Teruma and Sakana

Trumot (8:6) | Yisrael Bankier | 2 years ago

The Mishnah (8:4) rules that if one left terumah wine uncovered it must be poured away. Normally, one must take care of terumah and not waste it. Nevertheless, the Bartenura explains that since the Chachamim forbade drinking uncovered wine out of concern and the snake drank from the wine and left some residual venom, there is no prohibition against pouring it away. We shall try to understand this law.

The Rash Sirilio notes that it cannot be used even for ziluf (for pouring on one's flour to settle the dust). The Chachamim were even concerned that if one walked barefoot on that floor the venom might penetrate the skin.

The Mishnah Achrona notes that later we find that there is a debate regarding terumah where there is a doubt if it became tameh. Even though a kohen is similarly not allowed to drink the terumah wine out of concern that it might be tameh, R' Eliezer maintains that one must still protect that terumah from becoming tameh. Why is this case different? One might think that in that case, R' Eliezer is concerned that Eliyahu HaNavi will come and clarify that the terumah was tahor. Yet the same argument can be made in this case also; perhaps Eliyahu HaNavi will come and clarify that the wine was untouched despite being left uncovered. The Mishnah Achrona therefore explains that R' Eliezer would agree in this case that the wine should be poured away since "chamira sakanta me'issura" -- the Chachamim treated issues of danger more strictly than other prohibitions.

The Yerushalmi also addresses another difference between tumeh and sakana (danger). There is another case of sakana where one found food that had perforations in it. Once again, the concern is that they were made by a snake, which left venom. The Yerushalmi (3:1) teaches that if one separated terumah and discovered after that it had perforations then it is still terumah, but terumah would need to be separated again. The Gemara explains that this is only if we are not sure when the perforations occurred. If however we know the vegetable was perforated prior to designating it terumah, then it is not considered terumah. The Gemara asks that we learn that if designated tameh produce as terumah for tahor produce, then if it was done by mistake, it is considered terumah. Why is this case different? If it is perforated, and not edible, is it not considered terumah where as if it is tameh, which is likewise inedible, it is considered terumah. The Gemara explains that when the terumah is tameh, the terumah is still edible; a prohibition is preventing its consumption. In the case of sakana it is considered "like dust". The Rash Sirilio explains that since there is a concern of sakana it is not even considered food. One can therefore understand that due the severity of sakana, the Chachamim did not simply prohibit one for eating the food, but no longer defined it as food.

That conclusion however, might not be accurate. R' Chaim (Beur Halacha Terumot 12:13) however notes that we find that if the terumah was separated properly and then only after found perforated, it would still be considered terumah. The proof is that in the case where it was found uncovered later, even though one needs to separated terumah again since we do not know when it was perforated, that first terumah is still forbidden to a non-kohen. We do not say that it is considered now like dust and no longer considered food. Why is that the case?

R' Chaim sites the Chazon Ish who explains that explains that if terumah is no longer fit for human consumption, but still fit for animal consumption, it is still considered terumah. Since the cats would be able to eat such food and not be affected by it, it is still fit for animal consumption and considered terumah. In other words, since it was terumah and is still fit for animal consumption, it is continues to be defined as terumah and prohibited to a non-kohen. One is allowed to burn it immediately (and not search for a cat to consume it) to the severity of the danger. It would seem then if one had a cat, they should feed it to the cat rather than wasting the terumah. Nevertheless R' Chaim cites the Chazon Ish that understands from this discussion the once terumah is no longer fit for human consumption there is no prohibition in burning it. So what then does the Gemara mean that it is is "like dust"? That is with respect to the prohibition against burning terumah.

Download