(Tosefta): If there were two boxes, one of Tamei Terumah and one of Tahor Terumah and a Se'ah of Tamei Terumah fell into one of them and it is unknown which; I say that it fell into the Tamei Terumah. But as for the Tumah aspect, it makes wherever it is completely Tamei. The solution is to knead the Tahor Terumah into doughs of less than an eggs-size and the Chulin should be eaten dry (without kneading with water, to prevent it from being able to contract Tumah).

If there were two boxes, one of Tahor Terumah and one of Tahor Chulin, and a Se'ah of Tamei Terumah fell into one of them, they are both prohibited - either way, if it fell into the Terumah, its prohibited (because of the Tumah); and if it fell into the Chulin, it is prohibited (because it's Meduma).

What's the reason for these laws? Doubtful Tumah is Tamei, but doubtful Meduma is permitted.

(R. Yochanan): Doubtful Meduma (i.e. it is doubtful if Terumah even fell into it) is exempt from Challah (like Terumah). Doubtful Dimua (such as here, where it certainly fell, but it is unclear to where it fell; since it may be eaten despite the doubt, it is obligated in Challah.

(R. Yochanan): This follows the opinion of R. Yehuda, as the Mishnah taught (Taharos 5:5), "(If there were two paths, one containing Tumah and one not (and it was unclear which path was which); if one person walked on one path and a second person walked on the other path and they both handled Taharos - R. Yehuda says that if each person asked separately, each is ruled to be Tahor (as it's a case of doubtful Tumah in a public place, which is Tahor). If they asked at the same time, they are both Tamei.

(R. Yosi): Either way, they are Tamei (even if they asked the question separately).

What's the case? If they asked at the same time, all agree that both people are Tamei. If they asked separately, all agree that they are both Tahor. Rather, one came to ask for both of them. R. Yehuda says that it's like asking consecutively, as the Rav says to him, "Ask for yourself and go (and don't concern yourself with your friend)''. R. Yosi says that it's like two people asking at the same time, so they are both Tamei. And here, it's like both of them asking at the same time, so according to R. Yosi, both boxes should be prohibited. (Rather, the Tana must be R. Yehuda, who says , "Ask for yourself and go (and don't concern yourself with your friend)''.)

(R. Zeira citing R. Chiya bar Vava): (When the Mishnah taught (Chulin 92-2(g)) that if one person planted the seeds of both boxes, if it was the type of seed that rots, its growths are permitted; if it's of a type that doesn't rot, they are prohibited - it was referring to when he planted the second one before he harvested the first one. But if it was afterwards, each is considered separate and doesn't prove the other, so the growths of both of them are permitted.

(R. Chanina Turtaya citing R. Yannai): If a Terumah onion (even though it doesn't rot) was uprooted and replanted and its new growths became as much as 100 times that which was planted, they are Chulin.

Question (R. Zeira): The Mishnah taught that if it was the type of seed that rots, its growths are permitted; if it's of a type that doesn't rot, they are prohibited. Just as when it's of a type that rots, its growths are permitted since the new growths become such a large quantity; so too when it's of a type that doesn't rot, it is prohibited even though the new growths become such a large quantity...?

Answer: R. Zeira follows his reasoning, as he said in the name of R. Yonasan - If an onion of Kilai HaKerem was uprooted and then replanted, even if increased several fold, it is still prohibited, as the growths that come from the prohibited item cannot annul the prohibited item.

(Mishnah): If a woman (who was the daughter of a Yisrael but the wife of a Kohen) was eating Terumah and she was informed that her husband died or had divorced her; similarly, if a slave (of a Kohen) was eating Terumah and he was informed that his master had died or he had been sold or given as a gift to a Yisrael or he had been freed; and similarly, if a Kohen was eating Terumah and he was informed that he was the son of a divorcee or of a woman who had done Chalitzah (both of whom are prohibited to eat Terumah as they are Chalalim) - R. Eliezer obligates them to pay the principal and the fifth and R. Yehoshua exempts them.

If a Kohen was standing and sacrificing an offering on the Mizbeach and he was informed that he was the son of a divorcee or of a woman who had done Chalitzah - R. Eliezer says that all of the sacrifices that he had ever performed are disqualified; R. Yehoshua says that they are valid. If he was informed that he was a Ba'al Mum (possessed a physical defect), his service is disqualified.

And in all cases, if the Terumah was still in his mouth - R. Eliezer says that he may swallow it; R. Yehoshua says that he must spit it out.

If they told him, "You have become Tamei'' or "the Terumah has become Tamei'' - R. Eliezer says that he may swallow it; R. Yehoshua says that he must spit it out.

If he was informed that he had been Tamei or the Terumah had been Tamei or he was informed that it was Tevel, Maaser Rishon that had not had its Terumah taken or Maaser Sheni or Hekdesh that had not been redeemed or if he tasted the taste of a flee in his mouth, he should spit it out.

(Gemara) Question: If a woman was eating Terumah...It's understandable that if her husband died, according to R. Eliezer, she would need to pay the principal and extra fifth; but if she was divorced, since she isn't divorced until the Get arrives in her hand, she ate knowingly so why would she pay the fifth?!

Answer (Rabbanan): It follows the case of the original teaching, that a betrothed daughter of a Yisrael may eat Terumah and (she or) her father accepts her Get (so she might have been divorced unknowingly).

Answer #2 (R. Elazar): It could even follow the later teaching (that a betrothed daughter of a Yisrael may not eat Terumah). In this case, she appointed an agent to accept her Get in a certain place and he was expected to take 10 days to arrive there and he found a quick horse and arrived there in only 5 days.

Question: Didn't R. Elazar answer according to R. Eliezer; but his opinion in the Mishnah (in Maseches Gitin 6:4) is that (if a woman told an agent, 'Accept my Get in a certain place', she isn't particular about only accepting it there; rather she is merely directing the agent. Therefore,) immediately she may not eat Terumah (as the agent might immediately find the husband and accept her Get)...?

Answer: R. Eliezer agrees that if she said, "Only accept my Get in a certain place'', that she may continue to eat Terumah until the Get (and the agent) arrive there. (So if the agent arrived earlier than expected, she may have been divorced unknowingly.)

(R. Chananya disagrees): Since she told the agent, "Only accept my Get in a certain place'' (which is at a distance of 10 days travel), it's as if she said, "This should only be my Get after 10 days'', so the Terumah that she ate was permitted to her. (Rather, we must return to the first answer, given by the Rabbanan, that the Mishnah follows the case of the original teaching, that a betrothed woman may eat her husband's Terumah.)