meta: {"file": "/data/tomer/Sefaria-Export/txt_done/Modern Works/English Explanation of Mishnah/Seder Zeraim/English Explanation of Mishnah Demai/English/Mishnah Yomit by Dr. Joshua Kulp.txt"}
text: English Explanation of Mishnah Demai
  ביאור אנגלי על משנה דמאי
  Mishnah Yomit by Dr. Joshua Kulp
  
  
  English Explanation of Mishnah Demai
  
  Introduction
  
  According to halakhah a person must separate terumah from his produce and give it to the priests.  We will learn more about this in Tractate Terumah. Afterwards, he separates a tenth of what is left and gives that to the Levites. This is called “maaser rishon” or “first tithe.”  The Levites take a tenth of the tithe given to them and they give it to the priests. This is called “terumat maaser” because it is terumah taken from the maaser.  After the owner of the produce has taken out “maaser rishon” he must take out “maaser sheni”, or “second tithe.”  This second tithe belongs to the owner and he must bring it to Jerusalem and eat it there (there will be a tractate about this as well).  However, maaser sheni is only taken out in the first, second, fourth and fifth years of the sabbatical cycle.  In the third and sixth years “maaser ani”, the poor man’s tithe, takes the place of the “maaser sheni.” Before all of the terumah and tithes have been separated from the produce, the produce is called “tevel” and it may not be eaten even by priests.
  The rabbis feared that amei haaretz, ignoramuses, did not separate tithes, although they assumed that they did separate terumah.  Produce that comes from an am haaretz is called “demai” usually translated as “doubtfully tithed produce.” One who acquires demai must first separate from it maaser rishon, and from the maaser rishon he must take terumat maaser and give it to the priest.  Note that the rules governing terumat maaser are strict—only priests can eat it and a non-priest who eats it is liable for “death at the hand of Heaven.”  
  Next he separates maaser sheni and brings it to Jerusalem.  However, he does not have to give the maaser rishon to the Levite, nor does he have to give the maaser ani to the poor because it is only doubtful whether or not the am haaretz did not properly tithe his produce.  Since we don’t know whether the tithe actually belongs to the owner or to the Levite/poor person, the owner keeps it because he has current possession.  The Levite or the poor person could take it from him only if he could prove that it was rightfully his.
  Our tractate discusses the rules of Demai.  One of the interesting things about the tractate is that it shows us a lot about how the rabbis, who did observe the laws of tithing, related to other Jews, Jews who were not so cautious about this mitzvah.  Not trusting that someone had tithed their produce is somewhat akin to not trusting that someone’s home is kosher.  It prevents you from eating together, and people who can’t eat together, can’t really socialize together.      
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  Mishnah 1
  
  The [following] are treated leniently in regard to [the rules of] demai: unripe figs, wild jujuba, azarolus, wild white figs, young sycamore figs, fallen dates, fennel and capers.In Judea also sumac, Judean vinegar, and coriander.Rabbi Judah says: all unripe figs are exempt, except for those from a tree that bears fruit twice a year.  All wild jujuba are exempt, except the wild jujuba of Shikmonah.  All young sycamore figs are exempt, except those that have been scarified.As I explained in the introduction, when one purchases produce from an am haaretz, one must suspect that he did not separate tithes. This produce is called demai. Our mishnah teaches that with regard to certain types of produce the rules of demai don’t apply. This is because these things are not important items and are usually left out in the fields for anyone to take.  They are “ownerless” or “hefker” and anything that is ownerless is exempt from the laws of terumah and tithes in the first place.  Therefore, we assume that the am haaretz gathered this produce from ownerless property and hence it was never liable to be tithed.Sections one and two: This is a list of things that are usually left ownerless, as I explained in the introduction above.  One who purchases one of these things from an am haaretz need not separate tithes from them.  I must confess, I do not know exactly what all these things are.Section three:  Rabbi Judah limits the list found in section one.  Unripe figs that come from a tree that bears fruit twice a year are subject to the laws of demai. Evidently, these figs are good, and are not left ownerless.  So too the wild jujuba of Shikmonah, a place near Haifa, is good.  Finally, young sycamore figs that have been scarified to hasten their ripening are good figs and are not left ownerless.
  
  Mishnah 2
  
  Introduction
  As I stated in the Introduction to Tractate Demai, a person who has demai must take out second tithe and bring the second tithe to Jerusalem.  Generally speaking second tithe would be “redeemed” for money, the money would be brought to Jerusalem and there used to buy food and drink.  Our mishnah teaches that second tithe that is taken out from demai is treated differently from regular second tithe.  This is because second tithe taken from demai is only doubtfully necessary and therefore the rules regarding it are slightly more lenient.
  The [second tithe of] demai is not subject to [the rules of adding a] fifth.  Normally, when one “redeems” second tithe, one adds a fifth of the value and brings that money to Jerusalem.  However, when it comes to second tithe taken from demai, the one redeeming it does not need to add the extra fifth.
  It has no mandated time of removal.  At the end of the fourth and seventh years of a sabbatical cycle a person must clear out all of the tithes from his house and give them to the appropriate party or destroy them.  This does not apply to second tithe taken from demai.
  It may be eaten by an onen.  An onen is a person whose close relative die (parent, sibling, spouse or child) but has not yet buried the dead.  An onen cannot eat anything that is considered “holy” including second tithe, which is called “holy.”  However, an onen can eat second tithe taken from demai, again because we are not even sure if this is really second tithe.
  It may be brought into Jerusalem and taken out again.  Once second tithe has been taken into Jerusalem, it is forbidden to take it out again.  This rule does not apply to second tithe from demai.
  They may allow a small amount to be lost on the road.  If while traveling one has a small amount of second tithe from demai and it is not worth the trouble to take it to Jerusalem one may get rid of it.  However, if one has a large quantity, one either must bring it to Jerusalem, or redeem it and then bring the money to Jerusalem.  If it was regular second tithe, he couldn’t even get rid of a small amount.
  One may give it to an am haaretz and consume its equivalent in Jerusalem.  Generally speaking one cannot give second tithe to an am haaretz for fear that he will eat it while in a state of ritual impurity. However, he can give second tithe to an am haaretz as long as he later eats an equivalent amount of produce while in a state of ritual purity in Jerusalem.  It seems that what he is actually doing is exchanging one amount of second tithe for another.
  [Second tithe money of demai] may be redeemed silver [coins] for [other] silver [coins], copper [coins] for [other] copper [coins], silver for copper, and copper for produce, provided that the produce is again redeemed for money, the words of Rabbi Meir. But the sages say: the produce itself must be brought up and eaten in Jerusalem.  It is forbidden to exchange coins that have been used to redeem second tithe for other coins.  However, it is permitted to do so when the coins were used to redeem second tithe from demai. There is another rule relevant in this section. Generally one cannot use second tithe coins to buy produce outside of Jerusalem.  One who does so must take the actual produce and bring it to Jerusalem and eat it there.  However, Rabbi Meir allows one to redeem this produce and bring it to Jerusalem, since the money used to buy the produce originally came from second tithe from demai.  The other rabbis disagree and hold that this produce must be brought to Jerusalem, just as it is in a case of regular demai.
  
