וְאָכַלְתָּ֞ לִפְנֵ֣י ׀ יְהוָ֣ה אֱלֹהֶ֗יךָ בַּמָּק֣וֹם אֲשֶׁר־יִבְחַר֮ לְשַׁכֵּ֣ן שְׁמ֣וֹ שָׁם֒ מַעְשַׂ֤ר דְּגָֽנְךָ֙ תִּֽירֹשְׁךָ֣ וְיִצְהָרֶ֔ךָ וּבְכֹרֹ֥ת בְּקָרְךָ֖ וְצֹאנֶ֑ךָ לְמַ֣עַן תִּלְמַ֗ד לְיִרְאָ֛ה אֶת־יְהוָ֥ה אֱלֹהֶ֖יךָ כָּל־הַיָּמִֽים׃
et tu la consommeras en présence de l’Éternel, ton Dieu, dans la localité qu’il aura choisie comme résidence de son nom; savoir, la dîme de ton blé, de ton vin et de ton huile, les premiers-nés de ton gros et de ton menu bétail, afin que tu t’accoutumes à honorer continuellement l’Éternel, ton Dieu.
Jerusalem Talmud Maaser Sheni
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 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 enclosure8Deut. 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, 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..
Jerusalem Talmud Maasrot
Rav Ḥisda said, if somebody declared his standing grain ownerless, came back and retook possession, and illegally gave heave, that is heave18Produce collected from ownerless property is not subject to heave and tithes, as deduced later in this paragraph from Deut. 18:4. In general, if somebody gives heave and tithes from exempt produce, his action is invalid and no sanctity is attached to the heave given. Standing grain is not under any obligation of heave. The obligation of heave and tithes falls on the grain when it is stored after threshing but there is a latent obligation from the time it is cut since then it is potential commercial produce. Therefore, if heave was given from standing grain, that is an invalid act; if heave was given from cut ears of grain, this is against the rules but valid. If the exempt produce was cut while in the possession of its owner, a latent obligation is on it which can be activated by his giving heave and tithes “illegally”, i. e., against the rules.
In the Babli (Nedarim 44b, Baba Qama 28a,94a, Temurah 6a, Ḥulin 134b, Niddah 51a), a similar principle is established using the grape harvest as an example. The entire argument disregards the opinion of R. Yose [Peah6:1 (fol. 19b), Demay 3:2 (fol. 23b), Nedarim 4:10 (fol. 38d)] who rejects the concept of ownerless property and holds that the owner has full responsibility for his abandoned property until it is taken up and acquired by another person.. What is the difference between standing grain and ears of grain? Standing grain, if he illegally gave heave before he declared it ownerless, that is not heave. Ears, if he illegally gave heave before he declared them ownerless, that is heave. Rav Ḥinena in the name of Rav Ḥisda, the same applies to a dedicated crop19As indicated below, a crop which is Temple property is exempt from heave and tithes, as well as from the gifts to the poor. Rav Ḥisda wants to extend this exemption to standing grain which was dedicated to the Temple and redeemed while standing. In that case, there certainly is no exemption from the gifts to the poor, Peah Mishnah 4:5.. The words of the rabbis disagree, since Rebbi Joḥanan said in the name of Rebbi Yannai20Terumot 1:5 (fol. 40d), Ḥallah1:3 (fol. 57c), Nedarim 4:10 (fol. 38d); as tannaïtic statement Sifry Deut. 109.: (Deut. 14:29) “The Levite shall come, because he has neither part nor inheritance with you.” You are obliged to give him from what you have but he has not. This excludes gleanings for which your and his hands are equal. Gleanings, forgotten sheaves, peah, and abandoned property are all equal. Rebbi Joḥanan said, the company did ask: But dedications, where your and his hands are not equal, are treated21By Rav Ḥisda. One continues to show that Rav Ḥisda’s statement is wrong. as if your and his hands were equal. Said Rebbi Ila, what are we talking about? If the heap was made when it was ownerless or dedicated, the Torah said (Deut. 18:4) “the first of your grain”, not the ownerless, “the first of your grain”, not Temple property. But we must be talking about ears that he declared ownerless and of which he retook possession. If they were ownerless, he would be free, if dedicated, he would be obligated. If they were ownerless, he would be free, since Rebbi Joḥanan said in the name of Rebbi Yannai: (Deut. 14:29) “The Levite shall come, because he has neither part nor inheritance with you.” You are obligated to give him from what you have but he has not. This excludes gleanings for which your and his hands are equal. If dedicated, he would be obligated, from the following22Mishnah Peah 4:5.: “If somebody dedicated standing produce and redeemed it standing, it is obligated.” What is the difference between ownerless and dedicated? Ownerless [property] is outside the power of everybody, dedicated [property] is not outside the power of the Temple treasurer. Rebbi Abin said, it did not even go outside the power of its owners since he must say to him you redeem first23The prior owner of dedicated property retains the right of first refusal when the Temple wants to sell the property (Sifra Beḥuqotay Pereq10)..
