Talmud sur Téroumot 4:19

MISHNAH: Heave, heave of the tithe of demay¹All mss. of the Maimonides tradition and many of the better Mishnah mss. read: Heave, heave of the tithe, and heave of the tithe of demay. This text is understood in the Halakhah. By definition of demay, there is no heave of demay. Since both ḥallah and First Fruits are called “heave”, they follow the rules of heave., ḥallah, and First Fruits are lifted by one and 100²Mishnah Terumot 4:7., they combine with one another³If, e. g., heave, heave of the tithe, and ḥallah fell into profane dough, the dough remains permitted for lay people only if the profane was at least 100 times the combined volume of the three “heave” kinds., and one has to remove⁴Before the mixture is permitted to lay people one has to remove a volume equal to that which fell into the profane and give it to the Cohen under the rules of heave. The first hand of the Leyden ms. has: “One need not remove”.. ‘Orlah and vineyard kilaim are lifted by one and 200, they combine with one another, and one need not remove⁵Since they are forbidden for any use, they have no owners to which the removed part should be given. It is enough that the forbidden parts are so few that they can be considered non-existent.. Rebbi Simeon says, they do not combine. Rebbi Eliezer⁶In most Mishnah mss. and the Halakhah: R. Eleazar. This reading is required since he is mentioned after R. Simeon. says they combine in matters of perceiving the taste⁷As long as the taste of one is recognizable in the other. But if 1/201 ‘orlah and 1/201 vineyard kilaim fall into permitted food everything is permitted since each of the forbidden quantities is less than 1/201 of the remaining material. but not to forbid.

The practice of Mercurius is the following: Two stones one touching the other and the third on top of them⁵This does not mean that the third stone lies vertically on top of the other two since this is a very unstable arrangement. It must be that the third stone forms a triangle together with the others; then the third stone is on the altitude of the triangle which is at a right angle to, i. e. “on”, the base line.. If one put down the second one and they warned him because of “it and its young”⁶Lev. 22:28. The text is very elliptic here; it is explained by the following quote from Terumot.
A person is starting to build a rudimentary Mercurius. When he had put down the second stone he decided to sacrifice to the yet unfinished idol and he chose for this purpose an animal and its young. As explained in Sanhedrin, a criminal conviction in rabbinic theory is possible only if criminal intent was proven by the testimony of two eye witnesses that the perpetrator had duly been warned of the criminal nature of his intended act. Also, for one act there can be only one punishment. Slaughtering an animal and its young on the same day is a simple criminal infraction for which no punishment is spelled out in the biblical text. The prescribed punishment for such an act is flogging., he is whipped. Because of idolatry he is stoned⁷One has to read “is not stoned”. Since two stones do not make an idol, even if there was criminal intent no crime was committed.. If he put down the third⁸Then there is an idol and even though it is worshipped by throwing an additional stone, anything which would be part of the service in the Temple when done for an idol is a capital crime whether or not the idol is worshipped in this way.; there is a disagreement between Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish. ⁹This text to the end of the paragraph is from Terumot7:1 Notes 64–66; Ketubot3:1 (27c l.21). For they disagreed: If somebody slaughters an animal and its young for idolatrous purposes. Rebbi Joḥanan says, if he was cautioned about an animal and its young he is flogged, about idolatry he is stoned. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, even if he is cautioned about an animal and its young he is not flogged since he would be stoned to death had he be cautioned about idolatry.

“And are lifted by one and 100”. How do you treat it, as beginning of separation or end of separation²⁰Does it follow the rules of separation of heave (Terumot Chapter 1) or more lenient ones?? If you say as beginning of separation, no minor may lift²¹Mishnah Terumot 1:1., no unrelated person may lift²¹Mishnah Terumot 1:1., and it does not push away the Sabbath²²Mishnah Šabbat 2:6.. If you treat it as end of separation, a minor may lift, an unrelated person may lift, and it does push away the Sabbath. There we have stated²³Mishnah Šabbat 21:1. In Tosephta Šabbat 15:5, but not in the quote Babli Šabbat 142b, this is an anonymous statement.: “Rebbi Jehudah says, also one may lift dema‘ by one in a hundred.” On that, it was stated²⁴Tosephta Šabbat 15:5. There, and in the quote of the Tosephta in the Babli Šabbat 142b, the clause “if he wishes” is missing. In that version, R. Simeon ben Eleazar forbids lifting heave from dema‘ on the Sabbath except by mentally designating the part where the heave has to be lifted and eating the remainder, leaving the actual lifting to the time after the Sabbath.: “Rebbi Simeon ben Eleazar says, if he wishes he earmarks part of it and eats the remainder.” Rebbi Jonah said, Rebbi Judah treated it as end of separation and Rebbi Simeon ben Eleazar treated it as beginning of separation²⁵He holds with the Babli that R. Simeon ben Eleazar is restrictive where R. Jehudah is permissive.. Rebbi Yose said, even Rebbi Simeon ben Eleazar treated it as end of separation²⁶He reads the Yerushalmi text of the Tosephta as not prescriptive.. Does not Rebbi Simeon ben Eleazar agree that it is forbidden to do so with certain [produce]²⁷Since untithed produce is not legally edible, it cannot be used on the Sabbath and cannot be made usable on the Sabbath.? How is that? He should never do it on the Sabbath the way he does it on a weekday²⁸R. Simeon ben Eleazar does not disagree with R. Jehudah. R. Jehudah does not tell how dema‘ can be lifted on the Sabbath; R. Simeon suggests a way in which it can be done legally..

There, we have stated²⁹Mishnah Terumot 4:7, Note 62.: “Rebbi Eliezer says, heave is lifted at the rate of one in 100. Rebbi Joshua says by 100 and more.” There³⁰Pesaḥim 3:3 (fol. 30b); Ta‘aniot2:14 (fol. 66a), both in the name of Rebbi Ḥizqiah. In the Babli, the statement is anonymous (Avodah Zarah7a, Yebamot 42b)., [Rebbi] Ḥizqiah, Rebbi Abbahu said in the name of Rebbi Eleazar, everywhere where Rebbi taught a disagreement and returned to the problem later and taught it anonymously, practice follows the anonymous opinion. Since we have stated: “A seah of heave which fell into 100” and Rebbi Eleazar said, one cannot say “into 100” but “into 99.” As we have stated, Rebbi Eliezer and Rebbi Joshua³¹Usually, practice follows R. Joshua against R. Eliezer. Since R. Eleazar requires only 99+1 = 100, he follows R. Eliezer who is supported by the anonymous Mishnah here..

HALAKHAH: Rebbi Eleazar⁵¹The paragraph does not belong here but in Terumot 2:4, where the text is identical except for בטילה instead of בטיבולה. The Mishnah in Terumot assumes that somebody gives a seah to a Levite and a seah to the poor; according to R. Meïr then he, or his worker, can eat eight seah based on the tithes he gave. The Sages permit only to eat according to the percentage of the tithe that still exists. Maimonides and R. Simson give two possible interpretations, one that the Mishnah there is a corollary to the Mishnah here and deals with a worker who receives food from his employer and sees the employer give to the Levite and the poor but does not know whether he gave as tithes or as gifts. R. Hoshaiah declares that the position of the Sages in that Mishnah is identical with the position of the Tanna in our Mishnah. in the name of Rebbi Hoshaiah: They considered him a worker who does not trust his employer. The following is obvious: If the produce was burned, the heave is ṭevel⁵²Since heave is taken to permit the rest to be eaten, if nothing can be eaten there is no heave, and heave and tithes have to be separated anew from the remainder. This refers to the case where the produce burned before the heave was delivered to the Cohen. If the heave burned after he declared it, the farmer did his duty.. If the heave is burned, when the produce is eaten the heave will have been sanctified retroactively.

The Mishnah disagrees with Rebbi Johanan: “Bismarcks, honey cakes, roasted cakes, pancakes, and dema‘ are free from ḥallah!” He explains it for Bismarcks made on the fire: One does not fulfill one’s obligation with Bismarcks baked by the sun¹⁷⁰He restricts the Mishnah to that unlikely case; this is accepted in the Babli, Pesaḥim 37a.
A Genizah text has a more complete version: פתר לה בסופגנים שנעשו בחמה. ותני כן יוצאים בסופגנים שנעשו באור ואין וצאים בסופגנים שנעשו בחמה “He explains it for Bismarcks baked by the sun. It was stated thus (Tosephta Pisḥa 2:19): One may fulfill one’s obligation with Bismarcks baked on fire but one may not fulfill one’s obligation by Bismarcks baked in the sun.”; one may fulfill one’s obligation with Bismarcks baked on the fire. Does this not disagree with Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish? He explains it if the fire extends to the sides¹⁷¹Since the oven is much larger at the botton than in the upper part where the bread is baked, the heat comes from all sides. R. Simeon considers baking with heat coming just from one direction as cooking, not baking. In the Babli, Pesaḥim 37b, R. Simeon defines as cooking anything prepared in a vessel in the oven; he accepts as baking only what is in the oven without any vessel. This may be the same as his opinion explained here..

Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish, one says according to Rebbi Meïr ten things sanctify¹⁰⁸They sanctify in the most minute amounts and cannot be lifted. These include the six items listed in Mishnah 7 and the items forbidden in Mishnaiot 3,4,5,6, where Mishnah 3 is counted as one item.; the other says according to Rebbi Meïr all things¹³¹Sold by the piece. sanctify. Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa said this as a tradition¹³²The interpretation of statement of R. Meïr was already a tannaïtic problem.. A Mishnah disagrees with him who says, according to Rebbi Meïr ten things sanctify, as we have stated there¹³³Kelim17:4. The Mishnah refers to the rule that a vessel which has a hole the size of an average pomegranate is no longer considered a vessel and cannot be impure. There is a discussion whether “average pomegranate” means “Badan pomegranate.”: “Rebbi Jehudah¹³⁴In the Mishnah: R. Yose. This reading seems to be the correct one since R. Yose is the youngest of all Tannaïm mentioned there, is mentioned last, and practice follows him. said, Badan pomegranates and Geba¹³⁵This Geba is an otherwise unidentified place in Samaria. Since Badan and Geba are in Samaria and Samaritans never tithe produce for sale and reject the notion of heave and tithes for produce other than grain, wine, and olive oil, one knows that pomegranates and leeks are subject to heave and tithing since Samaritans are a Jewish sect, and their produce is certainly ṭevel for heave and tithes.
The reading חצירי is that of the scribe of the ms. who corrected it to חריצי, the form found in the Venice text. The text in Kelim reads חצירי “leeks”; neither Hebrew חריץ “incision, furrow”, nor Arabic ח̇רצ “palm branch” make any sense here. leeks were mentioned only because one must tithe them as certain everywhere.”

Rebbi Jonah asked: Why do we say: “No linear measurements stated by the Sages require ‘more’ except an interrupted trellis?” Did we not state⁵⁶Mishnah Menaḥot 7:2: “The flour sacrifice of a Nazir came in two parts, loaves and flatbreads, but no paste (from flour and oil). It turns out that these are 10 Jerusalem qab which equal six esronim and excess.” Mishnah 7:1 had stated that the three kinds of bread for a thanksgiving sacrifice came from 10 esronim which were 15 Jerusalem qab. Hence, the breads of the Nazir are 6⅔ esronim. The “excess” (in the Hebrew, an otherwise nonexisting plural of “more”) is ⅔ issaron. We use the expression “more” in a domain other than vineyards.: “Ten Jerusalem qab which equal six esronim and excess”? There about volumes, here about linear measures. But did we not state⁵⁷Mishnah Terumot 4:7: “R. Eliezer says, heave can be lifted by one in 101. Rebbi Joshua says, by one in more than 100; that ‘more’ has no measure. Rebbi Yose ben Meshullam said, ‘more’ is a qab per one hundred seah, a sixth of the amount that causes dema‘”. Dema‘, the mixture of profane food and heave, was discussed in Demay, Chapter 4, Note 27. If the amount of heave is small, it is possible to remove an amount equal to the heave and transfer the holiness to that food; the remainder of the food then returns to profane status. R. Eliezer states that in this respect “small” means at most 1 in 100 (1 part heave in 101 overall). R. Joshua requires that the amount be at most 1 in 99+ε; ε >0 being arbitrarily small. R. Yose ben Meshullam requires that the amount of heave be at most 1 in 99.1666̄; if the amount of heave is one seah, the amount of profane grain has to be 99 seah plus one sixth oí the amount causing the trouble, i. e., 99 ⅙ seah. {In Babli Eruvin 83a, “and more” is defined as one twentyfourth of the volume of an egg.}: “Rebbi Yose ben Meshullam said, ‘more’ is a qab per one hundred seah, a sixth of the amount that causes dema‘”? There about volumes, here about linear measures. But did we not state⁵⁸Mishnah Eruvin 2:5: “Additionally, R. Jehudah ben Baba said, one may carry (on the Sabbath) in a garden or a corral which measure seventy and a remainder by seventy and a remainder and are enclosed by a fence ten hand-breadths high on condition that they contain a watchman’s place.” On the Sabbath, one may carry his utensils in his house and in any enclosed space containing a human dwelling. Enclosed spaces no part of which is used as a human dwelling, such as vegetable plots and corrals, are accepted as private domain only if their surface area is not more that 5000 square cubits, the surface area of the enclosed space of the tabernacle (cf. Peah Chapter 2, Note 31). Since √5000 = 70.71068, R. Jehudah ben Baba’s remainder is 0.71068 cubits, a linear measure.: “Rebbi Jehudah ben Baba said, the garden and the corral which are seventy and a remainder by seventy and a remainder”? Samuel said, they taught two thirds of a cubit⁵⁹Samuel notes that for non-mathematicians the domain is limited to 70 cubits 4 hand-breadths square, 70.666̄ cubits square. The excess over 70 is a genuine remainder, less than one cubit, but it is not a “more” which by definition can be at most one hand-breadth, the smallest unit of length accepted in these tractates of the Mishnah..

Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish in the name of Ḥizqiah: He harvests three bunches and permits¹⁶⁴If he has a vineyard with one forbidden vine whose situation is unknown, he harvests three bunches and considers them to be forbidden as fruits of the forbidden vine. Then the remainder is permitted.. The position of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish is inverted! There¹⁶⁵Terumot 4:8, Note 83. Mishnah ‘Orlah 3:7 will explain that amphoras never can be disregarded; if there are 150 amphoras of which one is of terumah (which may be lifted by one in 100) that according to Hoshaia one may open only 100 and lift from them 1% as heave; the other 50 will be usable only if opened by accident (as R. Zeïra explains) because opened intentionally they will be forbidden. Why does he require only three here, not at least 50?, he said in the name of Rebbi Hoshaia: If there were before him 150 amphoras which were opened, one hundred are permitted, fifty are forbidden, and the remainder will be permitted if they were opened. Rebbi Zeïra said, he said only “if they were opened;” therefore at the start it is forbidden to open them. And here, he says so? There in the name of Rebbi Hoshaia, here in the name of Ḥizqiah. They say there¹⁶⁶In Babylonia, where no heave is biblical and in every respect one follows the more lenient opinion. While this does not imply anything for practice in the Land, it shows that Ḥizqiah is consistent and R. Simeon ben Laqish simply reports what others have said. in the name of Ḥizqiah: He opens three amphoras and permits; one follows Ḥizqiah here.

HALAKHAH: Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Pedaiah, Rebbi Jonah in the name of Ḥizqiah, there is no mixing except for wine and oil⁸³Statement of Samuel in Babli Roš Hašanah 13b. It probably means that only fluids can be tithed when mixed because fluids from different sources quickly diffuse and material from each source is contained in every volume element in the fluid.. Rebbi Joḥanan says, they can be mixed up to the size of olives. Our Mishnah disagrees with Rebbi Joḥanan: “But he mixes together dates and dried figs and then gives⁸⁴R. Joḥanan notes that dry matter may also be mixed if the parts are small enough. Dates and figs, fresh and dried, are much larger than olives. The answer is that figs and dates, in order to be tithed together, must be in pieces, each of them smaller than the volume of an olive. Then these pieces must be mixed. {Maimonides does not mention any cutting into pieces either in his Commentary to the Mishnah or in his Code (Maäserˊ 4:8). R. Simson in his commentary requires that figs and dates be mashed together into cakes. This contradicts both the Yerushalmi and the Mishnah, because mashed figs are not גרוגרת but דבילה.}.” He explains it up to olive-sized bits.

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.

²⁵²This paragraph is a truncated quote from Ma‘aser Šeni Chapter 5 and is explained there, Notes 145–147. The paragraph should start: Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, he must say “ḥallah for all,” …“Ḥallah for all, heave for all.” “To YHWH,” that is the particular Name. From where that he did not do anything until he left some [as profane]? The verse says (Num. 15:21): “Of the beginning” and not all the beginning.