3:1 When someone transfers produce of a second tithe from an expensive location to a cheaper one, or vice versa, it is redeemed at the rate of the current location. This, as stated by R. Joshua b. Qorḥa, usually applies when the produce has been separated from doubtfully tithed produce. If the produce has been separated from certainly untithed produce, it is redeemed at the higher market price. However, produce in the status of a second tithe is redeemed at its lowest selling price, reflecting what the shopkeeper buys, not sells. R. Simeon b. Eleazar further clarified that this rate is the rate at which the shopkeeper buys produce of the same type.

3:2 When someone sells a silver dinar, which is a second tithe, it is sold at the higher rate at which the shopkeeper purchases products wholesale; not at the lower retail price.

3:3 When buying a gold dinar, which is a second tithe, it is purchased at the higher rate at which the moneychanger sells gold dinars, and not at the lower purchase price.

3:4 R. Judah suggests that one might profit a roba' (half a dinar) when transporting a gold dinar from one place to another, while R. Eliezer limits the potential profit to a silver dinar. When dealing with second tithe produce that has no value, the requirement is to say, “It and its added fifth are deconsecrated with this issur (one-twenty-fourth of a dinar).”

3:5 The value of a second tithe where the worth is unknown is determined by three bidders, not three non-bidding evaluators. This holds true even if one of the bidders is a gentile or the owner of the produce. The owner is obliged to open the bidding and if he states, “Lo, it is mine for an issar,” he is allowed to retract his bid if it is deemed unreasonable. Note that, in this case, the law is stricter for dedicated items than for second tithe products.

3:6 Second tithe items are not redeemed by estimation. For example, if one has deteriorating produce or old coins, one should not ask, “How much is one willing to pay for this collection?” Instead, one should ask, "How much produce is one willing to purchase for a sela'?” or “How many of these coins is one willing to buy for a dinar?” As per the weight of a coin, the amount it may lack before a second tithe may not be deconsecrated with it is outlined by R. Meir as four issars for a sela‘ and an issar for a dinar. However, if the coin weighs less than it should by more than allowed, it is used for deconsecration based on actual weight, not face value.

3:7 If someone sells untithed produce, the seller must take measures to rectify it. If the untithed produce still exists, the seller must separate the tithes. If it no longer exists, the seller has no obligation. If it is unclear, the seller separates the tithes on his own produce to compensate.

3:8 In case of a dispute between a buyer and seller over the tithed status of produce, the seller is forced to tithe his own produce for the buyer. If the royal authorities seize produce, the tithe requirements depend upon the type of seizure. If it was seized to repay the farmer’s debt, he must tithe it; if it was confiscated against his will, he does not have to tithe it.

3:9 As per Rabbi's words, someone who eats second tithe produce inappropriately, whether knowingly or unintentionally, should appeal to heaven for atonement. However, Rabban Simeon b. Gamaliel, distinguishes between the two cases, stating that for unintentional consumption, one should appeal to heaven, but in cases of intentional consumption, its value should be repaid.

3:10 This same rule applies when someone mistakenly uses coins that are a second tithe to buy produce to eat. According to Rabban Simeon b. Gamaliel, they appeal to heaven if it was a mistake and repay the value if it was on purpose. But, Rabbi suggests that whether the action was intentional or not, its value should be repaid.

3:11 Rabbi discusses the scenario of one who consumes untithed produce that belongs to another individual. According to his opinion, that person must reimburse the value of the untithed produce, including the would-be tithes. In contrast, R. Yosé b. R. Judah asserts that repayment should only cover the cost of the unconsecrated produce. If an Israelite consumes his own untithed produce, he is answerable to heaven. Yet, the priest has no claim against him, as stated in Num. 5:9. The priests can only claim produce after tithe separation. This rule also applies to a Levite that consumes his share before tithe separation.

3:12 Anyone who transports produce from the threshing-floor to the city and then separates the tithes to give to the priest, Levite, and pauper cannot deduct transport costs since the gifts had no claim before separation. In contrast, if the gifts were designated at the threshing-floor, the transporter can deduct transport costs. If a person sold untithed produce, firstling meat or possibly contaminated wine, the consumed products are considered eaten, and the seller should return the money. R. Simeon b. Eleazar differentiates between disgusting and not disgusting items. If a disgusting item is eaten accidentally, the seller should return the money.

3:13 Various actions involving the second tithe in Jerusalem, such as redemption, separation, deconsecration, and sales, are not permissible in the post-Temple era. Taking the second tithe out of Jerusalem is also not allowed. If someone took the tithe out of the city, it should be left to rot.

3:14 During the present age (the post-Temple era), if coins considered as the second tithe are deconsecrated with produce in Jerusalem, the House of Shammai insists the coins and the produce retain their second-tithe status, but the House of Hillel argues each retains their original status.

3:15 The House of Hillel espouses the view that one separates the first tithe from doubtfully tithed produce, removes its heave-offering, consumes it, and does not need to separate the second tithe. Contrarily, the House of Shammai insist second tithe also needs to be separate, with the rationale: if the second tithe had been removed, the first one surely has been removed, but if the first one has been removed, the second one has not necessarily been removed.

3:16 R. Eliezer is of the view that a person who separates the second tithe is reliable to have separated the first. However, the Sages argue that such a person is only trustworthy regarding the first tithe if he proves his trustworthiness regarding the second. They further note that if he's reliable regarding the second tithe, he's not necessarily trustworthy with the first.

3:17 If a person declares that the second tithe in a certain item is deconsecrated with a particular coin but fails to specify the location of the tithe, there are opposing views on the validity of the consecration. R. Simeon asserts it is valid while Sages contend it isn't until the location is specified.

3:18 Rabban Simeon b. Gamaliel, R. Judah, and R. Yosé visit a householder in Akhzib and question the readiness of his produce. On sensing their concern, the householder presents a chest full of gold dinars, arguing that he deconsecrates his second tithe with these coins. However, the guests inform him that while he may have gained the coins, he has neglected to separate his second tithe properly hence risking his life.

3:19 When a ḥaber dies and leaves produce, it is assumed to be properly tithed, even if he dies on the same day he brought it in from the field.