## Jerusalem Talmud Maaser Sheni Chapter 1

###### Jerusalem Talmud Maaser Sheni 1:1:1
[Jerusalem Talmud Maaser Sheni 1:1:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Maaser%20Sheni/r/1:1:1)

**משנה:** מַעֲשֵׂר שֵׁינִי אֵין מוֹכְרִין אוֹתוֹ וְאֵין מְמַשְׁכְּנִין אוֹתוֹ וְאֵין מַחֲלִיפִין אוֹתוֹ וְלֹא שׁוֹקְלִין כְּנֶגְדּוֹ וְלֹא יֹאמַר אָדָם לַחֲבֵירוֹ בִּירוּשָׁלֵם הֵילָךְ יַיִן וְתֵן לִי שֶׁמֶן וְכֵן כָּל שְׁאָר הַפֵּירוֹת אֲבָל נוֹתְנִין זֶה לַזֶּה מַּתְּנַת חִנָּם. מַעֲשֵׂר בְּהֵמָה אֵין מוֹכְרִין אוֹתוֹ תָּמִים חַי. וְלֹא בַּעַל מוּם חַי וְשָׁחוּט וְאֵין מְקַדְּשִׁין בּוֹ אֶת הָאִשָּׁה. הַבְּכוֹר מוֹכְרִין אוֹתוֹ תָּמִים חַי. וּבַעַל מוּם חַי וְשָׁחוּט וּמְקַדְּשִׁין בּוֹ אֶת הָאִשָּׁה. וְאֵין מְחַלְלִין מַעֲשֵׂר שֵׁנִי עַל אַסֵּימוֹן וְלֹא עַל הַמַּטְבֵּעַ שֶׁאֵינוֹ יוֹצֵא וְלֹא עַל הַמָּעוֹת שֶׁאֵינָן בִּרְשׁוּתוֹ.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
**MISHNAH:** One does not sell Second Tithe¹ 14:25), transfer its holiness to the money, and render the produce profane which then may be sold; cf. Mishnah 4:1. The money has to be spent for pure food in Jerusalem to be consumed by the rules of holiness., one does not take it as a pledge, one does not barter it, and one does not weigh corresponding to it². 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 blemished⁴¹ alive or slaughtered, and one may not use it for preliminarily marrying a woman⁴² 6:2, Note 46. The husband has to give his bride something of his possessions. For R. Meїr, Second Tithe is not the farmer’s property but given to him by Heaven.. One⁴³ may sell a firstling unblemished alive, blemished alive or slaughtered⁴⁴ 28a)., and one may use it for preliminarily marrying a woman. One does not exchange Second Tithe by a blank⁴⁵, *Money and Prices* (Ramat Gan, 1974), Note 12 on p. 208., or by a coin not in circulation⁴⁶, or on money not in his possession⁴⁷.

footnotes:
¹ One may not sell Second Tithe as such, that it should be Second Tithe in the hand of the buyer. One may exchange Second Tithe for money (Deut.
² As long as it retains its status as Second Tithe.
⁴¹ A blemished tenth animal (or firstling) is holy but must be eaten as profane food away from the Temple.
⁴² Peah
⁴³ Not the rancher whose animal produced a firstling but the Cohen who receives it. The firstling becomes the property of the Cohen. Since his bride becomes a member of the tribe upon consummation of the marriage, she then will have full use of the firstling for food even if it is unblemished.
⁴⁴ A slaughtered blemished firstling may be sold by the Cohen as food even to a Gentile (Bekhorot
⁴⁵ Greek ἄσημος, -ον “without mark; uncoined”, a blank for coining. Cf. D. Sperber, Roman Palestine 200–400
⁴⁶ Any coin which is not legal tender at the place of redemption is merchandise, not money.
⁴⁷ Second Tithe cannot be exchanged pledging future income, or outstanding loans, or by one’s own but inacessible money.


###### Jerusalem Talmud Maaser Sheni 1:1:2
[Jerusalem Talmud Maaser Sheni 1:1:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Maaser%20Sheni/r/1:1:2)

**הלכה:** מַעֲשֵׂר שֵׁינִי אֵין מוֹכְרִין אוֹתוֹ. אֵין מוֹכְרִין אוֹתוֹ מִפְּנֵי שֶׁכָּתוּב בּוֹ קְדוּשָׁה. אֵין מְמַשְׁכְּנִין אוֹתוֹ מִפְּנֵי שֶׁכָּתוּב בּוֹ בְּרָכָה. כֵּיצַד אֵין מוֹכְרִין אוֹתוֹ. לֹא יֹאמַר אָדָם לַחֲבֵירוֹ הָא לָךְ אֶת הַמָּנֶה הַזֶּה שֶׁלְמַעֲשֵׂר שֵׁנִי וְתֵן לִי בוֹ חֲמִשִּׁים זוּז שֶׁלְחוּלִין.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
**HALAKHAH:** “One does not sell Second Tithe.” One does not sell it because holiness is written for it³. 27:30.. One does not use it as a pledge because blessing is written about it⁴ 14:24. Taking a loan and giving a pledge is not a sign of blessing.. “⁵] worth, give me 100 in exchange.” If Second Tithe were sold, it would not be redeemed and the buyer would have to eat the produce in purity and sanctity in Jerusalem (assuming the existence of the Temple.) 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.”

footnotes:
³ Lev
⁴ Deut.
⁵ A similar text in Tosephta 1:1: “How may one not sell it? One should not say, here is 200 [zuz


###### Jerusalem Talmud Maaser Sheni 1:1:3
[Jerusalem Talmud Maaser Sheni 1:1:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Maaser%20Sheni/r/1:1:3)

מָאן תַּנָּא אֵין מוֹכְרִין אוֹתוֹ רִבִּי מֵאִיר. בְּרַם כְּרִבִּי יוּדָה בְּדִין הוּא שֶׁיְהֵא מוּתָּר לְמוֹכְרוֹ מִקַּל וָחוֹמֶר. מַה אִם תְּרוּמָה שֶׁהִיא אֲסוּרָה לְזָרִים מוּתָּר לְמוֹכְרָהּ. מַעֲשֵׂר שֵׁינִי שֶׁהוּא מוּתָּר לְזָרִים אֵינוֹ דִּין שֶׁיְהֵא מוּתָּר לְמוֹכְרוֹ. לֹא. אִם אָמַרְתָּ בִּתְרוּמָה שֶׁאֵינָהּ טְעוּנָה מְחִיצָה תֹּאמַר בְּמַעֲשֵׂר שֵׁינִי שֶׁהוּא טָעוּן מְחִיצָה. בִּיכּוּרִים יוֹכִיחוּ שֶׁהֵן טְעוֹנִין מְחִיצָה וּמוּתָּר לְמוֹכְרָן. לֹא. אִם אָמַרְתָּ בְּבִיכּוּרִין שֶׁאֵינָן תּוֹפְסִין אֶת דְּמֵיהֶן. תֹּאמַר בְּמַעֲשֵׂר שֵׁינִי שֶׁהוּא תוֹפֵשׂ אֶת דָּמָיו. שְׁבִיעִית תּוֹכִיחַ שֶׁהִיא תוֹפֶסֶת אֶת דָּמֶיהָ וּמוּתָּר לְמוֹכְרָהּ. אָמַר רִבִּי יוּדָן מִזּוֹ מְכִירָתָהּ שֶׁלַּשְּׁבִיעִית הִיא חִילוּלָהּ.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
Who is the Tanna of “one does not sell it”? Rebbi Meїr⁶ 2:8, cf. *Demay* Chapter 1, Notes 185–186.! But for Rebbi Jehudah it should be logical that it be permitted to be sold, by an argument *a minore ad majus*: If it is permitted to sell heave⁷; e. g. Mishnah 4:1. 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 enclosure⁸ 14:24 requires that Second Tithe be consumed “at the place chosen by the Eternal, your God.” This place must be designated somehow. We have no record that the sanctuary at Shilo was within walls, but some enclosure must have defined the sacred space. It is accepted that the ancient walls of Jerusalem defined the sacred space for Second Tithe. In contrast, heave may be consumed by the priests anywhere in the Land.? First Fruits shall prove it which need an enclosure⁹ and one may sell them! No, if you assert this for First Fruits which do not implicate their monetary substitute¹⁰, what can you imply for Second Heave which implicates its monetary substitute¹¹. 14:24. The argument could have been formulated: The sale of First Fruits is a sale, the sale of Second Tithe is a redemption.! The Sabbatical shall prove it which implicates its monetary substitute¹² 8:8. and it is permitted to sell it! Rebbi Yudan said, from this? The sale of Sabbatical produce is its redemption¹³ Chapter 8, cannot be characterized as a sale but is a redemption which does not impinge on the holiness of the produce which remains Sabbatical. But exchanged Second Tithe is totally profane. Therefore, there is no proof that R. Jehudah would permit the sale of unexchanged Second Tithe..

footnotes:
⁶ R. Meїr considers Second Tithe as property of Heaven given to the farmer for consumption in holiness. For R. Jehudah, Second Tithe is private property. Their disagreement is in Mishnah Qiddušin
⁷ As mentioned many times in Mishnah Terumot
⁸ Deut.
⁹ Since they have to be brought to the Temple. The operative enclosure here is the courtyard of the Tabernacle or the outer wall of the Temple. The receiving priest is permitted to sell to another priest.
¹⁰ The money is profane.
¹¹ The money must be taken to Jerusalem as Second Tithe, Deut
¹² Mishnah Ševi‘it
¹³ The sale of Sabbatical produce, as authorized in Mishnah Ševi‘it


###### Jerusalem Talmud Maaser Sheni 1:1:4
[Jerusalem Talmud Maaser Sheni 1:1:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Maaser%20Sheni/r/1:1:4)

אָמַר רִבִּי יִרְמְיָה מָאן תַּנָּא אֵין מוֹכְרִין אוֹתוֹ רִבִּי מֵאִיר. בְּרֵם כְּרִבִּי יוּדָן בְּדִין הוּא שֶׁיְהֵא מוּתָּר לְמוֹכְרוֹ מִקַּל וָחוֹמֶר מַה אִם שְׁבִיעִית שֶׁאֵין פּוֹרְעִין חוֹב מִדָּמֶיהָ מוּתָּר לְמוֹכְרָהּ. מַעֲשֵׂר שֵׁינִי שֶׁפּוֹרְעִין חוֹב מִדָּמָיו אֵינוֹ דִּין שֶׁיְהֵא מוּתָּר לְמוֹכְרוֹ. הָא אַשְׁכַּחְנָן שֶׁפּוֹרְעִין חוֹב מִדָּמָיו כַּי דְתַנִּינָן תַּמָּן מָשַׁךְ הִימֶּינּוּ מַעֲשֵׂר בְּסֶלַע. לֹא הִסְפִּיק לִפְדּוֹתוֹ עַד שֶׁעָמַד בִּשְׁתַּיִם. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹסֵי שַׁנְיָיא הִיא. שֶׁמִּשָׁעָה הָרִאשׁוֹנָה מַעֲשֵׂר שֵׁינִי חַיָיב. אִילּוּ חַיָיב הָיָה לֹו וְנָתָן לוֹ מֵעֲשֵׂר יְאוּת. אָמַר רִבִּי יוּדָן מַתְנִיתָא אָמְרָה כֵן שֶׁהוּא אָסוּר לְמוֹכְרוֹ. דְּתַנִּינָן תַּמָּן מֵזִיד קִידֵּשׁ שׁוֹגֵג לֹא קִידֵּשׁ. אִם אַתְּ אוֹמֵר יְהֵא מוּתָּר לְמוֹכְרוֹ יְהֵא מוּתָּר לְקַדֵּשׁ בּוֹ. וְכָל שֶׁהוּא אָסוּר לְמוֹכְרוֹ אָסוּר לְקַדֵּשׁ בּוֹ. וְהָתַנִּינָן אֵין לוֹקְחִין עֲבָדִים וְקַרְקָעוֹת וּבְהֵמָה טְמֵיאָה מִדְּמֵי שְׁבִיעִית. וְאִם לָקַח יֹאכַל כְּנֶגְדָּהּ. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹסֵי זֹאת אוֹמֶרֶת שֶׁאָסוּר לִיקַּח אִשָּׁה מִדְּמֵי שְׁבִיעִית. דִּלֹכֵן מַה בֵּין קוֹנֶה אִשָּׁה מַה בֵּין קוֹנֶה שִׁפְחָה. רִבִּי יוֹסֵי בְשֵׁם רִבִּי זְעִירָא רִבִּי יוּדָן בְּשֵׁם רִבִּי יִילָא דִּבְרֵי הַכֹּל הִיא מִפְּנֵי פִּילְפּוּלוֹ. רִבִּי יוֹסֵי בְשֵׁם רִבִּי אָחָא דִּבְרֵי הַכֹּל הִיא כְּדֵי שֶׁיְהוּ הַכֹּל זְקוּקִין לִמְחִיצָתָן.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
Rebbi Jeremiah said, who is the Tanna of “one does not sell it”? Rebbi Meїr⁶ 2:8, cf. *Demay* Chapter 1, Notes 185–186.! But for Rebbi Jehudah it should be logical that it be permitted to be sold, by an argument *a minore ad majus*: If it is permitted to sell Sabbatical produce with which one may not liquidate one’s debts¹⁴ 3:1, Notes 13–14., 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 stated¹⁵ 4:6. The text quotes only the beginning of the Mishnah but the argument is from the second part: If the buyer took possession of the Second Tithe when it was worth 2 tetradrachmas but did not exchange it until its value decreased to 1 tetradrachma, he gives the seller one tetradrachma of profane money (for redemption); the second tetradrachma he may take out of his own Second Tithe money. This means that he may use his Second Tithe money to liquidate the debt he incurred when he took possession of the Second Tithe.: “If he took from him tithe worth one tetradrachma and did not come to exchange it until it was worth two.” Rebbi 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 argument¹⁶. Rebbi Yudan said, a Mishnah said that it is forbidden to sell it, as we stated there¹⁷ 2:8. The Mishnah states that no tithe may be used for the money due the bride at the preliminary marriage ceremony (cf. *Demay* 1:3, Notes 185–187; *Peak* 6:2 Note 46, 7:6 Note 135). R. Jehudah holds that if the groom criminally alienated Second Tithe from its intended use and used it as bridal money, the former Second Tithe now is his private property (for which restitution is due) which may be used as bridal money. But this implies that Second Tithe cannot be used in the absence of criminal intent since if it was used inadvertently, without criminal intent, Second Tithe is Heaven’s property and the preliminary marriage is invalid.: “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 state¹⁸ Mishnah and Halakhah 8:8, Notes 114, 115, 118.: “One does not buy slaves, real estate, and unclean animals from Sabbatical money. If he bought them, he has to eat their worth.” Rebbi 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? Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Zeïra, Rebbi Yudan in the name of Rebbi Ila, everybody agrees because of these arguments. Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Aḥa, everybody agrees that all should need the enclosures¹⁹.

footnotes:
⁶ R. Meїr considers Second Tithe as property of Heaven given to the farmer for consumption in holiness. For R. Jehudah, Second Tithe is private property. Their disagreement is in Mishnah Qiddušin
¹⁴ Demay
¹⁵ Mishnah Ma‘aser Šeni
¹⁶ There is no proof that Second Tithe money may be used for anything but Second Tithe or profane food to be turned into Second Tithe.
¹⁷ Mishnah Qiddušin
¹⁸ Ševi‘it
¹⁹ The first opinion of R. Yose states that the previous arguments showed that R. Jehudah agrees that Second Tithe may not be sold but only exchanged. The second opinion states that this is not a biblical law but a rabbinic institution so that, if the Temple is rebuilt, everybody has an interest in seeing to it that the walls of Jerusalem will be in good shape.


###### Jerusalem Talmud Maaser Sheni 1:1:5
[Jerusalem Talmud Maaser Sheni 1:1:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Maaser%20Sheni/r/1:1:5)

כֵּיצַד אֵין מֲמַשְׁכְּנִין אוֹתוֹ הַנִּכְנָס לְתוֹךְ בֵּיתוֹ שֶׁל חֲבֵירוֹ לְמַשְׁכְּנוֹ אַל יְמַשְׁכֵּן מַעֲשֵׂר שֵׁינִי שֶׁלּוֹ. תַּנֵּי וְלֹא מַרְהִינִין אוֹתוֹ וְלֹא יִתְּנֶינּוּ לְחֶנְוָונִי שֶׁיֹּאכַל עָלָיו. עָבַר וּמִישְׁכֵּן עָבַר וְהִירְהֵן. יָיבֹא כְּהָדָא הָאוֹכֵל מַעֲשֵׂר שֵׁינִי שֶׁלּוֹ בֵּין שׁוֹגֵג בֵּין מֵזִיד יִצְעַק לַשָּׁמַיִם דִּבְרֵי רַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל. רִבִּי אוֹמֵר שׁוֹגֵג יִצְעַק לַשָּׁמַיִם מֵזִיד יַחְזְרוּ דָמָיו לִמְקוֹמָן. וְאִם הָיוּ מָעוֹת. שׁוֹגֵג יִצְעַק לַשָּׁמַיִם מֵזִיד יַחְזְרוּ דָמָיו לִמְקוֹמָן דִּבְרֵי רַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל. רִבִּי אוֹמֵר בֵּין שׁוֹגֵג בֵּין מֵזִיד יַחְזְרוּ דָמָיו לִמְקוֹמָן. רִבִּי זְרִיקָה בְשֵׁם חִזְקִיָּה הֲלָכָה כְּרִבִּי בְּמָעוֹת וּכְרַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל בְּפֵירוֹת. אָמַר רִבִּי יִילָא מַעֲשֶׂה הָיָה וְהוֹרוּ כְרִבִּי בְּמָעוֹת.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
“²⁰ 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.²¹” If one transgressed and took as pledge, trangressed and gave as deposit? It shall be as the following²²: “If somebody eats his Second Tithe, whether in error or intentionally, he shall cry out to Heaven²³, the words of Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel. Rebbi says, in error he shall cry out to Heaven, intentionally the money’s worth shall be restituted. If it was money, in error he shall cry out to Heaven, intentionally the money’s worth shall be restituted, the words of Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel. Rebbi says, whether in error or intentionally, the money’s worth shall be restituted.” Rebbi Zeriqa in the name of Ḥizqiah: Practice follows Rebbi for money and Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel for produce. Rebbi Ila said, there was a case about money and they instructed following Rebbi.

footnotes:
²⁰ Tosephta 1:1.
²¹ In Tosephta 1:2: One does not give it as a deposit; he should not say, keep this tithe in your hands and give me profane [produce] for its value.
²² Tosephta 3:9–10; the Yerushalmi text is parallel to the Erfurt ms.
²³ There is no replacement; his sin can be forgiven only by divine mercy.


###### Jerusalem Talmud Maaser Sheni 1:1:6
[Jerusalem Talmud Maaser Sheni 1:1:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Maaser%20Sheni/r/1:1:6)

אוֹ יָיבֹא כְּהָדָא אֵין נוֹטְעִין וְאֵין מַבְרִיכִין וְאֵין מַרְכִּיבִין עֶרֶב שְׁבִיעִית פָּחוֹת מִשְּׁלֹשִׁים יוֹם לִפְנֵי רֹאשׁ הַשָּׁנָה וְאִם נָטַע אוֹ הִרְכִּיב אוֹ הִבְרִיךְ יַעֲקוֹר. לֹא עָקַר פֵּירוֹתָיו מַה הֵן. רִבִּי בָּא רִבִּי אִמִּי הֲווֹן יְתִיבִין בְּצוֹר אָתָא עוּבְדָּא קוֹמֵיהוֹן וְהוֹרֵי רִבִּי אִילָא יִשְׁפְּכוּ פֵּירוֹתָיו. אָמַר רִבִּי בָּא אֲנִי לֹא נִמְנֵיתִי עִמָּהֶם בַּעֲלִיָיה. נָפְקִין וְשָׁמְעוּן רִבִּי יוֹנָה וְרִבִּי יִצְחָק בַּר טֶבֶלַיי בְשֵׁם רִבִּי לָעְזָר אֵין מְחַדְּשִׁין עַל הַגְּזֵירָה. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹסֵי רִבִּי יִצְחָק בַּר טֶבֶלַיי בְשֵׁם רִבִּי לָעְזָר אֵין מוֹסִיפִין עַל הַהֲלָכָה.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
Or it may follow this: ²⁴ 32:6, Notes 42–47.“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? Rebbi Abba [and] Rebbi Immi²⁵: Rebbi La. The next sentence shows that this is the correct text. were sitting in Tyre when a case came before them. Rebbi La taught that the fruits should be thrown away. Rebbi 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 Rebbi Jonah and Rebbi Isaac bar Tevele in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: One does not make a new restriction. Rebbi Yose, Rebbi Isaac bar Tevele in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: One does not add to an established practice.

footnotes:
²⁴ The entire paragraph is in Ševi‘it
²⁵ In Ševi‘it


###### Jerusalem Talmud Maaser Sheni 1:1:7
[Jerusalem Talmud Maaser Sheni 1:1:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Maaser%20Sheni/r/1:1:7)

רִבִּי יַעֲקֹב בַּר אָחָא בְשֵׁם רִבִּי זְעִירָא מִן מַה דְתַנֵּי אֵין מֲמַשְׁכְּנִין אוֹתוֹ וְלֹא מַרְהִינִין אוֹתוֹ הָדָא אָמְרָה עָבַר וּמִישְׁכֵּן עָבַר וְהִרְהֵין קוֹנְסִין בּוֹ.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Zeïra: 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, trangressed and gave as a deposit, one fines him for it²⁶ 3:18)..

footnotes:
²⁶ The court will remove pledge or deposit (Maimonides, Ma‘aser Šeni


###### Jerusalem Talmud Maaser Sheni 1:1:8
[Jerusalem Talmud Maaser Sheni 1:1:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Maaser%20Sheni/r/1:1:8)

וְלֹא שׁוֹקְלִין כְּנֶגְדּוֹ מָעוֹת אֲפִילוּ סֶלַע שֶׁלְחוּלִין לַעֲשׂוֹת סֶלַע שֶּׁלְמַעֲשֵׂר שֵׁנִי. הָיָה לוֹ סֶלַע שֶּׁלְמַעֲשֵׂר וְהִיא מְסוּיֶימֶת לוֹ מַהוּ שֶׁיִּשְׁקוֹל כְּנֶגֶד הַסֶּלַע שֶּׁלְמַעֲשֵׂר שֵׁינִי אֲחֶרֶת וּתְהֵא מְסוּיֶימֶת לוֹ. הָאַחִין שֶׁחָלְקוּ מַהוּ שֶׁיִּשְׁקְלוּ זֶה כְנֶגֶד זֶה.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
“²⁷ One does not use it²⁸ to weigh coins²⁹, 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 other³⁰?

footnotes:
²⁷ Tosephta 1:1, in slightly different wording.
²⁸ Coins of Second Tithe whose weight is known may not be used on scales to determine the weight of other things.
²⁹ To see whether they have the legal weight.
³⁰ To split the Second Tithe money evenly. The questions are not answered but if the answer to the first question were in the negative, the second question could not have been asked. Therefore, the answer to the first question must be affirmative and by the parallelism of the questions one may infer that the second question also must be answered in the affirmative: Second Tithe money may be weighed for purposes of Second Tithe. {In the Babli, the questions would be put into a lengthy rhetorical frame centered on the expression תמצי לומר אם.}


###### Jerusalem Talmud Maaser Sheni 1:1:9
[Jerusalem Talmud Maaser Sheni 1:1:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Maaser%20Sheni/r/1:1:9)

תְּנָן לֹא יֹאמַר אָדָם לַחֲבֵירוֹ בִּירוּשָׁלֵם הָא לָךְ יַיִן וְתֵן לִי שֶׁמֶן. הָא לָךְ שֶׁמֶן וְתֵן לִי יַיִן. אֲבָל אוֹמֵר לוֹ הָא לָךְ יַיִן שֶׁאֵין לָךְ יַיִן הָא לָךְ שֶׁמֶן שֶׁאֵין לָךְ שֶׁמֶן. הָא לָךְ יַיִן שֶׁאֵין לִי שֶׁמֶן הֲווֹן בָּעֵיי מֵימַר אָסוּר. אַשְׁכַּח תַּנֵּי מוּתָּר. וְאֵינוֹ אָסוּר מִשּׁוּם חֲלִיפִּין. מִכֵּיוָן שֶׁאֵינוֹ יָכוֹל לְהוֹצִיאוֹ מִמֶּנּוּ בְּדִין אֵין אֵילּוּ חֲלִיפִּין. וְלֵיידָא מִילָּא אָמַר הָא לָךְ יַיִן שֶׁאֵין לִי שֶׁמֶן. דְּאִילּוּ הֲוָה לִי מְשַׁח הֲוִינָא מִיתַּן לָךְ.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
We have stated³¹: “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 oil³² have no *oil*, *and the other one says*, here you have oil since *I* have no *wine*. It turns out that they exchange but do not barter; they do favors for one another.” With this text, the discussion in the paragraph becomes unnecessary..” 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.

footnotes:
³¹ It should read תני; תנן is Babylonian Aramaic for a quote from the Mishnah.
³² Tosephta 1:2: “How does one not barter? A person should not say, 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 I


###### Jerusalem Talmud Maaser Sheni 1:1:10
[Jerusalem Talmud Maaser Sheni 1:1:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Maaser%20Sheni/r/1:1:10)

