(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.)

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.

(Chachamim): For the earlier coins, there is no doubt; and for the last coin, it is certain that he transgresses.

(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.

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).)

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).

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...?

(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''.

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...?

Answer: After Reish Lakish asked the question earlier (and heard the response), he retracted and said that it does not depend on separating.