Maaser Sheini - Chapter 6

And if some coins are lost, the loss is deducted from the ordinary coins [the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (Ma'aser Sheni 2:5)]. The rationale is that it is possible that the coins of only one type were lost. As a stringency, we assume that it was the ordinary coins that were lost.

Before they fell (ibid.).

Since they were all mixed together, it is not likely that the loss was suffered by one type of coin alone.

The Radbaz maintains that even if the coins were mixed together after they fell, the money should be divided proportionally, because there is no way of knowing which type of coins one has in hand.

This applies in both instances, whether they are scattered or mixed together [the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (ibid.)].

It is, however, preferable to use silver (Radbaz). The Meiri differs and maintains that it is preferable to redeem the coins with brass.

As mentioned previously, in that time, the mintage of coins were not entirely standard and sometimes there were some fluctuations of weight. Also, some coins could have been affected by wear and tear.

Since it was not found in the place where he told him it was located, we assume that the produce from the second tithe was lost and this is new produce.

100 silver pieces.

I.e., we assume that his father did not mention the ordinary money that was there, but rather informed him only of the money that was from the second tithe, because only those funds were important from a ritual perspective.

We assume that the money from the second tithe was taken and that these are different funds.

Since the amount he discovered was not the same amount that he put there, we assume that the original funds were taken and that these are new funds. In this instance, the person placed the funds there himself. Hence, there is a difference between this instance and the first case in which he was conveyed the information by his father.

The Ra'avad notes that the Rambam's ruling appears to be a departure from the ruling of the Mishnah (Ma'aser Sheni 4:12) which states that all of the 100 are the second tithe. The Kessef Mishneh explains that the Rambam's ruling is based on Beitzah 10b which follows this line of thinking.

In such an instance, one would have reason to think that one wallet contains the money that is the second tithe and the other ordinary money.

This is a stringency since it was not known which of the pouches contained the produce of the second tithe.

Lest in fact it had been the smaller ones that contain the produce from the second tithe.

See Hilchot Gerushin 2:16 which explains that a person who has lost his ability to speak, but is of sound mind is asked three questions which require different answers, i.e., two positive and one negative or vice versa. If he answers them correctly, the court concludes that he is mentally sound and continues asking him concerning the bill of divorce. See also Hilchot Mechirah 29:3.

And the produce is considered as ordinary produce.

See Hilchot Zechiyah UMatanah 10:7.

I.e., "even if you are dying of hunger do not take the money to spend on your own needs."

I.e., we do not say that the father meant that the money was from the second tithe and should not be used for ordinary purposes.

So that he does not appear to be rich or so that his sons don't waste the money immediately.

See also Hilchot Zechiyah UMatanah 10:5.

An earthenware container, as indicated by the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (Ma'aser Sheni 4:10).

Either money or produce.

The mem stands for ma'aser, "tithes." We do not think that the intent is the first tithe or the tithe for the poor, for the consumption of these is not restricted to a specific group.

In which instance, the container itself has value and we assume he consecrated it as well. In contrast, an earthenware container is not valuable and would not be consecrated.

I.e., in the era of Roman persecution when the Romans tried to stamp out the observance of the mitzvot and the Jews were afraid to write out the entire word.

Such a mixture might give the impression that this money was set aside for the second tithe, for generally people do not hold different types of coins together (Rav Yosef Corcus).

Generally, we assume that the money found in Jerusalem is ordinary money, because during the majority of the year, there are not that many pilgrims there. Thus we assume that the money fell from one of the inhabitants of Jerusalem. One might, however, object and say that perhaps the money fell from one of the pilgrims during the festivals (see below), but was not discovered until afterwards. Our Sages (Bava Metzia 26a) resolve that query by explaining that since - as a precaution, to remove dead lizards or other objects that impart ritual impurity - the streets of Jerusalem are swept every day, we can assume that any money lost on the festivals would already have been discovered and these are ordinary funds.

"Tithes," i.e., the second tithe, for it is the only money of the tithes that may not be used in an ordinary manner.

We do not suspect that perhaps the person was carrying ordinary money and the shard from a container in which he had once stored money from the second tithe [the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (Ma'aser Sheni 4:9)].

For then the majority of people in Jerusalem are pilgrims. They bring the money from the second tithes that they collected throughout the year to purchase food in Jerusalem. Thus at that time, most of the money circulating in Jerusalem is from the second tithe.

I.e., not only during the pilgrimage festivals, but throughout the year.

Animals could be purchased with the funds from the second tithe and this indeed was the practice of the majority of the pilgrims [see the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (Ma'aser Sheni 1:4)]. Even during the remainder of the year, there were some pilgrims who came to Jerusalem and they were the majority of the purchasers of animals for slaughter.

People were not allowed to bring money to the Temple Mount (Hilchot Beit HaBechirah 7:2). Hence it is most likely that the money found there came from the Temple treasury. Now the priests would not take the money from the Temple treasury until they transferred its holiness to an animal. Hence we can assume that the holiness of the money had already been transferred and the status of the money found was ordinary [see the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (Shekalim 7:2)].

The Kessef Mishneh notes that this situation is discussed in greater detail in Pesachim 7a and questions why the Rambam does not cite all the particulars mentioned there.

The Ra'avad states that we should rule stringently and consider the majority as from the second tithe. The Radbaz also suggests that they should be considered as from the second tithe and redeemed for other money.

See parallels in Hilchot Shekalim 3:15; Hilchot Gezeilah ViAveidah 15:18.

As required by Hilchot Terumah 11:7.

See ibid. 7:2.

See Chapter 2, Halachah 1.

The Radbaz states that this is also speaking about a situation where the mixed produce is equidistant from the other two. Chasdei David emphasizes that the Rambam does not say "according to the stringencies that apply to both," because there are no stringencies in the laws applying to the second tithe of demai over produce that is definitely from the second tithe. The stringencies applying to produce that is definitely from the second tithe are mentioned in Chapter 3, Halachot 8-9, Chapter 5, Halachah 4, and Chapter 11, Halachah 8.

Where it is forbidden to redeem produce from the second tithe (Chapter 2, Halachah 8).

Our translation differs from the standard published text of the Mishneh Torah and is based on authoritative manuscripts and early printings. Note the Kessef Mishneh which offers an alternative explanation.

See Hilchot Ma'achalot Assurot 15:12 which states that the stringency governing an entity that can be permitted applies only to mixtures of the same species.

Therefore, the produce of the second tithe is not nullified regardless of the amount of ordinary progress present. Therefore, since the mixture is located in Jerusalem, no prohibition will be violated in its consumption, provided – as the Rambam continues – the entire mixture will be eaten in a state of ritual purity.

When it can no longer be redeemed.

And must be treated with all the restrictions incumbent on such produce. This applies even if the seed from which the produce grows decomposes.

At which point it can still be redeemed.

Preferably, one should redeem it so that one is not nullifying a prohibition by leaving it in the ground, for this should not be done as an initial preference (Hilchot Ma'achalot Assurot 16:12). After the fact, however, the prohibition is nullified.

As opposed to other prohibited substances that require 60 or more times the amount of the prohibited substance.

In which instance, the obligation to separate the second tithe is merely Rabbinic in origin (see Chapter 2, Halachah 9, and notes).

Hilchot Ma'achalot Assurot 15:11 places restrictions on nullifying substances that can become permitted. Implied is that if a substance cannot become permitted, no such restrictions apply.