תלמוד ירושלמי מעשר שני א׳:א׳

משנה: מַעֲשֵׂר שֵׁינִי אֵין מוֹכְרִין אוֹתוֹ וְאֵין מְמַשְׁכְּנִין אוֹתוֹ וְאֵין מַחֲלִיפִין אוֹתוֹ וְלֹא שׁוֹקְלִין כְּנֶגְדּוֹ וְלֹא יֹאמַר אָדָם לַחֲבֵירוֹ בִּירוּשָׁלֵם הֵילָךְ יַיִן וְתֵן לִי שֶׁמֶן וְכֵן כָּל־שְׁאָר הַפֵּירוֹת אֲבָל נוֹתְנִין זֶה לַזֶּה מַּתְּנַת חִנָּם. מַעֲשֵׂר בְּהֵמָה אֵין מוֹכְרִין אוֹתוֹ תָּמִים חַי. וְלֹא בַּעַל מוּם חַי וְשָׁחוּט וְאֵין מְקַדְּשִׁין בּוֹ אֶת הָאִשָּׁה. הַבְּכוֹר מוֹכְרִין אוֹתוֹ תָּמִים חַי. וּבַעַל מוּם חַי וְשָׁחוּט וּמְקַדְּשִׁין בּוֹ אֶת הָאִשָּׁה. וְאֵין מְחַלְלִין מַעֲשֵׂר שֵׁנִי עַל אַסֵּימוֹן וְלֹא עַל הַמַּטְבֵּעַ שֶׁאֵינוֹ יוֹצֵא וְלֹא עַל הַמָּעוֹת שֶׁאֵינָן בִּרְשׁוּתוֹ. MISHNAH: One does not sell Second Tithe¹One may not sell Second Tithe as such, that it should be Second Tithe in the hand of the buyer. One may exchange Second Tithe for money (Deuteronomy.14.25">Deut. 14:25), transfer its holiness to the money, and render the produce profane which then may be sold; cf. Mishnah 4:1. The money has to be spent for pure food in Jerusalem to be consumed by the rules of holiness., one does not take it as a pledge, one does not barter it, and one does not weigh corresponding to it²As long as it retains its status as Second Tithe.. One should not say to his neighbor in Jerusalem, here you have wine, give me its value in oil, but they may give free gifts to one another.
One may not sell animal tithe unblemished alive, or blemished⁴¹A blemished tenth animal (or firstling) is holy but must be eaten as profane food away from the Temple. alive or slaughtered, and one may not use it for preliminarily marrying a woman⁴²Peah 6:2:6" href="/Jerusalem_Talmud_Peah.6.2.6">Peah 6:2, Note 46. The husband has to give his bride something of his possessions. For R. Meїr, Second Tithe is not the farmer’s property but given to him by Heaven.. One⁴³Not the rancher whose animal produced a firstling but the Cohen who receives it. The firstling becomes the property of the Cohen. Since his bride becomes a member of the tribe upon consummation of the marriage, she then will have full use of the firstling for food even if it is unblemished. may sell a firstling unblemished alive, blemished alive or slaughtered⁴⁴A slaughtered blemished firstling may be sold by the Cohen as food even to a Gentile (Bekhorot.28a">Bekhorot 28a)., and one may use it for preliminarily marrying a woman. One does not exchange Second Tithe by a blank⁴⁵Greek ἄσημος, -ον “without mark; uncoined”, a blank for coining. Cf. D. Sperber, Roman Palestine 200–400, Money and Prices (Ramat Gan, 1974), Note 12 on p. 208., or by a coin not in circulation⁴⁶Any coin which is not legal tender at the place of redemption is merchandise, not money., or on money not in his possession⁴⁷Second Tithe cannot be exchanged pledging future income, or outstanding loans, or by one’s own but inacessible money..

הלכה: מַעֲשֵׂר שֵׁינִי אֵין מוֹכְרִין אוֹתוֹ. אֵין מוֹכְרִין אוֹתוֹ מִפְּנֵי שֶׁכָּתוּב בּוֹ קְדוּשָׁה. אֵין מְמַשְׁכְּנִין אוֹתוֹ מִפְּנֵי שֶׁכָּתוּב בּוֹ בְּרָכָה. כֵּיצַד אֵין מוֹכְרִין אוֹתוֹ. לֹא יֹאמַר אָדָם לַחֲבֵירוֹ הָא לָךְ אֶת הַמָּנֶה הַזֶּה שֶׁלְמַעֲשֵׂר שֵׁנִי וְתֵן לִי בוֹ חֲמִשִּׁים זוּז שֶׁלְחוּלִין. HALAKHAH: “One does not sell Second Tithe.” One does not sell it because holiness is written for it³Leviticus.27.30">Lev. 27:30.. One does not use it as a pledge because blessing is written about it⁴Deuteronomy.14.24">Deut. 14:24. Taking a loan and giving a pledge is not a sign of blessing.. “⁵A similar text in Tosephta 1:1: “How may one not sell it? One should not say, here is 200 [zuz] worth, give me 100 in exchange.” If Second Tithe were sold, it would not be redeemed and the buyer would have to eat the produce in purity and sanctity in Jerusalem (assuming the existence of the Temple.) How may one not sell it? A person should not say to his neighbor, here you have this mina’s worth of Second Tithe, give me 50 zuz profane for it.”

מָאן תַּנָּא אֵין מוֹכְרִין אוֹתוֹ רִבִּי מֵאִיר. בְּרַם כְּרִבִּי יוּדָה בְּדִין הוּא שֶׁיְהֵא מוּתָּר לְמוֹכְרוֹ מִקַּל וָחוֹמֶר. מַה אִם תְּרוּמָה שֶׁהִיא אֲסוּרָה לְזָרִים מוּתָּר לְמוֹכְרָהּ. מַעֲשֵׂר שֵׁינִי שֶׁהוּא מוּתָּר לְזָרִים אֵינוֹ דִּין שֶׁיְהֵא מוּתָּר לְמוֹכְרוֹ. לֹא. אִם אָמַרְתָּ בִּתְרוּמָה שֶׁאֵינָהּ טְעוּנָה מְחִיצָה תֹּאמַר בְּמַעֲשֵׂר שֵׁינִי שֶׁהוּא טָעוּן מְחִיצָה. בִּיכּוּרִים יוֹכִיחוּ שֶׁהֵן טְעוֹנִין מְחִיצָה וּמוּתָּר לְמוֹכְרָן. לֹא. אִם אָמַרְתָּ בְּבִיכּוּרִין שֶׁאֵינָן תּוֹפְסִין אֶת דְּמֵיהֶן. תֹּאמַר בְּמַעֲשֵׂר שֵׁינִי שֶׁהוּא תוֹפֵשׂ אֶת דָּמָיו. שְׁבִיעִית תּוֹכִיחַ שֶׁהִיא תוֹפֶסֶת אֶת דָּמֶיהָ וּמוּתָּר לְמוֹכְרָהּ. אָמַר רִבִּי יוּדָן מִזּוֹ מְכִירָתָהּ שֶׁלַּשְּׁבִיעִית הִיא חִילוּלָהּ. Who is the Tanna of “one does not sell it”? Rebbi Meїr⁶R. Meїr considers Second Tithe as property of Heaven given to the farmer for consumption in holiness. For R. Jehudah, Second Tithe is private property. Their disagreement is in Kiddushin 2:7:1" href="/Jerusalem_Talmud_Kiddushin.2.7.1">Mishnah Qiddušin 2:8, cf. Demay Chapter 1, Notes 185–186.! But for Rebbi Jehudah it should be logical that it be permitted to be sold, by an argument a minore ad majus: If it is permitted to sell heave⁷As mentioned many times in Mishnah Terumot; e. g. Mishnah 4:1. which is forbidden to lay people, since Second Tithe is permitted to lay people, one should certainly be permitted to sell it. No, if you assert this for heave which does not need an enclosure, what can you imply for Second Tithe which needs an enclosure⁸Deuteronomy.14.24">Deut. 14:24 requires that Second Tithe be consumed “at the place chosen by the Eternal, your God.” This place must be designated somehow. We have no record that the sanctuary at Shilo was within walls, but some enclosure must have defined the sacred space. It is accepted that the ancient walls of Jerusalem defined the sacred space for Second Tithe. In contrast, heave may be consumed by the priests anywhere in the Land.? First Fruits shall prove it which need an enclosure⁹Since they have to be brought to the Temple. The operative enclosure here is the courtyard of the Tabernacle or the outer wall of the Temple. The receiving priest is permitted to sell to another priest. and one may sell them! No, if you assert this for First Fruits which do not implicate their monetary substitute¹⁰The money is profane., what can you imply for Second Heave which implicates its monetary substitute¹¹The money must be taken to Jerusalem as Second Tithe, Deuteronomy.14.24">Deut. 14:24. The argument could have been formulated: The sale of First Fruits is a sale, the sale of Second Tithe is a redemption.! The Sabbatical shall prove it which implicates its monetary substitute¹²Mishnah Ševi‘it 8:8. and it is permitted to sell it! Rebbi Yudan said, from this? The sale of Sabbatical produce is its redemption¹³The sale of Sabbatical produce, as authorized in Mishnah Ševi‘it Chapter 8, cannot be characterized as a sale but is a redemption which does not impinge on the holiness of the produce which remains Sabbatical. But exchanged Second Tithe is totally profane. Therefore, there is no proof that R. Jehudah would permit the sale of unexchanged Second Tithe..

