Yerushalmi Terumot 5:2 ירושלמי תרומות ה׳:ב׳

MISHNAH: One seah of impure heave which fell into 100 seah of pure heave, the House of Shammai forbid⁶²They forbid the entire heave as inpure (even if completely dry). 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 priests⁶³Outsiders and Cohanim.; 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 minority⁶⁴Since everything is heave, all the 101 seah may be eaten by a Cohen as pure heave..
One seah of heave which fell into one hundred⁷²100 seah of profane produce., 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 proportion⁷³The amount of certain heave in what was lifted is only 1/101 of the lifted produce; in order to remove dema‘ one needs only 1 seah of profane produce..
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 proportion⁷⁴Sour dough of heave which was added to dough to make it rise turns the entire dough into heave (Mishnah Orlah 2:6). If from the dough anything was taken for another batch of dough, the latter becomes heave only if the proportional part of the original souring agent alone would have been enough to make the new dough rise. The three cases “in proportion” mentioned here are repeated in Mishnah Temurah 1:4., and drawn water invalidates a ritual bath only in proportion⁷⁵If a miqweh contains a little less than the minimum 40 seah and three log of water are added from a vessel to bring it over the limit, the entire water becomes unfit for a ritual bath. The Babli (Temurah 12a–b) gives two explanations for the Mishnah here; there is no Yerushalmi on this part of the Mishnah. According to the final determination of the Babli, “in proportion” here has a meaning totally different from the two preceding cases, in that water from vessels invalidates only if the vessels are in proportion to the three log, i. e., if the water is added from at most three vessels, not from four or more. This is accepted by Maimonides in his Code (Miqwaot 5:1) with the concurrence of R. Abraham ben David (Tosaphot Temurah 12b, s. v. יוסף)..
One seah of heave which fell into one hundred⁷²100 seah of profane produce., was taken out, and another one fell in: the latter is permitted until there will be more heave than profane⁸⁸The process of lifting can be repeated until one would have more heave than profane produce if each time only profane matter would have been taken out and all heave stayed in. In that case, the mixture will be forbidden by biblical law as soon as there is not more profane than heave matter. The Tanna of the Mishnah assumes that it is impossible that in all these processes only heave be lifted; even in the worst case some profane grain will be lifted. Therefore, he does not have to say “permitted as long as the volume of heave is less than that of profane grain.” The grain is permitted unless the amount of heave which fell in is larger than half the original amount of profane grain. This is the position of R. Simson and R. Abraham ben David.
Maimonides’s explanation is difficult to understand. He permits the mixture if at most 100 times 1 seah fell into the produce and was lifted. He gives no explanation. R. Joseph Caro explains that in the previous Mishnaiot, when the Sages assert that the heave counted in the remaining produce is computed proportionally, they assume that there was perfect mixing of heave and profane before the excess seah was lifted. But in that case, if t_i, h_i are the amounts of heave and profane in the mixture after i seah fell in and were lifted,
h_i= 100(100/101)ⁱ
and h_i< 50 for integer i > 69. {The solution of 100(100/101)ⁱ = 50 is i =69.66 …} Since, by definition, t_i + h_i=100, by the explanation of R. Joseph Caro, the process can be repeated only 69 times and RR. Simson and Abraham ben David would agree..
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.

HALAKHAH: Rebbi Yudan bar Pazi and Rebbi Ayvo bar Naggari⁶⁶Galilean Amora of the early fourth generation, student of R. Ḥiyya bar Abba and R. La. 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 Ḥizqiah, Rebbi Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Jehudah bar Ḥanina: We never find the House of Shammai conceding to the House of Hillel except in this matter. Rebbi Jonah in the name of Rebbi Abbai⁶⁷His name appears only here, and nothing more is known about him. understood it from the following⁶⁸Mishnah Ṭevul Yom 2:7. For most severe impurities it is not enough that the impure person immerse himself in water; after the immersion, as ṭevul yom “immersed during the day”, he is pure only for profane food. For heave, and certainly for sacrifices, he becomes pure only at sundown. If in the period between his immersion and sundown he touches heave, it becomes unusable; this is classified as “impure in the third degree”. If the ṭevul yom touches a stream of heave fluid (wine or oil) poured from one vessel to the other, in the opinion of the Sadducees the entire fluid in both vessels becomes unusable (MMT lines 55–58). In rabbinic tradition, only the part touched by the ṭevul yom becomes unusable; the fluid cannot be used because unusable heave is contained in it, but it can be repaired by the usual lifting of one out of 101.: “If someone pours from vessel to vessel and a ṭevul 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 Ḥanina 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 Ḥinena said, the Mishnah said so, after they conceded one to another, the House of Shammai recused themselves and the others⁶⁹The Sages, who always represent the tradition of the House of Hillel. teach us. Rebbi Abin says, there is another answer⁷⁰Which the House of Hillel could have given to the House of Shammai, in addition to the argument presented in the Mishnah., following what Rebbi Hoshaia stated: Since pure [heave], which for outsiders is forbidden as deadly sin, can be lifted, certainly also impure [heave] which is [prohibited] as positive commandment⁷¹Which is classified as a misdemeanor, rather than a felony. for Cohanim.

Rebbi Joḥanan said, a seah of heave which fell into 100 of profane produce, anything will make it become insignificant⁷⁷If one seah was lifted after a seah of heave fell into 100 profane seah, the new seah is only heave by rabbinic decree superimposed on a rabbinic obligation; it is heave in name only and can be made insignificant in the slightest amount of additional profane produce. Quoted in this sense in Halakhah 9:6.. Our Mishnah disagrees with Rebbi Joḥanan: “It creates heave only in proportion⁷⁸According to the Mishnah, the amount into which if fell must still be 100/101 times the amount lifted.”. Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, Rebbi Joḥanan stated only: “It does not create any dema‘.⁷⁹He had another version of the Mishnah before him.” But⁸⁰The Sages of the Mishnah speak of the case that the amount lifted was taken from the place the heave fell in, when one may assume that more genuine heave than profane grain was lifted. Rebbi Joḥanan speaks of the case when everything was well mixed; in Halakhah 9:6 this is expressed by: “he mills [the grain] and thereby permits it.” 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, only⁸¹The Mishnah which relates the disagreement of R. Eliezer and the Sages. Do the Sages permit the profane part of the seah that fell into dema‘ to be added to the profane part of the dema‘ to provide the necessary 100÷1 ratio? 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 inert⁸²The position tentatively ascribed to R. Eleazar in the previous sentence is that of R. Joḥanan. R. Eleazar is restrictive and requires the lifted heave to be neutralized on its own when it fell into dema‘, irrespective of the amount of profane produce in the dema‘ into which it fell. This is the majority position in Tosephta 6:5, opposed by R. Simeon and his son..

Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina said, only if it fell into five places, but if it fell into one place, even Rebbi Eliezer agrees. Rebbi Joḥanan said, even if all fell into one place, there is disagreement⁸³In the opinion of R. Yose ben Ḥanina, R. Eliezer agrees in principle with the Sages that the heave in the lifted grain should be counted only in proportion but he thinks that if heave fell in several separate batches each batch needs separate 100-fold profane grain lifting whereas the Sages think that the heave is to be considered as evenly distributed through the entire dema‘ grain. R. Joḥanan disagrees and holds that dema‘ follows the rules of heave as far as consumption is concerned and, therefore, the lifted grain should be considered all heave.. Ḥilfai said on that of Rebbi Eliezer, the lower profane produce becomes inert⁸⁴R. Eliezer agrees in principle with the Sages that the heave in the lifted grain should be counted only in proportion but he holds that the heave part of the lifted grain is genuine heave with all its restrictions; the rest is just ballast and disregarded.. But Rebbi Eleazar also said, the lower profane produce becomes inert. What is the difference between Rebbi Eliezer and the rabbis⁸⁵If one combines Ḥilfai’s interpretation of R. Eliezer and R. Eleazar’s interpretation of the Sages, one fails to see the difference between them.? Is one more restrictive with a lifted seah out of 100⁸⁶R. Eliezer holds that the heave which fell is the heave which was lifted (cf. Note 27); he can state this only if he considers the remainder of the grain as inert. or is one more lenient, following what Rebbi Joḥanan said, if a seah of heave fell into 100 of profane produce, anything will make it insignificant⁸⁷For the Sages, this is also a position accepted by R. Eleazar, cf. Note 82. One sees that there is a big difference between R. Eliezer and the Sages, even if R. Eleazar accepts Ḥilfai’s argument.?

It was stated: If the heave became a plurality it is as if he had added intentionally⁸⁹It cannot be lifted even in very large amount of profane produce, as stated in Mishnah 9. If so much heave can fall into profane food it shows that the negligence borders on intentional misconduct.. But did we not state⁹⁰Mishnah Miqwaot 7:2. The expression “he added” shows that a religious bath (miqweh) which contains the required amount (40 seah) of natural water, additional water may intentionally be added from vessels without impairing the validity of the bath.: “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 Tanḥum⁹¹An Amora in Tyre between the second and third generation of Galilean authorities., Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, up to the larger part of the miqweh⁹²In the Babli (Yebamot 82b), it is made clear that in a miqweh of exactly 40 seah, exactly 20 seah can be added and removed. This also seems to be the meaning here.. 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 forbidden⁹³Since 40 seah in a miqweh permit the addition of water from a vessel, once the water enters the miqweh its quality as poured from a vessel becomes insignificant and it becomes like natural (spring or rain) water. But if the added and removed quantities become more than 20 seah, the miqweh becomes forbidden. This proves that the insignificance of the invalid water is conditional. The principle stated here is accepted in both Talmudim..

Rebbi Simeon says, knowledge of it sanctifies; but the rabbis say, its lifting sanctifies it⁹³Since 40 seah in a miqweh permit the addition of water from a vessel, once the water enters the miqweh its quality as poured from a vessel becomes insignificant and it becomes like natural (spring or rain) water. But if the added and removed quantities become more than 20 seah, the miqweh becomes forbidden. This proves that the insignificance of the invalid water is conditional. The principle stated here is accepted in both Talmudim..

It was stated: One seah of heave⁹⁴This must be impure heave, as shown by the sequel. 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 firewood⁹⁵It seems, as noted by R. Moses Margalit, that the impure heave was the property of a Cohen when it accidentally fell into less than 100 units heave. (It cannot be exactly 100 units as in the baraita, since then the heave would have to be lifted and eaten dry, as stated before.) Since impure heave is only usable as fuel, it may be sold to a Cohen as fuel.! But he answers him, does a seah of heave which fell into less than 100 not make the entire heave dema‘? Does firewood create dema‘? Does he not in the end have to give it to another Cohen⁹⁶Since nothing else can be done with impure dema‘. 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 rest⁹⁷The rest over and above the one seah, which the owner may give to any Cohen of his choice for payment of its value as fuel.. A person spilled barley into wheat. The case came before Rebbi Jehudah bar Shalom⁹⁸An Amora of the fifth generation, mostly quoted in aggadic matters. who said, let him pay the price of barley; they should split the rest⁹⁹Here the situation is different; this really belongs to tractate Baba Qamma since the damage is visible. If A hurts B by pouring some of his barley into B’s wheat, A has to pay B the difference between the going rates for wheat and barley for B’s grain. If later somehow the rate for barley should rise, the profit has to be split between them since A and B are now joint owners of the grain..