tithe

Abbai said : It refers to a Samaritan who is a Haber. Raba said : Thou mayest even suppose that it refers to a Samaritan who is an 'Am ha'ares, and we are here dealing with the 'Am ha'ares so designated by the Rabbis who disagree in this matter with R. Meir. For there is a teaching : Who is an 'Am ha'ares? Whoever does not eat his non-holy food in a condition of ritual purity — these are the words of R. Meir ; but the Sages say : Whoever does not properly tithe his fruits. These Samaritans, however, do properly apportion the tithe, for they are careful to observe what is written in the Torah. The teacher has said : The commandments to which the Samaritans adhere they observe more scrupulously than the Israelite.

One who has eaten of the untithed, or the first tithe, etc. [If he has eaten of] the untithed, it is evident [that he should not be included]! No; it was necessary to state it because of the untithed which is so designated by the Rabbis. How is this meant? As referring to that which grows in an unperforated pot.

The first tithe from which Terumah has not been taken. That is evident ! No ; it is necessary [to mention it] for the case where [the Levite] anticipated [the priest by taking the tithe] from the corn-heap. Thou mayest argue that it is as Rab Pappa said to Abbai. Therefore we are informed that it is as Abbai answered him.

The first tithe from which Terumah has not been taken. That is evident ! No ; it is necessary [to mention it] for the case where [the Levite] anticipated [the priest by taking the tithe] from the corn-heap. Thou mayest argue that it is as Rab Pappa said to Abbai. Therefore we are informed that it is as Abbai answered him.

The second tithe or food belonging to the Sanctuary which had not been redeemed. This is evident ! No ; it is necessary [to mention it] for the case where it has been redeemed but not according to the Halakah. With "the second tithe," for instance, where he redeemed it with uncoined silver, whereas the All-merciful declared, "Thou shalt bind up the money in thy hand" (Deut. xiv. 25) — i.e. money which has a stamp upon it. With "food belonging to the Sanctuary" for which [for instance] he had given a piece of land in exchange but he had not redeemed with money ; whereas the All-merciful declared, "He shall add the fifth part of the money of thy valuation unto it, and it shall be assured to him" (Lev. xxvii. 19).

The second tithe or food belonging to the Sanctuary which had not been redeemed. This is evident ! No ; it is necessary [to mention it] for the case where it has been redeemed but not according to the Halakah. With "the second tithe," for instance, where he redeemed it with uncoined silver, whereas the All-merciful declared, "Thou shalt bind up the money in thy hand" (Deut. xiv. 25) — i.e. money which has a stamp upon it. With "food belonging to the Sanctuary" for which [for instance] he had given a piece of land in exchange but he had not redeemed with money ; whereas the All-merciful declared, "He shall add the fifth part of the money of thy valuation unto it, and it shall be assured to him" (Lev. xxvii. 19).

As it has been taught, If a man buys wine from Samaritans he may say, ‘Two log which I intend to set aside are terumah, ten are the first tithe, and nine the second tithe’, and then he redeems it and may drink it at once, the words of R. Meir.

As it has been taught, If a man buys wine from Samaritans he may say, ‘Two log which I intend to set aside are terumah, ten are the first tithe, and nine the second tithe’, and then he redeems it and may drink it at once, the words of R. Meir.

1) An etrog which is stolen or withered is invalid. 2) One from an asherah or a condemned city is invalid. 3) Of orlah or of unclean terumah—it is invalid. 4) Of clean terumah, he should not take it, but if he did take it, it is valid. 5) Of demai (doubtfully-tithed): a) Bet Shammai says it invalid, b) And Bet Hillel says it valid. 6) Of second tithe, it should not be taken [even] in Jerusalem, but if he took it, it is valid.

The difference is ... the case of second tithe in Jerusalem according to R. Meir According to the one who explains, because there is no permission to eat it, [second tithe is valid, since] there is permission to eat it.

The difference is ... the case of second tithe in Jerusalem according to R. Meir According to the one who explains, because there is no permission to eat it, [second tithe is valid, since] there is permission to eat it.

It may be concluded that it is R. Assi who said that the reason is that it has no monetary value, since R. Assi said: An etrog of second tithe according to R. Meir, a person cannot fulfill his obligation on the Festival, and according to the Sages he may fulfill his obligation with it on the Festival. This is proved

The main text: R. Assi said: An etrog of second tithe, according to R. Meir, a person cannot fulfill his obligation on the Festival with it, and according to the Sages he may fulfill his obligation with it on the Festival. Matzah of second tithe, according to R. Meir, a person cannot fulfill his obligation on Pesah with it, and according to the Sages one may fulfill his obligation with it on Pesah. Dough of second tithe, according to R. Meir, is exempt from hallah and according to the Sages it is liable to hallah.

The main text: R. Assi said: An etrog of second tithe, according to R. Meir, a person cannot fulfill his obligation on the Festival with it, and according to the Sages he may fulfill his obligation with it on the Festival. Matzah of second tithe, according to R. Meir, a person cannot fulfill his obligation on Pesah with it, and according to the Sages one may fulfill his obligation with it on Pesah. Dough of second tithe, according to R. Meir, is exempt from hallah and according to the Sages it is liable to hallah.

The main text: R. Assi said: An etrog of second tithe, according to R. Meir, a person cannot fulfill his obligation on the Festival with it, and according to the Sages he may fulfill his obligation with it on the Festival. Matzah of second tithe, according to R. Meir, a person cannot fulfill his obligation on Pesah with it, and according to the Sages one may fulfill his obligation with it on Pesah. Dough of second tithe, according to R. Meir, is exempt from hallah and according to the Sages it is liable to hallah.

"And it shall be when you eat of the bread of the land" (Numbers 15:19); just as in the latter case it must be yours and not of tithe, so in the former case, [it must be] yours and not of tithe.

"And it shall be when you eat of the bread of the land" (Numbers 15:19); just as in the latter case it must be yours and not of tithe, so in the former case, [it must be] yours and not of tithe.

Can we say that the following supports [this view]: Dough of second tithe is exempt from hallah, according to R. Meir, while the Sages say that it is liable? Can we say that the following supports [this view]! It is the identical statement!

If it was of second tithe in Jerusalem. According to him who explained: Because he renders it susceptible [to uncleanliness], behold he renders it susceptible [to uncleanliness]; according to him who explained because he diminishes it, behold he diminishes it

Alternatively, R. Shimon may have stated his view only there, since it is written, "You shall surely tithe all the increase of your seed" (Deuteronomy 14:22) that which people bring out for seed, but here he might agree with the Rabbis.

R. Sheshet objected: And [if one buys] from what is ownerless, [may he buy] three meals and no more? But there is a contradiction: Rue, asparagus, fenugreek, coriander of the mountains, water-parsley and meadow-eruca are always exempt from tithe and may be bought from anyone in the Sabbatical Year, since the like of these is not guarded.

It was taught in agreement with R. Yohanan: Both the produce of the Sabbatical Year and of Second Tithe may be redeemed with cattle, beast or fowl, whether live or slaughtered, the words of R. Meir. But the sages say: With slaughtered [animals and birds] they may be redeemed, but not with live ones, lest one rear flocks from them.

Rather R. Ashi said: The dispute [of R. Elazar and R. Yohanan] is over secondary produce, but with regard to the original produce all agree that [it may be redeemed] only by way of sale, and not by way of exchange. "Both the produce of the Sabbatical Year and of the Second Tithe [may be redeemed by exchange]"— his refers to the money for which the produce is exchanged.

For if you do not say so, then "tithe" also must mean actual tithe. But surely it is written, "You shall bind the money in your hand? (Deuteronomy 14:21). Rather it must mean the money for which tithe [was exchanged], and so here also it means the money for which the produce of the Sabbatical Year [is exchanged].

For if you do not say so, then "tithe" also must mean actual tithe. But surely it is written, "You shall bind the money in your hand? (Deuteronomy 14:21). Rather it must mean the money for which tithe [was exchanged], and so here also it means the money for which the produce of the Sabbatical Year [is exchanged].

For if you do not say so, then "tithe" also must mean actual tithe. But surely it is written, "You shall bind the money in your hand? (Deuteronomy 14:21). Rather it must mean the money for which tithe [was exchanged], and so here also it means the money for which the produce of the Sabbatical Year [is exchanged].

"Thou shalt surely tithe"? Tithe, in order that thou mayest become rich. R. Johanan once met the young son of Resh Laḳish and said to him: "Tell me thy verse." "Thou shalt surely tithe," said the boy, "pray, explain it to me." "Give tithe that thou mayest become rich," said R. Johanan. Whereupon the boy said: "Is man allowed to try God? Is it not written (Deut., 6.16): 'Ye shall not try the Lord'?" "Thus said R. 'Osha'ya," replied R. Johanan, "(trying is forbidden) except in this particular instance, for it is said (Mal., 3.10): 'Bring ye the whole tithe into the store-house, that there may be food in My house, and try Me now herewith, said the Lord of hosts, if I will not open you the windows of heaven, and pour you out a blessing, that there shall be more than sufficiency.'" [What is the meaning of the words: "that there shall be more than sufficiency"? Said Rami son of R. Yud in the name of Rab: It means that your lips will grow tired saying, it is enough]. The boy then said to R. Johanan: "If I had come to that verse, I should not have needed either you or 'Osha'ya, your teacher."

"Thou shalt surely tithe"? Tithe, in order that thou mayest become rich. R. Johanan once met the young son of Resh Laḳish and said to him: "Tell me thy verse." "Thou shalt surely tithe," said the boy, "pray, explain it to me." "Give tithe that thou mayest become rich," said R. Johanan. Whereupon the boy said: "Is man allowed to try God? Is it not written (Deut., 6.16): 'Ye shall not try the Lord'?" "Thus said R. 'Osha'ya," replied R. Johanan, "(trying is forbidden) except in this particular instance, for it is said (Mal., 3.10): 'Bring ye the whole tithe into the store-house, that there may be food in My house, and try Me now herewith, said the Lord of hosts, if I will not open you the windows of heaven, and pour you out a blessing, that there shall be more than sufficiency.'" [What is the meaning of the words: "that there shall be more than sufficiency"? Said Rami son of R. Yud in the name of Rab: It means that your lips will grow tired saying, it is enough]. The boy then said to R. Johanan: "If I had come to that verse, I should not have needed either you or 'Osha'ya, your teacher."

"Thou shalt surely tithe"? Tithe, in order that thou mayest become rich. R. Johanan once met the young son of Resh Laḳish and said to him: "Tell me thy verse." "Thou shalt surely tithe," said the boy, "pray, explain it to me." "Give tithe that thou mayest become rich," said R. Johanan. Whereupon the boy said: "Is man allowed to try God? Is it not written (Deut., 6.16): 'Ye shall not try the Lord'?" "Thus said R. 'Osha'ya," replied R. Johanan, "(trying is forbidden) except in this particular instance, for it is said (Mal., 3.10): 'Bring ye the whole tithe into the store-house, that there may be food in My house, and try Me now herewith, said the Lord of hosts, if I will not open you the windows of heaven, and pour you out a blessing, that there shall be more than sufficiency.'" [What is the meaning of the words: "that there shall be more than sufficiency"? Said Rami son of R. Yud in the name of Rab: It means that your lips will grow tired saying, it is enough]. The boy then said to R. Johanan: "If I had come to that verse, I should not have needed either you or 'Osha'ya, your teacher."

"Thou shalt surely tithe"? Tithe, in order that thou mayest become rich. R. Johanan once met the young son of Resh Laḳish and said to him: "Tell me thy verse." "Thou shalt surely tithe," said the boy, "pray, explain it to me." "Give tithe that thou mayest become rich," said R. Johanan. Whereupon the boy said: "Is man allowed to try God? Is it not written (Deut., 6.16): 'Ye shall not try the Lord'?" "Thus said R. 'Osha'ya," replied R. Johanan, "(trying is forbidden) except in this particular instance, for it is said (Mal., 3.10): 'Bring ye the whole tithe into the store-house, that there may be food in My house, and try Me now herewith, said the Lord of hosts, if I will not open you the windows of heaven, and pour you out a blessing, that there shall be more than sufficiency.'" [What is the meaning of the words: "that there shall be more than sufficiency"? Said Rami son of R. Yud in the name of Rab: It means that your lips will grow tired saying, it is enough]. The boy then said to R. Johanan: "If I had come to that verse, I should not have needed either you or 'Osha'ya, your teacher."

"Thou shalt surely tithe"? Tithe, in order that thou mayest become rich. R. Johanan once met the young son of Resh Laḳish and said to him: "Tell me thy verse." "Thou shalt surely tithe," said the boy, "pray, explain it to me." "Give tithe that thou mayest become rich," said R. Johanan. Whereupon the boy said: "Is man allowed to try God? Is it not written (Deut., 6.16): 'Ye shall not try the Lord'?" "Thus said R. 'Osha'ya," replied R. Johanan, "(trying is forbidden) except in this particular instance, for it is said (Mal., 3.10): 'Bring ye the whole tithe into the store-house, that there may be food in My house, and try Me now herewith, said the Lord of hosts, if I will not open you the windows of heaven, and pour you out a blessing, that there shall be more than sufficiency.'" [What is the meaning of the words: "that there shall be more than sufficiency"? Said Rami son of R. Yud in the name of Rab: It means that your lips will grow tired saying, it is enough]. The boy then said to R. Johanan: "If I had come to that verse, I should not have needed either you or 'Osha'ya, your teacher."

