MISHNAH: Second Tithe is to be used for eating, drinking, and anointing; to eat everything commonly eaten, to anoint with what commonly is used for anointing. One should not anoint with wine or vinegar, but with olive oil¹ 8:2.. One does not use Second Tithe oil as base for perfume², one does not buy perfumed oil with Second Tithe money³, but one may make spice wine. If one adds it to honey and spices and it increases in value, the increase is proportional⁴, and profane material worth b, and now the dish is worth c a + b, then cb/(a+b) is profane and may be paid with Second Tithe money; the rest must be paid with profane money.. If fish is cooked with Second Tithe leeks which increases its value, the increase is proportional. If a dough of Second Tithe when baked increased in value, the increase belongs to the Second⁵. This is the principle: In all cases in which the increase is visible⁶, the increase is proportional. In all cases in which the increase is not visible, the increase belongs to the Second.

footnotes: ¹ These two sentences are stated, for Sabbatical produce and money, in Mishnah Ševi‘it ² Since then the oil is no longer food. ³ Even though anointing with Second Tithe oil is permitted, one may buy only what is used by the majority of people, not what is reserved for a minority of the rich and pampered. ⁴ If some dish offered for sale in Jerusalem was prepared with Second Tithe material worth a ⁵ Since the profane fuel did not change the body of the bread, the entire bread made from Second Tithe flour has the status of Second Tithe. ⁶ The meaning of this expression will be discussed in the Halakhah.

HALAKHAH: ⁷ 8:3 (fol. 45a), Ševu‘ot 3:2 (fol. 34b). The parallel discussion in the Babli is Ševu‘ot 22b–23a.“Second Tithe is to be used for eating,” etc. It is to be used for eating, since eating is written regarding it⁸. 14:23.. For drinking, since drinking is included in eating. From where that drinking is included in eating? Rebbi Jonah understood if from the following (Lev. 17:12): “Therefore, I said to the Children of Israel, no person among you may eat blood.” Where do we hold? If about congealed blood, did we not state⁹ 2:5.: “Congealed blood is neither food nor drink”? So we must hold as is¹⁰, and the Torah called it “eating.” But did we not state¹¹ 120a, Menaḥot 21a.: “If he mashed the fat¹² and sipped it, congealed the blood and ate it, he is guilty!” How does Rebbi Jonah explain? It is neither food, to accept the impurity of food, nor drink, to accept the impurity of drinks¹³ adds explicitly: “If he thought of [the congealed blood] as food, it accepts the impurities of food.” The argument of R. Jonah is not acceptable..

footnotes: ⁷ This and the following paragraphs (up to Note 35) are also in Yoma ⁸ Deut ⁹ Tosephta Tahorot ¹⁰ Fluid blood. ¹¹ Babli Ḥulin ¹² The fat of domestic animals which from sacrifices is burned on the altar and from profane meat is forbidden as food. ¹³ The Tosephta Tahorot

Rebbi Jonah changed his mind and understood it from the following (Deut. 14:26): “Spend the money for anything you desire¹⁴.” Where do we hold? If one adds the taste of wine to a dish, is that not tasting badly¹⁵ and Yoma, the argument closes with: So we must hold as is, and the Torah called it “eating,” as for the first argument.? The rabbis of Caesarea say, explain it with ’rznyyh and gmzvzynyyh¹⁶אורזנייא וגוממני, in Ševu‘ot גמרייה ואורזרייה. Every commentator and author of a dictionary has his own identification. {Perhaps cf. Greek spiced liquor Retsina, classical Greek ῥητίνα “pine resin”, and various kinds of gum (gummi, κόμμι) used in manufacture of fine liquors. (E. G.)} The variants make a reliable identification impossible. The additions involved must be such that wine (or liquor) is an essential ingredient of the recipe. In that case, one cannot say that a dish made with wine tastes worse than wine itself. R. Yose has not proved that from Second Tithe money one may buy wine other than cooking wine.. Anything auxiliary to food is considered food.

footnotes: ¹⁴ The argument is from the later part of the verse: “cattle and sheep, wine and liquor, anything you might want, and eat it there before the Eternal, your God, …” How does one eat wine and liquor? ¹⁵ In Ševu‘ot ¹⁶ In Yoma

¹⁷ is almost unintelligible. The best text seems to be the one in Yoma {commentary in braces}: Rebbi Yose understood it from the following (Mishnah Ševu‘ot 3:2): “An oath {meaning: I swear} that I shall not eat, when he ate or drank he is guilty on one count only.” {This proves the point.} The colleagues said before Rebbi Yose, one continues after this {in the same Mishnah}, “an oath that I shall neither eat nor drink, when he ate and drank he is guilty on two counts.” {This seems to disprove that drinking is subsumed under eating.} Rebbi Yose said to them, is that not as if somebody had two loaves before him when he said: an oath that I shall not eat this one, and then he said: an oath that I shall not eat that one, would he not be guilty on two counts? {Therefore, drinking in general is subsumed under eating but if somebody spells them out separately, he takes upon himself two parallel but separate obligations.} Rebbi Yose understood it from the following¹⁸ 3:2; the correct text is given by the colleagues. The second quote by R. Yose is correct.: “[I swear] an oath that I shall not eat, when he ate and drank he is guilty on two counts.” The colleagues said, he is guilty only on one count. Rebbi Yose said to them, we say after this, “an oath that I shall neither eat nor drink, when he ate and drank he is guilty on two counts.” It is as if somebody had two loaves before him when he said: [I swear] an oath that I shall not eat this one, and then he said: [I swear] an oath that I shall not eat that one, would he not be guilty on two counts?

footnotes: ¹⁷ The text is difficult. The parallel in Ševu‘ot ¹⁸ This is a misquote from Mishnah Ševu‘ot

Rebbi Ḥanania in the name of Rebbi Phineas understood it from the following¹⁹ 3:2.: “[I swear] an oath that I shall not eat, when he ate inedible food and drank undrinkable fluids he is free from punishment.” Therefore, if he drank drinkable fluids he is guilty. That is correct following “an oath that I shall not eat,” and in our Mishnah they teach “an oath that I shall not eat.” But for those rabbis²⁰ 23a, to show that from the Mishnah one cannot infer that drinking is a subcategory of eating. who teach “an oath that I shall not eat and I shall not drink”?

footnotes: ¹⁹ Mishnah Ševu‘ot ²⁰ The anonymous editors of the Babli, Ševu‘ot

Rebbi Ḥinena understood it from the following²¹ 8:3. A person who forgot that it was the Day of Atonement and he ate or drank must bring a sin sacrifice. But if he ate and drank in one forgetting episode he brings only one sacrifice. The argument is weak since the commandment of the Day of Atonement is “to deprive oneself”, and not eating and not drinking are aspects of deprivation.: “If he ate and drank in one forgetting he is guilty only once.” Rebbi Abba Mari understood it from here (Deut. 26:14): “I did not eat from it in my mourning”, but I drank²²?

footnotes: ²¹ Mishnah Yoma ²² From the declaration the farmer makes in the Temple when he brings his Second Tithe to Jerusalem after he gave First Tithe and, if applicable, the tithe of the poor. It seems obvious that the declaration cannot be made if the farmer drank from tithe wine while in deep mourning, which is a desecration as if he had eaten. Therefore, the verse subsumes drinking under eating.

It is understandable²³ which reads עד כדון “so far”, probably is better. The entire paragraph belongs to the Mishnah in Ševu‘ot; here ends the parallel in Ševu‘ot. for him who said, “[I swear] an oath that I shall not eat”, and he drank²⁴ 23a.. But for him who said, “an oath that I shall not drink”, and he ate? Drinking is subsumed under eating, but eating is not subsumed under drinking.

footnotes: ²³ The text in Ševu‘ot ²⁴ The preceding argument shows that drinking is subsumed under eating. But everybody agrees that a mention of drink does not include solid food. The same conclusion is in Babli Ševu‘ot

Some want to understand it from this (Deut. 12:17): “You may not eat in your gates the tithe of your grain, your cider, and your shining oil.”²⁵ ‘Your cider’, that is the wine. ‘And your shining oil’ refers to anointing and the Torah called it ‘eating’. But this is not clear. If it were clear one should be whipped because of it outside the walls²⁶! Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina said, one is whipped outside the walls only for pure Second Tithe which entered Jerusalem and left²⁷. From where that it is not clear? From what was stated²⁸; it is in Šabbat 9:4, fol. 12a–b, the fullest text in Ta‘aniot 1:6, fol. 64c.: “On the Sabbath, both anointing for pleasure and anointing not for pleasure are permitted. On the Day of Atonement, both anointing for pleasure and anointing not for pleasure are forbidden. On the Ninth of Ab and public fasts²⁹ anointing for pleasure is forbidden but anointing not for pleasure is permitted.” Did we not state: “Anointing is equal to drinking for prohibition and replacement³⁰ but not for punishment, on the Day of Atonement for prohibition but not for punishment³¹”? Did we not state (Lev. 22:15): “They should not desecrate,” to include him who anoints and him who drinks³². Rebbi Joḥanan said, there is no ‘anoints’ here. Rebbi Abba Mari said, if there is no ‘anoints’ here then there is no ‘drinks’ for otherwise something that comes from two different prohibitions would be added together³³. is needed to include drinking in eating then it is incomprehensible that for inadvertently eating and drinking together on the Day of Atonement one should be responsible only for one sacrifice since in that case, one infringes on two separate biblical prohibitions and should be responsible for two separate sacrifices. Similarly, if one illegimately ate and drank heave one should be responsible for two separate fifths. Since in both cases the Mishnah treats eating and drinking together, the verse cannot express a separate status for drinking; the addition of anointing and drinking is rabbinic interpretation but not biblical law and there is no reason to exclude anointing.!

footnotes: ²⁵ Both drinking and anointing are subsumed under “eating”. ²⁶ If the verse were a formal identification of anointing and eating as far as Second Tithe is concerned, the use of impure heave oil for anointing should be a criminal offense. ²⁷ This amoraïc statement is part of the objection. ²⁸ The text from here to the end of the next paragraph is only hinted at in Yoma ²⁹ Fasts in a winter of draught, whose rules are modeled on those for the Ninth of Ab. ³⁰ Referring to illegal use of heave and dedicated food by non-Cohanim and its replacement by 5/4 of the value taken. ³¹ The only biblical prohibitions on the Day of Atonement are eating, drinking, and working. The other two, anointing and sexual relations, are rabbinic and not subject to biblical punishment. ³² The verse refers to the non-Cohen who “eats” holy food in error. ³³ If the verse in Lev

From where that it is clear as a positive commandment³⁴? 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 person³⁵! 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: ³⁴ While illegitimate use of heave oil for anointing is a prohibition, it is mentioned in the framework of the farmer’s declaration in the Temple which is a positive commandment. Overstepping the prohibition of anointing when it is forbidden is legally overstepping a positive commandment not under the scope of biblical penal law. ³⁵ Only consuming Second Tithe is permitted.

³⁶ 8:2, Notes 22–28. Since the Mishnah here does not have the sentence “to drink everything one commonly drinks” in practically all mss., the text in Ševi‘it is original. What means “to eat everything commonly eaten”? “One does not oblige anybody to eat mouldy bread, or discarded leaves of vegetables, or spoiled food.” On the other hand, if somebody wants to eat raw beets or chew raw wheat kernels one does not listen to him. What means “to drink everything one commonly drinks”? “One does not oblige anybody to drink oily fish sauce, or sour fish sauce, or wine with yeast. He who has a toothache should not sip vinegar and spit out but he may sip and swallow. He may dip his food in as much [vinegar] as he wants without second thoughts. He who has a throat ache should not gargle with oil but he may load fish sauce with oil and sip it.” “One should not anoint with wine or vinegar, but with olive oil.” “If somebody has a headache or he has a scab, he may rub with oil but not with wine or vinegar.”

footnotes: ³⁶ The text, with minor orthographic changes, is identical with the text in Ševi‘it

Perfumed wine of Second Tithe may not be used for anointing. Perfumed oil of Second Tithe may be used for anointing. What is the difference? For the latter it is customary, for the former it is not customary.

Rebbi Yudan asked: Second tithe oil that became rancid? Rebbi Mana said, when it became rancid, its holiness burst from it. Why did he have to ask? Sabbatical [oil] even if rancid remains in its holiness³⁷.

footnotes: ³⁷ At least as long as it still is animal feed. Second Tithe may not be used for animal feed.

³⁸14:3, fol. 14c. Simeon bar Abba in the name of Rebbi Ḥanina: He who whispers³⁹ (Note 39) accepts this procedure for illnesses of the eye, intestines, and snake and scorpion bites. The Babli (Sanhedrin 101a) approves whispered charms only for snake and scorpion bites; for eye and intestinal problems they approve only anointing and wrappings. puts oil on his head and whispers on condition that he use neither hand nor vessel⁴⁰. Rebbi Jacob bar Idi, Rebbi Joḥanan in the name of Rebbi Yannai: with hand or vessel⁴¹. In what do they differ? Whether it is repulsive. For him who says with hand or vessel, it is repulsive. For him who says neither hand nor vessel, it is not repulsive. Rebbi Jonah said, they differ about Second Tithe. For him who says with hand or vessel, Second Tithe is forbidden⁴². For him who says neither hand nor vessel, Second Tithe is permitted. Rebbi Yose said, is all that is permitted on the Sabbath permitted with Second Tithe and all that is forbidden on the Sabbath forbidden with Second Tithe? Did we not state: A woman may douse her son with wine⁴³ 14:3, the text reads: “Herself and her son.” because of sweat, but this is forbidden with heave? Heave and Second Tithe are the same! How is that⁴⁴? Only that he not do it in the way he is used to do it on weekdays.

footnotes: ³⁸ The paragraph is also in Šabbat ³⁹ A medical procedure where rubbing with oil is accompanied by whispered recitation of charms. The Talmud in Šabbat ⁴⁰ These rules are only given for the Sabbath when medical procedures are forbidden if there is no danger to the life of the patient. ⁴¹ “Hand” means to pour an amont of oil into one’s palm and taking it from there by a finger of the other hand. “Vessel” is not the large container of the oil but a small vessel containing just enough oil for the procedure. Its use is permitted on the Sabbath for people who would be repelled by the idea of dipping the finger into the jar of cooking oil. ⁴² It is forbidden to use Second Tithe oil for medical purposes; it is permitted to use it for anointing. It is suggested that just smearing oil on one’s head with a finger is a form of anointing; this is rejected immediately. ⁴³ On the Sabbath. In Šabbat ⁴⁴ What is the real reason for the rule of whispering? Anybody who does it with a vessel on weekdays has to do it without one on the Sabbath and vice-versa.

⁴⁵ 10:1; explained there in Notes 8–12.“If fish is cooked with Second Tithe leeks which increases its value, the increase is proportional.” Rebbi Hoshaia said, it follows Rebbi Jehudah, since we have stated: “Rebbi Jehudah permits in anchovies where it only serves to remove pollutants.” The rabbis of Caesarea asked: The saying of Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, that all forbidden [food] is estimated as if it were onion, as if it were leeks, does this contradict Rebbi Jehudah? Rebbi Jehudah will agree regarding an onion of the Temple or an onion of idol worship.

footnotes: ⁴⁵ This paragraph is from Terumot

⁴⁷ Rebbi Joḥanan said, for everything that augments the measure, the increase [in value] is proportional, but for everything that does not augment the measure, the increase belongs to the Second [Tithe]. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, for everything where the taste of the improvement is recognizable, the increase [in value] is proportional, but for everything where the taste of the improvement is not recognizable, the increase belongs to the Second [Tithe]. The Mishnah disagrees with Rebbi Jonathan⁴⁸: “If a dough of Second Tithe when baked increased in value, the increase belongs to the Second.” Explain it if the improvement cannot be tasted. The Mishnah disagrees with Rebbi Joḥanan: “If fish cooked with Second Tithe leeks increased in value, the increase is proportional.” Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Hoshaia: Explain it if he cooked them together⁴⁹. Rebbi Jonah in the name of Rebbi Hoshaia: Think of it, if he cooked them separately and mixed them⁵⁰! Have fish only the taste of leeks and leeks only the taste of fish⁵¹?

footnotes: ⁴⁷ Here starts the discussion of the last part of the Mishnah. ⁴⁸ It seems that the opinion of R. Simeon ben Laqish, which reaffirms the statement of the Mishnah, is that of R. Jonathan. ⁴⁹ He cooked them together until they became soft and could no longer be separated. Since the profane part clinging to the heave part must be eaten in the holiness of heave, the volume of the holy part has increased. ⁵⁰ In this case, there would only be a question according to R. Simeon ben Laqish but none according to R. Joḥanan. ⁵¹ Since in the latter case only little taste is absorbed, both R. Joḥanan and R. Simeon ben Laqish agree that the increase of the value of the tithe part does not have to be split.

A Mishnah disagrees with Rebbi Joḥanan: “Spices, water, or salt a woman borrowed from a friend for her dough, goes after both their feet⁵² 5:4. If one or both of the women had moved their domain for the holiday by an eruv (cf. Peah 8, Note 56), during the holiday the dough cannot be brought to any place not reachable by both of them. This part of Mishnah 5:4 is not discussed in Yerushalmi Beẓah 5:4. The Yerushalmi is difficult to understand. The Babli (Beẓah 38b–39a) comes up with three possible explanations for the Mishnah. Abbai holds that all is only a rabbinical prohibition to be ready with a rule for the case the two women baked a cake together. Rava holds with R. Simeon ben Laqish that taste cannot be disregarded and, therefore, the spices are essential even if present only in a minute amount. As Tosaphot point out, water certainly cannot be disregarded even if most of it evaporates since without water there would be no dough. But water used to make unleavened dough does not necessarily increase the volume. This seems to be the objection of the Yerushalmi. Rav Ashi holds that one does not invoke special rules if by waiting (ubtil the end of the holiday) all problems disappear automatically..” Rebbi Abba said, for eruv they went according to the logical rule⁵³. You should know that this is so since they say there⁵⁴ in the name of Rav Ḥisda, but we know not whether from a tradition or a Mishnah, “even logs!” Did we want to say that logs have no credible importance? A baraita⁵⁵ disagrees with Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: “If a tithe dish is prepared with profane spices, the increase belongs to Second Tithe.” Explain it if the improvement cannot be tasted. But was it not stated: “If a profane dish is prepared with Second Tithe spices, the tithe cannot escape redemption⁵⁶”? According to Rebbi Joḥanan, if the volume was increased. According to Rebbi Simeon ber Laqish if the improvement was clearly recognizable.

footnotes: ⁵² Mishnah Beẓah ⁵³ Since the dish contains contributions from both of them, one does not have to try to allocate parts. ⁵⁴ In Babylonia. In this version, the dish can be moved only in the common domain even if only the firewood came from a person with a different domain. Firewood cannot be bought with tithe money. ⁵⁵ Tosephta 1:16. ⁵⁶ Or the entire dish must be eaten under the rules of tithe. This part of the Tosephta requires explanation according to both opinions.

MISHNAH: Rebbi Simeon says, one does not rub himself with oil of Second Tithe in Jerusalem⁵⁷ but the Sages permit it. They said to Rebbi Simeon, if He made it easy for the important heave⁵⁸, should we not be lenient for the lightweight Second Tithe? He said to them, this is no good⁵⁹. He was lenient for the important heave as He was lenient for vetch and fenugreek⁶⁰ to minor.; how can we be lenient for Second Tithe where He was not lenient for vetch and fenugreek? Fenugreek of Second Tithe should be eaten as sprouts⁶³. Of Heave⁶⁴ and Ma‘serot, heave of fenugreek is traded in bundles, the hard stem (which gives some taste) and the seeds (usable as spice). The House of Shammai hold that since it may be used as spice, it must always be treated as food and handled in purity since otherwise it must be burned as impure heave food, except that it can be used to perfume water to shampoo hair. In that case, the Cohen’s action shows that the fenugreek is not food for him and if impure does not have to be burned., the House of Shammai say it must always be handled in purity except for shampooing. But the House of Hillel say, it may be handled in impurity except in soaking⁶⁵. Vetch⁷¹ 11:9) that only in years of famine is vetch human food. But as sprouts it can be eaten and is not animal feed. This Mishnah also appears in Idiut 1:8. of Second Tithe should be eaten as sprouts; it may enter Jerusalem and leave⁷². If it became impure, Rebbi Ṭarphon says it should be divided into pieces of dough⁷³ 5:3)., but the Sages say it should be redeemed⁷⁴. If it is heave⁷⁵ 11:9., the House of Shammai say, one soaks and cleans⁷⁶ in purity and feeds in impurity, but the House of Hillel say, one soaks in purity⁷⁷ and cleans and feeds in impurity. Shammai says, it should be eaten dry⁷⁸. Rebbi Aqiba says, all its processing is done in impurity⁷⁹.

footnotes: ⁵⁷ In the opinion of R. Simson and R. Isaac Simponti, R. Simeon disagrees with the previous Mishnah and Halakhah and holds that anointing is not subsumed under the notion of eating. This is contradicted by the Halakhah. In the opinion of Maimonides, R. Simeon agrees that in principle rubbing oneself is legitimate use of Second Tithe oil. However, he holds the owner of Second Tithe oil may not ask another person to massage him because the latter’s hand also will be rubbed with oil and this is akin to paying for the massage with Second Tithe oil, a rabbinic transgression. The last assertion is difficult to accept; the more likely explanation is that of H. Albeck (2ששה סדרי משנה, Jerusalem 1958), that according to R. Simeon if a person rubbed with such oil leaves Jerusalem while some of the oil still clings to his body, he will have sinned. In order to prevent inadvertent sin he forbids rubbing as a “fence of the law.” ⁵⁸ As explained in the next Mishnah. ⁵⁹ This is the reading of the Yerushalmi mss., the Parma ms. of the Mishnah, and one ms. of a translation of the Commentary of Maimonides. All other Mishnah mss. read מה לא אם היקל “On the contrary, if He was lenient …” ⁶⁰ As explained in Mishnah 4. If the argument is accepted, the relation of heave to Second Tithe is not that of majus ⁶³ Since Second Tithe must be eaten; ripe fenugreek plants are hard as straw and its seeds also are hard; the only time fenugreek really is edible is in young sprouts. ⁶⁴ As mentioned several times in Terumot ⁶⁵ For the House of Hillel, fenugreek is not food except if shown by an action of the Cohen to be prepared as food, e. g., soaking the seeds to use as spice. Otherwise, fenugreek is wood and cannot become impure; if it is handled in impurity it does not have to be burned. ⁷¹ It was stated (Terumot ⁷² Since sprouts cannot qualify as produce. ⁷³ He does not permit to redeem any Second Tithe to be used as animal feed; therefore he requires the vetch, which is a legume, to be ground to flour and mixed with flour in little cakes whose volume is less than that of a chicken egg so that it may be eaten as pure human food (cf. Terumot ⁷⁴ And fed to animals after redemption. ⁷⁵ Heave vetch is animal feed, Terumot ⁷⁶ Even though the intention was from the start to use it as animal feed, as long as it is not given to the animals it must strictly be treated according to the rules of heave. ⁷⁷ In order not to make heave impure with one’s hands. ⁷⁸ It should be given dry and unwashed to the animals to avoid any question of impurity. ⁷⁹ He holds that vetch is not human food unless there is a famine.

