If the ma’aser sheni is worth less than a peruta, it cannot be redeemed (Bava Metzia 53b). An item worth less than a peruta is not significant enough for an act of acquisition or redemption. Since this produce cannot be redeemed, yet may not be eaten, destroyed, or treated disrespectfully, it should be wrapped and placed in the trash, as is done with teruma. One who wishes to rely on a lenient approach may treat it as worth a peruta and redeem it onto a peruta. However, the idea of using a peruta ḥamura here is difficult to justify and serves no practical purpose; it should therefore not be used, as explained in the note.[17]
A second limitation applies to ma’aser sheni in a state of tahara once it is already in Jerusalem. The Torah established redemption as a way to bring the value of ma’aser sheni to Jerusalem when the produce itself cannot easily be brought there, as the verse states: “If the distance is too great for you, and you cannot carry it… then you shall turn it into money, bind up the money in your hand, and go to the place that the Lord your God will choose” (Devarim 14:24–25). Once ma’aser sheni produce in a state of tahara is already within the ancient walls of sanctified Jerusalem – including the City of David and Mount Zion, which were within those walls – it may no longer be redeemed[18] If one redeemed it there, the redemption is void (Yerushalmi, Ma’aser Sheni 1:3; MT, Laws of Ma’aser Sheni 2:4; Yeshu’ot Malko).
Since such produce cannot be redeemed, and today it cannot be eaten either, it must be set aside without being actively destroyed or degraded. If the amount is significant, it should be placed somewhere private until it rots on its own. If the amount is small, it may be wrapped and placed in the trash, as is done with teruma.[19]
[17]. The basic ruling is that ma’aser sheni worth less than a peruta should be buried in the ground, or wrapped and placed in the trash in a way that prevents disgrace. Ḥazon Ish, Demai 15:12, however, proposed a lenient solution: one may redeem produce worth less than a peruta onto a coin onto which a full peruta of ma’aser sheni has already been redeemed. This is based on Ḥizkiya’s statement in Bava Metzia 52b: once produce has been redeemed onto part of a coin, one may later redeem produce worth less than a peruta, according to its exact value, onto the remaining value of that same coin.
The logic is that the exact value of ma’aser sheni produce cannot be calculated with complete precision. When a person redeems it, he presumably intends to redeem it onto a coin worth more than the produce’s exact value. The unused surplus remaining on that coin can then serve as the basis for redeeming produce worth less than a peruta. However, the first peruta redeemed onto the coin must be from the highest level of obligation. If that first peruta came from produce subject only to two rabbinic layers of obligation, it could not help redeem produce subject to only one rabbinic layer of obligation; see Bava Metzia 53a. Therefore, the first peruta should come from ma’aser sheni of produce whose obligation is by Torah law and that was grown for personal use, such as grapes grown in one’s garden; see above, 8:1. This first peruta is called a peruta ḥamura. Even when transferring all the other perutot on the coin onto one peruta of another coin, this peruta ḥamura must be left in place, so that it remains the basis for redeeming produce worth less than a peruta. After bi’ur ma’asrot, a new peruta ḥamura would have to be created for future redemptions (Mishpetei Eretz 15:11–12, 19).
Ḥazon Ish wrote to R. Kook about this question (Mishpat Kohen §53), and R. Kook rejected this application of Ḥizkiya’s ruling. He explained that redeeming produce worth less than a peruta onto a coin that already contains a full peruta works only when the first redemption was made according to the produce’s actual value within the coin. In that case, the remaining value on the coin is connected to the original redemption, because it is the surplus left from that exact valuation. Today, however, when we redeem onto fixed peruta units within the coin, one peruta is not connected to another. The remaining perutot are therefore not considered surplus from the peruta onto which the original ma’aser sheni was redeemed.
Nevertheless, R. Kook writes that in pressing circumstances, one may rely on the authorities who permit redeeming ma’aser sheni worth less than a peruta. According to this approach, Ḥizkiya’s statement teaches only that the additional fifth is not added in such a case. This appears to be Rambam’s view as well (MT, Laws of Ma’aser Sheni 5:4). Kesef Mishneh and Vilna Gaon likewise support this lenient reading of Rambam: although Rashi and those who agree with him maintain that produce worth less than a peruta cannot be redeemed, Rambam and those who follow his approach maintain that it can. This is also the view of R. Ovadia of Bartenura and R. Eliyahu Fulda.
