Comentário sobre Demai 5:13

הלוקח מן הנחתום – when the baker [who does not observe certain religious customs regarding tithing] sells [loaves of bread] in large measures (i.e., bulk), a person who purchases from him is obligated to make things legally fit for use by giving the priestly dues, and the baker is exempt [from tithing]. But surely, in that it is taught in the Mishnah above in chapter 2 (in Mishnah 4) that bakers are obligated to separate so that there is a measure for a limit for the heave-offering of tithe [which is given to the Levite] and Hallah [given to a Kohen, usually one forty-eighth for a commercial baker as opposed one twenty-fourth for a private person]. There (i.e., in Tractate Hallah, Chapter 2, Mishnah 4) it is speaking about a person who sells in small quantities (i.e., retail) because he profits greatly, they {i.e., the Rabbis) placed upon him [the responsibility] to tithe; alternatively, because the young children that purchase from someone [who sells] in small portions (i.e., retail), in order that they will not consume eatables forbidden pending the separation of sacred gifts, they (i.e., the Rabbis) placed upon him [the obligation] to make things legally fit for use by giving the priestly dues. The terms מדה גסה/large quantities and דקה/small quantities is explained at the end of the second chapter [of Tractate Demai, Mishnah 5].

Introduction This mishnah teaches how one should separate terumat maaser (one percent of the total produce) and hallah (1/48 of the produce) from loaves of bread that he buys from an am haaretz baker. The loaves are, in other words, demai.

נואל כדי תרומת מעשר – which is one [part] in one-hundred (i.e, 1/100) and so he can give Hallah [to the Kohen] one in forty-eight [parts] (i.e., 1/48). But he should not separate them from the loaf that he purchased from the baker, but rather established for them a place and leaves them attached in their place.

One who buys bread from a baker how should he tithe? He should take sufficient for the terumat maaser and for hallah and say: “A hundredth part of what is here shall be tithe on this side, and what is nearest to it shall be the rest of the tithe. That which I made tithe will become terumat maaser for the rest, the remainder will be hallah, and the second tithe tithe is to the north or to the south of it and that will be exchanged for money.” The first thing that he does is separate 1/100 of the loaf (or loaves) and then another 1/48 for hallah. This is the only part of the loaves that he will not actually get to keep for himself. At this point he doesn’t make any verbal declaration. After having separated these two amounts he now declares that the 1/100 part that he took comes out of a 1/10 part of the loaf that is to be maaser (first tithe). The other 9/100 that remains on the loaf is now maaser, but because the loaf is only demai, he doesn’t have to give it to the Levite. He now declares that the 1/100 part that he already took will be terumat maaser, the terumah taken from the maaser, which goes to the priests. The other part that he took will be hallah. Then he designates another tenth, on either side of the first tithe, to be second tithe. The second tithe he exchanges for money and then brings the money to Jerusalem where he will use it to buy food. This completes the tithing of demai process. What he cannot due is simply take out the terumat maaser and declare it immediately to be terumat maaser because the tithe has to be designated before the terumat maaser is declared. This order must always be preserved. He also cannot first designate the tithe and then separate and declare the terumat maaser because he is not going to actually give the tithe to the Levite. He has to make a distinction between the terumat maaser that he is going to give and the tithe that he is not going to give. Therefore, he first separates the terumat maaser, thereby making it distinct from everything else, then he designates the tithe and declares that 9/10 of it remain on the loaf. Again, this part he gets to keep.

אחד ממאה ממה שיש כן – from everything that is here, implying, even with according to the quantity of Hallah that he separated is made into a tithe, and it is found that he separates the tithe (i.e., First Tithe) even from the Hallah portion.

ושאר מעשר – that is another nine [parts] that are next to it, he established a place for the entire [First] Tithe, and that one that one-part that I called it by the name of “[First] Tithe} at first is made into the heave-offering of the tithe (i.e., that which the Levite gives to the Kohen) on the nine [parts] that are near it.

והשאר חלה – one out of forty-eight [parts] (i.e., 1/48) that I separated out as Hallah [for the Kohen].

ומעשר שני בצפונו או בדרומו – he establishes for himself a place and afterwards he redeems it, but he does not need to add the [additional] one-fifth.

