## Jerusalem Talmud Maaser Sheni Chapter 5

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

**משנה:** כֶּרֶם רְבָעִי מְצַיְינִים אוֹתוֹ בְקוֹזְזוֹת אֲדָמָה וְשֶׁל עָרְלָה בְחַרְסִית וְשֶׁל קְבָרוֹת בְּסִיד וּמַמְחֶה וְשׁוֹפֵךְ. אָמַר רִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל בַּמֶּה דְבָרִים אֲמוּרִים בַּשְּׁבִיעִית וְהַצְּנוּעִין מַנִּיחִין אֶת הַמָּעוֹת וְאוֹמֵר כָּל הַנִּלְקָט מִזֶּה מְחוּלָּל עַל הַמָּעוֹת הָאֵלּוּ.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
**MISHNAH:** One marks a fourth-year vineyard with lumps of earth, one of ‘*orlah* with potsherds¹ In the fourth year, the fruits are (*Lev.* 19:24) “holy exultation for the Eternal”, they have to be eaten under the rules of Second Tithe in Jerusalem or be redeemed and the redemption money treated under the rules of tithe money.
The anonymous Tanna requires that such a vineyard be marked so that people would not inadvertently take from its fruits and sin. For him, one marks the fourth-year vineyard with temporary markings but ‘*orlah*, which extends over a few rainy seasons, with markers that remain after the rains. Rabban Gamliel holds that we are not responsible for thieves, cf. *Demay* 3:5, Note 135; therefore, it is only necessary to mark forbidden orchards or vineyards in the Sabbatical where everybody has the right to take the fruits.; graves with whitewash which is thinned and poured². Rebbi Simeon ben Gamliel said, when has this been said? In a Sabbatical year. But discreet religious persons set aside some coins and say, what is taken from here is exchanged for these coins³.

footnotes:
¹ The fruits of newly planted trees, including vines, are forbidden for all use during the first three years; this is called ‘orlah.
² Single graves in an agricultural area must be made easily recognizable so that Cohanim can avoid them.
³ If the fourth year of the vineyard is a Sabbatical, the obligation of redemption is not lifted. In that year, scrupulous followers of Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel nevertheless take precautions lest people sin inadvertently. In that case, the vineyard does not have to be marked.


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

**הלכה:** זוּנָא שָׁאַל לְרִבִּי מַה נִיתְנֵי. כֶּרֶם רְבָעִי אוֹ נֶטַע רְבָעִי. אָמַר לוֹן פֻּקּוּן שְׁאָלוּן לְרִבִּי יִצְחָק רוֹבָא דְּבָחַנִת לֵיהּ כָּל מַתְנִיתָא. נַפְקוּן וְשָׁאֲלוּן לֵיהּ. אָמַר לוֹן קַדְמִיָּא כֶּרֶם רְבָעִי וְתִינְיָינָא נֶטַע רְבָעִי. רִבִּי זְעִירָא קָבַל לְסַבַּיָּא דִהֲווֹן בְּיוֹמוֹי דְּרִבִּי יִצְחָק רוֹבָא דְּלָא בָחֲנוּן כָּל מַתְנִיָיתָא מִינֵיהּ.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
**HALAKHAH:** Zenon asked Rebbi: How should we state, fourth-year vineyard or fourth-year orchard? He said to them, go out and ask Rebbi Isaac the Elder⁵ with whom I checked the entire Mishnah. He said to them, the first ones fourth-year vineyard, the second ones fourth-year orchard. Rebbi Zeïra complained about the old people from the time of Rebbi Isaac the Elder, that they did not check all Mishnaiot with him.

footnotes:
⁵ A Tanna of the fourth generation, companion of R. Nathan, older than Rebbi.


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

תַּנֵּי כֶּרֶם רְבָעִי מְצַיְינִין אוֹתוֹ בְקוֹזְזוֹת אֲדָמָה שֶׁהוּא לְשָׁעָה. שֶׁל עָרְלָה בְחַרְסִית בְּחִיוְורָא שֶׁהוּא יוֹתֵר מִכֵּן. וְשֶׁל קְבָרוֹת בְּסִיד דּוּ יוֹתֵר מִיכֵּן. תַּנֵּי רִבִּי חֲלַפְתָּא בֶן שָׁאוּל אִם הָיוּ יְחִידוֹת תּוֹלֶה בָהֶן אָזְנֵּי חָבִיּוֹת.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
It was stated: One marks a fourth-year vineyard with lumps of earth because it is temporary, one of ‘*orlah* with potsherds because it has to last longer; graves with whitewash because it has to last still longer. Rebbi Ḥalaphta ben Shaul stated: If [the ‘*orlah* trees] were isolated, one hangs amphora handles on them.


###### Jerusalem Talmud Maaser Sheni 5:1:4
[Jerusalem Talmud Maaser Sheni 5:1:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Maaser%20Sheni/r/5:1:4)

רִבִּי זְעִירָא בָּעֵי לָמָּה לֵי נָן אָמְרִין כָּל אֶחָד וְאֶחָד לְפִי מָה שֶׁהוּא. כְּהָדָא דְתַנֵּי אִילָן שֶּׁלְהֶקְדֵּשׁ סוֹקְרִין אוֹתוֹ בְסִיקְרָא. בָּתֵּי עֲבוֹדָה זָרָה מְפָחֲמִין אוֹתָן בִּפְחָמִין. בַּיִת מְנוּגָּע נוֹתְנִין עָלָיו אֶפֶר מַקְלֶה. מָקוֹם הָרוּג בְּדָם. מָקוֹם עֶגְלָה עֲרוּפָה בַחֲגִורָה שֶׁלַּאֲבָנִים. וְחָשׁ לוֹמַר שֶׁמָּא אִילָן שֶׁהוּא מְנַבֵּל פֵּירוֹתָיו הוּא. וְלֹא כֵן תַּנֵּי אִילָן שֶׁהוּא מְנַבֵּל פֵּירוֹתָיו סוֹקְרִין אוֹתוֹ בְסִיקְרָא וּמַטְעִינִין אוֹתוֹ אֲבָנִים וּמְבַהֲתִין לֵיהּ דִּי עֲבַד. תַמָּן דְּלָא יַתִּיר פֵּירוֹי. בְּרַם הָכָא דְּיַעֲבִד כַּתְּחִילָּה. רִבִּי יוֹנָה בָּעֵי וְלָמָּה לֵי נָן מָרִין חוּט בְּחוּט שֶּׁלְסִיקְרָא זֶכֶר לַמִּזְבֵּחַ. כֵּיי דְתַנִּינָן תַּמָּן חוּט שֶּׁלְסִיקְרָא חוֹגְרוֹ בְאֶמְצַע לְהַבְחִין בֵּין דָּמִים הָעֶלְיוֹנִים לַדָּמִים הַתַּחְתּוֹנִים. תַּנֵּי רִבִּי חִיָיא סוֹקְרִין עָלָיו בְּסִיקְרָא הֶקְדֵּשׁ.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
Rebbi Zeïra asked, why do we not enumerate all for what they are: As we have stated⁶: “A dedicated tree one colors with vermilion, houses of idol worship one blackens with charcoal, a leprous house one indicates by burned ashes, the place of a slain person by blood, the place where the neck of a calf was broken⁷. 21:1–9. The place is permanently forbidden for agricultural use, v. 4. by a stone enclosure.” Is one not afraid that it will be said it is a tree which sheds its fruits⁸? Did we not state⁹ Chapter 4, Notes 65–69; cf. Babli *Šabbat* 67a, *Ḥulin* 77b.: “If a tree sheds its fruits, one colors it red with vermilion, loads it with stones, and frightens it into producing.” They said, there that it should not loosen its fruits, here that it should start to produce¹⁰ it makes no sense here. The correct answer is given in the next sentence.. Rebbi Jonah asked: Why do we not teach “a line”, like the vermilion line as remembrance of the altar, as we have stated there¹¹ 3:1, describing the altar in the courtyard of the Temple. The blood of burnt offerings and animal purification offerings has to be poured on the upper wall of the altar; the blood of all other sacrifices goes on the lower part. The borderline is indicated by a red line, one cubit below the walkway around the altar. R. Jonah proposes to make the dedication mark narrow in contrast to the coloring of a misbehaving tree.: “A vermilion line is like a belt in the middle to distinguish between upper and lower blood.” Rebbi Ḥiyya stated, one writes on it with vermilion: “dedicated.”

footnotes:
⁶ Tosephta 5:13.
⁷ To atone for an unsolved murder case, Deut
⁸ The tree painted vermilion; one might come to profanely use its fruits.
⁹ Ševi‘it
¹⁰ This sentence is copied from Ševi‘it;
¹¹ Mishnah Middot


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

רִבִּי יוֹסֵי וְרַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל אָמְרוּ דָּבָר אֶחָד. כְּמָה דְּרִבִּי יוֹסֵי אָמַר אֵין אָנוּ אַחְרָאִין לְרַמָּאִין. כֵּן רַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל אוֹמֵר אֵין אָנוּ אַחְרָאִין לְרַמָּאִין. מִסְתַּבְּרָא רִבִּי יוֹסֵי יוֹדֵי לְרַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל רַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל לֹא יוֹדֵי לְרִבִּי יוֹסֵי. רִבִּי יוֹסֵי יוֹדֵי לְרַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל שֶׁאֵין אָנוּ אַחְרָאִין לְרַמָּאִין. רַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל לֹא יוֹדֵי לְרִבִּי יוֹסֵי. שֶׁאֵין דֶּרֶךְ חָבֵר לְהוֹצִיא מִבֵּיתוֹ דָּבָר שֶׁאֵינוֹ מְתוּקָּן.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
¹² 3:5, Notes 135–136, where R. Yose states that one does not have to give tithes to save the nonobservant from sin. The statement of Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel is in the Mishnah here. Both Rebbi Yose and Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel said the same thing. Just as Rebbi Yose said, we are not responsible for the dishonest, so Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel says, we are not responsible for the dishonest. It is reasonable that Rebbi Yose will agree with Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel; Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel will not agree with Rebbi Yose. Rebbi Yose will agree with Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel that we are not responsible for the dishonest. Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel will not agree with Rebbi Yose, because it is not fitting for a *ḥaver* that anything not in order should leave his house¹³ 32a, *Pesaḥim* 9a) in the name of R. Ḥanina (there called R. Ḥanina from Khusistan.).

footnotes:
¹² This is from Demay
¹³ This is quoted in the Babli (Erubin


###### Jerusalem Talmud Maaser Sheni 5:1:6
[Jerusalem Talmud Maaser Sheni 5:1:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Maaser%20Sheni/r/5:1:6)

מְנַיִין לְצִיּוּן. רִבִּי בְּרֶכְיָה רִבִּי יַעֲקֹב בַּר בַּת יַעֲקֹב בְּשֵׁם רִבִּי חוֹנִיָּה דִבְרַת חַוְורָן. רִבִּי יוֹסֵי אָמַר לָהּ רִבִּי יַעֲקֹב בַּר אָחָא בְשֵׁם רִבִּי חֲנַנְיָה דִבְרַת חַוְורָן. רִבִּי חִזְקִיָּה רִבִּי עוּזִּיאֵל בְּרֵיהּ דְּרִבִּי חוֹנִיָּה דִבְרַת חַוְורָן בְּשֵׁם רִבִּי חוֹנִיָּה דִבְרַת חַוְורָן וְטָמֵא טָמֵא יִקְרָא. כְּדֵי שֶׁתְּהֵא הַטּוּמְאָה קוֹרָא לָהּ בְּפִיהָ וְאוֹמֶרֶת לָךְ. פְּרוֹשׁ. רִבִּי הִילָא בְשֵׁם רִבִּי שְׁמוּאֵל בַּר נַחְמָן וְעָבְרוּ הָעֹבְרִים בָּאָרֶץ וְרָאָה עֶצֶם אָדָם וּבָנָה אֶצְלוֹ צִיּוּן. מִיכָּן שְׁמְצַיְינִין עַל הָעֲצָמוֹת. אָדָם מִיכָּן שְׁמְצַיְינִין עַל הִשִּׁזְרָה וְעַל הַגּוּלְגּוֹלֶת. וּבָנָה. מִיכָּן שְׁמְצַיְינִין עַל גַּבֵּי אֶבֶן קְבוּעָה. אִם אוֹמֵר אַתְּ עַל תְּלוּשָׁה אַף הִיא הוֹלֶכֶת וּמְטַמָּא בְּמָקוֹם אַחֵר. אֶצלוֹ. בְּמָקוֹם טָהֳרָה. צִיּוּן. מִיכָּן לְצִיּוּן.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
¹⁷ 1:1, fol. 46a; *Mo‘ed Qaṭan* 1:1, fol. 80b/c. Similar arguments, in the name of different authorities, in Babli *Mo‘ed Qaṭan* 5a. The discussion is about the note in the Mishnah that graves have to be marked. From where about marks? Rebbi Berekhiah, Rebbi Jacob the son of the daughter of Jacob¹⁸, in the name of Rebbi Onias from Hauran. Rebbi Yose said it in the name of Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Onias from Hauran. Rebbi Ḥizqiah, Rebbi Uziel the son of Rebbi Onias from Hauran in the name of Rebbi Onias from Hauran (*Lev.* 13:45): “impure, impure, he shall call out;” the impurity itself has to call out and say to you: go away! Rebbi Hila in the name of Rebbi Samuel bar Naḥman (*Ez.* 39:15): “The emissaries shall crisscross the land; if one sees a bone of a human he builds a sign near it.” [A *bone*,] from here that one makes signs for bones. A *human*, from here that one makes signs for spine and skull. *He builds*, from here that one makes signs on fixed stones. If you say on loose ones, it would move and make other places impure. *Near it*, on a place of purity. A *sign*, from here the marks.

footnotes:
¹⁷ This and the following two paragraphs are also in Šeqalim
¹⁸ A third generation Galilean Amora.


###### Jerusalem Talmud Maaser Sheni 5:1:7
[Jerusalem Talmud Maaser Sheni 5:1:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Maaser%20Sheni/r/5:1:7)

תַּנֵּי מָצָא אֶבֶן אַחַת מְצוּיֶינֶת אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁאֵין מְקַיְימִין כֵּן הַמַּאֲהִיל עָלֶיהָ טָהוֹר. אֲנִי אוֹמֵר מֵת קַמְצוֹץ הָיָה נָתוּן תַּחְתֶּיהָ. הָיוּ שְׁתַּיִם הַמַּאֲהִיל עֲלֵיהֶן טָהוֹר וּבֵינֵיהֶן טָמֵא. הָיָה חָרוּשׁ בֵּנְתָיִים הֲרֵי הֵן כִּיחִידִיּוֹת בֵּינֵיהֶן טָהוֹר וּסְבִיבוֹתָן טָמֵא.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
It was stated²⁰ 1:5. This Tosephta follows the Yerushalmi, against the Babli, *Moëd Qaṭan* 6a, which reads “impure” in the first sentence.: If one found a single marked stone, even though one should not keep it so, if somebody forms a tent over it he is pure; I say a compressed corpse²¹. 19) with his body does not become impure (Babli *Yebamot* 60b–61a). If only one stone was needed, the corpse must be under it and cannot be Jewish since the previous *baraita* explained that the mark must be on a pure place. But then at least two markers are needed to define the impure spot. was under it. If there were two, he who forms a tent over any one of them is pure; between them he is impure. If between them was a ploughed strip they are single stones, between them the area is pure and around them²² impure.

footnotes:
²⁰ Tosephta Šeqalim
²¹ A corpse buried with its head between the legs, so it fitted under the stone. This is not a Jewish burial custom. If the body is not that of a Jew, a person standing over him and forming a “tent” (Num
²² Any place the whitewash was splashed on the earth around the stone.


###### Jerusalem Talmud Maaser Sheni 5:1:8
[Jerusalem Talmud Maaser Sheni 5:1:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Maaser%20Sheni/r/5:1:8)

תַּנֵּי אֵין מְצַיְינִין עַל הַבָּשָׂר שֶׁמָּא יִתְאַכֵּל הַבָּשָׂר. רִבִּי יוּסְטֵי בַּר שׁוּנֵם בָּעֵא קוֹמֵי רִבִּי מָנָא וְלֹא נִמְצָא מְטַמֵּא אֶת הַטַּהֲרוֹת לְמַפְרֵעַ. אָמַר לֵיהּ מוּטָּב שֶׁיִּתְקַלְקְלוּ בוֹ לְשָׁעָה וְאַל יִתְקַלְקְלוּ בוֹ לְעוֹלָם.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
It was stated²³ 1:5, the reading is: One does not mark flesh or bones which do not induce tent-impurity.: One does not mark flesh, for perhaps it will decompose²⁴. Rebbi Justus bar Shunem asked before Rebbi Mana: Will that not cause pure food to be retroactively made impure²⁵? He said to him, it is better that these should become unusable for a limited time than that [the earth] become unusable forever.

footnotes:
²³ In Tosephta Šeqalim
²⁴ Then it is no longer impure.
²⁵ If the carrier of pure food learns that he has crossed a place where human flesh (without a bone) was buried.


###### Jerusalem Talmud Maaser Sheni 5:1:9
[Jerusalem Talmud Maaser Sheni 5:1:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Maaser%20Sheni/r/5:1:9)

חֲבֵרַיָיא אָמְרֵי יְאוּת אָמַר רַבַּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל וְקַשְׁיָא עַל דְּרַבָּנִין. לֹא בַיּוֹם הוּא מְצַיֵין. לֹא בַלַּיְלָה הוּא גוֹנֵב. אָמַר לוֹן רִבִּי מָנָא מִבְּיוֹם כַּיי דְּאָמַר רִבִּי חְנִינָה חָתַר בַּחוֹשֶׁךְ בָּתִּים יוֹמָם חִתְּמוּ לָמוֹ לֹא רָאוּ אוֹר. מִיּוֹמָם חִתְּמוּ לָמוֹ. כָּךְ הָיוּ אַנְשֵׁי דּוֹר הַמַּבּוּל עוֹשִׂין הָיוּ רוֹשְׁמִין בָּאֳפּוֹבַּלְסַמּוֹן וּבָאִין וְגוֹנְבִין בַּלַּיְלָה. כָּךְ דְּרָשָׁהּ רִבִּי חֲנִינָא בְצִיפּוֹרִין. אִיתְעֲבִוד תְּלַת מֵאָה חַתִּירָן בָּתִּים.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
The colleagues said, Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel says it correctly, it is difficult for the rabbis! Does one not mark for the day, does he not steal in the night²⁶? Rebbi Mana said to them, following what Rebbi Ḥanina²⁷ 109a, the explanation is by the Babylonian Rava and the sermon by R. Yose the Tanna. In *Gen Rabba* 27, the explanation is anonymous, the sermon by R. Ḥanina. said (*Job* 24:16): “He dug in the darkness under houses, by day they designated for them, they did not see light²⁸.” That is what the generation of the flood did, they were making signs with balsamum²⁹ resin and came to steal in the night. So did Rebbi Ḥanina preach in Sepphoris; there were 300 houses undermined.

footnotes:
²⁶ What use is marking forbidden fruit if they are stolen in the dark of night.
²⁷ In the Babli, Sanhedrin
²⁸ In the masoretic text, לֹא יָדְעוּ אוֹר. The version לא ראו אור is in both Talmudim.
²⁹ Greek ὀποβάλσαμον, τό, “juice of the balsam-tree”.


###### Jerusalem Talmud Maaser Sheni 5:1:10
[Jerusalem Talmud Maaser Sheni 5:1:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Maaser%20Sheni/r/5:1:10)

וִיצַיֵין. אִם מְצוּיָין הוּא הֵיאַךְ נִקְרָא הוּא צָנוּעַ.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
Why can’t he mark³⁰? If it [his vineyard] is marked, how can he be called discreet?

footnotes:
³⁰ This refers to the last statement of the Mishnah, that discreet people in the Sabbatical put coins aside so that everybody may take the fourth-year fruits.


###### Jerusalem Talmud Maaser Sheni 5:1:11
[Jerusalem Talmud Maaser Sheni 5:1:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Maaser%20Sheni/r/5:1:11)

אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן אַתְיָא דְּרַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל כְּמָאן דְּאָמַר לְעִיתּוֹתֵי עֶרֶב. דְּתַנֵּי רִבִּי דּוֹסָא אוֹמֵר כָּל מַה שֶׁיְּלַקְּטוּ עֲנִיִים בֵּין הָעֳמָרִים הֶבְקֵר הֲרֵי הוּא הֶבְקֵר. רִבִּי יוּדָה אוֹמֵר לְעִיתּוֹתֵי עֶרֶב וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים אֵין הֶבְקֵר אַנָּסִין הֶבְקֵר שֶׁאֵין אָנוּ אֲחֵרָאִין לְרַמַּאִין. בְּרַם כְּמָאן דְּאָמַר בְּשַׁחֲרִית לֹא אַתְיָא. וְיֵשׁ אָדָם מַבְקֵר בִּמְחוּבָּר לְקַרְקַע. אָמַר רִבִּי יִרְמְיָה אֲפִילוּ כְּמָאן דְּאָמַר בְּשַׁחֲרִית אַתְיָא הוּא. וְלָאו רַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל הִיא. וְעוֹד הוּא אִית לֵיהּ מְשִׁיכָתוֹ שֶּׁלְמַעֲשֵׂר שֵׁינִי הִיא פְדִיָיתוֹ. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹסֵי וְהַיְינוֹ וְקָם לוֹ. אִילּוּ רָאָה כִכָּר מִתְגַּלְגֵּל בַּנָּהָר וְאָמַר כִּכָּר זֶה הֶקְדֵּשׁ שֶׁמָּא כְלוּם אָמַר. אָמַר רִבִּי יִרְמְיָה עַד דְּאַתְּ מַקְשֵׁי לֵיהּ בְּשַׁחֲרִית קַשְׁיָיתָהּ לְעִיתּוֹתֵי עֶרֶב. אָמַר לֵיהּ מָאן דְּאִיתֵיהּ לֵיהּ לְעִיתּוֹתֵי עֶרֶב. לֵית לֵיהּ לְאִילֵּין קַשְׁיָיתָא.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
Rebbi Joḥanan said, Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel parallels him who says “in the evening”, as we have stated³¹ 2:5: “R. Jehudah says, in the morning the farmer has to say: Everything the poor did collect (ms. Erfurt: will collect) from the sheaves shall be abandoned; R. Dosa says, in the evening. But the Sages say, a declaration of abandonment under duress is not an abandonment, for we are not responsible for tricksters.” Since the rules for collecting single stalks are rather restrictive, RR. Jehudah and Dosa hold that the farmer should declare that anything the poor take in excess of what is legal shall be abandoned to them to protect the poor from sin. The Sages hold that we can only force all the poor to strictly follow the rules if they have to fear sinning when they overstep the legal bounds.
The parallel discussion to this paragraph is in Babli *Baba Qama* 69 a/b. There are major differences between Yerushalmi and Babli. The name tradition of the Tosephta is that of the Babli, the opposite of the Yerushalmi. In the text, the main (Vienna ms.) text, “will collect”, is the original reading of the Babli, the Erfurt text is the (conditionally) corrected reading of the Babli and the original reading of the Yerushalmi. The Babli (in the name of R. Joḥanan) rejects the notion that the “discreet religious ones” follow Rabban Simeon, the position implied by R. Joḥanan’s statement in the Yerushalmi.: “Rebbi Dosa says, ‘everything the poor will collect between the sheaves shall be abandoned’, it is abandoned. Rebbi Jehudah says, in the evening. But the Sages say, a declaration of abandonment under duress is not an abandonment, for we are not responsible for tricksters.” But he is not parallel to him who says “in the morning”. Can one abandon anything if it is standing on the ground³²? Rebbi Jeremiah said, it is even parallel to him who says “in the morning”. Is it not Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel’s³³? In addition, he holds that taking Second Tithe is its redemption³⁴. Rebbi Yose said, is that (*Lev.* 27:19): “It shall be his³⁵. 27:19): “If the person dedicating his field will redeem it, he shall add a fifth of its value and it shall be his.” This verse clearly ties the transfer of title to the property to the payment of money. If we hold that the rules of redemption are the same for dedicated property and Second Tithe, then taking up the tithe cannot be its redemption.”? If somebody saw a loaf floating in a river and said, that loaf shall be dedicated, did he say anything³⁶? Rebbi Jeremiah said, before you ask all these questions regarding “in the morning”, ask them regarding “in the evening!” He answered him, he who holds “in the evening” does not have all these questions³⁷.

footnotes:
³¹ Tosephta Peah
³² “In the morning” means before the day’s harvest. Then the grain is still standing and no stalks lie on the ground that it should be possible to define what can be abandoned. Since the farmer does not want to abandon the field, his declaration is void.
³³ Chapter 4:6. Even if the declaration by the farmer in the morning is legally invalid, it becomes activated once the stalks are taken up if we hold that the rules of Second Tithe and abandoned stalks are identical.
³⁴ He thinks that the entire declaration is unnecessary; but if somebody wants to do it out of religious scruples, he may put aside something of value for people to take.
³⁵ (Lev
³⁶ Since he cannot dispose of the loaf, he cannot dedicate it. Similarly, he cannot dedicate stalks to the poor if it is totally unknown which ones they will be.
³⁷ Since in the evening all grain has been cut for the day and bound in sheaves, it is now well-defined what is there for the poor and the owner can make any declaration he wishes. The same holds for the discreet religious ones who can redeem the well-defined fruits of their fourth-year vineyard or orchard.


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

**משנה:** כֶּרֶם רְבָעִי עוֹלֶה לִירוּשָׁלֵם מַהֲלָךְ יוֹם אֶחָד לְכָל צַד וְאֵי זוֹ הִיא תְחוּמָהּ אֵילָת מִן הַדָּרוֹם וְעַקְרַבָּה מִן הַצָּפוֹן וְלוֹד מִן הַמַּעֲרָב וְהַיַּרְדֵּן מִן הַמִּזְרַח. וּמִשֶּׁרָבוּ הַפֵּירוֹת הִתְקִינוּ שֶׁיְּהֵא נִפְדֶּה סָמוּךְ לַחוֹמָה. וּתְנַיי הָיָה הַדָּבָר אֵימָתַי שֶׁיִּרְצוּ יַחֲזוֹר הַדָּבָר לִכְמוֹת שֶׁהָיָה. רִבִּי יוֹסֵי אוֹמֵר מִשֶּׁחָרַב בֵּית הַמִּקְדָּשׁ הָיָה הַתְּנַיי הַזֶּה וּתְנַיי אֵימָתַי שֶׁיִיבָּנֶה בֵית הַמִּקְדָּשׁ בִּמְהֵרָה בְיָמֵינוּ יַחֲזוֹר הַדָּבָר לִכְמוֹת שֶׁהָיָה. כֶּרֶם רְבָעִי בֵּית שַׁמַּי אוֹמְרִים אֵין לוֹ חוֹמֶשׁ וְאֵין לוֹ בִּיעוּר. וּבֵית הִלֵּל אוֹמֵר יֵשׁ לוֹ. בֵּית שַׁמַּי אוֹמְרִים יֵשׁ לוֹ פֶרֶט וְיֵשׁ לוֹ עוֹלֵלוֹת וַעֲנִיִים פּוֹדִין לְעַצְמָן. וּבֵית הִלֵּל אוֹמְרִים כּוּלֹּו לְגַת.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
**MISHNAH:** [Grapes from] a fourth-year vineyard have to be brought to Jerusalem from a distance up to a day’s march. What is this? Eilat from the South³⁸, Aqrabeh from the North, Lydda from the West, the Jordan from the East. When the fruits increased³⁹ they decreed that they might be redeemed [even] close to the city wall. There was a condition made that anytime they decided, they could return to the previous situation⁴⁰. Rebbi Yose says, this condition was introduced when the Temple was destroyed, *viz*., that one would return to the previous situation if the Temple would be rebuilt soon, in our days⁴¹.
⁶¹ 7:6; explained there in Notes 99–145. A fourth-year vineyard, the House of Shammai say, is not subject to a fifth and is not subject to removal; but the House of Hillel say, it is. The House of Shammai say, it is subject to single berries and gleanings and the poor redeem for themselves, but the House of Hillel say, all goes to the winepress.

footnotes:
³⁸ An unknown place somewhere South of Hebron. One has to assume that the distance between Jerusalem and Eilat was approximately the same as the distance between Jerusalem and Aqrabeh, SE of Nablus.
³⁹ And ruined the trade in fruits on the markets in Jerusalem.
⁴⁰ Usually a rule imposed by a rabbinic assembly could be nullified or amended only by an assembly more prestigious than the first. This rule is explicitly waved in the present case.
⁴¹ For R. Yose, no exemption for a future rabbinical assembly is created; the original assembly already fixed the terms for the disestablishment of the rule.
⁶¹ The entire Halakhah is from Peah


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

**הלכה:** אָמַר רִבִּי הִילָא בָּרִאשׁוֹנָה הָיוּ עוֹשִׂין יַיִן בְּטָהֳרָה לִנְסָכִים וְלֹא הָיוּ עֲנָבִים מְצוּיוֹת. הִתְקִינוּ שֶׁיְּהֵא עוֹלֶה לִירוּשָׁלֵם מַהֲלָךְ יוֹם לְכָל צַד. אַף הֵן מְחַלְּקִין אוֹתוֹ לִקְרוֹבִין וְלִשְׁכֵינִין וְלִמְיוּדָעִין. אֲפִילוּ דָבָר קַל הָיָה מְעַטֵּר אֶת הַשּׁוּק.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
**HALAKHAH:** Rebbi Hila said, at the start they made wine in purity for Temple libations and grapes⁴² were rare. They decreed that it⁴³ had to be brought to Jerusalem from a distance up to a day’s march. They used to distribute it to relatives, neighbors, and acquaintances⁴⁴ 4:6); the yield of single vines should always be redeemed and the redemption money used under the rules of tithe money., and a small quantity adorned the market⁴⁵ 5a, *Roš Haššanah* 31b) to R. Joḥanan or R. Joshua ben Levi..

footnotes:
⁴² Eating grapes.
⁴³ The yield of fourth-year vineyards.
⁴⁴ Since the buyer knew that they were fourth-year grapes, the price would be depressed and the grapes could as well be distributed. (Explanation of S. Lieberman.) In the Tosephta, 5:14, R. Simeon restricts the rule to vineyards in the sense of the formal definition (Mishnah Kilaim
⁴⁵ This implies that in contrast to Second Tithe, the grapes from a fourth-year vineyard may be redeemed in Jerusalem proper, which makes the grapes profane and marketable. The reason given by R. Hila is attributed in the Babli (Beẓah


###### Jerusalem Talmud Maaser Sheni 5:2:3
[Jerusalem Talmud Maaser Sheni 5:2:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Maaser%20Sheni/r/5:2:3)

הָדָא פְלִיגָא עַל נֻקַּיי. נֻקַּיי הֲוָה שַׁמָּשׁ בְּמִגְדָּל צְבָעִיָיה. בְּכָל עֶרוּבָת שׁוּבָא מִן דַּהֲוָה עֲבִיד קַנְדֵילוֹי הֲוָה סְלִיק שָׁבַת בְּבֵית מִקְדְּשָׁא וְנָחִית וּמַדְלִיק לוֹן. וְאִית דְּאָמְרִין סַפָר הֲוָה. בְּכָל עֶרוּבָת שׁוּבְתָא הֲוָה סְלַק פָּשַׁט סִדְרוֹי לְבֵית הַמִּקְדָּשׁ וְנָחִית שָׁבִית בְּבֵייתֵיהּ.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
This disagrees with Nukai⁴⁷ on *Thr*. 3:9; there, the person is only identified by his occupation, not by name. The following stories, except that of Mahalul, are also in that source.. Nukai was community servant in Magdala of the dyers⁴⁸, the place is simply called Magdala.. Every Sabbath eve, after preparing his candles⁴⁹ “wax light, tallow candle, taper”., he went up, rested in the Temple, and went down to light them. Some say, he was the Torah reader. Every Sabbath eve he went up, prepared home.

footnotes:
⁴⁷ Since נקיי, together with מתיי, “Matthew”, appears as name of one of the disciples of Jesus, one might identify נקיי with Lucas by a change in liquids. The story is also in Ekhâ Rabbati
⁴⁸ Probably a quarter of Magdala, N. of Tiberias. In Ekhâ Rabbati
⁴⁹ For the Friday night service in the synagoge. Latin candela


###### Jerusalem Talmud Maaser Sheni 5:2:4
[Jerusalem Talmud Maaser Sheni 5:2:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Maaser%20Sheni/r/5:2:4)

טַרְטִירוֹי דְּמַהֲלוּל הֲוָה סְלִיק שָׁבִית לְגַו בֵּית מִקְדְּשָׁא וְלָא הֲוָה בַּר נַשׁ קָרַץ לִתְאֵינַיָיא קֳדָמוֹיי מִינֵּיהּ.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
The cap maker⁵⁰ “thresher”, *tritor* “grinder” (E. G.). of Malul⁵¹ went up to observe the Sabbath in the Temple but nobody got up⁵² for his fig trees before him.

footnotes:
⁵⁰ Arabic طَر طُرر “pointed cap”. [Perhaps also cf. late Latin triturator
⁵¹ In lower Galilee.
⁵² Sunday morning.


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

בְּנוֹת צִפֹּרִי הֲווֹ סַלְקוּן שַׁבְתּוּן בְּגַו בֵּית מִקְדְּשָׁא וְלָא הֲוָה בַּר נַשׁ קָרַץ לִתְאֵינַיָיא קֳדָמוֹי מִינְהֹן. בְּנוֹת לוֹד הָיוּ לָשׁוֹת עִיסָּתָן וְעוֹלוֹת וּמִתְפַּלְלוֹת וְיוֹרְדוֹת עַד שֶׁלֹּא יַחְמִיצוּ.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
The daughters⁵³ of Sepphoris went up, kept the Sabbath in the Temple, but nobody got up⁵² for their fig trees before them. The daughters of Lod were kneading their bread dough, went up, prayed, and descended before it became sour⁵⁴ also is in Hebrew..

footnotes:
⁵³ The unmarried women.
⁵² Sunday morning.
⁵⁴ It sems that in lod one never spoke Aramic. The parallel to the sentence in Ekhâ Rabbati


###### Jerusalem Talmud Maaser Sheni 5:2:6
[Jerusalem Talmud Maaser Sheni 5:2:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Maaser%20Sheni/r/5:2:6)

חַד בַּר נַשׁ הֲוָה קָאִים רְדִי. פָּסְקָת תּוֹרָתֵיהּ קוֹמוֹי. הֲוָות פָרְיָא וְהוּא פָרֵי פָרְיָא וְהוּא פָרֵי עַד דְּאִשְׁתְּכָח יְהִיב בְּבָבֶל. אָמְרוּ לֵיהּ אֵימַת נָפְקָת. אָמַר לוֹן יוֹמָא דֵין. אָמְרִין בְּהֵיידָא אָתִיתָא. אָמַר לוֹן בְּדָא. אָמַר לוֹן אִיתָא חָמֵי לֹן. נְפַק בְּעֵי מֵיחְמַיָיא לוֹן וְלָא חַכִּים בְּהֵיידָא.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
⁵⁶, the story is quite different and not connected with instant travelling of long distances. A person was ploughing. His cow broke away before him and started running. He ran and ran after her until he found himself in Babylonia. They asked him, when did you leave? He answered, today. They asked him, by which [road] did you come? He answered them, by this one, come and see it. He went out, wanted to see it, and did no longer recognize it.

footnotes:
⁵⁶ In Ekhâ Rabbati


###### Jerusalem Talmud Maaser Sheni 5:2:7
[Jerusalem Talmud Maaser Sheni 5:2:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Maaser%20Sheni/r/5:2:7)

מִכְּלָל דִּפְלִיגָא. וַאֲפִילוּ תֵימַר לֵית הוּא פְלִיגָא מְחִילוֹת הָיוּ וְנִגְנְזוּ. הָדָא הִיא דִּכְתִיב גָּדַר דַּרְכִּיי בְגָזִית נְתִיבוֹתַיי עִוָּה.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
From here, that they disagree. Even if you say it does not disagree, there were tunnels and they were hidden. That is what is written (*Thr*. 3:9): “He fenced my way with ashlar, my paths he destroyed.”


###### Jerusalem Talmud Maaser Sheni 5:2:8
[Jerusalem Talmud Maaser Sheni 5:2:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Maaser%20Sheni/r/5:2:8)

רִבִּי יוֹנָה בְשֵׁם רִבִּי זְעִירָה אֲפִילוּ כֶרֶם שֶׁהָיָה סָמוּךְ לַחוֹמָה הָיָה נִפְדֶּה.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
Rebbi Jonah in the name of Rebbi Zeïra: Even a vineyard reaching to the wall was redeemed⁵⁷.

footnotes:
⁵⁷ This explains what “outside the walls” means in the Mishnah.


###### Jerusalem Talmud Maaser Sheni 5:2:9
[Jerusalem Talmud Maaser Sheni 5:2:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Maaser%20Sheni/r/5:2:9)

אָמַר רִבִּי אָחָא זֹאת אוֹמֶרֶת שֶׁבֵּית הַמִּקְדָּשׁ עָתִיד לְהִיבָּנוֹת קוֹדֶם לְמַלְכוּת בֵּית דָּוִד דִּכְתִיב וְדַם עֵנָב תִּשְׁתֶּה חָמֶר. וְאַתְּ אָמַר הָכֵין.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
Rebbi Aḥa said, this implies that the Temple will be rebuilt before the kingdom of David’s dynasty⁵⁸ as it is written (*Deut*. 32:14): “From the blood of a grape you will drink as wine”⁵⁹ *Deut*. 317: You will not have to work to press and make wine, but bring it in on a wagon, put it in a corner, and drink from it as from a barrel; or in Babli *Ketubot* 111b: It teaches you that each grape will produce 30 barrels of wine; read (following a pronunciation which has the same sound for ָֿ and ַ̇) חָמֶר as חֹמֶר (30 *seah*); cf. *Peak* 7:4.. And you say so!

footnotes:
⁵⁸ Since the decree, according to R. Yose, mentions only the rebuilding of the Temple and not the coming of the Messiah, it implies that the two events are independent of one another.
⁵⁹ This is an allusion to the explanation of this verse, describing the plenty induced by the Temple, either in Sifry


###### Jerusalem Talmud Maaser Sheni 5:2:10
[Jerusalem Talmud Maaser Sheni 5:2:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Maaser%20Sheni/r/5:2:10)

תַּנֵּי רִבִּי אוֹמֵר בַּמֶּה דְּבָרִים אֲמוּרִים בִּשְׁבִיעִית אֲבָל בִּשְׁאָר שְׁנֵי שָׁבוּעַ בֵּית שַׁמַּי אוֹמְרִים יֵשׁ לוֹ חוֹמֶשׁ וְיֵשׁ לוֹ בִּיעוּר. עַל דַּעְתֵּיהּ דְּהַדֵּין תַּנָּיָיה לֹא לָמְדוּ נֶטַע רְבָעִי אֶלָּא לְמַעֲשֵׂר שֵׁינִי כְּמַה דְתֵימַר אֵין מַעֲשֵׂר שֵׁינִי בִשְׁבִיעִית. וְדִכְוָותֵיהּ אֵין נֶטַע רְבָעִי בִשְׁבִיעִית. מֵעַתָּה אַל יְהִי לוֹ קְדוּשָׁה. וּקְדוּשָׁתוֹ מֵאֵילָיו לָמְדוּ. קוֹדֶשׁ הִילּוּלִים. כְּקוֹדֶשׁ שֶׁקּוֹרִין עָלָיו אֶת הַהַלֵּל. וִיהֵא מוּתָּר לְאוֹנֵן. תַּנֵּי מַגִּיד שֶׁהוּא אָסוּר לְאוֹנֵן. וִיְהֵא חַיָיב בְּבִיעוּר. בְּגִין רִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן. דְּרִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן פּוֹטֵר מִן הַבִּיעוּר. וְיִיפָּדֶה בִּמְחוּבָּר לְקַרְקַע.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
It was stated: Rebbi says, the House of Shammai said this only for the Sabbatical year, but in all other years of the Sabbatical cycle, the House of Shammai say that it is subject to a fifth and subject to removal. According to that Tanna, they learned the rules of the fourth-year orchard only from Second Tithe; since you say that there is no Second Tithe in the Sabbatical year, so there is no fourth-year orchard in the Sabbatical year. But then should there be no holiness in it? Its holiness comes from the verse (*Lev*. 19:24): “Holy for praises,” it has the status of those holy fruits over which praises are said. And should it be permitted to the fresh mourner? It is stated: This implies that it is forbidden to the fresh mourner. And should it be subject to removal? Following Rebbi Simeon, since Rebbi Simeon frees it from removal. And should it be redeemed while still connected to the ground?


###### Jerusalem Talmud Maaser Sheni 5:2:11
[Jerusalem Talmud Maaser Sheni 5:2:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Maaser%20Sheni/r/5:2:11)

תַּנֵּי רַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל אוֹמֵר אֶחָד שְׁבִיעִית וְאֶחָד שְׁאָר שְׁנֵי שָׁבוּעַ בֵּית שַׁמַּי אוֹמְרִים אֵין לֹו חוֹמֶשׁ וְאֵין לֹו בִּיעוּר. עַל דַּעְתֵּיהּ דְּהָדֵין תַּנָּיָיא לֹא לָמְדוּ נֶטַע רְבָעִי מִמַּעֲשֵׂר שֵׁינִי כָּל עִיקָּר. מֵעַתָּה אַל יְהֵא לוֹ קְדוּשָׁה. וּקְדוּשָׁתוֹ מֵאֵילָיו לָמְדוּ. קוֹדֶשׁ הִילּוּלִים. הֲרֵי כְקוֹדֶשׁ שֶׁקּוֹרִין עָלָיו אֶת הַהַלֵּל. וִיהֵא מוּתָּר לְאוֹנֵן. מַגִּיד שֶׁהוּא אָסוּר לְאוֹנֵן. וִיהֵא חַיָיב בְּבִיעוּר. בְּגִין דְּרִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן. דְּרִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן פּוֹטֵר מִן הַבִּיעוּר. וְיִפָּדֶה בִּמְחוּבָּר לְקַרְקַע.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel stated: Both in the Sabbatical year and in the rest of the years of the Sabbatical cycle, the House of Shammai say, there is no fifth and no removal. According to that Tanna, they did not at all learn the rules of the fourth-year orchard from Second Tithe. But then should there be no holiness in it? Its holiness comes from the verse (*Lev*. 19:24): “Holy for praises;” it has the status of those holy fruits over which praises are said. And should it be permitted to the fresh mourner? It is stated: This implies that it is forbidden to the fresh mourner. And should it be subject to removal? Following Rebbi Simeon, since Rebbi Simeon frees it from removal. And should it be redeemed while still connected to the ground?


###### Jerusalem Talmud Maaser Sheni 5:2:12
[Jerusalem Talmud Maaser Sheni 5:2:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Maaser%20Sheni/r/5:2:12)

רִבִּי זְעִירָא בָּעֵא קוֹמֵי רִבִּי אַבָּהוּ מְנַיִין שֶׁהוּא טָעוּן פִּדְיוֹן. שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר קוֹדֶשׁ הִילּוּלִים קוֹדֶשׁ חִילּוּלִים לָא מִתְמַנְעִין דרַבָּנִין דָּרַשׁ בֵּין הֵ״א לְחֵי״ת.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
Rebbi Zeïra asked before Rebbi Abbahu: From where that it needs redemption? (*Lev*. 19:24) “Holy for praises,” holy for redemption. The rabbis never refrain from explaining ה by ח.


###### Jerusalem Talmud Maaser Sheni 5:2:13
[Jerusalem Talmud Maaser Sheni 5:2:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Maaser%20Sheni/r/5:2:13)

תַּנֵּי רִבִּי אַיְיבוּ בַּר נַגָּרִי קוֹמֵי רִבִּי לָא דְּרִבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל אִם גָּאֹל יִגְאַל אִישׁ מִמַּעַשְׂרוֹ חֲמִישִּׁיתוֹ יוֹסֵף עָלָיו. פְּרָט לְנֶטַע רְבָעִי שֶׁאֵין חַיָיבִין עָלָיו חוֹמֶשׁ. חָזַר וְתַנָּא קוֹמוֹי שְׁתֵּי גְאוּלּוֹת הֵן אַחַת לְמַעֲשֵׂר שֵׁינִי וְאַחַת לְנֶטַע רְבָעִי.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
Rebbi Ayvu bar Naggari stated before Rebbi La following Rebbi Ismael (*Lev*. 27:31): “If a man redeems part of his tithes, he should add their fifth to it.” That excludes the fourth-year orchard; one is not obligated by it for a fifth. Then he turned around and stated: There are two terms of redemption, one for the Second Tithe and one for the fourth-year orchard.


###### Jerusalem Talmud Maaser Sheni 5:2:14
[Jerusalem Talmud Maaser Sheni 5:2:14](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Maaser%20Sheni/r/5:2:14)

תַּמָּן תַּנִּינָן רִבִּי יוּדָה אוֹמֵר אֵין לְנָכְרִי כֶּרֶם רְבָעִי. וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים יֵשׁ לוֹ. אָמַר רִבִּי לָעְזָר כֵּינִי מַתְנִיתָא אֵין לְנָכְרִי כֶּרֶם רְבָעִי כָּל עִיקָּר. רִבִּי בִּיבִּי אָמַר קוֹמֵי רִבִּי זְעִירָא בְּשֵׁם רִבִּי לָעְזָר אַתְיָיא דְּרִבִּי יוֹדָה כְּבֵית שַׁמַּי. עַל דַּעְתֵּיהּ דְּרִבִּי כְּמָה דְּבֵית שַׁמַּי אוֹמֵר לֹא לָמְדוּ נֶטַע רְבָעִי אֶלָּא מִמַּעֲשֵׂר שֵׁינִי כְּמַה דְתֵימַר אֵין מַעֲשֵׂר שֵׁינִי בִשְׁבִיעִית. וְדִכְוָותָהּ אֵין נֶטַע רְבָעִי בִשְׁבִיעִית. כֵּן רִבִּי יוּדָה אָמַר לֹא לָמְדוּ נֶטַע רְבָעִי אֶלָּא מִמַּעֲשֵׂר שֵׁינִי כְּמַה דְּאַתְּ אָמַר אֵין מַעֲשֵׂר שֵׁינִי בְּסוּרִיָּא וְדִכְוָותָהּ אֵין נֶטַע רְבָעִי בְּסוּרִיָּא. אָמַר לֵיהּ חֲמִי מַה אָמַר. לֹא אָמַר אֶלָּא אֵין לוֹ חוֹמֶשׁ וְאֵין לֹו בִּיעוּר הָא שְׁאָר כָּל הַדְּבָרִים יֵשׁ לוֹ. רִבִּי יוּדָה אוֹמֵר אֵין לְנָכְרִי נֶטַע רְבָעִי בְסוּרִיָּא.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
There we have stated: Rebbi Jehudah says, there is no vineyard in the fourth year for the Gentile, but the Sages say there is. Rebbi Eleazar said, so says the Mishnah: There is never a vineyard in the fourth year for the Gentile. Rebbi Bibi said before Rebbi Zeïra in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: According to the opinion of Rebbi, the statement of Rebbi Jehudah turns out to be like the statement of the House of Shammai. Since the House of Shammai said that they learned the rules of the vineyard of the fourth year only from Second Tithe; since you say that there is no Second Tithe in the Sabbatical year, so there is no fourth-year orchard in the Sabbatical year. Similarly, Rebbi Jehudah said that they learned the rules of the vineyard of the fourth year only from Second Tithe; since you say that there is no Second Tithe in Syria, so there is no fourth-year orchard in Syria. He said to him, look what he said! He said only, it is not subject to a fifth and is not subject to removal, hence, it is subject to all other rules; Rebbi Jehudah says, there is no vineyard in the fourth year for the Gentile in Syria.


###### Jerusalem Talmud Maaser Sheni 5:2:15
[Jerusalem Talmud Maaser Sheni 5:2:15](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Maaser%20Sheni/r/5:2:15)

שְׁמוּאֵל בַּר אַבָּא בָּעֵי הָא בֵית שַׁמַּי אוֹמְרִים לֹא לָמְדוּ נֶטַע רְבָעִי אֶלָּא מִמַּעֲשֵׂר שֵׁינִי כְּמָה דְתֵימַר אֵין מַעֲשֵׂר שֵׁינִי בִשְׁבִיעִית. וְדִכְוָותָהּ אֵין נֶטַע רְבָעִי בִשְׁבִיעִית. וְדִכְוָותָהּ שְׁלִישִׁית וְשִׁישִּׁית הוֹאִיל וְאֵין בָּהֶן מַעֲשֵׂר שֵׁינִי לֹא יְהֵא בָהֶן נֶטַע רְבָעִי. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹסֵי שְׁלִישִׁית וְשִׁישִּׁית אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁאֵין בָּהֶן מַעֲשֵׂר שֵׁינִי יֵשׁ בָּהֶן מַעְשָׂרוֹת. שְׁבִיעִית אֵין לוֹ מַעְשְׂרוֹת כָּל עִיקָּר.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
Samuel bar Abba asked: Since the House of Shammai said that they learned the rules of the vineyard of the fourth year only from Second Tithe; since you say that there is no Second Tithe in the Sabbatical year, there is no fourth-year orchard in the Sabbatical year. Similarly, in the third and sixth years of the Sabbatical cycle, since there is no Second Tithe, there should not be any fourth-year orchard. Rebbi Yose said, even though there is no Second Tithe in the third and sixth years, there are the tithes. In the Sabbatical year, there are no tithes at all.


###### Jerusalem Talmud Maaser Sheni 5:2:16
[Jerusalem Talmud Maaser Sheni 5:2:16](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Maaser%20Sheni/r/5:2:16)

חֵיפָה שְׁאַל הָא רִבִּי יוּדָה אָמַר לֹא לָמְדוּ נֶטַע רְבָעִי אֶלָּא מִמַּעֲשֵׂר כְּמָה דְתֵימַר אֵין מַעֲשֵׂר שֵׁינִי בְסוּרִיָּא. וְדִכְוָותָהּ אֵין נֶטַע רְבָעִי בְסוּרִיָּא. וְדִכְוָותָהּ לֹא לָמְדוּ תְרוּמַת תּוֹדָה אֶלָּא מִתְּרוּמַת מַעֲשֵׂר. כְּמָה דְתֵימַר אֵין תְּרוּמַת מַעֲשֵׂר בַּמִּדְבָּר וְדִכְוָותָהּ לֹא תְהֵא תְרוּמַת תּוֹדָה בַּמִּדְבָּר. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹסֵי לֹא לָמְדוּ מִמֶּנָּה אֶלָּא לְשִׁיעוּרִין.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
Ḥeipha asked: Since Rebbi Jehudah said that they learned the rules of the vineyard of the fourth year only from Second Tithe; since you say that there is no Second Tithe in Syria, there is no fourth-year orchard in Syria. Similarly, they learned the rules of the heave of the thanksgiving sacrifice only from the heave of the tithe; since you say that there was no heave of the tithe in the desert, will it follow that there was no heave of the thanksgiving sacrifice in the desert? Rebbi Yose said, they learned from it only in regard to quantities.


###### Jerusalem Talmud Maaser Sheni 5:2:17
[Jerusalem Talmud Maaser Sheni 5:2:17](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Maaser%20Sheni/r/5:2:17)

תַּנֵּי רִבִּי יוֹסֵי בֵּירִבִּי יוּדָה אוֹמֵר רִבִּי לָעְזָר בֵּרִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֵר לֹא נִתְחַיְיבוּ יִשְׂרָאֵל לְנֶטַע רְבָעִי אֶלָּא לְאַחַר אַרְבַּע עֶשְׂרֵה שָׁנָה שֶׁבַע שֶׁכִּיבְּשׁוּ וְשֶׁבַע שֶׁחִילְּקוּ. אָמַר רַב חִסְדָּא אַתְיָא דְּרִבִּי יוֹסֵי בֵּירִבִּי יוּדָה בְּשִׁיטַּת רִבִּי יוּדָה אָבוּי. כְּמָה דְּרִבִּי יוּדָה אָמַר לֹא לָמְדוּ נֶטַע רְבָעִי אֶלָּא מִמַּעֲשֵׂר שֵׁינִי כְּמָה דְּתֵימַר אֵין מַעֲשֵׂר שֵׁינִי בְּסוּרִיָּא וְדִכְוָותָהּ אֵין נֶטַע רְבָעִי בְּסוּרִיָּא. כֵּן רִבִּי יוֹסֵי בֵּירִבִּי יוּדָה אוֹמֵר לֹא לָמְדוּ נֶטַע רְבָעִי אֶלָּא מִמַּעֲשֵׂר. כְּמָה דְּתֵימַר אֵין מַעֲשֵׂר שֵׁינִי אֶלָּא לְאַחַר אַרְבַּע עֶשְׂרֵה שָׁנָה. וְדִכְוָותָהּ אֵין נֶטַע רְבָעִי אֶלָּא לְאַחַר אַרְבַּע עֶשְׂרֵה שָׁנָה. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹסֵי וְהִיא בְשִׁיטַּת בְּנוֹ סוּרִיָּא לְמֵידָה מֵאַרְבַּע עֶשְׂרֵה שָׁנָה אֵין אַרְבַּע עֶשְׂרֵה שָׁנָה לְמֵידָה מִסּוּרִיָּא.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
It was stated: Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Jehudah said, Rebbi Eleazar ben Rebbi Simeon said, Israel did become obligated for the fourth-year orchard only after 14 years, seven during which they conquered and seven during which they divided up the land. Rav Ḥisda said, it turns out that the argument of Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Jehudah is identical with that of his father Rebbi Jehudah. Just as Rebbi Jehudah said that they learned the rules of the fourth-year orchard only from Second Tithe, since you say that there is no Second Tithe in Syria, so there is no fourth-year orchard in Syria. Similarly, Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Jehudah said that they learned the rules of the fourth-year orchard only from Second Tithe, since you say that they did become obligated for the fourth-year orchard only after 14 years,, similarly there was no fourth-year orchard until after 14 years. Rebbi Yose said, he follows his son’s argument; Syria was inferred from “after 14 years;” “after 14 years” was not inferred from Syria.


###### Jerusalem Talmud Maaser Sheni 5:2:18
[Jerusalem Talmud Maaser Sheni 5:2:18](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Maaser%20Sheni/r/5:2:18)

כְּתִיב וּבַשָּׁנָה הַחֲמִישִּׁית תֹּאכְלוּ אֶת פִּרְיוֹ לְהוֹסִיף לָכֶם וגו׳. רִבִּי יוֹסֵי הַגָּלִילִי אוֹמֵר הֲרֵי אַתְּ כְּמוֹסִיף פֵּירוֹת חֲמִישִּׁית עַל פֵּירוֹת רְבִיעִית מַה פֵּירוֹת חֲמִישִּׁית לִבְעָלִין. אַף פֵּירוֹת רְבִיעִית לִבְעָלִין. רִבִּי זְעִירָא רִבִּי יָסָא בְשֵׁם רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן אַתְיָא דְּרִבִּי יוֹסֵי הַגָּלִילִי כְּרִבִּי יְהוּדָה. כְּמָה דְּרִבִּי יְהוּדָה עוֹשֶׂה אוֹתוֹ כִּנְכָסָיו כֵּן רִבִּי יוֹסֵי הַגָּלִילִי עוֹשֶׂה אוֹתוֹ כִּנְכָסָיו.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
It is written (*Lev*. 19:25): “In the fifth year, you shall eat its yield to add for you, etc.” Rebbi Yose the Galilean says, here one adds the fruits of the fifth to the fruits of the fourth year. Just as the fruits of the fifth year are for the proprietors, so the fruits of the fourth year are for the proprietors. Rebbi Zeïra, Rebbi Yasa, in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: It turns out that Rebbi Yose the Galilean argues like Rebbi Jehudah. Just as Rebbi Jehudah makes it his property, so Rebbi Yose the Galilean makes it his property.


###### Jerusalem Talmud Maaser Sheni 5:2:19
[Jerusalem Talmud Maaser Sheni 5:2:19](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Maaser%20Sheni/r/5:2:19)

רִבִּי יִרְמְיָה בָּעֵא קוֹמֵי רִבִּי זְעִירָא כְּדִבְרֵי מִי שֶׁהוּא עוֹשֶׂה אוֹתוֹ כִּנְכָסָיו מַהוּ שֶׁיְּהֵא חַיָיב בְּמַעְשְׂרוֹת. אָמַר לֵיהּ כַּיי דְּאָמַר רִבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בֶּן לֵוִי דְּאָמַר רִבִּי אָבִין בְּשֵׁם רִבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בֶּן לֵוִי לֹא סוֹף דָּבָר הֲלָכָה זוּ אֶלָּא כָּל הֲלָכָה שֶׁהִיא רוֹפֶפֶת בְּבֵית דִּין וְאֵין אַתְּ יוֹדֵעַ מַה טִיבָהּ צֵא וּרְאֵה הֵיאַךְ הַצִּיבּוּר נוֹהֵג וּנְהוֹג. וַאֲנָן חָמִיָין צִיבּוּרָא דְּלָא מַפְרִשִׁין. אָמַר רִבִּי מָנָא אִילּוּ אָמַר כְּבֵית שַׁמַּי וְיֵשׁ צִיבּוּר כְּבֵית שַׁמַּי. אָמַר רִבִּי אָבִין כְּלוּם לָמַדְנוּ נֶטַע רְבָעִי אֶלָּא מִמַּעֲשֵׂר שֵׁינִי כְּמָה דְּתֵימַר אֵין מַעֲשֵׂר שֵׁינִי חַיָיב בְּמַעְשְׂרוֹת. וְדִכְוָותָהּ אֵין נֶטַע רְבָעִי חַיָיב בְּמַעְשְׂרוֹת.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
Rebbi Jeremiah asked before Rebbi Zeïra: According to those who declare it his property, should it not be subject to tithes? He said to him, according to what Rebbi Joshua ben Levi said, as Rebbi Abin said in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi, not only this practice, but in any practical question which is weak in court and you do not know how to decide, go out and see how the public acts, and act accordingly. And we see that they do not give. Rebbi Mana said, that is, if the practice would follow the House of Shammai. But is there any public that acts according to the House of Shammai? Rebbi Abin said, they learned the rules of the vineyard of the fourth year only from Second Tithe; just as you say that Second Tithe is not subject to tithes, so the yield of the fourth year is not subject to tithes.


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

רִבִּי בָּא רִבִּי חִיָיה בְשֵׁם רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן עִיסַּת מַעֲשֵׂר שֵׁינִי בִּירוּשָׁלֵם כְּרִבִּי מֵאִיר פְּטוּרָה מִן הַחַלָּה כְּרִבִּי יוּדָה חַיֶיבֶת בְּחַלָּה. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹנָה לֹא אָמְרוּ אֶלָּא בִּירוּשָׁלֵם הָא בִּגְבוּלִים לֹא.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
Rebbi Abba, Rebbi Ḥiyya, in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: A dough of Second Tithe in Jerusalem, following Rebbi Meïr, is free from *ḥallah*, following Rebbi Jehudah it is subject to *ḥallah*. Rebbi Jonah said, they said this only for Jerusalem, but not for the countryside.


###### Jerusalem Talmud Maaser Sheni 5:2:21
[Jerusalem Talmud Maaser Sheni 5:2:21](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Maaser%20Sheni/r/5:2:21)

רִבִּי בָּא בַּר כֹּהֶן בָּעֵא קוֹמֵי רִבִּי יוֹסֵי כְּדִבְרֵי מִי שֶׁמְּחַיֵּיב בְּפֶרֶט מַהוּ שֶׁתְּהֵא חַיֶיבֶת בְּחַלָּה. אָמַר לֵיהּ וְלֹא רִבִּי יוּדָה הִיא וְסָבְרִנָן מֵימַר כָּל הָדָא הִילְכְתָא רִבִּי יוּדָה כְּבֵית שַׁמַּי.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
Rebbi Abba bar Cohen asked before Rebbi Yose: Does he who declares it obligated for single berries also declare it obligated for *ḥallah*? He said to him, is that not Rebbi Jehudah? And it is our opinion that in all this practice, Rebbi Jehudah follows the House of Shammai.


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

**משנה:** כֵּיצַד פּוֹדִין נֶטַע רְבָעִי מַנִּיחַ אֶת הַסֶּלַע עַל פִּי שְׁלֹשָׁה וְאוֹמֵר כַּמָּה אָדָם רוֹצֶה לִפְדּוֹת לוֹ בְסֶלַע עַל מְנָת לְהוֹצִיא יְצִיאוֹת מִבֵּיתוֹ וּמַנִּיחַ אֶת הַמָּעוֹת וְאוֹמֵר כָּל הַנִּלְקָט מִזֶּה מְחוּלָּל עַל הַמָּעוֹת הָאֵלּוּ. מִכָּךְ וּכָךְ סַלִּים בְּסֶלַע. וּבַשְּׁבִיעִית פּוֹדֵיהוּ בְשָׁוְויוֹ אִם הָיָה הַכֹּל מוּבְקָר אֵין לוֹ אֶלָּא שְׂכַר לְקִיטָה. הַפּוֹדֶה נֶטַע רְבָעִי שֶׁלּוֹ מוֹסִיף עָלָיו חֲמִישִּׁיתוֹ בֵּין שֶׁהוּא שֶׁלּוֹ בֵּין שֶׁנִּיתַּן לוֹ בְמַתָּנָה. עֶרֶב יוֹם טוֹב הָרִאשׁוֹן שֶׁלְפֶּסַח שֶׁלְרְבִיעִית וְשֶׁלְשְׁבִיעִית הָיָה בִּיעוּר. כֵּיצַד הָיָה בִּיעוּר נוֹתְנִין תְּרוּמָה וּתְרוּמַת מַעֲשֵׂר לִבְעָלֶיהָ וּמַעֲשֵׂר רִאשׁוֹן לִבְעָלָיו וּמַעֲשֵׂר עָנִי לִבְעָלָיו. מַעֲשֵׂר שֵׁינִי וּבִיכּוּרִים מִתְבָּעֲרִים בְּכָל מָקוֹם. רִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֵר הַבִּיכּוּרִין נוֹתְנִין לַכֹּהֲנִים כִּתְרוּמָה. הַתַּבְשִׁיל בֵּית שַׁמַּי אוֹמֵר צָרִיךְ לְבָעֵר. וּבֵית הִלֵּל אוֹמְרִים הֲרֵי הוּא כִמְבוֹעָר. מִי שֶׁהָיוּ לוֹ פֵירוֹת בִּזְמַן הַזֶּה וְהִגִּיעָה שְׁנַת הַבִּיעוּר בֵּית שַׁמַּי אוֹמְרִים צָרִיךְ לְחַלְּלָן עַל הַכֶּסֶף. בֵּית הִלֵּל אוֹמְרִים אֶחָד שֶׁהֵן כֶּסֶף וְאֶחָד שֶׁהֵן פֵּירוֹת.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
**MISHNAH:** How does one redeem a fourth-year orchard? He puts a tetradrachma⁶³ before three [experts] and asks, how much does a person redeem for himself for a tetradrachma when all expense⁶⁴ is on him? Then he puts down the money and says, all that is collected under this is exchanged for this money; so and so many baskets per tetradrachma.
In a Sabbatical, he redeems its full value⁶⁵. If all of it was abandoned⁶⁶, he has only the cost of harvesting. He who redeems a fourth-year orchard adds its fifth whether it was his or was given to him as a gift⁶⁷.
The removal⁷⁰ 9:8); no produce may remain in the hands of the owner. {Maimonides holds that the leftovers have to be burned.} was on the day before the first⁷¹. 302, the mss. are divided about evenly between “first” and “last”. One might speculate that the reading “first” is derived from some mss. in which יום טוב אחרון was abbreviated to י״ט א׳ which was read as י״ט אחד (ראשוֹן). day of Passover in the fourth and the seventh year [of the Sabbatical cycle.] What is the removal? One gives heave and heave of the tithe to its recipients⁷², First Tithe to its recipients⁷³, tithe of the poor to its recipients. Second Tithe and First Fruits are removed on the spot⁷⁴. Rebbi Simeon says, first fruits one gives to the Cohanim like heave. A cooked dish the House of Shammai say one has to remove, but the House of Hillel say it is as if removed⁷⁵.
He who had produce¹⁰⁹ in this time and the year of removal came, the House of Shammai say he has to exchange it for money; the House of Hillel say, either money or produce.

footnotes:
⁶³ Most Mishnah mss. read הסל “the basket” but in addition to the Leyden ms. the reading here is in a ms. of the Babli and in a Mishnah ms. from the Geniza. Therefore, it does not seem permissible to treat the reading here as a scribal error.
⁶⁴ The entire expense for growing this year’s yield.
⁶⁵ Since there is no agricultural work, no costs accrue that could be deducted.
⁶⁶ In a non-Sabbatical year, the amount invested before it was abandoned is not deductible by the person who acquires the ownerless property; he may only deduct his own expenses of harvesting.
⁶⁷ Following the House of Hillel, Mishnah 3. If it was given as a gift it becomes the recipient’s property only if delivered before the time of heave and tithes since later the yield is Heaven’s property.
⁷⁰ The removal is the same as for Sabbatical produce (Ševi‘it
⁷¹ This is the reading of both Yerushalmi mss. and a majority of the Mishnah mss. However, the Cambridge ms. of the Galilean Mishnah as well as the Maimonides autograph read “last” day; and this reading is necessary in Halakhah 7. In Sifry Deut
⁷² The Cohanim.
⁷³ The Levites.
⁷⁴ Outside of Jerusalem, they cannot be eaten. If anything is left, it must be destroyed. This rule shows that in Jerusalem one needs the entire holiday of Passover to dispose of Second Tithe.
⁷⁵ This sentence seems to have been part of the next Mishnah since it is discussed at the beginning of Halakhah 6.
¹⁰⁹ Of Second Tithe. Since there is no Temple, the tithe cannot be eaten in Jerusalem. The House of Shammai hold that Deut. 14:25 requires that any tithe produce which cannot be eaten in purity in the holy precinct has to be exchanged for money. Since that money cannot be used it must be destroyed or safely buried. The House of Hillel, the authors of Mishnah 1:5, hold that either the coins must be destroyed or the produce left to rot.


###### Jerusalem Talmud Maaser Sheni 5:3:2
[Jerusalem Talmud Maaser Sheni 5:3:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Maaser%20Sheni/r/5:3:2)

**הלכה:** לִפְדּוֹת לוֹ בְסֶלַע לוֹקֵחַ לוֹ בְסֶלַע. אֵין לוֹ אֶלָּא שְׂכַר לְקִיטָה אֵין לוֹ אֶלָּא שְׂכַר עֲקִיצָה. רִבִּי הוֹשַׁעְיָה מְפַק תְּלָתָא אִיסְתּוֹנַנְסִין וּמְפָרֵק עַל פּוּמוֹן.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
**HALAKHAH:** To redeem for a tetradrachma [means] he buys for himself for a tetradrachma. “He has only the cost of harvesting” including the cost of removing the pedicles⁶⁸. Rebbi Hoshaia took three wholesalers⁶⁹ [?] and redeemed on their word.

footnotes:
⁶⁸ And any post-harvest processing needed.
⁶⁹ Jastrow reads סיטונין for איסתוננסין. Buxtorf and Mussaphia read ἀστυνόμοι “street police”; R. M. Margalit reads “asthenics” who in his view are vegetarians and know the price of fruits.


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

כְּתִיב מִקְצֵה שָׁלֹשׁ שָׁנִים תּוֹצִיא אֶת כָּל מַעֲשַׂר תְּבוּאָתְךָ בַּשָּׁנָה [הַהִוא] וְהִנַּחְתָּ בִּשְׁעָרֵיךָ יָכוֹל פַּעַם אַחַת בְּשָׁבוּעַ אַתְּ חַיָיב לְהוֹצִיא אֶת הַמַּעְשְׂרוֹת וּלְהוֹצִיא מַעֲשֵׂר עָנִי. תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר מִקְצֵה שָׁלֹשׁ שָׁנִים אַחַת לְשָׁלֹשׁ שָׁנִים. וְלא אַחַת לְשֶׁבַע. אֶלָּא בִשְׁלִישִׁית וּבִשְׁבִיעִית שְׁנֵי פְעָמִים בַּשָּׁבוּעַ. אוֹ קוֹרֵא אֲנִי רֹאשׁ הַשָּׁנָה יָכוֹל כֵּיוָן בְּרֹאשׁ הַשָּׁנָה אַתְּ חַיָיב לְבָעֵר אֶת הַמַּעְשְׂרוֹת וּלְהוֹצִיא מַעֲשֵׂר עָנִי תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר מִקְצֵה שָׁלֹשׁ. אֵין מִקְצֵה אֶלָּא בְסוֹף שָׁנָה אַתְּ מְבָעֵר. וְאֵין אַתְּ מְבָעֵר בְּרֹאשׁ שָׁנָה. אִי בְסוֹף שָׁנָה יָכוֹל כֵּיוָן בְּרֹאשָׁהּ שֶׁל רְבִיעִית אַתְּ חַיָיב לְבָעֵר אֶת הַמַּעְשְׂרוֹת וּלְהוֹצִיא מַעֲשֵׂר עָנִי תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר כִּי תְכַלֶּה לַעְשֵׂר אֶת כָּל תְּבוּאָתְךָ כְּשֶׁתְּכַלֶּה לַעְשֵׂר אֶת כָּל הַפֵּירוֹת. אִי כְּשֶׁתְּכַלֶּה לַעְשֵׂר כָּל הַפֵּירוֹת יָכוֹל אֲפִילוּ בַחֲנוּכָּה. נֶאֱמַר כָּאן מִקְצֵה. וְנֶאֱמַר לְהַלָּן מִקְצֵה שֶׁבַע שָׁנִים בְּמוֹעֵד שְׁנַת הַשְּׁמִיטָּה בְּחַג הַסּוּכּוֹת. מַה מִקֵּץ שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר לְהַלָּן בְּמוֹעֵד אַף כָּאן בְּמוֹעֵד. אִי מַה מִקֵּץ שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר לְהַלָּן בְּחַג הַסּוּכּוֹת אַף כָּאן בְּחַג הַסּוּכּוֹת. תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר כִּי תְכַלֶּה לַעְשֵׂר אֶת כָּל מַעְשַׂר תְּבוּאָתְךָ. אֵימָתַי הוּא מְכַלֶּה לְעַשֵּׂר אֶת כָּל הַפֵּירוֹת בְּפֶסַח שֶׁלָּרְבִיעִית.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
It is written (*Deut*. 14:28): “At the end of three years you shall take out all tithe of your produce, in that year, and deposit it in your gates.” I could think that once in a Sabbatical cycle you have to distribute the tithes including the tithe of the poor⁷⁶. The verse says “at the end of three years,” once in three years and not once in seven; i. e., in the third and the seventh⁷⁷, twice in a Sabbatical cycle. Do I understand at New Year’s Day, that on New Year’s Day you have to distribute the tithes including the tithe of the poor? The verse says “at the end of three years.” “At the end” means at its conclusion you remove, you do not remove on New Year’s Day. If it is at the end of the year, I could understand that at the beginning of the fourth you have to remove the tithes including the tithe of the poor; the verse says (*Deut*. 26:12): “If you have finished tithing [all tithe of]78 your produce,” when you have tithed all your fruits. ⁷⁹. §109; in very shortened form also §302. If it is when you have tithed all your fruits, could I understand even on Ḥanukkah⁸⁰ 1:2; in the opinion of the House of Shammai it is the first of Ševaṭ. This indetermination in itself disqualifies the New Year of trees as a biblical date. The discussion of the date is in *Roš Haššanah* 1:2 (fol. 57a), Babli 14a.? It says here, “at the end of;” it says further (*Deut*. 26:12): “At the end⁸¹ of seven years, on the fixed time of the Sabbatical year, on the festival of booths.” Since “at the end” there means at a fixed time, so here also at a fixed time. Since there “at the end” means the holiday of booths, does it here also mean the holiday of booths? The verse says “if you have finished tithing all tithe of your produce,” when you have finished tithing all of your fruits? On Passover of the fourth year⁸².

footnotes:
⁷⁶ The tithe of the poor is mentioned separately since the paragraph in question introduces the tithe of the poor.
⁷⁷ This formulation is inconsistent. It must either be the 3rd and the 6th year for the obligation of tithes, or the 4th and the 7th which are finally determined to be the times of delivery.
⁷⁹ From here on, including the tannaitic parts of the next two paragraphs, a similar text is in Sifry Deut
⁸⁰ Since Ḥanukkah is not connected with the agricultural year and is not a biblical holiday, its mention does not make much sense, in particular because the tithing year for trees and their fruits ends only on the 14th of Ševaṭ, more than a month and a half after the start of Ḥanukkah. The 15th of Ševaṭ is mentioned as “New Year of trees” in Mishnah Roš Haššanah
⁸¹ In the biblical text, מקץ not מקצה.
⁸² Since this is the first biblical holiday after the end of tithing fruits of the preceding year.


###### Jerusalem Talmud Maaser Sheni 5:3:4
[Jerusalem Talmud Maaser Sheni 5:3:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Maaser%20Sheni/r/5:3:4)

בַּשָּׁנָה הַהִיא אַתְּ זָקוּק לְבַעֲרוֹ וְאֵין אַתְּ זָקוּק לְבַעֲרוֹ בִּשְׁאָר כָּל הַשָּׁנִים. בַּשָּׁנָה הַהִיא אַתְּ זָקוּק לְבָעֵר. אֵין אַתְּ זָקוּק לְבָעֵר יָרָק שֶׁיָּצָא מֵרֹאשׁ הַשָּׁנָה עַד הַפֶּסַח. חֲבֵרַיָיא אָמְרֵי שֶׁאֵינוֹ מִתְוַדֶּה בָּרְבִיעִית אֶלָּא בַחֲמִישִׁית. אָמַר רִבִּי הִילָא שֶׁאֵינוֹ מְעַכֵּב וִודּוּי בָּרְבִיעִית אֶלָּא בַחֲמִישִׁית. מַה נְפַק מִן בֵּינֵיהוֹן עָבַר וְנִתְוַודֶּה. עַל דַּעְתֵּיהוֹן דַּחֲבֵרַיָּא פָּסוּל. עַל דַּעְתֵּיהּ דְּרִבִּי הִילָא כָּשֵׁר.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
(*Deut*. 14:28) “In that year” your are obliged to remove it but you are not obliged to remove it in any other year⁸³, this sentence refers to a later discussion which in the Yerushalmi is purely amoraic.. “In that year” you are obliged to remove; you are not required to remove vegetables which grew between New Year’s Day and Passover⁸⁴ year.. The colleagues say, because he can make a declaration⁸⁵ 26:13–15. [for the latter] only in the fifth year⁸⁶ tithes, a declaration for part of the vegetables of a year is unacceptable.. Rebbi Hila said, because it does not hinder the declaration in the fourth, only in the fifth. Where do they differ? If he transgressed and included it in his declaration. According to the colleagues it is invalid, according to Rebbi Hila is it valid⁸⁶ tithes, a declaration for part of the vegetables of a year is unacceptable..

footnotes:
⁸³ In the Sifry
⁸⁴ Since the vegetable belongs to the following, not to this
⁸⁵ The declaration in the Temple that he fulfilled all his duties for tithes, Deut.
⁸⁶ Since the declaration is for all
⁸⁶ Since the declaration is for all


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

בַּשָּׁנָה הַהִיא אַתְּ מוֹצִיאוֹ מִן הַטָּמֵא [עַל] הַטָּהוֹר וְאֵין אַתְּ מוֹצִיאוֹ בִּשְׁאָר כָּל הַשָּׁנִים מִן הַטָּמֵא עַל הַטָּהוֹר. אָמַר רִבִּי לָעְזָר כֵּינִי מַתְנִיתָא בַּשָּׁנָה הַהִיא אַתְּ מוֹצִיאוֹ מִמְּקוֹם טוּמְאָה לִמְקוֹם טָהֳרָה. וְאֵין אַתְּ מוֹצִיאוֹ בִּשְׁאָר כָּל הַשָּׁנִים מִמְּקוֹם טוּמְאָה לִמְקוֹם טָהֳרָה. אַתְיָיא דְּרִבִּי לָעְזָר כְּמָאן דְּאָמַר אֵין מוֹצִיאִין מַעֲשֵׂר לִכְהוּנָה. בְּיוֹמוֹי דְּרִבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בֶּן לֵוִי בִּיקְשׁוּ לְהִימָּנוֹת שֶׁלֹֹּא לִיתֵּן מַעֲשֵׂר לִכְהוּנָה. אָּמְרִין מָאן יֵיעוֹל רִבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בֶּן לֵוִי דְּהוּא מְסַיּיֵעַ לְלִיוָאֵי. עָאֵל וְסִיֵיעַ לְכֹהֲנֵי אָמַר בְּעֶשְׂרִים וְאַרְבַּע מְקוֹמוֹת נִקְרְאוּ הַכֹּהֲנִים לְוִיִים וְזֶה אֶחָד מֵהֶן וְהַכֹּהֲנִים הַלְוִיִּם בְּנֵי צָדוֹק.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
“In that year” you take it out from impure for pure but in other years you do not take it out from impure for pure. Rebbi Eleazar said, so is that *baraita*: “ ‘In that year’ you have to take it from an impure place to a pure but in other years you do not have to take it from an impure place to a pure.⁸⁸. 109; the first version is unintelligible. The extra “in this this year” mentioned in *Deut*. 14:28 is interpreted to mean that in that year, the third (or sixth) of the Sabbatical cycles, *all* tithes have to be treated equally. Since Second Tithe, as long as it is not redeemed, has to be kept in purity (for consumption in Jerusalem), it follows that First Tithe also, which is to be given to the Levites, has to be kept in purity in these years. But this implies that in other years it may be left to become impure (alter heave was taken). This is taken to mean that in other years it should not be given to the Cohen together with the heave.” This statement of Rebbi Eleazar follows the opinion that one does not give tithe to Cohanim. In the days of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi they wanted to vote not to give tithe to Cohanim. They said, why should we come to Rebbi Joshua ben Levi⁸⁹ since he will help the Levites. He came and helped the Cohanim and said: In 24 places are Cohanim called Levites and this is one of them (*Ez*. 44:15): “The Cohanim Levites, the descendants of Ẓadoq.⁹⁰ 86b, *Ḥulin* 24b.”

footnotes:
⁸⁸ The version of R. Eleazar is the version of Sifry Deut
⁸⁹ Who was a Levite.
⁹⁰ This is also his argument in Babli Yebamot


###### Jerusalem Talmud Maaser Sheni 5:3:6
[Jerusalem Talmud Maaser Sheni 5:3:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Maaser%20Sheni/r/5:3:6)

