Mishnah Maaser Sheni 5:2

Date: 200 CE to 220 CE

Centuries: 3rd CE

Languages: Hebrew

Category: Jewish

Literary Genre: Legal text

Reference: Maaser Sheni 5:2

Title: Mishnah

Commentary:

This passage from the Mishnah discusses the law regarding the yield of a vineyard in its fourth year. Biblical laws regarding produce from trees are presented in Leviticus 19:23-25. While it is forbidden to harvest their fruits during the first three years, “In the fourth year all their fruit shall be set apart for rejoicing in the Lord” (v. 24, NRSV). According to rabbinic texts, the produce of a vineyard in its fourth year is equivalent in status to the second tithe that would be spent in Jerusalem. Thus a man should take the produce to Jerusalem and use it there for celebration. For those living far from Jerusalem, Scripture permits the redemption of produce for second tithe (and, according to rabbinic texts, so too fourth-year produce); the money from that exchange should then be used for festival expenditures in Jerusalem: “But if … the distance is so great that you are unable to transport it … then you may turn it into money. With the money secured in hand, go to the place that the Lord your God will choose; spend the money for whatever you wish…” (Deuteronomy 14:24-26, NRSV). In that context, the Mishnah specifies the geographic range for produce that should be brought to Jerusalem.

According to the Mishnah, a surplus of fruit posed a problem in Jerusalem; thus, during the Second Temple period: “They decreed that [the produce of a vineyard in its fourth year] should be redeemed near the wall [just outside of Jerusalem].” This modification extended the reach of such produce throughout Judea rather than limiting it to Jerusalem. The Mishnah further stipulates that this decree was issued on condition that it could be reversed at will. At that point, the Mishnah cites an opinion from Rabbi Yose, who was active in the second century, especially after the Bar Kokhba revolt. According to Rabbi Yose, this modification was instituted after the Romans destroyed the Second Temple but, once the Temple is rebuilt, all fruits will again be brought into the city.

This teaching seems to indicate that some Jews continued to bring fourth-year produce from their vineyards to redeem it in the vicinity of Jerusalem, even after the destruction of the Second Temple. Parallels in Tosefta Maaser Sheni 5:15-16 also support this impression:

15) משחרב הבית בית דין הראשון לא אמרו בו כלום בית דין האחרון גזרו שיהא זה נפדה סמוך לחומה

16) מעשה בר' אליעזר שהיה לו כרם בצד כפר טבי במזרח לוד ולא רצה לפדותו אמרו לו תלמידיו ר' משגזרו שיהא נפדה זה סמוך לחומה אתה צריך לפדותו עמד ר' אליעזר ובצרו ופדאו

15) After the Temple (lit. the House) was destroyed, the first court (beyt din) did not say anything about [the produce of a vineyard in its fourth year]. The last court (beyt din) decreed that it would be redeemed near the wall [of Jerusalem].

16) [It] happened that (ma‘ase be) Rabbi Eliezer, who had a vineyard beside the village of Tabi, to the east of Lod, did not want to redeem it(s fourth-year produce). His students told him: “Rabbi, since they decreed that it should be redeemed near the wall, you must redeem it.” Rabbi Eliezer stood [up] and harvested it and redeemed it.

