Rambam - 3 Chapters a Day

As stated in Halachah 26, the intent is one fifth of the new total. Thus if a person eats the value of four measures of grain, he must pay five. This fifth becomes considered as terumah itself and must be eaten in a state of ritual purity.

At the hand of heaven.

Since these are the ways in which one may benefit from terumah (see Chapter 11, Halachah 1), these are the ways for which one is liable for partaking of it.

The implication of the verse is that just as eating involves tangible physical satisfaction, so too, smearing oneself produces tangible physical satisfaction.

It appears that in contrast to the intentional violation of the prohibition mentioned in Halachah 5, in this instance, the transgressor should pay the full value of the terumah even if it is ritually impure. The rationale is that here a person is receiving atonement for his transgression. Hence, he is required to make full payment.

The Radbaz explains at length why, although with regard to most prohibitions, the minimum measure for which one is liable for drinking is a revi ‘it of a log, a larger measure than an olive-sized portion, in this instance an exception is made. The basis of his explanation is that this prohibition focuses on “eating” terumah, and as stated above, intaking an olive-sized portion constitutes eating.

I.e., an equivalent of three egg-sized portions. If a person stretches out his consumption of an olive-sized beyond this time span, it s not considered as “eating,” for he will not have ingested a significant amount at once. The Rabbis mention different opinions with regard to this time span, referred to as k’dai achilat pras, some as brief as 2 minutes and some as long as 9 minutes. Based on Shiurei Torah, the suggested practice is to consider k’dai achilat pras as 4 minutes with regard to eating matzah on Pesach, but 9 minutes with regard to eating on Yom Kippur.

The time to drink a revi’it is much less than k’dai achilat pras. The Ra’avad objects to the Rambam’s ruling, maintaining that the latter measure of time should be applied in this instance as well. The Radbaz and the Kessef Mishneh cite sources to support the Rambam’s view and note that he mentions this measure of time for drinking both with regard to the prohibition against drinking on Yorn Kippur (Hilchot Shevitat Esor 2:4) and the prohibition against drinking gentile wine (Hilchot Ma’achalot Assurot 14:9). They do note, however, that in Hilchot Sha ‘ar Avot HaTumah 8:11, however, the Rambam mentions the time span of k’dai achilat pras even with regard to drinking.
They differentiate between the rulings as follows: In all the instances involving prohibitions against eating, the Rambam mentions the time to drink a revi ‘it because a person will not feel satisfaction if his drinking the minimum measure is stretched out over a longer span of time. In Hilchot Sha ‘ar Avot HaTumah, by contrast, the concept involves considering a person ritually impure because of his having ingested a quantity of liquid. As long as he does not wait longer than k ‘dai achilat pras, the liquid is still collected in his digestive system and has not begun to circulate throughout his body.

Produce that we are unsure whether or not the tithes have been separated. The Rama (Yoreh De’ah 331:59) explains that the term is a composite of two Aramaic words da mai which mean: “What is this?” i.e., the person is unaware of the status of the produce with which he is dealing.

The portion of dough separated and given to the priests.

I.e., if one eats a little bit of any combination of these forbidden substances and the entire amount is ai;t olive-sized portion, one is liable.

If the transgression was intentional.

If the transgression was performed unknowingly.

Challah is referred to as terumah in Numbers 15:20 and the first fruits are referred to as terumah in Deuteronomy 12:17.

Hilchot Ma’aser Sheni 5:4. Since we are speaking about d’mai, produce from which separations are being made because of a doubt, there is no obligation according to Scriptural Law to add a fifth. With regard to ma’aser sheni, our Sages felt that if the obligation of an additional fifth was imposed, people would ignore the obligation to separate ma’aser sheni from d’mai entirely. With regard to terumat ma’ aser from d’mai, they felt the converse is true. Were the obligation of an additional fifth not imposed, people would not treat the obligation to separate d’mai seriously.

A person never receives both corporal punishment and a financial penalty. Hence, he is liable only for lashes.

When he makes restitution, the produce he gives the priest is considered as ordinary produce and not as terumah (Terumot 7:1).

An addition of a fifth was required only in the case of inadvertent transgression. In his Commentary to the Mishneh (Terumot 7:1), the Rambam explains that the additional fifth was instituted for atonement and that was possible only when the transgression was violated unintentionally. When it was violated intentionally, the sin is too great for atonement to be granted in an ordinary manner.

For terumah can only be eaten only when it is ritually pure.

Since they have no value, there is no need for restitution.

The Ra’avad objects to the Rambam’s decision, noting that it is the subject of a difference of opinion between the Sages of the Mishneh (see Pesachim 32a) and the opinion stated by the Rambam does not appear to have been accepted in a definitive manner. The Radbaz and the Kessef Mishneh provide interpretations of that passage that justify the Rambam’s ruling.

Pesachim, Joe. cit., speaks about an instance where a person steals terumah that is matzah from a priest and ate it. Even if it became chametz in the thief’s domain in which instance, the thief caused the priest a loss, the thief is not liable financially.

See Hilchot Chametz UMatzah 1:2,4, et al.

When a person is forbidden to eat. In this instance, the prohibition rests on the person (the gavra in yeshivah terminology) and not the cheftza, the article in question. Hence he is liable.

I.e., dough that is terumah is discovered with holes in it. Our Sages fear that the holes were made by a poisonous snake who deposited his venom in the dough. Hence, they forbade partaking of it (Hilchot Rotze’ach UShemirat Nefesh 12:1).

