Rambam - 3 Chapters a Day

In Hile hot Ma’achalot Assurot 15: 16, the · Rambam explains:
Why did [ the Sages] choose the figure of 100 for terumot? For terumat Ma’aser is one hundredth of the entire crop, and yet it causes the entire crop to be “sanctified,” as [Numbers 18:29] states: “its sacred part.” Our Sages said: “An entity which must be separated from it sanctifies it, if it returns to it.”
Nevertheless, from Halachah 13-14, it appears that according to Scriptural Law, terumah is nullified when mixed with a majority of ordinary produce and the verse is cited merely as a support.

Obviously, if the produce which is terumah is distinct, it is sufficient for him to remove it.

In Hilchot Ma’achalot Assurot 15: 15, the Rambam explains: “Why is it necessary to separate [ a measure of] terumah and not a measure of orlah or mixed species from a vineyard? Because terumah is the property of the priests.” I.e., from a ritual perspective, it is not necessary to remove the se‘ah, for the existence of the terumah has been nullified. Nevertheless, from a financial perspective, it is necessary to give the priest his due. This is the explanation of the concluding clause.

And it is forbidden for a non-priest to partake of it.
In his Commentary to the Mishnah (Demai 1:3), the Rambam explains that Exodus 22:23 uses the term dima as a synonym for terumah. Hence our Sages referred to a mixture of terumah and ordinary produce in this manner.

Which is far less than the price of ordinary produce. Since the terumah is not nullified, we have to consider the possibility that every kernel is terumah.

Which is given to him without cost.

Since the flavor of the terumah is not recognizable, it is considered as nullified. This principle applies with regard to all the Torah’s prohibitions [the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah (Orlah 2:7)].

As required by Halachah 1.

Even though the se’ah was taken out to be given to the priest, it is not considered as terumah. Instead, we calculate the proportion of terumah in the first mixture, on that basis, determine how much of the se’ah that fell is considered to be terumah and then see if that amount is one hundredth of the new mixture or not. For example, if one se’ah fell in one hundred se’ah, we consider the se’ah that was removed as slightly less than 1/100th terumah. Thus if it fell into a se’ah or more of ordinary produce, the second mixture is permitted [the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah (Terumot 5:5)].

And thus a se’ah of terumah is being mixed with less than 100 se’ah of ordinary produce.

In this instance, every entity remains discrete. It’s only that an observer cannot distinguish between the terumah and the ordinary produce (see Radbaz).

I.e., instead of calculating the percentage of terumah alone in the new mixture, we consider the first mixture as if it were terumah. Only if the second mixture is 100 times as large as the first is it permitted.

We do not calculate the percentage of terumah in the second mixture. Even if the terumah is more than one hundredth of the second mixture, that mixture is permitted.

Since the mixture was permitted, it is considered as if the se‘ah of terumah that fell into it does not exist. We do not consider it as existing within the mixture, so that were it to be combined with other terumah, the entire mixture would be considered miduma.

The Ra’avad differs with the Rambam concerning this figure, maintaining that the mixture is considered as miduma if 51 se‘ah of terumah fall into the ordinary produce in the above manner. His rationale is that since a se‘ah is removed from the mixture, it is possible that he is removing a se’ah of ordinary produce. Hence, after 51 se‘ah fell and 50 se’ah were removed, it is possible that there is a majority of terumah in the mixture. The Radbaz justifies the Rambam’s ruling, explaining that it is logical to assume that each se‘ah that is removed has an proportionate amount of terumah and ordinary produce.

And thus the entire mixture would be considered as permitted.

The Ra’avad comments on the Rambam’s ruling, noting that he is following what appears to be the minority opinion in Terumot 5:8. The Kessef Mishneh questions the intent of the Ra’avad’s comments and asserts that according to the Tosefta, the majority opinion also accepts the distinction the Rambam makes here. This interpretation is borne out by the Rambam’s Commentary to that mishnah.

For high quality grain produces more flour and less bran than lower quality grain. Thus more of the lower quality grain is bran and more of the higher quality grain is flour.

