2:1 When a priest’s daughter uses fenugreek as a heave-offering to shampoo her hair, the daughter of an Israelite is not allowed to use the same fenugreek after her. However, the Israelite's daughter can rub her hair against that of the priest’s daughter to benefit from the fenugreek. This fenugreek, being in the state of the second tithe, should be eaten while still in bud. According to the House of Shammai, any use of the fenugreek is in a state of cleanness, while the House of Hillel opines that any use is in uncleanness, except for shampooing. This is reiterated by R. Meir. R. Judah, however, states that except for shampooing with it, the House of Shammai states that any use is in a state of cleanness whereas the House of Hillel proposes that any use is in uncleanness, except for soaking it. Vetches in the state of the second tithe should also be eaten while still in bud. The House of Shammai says they are soaked in a state of cleanness, and crushed and fed to cattle in uncleanness. The House of Hillel, however, believes that they are soaked and crushed in cleanness, and fed to cattle in uncleanness. R. Judah concurs with these words.

2:2 Regarding the soaking of second tithe status dates to produce date-beer or soaking raisins to produce juice, they are instead crushed into puree. Concerning spices in the state of the second tithe, pressing them is permitted as it’s their normal mode of preparation. Yet, if these spices are tied in a bundle and placed in a dish, their usage depends on whether their flavor dissipates. If it does, they are permitted for usage, if not, their usage is prohibited.

2:3 One should not turn wine into oenanthe (an unguent) or oil into spiced oil. However, if it’s done, one can anoint with the oil but should not anoint with the wine or vinegar-made unguent. Anointing is a common use for oil, contrary to wine and vinegar.

2:4 Focusing on unconsecrated coins and those dedicated to the Temple, what one collects is dedicated. This rule is applicable to mixed coins, fruits, pomegranates, or any other items that lose their identity in the mixture. However, for substances that do not intermingle, anything collected is proportionately both consecrated and unconsecrated. Excess items are treated similarly.

2:5 If a sela coin of second tithe status and an unconsecrated one are mixed together, a sela’s worth of copper coins is brought for redeeming the second tithe. There's a debate between Ben Azzai and others whether to bring one or two sela's worth of copper coins for redemption. If an unconsecrated sela and a consecrated one are mixed up, the finer coin from them is selected. If it's consecrated, it remains so, and if not, whatever coin is consecrated is deconsecrated with this coin. The second sela is permitted to be used as an unconsecrated coin.

2:6 If a sela from the second tithe and one consecrated to the Temple are mixed together, a sela's worth of copper coins is brought, and the second tithe sela coin is deconsecrated with these coins. The finer coin is selected with the same reasoning as before, and the second sela is picked up to deconsecrate the copper coins.

2:7 If three coins - a second tithe sela, an unconsecrated sela, and a consecrated sela, are mixed together, the second tithe sela is deconsecrated using a sela's worth of copper coins. The finest sela coin is selected, deemed consecrated if it is and if not, the consecrated coin, wherever it may be, is deconsecrated with it. The second coin is used to deconsecrate the copper coins, and the third, or last coin, is allowed to be used as an unconsecrated coin. It's allowed to deconsecrate copper coins with silver or silver coins with gold out of necessity. However, gold coins cannot be deconsecrated with silver coins. R. Eleazar b. R. Simeon counters by stating that just as silver coins can be deconsecrated with copper coins, gold coins can similarly be deconsecrated with silver coins. Rabbi questions him, asking why silver coins should be deconsecrated with copper coins. R. Eleazar b. R. Simeon further states that gold coins consecrated as second tithe can be deconsecrated with copper coins in Jerusalem, but only in the case of doubtfully tithed produce. For certainly untithed produce, it is prohibited. For doubtfully tithed produce, even edibles can be deconsecrated with other edibles. However, gold coins consecrated as second tithe without redemption methods are not permitted for making utensils. But, if comprised of silver, it is permitted. If the second tithe from doubtfully tithed produce mixes with that from certainly untithed produce, they should be consumed according to the more restrictive rules among them.

2:8 There are certain differences in the treatment of dedicated items and the second tithe. Dedicated items can be deconsecrated by anything whereas the second tithe can only be deconsecrated using coins. Moreover, while dedicated items cannot change their level of sanctity, the second tithe's sanctity level can increase after consecration. Dedicated items can be brought in and taken out of Jerusalem, but once the second tithe enters Jerusalem, it can't be brought out. None of these stringencies apply to dedicated items....

