Commentary for Terumot 5:11

סאה תרומה טמאה שנפלה לפחות ממאה חולין – for impure heave-offering also is neutralized with one and one-hundred.

Introduction This mishnah continues to deal with various scenarios where terumah falls into hullin. Here we deal with cases where the hullin or the terumah is impure. Impure terumah cannot be eaten and rather must be burned.

ירקבו – for it is impossible for a Kohen to consume it because it is impure heave-offering. And surely as it is not taught in the Mishnah "ידלקו" /”that it should be burned,” tbecause we are concerned that perhaps that if he kindles them, they would come to a stumbling block/snare and that they would come to eat from it, because it is considered a mixture of heave-offering and unconsecrated produce (which is forbidden to non-priests), people would treat it lightly and they would not be careful about it all that much.

If a seah of unclean terumah fell into less than a hundred seahs of hullin, or first tithe, or second tithe, or dedicated property, whether these were unclean or clean, they must all be left to rot. If the terumah was unclean it cannot be eaten and since it fell into a pile of less than one hundred parts hullin, it cannot be taken out. It doesn’t matter if the pile was first tithe, or second tithe or property dedicated to the Temple, or whether this pile was clean or unclean. Since the pile has a seah of unclean terumah in it which cannot be eaten, the entire pile must be left to rot. Commentators ask why the mishnah teaches that it should be left to rot and not burned, as is customary with unclean terumah. There are two answers. The Rambam states that if this type of produce is eaten raw, for instance, figs, then it must be burned. The mishnah refers to produce not eaten raw-this may be left to rot because no one will eat it in its current state. Other commentators say that it is better to always leave it to rot, lest by telling him that he can burn it, he may come to benefit from it before he burns it.

אם טהורה היתה אותה סאה – and also the unconsecrated produce should be sold to the Kohanim at the [low] cost of the Terumah/heave-offering, for its worth is less, because there aren’t many who consume it, if it is defiled, it is not fit for eating.

If the seah [of terumah] was clean, [the mixture] must be sold to priests at the price of terumah, excluding the value of that seah itself. This is the standard law if both the terumah and the pile of hullin was clean, then if there was not a 100-1 ratio, the whole mixture must be sold only to priests at the price of terumah and he must give one of the seahs to the priest for free, since one of the seahs is actually terumah.

חוץ מדמי אותה סאה – for it is necessary to give it to the Kohen.

If it fell into first tithe, he should declare terumah of tithe. If the terumah fell into a pile of tithe, then what he should do is declare that he is separating the terumat maaser, the terumah taken from the tithes, and leaving it in this pile. Before he declares the terumat maaser the priest cannot eat it for even a priest cannot eat produce from which the various types of terumah has not been removed. He then can sell the whole mixture to a priest, minus the value of the seah of terumah that fell in, and minus the amount of terumat maaser that he would have had to take out of that pile and given to the priest for free.

ואם למעשר ראשון – pure [First Tithe] whose tithe had not been taken from it, the Terumah of the tithe that fell, he should request from the Levite that he should exchange them with unconsecrated produce, and the Levite should make them the Terumah of the tithe on his eatables forbidden pending the separation of sacred gifts..

And if it fell into second tithe or dedicated property, they must be redeemed. If it fell into a pile of second tithe or dedicated property then the pile must be redeemed before he can sell it to the priest. In the case of second tithe, the money would be brought to Jerusalem and used to buy food there, and in the case of dedicated property, the money would be given to the Temple. After having been redeemed, the pile reverts to a normal case of terumah mixed in with hullin and the rules in section two apply.

ואם למעשר שני והקדש טהורים נפלה – he should redeem them and consume the monetary worth of the tithe in Jerusalem, and that mixture of heave-offering and unconsecrated produce should be sold to the Kohanim at the monetary value of the heave-offering less the value of that Seah.

