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

Rambam - 3 Chapters a Day

Terumot - Chapter 13, Terumot - Chapter 14, Terumot - Chapter 15

Video & Audio Classes
Show content in:

Terumot - Chapter 13

1

Terumah becomes nullified in a mixture 101 times the size of the original quantity.1

What is implied? When a se'ah of terumah falls into 100 se'ah of ordinary produce and all the produce becomes mixed together,2 he should separate one se'ah and give it to the priest. The remainder is permitted [to be eaten by] non-priests.3

[Accordingly,] whenever the terumah is a substance which the priests do not care about, e.g., terumah from wild figs, carobs, Edomite barley and the like, it is not necessary to separate [a hundredth for the priest]. Instead, since it fell into a 100 times its amount, it is nullified because of its minimal size and the entire mixture is permitted to non-priests.

א

התרומה עולה באחד ומאה כיצד סאה תרומה שנפלה למאה סאה של חולין ונתערב הכל מפריש מן הכל סאה אחת ונותנה לכהן והשאר מותר לזרים וכל תרומה שאין הכהנים מקפידין עליה כגון תרומת הכליסין והחרובין והשעורים של אדום אינו צריך להגביה הואיל ונפלה במאה בטלה במיעוטה והכל מותר לזרים:

2

If a se'ah of terumah fell into less than 100 [se'ah of ordinary produce], the entire mixture becomes miduma.4 It should be sold to a priest at the price of terumah5 with the exception of that se'ah.6

When does the above apply? When produce becomes mixed with its own kind. If, however, produce becomes mixed with produce of another type, [the ruling is dependent on whether] the flavor [of the terumah] is recognizable or not. If the entire mixture has the flavor of terumah, it is all considered as miduma and should be sold to the priests with the exception of the value of the terumah. If the flavor of the entire mixture is that of the ordinary produce, the entire mixture is permitted to non-priests.7

ב

נפלה סאה תרומה לפחות ממאה נעשה הכל מדומע וימכר הכל לכהנים בדמי תרומה חוץ מדמי אותה סאה בד"א כשנתערב מין במינו אבל מין בשאינו מינו בנותן טעם אם יש בכל טעם תרומה נעשה הכל מדומע וימכר לכהנים חוץ מדמי תרומה שבו ואם טעם הכל טעם חולין הכל מותר לזרים:

3

When a se'ah of terumah falls into 100 se'ah and one se'ah was removed from the mixture8, if that se'ah fell into other produce, the question whether the mixture is considered as miduma is determined according to the proportion [of terumah in the first mixture].9Similarly, if a se'ah of terumah fell into less than one hundred se'ah [of ordinary produce] and the entire mixture became miduma and then some of this mixture fell into other [produce], the question whether the mixture is considered as miduma is determined according to the proportion [of terumah in the first mixture].

What is implied? Ten se'ah of terumah fell into 90 se'ah of ordinary produce and the entire mixture became miduma. If ten se'ah from this mixture fell into less than 100 se'ah of ordinary produce, the mixture is considered miduma, because in the ten se'ah of the [original] mixture, there was at least one se'ah of terumah.10 If less than ten se'ah [of terumah] fell into [the original mixture], the [second] mixture is not considered as miduma [when one se'ah of the first mixture fell into 100 se'ah].

ג

סאה תרומה שנפלה למאה והגביה סאה מן הכל ונפלה הסאה שהגביה למקום אחר אינה מדמעת אלא לפי חשבון וכן סאה תרומה שנפלה לפחות ממאה ונעשה הכל מדומע ונפל מן המדומע למקום אחר אינו מדמע אלא לפי חשבון כיצד הרי שנפלו עשר סאין של תרומה לתשעים סאה חולין ונדמעו הכל אם נפל ממדומע זה עשר סאין לפחות ממאה חולין נדמעו שהרי יש בעשר של מדומע סאה של תרומה נפל לתוכן פחות מעשר סאין אינן מדמעות:

4

When does the above apply? With regard to substances that do not become blended together, e.g., wheat kernels with wheat kernels or flour with flour.11 When, however, substances blend together, e.g., oil that is terumah mixes with ordinary oil or wine that is terumah mixes with ordinary wine, we follow the majority. If the majority is terumah, should the mixture fall into other produce, the ruling is the same as if [the first mixture] was [entirely] terumah.12 If the majority of the [first] mixture is ordinary produce, should that mixture fall into other produce, [the entire first mixture] is considered as ordinary produce and there is never a difficulty concerning a mixture of terumah.13 Nevertheless, in all instances, the entire [first] mixture is forbidden to non-priests.

ד

במה דברים אמורים בדבר שאין דרכו להבלל כגון חטים לחטים או קמח לקמח אבל דרכו להבלל כגון שמן תרומה לשמן חולין או יין תרומה ליין חולין הולכין אחר הרוב אם רוב תרומה ה"ז מדמע כתרומה ואם רוב חולין הרי הוא כחולין ואינו מדמע אף על פי שהכל אסורים לזרים:

5

When a se'ah of terumah falls into 100 se'ah, [a se'ah of the mixture] was removed, another [se'ah of terumah] fell in, [another se'ah] was removed, and another fell in, the ordinary produce is permitted14 until there is a majority of terumah [in the mixture]. Thus if more than 100 se'ah of terumah fell into 100 se'ah of ordinary produce, se'ah after se'ah [in above manner], the entire mixture is considered as miduma.15

ה

סאה תרומה שנפלה למאה הגביהה ונפלה אחרת הגביהה ונפלה אחר' הרי החולין מותרין עד שתרבה תרומה עליהן שאם נפלו לתוך המאה חולין מאה סאה ועוד של תרומה סאה אחר סאה נעשה הכל מדומע:

6

[The following rules apply when] a se'ah of terumah fell into 100 [se'ah of ordinary produce] and before one se'ah was removed, another se'ah of terumah fell [into the mixture]. If [the owner] was aware of the first se'ah before the second se'ah fell, [the mixture] does not become miduma. Instead, he should remove two se'ah and the remainder is permitted. [The rationale is that] since it should have been taken out,16 we consider it as if it was taken out. If, however, he did not become aware of the first se'ah until after the second fell in, the mixture is considered miduma. It is as if both se'ah fell in at the same time.17

ו

סאה תרומה שנפלה למאה ולא הספיק להגביהה עד שנפלה סאה אחרת אם ידע בראשונה קודם שתפול השניה לא נדמעו אלא מפריש סאתים והשאר מותר הואיל והיה לה לעלות הרי היא כאילו עלתה ואם לא ידע בסאה ראשונה אלא אחר שנפלה השנייה ה"ז מדומע וכאילו נפלו שתיהן כאחת:

7

The waste products of terumah are not combined with it [a mixture of it and ordinary produce] to cause the ordinary produce to be forbidden. The waste products of ordinary produce, by contrast, are combined with it to cause terumah to be nullified in a mixture.

