Yerushalmi Maaser Sheni 3:6 ירושלמי מעשר שני ג׳:ו׳

MISHNAH: If what was bought with tithe money became impure, it should be redeemed. Rebbi Jehudah says, it should be buried¹¹⁵It is holy but cannot be eaten. It cannot be left to rot since one might eat from it inadvertently. This Mishnah is quoted in Babli Pesaḥim 38a, Sanhedrin 113a, Baba Meẓiʻa 53b, Zebaḥim 49b.. They said to Rebbi Jehudah, if original Second Tithe which became impure is redeemed, what was bought with tithe money and became impure certainly should be redeemed. He said to them, no! If you said about original Second Tithe, which can be redeemed when it is pure and far from the Place, can you say the same about what was bought with tithe money which cannot be redeemed when it is pure and far from the Place?
If a deer bought with tithe money died, it should be buried in its hide. Rebbi Simeon says, it should be redeemed¹¹⁶This is explained in the Halakhah.. If he bought it alive and slaughtered it, if it became impure it should be redeemed¹¹⁷For the anonymous Tanna and R. Jehudah, it is like any other food that became impure. R. Yose extends the rules of the preceding case to this one, since a deer never can be a sacrifice.. Rebbi Yose said, it should be buried. If he bought it slaughtered¹¹⁸This use is fully approved by the biblical verse. and it became impure, he treats it following the rules of produce.
If somebody lends flasks¹³¹The mss. of the Maimonides tradition have more accurately קנקניו “his own flasks”; the vintner gives one of his flasks to put in tithe wine since the wine has to be in some vessel. Before filling the wine into the flasks, he specified that the flasks were a loan to the tithe. Therefore, he does not have to redeem them, i. e., to buy food in the value of the flasks to eat in the holiness of tithe. for Second Tithe, even if he closed the top with clay¹³²A semi-permanent seal; in this case it is needed to transport the wine to Jerusalem. Flasks were usually sealed in this way only for sale and transport., tithe did not acquire it. If he filled them without saying anything¹³³He did not specify that the flask would be filled with tithe wine., before he closed the top with clay¹³⁴He declared the wine to be Second Tithe. But since the flask was sealed, if he makes no special declaration, he sanctifies the flask with its contents., tithe did not acquire it; after he closed the top with clay, tithe acquired it. Before he closed the top with clay, one may lift by 101¹³⁵If heave accidentally fell into one of the flasks and it is not known where it fell, if the profane is more that 101 times the heave, the latter can be lifted following the rules of heave., after he closed the top with clay any one sanctifies¹³⁶Since sealed flasks usually are prepared for sale, they fall under the rules of items sold singly which never can become insignificant and even one sanctified among 1000 profane makes all sanctified; cf. Mishnah Orlah 3:7.. Before he closed the top with clay, he gives heave from one for all, after he closed the top with clay he has to give heave from each single one.
¹⁴⁰This Mishnah is a continuation of the previous one. If somebody sealed the mouths of his pitchers with clay, how can he undo what he did? The House of Shammai say, he opens and pours into a vat, but the House of Hillel say, he opens and does not have to pour. Where has this been said? At a place where usually one sells sealed, but at a place where usually one sells open, the flask did not become profane¹⁴¹In this case, he opened the flask for redemption because everybody does it for sale; this has no influence on the status of holiness of either the flask or its contents.. However, if he is meticulous to sell by volume¹⁴²Even if he sells whole barrels he will measure exactly the amount it contains and does not use an approximate formula. In that case, no vessel is ever part of a sale unless paid for separately; also for his redemption of tithes the vessel will never be counted., the flask did become profane. Rebbi Simeon said¹⁴³The statement of R. Simeon refers to Mishnah 1:3, that if wine usually is sold in sealed amphoras, the amphora is profane even though paid for with tithe money. R. Simeon adds that even if wine is sold in open amphoras, a stipulation may make the amphora profane. The Tosephta (2:18) shows that R. Simeon reduces the disagreement between the Houses of Hillel and Shammai to the case when all flasks are still in the wine cellar near the vat from which they were filled., also if somebody says to another person, I am selling to you this amphora except its flask, the flask became profane.

HALAKHAH: What is the reason of Rebbi Jehudah? The first money, not second money¹¹⁹Deut. 14:25: “then turn it into the money.” The definite article is taken to restrict the money to the coins originally given. This argument is described in the Babli, Baba Meẓiʻa45a, as that of the House of Shammai. This is possible since R. Jehudah was a student of his father R. Ilaï, a student of R. Eliezer who started out as a disciple of the House of Shammai. The House of Hillel (the anonymous majority in Mishnah 11) hold that the repetition in the verse, “then turn it into money, bundle the money in your hand” means that monies can be exchanged; otherwise it would have said “bundle it”.. Only because they objected to him by an argument de minore ad majus, he answered in terms of an argument de minore ad majus.

Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: They treated deer like dedications for the upkeep of the Temple to require standing and appraisal¹²⁰The rules of dedications of animals whose monetary equivalent should be used for the upkeep of the Temple are spelled out in Lev. 27. The relevant verses are 11–12 and 27. (11) “If it is any unclean animal which cannot be a sacrifice to the Eternal, one should make the animal stand before a Cohen. (12) The Cohen should appraise it, whether it is good or bad; the Cohen’s appraisal shall stand.” (27) “If it is an unclean animal, he should redeem it for its appraisal ..” Since an unclean (nonkosher) animal never can be a sacrifice, the “unclean” animal of v. 11 must be a kosher animal with a blemish, which now cannot be a sacrifice. V. 27 therefore details the rules of nonkosher animals dedicated to the Temple. The rabbis hold that the parallel expressions “unclean animal” indicate that the rules of vv. 11–12 can be transferred to v. 27 but R. Simeon holds that in v. 27 no “standing” is mentioned, therefore it is not needed. (Details in Babli Temurah32b).
The rabbis hold that any dedicated animal which cannot stand before a Cohen cannot be appraised and, therefore, cannot be redeemed. R. Simeon holds that animals which never can be sacrifices, nonkosher animals and kosher wild animals, do not need standing; they can be redeeemed even if dead..

