Komentarz do Demaj 7:9

המזמין את חבירו. אומר מע"ש – and where he stipulated/make a condition from the eve of the Sabbath (i.e., Friday), it is permitted to separate tithes but if he didn’t stipulate [from the eve of the Sabbath], it is forbidden, for it is taught in the Mishnah [Tractate Shabbat, Chapter 2, Mishnah 7]: “if it is a matter of whether or not it is getting dark, they do tithe what is doubtfully tithed produce,” but if it is definitely dark, they do not. But here we are speaking when his fellow invited him and did not lodge him, for if he did lodge him, it states above in Chapter Four [Mishnah 2]: “He eats with him on the first Shabbat, even though he doesn’t believe him regarding tithing.” Alternatively, there, [it refers to] a young man who married a virgin, and here on the rest of the Sabbaths.

Introduction This mishnah provides a way for a person who does tithe to eat on Shabbat with a friend who does not tithe. The problem is that it is forbidden to tithe on Shabbat, so the one who does tithe will have to tithe on Friday the produce that he will eat on the next day.

הרי הוא מעשר – but the Great Tithe/Terumah Gedolah (i.e., the 1/50th for the Kohen) he does not have to separate out for those who do not observe certain religious customs regarding tithes and Levitical cleanness (i.e., the עם הארץ) are not suspected regarded it [as they do tithe it – for failure to so invokes the death penalty], as we explained in Chapter 1 (see Mishnah 3), but on one out of one-hundred that he separates on the morrow, he says: “Behold this is First Tithe,” and the rest of the tithe which is nine [parts] that he is still liable for in order that there will be ten out of one-hundred, he measures for him the one and afterwards says: “this is the one that I made for [First] Tithe at first, it is made for the heave-offering of the tithe on the nine [parts] that are near it.

One who invites his friend [before Shabbat] to eat with him [on Shabbat], and [his friend] does not trust him in respect of tithes, [the friend] may say on the eve of Shabbat, “What I will set apart tomorrow, behold it shall be tithe, and what is nearest to it shall be the rest of the tithe. That which I made tithe will become the terumah of the tithe for the whole, and the second tithe is to the north or to the south and it shall be exchanged for money.” What the friend who tithes must do is separate on Friday the tithes from the food that he will eat on Shabbat at his friend’s home. We should note that he is separating tithes from demai, doubtfully tithed produce and not from “tevel” certainly untithed produce. This procedure would not work with tevel. Furthermore, since this is demai, he need not separate terumah because ame haaretz were not suspected of not separating terumah. The first thing he does is declare that 1/100 of the food will be tithe, along with the other 9/100 that are adjacent to it. This makes 10/100 of the food tithe, as is required. The first 1/100 is then declared to be terumah for the tithe. Finally he declares that the second tithe is adjacent to the first tithe, either to the north or to the south. The second tithe he then declares redeemed for money. On the next day he can now eat all of the food served to him, except for the part that he made into terumat maaser. He can eat the tithe because the food served to him was only demai, and as we have explained, tithes taken from demai may be eaten by their owner. He may eat the second tithe because he redeemed it for money.

מעשר שני – will be to its north or to its south, and will be redeemed with the coinage, and it is found that on the morrow, there is no need to separate tithe, other than the heave-offering of the tithe alone, and he eats and drinks the rest.

מזגו לו את הכוס – [cup of wine] on the Sabbath day.

Introduction In this mishnah we learn that although the person eating at someone’s house who does not tithe made a declaration on the eve of Shabbat that he is now tithing the food that he will eat tomorrow, he must, under certain circumstances, again tithe on Shabbat itself. I am going to explain this mishnah according to Albeck. Kehati offers a slightly different explanation and also notes that there is an entirely different understanding of the mishnah.

