Sanhedrin 112

קשיא

The Gemara comments: The matter presents a difficulty with the opinion of Reish Lakish.

איבעיא להו הודחו מאליהן מהו וידיחו אמר רחמנא ולא שהודחו מאליהן או דילמא אפילו הודחו מאליהן

A dilemma was raised before the Sages: If the inhabitants of an idolatrous city subverted themselves to idol worship and were not subverted by others, what is the halakha? Since the Merciful One states: “And have subverted,” perhaps it may be inferred: But not if they subvert themselves; or perhaps even if they subverted themselves to idol worship, the city can be deemed an idolatrous city.

תא שמע הדיחוה נשים וקטנים אמאי ליהוי כהודחו מאליהן הנך בתר נפשייהו גרידי הני בתר נשים וקטנים גרידי

The Gemara suggests: Come and hear a resolution of the dilemma from the mishna: If women or children subvert the inhabitants of the city, these idol worshippers are judged as individuals. Why is that so? Let their status be considered as though they subverted themselves. Apparently, if the inhabitants subverted themselves the city is not deemed an idolatrous city. The Gemara rejects this proof: These cases are not comparable, as these, who subverted themselves, are drawn after their own initiative and worship idols wholeheartedly, and therefore perhaps the city is rendered an idolatrous city. Those, who are subverted by women and children, are drawn after women and children and are not committed to idol worship, and therefore, perhaps the city is not rendered an idolatrous city.

עד שיודח רובה היכי עבדינן אמר רב יהודה דנין וחובשין דנין וחובשין אמר ליה עולא נמצא אתה מענה את דינן של אלו אלא אמר עולא דנין וסוקלין דנין וסוקלין

§ The mishna teaches that a city is not deemed an idolatrous city unless most of the inhabitants of the city are subverted. The Gemara asks: How do we act in order to determine if most of the inhabitants have been subverted? Rav Yehuda says: The court judges each inhabitant suspected of idol worship, and if he is found liable imprisons him in a jail, and it judges and imprisons each succeeding idolater until a majority of the city has been convicted. Ulla said to him: That will result in you delaying justice for those already sentenced and awaiting execution, and it is prohibited to delay justice. Rather, Ulla says: The court judges each inhabitant and stones him if he is found liable, then judges and stones each succeeding idolater until half of the city is found guilty, and all future convicted idolaters are executed by the sword.

איתמר רבי יוחנן אמר דנין וסוקלין דנין וסוקלין וריש לקיש אמר מרבין להן בתי דינין

It was stated that there is a parallel amoraic dispute. Rabbi Yoḥanan says: The court judges and stones the idolater, then judges and stones each succeeding idolater. And Reish Lakish says: One increases the number of courts for them so that all the inhabitants of the city can stand trial at the same time and the means of their execution will be determined with no delay of justice.

איני והאמר רבי חמא בר יוסי אמר רבי אושעיא והוצאת את האיש ההוא או את האשה ההיא איש ואשה אתה מוציא לשעריך ואי אתה מוציא כל העיר כולה לשעריך אלא מרבין להן בתי דינין ומעיינין בדיניהן ומסקינן להו לבית דין הגדול וגמרי להו לדינייהו וקטלי להו

The Gemara asks: Is that so? But doesn’t Rabbi Ḥama bar Yosei say that Rabbi Oshaya says that it is written: “And you shall take that man or that woman out…to your gates” (Deuteronomy 17:5), from which it is derived: You take a man and a woman out to your gates and they are judged by the local court, but you do not take the entire city out to your gates; instead, they stand trial before the Great Sanhedrin. Rather, the procedure is that one increases the number of courts for them and those courts analyze their cases, and when they conclude that a majority of the inhabitants are guilty of idolatry they are not sentenced; instead, we take them to the High Court [Sanhedrin] and the court issues the verdict of the idolaters and executes them.

הכה תכה את ישבי העיר וכו׳ תנו רבנן החמרת והגמלת העוברת ממקום למקום לנו בתוכה והודחו עמה אם נשתהו שם שלשים יום הן בסייף וממונן אבד פחות מיכן הן בסקילה וממונן פלט

§ It is written: “You shall smite the inhabitants of that city with the edge of the sword, destroy it utterly, and all that is in it and its animals, with the edge of the sword” (Deuteronomy 13:16). The Sages taught in a baraita: The caravan of donkeys and the caravan of camels that move from place to place, that lodged in the city and were subverted with it, if they had stayed there thirty days they are executed by the sword and their property is destroyed. If they had stayed there less than that, they are executed by stoning, as individual idolaters, and their property is spared.

