Komentarz do Demaj 6:13

המקבל שדה – (i.e., an אריס) for fifty percent, for a third or a fourth in the manner of tenant farmers who till the owner’s ground for a certain share of the crops.

Introduction This mishnah deals with a Jew who rents a field from someone else, either a Jew, a Gentile or a Samaritan. There are two types of rental agreements referred to here. In the first type of agreement, the owner of the field shares part of the crop with the one renting and working the field. In the second type of agreement, the one renting pays the owner a fixed amount of the produce, whether the field produces a good or a bad crop.

חולק לפניהם – and he does not have to tithe the portion of that belongs to the owner of the field, but he places before them part of the profit of the ground which is not tithed, and the Sages did not obligate to the sharecropper that he would tithe the part of the owner [of the field] but he gives hm what he arranged with him when it is tithe because of the settlement of the Land of Israel in order that others not be prevented from being sharecroppers who till the land as tenants for a percentage of the yield.

One who has received a field from a Jew, or from a Gentile, or from a Samaritan [for a share in the produce], he divvies up the produce in front of them [without first separating tithes]. In this case, the owner and the renter share the produce according to a set percentage. The percentage of the produce that the renter gives to the owner never belonged to the renter from the outset it belonged to the field owner. Therefore, when he divides the produce with the field owner he does not need to first separate terumah or tithes.

החוכר – the sharecropper for a fixed amount – such-and-such KORS per year, whether it produces a lot or whether it produces only a little.

One who has hired a field from a Jew [for a fixed amount from the produce], he first gives terumah [from the rental] and then gives it to him (the field owner). In this case, the renter is to pay the owner a fixed amount of the produce. Since the produce first belongs to the renter and then he gives it over to the owner, the renter must first take out terumah before he gives it to the owner. However, he does not have to take out tithes as well because with regard to tithes the rabbis were lenient on the sharecropper, forcing the field owner separate them himself.

תורם ונותן לו – but he does not tithe, for every tenant farmer on this condition goes down to the field that he will give him his stipulated rent from the produce that grows in the field in their eatables that are forbidden pending the separation of priestly gifts, but however, because cannot delay the heave-offering, it is impossible for the granary to be uprooted unless the priestly gifts have been separated because of this, he separates the priestly gifts and gives it to him (i.e., the owner), and it is logical that he deducts for him the heave-offering from his tenancy for what then is the difference of heave-offering from tithes?

Rabbi Judah said: When is this so? When he pays him [the rental with produce] of the same field and of the same kind; but when he pays him with the produce of another field or of another kind, he must [also] tithe [the rental first] and then give it to him. Rabbi Judah limits the above law. When the renter pays the field owner with produce from the very field that he received from him, then he can get away without separating tithes. In this case, it is almost as if the produce that he gives him actually belonged to the field owner in the first place. However, if the renter is going to pay his debt with produce that he grew in another field, then he must first separate tithes and only then pay his debt.

אמר ר' יהודה – when is it sufficient for the sharecropper for a fixed amount that he would separate the priestly gifts alone and not tithe? When he (i.e., the tenant farmer) gives him (i.e., the owner of the field his fixed amount from that field and from that species. But if he gave him from a different field, even it was from the same species, or from a different species even it was from the same field as for example, that he sowed part of he field with one species according to the measurement of his tenancy, he liable even to tithe, for it is similar to someone paying back his lien. Alternatively, it is not the intention of the [one who hired the tenant farmer] to receive produce that are not eatable pending the separation of priestly gifts but rather when he pays him from that field and from that species.

החוכר מן העובד כוכבים – the Sages fined a person who is a sharecropper renting a field from an idolater for a fixed amount, that he should tithe what he gives him, in order that there should be no Israelite who is a sharecropper renting a field from an idolater for a fixed amount, that it should remain fallow ground in his hand and because of this, he should need to sell it to an Israel for a small amount of money. But when he is a tenant farmer for the field for a percentage of the crop, he was not fined because the idolater desires more that he should be a sharecropper for a fixed amount than serving as a tenant farmer for a percentage of the yield.

Introduction In the second section of yesterday’s mishnah we learned that one who rents a field from another Jew and in return pays the field owner a set amount of crops must give terumah but not tithes. Today we learn about a Jew who rents a field under a similar type of arrangement, but this time, from a Gentile.

