MISHNAH: If somebody separates parts of heave or tithes, he takes from this its own heave or tithes but not for another place¹ mixed together and he may take the rest of his obligation from the same heap since, in this case, we say that what he takes out is ṭevel and not profane. {For heave he must have the intention to give more since there is no biblical minimum for heave.} But for another heap we do not allow him to take heave or tithes from what is partially profane. R. Meїr’s position is that we accept that heave taken in any permissible way retroactively turns its material into ṭevel, so that in any case only correct heave or tithes were taken (cf. Demay Chapter 5, Notes 45,63.). Maimonides explains the Mishnah as stating that partial heave or tithes possibly remain ṭevel and therefore one must give heave or tithes from the separate produce. It cannot be returned to the original heap because possibly it is heave. R. Meїr considers it certain ṭevel. R. Abraham ben David (Ma‘aser 1:15) declares “I have no idea where he or his teacher could have picked up such an idea,” but the correct explanation is that given by R. Simson.. Rebbi Meїr says, he may even take it for another place.

footnotes: ¹ R. Simson explains: If somebody desires to give the full amount of heave (Mishnah 3) but at the moment takes only a smaller amount, or if he does not take the full 10% as tithes, then what he took is heave or tithes but the remainder is profane food and ṭevel

HALAKHAH: “If somebody separates parts of heave or tithes,” etc. Our Mishnah [is said] in case he separated and it is his intention to separate more. Rebbi Samuel in the name of Rebbi Zeїra, our Mishnah [is said] if he did not say anything. Rebbi Mana said before Rebbi Yudan: Do they disagree? He said to him, if he did not say anything, it is as if it were his intention to separate more².

footnotes: ² The only case where an amount of heave smaller than the rabbinic minimum is accepted as full heave if the person giving heave says so explicitly.

What is the difference between taking from itself for itself and taking from itself for another place? When it is from itself for itself, what comes into his hand is³ are indistinguishable. all ṭevel. If he separates from it for another place, both together come into his hand. That is difficult⁴: If he took [produce] with the intention of taking from itself for itself, what comes into his hand is all ṭevel. If he changed his mind to use it for another place, both together come into his hand! If he took [produce] with the intention to use for another place, both together come into his hand. If he changed his mind to take from itself for itself, all that came into his hand is ṭevel! If he gave too little, all that came into his hand is ṭevel⁵. If he added, both together came into his hand⁶ Chapter 5, Note 40..

footnotes: ³ Retroactively, it turned out to be heave. But if used for another heap, there is no retroactivity and heave and ṭevel ⁴ Clause missing in Rome ms., but quoted by R. Simson. ⁵ This is the case of our Mishnah. The clause is missing in the Leyden ms. ⁶ If we speak of heave, what he separated was more than he intended. If we speak of tithe, his produce is in order but his tithe is not, as stated in Demay

Also if he is in error it is so. If he thought that two se’ot were due but he owed only one, Rebbi Immi in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: That [extra] seah which he separated he gives as heave for another place. But did we not state: “but not for another place”? Explain it if he increased the heave⁷ was declared as heave, it must remain in the sanctity of heave.. It is acceptable if he increased the heave, but what about tithes? Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish did not state about tithes. But the reason of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish must be that, since we say that all the ṭevel is now in his hands, what is the difference between taking from it its own heave or that for another place⁸, then this ṭevel should be usable for heave in all possible ways. He will restrict the use of the second batch only for freeing its own produce for tithes and heave of the tithe.?

footnotes: ⁷ The Mishnah is irrelevant here since it deals with the case that too little heave was given. It is permissible to give too much heave since its amount is not determined in biblical law, in contrast to tithes. Since the extra seah ⁸ If the reason given above, that we declare that all produce in his hand the second time around was genuine ṭevel

That is⁹, if most of the heap was put in order. If most of the heap was not put in order, there is disagreement between Ḥizqiah and Rebbi Joḥanan. As Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said in the name of Ḥizqiah, ṭevel becomes voided by plurality¹⁰ 6:3, Notes 117–121. It is agreed that in biblical law, the prohibition of any food becomes void by a plurality of permitted matter. Cf. also Halakhah 8, Note 71., but Rebbi Joḥanan said, ṭevel does not become voided by plurality. Since it was his intention to give, each single grain of wheat was labelled at its place¹¹ and no one knows which grains are profane and which ṭevel.. Some want to explain following Rebbi Eliezer ben Jacob, as Rebbi Eliezer ben Jacob stated, that he cannot separate either for itself or for another place¹², humans cannot use the remainder of the heap for heave or tithes.. This parallels the following¹³: If there were before him two heaps and from each of them he took part of heave or tithes, may he take heave or tithe from one for the other? The students of the elder Rebbi Ḥiyya asked the elder Rebbi Ḥiyya and he said to them (Eccl. 4:5): “The fool folds his hands and eats his own flesh.” Rebbi Eleazar in the name of the elder Rebbi Ḥiyya: He may not give heave or tithe from one for the other.

footnotes: ⁹ If the heave given was more than 50% of what was due, one follows R. Simeon ben Laqish. If less than 50% was given, one follows R. Eliezer ben Jacob in this paragraph. The Mishnah therefore is valid only in case exactly 50% were given. ¹⁰ He disagrees with the generally accepted statement that by rabbinic decree, the prohibition of anything that can be put in order is not voided if it becomes an indistinguishable part of other produce or food; cf. Ševi‘it ¹¹ As noted before, if it was the farmer’s intention to put in order only part of the heap, then the remainder is ṭevel ¹² If humans cannot distinguish between profane and ṭevel ¹³ The following text is from Chapter 2, Notes 26–28.

MISHNAH: If somebody’s produce was in a storage bin and he gave a seah to a Levite and a seah to a poor person, one may separate another eight se’ot and eat them, the words of Rebbi Meïr. But the Sages say, he separates only according to the computation¹¹⁵) who may be trusted to have given heave but not tithes. If he was seen giving one seah to a Levite and one (or at least 9/10 of a seah) to the poor (in a year when tithe of the poor was due), we may assume that they were given as tithes, or the farmer, when interrogated, may retroactively declare them to be tithes; eight se’ot (or exactly 8 1/10) are now in order and any of his workers who is a Fellow (as defined in the Introduction to Demay) may eat up to that amount, in the opinion of R. Meïr. But the Sages say, he has to treat any produce of the vulgar farmer according to the rules of demay, cf. Demay 7:3..

footnotes: ¹ For this Mishnah, Maimonides gives one but R. Simson and R. Isaac Simponti each give three explanations. Maimonides and R. Simson in his last explanation assume that the Mishnah speaks only of the farmer who is a Fellow. He gave the gifts to the Levite and the poor without saying anything; later he declares them to be tithes. R. Meir gives him credit for all he gave; the Sages declare that he may use as profane only four times the amount of tithes still in existence at the time of declaration. ¹⁵ An explanation suggested by the Halakhah is R. I. Simponti’s last: The farmer is a vulgar person (as defined in the Introduction to Demay

