Yerushalmi Maaser Sheni 2:1 ירושלמי מעשר שני ב׳:א׳

MISHNAH: Second Tithe is to be used for eating, drinking, and anointing; to eat everything commonly eaten, to anoint with what commonly is used for anointing. One should not anoint with wine or vinegar, but with olive oil¹These two sentences are stated, for Sabbatical produce and money, in Mishnah Ševi‘it 8:2.. One does not use Second Tithe oil as base for perfume²Since then the oil is no longer food., one does not buy perfumed oil with Second Tithe money³Even though anointing with Second Tithe oil is permitted, one may buy only what is used by the majority of people, not what is reserved for a minority of the rich and pampered., but one may make spice wine. If one adds it to honey and spices and it increases in value, the increase is proportional⁴If some dish offered for sale in Jerusalem was prepared with Second Tithe material worth a, and profane material worth b, and now the dish is worth c > a + b, then cb/(a+b) is profane and may be paid with Second Tithe money; the rest must be paid with profane money.. If fish is cooked with Second Tithe leeks which increases its value, the increase is proportional. If a dough of Second Tithe when baked increased in value, the increase belongs to the Second⁵Since the profane fuel did not change the body of the bread, the entire bread made from Second Tithe flour has the status of Second Tithe.. This is the principle: In all cases in which the increase is visible⁶The meaning of this expression will be discussed in the Halakhah., the increase is proportional. In all cases in which the increase is not visible, the increase belongs to the Second.

HALAKHAH: ⁷This and the following paragraphs (up to Note 35) are also in Yoma 8:3 (fol. 45a), Ševu‘ot 3:2 (fol. 34b). The parallel discussion in the Babli is Ševu‘ot 22b–23a.“Second Tithe is to be used for eating,” etc. It is to be used for eating, since eating is written regarding it⁸Deut. 14:23.. For drinking, since drinking is included in eating. From where that drinking is included in eating? Rebbi Jonah understood if from the following (Lev. 17:12): “Therefore, I said to the Children of Israel, no person among you may eat blood.” Where do we hold? If about congealed blood, did we not state⁹Tosephta Tahorot 2:5.: “Congealed blood is neither food nor drink”? So we must hold as is¹⁰Fluid blood., and the Torah called it “eating.” But did we not state¹¹Babli Ḥulin 120a, Menaḥot 21a.: “If he mashed the fat¹²The fat of domestic animals which from sacrifices is burned on the altar and from profane meat is forbidden as food. and sipped it, congealed the blood and ate it, he is guilty!” How does Rebbi Jonah explain? It is neither food, to accept the impurity of food, nor drink, to accept the impurity of drinks¹³The Tosephta Tahorot adds explicitly: “If he thought of [the congealed blood] as food, it accepts the impurities of food.” The argument of R. Jonah is not acceptable..

Rebbi Jonah changed his mind and understood it from the following (Deut. 14:26): “Spend the money for anything you desire¹⁴The argument is from the later part of the verse: “cattle and sheep, wine and liquor, anything you might want, and eat it there before Hashem, your G-d, …” How does one eat wine and liquor?.” Where do we hold? If one adds the taste of wine to a dish, is that not tasting badly¹⁵In Ševu‘ot and Yoma, the argument closes with: So we must hold as is, and the Torah called it “eating,” as for the first argument.? The rabbis of Caesarea say, explain it with ’rznyyh and gmzvzynyyh¹⁶In Yomaאורזנייא וגוממני, in Ševu‘ot גמרייה ואורזרייה. Every commentator and author of a dictionary has his own identification. {Perhaps cf. Greek spiced liquor Retsina, classical Greek ῥητίνα “pine resin”, and various kinds of gum (gummi, κόμμι) used in manufacture of fine liquors. (E. G.)} The variants make a reliable identification impossible. The additions involved must be such that wine (or liquor) is an essential ingredient of the recipe. In that case, one cannot say that a dish made with wine tastes worse than wine itself. R. Yose has not proved that from Second Tithe money one may buy wine other than cooking wine.. Anything auxiliary to food is considered food.

¹⁷The text is difficult. The parallel in Ševu‘ot is almost unintelligible. The best text seems to be the one in Yoma {commentary in braces}:
Rebbi Yose understood it from the following (Mishnah Ševu‘ot 3:2): “An oath {meaning: I swear} that I shall not eat, when he ate or drank he is guilty on one count only.” {This proves the point.} The colleagues said before Rebbi Yose, one continues after this {in the same Mishnah}, “an oath that I shall neither eat nor drink, when he ate and drank he is guilty on two counts.” {This seems to disprove that drinking is subsumed under eating.} Rebbi Yose said to them, is that not as if somebody had two loaves before him when he said: an oath that I shall not eat this one, and then he said: an oath that I shall not eat that one, would he not be guilty on two counts? {Therefore, drinking in general is subsumed under eating but if somebody spells them out separately, he takes upon himself two parallel but separate obligations.} Rebbi Yose understood it from the following¹⁸This is a misquote from Mishnah Ševu‘ot 3:2; the correct text is given by the colleagues. The second quote by R. Yose is correct.: “[I swear] an oath that I shall not eat, when he ate and drank he is guilty on two counts.” The colleagues said, he is guilty only on one count. Rebbi Yose said to them, we say after this, “an oath that I shall neither eat nor drink, when he ate and drank he is guilty on two counts.” It is as if somebody had two loaves before him when he said: [I swear] an oath that I shall not eat this one, and then he said: [I swear] an oath that I shall not eat that one, would he not be guilty on two counts?

Rebbi Ḥanania in the name of Rebbi Phineas understood it from the following¹⁹Mishnah Ševu‘ot 3:2.: “[I swear] an oath that I shall not eat, when he ate inedible food and drank undrinkable fluids he is free from punishment.” Therefore, if he drank drinkable fluids he is guilty. That is correct following “an oath that I shall not eat,” and in our Mishnah they teach “an oath that I shall not eat.” But for those rabbis²⁰The anonymous editors of the Babli, Ševu‘ot 23a, to show that from the Mishnah one cannot infer that drinking is a subcategory of eating. who teach “an oath that I shall not eat and I shall not drink”?

Rebbi Ḥinena understood it from the following²¹Mishnah Yoma 8:3. A person who forgot that it was the Day of Atonement and he ate or drank must bring a sin sacrifice. But if he ate and drank in one forgetting episode he brings only one sacrifice. The argument is weak since the commandment of the Day of Atonement is “to deprive oneself”, and not eating and not drinking are aspects of deprivation.: “If he ate and drank in one forgetting he is guilty only once.” Rebbi Abba Mari understood it from here (Deut. 26:14): “I did not eat from it in my mourning”, but I drank²²From the declaration the farmer makes in the Temple when he brings his Second Tithe to Jerusalem after he gave First Tithe and, if applicable, the tithe of the poor. It seems obvious that the declaration cannot be made if the farmer drank from tithe wine while in deep mourning, which is a desecration as if he had eaten. Therefore, the verse subsumes drinking under eating.?

It is understandable²³The text in Ševu‘ot which reads עד כדון “so far”, probably is better. The entire paragraph belongs to the Mishnah in Ševu‘ot; here ends the parallel in Ševu‘ot. for him who said, “[I swear] an oath that I shall not eat”, and he drank²⁴The preceding argument shows that drinking is subsumed under eating. But everybody agrees that a mention of drink does not include solid food. The same conclusion is in Babli Ševu‘ot 23a.. But for him who said, “an oath that I shall not drink”, and he ate? Drinking is subsumed under eating, but eating is not subsumed under drinking.

Some want to understand it from this (Deut. 12:17): “You may not eat in your gates the tithe of your grain, your cider, and your shining oil.”²⁵Both drinking and anointing are subsumed under “eating”. ‘Your cider’, that is the wine. ‘And your shining oil’ refers to anointing and the Torah called it ‘eating’. But this is not clear. If it were clear one should be whipped because of it outside the walls²⁶If the verse were a formal identification of anointing and eating as far as Second Tithe is concerned, the use of impure heave oil for anointing should be a criminal offense.! Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina said, one is whipped outside the walls only for pure Second Tithe which entered Jerusalem and left²⁷This amoraïc statement is part of the objection.. From where that it is not clear? From what was stated²⁸The text from here to the end of the next paragraph is only hinted at in Yoma; it is in Šabbat 9:4, fol. 12a–b, the fullest text in Ta‘aniot 1:6, fol. 64c.: “On the Sabbath, both anointing for pleasure and anointing not for pleasure are permitted. On the Day of Atonement, both anointing for pleasure and anointing not for pleasure are forbidden. On the Ninth of Ab and public fasts²⁹Fasts in a winter of draught, whose rules are modeled on those for the Ninth of Ab. anointing for pleasure is forbidden but anointing not for pleasure is permitted.” Did we not state: “Anointing is equal to drinking for prohibition and replacement³⁰Referring to illegal use of heave and dedicated food by non-Cohanim and its replacement by 5/4 of the value taken. but not for punishment, on the Day of Atonement for prohibition but not for punishment³¹The only biblical prohibitions on the Day of Atonement are eating, drinking, and working. The other two, anointing and sexual relations, are rabbinic and not subject to biblical punishment.”? Did we not state (Lev. 22:15): “They should not desecrate,” to include him who anoints and him who drinks³²The verse refers to the non-Cohen who “eats” holy food in error.. Rebbi Joḥanan said, there is no ‘anoints’ here. Rebbi Abba Mari said, if there is no ‘anoints’ here then there is no ‘drinks’ for otherwise something that comes from two different prohibitions would be added together³³If the verse in Lev. is needed to include drinking in eating then it is incomprehensible that for inadvertently eating and drinking together on the Day of Atonement one should be responsible only for one sacrifice since in that case, one infringes on two separate biblical prohibitions and should be responsible for two separate sacrifices. Similarly, if one illegimately ate and drank heave one should be responsible for two separate fifths. Since in both cases the Mishnah treats eating and drinking together, the verse cannot express a separate status for drinking; the addition of anointing and drinking is rabbinic interpretation but not biblical law and there is no reason to exclude anointing.!

From where that it is clear as a positive commandment³⁴While illegitimate use of heave oil for anointing is a prohibition, it is mentioned in the framework of the farmer’s declaration in the Temple which is a positive commandment. Overstepping the prohibition of anointing when it is forbidden is legally overstepping a positive commandment not under the scope of biblical penal law.? Rebbi Eleazar in the name of Rebbi Simai (Deut. 26:14): “Nor did I give from it to the dead.” Where do we hold? If it were to bring a casket and shrouds for him, that were also forbidden for a living person³⁵Only consuming Second Tithe is permitted.! If something is forbidden for the living, not so much more for the dead? What is something which is permitted for the living but prohibited for the dead? That is anointing!

³⁶The text, with minor orthographic changes, is identical with the text in Ševi‘it 8:2, Notes 22–28. Since the Mishnah here does not have the sentence “to drink everything one commonly drinks” in practically all mss., the text in Ševi‘it is original. What means “to eat everything commonly eaten”? “One does not oblige anybody to eat mouldy bread, or discarded leaves of vegetables, or spoiled food.” On the other hand, if somebody wants to eat raw beets or chew raw wheat kernels one does not listen to him. What means “to drink everything one commonly drinks”? “One does not oblige anybody to drink oily fish sauce, or sour fish sauce, or wine with yeast. He who has a toothache should not sip vinegar and spit out but he may sip and swallow. He may dip his food in as much [vinegar] as he wants without second thoughts. He who has a throat ache should not gargle with oil but he may load fish sauce with oil and sip it.” “One should not anoint with wine or vinegar, but with olive oil.” “If somebody has a headache or he has a scab, he may rub with oil but not with wine or vinegar.”

Perfumed wine of Second Tithe may not be used for anointing. Perfumed oil of Second Tithe may be used for anointing. What is the difference? For the latter it is customary, for the former it is not customary.

Rebbi Yudan asked: Second tithe oil that became rancid? Rebbi Mana said, when it became rancid, its holiness burst from it. Why did he have to ask? Sabbatical [oil] even if rancid remains in its holiness³⁷At least as long as it still is animal feed. Second Tithe may not be used for animal feed..

³⁸The paragraph is also in Šabbat14:3, fol. 14c. Simeon bar Abba in the name of Rebbi Ḥanina: He who whispers³⁹A medical procedure where rubbing with oil is accompanied by whispered recitation of charms. The Talmud in Šabbat (Note 39) accepts this procedure for illnesses of the eye, intestines, and snake and scorpion bites. The Babli (Sanhedrin 101a) approves whispered charms only for snake and scorpion bites; for eye and intestinal problems they approve only anointing and wrappings. puts oil on his head and whispers on condition that he use neither hand nor vessel⁴⁰These rules are only given for the Sabbath when medical procedures are forbidden if there is no danger to the life of the patient.. Rebbi Jacob bar Idi, Rebbi Joḥanan in the name of Rebbi Yannai: with hand or vessel⁴¹“Hand” means to pour an amont of oil into one’s palm and taking it from there by a finger of the other hand. “Vessel” is not the large container of the oil but a small vessel containing just enough oil for the procedure. Its use is permitted on the Sabbath for people who would be repelled by the idea of dipping the finger into the jar of cooking oil.. In what do they differ? Whether it is repulsive. For him who says with hand or vessel, it is repulsive. For him who says neither hand nor vessel, it is not repulsive. Rebbi Jonah said, they differ about Second Tithe. For him who says with hand or vessel, Second Tithe is forbidden⁴²It is forbidden to use Second Tithe oil for medical purposes; it is permitted to use it for anointing. It is suggested that just smearing oil on one’s head with a finger is a form of anointing; this is rejected immediately.. For him who says neither hand nor vessel, Second Tithe is permitted. Rebbi Yose said, is all that is permitted on the Sabbath permitted with Second Tithe and all that is forbidden on the Sabbath forbidden with Second Tithe? Did we not state: A woman may douse her son with wine⁴³On the Sabbath. In Šabbat 14:3, the text reads: “Herself and her son.” because of sweat, but this is forbidden with heave? Heave and Second Tithe are the same! How is that⁴⁴What is the real reason for the rule of whispering? Anybody who does it with a vessel on weekdays has to do it without one on the Sabbath and vice-versa.? Only that he not do it in the way he is used to do it on weekdays.

