A PRUTA OF HEKDESH (Yerushalmi Demai Perek 7 Halachah 4 Daf 31b)
[ãó ìà òîåã á] úîï úðéðï ôøåèä ùì ä÷ãù ùðôìä ìúåê äëéñ àå ùàîø ôøåèä áëéñ æä ä÷ãù
(Mishnah in Maseches Meilah): If a Pruta of Hekdesh fell into a money pouch or if a person said, "A Pruta in this pouch should be Hekdesh" (R. Akiva says that as soon as he has spent one Pruta, he is liable for Meilah. But the Chachamim say that he is only liable for Meilah when he spends all the money in the pouch.)
úðà òì äøàùåðä îòì áñô÷ [ãó ñè òîåã ä (òåæ åäãø)] åòì äùðééä îòì áåãàé ãáøé øáé ò÷éáä
Baraisa: When R. Akiva said that he is liable for the first Pruta spent, it is only because of doubt, but he didn't definitely transgress. However, for the second Pruta, it is certain that he transgressed.
åçëîéí àåîøéí òì ëåìï [ìà] îòì áñô÷ åòì äàçøåðä îòì áåãàé
(Chachamim): For the earlier coins, there is no doubt; and for the last coin, it is certain that he transgresses.
à"ø éåãï àáåé ãøáé îúðéà äãà ãúéîø ëùäéå òùø àáì àí äéå ùúéí òì äøàùåðä îòì áñô÷ åòì äùðééä îòì áåãàé
(R. Yudan, father of R. Matanya): This applies when there were ten coins, but if there were two, for the first, he doubtfully transgresses; for the second, he certain has transgressed.
ø"ù áï ì÷éù áòà ÷åîé øáé éåçðï îä áéï äàåîø áëéñ îä áéï äàåîø îï äëéñ
Question (R. Shimon ben Lakish to R. Yochanan): What's the difference whether he says 'in this pouch' (as in the first part of the Mishnah there) or 'from this pouch'? (The end of that Mishnah teaches that R. Akiva agrees that if he says, "A Pruta from this pouch is Hekdesh", that he may continue to spend until he spends all of them (and he is not liable, as the last one is the Pruta of Hekdesh).)
[àìà ëàï úìåé áäôøùä åëàï àéðå úìåé áäôøùä]
Answer: In the first case, the Hekdesh already takes effect and therefore, each coin is doubtfully Hekdesh; in the second case, its sanctity depends on the final selection of the coin (so the earlier ones certainly were not Hekdesh since he had not yet clarified the correct coin).
ø"ù áï ì÷éù àåîø àôé' äåöéà àú ëì äëéñ ìà éîòåì ëîä ãúéîø ìîôøòå èáì ùúä åàîø àåó äëà ìîôøòå çåìéï äåöéà (àìà ëàï úìåé áäôøùä)
Question (R. Shimon ben Lakish): Even if he spent all of the pouch (including the last Pruta), he does not transgress (unless he designated one particular coin) - it's like the case the earlier Baraisa (that a person stipulated that two Log of wine will be Terumah etc...R. Shimon prohibited drinking until it's separated as he is concerned that the bottle might break) and he had retroactively drank Tevel. Here also, if he spends all of the coins without designating any of them as the Hekdesh, in the end there was no Hekdesh and retroactively, he spent Chulin...?
[ãó ò òîåã à (òåæ åäãø)] àîø øáé éåðä ëàï åëàï [àéï] úìåé áäôøùä ðòùä ëàåîø àì éöà äëéñ äæä îéãé ôøåèä ä÷ãù
(R. Yona): In both cases, it doesn't depend on separating - it becomes as if he said, "This pouch should not be exempt from at least one (i.e. the last) Pruta becoming Hekdesh".
îçìôä ùéèúéä ãøáé ùîòåï áï ì÷éù úîï äåà àåîø îåòìéï áôøåèä ìôé çùáåï ùìùä ìåâéï åäëà äåà àîø äëéï
Question: The opinion of R. Shimon ben Lakish seems to have switched - there (Maseches Meilah), concerning the water used for the water libations on Succos - he says about the 3 Log of the water libations (which is the required amount), if there is more than 3 Log in the vessel, he is only liable for Meilah if he uses a Pruta's worth from the last 3 Log. But here, when it is dependent on separating, until he actually separates he would not be liable, even for a Pruta of the last 3 Log...?
îï ãàöøëú ìéä çæø åôùèä
Answer: After Reish Lakish asked the question earlier (and heard the response), he retracted and said that it does not depend on separating.