אֲבָל נוֹתְנִין זֶה לַזֶּה מַּתְּנַת חִנָּם. מַתְנִיתִין דְּרִבִּי מֵאִיר דּוּ רִבִּי מֵאִיר אָמַר אֵין מַתָּנָה כְּמֶכֶר. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹסֵי דִּבְרֵי הַכֹּל הִיא הָכָא כְּהָדָא דְתַנֵּי. הָיָה אוֹמֵר אָדָם לַחֲבֵירוֹ מַה אָכַלְתָּ הַיּוֹם וְהוּא אוֹמֵר לוֹ קַיִץ וְהָיָה יוֹדֵעַ שֶׁהוּא בְּכוֹר. מַה הַקַּיִיץ נִמְכַּר בְּזוֹל. אַף הַבְּכוֹר נִמְכַּר בְּזוֹל. הָיָה אוֹמֵר לוֹ מָן וְהָיָה יוֹדֵעַ שֶׁהוּא מַעֲשֵׂר שֵׁינִי. מַה הַמָּן נִיתַּן בְּמַתָּנָה אַף מַעֲשֵׂר שֵׁינִי נִיתַּן בְּמַתָּנָה. הָתִיבוּן הֲרֵי מַעֲשֵׂר בְּהֵמָה דִּבְרֵי הַכֹּל אֵינוֹ נִמְכַּר וְאַתְּ אָמְרָת נִיתַּן בְּמַתָּנָה. אַף זֶה נִיתַּן בְּמַתָּנָה. רִבִּי מָנָא לֹא אָמַר כֵּן אֶלָּא כְּרִבִּי יוּדָה דְּרִבִּי יוּדָה אָמַר עָשָׂה אוֹתוֹ כִּנְכָסָיו. הָתִיבוּן הֲרֵי מַעֲשֵׂר בְּהֵמָה דִּבְרֵי הַכֹּל אֵינוֹ כִּנְכָסָיו וְאַתְּ אָמַר נִיתַּן בְּמַתָּנָה. אַף זֶה נִיתַּן מַתָּנָה.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
“But they may give free gifts to one another.” Our Mishnah is Rebbi Meїr’s since Rebbi Meїr says a gift is not like a sale³⁴ 2:1, Note 5.. Rebbi 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 figs³⁵ 1, in Jerusalem one always talked in hints., he knows that it was firstling. Just as summer figs are sold cheaply, so firstlings are sold cheaply³⁶. 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 sold³⁷. 27:32) must be eaten as a sacrifice; if without blemish its blood and fat are burned on the altar and the meat may be eaten by any pure person in the holy precinct (i. e., inside the walls of Jerusalem.) The rancher who brings the sacrifice may invite anybody to partake of the meat. Since it is holy it may not be sold; it follows that the meat may be given as a gift. It is impossible to distinguish between Second Tithe and animal tithe in this respect.; do you say it can be given as a gift? This also can be given as a gift. Rebbi Mana did not say so but was following Rebbi Jehudah since Rebbi Jehudah said He made it one’s property³⁸ 2:8, quoted in the next Halakhah, notes that for R. Meїr, Second Tithe is Heaven’s property but for R. Jehudah it is the farmer’s property. Cf. also *Demay* 1:3, Note 185.. They objected: Everybody agrees that animal tithe is not one’s property³⁹; do you say it can be given as a gift? This also can be given as a gift⁴⁰.

footnotes:
³⁴ Ma‘serot
³⁵ As explained in Ekhah Rabbati
³⁶ A first-born animal becomes property of a Cohen. It may not be sold by weight or in a store and the buyers can only be Cohanim unless it is a blemished animal which may not be used as a sacrifice. Therefore, it can only be sold cheaply.
³⁷ Animal tithe (Lev
³⁸ Mishnah Qiddušin
³⁹ By being counted as tenth animal, it becomes automatically dedicated as a sacrifice.
⁴⁰ As noted in Note 37. The animal tithe is the only sacrifice which is totally given to the rancher who brings it. The parts which go onto the altar, blood and fat, are those which may not be eaten even from a profane animal. The Cohanim do not receive any part, neither is any edible part burned on the altar.


###### Jerusalem Talmud Maaser Sheni 1:1:11
[Jerusalem Talmud Maaser Sheni 1:1:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Maaser%20Sheni/r/1:1:11)

הַשָּׁחוּט מוּתָּר. תַּנֵּיי דְבֵי רִבִּי יַנַּאי לֹא שַׁנְיָיא בֵּין חַי בֵּין שָׁחוּט בֵּין תָּמִים בֵּין בַּעַל מוּם. וְלֵיי דָא מִילָּה תְּנָן חַי וְלֹא שָׁחוּט. כְּגוֹן נִיתְנֵי דְבַתְרָהּ הַבְּכוֹר מוֹכְרִין אוֹתוֹ תָּמִים חַי וּבַעַל מוּם וְשָׁחוּט.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
Therefore, once it was slaughtered, is it permitted⁴⁸? It was stated by the House of Rebbi Yannai: There is no difference between alive and slaughtered, unblemished and blemished⁴⁹ in Babli *Bekhorot* 31b.. For what did we state then “live but not slaughtered?” For example, what was stated after this: “One may sell a firstling unblemished alive⁵⁰, blemished alive or slaughtered⁵¹.”

footnotes:
⁴⁸ Why does the Mishnah make a difference between unblemished and blemished animal tithe?
⁴⁹ This is also a baraita
⁵⁰ To a Cohen, and certainly when it was slaughtered and its blood and fat brought to the altar.
⁵¹ To a Jew, not necessarily a Cohen. The animal may be sold to a Gentile only slaughtered since it has to be slaughtered ritually.


###### Jerusalem Talmud Maaser Sheni 1:1:12
[Jerusalem Talmud Maaser Sheni 1:1:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Maaser%20Sheni/r/1:1:12)

רִבִּי אַבָּא בַּר יַעֲקֹב בְּשֵׁם רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן נֶאֱמַר כָּאן לֹא יִגָּאֵל. וְנֶאֱמַר בְּחֶרְמֵי כֹהֲנִים לֹא יִמָּכֵר וְלֹא יִגָּאֵל. מַה לֹא יִגָּאֵל הָאָמוּר בְּחֶרְמֵי כֹהֲנִים אֵינוֹ לֹא נִמְכַּר וְלֹא נִגְאַל. אַף לֹא יִגָּאֵל הָאָמוּר כָּאן אֵינוֹ לֹא נִמְכַּר וְלֹא נִגְאַל. רִבִּי יַעֲקֹב דְּרוֹמִיָיה בָּעֵא קוֹמֵי רִבִּי יוֹסֵי כְּלוּם כְּתִיב בִּבְכוֹר לֹא תִפָּדֶה בְּבַעַל מוּם. מַעֲשֵׂר בְּהֵמָה לֹא חִלְּקָה הַתּוֹרָה בֵּין חַי בֵּין שָׁחוּט בֵּין תָּמִים בֵּין בַּעַל מוּם.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
Rebbi Abba bar Jacob in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan⁵² 32a) this is quoted in the names of R. Joḥanan and Rav and rejected. For Tannaїtic sources, cf. *Sifra* *Beḥuqotay* *Pereq* 13(4), quoted Babli *Bekhorot* 31b, *Temurah* 5b, 40a.: It is said here (*Lev*. 27:33): “It may not be redeemed.” It has been said about Cohanim‘s bans (*Lev*. 27:28) “It may not be sold or redeemed.” Since “it may not be redeemed” for Cohanim’s bans includes sale, so “it may not be redeemed” here includes sale. Rebbi Jacob the Southerner asked before Rebbi Yose: Is it not written about a firstling (*Num*. 18:17) “it should not be redeemed?” About a blemished animal⁵³. 18:17 refers only to unblemished animals. No restrictions are put on blemished firstlings other than that they have to be given to a Cohen.. For animal tithe, the Torah made no difference between living and slaughtered, unblemished and blemished.

footnotes:
⁵² In the Babli (Bekhorot
⁵³ Num


###### Jerusalem Talmud Maaser Sheni 1:1:13
[Jerusalem Talmud Maaser Sheni 1:1:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Maaser%20Sheni/r/1:1:13)

אֵין מְקַדְּשִׁין בּוֹ אֶת הָאִשָּׁה. אֲבָל מְקַדְּשִׁין בְּגִידָיו וּבַעֲצָּמָיו וּבְקַרְנָיו וּבִטְלָפָיו. אָמַר רִבִּי לָעְזָר מִפְּנֵי שֶׁכָּתוּב בּוֹ בְּרָכָה. וִיקַדֵּשׁ בִּבְשָׂרוֹ. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹסֵי כְּלוּם לָמְדוּ מַעֲשֵׂר אֶלָּא מֵחֶרְמֵי כֹהֲנִים מַה חֶרְמֵי כֹהֲנִים אֵין מְקַדְּשִׁין בָּהֶן אֶת הָאִשָּׁה. אַף כָּל הַקֳּדָשִׁים אֵין מְקַדְּשִׁין בָּהֶן אֶת הָאִשָּׁה. מֵעַתָּה לֹא יְקַדְּשׁוּ לֹא בְגִידָיו וְלֹא בַעֲצָמָיו וְלֹא בְקַרְנָיו וְלֹא בִטְלָפָיו. הֲוֵי צוֹרְכָא לְהַהִיא דְּאָמַר רִבִּי לָעְזָר מִפְּנֵי שֶׁכָּתוּב בָּהֶן בְּרָכָה.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
“One may not use it for preliminarily marrying a woman.” But one may use its sinews, bones, horns, and hooves for preliminary marriage⁵⁴. Rebbi Eleazar said, because a blessing is mentioned for it⁵⁵. 12:15: “But for all your desire you may slaughter and eat meat, by the blessing the Eternal, your God, gave you in all your gates; the impure and the pure should eat it, like deer and gazelle.” This deals with dedicated animals which developed a blemish or the blemished animal which became tithe (*Sifry Deut*. 71). On this, the Babli (*Bekhorot* 32a) elaborates: “What is the sacrifice in which there is blessing only after slaughter? This is the animal tithe.” As Rashi explains, dedicated sacrifices which developed a blemish may be exchanged and returned to profane status. The blemished firstling may be sold when alive. Only animal tithe remains holy even if blemished until it is ritually slaughtered and used as human food.. Why can one not use its meat for preliminary marriage? Rebbi Yose said, they learned tithe only from Cohanim’s bans. Since one may not use Cohanim’s 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 Rebbi Eleazar said, because a blessing is mentioned for it.

footnotes:
⁵⁴ This is not mentioned in the Babli or in Maimonides’s Code. The inedible parts of a sacrifice, totally stripped of their meat, are profane after the meal.
⁵⁵ Deut


###### Jerusalem Talmud Maaser Sheni 1:1:14
[Jerusalem Talmud Maaser Sheni 1:1:14](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Maaser%20Sheni/r/1:1:14)

רִבִּי יוּדָן בָּעֵי אָמַר לְאִשָּׁה מִשְׁכִי לִי מַעֲשֵׂר בְּהֵמָה זֶה שֶׁתִּתְקַדְּשִׁי לִי בוֹ לְאַחַר שְׁחִיטָה. מֵאַחַר שֶׁיֵּשׁ בְּיָדוֹ לִשְׁחוֹט מְקוּדֶּשֶׁת מִכְּבָר. אוֹ לְאַחַר שְׁחִיטָה.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
Rebbi Yudan asked: If somebody said to a woman, draw this animal tithe to you from me⁵⁶ and be preliminarily married to me by it after slaughtering⁵⁷ 2 that conditional betrothals are valid under certain conditions. In this case, one has to assume that either the animal is unblemished and the discussion takes place in the outer courtyard of the Temple or the animal is blemished. In both cases, the animal could be slaughtered immediately and all questions avoided. Therefore, no answer is needed.. Since it is in his hand to slaughter, is she immediately preliminarily married or only after slaughtering?

footnotes:
⁵⁶ This is an act of acquisition. But since animal tithe cannot be alienated while alive, the acquisition will be completed only upon ritual slaughter of the animal.
⁵⁷ It is clear from Mishnah Qiddušin


###### Jerusalem Talmud Maaser Sheni 1:1:15
[Jerusalem Talmud Maaser Sheni 1:1:15](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Maaser%20Sheni/r/1:1:15)

רִבִּי זְעִירָא בְשֵׁם רִבִּי בָּא בַּר מָמָל הַגּוֹנֵב מַעֲשֵׂר בְּהֵמָה שֶׁלְחֲבֵירוֹ אִם הָיָה קַיָים מַחֲזִירוֹ לוֹ בְעֵינוֹ. אֲכָלוֹ מַה שֶׁאָכַל אָכַל. רִבִּי לָעְזָר בְּשֵׁם רִבִּי מָנָא אֵין אוֹמֵר לוֹ שֶׁיִּתֵּן מִילְתָא אוֹ פָּחוֹת מִשָּׁוֶה פְרוּטָה אֵין אוֹמֵר לוֹ שֶׁיִּתֵּן. אָמַר רִבִּי חִינְנָא הָדָא דְאָתָא בְּשֶׁאֵינוֹ יָפֶה שָׁוֶה פְרוּטָה מֵעִיקָּרוֹ. אֲבָל אִם הָיָה יָפֶה שָׁוֶה פְרוּטָה מֵעִיקָּרוֹ אוֹמֵר לוֹ שֶׁיִּתֵּן.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
Rebbi Zeïra in the name of Rebbi 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 ate⁵⁸ 6, end of Halakhah 4). His atonement is between him and Heaven.. Rebbi Eleazar in the name of Rebbi Mana⁵⁹: He cannot ask him to give anything; if it is worth less than a *peruṭah*⁶⁰ Chapter 3, Note 13. one cannot say that he should give⁶¹.. Rebbi Ḥinena said, that is, if it was worth less than a *peruṭah* from the start. But if it was worth a *peruṭah* from the start, one tells him to pay⁶² 55a..

footnotes:
⁵⁸ Since the living animal tithe is property of Heaven, he does not have to pay the fines imposed on the thief of private property (cf. Terumot
⁵⁹ R. Mana I.
⁶⁰ Cf. Ma‘serot
⁶¹ This is another version of R. Zeïra’s argument: Since a live animal tithe is not marketable it has no value, and the theft is not prosecutable in court since the court will not take cognizance of a case worth less than a peruṭah
⁶² This is a remark pertaining to tort law, not to our case here. In torts, the value of a claim is computed for the time the damage was done, which may be different from the value of the object today. A similar statement is in Babli Baba Meẓi‘a


