Related for Eruvin 74:3
וחכ"א צריך לעשר איפוך
so R'Jose, but the Sages ruled: He must tithe it?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Dem. VI ad fin. Since no mention was made at the time of purchase as to which bundle or loaf was for the haber and which for the 'am ha-arez every part of the purchase is regarded as that of the haber, and that part of it which he subsequently gives to the 'and ha-arez is regarded as a partial sale of his own purchase. As a haber must not sell to an 'am ha-arez any demai he must tithe it before he gives it to him. Now since R. Jose ruled that the haber need not tithe it he is obviously of the opinion that the rule of bererah holds, so that when the 'am ha-arez selects, or the haber selects for him his part of the purchase the selection is deemed to be retrospective. How then could it be maintained that R. Jose does not uphold bererah?');"><sup>7</sup></span> Reverse [the rulings].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That attributed to the Sages is really that of R. Jose and vice versa.');"><sup>8</sup></span> Come and hear: If a man said: 'let the [second] tithe which I have in my house be redeemed with the sela' that would happen to come from my purse into my hand' it is, said R'Jose, redeemed?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Tosef. M.Sh. IV; even before the sela' actually came into his hand. Now, since in the absence of the rule of bererah it could not be asserted that the sela' which was taken out later was the very coin which the man originally intended for the redemption, it follows that R. Jose upholds bererah. How then could it be maintained supra that the rule of bererah is not upheld by R. Jose?');"><sup>9</sup></span> - Reverse [the rulings and] read: R'Jose said: It is not redeemed'.