Pesachim

and fruit juice does not cause fermentation.1 AND THEY DISCHARGE THEIR OBLIGATION WITH DEMAI AND WITH THE FIRST TITHE etc. DEMAI? But it is not fit for him?2 — Since if he wishes he can renounce his property, become a poor man, and eat demai,3 it is fit for him now too. For we learned: The poor may be fed with demai, and [Jewish] troops [in billets] [may be supplied] with demai.4 And R. Huna said, It was taught: Beth Shammai maintain: The poor may not be fed with demai, nor troops in billets; but Beth Hillel rule: The poor may be fed with demai, also troops in billets. FIRST TITHE WHOSE TERUMAH HAS BEEN SEPARATED. That is obvious? Since its terumah has been separated, it is hullin?5 — It is necessary [to teach it] only where he anticipated it [in setting it aside6 while the corn was still] in the ears, and terumah of the tithe was taken from it, but the great terumah was not taken from it,7 this being in accordance with R. Abbahu. For R. Abbahu said in the name of Resh Lakish: First tithe which he anticipated [the setting aside thereof] in the ears is exempt from the great terumah, for it is said, then ye shall offer up an heave offering of it for the Lord, a tithe of the tithe:8 I ordered thee [to offer] ‘a tithe of the tithe’, but not the great terumah plus the terumah of the tithe ‘of the tithe’. Said R. Papa to Abaye: If so, even if he anticipated it in the stack too,9 let it be exempt? — For your sake Scripture writes, out of all you,’ gifts ye shall offer every heave offering of the Lord,10 he answered him. And what [reason] do you see [to interpret thus]?11 — The one has become corn [dagan], while the other has not become corn.12 THE SECOND TITHE AND HEKDESH WHICH HAVE BEEN REDEEMED etc. That is obvious? — We treat here of a case where he assigned13 the principal but did not assign the fifth:14 and he [the Tanna] informs us that the fifth is not indispensable.15 AND PRIESTS [DISCHARGE THEIR OBLIGATION] WITH HALLAH AND TERUMAH etc. This is obvious? — You might say, We require unleavened bread that is equally permitted] to all men. Therefore he informs us, [the repetition] ‘unleavened bread’, ‘unleavened bread’,16 is an extension. BUT NOT WITH TEBEL etc. That is obvious? — It is necessary [to teach it] only of tebel made so by Rabbinical law, e.g., if it was sown in an unperforated pot.17 NOR WITH FIRST TITHE WHOSE TERUMAH HAS NOT BEEN SEPARATED. That is obvious? — It is necessary [to state it] only where it had been anticipated [and set aside] in the pile.18 You might argue as R. Papa proposed to Abaye;19 hence he [the Tanna] informs us [that it is] as Abaye answered him. NOR WITH SECOND TITHE OR HEKDESH WHICH HAVE NOT BEEN REDEEMED etc. That is obvious? — It is necessary only where they have been redeemed; and what does they ‘HAVE NOT BEEN REDEEMED’ mean? That they have not been redeemed with their regulations.20 [Thus:] it is second tithe which he redeemed with uncoined metal,21 for the Divine Law states, And thou shalt bind up [we-zarta] the money in thine hand,22 [implying], that which bears a figure [zurah].23 [Again it is] hekdesh which was secularized24 by means of land,25 for the Divine Law stated, Then he shall give the money and it shall be assured to him.26 Our Rabbis taught: One might think that a man can discharge his obligation with tebel which was not made ready.27 (But surely all tebel indeed has not been made ready! — Rather say, with tebel which was not made ready with all its requirements, the great terumah having been separated from it whereas the terumah of tithe was not separated from it; [or] the first tithe, but not the second tithe, or even the poor tithe).28 Whence do we know it?29 Because it is stated, thou shalt not eat leavened bread with it:30 teaching, [you must eat of] that the interdict of which is on account of ‘thou shalt not eat leavened bread with it’, thus this is excluded, for its interdict is not on account of ‘thou shalt not eat leavened bread with it’ but on account of ‘thou shalt not eat tebel’.31 Yet whither has the interdict of leaven gone?32 — Said R. Shesheth, The author of this is R. Simeon, who maintained, A prohibition cannot fall33 upon another prohibition.34 For it was taught, R. Simeon said: one sixtieth, according to the owner's generosity), which is the priest's due; for terumah of tithe v. note on Mishnah supra 35a. The great terumah must be separated first, and then the first tithe. But here the order was reversed and the Israelite separated his tithe while the grain was yet in the ears. ‘concerning you’ — to refute this possible view. should be reversed? corn it is due, and the Israelite cannot then evade his obligations by reversing the order. But before it is piled up there is no obligation for the great terumah; therefore if the Levite receives his first tithe then he is not defrauding the priest. not been added. therewith. 1. separated. In the third and sixth years, the first and third tithes were separated, the latter being a poor tithe, i.e., it belonged to the poor. leavened. But in the case of tebel, if it were leavened it would be forbidden because it is tebel. Thus here the prohibition of tebel is earlier; consequently the fact that it subsequently became leaven too is ignored, and it is regarded as prohibited on account of tebel only.