MISHNAH: Heave, heave of the tithe of demay¹. This text is understood in the Halakhah. By definition of demay, there is no heave of demay. Since both ḥallah and First Fruits are called “heave”, they follow the rules of heave., ḥallah, and First Fruits are lifted by one and 100² 4:7., they combine with one another³ fell into profane dough, the dough remains permitted for lay people only if the profane was at least 100 times the combined volume of the three “heave” kinds., and one has to remove⁴. ‘Orlah and vineyard kilaim are lifted by one and 200, they combine with one another, and one need not remove⁵. Rebbi Simeon says, they do not combine. Rebbi Eliezer⁶ says they combine in matters of perceiving the taste⁷ and 1/201 vineyard kilaim fall into permitted food everything is permitted since each of the forbidden quantities is less than 1/201 of the remaining material. but not to forbid.

footnotes: ¹ All mss. of the Maimonides tradition and many of the better Mishnah mss. read: Heave, heave of the tithe, and heave of the tithe of demay ² Mishnah Terumot ³ If, e. g., heave, heave of the tithe, and ḥallah ⁴ Before the mixture is permitted to lay people one has to remove a volume equal to that which fell into the profane and give it to the Cohen under the rules of heave. The first hand of the Leyden ms. has: “One need not remove”. ⁵ Since they are forbidden for any use, they have no owners to which the removed part should be given. It is enough that the forbidden parts are so few that they can be considered non-existent. ⁶ In most Mishnah mss. and the Halakhah: R. Eleazar. This reading is required since he is mentioned after R. Simeon. ⁷ As long as the taste of one is recognizable in the other. But if 1/201 ‘orlah

HALAKHAH: “Heave and heave of the tithe”, etc. For whom is this⁸ needed? For Rebbi Simeon. Even though Rebbi Simeon says that two different names do not combine, he agrees that all items called “heave” do combine.

footnotes: ⁸ The statement that all the categories mentioned in the first statement combine.

Who stated “heave of the tithe of demay”? Rebbi Meïr, since Rebbi Meïr is as strict with their word as with the words of the Torah⁹ is rabbinic, the rules for heave of the tithe of demay are more lenient than those for biblical heave; cf. Introduction to Tractate Demay. Only R. Meïr does not recognize these differences.. Where do we find that Rebbi Meïr is as strict with their word as with the words of the Torah? Rebbi Ḥanina said, the following which we have stated there¹⁰ 6:13. A woman finding a blood stain on her underwear at a time when she does not expect her period does not know when to expect her next period since possibly the stain comes from menstrual blood. A woman is impure by flux if she has episodes for three successive days at a time when menstrual blood is excluded. In that case, she may not enter the Temple without bringing a sacrifice of purification (Lev. 15:29–30). R. Meïr requires a sacrifice because of the possibility of impurity but the sacrifice of purification may not be eaten by the Cohanim since possibly it was unnecessary.: “A woman who sees a stain [on her clothes] is out of order and must consider the possibility of flux, the words of Rebbi Meïr. But the Sages say that stains do not imply flux¹¹. 15:25) requires “blood flowing”, the impurity of stains is purely rabbinical. In the Babli, Niddah 52b, the position of the “Sages” is also considered a minority opinion, attributable to R. Ḥanina ben Antigonos. Since the later chapters of the Yerushalmi Niddah are lost, we do not know the position of the Yerushalmi in this matter..”

footnotes: ⁹ Since the institution of demay ¹⁰ Mishnah Niddah ¹¹ Since the verse (Lev

Rebbi Jonah asked: Why did we not also state “ḥallah of demay”¹⁵ Mishnah 5:3. as we did state “ḥallah”? Should we not state “ḥallah of demay” as we did state: “Heave, heave of the tithe and heave of the tithe of demay”? Rebbi Ḥanania in the name of Samuel: Demay does not need ḥallah. Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Julianus said to him, one takes its value from the tribe. He answered him, that is what Samuel said, one takes its value from the tribe¹⁶ if one buys bread from an untrustworthy baker but one may sell it to a Cohen. Since the Cohen has to eat even the demay ḥallah under the rules of purity of heave, he will not pay much for the ḥallah.. Rebbi Mana in the name of Rebbi Yose: One does not take its value from the tribe; tomorrow he will bring certain [ḥallah] and say it is demay in order to take its value from the tribe!

footnotes: ¹⁵ Which one takes if he buys bread from an untrustworthy baker; Demay ¹⁶ This explains the cryptic first statement of R. Samuel. One has to take ḥallah

Rebbi Joḥanan asked Gamliel the Twin: Are you used to take ḥallah from demay? He answered him, did not Samuel, the brother of Rav Berekhia¹⁷ 3:2)., say that from the moment they decreed demay, most people separate it in their houses¹⁸ from bread he buys from an untrustworthy baker, we certainly do take it.? Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, it is a condition of the court that ḥallah be in the Northernmost part¹⁹ in the prescribed way (Demay 5:2, Note 44), one always should take heave of the tithe from the Northernmost part in order to make the procedure routine; then automatically the Northernmost part is ḥallah if obligated for it. In that way, tithing demay automatically takes care of ḥallah..

footnotes: ¹⁷ Galilean Amora of the fourth generation; he is not identical with his contemporary R. Samuel quoted in the preceding paragraph. Elsewhere he is given the title of Rebbi. The Gamliel the Twin who quotes him cannot be the younger contemporary of R. Joḥanan; he must be the Gamliel who asks a question from the fifth generation R. Yose ben R. Abun (Šeqalim ¹⁸ Since everybody takes extra ḥallah ¹⁹ He disagrees with Gamliel the Twin and asserts that if heave of the tithe is taken from demay

“And are lifted by one and 100”. How do you treat it, as beginning of separation or end of separation²⁰ Chapter 1) or more lenient ones?? If you say as beginning of separation, no minor may lift²¹ 1:1., no unrelated person may lift²¹ 1:1., and it does not push away the Sabbath²² 2:6.. If you treat it as end of separation, a minor may lift, an unrelated person may lift, and it does push away the Sabbath. There we have stated²³ 21:1. In Tosephta Šabbat 15:5, but not in the quote Babli Šabbat 142b, this is an anonymous statement.: “Rebbi Jehudah says, also one may lift dema‘ by one in a hundred.” On that, it was stated²⁴ 15:5. There, and in the quote of the Tosephta in the Babli Šabbat 142b, the clause “if he wishes” is missing. In that version, R. Simeon ben Eleazar forbids lifting heave from dema‘ on the Sabbath except by mentally designating the part where the heave has to be lifted and eating the remainder, leaving the actual lifting to the time after the Sabbath.: “Rebbi Simeon ben Eleazar says, if he wishes he earmarks part of it and eats the remainder.” Rebbi Jonah said, Rebbi Judah treated it as end of separation and Rebbi Simeon ben Eleazar treated it as beginning of separation²⁵. Rebbi Yose said, even Rebbi Simeon ben Eleazar treated it as end of separation²⁶. Does not Rebbi Simeon ben Eleazar agree that it is forbidden to do so with certain [produce]²⁷? How is that? He should never do it on the Sabbath the way he does it on a weekday²⁸‘ can be lifted on the Sabbath; R. Simeon suggests a way in which it can be done legally..

footnotes: ²⁰ Does it follow the rules of separation of heave (Terumot ²¹ Mishnah Terumot ²¹ Mishnah Terumot ²² Mishnah Šabbat ²³ Mishnah Šabbat ²⁴ Tosephta Šabbat ²⁵ He holds with the Babli that R. Simeon ben Eleazar is restrictive where R. Jehudah is permissive. ²⁶ He reads the Yerushalmi text of the Tosephta as not prescriptive. ²⁷ Since untithed produce is not legally edible, it cannot be used on the Sabbath and cannot be made usable on the Sabbath. ²⁸ R. Simeon ben Eleazar does not disagree with R. Jehudah. R. Jehudah does not tell how dema

There, we have stated²⁹ 4:7, Note 62.: “Rebbi Eliezer says, heave is lifted at the rate of one in 100. Rebbi Joshua says by 100 and more.” There³⁰ 3:3 (fol. 30b); Ta‘aniot2:14 (fol. 66a), both in the name of Rebbi Ḥizqiah. In the Babli, the statement is anonymous (Avodah Zarah7a, Yebamot 42b)., [Rebbi] Ḥizqiah, Rebbi Abbahu said in the name of Rebbi Eleazar, everywhere where Rebbi taught a disagreement and returned to the problem later and taught it anonymously, practice follows the anonymous opinion. Since we have stated: “A seah of heave which fell into 100” and Rebbi Eleazar said, one cannot say “into 100” but “into 99.” As we have stated, Rebbi Eliezer and Rebbi Joshua³¹.

footnotes: ²⁹ Mishnah Terumot ³⁰ Pesaḥim ³¹ Usually, practice follows R. Joshua against R. Eliezer. Since R. Eleazar requires only 99+1 = 100, he follows R. Eliezer who is supported by the anonymous Mishnah here.

