Yerushalmi Maaser Sheni 5:2 ירושלמי מעשר שני ה׳:ב׳

MISHNAH: [Grapes from] a fourth-year vineyard have to be brought to Jerusalem from a distance up to a day’s march. What is this? Eilat from the South³⁸An unknown place somewhere South of Hebron. One has to assume that the distance between Jerusalem and Eilat was approximately the same as the distance between Jerusalem and Aqrabeh, SE of Nablus., Aqrabeh from the North, Lydda from the West, the Jordan from the East. When the fruits increased³⁹And ruined the trade in fruits on the markets in Jerusalem. they decreed that they might be redeemed [even] close to the city wall. There was a condition made that anytime they decided, they could return to the previous situation⁴⁰Usually a rule imposed by a rabbinic assembly could be nullified or amended only by an assembly more prestigious than the first. This rule is explicitly waved in the present case.. Rebbi Yose says, this condition was introduced when the Temple was destroyed, viz., that one would return to the previous situation if the Temple would be rebuilt soon, in our days⁴¹For R. Yose, no exemption for a future rabbinical assembly is created; the original assembly already fixed the terms for the disestablishment of the rule..
⁶¹The entire Halakhah is from Peah 7:6; explained there in Notes 99–145. A fourth-year vineyard, the House of Shammai say, is not subject to a fifth and is not subject to removal; but the House of Hillel say, it is. The House of Shammai say, it is subject to single berries and gleanings and the poor redeem for themselves, but the House of Hillel say, all goes to the winepress.

HALAKHAH: Rebbi Hila said, at the start they made wine in purity for Temple libations and grapes⁴²Eating grapes. were rare. They decreed that it⁴³The yield of fourth-year vineyards. had to be brought to Jerusalem from a distance up to a day’s march. They used to distribute it to relatives, neighbors, and acquaintances⁴⁴Since the buyer knew that they were fourth-year grapes, the price would be depressed and the grapes could as well be distributed. (Explanation of S. Lieberman.) In the Tosephta, 5:14, R. Simeon restricts the rule to vineyards in the sense of the formal definition (Mishnah Kilaim 4:6); the yield of single vines should always be redeemed and the redemption money used under the rules of tithe money., and a small quantity adorned the market⁴⁵This implies that in contrast to Second Tithe, the grapes from a fourth-year vineyard may be redeemed in Jerusalem proper, which makes the grapes profane and marketable. The reason given by R. Hila is attributed in the Babli (Beẓah 5a, Roš Haššanah 31b) to R. Joḥanan or R. Joshua ben Levi..

This disagrees with Nukai⁴⁷Since נקיי, together with מתיי, “Matthew”, appears as name of one of the disciples of Jesus, one might identify נקיי with Lucas by a change in liquids. The story is also in Ekhâ Rabbati on Thr. 3:9; there, the person is only identified by his occupation, not by name. The following stories, except that of Mahalul, are also in that source.. Nukai was community servant in Magdala of the dyers⁴⁸Probably a quarter of Magdala, N. of Tiberias. In Ekhâ Rabbati, the place is simply called Magdala.. Every Sabbath eve, after preparing his candles⁴⁹For the Friday night service in the synagoge. Latin candela “wax light, tallow candle, taper”., he went up, rested in the Temple, and went down to light them. Some say, he was the Torah reader. Every Sabbath eve he went up, prepared home.

The cap maker⁵⁰Arabic طَر طُرر “pointed cap”. [Perhaps also cf. late Latin triturator “thresher”, tritor “grinder” (E. G.). of Malul⁵¹In lower Galilee. went up to observe the Sabbath in the Temple but nobody got up⁵²Sunday morning. for his fig trees before him.

The daughters⁵³The unmarried women. of Sepphoris went up, kept the Sabbath in the Temple, but nobody got up⁵²Sunday morning. for their fig trees before them. The daughters of Lod were kneading their bread dough, went up, prayed, and descended before it became sour⁵⁴It sems that in lod one never spoke Aramic. The parallel to the sentence in Ekhâ Rabbati also is in Hebrew..

