Kiddushin 54b (נד:) — the Talmud in English

And we answer:

They are two tannaim, and they

disagreed

according to Rabbi Yehuda

, as to whether Jerusalem is sacred:

The tanna in tractate Nedarim holds, according to Rabbi Yehuda, that Jerusalem is not sacred; whereas Rabbi Yishmael, son of Rabbi Yitzḥak, in the beraita, holds, according to Rabbi Yehuda, that Jerusalem is sacred.

Ulla said in the name of bar Padda

to explain the rationale of Rabbi Meir in our Mishna, that in an unwitting act she is not betrothed, and he interprets it according to the approach of Rabbi Yoḥanan:

Rabbi Meir would say:

An consecrated item

that one misappropriated

intentionally

is

rendered non-sacred

, but

in an unwitting act it is not rendered non-sacred

, because this is an erroneous transaction, as he does not want it to be rendered non-sacred through his agency;

And when they said that in an unwitting act it is rendered non-sacred, they said so only with regard to a sacrifice

, meaning: The Sages never said that a consecrated item is rendered non-sacred through unwitting misappropriation; rather, they said that in an unwitting act he is liable to bring a sacrifice for misappropriation.

And we raise an objection to this:

But once

the consecrated item

is not rendered non-sacred, for what is he liable to bring a sacrifice

[why should he be liable to bring a sacrifice]!?

Rather, when Ravin came, he explained in the name of bar Padda

[he explained in his name] in a different manner:

Rabbi Meir would say: An item dedicated to the Temple is rendered non-sacred when used intentionally; in an unwitting act it is not rendered non-sacred, and when they said that in an unwitting act it is rendered non-sacred

they said so only with regard to eating

, meaning: If one misappropriated consecrated property by transferring it—selling it or betrothing a woman with it—it is not rendered non-sacred, because this is an error; but when did they say that in an unwitting act consecrated property is rendered non-sacred and one is liable for it to bring a sacrifice for misappropriation? Only when he ate the consecrated property or derived some other physical benefit from it.

Rav Naḥman said that Rav Adda bar Ahava said:

The halakha is in accordance with Rabbi Meir with regard to second tithe

, so that a woman cannot be betrothed with it, because second tithe belongs to the Most High,

since the tanna stated an anonymous Mishna in accordance with his view

[since an anonymous Mishna follows his view], namely, that second tithe belongs to the Most High, as the Gemara proceeds to explain.

Rav Naḥman said that Rav Adda bar Ahava said:

The halakha is in accordance with Rabbi Meir with regard to Second Tithe

—that a woman is not betrothed with it, because Second Tithe is the property of Heaven—

since the tanna formulated an unattributed Mishna in accordance with his opinion

, as the Gemara proceeds to explain: The tanna formulated an unattributed Mishna

in

accordance with the opinion of

Rabbi Meir with regard to Second Tithe

, that it is the property of Heaven.

What is it?

As we learned

in tractate Ma’aser Sheni [5:3]:

Fourth-year vineyard

[a vineyard in the fourth year after its planting], whose produce is eaten in Jerusalem; and if the distance from Jerusalem is great, he redeems it with money and takes the money to Jerusalem, as with Second Tithe:

Beit Shammai say: It does not have an additional fifth

, meaning that it is not subject to the law of Second Tithe, requiring the owners to add a fifth when they redeem the produce for money to take it to Jerusalem,

and it does not have removal

, meaning that it is not subject to the law of Second Tithe, which must be removed from the house in the third and sixth years of the Sabbatical cycle, because it is forbidden to leave it beyond that time, and one must deal with it according to its law.

And Beit Hillel say: It does have

an additional fifth and it does have removal, like Second Tithe.

And they further disagreed:

Beit Shammai say:

Just as with regard to an ordinary vineyard the Torah said [Leviticus 19:10]: “You shall not glean your vineyard [a type of cluster of grapes concerning which the Torah commanded that it be left for the poor], and you shall not gather the fallen grapes of your vineyard [individual grapes that fall during the harvesting],” so

it has

the fourth-year vineyard

the status of fallen grapes, and it has

the status of

incomplete clusters

, requiring that they be left for the poor to eat in Jerusalem, because a fourth-year vineyard is also included in the expression “your vineyard,” as it is the property of an ordinary person.

And Beit Hillel say:

The entire vineyard

in its entirety

goes

to the winepress

[the place where the vineyard owner treads the grapes], because it is the property of Heaven.

And we explain:

What is the reason of Beit Hillel

in their first dispute, concerning the additional fifth and removal?

Because Beit Hillel

derive

through a gzera shava: “Holy”

“holy”

[“In the fourth year all its fruit shall be holy, praises to the Lord”]—“holy”

“holy”

from Second Tithe

[“And every tithe of the land, of the seed of the land or of the fruit of the tree, belongs to the Lord; it is holy to the Lord”]:

Just as Second Tithe

has

an additional fifth and removal, so too the fourth-year vineyard has an additional fifth and removal.

And

if

Beit Shammai did not derive

“holy, holy”

from Second Tithe.

From this Mishna it can be proved concerning the position of Beit Hillel that they hold like Rabbi Meir, that “Second Tithe is the property of Heaven”:

And

behold,

Beit Hillel

, who

say

that the law of the fourth-year vineyard is

like that of Second Tithe

in every respect,

whose position do they follow

with regard to Second Tithe, concerning whether it is the property of an ordinary person or the property of Heaven!?

If they follow Rabbi Yehuda

, then

why

did Beit Hillel say that the fourth-year vineyard

in its entirety goes to the winepress

and does not have fallen grapes or incomplete clusters!?

For he said

in our Mishna:

Second Tithe

is the property of an ordinary person

, and the same should apply to a fourth-year vineyard, which according to Beit Hillel is like Second Tithe, and it should consequently be called “your vineyard.”

Rather, is it not

necessarily the case that Beit Hillel

follow Rabbi Meir

, who holds that it is the property of Heaven and is not included in the expression “your vineyard”? It follows that Beit Hillel’s opinion is like that of Rabbi Meir, and since the halakha follows them, this is an unattributed Mishna according to Rabbi Meir. This is what Rav Adda bar Ahava said: “The halakha is in accordance with Rabbi Meir with regard to Second Tithe, since the tanna formulated an unattributed Mishna in accordance with his opinion.”

We further explain what we said above, that the tanna formulated an unattributed Mishna

in

accordance with the opinion of

Rabbi Yehuda with regard to consecrated property

, which is rendered non-sacred through an unwitting act but not through an intentional act—

what is it?

As we learned

in tractate Me’ila [21a]:

The treasurer sent

a peruta belonging to consecrated property

by the hand of

an

intelligent

agent to purchase something with it from a shopkeeper, and

remembered

—the sender remembered, and the agent also remembered—

before he reached the shopkeeper

, they are exempt from liability for misappropriation, as there is no misappropriation through an intentional act, and

the shopkeeper

is the one who

misappropriated it when he spends it

in an expenditure, because he is acting unwittingly.

We learn that consecrated property is rendered non-sacred through an unwitting expenditure, as the shopkeeper misappropriated it—he was acting unwittingly when he spent it; and we learn that through an intentional act it is not rendered non-sacred, for if it were, the peruta would already have become non-sacred when it came into the shopkeeper’s possession, since they had misappropriated it intentionally.

And we raise a difficulty concerning what we said: The halakha is in accordance with Rabbi Meir with regard to Second Tithe because we learned an unattributed Mishna according to his view, that Second Tithe is the property of Heaven:

But with regard to Rabbi Yehuda concerning Second Tithe

—who holds that it is the property of an ordinary person—

did we not learn

[is it true that we did not find an unattributed Mishna that accords with Rabbi Yehuda]!?

who holds that second tithe is the property of Heaven. As for your difficulty—how could it have been given to him as a gift—this is not difficult:

tanna—a sage of the Mishnaic era—

If so, there is a difficulty: why do we hold in accordance with Rabbi Meir because Beit Hillel agree with him, when, on the other hand, an unattributed Mishna follows Rabbi Yehuda? And we answer:

who holds that second tithe—and likewise fourth-year vineyard produce—is the property of Heaven. As for your difficulty—how could the vineyard have been given to him as a gift—this is not difficult:

Then the purchaser

But

who holds that “second tithe is the property of an ordinary person,” and therefore it is acquired through physical taking.