MISHNAH: A person should not say to another: bring this produce to Jerusalem to distribute¹, but he may say bring it that we shall eat and drink it together, or they may give free gifts to one another.

footnotes: ¹ He cannot promise the other person a piece of the Second Tithe as reward for his transporting the tithe since that would be a commercial transaction forbidden by Mishnah 1:1. He can either invite the other to join in the consumption of the tithe or he can give it all to the other as an unconditional gift; the other person will take it up to Jerusalem, and then may give it to the original owner as an unconditional gift.

HALAKHAH: ² 8:4, and are explained there, Notes 51–62.“One should not say to another person,” etc. What is the difference between him who says “to distribute” and him who says “that we should eat and drink them?” Rebbi Zeïra in the name of Rebbi Jonathan, this is one of the practices of obfuscation. There, we have stated: If somebody says to a day-laborer: “Here you have an as and collect vegetables for me today”, these wages are permitted. “For its value collect vegetables for me today”, these wages are forbidden. If somebody bought from the baker a loaf in the value of a dupondius [and says], when I collect vegetables from the field I shall bring to you, that is permitted. If he took from him silently he should not pay with the proceeds of Sabbatical [produce] since one may not pay a debt with proceeds of the Sabbatical. What is the difference between him who says “collect for me” and him who says “for its value collect for me”? Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina, this is one of the practices of obfuscation. There, we have stated: “A person may borrow from another pitchers of wine or oil but he should not say: lend me.” What is the difference between him who says “let me borrow” and him who says “lend me”? Rebbi Zeïra in the name of Rebbi Jonathan, this is one of the practices of obfuscation.

footnotes: ² This paragraph and the next appear (with a natural change in the order of the first two subjects) in Ševi‘it

Their bread. Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Jonathan: This also belongs to the practices of obfuscation. Rebbi Yose said, I objected before Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa: Why should it belong to the practices of obfuscation? Do I say that at a place where Jewish bread is available, Gentile bread should be forbidden but they obfuscated about it and permitted it or that at a place where no Jewish bread is available it is logical that Gentile bread should be permitted, but they obfuscated the matter and forbade it. Rebbi Mana said: Does there exist obfuscation for prohibition? Is bread not like Gentile cooking? So we say: At a place where no Jewish cooking is to be found it is logical that Gentile cooking should be permitted, but they obfuscated the matter and forbade it. But so it was: At a place where no Jewish bread is available it is logical that Gentile bread should be forbidden, but they obfuscated the matter and permitted it as a necessity of life. The rabbis of Caesarea in the name of Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa [hold] with the one who permits, but only from a store. But we do not follow this.

⁴ 8:4; it is there in rudimentary form, cf. Ševi‘it8, Note 69. It was stated: “Rebbi Jehudah and Rebbi Neḥemiah forbid it.⁵ 6:21: “If somebody buys from the baker a loaf for a dupondius [and says] I shall collect vegetables from the field this is permitted [in the Sabbatical]. Rebbis Jehudah and Neḥemiah forbid it.”” What are we talking about? If about him⁶ who says, here you have it, give me [payment], everybody agrees that it is forbidden. If he⁷ says, give me and I shall give you, everybody agrees that it is permitted. But it is about one who says, give it to me and it is clear to me [where to find it], I shall bring it to you; Rebbi Jehudah and Rebbi Neḥemiah forbid it because vegetables on the field are rare; but the Sages permit it because vegetables on the field are abundant.

footnotes: ⁴ This also belongs to Ševi‘it ⁵ Tosephta Ševi‘it ⁶ The baker. In this formulation, Sabbatical vegetables would be used for the payment of a debt; this is forbidden. ⁷ The buyer.

After he transported it, may he say take your part and I shall take mine⁸? May he say to him, take this barrel of wine⁹ and we shall eat the barrel of oil that is there. Is it similar with animal tithe¹⁰? Second Tithe, since it has special conditions for a sale¹¹ you say is forbidden but animal tithe since it has no conditions for a sale¹². 27:32–33, Mishnah 1:2. you say is permitted. It should not be clear to you that it is permitted. May he ask him, take and transport this domesticated or wild animal, and we shall eat meat from a ritually slaughtered animal there¹³ who emends בהמה וחיה into בהמה חיה and reads: “May he ask another person, take and transport this live animal [of tithe], and we shall eat [its] meat [once it is] ritually slaughtered [in the Temple] there?” It is possible to call meat from the sacrifice of animal tithe “slaughtered meat”, an expression usually reserved for profane meat, since only the blood of the animal is sprinkled on the altar but no part of it is burned or given to a Cohen.?

footnotes: ⁸ If the tithe is already in Jerusalem, is the language which was barred in the Mishnah acceptable? ⁹ And transport it to Jerusalem. ¹⁰ This question refers both to the situation described in the Mishnah and the two questions raised here. ¹¹ While it is forbidden to sell Second Tithe, it may be exchanged for money and then sold. ¹² Redemption and any use of animal tithe other than as sacrifice or food of the family of the original rancher is strictly forbidden; Lev ¹³ It is difficult to make sense of the question in the framework of tithes. The best explanation seems to be that of the author of Sepher Nir

MISHNAH: One may not buy heave with tithe money because he would restrict its edibility¹⁴, but Rebbi Simeon permits. Rebbi Simeon said to them: If He was lenient with well-being sacrifices¹⁵ when that could bring them to be piggul¹⁶. 7:18, 19:7)., leftover¹⁷, or impure¹⁸, would He not be lenient with heave? They answered him but no, if He was lenient with well-being sacrifices that are permitted to outsiders¹⁹, can we be lenient with heave which is forbidden to outsiders?

footnotes: ¹⁴ To Cohanim as explained in the Halakhah. ¹⁵ As established in Chapter 1, that meat bought with tithe money should be meat from well-being sacrifices. ¹⁶ A sacrifice brought with the intent of eating it at an inappropriate time or inappropriate place, a deadly sin (Lev ¹⁷ Leftovers from sacrificial meat remaining after the allotted time, whose consumption is sinful. ¹⁸ The rules of impurity for sacrifices are much more restrictive than those for heave; in turn, the rules of impurity for heave are much more restrictive than those for Second Tithe. However, in the opinion of most tannaïtic authorities, these rules are purely rabbinical. Therefore, it is possible that “or impure” is an intrusion from the standard list of disqualifications of a sacrifice, פיגול נותר וטמא. ¹⁹ Non-Cohanim.

