MISHNAH: A person should not say to another: bring this produce to Jerusalem to distribute, but he may say bring it that we shall eat and drink it together, or they may give free gifts to one another.
HALAKHAH: 8:4, and are explained there, Notes 51–62. “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?” Rebbi Zeïra in the name of Rebbi 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 shall 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”? Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi 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”? Rebbi Zeïra in the name of Rebbi Jonathan, this is one of the practices of obfuscation.
Their bread. Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Jonathan: This also belongs to the practices of obfuscation. Rebbi Yose said, I objected before Rebbi 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. Rebbi 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 Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa [hold] with the one who permits, but only from a store. But we do not follow this.
8:4; it is there in rudimentary form, cf. Ševi‘it 8, Note 69 . It was stated: “Rebbi Jehudah and Rebbi Neḥemiah forbid it. 6:21 : “If somebody buys from the baker a loaf for a dupondius [and says] I shall collect vegetables from the field this is permitted [in the Sabbatical]. Rebbis Jehudah and 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 shall 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 shall bring it to you; Rebbi Jehudah and Rebbi 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 shall take mine? May he say to him, take this barrel of wine and we shall 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. 27:32–33 , Mishnah 1:2 . 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 shall eat meat from a ritually slaughtered animal there who emends בהמה וחיה into בהמה חיה and reads: “May he ask another person, take and transport this live animal [of tithe], and we shall eat [its] meat [once it is] ritually slaughtered [in the Temple] there?” It is possible to call meat from the sacrifice of animal tithe “slaughtered meat”, an expression usually reserved for profane meat, since only the blood of the animal is sprinkled on the altar but no part of it is burned or given to a Cohen. ?
MISHNAH: One may not buy heave with tithe money because he would restrict its edibility, but Rebbi Simeon permits. Rebbi Simeon said to them: If He was lenient with well-being sacrifices when that could bring them to be piggul . 7:18 , 19:7 ). , 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”? Rebbi Jonah said, it becomes unusable through a ṭevul-yom Chapter 5, Note 68 . . You cannot eat it, for he is impure by the word of the Torah. 22:7 ): “at sundown he will be pure”, in regard to heave and sacrifices he has a biblical status of not being pure. ; you cannot for he is pure by the word of the Torah., there is only a requirement of immersion in water. . That means, that it should not become unusable.
What means “he would restrict its edibility”? Heave is forbidden to outsiders, Second Tithe is permitted to outsiders. Heave is forbidden to a ṭevul-yom , Second Tithe is permitted to a ṭevul-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. 26:14 ): “I did not eat from it in my deep mourning.” . Heave does not need an enclosure, Second Tithe needs an enclosure 2:2.} . It was found stated: “Because he would restrict its edibility and her edibility”.
, fol. 37a. It was stated 7:1 : “One does not exchange Second Tithe [money] on Sabbatical produce, but if it was done it should be eaten following the more stringent rules;” i. e., the rules of tithe and of Sabbatical, whichever happens to be more restrictive in a given situation. In this formulation, the discussion here is superfluous. : “One does not buy Sabbatical [produce] with tithe money.” Rebbi Yose said, that is a disagreement. Rebbi Jonah said, that is the opinion of everybody. The eaters of heave are careful. Rebbi Ḥananiah objected before Rebbi Mana: Did we not state 9:7 . : “If they were mingled with firstlings, Rebbi Simeon says, if it is a company of Cohanim 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 1:14. Since increasing or decreasing the fire on the Sabbath is a capital crime, all food has to be fully cooked by the beginning of the Sabbath. : “One roasts meat, onion, or egg only that they should be roasted”, but we have stated 1:15. If the first day of Passover is a Sabbath, the sacrifice, which must be roasted in the night, is put over the fire just at the start of the Sabbath and we are not afraid that somebody will increase or decrease the fire. This means that prohibitions of “fence” are unnecessary for the Pesaḥ sacrifice. : “One lowers the Pesaḥ sacrifice into the oven at nightfall.”
