English translation — ראה א

Sicha 1<pg>75</pg>

A.

The Rambam wrote<sup>1</sup>

"Fruits purchased with second tithe money are not redeemed in a distant place unless they became impure with a primary source of impurity, but rather they themselves should go up and be eaten in Jerusalem",

And he continues in the next paragraph "This is a stringency in what is purchased with second tithe money over the fruits of the second tithe themselves".

And behold, the Radbaz that the source of this law is in the Mishnah of Maaser Sheni<sup>2</sup>

: The purchase with second tithe money that became impure shall be redeemed; Rabbi Yehuda says it shall be buried. They said to Rabbi Yehuda: And what if second tithe itself that became impure, behold it is redeemed; the purchase with second tithe money that became impure, is it not logical that it should be redeemed? He said to them: No, if you said regarding second tithe itself, that it is redeemed when pure in a distant place<sup>3</sup>

will you say regarding the purchase with tithe money, which is not redeemed when pure<sup>4</sup>

in a distant place.

And the Radbaz writes: We learned that the purchase with second tithe money is not redeemed in a distant place according to everyone<sup>5</sup>

And this is what our Rabbi wrote: This is a stringency in the purchase with money, etc., that they are not redeemed in a distant place unless they became impure...

And I have found in many places that the secondary is more stringent than the primary.

And behold, what the Radbaz wrote that this law is similar to that which we find in several places that the secondary is more stringent than the primary,

its source is in the Gemara Zevachim⁶,

for it is stated there that we find secondary is more stringent than the primary in the law of redemption of maaser sheni — "Behold, maaser which is redeemed, whereas a purchase with maaser money is not redeemed, as we learned: one who purchased with maaser money [an animal] which became impure may be redeemed; Rabbi Yosei says it shall be buried"

(except that afterwards this example is rejected in the Gemara,

as below section 5).

However, in the words of the Gemara

(that in the law of redemption of maaser we find secondary is more stringent than the primary)

there are two explanations — corresponding to two versions in the Gemara:

a)

According to the version and commentary of Rashi<sup>7</sup>

(and so they proved in Tosafos<sup>8</sup>

from the Tosefta)

— the proof is from the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda,

that an animal purchased with maaser money that became impure is not redeemed

(but rather "it is buried"),

whereas second tithe that became impure is redeemed even in Jerusalem,

thus the secondary is more stringent than the primary.

b)

"There are<sup>9</sup>

manuscripts that read here: if it became impure, yes; if it did not become impure, no; and they bring a proof from the Rabbis that the secondary is more stringent than the primary",

that is,

the proof is from an animal purchased with pure maaser money,

that the law is that it is not redeemed even outside Jerusalem

(for only if it became impure is it redeemed),

unlike maaser itself

(even when pure)

is redeemed outside Jerusalem.

And superficially, this is also the opinion of the Rambam

[according to the aforementioned explanation of the Radbaz,

that according to the Rambam, this law is included in the principle "the secondary is more stringent than the primary"]

— for in the Rambam here it is explicit,

that the stringency of what is purchased with second-tithe money regarding the second-tithe itself is concerning the redemption of pure fruits

(and this is according to the Rabbis,

as above).

<pg>76</pg>

And now, in explaining the reasoning of Rashi

(and those with him)

who holds that the proof in the Gemara is not from the opinion of the Rabbis

(with whom the law is in accordance),

but only from the opinion of Rabbi Yosi — the Tosafot wrote⁸,

that "this

(that fruits purchased with second-tithe money may not be redeemed outside Jerusalem,

unlike second-tithe fruits themselves)

is not called 'the secondary is more stringent than the primary,' for second-tithe itself, when pure, is redeemed in a distant place in order to purchase

(redeem)

with the money in Jerusalem cattle and sheep, etc. But if he purchased fruits with it outside Jerusalem in order to eat them in Jerusalem, he may not redeem, just as he would not redeem what he would purchase in Jerusalem."

[And so wrote the Radbaz there

(in his second explanation)

that "behold¹⁰

this is as if he purchased them in Jerusalem, for they are not fit for redemption..

(And he concludes)

And this reasoning suffices even for the one who says that we do not be stringent with the secondary more than with the primary."]

And based on this,

it is possible to say that the Rambam holds that in this law

(that fruits taken [with second tithe money] are not redeemed like the tithe itself)

because of "the secondary is more stringent than the primary",

it must be said that he does not hold of that reasoning that fruits taken with tithe money "behold this is as if he acquired them in Jerusalem".

2.

And we must explain the reasoning of the dispute in the prior definition of redemption of second tithe,

which can be explained in several ways:

a)

it is a permit for the person,

as the simple meaning of the verses¹¹

"And if the way be too long for you, so that you are not able to carry it, etc., and you shall turn it into money, and bind up the money in your hand, and go to the place, etc."

for even though

(the essence)

of the mitzvah of maaser sheni is to eat¹²

the fruits of the tithe themselves in Jerusalem¹³,

nevertheless, when a person has trouble bringing the fruits to Jerusalem

("for the way is too long for you, etc."),

he is permitted to redeem the fruits for money,

and with this money buy fruits in Jerusalem and eat them there.

b)

the redemption of maaser sheni fruits is not in the category of a permit for the person,

but rather this is the mitzvah¹⁴

of maaser sheni according to the essential law,

that when "the way is too long for you, so that you are not able to carry it, etc.," the Torah said that one redeems the fruits for money, etc.

that is: the Torah established from the outset two modes in the fulfillment of the mitzvah of maaser sheni¹⁵

: a)

bringing the fruits themselves to Jerusalem,

b)

redeeming the fruits and bringing the money to Jerusalem in order to buy there fruits, etc., and eat them, etc.^*15

And in this itself one can say in two ways:

a)

The law of redemption of maaser sheni is a detail in the general law of eating fruits of maaser sheni in Jerusalem,

<pg>77</pg>

That is: the mitzvah of maaser sheni is — that the fruits of maaser sheni must be eaten in Jerusalem,

and there are two ways to fulfill this mitzvah,

either by bringing the fruits themselves,

or by redeeming the fruits for money and taking fruits in Jerusalem

(with this money).

2)

The law of redemption of maaser sheni fruits with money is not

(only)

a preparation for the mitzvah that leads to the mitzvah of eating maaser sheni in Jerusalem, but it is a law in its own right.

That is,

that in maaser sheni fruits there are two separate laws

(which are not dependent on each other)

: a)

Bringing the fruits themselves to Jerusalem and eating them there.

b)

The law of redemption,

that fruits that are located at a distance from Jerusalem have a mitzvah to redeem these fruits — "And you shall give it for money and bind the money in your hand"

(And as is also implied from the fact that they established a special blessing on the redemption of maaser sheni fruits¹⁶,

behold, the redemption of maaser sheni is not

(only)

a preparation for the mitzvah of bringing it and eating it in Jerusalem).

3.

And one can say,

that according to these three manners one can explain the differences of reasons in the law that what is purchased with second tithe money is not redeemed at a distance

(even though second tithe fruits themselves are redeemed)

:

a)

In Shitah Mekubetzet¹⁷

wrote "because the Merciful One said regarding pure tithe that it is redeemed outside Jerusalem, that is due to the trouble of the road, for the Merciful One had mercy on his trouble, as it is written etc., and this one who bought fruits from the money in a distant place in order to eat it in Jerusalem also revealed his mind that he does not care about his trouble, therefore it is not redeemed when it is pure"¹⁸.

Therefore it is proven that the essential law of redemption of maaser sheni is in the category of a permit for the person,

that because of the difficulty of the exertion, Heaven had mercy on him and permitted him to bring money

(instead of produce)

to Jerusalem,

and therefore,

this person who revealed his opinion that he does not care about his exertion,

behold he has removed himself from this permit.

b)

The reason of the Tosafos⁸

(as above),

that "maaser itself that is pure is redeemed at a distant place in order to buy with the money in Jerusalem cattle and sheep etc.,

but if he bought with it produce outside Jerusalem in order to eat them in Jerusalem, it is not redeemed, just as he would not redeem what he would buy in Jerusalem"

(and as the Radbaz wrote

(as above)¹⁰

that "this is as if he bought them in Jerusalem").