אומר וכו' – it is not enough for him for what he stipulated from the Eve of the Sabbath (i.e., on Friday), but he needs to once again say on the Sabbath: “When I come to eat and to drink what I shall leave [at the bottom] from the cup [of wine],etc.” In the Jerusalem Talmud, an objection is raised if when he says “from now it will be heave-offering,” for everything is mixed together and it becomes מדומע /mixed with heave-offering/Terumah in proportions sufficient to make the whole prohibited to non-priests (i.e., mixing secular with sacred things), and if when he says, “when I drink it” – it was not heave-offering, but only after that he drank it, and it was found that he was drinking eatables forbidden pending the separation of priestly gifts, and it answers that when he says, “from now and when I will drink it, it will be heave-offering,” and it is found that he didn’t drink eatables forbidden pending the separation of priestly gifts and also that it was not something mixed with heave-offering in proportions sufficient to make the whole prohibited to non-priests.

They pour him a cup [of wine on the sabbath], he says: “What I will leave at the bottom of the cup shall be tithe, and what is nearest to it shall be the rest of the tithe. That which I made tithe shall become terumat maaser for the whole, and second tithe is at the mouth of the cup, and it is exchanged for money. The person who is observant of the laws of tithing is now at his friend’s house and he is served a cup of wine, which he can assume has not been tithed. He now declares again that he is separating tithes from the wine, even though he made the declaration yesterday. The declaration is basically the same as that which he made the day before. What makes this mishnah puzzling is why it mentions specifically wine and not other foods. Albeck explains that the other foods would have been prepared before Shabbat, because it is forbidden to cook on Shabbat. Therefore, the declaration that was made the day before is completely sufficient. In contrast, wine is not mixed with water (this is how they drank their wine) until right before it is drunk, in this case on Shabbat. Therefore, he has to make the tithe declaration again on Shabbat. Normally, it is forbidden to tithe on Shabbat, but in this case it is permitted because he had already made a declaration the day before.

בפיו – in the mouth of the cup.

שאינו מאמין לבעל הבית – on the tithes.

Introduction An employer has a duty, at least under certain circumstances, to feed his employees. Our mishnah deals with a situation in which the worker does not trust that the employer has tithed the produce and therefore needs to tithe the produce himself.

וחושך גרוגרת אחת - he is prevented from eating one dried-fig corresponding to that of the heave-offering of the tithe [that the Levite gives to the Kohen] that he set aside, in order that he would not steal from the owner of the house.

A worker who does not trust his employer [in respect of tithes], may take one dried fig and say: “This one and the nine which come after it shall become tithe for the ninety which I shall eat. This one shall become the terumat maaser for them, and the last ones shall be second tithe which shall be exchanged for money.” And he must put aside one dried fig. This formula is basically the same formula as we saw in yesterday’s mishnah. The difference in this mishnah is the question of whether the one fig that has been designated “terumat maaser” the terumah taken from the tithe will be given to the priest from the worker’s share or from the employer’s. Note that all of the other tithes will be eaten by the worker himself, so there is no problem with them, only with the terumat maaser which can only be eaten by a priest. According to the first opinion, the worker himself gives of his share for terumat maaser. So if the employer gives him 100 figs, he only gets to keep 99.

לא יחשוך (he should not diminish/withhold) – and purchase one dried-fig and eat for if he didn’t eat, he would be starving himself and he would diminish from his meal and it is found that he would diminish through this the work of the owner of the house for he is not able to perform his labor.

Rabban Shimon ben Gamaliel says: he does not put one aside, because this reduce the work for his employer. Rabban Shimon ben Gamaliel holds that the employer gives the terumat maaser because if the worker were to give the terumat maaser, this would reduce the amount of work he does. How so? By eating one less fig he will have less energy. [Anecdotally, I have noticed that sometimes that one fig will make all the difference in the world to my energy level!]. Interestingly, according to Rabban Shimon ben Gamaliel the owner gives because it is in his own interest for the worker to eat as much food as the worker needs.

לא יחשוך מפני שהוא תנאי בית דין – that the heave-offering of the tithe will be from the owner of the house and the Second Tithe from the worker, therefore, the owner of the house is obligated to give him the dried-fig that he set aside for tithing the heave-offering of the tithe.

