Rambam - 3 Chapters a Day

By saying "also you," the verse implies that there is someone other than you - an agent - that may also separate terumah [the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (Terumah 1:1)].

This is a general principle applying not only with regard to terumah. A gentile cannot serve as an agent for a Jew in any matter (Kiddushin 41b).

As the Rambam explains in his Commentary to the Mishnah (Terumah 1:2) although the term cheresh refers to someone who cannot hear, in a halachic context, the intent is someone who also cannot speak. He is referred to as a cheresh because it is his inability to hear that prevents him from learning how to speak.

These three individuals are considered as incapable of controlling their affairs. Hence they are not obligated in the observance of the Torah and its mitzvot. Just as they are not responsible for themselves, they cannot discharge the responsibilities of others.

For as stated above, a gentile cannot act as an agent for a Jew.

If he is granted the owner's permission, he is considered as his agent and the separation is effective as stated above.

Our translation is based on Rashi's commentary (Bava Metzia 22a).

According to this approach, the statement "You should have taken better ones" is understood simply. The owner in truth desired that the person give the priest the best produce possible as terumah.

Thus we consider it as if the person acted with the owner's consent and thus functioned as his agent. Since a mitzvah is involved and ultimately, he consented, we assume that this was his intent from the outset (Radbaz, Kessef Mishneh). Also, implied is that the owner was willing to allow the person to take a certain amount of the produce as his own. Note the Turei Zahav 331:15 who maintains that the Rambam's ruling runs contrary to the simple meaning of the passage in Bava Metzia, loc. cit., and rejects the resolutions offered by the Kessef Mishneh. Note, also, the contrast to Hilchot Ishut 5:8.

I.e., we assume that he was speaking facetiously.

We interpret that as an expression of consent to the other person's actions.

Terumah 1:4 also mentions a person who had a seminal emission. He is prohibited, because he is not allowed to recite a blessing until he immerses himself in a mikveh. The Rambam does not mention such a person here, because - as stated in Hilchot K'riat Shema 4:8; Hilchot Tefilah 4:4-6 - Ezra's decree restricting a person who had a seminal emission from prayer and Torah study was never fully accepted and ultimately, nullified by the Rabbis. In the present age, such a person should recite blessings even though he has not yet immersed.

This category is not mentioned in the mishnah, loc. cit. The Rambam mentions it, based on the principle (see Hilchot Berachot 1:7) that a person who recites a blessing should recite it in a manner that enables him to hear it.

A person who cannot speak is physically incapable of reciting the blessing. A person who is naked is forbidden to recite the blessing, because his personal state is not considered as appropriate for the recitation of a blessing (see Shabbat 23b).

This is speaking about a person who is slightly intoxicated, but still able to function. If a person is intoxicated to the extent that is not at all in command of his mental faculties, he is considered as one who is intellectually incapable and his separation is of no consequence whatsoever. See Hilchot Mechirah 29:18.

And as an initial and preferable measure, the finest portion of the produce should be separated as terumah (see Chapter 5, Halachah 1). When quoting this law, the Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 331:32) states that in the present age, when the terumah is ultimately destroyed, we are not precise in separating the finest portion of the crops as terumah. Hence, it is also acceptable if individuals in the latter two categories also separate terumah.

I.e., a male minor who is twelve years old and a female minor who is eleven years old, provided they know the significance of vows, or a male of thirteen and a female of twelve who have not manifested signs of physical maturity, .

In one of his responsa, however, the Rambam writes that as an initial preference, it is not desirable for a minor to separate terumah until he manifests signs of physical maturity.

Hilchot Nedarim 11:1-5.

Eruvin 31b; Gittin 64a,b et al.

I.e., we are uncertain whether we can rely on the fact that an agent will carry out his mission. Hence, if his doing so would lead to a prohibition, we rule stringently and assume that he carried out his mission (see Hilchot Ishut 9:6). If, however, his doing so would lead to a leniency, we do not make such an assumption.

The Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 331:34) quotes the Rambam's ruling. The Tur and the Rama, however, rule that in such a situation, we can assume that the agent carried out his mission, for failing to do so would create a spiritual stumbling block for the principal.

In which instance, the separation of terumah would not be effective, as stated in Halachah 2.

In his Commentary to the Mishnah (Terumot 4:4), the Rambam writes that if the agent gave more or less than the average measure unintentionally, his separation is effective. In contrast to the situation described in Chapter 5, Halachah 5, here the agent is acting with the principal's permission. Hence, even if he deviated from the amount he could be expected to give, his act is of consequence.

Our translation is based on authoritative manuscripts and early printings of the Mishneh Torah. The standard published text has a slightly different version.

The Radbaz interprets this as meaning that the agent knew the amount the principal would prefer giving and intentionally gave more. Since he intentionally set aside a measure that differs from the principal's wishes, he is considered as acting without permission.

Our translation is based on the glosses of the Radbaz and the Kessef Mishneh. Other definitions have been offered in different sources.

Because the mitzvah was completed by the terumah separated by the first. Had the second known that the first had made the separation, he would not have separated terumah. Thus the separation of the second was made in error.

Had the second known that the first separated the appropriate amount, he would not have separated the terumah. Hence, here also, we say that the separation of the second was made in error.

And it completes the requirement made by our Sages (Kessef Mishneh).

When quoting this law, the Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 331:35) emphasizes that in the present age, when it is sufficient to separate even the slightest amount as terumah, the first person's separation is always sufficient and the second's separation is never of consequence.

Our translation is based on the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (Terumot 3:4).

Even though the principal nullified the agency. In his Commentary to the Mishnah (loc. cit), the Rambam explains the rationale for his ruling. The nullification of the agency was brought about through speech and speech does not have the power to effect such a change.

The Ra'avad and the Tur question the Rambam's decision, for seemingly, just as the appointment of the agent was made through speech, the nullification of his agency can also be made through speech. The Radbaz and the Kessef Mishneh note that in fact, the Rambam himself accepts this concept in Hilchot Ishut 9:20 with regard to appointing an agent to consecrate a woman as one's wife. Both of these commentaries quote possible rationales to distinguish between the separation of terumah and the consecration of a woman.

The Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 331:36) quotes the Rambam's ruling, while the Rama cites that of the Ra'avad and the Tur.

Here too, the Tur questions the Rambam's wording. Seemingly, since the agent deviated from the principal's instructions, the agency is nullified even if the principal did not state that he was nullifying it. The Radbaz explains that a deviation as slight as the side of the produce from which terumah should be separated would not be sufficient to nullify the agency unless the principal had already expressed his willingness to do so.

The Radbaz notes that, in all instances, he is allowed to separate the tithes for his own portion of the crops.

The Siftei Cohen 331:67 states that his separation is effective, because we can assume that he appointed him as an agent.

The Kessef Mishneh refers to the Rambam's ruling, Hilchot Nachalot 11:9:

Guardians should separate terumah and the tithes from the [crops of] orphans so that they can provide them with food. For we may not feed orphans forbidden substances. They may not, however, tithe or separate terumah from produce so that it will be ready for use [by others]. Instead, they should sell it as tevel. Those who desire to make it ready for use will do so.

One who compelled a person to give him or sell him produce.

From a comparison to the following clause, we assume that this clause is speaking about a situation where the owners already despaired of receiving their produce again. Since the separation of terumah changed the status of the crops, the thief or robber acquires them because of the owner's desperation and their change of status. Since the thief is now the owner, his separation is effective.

With the intent of retaking his produce.

Since the owner has not given up hope for the recovery of the produce, it has not left his possession. Thus the thief is not separating terumah from produce that belongs to him.

Since this produce was given to them to eat, we assume that license was also given for them to separate terumah from it.

Since he is eating together with his father - in contrast to the child mentioned in the previous halachah - we assume that his father gives him license to separate the terumah.

Since she is given the responsibility of preparing the dough, she is also given the license to separate terumah from it.

Since we are all impure in the present age, this law no longer applies and it is not cited by the Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 331:42) together with the first part of the halachah.

Although he has deviated from the principal's words, we still consider him as an agent. The rationale is that the principal did not make an explicit statement that he was particular that the worker take these steps in this order. Indeed, the common practice is to separate terumah before one brings in the granary. This represents the Rambam's understanding of the Tosefta, Terumot 1:9 (Kessef Mishneh).

See Chapter 1, Halachah 11. This ruling could be understood as a reversal of the Rambam's position in his Commentary to the Mishnah (Terumot 3:9). There he writes that although the gentiles are not obligated to fulfill the mitzvot, if they do, their deeds are effective and they receive a reward. (See Hilchot Melachim 10:10).

See Chapter 1, Halachah 13.

And hence it is considered like consecrated property and we are forbidden to benefit from it.

Rabbinic decrees are considered as safeguards and generally, we do not make a safeguard for a safeguard. Hence, since the need to separate terumah in the Diaspora is only a Rabbinic decree, we do not add an additional Rabbinic decree and consider the gentile's separation effective (Radbaz).

For the separation of terumah is equivalent to a vow and when making a vow, one's intent and one's statements must be in accord (Siftei Cohen 331:75).

Venechshav translated as "considered" shares the root chashav meaning "thought," thus leading to the interpretation (Beitzah 13b) that terumah can be separated through thought alone. See also the notes to Chapter 3, Halachah 4.

This principle is derived from the law stated in the following halachah (Kessef Mishneh).

See Hilchot Nedarim 4:5.

Based on Nedarim 59a, the Kessef Mishneh explains that this halachah applies only when the terumah has not yet been given to a priest or the tithes to a Levite. If these portions have already been given, there is no way the separations can be retracted.

I.e., he lets down a utensil into the cistern, allows it to fill, and makes the stipulation cited. Making the stipulation is desirable so that if the terumah falls back into the cistern - because the container breaks or because the wine spills from it - it does not cause the remaining wine to become meduma (mixed with terumah). As indicated by the following halachah, it is preferable to do this - instead of separating the terumah after the container has been lifted from the cistern, so that the terumah and the produce from which it is being separated will be in the same location (see Chapter 3, Halachah 17).

Since this is not a frequent occurrence, we do not assume the person had it in mind when he made the stipulation.

The term meduma refers to a mixture of terumah and ordinary produce, as explained in Chapter 13, Halachah 2. In this instance, although the wine in the container flows back into the cistern after it was designated as terumah, since that designation was made conditionally and the condition was not fulfilled, the wine separated is not considered as terumah. Hence the mixture is not meduma.

