Kiddushin 108

תרי תנאי נינהו ואליבא דר' יהודה

Two Tannaim differ as to R'Judah's view.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' According to the first who deals with trespass, R. Judah holds Jerusalem to be sanctified; according to the second, on vows, it is not.');">¹</span> 'Ulla said on Bar Pada's authority: R'Meir used to say that hekdesh, deliberately used, is secularised; unwittingly, it is not secularised.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., 'Ulla agrees with R. Johanan supra 53b.');">²</span> And only in respect to sacrifice was it said that it is secularised by unwitting [misuse].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The Torah decreeing a sacrifice (Lev. V, 15) . as though it were converted to hullin. Nevertheless it actually remains hekdesh.');">³</span>

אמר עולא משמיה דבר פדא אומר היה ר"מ הקדש במזיד מתחלל בשוגג אין מתחלל ולא אמרו בשוגג מתחלל אלא לענין קרבן בלבד וכי מאחר דאין מתחלל קרבן במאי מחייב

But since it is not secularised, whereby does he become liable to a sacrifice?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Seeing that his act is null.');">⁴</span> But when Rabin came [from Palestine], he explained it in Bar Pada's name: R'Meir used to say that hekdesh, deliberately used, is secularised; unwittingly, is not secularised. And only in respect of consumption was it said that it is secularised by unwitting misuse.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., when the object is actually consumed; then it has obviously passed out of the ownership of hekdesh.');">⁵</span>

אלא כי אתא רבין פריש משמיה דבר פדא אומר היה ר"מ הקדש במזיד מתחלל בשוגג אין מתחלל ולא אמרו בשוגג מתחלל אלא לענין אכילה בלבד

R'Nahman said in R'Adda B'Ahaba's name: The halachah agrees with R'Meir in respect to [second-] tithe, since the Tanna taught his view anonymously;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As explained below. It is a general principle that if the view of an individual is found cited in a Mishnah anonymously, that is the halachah.');">⁶</span> and the halachah is as R, Judah in respect to hekdesh, since the Tanna taught his view anonymously. [We learnt anonymously] as R'Meir in respect to [second-] tithe.

אמר רב נחמן אמר רב אדא בר אהבה הלכה כר"מ במעשר הואיל וסתם לן תנא כותיה והלכה כר' יהודה בהקדש הואיל וסתם לן תנא כותיה

To what is the reference? For we learnt. Fourth year vintage:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The first three year's vintage of a vineyard, as the first three years' crop of any tree, was forbidden; the fourth year's was permitted, but on the same terms as second-tithe, viz., it had to be eaten in Jerusalem.');">⁷</span>

כר"מ במעשר מאי היא דתנן כרם רבעי ב"ש אומרים אין לו חומש ואין לו ביעור וב"ה אומרים יש לו

Beth Shammai maintain: It is not subject to a fifth<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' If one redeems it and expends the money in Jerusalem, he need not add a fifth, which is necessary in the case of second-tithe.');">⁸</span> or removal;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' If an Israelite separated tithes but did not render them to their rightful owners, he might not keep them in his own house beyond the end of the third and the sixth years of the Septennate, but had to remove and give them to their owners. Likewise, second-tithe might not be kept in the house after that, but had to be taken to Jerusalem. This does not apply to fourth year vintage.');">⁹</span> Beth Hillel rule: It is Beth Shammai rule: The law of fallings and gleanings apply to it;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Heb. peret and 'olleloth respectively. Peret, single grapes that fall off during vintaging; 'olleloth, small single bunches, which must not be vintaged but left for the poor, v. Lev, XIX, 10.');">¹⁰</span>

ב"ש אומרים יש לו פרט ויש לו עוללות וב"ה אומרים כולו לגת

Beth Hillel say: It is all for the vault.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., it must all be gathered, to be made into wine.');">¹¹</span> What is Beth Hillel's reason? - They deduce the meaning of 'holy' from [second-] tithe:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Fourth year produce, Lev. XIX, 24: But in the fourth year all the fruit thereof shall be holy; second-tithe, ibid. XXVII, 30: and all the tithe of the land, . is the Lords; it is holy unto the Lord.');">¹²</span> just as tithe is subject to a fifth and removal, so is fourth year vintage too.

