MISHNAH: One seah of impure heave that fell into less than 100 [seah] of profane produce, or First Tithe, or Second Tithe, or dedicated produce, be it pure or impure, must be left to rot¹. If that seah was pure, all should be sold to Cohanim for the price of terumah except for the value of that seah² which may be eaten by the Cohen. The Cohen will pay only little because there are few buyers; the owner is not permitted to charge the regular price to make clear that the Cohen may not give from the produce to lay people. The original heave cannot be charged since it is not the farmer’s property.. If it fell into First Tithe, heave of the tithe must be given its name³; if it fell into Second Tithe or dedicated produce, they should be redeemed⁴.. If it was impure and profane⁵ Chapter 2, Note 141). Food in quantities less than the volume of an egg does not accept impurity (Mishnah Ṭahorot 1:1); if the heave is of flour, small pieces of half the volume of a hen’s egg may be kneaded with water, larger amounts only in fluids which do not prepare (cf. Demay 2, Note 136), usually fruit juice other that grape juice or wine., it should be eaten as crackers, or dry roasted, or kneaded with fruit juice, or split into pieces of dough so that no volume of an egg should be together. One seah of impure heave that fell into 100 [seah] of pure profane produce, Rebbi Eliezer says it should be lifted and burned since I am saying that the seah which fell is the seah which was lifted. But the Sages say, it should be taken out and eaten²⁴ 22b explains: “it should disappear (in the profane produce which shall be treated as impure, and the value of one seah be given to a Cohen) or eaten …”; cf. also Bekhorot 22b Tosaphot s.v. תירום, Šiṭṭah mequbeṣet Note 32. However, תעלה cannot be translated as “to disappear” since, for that notion, Mishnah 4 uses the expression אבדה במיעוטה “it was lost in its minority.” as crackers, or dry roasted, or kneaded with fruit juice, or split into pieces of dough so that no volume of an egg should be together⁵ Chapter 2, Note 141). Food in quantities less than the volume of an egg does not accept impurity (Mishnah Ṭahorot 1:1); if the heave is of flour, small pieces of half the volume of a hen’s egg may be kneaded with water, larger amounts only in fluids which do not prepare (cf. Demay 2, Note 136), usually fruit juice other that grape juice or wine.,⁶. One seah of pure heave that fell into 100 [seah] of impure profane produce should be taken out and eaten as crackers³³ 22b) who translates the verse Jos. 9:12 הנה יבש והיה נקדים “behold, it is dry and was totally dry” and comments on our Mishnah: “Now, even though there is purity and impurity, the pure part will not become impure without preparation; the impure part becomes voided in the plurality and should be eaten ניקודים.”, or dry roasted, or kneaded with fruit juice, or split into pieces of dough so that no volume of an egg should be together⁵ Chapter 2, Note 141). Food in quantities less than the volume of an egg does not accept impurity (Mishnah Ṭahorot 1:1); if the heave is of flour, small pieces of half the volume of a hen’s egg may be kneaded with water, larger amounts only in fluids which do not prepare (cf. Demay 2, Note 136), usually fruit juice other that grape juice or wine.,⁶.

footnotes: ¹ Since impure heave must be destroyed and heave cannot be lifted if it constitutes more than 1% of the whole, all must be destroyed. ² All is pure dema‘ ³ Again, it must be sold to a Cohen but the Cohen may not eat from it before he declares that 10% of the tithe are to be heave of the tithe. Since First Tithe becomes profane after its heave was removed, if it is still called First Tithe this implies that it still contains heave. Heave of the tithe need not actually be separated; this would be impossible. ⁴ Since second tithe or food dedicated to the Temple may not contain heave, it has to be redeemed and then consumed as dema‘ ⁵ It is assumed that the impure produce is dry and the pure heave has not been prepared for impurity (Demay ²⁴ Rashi in Bekhorot ⁵ It is assumed that the impure produce is dry and the pure heave has not been prepared for impurity (Demay ⁶ Reading of the Rome ms. Leyden and Venice: מעלה תעלה “lifts, may be lifted.” ³³ Either this is a scribal error for “half an egg”, cf. the end of Mishnah 1, or the translation of ניקודין is not “crackers” but “totally dry” following Rashi (Bekhorot ⁵ It is assumed that the impure produce is dry and the pure heave has not been prepared for impurity (Demay ⁶ Reading of the Rome ms. Leyden and Venice: מעלה תעלה “lifts, may be lifted.”

HALAKHAH: “One seah of impure heave”, etc. Rebbi Ḥiyya stated: “Ṭevel lifts, aftergrowth of the Sabbatical lifts.⁷ of heave which fell into less than 100 and made it dema‘, if it was ṭevel he uses it as heave and tithes for other produce or he gives a name to the heave of the tithe.” 6:3: “A seah of heave which fell into 100 of Sabbatical produce shall be lifted, less than that must be left to rot.” Ṭevel is forbidden to everybody, including a Cohen, but the Cohen may turn it all into heave and heave of the tithe without actually separating anything.” Ṭevel, one lifts and gives a name to his tithes. The aftergrowth of the Sabbatical should be given to those who may eat it. Rebbi Yose said, a baraita says so: “A seah of heave that fell into less than one hundred may be lifted⁷ of heave which fell into less than 100 and made it dema‘, if it was ṭevel he uses it as heave and tithes for other produce or he gives a name to the heave of the tithe.” 6:3: “A seah of heave which fell into 100 of Sabbatical produce shall be lifted, less than that must be left to rot.” Ṭevel is forbidden to everybody, including a Cohen, but the Cohen may turn it all into heave and heave of the tithe without actually separating anything. …”. Because it is less than 100; hence 100 will lift; is that not from ṭevel?

