Bava Metzia 111

מפני שאמרו מחללין אותו כסף על נחשת מדוחק לא שיקיים כן אלא שחוזר ומחללן על הכסף קתני מיהת מחללין מדוחק מדוחק אין שלא מדוחק לא

because It was said, It [sc. the second tithe] may be redeemed [by substituting] copper for silver in case of emergency; not, however, that it should remain so, but that it should itself be redeemed in turn with silver.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' M.Sh. II, 6. This states the reason of this cumbersome procedure. For one might have thought a much simpler procedure possible, viz., one of the sela's could be taken and the following declaration made: 'If this is the second tithe sela', it is well; but if not, let this redeem the other.' — Therefore the Mishnah states that even the substitution of copper coin for silver was permitted only in an emergency, but silver can in no circumstance be used for redeeming other silver, since it cannot be regarded as substitution when both are of the same metal. Nevertheless, it was not desirable that the second tithe should remain in the form of copper, because it was liable to corrosion, and moreover, silver was a more dignified and worthier form of exchange than copper. Therefore the copper coins had to be redeemed in turn with the best of the two sela's. ');">¹</span> Thus it is nevertheless stated that it [silver] may be exchanged in case of emergency, proving that only in an emergency is it done, but not otherwise!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Whereas in the case of demai it was stated on R. Meir's authority that even silver may be freely employed in redeeming silver and copper may redeem silver even without any emergency, thus proving that demai is treated more leniently than certain tithe. This contradicts R. Meir's previous statement that demai was enacted with the same stringency as certain tithe. Though, of course, a Mishnah cannot be employed to prove R. Meir wrong, since R. Meir, as a Tanna, could disagree, the point here is that this Mishnah is anonymous, and it is a Talmudic principle (Sanh. 86a) that an anonymous Mishnah agrees with R. Meir. — Rashi. For Tosaf.'s interpretation, which differs considerably from this, v. p. 331, nn. 2, 3. ');">²</span>

אמר רב יוסף אע"פ שמיקל רבי מאיר בפדיונו מחמיר הוא באכילתו דתניא לא התירו למכור דמאי אלא לסיטון בלבד ובעל הבית בין כך ובין כך צריך לעשר דברי ר' מאיר

— R. Joseph replied: Though R. Meir is more lenient in regard to its redemption, he is stricter in regard to the eating thereof.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Either he is stricter than the Rabbis (Tosaf.); or he is as strict in regard to demai as in respect of certain tithe. — Our Mishnah treats of the eating thereof. ');">³</span> For it has been taught: Only the wholesaler was permitted to sell <i>demai</i>,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Without first tithing it, for since it is known that a wholesaler buys from many people, including those who are lax in tithing, no person who is particular will eat of what the wholesaler sells without first tithing it. But a retailer must tithe demai before he sells it. ');">⁴</span>

וחכ"א אחד הסיטון ואחד בעל הבית מוכר ושולח לחבירו ונותן לו במתנה ואינו חושש

but a private individual must tithe it in all cases:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' If a private individual buys produce from an ignorant person, who is suspected of neglecting to tithe, and then resells, he must first tithe it, whether he sells large quantities, like a wholesaler, or small, like a retailer, because it will be assumed that he has in fact tithed it. ');">⁵</span> this is R. Meir's view. But the Sages say: Both a wholesaler and a private individual may sell or send [produce] to his neighbour or give it to him as a gift without fear.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., in large measure, because it is a general presumption that whenever corn is sold or given in large quantities it has not been tithed; therefore we have no fear that the recipient will omit to tithe it. This dispute shews that in respect to the actual tithing, i.e., the eating of demai, R. Meir is more stringent than the Rabbis. ');">⁶</span>

מתיב רבינא הלוקח מן הנחתום מעשר מן החמה על הצוננת ומן הצוננת על החמה ואפי' מדפוסים הרבה דברי ר"מ