For, as mentioned above, the terumah and the produce from which it is being separated should be in the same location.

See Chapter 3, Halachah 20.

The rationale for the Rambam's ruling can be explained as follows: Terumat ma'aser can be separated when the produce is not in the same place as the produce for which it is being separated. Hence, were the person making the separation to be concerned that the produce separated as terumat ma'aser might fall into the cistern, he should have made the separation outside the cistern. The fact that he did not do so, nor make a specific statement acknowledging this possibility in his stipulation shows that this was not the intent motivating his stipulation. Hence, as soon as the container ascends from the cistern, his condition is met, even if the wine spills back in afterwards.

I.e., even though physically, the produce was not separated, since a separation was made in the mind of the owner, it is sufficient and it is permitted to eat from the portion of the produce that is designated as "ordinary."

In his Commentary to the Mishnah (Ma'aserot 5:4), the Rambam writes that the intent is that he should separate terumah for the entire crop, that which he sees and that which he does not see.

When quoting this law, the Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 331:50) speaks of a vat of oil. There are some who maintain that the wording in the Mishneh Torah should also read in that manner. Nevertheless, the authoritative manuscripts and early printings of the Mishneh Torah read as above.

I.e., the dregs. In truth, the term gefet is used more frequently in connection with oil than with wine.

Hence, since we assume that every Jew desires to perform the mitzvot in keeping with our Sages' desires, it is as if the person separating the terumah had this intent in mind. Preferably, however, a person should consciously have such thoughts when separating terumah.

Chelbo, translated as "most choice portion," literally means "fat."

When quoting this law, the Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 331:52) states that in the present age, when terumah will be destroyed regardless, there is no need to separate the most choice portions as terumah.

See also the Ramban's Hosafot to Sefer HaMitzvot (Negative Mitzvah 7) which considers the adjuration against separating lower quality produce as terumah as one of the Torah's 613 prohibitions.

And thus the terumah will not be able to be given to the priest immediately.

I.e., since there is no priest immediately available, it is preferable to separate produce that will not spoil, so that ultimately, it can be given to a priest.

For fresh figs are tastier and considered as a higher grade produce.

I.e., since there is no priest immediately available, it is preferable to separate produce that will not spoil, so that ultimately, it can be given to a priest.

For he will dry the figs himself and prevent them from spoiling before they are given to the priest.

A whole onion is considered more important and choicer than a portion of an onion [the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (Terumot 2:5)].

I.e., in places where a priest is present or those where he is not present, for a whole onion will keep longer than a cut one (ibid.).

Implied is that the terumah and the produce for which it is being separated must be of the same species.

They are also considered as one species with regard to the prohibition against kilayim (Hilchot Kilayim 3:3).

I.e., light figs and dark figs.

Because wheat and barley are different species. Moreover, it is considered as if terumah has not been separated even from the wheat alone. The rationale is that separating terumah is considered equivalent to taking a vow and if a portion of a vow has been nullified, the entire vow is nullified.

A coarse species of wild wheat.

At which point the obligation to separate terumah and the tithes falls upon it (see Chapter 1, Halachah 11, and notes).

The commentaries note that the order of the clauses employed by the Rambam deviates slightly from the order of his source, Terumot 1:10.

The Rambam and previous Rabbinic sources cite several prooftexts for this law. Nevertheless, the Siftei Cohen 331:80 maintains that the law is a Rabbinic decree and the prooftexts are merely asmachteot, allusions cited for support. For that reason, after the fact, the separation is effective.

See Halachot 18-20 for more particulars concerning this issue.

When the grain has been threshed and winnowed and then the kernels separated from the chaff. Different commentaries suggest a slight change in the Rambam's wording which would cause the produce to be considered as complete at an earlier stage.

Because they will not be processed any further.

For then, the wine has been separated from the grapes.

For then, the oil has been separated from the olives.

The Jerusalem Talmud (Terumot 2:1) derives this concept from the prooftext cited above: "As grain from the granary and as wine from the vat." It is impossible that a vat will be partially pure and partially impure, so, too, terumah and the produce for which it is being separated must be either pure or impure."

In his Commentary to the Mishnah (Terumot 2:1), the Rambam explains the rationale for this law. Since the cake of figs is made from several discrete elements, it is not considered as a single entity with regard to the laws of ritual impurity. Hence, the fact that one portion has been touched by a source of ritual impurity does not cause another portion to become impure. Nevertheless, since it is one body of produce, terumah can be separated from one portion for the other.

In these instances as well, since the whole is made up of discrete entities, the fact that they are connected or somewhat associated is not of consequence (ibid.; see also Hilchot Tuma'at Ochalin 6:14).

For the two are not considered as being "in the same place" (min hamukaf). After the fact, however, the separation is acceptable.

The verse indicates that when one is separating terumat ma'aser, it is possible that there be a "sacred." i.e., pure, portion, and a portion that is not "sacred," i.e., impure, and the pure should be separated for the impure. As stated at the conclusion of ch. 3, the produce separated as terumat ma'aser need not be located together with the produce for which it is being separated.

The Radbaz states that this is a Rabbinic decree instituted so that the priest will not suffer a loss.

