- CHAPTER FIVE

Chapter Five deals with the procedure for separating from dema'i­ produce, here understood as produce purchased from an 'am ha' are,s.. The chapter is composed of two units of unequal length, M. 5:1-2 and 5:3-11, each of which relates to a separate issue. The two units for­ mally are linked through the occurrence at the beginning of each (5: lA, 5:3A) of the same protasis, hlwqh. mn hnh.twm. 1 The first unit, M. 5:1-2, tells us how, in a single act, we may sep­ arate all tithes from dema'i, or the priest's dues ( and terumah of the ) from certainly untithed produce. 5:1 deals with the separa­ tion of terumah of the tithe, , and dough-offering from a loaf of bread purchased from an 'am ha' are,s., who may or may not already have tithed it. 5:2 then details how from certainly untithed pro­ duce we may separate in one act terumah and terumah of the tithe. In both cases, all tithes must be designated in the proper order, even if they are not actually separated. The unit formally is articulated through the repetition at 5: lD-I and 5:2L-T of the formula that is to be recited upon separating tithes. Only the protases of the two pericopae differ, setting forth the different subjects of the two rulings. The second unit, M. 5:3-11, deals with a different issue. Ordinarily we may separate tithes from one item or batch of produce for another, rather than having to separate tithe from each item individually. But in the case of produce purchased from an 'am ha' are,s., we may do so only if we are certain that all of the produce derives from a single source, i.e., from a single baker or farmer, and therefore is all of equiv­ alent status, either all tithed or all untithed. It is forbidden to separate tithes from an item of produce that is liable to tithing for another that is exempt, and vice versa. Terumah in particular may not be separated twice from the same item (M. 5:10-11). M. 5:3-7, a tightly formulated subunit, illustrate our problem, first with regard to bread purchased

1 This formal linkage also has substantive ramifications. It indicates that the primary articulation of each unit is concerned with the tithing of produce purchased from an 'am ha'areJ, which is dema'i. 5:2's essay on the separation of tithes from fully untithed produce thus is shown to be secondary in the present redactional context. MISHNAH-TOSEFTA DEMAI CHAPTER FIVE 985 from the several kinds of bread dealers-the individual baker (5:3), the bread store (5:4), the monopolist (5:4L)-then with regard to different portions of food gathered by a poor person (5:5), and finally in the case of food purchased from various sorts of provision dealers-the wholesaler (5:6), and the householder (5:7). (T. 5: ll will add the retailer.) The problem in each case is whether or not all of the bread, or pro­ duce, derives from a single source and thus is of equivalent status with respect to tithing obligations. 5:8 tells us that we may separate tithes for fully untithed produce (1bl) purchased from one vendor, from fully untithed produce purchased from a different vendor, thereby admitting that tbl may be sold in certain circumstances. 5:9 deals with the case of produce purchased from various kinds of people in the Land of lsrael-lsraelites, gentiles, and Samaritans. The specific problem is whether or not gentile and Samaritan produce is liable to tithing. Additionally, if we assume that Samaritan produce is liable, the ques­ tion remains whether or not Samaritans tithe the produce that they sell. 5: l 0-ll take up the issue of separating terumah for produce that is liable to this obligation from produce that is exempt, and vice versa. In both cases, the act of separation is not deemed valid, yet the pro­ duce separated as terumah must be given to the priest, lest others should think that valid terumah is being misused. The second unit formally is articulated through a recurring formu­ lary pattern in the protasis, hlwqh mn h-X (at 5:8, hlwqh [tb~ m . ..). This pattern is broken off at 5:9ff. 5:9 formally is a singleton, while 5: l 0-ll follow their own distinctive formulary pattern, expressed in a recurring set of contrastive apodoses, tnvmh wyfl_zr wytnvn vs. tnvmh wt t'kl. ... Most of the attributions in this chapter are Ushan. Judah's name is associated with three consecutive pericopae, 5:3-5. In the first two of these he disputes with Meir. Simeon responds to Meir's position in the first dispute. The evidence of T.'s correlative materials (T. 5:22ff.) makes it probable that the Eliezer/ of our chapter is the Yavnean Eliezer b. Hyrcanus (see below, p. 1009, n. 16). T osefta to our chapter is composed primarily of citations and glosses of M., and correlative materials. A single unit of autonomous supple­ mentary materials is found at T. 5:14-20, and follows upon pericopae that are related toM. 5:8. Most of T.'s attributed materials bear Ushan names. The Y avnean materials primarily relate to the status of Samaritan produce. The attributions are as follows: Yavneh-Eliezer (5:22), 'Aqiba and Gamaliel (5:24), Tarfon (referred to by Simeon of Sezur in a ma'aJeh