The Ra’avad notes that the Jerusalem Talmud (Terumot 5:9) goes even further and says that the bran in the terumah, since it is considered waste and not food, can be considered as part of the ordinary produce. Hence, if there is 100 times the weight of the flour from the terumah when this bran is added to the ordinary produce, the terumah is nullified. The Radbaz and the Kessef Mishneh suggest that the Rambam does not mention this point, because he feels that the Babylonian Talmud - according to which halachah is decided - does not accept it. Nevertheless, it appears that the Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De’ah 99:1) follows the Ra’avad’s view, although the Rama states that as a stringency, the Rambam’s perspective should be followed.

A measure of liquid weight of the Talmudic period.

I.e., the dregs had been removed from the wine that is terumah, but had not been removed from the wine which was ordinary produce.

Counting the dregs of the ordinary produce as part of the mixture.

The Rambam is apparently saying that in this instance, the dregs of the terumah wine are counted and unless the ordinary wine is I 00 times the amount of that wine including its dregs, it is considered as miduma. See Chapter 11, Halachah 13, which states that the dregs are considered as terumah.
The Ra’avad differs and maintains that in this instance, like the one described in the previous halachah, the dregs of the terumah are not counted, because they are wastes. The Radbaz justifies the Rambam’s ruling, explaining that wine dregs are different than the wastes mentioned in the previous halachah, because they have the flavor of wine and can produce wine.

The Ra’avad explains the rationale for this ruling as follows: The water is not considered as the same type as wine. Hence, it cannot nullify it unless the flavor of the wine is no longer noticeable. The wine, by contrast, is considered its type and it requires 100 times the weight of the terumah. The Kessef Mishneh explains that this can be understood as the Rambam’s intent.

The Radbaz notes that in Hilchot Ma’achalot Assurot 15:25, the Rambam writes:
It is forbidden to nullify a substance forbidden by Scriptural Law as an initial and preferred measure. If, however, one nullified it, the mixture is permitted. Nevertheless, our Sages penalized such a person and forbade the entire mixture. It appears to me that since this is a penalty, we forbid this mixture only to the person who transgressed and nullified the prohibited substance. For others, however, the entire mixture is permitted
In the present instance, however, it appears that the produce is considered as miduma, not only for the person who mixed together, but for everyone. The Radbaz differentiates between the two situations, explaining that in Hilchot Ma’achalot Assurot, the Rambam is speaking about a forbidden substance. Hence, since it is considered forbidden, it would have no value entirely. In our halachah, even if the mixture is considered miduma, it can be sold to priests and thus, it will not be wasted entirely.

I.e., since the prohibition is of Rabbinic origin, one may nullify it as an initial preference, as stated in Hilchot Ma‘achalot Assurot 15:26.

The Radbaz explains that the mixture may be eaten by a priest even when he is ritually impure or by a non-priest.

And the wine that is terumah is nullified, because it is mixed with a majority of ordinary produce.

The Ra’avad differs, maintaining that once there is no longer a majority of ordinary produce, the mixture is forbidden. The Kessef Mishneh justifies the Rambam’s ruling, explaining that once the terumah is nullified, it does not become a factor again if other terumah is added.

The rationale is that the produce that grows from terumah is not terumah and is forbidden to non-priests only as a stringency (Chapter 11, Halachot 21-22). Hence, if there is any confusion about which produce is terumah, it is all permitted.

For then there is no. trace of the original plant.

In which instance, the new plant grows from a bulb of the original one and that original plant never decomposes entirely.

For the terumah is distinct and has not become mixed with the ordinary produce [the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah (Terumot 9:5)].

Without paying attention to the prohibition.

For as stated above, as an initial preference, a prohibited substance should not be nullified. It must, however, be emphasized, that the Rambam’s intent is not to let the produce remain in the ground forever. Instead, it should be harvested as produce which is miduma and sold to priests at the price of terumah.

Since we are unsure of the identity of the produce that fell into the mixture, we do not rule it forbidden because of the doubt. Instead, we say that the ordinary produce fell into it.
This halachah involves produce that is forbidden as terumah according to Rabbinic decree, e.g., terumah from the Diaspora or a mixture of terumah and a majority of ordinary produce. These principles are also applied in other contexts, see Chapter 10, Halachah 14, and Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De’ah 111:1).

