Terumot - Chapter 7

Sefer HaMitzvot (Negative Commandment 136) and Sefer HaChinuch (Mitzvah 279) include this as one of 613 mitzvot of the Torah.

Tzara'at is a physical affliction resembling, but not identical with leprosy, that comes as a result of gossip and imparts ritual impurity.

This refers to a physical affliction resembling, but not identical with gonorrhea that imparts ritual impurity.

It does not refer to the breast and thigh of the peace offerings, for a woman of the priestly family who marries and is widowed or divorced may not partake of them (Yevamot 74b).

If his transgression is observed by witnesses and they issued a warning. Whenever lashes are given on the earthly plane, the transgressor receives atonement and is no longer held liable for death by God.

From the fact that Sanhedrin 83a,b emphasizes that an impure priest is not liable for death for partaking of impure terumah, the Rambam concludes that a transgression is involved.

Its impurity nullifies its holiness. See Chapter 6, Halachah 6 and notes, however.

The Kessef Mishneh states that this is approximately 20 minutes after sunset. This applies in Eretz Yisrael. In different latitudes, the duration of this time period varies.

This represents a stringency over other laws where ritual purity is required. In many such instances, as soon as one immerses himself, his purification is completed and no further wait is necessary. See Hilchot Ma'aser Sheni 7:11.

The simple meaning of the verse is that the person's purification process is not completed until the sun sets. The rules of Biblical exegesis, however, leave room for the meaning mentioned by the Rambam.

The Rabaz emphasizes that with regard to partaking of the sacrifices, in certain instances, an impure priest must also bring a sacrifice to mark his immersion from impurity.

I,e., as in the case at hand, there is no verse that says "Do not eat impure terumah," but from the positive commandment regarding pure terumah, we can conclude that partaking of the impure terumah is prohibited.

Hence, its violation is not punishable by lashes.

Which would render him ritually impure.

For he does not become ritually impure until the semen actually emerges and in this way, he could swallow the terumah first (Niddah 40a).

These individuals are not responsible for their conduct. Nevertheless, their priesthood is intact. Hence, we immerse them to purify them and then enable them to partake of terumah.

I.e., because of the doubt, we considered them impure.

Which would allow a seminal emission to be detected. Were the container to be made of cloth, the semen could be absorbed (Radbaz).

The literal meaning of the Hebrew is "warmth."

See the gloss of the Radbaz who states that the Rambam's wording implies that this ruling applies only when one rides bareback [see Shulchan Aruch (Even HaEzer 23:7)]. He also explains why it applies only to camel-riders and not those who ride on other animals.

I.e., intimate relations cause both the man and the woman to become impure. To emerge from that impurity, they must each immerse in the mikvah and wait until nightfall (see Leviticus 15:18).

Intimate relations can cause a woman to become impure for two reasons:

a) as stated above, the very act of intimacy brings about ritual impurity;

b) she comes in contact with semen and touching semen makes one ritually impure (Hilchot Sha'ar Avot HaTumah 5:9).

As long as the semen is in the woman's vagina, it is not considered to have touched her, because it is touching her body internally, not externally. If, however, it flows outside her vagina and touches her externally, she does become impure. According to the Rambam, if the woman does not turn over in intimate relations, the semen will remain in her vagina and not flow outside. Hence, after immersing herself and waiting until nightfall, she may partake of terumah. If, however, she turned over in the midst of intimacy, the semen will flow out. Moreover, it is possible that it will not flow out immediately, but will do so over the course of the coming days. Now, semen is considered to remain viable until the third day after intimacy. Hence for three days, the woman must consider the possibility that the semen flowed out from her body and made her impure. Hence, she cannot immerse herself in the mikvah to regain ritual purity until three days have passed.

The Ra'avad differs with the Rambam and maintains that even if the woman did not turn over during intimacy, as soon as she arises from bed, it is possible that semen will flow out from her vagina and touch her body. He quotes Niddah 41b in support of his explanation. The Radbaz and the Kessef Mishneh suggest that the Rambam had a different text of that Talmudic passage and they validate his ruling.

Because of it touching her body.

Ibid.:11. There the Rambam states that the intent is not that semen remains viable for three full days, but that it can remain viable until the third day after relations.

As stated in Chapter 1, Halachah 1, according to Scriptural Law, the requirement to separate terumah applies only in Eretz Yisrael. The early Sages ordained that it should be observed in certain neighboring countries.

This refers to a physical affliction resembling, but not identical with gonorrhea that imparts ritual impurity.

Women who become impure because they experienced menstrual bleeding at times other than her ordinary cycle.

Women who become impure because they experienced ordinary menstrual bleeding.

Who becomes impure as explained in Hilchot Issurei Bi'ah, ch. 10. Since the obligation to separate terumah in these lands is only Rabbinic in origin, the Sages were lenient regarding the restrictions incumbent on those who partake of terumah.

In contrast to terumah prescribed by Scriptural Law when such a wait is necessary, as stated in Halachah 2. The Ra'avad differs with the Rambam concerning this point and refers to Bechorot 27a in support of his position. The Radbaz and the Kessef Mishneh offer different explanations of that passage that support the Rambam's interpretation.

For to purge the impurity resulting from contact with a human corpse, it is necessary to have the ashes from a Red Heifer sprinkled upon one's body and those ashes are not available in the present age.

Once a male or a female attains majority, by contrast, we assume that they have become impure and they must immerse themselves before partaking of terumah (Radbaz).

Tzara'at is a physical affliction resembling, but not identical with leprosy, that comes as a result of gossip and imparts ritual impurity.

For his impurity is also a result of a physical condition (ibid.).

For a person afflicted by tzara'at does not become ritually impure until a priest declares him so (Hilchot Tuma'at Tzara'at 9:2). With regard to the establishment of a priest's lineage, see the notes to Chapter 6, Halachah 2.

The Radbaz adds that the reason the impurity of tzara'at is not observed in the present age is that we have no priests whose lineage is established to declare people ritually impure. The physical conditions for the impurity may exist in the present age.

The Radbaz writes that this prohibition applies even if he is uncircumcised with the Torah's permission, e.g., his brothers died because of circumcision, in which instance, caution is shown before circumcising him.

See Hilchot Korban Pesach 9:7.

Sefer HaMitzvot (Negative Commandment 135) and Sefer HaChinuch (Mitzvah 282) include this as one of 613 mitzvot of the Torah. There is, however, a slight difficulty with this classification. The Rambam maintains that any commandment that is derived through one of the Thirteen Principles of Biblical Exegesis does not have the status of a Scriptural command, nor is such a prohibition punishable by lashes (Sefer HaMitzvot, General Principle 2) and as the Rambam states here, there is no direct commandment prohibiting an uncircumcised person from partaking of terumah. Instead, it is derived by our Sages (Yevamot 70a) through an association of verses (gezeirah shaveh). Hence, seemingly, it should not be placed in that category. The Rambam notes this difficulty when discussing this mitzvah in Sefer HaMitzvot and states that since our Sages mentioned that this mitzvah was of Scriptural origin, he considered it as having that status.

I.e., one was originally circumcised, but underwent an operation so that it would appear that he was not circumcised. In the Hellenist and Roman periods, there were Jews who underwent such operations so that they would resemble non-Jews.

For according to Scriptural Law, his original circumcision was effective and he can never revert to being uncircumcised.

The Radbaz writes that the intent is not that he is forbidden to partake of terumah until he is circumcised again. Instead, the intent is that he is advised to undergo the operation and not to partake of terumah until he does so. The Sefer HaMitzvot and the Sefer HaChinuch (loc. cit.), however, say that such an individual is prohibited by the Rabbis from partaking of terumah.

Although it is necessary to draw a drop of blood from such a person's organ (Hilchot Milah 1:11), it cannot be said that such a person is uncircumcised. Hence, he is permitted to partake of terumah (Radbaz).

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

Since his gender is undetermined, we do not know whether or not he must be circumcised.

A person with both male and female sexual organs.

Although there are many unresolved questions about such a person's status vis-à-vis gender, there is no difficulty in him partaking of terumah for both males and females of the priestly family are permitted to partake of it.

They are prohibited from partaking of terumah due to outside factors. Their membership in the priestly family is, however, intact. Hence, their wives and servants may partake of terumah (Radbaz).