For according to Scriptural Law, the separation is effective. In his Commentary to the Mishnah (Terumot 2:2), the Rambam explains that this is speaking about a situation where initially, at the time the obligation to separate terumah took effect, the produce separated as terumah was pure. If, however, it became impure before the work associated with its preparation was completed, even if it was inadvertently separated as terumah, the separation is not effective.

And he must make another separation.

The Sifri derives this from the exegesis of Numbers 18:26: "And you shall separate from it...." Since the produce is still attached to the earth, it is not considered as the same type as the produce which is detached.

To reconcile the apparent contradiction between the Rambam's ruling here and that in the following clause, the commentaries explain that here we are speaking of attached produce that does not belong to the person who wishes to separate terumah. Ordinarily, if a person separated terumah from produce belonging to him for produce that does not belong to him, his separation is valid, as stated in Chapter 4, Halachah 2. In this instance, however, since the attached produce does not belong to him and he has no control of when it will be detached, he does not have the potential to designate his own produce as terumah for it.

This is his own produce which he is allowed to detach.

For until produce reaches this size, there is no obligation to separate terumah, as stated in Chapter 2, Halachah 10. Therefore, even if one separated terumah for it, the separation is not effective.

The Siftei Cohen 331:83 states that this is a Rabbinic decree, enacted as a safeguard so that one will not separate produce from one type over another. Hence, after the fact, the separation is effective.

To clarify the point under discussion in this halachah: As indicated by the concluding phrase of the halachah, "produce from the previous year" does not necessarily mean produce that is a year old. Instead, every Rosh HaShanah, the year of the agricultural cycle changes with regard to vegetables (Rosh HaShanah 14b). As the Rambam proceeds to explain, a Scriptural decree causes such produce to be considered as a discrete entity, distinct from the same type of produce harvested in the present year.

Even after the fact.

In its entirety, the verse reads: "Tithe all the crops of your sowing produced by the field, year by year." Implied is an exclusion: that the produce of each year is a separate entity. Although the verse refers to the tithes, the same principles also apply to terumah.

In his Commentary to the Mishnah (Terumot 1:5), the Rambam cites a different prooftext for the derivation of this principle.

In that era, esrogim were eaten as fruit, not only used for the mitzvah on Sukkot.

An esrog is singled out, because unlike other fruit, the time when it is picked - and not the time it reaches the stage of development when we are required to separate the tithes - determines the year of the agricultural cycle we follow. See Hilchot Ma'aser Sheni 1:1-4.

In his Commentary to the Mishnah (Terumot 1:5), the Rambam explains that this concept is derived from Leviticus 27:30: "All the tithes of the land from the plantings of the land." Implied is that both the tithes and the produce must be from "the land," from Eretz Yisrael. Although the verse speaks of the tithes, the principle derived is also applied to terumah.

For according to Scriptural Law, Syria is also part of the Diaspora.

See Chapter 2, Halachah 9.

In this instance, the fundamental point the Rambam is emphasizing is the following clause: that even if the terumah was separated, the separation is not of consequence.

I.e., terumah ma'aser, the terumah that must be separated from the tithes.

In his Commentary to the Mishnah (Terumot 1:5, Rav Kapach's edition), the Rambam explains that this is referring to a situation in which a Levite took produce that he had been given as tithes by an Israelite, but from which he had not separated terumat ma'aser and desired to use it to separate terumah for produce from his own field from which he is obligated to separate terumah. This is unacceptable, because there is no longer any obligation to separate terumah from the produce given as tithes, even though there is an obligation to separate terumat ma'aser from it.

This explanation is somewhat unique. Most commentaries interpret the mishnah as referring to a situation where the person tithed his crop, but did not separate terumah from it. Nor did he separate terumat ma'aser. Afterwards, he desired to separate terumah for other produce from the tithes. The Rambam's interpretation avoids several difficulties that arise according to the other approach.

Produce separated as the second tithe must be eaten in Jerusalem in a state of ritual purity. It is not considered as the person's private property.

Since it is consecrated, there is no obligation to separate terumah or the tithes from it.

In all these instances, the produce that is being separated is holy and is not the owner's individual property. (For even the tithes which the Levites own have a dimension of holiness to them, because of the terumat ma'aser that has not been separated.) The Ra'avad raises objections to the Rambam's ruling. The Radbaz and the Kessef Mishneh respond to them. If, however, they would have followed the Rambam's explanation in his Commentary to the Mishnah as explained above, the difficulties would not arise.

According to Scriptural Law, there is no obligation to separate terumah from this produce. Hence, it is as if one is separating terumah from produce obligated in terumah for produce for which there is no obligation. The Kessef Mishneh explains that this general principle is derived from the law quoted in the following halachah.

For this is as if one is separating terumah from produce for which there is no obligation to separate terumah, for produce for which such an obligation exists.

This is a Rabbinic stringency. According to Scriptural Law, the separation is of no consequence at all.

According to the Radbaz and the Kessef Mishneh, this applies only to the second clause. The laws regarding the situation described in the first clause are explained in Halachah 16.

In the situation described in the second clause, the priest is allowed to partake of the produce, for although according to Scriptural Law, the separation is insignificant, there is no difficulty in having the priest partake of the produce for there is no obligation incumbent upon it.

Because the nurture from the power of growth in the earth is drawn to the earth in the flowerpot through the hole. This concept is relevant not only in this particular context, but in many others.

For then it can be considered to have derived nurture from the earth through its root. Hence, we are obligated to separate terumah from produce which grows within such a flowerpot according to Scriptural Law [the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (Demai 5:10)].

If produce grows in a flowerpot without a hole, there is no obligation to separate terumah from it according to Scriptural Law (ibid.). Here a question arises, because the flowerpot was perforated afterwards. The Rambam clarifies that as long as the produce reaches a third of its growth, the point at which we are obligated to separate terumah, under conditions in which we are not obligated to separate terumah, an obligation is not incurred even though afterwards, those conditions change. See Halachah 9; see also Chapter 1, Halachot 11-13.

And thus enabled the produce to derive nurture from the earth.

For in both instances, we are obligated to separate terumah from both sets of produce according to Scriptural Law.

This is a Rabbinic decree, as stated in Halachah 14 and notes.

In order to fulfill the obligation of terumah as stated in Halachah 14.

The setting aside of the produce as terumah is not effective according to Scriptural Law. Hence, according to Scriptural Law, not only is this produce not terumah, it remains tevel, produce from which terumah and the tithes were not separated. Although our Sages ruled stringently and determined that it must be considered as terumah, they did not change its status as tevel. Hence, for the priest to partake of it, it is necessary that he separate terumah and tithes for it from other produce [see the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (Demai 5:10)].

The terumah and the tithes for this produce must be separated from other produce, lest one think that what remains is ordinary produce and can be eaten be a person other than a priest (Tosafot, Yevamot 89b).

The term demai refers to produce concerning which we are uncertain whether the tithes were separated from it or not. According to Rabbinic Law, we are required to separate terumat ma'aser, terumah which the Levites are required to separate from the tithes from such produce (see Hilchot Ma'aserot, Chapter 9).

By Rabbinic decree. According to Scriptural Law, the produce separated is not terumat ma'aser, because it is possible that previously tithes and terumat ma'aser had been separated from the produce that was demai. Were that to be the case, one would be separating terumat ma'aser from produce for which one is obligated to make a separation from produce for which no such obligation exists. See the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (loc. cit.).

Since it is possible that the separation of the terumat ma'aser is not effective, the owner must make a second separation.

In this instance, the priest is allowed to partake of the produce given him. The rationale is that in the second instance, when one separates terumat ma'aser from produce that is demai for produce from which we are certain that the tithes were not separated, the priest is certainly allowed to partake of the produce given him. If terumat ma'aser had not been separated from such produce previously, it is being made at present. And if it had been made previously, according to Scriptural Law, the produce to be given the priest is ordinary produce that may be consumed.

If the separation was made from produce that is demai for other produce that is demai, there is a difficulty, for it is possible that a separation had previously been made for the produce for which the terumat ma'aser is being separated, but not from the produce from which the separation is being made at present. Since such a separation is invalid according to Scriptural Law, in such an instance, the priest is being given produce from which tithes and terumat ma'aser have not been separated. Nevertheless, since the majority of the people do in fact separate tithes and the prohibition of demai is just a stringency, in this instance, our Sages were lenient (Rabbi Akiva Eiger).

This is a Rabbinic stringency as mentioned above.

For as in the previous halachah, if the original separation of terumat ma'aser is not effective - as would be the case if a separation had been made from the produce classified as demai - there is an obligation to separate terumat ma'aser from the produce being separated as terumat ma'aser. Hence, until that separation is made, the priest is forbidden to partake of the produce given him.

There is, however, a difference between this halachah and the previous one. In the previous instance, the separation had to be made from other produce, while in this instance, the separation can be made from the produce given to the priest. In the previous instance, care had to be taken because of the impression that might be created, i.e., an onlooker might not realize that there is a Rabbinic obligation to separate terumot and tithes from produce growing in a flowerpot that is not perforated. No such difficulty exists in this instance, because the obligations incumbent on demai are well known. See the gloss of Ra'avad to Hilchot Ma'aser 13:19.

This applies even if one separates a measure of produce sufficient to produce the said quantity of wheat, wine, or oil.

The Radbaz states that, after the fact, if a priest agrees to accept such produce, the separation is acceptable, for there are times when one will consider that preferable.

But have not been squeezed yet.

This is permissible as stated in Halachah 3.

In his Commentary to the Mishnah (Terumot 2:6), the Rambam explains that the Hebrew terms refers to olives that contain much oil and their oil is of high quality.

I.e., these olives have little oil. Hence, they are set aside to be used for pickling. Thus making such a separation would be considered as separating terumah from higher quality produce for lower quality produce which is permitted as stated above.

For this is considered as separating terumah from lower quality produce for higher quality produce which is forbidden as an initial preference, as stated in Halachah 3.

Boiling detracts from wine's flavor. Hence, one is separating terumah from higher quality produce for lower quality produce.

I.e., does not have dregs suspended in it.

When a priest is present and he is being given the figs, fresh figs are obviously considered as more desirable than dried figs.

For the measure of dried figs will be more compact than that of fresh figs. Thus the priest will be receiving a greater quantity of fruit.

E.g., giving and produce of a higher quality or giving more ample portions.