ורמינהי כמה יהיה בעיר ויהיה כאנשי העיר שנים עשר חדש אמר רבא לא קשיא הא למיהוי מבני מתא הא למיהוי מיתבי מתא

And the Gemara raises a contradiction from a baraita: How long shall one be in the city and as a result, his status will be like that of the residents of the city with regard to giving charity and paying taxes? He is obligated if he remained there twelve months, and not thirty days. Rava says: This contradiction is not difficult, and it may be resolved: This period of twelve months is the period required to become one of the citizens of the city; this period of thirty days is the period required to become one of the inhabitants of the city.

והתניא המודר הנאה מבני העיר אם יש אדם שנשתהא שם שנים עשר חדש אסור ליהנות ממנו פחות מיכן מותר ליהנות ממנו ביושבי העיר אם נשתהא שלשים יום אסור ליהנות ממנו פחות מיכן מותר ליהנות ממנו

And so it is taught in a baraita: With regard to one prohibited by a vow from deriving benefit from the citizens of the city, if there is a person who had stayed there twelve months, it is prohibited for the one for whom deriving benefit is forbidden to derive benefit from him. If a person had stayed there less than that, it is permitted for the one for whom deriving benefit is forbidden to derive benefit from him. With regard to one prohibited by a vow from deriving benefit from the inhabitants of the city, if there is a person who had stayed there thirty days, it is prohibited for the one for whom deriving benefit is forbidden to derive benefit from him. If a person had stayed there less than that, it is permitted for the one for whom deriving benefit is forbidden to derive benefit from him. In the context of an idolatrous city, the reference is to the inhabitants of the city, which includes anyone who had stayed there for thirty days.

החרם אתה ואת כל אשר בה כו׳ תנו רבנן ׳החרם אותה ואת כל אשר בה׳ פרט לנכסי צדיקים שבחוצה לה ׳ואת כל אשר בה׳ לרבות נכסי צדיקים שבתוכה ׳שללה׳ ולא שלל שמים ׳ואת כל שללה׳ לרבות נכסי רשעים שחוצה לה

It is written: “Destroy it utterly, and all that is in it” (Deuteronomy 13:16). The Sages taught in a baraita with regard to that which is written: “Destroy it utterly, and all that is in it”; this serves to exclude the property of the righteous that is located outside the city, which is not destroyed. “And all that is in it”; this serves to include the property of the righteous that is located inside the city; it is also destroyed. It is stated: “And you shall gather all of its spoils into the midst of its square” (Deuteronomy 13:17). From the term “its spoils” it is derived: But not the spoils of Heaven; all consecrated property is excluded. The phrase “and you shall gather all of its spoils” serves to include the property of the wicked that is located outside the city; it is also destroyed.

אמר רבי שמעון מפני מה אמרה תורה נכסי צדיקים שבתוכה יאבדו מי גרם להם שידורו בתוכה ממונם לפיכך ממונם אבד אמר מר ׳ואת כל שללה תקבץ׳ לרבות נכסי רשעים שבחוצה לה אמר רב חסדא ובנקבצים לתוכה

Rabbi Shimon said: For what reason does the Torah say that the property of the righteous that is in it shall be destroyed? Why must they suffer for the sins of others? The reason is: Who caused the righteous to live in this city inhabited by wicked people? It is their property that tied them to this city; therefore, their property is destroyed. The Master said that the phrase “and you shall gather all of its spoils” serves to include the property of the wicked that is located outside the city; it is also destroyed. Rav Ḥisda says: And this is the halakha only with regard to property that can be gathered into the city.

אמר רב חסדא פקדונות של אנשי עיר הנדחת מותרין היכי דמי אי לימא דעיר אחרת ואיתנהו בגוה פשיטא דמותרין לאו שללה הוא ואלא דידהו ואיתנהו בעיר אחרת אי דנקבצין לתוכה אמאי מותרין ואי אין נקבצין לתוכה הא אמרה חדא זימנא

Rav Ḥisda says: Deposits of the inhabitants of an idolatrous city are permitted, i.e., they are not destroyed. The Gemara asks: What are the circumstances? If we say that Rav Ḥisda is referring to property belonging to inhabitants of another city and that property is deposited within the idolatrous city, it is obvious that the deposits are permitted, as the deposits are not “its spoils”; they are the property of others. But rather, say that Rav Ḥisda is referring to property belonging to the inhabitants of the idolatrous city, and it is deposited within another city. If so, the status of that property should be like any other property belonging to the inhabitants of the idolatrous city; if it is property that can be gathered into the city, why are the deposits permitted? It was already established that the property of the wicked is destroyed. And if it is property that cannot be gathered into the city, didn’t Rav Ḥisda already say once that this property is not burned?

לא לעולם דעיר אחרת דמפקדי בתוכה והכא במאי עסקינן כגון דקביל עליה אחריות מהו דתימא כיון דקביל עליה אחריות כדידיה דמי קא משמע לן

The Gemara answers: No, Rav Ḥisda is actually referring to property belonging to inhabitants of another city that is deposited within the idolatrous city; and what are we dealing with here? It is a case where an inhabitant of the idolatrous city assumes financial responsibility for the deposit in his possession. Lest you say: Once he assumes financial responsibility for the deposit in his possession, the status of the deposit is like that of his own property and it should be destroyed, therefore Rav Ḥisda teaches us that deposits are permitted and not destroyed.

אמר רב חסדא בהמה חציה של עיר הנדחת וחציה של עיר אחרת אסורה עיסה חציה של עיר הנדחת וחציה של עיר אחרת מותרת מאי טעמא בהמה כמאן דלא פליגא דמיא עיסה כמאן דפליגא דמיא

Rav Ḥisda says: An animal that is half the property of an idolatrous city and half the property of another city is forbidden. By contrast, with regard to dough that is half the property of an idolatrous city and half the property of another city, the half that belongs to the other city is permitted. The Gemara asks: What is the reason for the difference between them? The Gemara explains: An animal is like an entity that is not divided, as it is possible to eat part of an animal only through the slaughter of the entire animal. Therefore, if any portion of the animal is forbidden, the entire animal is forbidden. Dough is like an entity that is divided. Therefore, the fact that one portion of the dough is forbidden does not render the entire dough forbidden.

בעי רב חסדא בהמת עיר הנדחת מהו דתיתהני בה שחיטה לטהרה מידי נבילה לפי חרב אמר רחמנא לא שנא שחטה משחט לא שנא קטלא מקטל או דלמא כיון דשחטה מהניא לה שחיטה מאי תיקו

Rav Ḥisda raises a dilemma: With regard to the animal of an idolatrous city, what is the halakha; is ritual slaughter effective at least in purifying it from the ritual impurity of an unslaughtered animal carcass? If the animals of the city are killed but not ritually slaughtered, they are impure with the impurity of a carcass and transmit impurity by means of contact as well as if they are lifted. Will the ritual slaughter of those animals prevent the transmission of that impurity? Is it so that since the Merciful One states: “And its animals, with the edge of the sword,” indicating that it is no different if one ritually slaughtered the animal, and it is no different if one killed the animal in another way, its status is that of a carcass and it transmits impurity? Or perhaps, since one ritually slaughtered the animal, ritual slaughter is effective. What is the halakha? The dilemma shall stand unresolved.

בעי רב יוסף שיער נשים צדקניות מהו אמר רבא הא דרשעיות אסור תקבץ ושרפת כתיב מי שאינו מחוסר אלא קביצה ושריפה יצא זה שמחוסר תלישה וקביצה ושריפה

Rav Yosef raises a dilemma: What is the status of the hair of pious women in the idolatrous city; must it be destroyed? Rava says: Is that to say that the hair of wicked women is forbidden and must be destroyed? “And you shall gather…and you shall burn” (Deuteronomy 13:17), is written, and it is derived: An item that is lacking, i.e., that requires, only gathering and burning must be destroyed, excluding this hair, which is lacking detaching, gathering, and burning. Therefore, even the hair of a wicked woman is not forbidden.

אלא אמר רבא בפיאה נכרית היכי דמי אי דמחובר בגופה כגופה דמיא לא צריכא דתלי בסיבטא כנכסי צדיקים שבתוכה דמי ואבד או דלמא כיון דעיילא ונפקא כלבושה דמי תיקו

Rather, Rava says: This dilemma is raised with regard to a wig. The Gemara asks: What are the circumstances? If the wig is attached to her body, its status is like that of her body. The Gemara answers: No, this dilemma is necessary only in a case where the wig is hanging on a peg. Is its status like that of the property of the righteous inside the city and therefore it is destroyed, or perhaps, since she enters and exits with the wig, its status is like that of a garment, and it is not destroyed? This dilemma shall stand unresolved.

