(a)The Mishnah discusses someone who is Mekabel a field and someone who is Choker a field. What is the difference between a Mekabel and a Choker?
(b)What does the Tana rule with regard to a Choker regarding Ma'asros?
(c)What if the owner is a Nochri or a Kuti (see Tos. Yom-Tov)?
(d)Seeing as, before returning the owner's portion to him, the Choker really ought to separate Ma'asros on the entire field, why did Chazal exempt him from doing so?
1)
(a)The Mishnah discusses someone who is Mekabel a field and someone who is Choker a field. Both work the field and pay in crops the former - by way a specific percentage (half, third or quarter, depending on the local Minhag. He is usually referred to as an Aris); the latter - by way of a fixed amount of Kurin, irrespective of how much grows.
(b)The Tana rules - that the Mekabel presents the owner with his portion (including the Tevel), without having to Ma'aser it first [see Tos. Tov-Tov DH 'Yechalek Lifneihem' & 'Lifneihem']).
(c)If the owner is a Nochri or a Kuti (see Tos. Yom-Tov) - the same ruling will apply.
(d)Even though, before returning the owner's portion to him, he really ought to separate Ma'asros on the entire field, Chazal exempted him from doing so - because, doing so would cause the Mekabel a financial loss. Consequently, to encourage people to accept fields under these circumstances, they made it easier for him, by shifting the onus (and the expense) of Ma'asering on to the owner.
2)
(a)What is the equivalent Din by Choker?
(b)Why not Ma'asros?
(c)Then why does the Tana obligate him to first separate Terumah?
(d)On what grounds do we assume that he may deduct the value of the Terumah from the Chakirus?
2)
(a)The equivalent Din by Choker - is that he is obligated to separate Terumah (but not Ma'asros) before presenting the owner with his dues ...
(b)... because of the unwritten condition of every Choker - that he will pay the owner with un'Ma'asered produce from the field.
(c)The Tana nevertheless obligates him to first separate Terumah - because one does not allow Tevel of Terumah to leave the granary (see also Tiferes Yisrael).
(d)We assume however, that he may deduct the value of the Terumah from the Chakirus - in the same way as he is not obligated to suffer the loss of the Ma'asros.
3)
(a)R. Yehudah adds two qualifications to the Din of Choker. One of them confines the Din exempting him from Ma'asering the crops first to where he pays the owner with crops from the actual field that he worked on. What is the other?
(b)One of the possible reasons for this is because it is self-understood that the owner never intended to be paid with Tevel, unless he is paid directly from the same field and the same crops. What is the other?
(c)Like whom is the Halachah (see Tos. Yom-Tov)?
3)
(a)R. Yehudah adds two qualifications to the Din of Choker. One of them confines the Din exempting him from Ma'asering the crops first to where he pays the owner with crops from the actual field that he worked on. The other - confining it to where he pays him from the same species. Otherwise, he must Ma'aser it first.
(b)One of the possible reasons for this is because it is self-understood that the owner never intended to be paid with Tevel, unless he is paid directly from the same field and the same crops. The other - that it looks as if he is paying his debt with Ma'asros, which is forbidden (see Tos. Yom-Tov).
(c)The Halachah - is like R. Yehudah (see Tos. Yom-Tov).
Mishnah 2
4)
(a)What does the Tana say (regarding separating T'rumos and Ma'asros) about someone who is Choker a field from a Nochri (see Tos. Yom-Tov)?
(b)Why is that?
(c)Then why did he not issue the same obligation on a Mekabel (see previous Mishnah)?
4)
(a)If someone is Choker a field from a Nochri (see Tos. Yom-Tov) - the Tana obligates him to separate T'rumos and Ma'asros before giving the owner his dues.
(b)The reason for this - is a form of K'nas (penalty) to discourage people from being Choker fields from Nochrim, in order to force the latter into selling their fields in Eretz Yisrael cheaply (see Tos. Yom-Tov).
(c)The Tana did not issue the same obligation on a Mekabel (see previous Mishnah) - because in any event, a Nochri would prefer to sell his field than to share it with a Yisrael ba'Arisus.
5)
(a)On what condition does R. Yehudah obligate even a Mekabel (ba'Arisus) from a Nochri to Ma'aser the field, before returning him his portion?
(b)Why is that?