Kernels of wheat are considered as having an advantage over grain, because a) one can use them for whatever purposes one desires, and b) they store longer than grain.

i.e., how many kernels of wheat it would take to produce this quantity of bread.

As stated in Halachah 3. The Shulchan Aruch (loc. cit.:63) states that in the present era when the produce separated as terumah is discarded, there is no need to show these precautions.

See Halachah 4 above. In the situation described in that halachah, the person is not required to make a second separation, because our Sages felt that people understood that terumah should not be separated in such an instance and did not see the need for an additional safeguard. In this situation, since work with that produce has already begun, they felt that a safeguard was necessary (Rambam LeAm). Other commentaries offer different rationales for the difference in the rulings.

I.e., after he completed pressing the olives or treading the grapes, he should separate terumah a second time for that oil or wine [the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (Terumot 1:8)].

A mixture of terumah and ordinary produce, as mentioned in Chapter 13, Halachah 2.

I.e., even if it is not mixed with the produce separated a second time in contrast to the situation described in Halachah 22. The rationale is that, in this instance, after the fact, the first separation is effective, as stated in Halachah 4 above.

See Chapter 6, Halachah 6.

For it is terumah only as a result of Rabbinic decree.

For at the time the terumah was separated, the work associated with this produce was completed according to his intent at that time [the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (Terumot 1:9)]. Although he changed his mind, we do not penalize him for making such a decision (Radbaz).

For this is equivalent to separating produce of inferior quality for produce of superior quality which should not be done at the outset, as stated in Halachah 3. Nevertheless, if one made such a separation, after the fact, the separation s effective.

For when wine sours, it becomes vinegar.

For his separation was made in error and the error lowers the quality of the terumah (Kessef Mishneh).

For in this instance, his error improves the quality of the terumah (Kessef Mishneh; Siftei Cohen 331:95).

As in the previous halachah, this is speaking about an instance where the person had the intent of separating wine as terumah. If, however, he intended to separate vinegar, the separation is effective after the fact (Radbaz).

For at the time of the separation, wine was separated as the person intended. The fact that it soured afterwards is not his responsibility.

Because of the doubt involved. Perhaps it had not become sour at the time it was separated and the first separation was effective.

For perhaps it was sour before the first separation was made and thus the separation was not effective.

I.e., its contents are not fit for consumption [the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (Terumot 3:1)].

In which instance, we fear that the holes were made by a poisonous snake which deposited its venom in the watermelon.

Because of the danger involved. We fear that perhaps a poisonous snake or the like deposited venom in it (Hilchot Rotzeach UShemirat Nefesh 12:2).

This appears to be speaking about a situation in which he is unsure when the snake drank from the wine before the terumah was separated or not.

I.e., since we are unsure which of the separations is effective, neither alone is considered as terumah.

As is required when one partakes of terumah inadvertently, as stated in Chapter 6, Halachah 6.

Although one of the two is obviously dimua, since we do not know which one, we rule leniently with regard to both.

In this instance, the terumah has obviously become mixed with the ordinary produce. Nevertheless, since we do not know which of the two is terumah, we require him to be concerned only with the smaller amount.

As is required when one partakes of terumah inadvertently, as stated in Chapter 6, Halachah 6.

Although both must be considered as terumah, because he does not have a definite obligation to give either to a priest.

For he is obligated to give at least the value of the smaller portion to the priest; for the remainder the priest must pay. Nevertheless, the price he pays for produce designated as terumah is less than that than he would pay for ordinary produce.

To make sure that it had not become vinegar.

I.e., the person took a barrel of wine and set it aside with the intent that he would consider an appropriate measure of wine from it as terumah for all the wine that he would continue to produce until the barrel became terumah in its entirety.

Thus there is a question regarding the status of the produce that he separated previously. For if the barrel had become vinegar earlier, the separation of terumah would not be effective, as stated above.

As explained above.

I.e., the person took a barrel of wine and set it aside with the intent that he would consider an appropriate measure of wine from it as terumah for all the wine that he would continue to produce until the barrel became terumah in its entirety.

When the flowers of the grape vine fall and the actual fruit begins to form.

When the juice of the grape begins to collect within the fruit.

Since these are times of change for grapes, there is also a possibility that wine will also be affected.

I.e., freshly squeezed grape juice.

For it is unlikely to turn into vinegar before then.

I.e., he sets aside produce to serve the same purpose as the wine mentioned in Halachah 24.

See Chapter 3, Halachah 17. As explained there, after the fact, such a separation is acceptable.

I.e., he should entertain the possibility that perhaps from the outset, the separation of the terumah was not acceptable.

As explained in Halachah 22.

Because Canaanite servants do not have a separate personal identity, but instead are considered as part of their master's possessions. A Hebrew servant, by contrast, is forbidden to partake of terumah as explained in Halachah 5.

The Sifra states that this applies only to animal fodder. Produce that is fit for human consumption may not be given to an animal.

In which instance, his master is no longer obligated to provide him with his sustenance.

The term "rebels" has a very specific meaning when used in this context: to deny a husband marital intimacy. In such an instance, her husband has the right to divorce her and is not obligated to pay for her sustenance, as stated in Hilchot Ishut, ch. 14. Nevertheless, until he divorces her, she is entitled to partake of terumah.

