Talmud su Levitico 27:30

HALAKHAH: “One does not sell Second Tithe.” One does not sell it because holiness is written for it³Lev. 27:30.. One does not use it as a pledge because blessing is written about it⁴Deut. 14:24. Taking a loan and giving a pledge is not a sign of blessing.. “⁵A similar text in Tosephta 1:1: “How may one not sell it? One should not say, here is 200 [zuz] worth, give me 100 in exchange.” If Second Tithe were sold, it would not be redeemed and the buyer would have to eat the produce in purity and sanctity in Jerusalem (assuming the existence of the Temple.) How may one not sell it? A person should not say to his neighbor, here you have this mina’s worth of Second Tithe, give me 50 zuz profane for it.”

Some want to understand it from the following⁸Sifra Beḥuqotai Pereq 12(9); Sifry Deut. 105.: (Deut. 14:22): “You should certainly tithe,” a general statement. “All grain⁹While תבוּאה in biblical Hebrew means “yield” in general, its meaning in rabbinic legal texts is limited to “grain”. of your seed,” a detail. For every general statement followed by a detail, the general statement only implies the detail. That means, only grain. From where legumes? The verse says (Lev. 27:30): “All tithe from the earth, from seeds of the earth, from the fruit of the tree, belongs to the Eternal.” This includes seeds of garlic, cress¹⁰This is the meaning of Syriac תחלא and of Maimonides’ (Ma‘serot 4:6) Arabic חבּ אל-רשאד. and rocket¹¹Cf. Śevi‘it 9:1.. I might think to add the upper part of arum¹²The inedible part carrying the seeds. and the seeds of vetch, the seeds of onions, the seeds of turnips and radishes, and all other garden seeds that are not eaten; the verse says, “from¹³Talmudic interpretation gives to a prefix מ a partitive meaning. seeds of the earth,” and not all seeds of the earth. (Lev. 27:30) “From fruits of trees,” to include all fruits of trees. I might think to add acacia¹⁴Some Sifra and Sifry sources read שקמה “sycamore”. and ṣalmona¹⁵The commentators take צלמונה as a place name. {A place צלמון is mentioned in Mishnah Yebamot 16:6. Cf. also Sulmo, later Sulmona, birth place of Ovid (E. G.).} However, since the other two kinds are trees, the word also must denote a tree, possibly connected with Accadic ṣulmu “black (tree)”. pods, and carobs from dry land¹⁶Sifra reads גרידה “(earth) dry and hard”. This is the basis of the translation, rather than גדירה “fenced in”. In Sifry most mss. read גירודה (variant of גרידה, cf. Levy’s Dictionary, vol. 1, p. 357a); one ms. reads גירוגא “willow basket”.; the verse says, “from¹³Talmudic interpretation gives to a prefix מ a partitive meaning. fruits of trees,” not all fruits of trees.

“Rebbi Aqiba says, all goes after forming a crust in the oven.” The colleagues in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: Rebbi Aqiba agrees with the Sages that rolling the dough of a layman makes it ṭevel. Rebbi Hila in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: Rebbi Aqiba agrees with the Sages that rolling the dough by the Temple exempts⁷⁶In R. Eleazar’s opinion, R. Aqiba accepts Mishnah 3:3 without change. R. Eliahu Fulda notes that “layman” is mentioned only as contrast to “Temple”. This seems to contradict the statements in Halakhah 2:1, Notes 5–6.. Cahana said, the words of Rebbi Aqiba imply that shaping the heap by the Temple does not exempt⁷⁷Shaping the heap is the end of grain processing, which triggers the obligation of heave and tithes. R. Aqiba states in Mishnah Menaḥot 10:4 that leftover flour made by Temple personnel from barley for the ‘omer offering is obligated for tithes. Since the cut grain has to be cleaned before milling, that cleaning process is the equivalent of shaping the heap in a regular harvest. The anonymous majority holds everywhere that all Temple grain is exempt from heave and tithes.
Everybody in that Mishnah agrees that dough made from this flour is subject to ḥallah.. Rebbi Jonah said, that of Rebbi Cahana disagrees with that of Rebbi Eleazar. He who says rolling exempts, [says] shaping exempts. And he who says rolling does not exempt, [says] shaping does not exempt⁷⁸This argument is brought without a dissenting voice in Babli Menaḥot 67a.. But according to the rabbis, rolling exempts in the Gentile’s power, shaping does not exempt in the Gentile’s power. It is difficult for the rabbis, if rolling exempts in the Gentile’s power, why does shaping not exempt in the Gentile’s power⁷⁹The Babli, Menaḥot 67a, holds that this is not biblical but purely rabbinic.? There is a difference since it is written (Lev.27:30): “All tithe from the Land from the seed of the Land.⁸⁰The ethnicity of the farmer is not mentioned. The questioner, and the rabbis quoted in the last sentence, must hold with R. Meïr that possession by a Gentile does not remove the obligations imposed on produce of the Land; cf. Peah 4, Notes 129–131.” But is here⁸¹In the laws of ḥallah. not written (Num. 15:19): “From the bread of the Land?” From the bread, not all bread⁸²If this מ is partitive, there is no reason why in Lev. 27:30 it cannot be partitive also. The argument of R. Jonah is rejected.. Rebbi Ḥanina the son of Rebbi Hillel said, from the rabbis we infer that Cahana’s statement does not disagree with Rebbi Eleazar. Just as the rabbis say, rolling exempts in the Gentile’s power but shaping does not exempt in the Gentile’s power, so Rebbi Aqiba says, rolling does not exempt in the Gentile’s power and shaping does not exempt in the power of the Temple⁸³It is implied that in the matter of grain grown by a Gentile in the Land, R. Meïr reports the position of R. Aqiba.
A Genizah text reads רִבִּי עֲקִיבָה אוֹמֵר אֵין גִּילְגּוּל פּוֹטֵר בִּרְשׁוּת הֶקְדֵּשׁ אֵין הַמֵּירוּחַ פּוֹטֵר בִּרְשׁוּת הֶקְדֵּשׁ. “Rebbi Aqiba says, rolling does not exempt in the Temple’s power and shaping does not exempt in the power of the Temple”. This may be the better text..