משנה: הַדְּמַאי אֵין לוֹ חוֹמֶשׁ וְאֵין לוֹ בִּיעוּר וְנֶאֱכַל לְאוֹנָן וְנִכְנַס לִירוּשָׁלִַם וְיוֹצֵא וּמְאַבְּדִין אֶת מִיעוּטוֹ בַדְּרָכִים וְנוֹתְנוֹ לְעַם הָאָרֶץ וְאוֹכְלוֹ כְנֶגְדּוֹ וּמְחַלֵּל אוֹתוֹ כֶּסֶף עַל כֶּסֶף וּנְחוֹשֶׁת עַל נְחוֹשֶׁת כֶּסֶף עַל נְחוֹשֶׁת וּנְחוֹשֶׁת עַל הַפֵּירוֹת וּבִלְבַד שֶׁיַּחֲזוֹר וְיִפְדֶּה אֶת הַפֵּירוֹת דִּבְרֵי רִבִּי מֵאִיר. וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים יֵעָלוּ הַפֵּירוֹת וְיֵאָֽכְלוּ בִּירוּשָׁלִַם. MISHNAH: Demay67The subject is the Second Tithe. How far the Mishnah might be applicable to the heave of the tithe will be discussed in the Halakhah. is not subject to a fifth68If the Second Tithe is redeemed by money so that the produce itself becomes profane, one fifth (from above, a quarter from below) must be added (Lev. 27:31). This does not apply to the Second Tithe of Demay. or to elimination69The Second Tithe must be consumed at the latest during the year when the Tithe of the Poor is due, i. e., the tithes of years 1, 2 of the Sabbatical cycle must be eaten before the end of year 3, those of years 4,5 by the end of year 6 (Deut. 26:13)., it may be eaten by a strict mourner70The אונן, the strict mourner, is a close relative of a deceased person from the time of death to the end of the day of burial when he must concentrate on the duties of burial and is excluded from all other religious rites (Deut. 26:14). Since the Second Tithe of demay does not have the sanctity of Second Tithe, it is not deemed subject to that prohibition., it may enter Jerusalem and leave it71Genuine Second Tithe may not leave Jerusalem after having entered but must be consumed there. This is the position of the anonymous Tanna in Mishnah Maäser Šeni 3:5. [According to Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel, all Second Tithe may leave Jerusalem. In the Babli (Baba Meẓia‘ 54b) the prohibition is given rabbinic character only. Maimonides (Maäser Šeni 2:9) restricts this part of the Mishnah to demay itself, not the Second Tithe taken from demay, on the basis of a discussion in tractate Maäser Šeni 3:4, as explained by the commentators of Maimonides.], and one may destroy a small part of it on the road72Genuine Second Tithe must be brought to Jerusalem intact. The Halakhah will define “small part”.; he may give it to the am haäreẓ if he eats correspondingly73The am haäreẓ is a person who cannot be presumed to eat his food, other than sacrifices, in ritual purity; cf. the definition of am haäreẓ in the Introduction. The Second Tithe is not a sacrifice but nevertheless must be eaten in ritual purity (Deut. 24:16); hence, genuine Second Tithe may not be shared with the am haäreẓ. For the Second Tithe of demay, if it is too little for a meal, the owner may give that to the am haäreẓ in preference to have it entirely wasted, but nevertheless the owner has to spend of his own money to buy pure food in the same amount to eat in purity (Maimonides Maäser Šeni3:9)., he may redeem silver for silver, copper for copper, silver for copper74Genuine Second Tithe must be redeemed with silver coins (Deut. 14:25); it may not be redeemed in copper, neither may the silver be exchanged for copper. [As a matter of practice, it is permitted to exchange silver coins for gold coins to reduce their weight (Maäser Šeni 2:7).], and copper for produce75Outside of Jerusalem; R. Meïr permits these vegetables to be redeemed again; the Sages require them to be eaten in Jerusalem. By contrast, everybody agrees that it is possible to exchange coins many times for other coins. if he again redeems the produce, the words of Rebbi Meïr. But the Sages say, produce should be brought up and eaten in Jerusalem.
הלכה: לֹא כְּיוֹחָנָן כֹּהֵן גָּדוֹל הֶעֱבִיר הוֹדָייַת הַמַּעֲשֵׂר. הֶעֱבִירָן שֶׁלֹּא יִתְוַדּוּ. הָא לְבָעֵר צָרִיךְ לְבָעֵר וּבְוַדַּאי. אֲבָל בַּדְמַאי אֵינוֹ צָרִיךְ לְבָעֵר. HALAKHAH: Not following the High Priest Joḥanan who abolished the declaration of tithes77Mishnah Maäser Šeni 5:13: “The High Priest Joḥanan removed the declaration of tithes.” Since at the return from Babylonia the priests returned en masse but almost no Levites came, the returnees decreed to give the First Tithe to the Cohen (who automatically also is a Levite.) The declaration of tithes, to be recited when the Second Tithe was brought to Jerusalem, is Deut. 26:13–14: “You shall say before the Eternal, your God: I have eliminated the holy matter from my house, I gave it to the Levite (the First Tithe), the stranger, the orphan, and the widow (the Tithe of the Poor), following all Your ordinances that You commanded me, I did not transgress Your ordinances and I did not forget. I did not eat from it in my strict mourning, I did not eliminate it (by eating) in impurity, I did not give of it to the dead. I listened to the voice of the Eternal, my God, I did all that You commanded me.” The High Priest found it inappropriate to declare that tithes were given to the Levite when in fact they went to the Cohen.. He abolished the declaration but one still has to eliminate, i. e., eliminate the sure tithes. But demay one does not have to eliminate78There is no contradiction to the Mishnah in Maäser Šeni..
תַּנִּי נֶאֱכַל בָּאֳנִינָה וְאֵינוֹ נֵאֱכַל בְּטוּמְאָה. מַה בֵּין אֳנִינָה וּמַה בֵּין טוּמְאָה. אָמַר רַב נַחְמָן טוּמְאָה מְצוּיָה אֳנִינָה אֵינָהּ מְצוּיָה. גָּֽזְרוּ עַל דָּבָר שֶׁהוּא מָצוּי וְלֹא גָֽזְרוּ עַל דָּבָר שֶׁאֵינוֹ מָצוּי. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹסֵי אֲפִילוּ כְּסָפֵק טֵבֵל לֹא עָשׂוּ אוֹתוֹ. אִילּוּ בְּסָפֵק טֵבֵל נִיתְקַן מַחְמַת שֵׁנִי סָפֵק לֹא נִיתְקַן שֶׁמָּא אֵינוֹ אָסוּר לְאוֹנָן. בְּרַם הָכָא מוּתָּר לְאוֹנָן. It was stated: It may be eaten in strict mourning but not in impurity. What is the difference between strict mourning and impurity? Rav Naḥman said, impurity is frequent, strict mourning is infrequent. They made a decree for a frequent situation, they did not decree for an infrequent situation80This principle is also invoked several times in the Babli, cf. Ketubot56b, Nazir 55a.. Rebbi Yose said, they did not even make it similar to a doubt of ṭevel81Ṭevel is defined in Peah, Chapter 1, Note 303. Produce that may be Ṭevel must be treated as if the holy parts were still in it.. Since for a doubt of ṭevel, whether Second Tithe was given in order, or maybe Second Tithe was not given in order, is that not forbidden for the strict mourner82Since a doubt in matters of Biblical prohibitions always must be treated as prohibition.? But here, it is permitted to the mourner.
תַּמָּן תַּנֵּינָן הַתְּרוּמָה וּתְרוּמַת מַעֲשֵׂר וּתְרוּמַת מַעֲשֵׂר שֶׁל דְּמַאי. וְהָכָא אַתְּ אָמַר הָכֵן. אָמַר רִבִּי זְעִירָא תַּמָּן תַּנֵּינָן תְּרוּמַת מַעֲשֵׂר שֶׁל דְּמַאי. בְּרַם הָכָא מַעֲשֵׂר שֵׁנִי שֶׁל דְּמַאי. אָמַר רִבִּי אִימִּי אֵין הַמִּשְׁנָה הַזֶּה יוֹצֵא יְדֵי תְּרוּמַת מַעֲשֵׂר שֶׁל דְּמַאי. מַהוּ כְדוֹן תַּמָּן רִבִּי מֵאִיר בְּרַם הָכָא רַבָּנִין. רִבִּי זְעִירָא אָמַר בְּשֵׁם רַבָּנִין בְּדִין הָיָה תְרוּמַת מַעֲשֵׂר שֶׁל דְּמַאי שֶׁלֹּא יַפְרִישׁ עָלֶיהָ חוֹמֶשׁ וְלָמָּה אָֽמְרוּ שֶׁיַּפְרִישׁ מִפְּנֵי גְדֵירָהּ שֶׁאִם אַתְּ אוֹמֵר לוֹ שֶׁלֹּא יַפְרִישׁ אַף הוּא אֵינוֹ נוֹהֵג בָּהּ בִּקְדּוּשָׁה. כְּדוֹן הָיָה מַעֲשֵׂר שֵׁנִי שֶׁל דְּמַאי שֶׁיַּפְרִישׁ עָלָיו חוֹמֶשׁ וְלָמָּה אָמַר שֶׁלֹּא יַפְרִישׁ מִפְּנֵי גְדֵירוֹ שֶׁאִם אוֹמֵר אַתְּ לוֹ שֶׁיַּפְרִישׁ אַף הוּא אֵינוֹ מַפְרִישׁ כָּל־עִיקָּר. There, we have stated83Mishnah Baba Meẓia‘ 3:7. The Mishnah enumerates five cases in which one has to add a fifth to the redemption money.: “Heave, the heave of the tithe, and the heave of the tithe of demay.” And here you say so84If the Mishnah here also deals with the heave of the tithe of demay, it would be an obvious contradiction of one Mishnah against the other.! Rebbi Zeïra said, there we have stated heave of the tithe of demay but here Second Tithe of demay85The Mishnah does not deal with heave at all.. Rebbi Immi said, the Mishnah does not stop to deal with the heave of the tithe of demay. What is that? There it is Rebbi Meïr, but here the rabbis86Usually, an anonymous Mishnah gives the opinion of R. Meïr. R. Immi asserts that as an exception, this Mishnah does not.. Rebbi Zeïra said in the name of the rabbis87He gives the argument to support his own position. Since it is undisputed, it represents practice.: It would have been logical that for the heave of the tithe of demay one would not have to add a fifth88Since one does not add a fifth for demay as stated in the Mishnah.; why did they say that one has to add a fifth? Because of a fence for it89Rabbinic ordinances are always described as “a fence around the Law” (Mishnah Abot 1:1). Babylonian גזירה “rabbinic ordinance” is a derivative of Galilean גדירה “fence”, z for ð., for if you tell him that he does not have to add, he will not treat it as holy. It would have been logical that for the Second Tithe of demay one would have to add a fifth90If one adds one for the heave of the tithe, since the Second Tithe also has to be consumed in purity.; why did they say that one does not have to add a fifth? Because of a fence for it, for if you tell him that he has to add, he will not separate it at all91One requires the separation of Second Tithe of demay, in contrast to the First Tithe and the tithe of the poor, since the Second Tithe will not burden the buyer. Anything that makes it burdensome (and, in the absence of the Temple, when the coin used for redemption has to be destroyed, also costly) will cause people to ignore their duty..