Rebbi Jeremiah asked before Rebbi Zeïra: Does an unclean animal need standing and appraisal? He said to him, if Rebbi Yose had said in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan that a pure wild animal does not need standing and appraisal, an unclean animal would not need it. Rebbi Hila said, we have stated thus (Lev. 27:21)¹²¹Sifra Beḥuqotay Paras̊ah 4(3), a similar text; quoted in Babli Baba Meẓiʻa 54b.: “If an unclean animal, he should redeem it as appraised¹²²The verse adds: “He has to add its fifth”..” Just as an unclean animal is particular in that it is the same at the time of its redemption as at the time of its dedication¹²³It could not be a sacrifice in either case; it was alive in both cases., so I am adding the dead animal which is the same at the time of its redemption as at the time of its dedication, and I exclude the one for which he said, this is dedicated, and then it died, which is not the same at the time of its redemption as at the time of its dedication¹²⁴Even according to the Sages, it can be redeemed without standing and appraisal.. Rebbi Yose said, a Mishnah said so¹²⁵This is the operative rule.: “One commits larceny with a donkey and its milk¹²⁶Meїlah 3:5. Larceny committed on anything dedicated to the upkeep of the Temple incurs a fine of 25% and requires a sacrifice for atonement..” Is not milk comparable to its being dead¹²⁷The use of masculine חמור for a female donkey is in all Mishnah mss.; it has wrongly been corrected in the editions of Babli (Meїlah 12b).? With all that needs redemption one can commit larceny¹²⁸It was not there at the moment of dedication and, being a fluid, it cannot stand.. You cannot explain it as giving the rules of dead [animals] since we stated “a donkey”¹²⁹A live one.. Rebbi Ḥanina said before Rebbi Mana, explain it following Rebbi Simeon since Rebbi Simeon said, dedications for the upkeep of the Temple do not need standing and appraisal. He said to him, if it is following Rebbi Simeon, why a donkey and not any animal¹³⁰It could even have been a blemished kosher animal.?

Rebbi Zeïra said, the Torah said, spend it in the Holy Place and assemble it in the countryside. Just as in the holy place the flask is profane¹³⁷As stated in Mishnah 1:4, if wine is bought in Jerusalem with tithe money, the value of the flask does not have to be estimated and an equivalent value eaten in the holiness of tithe. The argument gives the rationale for the first clause of the Mishnah., in the contryside can the flask be grasped by tithe?

Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, so is the Mishnah: “If before he sealed the top with clay he gave it its name¹³⁸He declared the contents of the flask to be Second Tithe., tithe did not acquire it; if after he sealed the top with clay he gave it its name, tithe acquired it. If before he sealed the top with clay he gave it its name, one may lift by 101, if after he sealed the top with clay any one sanctifies. If before he sealed the top with clay he gave it its name, he gives heave from one for all, if after he sealed the top with clay he gave it its name, he has to give heave from each single one.”

¹³⁹A similar text in Tosephta 2:18 enumerates fish sauce, vinegar, muries, oil, and (date) honey. Fish sauce and muries cannot be subject to tithe. Maimonides in his Code (Ma‘aser Šeni8:5) copies the entire list. In both mss. and the editio princeps of the Tosephta, “tithe acquired it”; but Maimonides (loc. cit.) copies “tithe did not acquire it.” It is impossible to determine whether or not the Tosephta is corrupt in this passage. When has this been said? For wine; but for oil, whether he closed the top with clay or did not close the top with clay, tithe did not acquire it. Whether he closed the top with clay or did not close the top with clay, he may lift by 101. Whether he closed the top with clay or did not close the top with clay, he gives heave from one for all.

Rebbi Ḥananiah said, it is difficult about the House of Shammai! What is the difference between this and five sacks on a threshing floor? For five [separate] sacks on one threshing floor, can one not give heave and tithe from one for the other?

Rebbi Joshua ben Levi said, it refers back to the first [part]. Rebbi Ba said, to the second¹⁴⁴Everybody agrees that Mishnah 14 refers to Mishnah 13. The question is only, does it refer to the first part, do the House of Shammai oppose the statement that a prior declaration leaves the flask as tithe money unless the wine was entirely put in order in the vat, or does it refer to the second part, that the wine was poured without any specification..

“If he said, a quartarius of profane is in this barrel, the barrel is profane¹⁴⁶A similar statement is in Tosephta 2:18: “When was it said that [the flask] became tithe money? If all was tithe. But if he added a quartarius (cf. Berakhot 3, Note 227) of profane [wine], the tithe did not acquire it whether sealed with clay or not.”.” Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: The Mishnah says so, “Rebbi Simeon said, also if somebody says to another person, I am selling to you this amphora except its flask, the flask became profane.¹⁴⁷Any reservation in this situation is valid. R. Joḥanan accepts the statement of R. Simeon as practice even though it is presented as the opinion of only one person because no opposition is noted.”