Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility Skip to content

Today's Daf Yomi

November 18, 2016 | 讬状讝 讘诪专讞砖讜讜谉 转砖注状讝

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Ron and Shira Krebs to commemorate the 73rd yahrzeit of Shira's grandfather (Yitzchak Leib Ben David Ber HaCohen v'Malka), the 1st yahrzeit of Shira's father (Gershon Pinya Ben Yitzchak Leib HaCohen v'Menucha Sara), and the bar mitzvah of their son Eytan who will be making a siyum on Mishna Shas this month.

  • This month's learning is sponsored for the Refuah Shlemah of Naama bat Yael Esther.

Bava Metzia 53

Chizkiya says that maaser sheni that has less than the value of a coin can be redeemed on a coin that was used previously to redeem maaser sheni because there must be a little bit of value still left on the coin from the last time (as people aren’t exacting in their calculations). 聽The gemara questions this by bringing in a mishna that seems to imply that maaser sheni that gets mixed up with non maaser items is cancelled by majority. 聽If Chizkiya is correct, then maaser should always be something that can never be cancelled in a mixture because it can be fixed – davar sheyesh lo matirin. 聽The gemara tries to answer this question. 聽How do we calculate the one fifth payment? 聽Is it one fifth of the principle or one fifth of the total once the amount is added (1/4)?


If the lesson doesn't play, click "Download"

讜讗住讜专讬诐 诇讝专讬诐 讜讛谉 谞讻住讬 讻讛谉 讜注讜诇讬诐 讘讗讞讚 讜诪讗讛 讜讟注讜谞讬谉 专讞讬爪转 讬讚讬诐 讜讛注专讘 砖诪砖 讛专讬 讗诇讜 讘转专讜诪讛 讜讘讻讜专讬诐 诪讛 砖讗讬谉 讻谉 讘诪注砖专

And their consumption is prohibited to non-priests; and they are the property of the priest in every sense, e.g., to sell them to another priest or betroth a woman with them; and if they were intermingled with non-sacred produce they are negated only if the ratio is one part teruma in one hundred parts non-sacred produce; and they require the washing of one鈥檚 hands before partaking of them; and one who was impure and immersed must wait for sunset before partaking of them. These are halakhot that are in effect with regard to teruma and first fruits, which is not so with regard to second tithe.

诪讗讬 诪讛 砖讗讬谉 讻谉 讘诪注砖专 诇讗讜 诪讻诇诇 讚诪注砖专 讘讟讬诇 讘专讜讘讗 讜讗诐 讗讬转讗 讚讞讝拽讬讛 讛讜讛 诇讬讛 讚讘专 砖讬砖 诇讜 诪转讬专讬谉 讜讻诇 讚讘专 砖讬砖 诇讜 诪转讬专讬谉 讗驻讬诇讜 讘讗诇祝 诇讗 讘讟讬诇

The Gemara asks: What is the meaning of: Which is not so with regard to second tithe? Is it not, by inference, that second tithe is negated in a majority of non-sacred produce? And if it is so that the opinion of 岣zkiyya is correct and even second-tithe produce worth less than one peruta can be redeemed, second tithe is an item whose prohibition has permitting factors, and the principle is that any item whose prohibition has permitting factors is not negated even if it is in a mixture with one thousand permitted parts.

讜诪诪讗讬 讚诪讛 砖讗讬谉 讻谉 讘诪注砖专 讚讘讟讬诇 讘专讜讘讗 讚诇诪讗 诇讗 讘讟讬诇 讻诇诇 诇讗 诪爪讬转 讗诪专转 讛讻讬 讚诇讙讘讬 转专讜诪讛 讞讜诪专讬 讚转专讜诪讛 拽转谞讬 拽讜诇讬 讚转专讜诪讛 诇讗 拽转谞讬 讜讛讗 拽讗 转谞讬 讜讛谉 谞讻住讬 讻讛谉

The Gemara rejects this proof: And from where is it learned that from the phrase: Which is not so with regard to second tithe, one infers that second tithe is negated in a simple majority? Perhaps infer that second tithe is not negated at all. The Gemara answers: You cannot say so, as with regard to teruma, the tanna in the mishna is teaching the stringencies of teruma but he is not teaching the leniencies of teruma. The Gemara asks: But doesn鈥檛 the tanna teach: And they are the property of the priest, which is a leniency? Apparently, the tanna did not restrict his treatment of the halakhot of teruma to stringencies.

诇讗 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讚转谞讬讗 讘讛讚讬讗 诪注砖专 砖谞讬 讘讟讬诇 讘专讜讘讗 讜讘讗讬讝讛 诪注砖专 砖谞讬 讗诪专讜 讘诪注砖专 砖讗讬谉 讘讜 砖讜讛 驻专讜讟讛 讜砖谞讻谞住 诇讬专讜砖诇讬诐 讜讬爪讗 讜讗诐 讗讬转讗 诇讚讞讝拽讬讛 诇讬注讘讚 诇讬讛 诇讚讞讝拽讬讛 讜谞讬讞诇 诇讬讛 注诇 诪注讜转 讛专讗砖讜谞讜转 讚诇讗 驻专讬拽

The Gemara states: The inference that second tithe is not negated at all should not enter your mind, as it is taught explicitly in a baraita: Second tithe is negated in a simple majority. And with regard to which second tithe did the Sages say this? It is with regard to second tithe that is not worth even one peruta, and which entered Jerusalem and exited. The Gemara states its objection to the ruling of 岣zkiyya: And if it is so that the opinion of 岣zkiyya is correct and even second-tithe produce worth less than one peruta can be redeemed, let him take action according to 岣zkiyya and redeem the second tithe upon the first coins. Therefore, as an item whose prohibition has permitting factors, it should not be negated at all. The Gemara answers: This is a case where he did not redeem his second tithe, and therefore he has no first coins upon which to redeem the produce.

