Gittin 30b — the Talmud in English

There is a difference between them:

whether he may separate on the presumption of

the poor of the Cutheans

[who are not “the poor of Israel,” but rather “the poor of the world”] of the city, when there are no poor of Israel in the city.

The view of the First Tanna: he may not separate for the poor of the Cutheans, since in his view they are “converts of lions” and not “true converts”; therefore, when there are only poor Cutheans in the city, he does not separate for them, but separates on the presumption of the poor of Israel wherever they are.

The view of Rabbi Aḥai: they are “true converts,” and he may separate for them as well.

And here the Gemara returns to the continuation of the beraita:

If the poor man became wealthy, he does not separate for him, and the other

[the borrower]

acquired what is in his possession,

that is to say: he need not pay his debt from another place, for this is what they stipulated, that the repayment would be from the tithe alone; and when there is no tithe, the lender loses.

And we raise an objection:

But the Rabbis

[of blessed memory]:

What is different with regard to death, for which

the Rabbis

made an ordinance, and what is different with regard to becoming wealthy, for which they did not

the Rabbis

make an ordinance

[what difference is there between death, with regard to which the Sages ordained that one should continue separating on the presumption of other poor people, and becoming wealthy, with regard to which the Sages did not institute this]!?

And we answer:

Death is common

[it is a common occurrence], and the Sages instituted ordinances for a common occurrence; but

becoming wealthy

is a matter that

is not common,

and with regard to a matter that is not common, the Rabbis did not institute an ordinance.

Rav Pappa said: This is what people say

[this is what the world says]: If you hear that

your friend has died—

believe it

[the expression “firm and established”]; but if you hear that

he has become wealthy,

your friend,

do not believe it,

[if you hear that your friend has died, believe it and hold the matter to be established; but if you hear about your friend that he has become wealthy, do not believe it].

We learned in the Mishna:

If he died, he must take permission

from the heirs; if he lent it before a court, he need not take permission from the heirs:

The following beraita is explained according to the method of Tosafot.

It was taught

in a beraita:

These are the heirs from whom it is not necessary to take permission if he lent to their father before a court:

Rabbi says: heirs who inherited,

and he proceeds to explain it.

The Gemara wonders:

But are there heirs who did not inherit

[is there such a thing as heirs who do not inherit] that Rabbi had to explain, “heirs who inherited”!?

Rather,

Rabbi Yoḥanan said

to explain:

Heirs

who inherited land

need not take permission from them,

but not

heirs

who inherited only money;

with regard to these, even if he lent to their father before a court, he must take permission from them.

Rabbi Yonatan said:

If

the father—who borrowed before a court—left

the measure of a needle

of land to his heirs, the lender

collects the gifts worth

the value of

the measure of a needle

alone, without taking permission from the heirs.

And if he left

the measure of an ax, it

is

collected

at the value of

the measure of an ax.

.

That is to say: according to the measure of the land that their father left to his heirs, by that measure the lender collects, and no more.

And Rabbi Yoḥanan said:

Even if he left

the father to his heirs

only the measure of a needle, the lender

nevertheless

collects from the heirs

the measure of

an ax, as in the incident of Ketina of Abaye.

The Sages taught:

An Israelite who said to a Levite: “

You have a tithe with me

that I separated from my produce for your sake,” but he did not tell the Levite how much tithe he had,

we are not concerned about the terumat maaser in it,

and he proceeds to explain it.

And if he gave its measure, for example, if he said: “

You have a kor of tithe with me

that I separated for you,”

we are concerned about the terumat maaser in it.

The Gemara asks:

What is he saying?

He said

Rabbi Abaye explained:

This is what he is saying:

An Israelite who said to a Levite: “

You have a tithe with me, and here is its money

and sell me the tithe,” and the Levite took the money for the tithe—

we are not concerned lest

after the Levite received the money from the Israelite, he

made it

—the tithe in the possession of the Israelite—

terumat maaser for another place,

that is to say: for another tithe in the possession of the Levite that is untithed with regard to terumat maaser.

