משנה: הָעוֹשֶׂה עִיסָּה מִן הַחִיטִּים וּמִן הָאוֹרֶז אִם יֵשׁ בָּהּ טַעַם דָּגָן חַייֶבֶת וְיוֹצֵא בָהּ אָדָם יְדֵי חוֹבָתוֹ בַפֶּסַח. וְאִם אֵין בָּהּ טַעַם דָּגָן אֵינָהּ חַייֶבֶת בַּחַלָּה וְאֵין אָדָם יוֹצֵא בָהּ יְדֵי חוֹבָתוֹ בַפֶּסַח. הַנּוֹטֵל שְׂאוֹר מֵעִיסָּה שֶׁלֹּא הוּרְמָה חַלָּתָהּ וְנוֹתֵן לְתוֹךְ עִיסָּה שֶׁהוּרְמָה חַלָּתָהּ אִם יֵשׁ לוֹ פַרְנָסָה מִמָּקוֹם אַחֵר מוֹצִיא לְפִי חֶשְׁבּוֹן וְאִם לָאו מוֹצִיא חַלָּה אַחַת עַל הַכֹּל. כְּיוֹצֵא בוֹ זֵיתִי מַסִּיק שֶׁנִּתְעָֽרְבוּ עִם זֵיתֵי נִיקּוּף. עִינְּבֵי בָצִיר עִם עִינְּבֵי עוֹלֵלוֹת אִם יֵשׁ לוֹ פַרְנָסָה מִמָּקוֹם אַחֵר מוֹצִיא לְפִי חֶשְׁבּוֹן. וְאִם לָאו מוֹצִיא תְרוּמָה וּתְרוּמַת מַעֲשֵׂר לַכֹּל וּשְׁאָר מַעֲשֵׂר וּמַעֲשֵׂר שֵׁינִי לְפִי חֶשְׁבּוֹן. הַנּוֹטֵל שְׂאוֹר מֵעִיסַּת חִיטִּים וְנוֹתֵן לְתוֹךְ עִיסַּת הָאוֹרֶז אִם יֵשׁ בָּהּ טַעַם דָּגָן חַייֶבֶת בַּחַלָּה וְאִם לָאו פְּטוּרָה מִן הַחַלָּה. וְאִם כֵּן לָמָּה אָֽמְרוּ הַטֵּבֵל אָסוּר כָּל־שֶׁהוּא מִין בְּמִינוֹ. וְשֶׁלֹּא בְּמִינוֹ בְּנוֹתֵן טַעַם. MISHNAH: If somebody makes dough from wheat and rice, if it has the taste of flour it is subject to ḥallah and a person may satisfy his Passover obligation with it. If it does not have the taste of flour it is not subject to ḥallah and a person may not satisfy his Passover obligation with it.
If somebody takes sourdough from a dough from which no ḥallah was taken and adds it to dough from which ḥallah was taken91This is now ṭevel for ḥallah but most of it is exempt from ḥallah., if he can provide for it from another place92From a third dough which is obligated for ḥallah. Since ḥallah as a heave must be given from what is earmarked, the Tosephta (2:2) requires that one make a new dough and put it in the same place as the problematic ṭevel dough to earmark it and take there the full ḥallah for the new dough and a proportionate amount for the offending sourdough. Maimonides in his Commentary follows the Tosephta but in his Code (Bikkurim 7:11) he requires simply that the second dough be subject to ḥallah. The latter is the reasonable interpretation of the Mishnah. he should take in proportion; otherwise he should take ḥallah for everything93He must take ḥallah from the ṭevel dough in the required amount, 1/24 of the entire dough. Even though in general it is forbidden to give heave from what already is freed from the obligation, it is stated in the next Mishnah that the dough in question is only rabbinically ṭevel; for biblical standards the sourdough has disappeared in the dough whose obligation was already satisfied. Therefore, the ṭevel extended to the entire dough is rabbinic in character and the rabbinic obligation of ḥallah overrides the, in this case rabbinic, requirement to give from obligated dough.. Similarly, if harvested olives were mixed with plucked olives94Olives are harvested by shaking the trees and are subject to heave and tithes; plucked olives are collected by the poor after the harvest and are exempt. Similarly, harvested grapes are obligated and gleanings exempt., or harvested grapes with gleanings, if he can provide for it from another place he should take in proportion; otherwise he should take heave and heave of the tithe for everything95Including the poor people’s part since not giving heaves is a deadly sin and it is not clear whether what he takes is actully obligated or free. but the remainder of tithe and Second Tithe in proportion96Since the exempt olives or grapes were mixed with the farmer’s, it is assumed that the farmer bought them from the poor. If not, he has to buy them now so he may take out the tithe. Technically, the farmer has to take full tithe in order to give heave of the tithe but then he may retain the part attributable to the exempt fruits for himself..
If somebody takes sourdough from grain dough and adds it to a rice dough, if it imparts the taste of grain it is subject to ḥallah, otherwise it is exempt from ḥallah. Then why did they say97This is a rabbinic prohibition; by biblical standards ṭevel disappears in a majority of permitted food. If the prohibition were biblical, ṭevel sour dough in rice cake would have to be treated according to the previous Mishnah. ṭevel is forbidden in the most minute amount? In its own kind; not in its own kind if it can be tasted.
