Enter your email address to get our weekly email with fresh, exciting and thoughtful content that will enrich your inbox and your life.
Register »

Rambam - 3 Chapters a Day

Terumot - Chapter 10, Terumot - Chapter 11, Terumot - Chapter 12

Video & Audio Classes
Show content in:

Terumot - Chapter 10

1

When a non-priests partakes of terumah unknowingly, he must make restitution for the principal and add a fifth.1 Even if he knows that it is terumah and that he is warned against partaking of it, but he does not know whether or not he is liable for death,2 he is considered to have acted unknowingly and he must make restitution for the principal and add a fifth.

א

זר שאכל תרומה בשגגה משלם קרן וחומש אע"פ שיודע שהיא תרומה ושהוא מוזהר עליה אבל לא ידע אם חייב עליה מיתה אם לאו הרי זו שגגה ומשלם קרן וחומש:

2

A person who eats an article [that is terumah] that is ordinarily eaten, drinks something that is ordinarily drunk, or smears himself with something ordinarily used for that purpose [is liable],3 as [derived from Leviticus 22:15]: "And they shall not defile the sacraments of the children of Israel." This includes one who smears himself.4

Whether one partakes of terumah which is ritually pure or ritually impure unknowingly, one must make restitution for the principal and add a fifth.5 He is not liable for a fifth until he eats an olive-sized portion, as [indicated by ibid.:14]: "When one will eat a sacrament unknowingly"; eating implies consuming no less than an olive-sized portion. Just as one is liable for eating an olive-sized portion, so too, [one is liable for] drinking an olive-sized portion.6

ב

אחד האוכל דבר שדרכו לאכול ואחד השותה דבר שדרכו לשתות ואחד הסך דבר שדרכו לסוך שנאמר ולא חללו את קדשי בני ישראל לרבות את הסך ואחד האוכל תרומה טהורה או טמאה בשגגה משלם קרן וחומש ואינו חייב בחומש עד שיאכל כזית שנאמר כי יאכל קדש בשגגה ואין אכילה פחותה מכזית וכשם שאכילת תרומה בכזית כך שתייה בכזית:

3

[The following laws apply if a person] ate terumah and then ate again, drank and then drank again. If there is sufficient time to eat a half a loaf of bread7 from the time he began to eat until he concluded or sufficient time to drink a revi'it from the time he began to drink until he concluded,8 [all he consumes] is combined to comprise an olive-sized portion.

ג

אכל וחזר ואכל שתה וחזר ושתה אם יש מתחלת אכילה ראשונה עד סוף אכילה אחרונה כדי אכילת פרס ומתחלת שתייה ראשונה עד סוף שתייה אחרונה כדי שתיית רביעית הרי אלו מצטרפין לכזית:

4

Terumah, terumat ma'aser, whether the latter is from d'mai9 or from produce from which the tithes were definitely [not separated], challah,10 and the first fruits can all be combined together to comprise an olive-sized portion11 for which one is liable for death12 or [restitution, plus] a fifth,13 for they are all called terumah [at different times in the Torah].14

According to law, one should not be liable for a fifth for [the unknowing consumption of] terumat ma'aser that is d'mai, just as one is not liable for the second tithe [from d'mai], as will be explained.15 Nevertheless, our Sages said: If one is not liable for a fifth, people will treat it with disdain.

ד

התרומה ותרומת מעשר בין של דמאי בין של ודאי והחלה והבכורים כולן מצטרפין לכזית לחייב עליהן מיתה וחומש שכולן נקראו תרומה ומן הדין היה שאין חייבין חומש על תרומת מעשר של דמאי שאין חייבין על מעשר [שני] שלו כמו שיתבאר אבל אמרו חכמים אם לא יתחייב עליה חומש יזלזלו בה:

5

When a person partook terumah intentionally [after] receiving a warning, he is liable for lashes and is not required to make financial restitution.16 If he did not receive warning, [he is required to make financial restitution].17 If [the terumah] was ritually pure, he is required to make restitution for the principal, but is not required to add a fifth.18 If [the terumah] was ritually impure, he is required to pay only as if it were wood, because it is fit only to use as fuel.19 Accordingly, if one ate berries or pomegranates or the like that were terumah that became impure, he is not obligated to make restitution, because these are not fit to be used as fuel.20

ה

אכל תרומה במזיד [והתרו בו לקה ואינו משלם לא התרו בו] אם היתה טהורה משלם הקרן ואינו משלם את החומש ואם היתה טמאה משלם דמי עצים מפני שאינה ראויה אלא להסקה לפיכך אם אכל תרומת תותים ורמונים וכיוצא בהם שנטמאו פטור מן התשלומין שהרי אינם ראויין להסקה:

6

When a person eats terumah that is chametz on Pesach, whether willfully or unknowingly, whether it is ritually impure or pure, he is exempt from financial liability.21 Even if he separated terumah from matzah, but it became chametz [before he ate it], he is exempt. 22 He is not even required to pay as if it were wood, because it is not fit for use as fuel. [Instead,] since it is forbidden to benefit from it,23 it is of no value whatsoever.

ו

האוכל תרומת חמץ בפסח בין בזדון בין בשגגה בין טמאה בין טהורה פטור מן התשלומין אפילו הפרישה מצה והחמיצה פטור ואפילו דמי עצים אינו משלם שהרי אינה ראויה להסקה מפני שהיא אסורה בהנאה אין לה דמים:

7

If, however, one unknowingly ate terumah on Yom Kippur,24 ate terumah that was perforated,25 drank wine that was terumah that was left open,26 smeared himself with wine and oil [that were terumah] at the same time, or drank oil and vinegar [that were terumah] at the same time,27 chewed raw kernels of wheat,28 or swallowed vinegar,29 he is liable to make restitution for the principal and add a fifth.

ז

אבל השוגג שאכל תרומה ביום הכפורים או שאכל תרומה נקורה והשותה יין תרומה שנתגלה והסך יין ושמן כאחד או ששתה שמן וחומץ כאחד או שכסס את החטים או גמע את החומץ ה"ז משלם קרן וחומש:

8

When a person is satisfied and is disgusted by his food, but continues eating terumah despite the fact that he is satisfied, he is not required to add a fifth [when making restitution, for the prooftext cited above] states: "When one will eat...." [Implied is that he is when he eats in an ordinary manner] and not when he harms himself.30 Similarly, when one chews raw kernels of barley, he is not liable, because he harms himself.

ח

היה שבע וקץ במזונו והוסיף על שבעו באכילת תרומה אינו משלם את החומש שנאמר כי יאכל לא שיזיק את עצמו וכן הכוסס את השעורים פטור מן החומש מפני שהזיק עצמו:

9

When a non-priest swallowed prunes of terumah [whole31 unknowingly] and then regurgitated them, and another person came and also ate them unknowingly, the first person is required to make restitution for the principal and add a fifth32 and the second person is obligated to pay the first one as if the figs were wood.33

ט

זר שבלע שזפין של תרומה והקיאן ובא אחר ואכלן גם הוא בשגגה הראשון משלם קרן וחומש והשני משלם דמי עצים לראשון:

10

When one feeds terumah to workers34 or to guests, they are required to make restitution for the principal and add a fifth, for they acted unknowingly.35 He must pay them for their meal,36 for ordinary produce is more valuable than the terumah,37 since a person's soul is repelled from forbidden food.38

י

המאכיל הפועלים ואת האורחים תרומה הם משלמין קרן וחומש מפני שהן כשוגגין והוא משלם להם דמי סעודתן שדמי החולין יתירין מדמי תרומה שאכלו שדבר האסור נפשו של אדם חותה ממנו:

11

When [a non-priest] feeds terumah to his children who were below majority39 or to his servants whether they are above or below majority,40 he must pay the principal, but not the additional fifth.41 [This ruling also applies to] one who partakes of terumah from the Diaspora,42 one who eats or drinks less than an olive-sized portion,43 a nazarite who unknowingly drank wine that was terumah,44 one drinks oil [without it being mixed with other liquids] and one who smears himself with wine.45

יא

המאכיל את בניו הקטנים ואת עבדיו בין גדולים בין קטנים והאוכל תרומת ח"ל והאוכל או השותה פחות מכזית ונזיר ששגג ושתה יין של תרומה והשותה שמן והסך את היין כל אלו משלמים את הקרן ולא את החומש:

12

When the daughter of a priest who was married to an Israelite or disqualified [from partaking of terumah for other reasons] partook of terumah, she must make restitution for the principal, but she is not required to add a fifth.46

When a woman47 was partaking of terumah and she was told: "Your husband died," or "...divorced you," she is required to pay only the principal.48 If the terumah was chametz on the day preceding Pesach, she is exempt from making restitution. [The rationale is that then] the time is pressing and she hurried to eat without investigating.49

[These same laws apply] when a servant was partaking [of terumah] and he was told: "Your master died and left an heir who does not entitle you to eat,"50 "...sold you to an Israelite," "...gave you to him as a present," or "...freed you," and when a priest was partaking [of terumah] and he discovered that he is the son of a divorcee or a woman who underwent chalitzah.51 In all of these instances, if these individuals had terumah in their mouths when they discovered that they were forbidden to partake of it, they should spit it out.52

