Bekhorot 11b — the Talmud in English

Rabbi Shmuel bar Natan said in the name of Rabbi Hanina:

One who purchases untithed produce ![](pamud.bmp "

exact page location")

from a gentile, already heaped,

this one

tithes them and they are his [he separates but does not give], and as he explains the reason and proceeds.

как далее разъясняется причина этого.

And we raise an objection:

who heaped them [who performed the heaping]?

If you say that a gentile heaped them,

it is impossible to say this, for: “

The tithe of

your grain” [which is like “your heaping,” that is, heaping]

the Merciful One said, and not the grain of a gentile

for a gentile’s heaping exempts, and if so, it is entirely exempt from tithes.

Rather,

for example,

an Israelite heaped them in a gentile’s domain,

for the Israelite was the gentile’s sharecropper, and he was the one who heaped them,

and therefore: “

He tithes them” [he must tithe them]: because

поскольку

a gentile has no acquisition in the Land of Israel to remove it from the obligation of the tithe,

if a gentile acquired land in the Land of Israel, his acquisition does not acquire it so as to remove it from its sanctity, that it should not become liable for the tithe, and an Israelite who purchases produce from him must tithe. “

And they are his”:

because

he says to him

to the priest and to the Levite,

“I come by the authority of a man with whom you cannot

litigate,” [I come by the authority of one with whom you cannot bring a case to court],

that is, since the gentile is not subject to the mitzva of giving, one who comes by his authority is likewise not obligated to give.

We learned there

in tractate Demai 4:4:

One who deposits his produce with a Cuthean and with an am ha-aretz,

they are

presumed with regard to the tithe and to the Sabbatical year,

that is, if he deposited tithed produce with them, we do not suspect that they exchanged it for untithed produce, and it is permitted to eat it; and likewise, if he deposited with them during the Sabbatical year produce that does not belong to the Sabbatical year, we do not suspect that they exchanged it for Sabbatical-year produce, so that it would have to be removed at the time of removal.

But if he deposited his tithed produce, which does not belong to the Sabbatical year,

with a gentile,

then the law of the produce that he returned to him is

like his produce,

the gentile’s, which is liable for the tithe and must be removed during the Sabbatical year, for the gentile certainly exchanged it for his own produce.

Rabbi Shimon says: They are demai,

the produce that he deposited with the gentile; that is, it is uncertain—like demai, which is produce of uncertain tithing status—whether he exchanged it for his own produce, which is liable for the tithe, or not; and further on in the discussion it is explained what he should do with it.

He said,

explained

Rabbi Elazar

what they disputed:

To separate,

before he eats from the produce, for

everyone agrees

that he must, because even according to Rabbi Shimon, who holds that it is uncertain, he must separate because of the uncertainty, just as with actual demai—that is, the produce of an am ha-aretz, from which one must separate because of the uncertainty.

When they disagree is whether to give it to a priest, for

the first tanna holds that he certainly exchanged it, and

therefore

he must give them to a priest,

for they have the presumption of completely untithed produce,

and Rabbi Shimon holds:

they are demai,

and it is not necessary to give them to a priest; rather, he separates, and it is his.

Rav Dimi sat and recited this teaching

of Rabbi Elazar!

He said,

Abaye wondered

to him:

The reason

that according to Rabbi Shimon it is not necessary to give it to a priest is because

it is uncertain to us whether he exchanged it or whether he did not exchange it; but if he certainly exchanged it [if we knew with certainty that it had been exchanged by the gentile],

[если бы мы знали, что нееврей действительно заменил их],

would everyone agree that he must give them to a priest!?

But Rabbi Shmuel said in the name of Rabbi Hanina:

One who purchases untithed produce, already heaped, from a gentile, tithes them and they are his,

as explained above; thus, even if we know that he exchanged them, it is not necessary to give them!?

Abaye adds to resolve his perplexity:

Perhaps, here

—in the words of the Sages and Rabbi Shimon—

with regard to teruma gedola,

which one must give even when he purchased from a gentile—

here

—in Rabbi Hanina’s words—

with regard to terumat maaser,

that is, the tithe and the teruma of the tithe, which one need not give when he purchased the untithed produce from a gentile, as the Gemara explains the reason and proceeds from the exposition of the verse concerning terumat maaser.

He said to him,

Rav Dimi to Abaye:

You reminded me of the matter [you reminded me of what]

что

Rabbi Joshua ben Levi said:

From where is it derived that one who purchases untithed produce, already heaped, from a gentile, is exempt from terumat maaser, as it is stated [Numbers 18]: “

[Bamidbar 18]: «

And to the Levites you shall speak and say to them: When you take from the children of Israel

the tithe,”

untithed produce that you take from the children of Israel, you separate terumat maaser from it and give it to a priest,

but

untithed produce

that you take from a gentile, you do not separate terumat maaser from it and give it to a priest—

And this is what Rabbi Hanina said: One who purchases untithed produce, already heaped, from a gentile, tithes them and they are his; that is, he separates the tithe and terumat maaser from them, and they are his, but he must give teruma gedola to a priest.

We learned in the Mishna:

And if it dies [

the redemption money]

they may benefit from it:

the Gemara asks:

where did it die [where did the redemption money die]?

That is, in whose possession did it die?

If you say that it died in a priest’s possession, and a priest benefits from it,

lest you say that it should be explained as meaning that the redemption money died after it came into the priest’s possession, and what we learned, “they may benefit from it,” means that the priest may benefit from the carcass,

it is obvious

that he benefits from it, for

it is his property [it is his money],

and why should he not benefit from it?

Rather,

say that it should be explained as

that it died in the owners’ possession, and a priest benefits from it [the Mishna is discussing that the redemption money died while it was still in the owners’ possession, and what we learned, “and they may benefit from it,” means that the priest benefits from it].

[Мишна говорит о случае, когда выкуп умер, пока еще находился у владельцев; слова «им пользуются» означают, что им пользуется коэн].

This too cannot be said, for

is this also not obvious!?

And we answer:

You might have thought: As long as it has not reached his possession

of an individual priest,

he has not acquired it,

the tribe of priesthood—

it teaches us that from the moment he separates it, it stands in the possession of the priesthood [from the time of separation, the redemption money becomes the property of the tribe, and the priests benefit from it].

[с момента отделения выкуп становится имуществом племени коэнов, и коэны получают право пользоваться им].