Rabbi Yose says: he does not put one aside, because this is a court stipulation [imposed upon the employer]. Rabbi Yose agrees with Rabban Shimon ben Gamaliel that the employer must give the terumat maaser, but he offers a different reason. According to Rabbi Yose, the court made a special stipulation that the employer must give the terumat maaser. Assumedly this stipulation was made in order to protect the interests of the worker.

הלוקח יין מבין הכותים – before they (i.e., the Rabbis) decreed regarding their wine, their wine was definitely eatables forbidden pending the separation of priestly gifts (i.e., טבל), but here we are speaking about someone who purchases on the Eve of the Sabbath at twilight or who purchases while it is still daytime and forgot to separate [tithes] until twilight, and then it is prohibit to separate [tithes] as it is taught in the Mishnah [Tractate Shabbat, Chapter 2, Mishnah 7]: “If it is a matter of doubt whether or not it is getting dark, they do not tithe that which is certainly not tithed produce,” therefore it is forbidden to establish for it a place for the establishment of a place is considered like setting something aside and that is forbidden at twilight, and because of this it (i.e., our Mishnah) does not teach in the concluding clause “and Second Tithe is redeemed for coins,” for since it is not permitted to establish for it a place to the north or to the south, it is impossible to redeem it, but [only] to designate for it a name, that he said, “that in the future I will separate,” is permitted, for all that much is not decreed at twilight.

Introduction While Samaritans did seem to tithe the produce that they ate, according to the rabbis they did not tithe that which they sold. Therefore, one who buys produce from them will have to tithe it himself. In the case in our mishnah, the person is in Samaria, the northern part of Israel, and he wants to buy wine from the Samaritans, drink it there, and separate the tithes later. In this way he will avoid having to carry the tithes and terumah with him in separate containers so that when he returns to his home he can give them to the priest and Levites. The mishnah provides a means for him to separate tithes in the future from the wine which he is drinking now think of this as trading in futures, or if you’re into sports, trading for a player to be named later. I should note that I have explained this mishnah according to Albeck. Others explain the mishnah as referring to someone who wants to separate tithes on the eve of Shabbat for wine that he will get on Shabbat.

שאני עתיד להפריש – here it does not teach, “that I will separate tomorrow,” as it is taught above (see Chapter 7, Mishnah 1) regarding inviting one’s fellow over, for especially, when specifically when he doesn’t make fit for use by separating the priestly gifts other than what he is eating and drinking, they (i.e., the Rabbis) permitted him to separate for the morrow from the left-over of his food and his drink that remains on the rim of the cup, but to make fit for use all of the leather bottle/skin on Shabbat, they (i.e., the Rabbis) did not permit to him. But here he does not designate a name for the heave-offering of the tithe as in the segment dealing with doubtfully tithed produce as above, concerning the case of someone who invites his fellow (see again, Tractate Demai, Chapter 7, Mishnah 1) because regarding doubtfully tithed produce that he tithes, and they are his, he designates them for the heave-offering of the tithe in order to make things legally fit by giving priestly dues for the tithe and to consume it, but here, which is certainly eatables forbidden pending the separation of priestly gifts, he must give the [First] Tithe to the Levite and the Levite will designate it for the heave-offering of the tithe.

One who buys wine among Samaritans, he may say: “Two logs which I shall set apart shall be terumah, ten logs tithe, and nine logs second tithe.” He may then pour the wine and drink it. In general what the person does is declare that he will separate the terumah and tithes in the future from the wine that he is drinking now. This will allow him to drink the wine and only later take out the terumah and tithes. The first thing that he does is declare that he will separate 1/50 of the wine, that is 2 logs out of 100, for terumah. Then he declares that the next ten logs will be tithe, and that after that, the following nine logs, which is about ten percent of that which is left, will be second tithe. Note that in this case, because the produce is actually tevel, that is certainly untithed produce, he does not redeem the second tithe before he separates it. In the previous examples of similar types of arrangements, such as those in mishnayot 1-3, he was separating tithes from demai and hence he could redeem the demai immediately. After having declared that he will separate the necessary tithes and terumah in the future, he may now pour the wine and drink it.