Even if the original was terumah

Because of the doubt applying to its status.

The same principle applies here. Since we are unsure if the identity of the produce which fell into the mixture, we do not rule that it is forbidden because of the doubt.

Since each person asks concerning the status of the produce that he sowed individually, both are permitted, because in each instance, there is a doubt.

I.e., if the larger container contained one se’ah and the smaller container contained half a se’ah, we require the mixture to contain 50 ½ se’ah to be permitted, not 101 se’ah.

And thus the same person is asking about both plantings of produce. Hence, there is more room for stringency.

Since no trace of the original produce remains, we rule leniently.

Since the produce concerning which a doubt arose originally continues to exist, stringency is called for.

For then it is considered as if he sowed them both together.

But rather they are of the same weight. Were there to be a majority of ordinary produce, according to Scriptural Law, the existence of the terumah would already be nullified and thus there would be greater room for leniency. Nevertheless, as the Rambam continues to explain, even when there is not a majority, since the entire question is one of Rabbinic Law, we allow leniency. If, however, there is a majority of terumah, even when it is forbidden only according to Rabbinic Law, the mixture is forbidden.

See Chapter 1, Halachah 26.

In such an instance, the existence of the terumah would already be nullified and thus there would be greater room for leniency, since then the question is one of Rabbinic Law. The above leniency applies only with regard to such questions and not to questions involving Scriptural Law.

From which terumah and the tithes have not been separated.·

Though in and of itself, the amount of terumah which fell into the grainheap would not disqualify it, when it is combined with the terumah that was designated it does.
The Ra’avad appears to have had a different version of the Jerusalem Talmud, Terumot 3:3, the Rambam’s source. Hence he differs with the Rambam’s ruling ..

This law applies even if no terumah has fallen into the grainheap.

Because there is less than one hundred times the weight of the terumah in that comer.

The one which contains the terumah is certainly miduma. Since we do not know which one that is, they are both considered as miduma.

Hence he must observe the restrictions of terumah with regard to both of them.

Hence terumah must be separated in a conditional manner. One must bring other produce and say: "If terumah has not been separated for this grainheap, than this is terumah for it. But if it is the other grainheap from which terumah has not been separated, it is terumah for that."

The same laws also apply if there are 30 light figs and 70 dark ones, or any other combination of numbers (Radbaz).

Because the fig that was terumah was not dark.

Because there are not enough to nullify its presence. We do not count the dark figs together with the light figs, because there is no possibility to confuse one with the other.

Although the fig that was mixed in has a specific color, both types of figs can be counted together to nullify it, for it is possible to press all the figs into a single cake of figs (Rav Ovadiah of Bartenura, Terumot 4:7). Alternatively, since we do not know which type of fig fell in, the fact that it was of a specific color is not significant to us (Yayin Malchut).

The rationale is that since at the outset he knew the color of the fig and there are neither enough dark figs or light figs to nullify it, the fig is considered as forbidden. And once it is forbidden, his forgetting its color does not cause it to become permitted again (Radbaz).

If, however, we know that a large cake fell in, but we are uncertain about its size, we cannot merely count 101 cakes both large and small to nullify it (Rabbi Akiva Eiger).

I.e., since there were 101 cakes, 101 times the number of cakes that fell in, the cake that was terumah could be nullified. We assume that it was small and hence, to fulfill the obligation to remove a cake, we remove a small one.

The remainder are permitted, because it is possible that there was 101 times the weight of the terumah in the mixture. It is sufficient to remove a small one. The rationale is that since the terumah has been nullified, the removal of the cake is required only as a financial matter: to give the priest his due. Hence, to receive a larger cake, the priest must prove that a larger cake did indeed fall in.

I.e., there is one container of flour and one container of finely sifted flour. Terumah fell into one of the containers, but we do not know which one. We do not say that the two containers of flour should be considered like the two groups of figs and considered as a single entity. Instead, we judge them individually. The rationale is that once the terumah becomes mixed with the flour or the finely sifted flour, it is part of one mixture and not the other. Hence it is not appropriate to combine them (Radbaz).

