לע"נ ר' יואל ב"ר פנחס הלוי
ולהיבדל לחיים הרב משה גבריאל בן יהודית
ושמחה בן נעכא גיטל
The gemara explains that we need a מיעוט that a goy can't be a שליח for Terumah, because you might think that since he can separate Terumah for himself, he can also be a שליח for a Jew - therefore we need a special pasuk [גם אתם] to teach us that he can't be a שליח.
Then the gemara asks that according to Rebbe Shimon who holds that when a זר eats the Terumah of a goy he is not obligated to pay a חומש [as one would for eating the Terumah of a Jew] - why do we need a מיעוט that he can't be a שליח. He can't separate for himself so why should he be able to separate for a Jew.
Rashi writes [ד"ה ורבי שמעון פוטר]:
"דקסבר אין מירוח העובד כוכבים חייב בתרומה ... "
Meaning, Rebbe Shimon holds that the מירוח ["smoothing of the pile" which creates the obligation to separate Terumah] of a goy doesn't obligate in hafrashas Terumah.
Poor Rashi!! The other Rishonim [Rambam, Ritva, Rashba others] JUMPED on him. Yes, they said - if the goy does מירוח then the grain is not obligated in Terumah. But what about הקדימו בשיבלים? Meaning - if Terumah was taken by a goy in advance of the מירוח, then it is considered Terumah. It is only his מירוח which is not מחייב?! So a goy DOES COUNT when it comes to Terumah and therefore it would make sense that we would need a מיעוט that he can't be a שליח for a Jew to separate his Terumah. So according to Rashi, what is the gemara's question?? Even according to Rebbe Shimon a goy is shayich to Terumah???
Ahhhhhhhhhhhhhhh!!!!
Not only that, but Tosfos says that there is a מציאות of Terumah of a goy when a Jew performed the act of מירוח? So again a goy is shayich to Terumah.
In Rashi there is a contradiction whether the obligation depends on בעלות. In Menachos [67a] and Gittin [47a] he says that if a goy performs מירוח on the grain of a Jew it is obligated in Terumah. So we see that the obligation in Terumah depends on בעלות and thus if a Jew performs מירוח on the grain of a goy it would NOT be obligated in Terumah because the בעלים is a goy - unlike the way Tosfos learns. So Tosfos' question is not difficult according to Rashi לשיטתו.
However, Rashi in Bechoros [11b] writes that if a Jewish sharecropper [BTW - My great grandfather was a poor black sharecropper in the south. I am so happy I live in the East!!] separates for a goy it is obligated in Terumah and Tosfos argues that it is not because the בעלים is a goy. So we see that Rashi holds that the obligation does NOT depend on בעלות. If so, when a Jew does מירוח for a goy it would be obligated in Terumah as Tosfos asked on Rashi when trying to prove that a goy is included in the laws of Terumah.
So maybe we can say that here Rashi is following what he writes in Menachos and Gittin that the obligation of Terumah depends on בעלות.
But we would rather there not be a contradiction in Rashi. We can say that really the obligation depends on the מעשה מירוח but this מעשה is considered as if the בעלים did it and the one doing the act is his שליח. That is why it depends on בעלות [in Menachos and Gittin]. But when it comes to a sharecropper who is obligated to fix the fruits himself - the מעשה מירוח relates to him and not to the בעלים. That is why in Bechoros, Rashi says that when a Jewish sharecropper performs the מירוח for the goy, the fruits are obligated in Terumah.
If so, we find a case where the fruits of a goy would be obligated in Terumah, namely, when his Jewish sharecropper performs the מירוח on his behalf. So why does Rebbe Shimon absolve a זר from paying חומש when eating the Terumah of a goy?
Another issue with Rashi is that according to his explanation, it is not that a goy is מופקע [excluded] from Terumah. It is just that there is no scenario where he would be obligated in Terumah!! That doesn't fit with what the gemara is trying to learn that the goy is מופקע from Terumah. Earlier in the gemara we learned that an עבד can't be a שליח for גירושין because he is completely not בתורת גירושין and is completely מופקע [that is what Rashi means in ד"ה לאו]. But here it just seems that we lack a היכי תמצא for a goy to have Terumah [because his מירוח is not מחייב] but not that he is מופקע בעצם. So who says that he can't be a שליח? Maybe only those who are מופקע בעצם can't serve as שליחים because they are considered אינו בתורת??
This is getting messy....
Here is a yesod from Hagaon Hagadol Meod Rav Dovid Mann ztz"l [Rav Shmuel Rozovsky ztz"l also says this briefly but Rav Dovid fleshed out the questions as we wrote above]: You know why the מירוח of a goy is not מחייב?? BECAUSE he is בעצם מופקע from Terumah!!! So the one doing the מעשה מירוח is מופקע from the whole parsha of Terumah and thus the מעשה is not considered a מעשה המחייב. Ahhhh!
But if the din would be that a goy is included in the parsha of Terumah, then his מירוח wouldn't create a פטור. So we start with the fact that he is מופקע from the parsha of Terumah and from that we derive that his מירוח is not מחייב.
So fartentfert ["answered" in Afrikaans] the kashya of the Rishonim from the fact that if הקדימו בשיבלים a goy would be obligated in Terumah. Not true. He is מופקע בעצם from Terumah as we see from the fact that his מירוח is not מחייב so even if הקדימו בשיבלים he is off the hook and פטור.
And farentfert the kashya that he is not מופקע בעצם but just lacks a היכי תימצא, so why can't he be a שליח? In fact - he really is מופקע בעצם and the גילוי is the fact that his מירוח is not מחייב.
[And when a Jewish sharecropper separates the Terumah of the goy it is obligated not because of the goy but because the מעשה מירוח was performed by a Jew who obviously is obligated in Terumah].
WOW!!!
There is so much more to say and maybe another time ברצות ה' דרכינו !!
