Rambam — 3 Perakimרמב״ם ג׳ פרקים

א׳זָר שֶׁאָכַל תְּרוּמָה בִּשְׁגָגָה מְשַׁלֵּם קֶרֶן וְחֹמֶשׁ. אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁיּוֹדֵעַ שֶׁהִיא תְּרוּמָה וְשֶׁהוּא מֻזְהָר עָלֶיהָ אֲבָל לֹא יָדַע אִם חַיָּב עָלֶיהָ מִיתָה אִם לָאו הֲרֵי זוֹ שְׁגָגָה וּמְשַׁלֵּם קֶרֶן וְחֹמֶשׁ:

¹When a non-priests partakes of terumah unknowingly, he must make restitution for the principal and add a fifth.1As stated in Halachah 26, the intent is one fifth of the new total. Thus if a person eats the value of four measures of grain, he must pay five. Moreover, he may not use grain that is terumah to make restitution, he must use ordinary grain (which is more expensive). This fifth becomes considered as terumah itself and must be eaten in a state of ritual purity. See also Halachah 15. Even if he knows that it is terumah and that he is warned against partaking of it, but he does not know whether or not he is liable for death,2At the hand of heaven. he is considered to have acted unknowingly and he must make restitution for the principal and add a fifth.

ב׳אֶחָד הָאוֹכֵל דָּבָר שֶׁדַּרְכּוֹ לֶאֱכל וְאֶחָד הַשּׁוֹתֶה דָּבָר שֶׁדַּרְכּוֹ לִשְׁתּוֹת וְאֶחָד הַסָּךְ דָּבָר שֶׁדַּרְכּוֹ לָסוּךְ שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (ויקרא כב טו) "וְלֹא יְחַלְּלוּ אֶת קָדְשֵׁי בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל" לְרַבּוֹת אֶת הַסָּךְ. וְאֶחָד הָאוֹכֵל תְּרוּמָה טְהוֹרָה אוֹ טְמֵאָה בִּשְׁגָגָה מְשַׁלֵּם קֶרֶן וְחֹמֶשׁ. וְאֵינוֹ חַיָּב בְּחֹמֶשׁ עַד שֶׁיֹּאכַל כְּזַיִת שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (ויקרא כב יד) "כִּי יֹאכַל קֹדֶשׁ בִּשְׁגָגָה" וְאֵין אֲכִילָה פְּחוּתָה מִכְּזַיִת. וּכְשֵׁם שֶׁאֲכִילַת תְּרוּמָה בִּכְזַיִת כָּךְ שְׁתִיָּה בִּכְזַיִת:

²A person who eats an article [that is terumah] that is ordinarily eaten, drinks something that is ordinarily drunk, or smears himself with something ordinarily used for that purpose [is liable],3Since these are the ways in which one may benefit from terumah (see Chapter 11, Halachah 1), these are the ways for which one is liable for partaking of it. as [derived from Leviticus 22:15]: "And they shall not defile the sacraments of the children of Israel." This includes one who smears himself.4The implication of the verse is that just as eating involves tangible physical satisfaction, so too, smearing oneself produces tangible physical satisfaction.Whether one partakes of terumah which is ritually pure or ritually impure unknowingly, one must make restitution for the principal and add a fifth.5It appears that in contrast to the intentional violation of the prohibition mentioned in Halachah 5, in this instance, the transgressor should pay the full value of the terumah even if it is ritually impure. The rationale is that here a person is receiving atonement for his transgression. Hence, he is required to make full payment. He is not liable for a fifth until he eats an olive-sized portion, as [indicated by ibid.:14]: "When one will eat a sacrament unknowingly"; eating implies consuming no less than an olive-sized portion. Just as one is liable for eating an olive-sized portion, so too, [one is liable for] drinking an olive-sized portion.6The Radbaz explains at length why although with regard to most prohibitions, the minimum measure for which one is liable for drinking is a revi'it of a log, a larger measure than an olive-sized portion, in this instance an exception is made. The basis of his explanation is that this prohibition focuses on "eating" terumah, and as stated above, intaking an olive-sized portion constitutes eating.

ג׳אָכַל וְחָזַר וְאָכַל. שָׁתָה וְחָזַר וְשָׁתָה. אִם יֵשׁ מִתְּחִלַּת אֲכִילָה רִאשׁוֹנָה עַד סוֹף אֲכִילָה אַחֲרוֹנָה כְּדֵי אֲכִילַת פְּרָס וּמִתְּחִלַּת שְׁתִיָּה רִאשׁוֹנָה עַד סוֹף שְׁתִיָּה אַחֲרוֹנָה כְּדֵי שְׁתִיַּת רְבִיעִית הֲרֵי אֵלּוּ מִצְטָרְפִין לִכְזַיִת:

³[The following laws apply if a person] ate terumah and then ate again, drank and then drank again. If there is sufficient time to eat a half a loaf of bread7I.e., an equivalent of three egg-sized portions. If a person stretches out his consumption of an olive-sized beyond this time span, it s not considered as "eating," for he will not have ingested a significant amount at once. The Rabbis mention different opinions with regard to this time span, referred to as k'dai achilat pras, some as brief as 2 minutes and some as long as 9 minutes. Based on Shiurei Torah, the suggested practice is to consider k'dai achilat pras as 4 minutes with regard to eating matzah on Pesach, but 9 minutes with regard to eating on Yom Kippur. See also Hilchot Ma'achalot Assurot 14:9 and notes. from the time he began to eat until he concluded or sufficient time to drink a revi'it from the time he began to drink until he concluded,8The time to drink a revi'it is much less than k'dai achilat pras. The Ra'avad objects to the Rambam's ruling, maintaining that the latter measure of time should be applied in this instance as well. The Radbaz and the Kessef Mishneh cite sources to support the Rambam's view and note that he mentions this measure of time for drinking both with regard to the prohibition against drinking on Yom Kippur (Hilchot Shevitat Esor 2:4) and the prohibition against drinking gentile wine (Hilchot Ma'achalot Assurot 14:9). They do note, however, that in Hilchot Sha'ar Avot HaTumah 8:11, however, the Rambam mentions the time span of k'dai achilat pras even with regard to drinking.They differentiate between the rulings as follows: In all the instances involving prohibitions against eating, the Rambam mentions the time to drink a revi'it because a person will not feel satisfaction if his drinking the minimum measure is stretched out over a longer span of time. In Hilchot Sha'ar Avot HaTumah, by contrast, the concept involves considering a person ritually impure because of his having ingested a quantity of liquid. As long as he does not wait longer than k'dai achilat pras, the liquid is still collected in his digestive system and has not begun to circulate throughout his body. [all he consumes] is combined to comprise an olive-sized portion.

ד׳הַתְּרוּמָה וּתְרוּמַת מַעֲשֵׂר בֵּין שֶׁל דְּמַאי בֵּין שֶׁל וַדַּאי וְהַחַלָּה וְהַבִּכּוּרִים כֻּלָּן מִצְטָרְפִין לִכְזַיִת לְחַיֵּב עֲלֵיהֶן מִיתָה וְחֹמֶשׁ שֶׁכֻּלָּן נִקְרְאוּ תְּרוּמָה. וּמִן הַדִּין הָיָה שֶׁאֵין חַיָּבִין חֹמֶשׁ עַל תְּרוּמַת מַעֲשֵׂר שֶׁל דְּמַאי כְּמוֹ שֶׁאֵין חַיָּבִין עַל מַעֲשֵׂר [שֵׁנִי] שֶׁלּוֹ כְּמוֹ שֶׁיִּתְבָּאֵר. אֲבָל אָמְרוּ חֲכָמִים אִם לֹא יִתְחַיֵּב עָלֶיהָ חֹמֶשׁ יְזַלְזְלוּ בָּהּ:

⁴Terumah, terumat ma'aser, whether the latter is from d'mai9Produce that we are unsure whether or not the tithes have been separated. The Rama (Yoreh De'ah 331:59) explains that the term is a composite of two Aramaic words da mai which mean: "What is this?", i.e., the person is unaware of the status of the produce with which he is dealing. or from produce from which the tithes were definitely [not separated], challah,10The portion of dough separated and given to the priests. and the first fruits can all be combined together to comprise an olive-sized portion11I.e., if one eats a little bit of any combination of these forbidden substances and the entire amount is an olive-sized portion, one is liable. for which one is liable for death12If the transgression was intentional. or [restitution, plus] a fifth,13If the transgression was performed unknowingly. for they are all called terumah [at different times in the Torah].14Challah is referred to as terumah in Numbers 15:20 and the first fruits are referred to as terumah in Deuteronomy 12:17.According to law, one should not be liable for a fifth for [the unknowing consumption of] terumat ma'aser that is d'mai, just as one is not liable for the second tithe [from d'mai], as will be explained.15Hilchot Ma'aser Sheni 5:4. Since we are speaking about d'mai, produce from which separations are being made because of a doubt, there is no obligation according to Scriptural Law to add a fifth. With regard to ma'aser sheni, our Sages felt that if the obligation of an additional fifth was imposed, people would ignore the obligation to separate ma'aser sheni from d'mai entirely. With regard to terumat ma'aser from d'mai, they felt the converse is true. Were the obligation of an additional fifth not imposed, people would not treat the obligation to separate d'mai seriously. Nevertheless, our Sages said: If one is not liable for a fifth, people will treat it with disdain.

ה׳אָכַל תְּרוּמָה בְּמֵזִיד [וְהִתְרוּ בּוֹ לוֹקֶה וְאֵינוֹ מְשַׁלֵּם. לֹא הִתְרוּ בּוֹ] אִם הָיְתָה טְהוֹרָה מְשַׁלֵּם הַקֶּרֶן וְאֵינוֹ מְשַׁלֵּם אֶת הַחֹמֶשׁ. וְאִם הָיְתָה טְמֵאָה מְשַׁלֵּם דְּמֵי עֵצִים מִפְּנֵי שֶׁאֵינָהּ רְאוּיָה אֶלָּא לְהַסָּקָה. לְפִיכָךְ אִם אָכַל תְּרוּמַת תּוּתִים וְרִמּוֹנִים וְכַיּוֹצֵא בָּהֶם שֶׁנִּטְמְאוּ פָּטוּר מִן הַתַּשְׁלוּמִין שֶׁהֲרֵי אֵינָם רְאוּיִין לְהַסָּקָה:

⁵When a person partook terumah intentionally [after] receiving a warning, he is liable for lashes and is not required to make financial restitution.16A person never receives both corporal punishment and a financial penalty. Hence, he is liable only for lashes. See the notes to Chapter 6, Halachah 6, which explain why here he is punished by lashes and not required to make restitution. If he did not receive warning, [he is required to make financial restitution].17When he makes restitution, the produce he gives the priest is considered as ordinary produce and not as terumah (Terumot 7:1). If [the terumah] was ritually pure, he is required to make restitution for the principal, but is not required to add a fifth.18An addition of a fifth was required only in the case of inadvertent transgression. In his Commentary to the Mishneh (Terumot 7:1), the Rambam explains that the additional fifth was instituted for atonement and that was possible only when the transgression was violated unintentionally. When it was violated intentionally, the sin is too great for atonement to be granted in an ordinary manner. If [the terumah] was ritually impure, he is required to pay only as if it were wood, because it is fit only to use as fuel.19For terumah can only be eaten only when it is ritually pure. Accordingly, if one ate berries or pomegranates or the like that were terumah that became impure, he is not obligated to make restitution, because these are not fit to be used as fuel.20Since they have no value, there is no need for restitution.