  Mishnah 3
  
  Introduction
  This mishnah teaches that the rules of demai apply only to cases where a person bought produce from an am haaretz in order to use it for food.  If he bought the produce for another purpose, such as to feed his animals, then he need not separate out tithes.
  If a man bought [grain from an am haaretz] to be used for seed or for animal [feed], flour for hides, oil for a lamp, or oil for greasing utensils, it is exempt from [the rules of] demai.  In these scenarios a person buys produce from an am haaretz but does not intend to use it as food.  The mishnah rules that he need not separate tithes because even in cases of produce that has definitely not been tithed but is to be used for non-food, there is only a rabbinic law mandating that tithes be separated. From the Torah, such produce is exempt from tithes.
  [Produce grown] beyond Cheziv and north is exempt from [the rules of] demai.  Cheziv, or Achziv (Joshua 19:29), is in the northern part of Israel and is not considered to be part of the land of Israel.  Produce from Cheziv and north is exempt from tithes, and certainly the laws of demai do not apply.
  The hallah of an am haaretz, produce mixed with terumah, produce bought with second tithe money, and the leftovers of minhah offerings are exempt from [the rules of] demai.  There are four things listed in this section each of which is exempt from the rules of demai. 1.  Hallah is a part of the dough separated and given to the priest (we shall have an entire tractate on this subject).  The mishnah refers to the hallah of an am haaretz that he separated and gave to a priest. 2.  Produce mixed with terumah refers to non-sanctified produce of an am haaretz that becomes mixed up with terumah.  This mixture can only be eaten by priests. 3.  Produce bought from an am haaretz with second tithe money. 4. The left-over minhah offerings of an am haaretz. In the Talmud Yerushalmi there is a debate over why these things are exempt from demai.  According to one opinion, when the rabbis decreed that one must separate tithes from produce bought from an am haaretz, they did not include these things in the decree. The other opinion is that because these things have some extra holiness, we can assume that the am haaretz would have tithed them.
  Oil spiced [with spices from an am haaretz]: Bet Shammai makes it liable [to the rules of demai]. But Bet Hillel exempts it.  According to Bet Shammai, although spiced oil is meant for anointing and not for food, it is still subject to the laws of demai.  According to Bet Hillel, it is exempt.
  
  Mishnah 4
  
  Introduction
  Because demai, produce which may not have been tithed, is only rabbinically prohibited, some of the rules that apply to tevel, untithed produce which is strictly prohibited by the Torah, do not apply to it.
  Demai may be used to make an eruv, and to make an [alley] partnership, and they recite a blessing over it, and they make an invitation [to recite Birkat Hamazon] over it, and one may separate [tithes] from it even when one is naked, or when it is twilight [on the eve of Shabbat].  This section lists things which distinguish demai from produce that has certainly not been tithed.  Produce that is untithed cannot be eaten and therefore such produce cannot be used to make an eruv, which allows one to carry on Shabbat from a home to an adjacent courtyard.  Neither can it be used to set up an “alley partnership,” a type of eruv that allows one to carry from courtyard to courtyard through an alley.  These subjects were dealt with extensively in Tractate Eruvin.  Demai, on the other hand, can be used for an eruv or an alley partnership. One should not bless over produce that has not been tithed, just as one would not bless over non-kosher food.  Neither would one recite an invitation to Birkat Hamazon (a zimmun) over untithed produce.  In contrast, one blesses and recites an invitation to Birkat Hamazon over demai (see Berachot 7:1). When one separates tithes from produce, a blessing is recited.  Hence, the person separating must be clothed.  In contrast, no blessing is recited when separating tithes from demai, because it may not be necessary to recite the blessing. Reciting an unnecessary blessing is considered to be “taking God’s name in vain” and therefore in cases of doubt, no blessing is recited.  Since no blessing is recited, the tithes from demai may be separated by a naked person. Finally, it is forbidden to separate tithes on Shabbat because that is considered “fixing,” a deoraita (toraitic) prohibition. It is also prohibited to separate tithes from demai on Shabbat, because that is a doubtful toraitic prohibition, and in such cases the law is stringent.  However, twilight is itself of doubtful status we don’t know whether twilight is Shabbat or not.  Since it is doubtful whether tithes needed to be separated and it is doubtful whether it is even Shabbat at all, the law is lenient (see Shabbat 2:7)
  And if he took out second tithe from it before the first tithe, it doesn’t matter.  Normally, tithes must be separated in the correct order.  However, when it comes to demai, this is not critical.
  The oil with which the weaver greases his fingers is liable to [the rules of] demai, but [the oil] which the wool-comber puts on the wool is exempt from [the rules of] demai.  The final mishnah of the chapter is concerned with soaking or greasing something with oil. The rule is that if the oil is used on a person’s skin, then tithes must be separated even from demai, because rubbing oil on one’s skin (anointing) is considered like drinking. Therefore, the weaver who uses oil to grease his skin must first separate tithes.  However, if the oil is used for vessels (see above mishnah three) then it is exempt. Therefore, demai-oil used by a comber on wool is exempt.
  
