Mishnah
1 One does not sell Second Tithe, one does not take it as a pledge, one does not barter it, and one does not weigh corresponding to it. One should not say to his neighbor in Jerusalem, here you have wine, give me its value in oil, but they may give free gifts to one another. One may not sell animal tithe unblemished alive, or blemished alive or slaughtered, and one may not use it for preliminarily marrying a woman. One may sell a firstling unblemished alive, blemished alive or slaughtered, and one may use it for preliminarily marrying a woman. One does not exchange Second Tithe by a blank, or by a coin not in circulation, or on money not in his possession.
Halakhah
“One does not sell Second Tithe.” One does not sell it because holiness is written for it. One does not use it as a pledge because blessing is written about it. “How may one not sell it? A person should not say to his neighbor, here you have this mina’s worth of Second Tithe, give me 50 zuz profane for it.”
Who is the Tanna of “one does not sell it”? Rabbi Meir! But for Rabbi Judah it should be logical that it be permitted to be sold, by an argument from the lesser to the greater: If it is permitted to sell heave which is forbidden to lay people, since Second Tithe is permitted to lay people, one should certainly be permitted to sell it. No, if you assert this for heave which does not need an enclosure, what can you imply for Second Tithe which needs an enclosure? First Fruits will prove it which need an enclosure and one may sell them! No, if you assert this for First Fruits which do not implicate their monetary substitute, what can you imply for Second Heave which implicates its monetary substitute! The Sabbatical will prove it which implicates its monetary substitute and it is permitted to sell it! Rabbi Yudan said, from this? The sale of Sabbatical produce is its redemption.
Rabbi Jeremiah said, who is the Tanna of “one does not sell it”? Rabbi Meir! But for Rabbi Judah it should be logical that it be permitted to be sold, by an argument from the lesser to the greater: If it is permitted to sell Sabbatical produce with which one may not liquidate one’s debts, it is logical that it should be permitted to sell Second Tithe since with it one may liquidate one’s debts. We find that one may liquidate one’s debts with Second Tithe, following what we stated: “If he took from him tithe worth one tetradrachma and did not come to exchange it until it was worth two.” Rabbi Yose said, there is a difference since from the start the value of Second Tithe was due. If he had owed before, it would be an argument. Rabbi Yudan said, a Mishnah said that it is forbidden to sell it, as we stated there: “If intentional, he married, if in error, he did not marry.” If you say that he may sell it, he should be able to use it for marriage but anything he may not sell he may not use for marriage. But did we not state: “One does not buy slaves, real estate, and unclean animals from Sabbatical money. If he bought them, he has to eat their worth.” Rabbi Yose said, this means that it is forbidden to acquire a wife with Sabbatical money. Otherwise, what is the difference between one who acquires a wife and one who acquires a slave girl? Rabbi Yose in the name of Rabbi Zeira, Rabbi Yudan in the name of Rabbi Ila, everybody agrees because of these arguments. Rabbi Yose in the name of Rabbi Aḥa, everybody agrees that all should need the enclosures.
“How does one not take it as a pledge? He who enters another’s house to take a pledge should not take his debtor’s Second Tithe as pledge.” It was stated: “One does not give it as a deposit and he should not give it to a grocer to receive food in its value.” If one transgressed and took as pledge, transgressed and gave as deposit? It is as follows: “If somebody eats his Second Tithe, whether in error or intentionally, he shall cry out to Heaven, the words of Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel. Rabbi says, in error he shall cry out to Heaven, intentionally the money’s worth shall be repaid. If it was money, in error he shall cry out to Heaven, intentionally the money’s worth shall be repaid, the words of Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel. Rabbi says, whether in error or intentionally, the money’s worth shall be repaid.” Rabbi Zeriqa in the name of Ḥizkiah: Practice follows Rabbi for money and Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel for produce. Rabbi Ila said, there was a case about money and they instructed following Rabbi.
Or it may follow this: “One does not plant, sink, or graft in the year preceding a Sabbatical year later than thirty days before the New Year; if he planted, grafted, or sank he has to uproot it.” If one did not uproot, what is with its yield? Rabbi Abba and Rabbi Immi were sitting in Tyre when a case came before them. Rabbi La taught that the fruits should be thrown away. Rabbi Abba said, I was not counted with them on the upper floor. They said, let us go out and study. They went out and heard Rabbi Jonah and Rabbi Isaac bar Tevele in the name of Rabbi Eleazar: One does not make a new restriction. Rabbi Yose, Rabbi Isaac bar Tevele in the name of Rabbi Eleazar: One does not add to an established practice.
Rabbi Jacob bar Aḥa in the name of Rabbi Zeira: Since it was stated, “one does not take it as a pledge nor give it as a deposit,” this means that if one transgressed and took it as a pledge, transgressed and gave as a deposit, one fines him for it.
“One does not use it to weigh coins, not even a profane tetradrachma to turn it into a tetradrachma of Second Tithe.” If he had a tetradrachma of Second Tithe whose weight was known to him, may he use it to weigh another tetradrachma of Second Tithe so that its weight should be known to him? May brothers who split an inheritance weigh one against the other?
We have stated: “One should not say to his neighbor in Jerusalem, here you have wine, give me its value in oil, here you have oil, give me its value in wine. But he may say to him, here you have wine since you have no wine, here you have oil since you have no oil.” Here you have wine since I have no oil, they wanted to say that this is forbidden. They found stated: “It is permitted.” Is it not forbidden because of barter? Since he cannot enforce it in a court, this is not barter. Why could he have said: Here you have wine since I have no oil? If I had oil, I would give you that also.
“But they may give free gifts to one another.” Our Mishnah is Rabbi Meir’s since Rabbi Meir says a gift is not like a sale. Rabbi Yose said, here it is everybody’s opinion, following what was stated: A person says to his neighbor in Jerusalem: What did you eat today? If that one says summer figs, he knows that it was firstling. Just as summer figs are sold cheaply, so firstlings are sold cheaply. If that one said manna, he knows that it was Second Tithe. Just as manna was given as a gift, so Second Tithe may be given as a gift. They objected: Everybody agrees that animal tithe cannot be sold; do you say it can be given as a gift? This also can be given as a gift. Rabbi Mana did not say so but was following Rabbi Judah since Rabbi Judah said He made it one’s property. They objected: Everybody agrees that animal tithe is not one’s property; do you say it can be given as a gift? This also can be given as a gift.
Therefore, once it was slaughtered, is it permitted? It was stated by the House of Rabbi Yannai: There is no difference between alive and slaughtered, unblemished and blemished. For what did we state then “live but not slaughtered”? For example, what was stated after this: “One may sell a firstling unblemished alive, blemished alive or slaughtered.”
Rabbi Abba bar Jacob in the name of Rabbi Joḥanan: It is said here: “It may not be redeemed.”Leviticus 27:33 It has been said about priests’ bans “It may not be sold or redeemed.”Leviticus 27:28 Since “it may not be redeemed” for priests’ bans includes sale, so “it may not be redeemed” here includes sale. Rabbi Jacob the Southerner asked before Rabbi Yose: Is it not written about a firstling “it should not be redeemed”?Numbers 18:17 About a blemished animal. For animal tithe, the Torah made no difference between living and slaughtered, unblemished and blemished.
“One may not use it for preliminarily marrying a woman.” But one may use its sinews, bones, horns, and hooves for preliminary marriage. Rabbi Eleazar said, because a blessing is mentioned for it. Why can one not use its meat for preliminary marriage? Rabbi Yose said, they learned tithe only from priests’ bans. Since one may not use priests’ bans for preliminary marriage, one may not use any sacrifices for preliminary marriage. Then one should not be able to use its sinews, bones, horns, and hooves for preliminary marriage. One needs what Rabbi Eleazar said, because a blessing is mentioned for it.
Rabbi Yudan asked: If somebody said to a woman, draw this animal tithe to you from me and be preliminarily married to me by it after slaughtering. Since it is in his hand to slaughter, is she immediately preliminarily married or only after slaughtering?
Rabbi Zeira in the name of Rabbi Abba bar Mamal: If someone steals someone else’s animal tithe, if it still exists he returns it as is, if he ate it, he ate what he ate. Rabbi Eleazar in the name of Rabbi Mana: He cannot ask him to give anything; if it is worth less than a perutah one cannot say that he should give. Rabbi Ḥinena said, that is, if it was worth less than a perutah from the start. But if it was worth a perutah from the start, one tells him to pay.
Rabbi Judah bar Pazi in the name of Rabbi Joshua ben Levi: Alive, but not slaughtered. There, we have stated: “If somebody betroths a woman with his share in most holy or simple holy sacrifices, she is not betrothed.” Rabbi Judah bar Pazi said, Rabbi Judah learns all dedicated things from the firstling. Just as one may betroth a woman with a firstling, so all sacrifices may be used to betroth a woman. Rabbi Meir learns all sacrifices from animal tithe. Just as one may not betroth a woman with animal tithe, so no sacrifices may be used to betroth a woman. The opinion of Rabbi Judah bar Pazi is inverted. There, he says, alive or slaughtered. But here, he says alive, but not slaughtered. There in his own name, here in the name of Rabbi Joshua ben Levi. Even if you say there and here in his own name; if he betroths while it is still alive and with what is scheduled to fall to him. After slaughter, what is the reason of Rabbi Joshua ben Levi? “Their meat shall be for you, like the breast of waving.”Numbers 18:18 And what is the reason of Rabbi Judah ben Pazi? “Shall be for you,” even after slaughtering. How does Rabbi Joshua ben Levi uphold “shall be for you”? He added another being that it should be eaten during two days and one night.
Our Mishnah does not follow Rabbi Yose, as it was stated: “One may exchange Second Tithe for a blank, the words of Rabbi Dosa, but the Sages forbid it.” What is Rabbi Dosa’s reason? “You should bundle the money”Deuteronomy 14:25; something which is bundled together, or which has a form and is current because of its form. Rabbi Yose in the name of Rabbi Joḥanan: The word of Rabbi Yose that one exchanges Second Tithe for a pound of silver. If he had only said “silver,” we would have said just as he said silver, so he said gold. If he had only said “silver,” we would have taught to exclude broken pots and baskets from which one could get a pound of silver.
“For a blank.” Everybody agrees that one does not exchange for the coins given to the olearius. That is, the way they are used for the olearius. But the way they are used by the tremissarius one may exchange.
A coin out of circulation which the government will accept, Rabbi Yose in the name of Rabbi Joḥanan: It is like a blank. Rabbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rabbi Joḥanan: A coin of the earlier kings, if it is currently accepted because of its coinage one exchanges, otherwise one does not exchange. A revolutionary coin like that of Bar Koziba one does not exchange. If he had dangerous coins: such a case came before Rabbi Immi. He said, one should carry its yield to the Dead Sea. If one had coins difficult to determine: Rabbi Jacob bar Zavdi: One exchanges at the value given by the tremissarius. If he wants to spend the coins, he exchanges in his usual way.
“One does not exchange it for money in Babylonia nor for Babylonian money here.” Not for money from here in Babylonia if he is in Babylonia; nor for Babylonian money here when he is here. If he had Babylonian money in Babylonia but he is here, let us say that he may exchange if the road was open; but otherwise he cannot exchange and put in order here.
Rabbi Abin said, all coins were current in Jerusalem in old times, following “beautiful region, enjoyment of all the earth.”Psalms 48:2
I could think that if someone had money on King’s Mountain or in a castle he might exchange based on it. The verse says: “take the silver in your hand”Deuteronomy 14:25; what does “in your hand” mean? In your possession! Rabbi Jonah asked, if his wallet with 1,000,000 denarii fell into a cistern and he could spend 500,000 to get them out, is that as if 500,000 were in his possession?
Mishnah
2 If somebody buys a domestic animal for a well-being offering or a wild animal for meat of desire, the hide becomes profane even though it may be worth more than the meat. If he buys sealed wine jugs at a place where jugs usually are sold sealed, the pitcher becomes profane. The shells of walnuts and almonds become profane. Afterwine before it fermented cannot be bought with tithe money; after it fermented it may be bought with tithe money. If somebody buys a wild animal for a well-being offering or a domestic animal for meat of desire, the hide does not become profane. If he buys open wine jugs or sealed ones at a place where wine usually is sold from the barrel, the pitcher does not become profane. If he buys baskets of figs and baskets of grapes sold with the vessel, the price money of the vessel does not become profane.
Halakhah
It was stated: “Ben Bag Bag says: ‘You shall spend the money for anything you desire.’Deuteronomy 14:26 It was stated: A person may buy a cow because of its hide, a sheep because of its fleece, and wine because of its pitcher.” Rabbi Zeira said, that is, if the seller was a private person. But if the seller was a professional it is as if he sold this separately and that separately. Rabbi Zeira said, the Mishnah said this: “In a place where wine jugs usually are sold sealed, the pitcher becomes profane.” Rabbi Mana said, from this you conclude that just as you say there, if the seller was a professional it is as if he sold this separately and that separately, so if the buyer was a professional it is as if he bought this separately and that separately.
Palm-leaf baskets of dates, plates of dates became profane. Some Tannaim state that boxes of dates did become, some Tannaim state that they did not become. Rav Ḥisda said, he who said they did become, when they were pressed. He who said they did not become, meant when not pressed.
“Afterwine before it fermented cannot be bought with tithe money and invalidates a miqweh; after it fermented it may be bought with tithe money and does not invalidate a miqweh.” Our Mishnah follows Rabbi Judah as we have stated there: “If someone makes afterwine and pours in a measured amount of water, if he found the same amount he is free. Rabbi Judah declares him obligated.” Rabbi Abbahu said, sometimes in the name of Rabbi Eleazar, sometimes in the name of Rabbi Yose ben Ḥanina: Only if it fermented. Rabbi Yose said, it is the opinion of everybody since even salt water may be bought with tithe money.
Rabbi Eleazar said, the tithe money did not acquire. Rabbi Yose said, first we said that if somebody bought a domestic animal for meat of desire, against his will it gets the name of well-being offering but we said nothing since Rabbi Eleazar said, the tithe money did not acquire.
Rabbi Yose in the name of Rabbi Joḥanan: An animal of Second Tithe in Jerusalem following Rabbi Meir is free from the rules of firstlings; following Rabbi Judah it is under the rules of firstlings. Rabbi Jeremiah asked before Rabbi Zeira: If it gave birth to a firstling, must its sacred parts be brought onto the altar? Did not its sacred parts fall under the rules of Second Tithe and you would hide it from being eaten? He said to him, if somebody bought meat as meat of desire, would not the holiness of Second Tithe have fallen on its sacred parts, would you not hide it from being eaten? He said to him, when it was bought, the holiness of tithe left it. Rabbi Yose said, we were not saying so but the Torah did permit to buy from tithe money only well-being sacrifices exclusively. What is the difference between them? If it gave birth to a firstling and he dedicated it as well-being sacrifice. For him who says, the Torah did permit to buy from tithe money only well-being sacrifices exclusively, it is offered. For him who says, when it was bought, the holiness of tithe left it, and it is not offered.
