-TOSEFTA MAASER SHENI CHAPTER FIVE

Having completed the discussion of produce in the status of second , the tractate moves to a consideration of two categories of food which are in a status similar to that of second tithe. The first of these is fruit of a tree's fourth year of growth (M. 5: 1-5). Scripture (Lev. 19:23-25) assumes that such fruit is both holy and may be eaten by the farmer, a fact which permits M. to draw a pertinent analogy to second tithe (M. 5:3). The second category of produce is agricultural gifts of which the farmer has not properly disposed (M. 5:6-15). Such consecrated produce, which accumulates uneaten in the farmer's house, is like second tithe which, in the era after the destruction of the Temple, cannot be brought to and, therefore, also remains uneaten in the farmer's possession. With this larger structure of the chapter in mind, let us consider each of its parts in greater detail. The basic facts concerning produce of a tree's fourth year of growth (M. 5:1-5) come from Scripture. Lev. 19:23-25 declare that fruit grow­ ing on a tree "shall be forbidden to you (yhyh lkm 'r!Jim) for three years and is not to be eaten, but in the fourth year its fruit is holy, dedi­ cated to the Lord." Scripture makes it clear in this passage, first of all, that produce of a planting's fourth year is consecrated. Furthermore, Scripture draws a contrast between produce of the tree's first three years, which is not eaten, and produce of the fourth year, for which this claim is not made. From this contrast, the Hillelites (M. 5:3) con­ clude that while fruit of the first three years is not eaten, that of the fourth is eaten. This being the case, they see an analogy between fruit of a tree's fourth year of growth and produce in the status of second tithe. Both of these are consecrated foods eaten by the farmer. On the basis of this analogy, they rule that in other respects produce of the fourth year is to be treated as is produce in the status of second tithe. If it cannot be eaten in Jerusalem, for example, it must be destroyed. Furthermore, the farmer who transfers the status of second tithe from his own produce to his own coins, in order to bring the coins to Jerusalem, must pay the added fifth. Finally, it may not be left for the poor, since it must be eaten by the farmer himself. In each of these cases, the Shammaites disagree. They hold that since Scripture does 2522 TEXT AND COMMENTARY not specifY that produce of the fourth year is eaten, it is not analo­ gous to second tithe at all. They rule, therefore, that fruit of the fourth year is never treated like second tithe. The Hillelite notion that there is an analogy between fruit of a tree's fourth year of growth and produce in the status of second tithe is assumed by the other pericopae in this unit. M. 5: 1-2 declare that fruit of the fourth year is used in the same way as is second tithe. That is, it is brought to Jerusalem for consumption or must be sold and money brought to the city to purchase other produce in its stead. M. 5:4-5 assume that fruit of the fourth year may be sold and go on to discuss the next logical question-how its selling price is established. In par­ ticular, what interests M. is how the price is set in unusual cases, such as when the produce is unharvested (M. 5:4) or when the produce has no owner (M. 5:5). This material is parallel to M. 4:1-S's discussion of how one establishes the selling price of second tithe. The second unit of the chapter (M. 5:6-15) turns our attention to agricultural gifts of which the farmer has not yet properly disposed. According to M. 5:6, the produce either must be given to its proper recipient or must be destroyed. The notion emerges from Deut. 26:12-15, which states, "When you finish separating all the from your pro­ duce [in the] third year, the year of tithing, you shall give it to the , the stranger and the orphan and the widow . . . then you shall declare before the Lord your God, 'I have removed [all] consecrated produce from my house .. .'" The problem for M.'s formulators is that Scripture here states that tithes are separated only every three years. This contradicts M.'s assertion that the farmer separates agricultural gifts annually. In order to overcome this contradiction, the formulators of the law read Scripture to mean that every three years the farmer must give to their appropriate recipients only those agricultural gifts which he previously separated but which still remain in his house. At this time, all heave-offering must go to the priests, must be given to the , second tithe must be eaten in Jerusalem and poor­ roan's tithes must be given to the poor. M. 5:6 rules that with the Temple's destruction, when second tithe no longer could be eaten, such produce is removed from the farmer's domain by being destroyed. With the basic law of removal set forth in M. 5:6, the redactor turns to a consideration of two related themes: how the removal is carried out in special cases (M. 5:7-9) and the meaning of the confession the farmer recites in Jerusalem (Deut. 26:13ff., M. 5:10-14). In this later block of material, the text of the confession is the subject of a midrashic