³² Chapter 4; Notes 64–66. From where that they may be lifted? Rebbi Jonah said, it is written (Num. 18:29): “From all its best its sanctifying part from it.” Something from which you lift it, so that if this falls into anything it sanctifies it. How much is this? One in one hundred. Rebbi Eliezer says, one adds a seah and then lifts. Rebbi Joshua says one adds a small amount and lifts. Rebbi Yose ben Meshullam says “and more” is one qab per one hundred seah, one sixth of what makes dema‘.

footnotes: ³² This is in Terumot

It was stated³³. 121. In a different formulation, the argument is quoted in Tosephta Terumot 5:8, where, however, it is immediately rejected and proven false.: “Rebbi Simeon says, heave can be lifted in 100 by a conclusion a minore ad majus: If what is forbidden can be lifted from what is forbidden³⁴, forbidden to everybody, to make it profane and permitted for everybody., so much more what is forbidden from what is permitted³⁵‘.!” Heave, some Tannaïm state “what is forbidden from what is permitted;” some Tannaïm state “what is permitted from what is permitted.” He who says “what is forbidden from what is permitted”, because heave is forbidden to lay persons. He who says “what is permitted from what is permitted”, because heave is permitted to Cohanim. Some explain it all about Cohanim: He who says “what is forbidden from what is permitted”, in the case of dema‘ by impure heave³⁶. He who says “permitted from what is permitted”, in the case of dema‘ by pure heave.

footnotes: ³³ A similar, anonymous, text in Sifry Num ³⁴ Heave, forbidden to lay people, is lifted from ṭevel ³⁵ Heave taken out from profane food turned into dema ³⁶ In this case, what is lifted as replacement heave has to be burned.

It was stated³⁸ 8:21, in inverse order and with the position of R. Jehudah and the anonymous majority switched. Tosephta 8:22 deals with the same case but assumes that the pieces are impure. This implies that 8:21 (and the text here) deals with pure pieces. Both parts, incompatible with the Yerushalmi, are quoted in Babli Yebamot 81b.: “A piece of the showbread which was mixed with a hundred pieces of profane [bread], or a piece of purification sacrifice mixed with a hundred profane pieces [of meat], should not be lifted³⁹. Rebbi Jehudah says they should be lifted.” What is the reason of Rebbi Jehudah? (Ez. 45:15) “One sheep from 200 from the drink of Israel,” from what is permitted to Israel⁴⁰. 12:11) “the best for your vows,” meaning le meilleur. “From 200 from the drink of Israel,” Our teachers explained this for the wine offering accompanying sacrifices. If 200 [volume units] were left in the vat one [volume unit] of ‘orlah or vineyard kilaim fell into the vat, that they become insignificant by one in 200. “From the drink of Israel,” that all sacrifices should be from what is permitted to Israel, where all food is subsumed under the appellation of “drink”.. It is difficult! It is written 200 and Rebbi Jehudah says 100⁴¹. It is written alive⁴² and Rebbi Jehudah says slaughtered. What is the difference between alive and slaughtered? Rebbi Ḥinena said, they considered live ones under the category of what usually is counted⁴³.

footnotes: ³⁸ Tosephta Terumot ³⁹ It is not clear whether they cannot be lifted because a kind cannot become negligible in its own kind or whether sacrifices follow specific, more stringent, rules. ⁴⁰ The full verse reads: “One sheep, from 200 from the drink of Israel, for cereal offering, burnt offering, and well-being offerings, to atone for them - speech of the Lord, the Eternal.”Rashi explains: “One sheep,” a particular one from his flock; and so Moses said, (Deut ⁴¹ This objection is not answered. It seems that the question depends on the definition of “Israel” in the verse. If “Israel” means “some of Israel”, then the verse does not deal with the case of heave because that is permitted to Cohanim, it would be “drink of Israel.” If “Israel” means “all of Israel”, then one would expect that heave also needs 200 for lifting. ⁴² “A sheep” means a living sheep. ⁴³ These never become insignificant, Mishnah 3:6.

So far something than one lifts and thereby permits for lay persons. Something one lifts and permits for Heaven⁴⁴? Let us hear from the following: ⁴⁵ 4(10). There, the reading is לעירובים לפחות ממאה “mixtures in less than 100 parts.” The paragraph deals with sanctified food eaten outside the Temple precinct, the common example of which is heave.(Lev. 22:7) “ ‘After that he shall eat from⁴⁶ the holy foods because it is his bread.’ There exists holy food which he does not eat; that excludes mixtures of more than one in 100”⁴⁷.

footnotes: ⁴⁴ Heave is considered Heaven’s property given to the Cohen. ⁴⁵ Sifra Emor Pereq ⁴⁶ מן is taken as partitive: some, not all, is permitted the pure Cohen. ⁴⁷ If the forbidden (impure) is more than 1/100 of the permitted (pure) heave.

⁴⁸ 4(11). The explanation follows R. Abraham ben David ad loc.“Not only heave food in heave food⁴⁹. 22:9) “They will die from it because they desecrated it.” Impure heave is already desecrated; an impure priest eating it commits a sin but not a deadly one. The impure heave cannot become insignificant in pure since the two are of the same kind.; from where heave food in profane food⁵⁰ of heave in less than 100 seot of pure (and certainly one seah of pure in less than 100 seot of heave) must all be treated as heave., profane food in heave food, heave food in sacrificial food, sacrificial food in heave food, heave drink in heave drink, heave drink in profane drink, profane drink in heave drink, heave drink in sacrificial drink, sacrificial drink in heave drink, sacrificial drink in sacrificial drink? From where? The verse says (Lev. 22:7) ‘From the holy foods⁵¹’, it adds.” Rebbi Abin in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Explain it if the log of oil of the skin-diseased was mixed with the excess of the loaves of the gift of the nazir⁵² of oil (Lev. 14). Part of the oil is used on the healed person’s body; the remainder is for the Cohen under the rules of the reparation offering; it must be consumed by priests in the Temple precincts. The nazir who has completed his vow has to bring sacrifices and a cereal offering consisting of unleavened bread made from flour mixed with oil and unleavened bread anointed with oil (Num. 6:13–20). The officiating Cohen receives one of these as gift added to the nazir’s well-being sacrifice; therefore, the loaves may be eaten by the Cohen’s family anywhere in the city of the sanctuary. If there is a mix-up of the oils, the anointed loaves can be eaten only by the Cohen in the Temple precinct.; so we have stated, two drinks. Rebbi Ḥanania said, that means burned offerings in burned offerings; but purification offerings in burned offerings is certainly a prohibition⁵³.

footnotes: ⁴⁸ Sifra Emor Pereq ⁴⁹ Impure heave in pure heave. An impure Cohen who eats pure heave has committed a deadly sin since it is said: (Lev ⁵⁰ One seah ⁵¹ The plural implies all kinds of sanctified food. The singular is used in v. 10. ⁵² This explains a possible complication of “sacrificial drink in sacrificial drink”. The person healed from his skin disease has to bring a reparation offering together with a log ⁵³ A mixture of pieces of elevation and purification offerings cannot be brought to the altar since of purification offerings only the fat and some inner organs are burned. They cannot be eaten since elevation sacrifices are forbidden for any use. They cannot become insignificant because (a) they are of the same kind of meat and (b) they are counted as pieces. Therefore, one has to leave the meat for the next day when all will be forbidden and has to be burned.

How does Rebbi Jehudah think⁵⁴, following Rebbi Eliezer or Rebbi Joshua⁵⁵ 5:2. R. Eliezer holds that the piece lifted is the piece that fell in; according to the Sages, whose opinion is labelled that of R. Joshua, the nature of the piece lifted is unknown. Therefore, in the opinion of the Sages the nature of the piece lifted is indeterminate between profane and sanctified; it cannot be eaten and must be burned.? Following Rebbi Eliezer he lifts and eats; following Rebbi Joshua he lifts and burns.

footnotes: ⁵⁴ This refers to the statement above, Note 38, about pieces of showbread or purification sacrifices mixed with profane substances. ⁵⁵ Their disagreement is in Mishnah Terumot

Who stated “they combine with one another”? Rebbi Meïr, since Rebbi Abbahu said in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan⁵⁶66a. In the printed version (not in the Munich ms.) “R. Jehudah in the name of R. Meïr”, a most unlikely text since R. Jehudah was half a generation older than R. Meïr.: The word of Rebbi Meïr is that all forbidden [foods] combine with one another to whip for them in the volume of an olive since it says: (Deut. 14:3) “You shall not eat any abomination⁵⁷.”

footnotes: ⁵⁶ Quoted in Babli Avodah Zarah ⁵⁷ There is one law which covers all forbidden food. Therefore, if somebody is warned not to eat any abomination he can be convicted if he ate the volume of an olive composed of several tiny pieces forbidden for different reasons.

Here⁶⁰, you say one has to lift, but there⁶¹ and kilaim. you say, one does not have to lift! Rebbi Jacob bar Zavdi, Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, because of robbing the tribe⁶² and kilaim are worthless, they do not have to be lifted.. Also, it was stated thus⁶³5:6, in the names of R. Simeon and R. Ismael from Shezur.: “Any heave for which the Cohanim do not care, e. g., the heave of kelesin⁶⁴ 11:4, Note 60; Ma‘serot 2, Note 134., carob, and red barley, one does not have to lift.”

footnotes: ⁶⁰ Regarding heave. ⁶¹ ‘Orlah ⁶² Lifting is a rabbinic decree, not to cause damage to the Cohanim, since things become insignificant if they are in amounts less than 1%. Since ‘orlah ⁶³ A similar text Tosephta Terumot ⁶⁴ Cf. Terumot

“ ‘Orlah and vineyard kilaim are lifted by one and 200.” It is written “the fulness, the fulness.⁶⁵. 22:28, Num. 18:27. In Deut. 22:9, what grows in a vineyard is called “fulness”.” Just as “the fulness” which has been said there is lifted, so “the fulness” here is lifted. Then, as there by 100, so here by 100. Since the verse doubled its prohibition, the Sages changed its obligation⁶⁶. So for vineyard kilaim, what about ‘orlah? Just as that is forbidden for all use, so this is forbidden for all use; just as that is lifted, so this is lifted.

footnotes: ⁶⁵ Heave is called “fulness” in Ex ⁶⁶ The change from 100 to 200 is rabbinic; it is only based on a biblical hint. “Double the prohibition” is prohibition for Cohanim and laymen, in contrast to heave which only is forbidden to laymen. The position of the Yerushalmi here seems to be that lifting by one in 100 would be a biblical decree if heave were biblical.

So far following Rebbi Aqiba, following Rebbi Ismael⁶⁷.? Rebbi Joḥanan in the name of Rebbi Ismael, an argument a minore ad majus. If heave which is forbidden to outsiders can be lifted, ‘orlah which is permitted to outsiders, not so much more⁶⁸? No, if you said that about heave whose use is permitted, what can you say about ‘orlah whose use is prohibited! Rebbi Ḥinena: “Fruit, fruit” as equal decision⁶⁹. 27:30), ‘orlah refers to “fruit” (Lev. 19:23–24). Lev. 27:30 is written for reference; in the laws of ‘orlah the reference to “fruit” is necessary in Lev. 19:23 to define the subject but in Lev. 19:24 it might refer to the rules spelled out for heave. If that is true then R. Ismael must hold that ‘orlah and vineyard kilaim can be lifted by one in 100 since an “equal decision” cannot be only partially valid..

footnotes: ⁶⁷ The previous informal derivation is attributed to R. Aqiba; R. Ismael allows only formal derivations based on one of the principles enumerated in the Introduction to Sifra ⁶⁸ This is incomprehensible since the next sentence implies that R. Ismael also admits that any use of 'orlah is forbidden. ⁶⁹ This is a formal argument: If there is a tradition that a certain word can have only one meaning (“decision”), then the rules must be the same any time that word is used. Heave and tithes are from “fruit” (Lev

They combine with one another either to permit or to forbid if one can taste them, the words of Rebbi Meïr. Rebbi Simeon says, they do not combine. Rebbi Eliezer says they combine if one tastes them, not to forbid⁷⁰, not known from another source, begins the discussion of the last part of the Mishnah asserting, as was already established (Note 57), that the anonymous Tanna of the Mishnah is R. Meïr, and that R. Meïr holds that any forbidden admixture greater than 1% remains forbidden..

footnotes: ⁷⁰ This baraita

Where do they disagree⁷⁴? If three qab of ‘orlah and three qab of vineyard kilaim fell⁷⁵ of ‘orlah fell into 100 seah of permitted profane matter and later another 0.5 seah of vineyard kilaim fell into the same heap. The next paragraph implies that in the case under consideration here, the owner did not realize what happened until the second batch had fallen in. It is held here that minute amounts are not in themselves insignificant but they become insignificant if the owner, or a responsible worker, know of the accident and determine that the event was insignificant. In our case here, everybody must agree that all is permitted since the kilaim fell into 201 times its volume of other matter. Even for Rebbi Meïr, the total volume is then less than 1/100 of the whole. The Rome text here is garbled: מַה פְלִיגִין שֶׁנָּֽפְלוּ שְׁלֹשֶׁת קַבִּין עָרְלָה וְעוֹד וּשְׁלֹשֶׁת קַבִּין שֶׁל כִּלְאֵי הַכֶּרֶם הוּתָּר. אֲבָל אִם נָֽפְלוּ שְׁלֹשֶׁת קַבִּין וְעוֹד עָרְלָה וּשְׁלֹשֶׁת שֶׁל כִּלְאֵי הַכֶּרֶם הוּתָּר הַכְּרִי.. But if three qab of ‘orlah and something additional fell in⁷⁶, later at most 3/100 qab. and three of vineyard kilaim, the heap is permitted. Why? The additional “little more” is insignificant in the three qab⁷⁷ became insignificant, 3/100 qab now become insignificant in 100.5 seah. The next three qab (0.5 seah) of kilaim now become insignificant in 100.53 seah of permitted matter. and three qab are insignificant in a hundred [seah]. If three qab of ‘orlah and three qab of vineyard kilaim fell in together, is it as if three qab of ‘orlah and something additional, and three qab of vineyard kilaim fell in⁷⁸ 4:7, R. Eliezer and R. Joshua disagree on the amount which makes heave insignificant. R. Meïr, who does not allow more than 1/100 of forbidden matter under any circumstance, disagrees with both of them and fixes the limit at 1/100. For R. Simeon and R. Eliezer all is permitted., or that three qab of vineyard kilaim fell in and afterwards three qab of ‘orlah⁷⁹?

footnotes: ⁷⁴ This refers to the disagreement between R. Meïr and R. Eliezer (Note 70) on how different substances which become insignificant by 1 in 200 can combine. The problem is made urgent by Mishnah 3 which postulates that these matters, once they are insignificant, do not “reawaken” anymore. ⁷⁵ First, 0.5 seah ⁷⁶ First three qab ⁷⁷ The language is misleading. Since the three qab ⁷⁸ In Mishnah Terumot ⁷⁹ How this could be true for R. Meïr is discussed in the next paragraph.

It is obvious that his knowledge permits it⁸⁰ or kilaim fell into his food, he knows that the amount is insignificant and everything is permitted. This closes the incident. If another mishap occurs, the entire amount of food is considered permitted and profane. This contrasts with Mishnah Terumot 5:7 which states that heave remains a candidate for potential reawakening of the prohibition; cf. Note 72.. Does the knowledge of a third person⁸¹ permit it? How is this possible? He is not aware of it; another person is aware of it.

footnotes: ⁸⁰ If the owner of the food realizes that not more than half of a percent of ‘orlah ⁸¹ Who is not the owner or one of his employees or family members. It is not decided whether the awareness of a third party leads to closure.

Does uncertain knowledge permit like certain knowledge? How is this? If there were two boxes before him, one containing 200⁸². and one less than 200. If one seah of heave fell into one of them but it is not known into which one it fell and then [another seah] fell into the second. It was measured and found to be 202. If you say uncertain knowledge permits like certain knowledge, it can be lifted, but if you say uncertain knowledge does not permit like certain knowledge, it cannot be lifted⁸³ contains 2 seah of heave, the heave may be lifted and everything is permitted. But if that box originally contained 202 seah, then the two seah of heave fell into the box containing less than 200 and that box now is dema‘ and forbidden to lay persons. If uncertain knowledge is enough to bring closure of an episode then even the box containing less than 200 seah will contain more than 100 and heave can be lifted in all cases.. If there was one chest and there is a doubt whether it contains 200 or not; if one seah of heave fell into [some box] but it is not known whether it fell into that box or not, and then a second time something [forbidden] fell into [the box in question]: If you say uncertain knowledge permits like certain knowledge, it can be lifted, but if you say uncertain knowledge does not permit like certain knowledge, it cannot be lifted⁸⁴ of heave and less than 200 of profane food..

footnotes: ⁸² Meaning: containing at least 200 seah ⁸³ If the box containing 202 seah ⁸⁴ Since the box might contain 2 seah

MISHNAH: Heave lifts ‘orlah and ‘orlah heave. How is that? If one seah of heave fell into 100⁷¹ can be lifted as replacement of the heave. If then ½ seah of something fell in that became insignificant only in quantities of at most ½%, it becomes insignificant even if the replacement heave was not yet lifted since different forbidden matters do not combine. and after that fell three qab of ‘orlah or three qab of vineyard kilaim, that is the case when heave lifts ‘orlah and ‘orlah heave. ‘Orlah lifts kilaim, kilaim ‘orlah, and ‘orlah ‘orlah. How is that? If one seah of ‘orlah fell into 200⁷² and then fell a little more⁷³, the “little more” cannot exceed 1/200 seah = 6/200 qab. than a seah of ‘orlah or a little more than a seah of vineyard kilaim, that is when ‘orlah lifts kilaim, kilaim ‘orlah, and ‘orlah ‘orlah.

footnotes: ⁷¹ Of profane grain. This makes the amount of heave insignificant; an arbitrary seah ⁷² This becomes insignificant. Forbidden matter which becomes insignificant by 1 in 100 is “reawakened” to become forbidden if more of the same falls into the permitted food. It is now stated that matter which becomes insignificant by 1 in 200 is never “reawakened”. ⁷³ Since now the permitted volume is 201 seah

HALAKHAH: Rebbi Curius⁸⁵, but the expression might not be a name at all if it represents Greek κύριος, ὁ, “Lord, master” in the acception of “head, authority”. In that case, rebbi kurios would be a composite of two synonymous words in two languages, expressing the idea of “Chief Rabbi” (E. G.).] said, not that heave lifts ‘orlah but heave adds to the profane to lift (heave)⁸⁶”. That heave is added to the profane is stated in the next paragraph; it was stated in Halakhah 1 (Note 30). [‘orlah]. One understands that heave lifts ‘orlah because pure [heave] lifts the impure⁸⁷ 5:3.. “ ‘Orlah lifts heave”, does impure [heave] lift the pure, not for laymen, maybe for Cohanim⁸⁸ 5:4, impure heave which fell into pure heave makes everything forbidden to Cohanim.? But did we not state: “ ‘Orlah lifts kilaim, kilaim ‘orlah, and ‘orlah ‘orlah”? There it is different, both for lay people and for Cohanim⁸⁹ and kilaim the status of purity is irrelevant; no comparison with heave is possible..

footnotes: ⁸⁵ R. Simson quotes him as R. Birias; nothing more is known about him. [Curius is the name of a Roman Gens ⁸⁶ This is the reading in all mss.; it must mean “ ‘orlah ⁸⁷ Mishnah Terumot ⁸⁸ While it is true that impure heave may be lifted out of pure profane grain as explained in Mishnah Terumot ⁸⁹ The entire argument is rejected. Since for ‘orlah

“A seah of heave which fell into 100.” Rebbi Eleazar said, it is not “into 100” but “into 99.”⁹⁰ “A seah of ‘orlah which fell into 200.” Rebbi Eleazar said, it is not “into 200” but “into 199.”

footnotes: ⁹⁰ This refers to Mishnah 1; it is quoted from Halakhah 1, Note 30. In all cases, R. Eleazar holds that all that is required to allow a mixture is that the forbidden part not be larger than 1% or .5% of the total.

MISHNAH: Anything which sours, or spices, or creates dema‘ from heave, or is ‘orlah, or vineyard kilaim, is forbidden⁹¹. The House of Shammai say, also it transmits impurity, but the House of Hillel say nothing⁹² transmits impurity unless it has at least the volume of a chicken egg. Dositheos from Kefar Etma⁹³ was a student of Shammai. He said, I asked Shammai the Elder and he said, nothing transmits impurity unless it has the volume of a chicken egg. And why did they say, anything which sours, or spices, or creates dema‘, is restrictive if a kind is mixed with its own kind, but permissive or restrictive if a kind is mixed with another kind⁹⁴. How is that? Sourdough from wheat which fell into wheat dough and is enough to make the latter sour, whether it would qualify to be lifted by one in 100 or not qualify to be lifted by one in 100, is forbidden. If it does not qualify to be lifted by one in 100 it is forbidden whether it is enough to make the latter sour or not enough to make sour⁹⁵. Permissive or restrictive if a kind is mixed with another kind, how is that? If groats¹⁰⁵ were cooked with lentils, if they can be tasted, whether they would qualify to be lifted by one in 100 or not qualify to be lifted by one in 100, are forbidden. If they cannot be tasted, whether they would qualify to be lifted by one in 100 or not qualify to be lifted by one in 100, are permitted.

footnotes: ⁹¹ In the most minute amount since its action shows that it is not negligible. ⁹² No foodstuff, whose impurity is always derivative. Original impurity is usually created by impure material the volume of an olive; for dead crawling things the volume of a lentil is enough. ⁹³ In most Mishnah ms., כפר יתמה, Yetma in Samaria. Nothing more is known about him. He holds that the later followers of the House of Shammai misrepresent the position of the founder. ⁹⁴ This case is dealt with in the next Mishnah. ⁹⁵ The criterion of whether it sours or not may be used only to forbid, not to permit. ¹⁰⁵ Broken grain kernels or broken beans. In our case, these are presumed to be heave, the lentils profane. “Forbidden” and “permitted” refer to laymen who might eat from the cooked dish.

HALAKHAH: Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Hilfai, Rebbi Jonah in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: The House of Shammai made it as if swollen⁹⁶). The commentaries read כְּתַפּוּחַ “like an apple”, referring to Terumot 10:2. But that Halakhah contradicts the position of the House of Shammai..

footnotes: ⁹⁶ Since the matter makes sour, they add the amount of CO2 generated to arrive at the volume of a chicken egg (Sefer Nir

There⁹⁷ 7:3. The statement there is in the name of R. Yose. The Yerushalmi concludes from there that R. Meïr, the presumed author of anonymous statements, disagrees and holds that a miqweh is disabled if colored water changes its appearance, irrespective of the amount poured in. The general rule is that a miqweh must contain 40 seah of natural water and that 3 log (=⅛ seah) of poured water make it ineffective to remove impurity; cf. Terumot 4, Note 112; 10, Note 139., we have stated: “Dyers’ water disables a miqweh by three log but not by a change in color.” Abba, the son of Rav Naḥman, said, the words of Rebbi Meïr because it is visibly drawn⁹⁸. Rebbi Ḥuna in the name of Rebbi Abba: Rebbi Meïr’s parallels that of the House of Shammai. Just as the House of Shammai say because of souring it makes sour⁹⁹, so Rebbi Meïr says because it is visibly drawn.

footnotes: ⁹⁷ Mishnah Miqwa’ot ⁹⁸ If the color is visible, everybody knows that it is not rain water or water from a spring. ⁹⁹ The rising dough makes it clear that a souring agent is present.

So far something to which prohibition and impurity apply. What is the rule if impurity applies but not prohibition¹⁰⁰?

footnotes: ¹⁰⁰ Since there is a question only following the House of Shammai and R. Meïr but practice follows the House of Hillel and R. Yose, it is not answered.

If he took from it¹⁰¹ sourdough. for another place to make it sour, both are forbidden. If he added to the first [dough] and made it insignificant¹⁰² component is less than the threshhold for insignificance, and in addition the sourdough is no longer active; then the original dough will be permitted, the secondary would still be forbidden., the main object will be derivative and the derivative the main object. “Heave sourdough which fell into a dough and was lifted, if the dough became sour afterwards, is permitted¹⁰³ 8:11. The sourdough was inactive when heave was lifted; the scenario does not contradict the Mishnah here.. Similarly, if a heave fig fell into 100 [figs], one was lifted, and afterwards the heave was recognized, should it be permitted? There, the prohibited [dough] was not identified; here, the prohibited [fig] is identified¹⁰⁴.

footnotes: ¹⁰¹ From the dough containing heave or ‘orlah ¹⁰² He added profane flour in error so that now the heave or ‘orlah ¹⁰³ Tosephta Terumot ¹⁰⁴ Lifting is invalidated if the true heave is recognized.

Rebbi Jonah asked, why did we [not] state: If groats were cooked with rice¹⁰⁶? Our Mishnah follows him who holds that what gives a bad taste is permitted¹⁰⁷. But even he who holds that what gives a bad taste is permitted, here¹⁰⁸, any taste will make forbidden, whether good or bad. he will agree that it is forbidden.

footnotes: ¹⁰⁶ For some reason he thinks that groats enhance the taste of lentils but spoil the taste of rice. ¹⁰⁷ He would restrict the Mishnah to cases where the taste of the forbidden admixture is an improvement. ¹⁰⁸ In the cases enumerated in Mishnah 4, what makes sour, or spicy, or induces dema‘

If heave groats fell into profane lentils and can be tasted, if he added¹⁰⁹ profane lentils they become permitted. How much does he have to add? A disagreement between Rebbi and Rebbi Ismael ben Rebbi Yose. In the opinion of Rebbi, one says until he adds for all of them¹¹⁰. In the opinion of Rebbi Ismael ben Rebbi Yose, one says until he adds corresponding to what fell in¹¹¹. If groats¹¹² were cooked with profane lentils and cannot be tasted, if he added profane groats, this kind awakes its own to make it forbidden¹¹³ if the lentils are less than 100 times the combined, heave and profane, groats.. But this should not be stronger than libation wine! As you say¹¹⁴ regarding libation wine, you disregard what is permitted; if what is forbidden can be tasted it is forbidden, otherwise it is permitted¹¹⁵. Here you disregard what is permitted; if what is forbidden can be tasted it is forbidden, otherwise it is permitted. That means, if he added groats, the heave is permitted¹¹⁶.

footnotes: ¹⁰⁹ By accident. It is assumed that the dish was cooked again and now the groats cannot be tasted. ¹¹⁰ Lentils and groats. ¹¹¹ He must have added lentils that the groats could not be tasted had they been cooked with the added lentils alone, in contrast to Rebbi who requires that the new lentils also must obliterate the taste the old lentils had acquired from the groats. ¹¹² Of heave. ¹¹³ Since food of one kind cannot become insignificant in its own kind unless the permitted part is 100 (or 200) times the forbidden one, it is assumed that the dish now is dema‘ ¹¹⁴ This is detailed in Halakhah 7. ¹¹⁵ Wine used for pagan libations is forbidden for all use; a small libation poured from an container makes the entire contents of the container into libation wine. Then it is ruled that if libation wine fell into a dish which was prepared with wine, one estimates whether the forbidden libation wine alone would have been enough to impart the taste of wine to the entire dish. If that is the case, the dish is forbidden; otherwise it is permitted even though actually the wine can still be tasted. ¹¹⁶ If he added profane groats, the original heave groats become insignificant being less than 1 in 100. The Rome ms. reads: That means, if he added heave groats it is forbidden. This is a trivial statement.

MISHNAH: If profane sourdough fell into dough, enough to cause souring, and afterwards sourdough of heave or of vineyard kilaim fell into it, also enough to cause souring, the dough is forbidden¹¹⁷. If profane sourdough fell into dough and caused it to become sour when afterwards sourdough of heave or of vineyard kilaim fell into it, enough to cause souring, the dough is forbidden but Rebbi Simeon permits it¹¹⁸.

footnotes: ¹¹⁷ Even though the dough also would have risen without the forbidden sourdough, the fact that it could have been used without the profane sourdough activates the rule of Mishnah 4. ¹¹⁸ R. Simeon holds that the forbidden dough does not do anything and should be treated by the 1 in 100 (or 200) rule as if it were inert. The anonymous majority hold that this case is not different from that of the preceding Mishnah.

HALAKHAH: Ḥanania¹¹⁹ stated in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: The first Mishnah also is in disagreement¹²⁰. Rebbi Jonah said, we hold to say that they disagree when each one is full strength and the profane sourdough fell in first. But if the heave sourdough fell in first, the dough already became sour.

footnotes: ¹¹⁹ He might be R. Ḥananiah, the colleague of the rabbis. ¹²⁰ The two Mishnaiot are really one and the statement of R. Simeon refers to both of them.

“¹²¹ 10:2, explained there in Notes 20–25. Everything that can be tasted is forbidden, whether it spoils or improves, the words of Rebbi Meïr. Rebbi Simeon says, if it improves it is forbidden, if it spoils it is permitted.” Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, in what do they disagree? If it first improved but then spoiled. But if it spoiled and later improved, even Rebbi Meïr will agree. Rebbi Joḥanan said, there is no difference whether it improved and spoiled or spoiled and improved, it is the disagreement. There, we have stated: “If barley grains fell into a cistern of water, even though they made it stink, the water is permitted.” What is the status of that Mishnah? Rebbi Joḥanan said it is a disagreement; Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said it is the opinion of everybody. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said this tradition here: Rebbi Joḥanan said it is a disagreement; Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said it is the opinion of everybody.

footnotes: ¹²¹ This is from Terumot

Rebbi Jonah said; the statement of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish is necessary since we wanted to say that they¹²² disagree when each one is full strength and the profane sourdough fell in first. But if the heave sourdough fell in first, the dough already became sour. Even if profane sourdough fell in first, it is considered that first it improved and then spoiled¹²³. Rebbi Jonah came back to this and said, that woman will not make it thoroughly sour¹²⁴, she will leave a little bit. That little bit should be considered as if it first improved and then spoiled. That is difficult, if it improved and did not spoil, is that nothing¹²⁵. Therefore, the opinion of R. Simeon ben Laqish is irrelevant here; the statement of R. Joḥanan, that R. Simeon also disagrees in Mishnah 8, has to be rejected.?

footnotes: ¹²² The anonymous Tanna and R. Simeon in Mishnah 8. ¹²³ In the end, there is too much sourdough which cannot but reduce the quality of the bread. ¹²⁴ A full portion of sourdough will be at the lower limit of what is necessary to thoroughly leaven the dough. ¹²⁵ In that case, because of the doubt R. Simeon should agree with the anonymous Tanna that the heave sourdough is active and makes the entire bread dema‘

Rebbi Jonah asked: What is the difference if it improved from both of them or spoiled from both of them? If it improved from both of them, it is forbidden¹²⁶ 27a/b, Sanhedrin 80a, Avodah Zarah 49a, Ḥulin 58a, Temurah 31a) this premiss is questioned and the final determination is that anything caused by two agents, one permitted and the other forbidden, is permitted. In the Yerushalmi, this is accepted only if no agent alone could have caused the result; cf. Mishnah 11.. If it spoiled from both of them, it is permitted. Rebbi Mana said, if it improved from both of them, you consider [the permitted]¹²⁷ as non-existent; the forbidden is enough to make it forbidden¹²⁸. If it spoiled from both of them, you consider the permitted as non-existent; the forbidden is not enough to make it forbidden.

footnotes: ¹²⁶ In the Babli (Pesaḥim ¹²⁷ Missing in the texts but implied by the parallel in the next sentence. ¹²⁸ By Mishnah 5, since it acts to improve.

MISHNAH: Spices¹²⁹, etc., two or three names from one kind¹³⁰ 89b, Avodah Zarah 66b). Maimonides brings as example different sorts of cardamum which are never sold together., or [one name for] three are forbidden and combine. Rebbi Simeon says, two or three names from one kind, or two kinds of the same name, do not combine.

footnotes: ¹²⁹ Of heave, ‘orlah ¹³⁰ For example black, white, and long pepper (Rashi, Šabbat

HALAKHAH: We understand two names for one kind. But two kinds of one name? Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: They taught this about sweeteners.

Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, there are three kinds of imparting taste. Anything a common person tastes and says, this dish is not missing anything, if it fell in, it may improve the taste but is permitted¹³¹. Even if he says, this dish contains spice x, when it spoils the taste it is permitted. But if a professional tastes it and says, this dish contains spice x¹³², when it spoils the taste it is forbidden.

footnotes: ¹³¹ Since the person who is not a professional cook or food taster finds the dish perfect, the later addition of forbidden spice either does not add anything; then it will be permitted if it is less than 1/100 (or 1/200) of the whole; or it will spoil the taste and be permitted outright. ¹³² But a non-professional would not taste it and for him the additional spice might improve the taste, the addition is not considered spoiling and is forbidden in the most minute amount.

Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, all forbidden [food] is estimated as if it were onion, as if it were leeks¹³³ 10:1, Notes 8–12; Babli Ḥulin 97b. Any foodstuffs usually estimated as if they were onion, as if they were leeks, are ingredients for cooking. Things not usually estimated as if they were onion, as if they were leeks, such as cumin, are used on top of bread or dishes. The problem is that one may not taste the dish or bread because it contains a forbidden substance and might be forbidden.. That is, anything usually estimated as if it were onion, as if it were leeks. Anything which is not usually estimated as if it were onion, as if it were leeks, how do you estimate it? How do you estimate cumin?

footnotes: ¹³³ Cf. Terumot

Rebbi Yudan said, did not Rebbi Abbahu say in the name of Rebbi Eleazar, they taught this about sweeteners? Since sweeteners usually are estimated as if they were onion or leeks, one estimates them as if they were onion or leeks. All other forbidden [foods], since they are not usually estimated as if they were onion or leeks one estimates in their kinds. Cumin one estimates by its kind¹³⁴.

footnotes: ¹³⁴ Since usually one does not use forbidden cumin, one will know how much to take to induce the flavor of cumin in the finished product.

Rebbi Mana did not say so but: Did not Rebbi Abbahu say in the name of Rebbi Eleazar, they taught this about sweeteners? Since sweeteners all taste the same, they are estimated as if they were onion, as if they were leeks. All other forbidden [foods], since they do not taste the same one does not estimate them as if they were onion, as if they were leeks. Cumin is a problem¹³⁵.

footnotes: ¹³⁵ In the absence of standards for judging, it remains forbidden.

¹³⁶ 6:1 (fol. 54d). Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: One does not whip for anything imparting taste until he tasted the forbidden thing itself¹³⁷. Rebbi Ḥama bar Yose¹³⁸ objected before Rebbi Joḥanan: There is meat in milk, where he did not taste the forbidden thing itself¹³⁹ and you say that he is whipped! He accepted that. What means, he accepted that? Like a person who listens to the argument of the opposing party he accepted it.¹⁴⁰

footnotes: ¹³⁶ From here to the end of the Halakhah, the text is also in Nazir ¹³⁷ A person eating forbidden food cannot be criminally prosecuted unless he ate at least the volume of an olive of the forbidden substance. Taste makes a mixture forbidden but not criminally. ¹³⁸ A student of R. Hoshaia, Amora of the early second generation in Galilee. ¹³⁹ If meat is cooked in milk and then the meat is removed, the person drinking the milk is criminally liable even though he did not eat from the meat. ¹⁴⁰ He did not find it necessary to respond since he has his own argument. The question is obviously invalid since the milk is as strictly forbidden as is the meat since milk and meat are treated as parallels in the verses.

Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: One does not whip for anything imparting taste except imparting taste for the nazir¹⁴¹. 6.. Rebbi Zeïra said, one does not whip for anything imparting taste until he tasted the forbidden thing itself except the nazir even if he did not taste the forbidden thing itself¹⁴² 43b, Nazir 35b.. Rebbi Abba bar Mamal said, for food imparting taste what is forbidden and what is permitted are not combined, but for the nazir forbidden and permitted do combine¹⁴³. A baraita supports one and a baraita supports the other. A baraita supports Rebbi Zeïra: If wine in the volume of an olive fell into a dish and he¹⁴⁴. ate from it, he cannot be prosecuted unless he ate the entire dish. In the opinion of Rebbi Abba bar Mamal, if he ate the volume of an olive from it he is guilty. A baraita¹⁴⁵. 23, a short reference to the argument is in Babli Pesaḥim 44a/b. supports Rebbi Abba bar Mamal: “What do we understand when it is said (Num. 6:3): ‘Anything in which grapes were soaked he should not eat’? What did the verse leave out that was not said? But since it was said (Num. 6:4): ‘anything made from the wine-vine, from seeds to grape skins he should not eat;’ (Num. 6:3) ‘from wine and liquor he shall abstain.’ Why does the verse say ‘anything in which grapes were soaked he should not eat’? That means that if he soaked grapes and then soaked his bread in that, if it¹⁴⁶ adds up to the volume of an olive, he is guilty. From here you argue about all prohibitions of the Torah. Since for all that comes from the vine, whose prohibition is neither permanent¹⁴⁷ and only for a period of time specified at the beginning., nor a prohibition of usufruct, and whose prohibition can be lifted¹⁴⁸ can be annulled just as any other vow can be annulled., He made taste like the thing itself; is it not logical that for all prohibitions of the Torah, whose prohibition is permanent, is a prohibition of usufruct, and whose prohibition cannot be lifted¹⁴⁹, that we¹⁵⁰ and rabbinic for all other prohibitions. treat taste like the thing itself¹⁵¹ 44b.? From here, the Sages inferred that everything imparting taste is forbidden.” This is difficult for Rebbi Zeïra who says everywhere “unless he tasted¹⁵²”, and here he says, “even if he did not taste.”

footnotes: ¹⁴¹ Num ¹⁴² R. Zeïra takes the statements of R. Abbahu in this and the preceding paragraph as one. A similar interpretation in Babli Pesaḥim ¹⁴³ Since nobody can be punished for eating less than the volume of an olive of a forbidden substance, this is his interpretation of the statements of R. Abbahu. ¹⁴⁴ A nazir ¹⁴⁵ A shortened version in Sifry Num ¹⁴⁶ The amount of water soaked up by the bread. ¹⁴⁷ It is forbidden only for the nazir ¹⁴⁸ The vow of a nazir ¹⁴⁹ At least one of these categories applies to any food prohibition in the Torah. ¹⁵⁰ The principle formulated is divine for the nazir ¹⁵¹ Babli Pesaḥim ¹⁵² The forbidden food itself.

MISHNAH: Spices¹²⁹, etc., two or three names from one kind¹³⁰ 89b, Avodah Zarah 66b). Maimonides brings as example different sorts of cardamum which are never sold together., or [one name for] three are forbidden and combine. Rebbi Simeon says, two or three names from one kind, or two kinds of the same name, do not combine. Yoezer from Bira was one of Shammai’s students¹⁵⁵. He said, I asked Rabban Gamliel I¹⁵⁶ when he was standing at the Eastern gate¹⁵⁷ and he said, it does not make forbidden unless it alone could make it sour.

footnotes: ¹²⁹ Of heave, ‘orlah ¹³⁰ For example black, white, and long pepper (Rashi, Šabbat ¹⁵⁵ Nothing more is known about him. ¹⁵⁶ The head of the Synhedrion during the first decades of the current era, Hillel’s grandson. ¹⁵⁷ Of the Temple enclosure.

HALAKHAH: ¹⁵⁸ 5:11. The entire Halakhah is from Avodah Zarah 5:11, fol. 45a; the parallel in Babli Avodah Zarah 73a/b. There, we have stated: “Libation wine¹⁵⁹ is forbidden and makes forbidden in the most minute amount.” Ḥizqiah said, if somebody mixed a cup from forbidden and from permitted [wine], if the forbidden fell in last it makes it forbidden, permitted at the end makes it permitted¹⁶⁰. Rebbi Samuel ben Rav Isaac said, this follows Rebbi Eliezer, as Rebbi Eliezer said, I am going after the last one. Rebbi Jeremiah said, this is a stringency about libation wine. Rebbi Yose asked, if it were a stringency about libation wine, even if the permitted fell in last it should be forbidden¹⁶¹! Rebbi Assi in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: If somebody mixed a cup from forbidden and from permitted [wine], one considers the permitted as nonexistent¹⁶²; if the forbidden does impart taste it is forbidden, otherwise permitted. Rebbi Hoshaia said, only if the permitted fell in last¹⁶³. Rebbi Ammi in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, it does not make any difference whether the forbidden fell in first and the permitted last or the permitted first and the forbidden last, even water and wine, even if it was mixed perfectly from permitted, one considers the permitted as nonexistent; if the forbidden does impart taste it is forbidden, otherwise permitted. Rebbi Zeïra said, that which you say and everybody stated, how can this be¹⁶⁴? Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun, Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, if a flask of libation wine fell into an amphora of wine and then¹⁶⁵ it fell into a water cistern, one considers the permitted as nonexistent; if it can be tasted it¹⁶⁶ 73a/b, both in the printed version and in the Sephardic ms. published by S. Abramson, the disagreement between Ḥizqiah and R, Joḥanan is about libation wine which fell into a water cistern and then a flask of water fell into the cistern and was fished out. The Ashkenazic version of the Munich ms. speaks of libation and permitted wine which fell into a water cistern; a scenario compatible with the statement of R. Abbahu. is forbidden, otherwise permitted.

footnotes: ¹⁵⁸ Mishnah Avodah Zarah ¹⁵⁹ Cf. Note 115. ¹⁶⁰ This seems to contradict the Mishnah just quoted. ¹⁶¹ R. Jeremiah’s position is impossible. ¹⁶² Mixed wine always contains wine and water; the amount of prohibited wine must be so small as not to give taste to the mixing water. ¹⁶³ In that case, the prohibited was already insignificant in the water when the permitted fell in; nothing is changed. ¹⁶⁴ If one speaks about mixing cups, it is most unlikely that any ever would be permitted under these rules. ¹⁶⁵ It was immediately fished out; the amphora will be forbidden as libation wine. ¹⁶⁶ The water. In the Babli, Avodah Zarah

So far when they fell in one after the other. What can one say if they fell together? Rebbi Eleazar said, let us hear from the following¹⁶⁷ 2:1.: “When is the leavened matter of Samaritans permitted after Passover¹⁶⁸ 2:2 (fol. 28d), Babli Pesaḥim 28a/b]. Since Samaritans are Sadducees, they do not follow rabbinic rules and since for them the prohibition of leavened matter after Passover is not biblical, they do not accept it. A Samaritan might use leavened matter somehow kept from before Passover (even though it is difficult to see how that could be done legally without violating the prohibition contained in Ex. 13:7).? Of private persons after three weekly bakings, of city bakers after three days, of rural bakers after three baking loads. Rebbi Simeon ben Eleazar says, even when they said of private persons after three weekly bakings, if he was an important personality or he married off his son, if he baked three loads one after the other it is permitted. And even when they said of city bakers after three days, if he was under pressure¹⁶⁹ and baked three loads one after the other it is permitted.” It was stated¹⁷⁰ 2:2. R. Simeon disagrees with R. Simeon ben Eleazar and holds that sourdough is not made more than once a day; therefore, a three day waiting priod is required under all circumstances. On the other hand, we will allow bread for any professional baker after three days.: “Rebbi Simeon says even when they said of rural bakers after three baking loads, it is forbidden at least three days since in the morning he prepares sourdough for the entire day.” Does the second dough not become sour from forbidden and permitted¹⁷¹?

footnotes: ¹⁶⁷ Tosephta Pesaḥim ¹⁶⁸ In current practice, leavened matter which was in the possession of a Jew during Passover is forever for bidden for any use. This is a matter of considerable controversy among talmudic authorities [Pesaḥim ¹⁶⁹ Because everybody needs bread after Passover, he will bake several loads the day after Passover. Once he has prepared three loads, one may assume that all sourdough still in his possession from before Passover is used up. This is the principle in all cases. ¹⁷⁰ Tosephta Pesaḥim ¹⁷¹ Here starts the argument. Since sourdough for the second day is made from matter left over from the first day when forbidden dough had been mixed with permitted new flour, is it not as if forbidden and permitted were taken together at the same moment? (The same could be said for the third day.)

And Rebbi Jeremiah said in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish, who is the Tanna of the leavened matter of Samaritans? Rebbi Eliezer!¹⁷² And Rebbi Yose said to Rebbi Ḥanina Eyntanaya: Do you remember that you and Rebbi Jeremiah said in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish, who is the Tanna of the leavened matter of Samaritans? Rebbi Eliezer! But we do not say so, since Rebbi Hila said in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish, they treated leavened matter of Samaritans following Rebbi Eliezer¹⁷³, and vineyard kilaim.. In addition from the following: Rebbi Ḥanina said, my father Rebbi Abbahu had a case; he sent to Rebbi Ḥiyya, Rebbi Assi, and Rebbi Ammi, and they instructed him according to Rebbi Eliezer. Would they instruct according to an isolated opinion? But it is that they treated leavened matter of Samaritans following Rebbi Eliezer.

footnotes: ¹⁷² If R. Eliezer says we go after the last one, he must hold that even if the forbidden dough fell simultaneously with the permitted it qualifies as “last” and makes everything forbidden. ¹⁷³ This is rabbinic practice which does not logically follow from general principles; it does not prove anything for heave, ‘orlah

Rebbi Mana said before Rebbi Yose: What do you say, there practice follows Rebbi Eliezer; does practice here follow Rebbi Eliezer¹⁷⁴ is leavened matter of the Samaritans, here are heave, ‘orlah, and vineyard kilaim. The answer is negative.? He said to him, for everything?

footnotes: ¹⁷⁴ There

MISHNAH: If vessels¹⁷⁵ 8:15.) were oiled first with impure oil¹⁷⁶ and then with pure, or first with pure and then with impure, Rebbi Eliezer says I am going after the first, but the Sages say after the last¹⁷⁷.

footnotes: ¹⁷⁵ According to Maimonides, vessels which cannot become impure, such as stone vessels or flat wood or flat clay. It is difficult to see why these should be oiled. According to R. Simson, as well as most moderns, one speaks of leather goods, such as water skins, which have to be oiled. The leather goods become impure but they can be purified by immersion; after they have been dried, the impure oil absorbed in the leather has no influence (unless the leather becomes wet and some impure oil starts to ooze out., Tosephta Terumot ¹⁷⁶ Which is cheaper than pure oil. ¹⁷⁷ If the oiled leather becomes wet, R. Eliezer holds that the substance massaged in first is excreted first, but the Sages hold that it is the substance massaged in last. If the pure oil remains pure one has to assume that the leather was perfectly dried between first and second oiling since when wet, the most minute amount of impure oil will make impure all pure oil in contact with it.

HALAKHAH: What is the reason of Rebbi Eliezer? The first pushes the last out¹⁷⁸ the later oil is washed away. The Gaon of Wilna, followed by S. Lieberman, wants to emend the text and read מַה טַעֲמָא דְּרִבִּי לִיעֶזֶר [הָאַחֲרוֹן מוֹצִיא אֶת הָרִאשׁוֹן מַה טַעֲמָא דְּרַבָּנָן] הָרִאשׁוֹן מוֹצִיא אֶת הָאַחֲרוֹן, meaning that oiling leather a second time pushes the first oil out at the other side. This interpretation is explicitly rejected in the Halakhah and the emendation is contradicted by the next paragraph..

footnotes: ¹⁷⁸ The oil rubbed in first fills the leather, the second rubbing is essentially without continuing influence; if the leather vessel is immersed in the miqweh

Rebbi Joḥanan said, Rebbi Jehudah and Rebbi Eliezer said the same thing. As we have stated there¹⁷⁹ 12:2. The flask contains water, with some ashes of the red cow, drawn for the express purpose of dipping into it a branch of hyssop and sprinkling the water on the hyssop leaves on a person or things impure by the impurity of the dead (Num. 19).: “In a narrow-mouthed flask he dips and takes it out normally. Rebbi Jehudah says, for the first sprinkling¹⁸⁰.” Just as Rebbi Jehudah said the first pushes out the last, so here Rebbi Eliezer said the first pushes out the last.

footnotes: ¹⁷⁹ Mishnah Parah ¹⁸⁰ R. Jehudah holds that the narrow neck will squeeze the hyssop so that the second time some water drops on the narrow neck will get on the hyssop and the second sprinkling will not all be from the new immersion of the hyssop, which for him makes the sprinkling invalid. It follows that “the first pushes out the last” means: The first makes the second inoperative.

So far if he rubbed in on one side and found on the other side¹⁷⁸ the later oil is washed away. The Gaon of Wilna, followed by S. Lieberman, wants to emend the text and read מַה טַעֲמָא דְּרִבִּי לִיעֶזֶר [הָאַחֲרוֹן מוֹצִיא אֶת הָרִאשׁוֹן מַה טַעֲמָא דְּרַבָּנָן] הָרִאשׁוֹן מוֹצִיא אֶת הָאַחֲרוֹן, meaning that oiling leather a second time pushes the first oil out at the other side. This interpretation is explicitly rejected in the Halakhah and the emendation is contradicted by the next paragraph.. If he rubbed on this side and found on the same side¹⁸¹ and dried, oil was again found on the oiled surface. This is a more likely occurrence., what does Rebbi Eliezer say? Let us hear from the following which Rebbi Abbahu said in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Not only a flask but also a bowl¹⁸²; and Rebbi Joḥanan said, Rebbi Jehudah and Rebbi Eliezer said the same thing. Can you say there, if he rubbed in on one side and found on the other side? No, if he rubbed on this side and found on the same side. Here also, if he rubbed on this side and found on the same side.

footnotes: ¹⁷⁸ The oil rubbed in first fills the leather, the second rubbing is essentially without continuing influence; if the leather vessel is immersed in the miqweh ¹⁸¹ After the second rubbing had dried and the leather was immersed in a miqweh ¹⁸² R. Jehudah will never permit using hyssop more than once in the sprinkling ceremony since some drops from the first dipping will remain. The narrow-necked flask was only mentioned for the anonymous majority who will permit repeated use even under these circumstances.

MISHNAH: Sourdough of heave and vineyard kilaim which fell into dough and neither one of them is enough to make it sour but they combined and made sour, it is forbidden for lay people but permitted for Cohanim. Rebbi Simeon says, it is permitted for lay people and Cohanim¹⁸². If spices of heave and vineyard kilaim fell into a pot and neither one of them is enough to spice it but they combine and spice it, it is forbidden for lay people but permitted for Cohanim. Rebbi Simeon permits for lay people and Cohanim.

footnotes: ¹⁸² R. Jehudah will never permit using hyssop more than once in the sprinkling ceremony since some drops from the first dipping will remain. The narrow-necked flask was only mentioned for the anonymous majority who will permit repeated use even under these circumstances.

HALAKHAH: ¹⁸³ 8:13. There, the authority permitting the dish to lay people is R. Eleazar ben R. Simeon. One has to assume that for the anonymous majority, but not for R. Simeon, the finished bread is Sabbatical.“If sourdough of heave and Sabbatical produce fell into dough and neither one of them is enough to make it sour but they combine and make sour, it is forbidden for lay people but permitted for Cohanim. Rebbi Simeon permits to lay people and Cohanim. If either one of them is enough to make it sour and they combined and made sour, it is forbidden for lay people and Cohanim¹⁸⁴. Rebbi Eleazar ben Rebbi Simeon permits to lay people.”

footnotes: ¹⁸³ Tosephta Terumot ¹⁸⁴ In the Tosephta: “It is forbidden for Cohanim.” It is not necessary to say that it is forbidden to lay people. “Forbidden” as applied to Sabbatical produce may mean either that when nothing is left for the wild animals on the fields, it can only be used as unprocessed food, or it is made from aftergrowth which is forbidden according to everybody except possibly Rebbi Simeon.

Rebbi Abbahu said, Rebbi Joḥanan asked: What is the difference between heave with regard to lay people and Sabbatical produce with regard to Cohanim? Heave for lay people is forbidden; is Sabbatical produce for Cohanim permitted¹⁸⁵? Rebbi Joḥanan came back and said, explain it that heave sourdough fell in first; the Sabbatical produce did only spoil¹⁸⁶.

footnotes: ¹⁸⁵ In the two cases outlined in Note 184, the prohibition also applies to Cohanim. ¹⁸⁶ Then for R. Simeon the addition of Sabbatical sourdough did not change its status; Cohanim may disregard the Sabbatical prohibitions for the bread made with oversour dough.

Rebbi Eleazar ben Rebbi Simeon follows his father’s argument. What is his father’s argument? Just as Rebbi Simeon said anything which spoils the taste is permitted, so Rebbi Eleazar ben Rebbi Simeon said anything which spoils the taste is permitted. Rebbi Abba Mari said, what is his father’s argument? Just as Rebbi Simeon said all aftergrowth is permitted¹⁸⁷ 9:1, restricted to “field vegetables.”, so Rebbi Eleazar ben Rebbi Simeon said all aftergrowth is permitted. But Rebbi Simeon said that only about aftergrowth of vegetables; did he say that for aftergrowth of grains? He¹⁸⁸ established that aftergrowth of vegetables and aftergrowth of grains are the same.

footnotes: ¹⁸⁷ Mishnah Ševi‘it ¹⁸⁸ R. Eleazar ben Rebbi Simeon.

The rabbis of Caesarea said, in one respect he follows his father’s argument, in one the argument of the Sages¹⁸⁹. His father’s argument, that anything which spoils the taste is permitted. The argument of the Sages, that [different] names combine.

footnotes: ¹⁸⁹ They reject R. Joḥanan’s explanation that the heave sourdough fell in first since this is not indicated in the Tosephta. In the second Tosephta of Halakhah 9, he follows his father since a double portion of sourdough certainly has some spoiling effect. He does not follow his father in the first since he holds with the Sages that heave and Sabbatical sourdoughs will combine.

MISHNAH: Spices¹²⁹, etc., two or three names from one kind¹³⁰ 89b, Avodah Zarah 66b). Maimonides brings as example different sorts of cardamum which are never sold together., or [one name for] three are forbidden and combine. Rebbi Simeon says, two or three names from one kind, or two kinds of the same name, do not combine. Most holy meat and simply holy meat that was cooked with meat of desire¹⁹⁹. 12:20. is forbidden to impure persons and permitted to pure²⁰⁰.

footnotes: ¹²⁹ Of heave, ‘orlah ¹³⁰ For example black, white, and long pepper (Rashi, Šabbat ¹⁹⁹ Profane meat; the expression alludes to Deut ²⁰⁰ According to Maimonides, there are two cases here. Either that most holy meat (to be eaten by Cohanim in the Temple precinct) and simply holy meat (to be eaten by any pure person in the city of the sanctuary) were cooked together; they may be eaten by pure Cohanim in the Temple precinct. Or if simply holy meat was cooked with meat of desire, it can be eaten by any pure person in the city of the sanctuary, and there are no theoretical questions connected with this Mishnah.In the opinion of R. Simson and R. Isaac Simponti, Mishnah 17 is the direct continuation of Mishnah 16 and it is still assumed that the most holy meat is less than 1/60 of the meat permitted to pure laymen. For them, the only difference from the preceding Mishnah is that R. Simeon does not disagree since for him, most holy and simply holy are both called “holy”, are one name, and do combine, just as great heave and heave of the tithe are both “heave” and do combine.

HALAKHAH: It was stated: “Of piggul, leftovers, or holy sacrifices.¹⁹⁴”

footnotes: ¹⁹⁴ There is a version of Mishnah 16 which adds “simply holy sacrifices.” The admissibility of that version is discussed next.

Rebbi Jonah said, one did not say “simply holy sacrifices.” Are piggul and leftovers not after sprinkling¹⁹⁵ and leftovers” are always mentioned together; it has no place here because leftovers are created only after the fact. But piggul refers to an invalid sacrificing, and that defect cannot be remedied by anything. as before sprinkling? It mentions only piggul and leftovers, things which sprinkling does not permit, together with most holy sacrifices. Therefore, for simply holy sacrifices, which are permitted after sprinkling, one never can whip because of laity¹⁹⁶. Rebbi Yose said, did one not say “simply holy sacrifices?” Are piggul and leftovers not after sprinkling as before sprinkling? Why were piggul and leftovers mentioned, not to exclude simply holy sacrifices after sprinkling? Therefore, before sprinkling when simply holy sacrifices are forbidden, lay persons will be whipped for [eating] them¹⁹⁷. Rebbi Avun said, a baraita¹⁹⁸. 72, Babli Makkot 17a; in both cases after an argument why the verse as it stands is redundant and has to be interpreted. In the Babli, the statement appears in the name of R. Simeon; in Sifry it is anonymous but states only “he violated a prohibition.” supports Rebbi Yose: “(Deut. 12”17) ‘Your dedications’, thanksgiving and well-being sacrifices, if one ate of them before sprinkling he is whipped.”

footnotes: ¹⁹⁵ All sacrifices are forbidden for everybody, and for the altar, before the blood of the animal was sprinkled on the walls of the altar. After sprinkling, the parts destined for the altar may be burned, and the meat eaten according to the rules applying to the different categories of sacrifices. Taking of the meat after sprinkling is no longer larceny.The mention of “leftovers” here is because “piggul ¹⁹⁶ Not even before sprinkling when the meat is forbidden for everybody. ¹⁹⁷ He disagrees with R. Jonah. ¹⁹⁸ Sifry Deut

Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, following the disagreement; Rebbi Joḥanan said, the opinion of everybody. It is difficult for Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish, do we not say that for everybody the expressions of heave do combine²⁰¹? And here, the expressions of impurity and laity should combine! Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish follows what Bar Qappara stated: “If pieces of holy [meat], of piggul, or of leftovers were cooked with [profane] pieces, Rebbi Simeon permits²⁰² or leftovers since these are also forbidden to Cohanim. but the Sages forbid.”

footnotes: ²⁰¹ Cf. Note 8. ²⁰² He must hold that impurity is irrelevant here and the prohibition of laity does not apply to piggul