What is implied? A se'ah of high quality wheat that is terumah fell into 100 se'ah of wheat of low quality that is ordinary produce. The owner ground the entire quantity. Even though there is much bran in the ordinary produce and a small amount in the terumah and thus the flour from the terumah is more than one hundredth of the flour from the ordinary produce,18 it is nullified. For we measure the flour with the bran and [together,] it is 101 times [the original amount of terumah]. If, however, a se'ah of low quality wheat that is terumah falls into [slightly] less 100 se'ah of high quality wheat that is ordinary produce and [the owner] ground the entire quantity, [the weight of] the flour that is terumah will be one hundredth of [the weight of] the flour that is ordinary produce. Hence it is nullified because the mixture is 101 times the original amount [of terumah], for the weight of the ordinary produce increased and that of the terumah decreased.19

ז

אין פסולת של תרומה מצטרפת עמה לאסור החולין אבל פסולת החולין מצטרפת עם החולין להעלות התרומה כיצד סאה חטים יפות של תרומה שנפלה למאה סאה חטים רעות של חולין וטחן הכל אף ע"פ שהמורסן של חולין מרובין ושל תרומה מועט והרי קמח של תרומה בפחות ממאה מקמח החולין ה"ז עולה ומשערין בקמח עם המורסן שהוא מאה ואחד אבל אם נפלה סאה חטים רעות של תרומה לפחות ממאה סאה חטים יפות של חולין וטחן הכל והרי הקמח של תרומה אחד ממאה מקמח החולין ה"ז עולה במאה ואחד שהרי הותירו החולין ופחתה התרומה:

8

When a log20 of clear wine that is terumah fell into 100 lugin of cloudy wine21 that is ordinary produce, we do not remove the dregs from the wine [and only then calculate whether the ordinary wine is 100 times the terumah]. Instead, we nullify the log of terumah.22 Similarly, if a log of cloudy wine [that is terumah] fell into a 100 log of clear wine, we do not remove the dregs in [the wine that is terumah].23

ח

לוג יין של תרומה צלול שנפל למאה לוגין עכורין אין מוציאין שמרים שבהם אלא מעלין את הלוג וכן אם נפל לוג עכור למאה לוגין צלולין אין מוציאין שמרים שבו:

9

When a log of water fell into 99 lugim of wine and then a log of wine that is terumah fell into the mixture, the entire mixture is considered as miduma, because water does not nullify [the existence of] wine.24

ט

לוג מים שנפל לתשעים ותשעה לוגין יין ואח"כ נפל לתוך הכל לוג יין של תרומה נדמע הכל שאין המים מעלה את היין:

10

[The following rules apply when] a se'ah of terumah fell into less than 100 se'ah of ordinary produce and then other ordinary produce fell into the mixture so that there was more than 100 times [the weight of the terumah]. If [the second batch of produce was added] unknowingly, [the terumah] is nullified because there is 101 [times the original weight]. If he mixed it intentionally, the entire mixture is considered as miduma, because we do not nullify the existence of substances prohibited by Scriptural Law as an initial preference.25

י

סאה תרומה שנפלה לפחות ממאה חולין ונפלו חולין אחרים עד שהוסיפו על מאה אם בשוגג הרי זו עולה במאה ואחד ואם במזיד הרי הכל מדומע שאין מבטלין איסורי תורה לכתחלה:

11

It is, however, permitted to nullify terumah from the Diaspora [by mixing it] with a majority of permitted substances26 and eat it during the time when one is ritually impure.27 Not only that, if a person possesses wine that is terumah from the Diaspora, he should take one log of this wine and mix it with two lugim of ordinary [wine]. Thus there are three lugim.28 Afterwards, he can add another log of the terumah wine into the three lugim and then take one log from the four and drink it.29 He may then add another log [of terumah wine] and take out a log and drink it. Similarly, he may continue adding a log of terumah and removing a log until all the wine that is terumah is completed. Thus he can nullify several lugim [of terumah] in two lugim of ordinary produce.

יא

תרומת חו"ל מותר לבטלה ברוב ואוכלה בימי טומאתו ולא עוד אלא אם היה לו יין של תרומת ח"ל נוטל ממנו לוג אחד ונותן עליו שני לוגין חולין ונמצא הכל שלשה ואחר כך נוטל מיין של תרומה לוג ונותן לתוך השלשה ומגביה מארבעתן לוג ושותה וחוזר ומשליך לתוכן לוג אחר וחוזר ונוטל לוג ושותה וכן נותן לוג תרומה ונוטל לוג מן התערובת עד שיכלה כל היין של תרומה ונמצא שנטל כמה לוגין בשני לוגין של חולין:

12

When one sows terumah next to ordinary produce and cannot identify which produce is terumah and which is ordinary produce, the entire batch is permitted even if there were 100 rows of terumah and [only] one row of ordinary produce.30

When does the above apply? With regard to produce whose seed decomposes in the earth, e.g., wheat, barley, and the like.31 If, however, the seeds do not decompose, e.g., garlic and onions,32 even if 100 rows are ordinary produce and one row is terumah, the entire mixture is miduma. 33 If the entire crop is harvested,34 terumah can be nullified in a mixture of 100 times its weight, but, as an initial and preferred option, one should not harvest the crop.35

יב

הזורע תרומה בצד החולין ולא נודע אי זהו זרע תרומה אפילו היה מאה לגנה של תרומה ולגנה אחת של חולין כולן מותרין בד"א בדבר שזרעו כלה בקרקע כגון החטים והשעורים וכיוצא בהן אבל דבר שאין זרעו נפסד בארץ כגון השום והבצלים אפילו מאה לגנה של חולין ולגנה אחת של תרומה תערובת ביניהן הרי הכל מדומע ואם נתלש הכל תעלה התרומה בק"א ולא יתלוש לכתחילה:

13

When there are two containers of produce, one containing terumah and one containing ordinary produce and it is not known [which contains the ordinary produce and which contains the terumah], if [the contents of] one of these containers falls into ordinary produce, [the mixture] is not considered as miduma.36 [This same law applies if produce that is] terumah fell into one of two containers [of ordinary produce], but one does not know which one and afterwards, one of those containers fell into ordinary produce.

Similarly, if one sowed [the grain from] one of the two containers, the produce that grows is considered as ordinary produce with regard to all matters.37 [The produce in] the remaining container is considered as terumah.38 If [the contents of] the second container fell into other produce, [the mixture] is not considered as miduma.39 Similarly, if another person sowed [the contents of] the second container, the produce that grows is considered as ordinary produce.40

If [the contents of] both containers fall into one mixture of other produce, the mixture is considered miduma according to the amount of produce in the smaller container.41 If one person sowed both of them,42 if the produce is a species where the seed decomposes, the produce that grows is considered as ordinary produce.43If the seed does not decompose, the produce that grows is miduma.44

When does the above apply? When one sowed [the contents of] the second container before the first batch of produce was harvested.45 If, however, he harvested the first batch of produce before sowing the second, the produce that grows is considered as ordinary produce even when the seed does not decompose. [The rationale is that] produce that has been reaped and produce that is growing are not considered as indicators of each other's status.

