Bava Metzia 56a (נו.) — the Talmud in English

And therefore they required him to do all this: first to redeem the sela in the mixture with copper coins, and then to redeem the coins with the better sela. They did not say that he should immediately take the better sela among them and say: “If this one is of ma'aser, it is fine; and if this one is ḥullin, then the ma'aser has been redeemed upon this sela.”

Because they said

the Sages:

“One may redeem silver upon copper in pressing circumstances”—

in pressing circumstances, when he has no other option, it is permitted to redeem silver upon copper; but silver upon silver may not be redeemed even in pressing circumstances, as that is not the manner of redemption.

He therefore first redeems the sela in the mixture with copper coins. Since they permitted the redemption of silver coins upon copper coins only in pressing circumstances,

he should not leave it that way

by leaving the copper coins as ma'aser sheni,

but rather he redeems them again

the copper coins

upon silver,

because leaving the copper coins as ma'aser sheni is a degradation of ma'aser, and, furthermore, the small coins will rust.

Thus far are the words of the Mishna.

In any event, it teaches

with regard to definite ma'aser: that

one may redeem

silver coins upon copper coins

in pressing circumstances.

This implies that only

in pressing circumstances—

yes,

may one redeem them, but

when there are no pressing circumstances—

no,

one may not redeem them even upon copper coins.

But with regard to demai, it was explained that Rabbi Meir’s position is that one may redeem silver coins even upon silver coins. Thus, it is evident that Rabbi Meir is lenient with regard to the ma'aser sheni of demai, which is only rabbinic, and does not hold that the Sages reinforced their words as they did words of Torah.

Rav Yosef said: Although Rabbi Meir is lenient with regard to the redemption

of ma'aser sheni of demai, nevertheless

he is stringent with regard to eating it,

requiring one who eats it to add a fifth, as with one who eats ma'aser sheni by Torah law. And our Mishna speaks only with regard to eating it.

And the proof that Rabbi Meir is stringent with regard to demai in the matter of eating it is as follows:

as it was taught

They did not permit

one who purchases grain and produce from an am ha'aretz

to sell demai

without tithing the grain and produce

except to a siton

[a wholesaler, a ḥaver who sells large quantities to shopkeepers; only to him

alone

did they permit the sale of demai without tithing it. The purchaser from him separates his tithes, because everyone knows that the wholesaler purchases from several ammei ha'aretz, as is the wholesaler’s practice to purchase abundant produce from many landowners.

But

a householder

who is a ḥaver and also has produce of his own, if he purchases from an am ha'aretz,

in either case—

whether he comes to sell in large quantities to shopkeepers, like a wholesaler, or whether he comes to sell in small quantities, like a shopkeeper—

must tithe

the demai before selling it. For those who purchase from him assume that it is produce from his own land, and since he is a ḥaver, they presume that he has tithed it and eat it without tithing it,

the words of Rabbi Meir.

And the Sages say: Both a wholesaler and a householder

who comes to sell in large quantities, in the manner of wholesalers,

may sell, send to his colleague, and give to him as a gift, without concern,

because there is a presumption concerning all sellers and donors who deal in large quantities that they have not tithed the demai. The purchaser or recipient takes tithes from them and eats.

It is evident from the beraita that Rabbi Meir is stringent with regard to eating: a householder must separate the tithe from demai as with a tithe by Torah law, even if he sells in large quantities, out of concern that the purchasers might eat without tithing.

Rabina raised an objection

and challenged

Ravina:

We learned in the Mishna of Demai [5:3]:

One who purchases from a baker

loaves of demai

tithes—

he separates the tithes of demai

from

the hot loaf

upon

the cold loaf,

and from the cold loaf upon the hot loaf,

meaning, from bread baked today upon bread baked yesterday,

and from the cold loaf upon the hot loaf,

and from bread baked yesterday upon bread baked today. Although it is prohibited to contribute from inferior produce for superior produce, that applies ab initio; but after the fact, the tanna holds that one who contributes from inferior produce for superior produce has made a valid contribution [as the Gemara will explain below]. With regard to demai, they permitted contributing from inferior produce for superior produce even ab initio.