Hilchot Issurei Bi'ah 20:2 defines this term as follows:

Anyone concerning whom two witnesses testify that he is a priest, the son of so-and-so the priest, and the descendant of so-and-so the priest, extending back until we reach a person whose lineage need not be checked, i.e., a priest who served at the altar.

The restriction of the consumption of terumah to such priests is alluded to in the Book of Ezra (2:62-63): "These sought their genealogical records, but they could not be found, so they were disqualified from the priesthood. [Nechemiah] told them that they should not eat of the most holy offerings [which includes terumah] until there would arise a priest [who would inquire of] the Urim and Tumim [concerning their lineage]."

I.e., they are regarded as priests by people at large even though there is no definite proof of their lineage.

For only a Torah scholar can be expected to be versed in the knowledge and practice of the laws of ritual purity. The Sifri (to Numbers 18:28) cites a Biblical verse as support for this concept.

This is also alluded to by a Biblical narrative. II Chronicles, ch. 30, relates how King Chezekiah affected a renewal of Torah observance among the Jewish people. Among his efforts was to renew the observance of terumah and tithes, as it is written (30:4): "He told the people... to give the portions of the priests and the Levites so that they could strengthen themselves in the Torah of God." Chulin 130b interprets this to mean that these gifts should be given only to a priest or Levite who "is strong in his observance of the Torah of God." In the revision of his Commentary to the Mishnah (Challah 4:9), the Rambam writes that it is desirable and advisable to follow this restriction, but there is no prohibition against giving terumah to an unlearned priest.

We are concerned that the impure priest will cause the terumah to become ritually impure and then partake of it while it is in that state.

The commentaries explain that we do not think that a common person will willingly transgress and eat terumah that is impure. Instead, the suspicion is that he will be impure and therefore make the terumah impure. Nevertheless, he will not realize what has transpired and will eat the terumah that he himself made impure.

For it has to be burnt and any priest can perform that act. The Ra'avad differs with this ruling, maintaining that even such terumah should not be given to a priest who is unlearned. The Rambam's position can be supported based on the explanation given above that we do not suspect that the unlearned priest will deliberately transgress.

If a girl is younger than that, her consecration is not binding, as stated in Hilchot Ishut 3:11.

Which may be eaten by all the members of a priest's household (Hilchot Ma'aseh HaKorbonot 10:5).

According to Jewish law, marriage is a two-staged process involving kiddushin or erusin (consecration) and nissuin (living as man and wife). Today, it is customary to perform both stages at the same time. In the Talmudic era, by contrast, a significant amount of time - usually a year - was granted between the two. In this interim period, the woman was consecrated to her husband and relations between her and another man would be considered adulterous. Nevertheless, she lived in her parents' home and did not engage in intimacy with her husband. Nor was he obligated to support her. Our Sages feared that were a woman given terumah in this intermediate period, she might give it to her father or brother to eat.

Both of these types of women are considered as incapable of marrying according to Scriptural Law. Since a deaf-mute's ability to communicate is so restricted, our Sages placed her in this category. Contemporary Rabbinic experts debate the status of a deaf-mute who was trained to communicate through other means.

Were such women to conclude marriages on their own, the marriage would not be binding (Hilchot Ishut 4:9). Nevertheless, the father of such a woman has the potential to conclude her marriage before she reaches the age of majority. If he does so, the marriage is binding according to Scriptural Law (ibid. 3:11). Even so, our Sages forbade such women from partaking of terumah for the reason stated by the Rambam.

In contrast to a mentally sound priest, the marriage of a priest who is a deaf-mute is binding only according to Rabbinic decree. According to Scriptural Law, the marriage is of no consequence. Hence, such a priest's "wife" has no right to eat terumah

If, however, she is the daughter of a priest, she may partake of terumah by virtue of her father's privilege until she marries.

We have employed a literal translation, though somewhat clumsy in English, because of the exegesis of the verse later in the halachah.

Sefer HaMitzvot (Negative Commandment 133) and Sefer HaChinuch (Mitzvah 280) include this as one of 613 mitzvot of the Torah.

Sefer HaMitzvot (Negative Commandment 134) and Sefer HaChinuch (Mitzvah 281) include this as one of 613 mitzvot of the Torah.

Even when a priest is obligated to provide for his worker's sustenance, since the worker possesses an independent financial capacity, he is not considered as the priest's "financial acquisition" (see Halachah 1) and may not partake of terumah.

Although a Hebrew servant is purchased by his master, he retains an independent financial capacity. Hence, even if he becomes nirtzah (see Hilchot Avadim, ch. 3), in which instance he must work for his master until the Jubilee year, he remains independent and may not partake of terumah.

We have followed the simple meaning of the Rambam's words which appear to interpret the verse as referring to an ordinary worker. The Kessef Mishneh notes that in Yevamot 70a and other sources, our Sages interpret the verse as referring specifically to a Hebrew servant. Why then, he asks, does the Rambam single out a Hebrew servant? He explains that the Rambam is implying that there is no difference in this regard between a servant sold by the court and one who sells himself into slavery.

The Radbaz notes that when a priest who is ritually impure partakes of terumah that is ritually impure, he is not liable for death. He asks: Why then is a non-priest liable for partaking of such terumah? He explains that for a priest who is holy by nature, impure terumah is considered defiled and he is not liable for partaking of it. For a non-priest, however, impure terumah is also considered holy and he is liable for partaking of it.

