## Jerusalem Talmud Terumot Chapter 5

###### Jerusalem Talmud Terumot 5:1:1
[Jerusalem Talmud Terumot 5:1:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Terumot/r/5:1:1)

**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.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
**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 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 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 name³; if it fell into Second Tithe or dedicated produce, they should be redeemed⁴.. If it was impure and profane⁵ 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 eaten²⁴ 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 together⁵ 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.,⁶.
One *seah* of pure heave that fell into 100 [*seah*] of impure profane produce should be taken out and eaten as crackers³³ 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 together⁵ 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.,⁶.

footnotes:
¹ Since impure heave must be destroyed and heave cannot be lifted if it constitutes more than 1% of the whole, all must be destroyed.
² All is pure dema‘
³ Again, 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.
⁴ Since second tithe or food dedicated to the Temple may not contain heave, it has to be redeemed and then consumed as dema‘
⁵ It is assumed that the impure produce is dry and the pure heave has not been prepared for impurity (Demay
²⁴ Rashi in Bekhorot
⁵ It is assumed that the impure produce is dry and the pure heave has not been prepared for impurity (Demay
⁶ Reading of the Rome ms. Leyden and Venice: מעלה תעלה “lifts, may be lifted.”
³³ Either 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
⁵ It is assumed that the impure produce is dry and the pure heave has not been prepared for impurity (Demay
⁶ Reading of the Rome ms. Leyden and Venice: מעלה תעלה “lifts, may be lifted.”


###### Jerusalem Talmud Terumot 5:1:2
[Jerusalem Talmud Terumot 5:1:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Terumot/r/5:1:2)

**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.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
**HALAKHAH:** “One *seah* of impure heave”, etc. Rebbi Ḥiyya stated: “*Ṭevel* lifts, aftergrowth of the Sabbatical lifts.⁷ 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 lifted⁷ 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*?

footnotes:
⁷ Tosephta 6:2: “A seah
⁷ Tosephta 6:2: “A seah


###### Jerusalem Talmud Terumot 5:1:3
[Jerusalem Talmud Terumot 5:1:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Terumot/r/5:1:3)

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.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
There⁸ 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 oil⁹? Rebbi Samuel bar Naḥman said in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan¹⁰, 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 fire¹¹! 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”. For excellence for greatness, for excellence for rubbing in, for excellence for lighting.

footnotes:
⁸ This baraita
⁹ In the Babli, R. Joḥanan explicitly adds wheat grains to bread.
¹⁰ The 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.)
¹¹ Of impure heave.
¹² “To you (Aaron) I gave it for excellence,” referring to all obligatory gifts to the Cohen.


###### Jerusalem Talmud Terumot 5:1:4
[Jerusalem Talmud Terumot 5:1:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Terumot/r/5:1:4)

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.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
We understand that when pure it must be left to rot¹⁵, 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 lift¹⁶; but only if it is not usually mixed [with other food]. But if it usually is mixed, maybe something untoward will happen¹⁷.*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..

footnotes:
¹⁵ This is required by the Mishnah.
¹⁶ Since rotting takes some time, maybe some more will accidentally fall into the produce which will permit the heave to be lifted.
¹⁷ Therefore, it has to be destroyed as quickly as possible, by burning. In the Babli (loc


###### Jerusalem Talmud Terumot 5:1:5
[Jerusalem Talmud Terumot 5:1:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Terumot/r/5:1:5)

וְלֹא כֵן סָבְרִנָן מֵימַר אֵין לְהֶקְדֵּשׁ אֶלָּא מְקוֹמוֹ וְשַׁעְתּוֹ. אָמַר רִבִּי חֲנִינָא תִּיפְתָּר שֶׁחָרֵב אוֹתוֹ מָקוֹם וְלֹא מָצָא לְמוֹכְרוֹ אֶלָּא אֲפִילוּ בִדְמֵי עֵצִים.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
Did we not want to say that dedicated things have only their time and place¹⁹ 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.

footnotes:
¹⁹ Mishnah Arakhin


###### Jerusalem Talmud Terumot 5:1:6
[Jerusalem Talmud Terumot 5:1:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Terumot/r/5:1:6)

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.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
This means, pure [fell into] pure, but pure into impure²⁰? That is what we have stated: “If it was impure and profane.” ²¹ 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 priest²², 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 Cohen²³.

footnotes:
²⁰ This 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?
²¹ The disagreement between R. Yose and Cahana is in Chapter 2, Note 9.
²² Since heave of the tithe makes the tithe dema‘
²³ For 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.


###### Jerusalem Talmud Terumot 5:1:7
[Jerusalem Talmud Terumot 5:1:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Terumot/r/5:1:7)

וְהָדֵין נִיקּוּדִים כְּהָדָא חַצָּיֵי בֵיצִים.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
Crackers are about the size of halves of eggs.


###### Jerusalem Talmud Terumot 5:1:8
[Jerusalem Talmud Terumot 5:1:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Terumot/r/5:1:8)

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.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
Rebbi Simon says, Rebbi Eliezer stays with his opinion. Just as he says there²⁵ 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 fence²⁶ 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 tithes⁷ 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 tithes²⁷! Rebbi Mana said, Rebbi Zeїra is correct since we have 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 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 impure³⁰ 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 it³¹ 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 heave³² to let it rot..”

footnotes:
²⁵ In Mishnah Zebaḥim
²⁶ He disagrees with R. Simon; his position is that of R. Eleazar in the Babli (Zebaḥim
⁷ Tosephta 6:2: “A seah
²⁷ If it were 100% heave, no tithes would be possible.
²⁸ Mishnah 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.
²⁹ The reference is to Mishnah Ṭahorot
³⁰ Why do the Sages have to oppose R. Eliezer; could the lifted seah
³¹ The position of the Sages in Mishnah Ṭahorot
³² There is no Tosephta dealing with this case, but everybody agrees that all must be burned; one does not lift one seah


###### Jerusalem Talmud Terumot 5:1:9
[Jerusalem Talmud Terumot 5:1:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Terumot/r/5:1:9)

וְהָדֵין נִיקּוּדִין כְּהָדָא חֲצִיי סְאִין.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
Crackers are about half of a *seah*.³³ 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.”.

footnotes:
³³ Either 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


###### Jerusalem Talmud Terumot 5:1:10
[Jerusalem Talmud Terumot 5:1:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Terumot/r/5:1:10)

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.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
Ḥizqiah said, even the profane food there should be eaten only as dry crackers because of their *ḥallah*³⁵. 15:20.. His word says that the prohibition of the outsider becomes insignificant but the prohibition of impurity does not become insignificant³⁶, 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. There³⁷ 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 purity³⁸ can be taken?? Ḥizqiah said one sixth of four *qab* in four *qab*³⁹ 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 so⁴⁰ 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, 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..

footnotes:
³⁵ The heave from the dough which has to be eaten by a Cohen in purity under the rules of heave, Num
³⁶ If 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‘
³⁷ This seems to refer to Tosephta Ḥallah
³⁸ How much impure flour can be in the dough so that pure ḥallah
³⁹ If will be seen in the next paragraph that 4/6 qab
⁴⁰ He rejects the trick which he recommends for ḥallah
⁴¹ “There” is here, in Terumot


###### Jerusalem Talmud Terumot 5:1:11
[Jerusalem Talmud Terumot 5:1:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Terumot/r/5:1:11)

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.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
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 eggs⁴³ is 6 *log* and a *log* 4 eggs. The same division is accepted in the Babli.. How much is in a *seah*? 96 eggs⁴⁴ 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 egg⁴⁵. If he makes from four, nothing is left. What does he do? He makes a dough from five and takes four.

footnotes:
⁴³ This is standard; a qab
⁴⁴ This is nonstandard; the seah
⁴⁵ It 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.


###### Jerusalem Talmud Terumot 5:1:12
[Jerusalem Talmud Terumot 5:1:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Terumot/r/5:1:12)

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 Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
The statement of Ḥizqiah says, on condition that no impurity the volume of an egg touch the indentation⁴⁸ 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 dough⁴⁹. Rebbi Yose said to Rebbi Jeremiah: Is it not reasonable that Ḥizqiah spoke to the past and Rebbi Joḥanan spoke to the future⁵⁰? He said, that is my opinion also. What is an indentation in the opinion of Rebbi Joḥanan⁵¹? 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 *seah*⁵² of pure flour (somewhat below 9%) and thoroughly mixed..

footnotes:
⁴⁸ The meaning of this word depends on the interpretation of Mishnah Ṭahorot
⁴⁹ The dough for the profane loaves.
⁵⁰ Ḥizqiah 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.
⁵¹ Under which circumstances does he admit that the situation envisaged by Ḥizqiah leads to impurity?
⁵² This 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


###### Jerusalem Talmud Terumot 5:1:13
[Jerusalem Talmud Terumot 5:1:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Terumot/r/5:1:13)

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.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
Rebbi Abba bar Mamai asked: Does this not contradict Rebbi Yose bar Ḥanina? As Rebbi Yose bar Ḥanina said, a carcass⁵⁴ can become insignificant in slaughtered⁵⁵ [meat]; it becomes insignificant for touch, but for motion it cannot become insignificant⁵⁶. 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]⁵⁷ 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 heave⁵⁸. Rebbi Ḥizqiah said, Rebbi Simon raised the question and Rebbi Abba bar Mamai explained it.

footnotes:
⁵⁴ A dead animal not ritually slaughtered.
⁵⁵ Slaughtered by cutting its throat; cf. Arabic سحط “to cut somebody’s throat.” The biblical Hebrew שחט has exactly the same meaning.
⁵⁶ Carcasses transmit impurity in the first degree by touch (Lev
⁵⁷ This argument is ascribed to Rav Ḥisda in the Babli (Beẓah
⁵⁸ While 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.


###### Jerusalem Talmud Terumot 5:1:14
[Jerusalem Talmud Terumot 5:1:14](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Terumot/r/5:1:14)

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.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
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..

footnotes:
⁵⁹ Tosephta 6:1.
⁶¹ As far as payment goes; the argument does not apply to fixing the dema‘


###### Jerusalem Talmud Terumot 5:2:1
[Jerusalem Talmud Terumot 5:2:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Terumot/r/5:2:1)

**משנה:** סְאָה תְרוּמָה טְמֵאָה שֶׁנָּפְלָה לְמֵאָה סְאָה טְהוֹרָה בֵּית שַׁמַּאי אוֹסְרִין וּבֵית הִלֵּל מַתִּירִין. אָמְרוּ בֵית הִלֵּל לְבֵית שַׁמַּאי הוֹאִיל וּטְהוֹרָה אֲסוּרָה לְזָרִים וּטְמֵאָה אֲסוּרָה לְכֹהֲנִים מַה טְהוֹרָה עוֹלָה אַף טְמֵאָה תַעֲלֶה. אָמְרוּ לָהֵן בֵּית שַׁמַּאי לֹא אִם הֶעֱלוּ הַחוּלִין הַקַּלִּין הַמּוּתָּרִין לְזָרִים אֶת הַטְּהוֹרָה תַּעֲלֶה תְּרוּמָה הַחֲמוּרָה הָאֲסוּרָה לְזָרִים אֶת הַטְּמֵאָה. לְאַחַר שֶׁהוֹדוּ רִבִּי לִיעֶזֶר אוֹמֵר תּוּרָם וְתִשָּׂרֵף. וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים אָבְדָה בְמִיעוּטָהּ. סְאָה תְרוּמָה שֶׁנָּפְלָה לְמֵאָה הִגְבִּיהָהּ וְנָפְלָה לְמָקוֹם אַחֵר רִבִּי לִיעֶזֶר אוֹמֵר מְדַמָּעַת כִּתְרוּמָה וַדַּאי. וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים אֵינָהּ מְדַמָּעַת אֶלָּא לְפִי חֶשְׁבּוֹן. סְאָה תְרוּמָה שֶׁנָּפְלָה לְפָחוֹת מִמֵּאָה וְנִדְמְעוּ וְנָפַל מִן הַמְּדוּמָע לְמָקוֹם אַחֵר. רִבִּי לִיעֶזֶר אוֹמֵר מְדַמָּעַת כִּתְרוּמָה וַדַּאי. וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים אֵין הַמְּדוּמָע מְדַמֵּעַ אֶלָּא לְפִי חֶשְׁבּוֹן. וְאֵין הַמְּחוּמָּץ מְחַמֵּץ אֶלָּא לְפִי חֶשְׁבּוֹן. וְאֵין הַמַּיִם שְׁאוּבִין פּוֹסְלִין אֶת הַמִּקְוֶה אֶלָּא לְפִי חֶשְׁבּוֹן. סְאָה תְרוּמָה שֶׁנָּפְלָה לְמֵאָה הִגְבִּיהָהּ וְנָפְלָה אֲחֶרֶת הֲרֵי זוֹ מוּתֶּרֶת עַד שֶׁתַּרְבֶּה תְרוּמָה לַחוּלִין. סְאָה תְרוּמָה שֶׁנָּפְלָה לְמֵאָה וְלֹא הִסְפִּיק לְהַגְבִּיהָהּ עַד שֶׁנָּפְלָה אֲחֶרֶת הֲרֵי זוֹ אֲסוּרָה וְרִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן מַתִּיר.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
**MISHNAH:** 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 may be eaten by a Cohen as pure heave..
One *seah* of heave which fell into one hundred⁷² 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 proportion⁷³ 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 proportion⁷⁴ 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 proportion⁷⁵ 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 hundred⁷² of profane produce., was taken out, and another one fell in: the latter is permitted until there will be more heave than profane⁸⁸ 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.