Rabbi Yose said, we teach all these words but a Mishnah supports Rabbi Zeira: “He should not bring from wheat of Second Tithe but from money of Second Tithe.” What is the difference between wheat and money? It must be that when it was bought, the holiness of tithe left it. Rabbi Ḥinena asked before Rabbi Mana: Why should he not bring wheat, the heave to the priest and the rest for the owners, why does he not bring? He said to him, think of it, if the blood is spilled does the bread not become unusable?
Rabbi Joḥanan said, they decreed on a blemished female because of her young. They decreed on a blemished male because of the blemished female. They said in the name of Rabbi Joḥanan, even an unblemished one is a decree. Earlier they said one may buy an animal for meat of desire and hide it from the altar. They turned to say, not even a wild animal, not even birds as it was stated: “Sabbatical money and Second Tithe money can be exchanged for a blemished female animal or other domestic and wild animals and birds whether alive or slaughtered, the words of Rabbi Meir. But the Sages say, one exchanges only on slaughtered ones.” Rabbi Jeremiah in the name of Rabbi Samuel ben Rav Isaac: They decreed this that one should not raise them in herds. Rabbi Jeremiah stood next to Rabbi Zeira who said to him, Rabbi Samuel ben Rav Isaac is still alive and you hang your rags on him! Did not Rabbi Joḥanan say even an unblemished one is a decree! Maybe this was said only for Sabbatical money? They found it stated for Sabbatical money.
Mishnah
3 If somebody buys water, or salt, or produce still connected to the ground, or produce that cannot reach Jerusalem, the tithe money does not acquire. If somebody bought produce in error, the money should return to its place. If intentionally, he should bring them up and they should be eaten at the Place; if there is no Temple they should be left to rot. If somebody buys a domestic animal in error, the money should return to its place. If intentionally, he should bring it up and it should be eaten at the Place; if there is no Temple it should be buried in its hide. One does not buy slaves, real estate, and unclean animals from Second Tithe money. If he bought them, he has to eat their worth. One does not bring nests for men with gonorrhea, women with discharges, or women who have given birth from Second Tithe money. If he bought them, he has to eat their worth. This is the principle: If one bought anything except for eating, drinking, and rubbing from Second Tithe money, he has to eat its worth.
Halakhah
There, we have stated: “One does not buy slaves, real estate, or unclean animals from Sabbatical money. If he did buy them, he has to eat their worth.” And here, you say so? Rabbi Jonah said, Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Joseph and Samuel disagreed. One said here as a sale, there as redemption. The other one said here if the seller is present, there if the seller went away. We did not know who said what. Since Rabbi Yose said in the name of Samuel, the buy is acquired, that means he is the one who said here as a sale, there as redemption.
Our Mishnah follows Rabbi Akiva but not Rabbi Ishmael. Rabbi Ishmael explained: “Spend the money on anything you want,”Deuteronomy 14:26 a general clause. “For cattle and sheep, wine and intoxicating drink,” detail. “And anything you want,” another general clause. General, detail, and general, you may judge only in the light of the detail. Just as the detail is explained as born from what is born from the earth, so only what is born from what is born from the earth. Rabbi Akiva explains: Just as the detail is explained as fruit, born from a fruit, or what prepares fruit, so only what is fruit, born from a fruit, or what prepares fruit. What is the difference between them? Fish, locusts, truffles, and mushrooms which may be bought with tithe money following Rabbi Akiva.
Rabbi Ḥaggai said, a Mishnah said that one does not exchange coins for fruits far from the Place. He said that before Rabbi Abinna who praised him, before Rabbi Jeremiah who needled him: Did we not state, “coins in Jerusalem and produce in the countryside”? There is a difference because it was in one place. When Rabbi Ḥaggai left, he found it stated: coins and produce in Jerusalem, coins and produce in the countryside. He said, if Rabbi Jeremiah had heard this, he would have needled me justly. He wanted to change his mind. Rabbi Zeira said to him, do not change your mind since Rabbi Eleazar said, Rabbi Meir and the rabbis disagree about demai; therefore not for certain produce. Since Rabbi Eleazar said, this is Rabbi Meir’s, it follows that demai and certain are equal.
Rabbi Zevida was sitting and teaching his son: “if somebody wants to exchange tithe money for produce today, both these and those are consecrated, the words of the House of Shammai. The House of Hillel say, the money is as it was and the produce is as it was.” Rabbi Crispus passed by and told him, do not state it so but say “produce for money.” Therefore, everybody agrees that money for produce was not consecrated. But did we not state: “if there is no Temple they should be left to rot”? Explain it if he dedicated it when there was a Temple and the Temple was destroyed.
Ben Vivian stated: “Turn it into money,”Deuteronomy 14:25 far from the Place you redeem it, near the Place you cannot redeem it. “Spend the money,”Deuteronomy 14:26 near the Place you exchange it, far from the Place you do not exchange it.
Rabbi Yose in the name of Samuel: The buy is acquired. Rabbi Yose ben Ḥanina: Expiation. Rabbi Hila said, since we stated “he has to eat their worth,” that means it was sanctified. Rabbi Yose said, since he took it up, the buy was acquired; from there on it is one buy. Rabbi Yudan said, he has to dedicate it again; he means that maybe it was sanctified when it was not sanctified.
Mishnah
1 Second Tithe is to be used for eating, drinking, and anointing; to eat everything commonly eaten, to anoint with what commonly is used for anointing. One should not anoint with wine or vinegar, but with olive oil. One does not use Second Tithe oil as base for perfume, one does not buy perfumed oil with Second Tithe money, but one may make spice wine. If one adds it to honey and spices and it increases in value, the increase is proportional. If fish is cooked with Second Tithe leeks which increases its value, the increase is proportional. If a dough of Second Tithe when baked increased in value, the increase belongs to the Second. This is the principle: In all cases in which the increase is visible, the increase is proportional. In all cases in which the increase is not visible, the increase belongs to the Second.
Halakhah
“Second Tithe is to be used for eating,” etc. It is to be used for eating, since eating is written regarding it. For drinking, since drinking is included in eating. How do we know that drinking is included in eating? Rabbi Jonah understood it from the following: “Therefore, I said to the Children of Israel, no person among you may eat blood.”Leviticus 17:12 What case are we dealing with? If about congealed blood, did we not state: “Congealed blood is neither food nor drink”? So we must hold as is, and the Torah called it “eating.” But did we not state: “If he mashed the fat and sipped it, congealed the blood and ate it, he is guilty!” How does Rabbi Jonah explain? It is neither food, to accept the impurity of food, nor drink, to accept the impurity of drinks.
Rabbi Jonah changed his mind and understood it from the following: “Spend the money for anything you desire.”Deuteronomy 14:26 What case are we dealing with? If one adds the taste of wine to a dish, is that not tasting badly? The rabbis of Caesarea say, explain it with’rznyyh and gmzvzynyyh. Anything auxiliary to food is considered food.
Rabbi Yose understood it from the following: “I swear an oath that I will not eat, when he ate and drank he is guilty on two counts.” The colleagues said, he is guilty only on one count. Rabbi Yose said to them, we say after this, “an oath that I will neither eat nor drink, when he ate and drank he is guilty on two counts.” It is as if somebody had two loaves before him when he said: I swear an oath that I will not eat this one, and then he said: I swear an oath that I will not eat that one, would he not be guilty on two counts?
Rabbi Ḥanania in the name of Rabbi Phinehas understood it from the following: “I swear an oath that I will not eat, when he ate inedible food and drank undrinkable fluids he is free from punishment.” Therefore, if he drank drinkable fluids he is guilty. That is correct following “an oath that I will not eat,” and in our Mishnah they teach “an oath that I will not eat.” But for those rabbis who teach “an oath that I will not eat and I will not drink”?
Rabbi Ḥinena understood it from the following: “If he ate and drank in one forgetting he is guilty only once.” Rabbi Abba Mari understood it from here: “I did not eat from it in my mourning,”Deuteronomy 26:14 but I drank?
It is understandable for him who said, “I swear an oath that I will not eat,” and he drank. But for him who said, “an oath that I will not drink,” and he ate? Drinking is subsumed under eating, but eating is not subsumed under drinking.
Some want to understand it from this: “You may not eat in your gates the tithe of your grain, your cider, and your shining oil.”Deuteronomy 12:17 ‘Your cider,’ that is the wine. ‘And your shining oil’ refers to anointing and the Torah called it ‘eating.’ But this is not clear. If it were clear one should be whipped because of it outside the walls! Rabbi Yose ben Ḥanina said, one is whipped outside the walls only for pure Second Tithe which entered Jerusalem and left. How do we know that it is not clear? From what was stated: “On the Sabbath, both anointing for pleasure and anointing not for pleasure are permitted. On the Day of Atonement, both anointing for pleasure and anointing not for pleasure are forbidden. On the Ninth of Ab and public fasts anointing for pleasure is forbidden but anointing not for pleasure is permitted.” Did we not state: “Anointing is equal to drinking for prohibition and replacement but not for punishment, on the Day of Atonement for prohibition but not for punishment”? Did we not state: “They should not desecrate,”Leviticus 22:15 to include him who anoints and him who drinks. Rabbi Joḥanan said, there is no ‘anoints’ here. Rabbi Abba Mari said, if there is no ‘anoints’ here then there is no ‘drinks’ for otherwise something that comes from two different prohibitions would be added together!
How do we know that it is clear as a positive commandment? Rabbi Eleazar in the name of Rabbi Simai: “Nor did I give from it to the dead.”Deuteronomy 26:14 What case are we dealing with? If it were to bring a casket and shrouds for him, that were also forbidden for a living person! If something is forbidden for the living, not so much more for the dead? What is something which is permitted for the living but prohibited for the dead? That is anointing!
What does “to eat everything commonly eaten” mean? “One does not oblige anybody to eat moldy bread, or discarded leaves of vegetables, or spoiled food.” On the other hand, if somebody wants to eat raw beets or chew raw wheat kernels one does not listen to him. What does “to drink everything one commonly drinks” mean? “One does not oblige anybody to drink oily fish sauce, or sour fish sauce, or wine with yeast. He who has a toothache should not sip vinegar and spit out but he may sip and swallow. He may dip his food in as much vinegar as he wants without second thoughts. He who has a throat ache should not gargle with oil but he may load fish sauce with oil and sip it.” “One should not anoint with wine or vinegar, but with olive oil.” “If somebody has a headache or he has a scab, he may rub with oil but not with wine or vinegar.”
Perfumed wine of Second Tithe may not be used for anointing. Perfumed oil of Second Tithe may be used for anointing. What is the difference? For the latter it is customary, for the former it is not customary.
Rabbi Yudan asked: Second Tithe oil that became rancid? Rabbi Mana said, when it became rancid, its holiness burst from it. Why did he have to ask? Sabbatical oil even if rancid remains in its holiness.
Simeon bar Abba in the name of Rabbi Ḥanina: He who whispers puts oil on his head and whispers on condition that he use neither hand nor vessel. Rabbi Jacob bar Idi, Rabbi Joḥanan in the name of Rabbi Yannai: with hand or vessel. In what do they differ? Whether it is repulsive. For him who says with hand or vessel, it is repulsive. For him who says neither hand nor vessel, it is not repulsive. Rabbi Jonah said, they differ about Second Tithe. For him who says with hand or vessel, Second Tithe is forbidden. For him who says neither hand nor vessel, Second Tithe is permitted. Rabbi Yose said, is all that is permitted on the Sabbath permitted with Second Tithe and all that is forbidden on the Sabbath forbidden with Second Tithe? Did we not state: A woman may douse her son with wine because of sweat, but this is forbidden with heave? Heave and Second Tithe are the same! How is that? Only that he not do it in the way he is used to do it on weekdays.
“If fish is cooked with Second Tithe leeks which increases its value, the increase is proportional.” Rabbi Hoshaiah said, it follows Rabbi Judah, since we have stated: “Rabbi Judah permits in anchovies where it only serves to remove pollutants.” The rabbis of Caesarea asked: The saying of Rabbi Abbahu in the name of Rabbi Joḥanan, that all forbidden food is estimated as if it were onion, as if it were leeks, does this contradict Rabbi Judah? Rabbi Judah will agree regarding an onion of the Temple or an onion of idol worship.
Rabbi Joḥanan said, for everything that augments the measure, the increase in value is proportional, but for everything that does not augment the measure, the increase belongs to the Second Tithe. Rabbi Simeon ben Lakish said, for everything where the taste of the improvement is recognizable, the increase in value is proportional, but for everything where the taste of the improvement is not recognizable, the increase belongs to the Second Tithe. The Mishnah disagrees with Rabbi Jonathan: “If a dough of Second Tithe when baked increased in value, the increase belongs to the Second.” Explain it if the improvement cannot be tasted. The Mishnah disagrees with Rabbi Joḥanan: “If fish cooked with Second Tithe leeks increased in value, the increase is proportional.” Rabbi Yose in the name of Rabbi Hoshaiah: Explain it if he cooked them together. Rabbi Jonah in the name of Rabbi Hoshaiah: Think of it, if he cooked them separately and mixed them! Do fish have only the taste of leeks and leeks only the taste of fish?
A Mishnah disagrees with Rabbi Joḥanan: “Spices, water, or salt a woman borrowed from a friend for her dough, goes after both their feet.” Rabbi Abba said, for eruv they went according to the logical rule. You should know that this is so since they say there in the name of Rav Ḥisda, but we do not know whether from a tradition or a Mishnah, “even logs!” Did we want to say that logs have no credible importance? A baraita disagrees with Rabbi Simeon ben Lakish: “If a tithe dish is prepared with profane spices, the increase belongs to Second Tithe.” Explain it if the improvement cannot be tasted. But was it not stated: “If a profane dish is prepared with Second Tithe spices, the tithe cannot escape redemption”? According to Rabbi Joḥanan, if the volume was increased. According to Rabbi Simeon ben Lakish if the improvement was clearly recognizable.
