Kiddushin 56a — the Talmud in English

And if he took

an animal with money of the second tithe:

If

inadvertently

he took it, meaning that the purchaser did not know that they were money of the second tithe, and it turns out that he must bring the animal—to which the money was transferred—to Jerusalem:

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 money shall return to its place

with the purchaser, and they shall return to their sanctity, and he shall bring them up and eat them in Jerusalem—

and the reason is that it is a “mistaken transaction” on the part of the purchaser, because had he known, he certainly would not have taken it, since it is troublesome to bring the animal to Jerusalem, and it is more convenient to bring money and give the money there for whatever his soul desires.

And if

deliberately

the purchaser transgressed and took an animal outside Jerusalem:

he shall bring up

the animal

and eat it 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 onto the animal.

Rabbi Judah said: In what case is this statement

that if he took it deliberately the transaction takes effect

:

When he intended and initially took it for the sake of peace-offerings

, meaning: to treat it according to the law of something purchased with money of the second tithe, for the usual practice is to purchase an animal for peace-offerings with money of the second tithe.

But when he intended to take the money of the second tithe into non-sacred status,

meaning that his intention was to eat the animal outside Jerusalem , then

whether inadvertently or deliberately, the money shall return to its place.

That is to say: if, when he purchased it deliberately, his intention was to take the money of the second tithe into non-sacred status, and the seller knew this, then the law of the deliberate case is equal to the law of the inadvertent case; and just as in the inadvertent case the money returns to its place because it is a mistaken transaction, so in the deliberate case the money returns to its place with the purchaser, and the reason is a penalty, because they wished to annul the law of the second tithe from the animal onto which the sanctity of the money had been transferred.

And we raise a difficulty:

But we learned

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

Rabbi Judah says: In a deliberate case he betroths—so it follows that because of a penalty the Sages did not say that the betrothal should be annulled?!

explained

He said

he answered,

Rabbi Elazar:

If he betrothed a woman with money of the second tithe, there is no penalty to impose, for this is not “intending to take money of the second tithe into non-sacred status,” because

a woman knows that money of the second tithe does not become transferred through her [because she becomes betrothed through it],

and she brings it and eats it in Jerusalem.

and she brings it up and eats it in Jerusalem,

and she accepted it with this intention; unlike the seller, who intends to cause the purchaser to stumble, so that he will eat the animal outside Jerusalem.

Rabbi Jeremiah raised an objection against him: But

one who purchases with money of the second tithe

an impure animal, slaves, or land

outside Jerusalem—since money of the second tithe does not become transferred through these, it follows that the money in the seller’s possession is money of the second tithe; for here too we should say:

A person knows that money of the second tithe does not become transferred through 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 money of the second tithe, even in Jerusalem; and if he purchased, he shall eat

the purchaser

corresponding to them

of the money in the seller’s possession, meaning: the purchaser shall transfer the money in the seller’s possession onto his own money, and he shall eat the money in Jerusalem.

Thus, 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 second-tithe money in the seller’s possession, so that the seller should not stumble by eating the money outside Jerusalem].

And if so, we should also say with regard to a woman that she does not know that the money is not transferred, and it follows that he causes her to stumble; and if so, we should say that the betrothal should be entirely annulled, just as it is annulled in the case of one who purchases an animal with money of the second tithe, since the seller causes the purchaser to stumble.

Rather

we never say, “A person knows,” for 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 learned woman, who knows

that the money is not transferred through her, and she took it initially with the intention of eating the money in Jerusalem, whereas an ordinary seller is not learned and does not know.

The master said

in the Mishna concerning the second tithe:

One may not purchase an impure animal, slaves, or land with money of the second tithe, even in Jerusalem;

and if he purchased, he shall eat corresponding to them:

And we raise a difficulty:

And why

shall the purchaser eat corresponding to them?!

Let its money return to its place, because

just as we say

there

with regard to one who deliberately purchases a pure animal outside Jerusalem, that the money returns to its place?!

He said

he answered,

Samuel:

he answered,