ו׳הָאוֹכֵל תְּרוּמַת חָמֵץ בְּפֶסַח בֵּין בְּזָדוֹן בֵּין בִּשְׁגָגָה בֵּין טְמֵאָה בֵּין טְהוֹרָה פָּטוּר מִן הַתַּשְׁלוּמִין. אֲפִלּוּ הִפְרִישָׁהּ מַצָּה וְהֶחְמִיצָה פָּטוּר. וַאֲפִלּוּ דְּמֵי עֵצִים אֵינוֹ מְשַׁלֵּם שֶׁהֲרֵי אֵינָהּ רְאוּיָה לְהַסָּקָה מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהִיא אֲסוּרָה בַּהֲנָאָה אֵין לָהּ דָּמִים:

⁶When a person eats terumah that is chametz on Pesach, whether willfully or unknowingly, whether it is ritually impure or pure, he is exempt from financial liability.21The Ra'avad objects to the Rambam's decision, noting that it is the subject of a difference of opinion between the Sages of the Mishneh (see Pesachim 32a) and the opinion stated by the Rambam does not appear to be accepted in a definitive manner. The Radbaz and the Kessef Mishneh provide interpretations of that passage that justify the Rambam's ruling. Even if he separated terumah from matzah, but it became chametz [before he ate it], he is exempt. 22Pesachim, loc. cit., speaks about an instance where a person steals terumah that is matzah from a priest and ate it. Even if it became chametz in the thief's domain in which instance, the thief caused the priest a loss, the thief is not liable financially. He is not even required to pay as if it were wood, because it is not fit for use as fuel. [Instead,] since it is forbidden to benefit from it,23See Hilchot Chametz UMatzah 1:2,4, et al. it is of no value whatsoever.

ז׳אֲבָל הַשּׁוֹגֵג שֶׁאָכַל תְּרוּמָה בְּיוֹם הַכִּפּוּרִים אוֹ שֶׁאָכַל תְּרוּמָה נְקוּרָה. וְהַשּׁוֹתֶה יֵין תְּרוּמָה שֶׁנִּתְגַּלָּה. וְהַסָּךְ יַיִן וְשֶׁמֶן כְּאֶחָד אוֹ שֶׁשָּׁתָה שֶׁמֶן וְחֹמֶץ כְּאֶחָד אוֹ שֶׁכָּסַס אֶת הַחִטִּים אוֹ גָּמַע אֶת הַחֹמֶץ הֲרֵי זֶה מְשַׁלֵּם קֶרֶן וְחֹמֶשׁ:

⁷If, however, one unknowingly ate terumah on Yom Kippur,24When a person is forbidden to eat. In this instance, the prohibition rests on the person (the gavra in yeshivah terminology) and not the cheftza, the article in question. Hence he is liable. ate terumah that was perforated,25I.e., dough that is terumah is discovered with holes in it. Our Sages fear that the holes were made by a poisonous snake who deposited his venom in the dough. Hence, they forbade partaking of it (Hilchot Rotzeach UShemirat Nefesh 12:1). drank wine that was terumah that was left open,26This too was forbidden for a similar reason. We fear that a poisonous snake drank from it and deposited his venom there (ibid.:6-7). In these two instances, although the substances are forbidden, they are forbidden only in consideration for the person's wellbeing. There is no ritual prohibition resting on the foods. Hence one is liable. smeared himself with wine and oil [that were terumah] at the same time, or drank oil and vinegar [that were terumah] at the same time,27Halachah 11 states that one drinks oil or smears oneself with wine, he is liable only for the principal, for as the commentaries state there, that is not the customary manner of benefiting from these substances. In this halachah, the Rambam clarifies that if one combines the substances as he states here, this is considered as the normal pattern and one is liable. chewed raw kernels of wheat,28The Ra'avad notes that there is a difference of opinion concerning this matter in the Jerusalem Talmud (Terumot 6:1). The opinion cited by the Rambam is advanced by Rabbi Yehudah HaNasi while the majority of the Sages differ. Hence, he maintains that the Sages' view should be followed for, as stated in the following halachah with regard to barley, eating uncooked kernels of wheat is harmful. The Radbaz and the Kessef Mishneh justify the Rambam's view. As stated in Hilchot Berachot 3:2, one is required to make a blessing when eating such kernels. This indicates one is deriving benefit and if one derives benefit from terumah, he is required to make restitution. or swallowed vinegar,29It is uncommon to partake of these foods in this manner. Nevertheless, it is not so infrequent a practice to reduce one's liability. he is liable to make restitution for the principal and add a fifth.

ח׳הָיָה שָׂבֵעַ וְקָץ בִּמְזוֹנוֹ וְהוֹסִיף עַל שָׂבְעוֹ בַּאֲכִילַת תְּרוּמָה אֵינוֹ מְשַׁלֵּם אֶת הַחֹמֶשׁ שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (ויקרא כב יד) "כִּי יֹאכַל" לֹא שֶׁיַּזִּיק אֶת עַצְמוֹ. וְכֵן הַכּוֹסֵס אֶת הַשְּׂעוֹרִים פָּטוּר מִן הַחֹמֶשׁ מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהִזִּיק עַצְמוֹ:

⁸When a person is satisfied and is disgusted by his food, but continues eating terumah despite the fact that he is satisfied, he is not required to add a fifth [when making restitution, for the prooftext cited above] states: "When one will eat...." [Implied is that he is when he eats in an ordinary manner] and not when he harms himself.30Note the parallel with regard to the prohibition against eating on Yom Kippur (Hilchot Shivitat Esor 2:7). There too the Rambam rules that consuming food in such a state is not considered as "eating." Similarly, when one chews raw kernels of barley, he is not liable, because he harms himself.

ט׳זָר שֶׁבָּלַע שֵׁזָפִין שֶׁל תְּרוּמָה וֶהֱקִיאָן וּבָא אַחֵר וַאֲכָלָן גַּם הוּא בִּשְׁגָגָה הָרִאשׁוֹן מְשַׁלֵּם קֶרֶן וְחֹמֶשׁ וְהַשֵּׁנִי מְשַׁלֵּם דְּמֵי עֵצִים לָרִאשׁוֹן:

⁹When a non-priest swallowed prunes of terumah [whole31If, however, he chewed them before swallowing them, the second person is not liable at all. For once they have been chewed, they are entirely worthless (Radbaz). unknowingly] and then regurgitated them, and another person came and also ate them unknowingly, the first person is required to make restitution for the principal and add a fifth32For swallowing the fruit whole is also considered eating. and the second person is obligated to pay the first one as if the prunes were wood.33After the person swallowed the prunes, the sanctity of terumah within them is considered to have been desecrated. For that reason, the first person who swallowed them is required to make restitution. They become his property and the second one is liable as one who damages the property of the first.

י׳הַמַּאֲכִיל הַפּוֹעֲלִים וְאֶת הָאוֹרְחִים תְּרוּמָה הֵם מְשַׁלְּמִין קֶרֶן וְחֹמֶשׁ מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהֵן כְּשׁוֹגְגִין. וְהוּא מְשַׁלֵּם לָהֶם דְּמֵי סְעֻדָּתָן שֶׁדְּמֵי הַחֻלִּין יְתֵרִין מִדְּמֵי תְּרוּמָה שֶׁאָכְלוּ שֶׁדָּבָר הָאָסוּר נַפְשׁוֹ שֶׁל אָדָם חוֹתָה מִמֶּנּוּ:

¹⁰When one feeds terumah to workers34Whom he agreed to supply with meals in addition to their wages. or to guests, they are required to make restitution for the principal and add a fifth, for they acted unknowingly.35In his Commentary to the Mishnah (Terumot 6:3), the Rambam elaborates on why the guests and not the host are responsible, citing the principle (Kiddushin 42b) that a person cannot act as an agent to perform a transgression for a colleague. Instead, the transgression is solely the responsibility of the person who performed it, in this instance, the people who partook of the food. He must pay them for their meal,36I.e., the full price of the meal were it to have been prepared from ordinary produce. for ordinary produce is more valuable than the terumah,37For this reason, it is preferable for the workers to have the employer pay them rather than having him pay the principal for the terumah (Radbaz). since a person's soul is repelled from forbidden food.38Note a similar ruling in Hilchot Mechirah 16:14. This principle is stated by the Jerusalem Talmud (Terumot, loc. cit.) in explanation of the reason the employer is required to reimburse his workers. Seemingly, he was required to provide them with a meal. He did and they ate to their satisfaction, why then is he liable to them? Our Sages explain, based on the above principle, that since the food was forbidden, their souls did not derive true satisfaction from it and hence, he is required to give them a meal.

י״אהַמַּאֲכִיל אֶת בָּנָיו הַקְּטַנִּים וְאֶת עֲבָדָיו בֵּין גְּדוֹלִים בֵּין קְטַנִּים. וְהָאוֹכֵל תְּרוּמַת חוּצָה לָאָרֶץ. וְהָאוֹכֵל אוֹ הַשּׁוֹתֶה פָּחוֹת מִכְּזַיִת. וְנָזִיר שֶׁשָּׁגַג וְשָׁתָה יַיִן שֶׁל תְּרוּמָה. וְהַשּׁוֹתֶה שֶׁמֶן וְהַסָּךְ אֶת הַיַּיִן. כָּל אֵלּוּ מְשַׁלְּמִים אֶת הַקֶּרֶן וְלֹא אֶת הַחֹמֶשׁ:

¹¹When [a non-priest] feeds terumah to his children who were below majority39The children are not liable, for they are not obligated in the observance of the mitzvot. or to his servants whether they are above or below majority,40The servants are not liable, for they have no independent financial capacity. he must pay the principal, but not the additional fifth.41See Halachah 15 which states that whenever a person is required to pay only the principal, the grain that he pays is not considered as terumah. [This ruling also applies to] one who partakes of terumah from the Diaspora,42For it is forbidden only according to Rabbinic Law and the Sages did not require this additional payment. one who eats or drinks less than an olive-sized portion,43One is not liable in this instance, because the prooftext requiring payment of the additional fifth mentions "eating," and eating or drinking less than an olive-sized portion is not considered as "eating" [the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (Terumot 7:3)]. a nazarite who unknowingly drank wine that was terumah,44Wine is forbidden to a nazirite whether it is terumah or not and our Sages explain that eating a forbidden substance is not considered "eating." In this context, a distinction can be made between eating on Yom Kippur which is an issur gavra, i.e., the food is not forbidden, the person is forbidden to partake of it, and wine for a nazirite, which is an issur cheftza, the wine itself becomes forbidden for him (Pri Megadim, Eshel Avraham 202:11). This explanation resolves an objection lodged by the Ra'avad who cites a Tosefta that rules differently than the Rambam. one drinks oil [without it being mixed with other liquids] and one who smears himself with wine.45In the latter two instances, these are not ordinary ways of benefiting from these products.

י״בבַּת כֹּהֵן שֶׁהָיְתָה נְשׂוּאָה לְיִשְׂרָאֵל אוֹ שֶׁנִּפְסְלָה וְאַחַר כָּךְ אָכְלָה תְּרוּמָה מְשַׁלֶּמֶת אֶת הַקֶּרֶן וְלֹא אֶת הַחֹמֶשׁ. הָאִשָּׁה שֶׁהָיְתָה אוֹכֶלֶת בִּתְרוּמָה וְאָמְרוּ לָהּ מֵת בַּעְלִיךְ אוֹ גֵּרְשֵׁךְ. וְכֵן הָעֶבֶד שֶׁהָיָה אוֹכֵל וְאָמְרוּ לוֹ מֵת רַבְּךָ וְהִנִּיחַ יוֹרֵשׁ שֶׁאֵינוֹ מַאֲכִיל אוֹ שֶׁמְּכָרְךָ לְיִשְׂרָאֵל אוֹ נְתָנְךָ לוֹ אוֹ שִׁחְרֶרְךָ. וְכֵן כֹּהֵן שֶׁהָיָה אוֹכֵל וְנוֹדַע לוֹ שֶׁהוּא בֶּן גְּרוּשָׁה אוֹ בֶּן חֲלוּצָה. הֲרֵי אֵלּוּ מְשַׁלְּמִין הַקֶּרֶן בִּלְבַד. וְאִם הָיְתָה תְּרוּמַת חָמֵץ וְהָיָה עֶרֶב הַפֶּסַח הֲרֵי אֵלּוּ פְּטוּרִין מִלְּשַׁלֵּם מִפְּנֵי שֶׁזְּמַנָּהּ בָּהוּל נֶחְפְּזוּ לֶאֱכל וְלֹא בָּדְקוּ. וְכֻלָּן שֶׁהָיְתָה לָהֶן תְּרוּמָה בְּתוֹךְ פִּיהֶן כְּשֶׁיָּדְעוּ שֶׁהֵן אֲסוּרִין לֶאֱכל הֲרֵי אֵלּוּ יִפְלֹטוּ:

¹²When the daughter of a priest who was married to an Israelite or disqualified [from partaking of terumah for other reasons] partook of terumah, she must make restitution for the principal, but she is not required to add a fifth.46Since she was entitled to partake of terumah previously, a distinction is made between her and other non-priest. See the Sifra to Leviticus 22:12.When a woman47The daughter of an Israelite married to a priest who was therefore entitled to partake of terumah [the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (Terumot 8:1)]. was partaking of terumah and she was told: "Your husband died," or "...divorced you," she is required to pay only the principal.48As in the previous clause. If the terumah was chametz on the day preceding Pesach, she is exempt from making restitution. [The rationale is that then] the time is pressing and she hurried to eat without investigating.49The Kessef Mishneh explains that since it is a pressing time, it is considered as if the transgression was violated due to forces beyond her control (ones).[These same laws apply] when a servant was partaking [of terumah] and he was told: "Your master died and left an heir who does not entitle you to eat,"50E.g., his son was a challal or he had no sons and his daughter was married to an Israelite (ibid.). "...sold you to an Israelite," "...gave you to him as a present," or "...freed you," and when a priest was partaking [of terumah] and he discovered that he is the son of a divorcee or a woman who underwent chalitzah.51With regard to the servant, the same logic that applies with regard to the women mentioned previously applies to him. Since he was allowed to partake of terumah previously, he is not held responsible for the additional fifth. With regard to the priest who was disqualified, we find that he still has a certain vestige of connection to the priesthood, as evidenced by the fact that were he to bring an offering in the Temple, it would be acceptable after the fact (Hilchot Bi'at HaMikdash 6:10). Therefore it is sufficient for him to make restitution for the principal [the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (loc. cit.)]. In all of these instances, if these individuals had terumah in their mouths when they discovered that they were forbidden to partake of it, they should spit it out.52Even though by spitting it out, he is spoiling the terumah, that is preferable to swallowing it. For until he swallows it, he is not considered to have partaken of it (Radbaz).

י״גהָיָה אוֹכֵל וְאָמְרוּ לוֹ נִטְמֵאתָ. אוֹ נִטְמֵאת הַתְּרוּמָה. טָמֵא הָיִיתָ. אוֹ טְמֵאָה הָיְתָה הַתְּרוּמָה. אוֹ נוֹדַע שֶׁהוּא טֶבֶל אוֹ מַעֲשֵׂר רִאשׁוֹן שֶׁלֹּא נִטְּלָה תְּרוּמָתוֹ. אוֹ מַעֲשֵׂר שֵׁנִי וְהֶקְדֵּשׁ שֶׁלֹּא נִפְדּוּ. אוֹ שֶׁטָּעַם טַעַם פִּשְׁפֵּשׁ לְתוֹךְ פִּיו. הֲרֵי אֵלּוּ יִפְלֹטוּ:

¹³[Similarly, when a priest] was partaking [of terumah] and he was told: "You became impure," "The terumah became impure,"53In these instances, when he began eating, he was permitted to do so, it is only afterwards, that he or the terumah became impure. "You were impure," or "the terumah was impure,"54Thus from the outset, he should not have partaken of the terumah. he should spit it out. [The same ruling applies] if he discovered that [the terumah] was tevel, the first tithe from which terumat ma'aser had not been separated,55In which instance, it is forbidden to partake of it until the appropriate separations are made. or ma'aser sheni56The second tithe which cannot be eaten outside of Jerusalem unless it is redeemed. or consecrated property that was not redeemed, or [when partaking of the terumah,] he tasted a bug.57And the disgusting taste of the bug prevented him from swallowing the terumah [the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (loc. cit.)].

י״דשְׁתֵּי קֻפּוֹת אַחַת שֶׁל תְּרוּמָה וְאַחַת שֶׁל חֻלִּין וְנָפְלָה תְּרוּמָה לְתוֹךְ אַחַת מֵהֶן וְאֵין יָדוּעַ לְאֵי זוֹ נָפְלָה הֲרֵינִי אוֹמֵר לְתוֹךְ שֶׁל תְּרוּמָה נָפְלָה. אֵין יָדוּעַ אֵי זוֹ הִיא שֶׁל תְּרוּמָה אָכַל זָר אַחַת מֵהֶן הֲרֵי זֶה פָּטוּר מִן הַתַּשְׁלוּמִין שֶׁהַמּוֹצִיא מֵחֲבֵרוֹ עָלָיו הָרְאָיָה. וְהַשְּׁנִיָּה נוֹהֵג בָּהּ כִּתְרוּמָה. אָכַל אַחֵר אֶת הַשְּׁנִיָּה אַף הוּא פָּטוּר. אָכַל אֶחָד אֶת שְׁתֵּיהֶן מְשַׁלֵּם כַּקְּטַנָּה שֶׁבִּשְׁתֵּיהֶן. אִם מֵזִיד קֶרֶן. וְאִם שׁוֹגֵג קֶרֶן וְחֹמֶשׁ:

¹⁴When there are two containers, one of terumah and one of ordinary produce, and terumah fell into one of them, but it is not known which one, we operate under the supposition that it fell into the one which [contained] terumah.58In this instance, although there is reason to suspect that the terumah fell into the other container, we consider it as ordinary produce. The rationale is that we were operating under the chazzakah, prevailing assumption, that the container was filled with ordinary produce. Hence, unless there is a strong likelihood otherwise, we continue to operate under that perspective.This reflects a principle that has ramifications beyond the laws of terumah. Although generally, we maintain that when there is a doubt regarding a Scriptural prohibition, we rule stringently, in this instance, since there is a plausible explanation for the lenient ruling, it is accepted. See also Chapter 13, Halachah 13-14, and the Tur and the Shulchan Aruch, Yoreh De'ah, sec. 111.There is, however, a point that has to be clarified. In Chapter 13, it is explained that this principle applies with regard to matters of Rabbinic Law, but not matters of Scriptural Law, and yet, here we are dealing even with questions involving terumah of Scriptural status. Nevertheless, there is no difficulty, because here we are not speaking about whether it is permissible to partake of the mixture or not. That question was discussed in Chapter 13, and the ruling was rendered that it is forbidden. Here the question concerns financial restitution: Is the non-priest required to pay for the produce that he ate? With regard to this point, the Rambam explains that we can use the above reasoning.If it is not known which one is terumah and a non-priest partakes of one of them, he is not liable for payment.59For the additional fifth. The principal, i.e., the remaining container, must certainly be given to the priest. For if the one which was eaten was terumah, the second one should be given to him as payment for the first. And if the one that was eaten was not terumah, than the remaining one is and it must be given to the priest. [The rationale is that when a person seeks] to expropriate money from a colleague, the burden of proof is on him.60Thus if the priest seeks to expropriate the additional fifth, he must prove that the container consumed was terumah.This is a fundamental principle in Jewish Law. Whenever there is a doubt with regard to the ownership of money or movable property, the person in physical possession of the property in question is allowed to maintain possession until the claimant proves his claim. See Hilchot Mechirah 20:5, et al. He must treat the other one as if it were terumah. If another person partakes of the other one, however, he is also exempt.61From the additional fifth. For in this instance as well, we are not certain that he partook of terumah. If, however, one person eats them both, he must make restitution for the smaller one.62For he definitely partook of terumah. Nevertheless, since we do not know which one was terumah, he can only be held liable for the smaller one, because of the principle stated above. If he did so intentionally, he is required to make restitution for the principal. If he did so unknowingly, he is required to make restitution for the principal, plus a fifth.

ט״והָאוֹכֵל אֶת הַחֹמֶשׁ בִּשְׁגָגָה הֲרֵי זֶה מוֹסִיף עָלָיו חֻמְשׁוֹ. שֶׁהַחֹמֶשׁ כְּקֶרֶן לְכָל דָּבָר. וְכֵן מוֹסִיף חֹמֶשׁ עַל חֹמֶשׁ לְעוֹלָם. כָּל הַמְשַׁלֵּם קֶרֶן וְחֹמֶשׁ הֲרֵי הַתַּשְׁלוּמִין כִּתְרוּמָה לְכָל דָּבָר. אֶלָּא שֶׁאִם נִזְרְעוּ גִּדּוּלֵיהֶן חֻלִּין. וְאִם רָצָה הַכֹּהֵן לִמְחל אֵינוֹ מוֹחֵל. וְכָל הַמְשַׁלֵּם אֶת הַקֶּרֶן בִּלְבַד הֲרֵי הַתַּשְׁלוּמִין חֻלִּין וְאִם רָצָה הַכֹּהֵן לִמְחל מוֹחֵל:

¹⁵When a person eats the additional fifth unknowingly, he must [make restitution for it and] add another fifth.63For the fifth originally added becomes considered as terumah and compensation must be made for it. For the fifth is considered as the principal with regard to all matters.64I.e., it must be eaten in a state of ritual purity. Similarly, he continues to add a fifth for every fifth forever.65When Leviticus 5:24 speaks of adding a fifth, it uses a form that could be interpreted as plural, "its fifths." The implication is that he may have to add many fifths [the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (Terumot 6:1)].Whenever a person makes restitution for the principal and the additional fifth, [the grain] he gives is terumah with regard to all matters66I.e., if it becomes mixed with ordinary grain, the laws of dimua (the mixture of terumah) apply (ibid.). [with one exception]. If they were sown, the grain that grows is ordinary produce.67In contrast, grain growing from terumah is considered as terumah (Chapter 11, Halachah 21). If the priest wishes to forgo [the payment], he cannot.68For we are not speaking about a mere financial payment owed the priest, but a means of attaining atonement. Whenever, [by contrast,] a person makes restitution only for the principal,69See Halachah 5 and Halachot 11-12. [the grain] he gives is ordinary grain70I.e., none of the restrictions of terumah apply to it. and if the priest desires to forgo payment, he may.

ט״זבַּת יִשְׂרָאֵל שֶׁאָכְלָה תְּרוּמָה וְאַחַר כָּךְ נִשֵּׂאת לְכֹהֵן. אִם תְּרוּמָה שֶׁלֹּא זָכָה בָּהּ כֹּהֵן אָכְלָה מְשַׁלֶּמֶת קֶרֶן וְחֹמֶשׁ לְעַצְמָהּ. וְאִם תְּרוּמָה שֶׁזָּכָה בָּהּ כֹּהֵן אָכְלָה מְשַׁלֶּמֶת קֶרֶן לַבְּעָלִים וְחֹמֶשׁ לְעַצְמָהּ. שֶׁכָּל הַמְשַׁלֵּם קֶרֶן וְחֹמֶשׁ מְשַׁלֵּם הַקֶּרֶן לַבְּעָלִים וְהַחֹמֶשׁ לְכָל כֹּהֵן שֶׁיִּרְצֶה:

¹⁶[The following laws apply if] a daughter of an Israelite partakes of terumah and then marries a priest. If [she partook] of terumah that had not been acquired by a priest,71I.e., it had been separated, but had not been given to a priest. she may make restitution of the principal and the additional fifth to herself.72She must separate this grain to receive atonement. Nevertheless, since as a priest's wife, she is entitled to partake of terumah, she may take the terumah she separates as her own. If she partook of terumah that a priest had acquired, she is required to make restitution of the principal to its owner,73That priest. but she may keep the additional fifth as her own. For whenever a person makes restitution and pays an additional fifth, he may give the additional fifth to whichever priest he desires.

י״זלֹא הִסְפִּיקָה לְשַׁלֵּם עַד שֶׁנִּתְגָּרְשָׁה בֵּין כָּךְ וּבֵין כָּךְ אֵינָהּ מְשַׁלֶּמֶת לְעַצְמָהּ וַהֲרֵי הִיא כְּמִי שֶׁלֹּא נִשֵּׂאת לְכֹהֵן מֵעוֹלָם:

¹⁷If she was not able to make restitution before she was divorced,74Or she was widowed and left childless (Radbaz). she can no longer make restitution to herself and she is like a person who never married a priest at all.