Although their wounds prevent such priests from serving at the Altar, they are still members of the priestly family. Hence, they and their servants may partake of terumah.

As stated in Deuteronomy 23:2 and Hilchot Issurei Bi'ah, ch. 16, a person with such wounds is forbidden to marry a natural born Jewess. Hence, if a priest is intimate with his wife after suffering such wounds, she becomes a zonah and a chalalah and hence, is forbidden to partake of terumah.

Since they were not intimate, she has not become a chalalah and may partake of terumah. The Kessef Mishneh states that this refers to an instance where the couple were married and then he suffered this wound. If, however, a priest suffers such a wound and then consecrates a woman, she may not partake of terumah. See the notes to the following halachah.

Ordinarily, a priest cannot marry a convert or the descendant of a convert. In this instance, however, because of his injury, the full measure of the holiness of the priesthood does not rest upon him and he may marry such a woman (Hilchot Issurei Bi'ah 16:1). Once he marries such a woman, she is entitled to partake of terumah, because she is the wife of a priest.

Since this woman is prepared to engage in intimate relations that are forbidden to her, our Sages prohibited her from partaking of terumah even though she had not actually engaged in such relations. Moreover, she is no longer permitted to partake of terumah by virtue of her being a member of the priestly family, because she was consecrated, as stated in Chapter 8, Halachah 1.

See Hilchot Ishut 2:14 for a more precise definition of the term used by the Rambam. As stated in Hilchot Issurei Bi'ah 16:9, such a person is permitted to marry a native-born Jewess. Hence, there is no difficulty with the wife of a priest with such a condition partaking of terumah.

For in this context, there is no difference between them and the servants of an ordinary priest.

For there is an unresolved doubt if their marriages are acceptable. Needless to say, if a tumtum undergoes an operation and it is determined that he is a male, his wife may partake of terumah even if he consecrated her before the operation.

These individuals are considered as not being responsible for their actions and their acquisitions are not valid. Hence, the servants they purchase by themselves are not their property according to Scriptural Law and may not partake of terumah.

Because the acquisitions are binding and they have become the property of a priest.

The literal translation of the Rambam's words would be "as a male would be the object of intimacy."

For such relations would cause a woman to be considered as a chalalah. Since there is an unresolved question regarding the gender of an androgynus, we are stringent and consider the possibility that he is a female. And a female is disqualified from terumah if she engages in intimacy that would render her a chalalah regardless of whether it is vaginal or anal intercourse (Radbaz).

For their right to partake of terumah is dependent on that of their owner.

For such relations would render a woman a chalahah and, because of the unresolved question regarding the status of the androgynus, we apply that stringency to him as well.

The literal translation of the Rambam's words would be "as a male would be the object of intimacy."

A male priest does not become a chalal because he entered into a forbidden sexual relationship.

The Ra'avad and the Kessef Mishneh question the Rambam's ruling, noting that, seemingly, the person should be disqualified from partaking of terumah based on the same rationale as the first clause of the halachah: i.e., that the androgynus also has a feminine dimension and that feminine dimension will be disqualified through anal intercourse. Hence, they ask: Why does the Rambam only view this relationship as intimacy between males and hence, not able to disqualify the androgynus? Why not see it as a relation between a male and a female? Among the explanations given is that since both of the androgynies are engaging in relations as males, it is not appropriate to deem one a male and one a female.

The Jerusalem Talmud (the conclusion of tractate Terumot) states that for a servant to partake of terumah, he must belong to priests entirely. If an Israelite has even a one-hundredth share in the ownership of the servant, he may not partake of terumah.

Which may be eaten by all the members of the priest's household.

When a woman marries, her husband receives the right to benefit from her property. As explained in Hilchot Ishut, ch. 16, there are two arrangements under which a husband is allowed to benefit from his wife's property:

nichsei milog - in this instance, in the event of divorce or the husband's death, the property reverts to the ownership of the woman according to its value at that time, regardless of the profit or loss she suffers;

nichsei tzon barzel - in this instance, the property is evaluated at the time of marriage; in the event of divorce or the husband's death, the woman receives that amount, regardless of the worth of the property at that time.

