משנה: הַתְּרוּמָה וּתְרוּמַת מַעֲשֵׂר שֶׁל דְּמַאי הַחַלָּה וְהַבִּיכּוּרִין עוֹלִין בְּאֶחָד וּמֵאָה וּמִצְטָֽרְפִין זֶה עִם זֶה וְצָרִיךְ לְהָרִים. הֶעָרְלָה וְכִלְאֵי הַכֶּרֶם עוֹלִין בְּאֶחָד וּמָאתַיִם וּמִצְטָֽרְפִין זֶה עִם זֶה וְאֵינוֹ צָרִיךְ לְהָרִים. רִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֵר אֵינָן מִצְטָֽרְפִין. רִבִּי לִיעֶזֶר אוֹמֵר מִצְטָֽרְפִין בְּנוֹתֵן טַעַם אֲבָל לֹא לֶאֱסוֹר. MISHNAH: Heave, heave of the tithe of demay1All mss. of the Maimonides tradition and many of the better Mishnah mss. read: Heave, heave of the tithe, and heave of the tithe of demay. This text is understood in the Halakhah. By definition of demay, there is no heave of demay. Since both ḥallah and First Fruits are called “heave”, they follow the rules of heave., ḥallah, and First Fruits are lifted by one and 1002Mishnah Terumot 4:7., they combine with one another3If, e. g., heave, heave of the tithe, and ḥallah fell into profane dough, the dough remains permitted for lay people only if the profane was at least 100 times the combined volume of the three “heave” kinds., and one has to remove4Before the mixture is permitted to lay people one has to remove a volume equal to that which fell into the profane and give it to the Cohen under the rules of heave. The first hand of the Leyden ms. has: “One need not remove”.. ‘Orlah and vineyard kilaim are lifted by one and 200, they combine with one another, and one need not remove5Since they are forbidden for any use, they have no owners to which the removed part should be given. It is enough that the forbidden parts are so few that they can be considered non-existent.. Rebbi Simeon says, they do not combine. Rebbi Eliezer6In most Mishnah mss. and the Halakhah: R. Eleazar. This reading is required since he is mentioned after R. Simeon. says they combine in matters of perceiving the taste7As long as the taste of one is recognizable in the other. But if 1/201 ‘orlah and 1/201 vineyard kilaim fall into permitted food everything is permitted since each of the forbidden quantities is less than 1/201 of the remaining material. but not to forbid.
הלכה: הַתְּרוּמָה וּתְרוּמַת מַעֲשֵׂר כול׳. לְמִי נִצְרְכָה לְרִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן. אַף עַל גַּב דְּרִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אָמַר אֵין שְׁנֵי שֵׁמוֹת מִצְטָֽרְפִין. מוֹדֵי שֶׁכּוּלְּהֹן לְשֵׁם תְּרוּמָה מִצְטָֽרְפִין. HALAKHAH: “Heave and heave of the tithe”, etc. For whom is this8The statement that all the categories mentioned in the first statement combine. needed? For Rebbi Simeon. Even though Rebbi Simeon says that two different names do not combine, he agrees that all items called “heave” do combine.
מָאן תַּנָּא תְּרוּמַת מַעֲשֵׂר שֶׁל דְּמַאי רִבִּי מֵאִיר. דְּרִבִּי מֵאִיר מַחְמִיר בְּדִבְרֵיהֶן כְּדִבְרֵי תוֹרָה. וְהָא אַשְׁכְּחָן דְּרִבִּי מֵאִיר מַחְמִיר בְּדִבְרֵיהֶן כְּדִבְרֵי תוֹרָה. אָמַר רִבִּי חֲנִינָה הַהִיא דְתַנִּינָן תַּמָּן הָרוֹאָה כֶתֶם הֲרֵי זוֹ מְקוּלְקֶלֶת וְחוֹשֶׁשֶׁת מִשּׁוּם זוֹב דִּבְרֵי רִבִּי מֵאִיר. וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים אֵין בִּכְתָמִין מִשּׁוּם זוֹב. Who stated “heave of the tithe of demay”? Rebbi Meïr, since Rebbi Meïr is as strict with their word as with the words of the Torah9Since the institution of demay is rabbinic, the rules for heave of the tithe of demay are more lenient than those for biblical heave; cf. Introduction to Tractate Demay. Only R. Meïr does not recognize these differences.. Where do we find that Rebbi Meïr is as strict with their word as with the words of the Torah? Rebbi Ḥanina said, the following which we have stated there10Mishnah Niddah 6:13. A woman finding a blood stain on her underwear at a time when she does not expect her period does not know when to expect her next period since possibly the stain comes from menstrual blood. A woman is impure by flux if she has episodes for three successive days at a time when menstrual blood is excluded. In that case, she may not enter the Temple without bringing a sacrifice of purification (Lev. 15:29–30). R. Meïr requires a sacrifice because of the possibility of impurity but the sacrifice of purification may not be eaten by the Cohanim since possibly it was unnecessary.: “A woman who sees a stain [on her clothes] is out of order and must consider the possibility of flux, the words of Rebbi Meïr. But the Sages say that stains do not imply flux11Since the verse (Lev. 15:25) requires “blood flowing”, the impurity of stains is purely rabbinical. In the Babli, Niddah 52b, the position of the “Sages” is also considered a minority opinion, attributable to R. Ḥanina ben Antigonos. Since the later chapters of the Yerushalmi Niddah are lost, we do not know the position of the Yerushalmi in this matter..”
רִבִּי יוֹנָה בָּעֵי וְלָמָּה לֹא תַנִּינָן חַלַּת דְּמַיי כְּמַה דְתַנִּינָן חַלָּה. לֹא נִיתְנֵי חַלַּת דְּמַאי. וְהָתַנִּינָן תְּרוּמָה וּתְרוּמַת מַעֲשֵׂר וּתְרוּמַת מַעֲשֵׂר שֶׁלְדְּמַאי. רִבִּי חֲנַנְיָה בְשֵׁם שְׁמוּאֵל דְּמַאי צָרִיךְ חַלָּה. אָמַר לוֹ רִבִּי חִייָה בַּר לוּלִיאָנִי נוֹטֵל הוּא דָמָיו מִן הַשֵּׁבֶט. אָמַר לֵיהּ כֵּן אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל שֶׁהוּא נוֹטֵל דָּמָיו מִן הַשֵּׁבֶט. רִבִּי מָנָא בְשֵׁם רִבִּי יוֹסֵי אֵינוֹ נוֹטֵל דָּמָיו מִן הַשֵּׁבֶט לְמָחָר הוּא מֵבִיא װַדַּאי וְאוֹמֵר דְּמַיי הוּא כְּדֵי לִיטּוֹל מִמֶּנּוּ דָמִים. Rebbi Jonah asked: Why did we not also state “ḥallah of demay”15Which one takes if he buys bread from an untrustworthy baker; Demay Mishnah 5:3. as we did state “ḥallah”? Should we not state “ḥallah of demay” as we did state: “Heave, heave of the tithe and heave of the tithe of demay”? Rebbi Ḥanania in the name of Samuel: Demay does not need ḥallah. Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Julianus said to him, one takes its value from the tribe. He answered him, that is what Samuel said, one takes its value from the tribe16This explains the cryptic first statement of R. Samuel. One has to take ḥallah if one buys bread from an untrustworthy baker but one may sell it to a Cohen. Since the Cohen has to eat even the demay ḥallah under the rules of purity of heave, he will not pay much for the ḥallah.. Rebbi Mana in the name of Rebbi Yose: One does not take its value from the tribe; tomorrow he will bring certain [ḥallah] and say it is demay in order to take its value from the tribe!
רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן שָׁאַל לְגַמְלִיאֵל זוּגָא נְהִיגִין אַתּוּן מַפְקִין חַלָּה מִן דְּמַייא אָמַר לֵיהּ לֹא כֵן אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל אַחֲוָה דְרַב בְּרֶכְיָה בְּשָׁעָה שֶׁגָּֽזְרוּ עַל הַדְּמַאי רוֹב הָעָם מַפְרִישִׁין אוֹתוֹ לְתוֹךְ בָּתֵּיהֶן. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹסֵי בֵּירִבִּי בּוּן תְּנַיי בֵּית דִּין שֶׁתְּהֵא חַלָּתוֹ בִּצְפוֹן צְפוֹנוֹ. Rebbi Joḥanan asked Gamliel the Twin: Are you used to take ḥallah from demay? He answered him, did not Samuel, the brother of Rav Berekhia17Galilean Amora of the fourth generation; he is not identical with his contemporary R. Samuel quoted in the preceding paragraph. Elsewhere he is given the title of Rebbi. The Gamliel the Twin who quotes him cannot be the younger contemporary of R. Joḥanan; he must be the Gamliel who asks a question from the fifth generation R. Yose ben R. Abun (Šeqalim 3:2)., say that from the moment they decreed demay, most people separate it in their houses18Since everybody takes extra ḥallah from bread he buys from an untrustworthy baker, we certainly do take it.? Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, it is a condition of the court that ḥallah be in the Northernmost part19He disagrees with Gamliel the Twin and asserts that if heave of the tithe is taken from demay in the prescribed way (Demay 5:2, Note 44), one always should take heave of the tithe from the Northernmost part in order to make the procedure routine; then automatically the Northernmost part is ḥallah if obligated for it. In that way, tithing demay automatically takes care of ḥallah..
וְעוֹלִין בְּאֶחָד וּמֵאָה. מָה אַתְּ עָבִיד לָהּ כִּתְחִילַּת הַפְרָשָׁה אוֹ כְּסוֹף הַפְרָשָׁה. אִין תֵּימַר כִּתְחִילַּת הַפְרָשָׁה אֵין הַקָּטָן מַעֲלֶה וְאֵין אַחֵר מַעֲלֶה וְאֵינוֹ דוֹחֶה אֶת הַשַּׁבָּת. וְאִין תְּעַבְדִינֵיהּ כְּסוֹף הַקָּטָן מַעֲלֶה וְאַחֵר מַעֲלֶה וְדוֹחֶה אֶת הַשַּׁבָּת. תַּמָּן תַּנִּינָן רִבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר אַף מַעֲלִין אֶת הַמְּדוּמָּע בְּאֶחָד וּמֵאָה. וְתַנִּי עֲלָהּ רִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן אֶלְעָזָר אוֹמֵר אִם רָצָה נוֹתֵן עֵינָיו בְּמִקְצָתוֹ וְאוֹכֵל אֶת הַשְּׁאָר. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹנָה רִבִּי יוּדָה עָבַד כְּסוֹף הַפְרָשָׁה וְרִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן אֶלְעָזָר עָבַד לָהּ כִּתְחִילַּת הַפְרָשָׁה. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹסֵי אַף רִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן אֶלְעָזָר עָבַד לָהּ כְּסוֹף הַפְרָשָׁה. וְלֹא מוֹדֵי רִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן אֶלְעָזָר שֶׁאָסוּר לַעֲשׂוֹת כֵּן בְּוַדַּאי. מַאי כְדוֹן וּבִלְבַד שֶׁלֹּא יַעֲשֶׂה בְּשַׁבָּת כְּדֶרֶךְ שֶׁהוּא עוֹשֶׂה בְּחוֹל. “And are lifted by one and 100”. How do you treat it, as beginning of separation or end of separation20Does it follow the rules of separation of heave (Terumot Chapter 1) or more lenient ones?? If you say as beginning of separation, no minor may lift21Mishnah Terumot 1:1., no unrelated person may lift21Mishnah Terumot 1:1., and it does not push away the Sabbath22Mishnah Šabbat 2:6.. If you treat it as end of separation, a minor may lift, an unrelated person may lift, and it does push away the Sabbath. There we have stated23Mishnah Šabbat 21:1. In Tosephta Šabbat 15:5, but not in the quote Babli Šabbat 142b, this is an anonymous statement.: “Rebbi Jehudah says, also one may lift dema‘ by one in a hundred.” On that, it was stated24Tosephta Šabbat 15:5. There, and in the quote of the Tosephta in the Babli Šabbat 142b, the clause “if he wishes” is missing. In that version, R. Simeon ben Eleazar forbids lifting heave from dema‘ on the Sabbath except by mentally designating the part where the heave has to be lifted and eating the remainder, leaving the actual lifting to the time after the Sabbath.: “Rebbi Simeon ben Eleazar says, if he wishes he earmarks part of it and eats the remainder.” Rebbi Jonah said, Rebbi Judah treated it as end of separation and Rebbi Simeon ben Eleazar treated it as beginning of separation25He holds with the Babli that R. Simeon ben Eleazar is restrictive where R. Jehudah is permissive.. Rebbi Yose said, even Rebbi Simeon ben Eleazar treated it as end of separation26He reads the Yerushalmi text of the Tosephta as not prescriptive.. Does not Rebbi Simeon ben Eleazar agree that it is forbidden to do so with certain [produce]27Since untithed produce is not legally edible, it cannot be used on the Sabbath and cannot be made usable on the Sabbath.? How is that? He should never do it on the Sabbath the way he does it on a weekday28R. Simeon ben Eleazar does not disagree with R. Jehudah. R. Jehudah does not tell how dema‘ can be lifted on the Sabbath; R. Simeon suggests a way in which it can be done legally..
תַּמָּן תַּנִּינָן רִבִּי לִיעֶזֶר אוֹמֵר תְּרוּמָה עוֹלָה בְּאֶחָד וּמֵאָה. רִבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ אוֹמֵר בְּמֵאָה וְעוֹד. תַּמָּן אָמַר חִזְקִיָּה רִבִּי אַבָּהוּ בְּשֵׁם רִבִּי לָֽעְזָר כָּל־מָקוֹם שֶׁשִּׁנֶּה רִבִּי מַחֲלוֹקֶת וְאַחַר כָּךְ חָזַר וְשִׁנֶּה סְתָם הֲלָכָה כִסְתָם. מִן מַה דְתַנִּינָן סְאָה תְרוּמָה שֶׁנָּֽפְלָה לְמֵאָה וְאָמַר רִבִּי לָֽעְזָר לֵית כָּאן לוֹמַר לְתוֹךְ מֵאָה אֶלָּא לְתוֹךְ תִּשְׁעִים וְתִשְׁעָה. כְּמַה דְתַנִּינָן רִבִּי לִיעֶזֶר וְרִבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ. There, we have stated29Mishnah Terumot 4:7, Note 62.: “Rebbi Eliezer says, heave is lifted at the rate of one in 100. Rebbi Joshua says by 100 and more.” There30Pesaḥim 3:3 (fol. 30b); Ta‘aniot2:14 (fol. 66a), both in the name of Rebbi Ḥizqiah. In the Babli, the statement is anonymous (Avodah Zarah7a, Yebamot 42b)., [Rebbi] Ḥizqiah, Rebbi Abbahu said in the name of Rebbi Eleazar, everywhere where Rebbi taught a disagreement and returned to the problem later and taught it anonymously, practice follows the anonymous opinion. Since we have stated: “A seah of heave which fell into 100” and Rebbi Eleazar said, one cannot say “into 100” but “into 99.” As we have stated, Rebbi Eliezer and Rebbi Joshua31Usually, practice follows R. Joshua against R. Eliezer. Since R. Eleazar requires only 99+1 = 100, he follows R. Eliezer who is supported by the anonymous Mishnah here..
מְנַייִן שֶׁהֵן עוֹלִין. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹנָה כְּתִיב מִכָּל־חֶלְבּוֹ אֶת מִקְדְּשׁוֹ מִמֶּנּוּ. דָּבָר שֶׁאַתְּ מֵרִים מִמֶּנוּ שֶׁאִם יִפּוֹל לְתוֹכוֹ הוּא מְקַדְּשׁוֹ. וְכַמָּה הוּא אֶחָד מִמֵּאָה. רִבִּי לִיעֶזֶר אוֹמֵר מוֹסִיף סְאָה וּמַעֲלֶה. רִבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ אוֹמֵר מוֹסִיף כָּל־שֶׁהוּא וּמַעֲלֶה. רִבִּי יוֹסֵי בֶּן מְשׁוּלָּם אוֹמֵר וְעוֹד קַב לְמֵאָה סְאָה שְׁתוּת לִמְדוּמָּע. 32This is in Terumot Chapter 4; Notes 64–66. From where that they may be lifted? Rebbi Jonah said, it is written (Num. 18:29): “From all its best its sanctifying part from it.” Something from which you lift it, so that if this falls into anything it sanctifies it. How much is this? One in one hundred. Rebbi Eliezer says, one adds a seah and then lifts. Rebbi Joshua says one adds a small amount and lifts. Rebbi Yose ben Meshullam says “and more” is one qab per one hundred seah, one sixth of what makes dema‘.
