משנה: יֵשׁ בְּמַעֲשֵׂר וּבְבִיכּוּרִים מַה שֶׁאֵין כֵּן בִּתְרוּמָה. שֶׁהַמַּעֲשֵׂר וְהַבִּיכּוּרִים טְעוּנִין הֲבָאַת מָקוֹם וּטְעוּנִין וִידּוּי וַאֲסוּרִין לָאוֹנֵן. רִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן מַתִּיר. וְחַייָבִין בַּבִּיעוּר וְרִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן פּוֹטֵר. וְאוֹסְרִין כָּל־שֶׁהֵן מִלּוֹכַל בִּירוּשָׁלֵם אַף לְזָרִים וְאַף לִבְהֵמָה. רִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן מַתִּיר. הֲרֵי אֵילּוּ בְּמַעֲשֵׂר וּבְבִכּוּרִים מַה שֶׁאֵין כֵּן בִּתְרוּמָה. MISHNAH: Some rules apply to tithe70Second tithe only. and First Fruits but not to heave since tithe and First Fruits need to be brought to the Place71The Temple for First Fruits, Jerusalem for second tithe.; they need a declaration73For second tithe, Deut. 26:13–15. For First Fruits, Deut. 26:3–10. and are forbidden to the current mourner74A person who has to arrange for the burial of a close relative, between the time of death and the burial., but Rebbi Simeon permits75Since the אונן is explicitly forbidden second tithe (Deut. 26:14) and the declaration is one of removal (Deut. 26:13), R. Simeon can disagree only regarding First Fruits. Removal means that first and poor people’s tithes were given away and second tithe brought to Jerusalem.. They are subject to removal, but Rebbi Simeon frees from the obligation75Since the אונן is explicitly forbidden second tithe (Deut. 26:14) and the declaration is one of removal (Deut. 26:13), R. Simeon can disagree only regarding First Fruits. Removal means that first and poor people’s tithes were given away and second tithe brought to Jerusalem.. They forbid in Jerusalem the most minute amount76While second tithe becomes insignificant in a majority of permitted food and First Fruits by 1 in 100, this applies only outside of Jerusalem. to be eaten by the unauthorized and animals; Rebbi Simeon permits.77The Babylonian Mishnah has here another sentence, stating that plants grown in Jerusalem from second tithe or First Fruits also forbid in the most minute amounts; but R. Simeon permits. It is the general wisdom since the time of R. Eliahu Kramer of Wilna that the sentence is missing by an oversight of the scribe. But since the Halakhah corrects the Mishnah to insert the sentence, it is clear that it was missing in the accepted Mishnah text. In general it is safe to assume that textual corrections by R. Eliahu of Wilna are unwarranted. These rules apply to tithe and First Fruits but not to heave.
הלכה: טְעוּנִין הֲבָאַת מָקוֹם. דִּכְתִיב וַהֲבֵאתֶם שָׁמָּה עוֹלוֹתֵיכֶם וְזִבְחֵיכֶם וְאֵת מַעְשְׂרוֹתֵיכֶם וְאֵת תְּרוּמַת יֶדְכֶם. תְּרוּמַת יֶדְכֶם אֵילּוּ הַבִּיכּוּרִים. דִּכְתִיב וְלָקַח הַכֹּהֵן הַטֶּנֶא מִיָּדֶךָ. HALAKHAH: “They need to be brought to the Place.” Because it is written (Deut. 12:6): “There, you shall bring your elevation offerings, your family sacrificies, your tithes78Animal and second tithes., and your hand’s heave.” “Your hand’s heave” are First Fruits since it is written (Deut. 26:4): “The Cohen shall take the basket from your hand.”79Sifry Deut. 63.