The alarm is sounded on account of any calamity that comes upon the community, except that of excessive rain. What is the reason? Said R. 'Abba in the name of Samuel, because it is not allowed to pray for the cessation of too much good. R. 'Abba further said in the name of Samuel, whence do we learn that one is not to pray for the cessation of too much good? From the statement (Malachi, 3. 10): "Bring ye the whole tithe into the store-house, that there may be food in My house, and try Me now herewith, saith the Lord of hosts, if I will not open you the windows of heaven, and pour you out a blessing, that there shall be more than sufficiency." What is the meaning of "that there shall be more than sufficiency?" Said Rami b. R. Yud in the name of Rab, it means that your lips will grow tired saying, "it is enough".

There is no difference between Shiloh and Jerusalem except that in Shiloh sacrifices of lesser sanctity and second tithe could be eaten anywhere within sight [of the town], whereas in Jerusalem [they had to be eaten] within the walls.

And R. Joshua said: I have heard that sacrifices may be brought even though there is no Temple; that the most holy foods may be eaten, even though there are no curtains; and that foods of lesser sanctity and second tithe may be eaten even though there is no wall, because the first holiness was conferred on Jerusalem both for the time being and for all time. We infer from this that R. Eliezer holds that it was not [at first] sanctified for all time.

for the confession over the tithe; for the confession of sins on Yom HaKippurim; for laying on of hands;

And for the confession made over the tithe: As it is written, “And you shall say before the Lord your God, I have removed the sacred things from my house” (Deuteronomy 26:13), and in an adjacent context it says, “This day the Lord your God commands you” (26:16).

He said to him, They voted and decided, Ammon and Moab are to pay the tithe for the poor in the seventh year. He said to him, Jose, stretch out thine hands, and lose thy sight. He stretched out his hands and lost his sight. R. El'azar wept and said, "The secret of the LORD is with them that fear him, and his covenant to make them know it" (Ps. xxv. 14). He said to him, Go, say to them, Ye need not have hasted to vote. For thus I have received by tradition from Rabban Jochanan ben Zakkai, who heard from his teacher, and his teacher from his teacher, that it is a teaching of Moses from Sinai, Ammon and Moab are to pay the tithe for the poor in the seventh year. What is the reason? Those who came up from Egypt subjugated many fortified cities, while those who came up from Babylon did not subjugate many, because the first consecration was a consecration for but a short time, and not a consecration for the future permanently; and so they left it an open question, that the poor of the people might be sustained upon them in the seventh year. There is a Baraitha, that after that his mind had been appeased, he said, Let there be mercy, that the eyes of Jose may return to their place; and they returned.

He said to him, They voted and decided, Ammon and Moab are to pay the tithe for the poor in the seventh year. He said to him, Jose, stretch out thine hands, and lose thy sight. He stretched out his hands and lost his sight. R. El'azar wept and said, "The secret of the LORD is with them that fear him, and his covenant to make them know it" (Ps. xxv. 14). He said to him, Go, say to them, Ye need not have hasted to vote. For thus I have received by tradition from Rabban Jochanan ben Zakkai, who heard from his teacher, and his teacher from his teacher, that it is a teaching of Moses from Sinai, Ammon and Moab are to pay the tithe for the poor in the seventh year. What is the reason? Those who came up from Egypt subjugated many fortified cities, while those who came up from Babylon did not subjugate many, because the first consecration was a consecration for but a short time, and not a consecration for the future permanently; and so they left it an open question, that the poor of the people might be sustained upon them in the seventh year. There is a Baraitha, that after that his mind had been appeased, he said, Let there be mercy, that the eyes of Jose may return to their place; and they returned.

I. (3) Burnt-offerings on a middle holiday come from things not previously consecrated, but the peace-offerings from the tithe. On a high holiday, which is the first day of the Passover, the house of Shammai say that they come from things not previously consecrated, but the house of Hillel say that they come from the tithe.

I. (3) Burnt-offerings on a middle holiday come from things not previously consecrated, but the peace-offerings from the tithe. On a high holiday, which is the first day of the Passover, the house of Shammai say that they come from things not previously consecrated, but the house of Hillel say that they come from the tithe.

(4) Israelites generally fulfil their duty with vows and freewill-offerings and with tithe of cattle, and the priests by the eating of sin-offerings, and of trespass-offerings, and by the firstborn, and by the wave breast and heave shoulder, but not by the eating of birds or of meal-offerings.

But according to this it is burnt-offerings on a middle holiday that come from things not previously consecrated. Well, then, it follows that on a high holiday they come from the tithe. But why? For surely it is obligatory, and everything which is obligatory comes only from that which is not previously consecrated. And if thou sayest, Then this teaches us that burnt-offerings are offered on a middle holiday, and are not offered on a high holiday, with whom will this view correspond? With the house of Shammai. For there is a canonical Mishnah, viz., The house of Shammai say, Men bring peace-offerings and do not lay their hands on them, but not burnt-offerings; but the house of Hillel say, Men bring both peace-offerings and burnt-offerings and lay their hands on them (Beytsah, 19a, ii. 2, and elsewhere). There is a hiatus here, and this is the real teaching. It means that burnt-offerings, vows and freewill-offerings are brought on a middle holiday; on a high holiday they are not brought, but the burnt-offering of a holocaust is brought even on a high holiday. And when it is brought, it is only brought from things not previously consecrated, but peace-offerings of joy are brought even from the tithe. And the Chagigah of a high holiday, which is the first day of the Passover, the house of Shammai say, is from things not previously consecrated, but the house of Hillel say, From the tithe. There is also a Baraitha to this effect, Burnt-offerings, vows and freewill-offerings are brought on a middle holiday; on a high holiday they are not brought, but the burnt-offering of a holocaust is brought even on a high holiday. And when it is brought, it is only brought from things not previously consecrated, but peace-offerings of joy are brought even from the tithe. And the Chagigah of a high holiday which is the first day of the Passover, the house of Shammai say, is from things not previously consecrated, but the house of Hillel say, From the tithe. How is the Chagigah of a high holiday which is the first day of the Passover, different from that of any other high holiday? R. Ashi said, See, we learn from this that the Chagigah of the fifteenth day is taken from things not previously consecrated, but the Chagigah of the fourteenth not;

