Pesachim 75

מצות של מעשר שני לדברי ר' מאיר אין אדם יוצא בה ידי חובתו בפסח לדברי חכמי' יוצא בה ידי חובתו בפסח

[As to] unleavened bread of second tithe, according to R'Meir, a man cannot discharge his obligation therewith on Passover; according to the Sages, a man can discharge his obligation therewith on Passover. [With regard to] a citron<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' One of the four species which are taken on the Feast of Tabernacles.');">¹</span>

אתרוג של מעשר שני לדברי ר' מאיר אין יוצא בו ידי חובתו ביום טוב לדברי חכמים אדם יוצא בו ידי חובתו ביום טוב

of second tithe, according to R'Meir he cannot discharge his obligation therewith on the Festival; according to the Sages, a man can discharge his obligation therewith on the Festival. R'Papa demurred: as for dough, it is well, because it is written, of the first of your dough,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Num. XV, 20.');">²</span>

מתקיף לה רב פפא בשלמא עיסה דכתיב (במדבר טו, כ) עריסותיכם משלכם

[implying] of your own.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And whereas according to R. Meir second tithe is not 'your own'.');">³</span> The citron too [is likewise], for it is written, and ye shall take unto yourselves,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. XXIII, 40.');">⁴</span>

אתרוג נמי דכתיב (ויקרא כג, מ) ולקחתם לכם לכם משלכם יהא אלא מצה מי כתיב מצתכם

[implying] it shall be of your own. But as for unleavened bread, is then 'your unleavened bread' written?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Surely not! Therefore even if second tithe is not 'yours' according to R. Meir, the law is still complied with by eating second tithe, unleavened bread.');">⁵</span>

אמר רבא ואיתימא רב יימר בר שלמיא אתיא לחם לחם כתיב הכא (דברים טז, ג) לחם עוני וכתיב התם (במדבר טו, יט) והיה באכלכם מלחם הארץ מה להלן משלכם אף כאן משלכם

- Said Raba - others state, R'Yemar B'Shalmia: [The meaning of] 'bread' [here] is derived from 'bread' [elsewhere]. Here It is written, the bread of affliction.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Deut. XVI, 3.');">⁶</span>

לימא מסייע ליה עיסה של מעשר שני פטורה מן החלה דברי ר"מ וחכמים אומרים חייבת לימא מסייע היינו הך

while there it is written, then it shall be, that when ye eat of the bread of the land [ye shall offer up an heave offering unto the Lord. Of the first of your dough etc.]:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Num. XV, 19.');">⁷</span>

הכי קאמר (ליה) לימא מדפליגי בעיסה בהנך נמי פליגי או דילמא שאני התם דכתיב עריסותיכם עריסותיכם תרי זימני

just as there [it means] of your own, so here too [it must be] of your own. Shall we say that [the following] supports him: Dough of second tithe is exempt from hallah: this is the view of R'Meir; but the Sages maintain, It is liable?

בעי ר' שמעון בן לקיש מהו שיצא אדם ידי חובתו בחלה של מעשר שני בירושלים אליבא דר' יוסי הגלילי לא תיבעי לך השתא בחולין לא נפיק בחלתו מיבעיא כי תיבעי לך אליבא דר' עקיבא

[You say], 'Shall we say that this Supports him': this is the identical statement! - This is what he says: Shall we say that since they differ in the case of dough, they differ in respect to those too;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Sc. the citron and unleavened bread.');">⁸</span> or perhaps it is different there, because 'your dough' 'your dough' is written twice?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Which lays particular emphasis on 'your', as explained above.');">⁹</span>

בחולין הוא דנפיק דאי מיטמו יש להן היתר במושבות אבל חלה דאי מטמיא לית לה היתר במושבות ולשריפה אזלא לא נפיק

R'Simeon B'Lakish asked: Can a man discharge his obligation<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Relating to the eating of unleavened bread.');">¹⁰</span> with the hallah of second tithe in Jerusalem?

