Yerushalmi Maaser Sheni 5:3 ירושלמי מעשר שני ה׳:ג׳

MISHNAH: How does one redeem a fourth-year orchard? He puts a tetradrachma⁶³Most Mishnah mss. read הסל “the basket” but in addition to the Leyden ms. the reading here is in a ms. of the Babli and in a Mishnah ms. from the Geniza. Therefore, it does not seem permissible to treat the reading here as a scribal error. before three [experts] and asks, how much does a person redeem for himself for a tetradrachma when all expense⁶⁴The entire expense for growing this year’s yield. is on him? Then he puts down the money and says, all that is collected under this is exchanged for this money; so and so many baskets per tetradrachma.
In a Sabbatical, he redeems its full value⁶⁵Since there is no agricultural work, no costs accrue that could be deducted.. If all of it was abandoned⁶⁶In a non-Sabbatical year, the amount invested before it was abandoned is not deductible by the person who acquires the ownerless property; he may only deduct his own expenses of harvesting., he has only the cost of harvesting. He who redeems a fourth-year orchard adds its fifth whether it was his or was given to him as a gift⁶⁷Following the House of Hillel, Mishnah 3. If it was given as a gift it becomes the recipient’s property only if delivered before the time of heave and tithes since later the yield is Heaven’s property..
The removal⁷⁰The removal is the same as for Sabbatical produce (Ševi‘it 9:8); no produce may remain in the hands of the owner. {Maimonides holds that the leftovers have to be burned.} was on the day before the first⁷¹This is the reading of both Yerushalmi mss. and a majority of the Mishnah mss. However, the Cambridge ms. of the Galilean Mishnah as well as the Maimonides autograph read “last” day; and this reading is necessary in Halakhah 7. In Sifry Deut. 302, the mss. are divided about evenly between “first” and “last”. One might speculate that the reading “first” is derived from some mss. in which יום טוב אחרון was abbreviated to י״ט א׳ which was read as י״ט אחד (ראשוֹן). day of Passover in the fourth and the seventh year [of the Sabbatical cycle.] What is the removal? One gives heave and heave of the tithe to its recipients⁷²The Cohanim., First Tithe to its recipients⁷³The Levites., tithe of the poor to its recipients. Second Tithe and First Fruits are removed on the spot⁷⁴Outside of Jerusalem, they cannot be eaten. If anything is left, it must be destroyed. This rule shows that in Jerusalem one needs the entire holiday of Passover to dispose of Second Tithe.. Rebbi Simeon says, first fruits one gives to the Cohanim like heave. A cooked dish the House of Shammai say one has to remove, but the House of Hillel say it is as if removed⁷⁵This sentence seems to have been part of the next Mishnah since it is discussed at the beginning of Halakhah 6..
He who had produce¹⁰⁹Of Second Tithe. Since there is no Temple, the tithe cannot be eaten in Jerusalem. The House of Shammai hold that Deut. 14:25 requires that any tithe produce which cannot be eaten in purity in the holy precinct has to be exchanged for money. Since that money cannot be used it must be destroyed or safely buried. The House of Hillel, the authors of Mishnah 1:5, hold that either the coins must be destroyed or the produce left to rot. in this time and the year of removal came, the House of Shammai say he has to exchange it for money; the House of Hillel say, either money or produce.

HALAKHAH: To redeem for a tetradrachma [means] he buys for himself for a tetradrachma. “He has only the cost of harvesting” including the cost of removing the pedicles⁶⁸And any post-harvest processing needed.. Rebbi Hoshaia took three wholesalers⁶⁹Jastrow reads סיטונין for איסתוננסין. Buxtorf and Mussaphia read ἀστυνόμοι “street police”; R. M. Margalit reads “asthenics” who in his view are vegetarians and know the price of fruits. [?] and redeemed on their word.

