Gittin 30b (ל:) — the Talmud in English

There is a difference between them:

if he can set aside the tithe on the presumption that it is for

the poor of the Samaritans

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

The view of the first tanna is that he cannot set aside the tithe for the poor of the Samaritans, since in his view they are “converts due to lions” and not “genuine converts.” Therefore, when there are only poor Samaritans in the city, he does not set aside the tithe for them; rather, he sets it aside on the presumption that it is for poor Israelites wherever they may be.

Rabbi Aḥai’s view is that they are “genuine converts,” and he may set aside the tithe for them as well.

Here the Gemara returns to the continuation of the beraita:

If the poor man became wealthy, he does not set aside the tithe for him, and the other

[the borrower]

acquires whatever is in his possession.

That is, he need not repay his debt from another source, since they stipulated that the repayment would be from the tithe alone; and when there is no tithe, the lender suffers the loss.

And we raise an objection:

But the Sages

[of blessed memory]:

What is different about death, for which the Sages made

a

ordinance, and what is different about becoming wealthy, for which the Sages did not make

an

ordinance

[What difference is there between death, in which case the Sages ordained that he should continue setting aside the tithe on the presumption that it is for other poor people, and the case in which the poor man became wealthy, in which case the Sages did not make such an ordinance]?

And we answer:

Death is common

[it is a common occurrence], and the Sages instituted ordinances for common occurrences. But

wealth

is something that

is not common

, and for something that is not common the Sages 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 means “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 regard the matter as established; but if you hear that your friend has become wealthy, do not believe it].

We learned in the Mishna:

If he died, the lender must obtain permission

from the heirs; if he lent the money in the presence of a court, he need not obtain permission from the heirs:

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

It was taught

in a beraita:

Who are the heirs from whom it is unnecessary to obtain permission if he lent money to their father in the presence of a court?

Rabbi says: Heirs who inherited.

He proceeds to explain it.

The Gemara is astonished:

But are there heirs who did not inherit

[Are there heirs who are not heirs] such that Rabbi had to specify “heirs who inherited”?

Rather,

Rabbi Yoḥanan said

to explain:

Heirs who

inherited land

need not obtain permission from them,

but not

heirs who

inherited only money

, as in that case, even if he lent money to their father in the presence of a court, he must obtain permission from them.

Rabbi Yonatan said:

If

the father—who had borrowed money in the presence of a court—left

a needle’s measure

of land to his heirs, the lender

collects

gifts worth only

a needle’s measure, without obtaining permission from the heirs.

If he left

an axe’s measure

of land, he

is

collects

land worth

an axe’s measure.

.

That is: the lender collects no more than the measure of land that their father left to his heirs.

But Rabbi Yoḥanan said:

Even if he left

the heirs

only a needle’s measure

of land, the lender

collects

from the heirs

an axe’s measure, as in the incident of Katinah of Abaye.

The Sages taught:

An Israelite who said to a Levite: “

You have a tithe in my possession

that I set aside from my produce for you,” but he did not tell the Levite how much tithe he had,

we are not concerned about the terumat ma’aser in it.

He proceeds to explain it.

But if he specified a measure, for example, if he said: “

You have a kor of tithe in my possession

that I set aside for you,”

we are concerned about the terumat ma’aser in it.

The Gemara asks:

What is he saying?

He said

that

Abaye explained it as follows:

An Israelite who said to a Levite: “

You have a tithe in my possession, and here is its value

and sell me the tithe,” and the Levite took the value of the tithe—

we are not concerned that perhaps

after the Levite received the money from the Israelite, he

made it—

the tithe in the Israelite’s possession—

terumat ma’aser for another place.

That is, he designated it as terumat ma’aser for another tithe in the Levite’s possession that was tevel requiring terumat ma’aser.

Since the Levite does not know how much tithe he has in the Israelite’s possession, he certainly did not designate it as terumat ma’aser for another place.

But if the Israelite said to him: “

You have a kor of tithe in my possession, and here is its value,”

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

we are concerned that perhaps he made it

the tithe in the Israelite’s possession

terumat ma’aser for another place.

The Gemara is astonished: Is it possible that

we are dealing with evildoers

[Are we dealing with evildoers]

who take the money and designate it as terumat ma’aser

[who take payment for the tithe and then designate it as terumat ma’aser, thereby causing a loss to the Israelite purchaser]!?

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

in the beraita:

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

I have your father’s tithe in my possession \-

and I informed your father of this as well—

and here is its value

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

we are not concerned that perhaps his father designated it as terumat ma’aser for another place,

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

But if the Israelite said: “

I have a kor of your father’s tithe in my possession

—and I informed your father of this as well—and here is its value,” then

we are concerned that perhaps his father designated it as terumat ma’aser for another place,

since his father knew the amount of tithe in the Israelite’s possession.

The Gemara is astonished:

But are haverim suspected of setting aside

terumat ma’aser for another place

not from the adjoining produce

[when the teruma being set aside is not adjacent to the tithe that it permits]? But it is forbidden to set aside teruma not from the adjoining produce, because one must be concerned that perhaps the tithe is not present at that time!?

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

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 in my possession, or I have your father’s tithe in my possession’,”

the Levite is concerned

when receiving the tithe

about the terumat ma’aser in 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.

Although it is presumed that a haver does not depart from the world until he has tithed all the tevel produce in his possession, nevertheless the Levite is concerned that perhaps the Israelite did not set aside the terumat ma’aser. The reason is:

Since it was not measured

[the quantity was not fixed],

the householder would not have prepared it for him.

That is, since the father did not mention a fixed amount of the tithe in his instruction, perhaps he himself did not know how much there was, and therefore did not prepare it.

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

‘I have a kor of tithe for you in my possession, or I have a kor of your father’s tithe in my possession’,”

we are not concerned

[the Levite is not concerned]

about the terumat ma’aser in it.

That is, the Levite relies on the assumption that his deceased father had already prepared the tithe.

The reason is:

Since it was measured

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

the householder prepared it properly,

because it is presumed that a haver does not depart from the world until he has prepared all the tevel in his possession.

The Gemara is astonished:

But does the householder have permission to separate terumat ma’aser!?

The tithe belongs to the Levites, and they are the ones who separate its terumat ma’aser; and no person can separate another person’s produce without that person’s knowledge! And we answer:

Yes,

the householder does indeed have permission to separate terumat ma’aser, because this beraita

follows the opinion 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 that I have given you from them as your inheritance, you shall raise from it the offering of the Lord, a tithe from the tithe [and this is terumat ma’aser].

And your offering shall be reckoned for you

[your terumat ma’aser is forbidden to non-kohanim and to the impure, and one is liable to death and an additional fifth for it], as the grain from the threshing floor [like teruma gedola, which is called the first of the grain from the threshing floor], and as the fullness of the winepress [like the teruma of wine and oil that is taken from the winepresses].”