א"ל מי קרינא ביה (דברים יב, כא) כי ירחק ממך המקום וזבחת Rav Yosef said to Abaye: Slaughtering a pregnant peace offering containing a non-sacred fetus is not subject to the prohibition against slaughtering non-sacred animals in the Temple courtyard. Do we read the verse: “If the place which the Lord your God shall choose to put His name there be too far from you, then you shall slaughter of your herd and of your flock” (Deuteronomy 12:21), as applying to such a case? This verse prohibits the slaughter of non-sacred animals in the Temple, but only those that could be slaughtered elsewhere. But here, he had no choice but to slaughter the pregnant mother in the Temple, since it was a peace offering.
בעי מיניה אביי מרב יוסף היא חולין וולדה שלמים ושחטה בחוץ מהו מי מחייב עליה משום שחוטי חוץ או לא Abaye posed the opposite dilemma to Rav Yosef: According to the opinion of Rabbi Yoḥanan that fetuses can be consecrated, if one consecrated the fetus, but not its mother, as a peace offering, such that it, the mother, is non-sacred, and its offspring is a peace offering, and he slaughtered it outside the Temple courtyard as a non-sacred animal, what is the halakha? Is one liable for it due to the prohibition against slaughtering offerings outside the Temple courtyard, or not?
א"ל מי קרינא ביה (ויקרא יז, ה) והביאום לה' Rav Yosef said to Abaye: Do we read the verse: “That they may bring them to the Lord” (Leviticus 17:5), as applying to this case? The full passage reads: “Any man of the house of Israel who shall slaughter a bull, or a lamb, or a goat…and has not brought it to the entrance to the Tent of Meeting…that man shall be cut off from among his people. To the end that the children of Israel may bring their sacrifices, which they sacrifice in the open field, even that they may bring them to the Lord, to the door of the Tent of Meeting” (Leviticus 17:3–5). The passage indicates that the prohibition against slaughtering offerings outside the Temple applies only to those offerings that are fit to be slaughtered inside. But this fetus is not fit to be slaughtered at all until it is born.
ל"א א"ל ראוי לפתח אהל מועד חייבין עליו בחוץ The Gemara cites another version of this answer. Rav Yosef said to Abaye: The verse states: “And has not brought it to the entrance to the Tent of Meeting.” This teaches that one is liable for slaughtering an offering outside the Temple only if it is fit to come through the entrance to the Tent of Meeting, i.e., to be sacrificed in the Temple. This fetus is not yet fit.
מתני׳ אין המדומע מדמע אלא לפי חשבון MISHNA: If teruma, the portion of the produce designated for the priest, was intermingled with non-sacred produce, and it is impossible to distinguish between them, if the ratio of non-sacred produce to teruma was less than one hundred to one, the teruma is not nullified and all the produce is forbidden to those for whom teruma is forbidden. If the mixture was then intermingled with other non-sacred produce, that mixture renders it a mixture of teruma only according to the calculation of the percentage of the original teruma produce in the entire mixture.
ואין המחומץ מחמץ אלא לפי חשבון ואין המים שאובין פוסלין את המקוה אלא לפי חשבון And dough that was leavened with a teruma leavening agent is forbidden to those for whom teruma is forbidden even if the ratio between the non-sacred and the teruma is greater than one hundred to one. If a portion of that dough was intermingled with non-sacred dough, it leavens only according to the calculation of the percentage of the original leavening agent in the entire dough, and the second dough is forbidden only if the quantity of the original teruma leavening agent inside it is sufficient to leaven it. And if three log of drawn water were poured into a ritual bath with less than forty se’a to complete the requisite forty se’a, the ritual bath is invalidated. But drawn water invalidates the ritual bath only according to calculation, as explained in the Gemara.
ואין מי חטאת עושין מי חטאת אלא עם מתן אפר ואין בית הפרס עושין בית הפרס ואין תרומה אחר תרומה And the water of purification of the red heifer becomes water of purification only with the placement of the ashes into the water, but not by placement of water onto the ashes. And one beit haperas does not create another beit haperas. The Sages decreed ritual impurity on a field in which a grave was plowed, scattering the bones throughout the field. This field is called a beit haperas. That impurity extends to the area of one hundred cubits surrounding the grave. Nevertheless, they did not decree impurity on the second field if one plowed from that field into another field. And there is no teruma after teruma. Once one designates produce from his crop as teruma, if he then designates additional produce from that crop as teruma, it is not teruma.
ואין תמורה עושה תמורה ולא הולד עושה תמורה ר' יהודה אומר הולד עושה תמורה אמרו לו הקדש עושה תמורה ואין הולד עושה תמורה And a substitute animal that was consecrated when it was substituted for a consecrated animal does not render a non-sacred animal exchanged for it a substitute; rather, it remains non-sacred. And the offspring born of a consecrated animal that was not consecrated itself does not render a non-sacred animal exchanged for it a substitute. Rabbi Yehuda says: The offspring renders a non-sacred animal exchanged for it a substitute. The Sages said to him: A consecrated animal renders a non-sacred animal exchanged for it a substitute, but the offspring does not render a non-sacred animal exchanged for it a substitute.
גמ׳ מאן תנא א"ר חייא בר אבא א"ר יוחנן דלא כרבי אליעזר GEMARA: The mishna teaches that if a mixture of teruma produce and non-sacred produce was intermingled with other non-sacred produce, that mixture is prohibited only according to the calculation of the percentage of the original teruma produce in the entire mixture. The Gemara asks: Who is the tanna whose opinion is reflected in this ruling? Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba said that Rabbi Yoḥanan said: This ruling is not in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer.
דתנן סאה של תרומה שנפלה לפחות ממאה חולין ונדמעו ונפל מן המדומע למקום אחר רבי אליעזר אומר מדמע כתרומה ודאי (שאני אומר סאה שנפלה היא שעלתה) As we learned in a mishna (Terumot 5:6): If a se’a of teruma fell into less than one hundred se’a of non-sacred produce and thereby caused it to become a prohibited mixture, since the amount of teruma is too great to be nullified by the non-sacred produce, and a se’a from the mixture subsequently fell into a different place with non-sacred produce, Rabbi Eliezer says: The se’a from the original mixture renders it a prohibited mixture as definite teruma would, in the same ratio, since I say: It is possible that the same se’a of teruma that fell into the first mixture was not mixed evenly throughout, and it all came out of it intact and fell into the second mixture. Therefore, it requires nullification as if it were unadulterated teruma.
וחכ"א אינה מדמעת אלא לפי חשבון שבה And the Rabbis say: The se’a from the original prohibited mixture renders the derivative mixture prohibited only according to the calculation of actual teruma in the entire mixture, calculated as if the teruma were evenly distributed throughout the first mixture. The mishna evidently follows the opinion of the Rabbis.
ואין המחומץ מחמץ כו' אמר רבי אבא אמר רבי יוחנן מתניתין דלא כרבי אליעזר § The mishna teaches: And if a portion of dough that was leavened with a teruma leavening agent was intermingled with non-sacred dough, it leavens only according to the calculation. Rabbi Abba said that Rabbi Yoḥanan said: The mishna is not in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer.
דתנן שאור של חולין ושל תרומה שנפלו לתוך העיסה ולא בזה כדי להחמיץ ולא בזה כדי להחמיץ ונצטרפו וחימצו רבי אליעזר אומר אחר אחרון אני בא וחכמים אומרים בין שנפל איסור לכתחילה ובין שנפל איסור בסוף לעולם אין אסור עד שיהא בו כדי להחמיץ As we learned in a mishna (Orla 2:11): In a case of non-sacred leaven and leaven of teruma that fell together into a non-sacred batch of dough, and this one alone was not potent enough to cause the dough to become leavened, and that one alone was not potent enough to cause the dough to become leavened, and they combined and caused the dough to become leavened, Rabbi Eliezer says: I follow the final element to fall into the dough. If the teruma fell in last, the dough is prohibited to non-priests. And the Rabbis say: Whether the forbidden item, i.e., the teruma, fell in first or the forbidden item fell in last, it is prohibited only if there is enough of the prohibited leaven itself to cause the dough to leaven.
ואין המים שאובין פוסלין את המקוה מאן תנא אמר רבי חייא בר אבא אמר רבי יוחנן רבי אליעזר בן יעקב היא דתנן ר' אליעזר בן יעקב אומר מקוה שיש בו עשרים ואחת סאה מי גשמים ממלא בכתף תשע עשרה סאה ופותקן למקוה § The mishna further teaches: And drawn water invalidates the ritual bath only according to calculation. The Gemara asks: Who is the tanna whose opinion is reflected in this ruling? Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba says that Rabbi Yoḥanan says: It is Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya’akov, as we learned in a baraita (Tosefta, Mikvaot 4:3) that Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya’akov says: If a ritual bath contains twenty-one se’a of rainwater, the majority of a valid ritual bath of forty se’a, what can one do to render it valid? One fills drawn water in a bucket carried on the shoulder in the amount of nineteen se’a, and with it fills a pit adjacent to the ritual bath, and one lets the water flow [ufotekan] through a passage from the pit into the ritual bath,