יג ולרב נתן ברבי אושעיא דאמר לא עשה ולא כלום לתקן שירים אבל תרומה הוי
13 while there sit was stated, 'Terumah,' but [from the remainder] <i>terumah</i> must again be set apart'! — There,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In the second Mishnah quoted. ');"><sup>33</sup></span> it is an erroneous act amounting almost<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'near'. ');"><sup>34</sup></span> to a wilful one, since he should have tasted it.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The fruit, before setting it apart as terumah. ');"><sup>35</sup></span> A contradiction was also pointed out between two cases of wilful action: Here<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. supra note 3. ');"><sup>36</sup></span> it is stated, 'but if it was done wilfully, it is null and void', while elsewhere we learned: If a man has set apart as <i>terumah</i> [the produce] of an unperforated plant-pot<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Which is not subject to terumah, since it has not grown directly from the ground. ');"><sup>37</sup></span> for [the produce of] a perforated pot,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Which is subject to terumah. A plant in a perforated pot is deemed to be growing from the ground since it derives its nourishment through the holes of the pot from the ground itself. ');"><sup>38</sup></span> [the former becomes] <i>terumah</i> but [from the latter] <i>terumah</i> must again be separated!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Dem. V, 10; Kid. 46a, Men. 70a. Why is the terumah in this case valid, while in the other it becomes tebel again? ');"><sup>39</sup></span> — In [the case of produce grown in] two different vessels<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As in the last cited Mishnah where the produce designated as terumah grew in one kind of pot while the other produce grew in another kind of pot. ');"><sup>40</sup></span> a man would obey;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' To give terumah again, though the portion he has set apart is also allowed to remain terumah. ');"><sup>41</sup></span> in [that of] one vessel<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Where the clean and the unclean grew in the same kind of pot or soil. ');"><sup>42</sup></span> he would not obey.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' To give terumah again, were the portion he has set aside allowed to retain the name of terumah. He would argue that, in view of the validity of his act, no further terumah need he given to the priest, whom he would consequently present with unclean terumah. Hence it was ordained that his act is void and that the quantity he has set aside is not to be regarded as terumah. ');"><sup>43</sup></span> Now according to R. Nathan, son of R. Oshaia, who explained that 'the act is null and void in respect of making the remainder fit for use but [that that which has been set apart] becomes <i>terumah</i>.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And the priest may use it for the purposes for which it is fit, such, for instance, as burning. ');"><sup>44</sup></span>