יב

בת כהן שהיתה נשואה לישראל או שנפסלה ואח"כ אכלה תרומה משלמת את הקרן ולא את החומש האשה שהיתה אוכלת בתרומה ואמרו לה מת בעליך או גירשך וכן העבד שהיה אוכל ואמרו לו מת רבך והניח יורש שאינו מאכיל או שמכרך לישראל או נתנך לו או שחררך וכן כהן שהיה אוכל ונודע לו שהוא בן גרושה או בן חלוצה הרי אלו משלמין הקרן בלבד ואם היתה תרומת חמץ והיה ערב הפסח הרי אלו פטורין מלשלם מפני שזמנה בהול נחפזו לאכול ולא בדקו וכולן שהיתה להן תרומה בתוך פיהן כשידעו שהן אסורין לאכול הרי אלו יפלוטו:

13

[Similarly, when a priest] was partaking [of terumah] and he was told: "You became impure," "The terumah became impure,"53 "You were impure," or "the terumah was impure,"54 he should spit it out. [The same ruling applies] if he discovered that [the terumah] was tevel, the first tithe from which terumat ma'aser had not been separated,55 or ma'aser sheni56 or consecrated property that was not redeemed, or [when partaking of the terumah,] he tasted a bug.57

יג

היה אוכל ואמרו לו נטמאת או נטמאת התרומה טמא היית או טמאה היתה התרומה או נודע שהוא טבל או מעשר ראשון שלא ניטלה תרומתו או מעשר שני והקדש שלא נפדו או שטעם טעם פשפש לתוך פיו הרי אלו יפלוטו:

14

When there are two containers, one of terumah and one of ordinary produce, and terumah fell into one of them, but it is not known which one, we operate under the supposition that it fell into the one which [contained] terumah.58

If it is not known which one is terumah and a non-priest partakes of one of them, he is not liable for payment.59 [The rationale is that when a person seeks] to expropriate money from a colleague, the burden of proof is on him.60 He must treat the other one as if it were terumah. If another person partakes of the other one, however, he is also exempt.61 If, however, one person eats them both, he must make restitution for the smaller one.62 If he did so intentionally, he is required to make restitution for the principal. If he did so unknowingly, he is required to make restitution for the principal, plus a fifth.

יד

שתי קופות אחת של תרומה ואחת של חולין ונפלה תרומה לתוך אחת מהן ואין ידוע לאי זו נפלה הריני אומר לתוך של תרומה נפלה אין ידוע אי זו היא של תרומה אכל זר אחת מהן ה"ז פטור מן התשלומין שהמוציא מחברו עליו הראיה והשנייה נוהג בה כתרומה אכל אחר את השנייה אף הוא פטור אכל אחד את שתיהן משלם כקטנה שבשתיהן אם מזיד קרן ואם שוגג קרן וחומש:

15

When a person eats the additional fifth unknowingly, he must [make restitution for it and] add another fifth.63 For the fifth is considered as the principal with regard to all matters.64 Similarly, he continues to add a fifth for every fifth forever.65

Whenever a person makes restitution for the principal and the additional fifth, [the grain] he gives is terumah with regard to all matters66 [with one exception]. If they were sown, the grain that grows is ordinary produce.67 If the priest wishes to forgo [the payment], he cannot.68 Whenever, [by contrast,] a person makes restitution only for the principal,69 [the grain] he gives is ordinary grain70 and if the priest desires to forgo payment, he may.

טו

האוכל את החומש בשגגה ה"ז מוסיף עליו חומשו שהחומש כקרן לכל דבר וכן מוסיף חומש על חומש לעולם כל המשלם קרן וחומש הרי התשלומין כתרומה לכל דבר אלא שאם נזרעו גידוליהן חולין ואם רצה הכהן למחול אינו מוחל וכל המשלם את הקרן בלבד הרי התשלומין חולין ואם רצה הכהן למחול מוחל:

16

[The following laws apply if] a daughter of an Israelite partakes of terumah and then marries a priest. If [she partook] of terumah that had not been acquired by a priest,71 she may make restitution of the principal and the additional fifth to herself.72 If she partook of terumah that a priest had acquired, she is required to make restitution of the principal to its owner,73 but she may keep the additional fifth as her own. For whenever a person makes restitution and pays an additional fifth, he may give the additional fifth to whichever priest he desires.

טז

בת ישראל שאכלה תרומה ואחר כך נישאת לכהן אם תרומה שלא זכה בה כהן אכלה משלמת קרן וחומש לעצמה ואם תרומה שזכה בה כהן אכלה משלמת קרן לבעלים וחומש לעצמה שכל המשלם קרן וחומש משלם הקרן לבעלים והחומש לכל כהן שירצה:

17

If she was not able to make restitution before she was divorced,74 she can no longer make restitution to herself and she is like a person who never married a priest at all.

יז

לא הספיקה לשלם עד שנתגרשה בין כך ובין כך אינה משלמת לעצמה והרי היא כמי שלא נשאת לכהן מעולם:

18

Whenever a person partakes of terumah whether unknowingly or intentionally, he may make restitution only from ordinary produce from which the terumot and the tithes have been separated. Restitution may be made from leket, shichichah, pe'ah,75 ownerless grain,76 and grain from the first tithe after terumat ma'aser was separated i.e., even if the great terumah from that crop had not been separated, for the person separated the tithes before the terumah.77

One may make restitution from the second tithes and consecrated property that were redeemed, even though they were not redeemed in an appropriate manner.78 And one may make restitution using new grain79 for old grain. One may not, however, make restitution from one type [of grain] for another type [of grain]. [This is derived from Leviticus 22:14:] "And he shall give the priest the sanctified [food]." [Implied is that it must be the same] as the sanctified food he ate.

יח

כל האוכל תרומה בין בשוגג בין במזיד אינו משלם אלא מן החולין המתוקנים שהוציאו מהן תרומות ומעשרות ומשלמין מן הלקט ומן השכחה ומן הפאה ומן ההפקר וממעשר ראשון שניטלה תרומתו אף על פי שעדיין לא ניטלה תרומה גדולה שיש בו אם הקדים המעשר לתרומה ומשלמין ממעשר שני והקדש שנפדו ואעפ"י שנפדו שלא כהלכה ומן החדש על הישן אבל לא ממין על שאינו מינו שנאמר ונתן לכהן את הקדש כקדש שאכל:

19

When a person eats zucchini from the sixth year,80 he should wait until [he acquires] the zucchini of the eighth year to make restitution from them. For he cannot pay his debt from the crops of the seventh year, as will be explained in that place.81

יט

האוכל קישואין של ערב שביעית ימתין לקישואין של מוצאי שביעית וישלם מהן שאינו יכול לשלם חובו מפירות שביעית כמו שיתבאר במקומו:

20

When a person ate terumah that was ritually impure, he makes restitution from ordinary produce, whether pure or impure.82 If he partook of terumah that was ritually pure, he should make restitution with ordinary grain that is pure.83 If he made restitution from ordinary grain that was impure whether intentionally or unknowingly, the restitution he made is accepted, but he must make restitution again from ritually pure grain.

כ

אכל תרומה טמאה משלם חולין בין טמאין בין טהורין אכל תרומה טהורה משלם חולין טהורין ואם שילם חולין טמאין בין בשוגג בין במזיד תשלומיו תשלומין ויחזור וישלם מן הטהורין:

21

When a person partook of terumah belonging to a chaver,84 he should make restitution to him. If he partook of terumah belonging to a common person,85 he should make restitution to a chaver,86 and take its worth from him and give it to the common person whose terumah he ate.87 For we do not give articles that require ritually purity to a common person.

כא

אכל תרומת חבר משלם לו אכל תרומת עם הארץ משלם לחבר ונוטל דמיה ממנו ונותן לעם הארץ שאכל תרומתו שאין מוסרין טהרות לע"ה:

22

When [an Israelite] stole terumah from his maternal grandfather who was a priest and consumed it [unknowingly], and afterwards, his maternal grandfather died, he may not make restitution to himself,88 but rather to another heir89 from [the priestly] tribe. Similarly, if he inherited terumah from his maternal grandfather and partook of it, a creditor collected terumah [as payment] for a debt and he partook of it or a woman [received it as part of the money due her by virtue of] her ketubah and she partook of it, they must make restitution for the principal and the additional fifth90 to a priest who is a chaver and that chaver gives them the monetary equivalent of the terumah at the time they partook of it.91

כב

גזל תרומה מאבי אמו כהן ואכלה ואח"כ מת אבי אמו אינו משלם לעצמו אלא ליורש אחר משאר השבט וכן אם נפלה לו תרומה מאבי אמו ואכלה ובעל חוב שגבה תרומה בחובו והאשה בכתובתה ואכלוה משלמין קרן וחומש לכהן חבר והחבר נותן להם דמים שהיו מוכרין בה אותה התרומה כמו שאכלו:

23

When a person steals terumah but does consume it, he should pay twice its worth92 to the owners.93 He may make this payment according to the worth of terumah.94 If he stole it and ate it, he must pay twice the principal and a fifth of the principal: i.e., the principal and an additional fifth from ordinary grain,95 and the principal according to the worth of terumah.96

כג

הגונב תרומה ולא אכלה משלם תשלומי כפל לבעלים ויש לו לשלם מדמי תרומה גנבה ואכלה משלם שני קרנין וחומש קרן וחומש מן החולין וקרן אפילו מדמי תרומה:

24

When a person steals terumah that is consecrated to the Temple treasury97 and eats it, he is not required to pay a double amount, for a double amount is not paid to the Temple treasury, as explained in the appropriate place.98 He must, however, make restitution for the principal and add two fifths, one fifth [to atone] for partaking of terumah and one fifth [to atone] for benefiting from consecrated property.99

To whom does he make restitution? If [the terumah] was the size of an olive100 and it was not worth a p'rutah,101 he should make restitution to the priests. If it is worth a p'rutah - whether or not it is the size of an olive - he should pay the Temple treasury.

