Kiddushin

Two Tannaim differ as to R. Judah's view.1 ‘Ulla said on Bar Pada's authority: R. Meir used to say that hekdesh, deliberately used, is secularised; unwittingly, it is not secularised.2 And only in respect to sacrifice was it said that it is secularised by unwitting [misuse].3 But since it is not secularised, whereby does he become liable to a sacrifice?4 But when Rabin came [from Palestine], he explained it in Bar Pada's name: R. Meir used to say that hekdesh, deliberately used, is secularised; unwittingly, is not secularised. And only in respect of consumption was it said that it is secularised by unwitting misuse. 5 R. Nahman said in R. Adda b. Ahaba's name: The halachah agrees with R. Meir in respect to [second-] tithe, since the Tanna taught his view anonymously;6 and the halachah is as R, Judah in respect to hekdesh, since the Tanna taught his view anonymously. [We learnt anonymously] as R. Meir in respect to [second-] tithe. To what is the reference? For we learnt. Fourth year vintage:7 Beth Shammai maintain: It is not subject to a fifth8 or removal;9 Beth Hillel rule: It is. Beth Shammai rule: The law of fallings and gleanings apply to it;10 Beth Hillel say: It is all for the vault.11 What is Beth Hillel's reason? — They deduce the meaning of ‘holy’ from [second-] tithe:12 just as tithe is subject to a fifth and removal, so is fourth year vintage too. While Beth Shammai do not deduce the meaning of ‘holy’ from tithe. Now, when Beth Hillel rule that it is as [the second-] tithe, with whom do they hold? If with R. Judah, why is it all for the vault, but he maintains that the [second-] tithe is secular property? 13 Hence surely [they agree] with R. Meir.14 ‘[We learnt anonymously] as R. Judah in respect to hekdesh.’ To what is the reference? — For we learnt: If he [the Temple treasurer] sends it15 by a responsible person16 and recollects17 before it reaches the shopkeeper's hands, the latter is guilty of trespass when he expends it.18 Yet did we not learn [anonymously] as R. Judah in respect to [second-] tithe? But we learnt: If one redeems his own second-tithe, he must add a fifth,19 whether it was his [in the first place] or given to him as a gift.20 Whose [view] is this? Shall we say: R. Meir's? Can one give it as a gift: surely he maintains that [second-] tithe is sacred property? Hence it must surely be R. Judah's!21 — No. After all, it is R. Meir's, but the circumstances are that [the donor] gave it to him [mixed up] in its tebel,22 and he holds that unseparated gifts23 rank as unseparated.24 Come and hear: If one redeems his own fourth year plantings,25 he must add a fifth, whether it was [originally] his or given to him as a gift. Who is the author of this? Shall we say: R. Meir? Can one give it away; surely he deduces the meaning of ‘holy’ from second-tithe?26 Hence it must surely be R. Judah!27 — [No.] After all, it is R. Meir; but here the circumstances are that he gave it in its budding stage;28 and this does not agree with R. Jose, who maintained: Budding fruit is forbidden [as ‘orlah],because it counts as fruit.29 Come and hear: If he drew into his possession the [second-] tithe [of another] to the value of a sela’, and had no time to redeem it30 before it appreciated to two, he must pay a sela’31 and thus profits a sela’, and the second-tithe is his.32 Now, whose view is this? Shall we say: R. Meir's; why does he profit a sela’, Scripture saith, And he shall give the money, and it shall be assured to him?33 Hence it must surely be R. Judah's! — It is indeed R. Judah's, but here we have one anonymous teaching, whereas there we have two.34 But if an anonymous [ruling] was intentionally taught,35 what does it matter whether there is one or two? — Said R. Nahman b. Isaac, The halachah is as R. Meir, since we learnt his view in Behirta. 36 vows, it is not. hekdesh. anonymously, that is the halachah. was permitted, but on the same terms as second-tithe, viz., it had to be eaten in Jerusalem. second-tithe. house beyond the end of the third and the sixth years of the Septennate, but had to remove and give them to their owners. Likewise, second-tithe might not be kept in the house after that, but had to be taken to Jerusalem. This does not apply to fourth year vintage. bunches, which must not be vintaged but left for the poor, v. Lev, XIX, 10. XXVII, 30: and all the tithe of the land, . . is the Lords; it is holy unto the Lord. thou gather the fallen fruit of thy vineyard. ‘Thy’ excludes sacred property, which is God's. But if Beth Hillel agree with R. Judah, second-tithe is secular, and since fourth year vintage is assimilated thereto, that also is likewise. concerned, and a trespass-offering is incurred only for unwitting misuse: v. Lev. V, 15, and sin through ignorance. This proves that it becomes hullin by unwitting, not deliberate use. For if deliberate use likewise secularises it, the treasurer should he liable, since its secularisation was pursuant to his action, which at the outset was unwitting. then given him the tithe. belonged to the Israelite. what should be separated is already separated, and therefore since on the present hypothesis this agrees with R. Meir that second-tithe is sacred property and cannot be given away, the tithe in it remains A's. Hence it is explained that he holds that it ranks as unseparated and so it can be given to B together with the rest. ‘fourth year fruit’ is as yet inapplicable, because it is not fruit at all. free paraphrase of Lev. XXVII, 19: then he shall add the fifth part of the money of thy estimation unto it, and it shall be assured to him; Tosaf. Shab. 128a s.v. i,bu. V. supra p. 12, n. 6. — The verse refers to the redemption of a sanctified field, and since R. Meir regards the second-tithe as sacred property, its teaching applies to that too. Judah is found only in M.Sh. IV, 6. which were examined and declared authentic.