נוטל אחד משלשים ושלש ושליש – which is one-third from one-hundred (i.e., thirty-three and one-third). And the Seah that he takes there has three thirds, two of them for the heave-offering which is two from one-hundred (i.e., 2/100 or 1/50) and one for the heave-offering of the tithe which is one out of one-hundred (i.e., 1/100). And he states regarding that Seah that he took one out of one-hundred that is here, whether all of it, which is a third of that Seah.

One who wishes to separate terumah and the terumat maaser together:
He should take one thirty third and say:
One hundredth part of what is here, on this side is non-sacred produce (, and the rest shall be terumah for the whole.
And the one hundred parts of non-sacred produce which is here on this side shall be tithe, and the rest that is next to it is tithe.
That which I made tithe shall become the terumat maaser for it.
The remainder will be hallah, and the second tithe tithe is to the north or to the south of it and that will be exchanged for money.”
In this mishnah a person wants to separate terumah and terumat maaser at the same time from his tevel, which is produce that we know has not been tithed. In other words, we are no longer discussing demai.
Terumah is supposed to be 1/50 of one’s produce. Together with terumat maaser, which is 1/100 of one’s produce, he must separate 3/100 or 1/33 of the produce.
I shall explain this procedure step by step.
1) The first thing he does is take 1/33, or 3/100 of the produce and separate it from the rest.
2) Then he says that 1/100 (meaning 1/3 of that which he separated) remains, for the meanwhile, non-sacred produce and the rest, meaning the other 2/100, is terumah. In this way he has fulfilled the requirement to separate teruamh. Note that he has to designate the terumah before he designates the tithe or the terumat maaser, the terumah taken from the tithe.
3) He now says that the other 1/100 that he separated is tithe, as well as the other 9/100 parts that are next to it, but still attached to the loaf. In this way he has separated 1/10 of the loaf to be tithe. Note that he must designate tithe before he declares that that which he separated should be terumat maaser.
4) Then he says that the 1/100 part that he separated is terumat maaser for the tithe that he has just designated. He has now successfully separated terumah and terumat maaser, all of which goes to the priest.
5) The final section about separating hallah and second tithe is missing in most manuscripts of the mishnah. It was probably accidentally brought here from the previous mishnah. It has nothing to do with our subject.

הרי הוא בצד זה חולין – its explanation: it should remain unconsecrated like it is now in is eatables that are forbidden pending the separation of sacred gifs at the side of the two-thirds that are with him, and the rest, which is two third-thirds will be heave-offering on everything.

מהחולין שיש כאן – that is the third that I spoke of that should remain unconsecrated, behold this is at the side of that tithe.

ושאר מעשר – that is another nine next to this one-third, those ten thirds will be a tithe on the one-hundred thirds. And not exactly ten, but rather a bit less according to the when we reach the [various] years of Terumah.

זה שעשיתי מעשר – that is the one-third that he designated by name to be Tithe first is made the heave-offering of the tithe on the nine thirds. But not a complete third, but rather missing a small amount. And for this it is stated from that unconsecrated that is here, which implies, but not all of the unconsecrated produce. But our Mishnah is like Abba Eleazar ben Gomel who stated at the end of the chapter כל הגט /”All bills of divorce” (Tractate Gittin 31a): just as the owner has the permission to separate the priestly gift of the Great Terumah (i.e., Terumah Gedolah – which is 1/50 which goes to a Kohen), so too he has the permission to separate the heave-offering of the tithe (i.e., the one-tenth of which the Levite ordinarily gives to the Kohen after receiving the First Tithe). And he is also permitted to separate the heave-offering of the tithe through a generous estimation in the chapter "כל המנחות באות מצה"/”All meal offerings are brought unleavened” (in the fifth chapter of Menahot 54b-55a), therefore, that one-third that he separates [to be donated] from the whole even though is was appropriate to be missing a little bit, with a generous portion/good will, he separates [these tithes] and it is permitted.

ומן הצוננים על החמה – even though he is tithing from the bad for the beautiful, he holds like Rabbi Illai who stated (Tractate Kiddushin 46b): A person who separates the priestly gift from the bad for the beautiful, his heave-offering is a [legitimate] heave-offering, and regarding doubtfully tithed produce, they (i.e., the Rabbis) permitted this even ab initio.

