5. Dough which at its beginning was intended for spongy-cakes and in the end was used for spongy-cakes is exempt from Dough-offering. If at its beginning it was ordinary dough and in the end was used for spongy- cakes, or if at its beginning it was intended for spongy-cakes and in the end was used as ordinary dough, it is liable to Dough-offering. So, too, Kenubka,s cakes are liable.
6. Flour-paste16 is exempt according to the School of Shammai; according to the School of Hillel it is liable. Dumplings17 are liable according to the School of Shammai; according to the School of Hillel they are exempt. The cakesof the Thank-offering18 and the wafers of theNazirite19 are exempt if aman made them for his own use20 but if to sell in the market they are liable.
7. If a baker made leaven to distribute [to buyers] it is liable to Dough¬ offering. If women gave [dough] to the baker from which to make leaven for them, and none [of the portions of dough] was of the prescribed measure,21 it is exempt from Dough-offering.
1 Lit. ‘cake’; Num. is1*-*1 (cf. Ezek. 4410, Neh. 10”) requires that ‘when ye eat of the bread of the Land, ye shall offer up an heave offering unto the Lord. Of the first of your dough ye shall offer up a cake...’ 2 i.e. five quarter -kabs. See 1*; 2*.
J Lev. 23“. * Grown in the current year (reckoning from Passover to Passover), s The sheaf of barley. Lev. 23’®. See also Men. to18. App. I. 31. 6 Ex. 12“; Pes. 2’.
7 See p. 562, n. 1 6. 8 May also be rendered (cf. Pes. 31) ‘This must be removed at Passover’.
* See Ned. 7*. 10 On these see Peah ilB; 4W> 11; s’®.
'i Unknown meaning. Commentators explain it as dough made by reducing baked bread to crumbs and wetting them as food for young children.
16 Dough made by pouring flour over boiling water.
17 Dough made by pouring boiling water over flour. 18 l,ev.
17 Num. 6'*. 20 Sanctity already rests on them. 21 Five quarter -kabs.
84 FIRST DIVISION: ZERAIM 8. Dog’s-dough,1 if herdsmen can eat of it, is liable to Dough-offering, and it mav be used for Erub and Shittuf,1 and Benedictions3 and the Com¬ mon Grace4 must be said over it; it may be made on a Festival-day,5 and by [eating unleavened an olive’s bulk of] it a man can fulfil his obligation at Passover. But if herdsmen cannot eat of it it is not liable to Dough- offering; nor may it be used for Erub and Shittuf, and Benedictions and Common Grace need not be said over it; it may not be made on a Festival- day, and by [eating unleavened an olive’s bulk of] it a man does not fulfil his obligation at Passover. In either case it is susceptible to food- uncleanness.6 9. Through Dough-offering and Heave-offering penalty of death may be incurred;7 they are subject to the law of the [Added] Fifth;8 they are forbidden to non-priests; they are the property of the priest; they are neutralized in a hundred and one; 9 they require washine of hands'0 and the awaiting of sunset;11 they may not be taken from what is clean instead of from what is unclean,12 and they must be taken [only] from what lies near by and from produce whose harvesting is completed. If a man said, ‘Let all [the grain in] my threshing-floor be Heave-offering’, or ‘Let all my dough be Dough-offering’, his word is void unless he keeps back a part13 [as common produce], 2. 1. Produce from outside the Land [of Israel] that enters the Land is liable to Dough-offering; if it was taken out thither from here [in the Land of Israel] R. Eliezer declares it [still] liable, but R. Akiba declares it exempt.