רִבִּי בִּנְיָמִן בַּר גִּידוּל וְרִבִּי אָחָא הֲווֹן יְתִיבִין אָמְרִין וְהָא כְתִיב וְהָיָה הַכֹּהֵן בֶּן אַהֲרוֹן עִם הַלְוִיִּם בַּעְשֵׂר הַלְוִיִּם לִיתֵּן לוֹ תְרוּמַת מַעֲשֵׂר. וְהָכְתִיב וְהַלְוִיִּם יַעֲלוּ אֶת הַמַּעֲשֵׂר. רַב חוּנָא וַחֲבֵרַיָיא חַד מִינְהוֹן אָמַר לִבְנֵי לֵוִי מַה תַלְמוּד לוֹמַר וְלִבְנֵי אֶלָּא מִיכָּן שֶׁנּוֹתְנִין מַעֲשֵׂר לִכְהוּנָה. וְחָרָנָה אָמַר אֲפִילוּ לֵית כְּתִיב אֶלָּא לִבְנֵי נוֹתְנִין מַעֲשֵׂר לִכְהוּנָה. אִילּוּ מָאן דְּאָמַר פַּלָּן בְּרִי יְסַב מִקָּמַת פַּלָּן וּשְׁאָר נְכָסַיי יִירְשׁוּ בָנַיי דִּילְמָא לָא נְסַב עִמְּהוֹן.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
Rebbi Binjamin bar Gidul and Rebbi Aḥa were sitting together and saying, is it not written (*Neh*. 10:39): “The Cohen, descendant of Aaron, will share with the Levites in the Levite’s tithe”? To give him heave of the tithe. But is it not written (*Neh*. 10:39): “The Levites shall bring [the tithe of]⁹¹ 86b) which only discusses the reason behind the decree but does not deny that the right of Cohanim to tithe is purely rabbinical. The Yerushalmi denies this since it continues to find the pentateuchal basis for the rights of Cohanim. the tithe”? Rebbi Ḥuna and the colleagues, one of them said “to the descendants of Levi”. Why does the verse say (*Num*. 18:21): “And to the descendants of Levi⁹²”? From here that one gives tithes to Cohanim. The other said, even if it were only written “to the descendants” one would give tithes to Cohanim. If somebody would say, my son X shall take property Y [before distribution] and the rest of my properties my sons shall inherit, does he not participate with them?

footnotes:
⁹¹ From the masoretic text, missing in the quote, but carrying the essence of the proof. The first argument was that the verse associates Cohanim with Levites in receiving tithe. This was countered by the argument that Cohanim always receive the heave of the tithe and, therefore, are always getting part of the Levite’s tithe. That argument is disproved since the heave of the tithe is explicitly mentioned in the second part of the verse, “the Levites shall bring the tithe of the tithe to the Temple.”This establishes that the right of Cohanim to take tithe was part of the constitution of Nehemiah. This is the accepted doctrine of the Babli (Yebamot
⁹² “And to the descendants of Levi I gave all tithes in Israel as inheritance.” The first argument is that the beginning “and” also includes the Cohanim. The second argument notes that the verse declares tithes to follow the laws of inheritance. If somebody in his will gives some special part to a son before the general distribution, that son is not excluded from taking part in the division of the inheritance. Therefore, the fact that the Cohanim got heave and the heave of the tithe does not exclude them from the ranks of “descendants of Levi”. If the verse had been addressed instead to “the Levites”, the Cohanim would have been excluded.


###### Jerusalem Talmud Maaser Sheni 5:3:7
[Jerusalem Talmud Maaser Sheni 5:3:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Maaser%20Sheni/r/5:3:7)

רִבִּי יוֹנָה יְהַב מַעְשְׂרוֹי לְרִבִּי אָחָא בַּר עוּלָּא לֹא מִשׁוּם דַּהֲוָה כֹהֵן אֶלָּא מִשׁוּם דַּהֲוָה לָעֵי בְּאוֹרַיְיתָא. מַה טָעֲמָא וַיֹּאמֶר לָעָם לְיוֹשְׁבֵי יְרוּשָׁלֵם לָתֵת מְנָת הַכֹּהֲנִים וְהַלְוִיִּם לְמַעַן יֶחֶזְקוּ בְּתוֹרַת יי. רִבִּי הוּנָא לָא נְסַב מַעֲשֵׂר רִבִּי אָחָא לָא נְסַב מַעֲשֵׂר. רִבִּי חִיָיה בַּר בָּא הוֹרֵי עַל גַּרְמֵיהּ לָצֵאת לְחוּץ לָאָרֶץ בְּגִין דְּלָא מֵיסַב מַעֲשֵׂר. שָׁאַל בַּר נַשׁ רִבִּי שְׁמוּאֵל בַּר נַחְמָן שָׁאַל לְרִבִּי יוֹנָתָן מַהוּ דִּנְסַב. אָמַר לֹו סַב וּמַה דְנָפַל לְשִׁבְטָךְ נָפַל לָךְ.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
Rebbi Jonah gave his tithes to Rebbi Aḥa bar Ulla, not because he was a Cohen but because he studied Torah. What is the reason? (*2Chr*. 31:4) “He said to the people, the inhabitants of Jerusalem, to give the part of the Cohanim and the Levites, so they should be strong in the Torah of the Eternal.” Rebbi Huna did not take tithe, Rebbi Aḥa did not take tithe. Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba instructed himself to go outside the Land, not to take tithe⁹³ 3:1, Notes 5–6.. A person⁹⁴ asked Rebbi Samuel bar Naḥman who asked Rebbi Jonathan, may one take? He said to him, take, what fell to your tribe fell to you.

footnotes:
⁹³ The circumstances are narrated in Ševi‘it
⁹⁴ Who was a Cohen.


###### Jerusalem Talmud Maaser Sheni 5:3:8
[Jerusalem Talmud Maaser Sheni 5:3:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Maaser%20Sheni/r/5:3:8)

רִבִּי יַנַּאי מְפַקֵּד לִקְרִיבוֹי כַּד תְּהֵיוִיָין חַכְרָן אֲרָע לָא תַחְכְּרוּן אֶלָּא מִן דְּחֵלוֹנַיָיא. וְאַף עַל גַּב דְּאַתְּ אָמַר אֵין נוֹתְנִין מַעֲשֵׂר לִכְהוּנָה מוֹדֶה שֶׁאֵין מוֹצִיאִין שֶׁלּוֹ מִיָּדוֹ. מַה טַעֲמָא כִּי תִקְחוּ מֵאֵת בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל אֶת הַמַּעֲשֵׂר אֲשֶׁר נָתַתִּי לָכֶם מֵּאִתָּם בְּנַחֲלַתְכֶם וַהֲרֵמוֹתֶם מִמֶּנּוּ אֶת תְּרוּמַת יי מַעֲשֵׂר מִן הַמַּעֲשֵׂר. מֵאֵת בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל אַתְּ מוֹצִיא וְאֵין אַתְּ מוֹצִיא מִמַּכָּרֵי כְהוּנָה וּלְוִיָיה. וְאַתְיָיא כַּיי דְּאָמַר רִבִּי לָעְזָר כִּי תִקְחוּ מֵאֵת בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל אֶת הַמַּעֲשֵׂר. מֵאֵת בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל אַתְּ מוֹצִיא וְאֵין אַתְּ מוֹצִיא מִן הַגּוֹי.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
Rebbi Yannai ordered his relatives, when you lease⁹⁵ a field, lease only from lay people since even if you say one does not give tithes to Cohanim you have to agree that one does not take his own⁹⁶ Chapter 1, Note 291. out of his hand. What is the reason? (*Num*. 18:26) “If you take from the Children of Israel the tithe which I gave you from them as your inheritance, you should lift from it the heave of the Eternal, a tithe of the tithe.” From the Children of Israel you take out⁹⁷ but not from those contracting with Cohanim or Levites. It parallels what Rebbi Eleazar said, “if you take the tithe from the Children of Israel,” from the Children of Israel you take out but not from the Gentile⁹⁸ Chapter 4, Notes 131–134, one might read the statement here to say that tithe voluntarily given by a Gentile cannot be obtained from him by a court order; he may give to you but you cannot take from him..

footnotes:
⁹⁵ The Leyden ms. has חכר “to lease”, the Rome ms. and the Venice print חבר “to connect”. In view of H. L. Fleischer’s discussion (in Levy’s Dictionary, Vol. 2, p. 204b) of the original meaning of the Aramaic / Arabic root חכר as “keep tight, hold together, hold back” (in modern Arabic only “to hoard”) there is no difference of meaning involved.
⁹⁶ The tithe but not heave, cf. Peah
⁹⁷ If needed, by a court order.
⁹⁸ He holds that the produce of the Gentile farmer in the Land is exempt from heave and tithes. Since this is a matter of dispute between Tannaïm, cf. Peah


###### Jerusalem Talmud Maaser Sheni 5:3:9
[Jerusalem Talmud Maaser Sheni 5:3:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Maaser%20Sheni/r/5:3:9)

רִבִּי אַבָּהוּ אָמַר אִיתְפַּלְּגוּן רִבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בֶּן חֲנַנְיָה וְרִבִּי לָעְזָר בֶּן עֲזַרְיָה. רִבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בֶּן חֲנַנְיָה אָמַר אֵין נוֹתְנִין מַעֲשֵׂר לִכְהוּנָה. וְרִבִּי לָעְזָר בֶּן עֲזַרְיָה אָמַר נוֹתְנִין מַעֲשֵׂר לִכְהוּנָה. מָתִיב רִבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בֶּן חֲנַנְיָה לְרִבִּי לָעְזָר בֶּן עֲזַרְיָה וְהָא כְתִיב וַאֲכַלְתֶּם אוֹתוֹ בְּכָל מָקוֹם בּוֹא וְאוֹכְלוֹ עִמּוֹ בַּקֶּבֶר. אָמַר לֵיהּ מַהוּ בְּכָל מָקוֹם בַּעֲזָרָה. אְמַר לֵיהּ וְהָכְתִיב אַתֶּם וּבֵיתְכֶם וְאִשָּׁה נִכְנֶסֶת לָעֲזָרָה. רִבִּי בָּא הֲוָה מִשְׁתָּעֵי הַהֵן עוֹבְדָא. רִבִּי לָעְזָר בֶּן עֲזַרְיָה הֲוָה יְלִיף מֵיסַב מַעְשְׂרָא דְחָדָא גִינָּה. וְהָיָה לְאוֹתָהּ גִּינָּה שְׁנֵי פְתָחִים אֶחָד לִמְקוֹם טוּמְאָה וְאֶחָד פָּתוּחַ לִמְקוֹם טָהֳרָה. נְפַק רִבִּי עֲקִיבָה לְגַבֵּיהּ אָמַר לֵיהּ פְּתַח הָהֵן וּסְתוֹם הָהֵן. אִין אֲתָא אֲמַר לֵהּ בֹּא בְדֶרֶךְ הַזּוֹ. אָמַר לֵיהּ אִין שְׁלַח תַּלְמִידֵיהּ אֱמוֹר לֵיהּ אַתֶּם כְּתִיב. שָׁמַע רִבִּי לָעְזָר בֶּן עֲזַרְיָה וְאָמַר מִרְצֻעָה דַּעֲקִיבָה בֶּן יוֹסֵף בָּא לְכָאן. בְּאוֹתָהּ שָׁעָה הֶחֱזִיר רִבִּי לָעְזָר בֶּן עֲזַרְיָה כָּל הַמַּעְשְׂרוֹת שֶׁנָּטַל. אָמַר רִבִּי יִצְחָק בַּר לָעְזָר בְּשֵׁרוּתָה בֶּעָיָא מוֹלֵיי סִבָא דְּקִיסָּה מִינֵיהּ וּבֵיהּ כָּל גּוּמְרָה דְלָא כְוִיָּה בְשַׁעְתָּהּ לָא כְוִיָּה.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
Rebbi Abbahu said, Rebbi Joshua ben Ḥananiah⁹⁹86a/b, the opponent of R. Eleazar ben Azariah is R. Aqiba at all stages. and Rebbi Eleazar ben Azariah¹⁰⁰ disagreed. Rebbi Joshua ben Ḥananiah said, one does not give tithe to Cohanim but Rebbi Eleazar ben Azariah said, one gives tithe to Cohanim. Rebbi Joshua ben Ḥananiah objected to Rebbi Eleazar ben Azariah: Is it not written (*Num*. 18:31): “You shall eat it everywhere”, come and eat it by a grave¹⁰¹! He said to him, what means “everywhere”? In the courtyard¹⁰² of the Temple. He retorted, but is it not written (*Num*. 18:31): “You and your house¹⁰³”? Does a woman enter the courtyard of the Temple? Rebbi Abba understood it from the following occasion: Rebbi Eleazar ben Azariah was used to take tithes from a certain garden. That garden had two exits, one to a place of impurity¹⁰⁴ and one open to a place of purity. Rebbi Aqiba went to him¹⁰⁵ and said, open this one and lock the other one. If he will come, tell him to come by that way. He also said, if he sends a student, tell him “you” is written¹⁰⁶ 6:1, Note 8, that an emphasis on “you” means one personally unless an expression of inclusion is added; *Terumot* 1:1 Note 76, Babli *Qiddušin* 41b.. Rebbi Eleazar ben Azariah heard this and said, that is Aqiba ben Joseph’s whip. At that moment, Rebbi Eleazar ben Azariah returned all tithes he had taken¹⁰⁷. Rebbi Isaac bar Eleazar said, for dinner one has to fill up completely with wood fibers¹⁰⁸ 2:3 and כסא in *Ḥagigah* 2:3.; any coal which does not cause a burn at the beginning will not cause one.

footnotes:
⁹⁹ A Levite. In the Babli, Yebamot
¹⁰⁰ A Cohen, direct descendant of Ezra.
¹⁰¹ A place forbidden to Cohanim.
¹⁰² He must mean the courtyard of the priests since women are invited to enter the women’s courtyard and may enter the men’s courtyard for ceremonies required for sacrifices.
¹⁰³ The expression “house” often is used to represent someone’s wife.
¹⁰⁴ A cemetery.
¹⁰⁵ The owner of the vegetable garden. He persuaded him to leave only the cemetery door open and to lock the other.
¹⁰⁶ Cf. Demay
¹⁰⁷ This remark, establishing the practice that tithes are not for Cohanim, is missing in the Babli which holds strongly that tithes should be given to Cohanim in preference to Levites.
¹⁰⁸ To make a point one has to take strong action immediately; later it is useless. The text is doubtful; the proverb appears three times; for סבא here one reads סמא in Beẓah


###### Jerusalem Talmud Maaser Sheni 5:3:10
[Jerusalem Talmud Maaser Sheni 5:3:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Maaser%20Sheni/r/5:3:10)

הַכֹּל מוֹדִין בְּפַת וְשֶׁמֶן שֶׁהוּא צָרִיךְ לְבָעֵר. בְּיַיִן וּבְתַבְלִין שֶׁהוּא כִמְבוּעָר. מַה פְלִיגִין בְּתַבְשִׁיל בֵּית שַׁמַּי אוֹמְרִים צָרִיךְ לְבָעֵר. וּבֵית הִלֵּל אוֹמְרִים אֵין צָרִיךְ לְבָעֵר.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
Everybody agrees that bread and oil have to be removed, wine and spices are as if removed. Where do they disagree: A cooked dish the House of Shammai says one has to remove, but the House of Hillel say one does not have to remove¹¹⁶.

footnotes:
¹¹⁶ This is the discussion of the last sentence of Mishnah 6. A profane dish containing tithe oil is subject to removal, one containing tithe wine or spices is not since these are not recognizable. A dish made from tithe vegetables is not subject to removal since cooked vegetables are not the same as raw ones, according to the House of Hillel.


###### Jerusalem Talmud Maaser Sheni 5:3:11
[Jerusalem Talmud Maaser Sheni 5:3:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Maaser%20Sheni/r/5:3:11)

מַה טַעֲמָא דְּבֵית שַׁמַּי. וְצַרְתָּ הַכֶּסֶף בִּלְבַד בְּיָדְךָ. מַה טַעֲמָא דְּבֵית הִלֵּל. אֲפִילוּ מְחַלְּלוֹ מַהוּ מוֹעִיל.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
¹¹⁷ What is the reason of the House of Shammai? (*Deut*. 14:25): “Bundle” only “the money in your hand.¹⁰⁹. 14:25 requires that any tithe produce which cannot be eaten in purity in the holy precinct has to be exchanged for money. Since that money cannot be used it must be destroyed or safely buried. The House of Hillel, the authors of Mishnah 1:5, hold that either the coins must be destroyed or the produce left to rot.” What is the reason of the House of Hillel? Even if he exchanges, what good does it do¹¹⁸?

footnotes:
¹¹⁷ This is the discussion of Mishnah 7.
¹⁰⁹ Of Second Tithe. Since there is no Temple, the tithe cannot be eaten in Jerusalem. The House of Shammai hold that Deut
¹¹⁸ Since the following injunction of the verse, to bring the money to the Holy Precinct, cannot be fulfilled, the entire verse becomes inapplicable.


###### Jerusalem Talmud Maaser Sheni 5:4:1
[Jerusalem Talmud Maaser Sheni 5:4:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Maaser%20Sheni/r/5:4:1)

**משנה:** אָמַר רִבִּי יְהוּדָה בָּרִאשׁוֹנָה הָיוּ שׁוֹלְחִין אֵצֶל בַּעֲלֵי בָתִּים שֶׁבַּמְדִינוֹת מַהֲרוּ פֵּירוֹתֵיהֶם עַד שֶׁלֹּא תַגִּיעַ שְׁעַת הַבִּיעוּר עַד שֶׁבָּא רִבִּי עֲקִיבָה וְלִימֵּד שֶׁכָּל הַפֵּירוֹת שֶׁלֹּא בָאוּ לְעוֹנַת הַמַּעְשְׂרוֹת פְּטוּרִין מִן הַבִּיעוּר. מִי שֶׁהָיוּ פֵירוֹתָיו רְחוֹקִים מִמֶּנּוּ צָרִיךְ לִקְרוֹת לָהֶן שֵׁם. מַעֲשֶׂה בְּרַבָּן גַּמְלִיאֵל וְהַזְּקֵנִים שֶׁהָיוּ בָאִין בִּסְפִינָה אָמַר רַבָּן גַּמְלִיאֵל עִישּׂוּר שֶׁאֲנִי עָתִיד לָמוּד נָתוּן לִיהוֹשֻׁעַ וּמְקוֹמוֹ מוּשְׂכָּר לוֹ. עִישּׂוּר אַחֵר שֶׁאֲנִי עָתִיד לָמוּד נָתוּן לַעֲקִיבָה שֶׁיִּזְכֶּה בוֹ לָעֲנִיִים וּמְקוֹמוֹ מוּשְׂכָּר לוֹ. אָמַר רִבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ עִישּׂוּר שֶׁאֲנִי עָתִיד לָמוּד נָתוּן לְאֶלְעָזָר בֶּן עֲזַרְיָה וּמְקוֹמוֹ מוּשְׂכָּר לוֹ. וְנִתְקַבְּלוּ זֶה מִזֶּה שָׂכָר.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
**MISHNAH:** Rebbi Jehudah said, in earlier times they sent to the rural farmers, speed up your produce before the time of removal, until Rebbi Aqiba came and taught that any produce which did not reach the time of tithing is exempt from removal¹¹⁰. 26:13–15). The fact that R. Aqiba had to rule on the matter supports Maimonides (*Ma‘aser Šeni* 7:4) that the declaration should be made even if there is no Temple..
If somebody’s produce was far from him¹¹¹, he has to give it a name. It happened that Rabban Gamliel was on a ship with the elders when Rabban Gamliel said, a tenth which I shall measure in the future is given to Joshua and its place is rented to him¹¹² 26b/27a, *Baba Meẓi‘ai* 11a, and Rashi’s commentary there.; another tenth which I shall measure in the future is given to Aqiba¹¹³; he should distribute it to the poor, and its place is rented to him. Rebbi Joshua said, a tenth¹¹⁴ which I shall measure in the future is given to Eleazar ben Azariah and its place is rented to him. They paid the rent to each other¹¹⁵.

footnotes:
¹¹⁰ If it is exempt from removal, the fact that the farmer has untithed produce does not prevent him from reading the declaration of tithes (Deut
¹¹¹ At the time of removal he has to tithe and transfer ownership of his tithes in order to be able to make the declaration.
¹¹² Real estate can be rented in the way it is acquired, by contract, payment, or taking actual possession. If real estate is acquired, movables on it can be acquired with it. Therefore, the future tithe is acquired by payment of the rent. Cf. Babli Qiddušin
¹¹³ He was overseer of charities and as such could receive the tithe of the poor due at the time of removal.
¹¹⁴ The heave of the tithe given by the Levite to the Cohen.
¹¹⁵ R. Eleazar ben Azariah to R. Joshua, RR. Joshua and Aqiba to Rabban Gamliel.