  
  
  
  
  Mishnah 1
  
  Introduction
  In chapter one, mishnah three, we learned that if one buys certain types of produce from Achziv and north, he does not have to separate tithes, since that region is not liable for tithes from demai.  We also are usually not concerned lest the produce was brought there from the land of Israel, in which case it is liable for tithes because it was grown in Israel.
  Our mishnah teaches that sometimes tithes must be taken out of certain types of demai produce no matter where they are bought, lest the produce come from the land of Israel.
  The following things must be tithed as demai in all places:  pressed figs, dates, carobs, rice, and cumin.  The mishnah refers to products bought from an am haaretz in an area that borders the land of Israel, but was not conquered by those Israelites returning from Babylonia and hence does not “officially” count as part of the land of Israel. Tithes must nevertheless be taken from these things because it is assumed that they come from the land of Israel, or at least from regions of the land that had been conquered by those returning from Babylonian exile.
  As to rice from outside the land [of Israel], whoever uses it is exempt from tithing it.  One who buys rice from an am haaretz outside of the land of Israel and uses it there need not separate tithes.  However, if he brings it to the land of Israel he must tithe it because it is easily switched with rice that comes from the land of Israel and is obligated to be tithed as demai. We should note that this is Albeck’s explanation; others explain the mishnah differently.
  
  Mishnah 2
  
  Introduction
  The opposite of an am haaretz, one who is assumed not to have tithed his produce, is one who is “ne’eman,” which means trustworthy. He is a person that one can trust to have tithed his produce.  One who buys from such a person need not treat his produce as demai.  Our mishnah teaches how one can be considered “ne’eman.”
  One who accepts upon himself to be trustworthy (ne’, must tithe whatever he eats and whatever he sells and whatever he buys, and he may not be the guest of an am haaretz.  For a person to be considered “trustworthy,” meaning other people can buy and eat his produce without having to fear that the produce was untithed, he must be scrupulous in his personal observance of the laws of tithes.  He must tithe whatever he eats, sells and buys.  “Buying” here refers to buying something in order to sell it.  He also, according to the first opinion in the mishnah, may not be a guest of an am haaretz, because that would mean he is probably eating untithed produce.
  Rabbi Judah says: even one who is the guest of an am haaretz can still be considered trustworthy.  Rabbi Judah argues that even one who is guest at the table of an am haaretz can still be considered trustworthy.  Perhaps this person trusts that this particular am haaretz did indeed tithe his food.  At the least, the person might claim that he trusts the am haaretz not to feed him (the guest) any untithed produce.
  They said to him: He is not trustworthy in respect of himself! How can he be considered trustworthy in respect of others?  According to the sages, by eating with the am haaretz, he is not acting in a trustworthy manner in regard to that which he eats, because he may be eating untithed produce.  If he is not trustworthy in regard to that which he himself eats, how can he be considered trustworthy with regard to that which he sells to others?  Therefore, the sages hold that one who eats with an am haaretz is not trustworthy to sell tithed produce. Produce brought from him is considered demai.
  
  Mishnah 3
  
  Introduction
  In yesterday’s mishnah we learned how a person becomes “trustworthy” such that others can buy his produce without fear that it has not been tithed.  In today’s mishnah we learn how someone can become a “chaver.”  The word “chaver” which in modern Hebrew means either friend or associate refers to a person who is known to be extra cautious in matters of purity.  He is one who eats his non-sanctified produce (hullin) while in a state of purity.  The chaver is also trustworthy when it comes to matters of tithing.  According to many scholars and traditional commentators there may be a connection between being a “chaver” and being a Pharisee, a Second Temple group whose members were also known for being meticulous in matters of purity.
  One who takes upon himself to become a “chaver” may not sell to an am haaretz either moist or dry [produce], nor may he buy from him moist [produce], nor may he be the guest of an am haaretz, nor may he host an am haaretz as a guest while [the am haaretz] is wearing his own garment.  An am haaretz is by definition not cautious in matters of purity and can be assumed to be impure.  Therefore, a person who wishes to be a chaver should not sell his produce to an am haaretz. The mishnah rules that this is so for moist produce, which is susceptible to impurity and for dry produce as well, even though it is not susceptible to impurities, until it becomes wet. The fear is that the later on the dry produce will come into contact with a liquid and the am haaretz will then make it impure. Just as the chaver cannot sell to an am haaretz, he cannot buy from him.  However, this only applies to moist produce because if the produce is still dry then it cannot have become impure. The chaver cannot be a guest at an am haaretz’s home because the am haaretz doesn’t observe the purity regulations, nor does he tithe. The chaver cannot host the am haaretz while the am haaretz is wearing his own clothing. The problem is that the clothing transmits a high level of impurity even without coming into direct contact. Therefore, the chaver would have great trouble in avoiding the impurity of the am haaretz.  However, if the am haaretz was wearing the chaver’s clothing (which does not make the clothing impure) the chaver can avoid direct physical contact with the impure am haaretz.
  Rabbi Judah says: he may not also raise small animals, nor may make a lot of vows or merriment, nor may he defile himself by contact with the dead.  Rather he should be an attendant at the house of study.  Rabbi Judah adds several stringencies to the list of what one needs to do to be accepted as a chaver.  The first is that he is not allowed to raise small animals (sheep and goats) in the land of Israel because they destroy the crops (see Bava Kamma 7:7).  The second is that he won’t take many vows.  A person who takes many vows is considered rash and not trustworthy.  Third, he won’t engage in much laughter or merriment.  Laughter and merriment in rabbinic literature often has a connotation of licentiousness.  Finally, what he will do is sit in the Bet Midrash, the study house, and learn Torah.  In other words, to Rabbi Judah, being a chaver is practically synonymous with being a sage.
  They said to him: these [requirements] do not come within the general rule [of being a chaver].  The other sages disagree with Rabbi Judah and limit the concept of “chaver” to matters connected with the purity laws.  A chaver is one who is scrupulous specifically in matters of purity. While being a sage is obviously a great merit, one does not have to be a sage, or scrupulous in matters of vows, raising animals etc, in order to be a chaver.  All one has to do is carefully observe the purity laws.
  