footnotes:
⁶² They forbid the entire heave as inpure (even if completely dry).
⁶³ Outsiders and Cohanim.
⁶⁴ Since everything is heave, all the 101 seah
⁷² 100 seah
⁷³ The amount of certain heave in what was lifted is only 1/101 of the lifted produce; in order to remove dema‘
⁷⁴ Sour dough of heave which was added to dough to make it rise turns the entire dough into heave (Mishnah Orlah
⁷⁵ If a miqweh
⁷² 100 seah
⁸⁸ The 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


###### Jerusalem Talmud Terumot 5:2:2
[Jerusalem Talmud Terumot 5:2:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Terumot/r/5:2:2)

**הלכה:** רִבִּי יוּדָן בַּר פָּזִי וְרִבִּי אַיְיבוֹ בַּר נַגָּרִי הֲווֹן יָתְבִין אָמְרִין תַּנִּינָן אַחַר שֶׁהוֹדוּ. מִי הוֹדָה לְמִי. בֵּית שַׁמַּאי לְבֵית הִלֵּל. אוֹ בֵּית הִלֵּל לְבֵית שַׁמַּאי. אָמְרִין נֵצֵא לְחוּץ וְנִלְמַד. נָפְקוּן וְשָׁמְעוּן. רִבִּי חִזְקִיָּה רִבִּי אָחָא בְשֵׁם רִבִּי יוּדָה בַר חֲנִינָה לֹא מָצִינוּ שֶׁהוֹדוּ בֵּית שַׁמַּאי לְבֵית הִלֵּל אֶלָּא בְדָבָר זֶה בִּלְבַד. רִבִּי יוֹנָה בְשֵׁם רִבִּי אַבַּיי שָׁמַע לָהּ מִן הָדָא. הַמְּעָרֶה מִכֵּלִי לְכֵלִי וְנָגַע טְבוּל יוֹם בְּקִילוּחַ יַעֲלֶה בְאֶחָד וּמֵאָה. וְאִם תֹּאמַר בֵּית הִלֵּל יוֹדוּ לְבֵית שַׁמַּאי שֶׁלֹּא תַעֲלֶה. מָאן תָּנָא הָכָא תַעֲלֶה לֹא בֵּית שַׁמַּאי לֹא בֵית הִלֵּל. אָמַר רִבִּי חֲנִינָה בְּרֵיהּ דְּרִבִּי הִלֵּל נֹאמַר בֵּית הִלֵּל שָׁנוּ אוֹתָהּ קוֹדֶם שֶׁיּוֹדוּ לָהֵן בֵּית שַׁמַּאי. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹסֵי מַתְנִיתָא אָמְרָה כֵן אַחַר שֶׁהוֹדוּ רִבִּי לִיעֶזֶר אוֹמֵר תֵּירוֹם וְתִישָּׂרֵף. וְרִבִּי לִיעֶזֶר לָאו שַׁמּוּתִּי הוּא. אָמַר רִבִּי חִינְנָא מַתְנִיתָא אָמְרָה כֵן אַחַר שֶׁהוֹדוּ אֵילּוּ לָאֵילוּ תַעֲלֶה בֵּית שַׁמַּאי מְסַלְּקִין לוֹן וְאִינּוּן מוֹדֵיי לוֹן. אָמַר רִבִּי אָבִין יֵשׁ כָּאן תְּשׁוּבָה אֲחֶרֶת. כְּהָדָא דְתַנֵּי רִבִּי הוֹשַׁעְיָה וּמַה טְהוֹרָה שֶׁהִיא בְּעָוֹן מִיתָה אֵצֶל הַזָּרִים עוֹלָה. טְמֵאָה שֶׁהִיא בַּעֲשֵׂה אֵצֶל הַכֹּהֲנִים לֹא כָּל שֶׁכֵּן.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
**HALAKHAH:** 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 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 Abbai⁶⁷ understood it from the following⁶⁸ 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 others⁶⁹ teach us. Rebbi Abin says, there is another answer⁷⁰, 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 commandment⁷¹ for Cohanim.

footnotes:
⁶⁶ Galilean Amora of the early fourth generation, student of R. Ḥiyya bar Abba and R. La.
⁶⁷ His name appears only here, and nothing more is known about him.
⁶⁸ Mishnah Ṭevul Yom
⁶⁹ The Sages, who always represent the tradition of the House of Hillel.
⁷⁰ Which the House of Hillel could have given to the House of Shammai, in addition to the argument presented in the Mishnah.
⁷¹ Which is classified as a misdemeanor, rather than a felony.


###### Jerusalem Talmud Terumot 5:2:3
[Jerusalem Talmud Terumot 5:2:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Terumot/r/5:2:3)

אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן סְאָה תְרוּמָה שֶׁנָּפְלָה לְמֵאָה חוּלִין כָּל שֶׁהֵן מְבַטְּלִין אוֹתָהּ. מַתְנִיתִין פְלִיגָא עַל רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן אֵינָהּ מְדַמָּעַת אֶלָּא לְפִי חֶשְׁבּוֹן. רִבִּי יוֹסֵי בְשֵׁם רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן לֹא תַנֵּי בְּשֵׁם רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן אֶלָּא אֵינָהּ מְדַמָּעַת כָּל עִיקָּר. בְּרַם אָמַר וְהוּא שֶׁרָבְתָ תְרוּמָה עַל הַחוּלִין וְהוּא שֶׁרָבוּ חוּלִין עַל חֶשְׁבּוֹן תְּרוּמָה כְדֵי שֶׁתִּיבָּטֵל בְּרוֹב. אָמַר רִבִּי לָעְזָר וְהוּא שֶׁנָּפְלוּ לְתוֹךְ מְדוּמָע אֶחָד. עַל דַּעְתֵּיהּ דְּרִבִּי לָעְזָר חוּלִין שֶׁלְּמַעֲלָן חוּלִין שֶׁלְּמַטָּן מִצְטָרְפִין לַעֲלוֹת. סָבַר רִבִּי לָעְזָר מֵימַר חוּלִין שֶׁלְּמַטָּן נַעֲשׂוּ חֵרֵשִׂין.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
Rebbi Joḥanan said, a *seah* of heave which fell into 100 of profane produce, anything will make it become insignificant⁷⁷ 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 proportion⁷⁸”. Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, Rebbi Joḥanan stated only: “It does not create any *dema‘*.⁷⁹” 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 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 inert⁸², 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..

footnotes:
⁷⁷ If one seah
⁷⁸ According to the Mishnah, the amount into which if fell must still be 100/101 times the amount lifted.
⁷⁹ He had another version of the Mishnah before him.
⁸⁰ The 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.”
⁸¹ The Mishnah which relates the disagreement of R. Eliezer and the Sages. Do the Sages permit the profane part of the seah
⁸² The 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‘


###### Jerusalem Talmud Terumot 5:2:4
[Jerusalem Talmud Terumot 5:2:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Terumot/r/5:2:4)

אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹסֵי בֶּן חֲנִינָה וְהוּא שֶׁנָּפְלוּ לְתוֹךְ חֲמִשָּׁה מְקוֹמוֹת אֲבָל אִם נָפְלוּ כוּלָּן לְמָקוֹם אֶחָד אַף רִבִּי לִעֶזֶר מוֹדֵי. רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָמַר אֲפִילוּ נָפְלוּ כוּלָּן לְמָקוֹם אֶחָד הִיא הַמַּחֲלוֹקֶת. חִילְפַיי אָמַר עַל דְּרִבִּי לִיעֶזֶר חוּלִין שֶׁלְּמַטָּן נַעֲשׂוּ חֵרֵשִׂין. וְהָא רִבִּי לָעְזָר אָמַר עַל דְּרַבָּנִין חוּלִין שֶׁלְּמַטָּן נַעֲשׂוּ חֵרֵשִׂין. מַה בֵּין רִבִּי לִיעֶזֶר וְרַבָּנִין. חוֹמֶר הוּא בִסְאָה שֶׁעָלַת מִתּוֹךְ מֵאָה אוֹ אֵינוֹ אֶלָּא קַל אָמַר כַּיי דְאָמַר רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן סְאָה שֶׁל תְּרוּמָה שֶׁנָּפְלָה לְמֵאָה חוּלִין כָּל שֶׁהֵן מְבַטְּלִין אוֹתָהּ.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
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 disagreement⁸³ 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 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 Joḥanan said, if a *seah* of heave fell into 100 of profane produce, anything will make it insignificant⁸⁷?

footnotes:
⁸³ In 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‘
⁸⁴ R. 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.
⁸⁵ If one combines Ḥilfai’s interpretation of R. Eliezer and R. Eleazar’s interpretation of the Sages, one fails to see the difference between them.
⁸⁶ R. 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.
⁸⁷ For 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.


###### Jerusalem Talmud Terumot 5:2:5
[Jerusalem Talmud Terumot 5:2:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Terumot/r/5:2:5)

תַּנֵּי רָבַת הַתְּרוּמָה נַעֲשֶׂה כְמַרְבֵּה מֵזִיד. וְהָא תַנִּינָן הָיוּ בּוֹ אַרְבָּעִים סְאָה נָטַל סְאָה וְנָתַן סְאָה כָּשֵׁר. עַד הֵיכָן. רִבִּי אִיסִּי בְשֵׁם רִבִּי מָנָא בַּר תַּנְחוּם רִבִּי אַבָּהוּ בְשֵׁם רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן עַד רוּבּוֹ שֶׁל מִקְוֶה. וָכָא אַתְּ אָמַר הָכֵין. תַּמָּן הָיָה בּוֹ רוֹב וְאַתְּ מַרְבֶּה עָלָיו וְהוּא כָשֵׁר. בְּרַם הָכָא כָּל סְאָה וּסְאָה צְרִיכָה מֵאָה סְאָה. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹסֵי זֹאת אוֹמֶרֶת דָּבָר שֶׁהוּא בָטֶל דְּבַר תּוֹרָה מְעוֹרֵר אֶת מִינוֹ לֵיאָסֵר.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
It was stated: If the heave became a plurality it is as if he had added intentionally⁸⁹. But did we not state⁹⁰ 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 Tanḥum⁹¹, Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, up to the larger part of the *miqweh*⁹² 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 forbidden⁹³ 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..

footnotes:
⁸⁹ It 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.
⁹⁰ Mishnah Miqwaot
⁹¹ An Amora in Tyre between the second and third generation of Galilean authorities.
⁹² In the Babli (Yebamot
⁹³ Since 40 seah


###### Jerusalem Talmud Terumot 5:2:6
[Jerusalem Talmud Terumot 5:2:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Terumot/r/5:2:6)

רִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֵר יְדִיעָתָהּ מְקַדְּשָׁתָהּ. וְרַבָּנִין אָמְרִין הֲרָמָתָהּ מְקַדְּשָׁתָהּ.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
Rebbi Simeon says, knowledge of it sanctifies; but the rabbis say, its lifting sanctifies it⁹³ 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..

footnotes:
⁹³ Since 40 seah


###### Jerusalem Talmud Terumot 5:2:7
[Jerusalem Talmud Terumot 5:2:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Terumot/r/5:2:7)

תַּנֵּי סְאָה תְרוּמָה שֶׁנָּפְלָה לְמֵאָה אוֹמֵר לַכֹּהֵן וְלֹא דְמֵי עֵצִים אֲנִי חַיָיב לָךְ טוֹל לָךְ דְּמֵי עֵצֵיךְ. וְהוּא אוֹמֵר לוֹ וְכִי סְאָה תְרוּמָה שֶׁנָּפְלָה לְפָחוֹת מִמֵּאָה שֶׁמָּא אֵינָה מְדַמָּעַת אֶת הַכְּרִי. וְעֵצִים מְדַמְּעִין אֶת הַכְּרִי. וְלֹא סוֹפָךְ מִיתְנִינָהּ לְכֹהֵן חוֹרָן וְהוּא נוֹתֵן לוֹ דְמֵי עֵצִים. מַאי כְדוֹן נוֹתֵן לוֹ דְמֵי עֵצִים וְהַשְּׁאָר יַחֲלוֹקוּ. חַד בַּר נַשׁ אַפִּיל שְׂעוֹרִין גַּו חִטִּין. אָתָא עוּבְדָא קוֹמֵי רִבִּי יוֹדָה בַּר שָׁלוֹם וְאָמַר יִתֵּן לוֹ דְמֵי שְׂעוֹרִין. וְהַשְּׁאָר יַחֲלוֹקוּ.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
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, 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 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, 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 Shalom⁹⁸ who said, let him pay the price of barley; they should split the rest⁹⁹ 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..

footnotes:
⁹⁴ This must be impure heave, as shown by the sequel.
⁹⁵ It 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
⁹⁶ Since nothing else can be done with impure dema‘
⁹⁷ The rest over and above the one seah
⁹⁸ An Amora of the fifth generation, mostly quoted in aggadic matters.
⁹⁹ Here the situation is different; this really belongs to tractate Baba Qamma


###### Jerusalem Talmud Terumot 5:3:1
[Jerusalem Talmud Terumot 5:3:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Terumot/r/5:3:1)

**משנה:** סְאָה תְרוּמָה שֶׁנָּפְלָה לְמֵאָה וּטְחָנָן וּפָחְתוּ כְּשֵׁם שֶׁפָּחֲתוּ הַחוּלִין כֵּן פָּחֲתָה הַתְּרוּמָה וּמוּתָּר. סְאָה תְרוּמָה שֶׁנָּפְלָה לְפָחוֹת מִמֵּאָה וּטְחָנָן וְהוֹתִירוּ כְשֵׁם שֶׁהוֹתִירוּ הַחוּלִין כֵּן הוֹתִירָה הַתְּרוּמָה וְאָסוּר. אִם יָדוּעַ שֶׁחִיטִּין שֶׁל חוּלִין יָפוֹת מִשֶּׁל תְּרוּמָה מוּתָּר. סְאָה תְרוּמָה שֶׁנָּפְלָה לְפָחוֹת מִמֵּאָה וְאַחַר כָּךְ נָפְלוּ שָׁם חוּלִין אִם שׁוֹגֵג מוּתָּר אִם מֵזִיד אָסוּר.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
**MISHNAH:** 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 may be lifted and the rest is permitted. In this case, differences in quality between heave and profane grain are disregarded.. 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 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.

footnotes:
¹⁰⁰ One seah
¹⁰¹ Yielding more flour and less bran.
¹⁰² It is dema‘.


###### Jerusalem Talmud Terumot 5:3:2
[Jerusalem Talmud Terumot 5:3:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Terumot/r/5:3:2)

**הלכה:** וְלֹא סוֹף דָּבָר שֶּׁפָּחֲתָה הַתְּרוּמָה אֶלָּא אֲפִילוּ פָּחֲתוּ חוּלִין וּתְרוּמָה בְעֵינָהּ טוֹחֵן וּמַתִּיר. תַּנֵּי אֵין טִנּוֹפֶת שֶׁל תְּרוּמָה מִצְטָרֶפֶת עִם תְּרוּמָה לֶאֱסוֹר עַל הַחוּלִין. אֲבָל טִנּוֹפֶת שֶׁל חוּלִין מִצְטָרֶפֶת עִם הַחוּלִין לַעֲלוֹת אֶת הַתְּרוּמָה. רִבִּי בִּיבַי בָּעֵי טִינּוֹפֶת שֶׁל תְּרוּמָה מָהוּ שֶׁתְּצָרֵף עִם הַחוּלִין לַעֲלוֹת אֶת הַתְּרוּמָה. מִן מַה דְאָמַר רַב הוּנָא קִילְפֵי אִיסּוּר מִצְטָרְפִין לְהֵיתֵר. הָדָא אָמְרָה טִינּוֹפֶת שֶׁל תְּרוּמָה מִצְטָרֶפֶת עִם הַחוּלִין לְהַעֲלוֹת אֵֶת הַתְּרוּמָה. רַב הוּנָא אָמַר קִילְפֵי אִיסּוּר מַעֲלִין אֶת הַהֵיתֵר. סְאָה תְרוּמָה שֶׁנָּפְלָה לְמֵאָה אֵין אַתָּה מוֹצִיא זְוָנִין טִנּוֹפֶת שֶׁבָּהּ. לְפָחוֹת מִמֵּאָה אַתָּה מוֹצִיא זְוָנִין טִנּוֹפֶת שֶׁבָּהּ. וְכֵן לוֹג יַיִן צָלוּל שֶׁנָּפַל לְמֵאָה לוֹג יַיִן עָכוֹר אֵין אַתְּ מוֹצִיא שְׁמָרִין שֶׁבּוֹ. לוֹג יַיִן עָכוֹר שֶׁנָּפַל לְמֵאָה לוֹג יַיִן צָלוּל אַתְּ מוֹצִיא שְׁמָרִין שֶׁבּוֹ.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
**HALAKHAH:** ¹⁰³ 6:10 (fol. 55c), part of it in *Orlah* 1:4 (fol. 61b). Not 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, fruits in the first three years of a tree’s life, which are forbidden for any use and, if they disappear among other fruits, in general make everything forbidden for any use unless the permitted part are 200 times more than the forbidden. Rab Huna instructs to count in the 200 all husks, both from profane as from *orlah* fruit., 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 *zewanin*¹⁰⁷ 1:1, Note 1. in it, into less than 100, one does remove the *zewanin* 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.

footnotes:
¹⁰³ The entire paragraph is in Nazir
¹⁰⁴ If after milling, the heave without its waste would be 1/100 of the milled profane grain plus its waste, heave could be lifted.
¹⁰⁵ The statement of R. Huna refers to orlah
¹⁰⁶ If after milling, the heave without its waste would be 1% of the remainder, heave can be lifted.
¹⁰⁷ Kilaim
¹⁰⁸ Of heave.


###### Jerusalem Talmud Terumot 5:3:3
[Jerusalem Talmud Terumot 5:3:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Terumot/r/5:3:3)

תַּנֵּי אַף טוֹחֵן הוּא בַּתְּחִילָּה וּמַתִּיר. מַתְנִיתָא דְּרִבִּי יוֹסֵי דְּרִבִּי יוֹסֵי אָמַר אַף יִתְכַּוֵּין וְיִלְקוֹט וְיַעֲלֶה בְאֶחָד וּמָאתַיִם. אָמַר רִבִּי זְעִירָא שֶׁכֵּן דֶּרֶךְ כֹּהֲנִים לִהְיוֹת טוֹחֲנִין מְדוּמָּע בְּבָתֵּיהֶן. מַה נְפַק מִבֵּינֵיהוֹן. כִּלְאֵי הַכֶּרֶם עַל דַּעְתֵּיהּ דְּרִבִּי יוֹסֵי טוֹחֵן וּמַתִּיר. עַל דַּעְתְּהוֹן דְּרַבָּנִין אֵינוֹ טוֹחֵן וּמַתִּיר.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
It was stated: “One may mill from the start to permit¹⁰⁹ and after milling, following the rule of Note 106, it would be possible to lift the heave, one tells the owner to go ahead and mill even though the Mishnah is formulated only as a statement after the fact, if the owner milled it and now comes to ask a rabbinic authority on how to proceed..” The *baraita* is Rebbi Yose’s, since “Rebbi Yose said, one may collect to lift one in two hundred”¹¹⁰ 1:6. Since this is a minority opinion, it cannot be practice to be followed.. Rebbi Zeїra said¹¹¹ 1:5, the statement is more complete: “R. Zeїra said, it is the opinion of everybody since Cohanim are used to mill *dema‘* in their houses.” Since this is a required process, one cannot object to its use., 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.

footnotes:
¹⁰⁹ If one has dema‘
¹¹⁰ Mishnah Orlah
¹¹¹ In Orlah


###### Jerusalem Talmud Terumot 5:3:4
[Jerusalem Talmud Terumot 5:3:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Terumot/r/5:3:4)

רִבִּי אַבָּהוּ בְשֵׁם רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן. כָּל הָאִיסּוּרִין שֶׁרִיבָה עֲלֵיהֶן בְּשוֹגֵג מוּתָּר וּבְמֵזִיד אָסוּר. וְלֹא מַתְנִיתָא הִיא. בְּשוֹגֵג מוּתָּר וּבְמֵזִיד אָסוּר. מַתְנִיתָא בִּתְרוּמָה. אָתָה מֵימוֹר לָךְ אֲפִילוּ שְׁאָר כָּל הַדְּבָרִים.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: 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.

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


###### Jerusalem Talmud Terumot 5:3:5
[Jerusalem Talmud Terumot 5:3:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Terumot/r/5:3:5)

רִבִּי אָחָא בְשֵׁם רִבִּי יוֹנָתָן כְּשֵׁם שֶׁמִּצְוָה לוֹמַר עַל דָּבָר שֶׁהוּא נַעֲשֶׂה. כָּךְ מִצְוָה שֶׁלֹּא לוֹמַר עַל דָּבָר שֶׁאֵינוֹ נַעֲשֶׂה. אָמַר רִבִּי לָעְזָר כְּשֵׁם שֶׁאָסוּר לְטָהֵר אֶת הַטָּמֵא כָּךְ אָסוּר לְטַמֵּא אֶת הַטָּהוֹר. אָמַר רִבִּי אָבָּא בַּר יַעֲקֹב בְּשֵׁם רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן אִם בָּאָת הֲלָכָה תַחַת יָדָךְ וְאֵי אַתָּה יוֹדֵעַ אִם לִתְלוֹת אִם לִשְׂרוֹף. לְעוֹלָם הֲוֵי רָץ אַחַר הַשְּׂרֵיפָה יוֹתֵר מִן הַתְּלִיָיה. שֶׁאֵין לְךָ חָבִיב בַּתּוֹרָה יוֹתֵר מִפָּרִים הַנִּשְׂרָפִים וּשְׂעִירִים הַנִּשְׂרָפִים וְהֵן בִּשְׂרֵיפָה. רִבִּי יוֹסֵי בָּעֵי דָּנִין דָּבָר שֶׁאֵין מִצְוָתוֹ לְכֵן מִדָּבָר שֶׁמִּצְוָתוֹ לְכֵן.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
Rebbi Aḥa 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 Joḥanan: If a practical case comes before you and you do not know whether to suspend or to burn¹¹³, one must leave it to rot until it is no longer food and, therefore, pure according to all standards., 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. 10:18 it is established as a general rule that any sacrifice whose blood was brought into the sanctuary, to be sprinkled either on the golden altar or before the ark, must be completely burned.. Rebbi Yose wondered, is it possible to infer from something whose commandment is in this for something whose commandment is not so¹¹⁵?

footnotes:
¹¹³ In order Ṭahorot, the rule is that heave impure by biblical standards must be burned but heave only impure by rabbinic standards must be “suspended”, viz
¹¹⁴ In Lev
¹¹⁵ The simile is not convincing; one should not rush to treat rabbinic impurity as biblical.