אָמַר רִבִּי יִרְמְיָה מָאן תַּנָּא אֵין מוֹכְרִין אוֹתוֹ רִבִּי מֵאִיר. בְּרֵם כְּרִבִּי יוּדָן בְּדִין הוּא שֶׁיְהֵא מוּתָּר לְמוֹכְרוֹ מִקַּל וָחוֹמֶר מַה אִם שְׁבִיעִית שֶׁאֵין פּוֹרְעִין חוֹב מִדָּמֶיהָ מוּתָּר לְמוֹכְרָהּ. מַעֲשֵׂר שֵׁינִי שֶׁפּוֹרְעִין חוֹב מִדָּמָיו אֵינוֹ דִּין שֶׁיְהֵא מוּתָּר לְמוֹכְרוֹ. הָא אַשְׁכַּחְנָן שֶׁפּוֹרְעִין חוֹב מִדָּמָיו כַּי דְתַנִּינָן תַּמָּן מָשַׁךְ הִימֶּינּוּ מַעֲשֵׂר בְּסֶלַע. לֹא הִסְפִּיק לִפְדּוֹתוֹ עַד שֶׁעָמַד בִּשְׁתַּיִם. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹסֵי שַׁנְייָא הִיא. שֶׁמִּשָׁעָה הָרִאשׁוֹנָה מַעֲשֵׂר שֵׁינִי חַייָב. אִילּוּ חַייָב הָיָה לֹו וְנָתָן לוֹ מֵעֲשֵׂר יְאוּת. אָמַר רִבִּי יוּדָן מַתְנִיתָא אָֽמְרָה כֵן שֶׁהוּא אָסוּר לְמוֹכְרוֹ. דְּתַנִּינָן תַּמָּן מֵזִיד קִידֵּשׁ שׁוֹגֵג לֹא קִידֵּשׁ. אִם אַתְּ אוֹמֵר יְהֵא מוּתָּר לְמוֹכְרוֹ יְהֵא מוּתָּר לְקַדֵּשׁ בּוֹ. וְכָל־שֶׁהוּא אָסוּר לְמוֹכְרוֹ אָסוּר לְקַדֵּשׁ בּוֹ. וְהָתַנִּינָן אֵין לוֹקְחִין עֲבָדִים וְקַרְקָעוֹת וּבְהֵמָה טְמֵיאָה מִדְּמֵי שְׁבִיעִית. וְאִם לָקַח יֹאכַל כְּנֶגְדָּהּ. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹסֵי זֹאת אוֹמֶרֶת שֶׁאָסוּר לִיקַּח אִשָּׁה מִדְּמֵי שְׁבִיעִית. דִּלֹכֵן מַה בֵּין קוֹנֶה אִשָּׁה מַה בֵּין קוֹנֶה שִׁפְחָה. רִבִּי יוֹסֵי בְשֵׁם רִבִּי זְעִירָא רִבִּי יוּדָן בְּשֵׁם רִבִּי ייִלָא דִּבְרֵי הַכֹּל הִיא מִפְּנֵי פִּילְפּוּלוֹ. רִבִּי יוֹסֵי בְשֵׁם רִבִּי אָחָא דִּבְרֵי הַכֹּל הִיא כְּדֵי שֶׁיְהוּ הַכֹּל זְקוּקִין לִמְחִיצָתָן. Rebbi Jeremiah said, who is the Tanna of “one does not sell it”? Rebbi Meїr⁶R. Meїr considers Second Tithe as property of Heaven given to the farmer for consumption in holiness. For R. Jehudah, Second Tithe is private property. Their disagreement is in Kiddushin 2:7:1" href="/Jerusalem_Talmud_Kiddushin.2.7.1">Mishnah Qiddušin 2:8, cf. Demay Chapter 1, Notes 185–186.! But for Rebbi Jehudah it should be logical that it be permitted to be sold, by an argument a minore ad majus: If it is permitted to sell Sabbatical produce with which one may not liquidate one’s debts¹⁴Demay 3:1, Notes 13–14., it is logical that it should be permitted to sell Second Tithe since with it one may liquidate one’s debts. We find that one may liquidate one’s debts with Second Tithe, following what we stated¹⁵Mishnah Ma‘aser Šeni 4:6. The text quotes only the beginning of the Mishnah but the argument is from the second part: If the buyer took possession of the Second Tithe when it was worth 2 tetradrachmas but did not exchange it until its value decreased to 1 tetradrachma, he gives the seller one tetradrachma of profane money (for redemption); the second tetradrachma he may take out of his own Second Tithe money. This means that he may use his Second Tithe money to liquidate the debt he incurred when he took possession of the Second Tithe.: “If he took from him tithe worth one tetradrachma and did not come to exchange it until it was worth two.” Rebbi Yose said, there is a difference since from the start the value of Second Tithe was due. If he had owed before, it would be an argument¹⁶There is no proof that Second Tithe money may be used for anything but Second Tithe or profane food to be turned into Second Tithe.. Rebbi Yudan said, a Mishnah said that it is forbidden to sell it, as we stated there¹⁷Kiddushin 2:7:1" href="/Jerusalem_Talmud_Kiddushin.2.7.1">Mishnah Qiddušin 2:8. The Mishnah states that no tithe may be used for the money due the bride at the preliminary marriage ceremony (cf. Demay 1:3, Notes 185–187; Peak 6:2 Note 46, 7:6 Note 135). R. Jehudah holds that if the groom criminally alienated Second Tithe from its intended use and used it as bridal money, the former Second Tithe now is his private property (for which restitution is due) which may be used as bridal money. But this implies that Second Tithe cannot be used in the absence of criminal intent since if it was used inadvertently, without criminal intent, Second Tithe is Heaven’s property and the preliminary marriage is invalid.: “If intentional, he married, if in error, he did not marry.” If you say that he may sell it, he should be able to use it for marriage but anything he may not sell he may not use for marriage. But did we not state¹⁸Sheviit 8:8" href="/Mishnah_Sheviit.8.8">Ševi‘it Mishnah and Halakhah 8:8, Notes 114, 115, 118.: “One does not buy slaves, real estate, and unclean animals from Sabbatical money. If he bought them, he has to eat their worth.” Rebbi Yose said, this means that it is forbidden to acquire a wife with Sabbatical money. Otherwise, what is the difference between one who acquires a wife and one who acquires a slave girl? Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Zeïra, Rebbi Yudan in the name of Rebbi Ila, everybody agrees because of these arguments. Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Aḥa, everybody agrees that all should need the enclosures¹⁹The first opinion of R. Yose states that the previous arguments showed that R. Jehudah agrees that Second Tithe may not be sold but only exchanged. The second opinion states that this is not a biblical law but a rabbinic institution so that, if the Temple is rebuilt, everybody has an interest in seeing to it that the walls of Jerusalem will be in good shape..

