Talmud Yerushalmi
Yerushalmi Terumot 5:1 ירושלמי תרומות ה׳:א׳
Part of: Chapter 5
Reading: Hebrew · Simple EnglishHebrew · Faithful translationHebrew onlyHebrew · Simple EnglishHebrew · Faithful translationHebrew onlySimple English onlyFaithful translation onlySide by side
משנה: סְאָה תְרוּמָה טְמֵאָה שֶׁנָּפְלָה לְפָחוֹת מִמֵּאָה חוּלִין אוֹ לְמַעֲשֵׂר רִאשׁוֹן אוֹ לְמַעֲשֵׂר שֵׁנִי אוֹ לְהֶקְדֵּשׁ בֵּין טְהוֹרִין בֵּין טְמֵאִין יִרְקָבוּ אִם טְהוֹרָה הָיְתָה אוֹתָהּ סְאָה יִמָּכְרוּ לַכֹּהֲנִים בִּדְמֵי תְרוּמָה חוּץ מִדְּמֵי אוֹתָהּ סְאָה. וְאִם לְמַעֲשֵׂר רִאשׁוֹן נָפְלָה יִקָּרֵא שֵׁם לִתְרוּמַת מַעֲשֵׂר וְאִם לְמַעֲשֵׂר שֵׁנִי אוֹ לְהֶקְדֵּשׁ נָפְלָה הֲרֵי אֵלּוּ יִפָּדוּ. וְאִם טְמֵאִין הָיוּ אוֹתָן הַחוּלִין יֵאָכְלוּ נִקּוּדִים אוֹ קְלָיוֹת אוֹ יָלוּשׁוּ בְמֵי פֵּירוֹת אוֹ יִתְחַלְּקוּ לְעִיסִּיּוֹת כְּדֵי שֶׁלֹּא יְהֵא בְמָקוֹם אֶחָד כְּבֵיצָה. סְאָה תְרוּמָה טְמֵאָה שֶׁנָּפְלָה לְמֵאָה חוּלִין טְהוֹרִין רִבִּי לִיעֶזֶר אוֹמֵר תֵּירוֹם וְתִשָּׂרֵף. שֶׁאֲנִי אוֹמֵר סְאָה שֶׁנָּפְלָה הִיא סְאָה שֶׁעָלְתָה. וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים תֵּעָלֶה וְתֵאָכֵל נִקּוּדִים אוֹ קְלָיוֹת אוֹ תִילוֹשׁ בְמֵי פֵּירוֹת אוֹ תִתְחַלֵּק לְעִיסִּיּוֹת כְּדֵי שֶׁלֹּא יְהֵא בְמָקוֹם אֶחָד כְּבֵיצָה. סְאָה תְרוּמָה טְהוֹרָה שֶׁנָּפְלָה לְמֵאָה חוּלִין טְמֵאִין תֵּעָלֶה וְתֵאָכֵל נִקּוּדִים אוֹ קְלָיוֹת אוֹ תִּילּוֹשׁ בְמֵי פֵּירוֹת אוֹ תִתְחַלֵּק לְעִיסִּיּוֹת כְּדֵי שֶׁלֹּא יְהֵא בְמָקוֹם אֶחָד כְּבֵיצָה.
MISHNAH: 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 rot1Since impure heave must be destroyed and heave cannot be lifted if it constitutes more than 1% of the whole, all must be destroyed.. If that seah was pure, all should be sold to Cohanim for the price of terumah except for the value of that seah2All is pure dema‘ which may be eaten by the Cohen. The Cohen will pay only little because there are few buyers; the owner is not permitted to charge the regular price to make clear that the Cohen may not give from the produce to lay people. The original heave cannot be charged since it is not the farmer’s property.. If it fell into First Tithe, heave of the tithe must be given its name3Again, it must be sold to a Cohen but the Cohen may not eat from it before he declares that 10% of the tithe are to be heave of the tithe. Since First Tithe becomes profane after its heave was removed, if it is still called First Tithe this implies that it still contains heave. Heave of the tithe need not actually be separated; this would be impossible.; if it fell into Second Tithe or dedicated produce, they should be redeemed4Since second tithe or food dedicated to the Temple may not contain heave, it has to be redeemed and then consumed as dema‘.. If it was impure and profane5It is assumed that the impure produce is dry and the pure heave has not been prepared for impurity (Demay Chapter 2, Note 141). Food in quantities less than the volume of an egg does not accept impurity (Mishnah Ṭahorot 1:1); if the heave is of flour, small pieces of half the volume of a hen’s egg may be kneaded with water, larger amounts only in fluids which do not prepare (cf. Demay 2, Note 136), usually fruit juice other that grape juice or wine., 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.
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 eaten24Rashi in Bekhorot 22b explains: “it should disappear (in the profane produce which shall be treated as impure, and the value of one seah be given to a Cohen) or eaten …”; cf. also Bekhorot 22b Tosaphot s.v. תירום, Šiṭṭah mequbeṣet Note 32. However, תעלה cannot be translated as “to disappear” since, for that notion, Mishnah 4 uses the expression אבדה במיעוטה “it was lost in its minority.” 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 together5It is assumed that the impure produce is dry and the pure heave has not been prepared for impurity (Demay Chapter 2, Note 141). Food in quantities less than the volume of an egg does not accept impurity (Mishnah Ṭahorot 1:1); if the heave is of flour, small pieces of half the volume of a hen’s egg may be kneaded with water, larger amounts only in fluids which do not prepare (cf. Demay 2, Note 136), usually fruit juice other that grape juice or wine.,6Reading of the Rome ms. Leyden and Venice: מעלה תעלה “lifts, may be lifted.”.
One seah of pure heave that fell into 100 [seah] of impure profane produce should be taken out and eaten as crackers33Either this is a scribal error for “half an egg”, cf. the end of Mishnah 1, or the translation of ניקודין is not “crackers” but “totally dry” following Rashi (Bekhorot 22b) who translates the verse Jos. 9:12 הנה יבש והיה נקדים “behold, it is dry and was totally dry” and comments on our Mishnah: “Now, even though there is purity and impurity, the pure part will not become impure without preparation; the impure part becomes voided in the plurality and should be eaten ניקודים.”, or dry roasted, or kneaded with fruit juice, or split into pieces of dough so that no volume of an egg should be together5It is assumed that the impure produce is dry and the pure heave has not been prepared for impurity (Demay Chapter 2, Note 141). Food in quantities less than the volume of an egg does not accept impurity (Mishnah Ṭahorot 1:1); if the heave is of flour, small pieces of half the volume of a hen’s egg may be kneaded with water, larger amounts only in fluids which do not prepare (cf. Demay 2, Note 136), usually fruit juice other that grape juice or wine.,6Reading of the Rome ms. Leyden and Venice: מעלה תעלה “lifts, may be lifted.”.
