לקוטי שיחות חלק ל״ד - ראה א

The Rambam writes: "Fruits purchased with money of ma'aser sheni cannot be redeemed at a distance unless they have become impure through contact with a primary source of impurity; rather, they must be brought up and eaten in Jerusalem." He continues in the next halacha: "This is a stringency regarding what is purchased with ma'aser money compared to the ma'aser fruits themselves."

The Radbaz writes that the source of this law is in the Mishnah of Ma'aser Sheni: "If something is purchased with ma'aser sheni money and it becomes impure, it should be redeemed. Rabbi Yehuda says it should be buried. They said to Rabbi Yehuda, 'If ma'aser sheni itself becomes impure, it is redeemed; should not what is purchased with ma'aser sheni money that becomes impure also be redeemed?' He replied, 'No, if you say this about ma'aser sheni itself, which can be redeemed when pure at a distance, would you say the same about what is purchased with ma'aser money, which cannot be redeemed when pure at a distance?'"

The Radbaz writes: "We learn that what is purchased with ma'aser sheni money cannot be redeemed at a distance according to everyone, and this is what our teacher wrote: this is a stringency regarding what is purchased with ma'aser money, etc., that they are not redeemed at a distance unless they become impure... And we find in several places that the secondary is more stringent than the primary."

Now, what the Radbaz says, that this law is similar to what we find in several places where the secondary is more stringent than the primary, has its source in the Gemara in Zevachim. There it is stated that we find the secondary more stringent than the primary in the law of redeeming ma'aser sheni — "And behold, ma'aser is redeemed, but what is purchased with ma'aser money is not redeemed, as it is taught: what is purchased with ma'aser money that becomes impure should be redeemed, Rabbi Yehuda says it should be buried".

However, in the words of the Gemara (regarding the law of redeeming ma'aser, where we find the secondary more stringent than the primary), there are two interpretations — corresponding to two versions in the Gemara:

1) According to the version and explanation of Rashi (as proven in Tosafot from the Tosefta) — the proof is from the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, that what is purchased with ma'aser money that becomes impure is not redeemed (but rather "should be buried"), whereas ma'aser sheni that becomes impure is redeemed even in Jerusalem, thus the secondary is more stringent than the primary.

2) "There are books that have the version here: if it becomes impure, yes; if not, no, and they bring proof from the Rabbis that the secondary is more stringent than the primary," meaning, the proof is from what is purchased with pure ma'aser money, where the law is that it is not redeemed even outside Jerusalem (for only if it becomes impure is it redeemed), whereas ma'aser itself (even if pure) is redeemed outside Jerusalem.

And seemingly, this is the opinion of the Rambam [according to the above explanation in the Radbaz, that according to the Rambam, this law is generally "the secondary is more stringent than the primary"] — for it is explicitly stated in the Rambam here, that the stringency regarding what is purchased with ma'aser money compared to ma'aser itself is concerning the redemption of pure fruits (which is according to the Rabbis, as mentioned above).

Now, in explaining the reasoning of Rashi (and those with him) who hold that the proof in the Gemara is not from the opinion of the Rabbis (whose ruling is followed), but only from the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda — Tosafot writes that "this (that fruits purchased with ma'aser money are not redeemed outside Jerusalem, unlike ma'aser fruits themselves) is not called the secondary being more stringent than the primary, for pure ma'aser itself is redeemed at a distance in order to purchase with the money in Jerusalem cattle and sheep, etc., but if one purchased fruits with it outside Jerusalem to eat them in Jerusalem, they should not be redeemed just as one would not redeem what one would purchase in Jerusalem" [and the Radbaz writes similarly there (in his second explanation) that "this is as if he purchased them in Jerusalem, for they are not fit for redemption... (and concludes) and this reason suffices even according to the one who does not make the secondary more stringent than the primary"].

Based on this, if we say that the Rambam holds that in this law (that fruits purchased are not redeemed like ma'aser itself) there is "the secondary being more stringent than the primary," we must conclude that he does not hold of the reasoning that fruits purchased with ma'aser money "are as if they were purchased in Jerusalem."

