משנה: רִבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ אוֹמֵר תְּאֵינִים שְׁחוֹרוֹת מַעֲלוֹת אֶת הַלְּבָנוֹת וְהַלְּבָנוֹת מַעֲלוֹת אֶת הַשְּׁחוֹרוֹת. עִיגּוּלֵי דְבֵילָה הַגְּדוֹלִים מַעֲלִין אֶת הַקְּטַנִּים וְהַקְּטַנִּים מַעֲלִין אֶת הַגְּדוֹלִים. הָעִיגּוּלִין מַעֲלִין אֶת הַמַּלְבֵּנִים וְהַמַּלְבֵּנִים מַעֲלִין אֶת הָעִיגּוּלִין וְרִבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר אוֹסֵר. וְרִבִּי עֲקִיבָה אוֹמֵר בְּיָדוּעַ מַה נָֽפְלָה אֵין מַעֲלוֹת זוֹ אֶת זוֹ. וּכְשֶׁאֵינוֹ יָדוּעַ מַה נָֽפְלָה מַעֲלוֹת זוֹ אֶת זוֹ. כֵּיצַד חֲמִשִּׁים תְּאֵינִים שְׁחוֹרוֹת וַחֲמִשִּׁים לְבָנוֹת נָֽפְלָה שְׁחוֹרָה שְׁחוֹרוֹת אֲסוּרוֹת וּלְבָנוֹת מוּתָּרוֹת. נָֽפְלָה לְבָנָה הַלְּבָנוֹת אֲסוּרוֹת וְהַשְּׁחוֹרוֹת מוּתָּרוֹת. וּבְשֶׁאֵינוֹ יָדוּעַ מַה נָֽפְלָה מַעֲלוֹת זוֹ אֶת זוֹ. וּבְזוֹ רִבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר מַחְמִיר וְרִבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ מֵיקֵל. וְכֵן רִבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר מֵיקֵל וְרִבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ מַחְמִיר בְּדוֹרֵס לִיטְרָא קְצִיעוֹת עַל פִּי הַכַּד וְאֵין יָדוּעַ אֵי זוֹ הִיא רִבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר אוֹמֵר רוֹאִין אוֹתָן כְּאִילּוּ הֶן פְּרוּדוֹת וְהַתַּחְתּוֹנוֹת מַעֲלוּת אֶת הָעֶלְיוֹנוֹת. וְרִבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ אוֹמֵר לֹא תַעֲלֶה עַד שֶׁיְּהֵא שָׁם מֵאָה כַּדִּים. MISHNAH: Rebbi Joshua says, black figs lift the white ones, and white ones the black67This is a sequel to the preceding Mishnah. If some white (i. e., green) figs of heave fell into profane figs both white and black and together the profane are at least 100 times the weight of the heave while the white profane figs alone are less that 100 times the weight of the heave, R. Joshua permits to lift white figs in the weight of the heave but R. Eliezer forbids. In his opinion, the white figs are forbidden as dema‘ but the black ones can be eaten since they certainly are not heave. If they are not forbidden then they are not dema‘ and cannot be counted. R. Aqiba follows R. Eliezer if the characteristics of the heave are known and R. Joshua if they are unknown.. Large fig cakes lift small ones and small ones lift the large68This will be clarified at the end of the Halakhah.. Round fig cakes lift brick-shaped fig cakes and brick-shaped cakes lift round cakes. But Rebbi Eliezer forbids. Rebbi Aqiba says, if it is known what fell in, they do not lift one another, but if it is not known what fell in, they do lift one another67This is a sequel to the preceding Mishnah. If some white (i. e., green) figs of heave fell into profane figs both white and black and together the profane are at least 100 times the weight of the heave while the white profane figs alone are less that 100 times the weight of the heave, R. Joshua permits to lift white figs in the weight of the heave but R. Eliezer forbids. In his opinion, the white figs are forbidden as dema‘ but the black ones can be eaten since they certainly are not heave. If they are not forbidden then they are not dema‘ and cannot be counted. R. Aqiba follows R. Eliezer if the characteristics of the heave are known and R. Joshua if they are unknown..
