Parallel
בבא מציעא 53:2
Soncino English Talmud · Berean Standard Bible
even in Jerusalem? From the verse, When thou art not able se'etho ['to bear it']. Now, 'se'eth' can only refer to eating, as it is written, And he took and sent mase'oth ['messes'] unto them from before him! — But this refers to [commodities] purchased with the [redemption]money of the second tithe. But let that also, which is bought with the [redemption] money of the second tithe, be redeemed, for we learnt: If what was redeemed with the [redemption-]money of the second tithe became defiled, it is [itself] to be redeemed! — This agrees with R. Judah, who ruled: It must be buried. If so, why particularly if it has gone forth [again]: the same applies even if it has not gone forth? — But after all, this refers to undefiled [tithe]: and what is meant by 'gone forth'? That the walls [of Jerusalem] had fallen. But did not Raba say: The law of the walls [of Jerusalem], in that it [the second tithe] must be eaten within them, is Biblical; but that they have retaining power is merely Rabbinical: and [consequently] when would the Rabbis enact thus: only as long as the walls were standing, but not when they no longer existed [having fallen]! — The Rabbis drew no distinction whether the barriers were standing or not. R. Huna b. Judah said in R. Shesheth's name: A single clause is taught, [viz.,] Second tithe [produce] worth less than a perutah which has entered Jerusalem and gone forth [again]. But why so? Let it be taken back and eaten! — It means that the walls had fallen. Then let it be redeemed, for Raba said: The law of the walls [of Jerusalem], in that it [the second tithe] must be eaten within them, is Biblical; but that they have retaining power is merely Rabbinical; and [consequently, ought we not to say] when would the Rabbis enact thus: only as long as the walls were standing, but not when they no longer existed [having fallen]! — The Rabbis drew no distinction. If so, why particularly if worth less than a perutah; even if worth a perutah, it is the same? — He [the Tanna] [implicitly] proceeds to a climax. [Thus:] If it contains [a perutah's worth], it is unnecessary to state that the walls retain it. But where it does not contain [a Perutah's worth], I might think that the walls do not retain it: therefore we are taught [otherwise]. Our Rabbis taught: And if a man will at all redeem aught of his tithes [he shall add thereto the fifth part thereof]: 'of his tithes,' but not all his tithes, thus excluding second tithe [produce] worth less than a perutah. It has been stated: R. Ammi said, [This means] that [the tithe] itself is not [worth a perutah]; R. Assi maintained, Its fifth [is less than a perutah]; R. Johanan said, That [the tithe] itself is not [etc.]; R. Simeon b. Lakish said, Its fifth is less [etc.]. An objection is raised. For second tithe worth less than a perutah it is sufficient to declare, 'That itself and its fifth are redeemed with the first money.' Now, on the view that [it does not require redemption even if] its fifth is worth less [than a perutah], it is correct; hence he [the Tanna] states 'it is sufficient,' viz., though that itself contains [the value of a perutah], yet since its fifth does not, it is well. But on the view that [the tithe] itself is worth less, what is [the appropriateness of] 'it is sufficient?' This is indeed a difficulty. The scholars propounded: Is the fifth calculated on the inner sum [sc. the principal] or on the outer [sc. the principal plus the addition]? — Said Rabina: Come and hear: If the owners value it at twenty [sela's], the owners have priority, since they add a fifth. If a stranger declared, 'I accept it for twenty-one,'
—