1)

DEALING WITH THE TUMAH ASPECT (Yerushalmi Terumos Perek 7 Halachah 3 Daf 38a)

[ãó ìç òîåã à] ùúé ÷åôåú àçú ùì úøåîä èîàä åàçú ùì (çåìéï èäåøéï)[úøåîä èäåøä] åðôìä ñàä úøåîä èîàä ìúåê àçú îäï åàéðå éãåò ìàéæä îäï ðôìä àðé àåîø ìúåê ùì (úøåîä)[èîàä] ðôìä [åèäåøä ìà úàëì áèäøä òã ùéúçùá ùàéï áëì à' åà' ëáéöä] (åäçåìéï éàëìå áèäøä ðôìä ñàä úøåîä èäåøä àðé àåîø ìúåê ùì úøåîä èîàä ðôìä åäçåìéï éàëìå ð÷åãéí ùúé ÷åôåú àçú ùì úøåîä èäåøä åàçú ùì çåìéï èîàéï åðôìä ñàä úøåîä èäåøä ìúåê àçú îäï åàéï éãåò ìàéæä îäï ðôìä àðé àåîø ìúåê úøåîä ðôìä( åäçåìéï éàëìå ð÷åãéí

(a)

(Tosefta): If there were two boxes, one of Tamei Terumah and one of Tahor Terumah and a Se'ah of Tamei Terumah fell into one of them and it is unknown which; I say that it fell into the Tamei Terumah. But as for the Tumah aspect, it makes wherever it is completely Tamei. The solution is to knead the Tahor Terumah into doughs of less than an eggs-size and the Chulin should be eaten dry (without kneading with water, to prevent it from being able to contract Tumah).

[á' ÷åôåú à' ùì úøåîä èäåøä åà' ùì çåìéï èäåøéï] ðôìä ñàä úøåîä èîàä ùúéäï àñåøåú îä ðôùê àé ìúåê úøåîä ðôìä àñåø àé ìúåê ùì çåìéï ðôìä àñåø

1.

If there were two boxes, one of Tahor Terumah and one of Tahor Chulin, and a Se'ah of Tamei Terumah fell into one of them, they are both prohibited - either way, if it fell into the Terumah, its prohibited (because of the Tumah); and if it fell into the Chulin, it is prohibited (because it's Meduma).

[ãó ñè òîåã à (òåæ åäãø)] ìîä ùñô÷ èîà èîà åñô÷ îãåîò îåúø

2.

What's the reason for these laws? Doubtful Tumah is Tamei, but doubtful Meduma is permitted.

à''ø éåçðï ñô÷ îãåîò ôèåø îï äçìä ñô÷ ãéîåò äðàëì îùåí ãîò çééá áçìä

(b)

(R. Yochanan): Doubtful Meduma (i.e. it is doubtful if Terumah even fell into it) is exempt from Challah (like Terumah). Doubtful Dimua (such as here, where it certainly fell, but it is unclear to where it fell; since it may be eaten despite the doubt, it is obligated in Challah.

àîø ø' éåçðï ãøáé éåãà äéà ãúðéðï úîï àí ðùàìå ááú àçú èîàéï áæä àçø æä èäåøéï

(c)

(R. Yochanan): This follows the opinion of R. Yehuda, as the Mishnah taught (Taharos 5:5), "(If there were two paths, one containing Tumah and one not (and it was unclear which path was which); if one person walked on one path and a second person walked on the other path and they both handled Taharos - R. Yehuda says that if each person asked separately, each is ruled to be Tahor (as it's a case of doubtful Tumah in a public place, which is Tahor). If they asked at the same time, they are both Tamei.

ø' éåñé àåîø áéï ëê åáéï ëê èîàéï

1.

(R. Yosi): Either way, they are Tamei (even if they asked the question separately).

áîä àðï ÷ééîéï àí áðùàìå ùðéäï ëàçú èîàéï åàí áæä àçø æä èäåøéï [ãó ñè òîåã á (òåæ åäãø)] àìà ëéðï ÷ééîéï ááà ìéùàì òìéå åòì çáéøå ø' éåãà àåîø àåîø ìå ùàåì ãéìê åàéæéì ìê åø' éåñé àîø ëîé ùðùàìå ùðéäï ëàçú åäëà ìà ëîé ùðùàìå ùðéäï ëàçú:

(d)

What's the case? If they asked at the same time, all agree that both people are Tamei. If they asked separately, all agree that they are both Tahor. Rather, one came to ask for both of them. R. Yehuda says that it's like asking consecutively, as the Rav says to him, "Ask for yourself and go (and don't concern yourself with your friend)''. R. Yosi says that it's like two people asking at the same time, so they are both Tamei. And here, it's like both of them asking at the same time, so according to R. Yosi, both boxes should be prohibited. (Rather, the Tana must be R. Yehuda, who says , "Ask for yourself and go (and don't concern yourself with your friend)''.)

ø' æòéøà áùí ø' çééà áø ååà åäåà ùæøò àú äùðééä òã ùìà ÷öø àú äøàùåðä àí æøò àú äùðéä (òã ùìà ÷öø)[îù÷öø] àú äøàùåðä àéï úìåù åîçåáø ðòùå äåëéç

(e)

(R. Zeira citing R. Chiya bar Vava): (When the Mishnah taught (Chulin 92-2(g)) that if one person planted the seeds of both boxes, if it was the type of seed that rots, its growths are permitted; if it's of a type that doesn't rot, they are prohibited - it was referring to when he planted the second one before he harvested the first one. But if it was afterwards, each is considered separate and doesn't prove the other, so the growths of both of them are permitted.

ø' çðéðà úåøúééä áùí øáé éðàé áöì ùì úøåîä ùò÷øå åùúìå îëéåï ùøáä òìéå äçãù îåúø

(f)

(R. Chanina Turtaya citing R. Yannai): If a Terumah onion (even though it doesn't rot) was uprooted and replanted and its new growths became as much as 100 times that which was planted, they are Chulin.

[ãó ìç òîåã á] äúéá ø' æòéøà åäúðéðï àú ùæøòå ëìä îåúø åãáø ùàéï æøòå ëìä àñåø ùæøòå ëìä îåúø áîøáä òìéå äçãù åãëååúä ãáø ùàéï æøòå ëìä àñåø åàò''ô ùøáä òìéå äçãù

(g)

Question (R. Zeira): The Mishnah taught that if it was the type of seed that rots, its growths are permitted; if it's of a type that doesn't rot, they are prohibited. Just as when it's of a type that rots, its growths are permitted since the new growths become such a large quantity; so too when it's of a type that doesn't rot, it is prohibited even though the new growths become such a large quantity...?

ø''æ ëãòúéä ãàîø ø' æòéøà áùí ø' éåðúï áöì ùì ëìàé äëøí ùò÷øå åùúìå àôéìå äåñéó ëîä àñåø ùàéï âéãåìé àéñåø îòìéï àú äàéñåø:

(h)

Answer: R. Zeira follows his reasoning, as he said in the name of R. Yonasan - If an onion of Kilai HaKerem was uprooted and then replanted, even if increased several fold, it is still prohibited, as the growths that come from the prohibited item cannot annul the prohibited item.

HADRAN ALACH PEREK HA'OCHEL
PEREK HA'ISHA
2)

A KOHEN'S WIFE WHO WRONGLY ATE TERUMAH (Yerushalmi Terumos Perek 8 Halachah 1 Daf 38b)

îùðä [ãó ò òîåã à (òåæ åäãø)] äàùä ùäéúä àåëìú áúøåîä åáàå åàîøå ìä îú áòìéê àå âéøùê åëï äòáã ùäéä àåëì áúøåîä åáàå åàîøå ìå îú øáê àå îëøê ìéùøàì àå ðúðê áîúðä àå òùàê áï çåøéï åëï ëäï ùäéä àåëì áúøåîä åðåãò ùäåà áï âøåùä àå áï çìåöä ø''à îçééá ÷øï åçåîù åø' éäåùò ôåèø

(a)

(Mishnah): If a woman (who was the daughter of a Yisrael but the wife of a Kohen) was eating Terumah and she was informed that her husband died or had divorced her; similarly, if a slave (of a Kohen) was eating Terumah and he was informed that his master had died or he had been sold or given as a gift to a Yisrael or he had been freed; and similarly, if a Kohen was eating Terumah and he was informed that he was the son of a divorcee or of a woman who had done Chalitzah (both of whom are prohibited to eat Terumah as they are Chalalim) - R. Eliezer obligates them to pay the principal and the fifth and R. Yehoshua exempts them.

äéä òåîã åî÷øéá òì âáé äîæáç åðåãò ùäåà áï âøåùä àå áï çìåöä ø''à àåîø ëì ä÷øáðåú ùä÷øéá òì âáé äîæáç ôñåìéï åø' éäåùò îëùéø ðåãò ùäåà áòì îåí òáåãúå ôñåìä.

(b)

If a Kohen was standing and sacrificing an offering on the Mizbeach and he was informed that he was the son of a divorcee or of a woman who had done Chalitzah - R. Eliezer says that all of the sacrifices that he had ever performed are disqualified; R. Yehoshua says that they are valid. If he was informed that he was a Ba'al Mum (possessed a physical defect), his service is disqualified.

åëåìí ùäéä úøåîä ìúåê ôéäí ø''à àåîø éáìòå åø''é àåîø éôìåèå

(c)

And in all cases, if the Terumah was still in his mouth - R. Eliezer says that he may swallow it; R. Yehoshua says that he must spit it out.

àîøå ìå ðèîàú åðèîàú úøåîä øáé àìéòæø àåîø éáìò åøáé éäåùò àåîø éôìåè

(d)

If they told him, "You have become Tamei'' or "the Terumah has become Tamei'' - R. Eliezer says that he may swallow it; R. Yehoshua says that he must spit it out.

èîà äééú åèîàä äéúä úøåîä àå ðåãò ùäåà èáì åîòùø øàùåï ùìà ðéèìä úøåîúå àå îòùø ùðé åä÷ãù ùìà ðôãå àå ùèòîå èòí ôùôù ìúåê ôéå äøé æä éôìåè:

(e)

If he was informed that he had been Tamei or the Terumah had been Tamei or he was informed that it was Tevel, Maaser Rishon that had not had its Terumah taken or Maaser Sheni or Hekdesh that had not been redeemed or if he tasted the taste of a flee in his mouth, he should spit it out.

âîøà äàùä ùäéúä àåëìú áúøåîä ëå'. ðéçà îú áòìéê âéøùê

(f)

(Gemara) Question: If a woman was eating Terumah...It's understandable that if her husband died, according to R. Eliezer, she would need to pay the principal and extra fifth; but if she was divorced, since she isn't divorced until the Get arrives in her hand, she ate knowingly so why would she pay the fifth?!

[ãó ò òîåã á (òåæ åäãø)] øáðï àîøéï ëîùðä øàùåðä ùëï àøåñä áú éùøàì àåëìú áúøåîä åàáéä î÷áì àú âéèä

(g)

Answer (Rabbanan): It follows the case of the original teaching, that a betrothed daughter of a Yisrael may eat Terumah and (she or) her father accepts her Get (so she might have been divorced unknowingly).

[ãó ìè òîåã à] øáé ìòæø àåîø åàôéìå úéîø ëîùðä àçøåðä [ãó ìè òîåã á] úôúø ùàîøä ìå (äáà âéèé îî÷åí)[äú÷áì ìé âéèé áî÷åí] ôìåðé åäéä ãøëå ìäáéà ìä áòùøä éîéí åîöà ñåñ øõ åäáéà ìä ìçîùä éîéí

(h)

Answer #2 (R. Elazar): It could even follow the later teaching (that a betrothed daughter of a Yisrael may not eat Terumah). In this case, she appointed an agent to accept her Get in a certain place and he was expected to take 10 days to arrive there and he found a quick horse and arrived there in only 5 days.

åìà ø' ìòæø ëøáé ìéòæø ãúðéðï ø' ìéòæø àåñø îéã

(i)

Question: Didn't R. Elazar answer according to R. Eliezer; but his opinion in the Mishnah (in Maseches Gitin 6:4) is that (if a woman told an agent, 'Accept my Get in a certain place', she isn't particular about only accepting it there; rather she is merely directing the agent. Therefore,) immediately she may not eat Terumah (as the agent might immediately find the husband and accept her Get)...?

åìà îåãé ø' ìéòæø ùàí àîøä (äáà ìé âéèé îî÷åí)[àì ú÷áì ìé âéèé àìà áî÷åí] ôìåðé ùäéà àåëìú áúøåîä òã ùîâéò äâè ìàåúå î÷åí

(j)

Answer: R. Eliezer agrees that if she said, "Only accept my Get in a certain place'', that she may continue to eat Terumah until the Get (and the agent) arrive there. (So if the agent arrived earlier than expected, she may have been divorced unknowingly.)

[ãó òà òîåã à (òåæ åäãø)] àîø ø' çððéä îëéåï ùàîøä ìå (äáà ìé âéèé îî÷åí)[àì ú÷áì ìé âéèé àìà áî÷åí] ôìåðé ëîé ùàîøä ìå ìà éäà âè àìà ìòùøä éîéí îä ùàëìä áäéúø àëìä.

(k)

(R. Chananya disagrees): Since she told the agent, "Only accept my Get in a certain place'' (which is at a distance of 10 days travel), it's as if she said, "This should only be my Get after 10 days'', so the Terumah that she ate was permitted to her. (Rather, we must return to the first answer, given by the Rabbanan, that the Mishnah follows the case of the original teaching, that a betrothed woman may eat her husband's Terumah.)