DECLARING MAASER ANI OF DEMAI (Yerushalmi Demai Perek 4 Halachah 3 Daf 18a)
îùðä øáé àìòæø àåîø àéï àãí öøéê ì÷øåú ùí òì îòùø òðé ùì ãîàé
(Mishnah) (R. Elazar): A person does not need to declare part of Demai to be Maaser Ani.
åçëîéí àåîøéí ÷åøà ùí åàéï öøéê ìäôøéùå
(Chachamim): He must declare it but need not separate it.
îé ù÷øà ùí ìúøåîú îòùø ùì ãîàé åìîòùø òðé ùì åãàé ìà éèìí áùáú [ãó ìå òîåã á (òåæ åäãø)] åàí äéä ëäï àå òðé ìîåãéí ìåëì àöìå éáåàå åéàëìå åáìáã ùéåãéòí:
If a person declared Terumas Maaser and Maaser Ani of Demai, he should not separate them on Shabbos. If a Kohen or a poor man regularly eats with him, they may eat, as long as he informs them.
âîøà øáé áà áø äåðà áùí øá äàåëì ôéøåúéå èáåìéï ìîòùø (ùðé)[òðé] çééá îéúä.
(Gemara) (R. Ba bar Huna citing Rav): If one eats his fruit that had not had Maaser Sheni separated, he is liable to death (from Heaven).
îä èòí ãø"à îëéåï ùäåà éåãò ùäåà áòåï îéúä îôøéù.
Question: Why does R. Elazar say that one does not need to declare Maaser Ani? Since the seller knows that it involves death (from Heaven) he will separate it.
îä èòí ãøáðï áìà ëê ÷åøà ùí åàéðå öøéê ìäôøéù.
Why do Chachamim (Rabbanan) require declaring but not separating? Even if we are stringent to require him to declare Maaser Ani, he does not need to actually separate it and he may keep it for himself, so why not require him to do such a minor thing in order to avoid doubt!
(äðàîï) [úðé] øàå àåúï îôøéù [îòùø] ùðé úðé äðàîï ìùðé ðàîï ìøàùåï ãáøé øáé àìéòæø.
Baraisa (R. Eliezer): If they saw him separating Maaser Sheni (from his produce, can he be assumed to have separated Maaser Rishon)? He is believed to have separated Maaser Rishon.
åçëîéí àåîøéí äðàîï ìøàùåï ðàîï ìùðé äðàîï ìùðé àéðå ðàîï ìøàùåï
(Chachamim): One who is believed for Rishon is believed for Sheni; but one who is believed for Sheni isn't believed for Rishon.
îä èòí ãø"à îùåí ùàéðå çùåã ìä÷ãéí àå îùåí ùäôøéù ùðé çæ÷ä ùäôøéù øàùåï
Question: What is R. Eliezer's reasoning? Is it that he isn't suspected of separating Sheni before Rishon or simply because if they see him separating Sheni, we can also assume that he separated Rishon (as there is no difference between them)?
åäúðéðï øáé ìéòæø àåîø àéï àãí öøéê ì÷øåú ùí ìîòùø òðé ùì ãîàé äà (ùðé)[øàùåï] öøéê [ãó ìæ òîåã à (òåæ åäãø)] îä àí ùðé ùàéï ìøáå èåáú äðàä öøéê ìäôøéù (øàùåï)[òðé] ùéù ìøáå èåáú äðééä ìà ëì ùëï
Answer: Didn't our Mishnah say that R. Eliezer says that a person does not need to declare part of Demai to be Maaser Ani. This means that he does need to declare Maaser Rishon? If the owner separated Sheni, where he doesn't have Tovas Hana'ah (benefit of gratitude of the recipient that the owner choose to give it to) (since the owner actually keeps it entirely for himself), but nevertheless, we assume he separated Rishon; if he separated Maaser Ani, that the owner only has Tovas Hana'ah (as he must give it over to the poor of his choice, but he doesn't keep it all for himself), certainly if he separated Maaser Ani, we can assume that he separated Maaser Rishon! (This shows that the reasoning of R. Eliezer is that if he separated Sheni, he certainly separated Rishon.)