Introduction

Again, the mishnah deals with pairs of seeds that may be grown together.

Mishnah Three

Turnips and the cabbage turnip, cabbage and cauliflower, beet and rumex do not constitute kilayim one with the other.

Rabbi Akiva added: garlic and small wild garlic, onion and small wild onion, lupine and wild lupine do not constitute kilayim one with the other.

Introduction

This mishnah continues listing pairs of seeds that do not constitute kilayim one with the other. While this admittedly may not be the most exciting topic of study, we should recognize how important these laws would have been to the farmers observing them.  A farmer simply had to know what could and what could not be grown together. Growing the wrong things together may have made his produce forbidden to eat, causing him great financial loss. We should also note that by allowing similar seeds to grow together, the laws were much easier than the might have otherwise have been interpreted.

Again, there is not much to explain on this mishnah so I have refrained from commenting.

Mishnah Two

1)     Cucumbers and melons do not constitute kilayim one with the other.

2)           Rabbi Judah said they do constitute kilayim.

3)     Lettuce and wild  lettuce, endives and wild endives, leek and wild leek, coriander and wild  coriander, or mustard and Egyptian mustard, Egyptian gourd and the bitter gourd,  or Egyptian beans and carob shaped beans do not constitute kilayim one with the other.

Introduction

Our mishnah teaches that if two types of seeds, either grains or beans, are very similar to one another then they are not “kilayim” and one can plant a field with both of them mixed.  Kilayim is prohibited only in cases of two distinct species of seed; if the two are almost interchangeable, then there is no prohibition.  The mishnah therefore lists pairs of seeds that are not kilayim with each other.  Since the mishnah’s meaning is quite simple, I have refrained from commenting below.

One problem in interpreting and translating this mishnah is that it is difficult to identify many of the species mentioned.  Albeck provides various Latin terms, and all commentators attempt to identify the species, but some of their meanings have probably been lost.  To avoid this problem, I have transliterated some of the terms rather than translate them. Thus “zunin” instead of “Cephalaria Syriaca” or “sapir” instead of “Vicia Narbonensis.”  I realize that this may disappoint the hard-core botanists among you, but I can’t write these Latin terms and pretend I know what they are.  The most important thing to know is that in each pair, the two species are very similar. So while I might not know what “zunin” is, I know it is similar to wheat.

Mishnah One

1)     Wheat and zunin do not constitute kilayim one with the other.

2)     Barley and oats, spelt and rye, or beans and sapir (a type of bean), or purkdan and tofah (two similar types of beans), or white beans and kidney beans, do not constitute kilayim one with the other.

The word “kilayim” means mixture, either a mixture of seeds, plants, cross-bred animals or even cross-yoked animals.  The Torah twice prohibits kilayim.

Leviticus 19:19

You shall not let your cattle mate with a different kind (kilayim); you shall not sow your field with two kinds of seed (kilayim); you shall not put on cloth from a mixture of two kinds of material (kilayim shatnez).

Deuteronomy 22:9-11

You shall not sow your vineyard with a second kind of seed (kilayim), else the crop – from the seed you have sown – and the yield of the vineyard may not be used.  You shall not plow with an ox and a donkey together.  You shall not wear cloth combining wool and linen (shatnez).

The rabbis interpreted “You shall not sow your field with two kinds of seed” to mean that planting two different kinds of seed in a field was forbidden and that grafting one type of plant onto another was also forbidden.  “You shall not sow your vineyard with a second kind of seed” meant that one could not plant either grains or vegetables in a vineyard.

Planting two different kinds of seeds in one field is only prohibited if the seeds are mixed up together.  If they are planted separately and there is a divider, one can plant two different kinds of seed in one field.

In total there are four types of kilayim:  1)  kilayim of the vineyard; 2)  kilayim of mixed seeds in a field—this prohibition includes a prohibition of grafting together different trees; 3) cross-breeding animals; 4) yoking two different types of animals together.  Our tractate will discuss all four different types.

Good luck learning Tractate Kilayim!

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.

Mishnah Eight

1)     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.

2)     [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.

3)     [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.

4)     [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.

5)     [If he had said:]  “One jug shall be tithe,” and it is not known which jug [he meant],he must take from every jug.

Explanation

Section one:  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.

Section two:  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.

Section three:  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.

Section four: 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.

Section five: 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.

Introduction

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.

Mishnah Seven

1)     One hundred [parts of] tevel which [were mixed with] a hundred [parts of] common   produce, one must take out a hundred and one [parts].

2)     One hundred [parts of] tevel which [were mixed with] a hundred [parts of first] tithe, one must take out a hundred and one [parts].

3)     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].

4)     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.

5)     This is the general rule: whenever the tevel is the greater [portion of the mixture] he has not lost anything.

Explanation

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.

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.

Mishnah Six

1)     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.

2)     [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].

3)     [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].

Explanation

Section one: 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.

Section two:  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.

Section three:  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.

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.

Mishnah Five

1)     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.”

2)     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.”

Explanation

Section one:  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.

Section two:  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.

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.

Mishnah Three

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.

Explanation

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.

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.

Mishnah Three

1)     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.

2)     Rabban Shimon ben Gamaliel says: he does not put one aside, because this reduce the work for his employer.

3)     Rabbi Yose says: he does not put one aside, because this is a court stipulation [imposed upon the employer].

Explanation

Section one:  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.

Section two:  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.

Section three:  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.

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.

Mishnah Two

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.

Explanation

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.

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.

Mishnah One

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.”

Explanation

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.

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?

Read more ...

Introduction

In rabbinic language “Syria” refers to the land that borders thelandofIsraelto the North and East but is not considered fully part ofIsrael.  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 inSyriaand with the question of whether or not he has to separate tithes.

Read more ...

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.

Read more ...

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.

Read more ...

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. 

Read more ...

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?

Read more ...

Mishnah Six

1)      Bet Shammai says: a man may sell his olives only to a “chaver (an ‘associate’).”

2)      But Bet Hillel says: [one may sell them] even to one who only] tithes.

3)      And the pious among Bet Hillel used to act in accordance with the words of Bet Shammai.

Read more ...

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.

Read more ...