PEREK HAMAFRISH
1)

PARTIALLY SEPARATED TERUMAH AND MA'ASROS (Yerushalmi Terumos Perek 4 Halachah 1 Daf 18a)

îùðä äîôøéù î÷öú úøåîä åîòùøåú îåöéà îîðå úøåîä òìéå àáì ìà ìî÷åí àçø

(a)

(Mishnah): One who partially separated Terumah and Ma'asros (i.e. less than the required amount); he should remove the rest of it from the same pile, but he may not separate from it for a pile elsewhere.

ø''î àåîø àó îåöéà äåà ìî÷åí àçø úøåîåú åîòùøåú:

(b)

(R. Meir): He may even separate from it for a pile elsewhere.

[ãó ìâ òîåã à (òåæ åäãø)] âîøà äîôøéù î÷öú úøåîåú åîòùøåú. îúðé' ëùäôøéù åãòúå ìäôøéù

(c)

(Gemara): 'One who partially separated Terumah and Ma'asros...' The Mishnah is discussing when he separated with intent to further separate.

ø' ùîåàì [ãó éç òîåã á] áùí ø' æòéøà îúðé' áñúí

(d)

(R. Shmuel citing R. Zeira): The Mishnah's case is even when he didn't have that intent.

àîø øáé îðà ÷åîé ø' éåãï îä åôìéâ

(e)

(R. Mana to R. Yudan): Is R. Shmuel disagreeing with the Gemara's previous statement?

à''ì ñúîà áùäôøéù åãòúå ìäôøéù

(f)

(R. Yudan to R. Mana): R. Shmuel reasons that even if he didn't have specific intent, it is as if he did.

îä áéï îåöéà îîðå òìéå ìîåöéà îîðå ìî÷åí àçø

(g)

Question: What's the difference whether he separates from it for itself or for elsewhere?

áùòä ùäåà îåöéà îîðå òìéå ëì äèáì òìä áéãå åáùòä ùäåà îåöéà îîðå ìî÷åí àçø îæä åîæä òìä áéãå

(h)

Answer: When he separates from it for itself, we assume that all of the produce that came to his hand was from the Tevel (since it's viewed as a continuation of his earlier separation). But when he separates for elsewhere, he is assumed to have taken both Tevel and Chulin (since the earlier separation was already completed).

å÷ùéà ðèì ìäåöéà îîðå òìéå ëì äèáì òìä áéãå åðîìê ìäåöéà îîðå òì î÷åí àçø îæä åîæä òìä áéãå ðèì ìäåöéà îîðå òì î÷åí àçø îæä åîæä òìä áéãå åðîìê ìäåöéà îîðå òìéå ëì äèáì òìä áéãå

(i)

Rebuttal: When he took it in his hand to add to his earlier separation, we assume that he only took out Tevel. But if, when it was now in his hand, he instead decided to use it as Terumah for elsewhere, should we be concerned that he has both Tevel and Chulin in his hand? And when he took it to separate for elsewhere (and we are concerned that he has a mixture of Tevel and Chulin), but then he decided to use it for itself, should we now say that he only has Tevel in his hand?

ôéçú ëì äèáì òìä áéãå äåñéó îæä åîæä òìä áéãå

1.

And if, when he separated the first time, he gave less than he usually gives and he then came a second time to complete his separation, we say that he took only the Tevel in his hand; but when he separated the second time and ultimately gave more than he usually gives, do we also say that he has Chulin in his hand?

[ãó ìâ òîåã á (òåæ åäãø)] àó áèåòä ëï äéä ñáåø ùäåà çééá ùúé ñàéï åàéðå çééá àìà àçú

(j)

Question: If he mistakenly thought that he needed to add another two Se'ah of Terumah but he only needed to add one, do we also say that since he intended the second Se'ah to also be Terumah, he would have taken from the Tevel and he can now use it for elsewhere?

ø' àéîé áùí øéù ì÷éù àåúä äñàä ùäåà îåñéó òåùä àåúä úøåîä òì î÷åí àçø

(k)

(R. Imi citing Reish Lakish): That Se'ah could be used Terumah for elsewhere.

åäúðéðï àáì ìà òì î÷åí àçø

(l)

Question: But the Mishnah taught, 'but not for elsewhere'?

úéôúø áîøáä áúøåîä

(m)

Answer: That is referring to adding on more Terumah than he usually gives.

ðéçà áîøáä áúøåîä åáîòùøåú ìà úðé ø''ù áï ì÷éù îòùøåú

(n)

Question: This is understandable for Terumah, but (one is not permitted to add extra) Maaser?! Doesn't Reish Lakish agree that Mishnah's text includes the case of Ma'asros?

[ãó éè òîåã à] àìà èòîà ãø''ù áï ì÷éù îëéåï ãå àîø ëì äèáì òìä áéãå îä áéï îåöéà îîðå òìéå îä áéï îåöéà îîðå ìî÷åí àçø

(o)

Rather, Reish Lakish reasons that when we say that only Tevel came to his hand, it makes no difference whether he separates from it for itself or for elsewhere.

[ãó ìã òîåã à (òåæ åäãø)] îéé ëãåï

(p)

Question: Then how do you explain the Mishnah's words 'but not for elsewhere'?

ëùðú÷ï øåáå ùì ëøé

(q)

Answer: Originally he separated from most of the pile (which on a Torah level means that the minority of Tevel becomes annulled in the majority of Chulin). However, the Rabbis decreed that it is not annulled, but permitted separating from the same pile, but not for other produce that has a Torah obligation.

(ìà ðú÷ï øåáå ùì ëøé) ôìåâúà ãçæ÷éä åøáé éåçðï

(r)

There is a dispute between Chizkiyah and R. Yochanan...

ãàîø øéù ì÷éù áùí çæ÷éä èáì áèì áøåá

1.

(Reish Lakish citing Chizkiyah): (On a Torah level) Tevel is annulled in the majority.

åø' éåçðï àîø àéï äèáì áèì áøåá îëéåï ùðúï ãòúå ìäôøéù ðñúééîä ëì çéèä åçéèä áî÷åîä

2.

(R. Yochanan): It's not annulled - since he could separate Terumah from the Tevel part to also make it Chulin, it is as if he is able to identify each wheat kernel of Tevel.

åàéú ãáòé îéîø ëäãà ãúðé øáé àìéòæø áï éò÷á ãúðé øàá''é àéðå îåöéà ìà òìéå åìà òì î÷åí àçø

(s)

Some (wish to differentiate between when he separated for most of the pile and when he did it for less than half) by explaining like the teaching of R. Eliezer ben Yaakov (who disagreed with our Mishnah) - he said that if one partially separated Terumos and Ma'asros, he may not separate from it, whether for itself or for another pile. (We are concerned that when he takes some of the pile to separate for the rest or for elsewhere, he might take from produce that is already Chulin.)

òã ëãåï ìà ðú÷ï øåáä ùì ëøé ðú÷ï øåáä ùì ëøé

(t)

Question: Perhaps R. Eliezer ben Yaakov was only discussing one who didn't yet separate for most of the pile (since on a Torah level he must still separate), but if he did (so the obligation is now only Rabbinic), perhaps he would not have said it...

[ãó ìã òîåã á (òåæ åäãø)] åééáà ëäãà äéå ìôðéå á' ëøééí à' äôøéù îîðå î÷öú úøåîåú åîòùøåú åà' äôøéù îîðå î÷öú úøåîåú åîòùøåú îäå ùéúøåí îæä òì æä

(u)

Answer: Learn from this question - if a person had two piles in front of him and from each one he partially separated Terumos and Ma'asros, may he now separate from one for the other?

úìîéãåé ãøáé çééà øåáà ùàìåï ìø' çééà øåáà àîø ìåï äëñéì çåá÷ àú éãéå åàåëì àú áùøå

(v)

The students of R. Chiya asked him this question and he answered with the pasuk (Koheles 4:5), "The fool folds his arms and eats his flesh''.(He ruled like R. Eliezer ben Yaakov and he does not differentiate between having separated for the majority or the minority of the pile.)

ø' ìòæø áùí ø' çééà øáä àéï úåøîéï åìà îòùøéï îæä òì æä:

(w)

(R. Elazar citing R. Chiya the Great): It's only for the second pile that he may not separate from the first pile, but he may separate for it itself (as he follows the first Tana).