יג

שתי קופות אחת של תרומה ואחת של חולין ואין ידוע אי זו היא או שנפלה סאה של תרומה לתוך אחת מהן ואין ידוע להיכן נפלה ואח"כ נפלה אחת משתי קופות לתוך החולין אינן מדמעתן וכן אם זרע אחת מהם הגידולין חולין לכל דבר והשנייה נוהג בה כתרומה נפלה הקופה השניה למקום אחר אינה מדמעת וכן אם זרע אחר את השנייה הגידולין חולין נפלו שתיהן למקום אחד מדמעת כקטנה שבשתיהן זרע אחד את שתיהם בדבר שזרעו כלה הגידולין חולין ובדבר שאין זרעו כלה הגידולין מדומע במה דברים אמורים בזורע את השנייה עד שלא קצר את הראשונה אבל קצר את הראשונה ואחר כך זרע את השנייה אפילו בדבר שאין זרעו כלה הגידולין חולין שאין תלוש ומחוברין נעשין חובה זה לזה:

14

When there are two containers [of produce], one containing ordinary produce and the other, containing terumah and two se'ah, one of ordinary produce and one of terumah, and both se'ah fall into these containers, [one into each], the produce is permitted. We assume that the ordinary produce fell into [the container of] ordinary produce and that the terumah fell into [the container of] terumah. [This applies] even though the weight of the ordinary produce is not greater than that of the terumah.46

When does the above apply? With regard to terumah in the present era, for the requirement is of Rabbinic origin.47 If the terumah is mandated by Scriptural Law, [the above ruling does not apply unless] the weight of the ordinary produce is greater than that of the terumah.48

יד

שתי קופות אחת של חולין ואחת של תרומה ולפניהן שתי סאין אחת של חולין ואחת של תרומה ונפלו אלו לתוך אלו מותרין שאני אומר חולין לתוך חולין נפלו ותרומה לתוך התרומה ואע"פ שלא רבו חולין על התרומה בד"א בתרומה בזמן הזה שהוא מדבריהם אבל בתרומה של תורה עד שירבו חולין על התרומה:

15

When a se'ah of terumah falls into a grainheap49 and [the owner] states: "The terumah of this grainheap is in its midst," the borders of the terumah are defined where the se'ah fell and the entire mixture becomes miduma because of the terumah which fell in and the terumah of the grainheap.50

If he said: "The terumah of the grainheap is in its northern portion,"51 we divide the grainheap in half, and then the northern half in half. Thus the northern most quarter of the grainheap is miduma.52

טו

סאה תרומה שנפלה לתוך הכרי ואמר תרומת הכרי זה לתוכו במקום שנפלה אותה סאה שם נסתיימה תרומת הכרי ונדמע הכל בתרומה שנפלה ובתרומת הכרי אמר תרומת הכרי בצפונו חולקין אותו לשנים והחצי שבצפון לשנים ונמצא רביע הכרי שהוא צפון צפוני הוא המדומע:

16

If there were two grainheaps before a person and he said: 'The terumah for both grainheaps is in one of them," they are both considered miduma.53

If there were two se'ah of grain and one grainheap before a person and he said: "One of these se'ah is considered terumah for this grainheap," one of them is terumah and he does not know which.54 If there were two grainheaps and one se'ah before him and he said: "This is terumah for one of the grainheaps," [the se'ah] is terumah and [terumah has been separated from] one of the grainheaps, but he does not know which one is no longer tevel.55

טז

היו לפניו שני כריים ואמר תרומת שני כריים באחד מהן הרי שניהן מדומעין היו לפניו שתי סאין וכרי אחד ואמר הרי אחת מן הסאין האלו עשויה תרומה על הכרי הזה הרי אחת מהן תרומה ואין ידוע אי זו היא היו לפניו שני כריים וסאה אחת ואמר ה"ז תרומה על אחד מן הכריים הללו הרי הוא תרומה ונתקן אחד מהן ואין ידוע אי זה הוא המתוקן מן הטבל:

Footnotes
1.

In Hilchot Ma'achalot Assurot 15:16, the Rambam explains:

Why did [the Sages] choose the figure of 100 for terumot? For terumat ma'aser is one hundredth of the entire crop, and yet it causes the entire crop to be "sanctified," as [Numbers 18:29] states: "its sacred part." Our Sages said: "An entity which must be separated from it sanctifies it, if it returns to it.

Nevertheless, from Halachah 13-14, it appears that according to Scriptural Law, terumah is nullified when mixed with a majority of ordinary produce and the verse is cited merely as a support.

2.

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

3.

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

4.

And it is forbidden for a non-priest to partake of it.

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

5.

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

6.

Which is given to him without cost.

7.

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

8.

As required by Halachah 1.

9.

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

10.

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

11.

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

12.

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

13.

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

14.

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

15.

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

16.

And thus the entire mixture would be considered as permitted.

17.

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

18.

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

19.

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

20.

A measure of liquid weight of the Talmudic period.

21.

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

22.

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

23.

The Rambam is apparently saying that in this instance, the dregs of the terumah wine are counted and unless the ordinary wine is 100 times the amount of that wine including its dregs, it is considered as miduma. See Chapter 11, Halachah 13, which states that the dregs are considered as terumah.

The Ra'avad differs and maintains that in this instance, like the one described in the previous halachah, the dregs of the terumah are not counted, because they are wastes. The Radbaz justifies the Rambam's ruling, explaining that wine dregs are different than the wastes mentioned in the previous halachah, because they have the flavor of wine and can produce wine.

24.

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

25.

The Radbaz notes that in Hilchot Ma'achalot Assurot 15:25, the Rambam writes:

It is forbidden to nullify a substance forbidden by Scriptural Law as an initial and preferred measure. If, however, one nullified it, the mixture is permitted. Nevertheless, our Sages penalized such a person and forbade the entire mixture. It appears to me that since this is a penalty, we forbid this mixture only to the person who transgressed and nullified the prohibited substance. For others, however, the entire mixture is permitted.

In the present instance, however, it appears that the produce is considered as miduma, not only for the person who mixed together, but for everyone. The Radbaz differentiates between the two situations, explaining that in Hilchot Ma'achalot Assurot, the Rambam is speaking about a forbidden substance. Hence, if it was considered forbidden, it would have no value entirely. In our halachah, even if the mixture is considered miduma, it can be sold to priests and thus, it will not be wasted entirely.

26.

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

27.

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

28.

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

29.

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

30.

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

31.

For then there is no trace of the original plant.

32.

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

33.

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

34.

Without paying attention to the prohibition.

35.

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

36.

Since we are unsure of the identity of the produce that fell into the mixture, we do not rule it forbidden because of the doubt. Instead, we say that the ordinary produce fell into it.

This halachah involves produce that is forbidden as terumah according to Rabbinic decree, e.g., terumah from the Diaspora or a mixture of terumahand a majority of ordinary produce. These principles are also applied in other contexts, see Chapter 10, Halachah 14, and Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 111:1).

37.

Even if the original was terumah

38.

Because of the doubt applying to its status.

39.

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

40.

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

41.

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

42.

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

43.

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

44.

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

45.

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

46.

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

47.

See Chapter 1, Halachah 26.

48.

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

49.

From which terumah and the tithes have not been separated.

50.

Though in and of itself, the amount of terumah which fell in the grainheap would not disqualify it, when it is combined with the terumah that was designated it does.

The Ra'avad appears to have had a different version of the Jerusalem Talmud, Terumot 3:3, the Rambam's source. Hence he differs with the Rambam's ruling..

51.

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

52.

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

53.

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

54.

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

55.