תַּנֵּי רִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֵר תְּרוּמָה עוֹלָה בְּמֵאָה מִקַּל וָחוֹמֶר. אִם אִיסּוּר מִתּוֹךְ אִיסּוּר עוֹלֶה אִיסּוּר מִתּוֹךְ הֵיתֵר לֹא כָּל־שֶׁכֵּן. תְּרוּמָה אִית תַּנָּויֵי תַנֵּי אִיסּוּר מִתּוֹךְ הֵיתֵר. וְאִית תַּנָּיֵי תַנֵּי הֵיתֵר מִתּוֹךְ הֵיתֵר. מָאן דְּאָמַר אִיסּוּר מִתּוֹךְ הֵיתֵר שֶׁכֵּן תְּרוּמָה אֲסוּרָה לְזָרִים. מָאן דְּאָמַר הֵיתֵר מִתּוֹךְ הֵיתֵר שֶׁכֵּן תְּרוּמָה מוּתֶּרֶת לַכֹּהֲנִים. אִית דְּפָתַר לָהּ כּוּלָּהּ לַכֹּהֲנִים מָאן דְּאָמַר אִיסּוּר מִתּוֹךְ הֵיתֵר בִּמְדוּמָע בִּתְרוּמָה טְמֵיאָה. מָאן דְּאָמַר הֵיתֵר מִתּוֹךְ הֵיתֵר בִּמְדוּמָע בִּתְרוּמָה טְהוֹרָה. It was stated33A similar, anonymous, text in Sifry Num. 121. In a different formulation, the argument is quoted in Tosephta Terumot 5:8, where, however, it is immediately rejected and proven false.: “Rebbi Simeon says, heave can be lifted in 100 by a conclusion a minore ad majus: If what is forbidden can be lifted from what is forbidden34Heave, forbidden to lay people, is lifted from ṭevel, forbidden to everybody, to make it profane and permitted for everybody., so much more what is forbidden from what is permitted35Heave taken out from profane food turned into dema‘.!” Heave, some Tannaïm state “what is forbidden from what is permitted;” some Tannaïm state “what is permitted from what is permitted.” He who says “what is forbidden from what is permitted”, because heave is forbidden to lay persons. He who says “what is permitted from what is permitted”, because heave is permitted to Cohanim. Some explain it all about Cohanim: He who says “what is forbidden from what is permitted”, in the case of dema‘ by impure heave36In this case, what is lifted as replacement heave has to be burned.. He who says “permitted from what is permitted”, in the case of dema‘ by pure heave.
תַּנֵּי פְּרוּסָה שֶׁלְלֶחֶם הַפָּנִים שֶׁנִּתְעָֽרְבָה בְּמֵאָה פְרוּסוֹת שֶׁלְחוּלִין וְכֵן חֲתִיכָה שֶׁלְחַטָּאת שֶׁנִּתְעָֽרְבָה בְּמֵאָה חֲתִיכוֹת שֶׁלְחוּלִין לֹא יַעֲלוּ. רִבִּי יוּדָה אוֹמֵר יַעֲלוּ. מַה טַעֲמָא דְּרִבִּי יוּדָה. וְשֶׂה אֶחָד מִן הַצֹֹּאן וּמִן הַמָּאתַיִם מִמַּשְׁקֶה יִשְׂרָאֵל. מִדָּבָר שֶׁהוּא מוּתָּר לְיִשְׂרָאֵל. וְקַשְׁיָא כְּתִיב מָאתַיִם וְרִבִּי יוּדָה אוֹמֵר מֵאָה. כְּתִיב חַיִים וְרִבִּי יוּדָה אוֹמֵר שְׁחוּטִין. מַה בֵין חַיִים לִשְׁחוּטִין. רִבִּי חִינְנָא אָמַר חַיִין עָשׂוּ אוֹתָן כְּדָבָר שֶׁדַּרְכּוֹ לְהִימָּנוֹת. It was stated38Tosephta Terumot 8:21, in inverse order and with the position of R. Jehudah and the anonymous majority switched. Tosephta 8:22 deals with the same case but assumes that the pieces are impure. This implies that 8:21 (and the text here) deals with pure pieces. Both parts, incompatible with the Yerushalmi, are quoted in Babli Yebamot 81b.: “A piece of the showbread which was mixed with a hundred pieces of profane [bread], or a piece of purification sacrifice mixed with a hundred profane pieces [of meat], should not be lifted39It is not clear whether they cannot be lifted because a kind cannot become negligible in its own kind or whether sacrifices follow specific, more stringent, rules.. Rebbi Jehudah says they should be lifted.” What is the reason of Rebbi Jehudah? (Ez. 45:15) “One sheep from 200 from the drink of Israel,” from what is permitted to Israel40The full verse reads: “One sheep, from 200 from the drink of Israel, for cereal offering, burnt offering, and well-being offerings, to atone for them - speech of the Lord, the Eternal.”
Rashi explains: “One sheep,” a particular one from his flock; and so Moses said, (Deut. 12:11) “the best for your vows,” meaning le meilleur. “From 200 from the drink of Israel,” Our teachers explained this for the wine offering accompanying sacrifices. If 200 [volume units] were left in the vat one [volume unit] of ‘orlah or vineyard kilaim fell into the vat, that they become insignificant by one in 200. “From the drink of Israel,” that all sacrifices should be from what is permitted to Israel, where all food is subsumed under the appellation of “drink”.. It is difficult! It is written 200 and Rebbi Jehudah says 10041This objection is not answered. It seems that the question depends on the definition of “Israel” in the verse. If “Israel” means “some of Israel”, then the verse does not deal with the case of heave because that is permitted to Cohanim, it would be “drink of Israel.” If “Israel” means “all of Israel”, then one would expect that heave also needs 200 for lifting.. It is written alive42“A sheep” means a living sheep. and Rebbi Jehudah says slaughtered. What is the difference between alive and slaughtered? Rebbi Ḥinena said, they considered live ones under the category of what usually is counted43These never become insignificant, Mishnah 3:6..
עַד כְּדוֹן דָּבָר שֶׁהוּא מַעֲלֶה וּמַתִּיר לְהֶדְיוֹט. דָּבָר שֶׁהוּא מַעֲלֶה וּמַתִּיר לַגָּבוֹהַּ. נִישְׁמְעִינָהּ מִן הָדָא וְאַחַר יֹאכַל מִן הַקֳּדָשִׁים כִּי לַחְמוֹ הוּא. יֵשׁ לָךְ קֳדָשִׁים שֶׁאֵינוֹ אוֹכֵל בָּהֶן פְּרָט לְעֵירוּבִין וּלְיֶתֶר מִמֵּאָה. So far something than one lifts and thereby permits for lay persons. Something one lifts and permits for Heaven44Heave is considered Heaven’s property given to the Cohen.? Let us hear from the following: 45Sifra Emor Pereq 4(10). There, the reading is לעירובים לפחות ממאה “mixtures in less than 100 parts.” The paragraph deals with sanctified food eaten outside the Temple precinct, the common example of which is heave.(Lev. 22:7) “ ‘After that he shall eat from46מן is taken as partitive: some, not all, is permitted the pure Cohen. the holy foods because it is his bread.’ There exists holy food which he does not eat; that excludes mixtures of more than one in 100”47If the forbidden (impure) is more than 1/100 of the permitted (pure) heave..
אֵין לִי אֶלָּא בְּאוֹכְלֵי תְרוּמָה כְאוֹכְלֵי תְרוּמָה. מְנַיִין אוֹכְלֵי תְרוּמָה כְאוֹכְלֵי חוּלִין. אוֹכְלֵי חוּלִין כְּאוֹכְלֵי תְרוּמָה. אוֹכְלֵי תְרוּמָה כְאוֹכלֵי קוֹדֶשׁ אוֹכְלֵי קוֹדֶשׁ כְּאוֹכְלֵי תְרוּמָה. מַשְׁקֶה תְרוּמָה כְמַשְׁקֶה חוּלִין. מַשְׁקֶה חוּלִין כְּמַשְׁקֶה תְרוּמָה. מַשְׁקֶה תְרוּמָה כְמַשְׁקֶה קוֹדֶשׁ. מַשְׁקֶה קוֹדֶשׁ כְּמַשְׁקֶה תְרוּמָה. מַשְׁקֶה קוֹדֶשׁ כְּמַשְׁקֶה קוֹדֶשׁ. מְנַיִין תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר מִן הַקֳּדָשִׁים רִיבָה. רִבִּי אָבִין בְּשֵׁם רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן תִּיפְתָּר בְּלוֹג שֶׁמֶן שֶׁלְמְצוֹרָע שֶׁנִּתְעָרֵב בְּמוֹתָר רְקִיקֵי מִנְחַת נָזִיר. וְהָתַנֵּי מַשְׁקֶה. שְׁנַיִם. אָמַר רִבִּי חֲנַנְיָה הָדָא אָֽמְרָה עוֹלוֹת בְּעוֹלוֹת. אֲבָל חַטָּאת בְּעוֹלוֹת הֲרֵי יֵשׁ כָּאן װַדַּאי בְּלֹא תַעֲשֶׂה. 48Sifra Emor Pereq 4(11). The explanation follows R. Abraham ben David ad loc.“Not only heave food in heave food49Impure heave in pure heave. An impure Cohen who eats pure heave has committed a deadly sin since it is said: (Lev. 22:9) “They will die from it because they desecrated it.” Impure heave is already desecrated; an impure priest eating it commits a sin but not a deadly one. The impure heave cannot become insignificant in pure since the two are of the same kind.; from where heave food in profane food50One seah of heave in less than 100 seot of pure (and certainly one seah of pure in less than 100 seot of heave) must all be treated as heave., profane food in heave food, heave food in sacrificial food, sacrificial food in heave food, heave drink in heave drink, heave drink in profane drink, profane drink in heave drink, heave drink in sacrificial drink, sacrificial drink in heave drink, sacrificial drink in sacrificial drink? From where? The verse says (Lev. 22:7) ‘From the holy foods51The plural implies all kinds of sanctified food. The singular is used in v. 10.’, it adds.” Rebbi Abin in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Explain it if the log of oil of the skin-diseased was mixed with the excess of the loaves of the gift of the nazir52This explains a possible complication of “sacrificial drink in sacrificial drink”. The person healed from his skin disease has to bring a reparation offering together with a log of oil (Lev. 14). Part of the oil is used on the healed person’s body; the remainder is for the Cohen under the rules of the reparation offering; it must be consumed by priests in the Temple precincts. The nazir who has completed his vow has to bring sacrifices and a cereal offering consisting of unleavened bread made from flour mixed with oil and unleavened bread anointed with oil (Num. 6:13–20). The officiating Cohen receives one of these as gift added to the nazir’s well-being sacrifice; therefore, the loaves may be eaten by the Cohen’s family anywhere in the city of the sanctuary. If there is a mix-up of the oils, the anointed loaves can be eaten only by the Cohen in the Temple precinct.; so we have stated, two drinks. Rebbi Ḥanania said, that means burned offerings in burned offerings; but purification offerings in burned offerings is certainly a prohibition53A mixture of pieces of elevation and purification offerings cannot be brought to the altar since of purification offerings only the fat and some inner organs are burned. They cannot be eaten since elevation sacrifices are forbidden for any use. They cannot become insignificant because (a) they are of the same kind of meat and (b) they are counted as pieces. Therefore, one has to leave the meat for the next day when all will be forbidden and has to be burned..
הֵיךְ סָבַר רִבִּי יוּדָה כְּרִבִּי לִיעֶזֶר אוֹ כְּרִבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ. כְּרִבִּי לִיעֶזֶר מַעֲלֶה וְאוֹכֵל. כְּרִבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ מַעֲלֶה וְשׂוֹרֵף. How does Rebbi Jehudah think54This refers to the statement above, Note 38, about pieces of showbread or purification sacrifices mixed with profane substances., following Rebbi Eliezer or Rebbi Joshua55Their disagreement is in Mishnah Terumot 5:2. R. Eliezer holds that the piece lifted is the piece that fell in; according to the Sages, whose opinion is labelled that of R. Joshua, the nature of the piece lifted is unknown. Therefore, in the opinion of the Sages the nature of the piece lifted is indeterminate between profane and sanctified; it cannot be eaten and must be burned.? Following Rebbi Eliezer he lifts and eats; following Rebbi Joshua he lifts and burns.
מָאן תַּנָּא אֵין מִצְטָֽרְפִין זֶה עִם זֶה רִבִּי מֵאִיר דְּּאָמַר רִבִּי אַבָּהוּ בְּשֵׁם רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן דִּבְרֵי רִבִּי מֵאִיר כָּל־הָאִסּוּרִין מִצְטָֽרְפִין לִלְקוֹת עֲלֵיהֶן בִּכְזַיִת מִשּׁוּם לֹא תֹאכַל כָּל־תּוֹעֵבָה. Who stated “they combine with one another”? Rebbi Meïr, since Rebbi Abbahu said in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan56Quoted in Babli Avodah Zarah66a. In the printed version (not in the Munich ms.) “R. Jehudah in the name of R. Meïr”, a most unlikely text since R. Jehudah was half a generation older than R. Meïr.: The word of Rebbi Meïr is that all forbidden [foods] combine with one another to whip for them in the volume of an olive since it says: (Deut. 14:3) “You shall not eat any abomination57There is one law which covers all forbidden food. Therefore, if somebody is warned not to eat any abomination he can be convicted if he ate the volume of an olive composed of several tiny pieces forbidden for different reasons..”
הָכָא אַתְּ אָמַר צָרִיךְ לְהָרִים. וְהָכָא אַתְּ אָמַר אֵינוֹ צָרִיךְ לְהָרִים. רִבִּי יַעֲקֹב בַּר זַבְדִּי רִבִי אַבָּהוּ בְּשֵׁם רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן מִפְּנֵי גֶזֶל הַשֵּׁבֶט. וְתַנֵּי כֵן כָּל־תְּרוּמָה שֶׁאֵין הַכֹּהֲנִים מַקְפִּידִין עָלֶיהָ כְּגוֹן תְּרוּמַת הַכְּלֵיסִין וְהֶחָרוּבִין וּשְׂעוֹרִין שֶׁבְּאֶדּוֹם אֵינוֹ צָרִיךְ לְהָרִים. Here60Regarding heave., you say one has to lift, but there61‘Orlah and kilaim. you say, one does not have to lift! Rebbi Jacob bar Zavdi, Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, because of robbing the tribe62Lifting is a rabbinic decree, not to cause damage to the Cohanim, since things become insignificant if they are in amounts less than 1%. Since ‘orlah and kilaim are worthless, they do not have to be lifted.. Also, it was stated thus63A similar text Tosephta Terumot5:6, in the names of R. Simeon and R. Ismael from Shezur.: “Any heave for which the Cohanim do not care, e. g., the heave of kelesin64Cf. Terumot 11:4, Note 60; Ma‘serot 2, Note 134., carob, and red barley, one does not have to lift.”
הֶעָרְלָה וְכִלְאֵי כֶּרֶם עוֹלִין בְּאֶחָד וּמָאתַיִים. מְנַיִין שֶׁהֵן עוֹלִין. כְּתִיב מְלֵיאָה מְלֵיאָה מַה מְלֵיאָה שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר לְהַלָּן עוֹלָה אַף כָּאן עוֹלָה. אִי מַה כָאן מֵאָה אַף כָָּאן מֵאָה. לְפִי שֶׁכָּפַל הַכָּתוּב אִיסּוּרוֹ שִׁינּוּ חֲכָמִים חִייוּבוֹ. עַד כְּדוֹן כִּלְאֵי הַכֶּרֶם עָרְלָה מְנַיִין. מַה זוֹ אִיסּוּר הֲנָייָה אַף זוֹ אִיסּוּר הֲנָייָה. מַה זוֹ עוֹלָה אַף זוֹ עוֹלָה. “ ‘Orlah and vineyard kilaim are lifted by one and 200.” It is written “the fulness, the fulness.65Heave is called “fulness” in Ex. 22:28, Num. 18:27. In Deut. 22:9, what grows in a vineyard is called “fulness”.” Just as “the fulness” which has been said there is lifted, so “the fulness” here is lifted. Then, as there by 100, so here by 100. Since the verse doubled its prohibition, the Sages changed its obligation66The change from 100 to 200 is rabbinic; it is only based on a biblical hint. “Double the prohibition” is prohibition for Cohanim and laymen, in contrast to heave which only is forbidden to laymen. The position of the Yerushalmi here seems to be that lifting by one in 100 would be a biblical decree if heave were biblical.. So for vineyard kilaim, what about ‘orlah? Just as that is forbidden for all use, so this is forbidden for all use; just as that is lifted, so this is lifted.
עַד כְּדוֹן כְּרִבִּי עֲקִיבָה כְּרִבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל. רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן בְּשֵׁם רִבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל קַל וָחוֹמֶר. מַה אִם תְּרוּמָה שֶׁהִיא אֲסוּרָה לְזָרִים הֲרֵי זוֹ עוֹלָה. עָרלָה שֶׁהִיא מוּתֶּרֶת לְזָרִים לֹא כָּל־שֶׁכֵּן. לֹא אִם אָֽמְרָת בִּתְרוּמָה שֶׁהֲנָייָתָהּ מוּתָּר. תֹּאמַר בְּעָרְלָה שֶׁהֲנָייָתָהּ אֲסוּרָה. רִבִּי חִינְנָא פֶּרִי פֶּרִי גְּזֵירָה שָׁוָה. So far following Rebbi Aqiba, following Rebbi Ismael67The previous informal derivation is attributed to R. Aqiba; R. Ismael allows only formal derivations based on one of the principles enumerated in the Introduction to Sifra.? Rebbi Joḥanan in the name of Rebbi Ismael, an argument a minore ad majus. If heave which is forbidden to outsiders can be lifted, ‘orlah which is permitted to outsiders, not so much more68This is incomprehensible since the next sentence implies that R. Ismael also admits that any use of 'orlah is forbidden.? No, if you said that about heave whose use is permitted, what can you say about ‘orlah whose use is prohibited! Rebbi Ḥinena: “Fruit, fruit” as equal decision69This is a formal argument: If there is a tradition that a certain word can have only one meaning (“decision”), then the rules must be the same any time that word is used. Heave and tithes are from “fruit” (Lev. 27:30), ‘orlah refers to “fruit” (Lev. 19:23–24). Lev. 27:30 is written for reference; in the laws of ‘orlah the reference to “fruit” is necessary in Lev. 19:23 to define the subject but in Lev. 19:24 it might refer to the rules spelled out for heave. If that is true then R. Ismael must hold that ‘orlah and vineyard kilaim can be lifted by one in 100 since an “equal decision” cannot be only partially valid..
מִצְטָֽרְפִין זֶה עִם זֶה בֵּין לֶאֱסוֹר בֵּין לְהַתִּיר כְּדֵי לִיתֵּן טַעַם דִּבְרֵי רִבִּי מֵאִיר. רִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֵר אֵינָן מִצְטָֽרְפִין. רִבִּי לִעֶזֶר אוֹמֵר מִצְטָֽרְפִין בְּנוֹתֵן טַעַם לֹא לֶאֱסוֹר. They combine with one another either to permit or to forbid if one can taste them, the words of Rebbi Meïr. Rebbi Simeon says, they do not combine. Rebbi Eliezer says they combine if one tastes them, not to forbid70This baraita, not known from another source, begins the discussion of the last part of the Mishnah asserting, as was already established (Note 57), that the anonymous Tanna of the Mishnah is R. Meïr, and that R. Meïr holds that any forbidden admixture greater than 1% remains forbidden..
מַה פְלִיגִין. שֶׁנָּֽפְלוּ שְׁלֹשֶׁת קַבִּין עָרְלָה וּשְׁלֹשֶׁת קַבִּין שֶׁלְכִּלְאֵי הַכֶּרֶם. אֲבָל אִם נָֽפְלוּ שְׁלֹשֶׁת קַבִּין וְעוֹד עָרְלָה וּשְׁלֹשֶׁת שֶׁלְכִּלְאֵי הַכֶּרֶם הוּתָּר הַכְּרִי. לָמָּה. וְעוֹד בָּטֵל בִּשְׁלֹשֶׁת קַבִּין שְׁלֹשֶׁת קַבִּין בְּטֵילִין בְּמֵאָה. נָֽפְלוּ שְׁלֹשֶׁת קַבִּין עָרְלָה וּשְׁלֹשֶׁת קַבִּין בְּאֶחָד שֶׁלְכִּלְאֵי הַכֶּרֶם. כְּמוֹ שֶׁנָּֽפְלוּ שְׁלֹשֶׁת וְעוֹד עָרְלָה וּשְׁלֹשֶׁת קַבִּין שֶׁלְכִּלְאֵי הַכֶּרֶם. אוֹ כְּמִי שֶׁנָּֽפְלוּ שְׁלֹשֶׁת קַבִּין שֶׁלְכִּלְאֵי הַכֶּרֶם וְאַחַר כָּךְ נָֽפְלוּ שְׁלֹשֶׁת קַבִּין עָרְלָה. Where do they disagree74This refers to the disagreement between R. Meïr and R. Eliezer (Note 70) on how different substances which become insignificant by 1 in 200 can combine. The problem is made urgent by Mishnah 3 which postulates that these matters, once they are insignificant, do not “reawaken” anymore.? If three qab of ‘orlah and three qab of vineyard kilaim fell75First, 0.5 seah of ‘orlah fell into 100 seah of permitted profane matter and later another 0.5 seah of vineyard kilaim fell into the same heap. The next paragraph implies that in the case under consideration here, the owner did not realize what happened until the second batch had fallen in. It is held here that minute amounts are not in themselves insignificant but they become insignificant if the owner, or a responsible worker, know of the accident and determine that the event was insignificant. In our case here, everybody must agree that all is permitted since the kilaim fell into 201 times its volume of other matter. Even for Rebbi Meïr, the total volume is then less than 1/100 of the whole.