HALAKHAH: How were they lenient for heave? As we have stated⁶¹ 10:10. The Babli, based on biblical verses, explains in Keritut 7a that rubbing oil on one’s body, while a permitted activity, removes the sanctity from the oil just as eating removes the sanctity from the food in the Cohen’s body. Therefore, even if an unrelated adult Israel touches the oil on the Cohen’s body, he does not sin.: “A Cohen may rub himself with heave oil and bring his daughter’s son by an Israel and roll him on his belly without qualms.” Rebbi Joḥanan said, here they retorted with rabbinic words against the word of the Torah⁶².

footnotes: ⁶¹ Tosephta Terumot ⁶² Rebbi Simeon’s prohibition is rabbinical, the argument of the Sages is biblical!The Rome ms. reads דברי סופרים לדברי סופרים. This seems to be a scribal error.

So is the Mishnah: It is permitted to eat it as sprouts⁶⁶.

footnotes: ⁶⁶ It is not a requirement. J. N. Epstein (487 מבוא לנוסח המשנה ע׳) considers this to be a commentary, not a change of the Mishnah text.

What is between them? Rebbi Jonah said, pulling out of water is between them. The House of Shammai say, one pulls out of the water with pure hands but the House of Hillel say, one pulls out of the water with impure hands⁶⁷. It is stated⁶⁸: “These are the words of Rebbi Meïr. But the words of Rebbi Jehudah, he says that the House of Shammai say, it must always be handled in purity except for shampooing. But the House of Hillel say, it may be handled in impurity except in pulling it out of water⁶⁹ and r is the same as שריה, “soaking”, and refers to all stages of soaking. This is not the position of Maimonides in his Code (Ma‘aser Šeni 2:14)..” What is between them? Rebbi Mattaniah said, softening⁷⁰ is between them. The House of Shammai say, one softens with pure hands but the House of Hillel say, one softens with impure hands.

footnotes: ⁶⁷ In this version, the House of Hillel require pure (i. e., washed) hands only for putting fenugreek into the water for soaking, not to make heave impure by one’s own action. But they will permit taking the soaked seeds out of the water with unwashed hands since the seeds are also soaked as animal feed. ⁶⁸ Tosephta 2:1. ⁶⁹ The text is uncertain. The Tosephta has שרייתה “it soaking” instead of שליתה. It is possible that שליה here does not mean “to scoop out of the water”, as in Yerushalmi Targumim but by a change of liquids l ⁷⁰ Softening the kernels by rubbing them between one’s fingers. The House of Hillel do not consider this an action transforming the seeds into food.

To make a dough and return it, to make it and return⁸⁰ בגיסה (assuming it is not a corruption) is unknown. The text in 3:4 has a simple duplication כדי לעשות עיסה ולחזור. כדי לעשות עיסה ולחזור..

footnotes: ⁸⁰ This seems to refer to the statement that Second Tithe vetch may leave Jerusalem. An identical statement is Halakhah 3:4, referring to the opinion of Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel (Mishnah 3:5) that Second Tithe produce which entered Jerusalem may leave again. It is stated here and there that it may leave only to be processed, returned, and consumed in Jerusalem.The duplication in the text is difficult to understand; instead of כדי לעשות ולחזור the Rome ms. reads כדי בגיסה ולחזור. The meaning of the hapax legomenon

Is our Mishnah Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel’s⁸⁰ בגיסה (assuming it is not a corruption) is unknown. The text in 3:4 has a simple duplication כדי לעשות עיסה ולחזור. כדי לעשות עיסה ולחזור.? “Also produce enters and leaves”! It is the opinion of everybody. Here they were very lenient for vetch, but only dough of vetch⁸¹, only dough of Second Tithe.

footnotes: ⁸⁰ This seems to refer to the statement that Second Tithe vetch may leave Jerusalem. An identical statement is Halakhah 3:4, referring to the opinion of Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel (Mishnah 3:5) that Second Tithe produce which entered Jerusalem may leave again. It is stated here and there that it may leave only to be processed, returned, and consumed in Jerusalem.The duplication in the text is difficult to understand; instead of כדי לעשות ולחזור the Rome ms. reads כדי בגיסה ולחזור. The meaning of the hapax legomenon ⁸¹ For the Halakhah here, dough of Second Tithe produce for Halakhah 3:4.

Rebbi Gorion in the name of Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina: Rebbi Ṭarphon implies that one may not redeem sanctified food to feed it to the dogs. Rebbi Yose said⁸², it seems reasonable that anything which can be human food cannot be redeemed to be fed to animals, but anything which is not human food can be redeemed to be fed to animals.

footnotes: ⁸² He gives the rationale of the Sages opposing R. Tarphon.

