Jeśli Se'ah nieczystego Terumah wpadnie w sto Se'ah czystej Terumah : Beit Shammai zabrania, ale Beit Hillel na to pozwala. Beit Hillel powiedział do Beit Shammai: skoro czysty [ Terumah ] jest zabroniony nie-kapłanom, a nieczysty [ Terumah jest zabroniony] kapłanom, tak samo jak czysty [ Terumah ] może być wychowywany, tak i nieczysty [ Terumah ] może być wychowywany . Beit Shammai odpowiedział im: Nie! Jeśli pobłażliwy Chulin , który jest dozwolony nie-kapłanom, może pozwolić nam wychować czystego [ Terumah, który do niego wpadł], robi surowe Terumah , które jest zabronione nie-kapłanom, pozwala nam wychowywać nieczystych [ Terumah, który wpadł w to]? Kiedy zgodzili się, rabin Eliezer powiedział: należy go odłożyć na bok jako Terumah i spalić. Ale Mędrcy mówią: zniknął z powodu tego, że był niewielką częścią [części mieszanki].
Bartenura on Mishnah Terumot
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.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
English Explanation of Mishnah Terumot
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?
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Bartenura on Mishnah Terumot
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.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
English Explanation of Mishnah Terumot
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.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Bartenura on Mishnah Terumot
תרום ותשרף – and the rest is permitted.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
English Explanation of Mishnah Terumot
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.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Bartenura on Mishnah Terumot
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.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
English Explanation of Mishnah Terumot
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.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
English Explanation of Mishnah Terumot
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.
