Missionary Renegade

Menachot 91a derives the need for such accompanying offerings from a juxtaposingLeviticus 14:10 and Numbers 15:5. In his Commentary to the Mishnah, the Rambam explains that accompanying offerings are brought for these sacrifices, because they do not come because of a sin.

Which are obligations and not dependent on a person's volition.

An isaron is equivalent to the size of 43.2 eggs. In modern measure, the size of an egg is 57.6 cc according to Shiurei Torah, and 99.5 cc according to Chazon Ish.

As stated in Halachah 7, a hin is equivalent to twelve log. Each log comprises fourrevi'iot. In modern measure, a revi'it is 86 cc according to Shiurei Torah and approximately 150 cc according to Chazon Ish. Thus a hin is 48 times this amount.

In its first year of life, as stated in Chapter 1, Halachah 11.

In its second year of life (ibid.).

I.e., even if a person pledged to bring several sacrifices of a given type, he must bring the required accompanying offerings for each animal.

See Hilchot Temidim UMusafim 7:3 where this sacrifice is mentioned.

The Ra'avad differs with the Rambam and maintains that only a quarter of a hin of oil should be used. The Radbaz notes thatMenachot 89b appears to support the Ra'avad's position. Although he explains that the Rambam's position could be justified, he admits that it is somewhat difficult. TheKessef Mishneh also suggests that a printing error crept into the text of theMishneh Torah.

Usually, only one isaron of flour was brought for a burnt-offering of a sheep, as stated in the previous halachah.

See Hilchot Mechusrei Kapparah 1:3. Bringing accompanying offerings for these sacrifices is an exception to the general rule, as stated in Halachah 2. The obligation to bring these three esronim is explicitly stated in Leviticus 14:10. The Oral Tradition (Menachot91a) teaches that each one is designated for a different sacrifice.

This version is found in some of the authoritative manuscripts of the Mishneh Torah and is also suggested by the Or Sameach. The standard published text follows a slightly different version.

A ram that is between one year and one year and a month old (Chapter 1, Halachah 14).

I.e., regardless of whether he pledged a ram or a male sheep, he is not considered to have fulfilled his obligation by bringing apilgas, for it is too old for the latter type sacrifice and not old enough for the former.

Hilchot Eruvin 1:13.

Hilchot Bikkurim 6:15.

See Hilchot Klei HaMikdash 1:16 which describes the various measures that existed in the Temple.

As stated (ibid.:17), there were measures of a half a hin, a third of a hin, and a quarter of a hin in the Temple.

I.e., a person should not measure out the flour in a private measure he has outside the Temple. Instead, the measurement should be made with the Temple's measure (Radbaz).

See Chapter 12, Halachah 7 and Chapter 13, Halachah 5.

I.e., they are not consecrated.

Flour, wine, and oil that come in contact with sacred utensils become consecrated. Nevertheless, only the inside of the dry measures were consecrated. The outside remained unconsecrated. Hence, the fact that the flour came in contact with it does not change its status. See Hilchot Klei HaMikdash 1:19.

As stated in Hilchot Pesulei HaMukdashim3:20, an object placed in a sacred utensil does not become consecrated unless the person placing it there did so intentionally. Hence, even though the overflows came in contact with a sacred utensil, seemingly, there was no intent for them to become consecrated.

I.e., a safeguard instituted by our Sages lest a mistaken impression be created.

The Kessef Mishneh notes that even though this rationale is advanced by Menachot 90a in support of a minority opinion, it would still be accepted by the majority.

I.e., there was another offering and it was thought they would be offered with it, but for some reason they were not and remained overnight.

For once they were placed in sacred utensil, remaining overnight would disqualify them, as stated in Halachah 12.

It is permitted to redeem them, because when consecrating them, there was the intent that they would be redeemed in such an eventuality (Radbaz).

Our translation is based on the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (Shekalim 4:4), where he explains that the term kayitz refers to the time of the fig and grape harvest. These fruits are served as desert, after a person has eaten his major meal. Similarly, these offerings do not represent the fundamental "food" of the altar, but instead, are offered only when the altar is free.

The flour and the oil are, however, absolute requirements. One cannot be offered without the other (Radbaz).

39.

I.e., the person is required to bring both of these elements of the accompanying offering. Nevertheless, the offering of one is not dependent on the other as the Rambam continues to explain.

40.

All of these have a certain dimension of holiness and are not considered as ordinary property. It is forbidden to use them for any purpose other than partaking of them in the ordinary manner. Hence they may not be used for these offerings.

41.

The bread from the thanksgiving offering may be eaten by an ordinary person. Hence, it is permitted for it to be brought from the second tithes. The accompanying offerings, as states above, are offered on the altar entirely. Hence, they may not be brought from the second tithes (Radbaz).

42.

These differ greatly for the measures usually employed.

43.

The Radbaz explains that since we are speaking about a directive for a specific time and not an ongoing practice, as a prophet, Ezekiel had the right to speak of offerings not prescribed by the Torah. This does not constitute a violation of the prohibition to add to the Torah's commandments. See Hilchot Yesodei HaTorah, ch. 9.

44.

All authorities agree that Ezekiel's prophecy referred to special sacrifices and was not to be followed continuously. Rashi (Menachot45b) interprets it as referring to the Second Temple, while the Rambam understands it as applying to the era of Mashiach.

45.

