Rambam - 1 Chapter a Day

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

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

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

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

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

Which is bound by the same rules as terumah.

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

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

See Hilchot Sha’ar Avot HaTumah 13:13.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

See Chapter 13, Halachah I.

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

To the earth and thus will be spoiled entirely.

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

Over the possible loss of his money.

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

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

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

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

To remove their coatings.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

For these barrels are empty.

For the wine has already been rendered impure.

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

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

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

And not an egg-sized portion itself.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

To whom the tithes are given.

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

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

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

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

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

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

See Hilchot Bikkurim, ch. 9.

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

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

A silver coin of the Talmudic period.

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

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

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

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

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

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

A person with both masculine and feminine sexual organs.

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

And thus become forbidden to partake of terumah.

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

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

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