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

Terumot - Chapter 14

1

[The following laws apply when] there were fifty dark figs and fifty1 light figs and one fig that is terumah fell among them. If it was light, the dark figs are permitted2 and the light figs are considered miduma.3 If it was dark, the dark figs are miduma and the light figs are permitted. If it is not known whether it was light or dark, it can be nullified when the mixture is 101 times [the weight of] the original fig.4 If he knew what type of fig it was but forgot, they are all considered miduma.5

א

חמשים תאנות שחורות וחמשים לבנות שנפלה לתוכן תאנה אחת של תרומה היתה לבנה השחורות מותרות והלבנות מדומעות היתה שחורה השחורות מדומעות והלבנות מותרות ואם אין ידוע אם שחורה היתה ואם לבנה עולה באחד ומאה מן הכל ידע מה היתה אחר שנפלה ושכח הרי כולן מדומעות:

2

Similar laws apply when there are cakes of pressed figs or blocks of pressed figs and a cake or block of [figs that are] terumah falls among them. If it is not known whether the one which fell in was a block or a cake, the cakes and the blocks are combined and the terumah can be nullified if their [combined weight] is 101 times that of the terumah. [Similarly,] when there are large cakes of figs and small ones and a cake of figs [that is terumah] falls among them, but it is not known whether the cake which fell in was large or small, [the existing cakes] can nullify the one which fell in whether by weight or by number.

What is implied? A cake [of figs] fell into a mixture of 100 other cakes, both large and small. We assume that a small cake6 fell in and one may remove one of the small cakes.7 If a cake fell into 40 cakes, 20 of them weighing four litra each and 20 of them, weighing one litra each, since the combined weight is 101 litra, we assume a small one fell in and remove one of the small ones.8

ב

וכן עיגולי דבילה ומלבנים של דבילה שנפל עיגול או מלבן של תרומה לתוכן ואין ידוע אם מלבן היה או עיגול הרי העיגולין מצטרפין למלבנים ותעלה התרומה באחד ומאה מן הכל עיגולי דבילה גדולים וקטנים שנפל עיגול דבילה לתוכן ואין ידוע אם גדול היה אם קטן הרי הן מעלין בין במנין בין במשקל כיצד נפל עיגול למאה עיגולין גדולים וקטנים הריני אומר קטן נפל ומגביה אחד מן הקטנים נפל עיגול לתוך מ' עיגולים מהן עשרים עיגול משקל כל אחד ארבע ליטרין ומהן עשרים עיגול משקל כל אחד ליטרא הואיל ומשקל הכל מאה ליטרין ואחד הריני אומר קטן נפל ומגביה אחד מן הקטנים:

3

Flour and finely sifted flour cannot be combined together to nullify terumah.9

ג

והקמח והסולת אינן מצטרפין להעלות את התרומה:

4

When a se'ah of wheat which is terumah falls on the mouth of the storage vat of wheat, we do not measure it against the 101 times [its weight or ordinary grain found] in the storage vat. For we do not make such an assessment unless the terumah has been mixed with the ordinary produce10 or we do not know where the terumah fell.11

What should be done? We consider the terumah as if it is wheat placed above barley and separate the terumah itself which fell unto the storage vat with some of the ordinary produce upon which they fell as one would be collecting wheat from barley.

ד

סאה של חטים שנפלה על פי מגורה של חטים אין משערין אותה באחד ומאה שאין משערין אלא אם נבללה תרומה עם החולין או אם אין ידוע באיזה מקום נפלה התרומה וכיצד יעשה רואין את התרומה כאילו היא חטים על גבי שעורים ומפריש התרומה עצמה שנפלה על גבי המגורה עם מעט מן החולין שנפלה עליהן כמי שמאסף חטים מע"ג שעורין:

5

[The following laws apply when] there are two containers or two storage vats and terumah fell into one of them. It became mixed with [the contents of the container or storage vat] and it is not known which one it fell into. If the two storage vats were in the same building, they are considered as if they were combined and the terumah is nullified if the entire quantity is 101 times its weight. It is as if they were both contained in a single storage vat. Moreover, the containers are considered as combined together even if they are in two separate buildings, for it is possible to gather the two in one building.12 If, however, the two containers were in two cities, they are not combined.

ה

שתי קופית או שתי מגורות שנפלה תרומה לתוך אחת מהן ונבללה ואין ידוע לאי זו מהן נפלה אם היו שתי מגורות בבית אחד הרי אלו מצטרפות ותעלה באחד ומאה מן הכל כאילו היו שתיהן מגורה אחת והקופות מצטרפות ואפילו היתה קופה בבית זה וקופה בבית אחר לפי שקרוב הדבר לקבץ שתיהן בבית אחד אבל אם היו שתי הקופות בשתי עיירות אינן מצטרפות:

6

How should he remove the se'ah which fell in?13 If he desires to remove it from one of them, he may. If he desires to remove half from one and half from the other, he may.

[The following laws apply when] there are jugs filled with dried figs that are ordinary produce and [the owner] pressed a litra of figs that are terumah into the opening of one of them, but he does not remember which one. If there are 101 jugs, the terumah is considered nullified. He should take one jug and sell it to a priest except for the worth of the litra [of terumah]14 and the remainder [of the jugs] are permitted. If there are less than 100 jugs, [the figs at] the openings [of the jugs] are considered miduma and those at the bottom are permitted.15

ו

וכיצד מעלה סאה שנפלה אם רצה להעלות מאחד משתיהן מעלה ואם רצה להעלות חציה מזו וחציה מזו מעלה כדים מלאים תאנים של חולין שדרס ליטרא תאנים של תרומה בפי כד אחד מהם ואין ידוע אי זו היא אם היו שם מאה כד וכד הרי זו תעלה ולוקח כד אחד מהם ומוכרה לכהן חוץ מדמי אותה ליטרא והשאר מותרין ואם היו פחות ממאה הפומין כולן מדומעות והשולים מותרין:

7

Similar laws apply if one pressed [a litra of] figs into the opening of a kaveret16or into the top of a cake.17 If he pressed them onto the top of a cake, but does not know whether he pressed them onto the northern portion [of the cake] or its southern portion, nor does he know which cake he pressed them onto, we look at all the figs as if they were separate entities and [the figs that are terumah] should be nullified based on weight. If all the cakes weigh 10018 litra, the terumah is nullified19 proved each of the cakes weighs more than two litra so that in each cake, the terumah is nullified because there is a majority of ordinary produce.20 The rationale is that when there is a doubt concerning the presence of terumah, it is nullified when there is a majority of ordinary produce.

ז

וכן אם דרסה על פי כוורת או ע"פ עיגול ואין ידוע אי זה הוא דרסה על פי העיגול ואין ידוע אם בצפונו או בדרומו ולא אי זו עיגול הוא רואין אותם כאילו הם פרודות ותעלה לפי המשקל אם יש בכל העיגולין מאה ליטרין תעלה והוא שיש בכל עיגול מהן יתר על שני ליטרין כדי שתבטל התרומה ברוב שספק התרומה בטל ברוב החולין:

8

When terumah is definitely [present in a mixture], it is forbidden if the mixture is 100 [or less times its weight]. If there is merely a doubt concerning the presence of terumah, it is forbidden if there are only fifty. It is permitted only if one adds a majority [of the new mixture].21 If there are more than fifty, one need not add such a majority.

What is implied? One fig that is terumah fell into 99 figs and they are all present. They are all forbidden to non-priests, as explained.22

ח

התרומה ודאה אוסר במאה וספיקה אוסר בחמשים ואין לה היתר אלא ברוב ואם היה ביותר מחמשים אינה צריכה רוב כיצד תאנה אחת תרומה שנפלה לתשעים ותשע והרי המאה קיימין הכל אסור לזרים כמו שביארנו:

9

If, [after a fig that is terumah fell into 50 other figs, and then] one of the mixture becomes lost, it is possible that one of the ordinary figs was the one that was lost, but it is possible that it was the fig that fell in. Hence, the mixture is forbidden until one adds ordinary produce to it from another source,23 adding 51 figs to the entire quantity. If one fig fell into 51 figs and one of the mixture was lost, the remainder is permitted to non-priests.24

ט

נפלה אחת מחמשים ואבדה אחת מן הכל שמא אחת מן החולין היא שאבדה או האחת שנפלה היא שאבדה הרי אלו אסורות עד שירבה עליהן חולין ממקום אחר ויוסיף עליהן חמשים תאנים ואחת יותר על הכל ואם נפלה אחת של תרומה לתוך חמשים ואחת ואבדה אחת מן הכל הותר השאר לזרים:

10

[The following rules apply when] a se'ah of terumah fell into less than 100 se'ah of the first tithe from which terumat ma'aser was not separated or into [produce from] the second tithe or consecrated property that was not redeemed and the entire mixture became miduma. If [the terumah] fell into the first tithe, the terumat ma'aser should be designated,25 and the entire mixture sold to the priests with the exception of the worth of the terumah that fell into it and the worth of the terumat ma'aser.26 If it fell into [produce from] the second tithe or consecrated property that was not redeemed, they should be redeemed27 and then sold to a priest with the exception of the worth of the terumah.

י

סאה תרומה שנפלה לפחות ממאה מע"ר שלא ניטלה תרומתו או למ"ש והקד' שלא נפדו ונדמע הכל אם למע"ר נפלה יקרא שם לתרומ' מעשר וימכר הכל לכהנים חוץ מדמי תרומה שנפלה ומדמי תרומת מעשר שבו ואם למעשר שני והקדש נפלה הרי אלו יפדו וימכרו לכהן חוץ מדמי תרומה:

11

When a se'ah of impure terumah falls into less than 100 se'ah of ordinary produce or into produce that is from the first tithe, or from the second tithe, or from consecrated property - whether [the latter three] are ritually pure or ritually impure - [the mixture] is miduma.28 Hence, the entire mixture is like impure terumah which is forbidden to everyone. Thus it is all forbidden and must be left until it rots.29

When does the above apply? With regard to an entity that is not eaten raw.30 When, by contrast, it is normal practice to partake of a type of produce uncooked,31 one should not set them aside lest someone encounter them and partake of it.32 Instead, the entire mixture should be used as fuel, like impure terumah is used as fuel.

יא

סאה תרומה טמאה שנפלה לפחות ממאה חולין או ממע"ר או מעשר שני או הקדש בין טמאין בין טהורים הואיל ונדמע הכל הרי הכל כתרומה טמאה שאסורה באכילה לכל והרי הכל אסור לעולם ומניחים אותן עד שירקבו במה דברים אמורים בדבר שאין דרכו להאכל חי אבל בדבר שדרכו להאכל חי לא יניחן שמא יתקל בהם ויאכל מהן אלא ידליק הכל כדרך שמדליקין תרומה טמאה:

12

When a se'ah of pure terumah falls into less than 100 se'ah of ordinary produce that is impure, the entire mixture should be sold to a priest with the exception of the worth of the terumah. The priest should eat this mixture which is miduma as roasted kernels33 or he should make them into a dough using fruit juice which does not render produce fit to contract impurity,34 so that [contact with] the impure ordinary produce will not render the terumah as impure.35

Alternatively, he should make this mixture that is miduma into a dough that is less than the size of an egg. [This is beneficial], because impure food does not cause other food to become impure until [the impure food] is the size of an egg.36 Or he may divide the mixture that is miduma and place a portion of it that is less than the size of an egg in each dough so that the terumah in it will not become impure.

יב

סאה תרומה טהורה שנפלה לפחות ממאה חולין טמאין ימכר הכל לכהנים חוץ מדמי תרומה והכהן אוכל מדומע זה קליות או ילוש אותו במי פירות שאינן מכשירין כדי שלא תטמא התרומה שבו מן החולין הטמאין או ילוש מדומע זה פחות מכביצה שאין אוכל טמא מטמא אוכל אחר עד שיהיה כביצה או יתחלק מדומע זה פחות מכביצה בכל עיסה כדי שלא תטמא התרומה שבו:

13

When a se'ah of impure terumah falls into 100 se'ah of ordinary produce that is pure or a se'ah of pure terumah falls into 100 se'ah of ordinary produce that is impure, it should be removed and the terumah is nullified, because the new mixture is 101 times [the size of the terumah that fell in. That se'ah] should be eaten as roasted kernels, or it should be made into dough with fruit juice, or into dough that is less than the size of an egg.37 [The rationale is that] the se'ah which fell in is not [necessarily] the se'ah that was removed.38

יג

סאה תרומה טמאה שנפלה למאה חולין טהורין וכן סאה תרומה טהורה שנפלה למאה חולין טמאין תעלה באחד ומאה ותאכל קליות או תלוש במי פירות או פחות מכביצה שאין הסאה שנפלה היא הסאה עצמה שעלתה:

14

When a se'ah of impure terumah falls into 100 se'ah of pure terumah, it is nullified because of the insignificant amount and the entire mixture should be eaten in a state of ritual purity.39 If it fell into less than 100, he should leave the entire mixture until it rots.40

יד

סאה תרומה טמאה שנפלה למאה סאה של תרומה טהורה בטלה במיעוט ואוכלין הכל בטהרה ואם נפלה לפחות ממאה יניח הכל עד שירקב:

15

There were two containers [of grain, each containing less than 100 se'ah]. A se'ah of terumah fell into one of them and it was known into which one it fell.41 Afterwards, a second se'ah of terumah, but it was not known into which it fell. [The rationale is that] we assume that the second se'ah fell into the same place as the first se'ah, for we associate the problematic issue with the [previous] problem.

