ANNULLING TEVEL IN A MAJORITY (Yerushalmi Ma'asros Perek 5 Halachah 1 Daf 21b)



(The Mishnah taught that if one uproots turnip or radish from his property and plants them elsewhere in his property - if replanted for their seeds they are obligated.) It makes no difference whether it was done for its seeds, to declare it Hefker or to replant in Chutz LaAretz.



Question (Mishnah in Maseches Peah): '(If a person didn't leave Peah) he is still obligated to separate it and it's exempt from Ma'asros until he smooths the pile.' (This indicates that if he declared them Hefker before they were smoothed, they are exempt from Maaser.) But here (in the Tosefta) you said (that if he planted them to make them Hefker, they are obligated)?



Answer: There, he would be making them entirely Hefker. Here, he only makes the growths Hefker (but not the roots). (Since only the roots are obligated and the growths that will outweigh them are not, he has negated his obligation to tithe (by making only the growths Hefker) and he must tithe them before planting.)

[ ( )] .


Proof: The Tosefta also taught the case of uprooting to replant in Chutz LaAretz. In that case, could there have been a difference between the roots and the growths?!



Rebuttal: And here (when he plants intending to make it Hekfer), doesn't it make a difference whether he made the roots or the growths Hefker?



Question: According to R. Shimon ben Lakish who says that Tevel is annulled in a majority (see Terumos 4:1), it is fine (since the roots are annulled in the majority of growths, so he must tithe before he plants since he negated his obligation to tithe them).



But according to R. Yochanan, who said that Tevel is not annulled in the majority, he should plant and wait until it's grown and then tithe all of it (otherwise he will tithe from that which is exempt for that which is obligated)?

[ ] '' .


Answer: Perhaps R. Yochanan and R. Shimon ben Lakish disagree over when it was completed and became obligated in Ma'asros from the Torah; but a case such as here, where it was incomplete (so the obligation is only Rabbinic), all agree that the Tevel is annulled in the majority.

[ ( )] . . .


Question (R. Ba bar Kohen to R. Yosi): The Mishnah in Challah (3:9) taught - if olives/grapes that were picked by an owner became mixed with olives/grapes picked by the poor (as Olelos), which are exempt from Maaser; (if he has other Tevel olives/grapes he should tithe from them according to the amount of olives/grapes he had picked. If not, he should view the mixture as if all of it is Tevel.) Aren't olives and grapes usually pressed, and if so, they are not yet complete and are Rabbinic Tevel. (So why isn't the Tevel annulled in the majority even according to R. Yochanan?)



Answer (R. Mana): The Mishnah can be explained to refer to oil rather than olives, so it's obligated from the Torah.



(R. Mana): (The Mishnah taught (Bechoros 10(c) - If one uproots turnip or radish from his property and plants them in his own property - if replanted for their seeds they are obligated, since this uprooting is their completion.) This is specifically when he replanted to harden and produce seeds, but if replanted to grow as a vegetable for consumption, they are exempt (since he will tithe them after they grow).

[ ] .


(R. Chiya citing R. Yochanan): (Disagreeing) Whether planted for seeds or for consumption, they are obligated, since the uprooting is their completion.



(R. Chanina): Since they are being transferred from a year of obligation of Ma'aser Sheni to a year of Maaser Ani or alternatively, from a year of Maaser Ani to a year of Ma'aser Sheni.

()[] .


(R. Yochanan citing R. Yannai): If a pile of covered onions took root, one who detaches from them on Shabbos is exempt since he had no intention that they take root.

[ ( )] ()[] .


Question (R. Shimon ben Lakish to R. Yochanan): Why are you comparing Shabbos to Taharos? Even though for Taharos it is still considered attached; for all other laws, it is considered detached; as the Mishnah taught (in Maseches Kilayim 1:9), '(If a person covered turnips or radishes under a vine - since he had no intention that they take root) - there is no concern for Kilayim, Sheviis or Ma'asros (if they grew there) and he may take them out on Shabbos...?

[ ] ()[]. ( )[ ] ( ).


(R. Zeira to R. Abahu): Come and see (what Reish Lakish said to R. Yochanan) - he only asked why R. Yochanan was comparing Shabbos to Taharos; but Sheviis is comparable to Taharos - as even if he does not want them to take root, they become prohibited as Sefichin (but the Mishnah he quoted taught that there is no concern for Sheviis)?



(R. Maisha to R. Zeira): If we don't compare Shabbos to Taharos (and it is permitted to detach), certainly there will be no prohibition of Sefichin.

() .


Had R. Yochanan spoken about a single onion, Reish Lakish would have agreed that ideally it is prohibited (since the Mishnah in Kilayim was discussing bundles of turnips and radishes where it is clear that he wasn't intending them to take root).


(Tosefta): If they took root (in earth) in a box, (they are considered to be detached and) they keep the same status as before for Ma'asros and Sheviis. But (for Tumah) even if they took root, they are not considered attached, so (if they were Tamei) they retain their Tamei status.

[ ( )] .


If they took root (in earth) in an attic, they keep the same status for Ma'asros and Sheviis (as they are considered to be detached); but (for Tumah they are considered attached and) if they were Tamei, they become Tahor.


Question: If for Ma'asros and Sheviis they are considered detached, why for Tumah are they considered attached?

' '' ( ) .


Answer (R. Yosi citing R. Ila): The Torah included it when the pasuk said (Vayikra 11:37), "And if of their carcass falls upon any sowing seed which is to be sown, it remains clean.'' (Any type of sowing purifies its Tumah.)



(Baraisa): (If a person covered turnips or radishes and they took root) he should not pick from them. If he did, one Tana says that he is liable and one says that he is permitted to pick.



Question: It would have been fine if one would have prohibited and one permitted or one had said liable and one had said exempt; but how could one permit it and one say that he is liable for it?

()[ ] )([ ]


Answer: R. Yochanan's texts were liable and exempt and R. Shimon ben Lakish's texts were prohibited and permitted.