In its discussion of rulings after the destruction, the first section of this Tosefta (15) states that the first court did not address the produce of a vineyard in its fourth year but, as Rabbi Yose suggests in Mishnah Maaser Sheni 5:2, a later court ultimately decreed that it should be redeemed near the wall of Jerusalem. The Tosefta mentions two courts: one seems to convene immediately after the destruction of the Second Temple and another in a later period. Although the timing of the second court is not specified, it cannot be dated long after the first. However, the next passage of the Tosefta (16), which features Rabbi Eliezer's response to that latter ruling, may provide a temporal frame for this “later court.” Section 16 describes Rabbi Eliezer's initial refusal to harvest his vineyard, located east of Lod, namely within the territory whose produce had to be brought to Jerusalem. Rabbi Eliezer was active in the years before the destruction of the Second Temple (70 CE) and, especially, in the decades that followed. Not until after the destruction is he described interacting with students; thus, the second instruction in Section 15 is likely from the closing decades of the first century CE. Thus, after the destruction of the Temple, Rabbi Eliezer did not want to harvest a vineyard that would have been brought to Jerusalem when the Temple stood. However, persuaded by his students’ argument, he obeyed the decree of the last court and redeemed it (probably near the wall of Jerusalem). Whereas Saul Lieberman (Tosefta Ki-Feshutah, vol. 2, p. 785) suggests that Rabbi Eliezer did not want to trouble himself with harvesting this vineyard, Shmuel and Ze’ev Safrai (Mishnat Eretz Israel: Tractates Ma’sarot and Ma‘aser Sheni, p. 337-338) suggest that Rabbi Eliezer, known for his conservatism, objected to the replacement of the initial rule, which required that fruits be brought into the city, with a regulation that allowed produce from vineyards to be redeemed the wall. I would suggest that Rabbi Eliezer’s reluctance to harvest his vineyard in the fourth year may represent his reaction to the destruction of the Temple and to the reality that whatever produce would be brought into Jerusalem could not fulfill its original purpose. These sections of the Tosefta clearly support Rabbi Yose’s claim that this rule was issued after the destruction, while also providing an actual example of that practice. If these sources are accurate, they raise interesting questions about the status of Jerusalem during the decades between the destruction of the Second Temple and the building of the Roman colony Aelia Capitolina (after the Bar Kokhba revolt of 132-135 CE).

It is noteworthy that the stipulation attributed to Rabbi Yose in Mishnah Maaser Sheni 5:2 “When the Temple is rebuilt, [this practice] will be restored to what it had been” seems to express confidence in a future rebuilding, albeit without explicitly indicating that this rebuilding would come soon. This saying from Rabbi Yose echoes a comment in Tosefta Rosh HaShanah 2:9:

אמ' ר' יהושע בן קרחה. דברים אלו התקין רבן יוחנן בן זכיי משחרב בית המקדש. לכשיבנה הבית במהרה יחזרו דברים אלו ליושנן.

Rabbi Yehoshua ben Qerḥah said: “These decrees were issued by Rabban Yoḥanan Zakay after the Temple (beyt hamiqdash) was destroyed. When the Temple (lit. the House) is speedily rebuilt, these matters will return to their old [state].”

According to Saul Lieberman (Tosefta Ki-Feshutah, vol. 5, p. 1051), this passage refers to Mishnah Rosh HaShanah 4:1-4, which describes several decrees that were issued by Rabban Yoḥanan Zakay after the destruction and that addressed the realities of Jewish life without a Temple. Like Rabbi Yose, Rabbi Yehoshua ben Qerḥah was active in the second century, especially after the Bar Kokhba revolt. However, there is a subtle difference between this tosefta and Rabbi Yose’s teaching in Mishnah Maaser Sheni 5:2: while both texts convey a belief in a future rebuilding of the Temple, the Tosefta anticipates (or at least hopes) that this rebuilding will occur “speedily.” A similar sentiment can be found in Tosefta Terumot 10:15, which discusses a change in agricultural practices after the destruction of Judea:

 משחרבה יהודה מהרה תבנה התחילו לערב תבואה בתבואה וקטניות בקטניות

Since Judea was destroyed – speedily shall she be rebuilt – they have begun to mix [certain types of] grain with [other types of] grain, and [certain types of] beans with [other types of] beans…

Such conviction of a swift rebuilding is also articulated in Tosefta Menahot 13:23 and Taanit 3:9. Tosefta Taanit 3:9 quotes Rabbi Yose stating his confidence in a prompt rebuilding. The fact that this same sage articulates with certainty that the Temple will be rebuilt (in Mishnah Maaser Sheni 5:2) but without explicitly stressing its imminent approach may reflect an editorial tendency in the Mishnah to refrain from such assertions; this difference may be a calculated response to political realities under Roman rule, among them the limitations on such aspirations.