ואסורים לזרים והן נכסי כהן ועולים באחד ומאה וטעונין רחיצת ידים והערב שמש הרי אלו בתרומה ובכורים מה שאין כן במעשר And their consumption is prohibited to non-priests; and they are the property of the priest in every sense, e.g., to sell them to another priest or betroth a woman with them; and if they were intermingled with non-sacred produce they are negated only if the ratio is one part teruma in one hundred parts non-sacred produce; and they require the washing of one’s hands before partaking of them; and one who was impure and immersed must wait for sunset before partaking of them. These are halakhot that are in effect with regard to teruma and first fruits, which is not so with regard to second tithe.
מאי מה שאין כן במעשר לאו מכלל דמעשר בטיל ברובא ואם איתא דחזקיה הוה ליה דבר שיש לו מתירין וכל דבר שיש לו מתירין אפי' באלף לא בטיל The Gemara asks: What is the meaning of: Which is not so with regard to second tithe? Is it not, by inference, that second tithe is negated in a majority of non-sacred produce? And if it is so that the opinion of Ḥizkiyya is correct and even second-tithe produce worth less than one peruta can be redeemed, second tithe is an item whose prohibition has permitting factors, and the principle is that any item whose prohibition has permitting factors is not negated even if it is in a mixture with one thousand permitted parts.
וממאי דמה שאין כן במעשר דבטיל ברובא דלמא לא בטיל כלל לא מצית אמרת הכי דלגבי תרומה חומרי דתרומה קתני קולי דתרומה לא קתני והא קא תני והן נכסי כהן The Gemara rejects this proof: And from where is it learned that from the phrase: Which is not so with regard to second tithe, one infers that second tithe is negated in a simple majority? Perhaps infer that second tithe is not negated at all. The Gemara answers: You cannot say so, as with regard to teruma, the tanna in the mishna is teaching the stringencies of teruma but he is not teaching the leniencies of teruma. The Gemara asks: But doesn’t the tanna teach: And they are the property of the priest, which is a leniency? Apparently, the tanna did not restrict his treatment of the halakhot of teruma to stringencies.
לא סלקא דעתך דתניא בהדיא מעשר שני בטיל ברובא ובאיזה מעשר שני אמרו במעשר שאין בו שוה פרוטה ושנכנס לירושלים ויצא ואם איתא לדחזקיה ליעבד ליה לדחזקיה וניחל ליה על מעות הראשונות דלא פריק The Gemara states: The inference that second tithe is not negated at all should not enter your mind, as it is taught explicitly in a baraita: Second tithe is negated in a simple majority. And with regard to which second tithe did the Sages say this? It is with regard to second tithe that is not worth even one peruta, and which entered Jerusalem and exited. The Gemara states its objection to the ruling of Ḥizkiyya: And if it is so that the opinion of Ḥizkiyya is correct and even second-tithe produce worth less than one peruta can be redeemed, let him take action according to Ḥizkiyya and redeem the second tithe upon the first coins. Therefore, as an item whose prohibition has permitting factors, it should not be negated at all. The Gemara answers: This is a case where he did not redeem his second tithe, and therefore he has no first coins upon which to redeem the produce.
וניתי מעשר דאית ליה ונצטרפינהו דאורייתא ודרבנן לא מצטרפי The Gemara asks: And let him bring other second-tithe produce worth half a peruta that he has, and join it to the second tithe worth half a peruta intermingled with the non-sacred produce, and desacralize them together. It remains an item whose prohibition has permitting factors. The Gemara answers: Second tithe by Torah law and second tithe by rabbinic law do not join. By Torah law second tithe is negated in a majority of non-sacred produce and retains no sanctity, and it is by rabbinic law that an item whose prohibition has permitting factors is not negated. Therefore, the half-peruta of second tithe that he brought, which is not in a mixture and is second tithe by Torah law, cannot be redeemed.
וניתי דמאי דלמא אתי לאתויי ודאי The Gemara continues: And let him bring half a peruta of second-tithe produce from doubtfully tithed produce [demai], which is by rabbinic law, and join it to the intermingled half-peruta. The Gemara explains: One may not do so ab initio lest he come to bring a half-peruta from produce that is definitely untithed, as in practice one treats demai in the same manner that he treats untithed produce.
וניתי שתי פרוטות ונחלל עלייהו מעשר בפרוטה ומחצה ונחלל האי על היאך יתירא מי סברת פרוטה ומחצה תפסה שתי פרוטות לא פרוטה תפסה פרוטה וחצי פרוטה לא תפסה הדר הויא ליה דאוריית' ודרבנן ודאורייתא ודרבנן לא מצטרפי The Gemara suggests: And let him bring two perutot and desacralize second tithe worth one and a half perutot upon them, and desacralize this half-peruta of second tithe upon that remaining half-peruta. The Gemara rejects this: Do you hold that the sanctity of second-tithe produce worth one and a half perutot takes effect on two perutot? No, the sanctity of one peruta takes effect on one peruta of the coins, and the sanctity of the half-peruta of produce does not take effect on anything. Once again it becomes a case of one half-peruta of produce that is second tithe by Torah law and the half-peruta in mixture that is second tithe by rabbinic law, and second tithe by Torah law and second tithe by rabbinic law do not join.
ונייתי איסר דלמא אתי לאתויי פרוטות The Gemara asks: And let him bring an issar, worth eight perutot, and redeem second tithe worth almost that much, and redeem the intermingled half-peruta of second tithe upon the rest. The Gemara answers: One may not do so ab initio, lest he come to bring perutot to redeem the produce, in which case the sanctity of the tithe will not take effect on a half-peruta, and the remedy will be ineffective.
ושנכנס לירושלים ויצא ואמאי וליהדר ונעייליה בשנטמא ונפרקיה דאמר ר' אלעזר מנין למעשר שני שנטמא שפודין אותו It is taught in the baraita: And which entered Jerusalem and exited. The Gemara asks: And why is the matter of negation in a majority relevant? Let him bring it back into Jerusalem and partake of it there. The Gemara answers: The reference is to second tithe that became ritually impure outside Jerusalem. The Gemara asks: But why not let him redeem it, in accordance with the statement of Rabbi Elazar? As Rabbi Elazar says: From where is it derived with regard to second-tithe produce that became ritually impure that one may redeem it