י״חכָּל הָאוֹכֵל תְּרוּמָה בֵּין בְּשׁוֹגֵג בֵּין בְּמֵזִיד אֵינוֹ מְשַׁלֵּם אֶלָּא מִן הַחֻלִּין הַמְתֻקָּנִים שֶׁהוֹצִיאוּ מֵהֶן תְּרוּמוֹת וּמַעַשְׂרוֹת. וּמְשַׁלְּמִין מִן הַלֶּקֶט וּמִן הַשִּׁכְחָה וּמִן הַפֵּאָה וּמִן הַהֶפְקֵר וּמִמַּעֲשֵׂר רִאשׁוֹן שֶׁנִּטְּלָה תְּרוּמָתוֹ אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁעֲדַיִן לֹא נִטְּלָה תְּרוּמָה גְּדוֹלָה שֶׁיֵּשׁ בּוֹ אִם הִקְדִּים הַמַּעֲשֵׂר לַתְּרוּמָה. וּמְשַׁלְּמִין מִמַּעֲשֵׂר שֵׁנִי וְהֶקְדֵּשׁ שֶׁנִּפְדּוּ וְאַף עַל פִּי שֶׁנִּפְדּוּ שֶׁלֹּא כַּהֲלָכָה. וּמִן הֶחָדָשׁ עַל הַיָּשָׁן אֲבָל לֹא מִמִּין עַל שֶׁאֵינוֹ מִינוֹ שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (ויקרא כב יד) "וְנָתַן לַכֹּהֵן אֶת הַקֹּדֶשׁ". כַּקֹּדֶשׁ שֶׁאָכַל:

¹⁸Whenever a person partakes of terumah whether unknowingly or intentionally, he may make restitution only from ordinary produce from which the terumot and the tithes have been separated. Restitution may be made from leket, shichichah, pe'ah,75See Hilchot Matanot Aniyim for a definition of these terms. They are acceptable for this purpose, because once they are acquired by a poor person, they become his private property. ownerless grain,76Terumah need not be separated from such grain or from the presents for the poor. and grain from the first tithe after terumat ma'aser was separated i.e., even if the great terumah from that crop had not been separated, for the person separated the tithes before the terumah.77The Kessef Mishneh explains that we are referring to an instance where the person separated the first tithe while the crop is still stalks of grain and gave it to the Levite before it has been winnowed. As explained in Chapter 3, Halachah 13, in such an instance, it is not necessary to separate the great terumah. If, however, it is ordinary grain from which the separations were not made in the proper order, it cannot be used to make restitution for terumah.One may make restitution from the second tithes and consecrated property that were redeemed, even though they were not redeemed in an appropriate manner.78In his Commentary to the Mishnah (Terumot 6:5), the Rambam explains that this refers to the second tithe that was redeemed using an unminted coin or consecrated property that was redeemed with land. The commentaries have questioned this interpretation, noting that usually redemption with such articles is not effective at all (see Hilchot Ma'aser Sheni 4:9; Hilchot Arachin 7:1). They cite the Rambam's Commentary to Berachot 7:1 which interprets this term as referring to a situation where the principal was paid, but the additional fifth that is required was not. And one may make restitution using new grain79New grain refers to grain harvested after the omer offering. Old grain refers to grain from the previous harvest. for old grain. One may not, however, make restitution from one type [of grain] for another type [of grain]. [This is derived from Leviticus 22:14:] "And he shall give the priest the sanctified [food]." [Implied is that it must be the same] as the sanctified food he ate.

י״טהָאוֹכֵל קִשּׁוּאִין שֶׁל עֶרֶב שְׁבִיעִית יַמְתִּין לַקִּשּׁוּאִין שֶׁל מוֹצָאֵי שְׁבִיעִית וִישַׁלֵּם מֵהֶן. שֶׁאֵינוֹ יָכוֹל לְשַׁלֵּם חוֹבוֹ מִפֵּרוֹת שְׁבִיעִית כְּמוֹ שֶׁיִּתְבָּאֵר בִּמְקוֹמוֹ:

¹⁹When a person eats zucchini from the sixth year,80In the seventh year and thus there is no way he can acquire the zucchini of the sixth year. he should wait until [he acquires] the zucchini of the eighth year to make restitution from them. For he cannot pay his debt from the crops of the seventh year, as will be explained in that place.81See Hilchot Shemitah VeYovel 6:10 which states that the crops of the Sabbatical year may not be used to pay debts, for this is comparable to using them for commercial purposes which is forbidden.

כ׳אָכַל תְּרוּמָה טְמֵאָה מְשַׁלֵּם חֻלִּין בֵּין טְמֵאִין בֵּין טְהוֹרִין. אָכַל תְּרוּמָה טְהוֹרָה מְשַׁלֵּם חֻלִּין טְהוֹרִין וְאִם שִׁלֵּם חֻלִּין טְמֵאִין בֵּין בְּשׁוֹגֵג בֵּין בְּמֵזִיד תַּשְׁלוּמָיו תַּשְׁלוּמִין וְיַחֲזֹר וִישַׁלֵּם מִן הַטְּהוֹרִין:

²⁰When a person ate terumah that was ritually impure, he makes restitution from ordinary produce, whether pure or impure.82The produce he gives as restitution will be considered as impure terumah. Hence, there is no difficulty in him giving impure produce. If he partook of terumah that was ritually pure, he should make restitution with ordinary grain that is pure.83For if the grain is impure, it will not be an adequate replacement. If he made restitution from ordinary grain that was impure whether intentionally or unknowingly, the restitution he made is accepted, but he must make restitution again from ritually pure grain.

כ״אאָכַל תְּרוּמַת חָבֵר מְשַׁלֵּם לוֹ. אָכַל תְּרוּמַת עַם הָאָרֶץ מְשַׁלֵּם לֶחָבֵר וְנוֹטֵל דָּמֶיהָ מִמֶּנּוּ וְנוֹתֵן לְעַם הָאָרֶץ שֶׁאָכַל תְּרוּמָתוֹ שֶׁאֵין מוֹסְרִין טָהֳרוֹת לְעַם הָאָרֶץ:

²¹When a person partook of terumah belonging to a chaver,84A person who is careful to observe the laws of ritual purity. See Chapter 6, Halachah 2; Hilchot Ma'aser, ch. 10. he should make restitution to him. If he partook of terumah belonging to a common person,85Who is not necessarily careful concerning the laws of ritual purity. he should make restitution to a chaver,86So that the laws of ritual purity are adhered to. and take its worth from him and give it to the common person whose terumah he ate.87So that he is reimbursed for his loss. For we do not give articles that require ritually purity to a common person.

כ״בגָּזַל תְּרוּמָה מֵאֲבִי אִמּוֹ כֹּהֵן וַאֲכָלָהּ וְאַחַר כָּךְ מֵת אֲבִי אִמּוֹ אֵינוֹ מְשַׁלֵּם לְעַצְמוֹ אֶלָּא לְיוֹרֵשׁ אַחֵר מִשְּׁאָר הַשֵּׁבֶט. וְכֵן אִם נָפְלָה לוֹ תְּרוּמָה מֵאֲבִי אִמּוֹ וַאֲכָלָהּ. וּבַעַל חוֹב שֶׁגָּבָה תְּרוּמָה בְּחוֹבוֹ וְהָאִשָּׁה בִּכְתֻבָּתָהּ וַאֲכָלוּהָ מְשַׁלְּמִין קֶרֶן וְחֹמֶשׁ לְכֹהֵן חָבֵר וְהֶחָבֵר נוֹתֵן לָהֶם דָּמִים שֶׁהָיוּ מוֹכְרִין בָּהּ אוֹתָהּ הַתְּרוּמָה כְּמוֹ שֶׁאָכְלוּ:

²²When [an Israelite] stole terumah from his maternal grandfather who was a priest and consumed it [unknowingly], and afterwards, his maternal grandfather died, he may not make restitution to himself,88Even though he is an heir, since we are speaking about stolen property, he may not maintain possession of it, but instead must remove it from his domain and give it to someone else. Note the parallel in Hilchot Gezeilah 8:2-3. but rather to another heir89Since the terumah belonged to his maternal grandfather, it is not appropriate that the restitution be given to someone who does not share a family connection with him. Hence he may give it to any member of the family who is a priest, e.g., one of his uncles (Radbaz). from [the priestly] tribe. Similarly, if he inherited terumah from his maternal grandfather and partook of it, a creditor collected terumah [as payment] for a debt and he partook of it or a woman [received it as part of the money due her by virtue of] her ketubah and she partook of it, they must make restitution for the principal and the additional fifth90This is speaking about an instance where the person did not know that the produce he ate was terumah and thus transgressed unknowingly. to a priest who is a chaver and that chaver gives them the monetary equivalent of the terumah at the time they partook of it.91To explain this ruling: Since these individuals are not entitled to partake of terumah, they must atone for partaking of it by making restitution and adding a fifth. Nevertheless, the terumah legitimately belonged to them. Hence, after the priest receives the grain given for atonement, he should reimburse the person for the worth of the terumah.

כ״גהַגּוֹנֵב תְּרוּמָה וְלֹא אֲכָלָהּ מְשַׁלֵּם תַּשְׁלוּמֵי כֶּפֶל לַבְּעָלִים. וְיֵשׁ לוֹ לְשַׁלֵּם מִדְּמֵי תְּרוּמָה. גְּנָבָהּ וַאֲכָלָהּ מְשַׁלֵּם שְׁנֵי קְרָנִין וְחֹמֶשׁ. קֶרֶן וְחֹמֶשׁ מִן הַחֻלִּין. וְקֶרֶן אֲפִלּוּ מִדְּמֵי תְּרוּמָה:

²³When a person steals terumah but does not consume it, he should pay twice its worth92As is required when making restitution for theft (Exodus 22:3 . to the owners.93Although terumah is consecrated, it belongs to its owners. For even an Israelite has the right to give it to the priest he desires. He may make this payment according to the worth of terumah.94Which is less expensive than ordinary grain. When making restitution to atone for partaking of terumah, it is necessary to pay with ordinary grain. In this instance, however, he need not atone for partaking of terumah. All that is necessary is to pay twice the amount of the article he stole. If he stole it and ate it, he must pay twice the principal and a fifth of the principal: i.e., the principal and an additional fifth from ordinary grain,95To atone for partaking of terumah. and the principal according to the worth of terumah.96To atone for the theft.

כ״דהָיְתָה הַתְּרוּמָה הֶקְדֵּשׁ לְבֶדֶק הַבַּיִת וּגְנָבָהּ וַאֲכָלָהּ אֵינוֹ מְשַׁלֵּם תַּשְׁלוּמֵי כֶּפֶל. שֶׁאֵין תַּשְׁלוּמֵי כֶּפֶל בְּהֶקְדֵּשׁ כְּמוֹ שֶׁיִּתְבָּאֵר בִּמְקוֹמוֹ. אֲבָל מְשַׁלֵּם קֶרֶן וּשְׁנֵי חֳמָשִׁים. חֹמֶשׁ מִשּׁוּם אוֹכֵל תְּרוּמָה. וְחֹמֶשׁ מִשּׁוּם שֶׁנֶּהֱנָה מִן הַהֶקְדֵּשׁ. וּלְמִי מְשַׁלֵּם. אִם הָיָה בָּהּ כְּזַיִת וְאֵין בָּהּ שְׁוֵה פְּרוּטָה מְשַׁלֵּם לַכֹּהֲנִים. וְאִם יֵשׁ בָּהּ שְׁוֵה פְּרוּטָה בֵּין שֶׁיֵּשׁ בָּהּ כְּזַיִת בֵּין שֶׁאֵין בָּהּ כְּזַיִת מְשַׁלֵּם לַהֶקְדֵּשׁ:

²⁴When a person steals terumah that is consecrated to the Temple treasury97I.e., a priest was given terumah and consecrated it to the Temple treasury [the Ramban's Commentary to the Mishnah (Terumot 6:4)]. We are forced to say this because terumah separated by an Israelite must be given to a priest and may not be given to the Temple treasury. and eats it, he is not required to pay a double amount, for a double amount is not paid to the Temple treasury, as explained in the appropriate place.98Hilchot Geneivah 2:1. When speaking about the thief's obligation to pay double, Exodus 22:8 states: "He shall pay his colleague double," i.e., his colleague, another human, and not the Temple treasury (Bava Metzia 57b). He must, however, make restitution for the principal and add two fifths, one fifth [to atone] for partaking of terumah and one fifth [to atone] for benefiting from consecrated property.99This is the standard penalty to atone for this transgression (Hilchot Meilah 1:3,5).To whom does he make restitution? If [the terumah] was the size of an olive100For the liability for terumah depends on the produce being the size of an olive. and it was not worth a p'rutah,101For the liability of misusing consecrated property depends on it being worth a p'rutah, he should make restitution to the priests. If it is worth a p'rutah - whether or not it is the size of an olive - he should pay the Temple treasury.