###### Jerusalem Talmud Maaser Sheni 1:1:16
[Jerusalem Talmud Maaser Sheni 1:1:16](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Maaser%20Sheni/r/1:1:16)

רִבִּי יוּדָה בַּר פָּזִי בְּשֵׁם רִבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בֶּן לֵוִי חַי לֹא שָׁחוּט. תַּמָּן תַּנִּינָן הַמְקַדֵּשׁ בְּחֶלְקוֹ מִקָּדְשֵׁי קָדָשִים וּבְקָדָשִׁים קַלִּין אֵינָהּ מְקוּדֶּשֶׁת. אָמַר רִבִּי יוּדָה בֶּן פָּזִי רִבִּי יוּדָה יְלִיף כָּל הֶקְדֵּשׁ מִבְּכוֹר. מַה בְּכוֹר מְקַדְּשִׁין בּוֹ אֶת הָאִשָּׁה. אַף הַקֳּדָשִים מְקַדְּשִׁין בָּהֶן אֶת הָאִשָּׁה. רִבִּי מֵאִיר יְלִיף כָּל הַקָּדָשִׁים מִמַּעֲשֵׂר בְּהֵמָה. מַה מַעֲשֵׂר בְּהֵמָה אֵין מְקַדְּשִׁין בָּהֶן אֶת הָאִשָּׁה אַף כָּל הַקָּדָשִין אֵין מְקַדְּשִׁין בָּהֶן אֶת הָאִשָּׁה. מִחְלְפָה שִׁיטָּתֵיהּ דְּרִבִּי יוּדָה בַּר פָּזִי תַּמָּן הוּא אָמַר בֵּין חַי בֵּין שָׁחוּט. וְהָכָא הוּא אָמַר חַי וְלֹא שָׁחוּט. תַּמָּן בְּשֵׁם גַּרְמֵיהּ. וְהָכָא בְּשֵׁם רִבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בֶּן לֵוִי. אֲפִילוּ תֵימַר כָּאן וְכָאן בְּשֵׁם גַּרְמֵיהּ. בִּמְקַדֵּשׁ בְּחַי וּבְרָאוּי לִיפּוֹל לוֹ וּלְאַחַר שְׁחִיטָה. מַאי טַעֲמָא דְּרִבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בֶּן לֵוִי. וּבְשָׂרָם יִהְיֶה לָךְ כַּחֲזֵה הַתְּנוּפָה. וּמַאי טַעֲמָא דְּרִבִּי יוּדָן בֶּן פָּזִי. יִהְיֶה לָךְ אֲפִילוּ לְאַחַר שְׁחִיטָה. מַה מְקַיֵים רִבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בֶּן לֵוִי יִהְיֶה לָךְ. רִיבָה לוֹ הֲוָיָיה אֲחֶרֶת שֶׁיְהֵא נֶאֱכָל לִשְׁנֵי יָמִים וְלַיְלָה אֶחָד.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
⁶³ 2:8 (fol. 62d–63a). Rebbi Jehudah bar Pazi in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi: Alive, but not slaughtered⁶⁴. There⁶⁵ 2:8; also quoted *Demay* 1:3, Notes 185–187: “If somebody uses his share in the holiest sacrifices or simple holy sacrifices as marriage gifts, the marriage is not valid. With Second Tithes, be it intentional or in error, the marriage is not valid, the words of R. Meїr. Rebbi Jehudah said, if in error, the marriage is not valid, if intentional, the marriage is valid.” Rebbi Meїr declares that holiest sacrifices, the Cohen’s share of simple sacrifices, and the Second Tithe are all Heaven’s property offered, as the case may be, to the Cohen, his family, or the layman and his family for consumption in Jerusalem. Hence, for R. Meїr, the basic conditions for a valid marriage are not satisfied.
R. Jehudah agrees that under normal circumstances, Second Tithe in Jerusalem cannot be exchanged. However, since it must be redeemed if it became ritually impure, it can also be exchanged unlawfully. His position is explained in *Peah*, Chapter 7, Note 135. He also holds that the Cohen’s share of the sacrifices is his personal property. Hence, at least as far as simple sacrifices are concerned, the woman becomes his wife through the marriage and can legally consume the meat given to her. R. Jehudah also asserts that Second Tithe is always the owner’s property, even before exchange. However, it cannot be used as a marriage gift directly since there is a lien on it that it should be used only for consumption, and that lien must first be removed by conscient redemption or exchange.
The Babli (*Qiddušin* 52b) goes to great lengths to find a case in which a woman might receive a Cohen’s part of the holiest sacrifices which must be eaten by male Cohanim in those parts of the Temple yard into which others may enter only when required by the necessities of sacrificial rites. It also holds (*Baba Qama* 12b) that the statement about the firstling is valid only in the absence of a Temple; a position difficult to reconcile with the first part of the Mishnah., we have stated: “If somebody betrothes a woman with his share in most holy or simple holy sacrifices, she is not betrothed.” Rebbi Jehudah bar Pazi said, Rebbi Jehudah learns all dedicated things from the firstling. Just as one may betrothe a woman with a firstling, so all sacrifices may be used to betrothe a woman. Rebbi Meїr learns all sacrifices from animal tithe. Just as one may not betrothe a woman with animal tithe, so no sacrifices may be used to betrothe a woman. The opinion of Rebbi Jehudah bar Pazi is inverted. There⁶⁶ 2:8., he says, alive or slaughtered. But here, he says alive, but not slaughtered. There in his own name, here in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi. Even if you say there and here in his own name; if he betrothes while it is still alive and with what is scheduled to fall to him⁶⁷ 3:6). However, since the Cohen’s part of sacrificial meat is defined only at the moment of distribution, one runs into the problem of retroactivity (*Demay* 6:10, Note 160).. After slaughter, what is the reason of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi? (*Num*. 18:18): “Their meat shall be for you, like the breast of weaving⁶⁸.” And what is the reason of Rebbi Jehudah ben Pazi? “*Shall be for you*”, even after slaughtering. How does Rebbi Joshua ben Levi uphold “*shall be for you*”? He added another *being*⁶⁹; like the breast of weaving and the right thigh it *shall be for you*.” It is implied that the Cohen has maximal use of the firstling. This is taken to mean that the period after slaughter in which the firstling may be eaten is the maximal period found in the Torah for any sacrifice.
In the Babli, *Zebaḥim* 57a, the discussion is quoted in the name of Tannaїm of the first and second generations. that it should be eaten during two days and one night.

footnotes:
⁶³ This paragraph also is in Qiddušin
⁶⁴ The Mishnah, which states that a live firstling may be given as a marriage gift, is interpreted to mean that after slaughter it will be permitted to the bride.
⁶⁵ Mishnah Qiddušin
⁶⁶ In Qiddušin
⁶⁷ This is a very hypothetical answer which, as seen in the following text, is immediately discarded. It is possible to marry a woman by a future benefit as, e. g., the offer of future services (Qiddušin
⁶⁸ The part of the Cohen from a family sacrifice, to be eaten by the Cohen’s family but not the Cohen’s property. The verse identifies the holiness of the firstling with that of the Cohen’s share in a Temple sacrifice.
⁶⁹ “Their meat shall be for you


###### Jerusalem Talmud Maaser Sheni 1:1:17
[Jerusalem Talmud Maaser Sheni 1:1:17](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Maaser%20Sheni/r/1:1:17)

מַתְנִיתִין דְּלָא כְרִבִּי יוֹסֵי. דְּתַנֵּי מְחַלְלִין מַעֲשֵׂר שֵׁינִי עַל אַסֵּימוֹן דִּבְרֵי רִבִּי דּוֹסָא וַחֲכָמִים אוֹסְרִין. מַה טַעֲמָא דְּרִבִּי דוֹסָא. וְצַרְתָּ הַכֶּסֶף דָּבָר שֶׁהוּא נִצְרָר מֵחֲבֵירוֹ וְיֵשׁ לוֹ צוּרָה וְיוֹצֵא עַל גַּב צוּרָתוֹ. רִבִּי יוֹסֵי בְשֵׁם רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן דִּבְרֵי רִבִּי יוֹסֵי מְחַלְלִין מַעֲשֵׂר עַל לִיטְרָא שֶּׁלְכֶּסֶף. אִילּוּ אָמַר כֶּסֶף הֲוִינָן אָמְרִין כְּשֵׁם שֶׁאָמַר כֶּסֶף כָּךְ אָמַר זָהָב. אִילּוּ אָמַר כֶּסֶף הֲוִינָן מָרִין לְהוֹצִיא שִׁבְרֵי קְעָרוֹת וּמִתַּמְחוּיִין הֲוֵי מֵהֶן לִיטְרָא שֶּׁלְכֶּסֶף.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
⁷⁰ Our Mishnah does not follow Rebbi Yose⁷¹, as it was stated⁷² 3:2, quoted Babli *Baba* *Meẓi‘a* 47b; in different formulation Tosephta 1:4.: “One may exchange Second Tithe for a blank, the words of Rebbi Dosa, but the Sages forbid it.” What is Rebbi Dosa’s reason? (*Deut*. 14:25) “You should bundle the money;” something which is bundled together, or which has a form and is current because of its form⁷³ *Deut*. 107 (reproduced in Babli *Baba* *Meẓi‘a* 47b), shortened to unintelligibility. The verses *Deut*. 14:24–26 form the basis of the rules of redemption of Second Tithe; see the Introduction. V. 14:25 states: “Give silver [for it]; וצרת הכסף בידך…” R. Ismael reads “take the silver in your hand”, i. e. “something which is bundled (√צור I, صرّ, to bind) together;” whereas R. Aqiba reads “something which has a form” (√צור III, صوّر, to form). The only explanation which fits the language of the verse is that of R. Ismael (R. Dosa, R. Yose); it is accepted by both the Babylonian and the Palestinian Aramaic Targumim. It is difficult to see how R. Aqiba could give a straightforward translation of the verse. He also separates בידך from the preceding text. This shows that in the text before us, “or” denotes a switch from R. Ismael (R. Dosa, R. Yose) to R. Aqiba (the Sages).. Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: The word of Rebbi Yose that one exchanges [Second] Tithe for a pound of silver⁷⁴. 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.

footnotes:
⁷⁰ Here starts the discussion of the redemption of Second Tithe.
⁷¹ The name tradition in this paragraph is confusing. The Tosephta quoted is in the name of R. Dosa (probably R. Dosa ben Hyrcanus, of the first generation of Tannaïm) in all sources except the Rome ms. of the Yerushalmi (ר׳ יוסה); but the statement of R. Yose (the Amora) shows that R. Yose (the Tanna) accepts the position of R. Dosa. Therefore, no emendation of the text is necessary.
⁷² Mishnah Idiut
⁷³ A quote from Sifry
⁷⁴ Since coinage was invented long after the time of Moses, he takes כסף to mean just that, silver bullion, not gold, or silver which is not bullion and whose value could only be determined by a lengthy assay.


###### Jerusalem Talmud Maaser Sheni 1:1:18
[Jerusalem Talmud Maaser Sheni 1:1:18](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Maaser%20Sheni/r/1:1:18)

עַל אַסֵּימוֹן. הַכֹּל מוֹדִין שֶׁאֵין מְחַלֲלִין אוֹתוֹ עַל הַמָּעוֹת הַנְּתוּנוֹת לָאוֹלִיָיר. הָדָא דְתֵימַר כְּדֶרֶךְ שֶׁהֵן יָפִין אֵצֶל הָאוֹלִיָיר. אֲבָל כְּדֶרֶךְ שֶׁהֵן יָפִין אֵצֶל הַתֵּירְמַסָּר מְחַלֵּל.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
“For a blank”. Everybody agrees that one does not exchange for the coins given to the *olearius*⁷⁶ 2:3, Note 94.. That is, the way they are used for the *olearius*. But the way they are used by the *tremissarius*⁷⁷ is the person who changes coins into *tremisses*, thirds of an *as*, to be given to the bath attendants (E. G.); cf. J. N. Epstein, *Tarbiẓ* 1, p. 49. The word *tremissarius* is not recorded in Latin literature but *tremes, -issis* is. If the *tremissarius* changes legal coins into *tremisses*, he will also purchase *tremisses* (at a lower rate) and pay legal coin. Also cf. *assarius*, old form of *as*.
The Babylonian tradition (Tosephta 1:4, *Baba* *Meẓi‘a* 47b) always refers to “(small) coins given as tokens in the bathhouse.” one may exchange.

footnotes:
⁷⁶ The dispensor of rubbing oil in the bathhouse, cf. Berakhot
⁷⁷ Perhaps a tremissarius


###### Jerusalem Talmud Maaser Sheni 1:1:19
[Jerusalem Talmud Maaser Sheni 1:1:19](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Maaser%20Sheni/r/1:1:19)