This too was forbidden for a similar reason. We fear that a poisonous snake drank from it and deposited its venom there (ibid. :6-7). In these two instances, although the substances are forbidden, they are forbidden only in consideration of the person’s wellbeing. There is no ritual prohibition resting on the foods. Hence one is liable.

Halachah 11 states that if one drinks oil or smears oneself with wine, he is liable only for the principal, for as the commentaries state there, that is not the customary manner of benefiting from these substances. In this halachah, the Rambam clarifies that if one combines the substances as he states here, this is considered as the normal pattern and one is liable.

The Ra’avad notes that there is a difference of opinion concerning this matter in the Jerusalem Talmud (Terumot 6:1). The opinion cited by the Rambam is advanced by Rabbi Yehudah HaNasi, while the majority of the Sages differ. Hence, he maintains that the Sages’ view should be followed for, as stated in the following halachah with regard to barley, eating uncooked kernels of wheat is harmful. The Radbaz and the Kessef Mishneh justify the Rambam’s view. As stated in Hilchot Berachot 3:2, one is required to make a blessing when eating such kernels. This indicates one is deriving benefit and if one derives benefit from terumah, he is required to make restitution.

It is uncommon to partake of these foods in this manner. Nevertheless, it is not so infrequent a practice as to reduce one’s liability.

Note the parallel with regard to the prohibition against eating on Y om Kippur (Hilchot Shivitat Esor 2:7). There too the Rambam rules that consuming food in such a state is not considered as “eating.”

If, however, he chewed them before swallowing them, the second person is not liable at all. For once they have been chewed, they are entirely worthless (Radbaz).

For swallowing the fruit whole is also considered eating.

After the person swallowed the prunes, the sanctity of terumah within them is considered to have been desecrated. For that reason, the first person who swallowed them is required to make restitution. They become his property and the second one is liable as one who damages the property of the first.

Whom he agreed to supply with meals in addition to their wages.

In his Commentary to the Mishnah (Terumot 6:3), the Rambam elaborates on why the responsibility is the host’s and not the guest’s, citing the principle (Kiddushin 42b) that a person cannot act as an agent to perfonn a transgression for a colleague. Instead, the transgression is solely the responsibility of the person who perfonned it, in this instance, the people who partook of the food.

I.e., the full price of the meal, were it to have been prepared from ordinary produce.

For this reason, it is preferable for the workers to have the employer pay them rather than having him pay the principal for the terumah (Radbaz).

Note a similar ruling in Hilchot Mechirah 16:14. This principle is stated by the Jerusalem Talmud (Terumot, loc. cit.) in explanation of the reason the employer is required to reimburse his workers. Seemingly, he was required to provide them with a meal. He did and they ate to their satisfaction, why then is he liable to them? Our Sages explain, based on the above principle, that since the food was forbidden, their souls did not derive true satisfaction from it and hence, he is required to give them a meal.

The children are not liable, for they are not obligated in the observance of the mitzvot.

The servants are not liable, for they have no independent financial capacity.

See Halachah 15 which states that whenever a person is required to pay only the principal, the grain that he pays is not considered as terumah.

For it is forbidden only according to Rabbinic Law and the Sages did not require this additional payment.

One is not liable in this instance, because the prooftext requiring payment of the additional fifth mentions “eating,” and eating or drinking less than an olive-sized portion is not considered as “eating” [the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah (Terumot 7:3)].

Wine is forbidden to a nazirite whether it is terumah or not and our Sages explain that eating a forbidden substance is not considered “eating.” In this context, a distinction can be made between eating on Yom Kippur which is an issur gavra, i.e., the food is not forbidden, the person is forbidden to partake of it, and wine for a nazirite, which is an issur cheftza, the wine itself becomes forbidden for him (Pri Megadim, Eshel Avraham202:11).

In the latter two instances, these are not ordinary ways of benefiting from these products

Since she was entitled to partake of terumah previously, a distinction is made between her and other non-priests. See the Sifra to Leviticus 22:12.

The daughter of an Israelite married to a priest who was therefore entitled to partake of terumah [the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (Terumot 8:1)].

As in the previous clause.

E. g., his son was a challal or he had no sons and his daughter was married to an Israelite (Kessef Mishneh).

With regard to the servant, the same logic that applies with regard to the women mentioned previously applies to him. Since he was allowed to partake of teromah previously, he is not held responsible for the additional fifth. With regard to the priest who was disqualified, we find that he still has a certain vestige of connection to the priesthood, as evidenced by the fact that were he to bring an offering in the Temple, it would be acceptable after the fact (Hilchot Bi’at HaMikdash 6:10). Therefore it is sufficient for him to make restitution for the principal [the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah (loc. cit.)].

The Kessef Mishneh explains that since it is a pressing time, it is considered as if the transgression was violated due to forces beyond her control (oness).

Even though by spitting it out, he is spoiling the terumah, that is preferable to swallowing it. For until he swallows it, he is not considered to have partaken of it (Radbaz).

In these instances, when he began eating, he was permitted to do so, it is only afterwards, that he or the terumah became impure.

Thus from the outset, he should not have partaken of the terumah.

In which instance, it is forbidden to partake of it until the appropriate separations are made.

The second tithe which cannot be eaten outside of Jerusalem unless it is redeemed.

And the disgusting taste of the bug prevented him from swallowing the terumah [the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (loc. cit.)].

