IF THE MESSENGER SWITCHED COINS (Yerushalmi Demai Perek 6 Halachah 9 Daf 29a - misnumbered as Halachah 8)
úðé øáï ùîòåï áï âîìéàì àåîø àí äçìéó àú äîòä öøéê ìòùø
Baraisa (Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel): If the messenger switched the sender's coin with his own coin, the messenger must tithe (as he has become the owner).
[ãó ëè òîåã á] à"ø éåñé äãà àîø äðåúï îòåú ìçáéøå åäçìéôï åàáãå çééá áàçøéåúï:
(R. Yosi): We learn from here that if a person gave money to his friend to be an unpaid watchman and the friend switched it and then lost it, he is liable.
ùîåàì àîø áîçìé÷ áéãå
(Shmuel): (The Mishnah (Menachos 10-1(b)) taught that if he said "This one is for me and that one is for my friend" and they became mixed up, the Chaver must tithe them) He must only tithe when he took his portion for himself and gave the Am HaAretz his portion; but if the Am HaAretz came and took it, we say that he took his own portion and the Chaver is exempt from tithing.
[ãó ñã òîåã á (òåæ åäãø)] à"ø àìéòæø åäåà ùðèì çì÷å áñåó
(R. Eliezer): He must only tithe if he first gave the Am HaAretz his portion and then afterwards took his own.
à"ø éåðä öåøëä ìãéï åöåøëä ìãéï çéì÷ áéãå åðèìå çì÷å áúçìä àéðå öøéê ìòùø àìà òì ùìå ìà çéì÷ áéãå åðèì çì÷å áñåó àéðå îòùø àìà òì ùìå
(R. Yona): Both of these conditions are needed to require him to tithe the produce of the Am HaAretz - giving the produce to the Am HaAretz and taking his own portion second.
úðé àåîø äåà àãí ìôåòì äéìê ãéðø æä åàëåì áå äéìê ãéðø æä ùúä áå åàéðå çåùù òì ùëøå ìà îùåí ùáéòéú åìà îùåí îòùøåú åìà îùåí ééï ðñê àáì àí àîø ìå öà åì÷ç ìê ëëø åàðé ðåúï ìê ãîéí öà åì÷ç ìê øáéòéú ùì ééï åàðé ðåúï ìê ãîéí çåùùéï òì ùëøå îùåí ùáéòéú åîùåí îòùøåú åîùåí ééï ðñê
Baraisa: A person may say to his laborer - "Take this Dinar and buy food or drink for yourself" and we aren't concerned that the laborer will buy produce of Sheviis, untithed produce or Yayin Nesech. But if he told him, "Go out and buy for yourself a loaf or wine and I will reimburse you", we are concerned.
à"ø æòéøà ðòùä äçðååðé ùìåçå ùì áòì äáéú ìæëåú ìôåòì.
(R. Zeira): (The Amoraim dispute why it is prohibited) (Until he has received his payment) the shopkeeper becomes like the messenger of the boss to give to the laborer.
à"ø äéìà ôåòì æëä ìá"ä îùì çðååðé åçåæø åæåëä ìòöîå.
(R. Hila disagrees): (Since the boss pays,) the food first becomes the property of the boss and the laborer then acquires it from him (so the boss is feeding him something prohibited).
îä ðô÷à îáéðéäåï
Question: Where is there a practical difference between these two opinions?
äéä äçðååðé çøù òì ãòúéä ãøáé æòéøà ìà çùù ùàéï ùìéçåú ìçøù òì ãòúéä ãøáé äéìà çåùù
Answer: If the shopkeeper was a deaf/mute - according to R. Zeira, there is no concern since a deaf/mute cannot act as a messenger. According to R. Hila, there is still a concern.
úðé ìà éàîø àãí ìçáéøå äéìê îàúéí ãéðø [ãó ñä òîåã à (òåæ åäãø)] åù÷åì òì éãé ìàåöø àìà àåîø äåà ìå ôøùðé îï äàåöø
(Tosefta): A person shouldn't tell his (Am HaAretz) friend, "Take this 200 Dinars and buy produce and use it to pay the King's tax". (We are concerned that he will buy Tevel (untithed) produce and one may not pay a debt with Tevel. Rather, he should say, "Pay my debt and I will reimburse you".
åëï ìà éàîø àãí ìçáéøå äéìê îàúéí æåæ åù÷åì òì éãé ìàåîðåú àìà àåîø äåà ìå ôøùéðé îï äàåîðåú
Similarly, he shouldn't tell him, "Take this 200 Zuz and buy produce and pay the craftsman for his work". Rather, he should say, "Pay the craftsman and I will reimburse you".