Introduction This mishnah returns to the subject of separating tithes from bread bought from a baker, the topic dealt with in mishnah one.

ואפילו מדפוסים הרבה – and we don’t suspect that perhaps yesterday the baker purchased the grain from someone who separates tithes and today [he purchased the grain] from someone who does not separate tithes, and if is found that he sets aside [for tithes] from that which is exempt for that which has an obligation, for the baker buys from one person, even though he makes it from many [different] molds.

One who bought [bread] from a baker, he may give tithe from hot bread for cold bread or from cold bread for hot bread, even when they are of various moulds, the words of Rabbi Meir. According to Rabbi Meir, when one buys bread from a baker he may separate tithes for the freshly-bought hot bread from the bread that he bought the day before which is now cold, and vice versa, he may separate tithes from the older bread from the freshly bought bread. This is true even if the loaves are made in different molds. Rabbi Meir is not concerned lest the bread be made from wheat bought from several different sellers, some of whom did separate tithes and some of whom did not. If indeed the wheat had been bought from different sellers, some who tithed and some who did not, then it would be a problem to tithe from one batch for another because one cannot tithe from already tithed wheat for wheat that has not yet been tithed. We shall learn more about this in mishnah ten below.

רבי יהודה אוסר – when both of them were from yesterday evening or both of them are from today, Rabbi Yehuda agrees with Rabbi Meir , that even if they come from different molds, they are permitted, because he doesn’t worry about molds. But one from yesterday and another from today, even from one mold, he forbids as I state, etc.: (“Yesterday’s grain may have from one man and today’s grain from another” – i.e., yesterday’s wheat may have been tithed while that of today was not tithed, or vice versa).

Rabbi Judah prohibits it, because I say that yesterday’s wheat was bought from one man and today’s wheat from another man. Rabbi Judah prohibits this for the reason explained above. He fears that yesterday’s wheat and today’s wheat were bought from different merchants.

ר' שמעון אמסור בתרומת מעשר - for even if both of them were from today or both of them were from yesterday, since they are from two molds, we state that he purchase the grain from two people and perhaps one of them tithed and the other did not [tithe] and it is found that he is separating from that which is exempt for that which is one with an obligation.

Rabbi Shimon prohibits it in the case of terumat maaser, but permits it in the case of hallah. Rabbi Shimon agrees that this is a problem with regard to terumat maaser, because the obligation to separate terumat maaser is set at the time when the wheat is made into a pile, the same time when the obligation to tithe is set. However, the obligation to separate hallah does not come into being until the dough is made. By this point the wheat already belongs to the baker and therefore we don’t have the problem of the separating hallah from stuff that belongs to two different people it all belongs to the baker.

ומתיר בחלה – for regarding the dough offering, everyone agrees that even that of yesterday with that of today, and even from two molds, that alternatively he bought from two people, we don’t worry for with the baker he is obligated to separate Hallah in that he formed the dough by rolling.

פלטר – he that purchases many loaves at one time from the bakery shop and afterwards sells them one-by-one in the marketplace.

Introduction In yesterday’s mishnah we learned of how one tithes when one buys loaves of bread from an am haaretz baker. Today we learn how one tithes when one buys from a bread seller, the merchant who buys bread from the bakers to sell it retail.

מעשר מכל דפוס ודפוס דברי רבי מאיר – for Rabbi Meir holds that a bakery shop that purchases from two or three bakers, and we say that this mold he brought from this baker and that mold [he purchased] from another baker. But Rabbi Yehuda holds that he bought [only] from one baker and even though they (i.e., the loaves) are from different molds, all of them are from one baker. Therefore, if all of them were from yesterday or all of them from today, he separates tithes from one to cover all of them according to the law of the baker.

If one bought from a bread seller he must tithe every mould [separately], the words of Rabbi Meir. Rabbi Meir is strict and rules that one must separate tithes separately for each type of mould. Each baker would use a slightly different mould to shape his loaves, and therefore loaves of different moulds can be assumed to come from different bakers.

מנפול (a trading mart enjoying a monopoly)– he purchases from many bakery shops and sells to others, and since he is accustomed to purchase from many people, a person who purchases from him tithes for each and every one. And the Halakha is according to Rabbi Yehuda.

