Nedarim 72

איבעיא להו התורם משלו על של חבירו צריך דעתו או לא מי אמרינן כיון דזכות הוא לו לא צריך דעת או דלמא מצוה דיליה היא וניחא ליה למיעבדיה

The scholars propounded: If one gives <i>terumah</i> of his own for his neighbour's produce, does he require his consent or not? Do we say, since it is a benefit for him, his consent is unnecessary;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As it may be taken for granted. ');">¹</span>

תא שמע תורם את תרומותיו ואת מעשרותיו לדעתו במאי עסקינן אילימא מן בעל הכרי על של בעל הכרי ולדעתו דמאן אילימא לדעתו דיליה מאן שוויה שליח

or perhaps, [the privilege of performing] the precept is his, and he prefers to perform it himself? Come and hear! HE MAY SEPARATE HIS <i>TERUMAH</i> AND HIS TITHES WITH HIS CONSENT. How is this meant: Shall we say, his own corn is used?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., '(produce) of the owner of the stack (is separated as terumah, etc.) for produce belonging to the owner of the stack.' ');">²</span>

אלא לדעתו דבעל הכרי הא קמהני ליה דקעביד שליחותיה אלא משלו על של הכרי ולדעתו דמאן אילימא לדעתו דבעל הכרי הא קמהני ליה אלא לאו לדעתיה דנפשיה ומשלו תורם על של חבירו ואי אמרת צריך דעת הא קמהני ליה אלא לאו אין צריך דעת

Then with whose consent? If with his own, who appointed him an agent?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., surely A cannot separate terumah for B, using B's produce, without the latter's consent. ');">³</span>

לעולם משל בעל הכרי על בעל הכרי כדאמר רבא באומר כל הרוצה לתרום יבא ויתרום הכא נמי באומר וכו'

But if it means with the owner's consent — does he not benefit him by acting as his agent?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Whereas his vow forbids him to benefit him. ');">⁴</span>

בעא מיניה רבי ירמיה מרבי זירא התורם משלו על של חבירו טובת הנאה של מי מי אמרינן אי לאו פירי דהאיך מי מתקנא כריא דההוא או דלמא אי לאו כריא דההוא לא הויין פירי דהדין תרומה

Hence it must mean that he separates his own [i.e., the maddir's] produce for the owner's. Now, with whose consent? If with the owner's, does he not benefit him? Hence it must mean with his own knowledge [without informing the owner].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' [This is not regarded as a direct benefit, since he does not give him aught; v. Ran.] ');">⁵</span>

אמר ליה אמר קרא (דברים יד, כב) את כל תבואת זרעך ונתת

Now if you say that he requires his consent, does he not benefit him?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For by consenting he shews that he regards it as a benefit. ');">⁶</span>

איתיביה תורם את תרומותיו ואת מעשרותיו לדעתו ואי אמרת טובת הנאה דבעל הכרי הא קא מהני ליה אלא שמע מינה טובת הנאה דיליה אמרי לא משל בעל הכרי על של בעל הכרי ולדעתו דבעל הכרי באומר כל הרוצה לתרום יבא ויתרום

— [No.] After all, it means the owner's [produce] for the owner's produce; and it is as Raba said [elsewhere], That the owner had announced, 'Whoever wishes to separate, let him do so;' here, too, the owner had announced etc.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Though such an announcement is a sufficient authorisation, the maddir is not thereby specially appointed an agent, and so does not directly benefit him. ');">⁷</span>

תא שמע דאמר רבי אבהו אמר רבי יוחנן המקדיש מוסיף חומש ומתכפר עושה תמורה והתורם משלו על שאינו שלו טובת הנאה שלו:

R. Jeremiah asked R. Zera: If one separates of his own for his neighbour's [produce], to whom does the goodwill [value] belong?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., if another Israelite paid him something to give the terumah to a particular friend of his, to whom does that thing belong? ');">⁸</span>

מלמדו מדרש הלכות ואגדות אבל לא ילמדנו מקרא: מקרא מאי טעמא לא ילמדנו משום דקמהני ליה מדרש נמי קמהני ליה אמר שמואל במקום שנוטלין שכר על המקרא ואין נוטלין שכר על המדרש מאי פסקא

Do we say, but for this man's produce, would the other's stack have been made fit to use?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Therefore the goodwill should belong to him who renders the terumah. ');">⁹</span> Or perhaps, but for this man's stack, the other man's produce would not be <i>terumah</i>?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Produce can he declared terumah only on account of other produce. But one cannot take some corn and declare it terumah. ');">¹⁰</span> — He replied, Scripture saith, all the increase of thy seed&nbsp;… and thou shalt give.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Deut. XIV, 25. In its context, thou shalt give refers to the changing of produce into money; but it is here taken out of its context and related to all the increase of thy seed, shewing that the goodwill belongs to the owner of the corn, no matter who actually separates the tithe. This is the reading of our text, and also that of Ran. But such forcible disregard of the context is not very plausible. Asheri prefers a preferable reading: (When thou hast made an end of tithing) All the tithes of thine increase&nbsp;… and thou shalt give it to the Levite; (Deut. XXVI, 12). ');">¹¹</span> He objected: HE MAY SEPARATE HIS <i>TERUMAH</i> AND HIS TITHES WITH HIS CONSENT. Now if you say that the goodwill belongs to the owner, surely he [the maddir] benefits him? Hence this proves that the goodwill is his!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' This of course is on the assumption that the naddir gives his own corn as terumah. ');">¹²</span> — I will tell you: it is not so. This means that the <i>terumah</i> belongs to the owner; 'HIS CONSENT also referring to the owner, who had announced, 'Whoever wishes to separate, let him do so.' Come and hear: R. Abbahu said in R. Johanan's name: He who sanctifies the animal must add the fifth, whilst only he for whom atonement is made sanctifies a substitute;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' If A dedicates an animal for B's sacrifice and it subsequently receives a blemish and must be redeemed, then if A, who sanctified it, redeems it himself, he must add a fifth to its value, but nut if B redeems it (this is deduced from Lev. XXVII, 15). Again, if another animal is substituted for the first, both the original and its substitute are holy (ibid. 10). R. Johanan rules that this is only if B, on whose behalf the animal was sanctified, made the substitution, but not if A did so. ');">¹³</span> and he who gives <i>terumah</i> of his own for another man's produce, the goodwill is his.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Sc. the man who gives it. ');">¹⁴</span> HE MAY TEACH HIM MIDRASH, HALACHOTH, AND AGGADOTH, BUT NOT SCRIPTURE. Why not Scripture — because he benefits him? But [by] Midrash too he benefits him? — Said Samuel: This refers to a place where the teaching of Scripture is remunerated, but not that of Midrash. How state this definitely?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Seeing that the statement in the Mishnah is unqualified. ');">¹⁵</span> —