Mesorat%20hashas for Yevamot 163:14

הא מני רבנן היא

was more than that of the terumah';<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In the se'ah measure. Only in such a case is the assumption mentioned made, because the terumah representing the smaller quantity might be regarded as neutralized even if it had fallen into the basket of the unconsecrated fruit. ');">³⁶</span> while R. Johanan stated, 'Even if the unconsecrated fruit were no more than the terumah'.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' No excess of unconsecrated fruit is necessary since the assumption mentioned is alone sufficient to establish the permissibility of the unconsecrated fruit. ');">³⁷</span> Now, according to Resh Lakish<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Who, as stated supra, regards terumah at the present time as Rabbinical. ');">³⁸</span> the ruling<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In the Baraitha cited. ');">³⁹</span> may well be justified since he may hold the opinion that with Rabbinically [forbidden food] also it is necessary<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' To make the mentioned assumption. ');">⁴⁰</span> to have a larger quantity [of the permitted food]. According to R. Johanan.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In whose opinion terumah is Pentateuchal at the present time also. ');">⁴¹</span> however, a difficulty arises!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' How could the assumption mentioned be made in the case of a prohibition which is Pentateuchal! ');">⁴²</span> 'This'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The ruling in the Baraitha cited. ');">⁴³</span> [R. Johanan may reply] 'is the view of<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'this according to whom?' ');">⁴⁴</span> the Rabbis,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Who hold that terumah at the present time is only Rabbinical. ');">⁴⁵</span>

Explore mesorat%20hashas for Yevamot 163:14. In-depth commentary and analysis from classical Jewish sources.