Study Bava Metzia folio 53A with parallel Hebrew-English text, traditional commentary, and modern study tools. Free access to Babylonian Talmud online.
Text Excerpt
ואסורים לזרים, והן נכסי כהן, ועולים באחד ומאה, וטעונין רחיצת ידים והערב שמש. הרי אלו בתרומה ובכורים, מה שאין כן במעשר.
And their consumption is prohibited to non-priests; and they are the property of the priest in every sense, e.g., to sell them to another priest or betroth a woman with them; and if they were intermingled with non-sacred produce they are negated only if the ratio is one part teruma in 100 parts non-sacred produce; and they require the washing of one’s hands before partaking of them; and one who was impure and immersed must wait for sunset before partaking of them. These are halakhot that are in effect with regard to teruma and first fruits, which is not so with regard to second tithe.
מאי ״מה שאין כן במעשר״ – לאו מכלל דמעשר בטיל ברובא? ואם איתא דחזקיה, הוה ליה דבר שיש לו מתירין. וכל דבר שיש לו מתירין, אפילו באלף לא בטיל!
The Talmud asks: What is the meaning of: Which is not so with regard to second tithe? Is it not, by inference, that second tithe is negated in a majority of non-sacred produce? And if it is so that the opinion of Ḥizkiyya is correct and even second-tithe produce worth less than one peruta can be redeemed, second tithe is an item whose prohibition has permitting factors, and the principle is that any item whose prohibition has permitting factors is not negated even if it is in a mixture with 1,000 permitted parts.
וממאי דמה שאין כן במעשר – דבטיל ברובא? דלמא לא בטיל כלל! לא מצית אמרת הכי, דלגבי תרומה – חומרי דתרומה קתני, קולי דתרומה לא קתני. והא קא תני: והן נכסי כהן!
The Talmud rejects this proof: And from where is it learned that from the phrase: Which is not so with regard to second tithe, one infers that second tithe is negated in a simple majority? Perhaps infer that second tithe is not negated at all. The Talmud answers: You cannot say so, as with regard to teruma, the tanna in the Mishnah is teaching the stringencies of teruma but he is not teaching the leniencies of teruma. The Talmud asks: But doesn’t the tanna teach: And they are the property of the priest, which is a leniency? Apparently, the tanna did not restrict his treatment of the halakhot of teruma to stringencies.