that I will feed from own which is worm and good to a member of the order for the observance of Levitical laws in daily intercourse and I will take his which is cold and worse.

Rabbi Yose said: we are not responsible for deceivers. Rather, he must tithe only that which he takes from her. Rabbi Yose says that we shouldn’t be concerned with this woman eating untithed produce because if she eats the produce that he gave her to cook for him, she is a deceiver and we are not responsible to prevent deceivers from sinning. Therefore, he doesn’t need to tithe the produce that he gives her if she eats it untithed that’s her problem. He does, of course, still have to tithe that which she gives him to eat.

אין אנו אחראין לרמאין – that is to say, the responsibility of deceivers is not upon us to guard them that they will not eat something that is not tithed. Therefore he does not tithe what he gives her (i.e., the mistress of the inn) and if the mistress of the inn acquires it for herself and to eat it when it is not legally fit for use by giving the priestly dues, the person who is a member of the order for the observance of Levitical laws in daily intercourse has nothing from this and does not tithe other than what he takes alone. But Rabbi Yossi holds that she intends to steal. But the Halakha is not according to Rabbi Yossi.

המתקלקל – bread or a cooked dish that spoiled.

Introduction This fascinating and, I think, relevant mishnah deals with a person whose mother-in-law is suspected of not observing the laws of tithing because she is an am haaretz. Can he eat at her house, and if so, what does he have to do to make sure that he doesn’t eat untithed produce? To translate this into something to which we might have an easier time relating, this is the classic case of a child who is religiously observant asking how he can eat at his in-laws home. It is interesting that the mishnah is already aware of such a problem. This perhaps demonstrates that rabbis married women who came from families of ame haaretz (ignoramuses). Finally, as we shall see, Rabbi Judah’s understanding of how a mother-in-law relates to her daughter and son-in-law is also remarkable.

אמר רבי יהודה – In the Jerusalem Talmud it explains that the first clause is also the words of Rabbi Yehuda. And this is what he said: Because she is suspected of exchanging that which is spoiled, these are the words of Rabbi Yehuda for Rabbi Yehuda states that she desires the well-being of her daughter, etc.

One who gives [produce] to his mother-in-law [to prepare it], he must tithe what he gives to her and what he takes back from her, because she is suspected of changing any [food] which has spoiled. Just as the innkeeper was suspected of switching the food that she is given, so too is a mother-in-law. Therefore, in order to make sure that she doesn’t eat untithed food, he must tithe the produce that he gives to her. And in order to make sure that he doesn’t eat untithed food, he must tithe that which he gets back from her. However, whereas the innkeeper switched the food probably to keep the good food for herself, the mother-in-law switches the food so that she can give the good food to her daughter and son-in-law. What a nice mother-in-law!

בנותן לחמותו שביעית – by giving her to bake and to cook in the seventh year.

Rabbi Judah said: she desires the welfare of her daughter and is ashamed [of serving spoiled food] to her son-in-law. Rabbi Judah now provides an explanation as for why a mother-in-law might switch the bad food given to her and feed her daughter and son-in-law with better (but nevertheless untithed) food. She wants only the best for her daughter and she is ashamed lest she serve spoiled food to her son-in-law. In other words, she loves her daughter and wants to look good in front of her son-in-law. Does this sound familiar to anyone? We should note that Rabbi Judah certainly agrees with the statement in section one. We can see that because he explains it. The Yerushalmi concludes that Rabbi Judah is the author of the statement in section one and that there are other rabbis who disagree with him. They hold that a mother-in-law does not switch the produce that her son-in-law brings to her and therefore, one does not have to tithe the produce that he gets back from her, just that which he gives her.

שאינה חשודה להאיל את בתה שביעית – for the seventh year is more stringent to them and even if it [what she had prepared] would be spoiled, she would not exchange it for seventh year produce. And the Halakha is according to Rabbi Yehuda.

Rabbi Judah agrees [with the other sages] that if one gives his mother-in-law seventh year produce, she is not suspected of changing it and giving her daughter to eat of seventh year produce. Rabbi Judah now agrees to something that was said by the other sages, to whom I just referred. While a mother-in-law, according to Rabbi Judah, does not tithe her produce, she is more cautious about the laws of sabbatical produce. Therefore, if during the sabbatical year he gives her permitted produce for her to make him a meal, he does not have to be concerned that she will switch it with forbidden produce. [When we learn Tractate Sheviit, we will learn what produce is permitted during the sabbatical year and what is forbidden]. According to Rabbi Judah, ame haaretz will not eat sabbatical produce even though they are suspected of eating untithed produce.