הלכה: מַתְנִיתָא כִּדְרַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל דְרַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל אוֹמֵר לְעוֹלָם אֵינָהּ חַייֶבֶת עַד שֶׁיְּהֵא בָהּ דָּגָן כְּשִׁיעוּר. רִבִּי יַעֲקֹב בַּר אִידִי בְשֵׁם רִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן לָקִישׁ הֲלָכָה כְּרַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל. אָמַר רִבִּי הִילָא בֵּין כְּרַבָּנִין דְּהָכָא בֵּין כְּרַבָּנִין דְּתַמָּן אָֽמְרִין עַד שֶׁיְּהֵא רוּבָּהּ דָּגָן וְטַעֲמָהּ דָּגָן. רַב הוּנָא אָמַר טַעֲמָהּ דָּגָן אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁאֵין רוּבָּהּ דָּגָן. מַתְנִיתָא פְלִיגָא עַל רַב הוּנָא עִירֵב בָּהּ שְׁאָר הַמִּינִין עַד שֶׁיְּהֵא בָּהּ רוּבָּהּ דָּגָן וְטַעֲמָהּ דָּגָן. פָּתַר לָהּ בְּמִינִים אֲחֵרִים. מַתְנִיתָא פְלִיגָא עַל רִבִּי הִילָא הַנּוֹטֵל שְׂאוֹר מֵעִיסַּת חִיטִּין וְנוֹתְנָהּ לְתוֹךְ עִיסַּת הָאוֹרֶז אִם יֵשׁ בָּהּ טַעַם דָּגָן חַייֶבֶת בַּחַלָּה וְאִם לָאו פְּטוּרָה. בְּגִין נִתְנוּ דְבַתְרָהּ הַטֵּבֵל אָסוּר כָּל־שֶׁהוּא מִין בְּמִינוֹ. שֶׁלֹּא בְּמִינוֹ בְּנוֹתֵן טַעַם. HALAKHAH: The Mishnah follows Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel since85Tosephta 2:1. Since, in general, “imparting taste” needs only minute quantities (as discussed in Terumot 10), it is stated here that in the Mishnah a substantial amount is needed and “having the taste” does not mean “it tastes like rice cake but an admixture of wheat is noticeable” but “it actually tastes like wheat bread.” Since Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel is the only author reported to have quantified this statement, we have to follow him. “Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel says it is never obligated unless it contain the measure of grain.” Rebbi Jacob bar Idi in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: Practice follows Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel. Rebbi Hila said, both following the rabbis here or the rabbis there, they say not unless the greater part be grain and the taste that of grain. Rav Huna said, the taste of grain even if the greater part is not grain. A baraita disagrees with Rav Huna: If he mixed other kinds in, not unless the greater part be grain and the taste that of grain. He explains it for other kinds86Other than rice and millet which substitute for grain.. A Mishnah87Mishnah 3:8. disagrees with Rebbi Hila: “If somebody takes sourdough from grain dough and adds it to a rice dough, if it imparts the taste of grain88Sourdough is used in small quantities. it is subject to ḥallah, otherwise it is exempt.” Because it was stated after that89The problem addressed is that of active sourdough taken from dough subject to ḥallah but of which ḥallah was not yet taken. That sourdough is ṭevel for ḥallah and subject to more restrictive rules. In this case, “can be tasted” means the minute amounts discussed in Terumot 10, Halakhot 7–10; the quote is irrelevant for the discussion here.: “Ṭevel is forbidden in the most minute amount in its own kind. Not in its own kind if it can be tasted.”
רִבִּי יוֹסֵי הֲוָה מְסַמֵּךְ לְרִבִּי זְעִירָא שָׁמַע קָלֵיהּ דְּרִבִּי הִילָא יְתִיב מַתְנֵי רִבִּי חִייָה בְשֵׁם רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָמַר טַעֲמָהּ דָּגָן אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁאֵין רוּבָּהּ דָּגָן. רִבִּי יָסָא בְשֵׁם רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן עַד שֶׁיְּהֵא רוּבָּהּ דָּגָן וְטַעֲמָהּ דָּגָן. אָמַר מִחְלְפָה הִיא בְיָדֵיהּ סֵימָן הֲוָה לָן רִבִּי יוֹסֵי כְּרַב הוּנָא. Rebbi Yose was supporting Rebbi Zeïra. He heard the voice of Rebbi Hila who was sitting and stating: Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: the taste of grain even if the greater part is not grain; Rebbi Assi in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: The greater part grain and the taste that of grain. He said, he got it wrong: we had a note that Rebbi Assi teaches like Rav Huna.
