Terumot - Chapter 15

This follows the principle devar shebiminyan lo batal: “The presence of an object that is sold by number is never considered insignificant.” Since these objects are sold by number, each one is considered important and it is not appropriate to say that one is insignificant (Hilchot Ma’achalot Assurot 16:1-3).

For once the barrels are opened, they are no longer considered as important. It is, however, forbidden to open the barrels, for this would be considered as purposefully nullifying a forbidden substance and that is prohibited (Radbaz).

And give it to a priest. The Jerusalem Talmud (Terumot 4:7) records a difference of opinion concerning this matter between Reish Lakish and Rabbi Y ochanan. Reish Lakish’s opinion is the one cited by the Rambam. Rabbi Yochanan, however, differs and maintains that the same law applies even with regard to figs. The Rambam rules according to Reish Lakish’s opinion, for the Babylonian Talmud (Zevachim 74b) mentions his view only and not that of Rabbi Y ochanan. See also Hilchot Avodat Kochavim 7:10 where the Rambam issues a similar ruling.
The Ra’avad does not accept this ruling. He maintains that the Babylonian Talmud mentions Reish Lakish’s opinion only in connection with the discussion of another
minority view. Hence, it is not necessary to mention Rabbi Yochanan’s view.

Inadvertently. It is forbidden to open such a barrel intentionally.

More precisely, 1/101. I.e., the percent of the mixture that is terumah. This is given to a priest.

It is true that this ruling is somewhat problematic. For if the barrel is in fact terumah, the entire barrel, not only the hundredth portion, must be given to the priest. And if it is not terumah, it is permitted to drink it in its entirety. Nothing need be given to the priest.
The Ma’aseh Roke’ach explains the reason for the stringency. Were this safeguard not taken, one might permit the barrels even when they were all opened.

Although when considering those barrels, it is necessary to give a barrel to a priest because of the suspicion that one is terumah, we are still stringent regarding those remaining.

Chapter 16, Halachah 1.

Based on Hilchot Ma’achalot Assurot 16:26, the Radbaz states that this same law applies if terumah is used to cause cheese to harden.

I.e., the standard ratio of 1/101 is not effective to nullify the terumah. In his Commentary to the Mishnah (Orlah 2:4; Terumot 10:2), the Rambam explains that since the effects of the terumah are evident in the food it rises or it is spiced because of it we cannot say that the terumah is nullified.

We are speaking about a situation where the egg is cooked whole. Thus despite the fact that the yolk is on the inside and covered by the whites, a spice intended for it can cause it to be forbidden, because it absorbs (Radbaz, Kessef Mishneh ).

Since the yeast was removed, we do not say that it caused the dough to rise. Instead, we assume that the dough rose on its own accord (Radbaz).

Chapter 13, Halachah 2; Hilchot Ma’achalot Assurot 15:1,6.

How do we know whether the flavor of the terumah was imparted to the mixture? We give it to a priest to taste (ibid. 15:29).

In his Commentary to the Mishnah (Terumot 10:1), the Rambam explains that this applies whether the onion is terumah and the lentils ordinary produce or the reverse. In both instances, since the lentils are already cooked and the onion is whole, there is little likelihood that one will absorb the flavor from the other.

Here also the same principle applies whether it is the onion or the lentils which are terumah. Since the onion is diced, it will both impart and absorb flavor easier.

Since the onion is cooked, even if it is whole, it can both impart and absorb flavor easier.

I.e., in addition to the lentils.

As the Rambam proceeds to explain, lentils are considered as being unique. Once they are cooked, they do not absorb flavor from other foods easily. Other foods are more absorbent. Even after they have been cooked, they may absorb the flavor of the onion.

The Kessef Mishneh suggests that the text should read rabbim, "many," instead of rachim, "soft;" i.e., one onion that is whole will not impart that much flavor, but several onions will.

Once the tip or the outer shell is removed, its flavor will be imparted easier even though it is still whole.

In certain contexts (see Hilchot Ma’achalot Assurot 15:34), pickling is considered as cooking. Nevertheless, in this instance, the Rambam rules leniently.

Because their sharp and pungent taste nature causes their flavor to be imparted to any vegetables pickled with them [the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah (Terumot 10: 10)].

For the onion will not absorb the flavor of the other produce.

When olives are crushed, they will absorb easier [the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah (Terumot 10:7)].

For the brine imparts its flavor to the objects pickled within it.

For it has absorbed the flavor of the terumah.

Anise is used as flavoring. Once it has flavored other foods, it is discarded. Hence, until it has flavored other foods, it is significant and the laws of terumah apply. Afterwards, it is considered as a waste product (Radbaz).

