Study Gittin folio 53A with parallel Hebrew-English text, traditional commentary, and modern study tools. Free access to Babylonian Talmud online.
is the same as mixing teruma with non-sacred produce, as both involve intermingling that which is forbidden with that which is permitted, so that the entire mixture becomes forbidden. There is no difference between these actions, so there would be no need to mention both of them in the Mishnah.
And the other Sage, Shmuel, holds that one who mixes teruma with another person’s non-sacred produce is liable for a fine. And we do not derive a fine in one case from a fine stated in another case, even if the two cases are similar. Consequently, liability for the fine must be mentioned separately
The Talmud asks: And according to the one who says that we do derive a fine in one case from a fine in another case, why do I need all these cases mentioned in the Mishnah, i.e., one who renders another person’s food ritually impure, one who mixes teruma with another’s non-sacred produce, and one wh
The Talmud answers: All 3 rulings are necessary, as, had the Mishnah taught only the case of one who renders another’s food impure, there are two possibilities: If it is referring to one who renders another’s teruma non-sacred, then I would say that they imposed a penalty because he ruined it entir
And had the Mishnah taught us only the case of one who mixes teruma with another person’s non-sacred produce, I would say that a fine is imposed in that case, because mixing two different items together is a common occurrence. But concerning one who renders another person’s food impure, which is un