Rambam - 1 Chapter a Day

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

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

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

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

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

Which is given to him without cost.

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

As required by Halachah 1.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

And thus the entire mixture would be considered as permitted.

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

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

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

A measure of liquid weight of the Talmudic period.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Without paying attention to the prohibition.

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

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

Even if the original was terumah

Because of the doubt applying to its status.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

See Chapter 1, Halachah 26.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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