עַד כְּדוֹן מַעֲשֵׂר. בִּיכּוּרִים מְנַיִין. כַּיי דְאָמַר רִבִּי יַעֲקֹב בַּר חָמָא בְשֵׁם רִבִּי לָֽעְזָר. הַקּוֹדֶשׁ הַקּוֹדֶשׁ הָעֶלְיוֹן מַשְׁמַע. So far tithe, from where First Fruits80What implies that First Fruits, while they have their own declaration, have to be delivered on time? The farmer cannot read the declaration of second tithe if he has undelivered First Fruits at home.? As Rebbi Jacob bar Ḥama81No R. Jacob bar Ḥama is otherwise known; the commentators following R. S. Cirillo read “R. Jacob bar Aḥa” since this name is quoted in the next paragraph. said in the name of Rebbi Eleazar (Deut. 26:13): “The hallowed food.” That hallowed food is meant which was described in the preceding paragraph82Deut. 26:1–11.
This contradicts the tannaїtic tradition (Mishnah Ma‘aser Šeni 5:10, Sifry Deut. 303) that the reference is to second tithe and fourth-year yield..
וּטְעוּנִין וִידּוּי. דִּכְתִיב וְעָנִיתָ וְאָמַרְתָּ לִפְנֵי יי֨ אֱלֹהֶיךָ. עַד כְּדוֹן מַעֲשֵׂר. בִּיכּוּרִין מְנַיִין. כַּיי דְאָמַר רִבִּי יַעֲקֹב בַּר אָחָא בְשֵׁם רִבִּי לָֽעְזָר. הַקּוֹדֶשׁ הָעֶלְיוֹן בְּמַשְׁמַע. “They need a declaration.” Since it is written (Deut. 26:5): “You should formally declare83Or: “You shall answer and declare”, repeating the text of the declaration recited by the priest. This verse deals only with First Fruits. Cf. Halakhah 3:5; Sifry Deut. 301. The declaration for tithes is prescribed in v. 13. before the Eternal, your God84This introduces the declaration of First Fruits. The next two sentences are copied from the preceding paragraph, most likely in error. They are appropriate again in the next paragraph..” So far tithe, from where First Fruits? As Rebbi Jacob bar Ḥama said in the name of Rebbi Eleazar (Deut. 26:13): “The hallowed food.” That hallowed food is meant which was described in the preceding paragraph.
וַאֲסוּרִין לָאוֹנֵן. דִּכְתִּיב לֹא אָכַלְתִּי בְּאוֹנִי מִמֶּנּוּ. עַד כְּדוֹן מַעֲשֵׂר. בִּיכּוּרִין מְנַיִין. כַּיי דְאָמַר רִבִּי יַעֲקֹב בַּר אָחָא בְשֵׁם רִבִּי לָֽעְזָר. הַקּוֹדֶשׁ הַקּוֹדֶשׁ הָעֶלְיוֹן בְּמַשְׁמַע. “They are forbidden to the current mourner.” Since it is written (Deut. 26:14): “I did not eat from it in my deep mourning.” So far tithe, from where First Fruits? As Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa said in the name of Rebbi Eleazar (Deut. 26:13): “The hallowed food.” That hallowed food is meant which was described in the preceding paragraph.
תַּנִּינָן כָּל־אִילֵּין מִילַּיָּא וְרִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן פַּלִּיג. גַּבֵּי וִידּוּי לֵית רִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן פַּלִּיג. וִידּוּי זוֹ קִרְייָה. וְלֵית רִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן פַּלִּיג דִּכְתִיב וְעָנִיתָ וְאָמַרְתָּ. In all these cases we stated that Rebbi Simeon disagrees. For the declaration Rebbi Simeon does not disagree. The declaration is the reading; there, Rebbi Simeon does not disagree since it is written (Deut. 26:5): “You should formally declare.”
כֵּינִי מַתְנִיתָא וְאוֹסְרִין כָּל־שֶׁהֵן מִלּוֹכַל בִּירוּשָׁלֵם. רִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן מַתִּיר. וְגִידוּלֵיהֶן אֲסוּרִין מִלּוֹכַל בִּירוּשָׁלֵם וְרִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן מַתִּיר. וְאַף לְזָרִים וְאַף לִבְהֵמָה רִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן מַתִּיר. וְאוּף רַבָּנִין מוֹדוֹי לֵיהּ. מִן דּוּ מָתִיב לוֹן. אֵין אַתֶּם מוֹדִין בָּהֶן מוּתָּרִין לְזָרִים שֶׁהֵן מוּתָּרִין לַאֲכִילַת בְּהֵמָה. וְיֵשׁ מְחִצָה לַאֲכִילַת זָרִים וְיֵשׁ מְחִצָה לַאֲכִילַת בְּהֵמָה. כְּשֵׁם שֶׁאֵין מְחִצָה לְזָרִים כָּךְ אֵין מְחִצָה לַאֲכִילַת בְּהֵמָה. רַבָּנִין אָֽמְרִין יְרוּשָׁלֵם עָשׂוּ אוֹתָהּ כְּדָבָר שֶׁאֵין לוֹ מַתִּירִין. כְּמַה דְתֵימַר דָּבָר שֶׁאֵין לוֹ מַתִּירִין אֹסֵור כָּל־שֶׁהוּא. וְדִכְװָתֵיהּ יְרוּשָׁלֵם אוֹסֵר כָּל־שֶׁהוּא. So is the Mishnah: “They forbid in Jerusalem in the most minute amount; Rebbi Simeon permits. Their growth85Plants growing from second tithe or First Fruits used as seeds. Even though it is stated in Mishnah Terumot9:4 that growth from First Fruits or second tithe is profane, this holds only outside of Jerusalem. Since both First Fruits and second tithe have to be consumed in Jerusalem, if they are mixed with profane food they still can be eaten in Jerusalem by the people entitled to eat the original hallowed food, Cohanim for First Fruits and pure Jews for second tithe.
The Tosephta (1:7) has a different version: “R. Simeon says they did not forbid the growth of First Fruits to require them to be eaten in Jerusalem.” This speaks of growth of First Fruits outside of Jerusalem and contradicts Mishnah Terumot 9:4. in Jerusalem is forbidden to be eaten and Rebbi Simeon permits. Also by the unauthorized or by animals does Rebbi Simeon permit.” Do not the rabbis agree with him since he asked them86In a baraita not otherwise transmitted.: Do you not agree that if they are permitted for the unauthorized, they are permitted as animal feed? Does one need walls87Food that has to be consumed in the holy precinct outside the Temple domain must be consumed inside the city walls (possibly defined as the walls of the city in First Temple times.) Since growth from dedicated seeds is intrinsically profane and does not need city walls if used as animal feed, walls are not needed and the restriction to those authorized is without basis (cf. Tosafot Pesaḥim 34a, s. v. טהרו). for unauthorized eating or for feeding animals? Just as one does not need walls for unauthorized eating, one does not need walls for feeding animals! The rabbis say, they made Jerusalem something which has no possibility to become permitted88The rabbis agree that R. Simeon might have a logical point but their position is that leniencies here are uncalled for since any food in question can be eaten in Jerusalem.
The formulation used here, דָּבָר שֶׁאֵין לוֹ מַתִּירִין “something which has no possibility to become permitted”, appears in the Babli (Beẓah 3b,39a; Yebamot 82a; Baba Meẓia 53a) and the Tosephta (Terumot 5:15) as דָּבָר שֶׁיֵּשׁ לוֹ מַתִּירִין “something which has a possibility to become permitted”. The language of the Babli is straightforward: For something which may become permitted without invoking the rules of insignificance (1 in 60, 100, or 200), those rules were not instituted. The standard example is that of an egg freshly laid on the Sabbath which is not food prepared for the Sabbath but becomes automatically permitted at the end of the Sabbath. If such an egg disappears in a barrel containing 1’000 eggs, all are forbidden for use until the end of the Sabbath.
The language of the Yerushalmi, “something which has no possibility to become permitted”, presupposes the knowledge of the rule: If the rules of insignificance were not instituted for a certain case, they are not applicable even in the case of the smallest possible admixture. Since First Fruits and second tithe can be eaten in Jerusalem, they are always permitted for authorized people and are therefore “something which has no possibility to become permitted”.. Anything which has no possibility to become permitted prohibits in the most minute amounts; similarly, Jerusalem prohibits in the most minute amounts.
מַה פְלִיגִין רִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן וְרַבָּנִין. בְּגִידּוּלִין. אֲבָל בְּעֵירוּבִין אוּף רִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן מוֹדֵיי. מַה בֵין עֵירוּבִין מַה בֵין גִּידּוּלִין. עֵירוּבִין בְּעֵייְנָן הֵן. גִּידּוּלִין כְּבָר בָּֽטְלוּ. כְּמַה דְּרִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן מוֹדֵי לְרַבָּנִין בְּעֵירוּבֵי מַעֲשֵׂר. אֲבָל בְּעֵירוּבֵי בִּיכּוּרִין כְּגִידּוּלִין הֵן. וְכֵן הָיָה רִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֵר. אֵין הַבִּיכּוּרִין אוֹסְרִין אֶת עֵירוּבֵיהֶן וְגִידּוּלֵיהֶן מִלּוֹכַל בִּירוּשָׁלֵם. מַה בֵין מַעֲשֵׂר מַה בֵין בִּיכּוּרִין. מַעֲשֵׂר אֵין לוֹ עֲלִייָה. בִּכּוּרִים יֵשׁ לָהֶן עֲלִייָה. הֲוֵי מַה דְּרִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן מוֹדֵי לָרַבָּנִין בַּדָּבָר שֶׁאֵין לוֹ עֲלִייָה. מוֹדֵי רִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בְּאוֹתָהּ הַסְּאָה שֶׁהֶעֱלָה מִתּוֹךְ סְאָה שֶׁהִוא טְעוּנָה מְחִיצָה וּטְעוֹנָה הֲנָייָה. וְרַבָּנִין אָֽמְרִין כּוּלְּהֶן טְעוּנוֹת מְחִיצָה וּטְעוּנוֹת הֲנָייָה. About what do Rebbi Simeon and the rabbis disagree? About growth. But in mixtures even Rebbi Simeon agrees. What is the difference between growth and mixtures? In mixtures all exists. In growth it already has disappeared. Where Rebbi Simeon agrees with the rabbis is in mixtures of tithe, but mixtures of First Fruits are treated like growth. And so did Rebbi Simeon say89Cf. Tosefta 1:7 (Note 85.): “First fruits do not forbid their mixtures or growths to be eaten in Jerusalem.” What is the difference between tithe and First Fruits? Tithe cannot be lifted90Second tithe is never mentioned among foods that may be lifted; cf. ‘Orlah 1, Note 174., First Fruits can be lifted91By one in 100, cf. Mishnah 2:1.. Rebbi Simeon agrees that the seah lifted for another seah needs walls and needs use92It must be eaten in Jerusalem (as defined by its walls) and it may not be destroyed in small quantities as second tithe of demay may be; cf. Demay 1, Notes 105 ff.. But the rabbis say, all93Both second tithe and First Fruits. need walls and need use.
רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָזַל לְחָד אָתָר אָמַר אֲנָא בֶּן עַזַּיי דְּהָכָא. אָתָא חַד סָב שָׁאַל לֵיהּ. אָמַר גִּידּוּלֵי תְרוּמָה תְרוּמָה וְגִידּוּלֵי גִידּוּלִין חוּלִין. אֲבָל טֵבֵל וּמַעֲשֵׂר שֵׁינִי וּמַעֲשֵׂר רִאשׁוֹן וּסְפִיחֵי שְׁבִיעִית וּתְרוּמַת חוּץ לָאָרֶץ הַמְּדוּמָּע וְהַבִּיכּוּרִין גִּידוּלֵיהֶן חוּלִין. תַּמָּן אַתְּ אָמַר גִּידּוּלֵיהֶן מוּתָּרִין. וְהָכָא אַתְּ אָמַר גִּידּוּלֵיהֶן אֲסוּרִין. אָמַר לֵיהּ. הֵן דְּתֵימַר גִּידּוּלֵיהֶן מוּתָּרִין בְּדָבָר שֶׁזַּרְעוֹ כָלָה. וְהֵן דְּתֵימַר גִּידּוּלֵיהֶן אֲסוּרִין בְּדָבָר שֶׁאֵין זַרְעוֹ כָלָה. אָמַר לֵיהּ וְהָתַנִּינָן אֵי זֶהוּ דָבָר שֶׁאֵין זַרְעוֹ כָלָה. כְּגוֹן הַלּוּף וְהַשּׁוּם וְהַבְּצָלִים. וְהַלּוּף וְהַשּׁוּם וְהַבְּצָלִים חַייָבִין בְּבִיכּוּרִים. אָמַר אָזַל בֶּן עַזַּאי דְּהָכָא אַתְּ אָמַר. שָׁאַל לְרִבִּי יַנַּאי. אָמַר לֵיהּ לְמַעֲשֵׂר הוּשְׁבָה דָּבָר שֶׁאֵין זַרְעוֹ כָלָה. Rebbi Joḥanan went to a place and said, I am Ben Azai94The student of R. Joshua and colleague of R. Aqiba who could immediately answer all questions of Jewish law. The Talmudim (Peah 6:3, Note 79; Babli Erubin 29a, Qiddušin20a) report that any other outstanding scholar who tried to imitate Ben Azai was quickly put down. here. There came an old man to ask him. He said, 95Mishnah Terumah 9:4 (but there, second tithe is not mentioned.)“the growth from heave is heave; the growth from their growth is profane. But the growths from ṭevel, second tithe and first tithe, aftergrowth of the Sabbatical, heave from outside the Land, dema‘, and First Fruits are profane.” There, you say their96Second tithe and First Fruits. growth is permitted, why do you say here, their growth is forbidden? He said to him, where do we say their growth is permitted? For things whose seeds disappear. Where do we say their growth is forbidden? For things whose seeds do not disappear. He said to him, but did we not state97Mishnah Terumah 9:6.: “What is one whose seeds do not disappear? For example arum, garlic, and onions.” Are arum, garlic, and onions obligated for First Fruits98They are not acceptable as First Fruits.? He99R. Joḥanan. said, the Ben Azai from here went away as you say. He99R. Joḥanan. asked Rebbi Yannai who told him, for tithe everything was classified as things whose seeds do not disappear.
מִחְלְפָה שִׁיטָּתֵיהּ דְּרִבִּי יוֹחָנָן. תַּמָּן אָמַר רִבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בֶּן לֵוִי. לְקַרְנָהּ שֶׁלִּנְבֵילָה הוּשְׁבָה. אָמַר לֵיהּ לֹא כֵן אִילְפָן רִבִּי. רָאִיתִי כִגְרִיס שְׁנַיִם. וְאָמַר אוּף הָכָא וְגִידּוּלֵיהֶן. וְעוֹד מִן הָדָא. לֹא תוּכַל לֶאֱכֹל בִּשְׁעָרֶיךָ מַעֲשַׂר דְּגָֽנְךָ. בְּאֵי זֶה מַעֲשֵׂר אֲמָרוֹ. בְּמַעֲשֵׂר שֵׁינִי הַטָּהוֹר שֶׁנִּכְנַס לִירוּשָׁלֵם וְיָצָא. וְעוֹד מִן הָדָא דְתַנֵּי לָהּ רִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן. תַּנֵּי בְשֵׁם רִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן יֵשׁ בְּמַעֲשֵׂר שֶׁהַמַּעֲשֵׂר אוֹסֵר דָּמָיו וְעֵירוּבָיו וְקַנְקָנָיו וְסָפֵק עֵירוּבוֹ כָּל־שֶׁהוּא וְאֵין מַדְלִיקִין בּוֹ. וְאָמַר אוּף בְּגִידּוּלִין כֵּן. אָמַר רִבִּי הִילָא הֵן דְּתֵימַר גִּידּוּלֵיהֶן אֲסוּרִין רַבָּנִין. וְהֵן דְּתֵימַר גִּידּוּלֵיהֶן מוּתָּרִין רִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן. אָֽמְרוּ לֵיהּ. וְהָתַנִּינָן גִּידוּלֵי הֶקְדֵּשׁ וּמַעֲשֵׂר שֵׁינִי חוּלִין וּפוֹדֶה אוֹתָן בִּזְמַן זַרְעוֹ. לְאֵי זֶה דָבָר הוּא פוֹדֶה אוֹתָן. לֹא מִפְּנֵי קְדוּשָׁה שֶׁיֵּשׁ בָּהֶן. אוּף הָכָא יִטְעֲנוּ מְחִיצָה מִפְּנֵי קְדוּשָׁה שֶׁיֵּשׁ בָּהֶן. רִבִּי יִרְמְיָה רִבִּי אִימִּי בְשֵׁם רִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן לָקִישׁ. הֶן דְּתֵימַר גִּידּוּלֵיהֶן אֲסוּרִין אִיסּוּר מְחִיצָה. וְהֵן דְּתֵימַר גִּידּוּלֵיהֶן מוּתָּרִין הֵיתֵר זָרוּת. הֲרֵי אֵילּוּ בְּמַעֲשֵׂר וּבְבִיכּוּרִין מַה שֶׁאֵין כֵּן בִּתְרוּמָה. Rebbi Joḥanan’s argument seems inverted. There100It is unknown what this statement refers to. Since the tentative explanation of R. Eliahu Fulda is the only one not based on emendation of the text, it is followed here. The statement of R. Joshua ben Levi is based on the explanation of Ex. 21:28 given in Mekhilta deR. Simeon ben Ioḥai which contains the teachings of Ḥizqia, the teacher of R. Joshua ben Levi and the young R. Johanan (ed. Epstein-Melamed, p. 178): “If an ox gores a man or a woman and they die, the ox should be stoned, its meat may not be eaten, and the owner of the ox is free.” If the ox is stoned, it becomes a carcass whose meat is forbidden anyhow; why the remark “its meat may not be eaten”? This means that if the ox has been condemned in court to be stoned but the owners slaughtered it before execution, the meat is still forbidden. What does mean: “The owner of the ox is free”? Ben Azai said, he is freed from his property; the entire animal is forbidden for all usufruct. On that, R. Joshua ben Levi adds that not only the meat but (hide and) horns are forbidden even if it died before slaughter. R. Joḥanan objects and notes that if the verse deals with two cases (stoned or slaughtered), the rules have to apply to both. In the case of R. Joshua ben Levi this means that the verse is needed to forbid hide and horns also for a correctly slaughtered ox; therefore, one does not understand why he did not object to R. Yannai that both second tithe and First Fruits should have the same rules., Rebbi Joshua ben Levi said, it was quoted for the horns of a cadaver. He said to him, did the teacher not teach: “I saw” the size of two beans101This deals with the impurity of houses by mold disease (Lev. 14:33–57). Mold disease is considered impure if it is the size of a Cilician bean. It is said (v. 35) that the owner has to tell the Cohen, “like a plague it appears to me in the house.” But since it is written in v. 37 that the Cohen has to see “the plague in the walls of the house”, the house is impure only if two impurities appear, each of the size of a bean.? Should he have said here also, “their growths”? In addition, from the following (Deut.12:17): “You may not eat your grain’s tithe in your gates.” About which tithe has this been said? About pure second tithe which entered Jerusalem and left102The origin of this statement is unknown. In the Sifry the verse is interpreted to mean that grain may not be consumed unless heave and all tithes have been removed.. Also from the following which Rebbi Simeon stated. It was stated103In Tosephta 1:6, an anonymous statement is close to the text here. in the name of Rebbi Simeon: “Tithe is special in that tithe forbids its money, mixtures, and vessels; the doubt of an admixture forbids in the most minute amount and one may not use it for lighting.” He should say, the same holds for growth! Rebbi Hila said, he who says growth is permitted, Rebbi Simeon. Those who say growth is forbidden, the rabbis. They said to him, did we not state104Mishnah Terumot 9:4; Notes 61–62.: “Growths from dedicated [seeds] and Second Tithe are profane; one redeems them corresponding to the time of sowing.” Why does he have to redeem? Not because of their inherent sanctity? Here also they should require walls because of their inherent sanctity! Rebbi Jeremiah, Rebbi Ammi, in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: When one says the growth is forbidden, the prohibition of walls105It is forbidden to eat Jerusalem growth from either second tithe or First Fruits outside of Jerusalem.. When one says the growth is permitted, the permission for unauthorized persons106In this respect, growth is profane as stated in Mishnah Terumot.. “These rules apply to tithe and First Fruits but not to heave.”
תַּמָּן תַּנִּינָן וְגַם נְתַתִּיו זוֹ תְרוּמָה וּתְרוּמַת מַעֲשֵׂר. תַּמָּן אַתְּ אָמַר תְּרוּמָה טְעוּנָה וִידּוּי. וְהָכָא אַתְּ אָמַר תְּרוּמָה אֵין טְעוּנָה וִידּוּי. אָמַר רִבִּי הִילָא תַּנֵּיי תַמָּן הַתְּרוּמָה וְהַבִּכּוּרִים. אֶחָד הַנּוֹתְנָן וְאֶחָד הַנּוֹטְלָן טְעוּנִין וִידּוּי. אָמַר רִבִּי זְעִירָה רַבָּנִין דְּתַמָּן סָֽבְרִין וְרַבָּנִין דְּהָכָא אָֽמְרִין מִי שֶׁיֵּשׁ לוֹ מַעֲשֵׂר בִּפְנֵי עַצְמוֹ מִתְוַדֶּה. מִי שֶׁיֵּשׁ לוֹ תְּרוּמָה בִּפְנֵי עַצְמוֹ אֵינוֹ מִתְוַדֶּה. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹסֵי מַתְנִיתָא אָֽמְרָה כֵן. רִבִּי יוֹסֵי אוֹמֵר יֵשׁ לָהֶן עָרֵי מִקְלָט. מַה נָן קַייָמִין. אִם בִּתְרוּמָה וּמַעֲשֵׂר שֶׁלּוֹ הֵן. אֵלָּא כִּי נָן קַייָמִין בִּתְרוּמָה. אָמַר רִבִּי הִילָא שְׁמָעִנָן מִי שֶׁיֵּשׁ לוֹ מַעֲשֵׂר בִּפְנֵי עַצְמוֹ מִתְוַדֶּה. מִי שֶׁיֵּשׁ לוֹ בִּיכּוּרִין בִּיכּוּרִין בִּפְנֵי עַצְמָן מִתְװַדֶּה. שְׁמָעִנָן מִי שֶׁיֵּשׁ לוֹ תְרוּמָה בִּפְנֵי עַצְמָהּ מִתְוַדֶּה. There107Mishnah Ma‘aser Šeni 5:10., we have stated: “ ‘Also I gave it,’ includes heave and heave of the tithe.” There, you say that heave needs declaration but here108Mishnah Bikkurim 2:2. you say, heave does not need declaration. Rebbi Hila said, there109In Babylonia. they stated: Heave and First Fruits, both the one who gives and the one who takes need to declare110The farmer has to make the declaration Deut. 26:3–10 for first fruit and to include in his tithe declaration (Deut. 26:13–14) the assertion that he duly gave his heave to the Cohen. The Cohen has to mention in his tithe declaration that he treated heave and First Fruits according to the rules.. Rebbi Zeïra said, the rabbis there think, and the rabbis here say, if a person has only tithe, he declares; if a person has only heave, he does not declare. Rebbi Yose said, a Mishnah111Mishnah Ma‘aser Šeni 5:14. The Mishnah, referring to Levites, speaks of “cities and their (agricultural) surroundings.” The quote here, referring to Cohanim, speaks of cities of refuge (for the unintentional homicide) which were given to the Cohanim. says so: “Rebbi Yose says, they have their cities of refuge.” Where do we hold? If about heave and tithe, they are his. But it must deal with heave112Of which he is the recipient.. Rebbi Hila said, we [did] understand that if a person has only tithe, he declares; if a person has only First Fruits, he declares. We [now] understand that if a person has only heave, he declares.