Pesachim 38a — the Talmud in English

And likewise

the mitzva of second tithe—

according to Rabbi Meir, a person does not fulfill his obligation with it on Passover ,

because it is not his .

And according to

the words of the Sages, a person fulfills his obligation with it on Passover!

for it is his property .

And likewise

an etrog of second tithe—

according to Rabbi Meir, a person does not fulfill his obligation with it on the festival day

the first [day] of Sukkot! Because it is not his.

And according to

the words of the Sages, a person fulfills his obligation with it on the festival day!

Rav Pappa challenged this

Rav Asi:

Granted, concerning dough, it is written

in it: “the first of

your kneading bowls

you shall raise hallah,” and therefore we require that it be

from yours

so that it becomes obligated in hallah, for this is what the expression “your kneading bowls” implies. And likewise

an etrog

on the festival day

also,

a person does not fulfill [the obligation] with it unless it is his, as

it is written

in it

“And you shall take for yourselves

on the first day.” And we expound:

“for yourselves”—

it shall be from yours!

Therefore, if they are of second tithe, they depend on the dispute between Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Judah whether it is property of the Most High or ordinary property.

But matza

of second tithe—why does one not fulfill [the obligation] with it according to Rabbi Meir? Even if it is not his, is it that

is it written

in the Torah

“your matza”?

Rava said, and some say Rav Yeimar bar Shelamya:

even concerning matza a person fulfills [the obligation] only with his matza, for

matza is derived

matza by the gzera shava of

“bread”

“bread”

from hallah.

It is written here

concerning matza:

“bread of affliction.”

And it is written there

concerning hallah:

“And it shall be, when you eat from the bread of the land.”

Just as there

concerning hallah, its obligation applies only to dough that is

from yours,

as we expound from “your kneading bowls,”

so here

concerning matza, you fulfill [the obligation] only with matza that is

from yours.

Therefore, according to Rabbi Meir, who says, “second tithe is property of the Most High,” we cannot call it “from yours,” and one does not fulfill the obligation of matza with it.

We inquire:

Shall we say

that the beraita

supports

Rav Asi? For it is taught:

“Dough of second tithe is exempt from hallah

—the words of Rabbi Meir. And the Sages say: It is obligated!”

And we wonder: is it correct to say in this matter

“Shall we say it supports [him]”?

For the words of the beraita and the words of Rav Asi

are the same thing

.

And we explain:

This is what it says: Shall we say

that the beraita supports all the words of Rav Asi, even in that he made the law of an etrog of second tithe on the festival day dependent on the dispute between Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Judah?

Do we say:

Since they dispute concerning dough

of second tithe,

concerning these [באתרוג] [concerning an etrog]

with regard to an etrog

they likewise dispute?

Or perhaps, there it is different

concerning hallah, because

it is written

in it: “the first of

your kneading bowls

you shall raise hallah.” And afterward it is written: “From the first of

your kneading bowls

you shall give to the Lord.” And since

twice

“your kneading bowls” is written, we properly expound that we require dough from yours. But concerning an etrog, in which “for yourselves” is written only once, perhaps it came to exclude only a borrowed or stolen etrog, but not an etrog of second tithe. For it is given to its owners for eating. And although it is not his property, rather he eats it from the table of the Most High, we can properly call it “for yourselves.”

Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish asked: What is the law concerning a person fulfilling his obligation

on Passover

with hallah of second tithe in Jerusalem?

For second tithe too is obligated in the separation of hallah and in giving it to the koen. And it possesses two sanctities: the sanctity of second tithe and the sanctity of hallah.

And we explain:

According to Rabbi Yose the Galilean

—who expounds from “bread of affliction” that one fulfills [the obligation] only with bread that is eaten in mourning, and not with second tithe, which is not eaten in mourning—certainly

you need not ask this

and it is obvious that one does not fulfill [the obligation] with the hallah of the tithe, for

now, if with

second tithe itself, which is

ordinary [produce]

and does not possess the sanctity of hallah,

he does not fulfill [the obligation], with its hallah

of the tithe

is it necessary

for us to say that he does not fulfill [the obligation]?!

When you need to ask, it is according to Rabbi Akiva

who does not expound this from “bread of affliction.”

For he too agrees that we require bread that is eaten in all your settlements, and one does not fulfill [the obligation] with bread that is eaten only in Jerusalem. And the fact that

with ordinary [produce] [במעשר שני גופו] [with second tithe itself]

of second tithe itself

he does fulfill

the obligation of matza although it is eaten only in Jerusalem, is because

if they become impure

the tithe, one redeems it even after it entered Jerusalem. And again

they have permission

to eat even

in the settlements.

But hallah

of the tithe, in either event, has no permission at all in the settlements. For as long as it has not become impure, it is eaten only in Jerusalem, because of the sanctity of the tithe in it. And there is no redemption for pure second tithe once the walls of Jerusalem have absorbed it. And

if it becomes impure,

again

it has no permission in the settlements,

because of the sanctity of hallah in it. And the sanctity of hallah has no redemption at all.

And

once it becomes impure,

it goes for burning, and he does not fulfill

his obligation.