But according to this it is burnt-offerings on a middle holiday that come from things not previously consecrated. Well, then, it follows that on a high holiday they come from the tithe. But why? For surely it is obligatory, and everything which is obligatory comes only from that which is not previously consecrated. And if thou sayest, Then this teaches us that burnt-offerings are offered on a middle holiday, and are not offered on a high holiday, with whom will this view correspond? With the house of Shammai. For there is a canonical Mishnah, viz., The house of Shammai say, Men bring peace-offerings and do not lay their hands on them, but not burnt-offerings; but the house of Hillel say, Men bring both peace-offerings and burnt-offerings and lay their hands on them (Beytsah, 19a, ii. 2, and elsewhere). There is a hiatus here, and this is the real teaching. It means that burnt-offerings, vows and freewill-offerings are brought on a middle holiday; on a high holiday they are not brought, but the burnt-offering of a holocaust is brought even on a high holiday. And when it is brought, it is only brought from things not previously consecrated, but peace-offerings of joy are brought even from the tithe. And the Chagigah of a high holiday, which is the first day of the Passover, the house of Shammai say, is from things not previously consecrated, but the house of Hillel say, From the tithe. There is also a Baraitha to this effect, Burnt-offerings, vows and freewill-offerings are brought on a middle holiday; on a high holiday they are not brought, but the burnt-offering of a holocaust is brought even on a high holiday. And when it is brought, it is only brought from things not previously consecrated, but peace-offerings of joy are brought even from the tithe. And the Chagigah of a high holiday which is the first day of the Passover, the house of Shammai say, is from things not previously consecrated, but the house of Hillel say, From the tithe. How is the Chagigah of a high holiday which is the first day of the Passover, different from that of any other high holiday? R. Ashi said, See, we learn from this that the Chagigah of the fifteenth day is taken from things not previously consecrated, but the Chagigah of the fourteenth not;

But according to this it is burnt-offerings on a middle holiday that come from things not previously consecrated. Well, then, it follows that on a high holiday they come from the tithe. But why? For surely it is obligatory, and everything which is obligatory comes only from that which is not previously consecrated. And if thou sayest, Then this teaches us that burnt-offerings are offered on a middle holiday, and are not offered on a high holiday, with whom will this view correspond? With the house of Shammai. For there is a canonical Mishnah, viz., The house of Shammai say, Men bring peace-offerings and do not lay their hands on them, but not burnt-offerings; but the house of Hillel say, Men bring both peace-offerings and burnt-offerings and lay their hands on them (Beytsah, 19a, ii. 2, and elsewhere). There is a hiatus here, and this is the real teaching. It means that burnt-offerings, vows and freewill-offerings are brought on a middle holiday; on a high holiday they are not brought, but the burnt-offering of a holocaust is brought even on a high holiday. And when it is brought, it is only brought from things not previously consecrated, but peace-offerings of joy are brought even from the tithe. And the Chagigah of a high holiday, which is the first day of the Passover, the house of Shammai say, is from things not previously consecrated, but the house of Hillel say, From the tithe. There is also a Baraitha to this effect, Burnt-offerings, vows and freewill-offerings are brought on a middle holiday; on a high holiday they are not brought, but the burnt-offering of a holocaust is brought even on a high holiday. And when it is brought, it is only brought from things not previously consecrated, but peace-offerings of joy are brought even from the tithe. And the Chagigah of a high holiday which is the first day of the Passover, the house of Shammai say, is from things not previously consecrated, but the house of Hillel say, From the tithe. How is the Chagigah of a high holiday which is the first day of the Passover, different from that of any other high holiday? R. Ashi said, See, we learn from this that the Chagigah of the fifteenth day is taken from things not previously consecrated, but the Chagigah of the fourteenth not;

But according to this it is burnt-offerings on a middle holiday that come from things not previously consecrated. Well, then, it follows that on a high holiday they come from the tithe. But why? For surely it is obligatory, and everything which is obligatory comes only from that which is not previously consecrated. And if thou sayest, Then this teaches us that burnt-offerings are offered on a middle holiday, and are not offered on a high holiday, with whom will this view correspond? With the house of Shammai. For there is a canonical Mishnah, viz., The house of Shammai say, Men bring peace-offerings and do not lay their hands on them, but not burnt-offerings; but the house of Hillel say, Men bring both peace-offerings and burnt-offerings and lay their hands on them (Beytsah, 19a, ii. 2, and elsewhere). There is a hiatus here, and this is the real teaching. It means that burnt-offerings, vows and freewill-offerings are brought on a middle holiday; on a high holiday they are not brought, but the burnt-offering of a holocaust is brought even on a high holiday. And when it is brought, it is only brought from things not previously consecrated, but peace-offerings of joy are brought even from the tithe. And the Chagigah of a high holiday, which is the first day of the Passover, the house of Shammai say, is from things not previously consecrated, but the house of Hillel say, From the tithe. There is also a Baraitha to this effect, Burnt-offerings, vows and freewill-offerings are brought on a middle holiday; on a high holiday they are not brought, but the burnt-offering of a holocaust is brought even on a high holiday. And when it is brought, it is only brought from things not previously consecrated, but peace-offerings of joy are brought even from the tithe. And the Chagigah of a high holiday which is the first day of the Passover, the house of Shammai say, is from things not previously consecrated, but the house of Hillel say, From the tithe. How is the Chagigah of a high holiday which is the first day of the Passover, different from that of any other high holiday? R. Ashi said, See, we learn from this that the Chagigah of the fifteenth day is taken from things not previously consecrated, but the Chagigah of the fourteenth not;

But according to this it is burnt-offerings on a middle holiday that come from things not previously consecrated. Well, then, it follows that on a high holiday they come from the tithe. But why? For surely it is obligatory, and everything which is obligatory comes only from that which is not previously consecrated. And if thou sayest, Then this teaches us that burnt-offerings are offered on a middle holiday, and are not offered on a high holiday, with whom will this view correspond? With the house of Shammai. For there is a canonical Mishnah, viz., The house of Shammai say, Men bring peace-offerings and do not lay their hands on them, but not burnt-offerings; but the house of Hillel say, Men bring both peace-offerings and burnt-offerings and lay their hands on them (Beytsah, 19a, ii. 2, and elsewhere). There is a hiatus here, and this is the real teaching. It means that burnt-offerings, vows and freewill-offerings are brought on a middle holiday; on a high holiday they are not brought, but the burnt-offering of a holocaust is brought even on a high holiday. And when it is brought, it is only brought from things not previously consecrated, but peace-offerings of joy are brought even from the tithe. And the Chagigah of a high holiday, which is the first day of the Passover, the house of Shammai say, is from things not previously consecrated, but the house of Hillel say, From the tithe. There is also a Baraitha to this effect, Burnt-offerings, vows and freewill-offerings are brought on a middle holiday; on a high holiday they are not brought, but the burnt-offering of a holocaust is brought even on a high holiday. And when it is brought, it is only brought from things not previously consecrated, but peace-offerings of joy are brought even from the tithe. And the Chagigah of a high holiday which is the first day of the Passover, the house of Shammai say, is from things not previously consecrated, but the house of Hillel say, From the tithe. How is the Chagigah of a high holiday which is the first day of the Passover, different from that of any other high holiday? R. Ashi said, See, we learn from this that the Chagigah of the fifteenth day is taken from things not previously consecrated, but the Chagigah of the fourteenth not;