In this instance, although there is reason to suspect that the terumah fell into the other container, we consider it as ordinary produce. The rationale is that we were operating under the chazzakah, prevailing assumption, that the container was filled with ordinary produce. Hence, unless there is a strong likelihood otherwise, we continue to operate under that perspective.
This reflects a principle that has ramifications beyond the laws of terumah. Although generally, we maintain that when there is a doubt regarding a Scriptural prohibition, we rule stringently, in this instance, since there is a plausible explanation for the lenient ruling, it is accepted. See also Chapter 13, Halachah 13-14, and the Tur and the Shulchan Aruch, Yoreh De'ah, sec. 111.
There is, however, a point that has to be clarified. In Chapter 13, it is explained that this principle applies with regard to matters of Rabbinic Law, but not matters of Scriptural Law, and yet, here we are dealing even with questions involving terumah of Scriptural status. Nevertheless, there is no difficulty, because here we are not speaking about whether it is permissible to partake of the mixture or not. That question was discussed in Chapter 13, and the ruling was rendered that it is forbidden. Here the question concerns financial restitution: Is the non-priest required to pay for the produce that he ate? With regard to this point, the Rambam explains that we can use the above reasoning.

For the additional fifth. The principal, i.e., the remaining container, must certainly be given to the priest. For if the one which was eaten was terumah, the second one should be given to him as payment for the first. And if the one that was eaten was not terumah, then the remaining one is and it must be given to the priest.

Thus if the priest seeks to expropriate the additional fifth, he must prove that the container consumed was terumah.
This is a fundamental principle in Jewish Law. Whenever there is a doubt with regard to the ownership of money or movable property, the person in physical possession of the property in question is allowed to maintain possession until the claimant proves his claim. See Hilchot Mechirah 20:5, et al.

From the additional fifth. For in this instance as well, we are not certain that he partook of terumah.

For he definitely partook of terumah. Nevertheless, since we do not know which one was terumah, he can only be held liable for the smaller one, because of the principle stated above.

For the fifth originally added becomes considered as terumah and compensation must be made for it.

I.e., it must be eaten in a state of ritual purity.

When Leviticus 5:24 speaks of adding a fifth, it uses a form that could be interpreted as plural, “its fifths.” The implication is that he may have to add many fifths [the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah (Terumot 6:1)].

I.e., if it becomes mixed with ordinary grain, the laws of dimua (the mixture of terumah) apply (ibid.).

In contrast, grain growing from terumah is considered as terumah (Chapter 11, Halachah 21).

For we are not speaking about a mere financial payment owed the priest, but a means of attaining atonement.

See Halachah 5 and Halachot 11-12.

I.e., none of the restrictions of terumah apply to it.

I.e., it had been separated, but had not been given to a priest.

She must separate this grain to receive atonement. Nevertheless, since as a priest’s wife, she is entitled to partake of terumah, she may take the terumah she separates as her own.

That priest.

Or she was widowed and left childless (Radbaz).

See Hilchot Matnot Aniyim for a definition of these terms. They are acceptable for this purpose, because once they are acquired by a poor person, they become his private property.

Terumah need not be separated from such grain or from the presents for the poor.

The Kessef Mishneh explains that we are referring to an instance where the person separated the first tithe while the crop is still stalks of grain and gave it to the Levite before it had been winnowed. As explained in Chapter 3, Halachah 13, in such an instance, it is not necessary to separate the great terumah. If, however, it is ordinary grain from which the separations were not made in the proper order, it cannot be used to make restitution for terumah.

In his Commentary to the Mishnah (Terumot 6:5), the Rambam explains that this refers to the second tithe that was redeemed using an unminted coin or consecrated property that was redeemed with land. The commentaries have questioned this interpretation, noting that usually redemption with such articles is not effective at all (see Hilchot Ma’aser Sheni 4:9; Hilchot Arachin 7:1). They cite the Rambam’s Commentary to Berachot 7:1 which interprets this term as referring to a situation where the principal was paid, but the additional fifth that is required was not.

New grain refers to grain harvested after the omer offering. Old grain refers to grain from the previous harvest.

In the seventh year and thus there is no way he can acquire the zucchini of the sixth year.

See Hilchot Shemitah VeYovel 6:10 which states that the crops of the Sabbatical year may not be used to pay debts, for this is comparable to using them for commercial purposes which is forbidden.

The produce he gives as restitution will be considered as impure terumah. Hence, there is no difficulty in him giving impure produce.

For if the grain is impure, it will not be an adequate replacement.

A person who is careful to observe the laws of ritual purity. See Chapter 6, Halachah 2; Hilchot Ma'aser, ch. 10.

Who is not necessarily careful concerning the laws of ritual purity.

So that the laws of ritual purity are adhered to.

So that he is reimbursed for his loss.

Even though he is an heir, since we are speaking about stolen property, he may not maintain possession of it, but instead must remove it from his domain and give it to someone else. Note the parallel in Hilchot Gezeilah 8:2-3.

Since the terumah belonged to his maternal grandfather, it is not appropriate that the restitution be given to someone who does not share a family connection with him. Hence he may give it to any member of the family who is a priest, e.g., one of his uncles (Radbaz).

This is speaking about an instance where the person did not know that the produce he ate was terumah and thus transgressed unknowingly.

To explain this ruling: Since these individuals are not entitled to partake of terumah, they must atone for partaking of it by making restitution and adding a fifth. Nevertheless, the terumah legitimately belonged to them. Hence, after the priest receives the grain given for atonement, he should reimburse the person for the worth of the terumah.

As is required when making restitution for theft (Exodus 22:3).

Although terumah is consecrated, it belongs to its owners. For even an Israelite has the right to give it to the priest he desires.

Which is less expensive than ordinary grain. When making restitution to atone for partaking of terumah, it is necessary to pay with ordinary grain. In this instance, however, he need not atone for partaking of terumah. All that is necessary is to pay twice the amount of the article he stole.

