Yerushalmi Sheviit 8:7 ירושלמי שביעית ח׳:ז׳

MISHNAH: One may not cook Sabbatical vegetables in heave oil because it should not be made unusable⁹⁹Sabbatical produce has a status of holiness. However, in contrast to sacrifices, Sabbatical produce cannot be redeemed and does not have to be kept in purity. The rabbis note that Sabbatical produce cooked in heave oil will become inedible if impure and this should not happen. The sentence “because it should not be made unusable” means “one should not use it in a way by which it might become unusable.”. Rebbi Simeon permits it. Always the last substitute is caught and the fruit remains forbidden¹⁰⁰The rules of this Mishnah are deduced in Sifra Behar Pereq 3(3) because the verse equates the rules of the Jubilee year with those of the Sabbatical: “(Lev. 25:12) ‘Because a Jubilee it is, holy it should be for you’; just as holy things absorb their redemption money {any sanctified object other than a valid sacrifice can be redeemed and the sanctity transferred to the money), also the Sabbatical produce absorbs its money. Then just as holy things become profane, Sabbatical produce should become profane. But the verse says it is {in a permanent state}, it remains in its holiness.” The details of the transfer to the last redeemed property are given in the Halakhah. The argument of Sifra is reproduced in Babli Sukkah 40b, Qiddušin 58a; there the permanent state is implied by ‘Because a Jubilee it is, holy it should be for you’ {in the Babli, scriptural use of the verb היה is always taken to imply permanence.}.

HALAKHAH: There¹⁰¹Mishnah Zebaḥim 10:7, speaking of the way Cohanim ate sacrificial meat in the Temple., we have stated: “The Cohanim are permitted in all cases to change the preparation of the food, to eat it broiled, cooked a long time,¹⁰²Since sacrifices had to be eaten in one or at most two days, one could have thought that a way of cooking usually reserved for vegetable preserves was forbidden. or plain; to add profane and heave spices, the words of Rebbi Simeon. Rebbi Meïr says, he should not add [heave spices], to cause heave to become unusable¹⁰³Since the Cohanim might not be able to consume all sacrificial meat in time, the remainder would have to be burned, including the spices from heave..” It turns out that the anonymous statement here becomes the minority opinion there. Is the anonymous statement here the minority opinion there¹⁰⁴The first clause of Mishnah Zebaḥim, speaking of the different kinds of preparation of meat, is in fact anonymous. But the part about spices, which we are interested in, is R. Simeon’s.? But the anonymous statement here is the opinion of Rebbi Meïr there and between Rebbi Meïr and Rebbi Simeon, practice follows Rebbi Simeon¹⁰⁵Therefore, R. Simeon’s opinion should count as an anonymous one. This is a decision of R. Joḥanan (Terumot 3:1, fol. 42a). In the Babli (Erubin 46b), the question of precedence between Rebbis Simeon and Meïr is declared to be undecidable. {Cf. also Demay, Chapter 5, Note 120, Terumot Chapter 3, Note 25.}. Rebbi Assi said, I asked those of the House of Rebbi Yannai and they said, we used to cook small portions and eat¹⁰⁶R. Meïr might agree with the practice to use heave spices in small dishes that will be eaten immediately since then the danger to the heave is minimized. The precaution to cook only small portions would be unnecessary for R. Simeon. This proves that R. Yannai did not follow R. Simeon and his practical decision should be followed.. How is that¹⁰⁷How could this be justified?? Practice follows Rebbi Meïr there for his is the anonymous opinion here.

“Always the last substitute is caught and the fruit remains forbidden”. How is this? If¹⁰⁸Sifra Behar Pereq 3(3), Babli Sukkah 40b. he took meat in exchange for Sabbatical fruits, both are subject to removal in the Sabbatical. If he exchanged the meat for fish, the meat is released and the fish are obligated. If he exchanged fish for oil, the fish are released and the oil enters [into the obligation.] Always the last substitute is obligated and the fruit remains forbidden.

They asked Rebbi Joḥanan: May Sabbatical produce become freed by redemption¹⁰⁹Since the Mishnah and the Tosephta speak only about substitution, the question remains whether Sabbatical produce can be redeemed the way Temple property (other than valid sacrifices) can be, by offering money or money’s worth with the explicit intent of transferring sanctity.
A lengthy discussion of this topic is in Babli Sukkah 40b–41a, where it is asserted that R. Joḥanan also permits redemption only for substitutions, not for Sabbatical produce itself. This can be read also into the Yerushalmi since the latter deals only with Sabbatical money, not with Sabbatical produce.? He said to them, why not? Rebbi Eleazar said, Sabbatical produce cannot become freed by redemption, only by sale. A baraita supports one, a baraita supports the other. A baraita supports Rebbi Joḥanan: “Anybody who has money that is Sabbatical and he wants to redeem it by his dough may redeeem it.” A baraita¹¹⁰Tosephta 6:25, in a shortened version. Babli Sukkah 41a, a version close to the one quoted here. supports Rebbi Eleazar: “If somebody has a tetradrachma of Sabbatical money and he wants to buy a garment goes to the grocer he usually deals with and says to him, give me fruits for this. He gives them to him. Then he says, these fruits are given to you as a gift and the grocer says, this tetradrachma is given to you as a gift. Then he goes and buys himself a garment.”

Rebbi Joḥanan drank wine and then gave money¹¹¹Since one may not pay one’s debts with Sabbatical money, the money paid afterwards was in liquidation of a debt and cannot be Sabbaticaleven if the wine was Sabbatical. Then the question of redemption does not even arise.. That goes for Rebbi Joḥanan who is trustworthy; what about other people who are not so trustworthy¹¹²If the seller wants the money before he hands over the merchandise. The answer is that even the untrustworthy buyer will get credit if he shows that he has money in his hand to cover the debt incurred. Then he can take up the buy and acquire it by lifting it up, incur a debt by this act, and then hand over the money to liquidate the debt, not to acquire the produce.? Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Avina: He shows him with one [hand] and takes with the other [hand]. Rebbi Ḥizqiah used to say, “give me for this before you¹¹³This is essentially the same device as that used by R. Jacob bar Aḥa: The buyer puts up the money required but does not hand it over.”. Since he said, give me that before you, he is one who does not give Sabbatical money.