The gemara in Bava Metzia [22] tries to prove that יאוש שלא מדעת is יאוש from the fact that one can take terumah for the owner of the produce even though at the time the owner was unaware. In both cases we see that awareness is not a critical component, neither to effect יאוש nor to validate terumah. The gemara then rejects the proof. Here is the gemara [with added commentary from "chavrusa"] and then in English [with added commentary from Steinzaltz]. Then a kashya, a terutz of the Ramban and then the Ran's question on the Ramban [whih if you read the gemara, you should have already thought of].
תא שמע: כיצד אמרו שהתורם שלא מדעת הבעלים - תרומתו תרומה?
הרי שירד אדם לתוך שדה חבירו, וליקט פירות, ותרם מהן תרומה על פירותיו של בעל הבית שלא ברשות הבעלים,
אם הבעלים חושש משום גזל, שמקפיד על כך שתרם שלא ברשותו, והרי זה בעיניו כגזל - אין תרומתו של היורד תרומה.
ואם לאו, שאינו מקפיד על כך - תרומתו תרומה.
ומנין הוא [התורם] יודע אם חושש הבעלים משום גזל, ואם לאו?
הרי שבא בעל הבית, ומצאו בשדהו בשעה שתרם, ואמר לו: כלך אצל יפות! כלומר, היה לך לילך אל פירות יפין יותר, לתת מהן לכהן!
אזי כך הוא הדין:
אם אכן נמצאו בשדה פירות יפות מהן - תרומתו תרומה. שהרי מוכח מדברי בעל הבית שהוא מרוצה ממעשהו של חבירו, ואדרבה, רצונו היה לתת אפילו פירות יפים יותר.
ואם לאו, שלא נמצאו פירות יפות מהן, אם כן, ודאי מה שאמר לו: "כלך אצל יפות" - בכעס אמר לו. כלומר: טוב שלא גזלת ממני פירות יפין יותר! ולכן אין תרומתו תרומה.
ואם ליקטו הבעלים עוד פירות - והוסיפו עליהן, בין כך - ובין כך, בין אם נמצאו יפות מהן, ובין אם לאו - תרומתו תרומה, שהרי במעשה זה הוכיחו שנתרצו בהפרשת התרומה.
ועתה, לשיטת אביי, כי נמצאו יפות מהן - תרומתו תרומה, אמאי? הרי בעידנא דתרם [בזמן שתרם התורם] - הא לא הוה ידע בעל הפירות מכך, ואם כן, לא היתה דעת בעלים בשעת ההפרשה! אלא, על כרחך שאנו אומרים, שכיון שבשעה שנודע לו - נוח לו בכך, הרי זה כאילו היה נוח לו גם בשעת התרומה. והוא הדין לעניין ייאוש, שכיון שבשעה שנודע לו מהאבידה - התייאש ממנה, הרי זה כאילו התייאש מתחילה, וכדברי רבא!
תרגמה רבא אליבא דאביי [פירש רבא את הברייתא באופן שלא תקשה לאביי]: אין מדובר בתורם שלא מדעת ממש, אלא דשויה [שעשה] הבעלים את התורם שליח לתרום עבורו, ולכן אין צריך גילוי דעת הבעלים על עצם ההפרשה, אלא רק על צורתה, וכפי שיתבאר להלן.
ואמרינן: הכי נמי מסתברא [כך אכן מסתבר], שמדובר שעשאו בעל הפירות שליח.
דאי סלקא דעתך שמדובר דלא שוויה שליח, מי הויא בכהאי גוונא תרומתו תרומה?
והא כתיב בענין הרמת תרומה: "כן תרימו גם אתם תרומת ה' וגו'". ומזה שלא אמרה תורה "כן תרימו אתם", אלא "גם אתם" אמר רחמנא, מהמילה "גם" היתירה, למדים - לרבות את שלוחכם, שאף השליח יכול לתרום.
וכיון שהוקש השליח לתורם, מוסיפים ודורשים: מה אתם עצמכם - תורמים לדעתכם [בידיעתכם וברצונכם], אף שלוחכם - צריך לתרום דווקא לדעתכם!
אלא, הכא במאי עסקינן - כגון דשויה בעל הפירות שליח, ואמר ליה: זיל [לך] תרום! ולא אמר ליה: תרום מהני [מפירות אלו], אלא אמר לו סתם שיתרום.