כד

היתה התרומה הקדש לבדק הבית וגנבה ואכלה אינו משלם תשלומי כפל שאין תשלומי כפל בהקדש כמו שיתבאר במקומו אבל משלם קרן ושני חומשים חומש משום אוכל תרומה וחומש משום שנהנה מן ההקדש ולמי משלם אם היה בה כזית ואין בה שוה פרוטה משלם לכהנים ואם יש בה שוה פרוטה בין שיש בה כזית בין שאין בה כזית משלם להקדש:

25

Why does the prohibition against benefiting from consecrated property fall [on this grain when it is already forbidden because of] the prohibition against terumah?102 Because the terumah was forbidden to a non-priest and permitted to a priest. Once he consecrated it, it became forbidden to a priest. Therefore a prohibition was added to it even for an Israelite in the manner explained in the laws of forbidden relationships and forbidden foods.103

כה

ומפני מה חל איסור הקדש על איסור התרומה מפני שהתרומה אסורה לזר ומותרת לכהן הקדישה נאסרה על הכהן לפיכך נוסף בה איסור אף על ישראל על דרך שביארנו בהלכות ביאות אסורות ואיסורי מאכלות:

26

When a person obtains terumah by robbery,104 he must make restitution for the principal and add one fifth.105 [The rationale is that] the fifth that he is liable for [to atone for partaking of] terumah fulfills his obligation for robbery,106 as [implied by Leviticus 22:14:] "And you shall give the priest the sacred [food]." He is liable only for the fifth [associated with atonement for] the sacred [food]. If he obtains terumah through robbery and feeds it to another person, that person must make restitution for the principal and add a fifth.107

Whenever we have said that a person must make restitution for the principal and add a fifth, [the intent is that] if he ate grain worth four [zuz], he must pay five108 from the type of grain from which he partook. Whenever we mentioned [payment of] the principal and two fifths, [the intent is that] if he ate grain worth four [zuz], he must pay six. Whenever we mentioned [payment of] two principals and one fifth, [the intent is that] if he ate grain worth four [zuz], he must pay nine.

Whenever he makes restitution, he must pay for the worth of the grain at the time he partook of it whether its value depreciated at the time he made restitution or appreciated.109

כו

הגוזל תרומה ואכלה משלם קרן וחומש אחד שהחומש שחייב בו משום תרומה יצא בו ידי גזלו שנאמר ונתן לכהן את הקדש אינו חייב אלא בחומש של קדש בלבד גזלה והאכילה לאחר האוכל משלם קרן וחומש כ"מ שאמרנו משלם קרן וחומש אם אכל שוה ד' משלם שוה חמשה ממין שאכל וכ"מ שאמרנו משלם קרן ושני חומשין אכל שוה ד' משלם ששה וכ"מ שאמרנו משלם שני קרנין וחומש אחד אכל שוה ד' משלם דמי תשעה ולעולם אינו משלם אלא לפי דמים שהיתה שוה בשעת אכילה בין שהוזלה בשעת תשלומין בין שהוקרה:

Footnotes
1.

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. Moreover, he may not use grain that is terumah to make restitution, he must use ordinary grain (which is more expensive). This fifth becomes considered as terumah itself and must be eaten in a state of ritual purity. See also Halachah 15.

2.

At the hand of heaven.

3.

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.

4.

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

5.

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.

6.

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.

7.

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. See also Hilchot Ma'achalot Assurot 14:9 and notes.

8.

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 Yom 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.

9.

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.

10.

The portion of dough separated and given to the priests.

11.

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

12.

If the transgression was intentional.

13.

If the transgression was performed unknowingly.

14.

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

15.

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.

16.

A person never receives both corporal punishment and a financial penalty. Hence, he is liable only for lashes. See the notes to Chapter 6, Halachah 6, which explain why here he is punished by lashes and not required to make restitution.

17.

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

18.

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.

19.

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

20.

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

21.

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 be accepted in a definitive manner. The Radbaz and the Kessef Mishneh provide interpretations of that passage that justify the Rambam's ruling.

22.

Pesachim, loc. 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.

23.

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

24.

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.

25.

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 Rotzeach UShemirat Nefesh 12:1).

26.

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

27.

Halachah 11 states that 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.

28.

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.

29.

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

30.

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

31.

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).

32.

For swallowing the fruit whole is also considered eating.

33.

After the person swallowed the figs, 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.

34.

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

35.

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

36.

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

37.

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).

38.

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.

39.

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

40.

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

41.

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.

42.

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

43.

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)].

44.

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 Avraham 202:11). This explanation resolves an objection lodged by the Ra'avad who cites a Tosefta that rules differently than the Rambam.

45.

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

46.

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

47.

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)].

48.

As in the previous clause.

49.

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 (ones).

50.

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

51.

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 terumah 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.)].

52.

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).

53.

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

54.

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

55.

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

56.

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

57.

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

58.

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.

59.

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, than the remaining one is and it must be given to the priest.

60.

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.

61.

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

62.

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.

63.

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

64.

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

65.

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)].

66.

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

67.

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

68.

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

69.

See Halachah 5 and Halachot 11-12.

70.

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

71.

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

72.

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.

73.

That priest.

74.

Or she was widowed and left childless (Radbaz).

75.

See Hilchot Matanot 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.

76.

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

77.

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 has 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.

78.

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.

79.

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

80.

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

81.

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.

82.

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

83.

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

84.

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

85.

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

86.

So that the laws of ritual purity are adhered to.

87.

So that he is reimbursed for his loss.

88.

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.

89.

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).

90.

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

91.

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.

92.

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

93.

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

94.

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.

95.

To atone for partaking of terumah.

96.

To atone for the theft.

97.

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.

98.

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).

99.

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

100.

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

101.

For the liability of misusing consecrated property depends on it being worth a p'rutah,

102.

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).

103.

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.).

104.

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).

105.

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.

106.

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.

107.

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

108.

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

109.

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.

Terumot - Chapter 11

1

Terumah may be used for eating, drinking, and smearing upon oneself, for smearing upon oneself is equivalent to drinking, as [indicated by Psalms 109:18]: "It has entered his innards like water and like oil into his bones." And drinking is like eating.1

[One should] eat a substance fit to be eaten, drink a substance fit to be drunk, and smear a substance fit to be smeared. One should not smear wine and vinegar.2 One may, however, smear oneself with pure oil3 and may kindle impure oil. It is referred to as oil [fit for] burning universally.

א

התרומה ניתנת לאכילה ולשתייה ולסיכה שהסיכה היא כשתייה שנאמר ותבא כמים בקרבו וכשמן בעצמותיו והשתייה בכלל אכילה לאכול דבר שדרכו לאכול ולשתות דבר שדרכו לשתות ולסוך דבר שדרכו לסוך לא יסוך יין וחומץ אבל סך הוא את השמן הטהור ומדליק את הטמא וזהו הנקרא שמן שריפה בכל מקום:

2

It is permitted to compress dates that are terumah and collect them as a cake of dried dates.4 It is, however, forbidden to make them into beer.5 [For the same reason,] we do not make dates into honey, nor apples, wine, nor fall produce into vinegar.6 Similarly, with regard to other produce, we do not change them from their natural state if they are terumah; the only exceptions are olives and grapes.7

If one transgressed and made food into a beverage, one should drink it.8 When a non-priest partakes of date-honey, apple-wine, or the like that is terumah inadvertently, he is not liable to make restitution.9 If he partook [of such products] intentionally, he should be given stripes for rebellious conduct.10

ב

תמרים של תרומה מותר לחבצן ולקבצן כעיגול הדבילה ואסור לעשות מהם שכר וכן אין עושין תמרים דבש ולא תפוחים יין ולא פירות הסתיו חומץ וכן שאר כל הפירות אין משנין אותן מברייתן בתרומה חוץ מזיתים וענבים בלבד עבר ועשה האוכל משקה הרי זה שותהו וזר שאכל דבש תמרים ויין תפוחים וכיוצא בהן בשגגה אינו חייב לשלם ואם אכל במזיד מכין אותו מכת מרדות:

3

We may not place dried dates and dried figs [that are terumah] into brine.11 One may, however, place wine in brine.12 We do not place fragrant herbs in oil, because doing so removes it from the category of food and makes it oil for smearing. One may mix wine, honey, pepper, and the like, in order to partake of them.13

ג

אין נותנין דבילה וגרוגרות לתוך המורייס מפני שהוא מאבדן אבל נותנין את היין לתוך המורייס ואין מפטמין את השמן מפני שהוא מוציאו מכלל מאכלות ועושהו שמן משחה אבל מערבין יין ודבש ופלפלין וכיוצא באלו לאכלן:

4

We do not boil wine that is terumah, because this reduces its quantity.14 We do not pickle onions that are terumah in vinegar that is terumah, because this spoils the vinegar.

