According to the resolution, people disagree as to what R. Judah held. Some held that he believed that the stones of Jerusalem were sacred. Some held that he thought they were not.
The Talmud continues to discuss R. Meir’s views on what happens to hekdesh (sacred property) if it is used in a non-sacred way. Does it become desacralized?
If one intentionally uses hekdesh, then the hekdesh is considered to be desacralized. Essentially, it is considered as if redeemed it. But if unwittingly it remains hekdesh. However, if he does use it unwittingly, he still must bring a sacrifice.
If the hekdesh remains sacred, then why is he liable for a sacrifice. Essentially, he has not done anything.
Therefore, Rabin adjusts Bar Pada’s statement. If he ate the entire hekdesh (meaning used it up, consumed it), then if done unwittingly, then he must bring a sacrifice. However, if he did not use it up, then essentially nothing has happened. The hekdesh remains sacred and he is not liable to bring an offering.
By the way, the name Bar Pada somehow conjures up Star Wars in my mind.
In today’s sugya R. Nahman explains how we rule on the halakhic disputes between R. Meir and R. Yehudah.
R. Nahman rules in accordance with tannaim that agree with anonymous views in tannaitic literature. Thus, like R. Meir, second tithe is considered sacred and betrothal with it is not valid.
But the halakhah follows R. Judah in respect to hekdesh. If unwittingly, he has betrothed her. If intentionally, he has not.
This mishnah is from Peah 7:6. The following is my explanation from Mishnah Yomit:
For the first three years’ of a vine’s growth, its grapes are “orlah” and cannot be eaten. In the fourth year of its growth, they are like second tithe and must either be eaten in Jerusalem or redeemed and brought to Jerusalem where the proceeds are to be used to buy food. Our mishnah deals with these laws and in the second half of the mishnah it deals with the impact that these laws have on some of the agricultural gifts.
Section one: According to Bet Shammai when one redeems the grapes of a fourth year vineyard, that is one takes money and transfers the holiness of the grapes onto the money and brings the money to Jerusalem, one does not need to add a fifth of the value, as one does for second tithe. With regard to second tithe Leviticus 27:31 states, “If anyone wishes to redeem any of his tithes, he must add one-fifth to them.” This, according to Bet Shammai, was stated only with regard to tithes and not with regard to the fourth-year vineyard. Bet Shammai also holds that another rule concerning tithes does not apply. Deuteronomy 14:28 states, “At the end of three years you shall bring out the full tithe of your yield of that year.” This means that at the end of three years one must get rid of all of the tithes within one’s household and give them to whomever they rightfully belong. According to Bet Shammai one does not have to get rid of the wine made of fourth year grapes. In short, Bet Shammai says that while there is some similarity between fourth year grapes and second tithe, they are not similar in all aspects.
Bet Hillel says that all of the laws of second tithe apply to fourth year grapes. Therefore, when one redeems them he must add a fifth and they must be removed at the end of three years.
Section two: The laws of peret (fallen grapes) and defective clusters (olelot) do not apply to tithes. Since Bet Shammai does not hold that the laws of tithes apply to the fourth year grapes, they therefore hold that the laws of peret and defective clusters do apply. The poor people would take their peret and olelot, redeem them, and bring the money to Jerusalem, just as the owner does with his own grapes/wine.
Bet Hillel, on the other hand, holds that the poor do not receive the peret and the olelot because the agricultural gifts of the poor do not apply to tithes. Rather the owners take all of the grapes and bring them to the winepress, make wine and then either bring the wine to Jerusalem or redeem the wine and bring the money to Jerusalem.
The fact that Bet Hillel does not obligate one to separate gifts for the poor from fourth year wine means that they do not hold that it is holy. Therefore, they must agree with R. Meir. Fourth year wine and second tithe are both holy.
In yesterday’s sugya we heard of an anonymous mishnah that rules like R. Yehudah when it comes to hekdesh. To recall, he had said that if a man uses hekdesh for betrothal, if unwittingly, he has betrothed her. If intentionally, he has not.
This is Mishnah Meilah 6:2. An employer sends an agent of sound senses (not deaf or a minor) and remembers that the money he gave to his agent is holy, but he remembers too late. The employee is already on his way. At this point the sender cannot be liable for trespass, or at least not to bring a trespass to atone for trespass, because a sacrifice is not brought by one who intentionally commits trespass. Although he sent it without knowing it was holy, since he knows before it is used, he is considered as one who intentionally commits trespass.
This accords with R. Judah who holds that when one intentionally uses hekdesh, the hekdesh remains holy. It will be descralized only when the shopkeeper uses it.
The Talmud goes back to ask whether we are so sure that the anonymous mishnah about second tithe accords with R. Meir. There is a mishnah that refers to second tithe being given from one person to another. But if second tithe is holy, it cannot be given as a gift.
The gift given to the one separating tithes was not second tithe itself, but untithed produce. The agricultural gifts are still within the produce (mixed up in it) and are not considered as if they have been separated. Therefore, one can give, in a sense, second tithe, to another person. When he separates the tithe, it will be his own tithe he is separating.
The discussion of whether there are anonymous mishnayot that agree with R. Yehudah, who holds that second tithe is not holy and can be used for betrothal, continues.
Fourth year plantings have the same status as second tithe. So if one can give fourth year plantings as a gift, then they, and by extension, second tithe, are not considered holy. This mishnah would thus seem to agree with R. Yehudah.
The Talmud resolves that the plantlings were given to him while they were still budding, before they became obligated in agricultural gifts. This disagrees with R. Yosi who holds that plants while still budding are liable for agricultural gifts.
A person is buying second tithe produce. He draws it into his possession but before he can redeem it the produce is worth two selas. He pays the seller only a sela since he acquired it before it went up in price. The full second tithe produce is now his and he has gained a sela. The problem is that if second tithe is holy, as R. Meir says, then one acquires it only after paying the money, not by drawing it into his possession, like non-sacred items. This seems to be another anonymous mishnah that follows R. Yehudah.
The Talmud admits that this mishnah accords with R. Yehudah. Still, the mishnah that accords with R. Meir appears twice, once in Maaser Sheni and once in Eduyot and the mishnah that agrees with R. Yehudah appears only in Maaser Sheni. Two seems to be better than one.
R. Nahman b. Yitzchak explains that the preference for R. Meir is not that his mishnah was taught twice, but that his mishnah was taught in Tractate Eduyot, called “Behirta” or “choice”. Tractate Eduyot is viewed, occasionally, as a more authoritative tractate.