The leaders of the tribes as related in Numbers, ch. 7.

46.

Ezekiel 46:4.

47.

See Ezra 8:35.

48.

I.e., from the Torah scrolls which he wrote.

49.

Sefer HaMitzvot (negative commandment 313) and Sefer HaChinuch (mitzvah 454) count the prohibition against adding to the Torah as one of its 613 mitzvot.

50.

Sefer HaMitzvot (negative commandment 314) and Sefer HaChinuch (mitzvah 455) count the prohibition against adding to the Torah as one of its 613 mitzvot.

The above is not merely a point of law, but a fundamental issue of Jewish faith. As the Rambam states in the ninth of his Thirteen Principles of Faith (Commentary to the Mishnah, Sanhedrin, ch. 10) declaring:

The ninth principle is that the Torah of Moses will never be nullified.... There can be no additions to it, nor any deletions from it - neither in its text nor in its explanation. And thus we are commanded: "Do not add to it and do not detract it from it."

(Our translation is taken from the original manuscript versions of the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah. The standard published text varies slightly.)

• 3 Chapters: Maaser Sheini Maaser Sheini - Chapter 5, Maaser Sheini Maaser Sheini - Chapter 6, Maaser Sheini Maaser Sheini - Chapter 7 • English Text | Hebrew Text |

Audio: Listen | Download• Maaser Sheini - Chapter 5

Halacha 1

When a man redeems his produce for the second tithe for himself - whether it is from his own crops, he acquired it as an inheritance, or it was given to him while tevel as we explained,1 he must add a fifth [of the new total].2 [Thus] if it was worth four, he should give five,3 as [Leviticus 27:31] states: "If a man will redeem from his tithes, he shall add a fifth to it."

Halacha 2

When a woman redeems produce for the second tithe that she separated, she is not required to add a fifth. According to the Oral Tradition,4 we have learned: "If a man [will redeem from] his tithes," excluding a woman. Similarly, if a man redeems [money used to] redeem produce from the second tithe for himself,5 he must add a fifth.

Halacha 3

When a person redeems the produce of his second tithe and adds a fifth, and then redeems the money itself a second time, he must add a second fifth of the principal alone. He need not add a fifth for the original fifth.6

Halacha 4

When the fifth of the produce of the second tithe is not worth a p'rutah, [the person redeeming it] need not add a fifth.7 Similarly, when the worth of the produce of the second tithe is unknown,8 it is sufficient for him to say: "The holiness of the produce and its fifth are transferred to this sela."9Whenever a person does not redeem produce from the second tithe with his own money, he need not add a fifth.10 [When one redeems] produce from the second tithe that is demai, he need not add a fifth.11

Halacha 5

When a person is redeeming produce of the second tithe and he has other produce from the second tithe that was not redeemed whose fifth is not worth a p'rutah, it is sufficient for him to say: "The holiness of it and its fifth are transferred to the money [set aside] originally."12 [This leniency is granted,] because it is impossible to require a person to be precise with his money.13

Halacha 6

When a person redeems produce from the second tithe for more than its worth, that additional value is not considered as money from the second tithe.14

Halacha 7

When the owner of the produce bids a sela to redeem it and another person also bids a sela, the owner is given precedence, because he is required to add a fifth. If, however, the owner bids a sela and another person bids a selaand a p'rutah, that other person is given precedence, because he increases the principal.15

Halacha 8

It is permitted to act "guilefully" with regard to the redemption of produce of the second tithe.16 What is implied? A person may tell his son or daughter who are beyond majority or his Hebrew servant:17 "Here is this money. Use it to redeem this produce from the second tithe," so that they will not have to add a fifth. He should not say, however: "Use them to redeem it for me."18 Similarly, he is not required to add a fifth if he tells them: "Redeem it for me using your money."19

Halacha 9

He should not, however, give money to redeem [the produce] to one of his sons or daughters who are below majority20 or to his Canaanite servants or maid-servants, because they do not have an independent financial capacity.21If he gave the money to his Hebrew maidservant,22 his words are effective if [the obligation to separate] the second tithe from this produce is Rabbinic in origin, e.g., produce grew in a flowerpot without a hole.23 [The rationale is that] a Hebrew maidservant is a minor and a minor can acquire property for others only with regard to matters of Rabbinic Law.24

Halacha 10

Similarly, a person may act with guile and give produce from the second tithe as a present while it is still tevel25 and while giving it say: "The holiness from [the second tithe of] this produce is transferred to the money I have at home."26

Halacha 11

Two brothers,27 two partners, a father and his son, may redeem produce from the second tithe for each other so that they will not have to add a fifth. When a woman brings produce from the second tithe to her husband's home,28 the husband does not acquire it as his own, since it belongs to the Most High, as we explained.29 Therefore, if he redeems it,30 he need not add a fifth.

Halacha 12

A person who redeems produce from the second tithe for himself who paid the principal, but did not pay the additional fifth should not partake of [the produce] until he pays the fifth. [This applies] even on the Sabbath.31 [And it applies] even though the payment of the fifth does not hold back the transfer of holiness [from the produce to the coins]. Indeed, that transfer takes place. [This restriction is] a decree, lest the person be negligent and fail to pay.

Halacha 13

If a person desires to exchange money from the redemption of the second tithe for golden dinarim,32 so that his burden will be lighter,33 he may. Even34 if he exchanged [the two] with his own money, he need not add a fifth, for this is not considered as redemption.