讜谞讬转讬 诪注砖专 讚讗讬转 诇讬讛 讜谞爪讟专驻讬谞讛讜 讚讗讜专讬讬转讗 讜讚专讘谞谉 诇讗 诪爪讟专驻讬

The Gemara asks: And let him bring other second-tithe produce worth half a peruta that he has, and join it to the second tithe worth half a peruta intermingled with the non-sacred produce, and desacralize them together. It remains an item whose prohibition has permitting factors. The Gemara answers: Second tithe by Torah law and second tithe by rabbinic law do not join. By Torah law second tithe is negated in a majority of non-sacred produce and retains no sanctity, and it is by rabbinic law that an item whose prohibition has permitting factors is not negated. Therefore, the half-peruta of second tithe that he brought, which is not in a mixture and is second tithe by Torah law, cannot be redeemed.

讜谞讬转讬 讚诪讗讬 讚诇诪讗 讗转讬 诇讗转讜讬讬 讜讚讗讬

The Gemara continues: And let him bring half a peruta of second-tithe produce from doubtfully tithed produce [demai], which is by rabbinic law, and join it to the intermingled half-peruta. The Gemara explains: One may not do so ab initio lest he come to bring a half-peruta from produce that is definitely untithed, as in practice one treats demai in the same manner that he treats untithed produce.

讜谞讬转讬 砖转讬 驻专讜讟讜转 讜谞讞诇诇 注诇讬讬讛讜 诪注砖专 讘驻专讜讟讛 讜诪讞爪讛 讜谞讞诇诇 讛讗讬 注诇 讛讬讗讱 讬转讬专讗 诪讬 住讘专转 驻专讜讟讛 讜诪讞爪讛 转驻住讛 砖转讬 驻专讜讟讜转 诇讗 驻专讜讟讛 转驻住讛 驻专讜讟讛 讜讞爪讬 驻专讜讟讛 诇讗 转驻住讛 讛讚专 讛讜讬讗 诇讬讛 讚讗讜专讬讬转讗 讜讚专讘谞谉 讜讚讗讜专讬讬转讗 讜讚专讘谞谉 诇讗 诪爪讟专驻讬

The Gemara suggests: And let him bring two perutot and desacralize second tithe worth one and a half perutot upon them, and desacralize this half-peruta of second tithe upon that remaining half-peruta. The Gemara rejects this: Do you hold that the sanctity of second-tithe produce worth one and a half perutot takes effect on two perutot? No, the sanctity of one peruta takes effect on one peruta of the coins, and the sanctity of the half-peruta of produce does not take effect on anything. Once again it becomes a case of one half-peruta of produce that is second tithe by Torah law and the half-peruta in mixture that is second tithe by rabbinic law, and second tithe by Torah law and second tithe by rabbinic law do not join.

讜谞讬转讬 讗讬住专 讚诇诪讗 讗转讬 诇讗转讜讬讬 驻专讜讟讜转

The Gemara asks: And let him bring an issar, worth eight perutot, and redeem second tithe worth almost that much, and redeem the intermingled half-peruta of second tithe upon the rest. The Gemara answers: One may not do so ab initio, lest he come to bring perutot to redeem the produce, in which case the sanctity of the tithe will not take effect on a half-peruta, and the remedy will be ineffective.

讜砖谞讻谞住 诇讬专讜砖诇讬诐 讜讬爪讗 讜讗诪讗讬 讜诇讬讛讚专 讜谞注讬讬诇讬讛 讘砖谞讟诪讗 讜谞驻专拽讬讛 讚讗诪专 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 诪谞讬谉 诇诪注砖专 砖谞讬 砖谞讟诪讗 砖驻讜讚讬谉 讗讜转讜

It is taught in the baraita: And which entered Jerusalem and exited. The Gemara asks: And why is the matter of negation in a majority relevant? Let him bring it back into Jerusalem and partake of it there. The Gemara answers: The reference is to second tithe that became ritually impure outside Jerusalem. The Gemara asks: But why not let him redeem it, in accordance with the statement of Rabbi Elazar? As Rabbi Elazar says: From where is it derived with regard to second-tithe produce that became ritually impure that one may redeem it

讗驻讬诇讜 讘讬专讜砖诇讬诐 砖谞讗诪专 讻讬 诇讗 转讜讻诇 砖讗转讜 讜讗讬谉 砖讗转 讗诇讗 讗讻讬诇讛 砖谞讗诪专 讜讬砖讗 诪砖讗转 诪讗转 驻谞讬讜

even in Jerusalem, although ritually pure second tithe cannot be desacralized in Jerusalem? It is as it is stated: 鈥淔or you are unable to carry [se鈥檈t] it鈥and you shall turn it into money, and bind up the money in your hand鈥 (Deuteronomy 14:24鈥25). And se鈥檈t means nothing other than eating, as it is stated: 鈥淎nd he took portions [masot] from before him鈥 (Genesis 43:34). Since ritually impure second-tithe produce may not be consumed, Rabbi Elazar holds that one may desacralize it even if it had been brought into Jerusalem.