וסתמיה דבעל הבית כי תרום - מבינונית הוא תרום [ובדרך כלל, תורם בעל הבית מפירות בינוניים]. ואזל איהו, והלך השליח - ותרם על דעת עצמו מפירות היפות.
והואיל וכן, שסתם בעל הבית תורם מבינונית, והשליח תרם מיפות, יש לנו לברר אם בכהאי גוונא קיים את שליחות בעל הבית, או שסטה מדרך שליחותו בכך שתרם מהיפות.
ולאחר מכן בא בעל הבית, ומצאו שתרם מפירות היפות, ואמר ליה: כלך אצל יפות!
אזי הדין הוא כך:
אם נמצאו פירות יפות מהן - תרומתו תרומה. כי נתברר לנו שדרכו של בעל הבית זה לתרום תמיד מיפות, והרי שליח זה קיים שליחותו כראוי.
ואם לאו - אין תרומתו תרומה. וכפי שנתבאר לעיל, שכיון שלא נמצאו פירות יפות מהן, ודאי בלשון כעס אמר לו, ואכן דרכו לתרום תמיד מבינונית ככל בעלי בתים. ואם כן, אין הוא שלוחו בתרומה זו.
The Gemara suggests: Come and hear a proof from a baraita (Tosefta, Terumot 1:5): When did the Sages say that in the case where one separates teruma without the owner’s consent, his teruma is considered teruma? It is in a case where there was someone who entered another’s field and gathered produce from it and separated teruma without the owner’s permission. If he is concerned that the owner will object to his actions and view it as robbery, his teruma is not teruma, but if he is not concerned, his teruma is teruma.
The baraita continues: And from where would the gatherer know whether he should be concerned that the owner objects and views it as robbery or not? If the owner came and found himseparating teruma and said to him: You should have gone to take the produce of better quality and separate teruma from that, then if produce of better quality than the produce he had separated is found, his teruma is considered teruma, since the owner is assumed to have been sincere and pleased that the other has separated teruma from his produce. But if not, his teruma is not teruma, as it may be assumed that the owner was angry at him and was speaking sarcastically. The baraita adds: If the owners were gathering and adding to the teruma he had separated, indicating that they agree to his act of separation, either way, whether or not better-quality produce was found, histeruma is considered teruma.
The Gemara questions the ruling of the baraita: But why is that the halakha, that if produce of better quality than the produce he had separated is found his teruma is teruma? At the time that he separated the teruma, he did not know that the owner would ultimately agree. The baraita states that the teruma is teruma from the moment he separated it, despite the fact that it was only later that he learned that the owner agreed. Apparently, in the case of despair as well, despair that is not conscious is considered despair, contrary to the opinion of Abaye. Rava interpreted the matter in accordance with the opinion of Abaye: This is a case where the owner designated him as an agent.
So too, it is reasonable, as if it enters your mind that the owner did not designate him as an agent, would his teruma be teruma? But doesn’t the Merciful One state: “So you also shall set apart a gift unto the Lord of all your tithes” (Numbers 18:28)? Once the verse states “you,” the addition of the word “also” in the term “you also” serves to include an agent. Therefore, an agent separating teruma has the same halakhot as an owner separating teruma. Just as when you, the owner, separate teruma, it is with your knowledge, so too when your agent separates teruma, it must be with your knowledge. Evidently, in any event, one needs to be appointed as an agent to be capable of separating teruma for another.
Rather, with what are we dealing here? It is a case where the owner designated him as an agent and said to him: Go and separate teruma, but he did not say to him: Separate teruma from these specific crops. And when the owner’s intent is unspecified, and it is unclear which of his crops are meant to be separated when the agent separates teruma, it is from the crops of intermediate quality that he separates teruma. And in this case, the agent went and separated teruma from higher-quality produce, and the owner of the field came and found him and said to him: You should have gone to take the produce of better quality and separate teruma from that. If produce of better quality than the produce he had separated is found, his teruma isconsidered teruma. But if not, his teruma is not teruma. Ad Kan Divrei Ha-gemara
The baraita continues: And from where would the gatherer know whether he should be concerned that the owner objects and views it as robbery or not? If the owner came and found himseparating teruma and said to him: You should have gone to take the produce of better quality and separate teruma from that, then if produce of better quality than the produce he had separated is found, his teruma is considered teruma, since the owner is assumed to have been sincere and pleased that the other has separated teruma from his produce. But if not, his teruma is not teruma, as it may be assumed that the owner was angry at him and was speaking sarcastically. The baraita adds: If the owners were gathering and adding to the teruma he had separated, indicating that they agree to his act of separation, either way, whether or not better-quality produce was found, histeruma is considered teruma.
