משנה: כֶּרֶם רְבָעִי בֵּית שַׁמַּאי אוֹמֵר אֵין לוֹ חוֹמֶשׁ וְאֵין לוֹ בֵּיעוּר. וּבֵית הִלֵּל אוֹמֵר יֵשׁ לוֹ. בֵּית שַׁמַּאי אוֹמֵר יֵשׁ לוֹ פֶרֶט וְיֵשׁ לוֹ עוֹלֵלוֹת וַעֲנִייִם פּוֹדִין לְעַצְמָן. וּבֵית הִלֵּל אוֹמֵר כּוּלּוֹ לְגַת. MISHNAH: A vineyard in its fourth year99It is forbidden to harvest a newly planted vineyard the first three years. In the fourth year, the grapes can be harvested but they (or the wine produced from them) must be brought to the Temple and be consumed in Jerusalem in a festive manner (Lev.19:23–24). If there is too much to be taken on a journey, it may be redeemed and the money taken to Jerusalem. The House of Hillel compare the yield of the fourth year to the Second Tithe that also has to be eaten in Jerusalem, since produce of the Second Tithe that is redeemed is subject to a surcharge of one fifth (from above, 25% from below). There are two kinds of removal the vineyard of the fourth year may be subject to; if it is compared to the Second Tithe it must be removed from the house at the end of the third and sixth years of every Sabbatical period; if the produce was that of a Sabbatical year, one may take it but only as long as wild animals find similar food on the field (in this case, in other unharvested vineyards) and it must be removed by being consumed before that time. The House of Shammai consider the yield of the fourth year as profane food, subject only to what is expressly spelled out in the verse.
The argument of the House of Hillel, that the verse compares the vineyard in its fourth year to the Second Tithe, is given in Babli Qiddušin 54b, Sifra Qedošim Parašah 3 #8., the House of Shammai say, it is not subject to a fifth and is not subject to removal; but the House of Hillel say, it is. The House of Shammai say, it is subject to single berries and gleanings100As any other profane food. and the poor redeem for themselves, but the House of Hillel say, all goes to the winepress101Since the second tithe is not subject to any gifts to the poor, neither is the yield of the fourth year..
הלכה: תַּנִּי רִבִּי אוֹמֵר לֹא אָֽמְרוּ בֵּית שַׁמַּאי אֶלָּא בִשְבִיעִית אֲבָל בִּשְׁאָר שְׁנֵי שָׁבוּעַ בֵּית שַׁמַּאי אוֹמְרִים יֵשׁ לוֹ חוֹמֶשׁ וְיֵשׁ לוֹ בִּיעוּר. עַל דַּעְתֵּיהּ דְּהָהֵן תַּנָּייָה לֹא לָֽמְדוּ נֶטַע רְבָעִי אֶלָּא מִמַּעֲשֵׂר שֵׁנִי כְּמַה דְתֵימַר אֵין מַעֲשֵׂר שֵׁנִי בִשְׁבִיעִית. וְדִכְוָותָהּ אֵין נֶטַע רְבָעִי בִשְׁבִיעִית. מֵעַתָּה אַל יְהִי לוֹ קְדוּשָׁה וּקְדוּשָׁתוֹ מֵאֵילָיו לָֽמְדוּ. קוֹדֶשׁ הִילּוּלִים. הֲרֵי הוּא כְקוֹדֶשׁ שֶׁקּוֹרִין עָלָיו. וִיְהֵא מוּתָּר לְאוֹנֵן. תַּנִּי מַגִּיד שֶׁהוּא אָסוּר לְאוֹנֵן. וִיְהֵא חַייָב בְּבֵיעוּר. בְּגִין דְּרִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן פּוֹטֵר מִן הַבֵּיעוּר. וְיִפָּדֶה בִּמְחוּבָּר לְקַרְקַע. HALAKHAH: It was stated103In a different form, Tosephta Maäser Šeni 5:17. The entire discussion is found in Yerushalmi Maäser Šeni 5:3.: Rebbi says, the House of Shammai said this only in the Sabbatical year, but in all other years of the sabbatical cycle, the House of Shammai say that it is subject to a fifth and subject to removal. According to that Tanna, they learned the rules of the vineyard of the fourth year only from the Second Tithe; since you say that there is no Second Tithe in the Sabbatical year104Since there is no private property of agricultural produce