  Mishnah 4
  
  Introduction
  Our mishnah deals with how various food professionals observe the laws of demai.
  Bakers the sages did not obligate them to separate [from demai produce] any more than suffices for terumat maaser and for hallah.  The rabbis were lenient in mandating bakers to separate all of the tithes from demai (produce they bought from an am haaretz) because bakers barely make a profit.  If the sages had been strict, bakers might have been left with a choice:  go out of business or ignore rabbinic law.  The baker did have to remove terumat maaser (the terumah taken from the tithe) and the hallah. These are of a higher level of holiness, but are not necessarily a large amount of produce.  However, the baker did not have to take out second tithe.
  Grocers may not sell demai [produce].  Grocers, on the other hand, cannot sell demai until all the tithes, meaning terumat maaser, hallah and second tithe, have been separated.  Evidently grocers made a greater profit than did bakers and hence the rabbis were more stringent with them.
  All [merchants] who supply in large quantities may sell demai. Who are those who supply in large quantities?  Those such as wholesalers and grain-sellers.  Anybody who sells in large quantities is allowed to sell demai, under the assumption that he is providing a little extra so that the buyer can separate the tithes himself.  The mishnah enumerates two types of merchants who usually sell in large quantities:  wholesalers and grain merchants.  In contrast, a grocer, referred to in section two, sells in more precise measurements and hence has to separate the tithes himself.
  
  Mishnah 5
  
  Introduction
  This mishnah is a direct continuation of yesterday’s.  At the end of mishnah four we learned that one who sells produce in small measures cannot sell demai, but rather must separate out the tithes before he sells. In contrast, one who sells in large measures can sell demai without separating the tithes, under the assumption that he sells a little extra so that the buyer can separate the tithes himself.
  Rabbi Meir says: [if produce] which is usually measured out [for sale] in a large [quantity] was measured out in a small [quantity], the small quantity is treated as if it was a large   [quantity]. If [produce] which is usually measured out for sale in a small [quantity] was measured out in a large [quantity], the large [quantity] is treated as if it was a small   [quantity].  Rabbi Meir says that something that is normally sold in large quantities, such as grain, is treated as such even in the isolated case in which it was sold in a small quantity.  Since it is normally sold in large quantities, one can always sell it demai, even if he is selling a small quantity.   The opposite also holds true. If something that is normally sold in small quantities is sold in an isolated case in a large quantity, it is treated as if it was sold in a small quantity and one has to tithe it before selling it.  To Rabbi Meir the rule is determined by the nature of that which is being sold, and not by the details of the individual case.
  What is considered a large quantity? For dry [produce] three kavs, and for liquids, the value of one dinar.  Three kavs is about three liters. It seems that a “large amount” is not that actually that largeAlso, a dinar is not a particularly large sum of money.  The threshold for being considered a “large quantity” seems to be quite low.
  When one sells baskets of these types of produce (figs, grapes and vegetables) the exact amount in the basket is not precise. Therefore the seller can sell them while they are still demai, under the assumption that he throws a little extra in so that the buyer can separate the tithes on his own.
  
  
  
  
  
  Mishnah 1
  
  Introduction
  This mishnah discusses various people to whom one might legitimately give demai.  As we have seen already, since treating the produce of an am haaretz as demai, that is doubting whether it was tithed, was only a rabbinic stringency, the rabbis allowed the law to be lenient in certain circumstances.
  They may feed demai to the poor and to guests (alt. passing. Rabban Gamaliel used to feed demai to his workmen.  Since the rules of demai are only stringencies, for as we have said deoraita, from Torah law, one can eat demai without tithing it, there are certain leniencies.  One is that a person may use demai to feed the poor and to feed his guests.  It is a mitzvah to feed both the poor and to treat guests hospitably and hence one can use demai. Others explain that the Hebrew word which I have translated and explained as for “guests” actually mean passing troops, who are treated like the poor because they have no home to call their own. Rabban Gamaliel would even feed demai to his workers, probably because there is a mitzvah for an employer to feed his workers.
  [As for] charity collectors: Bet Shammai says: they should give tithed [produce] to one who doesn’t tithe, and untithed [produce] to one who does tithe.  In this way it will turn out that every one will eat [produce] that has been fixed (. But the sages say: they may collect indiscriminately and distribute indiscriminately. And one who wishes to fix [his produce by tithing it], let him fix it.  According to Bet Shammai, when charity collectors collect produce to give to the poor, they should separate the tithed produce from the untithed produce and give the tithed produce to those who won’t tithe it, and the untithed produce to those who will.  In other words, the charity collector has a responsibility to make sure that those receiving the charity observe the laws of tithing. Bet Hillel, on the other hand, gives greater trust and freedom to people.  Charity collectors can collect either tithed or untithed produce and then it will be up to the person buying it to decide whether to tithe or not. Perhaps we might even say that there is something beneficial about leaving the choice to tithe in the hands of the purchaser.  By choosing to tithe he is making a more active choice as to his religious observance, as opposed to Bet Shammai’s system, in which a person has to tithe (or at least his produce will end up being tithed) without having any choice in the matter.
  
  Mishnah 2
  
  Introduction
  This mishnah teaches that in certain cases a person must tithe produce even if he is getting rid of that produce or it is not yet even his.
  One who wants to cut off leaves of vegetables in order to lighten his burden, he may not throw them down until he has [first] tithed them.  A person while traveling might discard leaves of vegetables because he doesn’t intend to eat them.  Discarding them will lighten his load.  The problem is that a poor am haaretz might come by and pick up the leaves and eat them because he has nothing else to eat. To prevent the am haaretz from unwittingly eating untithed produce he should tithe the leaves before he discards them.  One should always be cautious that his actions don’t cause others to stumble.
  One who takes vegetables from the market [with the intention of buying them], and then decides to put them back, he should not put them back until he has [first] tithed them, for nothing is missing [after they are tithed] except for their quantity.  There are two conflicting interpretations of this section.  According to Albeck (according to whose interpretation I translated), when the person in our mishnah picks up the vegetables he has not yet bought them, but is only considering buying them.  When he changes his mind and decides not to buy them, he shouldn’t return them to the seller until he tithes them.  The mishnah explains that tithing doesn’t cause a loss to the seller because the seller, or the one who later on buys from him, is going to have to tithe in any case.  This is the meaning of “nothing is missing except for their quantity” the value has not gone down.  Although this is the rule, a person should not intentionally put himself in such a situation because the seller probably doesn’t want others tithing his produce. According to the Bavli and the commentators who explain accordingly, the purchaser has acquired the vegetables by picking them up even though he hasn’t counted them yet. This is the meaning of “nothing is missing except [counting] the quantity.”  Since they belong to him, he can’t return them until he tithes them.
  But if he was standing [there and deciding what to] buy and then saw another load of better quality, he may put them back [untithed], since he had not yet drawn them into his possession.  In this section the person has not yet picked up the vegetables.  He can “put them back,” meaning he can change his mind, since they have not yet become his.  When he puts them back he need not tithe them.
  
  Mishnah 3
  
  If one finds produce on the road and picks it up in order to eat it, and then decides to hide it, he may not hide it unless he has [first] tithed it.  In this scenario, he is liable to tithe the produce because he picked it up in order to eat it. He can’t store or hide the produce away without first tithing it, lest someone come by and find the food and eat it while it is untithed.  This is similar to what we learned in section one of mishnah two.  Again, a person has to make sure he doesn’t cause someone else to unwittingly eat untithed produce.
  But if from the outset he picked it up only in order to guard it against being destroyed, he is exempt [from tithing it].  However, if he picks the produce up only to prevent it from being destroyed, without having the intention of eating it, he is not liable to tithe it.  In this case he can put it back down without tithing it.  This is similar to the end of mishnah two.
  Any produce which one may not sell [in the condition of] demai, he may not send it [as a gift] to his friend [in the condition of] demai.  We learned in chapter 2, mishnayot 4-5, that it is forbidden to sell certain types of produce while they are in the state of demai. Our mishnah teaches that just as one is not allowed to sell such food, so too one is not allowed to send it as a gift to one’s friend. We might have thought that since it is a gift, we do not force him to tithe the produce before he sends it.  Our mishnah demonstrates that the reason that he must tithe the produce before he sends it to someone else is lest the recipient it eat while it is untithed.  Such a reason exists whether he is selling it or giving it away.
  Rabbi Yose permits [one to send as a gift produce] that is certainly untithed, on condition that he makes the matter known to the recipient.  Rabbi Yose disagrees and allows one to send untithed produce as a gift to one’s friend, as long as he informs his friend that the produce needs to be tithed.  However, Rabbi Yose allows one to send only produce which has definitely not been tithed.  If the produce is only demai (doubtfully tithed), he can’t send it without first tithing it, lest the recipient act too leniently with regard to demai.  We can see here that the rabbis feared that not everyone would observe the laws of demai, and that a person might act leniently when it comes to demai, even though he generally does tithe.  It is of course hard to tell what other Jews, non-rabbis, thought about the entire concept of demai, but one can easily imagine that it may not have made them all that enthusiastic.
  
  Mishnah 4
  
  Introduction
  This mishnah discusses situations in which a Jew who has tithed his produce gives over the produce to a Samaritan, an am haaretz or a Gentile for them to either mill the wheat or guard it. The question is: do we fear that the Samaritan, am haaretz or Gentile switched the produce with their own?  If we do have such a fear, then when the Jew gets his produce back he must tithe it again.
  One who takes his wheat to a Samaritan miller or to an am haaretz miller, [the wheat when ground] retains its former status in respect of tithes and the law of seventh year produce. [But if he carried it] to a Gentile miller, [the wheat when ground has the status of] demai.  The mishnah assumes that the Samaritan or am haaretz miller did not switch the tithed produce that was given to him by the Jew, and therefore we need not fear lest the grain is untithed or that it is grain that comes from the Sabbatical year. Produce from the Sabbatical year (shmita) has certain restrictions, which we will learn about in greater length in Tractate Sheviit. However, if he gives the grain to a Gentile miller, he must fear that the Gentile mixed it up with his own produce, and hence it has the status of demai.  The difference between giving the produce to a Gentile and giving it to a Samaritan or an am haaretz seems to be that we know that the Gentile’s produce is untithed whereas the Samaritan or am haaretz might have tithed their produce. Therefore in the case of the Gentile there is only one doubt did he switch it with his own grain.  In the case of the Samaritan or am haaretz there are two doubts.  Did he switch it with his own grain, and if he did, was his grain tithed? Since there are two doubts, the law is lenient.
  One who deposited his produce with a Samaritan or am haaretz, [the produce] retains its former status in respect of tithes and the law of seventh year produce. [But if he left it] with a Gentile, it is like the produce of the Gentile. Rabbi Shimon says: [it becomes] demai.  The first part of this section is the same as the first part of section one. However, the rule with the Gentile is slightly different.  Here, according to the first opinion, we must treat the produce as if it was certainly switched with the Gentile’s own produce. When he gets his produce back, the Jew will be obligated to separate terumah and all tithes, not just those which one is obligated to separate from demai. The difference between this scenario and the case of the Gentile miller above seems to be that this is just a friend with whom one has left something to guard.  A person who is doing a favor for a friend might not care so much if he switches the produce with his own.  However, the miller might be more cautious in switching the grain he was given with other grain because as a professional, he doesn’t want to upset his clients.  Since it is more doubtful that he switched it around, the status of the grain is only demai. Rabbi Shimon says that in the case of the deposit the returned produce is only demai, because it is still only doubtful whether the Gentile switched the Jew’s produce with his own. Since it is only doubtful whether the Gentile switched it, the Jew takes out tithes and terumah, but he doesn’t have to give the terumah to a priest, because the priest can’t prove that the Jew owes him this terumah. The Jew may sell the terumah to a priest and keep the proceeds for himself but he may not eat it.
  