To atone for partaking of terumah.

To atone for the theft.

I.e., a priest was given terumah and consecrated it to the Temple treasury [the Ramban’s Commentary to the Mishnah (Terumot 6:4)]. We are forced to say this because terumah separated by an Israelite must be given to a priest and may not be given to the Temple treasury.

Hilchot Geneivah 2:1. When speaking about the thief s obligation to pay double, Exodus 22:8 states: “He shall pay his colleague double,” i.e., his colleague, another human, and not the Temple treasury (Bava Metzia 57b).

This is the standard penalty to atone for this transgression (Hilchot Mei/ah 1:3,5).

For the liability for terumah depends on the produce being the size of an olive.

For the liability of misusing consecrated property depends on it being worth a p’rutah.

The Rambam’s question is based on the principle that, generally, once an object is forbidden because of one prohibition, it does not become forbidden again, because of a second one (see Keritot 14a).

See Hilchot Issurei Bi’ah 17:9; Hilchot Ma’achalot Assurot 14:19. In these sources, it is explained that one of the exceptions to this principle is an issur mosif, a negative commandment that increases the scope of the prohibition, including entities that were not originally forbidden. See the Ramban’s Commentary to the Mishnah (loc. cit.).

The difference between geneivah (theft) and gezeilah (robbery) can be explained as follows: Theft implies taking a colleague’s property discreetly. Robbery, by contrast, involves taking something by force against the will of its owner (Hilchos Geneivah 1:3).

And only one fifth, in contrast to the law regarding a thief in Halachah 23, where he is required to atone for the theft as well.

The Ra’avad questions the Rambam’s ruling, asking why the person is not liable for an additional fifth to atone for taking a false oath concerning the robbery, as required by Hilchot Gezeilah 7:1-2. The commentaries explain that according to the Rambam, it is sufficient to give one fifth, for that atones for both transgressions. Although in Halachah 24, the Rambam requires two different fifths to be given, that is because one is required to atone for partaking of consecrated property. That is a different type of transgression and that requirement is not paralleled with regard to the transgression against taking a false oath.

For he must atone for partaking of terumah unknowingly, as in Halachah 10.

I.e., the fifth is one fifth of the new total. See parallels in Hilchot Arachin 4:5; Hilchot Me’ilah 1:5, Hilchot Gezeilah 7:5, et al.

The Ra’avad questions the Rambam’s ruling, asking: Why is the person not required to pay the worth at the time of the robbery if the grain depreciated in price? The Radbaz explains that this is, in fact, the Rambam’s intent and this halachah is speaking about an instance when he ate the terumah directly after stealing it. The Kessef Mishneh states that this halachah is not necessarily speaking about a thief, but about any person who partakes of terumah unknowingly. The time when he partakes of the terumah is equivalent to the time of theft.

The intent is that a person may benefit from terumah in all the ways one ordinarily benefits from produce.

For it is not common to smear these substances.

One may not, however, bum pure terumah oil. Since it is fit to be used for a person’s direct satisfaction, it should not be used merely as kindling fuel (Radbaz).

For this is considered as benefiting from dates as food.

In Babylon, it was customary to make beer out of dates. Nevertheless,-it is forbidden to do this from dates which are terumah, because one should not make terumah which is food into a liquid (the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah, Terumot 11 :3).

Although fall grapes are not of the same quality as ordinary summer grapes and thus might be used for vinegar, since this is a deviation of the ordinary way in which the grapes are used, it is not appropriate to use terumah produce in this manner.

For using them to produce oil and wine respectively is considered an ordinary if not the preferable way - of using them. Indeed, when mentioning these products, Numbers 18:12 refers to them as “oil” and “wine,” not as olives and grapes [the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah (Terumot 11 :3)].

For it is still considered as terumah and it should not be wasted.

For they are not considered as the fruit itself, merely as its by-products.
The Ra’ avad maintains that if these products were already given to a priest, the non-priest must make restitution for their value. For taking them is equivalent to stealing. The. Radbaz and the Kessef Mishneh maintain that the Rambam would also accept this ruling, for in his Commentary to the Mishnah (ibid. :2), he states that the person who partakes of these products is liable for the principal, but not for an additional fifth.

The punishment given for violating a Rabbinic prohibition. He is not considered as liable for lashes, because he is not liable for the transgression of a Scriptural prohibition for the same reason mentioned in the previous note.

Because this ruins them. Putting these fruits into brine would allow the juice they contained to be extracted.

This is done to improve the flavor of the brine.

It was common to make such a mixture in the Talmudic era.

This applies even though boiling it improves its taste and fragrance [the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah (ibid.)].

For this ruins the grain and grain is more important than legumes (Radbaz).

In the Roman conquest.

There was a sparsity of grain and the people did not care to differentiate one species from the other.

Even though it is terumah and he will thus be discarding bran that is terumah. This is allowed since he is doing the same as he would with ordinary produce.

A se’ah contains six kabbim. Nevertheless, because the person is sifting the flour carefully, he may be left with only one or two kabbim from the entire se’ah.

Hence it is forbidden to destroy it.

Where it will not be taken by another person.

For this will be using it for a purpose other tha:n a person’s direct physical benefit.

Applying oil to leather objects strengthens them (Kessef Mishneh).

Because the oil will be applied to the shoe and the sandal directly.

Once the oil has been applied to his flesh, its sacred quality is divested. Hence, the fact that afterwards, the oil becomes applied to the leather is not significant.