We do not mix grain with legumes.15 All substances that become distinct from each other when they are sorted through a sieve may be mixed together. When the land of Judah was laid waste,16 [the people] began mixing one type of grain with another17 and one type of legumes with another. They did not, however, [mix] grain with legumes.

ד

אין מבשלין יין של תרומה מפני שהוא ממעטו אין כובשין בצלים של תרומה בחומץ של תרומה מפני שמפסיד החומץ אין מערבין תבואה בקטניות וכל דבר שיתפרש זה מזה כשכוברין אותו מערבין ומשחרבה יהודה התחילו לערב תבואה בתבואה וקטנית בקטנית אבל לא תבואה בקטנית:

5

In the same way as ordinary flour is sifted, so too, a priest [sifts flour] that is terumah. He sifts [what is fit] to eat and discards the bran.18 If he desires to make fine flour, he should sift it many times until he produces a kab or two kabbim from a se'ah.19 He should not discard the remainder, because it is fit to be eaten.20 Instead, he should place it in a private place.21

ה

כדרך שמרקדין את הקמח בחולין כך נוהג הכהן בתרומה מרקד לאכול ומשליך את המורסן הרי שרצה לעשות סולת מנופה בנפיות הרבה עד שיוציא קב או קביים מן הסאה לא ישליך את השאר מפני שהוא ראוי לאכילה אלא יניחהו במקום מוצנע:

6

Oil that is terumah should not be used to seal an oven or a range,22 nor should it be smeared on a shoe or sandal.23 Nor should one smear it on his foot while [the foot] is in a shoe or sandal.24 He may, however, smear [oil that is terumah] on his foot and put on a shoe or smear his entire body and then roll on a new leather mat. Even though they will be smeared, he need not show concern.25 He should not, however, place oil on a marble tablet to roll upon because he causes it to be ruined.26

ו

שמן של תרומה אין חוסמין בו תנור וכירים ואין סכין בו מנעל וסנדל ולא יסוך רגלו והוא בתוך מנעל וסנדל אבל סך את רגלו ולובש המנעל או הסנדל וסך כל גופו ומתעגל ע"ג קטובלייא חדשה ואף על פי שהן ניסוכין אינו חושש אבל לא יתן שמן ע"ג טבלא של שיש להתעגל עליה מפני שמאבדו:

7

Whenever anyone partakes of terumah - even fruit27 - he must wash his hands [before doing so. This applies] even if his hands are pure, as will be explained in the appropriate place.28 It may not be eaten on a table at which a non-priest [is dining; this is] a decree lest he partake of it. Terumah from the Diaspora29 may be eaten on a table at which a non-priest [is dining] and, like ordinary food, does not require that one wash his hands before partaking of it.

We do not smear oil that is terumah with soiled30 hands.31 If, however, [such oil] fell on his flesh, he can rub it with soiled hands.32 One may apply oil that is terumah to an infant during the seven days after he was born [even though he is uncircumcised].33 For a newborn is not considered as uncircumcised for the first seven days [of his life].34

ז

כל האוכל תרומה אפילו פירות צריך נט"י אע"פ שהיו ידיו טהורות כמו שיתבאר במקומו ואינה נאכלת עם הזר על השלחן גזירה שמא יאכל ממנה ותרומת חוצה לארץ נאכלת עם הזר על השלחן ואינה צריכה נט"י כחולין ואין סכין תרומה בידים מסואבות נפל על בשרו משפשפו בידים מסואבות אבל סכין את הקטן בשמן תרומה בתוך שבעה שהנולד כל שבעה אינו חשוב ערל:

8

A priest may smear oil that is terumah on himself and then bring his daughter's son who is an Israelites and roll him on his back.35 If he smears oil [that is terumah] on his body and enters a bathhouse, a non-priest may massage him36 in the bathhouse even though [the oil] will be applied to him.

ח

סך הוא הכהן עצמו בשמן של תרומה ומביא בן בתו ישראל ומעגילו על גביו ואם סך עצמו בשמן ונכנס למרחץ מותר לזר למושחו במרחץ אף על פי שהוא נסוך ממנו:

9

When the daughter of a priest applied chilbah37 which is terumah to her hair, an Israelite woman is not permitted to apply [the remaining chilbah] to [her hair]. She may, however, rub her hair together with the hair [of the daughter of the priest].38

Why were priests given permission to apply chilbah which is terumah to their hair?39 Because it is not fit for human consumption [as food].40

ט

כהנת שחפפה ראשה בתלתן של תרומה אין הישראלית מותרת לחוף אחריה אבל מעגלת שערה בשערה ומפני מה הותרו הכהנים לחוף שערן בתלתן של תרומה מפני שאינו ראוי למאכל אדם:

10

The stems of figs, dried figs, wild figs, carobs, the insides of melons,41 the peels of melons, esrogim, and cucumbers even if they do not contain any food, and the extremities of the vegetables that are discarded by homeowners [when preparing vegetables],42 are forbidden to non-priests.43 The extremities of the vegetables that are cut off by gardeners, by contrast, are permitted to non-priests.44

The casings of beans and sesame seeds are forbidden if they contain food. If they do not contain food, they are permitted.

י

עוקצי תאנים וגרוגרות והכליסים והחרובין ומיעי אבטיח וקליפי אבטיח ואתרוג ומלפפון אע"פ שאין בהן אוכל וקניבת ירק שמשליכין בעלי בתים הרי אלו אסורים לזרים אבל קניבת ירק שמקנבים הגננין מותרת לזרים קליפי פולין ושומשמין אם יש בהן אוכל אסורין אין בהן אוכל מותרין:

11

The seeds of esrogim are permitted to be eaten.45 The seeds of olives, dates, and carobs, [by contrast,] even though they were not collected by a priest, are forbidden to a non-priest.46 With regard to other seeds, [the rule is]: If they were collected and have moisture, so that they can be sucked, they are forbidden to a non-priest. If they were discarded, they are permitted.47

יא

גרעיני אתרוג מותרים גרעיני זיתים ותמרים וחרובין אף על פי שלא כנסן הכהן הרי אלו אסורין לזרים ושאר הגרעינין בזמן שכנסן ויש בהן לחלוחית למצוץ אותן אסורין לזר ואם השליכן מותרות:

12

Bran from wheat: Fresh bran is forbidden, for it is fit to be eaten by humans. Aged bran is permitted.48 Until when is the bran considered fresh? For the entire time that people are accustomed to beat the grain at the granaries.

יב

הסובין של חטים חדשות אסורין מפני שהוא ראוי למאכל אדם ושל ישנות מותר ועד מתי נקראו חדשות כל זמן שבני אדם רגילין לחבוט בין הגרנות:

13

Lower quality and slight rotten kernels of grain that are terumah are forbidden.49 If they already produce dust,50 they are permitted. When one pours water over dregs [of grapes] that are terumah, the first and second batches are forbidden to non-priests, but the third is permitted.51 If one does not pour water over them, but instead, strains off the wine from the seeds, even the third straining is forbidden to non-priests.

יג

הנצולות והרקבניות של תרומה אסורות ואם העלו אבק מותרות שמרים של תרומה שנתן עליהם מים הראשון והשני אסור לזרים והשלישי מותר ואם לא נתן עליהם מים אלא מסנן היין מעל השמרים בלבד אף השלישי אסור לזרים:

14

When one has cleared the kernels of wheat that are terumah from a grainheap, we do not require the owner to sit and collect the [leftover] kernels one by one and [only after collecting them] bring ordinary grain there. Instead, he may sweep the area in the ordinary manner, and then bring ordinary grain there.52 Similarly, when a jug of oil that is terumah spills, we don't require [the owner] to sponge it up until [the earth] is dry.53 Instead, he may conduct himself as he does with ordinary [oil].54

יד

מגירה שפינה ממנה חיטי תרומה אין מחייבין אותו להיות יושב ומלקט אחת אחת ואח"כ יתן לתוכה חולין אלא מכבד כדרכו ונותן לתוכה חולין וכן חבית של שמן תרומה שנשפכה אין מחייבין אותו להיות יושב ומטפח אלא נוהג בה כדרך שנוהג בחולין:

15

When a person pours out oil that is terumah from a jug, he should continue pour until the stream [of oil] ceases and the oil begins to drip, little by little. Once three drops have dropped one after the other, it is sufficient. It is permitted to place ordinary oil in that jug.55 If, however, he did not place ordinary oil and leaned the jug on its side until the remnants [of the oil] collected together, those remnants are terumah.56

טו

המערה כד של שמן תרומה ה"ז מערה עד שיפסוק העמוד ויתחיל השמן לנטוף מעט מעט וכיון שנטפו ג' טיפים זו אחר זו דיו ומותר ליתן בכד שמן חולין הרי שלא נתן אלא הניח הכד עד שנתמצית אותה התמצית תרומה:

16

A priest may fill a lamp with oil fit to be burnt57 and give it to an Israelite to ascend to a loft and enter a room to perform tasks on behalf of a priest,58 but not for the sake of an Israelite. If they were partners, it is permitted.

טז

ממלא הכהן נר שמן שריפה ונותנו לישראל לעלות בו לעלייה ולהכנס לחדר לעשות צרכי הכהן אבל לא צרכי ישראל ואם היה שותף עמו מותר:

17

When an Israelite was a guest at a priest's [home]59 and the priest kindled oil fit to be burnt for him and then departed, he is not required to extinguish [the lamp] until it burns out on its own.60 An Israelite may dip a wick in the lamp of a priest61 and kindle it so that he may proceed [using] it.62

יז

ישראל שהיה אורח אצל כהן והדליק לו שמן שריפה ועמד הכהן והלך לו אינו חייב לכבותו עד שיכבה מאיליו וטובל הישראל פתילה בנר הכהן ומדליק לילך בה:

18

When livestock belonging to a priest was standing next to livestock belonging to an Israelite or when garments belonging to a priest were being woven next to garments belonging to an Israelite, oil that is fit for burning may be kindled because of them without the permission of the priest.63

Similarly, we can light oil that is fit to be burnt in synagogues, houses of study, and dark alleyways without the permission of a priest.64 And a person who does not have ordinary oil to kindle a Chanukah lamp may kindle oil that is fit to be burnt without permission of a priest.65 We may kindle oil that is fit to be burnt above the sick with the permission of a priest.66

יח

בקרו של כהן שהיה עומד אצל בקרו של ישראל וכליו של כהן שהיה נארג אצל כליו של ישראל ה"ז מדליק עליהן שמן שריפה שלא ברשות הכהן וכן מדליקין שמן שריפה בבתי כנסיות ובבתי מדרשות ובמבואות האפלים שלא ברשות כהן ומי שאין לו חולין להדליק נר חנוכה מדליק שמן שריפה שלא ברשות הכהן מדליקין שמן שריפה על גבי החולין ברשות כהן:

19

When a daughter of an Israelite who is married to a priest frequently visits her father, he may light [such oil] with her permission.67 It is permitted for a priest to kindle oil fit to be burnt in a house of mourning or at a wedding celebration68 even though a multitude of people are present. We do not suspect that the people will partake of it. At a wedding celebration, [this will not take place] because they will not touch it because of their garments are clean,69 and in a house of mourning, the people will not feel free to do so because of their mourning.70

יט

בת ישראל שנשאת לכהן והיא למודה אצל אביה מדליק ברשותה מותר לכהן להדליק שמן שריפה אפילו בבית האבל או בבית המשתה שיש שם ערבוב ואין חוששין שמא יסופקו ממנה בבית המשתה שמפני נקיון כליהם אין נוגעין בו ובבית האבל מפני שאין להם פנאי מפני האבל:

20

When a person sows terumah unknowingly, he should turn it over.71 If he did so intentionally, he must maintain [the crop].72 Once it reaches a third of its growth, whether he sowed it intentionally or unknowingly, he must maintain [the crop].73 If it was flax, even if it reached a third of its growth and even if he sowed it intentionally, he must turn it over.74 This is a penalty so that he should not sow it with the intention of benefiting from its fibers.75

כ

הזורע את התרומה בשוגג יהפך במזיד יקיים הביאה שליש בין במזיד בין בשוגג יקיים ואם היה פשתן אפילו הביאה שליש ואפילו במזיד יהפך קנס קנסו בו שלא יזרע ויתכוין ליהנות בעציו:

21

Produce that grows from terumah is considered as ordinary produce with regard to all matters76 except that it is forbidden to non-priests.77 Our Sages decreed that it be forbidden to non-priests like terumah [as a safeguard], lest a priest maintain possession of impure terumah with the intent of sowing it and producing [a crop of] ordinary produce and this lead to undesirable consequences. Therefore, it is permitted to eat the products [of such plantings] with impure hands78 and a person who has immersed himself that day79 may partake of them like ordinary produce.

כא

גידולי תרומה הרי הן כחולין לכל דבר אלא שאסורים לזרים גזרו חכמים עליהן שיהיו אסורין לזרים כתרומה משום תרומה טמאה שביד הכהן שלא ישהנה אצלו כדי שיזרענה ותצא לחולין ונמצא בא בה לידי תקלה לפיכך מותר לאכול הגידולין בידים טמאות ומותר לטבול יום כחולין:

22

Produce grown from produce grown [from terumah] are like ordinary produce with regard to all matters.80 [This applies] even to types of produce whose seeds do not decompose81 provided the new growth exceeds the root82 in the second generation of produce. [In such a situation,] the new growth elevates the root even if the seed does not decompose and the entire [plant] is permitted to be eaten by non-priests.83

The same applies with regard to [produce that grows from] terumah from the Diaspora,84 terumah mixed with ordinary produce,85 extra terumah,86 or seeds from garden vegetables that are not eaten themselves, e.g., turnips and radishes. Although the turnips and radishes themselves are terumah, [the produce] growing from their [seeds] is like ordinary produce with regard to all matters.87Similarly, when a person sows flaxseed that is terumah, the plants growing from it are permitted to non-priests.88

כב

גידולי גידולין חולין לכל דבר ואפילו דבר שאין זרעו כלה אם רבו הגידולין על העיקר בגידולי הגידולין הרי הגידולין השניים מעלין את העיקר אע"פ שאין זרעו כלה ויהיה הכל מותר לזרים וכן תרומת חוצה לארץ והמדומע ותוספת תרומה וזרעוני גינה שאינם נאכלים כגון זרע לפת וצנון אף על פי שאותו לפת וצנון תרומה גידוליהן מותרין והרי הן חולין לכל דבר וכן הזורע פשתן של תרומה הגידולין מותרין לזרים:

23

When a person sows terumah that is impure, even though the produce that grows is ritually pure, it is forbidden to partake of it.89 [The rationale is that] since the terumah that was sown was forbidden to be eaten, it was already cast off. [Hence, it remains forbidden].

כג

הזורע תרומה טמאה אע"פ שהגידולים טהורין הרי הן אסורין באכילה הואיל והתרומה שנזרעה אסורה באכילה היתה כבר נדחו:

24

If he cut off the leaves that grew and then another set of leaves grew and he cut them off, the produce that emerge afterwards is permitted to be eaten.90

כד

חתך את העלין שצמחו ויצאו עלין שניין וחתכן הרי אוכל שיצא אחר כך מותר באכילה:

25

When plants of ordinary produce became impure and afterwards, they were sown and designated as terumah, they are permitted [to be eaten. The rationale is that] sowing them caused them to be considered pure and they did not become impure while they were terumah so that they would be forbidden.

כה

שתילי חולין שנטמאו וזרען ועשאן תרומה הרי אלו מותרין שהרי טהרו בזריעה ולא נטמאו כשהן תרומה כדי שיהיו אסורין:

26

When a stalk [of grain] was in the midst of a grain heap and one straightened the edges of the grain heap,91 this stalk is considered tevel, because it was in the grain heap when it was straightened. If [that stalk] was planted,92 and then it was singled out and designated as terumah, there is an unresolved question if it is terumah. Since it was planted, it is possible to say that it was released from the categorization as tevel93 and is considered as produce for which all the required work was not completed.

If, however, it was designated as terumah before it was planted, it is terumah.94 Therefore if one ripped off [a portion] of it and ate it willfully, he is liable for death [at the hand of heaven]. If he did so unknowingly, he must [make restitution and add] a fifth. If he bent over and ate from the ground with his mouth, his intent95 is of no consequence because of the approach of people at large [and] it is not the ordinary practice for people to eat in this manner. Therefore he is not liable for death, nor for the [additional] fifth if he acted unknowingly.