Even though the bread may absorb the fragrance of the wine, it does not absorb its substance and the fragrance alone is of no consequence. This is a general principle that applies with regard to all prohibited foods; see Hilchot Ma’achalot Assurot 15:33.

It is considered as if the actual substance of the wine has been imparted to the bread.

In Hilchot Ma’achalot Assurot 16:22, the Rambam writes that when an oven is heated with shells of produce that is orlah or mixed species in a vineyard, whatever is cooked in the oven is forbidden. The commentaries note, however, that there is a fundamental distinction between the two instances. It is forbidden to benefit from not only to eat - the prohibited substances mentioned in Hilchot Ma’achalot Assurot. It is, by contrast, permitted to benefit from terumah.

This concept also applies with regard to all the Torah’s prohibitions; see Hilchot Ma’achalot Assurot 15:28.

A pungent herb.

I.e., without the influence of the plant whose flavor is similar to that of the seeds. The rationale is that the plant is not considered as terumah [the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah (Terumot 10:5)]. See also Chapter 2, Halachah 4.

And the ordinary wine is less than 100 times the amount of terumah wine.

See Chapter 13, Halachah 9, which explains that the water is not combined with the ordinary wine to create a mixture 100 times the amount of the terumah.

The Radbaz notes that in Hilchot Ma’achalot Assurot 16:32, the Rambam writes a similar law with regard to wine associated with idol worship that fell on produce. There, however, he rules stringently, stating that the fruits are forbidden if the wine is poured upon them while they are broken open. The Radbaz explains that the Rambam did not mention the point here, because he relied on what he had stated earlier. Indeed, if the fruit was broken open and the wine improved its flavor, it should be sold.to a priest at the price of terumah.

Even though oil is more likely to cling to fruit than wine, it is sufficient to wash the fruit. Generally, oil does not improve the taste of fruit (Radbaz).

For in this way, the oil can be removed without it mixing with the wine. Similarly, oil impairs the flavor of wine (ibid.).

This stringency is necessary, because oil improves the flavor of brine (ibid.).

The Ra’avad questions the Rambam’s ruling, asking why this instance is different from the laws involving non-kosher food absorbed in a utensil. In that instance, it is not sufficient to wash out the utensil, one must perform hagalah, i.e., boiling water in the utensil to purge the absorbed matter. The Radbaz explains that the Rambam maintains that this concept applies with regard to sanctified foods and other prohibitions, but not with regard to terumah. The rationale is that if the priests consider the terumah insignificant as would be the case with regard to terumah absorbed in a pot it is no longer of consequence. He draws support for this explanation from the mishnah in Terumot 11 :8 ( quoted in Chapter 11, Halachah 15) which states that after one pours out the contents of a jug of wine of terumah, one can pour ordinary wine into the container even if there is a small amount of residue from the previous wine. This explanation is also given in one of the responsa ascribed to the Rambam in a response to a question concerning this subject by the sages of Lunil. The Kessel Mishneh also cites these ideas and states that the reason the Rambam requires that the pot be washed out is because the contents are being cooked. If they were not to be cooked, even washing would not be necessary.

This leniency applies only with regard to terumah and not to prohibited food absorbed in a utensil. The rationale is the same as in the previous note: Since the priests consider this terumah insignificant, we do not show concern about it (Radbaz).

The portion of dough that must be separated and given to a priest.

See Chapter 10, Halachah 4.

This verse refers to challah; or it is comparing challah to the great terumah. Perhaps a scribal error crept into the text and this was intended as support for the following clause. The Radbaz, however, gives an explanation why it was included here.

I.e., to cause a mixture to be forbidden to non-priests.

Produce from which we are unsure that the tithes have been separated.

For partaking of terumah is a mitzvah and we are required to recite a blessing before the observance of all mitzvot (Kessef Mishneh).

See Hilchot Bikkurim 1 :2.

Even though it is only a Rabbinic commandment.

We use the term “sacred food from the boundaries of our Hoy Land” for challah even when in this instance it comes from the Diaspora, because when our Sages ordained that challah should be separated in the Diaspora, they made their ordinance similar to the
original Scriptural commandment.

Pesachim 72b relates that one day Rabbi Tarfon did not come to the House of Study. Rabban Gamliel rebuked him for his absence. Rabbi Tarfon answered that he was carrying out priestly worship. Rabban Gamliel asked him how that was possible, for they lived in the era after the Temple’s -destruction. Rabbi Tarfon replied that partaking of terumah was equivalent to serving in the Temple.