(c)On what grounds do we rule like R. Yehudah?
5)
(a)R. Yehudah obligates even a Mekabel (ba'Arisus) from a Nochri to Ma'aser the field, before returning him his portion - if it is a field that the latter stole from his (the Mekabel's) ancestors ...
(b)... because then it is dear to him (the Mekabel), and he will already be willing to be Mekabel the field at a higher rate than usual, in which case the extra expense will encourage him to purchase it from the Nochri.
(c)We rule like R. Yehudah - since the Tana Kama does not actually argue with him.
Mishnah 3
6)
(a)In a case where a Kohen or a Levi is Mekabel a field belonging to a Yisrael, what does the Tana Kama say about the Terumah and Ma'aser of that field?
(b)What will the owner do with the Terumah and the Ma'aser that he receives?
(c)Rebbi Eliezer disagrees. In his opinion, the Kohen may take all the Terumah, and a Levi, the Ma'aser. Why is that?
(d)Seeing as R. Eliezer's reasoning is correct, why is the Halachah not like him?
6)
(a)In a case where a Kohen or a Levi is Mekabel a field belonging to a Yisrael, the Tana Kama rules - that in the same way as they divide the produce (a half, a third or a quarter for the owner), they divide the Terumah and Ma'aser.
(b)The owner - will then be able to give them to whichever Kohen or Levi he chooses.
(c)Rebbi Eliezer disagrees. In his opinion, the Kohen may take all the Terumah, and a Levi, the Ma'aser - because it is on that understanding that they entered the Arisus.
(d)In spite of the fact that R. Eliezer's reasoning is correct, the Halachah is not like him - because the Mekabel did not make a Kinyan on that condition (see Tos. Yom-Tov).
Mishnah 4
7)
(a)And what does the Mishnah say in a case where the owner is a Levi or a Kohen, and the Mekabel, a Yisrael?
(b)Why will even the Chachamim (of R. Eliezer) concede that?
7)
(a)The Mishnah also rules that, in a case where the owner is a Levi or a Kohen, and the Mekabel, a Yisrael - the Ma'asros go to the owner ...
(b)... even according to the Chachamim of R. Eliezer - seeing as the field belongs to them, and we assume that they kept back the T'rumos and Ma'asros for themselves.
8)
(a)Now the Tana discusses a Kartani who is Mekabel a field belonging to a Yerushalmi, or vice-versa. What is a 'Kartani'?
(b)What does R. Yishmael say about the Ma'aser Sheini?
(c)According to the Chachamim however, in the same way as they divide the produce (a half, a third or a quarter for the owner), they divide the Ma'aser Sheini. On what grounds do they rule differently than in the previous case?
(d)Like whom is the Halachah?
8)
(a)Now the Tana discusses a 'Kartani' - (i.e. a villager, who is generally the one to accept fields ba'Arisus [even though 'Kiryah' really means a town]) who is Mekabel a field belonging to a Yerushalmi, or vice-versa.
(b)R. Yishmael rules that - the Ma'aser Sheini goes to the owner (as in the previous ruling).
(c)According to the Chachamim however, in the same way as they divide the produce (a half, a third or a quarter for the owner), they divide the Ma'aser Sheini - because (unlike in the previous case) the Kartani is able to go and eat it himself in Yerushalayim.
(d)The Halachah is - like the Chachamim.
Mishnah 5
9)
(a)In a case where a Yisrael is Mekabel an olive-grove from a Kohen or a Levi (see Tos. Yom-Tov) in order to produce oil what happens to the Terumah?
(b)On what grounds does the Tana rule differently here than he did at the beginning of the previous Mishnah (where he ruled that the Ma'asros go to the owner)?
9)
(a)In a case where a Yisrael is Mekabel an olive-grove from a Kohen or a Levi (see Tos. Yom-Tov) in order to produce oil, the Tana rules - that they divide the Terumah just as they divide the Chulin.
(b)The Tana rules differently here than he did at the beginning of the previous Mishnah (where he ruled that the Ma'asros go to the owner) - because that ruling applied specifically to where the Mekabel receives Karka, whereas here he only receives trees (which the Rabbanan do not consider to be like Karka [see Tos. Yom-Tov]).