And in this instance, that is not true, for it is positioned at the top of the storage container.

And in this instance, we do.

In his Commentary to the Mishnah (Terumot 12:4), the Rambam writes that containers are frequently moved and in the process of their being moved, the two containers could be combined. Hence, we view them as if they were combined at present. This ruling is also quoted in other contexts; see Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De ‘ah 111 :7).

I.e., as stated in Chapter 13, Halachah 1, one se’ah must be removed from the mixture and given to the priest. How should that be done in the present instance? For the terumah fell into only one of the containers and we do not know which one.

Although only the figs on the top of the opening are terumah, we require him to sell the entire jug, because of the impression that might be created (Shita Mekubetzet, Beitzah 4a).

Since we are talking about compressed figs, they will not mix with the contents of the jugs, but instead will be found on the top of a jug. Hence, when considering nullifying the figs, only the tops of the jugs are considered, but not the bottoms. Therefore we require 101 jugs, not 10 I times the weight of the initial amount of terumah.
The Radbaz explains that this situation differs from that described in Halachah I. In that situation, although the light figs and the dark figs could be distinguished from each other, they were all mixed together. Hence, it is possible to speak about one type being combined with the other to nullify the terumah. In the situation described by our Halachah, the tops and the bottoms will always remain discrete.

The term kaveret literally means “bee-hive.” Here we are talking about a storage compartment that is built like a bee-hive.

I.e., we require 101 of the containers and count only the figs at the openings of the containers.

I.e., without the terumah, 101 litra with the terumah.

I.e., we consider the entire mixture as a single entity unlike the previous instances where the bottoms of the containers were considered as separate from the tops. In the previous instances, he knew that he pressed the terumah onto the tops of the container. Therefore only the tops are considered. In the present instance, he does not know the portion of the cakes unto which he pressed the figs. That lack of knowledge works to his advantage, enabling us to count in the entire mixture.

In addition to considering the status of the entire mixture, we must consider the status of each cake individually. Each cake must have enough figs to nullify the presence of the terumah according to Scriptural Law.

I.e., as the Rambam explains in the following halachah, one must add enough figs so that there is 101 times the amount of terumah that fell in (Kessef Mishneh).

As stated in Chapter 13, Halachah 1, it is necessary to have 101 times the amount of terumah.

It is, however, permitted to add such produce. We do not apply the principle that, as an initial preference, one should not nullify the presence of a forbidden substance, because here we are not certain that there is a forbidden substance present, for one fig has been lost.

Since one fig has been lost, 51 figs are sufficient. We do not require 101. Note the contrast to Chapter 15, Halachah 2.

So that the mitzvah of separating it has been fulfilled.

For such produce must be given to the priests as a present. The majority of the mixture, however, belongs to its owner. Even though it is being given to the priest, because the owner may not make use of it, the priest must reimburse the owner for its value. Nevertheless, as mentioned previously, the value of produce that is terumah is less than that of ordinary produce. The Radbaz mentions another possible solution to this difficulty: If the Levite has a large amount of produce from which terumat ma’aser has not been separated, he may make this entire mixture terumat ma’aser for that produce and in this way, not suffer any financial loss.

At which point they are considered as ordinary produce and the laws mentioned in Chapter 13, Halachah 2, apply.

Because there are less than 100 se’ah to nullify the se’ah of terumah.

One would think that it should be used as fuel and thus the person will derive some benefit from it. The Radbaz explains that this is not allowed for the following reason. Since there is not enough other produce to nullify the terumah, the entire mixture is considered as terumah. Nevertheless, since it is not impure, it should not be burnt, because it is forbidden to bum pure terumah. This stringency is, however, only observed when there is no danger that the terumah will be eaten, as the Rambam proceeds to explain.

E.g., wheat or barley.

E.g., oil.

See Chapter 12, Halachah 12, which states that impure terumah should be placed in a repugnant container so that no one will accidentally partake of it.

In which instance, the impure grain does not cause the pure terumah to become impure, for produce does not become fit to contract impurity until comes in contact with one of seven liquids (Hilchot Tumat Ochalin 1:1-2). Since the kernels of the terumah are roasted without contact with water, they are never fit to contract impurity.

