A CHILD SEPARATING TERUMAH (Yerushalmi Terumos Perek 1 Halachah 1 Daf 2b)
îàï úðà ÷èï
Question: Who is the Tanna of our Mishnah who says that if a child separates Terumah, it is invalid?
ãìà ëøáé éåãä ãúðé ÷èï ùäðéçå àáéå áîå÷ùä åäéä úåøí åàáéå îåëø òì éãéå úøåîúå úøåîä
Answer: It is not like R. Yehuda who taught in a Baraisa that if a child was left next to pumkpins by his father and he was separating Terumah and the father was selling the produce, it is valid Terumah.
ìà äåà ùúåøí àìà àáéå äåà ùàéîï òì éãå.
Rebuttal: In that case, it's not the son separating; it's the father directing his hands.
áà àáéå åàéîï òì éãå ìîôøò ðòùéú úøåîä àå îëàï åìáà
Question: If his father came and directed his hands, does it retroactively become Terumah or only from that point onwards?
àîø øáé ùéîé ðùîòéðà îï äãà äøé ùáà áòì äáéú åîöàå òåîã áúåê ùìå à''ì ì÷åè ìê îï äéôéí äàéìå àí äéå éôéí àéðå çåùù îùåí âæì åàí ìàå çåùù îùåí âæì [ãó ä òîåã à (òåæ åäãø)] åàí äéä ìå÷è åðåúï ìå áéï ëê åáéï ëê àéðå çåùù îùåí âæì àéú ìê îéîø ìîôøò ðòùéú úøåîä ìà îëàï åìáà åàåó äëà îëàï åìáà ðòùéú úøåîä
Answer (R. Simi): Learn from this - if the owner came and found him picking and separating Terumah in his field and the owner said to him, "You should have separated from the nicer ones'' - if there were nicer ones, there is no concern of theft; if there weren't nicer ones, there is a concern of theft. If the owner helped him, either way there is no concern of theft. If he only becomes his agent to separate Terumah if he shows that he was happy with the man's actions, how could it become Terumah retroactively? So too here in the case of a son.
àúí ôøè ìùåúôéï àúí ôøè ìàôåèøåôéï àúí ôøè ìúåøí àú ùàéðå ùìå.
The pasuk states (Bamidbar 18:28), "So shall you also separate Terumah'' - "You'' - this excludes partners, guardians and when the produce doesn't belong to him.
àúí åìà ùåúôéï åäúðï ùåúôéï ùúøîå æä àçø æä
Question: "You'' excludes partners? But doesn't the later Mishnah (Perek 3 Mishnah 2 - Chulin 72) teach that partners may separate for each other?
àìà ëàï ìúøåîä âãåìä ëàï ìúøåîú îòùø
Answer: Rather, that Mishnah, that allows one partner to separate for the other, refers to Terumah, and the pasuk refers to Terumas Maaser.
ëìåí ìîãå ìúøåîä âãåìä àìà îúøåîú îòùø
Question: Isn't Terumah Gedolah learned from Terumas Maaser?
àìà ëàï ìäìëä ëàï (ìîòùø) [ìîòùä].
Answer: Rather, ideally, partners should not separate for each other, but if they did, it is valid.
àúí åìà àôåèøåôéï åäúðéðï éúåîéí ùñîëå àöì áòì äáéú àå ùîéðä ìäï àáéäï àôåèøåôéï çééáéï ìòùø ôéøåúéäï
We learned that "you'' excludes guardians. But there's a Mishnah (in Maseches Gitin) that taught that if orphans relied on a person (who was not officially appointed as their guardian) or relied on a guardian appointed by their father, those people must tithe their produce...?
çáøééà àîøéï ëàï áàôåèøåôåñ ìòåìí ëàï áàôåèøåôåñ ìùòä
Answer (Chevraya): One is a permanent guardian (who can take Terumah) and one is temporary (who cannot).
øáé éåñé áòé àí áàôåèøåôåñ ìòåìí áäãà úðéðï îåëø îèìèìéï åæðï àáì ìà ÷ø÷òåú
Question (R. Yosi): If it's discussing a permanent guardian, would it have taught in a Baraisa that he may only sell movables but not fields to sustain the orphans...?
àìà ëàï áéúåí âãåì ëàï áéúåí ÷èï.
Answer: Rather, a guardian may only separate Terumah for young orphans but not for adult orphans.