רִבִּי בּוּן בַּר חִייָה בָּעֵא קוֹמֵי רִבִּי זְעִירָא מִנְחָה שֶׁנִּתְעָֽרְבָה בְחוּלִין קוֹמֵץ וּמַתִּיר אֶת הַשִּׁיְּרִיים לָאֲכִילָה. קוֹרֵא אֲנִי עָלֶיהָ וְהַנּוֹתֶרֶת מִן הַמִּנְחָה לְאַהֲרֹן וּלְבָנָיו. אָמַר לֵיהּ וְכִי טֵבֵל שֶׁנִּתְעָרֵב בְּחוּלִין קוֹרֵא אֲנִי עָלָיו וּנְתַתֶּם מִמֶּנּוּ אֶת תְּרוּמַת ײ֨ לְאַהֲרֹן הַכֹּהֵן. אָמַר לֵיהּ וְכֵן אָֽמְרִית לָךְ שֶׁאֵינוֹ מוֹצִיא מִמֶּנּוּ עָלָיו וְלֹא מִמֶּנּוּ לְמָקוֹם אַחֵר. אִין תַּפְשִׁיטָא לָךְ שֶׁאֵינוֹ מוֹצִיא מִמֶּנּוּ עַל מָקוֹם אַחֵר אֲפִילוּ מִמֶּנּוּ עָלָיו אֵינוֹ מוֹצִיא. מַתְנִיתָא אָֽמְרָה שֶׁהוּא מוֹצִיא מִמֶּנּוּ עָלָיו דְּתַנִּינָן וְאִם לָאו מוֹצִיא חַלָּה אַחַת עַל הַכֹּל. Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya100In the Rome ms. “R. Yose ben Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya”; this is unlikely to be correct. asked before Rebbi Zeïra: If a cereal offering was mixed with profane flour, may [the Cohen] take a fistful and permit the remainder to be eaten101On the face of it, it would seem that the question does not even start since if the two kinds of flour are mixed it seems impossible to take out a fistful of the offering and burn it on the altar since it is forbidden to burn profane material on the altar. On the other hand, the remainder may be eaten only after the fistful was brought to the altar (Lev. 6:9). Even the explanation by R. H. Kanievski, that at some place the original offering is still recognizable, does not work since the fistful may be taken only out of the Temple vessel in which the offering was dedicated. One must conclude that the question of practical use is considered a technicality which can be left to the Sages at the time of the Messiah.
Since flour offerings before the lifting of the fistful are forbidden to everybody, Cohen and layman, it is reasonable to compare the laws of these offerings to those of ṭevel,? Do I read for this (Lev. 2:3): “The remainder of the offering is for Aaron and his sons?” He said to him: If ṭevel was mixed with profane, do I read (Num. 18:28) “you shall give from it the Eternal’s heave to Aaron the Cohen”102Mishnah 7 states clearly that in absence of other produce, the ṭevel mixed with profane flour can be put in order by taking the heave from itself.? He answered him, did I say to you that he cannot take from itself for itself and not from it for another place? If it is clear to you that he cannot take from it for another place103Nobody accepts that ṭevel mixed with profane can be used to put certain ṭevel in order! then even from itself for itself he should not be able to take! The Mishnah said that he can take from itself for itself as we have stated: “Otherwise he should take ḥallah for everything”.
אָֽמְרִין לֵית הָדָא דְּרִבִּי זְעִירָה תְּתִיבָה עַל רִבִּי בּוּן בַּר חִייָה. מַה בֵין הַמּוֹצִיא מִמֶּנּוּ עָלָיו מָה בֵין הַמּוֹצִיא מִמֶּנּוּ לְמָקוֹם אַחֵר. בְּשָׁעָה שֶׁהוּא מוֹצִיא מִמֶּנּוּ עָלָיו הוֹאִיל וְאֵין אוֹתוֹ הַטֵּבֵל רָאוּי לְהֵיעָשׂוֹת תְּרוּמָה כְּיוֹצֵא בוֹ חוּלִין שֶׁבּוֹ מְבַטְּלִין אוֹתוֹ. בְּשָׁעָה שֶׁהוּא מוֹצִיא מִמֶּנּוּ לְמָקוֹם אַחֵר הוֹאִיל וְאוֹתוֹ הַטֵּבֵל רָאוּי לְהֵיעָשׂוֹת חוּלִין כְּיוֹצֵא בוֹ לֹא בָטֵל. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹסֵי הָדָא אָֽמְרָה טֵבֵל שֶׁנִּתְעָֽרְבָה בִּתְרוּמָה הוֹאִיל וְאוֹתוֹ הַטֵּבֵל רָאוּי לְהֵיעָשׂוֹת כִּתְרוּמָה כְּיוֹצֵא בוֹ לֹא בָטֵל. They said, Rebbi Zeïra’s is no answer to Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya’s question. What is the difference between him who takes from itself for itself and him who takes from it for another place? When he takes from itself for itself, since this ṭevel is not qualified to become heave for anything similar, the profane admixture makes it disappear104As explained in the Mishnah, if the amount of ṭevel in the profane is small, it has disappeared by biblical standards and it is not legally ṭevel. In this case, ṭevel and profane, even if consisting of similar material, are considered two distinct kinds and the rules of annulment apply. The requirement to give heave from the entire heap is purely rabbinical; any reference to a biblical source is inappropriate.. When he takes from it for another place since this ṭevel is qualified to become profane for something similar, it cannot disappear105In that case, the ṭevel is genuine; part of it is destined to become heave. If a minute amount of it fell into heave, it would fall into its own kind and could not disappear.
In the Genizah fragment, the cases have been telescoped into one: בְּשָׁעָה שֶׁהוּא מוֹצִיא מִמֶּנּוּ עָלָיו הוֹאִיל וְאוֹתוֹ הַטֵּבֵל רָאוּי לְהֵעָשׂוֹת חוּלִין כְּיוֹצֵא בוֹ לֹא בָטַל.. The scribe left out from להעשות to להעשות.. Rebbi Yose said, that means that if ṭevel was mixed with heave, since this ṭevel is qualified to become heave for something similar, it cannot disappear106This is the inverse case, in which a minute amount of heave fell into ṭevel. Since part of ṭevel is going to be heave, this also is falling into its own kind and no part of it can be disregarded..
וְלֵית הָדָא דְּרִבִּי בּוּן בַּר חִייָה תְּתִיבָה עַל דְּרִבִּי זְעִירָא. מָה נַפְשָׁךְ אִם שֶׁלְּמַעֲלָן בָּטֵל אַף שֶׁלְּמַטָּן בָּטֵל. אִם שֶׁלְּמַטָּן לֹא בָטֵל אַף שֶׁלְּמַעֲלָן לֹא בָטֵל שֶׁכְּבָר קִידֵּשׁ. But Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya’s is no answer to Rebbi Zeïra108The case introduced by R. Abun bar Ḥiyya must be that profane flour fell onto a flour offering that was in a Temple vessel. Flour dedicated for an offering but not yet placed in a Temple vessel is not yet a flour offering. Since flour is not fluid, we have to assume that the offering is at the bottom and the flour on top with an unrecognizable boundary in between. If the upper flour is assimilated to the lower then there is no offering since the upper flour was not dedicated. If the lower part remains an offering then the upper becomes suspended unusable since it was sanctified by the Temple vessel but is not an offering because it is not dedicated. Therefore, the entire flour is invalid for any use.. As you take it, if the upper disappears then the lower has disappeared. If the lower did not disappear, neither did the upper since it was already sanctified.
תַּנֵּי וְאִם לָאו מֵבִיא אַרְבַּע רוֹבָעִין וּמַשִּׁיךְ. רִבִּי יוֹנָה בְשֵׁם רִבִּי זְעִירָא זֹאת אוֹמֶרֶת רוֹבַע שְׂאוֹר שֶׁנִּטְבַּל בִּמְקוֹמוֹ טוֹבֵל אַרְבָּעַת רוֹבָעִין בְּמָקוֹם אַחֵר. It was stated110This refers to the first case in the Mishnah, ṭevel sour dough in a dough which already is fully profane. A similar statement is in Tosephta 2:2: “If somebody takes sourdough from a dough from which ḥallah was not taken, he brings flour from another place and adds to obtain four quarters to make it obligated in proportion.” In the formulation of the Halakhah, the ṭevel dough is made from exactly one quarter. Therefore, if one makes a new dough of exactly one qab which is made to “bite” the profane dough, one has a total of 5 quarters of obligation and may take only ḥallah of the obligated, not from the already exempt. This means in general that if the amount of sour dough is x, the amount needed to avoid giving ḥallah for everything is (5 quarters - x). In this way, neither does one take ḥallah from another place nor does one have to take ḥallah for everything.: Otherwise, he brings four quarters and makes it bite. Rebbi Jonah in the name of Rebbi Zeïra: This means that one quarter of sour dough which became ṭevel at its place makes four other quarters ṭevel.