כֵּיצַד אֵין מֲמַשְׁכְּנִין אוֹתוֹ הַנִּכְנָס לְתוֹךְ בֵּיתוֹ שֶׁל חֲבֵירוֹ לְמַשְׁכְּנוֹ אַל יְמַשְׁכֵּן מַעֲשֵׂר שֵׁינִי שֶׁלּוֹ. תַּנֵּי וְלֹא מַרְהִינִין אוֹתוֹ וְלֹא יִתְּנֶינּוּ לְחֶנְװָנִי שֶׁיֹּאכַל עָלָיו. עָבַר וּמִישְׁכֵּן עָבַר וְהִירְהֵן. ייָבֹא כְּהָדָא הָאוֹכֵל מַעֲשֵׂר שֵׁינִי שֶׁלּוֹ בֵּין שׁוֹגֵג בֵּין מֵזִיד יִצְעַק לַשָּׁמַיִם דִּבְרֵי רַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל. רִבִּי אוֹמֵר שׁוֹגֵג יִצְעַק לַשָּׁמַיִם מֵזִיד יַחְזְרוּ דָמָיו לִמְקוֹמָן. וְאִם הָיוּ מָעוֹת. שׁוֹגֵג יִצְעַק לַשָּׁמַיִם מֵזִיד יַחְזְרוּ דָמָיו לִמְקוֹמָן דִּבְרֵי רַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל. רִבִּי אוֹמֵר בֵּין שׁוֹגֵג בֵּין מֵזִיד יַחְזְרוּ דָמָיו לִמְקוֹמָן. רִבִּי זְרִיקָה בְשֵׁם חִזְקִיָּה הֲלָכָה כְּרִבִּי בְּמָעוֹת וּכְרַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל בְּפֵירוֹת. אָמַר רִבִּי ייִלָא מַעֲשֶׂה הָיָה וְהוֹרוּ כְרִבִּי בְּמָעוֹת. “²⁰Tosephta 1:1. How does one not take it as a pledge? He who enters another’s house to take a pledge should not take his debtor’s Second Tithe as pledge.” It was stated: “One does not give it as a deposit and he should not give it to a grocer to receive food in its value.²¹In Tosephta 1:2: One does not give it as a deposit; he should not say, keep this tithe in your hands and give me profane [produce] for its value.” If one transgressed and took as pledge, trangressed and gave as deposit? It shall be as the following²²Tosephta 3:9–10; the Yerushalmi text is parallel to the Erfurt ms.: “If somebody eats his Second Tithe, whether in error or intentionally, he shall cry out to Heaven²³There is no replacement; his sin can be forgiven only by divine mercy., the words of Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel. Rebbi says, in error he shall cry out to Heaven, intentionally the money’s worth shall be restituted. If it was money, in error he shall cry out to Heaven, intentionally the money’s worth shall be restituted, the words of Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel. Rebbi says, whether in error or intentionally, the money’s worth shall be restituted.” Rebbi Zeriqa in the name of Ḥizqiah: Practice follows Rebbi for money and Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel for produce. Rebbi Ila said, there was a case about money and they instructed following Rebbi.

אוֹ ייָבֹא כְּהָדָא אֵין נוֹטְעִין וְאֵין מַבְרִיכִין וְאֵין מַרְכִּיבִין עֶרֶב שְׁבִיעִית פָּחוֹת מִשְּׁלֹשִׁים יוֹם לִפְנֵי רֹאשׁ הַשָּׁנָה וְאִם נָטַע אוֹ הִרְכִּיב אוֹ הִבְרִיךְ יַעֲקוֹר. לֹא עָקַר פֵּירוֹתָיו מַה הֵן. רִבִּי בָּא רִבִּי אִמִּי הֲווֹן יְתִיבִין בְּצוֹר אָתָא עוּבְדָּא קוֹמֵיהוֹן וְהוֹרֵי רִבִּי אִילָא יִשְׁפְּכוּ פֵּירוֹתָיו. אָמַר רִבִּי בָּא אֲנִי לֹא נִמְנֵיתִי עִמָּהֶם בַּעֲלִייָה. נָֽפְקִין וְשָֽׁמְעוּן רִבִּי יוֹנָה וְרִבִּי יִצְחָק בַּר טֶבֶלַיי בְשֵׁם רִבִּי לָֽעְזָר אֵין מְחַדְּשִׁין עַל הַגְּזֵירָה. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹסֵי רִבִּי יִצְחָק בַּר טֶבֶלַיי בְשֵׁם רִבִּי לָֽעְזָר אֵין מוֹסִיפִין עַל הַהֲלָכָה. Or it may follow this: ²⁴The entire paragraph is in Ševi‘it 32:6, Notes 42–47.“One does not plant, sink, or graft in the year preceding a Sabbatical year later than thirty days before the New Year; if he planted, grafted, or sank he has to uproot it.” If one did not uproot, what is with its yield? Rebbi Abba [and] Rebbi Immi²⁵In Ševi‘it: Rebbi La. The next sentence shows that this is the correct text. were sitting in Tyre when a case came before them. Rebbi La taught that the fruits should be thrown away. Rebbi Abba said, I was not counted with them on the upper floor. They said, let us go out and study. They went out and heard Rebbi Jonah and Rebbi Isaac bar Tevele in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: One does not make a new restriction. Rebbi Yose, Rebbi Isaac bar Tevele in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: One does not add to an established practice.

רִבִּי יַעֲקֹב בַּר אָחָא בְשֵׁם רִבִּי זְעִירָא מִן מַה דְתַנֵּי אֵין מֲמַשְׁכְּנִין אוֹתוֹ וְלֹא מַרְהִינִין אוֹתוֹ הָדָא אָֽמְרָה עָבַר וּמִישְׁכֵּן עָבַר וְהִרְהֵין קוֹנְסִין בּוֹ. Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Zeïra: Since it was stated, “one does not take it as a pledge nor give it as a deposit”, this means that if one transgressed and took it as a pledge, trangressed and gave as a deposit, one fines him for it²⁶The court will remove pledge or deposit (Maimonides, Ma‘aser Šeni 3:18)..

