Yerushalmi Terumot 3:1 ירושלמי תרומות ג׳:א׳

MISHNAH: If one gives a green melon as heave and it turns out to be bitter, a water melon and it turns out rotten, it is heave and he should give heave a second time. If one gives an amphora of wine as heave and it turns out to be vinegar; if it was known that it turned into vinegar before he gave heave it is not heave¹Even the Sages who declare wine and vinegar to be the same, their status as heave is revoked by rabbinic decree (cf. Chapter 2, Note 125)., but if it turned into vinegar after he had made it heave, it is heave. In case of doubt it is heave and heave should be given a second time. Neither the first nor the second [heaves] do create dema‘²Cf. Chapter 2, Note 49, and the next Mishnah. by themselves nor does one have to pay the fifth³Cf. Mishnah 6:4 and Chapter 1, Note 71. In the interpretation of Maimonides (Terumot 5:22), the last sentence refers both to wine and to melons..
If one of them fell into profane [food] it does not create dema‘²⁷The mixture of heave and profane food; cf. Demay Chapter 1, Note 175. The rules of repairing dema‘ are spelled out in Chapter 5.
The Mishnah details the rules of the two heaves given under the circumstances of Mishnah 1. Since each of them is only heave if the other one is not needed by biblical rules, only both together constitute certain heave.. If the other one fell into another place it does not create dema‘. If both together fell into one place they create dema‘ relative to the smaller one²⁸If both heaves are given by the rules, the first one will be 2%, the second one 2% of 98% or 1.96% of the original volume..

HALAKHAH: “If one gives a green melon”, etc. We understand a water melon and it turned out rotten, but a green melon and it turned out bitter, was it not always bitter⁴The heave should be invalid.? Rebbi Joḥanan said, they made it doubtful whether it is food⁵The question is not whether it is bad quality for good of food but whether it is food at all. If it is food then the heave is heave, if it is not food then there can be no heave.. Rebbi Jonah inquired: Is it doubtful as food in all respects, to become impure as food, that one burns it if impure⁶If it has been made heave and becomes impure, must it be burned as heave?, one owes a fifth for it³Cf. Mishnah 6:4 and Chapter 1, Note 71. In the interpretation of Maimonides (Terumot 5:22), the last sentence refers both to wine and to melons., and one whips for it outside the walls⁷If it is Second Tithe while there is a Temple, it must be brought to Jerusalem and consumed there. Once it has entered the walls of the city of Jerusalem, it may not be taken out again and consumption outside the walls is a criminal offense., if one made an ‘eruv with it does he become a donkey-camel driver⁸On the notion of eruv, cf. Peah Chapter 8, Note 56. The question follows R. Meïr and R. Jehudah in Mishnah Erubin 3:4 who declare that a questionable eruv makes its owner a donkey-camel driver. A donkey driver has to walk behind his animal, a camel driver before it. A donkey-camel driver is in a dilemma. Without the eruv, he would be permitted to go from his house 2000 cubits in each direction. With the eruv, he may go 2000 cubits from the eruv in each direction. If the validity of the eruv is in question, he may walk on the Sabbath only in the domain which is the intersection of two circular discs of radius 2000 cubits, one centered at his house and the other at the place of his eruv.? There⁹It is not stated exactly where R. Joḥanan stated this rule but in Ševuot 2:1 (fol. 33d) he states that food of doubtful impurity (i. e., when an impure person is in doubt whether or not he touched some pure food) in the public domain is pure. This will imply that in a private domain it would be impure, as stated explicitly in Babli Avodah Zarah 37b, Ḥulin 9a., Rebbi Joḥanan said, a loaf which became impure in a domain that possibly is private and was touched in the public domain is impure. But in our case it is pure because there are two doubts¹⁰It is also a principle accepted in both Talmudim that something which is forbidden (or impure) only if two independent doubts are both resolved to forbid (or declare impure) is permitted (or declared pure) since from biblical law it would be permitted (or declared pure) even in the case of only one doubt. It seems that this leniency was a major point of contention between lenient Pharisees and restrictive Sadducees..

It was stated in the name of Rebbi Yose: “Green melon can be bitter only inside. What can he do? He adds to the outer part and gives heave¹¹Tosephta 4:5. R. Yose disagrees with the Mishnah; a bitter melon given as heave is always certain heave since the part close to the skin can always be eaten. If the inner part is bitter, one should add some heave from another melon that is still ṭevel to avoid giving bad for good. In his opinion, there is nothing questionable..” Rebbi Benjamin ben Levi asked: Do the Sages disagree with him about a subject that can be checked? They disagree about the possibility of checking¹²Even if we check a number of melons and do not find one which is totally bad, this does not prove that the next one would not be totally bad..

“If one gave an amphora¹³An amphora full of wine given as heave for an entire harvest. as heave and it turned out to be uncovered, or a water melon and it turned out to have holes, it is heave and heave should be given a second time.”¹⁴Tosephta 4:6. Both Talmudim forbid fluids that have stood uncovered and unsupervised since one is afraid a snake might have drunk from it and poured its poison into the drink. Similarly, if the water melon has two small holes which might come from the bite of a snake, we are afraid that the water melon was poisoned. If we were sure that this happened the wine in the amphora or the water melon would not be human food and could not possibly be heave. In case of doubt, one is in the situation described in the Mishnah. Rebbi Jehudah ben Pazi, Rebbi Simeon [ben Laqish] in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi: They forbade only when it was found to have a hole; therefore, from the start it is forbidden to give it as heave¹⁵If the holes were there when heave was given, it is not heave.. Rebbi Jacob the Southerner asked before Rebbi Yose: Is this reasonable only if they saw it¹⁶The snake. Since we would not know whether the wine or the water melon was poisoned, the suggestion has to be rejected. making the hole? He said to him: Would one know whether it poured poison into it? The colleagues asked before Rebbi Yose: What is the difference between that and the impure¹⁷This refers to Mishnah 2:2 where it is stated that impure produce, when unintentionally given as heave, is valid heave. Why can one not state that a perforated watermelon, when unintentionally given as heave, is unconditionally valid heave? The answer is that impure food is still food but a perforated watermelon is no longer food.? He said to them: The impure is unchanged, so is that which caused impurity. But here, it is dust.

Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Practice follows Rebbi¹⁸This refers to the last part of the Mishnah, about giving vinegar as heave for wine, which is declared impossible by Rebbi but possible by R. Ismael ben R. Yose (Chapter 2, Note 125).. Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: It¹⁹The Mishnah, and as anonymous statement it determines practice. follows Rebbi. Rebbi Abba bar Cohen asked before Rebbi Yose: Did not Rebbi Ḥiyya [bar Abba] say in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, [between] Rebbi and his colleagues, practice follows Rebbi²⁰In the Babli, Eruvin 46b, Ketubot 21a, Baba batra 124b, in the text of Rashi and the Venice prints (and the Rome ms. of the Yerushalmi) the rule is accepted only for disagreements between Rebbi and a single opponent, but in the Munich ms. and a reading mentioned by R. Moses from Coucy (Semag Aśê 74), the rule reads as in the Yerushalmi., and Rebbi Jonah said, including Rebbi Eleazar ben Rebbi Simeon²¹He was the greatest authority in the days of the young Rebbi.? He said to him, because Rebbi Ismael ben Rebbi Yose stated in his father’s name, and Rebbi Yose²²This is the reading in both mss. but, since it belongs to R. Yose’s response to R. Abba bar Cohen, it must read ד׳ יוסה, R. Assi. said in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, [between] Rebbi Yose and his colleagues, practice follows Rebbi Yose, not his colleagues²³Accepted as operative statement in Babli Eruvin 46b., so you should not say this applies here also²⁴The rules apply only to disagreements between Sages of the same generation, not to rulings of later generations. In our case, this has to be spelled out since R. Ismael ben R. Yose was the teacher of Rebbi (cf. Kilaim Chapter 9, before Note 88.); for this reason he had to say that practice follows Rebbi.

Rebbi Zeїra, Rebbi Jacob bar Idi in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: [Between] Rebbi Meїr and Rebbi Simeon, practice follows Rebbi Simeon²⁵Cf. Demay Chapter 5, Note 129; Ševi‘it Chapter 8, Note 105, Babli Eruvin 46b.. [Between] Rebbi Simeon and Rebbi Jehudah, practice follows Rebbi Jehudah, and one does not have to mention that [between] Rebbi Meїr and Rebbi Jehudah, practice follows Rebbi Jehudah²⁶Babli Eruvin 46b.. Rebbi Abba bar Jacob bar Idi in the name of Rebbi Jonathan: [Between] Rebbi Meїr and Rebbi Simeon, practice follows Rebbi Simeon. [Between] Rebbi Simeon and Rebbi Jehudah, practice follows Rebbi Jehudah, and one does not have to mention that [between] Rebbi Meїr, Rebbi Jehudah, and Rebbi Simeon practice follows Rebbi Jehudah. From this you infer that [between] Rebbi Simeon and Rebbi Jehudah, practice follows Rebbi Jehudah.

How does he handle it²⁹This refers to Mishnah 1. When the two heaves have been given, how are they to be disposed of since they are not certain heave but forbidden to laymen?? He gives both of them to the Cohen; the Cohen pays for one of them. Which one does he pay for, the larger or the smaller one? Since we have stated: “they create dema‘ relative to the smaller one,” this implies that he pays for the larger one.