ואת כל שללה תקבץ אל תוך רחבה וכו׳ תנו רבנן אין לה רחוב אינה נעשית עיר הנדחת דברי רבי ישמעאל רבי עקיבא אומר אין לה רחוב עושין לה רחוב במאי קמיפלגי מר סבר רחובה מעיקרא משמע ומר סבר רחובה השתא נמי משמע

With regard to the verse: “And you shall gather all of its spoils into the midst of its square” (Deuteronomy 13:17), the Sages taught: If the city has no square, it does not become an idolatrous city, as it does not fulfill the criterion mandated by the verse; this is the statement of Rabbi Yishmael. Rabbi Akiva says: If the city has no square, one creates a square for the city. The Gemara asks: With regard to what principle do they disagree? The Gemara explains: One Sage, Rabbi Yishmael, holds “its square” indicates a square that existed from the outset. And one Sage, Rabbi Akiva, holds that “its square” can also indicate a square that was created now.

וההקדשות שבה יפדו כו׳ תנו רבנן היו בה קדשי קדשים קדשי מזבח ימותו קדשי בדק הבית יפדו ותרומות ירקבו ומעשר שני וכתבי הקדש יגנזו רבי שמעון אומר ׳בהמתה׳ ולא בהמת בכור ומעשר ׳שללה׳ פרט לכסף הקדש וכסף מעשר

§ The mishna teaches: And the consecrated property in it must be redeemed. The Sages taught in a baraita (Tosefta 14:5): If there were offerings of the most sacred order in it, if they were animals consecrated for sacrifice on the altar, they shall die; one causes their death. Items consecrated for Temple maintenance must be redeemed, and terumot must be left to decay, and second tithe and sacred scrolls must be interred. Rabbi Shimon says: That is not so; rather, the term: “Its animals” (Deuteronomy 13:16), serves to exclude a firstborn animal and animal tithe, as they never belonged to the idolatrous city. The term: “Its spoils” (Deuteronomy 13:17), serves to exclude consecrated money and tithe money.

אמר מר היו בה קדשי קדשים קדשי מזבח ימותו ואמאי ימותו ירעו עד שיסתאבו וימכרו ויפלו דמיהן לנדבה

The Gemara proceeds to analyze the baraita. The Master said: If there were offerings of the most sacred order in it, if they were animals consecrated for sacrifice on the altar, they shall die. The Gemara asks: But why shall they die? They should graze until they become unfit, and then they should be sold and their value should be allocated for communal gift offerings.

רבי יוחנן אמר זבח רשעים תועבה ריש לקיש אמר ממון בעלים הוא והכא בקדשים שחייב באחריותן ורבי שמעון היא דאמר ממון בעלים הוא

Rabbi Yoḥanan says: They shall die, as it is written: “The offering of the wicked is an abomination” (Proverbs 21:27), and it is unacceptable for sacrifice on the altar. Reish Lakish says: They shall die because the animal is the property of its owner and is not exclusively consecrated property. And the reason it is considered the property of the owner is that here, the tanna is referring to offerings with regard to which one bears financial responsibility for their replacement. That responsibility renders the status of these consecrated animals like that of his property. And this is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon, who says: An offering with regard to which one bears financial responsibility for its replacement is the property of its owner.

הא מדסיפא רבי שמעון היא רישא לאו רבי שמעון בקדשים קלים ואליבא דרבי יוסי הגלילי דאמר קדשים קלים ממון בעלים אבל קדשי קדשים מאי יפדו

The Gemara challenges: From the fact that the latter clause of the baraita is the opinion of Rabbi Shimon, one may infer that the first clause is not in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon. The Gemara suggests a new explanation: Rather, the animals that shall die are offerings of lesser sanctity, and the ruling of the baraita is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei HaGelili, who says: Offerings of lesser sanctity are the property of their owner. The Gemara infers: But offerings of the most sacred order, what shall be done with them? They shall be redeemed.

אדתני סיפא קדשי בדק הבית יפדו ליפלוג וליתני בדידה במה דברים אמורים בקדשים קלים אבל קדשי קדשים יפדו כיון דאיכא חטאת שמתו בעליה דלמיתה אזלא לא פסיקא ליה

The Gemara asks: If so, rather than teaching in the latter clause of the baraita: Items consecrated for Temple maintenance must be redeemed, let the tanna distinguish and teach a distinction within the category of animals consecrated for sacrifice on the altar itself, as follows: In what case is this statement, that animals shall die, said? It is stated with regard to offerings of lesser sanctity; but with regard to offerings of the most sacred order, they shall be redeemed. The Gemara answers: Since there is among offerings of the most sacred order the case of the sin-offering whose owners were killed in the idolatrous city, rendering the animal a sin-offering whose owners have died, which is left to die, that distinction is not clear-cut for the tanna, as offerings of the most sacred order are not always redeemed. Therefore, the tanna preferred to cite a distinction without exceptions.

בשלמא רבי יוחנן לא אמר כריש לקיש דכתיב זבח רשעים תועבה אלא ריש לקיש מאי טעמא לא אמר כרבי יוחנן אמר לך כי אמרינן זבח רשעים תועבה הני מילי היכא דאיתנהו בעינייהו אבל הכא כיון דאישתני אישתני

The Gemara comments: Granted, Rabbi Yoḥanan does not say his explanation of the baraita in accordance with the opinion of Reish Lakish, due to the fact that it is written: “The offering of the wicked is an abomination,” and he bases his explanation on that verse. But Reish Lakish, what is the reason he does not say his explanation of the baraita in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yoḥanan? The Gemara answers: He could have said to you that when we say: “The offering of the wicked is an abomination,” this statement applies in a case where the offering is in its unadulterated form. But here, since if they were to redeem it, it would have changed and would no longer be the animal of the wicked itself, but rather an animal purchased with the proceeds of the redemption of the original, it would have changed, and it would no longer be an abomination.

רבי שמעון אומר ׳בהמתך׳ ולא בהמת בכור ומעשר במאי עסקינן אילימא בתמימין שלל שמים הוא אלא בבעלי מומין שללה נינהו

§ The baraita continues. Rabbi Shimon says that the term “its animals” serves to exclude a firstborn animal and animal tithe. The Gemara asks: What animals are we dealing with? If we say that Rabbi Shimon is speaking with regard to unblemished animals, like all other offerings they are the spoils of Heaven and not the spoils of the inhabitants of the city. Rather, Rabbi Shimon is speaking with regard to blemished animals, which belong to their owners. If so, they are the spoils of the city, and what is the reason that Rabbi Shimon says that there is no obligation to destroy these animals?

אמר רבינא לעולם בבעלי מומין ומי שנאכל בתורת בהמתך יצאו אלו שאין נאכלין בתורת בהמתך אלא בתורת בכור ומעשר דשלל שמים נינהו

Ravina says: Actually, Rabbi Shimon is speaking with regard to blemished animals, and his statement should be understood as follows: The mitzva is to destroy that which is eaten as its animals, i.e., as the property of an inhabitant of an idolatrous city. Excluded are those firstborn and tithe animals, which, even when blemished, are not eaten as its animals; rather, they are eaten as firstborn and tithe animals. They are given as gifts to priests, and are considered the spoils of Heaven.

ופליגא דשמואל דאמר שמואל הכל קרב והכל נפדה מאי קאמר הכי קאמר כל שקרב כשהוא תם ונפדה כשהוא בעל מום משלל אימעיט וכל שקרב כשהוא תם ואינו נפדה כשהוא בעל מום כגון בכור ומעשר מבהמה נפקא

And this halakha disputes the statement of Shmuel, as Shmuel says: Everything is sacrificed and everything is redeemed. The Gemara asks: What is he saying? The Gemara explains that this is what he is saying: Any offering that is sacrificed on the altar when it is unblemished and is redeemed when it is blemished is excluded from the term “its spoils,” since it is considered the spoils of Heaven. And the halakha concerning any offering that is sacrificed on the altar when it is unblemished and is not redeemed when it is blemished, e.g., a firstborn animal and animal tithe, is derived from the term “its animals,” as they are not the city’s animals and they are not included in the city’s property.

תרומות ירקבו אמר רב חסדא לא שנו אלא תרומה ביד ישראל אבל תרומה ביד כהן כיון דממוניה הוא תשרף

§ The baraita continues: Terumot must be left to decay. Rav Ḥisda says: The Sages taught this only with regard to teruma that is still in the possession of an Israelite, who has not yet given it to a priest. But concerning teruma that is already in the possession of a priest who lives in the idolatrous city, since it is his property, it shall be burned.