HALAKHAH: It was stated: “That it should not become unusable²⁰.” What is “become unusable”? Rebbi Jonah said, it becomes unusable through a ṭevul-yom²¹ Chapter 5, Note 68.. You cannot eat it, for he is impure by the word of the Torah²². 22:7): “at sundown he will be pure”, in regard to heave and sacrifices he has a biblical status of not being pure.; you cannot for he is pure by the word of the Torah²³., there is only a requirement of immersion in water.. That means, that it should not become unusable²⁴.

footnotes: ²⁰ Heave from Second Tithe can become unusable in a way Second Tithe could not. ²¹ A previously impure person in the time between his immersion in a ritual bath and sundown; if he touches heave or sacrifices they become unusable, cf. Terumot ²² He really is not impure, as stated in the next clause. But since the verse says (Lev ²³ The requirement of waiting till sundown is spelled out only in connection with heave and sacrifices. In all other circumstances of impurity mentioned in Lev ²⁴ It will be stated in Mishnah 10 that impure Second Tithe in Jerusalem can be redeemed and eaten as impure food. But heave, suspended between purity and impurity, does not qualify for redemption or any other use.

What means “he would restrict its edibility”? Heave is forbidden to outsiders, Second Tithe is permitted to outsiders. Heave is forbidden to a ṭevul-yom, Second Tithe is permitted to a ṭevul-yom. And just as he would restrict its edibility, so he would restrict her²⁵ edibility. Heave is permitted to the deep mourner, Second Tithe is forbidden to the deep mourner²⁶. 26:14): “I did not eat from it in my deep mourning.”. Heave does not need an enclosure, Second Tithe needs an enclosure²⁷ 2:2.}. It was found stated: “Because he would restrict its edibility and her edibility”.

footnotes: ²⁵ “She” is heave; to make the point understandable the feminine has to be used also in the English translation. ²⁶ The “deep mourner” is the close relative of a deceased person in the period between death and burial. While the prohibition is not spelled out, it is implied by the text of the declaration to be made at the presentation of Second Tithe in the Temple (Deut ²⁷ Second Tithe must be eaten in the holy precinct; the expression “enclosure” is broad enough to cover the holy precinct of Shiloh and the walls of Jerusalem. {It is questionable whether the extant Turkish walls of Jerusalem would quality, cf. Mishnah Ševu‘ot

²⁸, fol. 37a. It was stated²⁹ 7:1: “One does not exchange Second Tithe [money] on Sabbatical produce, but if it was done it should be eaten following the more stringent rules;” i. e., the rules of tithe and of Sabbatical, whichever happens to be more restrictive in a given situation. In this formulation, the discussion here is superfluous.: “One does not buy Sabbatical [produce] with tithe money.” Rebbi Yose said, that is a disagreement³⁰. Rebbi Jonah said, that is the opinion of everybody. The eaters of heave are careful³¹. Rebbi Ḥananiah objected before Rebbi Mana: Did we not state³² 9:7.: “If they³³ were mingled with firstlings, Rebbi Simeon says, if it is a company of Cohanim they should be eaten.” And we have stated on that, they should be eaten following the more stringent rules. He said to him, eaters of the Pesaḥ sacrifice in its time are as careful as the eaters of heave³⁴. You should know that this is so since we have stated³⁵ 1:14. Since increasing or decreasing the fire on the Sabbath is a capital crime, all food has to be fully cooked by the beginning of the Sabbath.: “One roasts meat, onion, or egg only that they should be roasted”, but we have stated³⁶ 1:15. If the first day of Passover is a Sabbath, the sacrifice, which must be roasted in the night, is put over the fire just at the start of the Sabbath and we are not afraid that somebody will increase or decrease the fire. This means that prohibitions of “fence” are unnecessary for the Pesaḥ sacrifice.: “One lowers the Pesaḥ sacrifice into the oven at nightfall.”

footnotes: ²⁸ The paragraph is also Halakhah 9:7 in Pesaḥim ²⁹ A similar statement in Tosephta Ševi‘it ³⁰ Between Rebbi Simeon and the rabbis. ³¹ Rebbi Simeon permits heave from tithe only because Cohanim will be careful to finish all their heave in one sitting; then the problems discussed in the previous paragraph will not arise. But between Second Tithe and the Sabbatical, he will agree with the majority. ³² Mishnah Pesaḥim ³³ Pesaḥ sacrifices. The Sages require that the animals be put out to graze until they develop a defect which makes them unfit for the altar. Then they can be sold and the money used for sacrifices. Rebbi Simeon notes that the ways in which Pesaḥ and firstlings are sacrificed are identical. Therefore, he permits a company of Cohanim, who are entitled to eat firstlings, to make a declaration that they intend to eat the one that should be Pesaḥ as such and the firstling as such, and eat both of them without knowing which is which. This means, he permits the firstling, usually eaten for two days and one night, to be eaten during one night only. He permits reducing the time allowed for consumption. ³⁴ Nothing will be left beyond midnight. ³⁵ Mishnah Šabbat ³⁶ Mishnah Šabbat

Rebbi Joshua ben Levi says: One does add a fifth only for the first dedication⁴⁰ Chapter 6, Note 1.. Rebbi Eleazar said, this is what has been stated (Lev. 27:27): “If it is an impure animal, he shall redeem it for its value⁴¹;” just as an impure animal is special in that it is a first dedication⁴² so for anything which is a first dedication he has to add a fifth. Rebbi Samuel bar Ḥiyya bar Jehudah⁴³ in the name of Rebbi Ḥanina: If well-being sacrificial animals bought with tithe money developed a blemish and one redeemed them, he adds a fifth. Rebbi Samuel bar Ḥiyya bar Jehudah in the name of Rebbi Ḥanina: If well-being sacrificial animals bought with Passover money⁴⁴ sacrifice must be eaten by subscription, if more animals were bought before the holiday than were actually used, the remainder are automatically used for well-being sacrifices (Babli Zebaḥim7b). developed a blemish and one redeemed them, he adds a fifth. Rebbi Yudan said, one is needed and one is not needed. Rebbi Mana said, Passover is needed, well-being sacrifices are not needed⁴⁵. You should not say that since the Pesaḥ sacrifice is changed into well-being sacrifices it is like one dedication, he would not add a fifth⁴⁶ was automatically changed into a well-being sacrifice which then developed a blemish, one certainly would have to add a fifth. But in the case here the well-being sacrifice was bought with money from the redemption of a blemished pesaḥ sacrifice, one should not say that this is a second dedication exempt from the fifth..

