Rambam - 1 Chapter a Day

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

Because the fig that was terumah was not dark.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

And in this instance, we do.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

So that the mitzvah of separating it has been fulfilled.

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

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

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

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

E.g., wheat or barley.

E.g., oil.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

There is no need for any safeguards.

As explained in Halachah 11.

And the contents of that container were considered as miduma.

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

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

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

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

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

But we do not know which.

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

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

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

For we assume that the terumah fell into terumah.

To prevent it from contracting ritual impurity as mentioned above.

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

And thus the entire mixture is considered as impure terumah.

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

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

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

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

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