Rebbi Isaac ben Eliashiv asked: [Is it true that] if it became impure in the countryside it should not be redeemed since one may not redeem sanctified food to feed it to the dogs? Rebbi Jonah said, that is ⁸³ 3, p. 337) presuppose rewriting the consonantal text. Jastrow declares the text corrupt.}נוטי נוטומי.

footnotes: ⁸³ The Rome ms. reads ניטומטומי. All commentators read the expression as one of concurrence with the rule tentatively expressed by R. Isaac ben Eliashiv. The expression has not been convincingly explained. {The Latin and Greek etymologies offered by Levy, Löw (in Krauss’s Dictionary), Kohout, and Lieberman (Tarbiẓ

MISHNAH: Of profane and Second Tithe coins that were strewn around, what one collected goes to Second Tithe until complete, the remainder is profane⁸⁴. If he mixed them together and took out fists full, it is in proportion⁸⁵ 6:1) the proportional split in this case holds even if some coins were lost. In this case also, a declaration of substitution has to be made.. That is the principle: What is picked out is for Second Tithe and what is mixed together by proportion⁸⁶. If a tetradrachma of Second Tithe was mixed up with a profane one⁹¹, one brings coins in the value of a tetradrachma and says: The tetradrachma of Second Tithe, wherever it may be, is exchanged for these coins. Then he chooses the better of the two and exchanges it for them since they said, one exchanges bronze for silver in an emergency⁹², not that it should stay so but that he should exchange them for silver. The House of Shammai say, a person should not turn his tetradrachmas into gold denars but the House of Hillel permit it. Rebbi Aqiba said, for Rabban Gamliel and Rebbi Joshua I turned their silver coins into gold denars.

footnotes: ⁸⁴ One assumes that the profane and the tithe coins are indistinguishable. What is collected first has to be sanctified as Second Tithe money by a declaration, and what had been Second Tithe coins and now ends up in the profane part is then automatically redeemed by the profane coins which ended up in the tithe part. ⁸⁵ If the coins are not picked up as they fell but first are swept together with a broom to form a heap in which all coins are mixed, the coins taken out are separated into heave and profane according to the proportion heave and profane had before the accident. According to Maimonides (in his Commentary and his Code, Ma‘aśer Šeni ⁸⁶ For all Second Tithe, not only coins. This is spelled out more clearly in the Tosephta, 2:4. ⁹¹ And it is not known which of the two coins is dedicated as Second Tithe. The farmer does not want to take both coins to Jerusalem. ⁹² But not silver for silver. When the silver coin, the standard legal tender in the entire Roman empire, is spent in Jerusalem it is usually first converted into local bronze coin. Therefore, this exchange is legal under certain circumstances. But silver coins under normal circumstances are never exchanged into other silver coins and, therefore, such an exchange is never permitted. The bronze coins should not be kept as such because non-local bronze coins may not be accepted at full value in Jerusalem.

HALAKHAH: Rebbi Zeïra said, for the profit of the Second; maybe the rest will be lost and then at least those held in his hand will be kept for Second [Tithe]⁸⁷. Rebbi Zeïra said, and one has to spell out and say, if those at the bottom are from the Second, those in my hand are taken in their stead. Rebbi Jonah said, only if he collected from all around but if he collected in a straight line it is as if he had swept and taken out fists full.

footnotes: ⁸⁷ He explains why the person who does not first sweep all coins together must first collect for Second Tithe. The person who sweeps (and in the opinion of R. Jonah, the person who collects in systematic sweeps) does something first to avoid further losses and, therefore, can profit from more lenient rules.

⁸⁸ 5:5. Notes 82–83. The discussion is about the principle, applied to produce, stated at the end of the Mishnah. Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Pedaiah, Rebbi Jonah in the name of Ḥizqiah, there is no mixing except for wine and oil. Rebbi Joḥanan says, it can be mixed up to the size of olives⁸⁹. Our Mishnah disagrees with Rebbi Joḥanan: “If he mixed them together and took out fists full, it is by proportion.” He explains it, up to the size of olives. “What is picked out is for Second Tithe and what is mixed together in proportion.” Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun in the name of Rebbi Huna: The Mishnah comes up so: What is mixed and⁹⁰ taken out in fistfuls” but “mixed and taken out in fistfuls”. what is taken out in fists full in proprtion.

footnotes: ⁸⁸ The first three sentences are also in Demay ⁸⁹ Solid produce smaller than the size of an olive, e. g., grains, can be thoroughly mixed. ⁹⁰ One should not read “mixed or

It was stated⁹⁴: Ben Azai says, two. Rebbi Zeïra said, in a dream I had Ulla bar Ismael ate fat meat⁹⁵. The next day he came and asked him, he said to him, why two? He said to him, since you tell him so, he will push himself to exchange it⁹⁶.

footnotes: ⁹⁴ Tosephta 2:5. Ben Azai requires small change in double the value of the tithe coin. ⁹⁵ R. Zeïra, the dreamer, took that to mean that Ulla was fed celestial fare which contains the secrets of the Torah. ⁹⁶ If one exchanges for the exact value, the farmer will not see why he could not simply take one of the coins and declare it tithe money. But then the original tithe coin might be spent in a sinful way as profane.

Ḥizqiah said, when he exchanges it, he treats it as bad. But if he exchanges for it, he treats it as a good one⁹⁶. But did we not state: “He chooses the better of the two and exchanges it for them⁹⁷”? Why can he not take the worse [coin] and treat it as a good one? Rebbi Jonah said, I say that this one was Second Tithe⁹⁸.

footnotes: ⁹⁶ If one exchanges for the exact value, the farmer will not see why he could not simply take one of the coins and declare it tithe money. But then the original tithe coin might be spent in a sinful way as profane. ⁹⁷ The Mishnah seems to establish higher, not lower, standards for transactions involving his own Second Tithe. ⁹⁸ The trick of Ḥizqiah is acceptable if a profane coin is turned into tithe money. But the moment it is dedicated as tithe, it has to be treated with the respect due the holy.

