Introduction to Tractate Demay

Introduction to Tractate Demay Demay is the technical term for produce bought from a source that cannot be trusted to faithfully give tithes. It was determined during the Second Commonwealth that all farmers could be trusted to give the heave to the Cohen since it was generally known that eating produce from which the heave was not taken is a deadly sin. In addition, the heave has no fixed amount in Biblical law and, therefore, the farmer could fulfill his obligation at very little cost. The situation is different for tithes which are two times ten percent. It was found that a sizeable minority of farmers did not give tithes. The First Tithe is given to a Levite (or a Cohen); this is purely a monetary claim and, therefore, cannot be claimed from a buyer, since any Levite claiming the tithe would have to prove that actually the producer of that crop did not give tithes, which for produce bought on the market is impossible. Hence, the buyer does not have to give First Tithe from what he bought. However, the Levite would have been obliged to give 10% of the First Tithe as heave of the tithe to the Cohen (Num. 18), and this heave of the tithe follows the same rule as heave itself: Its consumption by a non-Cohen, or consumption in impurity, is a deadly sin. Hence, the buyer from a noncertified source must give 1% (one-tenth of one-tenth) as heave of the tithe in order to avoid committing a deadly sin. m TRACTATE DEMAY The Second Tithe, due in years 1, 2, 4, 5 of the Sabbatical cycle, is for the farmer himself, to be eaten in purity in Jerusalem. However, it may be redeemed for money (Deut. 14:25), and in the absence of a Temple it may be redeemed for a token sum. Hence, there is no great hardship involved if the buyer has to separate the Second Tithe mentally and then redeem it for a penny. The Tithe of the Poor, taking the place of the Second Tithe in years 3 and 6 of the Sabbatical cycle, is again a monetary obligation for which a claimant would have no proof and, therefore, it does not have to be given. Since all the obligations to give the heave of the tithe and to redeem the Second Tithe are imposed only to be sure that no sin is committed, there are several leniencies in the interpretation of the laws available to the buyer of demay not available for produce that certainly has not been tithed. The fine points of the law are discussed at length in the tractate. In the last chapter, some arithmetic niceties of the laws are explored for their intellectual value. The etymology of the word 'KÖT is given by the Yerushalmi Maäser Seni 5:13 as 'M -'m "maybe yes, maybe no." Eliezer Ben Jehudah compares the semantic relation of the Hebrew root nan "to compare" and the adjective w "uncertain" to that of Arabic rnw «12 "to compare" to nnaw ^li "doubt, incertitude; vague, equivocal." All derivations of the term from non-Semitic words have to be rejected. An important topic also treated in Demay is that of applicability of the laws of tithes. The boundaries of the Holy Land given in Num. 34 INTRODUCTION DEMAY m extend far to the North of the territory actually occupied by Israel in the time of Joshua and Judges. The vestiges of the original distribution of land disappeared with the Babylonian exile. The returnees under Ezra and Nehemiah accepted again the duties of tithes and Sabbaticals by a solemn covenant (Ν eh. 10). By its nature, this covenant was restricted to the territories settled by the returnees (Judea) and those never emptied of a Jewish population (Galilee, Western Bashan, and possibly Samaria.) The strict rules, therefore, apply only to those territories. In the remainder of the Holy Land and the territories within the pentateuchal boundaries incorporated into David's empire (Syria), the rules apply in relaxed form, as a remainder of the stringent rules or as a sign of hope that the full rules will be established again in the times of the Messiah. The boundaries of the different domains are discussed in Chapter Two. The readings in the text of localities in border territories have been checked against those in the synagogue mosaic in the Beth Shean valley; the interpretation follows Caphtor Waperah, A. Neubauer, S. Klein, and M. Avi-Yona. The circle of people observing all rules of tithing was always restricted. Since it was necessary to identify sellers of tithed produce, an official category of "trustworthy" sellers was established. A more restricted category still was that of people adhering to the rules of ritual purity even 200 years and more after the destruction of the Temple when many of these rules could no longer be observed to the letter. These people were given the title of Ί3Π haver "member of the fellowship" after they formally accepted the rules of fellowship before a court composed of fellows. Those who were neither haver nor trustworthy, are called 0» fixn am haärez "vulgar person". The rules of trustworthiness and haverut, 350 TRACTATE DEMAY and the rules of relations between haverim, trustworthies, and ame haärez, are a major topic of tractate Demay. Many stringent rules spelled out in the Mishnah are greatly attenuated in the Halakhot, and the picture that emerges from the Yerushalmi is one of harmonious coexistence, quite in contrast to the picture of antagonism and strict separation given in the Babylonian Talmud on basis of Mishnaic rules. Since trustworthiness and fellowship in the Israeli sense were impossible in Babylonia, the picture given by the Yerushalmi has to be accepted as authentic and the status of the f1K?T 0» in rabbinic society has to be re-evaluated. In Babylonia, the meaning of flKH 0» is "uneducated", totally different from the meaning of the term in the Yerushalmi. While the Babli frowns upon marriages between the educated and the am haärez, the Yerushalmi insists that it is sinful for the observant Jew to separate himself from his "vulgar" brethren if this would lead the am haärez into sin (Halakhah 2:1). The material dependence of the Babylonian Talmud on the Yerushalmi was demonstrated in the Introduction to the first volume in this series. In Note 89 of Chapter 1, a dependence of Babylonian Amoraic technical terminology on the Yerushalmi is uncovered. The commentaries used are the same as for Tractate Peah. .

Load more