consequently he must from the beginning have had the opinion that the Chagigah of the fourteenth day is not an enactment of the Law. The Mishnah teacher said, The house of Hillel say, From the tithe. But why? For surely it is obligatory, and everything which is obligatory comes only from that which is not previously consecrated. Ola said, This is so in the case of one making a supplementary offering. Hezekiah said, Men may supplement beast with beast, but they may not supplement money with money. But R. Jochanan said, Men may supplement money with money, but they may not supplement beast with beast. A Baraitha supports R. Hezekiah, and a Baraitha supports R. Jochanan. A Baraitha supports R. Jochanan, viz., The word "tribute" (Deut. xvi. 10) teaches that a man is to bring his duty offering from things not previously consecrated; and whence have we got it that if he wishes to mix things, he may mix? The teaching says, "According as the Lord thy God shall bless thee" (Deut. xvi. 10). A Baraitha supports R. Hezekiah, viz., The word "tribute" teaches that a man is to bring his duty offering from things not previously consecrated. The house of Shammai say, The first day from things not previously consecrated, thenceforward from the tithe, but the house of Hillel say, Only the first meal from things not previously consecrated, thenceforward from the tithe. And all the rest of the days of the Passover a man is to fulfil his duty with the tithe of a beast. On a high holiday what is the reason that he should not do the same? R. Ashi said, Lest perhaps, if this were allowed, he might go to tithe upon a high holiday, for it is impossible to tithe upon a high holiday on account of the red chalk. What passage is there to shew that "tribute" is a word that denotes things not previously consecrated? The passage, "And king Ahasuerus laid tribute upon the land" (Esth. x. 1).

consequently he must from the beginning have had the opinion that the Chagigah of the fourteenth day is not an enactment of the Law. The Mishnah teacher said, The house of Hillel say, From the tithe. But why? For surely it is obligatory, and everything which is obligatory comes only from that which is not previously consecrated. Ola said, This is so in the case of one making a supplementary offering. Hezekiah said, Men may supplement beast with beast, but they may not supplement money with money. But R. Jochanan said, Men may supplement money with money, but they may not supplement beast with beast. A Baraitha supports R. Hezekiah, and a Baraitha supports R. Jochanan. A Baraitha supports R. Jochanan, viz., The word "tribute" (Deut. xvi. 10) teaches that a man is to bring his duty offering from things not previously consecrated; and whence have we got it that if he wishes to mix things, he may mix? The teaching says, "According as the Lord thy God shall bless thee" (Deut. xvi. 10). A Baraitha supports R. Hezekiah, viz., The word "tribute" teaches that a man is to bring his duty offering from things not previously consecrated. The house of Shammai say, The first day from things not previously consecrated, thenceforward from the tithe, but the house of Hillel say, Only the first meal from things not previously consecrated, thenceforward from the tithe. And all the rest of the days of the Passover a man is to fulfil his duty with the tithe of a beast. On a high holiday what is the reason that he should not do the same? R. Ashi said, Lest perhaps, if this were allowed, he might go to tithe upon a high holiday, for it is impossible to tithe upon a high holiday on account of the red chalk. What passage is there to shew that "tribute" is a word that denotes things not previously consecrated? The passage, "And king Ahasuerus laid tribute upon the land" (Esth. x. 1).

consequently he must from the beginning have had the opinion that the Chagigah of the fourteenth day is not an enactment of the Law. The Mishnah teacher said, The house of Hillel say, From the tithe. But why? For surely it is obligatory, and everything which is obligatory comes only from that which is not previously consecrated. Ola said, This is so in the case of one making a supplementary offering. Hezekiah said, Men may supplement beast with beast, but they may not supplement money with money. But R. Jochanan said, Men may supplement money with money, but they may not supplement beast with beast. A Baraitha supports R. Hezekiah, and a Baraitha supports R. Jochanan. A Baraitha supports R. Jochanan, viz., The word "tribute" (Deut. xvi. 10) teaches that a man is to bring his duty offering from things not previously consecrated; and whence have we got it that if he wishes to mix things, he may mix? The teaching says, "According as the Lord thy God shall bless thee" (Deut. xvi. 10). A Baraitha supports R. Hezekiah, viz., The word "tribute" teaches that a man is to bring his duty offering from things not previously consecrated. The house of Shammai say, The first day from things not previously consecrated, thenceforward from the tithe, but the house of Hillel say, Only the first meal from things not previously consecrated, thenceforward from the tithe. And all the rest of the days of the Passover a man is to fulfil his duty with the tithe of a beast. On a high holiday what is the reason that he should not do the same? R. Ashi said, Lest perhaps, if this were allowed, he might go to tithe upon a high holiday, for it is impossible to tithe upon a high holiday on account of the red chalk. What passage is there to shew that "tribute" is a word that denotes things not previously consecrated? The passage, "And king Ahasuerus laid tribute upon the land" (Esth. x. 1).

consequently he must from the beginning have had the opinion that the Chagigah of the fourteenth day is not an enactment of the Law. The Mishnah teacher said, The house of Hillel say, From the tithe. But why? For surely it is obligatory, and everything which is obligatory comes only from that which is not previously consecrated. Ola said, This is so in the case of one making a supplementary offering. Hezekiah said, Men may supplement beast with beast, but they may not supplement money with money. But R. Jochanan said, Men may supplement money with money, but they may not supplement beast with beast. A Baraitha supports R. Hezekiah, and a Baraitha supports R. Jochanan. A Baraitha supports R. Jochanan, viz., The word "tribute" (Deut. xvi. 10) teaches that a man is to bring his duty offering from things not previously consecrated; and whence have we got it that if he wishes to mix things, he may mix? The teaching says, "According as the Lord thy God shall bless thee" (Deut. xvi. 10). A Baraitha supports R. Hezekiah, viz., The word "tribute" teaches that a man is to bring his duty offering from things not previously consecrated. The house of Shammai say, The first day from things not previously consecrated, thenceforward from the tithe, but the house of Hillel say, Only the first meal from things not previously consecrated, thenceforward from the tithe. And all the rest of the days of the Passover a man is to fulfil his duty with the tithe of a beast. On a high holiday what is the reason that he should not do the same? R. Ashi said, Lest perhaps, if this were allowed, he might go to tithe upon a high holiday, for it is impossible to tithe upon a high holiday on account of the red chalk. What passage is there to shew that "tribute" is a word that denotes things not previously consecrated? The passage, "And king Ahasuerus laid tribute upon the land" (Esth. x. 1).