讗诇讗 讘诇拽讜讞 讘讻住祝 诪注砖专 砖谞讬 诇拽讜讞 讘讻住祝 诪注砖专 谞诪讬 诇讬驻专拽讬讛 讚转谞谉 讛诇拽讜讞 讘讻住祝 诪注砖专 砖谞讬 砖谞讟诪讗 讬驻讚讛 讻专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讚讗诪专 讬拽讘专

Rather, the halakha of the baraita is taught not with regard to second-tithe produce, but with regard to food acquired with second-tithe money, which cannot be desacralized. The Gemara asks: With regard to food acquired with second-tithe money too, let him redeem it, as we learned in a mishna (Ma鈥檃ser Sheni 3:10): Food acquired with second-tithe money that became ritually impure should be redeemed. The Gemara answers: The baraita is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, who says: Food acquired with second-tithe money that became ritually impure must be buried and may not be redeemed.

讗讬 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 诪讗讬 讗讬专讬讗 讬爪讗 讗驻讬诇讜 诇讗 讬爪讗 谞诪讬 讗诇讗 诇注讜诇诐 讘讟讛讜专 讜诪讗讬 讬爪讗 讚谞驻讜诇 诪讞讬爪讜转

The Gemara asks: If the baraita is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, why did the tanna teach specifically a case where the food exited Jerusalem? Even if it did not exit Jerusalem, that halakha also applies, as he holds that once the food becomes ritually impure it must be buried. Rather, actually, it is taught in the baraita with regard to second tithe that is ritually pure, and what is the meaning of exited? It is not that the produce actually exited Jerusalem. Rather, the baraita is discussing a case where the partitions, i.e., the walls, surrounding the city fell. The legal status of that second-tithe produce is that of produce that exited the city.

讜讛讗诪专 专讘讗 诪讞讬爪讛 诇讗讻讜诇 讚讗讜专讬讬转讗 诪讞讬爪讜转 诇拽诇讜讟 讚专讘谞谉 讜讻讬 讙讝专讜 讚专讘谞谉 讻讬 讗讬转谞讛讜 诇诪讞讬爪讜转 讻讬 诇讬转谞讛讜 诇诪讞讬爪讜转 诇讗 讙讝专讜 专讘谞谉 诇讗 驻诇讜讙 专讘谞谉 讘讬谉 讗讬转谞讛讜 诇诪讞讬爪讜转 讘讬谉 诇讬转谞讛讜 诇诪讞讬爪讜转

The Gemara asks: But doesn鈥檛 Rava say: The halakha that a partition enables one to eat second-tithe produce is by Torah law, and the halakha with regard to the capability of partitions of the city to gather second-tithe produce into the city is by rabbinic law, and when the Sages issued a decree that partitions gather second-tithe produce in terms of their being considered within the city, they did so only where there are intact partitions, but where there are no intact partitions, the Sages did not issue a decree? The Gemara answers: Once they issued the decree, the Sages did not distinguish between cases where there are intact partitions and cases where there are not intact partitions. Once the Sages issued the decree with regard to partitions and the produce being gathered they applied it globally. This is one manner of explaining the baraita.

专讘 讛讜谞讗 讘专 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 专讘 砖砖转 讞讚讗 拽转谞讬 诪注砖专 砖谞讬 砖讗讬谉 讘讜 砖讜讛 驻专讜讟讛 砖谞讻谞住 诇讬专讜砖诇讬诐 讜讬爪讗 讗诪讗讬 讜谞讬讛讚专 讜谞注讬讬诇讬讛 讜谞讬讻诇讬讛 讚谞驻讜诇 诪讞讬爪讜转

Rav Huna bar Yehuda said that Rav Sheshet said: The tanna of the baraita is teaching one halakha: It is with regard to second-tithe produce that is not worth even one peruta and which both entered Jerusalem and then exited it. It cannot be redeemed because it is worth less than one peruta. The Gemara asks: Why? And let him bring it back into Jerusalem and partake of it there. The Gemara answers: It is a case where the partitions surrounding the city fell.

讜谞驻专拽讬讛 讛讗诪专 专讘讗 诪讞讬爪讛 诇讗讻讜诇 讚讗讜专讬讬转讗 诪讞讬爪讛 诇拽诇讜讟 讚专讘谞谉 讜讻讬 讙讝专讜 专讘谞谉 讻讬 讗讬转谞讛讜 诇诪讞讬爪讜转 讻讬 诇讬转谞讛讜 诇诪讞讬爪讜转 诇讗 讙讝专讜 专讘谞谉 诇讗 驻诇讜讙 专讘谞谉

The Gemara asks: And let him redeem the second-tithe produce, as doesn鈥檛 Rava say: The halakha that a partition enables one to eat second-tithe produce is by Torah law, and the halakha with regard to the capability of partitions of the city to gather second-tithe produce into the city is by rabbinic law, and when the Sages issued a decree that partitions gather second-tithe produce in terms of their being considered within the city, they did so only where there are intact partitions, but where there are no intact partitions, the Sages did not issue a decree? The Gemara answers: The Sages did not distinguish between cases where there are intact partitions and cases where there are not intact partitions.

讗讬 讛讻讬 诪讗讬 讗讬专讬讗 讗讬谉 讘讜 砖讜讛 驻专讜讟讛 讗驻讬诇讜 讬砖 讘讜 谞诪讬 诇讗 诪讬讘注讬讗 拽讗诪专 诇讗 诪讬讘注讬讗 讬砖 讘讜 讚拽诇讟谉 诇讬讛 诪讞讬爪讜转 讗讘诇 讗讬谉 讘讜 讗讬诪讗 诇讗 拽诇讟讜 诇讬讛 诪讞讬爪讜转 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉

The Gemara comments: If so, why did the tanna teach specifically a case where the produce does not have the value of one peruta? The same would hold true even if it has the value of one peruta. The Gemara answers: The tanna is speaking utilizing the style of: It is not necessary. It is not necessary to state that if the produce has the value of one peruta the halakha is that the partitions gather it and it can no longer be redeemed, but if it does not have the value of one peruta, say that the partitions do not gather it. Therefore, he teaches us that the partitions gather even second-tithe produce worth less than one peruta, and it cannot be redeemed.

转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讗诐 讙讗诇 讬讙讗诇 讗讬砖 诪诪注砖专讜 诪诪注砖专讜 讜诇讗 讻诇 诪注砖专讜 驻专讟 诇诪注砖专 砖谞讬 砖讗讬谉 讘讜 砖讜讛 驻专讜讟讛 讗讬转诪专 专讘 讗诪讬 讗诪专 讗讬谉 讘讜 专讘 讗住讬 讗诪专 讗讬谉 讘讞讜诪砖讜 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗诪专 讗讬谉 讘讜 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 诇拽讬砖 讗诪专 讗讬谉 讘讞讜诪砖讜

The Sages taught that it is written: 鈥淎nd if a man will redeem of his tithe, he shall add to it the fifth part thereof鈥 (Leviticus 27:31), from which it is inferred: Of his tithe, but not all his tithe. This serves to exclude second tithe that does not have the value of one peruta, which cannot be redeemed. It was stated that there is an amoraic dispute with regard to this halakha. Rav Ami says: The second tithe cannot be redeemed in a case where the produce itself does not have the value of one peruta. Rav Asi says: The second tithe cannot be redeemed in a case where its additional payment of one-fifth does not have the value of one peruta. Other amora鈥檌m dispute the same issue. Rabbi Yo岣nan says: The produce itself does not have the value of one peruta. Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish says: Its additional payment of one-fifth does not have the value of one peruta.

诪讬转讬讘讬 诪注砖专 砖谞讬 砖讗讬谉 讘讜 砖讜讛 驻专讜讟讛 讚讬讜 砖讬讗诪专 讛讜讗 讜讞讜诪砖讜 诪讞讜诇诇 注诇 诪注讜转 专讗砖讜谞讜转

The Gemara raises an objection from a baraita: With regard to second-tithe produce that does not have the value of one peruta, it is sufficient that he will say: It and its additional payment of one-fifth are desacralized upon the first coins upon which I already redeemed second-tithe produce.

讘砖诇诪讗 诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 讗讬谉 讘讞讜诪砖讜 讛讬讬谞讜 讚拽转谞讬 讚讬讜 讚讗祝 注诇 讙讘 讚讘讚讬讚讬讛 讗讬转 讘讬讛 讻讬讜谉 讚讘讞讜诪砖讬讛 诇讬讻讗 砖驻讬专 讗诇讗 诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 讗讬谉 讘讜 诪讗讬 讚讬讜 拽砖讬讗

The Gemara explains the objection: Granted, according to the one who says: There is not the value of a peruta in its additional payment of one-fifth, this is the reason that the tanna teaches: It is sufficient, which indicates that even though in the produce itself it has the value of one peruta, since there is not the value of a peruta in its one-fifth payment, it works out well, as it is sufficient if he redeems the produce with other second-tithe produce. But according to the one who says: It is in a case where the produce itself does not have the value of one peruta that the second tithe cannot be redeemed, what is the meaning of: It is sufficient? From the outset, there was never sufficient value for there to be any element of redemption. The Gemara concludes: Indeed, it is difficult to explain the baraita according to that opinion.

讗讬讘注讬讗 诇讛讜 讞讜诪砖讗 诪诇讙讬讜 讗讜 讞讜诪砖讗 诪诇讘专 讗诪专 专讘讬谞讗 转讗 砖诪注 讛讘注诇讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 讘注砖专讬诐 讜讻诇 讗讚诐 讘注砖专讬诐 讛讘注诇讬诐 拽讜讚诪讬谉 诪驻谞讬 砖诪讜住讬驻讬谉 讞讜诪砖 讗诪专 讗讞讚 讛专讬 注诇讬 讘注砖专讬诐 讜讗讞讚

搂 Apropos the additional payment of one-fifth, a dilemma was raised before the Sages: Is the payment of one-fifth calculated from within, i.e., one-fifth of the value of the redeemed item, or is the payment of one-fifth calculated from without, meaning one-quarter of the value of the redeemed item, which is one-fifth of the eventual payment, i.e., the principal plus the additional one-fifth? Ravina says: Come and hear a resolution of the dilemma from a baraita: In a case where the owner says he is willing to redeem consecrated property for twenty dinars, and any other person is willing to purchase the property for twenty dinars, the owners take precedence and redeem the property due to the fact that they are obligated to add one-fifth, and the Temple treasury profits more from the owner than from anyone else. If one who is not the owner said: It is incumbent upon me to desacralize it for twenty-one dinars,

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Ron and Shira Krebs to commemorate the 73rd yahrzeit of Shira's grandfather (Yitzchak Leib Ben David Ber HaCohen v'Malka), the 1st yahrzeit of Shira's father (Gershon Pinya Ben Yitzchak Leib HaCohen v'Menucha Sara), and the bar mitzvah of their son Eytan who will be making a siyum on Mishna Shas this month.