Fruit juice is not one of these seven liquids. Hence dough made with fruit juice is not susceptible to ritual impurity (Ibid. 3; 13:13).

It is not only that the priest will be suffering a loss because the terumah becomes impure. It is forbidden to cause terumah to become impure as stated above.

See ibid. 4:1,12. Making the mixture into small loaves is the Rambam’s interpretation of the term nikudim in the Mishnah (Terumot 5:1).

I.e., he should use the grain in a manner that will prevent it from contracting ritual impurity, as described in the previous halachah.

I.e., and hence it is permitted to be eaten.

There is no need for any safeguards.

As explained in Halachah 11.

And the contents of that container were considered as miduma.

I.e., they are both miduma. The rationale is that the problematic status of the two containers was established before the second one fell in and the fact that we know into which one it fell cannot resolve the existing problem.
Rav Yosef Korcus maintains that this is the interpretation of the Rambam’s ruling. Nevertheless, he and the Radbaz both maintain that this law applies even if the first container contains 100 se’ah and the first se’ah is nullified. Since one se’ah has to be removed from it, it can also be considered as problematic.

The Kessef Mishneh explains that this law applies whether the grain in the containers was terumah or ordinary produce.

I.e., we follow the same principle mentioned in the first clause of the previous halachah, because the impure grain is also considered as “problematic.”

The Kessef Mishneh suggests that the text should read “impure terumah.’’

The Kessef Mishneh suggests that the text should read “pure ordinary produce.’’ His rationale for these emendations is that if the ordinary produce is impure, it is not proper to say that it should be “eaten in a state of ritual purity.” With these emendations, he resolves the objections of the Ra’avad. As will be explained, the Radbaz offers an interpretation that preserves the standard version of the text.

But we do not know which.

This represents the converse of the principle mention.ed in Halachah 15. Just as there, we associate the problematic issue with the existing problem, here we associate the produce that is of a positive nature (terumah) with the existing terumah (Radbaz).

I.e., according to one of the three suggestions given in Halachah 12. The intent is that we are not certain that the terumah did indeed fall into the container containing terumah. Were it to have fallen into the other container, it would be forbidden to prepare a dough from it in the ordinary manner, because that would cause the teru.mah to contract ritual impurity which is forbidden.

Our text is taken from the Shabsei Frankel printing of the Mishneh Torah which is based on authentic manuscripts and early printing. The standard printed text is both redundant and problematic.

For we assume that the terumah fell into terumah.

To prevent it from contracting ritual impurity as mentioned above.

Here also the Kessef Mishneh suggests inverting the words pure and impure in the text. Otherwise, this ruling would be a contradiction to Halachah 17.

And thus the entire mixture is considered as impure terumah.

So that the terumah will not be subject to contracting ritual impurity (Kessef Mishneh).

I.e., the leniencies of assuming that the problematic se’ah fell into the produce that was already problematic or that terumah fell into terumah are not granted, because, as the Rambam continues to explain, here a Scriptural prohibition is involved

See Chapter 7, Halachah 3. The impure terumah does not become nullified because it was mixed with a larger quantity of other produce.

For according to Scriptural Law, as long as there is a majority of non-terumah produce, the terumah is nullified.

See Chapter 15:1-3, 13, 15.

This follows the principle devar shebiminyan lo batal: “The presence of an object that is sold by number is never considered insignificant.” Since these objects are sold by number, each one is considered important and it is not appropriate to say that one is insignificant (Hilchot Ma’achalot Assurot 16:1-3).

For once the barrels are opened, they are no longer considered as important. It is, however, forbidden to open the barrels, for this would be considered as purposefully nullifying a forbidden substance and that is prohibited (Radbaz).

And give it to a priest. The Jerusalem Talmud (Terumot 4:7) records a difference of opinion concerning this matter between Reish Lakish and Rabbi Y ochanan. Reish Lakish’s opinion is the one cited by the Rambam. Rabbi Yochanan, however, differs and maintains that the same law applies even with regard to figs. The Rambam rules according to Reish Lakish’s opinion, for the Babylonian Talmud (Zevachim 74b) mentions his view only and not that of Rabbi Y ochanan. See also Hilchot Avodat Kochavim 7:10 where the Rambam issues a similar ruling.
The Ra’avad does not accept this ruling. He maintains that the Babylonian Talmud mentions Reish Lakish’s opinion only in connection with the discussion of another
minority view. Hence, it is not necessary to mention Rabbi Yochanan’s view.