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

There⁸ is not found in any collection but it is quoted in Babli Pesaḥim 33b, together with the opinions of Ḥizqiah and R. Joḥanan. The heave in this paragraph is impure heave which is forbidden as food., we have stated: “One makes a fire with bread and oil of heave.” Ḥizqiah said, they taught only bread and oil, therefore nothing else. Rebbi Joḥanan said, there is no difference between bread, oil, and any other thing. Rebbi Yudan from Kappadokia asked, are wheat grains like bread and olives like oil⁹? Rebbi Samuel bar Naḥman said in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan¹⁰, may the bones of him who uses bread and oil of heave to make a fire be burned. Rebbi Samuel bar Naḥman asked before Rebbi Joḥanan: May one make a fire? He said to him, make a fire¹¹! Anything given to your tribe was given to you, as Rebbi Abba bar Ḥiyya said in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan (Num. 18:8): “For excellence¹²”. For excellence for greatness, for excellence for rubbing in, for excellence for lighting.

footnotes: ⁸ This baraita ⁹ In the Babli, R. Joḥanan explicitly adds wheat grains to bread. ¹⁰ The name tradition here is impossible, even though it is supported by both mss. In the next sentence, the same R. Samuel bar Naḥman asks R. Joḥanan whether one may use impure heave for lighting. The statement, as noted by R. S. Cirillo, must be in the name of R. Samuel’s teacher R. Jonathan; a similar position is taken in the Babli by Rav Ḥisda and his student Rava. They are afraid that storing of impure heave as fuel would lead to people accidentally eating from the forbidden food. (In mss. of the Babli, substitutions of “Joḥanan” for “Jonathan” and vice-versa are quite frequent.) ¹¹ Of impure heave. ¹² “To you (Aaron) I gave it for excellence,” referring to all obligatory gifts to the Cohen.

We understand that when pure it must be left to rot¹⁵, but when impure to rot? In the opinion of Ḥizqiah, this is correct. In the opinion of Rebbi Joḥanan, should it not be burned? Rebbi Joḥanan is of the opinion of Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina, maybe it is possible to find for them something to lift¹⁶; but only if it is not usually mixed [with other food]. But if it usually is mixed, maybe something untoward will happen¹⁷.cit. 8), the position of R. Joḥanan is interpreted that he permits impure heave to be stored as fuel only after it has been denatured..

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

Did we not want to say that dedicated things have only their time and place¹⁹ 6:5. If something is donated to the Temple, it has to be sold off at its place at the earliest possible time; one may not transport dedicated articles to a place where they might fetch a better price. If impure heave fell into dedicated produce, why should it rot and not be sold as fuel?? Rebbi Ḥanina said, explain it if that place was destroyed and he cannot even sell it for the price of wood.

footnotes: ¹⁹ Mishnah Arakhin

This means, pure [fell into] pure, but pure into impure²⁰? That is what we have stated: “If it was impure and profane.” ²¹ According to Rebbi Yose, it is appropriate, as Rebbi Yose said in the name of Ḥizqiah, Rebbi Jonah in the name of Rebbi Yannai (Num. 18:28): “You shall give from it the Eternal’s heave to Aharon the priest;” it should be given to Aharon in his status as priest²², everything is forbidden if it is impure and the Mishnah is obvious for R. Yose since impure dema‘ cannot be given to the Cohen.. In the opinion of Cahana who said, take from its sanctifiable part, also here one should take from the sanctifiable part. Even though Cahana says there, take from its sanctifiable part, he agrees only in what he is required to give to the Cohen²³.

footnotes: ²⁰ This refers to the last part of the Mishnah. Why does the Mishnah give detailed instructions in all possible cases if the produce was pure but for impure produce only if it was profane and not also when it was tithe? ²¹ The disagreement between R. Yose and Cahana is in Chapter 2, Note 9. ²² Since heave of the tithe makes the tithe dema‘ ²³ For Cahana, the essence of the obligation is taking heave, not the delivery to the Cohen. But he agrees that one should try to give it to the Cohen in usable form. Therefore, heave of the tithe should be given from another source since this is permitted; then the heave is profane and covered by the Mishnah. For Cahana, there is no question.

Crackers are about the size of halves of eggs.

Rebbi Simon says, Rebbi Eliezer stays with his opinion. Just as he says there²⁵ 8:5, R. Eliezer states that if limbs of valid sacrifices were mixed up with limbs of a sacrifice which had been found defective and one of these had been burned on the altar before the error was detected, then all limbs of the same kind can be brought to the altar. R. Simon interprets this to mean that we say the first limb was from a defective animal and the rest therefore are proper sacrifices., all that is defective was in his hand, so he says here all that is impure is in his hand. Rebbi Zeїra asked, may we not say that Rebbi Eliezer said it only because of a fence²⁶ 77b) that R. Eliezer permits the limbs on the altar only if at least two of the same kind are brought simultaneously, so that one of them at least is valid. The “fence” is the fence around the law, a measure of precaution that no biblical law could possibly be violated; cf. Demay Chapter 1, Note 89.? Does not Rebbi Eliezer agree that for a seah lifted from ṭevel he must give a name to its tithes⁷ of heave which fell into less than 100 and made it dema‘, if it was ṭevel he uses it as heave and tithes for other produce or he gives a name to the heave of the tithe.” 6:3: “A seah of heave which fell into 100 of Sabbatical produce shall be lifted, less than that must be left to rot.” Ṭevel is forbidden to everybody, including a Cohen, but the Cohen may turn it all into heave and heave of the tithe without actually separating anything.? If you say the seah which fell is the seah which came up, it would not be necessary to give a name to its tithes²⁷! Rebbi Mana said, Rebbi Zeїra is correct since we have stated after this²⁸: “A seah of pure heave which fell into a hundred of impure profane produce,” and Rebbi Eliezer does not disagree! The colleagues argued before Rebbi Yose: Rebbi Simon is correct, because otherwise would one burn heave because of a “fence”? He said to them, are the six doubts which we have stated not because of their “fences”? Do we not also burn here because of its “fence”²⁹ 4:5: “For six doubts one burns heave: For the doubt of field of pieces (a field where a grave was ploughed), the doubt of earth from a Gentile country (which is impure by tradition), the doubt of the garments of a vulgar person (who does not observe the rules of purity), the doubt of found vessels, the doubts of spittle and urine (from unknown persons), if one certainly touched them but does not know about their status of purity one burns heave. R. Yose says, even on a doubt whether one touched them in a private domain (cf. Chapter 3, Note 10), but the Sages say, on that doubt in a private domain one suspends and on a public road it is pure.” The normal procedure for heave that may be impure is to “suspend”, i. e., to leave the heave to rot and then dispose of it if it is no longer food. The questioner assumes that all questionable heave is suspended; R. Yose points out that there are instances in which questionable heave is burned.? The colleagues said, we asked before Rebbi Yose: In any case, if it is impure heave, it should be burned, if it is profane, why could it not become impure³⁰ not be burned and all problems would be eliminated?? He said to us, is it not eaten as heave? Heave cannot be eaten except if it is pure, maybe impure? Do you not agree that if a doubt of impurity arose in its place that he cannot burn it³¹ 4:5: If the heave was of doubtful status before it fell into the 100 other seah (“in its place” before it fell), it would have to be suspended, not burned. Why could its replacement be burned now?? What is the difference whether a doubt of impurity arose at another place or at its place? But if you want to question, then question what Rebbi Hoshaiah stated, since Rebbi Hoshaiah stated: “A seah of pure heave that fell into 100 seah of impure heave³² to let it rot..”

footnotes: ²⁵ In Mishnah Zebaḥim ²⁶ He disagrees with R. Simon; his position is that of R. Eleazar in the Babli (Zebaḥim ⁷ Tosephta 6:2: “A seah ²⁷ If it were 100% heave, no tithes would be possible. ²⁸ Mishnah 3. If R. Eliezer would consider all that came into his hand as heave, it would be pure and would not have to be eaten with the precautions indicated in the Mishnah. ²⁹ The reference is to Mishnah Ṭahorot ³⁰ Why do the Sages have to oppose R. Eliezer; could the lifted seah ³¹ The position of the Sages in Mishnah Ṭahorot ³² There is no Tosephta dealing with this case, but everybody agrees that all must be burned; one does not lift one seah

Crackers are about half of a seah.³³ 22b) who translates the verse Jos. 9:12 הנה יבש והיה נקדים “behold, it is dry and was totally dry” and comments on our Mishnah: “Now, even though there is purity and impurity, the pure part will not become impure without preparation; the impure part becomes voided in the plurality and should be eaten ניקודים.”.

footnotes: ³³ Either this is a scribal error for “half an egg”, cf. the end of Mishnah 1, or the translation of ניקודין is not “crackers” but “totally dry” following Rashi (Bekhorot

