CAN THE TEMPLE TREASURER SEPARATE TERUMAH (Yerushalmi Terumos Perek 1 Halachah 1 Daf 3a)
[ãó â òîåã à] [ãó ä òîåã á (òåæ åäãø)] àúí ôøè ìúåøí àú ùàéðå ùìå
The Baraisa taught that the word 'you' also excluded separating Terumah for someone else.
îä àú òáéã ìéä ëúåøí àú ùàéðå ùìå àå ëúåøí àú ùì çáéøå
Question: Is the main reason because it is not his or because it belongs to his friend?
)ðùîòéðà îï äãà([îàé áéðéäåï] äá÷éø ëøéå (åîéøçå)[åúøîå] åçæø åæëä áå àéï úòáãéðéä ëúåøí àú ùàéðå ùìå àéï úøåîúå úøåîä åàéï úòáãéðéä ëúåøí àú ùì çáéøå úøåîúå úøåîä
Where would that make a difference? If he declared his pile ownerless and then re-acquired it (having separated Terumah when it was ownerless) - if it must be his, it is not Terumah; if it should not belong to his friend, it is Terumah.
ðùîòéðà îï äãà âðá úøåîú ä÷ãù åàëìä îùìí ùðé çåîùéï å÷øï à' ùàéï áä÷ãù úùìåîé ëôì
Suggestion: (A later Mishnah taught) If a person stole Terumah of Hekdesh and ate it, he must pay two fifths (one for Terumah, one for Hekdesh) and the principal, but a thief does not pay double payment to Hekdesh.
îðå úåøí ìà âéæáø äøé äåà úåøí àú ùàéðå ùìå åàú àîøú úøåîúå úøåîä äåé ìéú èòîà ãìà ëúåøí àú ùì çáéøå
Who separated the Terumah? Wasn't it the Temple treasurer who was separating from something that didn't belong to him! (This shows that the Torah is only particular that it doesn't belong to another person.)
àå ðàîø îàï äåà úåøí (áø ìåé)[ëäï] ùä÷ãéù úøåîä
Rebuttal: No. What was the case of Terumah of Hekdesh? A Kohen consecrated his Terumah.
åäúðé øáé äåùòéà àçã äî÷ãéù èáìå åàçã äî÷ãéù úøåîúå
Question: R. Hoshiya taught in a Baraisa - '...both a Yisrael who consecrates his Tevel (untithed produce) and a Kohen who consecrates his Terumah' - since it's become Hekdesh, it's the Temple treasurer who will be separating the Terumah from the Tevel...?
[ãó å òîåã à (òåæ åäãø)] à''ø àéãé âéæáø ëîàï ãàéðåï áòìéí
Answer (R. Idi): That is because the treasurer is considered to be the owner.
åãìà ëøáé éåñé ãøáé éåñé àîø äåà äâéæáø äåà àçø
This is unlike R. Yosi who said that the treasurer is considered to be another person.
ø''æ øáé àçà øáé éñà øáé éåçðï áùí øáé éðàé àúí âí àúí ìøáåú ùìåçëí îä àúí áðé áøéú àó ùìåçëí áðé áøéú àúí òåùéï ùìéç åàéï äâåé òåùä ùìéç
(R. Zeira/ R. Acha/ R. Yosa/ R. Yochanan citing R. Yannai): Instead of saying "you'', the pasuk says "also you'' - this includes your agent. Just as you are Jewish, so too your agent must be Jewish. You are able to appoint an agent (to separate Terumah), but a gentile cannot appoint an agent. (The Gemara now clarifies the meaning of this.)
ø' éåñé ñáø îéîø àéï äâåé òåùä ùìéç áâåé àçø çáéøå äà áéùøàì òåùä
R. Yosi thought that it means that a gentile cannot appoint another gentile as an agent, but he could appoint a Jew.
à''ì øáé æòéøà îéðéä åîéðéä àúí òåùéï ùìéç åìà áéùøàì åãëååúä àéï äâåé òåùä ùìéç àôé' áéùøàì
Rebuttal (R. Zeira): The pasuk itself disproves that - 'you' can appoint an agent - isn't it referring to a Jew becoming the agent? Similarly, when the pasuk teaches that a gentile cannot appoint an agent, it even refers to him appointing a Jew.
äúéá øáé äåùòéà åäà îúðé' îñééòà ìøáé (éåçðï)[éåñé] àîø øùá''â åîä àí éøöä äâåé äæä ùìà ìúøåí ôéøåúéå àéðå úåøí äà àí øöä úøí
Rejection (R. Hoshiya): A Baraisa supports R. Yosi (that a gentile can appoint a Jew as his agent) - 'Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel said - (If a Jew received a field from a gentile for sharecropping.) If this gentile would wish not to separate Terumah from his produce, he may do so' - (so the Jew would need consent from the gentile before he separates), This implies that if it was known that the gentile wishes to separate, the Jew could do it for him!
[ãó â òîåã á] øáé àáà àîø áîàîéï òì éãå.
Rebuttal (R. Abba): (Really, a gentile cannot appoint a Jew as an agent.) Here, the Baraisa is referring to when the gentile guides the Jew's hands.