כ״הוּמִפְּנֵי מָה חָל אִסּוּר הֶקְדֵּשׁ עַל אִסּוּר הַתְּרוּמָה מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהַתְּרוּמָה אֲסוּרָה לְזָר וּמֻתֶּרֶת לַכֹּהֵן. הִקְדִּישָׁהּ נֶאֶסְרָה עַל הַכֹּהֵן. לְפִיכָךְ נוֹסָף בָּהּ אִסּוּר אַף עַל יִשְׂרָאֵל עַל דֶּרֶךְ שֶׁבֵּאַרְנוּ בְּהִלְכוֹת בִּיאוֹת אֲסוּרוֹת וְאִסּוּרֵי מַאֲכָלוֹת:

²⁵Why does the prohibition against benefiting from consecrated property fall [on this grain when it is already forbidden because of] the prohibition against terumah?102The Rambam's question is based on the principle that, generally, once an object is forbidden because of one prohibition, it does not become forbidden again, because of a second one (see Keritot 14a). Because the terumah was forbidden to a non-priest and permitted to a priest. Once he consecrated it, it became forbidden to a priest. Therefore a prohibition was added to it even for an Israelite in the manner explained in the laws of forbidden relationships and forbidden foods.103See Hilchot Issurei Bi'ah 17:9; Hilchot Ma'achalot Assurot 14:19. In these sources, it is explained that one of the exceptions to this principle is an issur mosif, a negative commandment that increases the scope of the prohibition, including entities that were not originally forbidden. See the Ramban's Commentary to the Mishnah (loc. cit.).

כ״והַגּוֹזֵל תְּרוּמָה וַאֲכָלָהּ מְשַׁלֵּם קֶרֶן וְחֹמֶשׁ אֶחָד. שֶׁהַחֹמֶשׁ שֶׁחַיָּב בּוֹ מִשּׁוּם תְּרוּמָה יָצָא בּוֹ יְדֵי גְּזֵלוֹ שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (ויקרא כב יד) "וְנָתַן לַכֹּהֵן אֶת הַקֹּדֶשׁ" אֵינוֹ חַיָּב אֶלָּא בְּחֹמֶשׁ שֶׁל קֹדֶשׁ בִּלְבַד. גְּזָלָהּ וְהֶאֱכִילָהּ לְאַחֵר. הָאוֹכֵל מְשַׁלֵּם קֶרֶן וְחֹמֶשׁ. כָּל מָקוֹם שֶׁאָמַרְנוּ מְשַׁלֵּם קֶרֶן וְחֹמֶשׁ אִם אָכַל שְׁוֵה אַרְבָּעָה מְשַׁלֵּם שְׁוֵה חֲמִשָּׁה מִמִּין שֶׁאָכַל. וְכָל מָקוֹם שֶׁאָמַרְנוּ מְשַׁלֵּם קֶרֶן וּשְׁנֵי חֳמָשִׁין אָכַל שְׁוֵה אַרְבָּעָה מְשַׁלֵּם שִׁשָּׁה. וְכָל מָקוֹם שֶׁאָמַרְנוּ מְשַׁלֵּם שְׁנֵי קְרָנִין וְחֹמֶשׁ אֶחָד אָכַל שְׁוֵה אַרְבָּעָה מְשַׁלֵּם דְּמֵי תִּשְׁעָה. וּלְעוֹלָם אֵינוֹ מְשַׁלֵּם אֶלָּא לְפִי דָּמִים שֶׁהָיְתָה שָׁוָה בִּשְׁעַת אֲכִילָה בֵּין שֶׁהוּזְלָה בִּשְׁעַת תַּשְׁלוּמִין בֵּין שֶׁהוּקְרָה:

²⁶When a person obtains terumah by robbery,104The difference between geneivah (theft) and gezeilah (robbery) can be explained as follows: Theft implies taking a colleague's property discreetly. Robbery, by contrast, involves taking something by force against the will of its owner (Hilchos Geneivah 1:3). he must make restitution for the principal and add one fifth.105And only one fifth, in contrast to the law regarding a thief in Halachah 23, where he is required to atone for the theft as well. [The rationale is that] the fifth that he is liable for [to atone for partaking of] terumah fulfills his obligation for robbery,106The Ra'avad questions the Rambam's ruling, asking why the person is not liable for an additional fifth to atone for taking a false oath concerning the robbery, as required by Hilchot Gezeilah 7:1-2. The commentaries explain that according to the Rambam, it is sufficient to give one fifth, for that atones for both transgressions. Although in Halachah 24, the Rambam requires two different fifths to be given, that is because one is required to atone for partaking of consecrated property. That is a different type of transgression and that requirement is not paralleled with regard to the transgression against taking a false oath. as [implied by Leviticus 22:14:] "And you shall give the priest the sacred [food]." He is liable only for the fifth [associated with atonement for] the sacred [food]. If he obtains terumah through robbery and feeds it to another person, that person must make restitution for the principal and add a fifth.107For he must atone for partaking of terumah unknowingly, as in Halachah 10.Whenever we have said that a person must make restitution for the principal and add a fifth, [the intent is that] if he ate grain worth four [zuz], he must pay five108I.e., the fifth is one fifth of the new total. See parallels in Hilchot Arachin 4:5; Hilchot Meialah 1:5, Hilchot Gezeilah 7:5, et al. from the type of grain from which he partook. Whenever we mentioned [payment of] the principal and two fifths, [the intent is that] if he ate grain worth four [zuz], he must pay six. Whenever we mentioned [payment of] two principals and one fifth, [the intent is that] if he ate grain worth four [zuz], he must pay nine.Whenever he makes restitution, he must pay for the worth of the grain at the time he partook of it whether its value depreciated at the time he made restitution or appreciated.109The Ra'avad questions the Rambam's ruling, asking why is the person not required to pay the worth at the time of the robbery if the grain depreciated in price. The Radbaz explains that this is, in fact, the Rambam's intent and this halachah is speaking about an instance when he ate the terumah directly after stealing it. The Kessef Mishneh states that this halachah is not necessarily speaking about a thief, but about any person who partakes of terumah unknowingly. The time when he partakes of the terumah is equivalent to the time of theft.

א׳הַתְּרוּמָה נִתֶּנֶת לַאֲכִילָה וְלִשְׁתִיָּה וּלְסִיכָה שֶׁהַסִּיכָה הִיא כִּשְׁתִיָּה שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (תהילים קט יח) "וַתָּבֹא כַמַּיִם בְּקִרְבּוֹ וְכַשֶּׁמֶן בְּעַצְמוֹתָיו". וְהַשְּׁתִיָּה בִּכְלַל אֲכִילָה. לֶאֱכל דָּבָר שֶׁדַּרְכּוֹ לֶאֱכל. וְלִשְׁתּוֹת דָּבָר שֶׁדַּרְכּוֹ לִשְׁתּוֹת. וְלָסוּךְ דָּבָר שֶׁדַּרְכּוֹ לָסוּךְ. לֹא יָסוּךְ יַיִן וְחֹמֶץ. אֲבָל סָךְ הוּא אֶת הַשֶּׁמֶן הַטָּהוֹר וּמַדְלִיק אֶת הַטָּמֵא וְזֶהוּ הַנִּקְרָא שֶׁמֶן שְׂרֵפָה בְּכָל מָקוֹם:

¹Terumah may be used for eating, drinking, and smearing upon oneself, for smearing upon oneself is equivalent to drinking, as [indicated by Psalms 109:18]: "It has entered his innards like water and like oil into his bones." And drinking is like eating.1The intent is that a person may benefit from terumah in all the ways one ordinarily benefits from produce.[One should] eat a substance fit to be eaten, drink a substance fit to be drunk, and smear a substance fit to be smeared. One should not smear wine and vinegar.2For it is not common to smear these substances. One may, however, smear oneself with pure oil3One 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). and may kindle impure oil. It is referred to as oil [fit for] burning universally.

ב׳תְּמָרִים שֶׁל תְּרוּמָה מֻתָּר לְחָבְצָן וּלְקַבְּצָן כְּעִגּוּל הַדְּבֵלָה. וְאָסוּר לַעֲשׂוֹת מֵהֶם שֵׁכָר. וְכֵן אֵין עוֹשִׂין תְּמָרִים דְּבַשׁ וְלֹא תַּפּוּחִים יַיִן וְלֹא פֵּרוֹת הַסְּתָו חֹמֶץ. וְכֵן שְׁאָר כָּל הַפֵּרוֹת אֵין מְשַׁנִּין אוֹתָן מִבְּרִיָּתָן בִּתְרוּמָה חוּץ מִזֵּיתִים וַעֲנָבִים בִּלְבַד. עָבַר וְעָשָׂה הָאוֹכֵל מַשְׁקֶה הֲרֵי זֶה שׁוֹתֵהוּ. וְזָר שֶׁאָכַל דְּבַשׁ תְּמָרִים וְיֵין תַּפּוּחִים וְכַיּוֹצֵא בָּהֶן בִּשְׁגָגָה אֵינוֹ חַיָּב לְשַׁלֵּם. וְאִם אָכַל בְּמֵזִיד מַכִּין אוֹתוֹ מַכַּת מַרְדּוּת:

²It is permitted to compress dates that are terumah and collect them as a cake of dried dates.4For this is considered as benefiting from dates as food. It is, however, forbidden to make them into beer.5In 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). [For the same reason,] we do not make dates into honey, nor apples, wine, nor fall produce into vinegar.6Although 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. Similarly, with regard to other produce, we do not change them from their natural state if they are terumah; the only exceptions are olives and grapes.7For 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)].If one transgressed and made food into a beverage, one should drink it.8For it is still considered as terumah and it should not be wasted. When a non-priest partakes of date-honey, apple-wine, or the like that is terumah inadvertently, he is not liable to make restitution.9For 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. If he partook [of such products] intentionally, he should be given stripes for rebellious conduct.10The 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.

ג׳אֵין נוֹתְנִין דְּבֵלָה וּגְרוֹגָרוֹת לְתוֹךְ הַמֻּרְיָס מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהוּא מְאַבְּדָן. אֲבָל נוֹתְנִין אֶת הַיַּיִן לְתוֹךְ הַמֻּרְיָס. וְאֵין מְפַטְּמִין אֶת הַשֶּׁמֶן מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהוּא מוֹצִיאוֹ מִכְּלַל מַאֲכָלוֹת וְעוֹשֵׂהוּ שֶׁמֶן מִשְׁחָה. אֲבָל מְעָרְבִין יַיִן וּדְבַשׁ וּפִלְפְּלִין וְכַיּוֹצֵא בָּאֵלּוּ לְאָכְלָן:

³We may not place dried dates and dried figs [that are terumah] into brine.11Because this ruins them. Putting these fruits into brine would allow the juice they contained to be extracted. One may, however, place wine in brine.12This is done to improve the flavor of the brine. We do not place fragrant herbs in oil, because doing so removes it from the category of food and makes it oil for smearing. One may mix wine, honey, pepper, and the like, in order to partake of them.13It was common to make such a mixture in the Talmudic era.

