תּלמוד אויף נחמיה 10:1

Rebbi Eleazar said, they accepted the tithes voluntarily. What is the reason? (Neh. 10:1) “In view of all this, we execute a contract and write, signed by our princes, Levites, and priests.¹¹Neh. 10 contains the contract between the people and God in which they accept the Biblical obligations connected with Land and Temple. If the obligations were Biblical, no contract would have been needed.” How does Rebbi Eleazar uphold (10:37): “The first-born of our cattle and flock¹²Even though Ex. 13:11 explicitly connects the sanctity of the first-born to the conquest of the Land, it is generally accepted that the obligation does not depend on the Land.”? Since they accepted upon themselves matters they were not obligated for, even matters they were obligated for are credited to them as if they were accepted voluntarily¹³The Babli (Qiddušin 31a, Baba Qama 38a, 87a, Avodah Zarah 3a) holds that the person who is obligated receives greater reward than the person who is not obligated. This opinion, quoted in the name of R. Ḥanina and undisputed in the Babli, clearly is not accepted in the Yerushalmi and is never quoted there. One must assume that the statement was the opinion of R. Ḥanina when he was still in Babylonia..

Rebbi Joshua the Southerner²⁸¹Rebbi Joshua ben Levi. said: Three things did the earthly court decree and the Heavenly Court agreed with them, and they are the following: The ban on Jericho, the Esther scroll, and greeting people using the Name. The ban on Jericho (Jos. 7:11): “Israel sinned²⁸²Joshua decreed a ban on all property of the city of Jericho as ḥērem for the Eternal. After Akhan had taken property for himself, Israel was defeated at the Ai and Joshua was informed that “Israel sinned,” i. e., a transgression of his command was equated with a transgression of a divine command. Hence, Heaven accepted his human decree in the Heavenly Court. [While everybody can declare his own possession ḥērem or qorbān whereby its use is forbidden by a divine command (Lev. 27), Joshua here forbade the use of things that did not belong to him and, under usual circumstances, his decree would be invalid in a court of law.].” But was not Joshua the one who decreed it? This certainly implies that the Heavenly Court agreed with them. The Esther scroll (Esth. 9:27): “They confirmed and accepted, etc.” Rav said, “accepted” is written in singular²⁸³It is written קבל and read קִבְּלוּ.; this implies that they²⁸⁴In fact, He (God) accepted it. accepted. Greeting people using the Name (Ruth 2:4): “Lo, Boaz came from Bethlehem.” And from where that the Heavenly court agreed with them? The verse says (Jud. 6:12): “The Eternal is with you, o hero!²⁸⁵This is the greeting of the angel to Gideon, telling him to fight the Midianites. This shows that heavenly beings adapted the human manner of greeting as exemplified by Boaz. The argument implies that Gideon, who was quite early in the time of Judges, came after Boaz. This is explicit in Midrash Seder Olam Chap. 12 (in the author’s edition and commentary, Northvale N.J. 1998, p. 121–123.) Boaz was the grandson of Naḥshon ben Aminadav, prince of Judah during the wanderings in the desert (Ruth 4:20–21.)” Rebbi Abun in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi: Also tithes, as it is said (Mal. 3:10): “Bring all tithes²⁸⁶The problem alluded to here is discussed in Yerushalmi Shevi‘it 6:1, Qiddushin 1:9 and Babli Arakhin 32b, referring to the obligations of the farmer regarding the produce of the Holy Land. It is spelled out in the Torah many times that these obligations (the heave for the priests, tithes for the Levites and the poor, the Sabbatical Year, etc.) come into force “when you come to the Land and inherit it,” as duties on the land distributed as family heritage to the tribes by Moses and Joshua. These commandments became obsolete when the tribes were led into captivity, including the obligations of the remaining Israelite population of Galilee who, according to our sources, were never exiled and who reappear in history at the time of the Hasmonean revolt without any record of resettlement in Galilee. The continued obligation to observe the Laws that depend on the Land therefore is derived only from the voluntary covenant enacted by the people in the time of Ezra and Nehemia (Shevi‘it 6:1): “Rebbi Lezer says: they voluntarily accepted the duties of the tithes. Why do I say this? (Neh. 10:1) ‘With all this, we enact a written trust and covenant signed by our princes, Levites, and priests.’ How does R. Lezer explain the inclusion (Neh. 10:37) of ‘the firstborn of our cattle and flocks’ [an obligation that does not depend on the Land and therefore is universal]? Since they accepted the obligations (of heave and tithes) that they could have avoided, Scripture gives them credit for those obligations which they had to fulfill anyhow as if they had accepted these also voluntarily.” The same idea is also expressed by an opponent of rabbinic Judaism who is reported (Shevi‘it 9:9) to have said: “Ḥallah (the heave to be taken from bread dough) is a biblical obligation (Num. 15:20) but the Sabbatical year is now an obligation only by the authority of Rabban Gamliel and his colleagues.” [Cf. the author’s The Scholar’s Haggadah, p. 280–281, and Seder Olam p. 248–250.], etc.” What is: “²⁸⁷Mal. 3:10: “Bring the full tithe into the (Temple) storehouse, so that there may be food in My House, test Me in this,” said the Eternal of Hosts, “if I will not open for you the skylights of heaven, and I shall pour out for you blessing until ‘without enough.’ ” The obligation accepted by the people on Earth without Heavenly Command gives Divine Reward. Hence, the obligation was accepted as Divine Command of human origin. Until ‘without enough?’ ” Rebbi Yose bar²⁸⁸The Rome manuscript does not have the words “Yose bar”. A son of R. Simeon bar Abba is otherwise unknown but the attribution is possible. R. Shelomo Cirillo has the reading “R. Yose in the name of R. Simeon bar Abba.” Simeon bar Abba in the name of Rebbi Yoḥanan: The thing about which it is impossible to say “enough”, that is blessing. Rebbi Berekhiah and Rebbi Chelbo and Rebbi Abba bar Ilaï in the name of Rav: Until your lips will wear out²⁹⁰This is explained in detail in Midrash Samuel 1:1 (which contains an enlarged version of the Yerushalmi here to the end of the tractate) that Elkanah went to Siloh four times a year, three times for the three holidays of pilgrimage and once for his private vow as explained in 1Sam. 1:2, and that every year he chose a different road to tell people to go to Shiloh for the holidays. A similar version is in Tanna dbe Eliahu I:8. saying, we have enough blessings, we have enough blessings.

Rebbi Ḥizqiah, Rebbi Jeremiah, in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan¹²⁷Here starts the discussion of the last part of the Mishnah: Gleanings, forgotten sheaves, and peah of a Gentile are obligated for tithes, except if the Gentile declared it to be abandoned property.: ¹²⁸Add: “The Mishnah is only understandable …” According to him¹²⁹The opinions of R. Jehudah and R. Simeon in Demaï 3:4, 5:9. The opposite opinion in Demaï 5:9 (fol. 24d), Kilaïm 7:4 (fol. 30d) and in the Babli, Giṭṭin 47a, is attributed to R. Meïr. The Yerushalmi clearly accepts the opinion of RR. Jedudah and Simeon. Cf. also Demay, Chapter 5, Note 102. who says that a Gentile may acquire real estate in the Land of Israel to free it from tithes¹³⁰It is explained in Demaï(loc. cit.) and elsewhere that the Biblical duties of heave and tithes ceased with the Babylonian exile. The returnees from Babylonia took these duties upon themselves and future generations in a solemn covenant with God (Neh. 10:1) in those regions (Judea, the Southern Plains, Galilee, and Golan Heights) settled by the returnees; hence the problem is not one of Biblical precepts but of the meaning of this covenant. According to the position taken here, the obligation of peah, gleanings, and forgotten sheaves is a later Rabbinic obligation on the land as far as Jews are concerned (Demaï 3:4, fol. 23d). Since the Gentile has no obligation to give to the poor, he cannot designate anything under these names. But since he is the owner, he may legally abandon the produce just as a Jew might abandon it.. But according to him who says that a Gentile may not acquire real estate in the Land of Israel to free it from tithes, even if he declared it abandoned property it is obligated¹³¹According to R. Meīr, the obligation is on the Land, not on the owner. If the agricultural real estate is owned by a Gentile, the obligation obviously cannot be enforced since the Gentile has no obligation to abide by the covenant. However, if the produce is then bought by a Jew, it will be a deadly sin for him to consume anything from it before he has given the heave and, at least, the priest’s part of the tithe. The only exception is abandoned property (by Mishnah 6:1, this must be abandoned to any taker, not just the poor.) Now, peah, gleanings, and forgotten sheaves also are free of heave and tithes but these can be given only by persons obligated to give. Hence, peah, gleanings, and forgotten sheaves designated by Gentiles do not have the legal status of peah, gleanings, and forgotten sheaves, and are not exempt; neither does abandoning the property help since nothing the Gentile does can possibly influence the duties upon the produce.. Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan¹³²Note that “in the name of” always implies an indirect transmission of statements; it might be that R. Jeremiah deals only with the statement about abandoned property and R. Yose with that about peah, gleanings, and forgotten sheaves.: ¹²⁸Add: “The Mishnah is only understandable …” According to him who says that a Gentile may not acquire real estate in the Land of Israel to free it from tithes¹³³The obligation of peah, gleanings, and forgotten sheaves is on the Land and is activated as soon as the produce comes into Jewish hands. R. Yose is of the opinion that the Gentile owner still may legally abandon the produce.. But according to him who says that a Gentile may acquire real estate in the Land of Israel to free it from tithes, the Sages decreed special leniency for gleanings¹³⁴If the Gentile designated some produce as peah, or left gleanings on the field, he clearly abandoned this to the poor. The general rule is that abandoned property must be abandoned to rich and poor alike (Mishnah 6:1), but in the case before us the rabbis made an exception; it is the leniency mentioned here. This is part of Nehemiah’s covenant; such a leniency would be impossible for a Biblical obligation..