Bekhorot — Daf 11b

ממורחין מן העובד כוכבים מעשרן והן שלו

דמרחינהו מאן אילימא דמרחינהו עובד כוכבים דגנך אמר רחמנא ולא דגן עובד כוכבים

אלא דמרחינהו ישראל מרשות עובד כוכבים מעשרן דאין קנין לעובד כוכבים בארץ ישראל להפקיע מיד מעשר והן שלו דאמר ליה קאתינא מכח גברא דלא מצית אישתעיה דינא בהדיה

תנן התם המפקיד פירותיו אצל הכותי ואצל עם הארץ בחזקתן למעשר ולשביעית

אצל העובד כוכבים כפירותיו ר"ש אומר דמאי

אר"א להפריש כולי עלמא לא פליגי כי פליגי ליתנן לכהן תנא קמא סבר ודאי חלפינהו ובעי מיתננהו לכהן ור' שמעון סבר דמאי

יתיב רב דימי וקאמר להא שמעתא א"ל אביי טעמא דמספקא לן אי חלפינהו אי לא חלפינהו הא ודאי חלפינהו דכולי עלמא בעי למיתבינהו לכהן והאמר ר' שמואל אמר ר' חנינא הלוקח טבלים מן העובד כוכבים ממורחין מעשרן והן שלו

דלמא כאן בתרומה גדולה כאן בתרומת מעשר

אזכרתן מילתא דא"ר יהושע בן לוי מנין ללוקח טבלים ממורחין מן העובד כוכבים שהוא פטור מתרומת מעשר שנאמר (במדבר יח, כו) ואל הלוים תדבר ואמרת אליהם כי תקחו מאת בני ישראל טבלים שאתה לוקח מבני ישראל אתה מפריש מהן תרומת מעשר ונותנה לכהן טבלים שאתה לוקח מן העובד כוכבים אי אתה מפריש מהן תרומת מעשר ונותנה לכהן:

ואם מת נהנים בו: דמית היכא אילימא דמית בי כהן ונהנה בו כהן פשיטא ממונא דידיה הוא אלא דמית בי בעלים ונהנה בו כהן הא נמי פשיטא

סד"א כל כמה דלא מטא לידיה לא זכה ביה קמ"ל דמעידנא דאפרשיה ברשותיה דכהן קאי:

evenly piled up from a gentile, he tithes it and it is his.1 Who piled it up? Shall I say that a gentile piled it up? Surely the text says, ‘thy corn’ implying, but not the corn of a gentile?2 Rather we are dealing here with a case where the Israelites piled it up in the domain of a gentile.3 ‘He tithes it’, because a gentile has not the right of possession in Palestine to release [produce] from the obligation of tithing. ‘And it is his’, because he says to the priest, ‘I have acquired my rights from a man with whom you cannot go to law’. We have learnt elsewhere: If a man deposits his fruits with a Cuthean,4 or with an ‘am ha-arez,5 it may be presumed that they retain their former condition in respect of tithes and the sabbatical year,6 but if with a gentile, they are like [the gentile's] fruits.7 R. Simeon says: They are dem'ai.8 Said R. Eleazar: That [the priest's share] should be set aside all the authorities mentioned agree. Where they differ is on the question whether to give it9 to the priest. The first Tanna [mentioned] holds that he has certainly changed them and therefore he must give the priestly share to the priest, whereas R. Simeon maintains that they have the law of dem'ai. R. Dimi was once sitting and repeating this teaching. Said Abaye to him: The reason is because we are in doubt whether he changed them or not. But if he certainly changed the fruits, all the authorities [mentioned] would agree that he is required to give the priestly share to the priest, would they not? But surely did not R. Samuel report in the name of R. Hanina: If one bought untithed grain from a gentile piled up [in proper shape], he gives tithes and it is his? — Perhaps [he replied], the one10 refers to great terumah, and R. Samuel's report refers to the terumah of the tithe!11 [Said Abaye], This indeed reminds me of something [which supports your very explanation]. For R. Joshua the son of Levi said: Whence do we derive that a purchaser of untithed grain from a gentile piled up in proper shape is exempt from the terumah of the tithe? Because Scripture says: Moreover thou shalt speak unto the Levites and say unto them, when ye take of the children of Israel.12 [We infer that] from the untithed grain which you buy from the children of Israel, you separate the terumah of the tithe and give it to the priest. But from untithed grain which you buy from a gentile you do not separate terumah of the tithe and give it to the priest. AND IF IT DIED, HE BENEFITS THEREFROM. In what circumstances are we to suppose it to have died?13 Shall I say that it died in the possession of the priest and that he is permitted to benefit therefrom? This is obvious, since it is his own money. Again, if it means that it died in the possession of the owner and that he [the priest] is permitted to benefit therefrom, this too is obvious! — I might have assumed that as long as the animal has not reached the priest's hands, the latter does not really possess it. [The Mishnah] accordingly informs us that from the time that [the Israelite] has set it aside, it stands in the domain of the priest. gentile. The text is in Deut. XIV, 23 and also in Deut. XVIII, 4. the grain, R. Hanina therefore means by the words: ‘One who buys untithed grain etc.’, that the Israelite acquired it by virtue of his labour for him. Another explanation is that the Israelite bought the corn in the ear, and afterwards stored it up in the gentile's domain. (Tosaf.). the sabbatical year, if he deposited with them the fruits of the sixth year and they are returned in the sabbatical year, we do not fear that the fruits returned have been exchanged and that, actually fruits of the sabbatical year are being restored, which fruit must not be sold and which require removal from the house after the fruits of the field have been consumed by the beasts. must be tithed, v. Dem'ai III, 4. aside and, also, to distinguish it from the terumah of the tithe, mentioned below.