Ḥizqiah said, even the profane food there should be eaten only as dry crackers because of their ḥallah³⁵. 15:20.. His word says that the prohibition of the outsider becomes insignificant but the prohibition of impurity does not become insignificant³⁶, it follows that the prohibition of the outsider has disappeared. Since he is worried about impure heave, the prohibition of impurity has not disappeared. The argument cannot refer to the Mishnah here, since everything is impure and any ḥallah must be burned. Therefore, Ḥizqiah must refer to Mishnah 2, one seah of impure heave which is in 100 seah of pure profane grain.. The arguments of Ḥizqiah seem inverted. There³⁷ 2:5: “Impure flour which was mixed with pure flour but the impure is less than its measure (less than the volume of an egg), if he takes [ḥallah] he says: This should be ḥallah except for the impure part in it.” He cannot declare all of it as ḥallah since it might contain impure flour and impure ḥallah is forbidden as food. But the part of impure flour in the dough is certainly less than the volume of an egg and, therefore, all of it may be eaten by a Cohen. {The explanation of this and the next paragraph follows R. H. Kanievski.}, he says: How much can be in a dough that he should be able to make it in purity³⁸ can be taken?? Ḥizqiah said one sixth of four qab in four qab³⁹ is much more than the volume of an egg, Ḥizqiah holds that, in this case, one may separate a small cake for ḥallah (whose normal size should be 1/24 of the entire dough) to be sure that it does not contain the volume of an egg of impure dough and turn it into ḥallah. The remainder may then be worked in impurity. Since ḥallah follows the rules of heave, it must be taken from the dough itself. Ḥizqiah must follow R. Eliezer who in Mishnah Ḥallah 2:4 permits to give one ḥallah for all breads in one large basket. If the bread destined for ḥallah is separated from the large impure breads by small loaves of volume less than one egg, no contamination can take place. (The basis of this device is Mishnah Ḥallah 2:7).. And here he says so⁴⁰ and requires that all be consumed either dry or kneaded with pure fruit juice.! Rebbi Yose said, there, when he kneaded the dough and then separated, but here when he separated and then kneaded⁴¹, when it is his intention of processing all flour together; “here” is there, in Ḥallah, when he is prepared to separate a small cake to be kneaded in purity, the rest in impurity..

footnotes: ³⁵ The heave from the dough which has to be eaten by a Cohen in purity under the rules of heave, Num ³⁶ If he is worried about heave, there are two prohibitions to be observed: No outsider (one who is not a Cohen) may eat from it and it may not be eaten in impurity. Since he does not require that all should be given to the Cohen as dema‘ ³⁷ This seems to refer to Tosephta Ḥallah ³⁸ How much impure flour can be in the dough so that pure ḥallah ³⁹ If will be seen in the next paragraph that 4/6 qab ⁴⁰ He rejects the trick which he recommends for ḥallah ⁴¹ “There” is here, in Terumot

Rebbi Abbahu said, all our days we were groping about this as with a blind man’s stick until we learned it from mathematical computation. How much is in a qab? 24 eggs⁴³ is 6 log and a log 4 eggs. The same division is accepted in the Babli.. How much is in a seah? 96 eggs⁴⁴ in all other places is 6 qab, here it is 4. The seah here must be the Roman modius which is 16 sextarii, and the sextarius is the log since Mishnah Kelim 17:11 identifies the רביעית, the fourth part of the log, with the Roman quartarius, the fourth part of the sextarius. {In Babli Erubin 83a, a modius is estimated as the volume of 217 eggs. Current practice follows the Yerushalmi here.} The amount of pure ḥallah to be given from 96 eggs would be the volume of 4 eggs. But since the verse (Num. 15:21) reads: “From the beginning of your dough you shall give …” the dough made for ḥallah cannot be exactly the volume of four eggs since something profane must be left over.. One sixth of it are 16 eggs. If he makes a dough of six, it contains an impure egg⁴⁵. If he makes from four, nothing is left. What does he do? He makes a dough from five and takes four.

footnotes: ⁴³ This is standard; a qab ⁴⁴ This is nonstandard; the seah ⁴⁵ It is assumed that the flour was thoroughly mixed and homogenized. Since 6 = 96/16, a dough in the volume of 6 eggs contains exactly 1 egg of impure flour and is impure.

The statement of Ḥizqiah says, on condition that no impurity the volume of an egg touch the indentation⁴⁸ 1:10: “Loaves of sacrificial bread which have water in their גוּמוֹת, if one of them became impure by a crawling thing, they all are impure; for [loaves of] heave they make impure two stages and disqualify a third. If there is damp fluid between them, even for heave all is impure.” According to Maimonides, the indentations are depressions in the bread that still contain fluid. (It seems that for this reason, he wrote in the first version of his Commentary: “Indentations left on top of the bread at the time of cooking”, which in the last version he changed into: “at the time of baking.”) According to R. Simson, followed by R. Asher ben Ieḥiel, the baking sheet has depressions into which the dough is placed to obtain loaves of uniform size. The explanation of R. Simson seems to be required by the formulation in Tosephta Ṭahorot 1:6: “Loaves of sacrificial bread in their גוּמוֹת.”. A statement of Rebbi Joḥanan says, on condition that no impurity the volume of an egg touch the dough⁴⁹. Rebbi Yose said to Rebbi Jeremiah: Is it not reasonable that Ḥizqiah spoke to the past and Rebbi Joḥanan spoke to the future⁵⁰? He said, that is my opinion also. What is an indentation in the opinion of Rebbi Joḥanan⁵¹? Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun in the name of Rebbi Jonah: Explain it that he made a dough with one in seventeen and it came to a dough of two seah⁵² of pure flour (somewhat below 9%) and thoroughly mixed..

footnotes: ⁴⁸ The meaning of this word depends on the interpretation of Mishnah Ṭahorot ⁴⁹ The dough for the profane loaves. ⁵⁰ Ḥizqiah has two restrictions compared to R. Joḥanan. First, all that is in contact with any fluid he declares impure where R. Joḥanan strictly insists that only the volume of at least one egg may induce impurity. Second, in case of doubt he extends impurity retroactively to all food in contact with the questionable dough; R. Joḥanan rejects retroactivity. ⁵¹ Under which circumstances does he admit that the situation envisaged by Ḥizqiah leads to impurity? ⁵² This criticism is levelled at Ḥizqiah himself and at R. Abbahu’s interpretation of his position. The interpretation is rejected because it presupposes that pure and impure flour can be completely mixed, with a constant percentage of impure flour in the pure. Since presumably the two kinds are indistinguishable to the eye, mixing can not be assumed to be perfect. As a rough estimate, R. Joḥanan will admit R. Abbahu’s solution if not more than the volume of 17 eggs are mixed with 2 seah

Rebbi Abba bar Mamai asked: Does this not contradict Rebbi Yose bar Ḥanina? As Rebbi Yose bar Ḥanina said, a carcass⁵⁴ can become insignificant in slaughtered⁵⁵ [meat]; it becomes insignificant for touch, but for motion it cannot become insignificant⁵⁶. 11:27), and original impurity if they are carried (Lev. 11:28) even if never touched. If a piece of carcass meat is mixed up with pieces of slaughtered meat, probably it touched a piece belonging to the pure majority, but when all are carried, certainly the carcass piece also was carried. Since the impurity by touch is only probable, it can be disregarded under certain conditions. The impurity by carrying is certain and can never be disregarded. for slaughtered [meat] can never become carcass [meat]⁵⁷ 38b, Menaḥot 23a, Bekhorot 23a), as a general principle to R. Ḥanina, the father of R. Yose ben R. Ḥanina. The Babli concludes that slaughtered meat cannot become insignificant in carcass meat because it is possible for carcass meat to acquire the purity of slaughtered meat by rotting and becoming unusable as food while it is impossible for slaughtered meat to acquire the impurity of carcass meat.. Rebbi Yose said, there it is impossible for slaughtered [meat] to become carcass [meat], but here profane produce may become heave⁵⁸. Rebbi Ḥizqiah said, Rebbi Simon raised the question and Rebbi Abba bar Mamai explained it.

footnotes: ⁵⁴ A dead animal not ritually slaughtered. ⁵⁵ Slaughtered by cutting its throat; cf. Arabic سحط “to cut somebody’s throat.” The biblical Hebrew שחט has exactly the same meaning. ⁵⁶ Carcasses transmit impurity in the first degree by touch (Lev ⁵⁷ This argument is ascribed to Rav Ḥisda in the Babli (Beẓah ⁵⁸ While profane produce may never be used to give heave, if a layman ate heave, he has to replace it by an equal amount of profane food (plus a 25% fine) which acquires the sanctity of heave, cf. Mishnah 6:1.

It was stated⁵⁹: “A seah of heave that fell into less than a hundred makes it dema‘. One does not pay for it the amount and a fifth for another place nor from another place for this except by computation60.” This is for substances which cannot be mixed. But for substances which can be mixed one goes after the plurality. If most of it is heave, it is heave, if most is profane, it is profane⁶¹..

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

MISHNAH: One seah of impure heave which fell into 100 seah of pure heave, the House of Shammai forbid⁶² and the House of Hillel permit. The House of Hillel said to the House of Shammai: Since pure it is forbidden to outsiders and impure is forbidden to priests⁶³; just as pure [heave] can be lifted, so impure should be lifted. The House of Shammai answered them no, if simple profane produce which is permitted to outsiders lets pure [heave] be lifted, can one infer that heave, operating under stringent rules, may let the impure be lifted? After they conceded, Rebbi Eliezer said it should be lifted and burned but the Sages say, it was lost in its minority⁶⁴ may be eaten by a Cohen as pure heave.. One seah of heave which fell into one hundred⁷² of profane produce., was taken out, and fell into another place: Rebbi Eliezer says it creates dema‘ like certain heave but the Sages say, it creates heave only in proportion⁷³ one needs only 1 seah of profane produce.. One seah of heave which fell into less than one hundred and made it dema‘ and from the dema‘ fell into another place; Rebbi Eliezer says it creates dema‘ like certain heave but the Sages say, dema‘ creates heave only in proportion; sour agent makes sour only in proportion⁷⁴ 2:6). If from the dough anything was taken for another batch of dough, the latter becomes heave only if the proportional part of the original souring agent alone would have been enough to make the new dough rise. The three cases “in proportion” mentioned here are repeated in Mishnah Temurah 1:4., and drawn water invalidates a ritual bath only in proportion⁷⁵ contains a little less than the minimum 40 seah and three log of water are added from a vessel to bring it over the limit, the entire water becomes unfit for a ritual bath. The Babli (Temurah 12a–b) gives two explanations for the Mishnah here; there is no Yerushalmi on this part of the Mishnah. According to the final determination of the Babli, “in proportion” here has a meaning totally different from the two preceding cases, in that water from vessels invalidates only if the vessels are in proportion to the three log, i. e., if the water is added from at most three vessels, not from four or more. This is accepted by Maimonides in his Code (Miqwaot 5:1) with the concurrence of R. Abraham ben David (Tosaphot Temurah 12b, s. v. יוסף).. One seah of heave which fell into one hundred⁷² of profane produce., was taken out, and another one fell in: the latter is permitted until there will be more heave than profane⁸⁸ fell into the produce and was lifted. He gives no explanation. R. Joseph Caro explains that in the previous Mishnaiot, when the Sages assert that the heave counted in the remaining produce is computed proportionally, they assume that there was perfect mixing of heave and profane before the excess seah was lifted. But in that case, if ti, hi are the amounts of heave and profane in the mixture after i seah fell in and were lifted, hi*=* 100(100/101)i and hi** 50 for integer *i * 69. {The solution of 100(100/101)i = 50 is *i =69.66 …} Since, by definition, ti + hi=*100, by the explanation of R. Joseph Caro, the process can be repeated only 69 times and RR. Simson and Abraham ben David would agree.. A seah of heave fell into 100 [profane] and before he managed to lift it, another one fell in: that is forbidden but Rebbi Simeon permits it.