2:9 There is a level of strictness that applies to dedicated items. It's because the status of dedication can apply to anything, the laws of sacrilege apply to it, and it is only permitted for consumption by a non-priest if it has been deconsecrated. This doesn't apply to the second tithe.

2:10 R. Meir notes that silver and produce aren't deconsecrated with silver unless there is a small amount of silver attached to the produce. However, the sages allow for the deconsecration of silver and produce with silver. R. Jacob shares in Meir’s name that a silver sela is exchanged for three dinars of silver and either one dinar’s worth of copper or produce. R. Simeon b. Eleazar adds Shammai the Elder's saying to deposit the produce in a shop and consume its value.

2:11 When someone has two bins, with one for produce considered as a heave-offering and the other for produce considered as second tithe, if pieces of fruit are found between the bins, the status is determined by the proximity of the fruit. If the fruit is nearer to the heave-offering bin, it falls under the laws governing heave-offering; if it's closer to the second tithe bin, it falls under the laws governing second tithe. If the fruit is found halfway between the bins, the restrictive laws of both the heave-offering and the second tithe apply. R. Yosé b. R. Judah explains that if a chest was used for both unconsecrated coins and coins in the status of second tithe, and one found coins in it without knowing their status, the majority situation determines the status of the coins. If most people placed unconsecrated coins in the chest, the coins are deemed to be unconsecrated. If most people placed second tithe coins in the chest, the coins are deemed to be the second tithe. R. Simeon points out similarities between the peace-offering and heave-offering, affirming the analogy and supporting his lenient ruling regarding the purchase of produce in the status of heave-offering with money consecrated as second tithe. R. Simeon b. Judah speaks for R. Yosé and quotes an argument between the House of Hillel and the House of Shammai concerning various aspects of the processing of produce, its status, and its location. Ultimately, according to the House of Hillel, even in the case of completed processed produce, one can separate produce as heave-offering and tithes for another batch.

2:12 A tree located within Jerusalem, the branches of which extend out of the city bounds has the possibility of redemption for the produce picked from these extended branches. However, if the branch returns inside the city limits, the produce cannot be redeemed. A tree standing outside the city with its branches extending into Jerusalem will not have redeemable tithe produce. But once the branch goes back outside, the second tithe is redeemable. As for buildings that house olive-presses and have their entrances inside the city but their interiors located outside, or those with entrances outside and interiors inside Jerusalem, the interpretations vary. The House of Shammai believes that one cannot redeem produce in such buildings, like those wholly inside the city, and similarly, Lesser Holy Things cannot be consumed inside them like in buildings entirely outside the city. The House of Hillel, on the other hand, believes that the areas of these buildings aligned with the city wall and within are considered as inside the city, whereas the parts opposite the wall and outside are seen as outside the city. Rabbi Yosé claims this is Rabbi Aqiba’s interpretation. According to Rabbi Yosé, the originally held view was that even for such buildings, the House of Shammai would not redeem produce nor consume Lesser Holy Things within. The House of Hillel, however, believes these buildings to be like Temple chambers; the ones opening towards the inside of the city are considered inside, and those opening outward are considered to be outside.

2:13 A Temple chamber located in the holy precinct, which opens to the unsanctified area, is unsanctified in its inner space, while its roof remains sanctified. In such chambers, Most Holy Things are not consumed, Lesser Holy Things are not slaughtered, and it holds no responsibility in terms of ritual impurity.

2:14 A chamber built outside the holy precinct, with its entrance towards the sanctified precinct, should ideally not remain as such. However, its inner space is viewed as sanctified, while its roof is not. In these chambers, Most Holy Things can be consumed, Lesser Holy Things slaughtered, and it holds liability in terms of ritual impurity.

2:15 If a chamber is built in the holy precinct and open to both the unsanctified and sanctified areas, then it is all deemed to be sanctified. Conversely, a chamber built in the unsanctified area and open to both sanctified and unsanctified areas is all deemed to be unsanctified. A chamber built across the sanctified and unsanctified areas, such as the Chamber of Fire, has its inner space and roofs categorized based on direction; the parts that face the sanctified area and inwards are sanctified while those facing the unsanctified area and outwards are unsanctified. The status of the entire chamber is based on the location of its entrance when it comes to eating Holy Things. However, if it concerns matters of uncleanness, the sanctified parts of the chamber are only from the center of the wall inward. The behavior within the chamber also changes if it was built on the wall of either Jerusalem or the Temple courtyard. All of the temple chambers are entirely within the sanctified precinct. R. Yosé says that the scripturally-given borderlines of the Land of Israel are thought to be outside the Land of Israel while R. Eleazar b. R. Yosé counters that they are within the Land of Israel.

2:16 The status of second tithe produce that has been polluted in Jerusalem, regardless of whether it was tainted by a Father of uncleanness or an Offspring of uncleanness, and regardless of whether this occurred inside or outside of Jerusalem, are a matter of debate. The House of Shammai believes that all of it should be redeemed and consumed within Jerusalem. On the other hand, the House of Hillel holds the same position with the exception of items tainted by a Father of uncleanness outside of Jerusalem. These interpretations were shared by R. Meir. R. Judah puts forth that the House of Shammai only advocates for the consumption within Jerusalem of everything but items tainted by a Father of uncleanness outside of Jerusalem. The House of Hillel, he suggests, believes everything can be redeemed and eaten outside of Jerusalem except for items tainted by an Offspring of uncleanness within Jerusalem. R. Eliezer introduces another perspective, stating that if items are rendered unclean by a Father of uncleanness, regardless of the location, they should be redeemed and consumed outside of Jerusalem. If tainted by an Offspring of uncleanness, regardless of location, the items should be redeemed and consumed within Jerusalem. Adding to this discourse, R. Aqiba posits that items tainted outside of Jerusalem, whether by a Father or Offspring of uncleanness, should be redeemed and eaten outside of Jerusalem. Conversely, items tainted inside Jerusalem by either form of uncleanness should be redeemed and consumed within the city. R. Simeon B. Eleazar points out that the Houses of Shammai and Hillel did not disagree on matters relating to items polluted by a Father of uncleanness outside of Jerusalem or by an Offspring of uncleanness within Jerusalem. These, he says, should respectively be redeemed and consumed outside and within Jerusalem. The disagreements, according to him, concern items tainted by a Father of uncleanness within Jerusalem, and those tainted by an Offspring of uncleanness outside Jerusalem. The House of Shammai believes these items should be redeemed and consumed within Jerusalem, while the House of Hillel suggests they can be consumed anywhere post-redemption.

2:17 Items that have been purchased with coins designated as second tithe and have since been defiled, should be redeemed. However, R. Judah suggests they be buried instead. To this, he is questioned on whether it is his intention to impose stricter rules on secondary matters than on primary ones. In turn, R. Judah refers to a case where stricter rules are applied to what is deemed secondary. For instance, a substitute offering with a permanent blemish maintains its status of dedication for use on the altar. Yet, an animal originally proposed for dedication loses this status if it develops a permanent blemish. The challengers draw a parallel, saying that just like in the case of the substitute offering where the unblemished ones cannot be redeemed, but the blemished ones can, in matters of buying second tithe, clean items cannot be redeemed, but the unclean ones can.

2:18 When someone lends out jugs to hold wine bought with second-tithe coins, even if the jugs are sealed, the jugs themselves do not acquire the status of second tithe. This specifically pertains to jugs of wine. In contrast, whether sealed or not, jugs of brine, vinegar, fishbrine, oil, and honey are not subjected to the status of second tithe; they are neutralizing agents in a 1:100 ratio mixture with unconsecrated produce; and they do not sanctify any unconsecrated produce in any quantity if mixed. Acquisition of second-tithe status by jugs is dependent on whether all its contents hold second tithe status. If a quarter-log of unconsecrated liquid is left in the jug, regardless of whether the jug is sealed or not, it does not acquire the second tithe status. R. Simeon B. Eleazar establishes that the Houses of Shammai and Hillel did not disagree on the point of a seller needing to only open a cask of pressed grapes, without needing to pour it out, to indicate a desire to sell only the wine and not the cask. Disagreement arises on the matter of one pressing grapes in a vat. The House of Shammai contends that the seller should open the vat and pour its contents back in, while the House of Hillel opines that merely opening the vat is sufficient - no pour back is necessary.