Kiddushin, Daf Samekh Bet, Part 5

 

Introduction

Today s section brings tannaitic support for R. Yohanan s statement, whatever is in his power to do, it is not as if it has not been done.

 

תניא כותיה דרבי יוחנן אין תורמין מן התלוש על המחובר ואם תרם אין תרומתו תרומה

כיצד אמר פירות ערוגה זו תלושין יהיו תרומה על פירות ערוגה זו מחוברת פירות ערוגה זו מחוברת יהיו תרומה על פירות ערוגה זו תלושין לא אמר כלום

אבל אמר לכשיתלשו ונתלשו דבריו קיימין

 

It was taught in accordance with R. Yohanan: One must not separate from detached [produce] for attached; and if one does separate, his separation is not terumah. How so? If he declares, The detached produce of this furrow will be terumah for the attached produce of that one, or the attached produce of this furrow will be terumah for the detached produce of that one, he has said nothing.

But if he declares, when it is cut off, and then it is cut off, his declaration is valid.

 

One cannot separate terumah from attached produce for detached produce or vice versa. But if one adds in when it is cut off then the statement is valid, because he does have the power to cut the produce off.

 

יתר על כן א"ר אליעזר בן יעקב אפילו אמר פירות ערוגה זו תלושין יהיו תרומה על פירות ערוגה זו מחוברת פירות ערוגה זו מחוברת יהיו תרומה על פירות ערוגה זו תלושין לכשיביאו שליש ויתלשו והביאו שליש ונתלשו דבריו קיימין

 

Moreover, R. Eliezer b. Ya akov said, Even if he declares, The detached produce of this furrow will be terumah for the attached produce of this one, or, the attached produce of this furrow will be terumah for the detached produce of this one when it [the attached] is a third grown and cut off, and it then grows to a third [of its full maturity] and is cut off, his declaration is valid.

 

R. Eliezer b. Ya akov goes a step further and says that someone can do this even though the produce had not yet even grown to a third, which is when it becomes liable for terumah.

 

אמר רבה לא א"ר אליעזר בן יעקב אלא בשחת אבל באגם לא

רב יוסף אמר אפילו באגם

 

Rabbah said: R. Eliezer b. Ya akov ruled thus only of fodder, but not of agam (soft plants).

R. Yosef said: [He ruled thus] even of soft plants.

 

Fodder refers to the young plant that has grown less to one-third ripeness but is still useful for animal feed. While not liable for terumah, it still is usable. The soft plants have not even reached this state and therefore, Rabbah holds that one may not dedicate them to be terumah. R. Yosef disagrees.

 

מאי משמע דהאי אגם לישנא דבוצלנא הוא אר"א דאמר קרא (ישעיהו נח, ה) הלכוף כאגמון ראשו

 

Where is it implied that this word agam refers to soft plants?

R. Elazar answered: For the verse says, Is it to bow down his head as a rush [ke-agmon] (Isaiah 58:5)?

 

R. Elazar explains the biblical etymology of the word agam how do we know it refers to a soft plant. We should note that this word does not seem to be the same as the word agam which means lake.