ד׳אֵין מְבַשְּׁלִין יַיִן שֶׁל תְּרוּמָה מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהוּא מְמַעֲטוֹ. אֵין כּוֹבְשִׁין בְּצָלִים שֶׁל תְּרוּמָה בְּחֹמֶץ שֶׁל תְּרוּמָה מִפְּנֵי שֶׁמַּפְסִיד הַחֹמֶץ. אֵין מְעָרְבִין תְּבוּאָה בְּקִטְנִיּוֹת. וְכָל דָּבָר שֶׁיִּתְפָּרֵשׁ זֶה מִזֶּה כְּשֶׁכּוֹבְרִין אוֹתוֹ מְעָרְבִין. וּמִשֶּׁחָרְבָה יְהוּדָה הִתְחִילוּ לְעָרֵב תְּבוּאָה בִּתְבוּאָה וְקִטְנִית בְּקִטְנִית אֲבָל לֹא תְּבוּאָה בְּקִטְנִית:

⁴We do not boil wine that is terumah, because this reduces its quantity.14This applies even though boiling it improves its taste and fragrance [the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (ibid.)]. We do not pickle onions that are terumah in vinegar that is terumah, because this spoils the vinegar.We do not mix grain with legumes.15For this ruins the grain and grain is more important than legumes (Radbaz). All substances that become distinct from each other when they are sorted through a sieve may be mixed together. When the land of Judah was laid waste,16In the Roman conquest. [the people] began mixing one type of grain with another17There was a sparsity of grain and the people did not care to differentiate one species from the other. and one type of legumes with another. They did not, however, [mix] grain with legumes.

ה׳כְּדֶרֶךְ שֶׁמְּרַקְּדִין אֶת הַקֶּמַח בְּחֻלִּין כָּךְ נוֹהֵג הַכֹּהֵן בִּתְרוּמָה. מְרַקֵּד לֶאֱכל וּמַשְׁלִיךְ אֶת הַמֻּרְסָן. הֲרֵי שֶׁרָצָה לַעֲשׂוֹת סלֶת מְנֻפֶּה בְּנָפָיוֹת הַרְבֵּה עַד שֶׁיּוֹצִיא קַב אוֹ קַבַּיִם מִן הַסְּאָה לֹא יַשְׁלִיךְ אֶת הַשְּׁאָר מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהוּא רָאוּי לַאֲכִילָה אֶלָּא יַנִּיחֵהוּ בְּמָקוֹם מֻצְנָע:

⁵In the same way as ordinary flour is sifted, so too, a priest [sifts flour] that is terumah. He sifts [what is fit] to eat and discards the bran.18Even 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. If he desires to make fine flour, he should sift it many times until he produces a kab or two kabbim from a se'ah.19A 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. He should not discard the remainder, because it is fit to be eaten.20Hence it is forbidden to destroy it. Instead, he should place it in a private place.21Where it will not be taken by another person.

ו׳שֶׁמֶן שֶׁל תְּרוּמָה אֵין חוֹסְמִין בּוֹ תַּנּוּר וְכִירַיִם. וְאֵין סָכִין בּוֹ מִנְעָל וְסַנְדָּל. וְלֹא יָסוּךְ רַגְלוֹ וְהוּא בְּתוֹךְ מִנְעָל וְסַנְדָּל אֲבָל סָךְ אֶת רַגְלוֹ וְלוֹבֵשׁ הַמִּנְעָל אוֹ הַסַּנְדָּל וְסָךְ כָּל גּוּפוֹ וּמִתְעַגֵּל עַל גַּבֵּי קַטוֹבְלִיָּא חֲדָשָׁה וְאַף עַל פִּי שֶׁהֵן נִסּוֹכִין אֵינוֹ חוֹשֵׁשׁ. אֲבָל לֹא יִתֵּן שֶׁמֶן עַל גַּבֵּי טַבְלָא שֶׁל שַׁיִשׁ לְהִתְעַגֵּל עָלֶיהָ מִפְּנֵי שֶׁמְּאַבְּדוֹ:

⁶Oil that is terumah should not be used to seal an oven or a range,22For this will be using it for a purpose other than a person's direct physical benefit. nor should it be smeared on a shoe or sandal.23Applying oil to leather objects strengthens them (Kessef Mishneh). Nor should one smear it on his foot while [the foot] is in a shoe or sandal.24Because the oil will be applied to the shoe and the sandal directly. He may, however, smear [oil that is terumah] on his foot and put on a shoe or smear his entire body and then roll on a new leather mat. Even though they will be smeared, he need not show concern.25Once 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. He should not, however, place oil on a marble tablet to roll upon because he causes it to be ruined.26One 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).

ז׳כָּל הָאוֹכֵל תְּרוּמָה אֲפִלּוּ פֵּרוֹת צָרִיךְ נְטִילַת יָדַיִם אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁהָיוּ יָדָיו טְהוֹרוֹת כְּמוֹ שֶׁיִּתְבָּאֵר בִּמְקוֹמוֹ. וְאֵינָהּ נֶאֱכֶלֶת עִם הַזָּר עַל הַשֻּׁלְחָן גְּזֵרָה שֶׁמָּא יֹאכַל מִמֶּנָּה. וּתְרוּמַת חוּצָה לָאָרֶץ נֶאֱכֶלֶת עִם הַזָּר עַל הַשֻּׁלְחָן וְאֵינָהּ צְרִיכָה נְטִילַת יָדַיִם כְּחֻלִּין. וְאֵין סָכִין תְּרוּמָה בְּיָדַיִם מְסֹאָבוֹת. נָפַל עַל בְּשָׂרוֹ מְשַׁפְשְׁפוֹ בְּיָדַיִם מְסֹאָבוֹת. אֲבָל סָכִין אֶת הַקָּטָן בְּשֶׁמֶן תְּרוּמָה בְּתוֹךְ שִׁבְעָה. שֶׁהַנּוֹלָד כָּל שִׁבְעָה אֵינוֹ חָשׁוּב עָרֵל:

⁷Whenever anyone partakes of terumah - even fruit27Washing 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. - he must wash his hands [before doing so. This applies] even if his hands are pure, as will be explained in the appropriate place.28See Hilchot Sha'ar Avot HaTumah 8:8. See also the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (Challah 1:9). It may not be eaten on a table at which a non-priest [is dining; this is] a decree lest he partake of it. Terumah from the Diaspora29Which is separated only by virtue of Rabbinic decree. may be eaten on a table at which a non-priest [is dining] and, like ordinary food, does not require that one wash his hands before partaking of it.We do not smear oil that is terumah with soiled30The 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). hands.31For this would make the terumah impure and that is forbidden. Instead, one must wash his hands before applying oil to his body (Kessef Mishneh). If, however, [such oil] fell on his flesh, he can rub it with soiled hands.32For 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). One may apply oil that is terumah to an infant during the seven days after he was born [even though he is uncircumcised].33And it is forbidden for an uncircumcised person to make use of terumah, as stated in Chapter 7, Halachah 10. For a newborn is not considered as uncircumcised for the first seven days [of his life].34In 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.

ח׳סָךְ הוּא הַכֹּהֵן עַצְמוֹ בְּשֶׁמֶן שֶׁל תְּרוּמָה וּמֵבִיא בֶּן בִּתּוֹ יִשְׂרָאֵל וּמַעֲגִילוֹ עַל גַּבָּיו. וְאִם סָךְ עַצְמוֹ בְּשֶׁמֶן וְנִכְנָס לַמֶּרְחָץ מֻתָּר לְזָר לְמָשְׁחוֹ בַּמֶּרְחָץ אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁהוּא נִסּוֹךְ מִמֶּנּוּ:

⁸A priest may smear oil that is terumah on himself and then bring his daughter's son who is an Israelite and roll him on his back.35Even 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. If he smears oil [that is terumah] on his body and enters a bathhouse, a non-priest may massage him36The 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. in the bathhouse even though [the oil] will be applied to him.

ט׳כֹּהֶנֶת שֶׁחָפְפָה רֹאשָׁהּ בְּתִלְתָּן שֶׁל תְּרוּמָה אֵין הַיִּשְׂרְאֵלִית מֻתֶּרֶת לָחֹף אַחֲרֶיהָ. אֲבָל מְעַגֶּלֶת שְׂעָרָהּ בִּשְׂעָרָהּ. וּמִפְּנֵי מָה הֻתְּרוּ הַכֹּהֲנִים לָחֹף שְׂעָרָן בְּתִלְתָּן שֶׁל תְּרוּמָה מִפְּנֵי שֶׁאֵינוֹ רָאוּי לְמַאֲכַל אָדָם:

⁹When the daughter of a priest applied chilbah37A pungent herb. which is terumah to her hair, an Israelite woman is not permitted to apply [the remaining chilbah] to [her hair]. She may, however, rub her hair together with the hair [of the daughter of the priest].38Although 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.Why were priests given permission to apply chilbah which is terumah to their hair?39For this is not considered direct physical benefit, like eating. Because it is not fit for human consumption [as food].40I.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).

י׳עֻקְצֵי תְּאֵנִים וּגְרוֹגָרוֹת וְהַכְּלִיסִים וְהֶחָרוּבִין וּמֵעֵי אֲבַטִּיחַ וּקְלִפֵּי אֲבַטִּיחַ וְאֶתְרוֹג וּמְלָפְפוֹן אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁאֵין בָּהֶן אֹכֶל וּקְנִיבַת יָרָק שֶׁמַּשְׁלִיכִין בַּעֲלֵי בָּתִּים הֲרֵי אֵלּוּ אֲסוּרִים לְזָרִים. אֲבָל קְנִיבַת יָרָק שֶׁמְּקַנְּבִים הַגַּנָּנִין מֻתֶּרֶת לְזָרִים. קְלִפֵּי פּוֹלִין וְשֻׁמְשְׁמִין אִם יֵשׁ בָּהֶן אֹכֶל אֲסוּרִין. אֵין בָּהֶן אֹכֶל מֻתָּרִין:

¹⁰The stems of figs, dried figs, wild figs, carobs, the insides of melons,41The seeds and the juice in the melon [the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (Ediot 3:3)]. the peels of melons, esrogim, and cucumbers even if they do not contain any food, and the extremities of the vegetables that are discarded by homeowners [when preparing vegetables],42The tops and stems of vegetables that are cut off when preparing a vegetable for cooking (ibid.). are forbidden to non-priests.43Even though they are not fit to be eaten, since they are in contact with the food, they are considered like food (Radbaz). The extremities of the vegetables that are cut off by gardeners, by contrast, are permitted to non-priests.44For 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.The casings of beans and sesame seeds are forbidden if they contain food. If they do not contain food, they are permitted.

י״אגַּרְעִינֵי אֶתְרוֹג מֻתָּרִים. גַּרְעִינֵי זֵיתִים וּתְמָרִים וְחָרוּבִין אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁלֹּא כְּנָסָן הַכֹּהֵן הֲרֵי אֵלּוּ אֲסוּרִין לְזָרִים. וּשְׁאָר הַגַּרְעִינִין בִּזְמַן שֶׁכְּנָסָן וְיֵשׁ בָּהֶן לַחְלוּחִית לִמְצֹץ אוֹתָן אֲסוּרִין לְזָר וְאִם הִשְׁלִיכָן מֻתָּרוֹת:

¹¹The seeds of esrogim are permitted to be eaten.45For they are bitter and are not fit to be eaten (Radbaz). The seeds of olives, dates, and carobs, [by contrast,] even though they were not collected by a priest, are forbidden to a non-priest.46For 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. With regard to other seeds, [the rule is]: If they were collected and have moisture, so that they can be sucked, they are forbidden to a non-priest. If they were discarded, they are permitted.47The 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.

י״בהַסֻּבִּין שֶׁל חִטִּים חֲדָשׁוֹת אֲסוּרִין מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהוּא רָאוּי לְמַאֲכַל אָדָם. וְשֶׁל יְשָׁנוֹת מֻתָּר. וְעַד מָתַי נִקְרְאוּ חֲדָשׁוֹת כָּל זְמַן שֶׁבְּנֵי אָדָם רְגִילִין לַחְבֹּט בֵּין הַגֳּרָנוֹת:

¹²Bran from wheat: Fresh bran is forbidden, for it is fit to be eaten by humans. Aged bran is permitted.48For it is no longer considered as food. Until when is the bran considered fresh? For the entire time that people are accustomed to beat the grain at the granaries.