Mishnah
2 Rabbi Simeon says, one does not rub himself with oil of Second Tithe in Jerusalem but the Sages permit it. They said to Rabbi Simeon, if He made it easy for the important heave, should we not be lenient for the lightweight Second Tithe? He said to them, this is no good. He was lenient for the important heave as He was lenient for vetch and fenugreek; how can we be lenient for Second Tithe where He was not lenient for vetch and fenugreek? Fenugreek of Second Tithe should be eaten as sprouts. Of Heave, the House of Shammai say it must always be handled in purity except for shampooing. But the House of Hillel say, it may be handled in impurity except in soaking. Vetch of Second Tithe should be eaten as sprouts; it may enter Jerusalem and leave. If it became impure, Rabbi Tarfon says it should be divided into pieces of dough, but the Sages say it should be redeemed. If it is heave, the House of Shammai say, one soaks and cleans in purity and feeds in impurity, but the House of Hillel say, one soaks in purity and cleans and feeds in impurity. Shammai says, it should be eaten dry. Rabbi Akiva says, all its processing is done in impurity.
Halakhah
How were they lenient for heave? As we have stated: “A priest may rub himself with heave oil and bring his daughter’s son by an Israelite and roll him on his belly without qualms.” Rabbi Joḥanan said, here they retorted with rabbinic words against the word of the Torah.
So is the Mishnah: It is permitted to eat it as sprouts.
What is between them? Rabbi Jonah said, pulling out of water is between them. The House of Shammai say, one pulls out of the water with pure hands but the House of Hillel say, one pulls out of the water with impure hands. It is stated: “These are the words of Rabbi Meir. But the words of Rabbi Judah, he says that the House of Shammai say, it must always be handled in purity except for shampooing. But the House of Hillel say, it may be handled in impurity except in pulling it out of water.” What is between them? Rabbi Mattaniah said, softening is between them. The House of Shammai say, one softens with pure hands but the House of Hillel say, one softens with impure hands.
To make a dough and return it, to make it and return.
Is our Mishnah Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel’s? “Also produce enters and leaves”! It is the opinion of everybody. Here they were very lenient for vetch, but only dough of vetch, only dough of Second Tithe.
Rabbi Gorion in the name of Rabbi Yose ben Ḥanina: Rabbi Tarfon implies that one may not redeem sanctified food to feed it to the dogs. Rabbi Yose said, it seems reasonable that anything which can be human food cannot be redeemed to be fed to animals, but anything which is not human food can be redeemed to be fed to animals.
Rabbi Isaac ben Eliashiv asked: Is it true that if it became impure in the countryside it should not be redeemed since one may not redeem sanctified food to feed it to the dogs? Rabbi Jonah said, that is נוטי נוטומי.
Mishnah
3 Of profane and Second Tithe coins that were strewn around, what one collected goes to Second Tithe until complete, the remainder is profane. If he mixed them together and took out fists full, it is in proportion. That is the principle: What is picked out is for Second Tithe and what is mixed together by proportion. If a tetradrachma of Second Tithe was mixed up with a profane one, one brings coins in the value of a tetradrachma and says: The tetradrachma of Second Tithe, wherever it may be, is exchanged for these coins. Then he chooses the better of the two and exchanges it for them since they said, one exchanges bronze for silver in an emergency, not that it should stay so but that he should exchange them for silver. The House of Shammai say, a person should not turn his tetradrachmas into gold denarii but the House of Hillel permit it. Rabbi Akiva said, for Rabban Gamliel and Rabbi Joshua I turned their silver coins into gold denarii.
Halakhah
Rabbi Zeira said, for the profit of the Second; maybe the rest will be lost and then at least those held in his hand will be kept for Second Tithe. Rabbi Zeira said, and one has to spell out and say, if those at the bottom are from the Second, those in my hand are taken in their stead. Rabbi Jonah said, only if he collected from all around but if he collected in a straight line it is as if he had swept and taken out fists full.
Rabbi Yose in the name of Rabbi Pedaiah, Rabbi Jonah in the name of Ḥizkiah, there is no mixing except for wine and oil. Rabbi Joḥanan says, it can be mixed up to the size of olives. Our Mishnah disagrees with Rabbi Joḥanan: “If he mixed them together and took out fists full, it is by proportion.” He explains it, up to the size of olives. “What is picked out is for Second Tithe and what is mixed together in proportion.” Rabbi Yose ben Rabbi Abun in the name of Rabbi Huna: The Mishnah comes up so: What is mixed and what is taken out in fists full in proportion.
It was stated: Ben Azai says, two. Rabbi Zeira said, in a dream I had Ulla bar Ishmael ate fat meat. The next day he came and asked him, he said to him, why two? He said to him, since you tell him so, he will push himself to exchange it.
Ḥizkiah said, when he exchanges it, he treats it as bad. But if he exchanges for it, he treats it as a good one. But did we not state: “He chooses the better of the two and exchanges it for them”? Why can he not take the worse coin and treat it as a good one? Rabbi Jonah said, I say that this one was Second Tithe.
Did it not become profane anyhow? Rabbi Jonah said, he should not intend to make it totally profane. You should understand that this is so since we have stated: “not that it should stay so but that he should exchange it for silver.”
Rabbi Ḥaggai said before Rabbi Zeira, Menaḥem in the name of Rabbi Joḥanan: In all cases where they said about demai that it can be exchanged, for certain produce one may exchange it in an emergency. But did we not state: “One exchanges bronze for silver in an emergency,” therefore not silver for silver! Rabbi Abba bar Cohen said before Rabbi Jonah, Rabbi Aḥa in the name of Rabbi Joḥanan: In all cases where they said about demai that it should be exchanged, if he transgressed and exchanged for certain produce it is exchanged. Rabbi Judah ben Pazi, Rabbi Simeon bar Abba in the name of Rabbi Joḥanan: In all cases where they said about demai that it should be exchanged, if he transgressed and exchanged for certain produce they are exchanged.
It was stated: “Rabbi Eleazar ben Rabbi Simeon says one exchanges gold for silver just as one exchanges silver for bronze. Rabbi said to him: Why does one exchange silver for bronze? Because one exchanges silver for gold! Should one exchange gold for silver? One does not exchange gold for bronze! Rabbi Eleazar ben Rabbi Simeon answered him: Certainly one exchanges Second Tithe gold for small coins in Jerusalem!” From the arguments of both of them one exchanges silver for silver and one does not exchange silver for bronze.
Rabbi Joḥanan said, the House of Shammai said this only at the end, but at the beginning also the House of Shammai agree. What is the reason of the House of Shammai? “Silver,”Deuteronomy 14:25 not gold. Say “silver” but not bronze! But did we not state: “If somebody gets change for coins of Second Tithe”? We wanted to say that the Mishnah means: If somebody takes a tetradrachma for coins of Second Tithe. How is that? The reason of the House of Shammai is that silver and bronze have the same rule. Rabbi Simeon ben Lakish said, both at the beginning and at the end does the House of Shammai disagree. What is the reason of the House of Shammai? “Silver”Deuteronomy 14:25 first and not second. But did we not state: “If somebody gets change for coins of Second Tithe”? We wanted to say that the Mishnah means: If somebody takes a tetradrachma for coins of Second Tithe. How is that? The reason of the House of Shammai: “Silver,”Deuteronomy 14:25 it should add up to silver.
Mishnah
4 He who gives a tetradrachma for change of Second Tithe money, the House of Shammai say small change for the entire tetradrachma but the House of Hillel say one shekel silver coin and one shekel small coin. Rabbi Meir says, one does not exchange silver coin and produce for silver coin, but the Sages permit it. He who gives a tetradrachma of Second Tithe for change in Jerusalem, the House of Shammai say small change for the entire tetradrachma but the House of Hillel say one shekel silver coin and one shekel small coin. Those who argue before the Sages say, three silver denarii and one denarius in small coins. Rabbi Akiva says, three silver denarii and a quarter in small coins. Rabbi Tarfon says, four silver aspers. Shammai says, he should deposit it in a store and eat against its value. If part of one’s children were pure and part impure, he puts down the tetradrachma and says, this tetradrachma is exchanged for what the pure are drinking. It turns out that the pure and the impure may drink from the same pitcher.
Halakhah
Rabbi Simeon ben Lakish said, where do Rabbi Meir and the rabbis disagree? If the produce is not worth a silver coin. But for produce worth a silver coin also the rabbis agree. Half a denarius in money and half a denarius’s worth of produce is permitted. A denarius in money and a denarius’s worth of produce is forbidden, and so much more two denarii in money and two denarii’s worth of produce is forbidden.
These are the ones who argue: Ben Azai and Ben Zoma. These are the students: Ḥanina ben Hakhiniah and Rabbi Eleazar ben Mathia. The holy group, Rabbi Yose ben Hameshullam and Rabbi Simeon ben Menasiah.
What is the reason of Shammai? Maybe he will forget and treat it as profane!
What case are we dealing with? If he said it before, the drink is mixed. If he said it when it will be drunk, before they drank profane. But we hold that he said it before to apply at the time of drinking.
If they are impure by the impurity of the dead, for no clay vessel becomes impure from its back. But if they are impure by the impurity of flux, since the impure from flux makes impure by carrying, this cannot be the case unless one other person pours. But if one other pours, even if they are impure by the impurity of flux.
Mishnah
1 A person should not say to another: bring this produce to Jerusalem to distribute, but he may say bring it that we will eat and drink it together, or they may give free gifts to one another.
Halakhah
“One should not say to another person,” etc. What is the difference between him who says “to distribute” and him who says “that we should eat and drink them”? Rabbi Zeira in the name of Rabbi Jonathan, this is one of the practices of obfuscation. There, we have stated: If somebody says to a day-laborer: “Here you have an as and collect vegetables for me today,” these wages are permitted. “For its value collect vegetables for me today,” these wages are forbidden. If somebody bought from the baker a loaf in the value of a dupondius and says, when I collect vegetables from the field I will bring to you, that is permitted. If he took from him silently he should not pay with the proceeds of Sabbatical produce since one may not pay a debt with proceeds of the Sabbatical. What is the difference between him who says “collect for me” and him who says “for its value collect for me”? Rabbi Yose in the name of Rabbi Yose ben Ḥanina, this is one of the practices of obfuscation. There, we have stated: “A person may borrow from another pitchers of wine or oil but he should not say: lend me.” What is the difference between him who says “let me borrow” and him who says “lend me”? Rabbi Zeira in the name of Rabbi Jonathan, this is one of the practices of obfuscation.
Their bread. Rabbi Jacob bar Aḥa in the name of Rabbi Jonathan: This also belongs to the practices of obfuscation. Rabbi Yose said, I objected before Rabbi Jacob bar Aḥa: Why should it belong to the practices of obfuscation? Do I say that at a place where Jewish bread is available, Gentile bread should be forbidden but they obfuscated about it and permitted it or that at a place where no Jewish bread is available it is logical that Gentile bread should be permitted, but they obfuscated the matter and forbade it. Rabbi Mana said: Does there exist obfuscation for prohibition? Is bread not like Gentile cooking? So we say: At a place where no Jewish cooking is to be found it is logical that Gentile cooking should be permitted, but they obfuscated the matter and forbade it. But so it was: At a place where no Jewish bread is available it is logical that Gentile bread should be forbidden, but they obfuscated the matter and permitted it as a necessity of life. The rabbis of Caesarea in the name of Rabbi Jacob bar Aḥa hold with the one who permits, but only from a store. But we do not follow this.
It was stated: “Rabbi Judah and Rabbi Neḥemiah forbid it.” What are we talking about? If about him who says, here you have it, give me payment, everybody agrees that it is forbidden. If he says, give me and I will give you, everybody agrees that it is permitted. But it is about one who says, give it to me and it is clear to me where to find it, I will bring it to you; Rabbi Judah and Rabbi Neḥemiah forbid it because vegetables on the field are rare; but the Sages permit it because vegetables on the field are abundant.
After he transported it, may he say take your part and I will take mine? May he say to him, take this barrel of wine and we will eat the barrel of oil that is there. Is it similar with animal tithe? Second Tithe, since it has special conditions for a sale you say is forbidden but animal tithe since it has no conditions for a sale you say is permitted. It should not be clear to you that it is permitted. May he ask him, take and transport this domesticated or wild animal, and we will eat meat from a ritually slaughtered animal there?
Mishnah
2 One may not buy heave with tithe money because he would restrict its edibility, but Rabbi Simeon permits. Rabbi Simeon said to them: If He was lenient with well-being sacrifices when that could bring them to be piggul, leftover, or impure, would He not be lenient with heave? They answered him but no, if He was lenient with well-being sacrifices that are permitted to outsiders, can we be lenient with heave which is forbidden to outsiders?
Halakhah
It was stated: “That it should not become unusable.” What is “become unusable”? Rabbi Jonah said, it becomes unusable through a tevul-yom. You cannot eat it, for he is impure by the word of the Torah; you cannot for he is pure by the word of the Torah. That means, that it should not become unusable.
What does “he would restrict its edibility” mean? Heave is forbidden to outsiders, Second Tithe is permitted to outsiders. Heave is forbidden to a tevul-yom, Second Tithe is permitted to a tevul-yom. And just as he would restrict its edibility, so he would restrict her edibility. Heave is permitted to the deep mourner, Second Tithe is forbidden to the deep mourner. Heave does not need an enclosure, Second Tithe needs an enclosure. It was found stated: “Because he would restrict its edibility and her edibility.”
It was stated: “One does not buy Sabbatical produce with tithe money.” Rabbi Yose said, that is a disagreement. Rabbi Jonah said, that is the opinion of everybody. The eaters of heave are careful. Rabbi Ḥananiah objected before Rabbi Mana: Did we not state: “If they were mingled with firstlings, Rabbi Simeon says, if it is a company of priests they should be eaten.” And we have stated on that, they should be eaten following the more stringent rules. He said to him, eaters of the Pesaḥ sacrifice in its time are as careful as the eaters of heave. You should know that this is so since we have stated: “One roasts meat, onion, or egg only that they should be roasted,” but we have stated: “One lowers the Pesaḥ sacrifice into the oven at nightfall.”
Rabbi Joshua ben Levi says: One does add a fifth only for the first dedication. Rabbi Eleazar said, this is what has been stated: “If it is an impure animal, he shall redeem it for its value”Leviticus 27:27; just as an impure animal is special in that it is a first dedication so for anything which is a first dedication he has to add a fifth. Rabbi Samuel bar Ḥiyya bar Judah in the name of Rabbi Ḥanina: If well-being sacrificial animals bought with tithe money developed a blemish and one redeemed them, he adds a fifth. Rabbi Samuel bar Ḥiyya bar Judah in the name of Rabbi Ḥanina: If well-being sacrificial animals bought with Passover money developed a blemish and one redeemed them, he adds a fifth. Rabbi Yudan said, one is needed and one is not needed. Rabbi Mana said, Passover is needed, well-being sacrifices are not needed. You should not say that since the Pesaḥ sacrifice is changed into well-being sacrifices it is like one dedication, he would not add a fifth.