Inadvertently. It is forbidden to open such a barrel intentionally.

More precisely, 1/101. I.e., the percent of the mixture that is terumah. This is given to a priest.

It is true that this ruling is somewhat problematic. For if the barrel is in fact terumah, the entire barrel, not only the hundredth portion, must be given to the priest. And if it is not terumah, it is permitted to drink it in its entirety. Nothing need be given to the priest.
The Ma’aseh Roke’ach explains the reason for the stringency. Were this safeguard not taken, one might permit the barrels even when they were all opened.

Although when considering those barrels, it is necessary to give a barrel to a priest because of the suspicion that one is terumah, we are still stringent regarding those remaining.

Chapter 16, Halachah 1.

Based on Hilchot Ma’achalot Assurot 16:26, the Radbaz states that this same law applies if terumah is used to cause cheese to harden.

I.e., the standard ratio of 1/101 is not effective to nullify the terumah. In his Commentary to the Mishnah (Orlah 2:4; Terumot 10:2), the Rambam explains that since the effects of the terumah are evident in the food it rises or it is spiced because of it we cannot say that the terumah is nullified.

We are speaking about a situation where the egg is cooked whole. Thus despite the fact that the yolk is on the inside and covered by the whites, a spice intended for it can cause it to be forbidden, because it absorbs (Radbaz, Kessef Mishneh ).

Since the yeast was removed, we do not say that it caused the dough to rise. Instead, we assume that the dough rose on its own accord (Radbaz).

Chapter 13, Halachah 2; Hilchot Ma’achalot Assurot 15:1,6.

How do we know whether the flavor of the terumah was imparted to the mixture? We give it to a priest to taste (ibid. 15:29).

In his Commentary to the Mishnah (Terumot 10:1), the Rambam explains that this applies whether the onion is terumah and the lentils ordinary produce or the reverse. In both instances, since the lentils are already cooked and the onion is whole, there is little likelihood that one will absorb the flavor from the other.

Here also the same principle applies whether it is the onion or the lentils which are terumah. Since the onion is diced, it will both impart and absorb flavor easier.

Since the onion is cooked, even if it is whole, it can both impart and absorb flavor easier.

I.e., in addition to the lentils.

As the Rambam proceeds to explain, lentils are considered as being unique. Once they are cooked, they do not absorb flavor from other foods easily. Other foods are more absorbent. Even after they have been cooked, they may absorb the flavor of the onion.

The Kessef Mishneh suggests that the text should read rabbim, "many," instead of rachim, "soft;" i.e., one onion that is whole will not impart that much flavor, but several onions will.

Once the tip or the outer shell is removed, its flavor will be imparted easier even though it is still whole.

In certain contexts (see Hilchot Ma’achalot Assurot 15:34), pickling is considered as cooking. Nevertheless, in this instance, the Rambam rules leniently.

Because their sharp and pungent taste nature causes their flavor to be imparted to any vegetables pickled with them [the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah (Terumot 10: 10)].

For the onion will not absorb the flavor of the other produce.

When olives are crushed, they will absorb easier [the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah (Terumot 10:7)].

For the brine imparts its flavor to the objects pickled within it.

For it has absorbed the flavor of the terumah.

Anise is used as flavoring. Once it has flavored other foods, it is discarded. Hence, until it has flavored other foods, it is significant and the laws of terumah apply. Afterwards, it is considered as a waste product (Radbaz).

Even though the bread may absorb the fragrance of the wine, it does not absorb its substance and the fragrance alone is of no consequence. This is a general principle that applies with regard to all prohibited foods; see Hilchot Ma’achalot Assurot 15:33.

It is considered as if the actual substance of the wine has been imparted to the bread.