Did it not become profane anyhow⁹⁹? Rebbi Jonah said, he should not intend to make it totally profane. You should understand that this is so since we have stated: “not that it should stay so but that he should exchange it for silver”.

footnotes: ⁹⁹ Why does one have to insist that the bronze coins be changed into the present silver coin in the end? Why can the two silver coins not become totally profane?

Rebbi Ḥaggai said before Rebbi Zeïra, Menaḥem in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: In all cases where they said about demay that it can be exchanged¹⁰⁰1:2 that for tithe money of demay one may exchange silver for silver, silver for bronze, bronze for bronze, etc., for certain produce one may exchange it in an emergency¹⁰¹. But did we not state: “One exchanges bronze for silver in an emergency”, therefore not silver for silver! Rebbi Abba bar Cohen said before Rebbi Jonah, Rebbi Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: In all cases where they said about demay that it should be exchanged, if he transgressed and exchanged for certain produce it is exchanged¹⁰². Rebbi Jehudah ben Pazi, Rebbi Simeon bar Abba in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: In all cases where they said about demay that it should be exchanged, if he transgressed and exchanged for certain produce they are exchanged.

footnotes: ¹⁰⁰ As explained in Mishnah Demay ¹⁰¹ Not only the one case stated in the Mishnah here. ¹⁰² While it is illegal, the exchange is valid. Only the case stated by the Mishnah is legal. This corrects the tradition reported by R. Ḥaggai. The difference between R. Abba bar Cohen and R. Jehudah ben Pazi is a minor point of grammar.

It was stated¹⁰³ gold for silver just as one exchanges silver for bronze. Rebbi said to him: Why does one exchange silver for bronze? Because one exchanges silver for gold! Then one should not be able to exchange gold for silver since one does not exchange gold for bronze! Rebbi Eleazar ben Rebbi Simeon answered him: Certainly Second Tithe gold one exchanges for small coins in Jerusalem! When has this been said? For demay but not for certain tithe!” Since the Yerushalmi does not consider demay in this connection, the Tosephta cannot be the basis of the Yerushalmi.: “Rebbi Eleazar ben Rebbi Simeon says one exchanges gold for silver just as one exchanges silver for bronze¹⁰⁴. Rebbi said to him: Why does one exchange silver for bronze? Because one exchanges silver for gold¹⁰⁵! Should one exchange gold for silver¹⁰⁶? One does not exchange gold for bronze! Rebbi Eleazar ben Rebbi Simeon answered him: Certainly one exchanges Second Tithe gold for small coins in Jerusalem!” From the arguments of both of them one exchanges silver for silver and one does not exchange silver for bronze¹⁰⁷, it is clear that one should read: “one exchanges silver for bronze and one does not exchange silver for silver.” An exchange of silver for silver would not accomplish anything..

footnotes: ¹⁰³ Tosephta 2:7: “Rebbi Eleazar ben Rebbi Simeon says one should be able to exchange ¹⁰⁴ Since this exchange (outside of Jerusalem) is authorized only in emergencies, the exchange of gold for silver also should be authorized only in emergencies. ¹⁰⁵ The opinion of the House of Hillel in the next Mishnah. ¹⁰⁶ The standard means of payment was the silver tetradrachma. Gold coins have to be exchanged by a competent money changer and bronze/copper coins are only local currency. In both cases one reduces the immediate availability of the money in Jerusalem and this should be avoided. ¹⁰⁷ While this is the text in both mss. and the editio princeps

Rebbi Joḥanan said, the House of Shammai said this only at the end, but at the beginning also the House of Shammai agree¹⁰⁸ and go to the place which the Eternal, your God, will choose.” An echo of the discussion here is in Babli Baba Meẓi‘a 45a. In the final interpretation there, the reason of the House of Shammai is rabbinical, not biblical.. What is the reason of the House of Shammai? (Deut. 14:25) “Silver”, not gold. Say “silver” but not bronze! But did we not state¹⁰⁹ 50b, Qiddušin 11b) since nobody starts out exchanging produce for silver coins.: “If somebody gets change for coins of Second Tithe”? We wanted to say that the Mishnah means: If somebody takes¹¹⁰ a tetradrachma for coins of Second Tithe. How is that? The reason of the House of Shammai is that silver and bronze have the same rule¹¹¹. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, both at the beginning and at the end does the House of Shammai disagree. What is the reason of the House of Shammai? (Deut. 14:25) “Silver” first and not second¹¹²” to mean that redemption of Second Tithe is possible only with silver coin.. But did we not state: “If somebody gets change for coins of Second Tithe”? We wanted to say that the Mishnah means: If somebody takes a tetradrachma for coins of Second Tithe. How is that? The reason of the House of Shammai (Deut. 14:25): “Silver”, it should add up to silver¹¹³, that one should not go to Jerusalem unless he has at least a silver coin of Second Tithe money to spend there. But even if one has 25 silver coins to carry there, the House of Shammai will not permit them to be changed into a gold denar. The House of Hillel interpret כסף as “money” in all these verses..