If the hullin was unclean, it may be eaten in small quantities, or roasted, or kneaded with fruit juice, or divided into pieces of dough so that the size of one egg be not in any one place. The mishnah now refers to a case where the pile was unclean and the terumah was clean and it was sold to a priest, as described in section two. A priest can eat unclean hullin, the problem is how do we make sure that the unclean hullin does not cause the terumah to become unclean? We should first note that just touching the unclean hullin does not make the terumah unclean. This is because the mixture is still dry. Once the mixture is wet the terumah will become unclean. There are several ways around this problem. The first thing he can do is prepare and eat small amounts at a time, specifically, less than an olive’s worth. Food that is less than the volume of an olive does not transmit impurities, and hence, the mixed-in terumah will not become impure. The second option is to cook the grain without water by roasting it. The third option is to knead the dough made from the grain in fruit juice, since fruit juice is not one of the liquids that causes impurities to be transmitted (the six liquids that cause impurities to be transmitted are: water, dew, milk, honey, wine, blood and oil.) The final option would be to split the dough up into small batches so that each is less than the bulk of an olive.

ואם טמאים היו – the unconsecrated produce and the First Tithe into which pure heave-offering fell, for now, he is not able to produce Terumah of the tithe on another place, he separates upon it Terumah of the Tithe and sells them to Kohanim, and the Kohanim can eat them in small bits, in explanation, in a dry condition, like (Joshua 9:12 – not quoted correctly by Bartenura): “[This bread of ours….and see] how dry and crumbly it has become.”

או קליות – just as that the ritually pure heave-offering was not made fit to receive Levitical uncleanness , and all food-stuffs that do not have liquid come upon them from the seven liquids (see Tractate Makhshirin, Chapter 6, Mishnah 4: dew, water, wine, oil, blood, milk, the honey of bees), it is not fitted to receive Levitical uncleanness.

או ילושו במי פירות – as, for example, mulberry juice and pomegranates that are not made fit [to receive Levitical uncleanness].

או יחלקום לעיסות – that he will give less than an egg’s bulk in each [little] lump of dough/started dough, and food-stuffs that are less than an egg’s size does not receive ritual impurities of eatables and it doesn’t defile ritual defilement of eatables, and if someone asks what is the difference from a Seah of ritually impure heave-offering that fell into ritually pure unconsecrated produce, that we state that it should rot, because it makes everything heave-offering and is considered like ritually impure and heave-offering that were mixed and would be forbidden to be eaten? But one can say that they are not similar, for above, this unconsecrated produce became like heave -offering, to be prohibited to foreigners (i.e., non-priests) on the strength of the ritually impure heave-offering, therefore, for Kohaim also, they are forbidden according to the law of ritually impure heave-offering/Terumah, but those unconsecrated produce of here, are not made into heave-offering, other than from the strength of pure heave-offering, therefore, they are permitted to Kohanim like ritually pure Terumah.

סאה תרומה טמאה שנפלה למאה חולין טהורים – and now the heave-offering is neutralized in one-and one hundred and everything is not made into a combination of heave-offering and unconsecrated produce that is prohibited to all non-priests. But the pure unconsecrated produce is not made fit to receive ritual impurity, nor does the ritually impure unconsecrated produce defile them.

Introduction Today’s mishnah deals with a case where a seah of unclean terumah fell into a seah of clean hullin. The terumah is unclean but it doesn’t cause the hullin to become unclean because it is not wet (as we learned in yesterday’s mishnah).

תרום ותשרף – just as if the pure heave-offering was neutralized and eaten, so too, that which is ritually impure should be separated as heave-offering and burned. And that being burned is similar to that rotting, for it is prohibited to benefit from it at the time when you burn it, for if you permitted it be able to derive benefit from it, you might come to eat it, for he holds that it is permitted through renunciation.

A seah of unclean terumah which fell into a hundred of clean hullin:
Rabbi Eliezer says: [a seah] must be taken out and burnt, for I say that the seah taken out is the one that fell in. Rabbi Eliezer holds that the seah of terumah has to be taken out but that it can’t be eaten because we assume that the seah that is taken out is the seah of terumah that fell in and was unclean.