One certainly is not allowed to place oil that is terumah on a leather mat, because that will cause it to be absorbed in the mat and thus not applied to the person’s skin. One might, however, think that it is permitted to use a marble tablet for this purpose, because none of the oil will be absorbed. Nevertheless, a certain amount of oil will remain on the tablet and thus be ruined. This is forbidden (Kessef Mishneh).

Washing one’s hands before partaking of ordinary fruit is, by contrast, considered a sign of haughtiness (Hilchot Berachot 6:3). With regard to bread, however, our Sages ordained that one must wash even before partaking of ordinary bread.

See Hilchot Sha ‘ar Avot HaTumah 8:8. See also the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah {Cha/lah 1 :9).

Which is separated only by virtue of Rabbinic decree.

The intent is not necessarily impure hands, but any hands that one has not watched carefully to make sure that they are pure. For if one touches oil with such hands, it is impure by Rabbinic decree (Hilchot Sha ‘ar Avot HaTuma ‘ah 8:8-10).

For this would make the terumah impure and that is forbidden. Instead, one must wash his hands before applying oil to his body (Kessef Mishneh).

For once it comes in contact with his flesh, its sacred quality departs and the fact that one’s hands are impure is not significant (ibid., based on Keritot 7a).

And it is forbidden for an uncircumcised person to make use of terumah, as stated in Chapter 7, Halachah 10.

In his gloss to the Mishneh Torah, B ‘nei Yaakov notes that although this question is left unresolved by the Babylonian Talmud (Yevamot 71a), the Rambam’s ruling is based on the Jerusalem Talmud where the question is resolved.

Even though his Israelite grandson will come in contact with the oil and benefit from it, that is of no concern for once it touches the flesh of the priest, its holiness departs and even a non-priest may benefit from it.

The Kessef Mishneh offers this interpretation in order to maintain the standard version of the Mishneh Torah. He, however, suggests that the version is in error and that the proper version is that he can attend to him.

A pungent herb.

Although the chi/bah will also be applied to the hair of the Israelite woman, since it was first applied to the hair of the priest’s daughter, its holiness has departed and it can then be applied to the Israelite woman’s hair.

For this is not considered direct physical benefit, like eating.

I.e., it is not normally eaten, because its taste is too sharp. If, however, it was yntirely unfit for human consumption, there would be no obligation to separate terumah from it (Kessef Mishneh, see Chapter 2, Halachah 8, and Chapter 12, Halachah 7).

The seeds and the juice in the melon [the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah (Ediot 3:3)].

The tops and stems of vegetables that are cut off when preparing a vegetable for cooking (ibid.).

Even though they are not fit to be eaten, since they are in contact with the food, they are considered like food (Radbaz).

For they cut off only those leaves that are not at all fit to be eaten, a homeowner, by contrast, will discard even those that are slightly undesirable (Kessef Mishneh). The Rambam is apparently relying on a version of the Jerusalem Talmud (Terumot 11 :4) which is different than the standard printed version of the text.

For they are bitter and are not fit to be eaten (Radbaz).

For usually, there is a certain amount of food attached to them.
The commentaries note that the Rambam’s ruling here represents a reversal of his position in his Commentary to the Mishnah (Terumot 11 :5) where he rules more leniently with regard to carob seeds.

The rationale is that since it is only fit to be eaten under pressing circumstances, there is no obligation to separate terumah according to Scriptural Law. Instead, the obligation is Rabbinic in origin. It is a decree, instituted so that it not be exchanged with other produce. Since it has been discarded, it will not be exchanged. Hence, the decree was never applied in such situations.

For it is no longer considered as food.

For they are still fit to be eaten.

If they are aged to the degree that they produce dust, they are no longer considered food and there is no prohibition against partaking of them.

For the influence of the grapes is not significant at that time. The Radbaz states that this leniency applies even if the mixture has the flavor of wine.

The fact that there will be some grain that is terumah is not significant.

Our translation is based on the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah (Terumot 11 :6).

Even though some oil that is terumah will be left to spoil on the ground.

Even though there will be some remnants of the oil that was terumah there, we do not require him to clean the jug thoroughly (ibid. :8).

The fact that he has diverted his attention from the oil is not significant; we do not suspect that other oil was added to the jug (ibid.).

I.e., oil that is terumah that is ritually impure and hence, fit to be used as fuel for a lamp.

The oil should be burnt for the sake of the priest and not for the sake of an Israelite. Nevertheless, since the priest derives benefit from the Israelite’s acts, this is permitted.

When referring to this law, the Rama (Yoreh De’ah 331:19) mentions the converse situation as well. A priest visited an Israelite and the Israelite kindled a lamp for him using impure oil that is terumah. The Israelite may allow the lamp to continue burning after the priest departs.

Since the priest originally benefited from it, there is no prohibition in allowing it to continue to bum for the sake of the Israelite.

I.e., even though it contains oil from terumah that is impure.

The Mishneh LiMelech explains that according to the Rambam, the prohibition against an Israelite benefiting from impure oil that is terumah is Rabbinic in origin. Our Sages did not impose their decree in a situation where a Jew would be forced to walk in the dark. Because of the danger involved, the Israelite is entitled to do this even without the permission of the priest (Kessel Mishneh).

Since the priest is deriving benefit from the oil, it may be kindled without asking him. And since he is deriving benefit from it, the Israelite may also derive benefit.

In all these instances, it is a mitzvah that benefits people at large to kindle the light and our Sages did not institute their decrees when doing so would impede the performance of such a mitzvah.

The rationale is that he is performing a mitzvah. Since mitzvot were not given for our personal satisfaction (Rosh HaShanah 28a), he is not considered to be deriving personal benefit from kindling the Chanukah lamp. Nevertheless, if he has other oil, it is preferable for him to use that rather than impure terumah oil.