2. [Whatsoever grows in] soil from outside the Land that comes to the Land in a ship is liable to Tithes and subject to the Seventh Year law. R. Judah said: This applies only when the ship touches the land. Dough that has been kneaded with fruit juice is liable to Dough-offering, and it may be eaten with unwashed hands.14 3. A woman may cut off her Dough-offering w'hile sitting and in naked¬ ness, because she is able to cover herself; but not so a man. If a man cannot prepare his dough in cleanness let him prepare it in portions of one kab each,15 but let him not prepare it in uncleanness. But R. Akiba says: Let him prepare it in uncleanness, but let him not prepare it in portions of one kab each: for like as he must designate what is clean [as Dough-offering] so should he designate what is unclean; he must designate the one Dough¬ offering and he must designate the other Dough-offering, whereas portions of but one kab each have no share in what is designated [Dough -offering].1 6 4. If a man prepared his dough in portions each of one kab and they touched one another, they continue exempt from Dough-offering unless they wholly adhere. R. Eliezer says: Howbeit if they are taken off from the side of the oven and put together in a basket, the basket causes them to be Which has a large proportion of bran.
5 See Ex. ia‘*. The rule is that only necessary food may be Seep. x8t,n. 11. 6 See p. 714, n. 3; Toh. 8*.? Lev. 22’.
prepared on a Festival-dav.
11 Before they can be eaten by a priest who had contracted uncleanness and had already immersed himself. Lev. 22*"’; see p. 773, n. 6. 11 See Ter. 21. 13 Cf. Ter. 41.
14 Because it has not been rendered susceptible to uncleanness through being made wet by one of the seven liquids (Maksh. 64). See Lev. ii3*8.
,s Less than the quantity liable to Dough-offering.
16 Better to offer from what is unclean than to evade the obligation of Dough-offering altogether.
included together [and, if they together make up five quarter-&afo, liable] to Dough-offering.
5. If a man set aside his Dough-offering while it was yet flour, it is not deemed [valid] Dough -offering; in the hand of a priest it would count as property wrongly acquired; the dough itself would still be liable to Dough¬ offering, and the flour also [which the priest received] would be liable to Dough -offering if it was of the prescribed quantity, and it would be for¬ bidden to non-priests. So R. Joshua. They said to him: It once happened that an elder, who was not a priest, seized [the like of this and ate] it. He answered: Nevertheless he rendered himself liable to punishment and gave occasion to others [to act amiss and yet rely upon him].
6. Five quarter-&xAs [or more] of meal are liable to Dough-offering:: if in the meal, including the yeast and fine bran and coarse bran, there is in all five quarter-AaAr, it is liable. If the coarse bran was taken out and it afterward fell in again, it is exempt.
7. The measure prescribed for the Dough-offering is one twenty-fourth part. Whether a man prepared the dough for himself or for his son’s wedding-feast, [the Dough-offering must be] one twenty-fourth part. If a baker prepared it to sell in the market — so. tot), if a woman prepared it to sell in the market — [the Dough-offering mav be] one forty-eighth part. If [a woman’s] dough was rendered unclean by error or constraint [the Dough-offering may be] one forty-eighth part; but if wantonly [the Dough¬ offering must be] one twenty-fourth part, so that any that sins shall gain no advantage.
8. R. Eliezer says: Dough-offering may be taken from what is clean instead of from what is unclean. Thus if a man had clean dough and un¬ clean dough, he may take sufficient for the Dough-offering [for both] from [clean] dough from which Dough-offering has not been given; but he must put less than an egg’s bulk [of the unclean dough] between [the two] so that he [thus] takes [the Dough-offering] from what lies near at hand. But this the Sages forbid.
3. x. They may eat of the dough haphazard until it has been rolled out if it is from wheaten flour, or until it has been kneaded into a lump if it is from barley. If the wheaten dough has been rolled out and the barley- dough kneaded into a lump, he that eats thereof is punishable with death. So soon as a woman puts in water she must take up the Dough-offering, provided that there were2 five quarter-fcziu of flour.
2. If before she rolled it out her dough was mixed with Heave-offering, it is exempt, since what is subject to the law of Heave-offering is exempt [from Dough-offering]; but if it was mixed after it was rolled out it remains liable. If before she rolled it out there befell her a condition of uncleanness that was in doubt, it may be prepared in uncleanness;3 but if after she rolled it out, it must be prepared in cleanness.4 3. If before she rolled it out she dedicated it [to the Temple] and redeemed it, it is [still] liable [to Dough-offering]; if [she dedicated it] after she rolled it out and then redeemed it, it is still liable; if she dedicated 1 See Eduy. Is.
1 Some texts read ‘were not’. This is interpreted: provided that there no longer remained five quarter -kabs of flour in the baking-trough still unkneaded, for this flour would not be exempt from Dough-offering.
•J Since it had not yet become subject to the Dougfa-offering obligation.
* Since it contained the Dough-offering within it which must be kept clean for the priest.
86 FIRST DIVISION: ZERAIM it before she rolled it out and the [Temple] treasurer rolled it out, and afterward she redeemed it, it is exempt, since at the moment when it would have been liable* it was exempt.
4. In like manner if a man dedicated his produce before its time for tithing was come, and he redeemed it, it is still liable [to Tithes]; if [he dedicated it] after its time for tithing and he then redeemed it, it is still liable; but if he dedicated it before it was fully harvested and the [Temple] treasurer completed its harvesting, and afterward the owner redeemed it, it is exempt [from Tithes], since at the moment when it would have been liable2 it was exempt.
5. If a gentile gave dough to an Israelite to prepare for him it is exempt from Dough-offering. If he gave it him as a gift and [it was given] before it was rolled out, it is liable; if after it was rolled out, it is exempt. If a man prepared his dough together with [dough belonging to] a gentile, and the portion belonging to the Israelite was less than the measure liable to Dough-offering, it is exempt from Dough-offering.
6. If a man became a proselyte and he had dough that was already rolled out before he became a proselyte, he is exempt from Dough-offering; but if [it was rolled out] after he became a proselyte he is liable. If it is in doubt, he is liable; but because of it none3 can become liable to the [Added] Fifth.4 R. Akiba says: All is determined according to the moment when the dough forms a crust in the oven.5 7. If a man prepared dough from wheat and rice and it has the taste of corn, it is liable to Dough-offering, and by [eating unleavened an olive’s bulk of] it a man fulfils his obligation at Passover. But if it has not the taste of corn it is not liable to Dough-offering and by [eating of] it none can fulfil his obligation at Passover.
8. If a man took leaven from dough from which Dough-offering had not been taken and put it into dough from which Dough-offering had been taken, if he had provision elsewhere [of dough that was liable to Dough¬ offering] he should take [Dough-offering] from it in the quantity required; but if he had not, he should take [from the mixed dough] one Dough¬ offering for the whole.
9. In like manner if harvested olives were mixed up with olives belong¬ ing to the gleaners,6 or if harvested grapes were mixed up with grapes belonging to the gleaners, and he had provision [of untithed olives or grapes] elsewhere, he should take [Tithes] from them in the quantity required; but if he had not, he should take Heave-offering and the Heave¬ offering of Tithe [from the mixed produce] for the whole;7 and the rest is allotted as Tithe and Second Tithe [only] in the quantity required [at the outset].
xo. If a man took leaven from dough of wheaten flour and put it in dough of rice-flour and the dough had the taste of corn, it is liable to Dough-offering; if it had not, it is exempt. Why, then, have they said: Any untithed produce soever renders [other produce] forbidden? [That applies only when] one kind [is mixed] with like kind; [but when one kind is] not [mixed] with like kind, [then applies the principle of] ‘that which gives a flavour’.8 1 At the moment of being rolled out. 1 At the moment its harvesting was complete.
3 A non-priest who consumes it in error. ♦ See 1*.
5 And not according to the time when the dough was rolled out. 6 And so tithe-free.
7 As though the whole was liable to Tithes. * Cf. Shebi. 7’; Ter. to1' 11.
4. i. If two women rolled out two [pieces of dough] each of one kab, and these touched one another, they are exempt [from Dough-offering] even if they are of the same kind [of grain]; if they belonged to the same woman they are liable [to Dough-offering] if like kind touched like, but they are exempt if the one touched [a kab of dough of] another kind.