  Mishnah 5
  
  Introduction
  This mishnah deals with a person who is at an inn and gives the innkeeper produce for her to cook and prepare for him.
  One who gives [produce] to an innkeeper [to prepare it for food], he must tithe what he gives to her and what he takes back from her, because she is suspected of exchanging it [with her own produce].  The innkeeper is suspected of exchanging the produce that the guest gives her for lesser quality produce that belongs to her.  Occasionally, if she is generous, she may even do the opposite, exchanging the lower quality produce that she receives for higher quality stuff.  In any case, we must suspect that she doesn’t tithe her own produce. Therefore, whatever the guest gives to her he should first tithe, lest she eat the untithed produce herself.  According to this opinion, a person is responsible to make sure that he doesn’t cause others to transgress.  The guest must also tithe anything that he gets from her, under the assumption that she did not already tithe it.
  Rabbi Yose said: we are not responsible for deceivers. Rather, he must tithe only that which he takes from her.  Rabbi Yose says that we shouldn’t be concerned with this woman eating untithed produce because if she eats the produce that he gave her to cook for him, she is a deceiver and we are not responsible to prevent deceivers from sinning.  Therefore, he doesn’t need to tithe the produce that he gives her if she eats it untithed that’s her problem.  He does, of course, still have to tithe that which she gives him to eat.
  
  Mishnah 6
  
  Introduction
  This fascinating and, I think, relevant mishnah deals with a person whose mother-in-law is suspected of not observing the laws of tithing because she is an am haaretz.  Can he eat at her house, and if so, what does he have to do to make sure that he doesn’t eat untithed produce?  To translate this into something to which we might have an easier time relating, this is the classic case of a child who is religiously observant asking how he can eat at his in-laws home.  It is interesting that the mishnah is already aware of such a problem. This perhaps demonstrates that rabbis married women who came from families of ame haaretz (ignoramuses).
  Finally, as we shall see, Rabbi Judah’s understanding of how a mother-in-law relates to her daughter and son-in-law is also remarkable.
  One who gives [produce] to his mother-in-law [to prepare it], he must tithe what he gives to her and what he takes back from her, because she is suspected of changing any [food] which has spoiled.  Just as the innkeeper was suspected of switching the food that she is given, so too is a mother-in-law.  Therefore, in order to make sure that she doesn’t eat untithed food, he must tithe the produce that he gives to her.  And in order to make sure that he doesn’t eat untithed food, he must tithe that which he gets back from her.  However, whereas the innkeeper switched the food probably to keep the good food for herself, the mother-in-law switches the food so that she can give the good food to her daughter and son-in-law.  What a nice mother-in-law!
  Rabbi Judah said:  she desires the welfare of her daughter and is ashamed [of serving spoiled food] to her son-in-law.  Rabbi Judah now provides an explanation as for why a mother-in-law might switch the bad food given to her and feed her daughter and son-in-law with better (but nevertheless untithed) food. She wants only the best for her daughter and she is ashamed lest she serve spoiled food to her son-in-law.  In other words, she loves her daughter and wants to look good in front of her son-in-law.  Does this sound familiar to anyone? We should note that Rabbi Judah certainly agrees with the statement in section one. We can see that because he explains it. The Yerushalmi concludes that Rabbi Judah is the author of the statement in section one and that there are other rabbis who disagree with him. They hold that a mother-in-law does not switch the produce that her son-in-law brings to her and therefore, one does not have to tithe the produce that he gets back from her, just that which he gives her.
  Rabbi Judah agrees [with the other sages] that if one gives his mother-in-law seventh year produce, she is not suspected of changing it and giving her daughter to eat of seventh year produce.  Rabbi Judah now agrees to something that was said by the other sages, to whom I just referred. While a mother-in-law, according to Rabbi Judah, does not tithe her produce, she is more cautious about the laws of sabbatical produce. Therefore, if during the sabbatical year he gives her permitted produce for her to make him a meal, he does not have to be concerned that she will switch it with forbidden produce.  [When we learn Tractate Sheviit, we will learn what produce is permitted during the sabbatical year and what is forbidden].  According to Rabbi Judah, ame haaretz will not eat sabbatical produce even though they are suspected of eating untithed produce.
  
  
  
  
  