HALAKHAH: Rebbi Eleazar in the name of Rebbi Hoshaiah: They treated it following the rules of a worker who does not trust his employer¹⁵) who may be trusted to have given heave but not tithes. If he was seen giving one seah to a Levite and one (or at least 9/10 of a seah) to the poor (in a year when tithe of the poor was due), we may assume that they were given as tithes, or the farmer, when interrogated, may retroactively declare them to be tithes; eight se’ot (or exactly 8 1/10) are now in order and any of his workers who is a Fellow (as defined in the Introduction to Demay) may eat up to that amount, in the opinion of R. Meïr. But the Sages say, he has to treat any produce of the vulgar farmer according to the rules of demay, cf. Demay 7:3..

footnotes: ¹⁵ An explanation suggested by the Halakhah is R. I. Simponti’s last: The farmer is a vulgar person (as defined in the Introduction to Demay

The following is obvious: If the produce was burned, the heave becomes invalid¹⁶. If the heave was burned, when the produce will be consumed, the heave will retroactively have been sanctified¹⁷.

footnotes: ¹⁶ Heave was given only for part of the produce, as in Mishnah 1. If the produce then was destroyed, it was never made clear which particular grain was put in order by the heave; the same applies for tithes. Since the heave now does not put anything in order, it is not heave and the Cohen may not consume it before he separates heave and tithes. ¹⁷ Following the statement in Halakhah 1, that the selected produce will all be profane.

MISHNAH: The rate of heave¹⁸: A generous person one in forty, the House of Shammay say, one in thirty. Average, one in fifty, and stingy, one in sixty. If somebody gave heave and it turned out to be one in sixty, this is heave and he does not have to give more. When he added, [the addition] is subject to tithes¹⁹ for tithes. Therefore, if the owner adds to the heave, he adds produce subject to tithing.. If it turned out to be one in sixty-one, this is heave and he has to add in his usual way, by measure, weight, or count²⁰. Rebbi Jehudah says, even from what is not earmarked²¹.

footnotes: ¹⁸ As rabbinic decrees; without a special declaration heave is not valid unless it complies with these guidelines. ¹⁹ Since heave must be given by estimate, it may be that after the fact it turns out that the heave is less than what the giver intended. As long as a legal amount is given, this is heave and, as such, free from the obligation of tithes. The rest of the produce is now ṭevel ²⁰ If one in 61 was taken as heave, the heave is 1/60 of the remainder and, therefore, marginally valid even though the a priori standard for the stingy is 1 in 60 from above. One should add to the heave. But since valid heave was given by estimate, the remainder may be measured, following the usual procedures for trading the particular produce. ²¹ Cf. Chapter 2, Note 6.

HALAKHAH: It is written (Ez. 45:13): “One sixth of an ephah from a ḥomer of wheat²² is one tenth of a ḥomer (Ez. 45:11), a sixth of an ephah is one sixtieth of a ḥomer. Verse 13 starts: “This is the heave you have to take.”, and you shall take sixths²³, (Northvale NJ, 1998), p. 6. from an ephah from a ḥomer of barley.” I could think he may give heave one thirtieth from wheat but one sixtieth from barley²⁴. The verse says (Ez. 44:30): “All heave,” that all heaves should be equal. Samuel says, add the sixth to the sixths, it turns out that he gives heave one in forty. “Average, one in fifty.” Rebbi Levi said, it is written (Num. 31:30): “From the half of the Children of Israel take one part in fifty.²⁵” All you take at another place shall be like this; just as this is one in fifty, so what you take at another place shall be like this. “And stingy, one in sixty,” as it is written: “And you shall take a sixth from an ephah from a ḥomer of barley²⁶ of both mss., induced by the two occurrences of חמר..”

footnotes: ²² An ephah ²³ A verb formed from “six” whose meaning seems to be: taking parts of one-sixths. It is used in the Halakhah once in the meaning “take one sixth” and once as “take sixths”, i. e., “take two sixths;” cf. H. Guggenheimer, Seder Olam ²⁴ This is the reading of both mss.; R. Simson switches the places of “thirty” and “sixty”. This is required by the argument but it is not clear whether the change is based on a text or on emendation. If the verse speaks of “sixths” for barley, it would mean that the heave to be given is 2/60 = 1/30. The average of the heaves taken from wheat and barley is then 1/2(1/60+1/30) = 1/40. ²⁵ In the Tosephta (5:8), this is a statement of R. Yose (the Tanna); probably a Babylonian tradition. ²⁶ Tosephta 5:8, where the entire verse from Ezechiel is quoted; the quote in the Yerushalmi misses a part, probably by scribal error in the Vorlage

“The House of Shammai say, [one] in thirty.” “One sixth of an ephah from a ḥomer of barley²⁴.” Average, one in forty, following Samuel. Stingy, one in sixty²⁷ following Rebbi Levi. As²⁸ Rebbi Levi bar Ḥina²⁹ said, he who takes out his tithes following the rules does not lose. What is the reason? (Ez. 45:11) “The ephah shall be one tenth of a ḥomer, its measure shall be from the ḥomer³⁰ shall be the standard, the ephah being derived from it. It is difficult to understand why אל has been changed toמן ; the sermon seems to rely on the original reading of the verse: The ephah taken for heave and tithes is to the ḥomer, additional to the ḥomer because God will soon replace it for you..” For what do you need that? As we say, “if it turned out to be one in fifty³¹, this is heave and he does not have to give more;” so the House of Shammai say, if it turned out to be one in fifty, this is heave and he does not have to give more.

footnotes: ²⁴ This is the reading of both mss.; R. Simson switches the places of “thirty” and “sixty”. This is required by the argument but it is not clear whether the change is based on a text or on emendation. If the verse speaks of “sixths” for barley, it would mean that the heave to be given is 2/60 = 1/30. The average of the heaves taken from wheat and barley is then 1/2(1/60+1/30) = 1/40. ²⁷ It must read “one in fifty”, as confirmed by Tosephta 5:3 and the text at the end of the paragraph. R. Levi is the one quoted above, for the average giver following the House of Hillel. ²⁸ A scribal error; it should read: Rebbi Levi bar Ḥina said, starting a new topic. ²⁹ It seems that his name should be ר׳ לוי בר חיתה, an Amora and preacher of the fourth generation, student of R. Abba bar Ḥiyya bar Abba. ³⁰ The verse is misquoted; it should read ועשׂירת החמר האיפה אל החמר יהיה מתכנתה. The plain meaning of the verse is that the ḥomer ³¹ Scribal error; it must be “sixty” as in the Mishnah.

Rebbi Ḥanina bar Issi³² said, Bar Qappara did not state so, but “if it turned out to between one in fifty and one in sixty, this is heave and he does not have to give more.³³”

footnotes: ³² It seems that his name should be R. Ḥanina bar Sisai. ³³ He disagrees with the Tanna of the Mishnah and states that heave is legal only if it is 1/60 of the harvest, not ≥ 1/60 as stated there.

Rebbi Assi in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: If he wanted to free his heap. But if he did not do it in order to free his heap, even one on one³⁴.

footnotes: ³⁴ This refers to the Mishnah, if the heave was 1/60 and he added to his heave. If the intention was to give as an obligation, the intention is invalid since heave was already given. But if the intention was simply to give to the Cohen more in the sanctity of heave, this is valid since heave has no upper limit (except that one may not make one’s entire crop into heave) and he may even double the original heave.

Cahana said, “in his usual way³⁵.” Rebbi Joḥanan said, even one for one. But did we not state, “in his usual way”? That he should not give less. Rebbi Eleazar said, in his usual way of measurement, but if he wants to add, even one for one.

footnotes: ³⁵ Quote from the Mishnah, in case the heave given turns out to be 1/60 of the heap. Cahana reads the Mishnah as stating that the difference between the heave and 1/60 must be exactly measured and exactly given, R. Joḥanan thinks that the difference must be measured and heave given at least in the amount of difference, and R. Eleazar requires that all additional heave be given by measurement but never less than the difference to 1/60.

Rebbi Jonah said, Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish asked before Rebbi Joḥanan: What is the status of additional heave³⁶? He said to him, I am stating that as an isolated opinion³⁷. Do you mean for obligation or for freeing? If you say for obligation, that is understandable³⁸. If you say for freeing, if even Rebbi Jehudah, who permits from the non-earmarked³⁹, frees it, then the rabbis, who do not agree [to take] from the non-earmarked, certainly must so hold. Rebbi Yose, Rebbi Assi in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish came: The additional heave is subject to tithes. Rebbi Yose⁴⁰ said, the Mishnah said so. Rebbi Zeïra said to Rebbi Assi, which Mishnah? He did not answer him. He said to him, maybe that which we stated: “If he gave heave and it turned out to be one in sixty-one⁴¹; cf. Note 20. One has to assume that Bar Qappara also will require tithing the addition if heave turned out to be exactly one in sixty. In this statement, we know only what happened if the original heave was exactly 1/60; the question of tithes 1/60 still remains open., this is heave and he does not have to give more.” Did we not state on this: “If he added, it is subject to tithes”?

footnotes: ³⁶ If the heave taken was 1/60 and he is obligated to give more heave by rabbinic decree. Since there is no stated minimum for heave in biblical law, do the rabbis have the power to decree that the addition should be heave, free from tithes, or has the addition to be tithed? ³⁷ The statement that additional heave is subject to tithes if the original heave was ≥ 1/60 is declared R. Jehudah’s. ³⁸ If R. Jehudah requires tithing also if the original heave is 1/60, we can understand it since the original gift was sufficient for biblical heave. ³⁹ Since R. Jehudah permits to give heave from another place, he makes it clear that he does not consider the additional heave genuine. If, never theless, he frees the gift from tithes he must hold that the rabbis have the power to decree the gift to be heave. The rabbis, who do not permit taking the addition from non-earmarked produce, must consider the gift as genuine heave and the question should not even be asked. ⁴⁰ In the Rome ms., R. Assi. This might be the better reading. ⁴¹ Since R. Yose uses the Hebrew משנה and not the Aramaic מתניתא, he must refer to our Mishnah, not to some baraita

How far does a man free his ṭevel by the word of the Torah? Rebbi Jonathan instructed: One in a hundred like heave of the tithe. Rebbi Joḥanan asked him, from whom did you hear this? He said, from arguments of the colleagues I understood this, although Rebbi Yannai said, even one in a thousand. Rebbi Mana said, there is no measure⁴³ 137b). It follows that in the time of RR. Jonathan and Yannai, heave was still eaten by Cohanim but in the time of R. Mana all heave was impure and had to be burned. since it is written (Deut. 18:4): “The first of your grain, cider, and oil;” any amount.

footnotes: ⁴³ This is the Babylonian opinion, articulatd by the first generation Amora Samuel: “One grain frees an entire heap” (Ḥulin

MISHNAH: If somebody said to his agent: go and give heave, he gives heave following the intentions⁴⁴ of the owner. If [the agent] does not know the intentions of the owner, he gives average heave, one in fifty. If he diminished by ten or added ten⁴⁵ 98b–99b., his heave is heave, but if he intended to exceed [the owner’s intention] by even one, his heave is not heave. If somebody increases heave, Rebbi Eliezer says, up to one tenth like the heave of the tithe. The excess he should make heave of the tithe but not⁵⁴ for another place. Rebbi Ismael says, half profane and half heave. Rebbi Ṭarphon and Rebbi Aqiba say more, but he must retain some profane produce.

footnotes: ⁴⁴ If it is his intention to give one in 40, 50, or 60. ⁴⁵ If the heave turns out to be between 1/40 and 1/60. That is, if the agent does not know the intentions of the owner and wants to follow the rules which require heave to be given by estimate. But if he intends to give not 1/50 but 1/49, he exceeds his authority and hurts the owner; this automatically terminates his agency. He now is an unrelated person and his heave is not heave by Mishnah 1. The underlying problem of agency is not discussed in the Yerushalmi, but appears in the Babli, Ketubot ⁵⁴ This is the reading in the Leyden ms., the Munich ms. of the Babli, the Palestinian Mishnah edited by Low, and the first prints of the Mishnah (Naples, Riva di Trento, Venice). In all other manuscript sources, including the Rome ms., and the Mishnah prints following the edition of Yomtov Lipman Heller Wallerstein, the reading is: “for another place”. That reading is quoted in the Halakhah as variant reading, confirming the text here as the authentic Galilean Mishnah.The background for the disagreement is that heave of the tithe may be taken from one lot for another but heave itself must be earmarked. Since the produce was given as Great Heave, the rules of heave should apply.The reasons for the three diverging opinions are given in the Halakhah.

HALAKHAH: So far, if he said to him, go and give heave following my intentions. If he knew the intentions of the owner but [the owner] did not tell him: go and give heave following my intentions? Let us hear from the following: “If [the agent] does not know the intentions of the owner;” therefore, if he knows even if he did not tell him, it is as if he had told him⁴⁶.

footnotes: ⁴⁶ If he intentionally deviates from the owner’s standard, his heave is invalid.