הָדָא אָֽמְרָה שֶׁהַנָּשׁוּךְ תּוֹרָה. אָמַר רִבִּי אִימִּי אִיתְפַּלְּגוֹן רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן וְרִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן לָקִישׁ. רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָמַר הַנָּשׁוּךְ תּוֹרָה. רִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן לָקִישׁ אָמַר אֵין הַנָּשׁוּךְ תּוֹרָה. רִבִּי חִייָה בַּר בָּא מַחֲלִיף שְׁמוּעָתָא. בָּעוּן קוֹמֵי רִבִּי יוֹסֵי אַתְּ מָה שְׁמָעַת מִן רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן. אָמַר לוֹן אֲנָא לֹא שְׁמָעִית כְּלוּם. אֶלָּא נְפָרֵשׁ מִילֵּיהוֹן דְּרַבָּנִין מִן מִלֵּיהוֹן. דְּתַמָּן תַּנִּינָן הַמְּכַנֵּיס חַלּוֹת עָל מְנָת לְהַפְרִישׁ וְנָֽשְׁכוּ בֵּית שַׁמַּי אוֹמֵר חִיבּוּר בִּטְבוּל יוֹם וּבֵית הִלֵּל אוֹמֵר אֵינוֹ חִיבּוּר. אָמַר רִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן לָקִישׁ מִמָּה דְתַנִּינָן אֵינוֹ חִיבּוּר. הָדָא אָֽמְרָה שֶׁאֵין חַייָבִין עָלָיו בְּשֵׁם טָמֵא אוֹכֵל טָהוֹר. אָמַר לוֹ רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן שַׁנְייָא הִיא בִּטְבוּל יוֹם דִּכְתִיב בֵּיהּ טָהוֹר וְטָמֵא טָהוֹר לְחוּלִין מִבְּעוֹד יוֹם וְלִתְרוּמָה מִשֶּׁתֶּחְשָׁךְ. הֲוֵי רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן דּוּ אָמַר דָּבָר שֶׁאֵינוֹ חִבּוּר בִּטְבוּל יוֹם תּוֹרָה הוּא. דּוּ אָמַר הַנָּשׁוּךְ תּוֹרָה. וְרִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן לָקִישׁ דּוּ אָמַר אֵינָהּ תּוֹרָה דְּהוּא אָמַר אֵין הַנָּשׁוּךְ תּוֹרָה. וְהָתַנִּינָן וְאִם לָאו מֵבִיא אַרְבַּע רוֹבָעִין וּמַשִּׁיךְ. אָמַר רַב הוֹשַׁעְיָה תִּיפְתָּר שֶׁבָּא מֵעִיסַּת הַנָּשׁוּךְ. This means that biting is biblical113The baraita (or Tosephta) quoted in the previous paragraph, that a dough prepared from 4 quarters if it bites a dough with 1 quarter of ṭevel produces dough obligated for ḥallah.. Rebbi Immi said, Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish differ. Rebbi Joḥanan said, biting is biblical. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, biting is not biblical114He has to declare all of Mishnaiot 7–8 as purely rabbinical.. Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba switches the traditions115R. Joḥanan says not biblical, R. Simeon ben Laqish says biblical.. They asked before Rebbi Yose, what did you hear about Rebbi Joḥanan? He said, I did not hear anything but let us explain the words of the rabbis from their own words, as we have stated there116Mishnah Ṭevul Yom 1:1. The loaves cannot be baked yet; the Tanna must hold that ṭevel does not have the status of profane food. The Ṭevul Yom(Chapter 2, Note 37, Terumot 5, Note 68) is almost pure; his touch disables heave but has no influence on profane food. According to the House of Hillel, the touch of a Ṭevul Yom disables the ḥallah-heave in one loaf only.: “If somebody collects loaves in order to separate [ḥallah] and they bit, the House of Shammai say it is a connection for a ṭevul yom but the House of Hillel say it is not a connection.” Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, since we stated it is no connection, that means that nobody can become guilty under the heading “impure person eating pure [food]”117This refers to Lev. 22:7. The Ṭevul Yom may eat of the loaves even before sundown (after ḥallah was taken). This is obvious for those who hold that ṭevel is like profane in matters of contamination with impurity.
The commentators who did not have the Genizah text before them either omitted the words אוכל טהור with R. S. Cirillo’s ms. or switched טמא אוכל טהור into טהור אוכל טמא. In any case, the implication is that while the House of Hillel accept biting as a conduit for impurities other than that of the Ṭevul Yom, these derivative impurities can never be biblical.. Rebbi Joḥanan said to him, that is different for a ṭevul yom because for him is written both pure and impure118Lev. 22:6–7.; pure for profane food during daytime hours and for heave after dark. That identifies Rebbi Joḥanan as the one who said that what is not a connection for the ṭevul yom is biblical119Since the exceptional status of the Ṭevul Yom is based on biblical verses, for all other forms of impurity the rules of the Ṭevul Yom do not apply; biting for them is a conduit of impurity.. Therefore, he says biting is biblical. And Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish is he who says it is not biblical since he says biting is not biblical. But did we not state: “Otherwise, he brings four quarters and makes it bite?” Rebbi Hoshaia said, explain that it was part of the dough which was bitten120If the sour dough only became ṭevel because of another dough biting the one it was taken from, the ṭevel is only rabbinical and nothing can be inferred about the biblical status of biting (R. Eliahu Fulda)..
רִבִּי זְעִירָה בָּעֵי אוֹ מַה פְלִיגִין רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן וְרִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן לָקִישׁ בְּנָשׁוּךְ מֵאֵילָיו. אֲבָל אִם הִשִּׁיכוֹ בְיָדוֹ כָּל־עַמָּא מוֹדֵיי שֶׁהַנָּשׁוּךְ תּוֹרָה. אֲפִילוּ תֵימַר הִשִּׁיכוֹ בְיָדוֹ הִיא מַחֲלוֹקֶת נֹאמַר רִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן לָקִישׁ כְּדַעְתֵּיהּ. דְּאָמַר רִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן לָקִישׁ בְּשֵׁם חִזְקִיָּה טֵבֵל בָּטֵל בְּרוֹב. רִבִּי יוֹסֵי בֵּירִבִּי נְהוֹרַאי אָמַר טֵבֵל בָּטֵל בְּרוֹב. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן אֵין הַטֵּבֵל בָּטֵל בְּרוֹב. רִבִּי בָּא בַּר מָמָל וְרִבִּי הִילָא אָעְלוֹן עוֹבְדָא קוֹמֵי רִבִּי יָסָא סָֽבְרִין מֵימַר שְׁנַיִם רָבִין עַל אֶחָד. וְלָא שְׁמִיעִין דְּאָמַר רִבִּי סִימוֹן בְּשֵׁם רִבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בֶּן לֵוִי אֵין הַטֵּבֵל בָּטֵל בְּרוֹב. וְהָתַנִּינָן וְאִם לָאו מוֹצִיא מֵאֶחָד עַל הַכֹּל. אוֹמֵר רִבִּי יוֹסֵי כָּל־עַמָּא מוֹדֵיי שֶׁהוּא מַפְרִישׁ. מָה פְלִיגִין לַחוּשׁ לְהַפְרָשָׁה שְׁנִייָה. מָאן דְּאָמַר טֵבֵל בָּטֵל בְּרוֹב אֲרִימָהּ וְנָֽפְלָת לְאָתָר חוֹרָן אֵינוֹ חוֹשֵׁשׁ לְהַפְרָשָּׁה שְׁנִייָה. מָאן דְּאָמַר אֵין טֵבֵל בָּטֵל בְּרוֹב אֲרִימָהּ וְנָֽפְלָת לְאָתָר חוֹרָן חוֹשֵׁשׁ לְהַפְרָשָּׁה שְׁנִייָה. Rebbi Zeïra asked: Do Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish differ if it bites by itself but if he made it bite with his hand everybody agrees that biting is biblical? Even if you say that the disagreement arises if he made it bite with his hand, Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish sticks with his opinion since Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said in the name of Ḥizqiah: ṭevel disappears in a plurality121Cf. Terumot 4:1. Note 10, Ma‘serot 5:2, Note 25 ff.. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Nahorai said, ṭevel disappears in a plurality. Rebbi Joḥanan said, ṭevel does not disappear in a plurality. Rebbi Abba bar Mamal and Rebbi Hila brought a case before Rebbi Assi; they wanted to say that two form a majority against one. They had not heard that Rebbi Simon said in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi that ṭevel does not disappear in a plurality. But did we not state122This must refer to a baraita in the style of the Mishnah, probably dealing with several doughs in one vessel where for all of them there is a doubt and ḥallah cannot be taken from another place. This can only happen if the ṭevel is a small part of the entire dough; in all cases of the Mishnah there is a plurality of profane matter.: “Otherwise, he takes from one for all”? Rebbi Yose said, everybody agrees that he separates. Where do they differ? To worry about a second taking. For him who says ṭevel disappears in a plurality, if one lifted it out but if fell into another place, he does not worry to take it out a second time123If heave was taken from a mixture of ṭevel and profane food, with more profane than ṭevel, and that heave was then mixed again (as minority component) with profane food, according to R. Simeon ben Laqish there is no doubt that the second mixture never can be biblical dema‘ even in a time when all agricultural commandments in the Land are biblical. Since, in principle, rabbinic ordinances are valid only as “fences around the Law”, there can be no reason to take heave a second time. For R. Joḥanan, if all agricultural commandments in the Land are biblical the second mixture is dema‘ and the heave has to be lifted.. For him who says ṭevel does not disappear in a plurality, if one lifted it out but if fell into another place, he worries to take it out a second time.
אָמַר רִבִּי בָּא מַפְלִיגִין רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן וְרִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן לָקִישׁ בְּטֵבֵל שֶׁנִּטְבַּל דְּבַר תּוֹרָה. אֲבָל בְּטֵבֵל שֶׁנִּטְבַּל מִדִּבְרֵיהֶן כָּל־עַמָּא מוֹדֵי שֶׁהַטֵּבֵל בָּטֵל בְּרוֹב. הָתִיב רִבִּי בָּא בַּר כַּהֲנָא קוֹמֵי רִבִּי יוֹסֵי. וְהָתַנִּינָן כְּיוֹצֵא בוֹ זֵיתִי מַסִּיק שֶׁנִּתְעָֽרְבוּ עִם זֵיתֵי נִיקּוּף עִינְּבֵי בָצִיר שֶׁנִּתְעָֽרְבוּ עִם עִינְּבֵי עוֹלֵלוֹת. וְלֹּא טֵבֵל שֶׁנִּטְבַּל מִדִּבְרֵיהֶן הוּא. אָמַר רִבִּי מָנָא קִייַמְתִּיהָ בְּשֶׁמֵן שֶׁל זֵיתִי מַסִּיק שֶׁנִּתְעָרֵב בְּשֵׁמֵן שֶׁל זֵיתֵי נִיקּוּף. Rebbi Abba said: Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish differ about ṭevel by biblical standards. But for ṭevel which is ṭevel only by rabbinic decree, everybody agrees that ṭevel disappears in a plurality. Rebbi Abba bar Cahana objected before Rebbi Yose: Did we not state: “Similarly, if harvested olives were mixed with plucked olives, or harvested grapes with gleanings,” is that not ṭevel only by rabbinic standards124Biblical heave is due only for grain, wine, and olive oil.? Rebbi Mana said, I confirmed it: If oil from harvested olives was mixed with oil from plucked olives!
מָתִיב רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן לְרִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן לָקִישׁ. נוֹטֵל אָדָם כְּדֵי חַלָּה מֵעִיסָּה שֶׁלֹּא הוּרְמָה חַלָּתָהּ לַעֲשׂוֹתָהּ בְּטָהֳרָה לִהְיוֹת מַפְרִישׁ עָלֶיהָ וְהוֹלֵךְ. מִכֵּיוָן שֶׁקָּדַשׁ רוּבָּהּ לְשֵׁם חַלָּה תִבָּטֵּל בְּרוֹב. אָמַר בְּרוֹשֵׁם. תֵּדַע לָךְ שֶׁהוּא כֵן. דְּתַנִּינָן תַּמָּן הָרוֹצֶה לְהַפְרִישׁ תְּרוּמָה וּתְרוּמַת מַעֲשֵׂר כְּאַחַת. לְאֵי זֶה דָבָר הוּא מְסַייֵם לֹא כְדֵי שֶׁיִּבָּטֵל בְּרוֹב. אָמַר רִבִּי יִצְחָק בַּר לָֽעְזָר שֶׁלֹּא יְהֵא אוֹמֵר תְּרוּמַת הַכְּרִי הַזֶּה וְזֶה בְּזֶה. חָזַר רִבִּי יִצְחָק בַּר לָֽעְזָר וְאָמַר לֹא אֲמַרְנָא כְּלוּם. וְלֹא רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן כִּי אָמַר תְּרוּמַת כְּרִי הַזֶּה וְזֶה בְּזֶה. רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָמַר מָקוֹם שֶׁנִּתְרְמָה תְּרוּמָתוֹ שֶׁל רִאשׁוֹן נִסְתַּייְמָה תְּרוּמָתוֹ שֶׁלְשֵׁינִי. Rebbi Joḥanan objected to Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: “A person may take his ḥallah from a dough from which ḥallah was not taken125To watch this piece in purity while he may make more dough, possibly in impurity. It is assumed that the grain is demay since from demay flour ḥallah may be taken from the pure for the impure. to have it available in purity to separate from it126Mishnah 4:6..” After most of it became ḥallah, should not the remainder127Which still is ṭevel and according to R. Simeon ben Laqish should disappear in whatever the plurality is. disappear in the plurality? He answered, when he notes it128He makes a physical sign to mark the part which is now ḥallah. Then the remainder cannot disappear in the ḥallah.. You should know that this is so since we have stated there: “He who wants to separate heave and heave of the tithe together129Mishnah Demay 5:2. He is required to declare exactly the amount taken and indicate its place in the heap from which it is going to be taken..” Why does he have to define its place? Is it not that it should not disappear in a plurality? Rebbi Isaac bar Eleazar said, that he should not say the heave of this and that heap should be in this one130This is discussed in Terumot 3:5, Note 60. The rabbis require that the places of heaves and tithes should be indicated in detail.. Rebbi Isaac bar Eleazar changed his mind and said, I did not say anything! Is it not Rebbi Joḥanan who said, if somebody said the heave of this and that heap should be in this one, at the place where the heave of the first ended, there the second also ends131Since R. Joḥanan implies that the designation is automatic, there is no objection to R. Simeon ben Laqish’s explanation..
לָקַט דְּלַעַת לִהְיוֹת מַפרִישׁ עָלֶיהָ וְהוֹלֵךְ הֲרֵי זֶה לוֹקֵט וּבָא וְרוֹשֵׁם עַד כָּאן תְּרוּמָה וְעַד כָּאן תְּרוּמָה דִּבְרֵי רִבִּי. רַבִּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל אוֹמֵר לוֹקֵט וּמְחַשֵּׁב כְּמוֹת שֶׁהוּא לָמוּד. הֲווֹן בָּעֵיי מֵימַר מָאן דְּאָמַר עַד כָּאן תְּרוּמָה וְעַד כָָּאן תְּרוּמָה טֵבֵל בָּטֵל בְּרוֹב. מָאן דְּאָמַר לוֹקֵט וּמְחַשֵּׁב כְּמוֹת שֶׁהוּא לָמוּד אֵין הַטֵּבֵל בָּטֵל בְּרוֹב. אָמַר רִבִּי בָּא כְּדֵי שֶׁיְּהֵא זָקוּק לִיתֵּן לַשֵּׁבֶט בֵּינֵיהֶן. 132Tosephta Terumot 5:1. He puts one pumpkin aside to watch in purity for heave of the harvest of an entire field.“If somebody harvested a pumpkin to use to give now and in the future, any time he harvests he has to come and note, up to here is heave, up to here is heave, the words of Rebbi. Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel says, he harvests and computes as is usual for him.” They wanted to say, for him who says up to here is heave, up to here is heave, ṭevel disappears in a plurality but for him who says he harvests and computes as is usual for him, ṭevel does not disappear in a plurality133This would prove that there is disagreement also for heave which is purely rabbinical.. Rebbi Abba said, between them is the duty to immediately give it to the tribe134According to Rebbi, he has not only to make a physical sign on the pumpkin but he has to cut off the heave part and deliver it to a Cohen on the day of harvest. According to Rabban Simeon, he may wait until the entire pumpkin is heave..
