Talmud sobre Terumot 5:13

How is this? One says, all sources of taste by one in 100; the other one says, all sources of taste by one in 60. For him who says all sources of taste by one in 60, you take the forearm as one in 60 of the ram¹⁵²The entire idea that biblical law permits to disregard minute amounts of forbidden food in otherwise permitted food is derived from the ceremony which releases the nazir from his vow (Num. 6:19). In general, from a well-being sacrifice a hind leg and the breast has to be given to the Cohen to be eaten by him and his family; that part then is forbidden to lay persons (Num. 18:18). But the ram which is the nazir’s well-being offering has to be cooked before the Cohen’s part, a foreleg, is separated and given to him; the remainder of the sacrifice is permitted to lay persons. From this one concludes that if in anything cooked the ratio of forbidden to permitted is no greater than that of the forarm to the entire ram, the food remains permitted.. For him who says all sources of taste by one in 100, you take the forearm as one in 100 of the ram. For him who says one in 100, you remove the bones from the forearm. But if you remove the bones from the forearm, remove them from the ram! This you cannot do, as it was stated¹⁵³This and the rest of the paragraph is from Terumot 5:9, Notes 103–106, and has been explained there. Since the bones of the forearm, being inedible, are not forbidden to lay persons, not only are they not counted as forbidden but they are added to the amount of permitted food.: “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 heave.” Rebbi Vivian asked: Does the waste of heave combine with profane to lift the heave? Since Rav Ḥuna said, the husks of what is forbidden combine to permit, that means waste of heave combines with profane to lift the heave.

Rebbi Joḥanan said: When they decreed demay, they did not decree about these matters¹⁷¹The cases enumerated at the end of the Mishnah, “Ḥallah of the am haäreẓ, food containing heave, food bought with money of the Second Tithe, and the remainders of flour sacrifices are free from demay” were never included in a duty of demay; there is no need for an explanation why these are excluded.. Rebbi Hoshaia said, the fear of sacred things is on him and he will not give to the Cohen anything that is not in order¹⁷²Any one of these is connected with the Sanctuary and their consumption in violation of the rules is a deadly sin, the farmer’s sin if he tricks the Cohen into thinking that the produce was brought in order. Hence, it is rational to exclude these items from demay even if the original decree did not mention this exclusion.. “Ḥallah of the am haäreẓ,” according to R. Hoshaia, the Mishnah deals with the ḥallah of an am haäreẓ. But a ḥaver who bought dough from an am haäreẓ and gave ḥallah is not covered¹⁷³His heave of the tithes must include 10% of the amount given as ḥallah, since his case is not mentioned in the Mishnah.. According to R. Joḥanan, the two cases are identical. “And food containing heave,” according to R. Hoshaia, the Mishnah deals with produce of an am haäreẓ. But if a ḥaver bought produce from an am haäreẓ and it became mixed with heave, he is not covered. According to R. Joḥanan, the two cases are identical. What is the difference between them¹⁷⁴Is there a case where the difference is in the opposite direction, that R. Joḥanan requires putting in order and R. Hoshaia does not?? One seah that was lifted from among 100 seah¹⁷⁵If heave fell into profane food (of the same kind, so that the heave is no longer recognizable) the entire food becomes מדומע and is no longer usable by laymen. But if the volume of the profane food is at least 100 times that of the heave, one may lift food in the volume of the heave out of the mixture and declare this now to be the heave; the rest is profane and may be used by everybody. This is true only if the rest is truly profane food which may be used by everybody. Hence, before designating the lifted amount as heave, the owner has to be sure that the rest is profane, so he has to remove the heave of the tithe from it first. According to R. Hoshaia, the owner will do that, so that the remainder is in order even in the hands of the unobservant. R. Joḥanan does not accept the argument and any produce in the hands of the unobservant remains demay., according to R. Joḥanan it is obligated, according to R. Hoshaia it is free.

“One does not plant, sink, or graft in the year preceding a Sabbatical year later than thirty days before the New Year; if he planted, sank, or grafted he has to uproot it.” If one did not uproot, what is with its yield⁴⁵Since a newly planted or grafted tree is forbidden for three years as orlah, the question is the status of a forbidden tree after three years. A parallel to this text is in Ma‘aser Šeni1:1 (fol. 52c).? Rebbi Abba and Rebbi La were sitting in Tyre when a case came before them. Rebbi La taught that the fruits should be thrown away. Rebbi Abba said, I was not counted with them on the upper floor⁴⁶Most cases in which the Mishnah reports on the circumstances in which a rabbinic restriction was decreed, it is said that the Sages assembled on the upper floor (e. g., Šabbat 1:2). Rebbi Abba wants to say that he was no party to the tannaïtic deliberations in the matter; he objects to R. La’s statement that the fruits produced by a tree planted in the Sabbatical are permanently forbidden.. They said, let us go out and study. They went out and heard Rebbi Jonah, Rebbi Isaac bar Tevele in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: One does not make a new restriction. Rebbi Yose, Rebbi Isaac bar Tevele in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: One does not add to a restriction⁴⁷Since the Mishnah does not state that the fruits are permanently forbidden, no Amora has the power to decree that they should be forbidden.
It seems that in the text, גזירה “restriction” should be replaced by הלכה “practice”. This is the reading of the Rome ms. here in both instances, and of the Venice text in Ma‘aser Šeni in the second statement. גזירה is a Babylonian form for Galilean גדירה, cf. Demay, Chapter 1, Note 89. Intrusions of Babylonian spelling and terminology are infrequent but found in almost all tractates of the Yerushalmi; they probably were introduced by scribes learned in the Babli. This increases the importance of the testimony of the Rome ms. in these cases; the scribe of that ms. was, in the words of R. S. Lieberman, בור ועם הארץ “uncivilized and uneducated”..

HALAKHAH: Not only his table, but even a place for his table⁹²It is implied by the Mishnah that the House of Shammai require a sukkah which accommodates most of a person’s body and a table. This does not imply that a table must actually be put into the sukkah; all that is needed is space for a table.. How much is a place for his table? A hand-breadth⁹³A hand-breadth square. It is one of the peculiarities of the idioms of both Talmudim that linear and volume measures are clearly named, but area measures (other than agricultural ones determined by the amount of seeds used for a unit) are subsumed under the names of the corresponding linear measures..

“The rules of the Sabbath.” Rebbi Jonah said that Rebbi Ḥama bar Uqba asked, is it not written only but a spring, or a cystern, a water pool shall be pure¹⁸¹Lev. 11:36., and you infer from this many rules¹⁸²He objects to the distinction made between the rules of the Sabbath and those of purity. While there are many more verses dealing with purity than those dealing with the Sabbath, there are many rules of purity derived from as slim a scriptural basis than those of the Sabbath. Cf. Sifra Shemini Parashah 9..