It is written (Deut. 14:28): “At the end of three years you shall take out all tithe of your produce, in that year, and deposit it in your gates.” I could think that once in a Sabbatical cycle you have to distribute the tithes including the tithe of the poor⁷⁶The tithe of the poor is mentioned separately since the paragraph in question introduces the tithe of the poor.. The verse says “at the end of three years,” once in three years and not once in seven; i. e., in the third and the seventh⁷⁷This formulation is inconsistent. It must either be the 3^rd and the 6^th year for the obligation of tithes, or the 4^th and the 7^th which are finally determined to be the times of delivery., twice in a Sabbatical cycle. Do I understand at New Year’s Day, that on New Year’s Day you have to distribute the tithes including the tithe of the poor? The verse says “at the end of three years.” “At the end” means at its conclusion you remove, you do not remove on New Year’s Day. If it is at the end of the year, I could understand that at the beginning of the fourth you have to remove the tithes including the tithe of the poor; the verse says (Deut. 26:12): “If you have finished tithing [all tithe of]⁷⁸In the masoretic text, missing in the quote. your produce,” when you have tithed all your fruits. ⁷⁹From here on, including the tannaitic parts of the next two paragraphs, a similar text is in Sifry Deut. §109; in very shortened form also §302. If it is when you have tithed all your fruits, could I understand even on Ḥanukkah⁸⁰Since Ḥanukkah is not connected with the agricultural year and is not a biblical holiday, its mention does not make much sense, in particular because the tithing year for trees and their fruits ends only on the 14^th of Ševaṭ, more than a month and a half after the start of Ḥanukkah. The 15^th of Ševaṭ is mentioned as “New Year of trees” in Mishnah Roš Haššanah 1:2; in the opinion of the House of Shammai it is the first of Ševaṭ. This indetermination in itself disqualifies the New Year of trees as a biblical date. The discussion of the date is in Roš Haššanah 1:2 (fol. 57a), Babli 14a.? It says here, “at the end of;” it says further (Deut. 26:12): “At the end⁸¹In the biblical text, מקץ not מקצה. of seven years, on the fixed time of the Sabbatical year, on the festival of booths.” Since “at the end” there means at a fixed time, so here also at a fixed time. Since there “at the end” means the holiday of booths, does it here also mean the holiday of booths? The verse says “if you have finished tithing all tithe of your produce,” when you have finished tithing all of your fruits? On Passover of the fourth year⁸²Since this is the first biblical holiday after the end of tithing fruits of the preceding year..

(Deut. 14:28) “In that year” your are obliged to remove it but you are not obliged to remove it in any other year⁸³In the Sifry, this sentence refers to a later discussion which in the Yerushalmi is purely amoraic.. “In that year” you are obliged to remove; you are not required to remove vegetables which grew between New Year’s Day and Passover⁸⁴Since the vegetable belongs to the following, not to this year.. The colleagues say, because he can make a declaration⁸⁵The declaration in the Temple that he fulfilled all his duties for tithes, Deut. 26:13–15. [for the latter] only in the fifth year⁸⁶Since the declaration is for all tithes, a declaration for part of the vegetables of a year is unacceptable.. Rebbi Hila said, because it does not hinder the declaration in the fourth, only in the fifth. Where do they differ? If he transgressed and included it in his declaration. According to the colleagues it is invalid, according to Rebbi Hila is it valid⁸⁶Since the declaration is for all tithes, a declaration for part of the vegetables of a year is unacceptable..

“In that year” you take it out from impure for pure but in other years you do not take it out from impure for pure. Rebbi Eleazar said, so is that baraita: “ ‘In that year’ you have to take it from an impure place to a pure but in other years you do not have to take it from an impure place to a pure.⁸⁸The version of R. Eleazar is the version of Sifry Deut. 109; the first version is unintelligible. The extra “in this this year” mentioned in Deut. 14:28 is interpreted to mean that in that year, the third (or sixth) of the Sabbatical cycles, all tithes have to be treated equally. Since Second Tithe, as long as it is not redeemed, has to be kept in purity (for consumption in Jerusalem), it follows that First Tithe also, which is to be given to the Levites, has to be kept in purity in these years. But this implies that in other years it may be left to become impure (alter heave was taken). This is taken to mean that in other years it should not be given to the Cohen together with the heave.” This statement of Rebbi Eleazar follows the opinion that one does not give tithe to Cohanim. In the days of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi they wanted to vote not to give tithe to Cohanim. They said, why should we come to Rebbi Joshua ben Levi⁸⁹Who was a Levite. since he will help the Levites. He came and helped the Cohanim and said: In 24 places are Cohanim called Levites and this is one of them (Ez. 44:15): “The Cohanim Levites, the descendants of Ẓadoq.⁹⁰This is also his argument in Babli Yebamot 86b, Ḥulin 24b.”