י״גהַנְּצוֹלוֹת וְהָרַקְבָנִיּוֹת שֶׁל תְּרוּמָה אֲסוּרוֹת וְאִם הֶעֱלוּ אָבָק מֻתָּרוֹת. שְׁמָרִים שֶׁל תְּרוּמָה שֶׁנָּתַן עֲלֵיהֶם מַיִם הָרִאשׁוֹן וְהַשֵּׁנִי אָסוּר לְזָרִים וְהַשְּׁלִישִׁי מֻתָּר וְאִם לֹא נָתַן עֲלֵיהֶם מַיִם אֶלָּא מְסַנֵּן הַיַּיִן מֵעַל הַשְּׁמָרִים בִּלְבַד אַף הַשְּׁלִישִׁי אָסוּר לְזָרִים:

¹³Lower quality and slight rotten kernels of grain that are terumah are forbidden.49For they are still fit to be eaten. If they already produce dust,50If 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. they are permitted. When one pours water over dregs [of grapes] that are terumah, the first and second batches are forbidden to non-priests, but the third is permitted.51For 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. If one does not pour water over them, but instead, strains off the wine from the seeds, even the third straining is forbidden to non-priests.

י״דמְגוּרָה שֶׁפִּנָּה מִמֶּנָּה חִטֵּי תְּרוּמָה אֵין מְחַיְּבִין אוֹתוֹ לִהְיוֹת יוֹשֵׁב וּמְלַקֵּט אַחַת אַחַת וְאַחַר כָּךְ יִתֵּן לְתוֹכָהּ חֻלִּין אֶלָּא מְכַבֵּד כְּדַרְכּוֹ וְנוֹתֵן לְתוֹכָהּ חֻלִּין. וְכֵן חָבִית שֶׁל שֶׁמֶן תְּרוּמָה שֶׁנִּשְׁפְּכָה אֵין מְחַיְּבִין אוֹתוֹ לִהְיוֹת יוֹשֵׁב וּמְטַפֵּחַ אֶלָּא נוֹהֵג בָּהּ כְּדֶרֶךְ שֶׁנּוֹהֵג בְּחֻלִּין:

¹⁴When one has cleared the kernels of wheat that are terumah from a grainheap, we do not require the owner to sit and collect the [leftover] kernels one by one and [only after collecting them] bring ordinary grain there. Instead, he may sweep the area in the ordinary manner, and then bring ordinary grain there.52The fact that there will be some grain that is terumah is not significant. Similarly, when a jug of oil that is terumah spills, we don't require [the owner] to sponge it up until [the earth] is dry.53Our translation is taken from the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (Terumot 11:6). Instead, he may conduct himself as he does with ordinary [oil].54Even though some oil that is terumah will be left to spoil on the ground.

ט״והַמְעָרֶה כַּד שֶׁל שֶׁמֶן תְּרוּמָה הֲרֵי זֶה מְעָרֶה עַד שֶׁיִּפְסֹק הָעַמּוּד וְיַתְחִיל הַשֶּׁמֶן לִנְטֹף מְעַט מְעַט וְכֵיוָן שֶׁנָּטְפוּ שָׁלֹשׁ טִפִּים זוֹ אַחַר זוֹ דַּיּוֹ. וּמֻתָּר לִתֵּן בְּכַד שֶׁמֶן חֻלִּין. הֲרֵי שֶׁלֹּא נָתַן אֶלָּא הִנִּיחַ הַכַּד עַד שֶׁנִּתְמַצֵּית אוֹתָהּ הַתַּמְצִית תְּרוּמָה:

¹⁵When a person pours out oil that is terumah from a jug, he should continue to pour until the stream [of oil] ceases and the oil begins to drip, little by little. Once three drops have dropped one after the other, it is sufficient. It is permitted to place ordinary oil in that jug.55Even 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). If, however, he did not place ordinary oil and leaned the jug on its side until the remnants [of the oil] collected together, those remnants are terumah.56The 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.).

ט״זמְמַלֵּא הַכֹּהֵן נֵר שֶׁמֶן שְׂרֵפָה וְנוֹתְנוֹ לְיִשְׂרָאֵל לַעֲלוֹת בּוֹ לַעֲלִיָּה וּלְהִכָּנֵס לַחֶדֶר לַעֲשׂוֹת צָרְכֵי הַכֹּהֵן אֲבָל לֹא צָרְכֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל. וְאִם הָיָה שֻׁתָּף עִמּוֹ מֻתָּר:

¹⁶A priest may fill a lamp with oil fit to be burnt57I.e., oil that is terumah that is ritually impure and hence, fit to be used as fuel for a lamp. and give it to an Israelite to ascend to a loft and enter a room to perform tasks on behalf of a priest,58The 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. but not for the sake of an Israelite. If they were partners, it is permitted.

י״זיִשְׂרָאֵל שֶׁהָיָה אוֹרֵחַ אֵצֶל כֹּהֵן וְהִדְלִיק לוֹ שֶׁמֶן שְׂרֵפָה וְעָמַד הַכֹּהֵן וְהָלַךְ לוֹ אֵינוֹ חַיָּב לְכַבּוֹתוֹ עַד שֶׁכָּבֶה מֵאֵלָיו וְטוֹבֵל הַיִּשְׂרָאֵל פְּתִילָה בְּנֵר הַכֹּהֵן וּמַדְלִיק לֵילֵךְ בָּהּ:

¹⁷When an Israelite was a guest at a priest's [home]59When 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. and the priest kindled oil fit to be burnt for him and then departed, he is not required to extinguish [the lamp] until it burns out on its own.60Since the priest originally benefited from it, there is no prohibition in allowing it to continue to burn for the sake of the Israelite. An Israelite may dip a wick in the lamp of a priest61I.e., even though it contains oil from terumah that is impure. and kindle it so that he may proceed [using] it.62The 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).

י״חבְּקָרוֹ שֶׁל כֹּהֵן שֶׁהָיָה עוֹמֵד אֵצֶל בְּקָרוֹ שֶׁל יִשְׂרָאֵל. וְכֵלָיו שֶׁל כֹּהֵן שֶׁהָיָה נֶאֱרָג אֵצֶל כֵּלָיו שֶׁל יִשְׂרָאֵל. הֲרֵי זֶה מַדְלִיק עֲלֵיהֶן שֶׁמֶן שְׂרֵפָה שֶׁלֹּא בִּרְשׁוּת הַכֹּהֵן. וְכֵן מַדְלִיקִין שֶׁמֶן שְׂרֵפָה בְּבָתֵּי כְּנֵסִיּוֹת וּבְבָתֵּי מִדְרָשׁוֹת וּבַמְּבוֹאוֹת הָאֲפֵלִים שֶׁלֹּא בִּרְשׁוּת כֹּהֵן. וּמִי שֶׁאֵין לוֹ חֻלִּין לְהַדְלִיק נֵר חֲנֻכָּה מַדְלִיק שֶׁמֶן שְׂרֵפָה שֶׁלֹּא בִּרְשׁוּת הַכֹּהֵן. מַדְלִיקִין שֶׁמֶן שְׂרֵפָה עַל גַּבֵּי הַחֻלִּין בִּרְשׁוּת כֹּהֵן:

¹⁸When livestock belonging to a priest was standing next to livestock belonging to an Israelite or when garments belonging to a priest were being woven next to garments belonging to an Israelite, oil that is fit for burning may be kindled because of them without the permission of the priest.63Since 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.Similarly, we can light oil that is fit to be burnt in synagogues, houses of study, and dark alleyways without the permission of a priest.64In 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. And a person who does not have ordinary oil to kindle a Chanukah lamp may kindle oil that is fit to be burnt without permission of a priest.65The 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. We may kindle oil that is fit to be burnt above [the bed of] a sick person with the permission of a priest.66A 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).

י״טבַּת יִשְׂרָאֵל שֶׁנִּשֵּׂאת לְכֹהֵן וְהִיא לְמוּדָה אֵצֶל אָבִיהָ מַדְלִיק בִּרְשׁוּתָהּ. מֻתָּר לְכֹהֵן לְהַדְלִיק שֶׁמֶן שְׂרֵפָה אֲפִלּוּ בְּבֵית הָאָבֵל אוֹ בְּבֵית הַמִּשְׁתֶּה שֶׁיֵּשׁ שָׁם עִרְבּוּב. וְאֵין חוֹשְׁשִׁין שֶׁמָּא יְסֻפְּקוּ מִמֶּנָּה בְּבֵית הַמִּשְׁתֶּה שֶׁמִּפְּנֵי נִקְיוֹן כְּלֵיהֶם אֵין נוֹגְעִין בּוֹ. וּבְבֵית הָאָבֵל מִפְּנֵי שֶׁאֵין לָהֶם פְּנַאי מִפְּנֵי הָאָבֵל:

¹⁹When a daughter of an Israelite who is married to a priest frequently visits her father, he may light [such oil] with her permission.67Since 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. It is permitted for a priest to kindle oil fit to be burnt in a house of mourning or at a wedding celebration68For this is also considered as a mitzvah that benefits people at large. even though a multitude of people are present. We do not suspect that the people will partake of it. At a wedding celebration, [this will not take place] because they will not touch it because of their garments are clean,69The 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)]. and in a house of mourning, the people will not feel free to do so because of their mourning.70They will be too preoccupied with their mourning to consider anything else (ibid.).

כ׳הַזּוֹרֵעַ אֶת הַתְּרוּמָה בְּשׁוֹגֵג יְהַפֵּךְ בְּמֵזִיד יְקַיֵּם. הֵבִיאָה שְׁלִישׁ בֵּין בְּמֵזִיד בֵּין בְּשׁוֹגֵג יְקַיֵּם. וְאִם הָיָה פִּשְׁתָּן אֲפִלּוּ הֵבִיאָה שְׁלִישׁ וַאֲפִלּוּ בְּמֵזִיד יְהַפֵּךְ. קְנָס קָנְסוּ בּוֹ שֶׁלֹּא יִזְרַע וְיִתְכַּוֵּן לֵהָנוֹת בְּעֵצָיו:

²⁰When a person sows terumah unknowingly, he should turn it over.71And 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. If he did so intentionally, he must maintain [the crop].72This 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. Once it reaches a third of its growth, whether he sowed it intentionally or unknowingly, he must maintain [the crop].73For 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. If it was flax, even if it reached a third of its growth and even if he sowed it intentionally, he must turn it over.74And destroy it, so that he will not make use of it. This is a penalty so that he should not sow it with the intention of benefiting from its fibers.75We 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.

כ״אגִּדּוּלֵי תְּרוּמָה הֲרֵי הֵן כְּחֻלִּין לְכָל דָּבָר אֶלָּא שֶׁאֲסוּרִים לְזָרִים. גָּזְרוּ חֲכָמִים עֲלֵיהֶן שֶׁיִּהְיוּ אֲסוּרִין לְזָרִים כִּתְרוּמָה מִשּׁוּם תְּרוּמָה טְמֵאָה שֶׁבְּיַד הַכֹּהֵן שֶׁלֹּא יַשְׁהֶנָּה אֶצְלוֹ כְּדֵי שֶׁיִּזְרָעֶנָּה וְתֵצֵא לְחֻלִּין וְנִמְצָא בָּא בָּהּ לִידֵי תַּקָּלָה. לְפִיכָךְ מֻתָּר לֶאֱכל הַגִּדּוּלִין בְּיָדַיִם טְמֵאוֹת וּמֻתָּר לִטְבוּל יוֹם כְּחֻלִּין:

²¹Produce that grows from terumah is considered as ordinary produce with regard to all matters76Hence 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]. except that it is forbidden to non-priests.77I.e., it does possess the sacred quality that characterizes terumah. Our Sages decreed that it be forbidden to non-priests like terumah [as a safeguard], lest a priest maintain possession of impure terumah with the intent of sowing it and producing [a crop of] ordinary produce and this lead to undesirable consequences. Therefore, it is permitted to eat the products [of such plantings] with impure hands78When 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. and a person who has immersed himself that day79To 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. may partake of them like ordinary produce.