Rebbi Abun bar Cahana said: If someone diminished by ten it is heave, and if he added ten it is heave. This does not apply to the profane [produce] since diminution and addition are not equal⁴⁷. How is that? If he used to give heave one in fifty, if he gives heave one in forty he makes him lose six quarters⁴⁸ of 6 qab(cf. Peah Chapter 3, Note 108.) The quarter is a quarter qab. The heap is originally 50 seah. Then heave 1 in 40 is 1.25 seah, for an addition of 6/4 qab. Heave 1 in 60 is 5/6 seah or 1 seah minus 4/4 qab.. If he gives heave one in sixty, he earns him four quarters.

footnotes: ⁴⁷ For the profane remainder, the difference between maximum and minimum heave is from 98⅔% to 97½%, deviating from 98 only by ⅓ or ½. ⁴⁸ The basis of the computation is an average heave of 1 seah

Here you say, his heave is heave, but there you say, his heave is not heave⁴⁹! Rebbi Ḥanina ben Rebbi Hillel⁵⁰ said, in one case he intended to diminish, in the other to add.

footnotes: ⁴⁹ The question is formulated comparing the first part of the Mishnah, when deviations are accepted, and the second part, in which a deviation makes heave invalid. The question is really about the second part, where it is asserted that intention to add invalidates the agency but intention to diminish is not mentioned at all. The answer is that intention to diminish within the legal bounds does not disqualify the agent. ⁵⁰ He is R. Ḥananiah ben R. Hillel.

Rebbi Ḥaggai asked before Rebbi Yose: There⁵¹ 6:1, also quoted in Babli Ketubot 98b. The case discussed is of a host who invited guests, told his agent to give each guest a piece of meat, the agent told each one to take two pieces, and each guest took three. Then it turned out that the meat was sacrificial meat illegally taken. The problem is, why should the host be liable for the action of an agent who clearly overstepped his authority, when the Mishnah here declares the agency to be null and void. One would infer that the host should not be guilty of larceny. In the Babli, the owner is held liable only if the agent told the guests to take one piece from the host and one from himself. This cannot be the interpretation of the Yerushalmi., we have stated: “If he said to him, give them one piece, but he said, take two each, and they took three each, all committed larceny;” but here you say so? He said to him, there the agency of the owner stopped after the first piece⁵², but here each single grain of wheat is under the agency of the owner. What is the difference? If there were before him two heaps, one put in order by his intention, the other put in order not by his intention⁵³.

footnotes: ⁵¹ Mishnah Me‘ilah ⁵² But the owner bears the responsibility for the first piece, while in the case of heave for grain the responsibilities cannot be neatly divided; the agent either acts for the owner or he does not. ⁵³ The heave from the first heap is valid, from the second invalid.

Rebbi Jeremiah in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: Rebbi Eliezer follows the House of Shammai; just as the House of Shammai say, it is sanctified as dema‘, so Rebbi Eliezer says it is sanctified as *dema‘*⁵⁵ as long as its tithes have not been given. Then one has the disagreement between Ḥizqiah and R. Joḥanan (Chapter 1, Notes 10–12); following Ḥizqiah, a small amount of ṭevel can be disregarded, but not following R. Joḥanan..

footnotes: ⁵⁵ For the statement of the House of Shammai, cf. Chapter 3, Note 55. According to R. Eliezer, if more than 11% is given as heave, then 10% are heave, 1% heave of the tithe, and the remainder is ṭevel

In the opinion of Rebbi Joḥanan, it is simple. One tenth in it is holy as heave, of the remainder one tenth is heave and the rest is ṭevel for tithes. Therefore, he must declare: “The excess he should make heave of the tithe for another place⁵⁶, the excess over 11% can be separated and used for tithes from which heave of the tithe has already been given..” In the opinion of Ḥizqiah, it is difficult. One tenth in it is holy as heave, of the remainder one tenth is heave and the rest is ṭevel for everything⁵⁷ disappears in a plurality of other produce. If the amount given as heave is 20%, then the ṭevel part is less than the heave part and all is heave; one cannot give heave of the tithe since there is no more ṭevel. If the amount given is 20%, then the excess over 10%, if separated, remains ṭevel since heave was given to put the heap in order, not what was lifted as heave. That means that of the rest one first has to give heave and then he may lift heave of the tithe; this explains the involved statement in the next sentence. Ḥizqiah in Halakhah 1 of this Chapter holds that heave is determined only when it is actually taken; it is not predetermined which grain will be heave. Since everything is given as heave, it turns out that the problem is solved if Ḥizqiah reads the Mishnah in the version of his father R. Ḥiyya, that if the amount taken is 20% he may use the excess for any heave of any of his produce. Since Great Heave can be given only from earmarked produce, the natural thing to do is to use it for heave of the tithe which can be given from one place for another. (Explanation hinted at in מיכל המים.) Since R. Ḥiyya was the teacher of Rav, it is indicated here that the version in the Mishnah found in most mss. is the Babylonian Mishnah.. But we have stated: “The excess he should treat as heave of the tithe,” he should make it heave of the tithe for another place. Hizkiah holds with what Rebbi Ḥiyya stated, as Rebbi Ḥiyya stated: “The excess he should treat as heave of the tithe for another place.”

footnotes: ⁵⁶ The end of the paragraph shows that one must read here: “but not for another place.” Since in the opinion of R. Joḥanan even irregular heave eliminates all ṭevel ⁵⁷ According to Ḥizqiah, ṭevel

What is the reason of Rebbi Ismael? (Deut. 18:4) “The beginning of your grain,” it is sufficient for the beginning to be like the grain⁵⁸. From where that he did not do anything unless he left some remainder? (Num. 15:21) “From the beginning”, not all the beginning⁵⁹. 110..

footnotes: ⁵⁸ More than 50% cannot be called “beginning”. ⁵⁹ Prefix מ in talmudic interpretation is partitive; Sifry Num

MISHNAH: For three periods one calibrates the measuring box⁶⁰, for early fruits, late fruits, and in the middle of the summer. He who counts is praiseworthy, he who measures is more praiseworthy, and he who weighs is the most praiseworthy of the three.

footnotes: ⁶⁰ The basket used to collect figs. Since the sizes of the figs vary during the season, it is necessary to determine how many figs fill a standard basket in order to give correct tithes and heave of the tithe. Measuring is not applicable to the Great Heave.

HALAKHAH: He is praiseworthy relative to whom? Rebbi Huna said, praiseworthy relative to one who estimates heave. Rebbi Ḥinena the son of Rebbi Hillel said, does the Mishnah say so? “He who weighs is the most praiseworthy of the three⁶¹.” Rebbi Ḥinena said, explain it “among the three” and it does not imply anything.

footnotes: ⁶¹ If it were possible to estimate, it should be “four” instead of “three”.

MISHNAH: Rebbi Eliezer says, heave is lifted⁶². If the amount of heave is small, it is possible to remove (“lift”) an amount equal to the heave and transfer the holiness to that food; the remainder of the food then returns to profane status. R. Eliezer states that in this respect “small” means at most 1 in 100 (1 part heave in 101 overall). R. Joshua requires that the amount be strictly less than 1 in 99+ε; ε0 being arbitrarily small. R. Yose ben Meshullam requires that the amount of heave be at most 1 in 99.1666̄; if the amount of heave is one seah, the amount of profane grain has to be 99 seah plus one sixth of the amount causing the trouble, i. e., 99 1/6 seah. at the rate of one in 101. Rebbi Joshua says by 100 and more. This “and more” has no measure; Rebbi Yose ben Meshullam says “and more” is one qab per one hundred seah, one sixth of what makes *dema‘*⁶³ makes permanent dema‘ in 100 seot, one sixth is a qab. R. Joseph Caro (Kesef Mishneh on Maimonides Terumot 13:1) takes R. Yose ben Meshullam as being more restrictive than R. Eliezer; it is difficult to read this into the Mishnah..

footnotes: ⁶² If heave falls into profane food it creates dema‘ ⁶³ Since 1 seah

HALAKHAH: From where that they are not 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 it⁶⁴, not that dema‘ containing a minute amount of heave may be repaired. The same argument is in Sifry Num. 121.. How much is this? One in one hundred⁶⁵. 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, one sixth of what makes dema‘; practice follows him⁶⁶ 13:1) decides according to R. Eliezer, probably because Mishnaiot Ḥallah 1:9, Orlah 2:1 are anonymous and follow R. Eliezer; in addition the Tosephta (5:8) quotes the ruling of R. Eliezer in the name of R. Yose, the most important teacher of the fourth generation, whose word is almost always to be followed..

footnotes: ⁶⁴ This argument proves only that heave creates dema‘ ⁶⁵ In Tosephta 5:8, the argument is made that the smallest amount called heave is heave of the tithe which is 10% of 10% or 1%, and that nothing less is called heave. The argument is rejected. Therefore, the determination of these limits is purely rabbinical. ⁶⁶ Nevertheless, Maimonides (Terumot

MISHNAH: Rebbi Joshua says, black figs lift the white ones, and white ones the black⁶⁷ but the black ones can be eaten since they certainly are not heave. If they are not forbidden then they are not dema‘ and cannot be counted. R. Aqiba follows R. Eliezer if the characteristics of the heave are known and R. Joshua if they are unknown.. Large fig cakes lift small ones and small ones lift the large⁶⁸. Round fig cakes lift brick-shaped fig cakes and brick-shaped cakes lift round cakes. But Rebbi Eliezer forbids. Rebbi Aqiba says, if it is known what fell in, they do not lift one another, but if it is not known what fell in, they do lift one another⁶⁷ but the black ones can be eaten since they certainly are not heave. If they are not forbidden then they are not dema‘ and cannot be counted. R. Aqiba follows R. Eliezer if the characteristics of the heave are known and R. Joshua if they are unknown.. How is this⁸⁷? If there are 50 black figs and 50 white, if a black one fell, the black are forbidden but the white are permitted; if a white one fell, the white are forbidden but the black are permitted. If he does not know what fell, they lift one another. In the latter case, Rebbi Eliezer is stringent and Rebbi Joshua lenient⁸⁸. And so Rebbi Eliezer is lenient and Rebbi Joshua stringent in case somebody presses a pound of cut figs⁹³ if in all pitchers together there were 100 pounds of cut figs. into the mouth of a pitcher and does not remember which. Rebbi Eliezer says, one considers it as if they were separate and the lower ones help to lift the upper ones. But Rebbi Joshua says one may not lift unless there are 100 pitchers⁹⁴ since small pieces of figs ooze fluid and mix well with what is below..

footnotes: ⁶⁷ This is a sequel to the preceding Mishnah. If some white (i. e., green) figs of heave fell into profane figs both white and black and together the profane are at least 100 times the weight of the heave while the white profane figs alone are less that 100 times the weight of the heave, R. Joshua permits to lift white figs in the weight of the heave but R. Eliezer forbids. In his opinion, the white figs are forbidden as dema‘ ⁶⁸ This will be clarified at the end of the Halakhah. ⁶⁷ This is a sequel to the preceding Mishnah. If some white (i. e., green) figs of heave fell into profane figs both white and black and together the profane are at least 100 times the weight of the heave while the white profane figs alone are less that 100 times the weight of the heave, R. Joshua permits to lift white figs in the weight of the heave but R. Eliezer forbids. In his opinion, the white figs are forbidden as dema‘ ⁸⁷ The following two sentences explain the position of R. Aqiba in the preceding Mishnah. ⁸⁸ As explained in the preceding Halakhah (following Note 70). ⁹³ Of heave. R. Eliezer permits lifting heave to remove dema‘ ⁹⁴ He considers the entire pitcher containing the heave as irredeemable dema‘

HALAKHAH: Rebbi Assi in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: The reason of Rebbi Eliezer [is that] if black figs fell into white ones, one may eat the white ones⁶⁷ but the black ones can be eaten since they certainly are not heave. If they are not forbidden then they are not dema‘ and cannot be counted. R. Aqiba follows R. Eliezer if the characteristics of the heave are known and R. Joshua if they are unknown..

footnotes: ⁶⁷ This is a sequel to the preceding Mishnah. If some white (i. e., green) figs of heave fell into profane figs both white and black and together the profane are at least 100 times the weight of the heave while the white profane figs alone are less that 100 times the weight of the heave, R. Joshua permits to lift white figs in the weight of the heave but R. Eliezer forbids. In his opinion, the white figs are forbidden as dema‘

“ “White ones lift the black.” Rebbi Eleazar said, Rebbi Eliezer answered Rebbi Joshua thus: Do white ones lift the black? His words say, when it is known what fell in they lift one another⁶⁹. Cahana said, they do not lift.⁷⁰ only if there are 100 (or 99+ε) times more white figs than the heave. In the opinion of Cahana, what is the difference between Rebbi Joshua and Rebbi Aqiba? When he had known but forgot. In the opinion of Rebbi Joshua he lifts, in the opinion of Rebbi Aqiba he does not lift. Simeon bar Abba in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: That is only if one black one fell into two white ones, that it may be disregarded in a plurality⁷¹ 82a, this is the opinion of R. Simeon ben Laqish.. Rebbi Zeïra asked before Rebbi Mana: Would it not be reasonable [to say] into three so that if one of them is lost there still will be two? He said to him, that is also my opinion⁷².

footnotes: ⁶⁹ For R. Eliezer’s objection to make any sense, one has to assume that R. Joshua admits lifting even if it was known that the heave that fell into the container consisted of all white figs. ⁷⁰ If it is known that white figs fell into the container, even R. Joshua will allow to lift the dema‘ ⁷¹ Since in biblical law, 51% of permitted food eliminates the prohibition of the remaining forbidden 49%, we have to assume that R. Joshua under all circumstances will require that the heave be nullified in biblical law, i. e., that of the kind of the heave more than the heave should have been in the container as profane food. In the Babli, Yebamot ⁷² One has to allow for natural spillage and waste so that at no time is the biblical requirement violated.

Bar Pedaiah said, he grinds and makes it permitted⁷³. Even though Bar Pedaiah said⁷⁴ 5:5, Notes 83,84. The mss. there read “Rebbi Pedaiah”, Bar Pedaiah in Demay is the reading of R. Simson. mixing applies only to oil and wine, he agrees here that they may be mixed⁷⁵..

footnotes: ⁷³ If the individual figs are no longer recognizable, the difference between white (green) and black figs vanishes. ⁷⁴ Demay ⁷⁵ Bar Pedaiah does not allow mixing of different sorts for heave of the tithe as long as the fruits are recognizable; he will be more accomodating to remove the prohibition of dema‘

The words of the rabbis disagree⁷⁶1:4; the entire paragraph appears in the corresponding Halakhah.. Cahana asked Samuel: Is it not reasonable that the dema‘ which we stated here contains mostly heave⁷⁷ 1:4 states that dough made from dema‘ is subject to tithes but free from Ḥallah.? He said to him, that is also my opinion, but when you go to the Land of Israel do ask about this. When he went, he heard what Rebbi Yose said in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, even one seah⁷⁸ of heave; in order that the dema‘ be free of ḥallah the amount of profane flour cannot exceed 99-ε seot. This dema‘ is rabbinical; the argument is acceptable only if the obligation of ḥallah also is considered only as rabbinical, contradicting the statement at the end of Chapter 9 of Ševi‘it. that fell into 99 [which were] profane. Rebbi Abbahu said, thus did Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish answer Rebbi Joḥanan: That one seah frees everything? Is a fig cake among fig cakes such a sure thing that heave came up in his hand⁷⁹ is a legal fiction; even with a fig cake lost among fig cakes the chances are slim that the correct cake of heave will be lifted out. It follows that the entire argument is possible only if we agree that heave today is only a rabbinic obligation for which all kind of leniencies are permitted which would be impossible for biblical obligations; cf. Demay Chapter 3, Note 121, Ševi‘it Chapter 6, Note 11. This is the position of R. Joḥanan in Babli Yebamot 82a.? But you must say it is [to be taken] lightly; here also it is [to be taken] lightly. Could he not have objected: It is different with fig cakes which already are disregarded⁸⁰? Rebbi Jonah and Rebbi Yose, both in the name of Rebbi Zeïra: Even wheat and wheat he may grind and lift⁸¹.

footnotes: ⁷⁶ This refers to Mishnah Ḥallah ⁷⁷ Mishnah Ḥallah ⁷⁸ One seah ⁷⁹ The entire idea of lifting heave out of dema‘ ⁸⁰ The only heave ever due by biblical decree is from “grain, cider, and oil.” The heave from figs never was biblical; therefore one fig cake of heave indistinguishable from two profane cakes may be disregarded since it is disregarded by biblical law. ⁸¹ For example, white and brown wheat kernels. It is clear that this is possible only if all heave during the Second Commonwealth was rabbinic in character.

If there were 20 figs before him⁸². It is impossible to give heave from heave; one must give heave from ṭevel. R. Simeon ben Laqish thinks that there is a 50% probability that the lost fig was the one of heave; therefore, the remaining 20 contain 20 figs with probability 50% and 19 figs with probability 100%; they all can be used for heave. R. Joḥanan thinks that every single fig may be heave with probability 4.8%; one would have to prove that a fig chosen for heave is actually ṭevel. He agrees that if somehow the figs become part of a greater whole or are all given as heave for a greater whole, all 20 figs can be treated as ṭevel. In the second paragraph following it is stated that in case of such a doubt there may not be more than one doubtful piece in 51 figs. and one [fig] fell into them and was not recognizable among them and then one of them was lost; Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, this doubt disappears in the plurality⁸³ 74b: “If a [sealed] amphora of heave was mixed with 100 [identical] amphoras and one of them fell into the ocean, all the rest are permitted” since we assume that the heave fell into the ocean. However, in one opinion in the Babli, R. Simeon ben Laqish would exclude figs from this argument.; Rebbi Joḥanan said, all become subject to proof. Rebbi Joḥanan agrees that if he gave heave for them from another place or added to them from another place the doubt would disappear in the plurality.

footnotes: ⁸² From the last sentence it is clear that the 20 figs are ṭevel ⁸³ Similarly, R. Simeon ben Laqish is quoted in the Babli, Zebaḥim

Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish in the name of Rebbi Hoshaia⁸³ 74b: “If a [sealed] amphora of heave was mixed with 100 [identical] amphoras and one of them fell into the ocean, all the rest are permitted” since we assume that the heave fell into the ocean. However, in one opinion in the Babli, R. Simeon ben Laqish would exclude figs from this argument.: If there were before him 150 amphoras which were opened: One hundred are permitted, fifty are forbidden, and the remainder will be permitted if they were opened. Rebbi Zeїra said, he said only “if they were opened;” therefore at the start it is forbidden.

footnotes: ⁸³ Similarly, R. Simeon ben Laqish is quoted in the Babli, Zebaḥim

Rebbi Zeїra in the name of Rebbi Pedaiah: Heave if certain makes forbidden in 100⁸⁴., 1 part heave in 100 cannot be lifted, 1 in 101 (1 heave, 100 profane) can be lifted., if it is in doubt in 50. Does that mean not in 60 or 70? Up to 50 it needs a plurality, more it does not need a plurality⁸⁵ can be lifted if the amount in doubt is less than 2% of the total..

footnotes: ⁸⁴ Here one determines that practice follows R. Eliezer, viz ⁸⁵ If there is doubt whether there is any heave at all, as in the case of figs where one fell in and subsequently one was lost, the dema‘

Rebbi Ḥuna said, so is the Mishnah: “Large fig cakes lift small ones” by weight, “and small ones lift the large” by count⁸⁶ 3:1, fol. 62d..

footnotes: ⁸⁶ In each case, one computes the 100 times necessary for lifting; if there are more large cakes one goes by weight, if counting small ones will be advantageous, one goes by numbers. The reason for the possibility of such a change is discussed in Orlah

Is Rebbi Eliezer stringent and Rebbi Joshua lenient in this case⁸⁹? Rebbi Joḥanan said, it is [a disagreement of] Tannaїm⁹⁰: “You must say that if it is known, it cannot be lifted⁹¹, if it is not known it may be lifted, the words of Rebbi Eliezer. Rebbi Joshua says, whether it is known or unknown, it can be lifted, the words of Rebbi Meїr. Rebbi Jehudah says, whether it is known or unknown, it cannot be lifted, the words of Rebbi Eliezer; Rebbi Joshua says, whether it is known or unknown, it can be lifted. Rebbi Aqiba says, if it is known, it cannot be lifted; if it is unknown, it can be lifted.”

footnotes: ⁸⁹ Do R. Eliezer and R. Joshua always disagree here? From Mishnah 8, one would assume that in case the strain of heave fig is unknown, R. Eliezer and R. Joshua do not disagree that heave can be lifted but disagree about the amount needed. ⁹⁰ Tosephta 5:10. The statement in the Mishnah is R. Jehudah’s, not R. Meїr’s. ⁹¹ Unless there are 100 profane figs for each heave fig of the known strain of the heave fig. According to R. Jehudah, R. Eliezer requires 100 figs from each strain if the strain of the heave is unknown.

“⁹⁵ here, appears in Tosephta 5:11. A third version, closer to the Tosephta, is in the Babli, Beẓah3b, Zebaḥim 73a. A pound of cut figs which somebody pressed into the mouth of an amphora and does not remember where he pressed, into the mouth of a vase⁹⁶ and does not remember where he pressed; Rebbi Eliezer says, if there are 100 pounds it may be lifted, otherwise it cannot be lifted; Rebbi Joshua says, if there are 100 mouths⁹⁷ there it may be lifted, otherwise the mouths are forbidden and the sides are permitted, the words of Rebbi Jehudah. Rebbi Meїr says, Rebbi Eliezer says, if there are 100 mouths there it may be lifted, otherwise the mouths are forbidden and the sides are permitted; Rebbi Joshua says even if there are 300 mouths it cannot be lifted.” This means that they considered mouths as something that usually is counted⁹⁸ 3:6 dealing with fruits sold by the piece (“usually counted” for sale). If the fruit is forbidden for all use (“sanctified”, cf. Introduction to Kilaim), if it falls into a container of the same fruits and now is no longer identifiable, there are three opinions in the matter. The rabbis have a list of six kinds of fruit that make all fruits in the same container forbidden for all use, even if there are more than 1000 permitted to one forbidden fruit. R. Meїr disagrees but R. Joḥanan and R. Simeon ben Laqish disagree about the meaning of the disagreement. According to one opinion, R. Meїr simply has an extended list of 10 items, but the other opinion is that he extends the sanctification to everything sold by the piece, not only fruits but also containers of processed fruit.. This supports Rebbi Joḥanan who said, it is a disagreement of Tannaїm⁹⁰. This supports him who says, the words of Rebbi Meїr that everything sanctifies⁹⁸ 3:6 dealing with fruits sold by the piece (“usually counted” for sale). If the fruit is forbidden for all use (“sanctified”, cf. Introduction to Kilaim), if it falls into a container of the same fruits and now is no longer identifiable, there are three opinions in the matter. The rabbis have a list of six kinds of fruit that make all fruits in the same container forbidden for all use, even if there are more than 1000 permitted to one forbidden fruit. R. Meїr disagrees but R. Joḥanan and R. Simeon ben Laqish disagree about the meaning of the disagreement. According to one opinion, R. Meїr simply has an extended list of 10 items, but the other opinion is that he extends the sanctification to everything sold by the piece, not only fruits but also containers of processed fruit.. This supports him who says it is a disagreement of Tannaїm⁹⁹. This means that even one hundredth of a pumpkin forbids¹⁰⁰ 1:5; its exact identity has not been established. Greek gourd is on the list of the six sanctifying fruits, Orlah 3:7. While the Mishnah there only speaks of fruits forbidden for all use, this remark extends the principle to dema‘ which is only forbidden for laymen. It is asserted that the principle that heave disappears in 100 does not apply to the fruits on that list, that their dema‘ can never be lifted..

footnotes: ⁹⁵ A similar text, but not the basis of the baraita ⁹⁶ Arabic כּוארה, a vase made from sun-dried clay. In any vase or amphora, the mouth is much narrower than the body. ⁹⁷ Assuming that all vessels have identical size. If the heave percolates downwards, it percolates only in the right circular cylinder defined by the mouth of the vase. Therefore, anything in the body of the vessel outside that cylinder (the “sides”) is certainly permitted. ⁹⁸ This refers to Mishnah Orlah ⁹⁰ Tosephta 5:10. The statement in the Mishnah is R. Jehudah’s, not R. Meїr’s. ⁹⁸ This refers to Mishnah Orlah ⁹⁹ The same disagreement noted from Mishnah 9 carries over to Mishnah 10. ¹⁰⁰ This refers to Greek gourd, a variety of pumpkin mentioned in Mishnah Kilaim

“If he pressed it but it is not known where he pressed it, everybody agrees that it may be lifted.¹⁰¹ can be lifted. Since fig cakes usually are sold by the piece, R. Abin clarifies that this can apply only to the case when the institution of heave already has disappeared as a matter of biblical law.” Rebbi Abin said, but each individual [amphora] must contain somewhat more than two pounds so it should have disappeared in a plurality.

footnotes: ¹⁰¹ The Tosephta quoted (5:11) also considers the case of one pound of cut heave figs pressed into one of 100 fig cakes and states that both RR. Eliezer and Joshua agree, in the opinion of RR. Jehudah and Meїr, that dema‘

MISHNAH: One seah of heave which fell into the opening of a storage bin and congealed¹⁰² that fell in and now clearly separated from the loose grain below. In this case, R. Eliezer will not consider the loose grain below to be of help for the compacted grain above., Rebbi Eliezer says if the congealed part contains 100 seah it may be lifted by 101; Rebbi Joshua says, it should not be lifted [but] a seah of heave which fell into the opening of a storage bin one should compress¹⁰³ was created. In the Tosephta (5:13), the reading is: יקלפנה “he should skim it off”. The interpretation of R. Assi in the Halakhah seems to be based on that interpretation.. If this is so, why did they say, heave may be lifted in 101? If one does not know whether it was mixed in¹⁰⁴ or where it fell. Two boxes, two storage bins, into one of which a seah of heave fell but it is not known into which one it fell, help to lift one another. Rebbi Simeon says, even if they are in two villages they help to lift one another. Rebbi Yose said: There came a case before Rebbi Aqiba about 50 bundles of vegetables into which one [bundle] fell half of which was heave, and I said before him that it should be lifted, not that heave might be lifted in 51 but that there were 102 halves.

footnotes: ¹⁰² The upper part of the grain compressed by the impact of the seah ¹⁰³ One should press the heave together; if it can be taken out as a block, no dema‘ ¹⁰⁴ If the boundary between the new and the old is not visible.