Rabina raised an objection: If one buys [loaves] from a baker,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The baker referred to is an 'am-ha-aretz (q.v. Glos.) suspected of omitting the necessary tithes. ');">⁷</span> he may tithe from the freshly baked for the stale, and vice versa, and even if they are of many moulds:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' It is a principle that one may separate tithe from one lot of commodities for another, but only when both are liable. Now, as the bread is of different moulds, it might be suggested that the baker bought the wheat from which he made his bread from different merchants, some of whom may have tithed their wheat whilst others had not, and it is forbidden to separate tithe from bread (or corn) already tithed for untithed produce. Nevertheless, since the tithe of demai is Rabbinical only, we assume that the baker had purchased all his wheat from the same merchant, and therefore they had been either all tithed or all untithed. ');">⁸</span>

בשלמא מן הצוננת על החמה כדרבי אילעאי דא"ר אילעאי מנין לתורם מן הרעה על היפה שתרומתו תרומה שנאמר (במדבר יח, לב) ולא תשאו עליו חטא בהרימכם את חלבו ממנו אם אינו קדש נשיאת חטא למה מכאן לתורם מן הרעה על היפה שתרומתו תרומה

this is R. Meir's view.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Dem. v, 3. ');">⁹</span> Now, as for [giving tithe] from the stale [loaves] for the freshly baked, that is well, being in accordance with R. Elai. For R. Elai said: Whence do we know that if one separates [<i>terumah</i>] from inferior for better [produce] the <i>terumah</i> is <i>terumah</i>?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., that the separation is valid. ');">¹⁰</span>

אלא אפי' מדפוסים הרבה ליחוש דלמא אתי לאפרושי מן החיוב על הפטור ומן הפטור על החיוב

— Because it is written. <i>And ye shall bear no sin by reason of it, when ye have heaved from it the best of it</i>.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Num. XVIII, 32. This implies that one bears sin if he does not heave — i.e., separate — terumah from the best. ');">¹¹</span> Now, if it is not sanctified,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' When one separates terumah from inferior grain. ');">¹²</span>

אמר אביי ר' אלעזר שפיר קא קשיא ליה ושמואל לא שפיר קא משני ליה דקשיא ליה לר' אלעזר מיתה דבידי שמים ומשני ליה שמואל מיתת ב"ד דלמא שאני מיתת ב"ד דחמירא

why should one bear sin? Hence it follows that if one separates [<i>terumah</i>] from inferior [produce] for better, the <i>terumah</i> is <i>terumah</i>. But [when you say,] even if they are of many moulds, let us fear lest he come to separate from what is liable for what is [now] exempt,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Having been tithed already. ');">¹³</span> and vice versa!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. note 2. Since this fear is not entertained, it follows that even R. Meir did not hold that the law of demai was enacted with the same stringency as Biblical tithes. ');">¹⁴</span>

ורב ששת לא שפיר קא מותיב ליה דקאמרי אינהו מיתה ומותיב רב ששת לאו דכתיב (דברים יב, יז) לא תוכל לאכול בשעריך ולמאי דמותיב רב ששת רב יוסף שפיר קא משני ליה

— Said Abaye: R. Eleazar was right in his objection,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' v. supra 53b, the beginning of the Gemara immediately after the Mishnah. ');">¹⁵</span> but Samuel did not answer it correctly. For R. Eleazar's difficulty referred to [a law involving] death at the hands of Heaven; whilst Samuel answered him [from a case involving] death by the Court: the latter may be different, since it is severer.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' R. Eleazar objected to the law of the Mishnah that a fifth must be added in making restoration for the terumah of the tithe of demai, just as though it were Biblical. Now, even Biblical terumah is forbidden to a zar only on pain of death at the hand of Heaven, yet Samuel in his answer draws an analogy with divorce; but adultery, which ensues if an invalid divorce is pronounced valid, is punishable by death imposed by court; hence it is natural that every Rabbinical enactment in reference to divorce should have been given the same strictness as a Biblical requirement. But the same does not necessarily follow in the case of terumah. ');">¹⁶</span>

אלא רבינא עד דמותיב מנחתום לסייע ליה מפלטר דתנן הלוקח מן הפלטר מעשר מן כל דפוס ודפוס דברי ר"מ

