How could chazal introduce a gezeriah to burn terumah that is not "really" tameh in some case. Since it is prohibited to burn terumah that is tahor chazal are overriding a Torah law with a positive act (kum va-aseh).
Kol Tuv,
Eli Turkel
There is no prohibition to burn Terumah. The reason why Terumah may not be burned (or destroyed in some other fashion) is because of the Mitzvas Aseh to properly guard Terumah ("Mishmeres Terumosai," Bamidbar 18:8). The requirement to properly guard Terumah applies only when the Terumah can be eaten. When the Terumah cannot be eaten -- such as when the Rabanan decree that it is Tamei and forbidden to be eaten -- it may be burned.
M. KORNFELD
B'H
Kvod Harav. We @ the daf had the same question regarding the "Kum Vease" vs. "Shev v'al Ta-ase" & it is worth to note that "The Minchat Elazar" is asking the same question. & offering the answer. It is also being discussed @ "The Sh'arim M'tzuyanim Bahalacha". (however. The qestion is still much better than the answer that is offered)
Kol Tov
& Shabaat Shalom
It was mentioned in the Daf Yomi Shiur that I attend that the MINCHAS ELOZOR asks this Kasha and he remains with a TZOROCH IYUN.
Thank you for the comments!
Rabbi Kornfeld AMV"S,
Relative to the distinction between Terumah which is Sofek Tumai and
Terumah which is Tumaai d'Rabbanin , the TZLACH states that originally
the Rabbinin had decreed that the 6 cases had a din of toloya
just like Sofek Tomai. Tosfos on 25 a. D"H Achat states that although our
Gemorah includes Terumah Tumaih and Terumah Tahorah in Mishmeras, that is
because the derasha is from m'lach teaching that hanauh can be derived when
burning them but in Bechoras 34 Rabbi Eliezer learns that Mishmeras applies to Terumah Tehorah and Terumah Toloya that they have to be guarded and thus even though Toloya can not be eatten it cant be burned. Thus the consequence of the Rabbanin subsequently decreeing that these six cases are vadai tomai d"Rabbanin rather than Toloya was to take them out of the category of Mishmeris relative to burning, but relative to eatting they were already asur. Thus it would seem the question is still applicable. How could the Rabbanin take something which was asur to burn even though it could not be eatten and make it permitted to burn. According to those who learn that even Toloya is not included in Mishmeras, this is not a question.
Kol Tov,
Yehudah Relis
We mentioned in the earlier letter, in the name of Rav Sternbuch, shlit'a, that Terumah Teluyah (in the Sugya that you refer to) is not similar to Terumah which is Asurah mid'Rabanan (for which the word Teluyah is used in our Sugya), because the former is Safek Temei'ah mid'Oraisa, and may actually be Tahor. The latter, on the other hand, certainly cannot be eaten since it is Vadai Tamei mid'Rabanan.
However, one might challenge our answer from the Gemara on 16b and 48b that says that the Rabanan -- when making decrees of Tum'ah -- specifically instituted certain differences in their decrees as reminders that the Tum'ah is only mid'Rabanan and not mid'Oraisa. The Rabanan did not want people to err and think that the Tum'ah which they decreed is actually d'Oraisa, so that "they should not burn Terumah or Kodshim" that became Tamei with only Tum'ah d'Rabanan. But why enact reminders so that people not burn Terumah which is really Tahor mid'Oraisa, if there is no prohibition against burning Terumah that is Tahor (when that Terumah is forbidden to be eaten by the Rabanan)?
ANSWERS:
(a) We could answer that aside from burning Terumah and Kodshim, there is another problem -- people might think that they are Chayav to bring a Korban Chatas for walking into the Mikdash with such a Tum'ah or for eating Kodesh with such a Tum'ah, like one who is Chayav when one has a Tumah d'Oraisa. The VILNA GA'ON (Nidah 34a) says that the main reason for making reminders in decrees of Tum'ah was to prevent one from bringing a Chatas when one is not really Chayav. The Rabanan were worried that if people would burn Terumah and Kodshim with this type of Tum'ah (which alone is not really prohibited, as we have explained), they might also go ahead and bring a Korban Chatas into the Mikdash as a result of such Tum'ah.
(b) However, it would be simpler to suggest a different answer to the original question, how could the Rabanan make an enactment to burn Terumah which is Tahor mid'Oraisa?
TOSFOS (Yevamos 88a, DH Isha Dayka, and in many other places), says that the Rabanan have the prerogative to uproot a Mitzvah or a prohibition from the Torah if there are reasonable grounds to do so, and if doing so will not blatantly seem to contradict what is written in the Torah. In these six unique enactments (see Rashi, end of 16a), the Rabanan saw good reason for overriding the d'Oraisa law against burning Terumah that is Tahor.
(Tosfos, however, does not bring these as examples of his rule.)
Be well,
-Mordecai