רִבִּי בּוּן בַּר חִייָא בְּעָא קוֹמֵי רִבִּי לָא לָמָּה לִי דְמַאי אֲפִילוּ וַדַּאי. לָמָּה לִי מִיעוּט אֲפִילוּ רוֹב. וְלֹא כֵן תַּנִּי אֵין מְבִיאִין תְּרוּמָה מִן הַגּוֹרֶן לָעִיר וְלֹא מִן הַמִּדְבָּר לְיִישׁוּב אֶלָּא אִם כֵּן הָֽיְתָה בְמָקוֹם שֶׁהָֽיְתָה גְרָרָתָהּ מֵבִיאָהּ וְנוֹטֵל דָּמִים מִן הַשֶּׁבֶט. אָמַר לֵיהּ וְאֵינוֹ מִצְוָה לְהָשִׁיב אֲבֵידָה. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹסֵי מִצְוָה הִוא לְהָשִׁיב אֲבֵידָה בִּדְבַר מוּעָט. וְאֵינוֹ מִצְוָה לְהָשִׁיב אֲבֵידָה בִּדְבַר מְרוּבָּה. וּבְוַדַּאי אֲבָל בִּדְמַאי אֵינוֹ מִצְוָה לְהָשִׁיב אֲבֵידָה. דְּתַנֵּינָן וּמְאַבְּדִין אֶת מִיעוּטוֹ בַדְּרָכִים. עַד כְּדוֹן בְּשֶׁאֵין בְּיָדוֹ מָעוֹת. הָיוּ בְיָדוֹ מָעוֹת רִבִּי נְיחוּמָי בְּרֵיהּ דְּרִבִּי חִייָא בַּר בָּא אָמַר (אַבָּא) הָיוּ מָעוֹת בְּדִיסַקִּיָּא וְלֹא הָיָה מְחַלְלוֹ. אַתְיָא דְּרִבִּי חִייָא בְּרִבִּי ווָא כְּרִבִּי זְעִירָא וּדְרִבִּי אָחָא כְּרִבִי אִמִּי. Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya asked before Rebbi La93Here starts the discussion of the Mishnah: “one may destroy a small part of it on the road.” The question is again whether this refers only to the Second Tithe or also to the heave of the tithe. It seems that the same interpretation given to the question of the fifth applies here also.: Why demay and not also what is certain94Heave or Second Tithe, which are unquestionably holy, being given straight from the harvest, or on information that the produce is still ṭevel., why a little bit, maybe the greater part? Did we not state: One does not bring the heave from the threshing floor to town, nor from the prairie to cultivated land95The recipient of heave is required to collect it where it is due and remove it himself., except in a place where [an animal96While there is no direct manuscript evidence, it seems that היתה גררתה is a misspelling for חיה גררתה. The reading היתה is an old one since R. Simson of Sens reads היתה גדודתה and explains “it was in danger of armies (or groups of robbers).” גררתה seems to be the better reading.] would drag it away; in that case he brings it and takes money from the tribe97The Cohen who took the heave has to pay the cost of transportation. The question presupposes that the Mishnah also applies to the heave of the tithe from demay.. He98Rebbi La to Rebbi Abun. If the heave is abandoned until some Cohen will come to pick it up, it probably will be lost. said to him, is it not a commandment to return a find? Rebbi Yose said, it is a commandment to return a find in small matters99If presenting the heave to the Cohen involves little effort and little expenditure, one is certainly obligated to hand over the heave to the Cohen to prevent it from being lost. However, if the effort or expenditure were large, one has no such obligation. (Explanation of R. Eliahu Wilna.); it is not a commandment to return in large matters, except if it is certain; it is not a commandment to return demay since we have stated: “one may destroy a small part of it on the road”. So far, if he had no money in hand100If someone has difficulty handling the Second Tithe, rather than let some of it get lost as authorized in the Mishnah, would it not be better to have the owner redeem it for money which will not get spoiled or lost? Should we restrict the Mishnah to the most unlikely case where the owner has no money for redemption?. If he had money in hand? Rebbi Neḥumai101Nothing else is known about him. Neḥumai is a Babylonian name; the family of R. Ḥiyya bar Abba was Babylonian., the son of Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba, said, my father had money in a double sack102Byzantine Greek δισάκκιον “double sack”, hanging down on both sides of a donkey; cf. Berakhot p. 319. and he did not redeem. It turns out that Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba holds with Rebbi Zeïra103Since he permits the Second Tithe of demay to go to waste, he explains the Mishnah here to refer exclusively to Second Tithe. Since in the times of R. Ḥiyya bar Abba heave already had to be burned because all Cohanim were ritually impure in the absence of the ashes of the red heifer, the reference could not possibly be to heave. and Rebbi Aḥa104Since Rebbi Aḥa is not mentioned in the entire Halakhah, this must be a scribal error for Rebbi La, who explains the Mishnah in Baba Meẓia‘ by the duty of conserving other people’s property in the same way as something found. Hence, R. La accepts that the Mishnah here also speaks of the heave of the tithe of demay, as proposed by R. Immi. with Rebbi Immi.
דְּבֵי רִבִּי יַנַּאי אָמְרֵי פָּחוֹת מֵאֹכֶל מוּתָּר לְאַבֵּד בְּפָרוּס אֲבָל בְּשָׁלֵם עַד כִּגְרוֹגֶרֶת. רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן בְּשֵם רִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן יוֹצָדָק בְּשָׁלֵם עַד כִּגְרוֹגֶרֶת בְּפָרוּס אֲפִילוּ כַמָּה מוּתָּר. מַה פְלִיגִין. רִבִּי מָנָא אָמַר לֹא פְלִיגִין. דְּבֵי רִבִּי יַנַּאי אָמְרֵי פָּחוֹת מֵאוֹכֶל מוּתָּר לְאַבֵּד בְּפָרוּס אֲבָל בְּשָׁלֵם עַד כִּגְרוֹגֶרֶת. רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָמַר בְּשֵם רִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן יוֹצָדָק בֵּין בְּפָרוּס בֵּין בְּשָׁלֵם עַד כִּגְרוֹגֶרֶת. In the house of Rebbi Yannai they said, if it is in crumbs one is permitted to waste in amounts less than a meal105Generally taken to be the volume of a chicken egg., but whole foods only up to the volume of a dried fig. Rebbi Joḥanan in the name of R. Simeon ben Yoẓadaq: If it is whole, up to the volume of a dried fig, in crumbs any amount106In this version, R. Joḥanan is more lenient than the House of R. Yannai; in the alternative version he is more restrictive. Maimonides interprets “up to” as “less than,” R. Abraham ben David as “not more than.”. Is that their difference? Rebbi Mana said, is not the following their difference: In the house of Rebbi Yannai they said, if it is in crumbs one is permitted to waste in amounts less than a meal, whole foods only up to the volume of a dried fig. Rebbi Joḥanan in the name of R. Simeon ben Yoẓadaq, whether it be whole or in crumbs, up to the volume of a dried fig.
רִבִּי הוֹשַׁעְיָא בְּעִי מָהוּ לְאַבֵּד כָּל־שֶׁהוּא וּלְאַבֵּד. וְנוֹתְנוֹ לְעַם הָאָרֶץ לוֹכַל כְּנֶגְדּוֹ בִדְמַאי. הָא בְּוַדַּאי לֹא שֶׁאֵין מוֹסְרִין וַדַּאי לְעַם הָאָרֶץ. Rebbi Hoshaia asked: May one allow a small amount to go to waste107If one has to give only a small amount, less than the volume of a dried fig, and he has no other use for it, may he give it to the am haäreẓ or does he have the right to directly throw it away? (R. Eliahu Fulda and his followers change לאבד into להפריש, “to separate”, but this emendation is unnecessary.) Since the question is not answered it should be answered in the negative (Maimonides Maäser Šeni 3:9, with concurrence of R. Abraham ben David.)? One may give it to the am haäreẓ and eat from demay accordingly. But not for certain food108Food for which it is certain that it has to be consumed in ritual purity., since one does not hand over certain food to the am haäreẓ.