Halacha 14

When a person exchanges a sela of money35 from the second tithe - whether in Jerusalem or outside the city - he should not exchange it entirely for brass coins. Instead, it should be divided into a shekel's worth of silver coins and ashekel's worth of brass coins.

Halacha 15

It is permissible to transfer the holiness of money of the second tithe together with produce from the second tithe to money,36 provided the produce is worth less than a dinar.37 If, however, [the produce] is worth a dinar, its holiness should not be transferred together with that of money. Instead, [it should be transferred] by itself. What is implied? A person possessed produce that was worth a dinar and three dinarim that were of the second tithe, he may not transfer the holiness of the entire amount to one sela.38 If, however, he has a half a dinar of produce and a half a dinar of money, he may transfer the holiness of both to one dinar.

FOOTNOTES

See Chapter 3, Halachah 17. Otherwise, it is forbidden to give the second tithe as a present.

Although the produce of the second tithe belongs to God, as it were, since the person partakes of it, the Torah considers as his, with regard to the obligation to add a fifth (Bava Kama 69b).

This is true in all instances that the Torah requires that a fifth be added.

Kiddushin 24a.

Using it to purchase peace sacrifices or the like.

For example, if the produce was worth 4, the person redeeming it must originally pay 5 and then, if he must pay an additional 1. He need not pay an additional 1.2.

Because anything less than a fifth is not considered as financially significant. According to the Rambam, he must, however, redeem the produce. Rashi (Bava Metzia 54b), by contrast, maintains that it need not be redeemed at all.

The Radbaz distinguishes between this instance and Chapter 4, Halachah 20, which states that when the value of produce is unknown, it should be assessed by three experts, explaining that that halachah is speaking about an instance where the produce has genuine worth, but it can only be determined by experts, not a common person. This halachah, by contrast, is speaking about an instance where its worth is not known at all.

This is acceptable, for as mentioned above, after the fact, the transfer of holiness from produce to money is acceptable even if the money is not of equal worth as the produce.

The Jerusalem Talmud (ma'aser Sheni 4:3) derives this concept from the exegesis ofLeviticus 27:31.

Since the obligation to redeem the second tithe of demai is merely Rabbinic in origin, this added stringency was not imposed.

The reason why it is acceptable to use the money used to redeem other produce is explained in the following halachah and notes. This leniency is granted because the obligation to set aside the second tithe from such produce is Rabbinic in origin as stated in Chapter 2, Halachah 9. We grant him this leniency rather than require him to bring that produce to Jerusalem or to wait until he has enough other produce so that the fifth will be worth a p'rutah [Rashi (Bava Metzia 53b)].

And we assume that, as a safeguard, a person will be somewhat generous in the money he sets aside in redemption of the second tithe, setting aside a little more than the worth of the produce. The holiness of the produce whose fifth is worth less than ap'rutah is transferred to that extra amount (ibid.; Radbaz).

In contrast, when a person redeems consecrated money for more than its worth, the extra amount is considered as consecrated [the Jerusalem Talmud (Ma'aser Sheni 4:3)].

In his Commentary to the Mishnah (Ma'aser Sheni 4:3; based on the Jerusalem Talmud), the Rambam explains that an increase in the principal is favored over a lesser amount of principal but a greater total, because there are "guileful" means to avoid paying the additional fifth as will be explained.

I.e., the intent of the person's "guile" is to avoid paying the additional fifth.

All three of these individuals have an independent financial capacity. Hence, they are not considered as acting on behalf of the owner.

For then it appears that they are acting on his behalf.

For then the other people are considered as acting on their own initiative, even though he gave them instructions. This applies even if the owner of the produce gives the other person an equivalent amount of money, but that person does not use it to redeem the produce.

As indicated by Hilchot Terumah 4:5, this is speaking about an instance where the child has reached the age when his vows are significant. In such an instance, his actions are effective even with regard to matters of Scriptural Law.

See Hilchot Avadim 5:3, et al.

In this instance, she will ultimately have an independent financial capacity when she comes of age. Nevertheless, at present, because she is a minor, she can act on behalf of others only with regard to matters of Rabbinic Law.

See Hilchot Terumah 5:14-16.

See Hilchot Lulav 8:10 and Hilchot Zechiyah UMatanah 4:7 which explain that a minor can acquire for his or her self, but cannot do so on behalf of another person.

Once, however, the second tithe has been separated, it cannot be given as a present - except to be eaten immediately thereafter - for it is considered as "the property of the Most High." Hence, the person who "owns" it on the earthly plane does not have the authority to give it to someone else (Chapter 3, Halachah 17, and Halachah 1 of the present chapter).

In his Commentary to the Mishnah (Ma'aser Sheni 4:5), the Rambam explains that here also the owner desires to redeem the produce without paying the additional fifth. Nevertheless, we are speaking about an instance where he is in his field and does not have money at hand. Hence, none of the techniques mentioned in Halachah 8 are effective. What can he do? He can give the produce to another person and redeem it for him. Thus the produce is being redeemed by a person other than its owner at that time. Hence a fifth need not be added.

I.e., even if they are partners in other matters. As Chasdei David emphasizes, this leniency does not, however, apply to the redemption of produce which is owned in partnership.

When a woman marries, all of the property she owns is given to her husband to use. On the other hand, as the Rambam continues to explain, she is not the owner of the produce of the second tithe and hence, her husband also does not become its owner.

