Bava Metzia 106

אפילו בירושלים שנא' (דברים יד, כד) כי לא תוכל שאתו ואין שאת אלא אכילה שנאמר (בראשית מג, לד) וישא משאת מאת פניו

even in Jerusalem?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Where undefiled tithe cannot be redeemed. ');">¹</span> From the verse, <i>When thou art not able</i> se'etho [<i>'to bear it'</i>].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Deut. XIV, 24; The next verse says: Then thou shalt turn it into money.. ');">²</span>

אלא בלקוח בכסף מעשר שני לקוח בכסף מעשר נמי ליפרקיה דתנן הלקוח בכסף מעשר שני שנטמא יפדה כרבי יהודה דאמר יקבר

Now, '<i>se'eth</i>'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' [H], 'to bear'. ');">³</span> can only refer to eating, as it is written, <i>And he took and sent</i> mase'oth [<i>'messes'</i>] <i>unto them from before him</i>!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Gen. XLIII, 34. Thus he translates the first verse: If thou art not able to eat it — being defiled — then thou shalt turn it into money — i.e., redeem it. ');">⁴</span>

אי רבי יהודה מאי איריא יצא אפילו לא יצא נמי אלא לעולם בטהור ומאי יצא דנפול מחיצות

— But this refers to [commodities] purchased with the [redemption]money of the second tithe.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The original second tithe having been redeemed, the money was expended in Jerusalem upon commodities, which in turn became defiled. At this stage it is assumed that only the original tithe can be redeemed if defiled, but not that purchased with the redemption money. ');">⁵</span> But let that also, which is bought with the [redemption] money of the second tithe, be redeemed, for we learnt: If what was redeemed with the [redemption-]money of the second tithe became defiled, it is [itself] to be redeemed!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' M. Sh. III. 10. ');">⁶</span>

והאמר רבא מחיצה לאכול דאורייתא מחיצות לקלוט דרבנן וכי גזרו רבנן כי איתנהו למחיצות כי ליתנהו למחיצות לא גזרו רבנן לא פלוג רבנן בין איתנהו למחיצות בין ליתנהו למחיצות

— This agrees with R. Judah, who ruled: It must be buried. If so, why particularly if it has gone forth [again]: the same applies even if it has not gone forth? — But after all, this refers to undefiled [tithe]: and what is meant by 'gone forth'? That the walls [of Jerusalem] had fallen.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' After the second tithe was taken into Jerusalem. Now, the second tithe cannot be eaten there when the walls have fallen; on the other hand, having been brought there whilst the walls were standing, it is 'retained', i.e.,it cannot be redeemed. ');">⁷</span> But did not Raba say: The law of the walls [of Jerusalem], in that it [the second tithe] must be eaten within them, is Biblical; but that they have retaining power<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. previous note. ');">⁸</span>

רב הונא בר יהודה אמר רב ששת חדא קתני מעשר שני שאין בו שוה פרוטה שנכנס לירושלים ויצא אמאי וניהדר ונעייליה וניכליה דנפול מחיצות

is merely Rabbinical: and [consequently] when would the Rabbis enact thus: only as long as the walls were standing, but not when they no longer existed [having fallen]!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Hence the barriers having fallen, let the tithe be redeemed. ');">⁹</span> — The Rabbis drew no distinction whether the barriers were standing or not.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' But enacted a general measure that the walls have retaining power. ');">¹⁰</span>

ונפרקיה האמר רבא מחיצה לאכול דאורייתא מחיצה לקלוט דרבנן וכי גזרו רבנן כי איתנהו למחיצות כי ליתנהו למחיצות לא גזרו רבנן לא פלוג רבנן

R. Huna b. Judah said in R. Shesheth's name: A single clause is taught, [viz.,] Second tithe [produce] worth less than a <i>perutah</i> which has entered Jerusalem and gone forth [again].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' This answers the objection against Hezekiah from the cited Baraitha (q.v. supra), the reason no resort can be had to Hezekiah's device being that the tithe has been 'retained' by the barriers, when redemption is no longer possible. — The Talmud proceeds to raise the same objections against this answer as against the previous explanation. ');">¹¹</span> But why so? Let it be taken back and eaten! — It means that the walls had fallen. Then let it be redeemed, for Raba said: The law of the walls [of Jerusalem], in that it [the second tithe] must be eaten within them, is Biblical; but that they have retaining power is merely Rabbinical; and [consequently, ought we not to say] when would the Rabbis enact thus: only as long as the walls were standing, but not when they no longer existed [having fallen]! — The Rabbis drew no distinction. If so,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That the reason of non-redemption is the 'retaining' power of the walls of Jerusalem. ');">¹²</span>