ועשרה מעשר ראשון ותשעה מעשר שני – not exactly, for after he separated from one-hundred, two LOGS (i.e., 1/50th - the Great Terumah for the Kohen), and there remains ninety-eight, the [First] Tithe will not be other than ten LOGS less one-fifth and Second Tithe [will be] eight LOGS and eight tenths and one fifth of a tenth.

מיחל ושותה (he regards as unconsecrated produce)– he begins and drinks. Another explanation: he pours and drinks. [The word] "מיחל" is like מיהל – the language from (Isaiah 1:22): “[Your silver has turned to dross;] Your wine is cut with water.” But the anonymous Mishnah comes from Rabbi Meir who said that even according to the Torah there is a choice, and that which remains in the bottom of the cup it is as It was separated from the outset. But it is not the Halakha but rather we hold according to the Rabbis who state that there is a choice/subsequent selection (i.e., the legal effect resulting from an actual selection or disposal of things previously undefined as to their purpose), but according to the Torah, there is no choice, and therefore, regarding something that is definitely eatables forbidden pending the separation of priestly gifts (i.e., טבל), he should not eat nor drink until he separates [tithes].

והוא בבית המדרש – on the Eve of the Sabbath (i.e., Friday) and he feared that lest he would sanctify the day and would not be able to tithe.

Introduction In this mishnah a person has figs in his house that are either tevel (certainly untithed produce) or demai (doubtfully tithed produce). He is somewhere else, either in the study house (the Bet Midrash) or in the field and he is concerned that someone in his house might eat the produce before it has been tithed. The mishnah provides him with a way of tithing his produce without actually returning home.

He had figs of tevel in his house, and he is in the house of study or in the field: he may say: “The two figs which I shall set apart shall be terumah, ten figs shall be first tithe, and nine figs second tithe.” In this section, he has tevel in his home and he is afraid that someone will eat it before it is tithed. To prevent this grave transgression, the rabbis provide a way for him to tithe the food before he even gets back home. Anything that they eat now will be tithed and he will (hopefully) get back in time to actually separate the terumah and tithes before they eat. We should note that because this is tevel, he doesn’t have to separate terumat maaser, the terumah taken from the tithe. He will give the whole tithe to the Levite and the Levite will separate the terumat maaser himself, as is supposed to occur. Also noteworthy, the second tithe is only nine figs because he has already separated ten from the original one hundred and only ninety are left (actually 88 because he took two for terumah, but the mishnah is only approximating). So a tithe of 90 is only 9.

If the figs were demai, he may say: “Whatever I shall separate tomorrow will be tithe, and the rest of the tithe is adjacent to it. That which I made tithe will become terumat maaser for the whole, and the second tithe is to the north or to the south and it shall be exchanged for money.” If the figs were demai, he makes the declaration slightly differently. First of all he distinguishes between the tithe and the terumat maaser, because he can keep the tithe for himself; he only has to give away the terumat maaser. Second, he can redeem the second tithe because when it comes to demai, one can redeem second tithe before actually separating the terumah and the maaser. In contrast, when it comes to tevel (certainly untithed produce) he can’t redeem the second tithe until he has actually separated the terumah and the tithe, as we explained in yesterday’s mishnah.

כלכלות – baskets.

Introduction As we have learned on other occasions throughout this tractate, one cannot separate tithes from produce that is exempt from being tithed on behalf of produce that is obligated in tithes. Our mishnah discusses one practical implication of this principle.

מעשרות זו בזו – the tithes that I have to separate from this basket will be placed in its neighbor.

There were before him two baskets full of tevel, and he said: “Let the tithes of this [basket] be in that [basket],” the first [basket] is tithed. The person has in front of him two baskets of untithed produce and for some reason, wants to separate tithes for one basket from another. He can state that the tithes of one basket will be taken out of the other. This is fine because both are untithed.

הראשונה מעושרת – [the first – basket- is tithed] and he separates from the second [basket] the tithes of both of them.

