|(Permission is granted to redistribute this material as long as the Kollel
header and the subscription info at the end are included.)
CHARTS FOR LEARNING THE DAILY DAF
brought to you by Kollel Iyun Hadaf of Har Nof
Rosh Kollel: Rabbi Mordecai Kornfeld
Email - firstname.lastname@example.org
Yevamos Chart #27
Yevamos Daf 89a-b
WHEN FRUITS ARE IMPROPERLY SEPARATED AS TERUMAH,
DOES THE TERUMAH TAKE EFFECT?
ARE THE FRUITS THAT WERE SEPARATED CONSIDERED TO BE TERUMAH OR TEVEL?
DO THE FRUITS OF *TERUMAH* NEED TO HAVE TERUMAH SEPARATED FOR THEM AGAIN?
DO THE FRUITS *LEFTOVER* NEED TO HAVE TERUMAH SEPARATED FOR THEM AGAIN?
||ONE SEPARATED TAMEI FRUITS AS TERUMAH FOR TAHOR ONES [SHOGEG]
||ONE SEPARATED TAMEI FRUITS AS TERUMAH FOR TAHOR ONES [MEZID]
|| R. Chisda:
R. Nasan :
| R. Chisda: Yes
R. Nasan : No
||ONE SEPARATED BITTER FRUITS AS TERUMAH FOR GOOD ONES [SHOGEG]
||ONE SEPARATED FRUITS GROWN IN AN UNPERFORATED POT AS TERUMAH FOR FRUITS GROWN IN A PERFORATED POT [MEZID]
||ONE SEPARATED FRUITS GROWN IN A PERFORATED POT AS TERUMAH
FOR FRUITS GROWN IN AN UNPERFORATED POT [MEZID]
(1) According to Rav Chisda, the Rabanan made the fruit Chulin and removed
its status of Terumah, because if the fruits would remain Terumah the owner
might be negligent and fail to separate Terumah again properly ( -- since we
see that he already purposefully transgressed an enactment of the Rabanan by
separating Tamei fruits as Terumah for Tahor ones, TOSFOS DH Mezid).
(2) Since it was done inadvertently, we do not suspect that the owner will
be negligent and not separate Terumah again properly. Therefore, the Rabanan
did not make the fruits Chulin, according to Rav Chisda.
(3) Even according to Rav Chisda, the Rabanan did not make the fruits
Chulin, since a person is not suspected of negligence when there are two
separate vessels holding the fruits. He will certainly separate Terumah from
the second vessel (the perforated pot).
(4) Even though the Mishnah says that it is "Terumah," since the Mishnah
then explains that one must separate Terumah from other fruits (5:B), it is
clear that mid'Oraisa, the fruits are Tevel. The Mishnah refers to them as
"Terumah" only inasmuch as they must be given to a Kohen and they are the
property of the Kohen. However, they are not prohibited to be eaten by Zarim
once Terumah has been taken for them (RIVAN in TOSFOS DH Lo Sochal; this
also seems to be the view of RASHI DH Shani Hacha). According to the RI,
though, (Tosfos ibid.) the fruits are also prohibited to Zarim mid'Rabanan,
since this Terumah fulfilled the Chiyuv d'Rabanan to separate Terumah for
the fruits growing in the unperforated pot.
(5) Since the fruits that were separated as Terumah grew in an unperforated
pot, they have no status of Tevel or Terumah, and they do not need Terumah
to be separated for them (RASHI). (Even though fruits that grow in an
unperforated pot are Chayav mid'Rabanan to have Terumah separated from them,
one fulfilled his obligation by separating Terumah from them for the fruits
in the perforated pot.)
(6) One is obligated to separate Terumah again even though he separated the
bitter fruits accidentally, b'Shogeg, and not b'Mezid. This is because his
error could have been avoided by taking one fruit from the batch, separating
Terumah for it, and then tasting it to make sure that the batch of fruit was
fit to be Terumah for the rest of the fruits. (TOSFOS DH Iba'i)
(7) One is not obligated to separate Terumah again for the fruits that grew
in the unperforated pot, because the Chiyuv to separate Terumah from such
fruits is only mid'Rabanan. Since he already separated Terumah for those
fruits (from the fruits in the perforated pot), he does not need to separate
Terumah again (RASHI, DH Shani Hacha).
For questions or sponsorship information, write to email@example.com