Yevamos Chart #27
Chart for Yevamos Daf 89a-b
WHEN FRUITS ARE IMPROPERLY SEPARATED AS TERUMAH,
DOES THE TERUMAH TAKE EFFECT?
| (A) ARE THE FRUITS THAT WERE SEPARATED CONSIDERED TO BE TERUMAH OR TEVEL? |
(B) DO THE FRUITS OF TERUMAH NEED TO HAVE TERUMAH SEPARATED FOR THEM AGAIN? |
(C) DO THE FRUITS LEFTOVER NEED TO HAVE TERUMAH SEPARATED FOR THEM AGAIN? |
||
| 1 | ONE SEPARATED TAMEI FRUITS AS TERUMAH FOR TAHOR ONES B'SHOGEG | Terumah (1) | No | No |
| 2 | ONE SEPARATED TAMEI FRUITS AS TERUMAH FOR TAHOR ONES B'MEZID | R. Chisda: Tevel (2) R. Nasan : Terumah |
R. Chisda: Yes R. Nasan : No |
Yes |
| 3 | ONE SEPARATED BITTER FRUITS AS TERUMAH FOR GOOD ONES B'SHOGEG | Terumah (1) | No | Yes (3) |
| 4 | ONE SEPARATED FRUITS GROWN IN AN UNPERFORATED POT AS TERUMAH FOR FRUITS GROWN IN A PERFORATED POT B'MEZID | Terumah (4) | No (5) | Yes |
| 5 | ONE SEPARATED FRUITS GROWN IN A PERFORATED POT AS TERUMAH FOR FRUITS GROWN IN AN UNPERFORATED POT B'MEZID |
Tevel (6) | Yes | No (7) |
==========
FOOTNOTES:
==========
(1) Since the owner acted inadvertently, we do not suspect that he will be negligent and fail to separate Terumah again properly. Therefore, the Rabanan did not make the fruit Chulin, according to Rav Chisda.
(2) According to Rav Chisda, the Rabanan made the fruit Chulin and removed its status of Terumah, because if the fruit would remain Terumah the owner might be negligent and fail to separate Terumah again properly (since he already transgressed an enactment of the Rabanan intentionally by separating Tamei fruits as Terumah for Tahor ones; TOSFOS DH Mezid).
(3) One is obligated to separate Terumah again even though he separated the bitter fruits b'Shogeg (accidentally) and not b'Mezid. This is because his error could have been avoided by taking one fruit from the batch, separating Terumah for it, and then tasting it to make sure that the batch of fruit was fit to be Terumah for the rest of the fruits. (TOSFOS DH Iba'i)
(4) Even according to Rav Chisda, the Rabanan did not make the fruits Chulin because a person is not suspected of negligence when two separate vessels hold the fruit. He certainly will separate Terumah from the second vessel (the perforated pot).
(5) Since the fruits that were separated as Terumah grew in an unperforated pot, they have no status of Tevel or Terumah, and they do not need Terumah to be separated from them (RASHI). (Even though fruits that grow in an unperforated pot are Chayav mid'Rabanan to have Terumah separated from them, one fulfills his obligation by separating Terumah from them for the fruits in the perforated pot.)
(6) Although the Mishnah says that it is "Terumah," from the fact that the Mishnah continues and explains that one must separate Terumah again from other fruits (5:B) it is clear that mid'Oraisa the fruits are Tevel. The Mishnah refers to them as "Terumah" only insofar as they must be given to a Kohen and they are the property of the Kohen. Nevertheless, those fruits of "Terumah" may be eaten by a Zar (RIVAN cited by TOSFOS DH v'Lo Sochal). (This also seems to be the view of RASHI DH Shani Hacha.) The RI (cited by Tosfos ibid.), however, argues and asserts that the fruits are prohibited mid'Rabanan to a Zar, since these fruits fulfill the Chiyuv d'Rabanan to separate Terumah for the fruits in the unperforated pot.
(7) One is not obligated to separate Terumah again for the fruits that grew in the unperforated pot, because the Chiyuv to separate Terumah from such fruits is only mid'Rabanan. Since he already separated Terumah for those fruits (from the fruits in the perforated pot), he does not need to separate Terumah again (RASHI, DH Sha'ani Hacha).