Rabbi Judah says: he may give tithes from one mould for all the others. Rabbi Judah holds that bread dealers buy from only one baker. Therefore, even if there are different moulds, he can separate tithes from one for the other.

But Rabbi Judah agrees that one who bought from a monopolist he must tithe every mould [separately]. Rabbi Judah agrees that if one bread dealer has a monopoly over selling bread in the city, then he must tithe for each mould separately. In this case, since he is the only one selling bread in town and there is more than one baker, it is obvious that the bread seller has bought from more than one baker. Interestingly, the Hebrew word for “monopolist” is “monpol.” This is the first time I’ve ever seen that word in rabbinic Hebrew. Cool.

הלוקח מן העני – going around begging at the doors.

Introduction This mishnah deals with buying produce from a poor person who goes begging from door to door. The problem is that he may receive his food from many different people, some of whom may have tithed and some who do not. As we have stated before, one cannot separate tithes from food that has already been tithed in order to exempt food that has not been tithed.

פלחי דבילה – pieces of cakes of pressed figs.

One who buys from a poor man, and similarly a poor man to whom they given slices of bread or pieces of fig-cake, he must tithe every piece. One who buys from a poor man must be concerned lest every single piece of bread that he gets originates from a different person, and that some of it may have already been tithed. Therefore, he must tithe each slice of bread separately. The same is true, the mishnah notes, for the poor man himself. When he goes begging and receives slices of bread from various people who may themselves not separate tithes, he must separate tithes from each slice of bread separately.

בולל ונוטל – stamping on the dates or the dried-figs and combining them together and they are mixed and combined and it is found that he separates for tithing from that which is obligatory for he holds that there is a mixture in something dry. But slices of bread or pieces of fig-cake are not mixed and he comes to separate tithes from that which is exempt for that which is liable [for tithing].

But in the case of dates and dried figs he may mix them together and take [the tithes from the mixture]. The rabbis were lenient in the case of dates and dried figs because separating tithes from each and every one separately would be a rather large difficulty. Since this is only demai, there is room to be lenient.

שהמתנה מרובה – at the time when all give a large gift, that all of the gifts are equivalent, then the mixture is effective.

Rabbi Judah said: When is this so? When the amount [of dates or dried figs] given to the poor man was large; but when the amount was small, he must tithe each separately. Rabbi Judah limits this leniency to a case where the poor person received a large amount of dates or figs. In such a case it would truly be a hardship to separate from each date or fig separately. However, if there was not a large amount, the rabbis insisted that he tithe each fig or date separately. In other words, they were only lenient when tithing from each separately would have caused a lot of extra hassle.

אבל בזמן ש המתנה מועטת – that is to say, one gift is smaller than its neighbor or is not mixed well, for perhaps not all of them had separated his priestly gifts and we are suspect that perhaps he is separating tithes from the majority for the minority. So appears the explanation of this Mishnah in the Jerusalem Talmud.

סיטון (wholesale provision dealer) – a merchant who purchases grain from many different owners together and sells to others at wholesale prices (and the purchaser must tithe them -see Tractate Demai, Chapter 2, Mishnah 4).

One who buys from a wholesaler, and then buys from him again, he may not give tithes from the one [purchase] for the other, even when both came from the same basket and even from the same kind. This mishnah discusses buying produce from a wholesaler, a person who buys from many different farmers and sells to many storeowners. If he buys once from this wholesaler and then buys from him again, he must tithe separately for each purchase, lest the wholesaler bought from two different people, one of whom already tithed the produce and one who did not. This rule holds true even if he buys the second purchase from the same large basket and of the same type.

לא יעשר מזה על זה – for perhaps what he purchased from him the second time, he had acquired it from another individual, and he would come to set aside [tithes] from that which is exempt for that which is obligatory.

But the wholesale merchant may be trusted if he says that both came from the same one. The wholesale merchant may be trusted if he says that both purchases came from the same seller. Note that he is not saying that this person tithed. The merchant cannot automatically be trusted to say that someone tithed. He may be trusted only to say that he bought from the same person, so that the one buying from him can now tithe from one purchase for the other.

ואפילו מאותו סוג (and even from the same chest – and the same quality) – that is to say, from the same chest. And similar to this is found in Tractate Kelim Chapter 167, Mishnah 3: “The large provisions chest.”

