Talmud sobre Terumot 9:10

Rebbi Joḥanan’s argument seems inverted. There¹⁰⁰It is unknown what this statement refers to. Since the tentative explanation of R. Eliahu Fulda is the only one not based on emendation of the text, it is followed here. The statement of R. Joshua ben Levi is based on the explanation of Ex. 21:28 given in Mekhilta deR. Simeon ben Ioḥai which contains the teachings of Ḥizqia, the teacher of R. Joshua ben Levi and the young R. Johanan (ed. Epstein-Melamed, p. 178): “If an ox gores a man or a woman and they die, the ox should be stoned, its meat may not be eaten, and the owner of the ox is free.” If the ox is stoned, it becomes a carcass whose meat is forbidden anyhow; why the remark “its meat may not be eaten”? This means that if the ox has been condemned in court to be stoned but the owners slaughtered it before execution, the meat is still forbidden. What does mean: “The owner of the ox is free”? Ben Azai said, he is freed from his property; the entire animal is forbidden for all usufruct. On that, R. Joshua ben Levi adds that not only the meat but (hide and) horns are forbidden even if it died before slaughter. R. Joḥanan objects and notes that if the verse deals with two cases (stoned or slaughtered), the rules have to apply to both. In the case of R. Joshua ben Levi this means that the verse is needed to forbid hide and horns also for a correctly slaughtered ox; therefore, one does not understand why he did not object to R. Yannai that both second tithe and First Fruits should have the same rules., Rebbi Joshua ben Levi said, it was quoted for the horns of a cadaver. He said to him, did the teacher not teach: “I saw” the size of two beans¹⁰¹This deals with the impurity of houses by mold disease (Lev. 14:33–57). Mold disease is considered impure if it is the size of a Cilician bean. It is said (v. 35) that the owner has to tell the Cohen, “like a plague it appears to me in the house.” But since it is written in v. 37 that the Cohen has to see “the plague in the walls of the house”, the house is impure only if two impurities appear, each of the size of a bean.? Should he have said here also, “their growths”? In addition, from the following (Deut.12:17): “You may not eat your grain’s tithe in your gates.” About which tithe has this been said? About pure second tithe which entered Jerusalem and left¹⁰²The origin of this statement is unknown. In the Sifry the verse is interpreted to mean that grain may not be consumed unless heave and all tithes have been removed.. Also from the following which Rebbi Simeon stated. It was stated¹⁰³In Tosephta 1:6, an anonymous statement is close to the text here. in the name of Rebbi Simeon: “Tithe is special in that tithe forbids its money, mixtures, and vessels; the doubt of an admixture forbids in the most minute amount and one may not use it for lighting.” He should say, the same holds for growth! Rebbi Hila said, he who says growth is permitted, Rebbi Simeon. Those who say growth is forbidden, the rabbis. They said to him, did we not state¹⁰⁴Mishnah Terumot 9:4; Notes 61–62.: “Growths from dedicated [seeds] and Second Tithe are profane; one redeems them corresponding to the time of sowing.” Why does he have to redeem? Not because of their inherent sanctity? Here also they should require walls because of their inherent sanctity! Rebbi Jeremiah, Rebbi Ammi, in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: When one says the growth is forbidden, the prohibition of walls¹⁰⁵It is forbidden to eat Jerusalem growth from either second tithe or First Fruits outside of Jerusalem.. When one says the growth is permitted, the permission for unauthorized persons¹⁰⁶In this respect, growth is profane as stated in Mishnah Terumot.. “These rules apply to tithe and First Fruits but not to heave.”

So is the Mishnah: The seeds on the stem of arum¹³⁸This is the reading and interpretation of Maimonides. The other interpretations (R. Isaac Simponti, R. Simson) have to rearrange the sentence except for R. Isaac Simponti’s second explanation, “the seeds of the thorns of arum,” which does not fit reality since arum, an aracea, has no thorns.. Some woman had heave purslain on a block. They fell into a garden and sprouted. The case came before Rebbi Joḥanan who permitted. Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba said to him, is this not the Mishnah: “And these may be eaten if their father was heave?” He said to him, Babylonian, when you cleared a potsherd for yourself, you found a pearl! You said, is that not the Mishnah!