Bava Metzia 105

ואסורים לזרים והן נכסי כהן ועולים באחד ומאה וטעונין רחיצת ידים והערב שמש הרי אלו בתרומה ובכורים מה שאין כן במעשר

they are forbidden to zarim,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Zar (q.v.) pl. zarim. — This would appear obvious after the previous statement. Rashi observes that it is in fact unnecessary per se, but that its purpose is to mark the contrast with tithes, which, as the Mishnah proceeds to teach, is permitted to zarim. Tosaf., following J. Bik. II, explains: even half the minimum quantity, which involves no penalty of death or the addition of a fifth, is forbidden to zarim. ');">¹</span> accounted as the priest's [personal] property,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In that he can employ them as kiddushin (q.v. Glos.) for betrothing a woman; v. infra n. 8. ');">²</span> are neutralised by one hundred and one [times their quantity].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' If a quantity of terumah or first fruits fell into hundred times as much hullin (common food) and cannot be distinguished therefrom, it is neutralised or annulled, and the whole is permitted to a zar. ');">³</span>

מאי מה שאין כן במעשר לאו מכלל דמעשר בטיל ברובא ואם איתא דחזקיה הוה ליה דבר שיש לו מתירין וכל דבר שיש לו מתירין אפי' באלף לא בטיל

and require washing of the hands<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That is in respect of fruit. One's hands are normally said to be unclean with what is known as the second degree of uncleanliness — a low degree. This is insufficient to render the fruit of hullin or tithes unclean, and therefore these may be eaten with unwashed hands. But a stricter purity was demanded of terumah and first fruits; consequently it was enacted that the touch of ritually unclean hands imposes upon them third degree uncleanliness; therefore the hands must be washed before partaking of them. — This impurity is only Rabbinical, and therefore the washing of the hands alone was sufficient: for Biblical uncleanliness the immersion of the whole body in a ritual bath (mikweh) was necessary. ');">⁴</span> and the setting of the sun.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' If a priest became Biblically unclean, he required Immersion (v. n. 6) and then had to wait until sunset before he might eat of terumah or the first fruits (Lev. XXII, 7). ');">⁵</span> These provisions hold good of <i>terumah</i> and first fruits, which is not so in the case of [second] tithes.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' (i) The (second) tithe may be eaten by a zar — consequently, of course, no penalty is involved therein; (ii) it is not the priest's property, as explained in n. 4., but sacred property given to the priests; hence it cannot be employed as kiddushin. — This is R. Meir's view (Kid. 52b); (iii) it does not require a hundred times its own quantity for neutralisation; (iv) the fruit may be eaten with unwashed hands; (v) when one becomes Biblically unclean, he may eat thereof immediately after immersion, without waiting for sunset (v. Hal. I, 9). ');">⁶</span>

וממאי דמה שאין כן במעשר דבטיל ברובא דלמא לא בטיל כלל לא מצית אמרת הכי דלגבי תרומה חומרי דתרומה קתני קולי דתרומה לא קתני והא קא תני והן נכסי כהן

Now, what is meant by 'which is not so in the case of [second] tithes?' Surely one may deduce that a tithe is neutralised by a greater quantity [than itself]:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' If a quantity of the second tithe fell into a greater quantity of hullin it is neutralised and the whole ranks as hullin, 100 times the amount being unnecessary. ');">⁷</span> but if Hezekiah's ruling is correct, it [the tithe] is an article which can become [otherwise] permitted, and whatever can become [otherwise] permitted is not neutralised even in a thousand [times its quantity]!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' This is a Talmudic principle with respect to the neutralisation of an object when intermixed with permitted commodities. Though normally a certain proportion of the latter is sufficient to neutralise the former, that does not operate if the former is destined to become permitted without recourse to neutralisation. E.g., if an egg is laid on a Festival, it is forbidden on that day, but not after. Now, if this egg was mixed up with no matter how many others on the day that it was laid, it is not neutralised, and all are forbidden on that day. For since it will be permitted on the morrow in any case, the principle of neutralisation is abandoned. Now, with respect to the second tithe, which is under discussion, since, as deduced, it can be annulled by a lesser quantity than is necessary for terumah, or indeed, since it can be annulled at all, it must refer to produce that cannot be otherwise made fit. Now, the remedy for ordinary second tithe that is mixed up with hullin is either to take the whole to Jerusalem, which can be easily done, as one has to eat the rest of the second tithe there in any case, and consume it there, or redeem the quantity that was intermixed. The only case in which these remedies cannot be employed is when the second tithe was unclean, so that the whole mixture may not be eaten, and is worth less than a perutah, and so not subject to redemption. But if Hezekiah's ruling that second tithe worth less than a Perutah can be redeemed by retrospectively including it in other redeemed produce is correct, the law of neutralisation cannot operate! ');">⁸</span> — But how do you know that 'which is not so in the case of the [second] tithe' means that it is neutralised by a greater quantity [than itself]; perhaps it means that it cannot be neutralised at all?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In contradistinction to terumah, which is neutralised by 100 times its quantity. ');">⁹</span>

