Study Yevamot folio 89B with parallel Hebrew-English text, traditional commentary, and modern study tools. Free access to Babylonian Talmud online.
in what way is this case different from that which we learned in a Mishnah (Demai 5:10): If one separates teruma from that which grew in a perforated pot for that which is from a non-perforated pot, his teruma is teruma, but it may not be eaten until he removes on behalf of that portion itself terum
The Talmud answers: Here, with regard to ritually impure teruma, it is different, as by Torah law it is in fact full-fledged teruma, but the rabbis penalized him by making him separate teruma again. This is in accordance with the opinion of R' Elai, as R' Elai said: From where is it derived with r
R' Elai elaborates: And if this inferior portion is not sanctified as teruma at all, why is there a bearing of sin? If the produce does not have the status of teruma he has not done anything, which means that his action cannot be considered a transgression. From here we learn with regard to one who
After clarifying the opinions themselves, the Talmud analyzes the case in greater detail. Rabba said to Rav Ḥisda: According to your opinion, that you said he has done nothing at all, meaning that even that se’a he set aside returns to its former untithed state, what is the reason for this? It is a
Rav Ḥisda said to Rabba: And you, do you not hold that the rabbis have the power to do so? But didn’t we learn in the Mishnah that the child is a mamzer from this one and from that one? Granted, the child from the second man is a mamzer, as he was born to a married woman from a man who was not her