|(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 - email@example.com
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 *B'SHOGEG*
||ONE SEPARATED TAMEI FRUITS AS TERUMAH FOR TAHOR ONES *B'MEZID*
|| R. Chisda:
R. Nasan :
| R. Chisda: Yes
R. Nasan : No
||ONE SEPARATED BITTER FRUITS AS TERUMAH FOR GOOD ONES *B'SHOGEG*
||ONE SEPARATED FRUITS GROWN IN AN UNPERFORATED POT AS TERUMAH FOR FRUITS GROWN IN A PERFORATED POT *B'MEZID*
||ONE SEPARATED FRUITS GROWN IN A PERFORATED POT AS TERUMAH
FOR FRUITS GROWN IN AN UNPERFORATED POT *B'MEZID*
the owner acted inadvertently, we do not suspect that he will be
negligent and fail to separate Terumah again properly. Therefore, the
Rabanan did not make the fruit Chulin, according to Rav Chisda.
According to Rav Chisda, the Rabanan made the fruit Chulin and removed
its status of Terumah, because if the fruit would remain Terumah the
owner might be negligent and fail to separate Terumah again properly
(since he already transgressed an enactment of the Rabanan
intentionally by separating Tamei fruits as Terumah for Tahor ones; TOSFOS DH Mezid).
One is obligated to separate Terumah again even though he separated the
bitter fruits b'Shogeg (accidentally) 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)
Even according to Rav Chisda, the Rabanan did not make the fruits
Chulin because a person is not suspected of negligence when two
separate vessels hold the fruit. He certainly will separate Terumah
from the second vessel (the perforated 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 from them (RASHI).
(Even though fruits that grow in an unperforated pot are Chayav
mid'Rabanan to have Terumah separated from them, one fulfills his
obligation by separating Terumah from them for the fruits in the
(6) Although the Mishnah says that it is "Terumah,"
from the fact that the Mishnah continues and explains that one must
separate Terumah again from other fruits (5:B) it is clear that
mid'Oraisa the fruits are Tevel. The Mishnah refers to them as
"Terumah" only insofar as they must be given to a Kohen and they are
the property of the Kohen. Nevertheless, those fruits of "Terumah" may
be eaten by a Zar (RIVAN cited by TOSFOS DH v'Lo Sochal). (This also seems to be the view of RASHI
DH Shani Hacha.) The RI (cited by Tosfos ibid.), however, argues and
asserts that the fruits are prohibited mid'Rabanan to a Zar, since
these fruits fulfill the Chiyuv d'Rabanan to separate Terumah for the
fruits in the unperforated pot.
(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 Sha'ani Hacha).
For questions or sponsorship information, write to firstname.lastname@example.org