in the Sabbatical year, there may not be special uses for the farmer’s family., so there is no fourth year after planting105The Mishnah speaks of כרם רבעי, a vineyard in its fourth year. The baraitot all speak of נטע רבעי, a planting (a planted tree) in its fourth year. The extension of the Biblical commandment about the vineyard to all trees is discussed in Maäser Šeni, Chap. 5. in the Sabbatical year. But then should there be no holiness in it? Its holiness comes from the verse (Lev. 19:24): “Holy for praises,” it has the status of those holy fruits over which praises are said106The First Fruits, for which the praises said in the Temple are spelled out in Deut. 26.. And should it be permitted to the fresh mourner107The mourner in the period between the death of a close relative and the burial, when he is forbidden any sanctified food even if he is not ritually defiled, Deut. 26:14.? It is stated: This108The verse declaring the vineyard of the fourth year as “holy for praises.” Cf. Sifra Qedošim Parašah 3 #9. implies that it is forbidden to the fresh mourner. And should it be subject to removal? Since Rebbi Simeon frees it from removal109The House of Shammai will agree with Rebbi Simeon who states in Mishnah Bikkurim 2:2 that First Fruits and the vineyard of the fourth year are not subject to either kind of removal.. And should it be redeemed while still connected to the ground110This question is not answered. The Tosefta Maäser Šeni 5:19 states categorically that there can be no redemption while the grapes are still on the vine. However, see in Tosefta Kifšutah Maäser Šeni p. 786 the list of authorities who claim that this is only the required procedure, but that a redemption, if done on the vine, is valid after the fact.?
תַּנִּי רַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל אֶחָד שְׁבִיעִית וְאֶחָד שְׁאָר שְׁנֵי שָׁבוּעַ בֵּית שַׁמַּאי אוֹמְרִים אֵין לוֹ חוֹמֶשׁ וְאֵין לוֹ בֵּיעוּר. עַל דַּעְתֵּיהּ דְּהָדֵין תַּנָּייָה לֹא לָֽמְדוּ נֶטַע רְבָעִי מִמַּעֲשֵׂר שֵׁנִי כָּל־עִיקָּר. מֵעַתָּה אַל יְהִי לוֹ קְדוּשָׁה וּקְדוּשָׁתוֹ מֵאֵילָיו לָֽמְדוּ. קוֹדֶשׁ הִילּוּלִים. הֲרֵי הוּא כְקוֹדֶשׁ שֶׁקּוֹרִין עָלָיו אֶת הַהַלֵּל. וִיְהֵא מוּתָּר לְאוֹנֵן. תַּנִּי מַגִּיד שֶׁהוּא אָסוּר לְאוֹנֵן. וִיְהֵא חַייָב בְּבֵיעוּר. בְּגִין דְּרִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן פּוֹטֵר בְּבֵיעוּר. וְיִפָּדֶה בִּמְחוּבָּר לְקַרְקַע. Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel stated: Both in the Sabbatical year and in the rest of the years of the sabbatical cycle, the House of Shammai say, there is no fifth and no removal. According to that Tanna, they did not at all learn the rules of the fourth year after planting from the Second Tithe. But then111If it is profane food. The rest of the paragraph is identical with the previous one except for the insertion of את ההלל missing here in the first version (but found in Maäser Šeni 5:3). should there be no holiness in it? Its holiness comes from the verse (Lev. 19:24): “Holy for praises;” it has the status of those holy fruits over which praises are said. And should it be permitted to the fresh mourner? It is stated: This implies that it is forbidden to the fresh mourner. And should it be subject to removal? Since Rebbi Simeon frees it from removal. And should it be redeemed while still connected to the ground?