footnotes: ⁴⁰ As a rule, any money paid to the Temple in liquidation of a personal debt is paid at the rate of 125% of the debt, the value plus one fifth from above; cf. Terumot ⁴¹ The verse continues: “its fifth he shall add to it”. ⁴² An impure animal, i. e., a domesticated animal whose kind is not acceptable as a sacrifice, given to the Temple can only be an original gift, never a substitution. ⁴³ An Amora of the early second generation, student of R. Ḥanina. In the Babli, he appears as R. Samuel ben Ḥiyya. ⁴⁴ Since the pesaḥ ⁴⁵ Since tithe money is used mainly for well-being sacrifices, this is the original dedication. ⁴⁶ If the pesaḥ

Rebbi Huna said, the reason of Rebbi Simeon⁴⁸ is that he says the pesaḥ sacrifice cannot be substituted; if he substituted a second time it still is a pesaḥ. If he substituted, it is a well-being sacrifice⁴⁹. 27:10); if an animal was substituted, the verse prescribes that “the original and the substitute shall be holy.” It is not specified how to proceed if there are degrees of holiness. On this, Mishnah Pesaḥim 9:6 states that if the substitution was before noon of the 14th of Nisan, when the pesaḥ could not have been slaughtered, the substituted animal cannot be slaughtered since nobody subscribed to it and it cannot become a well-being sacrifice since it is not a leftover pesaḥ. Therefore, it remains pesaḥ and must be left grazing until it develops a blemish when it must be sold and the money used for a well-being sacrifice. But if the substitution was after noontime of the 14th of Nisan, when the pesaḥ is slaughtered, the substitution is a leftover pesaḥ and automatically becomes a well-being sacrifice.! Rebbi Mana said to him, did my teacher⁵⁰ not compare the following? Rebbi Abba, Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, if well-being sacrifices bought with tithe money developed a blemish and he redeemed them, it⁵¹ does not return to its original status to make it a second. Rebbi Zeïra, Rebbi Hila, both in the name of Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina, one said if well-being sacrifices were bought with tithe money, the holiness of tithe broke away from them⁵². If heave was bought with tithe money, the holiness of tithe did not break away from it⁵³. The Mishnah breaks⁵⁴: Can you object from a case in which the holiness of tithe broke away to a case in which the holiness of tithe did not break away? The other one said, this does not mean one objects from a case in which its holiness broke away to a case in which its holiness did not break away; he says to him, it is one immersion⁵⁵ is irrelevant since the important act was the immersion of the person; waiting a short time is not really a restriction..

footnotes: ⁴⁸ In Mishnah 2. This paragraph, for which the preceding one was the introduction, still should belong to Halakhah 2, ⁴⁹ Substitution of sacrifices is forbidden (Lev ⁵⁰ This word is missing in the Rome ms. ⁵¹ The tithe money. As explained after this, the money now is profane and well-being offerings bought with this money are first dedications rather than second. ⁵² Since in all respects, the rules of well-being sacrifices are more strict than those of tithe. ⁵³ As explained in Mishnah 2. ⁵⁴ The argument of R. Simeon in the Mishnah is faulty. ⁵⁵ The original argument of the Sages about the ṭevul yom

MISHNAH: If somebody had coins in Jerusalem and his friend had produce³⁷, he says to his friend, these coins are exchanged for your produce. That one has to eat his produce in purity but he can use his coins for his needs. But one should not say this to a vulgar unless they were from demay³⁸. Second Tithe from demay is only conditional tithe; it is not sure whether it really has to be eaten in purity. Therefore, it may be exchanged for produce of the vulgar.. Produce in Jerusalem and coins in the countryside, he says these coins are exchanged for that produce. Coins in Jerusalem and produce in the countryside, he says that produce is exchanged for these coins; then the produce must be brought to and eaten in Jerusalem³⁹. [Tithe] money enters Jerusalem and leaves; [tithe] produce enters but does not leave. Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel says, even produce enters and leaves. If fully processed produce was transported through Jerusalem, its Second Tithe should be brought back and eaten in Jerusalem⁵⁷. If the produce was not fully processed, the baskets of grapes are for the wine-press, and baskets of figs for the muqẓeh. The House of Shammai say, the Second Tithe should be brought up and eaten in Jerusalem⁵⁸. But the House of Hillel say, it may be redeemed and eaten anywhere. Rebbi Simeon ben Jehudah⁵⁹ said in the name of Rebbi Yose, the House of Shammai and the House of Hillel did not disagree about produce which was not fully processed, that its Second Tithe may be redeemed and eaten anywhere. Where did they disagree? About fully processed produce, where the House of Shammay said, its Second Tithe should be brought back and eaten in Jerusalem, but the House of Hillel said, it may be redeemed and eaten anywhere. Demay enters, leaves, and may be redeemed⁶⁰‘aser Šeni2:9), it is agreed that tithe from demay produce which passed through Jerusalem may be redeemed anywhere but Second Tithe from demay may not be redeemed in Jerusalem. In his Commentary, Maimonides refers to Mishnah Demay 1:2 and frees Second Tithe of demay from the rules of Mishnaiot 4–7; this contradicts Halakhah 6..

footnotes: ³⁷ The coins are tithe money, the produce is profane. By the declaration, the produce becomes Second Tithe and has to be eaten in purity but the coins are profane and may be used for business. ³⁸ The vulgar cannot be trusted to eat anything in purity; see the Introduction to Demay ³⁹ The only exchange prohibited is that of Second Tithe produce in Jerusalem. ⁵⁷ Even outside of Jerusalem it cannot be redeemed since tithes should have been separated before it was transported to Jerusalem. ⁵⁸ In most Mishnah mss. this Mishnah is part of the preceding one and continues the preceding text. Even though no tithes were due at the time the produce was in Jerusalem, the influence of Jerusalem is so great that even potential tithe cannot be redeemed. ⁵⁹ A Tanna of the fifth generation, the most important student of R. Simeon bar Ioḥay. Sometimes, he is called R. Simeon ben Jehudah from Kefar Akko. ⁶⁰ This statement is part of the statement of R. Simeon ben Jehudah. According to R. Simson and Maimonides in his Code (Ma

HALAKHAH: “But one should not say this to a vulgar unless they were from demay”; therefore, not if it is certain since one does not deliver certain [tithe] to a vulgar³⁸. Second Tithe from demay is only conditional tithe; it is not sure whether it really has to be eaten in purity. Therefore, it may be exchanged for produce of the vulgar..

footnotes: ³⁸ The vulgar cannot be trusted to eat anything in purity; see the Introduction to Demay

To make a dough and return it, to make a dough and return it⁵⁶.

footnotes: ⁵⁶ Cf. Chapter 2, Halakhah 4, Note 80.

Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, this means they made Jerusalem like a secure courtyard⁶¹‘serot 2, Notes 100–102.. Just as a secure courtyard induces ṭevel, this also induces ṭevel. Rebbi Jonah said, it would have been logical that even its houses would not induce ṭevel since they are property of all of Israel⁶² sacrifices. Therefore, there always were unrelated people who had the right to enter courtyard or house and, by Mishnah Ma‘serot 3:5, courtyard and house do not induce ṭevel.. But it means they made Jerusalem like a secure courtyard. Just as a secure courtyard grabs, so this grabs⁶³ for all produce only if completely processed. (Explanation of Sefer Nir.). Rebbi [Jonah]⁶⁴ said, this means if a heap was ṭevel for First and Second [Tithes] and he was warned [only] about the Second⁶⁵ he is whipped. Rebbi Mana objected: Did we not state, the House of Shammai say, the Second Tithe should return and be eaten in Jerusalem? Can you say that he is whipped according to the House of Shammai⁶⁶ for First Tithe, whipping somebody for not giving Second Tithe when he was warned about it before Second Tithe was due is ruling with the House of Shammai against the House of Hillel. This is unacceptable.? But enclosures are more important; here also, enclosures are more important⁶⁷.

footnotes: ⁶¹ Cf. Ma ⁶² In the Second Commonwealth, every house in Jerusalem was built with a servitude that its owner would host some pilgrims for the holidays. The owners were indemnified by their guests with the skins of their thanksgiving, well-being, and pesaḥ ⁶³ Just as a secure courtyard “grabs” produce to require heave and tithes only if completely processed, so Jerusalem induces ṭevel ⁶⁴ Missing in the mss. but required by the context, as noted by R. S. Cirillo. ⁶⁵ At a moment where there was no obligation of Second Tithe since the First was not yet separated. ⁶⁶ Since only the House of Shammai recognize an action of Jerusalem on produce which is ṭevel ⁶⁷ Cf. Note 27. The rules have nothing to do with Jerusalem being like a secure courtyard and those rules are irrelevant here. It is that for simple sacrifices and tithes the walls of Jerusalem happen to be the enclosure of the holy precinct; since biblical law requires the produce to be brought into the enclosure, its rules must be applied.

Rebbi Zeïra asked: If he separated Second Tithe for it from another place, is it freed or was it already grabbed by the enclosure⁶⁸ was transported through Jerusalem, is it possible to give Second Tithe for it from other produce, which then could be redeemed, or, according to the anonymous Tanna of Mishnah 5, must the Second Tithe be given from this batch only?? Rebbi Jonah asked: If he made all of it Second Tithe for some place, is all of it taken or only one tenth of what is in it⁶⁹?

footnotes: ⁶⁸ If fully processed produce not yet ṭevel ⁶⁹ There are two possible interpretations of this question. It is possible that he is of the opinion that, after First Tithe was given, the Second Tithe is already implicitly holy and therefore does not accept any other dedication since its place is not known, or that he holds that one tenth is reserved but the rest may be used for Second tithe at another place.

Therefore, baskets of table figs and baskets of table grapes are end of processing⁷⁰.

footnotes: ⁷⁰ This refers to the Mishnah, that baskets of fruits for further processing are free from the duties of tithes.

⁷¹“The House of Hillel said to the House of Shammai: Do you not agree with us that Second Tithe of not fully processed produce may be redeemed and eaten anywhere? Also with fully processed produce it is the same. The House of Shammai answered them: No. If you say this about not fully processed produce which one may abandon and thereby free from tithes, what can you say about fully processed produce which one cannot abandon and thereby free from tithes⁷² 1:6 states that a person can give away any produce free of heave and tithes “until he smoothes the heap.” While the Yerushalmi there holds that this statement is from the House of Shammai, R. Simson points out that the House of Hillel will agree if “smoothing the heap” is interpreted as “completing processing in one’s courtyard or house.” But the situation envisaged in Mishnah 6/7 is that of produce fully processed but still not under the obligation of heave and tithes because it was processed in the field and, therefore, has to be transported to the house (via Jerusalem). Therefore, the House of Hillel will hold that produce fully processed but still not under the obligation of heave can be given away and then is not under any potential obligation of heave and tithes.. The House of Hillel replied to them: Even fully processed produce one may abandon and thereby free from tithes; are not baskets of eating figs or grapes fully processed?” This proves that baskets of table figs and baskets of table grapes are end of processing⁷³. “The House of Shammai answered them: No. If you say this about not fully processed produce for which one may take Second Tithe from another place, what can you say about fully processed produce⁷⁴ for which one cannot take Second Tithe from another place!” This answers the question simply⁷⁵.

footnotes: ⁷¹ The first part of the argument is in Tosephta 2:11, in the name of R. Simeon ben Jehudah in the name of R. Yose. A second argument there (by the House of Hillel) is not in the text here. ⁷² Mishnah Peah ⁷³ An amoraic note in the tannaïtic text to support the statement at the end of the preceding Halakhah. ⁷⁴ Which passed through Jerusalem. Since heave of the tithe can be taken from another place for other fully processed produce, certainly Second Tithe may be taken for it from another place. ⁷⁵ R. Zeïra’s question in the preceding Halakhah which was not answered there.

Rebbi Zeïra said: Rebbi Ḥanina, Rebbi Jonathan, and Rebbi Joshua ben Levi ascended to Jerusalem. There happened to be produce⁷⁷ produce and had to dispose of it according to the rules in the absence of a Temple. for them; they wanted to redeem it in the countryside⁷⁸ and redeem the Second Tithe there, which they counld not do in the city.. An old woman⁷⁹ 3:4, Note 182. told them, your forefathers did not do that but took it outside of the wall and redeemed it there. The old woman thought one considers the enclosures as if they were risen; those rabbis thought one does not consider the enclosures as if they were risen⁸⁰8:6) that one may eat Second Tithe inside the holy precinct even if the enclosures (the walls of Jerusalem) are destroyed. Therefore, it is enough to take the produce out of the part of the city that in Temple times was walled. The rabbis hold that ritual Jerusalem is defined only by its walls; therefore, in the absence of walls there is no duty to keep the Second Tithe in Jerusalem but the city is defined by its actual extension, not that of Temple times. The Babli (Makkot 20a, in the name of Rabba or Rebbi Abba) chooses a third way, that holy food may be eaten only within actual walls but that the rules regarding “grabbing” are purely rabbinical and, therefore, abolished with the destruction of the sanctified walls.. The old woman held with Rebbi Eliezer; those rabbis held with Rebbi Joshua⁸¹ 107b) tentatively disagrees, but then must hold that the enclosure of the Temple domain is merely cosmetic, a position not accepted in other parts of the Babli. The relationship of the positions of RR. Joshua and Eliezer to the problem at hand is tenuous since permanent sanctity is asserted only for the Temple domain on the Temple Mount, not for the rest of Jerusalem. See also the discussion of this problem in the author’s Seder Olam (Northvale NJ, 1998), pp. 257–259. The text here is difficult; as R. M. Margalit points out it would seem that the old woman follows R. Joshua and the rabbis R. Eliezer. But that would put the rabbis on the wrong side of the law, a most unlikely situation. One has to conclude that the reference to a disagreement between RR. Joshua and Eliezer is to some baraita unknown to us.. Rebbi Phineas made it impure and redeemed it; he took both into consideration.

footnotes: ⁷⁷ They obtained ṭevel ⁷⁸ Take it outside the city as ṭevel ⁷⁹ The mss. read here סבא “an old man” but since the discussion is about the opinions of the old woman, one has to read סבתא here also. The Yerushalmi in general approves of women students of Jewish laws and tradition; cf. Berakhot ⁸⁰ The old woman follows R. Joshua who declares (Mishnah Idiut ⁸¹ The Yerushalmi holds that if R. Joshua thinks that the holiness of Solomon’s Temple is eternal, R. Eliezer must think that it terminated with the destruction of the Temple. The Babli (Sebaḥim

Rebbi Jacob bar Idi and Rebbi Joshua ben Levi⁸², practice follows the student⁸³, Note 60.. Rebbi Zeïra said, only for produce which is ṭevel as demai. But [tithe of] demai itself is already grabbed by the enclosure.

footnotes: ⁸² Probably one should read רבי יהושע instead of ורבי יהושע since the student, R. Jaacob bar Idi, can be a tradent of the teachings but not the equal of his teacher. ⁸³ R. Simeon ben Jehudah in his statement about demay

MISHNAH: A tree which stands inside⁸³, Note 60. and [its crown] extends outside, or stands outside and extends inside, what is above the wall and inside is like inside, above the wall and outside is like outside. Oil presses whose entrances are inside but their space extends to the outside or whose entrances are outside but their space extends to the inside, the House of Shammai say it is all counted as inside, but the House of Hillel say what is under the wall and inside is like inside, under the wall and outside is like outside⁸⁴ 7:10 it is stated that the wall is counted as inside. Therefore, the interpretation here should be: From the wall to the outside it is outside. However, in the Tosephta (Ma‘aser Šeni 2:15) the status of the wall is a matter of controversy.. If chambers are built in the holy precinct and open to the profane domain, their insides are profane but their roofs holy⁸⁵. If they are built in the profane domain but open to the holy precinct, their insides are holy but their roofs profane. If they are built in the holy and the profane and open both to the holy and the profane⁸⁶ and then leave directly into the profane domain as a ṭevul yom., their insides and their roofs, over the holy and in direction of the holy they are holy⁸⁷, over the profane and in direction of the profane they are profane.

footnotes: ⁸³ R. Simeon ben Jehudah in his statement about demay ⁸⁴ In all these rules, the wall appears both outside and inside. In Mishnah Pesaḥim ⁸⁵ In the profane domain, Second Tithe and simple sacrifices (family sacrifices) may be consumed. In the holy part, most-holy sacrifices may be consumed and simple sacrifices be slaughtered. (Most-holy sacrifices must be slaughtered inside the precinct, North of the altar.) ⁸⁶ The chamber of the fireplace, where the Cohanim kept watch during the night and from which a Cohen who became impure could first descend to a subterranean miqweh ⁸⁷ The border between holy and profane domain was indicated by a mosaic strip. This strip takes the function of the wall which belongs to both domains.

HALAKHAH: Rebbi Eleazar said, for restriction. Rebbi Yose asked, what means “for restriction”? Rebbi Jonah said, that is what we have stated there⁸⁸ 2:16) formulates as follows: “Houses by the wall which open inside the wall but extend outside, under the wall and inside it is like inside the city in all respects, but under the wall and outside one does neither eat nor redeem as a restriction. If they were built inside but open to the outside, from the wall to the outside one redeems, to the inside one neither redeems nor eats as a restriction. The thickness of the wall and the loopholes are like the inside.” The last sentence is Mishnah Pesaḥim7:10.: “Oil presses whose doors are open inside but which extend to the outside, under the wall and inside is like inside, under the wall and outside is like outside. One does not slaughter there simple sacrifices as one would inside and one does not redeem Second Tithe as outside. If their doors are open outside but extend to the inside, under the wall and outside is like outside, under the wall and inside, one does not slaughter there simple sacrifices as one would inside and one does not redeem Second Tithe as outside.”

footnotes: ⁸⁸ The text here is hopelessly garbled since oil presses (Mishnah 8) are in the city, not on the Temple Mount but sacrifices are slaughtered in the Temple precinct (Mishnah 9). As a minimum one would have to replace “slaughter” by “eat” to adapt the text to the circumstances of the city of Jerusalem.A consistent text is in Tosephta 2:12: “Oil presses whose entrances are inside [the city] but their space extends to the outside or whose entrances are outside but their space extends to the inside, the House of Shammai say one does not redeem there Second Tithe as if it were inside and not does not eat simple sacrifices as if it were outside. But the House of Hillel say what is under the wall and inside is like inside, under the wall and outside is like outside. Rebbi Yose said, this is the teaching of Rebbi Aqiba. The earlier teaching: The House of Shammai say one does not redeem there Second Tithe as if it were inside nor does one eat simple sacrifices as if it were outside. But the House of Hillel say, they are similar to chambers; those open to the inside are like inside, those open to the outside like outside.”It is impossible to correct the text by the Tosephta (except for “eat” instead of “slaughter”) since the statement of R. Yose is quoted in a different context at the end of the Halakhah. Also, to extend the prohibition both of eating sacrifices and of redeeming tithe to the entire space would do violence to the text; in that case there would be no difference between being open to the inside or the outside. One must conclude that the place where one restricts to exclude the activities both outside and inside the walls is the place under the wall itself.Maimonides (Ma‘aser Šeni

Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa said, so is the Mishnah⁹⁰: “Their insides are holy and their roofs (are profane)⁸⁹, over the holy and in the direction of the holy they are holy, over the profane and in direction of the profane they are profane.” “Built in the holy but open to the holy and the profane, the inside is holy. Built in the profane but open to the holy and the profane, the inside is profane. There, where you say the inside is holy one eats most holy sacrifices, slaughters simple holy sacrifices and the impure who enters is guilty.”

footnotes: ⁹⁰ He adds one word, “is holy”, to the last clause in the Mishnah. This is all that is quoted from the Mishnah. ⁸⁹ The word is missing in the Rome ms.; in the Leyden ms. it is added by a second hand. Most probably it should be disregarded; as it was by R. S. Cirillo.