[If he said:] “Let the tithes of this [basket] be in that [basket], and the tithes of that [basket] in this [basket],” the first basket is tithed [whereas the second is not]. In this section, he wants to “criss-cross” the tithes, taking tithes for basket A from basket B and vice versa. In this section, the way he states this is not an effective of tithing the second basket because once he says “the tithes of basket A are in basket B” basket A is exempt from tithes. He can’t subsequently use the produce in basket A as tithes for the produce in basket B, because one can’t separate tithes from exempt produce (basket A) for obligated produce (basket B). Before he eats the produce from basket B he will have to separate tithes from it.

של זו בזו ושל זו בזו הראשונה מעושרת – but the second [basket] is not tithed, for immediately when he said, “[the tithes] of this one are in that one,” the first [basket] was made legally fit and became exempted from the tithes, but when he returned and stated, “of this one are in that one,” it is found that he was separating from this one [basket] that already had been exempted through the other one which is liable, and we don’t separate tithes from that which is exempt on that which is required, and he didn’t say anything, and takes from the second [basket] and the tithes for both of them.

[If he said:] “Let the tithes be so that the tithes of each basket be in the other,” he has designated [the tithes of either basket]. In this section, he makes one integral statement, as opposed to making a separate statement about one and then about the other. Since he simultaneously declares the tithes of both baskets, he is not separating tithes from exempt produce for obligated produce and the declaration works. Both baskets have been successfully tithed and he may eat from either of them.

מעשרותיהן מעשרות כלכלה בחברתה (their tithes are [designated such that] the tithes of each basket are in the other) – the tithes that are obligatory for these two baskets will be of one basket for the other, for he has designated the tithes of both of them as one and separates [tithes] from one for the other, and from the other for the one, for in each one, left eatables forbidden to be consumed prior to offering the priestly gifts (i.e.,טבל) in order to give tithes of its neighboring [basket]. But he does not separate [tithes] on them from another place, for he has designated a name and established the tithes of each one of them that are in the neighboring basked. Another explanation and this is essential: their tithes he tithes one basket with the other, he has designated by name and he separates [tithes] from whichever one that he wants and this is how we explain this matter of their tithes from either of them that I would want that the tithes will be a basket in his neighboring [basket].

מאה טבל ומאה חולין – that became combined/mixed together.

