Kiddushin, Daf Nun Daled, Part 4
Introduction
In today s sugya R. Nahman explains how we rule on the halakhic disputes between R. Meir and R. Yehudah.
אמר רב נחמן אמר רב אדא בר אהבה הלכה כר"מ במעשר הואיל וסתם לן תנא כותיה והלכה כר’ יהודה בהקדש הואיל וסתם לן תנא כותיה
R. Nahman said in the name of R. Ada b. Ahava: The halakhah agrees with R. Meir in respect to tithe, since it is taught according to his view anonymously; and the halakhah agrees with R, Judah in respect to hekdesh, since is taught according to his view anonymously.
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.
כר"מ במעשר מאי היא דתנן כרם רבעי ב"ש אומרים אין לו חומש ואין לו ביעור וב"ה אומרים יש לו ב"ש אומרים יש לו פרט ויש לו עוללות וב"ה אומרים כולו לגת
מ"ט דב"ה גמרי (ויקרא יט, כד) קודש (ויקרא כז, לב) קודש ממעשר מה מעשר יש לו חומש ויש לו ביעור אף כרם רבעי יש לו חומש ויש לו ביעור
וב"ש לא גמרי קודש קודש ממעשר
[We learned anonymously] as R. Meir in respect to second tithe. What is this? As we taught.
1) Bet Shammai says: the laws of the added fifth and removal do not apply to them;
a) But Bet Hillel says: they do.
2) Bet Shammai says: the laws of peret and the defective clusters apply to them, and the poor can redeem the grapes for themselves.
a) But Bet Hillel says: all [of them] go to the wine-press.
b)
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.
וב"ה אומרים כמעשר כמאן סבירא להו אי כר’ יהודה אמאי כולו לגת האמר מעשר ממון הדיוט הוא אלא לאו כר"מ
Now, when Beth Hillel rule that it is like second tithe, according to whom do they hold? If like R. Judah, why is it all for the winepress, did he not hold that the second tithe is secular property?
Hence surely [they agree] with R. Meir.
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.