Chapter 3, Halachah 17.

With his own money. As mentioned in Halachah 2, a woman is never required to add a fifth when redeeming produce for herself. If, however, she redeems produce for her husband with her own money, she is required to add a fifth (Radbaz).

In which instance, it is a mitzvah to delight in food and drink.

As mentioned above, the second tithe must be redeemed with silver. Now gold is much more valuable than silver so that by exchanging the silver for gold, the person will be lightening his load considerably.

See Ma'aser Sheni 2:7 which states that Rabbi Akiva made such a transfer on behalf of Rabban Gamliel and Rabbi Yehoshua.

As stated in Chapter 4, Halachah 5, generally, a person cannot transfer the holiness of money of the second tithe to other money, in this and the following halachah, exceptions are made for they are to the benefit of the second tithe: making the money easier to transport and to use.

The addition of this word is based on the gloss of the Radbaz.

I.e., a sela is a coin of relatively large value. It is easier to shop for food with smaller coins. See the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (Ma'aser Sheni 2:9).

As mentioned above, although generally, a person cannot transfer the holiness of money of the second tithe to other money, an exception is made here, because of the produce that is included in the transfer.

The rationale is that when the produce is worth less than a dinar, it is not fit to be redeemed. (For a coin less than a dinar is small and of comparatively little value.) Hence it is to the benefit of the produce from the second tithe that the money be redeemed with it (Kessef Mishneh; based on the Jerusalem Talmud, Ma'aser Sheni 2:8).

A sela is four dinarim.

Maaser Sheini - Chapter 6

Halacha 1

[The following rules apply when] ordinary money and money from the second tithe become scattered [in the same place]. If he gathered from both sides, what he gathers belongs to the second tithe until he reaches the original amount and then the remainder is ordinary produce.1 If he mixed the coins together2 and grabbed a handful or gathered only from one side, he should calculate the percentage proportionately.3

What is implied? There were 200 coins of the second tithe and 100 ordinary coins. They became scattered. He mixed them and picked them all up, but found only 270, 180 are the second tithe and 90 are ordinary coins. This is the general principle. Those that are gathered are considered as the second tithe. Those that are mixed together are divided according to the percentage.

He should4 make a stipulation and say: "If those in my hand are from the second tithe, the remainder are ordinary money and if they are ordinary money, the holiness from the coins from the second tithe wherever they are is transferred to them."

Halacha 2

When a sela of the second tithe becomes mixed with a sela of ordinary money, one should bring coins - even brass coins5 - worth a sela and say: "Wherever the sela of the second tithe is, its holiness is transferred to these coins." Afterwards, he should chose the better6 of the two [selaim] and transfer the holiness of the brass coins to it. Thus the better selahas been become the money of the second tithe.

Halacha 3

When [a father] tells his son: "Produce from the second tithe is found in this corner," and is found in another corner, it is ordinary produce.7 If he told him: "A maneh there,"8 and 200 were discovered, the remainder is ordinary money.9 "There are 200," and only a maneh was discovered, it is ordinary money.10 If he left a maneh and discovered 200 or 200 and discovered amaneh, the entire amount is ordinary money.11 [This applies] even if the money is found in two wallets.12

Halacha 4

If his father told him: "I have a pouch [with produce] from the second tithe at home," and [the son] found three pouches, the greater one is [considered as containing produce from] the second tithe13 and the remainder are [considered as containing produce containing] ordinary produce. Nevertheless, he should not make use of [the produce from] the smaller pouches until he transfers their holiness to the greater one.14

Halacha 5

[The following laws apply when] a person loses his power of speech. If he was asked: "Is your produce from the second tithe in this-and-this place?" and he nodded his head, he should be tested three times like he is tested with regard to a bill of divorce.15[If it is proven that he understands what he is being told,] his words have consequence.

Halacha 6

If one was told in a dream: "The produce from the second tithe of your father that you are seeking is in this-and-this place," [the statements are of no consequence.16This applies even] if he found the produce there like he was told. For words communicated in a dream are of no significance at all.17

Halacha 7

Although a person tells his sons: "Even if you are dying, do not touch [what is in] that corner,"18 if money is found there, it is considered as ordinary money.19[Different laws apply if] he buried money in their presence and told them: "It belongs to so-and-so" or "It is from the second tithe." If it appears that he is speaking with guile,20we do not pay attention to his words. If it appears that he is serious, his words are given weight.21

Halacha 8

When a person finds a container22 with the letter mem written on it, its contents23 [are considered as] the second tithe.24 When there is a daletwritten on it, its contents are considered demai; a tet, tevel; kuf, for a sacrifice. If the container was metal,25 the container and its contents were consecrated for a sacrifice. For in dangerous times,26 they would write one letter from the name [as a sign].