And according to this reason,

the law of redemption of second tithe money

(is not only a permission for the person but that)

this is a law

(of redemption)

in the fruits,

namely that this is from the commandments of second tithe that "the tithe itself, which is pure, is redeemed at a distant place in order to buy with the money in Jerusalem cattle and sheep, etc.,"

except that this law of redemption is only for the sake of purchasing fruits with this money¹⁹

— "and you shall give the money for whatever your soul desires"^*19,

therefore,

after he bought fruits with this money

(even outside Jerusalem)

the commandment of redemption is fulfilled and completed, and the fruits are no longer redeemed.

[And so it is explicit in Ḳiryat Sefer here²⁰,

that this is that "fruits purchased with second tithe money are not redeemed at a distant place like fruits<pg>78</pg>

Maaser Sheini itself" is because "its mitzvah has already been completed²¹

and it is no longer redeemable"²²].

3)

According to the first interpretation

(in the Radbaz)

in the opinion of the Rambam,

that this which is purchased with Maaser Sheini money is not redeemable is included in the category of the secondary being more stringent than the primary

(and not like the reasons above that "this is not called the secondary being more stringent than the primary")

— it can be said

(like the third manner above)

that the law of redeeming Maaser Sheini fruits is a mitzvah in its own right that is completed immediately upon their redemption²³

(and not merely a preparation for eating Maaser Sheini fruits in Jerusalem)²⁴.

Therefore, it is not applicable to say that when he purchased fruits with this money it is as if he purchased them in Jerusalem and its mitzvah was completed — because bringing the money and purchasing fruits in Jerusalem is not the completion of the mitzvah of redemption,

rather it is part of the general mitzvah of bringing Maaser Sheini fruits to Jerusalem and eating them there

(and as above,

that in this mitzvah there are two manners: to bring the actual tithe fruits,

or to bring the money and purchase the fruits in Jerusalem).

And consequently,

after he redeemed Maaser Sheini fruits, the obligation of redemption is immediately completed²⁵,

and from now on the general obligation applies to him to bring the money or the fruits purchased with it to Jerusalem etc.

(similar to the obligation to bring actual tithe fruits to Jerusalem),

and the obligation of bringing and eating is not completed until after eating the fruits in Jerusalem;

And since nevertheless the purchased fruits are not redeemed like fruits of second tithe themselves,

behold, the secondary is more stringent than the primary.

4.

And with this we can also explain the intent of the Rambam in what he wrote "This is the stringency in what is purchased with money of second tithe from fruits of second tithe themselves" — for superficially it is not understood,

what does the Rambam add with these words to the essence of the law regarding what is purchased

(that fruits purchased with money of second tithe are not redeemed)

which he already wrote in the halacha preceding this?

And according to the above, it can be said,

that in this comes the &lt;pg&gt;79&lt;/pg&gt;

Rambam to emphasize that there is here a novelty,

that there is material taken in money of maaser from the fruits of maaser themselves,

namely that the intention of the Rambam is the novelty that the secondary is more stringent than the primary,

and with this the Rambam defines the law of redemption of maaser sheni,

that it is like the third manner above,

that there is here because of the secondary being more stringent than the primary,

as above at length.

5.

However, it still needs to be understood.

How can it be said that the Rambam holds that this law

(that produce bought with second-tithe money is not redeemed)

has in it something of "the secondary is more stringent than the primary" — and behold, in the Gemara there²⁶

it concludes that one cannot bring proof from this law that "there is a secondary more stringent than the primary,"

because "there its sanctity is not strong enough to take hold of redemption [money]"²⁷

[And this means that this that produce bought with second-tithe money is not redeemed is not because of the stringency in them,

but on the contrary,

because their sanctity is a light sanctity

("its sanctity is not strong enough")

that it does not have the ability to take hold of the redemption money]?