If, however, the first se'ah fell into one of the containers, but it was not known into which it fell and afterwards, a second se'ah fell into one and it was known into which one it fell, we do not say that the first one fell into the same place as the second. Instead, both are considered to be problematic.42

טו

שתי קופות שנפלה סאה של תרומה לתוך אחת מהן ונודע לאי זו מהן נפלה ואחר כך נפלה סאה שנייה ואין ידוע לאי זו מהן נפלה אומרים למקום שנפלה ראשונה נפלה שנייה לפי שתולין את הקלקלה במקולקל נפלה סאה ראשונה לתוך אחת מהם ואין ידוע לאי זו מהן נפלה ואח"כ נפלה סאה שנייה ונודע לאי זו מהן נפלה אין אומרים למקום שנפלה שנייה נפלה ראשונה אלא שתיהן מקולקלות:

16

If there were two containers [of grain], one ritually pure and one ritually impure,43 and a se'ah of terumah fell into one and it was not known into which, we assume that it fell into the impure one.44

טז

היו שתי קופות אחת טמאה ואחת טהורה ונפלה סאה של תרומה לאחת מהן ואין ידוע אי זו היא אומרין לתוך הטמאה נפלה:

17

When there are two containers, one containing pure terumah45 and one containing impure ordinary produce,46 should a se'ah of pure terumah fall into one of them,47 we assume that it fell into the one containing terumah.48 The ordinary produce should, however, be eaten in a state of ritual purity like terumah.49

יז

שתי קופות אחת תרומה טהורה ואחת של חולין טמאין נפלה סאה תרומה טהורה לתוך אחת מהן אומרין לתוך של תרומה נפלה והחולין יאכלו בטהרה כתרומה:

18-19

50When a se'ah of impure terumah falls into one of the above mentioned containers, we say that it fell into the terumah.51 The ordinary produce should, however, be eaten as roasted kernels or made into dough with fruit juice.52

יח

נפלה סאה תרומה טמאה לתוך אחת מהן אומרין לתוך של תרומה נפלה והחולין יאכלו קליות בטהרה כתרומה גדולה:

יט

סאה תרומה טמאה שנפלה לתוך אחת מהן אומרין לתוך של תרומה נפלה והחולין יאכלו קליות או ילושו במי פירות:

20

When there are two containers, one containing impure terumah and the other ordinary produce that is pure, and a se'ah of pure terumah falls into one of them,53 we assume that it fell into the terumah,54 but the ordinary produce should be eaten as roasted kernels.55

כ

שתי קופות אחת של תרומה טמאה ואחת של חולין טהורין ונפלה סאה של תרומה טהורה לתוך אחת מהן אומרין לתוך של תרומה נפלה והחולין יאכלו קליות:

21

If a se'ah of impure terumah fell into one of these containers, both of them are forbidden.56 [The rationale is that when] there is a doubt [whether produce is] impure terumah, it is forbidden to be eaten, while when there is a doubt whether it is miduma, it is permitted. For the prohibition against partaking of impure terumah is Scriptural in origin,57 while the prohibition against partaking of a mixture that is miduma is Rabbinic in origin58 based on the principles explained in Hilchot Ma'achalot Assurot.59

כא

נפלה סאה של תרומה טמאה לתוך אחת מהן שתיהן אסורות שספק תרומה טמאת אסור וספק המדומע מותר מפני שאיסור תרומה טמאה מן התורה ואיסור המדומע מדבריהן על העיקרים שביארנו בהלכות איסורי מאכלות:

Footnotes
1.

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

2.

Because the fig that was terumah was not dark.

3.

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

4.

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

5.

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

6.

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

7.

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

8.

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

9.

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

10.

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

11.

And in this instance, we do.

12.

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

13.

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

14.

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

15.

Since we are talking about compressed figs, they will not mix with the contents of the jugs, but instead will be found on the top of a jug. Hence, when considering nullifying the figs, only the tops of the jugs are considered, but not the bottoms. Therefore we require 101 jugs, not 101 times the weight of the initial amount of terumah.

The Radbaz explains that this situation differs from that described in Halachah 1. In that situation, although the light figs and the dark figs could be distinguished from each other, they were all mixed together. Hence, it is possible to speak about one type being combined with the other to nullify the terumah. In the situation described by our Halachah, the tops and the bottoms will always remain discrete.

16.

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

17.

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

18.

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

19.

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

20.

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

21.

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

22.

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

23.

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

24.

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

25.

So that the mitzvah of separating it has been fulfilled.

26.

For such produce must be given to the priests as a present. The majority of the mixture, however, belongs to its owner. Even though it is being given to the priest, because the owner may not make use of it, the priest must reimburse the owner for its value. Nevertheless, as mentioned previously, the value of produce that is terumah is less than that of ordinary produce.

The Radbaz mentions another possible solution to this difficulty: If the Levite has a large amount of produce from which terumat ma'aser has not been separated, he may make this entire mixture terumat ma'aser for that produce and in this way, not suffer any financial loss.

27.

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

28.

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

29.

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

30.

E.g., wheat or barley.

31.

E.g., oil.

32.

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

33.

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

34.

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

35.

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

36.

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

37.

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

38.

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

39.

There is no need for any safeguards.

40.

As explained in Halachah 11.

41.

And the contents of that container was considered as miduma.

42.

I.e., they are both miduma. The rationale is that the problematic status of the two containers was established before the second one fell in and the fact that we know into which one it fell cannot resolve the existing problem.

Rav Yosef Korcus maintains that this is the interpretation of the Rambam's ruling. Nevertheless, he and the Radbaz both maintain that this law applies even if the first container contains 100 se'ah and the first se'ah is nullified. Since one se'ah has to be removed from it, it can also be considered as problematic.

43.

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

44.

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

45.

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

46.

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

47.

But we do not know which.

48.

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

49.

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

50.

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

51.

For we assume that the terumah fell into terumah.

52.

To prevent it from contracting ritual impurity as mentioned above.

53.

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

54.

And thus the entire mixture is considered as impure terumah.

55.

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

56.

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

57.

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

58.

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

59.

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

Terumot - Chapter 15

1

A sealed barrel [of wine that is terumah] makes a mixture miduma whatever the ratio [between it and the other barrels].

What is implied? When a sealed barrel [of wine] that is terumah becomes mixed with several thousand sealed barrels [of ordinary wine], the entire mixture becomes miduma.1 If the barrels are opened, [the presence of the terumah] is nullified when 101 times its contents are present.2

א

חבית סתומה מדמעת בכל שהוא כיצד חבית סתומה של תרומה שנתערבה בכמה אלפים חביות סתומות נדמע הכל נפתחו החביות תעלה באחד ומאה:

2

When a sealed barrel [that contains terumah] becomes mixed with 100 barrels and then one falls into the Mediterranean Sea, they are all permitted. We assume that it is the one that is terumah that fell in. This is not the case when a fig falls into 100 figs. In the latter instance, it is necessary to set aside one [fig].3 [The rationale for the distinction is] that a barrel that falls into the sea is noticeable. A fig and the like which fall are not noticeable.

ב

חבית סתומה שנתערבה במאה חביות ונפלה אחת מהם לים הגדול הותרו כולן ואומרין של תרומה היא שנפלה מה שאין כן בתאנה שנפלה למאה ונפלה אחת מהן לים הגדול אלא צריך להפריש אחת לפי שהחבית נפילתה ניכרת ותאנה וכיוצא בה אין נפילתה ניכרת:

3

When a sealed barrel [that contains terumah] becomes mixed with 100 barrels and one of them is opened,4 he should remove one hundredth of it,5 and then he may drink the barrel.6 The other barrels are, however, forbidden until they are opened. Whenever any one of them is opened, he should remove the percentage that causes the mixture to be miduma and drink the remaining hundred portions.

