Yerushalmi Maaser Sheni 3:5 ירושלמי מעשר שני ג׳:ה׳

MISHNAH: Second Tithe which entered Jerusalem and became impure, whether from original impurity⁹⁵One of the biblical sources of impurity such as a dead person, a person suffering from a genital discharge, a cadaver, etc. or from derivative impurity⁹⁶By touching something impure in original impurity. Most, but not all, derivative impurities are rabbinic; cf. Demay 2, Notes 136–137., inside [the city] or outside, the House of Shammai say, all should be redeemed and eaten inside except what became impure from original impurity outside⁹⁷Since by biblical law it could not be eaten when brought into Jerusalem, the enclosure never “grabbed” it (Note 63).. But the House of Hillel say, all should be redeemed and may be eaten outside except what became impure from derivative impurity inside⁹⁸If its impurity is rabbinic in character, the biblical law will not allow it to be taken out of Jerusalem..

HALAKHAH: It is written (Deut. 14:24): “For you will be unable to take it.” Where do we hold? If far from the Place⁹⁹Shiloh or Jerusalem., it already is written: “If [the distance] will be too much for you.¹⁰⁰“(24) But if the distance is too much for you, for you will be unable to take it, for the Place, chosen by the Eternal, your God, to put His Name there, is too far from you, because the Eternal blessed you - (25) then turn it into money, bundle that money in your hand and go to the Place which will be chosen by the Eternal, your God. (26) Then spend the money for all you desire …”
The Sifry Deut. (107) explains that while the distance is spatial distance, too far is temporal distance. In any case, the clause unable to carry is redundant.” If near the Place, it already is written (Deut. 14:26): “You shall spend the money¹⁰¹At the Place one is restricted to spending the money; the exchange of tithe for money is restricted to places far away by v. 25..” What does it mean “for you will be unable to take it”? You cannot redeem it¹⁰²Since the verse cannot deal with a situation far from the Place it must be at the Place. The only case in which one cannot take tithe brought to the Place is if the tithe became impure and, therefore, inedible as tithe. Then one has to spend the [redemption] money.
The Babli (Pesaḥim 36b, Baba Meẓi‘a 53a, Makkot 19b, Sanhedrin 112b) has a weird derivation of the same result from the same verse. The Babylonian identification of שׂאת as “food” contrasts with the Yerushalmi’s identification (Ḥagigah 1:3, fol. 76b) as “gift”., and it is written: “You shall spend the money.”

It was stated: Bar Qappara said, “original impurity” is biblical, “derivative impurity” rabbinic¹⁰³In the interpretation of this Mishnah.. Rebbi Joḥanan said, in both cases it is biblical. The House of Shammai are difficult for Rebbi Joḥanan: “The House of Shammai say, all should be redeemed and eaten inside except what became impure from original impurity outside;” what is the difference between original impurity outside and derivative impurity outside; are not both biblical? Are the words of the House of Hillel not also difficult? “The House of Hillel say, all should be redeemed and may be eaten outside except what became impure from derivative impurity inside”; what is the difference between original impurity inside and derivative impurity inside; are not both biblical? The rabbis discuss only that from Bar Qappara.

It is difficult, according to Bar Qappara for the House of Shammai, since “the House of Shammai say, all should be redeemed and eaten inside except what became impure from original impurity outside;” what is the difference between derivative impurity and original impurity¹⁰⁴This clause should be deleted, it is copied from the previous text and makes no sense here. The Rome text, הַכֹּל יִפָּדֶה וְיֵאָכֵל בִּפְנִים בֵּין מִשֶּׁנִּיטְמָא בְְּאַב הַטּוּמְאָה בַּחוּץ בֵּין בְּאַב הַטוּמְאָה is not better.; what is the difference between outside and inside, are not both biblical? That one should not say, is that not Second Tithe which enters and leaves? If it is so, it should not be redeemed, so that one should not say, is that not Second Tithe which enters Jerusalem and is redeemed¹⁰⁵Which also is forbidden for pure tithe.? If it became impure inside, the enclosure had grabbed it; if it became impure outside, the enclosure never grabbed it¹⁰⁶Since it never could be eaten inside the sanctified area.. And is it not difficult even for the House of Hillel? For “the House of Hillel say, all should be redeemed and may be eaten outside except what became impure from derivative impurity inside”; what is the difference for derivative impurity between outside and inside; are not both rabbinic? When he brought it inside it was on condition it should not be “grabbed” by the enclosure¹⁰⁷Since actually it never could be eaten inside the sanctified area..

Rebbi Zeïra said, this means¹⁰⁸Since rabbinically impure tithe is pure by biblical standards, it seems that a mental reservation of the farmer can override the biblical decree that tithe brought into the holy enclosure has to be consumed as such. pure Second Tithe which he brought inside on condition that the enclosure not “grab” it, the enclosure does not “grab” it. Rebbi Jonah asked, it is pure and you say so? But it must be: If he transgressed and redeemed it, it is redeemed¹⁰⁹If he made a mental reservation and then redeemed the tithe in Jerusalem, the transaction is valid since the prohibition of redemption is a rabbinic interpretation of the biblical verse. This supports the position of Maimonides in his Sefer Hammiẓwot that rules derived from biblical verses by rabbinic interpretation are rabbinic in character..

Rebbi Jacob the Southerner asked before Rebbi Yose: If it became impure outside of Jerusalem and was brought inside, it should not leave lest one say, we saw Second Tithe entering Jerusalem and leaving¹¹⁰This is a question about the House of Shammai’s position which in this case requires the tithe to be removed from Jerusalem. The answer is that this case is so rare that it would be dealt with in a rabbinic court in public whereas redemption of tithe which became impure is frequent, done in private, and unremarkable.? Leaving is publicized, redemption is not publicized.

Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Ada inquired before Rebbi Mana: If it became impure by derivative impurity and he redeemed it¹¹¹As required. However, since the tithe is still pure by biblical standards, the redemption is de facto, not de jure., then it became impure in original impurity¹¹²Now it has to be redeemed by biblical decree. If the original money is still completely in the farmer’s hands, he now turns the rabbinic redemption into a biblical one.; do we say that if the original money is still there he redeems with it, otherwise he cannot redeem with it, and one is whipped neither for the first nor the second monies¹¹³If he misappropriates the monies and spends them outside of Jerusalem, as described in Mishnah 1:5, he cannot be prosecuted if the produce remains rabbinically impure since the redemption is not biblical; nor can he be prosecuted if the produce becomes biblically impure and is redeemed by new money because the second redemption is a formality only since the produce was unusable as tithe.? Rebbi Jonah asked, is it the same for him who buys¹¹⁴Cf. Mishnaiot 1:5,6. There, it is spelled out that produce bought with tithe money outside of Jerusalem cannot be redeemed. Its status is at least as restricted as that of original tithe brought into the enclosure of Jerusalem.? Rebbi Mana said, the enclosure “grabs” and the buyer “grabs”. What was said for the enclosure was said for the buyer.