Tosefta for Bava Kamma 220:3
לא צריכא דיהביה לידעיה במשמרתו דיהויריב מאי מי אמרינן כיון דלאו משמרתו הוא ולא כלום הוא או דלמא כיון דלא חזי ליה מעיקרא לידעיה קאי תיקו
during the time of the division of Jehoiarib. Now, what would be the law? Shall we say that since it was not in the time of his division, the restoration is of no avail, or perhaps since it would not do for Jehoiarib it was destined from the very outset to go to Jedaiah? — Let this stand undecided. Raba again asked: May the priests set [one payment for] a robbery committed upon a proselyte against another [payment for a] robbery committed upon a proselyte? Shall we say that since the Divine Law designated it <i>trespass</i>,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. p. 643, n. 8. ');"><sup>3</sup></span>
Tosefta Demai
[With respect to] spiced oils (i.e., aromatics made with spices typically subject to tithing), Bet Shammai holds [the mixture] liable and Bet Hillel exempts it (cf. Dem. 1:3). Rabbi Nathan said, "Bet Hillel did not exempt [tithing spiced oils] except as to balsam oil." Others say in the name of Rabbi Natan, "Bet Hillel rendered liable rose oil." [With respect to] replacements for heave offerings, or repayments of the value [of the produce] plus a fifth (i.e., the payment for which someone who consumes Terumah unwittingly is liable, see Ter. 6:1), or the surplus of the omer [offered on the 16th of Nissan], or the two loaves [from the new wheat offered on Shavuot], or the showbreads, or the leftovers of the grain offerings [after the priests have offered the required handful]" (see Bava Kamma 110b:14), Rabbi Shimon ben Yehudah says in the name of Rabbi Shimon, "Bet Shammai rendered liable and Bet Hillel exempted [these agricultural gifts]." And anyone who designates [any of these agricultural gifts] for second tithe, what he has done is done (i.e., there is no punishment but the sages do not approve).
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy