משנה: שְׁתֵּי קוּפּוֹת אַחַת שֶׁל תְּרוּמָה וְאַחַת שֶׁל חוּלִין שֶׁנָּֽפְלָה סְאָה שֶׁל תְּרוּמָה לְתוֹךְ אַחַת מֵהֶן וְאֵין יָדוּעַ לְאֵי זוֹ מֵהֶן נָֽפְלָה הֲרֵי אֲנִי אוֹמֵר לְתוֹךְ שֶׁל תְּרוּמָה נָֽפְלָה. אֵין יָדוּעַ אֵי זוֹ הִיא שֶׁל תְּרוּמָה וְאֵי זוֹ הִיא שֶׁל חוּלִין. אָכַל אֶת אַחַת מֵהֶן פָּטוּר. וְהַשְּׁנִייָה נוֹהֵג בָּהֶן כִּתְרוּמָה וְחַייֶבֶת בְּחַלָּה דִּבְרֵי רִבִּי מֵאִיר וְרִבִּי יוֹסֵי פוֹטֵר. אָכַל אֶחָד מִן הַשְּׁנִייָה פָטוּר. אָכַל אֶחָד מִן שְׁנֵיהֶן מְשַׁלֵּם כִּקְטַנָּה שֶׁבִּשְׁתֵּיהֶן. נָֽפְלָה אַחַת מֵהֶן לְתוֹךְ הַחוּלִין אֵינָהּ מְדַמְּעָתָן וְהַשְּׁנִייָה נוֹהֵג בָּּהּ בִּתְרוּמָה וְחַייֶבֶת בְּחַלָּה דִּבְרֵי רִבִּי מֵאִיר וְרִבִּי יוֹסֵי פוֹטֵר. נָֽפְלָה שְׁנִייָה לְמָקוֹם אַחֵר אֵינָהּ מְדַמְּעָתָוֹ. נָֽפְלוּ שְׁתֵּיהֶן לְמָקוֹם אֶחָד מְדַמְּעוֹת כִּקְטַנָּה שֶׁבִּשְׁתֵּיהֶן. זָרַע אֶת אַחַת מֵהֶן פָּטוּר. וְהַשְּׁנִייָה נוֹהֵג בָּהּ כִּתְרוּמָה וְחַייֶבֶת בְּחַלָּה דִּבְרֵי רִבִּי מֵאִיר. וְרִבִּי יוֹסֵי פּוֹטֵר. זָרַע אַחֵר אֶת הַשְּׁנִייָה פָּטוּר. זָרַע אֶחָד אֶת שְׁתֵּיהֶן בְּדָבָר שֶׁזַּרְעוֹ כָלָה מוּתָּר. וּבְדָבָר שֶׁאֵין זַרְעוֹ כָלָה אָסוּר. MISHNAH: Two boxes, one of heave and one profane. A seah of heave fell into one of them and it is not known into which one; I say it fell into heave.
98This is a direct continuation of the previous Mishnah; in most Mishnah codices the two form a single unit. If it is not known which [box] is heave and which one is profane, if one ate [the contents of] one of them, he is free99In this Mishnah, “free” means free from paying for the heave.. The [contents of] the second he treats as heave but it is subject to ḥallah100Ḥallah is heave taken from profane dough. While one treats the contents as heave, one is not sure that it is heave. If they were profane, any dough made from them would be subject to ḥallah under the rules of heave. Since R. Meïr always considers all possibilities, he must require that ḥallah be taken., the words of Rebbi Meïr; but Rebbi Yose declares it free101R. Yose puts the second box under the rules of dema‘. Dough made from dema‘ is free from the obligation of ḥallah (Mishnah Ḥallah 3:2).. If another person ate from the second [box], he is free. If he ate from both of them, he pays according to the lesser of the two102Since the obligation is monetary, he has to pay only the amount certainly due..
106This is still a continuation of Mishnah 5. If one of them fell into profane [produce] it would not make it dema‘. The [contents of] the second he treats as heave but it is subject to ḥallah100Ḥallah is heave taken from profane dough. While one treats the contents as heave, one is not sure that it is heave. If they were profane, any dough made from them would be subject to ḥallah under the rules of heave. Since R. Meïr always considers all possibilities, he must require that ḥallah be taken., the words of Rebbi Meïr; but Rebbi Yose declares it free101R. Yose puts the second box under the rules of dema‘. Dough made from dema‘ is free from the obligation of ḥallah (Mishnah Ḥallah 3:2).. If the [contents of the] second [box] fell into another place, they would not make it dema‘. If both together fell into one place they would create dema‘ relative to the smaller one107The rule is taken from Mishnah 3:2 (Note 28), where the reasoning behind it is explained..
This cannot apply if one speaks strictly of seeds. What is meant is that small bulbs of onions or leeks, etc., are planted which grow into large plants. These plants retain the property of being heave. sup>118Continuation of the previous Mishnah. If he sowed [the contents of] one of them, he is free. The [contents o f ] the second he treats as heave but it is subject to ḥallah100Ḥallah is heave taken from profane dough. While one treats the contents as heave, one is not sure that it is heave. If they were profane, any dough made from them would be subject to ḥallah under the rules of heave. Since R. Meïr always considers all possibilities, he must require that ḥallah be taken., the words of Rebbi Meir; but Rebbi Yose declares it free101R. Yose puts the second box under the rules of dema‘. Dough made from dema‘ is free from the obligation of ḥallah (Mishnah Ḥallah 3:2).. If another person sowed the second one, he is free. If one person sowed [the contents of] both of them, if it is a kind whose seeds disappear, all is permitted119Since the seeds have been transformed into roots and plants, there is no longer any heave in existence which could be forbidden., if they do not disappear120, it is forbidden.
הלכה: אַחַת טְמֵאָה וְאַחַת טְהוֹרָה אֲנִי אוֹמֵר לְתוֹךְ טְמֵאָה נָֽפְלָה. אַחַת מְדוּמָּעַת וְאַחַת אֵינָהּ מְדוּמָּעַת אֲנִי אוֹמֵר לַמְּדוּמַּעַת נָֽפְלָה. אַחַת יֵשׁ בָּהּ כְּדֵי לַעֲלוֹת וְאַחַת אֵין בָּהּ כְּדֵי לַעֲלוֹת אֲנִי אוֹמֵר לְאוֹתָהּ שֶׁאֵין בָּהּ כְּדֵי לַעֲלוֹת נָֽפְלָה. HALAKHAH: One impure and one pure, I say it fell into the impure one96In Tosephta 6:15 it is added that in case the two boxes contained heave, the pure heave may be formed into dough only in quantities less than the volume of an egg, to avoid possible impurities. This means that the expression “I say” implies only restrictions, not leniencies.. One dema‘ and one not dema‘, I say it fell into the one containing dema‘97Cf. Terumot 4:6:1" href="/Jerusalem_Talmud_Terumot.4.6.1">Chapter 4, Note 62.. One contains enough for lifting96In Tosephta 6:15 it is added that in case the two boxes contained heave, the pure heave may be formed into dough only in quantities less than the volume of an egg, to avoid possible impurities. This means that the expression “I say” implies only restrictions, not leniencies. and one does not, I say it fell into the one which does not contain enough for lifting.
רִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן לָקִישׁ בְּשֵׁם בַּר קַפָּרָא אָמַר וְהוּא שֶׁיֵּשׁ בִּשְׁנִייָה רוֹב. רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָמַר אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁאֵין בִּשְׁנִייָה רוֹב. מִחְלְפָה שִׁיטָּתֵיהּ דְּרִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן לָקִישׁ. תַּמָּן הוּא אוֹמֵר סְפֵיקָן בָּטֵל בְּרוֹב וְהָכָא אָמַר הָכֵין. תַּמָּן בְּשֵׁם גַּרְמֵיהּ. וְהָכָא בְשֵׁם בַּר קַפָּרָא. מִחְלְפָה שִׁיטָּתֵיהּ דְּרִבִּי יוֹחָנָן. תַּמָּן הוּא אָמַר כּוּלְּהֶם נַעֲשׂוּ הוֹכִיחַ וְהָכָא אַתְּ אָמַר הָכֵין. שַׁנְייָא הִיא הָכָא שֶׁיֵּשׁ לוֹ בְּמַה לִתְלוֹת. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish in the name of Bar Qappara: Only if the second [box] was larger103Since in biblical law, all doubts are resolved by a plurality (Terumot 4:7:3" href="/Jerusalem_Talmud_Terumot.4.7.3">Chapter 4, Note 71).. Rebbi Joḥanan said, even if the second was not larger. The opinion of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish seems inverted. There104In the case of heave figs falling into profane figs, Terumot 4:7:6" href="/Jerusalem_Talmud_Terumot.4.7.6">Chapter 4, Notes 82 ff., he says this doubt disappears in the plurality but here, he says so? There, he said it as his own [opinion], here in the name of Bar Qappara. The opinion of Rebbi Joḥanan seems inverted. There, he says all become subject to proof but here, he says so? There is a difference because here there is a peg to hang on105Figs all look alike, but here there are two different boxes. This is an argument valid only because we hold that the obligation of heave today is rabbinical; if it were biblical, one could not pretend to guess the place of the heave..
שְׁתֵּי קוּפּוֹת אַחַת שֶׁל תְּרוּמָה טְמֵאָה וְאַחַת שֶׁל חוּלִין טְהוֹרִין וְנָֽפְלָה סְאָה תְרוּמָה טְמֵאָה לְתוֹךְ אַחַת מֵהֶן וְאֵין יָדוּעַ לְאֵי זוֹ מֵהֶן נָֽפְלָה אֲנִי אוֹמֵר לְתוֹךְ שֶׁל תְּרוּמָה נָֽפְלָה. וְהַחוּלִין יֵאָֽכְלוּ בְטָהֳרָה. נָֽפְלָה סְאָה תְרוּמָה טְהוֹרָה אֲנִי אוֹמֵר לְתוֹךְ שֶׁל תְּרוּמָה טְמֵאָה נָֽפְלָה וְחוּלִין יֵאָֽכְלוּ נִיקּוּדִים. שְׁתֵּי קוּפּוֹת אַחַת שֶׁל תְּרוּמָה טְהוֹרָה וְאַחַת שֶׁל חוּלִין טְמֵאָה וְנָֽפְלָה סְאָה תְרוּמָה טְהוֹרָה לְתוֹךְ אַחַת מֵהֶן וְאֵין יָדוּעַ לְאֵי זוֹ מֵהֶן נָֽפְלָה. אֲנִי אוֹמֵר לְתוֹךְ תְּרוּמָה נָֽפְלָה וְהַחוּלִין יֵאָֽכְלוּ נִיקּוּדִין. נָֽפְלָה סְאָה תְרוּמָה טְמֵאָה שְׁתֵיהֶן אֲסוּרוֹת. מַה נַפְשָׁךְ אִי לְתוֹךְ תְּרוּמָה נָֽפְלָה אָסוּר. אִי לְתוֹךְ שֶׁל חוּלִין נַֽפְלָה אָסוּר. לָמָּה שֶׁסָּפֵק טָמֵא טָמֵא וְסָפֵק מְדוּמָּע מוּתָּר. 108Similar arguments in different formulation are in Tosephta 6:15 – 17.“Two boxes, one of impure heave and one of pure profane [grain]: a seah of impure heave fell into one of them and it is not known into which of them it fell, I say it fell into heave but the profane should be eaten in the form of crackers109To avoid impurity, cf. Terumot 5:1:1" href="/Jerusalem_Talmud_Terumot.5.1.1">Chapter 5, Note 5. We say that heave fell into heave only to avoid dema‘ which is rabbinical. Since in reality, the heave might be in the profane box, one has to take care not to contaminate it with impurity (R. Joseph Caro on Maimonides Terumot 15:20.). If a seah of pure heave fell, I say it fell into heave but the profane should be eaten as crackers. Two boxes, one of pure heave and one of impure profane [grain]: a seah of pure heave fell into one of them and it is not known into which of them it fell, I say it fell into heave but the profane should be eaten as crackers. If a seah of impure heave fell, both of them are forbidden.” In any way you look at it, if it fell into heave, it is forbidden, if it fell into the profane, it is forbidden since impurity in doubt is impure110Since all action is in a private domain, cf. Terumot 3:1:2" href="/Jerusalem_Talmud_Terumot.3.1.2">Chapter 3, Note 9. This shows that in the second case, all is forbidden. but dema‘ in doubt is permitted111Since there is a double doubt: Maybe the heave fell into the other box, and if it fell into the box from which grain was taken, maybe all or almost all grains are profane. Cases of double doubt are permitted even for biblical prohibitions [Yevamot 15:1:2-7" href="/Jerusalem_Talmud_Yevamot.15.1.2-7">Yebamot 15:1 (fol. 15c), Ketubot 1:1:2-17" href="/Jerusalem_Talmud_Ketubot.1.1.2-17">Ketubot 1:1 (fol. 24d)]..
אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן סָפֵק מְדוּמָּע פָּטוּר מִן הָחַלָּה. סָפֵק דִּימּוּעַ הַנֶּאֱכַל מִשּׁוּם דֶּמַע חַייָב בְּחַלָּה. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן דְּרִבִּי יוּדָה הִיא. דְּתַנִּינָן תַּמָּן אִם נִשְׁאֲלוּ בְּבַת אַחַת טְמֵאִין. בְּזֶה אַחַר זֶה טְהוֹרִין. רִבִּי יוֹסֵי אוֹמֵר בֵּין כָּךְ וּבֵין כָּךְ טְמֵאִין. בְּמַה נָן קַייָמִין. אִם בְּשֶׁנִּשְׁאָלוֹ שְׁנֵיהֶן כְּאַחַת טְמֵאִין וְאִם בְּזֶה אַחַר זֶה טְהוֹרִין. אֶלָּא כִּי נָן קַייָמִין בְבָא לִשָּׁאֵל עָלָיו וְעַל חֲבֵירוֹ. רִבִּי יוּדָה אוֹמֵר אוֹמֵר לוֹ שְׁאוֹל דִּילָךְ וְאֵיזִיל לָךְ. וְרִבִּי יוֹסֵי אָמַר כְּמִי שֶׁנִּשְׁאֲלוּ שְׁנֵיהֶן כְּאַחַת. וְהָכָא לֹא כְּמִי שֶׁנִּשְׁאֲלוּ שְׁנֵיהֶן כְּאַחַת. Rebbi Joḥanan said, a doubt of dema‘ is free from ḥallah112Halakhah Ḥallah 1:3, on condition that the profane grain be more than the amount causing the dema‘. but a doubt of dema‘ which is eaten as dema‘ is subject to ḥallah113In the case of the two boxes, when we declare that there is no dema‘ but we require the grain to be eaten as if there were.. Rebbi Joḥanan said, this follows Rebbi Jehudah, as we have stated there114Mishnah Ṭahorot 5:5: “Two roads, one impure [it leads over a grave whose exact position is unknown] and one pure [and it is unknown which is which]. A person walked on one of them and prepared food in purity, another person walked on the other and prepared food in purity. Rebbi Jehudah says, if they ask together …”: “If they ask together, they are impure. One after the other they are pure. Rebbi Yose says, in both cases they are impure.” Where do we hold? If somebody comes to ask about himself and his friend. Rebbi Jehudah says, he says: ask about yourself115Since this is a doubt of impurity in the public domain, it has to be declared pure. and go away. But Rebbi Yose said, it is as if both of them asked together116While R. Yose must agree that singly their doubts must be resolved for purity, if there is a logical necessity (“in any way you look at it”) that one of them must be impure, that logical necessity overrides the rule about doubts.. And here it is as if both of them asked together117Even R. Jehudah must agree that in the case of the two boxes one cannot ask about one and then go away. R. Joḥanan wants to say that the baraita follows not only R. Yose but even R. Jehudah..
רִבִּי זְעִירָא בְשֵׁם רִבִּי חִייָא בַר װָא וְהוּא שֶׁזָּרַע אֶת הַשְּׁנִייָה עַד שֶׁלֹּא קָצַר רִאשׁוֹנָה. אִם זָרַע אֶת הַשְּׁנִייָה עַד שֶׁלֹּא קָצַר אֶת הָרִאשׁוֹנָה אֵין תָּלוּשׁ וּמְחוּבָּר נַעֲשׂוּ הוֹכִיחַ. רִבִּי חֲנִינָה תִירָתַייָה בְּשֵׁם רִבִּי יַנַּאי בָּצָל שֶׁל תְּרוּמָה שֶׁעֲקָרוֹ וּשְׁתָלוֹ מִכֵּיוָן שֶׁרָבָה עָלָיו הֶחָדָשׁ מוּתָּר. הָתִיב רִבִּי זְעִירָא וְהָתַנִּינָן אֶת שֶׁזַּרְעוֹ כָלָה מוּתָּר וְדָבָר שֶׁאֵין זַרְעוֹ כָלָה אָסוּר. דָבָר שֶׁזַּרְעוֹ כָלָה מוּתָּר בְּמַרְבֶּה עָלָיו הֶחָדָשׁ. וְדִכְװָתָהּ דָּבָר שֶׁאֵין זַרְעוֹ כָלָה אָסוּר וְאַף עַל פִּי שֶׁרָבָה עָלָיו הֶחָדָשׁ. רִבִּי זְעִירָא כְדַעְתֵּיהּ דְּאָמַר רִבִּי זְעִירָא בְשֵׁם רִבִּי יוֹנָתָן בָּצָל שֶׁל כִּלְאֵי הַכֶּרֶם שֶׁעֲקָרוֹ וּשְׁתָלוֹ אֲפִילוּ הוֹסִיף כַּמָּה אָסוּר שֶׁאֵין גִּידּוּלֵי אִיסּוּר מַעֲלִין אֶת הָאִיסּוּר. Rebbi Zeïra in the name of Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba: Only if he sowed the [contents of the] second [box] before he harvested from the first. If he sowed the [contents of the] second [box] before he harvested from the first then what is cut and what is standing does not all become subject to proof121For this expression, that they do not prove contradictory statements, cf. Terumot 4:7:6" href="/Jerusalem_Talmud_Terumot.4.7.6">Chapter 4, Note 82; Chapter 7, Halakhah 5.. Rebbi Ḥanina Eyntanaya in the name of Rebbi Yannai: An onion of heave that was uprooted and replanted becomes permitted as soon as the new growth is more [than what was planted]. Rebbi Zeïra objected: Did we not state: “If it is a kind whose seeds disappear, all is permitted, if they do not disappear, it is forbidden.” If it is a kind whose seeds disappear, [it is permitted] the moment the new growth is more [than the original amount]. Similarly, if they do not disappear, [it is forbidden] even if the new growth is more! 122The following sentence is from Kilayim 5:6:2-4" href="/Jerusalem_Talmud_Kilayim.5.6.2-4">Kilaim Halakhah 5:7, cf. Terumot 7:2:1" href="/Jerusalem_Talmud_Terumot.7.2.1">Note 76. Rebbi Zeïra follows his own opinion, as Rebbi Zeira said in the name of Rebbi Jonathan: An onion from kilaim in a vineyard that he removed from the soil and planted anew is forbidden even if it increases manifold, since growth of what is forbidden can never justify forbidden produce.