How is this87The following two sentences explain the position of R. Aqiba in the preceding Mishnah.? If there are 50 black figs and 50 white, if a black one fell, the black are forbidden but the white are permitted; if a white one fell, the white are forbidden but the black are permitted. If he does not know what fell, they lift one another. In the latter case, Rebbi Eliezer is stringent and Rebbi Joshua lenient88As explained in the preceding Halakhah (following Note 70)..
And so Rebbi Eliezer is lenient and Rebbi Joshua stringent in case somebody presses a pound of cut figs93Of heave. R. Eliezer permits lifting heave to remove dema‘ if in all pitchers together there were 100 pounds of cut figs. into the mouth of a pitcher and does not remember which. Rebbi Eliezer says, one considers it as if they were separate and the lower ones help to lift the upper ones. But Rebbi Joshua says one may not lift unless there are 100 pitchers94He considers the entire pitcher containing the heave as irredeemable dema‘ since small pieces of figs ooze fluid and mix well with what is below..
הלכה: רִבִּי אִיסִּי בְשֵׁם רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן טַעֲמָא דְרִבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר תְּאֵינִים שְׁחוֹרוֹת שֶׁנָּֽפְלוּ לְתוֹךְ הַלְּבָנוֹת אוֹכֵל אֶת הַלְּבָנוֹת. HALAKHAH: Rebbi Assi in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: The reason of Rebbi Eliezer [is that] if black figs fell into white ones, one may eat the white ones67This is a sequel to the preceding Mishnah. If some white (i. e., green) figs of heave fell into profane figs both white and black and together the profane are at least 100 times the weight of the heave while the white profane figs alone are less that 100 times the weight of the heave, R. Joshua permits to lift white figs in the weight of the heave but R. Eliezer forbids. In his opinion, the white figs are forbidden as dema‘ but the black ones can be eaten since they certainly are not heave. If they are not forbidden then they are not dema‘ and cannot be counted. R. Aqiba follows R. Eliezer if the characteristics of the heave are known and R. Joshua if they are unknown..
וְהַלְּבָנוֹת מַעֲלוֹת אֶת הַשְּׁחוֹרוֹת. אָמַר רִבִּי לָֽעְזָר כָּךְ הָיָה רִבִּי לִיעֶזֶר מֵשִׁיב אֶת רִבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ וְהַלְּבָנוֹת מַעֲלוֹת אֶת הַשְּׁחוֹרוֹת מִילְתֵיהּ אָמַר בְּיָדוּעַ מַה נָֽפְלוּ מַעֲלוֹת זוֹ אֶת זוֹ. כַּהֲנָא אָמַר אֵין מַעֲלוֹת. עַל דַּעְתֵּיהּ דְּכַהֲנָא מַה בֵּין רִבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ לְרִבִּי עֲקִיבָה בְּשֶׁיָּדַע וְשָׁכַח. עַל דַּעְתֵּיהּ דְּרִבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ מַעֲלֶה. עַל דַּעְתֵּיהּ דְּרִבִּי עֲקִיבָה אֵינוֹ מַעֲלֶה. שִׁמְעוֹן בַּר בָּא בְשֵׁם רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן וְהִיא שֶׁנָּֽפְלָה שְׁחוֹרָה אַחַת לְתוֹךְ שְׁתַּיִם לְבָנוֹת כְּדֵי שֶׁתִּיבָּטֵל בְּרוֹב. רִבִּי זְעִירָא בְּעָא קוֹמֵי רִבִּי מָנָא לֹא מִסְתַּבְּרָא בְּתוֹךְ שָׁלֹשׁ שֶׁאִם תֹּאבַד אַחַת מֵהֶן יִהְיוּ שָׁם שְׁתַּיִם. אָמַר לֵיהּ וְאוֹף אֲנָא סָבַר כֵּן. “ “White ones lift the black.” Rebbi Eleazar said, Rebbi Eliezer answered Rebbi Joshua thus: Do white ones lift the black? His words say, when it is known what fell in they lift one another69For R. Eliezer’s objection to make any sense, one has to assume that R. Joshua admits lifting even if it was known that the heave that fell into the container consisted of all white figs.. Cahana said, they do not lift.70If it is known that white figs fell into the container, even R. Joshua will allow to lift the dema‘ only if there are 100 (or 99+ε) times more white figs than the heave. In the opinion of Cahana, what is the difference between Rebbi Joshua and Rebbi Aqiba? When he had known but forgot. In the opinion of Rebbi Joshua he lifts, in the opinion of Rebbi Aqiba he does not lift. Simeon bar Abba in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: That is only if one black one fell into two white ones, that it may be disregarded in a plurality71Since in biblical law, 51% of permitted food eliminates the prohibition of the remaining forbidden 49%, we have to assume that R. Joshua under all circumstances will require that the heave be nullified in biblical law, i. e., that of the kind of the heave more than the heave should have been in the container as profane food. In the Babli, Yebamot 82a, this is the opinion of R. Simeon ben Laqish.. Rebbi Zeïra asked before Rebbi Mana: Would it not be reasonable [to say] into three so that if one of them is lost there still will be two? He said to him, that is also my opinion72One has to allow for natural spillage and waste so that at no time is the biblical requirement violated..
בַּר פְּדָיָה אָמַר טוֹחֵן וּמַתִּיר. וְאַף עַל גַּב דְּבַר פְּדָיָה אָמַר אֵין בְּלִילָה אֶלָּא לְיַיִן וּלְשֶׁמֶן בִּלְבַד. מוֹדֶה הוּא הָכָא שֶׁהֵן נִבְלָלוֹת. Bar Pedaiah said, he grinds and makes it permitted73If the individual figs are no longer recognizable, the difference between white (green) and black figs vanishes.. Even though Bar Pedaiah said74Demay 5:5, Notes 83,84. The mss. there read “Rebbi Pedaiah”, Bar Pedaiah in Demay is the reading of R. Simson. mixing applies only to oil and wine, he agrees here that they may be mixed75Bar Pedaiah does not allow mixing of different sorts for heave of the tithe as long as the fruits are recognizable; he will be more accomodating to remove the prohibition of dema‘..
מִילַּתְהוֹן דְּרַבָּנִין פְלִיגָא. כַּהֲנָא שָׁאַל לִשְׁמוּאֵל לֹא מִסְתַּבְּרָא הָדֵין מְדוּמָּע דְּתַנִּינָן הָכָא שֶׁרוּבָּהּ תְּרוּמָה. אָמַר לֵיהּ וַאֲנָא סָבַר כֵּן אֶלָּא תְּסַלֵּק לְאַרְעָא דְיִשְׂרָאֵל אַתְּ שְׁאִיל לָהּ. כַּד סְלַק שְׁמַע הָדָא דָמַר רִבִּי יוֹסֵי בְשֵׁם רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן וַאֲפִילוּ סְאָה שֶׁנָּֽפְלָה לְתוֹךְ תִּשְׁעִים וְתֵשַׁע חוּלִין. אָמַר רִבִּי אַבָּהוּ כָּךְ מֵשִׁיב רִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן לָקִישׁ אֶת רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן וְאוֹתָהּ סְאָה הִיא פוֹטֶרֶת אֶת הַכֹּל. וְכִי עִיגּוּל בְּעִיגּוּלִין דָּבָר בָּרִיא שֶׁתְּרוּמָה עָֽלְתָה בְיָדוֹ וְאַתְּ אָמַר קַל הוּא וְאַף הָכָא קַל הוּא. וִיתִיבִינֵיהּ שַׁנְייָא בְעִיגּוּלִין שֶׁכְּבָר בָּֽטְלוּ. רִבִּי יוֹנָה וְרִבִּי יוֹסֵי תְּרֵיהוֹן בְּשֵׁם רִבִּי זְעִירָא אֲפִילוּ חִיטִּין בְחִיטִּין טוֹחֵן וּמַתִּיר. The words of the rabbis disagree76This refers to Mishnah Ḥallah1:4; the entire paragraph appears in the corresponding Halakhah.. Cahana asked Samuel: Is it not reasonable that the dema‘ which we stated here contains mostly heave77Mishnah Ḥallah 1:4 states that dough made from dema‘ is subject to tithes but free from Ḥallah.? He said to him, that is also my opinion, but when you go to the Land of Israel do ask about this. When he went, he heard what Rebbi Yose said in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, even one seah78One seah of heave; in order that the dema‘ be free of ḥallah the amount of profane flour cannot exceed 99-ε seot. This dema‘ is rabbinical; the argument is acceptable only if the obligation of ḥallah also is considered only as rabbinical, contradicting the statement at the end of Chapter 9 of Ševi‘it. that fell into 99 [which were] profane. Rebbi Abbahu said, thus did Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish answer Rebbi Joḥanan: That one seah frees everything? Is a fig cake among fig cakes such a sure thing that heave came up in his hand79The entire idea of lifting heave out of dema‘ is a legal fiction; even with a fig cake lost among fig cakes the chances are slim that the correct cake of heave will be lifted out. It follows that the entire argument is possible only if we agree that heave today is only a rabbinic obligation for which all kind of leniencies are permitted which would be impossible for biblical obligations; cf. Demay Chapter 3, Note 121, Ševi‘it Chapter 6, Note 11. This is the position of R. Joḥanan in Babli Yebamot 82a.? But you must say it is [to be taken] lightly; here also it is [to be taken] lightly. Could he not have objected: It is different with fig cakes which already are disregarded80The only heave ever due by biblical decree is from “grain, cider, and oil.” The heave from figs never was biblical; therefore one fig cake of heave indistinguishable from two profane cakes may be disregarded since it is disregarded by biblical law.? Rebbi Jonah and Rebbi Yose, both in the name of Rebbi Zeïra: Even wheat and wheat he may grind and lift81For example, white and brown wheat kernels. It is clear that this is possible only if all heave during the Second Commonwealth was rabbinic in character..
הָיוּ לְפָנָיו עֶשְׂרִים תְּאֵינִים וְנָֽפְלָה אַחַת לְתוֹכָן וְאָֽבְדָה אַחַת לְתוֹכָן וְאָֽבְדָה אַחַת מֵהֶן. רִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן לָקִישׁ אָמַר סְפֵיקוֹ בָטֵל בְּרוֹב. רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָמַר כּוּלָּן נַעֲשׂוּ הוֹכִיחַ. מוֹדֵי רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן שֶׁאִם תָּרַם מֵהֶן עַל מָקוֹם אַחֵר אוֹ שֶׁרִיבָה מִמָּקוֹם אַחֵר עֲלֵיהֶן שֶׁסְּפֵיקָן בָּטֵל בְּרוֹב. If there were 20 figs before him82From the last sentence it is clear that the 20 figs are ṭevel. It is impossible to give heave from heave; one must give heave from ṭevel. R. Simeon ben Laqish thinks that there is a 50% probability that the lost fig was the one of heave; therefore, the remaining 20 contain 20 figs with probability 50% and 19 figs with probability 100%; they all can be used for heave. R. Joḥanan thinks that every single fig may be heave with probability 4.8%; one would have to prove that a fig chosen for heave is actually ṭevel. He agrees that if somehow the figs become part of a greater whole or are all given as heave for a greater whole, all 20 figs can be treated as ṭevel. In the second paragraph following it is stated that in case of such a doubt there may not be more than one doubtful piece in 51 figs. and one [fig] fell into them and was not recognizable among them and then one of them was lost; Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, this doubt disappears in the plurality83Similarly, R. Simeon ben Laqish is quoted in the Babli, Zebaḥim 74b: “If a [sealed] amphora of heave was mixed with 100 [identical] amphoras and one of them fell into the ocean, all the rest are permitted” since we assume that the heave fell into the ocean. However, in one opinion in the Babli, R. Simeon ben Laqish would exclude figs from this argument.; Rebbi Joḥanan said, all become subject to proof. Rebbi Joḥanan agrees that if he gave heave for them from another place or added to them from another place the doubt would disappear in the plurality.
רִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן לָקִישׁ בְּשֵׁם רִבִּי הוֹשַׁעְיָה הָיוּ לְפָנָיו מֵאָה וַחֲמִשִּׁים חָבִיּוֹת וְנִתְפַּתְּחוּ. מֵאָה מוּתָּרוֹת וַחֲמִשִּׁים אֲסוּרוֹת וְהַשְּׁאָר לִכְשֶׁיִּתְפַּתְּחוּ מוּתָּרוֹת. אָמַר רִבִּי זְעִירָא לֹא אָמַר אֶלָּא לִכְשֶׁיִּתְפַּתְּחוּ הָא לְכַתְּחִילָּה אָסוּר. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish in the name of Rebbi Hoshaia83Similarly, R. Simeon ben Laqish is quoted in the Babli, Zebaḥim 74b: “If a [sealed] amphora of heave was mixed with 100 [identical] amphoras and one of them fell into the ocean, all the rest are permitted” since we assume that the heave fell into the ocean. However, in one opinion in the Babli, R. Simeon ben Laqish would exclude figs from this argument.: If there were before him 150 amphoras which were opened: One hundred are permitted, fifty are forbidden, and the remainder will be permitted if they were opened. Rebbi Zeїra said, he said only “if they were opened;” therefore at the start it is forbidden.
רִבִּי זְעִירָא בְשֵׁם רִבִּי פְדָיָה תְּרוּמָה אוֹסֶרֶת בְּװַדַּייָהּ בְּמֵאָה וּסְפֵיקָהּ בַּחֲמִשִּׁים. הָא שִׁשִּׁים לֹא שִׁבְעִים לֹא עַד חֲמִשִּׁים צְרִיכָה רוֹב מִיכָּן וָאֵילַךְ אֵינָהּ צְרִיכָה רוֹב. Rebbi Zeїra in the name of Rebbi Pedaiah: Heave if certain makes forbidden in 10084Here one determines that practice follows R. Eliezer, viz., 1 part heave in 100 cannot be lifted, 1 in 101 (1 heave, 100 profane) can be lifted., if it is in doubt in 50. Does that mean not in 60 or 70? Up to 50 it needs a plurality, more it does not need a plurality85If there is doubt whether there is any heave at all, as in the case of figs where one fell in and subsequently one was lost, the dema‘ can be lifted if the amount in doubt is less than 2% of the total..
אָמַר רִבִּי חוּנָא כֵּינִי מַתְנִיתָא עִיגּוּלֵי דְבֵילָה הַגְּדוֹלִים מַעֲלִין אֶת הַקְּטַנִּים בְּמִשְׁקָל וּקְטַנִּים מַעֲלִין אֶת הַגְּדוֹלִים בְּמִינְייָן. Rebbi Ḥuna said, so is the Mishnah: “Large fig cakes lift small ones” by weight, “and small ones lift the large” by count86In each case, one computes the 100 times necessary for lifting; if there are more large cakes one goes by weight, if counting small ones will be advantageous, one goes by numbers. The reason for the possibility of such a change is discussed in Orlah 3:1, fol. 62d..
הָכָא רִבִּי לִיעֶזֶר מַחְמִיר וְרִבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ מֵיקֵל. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן תַּנָּאִין אִינּוּן. נִמְצֵאת אוֹמֵר בְּיָדוּעַ לֹא תַעֲלֶה. שֶׁאֵינוֹ בְּיָדוּעַ תַּעֲלֶה דִּבְרֵי רִבִּי לִיעֶזֶר. רִבִּי יוֹשׁוּעַ אוֹמֵר בֵּין בְּיָדוּעַ בֵּין בְּשֶׁאֵינוֹ יָדוּעַ תַּעֲלֶה דִּבְרֵי רִבִּי מֵאִיר. רִבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר בֵּין בְּיָדוּעַ בֵּין בְּשֶׁאֵינוֹ יָדוּעַ לֹא תַעֲלֶה דִּבְרֵי רִבִּי לִיעֶזֶר. רִבִּי יוֹשׁוּעַ אוֹמֵר בֵּין בְּיָדוּעַ בֵּין בְּשֶׁאֵינוֹ יָדוּעַ תַּעֲלֶה. רִבִּי עֲקִיבָה אוֹמֵר בְּיָדוּעַ לֹא תַעֲלֶה בְּשֶׁאֵינוֹ יָדוּעַ תַּעֲלֶה. Is Rebbi Eliezer stringent and Rebbi Joshua lenient in this case89Do R. Eliezer and R. Joshua always disagree here? From Mishnah 8, one would assume that in case the strain of heave fig is unknown, R. Eliezer and R. Joshua do not disagree that heave can be lifted but disagree about the amount needed.? Rebbi Joḥanan said, it is [a disagreement of] Tannaїm90Tosephta 5:10. The statement in the Mishnah is R. Jehudah’s, not R. Meїr’s.: “You must say that if it is known, it cannot be lifted91Unless there are 100 profane figs for each heave fig of the known strain of the heave fig. According to R. Jehudah, R. Eliezer requires 100 figs from each strain if the strain of the heave is unknown., if it is not known it may be lifted, the words of Rebbi Eliezer. Rebbi Joshua says, whether it is known or unknown, it can be lifted, the words of Rebbi Meїr. Rebbi Jehudah says, whether it is known or unknown, it cannot be lifted, the words of Rebbi Eliezer; Rebbi Joshua says, whether it is known or unknown, it can be lifted. Rebbi Aqiba says, if it is known, it cannot be lifted; if it is unknown, it can be lifted.”
לִיטְרָא קְצִיעוֹת שֶׁדְּרָסָהּ עַל פִּי חָבִית וְאֵין יָדוּעַ הֵיכָן דְּרָסָהּ. עַל פִּי כַּװֶרֶת וְאֵין יָדוּעַ אֵיכָן דְּרָסָהּ. רִבִּי לִיעֶזֶר אוֹמֵר אִם יֵשׁ שָׁם מֵאָה לִיטְרִין יַעֲלֶה וְאִם לָאו לֹא תַעֲלֶה. רִבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ אוֹמֵר אִם יֵשׁ שָׁם מֵאָה פוּמִין תַּעֲלֶה. וְאִם לָאו הַפּוּמִין אֲסוּרִין וְהַשּׁוּלַיִים מוּתָּרִין דִּבְרֵי רִבִּי יוּדָה. רִבִּי מֵאִיר אָמַר רִבִּי לִיעֶזֶר אוֹמֵר אִם יֵשׁ שָׁם מֵאָה פוּמִין תַּעֲלֶה וְאִם לָאו הַפּוּמִין אֲסוּרִין וְהַשּׁוּלַיִים מוּתָּרִין. רִבִּי יוֹשֻׁעַ אָמַר אֲפִילוּ יֵשׁ שָׁם שְׁלֹשׁ מֵאוֹת פּוּמִין לֹא תַעֲלֶה. הָדָא אָֽמְרָה פּוּמִין עָשׂוּ אוֹתָן כְּדָבָר שֶׁדַּרְכּוֹ לְהִימָּנוֹת. הָדָא מְסַייְעָא לְרִבִּי יוֹחָנָן דּוּ אָמַר תַּנָּייִן אִינּוּן. הָדָא מְסַייְעָא לְמָאן דְּאָמַר דִּבְרֵי רִבִּי מֵאִיר כָּל־הַדְּבָרִים מְקַדְּשִׁין. הָדָא מְסַייְעָא לְמָאן דְּאָמַר תַּנָּייִן אִינּוּן. הָדָא אָֽמְרָה דְּלַעַת אֲפִילוּ אֶחָד מִמֵּאָה בָהּ אוֹסֵר. “95A similar text, but not the basis of the baraita here, appears in Tosephta 5:11. A third version, closer to the Tosephta, is in the Babli, Beẓah3b, Zebaḥim 73a. A pound of cut figs which somebody pressed into the mouth of an amphora and does not remember where he pressed, into the mouth of a vase96Arabic כּוארה, a vase made from sun-dried clay. In any vase or amphora, the mouth is much narrower than the body. and does not remember where he pressed; Rebbi Eliezer says, if there are 100 pounds it may be lifted, otherwise it cannot be lifted; Rebbi Joshua says, if there are 100 mouths97Assuming that all vessels have identical size. If the heave percolates downwards, it percolates only in the right circular cylinder defined by the mouth of the vase. Therefore, anything in the body of the vessel outside that cylinder (the “sides”) is certainly permitted. there it may be lifted, otherwise the mouths are forbidden and the sides are permitted, the words of Rebbi Jehudah. Rebbi Meїr says, Rebbi Eliezer says, if there are 100 mouths there it may be lifted, otherwise the mouths are forbidden and the sides are permitted; Rebbi Joshua says even if there are 300 mouths it cannot be lifted.” This means that they considered mouths as something that usually is counted98This refers to Mishnah Orlah 3:6 dealing with fruits sold by the piece (“usually counted” for sale). If the fruit is forbidden for all use (“sanctified”, cf. Introduction to Kilaim), if it falls into a container of the same fruits and now is no longer identifiable, there are three opinions in the matter. The rabbis have a list of six kinds of fruit that make all fruits in the same container forbidden for all use, even if there are more than 1000 permitted to one forbidden fruit. R. Meїr disagrees but R. Joḥanan and R. Simeon ben Laqish disagree about the meaning of the disagreement. According to one opinion, R. Meїr simply has an extended list of 10 items, but the other opinion is that he extends the sanctification to everything sold by the piece, not only fruits but also containers of processed fruit.. This supports Rebbi Joḥanan who said, it is a disagreement of Tannaїm90Tosephta 5:10. The statement in the Mishnah is R. Jehudah’s, not R. Meїr’s.. This supports him who says, the words of Rebbi Meїr that everything sanctifies98This refers to Mishnah Orlah 3:6 dealing with fruits sold by the piece (“usually counted” for sale). If the fruit is forbidden for all use (“sanctified”, cf. Introduction to Kilaim), if it falls into a container of the same fruits and now is no longer identifiable, there are three opinions in the matter. The rabbis have a list of six kinds of fruit that make all fruits in the same container forbidden for all use, even if there are more than 1000 permitted to one forbidden fruit. R. Meїr disagrees but R. Joḥanan and R. Simeon ben Laqish disagree about the meaning of the disagreement. According to one opinion, R. Meїr simply has an extended list of 10 items, but the other opinion is that he extends the sanctification to everything sold by the piece, not only fruits but also containers of processed fruit.. This supports him who says it is a disagreement of Tannaїm99The same disagreement noted from Mishnah 9 carries over to Mishnah 10.. This means that even one hundredth of a pumpkin forbids100This refers to Greek gourd, a variety of pumpkin mentioned in Mishnah Kilaim 1:5; its exact identity has not been established. Greek gourd is on the list of the six sanctifying fruits, Orlah 3:7. While the Mishnah there only speaks of fruits forbidden for all use, this remark extends the principle to dema‘ which is only forbidden for laymen. It is asserted that the principle that heave disappears in 100 does not apply to the fruits on that list, that their dema‘ can never be lifted..
דְּרָסָהּ וְאֵין יָדוּעַ אֵיכָן דְּרָסָהּ דִּבְרֵי הַכֹּל תַּעֲלֶה. אָמַר רִבִּי אָבִין וְצָרִיךְ שֶׁיְּהֵא בְכָל־אַחַת שְׁנֵי לִיטְרִין וְכָל־שֶׁהוּא כְּדֵי שֶׁתִּיבָּטֵל בְּרוֹב. “If he pressed it but it is not known where he pressed it, everybody agrees that it may be lifted.101The Tosephta quoted (5:11) also considers the case of one pound of cut heave figs pressed into one of 100 fig cakes and states that both RR. Eliezer and Joshua agree, in the opinion of RR. Jehudah and Meїr, that dema‘ can be lifted. Since fig cakes usually are sold by the piece, R. Abin clarifies that this can apply only to the case when the institution of heave already has disappeared as a matter of biblical law.” Rebbi Abin said, but each individual [amphora] must contain somewhat more than two pounds so it should have disappeared in a plurality.