consequently he must from the beginning have had the opinion that the Chagigah of the fourteenth day is not an enactment of the Law. The Mishnah teacher said, The house of Hillel say, From the tithe. But why? For surely it is obligatory, and everything which is obligatory comes only from that which is not previously consecrated. Ola said, This is so in the case of one making a supplementary offering. Hezekiah said, Men may supplement beast with beast, but they may not supplement money with money. But R. Jochanan said, Men may supplement money with money, but they may not supplement beast with beast. A Baraitha supports R. Hezekiah, and a Baraitha supports R. Jochanan. A Baraitha supports R. Jochanan, viz., The word "tribute" (Deut. xvi. 10) teaches that a man is to bring his duty offering from things not previously consecrated; and whence have we got it that if he wishes to mix things, he may mix? The teaching says, "According as the Lord thy God shall bless thee" (Deut. xvi. 10). A Baraitha supports R. Hezekiah, viz., The word "tribute" teaches that a man is to bring his duty offering from things not previously consecrated. The house of Shammai say, The first day from things not previously consecrated, thenceforward from the tithe, but the house of Hillel say, Only the first meal from things not previously consecrated, thenceforward from the tithe. And all the rest of the days of the Passover a man is to fulfil his duty with the tithe of a beast. On a high holiday what is the reason that he should not do the same? R. Ashi said, Lest perhaps, if this were allowed, he might go to tithe upon a high holiday, for it is impossible to tithe upon a high holiday on account of the red chalk. What passage is there to shew that "tribute" is a word that denotes things not previously consecrated? The passage, "And king Ahasuerus laid tribute upon the land" (Esth. x. 1).

consequently he must from the beginning have had the opinion that the Chagigah of the fourteenth day is not an enactment of the Law. The Mishnah teacher said, The house of Hillel say, From the tithe. But why? For surely it is obligatory, and everything which is obligatory comes only from that which is not previously consecrated. Ola said, This is so in the case of one making a supplementary offering. Hezekiah said, Men may supplement beast with beast, but they may not supplement money with money. But R. Jochanan said, Men may supplement money with money, but they may not supplement beast with beast. A Baraitha supports R. Hezekiah, and a Baraitha supports R. Jochanan. A Baraitha supports R. Jochanan, viz., The word "tribute" (Deut. xvi. 10) teaches that a man is to bring his duty offering from things not previously consecrated; and whence have we got it that if he wishes to mix things, he may mix? The teaching says, "According as the Lord thy God shall bless thee" (Deut. xvi. 10). A Baraitha supports R. Hezekiah, viz., The word "tribute" teaches that a man is to bring his duty offering from things not previously consecrated. The house of Shammai say, The first day from things not previously consecrated, thenceforward from the tithe, but the house of Hillel say, Only the first meal from things not previously consecrated, thenceforward from the tithe. And all the rest of the days of the Passover a man is to fulfil his duty with the tithe of a beast. On a high holiday what is the reason that he should not do the same? R. Ashi said, Lest perhaps, if this were allowed, he might go to tithe upon a high holiday, for it is impossible to tithe upon a high holiday on account of the red chalk. What passage is there to shew that "tribute" is a word that denotes things not previously consecrated? The passage, "And king Ahasuerus laid tribute upon the land" (Esth. x. 1).

Israelites generally fulfil their duty with vows and freewill-offerings. Our Rabbis have taught thus, "And thou shalt rejoice in thy feast" (Deut. xvi. 14). This means to include in the word joy all kinds of joy. Hence wise men have said, Israelites generally fulfil their duty with vows and freewill-offerings and with tithe of cattle, and the priests by the eating of sin-offerings and trespass-offerings, and by the firstborn, and by the wave breast and heave shoulder. I should have thought that they might have done it also with birds and meal-offerings. The teaching says, And thou shalt rejoice in thy Feast, meaning

(6) If he have dipped for common food, he has credit as clean for common food, but is forbidden tithe; if he have dipped for tithe, he has credit for tithe, but is forbidden heave-offering; if he have dipped for heave-offering, he has credit for heave-offering, but is forbidden hallowed things; if he have dipped for hallowed things, he has credit for hallowed things, but is forbidden sin offering. If he have dipped for a weightier thing, he is free for a lighter thing. If he have dipped and have not got credit for it, it is as though he had not dipped.

(6) If he have dipped for common food, he has credit as clean for common food, but is forbidden tithe; if he have dipped for tithe, he has credit for tithe, but is forbidden heave-offering; if he have dipped for heave-offering, he has credit for heave-offering, but is forbidden hallowed things; if he have dipped for hallowed things, he has credit for hallowed things, but is forbidden sin offering. If he have dipped for a weightier thing, he is free for a lighter thing. If he have dipped and have not got credit for it, it is as though he had not dipped.

(6) If he have dipped for common food, he has credit as clean for common food, but is forbidden tithe; if he have dipped for tithe, he has credit for tithe, but is forbidden heave-offering; if he have dipped for heave-offering, he has credit for heave-offering, but is forbidden hallowed things; if he have dipped for hallowed things, he has credit for hallowed things, but is forbidden sin offering. If he have dipped for a weightier thing, he is free for a lighter thing. If he have dipped and have not got credit for it, it is as though he had not dipped.

For common food and tithe how can washing of hands be needed? For I can adduce against this Mishnah the following, viz., The heave offering and the firstfruits involve to one who transgresses with respect to them death and compensation to the amount of one fifth part beyond the price, and it is forbidden to strangers to share in them, and these are the property of the priest and are mixed with one hundred and one things, and they are subject to the washing of hands and waiting till the going down of the sun (Bikkurim, ii. 1, and elsewhere). Lo, this is the case with heave-offering and firstfruits, but it is not the case with tithe, much less with common food. There is a difficulty when we place tithe against tithe, and there is a difficulty when we place common food against common food. It is all right in the case of tithe against tithe. It does not present a difficulty. The one opinion is that of R. Meir, and the other that of our Rabbis. For there is a canonical Mishnah, Everything which is subject to the duty of going to the water, as far as the scribes have taught, defiles hallowed things, but only disqualifies heave-offering and leaves common food and tithe unaffected. These are the words of R. Meir, but wise men consider tithe affected (Chullin 33b, i. 1, Sota 30a, ii. 4).

For common food and tithe how can washing of hands be needed? For I can adduce against this Mishnah the following, viz., The heave offering and the firstfruits involve to one who transgresses with respect to them death and compensation to the amount of one fifth part beyond the price, and it is forbidden to strangers to share in them, and these are the property of the priest and are mixed with one hundred and one things, and they are subject to the washing of hands and waiting till the going down of the sun (Bikkurim, ii. 1, and elsewhere). Lo, this is the case with heave-offering and firstfruits, but it is not the case with tithe, much less with common food. There is a difficulty when we place tithe against tithe, and there is a difficulty when we place common food against common food. It is all right in the case of tithe against tithe. It does not present a difficulty. The one opinion is that of R. Meir, and the other that of our Rabbis. For there is a canonical Mishnah, Everything which is subject to the duty of going to the water, as far as the scribes have taught, defiles hallowed things, but only disqualifies heave-offering and leaves common food and tithe unaffected. These are the words of R. Meir, but wise men consider tithe affected (Chullin 33b, i. 1, Sota 30a, ii. 4).

For common food and tithe how can washing of hands be needed? For I can adduce against this Mishnah the following, viz., The heave offering and the firstfruits involve to one who transgresses with respect to them death and compensation to the amount of one fifth part beyond the price, and it is forbidden to strangers to share in them, and these are the property of the priest and are mixed with one hundred and one things, and they are subject to the washing of hands and waiting till the going down of the sun (Bikkurim, ii. 1, and elsewhere). Lo, this is the case with heave-offering and firstfruits, but it is not the case with tithe, much less with common food. There is a difficulty when we place tithe against tithe, and there is a difficulty when we place common food against common food. It is all right in the case of tithe against tithe. It does not present a difficulty. The one opinion is that of R. Meir, and the other that of our Rabbis. For there is a canonical Mishnah, Everything which is subject to the duty of going to the water, as far as the scribes have taught, defiles hallowed things, but only disqualifies heave-offering and leaves common food and tithe unaffected. These are the words of R. Meir, but wise men consider tithe affected (Chullin 33b, i. 1, Sota 30a, ii. 4).

For common food and tithe how can washing of hands be needed? For I can adduce against this Mishnah the following, viz., The heave offering and the firstfruits involve to one who transgresses with respect to them death and compensation to the amount of one fifth part beyond the price, and it is forbidden to strangers to share in them, and these are the property of the priest and are mixed with one hundred and one things, and they are subject to the washing of hands and waiting till the going down of the sun (Bikkurim, ii. 1, and elsewhere). Lo, this is the case with heave-offering and firstfruits, but it is not the case with tithe, much less with common food. There is a difficulty when we place tithe against tithe, and there is a difficulty when we place common food against common food. It is all right in the case of tithe against tithe. It does not present a difficulty. The one opinion is that of R. Meir, and the other that of our Rabbis. For there is a canonical Mishnah, Everything which is subject to the duty of going to the water, as far as the scribes have taught, defiles hallowed things, but only disqualifies heave-offering and leaves common food and tithe unaffected. These are the words of R. Meir, but wise men consider tithe affected (Chullin 33b, i. 1, Sota 30a, ii. 4).

For common food and tithe how can washing of hands be needed? For I can adduce against this Mishnah the following, viz., The heave offering and the firstfruits involve to one who transgresses with respect to them death and compensation to the amount of one fifth part beyond the price, and it is forbidden to strangers to share in them, and these are the property of the priest and are mixed with one hundred and one things, and they are subject to the washing of hands and waiting till the going down of the sun (Bikkurim, ii. 1, and elsewhere). Lo, this is the case with heave-offering and firstfruits, but it is not the case with tithe, much less with common food. There is a difficulty when we place tithe against tithe, and there is a difficulty when we place common food against common food. It is all right in the case of tithe against tithe. It does not present a difficulty. The one opinion is that of R. Meir, and the other that of our Rabbis. For there is a canonical Mishnah, Everything which is subject to the duty of going to the water, as far as the scribes have taught, defiles hallowed things, but only disqualifies heave-offering and leaves common food and tithe unaffected. These are the words of R. Meir, but wise men consider tithe affected (Chullin 33b, i. 1, Sota 30a, ii. 4).

For common food and tithe how can washing of hands be needed? For I can adduce against this Mishnah the following, viz., The heave offering and the firstfruits involve to one who transgresses with respect to them death and compensation to the amount of one fifth part beyond the price, and it is forbidden to strangers to share in them, and these are the property of the priest and are mixed with one hundred and one things, and they are subject to the washing of hands and waiting till the going down of the sun (Bikkurim, ii. 1, and elsewhere). Lo, this is the case with heave-offering and firstfruits, but it is not the case with tithe, much less with common food. There is a difficulty when we place tithe against tithe, and there is a difficulty when we place common food against common food. It is all right in the case of tithe against tithe. It does not present a difficulty. The one opinion is that of R. Meir, and the other that of our Rabbis. For there is a canonical Mishnah, Everything which is subject to the duty of going to the water, as far as the scribes have taught, defiles hallowed things, but only disqualifies heave-offering and leaves common food and tithe unaffected. These are the words of R. Meir, but wise men consider tithe affected (Chullin 33b, i. 1, Sota 30a, ii. 4).

For common food and tithe how can washing of hands be needed? For I can adduce against this Mishnah the following, viz., The heave offering and the firstfruits involve to one who transgresses with respect to them death and compensation to the amount of one fifth part beyond the price, and it is forbidden to strangers to share in them, and these are the property of the priest and are mixed with one hundred and one things, and they are subject to the washing of hands and waiting till the going down of the sun (Bikkurim, ii. 1, and elsewhere). Lo, this is the case with heave-offering and firstfruits, but it is not the case with tithe, much less with common food. There is a difficulty when we place tithe against tithe, and there is a difficulty when we place common food against common food. It is all right in the case of tithe against tithe. It does not present a difficulty. The one opinion is that of R. Meir, and the other that of our Rabbis. For there is a canonical Mishnah, Everything which is subject to the duty of going to the water, as far as the scribes have taught, defiles hallowed things, but only disqualifies heave-offering and leaves common food and tithe unaffected. These are the words of R. Meir, but wise men consider tithe affected (Chullin 33b, i. 1, Sota 30a, ii. 4).

For common food and tithe how can washing of hands be needed? For I can adduce against this Mishnah the following, viz., The heave offering and the firstfruits involve to one who transgresses with respect to them death and compensation to the amount of one fifth part beyond the price, and it is forbidden to strangers to share in them, and these are the property of the priest and are mixed with one hundred and one things, and they are subject to the washing of hands and waiting till the going down of the sun (Bikkurim, ii. 1, and elsewhere). Lo, this is the case with heave-offering and firstfruits, but it is not the case with tithe, much less with common food. There is a difficulty when we place tithe against tithe, and there is a difficulty when we place common food against common food. It is all right in the case of tithe against tithe. It does not present a difficulty. The one opinion is that of R. Meir, and the other that of our Rabbis. For there is a canonical Mishnah, Everything which is subject to the duty of going to the water, as far as the scribes have taught, defiles hallowed things, but only disqualifies heave-offering and leaves common food and tithe unaffected. These are the words of R. Meir, but wise men consider tithe affected (Chullin 33b, i. 1, Sota 30a, ii. 4).

R. Shimi bar Ashi deals with the matter thus. Up to this point our Rabbis disagree with R. Meir only as to the eating of the tithe, but as regards the touching of the tithe and the eating of common food they do not disagree. But suppose that both the one and the other refer to eating, and still there is no difficulty. The one has to do with eating bread, the other with eating fruits. For R. Nachman said, Every one who washes his hands for fruit is over scrupulous and affected.

R. Shimi bar Ashi deals with the matter thus. Up to this point our Rabbis disagree with R. Meir only as to the eating of the tithe, but as regards the touching of the tithe and the eating of common food they do not disagree. But suppose that both the one and the other refer to eating, and still there is no difficulty. The one has to do with eating bread, the other with eating fruits. For R. Nachman said, Every one who washes his hands for fruit is over scrupulous and affected.

the other with tithe.

Rabbah put this question to R. Nachman, Thou saidst, He who dips for common food and has credit for common food, is forbidden tithe. If he claims credit, he has it; if he does not claim credit, he has it not. Nay, but it means, Although he has credit for common food, he is forbidden tithe. He put this further question to him, There is a Mishnah as follows, If he have dipped and have not got credit for it, it is as though he had not dipped. Do you think it means, that it is as though he had not dipped? Certainly not, but it means that it is, as though he had not dipped for tithe. But the case supposed is that of one who has dipped for common food. He considered and brought this refutation.

Rabbah put this question to R. Nachman, Thou saidst, He who dips for common food and has credit for common food, is forbidden tithe. If he claims credit, he has it; if he does not claim credit, he has it not. Nay, but it means, Although he has credit for common food, he is forbidden tithe. He put this further question to him, There is a Mishnah as follows, If he have dipped and have not got credit for it, it is as though he had not dipped. Do you think it means, that it is as though he had not dipped? Certainly not, but it means that it is, as though he had not dipped for tithe. But the case supposed is that of one who has dipped for common food. He considered and brought this refutation.

Rabbah put this question to R. Nachman, Thou saidst, He who dips for common food and has credit for common food, is forbidden tithe. If he claims credit, he has it; if he does not claim credit, he has it not. Nay, but it means, Although he has credit for common food, he is forbidden tithe. He put this further question to him, There is a Mishnah as follows, If he have dipped and have not got credit for it, it is as though he had not dipped. Do you think it means, that it is as though he had not dipped? Certainly not, but it means that it is, as though he had not dipped for tithe. But the case supposed is that of one who has dipped for common food. He considered and brought this refutation.

He went out and speculated and found that there is a Baraitha, viz., If a man have dipped and have not credit, he is forbidden tithe, but is free for common food. R. Eliezer said, If he have dipped and gone up, he may hold himself fit for any thing that he desires. But they reply, If, while he had still one foot in the water, he considered himself fit for a smaller thing, he may consider himself fit for a greater thing; if he had gone up, he may not any more consider himself fit. Don't you think that this means, that he may not consider himself fit for any thing at all? No; while he had still one foot in the water, although he considered himself fit for a smaller thing only, he may consider himself fit for a greater thing; if he have gone up, then, if he did not think of himself as fit for any particular thing, he may consider himself as fit, but if he did think of himself as fit for a smaller thing, he may not consider himself as fit for a greater thing. Who is the Mishnah teacher who says, While he had still one foot in the water? R. P'dath says, It is R. Jehudah, for there is a canonical Mishnah, If a collection of water is measured, and there are in it exactly forty seahs, and two men go down and dip one after the other, the first is clean, and the second is unclean. R. Jehudah said, If the feet of the first are still in contact with the water, the second also is clean (Mikvaoth, vi. 6). R. Nachman said that Rabbah bar Abuah said, There is a disagreement on the point among the weighty sayings of our Rabbis, but, if it is a case of passing from uncleanness to cleanness, all agree that the second also is unclean, and this is the opinion of R. P'dath. There are some who say that R. Nachman said, that Rabbah bar Abuah said, There is a disagreement as regards passing from uncleanness to cleanness, but among the weighty sayings of our Rabbis all agree that the second also is clean. And here there is a divergence from R. P'dath. Ola said,

He that dips for common food and has credit for common food, etc. According to whom does our Mishnah run? It is a saying of our Rabbis, for they make a distinction between common food and tithes. But against this view let me quote the latter part of the Mishnah, The garments of a common person are defiled by pressure for Pharisees; the garments of Pharisees are defiled by pressure for those that eat heave-offering. This is in accordance with R. Meir, who says, Common food and tithe are exactly the same. Then is our conclusion to be that the former part is the teaching of our Rabbis, and the latter part that of R. Meir? Yes, the former part is the teaching of our Rabbis, and the latter part that of R. Meir. Rab Acha bar Ada teaches in the latter part five orders, and establishes it all according to our Rabbis.

GEMARA: But note a contradiction [from a baraisa regarding maiser sheni, the 2nd tithe], A tree which stands inside [of Jerusalem] but its branches extend outside [the city], or [a tree] which stands outside but its branches extend inside, from the wall and inside is considered inside [with regard to redeeming maiser shenei], and from the wall and outside is considered outside.

Who is this ruling in accordance with? It's in accordance to the following Tanna, that it was taught in a baraisa, Rebbi Yossi said, I might think that a person is only liable for tevel which no tithes were separated from. But if he separated terumah gedolah but did not separate maiser rishon, or he separated maiser rishon but did not separate maiser sheni, or even if maeser ani [was the only tithe unseparated], where do we know [that he is still liable for eating it]?

he must designate [maser ani, i.e. the poor man's tithe of demai i.e food purchased form an ignoramus] by name, but he is not required to physically separate it.