Commento su Demai 4:10

הלוקח פירות. בשבת יאכל על פיו – for the fear of the Sabbath is upon him, for they fear to violate the Sabbath and to lie on the Sabbath more than on the weekdays.

Introduction This mishnah is about trusting a person who says that they tithed their produce, even though that person is not a “chaver” a person who is generally trustworthy when it comes to tithes. As we shall see, the rabbis were lenient if by not trusting the person one could not eat the produce. They were able to be lenient because demai is only prohibited “derabanan” it is only doubtfully forbidden, and not certainly forbidden.

תרומת מעשר של דמאי – And for this, [the Mishnah] took [the language] the “tenth of the tenth” (i.e., what the Levite must give to the Kohen after receiving his share of the “tenth”- after the original first two percent had been given to a Kohen by an Israelite), for the ignoramuses were suspected of this (i.e., of not fulfilling this Mitzvah) for they hold that [by not fulfilling it] it [is not punishable] by the death-penalty all the while that the First Tithe is not separated, but the Great Terumah/priest’s due (i.e., the initial two-percent that went to the Kohen), they are not suspected of [not fulfilling] it. But the “tenth-of-the-tenth” where one out of one-hundredth [of the portion which] is [questionably tithed] returned to its place (i.e., original pile), with less than one-hundred portions [fully tithed] all of it is “suspect.”

One who buys produce from someone who is not trustworthy in respect of tithes, and he forgot to tithe it, and he asked [the seller] on Shabbat [if they were tithed], he may eat based on his word. At nightfall of Shabbat, he may not eat of it unless he had first tithed it. On Shabbat it is forbidden to tithe produce. There is no option, therefore, to tithe the demai produce and thereby eat it. Since he can’t tithe it, the rabbis allowed the buyer of the produce to trust the seller who says that he did tithe the produce. The reason why they were lenient in this case is that the honor and joy accorded to Shabbat trumps the fear that the produce might really be untithed. However, after Shabbat, at nightfall, this special permission ends, and before he eats any more of this produce, he must first tithe it.

שואלו ואוכל על פיו – For after it is called by name “Terumah”/priest’s due, the fear of “suspicion” of the ignoramus who is seen to lie. And the Halakha is according to Rabbi Shimon Shezuri.

If he could not find the seller, and another person who was not trustworthy in respect of tithes said to him “they are tithed,” he may eat of it at his word. At nightfall of Shabbat, he may not eat of it unless he had first tithed it. In this section we learn that the same rules apply if someone besides the original seller informs him that the produce has been properly tithed. We might have thought that the buyer can only trust the seller, who would know best whether the produce had been tithed. Here we learn that if he can’t find the seller and someone else claims to know that it had been tithed, he too may be trusted.

Terumat maaser of demai which had become mixed up again [with the produce] from which it had been taken: Rabbi Shimon Shezuri says: even on a week day he may ask the seller and eat based on his word. Terumat maaser is the terumah taken from the tithe and given to the priest. One must separate terumat maaser from demai. Usually the laws of terumat maaser are quite strict because terumah can only be eaten by a priest and non-priest who eats it is punished by “death at the hands of heaven”. If terumah is mixed up with regular produce all of the produce can be eaten only by priests. However, in the case in this section the law can be lenient. If one separated terumat maaser from demai produce and then the terumat maaser fell back into the demai he may ask the seller if he had tithed the produce, even on a weekday (when there is no concern for the honor of Shabbat). If the seller says that he had tithed it, the buyer may eat the produce under the assumption that it wasn’t necessary to take out the terumat maaser in the first place.

המדיר את חבירו שיאכל אצלו – for he said to him: “I make a vow [of abstinence] on what you cause me benefit, if you don’t eat with me.

Introduction This mishnah deals with a person, we’ll call him Reuven, who has a friend, whom we’ll call Shimon, who is trying to use a vow to get him to come eat with him. The way this works is that Reuven says that all of his possessions will become forbidden to Shimon unless Shimon eats with him. Shimon doesn’t want to cause such a rupture in their relationship, but he doesn’t think that Reuven tithes his produce. What is he to do?

שבת הראשונה – of the wedding meal of a young man who married a virgin, they permitted him to eat with him (who had doubtfully tithed) because of fear.

One who vowed [that his friend could not benefit from him] unless he eats with him, and the friend does not trust him in respect of tithes, he may eat with him on the first Shabbat even though he does not trust him in respect of tithes, provided that his friend said to him that the food had been tithed. If Reuven invited Shimon to eat with him during the week, Shimon could just tithe the food that Reuven gave him to eat and there would be no problem. However, on Shabbat he can’t tithe the produce, so the problem remains. The mishnah is lenient for the first Shabbat. If Reuven tells Shimon that the food has been tithed, Shimon can eat it, even though Reuven is not generally trusted. In this case we cannot explain the mishnah’s leniency as being a result of the honor of Shabbat, because Shimon could eat at home instead of with Reuven. Rather the leniency is because of “the ways of peace.” In order to preserve the peace between Reuven and Shimon and to allow Shimon to eat at Reuven’s home, Shimon can temporarily trust him that the food has been tithed.

