Комментарий к Маасер шени 3:15

לא יאמר. לחלק – that you should take a portion of them, because it is placed upon him to bring his [Second] Tithe to Jerusalem, and it is found that he pays his debt from Second Tithe.

Introduction We learned in the first mishnah of the tractate that it is forbidden to sell maaser sheni. Our mishnah teaches that it is also forbidden to make certain deals that make it look as if one is selling maaser sheni.

העלם שנאכלם ונתה – for it appears that he is inviting him to eat with him, and this is permitted.

One should not say to his friend: “Carry up this [second tithe] produce to Jerusalem that in order to divide it.” The problem with this type of arrangement is that it looks as if he is using maaser sheni produce to pay his friend to help him carry it to Jerusalem. Therefore, this type of statement is prohibited.

אבל נותנים לזה לזה מתנת חנם – it is explained above at the beginning of the first chapter (Mishnah 1).

Rather he should say to him, “Carry it up that so that we may eat and drink of it in Jerusalem.” If he doesn’t use the word “divide” then this is permitted. All he is doing here is asking his friend to help him carry the load to Jerusalem so that they can eat and drink it together there.

But people may give it to one another as a free gift. If someone wants to have another person carry his maaser sheni for him to Jerusalem, he is allowed to give it to him as a gift. When they get to Jerusalem, the one who carried it can give some of the maaser sheni back to its original owner. Of course, he takes a risk in doing so maybe his friend won’t give it back to him! But if he doesn’t, then he wasn’t really much of a friend to begin with. This same halakhah was also taught in the first mishnah of the tractate, but there it was not taught in connection to this specific issue.

מפני שהוא ממעט באכילתו – for heave-offering is forbidden to one who has bathed but must wait until sunset to be perfectly clean and to foreigners (i.e., non-Kohanim).

Introduction In this mishnah we learn that one cannot use second tithe money to buy terumah.

ורבי שמעון מתיר – who holds that it is permitted to bring holy things to the house of defilement/blemish.

One may not buy terumah with maaser sheni money, because this reduces the number of those who can eat it. But Rabbi Shimon permits it. Here we learn that there is a debate with regard to buying terumah with maaser sheni money. This probably refers to a priest who has maaser sheni money and wants to use it in Jerusalem to buy terumah, which is cheaper than hullin, non-sacred produce. The sages forbid this because it reduces the number of people who can eat the maaser sheni. Produce bought with maaser sheni can be eaten by anyone, but terumah can only be eaten by priests. Rabbi Shimon permits.

Rabbi Shimon said to them: If the law is lenient in the case of wellbeing offerings, though they may become unfit or a remnant or unclean, why should it not also be lenient with regard to terumah? Rabbi Shimon argues that just as it is permitted to use maaser sheni money to buy wellbeing offerings, even though these sacrifices might eventually be forbidden for anyone to eat, so too we should allow one to buy terumah with maaser sheni money. In other words, even though there is a reduction in the general edibility of the food bought, this does not cause the purchase to be prohibited.

מה אם היקל בזבחי שלמים – that one purchases peace offerings with the monies of Second Tithe, and even though he lessens his eating [of them] for they are able to become rejected in consequence of an improper intention on the part of the officiating priest and the remnant [which are portions of sacrifices left over beyond the legal time and bound to be burnt] which become impure, shall we not be lenient concerning the heave-offering to purchase it with the monies of Second Tithe which do not have the laws of improper intentions on the part of the officiating priest and the remnants of sacrificial portions left over beyond the legal time nor the law of impurity, for not all the things that make that which is holy impure make the heave-offering impure. And the Halakha is not according to Rabbi Shimon.

But they said to him: The law was lenient in the case of wellbeing offerings, because they are permitted to non-priests, but should we therefore be lenient with regard to terumah, which is forbidden to non-priests? The other rabbis argue that the two cases are not analogous. The wellbeing offering can be eaten by anyone, and although it might become prohibited for anyone to eat, it also might never become prohibited. In contrast, terumah is always prohibited to non-priests, so there is a definite reduction in who can eat it. Therefore, one should not buy terumah with maaser sheni money.

מי שהיה לו מעות – of Second Tithe, and he must with them unconsecrated things that are not for eating, drinking or anointing.

Introduction This mishnah deals with a person who has maaser sheni money in Jerusalem, but doesn’t want to use it to buy food or other things that one can buy with maaser sheni money.

ולחבירו פירות – of unconsecrated produce and he wants to do a favor for him, that he should redeem the monies of Second Tithe for his produce.

