OPINIONS: Shmuel rules that when Terumah of Chutz la'Aretz (Terumah separated from fruit grown outside of Eretz Yisrael) becomes mixed with other fruit, it is Batel b'Rov.

Does Shmuel mean that even a non-Kohen may eat the mixture?

(a) TOSFOS (DH Terumas) explains that this Bitul allows a Kohen who is Tamei to eat the mixture containing Terumah of Chutz la'Aretz. A non-Kohen, however, remains prohibited from eating the mixture. This is also the ruling of the RAMBAM (Hilchos Terumos 13:11).

(b) RASHI (DH Beteilah) explains that this Bitul allows both a non-Kohen and a Kohen who is Tamei to eat the mixture. The RAMBAN agrees with Rashi and adds that if Shmuel's intention was to permit only a Kohen who is Tamei to eat the mixture, then he would have said so. The word "Batel" implies that it is Batel for all purposes.

OPINIONS: The Gemara relates that when Rav Huna brei d'Rav Yehoshua would have wine of Terumah of Chutz la'Aretz, he would be Mevatel the Terumah wine in wine of Chulin and drink it. What exactly did he do to be Mevatel the Terumah wine?

(a) The RAMBAM (Hilchos Terumos 13:11) rules that one is permitted to annul Terumah of Chutz la'Aretz in this manner in order to allow a Kohen who is Tamei to consume it. He rules that when one has Terumah wine of Chutz la'Aretz, he may mix one Log of the Terumah wine with two Lugin of Chulin wine, making a mixture with three Lugin of wine. He then may add another Log of Terumah wine into the mixture, bringing the total to four Lugin. He may then drink one Log. He may drink more by continuing in this manner, adding one Log of Terumah and drinking one Log before adding the next Log of Terumah.

(b) The RA'AVAD disagrees and maintains that the Rambam's method of Bitul is prohibited. He argues that since -- after one adds the second Log of Terumah -- he is left with two parts Chulin mixed with two parts Terumah, there is no Rov of Chulin wine to annul the Terumah wine. Rather, the way to annul Terumah of Chutz la'Aretz is to pour one Log of Terumah into two Lugin of Chulin. The Terumah then becomes Batel b'Rov, and one may take out one Log from the mixture and drink it. He may then add one Log of Terumah wine to the remaining two Lugin in the mixture, and again take out one and drink it.

The KESEF MISHNEH explains that the argument between the Rambam and Ra'avad depends on their Girsa of the text of the Gemara.

According to the Girsa in our text of the Gemara, one may mix one Log of Terumah with two Lugin of Chulin, and then remove one Log of wine and drink it. One may then add a new Log of Terumah wine, since it is assumed that the remaining two Lugin are Chulin, and thus there will be a Rov to be Mevatel the new Log of Terumah. This implies that if one adds two Lugin of Terumah wine to the mixture before he removes any wine from the mixture, the mixture will be prohibited, since there no longer will be a Rov of Chulin. This is the way the Ra'avad learns the Gemara.

The Rambam's text of the Gemara, however, omits the step of removing a Log of wine from the mixture before pouring in the second Log of Terumah (see SHITAH MEKUBETZES #4). Accordingly, the Rambam rules that one may add a second Log of Terumah wine after he adds the first Log (making it Batel b'Rov), and thereby be Mevatel the second Log of Terumah wine in three parts Chulin.

With regard to the Ra'avad's question that the mixture does not contain a majority of Chulin, the Kesef Mishneh explains that the Rambam maintains that since each of the two Lugin of Terumah wine were poured in separately, the principle of "Kama Kama Batel" applies; at the moment that the first Log of Terumah wine is poured into the two Lugin of Chulin wine, that Terumah wine becomes Batel. When the second Log of Terumah wine is poured into the mixture, it does not join with the first, because the first was already Batel.

QUESTION: The Gemara earlier (26b) cites a Beraisa that says that a Yisrael may not give any of the Torah's obligatory gifts to Kohanim, Leviyim, or poor people who assist him in the barn, threshing hall, or slaughterhouse. If Kohanim, Leviyim, or poor people who assist the Yisrael do accept the gifts from him, they are considered to be stealing from the others who are entitled to receive the gifts. (See TAZ YD 306:1.)

The Gemara here says that for all of the various types of Matnos Kehunah and Matnos Aniyim, the owner has the right of "Tovas Hana'ah," the right to distribute the Matanos to any Kohen, Levi, or poor person of his choice. RASHI (beginning of 27a, DH Tovas Hana'ah) explains that a Kohen may not give a Sela to a Yisrael in order that the Yisrael give Terumah to his relative, another Kohen. This is forbidden because it is similar to a Kohen assisting in the threshing hall in order to receive the Matanos. However, the Gemara says that a Yisrael is allowed to give a Sela to another Yisrael in order that he give Terumah to the first Yisrael's grandson who is a Kohen (that is, the Yisrael's daughter married a Kohen).

The Gemara then says that a Yisrael is not permitted to give a Sela to another Yisrael in order for that Yisrael to give his Matnos Kehunah or his Bechor to the Yisrael's grandson who is a Kohen. He is permitted to do so only for Terumah, because Terumah is Kadosh with Kedushas ha'Guf, and since Kedushas ha'Guf cannot be redeemed the Kohen grandson will not make a mistake and think that when his grandfather (the Yisrael) gave the other Yisrael a Sela, he redeemed the Terumah from its Kedushah with that Sela. However, if the Kohen grandson receives Matnos Kehunah or a Bechor in such a manner, he might think that these Matanos were redeemed from their Kedushah with the Sela that his grandfather gave, because they are Kadosh only with Kedushas Damim (which can be redeemed). The Kohen might then use the Matanos for a mundane purpose for which they may not be used.

The RAMBAM (Hilchos Terumos 12:20) rules in accordance with this Gemara, but he adds a perplexing statement. The Rambam writes, "A Yisrael is permitted to say to a fellow Yisrael, 'Take this Sela and give your Terumah, Bechor, or other Matanos to such and such Kohen, who is the son of my daughter, or the son of my sister.'"

Why does the Rambam write that this practice is permitted even for Bechor and other Matnos Kehunah? The Gemara here clearly says that this practice is not permitted for Bechor and other Matnos Kehunah, but only for Terumah! (See YOSEF DA'AS.)

(a) The BEIS YOSEF (YD 331) writes that the Rambam evidently disagrees with Rashi's explanation of the mistake the grandson Kohen might make with the Bechor and Matnos Kehunah. The Beis Yosef suggests that it is possible that the Rambam understands that the Tana who distinguishes between Terumah and other Matnos Kehunah follows the view of Beis Shamai, who says (in the Mishnah later, 32b) that when a Kohen invites a Yisrael to be his guest and to eat a Bechor that possesses a Mum, the Yisrael is not permitted to eat it. The Rambam maintains that according to Beis Shamai, the Yisrael also is not permitted to eat other Matnos Kehunah with the Kohen. However, it is only before the Bechor is redeemed that Beis Shamai prohibits the Yisrael from eating with the Kohen. The grandson Kohen might mistakenly think that the Bechor was redeemed with the Sela that his grandfather gave to the other Yisrael, and he will invite a Yisrael to dine with him. This is the meaning of the Gemara when it says that the grandson Kohen might come to use the Bechor and Matnos Kehunah in a manner of Chulin (that is, he might invite a Yisrael to eat with him).

However, the Halachah does not follow the view of Beis Shamai, but rather the view of Beis Hillel who permits a Kohen to invite a Yisrael to eat a Bechor with him. Accordingly, the Halachah does not follow the Tana here who says that a Yisrael may not give a Sela to another Yisrael in order that he give his Bechor and Matnos Kehunah to his grandson. Rather, a Yisrael is permitted to give a Sela to another Yisrael so that he will give his Bechor and Matnos Kehunah to his grandson, as the Rambam rules.

(b) The RASHASH answers that the Rambam's words are based on the Mishnah in Erchin (end of 28b). The Mishnah there says that when one dedicates a Bechor as "Cherem" to Bedek ha'Bayis, the way its value is calculated (in order to redeem it from Cherem) is estimated according to how much a person would pay to have this Bechor given to a Kohen who is his grandson or his nephew. The Mishnah there clearly implies that this practice is permitted. The Rambam understands that the Mishnah there argues with the Beraisa in the Gemara here, and therefore he rules like the Mishnah. (D. BLOOM)

QUESTION: The Gemara quotes Rav Acha bar Yakov who derives from the words "Keves Ben Shenaso" (Vayikra 12:6) that the age of an animal (with regard to bringing it as a Korban) is calculated based on the day of the year on which it was born, and not based on how many Rosh Hashanah festivals have passed since its birth.

Why is it necessary to derive this rule from a verse? It seems to be obvious. Logically, if the age of an animal would be determined based on Rosh Hashanah, then it would be impossible to bring a one-year old Korban (such as a Korban Tamid) on Rosh Hashanah itself. If the animal was born at any time within a year, and up to eight days, before Rosh Hashanah, then it would not be considered to be in its first year on Rosh Hashanah, but rather it would be in its second year. If it was born on Rosh Hashanah, or less than eight days before Rosh Hashanah, then it is not valid for a Korban because it is not yet eight days old (it is "Mechusar Zeman")! (HA'RAV SHMUEL BEN HA'RAV ELCHANAN, quoted by TOSFOS to Erchin 18b, DH Shenaso)

(a) TOSFOS in Erchin answers that the verse teaches that the age of an animal is calculated by taking into account even the time of day at which the animal was born (that is, we measure its age "me'Es l'Es").

(b) REBBI AKIVA EIGER (in Erchin) suggests that the verse is necessary for the following reason. Rebbi Elazar in Rosh Hashanah (10a) maintains that only after one month passes do we add a year to a person's or animal's age, while Rebbi Meir asserts that after one day of a year has passed we add a year to a person's or animal's age. The question of Tosfos is valid only according to the opinion of Rebbi Meir, who maintains that an eight-day-old animal is considered to be one-year-old on Rosh Hashanah. According to Rebbi Elazar, animals born less than thirty days before Rosh Hashanah certainly may be brought on Rosh Hashanah, since they are not yet considered one-year old (since thirty days have not passed). According to Rebbi Elazar's opinion, the verse of "Ben Shenaso" is needed to teach that animals that were born more than thirty days before Rosh Hashanah are still considered to be "in their first year" even after Rosh Hashanah. (See also Insights to Erchin 18:2.)