Other considerations support this leniency as well. If this fruit would be worth a peruta in another market, one may take that higher market value into account. The produce can then be treated as possibly having the minimum value required for redemption. In addition, some maintain that when the Sages said produce worth less than a peruta cannot be redeemed, they meant only that it cannot be redeemed for less than a peruta. If, however, the person redeems that produce onto a full peruta, the redemption takes effect. This seems to follow from Ramban to Bava Metzia 53b, and this is also the view of R. Akiva Eiger. Since the obligation of ma’aser sheni today is rabbinic, these uncertainties may be resolved leniently, as explained in Kiddushin 12a and Shabbat 151a.
Therefore, in pressing circumstances, one may redeem ma’aser sheni worth less than a peruta onto a full peruta. Strictly speaking, there is even room to permit this from the outset, since the obligation today is rabbinic and doubtful cases of rabbinic law are treated leniently. Nevertheless, the preferred practice is not to redeem produce worth less than a peruta, but to dispose of it respectfully, as one does with terumot.
One who wishes to be especially meticulous should do the same even when the ma’aser sheni is worth no more than four perutot. According to one view in Bava Metzia 53b, produce cannot be redeemed unless the additional fifth is itself worth at least a peruta. This is also the position of Olat Re’iya, vol. 1, p. 350, and Minḥat Shlomo 3:152.
[18]. The Mishna states: “One may not add to the city or to the Temple courtyards except with a king, a prophet, the Urim Ve-tummim, a Sanhedrin of seventy-one, two thanksgiving offerings, and song. The court walks, the two thanksgiving offerings follow them, and all Israel follows them…” (Shevu’ot 14a–b). The Gemara explains that according to Rav Huna, Jerusalem becomes sanctified only when all these elements are present. Therefore, in Ezra’s time, no sanctity was added beyond the area that had already been sanctified during the First Temple period. According to Rav Naḥman, however, even one of these elements is sufficient to sanctify the city. In his view, the original sanctity was annulled, and in the Second Temple period Jerusalem was sanctified anew with eternal sanctity (Shevu’ot 16a).
Rambam rules in accordance with Rav Huna (MT, Laws of the Temple 6:14). Accordingly, the sanctified boundaries of Jerusalem follow the walls of the First Temple period. These included the Temple Mount, the Jewish and Armenian Quarters, Mount Zion outside today’s walls, and the City of David down to the Shilo’aḥ. The Christian and Muslim Quarters, however, were not included in the sanctified area.
- Kook, however, is also concerned for the area enclosed by the wall built during the Second Temple period (Mishpat Kohen 96:6). In his view, Rambam may have meant only that one is not liable to lashes for entering the areas added during the Second Temple period; nevertheless, those areas may still have rabbinic sanctity. Presumably, R. Kook’s concern refers to the area enclosed by what is known as the Second Wall, built by the later Ḥashmona’i kings, which included most of the Muslim and Christian Quarters. It does not refer to the Third Wall, completed near the end of the Second Temple period, which extended as far as today’s Ha-ḥoma ha-Shelishit Street near Mea She’arim.
- Tikochinsky maintains that this restriction applies throughout the entire area within the present Old City walls, because in his view the walls of Jerusalem in the First Temple period already extended that far (Ir ha-Kodesh Ve-ha-Mikdash 2:3:2–3). R. Mordechai Eliyahu ruled similarly. In practice, one must be stringent in the areas certainly included in the original sanctity: the Temple Mount, the Jewish Quarter, the Armenian Quarter, Mount Zion, and the City of David. It is proper to be stringent throughout the area enclosed by the present Old City walls as well.
[19]. One who does not want to leave the ma’aser sheni produce in Jerusalem until it rots should take the produce outside the sanctified boundary of Jerusalem’s ancient walls. There, he should separate terumot and ma’asrot and redeem the ma’aser sheni in the usual way. If, after the fact, he already brought the produce inside those boundaries and it is difficult to take it out, he should first make the produce tamei. To do this, he should take water, touch it with his hands so that it becomes tamei, and then pour it over the produce. The ma’aser sheni he separates will then be tamei, and it may be redeemed even in Jerusalem since it can no longer be eaten there (Makkot 19b; MT, Laws of Ma’aser Sheni 2:8; Mishpat Kohen 38:3).