One who has [second tithe] money in Jerusalem and he needs [to spend] it, and his friend had [non-sacred] produce, he may say to his friend: “Let this money be exchanged for your produce.” He may redeem his money by transferring its sanctity onto his friend’s non-sacred produce. The only real difference between this case and a normal case of buying produce with maaser sheni money is that here his friend did not want to sell the produce and the purchaser didn’t want to buy it. There has been only a fictional transaction here the only thing that has been transferred is the sanctity.

אוכל פירותיו בטהרה – for the sanctity of [Second] Tithe takes effect on the produce and he must eat them in purity.

It turns out that the one [must] eat his produce in purity and the other may do what he needs with his money. Now that the sanctity of the maaser sheni money has been transferred to the produce, the one with the produce has to make sure that he is pure when he eats it. The person with the money can now use the money to buy anything he wants, because its sanctity has transferred to the produce.

ולא יאמר כן לעם הארץ – who is suspected of eating produce of [Second] Tithe in defilement.

But he may not say thus to an am haaretz except when [the money was] from [second tithe of] demai. A person should not make this type of deal with an am haaretz, a person who is not scrupulous about observing the laws of purity. The am haaretz might eat the maaser sheni in a state of impurity, which is prohibited. However, if the maaser sheni came from demai, then he can make this fictional exchange even with an am haaretz. An am haaretz is suspected of not separating tithes. When a person buys produce from an am haaretz he must tithe the produce because we are concerned that it hasn’t been tithed. This tithe is called “demai” hopefully you remember this concept because there was a whole tractate dedicate to the subject. The rules are generally more lenient with demai, because if the am haaretz had tithed, there would have been no need to separate another tithe. Returning to our case, if one has maaser sheni money whose origin is in demai, he can transfer its sanctity onto an am haaretz’s non-sacred produce.

אלא בדמאי – such as if those monies of Second Tithe were of דמאי/suspicion as to the tithes therefrom being taken properly, or whether it is permissible to say this even to an עם הארץ/ignoramus/illiterate, lest the monies were not [Second] Tithe.

ומעות במדינה – and the Monies of Second Tithe outside of Jerusalem [in the country] and he requires them, and it tells us that there is no need that the produce and monies should be in one place. And in addition, our Mishnah teaches us that even though the produce of Second Tithe cannot be redeemed in Jerusalem, the monies of Second Tithe can be redeemed in Jerusalem.

Introduction This mishnah teaches ways in which a person who has maaser sheni money in one place and hullin (non-sacred) produce in another can exchange one for the other.

If [one had hullin] produce in Jerusalem and [second tithe money] in the provinces, he may say: “Let that money be exchanged for this produce.” Even though the produce and the money are not in the same place, a person can buy the produce with this maaser sheni money. He can now eat the produce in Jerusalem and when he gets home he can use the money for whatever he wants.

If [he had second tithe] money in Jerusalem and [hullin] produce in the provinces, he may say: “Let this money be exchanged for that produce,” as long as he will carry that produce and eat it in Jerusalem. In this case the second tithe money is in Jerusalem, but he wants to use the coins to buy something besides food. What he can do is state that the money’s sanctity will be transferred to the hullin produce that he has outside of Jerusalem. He can then use the money for whatever purpose he wants. However, later he must bring that produce to Jerusalem. He cannot again redeem the produce and then bring the money to Jerusalem.

מעות – of Second Tithe

[Second tithe] money may be brought into Jerusalem and taken out again, but [second tithe] produce may only be brought in, but not taken out again.
Rabban Shimon ben Gamaliel says: produce also may be brought in and be taken out again.
In our mishnah we learn that all of the sages agree that maaser sheni money can be brought out of Jerusalem once it has been brought in. However, there is a debate whether second tithe produce can be taken out of Jerusalem once it has already been brought in. According to the first opinion, once it has been brought into Jerusalem it can no longer be brought out. The point of the laws of maaser sheni is for the produce to be eaten in Jerusalem therefore once it has been brought into Jerusalem, it can no longer be brought out. In contrast, maaser sheni money is just a means through which to transfer the sanctity of some maasser sheni produce to other maaser sheni produce. Hence, one can bring it out of Jerusalem.
Rabban Shimon ben Gamaliel holds that even produce can be brought in and taken out of Jerusalem.

נכנסות לירושלים ויוצאות – for the sacred precincts [of Jerusalem] retain the monies in the same manner that they retain the produce.