Again, R. Shesheth's refutation was not well grounded, for he [Samuel] referred to a law involving death, whilst R. Shesheth raised an objection from what is merely a negative injunction, for it is written, <i>Thou mayest not eat within thy gates [the tithe of thy corn</i> etc.].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Deut. XII, 17. This is interpreted as referring to improperly redeemed tithes, such as with coins that may not be employed for the purpose, as appears in the discussion above. Now, whereas Samuel's assertion that the Rabbis enacted protective measures for their own enactments referred to a zar's eating the terumah of the tithe of demai, which, as already stated, involves death at the hands of Heaven, R. Shesheth objected to it on the grounds that in the case of redemption this is not so. But improper redemption is forbidden only by a negative injunction; therefore it is natural that a Rabbinical enactment in reference thereto should not be as strict as one In reference to the former law. ');">¹⁷</span> Yet the objection R. Shesheth does raise is well answered by R. Joseph. But as for Rabina, instead of raising an objection from a baker, let him support him from the case of a wholesale bread merchant. For we learnt: If one buys [bread] from a breadseller,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Dem. v, 4. An am-ha-aretz (v. p. 333, n. 1), who buys bread from various bakers, which he in turn retails. ');">¹⁸</span>

אלא מאי אית לך למימר פלטר מתרי תלתא גברא זבין נחתום נמי מחד גברא הוא זבין

he must give tithes on [the loaves of] each mould separately: this is R. Meir's view.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Thus proving that R. Meir does fear lest one tithe from what is exempt for what is liable, though the law of demai is only Rabbinical, in agreement with Samuel's answer that Rabbinical measures, in R. Meir's opinion, were enacted with the same strictness as Biblical. ');">¹⁹</span> What then must you answer?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Why does R. Meir draw a distinction between a baker and a breadseller? ');">²⁰</span>

רבא אמר שמואל שפיר קא משני ליה שם מיתה בעולם:

A breadseller buys from two or three. Hence in the case of a baker too, [you must say that] he buys from one man [only].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The use of 'too' is thus meant; just as one is bound to find a reason for his ruling on a breadseller, so can one also reconcile his ruling on a baker. ');">²¹</span> Raba said: Samuel answered well: The designation of death exists.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'is in the world.' I.e., in both cases there is a death penalty, and the fact that one is at the hand of Heaven only whilst the other is imposed by court does not vitiate the argument. ');">²²</span>

<big><strong>מתני׳</strong></big> אלו דברים שאין להם אונאה העבדים והשטרות והקרקעות וההקדשות אין להן תשלומי כפל ולא תשלומי ארבעה וחמשה שומר חנם אינו נשבע ונושא שכר אינו משלם רבי שמעון אומר

<b><i>MISHNAH</i></b>. THE FOLLOWING ARE NOT SUBJECT TO [THE LAW OF] OVERREACHING: [THE PURCHASE OF] SLAVES, BILLS,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Bills of debt which are purchased at a reduced price, the purchaser then collecting the debts for himself. ');">²³</span> REAL ESTATE AND SACRED OBJECTS.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Which the Temple treasurer sells on behalf of the Treasury; or when a private individual sells an animal dedicated as a sacrifice but rendered unfit by a blemish. ');">²⁴</span> THERE IS NEITHER DOUBLE REPAYMENT NOR FOURFOLD AND FIVEFOLD REPAYMENT IN THEIR CASE.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The penalties in case of theft, cf. Ex. XXII, 3; XXI, 37. These penalties did not apply if the stolen property was hekdesh. ');">²⁵</span> A GRATUITOUS BAILEE DOES NOT SWEAR [ON THEIR ACCOUNT], NOR DOES A PAID BAILEE<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'one who receives payment. ');">²⁶</span> MAKE IT GOOD.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In ordinary cases, if a bailment is stolen, the bailee, if gratuitous, swears that it was stolen through no negligence of his own, and is free from further responsibility; whilst a paid bailee is liable for theft. This however, is not so in the case of hekdesh. ');">²⁷</span> R. SIMEON SAID: