אֲפִילּוּ בִּירוּשָׁלַיִם – שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״כִּי לֹא תוּכַל שְׂאֵתוֹ״, וְאֵין ״שְׂאֵת״ אֶלָּא אֲכִילָה, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״וַיִּשָּׂא מַשְׂאֹת מֵאֵת פָּנָיו״.

even in Jerusalem, although ritually pure second tithe cannot be desacralized in Jerusalem? It is as it is stated: “For you are unable to carry [se’et] it…and you shall turn it into money, and bind up the money in your hand” (Deuteronomy 14:24–25). And se’et means nothing other than eating, as it is stated: “And he took portions [masot] from before him” (Genesis 43:34). Since ritually impure second-tithe produce may not be consumed, Rabbi Elazar holds that one may desacralize it even if it had been brought into Jerusalem.

אֶלָּא בְּלָקוּחַ בְּכֶסֶף מַעֲשֵׂר שֵׁנִי. לָקוּחַ בְּכֶסֶף מַעֲשֵׂר נָמֵי לִיפְרְקֵיהּ, דִּתְנַן: הַלָּקוּחַ בְּכֶסֶף מַעֲשֵׂר שֵׁנִי שֶׁנִּטְמָא – יִפָּדֶה! כְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה דְּאָמַר יִקָּבֵר.

Rather, the halakha of the baraita is taught not with regard to second-tithe produce, but with regard to food acquired with second-tithe money, which cannot be desacralized. The Gemara asks: With regard to food acquired with second-tithe money too, let him redeem it, as we learned in a mishna (Ma’aser Sheni 3:10): Food acquired with second-tithe money that became ritually impure should be redeemed. The Gemara answers: The baraita is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, who says: Food acquired with second-tithe money that became ritually impure must be buried and may not be redeemed.

אִי רַבִּי יְהוּדָה, מַאי אִירְיָא ״יָצָא״? אֲפִילּוּ לֹא יָצָא נָמֵי, אֶלָּא: לְעוֹלָם בְּטָהוֹר, וּמַאי ״יָצָא״ – דִּנְפוּל מְחִיצוֹת.

The Gemara asks: If the baraita is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, why did the tanna teach specifically a case where the food exited Jerusalem? Even if it did not exit Jerusalem, that halakha also applies, as he holds that once the food becomes ritually impure it must be buried. Rather, actually, it is taught in the baraita with regard to second tithe that is ritually pure, and what is the meaning of exited? It is not that the produce actually exited Jerusalem. Rather, the baraita is discussing a case where the partitions, i.e., the walls, surrounding the city fell. The legal status of that second-tithe produce is that of produce that exited the city.

וְהָאָמַר רָבָא: מְחִיצָה לֶאֱכוֹל – דְּאוֹרָיְיתָא, מְחִיצוֹת לִקְלוֹט – דְּרַבָּנַן. וְכִי גְּזַרוּ דְּרַבָּנַן: כִּי אִיתַנְהוּ לִמְחִיצוֹת. כִּי לֵיתַנְהוּ לִמְחִיצוֹת – לָא גְּזַרוּ רַבָּנַן! לָא פְּלוּג רַבָּנַן בֵּין אִיתַנְהוּ לִמְחִיצוֹת, בֵּין לֵיתַנְהוּ לִמְחִיצוֹת.

The Gemara asks: But doesn’t Rava say: The halakha that a partition enables one to eat second-tithe produce is by Torah law, and the halakha with regard to the capability of partitions of the city to gather second-tithe produce into the city is by rabbinic law, and when the Sages issued a decree that partitions gather second-tithe produce in terms of their being considered within the city, they did so only where there are intact partitions, but where there are no intact partitions, the Sages did not issue a decree? The Gemara answers: Once they issued the decree, the Sages did not distinguish between cases where there are intact partitions and cases where there are not intact partitions. Once the Sages issued the decree with regard to partitions and the produce being gathered they applied it globally. This is one manner of explaining the baraita.