וְלֹא שׁוֹקְלִין כְּנֶגְדּוֹ מָעוֹת אֲפִילוּ סֶלַע שֶׁלְחוּלִין לַעֲשׂוֹת סֶלַע שֶּׁלְמַעֲשֵׂר שֵׁנִי. הָיָה לוֹ סֶלַע שֶּׁלְמַעֲשֵׂר וְהִיא מְסוּייֶמֶת לוֹ מַהוּ שֶׁיִּשְׁקוֹל כְּנֶגֶד הַסֶּלַע שֶּׁלְמַעֲשֵׂר שֵׁינִי אֲחֶרֶת וּתְהֵא מְסוּייֶמֶת לוֹ. הָאַחִין שֶׁחָֽלְקוּ מַהוּ שֶׁיִּשְׁקְלוּ זֶה כְנֶגֶד זֶה. “²⁷Tosephta 1:1, in slightly different wording. One does not use it²⁸Coins of Second Tithe whose weight is known may not be used on scales to determine the weight of other things. to weigh coins²⁹To see whether they have the legal weight., not even a profane tetradrachma to turn it into a tetradrachma of Second Tithe.” If he had a tetradrachma of Second Tithe whose weight was known to him, may he use it to weigh another tetradrachma of Second Tithe so that its weight should be known to him? May brothers who split [an inheritance] weigh one against the other³⁰To split the Second Tithe money evenly. The questions are not answered but if the answer to the first question were in the negative, the second question could not have been asked. Therefore, the answer to the first question must be affirmative and by the parallelism of the questions one may infer that the second question also must be answered in the affirmative: Second Tithe money may be weighed for purposes of Second Tithe. {In the Babli, the questions would be put into a lengthy rhetorical frame centered on the expression תמצי לומר אם.}?

תְּנָן לֹא יֹאמַר אָדָם לַחֲבֵירוֹ בִּירוּשָׁלֵם הָא לָךְ יַיִן וְתֵן לִי שֶׁמֶן. הָא לָךְ שֶׁמֶן וְתֵן לִי יַיִן. אֲבָל אוֹמֵר לוֹ הָא לָךְ יַיִן שֶׁאֵין לָךְ יַיִן הָא לָךְ שֶׁמֶן שֶׁאֵין לָךְ שֶׁמֶן. הָא לָךְ יַיִן שֶׁאֵין לִי שֶׁמֶן הֲווֹן בָּעֵיי מֵימַר אָסוּר. אַשְׁכַּח תַּנֵּי מוּתָּר. וְאֵינוֹ אָסוּר מִשּׁוּם חֲלִיפִּין. מִכֵּיוָן שֶׁאֵינוֹ יָכוֹל לְהוֹצִיאוֹ מִמֶּנּוּ בְּדִין אֵין אֵילּוּ חֲלִיפִּין. וְלֵיידָא מִילָּא אָמַר הָא לָךְ יַיִן שֶׁאֵין לִי שֶׁמֶן. דְּאִילּוּ הֲוָה לִי מְשַׁח הֲוִינָא מִיתַּן לָךְ. We have stated³¹It should read תני; תנן is Babylonian Aramaic for a quote from the Mishnah.: “One should not say to his neighbor in Jerusalem, here you have wine, give me its value in oil, here you have oil, give me its value in wine. But he may say to him, here you have wine since you have no wine, here you have oil since you have no oil³²Tosephta 1:2: “How does one not barter? A person should not say, here you have wine, give me its value in oil, here you have oil, give me its value in wine. But he may say to him, here you have wine since I have no oil, and the other one says, here you have oil since I have no wine. It turns out that they exchange but do not barter; they do favors for one another.” With this text, the discussion in the paragraph becomes unnecessary..” Here you have wine since I have no oil, they wanted to say that this is forbidden. They found stated: “It is permitted.” Is it not forbidden because of barter? Since he cannot enforce it in a court, this is not barter. Why could he have said: Here you have wine since I have no oil? If I had oil, I would give you that also.

אֲבָל נוֹתְנִין זֶה לַזֶּה מַּתְּנַת חִנָּם. מַתְנִיתִין דְּרִבִּי מֵאִיר דּוּ רִבִּי מֵאִיר אָמַר אֵין מַתָּנָה כְּמֶכֶר. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹסֵי דִּבְרֵי הַכֹּל הִיא הָכָא כְּהָדָא דְתַנֵּי. הָיָה אוֹמֵר אָדָם לַחֲבֵירוֹ מַה אָכַלְתָּ הַיּוֹם וְהוּא אוֹמֵר לוֹ קַיִץ וְהָיָה יוֹדֵעַ שֶׁהוּא בְּכוֹר. מַה הַקַּייִץ נִמְכַּר בְּזוֹל. אַף הַבְּכוֹר נִמְכַּר בְּזוֹל. הָיָה אוֹמֵר לוֹ מָן וְהָיָה יוֹדֵעַ שֶׁהוּא מַעֲשֵׂר שֵׁינִי. מַה הַמָּן נִיתַּן בְּמַתָּנָה אַף מַעֲשֵׂר שֵׁינִי נִיתַּן בְּמַתָּנָה. הָתִיבוּן הֲרֵי מַעֲשֵׂר בְּהֵמָה דִּבְרֵי הַכֹּל אֵינוֹ נִמְכַּר וְאַתְּ אָֽמְרָת נִיתַּן בְּמַתָּנָה. אַף זֶה נִיתַּן בְּמַתָּנָה. רִבִּי מָנָא לֹא אָמַר כֵּן אֶלָּא כְּרִבִּי יוּדָה דְּרִבִּי יוּדָה אָמַר עָשָׂה אוֹתוֹ כִּנְכָסָיו. הָתִיבוּן הֲרֵי מַעֲשֵׂר בְּהֵמָה דִּבְרֵי הַכֹּל אֵינוֹ כִּנְכָסָיו וְאַתְּ אָמַר נִיתַּן בְּמַתָּנָה. אַף זֶה נִיתַּן מַתָּנָה. “But they may give free gifts to one another.” Our Mishnah is Rebbi Meїr’s since Rebbi Meїr says a gift is not like a sale³⁴Ma‘serot 2:1, Note 5.. Rebbi Yose said, here it is everybody’s opinion, following what was stated: A person says to his neighbor [in Jerusalem]: What did you eat today? If that one says summer figs³⁵As explained in Ekhah Rabbati 1, in Jerusalem one always talked in hints., he knows that it was firstling. Just as summer figs are sold cheaply, so firstlings are sold cheaply³⁶A first-born animal becomes property of a Cohen. It may not be sold by weight or in a store and the buyers can only be Cohanim unless it is a blemished animal which may not be used as a sacrifice. Therefore, it can only be sold cheaply.. If that one said manna, he knows that it was Second Tithe. Just as manna was given as a gift, so Second Tithe may be given as a gift. They objected: Everybody agrees that animal tithe cannot be sold³⁷Animal tithe (Leviticus.27.32">Lev. 27:32) must be eaten as a sacrifice; if without blemish its blood and fat are burned on the altar and the meat may be eaten by any pure person in the holy precinct (i. e., inside the walls of Jerusalem.) The rancher who brings the sacrifice may invite anybody to partake of the meat. Since it is holy it may not be sold; it follows that the meat may be given as a gift. It is impossible to distinguish between Second Tithe and animal tithe in this respect.; do you say it can be given as a gift? This also can be given as a gift. Rebbi Mana did not say so but was following Rebbi Jehudah since Rebbi Jehudah said He made it one’s property³⁸Kiddushin 2:7:1" href="/Jerusalem_Talmud_Kiddushin.2.7.1">Mishnah Qiddušin 2:8, quoted in the next Halakhah, notes that for R. Meїr, Second Tithe is Heaven’s property but for R. Jehudah it is the farmer’s property. Cf. also Demay 1:3, Note 185.. They objected: Everybody agrees that animal tithe is not one’s property³⁹By being counted as tenth animal, it becomes automatically dedicated as a sacrifice.; do you say it can be given as a gift? This also can be given as a gift⁴⁰As noted in Note 37. The animal tithe is the only sacrifice which is totally given to the rancher who brings it. The parts which go onto the altar, blood and fat, are those which may not be eaten even from a profane animal. The Cohanim do not receive any part, neither is any edible part burned on the altar..

הַשָּׁחוּט מוּתָּר. תַּנֵּיי דְבֵי רִבִּי יַנַּאי לֹא שַׁנְייָא בֵּין חַי בֵּין שָׁחוּט בֵּין תָּמִים בֵּין בַּעַל מוּם. וְלֵיי דָא מִילָּה תְּנָן חַי וְלֹא שָׁחוּט. כְּגוֹן נִיתְנֵי דְבַתְרָהּ הַבְּכוֹר מוֹכְרִין אוֹתוֹ תָּמִים חַי וּבַעַל מוּם וְשָׁחוּט. Therefore, once it was slaughtered, is it permitted⁴⁸Why does the Mishnah make a difference between unblemished and blemished animal tithe?? It was stated by the House of Rebbi Yannai: There is no difference between alive and slaughtered, unblemished and blemished⁴⁹This is also a baraita in Bekhorot.31b">Babli Bekhorot 31b.. For what did we state then “live but not slaughtered?” For example, what was stated after this: “One may sell a firstling unblemished alive⁵⁰To a Cohen, and certainly when it was slaughtered and its blood and fat brought to the altar., blemished alive or slaughtered⁵¹To a Jew, not necessarily a Cohen. The animal may be sold to a Gentile only slaughtered since it has to be slaughtered ritually..”

רִבִּי אַבָּא בַּר יַעֲקֹב בְּשֵׁם רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן נֶאֱמַר כָּאן לֹא יִגָּאֵל. וְנֶאֱמַר בְּחֶרְמֵי כֹהֲנִים לֹא יִמָּכֵר וְלֹא יִגָּאֵל. מַה לֹא יִגָּאֵל הָאָמוּר בְּחֶרְמֵי כֹהֲנִים אֵינוֹ לֹא נִמְכַּר וְלֹא נִגְאַל. אַף לֹא יִגָּאֵל הָאָמוּר כָּאן אֵינוֹ לֹא נִמְכַּר וְלֹא נִגְאַל. רִבִּי יַעֲקֹב דְּרוֹמִייָה בָּעֵא קוֹמֵי רִבִּי יוֹסֵי כְּלוּם כְּתִיב בִּבְכוֹר לֹא תִפָּדֶה בְּבַעַל מוּם. מַעֲשֵׂר בְּהֵמָה לֹא חִלְּקָה הַתּוֹרָה בֵּין חַי בֵּין שָׁחוּט בֵּין תָּמִים בֵּין בַּעַל מוּם. Rebbi Abba bar Jacob in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan⁵²In the Bekhorot.32a">Babli (Bekhorot 32a) this is quoted in the names of R. Joḥanan and Rav and rejected. For Tannaїtic sources, cf. Sifra Beḥuqotay Pereq 13(4), quoted Bekhorot.31b">Babli Bekhorot 31b, Temurah.5b">Temurah 5b, 40a.: It is said here (Leviticus.27.33">Lev. 27:33): “It may not be redeemed.” It has been said about Cohanim‘s bans (Leviticus.27.28">Lev. 27:28) “It may not be sold or redeemed.” Since “it may not be redeemed” for Cohanim’s bans includes sale, so “it may not be redeemed” here includes sale. Rebbi Jacob the Southerner asked before Rebbi Yose: Is it not written about a firstling (Numbers.18.17">Num. 18:17) “it should not be redeemed?” About a blemished animal⁵³Numbers.18.17">Num. 18:17 refers only to unblemished animals. No restrictions are put on blemished firstlings other than that they have to be given to a Cohen.. For animal tithe, the Torah made no difference between living and slaughtered, unblemished and blemished.

אֵין מְקַדְּשִׁין בּוֹ אֶת הָאִשָּׁה. אֲבָל מְקַדְּשִׁין בְּגִידָיו וּבַעֲצָּמָיו וּבְקַרְנָיו וּבִטְלָפָיו. אָמַר רִבִּי לָֽעְזָר מִפְּנֵי שֶׁכָּתוּב בּוֹ בְּרָכָה. וִיקַדֵּשׁ בִּבְשָׂרוֹ. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹסֵי כְּלוּם לָֽמְדוּ מַעֲשֵׂר אֶלָּא מֵחֶרְמֵי כֹהֲנִים מַה חֶרְמֵי כֹהֲנִים אֵין מְקַדְּשִׁין בָּהֶן אֶת הָאִשָּׁה. אַף כָּל־הַקֳּדָשִׁים אֵין מְקַדְּשִׁין בָּהֶן אֶת הָאִשָּׁה. מֵעַתָּה לֹא יְקַדְּשׁוּ לֹא בְגִידָיו וְלֹא בַעֲצָמָיו וְלֹא בְקַרְנָיו וְלֹא בִטְלָפָיו. הֲוֵי צוֹרְכָא לְהַהִיא דְּאָמַר רִבִּי לָֽעְזָר מִפְּנֵי שֶׁכָּתוּב בָּהֶן בְּרָכָה. “One may not use it for preliminarily marrying a woman.” But one may use its sinews, bones, horns, and hooves for preliminary marriage⁵⁴This is not mentioned in the Babli or in Maimonides’s Code. The inedible parts of a sacrifice, totally stripped of their meat, are profane after the meal.. Rebbi Eleazar said, because a blessing is mentioned for it⁵⁵Deuteronomy.12.15">Deut. 12:15: “But for all your desire you may slaughter and eat meat, by the blessing the Eternal, your God, gave you in all your gates; the impure and the pure should eat it, like deer and gazelle.” This deals with dedicated animals which developed a blemish or the blemished animal which became tithe (Sifry Deut. 71). On this, the Bekhorot.32a">Babli (Bekhorot 32a) elaborates: “What is the sacrifice in which there is blessing only after slaughter? This is the animal tithe.” As Rashi explains, dedicated sacrifices which developed a blemish may be exchanged and returned to profane status. The blemished firstling may be sold when alive. Only animal tithe remains holy even if blemished until it is ritually slaughtered and used as human food.. Why can one not use its meat for preliminary marriage? Rebbi Yose said, they learned tithe only from Cohanim’s bans. Since one may not use Cohanim’s bans for preliminary marriage, one may not use any sacrifices for preliminary marriage. Then one should not be able to use its sinews, bones, horns, and hooves for preliminary marriage. One needs what Rebbi Eleazar said, because a blessing is mentioned for it.

רִבִּי יוּדָן בָּעֵי אָמַר לְאִשָּׁה מִשְׁכִי לִי מַעֲשֵׂר בְּהֵמָה זֶה שֶׁתִּתְקַדְּשִׁי לִי בוֹ לְאַחַר שְׁחִיטָה. מֵאַחַר שֶׁיֵּשׁ בְּיָדוֹ לִשְׁחוֹט מְקוּדֶּשֶׁת מִכְּבָר. אוֹ לְאַחַר שְׁחִיטָה. Rebbi Yudan asked: If somebody said to a woman, draw this animal tithe to you from me⁵⁶This is an act of acquisition. But since animal tithe cannot be alienated while alive, the acquisition will be completed only upon ritual slaughter of the animal. and be preliminarily married to me by it after slaughtering⁵⁷It is clear from Kiddushin 2:1:1-9:1" href="/Jerusalem_Talmud_Kiddushin.2.1.1-9.1">Mishnah Qiddušin 2 that conditional betrothals are valid under certain conditions. In this case, one has to assume that either the animal is unblemished and the discussion takes place in the outer courtyard of the Temple or the animal is blemished. In both cases, the animal could be slaughtered immediately and all questions avoided. Therefore, no answer is needed.. Since it is in his hand to slaughter, is she immediately preliminarily married or only after slaughtering?

רִבִּי זְעִירָא בְשֵׁם רִבִּי בָּא בַּר מָמָל הַגּוֹנֵב מַעֲשֵׂר בְּהֵמָה שֶׁלְחֲבֵירוֹ אִם הָיָה קַייָם מַחֲזִירוֹ לוֹ בְעֵינוֹ. אֲכָלוֹ מַה שֶׁאָכַל אָכַל. רִבִּי לָֽעְזָר בְּשֵׁם רִבִּי מָנָא אֵין אוֹמֵר לוֹ שֶׁיִּתֵּן מִילְתָא אוֹ פָּחוֹת מִשָּׁוֶה פְרוּטָה אֵין אוֹמֵר לוֹ שֶׁיִּתֵּן. אָמַר רִבִּי חִינְנָא הָדָא דְאָתָא בְּשֶׁאֵינוֹ יָפֶה שָׁוֶה פְרוּטָה מֵעִיקָּרוֹ. אֲבָל אִם הָיָה יָפֶה שָׁוֶה פְרוּטָה מֵעִיקָּרוֹ אוֹמֵר לוֹ שֶׁיִּתֵּן. Rebbi Zeïra in the name of Rebbi Abba bar Mamal: If someone steals someone else’s animal tithe, if it still exists he returns it as is, if he ate it, he ate what he ate⁵⁸Since the living animal tithe is property of Heaven, he does not have to pay the fines imposed on the thief of private property (cf. Terumot 6, end of Halakhah 4). His atonement is between him and Heaven.. Rebbi Eleazar in the name of Rebbi Mana⁵⁹R. Mana I.: He cannot ask him to give anything; if it is worth less than a peruṭah⁶⁰Cf. Ma‘serot Chapter 3, Note 13. one cannot say that he should give⁶¹This is another version of R. Zeïra’s argument: Since a live animal tithe is not marketable it has no value, and the theft is not prosecutable in court since the court will not take cognizance of a case worth less than a peruṭah.. Rebbi Ḥinena said, that is, if it was worth less than a peruṭah from the start. But if it was worth a peruṭah from the start, one tells him to pay⁶²This is a remark pertaining to tort law, not to our case here. In torts, the value of a claim is computed for the time the damage was done, which may be different from the value of the object today. A similar statement is in Babli Baba Meẓi‘a 55a..

רִבִּי יוּדָה בַּר פָּזִי בְּשֵׁם רִבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בֶּן לֵוִי חַי לֹא שָׁחוּט. תַּמָּן תַּנִּינָן הַמְקַדֵּשׁ בְּחֶלְקוֹ מִקָּדְשֵׁי קָֽדָשִים וּבְקָדָשִׁים קַלִּין אֵינָהּ מְקוּדֶּשֶׁת. אָמַר רִבִּי יוּדָה בֶּן פָּזִי רִבִּי יוּדָה יְלִיף כָּל־הֶקְדֵּשׁ מִבְּכוֹר. מַה בְּכוֹר מְקַדְּשִׁין בּוֹ אֶת הָאִשָּׁה. אַף הַקֳּדָשִים מְקַדְּשִׁין בָּהֶן אֶת הָאִשָּׁה. רִבִּי מֵאִיר יְלִיף כָּל־הַקָּדָשִׁים מִמַּעֲשֵׂר בְּהֵמָה. מַה מַעֲשֵׂר בְּהֵמָה אֵין מְקַדְּשִׁין בָּהֶן אֶת הָאִשָּׁה אַף כָּל־הַקָּדָשִין אֵין מְקַדְּשִׁין בָּהֶן אֶת הָאִשָּׁה. מִחְלְפָה שִׁיטָּתֵיהּ דְּרִבִּי יוּדָה בַּר פָּזִי תַּמָּן הוּא אָמַר בֵּין חַי בֵּין שָׁחוּט. וְהָכָא הוּא אָמַר חַי וְלֹא שָׁחוּט. תַּמָּן בְּשֵׁם גַּרְמֵיהּ. וְהָכָא בְּשֵׁם רִבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בֶּן לֵוִי. אֲפִילוּ תֵימַר כָּאן וְכָאן בְּשֵׁם גַּרְמֵיהּ. בִּמְקַדֵּשׁ בְּחַי וּבְרָאוּי לִיפּוֹל לוֹ וּלְאַחַר שְׁחִיטָה. מַאי טַעֲמָא דְּרִבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בֶּן לֵוִי. וּבְשָׂרָם יִהְיֶה לָךְ כַּחֲזֵה הַתְּנוּפָה. וּמַאי טַעֲמָא דְּרִבִּי יוּדָן בֶּן פָּזִי. יִהְיֶה לָךְ אֲפִילוּ לְאַחַר שְׁחִיטָה. מַה מְקַייֵם רִבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בֶּן לֵוִי יִהְיֶה לָךְ. רִיבָה לוֹ הֲוָייָה אֲחֶרֶת שֶׁיְהֵא נֶאֱכָל לִשְׁנֵי יָמִים וְלַיְלָה אֶחָד. ⁶³This paragraph also is in Kiddushin 2:7:2-8:4" href="/Jerusalem_Talmud_Kiddushin.2.7.2-8.4">Qiddušin 2:8 (fol. 62d–63a). Rebbi Jehudah bar Pazi in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi: Alive, but not slaughtered⁶⁴The Mishnah, which states that a live firstling may be given as a marriage gift, is interpreted to mean that after slaughter it will be permitted to the bride.. There⁶⁵Kiddushin 2:7:1" href="/Jerusalem_Talmud_Kiddushin.2.7.1">Mishnah Qiddušin 2:8; also quoted Demay 1:3, Notes 185–187: “If somebody uses his share in the holiest sacrifices or simple holy sacrifices as marriage gifts, the marriage is not valid. With Second Tithes, be it intentional or in error, the marriage is not valid, the words of R. Meїr. Rebbi Jehudah said, if in error, the marriage is not valid, if intentional, the marriage is valid.” Rebbi Meїr declares that holiest sacrifices, the Cohen’s share of simple sacrifices, and the Second Tithe are all Heaven’s property offered, as the case may be, to the Cohen, his family, or the layman and his family for consumption in Jerusalem. Hence, for R. Meїr, the basic conditions for a valid marriage are not satisfied.
R. Jehudah agrees that under normal circumstances, Second Tithe in Jerusalem cannot be exchanged. However, since it must be redeemed if it became ritually impure, it can also be exchanged unlawfully. His position is explained in Peah 7:5:10" href="/Jerusalem_Talmud_Peah.7.5.10">Peah, Chapter 7, Note 135. He also holds that the Cohen’s share of the sacrifices is his personal property. Hence, at least as far as simple sacrifices are concerned, the woman becomes his wife through the marriage and can legally consume the meat given to her. R. Jehudah also asserts that Second Tithe is always the owner’s property, even before exchange. However, it cannot be used as a marriage gift directly since there is a lien on it that it should be used only for consumption, and that lien must first be removed by conscient redemption or exchange.
The Kiddushin.52b">Babli (Qiddušin 52b) goes to great lengths to find a case in which a woman might receive a Cohen’s part of the holiest sacrifices which must be eaten by male Cohanim in those parts of the Temple yard into which others may enter only when required by the necessities of sacrificial rites. It also holds (Baba Qama 12b) that the statement about the firstling is valid only in the absence of a Temple; a position difficult to reconcile with the first part of the Mishnah., we have stated: “If somebody betrothes a woman with his share in most holy or simple holy sacrifices, she is not betrothed.” Rebbi Jehudah bar Pazi said, Rebbi Jehudah learns all dedicated things from the firstling. Just as one may betrothe a woman with a firstling, so all sacrifices may be used to betrothe a woman. Rebbi Meїr learns all sacrifices from animal tithe. Just as one may not betrothe a woman with animal tithe, so no sacrifices may be used to betrothe a woman. The opinion of Rebbi Jehudah bar Pazi is inverted. There⁶⁶In Kiddushin 2:7:2-8:4" href="/Jerusalem_Talmud_Kiddushin.2.7.2-8.4">Qiddušin 2:8., he says, alive or slaughtered. But here, he says alive, but not slaughtered. There in his own name, here in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi. Even if you say there and here in his own name; if he betrothes while it is still alive and with what is scheduled to fall to him⁶⁷This is a very hypothetical answer which, as seen in the following text, is immediately discarded. It is possible to marry a woman by a future benefit as, e. g., the offer of future services (Kiddushin 3:6:2-3" href="/Jerusalem_Talmud_Kiddushin.3.6.2-3">Qiddušin 3:6). However, since the Cohen’s part of sacrificial meat is defined only at the moment of distribution, one runs into the problem of retroactivity (Demay 6:10, Note 160).. After slaughter, what is the reason of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi? (Numbers.18.18">Num. 18:18): “Their meat shall be for you, like the breast of weaving⁶⁸The part of the Cohen from a family sacrifice, to be eaten by the Cohen’s family but not the Cohen’s property. The verse identifies the holiness of the firstling with that of the Cohen’s share in a Temple sacrifice..” And what is the reason of Rebbi Jehudah ben Pazi? “Shall be for you”, even after slaughtering. How does Rebbi Joshua ben Levi uphold “shall be for you”? He added another being⁶⁹“Their meat shall be for you; like the breast of weaving and the right thigh it shall be for you.” It is implied that the Cohen has maximal use of the firstling. This is taken to mean that the period after slaughter in which the firstling may be eaten is the maximal period found in the Torah for any sacrifice.
In the Zevachim.57a">Babli, Zebaḥim 57a, the discussion is quoted in the name of Tannaїm of the first and second generations. that it should be eaten during two days and one night.

מַתְנִיתִין דְּלָא כְרִבִּי יוֹסֵי. דְּתַנֵּי מְחַלְלִין מַעֲשֵׂר שֵׁינִי עַל אַסֵּימוֹן דִּבְרֵי רִבִּי דּוֹסָא וַחֲכָמִים אוֹסְרִין. מַה טַעֲמָא דְּרִבִּי דוֹסָא. וְצַרְתָּ הַכֶּסֶף דָּבָר שֶׁהוּא נִצְרָר מֵחֲבֵירוֹ וְיֵשׁ לוֹ צוּרָה וְיוֹצֵא עַל גַּב צוּרָתוֹ. רִבִּי יוֹסֵי בְשֵׁם רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן דִּבְרֵי רִבִּי יוֹסֵי מְחַלְלִין מַעֲשֵׂר עַל לִיטְרָא שֶּׁלְכֶּסֶף. אִילּוּ אָמַר כֶּסֶף הֲוִינָן אָֽמְרִין כְּשֵׁם שֶׁאָמַר כֶּסֶף כָּךְ אָמַר זָהָב. אִילּוּ אָמַר כֶּסֶף הֲוִינָן מָרִין לְהוֹצִיא שִׁבְרֵי קְעָרוֹת וּמִתַּמְחוּיִין הֲוֵי מֵהֶן לִיטְרָא שֶּׁלְכֶּסֶף. ⁷⁰Here starts the discussion of the redemption of Second Tithe. Our Mishnah does not follow Rebbi Yose⁷¹The name tradition in this paragraph is confusing. The Tosephta quoted is in the name of R. Dosa (probably R. Dosa ben Hyrcanus, of the first generation of Tannaïm) in all sources except the Rome ms. of the Yerushalmi (ר׳ יוסה); but the statement of R. Yose (the Amora) shows that R. Yose (the Tanna) accepts the position of R. Dosa. Therefore, no emendation of the text is necessary., as it was stated⁷²Eduyot 3:2" href="/Mishnah_Eduyot.3.2">Mishnah Idiut 3:2, quoted Babli Baba Meẓi‘a 47b; in different formulation Tosephta 1:4.: “One may exchange Second Tithe for a blank, the words of Rebbi Dosa, but the Sages forbid it.” What is Rebbi Dosa’s reason? (Deuteronomy.14.25">Deut. 14:25) “You should bundle the money;” something which is bundled together, or which has a form and is current because of its form⁷³A quote from Sifry Deut. 107 (reproduced in Babli Baba Meẓi‘a 47b), shortened to unintelligibility. The verses Deuteronomy.14.24-26">Deut. 14:24–26 form the basis of the rules of redemption of Second Tithe; see the Introduction. V. 14:25 states: “Give silver [for it]; וצרת הכסף בידך…” R. Ismael reads “take the silver in your hand”, i. e. “something which is bundled (√צור I, صرّ, to bind) together;” whereas R. Aqiba reads “something which has a form” (√צור III, صوّر, to form). The only explanation which fits the language of the verse is that of R. Ismael (R. Dosa, R. Yose); it is accepted by both the Babylonian and the Palestinian Aramaic Targumim. It is difficult to see how R. Aqiba could give a straightforward translation of the verse. He also separates בידך from the preceding text. This shows that in the text before us, “or” denotes a switch from R. Ismael (R. Dosa, R. Yose) to R. Aqiba (the Sages).. Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: The word of Rebbi Yose that one exchanges [Second] Tithe for a pound of silver⁷⁴Since coinage was invented long after the time of Moses, he takes כסף to mean just that, silver bullion, not gold, or silver which is not bullion and whose value could only be determined by a lengthy assay.. If he had [only] said “silver”, we would have said just as he said silver, so he said gold. If he had [only] said “silver”, we would have taught to exclude broken pots and baskets from which one could get a pound of silver.

עַל אַסֵּימוֹן. הַכֹּל מוֹדִין שֶׁאֵין מְחַלֲלִין אוֹתוֹ עַל הַמָּעוֹת הַנְּתוּנוֹת לָאוֹלִייָר. הָדָא דְתֵימַר כְּדֶרֶךְ שֶׁהֵן יָפִין אֵצֶל הָאוֹלִייָר. אֲבָל כְּדֶרֶךְ שֶׁהֵן יָפִין אֵצֶל הַתֵּירְמַסָּר מְחַלֵּל. “For a blank”. Everybody agrees that one does not exchange for the coins given to the olearius⁷⁶The dispensor of rubbing oil in the bathhouse, cf. Berakhot 2:3:6" href="/Jerusalem_Talmud_Berakhot.2.3.6">Berakhot 2:3, Note 94.. That is, the way they are used for the olearius. But the way they are used by the tremissarius⁷⁷Perhaps a tremissarius is the person who changes coins into tremisses, thirds of an as, to be given to the bath attendants (E. G.); cf. J. N. Epstein, Tarbiẓ 1, p. 49. The word tremissarius is not recorded in Latin literature but tremes, -issis is. If the tremissarius changes legal coins into tremisses, he will also purchase tremisses (at a lower rate) and pay legal coin. Also cf. assarius, old form of as.
The Babylonian tradition (Tosephta 1:4, Baba Meẓi‘a 47b) always refers to “(small) coins given as tokens in the bathhouse.” one may exchange.

