יז תא שמע ישראל ועובד כוכבים שלקחו שדה בשותפות
17 R. Eleazar, however, said: Although a heathen can own land so fully in the land of Israel as to release it from the obligation of tithe, since it says, [The tithe of] thy corn,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Deut. XIV, 23. ');"><sup>16</sup></span> which implies, 'and not the corn of the heathen,' yet a heathen cannot own land in the Land of Israel so fully as to have the right of digging in it pits, ditches and caves, since it says, The earth is the Lord's.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ps. XXIV, 1. ');"><sup>17</sup></span> What is the point at issue between them? — One<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' R. Eleazar. ');"><sup>18</sup></span> holds that [we interpret the word 'thy corn'] to mean 'thy corn and not the corn of the heathen' and the other holds that we interpret it to mean, 'thy storing and not the storing of the heathen.'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' [The obligation for tithing comes into force only after the crop has been finally turned into corn (v. Ma'as I, 6); and according to Rabbah the verse exempts only such corn as has been at that time in the ownership of the non-Jew. Where, however, a Jew had been responsible for the final process as owner, there is liability although the crop grew in soil belonging to a non-Jew, because a non-Jew cannot own property in Eretz Israel so fully as to release it from the obligation to tithe.] ');"><sup>19</sup></span> Rabbah said: Whence do I derive my view? Because we have learnt: Gleanings, forgotten sheaves, and produce of the corner belonging to a heathen are subject to tithe unless he has declared them common property.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Pe'ah IV, 9. ');"><sup>20</sup></span> How are we to understand this? Are we to say that the field belongs to an Israelite and the produce has been gathered by a heathen? If so, what is the meaning of 'unless he declared them common property,' seeing that they are already such?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ipso facto, even without any declaration on the part of the owner, v. Lev. XIX. 9, 10. ');"><sup>21</sup></span> We must therefore say that the field belongs to a heathen and an Israelite has gathered the produce, and the reason why he has to give no tithe from them is because he declared them common property, but otherwise he would be liable!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Which would show that normally a field sold to a heathen is still subject to tithe. ');"><sup>22</sup></span> — This is not conclusive. I may still hold that [the field spoken of] belongs to an Israelite and that a heathen has gathered the produce; and as for your argument that it is already declared common property, granted that it is such in the eyes of the Israelite, is it such in the eyes of the heathen?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' [Consequently should a Jew buy these gleanings from the non-Jew, he will have to give tithes unless the original owner had declared them common property.] ');"><sup>23</sup></span> Come and hear: If an Israelite bought a field from a heathen before the produce was a third grown and sold it back to him after it was a third grown, it is subject to tithe,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Should another Jew buy the produce from the heathen and turn it into grain. ');"><sup>24</sup></span> because it was so already<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The rule was that produce became liable for tithe as soon as it was a third grown. R.H. 12. ');"><sup>25</sup></span> [before he sold it back]. The reason is [is it not] because it was so already, but otherwise it would not be subject?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Which would show that normally a field sold to a heathen is not subject to tithe. ');"><sup>26</sup></span> — We are dealing here with a field in Syria, and [the author of this dictum] took the view that the annexation of an individual<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' King David. V. supra p. 25, n. 3. ');"><sup>27</sup></span> is not legally counted as annexation.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' [And ownership of a field in Syria by a heathen does release the produce from the tithing obligation, which is there merely of rabbinic origin.] ');"><sup>28</sup></span> Come and hear: 'If an Israelite and a heathen buy a field in partnership.