MISHNAH: 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 rot1Since impure heave must be destroyed and heave cannot be lifted if it constitutes more than 1% of the whole, all must be destroyed.. If that seah was pure, all should be sold to Cohanim for the price of terumah except for the value of that seah2All is pure dema‘ which may be eaten by the Cohen. The Cohen will pay only little because there are few buyers; the owner is not permitted to charge the regular price to make clear that the Cohen may not give from the produce to lay people. The original heave cannot be charged since it is not the farmer’s property.. If it fell into First Tithe, heave of the tithe must be given its name3Again, it must be sold to a Cohen but the Cohen may not eat from it before he declares that 10% of the tithe are to be heave of the tithe. Since First Tithe becomes profane after its heave was removed, if it is still called First Tithe this implies that it still contains heave. Heave of the tithe need not actually be separated; this would be impossible.; if it fell into Second Tithe or dedicated produce, they should be redeemed4Since second tithe or food dedicated to the Temple may not contain heave, it has to be redeemed and then consumed as dema‘.. If it was impure and profane5It is assumed that the impure produce is dry and the pure heave has not been prepared for impurity (Demay Chapter 2, Note 141). Food in quantities less than the volume of an egg does not accept impurity (Mishnah Ṭahorot 1:1); if the heave is of flour, small pieces of half the volume of a hen’s egg may be kneaded with water, larger amounts only in fluids which do not prepare (cf. Demay 2, Note 136), usually fruit juice other that grape juice or wine., 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.
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 eaten24Rashi in Bekhorot 22b explains: “it should disappear (in the profane produce which shall be treated as impure, and the value of one seah be given to a Cohen) or eaten …”; cf. also Bekhorot 22b Tosaphot s.v. תירום, Šiṭṭah mequbeṣet Note 32. However, תעלה cannot be translated as “to disappear” since, for that notion, Mishnah 4 uses the expression אבדה במיעוטה “it was lost in its minority.” 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 together5It is assumed that the impure produce is dry and the pure heave has not been prepared for impurity (Demay Chapter 2, Note 141). Food in quantities less than the volume of an egg does not accept impurity (Mishnah Ṭahorot 1:1); if the heave is of flour, small pieces of half the volume of a hen’s egg may be kneaded with water, larger amounts only in fluids which do not prepare (cf. Demay 2, Note 136), usually fruit juice other that grape juice or wine.,6Reading of the Rome ms. Leyden and Venice: מעלה תעלה “lifts, may be lifted.”.
One seah of pure heave that fell into 100 [seah] of impure profane produce should be taken out and eaten as crackers33Either this is a scribal error for “half an egg”, cf. the end of Mishnah 1, or the translation of ניקודין is not “crackers” but “totally dry” following Rashi (Bekhorot 22b) who translates the verse Jos. 9:12 הנה יבש והיה נקדים “behold, it is dry and was totally dry” and comments on our Mishnah: “Now, even though there is purity and impurity, the pure part will not become impure without preparation; the impure part becomes voided in the plurality and should be eaten ניקודים.”, or dry roasted, or kneaded with fruit juice, or split into pieces of dough so that no volume of an egg should be together5It is assumed that the impure produce is dry and the pure heave has not been prepared for impurity (Demay Chapter 2, Note 141). Food in quantities less than the volume of an egg does not accept impurity (Mishnah Ṭahorot 1:1); if the heave is of flour, small pieces of half the volume of a hen’s egg may be kneaded with water, larger amounts only in fluids which do not prepare (cf. Demay 2, Note 136), usually fruit juice other that grape juice or wine.,6Reading of the Rome ms. Leyden and Venice: מעלה תעלה “lifts, may be lifted.”.
הלכה: סְאָה תְרוּמָה טְמֵאָה כו׳. תַּנֵּי רִבִּי חִיָיה טֵבֵל מַעֲלֶה וּסְפִיחֵי שְׁבִיעִית מַעֲלִין. טֵבֵל מַעֲלֶה שֵׁם לְמַעְשְׂרוֹתָיו. סְפִיחֵי שְׁבִיעִית מַעֲלִין וְיִנָּתְנוּ לְאוֹכְלֵיהֶן. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹסֵי מַתְנִיתָא אָמְרָה כֵן סְאָה תְרוּמָה שֶׁנָּפְלָה לְפָחוֹת מִמֵּאָה תֵעָלֶה מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהוּא פָּחוֹת מִמֵּאָה הָא מֵאָה מַעֲלֶה. לֹא טֵבֵל הוּא.
HALAKHAH: “One seah of impure heave”, etc. Rebbi Ḥiyya stated: “Ṭevel lifts, aftergrowth of the Sabbatical lifts.7Tosephta 6:2: “A seah of heave which fell into less than 100 and made it dema‘, if it was ṭevel he uses it as heave and tithes for other produce or he gives a name to the heave of the tithe.” 6:3: “A seah of heave which fell into 100 of Sabbatical produce shall be lifted, less than that must be left to rot.” Ṭevel is forbidden to everybody, including a Cohen, but the Cohen may turn it all into heave and heave of the tithe without actually separating anything.” Ṭevel, 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 lifted7Tosephta 6:2: “A seah of heave which fell into less than 100 and made it dema‘, if it was ṭevel he uses it as heave and tithes for other produce or he gives a name to the heave of the tithe.” 6:3: “A seah of heave which fell into 100 of Sabbatical produce shall be lifted, less than that must be left to rot.” Ṭevel is forbidden to everybody, including a Cohen, but the Cohen may turn it all into heave and heave of the tithe without actually separating anything. …”. Because it is less than 100; hence 100 will lift; is that not from ṭevel?
HALAKHAH: “One seah of impure heave”, etc. Rebbi Ḥiyya stated: “Ṭevel lifts, aftergrowth of the Sabbatical lifts.7Tosephta 6:2: “A seah of heave which fell into less than 100 and made it dema‘, if it was ṭevel he uses it as heave and tithes for other produce or he gives a name to the heave of the tithe.” 6:3: “A seah of heave which fell into 100 of Sabbatical produce shall be lifted, less than that must be left to rot.” Ṭevel is forbidden to everybody, including a Cohen, but the Cohen may turn it all into heave and heave of the tithe without actually separating anything.” Ṭevel, 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 lifted7Tosephta 6:2: “A seah of heave which fell into less than 100 and made it dema‘, if it was ṭevel he uses it as heave and tithes for other produce or he gives a name to the heave of the tithe.” 6:3: “A seah of heave which fell into 100 of Sabbatical produce shall be lifted, less than that must be left to rot.” Ṭevel is forbidden to everybody, including a Cohen, but the Cohen may turn it all into heave and heave of the tithe without actually separating anything. …”. Because it is less than 100; hence 100 will lift; is that not from ṭevel?
תַּמָּן תַּנִּינָן מַדְלִיקִין בְּפַת וּבְשֶׁמֶן שֶׁל תְּרוּמָה. חִזְקִיָּה אָמַר לֹא שָׁנוּ אֶלָּא פַּת וְשֶׁמֶן הָא שְׁאָר כָּל הַדְּבָרִים לֹא. רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָמַר לֹא שַׁנְיָיה הִיא פַת הוּא שֶׁמֶן הוּא שְׁאָר כָּל הַדְּבָרִים. רִבִּי יוּדָן קַפּוֹדָּקִיָיא בָּעֵי חִיטִּין כְּפַת זֵיתִין כְּשֶׁמֶן. רִבִּי שְׁמוּאֵל בַּר נַחְמָן בְּשֵׁם רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן הַמַּדְלִיק בְּפַת וְשֶׁמֶן שֶׁל תְּרוּמָה יִשְׂרְפוּ עַצְמוֹתָיו. רִבִּי שְׁמוּאֵל בַּר נַחְמָן בָּעֵא קוֹמֵי רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן מָהוּ לְהַדְלִיק. אָמַר לֵיהּ אַדְלִיק וּמַה דִנְפִיל לְשִׁבְטָךְ נְפִיל לָךְ. הַכֹּל מוֹדִין בְּשֶׁמֶן שֶׁהוּא מוּתָּר. דְּאָמַר רִבִּי בָּא בַּר חִיָיה בְּשֵׁם רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן לְךָ נְתַתִּיו לְמָשְׁחָה. לְמָשְׁחָה לִגְדוּלָה. לְמָשְׁחָה לְסִיכָה. לְמָשְׁחָה לְהַדְלָקָה.
