Talmud Jerusalem
Talmud Jerusalem

Talmud for Ma'aser Sheni 3:1

עבר ומשכן עבר והרהין ייבא כהדא האוכל מעשר שני שלו בין שוגג בין מזיד יצעק לשמים דברי רבן שמעון בן גמליאל. רבי אומר שוגג יצעק לשמים מזיד יחזרו דמיו למקומן. ואם היו מעות שוגג יצעק לשמים מזיד יחזרו דמיו למקומן דברי רבן שמעון בן גמליאל. רבי אומר בין שוגג בין מזיד יחזרו דמיו למקומן. רבי זריקה בשם חזקיה הלכה כרבי במעות וכרבן שמעון בן גמליאל בפירות. אמר רבי יילא מעשה היה והורו כרבי במעות. או ייבא כהדא אין נוטעין ואין מבריכין ואין מרכיבין ערב שביעית פחות משלשים יום לפני ראש השנה. ואם נטע או הרכיב או הבריך יעקור. לא עקר פירותיו מה הן. רבי בא רבי אמי הוון יתיבין בצור אתא עובדא קומיהון והורי רבי אילא ישפכו פירותיו. אמר רבי בא אני לא נמניתי עמהן בעלייה נפקין ושמעון רבי יונה ורבי יצחק בר טבליי בשם רבי לעזר אין מחדשין על הגזירה. אמר ר' יוסי ר' יצחק בר טבליי בשם ר' לעזר אין מוסיפין על ההלכה. ר' יעקב בר אחא בשם ר' זעירא מן מה דתני אין ממשכנין אותו ולא מרהינין אותו הדא אמרה עבר ומשכן עבר והרהין קונסין בו. ולא שוקלין כנגדו מעות אפילו סלע של חולין לעשות סלע של מעשר שני. היה לו סלע של מעשר [שני] והיא מסויימת לו מהו שישקול כנגדו הסלע של מעשר שני אחרת ותהא מסויימת לו. האחין שחלקו מהו שישקלו זה כנגד זה. תנן לא יאמר אדם לחבירו בירושלים הא לך יין ותן לי שמן הא לך שמן ותן לי יין אבל אומר לו הא לך יין שאין לך יין הא לך שמן שאין לך שמן. הא לך יין שאין לי שמן הוון בעי מימר אסור. אשכח תני מותר. ואין אסור משום חליפין. מכיון שאינו יכול להוציאו ממנו בדין אין אלו חליפין. וליידא מילה אמר הא לך יין שאין לי שמן דאילו הות לי משה הוינא מיתן לך. אבל נותנין זה לזה מתנת חנם. מתני' דרבי מאיר דו רבי מאיר

a creative task, he should bring a sin offering. Two--he should bring a conditional sin offering. Three--he is exempt [from bringing a sacrifice of any sort.]” Rabbi Yose bar Bon raised the question [thus]: “If you were to say that two [stars indicate] doubt [as to whether it is day or night, then] if one saw two stars on the eve of the Sabbath and [others] warned him [that it was the Sabbath, thus making him liable for its violation], yet he [nonetheless] performed a creative task; [and if he subsequently] saw two stars on the departure of the Sabbath and [others] warned him [that it was still the Sabbath], yet he performed a creative task; then either way you like [he is liable for a violation of the Sabbath]. If the first [set of stars] were [an indication that it was still] daytime [and not yet the Sabbath], then the last stars were also [an indication that it was still] daytime [and still the Sabbath], then he is liable [for a violation of the Sabbath] on account of the last set [of stars]. If the last [set of stars] were [an indication that it was now] night time [and the Sabbath had begun], then the first stars were also [an indication that it was now] night time [and no longer the Sabbath], then he is liable [for a violation of the Sabbath] on account of the first set [of stars]. [Another example:] If he saw two stars on the eve of the Sabbath and partially harvested a fig, [and] if he [subsequently returned] in the morning and harvested another part, and if he saw two stars on the departure of the Sabbath and harvested the [last] part of the fig, then either way you like [he is liable for a sin offering]. If the first [set of stars] were [an indication that it was still] daytime [and not yet the Sabbath], then the last stars were also [an indication that it was still] daytime [and still the Sabbath] and the morning harvest joins with that of the departure of the sabbath, and he is liable [for a sin offering] on account of the last set [of stars]. If the last [set of stars] were [an indication that it was] night time [and now the Sabbath], then the last stars were also [an indication that it was] daytime [and no longer the Sabbath] and the morning harvest joins with that of the night of the Sabbath, and he is liable [for a sin offering] on account of the first set [of stars].” These [stars] that you are speaking of are [only] those whose way is not to appear in the daytime. However, we do not count those whose way is to appear in the daytime. Rabbi Yose bar Bon said: “Just so long as three stars may be seen aside from that [one we call] Kokhvata (prob. Venus).” (This may be a scribal error and the original version may have been: “Just so long as three stars may be seen [in one place, just] as one star [can be so seen.]”) Rabbi Yaakov of Romana in the name of Rabbi Yehuda ben Pazi: “One star, surely day. Two, night.” But does he [truly] have no [time period of] doubt!? He has doubt about [discerning] one star from another. A baraita teaches: “So long as the eastern horizon is reddened, it is daytime. What has been said about the stars, applies to those which are not generally seen until nightfall; for, no note is taken of those which appear before the day is terminated. Therefore, R. Yosse bar R. Aboon says: It means three stars not counting, R. Jacob from Darom (south) says: One star indicates that it is still day; but two stars certainly show that it is night. Is there any doubt of this? No; the doubt can only exist between the stars visible by day, and the other stars. With regard to this, we are taught that it is still day as long as the sky is red towards the east;

