•won pno norm nxo

iN VinI n hnöτ ·· ö• ninatτ ?: nbsiτ : ITw ·.· dnöτ •· os norτ m πντ ο :n tuva (foi. 43b) on VNIOO V? V*-pn\? V3 W yffVEb W TWN"! ,πνο nriiK iq-t>p γιη ηαη^ >ρ*τ:ι ηκυ ηπίΝ rm?n rnin\?

ΊΝ DN1 -L'WVO JLONJL!? DW N*H.(7> ^VW"! ON"! nv^p iN onip? i!7DN> ρ>ιηη vn vn>?o on-) .na? ί!ρν nri nbsi νπρη>

.nyis *rn2s oippi ΝΓΙ> H? Jii»t»y> ιρ>ηπ> iN ni-va 'oi ivtti» iN 1: One seah of impure heave that fell into less than 100 [seah] of profane produce, or First Tithe, or Second Tithe, or dedicated produce, be it pure or impure, must be left to rot1. If that seah was pure, all should be sold to Cohanim for the price of terumah except for the value of that seah.2. If it fell into First Tithe, heave of the tithe must be given its name3; if it fell into Second Tithe or dedicated produce, they should be redeemed4. If it was impure and profane5, it should be eaten as crackers, or dry roasted, or kneaded with fruit juice, or split into pieces of dough so that no volume of an egg should be together.

1 Since impure heave must be buyers; the owner is not permitted to destroyed and heave cannot be lifted if charge the regular price to make clear it constitutes more than 1% of the that the Cohen may not give from the whole, all must be destroyed. produce to lay people. The original 2 All is pure dema' which may be heave cannot be charged since it is not eaten by the Cohen. The Cohen will the farmer's property. pay only little because there are few 3 Again, it must be sold to a HALAKHAH1 167

Cohen but the Cohen may not eat from 5 It is assumed that the impure it before he declares that 10% of the produce is dry and the pure heave has tithe are to be heave of the tithe. not been prepared for impurity (Demay Since First Tithe becomes profane after Chapter 2, Note 141). Food in quan- its heave was removed, if it is still tities less than the volume of an egg called First Tithe this implies that it does not accept impurity (Mishnah still contains heave. Heave of the tithe Tahorot 1:1); if the heave is of flour, need not actually be separated; this small pieces of half the volume of a would be impossible. hen's egg may be kneaded with water, 4 Since second tithe or food de- larger amounts only in fluids which do dicated to the Temple may not contain not prepare (cf. Demay 2, Note 136), heave, it has to be redeemed and then usually fruit juice other that grape consumed as dema'. juice or wine.

n^nvy >n>st?i ni?y» !?ιυ n»n m .'id ηκοο ηαηπ ηκο :H η^π • : ' ν - •• ·· τ · .... - τ " : τ : τ :

η>νη πν»!? ninai? ni»33\y ηοηη πνό ρ m»N ΝΓΡίη» m ίον ντ·· τ ·· τ : τ : ιτ ν τ : τ ' ·• τ : ιτ τ · : - ·· · · - τ .Νΐη ϊ7ηο Nb 6.nt?vo πν» κη tinöü riins Kinw >330 ...... »c. - τ .. τ τ " ' τ ·.· ·· j · Halakhah 1: "One seah of impure heave", etc. Rebbi Hiyya stated: "Tevel lifts, aftergrowth of the Sabbatical lifts.7" Tevel, one lifts and gives a name to his tithes. The aftergrowth of the Sabbatical should be given to those who may eat it. Rebbi Yose said, a baraita says so: "A seah of heave that fell into less than one hundred may be lifted7 ...". Because it is less than 100; hence 100 will lift; is that not from tevell

6 Reading of the Rome ms. heave and tithes for other produce or Leyden and Venice: ii^vn n"?s>o "lifts, he gives a name to the heave of the may be lifted." tithe." 6:3: "A seah of heave which fell 7 Tosephta 6:2: "A seah of heave into 100 of Sabbatical produce shall be which fell into less than 100 and made lifted, less than that must be left to it dema', if it was tevel he uses it as rot." Tevel is forbidden to everybody, 168 CHAPTER FIVE including a Cohen, but the Cohen may tithe without actually separating any- turn it all into heave and heave of the thing.

na N't? -igN n»i?\n ,ηιοιυι ija^rn na? νρ>ϊΗ)ο l^ari I»*)

Π3 N>n ΓΡ>3ψ N't? *1£N ρην ,N'!? Dni^n (fol. 43b) ΊΝψ Nil ΙΡψΊ pjin na? vv^n N^Pl^i? 1TI> .οηττη-!?? ">Νψ wn ΙΡψ νιπ nttiui ΐ)?ψι na? ρ>>7)0η ·|3ην rn dw? iiooj -α ϊ>κι»ψ >a*i ,·|)οψ3 uon ν^Ίφ in)? uni> >>pip 1>?031? ^Νΐοψ .vriioiiv ia-ιψ?

.1311)0 Νΐηψ v*Tiö ^Ό nni ρ'ίπκ

.nim>iΤ !?· πηνίοΤ 5 Τυ ! .nnvyotτ:τ? : vnr·o - ! ' !pni 'τ >Τ nvya n»nΤ · -t u Τ>· η TO-Τ !

.π»p^irτ τ : -ö : πηνίο!τ:τ?: .ro>oiτ » nnwoτ : τb : There8, we have stated: "One makes a fire with bread and oil of heave." Hizqiah said, they taught only bread and oil, therefore nothing else. Rebbi Johanan said, there is no difference between bread, oil, and any other thing. Rebbi Yudan from Kappadokia asked, are wheat grains like bread and olives like oil9? Rebbi Samuel bar Nahman said in the name of Rebbi Johanan10, may the bones of him who uses bread and oil of heave to make a fire be burned. Rebbi Samuel bar Nahman asked before Rebbi Johanan: May one make a fire? He said to him, make a fire11! Anything given to your tribe was given to you, as Rebbi Abba bar

Hiyya said in the name of Rebbi Johanan {Num. 18:8): "For excellence12".

For excellence for greatness, for excellence for rubbing in, for excellence for lighting.

8 This baraita is not found in any 9 In the Babli, R. Johanan collection but it is quoted in Babli explicitly adds wheat grains to bread. Pesahim 33b, together with the 10 The name tradition here is opinions of Hizqiah and R. Johanan. impossible, even though it is supported The heave in this paragraph is impure by both mss. In the next sentence, the heave which is forbidden as food. same R. Samuel bar Nahman asks R. HALAKHAH 1 169

Johanan whether one may use impure forbidden food. (In mss. of the Babli, heave for lighting. The statement, as substitutions of "Johanan" for "Jona- noted by R. S. Cirillo, must be in the than" and vice-versa are quite fre- name of R. Samuel's teacher R. quent.)

Jonathan; a similar position is taken in 11 Of impure heave. the Babli by Rav Hisda and his student 12 "To you (Aaron) I gave it for Rava. They are afraid that storing of excellence," referring to all obligatory impure heave as fuel would lead to gifts to the Cohen. people accidentally eating from the

i^rivi ϊν ·ΝΠ>3 Tvptn-r n>riyi ϊχ VW? ι:ιί?Ί· VP71?

N$)3> κ)3ψ ro>3D >a-)7 nir\? ·)3ηρ -no ^Ύί nuö' K»vy ViiTb ismy -i:m iD-π vnw -inn ira ·• τ · TV ·· τ · i ~ ν τ τ : τ -s ·· τ · s ~ ' τ τ ί τ · » γ τ

We understand that when pure it must be left to rot15, but when impure to rot? In the opinion of Hizqiah, this is correct. In the opinion of

Rebbi Johanan, should it not be burned? Rebbi Johanan is of the opinion of Rebbi Yose ben Hanina, maybe it is possible to find for them something to lift16; but only if it is not usually mixed [with other food].

But if it usually is mixed, maybe something untoward will happen17.

13 Reading of Rome ms. Leyden heave to be lifted. and Venice: Vv jj'VT |3πν 'an πτιιπ 17 Therefore, it has to be lapn" Nrra n'prrn nvon. destroyed as quickly as possible, by 14 Reading of Rome ms. Leyden burning. In the Babli (loc. cit. 8), the and Venice: ViS'n1? "to be included". position of R. Johanan is interpreted

15 This is required by the Mishnah. that he permits impure heave to be 16 Since rotting takes some time, stored as fuel only after it has been maybe some more will accidentally fall denatured. into the produce which will permit the 170 TERUMOT CHAPTER FIVE

N3>3D invwi ioipp VN s&r? l^nao ·ρ κΐη

'»li lxrpin> κ^ο Dip» iniN ΐΊ.ηψ

Did we not want to say that dedicated things have only their time and place19? Rebbi Hanina said, explain it if that place was destroyed and he cannot even sell it for the price of wood.

18 The Leyden ms. and Venice text dedicated articles to a place where have here an additional word: xbx. they might fetch a better price. If

19 Mishnah 6:5. If some- impure heave fell into dedicated thing is donated to the Temple, it has produce, why should it rot and not be to be sold off at its place at the earliest sold as fuel? possible time; one may not transport

ON II»3JN N»N NIN I>N»OA rnino i>aNi minoa rninv? RNPN ΝΪΠ oyn >a*i NIVD »ail n>rivi ϊϋ P^n iriiN vn ρκρυ

iribn "pnqN!? * non^ ri2S wririii >Ni> >an ovn roi> >3,11 n»pp

VY^NPPRI •)» -ION I*T NIRP-J ΓΡΓΙΠ .IRMRPA ·Ρ-»Γ)Ν> ·)Γΐ3?Ψ

ίο ΐ)3Γΐ -ion Nirm aa in·) .ia\{> vy^ppn in irto Npn in

,·)Γΐ3^ ύΓΐ> ριρΐ Νΐηφ na*T? ta^ai >iio ia^ vinippn

This means, pure [fell into] pure, but pure into impure20? That is what we have stated: "If it was impure and profane." 2IAccording to Rebbi Yose, it is appropriate, as Rebbi Yose said in the name of Hizqiah, Rebbi Jonah in the name of Rebbi Yannai (Num. 18:28): "You shall give from it the Eternal's heave to Aharon the priest;" it should be given to Aharon in his status as priest22. In the opinion of Cahana who said, take from its sanctifiable part, also here one should take from the sanctifiable part. Even though Cahana says there, take from its sanctifiable part, he agrees only in what he is required to give to the Cohen23. HALAKHAH 2 171

20 This refers to the last part of obvious for R. Yose since impure dema' the Mishnah. Why does the Mishnah cannot be given to the Cohen. give detailed instructions in all possible 23 For Cahana, the essence of the cases if the produce was pure but for obligation is taking heave, not the impure produce only if it was profane delivery to the Cohen. But he agrees and not also when it was tithe? that one should try to give it to the

21 The disagreement between R. Cohen in usable form. Therefore, Yose and Cahana is in Chapter 2, Note heave of the tithe should be given from 9. another source since this is permitted; 22 Since heave of the tithe makes then the heave is profane and covered the tithe dema', everything is forbidden by the Mishnah. For Cahana, there is if it is impure and the Mishnah is no question.

.ο^η »an Nirp οηιρο pin-!

Crackers are about the size of halves of eggs.

τηίηυ p>in dn>?> nisw dnö\? ηηηπ γινο ·Λ niwa (foi. 43b) o>>?dd! πνρ wfl ηκ\ρ *υ?ΐΝ .«π.φιη oi*vri noiN

ίν jirpa >)?α wiirji w iN D>-np3 bDNrii nbyri onpiN

.nyis τηκ oipm Ν;Ί> >τρ

Mishnah 2: One seah of impure heave that fell into 100 [seah ] of pure profane produce, Rebbi Eliezer says it should be lifted and burned since I am saying that the seah which fell is the seah which was lifted. But the

Sages say, it should be taken out and eaten24 as crackers, or dry roasted, or kneaded with fruit juice, or split into pieces of dough so that no volume of an egg should be together5·6.

24 Rashi in 22b explains: produce which shall be treated as "it should disappear (in the profane impure, and the value of one seah be 172 TERUMOT CHAPTER FIVE given to a Cohen) or eaten ..."; cf. also since, for that notion, Mishnah 4 uses Bekhorot 22b Tosaphot s. v. DTvn, Sittah the expression nowaa max "it was lost mequbeset Note 32. However, nVvn in its minority." cannot be translated as "to disappear"

1»ri ΊΟΝ TT DE? rPriyi? ^W*? ·|ί0>ρ >3Ί "ION λ (fol. 43c)

ϊοτ»ν\ .iin toy VKpvprrbs KDn -ipiN wn p] toy p^oan-io

Hlo Ν!η .mTH? ^so iN

πνο vn ow riiN-ip> Νΐηψ ϊαο ^ηψ γινμ

-»on .η^ΐιψνο!? οψ ni-ip> ins νγι> N't? njtoyvi dnü Ν>η η^ψ nNot? nbaavy nnino noi-m πνο mim warn N-pyt m "ion jiw n:>o τ ·• r : IT •/ τ τ τ τ : - : 'τ • - : τ : · - τ τ τ ion >ρίρ Ν'ηηο V~)W nto ρκηυ ρ>ιη

ηϋϋ -|to -ion .mTH? >;>?ρ nonjpn TIN vfniw ρ n>-T ·ρο>ρ 1>2-iVvy Vi< ΊΤ1? N?™ VN >?ap N'!? U'iriT ηίρ>3ϋ πνώό mo^jp on no >pi> >oip pya njpν N»*iiq O^iN otos .n^DiN monii ow> in^ ito -»on wpo'y rpn no in itoin on

TÖ Ο'Νψ Vlio ΟΓ1Ν 'N .nNJ3\? Ν>3ψ Γηίη\? N^N njOIUp πνοίο pao *τ!?ύψ to no .na-pvy> ύ>Νψ rwaippi nNjpio p?o n»v;po> pjpy? n^n .noippi nNpio pay η!? "tow to γιο tin oipoi nNt> nNo!? n!733w mino nomn nNt> n>v\yin >ίτντ Nin -pvyp>N τ τ ·• s τ : it ·.· τ τ τ : τ : - ...... ττ t t >: ·

,ηΝοτ ·· ο: ηοι-ιτ η Rebbi Simon says, Rebbi Eliezer stays with his opinion. Just as he says

there25, all that is defective was in his hand, so he says here all that is impure is in his hand.

Rebbi Zeüra asked, may we not say that Rebbi Eliezer said it only

because of a fence26? Does not Rebbi Eliezer agree that for a seah lifted

from tevel he must give a name to its tithes7? If you say the seah which

fell is the seah which came up, it would not be necessary to give a name

to its tithes27! Rebbi Mana said, Rebbi Zeüra is correct since we have HALAKHAH 2 173 stated after this28: "A seah of pure heave which fell into a hundred of impure profane produce," and Rebbi Eliezer does not disagree!

The colleagues argued before Rebbi Yose: Rebbi Simon is correct, because otherwise would one burn heave because of a "fence"? He said to them, are the six doubts which we have stated not because of their "fences"? Do we not also burn here because of its "fence"29? The colleagues said, we asked before Rebbi Yose: In any case, if it is impure heave, it should be burned, if it is profane, why could it not become impure30? He said to us, is it not eaten as heave? Heave cannot be eaten except if it is pure, maybe impure? Do you not agree that if a doubt of impurity arose in its place that he cannot burn it31? What is the difference whether a doubt of impurity arose at another place or at its place? But if you want to question, then question what Rebbi Hoshaiah stated, since Rebbi Hoshaiah stated: "A seah of pure heave that fell into 100 seah of impure heave32."

25 In Mishnah Zebahim 8:5, R. permits the limbs on the altar only if at Eliezer states that if limbs of valid least two of the same kind are brought sacrifices were mixed up with limbs of simultaneously, so that one of them at a sacrifice which had been found least is valid. The "fence" is the fence defective and one of these had been around the law, a measure of precau- burned on the altar before the error tion that no biblical law could possibly was detected, then all limbs of the be violated; cf. Demay Chapter 1, Note same kind can be brought to the altar. 89.

R. Simon interprets this to mean that 27 If it were 100% heave, no tithes we say the first limb was from a would be possible. defective animal and the rest therefore 28 Mishnah 3. If R. Eliezer would are proper sacrifices. consider all that came into his hand as 26 He disagrees with R. Simon; his heave, it would be pure and would not position is that of R. Eleazar in the have to be eaten with the precautions Babli (Zebahim 77b) that R. Eliezer indicated in the Mishnah. 174 TERUMOT CHAPTER FIVE

29 The reference is to Mishnah dispose of it if it is no longer food. Tahorot 4:5: "For six doubts one burns The questioner assumes that all heave: For the doubt of field of pieces questionable heave is suspended; R. (a field where a grave was ploughed), Yose points out that there are instances the doubt of earth from a Gentile in which questionable heave is burned. country (which is impure by tradition), 30 Why do the Sages have to the doubt of the garments of a vulgar oppose R. Eliezer; could the lifted seah person (who does not observe the rules not be burned and all problems would of purity), the doubt of found vessels, be eliminated? the doubts of spittle and urine (from 31 The position of the Sages in unknown persons), if one certainly Mishnah Tahorot 4:5: If the heave was touched them but does not know about of doubtful status before it fell into the their status of purity one burns heave. 100 other seah ("in its place" before it R. Yose says, even on a doubt whether fell), it would have to be suspended, one touched them in a private domain not burned. Why could its replacement (cf. Chapter 3, Note 10), but the Sages be burned now? say, on that doubt in a private domain 32 There is no Tosephta dealing one suspends and on a public road it is with this case, but everybody agrees pure." The normal procedure for heave that all must be burned; one does not that may be impure is to "suspend", i. e., lift one seah to let it rot. to leave the heave to rot and then

.pND ·>ΐίπ Ν in? ynipvi pin"!

Crackers are about half of a seah,33. 33 Either this is a scribal error for and comments on our Mishnah: "Now, "half an egg", cf. the end of Mishnah 1, even though there is purity and or the translation of fiip*! is not impurity, the pure part will not become "crackers" but "totally dry" following impure without preparation; the impure Rashi (Bekhorot 22b) who translates the part becomes voided in the plurality verse Jos. 9:12 nnpi πήί wa·· nan and should be eaten D'Tip1]." "behold, it is dry and was totally dry" HALAKHAH 3 175

(fol. 43b)D>Vil VNPV? V^n ΠΝθ!ρ ΓηίΠ\? Γίρη^ DKtJ 71JV»

η? ρ>ηΓΐπ iN ni^s ·>ηι vyib^ ίκ ην!?;? ίκ onip?

.nyi? -nw oipm ΝΓΙ?

Mishnah 3: One seah of pure heave that fell into 100 [seah] of impure profane produce should be taken out and eaten as crackers33, or dry roasted, or kneaded with fruit juice, or split into pieces of dough so that no volume of an egg should be together5·6.

D>-np>3 toDW ΝΪ> ρ>1Π Ί)0Ν D»pp (fol. 43c)

.1?02 N!J ΠΜΟΙΟ boa jrn* WN m»N rpn!?>ö .in^n ^sn ·· τ τ ·· Τ Τ Τ S IT • τ τ - ·· : · rmivyyb κηη ηΌψ:ι ΝΓΙ> DÖD ΊΟΝ ΝΙΠ Ι«ΓΙ n>pm"7 rprnpny Π3>πρ

,·)>?η -ion κιη ϊο) .pap nya-iN·) pap ya-iN ηιηψ MÜH π»ρρ rnnpa rj? ηηΝΊ vynan^a ΪΟΠ Dia .vynan rjs ΙΠΝΊ ba^ya "iiari >pv >5*·) -»jon

SV*

Halakhah 3: Hizqiah said, even the profane food there should be eaten only as dry crackers because of their hallah35. His word says that the prohibition of the outsider becomes insignificant but the prohibition of impurity does not become insignificant36. The arguments of Hizqiah seem inverted. There37, he says: How much can be in a dough that he should be able to make it in purity38? Hizqiah said one sixth of four qab in four qab39. And here he says so40! Rebbi Yose said, there, when he kneaded the dough and then separated, but here when he separated and then

kneaded41.

34 Word missing in Venice print. 36 If he is worried about heave, 35 The heave from the dough there are two prohibitions to be ob- which has to be eaten by a Cohen in served: No outsider (one who is not a purity under the rules of heave, Num. Cohen) may eat from it and it may not 15:20. be eaten in impurity. Since he does not 176 TERUMOT CHAPTER FIVE require that all should be given to the 39 If will be seen in the next para-

4 Cohen as dema', it follows that the graph that /6 qab is much more than prohibition of the outsider has dis- the volume of an egg, Hizqiah holds appeared. Since he is worried about that, in this case, one may separate a impure heave, the prohibition of small cake for hallah (whose normal impurity has not disappeared. The size should be V24 of the entire dough) argument cannot refer to the Mishnah to be sure that it does not contain the here, since everything is impure and volume of an egg of impure dough and any hallah must be burned. Therefore, turn it into hallah. The remainder may Hizqiah must refer to Mishnah 2, one then be worked in impurity. Since seah of impure heave which is in 100 hallah follows the rules of heave, it seah of pure profane grain. must be taken from the dough itself.

37 This seems to refer to Tosephta Hizqiah must follow R. Eliezer who in Hallah 2:5: "Impure flour which was Mishnah Hallah 2:4 permits to give one mixed with pure flour but the impure is hallah for all breads in one large less than its measure (less than the basket. If the bread destined for hallah volume of an egg), if he takes [hallah] is separated from the large impure he says: This should be hallah except breads by small loaves of volume less for the impure part in it." He cannot than one egg, no contamination can declare all of it as hallah since it might take place. (The basis of this device is contain impure flour and impure hallah Mishnah Hallah 2:7). is forbidden as food. But the part of 40 He rejects the trick which he impure flour in the dough is certainly recommends for hallah and requires less than the volume of an egg and, that all be consumed either dry or therefore, all of it may be eaten by a kneaded with pure fruit juice. Cohen. (The explanation of this and 41 "There" is here, in Terumot, the next paragraph follows R. H. when it is his intention of processing Kanievski.) all flour together; "here." is there, in 38 How much impure flour can be Hallah, when he is prepared to sepa- in the dough so that pure hallah can be rate a small cake to be kneaded in taken? purity, the rest in impurity.

ρ «το*!»?^ i)> κηισ ty m ^os ni pyio WQ^D ΊΓΏΝ Ί-Ι DON

ρνψη N-njj) dkü no? vv^l PI^V t^V n»? nij? .nnon>a ήϋψρ HALAKHAH 3 177

,πνοο ns>:i ·)Ν3 vy> n>\y ·)>ν .ηΥψν n>\y ιη*τ>τ ηηηνί ιτνη

vtfpn 42b33>D ηψίν wn *τ*>? ΝΠ .-ιν>ψ IN? Ι>Ν ν?")Ν VN"!

Rebbi Abbahu said, all our days we were groping about this as with a blind man's stick until we learned it from mathematical computation.

How much is in a qabl 24 eggs43. How much is in a seah"! 96 eggs44.

One sixth of it are 16 eggs. If he makes a dough of six, it contains an impure egg45. If he makes from four, nothing is left. What does he do?

He makes a dough from five and takes four.

42 Reading of the Rome ms. Ley- 217 eggs. Current practice follows the den and Venice: ^•m'», an Aramaic Yerushalmi here.) The amount of pure word in a Hebrew text. hallah to be given from 96 eggs would 43 This is standard; a qab is 6 log be the volume of 4 eggs. But since the and a log 4 eggs. The same division is verse (Num. 15:21) reads: "From the accepted in the Babli. beginning of your dough you shall give 44 This is nonstandard; the seah in .. . " the dough made for hallah cannot all other places is 6 qab, here it is 4. be exactly the volume of four eggs The seah here must be the Roman since something profane must be left modius which is 16 sextarii, and the over. sextarius is the log since Mishnah 45 It is assumed that the flour was Kelim 17:11 identifies the rpira-i, the thoroughly mixed and homogenized. fourth part of the log, with the Roman Since 6 = 96/16, a dough in the volume quartarius, the fourth part of the of 6 eggs contains exactly 1 egg of sextarius. (In Babli Erubin 83a, a impure flour and is impure. modius is estimated as the volume of

n>ri>>» .Ν»«? η^ύ ΠΝ>»\ρ nyip νπϊ? -n!?i *v?n π>π>>ο

>31 .n©>ya DN>)?\? nya? Nrup τι^ι rvypN "|3nv rryf

>51 -ιηΝ-f γιε ."nyw!? ri'p^n -honi n& ϊοιγι?»? n>p-)> >oi>

46n>riyi NÖU N>n it >w .·)? -αυ ^ 130^ 178 TERUMOT CHAPTER FIVE rnvpv νιψ? πηκ -IJWJI roi> ow? ya ·1?πν

47.O?tino N^K-!

The statement of Hizqiah says, on condition that no impurity the volume of an egg touch the indentation48. A statement of Rebbi Johanan says, on condition that no impurity the volume of an egg touch the dough49. Rebbi Yose said to Rebbi Jeremiah: Is it not reasonable that

Hizqiah spoke to the past and Rebbi Johanan spoke to the future50? He said, that is my opinion also. What is an indentation in the opinion of

Rebbi Johanan51? Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun in the name of Rebbi

Jonah: Explain it that he made a dough with one in seventeen and it came to a dough of two seah52.

46 Reading of the Rome ms., word the time of cooking", which in the last missing in the other sources. version he changed into: "at the time of 47 Reading of the Rome ms., Ley- baking.") According lo R. Simson, den and Venice: dtikö "two hundred". followed by R. Asher ben Iehiel, the 48 The meaning of this word baking sheet has depressions into depends on the interpretation of which the dough is placed to obtain Mishnah Tahorot 1:10: "Loaves of loaves of uniform size. The expla- sacrificial bread which have water in nation of R. Simson seems to be their niaia, if one of them became required by the formulation in impure by a crawling thing, they all Tosephta Tahorot 1:6: "Loaves of are impure; for [loaves ofl heave they sacrificial bread in their nian" make impure two stages and disqualify 49 The dough for the profane a third. If there is damp fluid between loaves. them, even for heave all is impure." 50 Hizqiah has two restrictions According to Maimonides, the compared to R. Johanan. First, all that indentations are depressions in the is in contact with any fluid he declares bread that still contain fluid. (It seems impure where R. Johanan strictly insists that for this reason, he wrote in the that only the volume of at least one first version of his Commentary: egg may induce impurity. Second, in "Indentations left on top of the bread at case of doubt he extends impurity HALAKHAH 3 179 retroactively to all food in contact with can be completely mixed, with a the questionable dough; R. Johanan constant percentage of impure flour in rejects retroactivity. the pure. Since presumably the two

51 Under which circumstances does kinds are indistinguishable to the eye, he admit that the situation envisaged mixing can not be assumed to be by Hizqiah leads to impurity? perfect. As a rough estimate, R.

52 This criticism is levelled at Johanan will admit R. Abbahu's Hizqiah himself and at R. Abbahu's solution if not more than the volume of interpretation of his position. The 17 eggs are mixed with 2 seah of pure interpretation is rejected because it flour (somewhat below 9%) and presupposes that pure and impure flour thoroughly mixed.

Ή") IQKT ,iO»3n "13 >31 ty ΝΡΪ72 Ν "Til ΓΡΪΟ >V1 Ό N3 -τ: τ·-: - τ · : ττ ·· s ">· τ ττ - τ

'a!? boa Ν!? nv»©m nya» boa no^nwa nb>oa nb>ii ΪΟΌΠ na OV ••τ τ "τ τ - "τ τ τ τ ·· : τ ·

ηο>ηψ> "iwfnN lias >a-> -»εν ηψ^Γΐψ ηοιηψ!? "Μ£)>Νψ

"«ON .nonjp rnvyyb ion 015 n^ai ην^ηψ

ϊηη -α Na >a-)i rm»yji? >a*i

Rebbi Abba bar Mamal asked: Does this not contradict Rebbi Yose bar

Hanina? As Rebbi Yose bar Hanina said, a carcass54 can become insignificant in slaughtered55 [meat]; it becomes insignificant for touch, but for motion it cannot become insignificant56 for slaughtered [meat] can never become carcass [meat]57. Rebbi Yose said, there it is impossible for slaughtered [meat] to become carcass [meat], but here profane produce may become heave58. Rebbi Hizqiah said, Rebbi Simon raised the question and Rebbi Abba bar Mamal explained it.

54 A dead animal not ritually υπ© has exactly the same meaning. slaughtered. 56 Carcasses transmit impurity in

55 Slaughtered by cutting its the first degree by touch (Lev. 11:27), throat; cf. Arabic -k^ "to cut some- and original impurity if they are body's throat." The biblical Hebrew carried (Lev. 11:28) even if never 180 TERUMOT CHAPTER FIVE touched. If a piece of carcass meat is Babli concludes that slaughtered meat mixed up with pieces of slaughtered cannot become insignificant in carcass meat, probably it touched a piece meat because it is possible for carcass belonging to the pure majority, but meat to acquire the purity of slaugh- when all are carried, certainly the tered meat by rotting and becoming carcass piece also was carried. Since unusable as food while il is impossible the impurity by touch is only probable, for slaughtered meat to acquire the it can be disregarded under certain impurity of carcass meat. conditions. The impurity by carrying is 58 While profane produce may certain and can never be disregarded. never be used to give heave, if a 57 This argument is ascribed to layman ate heave, he has to replace it Rav Hisda in the Babli (Bezah 38b, by an equal amount of profane food Menahot 23a, Bekhorot 23a), as a (plus a 25% fine) which acquires the general principle to R. Hanina, the sanctity of heave, cf. Mishnah 6:1. father of R. Yose ben R. Hanina. The

7b V>?!?W>3 VN"! pywnp ten nrj ΓΊΝΕ»? nin3> nbaw manji DNP >3ΓΙ -η"ηι .ή:αψρ n'w ID^V ίπν oipao n^ ,-ιηκ oipn ty vypiro ·ηρ ail ON ni-tn -ιηκ t?>:pn> -aia inN i3->i ·|>Νψ .V>in v^n ON"! nnm^ ηηι-ιπ

It was stated59: "A seah of heave that fell into less than a hundred makes it dema'. One does not pay for it the amount and a fifth for another place nor from another place for this except by computation60."

This is for substances which cannot be mixed. But for substances which can be mixed one goes after the plurality. If most of it is heave, it is heave, if most is profane, it is profane61.

59 Tosephta 6:1. payment but it may count only for the 60 If heave was eaten by a layman, amount of profane food, not for the the amount and the fine have to be heave part in it. paid to a Cohen in profane food, 61 As far as payment goes; the Mishnah 6:1. Since dema' may be eaten argument does not apply to fixing the by the Cohen, dema' may be given in dema'. HALAKHAH 4 181 n>a mino tin© nKot? nt?33\y πνοο noi-m dno fiw» (foi. 43b) τ τ τ •· : τ : IT ν τ ·· : τ τ : rninoi ϊ»Νίη wm n>a> γρι m>?N .ρτπο ^Π γριι mow 'kqw .η^η ΠΝ»\? IN η^ίν ηηίηο πρ o>}rp> πίιον ηκροη ont> rrnwf ϊίν ontlp innißD v!?j?n ν>ιηη on ν'!? rpa inb ηρκ ninvy -»nNb .nNöv>n tin onti π-πόνπ mionn norm n:?yn minwn - - . T .. . - .. * τ : τ -ST τ - τ ·.·*:- τ : - .nowoa rmN onpiN O'»DDI >an Mishnah 4: One seah of impure heave which fell into 100 seah of pure heave, the House of Shammai forbid62 and the House of Hillel permit. The House of Hillel said to the House of Shammai: Since pure it is forbidden to outsiders and impure is forbidden to priests63; just as pure [heave] can be lifted, so impure should be lifted. The House of Shammai answered them no, if simple profane produce which is permitted to outsiders lets pure [heave] be lifted, can one infer that heave, operating under stringent rules, may let the impure be lifted? After they conceded, Rebbi Eliezer said it should be lifted and burned but the Sages say, it was lost in its minority64.

62 They forbid the entire heave as 64 Since everything is heave, all impure (even if completely dry). the 101 seah may be eaten by a Cohen 63 Outsiders and Cohanim. as pure heave. p-im pajv ήΐΓ) na? -a ia»N 'a-η na -α >a-> :t nsbn (foi. 43c) rpa> ϊϊτ) ira iN ma> rpa .·>)?> min >» ,τήηψ ίπν ι?>?γι

ογη κηκ >a-i π»ρ\η ^a-i ."pypw"! vpa? .τ»!??'! ns? m>?N λνκμ

τη -»a^a n>a> ira πίηψ tC? n?>?D rmn? ya?·)ΓΗν>?Ί> T? 'njqw rpa> πν ϊϊη γρa ijonw oni -πνρι in^a nto'pa ov !m\? >a-i -van S^T) rpa 65n> mm n!?yri Nan ndjr "|nö .n>yri .•>nöw rpa in^ πνψ o~pp nriiK υψ tyn rpa >a-n nn.a n^d 182 TERUMOT CHAPTER FIVE

.«ρ,φιη αννπ nniN ττίπψ ~»ηκ ρ γπ>?ν Nri^rin "»on

1T)D\y -ΙΠ- Ν- ρΡ •• ΓΠ»τ : Νιτ Νπυπτ · : η- NWf"τ : ) m · ΙΟ- Ντ ,ΝΊΠ - 1ΝΪ7τ -itv^ π·Υ· !: -im .yö »71» ή!? 'NÖW n>a n>i>ri (ω. 43d) ιϊτν^ ί^Ν

ν>ηψ rniriu n«i rvywin >3117 N-jrp .γοπν; niw^ ins w? ρικ

,ρψ'^3 Nl? ο>3Γ)Ρ nwyi κ·>ηψ dnwv? .n^iy o>*nn πγι>» ή);? Halakhah 4: Rebbi Yudan bar Pazi and Rebbi Ayvo bar Naggari66 were sitting and saying: We did state "after they conceded"; who conceded to whom? The House of Shammai to the House of Hillel or the

House of Hillel to the House of Shammai? They said, let us go out and study. The went out and heard Rebbi Hizqiah, Rebbi Aha in the name of

Rebbi Jehudah bar Hanina: We never find the House of Shammai conceding to the House of Hillel except in this matter. Rebbi Jonah in the name of Rebbi Abbai67 understood it from the following68: "If someone pours from vessel to vessel and a tevul yom touches it, it should be lifted by 101." If you say that the House of Hillel conceded to the House of

Shammai that it cannot be lifted, who is the Tanna here, neither the House of Shammai nor the House of Hillel! Rebbi Hanina the son of Rebbi Hillel said, we might say that the House of Hillel stated that before they conceded. Rebbi Yose said, the Mishnah said so: "After they conceded,

Rebbi Eliezer said it should be lifted and burned", and is Rebbi Eliezer not a follower of Shammai? Rebbi Hinena said, the Mishnah said so, after they conceded one to another, the House of Shammai recused themselves and the others69 teach us. Rebbi Abin says, there is another answer70, following what Rebbi Hoshaia stated: Since pure [heave I, which for outsiders is forbidden as deadly sin, can be lifted, certainly also impure

[heave] which is [prohibited] as positive commandment71 for Cohanim. HALAKHAH 5 183

65 Reading of the Rome ms. or oil) poured from one vessel to the Leyden and Venice: rra1?. other, in the opinion of the Sadducees 66 Galilean Amora of the early the entire fluid in both vessels becomes fourth generation, student of R. Hiyya unusable (MMT lines 55-58). In rab- bar Abba and R. La. binic tradition, only the part touched 67 His name appears only here, and by the tevul yom becomes unusable; the nothing more is known about him. fluid cannot be used because unusable 68 Mishnah Tevul Yom 2:7. For heave is contained in it, but it can be most severe impurities it is not enough repaired by the usual lifting of one out that the impure person immerse him- of 101. self in water; after the immersion, as 69 The Sages, who always repre- tevul yom "immersed during the day", sent the tradition of the House of he is pure only for profane food. For Hillel. heave, and certainly for sacrifices, he 70 Which the House of Hillel could becomes pure only at sundown. If in have given to the House of Shammai, in the period between his immersion and addition to the argument presented in sundown he touches heave, it becomes the Mishnah. unusable; this is classified as "impure in 71 Which is classified as a mis- the third degree". If the tevul yom demeanor, rather than a lelony. touches a stream of heave fluid (wine

ΊΠΝ Di71^331 ΠΓΡ^Π ΠΝ)?!? njpVUp ΠΝΟ :fl 7I1W3 (fol. 43b)

N!W DJ/OD? ro>N onpiN O>>?DDI λνίι nnnns JI^D? loiN rn

Mishnah 5: One seah of heave which fell into one hundred72, was taken out, and fell into another place: Rebbi Eliezer says it creates dema' like certain heave but the Sages say, it creates heave only in proportion73.

72 100 seah of profane produce. lifted produce; in order to remove 73 The amount of certain heave in dema' one needs only 1 seah of profane what was lifted is only V^i of the produce. 184 TERUMOT CHAPTER FIVE oip«> yonjpn ya iv*?!?"! nina> η^ίψ nonri πκυ Λ tuwö

V)?n)3ri ρκ onrpiN O>»DÖ1 ,·>ΗΊΛ nnnjp nymp Ί«ίκ >51 ">0N

Ο>«ΓΙ VN") .ή:ιψη >a!p ΝΪΗ ^»ηρ ^ηιηφπ yN) ."ρίψη ^

.ή^ψο jus

Mishnah 6: One seah of heave which fell into less than one hundred and made it dema' and from the dema' fell into another place; Rebbi

Eliezer says it creates dema' like certain heave but the Sages say, dema' creates heave only in proportion; sour agent makes sour only in pro- portion74, and drawn water invalidates a ritual bath only in proportion75.

74 Sour dough of heave which was Babli ( 12a-b) gives two ex- added to dough to make it rise turns planations for the Mishnah here; there the entire dough into heave (Mishnah is no Yerushalmi on this part of the 2:6). If from the dough anything Mishnah. According to the final was taken for another batch of dough, determination of the Babli, "in pro- the latter becomes heave only if the portion" here has a meaning totally proportional part of the original different from the two preceding cases, souring agent alone would have been in that water from vessels invalidates enough to make the new dough rise. only if the vessels are in proportion to The three cases "in proportion" men- the three log, i. e., if the water is added tioned here are repeated in Mishnah from at most three vessels, not from Temurah 1:4. four or more. This is accepted by 75 If a miqweh contains a little less Maimonides in his Code (Miqwaot 5:1) than the minimum 40 seah and three with the concurrence of R. Abraham log of water are added from a vessel to ben David (Tosaphot Temurah 12b, s. v. bring it over the limit, the entire water ηον). becomes unfit for a ritual bath. The

ΐπψ-!?? ν>ιη πκη> η^ίψ nonri πνρ "pnv vr» -ion m n^n (ω. 43d)

.•ριψΟ n£N riümp ρην η-ι ^ NP>3 prpiriO ,ηπίκ p>vfo>?

jijjöd? ro'N N!W ijnv 76>3ri N'!? pnv ow} >t»v >3*1 HALAKHAH 5 185 noi-m "piwo ϊχ ρ>ιη ι:ηψ Ννη plpinn ty nnnri πιηψ nidi ί»ν Dia

ϊχ ,*τη2* yjonj? :pn> toaw Nim -IEN .nii-i ^ο^ηψ >ID

-αυ V^n ν>ιη -ityb ri-yr rwnyi

.•pVno w}» "|\?»!ρψ ->»>»

Halakhah 5: Rebbi Johanan said, a seah of heave which fell into 100 of profane produce, anything will make it become insignificant77. Our

Mishnah disagrees with Rebbi Johanan: "It creates heave only in proportion78". Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Johanan, Rebbi Johanan stated only: "It does not create any dema'.19" But80 they said only when there was more heave than profane, and he when there was more profane than the proportion of heave so that it should become insignificant in the plurality. Rebbi Eleazar said, only81 if it fell into a dema'. In the opinion of Rebbi Eleazar, are the lower and upper profane produce united to lift?

Rebbi Eleazar wants to say that the lower profane produce becomes inert82.

76 Reading of the Rome ms. Mishnah before him. Leyden and Venice add: nwa. 80 The Sages of the Mishnah speak 77 If one seah was lifted after a of the case that the amount lifted was seah of heave fell into 100 profane taken from the place the heave fell in, seah, the new seah is only heave by when one may assume that more rabbinic decree superimposed on a genuine heave than profane grain was rabbinic obligation; it is heave in name lifted. Rebbi Johanan speaks of the only and can be made insignificant in case when everything was well mixed; the slightest amount of additional in Halakhah 9:6 this is expressed by: profane produce. Quoted in this sense "he mills [the grain] and thereby per- in Halakhah 9:6. mits it."

78 According to the Mishnah, the 81 The Mishnah which relates the amount into which if fell must still be disagreement of R. Eliezer and the

100 /10i times the amount lifted. Sages. Do the Sages permit the profane 79 He had another version of the part of the seah that fell into dema' to 186 TERUMOT CHAPTER FIVE be added to the profane part of the heave to be neutralized on its own dema' to provide the necessary 100+1 when it fell into dema', irrespective of ratio? the amount of profane produce in the 82 The position tentatively as- dema' into which it fell. This is the cribed to R. Eleazar in the previous majority position in Tosephta 6:5, sentence is that of R. Johanan. R. Elea- opposed by R. Simeon and his son. zar is restrictive and requires the lifted on riinipp nwpp ι!?33ψ nidi rwqi 13 'in λ ns^n

I^d toai -ien ^nv .Hi» in ιπν oipn> i^d toai

i>>in ty ΙΏΝ »a>>n .uptown Ν>π τπν οίρ»>

V3 no ."ρνηη WV5 ^ ν^Ι .pVnn

-«ON bp N!?N ύ^Ν IN DNJO :pn>? nbjw ·1>ί3"ϊ) ^

,ηπίΝ ·|ηψ-!?3 ν>ιη DNO> η^33ψ ηαη^ι DNÜ >2-1 IQNI »?

Halakhah 6: Rebbi Yose ben Hanina said, only if it fell into five places, but if it fell into one place, even Rebbi Eliezer agrees. Rebbi

Johanan said, even if all fell into one place, there is disagreement83. Hilfai said on that of Rebbi Eliezer, the lower profane produce becomes inert84.

But Rebbi Eleazar also said, the lower profane produce becomes inert.

What is the difference between Rebbi Eliezer and the rabbis85? Is one more restrictive with a lifted seah out of 10086 or is one more lenient, following what Rebbi Johanan said, if a seah of heave fell into 100 of profane produce, anything will make it insignificant87?

83 In the opinion of R. Yose ben grain lifting whereas the Sages think Hanina, R. Eliezer agrees in principle that the heave is to be considered as with the Sages that the heave in the evenly distributed through the entire lifted grain should be counted only in dema' grain. R. Johanan disagrees and proportion but he thinks that if heave holds that dema' follows the rules of fell in several separate batches each heave as far as consumption is con- batch needs separate 100-fold profane cerned and, therefore, the lifted grain HALAKHAH 7 187 should be considered all heave. 86 R. Eliezer holds that the heave 84 R. Eliezer agrees in principle which fell is the heave which was with the Sages that the heave in the lifted (cf. Note 27); he can state this lifted grain should be counted only in only if he considers the remainder of proportion but he holds that the heave the grain as inert. part of the lifted grain is genuine 87 For the Sages, this is also a heave with all its restrictions; the rest position accepted by R. Eleazar, cf. is just ballast and disregarded. Note 82. One sees that there is a big

85 If one combines Hilfai's inter- difference between R. Eliezer and the pretation of R. Eliezer and R. Eleazar's Sages, even if R. Eleazar accepts interpretation of the Sages, one fails to Hilfai's argument. see the difference between them.

ή n·*n - : mn·.··.·•N ! n^arτ ! ITt s nrraaτ · s n· γιν»!τ ·· ?: n^aaτ Ι ITw Ϊ nnmΤ nS dnΤ ü nivö (foi. 43b)

ηηΐΊΓΐ π^-ΐίΐψ -τ}) rnrnö

Mishnah 7: One seah of heave which fell into one hundred72, was taken out, and another one fell in: the latter is permitted until there will be more heave than profane88.

88 The process of lifting can be even in the worst case some profane repeated until one would have more grain will be lifted. Therefore, he does heave than profane produce if each not have to say "permitted as long as time only profane matter would have the volume of heave is less than that of been taken out and all heave stayed in. profane grain." The grain is permitted In that case, the mixture will be unless the amount of heave which fell forbidden by biblical law as soon as in is larger than half the original there is not more profane than heave amount of profane grain. This is the matter. The Tanna of the Mishnah position of R. Simson and R. Abraham assumes that it is impossible that in all ben David.

these processes only heave be lifted; Maimonides's explanation is diffi- 188 TERUMOT CHAPTER FIVE cult to understand. He permits the amounts of heave and profane in the mixture if at most 100 times 1 seah fell mixture after i seah fell in and were into the produce and was lifted. He lifted, gives no explanation. R. Joseph Caro hi= 100(100/101)'' explains that in the previous Mishnaiot, and hi < 50 for integer i > 69. (The when the Sages assert that the heave solution of 100(100/101)i = 50 is i = counted in the remaining produce is 69.66 ...) Since, by definition, i; + hi = computed proportionally, they assume 100, by the explanation of R. Joseph that there was perfect mixing of heave Caro, the process can be repeated only and profane before the excess seah was 69 times and RR. Simson and Abraham lifted. But in that case, if i;, hi are the ben David would agree.

in vn νπ) ,*τηο nino? ruon^n ran >·>γι v\&7\ (foi. 43d)

N30 >?-! ow? >O>N ,·)3>η ny .-wo TINO boy) DNO iro DNO

ipN KD) .ΓΤ).ρη ϊν ijnv Dyn ΙΓΏΝ oiniri -n ronτ ·s : πνοτ: ι dnci-^τ: dτ ίοtηt o-a .*iv· ·ö τ nidi t>t»τ*vτ n:no: —πν ί —ι ai: n rvn τ ioτ n» τ -

•niy·· ^ »s miτ n *-m ! ν τ Ninvyν -iτmτ mniν ν N γιν* ~ τ .ηκτ υ: πντ ο··

."lÜNV? J12S

Halakha 7: It was stated: If the heave became a plurality it is as if he had added intentionally89. But did we not state90: "If it contained 40 seah, he added a seah and removed a seah, it is in order." How far? Rebbi Assi in the name of Rebbi Mana bar Tanhum91, Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Johanan, up to the larger part of the miqweh92. And here you say so? There it was a plurality, you add to it and it is in order. But here, every single seah needs 100 seah. Rebbi Yose said, this means that anything becoming insignificant by biblical law is activated by its own kind to become forbidden93.

89 It cannot be lifted even in a heave can fall into profane food it very large amount of profane produce, shows that the negligence borders on as stated in Mishnah 9. If so much intentional misconduct. HALAKHAH 8 189

90 Mishnah Miqwaot 7:2. The meaning here. expression "he added" shows that a 93 Since 40 seah in a miqweh religious bath (miqweh) which contains permit the addition of water from a the required amount (40 seah) of vessel, once the water enters the natural water, additional water may miqweh its quality as poured from a intentionally be added from vessels vessel becomes insignificant and it without impairing the validity of the becomes like natural (spring or rain) bath. water. But if the added and removed

91 An Amora in Tyre between the quantities become more than 20 seah, second and third generation of Galilean the miqweh becomes forbidden. This authorities. proves that the insignificance of the 92 In the Babli (Yebamot 82b), it is invalid water is conditional. The made clear that in a miqweh of exactly principle stated here is accepted in 40 seah, exactly 20 seah can be added both Talmudim. and removed. This also seems to be the

Ί)) nn>??n!p p>?pn Ν'ϊη πνρ> n^aa^ nonjp dno :n njwe (foi. 43b)

ήνρψ nniw it n.r) rnON rfrflw

Mishnah 8: A seah of heave fell into 100 [profane] and before he managed to lift it, another one fell in: that is forbidden but Rebbi Simeon permits it.

V1)3N V?3T) .rlJIVH)?)? fiJiyH? "ρνρψ (fol. 43d)

.iiwri?»? ππΏ-jr)

Halakhah 8: Rebbi Simeon says, knowledge of it sanctifies; but the

rabbis say, its lifting sanctifies it93.

93 R. Simeon in general accepts the the action. Therefore, the first heave possibility of an action as substitute for is considered already lifted and the 190 TERUMOT CHAPTER FIVE second one fell into 100 seah of basis is the Babli (Sabbat 142a) which profane food. R. Simeon must agree declares that the reason of R. Simeon is that it is forbidden if the second seah that the first batch became insig- of heave fell in before the accident of nificant in 100 times its volume when it the first seah was known to the owner. fell in, so that the second batch fell A Tosephta explains this in the name into 101 units of profane food. This is of R. Eleazar ben R. Simeon (6:5). in direct opposition to the Yerushalmi Maimonides and the early German (R. S. Adani). Most commentators authorities (R. Eliezer ben Natan, R. identify the position of R. Eleazar ben Eliezer ben Joel) decide that R. Eleazar R. Simeon with that of the rabbis, cf. ben R. Simeon's position is intermediary ki-Fshutah p. 384; this between his father's and that of the does not explain why Maimonides in rabbis, in opposition to the Yerushalmi his Commentary refers to the Tosephta (Maimonides, Terumot 13:6). Their rather than the .

!?io d^v '»f "ΐοίκ dnq> η!?33ψ norm nNp

N»\y nNön ninai? n^a-ivy nnnn ηκσ οι ii» -Ι»ΊΝ Nim .rpsy >m ib τν τ ·· · τ : τ : IT ν τ τ : · : ·| .. «τ. .. . ·ρ τ •)n'D> rpiw» rj3it> ,η?π nzs ρνφίο ο^νΐ ·>1?ΓΙ rns η^κ

ΙΝψΓΙ·) D^V ^ Ί?1Ϊ3 ")i*TD >NÖ ·>$Ί it? ·)Γΐί3 ΝΙΐΤ) Ρτ1Π

ΊΟΝ·) Dit?\i> "in rrji> 'Qip N^^V κπκ ,p\pn 15 ΐηίνψ WD -»5 in

.ipi^D? -ικψη·) .ν~)ίνψ t> ·)ΓΡ

It was stated: One seah of heave94 that fell into one hundred, he says to the Cohen, am I not obligated to you for the value of firewood? Take the value of the firewood95! But he answers him, does a seah of heave which fell into less than 100 not make the entire heave dema'l Does firewood create demal Does he not in the end have to give it to another

Cohen96 who will pay him for the value of the fuel? How is that? He gives him the value of the fuel and they should split the rest97. A person spilled barley into wheat. The case came before Rebbi Jehudah bar

Shalom98 who said, let him pay the price of barley; they should split the rest99. HALAKHAH 9 191

94 This must be impure heave, as Cohen of his choice for payment of its shown by the sequel. value as fuel. 95 It seems, as noted by R. Moses 98 An Amora of the fifth Margalit, that the impure heave was generation, mostly quoted in aggadic the property of a Cohen when it matters. accidentally fell into less than 100 99 Here the situation is different; units heave. (It cannot be exactly 100 this really belongs to tractate Baba units as in the baraita, since then the Qamma since the damage is visible. If heave would have to be lifted and A hurts Β by pouring some of his eaten dry, as stated before.) Since barley into B's wheat, A has to pay Β impure heave is only usable as fuel, it the difference between the going rates may be sold to a Cohen as fuel. for wheat and barley for B's grain. If 96 Since nothing else can be done later somehow the rate for barley with impure dema'. should rise, the profit has to be split 97 The rest over and above the one between them since A and Β are now seah, which the owner may give to any joint owners of the grain.

1ΠΓ)3ψ OW? inpjpl 13Π01 DNölp ΐυοηπ DNt7 fliVtt (fol. 43b)

^ηοι ΠΚΏΏ riina!? non^ ηκρ .-irnoi rinnen rmqa ")? v>inn

ΝΝ^ΗΨ ON .NEW NNNRIN η-νπίη Ρ V^NN Η'ΠΊΗΨ DWS ΐ"ΡΓΉΤΗ

"ιπνι dnöo nina!? nnnn πνό λπιβ nonn bvyn vinn l?vy - - s τ •· · τ : τ : IT ν τ s τ τ τ τ » ·

.-NT>N INTO ON *WNO SJIVY ON ΡΊ^Η OY TOAJ *JD Mishnah 9: 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 permitted100. 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 quality101 than the heave, it might be 192 TERUMOT CHAPTER FIVE 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 forbidden102.

100 One seah may be lifted and the 101 Yielding more flour and less rest is permitted. In this case, bran. differences in quality between heave 102 It is dema'. and profane grain are disregarded. p>in inns τυοηπη rmns^ ill lit» N't»i nabn (foi. 43d) moi-m oy π£η\?3>? nonri πρύο pN >ari ."νπκπ inio nD>V5 rinnm

ϊι# Ρ>ιηπ oy Jia-ivpsn p^n n?ii\? !?IN: .p^nn

P^nn oy Ή^ψ tn)3 npn^ !?ψ Ji?i3>v> >3>3 'iO .moi-upn

Kin .irpri!? paip^p >a>>i? join ni ->PN*T no in .npn^n ni*

in .npm^n ri2s pbinn oy nansxpo npnj? ϊφ riai3>\? rnpN PN ΠΝ)?> Η!?33Ψ ΗΡΗΙΡ ΠΝΌ ."MNIRI p>YO M >A>>P -von ΪΟΊΠ

Ι?·) ,ΓΏψ p3^ Ν'ίή» ΠΓΙΝ DNÖÖ Dina> nai3>\? niw

P> aib» ριοψ N^i» τικ ρκ p? dnö> !?a3\jj ϊ^χ p> xb ,ηιψ ρ-ιοψ κηηη J^N p> ΠΝΚ>> 1?93ψ nioy

103Not 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 heave104."

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 permit105, that means waste of heave combines with profane

to lift the heave106. 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 zewanin107 in it, into less than 100, one does remove the zewanin HALAKHAH 9 193 in it. Similarly, if one log of clear wine108 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.

103 The entire paragraph is in other fruits, in general make every- 6:10 (fol. 55c), part of it in Orlah 1:4 thing forbidden for any use unless the (fol. 61b). permitted part are 200 times more than 104 If after milling, the heave the forbidden. Rab Huna instructs to without its waste would be V^o of the count in the 200 all husks, both from milled profane grain plus its waste, profane as from orlah fruit. heave could be lifted. 106 If after milling, the heave 105 The statement of R. Huna refers without its waste would be 1% of the to orlah, fruits in the first three years remainder, heave can be lifted. of a tree's life, which are forbidden for 107 Kilaim 1:1, Note 1. any use and, if they disappear among 108 Of heave.

IN in »an-? ."ρτιεί n^nra nid "inio in >·>τι oorpn :j*n ^ — ·°?ΓΙΝΟΙ π^η n>iiVl ^ pai πρ .lrrra? Vßnp v?nio

.-pJigi inio Ί'^ΎΤ pri^yi ^ ")nio 'pv> 'ΙΊ-J

It was stated: "One may mill from the start to permit109." The baraita is Rebbi Yose's, since "Rebbi Yose said, one may collect to lift one in two hundred"110. Rebbi Ze'ira said111, 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.

109 If one has dema' and after formulated only as a statement after milling, following the rule of Note 106, the fact, if the owner milled it and now it would be possible to lift the heave, comes to ask a rabbinic authority on one tells the owner to go ahead and how to proceed. mill even though the Mishnah is 110 Mishnah Orlah 1:6. Since this is 194 TERUMOT CHAPTER FIVE a minority opinion, it cannot be opinion of everybody since Cohanim practice to be followed. are used to mill dema' in their houses." Ill In Orlah 1:5, the statement is Since this is a required process, one more complete: "R. Zeira said, it is the cannot object to its use.

-τη«?:) -imo ))W3 Γαηψ vntwrrio pnv own ίγών

η tin nnnm νγρ3πώ .πόκ mi imn jawa ν·>γι νγρ3πο N'in .-»ion TT τ :· τ·;- τ ···: τ ··; τ·:- : τ

.onnrrb• τ : - sτ INτ W to'ON· -s :j' bτ - Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Johanan: All forbidden things112, 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.

112 Which can become insignificant 200 times, as the case may be), in an appropriate plurality (60, 100,

rn^o rjs ,ηψν? Ninw -m -»oil? η)*»«* ov£? νυν rn οψ} νπν rr» ΓΙΝ nnob *nt>Nvy ows -rtyb IÖN .rT\s>>» wnyj "m bv lüib Nbw ·· τ : TV τ . IT - τ ·.· τ τ

"|3nv ipv? ι? min ->»n ,-ήηοη tin nöo> ύιον Ν£\?π

>irj o!?iy> .φ*νψ> on riibri!? on nv ππν w Πί rinri nobn jini on ona>? rnina, ρΝψ .n»>jpn yo iriv nanvpn ιπν

νΝψ pn >pv >5*1 .nanya in·) o>flV\p?n on>j)ij>i ο>£η"ψ3η

,p> ίπ^αψ -mo p> irnsn Rebbi Aha 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 Johanan: If a practical case comes before you and you do not know whether to HALAKHAH 9 195 suspend or to burn113, 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 burned114. Rebbi Yose wondered, is it possible to infer from something whose commandment is in this for something whose commandment is not so115?

113 In order Tahorot, the rule is that a general rule that any sacrifice whose heave impure by biblical standards blood was brought into the sanctuary, must be burned but heave only impure to be sprinkled either on the golden by rabbinic standards must be "sus- altar or before the ark, must be pended", viz, one must leave it to rot completely burned. until it is no longer food and, therefore, 115 The simile is not convincing; pure according to all standards. one should not rush to treat rabbinic 114 In Lev. 10:18 it is established as impurity as biblical.