(Baraisa): If there were two boxes even in two different attics or two storerooms in one attic (they annul each other). But two storerooms in two different attics cannot annul each other.

What's the difference between boxes and storerooms? Boxes are usually emptied; storerooms are not.

(R. Zeira/ R. Chiya citing R. Shimon): If there were two boxes, each containing 50 Se'ah and a Se'ah of Terumah fell into one of them, and he doesn't know which one, he can give a Se'ah to the Kohen from whichever he wishes, or even a half a Se'ah from each of them.

Similarly, two Mikvehs, each of which contains 20 Se'ah of water and three Log of drawn water felled into one of them and it is unknown into which, he can take out 3 Log from either one of them, or one and a half from each of them.

(R. Simon citing Bar Padiya): Two boxes, each containing 50 Se'ah and a Se'ah of Terumah fell into one of them and it is known into which; and then a second Se'ah fell in and it is unknown into which - he can say, "the place into which the first Se'ah fell is where the second Se'ah fell.'' Why? We ascribe the damage to the damaged one.

If he accidently added Chulin to the first box where it's known that the Terumah had fallen, thereby allowing annulment in 101, he should give one Se'ah to the Kohen. The second box then returns to it state of doubt, but the original 50 of the first box and the 50 of the second box now annul the Se'ah of Terumah in the second box. We therefore find that 2 Se'ah of Terumah can become annulled in 150 Se'ah of Chulin.

And if there are two boxes, each with 50 Se'ah, and a Se'ah of Terumah fell into one of them but it is unknown into which; if a second Se'ah then fell in and it is known into which it fell; we don't assume that it fell into the same place as the first.

If he accidently added Chulin to the first box where it's known that the Terumah had fallen, thereby allowing annulment in 101, he should give one Se'ah to the Kohen. However, the second box remains prohibited until enough Chulin accidently falls in, to annul with 101.

When Terumah fell into one of two boxes and he estimates that it fell into the lower box, (since the requirement of 101 parts to annul is Rabbinic) we rely on his estimation and the upper box is Chulin (or vice-versa).

And similarly with two Mikvaos, neither of which contain 40 Se'ah (of rainwater) and three Log of drawn water fell into one of them and he estimated that it fell into a particular one, since the disqualification of three Log of drawn water is Rabbinic, we rely on his estimation to permit use of the other Mikveh.

The Baraisa taught earlier that if there were two boxes even in two different attics or two storerooms in one attic (they annul each other). But two storerooms in two different attics cannot annul each other.

What's the case? If there were two storerooms in two attics (neither of which had 100 Se'ah of Chulin and a Se'ah of Terumah fell into one of them, both are prohibited. If one was inadvertently increased, it is permitted (after he gives one Se'ah to the Kohen) and the other one will also become permitted if it is increased, but if it does, a second Se'ah does not need to be given to the Kohen.

(R. Yosi): If the Terumah mixed into the 100 Chulin, it is annulled; if it did not mix in, it is not annulled.

Question: But didn't R. Yosi say in our Mishnah (earlier Chulin 81-2(f)) that a case once came before R. Akiva of 50 bundles of vegetables into which fell a bundle of half Terumah and half Chulin. He told R. Akiva that it should be annulled, and he agreed. These weren't mixed and they were still annulled!

Answer: It was suggested that R. Yosi said that if it's something for which one is particular that they don't mix, it's not annulled; if he isn't particular, it's annulled.

When would one be particular? If a Tamei cucumber fell into 100 Tahor cucumbers, since he isn't particular about their mixing, it is annulled. But once they have become wet, thereby allowing them to convey Tumah, since he is particular about their mixing, it is not annulled.

(Mishnah): If a Se'ah of Tameh Terumah fell into less than 100 Se'ah of Chulin, Maaser Rishon, Maaser Sheni or Hekdesh, whether they are Tahor or Tamei; they must be left to rot. If the Terumah was Tahor, the mixture may be sold to Kohanim at the (reduced) price (that Terumah is sold), but does not charge for the Terumah.

If the Terumah fell into Maaser Rishon, he should declare a part of it to be Terumas Maaser.

If it fell into Maaser Sheni or Hekdesh, he should redeem them.

If the Chulin was Tamei, he should sell it all to the Kohanim (at the reduced price that Terumah is sold and) and (in order that the Terumah in it does not become capable of receiving Tumah) they should eat it them dry or roasted (without having been made wet); or kneaded with fruit juice (as it isn't one of the 7 liquids that cause it to be able to contract Tumah) or as small buns that are smaller than an egg-size (so they cannot contract Tumah).

If a Se'ah of Tamei Terumah fell into 100 Se'ah of Tahor Chulin (causing it to be annulled)...

(R. Eliezer): He should remove a Se'ah and burn it, as we say that the Se'ah that he removed was the Se'ah that he burned.

(Chachamim): He should remove a Se'ah and the Kohen should eat it dry, roasted, kneaded with fruit juice or as small buns (smaller than an egg-size).

If a Se'ah of Tahor Terumah fell into 100 Se'ah of Tamei Chulin, he should remove a Se'ah and the Kohen should eat it dry, roasted, kneaded with fruit juice or as small buns (smaller than an egg-size).

(Gemara) (Baraisa of R. Chiya): (If a Se'ah of Tamei Terumah fell...) Tevel can annul Terumah and Sefichin (lit. aftergrowths - produce that grew naturally in the Shemita year, which are prohibited) can annul Terumah. (Note: According to the Vilna Gaon, the correct text is 'fruits of Sheviis' rather than 'Sefichin of Sheviis', both here and in the next entry.)

After the Tevel annuls, he must separate Ma'asros. After the Sefichin (or according to the Vilna Gaon, the fruits of Sheviis) annul, he must give them out to those that can eat them.

(R. Yosi): Our Mishnah also teaches this (that Tevel can annul)... 'If a Se'ah of Tameh Terumah fell into less than 100 Se'ah of Chulin or Maaser Rishon' - but had it fallen into 100, it would be annulled. And isn't Maaser Rishon considered Tevel (until it has its Terumas Maaser taken)?

(Mishnah in Maseches Temurah): One may light with bread and oil of Tamei Terumah.

(Chizkiyah): It only applies to bread and oil, but other things are not permitted.

(R. Yochanan): Even other things may be lit.

Question (R. Yudan of Kepudkia): Are wheat like bread and olives like oil?

(R. Shmuel bar Nachman citing R. Yonasan): If a person lights Terumah bread, his bones deserve to be burned.

Question (R. Shmuel bar Nachman to R. Yochanan): May I burn Tamei Terumah bread?

Answer (R. Yochanan): You may burn it, and you will be like all of the other members of your tribe who do so.

(R. Ba bar Chiya citing R. Yochanan): The pasuk states (Bamidbar 18:8), "(Behold I have given you the guarding of My Terumah...) to you I've given it Lemashchah'' - 'Lemashchah' - for greatness; 'Lemashchah' - for anointing; 'Lemashchah' - for lighting.

Question: It's understandable that if it fell into Tahor Chulin, it should be treated as Tahor Terumah and not burned. But if it fell into Tamei Chulin, according to Chizkiyah, it's understandable that it should be left to rot; but according to R. Yochanan, why can it not be burned by a Kohen?

Answer: R. Yochanan follows the view of R. Yosi ben Chanina - (since people view prohibited mixtures of Terumah (Dimu'ah) lightly, if they leave it in their homes for lighting,) they might come to stumble.

R. Yochanan said that there is no concern only with items that aren't mixed, but not items that are mixed, as people (view Dimua lightly and) might come to stumble.

Question: (The Mishnah taught that if it fell into Hekdesh, it must be left to rot.) But doesn't the Mishnah (in Arachin) teach that the Temple Treasury can claim the value of something only in its own place and at its own time. (For example, items cannot be moved to another place where its value is greater in order to benefit the Treasury. So if Tamei Terumah, that must be burned, fell into Hekdesh and now has the value of firewood; why not burn it, since people will not stumble with Hekdesh as they are careful with it?)

Answer (R. Chanina): The area of the Hekdesh is ruined and therefore has no value, even for firewood.

This shows that when the Mishnah taught that if the Se'ah was Tahor, it should be sold to Kohanim; it was referring to when it fell into Tahor Chulin.

(The Mishnah taught that if a Se'ah of Tahor Terumah fell into Maaser Rishon, he should declare a part of it to be Terumas Maaser, and if it was Tamei Terumah, he must leave it to rot.) According to R. Yosi, it is fine, as R. Yosi citing Chizkiyah and R. Yona citing R. Yannai said (in Perek 2 - Chulin 63(o)) - the pasuk states "And you shall give from it the Terumah of Hash-m to Aharon the Kohen'' - Give Terumas Maaser to Aharon HaKohen in a form that he can eat it (i.e. Tehorah, but not Temeyah, as it cannot be eaten).

Question: But according to Kahana there who learns that Terumas Maaser may be taken from Tahor for Tamei; since he may separate Terumas Maaser from Tahor wherever it is, even if it will be left to rot because of the Tamei Terumah mixed with it,; why can he not do that here?

Answer: Even though Kahana said this, he agrees that it must be something that must be given to the Kohen.

(The Mishnah taught that if the Chulin was Tamei, he should sell it all to the Kohanim...and they should eat it them dry ...or as small buns.) They should be smaller than an egg-size (so that they cannot contract Tumah).