If a barrel [containing terumah] became mixed with 150 barrels and 100 of them were opened, he should remove the percentage that causes the mixture to be miduma, i.e., one barrel and drink [he remaining barrels]. The remaining 50 are still forbidden; we do not presume that the barrel that was terumah was among the majority [that were opened].7 Even if there are several thousand barrels, they are all considered miduma. Whenever any one is opened, he should remove one hundredth of it and then he may drinking the remainder [of that barrel]. The other barrels, however, are miduma,

ג

חבית סתומה שנתערבה במאה חביות ונפתחה אחת מהן נוטל ממנה אחד ממאה ושותה אותה החבית אבל שאר החביות אסורות עד שיפתחו וכל אחת ואחת שתפתח מהן נוטל ממנה כדי דימועה ושותה המאה השאר נתערבה חבית בק"נ חביות ונפתחו מהם ק' נוטל מהם כדי דימוע חבית אחת ושותה המאה ושאר החמשים אסורות ואין מחזיקין לאותה חבית של תרומה שהיא ברוב אפילו היו כמה אלפים חביות כולן מדומע וכל מה שיפתח נוטל הימנו אחד ממאה והשירים שותה והשאר מדומע:

4

We have already explained in Hilchot Ma'achalot Assurot8 that a leavening agent or a spice9 causes a mixture to be forbidden regardless of how small the amount is mixed in.10 Therefore if a person pureed an apple that was terumah and put it in a dough and it caused [the dough] to leaven, the entire dough becomes miduma and is forbidden to non-priests.

ד

כבר ביארנו בהלכות איסורי מאכלות שהמחמץ והמתבל אוסר בכל שהוא לפיכך אם ריסק תפוח של תרומה ונתנו לתוך העיסה והחמיצה כל העיסה מדומעת ואסורה לזרים:

5

When an egg, even its yolk,11 was flavored with spices that are terumah, it is forbidden, because it absorbs.

ה

ביצה שנתבלה בתבלין של תרומה אפילו חלמון שלה אסור מפני שהוא בולע:

6

When yeast that is terumah fell into a dough and it was removed and afterwards, the mixture became leavened, [the dough] is permitted.12

ו

שאור של תרומה שנפל לתוך העיסה והגביהו ואחר כך נתחמצה הרי זו מותרת:

7

We have already explained13 that if terumah becomes mixed with a substance of a different type, [the mixture is forbidden if the terumah] imparts its flavor [to the mixture]. Therefore, [the following laws apply when] a diced onion is cooked together with other food. If the onion is terumah and the other food is ordinary produce and it is flavored by the onion, the other food is forbidden to non-priests. If the onion is ordinary produce and the cooked food is terumah and the flavor of the cooked food was imparted to the onion, the onion is forbidden [to non-priests].14

ז

כבר ביארנו שאם נתערב (תרומה) מין בשאינו מינו בנותן טעם לפיכך בצל מחותך שנתבשל עם התבשיל אם הבצל תרומה והתבשיל חולין ויש בו טעם הבצל הרי התבשיל אסור לזרים ואם הבצל חולין והתבשיל תרומה ונמצא טעם התבשיל בבצל הרי הבצל אסור:

8

[The following laws apply if] lentils were cooked and then a dry onion was placed among them: If the onion was whole, it is permitted.15 If it was diced, [the ruling depends on whether] its flavor was imparted.16 If he cooked the onion with the lentils, whether it is whole or diced, we estimate whether it imparted its flavor.17 With regard to the remainder of the cooked food,18 regardless of whether the onion was placed upon it after it was cooked or cooked with it, or whether it was whole or diced, we estimate whether it imparted its flavor.19

Why do we not estimate [whether flavor was imparted] when a whole onion was placed among cooked lentils? Because it does not absorb from them, for it is whole, nor does it impart [flavor] to them, because they have already been cooked. If the onions were soft,20 it is considered as if they were diced. Similarly, if its tip or its outer shell21 was removed or it was moist, it is considered as if it was diced. Wild onions, whether moist or dry, whether whole or diced, we see if they have imparted their flavor.

ח

עדשים שנתבשלו ואחר כך השליך לתוכן בצל יבש אם היה שלם ה"ז מותר ואם היה מחותך בנותן טעם ואם בישל הבצל עם העדשים בין שלם בין מחותך משערין אותו בנותן טעם ושאר כל התבשיל בין שהשליך הבצל אחר שנתבשל בין שבשלו עם התבשיל בין שלם בין מחותך משערין אותו בנותן טעם ומפני מה בצל שלם לתוך עדשים שנתבשלו אין משערין אותו מפני שאינו שואב מהן שהרי הוא שלם ולא פולט לתוכן שכבר נתבשלו ואם היו בצלים רכים הרי הן כמחותך וכן אם נוטל פטמתו וקליפתו החיצונה או שהיה לח הרי הוא כמחותך והקפלוט בין לח בין יבש בין שלם בין מחותך בנותן טעם:

9

When one pickles vegetables that are ordinary produce with those of terumah, they are permitted to non-priests22 with the exception of onions, scallions, and garlic.23 [With regard to these species,] if one pickled vegetables that are ordinary produce with onions that are terumah or onions that are ordinary produce with onions that are terumah, they are forbidden to non-priests. If one pickled vegetables that are terumah with an onion that is ordinary produce, the onion is permitted to non-priests.24

ט

הכובש ירק של חולין עם ירק של תרומה ה"ז מותר לזרים חוץ ממיני בצלים וחציר ושומים שאם כבש ירק של חולין עם בצלים של תרומה או בצלים חולין עם בצלים של תרומה הרי אלו אסורין כבש ירק של תרומה עם בצל של חולין הרי הבצל מותר לזרים:

10

[The following rules apply when] olives that are ordinary produce were pickled together with olives that are terumah. If they were both crushed, or the ordinary olives were crushed, but those which were terumah were whole,25 or they were pickled in brine that was terumah, they are forbidden to non-priests.26 If, however, they were both whole or the olives that were terumah were crushed and those that were ordinary produce were whole, they are permitted, because those that are crushed absorb from those which are whole.

י

זיתי חולין שכבשן עם זיתי תרומה אם היו פצועין אלו ואלו או שהיו חולין פצועין ושל תרומה שלמין או שכבשן במי תרומה הרי אלו אסורין אבל אם היו שניהן שלמין או שהיו זיתי תרומה פצועין וזיתי החולין שלמין הרי אלו מותרין לפי שהפצועין שואבות מן השלמין:

11

Water in which terumah was pickled or cooked is forbidden to non-priests.27

יא

מי כבשים ומי שלקות של תרומה הרי הן אסורין לזרים:

12

The laws governing terumah apply to anise as long as it has not yet flavored a dish [of food].28 Once it has flavored a dish, the laws of terumah no longer apply.

יב

השבת עד שלא נתנה טעם בקדרה יש בה משום תרומה משנתנה טעם בקדרה אין בה משום תרומה:

13

[The following laws apply when a person] removes a warm loaf of bread [from the oven] and places it over a barrel of wine that is terumah. If the loaf is from wheat, it is permitted.29 If it is from barley, it is forbidden, because it draws forth [the wine itself].30

יג

הרודה פת חמה ונתנה על פי חבית של יין תרומה אם היתה פת חטים ה"ז מותרת ושל שעורים אסורים מפני ששואבות:

14

When an oven has been heated with cumin that is terumah, the bread is permitted. For it does not have the flavor of the cumin, only its fragrance and fragrance does not create a prohibition.31

יד

תנור שהסיקו בכמון של תרומה ואפה בו את הפת הפת מותרת שאין בה טעם כמון אלא ריחו והריח אינו אסור:

15

When barley that is terumah falls into a cistern of water, the water is permitted even if [the barley] spoils the flavor of the water, for food that imparts an undesirable flavor does not bring about a prohibition.32

טו

שעורין של תרומה שנפלו לבור של מים אף ע"פ שהבאישו מימיו הרי הן מותרין שאין נותן טעם לפגם אוסר:

16

[The following law applies when] chilba33 that is terumah and its plant fall into a cistern of wine. If the chilba seed itself34 is of sufficient quantity to impart its flavor to the wine, the wine is forbidden to non-priests.