מַטְבֵּעַ שֶׁנִּפְסָל וְהַמַּלְכוּת מְקַבְּלָתוֹ רִבִּי יוֹסֵי בְשֵׁם רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן כְּאַסֵּימוֹן. רִבִּי חִיָיה בְשֵׁם רִבִּי יוֹנָתָן בְּמַטְבֵּעַ שֶׁלְמְלָכִים הָרִאשׁוֹנִים (נֵימַר) אִם הָיָה יוֹצֵא עַל גַּב צוּרָתוֹ מְחַלֵּל. וְאִם לָאו אֵינוֹ מְחַלֵּל. מַטְבֵּעַ שַׁמָּרַד כְּגוֹן בֶּן כּוֹזִיבָא אֵינוֹ מְחַלֵּל. הָיוּ לוֹ מָעוֹת שֶּׁלְסַכָּנָה אָתָא עוֹבְדָא קוֹמֵי רִבִּי אִימִּי אָמַר יוֹלִיךְ הֲנָיָיה לְיַם הַמֶּלַח. הָיוּ לוֹ מָעוֹת שֶׁל דיסגנים. רִבִּי יַעֲקֹב בַּר זַבְדִּי בְשֵׁם רִבִּי אַבָּהוּ מְחַלְלָן כְּדֶרֶךְ שֶׁהֵן יָפִין אֵצֶל הַתֵּירְמִסָּר. בִּיקֵּשׁ לְהוֹצִיאָן מְחַלְלָן כְּדֶרֶךְ שֶׁהוּא מְחַלֵּל עֲלֵיהֶן.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
A coin out of circulation which the government will accept, Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: It is like a blank. Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: A coin of the earlier kings, if it is currently accepted because of its coinage one exchanges, otherwise one does not exchange⁸¹ p. 717, wants to restrict the meaning of “otherwise” to coins of emperors whose memory was cursed by the Senate. In the Babli, *Baba Qama* 97b, coins of earlier kings (maybe Partian coins in the Persian empire?) are declared unacceptable; the Tosephta (1:6) declares them all acceptable.. A revolutionary coin like that of Bar Koziba one does not exchange⁸².): Bar Koziba or Jerusalem coins (from the first war against the Romans.). If he had dangerous coins⁸³: such a case came before Rebbi Immi. He said, one should carry its yield to the Dead Sea⁸⁴. If one had coins difficult to determine: Rebbi Jacob bar Zavdi: One exchanges at the value given by the *tremissarius*⁸⁵. If he wants to spend the coins, he exchanges in his usual way.

footnotes:
⁸¹ The statements of R. Yose and R. Ḥiyya deal with the same subject. If somebody had an old Roman coin from the time the coinage was honest, if it is recognized by its coinage and/or acceptable for payment of taxes, it is money and may be used for exchange/redemption of Second Tithe. Otherwise it is merchandise and may not be used.S. Lieberman, Tosefta ki-Fshutah
⁸² In Tosephta and Babli (loc. cit
⁸³ This probably is a restatement of the previous sentence.
⁸⁴ The usual description of: destroy completely.
⁸⁵ If the money changer offers payment for that coin, this is its monetary value.


###### Jerusalem Talmud Maaser Sheni 1:1:20
[Jerusalem Talmud Maaser Sheni 1:1:20](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Maaser%20Sheni/r/1:1:20)

תַּנֵּי אֵין מְחַלְלִין אוֹתוֹ לֹא עַל הַמָּעוֹת שֶׁהֵן בְּבָבֶל וְלֹא עַל הַמָּעוֹת שֶׁבְּבָבֶל כָּן. לֹא עַל הַמָּעוֹת שֵׁכָּן בְּבָבֶל בְּעוֹמֵד בְּבָבֶל. וְלֹא עַל הַמָּעוֹת שֶׁבְּבָבֶל כָּן בְּעוֹמֵד כָּן. הָיוּ לוֹ מָעוֹת מִבָּבֶל לְבָבֶל וְהוּא עוֹמֵד כָּאן נֵימַר אִם הָיְתָה דֶרֶךְ פְּתוּחָה מְחַלֵּל וְאִם לָאו אֵינוֹ מְחַלֵּל וְטָבְבוֹ כָן.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
“⁸⁷ 97b allow a Babylonian in the Land of Israel to exchange his tithe for his Babylonian money in Babylonia irrespective of the political situation. 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.

footnotes:
⁸⁷ Tosephta 1:6. The Tosephta and possibly the Babli Baba Qama


###### Jerusalem Talmud Maaser Sheni 1:1:21
[Jerusalem Talmud Maaser Sheni 1:1:21](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Maaser%20Sheni/r/1:1:21)

אָמַר רִבִּי אָבִין כָּל הַמַּטְבֵּיעוֹת הָיוּ יוֹצְאוֹת בִּירוּשָׁלֵם מִפְּנֵי כֵן עַל שֵׁם יְפֵה נוֹף מְשׂוֹשׂ כָּל הָאָרֶץ.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
Rebbi Abin said, all coins were current in Jerusalem in old times, following (*Ps*. 48:3) “beautiful region, enjoyment of all the earth.”⁸⁸ 97b, the fact that all coins from all countries were accepted in Jerusalem in Temple times is quoted as tannaїtic.

footnotes:
⁸⁸ In the Babli Baba Qama


###### Jerusalem Talmud Maaser Sheni 1:1:22
[Jerusalem Talmud Maaser Sheni 1:1:22](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Maaser%20Sheni/r/1:1:22)

יָכוֹל אִם הָיוּ לוֹ מָעוֹת בְּהַר הַמֶּלֶךְ וּבְקַצְרָה מְחַלְלָן עֲלֵיהֶן. תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר וְצַרְתָּ הַכֶּסֶף בְּיָדְךָ. מַהוּ בְּיָדְךְ בִּרְשׁוּתְךָ. רִבִּי יוֹנָה בָּעֵי נָפַל כִּיסוֹ לְבוֹר וּבוֹ מֵאָה רִיבּוֹ וְהָיָה יָכוֹל לְהוֹצִיא חֲמִשִּׁים רִיבּוֹא לְהַעֲלוֹתָן אוֹתָן חֲמִשִּׁים רִיבּוֹא כְּמִי שֶׁהֵן בִּרְשׁוּתוֹ.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
I could think that if someone had money on King’s Mountain or in a castle⁸⁹) or his wallet had fallen into a cistern, even though he knows that they are there, they cannot be used for redemption and if he used them, he did not acquire the tithe.” There are no longer any Jews living on King’s Mountain, only Gentiles (cf. *Demay* 5:9, Note 115), and he certainly cannot start digging in a camp of the Roman army. he might exchange based on it. The verse says (*Deut*. 14:25): “take the silver in your hand;” what means “in your hand”? In your possession! Rebbi Jonah asked, if his wallet with 1’000’000 [denars]⁹⁰. fell into a cistern and he could spend 500’000 to get them out, is that as if 500’000 were in his possession⁹¹?

footnotes:
⁸⁹ The Tosephta, 1:6, reads: “How [does one not exchange] if it is not in his possession? If he had monies buried on King’s Mountain or a Roman army camp (קצטרא castra
⁹⁰ Just before Diocletian’s currency reform, that would be about 16⅔ aurei
⁹¹ Since the Tosephta gives a clear, negative, answer to this question, the Tosephta does not represent Yerushalmi tradition.


###### Jerusalem Talmud Maaser Sheni 1:2:1
[Jerusalem Talmud Maaser Sheni 1:2:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Maaser%20Sheni/r/1:2:1)

**משנה:** הַלּוֹקֵחַ בְּהֵמָה לְזִבְחֵי שְׁלָמִים וְחַיָּה לִבְשַׂר הַתַּאֲוָה יָצָא הָעוֹר לְחוּלִין אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁהָעוֹר מְרוּבֶּה עַל הַבָּשָׂר. כַּדֵּי יַיִן סְתוּמוֹת מָקוֹם שֶׁדַּרְכָּן לִימָּכֵר סְתוּמוֹת יָצָא קַנְקַן לְחוּלִין. הָאֶגּוֹזִים וְהַשְּׁקֵדִים יָצְאוּ קְלִיפֵּיהֶן לְחוּלִין. הַתֶּמֶד עַד שֶׁלֹּא הֶחֱמִיץ אֵינוֹ נִלְקָח בְּכֶסֶף מַעֲשֵׂר וּמִשֶּׁהֶחֱמִיץ נִלְקָח בְּכֶסֶף מַעֲשֵׂר. הַלּוֹקֵחַ חַיָּה לִזִבְחֵי שְׁלָמִים וּבְהֵמָה לִבְשַׂר הַתַּאֲוָה לֹא יָצָא הָעוֹר לְחוּלִין. כַּדֵּי יַיִן פְּתוּחוֹת אוֹ סְתוּמוֹת מָקוֹם שֶׁדַּרְכָּן לִימָּכֵר פְּתוּחוֹת לֹא יָצָא קַנְקַן לְחוּלִין. סַלֵּי תְאֵינִים וְסַלֵּי עֲנָבִים עִם הַכֶּלִי לֹא יָצְאוּ דְמֵי הַכֶּלִי לְחוּלִין.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
**MISHNAH:** If somebody buys a domestic animal for a well-being offering⁹². 14:26). Most of the well-being offering is consumed by the family of the donor. or a wild animal⁹³. 14:5, can never become sacrifices and are intrinsically profane. They are mentioned here only because of Mishnah 4. for meat of desire⁹⁴. 11:15) for profane meat slaughtered outside the holy precinct., the hide becomes profane even though it may be worth more than the meat⁹⁵. [If he buys] sealed wine jugs at a place where jugs usually are sold sealed⁹⁶, the pitcher becomes profane. The shells of walnuts and almonds become profane⁹⁷. Afterwine before it fermented cannot be bought with tithe money⁹⁸; after it fermented it may be bought with tithe money.
If somebody buys a wild animal for a well-being offering⁹⁹ or a domestic animal for meat of desire¹⁰⁰, 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 profane¹⁰¹.

footnotes:
⁹² This is the main purpose of bringing Second Tithe money to Jerusalem, to buy there animals to eat “before the Eternal, your God” (Deut
⁹³ Wild animals, from the list Deut
⁹⁴ The biblical expression (Deut
⁹⁵ The hide, as part of the live animal, has been paid for by tithe money. After the meat has been consumed according to the rules of tithe money, the hide may be used or sold as fully profane. The Halakhah will restrict this to non-professional transactions.
⁹⁶ Wine is not usually sold from the barrel so that the jug would be an intrinsic part of the deal.
⁹⁷ And may be used as fuel or for tanning.
⁹⁸ It is water which may not be bought with tithe money, Mishnah 5.
⁹⁹ A wild animal can never be a sacrifice. Since the animal cannot be eaten in the way it was intended, the hide cannot lose its status of tithe money. If the hide is sold, the proceeds are still tithe money and must be spent on food in Jerusalem.
¹⁰⁰ The Halakhah will explain that domestic animals bought with tithe money must be used as sacrifices.
¹⁰¹ In the last two cases, the buyer will be charged separately for pitcher or basket. Since these are not edible, they should be paid for with non-tithe money.


###### Jerusalem Talmud Maaser Sheni 1:2:2
[Jerusalem Talmud Maaser Sheni 1:2:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Maaser%20Sheni/r/1:2:2)

**הלכה:** תַּנֵּי בֶּן בַּגְבַּג אוֹמֵר וְנָתַתָּ הַכֶּסֶף בְּכָל אֲשֶׁר תְּאַוֶּה נַפְשְׁךָ. תַּנֵּי לוֹקֵחַ הוּא אָדָם פָּרָה מִפְּנֵי עוֹרָהּ וְצֹאן מִפְּנֵי גִיזָתָהּ וְיַיִן מִפְּנֵי קַנְקַנּוֹ. אָמַר רִבִּי זְעִירָא הָדָא דְתֵימָא בְּשֶׁהָיָה הַמּוֹכֵר הֶדְיוֹט. אֲבָל אִם הָיָה הַמּוֹכֵר אוּמָּן נַעֲשֶׂה כְּמוֹכֵר זֶה בִּפְנֵי עַצְמוֹ וְזֶה בִּפְנֵי עַצְמוֹ. אָמַר רִבִּי זְעִירָה מַתְנִיתָא אָּמְרָה כֵן כַּדֵּי יַיִן סְתוּמוֹת מָקוֹם שֶׁדַּרְכָּן לִימָּכֵר סְתוּמוֹת יָצָא קַנְקַן לְחוּלִין. אָמַר רִבִּי מָנָא וּמִנָּהּ כְּמַה דְתֵימַר תַּמָּן אִם הָיָה הַמּוֹכֵר אוּמָּן נַעֲשֶׂה כְּמוֹכֵר זֶה בִּפְנֵי עַצְמוֹ וְזֶה בִּפְנֵי עַצְמוֹ. וְדִכְוָותָהּ אִם הָיָה הַלּוֹקֵחַ אוּמָּן נַעֲשֶׂה כְּלוֹקֵחַ זֶה בִּפְנֵי עַצְמוֹ וְזֶה בִּפְנֵי עַצְמוֹ.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
**HALAKHAH:** It was stated¹¹⁰ 107, a longer text explaining the entire verse; reproduced Babli *Eruvin* 27b.: “Ben Bag Bag¹¹¹ says (*Deut.* 14:26): ‘You shall spend the money for anything you desire.’ It was stated¹¹²: A person may buy a cow because of its hide¹¹³, a sheep because of its fleece, and wine because of its pitcher.” Rebbi Zeïra 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 separately¹¹⁴. Rebbi Zeïra said, the Mishnah said this: “In a place where wine jugs usually are sold sealed, the pitcher becomes profane.¹¹⁵” Rebbi 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.

footnotes:
¹¹⁰ Sifry Deut.
¹¹¹ A very early Tanna, contemporary of Hillel and R. Jehudah ben Bathyra of Nisibis. His name probably was Joḥanan.
¹¹² This word is superfluous and does not appear in the parallel sources.
¹¹³ Since this might be his desire.
¹¹⁴ Since he usually sells meat and hides separately.
¹¹⁵ Quote and argument are incomplete. The next Mishnah says that at a place where wine usually is sold from the barrel, buying the wine in a pitcher results in two separate transactions. We infer that established trade patterns have to be followed in all but private transactions.


