Kiddushin, Daf Mem Vav, Part 5

 

Introduction

At the end of yesterday s section we learned that if someone separates hallah from flour and gives it to the priest, the priest must return it to the original owner. Our sugya asks why.

 

 

ותיהוי תרומה ולא תאכל עד שיוציא עליה חלה ממקום אחר

מי לא תנן מן הנקוב על שאינו נקוב תרומה ולא תאכל עד שיוציא עליה תרומה ומעשר ממקום אחר

 

Yet let it be terumah [i.e., hallah], and let it not be eaten until hallah has been separated for it from elsewhere? Did we not learn: [If one separates terumah] from a perforated [pot] for [the produce grown in] an unperforated pot, it is terumah, but it may not be eaten until terumah and tithes are separated for it from elsewhere!

 

Why not say that the hallah separated from flour belongs to the priest, but the dough still has to have terumah removed from it before the dough can be eaten. This would be the like the case of one who separates terumah from a perforated pot for produce in an unperforated pot. The produce in the unperforated pot must still be tithed, but that which was set aside is terumah and belongs to the priest.

 

בתרי מני צאית בחד מנא לא צאית

 

In two pots, he will obey, but with one pot he will not obey.

 

The first answer is that when there are two pots or other type of container, the person will understand that the unperforated pot still needs terumah to be separated. The other pot cannot be used. But if we say that the priest gets to keep the hallah separated from flour, people will not think that more hallah needs to be separated from the dough before it can be eaten. This is a case of one container.

 

ואיבעית אימא לעולם כהן מיצת ציית וקסבר בעל הבית נתקנה עיסתו ואתי למיכל בטיבלא

 

Alternatively: the priest will indeed obey; but the owner will think that his dough has been made fit, and so come to eat it in a state of tevel.

 

The second solution is that the hallah must be returned to the owner not because the priest will make a mistake but because the owner will. The priest will know that that which he receives is not hallah. But the owner will not know that he still has to take out hallah. Therefore, we say it is not hallah.

 

והאמרת אדם יודע שאין מפרישין חלה קמח יודע ואינו יודע יודע שאין מפרישין חלה קמח ואינו יודע דסבר טעמא מאי משום טירחא דכהן טירחא דכהן קבלה עליה

 

But did you not say that a man knows that hallah is not separated from flour ? He knows, yet he does not really know. He knows that hallah is not separated from flour, yet he does not really know: for he thinks: What is the reason? Because of the priest’s trouble; and the priest has forgiven his trouble.

 

This is the same resolution that we saw yesterday. The man will think that since the priest accepted it, it is a valid separation of hallah and he will not separate more hallah from his dough.