משנה: סְאָה תְרוּמָה שֶׁנָּֽפְלָה לְמֵאָה וּטְחָנָן וּפָֽחְתוּ כְּשֵׁם שֶׁפָּחֲתוּ הַחוּלִין כֵּן פָּחֲתָה הַתְּרוּמָה וּמוּתָּר. סְאָה תְרוּמָה שֶׁנָּֽפְלָה לְפָחוֹת מִמֵּאָה וּטְחָנָן וְהוֹתִירוּ כְשֵׁם שֶׁהוֹתִירוּ הַחוּלִין כֵּן הוֹתִירָה הַתְּרוּמָה וְאָסוּר. אִם יָדוּעַ שֶׁחִיטִּין שֶׁל חוּלִין יָפוֹת מִשֶּׁל תְּרוּמָה מוּתָּר. סְאָה תְרוּמָה שֶׁנָּֽפְלָה לְפָחוֹת מִמֵּאָה וְאַחַר כָּךְ נָֽפְלוּ שָׁם חוּלִין אִם שׁוֹגֵג מוּתָּר אִם מֵזִיד אָסוּר. MISHNAH: A seah of heave which fell into 100, if he milled it and it lost volume, in proportion to what the profane lost, the heave lost, and it is permitted100One seah may be lifted and the rest is permitted. In this case, differences in quality between heave and profane grain are disregarded.. A seah of heave which fell into less than 100, if he milled it and it increased in volume, in proportion to the increase of the profane is the increase of heave, and it is forbidden. If it is known that the profane wheat was of better quality101Yielding more flour and less bran. than the heave, it might be permitted. If a seah of heave fell into less than 100 and more profane fell into it later, if it was in error, it is permitted, if intentional, it is forbidden102It is dema‘..
הלכה: וְלֹא סוֹף דָּבָר שֶּׁפָּחֲתָה הַתְּרוּמָה אֶלָּא אֲפִילוּ פָּחֲתוּ חוּלִין וּתְרוּמָה בְעֵינָהּ טוֹחֵן וּמַתִּיר. תַּנֵּי אֵין טִנּוֹפֶת שֶׁל תְּרוּמָה מִצְטָרֶפֶת עִם תְּרוּמָה לֶאֱסוֹר עַל הַחוּלִין. אֲבָל טִנּוֹפֶת שֶׁל חוּלִין מִצְטָרֶפֶת עִם הַחוּלִין לַעֲלוֹת אֶת הַתְּרוּמָה. רִבִּי בִּיבַי בָּעֵי טִינּוֹפֶת שֶׁל תְּרוּמָה מָהוּ שֶׁתְּצָרֵף עִם הַחוּלִין לַעֲלוֹת אֶת הַתְּרוּמָה. מִן מַה דְאָמַר רַב הוּנָא קִילְפֵי אִיסּוּר מִצְטָֽרְפִין לְהֵיתֵר. הָדָא אָֽמְרָה טִינּוֹפֶת שֶׁל תְּרוּמָה מִצְטָרֶפֶת עִם הַחוּלִין לְהַעֲלוֹת אֵֶת הַתְּרוּמָה. רַב הוּנָא אָמַר קִילְפֵי אִיסּוּר מַעֲלִין אֶת הַהֵיתֵר. סְאָה תְרוּמָה שֶׁנָּֽפְלָה לְמֵאָה אֵין אַתָּה מוֹצִיא זְוָנִין טִנּוֹפֶת שֶׁבָּהּ. לְפָחוֹת מִמֵּאָה אַתָּה מוֹצִיא זְוָנִין טִנּוֹפֶת שֶׁבָּהּ. וְכֵן לוֹג יַיִן צָלוּל שֶׁנָּפַל לְמֵאָה לוֹג יַיִן עָכוֹר אֵין אַתְּ מוֹצִיא שְׁמָרִין שֶׁבּוֹ. לוֹג יַיִן עָכוֹר שֶׁנָּפַל לְמֵאָה לוֹג יַיִן צָלוּל אַתְּ מוֹצִיא שְׁמָרִין שֶׁבּוֹ. HALAKHAH: 103The entire paragraph is in Nazir 6:8:2-4" href="/Jerusalem_Talmud_Nazir.6.8.2-4">Nazir 6:10 (fol. 55c), part of it in Orlah 1:4 (fol. 61b). Not only if the heave lost volume but even if only the profane grain lost but the heave remains as it was, he mills and permits. It was stated: “The waste of heave does not combine with heave to forbid the profane, but the waste of profane combines with the profane to lift the heave104If after milling, the heave without its waste would be 1/100 of the milled profane grain plus its waste, heave could be lifted..” Rebbi Vivian asked: Does the waste of heave combine with profane to lift the heave? Since Rav Huna said, the husks of what is forbidden combine to permit105The statement of R. Huna refers to orlah, fruits in the first three years of a tree’s life, which are forbidden for any use and, if they disappear among other fruits, in general make everything forbidden for any use unless the permitted part are 200 times more than the forbidden. Rab Huna instructs to count in the 200 all husks, both from profane as from orlah fruit., that means waste of heave combines with profane to lift the heave106If after milling, the heave without its waste would be 1% of the remainder, heave can be lifted.. Rav Huna said, the shells of what is forbidden lift what is permitted. A seah of heave which fell into 100, one does not remove zewanin107Kilayim 1:1:1" href="/Jerusalem_Talmud_Kilayim.1.1.1">Kilaim 1:1, Note 1. in it, into less than 100, one does remove the zewanin in it. Similarly, if one log of clear wine108Of heave. fell into 100 log of cloudy wine, one would not remove the latter’s dregs; if one log of cloudy wine fell into 100 log of clear wine, one would remove the former’s dregs.
תַּנֵּי אַף טוֹחֵן הוּא בַּתְּחִילָּה וּמַתִּיר. מַתְנִיתָא דְּרִבִּי יוֹסֵי דְּרִבִּי יוֹסֵי אָמַר אַף יִתְכַּוֵּין וְיִלְקוֹט וְיַעֲלֶה בְאֶחָד וּמָאתַיִם. אָמַר רִבִּי זְעִירָא שֶׁכֵּן דֶּרֶךְ כֹּהֲנִים לִהְיוֹת טוֹחֲנִין מְדוּמָּע בְּבָתֵּיהֶן. מַה נְפַק מִבֵּינֵיהוֹן. כִּלְאֵי הַכֶּרֶם עַל דַּעְתֵּיהּ דְּרִבִּי יוֹסֵי טוֹחֵן וּמַתִּיר. עַל דַּעְתְּהוֹן דְּרַבָּנִין אֵינוֹ טוֹחֵן וּמַתִּיר. It was stated: “One may mill from the start to permit109If one has dema‘ and after milling, following the rule of Terumot 5:3:2" href="/Jerusalem_Talmud_Terumot.5.3.2">Note 106, it would be possible to lift the heave, one tells the owner to go ahead and mill even though the Mishnah is formulated only as a statement after the fact, if the owner milled it and now comes to ask a rabbinic authority on how to proceed..” The baraita is Rebbi Yose’s, since “Rebbi Yose said, one may collect to lift one in two hundred”110Mishnah Orlah 1:6. Since this is a minority opinion, it cannot be practice to be followed.. Rebbi Zeїra said111In Orlah 1:5, the statement is more complete: “R. Zeїra said, it is the opinion of everybody since Cohanim are used to mill dema‘ in their houses.” Since this is a required process, one cannot object to its use., Cohanim are used to mill dema‘ in their houses. What is the difference between them? Kilaim in a vineyard. In the opinion of Rebbi Yose, one mills to permit; in the opinion of the rabbis, one may not mill to permit.
רִבִּי אַבָּהוּ בְשֵׁם רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן. כָּל־הָאִיסּוּרִין שֶׁרִיבָה עֲלֵיהֶן בְּשוֹגֵג מוּתָּר וּבְמֵזִיד אָסוּר. וְלֹא מַתְנִיתָא הִיא. בְּשוֹגֵג מוּתָּר וּבְמֵזִיד אָסוּר. מַתְנִיתָא בִּתְרוּמָה. אָתָה מֵימוֹר לָךְ אֲפִילוּ שְׁאָר כָּל־הַדְּבָרִים. Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: All forbidden things112Which can become insignificant in an appropriate plurality (60, 100, 200 times, as the case may be)., if one added against them in error, it is permitted, intentionally it is forbidden. Is that not the Mishnah: “if it was in error, it is permitted, if intentional, it is forbidden”? The Mishnah is about heave, he comes to tell you about all other things.
רִבִּי אָחָא בְשֵׁם רִבִּי יוֹנָתָן כְּשֵׁם שֶׁמִּצְוָה לוֹמַר עַל דָּבָר שֶׁהוּא נַעֲשֶׂה. כָּךְ מִצְוָה שֶׁלֹּא לוֹמַר עַל דָּבָר שֶׁאֵינוֹ נַעֲשֶׂה. אָמַר רִבִּי לָֽעְזָר כְּשֵׁם שֶׁאָסוּר לְטָהֵר אֶת הַטָּמֵא כָּךְ אָסוּר לְטַמֵּא אֶת הַטָּהוֹר. אָמַר רִבִּי אָבָּא בַּר יַעֲקֹב בְּשֵׁם רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן אִם בָּאָת הֲלָכָה תַחַת יָדָךְ וְאֵי אַתָּה יוֹדֵעַ אִם לִתְלוֹת אִם לִשְׂרוֹף. לְעוֹלָם הֲוֵי רָץ אַחַר הַשְּׂרֵיפָה יוֹתֵר מִן הַתְּלִייָה. שֶׁאֵין לְךָ חָבִיב בַּתּוֹרָה יוֹתֵר מִפָּרִים הַנִּשְׂרָפִים וּשְׂעִירִים הַנִּשְׂרָפִים וְהֵן בִּשְׂרֵיפָה. רִבִּי יוֹסֵי בָּעֵי דָּנִין דָּבָר שֶׁאֵין מִצְוָתוֹ לְכֵן מִדָּבָר שֶׁמִּצְוָתוֹ לְכֵן. Rebbi Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Jonathan: Just as one has a duty to instruct about actions that should be done, so one has a duty to instruct about actions that should not be done. Rebbi Eleazar said, just as it is forbidden to declare the impure as pure, so it is forbidden to declare the pure as impure. Rebbi Abba bar Jacob said in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: If a practical case comes before you and you do not know whether to suspend or to burn113In order Ṭahorot, the rule is that heave impure by biblical standards must be burned but heave only impure by rabbinic standards must be “suspended”, viz, one must leave it to rot until it is no longer food and, therefore, pure according to all standards., always try to burn rather than to suspend since there is nothing in the Torah more distinguished than burned bulls and burned rams, and they are burned114In Leviticus.10.18">Lev. 10:18 it is established as a general rule that any sacrifice whose blood was brought into the sanctuary, to be sprinkled either on the golden altar or before the ark, must be completely burned.. Rebbi Yose wondered, is it possible to infer from something whose commandment is in this for something whose commandment is not so115The simile is not convincing; one should not rush to treat rabbinic impurity as biblical.?