###### Jerusalem Talmud Maaser Sheni 1:2:3
[Jerusalem Talmud Maaser Sheni 1:2:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Maaser%20Sheni/r/1:2:3)

חוֹתֶל שֶׁלְתְּמָרִים פַּטּוֹלַיָיא שֶׁלְתְּמָרִים יָצְאוּ לְחוּלִין. קוּפּוֹת שֶׁלְתְּמָרִים אִית תַּנָּיֵי תַנֵּי יָצְאוּ וְאִית תַּנָּיֵי תַנֵּי לֹא יָצְאוּ. אָמַר רַב חִסְדָּא מָאן דְּאָמַר יָצְאוּ דְּרוּסוֹת. וּמָאן דְּאָמַר לֹא יָצְאוּ בְּשֶׁאֵינָן דְּרוּסוֹת.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
Palm-leaf baskets¹¹⁶ 20a. of dates, plates¹¹⁷. According to the Gaonim and Maimonides (Mishnah *Kelim* 16:5), a willow-weave basket with a narrow opening used for storing or transporting dried figs. of dates became profane. Some Tannaїm state that boxes of dates did become, some Tannaïm state that they did not become. Rav Ḥisda said, he who said they did become, when they were pressed¹¹⁸. He who said they did not become, [meant] when not pressed.

footnotes:
¹¹⁶ Definition of Rashi, Šabbat
¹¹⁷ Latin patella
¹¹⁸ This is stated explicitly in Tosephta 1:10 which notes that all containers which become unusable, such as containers for fish sauce, vinegar, oil, honey, or in which dates or figs were pressed, by necessity are paid for with the food they contain and are profane when emptied.


###### Jerusalem Talmud Maaser Sheni 1:2:4
[Jerusalem Talmud Maaser Sheni 1:2:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Maaser%20Sheni/r/1:2:4)

הַתֶּמֶד עַד שֶׁלֹּא הֶחֱמִיץ אֵינוֹ נִקַּח בְּכֶסֶף מַעֲשֵׂר וּפוֹסֵל אֶת הַמִּקְוֶה מִשֶּׁהֶחֱמִיץ נִקַּח בְּכֶסֶף מַעֲשֵׂר וְאֵינוֹ פוֹסֵל אֶת הַמִּקְוֶה. מַתְנִיתִין דְּרִבִּי יוּדָה דְּתַנִּינָן תַּמָּן הַמְתַמֵּד וְנָתַן מַיִם בְּמִידָּה וּמָצָא כְדֵי מִידָּתוֹ פָּטוּר. רִבִּי יוּדָה מְחַיֵיב. אָמַר רִבִּי אַבָּהוּ זִימְנִין אָמַר לָהּ בְּשֵׁם רִבִּי לָעְזָר וְזִימְנִין אָמַר לָהּ בְּשֵׁם רִבִּי יוֹסֵי בֵּירִבִּי חֲנִינָא. וְהוּא שֶׁהֶחֱמִיץ. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹסֵי דִּבְרֵי הַכֹּל הִיא שֶׁכֵּן אֲפִילוּ מֵי מֶלַח נִיקָּחִין בְּכֶסֶף מַעֲשֵׂר.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
¹¹⁹ 1:7; cf. *Ma‘serot*5:6, Notes 89–93.“Afterwine before it fermented cannot be bought with tithe money and invalidates a *miqweh*¹²⁰ Chapter 10, Note 139.; after it fermented it may be bought with tithe money and does not invalidate a *miqweh*.” Our Mishnah follows Rebbi Jehudah as we have stated there¹²¹ 5:5, Notes 87–93.: “If someone makes after-wine and pours in a measured amount of water, if he found the same amount he is free. Rebbi Jehudah declares him obligated.” Rebbi Abbahu said, sometimes in the name of Rebbi Eleazar, sometimes in the name of Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina: Only if it fermented. Rebbi Yose said, it is the opinion of everybody since even salt water may be bought with tithe money.

footnotes:
¹¹⁹ Mishnah Ḥulin
¹²⁰ It is water; cf. Terumot
¹²¹ This and the remainder of the paragraph are in Ma‘serot


###### Jerusalem Talmud Maaser Sheni 1:2:5
[Jerusalem Talmud Maaser Sheni 1:2:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Maaser%20Sheni/r/1:2:5)

אָמַר רִבִּי לָעְזָר לֹא קָנָה מַעֲשֵׂר. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹסֵי בְּקַדְמִיָיתָא הֲוִינָן מָרִין הַלּוֹקֵחַ בְּהֵמָה לִבְשַׂר תַּאֲוָה עַל כּוֹרְחוֹ נִתְפָּס הַשֵּׁם לִשְׁלָמִים וְלָא הֲוִינָן אָמְרִין כְּלוּם מִן הָדָא דְאָמַר רִבִּי לָעְזָר לֹא קָנָה מַעֲשֵׂר.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
Rebbi Eleazar said, the tithe [money] did not acquire¹⁰³. Rebbi 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 Rebbi Eleazar said, the tithe [money] did not acquire¹²² 107 explains that from *Deut.* 14:26 “you have to eat there *before the Eternal*, your God, and *enjoy it* you and your family” one concludes that all meat bought with tithe money has to be meat of well-being offerings. Since there is no sacrifice which does not have to be dedicated first, it is logical that the transaction should be void and there is no automatic sacrifice.
The argument assumes that any animal bought with tithe money is without blemish; otherwise, it could not become a sacrifice. The paragraph seems to imply that buying a blemished animal with tithe money is automatically an invalid transaction. Therefore, it seems that the discussion deals with rabbinical, not biblical rules..

footnotes:
¹⁰³ The transaction is invalid: the buyer returns what he bought and the seller returns the money.
¹²² Sifry Deut.


###### Jerusalem Talmud Maaser Sheni 1:2:6
[Jerusalem Talmud Maaser Sheni 1:2:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Maaser%20Sheni/r/1:2:6)

רִבִּי יוֹסֵי בְשֵׁם רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן בְּהֵמָת מַעֲשֵׂר שֵׁינִי בִּירוּשָׁלֵם כְּרִבִּי מֵאִיר פְּטוּרָה מִן הַבְּכוֹרָה כְּרִבִּי יְהוּדָה חַיֶיבֶת בְּבְכוֹרָה. רִבִּי יִרְמְיָה בָּעֵא קוֹמֵי רִבִּי זְעִירָא יָלְדָה בְּכוֹר אֵימוֹרָיו מַהוּ שֶׁיִּקְרְבוּ לְגַבֵּי מִזְבֵּחַ. וְלֹא חָל מַעֲשֵׂר שֵׁינִי עַל אֵימוֹרָיו וְלֹא נִמְצָא מַבְרִיחוֹ מִן הָאֲכִילָה. אָמַר לֵיהּ וְכִי הַלּוֹקֵחַ בְּשַׂר בְּהֵמָה לִבְשַׂר תַּאֲוָה לֹא חָל מַעֲשֵׂר שֵׁינִי עַל אֵימוֹרֶיהָ וְלֹא נִמְצָא מַבְרִיחָהּ מִן הָאֲכִילָה. אָמַר לֵיהּ בִּלְקִיחָתָהּ פָּקְעָה מִמֶּנָּהּ קְדוּשַּׁת מַעֲשֵׂר. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹסֵי וַאֲנָן לֹא הֲוִינָן אָמְרִין כֵּן. אֶלָּא לֹא הִתִּירָה הַתּוֹרָה לִיקַּח בְּכֶסֶף מַעֲשֵׂר אֶלָּא שְׁלָמִים בִּלְבַד. מַה נַפְקָה מִבֵּינֵיהוֹן וְולָדָהּ בְּכוֹר וְהִקְדִּשָׁהּ שְׁלָמִים. מָאן דְּאָמַר לֹא הִתִּירָה הַתּוֹרָה לִקַּח בְּכֶסֶף מַעֲשֵׂר אֶלָּא שְׁלָמִים בִּלְבַד קְרֵיבָה. מָאן דְּאָמַר בִּלְקִיחָתָהּ פָּקְעָה מִמֶּנָּהּ קְדוּשַּׁת מַעֲשֵׂר אֵינָהּ קְרֵיבָה.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: An animal of Second Tithe in Jerusalem following Rebbi Meїr¹²³ 1, Notes 185–186. R. Jehudah holds that tithe money and what is bought from it is private property. One must assume that the animal bought either was blemished and could not be a sacrifice or was unblemished but not yet dedicated as sacrifice at the time it had its young. Maimonides (*Bekhorot* 5:9) follows R. Jehudah here whereas in the rules of Mishnah 1 he follows R. Meїr (*Ma‘aser Šeni* 3:17). is free from the rules of firstlings¹²⁴ cattle and flock” (*Deut.* 15:19).; following Rebbi Jehudah it is under the rules of firstlings. Rebbi Jeremiah asked before Rebbi Zeïra: If it gave birth to a firstling, must its sacred parts be brought onto the altar¹²⁵ 3 which have to be burned on the altar. The question may be asked only according to R. Jehudah.? Did not its sacred parts fall under the rules of Second Tithe and you would hide it from being eaten¹²⁶? 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 eaten¹²⁷? He said to him, when it was bought, the holiness of tithe left it¹²⁸. Rebbi Yose said, we were not saying so but the Torah did permit to buy from tithe money only well-being sacrifices exclusively¹²² 107 explains that from *Deut.* 14:26 “you have to eat there *before the Eternal*, your God, and *enjoy it* you and your family” one concludes that all meat bought with tithe money has to be meat of well-being offerings. Since there is no sacrifice which does not have to be dedicated first, it is logical that the transaction should be void and there is no automatic sacrifice.
The argument assumes that any animal bought with tithe money is without blemish; otherwise, it could not become a sacrifice. The paragraph seems to imply that buying a blemished animal with tithe money is automatically an invalid transaction. Therefore, it seems that the discussion deals with rabbinical, not biblical rules.. 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 offered¹²⁹. For him who says, when it was bought, the holiness of tithe left it, and it is not offered¹³⁰.

footnotes:
¹²³ He holds that tithe money is Heaven’s money and any animal bought with it is not the property of the farmer; cf. Note 6; Demay
¹²⁴ These rules apply only to “any male firstling born to your
¹²⁵ The parts detailed in Lev.
¹²⁶ If the mother is unblemished, her sacred parts already go onto the altar; the calf or lamb should be eaten by the family. How can R. Jehudah cause the family to be slack in their fulfillment of the commandment to eat all food bought with tithe money?
¹²⁷ This sentence is somewhat elliptic. R. Zeïra disagrees with R. Eleazar and holds that meat may be bought with tithe money. The sentence duly expanded should read: “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 [if one had fulfilled the commandment to eat well-being sacrifice]? [By buying an animal as well-being sacrifice] would you not hide its sacred parts from being eaten?” He shows that R. Jeremiah’s argument is inconsistent. If it is preferable to eat sacrificial meat then not all meat should be eaten but part given to the altar.
¹²⁸ Since holiness cannot join holiness, the animal must be profane at the moment it is dedicated as well-being sacrifice. Therefore, acquisition must eliminate the holiness of tithe.
¹²² Sifry Deut.
¹²⁹ As a firstling if it was born between the act of buying and the dedication as sacrifice, according to R. Jehudah.
¹³⁰ If the holiness of tithe disappears at the consummation of the sale, it is possible to buy an animal with tithe money only if one states that the dedication should be an immediate consequence of the acquisition. But then the calf falls under the rules of young of sacrifices and not of firstlings.


###### Jerusalem Talmud Maaser Sheni 1:2:7
[Jerusalem Talmud Maaser Sheni 1:2:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Maaser%20Sheni/r/1:2:7)

אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹסֵי הָא כָּל אִילֵּין מִילַּיָיא אֲנָן מָרִין וּמַתְנִיתָא מְסַיְיעָא לְרִבִּי זְעִירָא. לֹא יָבִיא מֵחִיטֵּי מַעֲשֵׂר שֵׁינִי אֶלָּא מִמָּעוֹת מַעֲשֵׂר שֵׁינִי. מַה בֵּין חִטִּים וּמַה בֵּין מָעוֹת. אֶלָּא בִּלְקִיחָתָהּ פָּקְעָה מִמֶּנָּהּ קְדוּשַּׁת מַעֲשֵׂר. אָמַר רִבִּי חִינְנָא קוֹמֵי רִבִּי מָנָא וְיָבִיא מִן הַחִיטִּים הַתְּרוּמָה לַכֹּהֵן וְהַשְׁאָר לַבְּעָלִין מִפְּנֵי מָה אֵינוֹ מֵבִיא. אָמַר לֵיהּ הַגַּע עַצְמָךְ שֶׁנִּשְׁפַּךְ הַדָּם לֹא נִפְסַל הַלֶּחֶם.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
Rebbi Yose said, we teach all these words but a Mishnah supports Rebbi Zeïra: “He should not bring from wheat of Second Tithe but from money of Second Tithe.¹³¹ 7:5: If somebody made a vow to bring a thanksgiving sacrifice and its breads (*Lev.* 7:12) from tithe money, he may do so but the bread should be made from wheat bought with tithe money, not wheat that is Second Tithe. Since a thanksgiving sacrifice is a special kind of well-being sacrifice, he may use tithe money for it. However, since a thanksgiving sacrifice only can be eaten for one day and one night, but a regular well-being sacrifice for two days and the night in between, this practice is frowned upon.
The Babli (*Menaḥot* 81b–82a) gives as a reason for the breads that the verse requires the sacrifice to be brought *with* its breads, i. e., from the same source. Since Second Tithe itself consists of produce, it is clear that the animal itself must be bought with tithe money. Therefore, the bread also should come from tithe money. (R. Jeremiah disagrees with the Mishnah.)
The Yerushalmi disagrees and holds that tithe money is holy and the holiness of a dedicated sacrifice can fall on the wheat only if the latter is profane. This proves R. Zeïra’s point.” What is the difference between wheat and money? It must be that when it was bought, the holiness of tithe left it. Rebbi Ḥinena asked before Rebbi Mana: Why should he not bring wheat, the heave¹³². 7:14. to the Cohen and the rest for the owners, why does he not bring¹³³? He said to him, think of it, if the blood is spilled¹³⁴ does the bread not become unusable¹³⁵?

footnotes:
¹³¹ Mishnah Menaḥot
¹³² This is not the usual heave but one bread from each kind brought with the thanksgiving sacrifice; it is called heave in Lev
¹³³ He disagrees with R. Yose whose argument is tenable only if he holds with R. Meїr that tithe money is Heaven’s property. But since the previous paragraph presupposes that we hold with R. Jehudah that Second Tithe and tithe money are property of the farmer, there is no reason why Second Tithe wheat should not be used since all the breads will be eaten in holiness, either by the farmer’s family or by the Cohen.
¹³⁴ On the way to the altar. The entire sacrifice is invalidated if its blood is not sprinkled on the altar.
¹³⁵ If anything happens to the sacrifice, the bread is wasted and has to be burned. But if the breads are bought, they will be replaced by other bought breads.