Rabbi Huna said, the reason of Rabbi Simeon is that he says the pesaḥ sacrifice cannot be substituted; if he substituted a second time it still is a pesaḥ. If he substituted, it is a well-being sacrifice! Rabbi Mana said to him, did my teacher not compare the following? Rabbi Abba, Rabbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rabbi Joḥanan, if well-being sacrifices bought with tithe money developed a blemish and he redeemed them, it does not return to its original status to make it a second. Rabbi Zeira, Rabbi Hila, both in the name of Rabbi Yose ben Ḥanina, one said if well-being sacrifices were bought with tithe money, the holiness of tithe broke away from them. If heave was bought with tithe money, the holiness of tithe did not break away from it. The Mishnah breaks: Can you object from a case in which the holiness of tithe broke away to a case in which the holiness of tithe did not break away? The other one said, this does not mean one objects from a case in which its holiness broke away to a case in which its holiness did not break away; he says to him, it is one immersion.
Mishnah
3 If somebody had coins in Jerusalem and his friend had produce, he says to his friend, these coins are exchanged for your produce. That one has to eat his produce in purity but he can use his coins for his needs. But one should not say this to an am haʾaretz unless they were from demai. Produce in Jerusalem and coins in the countryside, he says these coins are exchanged for that produce. Coins in Jerusalem and produce in the countryside, he says that produce is exchanged for these coins; then the produce must be brought to and eaten in Jerusalem. Tithe money enters Jerusalem and leaves; tithe produce enters but does not leave. Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel says, even produce enters and leaves. If fully processed produce was transported through Jerusalem, its Second Tithe should be brought back and eaten in Jerusalem. If the produce was not fully processed, the baskets of grapes are for the winepress, and baskets of figs for the muktzeh. The House of Shammai say, the Second Tithe should be brought up and eaten in Jerusalem. But the House of Hillel say, it may be redeemed and eaten anywhere. Rabbi Simeon ben Judah said in the name of Rabbi Yose, the House of Shammai and the House of Hillel did not disagree about produce which was not fully processed, that its Second Tithe may be redeemed and eaten anywhere. Where did they disagree? About fully processed produce, where the House of Shammai said, its Second Tithe should be brought back and eaten in Jerusalem, but the House of Hillel said, it may be redeemed and eaten anywhere. Demai enters, leaves, and may be redeemed.
Halakhah
“But one should not say this to an am haʾaretz unless they were from demai”; therefore, not if it is certain since one does not deliver certain tithe to an am haʾaretz.
To make a dough and return it, to make a dough and return it.
Rabbi Simeon ben Lakish said, this means they made Jerusalem like a secure courtyard. Just as a secure courtyard induces tevel, this also induces tevel. Rabbi Jonah said, it would have been logical that even its houses would not induce tevel since they are property of all of Israel. But it means they made Jerusalem like a secure courtyard. Just as a secure courtyard grabs, so this grabs. Rabbi Jonah said, this means if a heap was tevel for First and Second Tithes and he was warned only about the Second he is whipped. Rabbi Mana objected: Did we not state, the House of Shammai say, the Second Tithe should return and be eaten in Jerusalem? Can you say that he is whipped according to the House of Shammai? But enclosures are more important; here also, enclosures are more important.
Rabbi Zeira asked: If he separated Second Tithe for it from another place, is it freed or was it already grabbed by the enclosure? Rabbi Jonah asked: If he made all of it Second Tithe for some place, is all of it taken or only one tenth of what is in it?
Therefore, baskets of table figs and baskets of table grapes are end of processing.
“The House of Hillel said to the House of Shammai: Do you not agree with us that Second Tithe of not fully processed produce may be redeemed and eaten anywhere? Also with fully processed produce it is the same. The House of Shammai answered them: No. If you say this about not fully processed produce which one may abandon and thereby free from tithes, what can you say about fully processed produce which one cannot abandon and thereby free from tithes. The House of Hillel replied to them: Even fully processed produce one may abandon and thereby free from tithes; are not baskets of eating figs or grapes fully processed?” This proves that baskets of table figs and baskets of table grapes are end of processing. “The House of Shammai answered them: No. If you say this about not fully processed produce for which one may take Second Tithe from another place, what can you say about fully processed produce for which one cannot take Second Tithe from another place!” This answers the question simply.
Rabbi Zeira said: Rabbi Ḥanina, Rabbi Jonathan, and Rabbi Joshua ben Levi ascended to Jerusalem. There happened to be produce for them; they wanted to redeem it in the countryside. An old woman told them, your ancestors did not do that but took it outside of the wall and redeemed it there. The old woman thought one considers the enclosures as if they were risen; those rabbis thought one does not consider the enclosures as if they were risen. The old woman held with Rabbi Eliezer; those rabbis held with Rabbi Joshua. Rabbi Phinehas made it impure and redeemed it; he took both into consideration.
Rabbi Jacob bar Idi and Rabbi Joshua ben Levi, practice follows the student. Rabbi Zeira said, only for produce which is tevel as demai. But tithe of demai itself is already grabbed by the enclosure.
Mishnah
4 A tree which stands inside and its crown extends outside, or stands outside and extends inside, what is above the wall and inside is like inside, above the wall and outside is like outside. Oil presses whose entrances are inside but their space extends to the outside or whose entrances are outside but their space extends to the inside, the House of Shammai say it is all counted as inside, but the House of Hillel say what is under the wall and inside is like inside, under the wall and outside is like outside. If chambers are built in the holy precinct and open to the profane domain, their insides are profane but their roofs holy. If they are built in the profane domain but open to the holy precinct, their insides are holy but their roofs profane. If they are built in the holy and the profane and open both to the holy and the profane, their insides and their roofs, over the holy and in direction of the holy they are holy, over the profane and in direction of the profane they are profane.
Halakhah
Rabbi Eleazar said, for restriction. Rabbi Yose asked, what does “for restriction” mean? Rabbi Jonah said, that is what we have stated there: “Oil presses whose doors are open inside but which extend to the outside, under the wall and inside is like inside, under the wall and outside is like outside. One does not slaughter there simple sacrifices as one would inside and one does not redeem Second Tithe as outside. If their doors are open outside but extend to the inside, under the wall and outside is like outside, under the wall and inside, one does not slaughter there simple sacrifices as one would inside and one does not redeem Second Tithe as outside.”
Rabbi Jacob bar Aḥa said, so is the Mishnah: “Their insides are holy and their roofs are profane, over the holy and in the direction of the holy they are holy, over the profane and in direction of the profane they are profane.” “Built in the holy but open to the holy and the profane, the inside is holy. Built in the profane but open to the holy and the profane, the inside is profane. There, where you say the inside is holy one eats most holy sacrifices, slaughters simple holy sacrifices and the impure who enters is guilty.”
Rav Judah in the name of Rav: One whips only for 187 length by 135 width. But did we not state: In a chamber built flush with the wall of the Temple courtyard one eats most holy sacrifices, slaughters simple holy sacrifices, but an impure person who enters there cannot be punished. Explain it following the Tanna who stated: “Rabbi Yose said, these are the words of Rabbi Akiva. But the Sages say, they classified the chambers and all chambers follow their openings.”
Mishnah
5 Second Tithe which entered Jerusalem and became impure, whether from original impurity or from derivative impurity, inside the city or outside, the House of Shammai say, all should be redeemed and eaten inside except what became impure from original impurity outside. But the House of Hillel say, all should be redeemed and may be eaten outside except what became impure from derivative impurity inside.
Halakhah
It is written: “For you will be unable to take it.”Deuteronomy 14:24 What case are we dealing with? If far from the Place, it already is written: “If the distance will be too much for you.” If near the Place, it already is written: “You shall spend the money.”Deuteronomy 14:26 What does it mean “for you will be unable to take it”? You cannot redeem it, and it is written: “You shall spend the money.”
It was stated: Bar Kappara said, “original impurity” is biblical, “derivative impurity” rabbinic. Rabbi Joḥanan said, in both cases it is biblical. The House of Shammai are difficult for Rabbi Joḥanan: “The House of Shammai say, all should be redeemed and eaten inside except what became impure from original impurity outside”; what is the difference between original impurity outside and derivative impurity outside; are not both biblical? Are the words of the House of Hillel not also difficult? “The House of Hillel say, all should be redeemed and may be eaten outside except what became impure from derivative impurity inside”; what is the difference between original impurity inside and derivative impurity inside; are not both biblical? The rabbis discuss only that from Bar Kappara.
It is difficult, according to Bar Kappara for the House of Shammai, since “the House of Shammai say, all should be redeemed and eaten inside except what became impure from original impurity outside”; what is the difference between derivative impurity and original impurity; what is the difference between outside and inside, are not both biblical? That one should not say, is that not Second Tithe which enters and leaves? If it is so, it should not be redeemed, so that one should not say, is that not Second Tithe which enters Jerusalem and is redeemed? If it became impure inside, the enclosure had grabbed it; if it became impure outside, the enclosure never grabbed it. And is it not difficult even for the House of Hillel? For “the House of Hillel say, all should be redeemed and may be eaten outside except what became impure from derivative impurity inside”; what is the difference for derivative impurity between outside and inside; are not both rabbinic? When he brought it inside it was on condition it should not be “grabbed” by the enclosure.
Rabbi Zeira said, this means pure Second Tithe which he brought inside on condition that the enclosure not “grab” it, the enclosure does not “grab” it. Rabbi Jonah asked, it is pure and you say so? But it must be: If he transgressed and redeemed it, it is redeemed.
Rabbi Jacob the Southerner asked before Rabbi Yose: If it became impure outside of Jerusalem and was brought inside, it should not leave, so that no one should say, we saw Second Tithe entering Jerusalem and leaving? Leaving is publicized, redemption is not publicized.
Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Ada inquired before Rabbi Mana: If it became impure by derivative impurity and he redeemed it, then it became impure in original impurity; do we say that if the original money is still there he redeems with it, otherwise he cannot redeem with it, and one is whipped neither for the first nor the second monies? Rabbi Jonah asked, is it the same for him who buys? Rabbi Mana said, the enclosure “grabs” and the buyer “grabs.” What was said for the enclosure was said for the buyer.
Mishnah
6 If what was bought with tithe money became impure, it should be redeemed. Rabbi Judah says, it should be buried. They said to Rabbi Judah, if original Second Tithe which became impure is redeemed, what was bought with tithe money and became impure certainly should be redeemed. He said to them, no! If you said about original Second Tithe, which can be redeemed when it is pure and far from the Place, can you say the same about what was bought with tithe money which cannot be redeemed when it is pure and far from the Place? If a deer bought with tithe money died, it should be buried in its hide. Rabbi Simeon says, it should be redeemed. If he bought it alive and slaughtered it, if it became impure it should be redeemed. Rabbi Yose said, it should be buried. If he bought it slaughtered and it became impure, he treats it following the rules of produce. If somebody lends flasks for Second Tithe, even if he closed the top with clay, tithe did not acquire it. If he filled them without saying anything, before he closed the top with clay, tithe did not acquire it; after he closed the top with clay, tithe acquired it. Before he closed the top with clay, one may lift by 101, after he closed the top with clay any one sanctifies. Before he closed the top with clay, he gives heave from one for all, after he closed the top with clay he has to give heave from each single one. The House of Shammai say, he opens and pours into a vat, but the House of Hillel say, he opens and does not have to pour. Where has this been said? At a place where usually one sells sealed, but at a place where usually one sells open, the flask did not become profane. However, if he is meticulous to sell by volume, the flask did become profane. Rabbi Simeon said, also if somebody says to another person, I am selling to you this amphora except its flask, the flask became profane.
Halakhah
What is the reason of Rabbi Judah? The first money, not second money. Only because they objected to him by an argument from the lesser to the greater, he answered in terms of an argument from the lesser to the greater.
Rabbi Yose in the name of Rabbi Joḥanan: They treated deer like dedications for the upkeep of the Temple to require standing and appraisal.
Rabbi Jeremiah asked before Rabbi Zeira: Does an unclean animal need standing and appraisal? He said to him, if Rabbi Yose had said in the name of Rabbi Joḥanan that a pure wild animal does not need standing and appraisal, an unclean animal would not need it. Rabbi Hila said, we have stated thus: “If an unclean animal, he should redeem it as appraised.”Leviticus 27:21 Just as an unclean animal is particular in that it is the same at the time of its redemption as at the time of its dedication, so I am adding the dead animal which is the same at the time of its redemption as at the time of its dedication, and I exclude the one for which he said, this is dedicated, and then it died, which is not the same at the time of its redemption as at the time of its dedication. Rabbi Yose said, a Mishnah said so: “One commits larceny with a donkey and its milk.” Is not milk comparable to its being dead? With all that needs redemption one can commit larceny. You cannot explain it as giving the rules of dead animals since we stated “a donkey.” Rabbi Ḥanina said before Rabbi Mana, explain it following Rabbi Simeon since Rabbi Simeon said, dedications for the upkeep of the Temple do not need standing and appraisal. He said to him, if it is following Rabbi Simeon, why a donkey and not any animal?
Rabbi Zeira said, the Torah said, spend it in the Holy Place and assemble it in the countryside. Just as in the holy place the flask is profane, in the countryside can the flask be grasped by tithe?
Rabbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rabbi Joḥanan, so is the Mishnah: “If before he sealed the top with clay he gave it its name, tithe did not acquire it; if after he sealed the top with clay he gave it its name, tithe acquired it. If before he sealed the top with clay he gave it its name, one may lift by 101, if after he sealed the top with clay any one sanctifies. If before he sealed the top with clay he gave it its name, he gives heave from one for all, if after he sealed the top with clay he gave it its name, he has to give heave from each single one.”
When has this been said? For wine; but for oil, whether he closed the top with clay or did not close the top with clay, tithe did not acquire it. Whether he closed the top with clay or did not close the top with clay, he may lift by 101. Whether he closed the top with clay or did not close the top with clay, he gives heave from one for all.
Rabbi Ḥananiah said, it is difficult about the House of Shammai! What is the difference between this and five sacks on a threshing floor? For five separate sacks on one threshing floor, can one not give heave and tithe from one for the other?
Rabbi Joshua ben Levi said, it refers back to the first part. Rabbi Ba said, to the second.
“If he said, a quartarius of profane is in this barrel, the barrel is profane.” Rabbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rabbi Joḥanan: The Mishnah says so, “Rabbi Simeon said, also if somebody says to another person, I am selling to you this amphora except its flask, the flask became profane.”
Mishnah
1 If somebody transports Second Tithe produce from a place of high prices to one of low prices or vice versa, he redeems at the level of his place. If he brings produce from the threshing floor to town or from the winepress to town, the excess value belongs to the Second but the expense is on him. One redeems Second Tithe following the low rate at which the grocer buys, not at which he sells; the one at which the banker gives small coins, not at which he assembles large coins. One does not redeem Second Tithe en bloc; if the price is known it is redeemed by the information of one person, if the price is not known by the information of three, for example, wine getting sour, fruit rotting, or coins rusting.
Halakhah
“If somebody transports Second Tithe produce,” etc. Rabbi Mana said, they said only “if somebody transports”; therefore originally it is forbidden. This is about Second Tithe produce, but for produce which is tevel for Second Tithe it is originally permitted, following this: Rabbi had produce here and in Batanaia; he fixed the tithes of here there and redeemed them according to the going price there.
It was stated: Whether it was expensive and became cheap or cheap and became more expensive. We understand “expensive and became cheap.” “Cheap and became more expensive”? There is a difference because he could use a trick and free it from the fifth.
It was stated: “Abba Ḥilfai the small-town man said, when has this been said? For certain produce, but for demai whether it was expensive and became cheap or was cheap and became expensive, he may sell it cheaply.” Why? Is it because it always may be sold cheaply or because it may not be returned to its place? What is the difference? If later it rose in price again at its place. If you say, because it may not be returned to its place, did it not increase in value? If you say, because it always may be sold cheaply also in this case it can be sold cheaply. Like this: Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba was in Rome and he saw them redeem there Nicolaos dates from here at the price here. He said, who taught them? Ḥilfai the small-town man taught them.
It was stated: A person may earn up to a shekel, a person may earn up to a quarter. How is this done? A denarius here is worth 2000, but in Arbel 2000 and a laqan. He wants to give 50 myriads and brings it up, here by 2000 and in Arbel by 2000 and laqan.
It was stated: One does not redeem Second Tithe as Second Tithe but as profane. Rabbi Saul asked: Think of it, if everybody knew that it was Second? Even so. It was stated: One redeems Second Tithe only from its own kind. Otherwise, what would we say? One might redeem wheat for barley, barley for wheat; even fine wheat for coarse wheat, coarse wheat for fine wheat.
Rabbi Ḥanania said: Rabbi took early ripe green melons for the government and fixed their Second Tithe in each peduncle. He considered them as if cut. Rabbi Joḥanan asked, they were whole and you say cut? Rabbi Jonah said, that is correct! If two people were partners in a green melon, one having one part and the other two, can he say, take your part and I will take mine? But for the two together it is sold more dearly; here also together it is sold more dearly. Like this: Rabbi Simeon ben Rabbi commanded those Southerners who were disregarding it. Bar Kappara lifted them and before him cut them into little pieces. He said to him, is that worth anything? So far, some things are cut into little pieces and they are no good, other things are cut into little pieces and are good.
Rabbi Joshua ben Levi said, one redeems Second Tithe only up to thirty six times the coin’s worth. And Rabbi Ḥizkiah said, one who exchanges should not exchange for half a perutah so he should not be like one who exchanges for a blank; it must be worth a perutah.
Rabbi Immi said, Kama came before Rabbi Joḥanan and Rabbi Simeon ben Lakish. They said to him, go and pay according to those Tannaim: “One redeems Second Tithe when it is cheap, not when it is expensive; at the rate at which the grocer buys, not at which he sells; the one at which the banker gives small coins, not at which he assembles large coins.” So far for large quantities, what about small ones? Even so, at the rate at which the grocer buys, not at which he sells; the one at which the banker gives small coins, not at which he assembles large coins.
Rabbi Naḥman bar Jacob showed a basket of palm leaves to a carpenter and redeemed following his opinion. Rabbi Yannai showed a quarter qab wheat to a wheat dealer and redeemed following his opinion. Rabbi Simon showed produce to Rabbi Ḥilkiah who asked him, by their true value? He answered, yes. Rabbi Ḥilkiah said in the name of Rabbi Simon, one does not redeem Second Tithe following the opinion of imbeciles. Rabbi Phinehas showed produce to a grits-maker who asked him, by their true value? He said to him, so said Rabbi Ḥilkiah in the name of Rabbi Simon, one does not redeem following the opinion of imbeciles. Rabbi Shammai said, how much a person wants to pay on a clear noontime at the summer solstice when the bath master takes up his bunches, he brings coins and redeems. Rabbi Jeremiah said, as much as a person wants Friday afternoon from women braiders when he passes by, he brings coins and redeems. Rabbi Yudan bar Gadya said, Rabbi Jacob bar Abun left it lying until it got moldy and redeemed it immediately after the Sabbath.
Rabbi Mana had oil which he brought down to Acco. Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Ada said to him, if your oil there at the parapet is still there, it is your time that you should redeem it for there it is not worth six minas.
Rabbi Joḥanan said, one redeems Second Tithe by the offers of three buyers, even if one of them is a Gentile, even if one of them is an owner. Rabbi Jonah asked: Not two Gentiles, not two owners; also not one Gentile and one owner? No, it was said separately.
Mishnah
2 If the owner says a tetradrachma and another says a tetradrachma, the owner is preferred since he adds a fifth. The owner says a tetradrachma and someone else says a tetradrachma and an as, the one who offers a tetradrachma and an as is preferred since he adds to the capital. He who redeems his own Second Tithe adds a fifth, whether it is his own or was given to him as a gift.
Halakhah
Is not the fifth of this more than the addition of that one? Rabbi Abin said, there is a difference that he can circumvent and free it from the fifth.
“A tetradrachma and an as is preferred since he adds to the capital.” Rabbi Jacob bar Idi in the name of Rabbi Simai: One does not add a fifth for any Second Tithe which itself is not worth a perutah. Rabbi Yose ben Rabbi Simon in the name of Rabbi Joḥanan: One does not add a fifth for any Second Tithe for which the fifth is not worth a perutah. Rabbi Abba bar Mamai objected: Did we not state “there are five perutot,” should one not state “six” according to Rabbi Simai, “Second Tithe which is worth a perutah!” And “seven” according to Rabbi Joḥanan, “the fifth of Second Tithe worth a perutah.” In addition, from what Rabbi Yose said in the name of Rabbi Mana bar Tanḥum, Abbahu in the name of Rabbi Joḥanan: Real estate cannot be acquired for less than a perutah. In addition, from the following: If the value of Second Tithe is not known, it is enough that one say: it and its fifth is exchanged for this tetradrachma. Rabbi Yose in the name of Rabbi Crispus, Rabbi Jonah in the name of Rabbi Zeira: this baraita deals with a tetradrachma of tithe money where it is impossible that it not contain some profane.
Rabbi Joḥanan said, if somebody redeemed dedications for more than their worth, the Temple grabs everything. If somebody redeemed Second Tithe for more than its worth, it does not grab everything. What is the difference between dedications and Second Tithe? Rabbi Immi said, because a person usually adds to his dedications. Rabbi Zeira asked before Rabbi Immi: If the person was checked and he said, that was not what I intended? He said to him, when he will be checked.
Rabbi Jonah asked, that is following him who said that it is not his property. But for him who says that it is his property, what is the difference between dedications and Second Tithe? Rabbi Yose said, the reason has already been explained, because a person usually adds to his dedications.
Rabbi Joḥanan said, if somebody redeemed his dedication without adding a fifth, it is redeemed. If somebody redeemed his Second Tithe without adding a fifth, it is not redeemed. What is the difference between dedications and Second Tithe? Rabbi Hila said, dedications have claimants, Second Tithe has no claimants. Rabbi Jonah asked, that is following him who said, it is not his property. But for him, who says it is his property, what is the difference between dedications and Second Tithe? Rabbi Yose said, the reason has already been explained, dedications have claimants, Second Tithe has no claimants.
“He who redeems his own Second Tithe adds a fifth, whether it was his own or was given to him as a gift.” Our Mishnah is Rabbi Meir’s since Rabbi Meir says, a gift is not like a sale. Rabbi Jonah said, it is the opinion of everybody, explain it with produce still tevel for tithes. But did we not state: “He who redeems his own fourth-year tree adds a fifth, whether it is his own or was given to him as a gift”? Can you say that this speaks about produce still tevel for Second Tithe? We have stated “fourth-year tree!” That means the fourth-year tree itself! So here, you will end up saying “tithe.”
Mishnah
3 One may circumvent about Second Tithe. How is this? A person may say to his neighbor, his adult son or daughter, his Hebrew male or female slave: Take these coins and redeem this tithe for yourself. But he should not say so to his minor son or daughter or his Canaanite male or female slave because their hand is like his hand. If somebody was standing on the threshing floor and no coins were in his hand, he says to a friend, this produce is given to you as a gift; then he goes on and says to him, it is redeemed by coins in the house.
Halakhah
Rabbi Abun said, Rabbi Eleazar and Rabbi Yose bar Ḥanina disagree. One said, why may one circumvent it? For “blessing” is written about it. The other said, why is it redeemed at a cheap rate? For “blessing” is written about it.
What case are we dealing with? If he said to him, go and redeem for me, he is his agent; go and redeem for yourself, they are the other’s property. But we have to hold that he said to him, redeem for me of your property, or redeem for yourself of my property. We have stated thus: “Redeem for me of your property, or redeem for yourself of my property, he does not add a fifth.” Rabbi Joḥanan said, for any tithe, where neither it nor its redemption money is his, he does not have to add a fifth. Rabbi Yose ben Rabbi Abun in the name of Rabbi Ḥanina, the reason of Rabbi Joḥanan: “If a person goes to redeem of his own tithes, his own fifth he shall add to it”Leviticus 27:31; both it and its redemption money must be his.
What case are we dealing with? If she is an adult, she acquired her freedom by the signs of puberty; if she is a minor, may a minor acquire? Rabbi Yudan bar Shalom said before Rabbi Yose, explain it following him who said, a minor may give heave. He said to him, even following him who said, a minor may give heave, may a minor acquire? Following the opinion of the rabbis there it is acceptable since there, they say in the name of Rav Naḥman bar Jacob: One to whom one gives a nut and he throws it away, a pebble and he keeps it, what is found in his hand is as if found on a garbage heap; a nut and he keeps it, a pebble and he throws it away, what is robbed from him is robbed because of communal peace; a nut or a pebble he takes, hides them, and produces them later, what is robbed from him is total robbery. He can acquire for himself but not for others. Rav Huna said, just as he can acquire for himself so he can acquire for others. Everybody agrees that his gift is not a gift since it is written: “If a man gives.”Exodus 22:7 The gift of a man is a gift, but the gift of a minor is no gift, the words of the Sages. Rabbi Judah bar Pazi in the name of Rabbi Joḥanan, Rabbi Jacob bar Aḥa in the name of Rabbi Joḥanan, robbing from him is not total robbery unless he grew two pubic hairs. Rabbi Abbahu in the name of Rabbi Joḥanan, that is, to recover from him by a law suit, but to have to bring a sacrifice for a false oath only if he grew two pubic hairs. But following the rabbis here, Rabbi Yose asked that even for himself he should not be able to acquire since it is written: “To his neighbor,”Exodus 22:7 until he is like his neighbor. Rabbi Yose ben Rabbi Abun in the name of Samuel ben Rav Isaac explained it by the method of small children. As we have stated there: “For school children, their buying is buying and their selling selling, for movables.” But did we not state: “He cannot make them acquire through his minor son or daughter or his Canaanite male or female slave, because their hand is like his hand.” The rabbis of Caesarea say, here a minor with knowledge, there a minor without knowledge.
There, we have stated: “If somebody borrows a cow and the lender sent her to him through his son, his slave, or his agent.” Does this not say that a slave is able to transfer rights from his master to another person? Rabbi Eleazar said, explain it about a Hebrew slave. Rabbi Joḥanan said, you can even explain it for a Canaanite slave, if he told him, open the gate for her and she will go by herself, as we have stated: If he led her, drew her, called her and she followed him, he is required to pay as a borrower.
Rabbi Zeira understood it from here: “But he cannot make them acquire through his minor son or daughter or his Canaanite male or female slave, because their hand is not like his hand.” Does this not imply that a slave is not able to transfer rights from his master to another person? Explain it following Rabbi Meir since Rabbi Meir makes the hand of the slave the hand of his master. But did we not state “his wife”? Rabbi Meir holds that the hand of the wife is the hand of her husband! Rabbi Ḥananiah said in the name of Rabbi Phinehas, explain it following the Tanna who stated: “His wife cannot redeem Second Tithe for him. Rabbi Simeon ben Eleazar says in the name of Rabbi Meir, his wife can redeem Second Tithe for him.” For that Tanna, Rabbi Meir makes the hand of the slave the hand of his master but not the hand of the wife the hand of her husband!
In earlier times, they were doing so with coins. They took them and fled. They instituted that one does it with produce. Nevertheless, they took and ate it. They instituted that he should give him the right to one in ten on the ground.
Rabbi Inaya bar Sisai came to Rabbi Jonah and said to him, should I redeem for you with that tetradrachma? He said, if you want to take it, take it. Then he took it back from him. Rabbi Jonah said, I had judged his opinion that if I took it back he would not say anything; therefore I gave it to him.
Mishnah
4 If somebody took from another tithe in the value of a tetradrachma and did not pay to redeem it until it became worth two, he gives him a tetradrachma, gains a tetradrachma, and the Second Tithe is his. If somebody took from another tithe in the value of two and did not pay to redeem it until it became worth one tetradrachma, he gives him a tetradrachma of profane money and a tetradrachma of his Second Tithe money. If he is an am haʾaretz, he gives him from his demai. If somebody redeemed Second Tithe and did not give it a name, Rabbi Yose says it is sufficient, Rabbi Judah says he has to be explicit. If a man was talking with a woman about her bill of divorce or her preliminary marriage and gave her the valuable for preliminary marriage and did not spell it out, Rabbi Yose says it is sufficient, Rabbi Judah says he has to be explicit.
Halakhah
The Mishnah does not follow Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel, as we have stated: “Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel says, always the taking up of Second Tithe is its redemption.”
Rabbi Assi in the name of Rabbi Eleazar: One does not add a fifth to the second tetradrachma. Rabbi Eleazar stared at him. He said to him, why do you stare at me? Rabbi Hila also agrees with it, following what Rabbi Joḥanan said, for any tithe, where not it and its redemption money is his, he does not add a fifth.
How must he be explicit? “This is your bill of divorce, or this is for your preliminary marriage,” and here: “This is for redemption of Second Tithe.”
Rabbi Zeira, Ḥiyya bar Abun, Abba bar Taḥlifa, in the name of Rabbi Hoshaiah, when do they differ? If they thought about other things but if they still were on the same subject, it is a bill of divorce.