  • This month's learning is sponsored for the Refuah Shlemah of Naama bat Yael Esther.

Want to explore more about the Daf?

See insights from our partners, contributors and community of women learners

Sorry, there aren't any posts in this category yet. We're adding more soon!

Bava Metzia 53

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Bava Metzia 53

讜讗住讜专讬诐 诇讝专讬诐 讜讛谉 谞讻住讬 讻讛谉 讜注讜诇讬诐 讘讗讞讚 讜诪讗讛 讜讟注讜谞讬谉 专讞讬爪转 讬讚讬诐 讜讛注专讘 砖诪砖 讛专讬 讗诇讜 讘转专讜诪讛 讜讘讻讜专讬诐 诪讛 砖讗讬谉 讻谉 讘诪注砖专

And their consumption is prohibited to non-priests; and they are the property of the priest in every sense, e.g., to sell them to another priest or betroth a woman with them; and if they were intermingled with non-sacred produce they are negated only if the ratio is one part teruma in one hundred parts non-sacred produce; and they require the washing of one鈥檚 hands before partaking of them; and one who was impure and immersed must wait for sunset before partaking of them. These are halakhot that are in effect with regard to teruma and first fruits, which is not so with regard to second tithe.

诪讗讬 诪讛 砖讗讬谉 讻谉 讘诪注砖专 诇讗讜 诪讻诇诇 讚诪注砖专 讘讟讬诇 讘专讜讘讗 讜讗诐 讗讬转讗 讚讞讝拽讬讛 讛讜讛 诇讬讛 讚讘专 砖讬砖 诇讜 诪转讬专讬谉 讜讻诇 讚讘专 砖讬砖 诇讜 诪转讬专讬谉 讗驻讬诇讜 讘讗诇祝 诇讗 讘讟讬诇

The Gemara asks: What is the meaning of: Which is not so with regard to second tithe? Is it not, by inference, that second tithe is negated in a majority of non-sacred produce? And if it is so that the opinion of 岣zkiyya is correct and even second-tithe produce worth less than one peruta can be redeemed, second tithe is an item whose prohibition has permitting factors, and the principle is that any item whose prohibition has permitting factors is not negated even if it is in a mixture with one thousand permitted parts.

讜诪诪讗讬 讚诪讛 砖讗讬谉 讻谉 讘诪注砖专 讚讘讟讬诇 讘专讜讘讗 讚诇诪讗 诇讗 讘讟讬诇 讻诇诇 诇讗 诪爪讬转 讗诪专转 讛讻讬 讚诇讙讘讬 转专讜诪讛 讞讜诪专讬 讚转专讜诪讛 拽转谞讬 拽讜诇讬 讚转专讜诪讛 诇讗 拽转谞讬 讜讛讗 拽讗 转谞讬 讜讛谉 谞讻住讬 讻讛谉

The Gemara rejects this proof: And from where is it learned that from the phrase: Which is not so with regard to second tithe, one infers that second tithe is negated in a simple majority? Perhaps infer that second tithe is not negated at all. The Gemara answers: You cannot say so, as with regard to teruma, the tanna in the mishna is teaching the stringencies of teruma but he is not teaching the leniencies of teruma. The Gemara asks: But doesn鈥檛 the tanna teach: And they are the property of the priest, which is a leniency? Apparently, the tanna did not restrict his treatment of the halakhot of teruma to stringencies.

诇讗 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讚转谞讬讗 讘讛讚讬讗 诪注砖专 砖谞讬 讘讟讬诇 讘专讜讘讗 讜讘讗讬讝讛 诪注砖专 砖谞讬 讗诪专讜 讘诪注砖专 砖讗讬谉 讘讜 砖讜讛 驻专讜讟讛 讜砖谞讻谞住 诇讬专讜砖诇讬诐 讜讬爪讗 讜讗诐 讗讬转讗 诇讚讞讝拽讬讛 诇讬注讘讚 诇讬讛 诇讚讞讝拽讬讛 讜谞讬讞诇 诇讬讛 注诇 诪注讜转 讛专讗砖讜谞讜转 讚诇讗 驻专讬拽

The Gemara states: The inference that second tithe is not negated at all should not enter your mind, as it is taught explicitly in a baraita: Second tithe is negated in a simple majority. And with regard to which second tithe did the Sages say this? It is with regard to second tithe that is not worth even one peruta, and which entered Jerusalem and exited. The Gemara states its objection to the ruling of 岣zkiyya: And if it is so that the opinion of 岣zkiyya is correct and even second-tithe produce worth less than one peruta can be redeemed, let him take action according to 岣zkiyya and redeem the second tithe upon the first coins. Therefore, as an item whose prohibition has permitting factors, it should not be negated at all. The Gemara answers: This is a case where he did not redeem his second tithe, and therefore he has no first coins upon which to redeem the produce.