טז

תלתן של תרומה הוא ועצו שנפל לתוך בור של יין אם יש בזרע התלתן כדי ליתן לבדו טעם ביין הרי היין אסור לזרים:

17

When there are two cups of wine: one of terumah and one of ordinary wine35 and they were each mixed with water and then combined, we consider it as if the ordinary wine was not present and as if the wine that was terumahwas mixed with the water alone, for water is not of its type. If that water is sufficient to nullify the taste of the terumah wine in the mixture, the entire mixture is permitted to non-priests. If not, it is forbidden, for as we have explained,36 water does not nullify wine.

יז

שני כוסות של יין אחד תרומה ואחד חולין מזג כל אחד במים ואח"כ עירבן רואין את יין החולין כאילו אינו וכאילו יין התרומה שנתערב במים שהרי אינו מינו אם ראוי אותו המים לבטל טעם יין התרומה הרי הכל מותר לזרים ואם לאו אסור שכבר ביארנו שאין המים מעלין את היין:

18

When wine that is terumah falls on produce, one may wash the fruits and they are permitted.37 Similarly, when oil that is terumah falls on produce, one may wash the fruits and they are permitted.38

When oil [that is terumah] falls on [ordinary] wine, one should make it coagulate39 and the wine is then permitted to non-priests. If [oil that is terumah] mixes with brine, it should be made to coagulate, then the upper layer of the brine should be removed40 so that all the brine that has the taste of oil will be removed.

יח

יין של תרומה שנפל על גבי פירות ידיחם והם מותרות וכן שמן של תרומה שנפל על גבי פירות ידיחם והם מותרות נפל השמן על גבי יין יקפה אותו והיין מותר לזרים נפל על גבי הציר יקפה אותו ויטול קליפה מעל הציר כדי שיסיר כל הציר שבו טעם השמן:

19

A pot in which terumah was cooked should not be used to cook ordinary produce. If it was cooked in it, it causes it to be forbidden if its flavor is recognizable. If he washes out the pot with wine or with water, it is permitted to cook in it.41 If he cooked [terumah] in part of the pot, it is not necessary to wash out the entire pot, only the place where it was cooked.42

יט

קדרה שבישל בה תרומה לא יבשל בה חולין ואם בישל בנותן טעם ואם שטף הקדרה במים או ביין ה"ז מותר לבשל בה בישל במקצת הכלי אין צריך לשטף את כולו אלא שוטף מקום הבישול בלבד:

20

The great terumah, terumat ma'aser, challah,43 and the first fruits are all referred to as terumah.44 With regard to terumat ma'aser, [Numbers 18:26] states: "And you shall remove the terumah of G‑d from it" and [ibid. 15:20] states that it should be "like the terumah of your grain heap."45

With regard to challah, [ibid.] states: "You shall separate challah as terumah." And [Deuteronomy 12:17]: "You may not eat in your gates the tithes of your grain, your wine, and your oil,... and the terumah of your hand." Now there are no substances that are required to be brought [to Jerusalem to be eaten] that are not explicitly mentioned in the verse except the first fruits. Thus the phrase "the terumah of your hand" can be applied to them. Thus we see that they are [also] called terumah.

כ

תרומה גדולה ותרומת מעשר והחלה והבכורים כולן נקראו תרומ' בתרומת מעשר נאמר והרמותם ממנו תרומת יי' ואומר כתרומת גורן ובחלה נאמר חלה תרימו תרומה ונאמר לא תוכל לאכול בשעריך מעשר דגנך תירושך ויצהרך וגו' ותרומת ידך ואין לך דבר שטעון הבאת מקום שלא פרטו בפסוק זה חוץ מן הבכורים ובהן נאמר ותרומת ידך הא למדת שהן קרואין תרומה:

21

Therefore the laws regarding partaking of all four types of substances and mixtures of them and other substances are the same. All can be nullified in a mixture of 101 times the original substance. They are also all combined with each other.46 If they become impure, they should all be burnt. The laws that apply to terumat ma'aser that is demai,47 are the same that apply to terumat ma'aser separated from produce [from which the tithes were] definitely [not separated]. It is only that its violation is not punishable by lashes.

כא

לפיכך דין ארבעתן לענין אכילה ודימוע אחד הוא כולן עולין באחד ומאה ומצטרפין זה עם זה ואם נטמאו ישרפו ודין תרומת מעשר של דמאי בכל אלו הדרכים כתרומת מעשר של ודאי אלא שאין לוקין על אכילתה:

22

Anyone who partakes of terumah should recite the blessing for that particular food and then recite the blessing:48 "[Blessed are You... who has sanctified us with the holiness of Aaron and commanded us to partake of terumah."49 We have received the tradition and observed that people would recite this blessing even when partaking of challah separated in the Diaspora.50 For even partaking of sacred foods from the boundaries [of our Holy Land] is like service [in the Temple],51 as [Numbers 18:7] states: "I have granted you your priestly service as a gift."

כב

כל האוכל תרומה מברך ברכת אותו מאכל ואחר כך מברך אשר קדשנו בקדושתו של אהרן וצונו לאכול תרומה וכך קבלנו וראינו אותם מברכין אפילו בחלת חוצה לארץ שגם אכילת קדשי הגבול כעבודה שנאמר עבודת מתנה אתן את כהונתכם:

Blessed be the Merciful One who grants assistance.

סליק הלכות תרומות:

Footnotes
1.

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

2.

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

3.

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

The Ra'avad does not accept this ruling. He maintains that the Babylonian Talmud mentions Reish Lakish's opinion only in connection with the discussion of another minority view. Hence, it is not necessary to mention Rabbi Yochanan's view.

4.

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

5.

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

6.

It is true that this ruling is somewhat problematic. For if the barrel is in fact terumah, the entire barrel, not only the hundredth portion, must be given to the priest. And if it is not terumah, it is permitted to drink it in its entirety. Nothing need be given to the priest.

The Ma'aseh Rokeach explains the reason for the stringency. Were this safeguard not taken, one might permit the barrels even when they were all opened.

7.

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

8.

Chapter 16, Halachah 1.

9.

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

10.

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

11.

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

12.

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

13.

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

14.

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

15.

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

16.

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

17.

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

18.

I.e., in addition to the lentils.

19.

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

20.

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

21.

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

22.

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

23.

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

24.

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

25.

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

26.

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

27.

For it has absorbed the flavor of the terumah.

28.

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

29.

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

30.

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

31.

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

32.

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

33.

A pungent herb.

34.

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

35.

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

36.

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

37.

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

38.

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

39.

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

40.

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

41.

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

42.

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

43.

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

44.

See Chapter 10, Halachah 4.

45.

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

46.

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

47.

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

48.

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

49.

See Hillchot Bikkurim 1:2.

50.

Even though it is only a Rabbinic commandment.

51.

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

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