Commento su 'Orlah 2:18

התרומה. עולין באחד ומאה – if a Seah of one of these fell in one-hundred Seah of non-consecrated produce, it is nullified, and it is permitted to foreigners (i.e., non-Kohanim); less than one-hundred, everything is prohibited to foreigners, and we derive it from what is written regarding the tithe of the tithe which the Levite owes to the Kohen (Numbers 18:29): “[You shall set aside all gifts due to the LORD from everything that is donated to you, from each thing its best portion,] the part thereof that is to be consecrated.” What was separated as the priest’s share from it, if it returned into it from his sanctified thing, that is ninety-nine [parts]. For from the one hundred that he separated out ten for a tithe, and from ten, one for the tithe from the tithe that the Levite owes to the Kohen.

Introduction The second chapter of orlah deals with mixtures consisting of permitted and forbidden produce. Specifically the issue is, when does the prohibited part of the mixture become nullified by the permitted part of the mixture?

ומצטרפין זה עם זה – if one Seah fell from all of them to less than one-hundred parts of non-consecrated produce, It sanctifies them, and in this everyone admits that they combine, for they are one denomination and they are all called Terumah/heave offering. For regarding Hallah, It is written (Numbers 15:20): “you shall set aside a loaf as a gift,” and the First Fruits/Bikkurim are also called Terumah, as the Master stated (Deuteronomy 12:17): “or your contributions/ותרומת ידך – these are First Fruits/Bikkurim, as it is written regarding them (Deuteronomy 26:4): “The priest shall take the basket from you hand [and set it in front of the altar of the LORD your God].”

Terumah, terumat maaser of demai, hallah and bikkurim, are neutralized in a hundred-and-one mixture. If terumah, or terumat maaser of demai (demai is produce acquired from an am haaretz, concerning whom we have doubt whether he tithed; terumat maaser is the terumah taken from the tithe), hallah or bikkurim (first fruits) become mixed up with hullin produce, meaning produce that has no status of holiness, then there needs to be 100 parts hullin for every part of holy stuff, in order for the holy stuff to be neutralized. If there is not 100 parts hullin, then we must treat the entire mixture as if it were holy. This will almost always cause a financial loss to the owner.

וצריך להרים – [one must raise] the Seah that fell and to give it to the Kohen and the remainder is permitted to foreigners (i.e., non-Kohanim), and even though Orlah and mixed seeds in the vineyard are more stringent, there is no need to raise them, and the prohibition itself is nullified. The heave-offering/Terumah is different because it has owners (i.e., the Kohanim) and one must raise them up/separate them as an offering because of the injustice to the tribe of Levi, but in all other prohibitions where there is an injustice to the tribe of Levi does not belong for when they are abolished, there is no need to raise them/separate them as an offering.

And they are reckoned together [to form the statutory minimum]. If some of these things are mixed in together, for instance terumah is mixed in with bikkurim, then they are counted together to prohibit a larger mixture. Thus if ½ part terumah is mixed in with another ½ part bikkurim, there will need to be 100 parts hullin for the holy stuff to be neutralized.

עולין באחד ומאתי' – regarding the heave offering, it is written "מלאה" (Exodus 22:28) “You shall not put off the skimming of the first yield of your vats. [You shall give Me the first-born of your sons],” and in the mixed seeds of the fields/כלאי הכרם, it is written "מלאה" (Deuteronomy 22:9): “[You shall not sow your vineyard with a second kind of seed,] else the crop – from the seed that you have sown [and the yield of the vineyard may not be used].” Just as [the word] "מלאה" that is stated further on (Deuteronomy 22:9) is offered up as we derive (Numbers 18:29): “the part thereof that is to be consecrated,” also here it is offered up, and because its prohibition is doubled for it is forbidden to derive benefit from it, they doubled its offering up, and it requires two-hundred [parts]. But Orlah we derive from Kilayim/the forbidden junction of heterogeneous animals by hybridization or by harnessing together, because it is prohibited to derive benefit like them.

And it is necessary to remove [from the mixture an amount equal to that of the consecrated produce contained in it]. Once the mixture is neutralized, one would need to take out the amount of holy stuff that is in the mixture and treat it as whatever holy stuff it might be. Thus if 100 parts hullin are mixed in with one part terumah, he can take out one part, give it to a kohen, and treat the rest like hullin. The reason that he has to take the equivalent part out is that someone was supposed to receive these things, in the case of terumah, the priest.

ומצטרפין זה עם זה – Orlah/Uncircumcised fruit of the first three years and mixed seeds of the field are combined together that fell into something permitted, they combine to prohibit something dry until two hundred, and in something moist in a pot which imparts flavor.

Orlah and kilayim of the vineyard are neutralized in a two-hundred-and-one mixture. The necessary ratio to neutralize orlah and kilayim in a vineyard (seeds that were planted in a vineyard) is 200 to 1. The laws are simply stricter with these two types of produce because not only can they not be eaten, one can not even derive benefit from them.

אינן מצטרפין – even to prohibit the pot through the imparting of a flavor, since they are two entities, but if there in the pot [enough] to annul the flavor of the Orlah/uncircumcised fruit of the first three years on their own, and the flavor mixed seeds of the field on their own, everything is permitted.

And they are reckoned together [to form the statutory minimum]. The same rule as in section two.

מצטרפין בנותן טעם – that requires a moist pot in order to the annul the flavor of both of them together.

But it is not necessary to remove [from the mixture an amount equal to that of the consecrated produce contained in it]. Unlike terumah and the other types of produce in section one, orlah and kilayim don’t go to anyone. Since they don’t go to anyone, he need not take a portion out.

אבל לא לאסור – with something dry, for there is no need that there would be a permitted object of two hundred corresponding to both of them, but the Halakha is according to the first Tanna/teacher.

Rabbi Shimon says: they are not reckoned together. According to Rabbi Shimon, if orlah and kilayim are mixed together, they are not reckoned together (he disagrees with section five). The reason is that these are completely different prohibitions, unlike terumah, terumat maaser etc. which are all in the same family of halakhot.

Rabbi Eliezer says: they are reckoned together when they impart flavor, but not to prohibit. Rabbi Eliezer says that if the two combined prohibited substances, orlah and kilayim, jointly impart their taste to the entire mixture, then they are reckoned together. But if they don’t, then they don’t join together and each will be considered separately. Rabbi Eliezer seems to be a compromise between the two opposite positions found in sections five and seven.

התרומה מעלה את הערלה – combines with the non-consecrated produce to nullify the Orlah, and similarly, the Orlah combines with the non-consecrated produce to nullify the heave-offering/Terumah.

Introduction In this mishnah we learn that if terumah and orlah are mixed in together, each counts with regard to creating the necessary ratio for the other to be voided.

שנפלה למאה – not exactly one-hundred, but less than one hundred for it if was actually one-hundred, it would raises it and not require combination, but this is how it should be read: Terumah/heave-offering that fell into non-consecrated produce and everything became one-hundred.

Terumah can void orlah, and orlah can void terumah. If terumah and hullin are mixed in together, they can join together to create the necessary 200 to 1 ratio in order to neutralize any orlah or kilayim that are in the mixture. Similarly, orlah can join together with hullin to create the necessary 100 to one ratio to neutralize terumah.

ואח"כ נפלו שלשה קבין של ערלה – [and afterwards, three kabs/one-half a Seah of Orlah fell into it] – the anonymous Mishnah is according to Rabbi Yehoshua who stated in the first chapter of [Tractate] Terumot (Actually it is not in found in the first chapter, but rather, it is in the fourth chapter of Tractate Terumot, Mishnah 7). Therefore, when a Seah of Terumah fell into ninety-nine parts of unconsecrated produce, and then afterwards three Kabs (i.e., one half-a Seah) of Orlah fell there and combined with the unconsecrated produce, there were found there ninety-nine and another three kabs of unconsecrated produce, the Seah of heave-offering is nullified in one-hundred and a bit more. Alternatively, we have found to establish it according to Rabbi Eliezer (also quoted in Tractate Terumot, Chapter Four, Mishnah 7 who said one and one-hundred) and the Halakha is according to him who stated that Terumah raises up with one and one-hundred, such as the example where a Seah of Terumah that fell into ninety-nine Seah and one-half a Seah of unconsecrated produce, and these three Kab of Orlah – which is one-half of a Seah – combines with the Hullin/unconsecrated produce to complete the measurement of one hundred of unconsecrated produce so that it can be neutralized in one hundred and one.

How so? [For instance] a seah of terumah fell into one hundred, and afterwards three kavs of orlah or three kavs of mixed-seeds of the vineyard [fell in]. This is [an instance] where terumah goes towards neutralizing orlah, and orlah terumah. The mishnah now illustrates how this works. If a seah of terumah falls into one hundred (actually ninety-nine) of hullin, and then three kavs, which is half a seah, of orlah or kilayim (mixed-seeds) fall in, the orlah or kilayim is neutralized. If we count the terumah with the hullin then there is a 200 to one ratio to neutralize the orlah or kilayim. Similarly, if a seah of orlah is mixed up with 200 seahs of hullin, and then terumah fell into the mixture, if the orlah and hullin are more than 100 to 1 of the terumah, the terumah is neutralized.

והערלה את התרומה – that the three Kabs of Orlah/uncircumcised fruit of the first three years which is one-half of a Seah combined with the unconsecrated produce to annul the Seah of Terumah in one and one-hundred, for when the Seah [of Terumah] fell into the ninty-nine and one -half, they were forbidden, and when once again fell there three Kabs of Orlah/uncircumcised fruit of the first three years, or mixed seeds of the field, they were permitted.

והערלה את הערלה – one must state that one of them is the fourth year’s fruit of a young tree/נטע רבעי which are two designations, for it is impossible for a prohibition from one designation which would annul part of it to part of it and the Tanna/teacher calls the fourth year’s fruit of a young tree [by the designation of] Orlah, for it comes from the Orlah, and for this reason it teaches, that “Orlah [fruit] neutralizes other Orlah [fruit], and it doesn’t teach that Kilayim (mixed seeds from the field) neutralizes Kilayim, for Kilayim does not have two names like there is with Orlah.

Introduction This mishnah is similar to the previous mishnah, but it talks about orlah and kilayim, instead of orlah and terumah.

שנפלה למאתים – not into two-hundred exactly, for if it was actually two hundred, it would not require combination, and when a Seah of Orlah fell into one-hundred and ninety-nine parts of permitted frut, they became prohibited, and when he returned and fell a Seah and a bit more of Kilaym, it combines with the one-hundred and ninety-nine to annul the Orlah, and similarly, the Orlah combines with the one-hundred and ninety-nine to annul the Seah and a bit more of mixed seeds of the vineyard/Kilei HaKerem, and this is like Rabbi Yehoshua who holds that Orlah is annulled with two-hundred and a bit more, like Terumah with one-hundred and a bit more; therefore, a Seah of Kilayim is annulled in one-hundred and ninety-nine and a bit more and the extra bit is annulled in a Seah which is missing something. And similarly, also, if there fell there a Seah and a bit more of fourth year fruit of a young tree, it combines with the one-hundred and ninety-nine parts to annul the Seah of Orlah that fell, and prohibited everything, and similarly, a Seah of Orlah combines with the one-hundred and ninety-nine parts of permitted [produce] to annul the Seah and more of the fourth year fruits that fell in at the end.

Orlah can void kilayim, and kilayim [can void] orlah, and orlah [can void] orlah. Orlah can be combined with hullin to nullify kilayim and likewise, kilayim can join with hullin to nullify orlah, and there is even a case where orlah can combine with hullin to void other orlah.

How so? A seah of orlah falls into two hundred [seahs] and afterwards there falls in a seah and a little bit more of orlah, or a seah and a little bit more of kilayim of the vineyard--this is [a case] where orlah can void kilayim, and kilayim [can void] orlah, and orlah [can void] orlah. As in yesterday’s mishnah, we get an illustration of the aforementioned principle. First, a seah of orlah falls into two hundred seahs of hullin and then becomes void. There are now 201 seahs of hullin in the mixture. If afterwards a seah and a little bit more (1/200th of seah) of orlah fall in, the 201 seahs can nullify the one and 1/200 seahs of orlah that subsequently fall in, even though the 201 seahs is actually 200 seahs of hullin and one seah of orlah. The original seah that fell in counts when it comes to voiding the subsequent seah and a little bit more. The same would be true if a seah and a little bit more of mixed seeds of a vineyard fell in the original seah of orlah counts when it comes to nullifying the subsequent seah and 1/200 of kilayim.

כל המחמץ והמתבל וכו' – this is how it should be read: whosoever leavens or seasons with forbidden fruit from the first three years (i.e., Orlah) or with mixed seeds of a vineyard is forbidden.

Introduction In the above mishnayot we learned that terumah is nullified if it falls into a mixture that is more than a ratio of 100 to 1 and orlah and kilayim are nullified in a ratio of 200 to 1. Today’s mishnah limits this principle.

והמדמע בתרומה – and/or who mixes unconsecrated produce (and wine or oil) with heave-offering [in proportions to make the whole prohibited to foreigners (i.e., non-Kohanim) (or, more generally, mixing secular with sacred things)]. Whomever leavens the started dough, with apples or with the sediments of wine of Orlah or with the mixed seeds of a vineyard or of Orlah, it is prohibited, and does not neutralize in one in two hundred. And similarly, with Terumah, since the started dough of unconsecrated produce had fermented with the leaven of heave offering and the pot of unconsecrated produce had become seasoned with the spices of heave -offering and all of it became a mixture of secular with sacred things, and is forbidden to foreigners (i.e., non-Kohanim) and isn’t neutralized by one in one hundred.

Whatever causes something to ferment, or seasons, or makes medumma with terumah, with orlah or with ‘mixed-seeds’ of the vineyard, is prohibited. If someone takes starter dough (leaven) made of terumah, orlah or kilayim and uses it to ferment his hullin dough, or seasons a dish with terumah, orlah or kilayim spices, then the whole dish is rendered prohibited. Because the prohibited object caused a substantive change in the entire mixture, either causing it to rise or have flavor, the small prohibited substance cannot be nullified by the larger amount in the mixture, no matter how small a quantity the smaller amount is. The words “or makes medumma” are very difficult to interpret. The Rambam reads not “or makes medumma” but rather “makes medumma” which means that if the starter dough or seasoning is terumah it renders the mixture “medumma” which is terumah mixed in with hullin. Medumma may be eaten by a priest. This reading makes a lot of sense. The problem with this reading is that no other manuscripts read this way.

בית שמאי אומרים אף מטמא – impure leaven that fermented pure started dough, or impure spices that seasoned a ritually pure pot, even though that there isn’t in the leaven or the spices like an egg’s bulk which is the measurement of ritually defiled food-stuffs, the started dough is defiled and the pot is defiled.

Bet Shammai says: it also renders unclean. But Bet Hillel says: it never renders unclean unless it has the volume of an egg. According to Bet Shammai, the same rule holds true when it comes to the rules of purity. If ritually clean dough has been fermented with unclean dough, or a clean dish has been spiced with an unclean dish, the dough or dish is impure, no matter how small a quantity of starter dough or seasoning was used. Bet Hillel, however, holds that in order to render impure there needs to be an egg’s worth of impure stuff. It doesn’t matter whether the unclean stuff is a leavening agent, spices or anything if it’s not the volume of an egg, it can’t render impure.

ובה"א עד שיהא בו כביצה – for food does not defile that is less than an egg’s bulk, it does not make a difference whether it is leaven and spices or other food-stuffs.

Dostai of Kefar Yitmah was one of the disciples of Bet Shammai, and he said, “I received a tradition from Shammai the elder who said: “It never renders unclean unless it contains the volume of an egg.”
In yesterday’s mishnah we learned that Bet Shammai holds that unclean hametz (leaven) or spices can render a mixture unclean, even if there is only the smallest amount of the unclean leaven or spices. Bet Hillel says that there must be the volume of an egg. In today’s mishnah a member of the house of Bet Shammai says that Shammai himself agreed with Bet Hillel, that there needs to be the volume of an egg.

ולמה אמרו – like in what did they state, meaning to say in which matter did they state that one who ferments unconsecrated produce in leaven of heave-offering/Terumah and one who seasons pots of unconsecrated produce in spices of heave-offering, and one who mixes secular with sacred things who combines [and who cooks] unconsecrated produce with heave-offering together – that we follow everything stringently and he answers with one kind of produce mixed with produce of its same kind. And in what did they state that sometimes they are lenient and sometimes strict? This is with one kind of produce mixed with something unlike it (i.e., of a different kind). And it explains – how is one to be stringent? Leaven of heave-offering of wheat that fell into started dough of unconsecrated wheat, which is one kind of produce mixed with produce of its same kind. It prohibits imparting a flavor even with more than one hundred [parts], but until one hundred [parts], it prohibits even without imparting a flavor.

Introduction Our mishnah begins to explain two rules with regards to when mixtures of prohibited and permitted substances are prohibited.

Concerning what did they say: “Anything that causes fermentation or seasons or which renders medumma we rule stringently”? [In the case of] a species [mixed] with its [like] species. The first general rule is that we rule stringently when a prohibited substance (kilayim, orlah or terumah) which causes fermentation (leavens) or seasons mixes with another similar permitted substance. Such a mixture is prohibited no matter how small the prohibited substance, as we learned in yesterday’s mishnah.

[When did they say] “we rule [sometimes] leniently and [sometimes] stringently”? [In the case of] a species [mixed] with a different kind of species. The second rule is that when the two substances are of different kind, we sometimes rule leniently and sometimes strictly. This will be illustrated in subsequent mishnayot.

How so? If leaven of wheat fell into dough of wheat and there is enough to cause fermentation, [then] whether there is enough to become neutralized in one-hundred-and-one, or there is not enough to become neutralized in one-hundred-and-one, it is prohibited. If there is not enough to become neutralized in one-hundred-and-one, [then] whether there is enough to cause fermentation, or there is not enough to cause fermentation, it is prohibited. The mishnah now illustrates the principle in section one. If leaven of wheat falls into dough of wheat, we have a mixture of a like substance with another like substance. If the wheat leaven is terumah and there is enough leaven to ferment the entire mixture, then the mixture is prohibited no matter how small of an amount it is in relation to the mixture. If there is not enough wheat leaven to ferment the entire mixture, then the entire mixture can still be prohibited if there is not 100 parts hullin to one part terumah. In such a case the entire mixture is called “medumma,” doubtful terumah. It must be sold to a priest, with a reduction for the amount of terumah that actually fell in. However, if there are 100 parts hullin to one part terumah, then the mixture is not prohibited. The owner may take out one part, give it to a priest and the remainder of the mixture reverts to being hullin.

גריסין – of beans of heave-offering/Terumah that were cooked with lentils of unconsecrated produce, and they imparted a flavor; the taste is not annulled even in mor than one-hundred, and not with the taste of even less than one-hundred is permitted. For that we require one hundred, this is explicitly, wheat with wheat, which is one kind [of produce] mixed with [produce] of the same kind. And they used a Scriptural text of (Numbers 18:29) את מקדשו ממנו/”the part thereof that is to be consecrated” as a support. What you raise from it, if it fell into it, you sanctify it, and this is one kind [of produce] mixed with [produce] of the same kind.

Introduction Our mishnah illustrates the second principle in yesterday’s mishnah, that when there are different species mixed together, one permitted and one prohibited, sometimes we rule leniently and sometimes we rule stringently.

[We rule sometimes] leniently and [sometimes] stringently, [in the case of] a species [mixed] with a different kind of species. How so? This is the rule that was stated in yesterday’s mishnah.

If crushed beans were boiled together with lentils, and there is enough of them [the crushed beans] to impart flavor, [then] whether there is enough to become neutralized in one-hundred-and-one, or there is not enough to become neutralized in one-hundred-and-one, it is prohibited. This section illustrates the stringency. Crushed beans and lentils are considered to be two different species. If crushed beans that are of terumah are boiled with hullin (non-sacred) lentils, and the crushed beans impart their flavor to the entire mixture, then it doesn’t matter how small a percentage of the entire mixture the crushed beans are, the entire mixture is prohibited.

[But] if there is not enough to impart flavor, [then] whether there is enough to become neutralized in one-hundred-and-one, or there is not enough to become neutralized in one-hundred-and-one, [the mixture] is permitted. However, if the crushed beans do not impart their flavor, then it doesn’t matter if there is not the usually required 100-1 ratio, the mixture is permitted. To summarize, when it comes to unlike species, the one question we need to ask is if the forbidden species imparts flavor to the permitted species. If it does, the entire mixture is prohibited, no matter the percentage; if it does not, the entire mixture is permitted.

ויש בו כדי לחמץ אסור – surely it comes to tell us that we don’t say, for since that without this prohibited leaven [of Terumah or mixed seeds of the vineyard] that the started dough would leaven through the permitted leaven that fell in it first, and we shouldn’t worry about prohibited leaven.

Introduction This mishnah deals with a situation in which two batches of leaven fall into dough one being hullin (non-sacred) and one being terumah or kilayim.

If leaven of hullin has fallen into dough, and there was enough of it to cause fermentation, and after that leaven of terumah fell in or leaven of kilayim of the vineyard, and there is enough to cause fermentation, [the dough] is prohibited. In this case, the first piece of leaven to fall into the dough was enough to ferment the entire dough. When the next piece of leaven falls in, and that dough is terumah or kilayim (both would seemingly cause the dough to be prohibited), we might have thought that since the dough could be fermented even without the terumah or kilayim, the dough would be permitted. The mishnah rules that the dough is prohibited even though the prohibited leaven was not needed. The second batch of leaven, although not needed, still sped up the leavening process and therefore it causes the dough to be prohibited.

ור"ש מתיר – in the first clause [of the Mishnah], Rabbi Shimon did not dispute since the leaven of heave-offering fell prior to the leavening of the unconsecrated produce. For it hurries to leaven through the leaven of heave-offering, but in the concluding clause [of the Mishnah], since it already became leavened in the unconsecrated produce. For when it Terumah/heave-offering falls, it does nothing other than disqualify/make it unfit, but the Rabbis hold that even though in general, when it gives it a bad taste, it is permissible, but it is different here as it makes it appropriate to leaven other pieces of started dough, and the Halakha is according to the Sages.

Introduction In yesterday’s mishnah, the terumah leaven fell into already-leavened dough before the dough had begun to ferment, and therefore, since the terumah leaven may have sped up the fermenting process, the dough was prohibited. In today’s mishnah, the leaven falls in after the dough has already been fermented.

If leaven of hullin has fallen into dough and caused it to ferment, and after that there fell in leaven of terumah or of kilayim of the vineyard, and there was enough to cause fermentation, [the dough] is prohibited. According to the first opinion, it doesn’t matter that the terumah leaven fell into the dough after the dough had already been fermented. The forbidden leaven will still increase the fermentation of the dough and therefore, the entire dough becomes prohibited.

But Rabbi Shimon permits it. Rabbi Shimon, on the other hand, holds that the dough is permitted. One explanation for Rabbi Shimon’s opinion is that he holds that extra leaven will not improve the taste of the dough, but rather make it taste worse. Since this taste is undesirable, it does not cause the dough to be prohibited. In yesterday’s mishnah, the leaven terumah improved the taste of the dough because it had not yet been fermented, therefore, Rabbi Shimon would agree that the dough is prohibited.

תבלין שנים וג' שמות – three prohibited things are divided one from another, they are called three [different] types , such as peppers of Orlah/prohibited fruit of the first three years, or of a tree worshipped as an idol/Asherah or of a heave-offering/Terumah.

Introduction Our mishnah deals with seasonings and when they prohibit a dish into which they fell.

אסור ומצטרפין – meaning to say that they combine together to prohibit the cooked food that was seasoned by them.

Seasonings [consisting] of two or three categories of one species, or [consisting] of three species [of one category], are forbidden and combine. If two or three categories of one type of seasoning, for instance pepper from terumah, kilayim and orlah, fall into a dish, they combine to forbid the dish if they impart taste. The same is true if there are three different species, for instance, pepper, onion and garlic of one category such as terumah. If together they impart flavor, then the dish is prohibited.

או שני מינים משם אחד – such as an Arabic spice plant/ginger and pepper, and both are Orlah, or both are Terumah, but the Halakha is not according to Rabbi Shimon.

Rabbi Shimon said: Two or three categories of one species, or two species of one category, do not combine. Rabbi Shimon disagrees and says that different categories of one species and different species of one category do not combine.

אחר אחרון אני בא – if the leaven of Terumah/heave offering fell last, the entire started dough becomes something that secular and holy things are mixed together, and if something unconsecrated/secular fell in last, everything is permitted, for the last thing is what makes the leavening, for Rabbi Eliezer that permits when that of unconsecrated/secular fell in last, that is specifically when it came first and removed that which is prohibited. And even though that it הועיל a pit that it assists the last that is permitted to complete the leavening. Nevertheless, the taste is made null and it doesn’t come back and get stirred up. But if he didn’t come and remove the prohibited substance and it becomes leavened through both, it is prohibited, for Rabbi Eliezer holds that both this and that causes the prohibition.

Introduction Today’s mishnah discusses leaven of hullin and terumah that fall into dough and neither is sufficient to cause fermentation alone, but together they do cause fermentation.

לעולם אינו אוסר עד שיהא בו כדי לחמץ – for each of them causes that which is permitted, and the Halakha is according to the Sages.

Leaven of hullin and of terumah fell into dough, and neither this was sufficient to cause fermentation nor was that sufficient to cause fermentation, but together they caused [the dough] to ferment:
Rabbi Eliezer says: I go after the last. According to Rabbi Eliezer, whatever is the last to fall in is determinative because that is the leaven that causes the dough to ferment. If terumah leaven falls in first, and then hullin leaven, the dough is permitted because the hullin leaven is what caused fermentation. If the terumah leaven fell in last, then the dough is prohibited because it was forbidden leaven that caused fermentation.

But the sages say: whether the prohibited fell in first or last, it never causes the dough to become prohibited unless there is enough to cause fermentation. The sages are more lenient, and rule that the dough is permitted unless the forbidden leaven is sufficient to cause fermentation alone. If fermentation depends on the hullin leaven, then the dough is permitted.

Yoezer, master of the temple (Ish Habirah), was one of the disciples of Bet Shammai and he said: I asked Rabban Gamaliel the elder as he was standing at the eastern gate [of the Temple], and he said: it never causes the dough to become prohibited unless there is enough to cause fermentation.
In this mishnah, a man by the name of Yoezer provides testimony that Rabban Gamaliel the elder, a sage who lived while the Temple still stood, agreed with the sages’ opinion in yesterday’s mishnah, that forbidden leaven never causes dough to become prohibited unless there is enough forbidden leaven to cause fermentation.
There are two descriptions of Yoezer provided in this mishnah. First of all, he is “Ish Habirah” which according to one opinion in the Talmud, means that he was “master of the Temple”, since Birah is a name of the entire Temple. Other commentators say that Birah is located near the Temple, but is not actually the Temple itself, while others say that it is a place within the Temple.
The second fact is that Yoezer is a student of Bet Shammai. This is the second time in our chapter where a mishnah has stated that a student of Bet Shammai agrees with the sages of the previous mishnah, who can surely be identified with Bet Hillel. Accordingly, Rabbi Eliezer who argued with the sages in the previous mishnah, can be identified as holding a Shammaite position, albeit one that Yoezer seems to dispute. Thus, although we don’t get any new halakhic information in this mishnah, we do learn some valuable historical information about a halakhic battle going on within the House of Shammai. The Mishnah, which is a product of Bet Hillel, considers it worthwhile to let us know that sometimes those of the House of Shammai actually agree with Bet Hillel.
The mishnah itself contains the same halakhah as that found in yesterday’s mishnah, so for more information, look there.

כלים שסכן – such as foot-coverings/shoes and other utensils of leather that he greased with oil in order to soften them.

Introduction This mishnah is not related to the chapter’s main topic, mixtures of forbidden and permitted produce. Rather the same phrase that appears in mishnah eleven, where Rabbi Eliezer says “I go after the first,” appears here. The mishnah deals with vessels, such as shoes or other leather clothes, which were oiled with unclean and then clean oil, or vice versa.

וחזר וסכן אותן בשמן טהור – after the first oil had dried up, and he immersed the utensil that had been defiled in impure/unclean oil, he once again greased it in pure/clean oil and when he uses the utensil, the oil escape outside.

Vessels which were oiled with unclean oil, and [later] he returned and oiled them with clean oil; The vessels, which in this mishnah refers to clothing, were first oiled with unclean oil in order to soften them. When the unclean oil dried up, they were immersed in a mikveh in order to purify them. Then they were oiled again with clean oil.

אחר ראשון אני בא – for Rabbi Eliezer held that the first greasing of oil had escaped outside.

Or he [first] oiled them with clean oil, and [later] he returned [to them] and oiled them with unclean oil: Alternatively, they were first oiled with clean oil and then with unclean oil.

וחכמים אומרים אחר אחרון – for they (i.e., the Sages) hold that the latter/concluding [greasing] escapes, and the Halakha is according to the Sages.

Rabbi Eliezer says: “I go after the first.” Rabbi Eliezer says that the purity of the clothing goes after the first oiling. When the clothes expel the oil that they have soaked up, they will, according to Rabbi Eliezer, expel the first oil that they absorbed. So if the first oil was impure, then the clothes are impure.

And the sages say: after the last. The rabbis hold that the first oil is absorbed by the clothing and when used the objects will expel the last oil used. Therefore, their purity goes after the first oiling.

אסור לזרים – The Rabbis according to their reasoning who stated above (see Mishnah 10 of this chapter) that spices of two or three types combine to forbid the thing that had been seasoned.

Introduction This mishnah deals with leaven of terumah and leaven of kilayim which fell into dough. Neither piece of leaven is sufficient to cause fermentation, but together they cause fermentation. According to the rabbis’ opinion found in mishnah ten, the dough is not prohibited to everyone because of the kilayim, since the kilayim leaven was not in and of itself sufficient to cause fermentation. The question asked in our mishnah is: what about the terumah leaven? Does it join with the kilayim leaven to cause the dough to be forbidden to priests?

ומותר לכהנים – for heave-offering/Terumah is permitted to them, but there isn’t in mixed seeds of a vineyard enough to leaven.

Leaven of terumah and of kilayim of the vineyard which fell into dough, this one is not sufficient to cause fermentation, nor is that one sufficient to cause fermentation, but together they cause fermentation:
It [the dough] is prohibited to non-priests and permitted to priests. The rabbis in mishnah twelve hold that two forbidden substances join together to create a prohibition. Since both terumah and kilayim are prohibited to non-priests, the dough is prohibited to non-priests. However, the dough is not prohibited to priests because priests can eat terumah and the kilayim leaven was not sufficient to cause fermentation on its own.

ר"ש מתיר זרים – according to his reasoning that he said that two or three types from one species do not combine.

Rabbi Shimon permits it to both to non-priests and to priests. Rabbi Shimon is consistent with his own opinion in mishnah ten, that substances of different categories do not combine. The leaven of terumah and the leaven of kilayim do not combine and since neither is sufficient to cause fermentation, the dough is permitted to everyone.

תבלין של תרומה ושל כלאי הכרם – in this also, the Rabbis are according to their reasoning and Rabbi Shimon according to his reasoning, and the law of spices is like the law of leaven.

Seasonings of terumah and of kilayim of the vineyard that fell into a dish, and there is not enough of one to season, nor is there of the other to season, but together they seasoned:
It [the dish] is prohibited to non-priests but permitted to priests.
Rabbi Shimon declares it permitted to non-priests and to priests.
This mishnah contains the same debate that was found in yesterday’s mishnah, except yesterday the mishnah dealt with leaven and fermentation, and today the mishnah deals with seasonings. Again the majority view holds that the two forbidden substances, terumah and kilayim, combine to cause the dish to be prohibited to non-priests, whereas Rabbi Shimon holds that the substances do not join together and the dish is permitted even to priests.
Since the mishnah is basically exactly the same as yesterday’s mishnah, there is new commentary below just look at yesterday’s commentary.

חתיכה של קדשי קדשים – which is forbidden to foreigners (i.e., non-Kohanim) but permitted to Kohanim.

Introduction Our mishnah contains yet another dispute between the sages and Rabbi Shimon over whether prohibited substances can join together to create a prohibition.

ושל פגול. ושל נותר. ושל טמא – that are forbidden whether to foreigners or to Kohanim.

A piece of [meat from] one of the most holy [sacrifices] and [a piece] of [meat which is] piggul, or remnant, which were cooked with other pieces, it [the non-sacred meat] is prohibited to non-priests but permitted to priests. There are three categories of meat in this section: 1) most holy sacrifices; 2) piggul, which is a sacrifice that was offered by a priest with the intent to eat it in either the wrong place or the wrong time; 3) remnant a sacrifice left over beyond the time frame in which it can be eaten. The first category can be eaten by priests but not non-priests, whereas the second and third categories are prohibited to all. In the situation described here a small piece of each of these categories of meat was cooked in a dish with hullin (non-sacred) meat. The hullin meat would be sufficient in quantity to nullify each piece of meat individually, but not if all three combine together. According to the first opinion, the three categories of prohibited meat combine together to forbid the hullin to non-priests, who can’t eat any of them. They do not combine to prohibit the dish to priests because priests can eat the sacrificial meat.

שנתבשלו עם החתיכות – of non-dedicated produce, and there is in the non-dedicated produce to nullify that of the [meat of the] Holy of Holies by themselves, or that of a sacrifice rejected in consequence of an improper intention in the mind of the officiating priest or that of a remnant and that which is ritually impure on their own.

Rabbi Shimon declares it permitted to non-priests and to priests. Rabbi Shimon is consistent with his opinion in the previous mishnayot where he said that different categories of forbidden food to not combine together to render hullin prohibited. This dish would be permitted to both priests and non-priests.

אסור לזרים – the Rabbis according to their reasoning who stated that two or three types [from one species] combine to prohibit it.

ר"ש מתיר לזרים – according to his reasoning who stated that two or three types [from one species] [do not] combine.

בשר קדשי קדשים – it is forbidden to foreigners (i.e., non-Kohanim), even those who are pure. The meat of lesser Holy Things is permitted to pure foreigners but is forbidden to impure foreigners, and it was cooked with meat eaten for satisfying the appetite (i.e., secular meal of meat as opposed to sacrificial meals), unconsecrated meat is permitted even to those [foreigners] who are impure, and there is within it enough to nullify each person on his own, and it combines to prohibit to those who are ritually impure, even according to Rabbi Shimon for the [meat] of the Holy of Holies and the lesser Holy things are one type, as we stated above (see Mishnah 1 of this chapter) regarding Terumah and Hallah and First Fruits. And they are permitted to ritually pure foreigners (i.e., non-Kohanim) even according to the Rabbis for the [meat of] the Holy of Holies has nothing in them to prohibit [their use].

Introduction The final mishnah of this rather long chapter deals with sacrifices that were cooked together with ordinary meat.

Meat of most holy [sacrifices] and meat of less holy [sacrifices] were cooked together with ordinary meat: [the dish] is prohibited to the unclean, but permitted to the clean. Meat of most holy sacrifices (such a sin-offering or a guilt-offering) is permitted only to priests. Meat of less holy sacrifices (such as a thanksgiving offering, or a peace offering) is permitted to non-priests. All sacrifices, no matter their level of holiness, can only be eaten by a person who is ritually clean. These two types of meat were then cooked together with ordinary, non-sacrificial meat, and as in yesterday’s mishnah, the quantity of the hullin meat is sufficient to nullify each type of sacrifice individually but not if we combined them together. This meat is prohibited to the unclean but permitted to the clean. Rabbi Shimon agrees that it is prohibited to the unclean because the category of prohibition of most holy sacrifices and less holy sacrifices is the same both are prohibited to the unclean. In previous mishnayot, the categories were different. The other sages agree that such meat is permitted to the clean because there is not enough of the most holy sacrifice to render the other meat prohibited. In the other cases, all three categories of meat were prohibited to non-priests, therefore they joined together to make the hullin prohibited to non-priests. Here, there is simply not enough meat that is prohibited to non-priests to render the entire dish prohibited. Structurally, we can note that the editors of the Mishnah first bring all of the cases in which the rabbis and Rabbi Shimon disagree. In this way we can tell that in the final case, the two parties agree. Had they first related this mishnah and then the disagreements, we might have thought that Rabbi Shimon would disagree here as well.