מַטְבֵּעַ שֶׁנִּפְסָל וְהַמַּלְכוּת מְקַבְּלָתוֹ רִבִּי יוֹסֵי בְשֵׁם רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן כְּאַסֵּימוֹן. רִבִּי חִייָה בְשֵׁם רִבִּי יוֹנָתָן בְּמַטְבֵּעַ שֶׁלְמְלָכִים הָרִאשׁוֹנִים (נֵימַר) אִם הָיָה יוֹצֵא עַל גַּב צוּרָתוֹ מְחַלֵּל. וְאִם לָאו אֵינוֹ מְחַלֵּל. מַטְבֵּעַ שַׁמָּרַד כְּגוֹן בֶּן כּוֹזִיבָא אֵינוֹ מְחַלֵּל. הָיוּ לוֹ מָעוֹת שֶּׁלְסַכָּנָה אָתָא עוֹבְדָא קוֹמֵי רִבִּי אִימִּי אָמַר יוֹלִיךְ הֲנָייָה לְיַם הַמֶּלַח. הָיוּ לוֹ מָעוֹת שֶׁל דיסגנים. רִבִּי יַעֲקֹב בַּר זַבְדִּי בְשֵׁם רִבִּי אַבָּהוּ מְחַלְלָן כְּדֶרֶךְ שֶׁהֵן יָפִין אֵצֶל הַתֵּירְמִסָּר. בִּיקֵּשׁ לְהוֹצִיאָן מְחַלְלָן כְּדֶרֶךְ שֶׁהוּא מְחַלֵּל עֲלֵיהֶן. A coin out of circulation which the government will accept, Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: It is like a blank. Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: A coin of the earlier kings, if it is currently accepted because of its coinage one exchanges, otherwise one does not exchange⁸¹The statements of R. Yose and R. Ḥiyya deal with the same subject. If somebody had an old Roman coin from the time the coinage was honest, if it is recognized by its coinage and/or acceptable for payment of taxes, it is money and may be used for exchange/redemption of Second Tithe. Otherwise it is merchandise and may not be used.
S. Lieberman, Tosefta ki-Fshutah p. 717, wants to restrict the meaning of “otherwise” to coins of emperors whose memory was cursed by the Senate. In the Babli, Baba Qama 97b, coins of earlier kings (maybe Partian coins in the Persian empire?) are declared unacceptable; the Tosephta (1:6) declares them all acceptable.. A revolutionary coin like that of Bar Koziba one does not exchange⁸²In Tosephta and Babli (loc. cit.): Bar Koziba or Jerusalem coins (from the first war against the Romans.). If he had dangerous coins⁸³This probably is a restatement of the previous sentence.: such a case came before Rebbi Immi. He said, one should carry its yield to the Dead Sea⁸⁴The usual description of: destroy completely.. If one had coins difficult to determine: Rebbi Jacob bar Zavdi: One exchanges at the value given by the tremissarius⁸⁵If the money changer offers payment for that coin, this is its monetary value.. If he wants to spend the coins, he exchanges in his usual way.

תַּנֵּי אֵין מְחַלְלִין אוֹתוֹ לֹא עַל הַמָּעוֹת שֶׁהֵן בְּבָבֶל וְלֹא עַל הַמָּעוֹת שֶׁבְּבָבֶל כָּן. לֹא עַל הַמָּעוֹת שֵׁכָּן בְּבָבֶל בְּעוֹמֵד בְּבָבֶל. וְלֹא עַל הַמָּעוֹת שֶׁבְּבָבֶל כָּן בְּעוֹמֵד כָּן. הָיוּ לוֹ מָעוֹת מִבָּבֶל לְבָבֶל וְהוּא עוֹמֵד כָּאן נֵימַר אִם הָֽיְתָה דֶרֶךְ פְּתוּחָה מְחַלֵּל וְאִם לָאו אֵינוֹ מְחַלֵּל וְטָֽבְבוֹ כָן. “⁸⁷Tosephta 1:6. The Tosephta and possibly the Babli Baba Qama 97b allow a Babylonian in the Land of Israel to exchange his tithe for his Babylonian money in Babylonia irrespective of the political situation. One does not exchange it for money in Babylonia nor for Babylonian money here.” Not for money from here in Babylonia if he is in Babylonia; nor for Babylonian money here when he is here. If he had Babylonian money in Babylonia but he is here, let us say that he may exchange if the road was open; but otherwise he cannot exchange and put in order here.

אָמַר רִבִּי אָבִין כָּל־הַמַּטְבֵּיעוֹת הָיוּ יוֹצְאוֹת בִּירוּשָׁלֵם מִפְּנֵי כֵן עַל שֵׁם יְפֵה נוֹף מְשׂוֹשׂ כָּל־הָאָרֶץ. Rebbi Abin said, all coins were current in Jerusalem in old times, following (Psalms.48.3">Ps. 48:3) “beautiful region, enjoyment of all the earth.”⁸⁸In the Babli Baba Qama 97b, the fact that all coins from all countries were accepted in Jerusalem in Temple times is quoted as tannaїtic.

יָכוֹל אִם הָיוּ לוֹ מָעוֹת בְּהַר הַמֶּלֶךְ וּבְקַצְרָה מְחַלְלָן עֲלֵיהֶן. תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר וְצַרְתָּ הַכֶּסֶף בְּיָֽדְךָ. מַהוּ בְּיָֽדְךְ בִּרְשׁוּתְךָ. רִבִּי יוֹנָה בָּעֵי נָפַל כִּיסוֹ לְבוֹר וּבוֹ מֵאָה רִיבּוֹ וְהָיָה יָכוֹל לְהוֹצִיא חֲמִשִּׁים רִיבּוֹא לְהַעֲלוֹתָן אוֹתָן חֲמִשִּׁים רִיבּוֹא כְּמִי שֶׁהֵן בִּרְשׁוּתוֹ. I could think that if someone had money on King’s Mountain or in a castle⁸⁹The Tosephta, 1:6, reads: “How [does one not exchange] if it is not in his possession? If he had monies buried on King’s Mountain or a Roman army camp (קצטרא castra) or his wallet had fallen into a cistern, even though he knows that they are there, they cannot be used for redemption and if he used them, he did not acquire the tithe.” There are no longer any Jews living on King’s Mountain, only Gentiles (cf. Demay 5:9, Note 115), and he certainly cannot start digging in a camp of the Roman army. he might exchange based on it. The verse says (Deuteronomy.14.25">Deut. 14:25): “take the silver in your hand;” what means “in your hand”? In your possession! Rebbi Jonah asked, if his wallet with 1’000’000 [denars]⁹⁰Just before Diocletian’s currency reform, that would be about 16⅔ aurei. fell into a cistern and he could spend 500’000 to get them out, is that as if 500’000 were in his possession⁹¹Since the Tosephta gives a clear, negative, answer to this question, the Tosephta does not represent Yerushalmi tradition.?