שדה של אבותיו – that the idolater stole it (i.e., the field) from his ancestors, and hey fined him in that he would need to tithe in order to impel/press him that he should purchase it from the idolater because it is beloved to him in that it belonged to his ancestors, he will not allow to receive it from the idolater for more than its appropriate worth, and when the tithing becomes burdensome upon him, he will purchase it. And we hold according to Rabbi Yehuda, who does not dispute the first Tanna/teacher on this.

One who has hired a field from a Gentile [for a fixed amount from the produce], he first gives tithes [from the rental] and then gives it to him (the field. In this case he must separate terumah and tithes because he knows that the Gentile will not separate the tithes himself. According to one explanation of this mishnah, the implication is that even though the land is owned by a Gentile, the produce still must be tithed since it is grown in the land of Israel. Since he knows that the Gentile won’t tithe, he must tithe it himself. In contrast, when the field belonged to a Jew, there was a chance that the Jew would tithe the produce himself and therefore the rabbis were lenient upon the renter.

Rabbi Judah says: even if one rented from a Gentile a field which had formerly belonged to his fathers [for a share in the produce], he first gives tithes and then gives it to him. Rabbi Judah emphasizes that even if the field once belonged to a Jew but had been sold to a Gentile, he still must first separate tithes and then pay his debt from the produce. Most commentators explain that according to Rabbi Judah, the rabbis forced him to separate tithes so that he would try to buy the field outright from the Gentile, and thereby restore land in Israel to Jewish hands.

כשם שחולקין בחולין כך חולקין בתרומה – when the owner of the field takes “one-half,” or “one-third” or “one-fourth” [as the share from the renter in a tenant farmer arrangement] from what the field produced, he takes also “one-half,” or “one-third,” or “one-fourth” from the heave-offering and the tithes that are placed upon it and gives the to any Kohen or Levi that he desires.

Introduction This mishnah and the next deal with scenarios where priests or Levites rent fields from Israelites or vice versa. The question that needs to be answered is, since the priests get the terumah in any case and the Levites the tithe, do they still split this part of the produce evenly?

אף המעשרות שלהן – if the person who rents as the tenant farmer is a Kohen, all of the heave-offering is his, and if he is a Levite, all of the [First] Tithe is his.

A priest or a Levite who rented a field from an Israelite [for a share in the produce], just as they divide the non-sacred produce, so they divide the terumah. In this scenario the field belongs to an Israelite and he rents it out to a priest or a Levite in return for a set share in the produce. The mishnah rules that they divide all of the produce according to the plan, even the terumah and tithes that will eventually be separated. In other words, the priest or Levite cannot say to the Israelite that they should first take all of the terumah or tithes and then split with him the rest of the produce. When the Israelite separates the terumah and tithes later, he may give them to any priest or Levite he so desires. This section only mentions terumah and not tithes because terumah is the opposite of non-sacred produce (hullin). The rule is the same for tithes.

שעל מנת כן – they went down to lease the field as a tenant farmer for a specific share/אריסות , but the Halakha is not according to Rabbi Eliezer for on this condition they went down with what they acquired.

Rabbi Eliezer says: the tithes belong to them (the, tenants) for they entered the field with this expectation. Rabbi Eliezer says that the tithes and terumah are first taken by the tenants, the priest and the Levite because they would have rented the field assuming that they were going to keep the terumah and tithes for themselves. Since we assume that they rented the field with this in mind and the terumah and tithes will in any case be given to some priest and Levite, this priest or Levite can keep the terumah or tithes for himself. Albeck explains that this section mentions only tithes because “tithes” is a term that can include terumah. We should note that by mentioning tithes in this section and terumah in the first the mishnah is “balanced,” including both without having to mention both twice, which would have been more clumsy.

Introduction The first half of this mishnah is the mirror image of yesterday’s mishnah here an Israelite rents a field from a priest or a Levite. The second half of the mishnah deals with a person who lives outside of Jerusalem who rents a field from a Jerusalemite. The question in this section deals with second tithe, which has to be brought to Jerusalem and eaten there.

המעשרות לבעלים – in this, even the Rabbis dispute upon that of Rabbi Eliezer {above in the previous Mishnah}, they agree, for since the field is of the owners, it is the place of Tithes, he left over the remnants [for them].

If an Israelite rented a field from a priest or from a Levite [for a share in the produce] the tithes belong to the owners [of the field]. When the priest or Levite rented out the field to the Israelite, we can assume that he understood that he (the owner) was going to keep the terumah and tithes solely for himself. Therefore, when they go to split the produce, the owner first takes the terumah (if he is a priest) or tithes (if he is a Levite) and then the owner and the renter split the rest of the produce according to the plan.