אף הפירות נכנסים ויוצאים – and specifically to take them out to grind them and to back them and afterward to return them to Jerusalem, Rabban Shimon ben Gamaliel permits this, because more [produce] they would take them out to grind and to bake outside of Jerusalem, than from what is in Jerusalem itself. And the first Tanna also prohibited this. But the Halakha is not according to Rabban Shimon ben Gamaliel.

שנגמרה מלאכתן – for tithing, as is taught in the first chapter of [Tractate] Maaserot (Mishnah 5): “When is their harvesting time to make them liable for tithing?”

Introduction In yesterday’s mishnah we learned that maaser sheni produce that has been in Jerusalem cannot be taken out again. Today we learn about regular produce that has not yet been tithed and has entered Jerusalem. Can the maaser sheni from that produce be brought in and taken out of Jerusalem?

ועברו בתוך ירושלים – while they were still forbidden eatables, pending the separation of Levitical and priestly gifts (טבל).

Produce whose processing was completed and it passed through Jerusalem, its second tithe must be brought back and eaten in Jerusalem. Produce becomes liable for tithes once its processing has been completed (this was the main topic of tractate Maasrot). So if its processing has been completed its tithes are in a sense already in it, they just have not yet been separated. Therefore, if one brings such produce into Jerusalem, this is similar to a case of bringing second tithe into Jerusalem. And as we learned in yesterday’s mishnah, once maaser sheni produce is brought into Jerusalem, it cannot be brought out. If he does bring this produce out, he cannot redeem it and eat it outside of Jerusalem. He must bring it back and eat it in Jerusalem.

יחזור מעשר שני שלהן – he should return their Second Tithes, for he holds that gifts that were not separated as offering (i.e., to be consecrated), are also like those which were consecrated, the sacred precincts [of Jerusalem] have retained it (and it cannot be redeemed and taken out of Jerusalem again – see Makkot 19b) for Second Tithe.

If its processing had not been completed, [such as] baskets of grapes [that were going] to the wine-press or baskets of figs [that were going] to the drying-place: Bet Shammai says: its second tithe must be brought back and be eaten in Jerusalem. But Bet Hillel says: it may be redeemed and eaten anywhere. If the processing had not been completed, for instance the grapes were on their way to being pressed or the figs were on their way to being dried, then Bet Shammai and Bet Hillel debate whether the maaser sheni that will eventually be taken out of the produce has to be brought back to Jerusalm. Bet Shammai says that this situation is the same as that in section one. Produce has future maaser sheni in it, even though the produce has not yet become liable for tithes. Therefore, it can no longer be taken out of Jerusalem. If it is taken out of Jerusalem, he can’t redeem the maaser sheni; he must bring it back to Jerusalem and eat it there. Bet Hillel holds that since the produce had not yet become liable for tithes, we don’t look at it as if maaser sheni had been brought into Jerusalem. When he separates the maaser sheni produce, he can redeem it and eat it wherever he wants.

ושלא נגמרה מלאכתן – such as baskets of grapes for the vat for wine pressing, etc., but baskets of grapes for eating, have been completely harvested.

Rabbi Shimon ben Judah says in the name of Rabbi Yose: Bet Shammai and Bet Hillel did not disagree concerning produce whose processing had not been completed that its second tithe may be redeemed and be eaten anywhere. Rabbi Shimon ben Judah relates a different version of the debate between Bet Shammai and Bet Hillel. According to this version, both sides are more lenient than in the previous version and both agree that if the processing of the produce had not yet been completed, that the maaser sheni from the produce can be redeemed and eaten wherever he wants.

למוקצה – a place where we spread the dates out to dry which is called the storage of fruits/מוקצה.

What did they disagree about? About produce whose processing was completed. Bet Shammai says that its second tithe must be brought back and be eaten in Jerusalem. And Bet Hillel says that it may be redeemed and be eaten anywhere. Rather the two houses disagree about a case where the processing has been completed. Here Bet Hillel is even more lenient than they were according to the version of their opinion found in section one. Bet Hillel holds that even if the processing had been completed, the maaser sheni eventually taken from it can be redeemed and eaten anywhere. According to this, the only time that Bet Hillel would say that produce cannot be taken out of Jerusalem would be if it was actual maaser sheni produce, not produce whose maaser sheni had not yet been taken out of it. Bet Shammai disagrees and holds that in this case, when the maaser sheni is taken out of the produce, it must be brought into Jerusalem and eaten there.