讜谞讬转讬 诪注砖专 讚讗讬转 诇讬讛 讜谞爪讟专驻讬谞讛讜 讚讗讜专讬讬转讗 讜讚专讘谞谉 诇讗 诪爪讟专驻讬

The Gemara asks: And let him bring other second-tithe produce worth half a peruta that he has, and join it to the second tithe worth half a peruta intermingled with the non-sacred produce, and desacralize them together. It remains an item whose prohibition has permitting factors. The Gemara answers: Second tithe by Torah law and second tithe by rabbinic law do not join. By Torah law second tithe is negated in a majority of non-sacred produce and retains no sanctity, and it is by rabbinic law that an item whose prohibition has permitting factors is not negated. Therefore, the half-peruta of second tithe that he brought, which is not in a mixture and is second tithe by Torah law, cannot be redeemed.

讜谞讬转讬 讚诪讗讬 讚诇诪讗 讗转讬 诇讗转讜讬讬 讜讚讗讬

The Gemara continues: And let him bring half a peruta of second-tithe produce from doubtfully tithed produce [demai], which is by rabbinic law, and join it to the intermingled half-peruta. The Gemara explains: One may not do so ab initio lest he come to bring a half-peruta from produce that is definitely untithed, as in practice one treats demai in the same manner that he treats untithed produce.

讜谞讬转讬 砖转讬 驻专讜讟讜转 讜谞讞诇诇 注诇讬讬讛讜 诪注砖专 讘驻专讜讟讛 讜诪讞爪讛 讜谞讞诇诇 讛讗讬 注诇 讛讬讗讱 讬转讬专讗 诪讬 住讘专转 驻专讜讟讛 讜诪讞爪讛 转驻住讛 砖转讬 驻专讜讟讜转 诇讗 驻专讜讟讛 转驻住讛 驻专讜讟讛 讜讞爪讬 驻专讜讟讛 诇讗 转驻住讛 讛讚专 讛讜讬讗 诇讬讛 讚讗讜专讬讬转讗 讜讚专讘谞谉 讜讚讗讜专讬讬转讗 讜讚专讘谞谉 诇讗 诪爪讟专驻讬

The Gemara suggests: And let him bring two perutot and desacralize second tithe worth one and a half perutot upon them, and desacralize this half-peruta of second tithe upon that remaining half-peruta. The Gemara rejects this: Do you hold that the sanctity of second-tithe produce worth one and a half perutot takes effect on two perutot? No, the sanctity of one peruta takes effect on one peruta of the coins, and the sanctity of the half-peruta of produce does not take effect on anything. Once again it becomes a case of one half-peruta of produce that is second tithe by Torah law and the half-peruta in mixture that is second tithe by rabbinic law, and second tithe by Torah law and second tithe by rabbinic law do not join.

讜谞讬转讬 讗讬住专 讚诇诪讗 讗转讬 诇讗转讜讬讬 驻专讜讟讜转

The Gemara asks: And let him bring an issar, worth eight perutot, and redeem second tithe worth almost that much, and redeem the intermingled half-peruta of second tithe upon the rest. The Gemara answers: One may not do so ab initio, lest he come to bring perutot to redeem the produce, in which case the sanctity of the tithe will not take effect on a half-peruta, and the remedy will be ineffective.

讜砖谞讻谞住 诇讬专讜砖诇讬诐 讜讬爪讗 讜讗诪讗讬 讜诇讬讛讚专 讜谞注讬讬诇讬讛 讘砖谞讟诪讗 讜谞驻专拽讬讛 讚讗诪专 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 诪谞讬谉 诇诪注砖专 砖谞讬 砖谞讟诪讗 砖驻讜讚讬谉 讗讜转讜

It is taught in the baraita: And which entered Jerusalem and exited. The Gemara asks: And why is the matter of negation in a majority relevant? Let him bring it back into Jerusalem and partake of it there. The Gemara answers: The reference is to second tithe that became ritually impure outside Jerusalem. The Gemara asks: But why not let him redeem it, in accordance with the statement of Rabbi Elazar? As Rabbi Elazar says: From where is it derived with regard to second-tithe produce that became ritually impure that one may redeem it

讗驻讬诇讜 讘讬专讜砖诇讬诐 砖谞讗诪专 讻讬 诇讗 转讜讻诇 砖讗转讜 讜讗讬谉 砖讗转 讗诇讗 讗讻讬诇讛 砖谞讗诪专 讜讬砖讗 诪砖讗转 诪讗转 驻谞讬讜

even in Jerusalem, although ritually pure second tithe cannot be desacralized in Jerusalem? It is as it is stated: 鈥淔or you are unable to carry [se鈥檈t] it鈥and you shall turn it into money, and bind up the money in your hand鈥 (Deuteronomy 14:24鈥25). And se鈥檈t means nothing other than eating, as it is stated: 鈥淎nd he took portions [masot] from before him鈥 (Genesis 43:34). Since ritually impure second-tithe produce may not be consumed, Rabbi Elazar holds that one may desacralize it even if it had been brought into Jerusalem.