רִבִּי זְעִירָה בְּעִי קוֹמֵי רִבִּי אַבָּהוּ מְנַיִין שֶׁהוּא טָעוּן חִילּוּל קוֹדֶשׁ הִילּוּלִים קוֹדֶשׁ חִילּוּלִים לָא מִתְמַנְעִין רַבָּנִין בֵּין הֵ״י לְחֵי״ת. Rebbi Zeïra asked before Rebbi Abbahu: From where that it needs redemption112If the produce cannot be bodily transported to the place of the Temple. The argument is quoted in Babli Berakhot 35a. The word פדיון “redemption” is missing in the Leyden manuscript and the Venice print; it has been added from the parallel text in Maäser Šeni.? (Lev. 19:24) “Holy for praises,” holy for redemption. The rabbis never refrain from identifying ה and ח.113In all Jewish dialects except Eastern European Ashkenazic, ח (ḥ) is very close to הּ. In Medieval German Jewish, as well in Talmudic Babylonian Jewish, h and ḥ were identical and חַ ,הַּ were used as rhyming sounds. The current Ashkenazic identification of the sounds of ח,כ (ḥ, k) comes from the fact that Polish has only one ch sound; this was adopted by the Jews from their Gentile surroundings. While Biblical Hebrew probably had the two Semitic ח sounds, corresponding to Arabic خ، ح, one ḥ as in יצחק Isaac (Septuagint Ισαακ), the other k as in רחל Rachel (Septuagint Ραχηλ), in Mishnaic times these distinctions had disappeared long ago.
תַּנִּי רִבִּי אַייְבוּ בַּר נַגַּרִי קוֹמֵי רִבִּי לָא דְּרִבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל אִם גָּאֹל יִגְאַל אִישׁ מִמַּעַשְׂרוֹ חֲמשִּׁיתוֹ יוֹסֵף עָלָיו. פְּרָט לְנֶטַע רְבָעִי שֶׁאֵין חַייָבִין עָלָיו חוֹמֶשׁ. וְחָזַר וְתַנָּא קוֹמוֹי שְׁתֵּי גְאוּלּוֹת הֵן אַחַת לְמַעֲשֵׂר שֵׁנִי וְאַחַת לְנֶטַע רְבָעִי. Rebbi Ayvu bar Naggari stated before Rebbi La following Rebbi Ismael (Lev. 27:31): “If a man redeems part of his tithes, he should add its fifth to it.” That excludes the fourth year after planting; one is not obligated by it for a fifth. Then he turned around and stated: There are two terms of redemption114גָּאֹל יִגְאַל. One of these statements follows Rebbi, the other Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel., one for the Second Tithe and one for the fourth year after planting.
תַּמָּן תַּנֵּינָן רִבִּי יוּדָה אוֹמֵר אֵין לְנָכְרִי כֶּרֶם רְבָעִי. וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים יֵשׁ לוֹ. אָמַר רִבִּי לָֽעְזָר כֵּינִי מַתְנִיתָא אֵין לְנָכְרִי כֶּרֶם רְבָעִי כָּל־עִיקָּר. רִבִּי בִּיבִּי אָמַר קוֹמֵי רִבִּי זְעִירָא בְּשֵׁם רִבִּי לָֽעְזָר אַתְיָא דְּרִבִּי יוֹדָה כְּבֵית שַׁמַּאי עַל דַּעְתֵּיהּ דְּרִבִּי כְּמַה דְּבֵית שַׁמַּאי אָמַר לֹא לָֽמְדוּ נֶטַע רְבָעִי אֶלָּא מִמַּעֲשֵׂר שֵׁנִי כְּמַה דְתֵימַר אֵין מַעֲשֵׂר שֵׁנִי בִשְׁבִיעִית. וְדִכְוָותֵיהּ אֵין נֶטַע רְבָעִי בִשְׁבִיעִית. כֵּן רִבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר לֹא לָֽמְדוּ נֶטַע רְבָעִי אֶלָּא מִמַּעֲשֵׂר שֵׁנִי כְּמַה דְּתֵימַר אֵין מַעֲשֵׂר שֵׁנִי בְּסוּרִיָּא וְדִכְוָותֵיהּ אֵין נֶטַע רְבָעִי בְּסוּרִיָּא. אָמַר לֵיהּ חֲמִי מַה אָמַר לֹא אָמַר אֵין לוֹ חוֹמֶשׁ וְאֵין לוֹ בֵּיעוּר הָא שְׁאָר כָּל־הַדְּבָרִים יֵשׁ לוֹ. רִבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר אֵין לְנָכְרִי כֶּרֶם רְבָעִי בְסוּרִיָּא. There we have stated116Mishnah Terumot 3:9: “The heave of Gentile and Samaritan is heave, their tithes are tithes, their dedication is dedication. Rebbi Jehudah says, there is no vineyard in the fourth year for the Gentile, but the Sages say, there is.” Even though the Gentile is not required to give heave, tithes, or to dedicate anything to the Temple, if he does it voluntarily, it must be treated according to all rules applying to heave, tithes, and