In the Babli (Nedarim 44b, Baba Qama 28a,94a, Temurah 6a, Ḥulin 134b, Niddah 51a), a similar principle is established using the grape harvest as an example. The entire argument disregards the opinion of R. Yose [Peah6:1 (fol. 19b), Demay 3:2 (fol. 23b), Nedarim 4:10 (fol. 38d)] who rejects the concept of ownerless property and holds that the owner has full responsibility for his abandoned property until it is taken up and acquired by another person.. What is the difference between standing grain and ears of grain? Standing grain, if he illegally gave heave before he declared it ownerless, that is not heave. Ears, if he illegally gave heave before he declared them ownerless, that is heave. Rav Ḥinena in the name of Rav Ḥisda, the same applies to a dedicated crop19As indicated below, a crop which is Temple property is exempt from heave and tithes, as well as from the gifts to the poor. Rav Ḥisda wants to extend this exemption to standing grain which was dedicated to the Temple and redeemed while standing. In that case, there certainly is no exemption from the gifts to the poor, Peah Mishnah 4:5.. The words of the rabbis disagree, since Rebbi Joḥanan said in the name of Rebbi Yannai20Terumot 1:5 (fol. 40d), Ḥallah1:3 (fol. 57c), Nedarim 4:10 (fol. 38d); as tannaïtic statement Sifry Deut. 109.: (Deut. 14:29) “The Levite shall come, because he has neither part nor inheritance with you.” You are obliged to give him from what you have but he has not. This excludes gleanings for which your and his hands are equal. Gleanings, forgotten sheaves, peah, and abandoned property are all equal. Rebbi Joḥanan said, the company did ask: But dedications, where your and his hands are not equal, are treated21By Rav Ḥisda. One continues to show that Rav Ḥisda’s statement is wrong. as if your and his hands were equal. Said Rebbi Ila, what are we talking about? If the heap was made when it was ownerless or dedicated, the Torah said (Deut. 18:4) “the first of your grain”, not the ownerless, “the first of your grain”, not Temple property. But we must be talking about ears that he declared ownerless and of which he retook possession. If they were ownerless, he would be free, if dedicated, he would be obligated. If they were ownerless, he would be free, since Rebbi Joḥanan said in the name of Rebbi Yannai: (Deut. 14:29) “The Levite shall come, because he has neither part nor inheritance with you.” You are obligated to give him from what you have but he has not. This excludes gleanings for which your and his hands are equal. If dedicated, he would be obligated, from the following22Mishnah Peah 4:5.: “If somebody dedicated standing produce and redeemed it standing, it is obligated.” What is the difference between ownerless and dedicated? Ownerless [property] is outside the power of everybody, dedicated [property] is not outside the power of the Temple treasurer. Rebbi Abin said, it did not even go outside the power of its owners since he must say to him you redeem first23The prior owner of dedicated property retains the right of first refusal when the Temple wants to sell the property (Sifra Beḥuqotay Pereq10)..