ואפילו מאותו המין (and even from the same type) – that both of them are reddish dark-colored wheat or both of them are white. But if the wholesale provision dealer stated that he purchased them from one person, he is believed.

מעשר מזה על זה – for all of it is tithed or all of it is not tithed, and as long as they are from one kind and within the year, for we don’t separate priestly gifts from this year on that [of] another year.

One who buys from a field owner, and then buys from him again, he may give tithes from the one [purchase] for the other, even when [the purchases come] from two baskets and even from two towns. If one buys directly from an am haaretz field owner he can tithe from one purchase for the other, under the assumption that the field owner may not have tithed any of his produce, and therefore the purchaser won’t separate tithes for non-tithed produce from other produce that has already been tithed. If the am haaretz did separate tithes, then there also will not be a problem, because he would have separated tithes from all of his produce. Therefore, the purchaser can separate from one lot and thereby exempt the other lots as well. This is true even if the field owner owns fields in different parts of town and sells produce from different baskets.

ומגנות אחרות מעשר מכל אחת ואחת – owners of the gardens perhaps this one tithed and that one did not tithe [his produce].

A field owner who was selling vegetables in the market: when he brings them from his garden, he may tithe from one for all; If one goes to the market and buys from a field owner, if the field owner only brought produce from his own field, then he may separate tithes from one lot for all of the produce that he buys.

But [if he brings them] from other gardens, he must tithe each lot separately. However, if the field owner sells produce from other people’s gardens then the buyer must separate tithes for each lot individually, lest some of the sellers tithed and others did not.

משני מקומות – that the two sellers informed him that it is eatables forbidden pending the separation of sacred gifts.

Introduction Throughout the previous five mishnayot we learned that when a person buys from two different places he must be concerned lest one lot of produce had been tithed and one lot had not. If he tithed from one lot for all the produce he bought, he would be tithing from already-tithed produce for unithed produce, which is not permitted. In our mishnah, the concluding mishnah in this series of mishnayot, we learn that if the purchaser is certain that neither lot had been tithed, he may tithe for one over the other, because all of the produce is known to be untithed.

אלא לצורך – as for example when there was mixed to his fellow a small amount of unconsecrated produce in a large amount of eatables forbidden pending the separation of sacred gifts (i.e., טבל). For these eatables forbidden pending separation of sacred gifts have no remedy until he tithes for it from another place. And especially to a member of the order for the observance of Levitical laws in daily intercourse (i.e., a חבר) who is permitted to sell eatables forbidden pending the separation of sacred gifts, but not to those not observing certain religious customs regarding tithes (i.e., the עם הארץ ). But those not observing certain religious customs regarding tithes who had mixed unconsecrated produce with eatables forbidden pending the separation of sacred gifts - how does he act? He walks near the member of the order for the observance of Levitical laws in daily intercourse and he purchases for him eatables forbidden pending the separation of sacred gifts from another place and tithes it for him.

One who buys untithed produce from two places, he may tithe from one lot for the other. As explained in the introduction, if one is certain that all of the produce that he bought is untithed, he may tithe from one lot for the other.

Although they have said one may not sell untithed produce except in the case of necessity. Here we learn that the sages forbid a person to sell untithed produce. This is because selling untithed produce might cause the buyer to eat the produce untithed. Since selling untithed produce is forbidden, we might have thought that if a seller claims that he had not tithed his produce he wouldn’t be believed, because he would be admitting that he has transgressed. A person is generally not believed to say that he transgressed. Nevertheless, in this case he is believed. The prohibition of selling untithed produce is not absolute. One is allowed to sell untithed produce in a case of necessity. The Yerushalmi explains that one is allowed to sell untithed produce to someone who had some of his tithed produce get mixed in with a large quantity of his untithed produce. In order to make this produce permitted, he needs to tithe from other untithed produce. He can’t just take out tithes from that pile, because some of that pile had already been tithed. If this happens, a seller is allowed to sell to that person untithed produce to help him “fix” is other produce.

משל ישראל על של עובד כוכבים – this Tanna/teacher thinks that there is no acquisition for an idolater in the Land of Israel to release it from tithing and this is Rabbi Meir, but it is not Halakha for we hold that there is an acquisition for idolaters in the Land of Israel to release it from tithing, as it is written (Leviticus 25:23): “But the land must not be sold beyond reclaim, [for the Land is Me; you are but strangers resident Me].,” but if it is sold it is a final sale.

