Kiddushin, Daf Nun Daled, Part 6

 

Introduction

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.

 

ת"ש הפודה נטע רבעי שלו מוסיף עליו חמישיתו בין משלו בין שניתן לו במתנה מני אילימא ר"מ מי מצי יהיב ליה והא גמרי ‘ קודש קודש ממעשר אלא לאו ר’ יהודה

 

Come and hear: If one redeems his own fourth year plantings, he must add a fifth, whether it was [originally] his or given to him as a gift.

Who is the author of this? If we say: R. Meir? Can one give it away; behold he derives holy holy from second-tithe? Hence it must surely be R. Yehudah!

 

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.

 

לעולם ר"מ והכא במאי עסקינן כגון דיהיב כשהוא סמדר ודלא כר’ יוסי דאמר סמדר אסור מפני שהוא פרי

 

[No.] After all, it is R. Meir; and what are we dealing with here? For instance when he gave it to him when it was budding and this does not agree with R. Yosi, who hold: Budding fruit is forbidden [as orlah], because it counts as fruit.

 

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.

 

ת"ש משך הימנו מעשר בסלע ולא הספיק לפדותו עד שעמד בשתים נותן סלע ומשתכר בסלע ומעשר שני שלו

מני אילימא ר"מ אמאי משתכר בסלע (ויקרא כז, כג) ונתן את הכסף וקם לו אמר רחמנא אלא לאו ר’ יהודה

 

Come and hear: If he drew into his possession another person s second tithe to the value of a sela, and had no time to redeem it before it appreciated to two, he must pay a sela and thus profits a sela and the second-tithe is his.

Now, whose view is this? If we say: R. Meir s; why does he profit a sela, And he shall give the money, and it shall be assured to him? Thus it must surely be R. Yehudah’s!

 

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.

 

לעולם ר’ יהודה והכא חד סתמא והכא תרי סתמי ואי סתמא דוקא מה לי חד סתמא מה לי תרי סתמי אמר רב נחמן בר יצחק הלכה כר’ מאיר הואיל ותנן בבחירתא כוותיה

 

It is indeed R. Yehudah’s, but here we have one anonymous teaching, whereas there we have two.

But if an anonymous [ruling] was intentionally taught, what does it matter whether there is one or two? R. Nahman b. Yitzchak said: The halakhah follows R. Meir, since we learnt his view in Behirta (Tractate Eduyot).

 

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.