###### Jerusalem Talmud Maaser Sheni 1:2:8
[Jerusalem Talmud Maaser Sheni 1:2:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Maaser%20Sheni/r/1:2:8)

אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן גָּזְרוּ עַל נְקֵיבָה בַּעֲלַת מוּם מִפְּנֵי וְולָדָהּ. גָּזְרוּ עַל זָכָר בַּעַל מוּם מִפְּנֵי נְקֵיבָה בַּעֲלַת מוּם. וְאָמְרִין בְּשֵׁם רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן אֲפִילוּ תְמִימָה גְּזֵירָה. בָּרִאשׁוֹנָה הָיוּ אוֹמְרִים לוֹקְחִין בְּהֵמָה לִבְשַׂר תַּאֲוָה וְהָיוּ מַבְרִיחִין אוֹתוֹ מֵעַל גַּבֵּי הַמִּזְבֵּחַ. חָזְרוּ לוֹמַר לֹא יִקְחוּ אֲפִילוּ חַיָּה אֲפִילוּ עוֹפוֹת כְּהָדָא דְתַנֵּי אֶחָד שְׁבִיעִית וְאֶחָד מַעֲשֵׂר שֵׁינִי מַחֲלִיפִין אוֹתוֹ עַל נְקֵיבָה בַּעֲלַת מוּם וְעַל שְׁאָר בְּהֵמָה חַיָּה וְעוֹף בֵּין חַיִין בֵּין שְׁחוּטִין דִּברֵי רִבִּי מֵאִיר. וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים אֵין מְחַלְלִין אֶלָּא עַל הַשְּׁחוּטִין בִּלְבַד. רִבִּי יִרְמְיָה בְשֵׁם רִבִּי שְׁמוּאֵל בַּר רַב יִצְחָק גָּזְרוּ אוֹתָן שֶׁלֹּא יִרְעוּ אוֹתָן עֲדָרִים עֲדָרִים. קָם רִבִּי יִרְמְיָה עִם רִבִּי זְעִירָא אָמַר לֵיהּ עַד כְּדוֹן רִבִּי שְׁמוּאֵל בַּר רַב יִצְחָק קַיָים וְאַתּוּן תַּלְיָין בֵּיהּ מַרְטוּטֵיכִין. וְהָאָמַר בְּשֵׁם רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן אֲפִילוּ תְמִימָה גְּזֵירָה. דִּילְמָא דְלָא אִיתְאֲמָרַת אֶלָּא עַל הַשְּׁבִיעִית. אַשְׁכָּח תַּנֵּי עַל הַשְּׁבִיעִית.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
Rebbi 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 Rebbi Joḥanan, even an unblemished one is a decree¹³⁶. 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 Rebbi Meїr. But the Sages say, one exchanges only on slaughtered ones.¹³⁷ is in Babli *Sukkah* 40b, where the statement of R. Samuel ben Isaac is part of the *baraita*. The Tosephta (1:9) has a statement contradicting both Talmudim, declaring all non-sacrificial meat (in Jerusalem) as impure. This is either a remnant of teachings of the House of Shammai or Sadducee teaching of the Qumran type (MMT 2, lines 29–30).” Rebbi Jeremiah in the name of Rebbi Samuel ben Rav Isaac: They decreed this that one should not raise them in herds. Rebbi Jeremiah stood next to Rebbi Zeïra who said to him, Rebbi Samuel ben Rav Isaac is still alive and you hang your rags on him! Did not Rebbi Joḥanan say even an unblemished one is a decree¹³⁸! Maybe this was said only for Sabbatical [money]? They found it stated for Sabbatical [money]¹³⁹ 8:7, Babli *Sukkah* 40b. This means that by rabbinical decree, with tithe money one may only buy meat in the form of live unblemished animals..

footnotes:
¹³⁶ It is agreed that while it is a positive commandment to buy well-being sacrifices in Jerusalem for the meat, the verse does not forbid to buy any kosher animal or any meat. As stated later, first they forbade to buy blemished females which could not be sacrificed but might be kept to raise young. That action would clearly be forbidden since tithe money must be used for food to be consumed. In the end, they permitted only animals for well-being sacrifices to be bought with tithe money.
¹³⁷ A similar baraita
¹³⁸ Therefore, it should be forbidden to buy meat at the butcher store.
¹³⁹ Ševi‘it


###### Jerusalem Talmud Maaser Sheni 1:3:1
[Jerusalem Talmud Maaser Sheni 1:3:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Maaser%20Sheni/r/1:3:1)

**משנה:** הַלּוֹקֵחַ מַיִם וּמֶלַח וּפֵירוֹת הַמְחוּבָּרִים לְקַרְקַע אוֹ פֵּירוֹת שֶׁאֵינָן יְכוֹלִין לְהַגִּיעַ לִירוּשָׁלֵם לֹא קָנָה מַעֲשֵׂר. הַלּוֹקֵחַ פֵּירוֹת שׁוֹגֵג יַחְזְרוּ דָמִים לִמְקוֹמָן. מֵזִיד יַעֲלֶה וְיֵאָכְלוּ בַמָּקוֹם וְאִם אֵין מִקְדָּשׁ יִרְקָבוּ. הַלּוֹקִחַ בְּהֵמָה שׁוֹגֵג יַחְזְרוּ דָמֶיהָ לִמְקוֹמָהּ. מֵזִיד תַּעֲלֶה וְתֵאָכֵל בַּמָּקוֹם וְאִם אֵין מִקְדָּשׁ תִּיקָּבֵר עַל יְדֵי עוֹרָהּ. אֵין לוֹקְחִין עֲבָדִים וְקַרְקָעוֹת וּבְהֵמָה טְמֵיאָה מִדְּמֵי מַעֲשֵׂר שֵׁנִי וְאִם לָקַח יֹאכַל כְּנֶגְדָּן. אֵין מְבִיאִין קִינֵּי זָבִין וְקִינֵּי זָבוֹת וְקִינֵּי יוֹלְדוֹת מִדְּמֵי מַעֲשֵׂר שֵׁנִי וְאִם מֵבִיא יֹאכַל כְּנֶגְדָּן. זֶה הַכְּלָל כָּל שֶׁהוּא חוּץ לָאֲכִילָה וּלְשְׁתִיָיה וּלְסִיכָה מִדְּמֵי מַעֲשֵׂר שֵׁנִי יֹאכַל כְּנֶגְדּוֹ.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
**MISHNAH:** If somebody buys water, or salt¹⁰², or produce still connected to the ground, or produce that cannot reach Jerusalem, the tithe [money] does not acquire¹⁰³. If somebody bought produce¹⁰⁴. 14:24–25. in error, the money should return to its place¹⁰⁵. If intentionally, he should bring them up and they should be eaten at the Place¹⁰⁶. 14:24.; if there is no Temple they should be left to rot.
If somebody buys¹⁰⁴. 14:24–25. 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 Place¹⁰⁶. 14:24.; if there is no Temple it should be buried in its hide¹⁰⁷.
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 worth¹⁰⁸ 8:8 and is explained there in Notes 114–116.. This is the principle: If one bought anything except for eating, drinking, and rubbing¹⁰⁹ from Second Tithe money, he has to eat its worth.

footnotes:
¹⁰² It will be shown in Halakhah 4 that tithe money can be spent only in Jerusalem and only on something generated by sexual reproduction (vegetal or animal).
¹⁰³ The transaction is invalid: the buyer returns what he bought and the seller returns the money.
¹⁰⁴ Outside of Jerusalem, an act forbidden by Deut
¹⁰⁵ The transaction is valid but the buyer has to set aside new money for the tithe money which in error became profane.
¹⁰⁶ The place of the central sanctuary (Siloh or Jerusalem); the language is borrowed from Deut
¹⁰⁴ Outside of Jerusalem, an act forbidden by Deut
¹⁰⁶ The place of the central sanctuary (Siloh or Jerusalem); the language is borrowed from Deut
¹⁰⁷ No use can be had from any part of this animal.
¹⁰⁸ This Mishnah appears word by word, except for “Sabbatical” instead of “Second Tithe”, in Ševi‘it
¹⁰⁹ Drinking and massaging with olive oil are everywhere taken as equivalents of eating.


###### Jerusalem Talmud Maaser Sheni 1:3:2
[Jerusalem Talmud Maaser Sheni 1:3:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Maaser%20Sheni/r/1:3:2)

**הלכה:** תַּמָּן תַּנִּינָן אֵין לוֹקְחִין עֲבָדִים וְקַרְקָעוֹת וּבְהֵמָה טְמֵיאָה מִדְּמֵי שְׁבִיעִית וְאִם לָקַח יֹאכַל כְּנֶגְדּוֹ. וָכָא אַתְּ אָמַר הָכֵין. רִבִּי יוֹנָה אָמַר אִיתְפַּלְּגוּן רִבִּי חִיָיה בַּר יוֹסֵף וּשְׁמוּאֵל. חַד אָמַר כָּאן דֶּרֶךְ מְכִירָה כָּאן דֶּרֶךְ חִילּוּל. וְחָרָנָה אָמַר כָּאן בְּשֶׁהַמּוֹכֵר קַיָים. וְכָאן שֶׁהָלַךְ לוֹ הַמּוֹכֵר. וְלֹא יָדַעְנָא מָאן אָמַר דָּא וּמָאן אָמַר דָּא. מִן מַה דְּאָמַר רִבִּי יוֹסֵי בְשֵׁם שְׁמוּאֵל נִקְנֶה הַמִּקַּח. הֲרֵי הוּא דְאָמַר כָּאן דֶּרֶךְ מְכִירָה וְכָאן דֶּרֶךְ חִילּוּל.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
**HALAKHAH:** There¹⁴⁰ 8:8. One might as well have quoted the Mishnah here since the question is, why in Mishnah 7 the transaction is valid but the tithe money has to be restituted and used for food and in Mishnah 6 a similar transaction is declared invalid., 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? Rebbi Jonah said, Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Josef and Samuel disagreed. One said here as a sale¹⁴¹, there as redemption. The other one said here if the seller is present¹⁴², there if the seller went away. We did not know who said what. Since Rebbi Yose said in the name of Samuel, the buy is acquired¹⁴³, that means he is the one who said here as a sale, there as redemption.

footnotes:
¹⁴⁰ Mishnah Ševi‘it
¹⁴¹ What is invalid as a sale is valid as redemption.
¹⁴² The money has to be returned.
¹⁴³ If he bought slaves with tithe money. He must hold that “bought” is an inexact expression since the farmer exchanged tithe money for slaves.