מ"ט דב"ה גמרי (ויקרא יט, כד) קודש (ויקרא כז, לב) קודש ממעשר מה מעשר יש לו חומש ויש לו ביעור אף כרם רבעי יש לו חומש ויש לו ביעור וב"ש לא גמרי קודש קודש ממעשר

While Beth Shammai do not deduce the meaning of 'holy' from tithe. Now, when Beth Hillel rule that it is as [the second-] tithe, with whom do they hold? If with R'Judah, why is it all for the vault, but he maintains that the [second-] tithe is secular property?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' With respect to fallings and gleanings it is written: Lev. XIX, 10: and thou shalt not glean thy vineyard, neither shalt thou gather the fallen fruit of thy vineyard. 'Thy' excludes sacred property, which is God's. But if Beth Hillel agree with R. Judah, second-tithe is secular, and since fourth year vintage is assimilated thereto, that also is likewise.');">¹³</span>

וב"ה אומרים כמעשר כמאן סבירא להו אי כר' יהודה אמאי כולו לגת האמר מעשר ממון הדיוט הוא אלא לאו כר"מ

Hence surely [they agree] with R'Meir.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And since the halachah is always as Beth Hillel, that is the equivalent of an anonymous teaching as R. Meir.');">¹⁴</span> '[We learnt anonymously] as R'Judah in respect to hekdesh.' To what is the reference? - For we learnt: If he [the Temple treasurer] sends it<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Money of hekdesh.');">¹⁵</span>

כר' יהודה בהקדש מאי היא דתנן שילח ביד פיקח ונזכר עד שלא הגיע אצל חנווני חנווני מעל לכשיוציא

by a responsible person<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Pikeah, lit., 'bright', 'understanding', connotes the opposite of a deaf-mute, idiot, or minor, who are irresponsibles.');">¹⁶</span> and recollects<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That it is hekdesh.');">¹⁷</span> before it reaches the shopkeeper's hands, the latter is guilty of trespass when he expends it.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' But not the treasurer; for since he recollected that it was hekdesh, its expenditure is not unwitting as far as he is concerned, and a trespass-offering is incurred only for unwitting misuse: v. Lev. V, 15, and sin through ignorance. This proves that it becomes hullin by unwitting, not deliberate use. For if deliberate use likewise secularises it, the treasurer should he liable, since its secularisation was pursuant to his action, which at the outset was unwitting.');">¹⁸</span>

וכר' יהודה במעשר מי לא תנן והתנן הפודה מעשר שני שלו מוסיף עליו חמישיתו בין משלו בין שניתן לו במתנה מני אילימא ר"מ היא מי מצי יהיב ליה במתנה והאמר מעשר ממון גבוה הוא אלא לאו ר' יהודה

Yet did we not learn [anonymously] as R'Judah in respect to [second-] tithe? But we learnt: If one redeems his own second-tithe, he must add a fifth,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev, XXVII, 31: and if a man will redeem aught of his tithe, he shall add unto it the fifth part thereof.');">¹⁹</span> whether it was his [in the first place] or given to him as a gift.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' 'His', that it was separated of his own produce; 'given to him as a gift,' that somebody had tithed his produce and then given him the tithe.');">²⁰</span>

לא לעולם ר"מ והכא במאי עסקינן כגון דיהיב ניהליה בטיבליה וקסבר מתנות שלא הורמו כמי שלא הורמו דמיין

Whose [view] is this? Shall we say: R'Meir's? Can one give it as a gift: surely he maintains that [second-] tithe is sacred property?