Rebbi Joshua ben Levi says: One does add a fifth only for the first dedication Chapter 6, Note 1 . . Rebbi Eleazar said, this is what has been stated ( Lev. 27:27 ): “If it is an impure animal, he shall redeem it for its value;” 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. Rebbi Samuel bar Ḥiyya bar Jehudah in the name of Rebbi Ḥanina: If well-being sacrificial animals bought with tithe money developed a blemish and one redeemed them, he adds a fifth. Rebbi Samuel bar Ḥiyya bar Jehudah in the name of Rebbi Ḥanina: If well-being sacrificial animals bought with Passover money sacrifice must be eaten by subscription, if more animals were bought before the holiday than were actually used, the remainder are automatically used for well-being sacrifices ( Babli Zebaḥim 7b ). developed a blemish and one redeemed them, he adds a fifth. Rebbi Yudan said, one is needed and one is not needed. Rebbi 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 was automatically changed into a well-being sacrifice which then developed a blemish, one certainly would have to add a fifth. But in the case here the well-being sacrifice was bought with money from the redemption of a blemished pesaḥ sacrifice, one should not say that this is a second dedication exempt from the fifth. .
Rebbi Huna said, the reason of Rebbi 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. 27:10 ); if an animal was substituted, the verse prescribes that “the original and the substitute shall be holy.” It is not specified how to proceed if there are degrees of holiness. On this, Mishnah Pesaḥim 9:6 states that if the substitution was before noon of the 14th of Nisan, when the pesaḥ could not have been slaughtered, the substituted animal cannot be slaughtered since nobody subscribed to it and it cannot become a well-being sacrifice since it is not a leftover pesaḥ . Therefore, it remains pesaḥ and must be left grazing until it develops a blemish when it must be sold and the money used for a well-being sacrifice. But if the substitution was after noontime of the 14th of Nisan, when the pesaḥ is slaughtered, the substitution is a leftover pesaḥ and automatically becomes a well-being sacrifice. ! Rebbi Mana said to him, did my teacher not compare the following? Rebbi Abba, Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi 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. Rebbi Zeïra, Rebbi Hila, both in the name of Rebbi 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 is irrelevant since the important act was the immersion of the person; waiting a short time is not really a restriction. .
MISHNAH: 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 a vulgar unless they were from demay . Second Tithe from demay is only conditional tithe; it is not sure whether it really has to be eaten in purity. Therefore, it may be exchanged for produce of the vulgar. . 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 wine-press, and baskets of figs for the muqẓeh . 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. Rebbi Simeon ben Jehudah said in the name of Rebbi 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 Shammay 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. Demay enters, leaves, and may be redeemed‘ aser Šeni 2:9), it is agreed that tithe from demay produce which passed through Jerusalem may be redeemed anywhere but Second Tithe from demay may not be redeemed in Jerusalem. In his Commentary, Maimonides refers to Mishnah Demay 1:2 and frees Second Tithe of demay from the rules of Mishnaiot 4–7; this contradicts Halakhah 6 . .
HALAKHAH: “But one should not say this to a vulgar unless they were from demay ”; therefore, not if it is certain since one does not deliver certain [tithe] to a vulgar. Second Tithe from demay is only conditional tithe; it is not sure whether it really has to be eaten in purity. Therefore, it may be exchanged for produce of the vulgar. .
To make a dough and return it, to make a dough and return it.
Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, this means they made Jerusalem like a secure courtyard‘ serot 2, Notes 100–102. . Just as a secure courtyard induces ṭevel , this also induces ṭevel . Rebbi Jonah said, it would have been logical that even its houses would not induce ṭevel since they are property of all of Israel sacrifices. Therefore, there always were unrelated people who had the right to enter courtyard or house and, by Mishnah Ma ‘ serot 3:5, courtyard and house do not induce ṭevel . . But it means they made Jerusalem like a secure courtyard. Just as a secure courtyard grabs, so this grabs for all produce only if completely processed. (Explanation of Sefer Nir .) . Rebbi [Jonah] said, this means if a heap was ṭevel for First and Second [Tithes] and he was warned [only] about the Second he is whipped. Rebbi 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 for First Tithe, whipping somebody for not giving Second Tithe when he was warned about it before Second Tithe was due is ruling with the House of Shammai against the House of Hillel. This is unacceptable. ? But enclosures are more important; here also, enclosures are more important.
Rebbi Zeïra asked: If he separated Second Tithe for it from another place, is it freed or was it already grabbed by the enclosure was transported through Jerusalem, is it possible to give Second Tithe for it from other produce, which then could be redeemed, or, according to the anonymous Tanna of Mishnah 5 , must the Second Tithe be given from this batch only? ? Rebbi 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 1:6 states that a person can give away any produce free of heave and tithes “until he smoothes the heap.” While the Yerushalmi there holds that this statement is from the House of Shammai, R. Simson points out that the House of Hillel will agree if “smoothing the heap” is interpreted as “completing processing in one’s courtyard or house.” But the situation envisaged in Mishnah 6/7 is that of produce fully processed but still not under the obligation of heave and tithes because it was processed in the field and, therefore, has to be transported to the house (via Jerusalem). Therefore, the House of Hillel will hold that produce fully processed but still not under the obligation of heave can be given away and then is not under any potential obligation of heave and 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.
Rebbi Zeïra said: Rebbi Ḥanina, Rebbi Jonathan, and Rebbi Joshua ben Levi ascended to Jerusalem. There happened to be produce produce and had to dispose of it according to the rules in the absence of a Temple. for them; they wanted to redeem it in the countryside and redeem the Second Tithe there, which they counld not do in the city. . An old woman 3:4, Note 182 . told them, your forefathers 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 risen8:6 ) that one may eat Second Tithe inside the holy precinct even if the enclosures (the walls of Jerusalem) are destroyed. Therefore, it is enough to take the produce out of the part of the city that in Temple times was walled. The rabbis hold that ritual Jerusalem is defined only by its walls; therefore, in the absence of walls there is no duty to keep the Second Tithe in Jerusalem but the city is defined by its actual extension, not that of Temple times. The Babli ( Makkot 20a , in the name of Rabba or Rebbi Abba) chooses a third way, that holy food may be eaten only within actual walls but that the rules regarding “grabbing” are purely rabbinical and, therefore, abolished with the destruction of the sanctified walls. . The old woman held with Rebbi Eliezer; those rabbis held with Rebbi Joshua 107b) tentatively disagrees, but then must hold that the enclosure of the Temple domain is merely cosmetic, a position not accepted in other parts of the Babli. The relationship of the positions of RR. Joshua and Eliezer to the problem at hand is tenuous since permanent sanctity is asserted only for the Temple domain on the Temple Mount, not for the rest of Jerusalem. See also the discussion of this problem in the author’s Seder Olam (Northvale NJ, 1998), pp. 257–259. The text here is difficult; as R. M. Margalit points out it would seem that the old woman follows R. Joshua and the rabbis R. Eliezer. But that would put the rabbis on the wrong side of the law, a most unlikely situation. One has to conclude that the reference to a disagreement between RR. Joshua and Eliezer is to some baraita unknown to us. . Rebbi Phineas made it impure and redeemed it; he took both into consideration.
Rebbi Jacob bar Idi and Rebbi Joshua ben Levi, practice follows the student, Note 60 . . Rebbi Zeïra said, only for produce which is ṭevel as demai. But [tithe of] demai itself is already grabbed by the enclosure.
