Pesachim 70

ומי פירות אין מחמיצין:

and fruit juice does not cause fermentation.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., 'leavening'.');">¹</span> AND THEY DISCHARGE THEIR OBLIGATION WITH DEMAI AND WITH THE FIRST TITHE etc. DEMAI?

יוצא בדמאי ובמעשר וכו': דמאי הא לא חזי ליה כיון דאי בעי מפקר לנכסיה הוי עני ואוכל דמאי השתא נמי חזי ליה

But it is not fit for him?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Demai may not be eaten until the tithe has been separated.');">²</span> - Since if he wishes he can renounce his property, become a poor man, and eat demai,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' A poor man need not separate tithe on demai.');">³</span>

דתנן מאכילין את העניים דמאי ואת אכסניא דמאי ואמר רב הונא תנא בית שמאי אומרים אין מאכילין את העניים דמאי ואת האכסניא דמאי ובית הלל אומרים מאכילין:

it is fit for him now too. For we learned: The poor may be fed with demai, and [Jewish] troops [in billets] [may be supplied] with demai.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' They too are regarded as poor, since they are not at home.');">⁴</span>

מעשר ראשון שנטלה תרומתו וכו': פשיטא דכיון שנטלה תרומתו חולין הוי

And R'Huna said, It was taught: Beth Shammai maintain: The poor may not be fed with demai, nor troops in billets; but Beth Hillel rule: The poor may be fed with demai, also troops in billets. FIRST TITHE WHOSE TERUMAH HAS BEEN SEPARATED.

לא צריכא שהקדימו בשיבלים ונטלה הימנו תרומת מעשר ולא נטלה הימנו תרומה גדולה וכדרבי אבהו

That is obvious? Since its terumah has been separated, it is hullin?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., permitted for food.');">⁵</span>

דאמר ר' אבהו אמר רבי שמעון בן לקיש מעשר ראשון שהקדימו בשיבלים פטור מתרומה גדולה שנאמר (במדבר יח, כו) והרמותם ממנו תרומת ה' מעשר מן המעשר מעשר מן המעשר אמרתי לך ולא תרומה גדולה ותרומת מעשר מן המעשר

- It is necessary [to teach it] only where he anticipated it [in setting it aside<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Sc. the separation of the first tithe.');">⁶</span> while the corn was still] in the ears, and terumah of the tithe was taken from it, but the great terumah was not taken from it,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The great terumah is a portion of the produce, unspecified by Scripture (the Rabbis prescribed from one fortieth to one sixtieth, according to the owner's generosity) , which is the priest's due; for terumah of tithe v. note on Mishnah supra 35a. The great terumah must be separated first, and then the first tithe. But here the order was reversed and the Israelite separated his tithe while the grain was yet in the ears.');">⁷</span>

אמר ליה רב פפא לאביי אלא מעתה אפילו הקדימו בכרי נמי ליפטר א"ל עליך אמר קרא (במדבר יח, כט) מכל מתנותיכם תרימו את כל תרומת ה'

this being in accordance with R'Abbahu. For R'Abbahu said in the name of Resh Lakish: First tithe which he anticipated [the setting aside thereof] in the ears is exempt from the great terumah, for it is said, then ye shall offer up an heave offering of it for the Lord, a tithe of the tithe:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Num. XVIII, 26.');">⁸</span>

ומה ראית האי אידגן והאי לא אידגן:

I ordered thee [to offer] 'a tit of the tithe', but not the great terumah plus the terumah of the tithe 'of the tithe'. Said R'Papa to Abaye: If even if he anticipated it in the stack too,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e.. when it is no longer in the ears but piled up in stacks.');">⁹</span>

מעשר שני והקדש שנפדו וכו': פשיטא הכא במאי עסקינן שנתן את הקרן ולא נתן את החומש וקא משמע לן דאין חומש מעכב:

let it be exempt? - For your sake Scripture writes, out of all you,' gifts ye shall offer every heave offering of the Lord,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ibid. 29; i.e. 'all' is an extension, and shows that the offering is due even in such a case. - 'For your sake' or, 'concerning you' - to refute this possible view.');">¹⁰</span> he answered him.

והכהנים בחלה ובתרומה וכו': פשיטא מהו דתימא מצה שוה לכל אדם בעינן קמ"ל מצות מצות ריבה:

And what [reason] do you see [to interpret thus]?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' To apply the limitation of the first verse to the one case and the extension of the second to the other - perhaps it should be reversed?');">¹¹</span> - The one has become corn [dagan], while the other has not become corn.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The priestly due, i.e., the great terumah, is 'the firstfruits of thy corn' (Deut. XVIII, 4) . Hence once it is piled up as corn it is due, and the Israelite cannot then evade his obligations by reversing the order. But before it is piled up there is no obligation for the great terumah; therefore if the Levite receives his first tithe then he is not defrauding the priest.');">¹²</span>

אבל לא בטבל וכו': פשיטא לא צריכא בטבל טבול מדרבנן שזרעו בעציץ שאינו נקוב:

THE SECOND TITHE AND HEKDESH WHICH HAVE BEEN REDEEMED etc. That is obvious? - We treat here of a case where he assigned<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'gave' - for redemption.');">¹³</span> the principal but did not assign the fifth:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' When a man redeemed second tithe or hekdesh he added a fifth of its value.');">¹⁴</span>

ולא במעשר ראשון שלא נטלה תרומתו: פשיטא לא צריכא שהקדימו בכרי

and he [the Tanna] informs us that the fifth is not indispensable.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' To the validity of the redemption, and the redeemed produce may be consumed anywhere, even though the fifth has not been added.');">¹⁵</span> AND PRIESTS [DISCHARGE THEIR OBLIGATION] WITH HALLAH AND TERUMAH etc. This is obvious? - You might say, We require unleavened bread that is equally permitted] to all men.

