Gittin

Redeem me. So he said:  We have learnt, IF A MAN SELLS HIMSELF AND HIS CHILDREN TO A HEATHEN HE IS NOT TO BE REDEEMED, BUT HIS CHILDREN ARE TO BE REDEEMED AFTER THE DEATH OF THEIR FATHER, to prevent their going astray.  All the more so then here, where there is a danger of their being killed. The Rabbis said to R. Assi: This man is a non-observant Israelite, who has been seen eating non-Jewish meat.  He said to them: possibly he did so because he wanted  [meat, and could get no other]? They said: There have been times when he had the choice of permitted and forbidden meat and he left the former and took the latter. He thereupon said to the man: Be off; they will not let me ransom you. Resh Lakish  once sold himself to the Lydians. He took with him a bag with a stone in it, because, he said, it is a known fact that on the last day they grant any request [of the man they are about to kill] in order that he may forgive them his murder.  On the last day they said to him, What would you like? He replied: I want you to let me tie your arms and seat you in a row and give each one of you a blow and a half with my bottle. He bound them and seated them, and gave each of them a blow with his bag which stunned him. [One of them] ground his teeth at him. Are you laughing at me? he said. I have still half a bag left for you. So he killed them all and made off. As he was once seated [on the ground] eating and drinking,  his daughter said, Don't you want something to recline on? He replied: Daughter, my belly is my cushion.  At his death he left a kab  of saffron, and he applied to himself the verse, And they shall leave to others their substance. MISHNAH. IF A MAN SELLS HIS FIELD TO A HEATHEN, HE HAS TO BUY [YEARLY] THE FIRSTFRUITS FROM HIM AND BRING THEM TO JERUSALEM,  TO PREVENT ABUSES. GEMARA. Rabbah said: Although a heathen cannot own property in the land of Israel so fully as to release it from the obligation of tithe, since it says, For mine is the land,  as much as to say, mine is the sanctity of the land,  yet a heathen can own land in the Land of Israel so fully as to have the right of digging in it pits, ditches and caves, as it says, The heavens are the heavens of the Lord, but the earth he gave to the sons of man.  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,  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.  What is the point at issue between them? — One  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.'  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.  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?  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!  — 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? 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,  because it was so already  [before he sold it back]. The reason is [is it not] because it was so already, but otherwise it would not be subject?  — We are dealing here with a field in Syria, and [the author of this dictum] took the view that the annexation of an individual  is not legally counted as annexation.  Come and hear: 'If an Israelite and a heathen buy a field in partnership.