###### Jerusalem Talmud Maaser Sheni 1:3:3
[Jerusalem Talmud Maaser Sheni 1:3:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Maaser%20Sheni/r/1:3:3)

מַתְנִיתִין דְּרִבִּי עֲקִיבָה דְּלֹא כְרִבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל. רִבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל דָּרַשׁ וְנָתַתָּ הַכֶּסֶף בְּכָל אֲשֶׁר תְּאַוֶּה נַפְשֶׁךָ כְּלָל. בַּבָּקָר וּבַצֹּאן בַּיַּיִן וּבַשֵּׁכָר פְּרָט. וּבְכֹל אֲשֶׁר תְּאַוֶּה נַפְשֶׁךָ הֲרֵי כְּלָל אַחֵר. כְּלָל וּפְרָט וּכְלָל אֵי אַתָּה דָּן אֶלָּא כְּעֵין הַפְּרָט. לוֹמַר לָךְ מַה הַפְּרָט מָפוֹרָשׁ דָּבָר שֶׁהוּא וְולַד וְולָדוֹת הָאָרֶץ. אַף אֵין לִי אֶלָּא דָּבָר שֶׁהוּא וְולַד וְולָדוֹת הָאָרֶץ. רִבִּי עֲקִיבָה מְפָרֵשׁ מַה הַפְּרָט מְפוֹרָשׁ דָּבָר שֶׁהוּא פֶּרִי וְולַד פֶּירִי וּמַכְשִׁירֵי פֶרִי. אַף אֵין לִי אֶלָּא דָּבָר שֶׁהוּא פֶּרִי וְולַד פֶּרִי וּמַכְשִׁירֵי פֶרִי. מַה נְפִיק מִן בֵּינֵיהוֹן דָּגִין וַחֲגָבִין כְּמֵהִין וּפִטְרִיּוֹת. כְּרִבִּי עֲקִיבָה נִיקָּחִין בְּכֶסֶף מַעֲשֵׂר.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
Our Mishnah follows Rebbi Aqiba but not Rebbi Ismael. ¹⁴⁴ Introduction (8); the full statement of R. Ismael. Yerushalmi *Eruvin* 3:1, fol. 20c/d; Babli *Eruvin* 27b, *Baba Qama* 54b, 63a; in slightly different version *Nazir* 35b. Rebbi Ismael explained (*Deut.* 14:26): “Spend the money on anything you want,” a general clause. “For cattle and sheep, wine and intoxicating drink¹⁴⁵”, detail. “And anything you want¹⁴⁶,” another general clause. General, detail, and general, you may judge only in the light of the detail¹⁴⁷, Introduction (1), (8).. 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 earth¹⁴⁸. Rebbi Aqiba explains¹⁴⁹. 107, naturally without reference to R. Ismael’s rule.: 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 fruit¹⁵⁰ called משביחי אכילה “food enhancers”, such as costus, amomum, other spices, benjamin, asa foetida, peppers, and saffron.. What is the difference between them? Fish, locusts, truffles, and mushrooms¹⁵¹, R. Ismael explicitly excludes truffles and mushrooms. which may be bought with tithe money following Rebbi Aqiba.

footnotes:
¹⁴⁴ Parallels in Sifra
¹⁴⁵ Cattle and sheep, wine and liquor.
¹⁴⁶ In the verse: נפשך ובכל אשר תשאלך “and anything you may wish.”
¹⁴⁷ One of the hermeneutical principles of R. Ismael. Sifra
¹⁴⁸ Anything grown by sexual reproduction from plant or animal living on the land.
¹⁴⁹ In detail explained Sifry Deut
¹⁵⁰ In Sifry
¹⁵¹ In Sifra


###### Jerusalem Talmud Maaser Sheni 1:3:4
[Jerusalem Talmud Maaser Sheni 1:3:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Maaser%20Sheni/r/1:3:4)

אָמַר רִבִּי חַגַּיי מַתְנִיתָא אָמְרָה כֵן שֶׁאֵין מְחַלְלִין מָעוֹת עַל הַפֵּירוֹת בְּרִיחוּק מָקוֹם. אָמְרָהּ קוֹמֵיהּ רִבִּי אֲבִינָא וְקַלְּסֵיהּ. אָמְרָהּ קוֹמֵי רִבִּי יִרְמְיָה וְקַנְתְּרֵיהּ. וְהָתַנִּינָן מָעוֹת בִּירוּשָׁלֵם וּפֵירוֹת בִּמְדִינָה. שַׁנְיָיא הִיא שֶׁהָיָה בְּמָקוֹם אֶחָד. כַּד נְפַק רִבִּי חַגַּיי אַשְׁכַּח תַּנֵּי מָעוֹת וּפֵירוֹת בִּירוּשָׁלֵם מָעוֹת וּפֵירוֹת בִּמְדִינָה. אָמַר אִין הֲוָה שְׁמִיעַ רִבִּי יִרְמְיָה הָדָא מִילְתָא יְאוּת קַנְטְרִי. בָּעֵא מַחֲזִיר בֵּיהּ. אָמַר לֵיהּ רִבִּי זְעִירָא לֹא תַחְזוֹר בָּךְ. דְּאָמַר רִבִּי לָעְזָר דְּרִבִּי מֵאִיר וְרַבָּנִין בִּדְמַאי הָא בְּוַדַּאי לֹא. מִן דְּאָמַר רִבִּי לָעְזָר דְּרִבִּי מֵאִיר הִיא הָדָא אָמְרָה הוּא דְמַאי הוּא וַדַּאי.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
Rebbi Ḥaggai said, a Mishnah¹⁵³.” Since the transaction is restricted to Jerusalem, it follows that it would be illegal elsewhere. said that one does not exchange coins for fruits far from the Place. He said that before Rebbi Abinna who praised him, before Rebbi Jeremiah who needled¹⁵⁴ 2:3, Note 96. him: Did we not state, “coins in Jerusalem and produce in the countryside¹⁵⁵”? There is a difference because it was in one place¹⁵⁶. When Rebbi Ḥaggai left, he found it stated¹⁵⁷ differing with the Mishnah in his interpretation.: coins and produce in Jerusalem, coins and produce in the countryside. He said, if Rebbi Jeremiah had heard this, he would have needled me justly. He wanted to change his mind. Rebbi Zeïra said to him, do not change your mind since Rebbi Eleazar said, Rebbi Meïr and the rabbis [disagree] about *demay*; therefore not for certain [produce]¹⁵⁸ quoted at the end of Halakhah 3, that the rabbis permit redemption only for meat, not live animals, comparing with Mishnah 6 which is held to be R. Meïr’s opinion. But the *baraita* was shown to refer only to Sabbatical money and is not applicable here.
According to R. H. Kanievski, the diagreement of the Sages and R. Meïr is in Mishnah *Demay* 1:2, and the statement of R. Eleazar, that the Mishnah is only R. Meïr’s, to Mishnaiot 1:5–6 since in *Demay* he also holds that *demay* money can be exchanged and traded at will outside of Jerusalem. Then it follows that the opinon of the opposing Sages, that produce, illegally bought with tithe money outside of Jerusalem, should be brought up and eaten in Jerusalem, is true not only for *demay* but for all tithe money, supporting R. Ḥaggai.. Since Rebbi Eleazar said, this is Rebbi Meïr’s, it follows that *demay* and certain are equal.

footnotes:
¹⁵³ Mishnah 3:3: “If somebody has [tithe] coins in Jerusalem and needs them, and a friend has produce, he says to his friend: those coins are exchanged on your produce. The friend has to eat his produce in purity but he may use the coins. One should not do this with a vulgar [friend] except for demay
¹⁵⁴ Cf. Berakhot
¹⁵⁵ Mishnah 3:4 states that money in Jerusalem may be exchanged for outside produce (which then has to be brought into the city) or Jerusalem produce may be bought with tithe money which at the moment of the transaction was outside.
¹⁵⁶ Mishnah 3:3 which admits the transaction only in Jerusalem deals with the case that both parties are at the same place. R. Ḥaggai is still justified in not admitting redemption if both parties are outside the city.
¹⁵⁷ A baraita
¹⁵⁸ According to most commentators, this seems to refer to the baraita


###### Jerusalem Talmud Maaser Sheni 1:3:5
[Jerusalem Talmud Maaser Sheni 1:3:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Maaser%20Sheni/r/1:3:5)

רִבִּי זְבִידָא הֲוָה יְתִיב מַתְנֵי לִבְרֵיהּ. הָרוֹצֶה לְחַלֵּל מָעוֹת עַל הַפֵּירוֹת בִּזְמָן הַזֶּה בֵּין אֵילּוּ בֵּין אֵילּוּ קָדְשׁוּ כְּדִבְרֵי בֵּית שַׁמַּי. בֵּית הִלֵּל אוּמְרִים מָעוֹת כְּמוֹת שֶׁהֵן וּפֵירוֹת כְּמוֹת שֶׁהֵן. עָבַר רִבִּי קְרִיסְפָּא אָמַר לֵיהּ לָא תַנִּיָיתָהּ כֵּן אֶלָּא פֵּירוֹת עַל הַמָּעוֹת. הָא מָעוֹת עַל הַפֵּירוֹת דִּבְרֵי הַכֹּל לֹא קָדְשׁוּ. וְהָתַנִּינָן אֵין מִקְדָּשׁ יִרְקָבוּ. תִּיפְתָּר שֶׁהִקְדִּישָׁן בִּשְׁעַת הַמִּקְדָּשׁ וְחָרֵב הַמִּקְדָּשׁ.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
Rebbi Zevida was sitting and teaching his son: ¹⁵⁹“if somebody wants to exchange [tithe] money for produce today, both these and those are consecrated¹⁶⁰, 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.” Rebbi Crispus passed by and told him, do not state it so but say “produce for money.¹⁶¹ 2:2) that any amount of Second Tithe produce can be exchanged for the smallest coin in circulation.” Therefore, everybody agrees that money for produce was not consecrated. But did we not state¹⁶²: “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 destroyed¹⁶³.

footnotes:
¹⁵⁹ A similar text in Tosephta 3:14.
¹⁶⁰ Since there is no Temple, the produce cannot be consumed. The House of Shammai are not sure whether tithe money can be exchanged without a Temple; therefore they declare everything Second Tithe by default. The House of Hillel are certain that, since the biblical injunction to eat the produce bought for tithe money “before the Eternal, your God,” cannot be followed today, tithe money cannot be exchanged (but either has to be destroyed or thrown into the Dead Sea.)
¹⁶¹ There is a dispute on exchanging Second Tithe produce for money (outside of Jerusalem) but there is no dispute that tithe money today cannot be used to buy anything. There is a Gaonic decree (Maimonides Ma‘aser Šeni
¹⁶² Mishnah 5. If the produce were not consecrated it would not be forbidden. Therefore, the Mishnah seems to imply that tithe money can be exchanged in the absence of a Temple.
¹⁶³ While this answer seems to be very contrived, it can be read into the Mishnah which notes the absence of the Temple only in connection with the use of the produce, not the act of redemption.


###### Jerusalem Talmud Maaser Sheni 1:3:6
[Jerusalem Talmud Maaser Sheni 1:3:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Maaser%20Sheni/r/1:3:6)

תַּנֵּי בֶּן בֵּיבַי וְנָתַתָּ אֶת הַכֶּסֶף בְּרִיחוּק מָקוֹם אַתָּה פוֹדֶהוּ. בְּקִירוּב מָקוֹם אֵין אַתְּ פוֹדֶהוּ. וְנָתַתָּ הַכֶּסֶף בְּקִירוּב מָקוֹם אַתָּה מְחַלְלוֹ וְאֵי אַתְּ מְחַלְלוֹ בְּרִיחוּק מָקוֹם.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
Ben Vivian stated: (*Deut*. 14:25) “Turn it into money¹⁶⁴”, far from the Place¹⁰⁶. 14:24. you redeem it¹⁶⁵, near the Place you cannot redeem it. (*Deut*. 14:26) “Spend the money”, near the Place you exchange¹⁶⁶ it, far from the Place you do not exchange it.

footnotes:
¹⁶⁴ The verse reads: ונתת בכסף.
¹⁰⁶ The place of the central sanctuary (Siloh or Jerusalem); the language is borrowed from Deut
¹⁶⁵ Exchange produce for money and transfer the sanctity to the money.
¹⁶⁶ Exchange money for produce and transfer the sanctity to the produce.


###### Jerusalem Talmud Maaser Sheni 1:3:7
[Jerusalem Talmud Maaser Sheni 1:3:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Maaser%20Sheni/r/1:3:7)

רִבִּי יוֹסֵי בְשֵׁם שְׁמוּאֵל נִקְנֶה הַמִּקַּח. רִבִּי יוֹסֵי בֶּן חֲנִינָה כִּיפּוּרָה. אָמַר רִבִּי הִילָא מִן מַה דְתַנִּינָן יֹאכַל כְּנֶגְדָּן הָדָא אָמְרָה קָדְשׁוּ. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹסֵי מִכֵּיוָן שֶׁמָּשַׁךְ נִקְנֶה הַמִּקַּח מִיכָּן וְאֵילַךְ מִקַּח אֶחָד הוּא. אָמַר רִבִּי יוּדָן צָרִיךְ לַחֲזוֹר וּלְהַקְדִּישׁוֹ. שֶׁהוּא סָבוּר לוֹמַר שֶׁמָּא קִידְּשׁוּ וְלֹא קִידְּשׁוּ.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
Rebbi Yose in the name of Samuel: The buy is acquired¹⁶⁹. Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina: Expiation. Rebbi Hila said, since we stated “he has to eat their worth”, that means it was sanctified. Rebbi Yose said, since he took it up, the buy was acquired; from there on it is one¹⁷⁰ buy. Rebbi Yudan said, he has to dedicate it again; he means that maybe it was sanctified when it was not sanctified.

footnotes:
¹⁶⁹ This paragraph refers to Mishnah 7: If one buys slaves, or birds, or animals for obligatory expiation sacrifices with tithe money, the transactions are valid since otherwise the money would have to be restituted and no new money taken as tithe money. This then implies that the expiatory sacrifice is valid. R. Yudan is not sure about this implication of the Mishnah, and it is possible that the authors of Mishnah 7 themselves were not sure whether the transactions are valid or not. Therefore, he requires that after the tithe money has been set aside, the birds used for the expiatory sacrifices be dedicated again since the dedication at the time of acquisition may be invalid.
¹⁷⁰ Most commentators prefer to read אחר “another” instead of אחד “one”. The change, against the testimony of the two mss., is unnecessary since R. Yose holds that the acquisition is valid in all respects.