ת"ש הפודה נטע רבעי שלו מוסיף עליו חמישיתו בין משלו בין שניתן לו במתנה מני אילימא ר"מ מי מצי יהיב ליה והא גמרי ' קודש קודש ממעשר אלא לאו ר' יהודה

Hence it must surely be R'Judah's!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And it was taught anonymously.');">²¹</span> - No. After all, it is R'Meir's, but the circumstances are that [the donor] gave it to him [mixed up] in its tebel,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' l.e., he gave him untithed corn, which therefore contained some second-tithe.');">²²</span>

לעולם ר"מ והכא במאי עסקינן כגון דיהיב כשהוא סמדר ודלא כר' יוסי דאמר סמדר אסור מפני שהוא פרי

and he holds that unseparated gifts<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' 'Gifts' is the technical term for the priestly and Levitical dues, and here includes the second-tithe, though that belonged to the Israelite.');">²³</span> rank as unseparated.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' There is an opposing view that they rank as already separated. According to that, if A gives B untithed corn (tebel) , what should be separated is already separated, and therefore since on the present hypothesis this agrees with R. Meir that second-tithe is sacred property and cannot be given away, the tithe in it remains A's. Hence it is explained that he holds that it ranks as unseparated and so it can be given to B together with the rest.');">²⁴</span> Come and hear: If one redeems his own fourth year plantings,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. p. 273, n, 10.');">²⁵</span>

ת"ש משך הימנו מעשר בסלע ולא הספיק לפדותו עד שעמד בשתים נותן סלע ומשתכר בסלע ומעשר שני שלו מני אילימא ר"מ אמאי משתכר בסלע (ויקרא כז, כג) ונתן את הכסף וקם לו אמר רחמנא אלא לאו ר' יהודה

he must add a fifth, whether it was [originally] his or given to him as a gift. Who is the author of this? Shall we say: R'Meir?

לעולם ר' יהודה והכא חד סתמא והכא תרי סתמי

Can one give it away; surely he deduces the meaning of 'holy' from second-tithe?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. supra. Hence it is sacred property.');">²⁶</span> Hence it must surely be R'Judah!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Thus we have an anonymous Mishnah in agreement with R. Judah in respect to second-tithe.');">²⁷</span> - [No.] After all, it is R'Meir; but here the circumstances are that he gave it in its budding stage;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' When the fruit is recognisable, after the flower has dropped off.');">²⁸</span>

ואי סתמא דוקא מה לי חד סתמא מה לי תרי סתמי אמר רב נחמן בר יצחק הלכה כר' מאיר הואיל ותנן בבחירתא כוותיה

and this does not agree with R'Jose, who maintained: Budding fruit is forbidden [as 'orlah],because it counts as fruit.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' On that view fourth year fruit, being sacred property, could not be given away. But here we hold that the term 'fourth year fruit' is as yet inapplicable, because it is not fruit at all.');">²⁹</span> Come and hear: If he drew into his possession the [second-] tithe [of another] to the value of a sela', and had no time to redeem it<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' By paying the owner the money.');">³⁰</span> before it appreciated to two, he must pay a sela'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' , Because he acquired it by meshikah (v. Glos.) and it appreciated in his possession.');">³¹</span> and thus profits a sela', and the second-tithe is his.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Because the second-tithe is secular property, hence it is acquired by meshikah.');">³²</span> Now, whose view is this? Shall we say: R'Meir's; why does he profit a sela', Scripture saith, And he shall give the money, and it shall be assured to him?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Hence tithe is acquired only by money, not meshikah. Actually there is no such verse, and this would appear to be a free paraphrase of Lev. XXVII, 19: then he shall add the fifth part of the money of thy estimation unto it, and it shall be assured to him; Tosaf. Shab. ');">³³</span> Hence it must surely be R'Judah's! - It is indeed R'Judah's, but here we have one anonymous teaching, whereas there we have two.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The anonymous Mishnah agreeing with R. Meir is found twice, in M.Sh. V, 3 and 'Ed. IV, 5; that agreeing with R. Judah is found only in M.Sh. IV, 6.');">³⁴</span> But if an anonymous [ruling] was intentionally taught,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Thus, to shew that it is the halachah; v. p. 273. n. 9.');">³⁵</span> what does it matter whether there is one or two? - Said R'Nahman B'Isaac, The halachah is as R'Meir, since we learnt his view in Behirta.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'selected (Mishnah) .' another name for 'Eduyyoth. This consists of testimonies by scholars on traditional laws, which were examined and declared authentic.');">³⁶</span>