אי הכי מאי איריא אין בו שוה פרוטה אפילו יש בו נמי לא מיבעיא קאמר לא מיבעיא יש בו דקלטן ליה מחיצות אבל אין בו אימא לא קלטו ליה מחיצות קא משמע לן

why particularly if worth less than a <i>perutah</i>; even if worth a <i>perutah</i>, it is the same? — He [the Tanna] [implicitly] proceeds to a climax.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'he teaches a case of it is unnecessary to state it.' ');">¹³</span> [Thus:] If it contains [a perutah's worth], it is unnecessary to state that the walls retain it.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And it cannot be redeemed. For since it is of sufficient value to require redemption, the barriers sanctify it. ');">¹⁴</span>

ת"ר (ויקרא כז, לא) אם גאל יגאל איש ממעשרו ממעשרו ולא כל מעשרו פרט למעשר שני שאין בו שוה פרוטה איתמר רב אמי אמר אין בו רב אסי אמר אין בחומשו רבי יוחנן אמר אין בו רבי שמעון בן לקיש אמר אין בחומשו

But where it does not contain [a Perutah's worth], I might think that the walls do not retain it:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since it is not subject to the law of redemption. ');">¹⁵</span> therefore we are taught [otherwise].

מיתיבי מעשר שני שאין בו שוה פרוטה דיו שיאמר הוא וחומשו מחולל על מעות הראשונות

Our Rabbis taught: <i>And if a man will at all redeem aught of his tithes [he shall add thereto the fifth part thereof]:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. XXVII, 31. ');">¹⁶</span></i> 'of his tithes,' but not all his tithes,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., of is a limitation, implying that in certain cases there can be no redemption. ');">¹⁷</span>

בשלמא למאן דאמר אין בחומשו היינו דקתני דיו דאע"ג דבדידיה אית ביה כיון דבחומשיה ליכא שפיר אלא למ"ד אין בו מאי דיו קשיא

thus excluding second tithe [produce] worth less than a <i>perutah</i>.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Such a small quantity cannot be redeemed, and if one does declare it redeemed with a perutah, that perutah does not receive the sanctity of the second tithe to have to be expended in Jerusalem. ');">¹⁸</span> It has been stated: R. Ammi said, [This means] that [the tithe] itself is not [worth a <i>perutah</i>]; R. Assi maintained, Its <i>fifth</i> [is less than a <i>perutah</i>];<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Even if the produce is worth more than a perutah, no redemption is possible if the fifth to be added is less than a perutah. ');">¹⁹</span>

איבעיא להו חומשא מלגיו או חומשא מלבר אמר רבינא תא שמע הבעלים אומרים בעשרים וכל אדם בעשרים הבעלים קודמין מפני שמוסיפין חומש אמר אחד הרי עלי בעשרים ואחד

R. Johanan said, That [the tithe] <i>itself</i> is not [etc.]; R. Simeon b. Lakish said, Its <i>fifth</i> is less [etc.]. An objection is raised. For second tithe worth less than a <i>perutah</i> it is sufficient to declare, 'That itself and its fifth are redeemed with the first money.'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In accordance with Hezekiah's ruling, q.v. supra 52b and notes. It need not be taken to Jerusalem, nor is it necessary to combine it with other produce and redeem the whole. ');">²⁰</span> Now, on the view that [it does not require redemption even if] its fifth is worth less [than a <i>perutah</i>], it is correct; hence he [the Tanna] states 'it is sufficient,' viz., though that itself contains [the value of a <i>perutah</i>], yet since its fifth does not, it is well. But on the view that [the tithe] <i>itself</i> is worth less, what is [the appropriateness of] 'it is sufficient?'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since I could not think that redemption is necessary in such a case. But 'it is sufficient' implies that a concession is made when the law might have been stricter. ');">²¹</span> This is indeed a difficulty. The scholars propounded: Is the fifth calculated on the inner sum [sc. the principal] or on the outer [sc. the principal plus the addition]?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' E.g., if the principal is worth 20 zuz, must one add 4 zuz, a fifth of the principal, or 5, a fifth of the total? ');">²²</span> — Said Rabina: Come and hear: If the owners value it at twenty [<i>sela's</i>], the owners have priority, since they add a fifth. If a stranger declared, 'I accept it for twenty-one,'