1)

A KOHEN OR LEVI SHARECROPPER (Yerushalmi Demai Perek 6 Halachah 2 Daf 26a)

משנה כהן ולוי שקיבלו שדה מישראל כשם שחולקין בחולין כך חולקין בתרומה

(a)

(Mishnah): If a Kohen or a Levi received a field from a Jew as a sharecropper - just as they divide the Chulin (with the land owner), so too they divide the Terumah. (They give the land owner his portion of Tevel and he gives its Terumah and Maaser to whichever Kohen and Levi he wishes.)

ר"א אומר המעשר שלהן שעל מנת כן באו:

(b)

(R. Eliezer): Those portions must go to them, because they accepted the field under this condition.

גמרא מתיבין רבנין לר"א במה קנו

(c)

(Gemara) (Rabbanan to R. Eliezer): How did the Kohen and Levi acquire these portions?

אמר להם אין אתם מודין לי שאם התנה לו ביניהן שהן חולקין במעשרות אפילו התנו במה קנו סתמא נעשה באומר תלוש מן הקרקע הזה שתיקנו לך מעשרותיו

(d)

(R. Eliezer to Rabbanan): Don't you agree that if they made a stipulation between them, that the Kohen and Levi would acquire them? But then you could ask the same question - how do they acquire it? It's as if the owner told the Kohen/Levi, "Detach part of the crop (as I will separate its Terumah and Maaser later)".

אמר[ו] ליה אופנא לית לון אופנא לית לסתמא נעשה כאומר תלוש מן הקרקע הזה שיקח לך אחד מעשרה שבו

(e)

(Rabbanan to R. Eliezer): The wheel of a carriage doesn't itself have a wheel (that makes it move)! (Even if he explicitly made this stipulation, you would have needed to say 'it's as if he said 'Detach...' - so now that he didn't even make the stipulation - you must make two assumptions - firstly, that it's as if he said one and secondly, it's as if he said 'Detach'; and we don't say two 'as if's.)

תני כהן מכהן לוי מלוי ישראל מישראל חולקין למעשרות

(f)

Tosefta: If a Kohen received a field in Kablanus from a Kohen or a Levi from a Levi, or a Yisrael from a Yisrael, each takes the tithe in his portion.

למי נצרכה לר' אלעזר אע"ג דרא"א מעשר שלהן שעל מנת כן באו מודי הוא הכא שהן חולקין במעשרות

(g)

Question: According to which opinion does this need to be said? According to R. Eliezer (of our Mishnah) - even though R. Eliezer said that 'those portions must go to them, because they accepted the field under this condition', here both parties receive the tithes because they are both of the same category (e.g. Kohanim).

ישראל שקיבל שדה מכהן אמר לו על מנת שיהו המעשרות שלי [מותר] (או) שלך או שלי ושלך (מותר)[אסור]

(h)

Tosefta (Demai Ch. 7): If a Yisrael received a field in Kablanus from a Kohen, the Yisrael can stipulate that he will be able to give the tithes to whoever he wishes; but he may not stipulate that it should be 'yours or mine and yours'. (Note: The text of the Tosefta is changed here by the Chazon Ish.)

כהן שקיבל שדה מישראל אמר לו על מנת שיהו המעשרות שלי מותר שלך אסור שלי ושלך אסור קיבלה ממנו כדרך המקבלין מותר ואם לאו אסור

1.

If a Kohen received a field in Kablanus from a Yisrael, the Kohen can stipulate that the tithes are his; but he may not stipulate that it should be 'yours or mine and yours'. But it is only prohibited when he didn't accept the field as Kablanus (for a certain proportion of the crops) but rather the Kohen will receive its tithes as payment; but if he did accept it as Kablanus and the owner also added the tithes, it is permitted.

בלא כך אין המעשרות שלהן

(i)

Question: But either way, the tithes are going to the Kohen?!

אלא הכני שלי שלי שלך שלי ושלך אם קיבלה ממנו כדרך המקבלין מותר ואם לאו אסור

(j)

Answer: Rather, he said, 'the half that is mine, is mine; and the half that is yours, let's divide it' - this is when the statement above applies that it is only prohibited when he didn't accept it as Kablanus etc.

ישראל שקיבל שדה מישראל על מנת שיהו המעשרות של זה אסור שאטלם אני ואתנם לזה מותר

(k)

If a Yisrael received a field in Kablanus from a Yisrael, on condition that the tithes should go to a certain Levite, it is prohibited. If he said, "...on condition that I will take them and give them to this Levite" - it is permitted.

ולא דא היא קדמייתא

(l)

Question: How is the second case different to the first?

א"ר אחא אם תירצה ביניהן

(m)

Answer (R. Acha): The difference is - in the 1st case, it's as if he's selling the actual Maaseros. In the 2nd case, his stipulation isn't about the actual Maaseros; it's about his right to choose when giving them to a Kohen or Levi.

[דף כו עמוד ב] א"ר יוסי הא דתימר מותר כשקיבלה כדרך המקבלין והן דאת אמר אסור בשלא קיבלה ממנו כדרך המקבלין

(n)

(R. Yosi disagrees): That's not the difference. The 2nd case is when he received it in the regular way of a Kablan - meaning for a portion of the produce; so it's not viewed like a Kohen helping in the granary.

אתיא דר' יוסי כרבי יוחנן ודרבי אחא כר' יוסי בי רבי חנינא דר"י בי ר' חנינא אמר אדם נותן מעשרותיו בטובת הנייה רבי יוחנן אמר אין אדם מביא מעשרותיו בטובת הנאה

(o)

R. Yosi is like R. Yochanan and Rav Acha is like R. Yosi bei R. Chanina - as R. Yosi bei Chanina said that a person gives his Maaseros in Tovas Hana'ah and R. Yochanan said that he does not.

מאי טעם דר"י ב"ח ואיש את קדשיו לו יהיו

(p)

Question: What's R. Yosi bei R. Chanina's source? The pasuk states (Bamidbar 5:10), "Everyone's holy things shall belong to him" - meaning that Tovas Hana'ah is his.

מה עביד ליה רבי יוחנן יתנם לכל מי שירצה

(q)

Question: How does, R. Yochanan use this pasuk? To instruct that he may give them to whoever he wishes (but that has no monetary value).

OTHER D.A.F. RESOURCES
ON THIS DAF