כו

שבולת שהיתה בתוך הכרי ומרח הכרי כולו הרי אותה השבולת טבל הואיל ונמרחה בתוך הכרי שתלה ואח"כ קרא עליה שם ועשאה תרומה הרי זו ספק תרומה הואיל וזרעה שמא פרח הטבל ממנה ונעשית כפירות שעדיין לא נגמרו אבל אם עשאה תרומה קודם שיזרענה הרי זו תרומה לפיכך אם תלש ממנה ואכל במזיד חייב מיתה בשוגג משלם את החומש ואם גחן ואכל בפיו מן הארץ בטלה דעתו אצל כל אדם שאין דרך בני אדם בכך לפיכך פטור מן המיתה ומן החומש אם היה שוגג:

27

The obligations of leket, shichichah, pe'ah, terumah the tithes and the tithe given to the poor apply with regard to a field of produce that grew from terumah. Poor Israelites and poor priests come and take these presents. The poor priests eat those that they acquire. The poor Israelites sell theirs to the priests for the price of terumah.96 Similarly, a Levite must sell his tithes to a priest.97

כז

שדה של גידולי תרומה חייבת בלקט שכחה ופאה ובתרומה ומעשרות ובמעשר עני ועניי ישראל ועניי כהנים נוטלים ממנה מתנות אלו עניי כהנים אוכלין את שלהם ועניי ישראל מוכרין את שלהם לכהנים בדמי תרומה והדמים של עניים וכן בן לוי מוכר המעשר שלו לכהנים:

28

A person who crushes such produce is praiseworthy. When a person threshes it with an animal, what should he do?98 He should tie a bucket around the animals neck and place the type of grain it is threshing in it. Thus he will neither be muzzling the animal, nor feeding it terumah.

כח

החובט גידולין אלו משובח והדש בבהמה כיצד יעשה תולה כפיפות בצוארי בהמה ונותן לתוכן מאותו המין נמצא לא זומם את הבהמה ולא מאכיל את התרומה:

Footnotes
1.

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

2.

For it is not common to smear these substances.

3.

One may not, however, burn 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).

4.

For this is considered as benefiting from dates as food.

5.

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).

6.

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.

7.

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)].

8.

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

9.

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 Mishnehmaintain 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.

10.

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.

11.

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

12.

This is done to improve the flavor of the brine.

13.

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

14.

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

15.

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

16.

In the Roman conquest.

17.

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

18.

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.

19.

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.

20.

Hence it is forbidden to destroy it.

21.

Where it will not be taken by another person.

22.

For this will be using it for a purpose other than a person's direct physical benefit.

23.

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

24.

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

25.

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.

26.

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).

27.

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.

28.

See Hilchot Sha'ar Avot HaTumah 8:8. See also the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (Challah 1:9).

29.

Which is separated only by virtue of Rabbinic decree.

30.

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).

31.

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).

32.

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).

33.

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

34.

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.

35.

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.

36.

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.

37.

A pungent herb.

38.

Although the chilbahwill 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.

39.

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

40.

I.e., it is not normally eaten, because its taste is too sharp. If, however, it was entirely 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).

41.

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

42.

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

43.

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

44.

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.

45.

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

46.

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.

47.

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.

48.

For it is no longer considered as food.

49.

For they are still fit to be eaten.

50.

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.

51.

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.

52.

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

53.

Our translation is taken from the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (Terumot 11:6).

54.

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

55.

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).

56.

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.).

57.

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

58.

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.

59.

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.

60.

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

61.

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

62.

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 (Kessef Mishneh).

63.

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.

The Radbaz emphasizes that this applies only when the priest does not object. If, however, he specifically lodges an objection, it is forbidden.

64.

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.

65.

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.

66.

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).

67.

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.

68.

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

69.

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)].

70.

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

71.

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.

72.

This will cause him to suffer a loss, for as the Rambam states in the following halachah, 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.

73.

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.

74.

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

75.

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.

76.

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. This was one of the decrees enacted by our Sages on the day the students of the School of Shammai outnumbered those of the School of Hillel [the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (Terumot 9:4), based on Shabbat 1:3].

77.

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

78.

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.

79.

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.

80.

They may even be eaten by non-priests.

81.

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.

82.

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

83.

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.

84.

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.

85.

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.

86.

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.

87.

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.

88.

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.

89.

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)].

90.

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, as explained by Radbaz and Kessef Mishneh).

91.

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

92.

Before terumah was separated from that grain heap.

93.

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.

94.

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

95.

To eat in this manner.

96.

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.

97.

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

98.

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."

Terumot - Chapter 12

1

It is forbidden to cause the terumah of Eretz Yisrael to contract ritual impurity,1 as [is the rule with regard to] other sacred articles.2 One should not bring it to a state of ritual impurity,3 nor should one spoil it. Instead, he should partake of pure [terumah] and kindle impure terumah.

It is permitted to cause terumah from the Diaspora to become impure, even with impurity mandated by Scriptural Law. Although it is only ritually impure4 because of the impurity stemming from the Diaspora which is a Rabbinic decree,5 [this leniency is granted] because the obligation to separate [such terumah] is also of Rabbinic origin. For this reason, a woman may separate challah6 while in the niddah state in the Diaspora, for she is cautioned only against eating it, not against touching it, as we explained.

א

אסור לטמא את התרומה של ארץ ישראל כשאר הקדשים ולא יביאנה לידי טומאה ולא יפסידנה אלא אוכל הטהורה ומדליק הטמאה ומותר לטמא תרומת חוצה לארץ בטמאות של תורה ואף על פי שאינה טמאה אלא בארץ העמים שהיא מדבריהם מפני שעיקר חיובה מדבריהם לפיכך נדה קוצה לה חלה בחוצה לארץ שאינה מוזהרת אלא לאכלה לא ליגע בה כמו שביארנו:

2

If a doubt arose whether terumah became impure, it should not be eaten,7 nor should it be burnt.8 Instead, one should place it aside until it becomes definitely impure, [at which time,] it should be burnt. There are situations in which doubt has arisen that mandate that terumah should be burnt as will be explained with regard to [the laws of] ritual purity and impurity.9

ב

תרומה שנטמאת בספק לא אוכלים ולא שורפין אלא תהיה מונחת עד שתטמא טומאה ודאית ותשרף ויש שם ספיקות ששורפין עליהן את התרומה כמו שיתבאר בענין טומאה וטהרה:

3

When a question arises whether a jug of wine has become ritually impure, one should not do anything with it. One should not move it from its place, nor reveal it. Instead, he should leave it in its place until it definitely becomes impure and must be burnt.10 We are not concerned that perhaps it will be eaten.

ג

חבית של תרומה שנולד לה ספק טומאה ה"ז לא יחדש בה דבר לא יזיזנה ממקומה ולא יגלנה אלא יניחנה עד שתטמא ודאי ותשרף ואין חוששין שמא תאכל:

4

[The following rules apply when] a jug [of wine that is terumah which is pure] is broken in an upper vat and the lower vat [contains ordinary wine that is] impure.11 If it is possible for a person to save a revi'it of wine in a state of purity,12 he should do so.13 If not, he should save [the wine] with his hands without washing them even though he imparts ritual impurity [to the terumah],14 as will be explained [in the laws pertaining to] ritual purity.15

ד

חבית שנשברה בגת העליונה והתחתונה טמאה אם יכול להציל ממנה רביעית בטהרה יציל ואם לאו יציל בידיו בלא נט"י ואע"פ שהוא מטמאה כמו שיתבאר בענין טהרות:

5

When does the above apply? To a jug of wine, [and then] provided that the contents of the lower vat are less than 100 times the amount [that falls in], in which instance, the terumah wine will mix with the ordinary wine and everything will be disqualified.16 If, however, the lower vat contained 100 times the amount of the jug and thus [the wine that descends] will be nullified because [the mixture] is 101 times the original17 or the jug contains oil, he should allow it to descend and become impure instead of making it impure with his own hands. [The rationale is that] the entire quantity is fit to use as fuel and there will be no great loss.18

Similarly, if a jug of oil is spilling,19 if it is possible for one to save a revi'it of oil in a state of purity, he should do so. If not, he should save it while ritually impure.20 Since the jug is broken, he is not adjured against saving it in a state of ritual impurity, because he is agitated.21

ה

בד"א בחבית של יין והוא שיהיה בגת התחתונה פחות ממאה שהרי ידמע הכל ויפסל אבל אם היה בתחתונה מאה בזו החבית שהרי היא עולה באחת ומאה או שהיתה חבית של שמן תרד ותטמא ואל יטמאנה בידיו שהרי הכל ראוי להדלקה ואין שם הפסד מרובה וכן חבית שמן שנשפכה אם יכול להציל רביעית בטהרה יציל ואם לאו יציל בטומאה שכיון שנשברה החבית אינו מוזהר שלא להציל בטומאה מפני שהוא בהול:

6

[The following laws apply when] one was traveling from place to place, carrying loaves that are terumah, and a gentile tells him: "Give me one of them. If not, I will touch all of them and make them ritually impure."22 He should place one of them on a rock,23 but he should not place it in his hand so that he will not be a direct cause of the terumah becoming ritually impure.