Or perhaps,

although in practice the hallah of the tithe has no permission in the settlements, nevertheless

since, had he not designated it

hallah ,

and it became impure [והיתה נטמאת] [and had become impure],

and thereby became impure,

it would have permission in the settlements

through redemption, in accordance with the law of ordinary second tithe,

and

it would

fulfill with it

the obligation of matza. Therefore, even

now

after he designated it hallah,

he likewise fulfills

with it ! For from the perspective of the sanctity of hallah in it, it was not excluded from matza, since ordinary hallah is eaten even in the settlements. And from the perspective of the sanctity of second tithe in it alone, it likewise has permission in the settlements through impurity. And although through the combination of the two sanctities it again has no permission in the settlements, nevertheless one fulfills the obligation with it.

There are those who say: this certainly need not be asked,

and it is obvious that one fulfills [the obligation] with the hallah of the tithe, because

we certainly say: since

had he not designated it hallah, it would have had permission in the settlements when impure, one fulfills [the obligation] with it.

When you need to ask,

concerning

hallah

that was separated from dough

purchased

with

second-tithe money!

For the sanctity of the tithe of the money was transferred and took hold upon this hallah.

And according to the Sages, you need not ask this

even concerning this.

Since

the Sages say that even an item purchased with second-tithe money, which becomes impure,

shall be redeemed!

for the law of this hallah

is the same

as the hallah of

second

tithe itself! And one fulfills [the obligation] with it on Passover because of ho'il, as stated.

When you need to ask, it is according to Rabbi Judah, who says

that an item purchased with second-tithe money that became impure has no redemption. Rather,

it shall be buried.

For we learned in the Mishna:

a food item

purchased with second-tithe money

[the final letter belongs to the preceding word] \-

whose sanctity of the tithe in the money was transferred and took hold in it—

if it became impure, it shall be redeemed!

For just as second tithe itself has redemption, so too there is redemption for food upon which the sanctity of the tithe took hold through transfer .

Rabbi Judah says:

an item purchased with second-tithe money that became impure,

shall be buried!

For redemption applies only to the tithe itself or to the money of the tithe. But an item purchased with the money of the tithe has already had its sanctity weakened. And it is not sufficiently potent like the sanctity of the tithe to transfer its sanctity onto another thing.

And according to Rabbi Judah’s method, an item purchased with second-tithe money has no permission whatsoever in the settlements. For even if it becomes impure, it has no redemption, but goes for burial. And when it is pure, it is eaten only in Jerusalem. Rather, Reish Lakish is uncertain according to him:

Do we say: since, had it not been purchased

with tithe money,

it would have been

rather, it would have been second tithe itself, and if it became impure it would have had permission in the settlements through redemption! And just as one fulfills the obligation of matza with second tithe itself, so one fulfills it with an item purchased with tithe money. For all its sanctity comes only by force of the tithe itself. And although in practice it has no permission in the settlements, this is not because of its stringency. Rather, on the contrary, its leniency causes it to have no redemption: because its sanctity is weak, it does not transfer its redemption. Therefore, it is not reasonable that concerning matza on Passover it should be more stringent than the tithe itself .

And

also from the perspective of the sanctity of hallah that it possesses, it should not be considered like something that has no permission in the settlements. For we already said above:

since

had

he not designated it

hallah,

and it became impure, it would have permission in the settlements, and he fulfills with it

the obligation of matza,

now too he fulfills with it.

Or perhaps, one

“since”

do we say.

For example, with the hallah of second tithe: “since, had he not designated it”; or with an item purchased with second-tithe money: “since, had it not been purchased, it would have been.” But with hallah of an item purchased with second-tithe money, where in order to make it fit for matza on Passover we must use both of the aforementioned ho'il statements together, perhaps

two

“since”

we do not say.

And if you will say: even with the hallah of second tithe itself we require two ho'il statements—first, one can say: “since, had he not designated it,” its status would have been that of ordinary second tithe. And even with ordinary second tithe one fulfills [the obligation] only through ho'il: we say concerning it, since, if it becomes impure, it has redemption and is eaten in the settlements, now too it is considered to have permission in the settlements.

And one can say that second tithe itself does not require the reasoning of ho'il. Rather, it is considered to have permission in practice, for it is in his power to render it impure and redeem it.

Rashi.

Rava said: It is reasonable

that even with hallah of dough purchased with second-tithe money one fulfills the obligation of matza, even according to Rabbi Judah. For

the designation of tithe is one!

And just as one fulfills [the obligation] with second tithe, so one fulfills [it] with an item purchased with tithe money, for all its sanctity comes by force of the tithe itself. And just as one fulfills [the obligation] with it, one fulfills [the obligation] with its hallah. For the sanctity of hallah in itself does not prevent one from fulfilling the obligation of matza. Therefore, even when it joins the sanctity of the tithe, one fulfills [the obligation] with it.

We learned in our Mishna:

the hallah of a thanksgiving-offering and the wafers of a nazirite

—if he made them for himself, he does not fulfill [the obligation] with them !

And we inquire concerning it:

From where are these words?