Servants can be classified in either of these categories. In both instances, they have the right to partake of terumah. With regard to servants who are nichsei tzon barzel, they are the husband's (the priest's) acquisitions, for it is as if he acquired them when he accepted financial responsibility for their worth. With regard to those who are nichsei milog, they are "the acquisition of his acquisition," i.e., property belonging to his wife whom he has acquired. See Halachah 20.

I.e., servants acquired by servants who were acquired by the priest. The inference is derived based on the fact that the verse contains to derivatives of the word koneh - "acquire."

When the wife of a priest is not entitled to partake of terumah (see Halachot 20-22), her servants may also not partake of terumah.

The servants who are nichsei tzon barzel certainly may not partake of terumah for they are now the property of an Israelite. Even the servants who are nichsei milog may not partake of terumah, for at this time, their owner - the Israelite's wife - is disqualified from partaking of terumah.

These three types of relationships are forbidden, the first two by Scriptural Law, the latter by Rabbinic Law. Thus the woman will become a chalalah and hence, forbidden to partake of terumah. Since she is forbidden to partake of terumah, her servants are likewise forbidden.

I.e., a woman who is forbidden to him because of one of the prohibitions that apply to all Jews, even non-priests. Nevertheless, if he engages in relations with that woman, she becomes a zonah and thus prohibited against partaking of terumah. In this instance as well, since she is forbidden to partake of terumah, her servants are likewise forbidden.

For they are the woman's poperty, it is just that they are "on loan" to her husband, as it were.

A relatively distant female relative with whom our Sages prohibited marriage as a safeguard against the Scriptural prohibitions of incest. See Hilchot Ishut 1:6.

For according to Scriptural Law, she is the priest's wife and relations with him do not disqualify her, neither as a zonah or a chalalah.

Seemingly, since such a woman has the right to partake of terumah, her servants should also be so entitled. The Radbaz explains that since her marriage is not sanctioned by Rabbinic Law, her husband is under no obligation to sustain her. Hence, her servants do not receive the right to partake of terumah. Those servants that are nichsei tzon barzel are permitted to partake of terumah according to all authorities, for they are her husband's acquisitions as explained above.

I.e., were it not for the reason stated by the Rambam, they would be permitted to partake of terumah by virtue of their membership in the Priestly family.

Entering the chupah means entering a private place with her husband. This is the act that constitutes the beginning of the second phase of the marriage relationship, nissuin.

Even though a woman enters the chupah without consecration, that act causes her to be considered as designated for intimate relations that are forbidden.

Through intimate relations with her husband.

I.e., her husband, the priest, had several brothers, one of whom was born from a relationship forbidden to the priesthood, and thus had the status of a challal.

Since she could be married by the challal, she is disqualified even though she is a member of the priestly family.

A maamar is a Rabbinic institution in which a yevam declares his intention to marry his brother's childless widow by consecrating her through giving her money (Hilchot Yibbum 2:1).

If another brother would perform yibbum with the widow, he would become her husband despite the maamar given by his brother. Thus the connection to the yevam who is a challal is still intact.

I.e., instead of performing chalitzah which would absolve the connection between him and his yevamah, he gave her a bill of divorce. According to Scriptural Law, the bill of divorce is not effective at all. Nevertheless, according to Rabbinic Law, it disqualifies the woman from carrying out yibbum with any of the brothers (Hilchot Yibbum VeChalitzah 5:1).

For according to Scriptural Law, their connection is still intact.

And thus became forbidden to a priest by Rabbinic decree.

A relatively distant female relative with whom our Sages prohibited marriage as a safeguard against the Scriptural prohibitions of incest. See Hilchot Ishut 1:6.

Because she is a member of the priestly family. In contrast to the women mentioned in Halachah 21, these women are designated for relations that are forbidden only by Rabbinic decree. Hence, they are not disqualified.

Were the yevamah to be the daughter of an Israelite, she would not be permitted to partake of terumah despite the fact that she is bound to a priest through the obligation of yibbum (Radbaz).

A women whose female sexual characteristics are underdeveloped.

Although the priest may divorce her because she cannot have children, until he does so, he may be intimate with her. Hence, she is entitled to partake of terumah.