  Mishnah 1
  
  Introduction
  This mishnah is about trusting a person who says that they tithed their produce, even though that person is not a “chaver” a person who is generally trustworthy when it comes to tithes.  As we shall see, the rabbis were lenient if by not trusting the person one could not eat the produce. They were able to be lenient because demai is only prohibited “derabanan” it is only doubtfully forbidden, and not certainly forbidden.
  One who buys produce from someone who is not trustworthy in respect of tithes, and he forgot to tithe it, and he asked [the seller] on Shabbat [if they were tithed], he may eat based on his word. At nightfall of Shabbat, he may not eat of it unless he had first tithed it.  On Shabbat it is forbidden to tithe produce. There is no option, therefore, to tithe the demai produce and thereby eat it.  Since he can’t tithe it, the rabbis allowed the buyer of the produce to trust the seller who says that he did tithe the produce.  The reason why they were lenient in this case is that the honor and joy accorded to Shabbat trumps the fear that the produce might really be untithed. However, after Shabbat, at nightfall, this special permission ends, and before he eats any more of this produce, he must first tithe it.
  If he could not find the seller, and another person who was not trustworthy in respect of tithes said to him “they are tithed,” he may eat of it at his word. At nightfall of Shabbat, he may not eat of it unless he had first tithed it.  In this section we learn that the same rules apply if someone besides the original seller informs him that the produce has been properly tithed. We might have thought that the buyer can only trust the seller, who would know best whether the produce had been tithed. Here we learn that if he can’t find the seller and someone else claims to know that it had been tithed, he too may be trusted.
  Terumat maaser of demai which had become mixed up again [with the produce] from which it had been taken: Rabbi Shimon Shezuri says: even on a week day he may ask the seller and eat based on his word.  Terumat maaser is the terumah taken from the tithe and given to the priest. One must separate terumat maaser from demai.  Usually the laws of terumat maaser are quite strict because terumah can only be eaten by a priest and non-priest who eats it is punished by “death at the hands of heaven”.  If terumah is mixed up with regular produce all of the produce can be eaten only by priests.  However, in the case in this section the law can be lenient. If one separated terumat maaser from demai produce and then the terumat maaser fell back into the demai he may ask the seller if he had tithed the produce, even on a weekday (when there is no concern for the honor of Shabbat).  If the seller says that he had tithed it, the buyer may eat the produce under the assumption that it wasn’t necessary to take out the terumat maaser in the first place.
  
  Mishnah 2
  
  Introduction
  This mishnah deals with a person, we’ll call him Reuven, who has a friend, whom we’ll call Shimon, who is trying to use a vow to get him to come eat with him.  The way this works is that Reuven says that all of his possessions will become forbidden to Shimon unless Shimon eats with him. Shimon doesn’t want to cause such a rupture in their relationship, but he doesn’t think that Reuven tithes his produce. What is he to do?
  One who vowed [that his friend could not benefit from him] unless he eats with him, and the friend does not trust him in respect of tithes, he may eat with him on the first Shabbat even though he does not trust him in respect of tithes, provided that his friend said to him that the food had been tithed.  If Reuven invited Shimon to eat with him during the week, Shimon could just tithe the food that Reuven gave him to eat and there would be no problem. However, on Shabbat he can’t tithe the produce, so the problem remains.  The mishnah is lenient for the first Shabbat. If Reuven tells Shimon that the food has been tithed, Shimon can eat it, even though Reuven is not generally trusted. In this case we cannot explain the mishnah’s leniency as being a result of the honor of Shabbat, because Shimon could eat at home instead of with Reuven. Rather the leniency is because of “the ways of peace.”  In order to preserve the peace between Reuven and Shimon and to allow Shimon to eat at Reuven’s home, Shimon can temporarily trust him that the food has been tithed.
  But on the second week, even though he had vowed that he would not benefit from him, he may not eat with him unless he first tithed [the produce].  The leniency in section one does not exist for the second Shabbat because by this point Shimon had time to go to Reuven’s home and tithe his produce or make sure that Reuven had actually tithed.  He need no longer rely on a leniency or on Reuven’s word. In looking at this mishnah and all of the other leniencies we have seen, it is worthwhile to make a general note about the function of demai in rabbinic society. The fact that rabbis did not trust others to tithe would have clearly separated them from the rest of the population.  It seems to me that this is intentional. Rabbis wanted to draw some lines between themselves and others. However, these lines remain intentionally fuzzy and easily crossed. They are not the relatively clear lines that separate a Jew from a non-Jew, but rather more porous lines that permit a large degree of fraternization between rabbis and non-rabbis.
  
  Mishnah 3
  
  Introduction
  As we explained in the introduction to Demai, in the third and sixth years of a sabbatical cycle, a person separates poor man’s tithe from his produce and gives it to the poor.  In our mishnah, there is a debate over whether one has to separate poor man’s tithe from demai.
  Rabbi Eliezer says:  a man need not designate the poor man’s tithe of demai.  According to Rabbi Eliezer, the am haaretz does separate poor man’s tithe from his produce, and therefore, one need not do so again.
  But the sages say: he must designate it, but he need not separate.  The sages disagree with Rabbi Eliezer and hold that it is unclear whether an am haaretz separates poor man’s tithe from his produce, just as it is unclear whether he separates the other tithes.  Therefore, the person who wants to eat demai must first separate the poor man’s tithe.  However, he does not have to actually give it to the poor person because the poor person cannot prove that the am haaretz did not separate the poor man’s tithe. Demai is only doubtfully untithed produce. Since the poor cannot prove that this produce belongs to them, the person who separates the poor man’s tithe from the demai can keep it for himself.
  
  Mishnah 4
  
  Introduction
  This mishnah deals with the prohibition of separating terumah and tithes on Shabbat.
  One who had designated the terumat maaser of demai, or the poor man’s tithe of produce that had certainly not been tithed, he should not separate them on Shabbat.  In the scenario described in this mishnah, during the week a person had designated that a certain portion of his demai produce would be terumat maaser (the terumah taken from the tithe) or that a certain portion of his certainly untithed produce would be poor man’s tithe.  He had not yet separated these gifts from the rest of the produce.  Even though he had already designated them, he may not actually separate them on Shabbat in order to give them to the priest or to the poor person.  Again, one is not allowed to separate terumah or tithes on Shabbat. The mishnah uses the example of poor man’s tithe taken from produce that had certainly not been tithed and not from demai (which might have been tithed), because if the produce had been demai, he would not have to give the tithe to the poor person, as we learned in yesterday’s mishnah.
  But if the priest or the poor man regularly ate with him, they may come and eat provided that he informs them.  If there was a priest or a poor person who regularly comes to his home to eat with him, then they may come on Shabbat and take the terumah or poor man’s tithe that has already been designated as such.  However, the owner of the produce must inform the priest or poor man that what they are taking is terumat maaser or poor man’s tithe.  If he does not, he has not fulfilled the mitzvah of giving these gifts to the priest or the poor person.
  
  Mishnah 5
  
  Introduction
  This mishnah deals with a person who sends out an agent to buy produce. Can he trust that the agent will buy from someone who is known to tithe?
  One who says to another who is not trustworthy in respect of tithes: “Buy [produce] for me from one who is trustworthy or from one who gives tithes,” [the messenger] may not be trusted.  Since the agent is not trustworthy to tithe, he is also not trustworthy to buy from someone who does tithe.  The purchaser will have to tithe the produce that he brings back. We should note that this rule would seem to discourage a person from using an agent who is himself not trustworthy with regard to tithes.
  “Buy it for me from so-and-so,” he is to be trusted.  Here, the purchaser tells him to buy from a certain person who is trustworthy with regard to tithes. So while an agent who is not trustworthy with regard to tithes may not be trusted to go out and look for someone who does tithe, he is trusted to listen to his sender when he tells him to buy from a certain person.  Also, in this case, the sender could check up on him and find out whether he really did buy from that person. Since the sender can check up on him, the agent is assumed not to lie.
  If he went to buy it from him [and then came back] and said: “I did not find him, so I bought for you from another man who is trustworthy,” he may not be trusted.  However, if he comes back and says that he couldn’t find the person he was supposed to buy from but that he did nevertheless buy from someone who is trusted with regard to tithes, the messenger is not trusted, just as he was not trusted in section one.  Since he can’t be checked up on, he might lie.
  
  Mishnah 6
  
  Introduction
  This mishnah deals with a scenario where two people offer compliments as to each other’s produce. The question is:  do we fear that they are colluding and therefore not trust them?
  One enters a city and doesn’t know anyone.  He says: “Who here is trustworthy? Who gives tithes here?” One person one responds: “I am.” He may not be trusted.  This person is not trusted because a person cannot testify about themselves that they tithe.  Only others may testify concerning them.
  [But if] he replied: “So-and-so is trustworthy,” he may be trusted.  Although the person is not believed to say that he himself tithes, he is believed to say that someone else tithes. This is, after all, the general way that a person would find out if someone tithes he would ask around about him.
  He went to buy from so-and-so, and he asked him: “Who here sells aged produce?” and so-and-so replied: “He sent you to me,” though they appear to be repaying each other, they may be trusted.  The person who has now bought produce from someone who is trustworthy to have tithed now asks that same person, who in the town sells aged produce, which is better than new produce.  He sends the buyer back to the original person, the same one that was not believed in section one.  It looks as if they are scratching each other’s back. They both know that a person is not believed to compliment his own wares so they compliment each other’s.  Despite this, the mishnah rules that each is believed.  Albeck explains that the visitor to the city can treat this case leniently because as a visitor it will be hard for him to determine who is trustworthy.
  
  Mishnah 7
  
  Introduction
  The previous mishnah dealt with the fear that merchants might collude, each paying compliments to the other’s produce.  Our mishnah deals with another instance in which we might fear that two merchants are colluding.
  If donkey-drivers entered a city and one of them declared: “My produce is new but my friend’s produce is old,” or, “My produce has not been tithed but my friend’s produce has been tithed,” they may not be trusted. Rabbi Judah says: they may be trusted. Two donkey drivers enter the city each carrying loads of produce. Each one testifies that his produce is new or untithed (bad) but that his friend’s produce is old or tithed (both good).  In other words, each compliments his friend’s produce and denigrates his own.  In this case, according to the first opinion, we should suspect that they are colluding and we may not trust either of them. Rabbi Judah says that there is reason to be lenient also in this case and to trust them. Donkey drivers who bring supplies to the city are necessary for the good of the city. Were the people of the city not to trust them, they might not come back. Therefore, they too can be trusted.
  
  
  
  
  
  Mishnah 1
  
  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.
  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.
  
  Mishnah 2
  
  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.
  
  Mishnah 3
  
  Introduction
  This mishnah returns to the subject of separating tithes from bread bought from a baker, the topic dealt with in mishnah one.
  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.
  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.
  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.
  
  Mishnah 4
  
  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.
  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.
  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.
  
  Mishnah 5
  
  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.
  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.
  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.
  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.
  
  Mishnah 6
  
  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.
  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.
  
  Mishnah 7
  
  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.
  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.
  
  Mishnah 8
  
  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.
  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.
  
  Mishnah 9
  
  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.
  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.
  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.
  
  Mishnah 10
  
  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?
  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.
  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.
  
  Mishnah 11
  
  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.
  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.
  [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.
  
  
  
  
  
  Mishnah 1
  
  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.
  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.
  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.  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.
  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.
  
  Mishnah 2
  
  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.
  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.
  
  Mishnah 3
  
  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?
  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.
  Rabbi Eliezer says: the tithes belong to them (the, 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.
  
  Mishnah 4
  
  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.
  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.
  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.
  
  Mishnah 5
  
  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.
  [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.
  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.
  
  Mishnah 6
  
  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.
  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.
  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.
  
  Mishnah 7
  
  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?
  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.
  
  Mishnah 8
  
  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.
  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.
  
  Mishnah 9
  
  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.
  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.
  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.
  
  Mishnah 10
  
  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.
  
  Mishnah 11
  
  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.
  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.
  [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.
  [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.
  
  Mishnah 12
  
  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?
  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.
  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.
  
  
  
  
  
  Mishnah 1
  
  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.
  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.
  
  Mishnah 2
  
  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.
  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.
  
  Mishnah 3
  
  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.
  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 preist. 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.
  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.
  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.
  
  Mishnah 4
  
  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.
  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.
  
  Mishnah 5
  
  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.
  
  Mishnah 6
  
  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.
  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.
  [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.
  [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.
  
  Mishnah 7
  
  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.
  
  Mishnah 8
  
  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.
  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.
  [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.
  [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.
  [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.
  [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.