There8This baraita is not found in any collection but it is quoted in Babli Pesaḥim 33b, together with the opinions of Ḥizqiah and R. Joḥanan. The heave in this paragraph is impure heave which is forbidden as food., we have stated: “One makes a fire with bread and oil of heave.” Ḥizqiah said, they taught only bread and oil, therefore nothing else. Rebbi Joḥanan 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 oil9In the Babli, R. Joḥanan explicitly adds wheat grains to bread.? Rebbi Samuel bar Naḥman said in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan10The name tradition here is impossible, even though it is supported by both mss. In the next sentence, the same R. Samuel bar Naḥman asks R. Joḥanan whether one may use impure heave for lighting. The statement, as noted by R. S. Cirillo, must be in the name of R. Samuel’s teacher R. Jonathan; a similar position is taken in the Babli by Rav Ḥisda and his student Rava. They are afraid that storing of impure heave as fuel would lead to people accidentally eating from the forbidden food. (In mss. of the Babli, substitutions of “Joḥanan” for “Jonathan” and vice-versa are quite frequent.), may the bones of him who uses bread and oil of heave to make a fire be burned. Rebbi Samuel bar Naḥman asked before Rebbi Joḥanan: May one make a fire? He said to him, make a fire11Of impure heave.! Anything given to your tribe was given to you, as Rebbi Abba bar Ḥiyya said in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan (Num. 18:8): “For excellence12“To you (Aaron) I gave it for excellence,” referring to all obligatory gifts to the Cohen.”. For excellence for greatness, for excellence for rubbing in, for excellence for lighting.
There8This baraita is not found in any collection but it is quoted in Babli Pesaḥim 33b, together with the opinions of Ḥizqiah and R. Joḥanan. The heave in this paragraph is impure heave which is forbidden as food., we have stated: “One makes a fire with bread and oil of heave.” Ḥizqiah said, they taught only bread and oil, therefore nothing else. Rebbi Joḥanan 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 oil9In the Babli, R. Joḥanan explicitly adds wheat grains to bread.? Rebbi Samuel bar Naḥman said in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan10The name tradition here is impossible, even though it is supported by both mss. In the next sentence, the same R. Samuel bar Naḥman asks R. Joḥanan whether one may use impure heave for lighting. The statement, as noted by R. S. Cirillo, must be in the name of R. Samuel’s teacher R. Jonathan; a similar position is taken in the Babli by Rav Ḥisda and his student Rava. They are afraid that storing of impure heave as fuel would lead to people accidentally eating from the forbidden food. (In mss. of the Babli, substitutions of “Joḥanan” for “Jonathan” and vice-versa are quite frequent.), may the bones of him who uses bread and oil of heave to make a fire be burned. Rebbi Samuel bar Naḥman asked before Rebbi Joḥanan: May one make a fire? He said to him, make a fire11Of impure heave.! Anything given to your tribe was given to you, as Rebbi Abba bar Ḥiyya said in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan (Num. 18:8): “For excellence12“To you (Aaron) I gave it for excellence,” referring to all obligatory gifts to the Cohen.”. For excellence for greatness, for excellence for rubbing in, for excellence for lighting.
נִיחָא טְהוֹרִין יִירְקָבוּ טְמֵאִין יִירְקָבוּ. עַל דַּעְתֵּיהּ דְּחִזְקִיָּה נִיחָא. עַל דַּעֲתֵּיהּ דְּרִבִּי יוֹחָנָן יִדָּלֵק. סָבַר רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן כְּהָדָא דְרִבִּי יוֹסֵי בֶּן חֲנִינָה שֶׁמָּא יִמָּצֵא בָּהֶן עֲלִיָיה וּבְדָבָר שֶׁאֵין דַּרְכּוֹ לְהִבָּלֵל. אֲבָל בְּדָבָר שֶׁדַּרְכּוֹ לְהִבָּלֵל שֶׁמָּא יִמָּצֵא בָּהֶן תְּקָלָה.
We understand that when pure it must be left to rot15This is required by the Mishnah., but when impure to rot? In the opinion of Ḥizqiah, this is correct. In the opinion of Rebbi Joḥanan, should it not be burned? Rebbi Joḥanan is of the opinion of Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina, maybe it is possible to find for them something to lift16Since rotting takes some time, maybe some more will accidentally fall into the produce which will permit the heave to be lifted.; but only if it is not usually mixed [with other food]. But if it usually is mixed, maybe something untoward will happen17Therefore, it has to be destroyed as quickly as possible, by burning. In the Babli (loc.cit. 8), the position of R. Joḥanan is interpreted that he permits impure heave to be stored as fuel only after it has been denatured..
We understand that when pure it must be left to rot15This is required by the Mishnah., but when impure to rot? In the opinion of Ḥizqiah, this is correct. In the opinion of Rebbi Joḥanan, should it not be burned? Rebbi Joḥanan is of the opinion of Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina, maybe it is possible to find for them something to lift16Since rotting takes some time, maybe some more will accidentally fall into the produce which will permit the heave to be lifted.; but only if it is not usually mixed [with other food]. But if it usually is mixed, maybe something untoward will happen17Therefore, it has to be destroyed as quickly as possible, by burning. In the Babli (loc.cit. 8), the position of R. Joḥanan is interpreted that he permits impure heave to be stored as fuel only after it has been denatured..
וְלֹא כֵן סָבְרִנָן מֵימַר אֵין לְהֶקְדֵּשׁ אֶלָּא מְקוֹמוֹ וְשַׁעְתּוֹ. אָמַר רִבִּי חֲנִינָא תִּיפְתָּר שֶׁחָרֵב אוֹתוֹ מָקוֹם וְלֹא מָצָא לְמוֹכְרוֹ אֶלָּא אֲפִילוּ בִדְמֵי עֵצִים.
Did we not want to say that dedicated things have only their time and place19Mishnah Arakhin 6:5. If something is donated to the Temple, it has to be sold off at its place at the earliest possible time; one may not transport dedicated articles to a place where they might fetch a better price. If impure heave fell into dedicated produce, why should it rot and not be sold as fuel?? Rebbi Ḥanina said, explain it if that place was destroyed and he cannot even sell it for the price of wood.
Did we not want to say that dedicated things have only their time and place19Mishnah Arakhin 6:5. If something is donated to the Temple, it has to be sold off at its place at the earliest possible time; one may not transport dedicated articles to a place where they might fetch a better price. If impure heave fell into dedicated produce, why should it rot and not be sold as fuel?? Rebbi Ḥanina said, explain it if that place was destroyed and he cannot even sell it for the price of wood.
הָדָא אָמְרָה טְהוֹרָה בִטְהוֹרִין אֲבָל טְהוֹרָה בִטְמֵאִין הָדָא הִיא דְתַנִּינָן אִם טְמֵאִין הָיוּ אוֹתָן חוּלִין. עַל דַּעְתֵּיהּ דְּרִבִּי יוֹסֵי נִיחָא דְּאָמַר רִבִּי יוֹסֵי בְשֵׁם חִזְקִיָּה וְרִבִּי יוֹנָה בְשֵׁם רִבִּי יַנַּאי וּנְתַתֶּם מִמֶּנּוּ אֶת תְּרוּמַת יי לְאַהֲרֹן הַכֹּהֵן עֲשֵׂה שֶׁיִּנָּתֵן לְאַהֲרֹן בִּכְהוּנָתוֹ. עַל דַּעְתֵּיהּ דְּכַהֲנָא דוּ אָמַר טוֹל מִן הַמְּקוּדָּשׁ שֶׁבּוֹ וֶאֱמוֹר אַף הָכָא טוֹל מִן הַמְּקוּדָּשׁ שֶׁבּוֹ. וְאַף עַל גַּב דְּכַהֲנָא אָמַר תַּמָּן טוֹל מִן הַמְּקוּדַּשׁ שֶׁבּוֹ מוֹדֵי וּבִלְבַד בְּדָבָר שֶׁהוּא זָקוּק לִיתְנוֹ לַכֹּהֵן.
This means, pure [fell into] pure, but pure into impure20This refers to the last part of the Mishnah. Why does the Mishnah give detailed instructions in all possible cases if the produce was pure but for impure produce only if it was profane and not also when it was tithe?? That is what we have stated: “If it was impure and profane.” 21The disagreement between R. Yose and Cahana is in Chapter 2, Note 9. According to Rebbi Yose, it is appropriate, as Rebbi Yose said in the name of Ḥizqiah, 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 priest22Since heave of the tithe makes the tithe dema‘, everything is forbidden if it is impure and the Mishnah is obvious for R. Yose since impure dema‘ cannot be given to the Cohen.. 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 Cohen23For Cahana, the essence of the obligation is taking heave, not the delivery to the Cohen. But he agrees that one should try to give it to the Cohen in usable form. Therefore, heave of the tithe should be given from another source since this is permitted; then the heave is profane and covered by the Mishnah. For Cahana, there is no question..
This means, pure [fell into] pure, but pure into impure20This refers to the last part of the Mishnah. Why does the Mishnah give detailed instructions in all possible cases if the produce was pure but for impure produce only if it was profane and not also when it was tithe?? That is what we have stated: “If it was impure and profane.” 21The disagreement between R. Yose and Cahana is in Chapter 2, Note 9. According to Rebbi Yose, it is appropriate, as Rebbi Yose said in the name of Ḥizqiah, 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 priest22Since heave of the tithe makes the tithe dema‘, everything is forbidden if it is impure and the Mishnah is obvious for R. Yose since impure dema‘ cannot be given to the Cohen.. 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 Cohen23For Cahana, the essence of the obligation is taking heave, not the delivery to the Cohen. But he agrees that one should try to give it to the Cohen in usable form. Therefore, heave of the tithe should be given from another source since this is permitted; then the heave is profane and covered by the Mishnah. For Cahana, there is no question..
וְהָדֵין נִיקּוּדִים כְּהָדָא חַצָּיֵי בֵיצִים.
Crackers are about the size of halves of eggs.
Crackers are about the size of halves of eggs.
אָמַר רִבִּי סִימוֹן רִבִּי לִיעֶזֶר כְּדַעְתֵּיהּ כְּמַה דוּ אָמַר תַּמָּן כָּל הַפְּסוּלִין עָלוּ בְיָדוֹ. וְכֵן הוּא אוֹמֵר הָכָא כָּל הַטְּמֵאִין עָלוּ בְיָדוֹ. רִבִּי זְעִירָא בָּעֵי אוֹ נֹאמַר לֹא אָמַר רִבִּי לִיעֶזֶר אֶלָּה מִפְּנֵי גְדֵירָה. וְלֹא מוֹדֵי רִבִּי לִיעֶזֶר בִּסְאָה שֶׁהֶעֶלְתָ מִתּוֹךְ טֵבֵל שֶׁהוּא לִקְראוֹת שֵׁם לְמַעְשְׂרוֹתֶיהָ. אִין תֵּימַר סְאָה שֶׁנָּפְלָה הִיא סְאָה שֶׁעָלְתָ לֹא יְהֵא צָרִיךְ לִקְרוֹת שֵׁם לְמַעְשְׂרוֹתֶיהָ. אָמַר רִבִּי מָנָא יְאוּת אָמַר רִבִּי זְעִירָא דְּתַנִּינָן דְּבַתְרָהּ סְאָה תְרוּמָה טְהוֹרָה שֶׁנָּפְלָה לְמֵאָה חוּלִין טְמֵאִין לֵית רִבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר פְּלִיג. אָמְרִין חֲבֵרַיָיא קוֹמֵי רִבִּי יוֹסֵי יְאוּת אָמַר רִבִּי סִימוֹן דִּילֹא כֵן שׂוֹרְפִין אֶת הַתְּרוּמָה מִפְּנֵי גְדֵירָה. אָמַר לוֹן וְכִי שִׁשָּׁה סְפֵיקוֹת דְּתַנִּינָן לֹא מִפְּנֵי גְדֵירָן אֵין שׂוֹרְפִין וְהָכָא מִפְּנֵי גְדֵירָן אֵין שׂוֹרְפִין אוֹתָן. חֲבֵרַיָיא אָמְרֵי בָּעוּן קוֹמֵי רִבִּי יוֹסֵי מַה נַפְשָׁךְ אִם תְּרוּמָה טְמֵאָה תִישָּׂרֵף אִם חוּלִין הֵן מַה בְּכָךְ שֶׁיִּטַּמְּאוּ אָמַר לוֹן לָאו לְשׁוּם תְּרוּמָה אוֹכְלָהּ. כְּלוּם תְּרוּמָה נֶאֱכֶלֶת אֶלָּא טְהוֹרָה שֶׁמָּא טְמֵאָה. לֹא אֵי אַתֶּם מוֹדִין שֶׁאִם נוֹלָד לָהּ סָפֵק טוּמְאָה בִמְקוֹמָהּ שֶׁאֵינוֹ יָכוֹל לְשׂוֹרְפָהּ. מַה לִי שֶׁנּוֹלָד לָהּ [סָפֵק] טוּמְאָה בְמָקוֹם אַחֵר מַה לִי שֶׁנּוֹלָד לָהּ [סָפֵק] טוּמְאָה בִמְקוֹמָהּ. אֶלָּא בְּעֵיתוֹן לְמִיקְשַׁיָיה אִיקְשׁוֹן עַל הָדָא דְתַנֵּי רִבִּי הוֹשַׁעְיָה. דְתַנֵּי רִבִּי הוֹשַׁעְיָה סְאָה תְרוּמָה טְהוֹרָה שֶׁנָּפְלָה לְמֵאָה סְאָה תְרוּמָה טְמֵאָה.
Rebbi Simon says, Rebbi Eliezer stays with his opinion. Just as he says there25In Mishnah Zebaḥim 8:5, R. Eliezer states that if limbs of valid sacrifices were mixed up with limbs of a sacrifice which had been found defective and one of these had been burned on the altar before the error was detected, then all limbs of the same kind can be brought to the altar. R. Simon interprets this to mean that we say the first limb was from a defective animal and the rest therefore are proper sacrifices., all that is defective was in his hand, so he says here all that is impure is in his hand. Rebbi Zeїra asked, may we not say that Rebbi Eliezer said it only because of a fence26He disagrees with R. Simon; his position is that of R. Eleazar in the Babli (Zebaḥim 77b) that R. Eliezer permits the limbs on the altar only if at least two of the same kind are brought simultaneously, so that one of them at least is valid. The “fence” is the fence around the law, a measure of precaution that no biblical law could possibly be violated; cf. Demay Chapter 1, Note 89.? Does not Rebbi Eliezer agree that for a seah lifted from ṭevel he must give a name to its tithes7Tosephta 6:2: “A seah of heave which fell into less than 100 and made it dema‘, if it was ṭevel he uses it as heave and tithes for other produce or he gives a name to the heave of the tithe.” 6:3: “A seah of heave which fell into 100 of Sabbatical produce shall be lifted, less than that must be left to rot.” Ṭevel is forbidden to everybody, including a Cohen, but the Cohen may turn it all into heave and heave of the tithe without actually separating anything.? If you say the seah which fell is the seah which came up, it would not be necessary to give a name to its tithes27If it were 100% heave, no tithes would be possible.! Rebbi Mana said, Rebbi Zeїra is correct since we have stated after this28Mishnah 3. If R. Eliezer would consider all that came into his hand as heave, it would be pure and would not have to be eaten with the precautions indicated in the Mishnah.: “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”29The reference is to Mishnah Ṭahorot 4:5: “For six doubts one burns heave: For the doubt of field of pieces (a field where a grave was ploughed), the doubt of earth from a Gentile country (which is impure by tradition), the doubt of the garments of a vulgar person (who does not observe the rules of purity), the doubt of found vessels, the doubts of spittle and urine (from unknown persons), if one certainly touched them but does not know about their status of purity one burns heave. R. Yose says, even on a doubt whether one touched them in a private domain (cf. Chapter 3, Note 10), but the Sages say, on that doubt in a private domain one suspends and on a public road it is pure.” The normal procedure for heave that may be impure is to “suspend”, i. e., to leave the heave to rot and then dispose of it if it is no longer food. The questioner assumes that all questionable heave is suspended; R. Yose points out that there are instances in which questionable heave is burned.? 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 impure30Why do the Sages have to oppose R. Eliezer; could the lifted seah not be burned and all problems would be eliminated?? 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 it31The position of the Sages in Mishnah Ṭahorot 4:5: If the heave was of doubtful status before it fell into the 100 other seah (“in its place” before it fell), it would have to be suspended, not burned. Why could its replacement be burned now?? 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 heave32There is no Tosephta dealing with this case, but everybody agrees that all must be burned; one does not lift one seah to let it rot..”
Rebbi Simon says, Rebbi Eliezer stays with his opinion. Just as he says there25In Mishnah Zebaḥim 8:5, R. Eliezer states that if limbs of valid sacrifices were mixed up with limbs of a sacrifice which had been found defective and one of these had been burned on the altar before the error was detected, then all limbs of the same kind can be brought to the altar. R. Simon interprets this to mean that we say the first limb was from a defective animal and the rest therefore are proper sacrifices., all that is defective was in his hand, so he says here all that is impure is in his hand. Rebbi Zeїra asked, may we not say that Rebbi Eliezer said it only because of a fence26He disagrees with R. Simon; his position is that of R. Eleazar in the Babli (Zebaḥim 77b) that R. Eliezer permits the limbs on the altar only if at least two of the same kind are brought simultaneously, so that one of them at least is valid. The “fence” is the fence around the law, a measure of precaution that no biblical law could possibly be violated; cf. Demay Chapter 1, Note 89.? Does not Rebbi Eliezer agree that for a seah lifted from ṭevel he must give a name to its tithes7Tosephta 6:2: “A seah of heave which fell into less than 100 and made it dema‘, if it was ṭevel he uses it as heave and tithes for other produce or he gives a name to the heave of the tithe.” 6:3: “A seah of heave which fell into 100 of Sabbatical produce shall be lifted, less than that must be left to rot.” Ṭevel is forbidden to everybody, including a Cohen, but the Cohen may turn it all into heave and heave of the tithe without actually separating anything.? If you say the seah which fell is the seah which came up, it would not be necessary to give a name to its tithes27If it were 100% heave, no tithes would be possible.! Rebbi Mana said, Rebbi Zeїra is correct since we have stated after this28Mishnah 3. If R. Eliezer would consider all that came into his hand as heave, it would be pure and would not have to be eaten with the precautions indicated in the Mishnah.: “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”29The reference is to Mishnah Ṭahorot 4:5: “For six doubts one burns heave: For the doubt of field of pieces (a field where a grave was ploughed), the doubt of earth from a Gentile country (which is impure by tradition), the doubt of the garments of a vulgar person (who does not observe the rules of purity), the doubt of found vessels, the doubts of spittle and urine (from unknown persons), if one certainly touched them but does not know about their status of purity one burns heave. R. Yose says, even on a doubt whether one touched them in a private domain (cf. Chapter 3, Note 10), but the Sages say, on that doubt in a private domain one suspends and on a public road it is pure.” The normal procedure for heave that may be impure is to “suspend”, i. e., to leave the heave to rot and then dispose of it if it is no longer food. The questioner assumes that all questionable heave is suspended; R. Yose points out that there are instances in which questionable heave is burned.? 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 impure30Why do the Sages have to oppose R. Eliezer; could the lifted seah not be burned and all problems would be eliminated?? 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 it31The position of the Sages in Mishnah Ṭahorot 4:5: If the heave was of doubtful status before it fell into the 100 other seah (“in its place” before it fell), it would have to be suspended, not burned. Why could its replacement be burned now?? 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 heave32There is no Tosephta dealing with this case, but everybody agrees that all must be burned; one does not lift one seah to let it rot..”
וְהָדֵין נִיקּוּדִין כְּהָדָא חֲצִיי סְאִין.
Crackers are about half of a seah.33Either this is a scribal error for “half an egg”, cf. the end of Mishnah 1, or the translation of ניקודין is not “crackers” but “totally dry” following Rashi (Bekhorot 22b) who translates the verse Jos. 9:12 הנה יבש והיה נקדים “behold, it is dry and was totally dry” and comments on our Mishnah: “Now, even though there is purity and impurity, the pure part will not become impure without preparation; the impure part becomes voided in the plurality and should be eaten ניקודים.”.
Crackers are about half of a seah.33Either this is a scribal error for “half an egg”, cf. the end of Mishnah 1, or the translation of ניקודין is not “crackers” but “totally dry” following Rashi (Bekhorot 22b) who translates the verse Jos. 9:12 הנה יבש והיה נקדים “behold, it is dry and was totally dry” and comments on our Mishnah: “Now, even though there is purity and impurity, the pure part will not become impure without preparation; the impure part becomes voided in the plurality and should be eaten ניקודים.”.
חִזְקִיָּה אָמַר אֲפִילוּ חוּלִין שֶׁשָּׁם לֹא יֵאָכְלוּ אֶלָּא נִיקּוּדִים מִפְּנֵי חַלָּתָן. מִילְתֵיהּ אָמְרָה אִיסּוּר זָרוּת בָּטֵל וְאִיסּוּר טוּמְאָה לֹא בָטֵל. מִחְלְפָה שִׁיטָּתֵיהּ דְּחִזְקִיָּה תַּמָּן הוּא אָמַר כַּמָּה יְהֵא בְעִיסָּה וִיהֵא יָכוֹל לַעֲשׂוֹתָהּ בְּטָהֳרָה חִזְקִיָּה אָמַר שְׁתוּת אַרְבַּע קַבִּין וְאַרְבָּעַת קַבִּין. וָכָא הוּא אָמַר הָכֵין. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹסֵי תַּמָּן בְּשֶׁגִּיבֵּל וְאַחַר כָּךְ הִפְרִישׁ. בְּרַם הָכָא בְּשֶׁהִפְרִישׁ וְאַחַר כָּךְ גִּיבֵּל.
Ḥizqiah said, even the profane food there should be eaten only as dry crackers because of their ḥallah35The heave from the dough which has to be eaten by a Cohen in purity under the rules of heave, Num. 15:20.. His word says that the prohibition of the outsider becomes insignificant but the prohibition of impurity does not become insignificant36If he is worried about heave, there are two prohibitions to be observed: No outsider (one who is not a Cohen) may eat from it and it may not be eaten in impurity. Since he does not require that all should be given to the Cohen as dema‘, it follows that the prohibition of the outsider has disappeared. Since he is worried about impure heave, the prohibition of impurity has not disappeared. The argument cannot refer to the Mishnah here, since everything is impure and any ḥallah must be burned. Therefore, Ḥizqiah must refer to Mishnah 2, one seah of impure heave which is in 100 seah of pure profane grain.. The arguments of Ḥizqiah seem inverted. There37This seems to refer to Tosephta Ḥallah 2:5: “Impure flour which was mixed with pure flour but the impure is less than its measure (less than the volume of an egg), if he takes [ḥallah] he says: This should be ḥallah except for the impure part in it.” He cannot declare all of it as ḥallah since it might contain impure flour and impure ḥallah is forbidden as food. But the part of impure flour in the dough is certainly less than the volume of an egg and, therefore, all of it may be eaten by a Cohen. {The explanation of this and the next paragraph follows R. H. Kanievski.}, he says: How much can be in a dough that he should be able to make it in purity38How much impure flour can be in the dough so that pure ḥallah can be taken?? Ḥizqiah said one sixth of four qab in four qab39If will be seen in the next paragraph that 4/6 qab is much more than the volume of an egg, Ḥizqiah holds that, in this case, one may separate a small cake for ḥallah (whose normal size should be 1/24 of the entire dough) to be sure that it does not contain the volume of an egg of impure dough and turn it into ḥallah. The remainder may then be worked in impurity. Since ḥallah follows the rules of heave, it must be taken from the dough itself. Ḥizqiah must follow R. Eliezer who in Mishnah Ḥallah 2:4 permits to give one ḥallah for all breads in one large basket. If the bread destined for ḥallah is separated from the large impure breads by small loaves of volume less than one egg, no contamination can take place. (The basis of this device is Mishnah Ḥallah 2:7).. And here he says so40He rejects the trick which he recommends for ḥallah and requires that all be consumed either dry or kneaded with pure fruit juice.! Rebbi Yose said, there, when he kneaded the dough and then separated, but here when he separated and then kneaded41“There” is here, in Terumot, when it is his intention of processing all flour together; “here” is there, in Ḥallah, when he is prepared to separate a small cake to be kneaded in purity, the rest in impurity..
Ḥizqiah said, even the profane food there should be eaten only as dry crackers because of their ḥallah35The heave from the dough which has to be eaten by a Cohen in purity under the rules of heave, Num. 15:20.. His word says that the prohibition of the outsider becomes insignificant but the prohibition of impurity does not become insignificant36If he is worried about heave, there are two prohibitions to be observed: No outsider (one who is not a Cohen) may eat from it and it may not be eaten in impurity. Since he does not require that all should be given to the Cohen as dema‘, it follows that the prohibition of the outsider has disappeared. Since he is worried about impure heave, the prohibition of impurity has not disappeared. The argument cannot refer to the Mishnah here, since everything is impure and any ḥallah must be burned. Therefore, Ḥizqiah must refer to Mishnah 2, one seah of impure heave which is in 100 seah of pure profane grain.. The arguments of Ḥizqiah seem inverted. There37This seems to refer to Tosephta Ḥallah 2:5: “Impure flour which was mixed with pure flour but the impure is less than its measure (less than the volume of an egg), if he takes [ḥallah] he says: This should be ḥallah except for the impure part in it.” He cannot declare all of it as ḥallah since it might contain impure flour and impure ḥallah is forbidden as food. But the part of impure flour in the dough is certainly less than the volume of an egg and, therefore, all of it may be eaten by a Cohen. {The explanation of this and the next paragraph follows R. H. Kanievski.}, he says: How much can be in a dough that he should be able to make it in purity38How much impure flour can be in the dough so that pure ḥallah can be taken?? Ḥizqiah said one sixth of four qab in four qab39If will be seen in the next paragraph that 4/6 qab is much more than the volume of an egg, Ḥizqiah holds that, in this case, one may separate a small cake for ḥallah (whose normal size should be 1/24 of the entire dough) to be sure that it does not contain the volume of an egg of impure dough and turn it into ḥallah. The remainder may then be worked in impurity. Since ḥallah follows the rules of heave, it must be taken from the dough itself. Ḥizqiah must follow R. Eliezer who in Mishnah Ḥallah 2:4 permits to give one ḥallah for all breads in one large basket. If the bread destined for ḥallah is separated from the large impure breads by small loaves of volume less than one egg, no contamination can take place. (The basis of this device is Mishnah Ḥallah 2:7).. And here he says so40He rejects the trick which he recommends for ḥallah and requires that all be consumed either dry or kneaded with pure fruit juice.! Rebbi Yose said, there, when he kneaded the dough and then separated, but here when he separated and then kneaded41“There” is here, in Terumot, when it is his intention of processing all flour together; “here” is there, in Ḥallah, when he is prepared to separate a small cake to be kneaded in purity, the rest in impurity..
אָמַר רִבִּי אַבָּהוּ כָּל יָמֵינוּ הָיִינוּ טוֹעִין בָּהּ כְּמַקֵּל הַזֶּה שֶׁל סוּמָא עַד שֶׁלָּמַדְנוּהָ מִן חֶשְׁבּוֹן גֵּיֳמֶטְרִיָּא. קַבָּא כַּמָּה עֲבַד עֶשְׂרִין וְאַרְבַּע בֵּיעִין כַּמָּה סְאָה עָבְדָא תִּשְׁעִין וְשִׁית בֵּיעִין שְׁתוּת דִּידְהוּ שִׁית עֶשְׂרֵה. אִין יְגַבֵּל שִׁית יֵשׁ כָּאן בֵּיצָה טְמֵאָה. וְאִין יְגַבֵּל אַרְבַּע אֵין כָּאן שִׁייוּר. הָא כֵּיצַד הוּא עוֹשֶׂה מְגַבֵּל חָמֵשׁ וְנוֹטֵל אַרְבַּע.
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 qab? 24 eggs43This is standard; a qab is 6 log and a log 4 eggs. The same division is accepted in the Babli.. How much is in a seah? 96 eggs44This is nonstandard; the seah in all other places is 6 qab, here it is 4. The seah here must be the Roman modius which is 16 sextarii, and the sextarius is the log since Mishnah Kelim 17:11 identifies the רביעית, the fourth part of the log, with the Roman quartarius, the fourth part of the sextarius. {In Babli Erubin 83a, a modius is estimated as the volume of 217 eggs. Current practice follows the Yerushalmi here.} The amount of pure ḥallah to be given from 96 eggs would be the volume of 4 eggs. But since the verse (Num. 15:21) reads: “From the beginning of your dough you shall give …” the dough made for ḥallah cannot be exactly the volume of four eggs since something profane must be left over.. One sixth of it are 16 eggs. If he makes a dough of six, it contains an impure egg45It is assumed that the flour was thoroughly mixed and homogenized. Since 6 = 96/16, a dough in the volume of 6 eggs contains exactly 1 egg of impure flour and is impure.. If he makes from four, nothing is left. What does he do? He makes a dough from five and takes four.
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 qab? 24 eggs43This is standard; a qab is 6 log and a log 4 eggs. The same division is accepted in the Babli.. How much is in a seah? 96 eggs44This is nonstandard; the seah in all other places is 6 qab, here it is 4. The seah here must be the Roman modius which is 16 sextarii, and the sextarius is the log since Mishnah Kelim 17:11 identifies the רביעית, the fourth part of the log, with the Roman quartarius, the fourth part of the sextarius. {In Babli Erubin 83a, a modius is estimated as the volume of 217 eggs. Current practice follows the Yerushalmi here.} The amount of pure ḥallah to be given from 96 eggs would be the volume of 4 eggs. But since the verse (Num. 15:21) reads: “From the beginning of your dough you shall give …” the dough made for ḥallah cannot be exactly the volume of four eggs since something profane must be left over.. One sixth of it are 16 eggs. If he makes a dough of six, it contains an impure egg45It is assumed that the flour was thoroughly mixed and homogenized. Since 6 = 96/16, a dough in the volume of 6 eggs contains exactly 1 egg of impure flour and is impure.. If he makes from four, nothing is left. What does he do? He makes a dough from five and takes four.
מִילְתֵיהּ דְּחִזְקִיָּה אָמְרָה בִּלְבַד שֶׁלֹּא תְהֵא כְבֵיצָה טְמֵיאָה נוֹגַעַת בְּגוּמָא. מִילְתֵיהּ דְּרִבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָמְרָה וּבִּלְבַד שֶׁלֹּא תְהֵא כְבֵיצָה טְמֵיאָה נוֹגַעַת בְּעִיסָּה. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹסֵי לְרִבִּי יִרְמְיָה לֹא מִסְתַּבְּרָא מַה דְאָמַר חִזְקִיָּה לְשֶׁעָבַר. מִן דְאָמַר רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן לָבֹא. אָמַר לֵיהּ וְאוּף נָא סָבַר כֵּן. וְאֵי זוֹ הִיא גוּמָא עַל דַּעְתֵּיהּ דְּרִבִּי יוֹחָנָן. רִבִּי יוֹסֵי בֵּי רִבִּי בּוּן בְשֵׁם רִבִּי יוֹנָה תִּיפְתָּר שֶׁגִּיבֵּל אַחַת בִּשְׁבַע עֶשְׂרֵה וְאַתְיָא בְעִיסַּת סְאָתַיִם.
The statement of Ḥizqiah says, on condition that no impurity the volume of an egg touch the indentation48The meaning of this word depends on the interpretation of Mishnah Ṭahorot 1:10: “Loaves of sacrificial bread which have water in their גוּמוֹת, if one of them became impure by a crawling thing, they all are impure; for [loaves of] heave they make impure two stages and disqualify a third. If there is damp fluid between them, even for heave all is impure.” According to Maimonides, the indentations are depressions in the bread that still contain fluid. (It seems that for this reason, he wrote in the first version of his Commentary: “Indentations left on top of the bread at the time of cooking”, which in the last version he changed into: “at the time of baking.”) According to R. Simson, followed by R. Asher ben Ieḥiel, the baking sheet has depressions into which the dough is placed to obtain loaves of uniform size. The explanation of R. Simson seems to be required by the formulation in Tosephta Ṭahorot 1:6: “Loaves of sacrificial bread in their גוּמוֹת.”. A statement of Rebbi Joḥanan says, on condition that no impurity the volume of an egg touch the dough49The dough for the profane loaves.. Rebbi Yose said to Rebbi Jeremiah: Is it not reasonable that Ḥizqiah spoke to the past and Rebbi Joḥanan spoke to the future50Ḥizqiah has two restrictions compared to R. Joḥanan. First, all that is in contact with any fluid he declares impure where R. Joḥanan strictly insists that only the volume of at least one egg may induce impurity. Second, in case of doubt he extends impurity retroactively to all food in contact with the questionable dough; R. Joḥanan rejects retroactivity.? He said, that is my opinion also. What is an indentation in the opinion of Rebbi Joḥanan51Under which circumstances does he admit that the situation envisaged by Ḥizqiah leads to impurity?? 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 seah52This criticism is levelled at Ḥizqiah himself and at R. Abbahu’s interpretation of his position. The interpretation is rejected because it presupposes that pure and impure flour can be completely mixed, with a constant percentage of impure flour in the pure. Since presumably the two kinds are indistinguishable to the eye, mixing can not be assumed to be perfect. As a rough estimate, R. Joḥanan will admit R. Abbahu’s solution if not more than the volume of 17 eggs are mixed with 2 seah of pure flour (somewhat below 9%) and thoroughly mixed..
The statement of Ḥizqiah says, on condition that no impurity the volume of an egg touch the indentation48The meaning of this word depends on the interpretation of Mishnah Ṭahorot 1:10: “Loaves of sacrificial bread which have water in their גוּמוֹת, if one of them became impure by a crawling thing, they all are impure; for [loaves of] heave they make impure two stages and disqualify a third. If there is damp fluid between them, even for heave all is impure.” According to Maimonides, the indentations are depressions in the bread that still contain fluid. (It seems that for this reason, he wrote in the first version of his Commentary: “Indentations left on top of the bread at the time of cooking”, which in the last version he changed into: “at the time of baking.”) According to R. Simson, followed by R. Asher ben Ieḥiel, the baking sheet has depressions into which the dough is placed to obtain loaves of uniform size. The explanation of R. Simson seems to be required by the formulation in Tosephta Ṭahorot 1:6: “Loaves of sacrificial bread in their גוּמוֹת.”. A statement of Rebbi Joḥanan says, on condition that no impurity the volume of an egg touch the dough49The dough for the profane loaves.. Rebbi Yose said to Rebbi Jeremiah: Is it not reasonable that Ḥizqiah spoke to the past and Rebbi Joḥanan spoke to the future50Ḥizqiah has two restrictions compared to R. Joḥanan. First, all that is in contact with any fluid he declares impure where R. Joḥanan strictly insists that only the volume of at least one egg may induce impurity. Second, in case of doubt he extends impurity retroactively to all food in contact with the questionable dough; R. Joḥanan rejects retroactivity.? He said, that is my opinion also. What is an indentation in the opinion of Rebbi Joḥanan51Under which circumstances does he admit that the situation envisaged by Ḥizqiah leads to impurity?? 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 seah52This criticism is levelled at Ḥizqiah himself and at R. Abbahu’s interpretation of his position. The interpretation is rejected because it presupposes that pure and impure flour can be completely mixed, with a constant percentage of impure flour in the pure. Since presumably the two kinds are indistinguishable to the eye, mixing can not be assumed to be perfect. As a rough estimate, R. Joḥanan will admit R. Abbahu’s solution if not more than the volume of 17 eggs are mixed with 2 seah of pure flour (somewhat below 9%) and thoroughly mixed..
רִבִּי בָּא בַּר מָמָל בָּעֵי וְלֵית הָדָא פְלִיגָא עַל רִבִּי יוֹסֵי בַּר חֲנִינָה. דְּאָמַר רִבִּי יוֹסֵי בַּר חֲנִינָה נְבֵילָה בְטֵלָה בִּשְׁחִיטָה בָּטֵל מַגָּעָהּ וְהֶסֵֵּיטָהּ לֹא בָטֵל לְפִי שֶׁאֵיפְשַׁר לִשְׁחוּטָה שֶׁתֵּיעָשֶׂה נְבֵילָה. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹסֵי תַּמָּן אֵיפְשַׁר לִשְׁחִיטָה שֶׁתֵּיעָשֶׂה נְבֵילָה בְּרַם הָכָא אֶיפְשַׁר לְחוּלִין לֵעָשׂוֹת תְּרוּמָה. אָמַר רִבִּי חִזְקִיָּה רִבִּי סִימוֹן קְשִׁיָיתָהּ וְרִבִּי בָּא בַּר מָמָל קִיְימָהּ.
Rebbi Abba bar Mamai asked: Does this not contradict Rebbi Yose bar Ḥanina? As Rebbi Yose bar Ḥanina said, a carcass54A dead animal not ritually slaughtered. can become insignificant in slaughtered55Slaughtered by cutting its throat; cf. Arabic سحط “to cut somebody’s throat.” The biblical Hebrew שחט has exactly the same meaning. [meat]; it becomes insignificant for touch, but for motion it cannot become insignificant56Carcasses transmit impurity in the first degree by touch (Lev. 11:27), and original impurity if they are carried (Lev. 11:28) even if never touched. If a piece of carcass meat is mixed up with pieces of slaughtered meat, probably it touched a piece belonging to the pure majority, but when all are carried, certainly the carcass piece also was carried. Since the impurity by touch is only probable, it can be disregarded under certain conditions. The impurity by carrying is certain and can never be disregarded. for slaughtered [meat] can never become carcass [meat]57This argument is ascribed to Rav Ḥisda in the Babli (Beẓah 38b, Menaḥot 23a, Bekhorot 23a), as a general principle to R. Ḥanina, the father of R. Yose ben R. Ḥanina. The Babli concludes that slaughtered meat cannot become insignificant in carcass meat because it is possible for carcass meat to acquire the purity of slaughtered meat by rotting and becoming unusable as food while it is impossible for slaughtered meat to acquire the impurity of carcass meat.. Rebbi Yose said, there it is impossible for slaughtered [meat] to become carcass [meat], but here profane produce may become heave58While profane produce may never be used to give heave, if a layman ate heave, he has to replace it by an equal amount of profane food (plus a 25% fine) which acquires the sanctity of heave, cf. Mishnah 6:1.. Rebbi Ḥizqiah said, Rebbi Simon raised the question and Rebbi Abba bar Mamai explained it.
Rebbi Abba bar Mamai asked: Does this not contradict Rebbi Yose bar Ḥanina? As Rebbi Yose bar Ḥanina said, a carcass54A dead animal not ritually slaughtered. can become insignificant in slaughtered55Slaughtered by cutting its throat; cf. Arabic سحط “to cut somebody’s throat.” The biblical Hebrew שחט has exactly the same meaning. [meat]; it becomes insignificant for touch, but for motion it cannot become insignificant56Carcasses transmit impurity in the first degree by touch (Lev. 11:27), and original impurity if they are carried (Lev. 11:28) even if never touched. If a piece of carcass meat is mixed up with pieces of slaughtered meat, probably it touched a piece belonging to the pure majority, but when all are carried, certainly the carcass piece also was carried. Since the impurity by touch is only probable, it can be disregarded under certain conditions. The impurity by carrying is certain and can never be disregarded. for slaughtered [meat] can never become carcass [meat]57This argument is ascribed to Rav Ḥisda in the Babli (Beẓah 38b, Menaḥot 23a, Bekhorot 23a), as a general principle to R. Ḥanina, the father of R. Yose ben R. Ḥanina. The Babli concludes that slaughtered meat cannot become insignificant in carcass meat because it is possible for carcass meat to acquire the purity of slaughtered meat by rotting and becoming unusable as food while it is impossible for slaughtered meat to acquire the impurity of carcass meat.. Rebbi Yose said, there it is impossible for slaughtered [meat] to become carcass [meat], but here profane produce may become heave58While profane produce may never be used to give heave, if a layman ate heave, he has to replace it by an equal amount of profane food (plus a 25% fine) which acquires the sanctity of heave, cf. Mishnah 6:1.. Rebbi Ḥizqiah said, Rebbi Simon raised the question and Rebbi Abba bar Mamai explained it.
תַּנֵּי סְאָה תְרוּמָה שֶׁנָּפְלָה לְפָחוֹת מִמֵּאָה הֲרֵי אֵילּוּ מְדוּמָעִין וְאֵין מְשַׁלְּמִין לָהּ קֶרֶן וְחוֹמֶשׁ עַל מָקוֹם אַחֵר. וְלֹא מִמָּקוֹם אַחֵר עֲלֵיהֶן אֶלָּא לְפִי חֶשְׁבּוֹן. וּבַדָּבָר שֶׁאֵין דַּרְכּוֹ לְהִיבָּלֵל אֲבָל בַּדָּבָר שֶׁדַּרְכּוֹ לְהִיבָּלֵל הוֹלְכִין אַחַר הָרוֹב אִם רוֹב תְּרוּמָה תְרוּמָה וְאִם רוֹב חוּלִין חוּלִין.
It was stated59Tosephta 6:1.: “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 profane61As far as payment goes; the argument does not apply to fixing the dema‘..
It was stated59Tosephta 6:1.: “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 profane61As far as payment goes; the argument does not apply to fixing the dema‘..