A priest must explicitly give permission for the oil to be kindled there [the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah (Terumot 11:10)]. In contrast to the previous instances, the priest’s permission is necessary in this situation, because only one individual - not people at large - are benefiting from the light (Radbaz, Kessef Mishneh).

Since she is married to a priest, she is permitted to benefit from the kindling of this oil. And thus, all the laws mentioned above with regard to a priest, also apply with regard to her.

For this is also considered as a mitzvah that benefits people at large.

The garments worn by people at a wedding celebration are very clean and they will not want to soil them with oil that was used for a lamp [the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah (Terumot 11:10)].

They will be too preoccupied with their mourning to consider anything else (ibid.).

And thus destroy what he sowed (ibid. 9:1). This will be beneficial because he will be able to sow a new crop of ordinary produce instead.

This will cause him to suffer a loss, for the produce of such a field may not be eaten by non-priests. Thus he will not be able to sell it at the price of ordinary produce. And yet he will have to till his land just as it was ordinary produce.

For at this point, the crop is already considered significant (see Hilchot Ma’aser 2:3-5). Thus destroying it would be similar to destroying terumah which is forbidden.

And destroy it, so that he will not make use of it.

We fear that he will interpret the prohibition as applying only to using the flax seeds as food and not to using the plant’s fibers for other purposes.

Hence all the agricultural obligations that are incumbent on ordinary produce are incumbent upon it, as stated in Halachah 27. Although Terumot 9:4 states that produce which grows from terumah is terumah, the intent is that it is forbidden to non-priests.

I.e., it does possess the sacred quality that characterizes terumah.

When one hands are in a state of impurity, because of touching food that is ritually impure, as a result of a Rabbinic decree. It is not necessary to wash one’s hands before partaking of such produce.

To be purified from ritual impurity, a person must immerse himself and then wait until nightfall that day. The immersion itself is not sufficient to bring one to a state of ritual purity.

They may even be eaten by non-priests.

Plants like onions or garlic (Terumot 9:4) that grow from an existing bulb. Although that bulb is produce grown from terumah, since it is forbidden only according to Rabbinic Law, when it is planted again and new produce grows from it, the Rabbinic prohibition can be nullified.

I.e., a simple majority is sufficient. We do not require 60 times its substance.

The Ra’avad differs with the Rambam’s ruling, stating that if the seed does not decompose, even the second generation produce that grows is forbidden. He supports his ruling based on Terumot 9:4 which makes such statements with regard to tevel, produce from which the terumot and tithes have not been separated. The Radbaz and the Kessef Mishneh, however, support the Rambam’s position.

Since such terumah is forbidden only by Rabbinic decree and it is not a common matter, our Sages did not enforce their decree with regard to it.

Even though the produce which is terumah is mixed with less than 100 times its volume and thus it is not nullified (see ch. 13), if the mixture is planted, the produce that grows is permitted to all.

This is referring to a situation similar to those described in Chapter 3, Halachah 6, when originally, the person gave less than the required amount of terumah and hence was required to separate terumah again. The second separation is considered as terumah only because of Rabbinic decree and produce which grows from it is permitted.

Since the seeds themselves are not edible, they are not considered as terumah {although the vegetables themselves are). And since they are not considered as terumah, the produce that grows from them is also not considered as terumah.

Since flaxseed is usually not eaten, the requirement to separate terumah is only Rabbinic in origin. Hence, when the terumah from flaxseed is sown, it is permitted {Radbaz). The Ra’avad, however, differs concerning this and the previous instance and maintains that produce that grows from this type of terumah is not permitted.

Even by priests. Instead, it must be burnt, as was required of the seeds from which it grew [the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (Terumot 9:7)].

By a priest. It is permitted because planting it purified it from impurity. It is not permitted to an Israelite, however, because it is still the first generation of offspring from terumah and not the second (Ra'avad, Radbaz).

This obligates that terumah and tithes be separated from the produce as stated in Hilchot Ma’aser 3:13.

Before terumah was separated from that grain heap.

The Rambam’s words require some qualification. Certainly, the fact that the stalk is replanted does not cause the categorization as tevel to be released, as evident from Hilchot Ma’aser 6:6. The question here is whether the designation as terumah remains or not.

The fact that it was replanted does not change its own status.

To eat in this manner.

Which is less than the price of ordinary produce. This is necessary, because as stated in Halachah 21, it is forbidden for an Israelite to partake of such produce.

It is, however, forbidden to sell the second tithe. Instead, this produce must be given to the priests (Radbaz).

I.e., if the animal partakes of the produce, the owner will be benefiting from produce grown from terumah. And if he muzzles the animal to prevent it from doing so, he will be violating the prohibition (Deuteronomy 25:4): “Do not muzzle an ox while it is threshing.”

I.e., to cause it to contract ritual impurity directly.

See Hilchot Pesulei HaMukdashim 18:2. The Se/er Mitzvot Gadol considers this as one of the 613 mitzvot. The Rambam does not, however.

To bring about a situation where it is likely that the terumah will contract impurity.

One might still think that causing it to become impure would be forbidden, because although it is impure by Rabbinic decree, it is not impure according to Scriptural Law, and it is forbidden to spread ritual impurity.

As the Rambam states in Hilchot Tumat Meit 11:1-2, our Sages decreed that everyone living in the Diaspora is considered as if he became impure because of contact with a human corpse. Now impurity of Rabbinic origin is less severe than impurity of Scriptural origin. Nevertheless, since the obligation to separate this terumah is only Rabbinic in origin, our Sages did not forbid making it incur Scriptural impurity.