In simple terms, it can be said:

(a)

Since this is not a halachic ruling but rather

(only in the manner of)

a reason for the law — the Rambam adopts the simpler reason

(in the manner explained in the general principles of the Rambam²⁸

that he writes the simpler exposition, etc.).

(b)

that the Rambam holds that this is only a preliminary assumption in the Gemara,

but according to the conclusion we hold that it is included in the principle that the secondary is more stringent than the primary²⁹

(as the Radbaz says: "And I have found in many places³⁰

that the secondary is more stringent than the primary").

But to explain further, one must say,

that this that the Rambam wrote here is because the content of the commandment of second tithe is connected with this general principle that we find that the secondary is more stringent than the primary.

6.

It was explained elsewhere³¹

the difference between a firstborn and tithe

(animal),

that the sanctity of a firstborn is from the womb³²

and is not dependent on human action; but the sanctity of tithe depends on human action,

that a person counts the flock,

and then "the tenth³³

(shall be)

holy"³⁴,

and likewise is it also with second tithe,

that the "sanctity" of the loaf comes about through the act of separation.

That is,

that a firstborn is a sanctity from heaven,

and tithe is a sanctity made by man.

However, in particular, there are also two aspects within maaser itself:

(a)

the action of man, which is the counting

(the separation³⁵),

(b)

the holiness from Heaven³⁶

that comes afterwards.

<pg>80</pg>

And according to what was explained above, it can be said that there is a novelty in maaser sheni — that it contains not only the commandment of separation and the holiness that comes through it from Heaven,

but also the commandment of redemption

(and as above,

that this is not merely a permission and ability in order to bring the fruits to Jerusalem,

but rather it is

(another)

law and obligation in the fulfillment of the commandment of maaser sheni),

that the application of holiness that comes through the redemption comes through the redemption,

the action of man.

And this is what the Rambam wrote, that there is "material purchased with maaser money from the maaser fruits themselves":

"Maaser fruits themselves" — this is holiness that comes from heaven,

whereas the "purchased with maaser money" is holiness that comes through human action

(that the person redeemed the maaser,

and furthermore — he then desacralized the money on other fruits),

and as the person is found in a "distant place"

(specifically)

from Jerusalem,

an additional holiness beyond the holiness of the rest of the Land of Israel

(as the words of the Mishnah³⁷).

And even though simply, the holiness that comes from heaven is a greater holiness than that which comes through the deed of man,

And in the manner and style of our sages, the deed of man is "his kav"³⁸,

only one kav,

and it is not comparable to the "nine kavim"³⁸

of his fellow

(the Holy One, blessed be He,

and as it is said, "Your friend and your father's friend do not forsake"³⁹),

the holiness that comes from heaven — nevertheless, there is an advantage in "his kav"³⁸,

specifically the deed of man.

And the reason for this,

for "You desire the work of Your hands"⁴⁰,

that His will and desire, as it were, of the Holy One, blessed be He, is "To Me the children of Israel are servants"⁴¹,

specifically for the service of man below,

even though it is only "one kav".

And since specifically in the holiness that comes through the deed of man there is an additional advantage as above,

therefore there is "stringency regarding that which is purchased with maaser money" compared to "the maaser fruits themselves" which is the holiness that comes from heaven.

And this is in addition to the "stringency" in the very addition of holiness by man,

that by his having passed and repeated and added holiness, this is for prevention

(for regarding holy things "the verse repeated it to prevent"⁴²).

And this itself is the reason for this that "a person prefers his own kav

(his own work)

over nine kav of his fellow

(the Holy One, blessed be He)

" — because specifically in this is the desire above⁴³.

And from this is derived

(in the manner of the earthly kingdom is like the heavenly kingdom⁴⁴)

regarding one's fellow among human beings].