רַב הוּנָא בַּר יְהוּדָה אָמַר רַב שֵׁשֶׁת: חֲדָא קָתָנֵי: מַעֲשֵׂר שֵׁנִי שֶׁאֵין בּוֹ שָׁוֶה פְּרוּטָה שֶׁנִּכְנַס לִירוּשָׁלַיִם וְיָצָא. אַמַּאי? וְנִיהְדַּר וּנְעַיְּילֵיהּ וְנֵיכְלֵיהּ! דִּנְפוּל מְחִיצוֹת.

Rav Huna bar Yehuda said that Rav Sheshet said: The tanna of the baraita is teaching one halakha: It is with regard to second-tithe produce that is not worth even one peruta and which both entered Jerusalem and then exited it. It cannot be redeemed because it is worth less than one peruta. The Gemara asks: Why? And let him bring it back into Jerusalem and partake of it there. The Gemara answers: It is a case where the partitions surrounding the city fell.

וְנִפְרְקֵיהּ? הָאָמַר רָבָא: מְחִיצָה לֶאֱכוֹל דְּאוֹרָיְיתָא, מְחִיצָה לִקְלוֹט דְּרַבָּנַן, וְכִי גְּזַרוּ רַבָּנַן – כִּי אִיתַנְהוּ לִמְחִיצוֹת. כִּי לֵיתַנְהוּ לִמְחִיצוֹת – לָא גְּזַרוּ רַבָּנַן. לָא פְּלוּג רַבָּנַן.

The Gemara asks: And let him redeem the second-tithe produce, as doesn’t Rava say: The halakha that a partition enables one to eat second-tithe produce is by Torah law, and the halakha with regard to the capability of partitions of the city to gather second-tithe produce into the city is by rabbinic law, and when the Sages issued a decree that partitions gather second-tithe produce in terms of their being considered within the city, they did so only where there are intact partitions, but where there are no intact partitions, the Sages did not issue a decree? The Gemara answers: The Sages did not distinguish between cases where there are intact partitions and cases where there are not intact partitions.

אִי הָכִי, מַאי אִירְיָא אֵין בּוֹ שָׁוֶה פְּרוּטָה? אֲפִילּוּ יֵשׁ בּוֹ נָמֵי! לָא מִיבַּעְיָא קָאָמַר. לָא מִיבַּעְיָא יֵשׁ בּוֹ, דְּקָלְטָן לֵיהּ מְחִיצוֹת. אֲבָל אֵין בּוֹ, אֵימָא: לָא קְלַטוּ לֵיהּ מְחִיצוֹת, קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן.

The Gemara comments: If so, why did the tanna teach specifically a case where the produce does not have the value of one peruta? The same would hold true even if it has the value of one peruta. The Gemara answers: The tanna is speaking utilizing the style of: It is not necessary. It is not necessary to state that if the produce has the value of one peruta the halakha is that the partitions gather it and it can no longer be redeemed, but if it does not have the value of one peruta, say that the partitions do not gather it. Therefore, he teaches us that the partitions gather even second-tithe produce worth less than one peruta, and it cannot be redeemed.

תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: ״אִם גָּאֹל יִגְאַל אִישׁ מִמַּעַשְׂרוֹ״, מִמַּעַשְׂרוֹ – וְלֹא כׇּל מַעַשְׂרוֹ. פְּרָט לְמַעֲשֵׂר שֵׁנִי שֶׁאֵין בּוֹ שָׁוֶה פְּרוּטָה. אִיתְּמַר. רַב אַמֵּי אָמַר: אֵין בּוֹ. רַב אַסִּי אָמַר: אֵין בְּחוּמְשׁוֹ. רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָמַר: אֵין בּוֹ. רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן לָקִישׁ אָמַר: אֵין בְּחוּמְשׁוֹ.

§ The Sages taught that it is written: “And if a man will redeem of his tithe, he shall add to it the fifth part thereof” (Leviticus 27:31), from which it is inferred: Of his tithe, but not all his tithe. This serves to exclude second tithe that does not have the value of one peruta, which cannot be redeemed. It was stated that there is an amoraic dispute with regard to this halakha. Rav Ami says: The second tithe cannot be redeemed in a case where the produce itself does not have the value of one peruta. Rav Asi says: The second tithe cannot be redeemed in a case where its additional payment of one-fifth does not have the value of one peruta. Other amora’im dispute the same issue. Rabbi Yoḥanan says: The produce itself does not have the value of one peruta. Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish says: Its additional payment of one-fifth does not have the value of one peruta.

מֵיתִיבִי: מַעֲשֵׂר שֵׁנִי שֶׁאֵין בּוֹ שָׁוֶה פְּרוּטָה – דַּיּוֹ שֶׁיֹּאמַר ״הוּא וְחוּמְשׁוֹ מְחוּלָּל עַל מָעוֹת רִאשׁוֹנוֹת״.

The Gemara raises an objection from a baraita: With regard to second-tithe produce that does not have the value of one peruta, it is sufficient that he will say: It and its additional payment of one-fifth are desacralized upon the first coins upon which I already redeemed second-tithe produce.

בִּשְׁלָמָא לְמַאן דְּאָמַר ״אֵין בְּחוּמְשׁוֹ״ – הַיְינוּ דְּקָתָנֵי ״דַּיּוֹ״, דְּאַף עַל גַּב דִּבְדִידֵיהּ אִית בֵּיהּ, כֵּיוָן דִּבְחוּמְשֵׁיהּ לֵיכָּא – שַׁפִּיר. אֶלָּא לְמַאן דְּאָמַר ״אֵין בּוֹ״, מַאי ״דַּיּוֹ״? קַשְׁיָא.

The Gemara explains the objection: Granted, according to the one who says: There is not the value of a peruta in its additional payment of one-fifth, this is the reason that the tanna teaches: It is sufficient, which indicates that even though in the produce itself it has the value of one peruta, since there is not the value of a peruta in its one-fifth payment, it works out well, as it is sufficient if he redeems the produce with other second-tithe produce. But according to the one who says: It is in a case where the produce itself does not have the value of one peruta that the second tithe cannot be redeemed, what is the meaning of: It is sufficient? From the outset, there was never sufficient value for there to be any element of redemption. The Gemara concludes: Indeed, it is difficult to explain the baraita according to that opinion.

אִיבַּעְיָא לְהוּ: חוּמְשָׁא מִלְּגָיו, אוֹ חוּמְשָׁא מִלְּבַר? אָמַר רָבִינָא, תָּא שְׁמַע: הַבְּעָלִים אוֹמְרִים בְּעֶשְׂרִים, וְכׇל אָדָם בְּעֶשְׂרִים – הַבְּעָלִים קוֹדְמִין מִפְּנֵי שֶׁמּוֹסִיפִין חוֹמֶשׁ. אָמַר אֶחָד: הֲרֵי עָלַי בְּעֶשְׂרִים וְאֶחָד –

§ Apropos the additional payment of one-fifth, a dilemma was raised before the Sages: Is the payment of one-fifth calculated from within, i.e., one-fifth of the value of the redeemed item, or is the payment of one-fifth calculated from without, meaning one-quarter of the value of the redeemed item, which is one-fifth of the eventual payment, i.e., the principal plus the additional one-fifth? Ravina says: Come and hear a resolution of the dilemma from a baraita: In a case where the owner says he is willing to redeem consecrated property for twenty dinars, and any other person is willing to purchase the property for twenty dinars, the owners take precedence and redeem the property due to the fact that they are obligated to add one-fifth, and the Temple treasury profits more from the owner than from anyone else. If one who is not the owner said: It is incumbent upon me to desacralize it for twenty-one dinars,