HALAKHAH: The reasoning of Rebbi Eliezer is inverted: There¹⁰⁵, he says that the lower ones help to lift the upper, and here he says “if the congealed contains”, therefore not the bottom ones. Rebbi Jeremiah, Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, Simeon bar Abba in the name of Cahana: The words of Rebbi Eliezer [imply] that they consider this as if he had added intentionally¹⁰⁶ is always disregarded. In our case, since he let the heave compact its neighborhood, the loose grain cannot be counted as being the same kind; in the language of the Tosephta (5:13) it is as if the top were wheat and the bottom barley. If then the compacted grain is loosened, it is as if added intentionally.. Rebbi Hila, Rebbi Assi in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: The words of Rebbi Eliezer [imply] that they consider it as a seah lifted from 100¹⁰⁷. In the opinion of Rebbi Assi, one is permitted to add¹⁰⁸, in the opinion of Cahana it is forbidden. If it congealed and then congealed a second time, in the opinion of Rebbi Assi it is permitted, in the opinion of Cahana it is forbidden¹⁰⁹, it cannot become permitted by being loosened.. In the opinion of Rebbi Assi, even if there is no remainder, in the opinion of Cahana only if he left a remainder¹¹⁰.

footnotes: ¹⁰⁵ In Mishnah 10. ¹⁰⁶ It is implied by the Mishnaiot of Chapter 5 that profane produce intentionally added to dema‘ ¹⁰⁷ As long as the compacted grain is the same kind as the loose, they still are considered to be one kind and the 1-in-100 rule applies. ¹⁰⁸ If one is permitted to undo the compaction, one intentionally adds to the loose grain. ¹⁰⁹ For R. Assi, there never was any difference between compacted and non-compacted grain. For Cahana, when the compacted part was forbidden as dema‘ ¹¹⁰ If everything were compacted, it would be as if everything was loose, and the special case of the Mishnah would become meaningless.

“Two boxes in two attics, two storage bins in one attic.¹¹¹” But not two storage bins in two attics. What is the difference between boxes and storage bins? Boxes are usually moved around, storage bins are not.

footnotes: ¹¹¹ Tosephta 6:12, reading of the Erfurt ms. only.

Rebbi Zeїra, Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Simeon: If two boxes were before him, in each one 50 seah, and one seah of heave fell into one of them but it is not known into which of them, if he wants to lift from any one of them he may do so, or he may lift half from this one and half from the other¹¹¹. Similarly, if there were two gatherings of water¹¹² of natural water, i. e., water that never was in a vessel which can become impure. If there are less than 40 seah, then 3 log (1/8 seah) of drawn water byrabbinic decree makes the entire water unusable. It is stated in Mishnah Miqwaot 3:1 that the place of this water can be refilled with natural water for a ritual bath if slightly more than the original content was taken out. This means that, if 20 seah were in the miqweh and three log fell in, then 20 seah has to be taken out. Then in the worst case, if all water drawn out was good water, there are 3 log of disqualified water left and the place may be filled with 40 seah of natural water. Maimonides accepts R. Simeon’s argument for heave but not for ritual baths., each one containing 20 seah, and three log of drawn water fell into one of them but it is not known into which of them, if he wants to lift from any one of them its water collection he may do so, or he may lift half from this one and half from the other.

footnotes: ¹¹¹ Tosephta 6:12, reading of the Erfurt ms. only. ¹¹² A gathering of water becomes a ritual bath if it contains 40 seah

Rebbi Simon in the name of Bar Pedaiah: “If before him there were two boxes of fifty seah each; one seah of heave fell into one of them and it is known into which one it fell, then a second [seah] fell and it is not known into which it fell, one says that the second fell into the place of the first.¹¹³ 2:3.” Why? Because one attaches the damage to the damaged. If in error he added to the known one and made [the heave] disappear, he lifts and makes it permitted. The second [seah] returns to be proven¹¹⁴, one is lifted as replacement heave. Then the first box contains 100 seah, the second 50. The first one is no longer damaged; therefore, it is impossible to say that the second seah of heave fell into the first box. But the two boxes together now contain 150 seah, and this is more than enough to lift a second seah and eliminate dema‘ altogether.. It turns out that two seot may be lifted from 150 seah. “If there were two boxes of fifty seah each; one seah of heave fell into one of them and it is not known into which one it fell, then a second [seah] fell and it is known into which it fell, one does not say that the first fell into the place of the second¹¹⁵.” If in error he added to one and made [the heave] disappear, he lifts and makes it permitted, but the second one remains forbidden until he would add to it in error.

footnotes: ¹¹³ Tosephta 6:13 (both parts); a similar statement also in Tosephta Miqwaot ¹¹⁴ If the first box contained 101 seah ¹¹⁵ The declaration of damage cannot be retroactive.

If he said, what is below is heave, above all is profane, or what is below is all profane, above is heave, it depends on his opinion. Also for a miqweh it is the same: If he said, all water below is usable, above is unusable, or all water below is unusable, above is usable, it depends on his opinion¹¹⁶.

footnotes: ¹¹⁶ This refers to the statement of R. Simon, Note 111–112. It is explained that not only may one choose which box (or water pool) to choose to remove heave (or water) from, but he may also choose the place from where to draw.

You say, one may lift from boxes but not from storage bins¹¹⁷. How is this? Two storage bins in two attics and a seah of heave fell into one of them, both are forbidden¹¹⁸. If he added to one of them and made [heave] disappear in error, he lifts and makes permitted; the second bin, once he would accidentally add to it, will be permitted and does not need lifting since heave was already lifted.

footnotes: ¹¹⁷ This refers to the statement at the beginning of the Halakhah, Note 111, which refers only to boxes. ¹¹⁸ For the layman.

It was stated: “If it is mixed, if may be lifted, unmixed it may not be lifted.¹¹⁹” But did we not state: “Rebbi Yose said: There came a case before Rebbi Aqiba about 50 bundles of vegetables into which one [bundle] fell half of which was heave, and I said before him that it should be lifted,” in that case it is unmixed and may be lifted¹²⁰! We want to say that if he resents the admixture, it cannot be lifted but if he does not resent the admixture, it may be lifted¹²¹. How is that? An impure green melon which fell into 100 pure ones, since he does not resent the admixture, may be lifted, but in case they were prepared for impurity¹²², Chapter 2, Note 141., because then he resents the admixture¹²³ 1:2 (fol. 16c), Babli Soṭah 28b]., it may not be lifted.

footnotes: ¹¹⁹ Tosephta 5:13, a statement of R. Yose only, disputed by the other Sages. Since the Mishnah follows R. Yose, it is implied that in the Tosephta also, the opinion of R. Yose is practice to be followed. ¹²⁰ Presumably, if the farmer bundles his produce he takes pieces as they come and does not mix them up intentionally. R. Yose seems to contradict himself. ¹²¹ If the farmer bundled heave with profane produce, obviously it was his intention to give the entire bundle to a Cohen to eat in purity. ¹²² Demay ¹²³ All his melons will be considered impure since each of them will be in doubt and anything possibly impure is declared impure except on a public road [Soṭah