Jerusalem Talmud Maaser Sheni

Rebbi Huna said, the reason of Rebbi Simeon48In Mishnah 2. This paragraph, for which the preceding one was the introduction, still should belong to Halakhah 2, is that he says the pesaḥ sacrifice cannot be substituted; if he substituted a second time it still is a pesaḥ. If he substituted, it is a well-being sacrifice49Substitution of sacrifices is forbidden (Lev. 27:10); if an animal was substituted, the verse prescribes that “the original and the substitute shall be holy.” It is not specified how to proceed if there are degrees of holiness. On this, Mishnah Pesaḥim 9:6 states that if the substitution was before noon of the 14th of Nisan, when the pesaḥ could not have been slaughtered, the substituted animal cannot be slaughtered since nobody subscribed to it and it cannot become a well-being sacrifice since it is not a leftover pesaḥ. Therefore, it remains pesaḥ and must be left grazing until it develops a blemish when it must be sold and the money used for a well-being sacrifice. But if the substitution was after noontime of the 14th of Nisan, when the pesaḥ is slaughtered, the substitution is a leftover pesaḥ and automatically becomes a well-being sacrifice.! Rebbi Mana said to him, did my teacher50This word is missing in the Rome ms. not compare the following? Rebbi Abba, Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, if well-being sacrifices bought with tithe money developed a blemish and he redeemed them, it51The tithe money. As explained after this, the money now is profane and well-being offerings bought with this money are first dedications rather than second. does not return to its original status to make it a second. Rebbi Zeïra, Rebbi Hila, both in the name of Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina, one said if well-being sacrifices were bought with tithe money, the holiness of tithe broke away from them52Since in all respects, the rules of well-being sacrifices are more strict than those of tithe.. If heave was bought with tithe money, the holiness of tithe did not break away from it53As explained in Mishnah 2.. The Mishnah breaks54The argument of R. Simeon in the Mishnah is faulty.: Can you object from a case in which the holiness of tithe broke away to a case in which the holiness of tithe did not break away? The other one said, this does not mean one objects from a case in which its holiness broke away to a case in which its holiness did not break away; he says to him, it is one immersion55The original argument of the Sages about the ṭevul yom is irrelevant since the important act was the immersion of the person; waiting a short time is not really a restriction..
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy

Jerusalem Talmud Maaser Sheni

Rebbi Ḥaggai said, a Mishnah153Mishnah 3:3: “If somebody has [tithe] coins in Jerusalem and needs them, and a friend has produce, he says to his friend: those coins are exchanged on your produce. The friend has to eat his produce in purity but he may use the coins. One should not do this with a vulgar [friend] except for demay.” Since the transaction is restricted to Jerusalem, it follows that it would be illegal elsewhere. said that one does not exchange coins for fruits far from the Place. He said that before Rebbi Abinna who praised him, before Rebbi Jeremiah who needled154Cf. Berakhot 2:3, Note 96. him: Did we not state, “coins in Jerusalem and produce in the countryside155Mishnah 3:4 states that money in Jerusalem may be exchanged for outside produce (which then has to be brought into the city) or Jerusalem produce may be bought with tithe money which at the moment of the transaction was outside.”? There is a difference because it was in one place156Mishnah 3:3 which admits the transaction only in Jerusalem deals with the case that both parties are at the same place. R. Ḥaggai is still justified in not admitting redemption if both parties are outside the city.. When Rebbi Ḥaggai left, he found it stated157A baraita differing with the Mishnah in his interpretation.: coins and produce in Jerusalem, coins and produce in the countryside. He said, if Rebbi Jeremiah had heard this, he would have needled me justly. He wanted to change his mind. Rebbi Zeïra said to him, do not change your mind since Rebbi Eleazar said, Rebbi Meïr and the rabbis [disagree] about demay; therefore not for certain [produce]158According to most commentators, this seems to refer to the baraita quoted at the end of Halakhah 3, that the rabbis permit redemption only for meat, not live animals, comparing with Mishnah 6 which is held to be R. Meïr’s opinion. But the baraita was shown to refer only to Sabbatical money and is not applicable here.
According to R. H. Kanievski, the diagreement of the Sages and R. Meïr is in Mishnah Demay 1:2, and the statement of R. Eleazar, that the Mishnah is only R. Meïr’s, to Mishnaiot 1:5–6 since in Demay he also holds that demay money can be exchanged and traded at will outside of Jerusalem. Then it follows that the opinon of the opposing Sages, that produce, illegally bought with tithe money outside of Jerusalem, should be brought up and eaten in Jerusalem, is true not only for demay but for all tithe money, supporting R. Ḥaggai.. Since Rebbi Eleazar said, this is Rebbi Meïr’s, it follows that demay and certain are equal.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Full Chapter