I.e., the court must administer lashes if witnesses observed the transgression and administered a warning. And if they do administer lashes, the sinner's transgression is expiated and he does not receive punishment by the hand of heaven.

This is a general principle applying in many different contexts. See Hilchot Na'arah Betulah 1:11; Hilchot Geneivah 4:9; Hilchot Sanhedrin 16:12. The Radbaz notes that generally, whenever there is a financial penalty and the obligation for lashes, the person is given the financial penalty and freed of lashes. In this instance, the opposite is true. He is given lashes and freed of the financial penalty. The Radbaz explains that in this instance, the person was originally liable for death at the hand of heaven. Hence, it is inappropriate that the transgression be absolved through a mere financial payment.

One fifth of the new total; one fourth of the original amount.

This charge is considered as one of 613 mitzvot of the Torah by Sefer HaMitzvot (Negative Commandment 137) and Sefer HaChinuch (Mitzvah 283) .

As explained in Hilchot Issurei Bi'ah 18:1, the halachic definition of the term zonah is: "A Jewish woman who engaged in relations with a man she was forbidden to marry, violating a prohibition that is universally applicable, or a woman who engaged in relations with a challal."

The definition of the term chalalah is: "[A woman] born from [relations] forbidden to the priesthood. Similarly, any woman who is forbidden to the priesthood who engaged in relations with a priest becomes a challalah" (ibid. 19:1).

The Radbaz emphasizes that although she is prohibited to partake of terumah, she is not liable for death at God's hands for willfully doing so. Nor is she required to pay an additional fifth if she does so inadvertently.

None of the mitzvot and prohibitions associated with the priesthood apply to him. The Radbaz emphasizes that a challal is not entirely comparable to a non-priest, for a non-priest is liable for death at God's hand and a challal is not subject to such a punishment.

I.e., in contrast to terumah as stated in the following halachah.

From that marriage.

See Yevamot 87a.

Hence, if she willfully partakes of these foods even after being widowed or divorced, she is a transgressor and should be punished by lashes. See Hilchot Sanhedrin 19:4.

As the Rambam explains in Halachah 12, as long as an Israelite woman who was married to a priest has a descendant from the priestly seed, she is permitted to continue partaking of terumah even though she is divorced or widowed. This halachah explains that there is an exception to that rule. If such a woman becomes a zonah, she can no longer partake of terumah.

The Radbaz maintains that such a woman also is not liable for death at the hand of God if she partakes of terumah willfully, nor an additional fifth if she does so inadvertantly.

Whom we suspect engaged in relations, either willingly or unwillingly, with her captors and thus became a zonah. See the latter portion of Hilchot Issurei Bi'ah, ch. 18.

See Hilchot Issurei Bi'ah 18:21 which explains that if a woman says "I was taken captive, but I was not defiled" before witnesses testify to her being taken captive, her word is accepted.

See ibid.:17 which states that in this instance, the testimony of one witness is acceptable. Moreover, the witness need not fit all the criteria that are usually required for witnesses in court.

Even though he is a priest.

See ibid.:1.

Provided she does not marry an Israelite as stated in Halachah 17.

A child whose genital area is covered by a mass of flesh and thus his gender cannot be determined.

A person with both male and female sexual organs.

I.e., her grandchildren or great-grandchildren who are descendants from a priest are alive even though her children themselves have died.

I.e., the prooftext does not say, "She has no children" (Radbaz).

Marriage between the two would be either adulterous or incestuous.

A person of blemished lineage coming from either an adulterous or incestuous relationship.

Thus the offspring descendant that initially either enabled or disqualified a woman from partaking of terumah is no longer alive. Nevertheless, since there is a descendant of the relationship alive - even though the descendant is of blemished lineage - the woman's status remains the same as the Rambam concludes in the following halachah.

Our translation follows the version found in authentic manuscripts of the Mishneh Torah. The version found in the standard published text translates as "even if he is not Jewish" which is obviously incorrect as indicated by Halachah 16. See also Radbaz.

Obviously, as long as her husband, the priest, is alive, she may partake of terumah regardless. The entire issue of the status of her descendants arises only when her husband has died.

If, however, she remarries a priest she may partake of terumah, as stated in Halachah 18.

Who is the daughter of an Israelite.

In this instance as well, obviously, as long as her husband, the Israelite, is alive, she is disqualified regardless. The entire issue of the status of her descendants arises only when her husband has died.

See Hilchot Issurei Bi'ah 12:13.

For it is as if she has no offspring from her marriage to the priest.

As stated in Hilchot Yibbum ViChalitzah 1:4 and Hilchot Avadim 9:3, among the implications of this concept is that we pay no attention to the parental lineage of a servant's father. Instead, it is as if he was conceived by his mother alone. There are other implications of this statement, as indicated by Hilchot Ishut 15:6, et al.

Who is a priest.

By virtue of her marriage to the priest.

By virtue of her son.

As stated in Halachot 7-9.

Similarly, if her son conceived by the priest fathers children, she may continue to eat by virtue of them, even if her son dies. If, however, the son conceived by the priest dies childless (or he and his descendants die), she may no longer partake of terumah.