And we can explain the reasoning of the dispute by first examining the nature of the redemption of ma'aser sheni, which can be explained in several ways:

One perspective is that it serves as a leniency for the individual, as the simple reading of the verses suggests: "And if the way be too long for you, so that you are not able to carry it... then you shall turn it into money, and bind up the money in your hand, and shall go to the place..." Although the primary mitzvah of ma'aser sheni is to eat the ma'aser fruits themselves in Jerusalem, nevertheless, when it is burdensome for a person to bring the fruits to Jerusalem ("if the way be too long for you"), he is permitted to redeem the fruits for money and use that money to purchase fruits in Jerusalem and eat them there.

Another perspective is that the redemption of ma'aser sheni fruits is not merely a leniency for the individual, but rather this is the essential law of ma'aser sheni. When "the way be too long for you, so that you are not able to carry it," the Torah instructs that the fruits should be redeemed for money, etc. In other words, the Torah initially established two methods for fulfilling the mitzvah of ma'aser sheni: a) bringing the fruits themselves to Jerusalem, b) redeeming the fruits and bringing the money to Jerusalem in order to purchase fruits there and eat them, etc.

Within this, there are two approaches:

One approach is that the law of redeeming ma'aser sheni is a detail within the general law of eating ma'aser sheni fruits in Jerusalem. This means that the mitzvah of ma'aser sheni is that the ma'aser sheni fruits 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 purchasing fruits in Jerusalem with that money.

Another approach is that the law of redeeming ma'aser sheni fruits for money is not merely a preparatory step leading to the mitzvah of eating ma'aser sheni in Jerusalem, but it is an independent law. This means that there are two separate laws regarding ma'aser sheni fruits (which are not dependent on each other): a) bringing the fruits themselves to Jerusalem and eating them there, b) the law of redemption, where fruits that are distant from Jerusalem have a mitzvah to be redeemed — "and you shall turn it into money and bind up the money in your hand" (as is also implied by the fact that a special blessing was established for the redemption of ma'aser sheni fruits, indicating that the redemption of ma'aser sheni is not merely a preparatory step for bringing and eating it in Jerusalem).

We can say that according to these three approaches, we can explain the different reasons for the law that fruits purchased with ma'aser sheni money are not redeemed at a distance (even though ma'aser sheni fruits themselves are redeemed):

One explanation, as written in the Shita Mekubetzet, is "because the Merciful One said regarding pure ma'aser that it should be redeemed outside Jerusalem due to the burden of the journey, as the Merciful One had compassion for his burden, as it is written, etc. And this one who purchased fruits with the money at a distance in order to eat them in Jerusalem also revealed his intention that he does not care about his burden, therefore it is not redeemed when it is pure."

According to this reason, it is evident that the primary law of redeeming ma'aser sheni is a leniency for the individual, where due to the difficulty of the burden, the Merciful One had compassion and allowed him to bring money (instead of fruits) to Jerusalem. Therefore, this person who revealed his intention that he does not care about his burden has removed himself from this leniency.

Another reason, as mentioned in Tosafot, is that "pure ma'aser itself is redeemed at a distance in order to purchase with the money in Jerusalem cattle and sheep, etc., but if one purchased fruits with it outside Jerusalem to eat them in Jerusalem, they should not be redeemed just as one would not redeem what one would purchase in Jerusalem" (and as the Radbaz writes, "this is as if he purchased them in Jerusalem").

According to this reason, the law of redeeming ma'aser sheni is not merely a leniency for the individual but is a law (of redemption) regarding the fruits. This means that it is part of the mitzvah of ma'aser sheni that "pure ma'aser itself is redeemed at a distance in order to purchase with the money in Jerusalem cattle and sheep, etc." However, this law of redemption is solely for the purpose of purchasing fruits with this money — "and you shall turn the money into whatever your soul desires." Therefore, after purchasing fruits with this money (even outside Jerusalem), the mitzvah of redemption has been fulfilled and completed, and the fruits are no longer redeemed.

According to the first explanation (in the Radbaz) regarding the Rambam's view, the fact that what is purchased with ma'aser sheni money cannot be redeemed is an example of the secondary being more stringent than the primary (unlike the reasons mentioned earlier where "this is not considered the secondary being more stringent than the primary"). It can be said (as in the third manner mentioned above) that the law of redeeming ma'aser sheni fruits is a mitzvah in its own right, completed immediately upon their redemption (and not merely a preparation for eating ma'aser sheni fruits in Jerusalem). Therefore, it is not appropriate to say that when one purchases fruits with this money, it is as if they were purchased in Jerusalem and the mitzvah is completed — because bringing the money and acquiring fruits in Jerusalem is not the completion of the mitzvah of redemption, but rather part of the general mitzvah of bringing ma'aser sheni fruits to Jerusalem and consuming them there (as mentioned above, that in this mitzvah there are two ways: to bring the ma'aser fruits themselves, or to bring the money and purchase the fruits in Jerusalem). Consequently, after redeeming the ma'aser sheni fruits, the obligation of redemption is immediately fulfilled, and from then on, the general obligation to bring the money or the fruits purchased with it to Jerusalem applies (similar to the obligation to bring the ma'aser fruits themselves to Jerusalem), and the obligation of bringing and eating is not completed until after the consumption of the fruits in Jerusalem.

