dema

Now there was a man of the tribe of Dan, whose name was Manue, the son of Edoc, the son of Odo, the son of Eriden, the son of Phadesur, the son of Dema, the son of Susi, the son of Dan. And he had a wife whose name was Eluma, the daughter of Remac. And she was barren and bare him no child. And when Manue her husband said to her day by day: Lo, the Lord hath shut up thy womb, that thou shouldest not bear; set me free, therefore, that I may take another wife lest I die without issue. And she said: The Lord hath not shut up me from bearing, but thee, that I should bear no fruit. And he said to her: Let the law make plain our trial.

It was stated: “Heave of the tithe from demay that returned to its origin makes dema‘, not to its origin does not make dema‘. Rebbi Simeon from Shezur said, both at its origin and not at its origin it does not make dema‘.” Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya asked before Rebbi Zeïra: For one who says, it makes dema‘, it makes dema‘; for one who says, it does not make dema‘, it does not make dema‘; this is reasonable. But if one says, in its origin it makes dema‘, not in its origin it does not make dema‘; what is the difference between in its origin and not in its origin? Rebbi Ḥaggai came up. They said, this one will say, “by Moses, I shall explain the reason.” He said, by Moses, I shall explain the reason: He who says, it makes dema‘, because it permits the rest to be eaten. He who says, it does not make dema‘, because it does not permit the rest to be eaten. Rebbi La taught according to that of Rebbi Ḥaggai. Rebbi Zeïra said: A case came before Rebbi Ḥanina and he taught according to Rebbi Simeon from Shezur. Rebbi Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Jonathan: Practice does not follow Rebbi Simeon from Shezur.

It was stated: “Heave of the tithe from demay that returned to its origin makes dema‘, not to its origin does not make dema‘. Rebbi Simeon from Shezur said, both at its origin and not at its origin it does not make dema‘.” Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya asked before Rebbi Zeïra: For one who says, it makes dema‘, it makes dema‘; for one who says, it does not make dema‘, it does not make dema‘; this is reasonable. But if one says, in its origin it makes dema‘, not in its origin it does not make dema‘; what is the difference between in its origin and not in its origin? Rebbi Ḥaggai came up. They said, this one will say, “by Moses, I shall explain the reason.” He said, by Moses, I shall explain the reason: He who says, it makes dema‘, because it permits the rest to be eaten. He who says, it does not make dema‘, because it does not permit the rest to be eaten. Rebbi La taught according to that of Rebbi Ḥaggai. Rebbi Zeïra said: A case came before Rebbi Ḥanina and he taught according to Rebbi Simeon from Shezur. Rebbi Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Jonathan: Practice does not follow Rebbi Simeon from Shezur.

It was stated: “Heave of the tithe from demay that returned to its origin makes dema‘, not to its origin does not make dema‘. Rebbi Simeon from Shezur said, both at its origin and not at its origin it does not make dema‘.” Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya asked before Rebbi Zeïra: For one who says, it makes dema‘, it makes dema‘; for one who says, it does not make dema‘, it does not make dema‘; this is reasonable. But if one says, in its origin it makes dema‘, not in its origin it does not make dema‘; what is the difference between in its origin and not in its origin? Rebbi Ḥaggai came up. They said, this one will say, “by Moses, I shall explain the reason.” He said, by Moses, I shall explain the reason: He who says, it makes dema‘, because it permits the rest to be eaten. He who says, it does not make dema‘, because it does not permit the rest to be eaten. Rebbi La taught according to that of Rebbi Ḥaggai. Rebbi Zeïra said: A case came before Rebbi Ḥanina and he taught according to Rebbi Simeon from Shezur. Rebbi Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Jonathan: Practice does not follow Rebbi Simeon from Shezur.

It was stated: “Heave of the tithe from demay that returned to its origin makes dema‘, not to its origin does not make dema‘. Rebbi Simeon from Shezur said, both at its origin and not at its origin it does not make dema‘.” Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya asked before Rebbi Zeïra: For one who says, it makes dema‘, it makes dema‘; for one who says, it does not make dema‘, it does not make dema‘; this is reasonable. But if one says, in its origin it makes dema‘, not in its origin it does not make dema‘; what is the difference between in its origin and not in its origin? Rebbi Ḥaggai came up. They said, this one will say, “by Moses, I shall explain the reason.” He said, by Moses, I shall explain the reason: He who says, it makes dema‘, because it permits the rest to be eaten. He who says, it does not make dema‘, because it does not permit the rest to be eaten. Rebbi La taught according to that of Rebbi Ḥaggai. Rebbi Zeïra said: A case came before Rebbi Ḥanina and he taught according to Rebbi Simeon from Shezur. Rebbi Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Jonathan: Practice does not follow Rebbi Simeon from Shezur.

It was stated: “Heave of the tithe from demay that returned to its origin makes dema‘, not to its origin does not make dema‘. Rebbi Simeon from Shezur said, both at its origin and not at its origin it does not make dema‘.” Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya asked before Rebbi Zeïra: For one who says, it makes dema‘, it makes dema‘; for one who says, it does not make dema‘, it does not make dema‘; this is reasonable. But if one says, in its origin it makes dema‘, not in its origin it does not make dema‘; what is the difference between in its origin and not in its origin? Rebbi Ḥaggai came up. They said, this one will say, “by Moses, I shall explain the reason.” He said, by Moses, I shall explain the reason: He who says, it makes dema‘, because it permits the rest to be eaten. He who says, it does not make dema‘, because it does not permit the rest to be eaten. Rebbi La taught according to that of Rebbi Ḥaggai. Rebbi Zeïra said: A case came before Rebbi Ḥanina and he taught according to Rebbi Simeon from Shezur. Rebbi Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Jonathan: Practice does not follow Rebbi Simeon from Shezur.

It was stated: “Heave of the tithe from demay that returned to its origin makes dema‘, not to its origin does not make dema‘. Rebbi Simeon from Shezur said, both at its origin and not at its origin it does not make dema‘.” Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya asked before Rebbi Zeïra: For one who says, it makes dema‘, it makes dema‘; for one who says, it does not make dema‘, it does not make dema‘; this is reasonable. But if one says, in its origin it makes dema‘, not in its origin it does not make dema‘; what is the difference between in its origin and not in its origin? Rebbi Ḥaggai came up. They said, this one will say, “by Moses, I shall explain the reason.” He said, by Moses, I shall explain the reason: He who says, it makes dema‘, because it permits the rest to be eaten. He who says, it does not make dema‘, because it does not permit the rest to be eaten. Rebbi La taught according to that of Rebbi Ḥaggai. Rebbi Zeïra said: A case came before Rebbi Ḥanina and he taught according to Rebbi Simeon from Shezur. Rebbi Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Jonathan: Practice does not follow Rebbi Simeon from Shezur.

It was stated: “Heave of the tithe from demay that returned to its origin makes dema‘, not to its origin does not make dema‘. Rebbi Simeon from Shezur said, both at its origin and not at its origin it does not make dema‘.” Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya asked before Rebbi Zeïra: For one who says, it makes dema‘, it makes dema‘; for one who says, it does not make dema‘, it does not make dema‘; this is reasonable. But if one says, in its origin it makes dema‘, not in its origin it does not make dema‘; what is the difference between in its origin and not in its origin? Rebbi Ḥaggai came up. They said, this one will say, “by Moses, I shall explain the reason.” He said, by Moses, I shall explain the reason: He who says, it makes dema‘, because it permits the rest to be eaten. He who says, it does not make dema‘, because it does not permit the rest to be eaten. Rebbi La taught according to that of Rebbi Ḥaggai. Rebbi Zeïra said: A case came before Rebbi Ḥanina and he taught according to Rebbi Simeon from Shezur. Rebbi Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Jonathan: Practice does not follow Rebbi Simeon from Shezur.

It was stated: “Heave of the tithe from demay that returned to its origin makes dema‘, not to its origin does not make dema‘. Rebbi Simeon from Shezur said, both at its origin and not at its origin it does not make dema‘.” Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya asked before Rebbi Zeïra: For one who says, it makes dema‘, it makes dema‘; for one who says, it does not make dema‘, it does not make dema‘; this is reasonable. But if one says, in its origin it makes dema‘, not in its origin it does not make dema‘; what is the difference between in its origin and not in its origin? Rebbi Ḥaggai came up. They said, this one will say, “by Moses, I shall explain the reason.” He said, by Moses, I shall explain the reason: He who says, it makes dema‘, because it permits the rest to be eaten. He who says, it does not make dema‘, because it does not permit the rest to be eaten. Rebbi La taught according to that of Rebbi Ḥaggai. Rebbi Zeïra said: A case came before Rebbi Ḥanina and he taught according to Rebbi Simeon from Shezur. Rebbi Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Jonathan: Practice does not follow Rebbi Simeon from Shezur.

It was stated: “Heave of the tithe from demay that returned to its origin makes dema‘, not to its origin does not make dema‘. Rebbi Simeon from Shezur said, both at its origin and not at its origin it does not make dema‘.” Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya asked before Rebbi Zeïra: For one who says, it makes dema‘, it makes dema‘; for one who says, it does not make dema‘, it does not make dema‘; this is reasonable. But if one says, in its origin it makes dema‘, not in its origin it does not make dema‘; what is the difference between in its origin and not in its origin? Rebbi Ḥaggai came up. They said, this one will say, “by Moses, I shall explain the reason.” He said, by Moses, I shall explain the reason: He who says, it makes dema‘, because it permits the rest to be eaten. He who says, it does not make dema‘, because it does not permit the rest to be eaten. Rebbi La taught according to that of Rebbi Ḥaggai. Rebbi Zeïra said: A case came before Rebbi Ḥanina and he taught according to Rebbi Simeon from Shezur. Rebbi Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Jonathan: Practice does not follow Rebbi Simeon from Shezur.

It was stated: “Heave of the tithe from demay that returned to its origin makes dema‘, not to its origin does not make dema‘. Rebbi Simeon from Shezur said, both at its origin and not at its origin it does not make dema‘.” Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya asked before Rebbi Zeïra: For one who says, it makes dema‘, it makes dema‘; for one who says, it does not make dema‘, it does not make dema‘; this is reasonable. But if one says, in its origin it makes dema‘, not in its origin it does not make dema‘; what is the difference between in its origin and not in its origin? Rebbi Ḥaggai came up. They said, this one will say, “by Moses, I shall explain the reason.” He said, by Moses, I shall explain the reason: He who says, it makes dema‘, because it permits the rest to be eaten. He who says, it does not make dema‘, because it does not permit the rest to be eaten. Rebbi La taught according to that of Rebbi Ḥaggai. Rebbi Zeïra said: A case came before Rebbi Ḥanina and he taught according to Rebbi Simeon from Shezur. Rebbi Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Jonathan: Practice does not follow Rebbi Simeon from Shezur.

It was stated: “Heave of the tithe from demay that returned to its origin makes dema‘, not to its origin does not make dema‘. Rebbi Simeon from Shezur said, both at its origin and not at its origin it does not make dema‘.” Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya asked before Rebbi Zeïra: For one who says, it makes dema‘, it makes dema‘; for one who says, it does not make dema‘, it does not make dema‘; this is reasonable. But if one says, in its origin it makes dema‘, not in its origin it does not make dema‘; what is the difference between in its origin and not in its origin? Rebbi Ḥaggai came up. They said, this one will say, “by Moses, I shall explain the reason.” He said, by Moses, I shall explain the reason: He who says, it makes dema‘, because it permits the rest to be eaten. He who says, it does not make dema‘, because it does not permit the rest to be eaten. Rebbi La taught according to that of Rebbi Ḥaggai. Rebbi Zeïra said: A case came before Rebbi Ḥanina and he taught according to Rebbi Simeon from Shezur. Rebbi Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Jonathan: Practice does not follow Rebbi Simeon from Shezur.

“In addition, Rebbi Simeon from Shezur said: If he separated the heave of the tithe and it was burned, he asks the seller and eats on his information.” Did Rebbi Zeïra not say that a similar case came before Rebbi Ḥanina and he taught according to Rebbi Simeon from Shezur? Rebbi Avin said, this question does not compare to the first question. There it was, not that I suspect you, but since I bought wheat from you yesterday and I saw a multitude with you, I said maybe you forgot to put them in order. Were they put in order? But here, because I suspected you, I put them in order but they went up in fire. Were they put in order? Rebbi Samuel, the son of Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said that Bar Kappara stated: The fear of dema‘ is on him and he will tell the truth.

Just as you say, “from certain produce for demay, it is heave that should not be eaten unless heave and tithes were taken for it,” should one say so also for “from one demay for other demay?” Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Samuel bar Rav Isaac, this means that a case of doubtful dema‘ is like a case of doubt about heave of the tithe from demay; it is free from the rules of certain produce.

HALAKHAH: : Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, one has to specify a stipulation and say: If ṭevel is in my hands, it shall be tithe, but if tithe is in my hands, it shall be heave of the tithe. Rebbi Jonah said, one has to add the converse stipulation and say, otherwise I did not do anything. Rebbi Joḥanan said, one does not have to add the converse stipulation. Either one of them follows his own opinion, since they disagreed: Two heaps of grain, in one of them. Rebbi Joḥanan said, they are both forbidden as dema‘, but Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, they are not forbidden.

Rebbi Jonah asked: Why do we say: “No linear measurements stated by the Sages require ‘more’ except an interrupted trellis?” Did we not state: “Ten Jerusalem qab which equal six esronim and excess”? There about volumes, here about linear measures. But did we not state: “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 state: “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 cubit.

It was stated: “The tithes from a flower pot without hole are of practice, its heave does not create dema‘ and one does not owe a fifth for it.” Rebbi Yose asked: May one say “He Who created bread from the earth” for it? Rebbi Jonah asked: Is a gourd considered plucked that one may use it as the cover [of a sukkah]? Rebbi Judah bar Pazi asked: If somebody planted five vines in five pots without holes and arranged them two parallel two and one as tail, can you say this is a vineyard? He may rearrange, does there exist a movable vineyard?

Rebbi Zeïra said, once the new growth is the majority it is permitted; Rebbi Hila and Rebbi Immi both say it is forbidden. A baraita disagrees with Rebbi Hila and Rebbi Immi, as it was stated: “This is the rule Rebbi Simeon proclaimed in the name of Rebbi Joshua: For everything that may become permitted through some action, such as ṭevel, Second Tithe, donations to the Temple, and new grain, the Sages did not fix any limits, but a kind with its own is forbidden in the minutest amount, a kind with a different kind if it can be tasted. But for everything that cannot become permitted through any action, such as heave, ḥallah, and orlah, the Sages did fix as limit both a kind with itself or with a different kind if it can be tasted. They objected: but there is the Sabbatical that admits no act to permit it and the Sages did not fix a limit! He said to them, no. When you mention the Sabbatical, its produce is forbidden in the minutest amount only after it must be destroyed, but for food if it can be tasted.” What do they do with it? Rebbi Hila and Rebbi Immi explain it in mixtures, but as far as growing plants are concerned, this is more severe since Rebbi Zeïra said in the name of Rebbi Jonathan: An onion of kilaim in a vineyard, taken out of the ground and replanted, stays forbidden even if it grows enormously because growth of something forbidden cannot neutralize the prohibition. A Mishnah disagrees with Rebbi Zeïra as we have stated (Terumot 9:4): “A growth from heave is heave but the growth from its growth is profane. But the growth from ṭevel, First Tithe, aftergrowth of the Sabbatical, heave of the tithe, dema‘, and First Fruits is profane.” We have stated on this: “When is this true? If the seed disappears. But if the seed does not disappear even growth from growth is forbidden.” How does Rebbi Zeïra deal with this? He explains it that the sanctity of the Sabbatical applies when it must be destroyed, but for food once the new growth is the majority it is permitted.

MISHNAH: One does not give oil as heave on crushed olives, nor wine on pressed grapes. If one did, it is heave and he has to give another heave. The first one creates dema‘ by itself and one has to pay the fifth but not the second. One may give oil as heave for olives being pickled and wine for grapes to be made into raisins. If one gave oil as heave for table olives, or olives for table olives, or wine for table grapes, or grapes for table grapes, when he changed his mind to press them he does not have to give heave. One does not give heave from finished, produce for unfinished, or from unfinished for finished, or from unfinished for unfinished. If heave was given, it is heave.

MISHNAH: If one gives a green melon as heave and it turns out to be bitter, a water melon and it turns out rotten, it is heave and he should give heave a second time. If one gives an amphora of wine as heave and it turns out to be vinegar; if it was known that it turned into vinegar before he gave heave it is not heave, but if it turned into vinegar after he had made it heave, it is heave. In case of doubt it is heave and heave should be given a second time. Neither the first nor the second [heaves] do create dema‘ by themselves nor does one have to pay the fifth. If one of them fell into profane [food] it does not create dema‘. If the other one fell into another place it does not create dema‘. If both together fell into one place they create dema‘ relative to the smaller one.

MISHNAH: If one gives a green melon as heave and it turns out to be bitter, a water melon and it turns out rotten, it is heave and he should give heave a second time. If one gives an amphora of wine as heave and it turns out to be vinegar; if it was known that it turned into vinegar before he gave heave it is not heave, but if it turned into vinegar after he had made it heave, it is heave. In case of doubt it is heave and heave should be given a second time. Neither the first nor the second [heaves] do create dema‘ by themselves nor does one have to pay the fifth. If one of them fell into profane [food] it does not create dema‘. If the other one fell into another place it does not create dema‘. If both together fell into one place they create dema‘ relative to the smaller one.

MISHNAH: If one gives a green melon as heave and it turns out to be bitter, a water melon and it turns out rotten, it is heave and he should give heave a second time. If one gives an amphora of wine as heave and it turns out to be vinegar; if it was known that it turned into vinegar before he gave heave it is not heave, but if it turned into vinegar after he had made it heave, it is heave. In case of doubt it is heave and heave should be given a second time. Neither the first nor the second [heaves] do create dema‘ by themselves nor does one have to pay the fifth. If one of them fell into profane [food] it does not create dema‘. If the other one fell into another place it does not create dema‘. If both together fell into one place they create dema‘ relative to the smaller one.

MISHNAH: If one gives a green melon as heave and it turns out to be bitter, a water melon and it turns out rotten, it is heave and he should give heave a second time. If one gives an amphora of wine as heave and it turns out to be vinegar; if it was known that it turned into vinegar before he gave heave it is not heave, but if it turned into vinegar after he had made it heave, it is heave. In case of doubt it is heave and heave should be given a second time. Neither the first nor the second [heaves] do create dema‘ by themselves nor does one have to pay the fifth. If one of them fell into profane [food] it does not create dema‘. If the other one fell into another place it does not create dema‘. If both together fell into one place they create dema‘ relative to the smaller one.

How does he handle it? He gives both of them to the Cohen; the Cohen pays for one of them. Which one does he pay for, the larger or the smaller one? Since we have stated: “they create dema‘ relative to the smaller one,” this implies that he pays for the larger one.

MISHNAH: He who says the heave of this heap is contained in it, the tithes are contained in it and the heave of this tithe is contained in it, Rebbi Simeon says he gave it a name but the Sages say, only if he said in its Northern or Southern part. Rebbi Eleazar Ḥisma says, he who says, the heave of this heap is from it for itself, gave it a name. Rebbi Eliezer ben Jacob says, he who says, one tenth of this tithe is made heave of the tithe for it, gave it a name. One who gives heave before First Fruits, First Tithe before heave, Second Tithe before First, even though he transgresses a prohibition what he did is done since it is said (Ex. 22:28): "Your fullness you should not make follow your dema ’ ”. From where that First Fruits should precede heave since either one is called heave and first. First Fruits should precede since they are due before everything else, heave before First Tithe because it is first, First Tithe before the Second because it contains “first”.

HALAKHAH: Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Rebbi Simeon goes with the House of Shammai since the House of Shammai say it is sanctified as dema‘ and so Rebbi Simeon says it is sanctified as dema‘.

HALAKHAH: Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Rebbi Simeon goes with the House of Shammai since the House of Shammai say it is sanctified as dema‘ and so Rebbi Simeon says it is sanctified as dema‘.

“ If he said, the heave of this heap shall be in its Northern part, the Northern half is dema‘, the words of Rebbi;” he takes one half. “But the Sages say, like a X;” one quarter. “Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel says, he takes its heave from the Northernmost part;” one eighth.

What if the heave of two heaps [was given] together? Rebbi Joḥanan said, they are both forbidden as dema‘, but Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, they are not forbidden.

Rebbi Ḥama bar Uqba in the name of Rebbi Yose bar Ḥanina: Since he transgresses a prohibition it follows that what he did is valid. Rebbi Ḥama bar Uqba said in the name of Rebbi Yose bar Ḥanina: He is whipped. Rebbi Zeïra said, they objected before Rebbi Joḥanan and he remained silent: If he transgresses, is he whipped or not? Rebbi Aḥa bar Jacob in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: He is not whipped. How does Rebbi Joḥanan explain (Ex. 22:28): “Your fullness you should not make follow your dema‘”. He explains it for removal.

MISHNAH: The heave of the Gentile and the Samaritan is heave, their tithes are tithes, and their dedications are dedications. Rebbi Jehudah says, a Gentile cannot have a fourth year vineyard but the Sages say, he may have. The Gentile’s heave creates dema‘ and one is obliged to a fifth for it, but Rebbi Simeon frees from the obligation.

“The Gentile’s heave creates dema‘ and one is obligated to a fifth for it, but Rebbi Simeon frees from the obligation.” Rebbi Zeïra said, I said this before Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: They disagree only for the heave of his threshing floor. But for a Gentile who bought the produce of a Jew, even Rebbi Simeon will agree. Rebbi Abbahu said to me in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, the disagreement is about the latter case. It is difficult according to Rebbi Simeon, does he free his ṭevel from the Torah and you say so? But are sacrifices not from the Torah, and nevertheless Rebbi Simeon frees, as we have stated there: “Sacrifices of Gentiles are not subject to piggul, left-overs, and impurity and one who slaughters them outside is free [from punishment], the words of Rebbi Yose, but Rebbi Simeon declares him guilty.” They wanted to say that they disagree only about the fifth but not about dema‘. They found stated: It is all the same.

“The Gentile’s heave creates dema‘ and one is obligated to a fifth for it, but Rebbi Simeon frees from the obligation.” Rebbi Zeïra said, I said this before Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: They disagree only for the heave of his threshing floor. But for a Gentile who bought the produce of a Jew, even Rebbi Simeon will agree. Rebbi Abbahu said to me in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, the disagreement is about the latter case. It is difficult according to Rebbi Simeon, does he free his ṭevel from the Torah and you say so? But are sacrifices not from the Torah, and nevertheless Rebbi Simeon frees, as we have stated there: “Sacrifices of Gentiles are not subject to piggul, left-overs, and impurity and one who slaughters them outside is free [from punishment], the words of Rebbi Yose, but Rebbi Simeon declares him guilty.” They wanted to say that they disagree only about the fifth but not about dema‘. They found stated: It is all the same.

Rebbi Jeremiah in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: Rebbi Eliezer follows the House of Shammai; just as the House of Shammai say, it is sanctified as dema‘, so Rebbi Eliezer says it is sanctified as dema‘.

Rebbi Jeremiah in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: Rebbi Eliezer follows the House of Shammai; just as the House of Shammai say, it is sanctified as dema‘, so Rebbi Eliezer says it is sanctified as dema‘.

MISHNAH: Rebbi Eliezer says, heave is lifted at the rate of one in 101. Rebbi Joshua says by 100 and more. This “and more” has no measure; Rebbi Yose ben Meshullam says “and more” is one qab per one hundred seah, one sixth of what makes dema‘.

HALAKHAH: From where that they are not lifted? Rebbi Jonah said, it is written (Num. 18:29): “From all its best its sanctifying part from it.” Something from which you lift it, so that if this falls into anything it sanctifies it. How much is this? One in one hundred. Rebbi Eliezer says, one adds a seah and then lifts. Rebbi Joshua says one adds a small amount and lifts. Rebbi Yose ben Meshullam says “and more” is one qab per one hundred, one sixth of what makes dema‘; practice follows him.

The words of the rabbis disagree. Cahana asked Samuel: Is it not reasonable that the dema‘ which we stated here contains mostly heave? He said to him, that is also my opinion, but when you go to the Land of Israel do ask about this. When he went, he heard what Rebbi Yose said in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, even one seah that fell into 99 [which were] profane. Rebbi Abbahu said, thus did Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish answer Rebbi Joḥanan: That one seah frees everything? Is a fig cake among fig cakes such a sure thing that heave came up in his hand? But you must say it is [to be taken] lightly; here also it is [to be taken] lightly. Could he not have objected: It is different with fig cakes which already are disregarded? Rebbi Jonah and Rebbi Yose, both in the name of Rebbi Zeïra: Even wheat and wheat he may grind and lift.

It was stated: “A seah of heave that fell into less than a hundred makes it dema‘. One does not pay for it the amount and a fifth for another place nor from another place for this except by computation.” This is for substances which cannot be mixed. But for substances which can be mixed one goes after the plurality. If most of it is heave, it is heave, if most is profane, it is profane.

MISHNAH: One seah of impure heave which fell into 100 seah of pure heave, the House of Shammai forbid and the House of Hillel permit. The House of Hillel said to the House of Shammai: Since pure it is forbidden to outsiders and impure is forbidden to priests; just as pure [heave] can be lifted, so impure should be lifted. The House of Shammai answered them no, if simple profane produce which is permitted to outsiders lets pure [heave] be lifted, can one infer that heave, operating under stringent rules, may let the impure be lifted? After they conceded, Rebbi Eliezer said it should be lifted and burned but the Sages say, it was lost in its minority. One seah of heave which fell into one hundred, was taken out, and fell into another place: Rebbi Eliezer says it creates dema‘ like certain heave but the Sages say, it creates heave only in proportion. One seah of heave which fell into less than one hundred and made it dema‘ and from the dema‘ fell into another place; Rebbi Eliezer says it creates dema‘ like certain heave but the Sages say, dema‘ creates heave only in proportion; sour agent makes sour only in proportion, and drawn water invalidates a ritual bath only in proportion. One seah of heave which fell into one hundred, was taken out, and another one fell in: the latter is permitted until there will be more heave than profane. A seah of heave fell into 100 [profane] and before he managed to lift it, another one fell in: that is forbidden but Rebbi Simeon permits it.

MISHNAH: One seah of impure heave which fell into 100 seah of pure heave, the House of Shammai forbid and the House of Hillel permit. The House of Hillel said to the House of Shammai: Since pure it is forbidden to outsiders and impure is forbidden to priests; just as pure [heave] can be lifted, so impure should be lifted. The House of Shammai answered them no, if simple profane produce which is permitted to outsiders lets pure [heave] be lifted, can one infer that heave, operating under stringent rules, may let the impure be lifted? After they conceded, Rebbi Eliezer said it should be lifted and burned but the Sages say, it was lost in its minority. One seah of heave which fell into one hundred, was taken out, and fell into another place: Rebbi Eliezer says it creates dema‘ like certain heave but the Sages say, it creates heave only in proportion. One seah of heave which fell into less than one hundred and made it dema‘ and from the dema‘ fell into another place; Rebbi Eliezer says it creates dema‘ like certain heave but the Sages say, dema‘ creates heave only in proportion; sour agent makes sour only in proportion, and drawn water invalidates a ritual bath only in proportion. One seah of heave which fell into one hundred, was taken out, and another one fell in: the latter is permitted until there will be more heave than profane. A seah of heave fell into 100 [profane] and before he managed to lift it, another one fell in: that is forbidden but Rebbi Simeon permits it.

MISHNAH: One seah of impure heave which fell into 100 seah of pure heave, the House of Shammai forbid and the House of Hillel permit. The House of Hillel said to the House of Shammai: Since pure it is forbidden to outsiders and impure is forbidden to priests; just as pure [heave] can be lifted, so impure should be lifted. The House of Shammai answered them no, if simple profane produce which is permitted to outsiders lets pure [heave] be lifted, can one infer that heave, operating under stringent rules, may let the impure be lifted? After they conceded, Rebbi Eliezer said it should be lifted and burned but the Sages say, it was lost in its minority. One seah of heave which fell into one hundred, was taken out, and fell into another place: Rebbi Eliezer says it creates dema‘ like certain heave but the Sages say, it creates heave only in proportion. One seah of heave which fell into less than one hundred and made it dema‘ and from the dema‘ fell into another place; Rebbi Eliezer says it creates dema‘ like certain heave but the Sages say, dema‘ creates heave only in proportion; sour agent makes sour only in proportion, and drawn water invalidates a ritual bath only in proportion. One seah of heave which fell into one hundred, was taken out, and another one fell in: the latter is permitted until there will be more heave than profane. A seah of heave fell into 100 [profane] and before he managed to lift it, another one fell in: that is forbidden but Rebbi Simeon permits it.

MISHNAH: One seah of impure heave which fell into 100 seah of pure heave, the House of Shammai forbid and the House of Hillel permit. The House of Hillel said to the House of Shammai: Since pure it is forbidden to outsiders and impure is forbidden to priests; just as pure [heave] can be lifted, so impure should be lifted. The House of Shammai answered them no, if simple profane produce which is permitted to outsiders lets pure [heave] be lifted, can one infer that heave, operating under stringent rules, may let the impure be lifted? After they conceded, Rebbi Eliezer said it should be lifted and burned but the Sages say, it was lost in its minority. One seah of heave which fell into one hundred, was taken out, and fell into another place: Rebbi Eliezer says it creates dema‘ like certain heave but the Sages say, it creates heave only in proportion. One seah of heave which fell into less than one hundred and made it dema‘ and from the dema‘ fell into another place; Rebbi Eliezer says it creates dema‘ like certain heave but the Sages say, dema‘ creates heave only in proportion; sour agent makes sour only in proportion, and drawn water invalidates a ritual bath only in proportion. One seah of heave which fell into one hundred, was taken out, and another one fell in: the latter is permitted until there will be more heave than profane. A seah of heave fell into 100 [profane] and before he managed to lift it, another one fell in: that is forbidden but Rebbi Simeon permits it.

MISHNAH: One seah of impure heave which fell into 100 seah of pure heave, the House of Shammai forbid and the House of Hillel permit. The House of Hillel said to the House of Shammai: Since pure it is forbidden to outsiders and impure is forbidden to priests; just as pure [heave] can be lifted, so impure should be lifted. The House of Shammai answered them no, if simple profane produce which is permitted to outsiders lets pure [heave] be lifted, can one infer that heave, operating under stringent rules, may let the impure be lifted? After they conceded, Rebbi Eliezer said it should be lifted and burned but the Sages say, it was lost in its minority. One seah of heave which fell into one hundred, was taken out, and fell into another place: Rebbi Eliezer says it creates dema‘ like certain heave but the Sages say, it creates heave only in proportion. One seah of heave which fell into less than one hundred and made it dema‘ and from the dema‘ fell into another place; Rebbi Eliezer says it creates dema‘ like certain heave but the Sages say, dema‘ creates heave only in proportion; sour agent makes sour only in proportion, and drawn water invalidates a ritual bath only in proportion. One seah of heave which fell into one hundred, was taken out, and another one fell in: the latter is permitted until there will be more heave than profane. A seah of heave fell into 100 [profane] and before he managed to lift it, another one fell in: that is forbidden but Rebbi Simeon permits it.

Rebbi Joḥanan said, a seah of heave which fell into 100 of profane produce, anything will make it become insignificant. Our Mishnah disagrees with Rebbi Joḥanan: “It creates heave only in proportion”. Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, Rebbi Joḥanan stated only: “It does not create any dema‘.” But they said only when there was more heave than profane, and he when there was more profane than the proportion of heave so that it should become insignificant in the plurality. Rebbi Eleazar said, only if it fell into a dema‘. In the opinion of Rebbi Eleazar, are the lower and upper profane produce united to lift? Rebbi Eleazar wants to say that the lower profane produce becomes inert.

Rebbi Joḥanan said, a seah of heave which fell into 100 of profane produce, anything will make it become insignificant. Our Mishnah disagrees with Rebbi Joḥanan: “It creates heave only in proportion”. Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, Rebbi Joḥanan stated only: “It does not create any dema‘.” But they said only when there was more heave than profane, and he when there was more profane than the proportion of heave so that it should become insignificant in the plurality. Rebbi Eleazar said, only if it fell into a dema‘. In the opinion of Rebbi Eleazar, are the lower and upper profane produce united to lift? Rebbi Eleazar wants to say that the lower profane produce becomes inert.

It was stated: One seah of heave that fell into one hundred, he says to the Cohen, am I not obligated to you for the value of firewood? Take the value of the firewood! But he answers him, does a seah of heave which fell into less than 100 not make the entire heave dema‘? Does firewood create dema‘? Does he not in the end have to give it to another Cohen who will pay him for the value of the fuel? How is that? He gives him the value of the fuel and they should split the rest. A person spilled barley into wheat. The case came before Rebbi Jehudah bar Shalom who said, let him pay the price of barley; they should split the rest.

It was stated: One seah of heave that fell into one hundred, he says to the Cohen, am I not obligated to you for the value of firewood? Take the value of the firewood! But he answers him, does a seah of heave which fell into less than 100 not make the entire heave dema‘? Does firewood create dema‘? Does he not in the end have to give it to another Cohen who will pay him for the value of the fuel? How is that? He gives him the value of the fuel and they should split the rest. A person spilled barley into wheat. The case came before Rebbi Jehudah bar Shalom who said, let him pay the price of barley; they should split the rest.

It was stated: “One may mill from the start to permit.” The baraita is Rebbi Yose’s, since “Rebbi Yose said, one may collect to lift one in two hundred”. Rebbi Zeїra said, Cohanim are used to mill dema‘ in their houses. What is the difference between them? Kilaim in a vineyard. In the opinion of Rebbi Yose, one mills to permit; in the opinion of the rabbis, one may not mill to permit.

MISHNAH: Two boxes, one of heave and one profane. A seah of heave fell into one of them and it is not known into which one; I say it fell into heave. If it is not known which [box] is heave and which one is profane, if one ate [the contents of] one of them, he is free. The [contents of] the second he treats as heave but it is subject to ḥallah, the words of Rebbi Meïr; but Rebbi Yose declares it free. If another person ate from the second [box], he is free. If he ate from both of them, he pays according to the lesser of the two. If one of them fell into profane [produce] it would not make it dema‘. The [contents of] the second he treats as heave but it is subject to ḥallah, the words of Rebbi Meïr; but Rebbi Yose declares it free. If the [contents of the] second [box] fell into another place, they would not make it dema‘. If both together fell into one place they would create dema‘ relative to the smaller one. sup>118 If he sowed [the contents of] one of them, he is free. The [contents o f ] the second he treats as heave but it is subject to ḥallah, the words of Rebbi Meir; but Rebbi Yose declares it free. If another person sowed the second one, he is free. If one person sowed [the contents of] both of them, if it is a kind whose seeds disappear, all is permitted, if they do not disappear, it is forbidden.

MISHNAH: Two boxes, one of heave and one profane. A seah of heave fell into one of them and it is not known into which one; I say it fell into heave. If it is not known which [box] is heave and which one is profane, if one ate [the contents of] one of them, he is free. The [contents of] the second he treats as heave but it is subject to ḥallah, the words of Rebbi Meïr; but Rebbi Yose declares it free. If another person ate from the second [box], he is free. If he ate from both of them, he pays according to the lesser of the two. If one of them fell into profane [produce] it would not make it dema‘. The [contents of] the second he treats as heave but it is subject to ḥallah, the words of Rebbi Meïr; but Rebbi Yose declares it free. If the [contents of the] second [box] fell into another place, they would not make it dema‘. If both together fell into one place they would create dema‘ relative to the smaller one. sup>118 If he sowed [the contents of] one of them, he is free. The [contents o f ] the second he treats as heave but it is subject to ḥallah, the words of Rebbi Meir; but Rebbi Yose declares it free. If another person sowed the second one, he is free. If one person sowed [the contents of] both of them, if it is a kind whose seeds disappear, all is permitted, if they do not disappear, it is forbidden.

MISHNAH: Two boxes, one of heave and one profane. A seah of heave fell into one of them and it is not known into which one; I say it fell into heave. If it is not known which [box] is heave and which one is profane, if one ate [the contents of] one of them, he is free. The [contents of] the second he treats as heave but it is subject to ḥallah, the words of Rebbi Meïr; but Rebbi Yose declares it free. If another person ate from the second [box], he is free. If he ate from both of them, he pays according to the lesser of the two. If one of them fell into profane [produce] it would not make it dema‘. The [contents of] the second he treats as heave but it is subject to ḥallah, the words of Rebbi Meïr; but Rebbi Yose declares it free. If the [contents of the] second [box] fell into another place, they would not make it dema‘. If both together fell into one place they would create dema‘ relative to the smaller one. sup>118 If he sowed [the contents of] one of them, he is free. The [contents o f ] the second he treats as heave but it is subject to ḥallah, the words of Rebbi Meir; but Rebbi Yose declares it free. If another person sowed the second one, he is free. If one person sowed [the contents of] both of them, if it is a kind whose seeds disappear, all is permitted, if they do not disappear, it is forbidden.

HALAKHAH: One impure and one pure, I say it fell into the impure one. One dema‘ and one not dema‘, I say it fell into the one containing dema‘. One contains enough for lifting and one does not, I say it fell into the one which does not contain enough for lifting.

HALAKHAH: One impure and one pure, I say it fell into the impure one. One dema‘ and one not dema‘, I say it fell into the one containing dema‘. One contains enough for lifting and one does not, I say it fell into the one which does not contain enough for lifting.

HALAKHAH: One impure and one pure, I say it fell into the impure one. One dema‘ and one not dema‘, I say it fell into the one containing dema‘. One contains enough for lifting and one does not, I say it fell into the one which does not contain enough for lifting.

“Two boxes, one of impure heave and one of pure profane [grain]: a seah of impure heave fell into one of them and it is not known into which of them it fell, I say it fell into heave but the profane should be eaten in the form of crackers. If a seah of pure heave fell, I say it fell into heave but the profane should be eaten as crackers. Two boxes, one of pure heave and one of impure profane [grain]: a seah of pure heave fell into one of them and it is not known into which of them it fell, I say it fell into heave but the profane should be eaten as crackers. If a seah of impure heave fell, both of them are forbidden.” In any way you look at it, if it fell into heave, it is forbidden, if it fell into the profane, it is forbidden since impurity in doubt is impure but dema‘ in doubt is permitted.

Rebbi Joḥanan said, a doubt of dema‘ is free from ḥallah but a doubt of dema‘ which is eaten as dema‘ is subject to ḥallah. Rebbi Joḥanan said, this follows Rebbi Jehudah, as we have stated there: “If they ask together, they are impure. One after the other they are pure. Rebbi Yose says, in both cases they are impure.” Where do we hold? If somebody comes to ask about himself and his friend. Rebbi Jehudah says, he says: ask about yourself and go away. But Rebbi Yose said, it is as if both of them asked together. And here it is as if both of them asked together.

Rebbi Joḥanan said, a doubt of dema‘ is free from ḥallah but a doubt of dema‘ which is eaten as dema‘ is subject to ḥallah. Rebbi Joḥanan said, this follows Rebbi Jehudah, as we have stated there: “If they ask together, they are impure. One after the other they are pure. Rebbi Yose says, in both cases they are impure.” Where do we hold? If somebody comes to ask about himself and his friend. Rebbi Jehudah says, he says: ask about yourself and go away. But Rebbi Yose said, it is as if both of them asked together. And here it is as if both of them asked together.

Rebbi Joḥanan said, a doubt of dema‘ is free from ḥallah but a doubt of dema‘ which is eaten as dema‘ is subject to ḥallah. Rebbi Joḥanan said, this follows Rebbi Jehudah, as we have stated there: “If they ask together, they are impure. One after the other they are pure. Rebbi Yose says, in both cases they are impure.” Where do we hold? If somebody comes to ask about himself and his friend. Rebbi Jehudah says, he says: ask about yourself and go away. But Rebbi Yose said, it is as if both of them asked together. And here it is as if both of them asked together.

MISHNAH: The growth from heave is heave; the growth from their growth is profane. But the growths from ṭevel, First Tithe, aftergrowth of the Sabbatical, heave from outside the Land, demaʻ, and First Fruits are profane. Growths from dedicated [seeds] and Second Tithe are profane; one redeems them corresponding to the time of sowing. One hundred lagenae of heave and one profane are all permitted for produce whose seeds desappear; but for produce whose seeds do not disappear, even if there are one hundred profane and one of heave they all are forbidden. Growth from ṭevel is permitted for anything whose seeds disappear, but if the seeds do not disappear even the growth from the growth is forbidden. What is one whose seeds do not disappear? For example arum, garlic, and onions. Rebbi Jehudah says, garlic is like barley.

HALAKHAH: We have stated on this: When has this been said? Anything whose seeds disappear. But in produce whose seeds do not disappear, the growth from their growth is forbidden. But ṭevel is mostly profane, First Tithe is mostly profane, aftergrowth of the Sabbatical is infrequent, heave from outside the Land is infrequent, most of dema‘ is profane, First Fruits are infrequent.

MISHNAH: The following are subject to ḥallah but exempt from tithes: Gleanings, forgotten sheaves, and peah, as well as abandoned property, First tithe of which its heave had been taken, second tithe and dedicated [grain] that were redeemed, the excess of the ‘omer, and grain not yet one-third ripe. Rebbi Eleazar said, grain not yet one-third ripe is exempt from ḥallah. The following are obligated for tithes but free from ḥallah: Rice, millet, poppies, sesame, legumes, and less than five quarter [qab] of grain. Bismarcks, honey cakes, roasted cakes, pancakes, and dema‘ are free from ḥallah.

For him who holds it is obligated, if he used it as heave of the tithe for some other produce, how do you treat it? Like a heap of sheaves which became dema‘ or like a dough which became dema‘? A heap of sheaves which became dema‘ you say is obligated, a dough which became dema‘ you say is free! Rebbi Tanḥuma in the name of Rebbi Ḥuna: Concerning a heap of sheaves which became dema‘ if he transgressed and gave heave before it became obligated, is it not heave? A dough which became dema‘ if he transgressed and gave ḥallah from it before it became obligated is not ḥallah as we have stated there: “If somebody gives ḥallah from flour it is not ḥallah and will be robbery in the hand if the Cohen.”

For him who holds it is obligated, if he used it as heave of the tithe for some other produce, how do you treat it? Like a heap of sheaves which became dema‘ or like a dough which became dema‘? A heap of sheaves which became dema‘ you say is obligated, a dough which became dema‘ you say is free! Rebbi Tanḥuma in the name of Rebbi Ḥuna: Concerning a heap of sheaves which became dema‘ if he transgressed and gave heave before it became obligated, is it not heave? A dough which became dema‘ if he transgressed and gave ḥallah from it before it became obligated is not ḥallah as we have stated there: “If somebody gives ḥallah from flour it is not ḥallah and will be robbery in the hand if the Cohen.”

For him who holds it is obligated, if he used it as heave of the tithe for some other produce, how do you treat it? Like a heap of sheaves which became dema‘ or like a dough which became dema‘? A heap of sheaves which became dema‘ you say is obligated, a dough which became dema‘ you say is free! Rebbi Tanḥuma in the name of Rebbi Ḥuna: Concerning a heap of sheaves which became dema‘ if he transgressed and gave heave before it became obligated, is it not heave? A dough which became dema‘ if he transgressed and gave ḥallah from it before it became obligated is not ḥallah as we have stated there: “If somebody gives ḥallah from flour it is not ḥallah and will be robbery in the hand if the Cohen.”

For him who holds it is obligated, if he used it as heave of the tithe for some other produce, how do you treat it? Like a heap of sheaves which became dema‘ or like a dough which became dema‘? A heap of sheaves which became dema‘ you say is obligated, a dough which became dema‘ you say is free! Rebbi Tanḥuma in the name of Rebbi Ḥuna: Concerning a heap of sheaves which became dema‘ if he transgressed and gave heave before it became obligated, is it not heave? A dough which became dema‘ if he transgressed and gave ḥallah from it before it became obligated is not ḥallah as we have stated there: “If somebody gives ḥallah from flour it is not ḥallah and will be robbery in the hand if the Cohen.”

For him who holds it is obligated, if he used it as heave of the tithe for some other produce, how do you treat it? Like a heap of sheaves which became dema‘ or like a dough which became dema‘? A heap of sheaves which became dema‘ you say is obligated, a dough which became dema‘ you say is free! Rebbi Tanḥuma in the name of Rebbi Ḥuna: Concerning a heap of sheaves which became dema‘ if he transgressed and gave heave before it became obligated, is it not heave? A dough which became dema‘ if he transgressed and gave ḥallah from it before it became obligated is not ḥallah as we have stated there: “If somebody gives ḥallah from flour it is not ḥallah and will be robbery in the hand if the Cohen.”

For him who holds it is obligated, if he used it as heave of the tithe for some other produce, how do you treat it? Like a heap of sheaves which became dema‘ or like a dough which became dema‘? A heap of sheaves which became dema‘ you say is obligated, a dough which became dema‘ you say is free! Rebbi Tanḥuma in the name of Rebbi Ḥuna: Concerning a heap of sheaves which became dema‘ if he transgressed and gave heave before it became obligated, is it not heave? A dough which became dema‘ if he transgressed and gave ḥallah from it before it became obligated is not ḥallah as we have stated there: “If somebody gives ḥallah from flour it is not ḥallah and will be robbery in the hand if the Cohen.”

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 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 sides.

The words of the rabbis disagree. Cahana asked Samuel: Is it not reasonable that the dema‘ which we stated here contains mostly heave? He said to him, that is also my opinion, but when you go to the Land of Israel do ask about this. When he went, he heard what Rebbi Assi said in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, even one seah that fell into 99 [which were] profane. Rebbi Abbahu said, thus did Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish answer Rebbi Joḥanan: That one seah frees everything? Is a fig cake among fig cakes such a sure thing that heave came up in his hand? But you must say it is [to be taken] lightly; here also it is [to be taken] lightly. Could he not have objected: Is it different with fig cakes which already are disregarded? Rebbi Jonah and Rebbi Yose, both in the name of Rebbi Zeïra: Even wheat and wheat he may grind and lift.

“Less than five quarter [qab] of grain.” Rebbi Abina said, this you said if it was less than five quarter [qab] of grain. But if it were exactly five quarters, this does not apply. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun in the name of Rebbi Abuna, it was not said on that but on the following: Rebbi Joḥanan said, dema‘ is free from ḥallah but ḥallah is obligated for what is possible dema‘ and is eaten because of dema‘. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun in the name of Rebbi Abuna, when has this been said? For more than five quarter [qab], but for exactly five quarters it is exempt from ḥallah.

“Less than five quarter [qab] of grain.” Rebbi Abina said, this you said if it was less than five quarter [qab] of grain. But if it were exactly five quarters, this does not apply. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun in the name of Rebbi Abuna, it was not said on that but on the following: Rebbi Joḥanan said, dema‘ is free from ḥallah but ḥallah is obligated for what is possible dema‘ and is eaten because of dema‘. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun in the name of Rebbi Abuna, when has this been said? For more than five quarter [qab], but for exactly five quarters it is exempt from ḥallah.

“Less than five quarter [qab] of grain.” Rebbi Abina said, this you said if it was less than five quarter [qab] of grain. But if it were exactly five quarters, this does not apply. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun in the name of Rebbi Abuna, it was not said on that but on the following: Rebbi Joḥanan said, dema‘ is free from ḥallah but ḥallah is obligated for what is possible dema‘ and is eaten because of dema‘. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun in the name of Rebbi Abuna, when has this been said? For more than five quarter [qab], but for exactly five quarters it is exempt from ḥallah.

“Rebbi Jehudah said, when is this? When the ship touches ground.” Rebbi Ḥaggai said, Rebbi Jehudah follows his opinion since Rebbi Jehudah exempts water, as it has no consistency. Rebbi Abin said, it is more reasonable to assume his opinion changed; if the ship does not touch ground, would it not be as if the ship touched ground? If the ship does not touch ground, its tithes are of practice; one tithes from it for a flower pot without hole and from a flower pot without hole for it, as it was stated: “The tithes from a flower pot without hole are of practice, its heave does not create dema‘ and one does not owe a fifth for it.” Rebbi Hila in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: If somebody acquires a flower pot with a hole in Syria, even if he did not acquire the earth under it or the ground on which it stands, he acquired it to be obligated for tithes and the Sabbatical, even if it sits on two pegs. Even Rebbi Jehudah will agree with this. What is the difference between this case and that of a ship? A ship rises and falls, this [flower pot] rests in its place.

MISHNAH: If the dough became dema‘ before it was rolled it is exempt since dema‘ is exempt from ḥallah. If a doubt of impurity arose before it was rolled it may be processed in impurity but after it was rolled it must be processed in purity.

MISHNAH: If the dough became dema‘ before it was rolled it is exempt since dema‘ is exempt from ḥallah. If a doubt of impurity arose before it was rolled it may be processed in impurity but after it was rolled it must be processed in purity.

“ A qab of rice does not combine; a qab of dema‘ does not combine, a qab of heave does not combine. A Gentile’s qab does not combine. A qab of another kind combines. A qab of another woman combines. A qab of new grain combines. A qab of something of which ḥallah was taken in the middle does combine.” Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya asked: Does a qab of ḥallah combine? Rebbi Ḥalaphta ben Shaul stated: “A dedicated qab does combine, a qab of ḥallah does not combine.” What is the difference between dedicated [dough] and ḥallah? Dedicated [dough] may be redeemed and made obligated, ḥallah cannot be redeemed and made obligated.

Ḥilfai asked Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Simeon [ben Laqish], do condiments forbid with more than 200? They said to him, condiments are not in more than 200. But did we not state: “Anything which sours, spices, or creates dema‘?” If you say about 100 or 200, even if it does not sour, spice, or create dema‘! But we deal with grapes. Rebbi Assi in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, if they were not raisins, but if they were raisins they are condiments in more than 200. Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, if they were not cooked, but if they were cooked they are condiments in more than 200.

Ḥilfai asked Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Simeon [ben Laqish], do condiments forbid with more than 200? They said to him, condiments are not in more than 200. But did we not state: “Anything which sours, spices, or creates dema‘?” If you say about 100 or 200, even if it does not sour, spice, or create dema‘! But we deal with grapes. Rebbi Assi in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, if they were not raisins, but if they were raisins they are condiments in more than 200. Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, if they were not cooked, but if they were cooked they are condiments in more than 200.

Rebbi Assi in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi in the name of Bar Pedaiah: [All sources of taste one in a hundred. Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi in the name of Bar Pedaiah:] All sources of taste one in sixty. Rebbi Samuel ben Rav Isaac said to Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba: Rebbi Assi disagrees with you and the Mishnah disagrees with both of you: “Anything which sours, spices, or creates dema‘? If you say about 100 or 200, even if it does not sour, spice, or create dema‘! Therefore, we hold even more. Rebbi Jeremiah said, explain it for meat in meat. Rebbi Yose said, meat in meat is the same as all other prohibitions since Rebbi Abbahu said in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, one estimates as if they were so.

Rebbi Assi in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi in the name of Bar Pedaiah: [All sources of taste one in a hundred. Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi in the name of Bar Pedaiah:] All sources of taste one in sixty. Rebbi Samuel ben Rav Isaac said to Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba: Rebbi Assi disagrees with you and the Mishnah disagrees with both of you: “Anything which sours, spices, or creates dema‘? If you say about 100 or 200, even if it does not sour, spice, or create dema‘! Therefore, we hold even more. Rebbi Jeremiah said, explain it for meat in meat. Rebbi Yose said, meat in meat is the same as all other prohibitions since Rebbi Abbahu said in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, one estimates as if they were so.

There, we have stated: “If a seah of heave fell into 100 and one milled it and it lost volume, in proportion to what the profane lost, the heave lost, and it is permitted.” It was stated: [“One may mill from the start to permit.” The baraita is Rebbi Yose’s, since “Rebbi Yose said,] he even may intend to harvest, it will be lifted by one in two hundred”. Rebbi Zeïra said, Cohanim are used to mill dema‘ in their houses. What is the difference between them? Kilaim in a vineyard. In the opinion of Rebbi Yose, one mills to permit; in the opinion of the rabbis, one may not mill to permit.

“And are lifted by one and 100”. How do you treat it, as beginning of separation or end of separation? If you say as beginning of separation, no minor may lift, no unrelated person may lift, and it does not push away the Sabbath. 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 stated: “Rebbi Jehudah says, also one may lift dema‘ by one in a hundred.” On that, it was stated: “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 separation. Rebbi Yose said, even Rebbi Simeon ben Eleazar treated it as end of separation. Does not Rebbi Simeon ben Eleazar agree that it is forbidden to do so with certain [produce]? How is that? He should never do it on the Sabbath the way he does it on a weekday.

From where that they may be lifted? Rebbi Jonah said, it is written (Num. 18:29): “From all its best its sanctifying part from it.” Something from which you lift it, so that if this falls into anything it sanctifies it. How much is this? One in one hundred. Rebbi Eliezer says, one adds a seah and then lifts. Rebbi Joshua says one adds a small amount and lifts. Rebbi Yose ben Meshullam says “and more” is one qab per one hundred seah, one sixth of what makes dema‘.

It was stated: “Rebbi Simeon says, heave can be lifted in 100 by a conclusion a minore ad majus: If what is forbidden can be lifted from what is forbidden, so much more what is forbidden from what is permitted!” Heave, some Tannaïm state “what is forbidden from what is permitted;” some Tannaïm state “what is permitted from what is permitted.” He who says “what is forbidden from what is permitted”, because heave is forbidden to lay persons. He who says “what is permitted from what is permitted”, because heave is permitted to Cohanim. Some explain it all about Cohanim: He who says “what is forbidden from what is permitted”, in the case of dema‘ by impure heave. He who says “permitted from what is permitted”, in the case of dema‘ by pure heave.

It was stated: “Rebbi Simeon says, heave can be lifted in 100 by a conclusion a minore ad majus: If what is forbidden can be lifted from what is forbidden, so much more what is forbidden from what is permitted!” Heave, some Tannaïm state “what is forbidden from what is permitted;” some Tannaïm state “what is permitted from what is permitted.” He who says “what is forbidden from what is permitted”, because heave is forbidden to lay persons. He who says “what is permitted from what is permitted”, because heave is permitted to Cohanim. Some explain it all about Cohanim: He who says “what is forbidden from what is permitted”, in the case of dema‘ by impure heave. He who says “permitted from what is permitted”, in the case of dema‘ by pure heave.

MISHNAH: Anything which sours, or spices, or creates dema‘ from heave, or is ‘orlah, or vineyard kilaim, is forbidden. The House of Shammai say, also it transmits impurity, but the House of Hillel say nothing transmits impurity unless it has at least the volume of a chicken egg. Dositheos from Kefar Etma was a student of Shammai. He said, I asked Shammai the Elder and he said, nothing transmits impurity unless it has the volume of a chicken egg. And why did they say, anything which sours, or spices, or creates dema‘, is restrictive if a kind is mixed with its own kind, but permissive or restrictive if a kind is mixed with another kind. How is that? Sourdough from wheat which fell into wheat dough and is enough to make the latter sour, whether it would qualify to be lifted by one in 100 or not qualify to be lifted by one in 100, is forbidden. If it does not qualify to be lifted by one in 100 it is forbidden whether it is enough to make the latter sour or not enough to make sour. Permissive or restrictive if a kind is mixed with another kind, how is that? If groats were cooked with lentils, if they can be tasted, whether they would qualify to be lifted by one in 100 or not qualify to be lifted by one in 100, are forbidden. If they cannot be tasted, whether they would qualify to be lifted by one in 100 or not qualify to be lifted by one in 100, are permitted.

MISHNAH: Anything which sours, or spices, or creates dema‘ from heave, or is ‘orlah, or vineyard kilaim, is forbidden. The House of Shammai say, also it transmits impurity, but the House of Hillel say nothing transmits impurity unless it has at least the volume of a chicken egg. Dositheos from Kefar Etma was a student of Shammai. He said, I asked Shammai the Elder and he said, nothing transmits impurity unless it has the volume of a chicken egg. And why did they say, anything which sours, or spices, or creates dema‘, is restrictive if a kind is mixed with its own kind, but permissive or restrictive if a kind is mixed with another kind. How is that? Sourdough from wheat which fell into wheat dough and is enough to make the latter sour, whether it would qualify to be lifted by one in 100 or not qualify to be lifted by one in 100, is forbidden. If it does not qualify to be lifted by one in 100 it is forbidden whether it is enough to make the latter sour or not enough to make sour. Permissive or restrictive if a kind is mixed with another kind, how is that? If groats were cooked with lentils, if they can be tasted, whether they would qualify to be lifted by one in 100 or not qualify to be lifted by one in 100, are forbidden. If they cannot be tasted, whether they would qualify to be lifted by one in 100 or not qualify to be lifted by one in 100, are permitted.

Rebbi Joḥanan went to a place and said, I am Ben Azai here. There came an old man to ask him. He said, “the growth from heave is heave; the growth from their growth is profane. But the growths from ṭevel, second tithe and first tithe, aftergrowth of the Sabbatical, heave from outside the Land, dema‘, and First Fruits are profane.” There, you say their growth is permitted, why do you say here, their growth is forbidden? He said to him, where do we say their growth is permitted? For things whose seeds disappear. Where do we say their growth is forbidden? For things whose seeds do not disappear. He said to him, but did we not state: “What is one whose seeds do not disappear? For example arum, garlic, and onions.” Are arum, garlic, and onions obligated for First Fruits? He said, the Ben Azai from here went away as you say. He asked Rebbi Yannai who told him, for tithe everything was classified as things whose seeds do not disappear.

HALAKHAH: “How does one designate First Fruits? Etc.” In the opinion of Rebbi Simeon, if he did not call them when they were picked they are not sanctified, they do not create dema‘, one is not required to add a fifth, and one is not whipped for them outside the wall. What is the reason of the rabbis? (Deut. 26:10) “Now, behold, I brought the first of the fruits of the earth.” At the moment of presentation it must be a fruit, but also at the moment of dedication? Even unripe grapes, even unripe figs! In the opinion of Rebbi Simeon, since at the moment of presentation it must be a fruit, so also at the moment of dedication it must be a fruit.

There are Tannaim who state, one moves dema. There are Tannaim who state, one does not move. Rebbi Eleazar said, he who said that one moves, if the heave was pure; but he who said that one does not move, if the heave was impure. Or about one where there was enough lift, but not about one where there was not enough lift. Who said that one moves? Rebbi Eliezer, as we have stated: “Rebbi Eliezer said, the seah which fell in is the seah which came up.

MISHNAH: A person may lift his son with a stone in the latter’s hand, or a basket with a stone in it. One may move impure heave together with pure one or with profane food. Rebbi Jehudah says, one also may lift demaˋ by 101.

“This is the rule Rebbi Simeon declared in the name of Rebbi Joshua: For everything that may become permitted through some action, such as ṭevel, Second Tithe, donations to the Temple, and “new grain”, the Sages did not fix any limits, but a kind with its own is forbidden in the minutest amount, a kind with a different kind if it can be tasted. But for everything that cannot become permitted through any action, such as heave, ḥallah, orlah, and kilaim in a vineyard, the Sages did fix as limit both a kind with itself or with a different kind if it can be tasted.” How do you treat vows? As referring to something that can become permitted or to something that cannot become permitted? It seems reasonable that we treat them as referring to things that can become permitted, as we have stated there “for the Elder uproots the vow from the start.” They said, he only uproots for the future. Certainly a Mishnah treats it as referring to something that cannot become permitted, as we have stated there: “The growth from heave is heave; the growth from their growth is profane. But the growths from ṭevel, First Tithe, aftergrowth of the Sabbatical, heaves from outside the Land, dema‘, and First Fruits are profane as are growths from their growths. Growths from dedicated [seeds] and Second Tithe become profane; one redeems them corresponding to the time of sowing.” We have stated on this: When has this been said? Anything whose seeds disappear. But in produce whose seeds do not disappear, the growth from their growth is forbidden. There is a restriction on growth, as Rebbi Zeïra said in the name of Rebbi Jonathan: An onion of kilaim in a vineyard, taken out of the ground and replanted, stays forbidden even if it grows enormously because growth of something forbidden cannot neutralize the prohibition. But another Mishnah treats it as something that can become permitted, as we have stated there: “For if somebody vowed not to have a certain thing and it became mixed with something else, if it can be tasted it is forbidden.” This explains that it was mixed with another kind, following the rules of something that can become permitted.

Ḥilfai asked Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish, do condiments forbid with more than 200? They said to him, condiments are not in more than 200. But did we not state: “Anything which sours, flavors, or creates dema‘?” If you say about 100 or 200, even if it does not sour, flavor, or create dema‘! But we deal with grapes. Rebbi Assi in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, if they were not raisins, but if they were raisins they are condiments in more than 200. Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, if they were not cooked, but if they were cooked they are condiments in more than 200.

Ḥilfai asked Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish, do condiments forbid with more than 200? They said to him, condiments are not in more than 200. But did we not state: “Anything which sours, flavors, or creates dema‘?” If you say about 100 or 200, even if it does not sour, flavor, or create dema‘! But we deal with grapes. Rebbi Assi in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, if they were not raisins, but if they were raisins they are condiments in more than 200. Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, if they were not cooked, but if they were cooked they are condiments in more than 200.

Rebbi Yasa in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi in the name of Bar Pedaiah: All sources of flavor one in a hundred. Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi in the name of Bar Pedaiah: All sources of flavor one in sixty. Rebbi Samuel ben Rav Isaac said to Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba: Rebbi Yasa disagrees with you and the Mishnah disagrees with both of you: “Anything which sours, flavors, or creates dema‘? If you say about 100 or 200, even if it does not sour, flavor, or create dema‘! Therefore, we hold even more. Rebbi Jeremiah said, explain it for meat in meat. Rebbi Yose said, meat in meat is the same as all other prohibitions since Rebbi Abbahu said in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, one estimates as if they were onion or leeks.

Rebbi Yasa in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi in the name of Bar Pedaiah: All sources of flavor one in a hundred. Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi in the name of Bar Pedaiah: All sources of flavor one in sixty. Rebbi Samuel ben Rav Isaac said to Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba: Rebbi Yasa disagrees with you and the Mishnah disagrees with both of you: “Anything which sours, flavors, or creates dema‘? If you say about 100 or 200, even if it does not sour, flavor, or create dema‘! Therefore, we hold even more. Rebbi Jeremiah said, explain it for meat in meat. Rebbi Yose said, meat in meat is the same as all other prohibitions since Rebbi Abbahu said in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, one estimates as if they were onion or leeks.

MISHNAH: If someone causes impurity, or dema‘, or libation wine, if it was unintentional he is free, intentional he is obligated. If Cohanim in the Temple intentionally made [a sacrifice] piggul, they have to pay.

HALAKHAH: Rebbi Yudan did not go to the assembly. He was standing with Rebbi Mana and asked him, what new was said? He said: So says Rebbi Yose, a person causing impurity does not have the status of a perpetrator, fromthe following: “Heave which became impure.” He answered: Explain it, if it became impure by itself; then you cannot infer anything, because of a Mishnah: “If somebody judged, absolved the guilty and obligated the innocent, declared the pure impure and the impure pure.” For Rav Jeremiah said in the name of Rav: If he touched it with his hand. Samuel said: If he touched it with his hand. Rebbi Jehudah ben Rebbi says, it should have been logical that even intentionally he should have been free. Why did they say that he is obligated? That he should tell. And Rebbi Joḥanan said, it should have been logical that even unintentionally he should have been obligated. Why did they say that he is free? Because of a fine. The strength of Rebbi Joḥanan comes from this: “If someone causes anything to become impure, or dema‘, or libation wine, if it was unintentional he is free, intentional he is obligated,” and Rebbi Joḥanan said, he pays a fine. A baraita supports Rebbi Joḥanan: “A person who puts a yoke on another’s cow is free in human law but guilty in Heaven’s law.”

Rav Huna in the name of Rav: If he mixed. If he made a libation and then mixed it, at the start he committed a capital crime and at the end he has to pay? Rebbi Abba objected: Think of it, if he killed somebody and broke the flask, at the start he committed a capital crime and in the end he has to pay? Rebbi Yose objected: Think of it, if he set fire to somebody’s grain stack on the Day of Atonement, at the start he committed a capital crime and in the end he has to pay? “If someone causes anything to become impure, or turn into dema‘, or libation wine, if it was unintentional he is free, intentional he is obligated,” and Rebbi Joḥanan said, he pays a fine.