Introduction This mishnah deals with tithing produce bought from a Gentile or from a Samaritan, a group of Israelites that split off from the rest of Israel some time during either the first or second Temple period.

על של כותים – the produce of the Cutheans are definitely eatables forbidden pending the separation of sacred gifts (i.e., טבל) we sell them, for even though when we consume their produce it is tithed, when they sell it, it is not tithe because they are not concerned about (Leviticus 19:14): “or place a stumbling block before the blind.”

They may give tithes from produce from a Jew for produce [bought] from a Gentile, from produce [bought] from a Gentile for produce from a Jew, from produce [bought] from a Jew for produce [bought] from Samaritans, and from produce [bought] from Samaritans for produce [bought] from [other] Samaritans. Produce that a Gentile grows in the land of Israel is liable for the laws of tithing. The acquisition that the Gentile has on the land is not sufficient to make the produce exempt. Certainly Gentiles did not tithe their produce. Therefore, one who buys produce from a Gentile can use that produce to separate tithes from produce that was owned by a Jew and is known not to have been tithed. This is separating from certainly untithed produce for other certainly untithed produce, which is allowed. Similarly, one may separate tithes from untithed produce that comes from a Jew and thereby exempt the produce that he bought from a Gentile. Samaritans generally are thought by the rabbis to observe biblical law, but not to follow the instructions of the rabbis. According to our mishnah, Samaritans don’t tithe the food that they sell, although they may tithe food that they eat. Therefore, their food is certainly untithed and can be treated with the same rules with which we treated the Gentile’s food.

רבי אלעזר אוסר משל כותים על של כותים – for sometimes he tithes for himself and changes his mind and sells it, but lest one thing is tithe and the other is not, and it is found that he separates for tithes from that which is exempt for that which on which there is an obligation. And in our time, the Cutheans were made [by the Rabbis] like complete idolaters for all of their matters.

Rabbi Eliezer prohibits [tithing] from produce [bought] from Samaritans for produce [bought] from [other] Samaritans. According to Rabbi Eliezer, some few Samaritans do tithe what they are going to sell. Therefore, one cannot separate tithes from produce bought from one Samaritan for produce bought from another Samaritan, lest one of the Samaritans be from the majority that don’t tithe the produce they sell and the other be from the minority that does tithe that which they sell.

עציץ נקוב – a utensil that they put into it dust and sow it, if it is perforated in order that a small root which is less than the volume of an olive exists, it is like the land and its produce are completely eatables forbidden pending the separation of priestly gifts according to the Torah.

Introduction This mishnah deals with giving terumah and tithes for produce grown in two different kinds of pots: perforated and non-perforated. The question is: is the pot considered to be like land?

תרם מן הארץ – even ab initio also, he is able to separate the priestly gifts, but because of the concluding clause [of the Mishnah] it took the language of “post-facto.”

A perforated pot is considered like land. A plant that grows in a perforated pot is considered as if it grew directly from the land. Since the pot is resting on land and through the hole in its bottom the plant can send its roots out to the ground, it is considered as land. The halakhic consequence of this is that the produce that grows in it is obligated from the Torah for terumah and tithes. In contrast, one is only obligated “derabbanan (from rabbinic law)” to separate terumah and tithes from produce grown in a non-perforated pot. This principle guides the following three clauses.

תרומה ויחזור ויתרום – for he [separated tithes] from that which is exempt on that which is obligatory, therefore, he should go back and separate the priestly dues again, but nevertheless, because he designated its name as “heave-offering,” he gives it to the Kohen so that people aren’t induced to disregard the heave-offering. But he does not have to remove from it heave-offering and tithes like in the concluding clause [of the Mishnah] because according to the Torah it is not an eatable that is forbidden pending the separation of priestly gifts, but from the perforated [pot] on that which is not perforated, that is what is obligated to separate the heave-offering on that which is exempt [from it], it is according to the Torah, eatables that are forbidden pending the separation of priestly gifts, therefore, he should not consume it until he removes the heave-offering and tithes (see also Tractate Yevamot 89b – “that he should remove heave offering and tithes from another place”).