⁵⁶In Ekhâ Rabbati, the story is quite different and not connected with instant travelling of long distances. A person was ploughing. His cow broke away before him and started running. He ran and ran after her until he found himself in Babylonia. They asked him, when did you leave? He answered, today. They asked him, by which [road] did you come? He answered them, by this one, come and see it. He went out, wanted to see it, and did no longer recognize it.

From here, that they disagree. Even if you say it does not disagree, there were tunnels and they were hidden. That is what is written (Thr. 3:9): “He fenced my way with ashlar, my paths he destroyed.”

Rebbi Jonah in the name of Rebbi Zeïra: Even a vineyard reaching to the wall was redeemed⁵⁷This explains what “outside the walls” means in the Mishnah..

Rebbi Aḥa said, this implies that the Temple will be rebuilt before the kingdom of David’s dynasty⁵⁸Since the decree, according to R. Yose, mentions only the rebuilding of the Temple and not the coming of the Messiah, it implies that the two events are independent of one another. as it is written (Deut. 32:14): “From the blood of a grape you will drink as wine”⁵⁹This is an allusion to the explanation of this verse, describing the plenty induced by the Temple, either in Sifry Deut. 317: You will not have to work to press and make wine, but bring it in on a wagon, put it in a corner, and drink from it as from a barrel; or in Babli Ketubot 111b: It teaches you that each grape will produce 30 barrels of wine; read (following a pronunciation which has the same sound for ָֿ and ַ̇) חָמֶר as חֹמֶר (30 seah); cf. Peak 7:4.. And you say so!

It was stated: Rebbi says, the House of Shammai said this only for the Sabbatical year, but in all other years of the Sabbatical cycle, the House of Shammai say that it is subject to a fifth and subject to removal. According to that Tanna, they learned the rules of the fourth-year orchard only from Second Tithe; since you say that there is no Second Tithe in the Sabbatical year, so there is no fourth-year orchard in the Sabbatical year. But then should there be no holiness in it? Its holiness comes from the verse (Lev. 19:24): “Holy for praises,” it has the status of those holy fruits over which praises are said. And should it be permitted to the fresh mourner? It is stated: This implies that it is forbidden to the fresh mourner. And should it be subject to removal? Following Rebbi Simeon, since Rebbi Simeon frees it from removal. And should it be redeemed while still connected to the ground?

Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel stated: Both in the Sabbatical year and in the rest of the years of the Sabbatical cycle, the House of Shammai say, there is no fifth and no removal. According to that Tanna, they did not at all learn the rules of the fourth-year orchard from Second Tithe. But then should there be no holiness in it? Its holiness comes from the verse (Lev. 19:24): “Holy for praises;” it has the status of those holy fruits over which praises are said. And should it be permitted to the fresh mourner? It is stated: This implies that it is forbidden to the fresh mourner. And should it be subject to removal? Following Rebbi Simeon, since Rebbi Simeon frees it from removal. And should it be redeemed while still connected to the ground?

Rebbi Zeïra asked before Rebbi Abbahu: From where that it needs redemption? (Lev. 19:24) “Holy for praises,” holy for redemption. The rabbis never refrain from explaining ה by ח.

Rebbi Ayvu bar Naggari stated before Rebbi La following Rebbi Ismael (Lev. 27:31): “If a man redeems part of his tithes, he should add their fifth to it.” That excludes the fourth-year orchard; one is not obligated by it for a fifth. Then he turned around and stated: There are two terms of redemption, one for the Second Tithe and one for the fourth-year orchard.

There we have stated: Rebbi Jehudah says, there is no vineyard in the fourth year for the Gentile, but the Sages say there is. Rebbi Eleazar said, so says the Mishnah: There is never a vineyard in the fourth year for the Gentile. Rebbi Bibi said before Rebbi Zeïra in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: According to the opinion of Rebbi, the statement of Rebbi Jehudah turns out to be like the statement of the House of Shammai. Since the House of Shammai said that they learned the rules of the vineyard of the fourth year only from Second Tithe; since you say that there is no Second Tithe in the Sabbatical year, so there is no fourth-year orchard in the Sabbatical year. Similarly, Rebbi Jehudah said that they learned the rules of the vineyard of the fourth year only from Second Tithe; since you say that there is no Second Tithe in Syria, so there is no fourth-year orchard in Syria. He said to him, look what he said! He said only, it is not subject to a fifth and is not subject to removal, hence, it is subject to all other rules; Rebbi Jehudah says, there is no vineyard in the fourth year for the Gentile in Syria.