###### Jerusalem Talmud Maaser Sheni 5:4:2
[Jerusalem Talmud Maaser Sheni 5:4:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Maaser%20Sheni/r/5:4:2)

**הלכה:** וְלֹא טֵבֵל הוּא. רִבִּי הִילָא בְשֵׁם שְׁמוּאֵל זֹאת אוֹמֶרֶת שֶׁהַטֵּבֵל קָרוּי קוֹדֶשׁ.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
**HALAKHAH:** ¹¹⁹ Is it not *ṭevel*? Rebbi Hila in the name of Samuel: This implies that *ṭevel* is called holy¹²⁰ must be brought in order but he counsels not to bring new produce to the state of *ṭevel*..

footnotes:
¹¹⁹ This is the discussion of Mishnah 8. Since the declaration reads: “I removed the holy produce from the house”, meaning heave and tithes as well as fourth-year growth, why should untithed produce be subject to removal and hinder the declaration?
¹²⁰ R. Aqiba agrees that ṭevel


###### Jerusalem Talmud Maaser Sheni 5:4:3
[Jerusalem Talmud Maaser Sheni 5:4:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Maaser%20Sheni/r/5:4:3)

אָמַר רִבִּי יוּדָה מַעֲשֶׂה בְּרַבָּן גַּמְלִיאֶל וְהַזְּקֵנִים שֶׁהָיוּ יוֹשְׁבִין עַל מַעֲלוֹת הָאוּלָם בְּהַר הַבָּיִת. וְהָיָה יוֹחָנָן הַכֹּהֵן הַסּוֹפֵר הַלָּז יוֹשֵׁב לִפְנֵיהֶן. אָמְרוּ לוֹ צֵא וּכְתוֹב.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
¹²¹ 1:2 (fol. 18d), Tosephta *Sanhedrin* 2:6, Babli *Sanhedrin* 11b. The best text is preserved (although in Hebrew) from *Midrash Tannaïm* in *Midrash Haggadol Deut*. (² ed. S. Fisch, Jerusalem 1975), pp. 597–598. There is an Introduction, a discussion between R. Neḥonia bar Haqanah and R. Joshua, whether the expression “I removed the holy produce from the house” implies that potentially titheable produce outside the house does not preclude the recitation of the declaration. R. Joshua replies that he never heard anything about it but he remembered Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel (I, later the president of the revolutionary government in the first war against the Romans) and Rabban Joḥanan ben Zakkai writing the letters in which they required tithing of unfinished produce, in accordance with R. Jehudah’s description of the earlier practice. Rebbi Jehudah said, it happened that Rabban Gamliel¹²². Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel I (ben Simeon ben Hillel). and the elders were sitting on the steps of the Hall on the Temple Mount and Joḥanan, the Cohen, their scribe, was sitting before them. They said to him, go and write:

footnotes:
¹²¹ The text of the letters is also in Sanhedrin
¹²² While this is the text in both Talmudim and the Tosephta, and the Babli explicitly identifies this Rabban Gamliel with the head of the Synhedrion at Jabneh, for historical reasons the only acceptable reading is that of Midrash Tannaïm


###### Jerusalem Talmud Maaser Sheni 5:4:4
[Jerusalem Talmud Maaser Sheni 5:4:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Maaser%20Sheni/r/5:4:4)

אַחֵינוּ בְּנֵי גָלִילָא עִילָּאָה בְּנֵי גָלִילָא אַרְעִיתָא שְׁלָמְכוֹן יִסְגֵּא. מוֹדַעְנָא לְכוֹן דְּמָטָא זְמַן בִּיעוּרָא תַּפְקוּן מַעְשְׂרַיָּא מִן מַעֲטָנֵי זֵיתָא. לְאַחָנָא בְּנֵי דְרוֹמָא עִילָּאָה וּבְנֵי דְרוֹמָא אַרְעִיתָא מוֹדַעְנָא לְכוֹן דְּמָטָא זְמַן בִּיעוּרָא תַּפְקוּן מַעְשְׂרַיָּא מֵעֳמְרֵי שִׁיבֳּלַיָּא. לְאַחָנָא בְּנֵי גָלוּתָא דְבָבֶל וּבְנֵי גָלוּתָא דְמָדַי וּבְנֵי גָלוּתָא דְיָוָון וּשְׁאָר כָּל גַּלְוָותְהוֹן דְּיִשְׂרָאֵל שְׁלָמְכוֹן יִסְגֵּא. מוֹדַע אֲנָא לְכוֹן דְּאִימְרַיָּא רְכִיכִין וְגוֹזָלַיָיא דְּקִיקִין וּשְׁפַר בְאַנְפַּיי וּבְאַנְפֵּי חֲבֵרַיי מוֹסְפָא עַל שַׁתָּא זֶה תַּלְתִּין יוֹמִין.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
To our brothers of Upper and Lower Galilee, may you have much peace. We inform you that the time of removal is approaching; take out tithes from the ripening vats¹²³ of olives. To our brothers of Upper and Lower South country, we inform you that the time of removal is approaching; take out tithes from the sheaves of grain¹²⁴, Rabban Simeon writes as excuse that he has to write because it is an old established practice.. To our brothers of the diasporas of Babylonia, Media, Greece, and all other diasporas of Israel, may you have much peace. I am informing you that the lambs are young and the young pigeons small¹²⁵ since its subject is not tithes., so it is good in my eyes and the eyes of my colleagues to add thirty days to this year.

footnotes:
¹²³ A vat in which olives were stored before pressing and where they softened. On the basis of Arabic عطن one might translate “soaking vat”.
¹²⁴ Neither unthreshed grain nor unpressed oil olives are subject to heave and tithes in normal years. In Midrash Tannaïm
¹²⁵ In the parallel sources, “it does not look like spring”. This letter is not in Midrash Haggadol


###### Jerusalem Talmud Maaser Sheni 5:4:5
[Jerusalem Talmud Maaser Sheni 5:4:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Maaser%20Sheni/r/5:4:5)

הָדָא אָמְרָה שֶׁאֵין נוֹתְנִין מַעֲשֵׂר לִכְהוּנָה. שַׁנְיָיא הִיא שֶׁהָיָה רִבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בֶּן חֲנַנְיָה תַּמָּן. אָמַר רִבִּי חֲנַנְיָה הָדָא אָמְרָה שֶׁהָיָה רַבָּן גַּמְלִיאֵל צָרִיךְ לְזַכּוֹת. אָמַר רִבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בְּפֵירוֹת מְחוּבָּרִין לְקַרְקַע. אִילּוּ קוּפָּתוֹ שֶׁלְּרַבָּן גַּמְלִיאֵל נְתוּנָה לְתוֹךְ בֵּיתוֹ שֶׁלְּרִבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ וְאוֹמֵר יִזְכֶּה לְמַעֲשֵׂר שֶׁבָּהּ כְּלוּם עָשָׂה עַד שֶׁיְּסַיֵים.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
¹²⁶ That means that one does not give tithe to Cohanim. There is a difference, since Rebbi Joshua ben Ḥananiah was there¹²⁷. Rebbi Ḥananiah said, it means that Rabban Gamliel had to transfer¹²⁸. Rebbi Joshua¹²⁹ said, for produce standing on the ground¹³⁰. Even if Rabban Gamliel’s box were standing in Rebbi Joshua’s house and he would say, he should acquire its tithe, would he have done anything if he did not label it¹³¹?

footnotes:
¹²⁶ Here starts the discussion of Mishnah 9. Why did Rabban Gamliel choose the complicated way of giving to the Levite, could he not have given everything to the Cohen who would not have had to rent space for his heave of the tithe?
¹²⁷ A poor Levite is preferable to a very rich Cohen under any circumstances.
¹²⁸ The Mishnah requires only “to give a name”. But Rabban Gamliel actually transferred property rights.
¹²⁹ An Amora whose identity cannot be determined. The editors of the Leyden ms. suggest to read צריך לזכות את רבי יהושע בפירות “he has to transfer the produce to R. Joshua (ben Ḥanania).”
¹³⁰ It was not yet in orderly heaps.
¹³¹ Goods in a vessel of the giver (or seller) in the house of the recipient (or buyer) cannot be acquired by proxy unless their place is exactly described. If Rabban Gamliel’s grain had been in orderly heaps, he could have said the Northernmost 10% are First Tithe, the Southernmost 10% tithe of the poor. But in the situation he was in, he could only rent out ground for future use. This remark leads to the consideration of right of acquisition.


###### Jerusalem Talmud Maaser Sheni 5:4:6
[Jerusalem Talmud Maaser Sheni 5:4:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Maaser%20Sheni/r/5:4:6)

רִבִּי רְדִיפָה אָמַר אִיתְפַּלְּגוּן רִבִּי יִרְמְיָה וְרִבִּי יוֹסֵי. חַד אָמַר הָרָאוּי לִיטּוֹל זָכָה. וְחָרָנָה אָמַר הָרָאוּי לִיתֵּן זָכָה. מָאן דְּאָמַר הָרָאוּי לִיטּוֹל זָכָה כָּל שֶׁכֵּן רָאוּי לִיתֵּן. וּמָן דְּאָמַר הָרָאוּי לִיתֵּן הָא לִיטּוֹל לֹא.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
¹³² 4:6 and explained there, Notes 113–125. The question is about the power of a person to acquire property for a third party. Rebbi Redifa said, Rebbi Jeremiah and Rebbi Yose disagree. One says, he who may take may acquire; the other says, he who may give may acquire. He who says “he who may take” certainly includes him who may give. He who says “he who may give,” excludes him who may take.

footnotes:
¹³² The text from here to the end of the Halakhah is also in Peah


###### Jerusalem Talmud Maaser Sheni 5:4:7
[Jerusalem Talmud Maaser Sheni 5:4:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Maaser%20Sheni/r/5:4:7)

הָא מַתְנִיתָא פְלִיגָא עַל מָאן דְּאָמַר הָרָאוּי לִיטּוֹל זָכָה. וְתַמָּן תַּנִּינָן הָאוֹמֵר תֵּן גֶּט זֶה לְאִשְׁתִּי שֶׁכֵּן רָאוּי הוּא לְקַבֵּל גֶּט בִּתּוֹ. וּשְׁטָר שִׁחְרוּר זֶה לְעַבְדִּי שֶׁכֵּן הוּא רָאוּי לְקַבֵּל שְׁטָר שִׁחְרוּרוֹ. וְתַנִּינָן הִתְקַבֵּל גֶּט זֶה לְאִשְׁתִּי אוֹ הוֹלִךְ גֶּט זֶה לְאִשְׁתִּי אִם רָצָה לְהַחֲזִיר יַחֲזִיר. וְהָעֶבֶד רָאוּי לְהוֹלִיךְ אֶת הַגֶּט. פָּתַר לִצְדָדִין הִיא מַתְנִיתָא.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
The following Mishnah disagrees with him who says that he who may take may acquire, since we have stated: “Give this divorce document to my wife,” because he may receive the divorce document of his minor daughter. “And the document of manumission to my slave,” since he may receive his own document of manumission. But did we not state: “Receive this divorce document for my wife or bring this divorce document to my wife; if he wants to change his mind … he may do so.” Is a slave empowered to bring a divorce document? Explain it by different cases contained in the Mishnah.


###### Jerusalem Talmud Maaser Sheni 5:4:8
[Jerusalem Talmud Maaser Sheni 5:4:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Maaser%20Sheni/r/5:4:8)

מַתְנִיתָא פְלִיגָא עַל מָאן דְּאָמַר הָרָאוּי לִיתֵּן זָכָה. דְּתַנִּינָן תַּמָּן עִישּׂוּר אֶחָד שֶׁאֲנִי עָתִיד לִמוֹד נָתוּן לַעֲקִיבָה בֶּן יוֹסֵף כְּדֵי שֶׁיִּזְכֶּה בוֹ לָעֲנִיִים וּמוּשְׂכָּר לֹו מְקוֹמוֹ. וְרִבִּי עֲקִיבָה רָאוּי הוּא לִיטּוֹל. פָּתַר לָהּ עַד שֶׁלֹּא הֶעֱשִׁיר. וַאֲפִילוּ תֵימַר מִשֶּׁהֶעֱשִׁיר תִּיפְתָּר שֶׁהָיָה פַּרְנָס וְיַד הַפַּרְנָס כְּיַד הֶעָנִי.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
A Mishnah disagrees with him who says that he who may take may acquire, since we have stated there: “One tithe that I will measure in the future is given to Aqiba ben Joseph that he should let the poor acquire it, and its place is rented to him.” But is Rebbi Aqiba entitled to take? Explain it, before he got rich. And even if you say, after he became rich, when he was an administrator, and the hand of the administrator is equal to the hand of the poor.


###### Jerusalem Talmud Maaser Sheni 5:4:9
[Jerusalem Talmud Maaser Sheni 5:4:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Maaser%20Sheni/r/5:4:9)

מִילְתֵיהּ דְּרִבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בֶּן לֵוִי אָמְרָה הָרָאוּי לִיטּוֹל זָכָה. דְּרִבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בֶּן לֵוִי אָמַר בְּבַעַל הַבַּיִת עָשִׁיר נֶחְלְקוּ. אֲבָל בְּבַעַל הַבַּיִת עָנִי מֵאַחַר שֶׁהוּא רָאוּי לִיטוֹל זָכָה.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
The word of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi is that he who may take may acquire, since Rebbi Joshua ben Levi said: They disagree about a rich owner. But in the case of a poor owner, since he has the right to take it, the other person acquired it.


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

**משנה:** בְּמִנְחָה בְּיוֹם טוֹב הָיוּ מִתְוַדִּין כֵּיצַד הָיָה הַוִידּוּי בִּיעַרְתִּי הַקּוֹדֶשׁ מִן הַבָּיִת זֶה מַעֲשֵׂר שֵׁינִי וְנֶטַע רְבָעִי. וּנְתַתִּיו לַלֵּוִי זֶה מַעֲשֵׂר לֵוִי. וְגַם נְתַתִּיו זֶה תְרוּמָה וּתְרוּמַת מַעֲשֵׂר. לַגֵּר לַיָּתוֹם וְלָאַלְמָנָה זֶה מַעֲשֵׂר עָנִי. הַלֶּקְט הַוִוידּוּי. מִן הַבָּיִת זֶה הַשִּׁכְחָה וְהַפֵּיאָה אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁאִינָן מְעַכְּבִין אֶת הַחַלָּה. כְּכָל מִצְוָתְךָ אֲשֶׁר צִוִּיתָנִי. הָא אִם הִקְדִּים מַעֲשֵׂר שֵׁנִי לָרִאשׁוֹן אֵינוֹ יָכוֹל לְהִתְוַדּוֹת. לֹא עָבִרְתִּי מִמִּצְוֹתֶיךָ. לֹא הִפְרַשְׁתִּי מִמִּין עַל שֶׁאֵינוֹ מִינוֹ לֹא מִן הַתָּלוּשׁ עַל הַמְּחוּבָּר וְלֹא מִן הַמְּחוּבָּר עַל הַתָּלוּשׁ לֹא מִן הֶחָדָשׁ עַל הַיָּשָׁן וְלֹא מִן הַיָּשָׁן עַל הֶחָדָשׁ. וְלֹא שָׁכַחְתִּי מִלְּבָרֵכְךָ וּמִלְּהַזְכִּיר שִׁמְךָ עָלָיו. לֹא אָכַלְתִּי בְּאוֹנִי מִמֶּנּוּ הָא אִם אֲכָלוֹ בָאֳנִינָה אֵינוֹ יָכוֹל לְהִתְוַדּוֹת. וְלֹא בִיעַרְתִּי מִמֶּנּוּ בְּטָמֵא הָא אִם הִפְרִישׁוֹ בְטוּמְאָה אֵינוֹ יָכוֹל לְהִתְוַדּוֹת. וְלֹא נָתַתִּי מִמֶּנּוּ לְמֵת. לֹא לָקַחְתִּי מִמֶּנּוּ אָרוֹן וְתַכְרִיכִין לְמֵת. וְלֹא נְתַתִּים לְאוֹנְנִים אֲחֵרִים. שָׁמַעְתִּי בְּקוֹל יי אֱלֹהָי הֵבֵאתִיו לְבֵית הַבְּחִירָה. עָשִׂיתִי כְּכֹל אֲשֶׁר צִוִּיתָנִי. שָׂמַחְתִּי וְשִׂימַּחְתִּי בוֹ. הַשְׁקִיפָה מִמְּעוֹן קָדְשְׁךָ מִן הַשָּׁמַיִם. עָשִׂינוּ מָה שֶׁגָּזַרְתָּ עָלֵינוּ אַף אַתְּ עֲשֵׂה מָה שֶׁהִבְטַחְתָּנוּ. הַשְׁקִיפָה מִמְּעוֹן קָדְשְׁךָ מִן הַשָּׁמַיִם וּבָרֵךְ אֶת עַמְּךָ אֶת יִשְׂרָאֵל בְּבָנִים וּבְבָנוֹת. וְאֵת הָאֲדָמָה אֲשֶׁר נָתַתָּ לָנוּ בְּטַל וּבְרוּחוֹת וּבְמָטָר וּבְוַולְדוֹת בְּהֵמָה. אֲשֶׁר נִשְׁבַּעְתָּ לַעֲבוֹתֵינוּ אֶרֶץ זָבַת חָלָב וּדְבָשׁ כְּדֵי שֶׁיֻּתַּן טַעַם בַּפֵּירוֹת. מִיכָּן אָמְרוּ שֶׁיִּשְׂרָאֵל וּמַמְזֵרִים מִתְוַודִּים אֲבָל לֹא גֵרִים וְלֹא עֲבָדִים מְשׁוּחְרָרִים שֶׁאֵין לָהֶן חֶלֶק בָּאָרֶץ. רִבִּי מֵאִיר אוֹמֵר אַף לֹא כֹהֲנִים וּלְוִיִּם שֶׁלֹּא נָטְלוּ חֶלֶק בָּאָרֶץ. רִבִּי יוֹסֵי אוֹמֵר יֵשׁ לָהֶן עָרֵי מִגְרָשׁ. יוֹחָנָן כֹּהֵן גָּדוֹל הֶֶעֱבִיר הוֹדָיַית מַעֲשֵׂר. אַף הוּא בִּיטֵּל אֶת הַמְּעוֹרְרִים וְאֶת הַנּוֹקְפִים עַד יָמָיו הָיָה פַּטִּישׁ מַכֶּה בִירוּשָׁלֵם וּבְיָמָיו אֵין אָדָם צָרִיךְ לִשְׁאוֹל עַל הַדְּמַאי.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
**MISHNAH:** In the afternoon of the holiday¹³³ they made the declaration. How was the declaration? (*Deut*. 26:13) “I removed the holy produce from the house,” is Second Tithe and fourth-year growth. “I gave it to the Levite,” is the Levite’s tithe. “Also I gave it,” includes heave and heave of the tithe. “To the sojourner, the orphan, and the widow,” is the tithe of the poor. “From the house,” is *ḥallah.* “Following Your entire Commandment which You commanded me;” therefore, if he gave Second Tithe before the First he cannot make the declaration. “I did not transgress Your Commandments,” I did not give from one kind for another, not from the harvested on the standing or from the standing on the harvested, not from new for old or from old for new. “And I did not forget,” to praise and mention Your Name over it.
(*Deut*. 26:14) “I did not eat from it in my deep mourning;” therefore if he ate from it in deep mourning¹³⁴ Chapter 1, Note 70. he cannot make the declaration. “I did not remove any of it in impurity;” therefore if he separtated it in impurity he cannot make the declaration. “I did not give from it to the dead,” I did not buy from it a casket or shrouds for a dead person nor did I give it to other deep mourners. “I listened to the voice of the Eternal, my God,” I brought it to the Selected House¹³⁵. “I did all You commanded me,” I enjoyed and gave joy to others with it¹³⁶. 16:14) “enjoy your holiday” with festive meals..
(*Deut*. 26:15) “Look down from Your Holy Abode, from Heaven,” we did what You decided¹⁴⁹ 1:2, Note 89. for us, You also do what You promised us: “Look down from Your Holy Abode, from Heaven, and bless Your people Israel” with sons and daughters, “and the land You gave us,” with dew, winds, rain and young of the domestic animals, “that You had sworn to our forefathers, a Land flowing with milk and honey” to give taste to the fruits¹⁵⁰. 28:4..
Because of this¹⁶⁸, they said that Israel persons and *Mamzerim*¹⁶⁹. 23:3). Since the disability is hereditary, R. Ṭarphon in Mishnah *Qiddušin* 3:14 counsels male bastards to live with a non-manumitted slave girl and at the birth of a child (which is his biologically but not legally) manumit the child which by this act automatically becomes a full Jew free of his father’s disability. Today he would have to marry a non-Jewish woman and convert the child at birth. may make the declaration but not proselytes and freed slaves who have no part in the Land. Rebbi Meïr says, also excluding Cohanim or Levites who did not receive any part of the Land. Rebbi Yose says, they have their cities with surroundings¹⁷⁰. ¹⁷¹ 9:10. The historical identity of this High Priest cannot be determined. {Cf. Eliahu Katz, “Who was Joḥanan the High Priest?” *Šanah bešanah* 1979, pp. 368–373 (Hebrew).} In the Babli (*Yoma*9a) it is reported that he acted as High Priest for 80 years; an assertion of doubtful accuracy like most historical stories in the Babli. According to a possible interpretation of Tosephta *Soṭah* 13:6, he was the Hasmonean Joḥanan Hyrkanos; cf. Notes 188,189. The High Priest Joḥanan disestablished the declaration of tithes. He also eliminated the arousers and the hitters¹⁷². Up to his days the hammer was hitting in Jerusalem¹⁷³ 11b and *Soṭah* 48a and Tosephta *Soṭah* 13:10. On the intermediate days of the holiday week urgent work may be done. But since metal work is very noisy, and Jerusalem was full of holiday pilgrims at these times, he decreed that, in Jerusalem only, noisy work should not be performed. and in his days nobody had to ask about *demay*.