10)
(a)What does R. Yehudah say about the Ma'asros of such an olive-grove, where the agreement is that the Mekabel (who is a Yisrael) and the owner (who is a Kohen or a Levi) divide the oil or sell it and share the proceeds (see Tos. Yom-Tov)?
(b)Why is that?
(c)What do the Chachamim say?
(d)Like whom is the Halachah?
10)
(a)R. Yehudah rules that where the agreement is that the Mekabel (who is a Yisrael) and the owner (who is a Kohen or a Levi) divide the oil or sell it and share the proceeds (see Tos. Yom-Tov) - the Ma'asros of such an olive-grove go to the owner ...
(b)... because he equates the olive-trees with the ground (in this regard).
(c)The Chachamim hold that in this case too - they divide the Terumah just as they divide the Chulin (as we just explained [see also Mishnah Rishonah on this Mishnah]).
(d)The Halachah - is like the Chachamim.
Mishnah 6
11)
(a)Beis Shamai restrict the sale of olives to a Chaver. What sort of olives are they referring to?
(b)At which stage do olives become Muchshar Lekabeil Tum'ah?
(c)What is Beis Shamai's reason?
11)
(a)Beis Shamai restrict the sale of olives to a Chaver. They are referring to - olives that are not yet Muchshar Lekabeil Tum'ah.
(b)Olives become Muchshar Lekabeil Tum'ah - once they have been placed in the olive-press and begin to exude juice.
(c)Beis Shamai's reason is - that the Am-ha'Aretz might press them whilst he is Tamei.
12)
(a)Beis Hillel permit selling them to a Me'aser. What he mean by that?
(b)On what grounds are they lenient?
(c)How does the Rambam explain the Machlokes between Beis Shamai and Beis Hillel?
(d)What did the Tzenu'ei Beis Hillel used to do? What does 'Tzenu'ei' mean?
12)
(a)Beis Hillel permit selling them to a Me'aser - someone who has only undertaken to Me'aser his crops (even though he has not undertaken to handle his crops be'Taharah [which would render him a Chaver]).
(b)The reason they are lenient is - because they rely on the possibility that the purchaser will eat them (and not make oil out of them [despite the fact that it is uncommon to do so]).
(c)According to the Rambam - Beis Shamai forbid causing Chulin in Eretz Yisrael to become Tamei, whereas Beis Hillel permit it (see Tos. Yom-Tov).
(d)The Tzenu'ei Beis Hillel (those who were particularly meticulous in the observance of Mitzvos) - used to follow the opinion of Beis Shamai.
Mishnah 7
13)
(a)What does the Mishnah say about a case where two people, one of whom Ma'asers his crops, and the other doesn't, harvest their grapes and press them together in the same winepress?
(b)How does the Yerushalmi explain the Mishnah's wording 'Me'aser es she'Lo ve'Chelko'?
(c)On what principle is this ruling based? Why can the one who Ma'asers simply Ma'aser his own wherever it is, and assume that whatever lands up in his portion is Ma'asered?
13)
(a)the Mishnah rules that in a case where two people, one of whom Ma'asers his crops, and the other doesn't, harvest their grapes and press them together in the same winepress - the one who Ma'asers is obligated to Ma'aser his own, and 'Chelko' ...
(b)... which the Yerushalmi explains - means the portion of the one who doesn't.
(c)This ruling is based on the principle - 'Ein B'reirah' (which means that even if he were to Ma'aser one half and take it for himself, there is no reason to assume that what he took was initially his, in which case both part of what he took and part of what his friend received are still Tevel (see Tos. Yom-Tov).
Mishnah 8
14)
(a)In a case where Reuven and Shimon who receive a field or a vineyard ba'Arisus, who inherit it or who own it in partnership, what does the Mishnah now rule if Reuven tells Shimon to take all the wheat ...
1. ... or all the wine that is produced from the grapes on one side of the field or vineyard, whilst he takes the wheat and the wine from the other side?
2. ... and he, all the barley; or the latter all the wine, and he, all the oil?
(b)What is the reason for ...
1. ... the first ruling?
2. ... the second ruling?
14)
(a)In a case where Reuven and Shimon who receive a field or a vineyard ba'Arisus, who inherit it or who own it in partnership, the Mishnah now rules that, if Reuven tells Shimon to take all the wheat ...
1. ... or all the wine that is produced from the grapes on one side of the field or vineyard, whilst he takes the wheat and the wine from the other side - this is permitted.
2. ... and he, all the barley; or the latter, all the wine, and he, all the oil - it is forbidden.
(b)The reason for ...
1. ... the first ruling is - because it speaks where the division took place when the crops were still attached to the ground, in which case, we hold 'Yesh Bereirah' (because then each one receives his own portion the moment it is cut [see Tos. Yom-Tov]).
2. ... the second ruling is - because we cannot aply the S'vara of the first ruling, seeing as each partner owns half of each commodity, and it is akin to swapping portions, which in turn, is like selling one's portion to someone who does not Ma'aser.
Mishnah 9
15)
(a)The Mishnah now discusses a Chaver and an Am-ha'Aretz who inherit their father who was an Am-ha'Aretz (see Tos. Yom-Tov DH 'Chaver ve'Am-ha'Aretz' & 'Tul Atah Chitim'). What is the significance of the fact that their father was an Am-ha'Aretz?
(b)What does the Tana rule in a case where the Chaver tells the Am-ha'Aretz to take ...
1. ... all the wheat or all the wine that is produced from the grapes on one side of the field or vineyard, whilst he takes the wheat and the wine from the other side?
2. ... all the wheat and he, all the barley; or the latter, all the liquids (e.g. the wine and the oil), and he, all the solids (the grapes and the olives)?
(c)Why does the Chaver want to take specifically the solids?
(d)Why is it forbidden (see Tiferes Yisrael)?
15)
(a)The Mishnah now discusses a Chaver and an Am-ha'Aretz who inherit their father who is an Am-ha'Aretz (see Tos. Yom-Tov DH 'Chaver ve'Am-ha'Aretz' & 'Tul Atah Chitim') - whose produce is considered D'mai and be'Chezkas Tamei.
(b)The Tana rules that, in a case where the Chaver tells the Am-ha'Aretz to take...
1. ... all the wheat or all the wine that is produced from the grapes on one side of the field or vineyard, whilst he takes the wheat and the wine from the other side - that this is permitted ...
2. ... all the wheat and he, all the barley; or the latter, all the liquids (e.g. the wine and the oil), and he, all the solids (the grapes and the olives) - that it is forbidden.
(c)The Chaver wants to take specifically the solids - since they are not Muchshar Lekabeil Tum'ahn (whereas the liquids are).
(d)It is forbidden - because liquids and solids are considered different species in this regard (Tiferes Yisrael).
Mishnah 10
16)
(a)What does the Mishnah say about a Ger and a Nochri who inherit their father who was a Nochri? What is the Ger permitted to say to the Nochri?
(b)On what condition is it permitted?
(c)Why would we have thought that it is forbidden?
(d)Then why is it permitted?
(e)On what grounds does the ruling here differ from the ruling in the previous Mishnah, where the Chaver is not permitted to tell his brother the Am-ha'Aretz to take wheat, whilst he takes barley, under any circumstances?
16)
(a)the Mishnah rules that, in a case where a Ger and a Nochri inherit their father who was a Nochri, the Ger is permitted to say to the Nochri - that he (the Nochri) should take all the Avodah-Zarah, and leave him the money ...
(b)... provided the Avodah-Zarah has not yet entered his (the Nochri's) domain.
(c)We would otherwise have thought that it is forbidden - because it resembles swapping Avodah-Zarah and Yayin Nesech (which are Asur be'Hana'ah).
(d)It is nevertheless permitted - because the fact that a Ger inherits his father is only mi'de'Rabbanan (see Tos. Yom-Tov).
(e)The ruling here differs from the ruling in the previous Mishnah, where the Chaver is not permitted to tell his brother the Am-ha'Aretz to take wheat, whilst he takes barley, under any circumstances - because there they both inherit min ha'Torah, and even if the Avodah-Zarah has not yet entered the domain of the Chaver, it is as if it had.
Mishnah 11
17)
(a)Seeing as David ha'Melech captured Syria (and Aram Naharayim), why is its produce not considered proper Tevel?
(b)Chazal nevertheless decreed Ma'asros on fruit that grows there. What about D'mai?
(c)Why is that?