לא סלקא דעתך דתניא בהדיא מעשר שני בטיל ברובא ובאיזה מעשר שני אמרו במעשר שאין בו שוה פרוטה ושנכנס לירושלים ויצא ואם איתא לדחזקיה ליעבד ליה לדחזקיה וניחל ליה על מעות הראשונות דלא פריק

— You cannot say thus, because in respect of <i>terumah</i> only the stringencies of <i>terumah</i> are taught, not its leniencies.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' v. p. 313, n. 8. An examination of the various points shews that the object of the Tanna is to teach wherein terumah is more stringent than the tithe, not wherein it is lighter. ');">¹⁰</span> But he teaches '[they] are accounted the priest's property!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Which is a leniency compared with the second tithe, ');">¹¹</span> — You cannot think so,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That the second tithe cannot be neutralised at all, ');">¹²</span>

וניתי מעשר דאית ליה ונצטרפינהו דאורייתא ודרבנן לא מצטרפי

because it was distinctly taught: The second tithe is neutralized by a greater quantity [than itself]. And of which second tithe was this said? Of a tithe which is not worth a <i>perutah</i><span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V, n. 2. ');">¹³</span> or which has once entered Jerusalem and gone forth again.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' This is explained below. ');">¹⁴</span> But if Hezekiah's ruling is correct, let Hezekiah's [remedy] be employed by redeeming it with the earlier money!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' This is a repetition, with a little more explanatory detail, of the difficulty already raised. ');">¹⁵</span>

וניתי דמאי דלמא אתי לאתויי ודאי

— It means that he has not [yet] redeemed [any other].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' So that he has no money with which it may be retrospectively redeemed. ');">¹⁶</span> Then let him bring the other tithe [produce] which he has and combine them?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., the tithe which is intermixed and that which he brings, and then redeem both. ');">¹⁷</span> — That [which is tithe] by Biblical law and that which is [so] only by Rabbinic law cannot be combined.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' By Biblical law the tithe is certainly neutralised by a greater quantity than itself. Consequently, when it is thus intermixed, it is tithe only by Rabbinic law, whereas what is brought now is tithe according to Biblical law, and the two cannot be combined for the purpose of joint redemption, with the result that the tithe which he brings will remain unredeemed. But the retrospective combination permitted by Hezekiah is with produce that is already redeemed: hence it does not matter that the first was tithe by Biblical law and the second, sc. the mixed produce, only by Rabbinic law. ');">¹⁸</span>

וניתי שתי פרוטות ונחלל עלייהו מעשר בפרוטה ומחצה ונחלל האי על היאך יתירא מי סברת פרוטה ומחצה תפסה שתי פרוטות לא פרוטה תפסה פרוטה וחצי פרוטה לא תפסה הדר הויא ליה דאוריית' ודרבנן ודאורייתא ודרבנן לא מצטרפי

Then let him bring <i>demai</i>!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. Glos. This too is tithe only by Rabbinic law, and could be combined with the mixed produce. ');">¹⁹</span> — [We fear] lest he thereby bring certain [tithe].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' If he is permitted the remedy of demai, he may think that it is just the same if he brings certain tithe. ');">²⁰</span> Then let him bring two Perutahs, redeeming the tithe [that he brings] with a <i>perutah</i> and a half, and this [the intermixed tithe] with the rest?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., let him first bring the other produce which he has to the value of a perutah and a half and redeem it all with the two perutahs; then declare that the half perutah's worth mixed up with hullin is redeemed by the two perutahs already used, in accordance with Hezekiah's teaching. — In the whole of this discussion, every suggestion that the mixed tithe should be capable of redemption on the basis of Hezekiah's ruling is a refutation of his views. ');">²¹</span>

ונייתי איסר דלמא אתי לאתויי פרוטות

— Do you think that one and a half perutah's worth of tithe consecrates<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'seizes hold of.' ');">²²</span> two perutahs? That is not so; one <i>perutah</i>['s worth] consecrates one <i>Perutah</i>, whilst the half <i>perutah</i>['s worth] does not consecrate [anything]; so again there is [tithe by] Biblical law<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Sc. this half. ');">²³</span> and [tithe by] Rabbinic law,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The mixed produce. ');">²⁴</span>

ושנכנס לירושלים ויצא ואמאי וליהדר ונעייליה בשנטמא ונפרקיה דאמר ר' אלעזר מנין למעשר שני שנטמא שפודין אותו

and these two cannot be combined. Then let an <i>issar</i> be brought?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And tithe produce to a lesser value be redeemed therewith, the excess being used for the redemption of the mixed tithe. For though one and a half perutahs' worth cannot consecrate two perutahs, that is because they are two separate coins, hence divisible, and so one can become consecrated whilst the other remains hullin. If a single larger coin, however, is employed, the whole becomes consecrated, whilst the excess can retrospectively redeem the mixed tithe. ');">²⁵</span> — [That is forbidden,] lest he bring perutahs [for that purpose]. 'Or which has once entered Jerusalem and gone forth again.' But why so?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Why may the intermixed tithe be neutralised? ');">²⁶</span> Let it be taken back again! — It refers to defiled [tithe]. Then let it be redeemed.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' It being assumed that this refers even to produce worth a perutah. ');">²⁷</span> For R. Eleazar said: Whence do we know if second tithe [produce] became defiled, that it is to be redeemed