Which is bound by the same rules as terumah.

Lest it have become impure and it is forbidden to partake of impure terumah.

Lest it not be impure and the person would be destroying terumah unnecessarily.

See Hilchot Sha’ar Avot HaTumah 13:13.

The Rambam is ruling according to the opinion of Rabban Gamliel in Terumot 8:8. Other opinions in the mishnah maintain that the terumah should be protected so that it does not become impure and still others maintain that it should be left in a place where it is likely to become impure so that we will not have to wait for the mandate to destroy it.

And thus we are concerned that the pure terumah will flow into the vat of impure wine. In such a situation, an ordinary person will not be able to partake of it, because of the terumah that has become mixed with it. And a priest will not be able to partake of it, because the wine that is terumah has become impure. Thus it will not be useful to anyone at all.

When both his hands and the articles he uses are ritually pure [the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah (Terumot 8:10)].

Even though by doing so, he will cause the wine which is terumah to mix with the impure wine and thus the entire mixture will become unfit for use. It is, nevertheless, desirable for him to do this, because in this way, he will be saving at least a revi’it of wine that is pure terumah.

Even though he will make the wine ritually impure in this manner, it will become ritually impure anyway. (Moreover, the ritual impurity that he will impart to it will be only Rabbinic in origin; see also the notes to the following halachah.) And in this way, he will prevent the terumah from mixing with the ordinary produce and disqualifying it.

See Hilchot Sha ‘ar Avot HaTumah 8:8,10; 9:5.

For, as stated above, an ordinary person will not be able to partake of it because of the terumah and even a priest will not be able to partake of it because the terumah will have become impure

See Chapter 13, Halachah I.

I.e., even though the oil that is terumah becomes impure and mixed with the contents of the lower vat, the person will not suffer the loss of the entire mixture, because it can be used as fuel.

To the earth and thus will be spoiled entirely.

And thus we are concerned that the pure terumah will flow into the vat of impure wine. In such a situation, an ordinary person will not be able to partake of it, because of the terumah that has become mixed with it. And a priest will not be able to partake of it, because the wine that is terumah has become impure. Thus it will not be useful at all.

Over the possible loss of his money.

For according to Rabbinic decree, a gentile is considered as ritually impure and can convey that impurity to other objects. See Hilchot Tumat Meit 1:13-14.

So that the gentile can take it. If one of the loaves is ritually impure, he should leave that loaf for the gentile.

Under ordinary circumstances. Nevertheless, they are eaten by humans from time to time. Otherwise, there would be no obligation to separate terumah from them. See Chapter 2, Halachah 8, and Chapter 11, Halachah 9.

And that is forbidden. The fact that the person will be causing the produce to contract ritual impurity later is not significant. In his Commentary to the Mishnah (Ma’aser Sheni 2:3), the Rambam explains that this stage of preparation is singled out because it is when the produce comes in contact with the water that it becomes fit to contract ritual impurity.

To remove their coatings.

As stated in Chapter 6, Halachah 2, it is forbidden to give terumah that is ritually pure to a priest who is a common person, for we fear that he will be ritually impure and yet will not be aware of his state. In this instance, however, there is no difficulty for we are not concerned with this terumah becoming ritually impure.
The Kessef Mishneh notes that this ruling is a minority opinion in the Mishnah (Challah 4:9) and the majority of the Sages rule that it is forbidden to give such terumah to an unlearned priest. Why, then, he asks, does the Rambam accept the minority view? (Significantly, in his own Commentary to the Mishnah, the Rambam states that the majority opinion is accepted.)

I.e., he knows that he is a priest and that terumah should be eaten by priests. He does not consider himself impure and does not understand why he should not be allowed to partake of the terumah. Even if it is sealed with a wrapper, we fear that he will break open the wrapper and partake of the terumah (Radbaz).

Since it is sealed closed, the Israelite will realize that there are questions of ritual purity involved and will not dare to touch it.

A woman in such a state can cause an article to become impure by moving it even though she does not touch it. See Hilchot Mitamei Mishkav UMoshav 8:2-3. Nevertheless, both the Ra’avad and the Kessef Mishneh question the Rambam’s ruling, for seemingly, since the produce has not become fit to contract ritual impurity, why would the woman’s moving it cause the produce to contract impurity?

Quite often the owner of the produce would be an unlearned person whom we assume is not precise in his observance of the laws of ritual purity. Nevertheless, he would often employ workers or hire a vat owner who was precise in his observance so that his produce would comply with the laws of ritual purity. The first clause is speaking about a situation where the owner of the produce had already put olives in the press and squeezed the oil from them before asking the person precise in his observance to separate terumah. Since the olives became subject to contract ritual impurity because of the oil, we assume that they became ritually impure through contact with an impure person. Hence, if the person who was precise in his observance would separate terumah, there is a probability that it is impure, but people will think that it is pure, because of the reputation of the person who is precise in his observance. Hence, he is forbidden to separate terumah from it.

Le., a person who is precise in his observance may perform the entire process, crushing the olives for their oil and separating terumah.

I.e., since the owner of the produce is not precise in his observance of ritual purity, it would be preferable not to separate terumah for him under any circumstances. Nevertheless, leniency was granted so that the owner of the vat could earn his livelihood.

I.e., after preparing the oil and separating the terumah, what precautions should he take that the owner of the produce does not cause the terumah to contract ritual impurity?

I.e., he is permitted to touch the utensil, but not the terumah itself.