讗诇讗 讘诇拽讜讞 讘讻住祝 诪注砖专 砖谞讬 诇拽讜讞 讘讻住祝 诪注砖专 谞诪讬 诇讬驻专拽讬讛 讚转谞谉 讛诇拽讜讞 讘讻住祝 诪注砖专 砖谞讬 砖谞讟诪讗 讬驻讚讛 讻专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讚讗诪专 讬拽讘专

Rather, the halakha of the baraita is taught not with regard to second-tithe produce, but with regard to food acquired with second-tithe money, which cannot be desacralized. The Gemara asks: With regard to food acquired with second-tithe money too, let him redeem it, as we learned in a mishna (Ma鈥檃ser Sheni 3:10): Food acquired with second-tithe money that became ritually impure should be redeemed. The Gemara answers: The baraita is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, who says: Food acquired with second-tithe money that became ritually impure must be buried and may not be redeemed.

讗讬 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 诪讗讬 讗讬专讬讗 讬爪讗 讗驻讬诇讜 诇讗 讬爪讗 谞诪讬 讗诇讗 诇注讜诇诐 讘讟讛讜专 讜诪讗讬 讬爪讗 讚谞驻讜诇 诪讞讬爪讜转

The Gemara asks: If the baraita is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, why did the tanna teach specifically a case where the food exited Jerusalem? Even if it did not exit Jerusalem, that halakha also applies, as he holds that once the food becomes ritually impure it must be buried. Rather, actually, it is taught in the baraita with regard to second tithe that is ritually pure, and what is the meaning of exited? It is not that the produce actually exited Jerusalem. Rather, the baraita is discussing a case where the partitions, i.e., the walls, surrounding the city fell. The legal status of that second-tithe produce is that of produce that exited the city.

讜讛讗诪专 专讘讗 诪讞讬爪讛 诇讗讻讜诇 讚讗讜专讬讬转讗 诪讞讬爪讜转 诇拽诇讜讟 讚专讘谞谉 讜讻讬 讙讝专讜 讚专讘谞谉 讻讬 讗讬转谞讛讜 诇诪讞讬爪讜转 讻讬 诇讬转谞讛讜 诇诪讞讬爪讜转 诇讗 讙讝专讜 专讘谞谉 诇讗 驻诇讜讙 专讘谞谉 讘讬谉 讗讬转谞讛讜 诇诪讞讬爪讜转 讘讬谉 诇讬转谞讛讜 诇诪讞讬爪讜转

The Gemara asks: But doesn鈥檛 Rava say: The halakha that a partition enables one to eat second-tithe produce is by Torah law, and the halakha with regard to the capability of partitions of the city to gather second-tithe produce into the city is by rabbinic law, and when the Sages issued a decree that partitions gather second-tithe produce in terms of their being considered within the city, they did so only where there are intact partitions, but where there are no intact partitions, the Sages did not issue a decree? The Gemara answers: Once they issued the decree, the Sages did not distinguish between cases where there are intact partitions and cases where there are not intact partitions. Once the Sages issued the decree with regard to partitions and the produce being gathered they applied it globally. This is one manner of explaining the baraita.

专讘 讛讜谞讗 讘专 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 专讘 砖砖转 讞讚讗 拽转谞讬 诪注砖专 砖谞讬 砖讗讬谉 讘讜 砖讜讛 驻专讜讟讛 砖谞讻谞住 诇讬专讜砖诇讬诐 讜讬爪讗 讗诪讗讬 讜谞讬讛讚专 讜谞注讬讬诇讬讛 讜谞讬讻诇讬讛 讚谞驻讜诇 诪讞讬爪讜转

Rav Huna bar Yehuda said that Rav Sheshet said: The tanna of the baraita is teaching one halakha: It is with regard to second-tithe produce that is not worth even one peruta and which both entered Jerusalem and then exited it. It cannot be redeemed because it is worth less than one peruta. The Gemara asks: Why? And let him bring it back into Jerusalem and partake of it there. The Gemara answers: It is a case where the partitions surrounding the city fell.

讜谞驻专拽讬讛 讛讗诪专 专讘讗 诪讞讬爪讛 诇讗讻讜诇 讚讗讜专讬讬转讗 诪讞讬爪讛 诇拽诇讜讟 讚专讘谞谉 讜讻讬 讙讝专讜 专讘谞谉 讻讬 讗讬转谞讛讜 诇诪讞讬爪讜转 讻讬 诇讬转谞讛讜 诇诪讞讬爪讜转 诇讗 讙讝专讜 专讘谞谉 诇讗 驻诇讜讙 专讘谞谉

The Gemara asks: And let him redeem the second-tithe produce, as doesn鈥檛 Rava say: The halakha that a partition enables one to eat second-tithe produce is by Torah law, and the halakha with regard to the capability of partitions of the city to gather second-tithe produce into the city is by rabbinic law, and when the Sages issued a decree that partitions gather second-tithe produce in terms of their being considered within the city, they did so only where there are intact partitions, but where there are no intact partitions, the Sages did not issue a decree? The Gemara answers: The Sages did not distinguish between cases where there are intact partitions and cases where there are not intact partitions.

讗讬 讛讻讬 诪讗讬 讗讬专讬讗 讗讬谉 讘讜 砖讜讛 驻专讜讟讛 讗驻讬诇讜 讬砖 讘讜 谞诪讬 诇讗 诪讬讘注讬讗 拽讗诪专 诇讗 诪讬讘注讬讗 讬砖 讘讜 讚拽诇讟谉 诇讬讛 诪讞讬爪讜转 讗讘诇 讗讬谉 讘讜 讗讬诪讗 诇讗 拽诇讟讜 诇讬讛 诪讞讬爪讜转 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉

The Gemara comments: If so, why did the tanna teach specifically a case where the produce does not have the value of one peruta? The same would hold true even if it has the value of one peruta. The Gemara answers: The tanna is speaking utilizing the style of: It is not necessary. It is not necessary to state that if the produce has the value of one peruta the halakha is that the partitions gather it and it can no longer be redeemed, but if it does not have the value of one peruta, say that the partitions do not gather it. Therefore, he teaches us that the partitions gather even second-tithe produce worth less than one peruta, and it cannot be redeemed.

转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讗诐 讙讗诇 讬讙讗诇 讗讬砖 诪诪注砖专讜 诪诪注砖专讜 讜诇讗 讻诇 诪注砖专讜 驻专讟 诇诪注砖专 砖谞讬 砖讗讬谉 讘讜 砖讜讛 驻专讜讟讛 讗讬转诪专 专讘 讗诪讬 讗诪专 讗讬谉 讘讜 专讘 讗住讬 讗诪专 讗讬谉 讘讞讜诪砖讜 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗诪专 讗讬谉 讘讜 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 诇拽讬砖 讗诪专 讗讬谉 讘讞讜诪砖讜

The Sages taught that it is written: 鈥淎nd if a man will redeem of his tithe, he shall add to it the fifth part thereof鈥 (Leviticus 27:31), from which it is inferred: Of his tithe, but not all his tithe. This serves to exclude second tithe that does not have the value of one peruta, which cannot be redeemed. It was stated that there is an amoraic dispute with regard to this halakha. Rav Ami says: The second tithe cannot be redeemed in a case where the produce itself does not have the value of one peruta. Rav Asi says: The second tithe cannot be redeemed in a case where its additional payment of one-fifth does not have the value of one peruta. Other amora鈥檌m dispute the same issue. Rabbi Yo岣nan says: The produce itself does not have the value of one peruta. Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish says: Its additional payment of one-fifth does not have the value of one peruta.

诪讬转讬讘讬 诪注砖专 砖谞讬 砖讗讬谉 讘讜 砖讜讛 驻专讜讟讛 讚讬讜 砖讬讗诪专 讛讜讗 讜讞讜诪砖讜 诪讞讜诇诇 注诇 诪注讜转 专讗砖讜谞讜转

The Gemara raises an objection from a baraita: With regard to second-tithe produce that does not have the value of one peruta, it is sufficient that he will say: It and its additional payment of one-fifth are desacralized upon the first coins upon which I already redeemed second-tithe produce.

讘砖诇诪讗 诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 讗讬谉 讘讞讜诪砖讜 讛讬讬谞讜 讚拽转谞讬 讚讬讜 讚讗祝 注诇 讙讘 讚讘讚讬讚讬讛 讗讬转 讘讬讛 讻讬讜谉 讚讘讞讜诪砖讬讛 诇讬讻讗 砖驻讬专 讗诇讗 诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 讗讬谉 讘讜 诪讗讬 讚讬讜 拽砖讬讗

The Gemara explains the objection: Granted, according to the one who says: There is not the value of a peruta in its additional payment of one-fifth, this is the reason that the tanna teaches: It is sufficient, which indicates that even though in the produce itself it has the value of one peruta, since there is not the value of a peruta in its one-fifth payment, it works out well, as it is sufficient if he redeems the produce with other second-tithe produce. But according to the one who says: It is in a case where the produce itself does not have the value of one peruta that the second tithe cannot be redeemed, what is the meaning of: It is sufficient? From the outset, there was never sufficient value for there to be any element of redemption. The Gemara concludes: Indeed, it is difficult to explain the baraita according to that opinion.

讗讬讘注讬讗 诇讛讜 讞讜诪砖讗 诪诇讙讬讜 讗讜 讞讜诪砖讗 诪诇讘专 讗诪专 专讘讬谞讗 转讗 砖诪注 讛讘注诇讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 讘注砖专讬诐 讜讻诇 讗讚诐 讘注砖专讬诐 讛讘注诇讬诐 拽讜讚诪讬谉 诪驻谞讬 砖诪讜住讬驻讬谉 讞讜诪砖 讗诪专 讗讞讚 讛专讬 注诇讬 讘注砖专讬诐 讜讗讞讚

搂 Apropos the additional payment of one-fifth, a dilemma was raised before the Sages: Is the payment of one-fifth calculated from within, i.e., one-fifth of the value of the redeemed item, or is the payment of one-fifth calculated from without, meaning one-quarter of the value of the redeemed item, which is one-fifth of the eventual payment, i.e., the principal plus the additional one-fifth? Ravina says: Come and hear a resolution of the dilemma from a baraita: In a case where the owner says he is willing to redeem consecrated property for twenty dinars, and any other person is willing to purchase the property for twenty dinars, the owners take precedence and redeem the property due to the fact that they are obligated to add one-fifth, and the Temple treasury profits more from the owner than from anyone else. If one who is not the owner said: It is incumbent upon me to desacralize it for twenty-one dinars,

Scroll To Top