הקרתני – the language of קריה/townsman or village, meaning to say, a person who dwells in the town in the village (i.e., provincial), for such is the manner of villagers to lease a field from the those dwelling in walled cities [like Jerusalem].

Rabbi Ishmael says: if a city dweller [from outside of Jerusalem] rented a field from a Jerusalemite, the second tithe belongs to the inhabitant of Jerusalem. But the sages say: the city dweller may go up and eat the second tithe in Jerusalem. Second tithes are brought to Jerusalem and eaten there. In the scenario in this section, a person who lives in Jerusalem rents a field to someone who lives outside of Jerusalem. According to Rabbi Ishmael, we assume that the Jerusalemite rented the field out with the understanding that he himself would receive the second tithe. Therefore, the one renting the field has to first give the entire second tithe to the owner and then they split the produce according to the agreement. The sages disagree, noting that second tithe is not generally given to the residents of Jerusalem; it is consumed there by its owners. Therefore, second tithe is treated here like all of the rest of the produce. The renter takes his share of the second tithe and then he can bring it to Jerusalem and eat it there.

יכול הוא הקרתני וכו' – therefore everyone takes his par in the Second Tithe [by going up to Jerusalem to consume it there]. And such is the Halakha.

המקבל זיתים לשמן – an Israelite who leased olive trees [to work on them as a tenant farmer] from a Kohen or from a Levite.

Introduction This mishnah deals with an Israelite who rents a field of olive trees from a priest or from a Levite in order to make oil and share the produce.

כשם שחולקין בחולין כך חולקין בתרומה – but even though that of above (Mishnah 4) it belongs to the owners, here it is different for he did not lease the land but rather [only] the trees, but the Rabbis did not make trees like the land.

[An Israelite] who rents olive trees [from a priest or a Levite] for [a share in the] oil: just as they divide the non-sacred produce, so they divide the terumah. In the first section of the previous mishnah we learned that when an Israelite rents a field from a Levite or priest, the Levite or priest first takes the tithes or terumah and then they split the remaining produce according to the plan. Here, in the case of olives the rule is different they split all of the produce, including the terumah and tithes according to the plan. The difference is that the oil will already be processed before it is given as terumah or tithes, in contrast to the grain which is given before it is made into flour. Since the Israelite renter is the one who makes the oil, he keeps part of the terumah and tithes and may subsequently give them to any priest or Levite he wants.

או למחצית שכר – that he would sell the oil and they would divide the profit/gain In the middle [from the sale].

Rabbi Judah says: an Israelite who rented [olive trees] from a priest or a levite for the oil for a share of half the profit, the tithes belong to the owner. Rabbi Judah disagrees and says that just as in the case of grain the owner who is a priest or Levites keeps all the terumah or tithes for himself, so too in the case of oil. Rabbi Judah sees no difference between the case in this section and that in yesterday’s mishnah.

המעשרות לבעלים – For Rabbi Yehuda made the olives like land. But the Halakha is not according to Rabbi Yehuda.

לא ימכור אדם זיתיו – olives hat became detached from the tree and were not susceptible to receive ritual impurity, as for example, they did not perspire/drip the dripping of the vat/pit where olives are packed until they form a viscid mass where it makes them susceptible to receive ritual impurity.

Bet Shammai says: a man may sell his olives only to a “chaver (an ‘associate’).” Bet Shammai forbids one to sell olives to anyone but a “chaver,” a term which refers to a person who not only tithes, but also observes a high level of purity, eating all of his food while in a state of purity. The problem is that the person who isn’t cautious about the laws of purity will press the olives while impure, thereby causing the terumah which has not yet been separated from the olives to become impure. Since it is forbidden to cause terumah to become impure, a person may not sell his produce to a non-chaver.

אלא לחבר – to separate that which is presumed/adhering to ritual purity and he will not sell them to someone who is not a member of the order for the observance of Levitical laws in daily intercourse/חבר and he will not tread/stamp upon them in ritual impurity.

But Bet Hillel says: [one may sell them] even to one who only] tithes. Bet Hillel agrees that it is forbidden to sell produce to one who doesn’t tithe, but we don’t have to know that the person is fully observant of purity in order to sell them olives. There is a possibility that the purchaser may eat the olives before he presses them, and the olives don’t become receptive to impurity until their oil starts to ooze (food can’t become impure until it comes into contact with one of seven liquids). Since it is not certain that the impure purchaser will end up pressing his olives and then make them impure, the seller can sell them to him. However, he must know that he is going to tithe them.