2. What is implied by ‘if like kind touched like’? Wheat may be included together1 with naught save only spelt; barley may be included together with aught save only wheat. R. Johanan b. Nuri says: The rest [of the five kinds] can be included together one with the other.
3. If there were two [pieces of dough] of one kab each [of one kind of grain], with one kab of rice or one kab of Heave-offering between them, [if they touch] they cannot be included together to make up [the quantity that is liable to] Dough-offering. But if between them [there lies] dough from which Dough-offering has been taken they are included together, since it [is dough that] is already made liable to Dough-offering.
4. If a kab [of dough from] this year’s flour wholly adheres to a kab from last year’s flour,2 R. Ishmael says: One may take [Dough-offering] from the middle. But this the Sages forbid. If a man took Dough-offering from a single kab, R. Akiba says: It is valid Dough-offering. But the Sages say: It is not valid Dough-offering.
5. If Dough-offering was taken from two [pieces of dough] each of one kab, from each one by itself, and they are then made into a single piece of dough, R. Akiba declares it exempt [from Dough-offering], but the Sages declare it liable. Thus the more stringent ruling [in the one case]3 becomes the more lenient [in the other].
6. [If a man had pieces of dough of <fc»wi-produce that was unclean] he may take sufficient Dough-offering for them from [clean] dough from which Dough-offering had not been taken but which had been prepared in cleanness, and he may go on separating Dough-offering [from the clean dough] instead of from the demai- produce until it rots; because Dough¬ offering for demai -produce may be taken from what is clean instead of from what is unclean, and from what does not lie near by.
7. If Israelites leased a field from gentiles in Syria, R. Eliezer declares their produce liable to Tithes and subject to the Seventh Year law; but Rabban Gamaliel declares it exempt. Rabban Gamaliel says: Two4 Dough-offerings [are given] in Syria. But R. Eliezer says: One Dough¬ offering. [Beforetime] they accepted the more lenient ruling of Rabban Gamaliel and the more lenient ruling of R. Eliezer, but afterward they followed the rulings of Rabban Gamaliel in both things.
8. Rabban Gamaliel says: Three regions are distinguished in what concerns Dough-offering. In the Land of Israel as far as Chezib one Dough-offering [is given]; from Chezib to the River5 and to Amanah,6 two Dough-offerings, one for the fire and one for the priest; that for the fire has the prescribed measure, but that for the priest has no prescribed measure. From the River and from Amanah, inwards,7 two Dough-offerings 1 To make up the total of five quarter -kabs that renders the dough liable to Dough-offering.
2 And it is forbidden to take Dough-offering from the one instead of from the other.
5 R. Akiba’s decision in the foregoing paragraph.
+ One for the fire and one for the priest. One it burnt, since it is unclean like the country of gentiles; and one is given to the priest so that the obligation shall not be forgotten.
s Eastward; to the Euphrates.
6 Northward, to the river Amanah (* Kings 5"), which rises in the Antilebanon and flows through Damascus. 7 Between the River and Amanah.
FIRST DIVISION: ZERAIM 88 [are given], one for the fire and one for the priest; that for the fire has no prescribed measure; and one that had immersed himself the selfsame day [because of uncleanness]1 may eat of it.2 R. Jose says: He does not [even] need immersion. But it is forbidden to a man or a woman that suffers a flux, a menstruant, or a woman after childbirth. 3 It may be eaten in the company of a non-priest at the same table, and it may be given to any priest.4 9. These things may be given to any priest: devoted things,5 Firstlings,** the redemption price of a [first-born] son,7 the redemption price of the first-born of an ass,8 and the shoulder and the two cheeks and the maw,0 the first of the fleece,10 the [Heave-offering] oil that [is become unclean and] must be burnt,11 the Hallowed Things of the Temple,12 and First- fruits.13 R. Judah forbids First-fruits. R. Akiba permits Heave-offering vetches14 but the Sages forbid them.