footnotes:
¹³³ This is the text in the Mishnah mss. of the Yerushalmi and Maimonides traditions, unspecified between first and last days of Passover. However, the Halakhah seems to presume a reading of “last day”.
¹³⁴ Cf. Demay
¹³⁵ A standard name for the Temple.
¹³⁶ Fulfilling part of the commandment (Deut
¹⁴⁹ This use of גזר is in the sense of Biblical Hebrew “to cut” in the meaning of גזר דין = פסק דין “(judicial) decision”; not the rabbinical גדר = גור; cf. Demay
¹⁵⁰ The verse is the continuation of the declaration. The commentary is a paraphrase of Deut
¹⁶⁸ The statement “the land You gave us” in the declaration.
¹⁶⁹ Children born from adultery or incest who are forbidden to marry regular Israelites (Deut
¹⁷⁰ This was discussed in the preceding paragraph.
¹⁷¹ From here it is also Mishnah Soṭah
¹⁷² This will be discussed in the Halakhah.
¹⁷³ This is explained only in the Babli, Makkot


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

**הלכה:** וְיִתְוַדֶּה בְּיוֹם טוֹב הָרִאשׁוֹן שֶׁלְפֶּסַח. כְּדֵי שֶׁיְּהֶא לוֹ מַה לוֹכַל בְּרֶגֶל. וְיִתְוַדֶּה בְּשַׁחֲרִית. עַד כָּאן מְצֻוֶּה הוּא לוֹכַל.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
**HALAKHAH:** Could he not make the declaration on the first day of Passover? So he should have something to eat for the holiday¹³⁷. Could he not make the declaration in the morning? While he is commanded to eat.

footnotes:
¹³⁷ Since the declaration can only be recited if no Second Tithe, tithe money, and fourth-year growth are left, if he would make the declaration early he could not eat of his fruits or buy well-being sacrifices during the holiday.


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

תַּנֵּי וְהַבִּיכּוּרִים. מָאן תַּנָּא בִּיכּוּרִין רַבָּנִין. מָאן לֹא תַנָּא בִּיכּוּרִין רִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן. דְּתַנִּינָן וְחַיָיבִין בְּבִיעוּר וְרִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן פּוֹטֵר.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
It was stated¹³⁸: “And First Fruits.” Who stated “First Fruits”? The rabbis. Who did not state “First Fruits”? Rebbi Simeon. As we have stated¹³⁹2:2.: “They are subject to removal but Rebbi Simeon frees them.”

footnotes:
¹³⁸ In the list of holy offerings that were removed before the declaration (Mishnah 10).
¹³⁹ Mishnah Bikkurim


###### Jerusalem Talmud Maaser Sheni 5:5:4
[Jerusalem Talmud Maaser Sheni 5:5:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Maaser%20Sheni/r/5:5:4)

נְתַתִּיו לַלֵּוִי מִיכָּן שֶׁאֵין נוֹתְנִין מַעֲשֵׂר לִכְהוּנָה.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
“I gave it to the Levite,” from here that one does not give tithe to Cohanim¹⁴⁰.

footnotes:
¹⁴⁰ This is the final word of the Yerushalmi in this matter.


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

אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹנָה זֹאת אוֹמֶרֶת נִשְׂרַף טִיבְלוֹ אֵינוֹ יָכוֹל לְהִתְוַדּוֹת. אִית תַּנָּיֵי תַנִּי כָּל הַמִּצְוֹות שֶׁבַּתּוֹרָה מְעַכְּבוֹת. אִית תַּנָּיֵי תַנִּי כָּל הַמִּצְוֹת שֶׁבַּפָּרָשָׁה מְעַכְּבוֹת. רִבִּי אָחָא בַּר פַּפָּא בְעָא קוֹמֵי רִבִּי זְעִירָא אֲפִילוּ הִקְדִּים תְּפִילָּה שֶׁלָּרֹאשׁ לִתְפִילָה שֶׁלְיָד אָמַר לֵיהּ אוּף אֲנָא סָבַר כֵּן.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
Rebbi Jonah said, this means that if his *ṭevel* was burned he cannot make the declaration¹⁴¹, he is required to give heave and tithes. If the produce was burned before he gave, he cannot fulfill the condition “I gave it to the Levite” and is disqualified. If his produce was burned before it became obligated, he never was under an obligation and may make the declaration for his other produce.. Some Tannaïm say, all commandments in the Torah prevent him¹⁴²; some Tannaïm say, all commandments in the paragraph prevent him. Rebbi Aḥa bar Pappos¹⁴³ asked before Rebbi Zeïra, even if he put on head phylacteries before phylacteries on his arm¹⁴⁴. 13:9, 16; *Deut*. 6:8, 11:18). In each of these verses, hand is mentioned before head. It is inferred that putting them on the hand must precede putting them on the head.? He said to him, that is also what I am thinking.

footnotes:
¹⁴¹ If he had ṭevel
¹⁴² A literal interpretation of the text “I did not transgress Your Commandments.”
¹⁴³ A Babylonian, student of Rav Huna, known in Babylonia as “the long Rav Aḥa”, who immigrated into Galilee in the times of R. Immi and R. Abbahu.
¹⁴⁴ This is the proverbial description of a minor infraction, disregarding a positive commandment which is inferred from the structure of the text. The commandment to carry the words of the Torah on one’s hands and head is spelled out four times (Ex


###### Jerusalem Talmud Maaser Sheni 5:5:6
[Jerusalem Talmud Maaser Sheni 5:5:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Maaser%20Sheni/r/5:5:6)

אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹסֵי בֵּירִבִּי בּוּן צָרִיךְ לוֹמַר חַלָּה עַל כֹּל תְּרוּמָה עַל הַכֹּל. לַיי זֶה שֵׁם הַמְּיוּחָד. מְנַיִין לֹא עָשָׂה כְּלוּם עַד שֶׁיְּשַׁיֵיר מִקְצָת. תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר מֵרֵאשִׁית וְלֹא כַָל רֵאשִׁית.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, he must say “*ḥallah* for all,” “heave for all.”¹⁴⁵. It is inserted here as another example of rules to be followed to be able to make the declaration. It was established in the first Chapter of *Terumot* that heave may be given only from produce whose location is exactly pinpointed. Therefore, in taking heave one must declare all produce that should be freed by this heave. *Ḥallah* is called “heave” in *Num*. 15:19–20; it has to follow the rules of heave. “To YHWH,” that is the particular Name¹⁴⁶(*Num*. 15:19): “Lift a heave to YHWH.” About heave, it is written (*Num*. 18:12): “Their first gifts which they will give to YHWH”. It is inferred that in separating heave of *ḥallah*, God may not be addressed as Elohim (which in absence of a definite article or other identifyer only means “extraordinary power”), but only as YHWH (in its substitute pronunciation) which is His particular Name.. From where that he did not do anything until he left some [as profane]? The verse says (*Num*. 15:21): “Of the beginning” and not all the beginning¹⁴⁷1:9: He who says, everything on my threshing floor shall be heave, all my dough shall be *ḥallah*, did not say anything unless he leaves a [profane] remainder.”.

footnotes:
¹⁴⁵ The main place of this paragraph is at the end of the first Chapter of Ḥallah
¹⁴⁶ It is written about ḥallah
¹⁴⁷ This refers to Mishnah Ḥallah


###### Jerusalem Talmud Maaser Sheni 5:5:7
[Jerusalem Talmud Maaser Sheni 5:5:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Maaser%20Sheni/r/5:5:7)

מְנַיִין שֶׁהוּא עוֹבֵר בַּעֲשֵׂה. רִבִּי לָעְזָר בְּשֵׁם רִבִּי סִימַיי לֹא נָתַתִּי מִמֶּנּוּ לְמֵת. מַה נָן קַיָימִין אִם לְהָבִיא לוֹ אָרוֹן וְתַכְרִיכִין דָּבָר שֶׁהוּא אָסוּר לַחַי לַחַי הוּא אָסוּר לֹא כָּל שֶׁכֵּן לַמֵּת. אֶלָּא אֵי זֶהוּ דָבָר שֶׁהוּא מוּתָּר לַחַי וְאָסוּר לַמֵּת הֲוֵי אוֹמֵר זוֹ סִיכָה.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
¹⁴⁸ From where that he would transgress a positive commandment? Rebbi Eleazar in the name of Rebbi Simai (*Deut*. 26:14): “Nor did I give from it to the dead.” Where do we hold? If it were to bring a casket and shrouds for him, that were also forbidden for a living person! If something is forbidden for the living, not so much more for the dead? What is something which is permitted for the living but prohibited for the dead? That is anointing!

footnotes:
¹⁴⁸ This is from Chapter 2, Notes 34–35 and refers to the prohibition to use any tithe or tithe money for funeral rites.


###### Jerusalem Talmud Maaser Sheni 5:5:8
[Jerusalem Talmud Maaser Sheni 5:5:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Maaser%20Sheni/r/5:5:8)

רִבִּי הוּנָא בַּר אָחָא בְשֵׁם רִבִּי אֲלֶכְסַנְדְּרָא בּוֹא וּרְאֵה כַּמָּה גָדוֹל כּוֹחָן שֶׁלְּעוֹשֵׂי מִצְוֹת שֶׁכָּל הַשְׁקָפָה שֶׁבַּתּוֹרָה אֲרוּרָה וְזֶה בִלְשׁוֹן בְּרָכָה. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹסֵי בֶּן חֲנִינָא וְלֹא עוֹד אֶלָּא שֶׁכָּתוּב בָּהּ הַיּוֹם הַזֶּה. תְּנָיֵי יוֹמָא.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
Rebbi Huna bar Aḥa¹⁵¹ in the name of Rebbi Alexandros: Come and see the power of those who keep the Commandments because all “lookings down” in the Torah¹⁵². 18:16, 19:28 (Sodom), 26:8 (Abimelekh and Rebekka), *Ex*. 14:24 (Egyptians on the Sea). This refers only to *hiph‘il* of שקף. are curses but this one is in the language of blessing. Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina said, not only that but it is written¹⁵³ (*Deut*. 26:16) “this day,” the condition of every day.

footnotes:
¹⁵¹ He is not otherwise known.
¹⁵² Gen
¹⁵³ Starting words of the next paragraph guaranteeing instant response.


###### Jerusalem Talmud Maaser Sheni 5:5:9
[Jerusalem Talmud Maaser Sheni 5:5:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Maaser%20Sheni/r/5:5:9)

רִבִּי יוֹדָה בַּר פָּזִי פָּתַח בָּהּ אָבוֹא בִּגְבוּרוֹת יי אֱלֹהִים. כְּתִיב אֵלֶּה שְׁנֵי בְּנֵי הַיִּצְהָר הָעוֹמְדִים עַל אָדוֹן כָּל הָאָרֶץ. רִבִּי אַבָּהוּ אָמַר אִתְפַּלְּגוּן רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן וְרִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן לָקִישׁ. חַד אָמַר אֵילּוּ שֶׁהֵן בָּאִין בְּטִרוֹנִיָּא לִפְנֵי הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא. וְחָרָנָה אָמַר אֵילּוּ שֶׁהֵן בָּאִין מִכֹּחַ הַמִּצְוֹת וּמַעֲשִׂים טוֹבִים לִפְנֵי הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
Rebbi Judah bar Pazi started¹⁵⁴ with this: (*Ps*. 71:16): “I shall come in strength, Eternal, God.¹⁵⁵” It is written (*Zach*. 4:14): “These are the two oil-sons who stand over the Lord of all the earth.” Rebbi Abbahu said, Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish disagree. One says, these are the ones who come in novitiate¹⁵⁶ “novice, recruit” to mean “come without accumulated merit before the Eternal. {The commentaries and dictionaries all derive the word from Greek τυραννίς, because of a similar homily in the next paragraph using באין בזרוע “being strong-armed”. But then it should read טוּרוניא and a clear meaning of the sentence can only be obtained by distorting the meaning of the word.} before the Holy One, praised be He. The other one says, these are the ones who come by the power of [kept] commandments and good deeds before the Holy One.

footnotes:
¹⁵⁴ Started a sermon.
¹⁵⁵ While the verse is quite clear: “When I reach old age, o Master, Eternal, I shall remember only Your justice!”, it is taken here out of context to note that it seems to be possible to come in strength before the Eternal.
¹⁵⁶ From Latin tiro, -onis


###### Jerusalem Talmud Maaser Sheni 5:5:10
[Jerusalem Talmud Maaser Sheni 5:5:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Maaser%20Sheni/r/5:5:10)

רַב הֲוָה לֵיהּ כִּיתָן וְלָקַת. שָׁאַל לְרִבִּי חִיָיה רוֹבָא מַהוּ מִיכּוֹס צְפַר וּמִגְבְּלָא אַדְמֵיהּ בִּזְרַע כִּיתָּן. אָמַר לֵיהּ נְבֵילָה. וְלָמָּה לֹא אָמַר לֵיהּ טְרֵיפָה. בְּגִין דְּרִבִּי מֵאִיר. דְּרִבִּי מֵאִיר אָמַר טְרֵיפָה חַיֶיבֶת בְּכִיסּוּי. לא כֵן אָמַר רִבִּי אִמִּי מִשֵּׁם רִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן לָקִישׁ מִשֶּׁעָלוּ מִן הַגּוֹלָה לֹא לָקָת פִּשְׁתָּן וְלֹא הֶחֱמִיץ יַיִן וְנָתְנוּ עֵינֵיהֶן בִּזְכוּת רִבִּי חִיָיה הַגָּדוֹל וּבָנָיו. וְרַב כְּהָדָא שִׁמְעוּ אֵלַי אַבִּירֵי לֵב הָרְחוֹקִים מִצְּדָקָה. רִבִּי אַבָּהוּ אָמַר אִיתפַּלְּגוּן רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן וְרִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן לָקִישׁ. חַד אָמַר שֶׁכָּל בָּאֵי הָעוֹלָם בָּאִין בִּצְדָקָה וְאֵילּוּ בָּאִין בִּזְרוֹעַ. וְחָרָנָה אָמַר שֶׁכָּל טוֹבוֹת וְנֶחָמוֹת הַבָּאוֹת לְעוֹלָם בִּזְכוּתָן וְהֵן אֵין נֶהֱנִין מֵהֶן כְּלוּם. כְּגוֹן מָר זוּטְרָא דְּמַצְלֵי עַל חוֹרָנִין וּמִתְעַנֵּי וְעַל נַפְשֵׁיהּ לֹא מִיתְעַנֵּי.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
Rav had flax which was blighted¹⁵⁷ 85b–86a, the story is told of R. Ḥiyya and Rebbi. There, the decision goes against R. Meïr.. He asked the elder Rebbi Ḥiyya, may one slaughter a bird and mix its blood with flax seed? He said, a cadaver¹⁵⁸. 17:13). It seems that his agricultural practice did not allow using the blood of a non-kosher bird.. Why did he not say to him, a torn one¹⁵⁹ 6:2, the anonymous majority (which in the Babli is identified as R. Simeon and his followers) free the blood from the obligation of covering since the bird is not to be eaten but R. Meïr requires covering.? Because of Rebbi Meïr, for Rebbi Meïr said [the blood of] a torn [bird] must be covered. But did not Rebbi Immi say in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: From the time when they came from the diaspora, flax was never blighted and wine never became vinegar; they considered this to be due to the merit of the Great Rebbi Ḥiyya and his sons¹⁶⁰. But Rav is like (*Is*. 46:12): “Listen to me, mighty of heart, who are far from charity!”¹⁶¹ 17b, the explanation is by either Rav and Samuel or R. Joḥanan and R. Eleazar. Rebbi Abbahu said, Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish disagree. One says, all the world depend on charity but these on strong arms¹⁶². But the other one said that all good things and consolations come to the world in their merit but they themselves do not profit at all¹⁶³. For example Mar Zuṭra¹⁶⁴.) of the Palestinian R. Ḥanina ben Dosa. who prayed and fasted for others but for himself he never fasted.

footnotes:
¹⁵⁷ In the Babli, Ḥulin
¹⁵⁸ He could not use the blood of a regularly slaughtered kosher bird since that has to be covered with earth (Lev
¹⁵⁹ A kosher bird regularly slaughtered but which was found to have a bodily defect which made it forbidden. In Mishnah Ḥulin
¹⁶⁰ How could Rav’s flax be blighted when his uncle’s merit should have shielded it.
¹⁶¹ In the Babli, Berakhot
¹⁶² Since Rav only trusted his own merit, he was not shielded by another’s merit.
¹⁶³ According to the Babli, no flax in all the Land of Israel was blighted in the times of R. Ḥiyya except his own.
¹⁶⁴ He seems to be identical with Mar Zuṭra Ḥasida mentioned in the Babli, whose time cannot be ascertained. What is told here of the Babylonian Mar Zuṭra is told in the Babli (loc. cit


###### Jerusalem Talmud Maaser Sheni 5:5:11
[Jerusalem Talmud Maaser Sheni 5:5:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Maaser%20Sheni/r/5:5:11)