One hundred [parts of] tevel which [were mixed with] a hundred [parts of] common produce, one must take out a hundred and one [parts].
One hundred [parts of] tevel which [were mixed with] a hundred [parts of first] tithe, one must take out a hundred and one [parts].
One hundred [parts of] common produce from which tithes had been separated [were mixed with] a hundred [parts of] tithe, one must take out a hundred and ten [parts].
One hundred [parts of] tevel [were mixed with] ninety [parts of] tithe, or ninety [parts of] tevel [were mixed with] eighty [parts of] tithe, he has not lost anything.
This is the general rule: whenever the tevel is the greater [portion of the mixture] he has not lost anything.
In this mishnah we learn how one remedies a situation in which produce of varying status (untithed, tithed, etc.) becomes mixed up with produce of a different status.
This mishnah is quite difficult, so be forewarned.
Section one: The tevel mentioned throughout this mishnah is not regular tevel, from which no terumah or tithes have been removed, but tevel similar to demai, from which terumah has already been taken. Terumat maaser (the terumah taken from the tithe) and maaser have not been removed. One hundred parts of this tevel produce then becomes mixed up with one hundred parts of common produce, produce from which all tithes and terumah have already been separated. The owner wants to take out the terumat maaser from this mixture, because if he doesn’t he won’t be able to eat any of the mixture. So first, from this mixture he takes out 101 parts, one of which is certainly the untithed produce. He can then make one of these into terumat maaser for the 100 parts of tevel which had not had terumat maaser removed. What he says is that nine parts of the 101, along with the one that he has in his hand are tithe, and that the one in his hand is terumat maaser for this tithe. He still can’t eat any of these 101 parts, because he is not sure that the one in his hand is the one part that came from the untithed produce. But he can sell the 100 of the 101 parts to a priest because only one of them is actually owed to the priest. The priest will buy them at a lower price; terumah is cheaper than common produce, because there is a much smaller market for terumah. The value of the one part he must give for free, because he owes one part as terumat maaser. The other 99 parts are his to do as he wishes. If they were originally the common produce, then there is no problem. And if they were tevel, then he has taken out the terumat maaser. In this way, he takes out 99 parts that become totally his, and 100 parts that he can sell, albeit at a reduced price.
Section two: In this case, 100 parts of tevel are mixed in with 100 parts tithe from which terumat maaser has not been removed. In this mixture there are now 11 parts terumat maaser (one from the tevel, and ten from the tithe). Again, he takes out 101 parts, and sells them all to a priest, subtracting the value of 11 parts, which he owes the priest as terumat maaser. The 99 that remain are his, for whether they were originally from the tevel or from the tithe, he has taken out terumat maaser for them. What he cannot do is simply take out 11 parts from the original mixture, because some of these parts may have been from the tevel and from 100 parts of tevel, one can’t give eleven parts terumat maaser, because terumat maaser has to be separated from tithe, and there are only ten parts tithe in one hundred parts of produce.
Section three: In this case, 100 parts tithed produce get mixed up with one hundred parts of tithe. There are now 10 parts terumat maaser in this mixture. He must take 110 parts of the mixture, since in 110 parts there are certainly ten parts that come from the tithe and these ten parts become the terumat maaser. He can sell the 110 parts to a priest, subtracting the value of ten parts which he has to give to the priest. The other 90 parts are his to keep.
Section four: In the final example, 100 parts of tevel become mixed in with a lower amount of tithe. In these cases he doesn’t lose out at all. For instance in the case of 100 parts tevel mixed in with 90 parts tithe, he takes out ten parts (this is the actual amount of terumat maaser in the mixture, ten from the tithe and one from the tevel) and stipulates: “If these are from the tevel, then they are tithe for the 100 parts of tevel. Now I also have 100 parts tithe left, and I am going to use these 10 parts as terumat maaser for the tithe. If these ten parts were from the tithe, then I am separating out from the mixture the tevel, wherever it may be, leaving one hundred tithe in the mixture (10 from the tevel and the 90 of the tithe). The ten that I have in my hand are now terumat maaser for the one hundred part tithe.” The same method can be applied to other mixtures, although the numbers will have to be slightly adjusted. As long as there is more tevel in the mixture then the tithe, he doesn’t lose out at all.

נוטל מאה ואחד – he takes one hundred [parts] to separate from them First Tithe and Second Tithe according to the law of all eatables that are forbidden pending the separation of sacred gifts/טבל, and one [part] he takes from the one-hundred [of] unconsecrated produce for the heave-offering of the tithe (i.e., which the Levite gives to the Kohen) as if they were eatables forbidden pending the separation of sacred gifts, for the unconsecrated produce becomes like the eatables forbidden pending the separation of sacred gifts itself as regards the heave-offering of the tithe alone, but not as regarding to First Tithe and Second Tithe, and it is found that this loses through this mixture one [part] alone, as he is separating [tithes] from the unconsecrated produce. But the טבל/eatables forbidden pending the separation of priestly gifts that we are speaking about here is that they have had the Great Terumah (i.e., the 1/50th that goes to a Kohen) separated from it already, but the [other] tithes nor the heave-offering of the tithe have yet been separated from it.

מאה טבל ומאה מעשר – that the heave-offering of the tithe had not been separated from the [First] Tithe and they became mixed together, he takes one-hundred [parts] of eatables that are forbidden pending the separation of sacred gifts/טבל to separate from them the tithes as explained above, and he takes one [part] from the one-hundred [parts] of [First] Tithe which are made like the טבל/eatables forbidden pending the separation of sacred gifts itself to make oneself liable for תרומת מעשר/ the heave-offering of the tithe (the 1/10th that the Levite gives to the Kohen) and there remained ninety-nine [parts], he separates from them the heave-offering of the tithe according to the calculations which are ten [parts] minus the tenth of a part. But if the [First] Tithe did not become combined with eatables forbidden pending the separation of sacred gifts/טבל, he would not separate any other than ten [parts] for the heave-offering of the tithe that are within it – [but] now that they had become mixed up with the eatables that are forbidden pending the separation of sacred gifts, he separates eleven [parts] minus a tenth, it is found that he loses one [part] less a tenth.