In Hilchot Ma’achalot Assurot 16:22, the Rambam writes that when an oven is heated with shells of produce that is orlah or mixed species in a vineyard, whatever is cooked in the oven is forbidden. The commentaries note, however, that there is a fundamental distinction between the two instances. It is forbidden to benefit from not only to eat - the prohibited substances mentioned in Hilchot Ma’achalot Assurot. It is, by contrast, permitted to benefit from terumah.

This concept also applies with regard to all the Torah’s prohibitions; see Hilchot Ma’achalot Assurot 15:28.

A pungent herb.

I.e., without the influence of the plant whose flavor is similar to that of the seeds. The rationale is that the plant is not considered as terumah [the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah (Terumot 10:5)]. See also Chapter 2, Halachah 4.

And the ordinary wine is less than 100 times the amount of terumah wine.

See Chapter 13, Halachah 9, which explains that the water is not combined with the ordinary wine to create a mixture 100 times the amount of the terumah.

The Radbaz notes that in Hilchot Ma’achalot Assurot 16:32, the Rambam writes a similar law with regard to wine associated with idol worship that fell on produce. There, however, he rules stringently, stating that the fruits are forbidden if the wine is poured upon them while they are broken open. The Radbaz explains that the Rambam did not mention the point here, because he relied on what he had stated earlier. Indeed, if the fruit was broken open and the wine improved its flavor, it should be sold.to a priest at the price of terumah.

Even though oil is more likely to cling to fruit than wine, it is sufficient to wash the fruit. Generally, oil does not improve the taste of fruit (Radbaz).

For in this way, the oil can be removed without it mixing with the wine. Similarly, oil impairs the flavor of wine (ibid.).

This stringency is necessary, because oil improves the flavor of brine (ibid.).

The Ra’avad questions the Rambam’s ruling, asking why this instance is different from the laws involving non-kosher food absorbed in a utensil. In that instance, it is not sufficient to wash out the utensil, one must perform hagalah, i.e., boiling water in the utensil to purge the absorbed matter. The Radbaz explains that the Rambam maintains that this concept applies with regard to sanctified foods and other prohibitions, but not with regard to terumah. The rationale is that if the priests consider the terumah insignificant as would be the case with regard to terumah absorbed in a pot it is no longer of consequence. He draws support for this explanation from the mishnah in Terumot 11 :8 ( quoted in Chapter 11, Halachah 15) which states that after one pours out the contents of a jug of wine of terumah, one can pour ordinary wine into the container even if there is a small amount of residue from the previous wine. This explanation is also given in one of the responsa ascribed to the Rambam in a response to a question concerning this subject by the sages of Lunil. The Kessel Mishneh also cites these ideas and states that the reason the Rambam requires that the pot be washed out is because the contents are being cooked. If they were not to be cooked, even washing would not be necessary.

This leniency applies only with regard to terumah and not to prohibited food absorbed in a utensil. The rationale is the same as in the previous note: Since the priests consider this terumah insignificant, we do not show concern about it (Radbaz).

The portion of dough that must be separated and given to a priest.

See Chapter 10, Halachah 4.

This verse refers to challah; or it is comparing challah to the great terumah. Perhaps a scribal error crept into the text and this was intended as support for the following clause. The Radbaz, however, gives an explanation why it was included here.

I.e., to cause a mixture to be forbidden to non-priests.

Produce from which we are unsure that the tithes have been separated.

For partaking of terumah is a mitzvah and we are required to recite a blessing before the observance of all mitzvot (Kessef Mishneh).

See Hilchot Bikkurim 1 :2.

Even though it is only a Rabbinic commandment.

We use the term “sacred food from the boundaries of our Hoy Land” for challah even when in this instance it comes from the Diaspora, because when our Sages ordained that challah should be separated in the Diaspora, they made their ordinance similar to the
original Scriptural commandment.

Pesachim 72b relates that one day Rabbi Tarfon did not come to the House of Study. Rabban Gamliel rebuked him for his absence. Rabbi Tarfon answered that he was carrying out priestly worship. Rabban Gamliel asked him how that was possible, for they lived in the era after the Temple’s -destruction. Rabbi Tarfon replied that partaking of terumah was equivalent to serving in the Temple.