Prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
of Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Yerushalayim

Ask A Question

Previous Perek



Mishnah 1

(a) If someone Ma'asers cucumbers and finds that they are bitter, or a water-melon and finds that it has gone bad, the Mishnah rules - that what he did is valid, and that he must Ma'aser it again.
(b) The Chachamim penalized him in this way (despite the fact that he is a Shogeg [see Tiferes Yisrael 6]) - because, since his discovery was to be anticipated, he should have tasted it first (see Tiferes Yisrael).
(c) By contrast, if one Ma'asers a barrel of wine and then finds that it is sour, assuming that it ...
1. ... was known to have turned sour -the Ma'asros are not valid, whereas if they ...
2. ... only turned sour afterwards - they are.

(a) In the case of a Safek (whether it had turned sour already before the Ma'asros were separated or only afterwards - his Ma'asros are valid, but he is obligated to Ma'aser a second time ...
(b) ... with the difference that (as opposed to 'Kishos ve'Nimtza'as Marah') the Kohen is obligated is obligated to pay for the first (larger) Matanah (seeing as the owner could not have done anything about it in advance anyway). Note, that the Kohen is also obligated to separate Terumas Ma'aser from the first Matanah (see Tiferes Yisrael).
(c) If one of the current batches of Terumah ...
1. ... falls into less than a hundred of Chulin - it does not render it forbidden (and the owner merely separates from the total the amount that fell in and gives it to the Kohen).
2. ... is eaten by a Zar - he pays the Kohen what he ate without adding the extra 'fifth' (see Tosfos Rebbi Akiva Eiger).

Mishnah 2

Following the ruling in the previous Mishnah, if the second batch of Terumah also falls into ...
1. ... less than a hundred of Chulin (in a different container) - it is not Meda'me (it does not render the Chulin Asur) any more than the first one (only the owner is obligated to separate the smaller amount and give it to the Kohen).
2. ... the same container as the first one - It is Meda'me according to the Shi'ur of the second one (which is the smaller of the two). Consequently, if the Chulin in the container is less than a hundred times the second batch, it becomes Asur, and must be sold to the Kohen (minus the value of the actual Terumah).

Mishnah 3

(a) According to Rebbi Akiva, if two partners both separate Terumah from their jointly-owned crops, one without the knowledge of the other, both sets of Terumah are valid. Practically this means that (assuming that each one separated one Sa'ah from fifty Sa'in) - half a Sa'ah from each set of Terumah is Terumah, and half, Chulin (see Tosfos Yom-Tov and Tiferes Yisrael).
(b) The Chachamim hold - that the Terumah of the first one is valid (and not of the second) ...
(c) ... because the second person would have a certainly agreed, had he known of the first one's intentions to separate Terumah.

(a) Rebbi Yossi qualifies the Chachamim's ruling in that - if the first one separated less than the Shi'ur, then the Terumah that he separated on behalf of his partner is invalid, in which case, that of the second one is valid too.
(b) According to others, Rebbi Yossi means - that if the first partner separated a different Shi'ur than the second (such as a fortieth or a sixtieth), then his Terumah is valid (too [though the first interpretation of Rebbi Yossi seems more correct]). See also Tiferes Yisrael.
(c) We rule like Rebbi Yossi - because he comes to explain the Chachamim, not to argue with them.

Mishnah 4

(a) This Mishnah qualifies the previous one in that - there where the owner specifically appointed a Sheli'ach, even if it is a member of his household (and how much more so a partner), his Terumah will always be valid ...
(b) ... and even if it is an Eved or a Shifchah.

(a) The owner has the authority to negate the Shelichus after having sent the Sheli'ach - provided he has not yet Ma'asered the crops. Once he has, the owner's Bitul is invalid.
(b) The Tana rules that the Terumah that an employee separates on behalf of his employer - without his consent is invalid.
(c) A grape-treader (a Chaver who has been employed by an Am ha'Aretz) is different - because we are afraid that otherwise, the owner will enter the wine-press and render the grapes or the wine Tamei before they have been Ma'asered (see Tiferes Yisrael and Tosfos Yom-Tov).
(d) We are afraid of this happening - from as soon as the treader has traversed the length and breadth of the wine-press once (by which time he is sure that the latter separated Terumah).

Mishnah 5

(a) The ramifications of Rebbi Shimon's ruling that if someone declares that the Terumah and Ma'asros of the pile of corn beside which he is standing should take effect inside it are - a. that the owner is now obligated to designate them, and b. that he is no longer permitted to separate from other crops to cover them.
(b) The Mishnah incorporates in this ruling - a case where the owner declares the Terumas Ma'aser to be inside the pile.
(c) According to Rebbi Shimon, the owner fulfills the requirement of 'Shirehah Nikarin' (what remains after the Terumah has been designated, must be recognizable) - inasmuch as 'inside it' implies that the outside layer is not included (and that is recognizable in any event).
(d) The Chachamim maintain - that as long as he does not specify the location of the Ma'asros ('in the north of the pile' or 'in the south'), they are not valid (see Tiferes Yisrael).

(a) Rebbi Elazar Chisma goes further than Rebbi Shimon. He even validates 'Terumas ha'K'ri Mimenu Alav' - because he does not hold of the Derashah 'Shirehah Nikarin'.
(b) Rebbi Eliezer ben Ya'akov on the other hand, qualifies Rebbi Shimon's second ruling. He says 'ha'Omer Isur Ma'aser Zeh Asuy Terumas Ma'aser Alav, Kara Shem', because he holds - that one cannot separate Terumas Ma'aser as long as Ma'aser Rishon has not been taken.

Mishnah 6

(a) In the Pasuk "Mele'ascha ve'Dim'acha Lo Se'acher" ...
1. ... "Mele'ascha" - refers to Bikurim, and ...
2. ... "Dim'acha" to - Terumah (see Tosfos Yom-Tov).
(b) Ma'aser Rishon is included in "Dim'acha" - because it contains Terumas Ma'aser.
(c) Our Mishnah learns from this Pasuk - that someone who switches the order transgresses a La'av.
(d) Terumah is referred to as "Dim'acha" (from the word 'Dema', meaning 'a tear'), says the Tosfos Yom-Tov (quoting Tosfos) - because it can be separated even in liquid form (as opposed to Bikurim, which is given when it is still a fruit).

(a) The order in which one should separate one's Ma'asros is - Bikurim, Terumah, Ma'aser Rishon (Terumas Ma'aser), Ma'aser Sheni.
(b) Someone who transgresses and gives either Terumah before Bikurim (see Tiferes Yisrael) or Ma'aser Sheni before Terumah is Yotzei (see Tiferes Yisrael 31 & 35).

Mishnah 7

(a) When the Pasuk writes in ...
1. ... Re'eh (in connection with what one has to bring to the Beis-Hamikdash) "u'Terumas Yadcha", it is referring to - Bikurim (by which the Torah writes in ki Savo "ve'Lakach ha'kohen ha'Tene mi'Yadecha").
2. ... Shoftim (in connection with what one has to give to the Kohen "Reishis Degancha, Tiroshcha ve'Yitzharecha", it is referring to - Terumah ...
(b) ... creating the problem - that since Bikurim and Terumah both share the same names, how do we then know that Bikurim takes precedence over Terumah?
(c) When the Tana concludes that Bikurim nevertheless takes precedence because they are 'Bikurim la'Kol', he perhaps means that the very word "Bikurim" used by the Torah in Mishpatim ("Reishis Bikurei Admascha") implies that it is the first. Alternatively, he might mean - that it is the first to be mentioned (in that Pasuk).
(d) And the reason that
1. ... Terumah precedes Ma'aser Rishon is - because it is called "Reishis" (whereas Ma'aser Rishon is not).
2. ... Ma'aser Rishon precedes Ma'aser Sheni is - because it contains Terumas Ma'aser, which is called Reishis, (which Ma'aser Sheni does not).

Mishnah 8

(a) The Tana rules that if someone meant to declare ...
1. ... something 'Terumah' and said by mistake 'Ma'aser' or vice-versa, 'Olah' and said by mistake 'Shelamim' or vice-versa - then his declaration is invalid, and the same applies to someone who meant to declare ...
2. ... that he will not enter room a., and said by mistake that he will not enter room b., or that he will not benefit from Reuven, and he said by mistake Shimon (see Tiferes Yisrael).
(b) He learns from the Pasuk in Ki Setzei "Motzei Sefasecha Tishmor ve'Asisa" and the Pasuk in Vayakhel "Kol N'div-Leiv" - that one's heart must conform with one's mouth (what one declares) for any of the above declarations to be valid (see Tosfos Rebbi Akiva Eiger).

(a) When the Mishnah validates the Terumos and Ma'asros that a Nochri or a Kuti have separated, it is referring to - to a Nochri who Ma'asered his own crops, and not those of a Yisrael (see Tosfos Yom-Tov).
(b) We learn from the Pasuk in Korach "Kein Tarimu Gam Atem" - that a Yisrael can only appoint a Sheli'ach who is a Jew like himself, but not a Nochri.
(c) The Tana rules that the Hekdesh of a Nochri - is valid too.

(a) Based on the assumption that the field of a Nochri is subject to Orlah (see Tosfos Yom-Tov), Rebbi Yehudah holds that it is not subject to Kerem Revai (see Tosfos Yom-Tov). The Chachamim hold - that it is.
(b) The Mishnah rules that the Terumah of a Nochri that fell into less that a hundred of Chulin - is Medama'as (and Asur for Zarim to eat.
(c) The Tana Kama also obligates a Zar who eats it to pay an extra 'fifth' - whereas Rebbi Shimon exempts him from doing so (see Tosfos Rebbi Akiva Eiger).

Next Perek

Main Review Questions and Answers Page for Seder Zeraim

Sponsorships & donations  •  Readers' feedback
 •  Mailing lists  •  Archives  •  Ask the Kollel
 •  Dafyomi weblinks  •  Calendar
 •  Hebrew material