Although this is not true, he is given this warning so that he will be careful not to touch the terumah. We are confident that he will heed the warning, because even the unlearned people were careful in the observance of the prohibition against partaking of tevel (see Hi/chat Ma’aser 9:1).

In the first instance, the grapes being picked are considered fit to contract ritual impurity only by Rabbinic decree (Hi/chat Tumat Ocha/in 11:1). In the second instance, the wine is already starting to flow and the impurity is of Scriptural origin. Hence, the Rambam uses the expression: “Needless to say.”

I.e., the wine will be ritually impure, and thus the terumah separated from it will be ritually impure and of no value. Hence, performing these tasks is forbidden, because one is aiding a Jew in the performance of a transgression. For it is forbidden to cause produce from which terumah has not been separated to become impure [Avodah Zarah 55a; the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah (Avodah Zarah 4:9)].

For these barrels are empty.

For the wine has already been rendered impure.

I.e., and the wine or oil is considered as ritually pure. The Kessef Mishneh explains that we are speaking about a situation in which the olives or grapes had become impure because of a person who himself had come in contact with a source of ritual impurity. Thus the grapes and olives are considered as ritually impure to the second degree. Making the grapes and the olives impure does not make the wine and the oil impure, because something that is impure to the second degree does not convey impurity to ordinary produce (see Hilchot Sha ‘ar Avot HaTumah 11 :2). Hence once this wine and oil hasbeen squeezed out, terumah that is ritually pure can be separated from it. The Radbaz emphasizes that in this instance as well, we are speaking about using less than an egg-sized portion of produce at a time as will be explained.

Hilchot Tumat Ochlin 9:2 explains that as long as the impure produce is less than an egg-sized portion, the fact that it comes in contact with the liquids is not significant.

Thus touching the fruit is not considered as touching the liquids (ibid.).

And not an egg-sized portion itself.

For with regard to terumah, impurity of the second degree can impart impurity of the third degree (Hilchot Sha ‘ar Avot HaTumah 11 :3).

Even though it came into contact with the olives or grapes that were impure.

Hilchot Sha’ar Avot HaTumah, loc. cit.:2

I.e., if it is placed in the woodpile, people will not regard it as food and they will not partake of it. The point of this entire halachah is to emphasize appropriate safeguards so that people will not partake of impure terumah. Needless to say, it is desirable to bum the impure terumah immediately. Guidelines are also provided should one desire to save it to use as fuel.

So that they will no longer be fit to be used to make flour.

The Kessef Mishneh notes that wine that is terumah that became impure could also be used for its fragrance. Nevertheless, our Sages did not desire that such wine be set aside for this purpose, lest one partake of it unknowingly.

Lest a poisonous snake have drank from the wine and deposited its venom there.

Here also we fear that the produce was perforated by a poisonous snake who deposited its venom there (ibid. 12:2).

And is thus forbidden for the reason mentioned in the notes to the previous halachah (ibid.11:15).

Even though one will be wasting terumah, we show concern for the danger that could be involved.

I.e., though he may not make use of them, the right to give them away is his.

The Radbaz states that this applies even to an unlearned priest. Although terumah should not be given to such a priest lest he cause it to become impure, if he takes it, we do not expropriate it from him.

I.e., we suspect that a person understood that the terumah was set aside, not to be used, and deposited other articles there for safekeeping.

For terumah is referred to as “sanctified,” allowing it to be destroyed in this manner desecrates God’s name (Radbaz).

To whom the tithes are given.

This applies to the presents required by Scriptural Law. They may, however, render assistance in order to receive those mandated by Rabbinic Law (Hilchot Bikkurim 5:13).

And then the terumah would belong to the Israelite who - although he could not partake of it - could sell it to a priest.

For such a present is a valid transfer of property. See Hilchot Lulav 8:10; Hilchot Zechiyah UMatanah 3:9.

Le., he is perfonning a favor for the owner in return for his teromah.

Since the presents are God’s, as it were, they should be treated with honor.

I.e., the verse implies that teromah belongs to God and that He grants it to the priests.

See Hilchot Bikkurim, ch. 9.

If he gives them the presents first, it would appear that he is bargaining with them to reduce their wages. This would be similar to a priest assisting in the granary which is forbidden.

The Radbaz emphasizes that such statements may be made only by an Israelite. A priest is forbidden to do so, for this is similar to helping in the granaries.

A silver coin of the Talmudic period.

Since the owner has the right to do what he wants with the presents, he is pennitted to receive gifts for them as well.

For such an arrangement looks like the person is selling the teromah.

For it was granted to the priests for consumption and not for commercial purposes.

I.e., their wives and servants may partake of it.

Our translation is taken from the Kessef Mishneh. Although Hilchot Tefilah 15:4 states that a priest should not bless the people until he is old enough to grow a beard, that can be interpreted as meaning that he should not bless the people alone. With other priests, however, he may bless them.

A person with a massive of flesh covering his sexual organs that prevents his gender from being known.

A person with both masculine and feminine sexual organs.

They are forbidden to partake of terumah, but they could be taking for their wives, children, or servants.

And thus become forbidden to partake of terumah.

For these are not places frequented by multitudes of people. Yevamot 99b mentions these two rationales as separate views. The Rambam, however, does not see them as mutually exclusive and combines them both.

Rashi (Yevamot, loc. cit.) interprets this as meaning a woman whom the priest is forbidden to marry.

The Kessef Mishneh notes that Yevamot, loc. cit., does not place an uncircumcised person in this category if his failure to circumcise himself comes as a result of forces beyond his control, e.g., his brothers died because of circumcision. He suggests that perhaps the Rambam had a different version of that passage.