And even

if the loaves from which he tithes one upon the other were made

from many molds,

in different shapes, and there is reason for concern that perhaps the baker purchased the loaves from different people, one of whom had tithed and one of whom had not, with the result that he would be tithing from exempt produce for obligated produce or from obligated produce for exempt produce, and the status of ma'aser would not apply to what he separated, nevertheless we do not have this concern with regard to demai. We presume that the baker purchased all the wheat from one person,

the words of Rabbi Meir.

And if we say that according to Rabbi Meir the Sages reinforced their words as they did words of Torah [with regard to eating], then

granted

with regard to one who separates the tithes of demai

from

the

cold

loaf baked yesterday

upon

the

hot

loaf baked today: Although the hot loaf is superior to the cold one, we have no concern about this,

in accordance with Rabbi Ila'i.

For Rabbi Ila'i said: From where is it derived that one who contributes from inferior produce for superior produce has made a valid contribution—

as it is stated [

Numbers 18:32]:

“And you shall bear no sin because of it when you set aside its choicest portion from it,”

and “its choicest portion” refers to the superior produce [as explained in Temura 5a]. That is, if you set aside the superior produce, you shall bear no sin; but if you set aside inferior produce for superior produce, you shall bear a sin. And

if

what he set aside as a contribution from inferior produce for superior produce

is not sacred

and the contribution does not take effect, then

why bear a sin?

From here we learn

with regard to one who contributes from inferior produce for superior produce

that although it is prohibited

his contribution is valid.

Rather,

what Rabbi Meir said, that

even

if the loaves were made

from many molds,

he may tithe one from the other, is difficult. For if, in his opinion, the Sages reinforced their words as they did words of Torah,

let us be concerned that perhaps he will come to separate

let us be concerned that he might come to separate

from obligated produce for exempt produce, and from exempt produce for obligated produce,

and in such a case the status of ma'aser would not apply to what he separated. Why did Rabbi Meir not have this concern with regard to demai, as we do have this concern with regard to definite ma'aser?

Abaye said: Rabbi Elazar

ben Pedat, who earlier challenged the Mishna for requiring an additional fifth from one who eats terumat ma'aser of demai—which is teruma only by rabbinic law—and asked whether the Sages reinforced their words as they did words of Torah,

was indeed justified in his difficulty.

But as for Shmuel,

who answered him that our Mishna is the opinion of Rabbi Meir, who holds that the Sages reinforced their words as they did words of Torah, and brought proof from the agent who delivered a bill of divorce but did not say to her, “In my presence it was written and in my presence it was signed,” as instituted by the Sages—for according to Rabbi Meir the bill of divorce does not take effect and she remains a married woman—

he did not answer him properly;

he did not provide a sound answer to Rabbi Elazar ben Pedat’s challenge.

Because

the difficulty he had

was difficult

for Rabbi Elazar

that the Sages should have reinforced the law of terumat ma'aser of demai, which is lenient, since even with definite teruma, if a non-koen eats it, he is punished only with

death at the hands of Heaven; and Shmuel answered him,

and Shmuel answered him that the Sages reinforced their words with regard to a married woman, for violating the Torah prohibition involved there one is liable to

death by a court,

and it is more severe.

But how did Shmuel prove from the fact that the Sages reinforced their words with regard to a married woman that they also reinforced their words with regard to terumat ma'aser of demai?

Perhaps it is different

perhaps a married woman is different, as the Sages were stringent with regard to her because the prohibition involved includes liability for

death by a court, which is severe.

And Rav Sheshet,

who challenged Shmuel from the redemption of ma'aser sheni of demai, since we find that Rabbi Meir was lenient and permitted the redemption of a silver coin upon another silver coin, although with regard to definite ma'aser sheni one may not redeem a silver coin even upon a copper coin except in pressing circumstances, and the Sages did not reinforce their words with regard to the redemption of demai,

did not challenge him properly;

he did not challenge him appropriately.

For they spoke of death,

for they [Rabbi Elazar and Shmuel], who said that according to Rabbi Meir the Sages reinforced their words as they did words of Torah, spoke of cases whose punishment under Torah law is death [Rabbi Elazar spoke of a non-koen who eats teruma, whose punishment is death at the hands of Heaven, and Shmuel spoke of a bill of divorce that permits a married woman, regarding which the Torah prohibition carries liability for death].

And he raised an objection

and challenged

Rav Sheshet

from the redemption of ma'aser sheni [for according to Rabbi Meir the Sages did not reinforce its law as they did words of Torah], whose prohibition is a negative commandment: If one does not redeem it properly, one who eats it outside Jerusalem violates only

a negative commandment, as it is written [

Deuteronomy 12:17]:

“You may not eat within your gates.”

There is room to distinguish and say that the Sages reinforced their words only in matters whose punishment by Torah law is death.

And according to what he challenged

and in accordance with the challenge of

Rav Sheshet

from the redemption of ma'aser sheni, that the Sages did not reinforce its law as they did words of Torah—

Rav Yosef answered him properly,

he answered him well: Although Rabbi Meir was lenient with regard to the redemption of ma'aser sheni of demai, he was stringent with regard to eating it, requiring an additional fifth, as with ma'aser sheni by Torah law.

Rather, as for Ravina,

who challenged him from Rabbi Meir’s statement that a baker may tithe one loaf of demai upon another even when they were made from many molds, and the Sages did not reinforce their words as they did words of Torah by requiring concern that the loaves came from different people, one of whom tithed and one of whom did not, so that he was separating from exempt produce for obligated produce—

his words are difficult, because

before he challenges

challenging

the baker,

with regard to whom, according to Rabbi Meir, the Sages did not reinforce their words as they did words of Torah,

he should support him

by bringing proof that the Sages did reinforce their words as they did words of Torah from the Mishna following the Mishna of the baker,

the paltar,

who is a wholesaler of loaves, purchasing large quantities of loaves and selling them to shopkeepers and bakers.

As we learned

there [Demai 5:4]:

One who purchases

demai bread

from the paltar—

if he purchased loaves made from different molds,

tithes

he

from each mold

separately,

the words of Rabbi Meir.

It is evident that Rabbi Meir is concerned with regard to the tithing of demai that he may come to separate from obligated produce for exempt produce, as with a tithe by Torah law.

Rather, what can you say?

Rather, what can you say as to why Rabbi Meir is concerned with regard to the paltar that he might come to separate from exempt produce for obligated produce? Because

the paltar

buys from two or three people,

he purchases from two or three people.

If so,

the baker likewise

with regard to whom Rabbi Meir was not concerned that he might separate from exempt produce for obligated produce, this is not difficult, for one can say that Rabbi Meir holds that since a baker does not purchase a large amount at once, we presume that

he buys from one person,

he purchased from one person, and that person from whom he purchased made loaves in different molds.

Rava said: Shmuel answered him properly,

he properly answered Rabbi Elazar ben Pedat by proving from the bill of divorce with regard to a non-koen who eats teruma of demai that the Sages reinforced their words as they did words of Torah. Although with regard to the bill of divorce there is the prohibition of a married woman, for which one is liable to death at the hands of man, whereas with regard to teruma, a non-koen who eats it is liable to death only at the hands of Heaven, nevertheless

there is death in both cases,

and if we find that the Sages reinforced their words in a matter whose Torah prohibition carries liability for death, one can say that they reinforced their words in all matters whose Torah prohibition carries liability for death, even in a matter whose death is only at the hands of Heaven.

Mishna:

These are matters that do not have

the law of

exploitation

in their sale. If the seller or purchaser was exploited, even by more than one-sixth of the value of the transaction, they cannot claim compensation for the exploitation.

And these are:

slaves, documents, land, and consecrated property—

a treasurer who sells consecrated property, or one who sells his burnt-offering after it developed a blemish.

The Gemara will explain from where it is derived that these matters are not subject to exploitation.

They do not have

slaves, documents, land, and consecrated property

double payment

if they were stolen.

Nor payments of four or five times the value,

if one stole an ox or sheep belonging to consecrated property and slaughtered or sold it, he is not liable to pay four sheep in place of the sheep and five cattle in place of the ox. Since he is exempt from double payment, there are only three or four payments here, whereas the Torah said “four and five,” and not “three and four.” [With regard to slaves, documents, and land, payments of four and five do not apply at all, because this payment was stated only with regard to an ox or sheep that one stole and then slaughtered or sold.]

An unpaid bailee

to whom slaves, documents, or an animal belonging to consecrated property were entrusted for safekeeping and they were lost, or to whom land was entrusted for safekeeping and it deteriorated,

does not swear

with regard to them that he was not negligent in safeguarding them,

and a paid bailee,

a paid bailee

does not pay

if they were stolen or lost.

Rabbi Shimon says: