Talmud Shiur 5784 #10

1. Come and hear:
   1. When did the Sages say that in the case where one separates teruma without the owner’s consent, his teruma is considered teruma?
   2. Where there was someone who entered another’s field and gathered produce from it and separated teruma without the owner’s permission.
      1. If the owner is concerned about robbery, his teruma is not teruma,
      2. but if he is not , his teruma is teruma.
   3. And from where would does he know whether the owner is concerned about robbery or not?
      1. If the owner came and found him and said to him: You should have gone to take the produce of better quality and separate teruma from that,
         1. if produce of better quality than the produce he had separated is found, his teruma is considered teruma.
         2. But if not, his teruma is not teruma.
   4. If the owners were gathering and adding, either way, his teruma is considered teruma.
2. But why is that the halakha, that if produce of better quality than the produce he had separated is found his teruma is teruma?
   1. At the time that he separated the teruma, he did not know.
3. Rava interpreted the matter in accordance with the opinion of Abaye: This is a case where the owner designated him as an agent.
4. So too, it is reasonable, as if it enters your mind that the owner did not designate him as an agent, would his teruma be teruma?
   1. But doesn’t the Merciful One state: “So you also shall set apart a gift unto the Lord of all your tithes” (Numbers 18:28)? Once the verse states “you,” the addition of the word “also” in the term “you also” serves to include an agent.
      1. Just as when you, the owner, separate teruma, it is with your knowledge, so too when your agent separates teruma, it must be with your knowledge.
5. Rather, with what are we dealing here? It is a case where the owner designated him as an agent and said to him: Go and separate teruma, but he did not say to him: Separate teruma from these specific crops.
6. And when the owner’s intent is unspecified, when the agent separates teruma, it is from the crops of intermediate quality that he separates teruma.
   1. And in this case, the agent went and separated teruma from higher-quality produce, and the owner of the field came and found him and said to him: You should have gone to take the produce of better quality.
   2. If produce of better quality than the produce he had separated is found, his teruma is considered teruma. But if not, his teruma is not teruma.
7. Ameimar, Mar Zutra, and Rav Ashi happened to come to the orchard [levustana] of Mari bar Isak.
8. His sharecropper came and placed dates and pomegranates before them.
9. Ameimar and Rav Ashi ate the fruit, but Mar Zutra did not eat.
10. Meanwhile, Mari bar Isak came and found them eating his fruit and said to his sharecropper: Why didn’t you bring the Sages fruit from those higher-quality fruits?
11. Ameimar and Rav Ashi said to Mar Zutra: Now why is the Master not eating the fruit?
    1. But isn’t it taught in a baraita: if produce of better quality than the produce he had separated is found, his teruma is considered teruma!
12. Mar Zutra said to them that this is what Rava said: The Sages said that the statement: You should have gone to take the produce of better quality and separate teruma, is only with regard to the matter of teruma, due to the fact that it is a mitzva and the owner is amenable. But here, in this incident, it is due to shame that he said this.

1. Come and hear:
   1. If the dew is still upon the produce and has not yet dried, and if the owner was glad,
      1. that produce falls into the category of: “But when water is placed upon the seed."
   2. If the produce had dried when the owner found it, then even though he was glad,
      1. the produce is not in the category of: “But when water is placed [khi yuttan]."
   3. What is the reason?
   4. Is it not due to the fact that we do not say:
      1. Since the matter was revealed that he is amenable to the moisture now, he was also amenable from the outset?
   5. It is different there, as it is written: When one places [ki yitten],
      1. only if the owner places the liquid on the produce.
   6. If so, in the first clause, too, the produce should not be rendered susceptible to contracting impurity.
   7. There, the explanation is in accordance with Rav Pappa,
      1. as Rav Pappa raised a contradiction:
      2. The word “yuttan” is written in the defective form, as if it says “ki yitten.” Yet, we read it, “ki yuttan."
      3. How so? We require that the situation described by the words “when water is placed [ki yuttan]” be similar to "When one places [dekhi yitten]":
         1. Just as places [yitten] indicates that it is with the knowledge, so too, the term “is placed [yuttan]” means that it is with his knowledge.
2. Come and hear
   1. which Rabbi Yoḥanan says in the name of Rabbi Yishmael ben Yehotzadak:
   2. From where is it derived with regard to a lost item that the river swept away that it is permitted for its finder to keep it?
   3. As it is written: “And so shall you do with his donkey; and so shall you do with his garment; and so shall you do with every lost item of your brother, which shall be lost from him, and you have found it.” (Deuteronomy 22:3).
      1. That which is lost from him, the owner, but is available to be found by any person.
      2. Excluded from that obligation is that which is lost from him and is not available to be found by any person.
   4. And the prohibition is similar to the allowance:
      1. just as in the case of the allowance, whether there is a distinguishing mark and whether there is no distinguishing mark, it is permitted for the finder to keep it,
      2. so too in the case of the prohibition, whether there is a distinguishing mark and whether there is no distinguishing mark, it is prohibited.
      3. The refutation of the opinion of Rava is indeed a conclusive refutation.
3. And although in disputes between Abaye and Rava, the halakha is typically ruled in accordance with the opinion of Rava, the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Abaye in the disputes represented by the mnemonic: Yod, ayin, lamed; kuf, gimmel, mem.

tIf the dew is still upon them - Someone brings their produce up to the roof and dew falls on them.

And he is happy - with the dew that fell on them.

that falls into the category of: “But when water is placed" - And it is susceptible to impurity forever.

If it dries - before they find them.

Even if he is happy - Now that the dew fell upon them.

It is not in the category of: “But when water is placed [khi yuttan]" - And we don't say that since he is now OK from this, his awareness of that is treated as from the beginning and thus the produce are susceptible to impurity. This is a challenge to Rava.

It is written "When one places" - and not "when it is placed."

With the knowledge - with the knowledge of placing, I.e., seeing it become susceptible to impurity, and there is still dew on them, they are still in the status of him placing it on them.

"From him" - this is an additional word in the Torah, coming to teach that it is only "lost" to the owner.

And the forbidden is similar to the permitted - Since from the one text we derive that it must be considered "found" by anyone who returns it, and it if isn't considered "found", the finder merits it, we compare it to here. The former is the permitted, and the latter is the forbidden.

Just as in the allowance - That is not "found", there is no differentiation between whether or not there is an identifying marker.

So too with the forbidden - that is "found" by everyone else, there is no differentiation whether there is an identifying marker, where when he finds out he will despair, or whether there is not an identifying marker, where when he finds out he will not despair. So here [in a case of being unaware], since if there is a sign, the object is forbidden, when there is no identifying marker, it is also forbidden, since one could say: "I did not know if fell before it came to his hand."

Yael Kegam - Signs of halachot [in which Abaye is followed over Rava]:

1. Despair that is unaware here
2. A conspiratorial witness is retroactively considered unfit, in Tractate Sanhedrin.
3. A Lechi that stands by itself, in Tractate Eruvin
4. Betrothal that is not given to consummation, in Tractate Kidushin
5. 
   

...

(38) but if he puts water on the seed and any part of a carcass falls upon it, it shall be impure for you.