מאה חולין מתוקנין ומאה מעשר – First [Tithe] from which the heave-offering/תרומה had not been separated out [for the Levite] that had become combined, he takes one-hundred parts for the sake of First Tithe in order to separate from them ten [parts] for the heave-offering of the tithe [that the Levite gives to the Kohen] that is in them and ten [parts] he takes from the one-hundred of unconsecrated produce that is legally fit for use following the separation of priestly dues as if they were First Tithe, for ten [parts] are for the heave-offering of the tithe and it is found that he loses ten [parts]. But, that we are not so stringent when they become combined with eatables forbidden pending the separation of sacred gifts/טבל to oblige separating from the eatables forbidden pending the separation of sacred gifts ten [parts] for the heave-offering of the tithe like the one-hundred of [First] Tithe, because of this is the law for every thing that becomes mixed that it returns to be like it was at its beginning therefore, the [First] Tithe returns to become like eatables forbidden pending the separation of sacred gifts but the טבל /eatables forbidden pending the separation of sacred gifts does not return to become like [First] Tithe.

מאה טבל ותשעים מעשר וכו' לא הפסיד כלום – for since there is are in the טבל /eatables forbidden pending the separation of sacred gifts ten extra, we judge it as if it has provision from another place. And all eatables forbidden pending the separation of sacred gifts that became mixed with unconsecrated produce, if there are other eatables that are forbidden pending the separation of sacred gifts/טבלים that he can separate on this mixture from another place, he does not separate other than according to the calculation of the eatables forbidden pending the separation of sacred gifts alone. But here, when the טבל/eatables forbidden pending the separation of sacred gifts is greater by ten on [the First Tithe] we calculate as if they are from another place and one separates from them according to the calculation of eatables forbidden pending the separation of sacred gifts/טבל alone, and he doesn’t lose anything.

כל זמן שהטבל מרובה – and it will be greater by ten, and this is brought in the Jerusalem Talmud.

עשר שורות של עשר עשר כדי יין – that are arranged in the Land [of Israel] that in every matter that you count whether from the east to the west or from the north to the south, you will find ten rows [jugs of wine] ten which are one-hundred jugs [of wine].

Introduction In this mishnah a person has ten rows of jugs each containing ten jugs of wine, and he wants to tithe them. However, he makes an unclear statement as to which of the jugs will be tithe, leaving the mishnah (and subsequently us) to try to figure out which row or which jugs he might have meant.

שורה החיצונה אחת מעשר – one earthen wine jug that is in the outer row, I have established as [First] Tithe on the other earthen wine jugs that I have.

One who had ten rows each containing ten jugs of wine, and said: “One exterior row shall be tithe,” and it is not known which row [he meant], he must take two jugs [each from the ends of] a diagonal line. In this case he declared that one of the exterior rows should be tithe, but since there are four exterior rows, we can’t be sure which he meant. The problem is that if he doesn’t take out the terumat maaser, he can’t drink any of the wine. This holds true for all five scenarios in the mishnah. What he must do is take two jugs that are at the corners, that is at the end of the diagonal lines crossing the square. Each jug at the end of the row counts as the end of two rows because it is at the corner. Thus, if he takes the northwestern jug and the southeastern jug, he has taken at least one jug from each of the rows. He can sell these two jugs to a priest for the price of one jug, because one jug, which is terumat maaser, he has to give to the priest for free.

ואין ידוע איזה – [it is not known which] outer row, for behold there are four outer rows corresponding to the four directions.

