Study Bava Metzia folio 53B with parallel Hebrew-English text, traditional commentary, and modern study tools. Free access to Babylonian Talmud online.
Text Excerpt
אפילו בירושלים – שנאמר: ״כי לא תוכל שאתו״, ואין ״שאת״ אלא אכילה, שנאמר: ״וישא משאת מאת פניו״.
even in Jerusalem, although ritually pure second tithe cannot be desacralized in Jerusalem? It is as it is stated: “For you are unable to carry [se’et] it…and you should turn it into money, and bind up the money in your hand” (Deuteronomy 14:24–25). And se’et means nothing other than eating, as it is stated: “And he took portions [masot] from before him” (Genesis 43:34). Since ritually impure second-tithe produce may not be consumed, R' Elazar holds that one may desacralize it even if it had been brought into Jerusalem.
אלא בלקוח בכסף מעשר שני. לקוח בכסף מעשר נמי ליפרקיה, דתנן: הלקוח בכסף מעשר שני שנטמא – יפדה! כרבי יהודה דאמר יקבר.
Rather, the halakha of the baraita is taught not with regard to second-tithe produce, but with regard to food acquired with second-tithe money, which cannot be desacralized. The Talmud asks: With regard to food acquired with second-tithe money too, let him redeem it, as we learned in a Mishnah (Ma’aser Sheni 3:10): Food acquired with second-tithe money that became ritually impure should be redeemed. The Talmud answers: The baraita is in accordance with the opinion of R' Yehuda, who says: Food acquired with second-tithe money that became ritually impure must be buried and may not be redeemed.
אי רבי יהודה, מאי איריא ״יצא״? אפילו לא יצא נמי, אלא: לעולם בטהור, ומאי ״יצא״ – דנפול מחיצות.
The Talmud asks: If the baraita is in accordance with the opinion of R' Yehuda, why did the tanna teach specifically a case where the food exited Jerusalem? Even if it did not exit Jerusalem, that halakha also applies, as he holds that once the food becomes ritually impure it must be buried. Rather, actually, it is taught in the baraita with regard to second tithe that is ritually pure, and what is the meaning of exited? It is not that the produce actually exited Jerusalem. Rather, the baraita is discussing a case where the partitions, i.e., the walls, surrounding the city fell. The legal status of that second-tithe produce is that of produce that exited the city.