תעלה ותאכל נקודים – as dry stuff, all of this as we have explained above (in Mishnah 1 of this chapter), and the Halakha is according to the Sages.

But the sages say: it may be taken out and eaten in small quantities, or roasted, or kneaded with fruit juice, or divided into pieces of dough so that the size of one egg be not in any one place. The other rabbis hold that when the seah of terumah fell into the pile of 100 seahs of hullin it was nullified in the pile, so when he took a seah out we don’t assume that it is the same one that fell in. However, there is still 1/100 parts of the pile that is unclean and therefore part of that which he takes out is unclean. In order to prevent the unclean part from impurifying the clean part he must eat it in the same way described in the end of yesterday’s mishnah. We should note that what he gives to the priest is not actually terumah, for if it were, the priest wouldn’t be able to eat it unclean terumah is forbidden. The portion that the person takes out of the pile and gives to the priest is hullin that replaces the terumah owed to him. Unclean hullin can be eaten, however in this case since the priest received the seah in place of terumah owed to him, he must preserve its purity and eat it so that it doesn’t all become impure.

תעלה ותאכל – In this, Rabbi Eliezer agrees that even that Seah is eaten, because of that above of ritually impure heave-offering that fell, even though it was suspended in pure heave-offering, nevertheless, when he causes heave-offering to be collected and it returns to its first designation, but here, when the pure [heave-offering] fell, even though the heave offering was ritually impure, when he collects it, it returned to the designation fo ritually pure heave-offering as it was.

Introduction Our mishnah deals with a case of clean terumah that falls into unclean hullin.

A seah of clean terumah fell into a hundred of unclean hullin, it may be eaten in small quantities, or roasted, or kneaded with fruit juice, or divided into pieces of dough so that the size of one egg be not in any one place. Since there is a 100-1 ratio in the mixture, the seah can be taken out, given to the priest and the remainder of the mixture reverts to being regular hullin. The seah given to the priest is not itself terumah, but rather it is given to him as a replacement for the terumah owed to him. Since he is eating it in place of terumah, he must try to preserve its purity and therefore he eats it in this way, as explained in mishnah one. In this case, Rabbi Eliezer does not disagree. When Rabbi Eliezer said that we look at the seah that is taken out as being the same seah that fell in, we say that in order to be stringent, as he was in the case of an unclean seah of terumah that fell into clean hullin. In our case, were we to say that the seah that fell in was the same that was taken out, then he could eat it without trying to maintain its purity. Since this would be a leniency, Rabbi Eliezer agrees that we don’t say this.

ב"ש אוסרים – who (i.e., the School of Shammai) holds that impure heave-offering that was mixed with pure [heave-offering] is not neutralized in one and one-hundred, as we explain the reason further on.

Introduction Today’s mishnah contains a discussion of unclean terumah that falls into clean terumah. The question is: does the 100-1 ratio work to allow one to take out one seah and consider the rest, and perhaps even that seah itself, to be clean?

לאחר שהודו – the School of Shammai to the words of the School of Hillel. Because the School of Hillel raised a difficulty to the School of Shammai: If evfen iturally pure heave-offering [which is punishable] by death [if eaten] by foreigners (i.e., non-Kohanim) is neutralized, impure [heave-offering which is a positive-commandment regarding a Kohen, is it not obvious? And the School of Shammai retracted to teach according to the words of the School of Hillel.

A seah of unclean terumah that falls into one hundred seahs of clean terumah: Bet Shammai prohibits, But Bet Hillel permits. Bet Shammai holds that unclean terumah is not nullified in a 100-1 mixture of clean terumah, whereas Bet Hillel holds that just as 100 seah of hullin serves to nullify 1 seah of terumah, 100 seahs of clean terumah serve to nullify 1 seah of unclean terumah.

תרום ותשרף – and the rest is permitted.

Bet Hillel said to Bet Shammai: since clean [terumah] is forbidden to non-priests and unclean [terumah is forbidden] to priests, then just as clean [terumah] is brought up, so too unclean [terumah] can be brought up. Bet Hillel argues that clean terumah is to non-priests as unclean terumah is to priests both are prohibited. So if clean terumah is nullified by falling into hullin (when there is a 100-1 ratio), unclean terumah should be nullified by clean terumah. In both cases, something unedible to the owner is nullified by something edible.

אבדה במעוטה – since it is all heave-offering, and there isn’t an injustice to the tribe [of Levi] even to elevate it [as a heave-offering] is unnecessary. And the Halakha is according to the Sages.

Bet Shammai answered them: No! If hullin which is treated more leniently [in that it is permitted to non-priests] allows us to bring up clean [terumah that falls into it], does terumah [which is more stringent in that it is forbidden to non-priests] also allow us to bring up that which is unclean? Bet Shammai says that Bet Hillel’s argument is faulty, for they were comparing a case of something that falls into hullin, which is treated leniently in that anyone can eat it, with a case of something that falls into terumah, which is treated stringently, in that only priests can eat it. Therefore, Bet Shammai holds that the unclean terumah is not nullified and that the whole mixture is prohibited because of the one unclean part.

After [Bet Shammai] had agreed [with Bet Hillel], Rabbi Eliezer said: it should be taken out and burned. But the sages say: it is gone, on account of its being a tiny [portion of the whole mixture]. The mishnah relates that Bet Shammai eventually admitted that Bet Hillel’s argument was good and that the one seah of unclean terumah can be taken out and the rest treated as pure terumah. Rabbi Eliezer adds that the one seah taken out must be treated as unclean terumah and be burned. Again, Rabbi Eliezer holds that the seah taken out is treated the same as the seah that fell in, as long as this creates a stringent law. The other rabbis again disagree and say that the ratio of 100-1 serves to utterly nullify the seah that fell in. The seah that falls in is nullified by its being such a tiny minority of the mixture. Therefore, it can be treated as clean terumah and eaten by the priests.

כתרומה ודאי – Rabbi Eliezer, according to his reasoning who said that I state that a Seah that fell is a Seah that was neutralized.

Introduction This mishnah deals with the status of the one seah that is taken out of the 100-1 hullin/terumah mixture. Is this one seah considered to be terumah?

אינה מדמע אלא לפי חשבון – and the Seah that he lifted up, only has one part from one-hundred of heave-offering, and the rest is unconsecrated produce.

A seah of terumah that fell into a hundred [of hullin], and he lifted it out and fell into [hullin] elsewhere:
Rabbi Eliezer says: it renders medumma as though it were certainly terumah. According to Rabbi Eliezer, when a seah of terumah falls into one hundred seahs of hullin and then one seah is taken out to be given to a priest, the seah that is taken out is considered to be the same seah of terumah that fell in. Therefore, if the seah that is taken out falls into another pile of hullin, it again will cause the entire pile to be medumma, doubtful terumah. If the pile does not have 100 seahs of hullin, then the entire pile is forbidden to non-priests and it must be sold to a priest at the price of terumah. The main point is that the seah taken out has the same status as that which fell in it is terumah.

But the sages say: it is rendered medumma only according to proportion. The other sages hold that the seah taken out of the original pile into which it fell is considered to be 1/101 terumah. If that seah falls into another pile, then as long as the amount of terumah is less than 1/100 of the second pile into which it falls (which it almost certainly will be), then 1/101 of a seah can be taken out, given to the priest and the rest remains hullin.

אין המדומע מדמע אלא לפי חשבון – because what that is Terumah/heave-offering in this Seah of mixed heave offering and unconsecrated produce we require one-hundred of the unconsecrated produce, but we don’t require one-hundred Seah corresponding all of that Seah of mixed heave-offering and unconsecrated produce , which is not considered completely Terumah/heave-offering to prohibit secondary unconsecrated produce.

Introduction In this mishnah there is another ramification of the debate between Rabbi Eliezer and the sages. As a reminder, Rabbi Eliezer holds that when a seah of terumah falls into a pile of more than 100 seahs of hullin, and a seah is removed, the seah that is taken out is treated as if it were the same seah that fell in. In contrast, the rabbis hold that the amount of terumah in the seah taken out is the same as the amount of terumah in the whole mixture, in this case 1/100.