אף למעשר – even to someone who did not accept upon himself other than to tithe but did not accept upon himself to be presumed/adhering to ritual purity can sell them, for since they yet are not susceptible it can stated that perhaps he ate them prior to their perspiring, for even though most of the olives are not ready to be consumed as such, by pretext, anything that we are able to hang on it, we hang upon it. But Maimonides establishes their dispute of that of the School of Shammai and the School of Hillel, for the School of Shammai holds that it is forbidden to cause ritual impurity to unconsecrated produce that is in the Land of Israel while the School of Hillel holds that it is permissible to cause ritual impurity to unconsecrated produce in the Land of Israel.

And the pious among Bet Hillel used to act in accordance with the words of Bet Shammai. Interestingly, the mishnah concludes by noting that certain more pious members of the Bet Hillel school acted like Bet Shammai. They seem to have believed that the other members of their school were being overly lenient on this issue, since it is almost certain that one who buys olives does so to make olive oil. Therefore, they, like the members of Bet Shammai, refrained from selling olives to those who they knew would make them impure.

וצנועי בית הלל – the conscientiously pious ones who are exacting in observance of the commandments who were in the School of Hillel [and who followed the School of Shammai – who would not sell their olives to anyone other than someone who is a member of the order for the observance of Levitical laws in daily intercourse].

אחד מעשר – one who can be relied on in matters of tithes and Terumah on the tithes.

Introduction This mishnah deals with a case where two people gathered their grapes into one winepress. One of them tithes and the other does not. The question is: how much of the wine does the one who tithes have to tithe, all of the wine, or only the share that he ends up taking?

ואחד אינו מעשר – cannot be relied upon regarding the tithes.

Two gathered [the fruit of] their vineyards into one winepress, one of whom tithes and the other does not tithe the one who tithes may tithe his own share and his share wherever it may be. The one who tithes must separate tithes both for the share of the wine that he actually takes for himself, and for his “actual” share, wherever that may end up. In other words, if the wine that comes from his grapes ends up in the other person’s hands, and the other person doesn’t tithe, it will turn out that it is as if he sold the other person untithed produce. Above in mishnah 2:2 we learned that one must tithe the produce that one sells to someone who is known not to tithe.

המעשר מעשר את שלו – he makes things legally fit for use by giving the priestly dues on the half of all of what was grown in the vineyard belonging to both of them.

וחלקו בכל מקום שהוא – In the Jerusalem Talmud it explains that this is what he said: and the portion of his colleague, that is, of that which he did not tithe in every place is doubtfully tithed produce. And because there is no choice, we suspect lest half of the part of the person who tithes is in the hand of his colleague who does not tithe and half of the portion of his colleague is in his hand, therefore, even though he already made things legally fit by giving priestly dues of the half of all things that he grew in the vineyard, he is obligated to make things legally fit by giving priestly dues according to the law of doubtfully tithed produce for half of the portion of his colleague that is in his hand.

טול אתה חטין שבמקום פלוני – here we are speaking that they divided a field when its crop is full grown (i.e., when it is with its standing crop) and grapes that are attached in the vineyard, therefore, there is a choice and we say: “this is his half that reaches [up to here] the one who separates tithes - tithes his [own] and that is enough. But above (i.e., in Mishnah 7), we are dealing with his part that is detached from the ground and there is no choice, for each and every stalk belongs to sharing partners and he needs to tithe on the portion of his colleague that is in his hand.

Introduction In today’s mishnah we learn how someone who does tithe may enter into a partnership over land with someone who does not tithe, without having to tithe all of the produce for himself, thereby incurring a significant loss.

אבל לא יאמר לו טול אתה חטין ואני שעורים – for one cannot say here that this is his portion that reaches him rather, that it is like they exchange with each other, and it is found that this one that tithes sells his portion to someone who does not tithe.

Two men who rented a field [for a share in the produce], or inherited [a field], or became partners in it: the one [who tithes] may say to the other [who does not tithe], “You take the wheat which is in this place and I will take the wheat which is in that place.” Or, “You take the wine which is in this place and I will take the wine which is in that place.” There are three scenarios in this mishnah and in all three a person who does tithe has become a partner in a field with someone who does not tithe. For obvious reasons, the person who tithes does not want to end up paying for his partner’s tithes. What the one who tithes can do is declare that he will take the wheat from one place, or the wine from one place and then his partner will take the wheat or wine from the another place in the field. In this case we say that when the one who tithes receives his wheat or wine, he is getting only from his share and not from that of his partner.

But he may not say to him: “You take the wheat and I will take the barley,” or, “You take the wine and I will take the oil.” However, what he can’t do is separate the field by species or by type, saying that he will take the barley and his partner the wheat, or that he will take the oil and the other will take the wheat. The problem with this is that both of them own a share in all of the produce and therefore we cannot pretend that one person owns only the wheat and not the barley, or just the oil and not the wine. It is interesting that the mishnah seems to want to allow people who tithe and don’t tithe to enter into partnerships together, without causing a financial loss to the one who tithes. Perhaps we can detect a reality here in which people who were more religiously scrupulous than others had to live side by side. If so, the rabbis were searching for a way for a person to remain true to his ideals (one should tithe) without it costing him an exorbitant amount of money.

חבר – who is trustworthy in ritual purity and one does not have to say for tithes [as well].

Introduction In this mishnah two brothers inherit property from their father. The father was an am haaretz, meaning he did not tithe, nor did he preserve the purity of his produce. One of the brothers is a “chaver” one who tithes and is cautious about the laws of property, while the other is an am haaretz, as was his father. Our mishnah instructs them in how they can split the inheritance. The situation is similar to that in yesterday’s mishnah, with regard to the issue of tithes. The added issue here is the matter of purity.

שירשו את אביהן עם הארץ – and the produce that he placed down were doubtfully tithed and with the presumption of being ritual impure.

A chaver (rabbinic and an am haaretz who inherited [the property of] their father who was an am haaretz, he (the may say to him (the am: “You take the wheat which is in this place and I will take the wheat which is in that place.” Or, “You take the wine which is in this place and I will take the wine which is in that place.” This is the same exact rule that we found in yesterday’s mishnah. The two can split the produce of the field and we look at it as if each side is getting the portion of the field that he actually inherited. It is not as if the chaver is giving produce to his am haaretz brother.

טול אתה בלח – that are susceptible to receive ritual impurity and I [will take] the dry that has not become susceptible to receive ritual impurity, because it is forbidden for a person who is a member of the order for the observance of the Levitical laws in daily intercourse (i.e., a חבר), to sell to an עם הארץ – a person who does not observe certain religious customs regarding tithes and Levitical cleanness something moist and dry as is taught above in Chapter 2 [Mishnah 3].

But he may not say to him: “You take the wheat and I will take the barley,” or, “You take the wine and I will take the oil,” or: “You take the moist produce and I will take the dry produce.” In this case, as in yesterday’s mishnah, since everyone inherited both wheat and barley, he can’t swap one type of grain for another. This type of agreement is treated as if the chaver is giving his portion to his am haaretz brother and it is forbidden to give untithed produce to an am haaretz, because it is known that he will not tithe. We furthermore learn here that swapping the moist produce, produce which has already become susceptible to impurities and is probably impure, with the dry produce which could not have become impure is impossible, because this is considered to be like swapping one species of grain for another. In other words, dry grain and wet grain are treated the same way as are wheat and barley.

טול אתה עבודת כוכבים ואני מעות – even though that they exchange idolatry and wine known to have been manipulated by an idolater they are forbidden to derive benefit from them, here it is permitted until they don’t come in to his (i.e., the convert’s) hand because the inheritance by a convert of his [non-Jewish] father is not from the Torah, but rather from the Scribes/Soferim (i.e., scholars of the ante-Tannaitic period beginning with Ezra). And this is not similar to a person who is a member of the order for the observance of the Levitical laws in daily intercourse/חבר and an עם הארץ /a person who does not observe certain religious customs regarding tithes and Levitical cleanness who inherited their father who was an עם הארץ – for even prior to it coming to his hand, it is prohibited to tell him: “you take the wheat and I will take the barley,” for there, the inheritance is from the Torah, and it is as if it had come into his hand.

Introduction In yesterday’s mishnah we learned that if a chaver and an am haaretz inherited from their father, they can’t swap one type of produce for another. In today’s mishnah we learn about a gentile and a convert who come to inherit from their father. In this case, the convert can take all of the parts of the inheritance that are permitted to him and give his non-Jewish brother all of the idolatrous objects and wine, both of which are prohibited to the Jew. In our explanation below we shall discuss why the two cases are different.