If one gave terumah from [produce grown in] the soil for [produce grown in] a perforated pot, or from [produce grown in] a perforated pot for [produce grown in] the soil, his terumah is terumah. Since plants grown in perforated pots are treated as if they grew directly from the land, if one gave terumah for something that grows in such a pot in order to exempt other produce that grows directly from the land or vice versa, that which he separates is terumah. This is effective means to exempt the produce from being liable for terumah. In other words, this is perfectly fine.

[If he gave terumah] from [produce grown in] a pot that was not perforated for [produce grown in] a pot that was perforated, [it is] terumah, but he must go back and give terumah again. In this case he gave terumah from a non-perforated pot (only liable for terumah from rabbinic law) for produce grown in a pot that was perforated (liable from toraitic law). The produce that he called “terumah” is terumah because once someone calls something terumah it generally cannot go back to being non-sacred produce. However, he has not yet successfully separated tithes from the produce that grew from the perforated pot. Before he eats this produce, he must go back and separate terumah again.

[If he gave terumah] from [produce grown in] a perforated pot for [produce grown in] a pot which was not perforated, [it is] terumah, but it may not be eaten until he first gives terumah and tithes for it. This is the opposite scenario he separates terumah from a perforated pot for produce from a non-perforated pot. Again, that which he calls “terumah” is terumah. However, this terumah cannot be eaten until tithes and terumah have been separated for it. The reason is that this terumah was taken from something liable in order to exempt something not liable (the non-perforated pot) and not to exempt that which was in the perforated pot. That which he calls terumah is therefore, technically still untithed produce (tevel), which no one, including priests, can eat until terumah and tithes have been separated.

מן הדמאי על הדמאי – perhaps this was tithe and that [portion] was not tithed.

Introduction This mishnah deals with giving terumah from demai produce for produce that has certainly not been tithed, or vice versa, from certainly non-tithed produce for demai. The problem here is similar to the problem in yesterday’s mishnah. He is giving terumah for produce that is only liable derabbanan (demai) on behalf of produce that is liable from the Torah, the non-tithed produce.

תרומה – it is not necessary to make things legally fit for use by giving the priestly gifts since it is doubtfully tithed, but most of those who do not observe certain religious customs regarding tithes do tithe (especially the Large Heave-Offering – the 1/50 portion to the Kohen, which otherwise brings the death penalty).

If one gave terumah from [produce of] demai for [other produce of] demai, or from [produce of] demai for [produce] which was certainly untithed, [this becomes] terumah, but he must give terumah over again. In this case he separates terumah from produce that is only doubtfully liable for tithes on behalf of other produce that is either liable for tithes (non-tithed produce) or only liable derabbanan (the other demai). As we have seen, that which he calls terumah is terumah, but he still must again go back and separate terumah from the other demai or non-tithed produce. In short, the separation of terumah was not effective to render the produce permitted. Note that in the case of “separating from demai on behalf of other demai” the mishnah does not state that before this terumah can be eaten he must go back and separate again from the first demai, lest it had not been tithed and the second demai was tithed and it turn out that he was separating from obligated produce on behalf of non-obligated produce. According to the Yerushalmi, the rabbis were not strict in this scenario.

תרומה ולא תאכל – for it is similar to someone who separates for tithing from a perforated [pot] for something that comes from something that is not perforated (see the previous Mishnah) , from that which is liable [for tithing] on that which is exempt, for if the doubtfully tithed produce is tithe, it is found that the heave-offering are eatables forbidden pending the separation of sacred gifts according to the Torah, therefore, one should not eat of them.

[If he gave terumah] from [produce] which was certainly untithed for [produce of] demai, [this becomes] terumah, but it may not be eaten until he first gives terumah and tithes for it. In this case he gave terumah from produce that is certainly liable on behalf of other produce that is doubtfully liable (demai). As we saw at the end of yesterday’s mishnah, in such a scenario he has not successfully separated terumah from the first produce (here the non-tithed produce), and also not from the produce for which he was separating (here the demai). That which he calls terumah is still terumah, but in order for a priest to eat it he will have to go back and separate terumah and tithes from the non-tithed produce until then the produce is still considered non-tithed, and forbidden to all.