Nedarim 168

וחכ"א קורא שם ואין צריך להפריש מאי לאו למ"ד ספקו טובל קסבר אית ליה טובת הנאה וכיון דאית ליה טובת הנאה לא מהניא

whilst the Sages say: He must designate [it], but need not separate it.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Demai, lit., 'of what (nature),' 'dubious' is the technical term for produce bought from a person who is not trusted to render the tithes, generally the 'am ha-arez; (v. Glos.) such produce had to be tithed by the purchaser. R. Eliezer maintains that it is unnecessary to designate any portion thereof as the poor tithe, because even if the first owner has definitely not separated the poor lithe the produce is permitted. But the Sages hold that as long as the poor tithe has not been separated the produce may not be eaten; therefore, since the original owner is under suspicion, he must designate the poor tithe himself, i.e., declare, 'this part of the produce is the poor tithe.' On the other hand, he is not compelled to give it to the poor, as he can challenge them, 'Prove that the first owner did not render the poor tithe.' ');">¹</span> Now surely he who maintains that the doubt<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Whether the poor tithe has been set aside or not. ');">²</span>

ולמאן דאמר [אינו] קורא שם קסבר ספקו אינו טובל וכל שספקו אינו טובל לית ליה טובת הנאה ושרי ליה לאיתהנויי

renders it <i>tebel</i>,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. Glos. ');">³</span> also holds that he [the owner] possesses the good will thereof,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., the owner can give the poor tithe to whomsoever of the poor he wishes. ');">⁴</span>

אמר ליה אביי דכ"ע ספקו טובל ור' אליעזר ורבנן בהא קמיפלגי רבי אליעזר סבר לא נחשדו עמי הארץ על מעשר עני כיון דאילו מפקר נכסיה והוי עני ושקל ליה הוא לית ליה פסידא

and that being so, he may not benefit [her].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For the owner confers a definite benefit upon the person of his choice, since he could have given it to some other. Consequently, if a woman vows not to benefit from all mankind, she cannot take the poor tithe. ');">⁵</span> Whilst he who maintains that no designation is necessary, is of the view that the doubt does not render it <i>tebel</i>;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Actually, according to this view, even if the poor tithe has definitely not been separated, it is not tebel; but since the discussion refers to demai, the doubt is mentioned. ');">⁶</span>

ורבנן סברי נכסיה לא מפקר איניש דמירתת דלמא זכי בהו איניש אחרינא הלכך נחשדו

and wherever the doubt does not render it <i>tebel</i>, he [the owner] enjoys no goodwill therein,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' But must give it to the first poor man who applies. The interdependence of goodwill and tebel is deduced from Scripture. ');">⁷</span> and therefore she may benefit therefrom.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'one'. For she does not benefit from the owner, but takes it in virtue of her own right. ');">⁸</span>

רבא אומר כאן במעשר עני המתחלק בתוך הבית דכתיבא ביה נתינה (דברים כו, יב) ונתת ללוי לגר וגו' מש"ה אסור ליה לאיתהנויי

Said Abaye to him: [No.] All agree that the doubt renders it <i>tebel</i>, but R. Eliezer and the Rabbis differ in this: R. Eliezer maintains that the 'amme ha-arez are not suspected of withholding the poor tithe, since should he renounce the title to his property and thus become a poor man, he may take [the tithe] himself; hence he suffers no loss.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' It is assumed that no person transgresses a law which he can observe without loss to himself. Hence there is no fear that the 'am ha-arez does not separate the poor-tithe. For he can designate part of the produce as poor tithe, formally renounce ownership if all his possessions, acquire the tithe, and then reacquire their possessions. Therefore when one purchases cereals from an 'am ha-arez, he may assume that the poor tithe has been separated, or that by formally renouncing ownership the peasant has exempted it. ');">⁹</span> But the Rabbis hold that no one will renounce ownership of his property, for he fears that another may acquire it;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For such renunciation had to be in the presence of witnesses, supra 45a, one of whom might forestall the first owner and acquire it himself. ');">¹⁰</span>

כאן במעשר עני המתחלק בתוך הגרנות כיון דכתיב ביה (דברים יד, כח) והנחת בשעריך שרי ליה לאיתהנויי

therefore they are suspected.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since Abaye had refuted R. Joseph's answer, the difficulty remains, and Raba proceeds to dispose of it. ');">¹¹</span> Raba said: Here [the Mishnah] refers to the poor tithe distributed in the [owner's] house,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' If for any reason the poor tithe was not distributed in the threshing floor, as it should have been, it must be done in the house. ');">¹²</span>

כהנים ולוים נהנין לי יטלו כו' אלמא טובת הנאה אינה ממון

in connection wherewith 'giving' is mentioned, [viz.,] and thou shalt give it unto the Levite, the stranger, etc.;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Deut. XXVI, 12. ');">¹³</span> therefore one [who vows not to benefit from mankind] may not benefit therefrom.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For 'thou shalt give' implies that the owner possesses disposal rights therein. ');">¹⁴</span>

אימא סיפא כהנים אלו ולוים אלו נהנין לי יטלו אחרים אבל להני לא אלמא טובת הנאה ממון

Whilst there [in the Baraitha] the reference is to the poor tithe distributed in the threshing floor; since it is written thereof, And thou shalt leave it at thy gates,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ibid. XIV, 28; this implies that it must be left for whomever wishes to take it, and that the owner cannot allot it to any line in particular. ');">¹⁵</span> one may benefit therefrom.

אמר רב הושעיא לא קשיא הא רבי והא ר' יוסי ב"ר יהודה דתניא הגונב טבלו של חבירו ואכלו משלם לו דמי טבלו דברי רבי רבי יוסי בר"י אומר אינו משלם אלא דמי חולין שבו מאי לאו בהא קמיפלגי

'KONAM BE THE BENEFIT PRIESTS AND LEVITES HAVE FROM ME,' THEY CAN SEIZE, ETC. Thus we see that goodwill benefit has no monetary value.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since the priest and Levites, who may not benefit from him, can seize the dues against his wishes, though he possesses the right of disposing of them at will. ');">¹⁶</span> Then consider the last clause: [BUT IF HE VOWS]. 'KONAM BE THE BENEFIT THESE PRIESTS AND LEVITES HAVE FROM ME.' OTHERS TAKE [THE DUES]: but not these, thus proving that goodwill benefit has monetary value? — Said R. Hoshaia:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Var. lec.: Joseph. ');">¹⁷</span> There is no difficulty: the one [clause] accords with Rabbi, the other with R. Jose son of R. Judah. For it was taught: If one steals his neighbour's <i>tebel</i> and consumes it, he must pay him the value of the <i>tebel</i>:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., the value of the hullin (v. Glos.) it contains and the monetary value of his disposal rights over the terumah and tithes therein. ');">¹⁸</span> that is Rabbi's ruling. R. Jose son of R. Judah said: He must pay him only for the value of its hullin. Now presumably they differ in this: