5. If three kinds of vegetables [of Seventh Year produce] were preserved in a single jar, R. Eliezer says: They may be eaten only such time as the first [of the three kinds to ripen] remains in the field. R. Joshua says: Even until the last [of the three to ripen] still remains. Rabban Gamaliel says: When the like kind comes to an end in the field the law of Removal applies to that same kind that is in the jar. And the Halakah is according to him. R. Simeon says: All vegetables are alike in what concerns the law of Removal: one may continue eating [Seventh Year] purslane until vetches come to an end in the valley of Beth Netopha.1 6. If a man gathered fresh vegetables [of Seventh Year produce, he may continue to eat of them] until the [ground] moisture is dried up. If he gathered dried vegetables [he may continue to eat of them] until the second rainfall2 [of the next year]. Leaves of reeds or of vines [may continue to be used] until they [that are still left in the field] fall from their stem; or if they were gathered dry, until the second rainfall. R. Akiba says: In every case [they may continue to be used] until the second rainfall.
7. In like manner if a man hired a house to his fellow ‘until the rains’, [this signifies] ‘until the second rainfall’. If a man was under a vow3 to derive no benefit from his fellow ‘until the rains’, [this signifies] ‘until the second rainfall’. Until when may the poor enter the gardens4 [to glean]? Until the second rainfall. After what time may the straw and stubble5 of the Seventh Year be made use of or burnt? After the second rainfall.
8. If a man still had Seventh Year produce and the time came for Removal, he must allot food for three meals to every person [in his house¬ hold]. The poor may eat [of such produce] after the time of Removal, but not the rich. So R. Judah. R. Jose says: Poor and rich alike may eat after the time of Removal.
9. If a man had Seventh Year produce that had fallen to him by inheri¬ tance or gift, R. Eliezer says: It must be given [free] to them that would eat of it. But the Sages say: The sinner6 may not be benefited! — but, rather, the produce should be sold to them that would eat of it, and its price divided among them all. If a man ate of dough made from Seventh Year produce before Dough -offering was taken from it, he is guilty of death.7 10. 1. The Seventh Year cancels8 any loan whether it is secured by bond or not. It does not cancel debts due to a shopkeeper,9 but if they were turned into a loan it cancels them. R. Judah says: If a later debt is incurred the former [is deemed to be a loan and] is cancelled. The hire of an hireling is not cancelled, but if it was turned into a loan it is cancelled. R. Jose says: If the work must stop in the Seventh Year the hire is cancelled, but if it need not stop in the Seventh Year the hire is not cancelled.
1 Neub. p. 128. Purslane is given here as lasting longest after being plucked; and Netopha as a place where, owing to its plentiful supply of water, the crops remain longest in the field. 1 Usually falls during November. 7 Ned. 8*. ♦ Peah 8.
* Which the Law enjoins (Ex. 2311; Lev. 25’) shall, in the Seventh Year, be food for the cattle and not be for man's profit. 6 He had received a forbidden gift.
7 Although Seventh Year produce is tithe-free it is liable to the Dough-offering (p. 83, n. 1).
* Deut. 151*. » For goods given on trust.
2. If a man slaughtered a heifer and divided it [among purchasers] on the first day of the [eighth] year, and the month was intercalated,1 the debt [incurred by them that buy the flesh] is cancelled; but if not, it is not cancelled. [The fines incurred by] the violator,2 the seducer1 and him that hath brought up an evil name f and all payments enjoined by the court are not cancelled. A loan secured by a pledge and one of which the bonds are delivered to the court, these are not cancelled.
3. [A loan secured by] a prozbul 5 is not cancelled [by the Seventh Year]. This is one of the things that Hillel the Elder ordained. When he saw that the people refrained from giving loans one to another and transgressed what is written in the Law, Beware that there be not a base thought in thine heart..,,6 Hillel ordained the prozbul.
4. This is the formula of the prozbul: ‘I affirm to you, such-a-one and such-a-one, the judges in such-a-place, that, touching any debt due to me, I will collect it whensoever I will. ’ And the judges sign below, or the witnesses.
5. An ante-dated prozbul is valid, but if it is post-dated it is not valid. Ante-dated bonds are not valid, but if post-dated they are valid. If one borrows from five persons, a prozbul is drawn up for each [creditor]; if five borrow from one person, only one prozbul is drawn up for them all.
6. A prozbul may only be written for [a loan secured by] immovable property. If the debtor has none, the creditor gives him title to part, however small, of his own land. If the debtor has land held in pledge in the city, a prozbul may be written on its security. R. Huspith says: They may write a prozbul for a man on the security of his wife’s property, or for an orphan on the security of his guardians’ property.
7. A7 bee-hive, R. Eliezer says, counts as immovable property, a prozbul may be written on its security, it is not susceptible to uncleanness while it remains in its own place,8 and if a man scraped honey from it on the Sabbath he is culpable.9 But the Sages say: It does not count as immovable property, a prozbul may not be written on its security, it contracts uncleanness while remaining in its own place, and if a man scraped honey from it on the Sabbath he is not culpable.
8. If a man would repay a debt in the Seventh Year the creditor must say to him, ‘I cancel it’, if he replied, ‘None the less [I will repay it]’, the Creditor may take it from him; for it is written, And this is the word of the release.10 In like manner1 1 if a manslayer went into exile to a city of refuge and the men of the city were minded to do him honour, he must say to them, ‘I am a manslayer’. If they replied, ‘None the less [we would do thee honour]’, he may accept [the honour] from them; for it is written, This is the word of the manslayer.12 9. If a man repays a debt in the Seventh Year the Sages are well pleased with him. If a man borrows from a proselyte whose sons have become proselytes with him, he need not repay the debt to the sons;13 but if he 1 If the last month of the Seventh Year was given 30 instead of 29 days, so that the day when he divided the beast was thus the last day of the Seventh Year.
* It is deemed like the ground, and not a ‘vessel’, and so it is not susceptible to un¬ cleanness.
’ It would be the equivalent of plucking something from the ground, offending against the law against ‘reaping’ on the Sabbath (Shab. 7‘).
10 Deut. 15*. The ‘word’, i.e. simple admission of the obligation, satisfies the law.
12 Since the sons of a proselyte do not inherit from their father.
C2 FIRST DIVISION: ZERAIM repays it to them the Sages are well pleased with him. All movable goods are [legally] acquired [only] by the act of drawing [them into the purchaser’s possession];1 but whosoever fulfils his [bare] word, the Sages are well pleased with him.
TERUMOTH (‘HEAVE-OFFERINGS’) 1. i. There are five that may not give Heave-offering,2 and if they do so their Heave-offering is not valid: a deaf-mute ( heresh ), an imbecile, a minor, he that gives Heave-offering from what is not his own; and a gentile who gives Heave-offering from what belongs to an Israelite — even if it was with his consent his Heave-offering is not valid.
2. He that is not dumb but [only] deaf may not give Heave-offering, but if he does so his Heave-offering is valid. The heresh of which the Sages have spoken is always one that is both deaf and dumb.
3. If a minor has not produced two hairs,3 R. Judah says: His Heave¬ offering is valid. R. Jose says: If [he gave Heave-offering] before he reached an age when his vows are valid4 his Heave-offering is not valid; but if after he reached an age when his vows are valid his Heave-offering is valid.
4. Heave-offering may not be given from olives instead of from oil, or from grapes instead of from wine. If this is done, the School of Shammai say: It may still be deemed Heave-offering of the olives or of the grapes themselves. And the School of Hillel say: Their Heave-offering is not valid.
5. Heave-offering is not given from Gleanings, or from the Forgotten Sheaf, or from Peah,s or from ownerless produce, or from First Tithe from which Heave-offering6 has been7 taken, or from Second Tithe8 or dedicated produce that have been7 redeemed. [Heave-offering may not be given] from what is liable [to Tithes] instead of from what is exempt, or from what is exempt instead of from what is liable, or from what is plucked instead of from what is unplucked, or from what is unplucked instead of from what is plucked, or from this year’s produce instead of from last year’s produce, or from last year’s produce instead of from this year’s produce, or from produce of the Land [of Israel] instead of from produce from outside the Land, or from produce from outside the Land instead of from produce of the Land. And if this is done the Heave -offering is not valid.
6. There are five that may not give Heave-offering, yet if they do so their Heave-offering is valid: he that is dumb, or drunken, or naked, or blind, or that has suffered a pollution;9 these may not give Heave-offering, yet if they do so their Heave-offering is valid.
7. Heave-offering may not be given by measure, by weight or by num¬ ber, but it may be given from what has been measured, or weighed, or numbered. Heave-offering may not be given in a basket or in a hamper that holds a [known] measure, but it may be given therein if it is a half or a third part filled. It may not be given in a seah [-measure] half filled since the half thereof is a [known] measure.
1 Heb. terumah. See App. I. 48. It is the portion (from a sixtieth to a fortieth) that must be given to the priests from the produce of the harvest, and the produce is forbidden to be eaten by non-priests until such Heave-offering has been set aside.
J The token of puberty. Cf. San. 81; Nidd. 6U.
4 For a boy it is thirteen years and a day; for a girl twelve years and a day. See Nidd. s*.
8. Heave-offering may not be given from oil instead of from olives that are to be pressed, or from wine instead of from grapes that are to be trodden; yet if this is done the Heave-offering is valid, but Heave-offering must again be given. [And of these two Heave-offerings] the first renders [other produce into which it may fall] subject to the law of Heave-offering, and [if it is eaten in error by a non-priest] it is subject to the law of the [Added] Fifth;1 but it is not so with the second.2 9. Heave-offering may be given from oil instead of from olives that are to be preserved, or from wine instead of from grapes that are to be made into raisins. If a man gave Heave-offering from oil instead of from olives intended for eating, or from [other] olives instead of from olives intended for eating, or from wine instead of from grapes intended for eating, or from [other] grapes instead of from grapes intended for eating, and he afterward determined to press them, he need not give Heave-offering afresh.
10. Heave-offering may not be given from produce whose preparation is finished instead of from produce whose preparation is unfinished, or from produce whose preparation is unfinished instead of from produce whose preparation is finished, or from produce whose preparation is unfinished instead of from [other] produce whose preparation is unfinished. But if this is done the Heave-offering is valid.
2. 1. Heave-offering may not be given from what is clean instead of from what is unclean; yet if this is done the Heave-offering is valid. Rightly have they said:3 If part of a cake of pressed figs was unclean, Heave-offering may be given from the part that is clean instead of from the part that is unclean. So, too, with a bundle of vegetables or a heap of grain. If there were two cakes, two bundles, or two heaps, and one of them was unclean and the other clean, Heave-offering may not be given from the one instead of from the other. R. Eliezer says: Heave-offering may be given from the clean instead of from the unclean.
2. Heave-offering may not be given from what is unclean instead of from what is clean; if this was done in error the Heave-offering is valid, and if wantonly the act is void. So, too, if a levite had [unclean] Tithe from which Heave-offering [of Tithe] had not been given, and he gave Heave-offering from this instead of from other produce, if this was done in error his Heave-offering is valid, and if wantonly his act is void. R. Judah says: If he knew before [that it was unclean], even if he acted in error his act is void.
3. If a man immersed [unclean] vessels on the Sabbath4 and he acted in error, he may use them, and if wantonly he may not use them. If he set apart tithe or cooked aught on the Sabbath and he acted in error, he may eat of it, and if wantonly he may not eat of it. If a man planted aught on the Sabbath and he acted in error, he may let it remain, and if wantonly he must uproot it; but in the Seventh Year, whether he acted in error or wantonly, he must uproot it.
4. Heave-offering may not be given from one kind instead of from another kind, and if this is done the Heave-offering is not valid. All kinds of wheat count as one and all kinds of figs, dried figs and fig-cakes count as one, and Heave-offering can be given from one kind instead of from * Since this is not enjoined in the Lew but is only a ‘hedge around the Law’ ordained as a precaution by the Scribes. 3 See p. 12, n. 4, * Forbidden as an act of work, since it is the equivalent of repairing a utensil.
FIRST DIVISION: ZERAIM 54 another. Where there is a priest Heave-offering must be given from the choicest kind; but where there is no priest [it should be given] from the kind that best endures* R. Judah says: Heave-offering should ever be given from the choicest kind.
5. They should give as Heave-offering a whole small onion and not half a large onion. R. Judah says: Not so; but [they should give] half a large onion. So, too, R. Judah used to say: Heave-offering may be given from town onions instead of from village onions but not from village onions instead of from town onions, since these are the food of the better folk.
6. Heave-offering may be given from oil-olives instead of from pickling- olives but not from pickling-olives instead of from oil-olives; [it may be given] from unboiled wine instead of from boiled wine but not from boiled wine instead of from unboiled wine. This is the general rule: if the two kinds of produce are Diverse Kinds, Heave-offering may not be given from one instead of from the other, even from the better instead of from the worse; if they are not Diverse Kinds, Heave-offering may be given from the better instead of from the worse, but not from the worse instead of from the better; yet if Heave-offering is given from the worse instead of from the better the Heave-offering is valid, save only when tares1 are given instead of wheat, since they are not food. Cucumbers and musk- melons count as a single kind. R. Judah says: Two kinds.2 3. 1. If a man gave a cucumber as Heave-offering and it was found to be bitter, or a water-melon and it was found to be rotten, it is valid, but he must again give Heave-offering. If he gave ajar of wine as Heave-offering and it was found turned to vinegar, the Heave-offering is invalid if it was known that it had turned to vinegar before it was given as Heave-offering; but if it had turned to vinegar after it was given as Heave-offering, the Heave-offering is valid; if it was in doubt, the Heave-offering is deemed valid but he must again give Heave-offering. [And of these two Heave- offerings] the first does not of itself render [other produce into which it may fall] subject to the law of Heave-offering, and [if it is eaten in error by a non-priest] it is not subject to the law of the [Added] Fifth; and so, too, is it with the second.
2. If one of them fell into common produce3 it does not render it subject to the law of Heave-offering; if the other fell elsewhere [in the same pro¬ duce] it does not render it subject to the law of Heave-offering; but if both fell into the same place they render it subject to the law of Heave-offering according to [the bulk of] the smaller of the two [Heave-offerings].4 3. If jointholders gave Heave-offering the one after the other, R. Akiba says: The Heave-offering of them both is valid. But the Sages say: The Heave-offering of the first [alone] is accounted Heave-offering. R. Jose says: If the first gave Heave-offering in full measure the Heave-offering of the second is not accounted Heave-offering; but if the first did not give Heave-offering in full measure the Heave -offering of the second is accounted Heave-offering.
4. This5 applies if the one had not bidden [the other give Heave-offering]. But if a man empowered one of his household or his bondman or his bond- 3 Heb. hullin, lit. 'profane'; it here means produce from which Heave-offering has already been taken and which is therefore free for unrestricted consumption.
* i.e. it renders the rest subject to the law of Heave-offering only if it is at least one- hundredth of the whole mixture. * The opinion of R. Akiba.
woman to give Heave-offering, such Heave-offering is valid. If he annulled his word the Heave-offering is invalid if he annulled it before the Heave¬ offering was given, but if he annulled it after the Heave-offering was given, the Heave-offering remains valid. Labourers1 have no right to give Heave¬ offering, excepting the treaders of grapes, since they2 would straightway render the winepress unclean.
5. If a man said, ‘Let the Heave-offering of this heap be within it’, or ‘Let the Tithes thereof be within it’, or ‘Let the Heave-offering of Tithe be within it’, R. Simeon says: He has validly designated it.3 But the Sages say: Not until he says, ‘Let it be to the north of it’ or ‘to the south of it*. R. Eleazar Hisma says: If he said, ‘Let Heave-offering be given from this heap for this heap’, he has validly designated it.3 R. Eliezer b. Jacob says: If he said, ‘May the tenth part of this Tithe be Heave-offering of Tithe’, he has validly designated it.3 6. If a man gave Heave-offering before First-fruits, or First Tithe before Heave-offering, or Second Tithe before First Tithe, his act is valid, although he transgresses a negative command, for it is written, Thou shalt not delay to offer of the abundance of thy fruits and of thy liquors.* 7. And whence [do we learn] that First-fruits come before Heave¬ offering [even though] the one is called [by the Scripture] ‘Heave-offering’ and ‘the first’, and the other is called ‘Heave-offering’ and ‘the first’?3 First-fruits come first because they are, of all produce, the ‘First-fruits’. And Heave-offering comes before First Tithe since it is called ‘the first’. And First Tithe comes before Second Tithe because it includes [the Heave¬ offering of Tithe which is called] ‘the first’.
8. If a man intended to say ‘Heave-offering’ and he said ‘Tithe’, or ‘Tithe’ and he said ‘Heave-offering’; or if he intended to say ‘Whole¬ offering’ and he said ‘Peace-offering’, or ‘Peace-offering’ and he said ‘Whole-offering’; or if he intended to say [in his vow], ‘I will not enter this house’, and he said ‘that house’, or ‘I will derive no benefit from this’, and he said ‘that’, his word remains void until mouth and heart agree.
9. Heave-offering or Tithes or Hallowed Things6 that are given by a gentile or a Samaritan are valid. R. Judah says: The law of the Fourth Year Vineyard7 does not apply to gentiles.8 But the Sages say: It does apply. The Heave-offering of gentiles renders [other produce with which it is mixed] subject to the law of Heave-offering, and [if it is eaten in error by a non-priest] it is subject to the law of the [Added] Fifth. But R. Simeon declares it exempt [from the law of the Added Fifth].
4. 1. If a man set aside [from a heap] only part of the Heave-offering and Tithes [to which it was liable], he may still take [the remaining] Heave¬ offering [or Tithes] for that [heap] from that [heap], but he may not take 1 Who are ‘Associates’ working for one who is an Am-haaretz (see App. I. 3).
1 Householders who are Amme-haaretz.
1 So that the Heave-offering, Sic., may be taken from that heap only. 4 Ex. 22**.
* Deut. 12*- 17 speaks of 'the heave-offering of your hand’, and Deut. 26*, speaking of first- fruits, says 'the priest shall take the basket out of Dune hand’-, there, first-fruits are called ‘heave-offering’. Ex. 23“ says, 'the first, the first-fruits of thy ground’; Num. 18* says of Aaron, ‘Behold I have given thee the charge of mine heave-offerings'; and Deut. 18* says, ‘The /jrrt of thy corn, of thy wine...thou shalt give him (the priest)’.
6 The term includes anything dedicated to the Temple or set aside to be offered in the Temple, or which, according to the Law, should belong to the Temple.
* i.e. Jews may eat from gentiles’ vineyards in the fourth year.
56 FIRST DIVISION: ZERAIM aught from that heap [as Heave-offering or Tithes] for produce elsewhere. R. Meir says: He may take Heave-offering and Tithes from that heap for produce elsewhere.
2. If his produce was in the store-chamber and he gave one seah to a levite and one seah to a poor man,' he may thereupon set aside as much as eight seahs and consume them. So R. Meir. But the Sages say: He may set aside produce in accordance with the exact quantity [that still remains with the levite and the poor man].
3. The proper measure of Heave-offering, if a man is liberal, is one- fortieth part (the School of Shammai say: One-thirtieth); if he is liberal in medium degree, one-fiftieth part; if he is mean, one-sixtieth part. If a man gave Heave-offering and found that it was only one-sixtieth, it is valid and he need not again give Heave-offering. If he added more, this is subject to Tithes.1 * If he found that it wras only one sixty-first, the Heave¬ offering is valid but he must give Heave-offering again as much as his custom is, [and this may be given] according to measure, weight, or number. R. Judah says: It can be taken even from produce not lying near by.
4. If a householder said to his agent, ‘Go and give Heave-offering’, the agent should give Heave-offering according to the householder’s mind. If he does not know the householder’s mind he should give Heave-offering according to medium measure, one-fiftieth part. If he gave ten parts less or more [in error] the Heave-offering is valid, but if of set purpose he added even one part more, the Heave-offering is not valid.3 5. If a man would give more Heave-offering, R. Eliezer says: He may give up to one-tenth, as with Heave-offering of Tithe; if more than this, let him make the surplus Heave-offering of Tithe4 for produce elsewhere. R. Ishmael says: [He need keep but] half as common produce and [he may give] half as Heave-offering. R. Tarfon and R. Akiba say: [He may give as much Heave-offering as he will] so long as he keeps back somewhat5 as common produce.
6. At three times do they take the measure of the basket [in which to give First Tithe and Heave-offering of Tithe]: at the time of the first ripe fruits and of the late summer fruits and in the middle of the summer. To count the fruits is praiseworthy, to measure them is more praiseworthy, but to weigh them is the most praiseworthy of the three.6 7. R. Eliezer says: Heave-offering becomes neutralized in a hundred and one parts.7 R. Joshua says: In somewhat more than a hundred; and this ‘somewhat more’ has no prescribed measure. R. Jose b. Meshullam says: This ‘somewhat more’ must be [at least] one kab 8 to a hundred seahs,9 namely a sixth of that [seah of Heave-offering] which would render [the ninety-nine and ‘somewhat more’ seahs] subject to the law of Heave¬ offering.
8. R. Joshua says: Black figs serve to neutralize in conjunction with white, and white figs serve to neutralize in conjunction with black; large 1 A* First Tithe and Poorman’* Tithe (see p. 15, n. 6). These, according to R. Meir, serve to render another eight seahs duly tithed. With this obscure Mishnah cf. Gitt. 3*.
1 Since it i* not validly Heave-offering but part of the tithable residue.
1 Since he has wilfully not fulfilled his trust he has invalidated his agency. Cf. Meil. 6*.
♦ Cambridge text adds: ‘but not’ for produce, &c.
7 If one seah of Heave-offering fell into 100 seahs of ordinary produce, making ioi in all, any one seah may be taken out and given to the priest, and the rest is free for common use.
cakes of figs serve to neutralize in conjunction with small cakes, and small in conjunction with large; round cakes serve to neutralize in conjunction with square cakes, and square in conjunction with round. But R. Eliezer does not permit this. R. Akiba says: If it was known which kind fell [among the common produce] differing kinds do not serve to neutralize in conjunc¬ tion with each other; but if it was not known which kind fell, differing kinds serve to neutralize in conjunction with each other.
9. Thus if there were fifty black figs and fifty white figs [of common produce] and one black [Heave-offering] fig fell among them, the black figs are forbidden but the white are permitted; if a white fig fell among them the white figs are forbidden but the black are permitted; but if it was not known which kind fell among them the two kinds serve to neutra¬ lize in conjunction with each other. Here R. Eliezer adopts the more stringent and R. Joshua the more lenient ruling.
10. But in this [that follows] R. Eliezer adopts the more lenient and R. Joshua the more stringent ruling. If a litra of dried [Heave-offering] figs were stuffed into the mouth of a jar [which was one among many jars of figs each holding a hundred litras ], but it is not known into which, R. Eliezer says: The Heave-offering figs are deemed [not a single mass but] separated figs [dispersed among the figs that are common produce], and those below serve to neutralize in conjunction with those above. R. Joshua says: They do so only if there are a hundred jars.
11. If a seah of Heave-offering fell into the mouth of a store-jar and the top layer was skimmed off, R. Eliezer says: If in the layer removed there was a hundred seahs, [the seah of Heave-offering] becomes neutralized [as being but one] in a hundred and one. R. Joshua says: It is not neutralized. If a seah of Heave-offering fell into the mouth of a store-jar, the top layer must be skimmed off. If so, why have they said: Heave-offering becomes neutralized in a hundred and one parts? [That applies only] if it is not known whether it has become mixed up, or where it had fallen.
12. If there were two baskets, or two store-jars, and a seah of Heave¬ offering fell into one of them and it is not known into which of them it fell, each serves to neutralize in conjunction with the other. R. Simeon says: Even if they are found in two separate towns they serve to neutralize in conjunction with each other.
13. R. Jose said: A case once came before R. Akiba about fifty bundles of vegetables among which a like bundle was fallen of which the half was Heave-offering; and I decided before him, ‘It is neutralized’ — not that Heave-offering can be neutralized in fifty and one, but because there were there a hundred and two halves.
5. 1. If one seah of unclean Heave-offering fell into less than a hundred seahs of common produce, First Tithe, Second Tithe, or dedicated produce, whether they were clean or unclean, they must be left to rot; if that seah was clean, they must be sold to priests at the price of Heave-offering,1 excepting the price of that one seah.1 If it fell into First Tithe the whole must be designated Heave-offering of Tithe, and if it fell into Second Tithe or into dedicated produce, these must be redeemed. If the common produce was unclean it may be eaten dried or roast or kneaded with fruit 1 Which is naturally much less than that of common food since it is only consumable by priests. 1 Which must be given free.
58 FIRST DIVISION: ZERAIM juice1 or divided among lumps of dough so that in no single place is there an egg’s bulk.2 2. If one seah of unclean Heave-offering fell into a hundred seahs of common produce, they remain clean. R. Eliezer says: [One seah ] can be taken up and burnt, since I should assume that the seah which fell in is the seah which comes up. But the Sages say: It is neutralized and it may be eaten dried or roast or kneaded with fruit juice or divided among lumps of dough so that in no single place is there an egg’s bulk.
3. If one seah of clean Heave-offering fell into a hundred seahs of unclean common produce it is neutralized and may be eaten dry or roast or kneaded with fruit juice or divided among lumps of dough so that in no single place is there an egg's bulk.
4. If one seah of unclean Heave-offering fell into a hundred seahs of clean Heave-offering, the School of Shammai forbid the whole, but the School of Hillel permit it. The School of Hillel said to the School of Shammai: Since clean [Heave-offering] is forbidden to non-priests and unclean is forbidden to priests, if the clean can be neutralized cannot the unclean be neutralized also? The School of Shammai answered: No! if common produce (to which leniency applies and which is permitted to non-priests) neutralizes what is clean, should Heave-offering (to which stringency applies and which is forbidden to non-priests) neutralize what is unclean! After they had agreed,3 R. Eliezer said: It should be taken up and burnt. But the Sages say: It is lost through its scantness.
5. If one seah of Heave-offering fell into a hundred [seahs of common produce] and was lifted out and again fell [into common produce] else¬ where, R. Eliezer says: It renders it subject to the law of Heave-offering as though it was undoubted Heave-offering. But the Sages say: It may render it subject to the law of Heave-offering only if it is in the prescribed proportion.
6. If one seah of ^leave-offering fell into less than a hundred [seahs of common produce] and these were [thereby] rendered subject to the law of Heave-offering, and some of this produce mixed with Heave-offering fell [into common produce] elsewhere, R. Eliezer says: It renders it subject to the law of Heave-offering as though it was undoubted Heave-offering. But the Sages say:4 What contains Heave-offering renders [other produce] subject to the law of Heave-offering only if it is in the prescribed propor¬ tion. What is leavened [with Heave-offering] renders [other dough] leavened [as with Heave-offering] only if it is in the prescribed proportion. Drawn water renders the Immersion-pool5 invalid only if it is in the prescribed proportion.