Rabbi Ḥaggai asked before Rabbi Yose: Rabbi follows Rabbi Yose and Rabbi Nathan Rabbi Judah, as we have stated there: “I cannot accept that you accept it for her, but here you have it and give it to her, if he wants to take it back, he may take it back.” The Mishnah is Rabbi’s, as it was stated: “If she said, bring me my bill of divorce, but he said to him, your wife said, accept my bill of divorce for me. ‘Bring it to her, give it to her, acquire it for her, receive it for her,’ if he wants to take it back, he may not take it back, the words of Rabbi. Rabbi Nathan says, ‘bring it to her, give it to her,’ if he wants to take it back, he may take it back; ‘acquire it for her, receive it for her,’ if he wants to take it back, he may not take it back.” Rabbi says, in any of these cases he may not take it back except if he says, “I cannot accept that you accept it for her, but give it to her.” It is difficult for Rabbi, “here you have it from my word,” if he wants to take it back, he may not take it back. It is difficult for Rabbi Nathan, “here you have it from her word,” if he wants to take it back, he may not take it back. Rabbi Ḥuna said, he becomes his and her agent. Assi said, everywhere we have stated “his and her agent,” she is divorced and not divorced. He said to him, what do you have in your hand, did not Rabbi Zeira, Ḥiyya bar Abun, Abba bar Taḥlifa, say in the name of Rabbi Hoshaiah, when do they differ? If they thought about other things but if they still were at the same theme, it is a bill of divorce.
Rabbi Ezra asked before Rabbi Mana: Is it the same for a gift? Can a person appoint an agent for something that is not his? He said to him, there the Torah gave her the right to a bill of divorce and she appoints an agent to receive what rightfully is hers. Can you say in regard to a gift that a person can appoint an agent for something that is not his? In addition, from what Rabbi Yose, Rabbi Jacob bar Zavdi, Rabbi Abbahu in the name of Rabbi Joḥanan said, if somebody said to give a gift to another and he wants to take it back, he may take it back. Rabbi Yose stood near to Rabbi Jacob bar Zavdi and said to him, is that a just “yes”? They said, at the moment he said it, it was a just yes.
Mishnah
5 He who put aside an as and ate for half of its worth, then went to another place where it is worth a dupondius, has to eat another as for it. He who put aside a dupondius and ate for half of its worth, then went to another place where it would be worth an as, has to eat another half. He who put aside an as of Second Tithe eats for it 11 as and 1/100 of an as; the House of Shammai say, 10 in total, but the House of Hillel say, if it is certain 11 and for demai 10.
Halakhah
Rabbi Ḥiyya stated, two as equal a dupondius. Rabbi Yose said, the Mishnah says so: “He who put aside an as and ate for half its worth, went to another place where the coin is worth a dupondius, has to eat another as for it.”
Samuel says, you cannot state that; when he takes one in ten, he has to take one in a hundred. When he takes one in a hundred he has to take one in a thousand, when he takes one in a thousand he has to take one in ten thousand.
The House of Shammai say, if it is certain 11 and for demai 10. Bar Kappara stated, both for demai and for certain 11. Rabbi Yudan ben Rabbi Shalom taught what Bar Kappara had stated. The House of Shammai follows Rabbi Eliezer, since Rabbi Eliezer said, he who is trustworthy for the Second is trustworthy for the First. Rabbi Yose said, everybody agrees, they made it like additions to First Fruits. Just as additions to First Fruits are eaten in purity and are free from demai, so this is eaten as Second Tithe and is free from the First. Rabbi Ḥananiah confirmed in the name of Rabbi Issi: it is Rabbi Eliezer’s.
Mishnah
6 All found coins are profane, even gold denarii with silver or change. If one found with them a potsherd reading “tithe,” it is tithe. If one finds a vessel inscribed “sacrifice,” Rabbi Judah said, if it was pottery it is profane and its contents sacrifice, but if it was metal it is sacrifice and its contents profane. They said to him, people do not put profane in sacrifice vessels. If one finds a vessel inscribed ק it means sacrifice, מ tithe, ד demai, ט tevel, ת heave since in times of danger one wrote ת for heave. Rabbi Yose says, all these are people’s names. Rabbi Yose said, even if he found an amphora full of produce and inscribed “heave,” these are profane since I say last year it was full of tithe produce but he emptied it. If somebody said to his son, “Second Tithe is in that corner” but he found it in another corner, that is profane. “There is a talent” but he found 200, the remainder is profane. “200” and he found 100, all is tithe.
Halakhah
That you should not say, since people do not usually act like this, one has to say “profane.”
It was stated: Alef dalet ḥet ṭet mem tav heave. א “first.” ד “demai.” ח “its fat.” ט “its best.” ר “beginning.” ת “heave.” ב ש “Second Tithe,” פ ש “Second Tithe.” י מ “tithe.” Tithe for the City, redemption. Those on the name of Yose, on the name of Simeon, to take it up to eat in Jerusalem, are profane; I am saying contributions they arranged among themselves.
So far new ones. Old ones, I am saying yesterday it was full of heave but he empties it, like this: Rabbi Jonah and Rabbi Yose were partners in a cellar of wine-barrels. When Rabbi Jonah died, Rabbi Mana said to Rabbi Yose: Any barrel on which is written “Rabbi Jonah” is mine. He said to him, last year it was yours, this year it is mine. But if he found that on the lid was written “tithe,” it is tithe.
Were these exchanged? We have stated there: “If he prepared black ones and found white, white and found black, two and found three, they are forbidden, three and found two they are permitted.” Rabbi Jacob bar Aḥa in the name of Rabbi Assi, this is Rabbi’s, as we have stated: “Two hundred and he found a talent, a talent was taken, the word of Rabbi, but the Sages say, it is profane.” He turned around and said, this is everybody’s opinion since pigeon chicks usually start to fly. But did not Rabbi Ḥalafta ben Shaul state: The same rule applies to pigeon chicks and to eggs. Therefore, it is Rabbi’s. There, he put it there and he found, here, his father put it there, did his father find it? Rabbi Abun bar Cohen said before Rabbi Yose in the name of Rabbi Aḥa: Rabbi Abba bar Zavda taught according to Rabbi for Second Tithe.
Somebody was worried about his father’s monies; it appeared to him in a dream that they were so and so much and at place X. This case came before the rabbis who said, dreams do not improve or detract. Rabbi Jonah asked: He is worried and you say so? Rabbi Yose said, is it not reasonable that it does not apply to somebody who is not worried but sees; but here, what the person is he sees. Rabbi Avin said, whoever wants to act, should act following Rabbi Yose.
A man came before Rabbi Yose ben Ḥalafta and said to him, I saw in my dream that it was said to me, go to Cappadocia and you will find your father’s property. He asked him, did the father of this man ever go to Cappadocia? He said to him, no. He said to him, go and count 20 rows in your house and you will find your father’s property, κάππα δοκία.
A person came to Rabbi Yose ben Ḥalafta and said to him, I saw in my dream that I was wearing a crown of olives. He said to him, you will rise to greatness in the future. Another person came and said to him, I saw in my dream that I was wearing a crown of olives. He said to him, you will be whipped. He said to him, to the other man you said you will rise to greatness and to me you say you will be whipped? He said to him, that other was at blossoming, you at hitting time.
A person came before Rabbi Ishmael ben Rabbi Yose and said to him, I saw in my dream that I was watering an olive tree with oil. He said to him, the spirit of that person should be blown away, he made love to his mother. A person came before Rabbi Ishmael ben Rabbi Yose and said to him, I saw in my dream that my eye kissed its companion. He said to him, the spirit of that person should be blown away, he made love to his sister. A person came before Rabbi Ishmael ben Rabbi Yose and said to him, I saw in my dream that I had three eyes. He said to him, you are an oven maker; your two eyes and the opening of the oven. A person came before Rabbi Ishmael ben Rabbi Yose and said to him, I saw in my dream that I had four ears. He said to him, you are filling amphoras; your two ears and the two ears of the amphora. A person came before Rabbi Ishmael ben Rabbi Yose and said to him, I saw in my dream that people got out of my way. He said to him, you are carrying thorns and everybody gets out of your way. A person came before Rabbi Ishmael ben Rabbi Yose and said to him, I saw in my dream that I was wearing a wooden notebinder with twelve tablets. He said to him, the stone bench of this person has twelve tatters. A person came before Rabbi Ishmael ben Rabbi Yose and said to him, I saw in my dream that I swallowed a star. He said to him, the spirit of that person should be blown away, he killed a Jew as it is written: “A star went out from Jacob.”Numbers 24:17 A person came before Rabbi Ishmael ben Rabbi Yose and said to him, I saw in my dream the vineyard of this man grow bitter lettuce. He said to him, all your wine will be sour and you will bring bitter lettuce and dip it in the cups.
A person came to Rabbi Ishmael ben Rabbi Yose and said to him, I saw in my dream that it was said to me, throw your fingers, descend. He said to him, give me my fee and I will tell you. He said to him, I saw in my dream that it was said to me, blow with your mouth. He said to him, give me my fee and I will tell you. He said to him, I saw in my dream that it was said to me, straighten your fingers upwards. He said to him, did I not say to you, give me my fee and I will tell you! When it was said to you first, the rain dripped down on your wheat. When it was said to you next, they became swollen. When it was said to you next, they sprouted.
A Samaritan said, I will make fun of this elder of the Jews. He went to him and said, I saw in my dream four cedars, four sycamores, a stand, the skin of a cow, and this man sits and steps on it. He said to him, the spirit of that person should be blown away, this is no dream! Nevertheless, you should not go away empty-handed. The four cedars are the four sides of his bed, the four sycamores the four legs of his bed, the stand with a skin, the basis for straw, and the rows the fingers. And this man sits and steps on it: this man lies on them, he cannot live and cannot die. And that happened to him.
A woman came before Rabbi Eliezer. She said to him, I saw in my dream the pillar of the house breaking. He said, you will give birth to a male child. She went and gave birth to a male. After some time she came and asked for him. His students said, he is not here. They asked her, what do you want from him? She said to them, this woman saw in my dream that the pillar of the house was breaking. They said to her, you will give birth to a male child and the husband of that woman dies. When Rabbi Eliezer came, they told him what happened. He said to them, you killed a person for the dream goes only after its interpretation as it is said: “It was just as he had interpreted it for us, so it happened.”Genesis 41:13
Rabbi Joḥanan said, all dreams follow their interpretations except for wine. There is one who drinks and it is good for him and one who drinks and it is bad for him. A scholar drinks and it is good for him, an am haʾaretz drinks and it is bad for him.
A person came to Rabbi Akiva and said to him, I saw in my dream my foot shrinking. He said to him, holiday is coming but you will not eat red meat. Another person came and said, I saw in my dream my foot swelling. He said to him, holiday is coming and you will have plenty of red meat. A student of Rabbi Akiva was sitting making a queer face. He said to him, why is that? He said to him, I saw in a dream three hard things: In Adar you will die, Nisan you will not see, and what you will sow you will not collect. He said to him, all three are good. In the glory of the Torah you will be lifted, wonders you will not see, and what you will sow you will not collect, what you will have born to you you will not bury.
Mishnah
1 One marks a fourth-year vineyard with lumps of earth, one of ʿorlah with potsherds; graves with whitewash which is thinned and poured. Rabbi Simeon ben Gamliel said, when has this been said? In a Sabbatical year. But discreet religious persons set aside some coins and say, what is taken from here is exchanged for these coins.
Halakhah
Zenon asked Rabbi: How should we state, fourth-year vineyard or fourth-year orchard? He said to them, go out and ask Rabbi Isaac the Elder with whom I checked the entire Mishnah. He said to them, the first ones fourth-year vineyard, the second ones fourth-year orchard. Rabbi Zeira complained about the old people from the time of Rabbi Isaac the Elder, that they did not check all Mishnayot with him.
It was stated: One marks a fourth-year vineyard with lumps of earth because it is temporary, one of ʿorlah with potsherds because it has to last longer; graves with whitewash because it has to last still longer. Rabbi Ḥalafta ben Shaul stated: If the ʿorlah trees were isolated, one hangs amphora handles on them.
Rabbi Zeira asked, why do we not enumerate all for what they are: As we have stated: “A dedicated tree one colors with vermilion, houses of idol worship one blackens with charcoal, a leprous house one indicates by burned ashes, the place of a slain person by blood, the place where the neck of a calf was broken by a stone enclosure.” Is one not afraid that it will be said it is a tree which sheds its fruits? Did we not state: “If a tree sheds its fruits, one colors it red with vermilion, loads it with stones, and frightens it into producing.” They said, there that it should not loosen its fruits, here that it should start to produce. Rabbi Jonah asked: Why do we not teach “a line,” like the vermilion line as remembrance of the altar, as we have stated there: “A vermilion line is like a belt in the middle to distinguish between upper and lower blood.” Rabbi Ḥiyya stated, one writes on it with vermilion: “dedicated.”
Both Rabbi Yose and Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel said the same thing. Just as Rabbi Yose said, we are not responsible for the dishonest, so Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel says, we are not responsible for the dishonest. It is reasonable that Rabbi Yose will agree with Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel; Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel will not agree with Rabbi Yose. Rabbi Yose will agree with Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel that we are not responsible for the dishonest. Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel will not agree with Rabbi Yose, because it is not fitting for a ḥaver that anything not in order should leave his house.
How do we know about marks? Rabbi Berekhiah, Rabbi Jacob the son of the daughter of Jacob, in the name of Rabbi Onias from Hauran. Rabbi Yose said it in the name of Rabbi Jacob bar Aḥa in the name of Rabbi Onias from Hauran. Rabbi Ḥizkiah, Rabbi Uziel the son of Rabbi Onias from Hauran in the name of Rabbi Onias from Hauran: “impure, impure, he shall call out”Leviticus 13:45; the impurity itself has to call out and say to you: go away! Rabbi Hila in the name of Rabbi Samuel bar Naḥman: “The emissaries shall crisscross the land; if one sees a bone of a human he builds a sign near it.”Ezekiel 39:15 A bone, from here that one makes signs for bones. A human, from here that one makes signs for spine and skull. He builds, from here that one makes signs on fixed stones. If you say on loose ones, it would move and make other places impure. Near it, on a place of purity. A sign, from here the marks.
It was stated: If one found a single marked stone, even though one should not keep it so, if somebody forms a tent over it he is pure; I say a compressed corpse was under it. If there were two, he who forms a tent over any one of them is pure; between them he is impure. If between them was a plowed strip they are single stones, between them the area is pure and around them impure.
It was stated: One does not mark flesh, for perhaps it will decompose. Rabbi Justus bar Shunem asked before Rabbi Mana: Will that not cause pure food to be retroactively made impure? He said to him, it is better that these should become unusable for a limited time than that the earth become unusable forever.