ואין המחומץ מחמץ אלא לפי חשבון – started dough of unconsecrated produce that had leavened in leaven of heave-offering, it is all forbidden to foreigners (i.e., non-Kohanim) and if there fell from that started dough into another piece of stared dough of heave-offering and became leavened, it is not forbidden other than according to the calculation [of the quantity of true heave-offering contained in the mixture] of the measure of leave of Terumah that is mixed in it, and does not forbid another piece unless there fell from the first a measure so large that there is in the leaven of Terumah that is combined in it in order to leave the later piece without combination of the unconsecrated produce that is combined with heave-offering.

A seah of terumah which fell into less than a hundred [of hullin], and rendered the whole medumma, and part of this mixture fell afterwards into another place: Rabbi Eliezer says: it renders again medumma as if certain terumah [had fallen in]. But the sages say: the [first] mixture renders medumma only according to the proportion. The seah that is taken out of a mixture where the ratio was greater than 100 parts hullin to 1 part terumah is treated by Rabbi Eliezer as if it were the same terumah that fell in. Therefore, when it falls into another pile of terumah, it renders the new pile medumma (doubtful terumah) as if it was certain terumah. The sages hold that it only renders medumma according to the portion of terumah in it. So since it is by definition less than 1/100 terumah, it is doubtful that it will render anything medumma.

ואין מים שאובים פוסלים את המקוה אלא לפי חשבון – A Mikveh/ritual bath that has in it twenty-one Seah of rain water, we will fill/draw on its shoulder nineteen [additional] Seah and let it run through a conducting channel/gutter into the Mikveh (see Tractate Temurah 12b) and they are pure, and even though three Seah of drawn waters disqualify a Mikveh, the drawn waters are kosher when it is through a conducting channel it was there that most of the measure of the Mikveh, which is twenty-one Seah of rain water, according to the calculation, for the drawn waters do not disqualify the Mikveh when they are going through a conducting channel unless there are twenty [Seah] of drawn water, for isn’t there the majority of the measure of the Mikveh from rain waters. And the Halakha is according to the Sages.

[Similarly], that which is leavened [with terumah] renders other dough leavened [as with terumah] only according to the proportion. The mishnah now brings several other examples of cases where the rabbis say that something acts according to its proportion. The first is a case of hullin dough that is leavened with terumah starter dough (heavily leavened dough used to preserve the yeast). If this dough falls into another patch of dough it only renders medumma according to the percentage of terumah that is in the part that causes the leavening, the starter dough. In other words, if there is enough terumah in the part that falls in to the second dough in order to leaven the new dough, then it is treated as terumah and it is forbidden to an Israelite.

And drawn water disqualifies a ritual bath also only according to the proportion. A mikveh that doesn’t have 40 seahs of water into which three logs (a small measure) of drawn water fall is disqualified. If this drawn water is mixed in with non-drawn water, which is okay for a mikveh, then the mixture disqualifies the mikveh according to the percentage of drawn water in the mixture.

If a seah of terumah fell into a hundred [of hullin] and he lifted [a seah] out, and then another fell in, and he lifted another out and another fell in, the pile is permissible as long as the amount of terumah does not exceed that of the hullin. A seah of terumah falls into one hundred seahs of hullin and then one seah is removed. The rabbis hold that the seah removed is not the seah of terumah. Therefore, the mixture remains about 1/100 terumah. If another seah of terumah falls in, it too is neutralized and a seah can be taken out. However, there are now about 2/100 terumah in the mixture. This process can keep on repeating itself until there are more parts terumah in the mixture. Once that happens, the mixture can no longer serve to neutralize the terumah that falls in. We should note that as long as the mixture is less than fifty per cent terumah, it is treated as hullin.

הגביהה – according to the law of heave-offering that is neutralized in one-and one-hundred.

הרי זו מותרת – and one needs to lift it up [out of the mixture].

עד שתרבה תרומה על החולין – that is, until there would fall there fifty-one [parts] of heave-offering/Terumah, but half by half is permitted.

עד שנפלה אחרת – another Seah of heave-offering/Terumah.

If a seah of terumah fell into a hundred [of hullin], and before he could take it out, another fell in, the whole becomes forbidden. Rabbi Shimon permits it. Once the second seah falls into the mixture, it is now 2/102 terumah, and that is more terumah than the required 1/101 (one seah of terumah falling into one hundred seahs of hullin). Therefore, the sages say that the whole pile is medumma and is forbidden to non-priests. What they are in essence saying is that until the seah is removed, the pile is treated like terumah. Rabbi Shimon holds that as soon as the terumah falls into the 100 hullin, the terumah is neutralized and it is treated as if it no longer exists. Therefore, if another seah of terumah falls in, it is treated as if it fell into a pile of 100 seahs of hullin and it too is neutralized.

הרי זו אסורה – that it is like they fell at one time.

ור' שמעון מתיר – and it was known known to about first falling until it fell a second time, Rabbi Shimon admits that it is like the case when they fell at the same time. But he disputes where it was known to him in the meantime and he did not have the opportunity to lift it up until another fell, Rabbi Shimon holds that since he was about to lift it up is like something that has been lifted up, and he goes according to his reasoning , that he holds in general (Tractate Pesahim 13b; Tractate Bava Kamma 76b): He who is about to be sprinkled is considered as if it was sprinkled, but the Sages state that now, hoever, it was not lifted, and the Halakha is according to the Sages.

וטחנן – all of it [was grounded] at one time.

Introduction Sometimes when one grinds up wheat the volume seems to increase or decrease, depending on the quality of the wheat. Our mishnah deals with the ramifications that this has on the ratio of a pile into which terumah fell in.

ופתחו – and we don’t say that unconsecrated produced lessened but not the heave-offering, and there isn’t one-and one-hundred [parts neutralizing it] and it is forbidden.

If a seah of terumah fell into a hundred [of hullin], and they were ground together and reduced in bulk, just as the hullin was reduced so too the terumah was reduced, and it is permitted. When the seah fell into the terumah the pile had the required 100-1 ratio and therefore, the seah could be taken out. However, before he succeeded in taking out the one seah the pile was ground and it was reduced in bulk. The mishnah rules that we can assume that the mixture was uniformly reduced, both the terumah and the hullin. Therefore, the mixture will be permitted to non-priests once he takes out the seah.

ואם ידוע שהחטים של חוליין יפות משל תרומה מותר -, and those of the unconsecrated produce increased [in amount] but those of heave-offering did not increase, and there is here one-and one-hundred, but even though that initially they were forbidden, they returned and became increased through grinding, and even ab initio, he is able to grind it in order to permit them.

If a seah of terumah fell into less than a hundred [of hullin] and they were ground together and increased in bulk, just as the hullin became more, so too the terumah became more, and it is forbidden. If it is known that the kernels of hullin were better than the terumah, it is permitted. Conversely, if a seah of terumah fell into less than one hundred of hullin, the mixture is prohibited to a non-priest. If he grinds it and it increases in bulk, it is still forbidden to non-priests because we assume that just as the terumah increased so too did the hullin. However, there is one situation where we would not make this assumption. If the kernels of hullin were known to be of higher quality than the kernels of terumah, then we can assume that the hullin increased and not the terumah.

ואם מזיד אסור – the Rabbis fined him because he nullified a prohibition ab initio, and the same law applies to all of the prohibitions in the Torah that were nullified willfully that are prohibited.

If a seah of terumah fell into less than a hundred [of hullin], and more hullin fell in afterwards, if it was accidental it is permissible, but if intentional it is forbidden. In this case, when the seah originally fell into the pile there was not sufficient hullin to neutralize it. Subsequently more hullin fell in, thereby creating the necessary 100-1 ratio. If this hullin fell in accidentally, then the mixture becomes permissible. However, if he puts it in intentionally, then it is prohibited. One cannot intentionally create the 100-1 ratio.