[If he had said:] “One half of one exterior row shall be tithe” and it is not known which half row [he meant], he must take four jugs from the four corners. In this case he said that one half of one exterior row should be tithe. Evidently, there are some jugs on the outside rows that are twice as big as those inside, so that five of them can cover tithes for the whole lot. The problem is that there are eight half rows. In this case, he has to take four jugs, one jug from each corner, to make sure that he has covered all eight half rows. Again, he can sell the four to a priest, subtracting the price of one for the terumat maaser that he owes the priest in any case.

נוטל שתי חביות באלכסון (he must take two barrels from diagonally opposite corners) – one to the southeastern corner and second to it in the northwestern corner, for each earthen jug [of wine] that is in the corner is counted for two directions, and he should fill up from both of them one earthen jug [of wine] and it will be tithed [as heave-offering of the tithe for the one-hundred jugs].

[If he had said:] “One row shall be tithe,” and it is not known which row [he meant], he must take one [whole] row in a diagonal line. In this case, he makes one row tithe, but we don’t know which. What he must do is take one diagonal row of ten jugs in order to make sure that he gets at least one from each horizontal or vertical row. He sells them to the priest, again subtracting the price of one.

חצי שורה החיצונה אחת מעשר (a half of one outside row is designated as [First] Tithe [for fifty jugs])- but if he said, one earthen jug [of wine] that is in the middle of the outer row, it I have established as [heave-offering of the First] Tithe on the other earthen jugs [of wine] that I have.

[If he had said:] “Half of one row shall be tithe,” and it is not known which half row [he meant], he must take two rows in a diagonal line. If he says half of one row, he will have to make two diagonal lines (an X), one going from the northwest corner to the southeast and the other from the northeast to the southwest. This way he can ensure that he gets one jug from each half row. He sells the twenty jugs to a priest, subtracting one.

ואין ידוע איזה – [and it is not known which] half row from the four outer rows.

[If he had said:] “One jug shall be tithe,” and it is not known which jug [he meant],he must take from every jug. The worst case scenario is that he has made one jug tithe but he doesn’t know which one it is. Now there is potential terumat maaser in any of the jugs, so they must all be sold to the priest, who will end up paying less than their market value. As in all other cases, one of the jugs must be given to the priest for free. Congratulations! We have finished Demai! It is a tradition at this point to thank God for helping us finish learning the tractate and to commit ourselves to going back and relearning it, so that we may not forget it and so that its lessons will stay with us for all of our lives. I admit this was not an easy tractate. The laws of demai are connected to the laws of terumah and tithes, which we haven’t even learned yet, making a difficult tractate even more difficult. What I thought was very interesting in this tractate was the ways in which the rabbis used the issue of properly tithing to separate those who observed these laws from those who did not, yet still made sure that these groups could live together in the same society. As firmly as they believed in upholding the Torah’s laws, they did not want to see Jews completely unable to live in the same communities. They also believed that a person has a responsibility to make sure that his actions don’t cause others to transgress. That is why one cannot sell untithed produce to a person who is known not to tithe. While we may not be so aware of these laws today, the problems that the rabbis faced may not have been all that different. Tomorrow we begin Tractate Kilayim.

נוטל ארבע חביות מד' זויות – because there is on each corner from he two halves that are in the two outer rows that are near it, and he fills up one earthen jug from those four one and it will be the [heave-offering of the] tithe.

שורה אחת מעשר – but if he said, one earthen jug [of wine] that is in one row from these ten rows – it I have established for [First] Tithe and it is not known in which row it is.

נוטל שורה אחת באלכסון – that is to say, he takes ten earthen jugs from one row from the southeastern corner until the northwestern corner, or from the southwestern corner until the northeastern corner and he fills from all of these ten earthen jugs [of wine] one earthen jug and it will be [the heave-offering of the First] . But for what reason does he take in a diagonal line and he doesn’t take from one entire row straight from east to west or from north to south? For when he takes in a diagonal line, whether one counts all the entire rows from east to west or whether that he counts them from north to south, it is found that he takes one earthen jug [of wine] from each and every row, what is not the case if he were to take one row the length of from east to west or from north to south.