Non-Jewish Agency in Ma'aser Separation

וְקוֹנֶה עַצְמוֹ בְּכֶסֶף כּוּ׳ בְּכֶסֶף עַל יְדֵי אֲחֵרִים. אִין, אֲבָל לֹא עַל יְדֵי עַצְמוֹ. בְּמַאי עָסְקִינַן? אִילֵימָא שֶׁלֹּא מִדַּעְתּוֹ, מִכְּדֵי שְׁמַעְנָא לֵיהּ לְרַבִּי מֵאִיר דְּאָמַר: חוֹב הוּא לְעֶבֶד שֶׁיֵּצֵא מִיַּד רַבּוֹ לְחֵירוּת. וּתְנֵינָא: זָכִין לָאָדָם שֶׁלֹּא בְּפָנָיו, וְאֵין חָבִין לוֹ אֶלָּא בְּפָנָיו. וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים: בְּכֶסֶף עַל יְדֵי עַצְמוֹ. בְּכֶסֶף עַל יְדֵי עַצְמוֹ – אִין, עַל יְדֵי אֲחֵרִים – לָא. אַמַּאי? נְהִי נָמֵי דְּשֶׁלֹּא מִדַּעְתּוֹ, מִכְּדֵי שְׁמַעְנָא לְהוּ לְרַבָּנַן דְּאָמְרִי: זְכוּת הוּא שֶׁיֵּצֵא מִתַּחַת יָד רַבּוֹ לְחֵירוּת, וּתְנֵינָא: זָכִין לְאָדָם שֶׁלֹּא בְּפָנָיו, וְאֵין חָבִין לוֹ אֶלָּא בְּפָנָיו.

§ The mishna teaches that a slave can acquire himself by means of money, and Rabbi Meir rules that this money must be given by others. The Gemara comments: This ruling indicates that with money given by others, yes, the slave can be freed in this manner, but not by giving money himself. The Gemara inquires: With what are we dealing? If we say that this is referring to emancipating the Canaanite slave without his consent, that creates a difficulty. After all, we have heard that Rabbi Meir is the one who says: It is against the slave’s interest to leave his master’s authority for freedom, as he thereby loses out on certain benefits; and we learned in a baraita: One can act in a person’s interest in his absence, but one can act against a person’s interest only in his presence. How can one act against the slave’s interest and free him without his consent? § The mishna teaches: And the Rabbis say: The slave can be freed by means of money given by himself. The Gemara analyzes this ruling: By means of money given by himself, yes, he can be emancipated in this manner, but with money given by others, no, he cannot be emancipated in this manner. The Gemara asks: Why not? Although this was indeed performed without the slave’s consent, after all, we heard that the Rabbis say: It is in a slave’s interest to go out from the master’s authority to freedom. And we learned in a baraita: One can act in a person’s interest in his absence, but one can act against a person’s interest only in his presence. Why, then, isn’t he freed when others give the money, considering that this change of status is to his advantage?

מַאֲכִילִין אֶת הָעֲנִיִּים דְּמַאי, וְאֶת הָאַכְסַנְיָא דְּמַאי. רַבָּן גַּמְלִיאֵל הָיָה מַאֲכִיל אֶת פּוֹעֲלָיו דְּמַאי.

They may feed demai to the poor and to guests (alt. passing troops). Rabban Gamaliel used to feed demai to his workmen. [As for] charity collectors: Bet Shammai says: they should give tithed [produce] to one who doesn’t tithe, and untithed [produce] to one who does tithe.

אֶלָּא כִּדְאָמַר רָבָא הָתָם: אוֹמֵר לְגוֹי וְעוֹשֶׂה; הָכִי נָמֵי, אוֹמֵר לְגוֹי וְעוֹשֶׂה. וְאַף עַל גַּב דַּאֲמִירָה לְגוֹי שְׁבוּת הִיא, מִשּׁוּם יִשּׁוּב אֶרֶץ יִשְׂרָאֵל לָא גְּזַרוּ בֵּיהּ רַבָּנַן.

The Gemara explains: Rather, this is as Rava said there, with regard to a similar issue, that one tells a gentile to do it, and he does so. Here, too, it is referring to a situation where he tells a gentile to write a bill of sale for the house, and he does it. And even though telling a gentile to perform an action that is prohibited for a Jew on Shabbat is generally a violation of a rabbinic decree, as the Sages prohibited telling a gentile to perform prohibited labor on behalf of a Jew on Shabbat, here the Sages did not impose this decree, due to the mitzva of settling Eretz Yisrael.

וְהוּא שֶׁיַּכְנִיסֶנּוּ דֶּרֶךְ הַשַּׁעַר שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (דברים כו יב) "וְאָכְלוּ בִשְׁעָרֶיךָ". אֲבָל אִם הִכְנִיס תְּבוּאָתוֹ דֶּרֶךְ גַּגּוֹת וְקַרְפִּיפוֹת פָּטוּר מִן הַתְּרוּמָה וּמִן הַמַּעַשְׂרוֹת:

The obligation to tithe is not established for tevel according to Scriptural Law until one brings it into his home, as [implied by Deuteronomy 26:13]: "I removed the sacred produce from the home." [This applies] provided he brings the produce in through the gate, as [ibid.:12] states: "And you shall eat in your gates." If, however, he brought produce in from the roof or from the yard he is exempt [from the obligation] to separate terumah and tithes.

מתנות עניים, תרומות ומעשרות ומעשר שני: צדקה ואחווה 2 אשר למתנות עניים – עניינן ברור. וכן עניין התרומות והמעשרות – טעמן התבאר: "[וּבָא הַלֵּוִי] כִּי אֵין לוֹ חֵלֶק וְנַחֲלָה עִמָּךְ" (דברים יד:כט;כז). ידוע לך שטעם הדבר הוא כדי שהשבט הזה בכללותו יהיה מיוחד לעבודת ה' ולידיעת התורה, שלא יתעסק בחריש ולא בקציר אלא יתייחד לה' בלבד, כמו שנאמר: "יוֹרוּ מִשְׁפָּטֶיךָ לְיַעֲקֹב וְתוֹרָתְךָ לְיִשְׂרָאֵל" (שם לג,י). אתה מוצא את לשון התורה בכמה מקומות: הַלֵּוִי וְהַגֵּר וְהַיָּתוֹם וְהָאַלְמָנָה (שם יד,כט; טז:יא;יד; כו:יב;יג) – הוא מונה אותו תמיד בכלל העניים, משום שאין לו רכוש.

The purpose of the laws concerning the portions which are to be given to the poor is likewise obvious; the reason of the laws concerning the heave-offerings and the tithe is distinctly stated: “for he hath no portion and inheritance with thee” (Deut. 14:29). You certainly know that the Levites had no portion, because their whole tribe was to be exclusively engaged in the service of God and the study of the Law. They shall not plow or cut the corn, but shall only minister to God.” They shall teach Jacob thy judgments and Israel thy law: they shall put incense before thee” (Deut. 33:10). In the Law we meet frequently with the phrase, “the Levite, the stranger, and the orphan and the widow”; for the Levite is reckoned among the poor because he had no property.