ו

היה עובר ממקום למקום ובידו ככרות של תרומה אמר לו הנכרי תן לי אחת מהן ואם לאו הריני נוגע בכולן ומטמאן יניח לפניו אחת על הסלע ואל יתננה לתוך ידו כדי שלא יטמא התרומה בידים:

7

[The following laws apply with regard to] chilbah and vetch that are terumah. Since they are not fit for human consumption,24 it is permitted to carry out all the actions [connected with their preparation] in a state of ritual impurity. One must be careful only when placing them in the water to soak. For if one placed them in the water to soak while ritually impure, one will have made them ritually impure directly.25 Once one has soaked them, however, one need not be concerned with ritual impurity at the time one crushes the vetch26 or when one feeds them to an animal. For this reason, one may give chilbah and vetch that are terumah to a priest who is a common person.27

ז

התלתן והכרשינין של תרומה הואיל ואינו מאכל אדם ה"ז מותר לעשות כל מעשיהן בטומאה ואינו נזהר אלא בעת שרייתן במים שאם שרה אותם בטומאה הרי טימא אותם בידים אבל אחר השרייה אינו נזהר לא בעת ששף הכרשינין ולא בעת שמאכילן לבהמה לפיכך נותנין תרומת תלתן וכרשינין לכהן עם הארץ:

8

We do not entrust terumah to a priest who is an unlearned person, because he is easygoing about it and may partake of it.28 We may, however, entrust [terumah] to an unlearned Israelite if it is stored in an earthenware container sealed with a wrapper,29 provided it is not produce that is already made fit to contract ritual impurity. [This is] a decree lest it be moved by his wife while she is in the nidah state.30

ח

אין מפקידין תרומה אצל כהן עם הארץ מפני שלבו גס בה לאכלה אבל מפקידין אותו אצל ישראל עם הארץ בכלי חרש המוקף צמיד פתיל ובלבד שלא יהיו פירות מוכשרין גזירה שלא תסיטם אשתו נדה:

9

We do not separate terumah from olives in a state of ritual purity for an unlearned person.31 We may, however, prepare ordinary olives for him in a state of ritual purity.32 [This leniency was granted] so that the operator of the vat could earn his livelihood.33

How should this process be carried out?34 He should separate an amount of produce sufficient for terumah and place it in a utensil that cannot contract ritual impurity, e.g., a stone utensil. When the unlearned person comes to take the ordinary produce and the terumah, we tell him: "Be careful not to touch the terumah.35 Otherwise, the produce will become tevel again."36

ט

אין עושין לעם הארץ תרומת זיתיו בטהרה אבל עושין לו זיתי חולין בטהרה משום כדי חייו של בדד (לבד) וכיצד עושה נוטל כדי התרומה ומניחה בכלי שאינו מקבל טומאה כגון כלי אבנים וכשיבוא עם הארץ ליטול החולין והתרומה אומרין לו הזהר שמא תגע בתרומה שלא תחזור לטבלה:

10

When an Israelite performs the tasks associated with the preparation of his produce while ritually impure, we should not harvest grapes with him. Needless to say, we should not tread the grapes with him,37 because the terumah will be made ritually impure.38 One may, however, carry barrels to39 and from the vat for him.40

י

ישראל שעושה פירותיו בטומאה אין בוצרין עמו ואין צריך לומר שאין דורכין עמו מפני התרומה שתעשה בטומאה אבל מוליכין עמו חביות לגת ומביאין מן הגת:

11

When olives and grapes have become ritually impure, we may squeeze them and separate terumah [from the oil or wine].41 If [grapes or the olives] became impure after they themselves were designated as terumah, they should be squeezed [using] less than an egg-sized portion at a time.42 In such an instance, the liquid that flows from them is permitted to be drunk by the priests. Indeed, it would be fit to be used for libations on the altar. [The rationale is that] the liquid is considered as set aside within the fruit.43 The reason that [our Sages] spoke of less than an egg-sized portion44 is that this is a decree lest one use more than an egg-sized portion and the liquid become impure because of [contact with] the egg-sized portion.45

If the produce was impure to the third degree, one may tread upon it in the vat and the liquid produced from it can be used for pure terumah.46 [The rationale is that] ritual impurity of the third degree does not bring about ritual impurity of the fourth degree with regard to terumah, as will be explained with regard to the concept of ritual purity.47

יא

זיתים וענבים שנטמאו סוחטן ועושה אותן תרומה ואם נטמאו אחר שנעשו תרומה וסוחטן פחות פחות מכביצה הרי המשקה היוצא מהן מותר בשתייה לכהנים ואפילו לנסכים היה ראוי שהמשקה כאילו הוא מופקד בתוך האוכל ולא אמרו פחות פחות מכביצה אלא גזירה שמא יעשה יותר מכביצה ונמצא המשקה מתטמא בכביצה ואם היו פירות אלו שלישי לטומאה דורכן בגת ובבית הבד והמשקה תרומה טהורה שאין שלישי עושה רביעי בתרומה כמו שיתבאר בענין טהרות:

12

When a loaf of bread that is terumah becomes impure, it should be discarded among the firewood48 until one uses it for fuel. Similarly, if oil [that is terumah] becomes impure, it should be placed in a repugnant container until it is used as fuel so that it will not create a stumbling block for others, [lest] they partake of it.

When wheat [kernels] become impure, one should parboil them49 and place them in a repugnant container until they are no longer fit to be eaten and then use them as fuel for an oven or range. Liquids that are not fit to be used as fuel, e.g., wine, should be buried.50

יב

פת תרומה שנטמאת משליכה לבין העצים עד שישרפנה וכן שמן שנטמא נותנו בכלי מאוס עד שידליק כדי שלא יהיה תקלה לאחרים ויאכלוהו וחיטים שנטמאו שולקן ומניחן בכלי מאוס כדי שלא יהיו ראויין לאכילה ואחר כך יסיק בהן תנור וכירים ומשקין שאין ראויין להדלקה שנטמאו כגון היין קוברין אותן:

13

When wine that is terumah is left uncovered, since it is forbidden to drink it,51 it should be poured out. Similarly, figs, grapes, marrow, squash, watermelon, and cucumbers that are terumah that were discovered to be perforated are forbidden to be eaten because of the mortal danger involved.52 What should be done with them? They should be discarded in the sea or buried.

יג

יין תרומה שנתגלה הואיל ואסור בשתייה ישפך וכן תאנים וענבים וקישואים ודילועין ואבטיחין ומלפפונות של תרומה שנמצאו מנוקרות הרי אלו אסורין באכילה מפני סכנת נפשות מה יעשה בהן ישליך לים או יקברו:

14

When a dough was kneaded with water that was left uncovered,53 it should be burnt even though it is terumah.54

יד

עיסה שנילושה במים מגולים אף על פי שהוא תרומה תשרף:

15

It is forbidden for a priest to take terumah or any other of the presents given to him until they were separated by the owners [of the produce], as [implied by the verses, Numbers 18:12]: "The first [of the produce] which they will give to God I have given to you" and [ibid.:19]: "...that the children of Israel will offer up to God are given to you." [Implied is that] the children of Israel must offer it up and then [the priests] can acquire it.

[The priests] should not take [these presents] after they have been set aside except with the knowledge of the owners. For the owners have the right to give them to any priest that they desire, as [ibid. 5:10] states: "A person's sacraments will belong to him."55 [Nevertheless,] if [a priest]56 takes them without the owner's knowledge, he acquires them. For all that belongs to the owner is the right to apportion them and that right is not financially significant.

טו

אסור לכהן ליטול תרומה או שאר מתנות שלו עד שיפרישו אותם הבעלים שנאמר ראשיתם אשר יתנו ליי' לך נתתים ונאמר אשר ירימו בני ישראל ליי' נתתי לך עד שירימו ואח"כ יזכה בהם ולא יטלם אחר שהורמו אלא מדעת בעלים שהרי הם של בעלים ליתנן לכל כהן שירצו שנאמר ואיש את קדשיו לו יהיו ואם לקח שלא מדעת בעלים זכה בהן שאין לבעלים מהן אלא טובת הנאה וטובת הנאה אינה ממון:

16

When terumah was given to a priest and he found other entities in it, it is forbidden for him [to take them]. This is comparable to theft, for perhaps other people placed them [in the terumah] to take them [afterwards].57

טז

כהן שנתנו לו תרומה ומצא בה דברים אחרים הרי אלו אסורים משום גזל שמא אחרים הניחום שם עד שיטלום:

17

An Israelite is not required to trouble himself with terumah and bring it from the granary until a city or from a desert until a settled area. Instead, the priests should go out to the granaries and the Israelites should give them their portions there. If they did not go out [to collect the terumah, the owner] should separate it and leave it in the granary. Our Sages ordained that if there are beasts or animals who would eat it there and it is not protected from them, [the owner] should take the trouble of dealing with it and bringing it to the city. He may collect a wage for bringing it [to the city] from the priest. [This is done,] because if he separated it and left it for the animals and beasts, God's name would be desecrated.58

יז

אין ישראל חייבין להטפל בתרומה ולהביאה מן הגורן לעיר ומן המדבר לישוב אלא כהנים יוצאין לגרנות וישראל נותנים להם חלקן שם ואם לא יצאו ה"ז מפריש ומניחה בגורן ואם היתה חיה או בהמה אוכלתה שם ואינה משתמרת שם מהם התקינו חכמים שיטפל בה ויביאנה לעיר ויטול שכר הבאתה מכהן שאם הפרישה והניחה לבהמה ולחיה ה"ז חילול השם:

18

It is forbidden for the priests and the Levites59 to assist [farmers] in the granaries in order to receive the agricultural presents given them.60 Whoever renders such assistance desecrates the holiness of God's name. Concerning such people is applied [the malediction, Malachi 2:8]: "You have defiled the covenant of Levi." It is forbidden for an Israelite to allow [a priest] to help him. Instead, he should grant them their portion with honor.