17)
(a)Even though David ha'Melech captured Syria (and Aram Naharayim), its produce is not considered proper Tevel - because he did so before having conquered the whole of Eretz Yisrael (giving it the Din of Kibush Yachid [an area that has been captured by an individual]), which is not subject to Ma'asros.
(b)Chazal nevertheless decreed Ma'asros on fruit that grows there - but not on D'mai (unless it was imported from Eretz Yisrael) ...
(c)... because the majority of fruit that is found there has grown locally (and not in Eretz Yisrael).
18)
(a)What is the Din if someone (an Am ha'Aretz) claims that the fruit that he is selling in Syria is ...
1. ... from Eretz Yisrael?
2. ... from Eretz Yisrael but is Ma'asered?
(b)What is the reason for the latter ruling?
(c)On what grounds is he believed to say that the fruit is from Chutz la'Aretz?
18)
(a)If someone claims that the fruit that he is selling in Syria is ...
1. ... from Eretz Yisrael - the purchaser is obligated to Ma'aser it.
2. ... from Eretz Yisrael but is Ma'asered - he is believed ...
(b)... (with a 'Peh she'Asar hu ha'Peh she'Hitir'), because he could have said that it grew locally (and he would have been believed [see Tos Yom-Tov]). Consequently, just as we believe him to say that it grew in Eretz Yisrael. So too, must we believe him when he says that it is Ma'asered.
(c)He is believed to say that the fruit is from Chutz la'Aretz - since most of the fruit that is found there does (as we explained earlier).
19)
(a)What will be the Din if a man living in Syria tells a purchaser that what he is selling grew in his field?
(b)On what grounds is he believed if he added that they have been Ma'asered?
(c)On what condition is the Chaver nevertheless obligated to Ma'aser what he purchased?
19)
(a)If a man living in Syria tells a purchaser that what he is selling grew in his field - the purchaser is obligated to Ma'aser it.
(b)If he adds that they have been Ma'asered, he is believed - because of a 'Peh she'Asar' (as in the previous Mishnah (see Tos. Yom-Tov).
(c)The Chaver is nevertheless obligated to Ma'aser what he purchases - if it is publicly known that the seller owns a field in Syria (since then there is no 'Peh she'Asar').
Mishnah 12
20)
(a)The Mishnah rules that if an Am-ha'Aretz asks a Chaver (see Tos. Yom-Tov) to buy him a bunch of vegetables, or a nice loaf of bread, the latter is not obligated to Ma'aser it. What exactly, is the case?
(b)On what grounds is this permitted? Why is this not considered swapping with the Am'ha'Aretz?
(c)In which case will he nevertheless be Chayav to Ma'aser even the bunch that he gives to the Am-ha'Aretz?
20)
(a)The Mishnah rules that if an Am-ha'Aretz asks a Chaver (see Tos. Yom-Tov) to buy him a bunch of vegetables, or a nice loaf of bread, the latter is not obligated to Ma'aser it. The case is - where he purchases two bunches of vegetables, one for himself and one on behalf of the Am-ha'Aretz, without specifying which is which.
(b)This is permitted on the basis of the principle - 'Yesh B'reirah' (see Tos. Yom-Tov), which explains why he is not considered as having swapped with the Am'ha'Aretz.
(c)He will nevertheless be Chayav to Ma'aser even the bunch that he gives to the Am-ha'Aretz - in the event that he initially specified which was which, but they subsequently got mixed-up.
21)
(a)How does the Yerushalmi explain the current case, based on the Mishnah that we learned in the second Perek (in connection with a Chaver selling to an Am-ha'Aretz)?
(b)What is then the reason for the stringent ruling in the Seifa?
(c)What will be the Din in the Seifa if he purchased one hundred bunches for the Am-ha'Aretz and one for himself?
21)
(a)Based on the Mishnah that we learned in the second Perek (in connection with a Chaver selling to an Am-ha'Aretz) the Yerushalmi explains the current case - where the seller is a Chaver, and having been told for whom the bunches were being sold, he Ma'asered the one that was meant for the Am-ha'Aretz, but not the one that was meant for the Chaver.
(b)And the reason for the stringent ruling in the Seifa is - because we suspect that the seller did indeed Ma'aser the one and not the other (as we explained) ...
(c)... and this ruling will apply even if he purchased one hundred bunches for the Am-ha'Aretz and one for himself (see Tos. Yom-Tov).