Samuel bar Abba asked: Since the House of Shammai said that they learned the rules of the vineyard of the fourth year only from Second Tithe; since you say that there is no Second Tithe in the Sabbatical year, there is no fourth-year orchard in the Sabbatical year. Similarly, in the third and sixth years of the Sabbatical cycle, since there is no Second Tithe, there should not be any fourth-year orchard. Rebbi Yose said, even though there is no Second Tithe in the third and sixth years, there are the tithes. In the Sabbatical year, there are no tithes at all.

Ḥeipha asked: Since Rebbi Jehudah said that they learned the rules of the vineyard of the fourth year only from Second Tithe; since you say that there is no Second Tithe in Syria, there is no fourth-year orchard in Syria. Similarly, they learned the rules of the heave of the thanksgiving sacrifice only from the heave of the tithe; since you say that there was no heave of the tithe in the desert, will it follow that there was no heave of the thanksgiving sacrifice in the desert? Rebbi Yose said, they learned from it only in regard to quantities.

It was stated: Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Jehudah said, Rebbi Eleazar ben Rebbi Simeon said, Israel did become obligated for the fourth-year orchard only after 14 years, seven during which they conquered and seven during which they divided up the land. Rav Ḥisda said, it turns out that the argument of Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Jehudah is identical with that of his father Rebbi Jehudah. Just as Rebbi Jehudah said that they learned the rules of the fourth-year orchard only from Second Tithe, since you say that there is no Second Tithe in Syria, so there is no fourth-year orchard in Syria. Similarly, Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Jehudah said that they learned the rules of the fourth-year orchard only from Second Tithe, since you say that they did become obligated for the fourth-year orchard only after 14 years,, similarly there was no fourth-year orchard until after 14 years. Rebbi Yose said, he follows his son’s argument; Syria was inferred from “after 14 years;” “after 14 years” was not inferred from Syria.

It is written (Lev. 19:25): “In the fifth year, you shall eat its yield to add for you, etc.” Rebbi Yose the Galilean says, here one adds the fruits of the fifth to the fruits of the fourth year. Just as the fruits of the fifth year are for the proprietors, so the fruits of the fourth year are for the proprietors. Rebbi Zeïra, Rebbi Yasa, in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: It turns out that Rebbi Yose the Galilean argues like Rebbi Jehudah. Just as Rebbi Jehudah makes it his property, so Rebbi Yose the Galilean makes it his property.

Rebbi Jeremiah asked before Rebbi Zeïra: According to those who declare it his property, should it not be subject to tithes? He said to him, according to what Rebbi Joshua ben Levi said, as Rebbi Abin said in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi, not only this practice, but in any practical question which is weak in court and you do not know how to decide, go out and see how the public acts, and act accordingly. And we see that they do not give. Rebbi Mana said, that is, if the practice would follow the House of Shammai. But is there any public that acts according to the House of Shammai? Rebbi Abin said, they learned the rules of the vineyard of the fourth year only from Second Tithe; just as you say that Second Tithe is not subject to tithes, so the yield of the fourth year is not subject to tithes.

Rebbi Abba, Rebbi Ḥiyya, in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: A dough of Second Tithe in Jerusalem, following Rebbi Meïr, is free from ḥallah, following Rebbi Jehudah it is subject to ḥallah. Rebbi Jonah said, they said this only for Jerusalem, but not for the countryside.

Rebbi Abba bar Cohen asked before Rebbi Yose: Does he who declares it obligated for single berries also declare it obligated for ḥallah? He said to him, is that not Rebbi Jehudah? And it is our opinion that in all this practice, Rebbi Jehudah follows the House of Shammai.