footnotes: ⁶² They forbid the entire heave as inpure (even if completely dry). ⁶³ Outsiders and Cohanim. ⁶⁴ Since everything is heave, all the 101 seah ⁷² 100 seah ⁷³ The amount of certain heave in what was lifted is only 1/101 of the lifted produce; in order to remove dema‘ ⁷⁴ Sour dough of heave which was added to dough to make it rise turns the entire dough into heave (Mishnah Orlah ⁷⁵ If a miqweh ⁷² 100 seah ⁸⁸ The process of lifting can be repeated until one would have more heave than profane produce if each time only profane matter would have been taken out and all heave stayed in. In that case, the mixture will be forbidden by biblical law as soon as there is not more profane than heave matter. The Tanna of the Mishnah assumes that it is impossible that in all these processes only heave be lifted; even in the worst case some profane grain will be lifted. Therefore, he does not have to say “permitted as long as the volume of heave is less than that of profane grain.” The grain is permitted unless the amount of heave which fell in is larger than half the original amount of profane grain. This is the position of R. Simson and R. Abraham ben David.Maimonides’s explanation is difficult to understand. He permits the mixture if at most 100 times 1 seah

HALAKHAH: Rebbi Yudan bar Pazi and Rebbi Ayvo bar Naggari⁶⁶ were sitting and saying: We did state “after they conceded”; who conceded to whom? The House of Shammai to the House of Hillel or the House of Hillel to the House of Shammai? They said, let us go out and study. The went out and heard Rebbi Ḥizqiah, Rebbi Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Jehudah bar Ḥanina: We never find the House of Shammai conceding to the House of Hillel except in this matter. Rebbi Jonah in the name of Rebbi Abbai⁶⁷ understood it from the following⁶⁸ 2:7. For most severe impurities it is not enough that the impure person immerse himself in water; after the immersion, as ṭevul yom “immersed during the day”, he is pure only for profane food. For heave, and certainly for sacrifices, he becomes pure only at sundown. If in the period between his immersion and sundown he touches heave, it becomes unusable; this is classified as “impure in the third degree”. If the ṭevul yom touches a stream of heave fluid (wine or oil) poured from one vessel to the other, in the opinion of the Sadducees the entire fluid in both vessels becomes unusable (MMT lines 55–58). In rabbinic tradition, only the part touched by the ṭevul yom becomes unusable; the fluid cannot be used because unusable heave is contained in it, but it can be repaired by the usual lifting of one out of 101.: “If someone pours from vessel to vessel and a ṭevul yom touches it, it should be lifted by 101.” If you say that the House of Hillel conceded to the House of Shammai that it cannot be lifted, who is the Tanna here, neither the House of Shammai nor the House of Hillel! Rebbi Ḥanina the son of Rebbi Hillel said, we might say that the House of Hillel stated that before they conceded. Rebbi Yose said, the Mishnah said so: “After they conceded, Rebbi Eliezer said it should be lifted and burned”, and is Rebbi Eliezer not a follower of Shammai? Rebbi Ḥinena said, the Mishnah said so, after they conceded one to another, the House of Shammai recused themselves and the others⁶⁹ teach us. Rebbi Abin says, there is another answer⁷⁰, following what Rebbi Hoshaia stated: Since pure [heave], which for outsiders is forbidden as deadly sin, can be lifted, certainly also impure [heave] which is [prohibited] as positive commandment⁷¹ for Cohanim.

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

Rebbi Joḥanan said, a seah of heave which fell into 100 of profane produce, anything will make it become insignificant⁷⁷ was lifted after a seah of heave fell into 100 profane seah, the new seah is only heave by rabbinic decree superimposed on a rabbinic obligation; it is heave in name only and can be made insignificant in the slightest amount of additional profane produce. Quoted in this sense in Halakhah 9:6.. Our Mishnah disagrees with Rebbi Joḥanan: “It creates heave only in proportion⁷⁸”. Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, Rebbi Joḥanan stated only: “It does not create any dema‘.⁷⁹” But⁸⁰ they said only when there was more heave than profane, and he when there was more profane than the proportion of heave so that it should become insignificant in the plurality. Rebbi Eleazar said, only⁸¹ that fell into dema‘ to be added to the profane part of the dema‘ to provide the necessary 100÷1 ratio? if it fell into a dema‘. In the opinion of Rebbi Eleazar, are the lower and upper profane produce united to lift? Rebbi Eleazar wants to say that the lower profane produce becomes inert⁸², irrespective of the amount of profane produce in the dema‘ into which it fell. This is the majority position in Tosephta 6:5, opposed by R. Simeon and his son..

footnotes: ⁷⁷ If one seah ⁷⁸ According to the Mishnah, the amount into which if fell must still be 100/101 times the amount lifted. ⁷⁹ He had another version of the Mishnah before him. ⁸⁰ The Sages of the Mishnah speak of the case that the amount lifted was taken from the place the heave fell in, when one may assume that more genuine heave than profane grain was lifted. Rebbi Joḥanan speaks of the case when everything was well mixed; in Halakhah 9:6 this is expressed by: “he mills [the grain] and thereby permits it.” ⁸¹ The Mishnah which relates the disagreement of R. Eliezer and the Sages. Do the Sages permit the profane part of the seah ⁸² The position tentatively ascribed to R. Eleazar in the previous sentence is that of R. Joḥanan. R. Eleazar is restrictive and requires the lifted heave to be neutralized on its own when it fell into dema‘

Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina said, only if it fell into five places, but if it fell into one place, even Rebbi Eliezer agrees. Rebbi Joḥanan said, even if all fell into one place, there is disagreement⁸³ grain. R. Joḥanan disagrees and holds that dema‘ follows the rules of heave as far as consumption is concerned and, therefore, the lifted grain should be considered all heave.. Ḥilfai said on that of Rebbi Eliezer, the lower profane produce becomes inert⁸⁴. But Rebbi Eleazar also said, the lower profane produce becomes inert. What is the difference between Rebbi Eliezer and the rabbis⁸⁵? Is one more restrictive with a lifted seah out of 100⁸⁶ or is one more lenient, following what Rebbi Joḥanan said, if a seah of heave fell into 100 of profane produce, anything will make it insignificant⁸⁷?

footnotes: ⁸³ In the opinion of R. Yose ben Ḥanina, R. Eliezer agrees in principle with the Sages that the heave in the lifted grain should be counted only in proportion but he thinks that if heave fell in several separate batches each batch needs separate 100-fold profane grain lifting whereas the Sages think that the heave is to be considered as evenly distributed through the entire dema‘ ⁸⁴ R. Eliezer agrees in principle with the Sages that the heave in the lifted grain should be counted only in proportion but he holds that the heave part of the lifted grain is genuine heave with all its restrictions; the rest is just ballast and disregarded. ⁸⁵ If one combines Ḥilfai’s interpretation of R. Eliezer and R. Eleazar’s interpretation of the Sages, one fails to see the difference between them. ⁸⁶ R. Eliezer holds that the heave which fell is the heave which was lifted (cf. Note 27); he can state this only if he considers the remainder of the grain as inert. ⁸⁷ For the Sages, this is also a position accepted by R. Eleazar, cf. Note 82. One sees that there is a big difference between R. Eliezer and the Sages, even if R. Eleazar accepts Ḥilfai’s argument.

It was stated: If the heave became a plurality it is as if he had added intentionally⁸⁹. But did we not state⁹⁰ 7:2. The expression “he added” shows that a religious bath (miqweh) which contains the required amount (40 seah) of natural water, additional water may intentionally be added from vessels without impairing the validity of the bath.: “If it contained 40 seah, he added a seah and removed a seah, it is in order.” How far? Rebbi Assi in the name of Rebbi Mana bar Tanḥum⁹¹, Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, up to the larger part of the miqweh⁹² 82b), it is made clear that in a miqweh of exactly 40 seah, exactly 20 seah can be added and removed. This also seems to be the meaning here.. And here you say so? There it was a plurality, you add to it and it is in order. But here, every single seah needs 100 seah. Rebbi Yose said, this means that anything becoming insignificant by biblical law is activated by its own kind to become forbidden⁹³ in a miqweh permit the addition of water from a vessel, once the water enters the miqweh its quality as poured from a vessel becomes insignificant and it becomes like natural (spring or rain) water. But if the added and removed quantities become more than 20 seah, the miqweh becomes forbidden. This proves that the insignificance of the invalid water is conditional. The principle stated here is accepted in both Talmudim..

footnotes: ⁸⁹ It cannot be lifted even in very large amount of profane produce, as stated in Mishnah 9. If so much heave can fall into profane food it shows that the negligence borders on intentional misconduct. ⁹⁰ Mishnah Miqwaot ⁹¹ An Amora in Tyre between the second and third generation of Galilean authorities. ⁹² In the Babli (Yebamot ⁹³ Since 40 seah

Rebbi Simeon says, knowledge of it sanctifies; but the rabbis say, its lifting sanctifies it⁹³ in a miqweh permit the addition of water from a vessel, once the water enters the miqweh its quality as poured from a vessel becomes insignificant and it becomes like natural (spring or rain) water. But if the added and removed quantities become more than 20 seah, the miqweh becomes forbidden. This proves that the insignificance of the invalid water is conditional. The principle stated here is accepted in both Talmudim..

