Kiddushin 56a (נו.) — the Talmud in English

And if he purchased

an animal with money of ma'aser sheni:

If he purchased it

unintentionally

meaning that the purchaser did not know that the money was ma'aser sheni money, and it turns out that he must bring the animal—upon which the money was exchanged—to Jerusalem: B. Tosafot, after citing Rashi’s words, raised the following difficulty: “And if you say: What penalty is there for the seller in this, [the plain meaning of their intent is that they are questioning Rashi, who said: “

the seller is compelled to return the money,” implying that the annulment of the transaction is carried out against the seller’s will. They therefore ask why he must be compelled, and what penalty there is for him when they say, “the money returns to its place.” However, the Maharsha found their meaning difficult, as follows], on the contrary, it is a benefit for him, since he is exempted from bringing it to Jerusalem, because the ma'aser sheni money is no longer in his possession, since we say: The money returns to its place.” The Maharsha wondered about their words: A. “Penalty”—who mentioned anything about a penalty; B. What did Tosafot mean by writing that it is a benefit for him to be rid of the money in his possession, so that he need not bring it to Jerusalem? Surely it follows from Rashi that the sanctity of the money was transferred to the animal! Therefore, the Maharsha wrote that Tosafot’s question does not accord with Rashi’s method at all; see there, and in its plain meaning his words are compelling. However, the Maharam appears to have understood their words in their plain sense: They are questioning Rashi as to why “the seller is compelled,” since it is a benefit for him. According to him, Tosafot understood Rashi to mean that when he purchased it unintentionally, the money was not transferred, and this understanding requires explanation in order to reconcile it with Rashi’s words. [The Penei Yehoshua takes the Maharam’s view for granted, see there, while in HaMikneh he explained the matter in accordance with the Maharsha, see there, and so did Rabbi Simḥa of Dessau in his glosses, see there]. C. Now, every transaction involving ma'aser sheni can ostensibly be carried out in either of two ways: either the item received in exchange acquires sanctity, or the recipient of the ma'aser sheni brings it to Jerusalem and the item given in exchange is non-sacred. Plainly, this depends upon the intention. However, it is necessary to determine the law when the transaction was carried out unintentionally, and neither party intended anything in particular: What is the law? Is the ma'aser sheni transferred, or is it not transferred; apparently, the Maharsha and the Maharam disputed this matter: According to the Maharsha, it is transferred, while according to the Maharam, it is not transferred; [ and Tosafot’s wording in the section beginning “But,” in the words of Rabbi Yehuda, somewhat implies that if they did not explicitly stipulate otherwise, the money is transferred, unless they explicitly stipulated that it should not be transferred, and see Eilat HaShahar; and see Rashi above, on 53b, in the section beginning “Because of the unavoidable circumstance,” who wrote: “For even if he sells it, its value is invested with its sanctity,” and the Rashba, who challenged him, saying that she can act otherwise]. D. Now, several early authorities [the Tosafot of the Rosh and the Rashba in the name of Tosafot, and the Ritva] wrote that the mistake is not on the purchaser’s part but on the seller’s part, since he does not want the burden of the journey; and in Birurei HaShitot he explained that the early authorities disputed the aforementioned uncertainty: According to Rashi, when they did not intend to effect an exchange, the exchange occurs automatically; whereas according to the other early authorities, since they did not intend to effect an exchange, the money remains in its state of sanctity. Therefore, it is the seller who wishes to annul the transaction. [However, this is not entirely conclusive from the words of the early authorities, for one could say that here the matter is different, since fundamentally it is prohibited to exchange the money for the animal]]. the sale and the exchange are annulled, and the money returns to its place with the purchaser and returns to its sanctity, and he brings it up and eats it in Jerusalem—

the reason being that it is a “mistaken transaction” on the purchaser’s part, since had he known, he certainly would not have purchased it, as it is troublesome to bring the animal to Jerusalem, whereas it is more convenient to bring the money and spend it there on whatever his heart desires.

And if

intentionally

the purchaser transgressed and purchased an animal outside Jerusalem:

the animal shall be brought up

and

eaten in the place

[in Jerusalem, as it is stated concerning it: “To the place that the Lord shall choose”], because after the fact the money was transferred to the animal.

Rabbi Yehuda said: When are these words applicable

that if he purchased it intentionally, the transaction is valid?

When he intended and initially purchased it for the sake of a peace-offering,

meaning, to treat it according to the law of an item purchased with ma'aser sheni money, as it is customary to purchase an animal for a peace-offering with ma'aser sheni money.

When he intended from the outset to purchase it for the sake of peace-offerings,

But when he intended to render the ma'aser sheni money non-sacred,

since he intended to eat the animal outside Jerusalem, for then

whether unintentionally or intentionally, the money returns to its place. That is to say: If, when he purchased it intentionally, he intended to render the ma'aser sheni money non-sacred, and the seller knew this, then the law of one who acted intentionally is identical to that of one who acted unintentionally. Just as in the case of an unintentional act the money returns to its place because it is a mistaken transaction, so too, in the case of an intentional act, the money returns to its place with the purchaser. The reason is that this is a penalty for their having sought to remove the status of ma'aser sheni from the animal upon which the sanctity of the money was transferred. And we challenge this: But didn’t we learn with regard to one who betroths a woman with ma'aser sheni:

whether he acted unintentionally or intentionally, the money is returned to its original place.

That is: If, when he intentionally purchased the animal, he intended to take the money of second tithe into the non-sacred realm, and the seller knew this, then the law of one who acted intentionally is the same as the law of one who acted unintentionally. Just as in the unintentional case the money is returned to its original place because the transaction is mistaken, so too in the intentional case the money is returned to its original place, to the purchaser. The reason is that this is a penalty for their wanting to remove the status of second tithe from the animal upon which the sanctity of the money had been transferred. He said

Rabbi Yehuda says: He betroths her intentionally,

indicating that the Sages did not say that the betrothal is annulled as a penalty!?

with regard to one who betroths with second-tithe money:

He said—

explained

Rabbi Elazar: If a man betroths a woman with ma'aser sheni money, there is no reason to penalize him, since this is not a case where he “intends to render ma'aser sheni money non-sacred,” because a woman knows that ma'aser sheni money is not transferred through her [

by her becoming betrothed with it],

and she goes up and eats it in Jerusalem,

and she accepted it with that understanding; this is unlike the seller, who intends to cause the purchaser to eat the animal outside Jerusalem.

Rabbi Yirmeya raised an objection against him: But

what of one who purchases with ma'aser sheni money

an impure animal, slaves, or land

outside Jerusalem? Since ma'aser sheni money is not transferred to these items, it follows that the money in the seller’s possession is ma'aser sheni money. Here too, we should say:

A person knows that ma'aser sheni money is not transferred to them,

and the seller initially intended to bring the money up to Jerusalem—

And

nevertheless,

we learned: One may not purchase an impure animal, slaves, or land with ma'aser sheni money, even in Jerusalem; and if he purchased them, he shall eat

the purchaser

corresponding to them

from the money in the seller’s possession. That is, the purchaser shall transfer the money in the seller’s possession onto his own money, and eat the money in Jerusalem.

It follows that we do not rely on the assumption that the seller knows that the money is not transferred and that he must eat it in Jerusalem. [Therefore, the Sages said that the purchaser should transfer the ma'aser money in the seller’s possession, so that the seller would not come to eat the money outside Jerusalem].

If so, we should likewise say with regard to a woman that she does not know that the money is not transferred, and it turns out that he causes her to stumble. If so, we should say that the betrothal should be entirely annulled, just as it is annulled when one purchases an animal with ma'aser sheni money, since the seller causes the purchaser to stumble.

Rather

we never say, “A person knows,” since an ordinary seller does not know, and an ordinary woman likewise does not know that the money is not transferred;

here,

in our Mishna,

we are dealing with a knowledgeable woman, who knows

that the money is not transferred through her, and she initially accepted it with the intention of eating the money in Jerusalem. An ordinary seller, however, is not knowledgeable and does not know.

The Master said

in the Mishna concerning ma'aser sheni:

we are dealing with a knowledgeable woman, who knows

that the money is not transferred through her, and she accepted it from the outset with the intention of eating the money in Jerusalem. An ordinary seller, however, is not knowledgeable and does not know.

The master said

One may not purchase an impure animal, slaves, or land with ma'aser sheni money, even in Jerusalem, and

if he purchased them, he shall eat corresponding to them: And we challenge this: Why shall the purchaser eat corresponding to them?! The money should return to its place, because

just as

there,

with regard to one who intentionally purchases a pure animal outside Jerusalem, where the money returns to its place,

so too here!?

He said

—explained

Shmuel:

just as we say

there, concerning one who intentionally purchases a pure animal outside Jerusalem, that the money is returned to its original place

?

He said,

he answered,