footnotes: ¹⁰⁸ In this interpretation, the House of Shammai require that any coin of tithe money taken to Jerusalem should be a silver coin since it is written (Deut. 14:24–25): “If the way is too much for you that you cannot carry it all the way … then turn it into silver, take the silver in your hand ¹⁰⁹ Mishnah 2:8, seemingly about exchanging large coins for small change outside of Jerusalem. The interpretation turns the language of the Mishnah on its head and reads: “He who takes small coins of Second Tithe money and turns them into large coins,” which is permitted. This interpretation is accepted by Rashi (Bekhorot ¹¹⁰ מצרף is the same as the corresponding Arabic صرف “to exchange money” in the sense of giving large coins for small, in contrast to פורט, giving change for large coins. (J. N. Epstein, מבוא לנוסח המשנה2, p. 487.) ¹¹¹ It is unreasonable to expect the Second Tithe of one year to amount to a tetradrachma’s worth. Therefore, they must permit the original redemption in copper coins to be turned into silver but exclude gold coins. ¹¹² We think that he takes the verse “then turn it into silver ¹¹³ He really only insists on the second part of the verse, take the silver in your hand

MISHNAH: He who gives a tetradrachma for change of Second Tithe money¹¹⁴, the House of Shammai say small change for the entire tetradrachma but the House of Hillel say one šeqel¹¹⁵ 1:9), the House of Hillel think that if everybody brings only silver coin to Jerusalem, the money changers there will raise the price of bronze coins relative to silver. silver coin and one šeqel small coin. Rebbi Meïr says, one does not exchange silver coin and produce for silver coin¹¹⁶, but the Sages permit it. He who gives a tetradrachma for change of Second Tithe money¹¹⁴, the House of Shammai say small change for the entire tetradrachma but the House of Hillel say one šeqel¹¹⁵ 1:9), the House of Hillel think that if everybody brings only silver coin to Jerusalem, the money changers there will raise the price of bronze coins relative to silver. silver coin and one šeqel small coin. Rebbi Meïr says, one does not exchange silver coin and produce for silver coin¹¹⁶, but the Sages permit it. If part of one’s children were pure and part impure¹²³, he puts down the tetradrachma¹²⁴ and says, this tetradrachma shall be exchanged for what the pure are drinking. It turns out that the pure and the impure may drink from the same pitcher¹²⁵.

footnotes: ¹¹⁴ Cf. Note 109. In this interpretation, the House of Hillel require bronze coins to be exchanged into silver coins at the earliest possible moment since bronze coins are more likely to deteriorate. ¹¹⁵ Two drachmas (silver denars), half a tetradrachma. This change is outside of Jerusalem. As R. Abraham ben David explains in his commentary to the Mishnah (Idiut ¹¹⁶ If somebody has three silver denars and produce in the value of one denar of Second Tithe, he should not exchange them together for a tetradrachma. ¹¹⁴ Cf. Note 109. In this interpretation, the House of Hillel require bronze coins to be exchanged into silver coins at the earliest possible moment since bronze coins are more likely to deteriorate. ¹¹⁵ Two drachmas (silver denars), half a tetradrachma. This change is outside of Jerusalem. As R. Abraham ben David explains in his commentary to the Mishnah (Idiut ¹¹⁶ If somebody has three silver denars and produce in the value of one denar of Second Tithe, he should not exchange them together for a tetradrachma. ¹²³ All are forbidden Second Tithe. ¹²⁴ Of tithe money. ¹²⁵ The wine must be pure so that it can become Second Tithe the moment it is poured into the cups of the pure children.

HALAKHAH: Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, where do Rebbi Meïr and the rabbis disagree? If the produce is not worth a silver coin. But for produce worth a silver coin also the rabbis agree. Half a denar in money and half a denar’s worth of produce is permitted. A denar in money and a denar’s worth of produce is forbidden¹¹⁷, and so much more two denars in money and two denar’s worth of produce is forbidden.

footnotes: ¹¹⁷ Since silver coin should not be exchanged for silver coin; cf. Note 107.

These are the ones who argue: Ben Azai and Ben Zoma. These are the students: Ḥanina ben Haḵiniah and Rebbi Eleazar ben Mathia¹²⁶ 17b, those who argue before the Sages are Simeon ben Azai, Simeon ben Zoma, Ḥanan the Egyptian, Ḥanina ben Hakinai, and possibly Simeon the Yemenite. According to Rashi, they argue before the Sages, or are called students, because they all died young before they could establish their own schools.. The holy group, Rebbi Yose ben Hameshullam and Rebbi Simeon ben Menasiah¹²⁷ on 9:9..

footnotes: ¹²⁶ In the Babli, Sanhedrin ¹²⁷ They are called holy because they studied all the time they could but worked to sustain their families, Qohelet rabba

What is the reason of Shammai? Maybe he will forget and treat it as profane¹²⁸!

footnotes: ¹²⁸ If he has both profane and tithe moneys, he will not be able to keep them separate and might spend tithe money on unauthorized expenditures.The Rome ms. reads וישתה for ויעשׂה; which seems to be a scribal error.

Where do we hold? If he¹²⁹ said it before, the drink is mixed. If he said it when it will be drunk, before they drank profane. But we hold that he said it before to apply at the time of drinking.

footnotes: ¹²⁹ The father mentioned in Mishnah 10. He cannot declare part of the wine as Second Tithe before it is poured since then the impure children will also drink from Second Tithe. He cannot declare anything after the wine was consumed. He must declare beforehand that his declaration is conditional and applies only when the wine is poured and drunk.

If they are impure by the impurity of the dead, for no clay vessel becomes impure from its back¹³⁰. 11:33. In this case, even an impure child may handle the pitcher and pour pure wine for his pure siblings.. But if they are impure by the impurity of flux¹³¹. 15:10. In this case, the impure person may not move the pitcher., since the impure from flux makes impure by carrying, this cannot be the case unless one [other person] pours. But if one [other] pours, even if they are impure by the impurity of flux.

footnotes: ¹³⁰ What kind of impurity do the impure children have? A clay vessel can make its contents impure only if it became impure inside its cavity, Lev ¹³¹ Somebody impure because of a genital discharge causes impurity to anything he carries, Lev