And since, nevertheless, the purchased fruits are not redeemed like the ma'aser sheni fruits themselves, it follows that the secondary is more stringent than the primary.

This also explains the Rambam's intention in writing "this is a stringency regarding what is purchased with ma'aser money compared to the ma'aser fruits themselves" — which at first glance is not understood, what does the Rambam add with these words to the actual law regarding what is purchased (that fruits purchased with ma'aser sheni money are not redeemed) which he already wrote in the previous law?

According to the above, it can be said that the Rambam is emphasizing here a novelty, that there is a stringency in what is purchased with ma'aser money compared to the ma'aser fruits themselves, meaning that the Rambam's intention is the novelty that the secondary is more stringent than the primary, and in this, the Rambam defines the law of ma'aser sheni redemption, which is as the third manner mentioned above, that there is here a case of the secondary being more stringent than the primary, as explained at length.

However, it still needs to be understood.

How can it be said that the Rambam holds that this law (that what is purchased with ma'aser sheni money is not redeemed) involves "the secondary being more stringent than the primary" — when the Gemara concludes that there is no proof from this law that "the secondary is more stringent than the primary," because "there, its sanctity is not strong enough to grasp the redemption money" [meaning that the reason why fruits purchased with ma'aser money are not redeemed is not due to their stringency, but on the contrary, because their sanctity is a lighter sanctity ("its sanctity is not strong enough") that cannot grasp the redemption money]?

Simply put, it can be said:

(a) Since this is not a legal ruling but (only in the manner of) a reason for the law — the Rambam chose the simpler reason.

(b) That the Rambam holds that this was only an initial thought in the Gemara, but in conclusion, we hold that it is indeed a case of the secondary being more stringent than the primary (as the Radbaz states, "and we find in several places that the secondary is more stringent than the primary").

But to explain further, it can be said that what the Rambam wrote here is because the essence of the mitzvah of ma'aser sheni is connected with this general principle that we find the secondary being more stringent than the primary.

It has been explained elsewhere the distinction between a firstborn and ma'aser (animal), that the sanctity of a firstborn is from the womb and is not dependent on human action; whereas the sanctity of ma'aser depends on human action, as the person counts the flock, and then "the tenth shall be holy," and similarly with ma'aser sheni, the "sanctity" is effected through the act of separation.

This means that a firstborn is sanctity from Heaven, while ma'aser is sanctity effected by man.

However, in detail, there are also two aspects within ma'aser itself: (a) the human action which is the counting (the separation), (b) the sanctity from Heaven that follows thereafter.

According to what has been explained above, it can be said that there is a novelty in ma'aser sheni — it involves not only the mitzvah of separation and the sanctity that comes from Heaven through it, but also the mitzvah of redemption. As mentioned earlier, this is not merely a permission or ability to bring the fruits to Jerusalem, but rather an additional law and obligation in the fulfillment of the mitzvah of ma'aser sheni. The sanctity that results from the redemption is brought about through the act of redemption, which is a human action.

This is what the Rambam wrote about the "stringency of what is purchased with ma'aser money over the fruits of ma'aser themselves":

The "fruits of ma'aser themselves" represent sanctity that comes from Heaven, whereas "what is purchased with ma'aser money" represents sanctity that comes through human action (as the person redeems the ma'aser, and furthermore, later exchanges the money for other fruits). This is particularly relevant when a person is at a "distance" from Jerusalem, which has additional sanctity over the rest of the Land of Israel, as stated in the Mishnah.

Even though, in simple terms, sanctity that comes from Heaven is greater than that which comes through human action, and in the style of the Sages, human action is "his own measure," just one measure, and is not comparable to the "nine measures" of his fellow (the Holy One, blessed be He, as it is written, "Do not forsake your friend and the friend of your father"), the sanctity that comes from Heaven — nevertheless, there is an advantage in "his own measure," specifically in human action. The reason for this is because "to the work of Your hands You yearn," for the desire and longing, so to speak, of the Holy One, blessed be He, is for "My children, Israel, are servants to Me," specifically for the service of man below, even though it is only "one measure."