או דילמא אמרינן הואיל ואילו לא קרא עליה שם ואיטמי אית לה היתר במושבות ונפיק בה השתא נמי נפיק

On the view of R'Jose the Galilean<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. supra 36a.');">¹¹</span> there is no problem; seeing that he does not fulfil his obligation with hullin,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., with ordinary second tithe after the hallah has been separated.');">¹²</span>

איכא דאמרי הא ודאי לא תיבעי לך דודאי אמרינן הואיל כי תיבעי לך חלה הלקוח בכסף מעשר שני

can there be a question about its hallah? Your question arises on the view of R'Akiba:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. supra 36a.');">¹¹</span>

ואליבא דרבנן לא תיבעי לך כיון דאמרי יפדה היינו מעשר כי תיבעי לך אליבא דר' יהודה דאמר יקבר

is it only with hullin that he can discharge his obligation. because if it is defiled it is permitted [all] 'habitations',<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' This is a technical term denoting all places outside Jerusalem. I.e., when defiled it can be redeemed even after it has entered Jerusalem and then eaten anywhere. The fact that it might be eaten anywhere strengthens the reason for assuming that one can discharge his obligation with it, v. supra 36b.');">¹³</span>

דתנן הלקוח בכסף מעשר שני שנטמא יפדה ר' יהודה אומר יקבר

but with hallah, which if defiled, is not permitted in [all] the 'habitations' and is consigned to the fire,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Hallah is like terumah. Now when the hallah of second tithe is clean it must be eaten in Jerusalem, like all second tithe, while if it is defiled it may not be eaten at all, like all unclean terumah. Thus it can never be eaten without Jerusalem.');">¹⁴</span> he cannot discharge his obligation: or perhaps we say, since if he had not designated it with the name [of hallah] and it became defiled, it would be permitted in [all] the 'habitations', and he could discharge [his obligation therewith], then now too he can discharge [his obligation with it]?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For the mere fact that it is hallah is no drawback, as stated in the Mishnah supra 36a, while its being second tithe is not a drawback either, on R. Akiba's view. Why then should it be unfit if it is hallah of second tithe?');">¹⁵</span>

מי אמרינן הואיל ואי לא לקוח הוי והואיל ולא קרא עלי' שם ואיטמי יש לו היתר במושבות ונפיק בי' השתא נמי נפיק ביה

Others state, this is certainly no question. for we certainly say 'since'.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., this last argument is certainly valid.');">¹⁶</span>

או דילמא חד הואיל אמרינן תרי הואיל לא אמרינן אמר רבא מסתברא שם מעשר חד הוא:

Your question arises in respect of hallah which was bought with the money of second tithe.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., second tithe was redeemed, flour was bought with the money, and now hallah was separated from the dough.');">¹⁷</span> Now, on the view of the Rabbis there is no question, for since they say that it<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., that which was purchased with second tithe money and which in turn became defiled, v. infra.');">¹⁸</span>

חלת תודה ורקיקי נזיר וכו': מנה"מ אמר רבה דאמר קרא

is to be redeemed, it is [identical with] the tithe [itself].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And the same law applies.');">¹⁹</span> Your question arises on the view of R'Judah who said, It must be buried. For we learned: If that which was bought with second tithe money was defiled, it must be redeemed: R'Judah said, It must be buried.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Its sanctity is too slight to permit of redemption. while it may not be eaten on account of its uncleanness.');">²⁰</span> Do we say, since if it were not purchased. and since if he had not designated it with the name [of second tithe] and it became defiled,it would be permitted in [all] 'habitations', and he could discharge his duty therewith, he can [therefore] discharge his duty therewith now too;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., the food that is purchased with second tithe money cannot be more stringently regarded than second tithe itself. For the fact that it cannot be redeemed is not due to its greater sanctity but on the contrary because its sanctity is too slight to be capable of transference.');">²¹</span> or perhaps we say one 'since',<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e.,in the case of hallah set aside from the second tithe.');">²²</span> but we do not say 'since twice?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e.,in the case of hallah set aside from that which has been purchased with second tithe money.');">²³</span> - said Raba: It is logical that the name of tithe is one.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Whether it is actual tithe or bought with tithe money. Hence they are alike, and therefore he can fulfil his obligations with the hallah set aside from either.');">²⁴</span> THE UNLEAVENED LOAVES OF THE THANKSOFFERING AND THE WAFERS OF A NAZIRITE etc. Whence do we know it? - Said Rabbah, Because Scripture saith,