Kiddushin, Daf Mem Vav, Part 6

Introduction

Today s section continues to ask why the priest cannot keep the hallah given to him. Even though it s not a valid separation of hallah, why must he give it back? As we will again see, in other cases, even though the separation is not valid, the priest may keep the terumah given to him.

ותיהוי תרומה ויחזור ויתרום מי לא תנן משאינו נקוב על הנקוב תרומה ויחזור ויתרום הא אוקימנא בתרי מאני צאית בחד מנא לא צאית

Yet let it be terumah [i.e., hallah], and say that he [the Israelite] should separate again. Did we not learn: [If one separates terumah] from an unperforated pot upon [the contents of] a perforated one, it is terumah, yet he must separate terumah again.

We have already explained that he obeys in respect to two pots, but not in respect to one.

This is essentially the same difficulty raised yesterday. The Talmud resolves it again with two pots, the Israelite will understand that he must separate terumah again, even if we let the priest keep what he was given. But with one pot (i.e. the case of the hallah) the Israelite will think that he has separated hallah and he will eat the dough without separating again, which is considered eating tevel, untithed produce. To let him know that his dough may not be eaten until hallah is removed, the priest must return the hallah he was given.

ולא צאית והתנן התורם קישות ונמצא מרה אבטיח ונמצאת סרוח תרומה ויחזור ויתרום

Does he not obey [in the case of one pot]? Surely we learned: If one separates a cucumber [as terumah] and it is found to be bitter, or a melon, and it is found to be rotten, it is terumah, but he must make another separation.

The Talmud cites a source that refers to one pot and still the priest can keep the terumah even though the Israelite must separate terumah again. This contradicts what we said before about the Israelite not listening and again separating terumah if it is a case of one pot. In such cases, we should say that what he separated is not terumah otherwise he will come to think that he need not separate again.

שאני התם דמדאורייתא תרומה מעליא היא מדרבי אלעאי דא"ר אלעאי מנין לתורם מן הרעה על היפה שתרומתו תרומה שנאמר (במדבר יח, לב) ולא תשאו עליו חטא בהרימכם את חלבו אם אינו קדוש נשיאות חטא למה מכאן לתורם מן הרעה על היפה שתרומתו תרומה

There it is different, for according to the Torah it is proper terumah, from R. Elai. For R. Ilai said: How do we know that if one separates bad [produce] for good produce, the terumah is valid? Because it is said, And you shall bear no sin by reason of it, seeing that you have set apart from it the best thereof, (Numbers 18:32). Now if it not sacred, why would he bear sin? From it follows that if one separates from bad for good [produce], his separation is terumah.

In the case of separating terumah from bad produce to exempt good produce, this separation is valid terumah. The other produce can be eaten without separating more terumah, and the terumah he separated is real terumah. However, to prevent people from doing this, the rabbis made him separate terumah again. Thus in one container, even if the person does not separate terumah again, he will not be eating tevel (untithed produce). We can allow the terumah to remain with the priest without concern that a biblical violation will occur.