But on the second week, even though he had vowed that he would not benefit from him, he may not eat with him unless he first tithed [the produce]. The leniency in section one does not exist for the second Shabbat because by this point Shimon had time to go to Reuven’s home and tithe his produce or make sure that Reuven had actually tithed. He need no longer rely on a leniency or on Reuven’s word. In looking at this mishnah and all of the other leniencies we have seen, it is worthwhile to make a general note about the function of demai in rabbinic society. The fact that rabbis did not trust others to tithe would have clearly separated them from the rest of the population. It seems to me that this is intentional. Rabbis wanted to draw some lines between themselves and others. However, these lines remain intentionally fuzzy and easily crossed. They are not the relatively clear lines that separate a Jew from a non-Jew, but rather more porous lines that permit a large degree of fraternization between rabbis and non-rabbis.

אין צריך לקרות שם למעשר עני של דמאי – for those not observing certain religious customs regarding tithes, they are not suspect regarding the Poor Man’s tithe for they know that the produce that is subject to sacred gifts are [punishable] by death and they set it aside and take it for themselves.

Introduction As we explained in the introduction to Demai, in the third and sixth years of a sabbatical cycle, a person separates poor man’s tithe from his produce and gives it to the poor. In our mishnah, there is a debate over whether one has to separate poor man’s tithe from demai.

וחכמים אומרים – nevertheless they designate it, for he doesn’t lose anything through this, and he does not need to separate and give them to the poor because the poor regarding himself removes something from his fellow and (see quote from Tractate Bava Kamma, Chapter 3, Mishnah 11): “He who wants to exact [compensation] from his fellow bears the burden of proof.”

Rabbi Eliezer says: a man need not designate the poor man’s tithe of demai. According to Rabbi Eliezer, the am haaretz does separate poor man’s tithe from his produce, and therefore, one need not do so again.

But the sages say: he must designate it, but he need not separate. The sages disagree with Rabbi Eliezer and hold that it is unclear whether an am haaretz separates poor man’s tithe from his produce, just as it is unclear whether he separates the other tithes. Therefore, the person who wants to eat demai must first separate the poor man’s tithe. However, he does not have to actually give it to the poor person because the poor person cannot prove that the am haaretz did not separate the poor man’s tithe. Demai is only doubtfully untithed produce. Since the poor cannot prove that this produce belongs to them, the person who separates the poor man’s tithe from the demai can keep it for himself.

מי שקרא שם לתרומת מעשר של דמאי – that stated that the heave-offering of the tithe (i.e., by which the Levite gives a Kohen one-tenth of what he had received from an Israelite) that I am obligated to separate from this pile, will be placed in the north or in the south and he should not set it aside. But the heave-offering of the tithe of doubtfully tithed produce that he took because the Israelite designated it and gave it to the Kohen and he takes the tithe for himself, but the heave-offering of that which is definitely required being tithed an Israelite does not designate it, but rather he gives the tithe to the Levie and the Levite separates the heave-offering of the tithe and gives it to the Kohen.

Introduction This mishnah deals with the prohibition of separating terumah and tithes on Shabbat.

לא יטלם – in order to give them to the Kohen or to the poor person that is in the courtyard or that is the alleyway, for it is forbidden to give gifts to the Kohen or to the poor on Shabbat. But when he is accustomed to eat with him, meaning to say who regularly eats at his table, it is permitted, as long as he informs them that they are the heave-offering of the tithe or of the Poor Man’s tithe, for if he does not inform them and they think that he is feeding them from his own, it would be like feeding his guests heave-offering and/or Poor Man’s tithe(s) which is forbidden.

One who had designated the terumat maaser of demai, or the poor man’s tithe of produce that had certainly not been tithed, he should not separate them on Shabbat. In the scenario described in this mishnah, during the week a person had designated that a certain portion of his demai produce would be terumat maaser (the terumah taken from the tithe) or that a certain portion of his certainly untithed produce would be poor man’s tithe. He had not yet separated these gifts from the rest of the produce. Even though he had already designated them, he may not actually separate them on Shabbat in order to give them to the priest or to the poor person. Again, one is not allowed to separate terumah or tithes on Shabbat. The mishnah uses the example of poor man’s tithe taken from produce that had certainly not been tithed and not from demai (which might have been tithed), because if the produce had been demai, he would not have to give the tithe to the poor person, as we learned in yesterday’s mishnah.

But if the priest or the poor man regularly ate with him, they may come and eat provided that he informs them. If there was a priest or a poor person who regularly comes to his home to eat with him, then they may come on Shabbat and take the terumah or poor man’s tithe that has already been designated as such. However, the owner of the produce must inform the priest or poor man that what they are taking is terumat maaser or poor man’s tithe. If he does not, he has not fulfilled the mitzvah of giving these gifts to the priest or the poor person.