מהו דתימא כדאמר ליה רב פפא לאביי קא משמע לן כדשני ליה:

Therefore he informs us, [the repetition] 'unleavened bread', 'unleavened bread',<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' This may refer either to Deut. XVI, 4, 8, or in general to the fact that 'unleavened bread' is repeated several times.');">¹⁶</span> is an extension.

ולא במעשר שני והקדש שלא נפדו וכו': פשיטא

BUT NOT WITH TEBEL etc. That is obvious? - It is necessary [to teach it] only of tebel made so by Rabbinical law, e.g. , if it was sown in an unperforated pot.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' According to Scriptural law such is not tebel at all, and therefore I would think that a man discharges his obligation therewith.');">¹⁷</span> NOR WITH FIRST TITHE WHOSE TERUMAH HAS NOT BEEN SEPARATED.

לעולם דנפדו ומאי לא נפדו שלא נפדו כהלכתן מעשר שני שפדאו על גב אסימון דרחמנא אמר (דברים יד, כה) וצרת הכסף דבר שיש לו צורה

That is obvious? - It is necessary [to state it] only where it had been anticipated [and set aside] in the pile.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The tithe having been separated but not the great terumah.');">¹⁸</span> You might argue as R'Papa proposed to Abaye;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That it is exempt, supra.');">¹⁹</span>

והקדש שחיללו על גבי קרקע דרחמנא אמר (ויקרא כז, יט) ונתן הכסף וקם לו

hence he [the Tanna] informs us [that it is] as Abaye answered him. NOR WITH SECOND TITHE OR HEKDESH WHICH HAVE NOT BEEN REDEEMED etc. That is obvious? - It is necessary only where they have been redeemed; and what does they 'HAVE NOT BEEN REDEEMED' mean?

תנו רבנן יכול יוצא אדם ידי חובתו בטבל שלא נתקן כל טבל נמי הא לא נתקן

That they have not been redeemed with their regulations.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'laws'.');">²⁰</span> [Thus:] it is second tithe which he redeemed with uncoined metal,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. B.M. ');">²¹</span>

אלא בטבל שלא נתקן כל צורכו שנטלה ממנו תרומה גדולה ולא נטלה ממנו תרומת מעשר [מעשר] ראשון ולא מעשר שני ואפילו מעשר עני מנין

for the Divine Law states, And thou shalt bind up [we-zarta] the money in thine hand,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Deut. XIV, 25.');">²²</span> [implying], that which bears a figure [zurah].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The image stamped on the coin. This connects zarta with zurah.');">²³</span>

תלמוד לומר (דברים טז, ג) לא תאכל עליו חמץ מי שאיסורו משום בל תאכל עליו חמץ יצא זה שאין איסורו משום בל תאכל חמץ אלא משום בל תאכל טבל

[Again it is] hekdesh which was secularized<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., redeemed, whereby the hekdesh assumes an ordinary, non-holy character.');">²⁴</span> by means of land,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e.. land was given for its redemption.');">²⁵</span>

ואיסורא דחמץ להיכן אזלא אמר רב ששת הא מני ר' שמעון היא דאמר אין איסור חל על איסור דתניא ר' שמעון אומר

for the Divine Law stated, Then he shall give the money and it shall be assured to him.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e.,it can be redeemed by money, but not by land. Actually there is no such verse, but v. B.M., Sonc. ed. p. 321, n. 1.');">²⁶</span> Our Rabbis taught: One might think that a man can discharge his obligation with tebel which was not made ready.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For eating, by separating the priestly and the Levitical dues.');">²⁷</span> .<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In the first, second, fourth, and fifth years after the 'years of release' (shemittah) the first and second tithes were separated. In the third and sixth years, the first and third tithes were separated, the latter being a poor tithe, i.e., it belonged to the poor.');">²⁸</span> Whence do we know it?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That he cannot discharge his obligation therewith.');">²⁹</span> Because it is stated, thou shalt not eat leavened bread with it:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Deut. XVI, 3.');">³⁰</span> teaching, [you must eat of] that the interdict of which is on account of 'thou shalt not eat leavened bread with it', thus this excluded, for its interdict is not on account of 'thou shalt not eat leavened bread with it' but on account of 'thou shalt not eat tebel'.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., the unleavened bread which one must eat must be such that, if leavened, it would be forbidden because it is leavened. But in the case of tebel, if it were leavened it would be forbidden because it is tebel.');">³¹</span> Yet whither has the interdict of leaven gone?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Surely it is still forbidden on account of leaven, tebel merely being an additional prohibition?');">³²</span> - Said R'Shesheth, The author of this is R'Simeon, who maintained, A prohibition cannot fall<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., become operative.');">³³</span> upon another prohibition.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., when a thing is already forbidden on one score, another interdict cannot become operative at the same time. Thus here the prohibition of tebel is earlier; consequently the fact that it subsequently became leaven too is ignored, and it is regarded as prohibited on account of tebel only.');">³⁴</span> For it was taught, R'Simeon said: