Terumot - Chapter 11

The intent is that a person may benefit from terumah in all the ways one ordinarily benefits from produce.

For it is not common to smear these substances.

One may not, however, burn pure terumah oil. Since it is fit to be used for a person's direct satisfaction, it should not be used merely as kindling fuel (Radbaz).

For this is considered as benefiting from dates as food.

In Babylon, it was customary to make beer out of dates. Nevertheless, it is forbidden to do this from dates which are terumah, because one should not make terumah which is food into a liquid (the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah, Terumot 11:3).

Although fall grapes are not of the same quality as ordinary summer grapes and thus might be used for vinegar, since this is a deviation of the ordinary way in which the grapes are used, it is not appropriate to use terumah produce in this manner.

For using them to produce oil and wine respectively is considered an ordinary - if not the preferable way - of using them. Indeed, when mentioning these products, Numbers 18:12 refers to them as "oil" and "wine," not as olives and grapes [the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (Terumot 11:3)].

For it is still considered as terumah and it should not be wasted.

For they are not considered as the fruit itself, merely as its by-products.

The Ra'avad maintains that if these products were already given to a priest, the non-priest must make restitution for their value. For taking them is equivalent to stealing. The Radbaz and the Kessef Mishnehmaintain that the Rambam would also accept this ruling, for in his Commentary to the Mishnah (ibid.:2), he states that the person who partakes of these products is liable for the principal, but not for an additional fifth.

The punishment given for violating a Rabbinic prohibition. He is not considered as liable for lashes, because he is not liable for the transgression of a Scriptural prohibition for the same reason mentioned in the previous note.

Because this ruins them. Putting these fruits into brine would allow the juice they contained to be extracted.

This is done to improve the flavor of the brine.

It was common to make such a mixture in the Talmudic era.

This applies even though boiling it improves its taste and fragrance [the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (ibid.)].

For this ruins the grain and grain is more important than legumes (Radbaz).

In the Roman conquest.

There was a sparsity of grain and the people did not care to differentiate one species from the other.

Even though it is terumah and he will thus be discarding bran that is terumah. This is allowed since he is doing the same as he would with ordinary produce.

A se'ah contains six kabbim. Nevertheless, because the person is sifting the flour carefully, he may be left with only one or two kabbim from the entire se'ah.

Hence it is forbidden to destroy it.

Where it will not be taken by another person.

For this will be using it for a purpose other than a person's direct physical benefit.

Applying oil to leather objects strengthens them (Kessef Mishneh).

Because the oil will be applied to the shoe and the sandal directly.

Once the oil has been applied to his flesh, its sacred quality is divested. Hence, the fact that afterwards, the oil becomes applied to the leather is not significant.

One certainly is not allowed to place oil that is terumah on a leather mat, because that will cause it to be absorbed in the mat and thus not applied to the person's skin. One might, however, think that it is permitted to use a marble tablet for this purpose, because none of the oil will be absorbed. Nevertheless, a certain amount of oil will remain on the tablet and thus be ruined. This is forbidden (Kessef Mishneh).

Washing one's hands before partaking of ordinary fruit is, by contrast, considered a sign of haughtiness (Hilchot Berachot 6:3). With regard to bread, however, our Sages ordained that one must wash even before partaking of ordinary bread.

See Hilchot Sha'ar Avot HaTumah 8:8. See also the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (Challah 1:9).

Which is separated only by virtue of Rabbinic decree.

The intent is not necessarily impure hands, but any hands that one has not watched carefully to make sure that they are pure. For if one touches oil with such hands, it is impure by Rabbinic decree (Hilchot Sha'ar Avot HaTuma'ah 8:8-10).

For this would make the terumah impure and that is forbidden. Instead, one must wash his hands before applying oil to his body (Kessef Mishneh).

For once it comes in contact with his flesh, its sacred quality departs and the fact that one's hands are impure is not significant (ibid., based on Keritot 7a).

And it is forbidden for an uncircumcised person to make use of terumah, as stated in Chapter 7, Halachah 10.

In his gloss to the Mishneh Torah, B'nei Yaakov notes that although this question is left unresolved by the Babylonian Talmud (Yevamot 71a), the Rambam's ruling is based on the Jerusalem Talmud where the question is resolved.

Even though his Israelite grandson will come in contact with the oil and benefit from it, that is of no concern for once it touches the flesh of the priest, its holiness departs and even a non-priest may benefit from it.

The Kessef Mishneh offers this interpretation in order to maintain the standard version of the Mishneh Torah. He, however, suggests that the version is in error and that the proper version is that he can attend to him.

A pungent herb.

Although the chilbahwill also be applied to the hair of the Israelite woman, since it was first applied to the hair of the priest's daughter, its holiness has departed and it can then be applied to the Israelite woman's hair.

For this is not considered direct physical benefit, like eating.

I.e., it is not normally eaten, because its taste is too sharp. If, however, it was entirely unfit for human consumption, there would be no obligation to separate terumah from it (Kessef Mishneh, see Chapter 2, Halachah 8, and Chapter 12, Halachah 7).

The seeds and the juice in the melon [the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (Ediot 3:3)].

The tops and stems of vegetables that are cut off when preparing a vegetable for cooking (ibid.).

Even though they are not fit to be eaten, since they are in contact with the food, they are considered like food (Radbaz).

For they cut off only those leaves that are not at all fit to be eaten, a homeowner, by contrast, will discard even those that are slightly undesirable (Kessef Mishneh). The Rambam is apparently relying on a version of the Jerusalem Talmud (Terumot 11:4) which is different than the standard printed version of the text.

For they are bitter and are not fit to be eaten (Radbaz).

For usually, there is a certain amount of food attached to them.

The commentaries note that the Rambam's ruling here represents a reversal of his position in his Commentary to the Mishnah (Terumot 11:5) where he rules more leniently with regard to carob seeds.

The rationale is that since it is only fit to be eaten under pressing circumstances, there is no obligation to separate terumah according to Scriptural Law. Instead, the obligation is Rabbinic in origin. It is a decree, instituted so that it not be exchanged with other produce. Since it has been discarded, it will not be exchanged. Hence, the decree was never applied in such situations.

For it is no longer considered as food.

For they are still fit to be eaten.

If they are aged to the degree that they produce dust, they are no longer considered food and there is no prohibition against partaking of them.

For the influence of the grapes is not significant at that time. The Radbaz states that this leniency applies even if the mixture has the flavor of wine.

The fact that there will be some grain that is terumah is not significant.

Our translation is taken from the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (Terumot 11:6).

Even though some oil that is terumah will be left to spoil on the ground.

Even though there will be some remnants of the oil that was terumah there, we do not require him to clean the jug thoroughly (ibid.:8).

The fact that he has diverted his attention from the oil is not significant; we do not suspect that other oil was added to the jug (ibid.).

I.e., oil that is terumah that is ritually impure and hence, fit to be used as fuel for a lamp.

The oil should be burnt for the sake of the priest and not for the sake of an Israelite. Nevertheless, since the priest derives benefit from the Israelite's acts, this is permitted.

When referring to this law, the Rama (Yoreh De'ah 331:19) mentions the converse situation as well. A priest visited an Israelite and the Israelite kindled a lamp for him using impure oil that is terumah. The Israelite may allow the lamp to continue burning after the priest departs.

Since the priest originally benefited from it, there is no prohibition in allowing it to continue to burn for the sake of the Israelite.

I.e., even though it contains oil from terumah that is impure.

The Mishneh LiMelech explains that according to the Rambam, the prohibition against an Israelite benefiting from impure oil that is terumah is Rabbinic in origin. Our Sages did not impose their decree in a situation where a Jew would be forced to walk in the dark. Because of the danger involved, the Israelite is entitled to do this even without the permission of the priest (Kessef Mishneh).

Since the priest is deriving benefit from the oil, it may be kindled without asking him. And since he is deriving benefit from it, the Israelite may also derive benefit.

The Radbaz emphasizes that this applies only when the priest does not object. If, however, he specifically lodges an objection, it is forbidden.

In all these instances, it is a mitzvah that benefits people at large to kindle the light and our Sages did not institute their decrees when doing so would impede the performance of such a mitzvah.

The rationale is that he is performing a mitzvah. Since mitzvot were not given for our personal satisfaction (Rosh HaShanah 28a), he is not considered to be deriving personal benefit from kindling the Chanukah lamp. Nevertheless, if he has other oil, it is preferable for him to use that rather than impure terumah oil.

A priest must explicitly give permission for the oil to be kindled there [the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (Terumot 11:10)]. In contrast to the previous instances, the priest's permission is necessary in this situation, because only one individual - not people at large - are benefiting from the light (Radbaz, Kessef Mishneh).

Since she is married to a priest, she is permitted to benefit from the kindling of this oil. And thus, all the laws mentioned above with regard to a priest, also apply with regard to her.

For this is also considered as a mitzvah that benefits people at large.

The garments worn by people at a wedding celebration are very clean and they will not want to soil them with oil that was used for a lamp [the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (Terumot 11:10)].

They will be too preoccupied with their mourning to consider anything else (ibid.).

And thus destroy what he sowed (ibid. 9:1). This will be beneficial because he will be able to sow a new crop of ordinary produce instead.

This will cause him to suffer a loss, for as the Rambam states in the following halachah, the produce of such a field may not be eaten by non-priests. Thus he will not be able to sell it at the price of ordinary produce. And yet he will have to till his land just as it was ordinary produce.

For at this point, the crop is already considered significant (see Hilchot Ma'aser 2:3-5). Thus destroying it would be similar to destroying terumah which is forbidden.

And destroy it, so that he will not make use of it.

We fear that he will interpret the prohibition as applying only to using the flax seeds as food and not to using the plant's fibers for other purposes.

Hence all the agricultural obligations that are incumbent on ordinary produce are incumbent upon it, as stated in Halachah 27. Although Terumot 9:4 states that produce which grows from terumah is terumah, the intent is that it is forbidden to non-priests. This was one of the decrees enacted by our Sages on the day the students of the School of Shammai outnumbered those of the School of Hillel [the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (Terumot 9:4), based on Shabbat 1:3].

I.e., it does possess the sacred quality that characterizes terumah.

When one hands are in a state of impurity, because of touching food that is ritually impure, as a result of a Rabbinic decree. It is not necessary to wash one's hands before partaking of such produce.

To be purified from ritual impurity, a person must immerse himself and then wait until nightfall that day. The immersion itself is not sufficient to bring one to a state of ritual purity.

They may even be eaten by non-priests.

Plants like onions or garlic (Terumot 9:4) that grow from an existing bulb. Although that bulb is produce grown from terumah, since it is forbidden only according to Rabbinic Law, when it is planted again and new produce grows from it, the Rabbinic prohibition can be nullified.

I.e., a simple majority is sufficient. We do not require 60 times its substance.

The Ra'avad differs with the Rambam's ruling, stating that if the seed does not decompose, even the second generation produce that grows is forbidden. He supports his ruling based on Terumot 9:4 which makes such statements with regard to tevel, produce from which the terumot and tithes have not been separated. The Radbaz and the Kessef Mishneh, however, support the Rambam's position.

Since such terumah is forbidden only by Rabbinic decree and it is not a common matter, our Sages did not enforce their decree with regard to it.

Even though the produce which is terumah is mixed with less than 100 times its volume and thus it is not nullified (see ch. 13), if the mixture is planted, the produce that grows is permitted to all.

This is referring to a situation similar to those described in Chapter 3, Halachah 6, when originally, the person gave less than the required amount of terumah and hence was required to separate terumah again. The second separation is considered as terumah only because of Rabbinic decree and produce which grows from it is permitted.

Since the seeds themselves are not edible, they are not considered as terumah (although the vegetables themselves are). And since they are not considered as terumah, the produce that grows from them is also not considered as terumah.

Since flaxseed is usually not eaten, the requirement to separate terumah is only Rabbinic in origin. Hence, when the terumah from flaxseed is sown, it is permitted (Radbaz). The Ra'avad, however, differs concerning this and the previous instance and maintains that produce that grows from this type of terumah is not permitted.

Even by priests. Instead, it must be burnt, as was required of the seeds from which it grew [the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (Terumot 9:7)].

By a priest. It is permitted because planting it purified it from impurity. It is not permitted to an Israelite, however, because it is still the first generation of offspring from terumah and not the second (Ra'avad, as explained by Radbaz and Kessef Mishneh).

This obligates that terumah and tithes be separated from the produce as stated in Hilchot Ma'aser 3:13.

Before terumah was separated from that grain heap.

The Rambam's words require some qualification. Certainly, the fact that the stalk is replanted does not cause the categorization as tevel to be released, as evident from Hilchot Ma'aser 6:6. The question here is whether the designation as terumah remains or not.

The fact that it was replanted does not change its own status.

To eat in this manner.

Which is less than the price of ordinary produce. This is necessary, because as stated in Halachah 21, it is forbidden for an Israelite to partake of such produce.

It is, however, forbidden to sell the second tithe. Instead, this produce must be given to the priests (Radbaz).

I.e., if the animal partakes of the produce, the owner will be benefiting from produce grown from terumah. And if he muzzles the animal to prevent it from doing so, he will be violating the prohibition (Deuteronomy 25:4): "Do not muzzle an ox while it is threshing."