Rav Jehudah in the name of Rav: One whips only for 187 length by 135 width⁹². In the Babli, Zebaḥim 55b, the statement of Rav Jehudah is in the name of his teacher Samuel.. But did we not state: In a chamber built flush with the wall of the Temple courtyard one eats most holy sacrifices, slaughters simple holy sacrifices, but an impure person who enters there cannot be punished⁹³ quoted in the preceding paragraph.. Explain it following the Tanna who stated⁹⁴ follows the Sages, the one quoted here R. Aqiba.: “Rebbi Yose said, these are the words of Rebbi Aqiba. But the Sages say, they classified the chambers and all chambers follow their openings.”

footnotes: ⁹² The inner measurements in cubits of the enclosure of the Temple as stated in Mishnah Middot ⁹³ This supports Rav but contradicts the baraita ⁹⁴ Cf. Tosephta 2:12, Note 88. The preceding baraita

MISHNAH: Second Tithe which entered Jerusalem and became impure, whether from original impurity⁹⁵ or from derivative impurity⁹⁶ 2, Notes 136–137., inside [the city] or outside, the House of Shammai say, all should be redeemed and eaten inside except what became impure from original impurity outside⁹⁷. But the House of Hillel say, all should be redeemed and may be eaten outside except what became impure from derivative impurity inside⁹⁸.

footnotes: ⁹⁵ One of the biblical sources of impurity such as a dead person, a person suffering from a genital discharge, a cadaver, etc. ⁹⁶ By touching something impure in original impurity. Most, but not all, derivative impurities are rabbinic; cf. Demay ⁹⁷ Since by biblical law it could not be eaten when brought into Jerusalem, the enclosure never “grabbed” it (Note 63). ⁹⁸ If its impurity is rabbinic in character, the biblical law will not allow it to be taken out of Jerusalem.

HALAKHAH: It is written (Deut. 14:24): “For you will be unable to take it.” Where do we hold? If far from the Place⁹⁹, it already is written: “If [the distance] will be too much for you.¹⁰⁰, bundle that money in your hand and go to the Place which will be chosen by the Eternal, your God. (26) Then spend the money for all you desire …” The Sifry Deut. (107) explains that while the distance is spatial distance, too far is temporal distance. In any case, the clause unable to carry is redundant.” If near the Place, it already is written (Deut. 14:26): “You shall spend the money¹⁰¹.” What does it mean “for you will be unable to take it”? You cannot redeem it¹⁰² 36b, Baba Meẓi‘a 53a, Makkot 19b, Sanhedrin 112b) has a weird derivation of the same result from the same verse. The Babylonian identification of שׂאת as “food” contrasts with the Yerushalmi’s identification (Ḥagigah 1:3, fol. 76b) as “gift”., and it is written: “You shall spend the money.”

footnotes: ⁹⁹ Shiloh or Jerusalem. ¹⁰⁰ “(24) But if the distance is too much for you, for you will be unable to take it, for the Place, chosen by the Eternal, your God, to put His Name there, is too far from you, because the Eternal blessed you - (25) then turn it into money ¹⁰¹ At the Place one is restricted to spending the money; the exchange of tithe for money is restricted to places far away by v. 25. ¹⁰² Since the verse cannot deal with a situation far from the Place it must be at the Place. The only case in which one cannot take tithe brought to the Place is if the tithe became impure and, therefore, inedible as tithe. Then one has to spend the [redemption] money.The Babli (Pesaḥim

It was stated: Bar Qappara said, “original impurity” is biblical, “derivative impurity” rabbinic¹⁰³. Rebbi Joḥanan said, in both cases it is biblical. The House of Shammai are difficult for Rebbi Joḥanan: “The House of Shammai say, all should be redeemed and eaten inside except what became impure from original impurity outside;” what is the difference between original impurity outside and derivative impurity outside; are not both biblical? Are the words of the House of Hillel not also difficult? “The House of Hillel say, all should be redeemed and may be eaten outside except what became impure from derivative impurity inside”; what is the difference between original impurity inside and derivative impurity inside; are not both biblical? The rabbis discuss only that from Bar Qappara.

footnotes: ¹⁰³ In the interpretation of this Mishnah.

It is difficult, according to Bar Qappara for the House of Shammai, since “the House of Shammai say, all should be redeemed and eaten inside except what became impure from original impurity outside;” what is the difference between derivative impurity and original impurity¹⁰⁴; what is the difference between outside and inside, are not both biblical? That one should not say, is that not Second Tithe which enters and leaves? If it is so, it should not be redeemed, so that one should not say, is that not Second Tithe which enters Jerusalem and is redeemed¹⁰⁵? If it became impure inside, the enclosure had grabbed it; if it became impure outside, the enclosure never grabbed it¹⁰⁶. And is it not difficult even for the House of Hillel? For “the House of Hillel say, all should be redeemed and may be eaten outside except what became impure from derivative impurity inside”; what is the difference for derivative impurity between outside and inside; are not both rabbinic? When he brought it inside it was on condition it should not be “grabbed” by the enclosure¹⁰⁷ it never could be eaten inside the sanctified area..

footnotes: ¹⁰⁴ This clause should be deleted, it is copied from the previous text and makes no sense here. The Rome text, הַכֹּל יִפָּדֶה וְיֵאָכֵל בִּפְנִים בֵּין מִשֶּׁנִּיטְמָא בְְּאַב הַטּוּמְאָה בַּחוּץ בֵּין בְּאַב הַטוּמְאָה is not better. ¹⁰⁵ Which also is forbidden for pure tithe. ¹⁰⁶ Since it never could be eaten inside the sanctified area. ¹⁰⁷ Since actually

Rebbi Zeïra said, this means¹⁰⁸ pure Second Tithe which he brought inside on condition that the enclosure not “grab” it, the enclosure does not “grab” it. Rebbi Jonah asked, it is pure and you say so? But it must be: If he transgressed and redeemed it, it is redeemed¹⁰⁹ that rules derived from biblical verses by rabbinic interpretation are rabbinic in character..

footnotes: ¹⁰⁸ Since rabbinically impure tithe is pure by biblical standards, it seems that a mental reservation of the farmer can override the biblical decree that tithe brought into the holy enclosure has to be consumed as such. ¹⁰⁹ If he made a mental reservation and then redeemed the tithe in Jerusalem, the transaction is valid since the prohibition of redemption is a rabbinic interpretation of the biblical verse. This supports the position of Maimonides in his Sefer Hammiẓwot

Rebbi Jacob the Southerner asked before Rebbi Yose: If it became impure outside of Jerusalem and was brought inside, it should not leave lest one say, we saw Second Tithe entering Jerusalem and leaving¹¹⁰? Leaving is publicized, redemption is not publicized.

footnotes: ¹¹⁰ This is a question about the House of Shammai’s position which in this case requires the tithe to be removed from Jerusalem. The answer is that this case is so rare that it would be dealt with in a rabbinic court in public whereas redemption of tithe which became impure is frequent, done in private, and unremarkable.

Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Ada inquired before Rebbi Mana: If it became impure by derivative impurity and he redeemed it¹¹¹, not de jure., then it became impure in original impurity¹¹²; do we say that if the original money is still there he redeems with it, otherwise he cannot redeem with it, and one is whipped neither for the first nor the second monies¹¹³? Rebbi Jonah asked, is it the same for him who buys¹¹⁴? Rebbi Mana said, the enclosure “grabs” and the buyer “grabs”. What was said for the enclosure was said for the buyer.

footnotes: ¹¹¹ As required. However, since the tithe is still pure by biblical standards, the redemption is de facto ¹¹² Now it has to be redeemed by biblical decree. If the original money is still completely in the farmer’s hands, he now turns the rabbinic redemption into a biblical one. ¹¹³ If he misappropriates the monies and spends them outside of Jerusalem, as described in Mishnah 1:5, he cannot be prosecuted if the produce remains rabbinically impure since the redemption is not biblical; nor can he be prosecuted if the produce becomes biblically impure and is redeemed by new money because the second redemption is a formality only since the produce was unusable as tithe. ¹¹⁴ Cf. Mishnaiot 1:5,6. There, it is spelled out that produce bought with tithe money outside of Jerusalem cannot be redeemed. Its status is at least as restricted as that of original tithe brought into the enclosure of Jerusalem.

MISHNAH: If what was bought with tithe money became impure, it should be redeemed. Rebbi Jehudah says, it should be buried¹¹⁵ 38a, Sanhedrin 113a, Baba Meẓiʻa 53b, Zebaḥim 49b.. They said to Rebbi Jehudah, if original Second Tithe which became impure is redeemed, what was bought with tithe money and became impure certainly should be redeemed. He said to them, no! If you said about original Second Tithe, which can be redeemed when it is pure and far from the Place, can you say the same about what was bought with tithe money which cannot be redeemed when it is pure and far from the Place? If a deer bought with tithe money died, it should be buried in its hide. Rebbi Simeon says, it should be redeemed¹¹⁶. If he bought it alive and slaughtered it, if it became impure it should be redeemed¹¹⁷. Rebbi Yose said, it should be buried. If he bought it slaughtered¹¹⁸ and it became impure, he treats it following the rules of produce. If somebody lends flasks¹³¹ for Second Tithe, even if he closed the top with clay¹³², tithe did not acquire it. If he filled them without saying anything¹³³, before he closed the top with clay¹³⁴, tithe did not acquire it; after he closed the top with clay, tithe acquired it. Before he closed the top with clay, one may lift by 101¹³⁵, after he closed the top with clay any one sanctifies¹³⁶ 3:7.. Before he closed the top with clay, he gives heave from one for all, after he closed the top with clay he has to give heave from each single one. ¹⁴⁰ The House of Shammai say, he opens and pours into a vat, but the House of Hillel say, he opens and does not have to pour. Where has this been said? At a place where usually one sells sealed, but at a place where usually one sells open, the flask did not become profane¹⁴¹. However, if he is meticulous to sell by volume¹⁴², the flask did become profane. Rebbi Simeon said¹⁴³, also if somebody says to another person, I am selling to you this amphora except its flask, the flask became profane.

footnotes: ¹¹⁵ It is holy but cannot be eaten. It cannot be left to rot since one might eat from it inadvertently. This Mishnah is quoted in Babli Pesaḥim ¹¹⁶ This is explained in the Halakhah. ¹¹⁷ For the anonymous Tanna and R. Jehudah, it is like any other food that became impure. R. Yose extends the rules of the preceding case to this one, since a deer never can be a sacrifice. ¹¹⁸ This use is fully approved by the biblical verse. ¹³¹ The mss. of the Maimonides tradition have more accurately קנקניו “his own flasks”; the vintner gives one of his flasks to put in tithe wine since the wine has to be in some vessel. Before filling the wine into the flasks, he specified that the flasks were a loan to the tithe. Therefore, he does not have to redeem them, i. e., to buy food in the value of the flasks to eat in the holiness of tithe. ¹³² A semi-permanent seal; in this case it is needed to transport the wine to Jerusalem. Flasks were usually sealed in this way only for sale and transport. ¹³³ He did not specify that the flask would be filled with tithe wine. ¹³⁴ He declared the wine to be Second Tithe. But since the flask was sealed, if he makes no special declaration, he sanctifies the flask with its contents. ¹³⁵ If heave accidentally fell into one of the flasks and it is not known where it fell, if the profane is more that 101 times the heave, the latter can be lifted following the rules of heave. ¹³⁶ Since sealed flasks usually are prepared for sale, they fall under the rules of items sold singly which never can become insignificant and even one sanctified among 1000 profane makes all sanctified; cf. Mishnah Orlah ¹⁴⁰ This Mishnah is a continuation of the previous one. If somebody sealed the mouths of his pitchers with clay, how can he undo what he did? ¹⁴¹ In this case, he opened the flask for redemption because everybody does it for sale; this has no influence on the status of holiness of either the flask or its contents. ¹⁴² Even if he sells whole barrels he will measure exactly the amount it contains and does not use an approximate formula. In that case, no vessel is ever part of a sale unless paid for separately; also for his redemption of tithes the vessel will never be counted. ¹⁴³ The statement of R. Simeon refers to Mishnah 1:3, that if wine usually is sold in sealed amphoras, the amphora is profane even though paid for with tithe money. R. Simeon adds that even if wine is sold in open amphoras, a stipulation may make the amphora profane. The Tosephta (2:18) shows that R. Simeon reduces the disagreement between the Houses of Hillel and Shammai to the case when all flasks are still in the wine cellar near the vat from which they were filled.

HALAKHAH: What is the reason of Rebbi Jehudah? The first money, not second money¹¹⁹ 14:25: “then turn it into the money.” The definite article is taken to restrict the money to the coins originally given. This argument is described in the Babli, Baba Meẓiʻa45a, as that of the House of Shammai. This is possible since R. Jehudah was a student of his father R. Ilaï, a student of R. Eliezer who started out as a disciple of the House of Shammai. The House of Hillel (the anonymous majority in Mishnah 11) hold that the repetition in the verse, “then turn it into money, bundle the money in your hand” means that monies can be exchanged; otherwise it would have said “bundle it”.. Only because they objected to him by an argument de minore ad majus, he answered in terms of an argument de minore ad majus.

footnotes: ¹¹⁹ Deut.

Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: They treated deer like dedications for the upkeep of the Temple to require standing and appraisal¹²⁰ 27. The relevant verses are 11–12 and 27. (11) “If it is any unclean animal which cannot be a sacrifice to the Eternal, one should make the animal stand before a Cohen. (12) The Cohen should appraise it, whether it is good or bad; the Cohen’s appraisal shall stand.” (27) “If it is an unclean animal, he should redeem it for its appraisal ..” Since an unclean (nonkosher) animal never can be a sacrifice, the “unclean” animal of v. 11 must be a kosher animal with a blemish, which now cannot be a sacrifice. V. 27 therefore details the rules of nonkosher animals dedicated to the Temple. The rabbis hold that the parallel expressions “unclean animal” indicate that the rules of vv. 11–12 can be transferred to v. 27 but R. Simeon holds that in v. 27 no “standing” is mentioned, therefore it is not needed. (Details in Babli Temurah32b). The rabbis hold that any dedicated animal which cannot stand before a Cohen cannot be appraised and, therefore, cannot be redeemed. R. Simeon holds that animals which never can be sacrifices, nonkosher animals and kosher wild animals, do not need standing; they can be redeeemed even if dead..

footnotes: ¹²⁰ The rules of dedications of animals whose monetary equivalent should be used for the upkeep of the Temple are spelled out in Lev.

Rebbi Jeremiah asked before Rebbi Zeïra: Does an unclean animal need standing and appraisal? He said to him, if Rebbi Yose had said in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan that a pure wild animal does not need standing and appraisal, an unclean animal would not need it. Rebbi Hila said, we have stated thus (Lev. 27:21)¹²¹ 4(3), a similar text; quoted in Babli Baba Meẓiʻa 54b.: “If an unclean animal, he should redeem it as appraised¹²².” Just as an unclean animal is particular in that it is the same at the time of its redemption as at the time of its dedication¹²³, so I am adding the dead animal which is the same at the time of its redemption as at the time of its dedication, and I exclude the one for which he said, this is dedicated, and then it died, which is not the same at the time of its redemption as at the time of its dedication¹²⁴. Rebbi Yose said, a Mishnah said so¹²⁵: “One commits larceny with a donkey and its milk¹²⁶ 3:5. Larceny committed on anything dedicated to the upkeep of the Temple incurs a fine of 25% and requires a sacrifice for atonement..” Is not milk comparable to its being dead¹²⁷ 12b).? With all that needs redemption one can commit larceny¹²⁸. You cannot explain it as giving the rules of dead [animals] since we stated “a donkey”¹²⁹. Rebbi Ḥanina said before Rebbi Mana, explain it following Rebbi Simeon since Rebbi Simeon said, dedications for the upkeep of the Temple do not need standing and appraisal. He said to him, if it is following Rebbi Simeon, why a donkey and not any animal¹³⁰?

footnotes: ¹²¹ Sifra Beḥuqotay Paras̊ah ¹²² The verse adds: “He has to add its fifth”. ¹²³ It could not be a sacrifice in either case; it was alive in both cases. ¹²⁴ Even according to the Sages, it can be redeemed without standing and appraisal. ¹²⁵ This is the operative rule. ¹²⁶ Meїlah ¹²⁷ The use of masculine חמור for a female donkey is in all Mishnah mss.; it has wrongly been corrected in the editions of Babli (Meїlah ¹²⁸ It was not there at the moment of dedication and, being a fluid, it cannot stand. ¹²⁹ A live one. ¹³⁰ It could even have been a blemished kosher animal.

Rebbi Zeïra said, the Torah said, spend it in the Holy Place and assemble it in the countryside. Just as in the holy place the flask is profane¹³⁷, in the contryside can the flask be grasped by tithe?

footnotes: ¹³⁷ As stated in Mishnah 1:4, if wine is bought in Jerusalem with tithe money, the value of the flask does not have to be estimated and an equivalent value eaten in the holiness of tithe. The argument gives the rationale for the first clause of the Mishnah.

Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, so is the Mishnah: “If before he sealed the top with clay he gave it its name¹³⁸, tithe did not acquire it; if after he sealed the top with clay he gave it its name, tithe acquired it. If before he sealed the top with clay he gave it its name, one may lift by 101, if after he sealed the top with clay any one sanctifies. If before he sealed the top with clay he gave it its name, he gives heave from one for all, if after he sealed the top with clay he gave it its name, he has to give heave from each single one.”

footnotes: ¹³⁸ He declared the contents of the flask to be Second Tithe.

¹³⁹, oil, and (date) honey. Fish sauce and muries cannot be subject to tithe. Maimonides in his Code (Ma‘aser Šeni8:5) copies the entire list. In both mss. and the editio princeps of the Tosephta, “tithe acquired it”; but Maimonides (loc. cit.) copies “tithe did not acquire it.” It is impossible to determine whether or not the Tosephta is corrupt in this passage. When has this been said? For wine; but for oil, whether he closed the top with clay or did not close the top with clay, tithe did not acquire it. Whether he closed the top with clay or did not close the top with clay, he may lift by 101. Whether he closed the top with clay or did not close the top with clay, he gives heave from one for all.

footnotes: ¹³⁹ A similar text in Tosephta 2:18 enumerates fish sauce, vinegar, muries

Rebbi Ḥananiah said, it is difficult about the House of Shammai! What is the difference between this and five sacks on a threshing floor? For five [separate] sacks on one threshing floor, can one not give heave and tithe from one for the other?

Rebbi Joshua ben Levi said, it refers back to the first [part]. Rebbi Ba said, to the second¹⁴⁴.

footnotes: ¹⁴⁴ Everybody agrees that Mishnah 14 refers to Mishnah 13. The question is only, does it refer to the first part, do the House of Shammai oppose the statement that a prior declaration leaves the flask as tithe money unless the wine was entirely put in order in the vat, or does it refer to the second part, that the wine was poured without any specification.

“If he said, a quartarius of profane is in this barrel, the barrel is profane¹⁴⁶ (cf. Berakhot 3, Note 227) of profane [wine], the tithe did not acquire it whether sealed with clay or not.”.” Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: The Mishnah says so, “Rebbi Simeon said, also if somebody says to another person, I am selling to you this amphora except its flask, the flask became profane.¹⁴⁷”

footnotes: ¹⁴⁶ A similar statement is in Tosephta 2:18: “When was it said that [the flask] became tithe money? If all was tithe. But if he added a quartarius ¹⁴⁷ Any reservation in this situation is valid. R. Joḥanan accepts the statement of R. Simeon as practice even though it is presented as the opinion of only one person because no opposition is noted.