יח

אסור לכהנים ולוים לסייע בבית הגרנות כדי ליטול מתנותיהן וכל המסייע חילל קדש השם ועליהם נאמר שחתם ברית הלוי ואסור לישראל להניחו שיסייעהו אלא נותן להם חלקן בכבוד:

19

When a person gives terumah to a priest on the condition that he returns it,61 he has fulfilled his obligation to give.62 It is, however, forbidden to do so, for [the priest] is considered like one who helps in the granaries.63 Similarly, it is forbidden for [the priests] to seize the terumot and the tithes. It is even forbidden for them to make a verbal request for them. Instead, they should take them with honor, for they are eating and drinking from the table of God.64 These presents are given to Him and He apportioned them to them, as [Numbers 18:8] states: "Behold I have given to you the safeguard of My terumah."65

יט

נתן תרומה לכהן ע"מ להחזירה יצא ידי נתינה ואסור לעשות כן מפני שנמצא כמסייע בבית הגרנות וכן אסור להן שיחטפו תרומות ומעשרות ואפילו לשאול חלקן בפיהן אסור אלא נוטלין בכבוד שעל שלחן המקום הם אוכלין ועל שלחנו הם שותים ומתנות אלו לה' הם והוא זיכה להן שנאמר ואני נתתי לך את משמרת תרומותי:

20

A person should not give terumah to the watchman of his vat, nor a firstborn animal to the watchman of his flock, nor the presents [given when an animal is slaughtered]66 to the shepherd of his animals. If he gave them [to these individuals], he desecrated [their honor] unless he gave them their wages for watching first.67

One Israelite68 may tell another Israelite: "Here is a sela.69 Give terumah...", "...a firstborn...", or other presents [given to the priests] "...to so-and-so, the priest, who is my daughter's son, or "...my sister's son," or the like.70

כ

לא יתן אדם תרומה לשומר גתו ולא בכור לשומר עדרו ולא מתנות לרועה בהמתו ואם נתן חילל אלא א"כ נתן להם שכר שמירתן תחילה ורשאי ישראל לומר לישראל אחר הא לך סלע זו ותן תרומה או בכור או שאר מתנות לפלוני הכהן בן בתי או בן אחותי וכל כיוצא בזה:

21

When does the above apply? When the owner desired to give [the presents] to one of two priests or [tithes] to one of two Levites gratis and his colleague told him: "Here is this and give to that one." If, however, an owner told a priest or a Levite: "Here is this portion. [Give me something in exchange] for my privilege to give it to whom I want," this is forbidden.71 Similarly, it is forbidden to sell terumah as merchandise even though he purchases it from a priest and sells it to a priest.72

כא

במה דברים אמורים כשהיו הבעלים רוצים ליתן אותם לאחד משני כהנים אלו או לאחד משני לויים אלו בחנם ואמר לו חבירו הא לך ותן לזה אבל הבעלים שאמרו לכהן או ללוי הא לך חלק זה בטובת הנאה ה"ז אסור וכן אסור לעשות סחורה בתרומות אף ע"פ שהוא לוקח מכהן ומוכר לכהן:

22

There are ten individuals to whom terumah is not given in the granaries even though they may partake of it or grant others the right to partake of it:73

a deaf-mute, an intellectually or emotionally unstable person, or a child who does not know how to spread out his hands to recite the priestly blessing,74 these [are not given terumah], because they lack sufficient knowledge;

a tumtum75 and an androgynus,76 because they are unique types of people;

a servant, lest passersby in the field [see him taking terumah] and give testimony that he is a priest;

an uncircumcised person and a ritually impure person,77 because they are abhorrent;

a woman [married to a priest], lest she be divorced78 and [to prevent her from] entering into seclusion [with someone in the granary];79 and

a person who marries a woman who is not appropriate for him;80 he was penalized in that [terumah] would not be allocated to him in the granaries until he divorces her.

In all the above instances, [terumah] may be sent to their homes and allocated to them as is the law regarding other sacramental foods dependent on the boundaries [of Eretz Yisrael] with the exception of a person who marries a woman who is not appropriate for him, an uncircumcised person81 and a ritually impure person, to whom [terumah] is not sent at all.

כב

עשרה אין חולקין להן תרומה בבית הגרנות אע"פ שהן אוכלין אותה או מאכילין אותה ואלו הן:

החרש והשוטה והקטן שאין בו דעת לפרוש חוקו מפני שאין באלו דעת והטומטום והאנדרוגינוס מפני שהן בריה בפני עצמן והעבד שמא יראוהו העוברים בשדה ויעידו עליו שהוא כהן והערל והטמא מפני שהן מאוסין והאשה שמא תתגרש ומפני הייחוד והנושא אשה שאינה הוגנת לו קנסו אותו שלא יחלוק בבית הגרנות עד שיגרשנה וכולן משלחין להן לבתיהן וחולקין להן כשאר קדשי הגבול חוץ מן הנושא אשה שאינה הוגנת לו והטמא והערל שאין משלחין להן כלל:

Footnotes
1.

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

2.

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

3.

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

4.

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.

5.

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.

6.

Which is bound by the same rules as terumah.

7.

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

8.

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

9.

See Hilchot Sha'ar Avot HaTumah 13:13.

10.

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 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.

11.

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.

12.

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

13.

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.

14.

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.

15.

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

16.

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.

17.

See Chapter 13, Halachah 1.

18.

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.

19.

To the earth and thus will be spoiled entirely.

20.

From a comparison to the wording used in Halachah 4, the Or Sameach rules that with regard to wine, one is permitted to save the wine only if merely his hands are ritually impure. If his entire person is ritually impure, he is forbidden to do so. In this instance, by contrast, the person may save the oil even if his person is ritually impure.

The difference between the two instances can be explained as follows. With regard to wine, what the person is doing is saving the ordinary wine, not the terumah, because there is no use for impure wine. Hence, he is permitted to do so only if he does not impart ritual impurity of Scriptural origin to the terumah. With regard to the oil, he is saving the oil that is terumah - for impure oil can be used as fuel. Hence, he is allowed to do so even if he will be making it ritually impure.

21.

Over the possible loss of his money.

22.

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.

23.

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

24.

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.

25.

And that is forbidden. Even though the person will be causing the produce to contract ritual impurity later, 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.

26.

To remove their coatings.

27.

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.)

28.

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).

29.

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

30.

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?

31.

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.

32.

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

33.

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.

34.

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?

35.

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

36.

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 Hilchot Ma'aser 9:1).

37.

In the first instance, the grapes being picked are considered fit to contract ritual impurity only by Rabbinic decree (Hilchot Tumat Ochalin 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."

38.

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)].

39.

For these barrels are empty.

40.

For the wine has already been rendered impure.

41.

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 with 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 has been 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.

42.

Hilchot Tumat Ochalin 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.

43.

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

44.

And not an egg-sized portion itself.

45.

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

46.

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

47.

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

48.

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 burn the impure terumah immediately. The point of this halachah is to provide guidelines should one desire to save it to use as fuel.

49.

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

50.

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.

51.

Lest a poisonous snake have drank from the wine and deposited its venom there [the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (Terumot 8:4); see also Hilchot Rotzeach UShemirat Nefesh 11:7-8)].

52.

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

53.

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

54.

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

55.

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

56.

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.

57.

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.

58.

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

59.

To whom the tithes are given.

60.

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).

61.

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

62.

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

63.

I.e., he is performing a favor for the owner in return for his terumah.

64.

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

65.

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

66.

See Hilchot Bikkurim, ch. 9.

67.

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.

68.

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.

69.

A silver coin of the Talmudic period.

70.

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

71.

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

72.

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

73.

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

74.

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.

75.

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

76.

A person with both masculine and feminine sexual organs.

77.

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

78.

And thus become forbidden to partake of terumah.

79.

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.

80.

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

81.

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.

Published and copyright by Moznaim Publications, all rights reserved.
To purchase this book or the entire series, please click here. The text on this page contains sacred literature. Please do not deface or discard.
The Mishneh Torah was the Rambam's (Rabbi Moses ben Maimon) magnum opus, a work spanning hundreds of chapters and describing all of the laws mentioned in the Torah. To this day it is the only work that details all of Jewish observance, including those laws which are only applicable when the Holy Temple is in place. Participating in the one of the annual study cycles of these laws (3 chapters/day, 1 chapter/day, or Sefer Hamitzvot) is a way we can play a small but essential part in rebuilding the final Temple.
Download Rambam Study Schedules: 3 Chapters | 1 Chapter | Daily Mitzvah