Terumot - Chapter 4

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 (Terumah1:1)].

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 types of 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, Joe. cit., and rejects the resolutions offered by the Kessef Mishneh. Note, also, the contrast to Hilchot /shut 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 l :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 Tefllah 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, Joe. 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 preference, the finest portion of the produce should be separated as terumah (see Chapter 5, Halachah I). 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 Rambarn 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 31 b; 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.

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 /shut 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 Sifiei 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.

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 I 0: 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 Mishneh Torah read as above. 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

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.