אינו נאמן – for even if he would find that he acquired it from someone who is not [deemed] trustworthy, he is able to escape and to state: “in my eyes, he was trustworthy.” But when he stated to him: “from a certain person” (i.e., the agent was believed) he was not able to escape, for he is not permitted to take it from another person.

Introduction This mishnah deals with a person who sends out an agent to buy produce. Can he trust that the agent will buy from someone who is known to tithe?

One who says to another who is not trustworthy in respect of tithes: “Buy [produce] for me from one who is trustworthy or from one who gives tithes,” [the messenger] may not be trusted. Since the agent is not trustworthy to tithe, he is also not trustworthy to buy from someone who does tithe. The purchaser will have to tithe the produce that he brings back. We should note that this rule would seem to discourage a person from using an agent who is himself not trustworthy with regard to tithes.

“Buy it for me from so-and-so,” he is to be trusted. Here, the purchaser tells him to buy from a certain person who is trustworthy with regard to tithes. So while an agent who is not trustworthy with regard to tithes may not be trusted to go out and look for someone who does tithe, he is trusted to listen to his sender when he tells him to buy from a certain person. Also, in this case, the sender could check up on him and find out whether he really did buy from that person. Since the sender can check up on him, the agent is assumed not to lie.

If he went to buy it from him [and then came back] and said: “I did not find him, so I bought for you from another man who is trustworthy,” he may not be trusted. However, if he comes back and says that he couldn’t find the person he was supposed to buy from but that he did nevertheless buy from someone who is trusted with regard to tithes, the messenger is not trusted, just as he was not trusted in section one. Since he can’t be checked up on, he might lie.

איש פלוני נאמן ה"ז נאמן – even though that he was not worthy to be believed since he himself is suspect, there is a leniency that they made with an lodger/guest because of providing for his life. And especially when he doesn’t know a person there, but if he knows a person there, he should not take from anyone other than a specialist.

Introduction This mishnah deals with a scenario where two people offer compliments as to each other’s produce. The question is: do we fear that they are colluding and therefore not trust them?

מי כאן מוכר ישן – for he fears lest they will feed him “new” grain (see Leviticus 23:14 and Tractate Menahot, Chapter 10, Mishnah 5) prior to the Omer being offered up as a sacrifice, and most of those not observing certain religious customs regarding tithes are not suspected on that which is “new” and if is like doubtfully tithed produce for most of those who are not observing certain religious customs regarding tithes do tithe, therefore, they were not so stringent upon themselves that we would say that they are rendering a service to each other [by mutual recommendations]- you testify about me and I will testify about you.

One enters a city and doesn’t know anyone. He says: “Who here is trustworthy? Who gives tithes here?” One person one responds: “I am.” He may not be trusted. This person is not trusted because a person cannot testify about themselves that they tithe. Only others may testify concerning them.

[But if] he replied: “So-and-so is trustworthy,” he may be trusted. Although the person is not believed to say that he himself tithes, he is believed to say that someone else tithes. This is, after all, the general way that a person would find out if someone tithes he would ask around about him.

He went to buy from so-and-so, and he asked him: “Who here sells aged produce?” and so-and-so replied: “He sent you to me,” though they appear to be repaying each other, they may be trusted. The person who has now bought produce from someone who is trustworthy to have tithed now asks that same person, who in the town sells aged produce, which is better than new produce. He sends the buyer back to the original person, the same one that was not believed in section one. It looks as if they are scratching each other’s back. They both know that a person is not believed to compliment his own wares so they compliment each other’s. Despite this, the mishnah rules that each is believed. Albeck explains that the visitor to the city can treat this case leniently because as a visitor it will be hard for him to determine who is trustworthy.

החמרים – that bring grain from the inexpensive place to the more expensive place.

Introduction The previous mishnah dealt with the fear that merchants might collude, each paying compliments to the other’s produce. Our mishnah deals with another instance in which we might fear that two merchants are colluding.

אין נאמנים – for surely they are rendering a service to each other [by mutual recommendations] and he praises his colleague [and his grain] in this city in order that his colleague should praise his [grain] in another city.

If donkey-drivers entered a city and one of them declared: “My produce is new but my friend’s produce is old,” or, “My produce has not been tithed but my friend’s produce has been tithed,” they may not be trusted. Rabbi Judah says: they may be trusted. Two donkey drivers enter the city each carrying loads of produce. Each one testifies that his produce is new or untithed (bad) but that his friend’s produce is old or tithed (both good). In other words, each compliments his friend’s produce and denigrates his own. In this case, according to the first opinion, we should suspect that they are colluding and we may not trust either of them. Rabbi Judah says that there is reason to be lenient also in this case and to trust them. Donkey drivers who bring supplies to the city are necessary for the good of the city. Were the people of the city not to trust them, they might not come back. Therefore, they too can be trusted.

ר' יהודה אומר נאמנים – for since most of those who are not observing certain religious customs regarding tithing do tithe, with doubtfully tithed produce they are lenient because of the lives of the people of the city that that those who sell grain and produce would regularly come there. But the Halakha is not according to Rabbi Yehuda.