10. Nittai of Tekoa brought Dough-offerings from Be-ittur15 and they would not accept them. The men of Alexandria brought their Dough- offerings from Alexandria and they would not accept them. The men of mount Zeboim16 brought their First-fruits before the Feast of Pentecost, and they would not accept them because of what is written in the Law, And the feast of harvest,11 the first-fruits of thy labours which thou sowest in the field.'* ix. Ben Antigonus19 brought up Firstlings from Babylon and they would not accept them. Joseph the Priest20 brought his First-fruits of wine and oil, and they would not accept them.21 He also brought his sons and the men of his household to keep the Lesser Passover22 in Jerusalem, but they turned him back lest it should be established as an obligation. Ariston brought his First-fruits from Apamia23 and they accepted them from him, for they said: He that owns [land] in Syria is as one that owns [land] in the outskirts of Jerusalem.24 1 Who still awaits sundown to become wholly clean and fit to eat of Heave-offering. See p. 773, n. 6. 2 The portion for the fire. 3 On these see App. IV. 2.
4 Even to one that is an Am-haaretz (so Maim.), or one that does not eat his food in the prescribed conditions of cleanness. * Lev. 27“; Num. 1814.
6 Unfit for the Altar by reason of a blemish. Bekh. 51; Num. 1 81*-1*; Deut. 15*1"1.
12 Offerings which may be consumed only within the Temple. See below, n. 24.
13 Ex. 23. See tractate ‘Bikkurim’.
14 To be given to any priest. See Ter. 1 1*; M. Sh. 2*.
■s Or BethTororBittur. Outside the Land of Israel (Neub.,p. no). SeeTaan. 4*, where the Bether spoken of is the site south of Jerusalem where was the last stand of the Bar Cocheba revolt. 16 Neh. n*4. See Bikk. 1*. 17 Which is the Feast of Pentecost.
*® Ex. 23u. 1® Some texts read Antinos. 20 See Mikw. 10*.
21 Since liquids could only be brought as First-fruits if they had not been harvested in the beginning as First-fruits.
24 The Munich codex adds: Twenty and four dues were given to the priests: ten in the Temple and four in Jerusalem and ten within the borders (of the Land of Israel). These are the ten that were given to them in the Temple: Sin-offerings, Sin-offerings of birds, the Unconditional and the Suspensive Guilt-offerings, the public Peace-offerings, the Leper’s Log of Oil, the residue of the Omer, the Two Loaves, the Shewbread, and the residue of Meal-offerings. And these are the four that were given them in Jerusalem: the Firstlings, the First-fruits, the Heave-offering from the Thank-offering and the ram of the Nazirite, and the Bird-offerings from among the Hallowed Things. And these are the ten that were given them within the borders (of the Land of Israel): Heave-offering, Heave-offering of Tithe, Dough-offering, the First of the Shearing, the Priests' Dues (of every beast that was slaughtered for food), the redemption price of the first-born son, and the redemption price of the firstling of an ass, the field of possession, and a field that was devoted, and what was wrongly gotten of a proselyte. No priest that is not skilled in these things may receive them as dues.
The passage is a gloss on 4*.
89 ORLAH1 (‘THE FRUIT OF YOUNG TREES’) 1. 1. If a man planted [a fruit-tree] as a fence or [only] for timber, he is exempt from the law of Orlah. R. Jose says: Even if he said, ‘Let the inner side serve for food and let the outer side serve for a fence’, the inner side [alone] is liable and the outer side is exempt.
2. When our fathers came to the Land [of Israel], if they found [a fruit- tree] already planted, it was exempt, but if they themselves planted aught it became liable, even though they had not subdued [the Land]. If a man planted [a tree] for the use of the many it is liable. R. Judah declares it exempt. If he planted it in the public domain, or if a gentile planted it, or if a robber2 planted it, or if it was planted in a ship, or if it grew of itself, it is subject to the law of Orlah.
3. If a tree was uprooted together with its clod of earth, or if a river swept it away together with its clod of earth, and it was able to live [from that clod alone], it is exempt; but if not,3 it is liable. If its clod of earth was tom away from it, or if the plough broke it up, or if it was broken up and dealt with like the earth [around it],4 if it was still able to live it is exempt, but if not, it is subject [to the law of Orlah}.
4. If a tree was uprooted but one root still remained [firm in the ground], it is exempt. How thick need the root be? Rabban Simeon b. Gamaliel in the name of R. Eleazar b. J udah of Bartotha says: As thick as a weaver ’s stretching-pin.
5. If a tree was uprooted but had still a sunken shoot by which the tree could live, the old tree becomes now like the sunken shoot [in what con¬ cerns the law of Orlah ].s If fresh shoots were sunk year after year and then broken off [from the parent tree, the space of three years during which it is subject to the law of Orlah ] is reckoned from the time when it was broken off. Grafting on vines and regrafting on a grafted part, even though they sink this into the ground, does not render [the added shoots] subject to the law of Orlah. R. Meir says: If [the grafting was] upon a part where the tree’s growth was healthy it is not subject to the law of Orlah, but if upon a part where it was weak, it is subject [to the law of Orlah]. So, too, if a sunken shoot laden with fruit was broken off and it increased by one two-hundredth part, it is subject to the law of Orlah.
6. If a sapling that was subject to the law of Orlah, or to the law of Diverse Kinds in the Vineyard,6 was confused7 with other saplings, none may pick [any fruit from any of them]; if a man did so it may be neutralized in two hundred and one, provided that he did not pick with this in mind. R. Jose says: He may pick with this in mind and it may still be neutralized in two hundred and one.
7. The leaves and the shoots and the sap of vines and newly fashioned grape-berries are not forbidden under the laws of Orlah, of Fourth Year [fruit], or of the Nazirite-vow;8 but they are forbidden if they come from an Asherah R. Jose says: Newly fashioned berries are forbidden since * Lit. ‘uncircumcision’. The law is that given in Lev. 19**“*, which forbids the use of the fruit of young trees. The fruit is wholly forbidden during die first three years. In the fourth year the fruit is still holy, but it may be redeemed (the fifth of its value being added — see Peah 7*) and so rendered free for common use (cf. M. Sh. 5*). In the fifth year it is wholly permitted.
1 Or: 'usurping occupant'; see Gitt. 5*. 3 Then it counts as a newly-planted tree.
* And the tree was again planted in the earth.
5 Its age is deemed to be that of the sunken shoot.
6 See Kil. V*. 7 And indistinguishable.
9 Any tree worshipped by heathen. See A. Zar. 3*.
FIRST DIVISION: ZERA1M 90 they count as fruit. R. Eliezer says: If milk was curdled with the sap of Or/aA-fruit it is forbidden. R. Joshua said: I have heard an explicit tradi¬ tion that if milk was curdled with the sap of the leaves or with the sap of the roots it is permitted; but if with the sap of unripe figs it is forbidden, since they count as fruit.
8. Defective grapes, grape-pips, grape-skins, or grape-skin wine made from them, the rind of a pomegranate or its sprout, walnut-shells and fruit- stones are forbidden under the law of Orlah or if they come from an Asherah, and [they are forbidden] under the law of the Nazirite-vow; but they are not forbidden under the law of Fourth-year [fruit].1 Fallen fruit is forbidden in all [four] cases.
9. R. Jose says: A slip from an Or/oA-tree may be planted, but not a walnut from an Orlah- tree, since this counts as a fruit; nor may [a slip with] early date-berries from an Orlah-tree be used for grafting.
2. 1. Heave-offering, the Heave-offering of Tithe from t/emat-produce, Dough-offering, and First-fruits are neutralized in a hundred and one,2 and they can be included together,3 and [a like quantity] must be taken out.4 Or/aA-fruit and Diverse Kinds of the Vineyard are neutralized in two hundred and one, and they can be included together, but [a like quantity] need not be taken out. R. Simeon says: They cannot be included together. R. Eliezer says: They can be included together in [cases determined by the principle of] ‘that which gives a flavour’,5 but not [in the case of dry produce] in such wise as to render [the rest] forbidden.
2. Heave-offering may serve to "neutralize6 Orlah- fruit, and Or/aA-fruit Heave-offering. Thus if one seah of Heave-offering fell among [common produce, making in all] a hundred [r^aAi], and afterward there fell in three kabs of Orlah-irv.it, or three kabs of Diverse Kinds of the Vineyard, such is a case where Heave-offering would serve to neutralize the Or/aA-fruit, or Or/aA-fruit the Heave-offering.7 3. Or/aA-fruit may neutralize the Diverse Kinds, and Diverse Kinds the Or/aA-fruit, or Or/aA-fruit other Or/aA-fruit. Thus if one seah of Orlah- fruit fell into [common produce, making in all] two hundred [rea/w], and afterward there fell in one seah or more of [other] Or/aA-fruit, or one seah or more of Diverse Kinds of the Vineyard, such is a case where Or/aA- fruit would serve to neutralize the Diverse Kinds, or Diverse Kinds the Or/aA-fruit, or Or/aA-fruit other Or/aA-fruit.
4. Whatsoever is leavened, flavoured, or mingled8 with Heave-offering, Or/aA-fruit, or Diverse Kinds of the Vineyard, is forbidden. The School of Shammai say: It9 can also convey uncleanness. And the School of Hillel say: It can never convey uncleanness unless it is an egg’s bulk in quantity.
1 That they may not be eaten outside Jerusalem unless they have been redeemed.
1 When they are confused with non-hallowed produce.
3 c.g. if a quarter -seah of each of these four together fell into less than a hundred seahs of common produce, they render it holy; so, too, if a non-priest ate an olive's bulk of any of them in combination he incurs the penalty of the Forty Stripes.
4 From the produce in which any of these has fallen (and been neutralized); and the part taken out must be given to a priest. 8 As with cooked and liquid produce.
6 To make up in combination with common produce a quantity sufficient to neutralize the other. 7 See Ter. 4’.
8 The verb applies specifically to liquid produce. The three processes here have in mind produce that conveys marked flavour; therefore the principle of being neutralized in a hundred and one, or two hundred and one, cannot apply.
* If it is unclean, even though it is less than an egg’s bulk (which is the quantity necessary to convey food-uncleanness; see Toh. i‘; 2').
5. Dositheus of Kefar Yatmah was one of the disciples of the School of Shammai,and he said: I have heard a tradition from Shammai the Elder who said: It can never convey uncleanness unless it is an egg’s bulk in quantity.
6. Why have they said, ‘Whatsoever is leavened, flavoured, or mingled.. applying a stringent ruling? [So is it] where like is mixed with like; but it applies both with leniency and with stringency where like is mixed with unlike. Thus if wheaten leaven1 fell into wheaten dough2 and there was enough to leaven it, it is forbidden whether or not there was little enough for it to be neutralized in a hundred and one; if there was not little enough for it to be neutralized in a hundred and one, it is forbidden whether or not there was enough to leaven it.
7. ‘But it applies both with leniency and with stringency where like is mixed with unlike’ — thus if crushed beans’ were cooked with lentils2 and there was enough of them to give a flavour, they are forbidden whether or not there was little enough for them to be neutralized in a hundred and one; if there was not enough of them to give a flavour, they are permitted, whether or not there was little enough for them to be neutralized in a hundred and one.