(Mishnah): If a Se'ah of Tamei Terumah fell into 100 Se'ah of Tahor Terumah, Beis Shammai prohibit (all of it) and Beis Hillel permit it.

(Beis Hillel to Beis Shammai): Since even Tahor Terumah is forbidden to non-Kohanim and Tameh Terumah is forbidden to Kohanim, just as Tahor Terumah is annulled, so too Tamei Terumah is annulled.

(Beis Shammai to Beis Hillel): No. Just because Chulin, which is lenient as it is permitted to non-Kohanim, can annul (Tahor Terumah); should Terumah, which is stringent, as it is prohibited to non-Kohanim, be able to annul (the Tamei Terumah)?!

After one agreed with the other, R. Eliezer said - The Se'ah must be removed and burned. But the Chachamim disagreed since it's such a small insignificant amount.

If a Se'ah of Terumah fell into 100 Se'ah (of Chulin) and one Se'ah was removed; if that Se'ah fell into another place (which did not contain 100 Se'ah) - R. Eliezer says that the second mixture is prohibited (Meduma) like certain Terumah. The Chachamim say that it only prohibits according to its proportion (in the original mixture).

If a Se'ah of Terumah fell into less than 100 Se'ah (of Chulin) and it became prohibited (as Meduma) and then a Se'ah of that mixture fell into another place - R. Eliezer says that the second mixture is prohibited (Meduma) like certain Terumah. The Chachamim say that it only prohibits according to its proportion. This is also the case with dough leavened (with Terumah). And it's also the case with drawn water, that it disqualifies a Mikveh according to its proportion.

If a Se'ah of Terumah fell into 100 Se'ah of Chulin and a Se'ah was removed and then another Se'ah of Terumah fell in; and again a Se'ah was removed and another Se'ah of Terumah fell in, even that mixture is permitted, until the Terumah surpasses the Chulin.

If a Se'ah of Terumah fell into 100 Se'ah of Chulin and he didn't manage to remove a Se'ah before another Se'ah of Terumah fell in; it is prohibited (to a non-Kohen, since we view it as if they both fell together and there wasn't enough Chulin to annul them). R. Shimon permits it.

(Gemara): R. Yudan bar Pazi and R. Aiyvu bar Nagri were sitting and discussing - when the Mishnah taught 'after they agreed' - who agreed to who? Beis Shammai agreed with Beis Hillel or vice-versa?

They said, "Let's go out and ask our colleagues''. They went out and heard R. Chizkiyah and R. Acha citing from R. Yudah bar Chanina saying, "We have only found in this matter that Beis Shammai agreed with Beis Hillel.''

(R. Yona R. Abayei): Learn it from this Mishnah (in Maseches Tevul Yom) - If one was pouring Terumah liquid from vessel to vessel and a Tevul Yom touched the stream, (only the part where he touched is Tamei as it is not considered a connection to the rest of it) and that part is annulled in 101. And if you say that Beis Shammai agree with Beis Hillel, it won't be annulled, then who is the Tanna here that says that it is annulled - neither Beis Shammai nor Beis Hillel?

(R. Chanina, son of R. Hillel): It could have been taught by Beis Hillel before they agreed to Beis Shammai.

(R. Yosi): From our Mishnah itself it's clear that Beis Shammai agreed to Beis Hillel that Tamei Terumah is annulled in 101 - as R. Eliezer said that the Se'ah must be removed and burned. Wasn't R. Eliezer a student of Beis Shammai (- so doesn't this indicate that Beis Shammai agreed to Beis Hillel)?

(R. Chinana): A Baraisa also teaches this, "after they agreed to each other, it is annulled.''

Question: Beis Shammai gave a successful response to Beis Hillel, so why would they have then agreed with Beis Hillel?

Answer (R. Avin): Since Beis Hillel had another proof to their opinion, as R. Hoshiya taught - if Tahor Terumah, that is punishable by death (if eaten by a non-Kohen), can be annulled; Tamei Terumah, for which a Tahor Kohen is merely negating a positive Mitzvah by eating it, certainly can be annulled.

(R. Yochanan): If a Seah of Terumah fell into 100 of Chulin and he took out a Se'ah (for the Kohen); any amount of Chulin can annul it.

Question: The Mishnah disagrees with R. Yochanan - (the Chachamim say that it (only) prohibits according to its proportion (in the original mixture)...?

Answer (R. Yosi in the name of R. Yochanan): R. Yochanan meant that there must be a majority corresponding to the proportion of Terumah, rather than requiring 101 parts.

And even according to those whose text of the Chachamim in the Mishnah is 'it prohibits according to its proportion', there only needs to be a majority of Chulin according to the proportion of Terumah. (Note: According to an old text, rather than being a continuation of R. Yochanan, this sentence was said by Yehuda b'Rebbi, who disagrees with R. Yochanan.)

(R. Elazar): (Disagreeing with R. Yochanan) Since the Se'ah that fell contained one part Terumah and 100 parts Chulin, it does not prohibit the second mixture. However, if the second mixture itself contained one part Terumah in 100 parts Chulin, then the two parts of Terumah combine to prohibit.

Question: According to R. Elazar, why doesn't the Chulin in the falling Se'ah combine with the Chulin in the second mixture to annul the Terumah?

Answer: R. Elazar reasons that the Chulin in the second mixture is considered like a piece of earthenware (or some understand that it's considered to be deaf) and does not combine, since the entire Se'ah must be given to the Kohen.