Halacha 9

When coins - even golden dinarim, together with silver, and [brass] coins27 - are found in Jerusalem, they are considered as ordinary money. [The rationale is that] the streets of Jerusalem are swept every day.28 If a shard upon which was written ma'aser,29 it is considered as the second tithe.30

When does the above apply? During the majority of the days of the year. On the pilgrimage festivals, by contrast, all [the money found] is considered as from the second tithe.31

Halacha 10

Money which is found in front of a seller of livestock in Jerusalem are always32 considered as from the second tithe. We operate under the assumption that the majority of the clients are bringing money from the second tithe and using it to purchase animals.33 [Money] which is found on the Temple Mount is always considered as ordinary funds. We operate under the assumption that it came from the Temple treasury and the treasurers had already transferred its holiness to an animal.34

Halacha 11

[The following rules apply when] money is found in a chest that had been used for both ordinary produce and the second tithe. If the majority of the people who placed money [in the chest placed money] from the second tithe, the money is considered as from the second tithe. If the majority placed ordinary money, the money is considered as ordinary money.35 If the ratio is half and half, the money is considered as ordinary money.36

Halacha 12

When one find produce between produce of the second tithe and produce that is terumah, it should be included among the type to which it is closest.37 If it is equidistant [from both], it should be eaten according to the stringencies that apply to both. Thus it is forbidden to non-priests; one must wash his hands [before partaking of it],38and must wait until sunset [on the day of one's purification before partaking of it]39like terumah. [Similarly,] it is forbidden to one in an acute state of mourning40 and must be brought [to Jerusalem] as required of the second tithe.

Similar principles apply with regard to coins that are found between ordinary coins and coins from the second tithe.

Halacha 13

When produce that is from the second tithe of demai and produce that is definitely from the second tithe are mixed together, [the mixture] must be eaten according to the more stringent requirements.41

Halacha 14

When produce from the second tithe becomes mixed with ordinary produce, [the mixture] should be eaten in a state of ritual purity in Jerusalem or the second tithe should be redeemed. Therefore if such a mixture takes place in Jerusalem,42 even the smallest amount of the same species43 becomes forbidden [to be eaten as ordinary produce]. Since the produce is in Jerusalem, it is considered as an entity that can be permitted44 and should be eaten in a state of ritual purity.

Halacha 15

When a person sows produce from the second tithe after it had entered Jerusalem,45 the produce which grows is considered as produce from the second tithe.46If he sows it before it enters Jerusalem,47 the produce which grows is considered as ordinary produce even if its seed does not decompose. [Preferably, however,] it should be redeemed at the time it was sown.48

Halacha 16

When produce from the second tithe is mixed with other substances, it is considered as nullified when mixed with a simple majority.49

To which produce from the second tithe does this apply? To produce that entered Jerusalem and then departed from there and afterwards, the walls of the city fell. Thus it is impossible to return it to [the holy city] and it is impossible to redeem since it has already entered that place. [This applies] even though [its fifth] is not worth a p'rutah.50It is a substance that has no way to be permitted and is there nullified by a simple majority, as stated in Hilchot Issurei Ma'achalot.51

FOOTNOTES

And if some coins are lost, the loss is deducted from the ordinary coins [the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (Ma'aser Sheni 2:5)]. The rationale is that it is possible that the coins of only one type were lost. As a stringency, we assume that it was the ordinary coins that were lost.

Before they fell (ibid.).

Since they were all mixed together, it is not likely that the loss was suffered by one type of coin alone.

The Radbaz maintains that even if the coins were mixed together after they fell, the money should be divided proportionally, because there is no way of knowing which type of coins one has in hand.

This applies in both instances, whether they are scattered or mixed together [the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (ibid.)].

It is, however, preferable to use silver (Radbaz). The Meiri differs and maintains that it is preferable to redeem the coins with brass.

As mentioned previously, in that time, the mintage of coins were not entirely standard and sometimes there were some fluctuations of weight. Also, some coins could have been affected by wear and tear.

Since it was not found in the place where he told him it was located, we assume that the produce from the second tithe was lost and this is new produce.

100 silver pieces.

I.e., we assume that his father did not mention the ordinary money that was there, but rather informed him only of the money that was from the second tithe, because only those funds were important from a ritual perspective.

We assume that the money from the second tithe was taken and that these are different funds.

Since the amount he discovered was not the same amount that he put there, we assume that the original funds were taken and that these are new funds. In this instance, the person placed the funds there himself. Hence, there is a difference between this instance and the first clause in which he was conveyed the information by his father.

The Ra'avad notes that the Rambam's ruling appears to be a departure from the ruling of the Mishnah (Ma'aser Sheni 4:12) which states that all of the 100 are the second tithe. The Kessef Mishneh explains that the Rambam's ruling is based on Beitzah 10b which follows this line of thinking.

In such an instance, one would have reason to think that one wallet contains the money that is the second tithe and the other ordinary money.

This is a stringency since it was not known which of the pouches contained the produce of the second tithe.

Lest in fact it had been the smaller ones that contain the produce from the second tithe.

See Hilchot Gerushin 2:16 which explains that a person who has lost his ability to speak, but is of sound mind is asked three questions which require different answers, i.e., two positive and one negative or vice versa. If he answers them correctly, the court concludes that he is mentally sound and continues asking him concerning the bill of divorce. See also Hilchot Mechirah 29:3.

And the produce is considered as ordinary produce.

See Hilchot Zechiyah UMatanah 10:7.

I.e., "even if you are dying of hunger do not take the money to spend on your own needs."

I.e., we do not say that the father meant that the money was from the second tithe and should not be used for ordinary purposes.

So that he does not appear to be rich or so that his sons don't waste the money immediately.

See also Hilchot Zechiyah UMatanah 10:5.

An earthenware container, as indicated by the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (Ma'aser Sheni 4:10).

Either money or produce.

The mem stands for ma'aser, "tithes." We do not think that the intent is the first tithe or the tithe for the poor, for the consumption of these is not restricted to a specific group.

In which instance, the container itself has value and we assume he consecrated it as well. In contrast, an earthenware container is not valuable and would not be consecrated.

I.e., in the era of Roman persecution when the Romans tried to stamp out the observance of the mitzvot and the Jews were afraid to write out the entire word.

Such a mixture might give the impression that this money was set aside for the second tithe, for generally people do not hold different types of coins together (Rav Yosef Corcus).

Generally, we assume that the money found in Jerusalem is ordinary money, because during the majority of the year, there are not that many pilgrims there. Thus we assume that the money fell from one of the inhabitants of Jerusalem. One might, however, object and say that perhaps the money fell from one of the pilgrims during the festivals (see below), but was not discovered until afterwards. Our Sages (Bava Metzia 26a) resolve that query by explaining that since - as a precaution, to remove dead lizards or other objects that impart ritual impurity - the streets of Jerusalem are swept every day, we can assume that any money lost on the festivals would already have been discovered and these are ordinary funds.

"Tithes," i.e., the second tithe, for it is the only money of the tithes that may not be used in an ordinary manner.

We do not suspect that perhaps the person was carrying ordinary money and the shard from a container in which he had once stored money from the second tithe [the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (Ma'aser Sheni 4:9)].

For then the majority of people in Jerusalem are pilgrims. They bring the money from the second tithes that they collected throughout the year to purchase food in Jerusalem. Thus at that time, most of the money circulating in Jerusalem is from the second tithe.

I.e., not only during the pilgrimage festivals, but throughout the year.

Animal could be purchased with the funds from the second tithe and this indeed was the practice of the majority of the pilgrims [see the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (Ma'aser Sheni 1:4)]. Even during the remainder of the year, there were some pilgrims who came to Jerusalem and they were the majority of the purchasers of animals for slaughter.

People were not allowed to bring money to the Temple Mount (Hilchot Beit HaBechirah7:2). Hence it is most likely that the money found there came from the Temple treasury. Now the priests would not take the money from the Temple treasury until they transferred its holiness to an animal. Hence we can assume that the holiness of the money had already been transferred and the status of the money found was ordinary [see the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (Shekalim 7:2)].

The Kessef Mishneh notes that this situation is discussed in greater detail in Pesachim 7a and questions why the Rambam does not cite all the particulars mentioned there.

The Ra'avad states that we should rule stringently and consider the majority as from the second tithe. The Radbaz also suggests that they should be considered as from the second tithe and redeemed on other money.

See parallels in Hilchot Shekalim 3:15;Hilchot Gezeilah ViAveidah 15:18.

As required by Hilchot Terumah 11:7.

39.

See ibid. 7:2.

40.

See Chapter 2, Halachah 1.

41.

The Radbaz states that this is also speaking about a situation where the mixed produce is equidistant from the other two. Chasdei David emphasizes that the Rambam does not say "according to the stringencies that apply to both," because there are no stringencies in the laws applying to the second tithe of demai over produce that is definitely from the second tithe. The stringencies applying to produce that is definitely from the second tithe are mentioned in Chapter 3, Halachot 8-9, Chapter 5, Halachah 4, and Chapter 11, Halachah 8.

42.

Where it is forbidden to redeem produce from the second tithe (Chapter 2, Halachah 8).

43.

Our translation differs from the standard published text of the Mishneh Torah and is based on authoritative manuscripts and early printings. Note the Kessef Mishnehwhich offers an alternative explanation.

See Hilchot Ma'achalot Assurot 15:12 which states that the stringency governing an entity that can be permitted applies only to mixtures of the same species.

44.

Because no prohibition will be violated if, as the Rambam continues, the entire mixture will be eaten in a state of ritual impurity.

45.

When it can no longer be redeemed.

46.

And must be treated with all the restrictions incumbent on such produce. This applies even if the seed from which the produce grows decomposes.

47.

At which point it can still be redeemed.

48.

Preferably, one should redeem it so that one is not nullifying a prohibition by leaving it in the ground, for this should not be done as an initial preference (Hilchot Ma'achalot Assurot16:12). After the fact, however, the prohibition is nullified.

49.

As opposed to other prohibited substances that require 60 or more times the amount of the prohibited substance.

50.

In which instance, the obligation to separate the second tithe is merely Rabbinic in origin (see Chapter 2, Halachah 9, and notes).

51.

Hilchot Ma'achalot Assurot 15:11 places restrictions on nullifying substances that can become permitted. Implied is that if a substance cannot become permitted, no such restrictions apply.

Maaser Sheini - Chapter 7

Halacha 1

Produce that was purchased with money from the second tithe1 should not be redeemed outside Jerusalem unless they contracted ritual impurity from a primary source of ritual impurity. Instead, they should be brought to Jerusalem and eaten there.

Halacha 2

This is the stringency of produce purchased with money from the second tithe over the produce of the second tithe itself. If, however, it contracted ritual impurity from a secondary source of ritual impurity,2 it should be redeemed and eaten in Jerusalem.3

Halacha 3

Money from the second tithe should be used only to purchase food for humans4 that grows from the earth or grows from the products of the earth, e.g., those entities explicitly mentioned in the Torah [Deuteronomy 14:26]: "Cattle, sheep,5 wine, and strong drink."

Halacha 4

For this reason, we do not purchase water, salt,6 truffles, and mushrooms7with money from the second tithes, because they are not products of the earth. Similarly, one should not purchase produce that is attached to the earth or produce that cannot be brought to Jerusalem,8because this does not resemble cattle and sheep.9

Halacha 5

Honey, eggs, and milk are considered like cattle and sheep. Even though they are not produces of the earth, they are the products of its products.10

Halacha 6

A mixture of water and grapes11 that has not turned to vinegar should not be purchased with money from the second tithe, because it is like water. Once it turns to vinegar, it can be purchased [with these funds] like wine or strong drink.12 If one purchased it before it fermented and then it fermented, it is acquired by the second tithe.13

Halacha 7

When does the above14 apply? When one mixed three units of water and received less than a fourth unit of the mixture. If, however, one mixed three units and received four,15 the mixture is considered as diluted wine and may be purchased with money from the second tithe.

Halacha 8

Buds from branches16 and carob trees17 before they become sweet may not be purchased [with money from the second tithe].18 After they become sweet, they may be purchased [with those funds]. But luf,19 mustard, vetch, and other produce that is pickled may be purchased [with these funds], whether they have already become sweet or not.20 Date hearts21 may be purchased with money from the second tithe.

Halacha 9

Safron may not be purchased [with these funds], for it serves only as a coloring. Similar laws apply in all analogous situations involving herbs that provide an aroma, color, or taste. Since these herbs are not [included] in foods to partake of be eaten for their substance, only for their flavor, they should not be purchased with money from the second tithe. Therefore spices,22 pepper, costus, chiltit,23 safflower, and the like may not be purchased with money from the second tithes.

Halacha 10

Anise, when used to flavor a cooked dish, should not be purchased with money from the second tithe. If it is used for a dip24 or the like, in which instance, it is part of the food itself, it can be purchased with money from the second tithe.25 If one mixed water and salt and put oil into it, it is considered as brine and may be purchased with money from the second tithe. The cost of the water and the salt should be included in the cost of the oil.26

Halacha 11

One may not use money of Maaser Sheni to purchase produce that isterumah27 because by doing so, one limits the consumption of both [theterumah] and [the second tithe]. For terumah may only be eaten by priests on the evening [after they immersed themselves].28It is permitted to those in the acute state of onein mourning and can be eaten in any place.29 The second tithe, by contrast, is permitted to non-priests and those who immersed themselves that day.30 It is forbidden to one in the acute state of oneinmourning and must be eaten in Jerusalem. Thus, [by purchasing terumah with such funds,] one restricts the consumption of the second tithe and the consumption of terumah.31

Halacha 12

A domesticated animal to be offered as a peace offering may be purchased32from the money of the second tithes,33 since peace offerings may be eaten by non-priests. At the outset, [pilgrims] would purchase animals with the money of the second tithe to partake of them as ordinary meat so that they would not be offered on the altar.34 [Hence,] the court decreed that one could not use these funds to purchase a domesticated animal unless it was brought as a peace offering. One may, however, use these funds to purchase non-domesticated animals35 or fowl, for these are unfit for peace offerings.

Halacha 13

The produce of the Sabbatical year may not be purchased with money from the second tithes, because there is an obligation to destroy it, as will be explained.36

Halacha 14

When a person purchases salt, produce that is still attached [to the ground], or produce that cannot be brought to Jerusalem, 37 they are not acquired by the second tithe38 even though the money is now considered as ordinary funds.39

Halacha 15

When a person inadvertently purchases produce outside of Jerusalem with money from the second tithe,40 the seller is compelled to return the money to the owner41 and it is considered as the second tithe as it was originally.42 If he makes the purchase intentionally,43 the produce he purchased must be taken to Jerusalem and eaten there.44 [In the age when] the Temple no longer exists,45 they should be put aside until they rot.46

Halacha 16

Similarly, a domesticated animal47 should not be purchased with money from the second tithe outside of Jerusalem. If one purchased it unknowingly, the money should be returned to its [owner]. If it was done intentionally, it should be brought to Jerusalem and eaten there. [In the age when] the Temple no longer exists, [the animal] and its hide should be buried.48

Halacha 17

[The following laws apply when] one purchases servants, land, or an unkosher animal, whether intentionally or unintentionally,49 [with money from the second tithe]. If the seller fled,50 [the purchaser] should [purchase food] with the amount of money he spent and eat it in Jerusalem under the restrictions applying to the second tithe. This is the general principle: If the seller fled or died, whenever one spent the money of the second tithe on matters other than food, drink, and daubs, he must partake of an equivalent [value of food in Jerusalem]. If the seller was present, the money should be returned to [the original owner].51 Similarly, if a person brought burnt offerings, sin offerings, or guilt offerings from the money of the second tithe,52 he must partake of an equivalent [value of food in Jerusalem].53

Halacha 18

When a person [used money from the second tithe to] purchase a non-domesticated animal for a peace offering54 or a domesticated animal to be eaten as ordinary meat,55 it is as if he [used it to] purchase an ox for plowing and the animal is not designated as a peace offering.56 If he purchased a domesticated animal to be offered as a peace offering and it became blemished, the holiness of the second tithe leaves it. It should be redeemed57and the funds are not considered as money from the second tithe. Nevertheless, if he redeems it himself,58 he must add a fifth of its value.59

Halacha 19

When one consecrates money from the second tithe for [the purpose of purchasing] a peace offering, the consecration is not effective, 60 for the sanctity of the peace offering does not encompass [an entity already] sanctified to the second tithe. For the second tithe is the property of the Most High.61 Needless to say, this applies if he consecrates the produce of the second tithe itself for the purpose of purchasing] a peace offering, the consecration is not effective.

