Subscribe
Daily Daf Dose
ESTABLISHING A MAASER OBLIGATION
Our Gemora continues with its discussion from the previous daf that proclaiming unprocessed produce to be considered food obligates the person to separate maaser. The Gemora will attempt to prove that Rabbi Eliezer, the Tanna of our Mishna cannot agree to this opinion.
The Gemora cites a Mishna in Maasros where Rabbi Eliezer maintains that one who took olives from a vat which is tahor is obligated to separate maaser, however if he took them from a vat which is tamei, he is not required to separate maaser. What is the reasoning for this distinction? The Gemora explains that the first case is referring to a case where the vat is tahor but the person is tamei. Since he cannot return the olives to the vat (for the olives that he touched are now tamei), it is evident that the person’s intent was to eat all the olives and therefore it is considered a regular meal obligating the person to separate maaser. The end case is referring to a case where both the person and the vat were tamei enabling the
olives to be returned to the vat. It can therefore be assumed that his intent was to only eat some of the olives, which would be regarded as a snack and therefore there is no obligation to separate maaser.
If taking the olives with the intent to eat them does not obligate one to separate maaser from the produce according to Rabbi Eliezer, certainly an oral designation will not be sufficient to establish an obligation for maaser from the produce. This proves that Rabbi Eliezer is not consistent with the view purported in the Mishna.
We cannot learn the Mishna as referring to a case where the one designating the produce was tamei and therefore the produce cannot be returned since the Mishna’s case is where the produce was not actually touched at all – only designated to be used later.
The Gemora concludes that Rabbi Eliezer will maintain that even without an oral declaration; there will be an obligation to separate maaser from the unprocessed produce. Rabbi Eliezer will adhere to his opinion cited in Maasros that the separation of terumah will establish an obligation for maaser even on produce that has not been processed completely and certainly the Shabbos will establish an obligation for maaser since on Shabbos all eating is significant. (35a)
Rabbi Yochanan rules that there are four things that establish an obligation for separating maaser providing that the produce is completely processed. Shabbos, terumah, a courtyard and a purchase will establish an obligation for maaser. All four of these rulings are disputed in the Gemora. (35a – b)
Our Gemora continues with its discussion from the previous daf that proclaiming unprocessed produce to be considered food obligates the person to separate maaser. The Gemora will attempt to prove that Rabbi Eliezer, the Tanna of our Mishna cannot agree to this opinion.
The Gemora cites a Mishna in Maasros where Rabbi Eliezer maintains that one who took olives from a vat which is tahor is obligated to separate maaser, however if he took them from a vat which is tamei, he is not required to separate maaser. What is the reasoning for this distinction? The Gemora explains that the first case is referring to a case where the vat is tahor but the person is tamei. Since he cannot return the olives to the vat (for the olives that he touched are now tamei), it is evident that the person’s intent was to eat all the olives and therefore it is considered a regular meal obligating the person to separate maaser. The end case is referring to a case where both the person and the vat were tamei enabling the
olives to be returned to the vat. It can therefore be assumed that his intent was to only eat some of the olives, which would be regarded as a snack and therefore there is no obligation to separate maaser.
If taking the olives with the intent to eat them does not obligate one to separate maaser from the produce according to Rabbi Eliezer, certainly an oral designation will not be sufficient to establish an obligation for maaser from the produce. This proves that Rabbi Eliezer is not consistent with the view purported in the Mishna.
We cannot learn the Mishna as referring to a case where the one designating the produce was tamei and therefore the produce cannot be returned since the Mishna’s case is where the produce was not actually touched at all – only designated to be used later.
The Gemora concludes that Rabbi Eliezer will maintain that even without an oral declaration; there will be an obligation to separate maaser from the unprocessed produce. Rabbi Eliezer will adhere to his opinion cited in Maasros that the separation of terumah will establish an obligation for maaser even on produce that has not been processed completely and certainly the Shabbos will establish an obligation for maaser since on Shabbos all eating is significant. (35a)
Rabbi Yochanan rules that there are four things that establish an obligation for separating maaser providing that the produce is completely processed. Shabbos, terumah, a courtyard and a purchase will establish an obligation for maaser. All four of these rulings are disputed in the Gemora. (35a – b)
0 comments:
Post a Comment