MISHNAH: A tree which stands inside, Note 60 . 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 7:10 it is stated that the wall is counted as inside. Therefore, the interpretation here should be: From the wall to the outside it is outside. However, in the Tosephta ( Ma‘aser Šeni 2:15) the status of the wall is a matter of controversy. . 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 and then leave directly into the profane domain as a ṭevul yom. , 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: Rebbi Eleazar said, for restriction. Rebbi Yose asked, what means “for restriction”? Rebbi Jonah said, that is what we have stated there 2:16) formulates as follows: “Houses by the wall which open inside the wall but extend outside, under the wall and inside it is like inside the city in all respects, but under the wall and outside one does neither eat nor redeem as a restriction. If they were built inside but open to the outside, from the wall to the outside one redeems, to the inside one neither redeems nor eats as a restriction. The thickness of the wall and the loopholes are like the inside.” The last sentence is Mishnah Pesaḥim 7:10 . : “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.”
Rebbi 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 Jehudah in the name of Rav: One whips only for 187 length by 135 width. In the Babli, Zebaḥim 55b , the statement of Rav Jehudah is in the name of his teacher Samuel. . 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 quoted in the preceding paragraph. . Explain it following the Tanna who stated follows the Sages, the one quoted here R. Aqiba. : “Rebbi Yose said, these are the words of Rebbi Aqiba. But the Sages say, they classified the chambers and all chambers follow their openings.”
MISHNAH: Second Tithe which entered Jerusalem and became impure, whether from original impurity or from derivative impurity 2, Notes 136–137 . , 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 ( Deut . 14:24 ): “For you will be unable to take it.” Where do we hold? If far from the Place, it already is written: “If [the distance] will be too much for you., bundle that money in your hand and go to the Place which will be chosen by the Eternal, your God. (26) Then spend the money for all you desire …” The Sifry Deut . (107) explains that while the distance is spatial distance, too far is temporal distance. In any case, the clause unable to carry is redundant. ” If near the Place, it already is written ( Deut . 14:26 ): “You shall spend the money.” What does it mean “for you will be unable to take it”? You cannot redeem it 36b , Baba Meẓi‘a 53a , Makkot 19b , Sanhedrin 112b ) has a weird derivation of the same result from the same verse. The Babylonian identification of שׂאת as “food” contrasts with the Yerushalmi’s identification ( Ḥagigah 1:3 , fol. 76b) as “gift”. , and it is written: “You shall spend the money.”
It was stated: Bar Qappara said, “original impurity” is biblical, “derivative impurity” rabbinic. Rebbi Joḥanan said, in both cases it is biblical. The House of Shammai are difficult for Rebbi 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 Qappara.
It is difficult, according to Bar Qappara 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 it never could be eaten inside the sanctified area. .
Rebbi Zeïra said, this means pure Second Tithe which he brought inside on condition that the enclosure not “grab” it, the enclosure does not “grab” it. Rebbi Jonah asked, it is pure and you say so? But it must be: If he transgressed and redeemed it, it is redeemed that rules derived from biblical verses by rabbinic interpretation are rabbinic in character. .
Rebbi Jacob the Southerner asked before Rebbi Yose: If it became impure outside of Jerusalem and was brought inside, it should not leave lest one say, we saw Second Tithe entering Jerusalem and leaving? Leaving is publicized, redemption is not publicized.
Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Ada inquired before Rebbi Mana: If it became impure by derivative impurity and he redeemed it, not de jure. , 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? Rebbi Jonah asked, is it the same for him who buys? Rebbi Mana said, the enclosure “grabs” and the buyer “grabs”. What was said for the enclosure was said for the buyer.