The colleagues said, Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel says it correctly, it is difficult for the rabbis! Does one not mark for the day, does he not steal in the night? Rabbi Mana said to them, following what Rabbi Ḥanina said: “He dug in the darkness under houses, by day they designated for them, they did not see light.”Job 24:16 That is what the generation of the flood did, they were making signs with balsam resin and came to steal in the night. So did Rabbi Ḥanina preach in Sepphoris; there were 300 houses undermined.
Why can’t he mark? If his vineyard is marked, how can he be called discreet?
Rabbi Joḥanan said, Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel parallels him who says “in the evening,” as we have stated: “Rabbi Dosa says, ‘everything the poor will collect between the sheaves shall be abandoned,’ it is abandoned. Rabbi Judah says, in the evening. But the Sages say, a declaration of abandonment under duress is not an abandonment, for we are not responsible for tricksters.” But he is not parallel to him who says “in the morning.” Can one abandon anything if it is standing on the ground? Rabbi Jeremiah said, it is even parallel to him who says “in the morning.” Is it not Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel’s? In addition, he holds that taking Second Tithe is its redemption. Rabbi Yose said, is that: “It shall be his”Leviticus 27:19? If somebody saw a loaf floating in a river and said, that loaf is dedicated, did he say anything? Rabbi Jeremiah said, before you ask all these questions regarding “in the morning,” ask them regarding “in the evening!” He answered him, he who holds “in the evening” does not have all these questions.
Mishnah
2 Grapes from a fourth-year vineyard have to be brought to Jerusalem from a distance up to a day’s march. What is this? Eilat from the South, Aqrabeh from the North, Lydda from the West, the Jordan from the East. When the fruits increased they decreed that they might be redeemed even close to the city wall. There was a condition made that anytime they decided, they could return to the previous situation. Rabbi Yose says, this condition was introduced when the Temple was destroyed, namely, that one would return to the previous situation if the Temple would be rebuilt soon, in our days. A fourth-year vineyard, the House of Shammai say, is not subject to a fifth and is not subject to removal; but the House of Hillel say, it is. The House of Shammai say, it is subject to single berries and gleanings and the poor redeem for themselves, but the House of Hillel say, all goes to the winepress.
Halakhah
Rabbi Hila said, at the start they made wine in purity for Temple libations and grapes were rare. They decreed that it had to be brought to Jerusalem from a distance up to a day’s march. They used to distribute it to relatives, neighbors, and acquaintances, and a small quantity adorned the market.
This disagrees with Nukai. Nukai was community servant in Magdala of the dyers. Every Sabbath eve, after preparing his candles, he went up, rested in the Temple, and went down to light them. Some say, he was the Torah reader. Every Sabbath eve he went up, prepared home.
The cap maker of Malul went up to observe the Sabbath in the Temple but nobody got up for his fig trees before him.
The daughters of Sepphoris went up, kept the Sabbath in the Temple, but nobody got up for their fig trees before them. The daughters of Lod were kneading their bread dough, went up, prayed, and descended before it became sour.
A person was plowing. His cow broke away before him and started running. He ran and ran after her until he found himself in Babylonia. They asked him, when did you leave? He answered, today. They asked him, by which road did you come? He answered them, by this one, come and see it. He went out, wanted to see it, and no longer recognized it.
From here, that they disagree. Even if you say it does not disagree, there were tunnels and they were hidden. That is what is written: “He fenced my way with ashlar, my paths he destroyed.”Lamentations 3:9
Rabbi Jonah in the name of Rabbi Zeira: Even a vineyard reaching to the wall was redeemed.
Rabbi Aḥa said, this implies that the Temple will be rebuilt before the kingdom of David’s dynasty as it is written: “From the blood of a grape you will drink as wine.”Deuteronomy 32:14 And you say so!
It was stated: Rabbi says, the House of Shammai said this only for the Sabbatical year, but in all other years of the Sabbatical cycle, the House of Shammai say that it is subject to a fifth and subject to removal. According to that Tanna, they learned the rules of the fourth-year orchard only from Second Tithe; since you say that there is no Second Tithe in the Sabbatical year, so there is no fourth-year orchard in the Sabbatical year. But then should there be no holiness in it? Its holiness comes from the verse: “Holy for praises,”Leviticus 19:24 it has the status of those holy fruits over which praises are said. And should it be permitted to the fresh mourner? It is stated: This implies that it is forbidden to the fresh mourner. And should it be subject to removal? Following Rabbi Simeon, since Rabbi Simeon frees it from removal. And should it be redeemed while still connected to the ground?
Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel stated: Both in the Sabbatical year and in the rest of the years of the Sabbatical cycle, the House of Shammai say, there is no fifth and no removal. According to that Tanna, they did not at all learn the rules of the fourth-year orchard from Second Tithe. But then should there be no holiness in it? Its holiness comes from the verse: “Holy for praises”Leviticus 19:24; it has the status of those holy fruits over which praises are said. And should it be permitted to the fresh mourner? It is stated: This implies that it is forbidden to the fresh mourner. And should it be subject to removal? Following Rabbi Simeon, since Rabbi Simeon frees it from removal. And should it be redeemed while still connected to the ground?
Rabbi Zeira asked before Rabbi Abbahu: How do we know that it needs redemption? “Holy for praises,”Leviticus 19:24 holy for redemption. The rabbis never refrain from explaining ה by ח.
Rabbi Ayvu bar Naggari stated before Rabbi La following Rabbi Ishmael: “If a man redeems part of his tithes, he should add their fifth to it.”Leviticus 27:31 That excludes the fourth-year orchard; one is not obligated by it for a fifth. Then he turned around and stated: There are two terms of redemption, one for the Second Tithe and one for the fourth-year orchard.
There we have stated: Rabbi Judah says, there is no vineyard in the fourth year for the Gentile, but the Sages say there is. Rabbi Eleazar said, so says the Mishnah: There is never a vineyard in the fourth year for the Gentile. Rabbi Bibi said before Rabbi Zeira in the name of Rabbi Eleazar: According to the opinion of Rabbi, the statement of Rabbi Judah turns out to be like the statement of the House of Shammai. Since the House of Shammai said that they learned the rules of the vineyard of the fourth year only from Second Tithe; since you say that there is no Second Tithe in the Sabbatical year, so there is no fourth-year orchard in the Sabbatical year. Similarly, Rabbi Judah said that they learned the rules of the vineyard of the fourth year only from Second Tithe; since you say that there is no Second Tithe in Syria, so there is no fourth-year orchard in Syria. He said to him, look what he said! He said only, it is not subject to a fifth and is not subject to removal, hence, it is subject to all other rules; Rabbi Judah says, there is no vineyard in the fourth year for the Gentile in Syria.
Samuel bar Abba asked: Since the House of Shammai said that they learned the rules of the vineyard of the fourth year only from Second Tithe; since you say that there is no Second Tithe in the Sabbatical year, there is no fourth-year orchard in the Sabbatical year. Similarly, in the third and sixth years of the Sabbatical cycle, since there is no Second Tithe, there should not be any fourth-year orchard. Rabbi Yose said, even though there is no Second Tithe in the third and sixth years, there are the tithes. In the Sabbatical year, there are no tithes at all.
Ḥeipha asked: Since Rabbi Judah said that they learned the rules of the vineyard of the fourth year only from Second Tithe; since you say that there is no Second Tithe in Syria, there is no fourth-year orchard in Syria. Similarly, they learned the rules of the heave of the thanksgiving sacrifice only from the heave of the tithe; since you say that there was no heave of the tithe in the desert, will it follow that there was no heave of the thanksgiving sacrifice in the desert? Rabbi Yose said, they learned from it only in regard to quantities.
It was stated: Rabbi Yose ben Rabbi Judah said, Rabbi Eleazar ben Rabbi Simeon said, Israel did become obligated for the fourth-year orchard only after 14 years, seven during which they conquered and seven during which they divided up the land. Rav Ḥisda said, it turns out that the argument of Rabbi Yose ben Rabbi Judah is identical with that of his father Rabbi Judah. Just as Rabbi Judah said that they learned the rules of the fourth-year orchard only from Second Tithe, since you say that there is no Second Tithe in Syria, so there is no fourth-year orchard in Syria. Similarly, Rabbi Yose ben Rabbi Judah said that they learned the rules of the fourth-year orchard only from Second Tithe, since you say that they did become obligated for the fourth-year orchard only after 14 years, similarly there was no fourth-year orchard until after 14 years. Rabbi Yose said, he follows his son’s argument; Syria was inferred from “after 14 years”; “after 14 years” was not inferred from Syria.
It is written: “In the fifth year, you shall eat its yield to add for you, etc.”Leviticus 19:25 Rabbi Yose the Galilean says, here one adds the fruits of the fifth to the fruits of the fourth year. Just as the fruits of the fifth year are for the proprietors, so the fruits of the fourth year are for the proprietors. Rabbi Zeira, Rabbi Yasa, in the name of Rabbi Joḥanan: It turns out that Rabbi Yose the Galilean argues like Rabbi Judah. Just as Rabbi Judah makes it his property, so Rabbi Yose the Galilean makes it his property.
Rabbi Jeremiah asked before Rabbi Zeira: According to those who declare it his property, should it not be subject to tithes? He said to him, according to what Rabbi Joshua ben Levi said, as Rabbi Abin said in the name of Rabbi Joshua ben Levi, not only this practice, but in any practical question which is weak in court and you do not know how to decide, go out and see how the public acts, and act accordingly. And we see that they do not give. Rabbi Mana said, that is, if the practice would follow the House of Shammai. But is there any public that acts according to the House of Shammai? Rabbi Abin said, they learned the rules of the vineyard of the fourth year only from Second Tithe; just as you say that Second Tithe is not subject to tithes, so the yield of the fourth year is not subject to tithes.
Rabbi Abba, Rabbi Ḥiyya, in the name of Rabbi Joḥanan: A dough of Second Tithe in Jerusalem, following Rabbi Meir, is free from ḥallah, following Rabbi Judah it is subject to ḥallah. Rabbi Jonah said, they said this only for Jerusalem, but not for the countryside.
Rabbi Abba bar Cohen asked before Rabbi Yose: Does he who declares it obligated for single berries also declare it obligated for ḥallah? He said to him, is that not Rabbi Judah? And it is our opinion that in all this practice, Rabbi Judah follows the House of Shammai.
Mishnah
3 How does one redeem a fourth-year orchard? He puts a tetradrachma before three experts and asks, how much does a person redeem for himself for a tetradrachma when all expense is on him? Then he puts down the money and says, all that is collected under this is exchanged for this money; so and so many baskets per tetradrachma. In a Sabbatical, he redeems its full value. If all of it was abandoned, he has only the cost of harvesting. He who redeems a fourth-year orchard adds its fifth whether it was his or was given to him as a gift. The removal was on the day before the first day of Passover in the fourth and the seventh year of the Sabbatical cycle. What is the removal? One gives heave and heave of the tithe to its recipients, First Tithe to its recipients, tithe of the poor to its recipients. Second Tithe and First Fruits are removed on the spot. Rabbi Simeon says, first fruits one gives to the priests like heave. A cooked dish the House of Shammai say one has to remove, but the House of Hillel say it is as if removed. He who had produce in this time and the year of removal came, the House of Shammai say he has to exchange it for money; the House of Hillel say, either money or produce.
Halakhah
To redeem for a tetradrachma means he buys for himself for a tetradrachma. “He has only the cost of harvesting” including the cost of removing the pedicles. Rabbi Hoshaiah took three wholesalers and redeemed on their word.
It is written: “At the end of three years you shall take out all tithe of your produce, in that year, and deposit it in your gates.”Deuteronomy 14:28 I could think that once in a Sabbatical cycle you have to distribute the tithes including the tithe of the poor. The verse says “at the end of three years,” once in three years and not once in seven; that is, in the third and the seventh, twice in a Sabbatical cycle. Do I understand at New Year’s Day, that on New Year’s Day you have to distribute the tithes including the tithe of the poor? The verse says “at the end of three years.” “At the end” means at its conclusion you remove, you do not remove on New Year’s Day. If it is at the end of the year, I could understand that at the beginning of the fourth you have to remove the tithes including the tithe of the poor; the verse says: “If you have finished tithing all tithe of your produce,”Deuteronomy 26:12 when you have tithed all your fruits. If it is when you have tithed all your fruits, could I understand even on Ḥanukkah? It says here, “at the end of”; it says further: “At the end of seven years, on the fixed time of the Sabbatical year, on the festival of booths.”Deuteronomy 26:12 Since “at the end” there means at a fixed time, so here also at a fixed time. Since there “at the end” means the holiday of booths, does it here also mean the holiday of booths? The verse says “if you have finished tithing all tithe of your produce,” when you have finished tithing all of your fruits? On Passover of the fourth year.
“In that year”Deuteronomy 14:28 you are obliged to remove it but you are not obliged to remove it in any other year. “In that year” you are obliged to remove; you are not required to remove vegetables which grew between New Year’s Day and Passover. The colleagues say, because he can make a declaration for the latter only in the fifth year. Rabbi Hila said, because it does not hinder the declaration in the fourth, only in the fifth. Where do they differ? If he transgressed and included it in his declaration. According to the colleagues it is invalid, according to Rabbi Hila it is valid.
“In that year” you take it out from impure for pure but in other years you do not take it out from impure for pure. Rabbi Eleazar said, so is that baraita: “‘In that year’ you have to take it from an impure place to a pure but in other years you do not have to take it from an impure place to a pure.” This statement of Rabbi Eleazar follows the opinion that one does not give tithe to priests. In the days of Rabbi Joshua ben Levi they wanted to vote not to give tithe to priests. They said, why should we come to Rabbi Joshua ben Levi since he will help the Levites. He came and helped the priests and said: In 24 places are priests called Levites and this is one of them: “The priests, the Levites, the descendants of Zadok.”Ezekiel 44:15
Rabbi Benjamin bar Gidul and Rabbi Aḥa were sitting together and saying, is it not written: “The priest, descendant of Aaron, will share with the Levites in the Levite’s tithe”Nehemiah 10:38? To give him heave of the tithe. But is it not written: “The Levites shall bring the tithe of the tithe”Nehemiah 10:38? Rabbi Ḥuna and the colleagues, one of them said “to the descendants of Levi.” Why does the verse say: “And to the descendants of Levi”Numbers 18:21? From here that one gives tithes to priests. The other said, even if it were only written “to the descendants” one would give tithes to priests. If somebody would say, my son X will take property Y before distribution and the rest of my properties my sons will inherit, does he not participate with them?
Rabbi Jonah gave his tithes to Rabbi Aḥa bar Ulla, not because he was a priest but because he studied Torah. What is the reason? “He said to the people, the inhabitants of Jerusalem, to give the part of the priests and the Levites, so they should be strong in the Torah of the Eternal.”2 Chronicles 31:4 Rabbi Huna did not take tithe, Rabbi Aḥa did not take tithe. Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba instructed himself to go outside the Land, not to take tithe. A person asked Rabbi Samuel bar Naḥman who asked Rabbi Jonathan, may one take? He said to him, take, what fell to your tribe fell to you.
Rabbi Yannai ordered his relatives, when you lease a field, lease only from lay people since even if you say one does not give tithes to priests you have to agree that one does not take his own out of his hand. What is the reason? “If you take from the Children of Israel the tithe which I gave you from them as your inheritance, you should lift from it the heave of the Eternal, a tithe of the tithe.”Numbers 18:26 From the Children of Israel you take out but not from those contracting with priests or Levites. It parallels what Rabbi Eleazar said, “if you take the tithe from the Children of Israel,” from the Children of Israel you take out but not from the Gentile.
Rabbi Abbahu said, Rabbi Joshua ben Ḥananiah and Rabbi Eleazar ben Azariah disagreed. Rabbi Joshua ben Ḥananiah said, one does not give tithe to priests but Rabbi Eleazar ben Azariah said, one gives tithe to priests. Rabbi Joshua ben Ḥananiah objected to Rabbi Eleazar ben Azariah: Is it not written: “You shall eat it everywhere,”Numbers 18:31 come and eat it by a grave! He said to him, what does “everywhere” mean? In the courtyard of the Temple. He retorted, but is it not written: “You and your house”Numbers 18:31? Does a woman enter the courtyard of the Temple? Rabbi Abba understood it from the following occasion: Rabbi Eleazar ben Azariah used to take tithes from a certain garden. That garden had two exits, one to a place of impurity and one open to a place of purity. Rabbi Akiva went to him and said, open this one and lock the other one. If he will come, tell him to come by that way. He also said, if he sends a student, tell him “you” is written. Rabbi Eleazar ben Azariah heard this and said, that is Akiva ben Joseph’s whip. At that moment, Rabbi Eleazar ben Azariah returned all tithes he had taken. Rabbi Isaac bar Eleazar said, for dinner one has to fill up completely with wood fibers; any coal which does not cause a burn at the beginning will not cause one.
Everybody agrees that bread and oil have to be removed, wine and spices are as if removed. Where do they disagree: A cooked dish the House of Shammai says one has to remove, but the House of Hillel say one does not have to remove.
What is the reason of the House of Shammai? “Bundle”Deuteronomy 14:25 only “the money in your hand.” What is the reason of the House of Hillel? Even if he exchanges, what good does it do?
Mishnah
4 Rabbi Judah said, in earlier times they sent to the rural farmers, speed up your produce before the time of removal, until Rabbi Akiva came and taught that any produce which did not reach the time of tithing is exempt from removal. If somebody’s produce was far from him, he has to give it a name. It happened that Rabban Gamliel was on a ship with the elders when Rabban Gamliel said, a tenth which I will measure in the future is given to Joshua and its place is rented to him; another tenth which I will measure in the future is given to Akiva; he should distribute it to the poor, and its place is rented to him. Rabbi Joshua said, a tenth which I will measure in the future is given to Eleazar ben Azariah and its place is rented to him. They paid the rent to each other.
Halakhah
Is it not tevel? Rabbi Hila in the name of Samuel: This implies that tevel is called holy.
Rabbi Judah said, it happened that Rabban Gamliel and the elders were sitting on the steps of the Hall on the Temple Mount and Joḥanan, the priest, their scribe, was sitting before them. They said to him, go and write:
To our brothers of Upper and Lower Galilee, may you have much peace. We inform you that the time of removal is approaching; take out tithes from the ripening vats of olives. To our brothers of Upper and Lower South country, we inform you that the time of removal is approaching; take out tithes from the sheaves of grain. To our brothers of the diasporas of Babylonia, Media, Greece, and all other diasporas of Israel, may you have much peace. I am informing you that the lambs are young and the young pigeons small, so it is good in my eyes and the eyes of my colleagues to add thirty days to this year.
That means that one does not give tithe to priests. There is a difference, since Rabbi Joshua ben Ḥananiah was there. Rabbi Ḥananiah said, it means that Rabban Gamliel had to transfer. Rabbi Joshua said, for produce standing on the ground. Even if Rabban Gamliel’s box were standing in Rabbi Joshua’s house and he would say, he should acquire its tithe, would he have done anything if he did not label it?
Rabbi Redifa said, Rabbi Jeremiah and Rabbi Yose disagree. One says, he who may take may acquire; the other says, he who may give may acquire. He who says “he who may take” certainly includes him who may give. He who says “he who may give,” excludes him who may take.
The following Mishnah disagrees with him who says that he who may take may acquire, since we have stated: “Give this divorce document to my wife,” because he may receive the divorce document of his minor daughter. “And the document of manumission to my slave,” since he may receive his own document of manumission. But did we not state: “Receive this divorce document for my wife or bring this divorce document to my wife; if he wants to change his mind … he may do so.” Is a slave empowered to bring a divorce document? Explain it by different cases contained in the Mishnah.
A Mishnah disagrees with him who says that he who may take may acquire, since we have stated there: “One tithe that I will measure in the future is given to Akiva ben Joseph that he should let the poor acquire it, and its place is rented to him.” But is Rabbi Akiva entitled to take? Explain it, before he got rich. And even if you say, after he became rich, when he was an administrator, and the hand of the administrator is equal to the hand of the poor.
The word of Rabbi Joshua ben Levi is that he who may take may acquire, since Rabbi Joshua ben Levi said: They disagree about a rich owner. But in the case of a poor owner, since he has the right to take it, the other person acquired it.
Mishnah
5 In the afternoon of the holiday they made the declaration. How was the declaration? “I removed the holy produce from the house,”Deuteronomy 26:13 is Second Tithe and fourth-year growth. “I gave it to the Levite,” is the Levite’s tithe. “Also I gave it,” includes heave and heave of the tithe. “To the sojourner, the orphan, and the widow,” is the tithe of the poor. “From the house,” is ḥallah. “Following Your entire Commandment which You commanded me”; therefore, if he gave Second Tithe before the First he cannot make the declaration. “I did not transgress Your Commandments,” I did not give from one kind for another, not from the harvested on the standing or from the standing on the harvested, not from new for old or from old for new. “And I did not forget,” to praise and mention Your Name over it. “I did not eat from it in my deep mourning”Deuteronomy 26:14; therefore if he ate from it in deep mourning he cannot make the declaration. “I did not remove any of it in impurity”; therefore if he separated it in impurity he cannot make the declaration. “I did not give from it to the dead,” I did not buy from it a casket or shrouds for a dead person nor did I give it to other deep mourners. “I listened to the voice of the Eternal, my God,” I brought it to the Selected House. “I did all You commanded me,” I enjoyed and gave joy to others with it. “Look down from Your Holy Dwelling, from Heaven,”Deuteronomy 26:15 we did what You decided for us, You also do what You promised us: “Look down from Your Holy Dwelling, from Heaven, and bless Your people Israel” with sons and daughters, “and the land You gave us,” with dew, winds, rain and young of the domestic animals, “that You had sworn to our ancestors, a Land flowing with milk and honey” to give taste to the fruits. Because of this, they said that Israelite persons and Mamzerim may make the declaration but not proselytes and freed slaves who have no part in the Land. Rabbi Meir says, also excluding priests or Levites who did not receive any part of the Land. Rabbi Yose says, they have their cities with surroundings. The High Priest Joḥanan disestablished the declaration of tithes. He also eliminated the arousers and the hitters. Up to his days the hammer was hitting in Jerusalem and in his days nobody had to ask about demai.
Halakhah
Could he not make the declaration on the first day of Passover? So he should have something to eat for the holiday. Could he not make the declaration in the morning? While he is commanded to eat.
It was stated: “And First Fruits.” Who stated “First Fruits”? The rabbis. Who did not state “First Fruits”? Rabbi Simeon. As we have stated: “They are subject to removal but Rabbi Simeon frees them.”
“I gave it to the Levite,” from here that one does not give tithe to priests.
Rabbi Jonah said, this means that if his tevel was burned he cannot make the declaration. Some Tannaim say, all commandments in the Torah disqualify him; some Tannaim say, all commandments in the paragraph disqualify him. Rabbi Aḥa bar Pappos asked before Rabbi Zeira, even if he put on head phylacteries before phylacteries on his arm? He said to him, that is also what I am thinking.
Rabbi Yose ben Rabbi Abun said, he must say “ḥallah for all,” “heave for all.” “To YHWH,” that is the particular Name. How do we know that he did not do anything until he left some as profane? The verse says: “Of the beginning”Numbers 15:21 and not all the beginning.
How do we know that he would transgress a positive commandment? Rabbi Eleazar in the name of Rabbi Simai: “Nor did I give from it to the dead.”Deuteronomy 26:14 What case are we dealing with? If it were to bring a casket and shrouds for him, that were also forbidden for a living person! If something is forbidden for the living, not so much more for the dead? What is something which is permitted for the living but prohibited for the dead? That is anointing!
Rabbi Huna bar Aḥa in the name of Rabbi Alexandros: Come and see the power of those who keep the Commandments because all “lookings down” in the Torah are curses but this one is in the language of blessing. Rabbi Yose ben Ḥanina said, not only that but it is written “this day,”Deuteronomy 26:16 the condition of every day.
Rabbi Judah bar Pazi started with this: “I shall come in strength, Eternal, God.”Psalms 71:16 It is written: “These are the two oil-sons who stand over the Lord of all the earth.”Zechariah 4:14 Rabbi Abbahu said, Rabbi Joḥanan and Rabbi Simeon ben Lakish disagree. One says, these are the ones who come in novitiate before the Holy One, praised be He. The other one says, these are the ones who come by the power of kept commandments and good deeds before the Holy One.
Rav had flax which was blighted. He asked the elder Rabbi Ḥiyya, may one slaughter a bird and mix its blood with flax seed? He said, a cadaver. Why did he not say to him, a torn one? Because of Rabbi Meir, for Rabbi Meir said the blood of a torn bird must be covered. But did not Rabbi Immi say in the name of Rabbi Simeon ben Lakish: From the time when they came from the diaspora, flax was never blighted and wine never became vinegar; they considered this to be due to the merit of the Great Rabbi Ḥiyya and his sons. But Rav is like: “Listen to me, mighty of heart, who are far from charity!”Isaiah 46:12 Rabbi Abbahu said, Rabbi Joḥanan and Rabbi Simeon ben Lakish disagree. One says, all the world depends on charity but these on strong arms. But the other one said that all good things and consolations come to the world in their merit but they themselves do not profit at all. For example Mar Zutra who prayed and fasted for others but for himself he never fasted.
It was stated: They were given to be distributed, the words of Rabbi Judah. Rabbi Yose said, they were given as dwellings. It turns out that Rabbi Judah holds with Rabbi Yose and Rabbi Meir follows his own opinion as we have stated: “They were paying rent to the Levites, the words of Rabbi Judah; Rabbi Yose says they were not paying rent.”
Rabbi Jeremiah, Rabbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rabbi Simeon ben Lakish: Our Mishnah after the people were suspected of giving tithe to priests. There is support for Rabbi Joḥanan in one and disagreement with him in one. Disagreement with him as we have stated: “Similarly, the daughter of a priest married to a Levite should eat neither heave nor tithe.” We understand that she should not eat heave. But tithe any way you take it, if she is a priest’s daughter she should eat, if she is a Levite’s wife she should eat. Rabbi Hila in the name of Rabbi Joḥanan: It follows him who says one does not give tithe to priests. That means, he himself says one gives heave to priests.
It supports him because he says it is all praise, as Rabbi Joḥanan said, Joḥanan the High Priest sent and checked in all localities of Israel and found that they separated only Great Heave. But First and Second Tithes some were separating and some did not. He said, since omitting First Tithe is a deadly sin and omitting Second Tithe implies the sin of tevel, a person should give a name to heave and heave of the tithe and give them to the priest; Second Tithe he exchanges for coins. About the remaining tithe of the poor, he who has a claim on another person must bring proof.
Why should he not make the declaration? Rabbi Hila said, he causes anger before the Omnipresent by saying “I did” when he did not. If it is so, he who separated should make the declaration, he who did not separate should not make the declaration, as we have stated: “Up to ‘Look down’ they were saying it in an undertone, from ‘Look down’ onwards in a high voice.”
“The arousers.” Those who were saying: “Be roused, why do You sleep, Eternal, please awake, do not abandon forever.”Psalms 44:23 Does there exist sleep before the Omnipresent? Has it not already been said: “Indeed, He will neither slumber nor sleep, the Guardian of Israel!”Psalms 121:4 Why does the verse say: “The Eternal awoke like a sleeper, like a hero exhilarated by wine.”Psalms 78:65 But in a symbolic way it is as if sleep were before Him when Israel is in trouble and the other peoples are at ease. So it says: “When they apostatize, My eye will rest.”Job 17:2
“The hitters.” Those who were hitting the calf between its horns. Joḥanan the High Priest said to them, how long will you feed torn animals to the altar? He went and made them rings. Rabbi Abba in the name of Rabbi Judah: He made rings for them, rings wide below and narrow at the top.
“Up to his days the hammer was hitting in Jerusalem,” up to his early days. “And in his days nobody had to ask about demai” because he sent out teams.
The word of Rabbi Joshua ben Levi implies some are censure and some praise. Since Rabbi Yose said in the name of Rabbi Tanḥum bar Ḥiyya, Rabbi Ḥizkiah, Rabbi Eleazar ben Rabbi Yose, Rabbi Tanḥum bar Ḥiyya in the name of Rabbi Joshua ben Levi, originally tithe was split into three parts. One third to his acquaintances among priests and Levites, one third to the public treasury, one third to the poor and the fellows in Jerusalem. Rabbi Yose ben Rabbi Abun said, a person who went to court in Jerusalem, up to three letters he paid for himself, from there on from the public treasury. When Eleazar ben Paḥora and Judah ben Patora came, they took it by force and it would have been in his hand to stop this but he did not but disestablished the declaration of tithes, and this is for censure. But the arousers for praise and the hitters for praise.
“Up to his days the hammer was hitting in Jerusalem,” up to his early days. Rabbi Ḥasida asked Rabbi Ḥizkiah, is it not reasonable to the end of his days. He said, I also am of that opinion.
What does demai mean? Rabbi Yose in the name of Rabbi Abbahu, Rabbi Ḥizkiah in the name of Rabbi Judah ben Pazi: Maybe he put in order, maybe he did not put in order.
Connections in Jerusalem Maaser Sheni
0 connections
No connections in this book yet.