Rebbi Binjamin bar Gidul and Rebbi Aḥa were sitting together and saying, is it not written (Neh. 10:39): “The Cohen, descendant of Aaron, will share with the Levites in the Levite’s tithe”? To give him heave of the tithe. But is it not written (Neh. 10:39): “The Levites shall bring [the tithe of]⁹¹From the masoretic text, missing in the quote, but carrying the essence of the proof. The first argument was that the verse associates Cohanim with Levites in receiving tithe. This was countered by the argument that Cohanim always receive the heave of the tithe and, therefore, are always getting part of the Levite’s tithe. That argument is disproved since the heave of the tithe is explicitly mentioned in the second part of the verse, “the Levites shall bring the tithe of the tithe to the Temple.”
This establishes that the right of Cohanim to take tithe was part of the constitution of Nehemiah. This is the accepted doctrine of the Babli (Yebamot 86b) which only discusses the reason behind the decree but does not deny that the right of Cohanim to tithe is purely rabbinical. The Yerushalmi denies this since it continues to find the pentateuchal basis for the rights of Cohanim. the tithe”? Rebbi Ḥuna and the colleagues, one of them said “to the descendants of Levi”. Why does the verse say (Num. 18:21): “And to the descendants of Levi⁹²“And to the descendants of Levi I gave all tithes in Israel as inheritance.” The first argument is that the beginning “and” also includes the Cohanim. The second argument notes that the verse declares tithes to follow the laws of inheritance. If somebody in his will gives some special part to a son before the general distribution, that son is not excluded from taking part in the division of the inheritance. Therefore, the fact that the Cohanim got heave and the heave of the tithe does not exclude them from the ranks of “descendants of Levi”. If the verse had been addressed instead to “the Levites”, the Cohanim would have been excluded.”? From here that one gives tithes to Cohanim. The other said, even if it were only written “to the descendants” one would give tithes to Cohanim. If somebody would say, my son X shall take property Y [before distribution] and the rest of my properties my sons shall inherit, does he not participate with them?

Rebbi Jonah gave his tithes to Rebbi Aḥa bar Ulla, not because he was a Cohen but because he studied Torah. What is the reason? (2Chr. 31:4) “He said to the people, the inhabitants of Jerusalem, to give the part of the Cohanim and the Levites, so they should be strong in the Torah of the Eternal.” Rebbi Huna did not take tithe, Rebbi Aḥa did not take tithe. Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba instructed himself to go outside the Land, not to take tithe⁹³The circumstances are narrated in Ševi‘it 3:1, Notes 5–6.. A person⁹⁴Who was a Cohen. asked Rebbi Samuel bar Naḥman who asked Rebbi Jonathan, may one take? He said to him, take, what fell to your tribe fell to you.

Rebbi Yannai ordered his relatives, when you lease⁹⁵The Leyden ms. has חכר “to lease”, the Rome ms. and the Venice print חבר “to connect”. In view of H. L. Fleischer’s discussion (in Levy’s Dictionary, Vol. 2, p. 204b) of the original meaning of the Aramaic / Arabic root חכר as “keep tight, hold together, hold back” (in modern Arabic only “to hoard”) there is no difference of meaning involved. a field, lease only from lay people since even if you say one does not give tithes to Cohanim you have to agree that one does not take his own⁹⁶The tithe but not heave, cf. Peah Chapter 1, Note 291. out of his hand. What is the reason? (Num. 18:26) “If you take from the Children of Israel the tithe which I gave you from them as your inheritance, you should lift from it the heave of the Eternal, a tithe of the tithe.” From the Children of Israel you take out⁹⁷If needed, by a court order. but not from those contracting with Cohanim or Levites. It parallels what Rebbi Eleazar said, “if you take the tithe from the Children of Israel,” from the Children of Israel you take out but not from the Gentile⁹⁸He holds that the produce of the Gentile farmer in the Land is exempt from heave and tithes. Since this is a matter of dispute between Tannaïm, cf. Peah Chapter 4, Notes 131–134, one might read the statement here to say that tithe voluntarily given by a Gentile cannot be obtained from him by a court order; he may give to you but you cannot take from him..