Halacha 20

[The following laws apply when a person] partakes of entities consecrated to the second tithe as ordinary produce [outside of Jerusalem], even intentionally. If he partook of the produce from the second tithe itself, he should cry out to heaven.62 If he [used] money from the second tithe [to purchase other food that] he ate, the money should be returned to its [owner]63 and he should bring them to Jerusalem and partake of them there. Alternatively, if the money cannot be returned, he should [purchase food] with the amount of money he spent and eat it in Jerusalem.

FOOTNOTES

The rationale is that since the produce was redeemed once, it should not be redeemed a second time.

Our translation follows authoritative manuscripts and early printings. The standard printed text of the Mishneh Torahadds the phrase "because of Rabbinic decree."

The rules governing this produce have a double dimension of severity. Since according to Scriptural Law, this produce is ritually pure, our Sages were stringent and required it to be brought to Jerusalem and eaten there. Nevertheless, to support their decree of ritual impurity, they also required that it be redeemed (Kessef Mishneh).

I.e., and not animal fodder.

I.e., these types of livestock do not grow from the earth, but they derive their nature by pasturing on the earth's products.

Moreover, even if water and salt are mixed together with produce, that produce should not be purchased with money from the second tithes (Radbaz). See Halachah 14 with regard to such purchases.

Truffles and mushrooms do not have roots and do not derive nurture from the earth.

I.e., it will spoil in the course of the journey.

Which are detached entities that can make the journey to Jerusalem without being spoiled.

Eggs and milk are animal products and the animals receive their nurture from the earth and honey is actually the sap of flowers.

In his Commentary to the Mishnah (Ma'aser Sheni 1:3), the Rambam explains that timedis made by mixed grape dregs with water and leaving it to turn into vinegar.

For the water originally included in it is not considered significant.

The Radbaz explains that when the transaction was first made, it was invalid. Hence, the money remained holy. Afterwards, when the mixture turns into vinegar, the transaction is completed and the holiness of the money is transferred. Rashi (Chulin 27a) offers a different explanation.

I.e., the restriction against purchasing a mixture of grape dregs and water with money from the second tithe.

And thus the water drew out a significant amount of grape juice from the dregs.

In his Commentary to the Mishnah (Shvi'it7:5; Uktzin 3:4), the Rambam explains that branches of shrubs that grow in vineyards are pickled in brine while they are still soft and then eaten. They are, nevertheless, not eaten by all people and the money from the second tithe may only be used to purchase food.

This refers to branches of the carob tree, because the carobs themselves are considered as food, as stated in Chapter 1, Halachah 3.

Because in this state, they are not fit to be eaten.

The commentaries have noted that the Rambam's ruling in Hilchot Shabbat 18:6 implies the direct opposite: that before they become sweet, they are considered as food for humans and after they become sweet, they are considered as food for animals. This issue is discussed by the later commentaries.

A sub-species of the onion family.

Since these species are more commonly eaten, they are considered as food even though they are not yet fit to be to eaten.

In his Commentary to the Mishnah (Uktzin3:4), the Rambam defines this term as referring to the tip of the date palm which is like dried cheese and is eaten by people.

In his Commentary to the Mishnah (ibid.:5), the Rambam gives cinnamon, nutmeg, spikenard, and other similar species as examples.

A sharp and pungent herb.

This refers to a mixture of milk and bread crumbs referred to in the Talmud as kutach.

See Hilchot Tuma'at Ochalin 1:7 which makes similar statements with regard to anise.

For in truth, only the oil can be purchased with the money of the second tithe. Nevertheless, the water and the salt are considered as subordinate to the oil and hence, can be included in its price.

The Rambam uses a plural term forterumah, for he includes both the greatterumah and terumat ma'aser in this prohibition.

See Hilchot Terumah 7:2. Needless to say, it may also be eaten by priests who were ritually impure and who did not need to immerse themselves, but the Rambam is mentioning the aspect of the laws in which it differs from the second tithe, as he proceeds to state.

As indicated by the following clause, the second tithe differs from terumah in all these matters.

The second tithe must also be eaten in a state of ritual purity. Nevertheless, in contrast to terumah, it may be eaten directly after one immerses oneself in a mikveh. He need not wait until the evening.

And it is forbidden to restriction the consumption of sacred foods. See Hilchot Pesulei HaMukdashin 6:12 and Hilchot Ma'aseh HaKorbanot 10:10.

In Jerusalem. See Halachah 16 and Chapter 4, Halachah 6.

See the Commentary of Rav Ovadiah of Bartenura to Ma'aser Sheni 1:2 which states that the fundamental mitzvah is to use the money from the second tithe to purchase peace offerings.

For by offering them on the altar, they would have to give certain portions of the meat to the priests.

E.g., deer. Our Sages did not include the purchase of these animals in their decree.

See Hilchot Shemitah VeYoval 7:1 which explains that after the Sabbatical year, the produce that remains must be destroyed. Thus by purchasing this produce with funds from the second tithe, one would be reducing its use.

All of these should not be purchased with money from the second tithe as stated in Halachah 4.