R. Mordechai - I really enjoy your insights to 37b and have reread it many times over the years.
I'm wondering, though. Why is 2 rimonin a problem for R. Shimon? I'm probably getting this all wrong, but it would seem from the kri/pile, where R. Shimon is modeh that its truma, that the issue is physically knowing that there is a defined place of trumah at the time of the hafrasha. which you don't have with wine, since the physics of wine are obviously different than grain in the middle of a pile. It could be that he doesn't have a problem with the Rimon, no?
Actually, i don't understand where Abaye brings the Rimon example from . it sounds like a beraisa, but it's not referenced
tuvya marcus, Jerusalem, Israel
1. The distinction you are making is the difference between "Lach b'Lach" and "Yavesh b'Yavesh" -- between liquid mixtures (such as wine) and dry mixtures (such as two fruits).
2. However, Abaye's question is that if there is a law that Terumah requires "Shayarehah Nikarim" (that, at the time one separates the Terumah, it must be clear which fruits are the Terumah and which are the remainder of the produce) as Rava says, then in the case of the two pomegranates the Hafrashah will also not work. It is true that in Abaye's example the reason why the Hafrashah will not work is because of the way he made the condition (not because of the physical nature of the pomegranates), and the reason it does not work in the Mishnah according to Rava is because of the physical nature of the wine, but at the end of the day it does not make a difference why it does not work -- because Abaye argues that one does not know, at the time he separated Terumah from these two pomegranates, which is the Terumah and which is the remnant, even though physically the two pomegranates are distinguishable.
3. Rashi (DH Hayu) writes that the Din of the two pomegranates is a "Hilchesa b'Alma" which is suitable to teach publicly. In other words, there is no specific source for this Din, but it is a Halachah which seems to be clear according to Abaye, and also it is something that can be well understood by the general public (possibly more so than the Mishnah that the Gemara proceeds to cite immediately afterwards, which is rather more complex in its details).
4. The Rashash in Berachos (11a) cites the Gemara here as an example that the way of the Gemara is sometimes to ask questions from simple practical scenarios rather than from more specific sources. The Gemara there asks that if being preoccupied with other things is a reason to be exempt from saying Shema, then even if someone's ship sank at sea he should be exempt. Even though the Gemara could have asked from more specific sources, it chose to ask from a simple striking case.
5. However, the Ritva here writes that Abaye possessed a tradition from his teachers that the Terumah does work in the case of the two pomegranates (Rabeinu Peretz also writes this). This seems to be a different explanation from that of Rashi. The Ga'on Yakov (DH Shani) writes that according to the conclusion of the Gemara, Rava indeed does not agree with Abaye that Terumah works in his case of 2 pomegranates, so it must be that Rava did not possess this tradition of Abaye).
Kol Tuv,
Dovid Bloom