The Gemara questions the ruling of the baraita: But why is that the halakha, that if produce of better quality than the produce he had separated is found his teruma is teruma? At the time that he separated the teruma, he did not know that the owner would ultimately agree. The baraita states that the teruma is teruma from the moment he separated it, despite the fact that it was only later that he learned that the owner agreed. Apparently, in the case of despair as well, despair that is not conscious is considered despair, contrary to the opinion of Abaye. Rava interpreted the matter in accordance with the opinion of Abaye: This is a case where the owner designated him as an agent.
So too, it is reasonable, as if it enters your mind that the owner did not designate him as an agent, would his teruma be teruma? But doesn’t the Merciful One state: “So you also shall set apart a gift unto the Lord of all your tithes” (Numbers 18:28)? Once the verse states “you,” the addition of the word “also” in the term “you also” serves to include an agent. Therefore, an agent separating teruma has the same halakhot as an owner separating teruma. Just as when you, the owner, separate teruma, it is with your knowledge, so too when your agent separates teruma, it must be with your knowledge. Evidently, in any event, one needs to be appointed as an agent to be capable of separating teruma for another.
Rather, with what are we dealing here? It is a case where the owner designated him as an agent and said to him: Go and separate teruma, but he did not say to him: Separate teruma from these specific crops. And when the owner’s intent is unspecified, and it is unclear which of his crops are meant to be separated when the agent separates teruma, it is from the crops of intermediate quality that he separates teruma. And in this case, the agent went and separated teruma from higher-quality produce, and the owner of the field came and found him and said to him: You should have gone to take the produce of better quality and separate teruma from that. If produce of better quality than the produce he had separated is found, his teruma isconsidered teruma. But if not, his teruma is not teruma. Ad Kan Divrei Ha-gemara
The Mishna in Gittin [66] says that if someone fell into a pit [and doesn't know if he will ever get out] and calls out כל השומע קולי יכתוב גט לאשתי - "anyone who hears my voice can write a get for my wife [on my behalf]", this is considered an appointment of שליחות. Asked the Ramban: The gemara in Nedarim [36b] asked how one is allowed to take terumah on behalf of one who is not allowed to get הנאה from him [מודר הנאה] - this is considered הנאה?? The gemara answers that we are talking about a case where the owner of the terumah said "כל הרוצה לתרום יבוא ויתרום" - "whomever wants can come and separate [terumah]". This is not considered הנאה and thus permitted. It emerges that saying כל הרוצה doesn't create a שליחות. The question is how this squares with the Mishna in Gittin that says that כל השומע IS an appointment of שליחות??
Answers the Ramban:
"ואינה קושיא, דהתם כל "הרוצה" לתרום קאמר, מדעתו, ואינו אלא כנותן רשות, אבל לאו שליחותיה הוא, וגבי תרומה אפי' גלוי דעתא נמי מהני, כדאמרינן בפרק ואלו מציאות כלך אצל יפות, אם נמצאו יפות מהן תרומתו תרומה."
When he says regarding terumah כל הרוצה he is merely granting permission but not appointing a שליח and with respect to terumah even - גילוי דעת - a declaration of intention is sufficient, as we see in the gemara in אלו מציאות when he says to the messenger כלך אצל יפות - "you should have taken from the better produce", if there is better produce, his terumah is terumah. This proves that שליחות is not necessary and גילוי דעת is enough. [But when he says כל שומע about the get he is appointing a שליח].
FREGT THE RAN!!!: The Ramban read the gemara wrong!! The gemara says in the conclusion that when he says כלך אצל יפות and the terumah is valid, it is a case where he appointed him a שליח, unlike the Ramban who said that it is merely a גילוי דעת? Why does the Ramban ignore the conclusion of the gemara??
Hopefully to be solved in a future post בל"נ.