רבי שמעון בן יהודה אומר וכו' – He thinks that according to the School of Hillel, gifts that were not separated as offering (i.e., to be consecrated) are not like similar to those which were consecrated; alternatively, even if they were similar to those consecrated, these words refer to [the matter] of the remainder of things, but since the matter of the sacred precincts [of Jerusalem] retaining them is Rabbinic, the School of Hillel is liberal. But the Halakha is according to Rabbi Shimon ben Yehuda, for the Schools of Shammai and Hillel did not disagree other than on fruit which had not completely harvested, according to the words of the First Tanna/teacher of the Mishnah.

[The second tithe of] demai may [always] be brought in and taken out again and be redeemed. Demai produce (for a definition of demai see above, mishnah three) that has been brought into Jerusalem can always have its maaser sheni redeemed outside of Jerusalem and eaten anywhere, because this maaser sheni is only “doubtful” maaser sheni. Since the tithes may have been taken out of it already, it might not have been necessary to take out maaser sheni at all. Therefore, we can be lenient.

והדמאי – eatables forbidden pending the separation of sacred gifts that had been doubtfully tithed.

נכנס – to Jerusalem

ויוצא ונפדה – outside of Jerusalem after it had left, and one is not required to return it [to Jerusalem]. And this concluding segment of the Mishnah, according to the first teacher [of the Mishnah] is necdssary and is according to the School of Hillel.

בפנים – from the wall [towards the inside]

Introduction Our mishnah deals with structures that lie both in and outside of Jerusalem. If we deem them to be within Jerusalem, then maaser sheni produce may be eaten there, but it may not be redeemed. But if we deem them to be outside of Jerusalem, then maaser sheni produce may be redeemed there but not eaten. The geographical area of Jerusalem was judged, at least while the Temple still stood, by Jerusalem’s walls.

ונוטה לחץ – towards the wall of Jerusalem

A tree which stood within [Jerusalem] and was bending outwards, or if it stood outside [Jerusalem] and was bending inwards, what is opposite the wall and inwards is deemed as being within, and what is opposite the wall and outwards is deemed as being outside. Quite simply, the parts of the tree that lie within the walls are judged to be within Jerusalem, and the parts that are outside of the walls are considered to be outside of Jerusalem.

מכנגד החומה ולפנים כלפנים – for between the branches of the tree or the root of the tree which is against the wall and inside is considered like it is inside [the wall] and we eat there the Second Tithe and do not redeem it; and between the branches of the tree and the root which is against the wall and outside is considered as outside, and we redeem there the Second Tithe and do not eat it. And this is what is taught in the third chapter of Ma’aserot (Mishnah 10) and in Jerusalem, everything follows after the branches, that is to say, even after the branch.

Olive-presses which have their entrance within and their inner space outside, or which have their entrance outside and their inner space within: Bet Shammai says: the whole is deemed as being within. But Bet Hillel says: what is opposite the wall and inwards is deemed as being within, and what is opposite the wall and outwards is deemed as being outside. When it comes to olive presses, part of which lie in Jerusalem and part outside, Bet Shammai considers them all to lie within Jerusalem. The Tosefta explains that Bet Shammai’s ruling only applies to the stringent aspect of this law. The whole olive press is considered to be lying within Jerusalem, and therefore, maaser sheni cannot be redeemed there. But they agree with Bet Hillel that one can eat maaser sheni only in the parts that actually lie within the walls of Jerusalem. Bet Hillel holds that each part is judged based on where it is. In the part that is within Jerusalem one can eat, but not redeem maaser sheni. In the part outside of Jerusalem, one can redeem but not eat.

בתי הבדים – [in the building containing the tank and all implements for pressing olives] which stores in them oil, and they would regularly make these buildings in the walls of the capital.

שפתחיהן לפנים – [inside] from the walls of Jerusalem and those are outside the walls of Jerusalem

מכנגד החומה ולפנים כלפנים – and we eat there the Second Tithe and the lesser holy things, and we don’t redeem Second Tithe there.

מכנגד החומה ולחוץ כלחוץ – and we do not eat Second Tithe and holy things there, but we redeem Second Tithe there.

הלשכות בנויות בקודש – in the Temple courtyard

Introduction Today’s mishnah is similar in structure to yesterday’s mishnah, although the content has nothing to do with the laws of maaser sheni. Today we deal with chambers of the Temple, part of which were built on holy ground, within the Temple courtyards, and part of which were outside of the Temple. There are three important ramifications for considering something to be within the Temple: 1) It is permitted to slaughter some sacrifices there; 2) It is permitted to eat those sacrifices there; 3) One who enters such an area while impure has transgressed and must bring a sacrifice to atone.

ופתוחות לחול – to the Temple Mount

The chambers [of the Temple] which were built on holy ground but were open towards common ground: their interior was deemed common and their roofs were deemed holy. If the chamber was built on holy ground, but the inside was open to common ground (not parts of the Temple) then the interior part is judged according to its opening and it is considered to be common (not sacred). However, the roofs, which lie above holy ground, are considered to be holy. This does create a strange situation in which the insides of the chambers are treated as common ground, whereas the roofs are holy.

וגגותיהן קודש – and this is that their roofs were even to the surface of the Temple courtyard, such as that the Chamber of the Temple treasury for congregational sacrifices was on the slope of the [Temple] Mount, for if their roofs were not even to the surface of the Temple courtyard, we hold that the upper chambers and the roofs were not sanctified.

Those which were built on common ground but were open towards holy ground: their interior was deemed holy and their roofs were deemed common. This is the opposite situation as that in section one. Again, the interior goes after the opening, whereas the roof goes after the ground that the interior is on.

תוכן קודש – for the slaughtering of lesser holy things, and for the eating of the Holy of Holies and to be liable for them because of defilement.

Those which were built both on holy and on common ground and were open both towards holy and common ground: the interior and the roofs that were on holy ground and inwards were deemed holy, but [the interior and roofs] on common ground and outwards were deemed common. If the interior is on both holy and common ground and the opening is also open to both holy and common ground, then the parts that are on holy ground are deemed to be holy and the parts on common ground are deemed to be common. We should note that according to the Tosefta, there were no chambers in the Temple that filled this description it is purely theoretical.

באב הטומאה – a reptile and something that died of itself and similar things.

Introduction As we have learned many times, maaser sheni can be redeemed only outside of Jerusalem. Once in Jerusalem it must be eaten. However, this applies only to pure maaser sheni. Impure maaser sheni, which cannot be eaten and must be redeemed, can be redeemed in Jerusalem. Our mishnah deals with what is done with the impure maaser sheni produce which was redeemed after it had already been brought into Jerusalem. While this produce is no longer maaser sheni (because it was redeemed) it was maaser sheni when it was brought into Jerusalem, and generally one cannot take maaser sheni out of Jerusalem once it has been brought in. The question is: does this prohibition still apply? The mishnah mentions “principal defilements” and “secondary defilements.” I don’t think it is necessary to explain these concepts here, just to say that the defilement caused by principal defilements is more serious than that caused by secondary defilement.

בולד הטומאה – this offspring/secondary cause of the defilement as it is taught in our Mishnah is not the offspring of a defilement that came in contact with the original/direct causes of Levitical uncleanness which is impure from the Torah, but the offspring/secondary cause of defilement is from the Rabbis, such as that which came in contact with utensils that were defiled by liquids.

Second tithe which was brought into Jerusalem and became unclean, whether it became unclean by a principal defilement or by a secondary defilement, whether it became unclean within [Jerusalem] or outside:
Bet Shammai says: it must all be redeemed and be eaten within except that which became unclean by a principal defilement outside. Bet Shammai says that in all the cases referred to in the mishnah, the maaser sheni must be redeemed and then eaten inside Jerusalem, except for the case of maaser sheni that was made impure by a principal defilement before it came into Jerusalem. This produce was seriously defiled before it came into Jerusalem and therefore the walls of Jerusalem don’t “absorb it.” This means that coming within the walls of Jerusalem doesn’t count as far as prohibiting it from leaving Jerusalem. In the other cases, the walls do absorb the maaser sheni and it cannot be taken out.

יפדה – of Second Tithe that was defiled, we redeem it even in Jerusalem, as it is written (Deuteronomy 14:24): “[Should the distance be too great for you,] should you be unable to transport them….” And there is no שאת/transport other than food, as it is written (Genesis 43:34): “Portions were served them from his table; [but Benjamin’s portion was several times that of anyone else]…”.

But Bet Hillel says: it must all be redeemed and may be eaten outside except that which became unclean by a secondary defilement within. Bet Hillel rules more leniently. In all of these cases the redeemed maaser sheni may be brought out of Jerusalem except where the maaser sheni contracted a lesser degree of impurity within Jerusalem. This produce was pure when it was brought into Jerusalem and only contracted a lesser degree of impurities. Therefore, it has to be eaten in Jerusalem. However, in all cases where the maaser sheni became impure before coming into Jerusalem and in cases where it contracted a serious type of impurity within Jerusalem, it can be brought out of Jerusalem and eaten there.

ויאכל הכל בפנים – that they don’t say we saw Second Tithe that entered into Jerusalem and also went out, because there is a “voice” for [Second] Tithe that leaves, but we should not be fear that when he redeems it, lest they say, “We saw Second Tithe that was redeemed in Jerusalem,” for there is no “voice” for that which is redeemed.

חוץ משנטמא באב הטומאה בחוץ – for since it entered when it was impure, the partition does not absorb it.

חוץ משנטמא בולד הטומאה בפנים – but if it had been defiled with the offspring/secondary cause of the defilement outside [of Jerusalem] even though it was defiled with the offspring/secondary cause of the defilement according to the Rabbis, but from the Torah it is pure, he should eat it outside. And in the Jerusalem Talmud, he establishes it like the case where they brought them in on the condition that the partitions would not absorb it, but if he did not make the condition, since it came into [Jerusalem], behold it is pure according to the Torah and he can eat it inside [Jerusalem].

הלקוח בכסף מעשר שני – produce that was purchased from the monies of Second Tithe

Introduction Today’s mishnah deals with produce purchased with maaser sheni money that then becomes unclean. This produce cannot be eaten because unclean maaser sheni can never The question is: can it be redeemed?

יקבר – since its commandment had been completed and he purchased produce from the Second Tithe monies, he does not have to further redeem it.

If that which was bought with maaser sheni money became unclean, it should be redeemed. According to the anonymous opinion in the mishnah, if produce was bought with maaser sheni money and then that produce became impure, it can be redeemed. This money will now be treated as maaser sheni money and used to buy produce that will be eaten as maaser sheni in Jerusalem.

שכן נפדה טהור ברחוק מקום – for Second Tithe that is pure, we redeem it outside of Jerusalem, as it is written (Deuteronomy 14:24): “….because the place [which the LORD your God has chosen to establish His name] is far from you….” But that which is purchased with [Second] Tithe money is not redeemed outside of Jerusalem when it is pure, as it is taught in the Mishnah of the first chapter (Mishnah 6), “but if wittingly, it must be brought to the place (i.e., Jerusalem) and eaten there. And the Halakha is not according to Rabbi Yehuda.

R. Judah says: it must be buried. Rabbi Judah disagrees and says that the produce which was bought with maaser sheni money and then became impure must be buried. It cannot be redeemed.

They said to Rabbi Judah: if maaser sheni itself when it became unclean may be redeemed, should not also that which is bought with maaser sheni money be redeemed when it became unclean? The sages now begin to argue their case with Rabbi Judah. In yesterday’s mishnah we learned that maaser sheni itself which became impure can be redeemed. Why, then, shouldn’t maaser sheni produce that was bought with maaser sheni money be redeemed if it becomes impure?

He said to them: No! If you say this of maaser sheni itself, it is because it may be redeemed also when pure at a distance from the [holy] place. But how can you say this of that which is bought with maaser sheni money, seeing that it cannot be redeemed when clean at a distance from the [holy] place. Rabbi Judah responds that the two are not truly analogous. Maaser sheni produce itself can be redeemed outside of Jerusalem, even when it is pure. In contrast, produce bought with maaser sheni money cannot be redeemed outside of Jerusalem when it is pure. Such produce must be brought to Jerusalem and it can be eaten there. Since the rule is stricter concerning produce bought with maaser sheni money outside of Jerusalem, it is also stricter with produce bought with maaser sheni money inside Jerusalem. It cannot be redeemed, but rather must be buried.

על ידי עורו – with its hide

Introduction Our mishnah deals with a deer that was bought with maaser sheni money and then something happened to it that caused it to become inedible.

ר' שמעון אומר: יפדה – and in this they disagree, for the first Tanna holds that we do not redeem the the holy things to feed them to dogs, and Rabbi Shimon holds that we redeem the holy things to feed them to dogs. But the Halakha is not according to Rabbi Shimon.

If a deer which had been bought with maaser sheni money died, it must be buried together with its hide. Rabbi Shimon says: it may be redeemed. When the deer dies it cannot be eaten it is called “nevelah.” All that can be done with it is to give it to the dogs. However, since it is maaser sheni, it cannot be used to feed dogs. The first opinion in the mishnah holds that it cannot be redeemed in order to be given to the dogs, because one does not redeem holy things, like maaser sheni, in order to feed them to animals. In addition, its hide must also be buried, because he shouldn’t have bought a deer with maaser sheni money, because a deer cannot be used as a sacrifice (see above 1:4). Rabbi Shimon says that one can redeem maaser sheni in order to feed it to animals.

לקחו חי ושחטו ונטמא יפדה – Here, Rabbi Yehuda does not dispute as he disputed about produce that was purchased with the [Second] Tithe money and were defiled, for since it was purchased alive, he lacks the distance [from the Place (i.e., Jerusalem) because he can carry it in any place that he desires. Therefore, it is like Second Tithe itself, and it is redeemed when it becomes defiled in the same manner that Second Tithe is redeemed when it is defiled.

If it was bought alive and slaughtered and it then became unclean, it may be redeemed. Rabbi Yose says: it must be buried. If he slaughtered it and then it became unclean, the first opinion holds that it may be redeemed, as is the rule with other produce that was bought with maaser sheni money and then became impure (see yesterday’s mishnah.) Commentators note that even Rabbi Judah, who in yesterday’s mishnah said that the produce must be buried, here agrees that it can be redeemed. Since he bought it alive and it would not be difficult to carry it to Jerusalem, it is not governed by the law “when you are far from the place.” It can be redeemed like maaser sheni itself, which everyone agrees can be redeemed if it becomes impure. Rabbi Yose says that it must be buried. He treats this deer as if it had died, and therefore it must be buried.

רבי יוסי אומר יקבר – for he is more stringent that Rabbi Yehuda as he holds that even though he purchased it alive, its law is that it is like produce purchased with the money of [Second] Tithe.

If it was bought slaughtered and it became unclean, behold it is like produce. If it was bought when it was already slaughtered and then became impure, then it is treated like maaser sheni produce. This means that the same debate that we saw in yesterday’s mishnah applies here. The sages say that it may be redeemed, whereas Rabbi Judah says that it may not.

לקחו שחוט ונטמא הרי הוא כפירות – And just as the first Tanna and Rabbi Yehuda disagreed above concerning produce purchased with [Second] Tithe money, so too they disagree on this.

המשאיל קנקנים למעשר שני – A person who lends his wine-vessel to bring in wine in them as he already called it by name “Second Tithe.” (see Ma’aser Sheni, Chapter 4, Mishnah 7)

Introduction This mishnah deals with jars that contain maaser sheni wine. The question is: do the jars become sanctified with the sanctity of maaser sheni?

אע"פ שגפן – that he closed their mouths with a stopper after he filled them.

One who lends jars for maaser sheni [wine], even if they were corked, they do not acquire [the sanctity of] maaser sheni. If one is selling maaser sheni wine in Jerusalem, and he lends his customers the wine, then the jars do acquire the sanctity of maaser sheni because they weren’t sold only the wine was being sold.

לא קנה מעשר – the wine-vessel was not seized in the holiness of [Second] Tithe.

If wine was poured into them without specifying [that it was for sale] they do not acquire [the sanctity of] maaser sheni before they are corked, but after they are corked they acquire [the sanctity of] maaser sheni. A person took untithed wine out of a vat and poured it into jars without having the specific intention that he was going to sell the wine. If he makes the wine in it maaser sheni before he corks the jar, then the jar does not become maaser sheni. However, it he calls it maaser sheni after he has corked the jars, then the jars do become maaser sheni, because they are secondary to the wine. He will have to sell the jars in Jerusalem, and then use the proceeds to buy food and eat it there.

זלף לתוכן סתם – when he brought in wine of produce prior to the separation of priestly and Levitical gifts.

Before they are corked they are neutralized in a hundred and one, but after they are corked they sanctify any quantity. The following two sections do not deal with maaser sheni, but rather with various laws that are concerned with corked and uncorked jars. If one of the jars was terumah but it is unknown which jar was terumah, then if there are 100 jars of non-terumah and one of terumah, the terumah one is nullified. He may then take any one jar, call it terumah and the rest reverts to being hullin. This is the normal way that terumah is nullified (a good refresher on a large portion of what we learned in tractate Terumot). This is possible only if the jars were uncorked. Once they are corked, each jar becomes significant in its own right and it cannot be nullified. No matter how many jars are there, they are all doubtful terumah and they all must be treated as doubtful terumah.

עד שלא גפן – if he called it by the name, “Second Tithe” before he closed them with a stopper.

Before they are corked terumah may be taken from one jar for all the others, but after they are corked terumah must be taken from each jar separately. Before the jars are corked, they are considered a group, almost as if the wine is still in one vat. Therefore, terumah can be taken from one jar to exempt the wine found in other jars. However, once they are corked, each jar is considered its own separate entity, and terumah must be removed from each individual jar before it can be drunk.

אם משגפן – if after he closed them with a stopper, he called it by the name, “[Second] Tithe.”

קנה מעשר – the wine-vessel is seized in the holiness of [Second] Tithe and it requires being redeemed for private use like wine, if he comes to redeem it with silver [money].

עולות באחד ומאה – we are speaking about Priest’s due, if a wine vessel of Priest’s due [wine] was combined with one hundred non-sacred wine-vessels [filled with wine] and their mouths had not been closed with a stopper we consider it as if all of them became combined one with the other, and are neutralized in one-hundred and one according to the law of Priest’s due that was combined with non-sacred [wine].

משגפן מקדשות בכל שהן – and even one in one-thousand is not neutralized and all of it should be sold to a Kohen for the monies of Priest’s due, except for the one of them that Kohen takes without money.

עד שלא גפן תורם מאחת על הכל – and it is considered to be brought near.

מפתה ומערה לגת – if he comes to dedicate from one on the entire after he had sealed them up, he must empty them into the wine-press.

Introduction This mishnah is a continuation of yesterday’s mishnah. Here we discuss what happens if after corking the jars the owner wishes to change their status. For instance, he decides that instead of selling the jars with the wine he wants to sell the wine and lend the jars. Or he decides that he wants to give terumah from one jar for the other, instead of giving from each and every jar. Does just uncorking the jar cause it to revert to its previous status?

ואינו צריך לערות – and it is enough for them with the opening as it was at first

Bet Shammai says: the jars must be opened and emptied into the wine-press. Bet Hillel says: they must be opened but need not be emptied. According to Bet Shammai, in order for the wine to revert to its previous status, he needs to open the jars and pour the wine back into the wine-press. If he does this, then he can put the wine back into the jar and then sell the wine and not the jars. In this way, the jars will not be maaser sheni. Bet Hillel is more lenient and says that all he has to do is just open the jars up again. He need not empty them into the wine-press. Now he can sell the wine and just lend out the jars, and thereby prevent the jars from becoming maaser sheni.

בד"א – for if after he sealed it up, he called it by the name [Second Tithe], the [Second] Tithe acquired the wine-vessels.

When does this apply? In a place where they are usually sold closed, but in a place where they are usually sold open, the jar does not revert to hullin. The leniency of Bet Hillel applies only if jars of wine are normally sold closed in that place. In such a place opening the jars will effect a change in their status. However, if jars of wine are normally sold open, the jar does not become hullin, non-sacred. If the jar had been maaser sheni, it remains maaser sheni.

במקום שדרכן למכור סתומות – that in the same manner in Jerusalem, the wine-vessel is secondary to the wine as it is taught in the Mishnah above in the first chapter (Mishnah 3). Therefore, he has also - acquired [Second] Tithe in the country (i.e., outside of Jerusalem and the Temple).

If, however, he wishes to be stringent upon himself and to sell [only] by measure, the jar reverts hullin. There is one way that the jar can revert to hullin. If the seller opens the jar and decides to sell it by measure, then the jar won’t be sold with the wine and the jar becomes hullin. He will not be able to sell the whole jar of wine at one time, but just pour out wine into other people’s vessels.

אבל במקום שדרכן למכור פתוחות לא יצא הקנקן לחולין – in Jerusalem. Therefore [in the country] he also did not acquire [Second] Tithe.

Rabbi Shimon says: also when one says to his friend, “This jar [of wine] I am selling to you from its jar, the jar reverts to hullin. Rabbi Shimon provides another way for the jar to revert to being hullin. If the seller specifically says to the buyer that he is selling just the wine, then the buyer can use the jar and give it back to him when he is done with it. In this case the jar is not maaser sheni.

אבל אם רצה להחמיר על עצמו למכור במדה – Whomever purchases wine with the monies of Second Tithe in Jerusalem, when the seller comes to sell, if he wants to be stringent with himself and said: “Such-and-such wine with a measure I sell to you for such-and-such monies.

יצא קנקן לחולין – and even if the wine-vessels are closed.

This is how we read it (the Mishnah): ר"ש אמור אף האומר לחברו יין זה אני מוכר לך חוץ מקנקנים יצא קנקן לחולין – And in the Jerusalem Talmud it explains it that Rabbi Shimon refers to that which was taught in the Mishnah above that if he sealed [it], he called it the name “[Second] Tithe}. And we learn that Rabbi Shimon specifically calls all the wine in the wine-vessel by the name “[Second] Tithe,” but if he said: “All he wine is [Second] Tithe except one-fourth, even though when he comes to to measure for his friend that one-fourth, he said to him: “This wine I sell to you except for the wine-vessel that I want to leave for the [Second] Tithe that is in it, nevertheless, the wine-vessel was not made secondary to the Second Tithe, and the wine-vessel is expended for a non-sacred purpose and he does acquire [Second]Tithe.