The Rome text here is garbled: מַה פְלִיגִין שֶׁנָּֽפְלוּ שְׁלֹשֶׁת קַבִּין עָרְלָה וְעוֹד וּשְׁלֹשֶׁת קַבִּין שֶׁל כִּלְאֵי הַכֶּרֶם הוּתָּר. אֲבָל אִם נָֽפְלוּ שְׁלֹשֶׁת קַבִּין וְעוֹד עָרְלָה וּשְׁלֹשֶׁת שֶׁל כִּלְאֵי הַכֶּרֶם הוּתָּר הַכְּרִי.. But if three qab of ‘orlah and something additional fell in76First three qab, later at most 3/100 qab. and three of vineyard kilaim, the heap is permitted. Why? The additional “little more” is insignificant in the three qab77The language is misleading. Since the three qab became insignificant, 3/100 qab now become insignificant in 100.5 seah. The next three qab (0.5 seah) of kilaim now become insignificant in 100.53 seah of permitted matter. and three qab are insignificant in a hundred [seah]. If three qab of ‘orlah and three qab of vineyard kilaim fell in together, is it as if three qab of ‘orlah and something additional, and three qab of vineyard kilaim fell in78In Mishnah Terumot 4:7, R. Eliezer and R. Joshua disagree on the amount which makes heave insignificant. R. Meïr, who does not allow more than 1/100 of forbidden matter under any circumstance, disagrees with both of them and fixes the limit at 1/100. For R. Simeon and R. Eliezer all is permitted., or that three qab of vineyard kilaim fell in and afterwards three qab of ‘orlah79How this could be true for R. Meïr is discussed in the next paragraph.?
פְּשִׁיטָא שֶׁיְּדִיעָתוֹ מַתִּרָתוֹ. יְדִיעַת חֲבֵירוֹ מָהוּ שֶׁתַּתִּירוֹ. הֵיךְ עֲבִידָא. הוּא לֹא יָדַע בָּהּ. חֲבֵירוֹ יָדַע בָּהּ. It is obvious that his knowledge permits it80If the owner of the food realizes that not more than half of a percent of ‘orlah or kilaim fell into his food, he knows that the amount is insignificant and everything is permitted. This closes the incident. If another mishap occurs, the entire amount of food is considered permitted and profane. This contrasts with Mishnah Terumot 5:7 which states that heave remains a candidate for potential reawakening of the prohibition; cf. Note 72.. Does the knowledge of a third person81Who is not the owner or one of his employees or family members. It is not decided whether the awareness of a third party leads to closure. permit it? How is this possible? He is not aware of it; another person is aware of it.
יְדִיעַת סָפֵק מַהוּ שֶׁתַּתִּיר כִּידִיעַת װַדַּאי. הֵיךְ עֲבִידָא. הָיוּ לְפָנָיו שְׁתֵּי קוּפּוֹת אַחַת יֵשׁ בָּהּ מָאתַיִם וְאַחַת אֵין בָּהּ מָאתַיִם. נָֽפְלָה סְאָה תְרוּמָה לְתוֹךְ אַחַת מֵהֶן וְאֵין יָדוּעַ לְאֵי זֶה מֵהֶן נָֽפְלָה וְאַחַר כָּךְ נָֽפְלָה בִשְׁנִייָה. מְדָדָהּ וּמָצָא בָהּ מָאתַיִם וּשְׁתַּיִם. אִין תֵּימַר יְדִיעַת סָפֵק כִּידִיעַת וַדַּאי עוֹלָה. אִין תֵּימַר אֵין יְדִיעַת סָפֵק כִּידִיעַת וַדַּאי אֵין עוֹלָה. הָֽיְתָה קוּפָּה אַחַת סָפֵק יֵשׁ בָּהּ מָאתַיִים סָפֵק אֵין בָּהּ. נָֽפְלָה סְאָה תְרוּמָה לְתוֹכָהּ וְאֵין יָדוּעַ אִם נָֽפְלָה אִם לֹא נָֽפְלָה וְאַחַר כָּךְ נָֽפְלָה הַשְּׁנִייָה. אִין תֵּימַר יְדִיעַת הַסָּפֵק כִּידִיעַת װַדַּאי עוֹלָה. אִין תֵּימַר אֵין יְדִיעַת סָפֵק כִּידִיעַת וַדַּאי אֵינָהּ עוֹלָה. Does uncertain knowledge permit like certain knowledge? How is this? If there were two boxes before him, one containing 20082Meaning: containing at least 200 seah. and one less than 200. If one seah of heave fell into one of them but it is not known into which one it fell and then [another seah] fell into the second. It was measured and found to be 202. If you say uncertain knowledge permits like certain knowledge, it can be lifted, but if you say uncertain knowledge does not permit like certain knowledge, it cannot be lifted83If the box containing 202 seah contains 2 seah of heave, the heave may be lifted and everything is permitted. But if that box originally contained 202 seah, then the two seah of heave fell into the box containing less than 200 and that box now is dema‘ and forbidden to lay persons. If uncertain knowledge is enough to bring closure of an episode then even the box containing less than 200 seah will contain more than 100 and heave can be lifted in all cases.. If there was one chest and there is a doubt whether it contains 200 or not; if one seah of heave fell into [some box] but it is not known whether it fell into that box or not, and then a second time something [forbidden] fell into [the box in question]: If you say uncertain knowledge permits like certain knowledge, it can be lifted, but if you say uncertain knowledge does not permit like certain knowledge, it cannot be lifted84Since the box might contain 2 seah of heave and less than 200 of profane food..