Bava Metzia 53a — the Talmud in English

and are forbidden

to be eaten

by non-koanim

by the prohibition “he shall not eat.” This is not so with regard to maaser, which is permitted to be eaten by non-koanim.

And they are the property of a koen,

and he may betroth a woman with them. This is not so with regard to maaser: the anonymous Mishna is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Meir, who says that maaser is the property of the Most High, and one who betroths a woman with it has not betrothed her.

And

if they became mixed with non-sacred produce,

they become permitted

for permitted use

in a ratio of one to one hundred.

That is, they are not nullified by a majority, as maaser is; rather, only if one part of teruma becomes mixed with one hundred parts of non-sacred produce does he give one part to a koen, and the remainder is permitted.

And they require the washing of the hands and sunset

before they may be eaten.

These, then, are

all these stringencies of

teruma and first fruits, which is not so with regard to maaser.

This concludes the Mishna.

And we raise an objection:

What

does the phrase “and they become permitted in a ratio of one to one hundred,

which is not so with regard to maaser” mean? Does this not imply that maaser is nullified by a majority?!

And if

the

statement

of

Ḥizkiyya is correct,

that even maaser worth less than a peruta may be redeemed with the original coins, why is it nullified by a majority? It

would be an item that has a way of becoming permitted,

through redemption ] ,

and any item that has a way of becoming permitted is not nullified even in a thousand ?

And

we consider the matter:

From where do we know that “which is not so with regard to maaser”

means

that it is nullified by a majority? Perhaps

with regard to maaser

it is not nullified at all,

even in a ratio of one to one hundred?

We reject this:

You cannot say that! With regard to teruma, the Mishna teaches the stringencies of teruma; it does not teach the leniencies of teruma!

Certainly, the Mishna means to say that maaser is more lenient than teruma, and that “one to one hundred” is not required for it; a majority suffices.

We raise an objection:

But it teaches—

“And they are the property of a koen,”

which is a leniency of teruma, namely, that it belongs to a koen and is not the property of the Most High, as maaser is?

We reject this: Even now,

it does not enter your mind

to say that maaser is not nullified by a majority at all,

as it was explicitly taught—

“Maaser sheni is nullified by a majority!

And with regard to which maaser sheni did they say this?

With regard to maaser that is not worth a peruta and that entered Jerusalem and then left,

for it will be explained below that in such a case there is no remedy for it, neither through eating nor through desecration.”

а ниже будет разъяснено, что в таком случае нет возможности исправить его — ни посредством употребления в пищу, ни посредством выкупа».

But if it is worth a peruta, he can desecrate it, and it is not nullified by a majority, for “any item that has a way of becoming permitted is not nullified even in a thousand.”

And

it is difficult:

If Ḥizkiyya’s

statement

is correct, let him follow Ḥizkiyya’s ruling and desecrate it with the original coins!

Why, then, is it nullified by a majority and not considered “an item that has a way of becoming permitted”?

We answer: This is referring to a case

where he did not redeem it.

He did not redeem additional maaser, and he cannot desecrate it with the original coins; therefore it is nullified by a majority.

And

we raise an objection: Even now,

let him bring maaser

worth half a peruta

that he has

, and let him combine them

with the mixed maaser, and redeem both of them with one peruta?

We answer:

A matter subject to Torah law and a matter subject to rabbinic law cannot be combined.

That is, the mixed maaser is subject only to rabbinic obligation, for by Torah law it is nullified by a majority, even though it has a way of becoming permitted. But the additional maaser that he brought is subject to redemption by Torah law, and therefore they cannot be combined so as to establish the sanctity of maaser upon a single peruta.

And

we raise an objection:

Let him bring demai [

produce purchased from an am ha-aretz, which is subject to maaser by rabbinic law ], and let him combine it with the mixed maaser. In such a case, the obligation of both is equivalent?

We answer: It is forbidden by rabbinic law to do so,

lest he come to bring

maaser

of certain status,

whose obligation is by Torah law, and combine it with the mixed half, and desecrate both of them with one peruta; the result would be that the unmixed half would be eaten without redemption.

And

we raise an objection:

Let him bring two perutot, desecrate maaser worth one and a half perutot with them, and desecrate this [

the mixed half-peruta]

with the extra one?

We answer:

Do you think

that maaser worth

one and a half perutot seizes

the sanctity of

two perutot?!

No! One peruta seized

worth

one peruta

of the maaser,

, but half a peruta did not seize it;

the half-peruta of maaser corresponds to it.

And if you say that the mixed portion should combine to complete another peruta?

This cannot be said.

It would once again be a matter subject to Torah law and a matter subject to rabbinic law. And a matter subject to Torah law and a matter subject to rabbinic law cannot be combined.

As stated above.

And if you say: If so, according to Ḥizkiyya, why can he desecrate half a peruta of maaser with the original coins? The surplus in the original coins did not receive sanctity, so the half-peruta is once again non-sacred, and it lacks the power to effect redemption?

One can say that this can be found in a case where he desecrated the original coins onto a whole isar, and not onto perutot. In such a case, even if the maaser is worth only three perutot, the entire isar receives sanctity, and he may desecrate additional maaser upon it, even if it is worth less than a peruta.

And

if so, it is difficult: Here too,

let him bring a whole isar

and desecrate upon it maaser worth less than its value, and desecrate the mixed maaser upon what remains?

We answer: We decree

lest he come to bring perutot,

and separate maaser worth one and a half perutot, with the result that the half-peruta would be eaten without desecration. Therefore, it is preferable to say that it is nullified by a majority.

The Gemara returns to explain the words of the beraita cited above:

We learned in a beraita: Maaser sheni that became mixed with non-sacred produce is nullified by a majority, and this refers to maaser sheni worth less than

“and that entered Jerusalem and then left.”

The Gemara now understood that the beraita was speaking of two different cases: one, maaser that is not worth a peruta; and the other, maaser worth a peruta that entered Jerusalem and then left.

And

we raise an objection:

Why

is it nullified by a majority

? Let him return and bring it in again!

That is, it has a way of becoming permitted, if he returns it to Jerusalem and eats it there ?

We answer: This is referring

to

maaser

that became impure.

He cannot return and eat it in Jerusalem.

We raise an objection:

Let him redeem it [

let him redeem it]?