⁴⁵This paragraph is from Terumot 10:1; explained there in Notes 8–12.“If fish is cooked with Second Tithe leeks which increases its value, the increase is proportional.” Rebbi Hoshaia said, it follows Rebbi Jehudah, since we have stated: “Rebbi Jehudah permits in anchovies where it only serves to remove pollutants.” The rabbis of Caesarea asked: The saying of Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, that all forbidden [food] is estimated as if it were onion, as if it were leeks, does this contradict Rebbi Jehudah? Rebbi Jehudah will agree regarding an onion of the Temple or an onion of idol worship.

⁴⁷Here starts the discussion of the last part of the Mishnah. Rebbi Joḥanan said, for everything that augments the measure, the increase [in value] is proportional, but for everything that does not augment the measure, the increase belongs to the Second [Tithe]. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, for everything where the taste of the improvement is recognizable, the increase [in value] is proportional, but for everything where the taste of the improvement is not recognizable, the increase belongs to the Second [Tithe]. The Mishnah disagrees with Rebbi Jonathan⁴⁸It seems that the opinion of R. Simeon ben Laqish, which reaffirms the statement of the Mishnah, is that of R. Jonathan.: “If a dough of Second Tithe when baked increased in value, the increase belongs to the Second.” Explain it if the improvement cannot be tasted. The Mishnah disagrees with Rebbi Joḥanan: “If fish cooked with Second Tithe leeks increased in value, the increase is proportional.” Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Hoshaia: Explain it if he cooked them together⁴⁹He cooked them together until they became soft and could no longer be separated. Since the profane part clinging to the heave part must be eaten in the holiness of heave, the volume of the holy part has increased.. Rebbi Jonah in the name of Rebbi Hoshaia: Think of it, if he cooked them separately and mixed them⁵⁰In this case, there would only be a question according to R. Simeon ben Laqish but none according to R. Joḥanan.! Have fish only the taste of leeks and leeks only the taste of fish⁵¹Since in the latter case only little taste is absorbed, both R. Joḥanan and R. Simeon ben Laqish agree that the increase of the value of the tithe part does not have to be split.?

A Mishnah disagrees with Rebbi Joḥanan: “Spices, water, or salt a woman borrowed from a friend for her dough, goes after both their feet⁵²Mishnah Beẓah 5:4. If one or both of the women had moved their domain for the holiday by an eruv (cf. Peah 8, Note 56), during the holiday the dough cannot be brought to any place not reachable by both of them. This part of Mishnah 5:4 is not discussed in Yerushalmi Beẓah 5:4.
The Yerushalmi is difficult to understand. The Babli (Beẓah 38b–39a) comes up with three possible explanations for the Mishnah. Abbai holds that all is only a rabbinical prohibition to be ready with a rule for the case the two women baked a cake together. Rava holds with R. Simeon ben Laqish that taste cannot be disregarded and, therefore, the spices are essential even if present only in a minute amount. As Tosaphot point out, water certainly cannot be disregarded even if most of it evaporates since without water there would be no dough. But water used to make unleavened dough does not necessarily increase the volume. This seems to be the objection of the Yerushalmi. Rav Ashi holds that one does not invoke special rules if by waiting (ubtil the end of the holiday) all problems disappear automatically..” Rebbi Abba said, for eruv they went according to the logical rule⁵³Since the dish contains contributions from both of them, one does not have to try to allocate parts.. You should know that this is so since they say there⁵⁴In Babylonia. In this version, the dish can be moved only in the common domain even if only the firewood came from a person with a different domain. Firewood cannot be bought with tithe money. in the name of Rav Ḥisda, but we know not whether from a tradition or a Mishnah, “even logs!” Did we want to say that logs have no credible importance? A baraita⁵⁵Tosephta 1:16. disagrees with Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: “If a tithe dish is prepared with profane spices, the increase belongs to Second Tithe.” Explain it if the improvement cannot be tasted. But was it not stated: “If a profane dish is prepared with Second Tithe spices, the tithe cannot escape redemption⁵⁶Or the entire dish must be eaten under the rules of tithe. This part of the Tosephta requires explanation according to both opinions.”? According to Rebbi Joḥanan, if the volume was increased. According to Rebbi Simeon ber Laqish if the improvement was clearly recognizable.