footnotes: ⁹³ Since 40 seah

It was stated: One seah of heave⁹⁴ that fell into one hundred, he says to the Cohen, am I not obligated to you for the value of firewood? Take the value of the firewood⁹⁵, since then the heave would have to be lifted and eaten dry, as stated before.) Since impure heave is only usable as fuel, it may be sold to a Cohen as fuel.! But he answers him, does a seah of heave which fell into less than 100 not make the entire heave dema‘? Does firewood create dema‘? Does he not in the end have to give it to another Cohen⁹⁶. who will pay him for the value of the fuel? How is that? He gives him the value of the fuel and they should split the rest⁹⁷, which the owner may give to any Cohen of his choice for payment of its value as fuel.. A person spilled barley into wheat. The case came before Rebbi Jehudah bar Shalom⁹⁸ who said, let him pay the price of barley; they should split the rest⁹⁹ since the damage is visible. If A hurts B by pouring some of his barley into B’s wheat, A has to pay B the difference between the going rates for wheat and barley for B’s grain. If later somehow the rate for barley should rise, the profit has to be split between them since A and B are now joint owners of the grain..

footnotes: ⁹⁴ This must be impure heave, as shown by the sequel. ⁹⁵ It seems, as noted by R. Moses Margalit, that the impure heave was the property of a Cohen when it accidentally fell into less than 100 units heave. (It cannot be exactly 100 units as in the baraita ⁹⁶ Since nothing else can be done with impure dema‘ ⁹⁷ The rest over and above the one seah ⁹⁸ An Amora of the fifth generation, mostly quoted in aggadic matters. ⁹⁹ Here the situation is different; this really belongs to tractate Baba Qamma

MISHNAH: A seah of heave which fell into 100, if he milled it and it lost volume, in proportion to what the profane lost, the heave lost, and it is permitted¹⁰⁰ may be lifted and the rest is permitted. In this case, differences in quality between heave and profane grain are disregarded.. A seah of heave which fell into less than 100, if he milled it and it increased in volume, in proportion to the increase of the profane is the increase of heave, and it is forbidden. If it is known that the profane wheat was of better quality¹⁰¹ than the heave, it might be permitted. If a seah of heave fell into less than 100 and more profane fell into it later, if it was in error, it is permitted, if intentional, it is forbidden¹⁰².

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

HALAKHAH: ¹⁰³ 6:10 (fol. 55c), part of it in Orlah 1:4 (fol. 61b). Not only if the heave lost volume but even if only the profane grain lost but the heave remains as it was, he mills and permits. It was stated: “The waste of heave does not combine with heave to forbid the profane, but the waste of profane combines with the profane to lift the heave¹⁰⁴.” Rebbi Vivian asked: Does the waste of heave combine with profane to lift the heave? Since Rav Huna said, the husks of what is forbidden combine to permit¹⁰⁵, fruits in the first three years of a tree’s life, which are forbidden for any use and, if they disappear among other fruits, in general make everything forbidden for any use unless the permitted part are 200 times more than the forbidden. Rab Huna instructs to count in the 200 all husks, both from profane as from orlah fruit., that means waste of heave combines with profane to lift the heave¹⁰⁶. Rav Huna said, the shells of what is forbidden lift what is permitted. A seah of heave which fell into 100, one does not remove zewanin¹⁰⁷ 1:1, Note 1. in it, into less than 100, one does remove the zewanin in it. Similarly, if one log of clear wine¹⁰⁸ fell into 100 log of cloudy wine, one would not remove the latter’s dregs; if one log of cloudy wine fell into 100 log of clear wine, one would remove the former’s dregs.

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

It was stated: “One may mill from the start to permit¹⁰⁹ and after milling, following the rule of Note 106, it would be possible to lift the heave, one tells the owner to go ahead and mill even though the Mishnah is formulated only as a statement after the fact, if the owner milled it and now comes to ask a rabbinic authority on how to proceed..” The baraita is Rebbi Yose’s, since “Rebbi Yose said, one may collect to lift one in two hundred”¹¹⁰ 1:6. Since this is a minority opinion, it cannot be practice to be followed.. Rebbi Zeїra said¹¹¹ 1:5, the statement is more complete: “R. Zeїra said, it is the opinion of everybody since Cohanim are used to mill dema‘ in their houses.” Since this is a required process, one cannot object to its use., Cohanim are used to mill dema‘ in their houses. What is the difference between them? Kilaim in a vineyard. In the opinion of Rebbi Yose, one mills to permit; in the opinion of the rabbis, one may not mill to permit.

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

Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: All forbidden things¹¹², if one added against them in error, it is permitted, intentionally it is forbidden. Is that not the Mishnah: “if it was in error, it is permitted, if intentional, it is forbidden”? The Mishnah is about heave, he comes to tell you about all other things.

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

Rebbi Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Jonathan: Just as one has a duty to instruct about actions that should be done, so one has a duty to instruct about actions that should not be done. Rebbi Eleazar said, just as it is forbidden to declare the impure as pure, so it is forbidden to declare the pure as impure. Rebbi Abba bar Jacob said in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: If a practical case comes before you and you do not know whether to suspend or to burn¹¹³, one must leave it to rot until it is no longer food and, therefore, pure according to all standards., always try to burn rather than to suspend since there is nothing in the Torah more distinguished than burned bulls and burned rams, and they are burned¹¹⁴. 10:18 it is established as a general rule that any sacrifice whose blood was brought into the sanctuary, to be sprinkled either on the golden altar or before the ark, must be completely burned.. Rebbi Yose wondered, is it possible to infer from something whose commandment is in this for something whose commandment is not so¹¹⁵?

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