dedications from Jews.: Rebbi Jehudah says, there is no vineyard in the fourth year for the Gentile, but the Sages say there is117This is connected with the disagreement between R. Meïr and R. Jehudah/R. Simeon whether the possession by a Gentile of arable land in the Land of Israel does free its produce from duties of heave and tithes or not, cf. Chapter 4, Notes 129–131. The Babli (Menaḥot 66b) declares R. Jehudah to agree with R. Meïr that the Gentile’s arable land is subject to all duties, but this is not the opinion of the Yerushalmi.. Rebbi Eleazar said, so says the Mishnah: There is never a vineyard in the fourth year for the Gentile118It is difficult to understand what R. Eleazar adds. R. S. Cirillo has: “There is no ‘vineyard of the fourth year’ at all in Syria,” interpreting the Mishnah in terms of Tosephta Terumot2:13, where R. Jehudah is quoted that “a Gentile in Syria has no ‘vineyard of the fourth year’.” This follows the interpretation of R. Simson that R. Jehudah cannot speak of a Gentile in the Land of Israel, based on the Babli quoted in the preceding Note. However, R. Simson’s argument does not apply to the Yerushalmi; the direct testimony of R. Salomon ben Adrat (Responsa attributed to Nachmanides156) confirms the Yerushalmi text as it appears here, in Maäser Šeni, and in the Rome manuscript. It is true that in the end, one speaks only of Syria, but this cannot apply to R. Jehudah’s statement in the Mishnah or to R. Eleazar’s addition.. Rebbi Bibi said before Rebbi Zeïra in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: According to the opinion of Rebbi, the statement of Rebbi Jehudah turns out to be like the statement of the House of Shammai. Since the House of Shammai said that they learned the rules of the vineyard of the fourth year only from the Second Tithe; since you say that there is no Second Tithe in the Sabbatical year, so there is no fourth year after planting in the Sabbatical year. Similarly, Rebbi Jehudah said that they learned the rules of the vineyard of the fourth year only from the Second Tithe; since you say that there is no Second Tithe in Syria119Syria has a special status as far as agricultural laws are concerned. The definition of “Syria” here means all territory that was not conquered by the 12 tribes under Joshua and the early Judges but was included in David’s kingdom. Since it was never incorporated in the Kingdom of Israel, it is not subject to the agricultural laws from the Torah. But since it was part of King David’s empire, these laws apply, either as Rabbinical ordinance or as popular usage. In any case, all rules must be interpreted leniently in Syria. (In consequence of the persecution of Jews in Palestine, particularly under the Christian Roman empire, the center of Jewish population slowly moved from Galilee to Syria.), so there is no fourth year after planting in Syria. He said to him, look what he120The House of Shammai, taken as a collective singular. said! He said only, it is not subject to a fifth and is not subject to removal121They did not say simply: The rules of the vineyard do not apply at all., hence, it is subject to all other rules; Rebbi Jehudah122Tosephta Terumot 2:13; this is R. Zeïra’s proof against R. Bibi, that R. Jehudah does not negate the obligation of the fourth year for Jews in Syria. However, the paragraph after the next will show that the Yerushalmi follows R. Bibi, that there is no such obligation in Syria. says, there is no vineyard in the fourth year for the Gentile in Syria.
שְׁמוּאֵל בַּר אַבָּא בְּעִי הָא בֵית שַׁמַּאי אָמַר לֹא לָֽמְדוּ נֶטַע רְבָעִי אֶלָּא מִמַּעֲשֵׂר שֵׁנִי כְּמַה דְתֵימַר אֵין מַעֲשֵׂר שֵׁנִי בִשְׁבִיעִית. וְדִכְוָותָהּ אֵין נֶטַע רְבָעִי בִשְׁבִיעִית. וְדִכְוָותָהּ שְׁלִישִׁית וְשִׁישִּׁית הוֹאִיל וְאֵין בָּהֶן מַעֲשֵׂר שֵׁנִי לֹא יְהֵא בָהֶן נֶטַע רְבָעִי. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹסֵי שְׁלִישִׁית וְשִׁישִּׁית אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁאֵין בָּהֶן מַעֲשֵׂר שֵׁנִי יֵשׁ בָּהֶן מַעֲשֵׂר עָנִי. שְׁבִיעִית אֵין בָּהּ מַעֲשֵׂר כָּל־עִיקָּר. Samuel bar Abba123A Galilean Amora of the third generation, student of R. Joḥanan, Rebbi Assi, and Rebbi Zeïra. He is not identical with the Babylonian Samuel, whose full name also was Samuel bar Abba. asked: Since the House of Shammai said that they learned the rules of the vineyard of the fourth year only from the Second Tithe; since you say that there is no Second Tithe in the Sabbatical year, there is no fourth year after planting in the Sabbatical year. Similarly, in the third and sixth years of the sabbatical cycle, since there is no Second Tithe124The second tithe is not called Second Tithe but Tithe of the Poor; cf. Chapter 1, Note 127., there should not be any fourth year after planting. Rebbi Yose125The organizing principle for this and the following group of paragraphs is that Rebbi Yose solves the problems. said, even though there is no Second Tithe in the third and sixth years, there is the tithe for the poor. In the Sabbatical year, there are no tithes at all.
חֵיפָה שְׁאַל הָא רִבִּי יוּדָה אָמַר לֹא לָֽמְדוּ נֶטַע רְבָעִי אֶלָּא מִמַּעֲשֵׂר שֵׁנִי כְּמַה דְתֵימַר אֵין מַעֲשֵׂר שֵׁנִי בְסוּרִיָּא. וְדִכְוָותָהּ אֵין נֶטַע רְבָעִי בְסוּרִיָּא. דִּכְוָותֵיהּ לֹא לָֽמְדוּ תְרוּמַת תּוֹדָה אֶלָּא מִתְּרוּמַת מַעֲשֵׂר כְּמַה דְְתֵימַר אֵין תְּרוּמַת מַעֲשֵׂר בַּמִּדְבָּר וְדִכְוָותֵיהּ לֹא תְהֵא תְרוּמַת תּוֹדָה בַּמִּדְבָּר. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹסֵי לֹא לָֽמְדוּ מִמֶּנָּה אֶלָּא לְשֵׁיעוּרִין. Ḥeipha127He seems to be identical with the Babylonian Fourth generation Amora ‘Aipha ben Raḥaba from Pumbedita. He and his brother Abime were known as “the sharp-minded ones from Pumbedita.” asked: Since Rebbi Jehudah said that they learned the rules of the vineyard of the fourth year only from the Second Tithe; since you say that there is no Second Tithe in Syria, there is no fourth year after planting in Syria128Even for Jews, following R. Jehudah in the Mishnah and against R. Jehudah in the Tosephta. This is accepted as genuine interpretation of R. Jehudah’s position.. Similarly, they learned the rules of the heave of the thanksgiving sacrifice129The rules of the thanksgiving sacrifice (Lev. 7:11–15) note only that four kinds of bread have to be brought and that one loaf each has to be given as heave to the officiating priest. The number of required loaves is not specified. The first heave has no fixed amount from the Torah; in the words of Samuel, one grain is enough for an entire silo. But since the number 1 is spelled out here and it is called heave, the natural inference is that the heave is the heave of the tithe given to the Levite, of which the Levite has to give 10% to the priest (Num. 18:26). Hence, 1 is 10% of the required amount, and from each kind of bread 10 loaves have to be brought to the Temple (Sifra Ẓav 7:1). only from the heave of the tithe; since you say that there was no heave of the tithe130Since there were no tithes during the 40 years in the desert; tithes are only imposed in the Land of Israel. in the desert, will it follow that there was no heave of the thanksgiving sacrifice in the desert? Rebbi Yose said, they learned from it only in regard of quantities.
תַּנִּי רִבִּי יוֹסֵי בֵּי רִבִּי יוּדָה רִבִּי לָֽעְזָר בֵּי רִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֵר לֹא נִתְחַייְבוּ יִשְׂרָאֵל בְּנֶטַע רְבָעִי אֶלָּא לְאַחַר אַרְבַּע עֶשְׂרֵה שָׁנָה שֶׁבַע שֶׁכִּיבְּשׁוּ וְשֶׁבַע שֶׁחִילְּקוּ. אָמַר רַב חִסְדָּא אַתְיָא דְּרִבִּי יוֹסֵי בֵּי רִבִּי יוּדָה כְּשִׁיטַּת דְּרִבִּי יוּדָה אָבוֹי. כְּמַה דְּרִבִּי יוּדָה אָמַר לֹא לָֽמְדוּ נֶטַע רְבָעִי אֶלָּא מִמַּעֲשֵׂר שֵׁנִי כְּמַה דְּתֵימַר אֵין מַעֲשֵׂר שֵׁנִי אֶלָּא לְאַחַר אַרְבַּע עֶשְׂרֵה שָׁנָה. וְדִכְוָותָהּ אֵין נֶטַע רְבָעִי אֶלָּא לְאַחַר אַרְבַּע עֶשְׂרֵה שָׁנָה. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹסֵי וְהוּא בְשִׁיטַּת בְּנוֹ סוּרִיָּא לְמֵדָה מֵאַרְבַּע עֶשְׂרֵה שָׁנָה אֵין אַרְבַּע עֶשְׂרֵה שָׁנָה לְמֵדָה מִסּוּרִיָּא. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Jehudah131A son of R. Jehudah (bar Illaï) and companion of Rebbi. stated: Rebbi Eleazar ben Rebbi Simeon said, Israel did become obligated for the fourth year after planting only after 14 years, seven during which they conquered and seven during which they divided up the land132The computation which proves that the time from the death of Moses till the end of the land distribution under Joshua and the assembly at Shiloh was 14 years is given in Seder Olam (Chap. 11, in the author’s edition pp. 116–118.). Rav Ḥisda said, it turns out that the argument of Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Jehudah is identical with that of his father Rebbi Jehudah. Just as Rebbi Jehudah said that they learned the rules of the vineyard of the fourth year only from the Second Tithe, since you say that the Second Tithe started only after 14 years, similarly there was no fourth year after planting until after 14 years. Rebbi Yose said, he follows his son’s argument; Syria was inferred from “after 14 years133If they were not obligated while they were in the Land before its distribution, then certainly they are not obligated in Syria which was conquered only by a king, not by the community of tribes, held only temporarily, and never was distributed among the tribes.;” “after 14 years” was not inferred from Syria.
כְּתִיב וּבַשָּׁנָה הַחֲמִישִּׁית תֹּאכְלוּ אֶת פִּרְיוֹ. רִבִּי יוֹסֵי הַגָּלִילִי אוֹמֵר הֲרֵי אַתְּ כְּמוֹסִיף פֵּירוֹת חֲמִישִּׁית עַל פֵּירוֹת רְבִיעִית מַה פֵּירוֹת חֲמִישִּׁית לִבְעָלִים. אַף פֵּירוֹת רְבִיעִית לִבְעָלִים. רִבִּי זְעִירָא רִבִּי יָסָא בְשֵׁם רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן אַתְיָא דְּרִבִּי יוֹסֵי הַגָּלִילִי כְּרִבִּי יְהוּדָה. כְּמַה דְּרִבִּי יוּדָה עוֹשֶׂה אוֹתוֹ כִּנְכָסָיו כֵּן רִבִּי יוֹסֵי הַגָּלִילִי עוֹשֶׂה אוֹתוֹ כִּנְכָסָיו. It is written (Lev. 19:25): “In the fifth year, you shall eat its yield134This verse following the one which declares the yield of the fourth year of a new vineyard “holy for praises” reads: “But in the fifth year, you shall eat its fruit, to increase its yield to you.” Hence, the harvest is directly given to the owner of the vineyard. Also, “increase” presupposes prior yield for the owner..” Rebbi Yose the Galilean says, here one adds the fruits of the fifth to the fruits of the fourth year. Just as the fruits of the fifth year are for the proprietors, so the fruits of the fourth year are for the proprietors. Rebbi Zeïra, Rebbi Yasa, in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: It turns out that Rebbi Yose the Galilean argues like Rebbi Jehudah. Just as Rebbi Jehudah makes it his property135This may refer to the earlier statement of R. Jehudah that the status of the yield of the fourth year is derived from the laws of Second Tithe and, as private property, is subject to the rules of single berries and gleanings. It also may refer to Mishnah Qiddušin 2:8 where R. Jehudah states that Second Tithe when wilfully and illegally diverted to profane use, such as bridal money to acquire a wife, becomes valid private property and the marriage is contracted, but if the same act was done in error, without intent to change the status of the Tithe, the Second Tithe remains holy, does not become profane, and the marriage is not contracted., so Rebbi Yose the Galilean makes it his property.
רִבִּי יִרְמְיָה בְּעִי קוֹמֵי רִבִּי זְעִירָא כְּדִבְרֵי מִי שֶׁהוּא עוֹשֶׂה אוֹתוֹ כִּנְכָסָיוֹ מַהוּ שֶׁיְּהֵא חַייָב בְּמַעְשְׂרוֹת. אָמַר לֵיהּ כַּיי דְּאָמַר רִבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בֶּן לֵוִי דְּאָמַר רִבִּי אָבִין בְּשֵׁם רִבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בֶּן לֵוִי לֹא סוֹף דָּבָר הֲלָכָה זוּ אֶלָּא כָּל־הֲלָכָה שֶׁהִיא רוֹפֶפֶת בְּבֵית דִּין וְאֵין אַתְּ יוֹדֵעַ מַה טִיבָהּ צֵא וּרְאֵה מַה הַצִּיבּוּר נוֹהֵג וּנְהוֹג. וַאֲנָן חָמֵיי צִיבּוּרָא דְּלָא מַפְרְשִׁין. אָמַר רִבִּי מָנָא אִילּוּ נֶאֱמַר כְּבֵית שַׁמַּאי וְיֵשׁ צִיבּוּר כְּבֵית שַׁמַּאי. אָמַר רִבִּי אָבִין כְּלוּם לָֽמְדוּ נֶטַע רְבָעִי אֶלָּא מִמַּעֲשֵׂר שֵׁנִי כְּמַה דְּתֵימַר אֵין מַעֲשֵׂר שֵׁנִי חַייָב בְּמַעְשְׂרוֹת. וְדִכְוָותָהּ אֵין נֶטַע רְבָעִי חַייָב בְּמַעְשְׂרוֹת. Rebbi Jeremiah asked before Rebbi Zeïra: According to those who declare it his property, should it not be subject to tithes? He said to him, according to what Rebbi Joshua ben Levi said136Yebamot 7:2. This refers to the laws indicated in Lev. 22:10–14. A non-priestly woman married to a priest may eat terumah. If she is divorced, or she becomes a widow without issue, she returns to her former non-priestly status and may not eat terumah. The Mishnah states that the servants of a non-priestly woman who was married to a priest and became a widow while pregnant with her first child, should not eat terumah. The first Mishnah had explained that there are two kinds of property a bride brings to her husband. For “property of dowry” נכסי מלוג the ownership resides with the wife. “Iron cattle” צאן ברזל becomes the husband’s property completely in exchange for an obligation to return full value in case of dissolution of the marriage. In the Halakhah, the Mishnah is interpreted to mean that her servants are “property of dowry” servants, but “iron cattle” servants are his and entitled to eat terumah since only their value has to be returned. She herself may not eat terumah unless and until she gives birth to a male child. On this, R. Abin says in the name of R. Joshua ben Levi that one has to follow what people do, and they do not let any slaves brought by the wife eat in such a situation., as Rebbi Abin said in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi, not only this practice, but in any practical question which is weak in court and you do not know how to decide, go out and see how the public acts, and act accordingly137In Babli Berakhot 45a, this is ascribed to Abbaie, an acquaintance of R. Abin.. And we see that they do not give138R. Zeïra seems to indicate that practice follows the House of Shammai in the interpretation of R. Jehudah. However, practice must follow the House of Hillel who consider the Second Tithe as Heaven’s money.. Rebbi Mana said, that is, if the practice would follow the House of Shammai. But is there any public that acts according to the House of Shammai? Rebbi Abin said, they learned the rules of the vineyard of the fourth year only from the Second Tithe; just as you say that the Second Tithe is not subject to tithes, so the yield of the fourth year is not subject to tithes139According to the House of Hillel..
רִבִּי בָּא רִבִּי חִייָא בְּשֵׁם רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן עִיסַּת מַעֲשֵׂר שֵׁנִי בִּירוּשָׁלַםִ כְּרִבִּי מֵאִיר פְּטוּרָה מִן הַחַלָּה כְּרִבִּי יוּדָה חַייֶבֶת בְּחַלָּה. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹנָה לֹא אָֽמְרוּ אֶלָּא בִּירוּשָׁלַםִ אֲבָל בִּגְבוּלִין לֹא. Rebbi Abba, Rebbi Ḥiyya, in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan140In Babli Pesaḥim 37b, this is stated by R. Assi, another student of R. Joḥanan.: A dough of Second Tithe in Jerusalem, following Rebbi Meïr,141Who in Mishnah Qiddušin 2:8 disagrees with R. Jehudah and states that one never may use the Second Tithe for bridal money since it belongs to Heaven rather than to the owner. The law of ḥallah(Num. 15:20) states that it must be given to the priest as heave from your dough, and for R. Meïr it is not yours. is free from ḥallah, following Rebbi Jehudah142In the Babli, R. Jehudah’s opinion is classified as that of the Sages, i. e. the operative practice, in accordance with the opinion of the Yerushalmi. it is subject to ḥallah. Rebbi Jonah said, they said this only for Jerusalem, but not for the countryside143Outside of Jerusalem, produce from Second Tithe may be eaten only if redeemed. Then the produce becomes profane and the sanctity is transferred to the money. Hence, even R. Meir must agree that the dough must acquire profane status and, therefore, is subject to ḥallah..
רִבִּי בָּא בַּר כֹּהֶן בְּעָא קוֹמֵי רִבִּי יוֹסֵי כְּדִבְרֵי מִי שֶׁהוּא מְחַייֵב בְּפֶרֶט מַהוּ שֶׁתְּהֵא חַייֶבֶת בְּחַלָּה. אָמַר לֵיהּ וְלֹא רִבִּי יוּדָה הִיא וְסָֽבְרִינָן מֵימַר כָּל־הָדָא הִילְכְתָא רִבִּי יוּדָה כְּבֵית שַׁמַּאי. Rebbi Abba bar Cohen asked before Rebbi Yose: He who declares it144This must refer to the Second Tithe, not the fruit of the fourth year of a tree, since ḥallah is only due from dough made from grain. obligated for single berries, does he also declare it obligated for ḥallah? He said to him, is that not Rebbi Jehudah? And it is our opinion that in all this practice, Rebbi Jehudah follows the House of Shammai145Who declare both the Second Tithe and the growth of the fourth year as private property, subject to all its laws..