A convert and a gentile who inherited [the property of] their father, a gentile: he (the can say [to his brother the gentile]: “You take the idols and I will take the money,” or: “You take the wine and I will take the produce.” The convert can tell the gentile that he will take the permitted part of the inheritance and that the gentile will take the parts of the inheritance that are not permitted to Jews. This includes the idols and the wine, which a Jew may not use in case it had been use as an idolatrous libation. This is permitted even though this is like swapping one type of produce for another, which we learned in yesterday’s mishnah did not work in the case of an am haaretz and a chaver. The key difference here is that according to Torah law, a convert does not inherit from his gentile father because when he converts, he loses his biological ties to his former family. The rabbis, nevertheless, decreed that the convert would inherit, probably so as not to deter him from converting. Since his inheritance is not from the Torah, the items that he takes from his father’s estate are looked at as if they are not his until they actually come into his possession. Therefore, the convert is not actually swapping idolatrous things that he owns for permitted things, which would be forbidden to do. Rather he is just taking some of his father’s estate and giving other parts of it to his gentile brother.

But from the time [that any part of the inheritance] came into the possession of the convert, he is forbidden [to say so]. Once he has actually taken something forbidden such as an idol into his possession, he may not swap it with his brother, because a Jew is forbidden from deriving benefit from anything that was used for idolatry. Were he to swap idols for money, he would be deriving benefit from idolatry.

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.

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.

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.”

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.

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.

[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.

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.

[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.

[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.

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.

עם הארץ שאמר לחבר קח לי – as for example, that the member of the order for the observance of Levitical laws in daily intercourse (i.e., the חבר) was going to the market to purchase vegetables for himself and said to the person who does not observe certain religious customs regarding tithes and Levitical cleanness (i.e., an עם הארץ) said to him: “Buy for me also a bunch of vegetables and the member of the religious order for the observance of Levitical laws in daily intercourse took two undefined bunches – and did not explicitly state: “this one is for me, and that one is for the person who does not observe certain religious customs regarding tithes and Levitical cleanness, he is exempt from tithing that which he gives to the person who does not observe certain religious customs regarding tithes and Levitical cleanness, for there is a choice that when he gives it to the person who does not observe certain religious customs regarding tithes and Levitical cleanness, that is the one (i.e., the bunch) that he took initially for his own deeds, and that a person who is a member of the order for the observance of Levitical laws in daily intercourse does not exchange with what is his. Another explanation from the Jerusalem Talmud: A person who is an עם הארץ that said to a חבר: “Buy for me a bunch of vegetables and the seller is a חבר.” And he knows that the purchaser is buying for an עם הארץ and that the חבר did not purchase anting for himself, this bunch of vegetables is exempt from tithing of doubtfully tithed produce, for since the seller is a חבר and he knows that he (i.e., the purchaser who is a חבר) is buying for the needs of an עם הארץ , he doesn’t sell him unless he has tithed it, for this what we said above in Chapter Two [Mishnah 2] that is prohibited to sell to an עם הארץ unless he had tithed it first. But if the חבר purchased one for himself and one for the עם הארץ and hey became combined, he is required to tithe for perhaps what he sold him for himself was not tithed, for someone who sells to a חבר does not have to tithe and it is upon the purchaser to tithe, as we stated above in Chapter 2.

Introduction This mishnah deals with a chaver (a rabbinic associate) who is acting as an agent for an am haaretz. The question is: does the chaver have to tithe that which he buys for the am haaretz?

ואפילו הן מאה – even if one of his became combined with one-hundred of that belonging to the עם הארץ.

If an am haaretz said to a chaver, “Buy me a bundle of vegetables,” or: “Buy me a loaf of bread,” the chaver may buy it without checking [whether it had been tithed], and he is exempt [from tithing it]. In this case the chaver acts as the agent for the am haaretz and when he buys the produce, it never actually belongs to the chaver. He need not tithe the produce that he gives to the am haaretz nor does he need to check to see if the produce had been tithed because this is not a case of a chaver giving untithed produce to an am haaretz, rather it is treated as if the am haaretz bought it directly for himself.

גלוסקין – a nice loaf of bread.

But if the chaver said: “This one I am buying for myself and this one for my friend,” and they got mixed up, he must tithe [them both], even if there were one hundred [for the am haaretz.] However, if he declared that a certain part was for himself and a certain part for the am haaretz and then he mixed up the produce and no longer knew which of it was for the am haaretz and which for himself, he must tithe it all. The problem is that he might have given the am haaretz the portion that was his, and as we have learned throughout the tractate, it is forbidden to give an am haaretz untithed produce because it is known that he will not tithe it. This is true even if he bought one hundred times the amount for the am haaretz in other words, it is true even if tithing will cost him a significant amount of money.