מתיב רב יוסף מעשר שני וכתבי הקדש יגנזו והא מעשר שני ביד ישראל כתרומה ביד כהן דמי וקתני יגנזו אלא אי אתמר הכי אתמר אמר רב חסדא לא שנו אלא תרומה ביד כהן אבל תרומה ביד ישראל תנתן לכהן שבעיר אחרת

Rav Yosef raises an objection from the mishna: Second tithe and sacred scrolls must be interred. But isn’t the status of second tithe in the possession of an Israelite like that of teruma in the possession of a priest, as he may partake of it and benefit from it in Jerusalem; and nevertheless, it is taught: They must be interred? Rather, if the statement of Rav Ḥisda was stated, this is what was stated: Rav Ḥisda says: The Sages taught this only with regard to teruma that is already in the possession of a priest who lives in the idolatrous city, as even though it is his property, it maintains the sanctity of teruma. But teruma that is still in the possession of an Israelite, which is not his property at all, shall be given to a priest who is in another city, and should not be left to decay.

תנן התם עיסה של מעשר שני פטורה מן החלה דברי רבי מאיר וחכמים מחייבין אמר רב חסדא מחלוקת במעשר שני בירושלים דרבי מאיר סבר מעשר שני ממון גבוה הוא ורבנן סברי ממון הדיוט הוא אבל בגבולין דברי הכל פטור

We learned in a baraita there: Second-tithe dough is exempt from having ḥalla separated since it is property belonging to the Most High; this is the statement of Rabbi Meir. And the Rabbis deem one liable to separate ḥalla from second-tithe dough. Rav Ḥisda says: This dispute is with regard to second tithe in Jerusalem; as Rabbi Meir holds: Second-tithe produce is property belonging to the Most High, but the Torah permitted its owners to partake of it in Jerusalem. Since it is the property of Heaven, one is exempt from separating priestly gifts. And the Rabbis hold: It is non-sacred property from which one is liable to separate ḥalla. But with regard to second-tithe dough in the outlying areas, everyone agrees that one is exempt from separating ḥalla, as outside of Jerusalem it is prohibited to partake of it.

מתיב רב יוסף מעשר שני וכתבי הקדש יגנזו במאי עסקינן אילימא בירושלים מי הויא עיר הנדחת והתניא עשרה דברים נאמרו בירושלים וזו אחת מהן אינה נעשית עיר הנדחת ואלא בעיר אחרת ואסקוהו לגוה הא קלטוהו מחיצות

Rav Yosef raises an objection from the mishna: Second tithe and sacred scrolls must be interred. What are we dealing with? If we say that the reference is to second tithe in Jerusalem, can Jerusalem be an idolatrous city? But isn’t it taught in a baraita: Ten matters were stated with regard to Jerusalem, and this is one of them: It does not become an idolatrous city. Rather, apparently the reference is to second tithe in a different city that was rendered an idolatrous city, and before it was so rendered one took the second-tithe produce up into Jerusalem. The Gemara asks: In that case, wasn’t the produce admitted by the walls of Jerusalem, making it no longer associated with the idolatrous city, and it should therefore be permitted to partake of it?

אלא לאו בגבולין וקתני יגנזו לא לעולם דעיר אחרת ואסקוהו לגוה והכא במאי עסקינן שנטמא

Rather, is the reference in the mishna not to second-tithe produce in an outlying area? And it is taught: They must be interred. Apparently, second-tithe produce is not the property of Heaven; it belongs to an inhabitant of the idolatrous city. The Gemara rejects this: No, actually, the reference in the mishna is to second-tithe produce in a different city, and before it was rendered an idolatrous city one took the second-tithe produce up into Jerusalem. And what are we dealing with here? We are dealing with a case where that second-tithe produce became ritually impure. Since it is prohibited to partake of it, there is no alternative to interment.

ולפרקיה דאמר רבי אלעזר מניין למעשר שני שנטמא שפודין אותו אפילו בירושלים תלמוד לומר לא תוכל שאתו ואין שאת אלא אכילה שנאמר וישא משאת מאת פניו הכא במאי עסקינן בלקוח

The Gemara challenges: And let him redeem it in Jerusalem, as Rabbi Elazar says: From where is it derived with regard to second-tithe produce that became impure, that one may redeem it even in Jerusalem? As the verse states: “And if the way is too long for you so that you are unable to carry it [se’eto]…and you shall turn it into money” (Deuteronomy 14:24–25). And se’et means nothing other than eating, as it is stated: “And he took portions [masot] from before him” (Genesis 43:34), indicating that second-tithe produce that cannot be eaten, whether due to the distance from Jerusalem or due to its impurity, may be redeemed. The Gemara answers: What are we dealing with here? It is not a case where the second-tithe produce became impure; rather, it is a case where an item purchased with second-tithe money became impure.