Kiddushin — Daf 56a

ואם לקח בשוגג יחזרו דמים למקומם במזיד תעלה ותאכל במקום אמר רבי יהודה במה דברים אמורים במתכוין ולקח תחילה לשם שלמים אבל במתכוין להוציא מעות מעשר שני לחולין בין שוגג בין מזיד יחזרו דמים למקומם

והאנן תנן רבי יהודה אומר במזיד קידש אמר רבי אלעזר אשה יודעת שאין מעות מעשר שני מתחללין על ידה ועולה ואוכלתו בירושלים

מתקיף לה ר' ירמיה והרי בהמה טמאה עבדים וקרקעות דאדם יודע שאין מעות מעשר שני מתחללין עליהן ותנן אין לוקחים בהמה טמאה עבדים וקרקעו' במעות מעשר שני אפי' בירושלים ואם לקח יאכל כנגדן

אלא הכא באשה חבירה עסקינן דידעה

אמר מר אם לקח יאכל כנגדן ואמאי יחזרו דמיו למקומם כי התם

אמר שמואל

and if one does buy: if unwittingly, the money must be returned to its place;1 if deliberately, it must be brought up and consumed in the Place.2 R. Judah said: That holds good if he intentionally bought it in the first place for a peace-offering;3 but if it was his intention to turn the second-tithe money into hullin,4 whether unwittingly or deliberately,5 the money must be returned to its place.6 But did we not learn: R. JUDAH SAID: IF DELIBERATELY, HE HAS BETROTHED [HER]?7 — Said R. Eleazar: The woman knows that the second-tithe money does not become hullin through her [acceptance thereof as kiddushin], and so she will go up and expend8 it in Jerusalem.9 R. Jeremiah demurred: But what of unclean cattle, slaves, and real estate, in regard to which a man knows that second-tithe money is not secularised by [the purchase of] them; yet we learnt: Unclean cattle, slaves, and land may not be bought with second-tithe money, even in Jerusalem; and if he does purchase [them], he must eat to the value thereof?10 But [say] here [in the Mishnah] the reference is to a woman, a haberah,11 who knows.12 The Master said: ‘If he does purchase [them], he must eat to the value thereof.’ Yet why: let the money return to its place, as there? — Said Samuel: would surely rather carry money than drive an animal to Jerusalem, remain hullin, while the vendor should expend the money in Jerusalem. as an accessory (Rashi). Tosaf.: In both cases, for fear that the vendor may eat the animal outside Jerusalem, thinking that the stipulation is invalid. (Rashi). Tosaf.: This shews that we do not fear that the woman may expend the money outside Jerusalem, as otherwise his act would be nullified: why then do we fear it in the case of the vendor? buys an animal with second-tithe money, the animal becomes sanctified and the money hullin, so is it now, the stipulation being unable to abrogate normal practice. in Jerusalem. But we do not assume that the vendor himself will take the money thither. that the unsettled state of Palestine during the Maccabean wars led to the neglect of tithes and Levitical purity by the masses, the so-called ‘am ha-’arez (lit., ‘people of the land’), and this, in turn, by reaction, was responsible for the promotion of associations (haburoth), the members of which (haberim) were pledged strictly to observe these laws, V. J.E. art, ‘Haber’. But the average seller does not know these laws.