Rebbi Abbahu said, Rebbi Joshua ben Ḥananiah⁹⁹A Levite. In the Babli, Yebamot86a/b, the opponent of R. Eleazar ben Azariah is R. Aqiba at all stages. and Rebbi Eleazar ben Azariah¹⁰⁰A Cohen, direct descendant of Ezra. disagreed. Rebbi Joshua ben Ḥananiah said, one does not give tithe to Cohanim but Rebbi Eleazar ben Azariah said, one gives tithe to Cohanim. Rebbi Joshua ben Ḥananiah objected to Rebbi Eleazar ben Azariah: Is it not written (Num. 18:31): “You shall eat it everywhere”, come and eat it by a grave¹⁰¹A place forbidden to Cohanim.! He said to him, what means “everywhere”? In the courtyard¹⁰²He must mean the courtyard of the priests since women are invited to enter the women’s courtyard and may enter the men’s courtyard for ceremonies required for sacrifices. of the Temple. He retorted, but is it not written (Num. 18:31): “You and your house¹⁰³The expression “house” often is used to represent someone’s wife.”? Does a woman enter the courtyard of the Temple? Rebbi Abba understood it from the following occasion: Rebbi Eleazar ben Azariah was used to take tithes from a certain garden. That garden had two exits, one to a place of impurity¹⁰⁴A cemetery. and one open to a place of purity. Rebbi Aqiba went to him¹⁰⁵The owner of the vegetable garden. He persuaded him to leave only the cemetery door open and to lock the other. and said, open this one and lock the other one. If he will come, tell him to come by that way. He also said, if he sends a student, tell him “you” is written¹⁰⁶Cf. Demay 6:1, Note 8, that an emphasis on “you” means one personally unless an expression of inclusion is added; Terumot 1:1 Note 76, Babli Qiddušin 41b.. Rebbi Eleazar ben Azariah heard this and said, that is Aqiba ben Joseph’s whip. At that moment, Rebbi Eleazar ben Azariah returned all tithes he had taken¹⁰⁷This remark, establishing the practice that tithes are not for Cohanim, is missing in the Babli which holds strongly that tithes should be given to Cohanim in preference to Levites.. Rebbi Isaac bar Eleazar said, for dinner one has to fill up completely with wood fibers¹⁰⁸To make a point one has to take strong action immediately; later it is useless. The text is doubtful; the proverb appears three times; for סבא here one reads סמא in Beẓah 2:3 and כסא in Ḥagigah 2:3.; any coal which does not cause a burn at the beginning will not cause one.

Everybody agrees that bread and oil have to be removed, wine and spices are as if removed. Where do they disagree: A cooked dish the House of Shammai says one has to remove, but the House of Hillel say one does not have to remove¹¹⁶This is the discussion of the last sentence of Mishnah 6. A profane dish containing tithe oil is subject to removal, one containing tithe wine or spices is not since these are not recognizable. A dish made from tithe vegetables is not subject to removal since cooked vegetables are not the same as raw ones, according to the House of Hillel..

¹¹⁷This is the discussion of Mishnah 7. What is the reason of the House of Shammai? (Deut. 14:25): “Bundle” only “the money in your hand.¹⁰⁹Of Second Tithe. Since there is no Temple, the tithe cannot be eaten in Jerusalem. The House of Shammai hold that Deut. 14:25 requires that any tithe produce which cannot be eaten in purity in the holy precinct has to be exchanged for money. Since that money cannot be used it must be destroyed or safely buried. The House of Hillel, the authors of Mishnah 1:5, hold that either the coins must be destroyed or the produce left to rot.” What is the reason of the House of Hillel? Even if he exchanges, what good does it do¹¹⁸Since the following injunction of the verse, to bring the money to the Holy Precinct, cannot be fulfilled, the entire verse becomes inapplicable.?