MISHNAH: If what was bought with tithe money became impure, it should be redeemed. Rebbi Jehudah says, it should be buried 38a , Sanhedrin 113a , Baba Meẓiʻa 53b, Zebaḥim 49b . . They said to Rebbi Jehudah, 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. Rebbi Simeon says, it should be redeemed. If he bought it alive and slaughtered it, if it became impure it should be redeemed. Rebbi 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 3:7 . . 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. Rebbi 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 Rebbi Jehudah? The first money, not second money 14:25 : “then turn it into the money .” The definite article is taken to restrict the money to the coins originally given. This argument is described in the Babli, Baba Meẓiʻa 45a, as that of the House of Shammai. This is possible since R. Jehudah was a student of his father R. Ilaï, a student of R. Eliezer who started out as a disciple of the House of Shammai. The House of Hillel (the anonymous majority in Mishnah 11) hold that the repetition in the verse, “then turn it into money , bundle the money in your hand” means that monies can be exchanged; otherwise it would have said “bundle it”. . Only because they objected to him by an argument de minore ad majus , he answered in terms of an argument de minore ad majus.
Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: They treated deer like dedications for the upkeep of the Temple to require standing and appraisal 27 . The relevant verses are 11–12 and 27. (11) “If it is any unclean animal which cannot be a sacrifice to the Eternal, one should make the animal stand before a Cohen. (12) The Cohen should appraise it, whether it is good or bad; the Cohen’s appraisal shall stand.” (27) “If it is an unclean animal, he should redeem it for its appraisal ..” Since an unclean (nonkosher) animal never can be a sacrifice, the “unclean” animal of v. 11 must be a kosher animal with a blemish, which now cannot be a sacrifice. V. 27 therefore details the rules of nonkosher animals dedicated to the Temple. The rabbis hold that the parallel expressions “unclean animal” indicate that the rules of vv. 11–12 can be transferred to v. 27 but R. Simeon holds that in v. 27 no “standing” is mentioned, therefore it is not needed. (Details in Babli Temurah 32b ). The rabbis hold that any dedicated animal which cannot stand before a Cohen cannot be appraised and, therefore, cannot be redeemed. R. Simeon holds that animals which never can be sacrifices, nonkosher animals and kosher wild animals, do not need standing; they can be redeeemed even if dead. .
Rebbi Jeremiah asked before Rebbi Zeïra: Does an unclean animal need standing and appraisal? He said to him, if Rebbi Yose had said in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan that a pure wild animal does not need standing and appraisal, an unclean animal would not need it. Rebbi Hila said, we have stated thus ( Lev . 27:21 ) 4(3), a similar text; quoted in Babli Baba Meẓiʻa 54b. : “If an unclean animal, he should redeem it as appraised.” 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. Rebbi Yose said, a Mishnah said so: “One commits larceny with a donkey and its milk 3:5. Larceny committed on anything dedicated to the upkeep of the Temple incurs a fine of 25% and requires a sacrifice for atonement. .” Is not milk comparable to its being dead 12b). ? 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”. Rebbi Ḥanina said before Rebbi Mana, explain it following Rebbi Simeon since Rebbi Simeon said, dedications for the upkeep of the Temple do not need standing and appraisal. He said to him, if it is following Rebbi Simeon, why a donkey and not any animal?
Rebbi Zeïra 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 contryside can the flask be grasped by tithe?
Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi 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.”
, oil, and (date) honey. Fish sauce and muries cannot be subject to tithe. Maimonides in his Code ( Ma‘aser Šeni 8:5) copies the entire list. In both mss. and the editio princeps of the Tosephta, “tithe acquired it”; but Maimonides ( loc. cit. ) copies “tithe did not acquire it.” It is impossible to determine whether or not the Tosephta is corrupt in this passage. 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.
Rebbi 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?
Rebbi Joshua ben Levi said, it refers back to the first [part]. Rebbi Ba said, to the second.
“If he said, a quartarius of profane is in this barrel, the barrel is profane (cf. Berakhot 3, Note 227 ) of profane [wine], the tithe did not acquire it whether sealed with clay or not.” .” Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: The Mishnah says so, “Rebbi Simeon said, also if somebody says to another person, I am selling to you this amphora except its flask, the flask became profane.”