תַּנֵּי לְמַחְלוֹקֶת נִתְּנוּ דִּבְרֵי רִבִּי יְהוּדָה. רִבִּי יוֹסֵי אָמַר לְבֵית דִּירָה נִתְּנוּ. אַתְיָא דְּרִבִּי יוּדָה כְרִבִּי יוֹסֵי וּדְרִבִּי מֵאִיר כְּדַעְתֵּיהּ דְּתַנִּינָן מַעֲלוֹת הָיוּ שָׂכָר לַלְּוִיִּם דִּבְרֵי רִבִּי יוּדָה. רִבִּי יוֹסֵי אוֹמֵר לֹא הָיוּ מַעֲלוֹת לָהֶן שָׂכָר.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
¹⁶⁵ 2:7 (fol. 32a); the statement is alluded to in *Soṭa* 9:2 (fol. 23c). Here, it refers to the disagreement between R. Yose and R. Meïr on the status of Levites and Cohanim, whether they may read the declaration which refers to “the land You gave us.” If the Levitical cities and the cities of refuge were parcelled out to their inhabitants, then they own land given by God. But if the cities were tribal property and the houses given to the inhabitants as living quarters by the tribal council, not as property, then individual Levites and Cohanim never obtained land and cannot read the declaration. It was stated: They were given to be distributed, the words of Rebbi Jehudah. Rebbi Yose said, they were given as dwellings. It turns out that Rebbi Jehudah holds with Rebbi Yose¹⁶⁶ 2:7, the text reads: It turns out that Rebbi Yose holds with Rebbi Jehudah. The reference is to the statement of R. Yose in the next Mishnah, which parallels R. Yehudah’s opinion in *Makkot* 2:7. Mishnah *Makkot* 2:15 (Babli 2:8) reads: “They were paying rent to the Levites, the words of Rebbi Jehudah; Rebbi Meïr says they were not paying rent.” Therefore, the text of the preceding sentence must be: R. Meïr says, they were given as dwellings. and Rebbi Meïr follows his own opinion as we have stated: “They¹⁶⁷ 13a) notes that Rashi is forced to explain this because “city” עיר is feminine. It is assumed here that the explanation is that lodging a criminal in a private home clearly requires payment but if the cities of refuge were given as tribal property subject to a lien that they had to accept all homicides, then no extra rent is due. Rava in the Babli, *Makkot*13a, holds that in a city of refuge no rent can be due; the only question was about the other 42 Levitic cities which might give temporary refuge to the homicide between crime and trial. This cannot be the position of the Yerushalmi. were paying rent to the Levites, the words of Rebbi Jehudah; Rebbi Yose says they were not paying rent.”

footnotes:
¹⁶⁵ The origin of this paragraph is in Makkot
¹⁶⁶ The name tradition is garbled. In Makkot
¹⁶⁷ In all old sources, the verb is in the feminine 3rd person plural. The object of the Mishnah are homicides which by the court in whose jurisdiction the crime was committed were sentenced to exile in a city of refuge. Rashi explains that the question was whether the homicide’s home town has to pay rent in the city of refuge (presumably to be charged to the criminal’s family). R. Jacob Ettlinger (Arukh leNer Makkot


###### Jerusalem Talmud Maaser Sheni 5:5:12
[Jerusalem Talmud Maaser Sheni 5:5:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Maaser%20Sheni/r/5:5:12)

רִבִּי יִרְמְיָה רִבִּי חִיָיה בְשֵׁם רִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן לָקִישׁ מַתְנִיתָא מִשֶׁנֶּחְשְׁדוּ לִהְיוֹת נוֹתְנִין מַעֲשֵׂר לִכְהוּנָה. הָדָא מְסַיְיעָא לְרִבִּי יוֹחָנָן בְּחָדָא וּפְלִיגָא עָלוֹי בְּחָדָא. פְּלִיגָא עָלוֹי דְּתַנִּינָן וְכֵן בַּת כֹּהֵן לְלֵוִי לֹא יֹאכְלוּ בִתְרוּמָה וְלֹא בְמַעֲשֵׂר. נִיחָא בִתְרוּמָה לֹא תֹאכֵל. בְּמַעֲשֵׂר מַה נַפְשָׁךְ כֹּהֶנֶת הִיא תֹאכֵל לְוִיָיה הִיא תֹאכֵל. רִבִּי אִילָא בְשֵׁם רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן כְּמָאן דְּאָמַר אֵין נוֹתְנִין מַעֲשֵׂר לִכְהוּנָה. הֲוָה הוּא אָמַר נוֹתְנִין מַעֲשֵׂר לִכְהוּנָה.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
Rebbi Jeremiah, Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: Our Mishnah¹⁷⁴ after the people were suspected of giving tithe to Cohanim. There is support for Rebbi Joḥanan in one and disagreement with him in one. Disagreement with him as we have stated¹⁷⁵ 9:6. In the interpretation of the Yerushalmi, one speaks about the daughter of a Cohen preliminarily married to a Levite, who has lost her Cohen status and not yet acquired Levitic status. In the interpretation of the Babli (*Yebamot*86a) which holds that tithes should regularly be given to Cohanim, the Mishnah is explained away: The daughter of a Cohen married to a Levite may eat tithes but she cannot receive tithes from an Israel as a precaution since an Israel woman married to a Cohen should not accept heave or tithe from an Israel since we are afraid her husband might die without issue and then she would be barred from heave and tithes.: “Similarly, the daughter of a Cohen [married] to a Levite should eat neither heave nor tithe.” We understand that she should not eat heave¹⁷⁶ 6, Note 46.. But tithe any way you take it, if she is a Cohen’s daughter she should eat, if she is a Levite’s wife she should eat. Rebbi Hila in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: [It follows] him who says one does not give tithe to Cohanim. That means, he himself¹⁷⁷ says one gives heave to Cohanim.

footnotes:
¹⁷⁴ Which states that Joḥanan the High Priest abolished the recitation of the declaration. He held that people who do not follow the rules cannot make the declaration and giving tithe to Cohanim breaks the rules. In order not to be inquisitive he let nobody recite.
¹⁷⁵ Mishnah Yebamot
¹⁷⁶ Since legally she is married; cf. Peah
¹⁷⁷ If R. Joḥanan considers the Mishnah contrary to his position, he must hold that Cohanim may receive tithe according to biblical law.


###### Jerusalem Talmud Maaser Sheni 5:5:13
[Jerusalem Talmud Maaser Sheni 5:5:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Maaser%20Sheni/r/5:5:13)

מְסַיְיעָא לֵיהּ דּוּ אמַר כּוּלָּן לִשְׁבָח. דְּאָמַר רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן יוֹחָנָן כֹּהֵן גָּדוֹל שָׁלַח וּבָדַק בְּכָל עָרֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל וּמְצָאָן שֶׁלֹּא הָיוּ מַפְרִישִׁין אֶלָּא תְרוּמָה גְדוֹלָה בִּלְבַד. אֲבָל מַעֲשֵׂר רִאשׁוֹן וּמַעֲשֵׂר שֵׁינִי מֵהֶן הָיוּ מַפְרִישִׁין וּמֵהֶן לא הָיוּ מַפְרִישִׁין. אָמַר הוֹאִיל וּמַעֲשֵׂר רִאשׁוֹן בְּמִיתָה. וּמַעֲשֵׂר שֵׁינִי בַּעֲוֹן טֵבֵל יְהֵא אָדָם קוֹרֵא שֵׁם לִתְרוּמָה וְלִתְרוּמַת מַעֲשֵׂר וְנוֹתְנוֹ לְכֹהֵן וּמַעֲשֵׂר שֵׁינִי מְחַלְּלוֹ עַל הַמָּעוֹת וְהַשְּׁאָר מַעֲשֵׂר עָנִי שֶׁהַמּוֹצִיא מֵחֲבֵירוֹ עָלָיו הָרְאַיָיה.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
It supports him because he says it is all praise, as Rebbi Joḥanan said¹⁷⁸ 13:10; a slightly different text Babli *Soṭa* 48a. The passage is explained in the Introduction to Tractate *Demay*., Joḥanan the High Priest sent and checked in all localities of Israel and found that they separated only Great Heave. But First and Second Tithes some were separating and some did not. He said, since [omitting] First Tithe is a deadly sin and [omitting] Second Tithe [implies] the sin of *ṭevel*, a person should give a name to heave¹⁷⁹ and heave of the tithe and give them to the Cohen; Second Tithe he exchanges for coins. About the remaining tithe of the poor, he who has a claim on another person must bring proof.

footnotes:
¹⁷⁸ Tosephta Soṭah
¹⁷⁹ This must be the instruction to the farmer, not the buyer who can be sure that heave was taken. The ms. evidence of the Tosephta does not permit deleting the reference to heave.


###### Jerusalem Talmud Maaser Sheni 5:5:14
[Jerusalem Talmud Maaser Sheni 5:5:14](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Maaser%20Sheni/r/5:5:14)

וְיִתְוַדֶּה. אָמַר רִבִּי הִילָא כַּעַס הוּא לִפְנֵי הַמָּקוֹם מִי שֶׁהוּא אוֹמֵר עָשִׂיתִי וְהוּא לֹא עָשָׂה. מֵעַתָּה מִי שֶׁהוּא מַפְרִישׁ מִתְוַדֶּה. מִי שֶׁאָינוֹ מַפְרִישׁ לא יִתְוַדֶּה. כְּהָדָא דְתַנֵּי עַד הַשְׁקִיפָה הָיוּ אוֹמְרִים קוֹל נָמוּךְ. מִיכָּן וְהֵילָךְ הָיוּ אוֹמְרִים קוֹל גָּבוֹהַּ.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
Why should he not make the declaration¹⁸⁰ lead to the disestablishment of the declaration? The remedy indicates that the not too religiously scrupulous could omit the incriminating passages without anybody noticing, which shows that Joḥanan’s order was not followed in subsequent generations.? Rebbi Hila said, he causes anger before the Omnipresent by saying “I did” when he did not. If it is so, he who separated should make the declaration, he who did not separate should not make the declaration, as we have stated: “Up to ‘Look down’ they were saying it in an undertone, from ‘Look down’ onwards in a high voice.”

footnotes:
¹⁸⁰ Why should the necessity of introducing demay


###### Jerusalem Talmud Maaser Sheni 5:5:15
[Jerusalem Talmud Maaser Sheni 5:5:15](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Maaser%20Sheni/r/5:5:15)

אֶת הַמְּעוֹרְרִין. אוֹתָן שֶׁהָיוּ אוֹמְרִים עוּרָה לָמָּה תִישַׁן יי הָקִיצָה אַל תִּזְנַח לָנֶצַח. וְכִי יֵשׁ שֵׁינָה לִפְנֵי הַמָּקוֹם. וַהֲלֹא כְּבָר נֶאֱמַר הִנֵּה לֹא יָנוּם וְלֹא יִישָׁן שׁוֹמֵר יִשְׂרָאֵל. וּמָה תַלְמוּד לוֹמַר וַיִּקַץ כְּיָשֵׁן יי אֶלָּא כִבְיָכוֹל כְּאִלּוּ לְפָנָיו שֵׁינָה בְּשָׁעָה שֶׁיִּשְׂרָאֵל בְּצָרָה וְאוּמּוֹת הָעוֹלָם בִּרְוָוחָה. וְכֵן הוּא אוֹמֵר וּבְהַמְּרוֹתָם תָלַן עֵינִי.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
“The arousers.” Those who were saying (*Ps*. 44:24): “Be roused, why do You sleep, o Eternal, please awake, do not abandon forever.¹⁸¹(*loc. cit.*) and Tosephta *Soṭah* 13:9, this was a daily song of the Levites in the Temple.” Does there exist sleep before the Omnipresent? Has it not already been said (*Ps*. 121:4): “Lo, He will not slumber nor sleep, the Guardian of Israel!” Why does the verse say (*Ps*. 78:65): “Like a sleeper awoke the Eternal, like a hero exhilarated by wine.” But in a symbolic way it is as if sleep were before Him when Israel is in trouble and the other peoples are at ease. So it says (*Job* 17:2): “When they apostasize, My eye will rest.”

footnotes:
¹⁸¹ According to Babli Sota


###### Jerusalem Talmud Maaser Sheni 5:5:16
[Jerusalem Talmud Maaser Sheni 5:5:16](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Maaser%20Sheni/r/5:5:16)

אֶת הַנּוֹקְפִים. אוֹתָן שֶׁהָיוּ מַכִּין עַל גַּבֵּי הָעֶגֶל בֵּין קַרְנָיו. אָמַר לָהֶן יוֹחָנָן כֹּהֶן גָּדוֹל עַד מָתַי אַתֶּם מַאֲכִילִין אֶת הַמִּזְבֵּחַ טְרֵיפוֹת. וְעָמַד וְעָשָׂה לָהֶן טַבָּעוֹת. רִבִּי בָּא בְשֵׁם רַב יְהוּדָה טַבָּעוֹת עָשָׂה לָהֶן טַבָּעוֹת רְחָבוֹת מִלְּמַטָּן וְצָרוֹת מִלְּמַעֲלָן.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
“The hitters.” Those who were hitting the calf between its horns¹⁸² 13:10, this was usually done with animals brought to pagan slaughter.. Joḥanan the High Priest said to them, how long will you feed torn animals to the altar¹⁸³? He went and made them rings¹⁸⁴. Rebbi Abba in the name of Rebbi Jehudah: He made rings for them, rings wide below and narrow at the top.

footnotes:
¹⁸² In the Rome ms.: בין חרצו “in its depression.” To stun the animal before slaughter. According to Tosephta Soṭah
¹⁸³ If the membrane covering the brain is torn, the animal is forbidden food.
¹⁸⁴ To immobilize the neck of the animal to be slaughtered. The word in parentheses is not in the Rome ms.


###### Jerusalem Talmud Maaser Sheni 5:5:17
[Jerusalem Talmud Maaser Sheni 5:5:17](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Maaser%20Sheni/r/5:5:17)

עַד יָמָיו הָיָה פַּטִּישׁ מַכֶּה בִירוּשָׁלֵם עַד תְּחִילַּת יָמָיו. וּבְיָמָיו אֵין אָדָם צָרִיךְ לִשְׁאוֹל עַל דְמַיי שֶׁהֶעֱמִיד זוּגוֹת.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
“Up to his days the hammer was hitting in Jerusalem,”¹⁷³ 11b and *Soṭah* 48a and Tosephta *Soṭah* 13:10. On the intermediate days of the holiday week urgent work may be done. But since metal work is very noisy, and Jerusalem was full of holiday pilgrims at these times, he decreed that, in Jerusalem only, noisy work should not be performed. up to his early days. “And in his days nobody had to ask about *demay*” because he sent out teams¹⁸⁵.

footnotes:
¹⁷³ This is explained only in the Babli, Makkot
¹⁸⁵ Who made the rounds through all agricultural areas and saw to it that every farmer tithed.


###### Jerusalem Talmud Maaser Sheni 5:5:18
[Jerusalem Talmud Maaser Sheni 5:5:18](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Maaser%20Sheni/r/5:5:18)

מִילְתֵיהּ דְּרִבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בֶּן לֵוִי אָמְרָה מֵהֶן לִגְנַאי וּמֵהֶן לְשֶׁבַח. דְּאָמַר רִבִּי יוֹסֵי בְשֵׁם רִבִּי תַנְחוּם בַּר חִיָיה. רִבִּי חִזְקִיַּה רִבִּי אֶלְעָזָר בֵּירִבִּי יוֹסֵי רִבִּי תַנְחוּם בַּר חִיָיה בְשֵׁם רִבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בֶּן לֵוִי בָּרִאשׁוֹנָה הָיָה מַעֲשֵׂר נַעֲשֶׂה לִשְׁלֹשָׁה חֲלָקִים. שְׁלִישׁ לְמַכָּרֵי כְהוּנָה וּלְוִיָּיה וּשְׁלִישׁ לָאוֹצָר וּשְׁלִישׁ לָעֲנִיִים וְלַחֲבֵירִים שֶׁהָיוּ בִירוּשָׁלֵם. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹסֵי בֵּירִבִּי בּוּן מָן דַּהֲוָה סְלִיק לְמֵדִין בִּירוּשָׁלֵם עַד דִּתְלָת אִיגְרָן הֲוָה יְהָב מִדִּידֵיהּ מִיכָּן וְאֵילָךְ מִשֶּׁלָּאוֹצָר. מִשֶּׁבָּא אֶלְעָזָר בֶּן פְּחוֹרָה וִיהוּדָה בֶּן פְּטִירָה הָיוּ נוֹטְלִין אוֹתָן בִזְרוֹעַ וְהָיָה סִפֵּיקָן בְּיָדָן לִמְחוֹת וְלֹא מִיחָה. וְהֶעֱבִיר הוֹדָיַית הַמַּעֲשֵׂר. וְזוֹ לִגְנַיי. אֶת הַמְּעוֹרְרִין לְשֶׁבַח. וְאֶת הַנּוֹקְפִין לְשֶׁבַח.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
The word of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi implies some¹⁸⁶ are censure and some praise. Since Rebbi Yose said in the name of Rebbi Tanḥum bar Ḥiyya, Rebbi Ḥizqiah, Rebbi Eleazar ben Rebbi Yose, Rebbi Tanḥum bar Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi, originally tithe was split into three parts. One third to his acquaintances among Cohanim and Levites, one third to the public treasury, one third to the poor and the fellows in Jerusalem. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, a person who went to court in Jerusalem, up to three letters¹⁸⁷ he paid for himself, from there on from the public treasury. When Eleazar ben Paḥora¹⁸⁸ 66a) he is called Eleazar ben Po‘era, described as a Sadducee, and placed in Alexander Yannai’s time. and Judah ben Patora¹⁸⁹ 9:10 he is called בן פכורה. They might have been Cohanim and taking the tithe by force for themselves but more likely were royal officials who took all for the public treasury. came, they took it by force and it would have been in his hand to stop this but he did not but disestablished the declaration of tithes¹⁹⁰, and this is for censure. But the arousers for praise and the hitters for praise.

footnotes:
¹⁸⁶ Of the recorded actions of the High Priest Joḥanan.
¹⁸⁷ Summons to the opposing party to appear before the court.
¹⁸⁸ In the Babli (Qiddušin
¹⁸⁹ In the parallel in Soṭah
¹⁹⁰ Since the tithe was taken by force, the biblical rules could not be kept. If the identification of this High Priest with Joḥanan Hyrkanos is true, he himself would have been a beneficiary of the corrupt system.


###### Jerusalem Talmud Maaser Sheni 5:5:19
[Jerusalem Talmud Maaser Sheni 5:5:19](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Maaser%20Sheni/r/5:5:19)

עַד יָמָיו הָיָה פַּטִּישׁ מַכֶּה בִירוּשָׁלֵם עַד תְּחִילַּת יָמָיו. רִבִּי חֲסִידָא שָׁאַל לְרִבִּי חִזְקִיָּה לֹא מִסְתַּבְּרָא עַד סוֹף יָמָיו. אָמַר לֵיהּ אוּף אֲנָא סָבַר כֵּן.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
“Up to his days the hammer was hitting in Jerusalem,” up to his early days¹⁹¹. Rebbi Ḥasida¹⁹² asked Rebbi Ḥizqiah, is it not reasonable to the end of his days. He said, I also am of that opinion.

footnotes:
¹⁹¹ In that case, he would be praised for stopping the practice. If he tolerated it and only his successors abolished it, he would be mentioned for censure.
¹⁹² A fourth generation Amora, asking not only R. Ḥizqiah but also R. Yose.


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

דְּמַאי. רִבִּי יוֹסֵי בְשֵׁם רִבִּי אַבָּהוּ רִבִּי חִזְקִיָּה בְשֵׁם רִבִּי יוּדָה בֶּן פָּזִי. דְּמַאי. דָּמִי תִיקֵּן. דָּמִאי לֹא תִיקֵּן.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
{What means] *demay*? Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Abbahu, Rebbi Ḥizqiah in the name of Rebbi Jehudah ben Pazi: Maybe he put in order, maybe he did not put in order¹⁹³.

footnotes:
¹⁹³ Cf. Introduction to Tractate Demay, p. 348.