7.

And with this one can further explain the reason for this that in the words of the Rambam

(according to the first interpretation of the Radbaz)

the concept of "the secondary is more stringent than the primary" is emphasized specifically regarding the redemption of ma'aser sheni — because this is also the content of the "general rule" that "we find in several places that the secondary is more stringent than the primary":

"Ikkar" is the holiness that comes from heaven,

and "tafel" — holiness through the deed of man.

And it is sweetened that which is called "tafel" relative to the holiness that comes from heaven,

because that which the deed of man sanctifies—this comes from heaven,

(through the power of Torah —)

Torah from heaven.

And this is what "we find in several places that the secondary is more stringent than the primary",

and in the manner of the matter that the words of the Scribes are more stringent than the words of&lt;pg&gt;81&lt;/pg&gt;

Torah⁴⁵,

even though the words of the scribes themselves come — are learned or at least hinted at — in the words of Torah.

And it can be said that in the expression "the secondary is more severe than the primary" is also hinted that the material etc. in the action of man

(secondary)

relative to the holiness that comes from heaven

(primary)

— this is not material in the action of man from its own side,

but rather it comes from the primary

(from heaven).

(And as explained regarding the matter and beautiful expression, the power of the son is more beautiful than the power of the father⁴⁶,

that also this power in the son, which is more beautiful than the power of the father,

comes and is drawn "from the power of the father").

8.

Based on the above, we can further explain the content of the difference between the two interpretations in the Radbaz

(regarding the law that one does not redeem fruits purchased with money of second tithe)

—

(a)

Because we find that the secondary is more stringent than the primary,

(b)

Because it is considered as if he acquired them in Jerusalem — it can be said that they are two matters

(and levels)

in the elevation of holiness that comes through human action relative to the holiness that comes from heaven:

According to the first interpretation,

that what is purchased with ma'aser sheni money is "secondary" relative to the ma'aser sheni fruits themselves — it follows,

that the holiness that comes through human action is secondary relative to the holiness from Heaven,

which is the "essential"; except that since "You yearn for the work of Your hands",

therefore there is "severity" and advantage in human action relative to the holiness from Heaven — the secondary is more stringent than the essential.

However, according to the second interpretation of the Radbaz

(that fruits purchased with ma'aser sheni money "are considered as if he bought them in Jerusalem")

— what is purchased with ma'aser sheni money is not "secondary",

but on the contrary,

it has the elevation of the completion and perfection of the holiness of ma'aser sheni,

"it is considered as if he bought them in Jerusalem"

(for there the fruits become holy in a manner

(similar to bodily holiness)

that they cannot be redeemed).

And this is the second level in the elevation that is in "the work of your hands" of man,

that in the work of man itself there is the quality of "his own kav"

(the holiness that comes through the work of man),

and also the "nine kavs of his fellow",

that this is the completeness of the elevation in the work of man,

that there are not here two separate holinesses,

the holiness that is through the work of man and the holiness from heaven,

but rather they become one holiness,

And it can be said that this that "You will long for the work of your hands" is because Israel and the Holy One, blessed be He, are all one,

as it were⁴⁷.

And for this reason,

also the action and deed of man when it is "in a distant place",

and the dependence

(at first glance)

entirely on man — "behold this is as if he acquired them in Jerusalem",

"complete fear"⁴⁸,

the ultimate perfection of holiness.

And it can be said,

that this matter is hinted at in the two extremes of the second tithe in general:

On the one hand, "it is money of the Most High, as it is said⁴⁹

it is for the Lord

(and)

therefore it cannot be acquired through a gift, etc., and one cannot betroth a woman with it, and one cannot sell it, etc."⁵⁰,

and on the other hand — the commandment of its eating is not for the priests or the Levites and the like,

but rather the owners themselves eat it,

for in the commandment of ma'aser sheni, two extremes are united: the holiness of the Most High,

and this itself — in the holiness of the deed of man himself.

(From the sicha of Shabbos Parshas Re'eh 5745)