הָיָה צָרִיךְ לִתְרוֹם אַרְבַּע חָמֵשׁ חָבִיּוֹת מִן הַבּוֹר מַעֲלֶה אֶת הָרִאשׁוֹנָה עַל פִּי הַבּוֹר וְאוֹמֵר הֲרֵי זוֹ תְרוּמָה. וְכֵן הַשְּׁנִייָה וְכֵן הַשְּׁלִישִׁית דִּבְרֵי רַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל. רִבִּי אוֹמֵר מַעֲלֶה כוּלָּן עַל פִּי הַבּוֹר וְאוֹמֵר הֲרֵי אֵילּוּ תְרוּמָה. הֲווֹן בָּעֵיי מֵימַר מָאן דְּאָמַר מַעֲלֶה אֶת הָרִאשׁוֹנָה עַל פִּי הַבּוֹר טֵבֵל בָּטֵל בְּרוֹב. וּמָאן דְּאָמַר מַעֲלֶה כוּלָּן עַל פִּי הַבּוֹר אֵין הַטֵּבֵל בָּטֵל בְּרוֹב. רִבִּי אַבָּהוּ בְשֵׁם רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן הַקֵּיף בֵּינֵיהֶן. מָאן דְּאָמַר מַעֲלֶה כוּלָּן עַל פִּי הַבּוֹר תּוֹרֵם מִן הַמּוּקָּף. וּמָאן דְּאָמַר מַעֲלֶה אֶת הָרִאשׁוֹנָה עַל פִּי הַבּוֹר אֵין תּוֹרֵם מִן הַמּוּקָּף. רִבִּי שְׁמוּאֵל רִבִּי אַבָּהוּ בְשֵׁם רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן מַחֲלִיף מָאן דְּאָמַר מַעֲלֶה אֶת הָרִאשׁוֹנָה עַל פִּי הַבּוֹר תּוֹרֵם מִן הַמּוּקָּף. וּמָאן דְּאָמַר מַעֲלֶה כוּלָּן עַל פִּי הַבּוֹר אֵין תּוֹרֵם מִן הַמּוּקָּף. אָמַר לֹו רִבִּי זְעִירָה וְאֵינוֹ מְעוּרָב עַל יְדֵי גִידִין. “135Continuation of Tosephta Terumot 5:1. The language is difficult. One would assume that amphoras full of wine are in a מרתף, a wine cellar, not in a בור, which is either a cistern or the vat into which the pressed grape juice flows and where it is turned into wine. In addition, one has to separate the prospective heave from the amphora before turning it into heave, otherwise it would diffuse in the entire amphora and turn everything into dema‘. Since the statement is the continuation of the one about pumpkins, one has to say that an amount of ṭevel wine sufficient for the entire cistern was first taken out, put in a separate vessel, but not declared to be heave. Then the wine in the cistern is taken out by filling it into amphoras one by one. Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel, who in the first part did not require that the place of heave be indicated, permits here successive declarations that a certain part of the separated wine should be heave. Rebbi, who in the first part did require that the place of heave be indicated, permits only giving heave for all together since in a fluid no parts can be indicated. If he had to give heave for four or five amphoras in a cistern, he lifts the first one to the mouth of the cistern and says, this is heave. The same for the second and third, the words of Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel. Rebbi says, he lifts all of them to the mouth of the cistern and says, this is heave.” They wanted to say, for him who says he lifts the first one to the mouth of the cistern, ṭevel disappears in a plurality but for him who says he lifts all of them to the mouth of the cistern, ṭevel does not disappear in a plurality137All commentators, from R. Eliahu Fulda to R. S. Lieberman, note that one has to switch the places of “disappear” and “not disappear”, against the evidence of both mss. As has been noted before, the two mss. have a common source which already must have contained the error. The problem is for Rabban Simeon who permits giving heave piecemeal, when it is unavoidable that at some point most of the contents of the vessel will be heave.. Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: They differ about earmarking. For him who says he lifts all of them to the mouth of the cistern, he has to give from what is earmarked138One puts the vessel containing the potential heave in the middle of all amphoras to be put in order. but for him who says he lifts the first one to the mouth of the cistern he does not have to give from what is earmarked139That seems to be an impossible statement since heave has to be given from what is earmarked (Mishnah 1:9). The meaning is that giving piecemeal, even if the amphora to be put in order touches the vessel containing the potential heave, might not be considered earmarked since the wine which becomes heave is undefined.. Rebbi Samuel, Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan switches: For him who says he lifts the first one to the mouth of the cistern, he has to give from what is earmarked but for him who says he lifts all of them to the mouth of the cistern he does not have to give from what is earmarked. Rebbi Zeïra said to him, is it not united by sinews140One might put a thread around all amphoras. But this seems to be unnecessary, cf. Note 137 and the end of Halakhah 4.?