For since the Levite does not know how much tithe he has in the possession of the Israelite, he certainly did not make it terumat maaser for another place.

But if the Israelite said to him: “

You have a kor of tithe with me, and here is its money,”

since the Levite knows the amount of the tithe that he has in the possession of the Israelite, the Israelite is forbidden to eat the tithe, for

we are concerned lest he made it

the Levite—the tithe in the possession of the Israelite—

terumat maaser for another place.

And the Gemara wonders: Is that so?

Are we dealing with wicked people

[are we dealing with wicked people]

who take the money and make it terumat maaser

[who take money for the tithe and afterward make it terumat maaser, thereby causing the Israelite purchaser to lose]!?

Rather, Rav Mesharsheya son of Rav Idi said: This is what it is saying

in the beraita:

An Israelite who said to the son of a Levite: “

I have your father’s tithe with me \-

and I also informed your father of this—

and here is its money

and sell me the tithe that you inherited from your father,”

we are not concerned lest his father made it terumat maaser for another place,

since his father did not know the amount of the tithe that he had in the possession of the Israelite.

But if the Israelite said: “

I have a kor of your father’s tithe with me”—

and I also informed your father of this—and here is its money,” then

we are concerned lest his father made it terumat maaser for another place,

for his father knew the amount of the tithe in the possession of the Israelite.

And the Gemara wonders:

But are the trustworthy people suspected of separating

terumat maaser for another place

without being within the surrounding area [when the separated teruma is not adjacent to the tithe permitted through it], for it is forbidden to separate without being within the surrounding area, because there is concern that perhaps the tithe is not present at that time

!?

Rather, Rav Ashi said: This is what it is saying:

The son

of

an Israelite who said to a Levite: “

My father said this to me

before his death:

‘I have a tithe for you with me, or I have your father’s tithe with me,’”

is concerned

the Levite who receives the tithe

about the terumat maaser in it [that is fit to be taken from it], that is to say: perhaps the Israelite has still not taken terumat maaser from it.

[which ought to be taken from it]. That is, he is concerned that perhaps the Israelite has not yet taken terumat ma’aser from it.

And although it is presumed of a trustworthy person that he does not depart from the world until he has rectified all the untithed produce in his possession, nevertheless the Levite is concerned that perhaps the Israelite did not separate the terumat maaser; and the reason is:

since it was not fixed

[the amount was not fixed]

the master of the house would not rectify it for him,

that is to say: since the father did not mention in his instruction a fixed amount of the tithe, perhaps he himself also did not know how much there was in it, and therefore did not rectify it.

But if he said: “My father said this to me:

‘I have a kor of tithe for you with me, or I have a kor of your father’s tithe with me,’”

we are not concerned

[the Levite is not concerned]

about the terumat maaser in it,

that is to say: the Levite relies on the fact that the deceased father already rectified the tithe.

And the reason is:

since it was fixed

[the amount of the tithe was fixed and known], certainly

the master of the house rectified it,

because it is presumed of a trustworthy person that he does not depart from the world until he rectifies all the untithed produce in his possession.

The Gemara wonders:

But does the master of the house have permission to separate terumat maaser!?

For the tithe belongs to the Levites, and they are the ones who separate it, and a person cannot separate his fellow’s produce without his fellow’s knowledge!? And we answer:

Yes,

indeed the master of the house has permission to separate terumat maaser—for this beraita

is the view of Abba Elazar ben Gamlah!

As it was taught: Abba Elazar ben Gamlah says:

It is written: “And to the Levites you shall speak and say to them: When you take from the children of Israel the tithe [first tithe] that I have given you from them as your inheritance, you shall raise from it a gift of the Lord, a tithe from the tithe [and this is terumat maaser].

And your gift shall be considered yours

[your terumat maaser is forbidden to non-priests and to impure persons, and one is liable to death and an additional fifth on account of it], like grain from the threshing floor [like teruma gedola, which is called the first grain from the threshing floor], and like the fullness from the winepress [like the teruma of wine and oil that is taken from the winepresses],”