And since there is an additional advantage specifically in the sanctity that comes through human action, as mentioned above, therefore there is a "stringency in what is purchased with ma'aser money" compared to "the fruits of ma'aser themselves," which is the sanctity that comes from Heaven. This is in addition to the "stringency" in the very addition of sanctity by man, for when one repeats and adds sanctity, it becomes indispensable (as in the case of sacrifices, "the text repeats it to make it indispensable").

[This is precisely the reason why "a person desires his own measure (his own work) more than nine measures of his fellow (the Holy One, blessed be He)" — because it is specifically in this that the higher desire lies. And from this, it is derived (in the manner of "the earthly kingdom is like the heavenly kingdom") concerning one's fellow among people.]

This can further explain why in the words of the Rambam (according to the first explanation 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":

The "primary" is the sanctity from Heaven, and the "secondary" is the sanctity that comes through human action. This is sweetened by the fact that it is called "secondary" in relation to the sanctity from Heaven, because the fact that human action sanctifies — this comes from Heaven (by the power of the Torah — Torah from Heaven).

This is what "we find in several places that the secondary is more stringent than the primary" means, similar to the concept that the words of the Scribes are more stringent than the words of the Torah, even though the words of the Scribes themselves come — are learned or at least hinted at — in the words of the Torah.

It can be said that in the phrase "the secondary is more stringent than the primary," it is also hinted that the stringency, etc., in human action (the secondary) in relation to the sanctity that comes from Heaven (the primary) — is not a stringency in human action by itself, but that it comes from the primary (from Heaven).

(Similar to what is explained regarding the concept and expression "the strength of the son is greater than the strength of the father," that even this strength in the son, which is greater than the strength of the father, comes and is drawn "from the strength of the father").

Based on the above, we can further explain the content of the difference between the two explanations of the Radbaz (regarding the law that one does not redeem fruits purchased with ma'aser money) — (a) because we find that the secondary is more stringent than the primary, (b) because it is considered as if they were acquired in Jerusalem — it can be said that they are two aspects (and stages) in the elevation of the sanctity that comes through human action in relation to the sanctity that comes from Heaven:

According to the first explanation, that what is purchased with ma'aser money is "secondary" in relation to the fruits of ma'aser themselves — it turns out that the sanctity that comes through human action is secondary in relation to the sanctity from Heaven, which is the "primary"; however, since "to the work of Your hands You yearn," therefore there is a "stringency" and advantage in human action in relation to the sanctity from Heaven — the secondary is more stringent than the primary.

In contrast, according to the second explanation of the Radbaz (that fruits purchased with ma'aser sheni money "are as if they were acquired in Jerusalem") — the fruits bought with ma'aser sheni money are not "secondary"; rather, on the contrary, they possess the elevation of the completion and perfection of the sanctity of ma'aser sheni, "as if they were acquired in Jerusalem" (where the fruits are sanctified in such a manner (similar to the sanctity of the body) that they cannot be redeemed).

This represents a second stage in the elevation of "the work of your hands" of a person, where within the person's action itself there is the advantage of "his own measure" (the sanctity that comes through human action), and also the "nine measures of his fellow," which is the ultimate elevation in human action, where there are not two separate sanctities — the sanctity through human action and the sanctity from Heaven — but they become one sanctity.

It can be said that this is because "to the work of Your hands You yearn" since Israel and the Holy One, blessed be He, are entirely one, so to speak.

For this reason, even the action and work of a person when he is "at a distance," and seemingly entirely dependent on the person — "it is as if they were acquired in Jerusalem," "a complete vision," the ultimate perfection of sanctity.

It can be said that this concept is hinted at in the two extremes of ma'aser sheni in general:

On one hand, "it is the property of the Most High, as it is said, 'it is for the L‑rd,' and therefore it cannot be acquired as a gift, etc., and one cannot betroth a woman with it, nor sell it, etc." On the other hand, the mitzvah of eating it is not for the priests or Levites, etc., but the owners themselves eat it,

because in the mitzvah of ma'aser sheni, the two extremes unite: the sanctity of the Most High, and this itself — within the sanctity of human action itself.