תלמוד על מעשר שני 3:1

Rebbi Huna said, the reason of Rebbi Simeon⁴⁸In Mishnah 2. This paragraph, for which the preceding one was the introduction, still should belong to Halakhah 2, is that he says the pesaḥ sacrifice cannot be substituted; if he substituted a second time it still is a pesaḥ. If he substituted, it is a well-being sacrifice⁴⁹Substitution of sacrifices is forbidden (Lev. 27:10); if an animal was substituted, the verse prescribes that “the original and the substitute shall be holy.” It is not specified how to proceed if there are degrees of holiness. On this, Mishnah Pesaḥim 9:6 states that if the substitution was before noon of the 14th of Nisan, when the pesaḥ could not have been slaughtered, the substituted animal cannot be slaughtered since nobody subscribed to it and it cannot become a well-being sacrifice since it is not a leftover pesaḥ. Therefore, it remains pesaḥ and must be left grazing until it develops a blemish when it must be sold and the money used for a well-being sacrifice. But if the substitution was after noontime of the 14th of Nisan, when the pesaḥ is slaughtered, the substitution is a leftover pesaḥ and automatically becomes a well-being sacrifice.! Rebbi Mana said to him, did my teacher⁵⁰This word is missing in the Rome ms. not compare the following? Rebbi Abba, Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, if well-being sacrifices bought with tithe money developed a blemish and he redeemed them, it⁵¹The tithe money. As explained after this, the money now is profane and well-being offerings bought with this money are first dedications rather than second. does not return to its original status to make it a second. Rebbi Zeïra, Rebbi Hila, both in the name of Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina, one said if well-being sacrifices were bought with tithe money, the holiness of tithe broke away from them⁵²Since in all respects, the rules of well-being sacrifices are more strict than those of tithe.. If heave was bought with tithe money, the holiness of tithe did not break away from it⁵³As explained in Mishnah 2.. The Mishnah breaks⁵⁴The argument of R. Simeon in the Mishnah is faulty.: Can you object from a case in which the holiness of tithe broke away to a case in which the holiness of tithe did not break away? The other one said, this does not mean one objects from a case in which its holiness broke away to a case in which its holiness did not break away; he says to him, it is one immersion⁵⁵The original argument of the Sages about the ṭevul yom is irrelevant since the important act was the immersion of the person; waiting a short time is not really a restriction..

Rebbi Ḥaggai said, a Mishnah¹⁵³Mishnah 3:3: “If somebody has [tithe] coins in Jerusalem and needs them, and a friend has produce, he says to his friend: those coins are exchanged on your produce. The friend has to eat his produce in purity but he may use the coins. One should not do this with a vulgar [friend] except for demay.” Since the transaction is restricted to Jerusalem, it follows that it would be illegal elsewhere. said that one does not exchange coins for fruits far from the Place. He said that before Rebbi Abinna who praised him, before Rebbi Jeremiah who needled¹⁵⁴Cf. Berakhot 2:3, Note 96. him: Did we not state, “coins in Jerusalem and produce in the countryside¹⁵⁵Mishnah 3:4 states that money in Jerusalem may be exchanged for outside produce (which then has to be brought into the city) or Jerusalem produce may be bought with tithe money which at the moment of the transaction was outside.”? There is a difference because it was in one place¹⁵⁶Mishnah 3:3 which admits the transaction only in Jerusalem deals with the case that both parties are at the same place. R. Ḥaggai is still justified in not admitting redemption if both parties are outside the city.. When Rebbi Ḥaggai left, he found it stated¹⁵⁷A baraita differing with the Mishnah in his interpretation.: coins and produce in Jerusalem, coins and produce in the countryside. He said, if Rebbi Jeremiah had heard this, he would have needled me justly. He wanted to change his mind. Rebbi Zeïra said to him, do not change your mind since Rebbi Eleazar said, Rebbi Meïr and the rabbis [disagree] about demay; therefore not for certain [produce]¹⁵⁸According to most commentators, this seems to refer to the baraita quoted at the end of Halakhah 3, that the rabbis permit redemption only for meat, not live animals, comparing with Mishnah 6 which is held to be R. Meïr’s opinion. But the baraita was shown to refer only to Sabbatical money and is not applicable here.
According to R. H. Kanievski, the diagreement of the Sages and R. Meïr is in Mishnah Demay 1:2, and the statement of R. Eleazar, that the Mishnah is only R. Meïr’s, to Mishnaiot 1:5–6 since in Demay he also holds that demay money can be exchanged and traded at will outside of Jerusalem. Then it follows that the opinon of the opposing Sages, that produce, illegally bought with tithe money outside of Jerusalem, should be brought up and eaten in Jerusalem, is true not only for demay but for all tithe money, supporting R. Ḥaggai.. Since Rebbi Eleazar said, this is Rebbi Meïr’s, it follows that demay and certain are equal.