Talmud sobre Terumot 1:15

Rebbi Zeïra, Rebbi Joḥanan in the name of Rebbi Yannai (Num. 18:28): “You, also you,” to include your plenipotentiary⁸“So you shall lift, also you, the heave of the Eternal.” The expression also you is superfluous; since “also” always means an addition, “also you” means a stand-in. Since he is titled “also you”, it follows that he takes the place of the person authorizing him. The same explanation is given in Terumot 1:1 (fol. 40b/c), Babli Qiddušin41b, Baba Meẓia‘ 22a.. Just as you are in the covenant, so your plenipotentiary must be in the covenant. You appoint a plenipotentiary, the Gentile may not. Rebbi Yasa wanted to say that the Gentile cannot appoint as plenipotentiary another Gentile, but he can appoint a Jew. Rebbi Zeïra said, from the baraita itself: You appoint a plenipotentiary, does that not mean Jews? Similarly, the Gentile cannot appoint a plenipotentiary, not even a Jew. Rav Hoshaia objects: Does the baraita support Rebbi Joḥanan? “Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel said: If the Gentile does not wish to give heave from his produce, he cannot give heave⁹In the opinion of Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel the Gentile cannot appoint a Jew as plenipotentiary for Jewish ritual.” Rebbi Abba said, if he confirms it after him¹⁰This parallels the position of R. Isaac in Tosephta Terumot 1:15: “If a Gentile separated heave for a Jew, even with his permission, it is not heave. … Rebbi Isaac says, if a Gentile separated heave for a Jew and the owner confirms his action, it is heave.” For a Jew, once permission is given, it does not require an additional action on the part of the owner. But the Gentile’s action is not valid unless it is explicitly confirmed by the Jewish owner afterwards; the Gentile does the mechanical work and the Jew gives the separated amount the status of heave..

It follows that Rebbi Eleazar ben Azariah disagrees with Ben Azzai, as we have stated there⁹Mishnah Soṭah3:4. R. Eleazar ben Azariah does not agree that women come to study Torah equally with the men.: “From here Ben Azzai said, a person is obligated to teach Torah to his daughter, that in case she would drink she knows that merit suspends.”

²⁷This and the following paragraphs are from Terumot 1:1 (ת), Notes 19–32). The Rome ms. is indicated by ר. Variants which are introduced by the hand of the corrector in Terumot are indicated by מ. It was stated: “If a deaf-mute person gave heave, it is not heave. Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel said, to what does this refer? If he was born deaf-mute. But if he was normal and became deaf and dumb, he writes and others confirm his signature.”

It was stated in the name of Rebbi Simeon: The only kinds admitting an intention of exemption are three: [buckthorn]⁷Reading with R. S. Cirillo רימין for רימון, defined by Maimonides (Demay 1:1) by Arabic נַבק “buckthorn, lotus fruit.” Pomegranate trees (רימון) have valuable fruits and are not planted for their wood. Cf. Demay 1, Note 4., sycamore, and caper bush. Are these obligated for tithes⁷Reading with R. S. Cirillo רימין for רימון, defined by Maimonides (Demay 1:1) by Arabic נַבק “buckthorn, lotus fruit.” Pomegranate trees (רימון) have valuable fruits and are not planted for their wood. Cf. Demay 1, Note 4.? This is a dispute between Rebbi Abba bar Mamal and Rebbi Hila. They differed: If somebody kept his fruit trees for wood, Rebbi Abba bar Mamal said he is obligated, Rebbi Hila said he is exempted. Rebbi Abba bar Mamal said he is obligated, from the following⁹Ma‘serot 1:1, Note 20.: (Deut. 14:29) “The Levite shall come, because he has neither part nor inheritance with you.” You are obliged to give him from what you have but he has not¹⁰Since the fruits of the tree destined to be cut down as fire wood remain private property, they are subject to tithes. The next two sentences are irrelevant here; they are just copied from the source in Ma‘serot.. This excludes abandoned property for which your and his hands are equal. Gleanings, forgotten sheaves, peah, and abandoned property are all equal.

MISHNAH: Two qabim and a qab of rice or²²Reading of the Rome ms. and the Constantinople print: או תרומה; this probably is a gloss. heave between them do not combine²³Two loaves made of bread flour each of which is too small to be subject to ḥallah are both touching an exempt dough (which is either from material intrinsically exempt or from flour exempt because of its status of sanctity) cannot become obligated since the exempt dough acts as a barrier as if it were of iron. But a dough which is not exempt cannot separate, even if it now is no longer subject to ḥallah.. If a thing of which ḥallah was taken is between them, they do combine since already they are subject to ḥallah.
If a qab of new grain and one of old bit one another³⁸While two doughts together are obligated for ḥallah as noted in the previous Halakhah, it is forbidden to give heave from one year’s harvest for another year’s (Mishnah Terumot 1:5). Everybody agrees that ḥallah must be given from both kinds of grain; the question is only how this has to be done., Rebbi Ismael says one should take from the middle but the Sages prohibit this. If somebody takes ḥallah from a single qab, Rebbi Aqiba declares it to be ḥallah but the Sages say, it is not ḥallah.
If ḥallah of two qabim was taken separately, when he then combinrd them together into one dough, Rebbi Aqiba exempts but the Sages obligate; it turns out that the severity³⁹Of R. Aqiba who treats ḥallah from less than the minimal volume as genuine ḥallah. becomes a leniency.

According to Rebbi Eliezer, may she repudiate him and collect a fine from him⁵¹Since for R. Eliezer any sex act with a minor girl is a seduction, may she repudiate him and go to court to collect the money due a virgin from her seducer?? According to Rebbi Joshua, may she repudiate him and collect a fine from another man⁵²Assuming she was still a virgin; if she repudiated the man, may she claim never to have been married and therefore be entitled to all the payments the seducer or the rapist of a virgin has to pay?? May she repudiate this one and invalidate her bill of divorce, a desecrated or a bastard⁵³These are different questions taken together. If a Cohen married an underage girl forbidden to him and she repudiated him, does that retroactively free the Cohen from the guilt incurred in the marriage (and its eventual punishment)? Or if she repudiates a second marriage, may she return to the first husband even though for an adult that would be a transgression of a biblical prohibition; cf. Mishnaiot 4–6.? Rebbi Isaac asked, may she repudiate and return to her father’s food⁵⁴The daughter of a Cohen married to an Israel. This is no problem for R. Eliezer since she never stopped eating Cohen’s food.? It is obvious that she does not return to her husband’s food⁵⁵After he divorced her. The question whether the repudiating wife has any monetary claim on the husband is also asked in the Babli, Ketubot 53b, and is left unanswared (In the absence of a legal ruling, the claimant cannot prove his case and cannot collect.) since he writes for her: “You shall live in my house and be fed from my property,⁵⁶Mishnah Ketubot 4:12.” and she is not in his house. Therefore, the only question is, may she repudiate and return to her father’s food?

HALAKHAH: Where do we hold? If about a harvesting-basket of figs, everybody agrees that it is forbidden⁷⁵In the discussion between the Sages and R. Eliezer, disregarding the opinion of R. Simeon.. If about oil olives and wine grapes, everybody agrees that it is permitted. But we deal with dates intended for pressing⁷⁶Into date cakes., dried figs intended for pressing⁷⁷Into fig cakes. Tosephta 2:2 explicitly states that the disagreement between R. Eliezer and the Sages refers to these cases only. That Tosephta cannot have been the basis of the Yerushalmi.. Rebbi Eliezer says, heave creates ṭevel⁷⁸Since heave was already given, this ṭevel refers only to tithes and the heave of the tithe contained in the First Tithe. of fruits not completely processed but the Sages say, heave does not create ṭevel of fruits not completely processed.

¹²¹Terumot 1, Note 159. Rebbi Joḥanan in the name of Rebbi Yannai: This is one of three well-explained verses in the Torah (Deut. 14:27): “The Levite shall come, for he has neither part nor inheritance with you.” You must give him from what you have but he has not. This excludes ownerless property where your and his hands are equal. There is no difference between gleanings, forgotten sheaves, peah¹²²All poor are entitled to these, irrespective of their tribal affiliation., and abandoned property.

HALAKHAH: “Rebbi Eliezer said, “so shall be done to the man,” etc. Rebbi Joḥanan said, if they cannot fulfill “he shall say, and she shall say”⁹⁹This does not refer to the discussion of the Mishnah but to the text quoted as required recitation by the widow. (The levir has to say “I do not like to take her”, v. 8). The statement that the verse excludes a person unable to speak from ḥalîṣah is attributed to R. Yannai, R. Joḥanan’s teacher, in the Babli (104b).. Does the recitation prevent [validity]? Rebbi Samuel ben Rav Isaac said, for anybody able to recite, the recitation does not prevent [validity] but for anybody unable to recite, the requirement of recitation does prevent¹⁰⁰In the Babli (104b, Nedarim 93a, Qiddušin 25a, Baba Batra 81b, Makkot 18b, Ḥulin 83b, Menaḥot 18b, 103b, Niddah 66b) the rule is attributed to R. Ze‘ira: In general, the omission of a required action does not prevent the validity of the ceremony if it would have been possible to perform it as required; cf. Bikkurim 1:6, Note 114. This is the source of the next Mishnah..

HALAKHAH: “Everybody is acceptable to write the bill of divorce,” etc. Rav Huna said, only if a sane person watches over them¹¹⁹If an incompetent person (insane, deaf-and-dumb, or minor) writes the text, they must be directed by a person who knows for what they write. The same statement is in the Babli, 22b/23a.. Rebbi Joḥanan asked¹²⁰The translation follows the Geniza text and Sefer ha‘Iṭṭur (27b).: But is it not written: “He shall write for her,” in her name⁵In Mishnah 3:2, the anonymous majority permit the routine production of forms of bills of divorce where everything is written in advance and only the names of husband and wife, the date, and the statement of divorce are then inserted for the particular couple involved in the divorce; but R. Jehudah holds that the requirement that “he write for her” (Deut. 24:1) can only be fulfilled if the bill was written specifically for that wife from the first letter to the last.? Samuel said, it is necessary that one reserve the essential text for him¹²¹The essential text must be written by a responsible person under the husband’s direction. The Babli agrees, 23a.. This follows what Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, writing the essential text with the formula is invalid¹⁰⁰This refers to Mishnah 3:2, in which permission is given to scribes to prepare the formulaic text of divorce documents, so that only the names of husband and wife and the date have to be inserted, without violating the commandment that the document be written specifically for the woman concerned. It is not mentioned in the Mishnah whether the text which turns the document into one of divorce, “this is your bill of divorce and you are permitted to every man” is part of the formulaic text or has to be written with that particular woman in mind. R. Joḥanan permits this sentence to be written as a formula, R. Simeon ben Laqish prohibits. (In the Babli, 21b, the attributions are switched, probably because the Babli insists that practice follow R. Joḥanan.) In the interpretation of the Babli, the divorce formula may be prepared in advance for R. Eleazar, for whom only the witnesses to the delivery of the text are important, but not for R. Meïr, for whom the witnesses signing the document are those who validate the divorce. It is impossible to know whether the Yerushalmi would agree to this interpretation..