כ״בגִּדּוּלֵי גִּדּוּלִין חֻלִּין לְכָל דָּבָר. וַאֲפִלּוּ דָּבָר שֶׁאֵין זַרְעוֹ כָּלֶה אִם רַבּוּ הַגִּדּוּלִין עַל הָעִקָּר בְּגִדּוּלֵי הַגִּדּוּלִין הֲרֵי הַגִּדּוּלִין הַשְּׁנִיִּים מַעֲלִין אֶת הָעִקָּר אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁאֵין זַרְעוֹ כָּלֶה וְיִהְיֶה הַכּל מֻתָּר לְזָרִים. וְכֵן תְּרוּמַת חוּצָה לָאָרֶץ וְהַמְדֻמָּע וְתוֹסֶפֶת תְּרוּמָה וְזֵרְעוֹנֵי גִּנָּה שֶׁאֵינָם נֶאֱכָלִים כְּגוֹן זֶרַע לֶפֶת וּצְנוֹן אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁאוֹתוֹ לֶפֶת וּצְנוֹן תְּרוּמָה גִּדּוּלֵיהֶן מֻתָּרִין וַהֲרֵי הֵן חֻלִּין לְכָל דָּבָר. וְכֵן הַזּוֹרֵעַ פִּשְׁתָּן שֶׁל תְּרוּמָה הַגִּדּוּלִין מֻתָּרִין לְזָרִים:

²²Produce grown from produce grown [from terumah] are like ordinary produce with regard to all matters.80They may even be eaten by non-priests. [This applies] even to types of produce whose seeds do not decompose81Plants 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. provided the new growth exceeds the root82I.e., a simple majority is sufficient. We do not require 60 times its substance. in the second generation of produce. [In such a situation,] the new growth elevates the root even if the seed does not decompose and the entire [plant] is permitted to be eaten by non-priests.83The 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.The same applies with regard to [produce that grows from] terumah from the Diaspora,84Since 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. terumah mixed with ordinary produce,85Even 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. extra terumah,86This 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. or seeds from garden vegetables that are not eaten themselves, e.g., turnips and radishes. Although the turnips and radishes themselves are terumah, [the produce] growing from their [seeds] is like ordinary produce with regard to all matters.87Since 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.Similarly, when a person sows flaxseed that is terumah, the plants growing from it are permitted to non-priests.88Since 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.

כ״גהַזּוֹרֵעַ תְּרוּמָה טְמֵאָה אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁהַגִּדּוּלִים טְהוֹרִין הֲרֵי הֵן אֲסוּרִין בַּאֲכִילָה. הוֹאִיל וְהַתְּרוּמָה שֶׁנִּזְרְעָה אֲסוּרָה בַּאֲכִילָה הָיְתָה כְּבָר נִדְּחוּ:

²³When a person sows terumah that is impure, even though the produce that grows is ritually pure, it is forbidden to partake of it.89Even 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)]. [The rationale is that] since the terumah that was sown was forbidden to be eaten, it was already cast off. [Hence, it remains forbidden].

כ״דחָתַךְ אֶת הֶעָלִין שֶׁצָּמְחוּ וְיָצְאוּ עָלִין שְׁנִיִּין וַחֲתָכָן הֲרֵי אֹכֶל שֶׁיָּצָא אַחַר כָּךְ מֻתָּר בַּאֲכִילָה:

²⁴If he cut off the leaves that grew and then another set of leaves grew and he cut them off, the produce that emerge afterwards is permitted to be eaten.90By 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).

כ״השְׁתִילֵי חֻלִּין שֶׁנִּטְמְאוּ וּזְרָעָן וַעֲשָׂאָן תְּרוּמָה הֲרֵי אֵלּוּ מֻתָּרִין. שֶׁהֲרֵי טָהֲרוּ בִּזְרִיעָה וְלֹא נִטְמְאוּ כְּשֶׁהֵן תְּרוּמָה כְּדֵי שֶׁיִּהְיוּ אֲסוּרִין:

²⁵When plants of ordinary produce became impure and afterwards, they were sown and designated as terumah, they are permitted [to be eaten. The rationale is that] sowing them caused them to be considered pure and they did not become impure while they were terumah so that they would be forbidden.

כ״ושִׁבּלֶת שֶׁהָיְתָה בְּתוֹךְ הַכְּרִי וּמֵרַח הַכְּרִי כֻּלּוֹ הֲרֵי אוֹתָהּ הַשִּׁבּלֶת טֶבֶל. הוֹאִיל וְנִמְרְחָה בְּתוֹךְ הַכְּרִי. שְׁתָלָהּ וְאַחַר כָּךְ קָרָא עָלֶיהָ שֵׁם וַעֲשָׂאָהּ תְּרוּמָה הֲרֵי זוֹ סְפֵק תְּרוּמָה הוֹאִיל וּזְרָעָהּ. שֶׁמָּא פָּרַח הַטֶּבֶל מִמֶּנָּה וְנַעֲשֵׂית כְּפֵרוֹת שֶׁעֲדַיִן לֹא נִגְמְרוּ. אֲבָל אִם עֲשָׂאָהּ תְּרוּמָה קֹדֶם שֶׁיִּזְרָעֶנָּה הֲרֵי זוֹ תְּרוּמָה. לְפִיכָךְ אִם תָּלַשׁ מִמֶּנָּה וְאָכַל בְּמֵזִיד חַיָּב מִיתָה. בְּשׁוֹגֵג מְשַׁלֵּם אֶת הַחֹמֶשׁ. וְאִם גָּחַן וְאָכַל בְּפִיו מִן הָאָרֶץ בְּטֵלָה דַּעְתּוֹ אֵצֶל כָּל אָדָם. שֶׁאֵין דֶּרֶךְ בְּנֵי אָדָם בְּכָךְ. לְפִיכָךְ פָּטוּר מִן הַמִּיתָה וּמִן הַחֹמֶשׁ אִם הָיָה שׁוֹגֵג:

²⁶When a stalk [of grain] was in the midst of a grain heap and one straightened the edges of the grain heap,91This obligates that terumah and tithes be separated from the produce as stated in Hilchot Ma'aser 3:13. this stalk is considered tevel, because it was in the grain heap when it was straightened. If [that stalk] was planted,92Before terumah was separated from that grain heap. and then it was singled out and designated as terumah, there is an unresolved question if it is terumah. Since it was planted, it is possible to say that it was released from the categorization as tevel93The 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. and is considered as produce for which all the required work was not completed.If, however, it was designated as terumah before it was planted, it is terumah.94The fact that it was replanted does not change its own status. Therefore if one ripped off [a portion] of it and ate it willfully, he is liable for death [at the hand of heaven]. If he did so unknowingly, he must [make restitution and add] a fifth. If he bent over and ate from the ground with his mouth, his intent95To eat in this manner. is of no consequence because of the approach of people at large [and] it is not the ordinary practice for people to eat in this manner. Therefore he is not liable for death, nor for the [additional] fifth if he acted unknowingly.

כ״זשָׂדֶה שֶׁל גִּדּוּלֵי תְּרוּמָה חַיֶּבֶת בְּלֶקֶט שִׁכְחָה וּפֵאָה וּבִתְרוּמָה וּמַעַשְׂרוֹת וּבְמַעֲשַׂר עָנִי. וַעֲנִיֵּי יִשְׂרָאֵל וַעֲנִיֵּי כֹּהֲנִים נוֹטְלִים מִמֶּנָּה מַתָּנוֹת אֵלּוּ. עֲנִיֵּי כֹּהֲנִים אוֹכְלִין אֶת שֶׁלָּהֶם וַעֲנִיֵּי יִשְׂרָאֵל מוֹכְרִין אֶת שֶׁלָּהֶם לַכֹּהֲנִים בִּדְמֵי תְּרוּמָה וְהַדָּמִים שֶׁל עֲנִיִּים. וְכֵן בֶּן לֵוִי מוֹכֵר הַמַּעֲשֵׂר שֶׁלּוֹ לַכֹּהֲנִים:

²⁷The obligations of leket, shichichah, pe'ah, terumah the tithes and the tithe given to the poor apply with regard to a field of produce that grew from terumah. Poor Israelites and poor priests come and take these presents. The poor priests eat those that they acquire. The poor Israelites sell theirs to the priests for the price of terumah.96Which 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. Similarly, a Levite must sell his tithes to a priest.97It is, however, forbidden to sell the second tithe. Instead, this produce must be given to the priests (Radbaz).

כ״חהַחוֹבֵט גִּדּוּלִין אֵלּוּ מְשֻׁבָּח. וְהַדָּשׁ בִּבְהֵמָה כֵּיצַד יַעֲשֶׂה. תּוֹלֶה כְּפִיפוֹת בְּצַוְּארֵי בְּהֵמָה וְנוֹתֵן לְתוֹכָן מֵאוֹתוֹ הַמִּין. נִמְצָא לֹא זוֹמֵם אֶת הַבְּהֵמָה וְלֹא מַאֲכִיל אֶת הַתְּרוּמָה:

²⁸A person who crushes such produce is praiseworthy. When a person threshes it with an animal, what should he do?98I.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." He should tie a bucket around the animals neck and place the type of grain it is threshing in it. Thus he will neither be muzzling the animal, nor feeding it terumah.

א׳אָסוּר לְטַמֵּא אֶת הַתְּרוּמָה שֶׁל אֶרֶץ יִשְׂרָאִל כִּשְׁאָר הַקָּדָשִׁים וְלֹא יְבִיאֶנָּה לִידֵי טֻמְאָה וְלֹא יַפְסִידֶנָּה אֶלָּא אוֹכֵל הַטְּהוֹרָה וּמַדְלִיק הַטְּמֵאָה. וּמֻתָּר לְטַמֵּא תְּרוּמַת חוּצָה לָאָרֶץ בְּטֻמְאוֹת שֶׁל תּוֹרָה. וְאַף עַל פִּי שֶׁאֵינָהּ טְמֵאָה אֶלָּא בְּאֶרֶץ הָעַמִּים שֶׁהִיא מִדִּבְרֵיהֶם מִפְּנֵי שֶׁעִקַּר חִיּוּבָהּ מִדִּבְרֵיהֶם. לְפִיכָךְ נִדָּה קוֹצָה לָהּ חַלָּה בְּחוּצָה לָאָרֶץ שֶׁאֵינָהּ מֻזְהֶרֶת אֶלָּא לְאָכְלָהּ לֹא לִגַּע בָּהּ כְּמוֹ שֶׁבֵּאַרְנוּ:

¹It is forbidden to cause the terumah of Eretz Yisrael to contract ritual impurity,1I.e., to cause it to contract ritual impurity directly. as [is the rule with regard to] other sacred articles.2See Hilchot Pesulei HaMukdashim 18:2. The Sefer Mitzvot Gadol considers this as one of the 613 mitzvot. The Rambam does not, however. One should not bring it to a state of ritual impurity,3To bring about a situation where it is likely that the terumah will contract impurity. nor should one spoil it. Instead, he should partake of pure [terumah] and kindle impure terumah.It is permitted to cause terumah from the Diaspora to become impure, even with impurity mandated by Scriptural Law. Although it is only ritually impure4One might still think that causing it to become impure would be forbidden, because although it is impure by Rabbinic decree, it is not impure according to Scriptural Law, and it is forbidden to spread ritual impurity. because of the impurity stemming from the Diaspora which is a Rabbinic decree,5As the Rambam states in Hilchot Tumat Meit 11:1-2, our Sages decreed that everyone living in the Diaspora is considered as if he became impure because of contact with a human corpse. Now impurity of Rabbinic origin is less severe than impurity of Scriptural origin. Nevertheless, since the obligation to separate this terumah is only Rabbinic in origin, our Sages did not forbid making it incur Scriptural impurity. [this leniency is granted] because the obligation to separate [such terumah] is also of Rabbinic origin. For this reason, a woman may separate challah6Which is bound by the same rules as terumah. while in the niddah state in the Diaspora, for she is cautioned only against eating it, not against touching it, as we explained.

ב׳תְּרוּמָה שֶׁנִּטְמֵאת בְּסָפֵק לֹא אוֹכְלִים וְלֹא שׂוֹרְפִין אֶלָּא תִּהְיֶה מֻנַּחַת עַד שֶׁתִּטְמָא טֻמְאָה וַדָּאִית וְתִשָּׂרֵף. וְיֵשׁ שָׁם סְפֵיקוֹת שֶׁשּׂוֹרְפִין עֲלֵיהֶן אֶת הַתְּרוּמָה כְּמוֹ שֶׁיִּתְבָּאֵר בְּעִנְיַן טֻמְאָה וְטָהֳרָה:

²If a doubt arose whether terumah became impure, it should not be eaten,7Lest it have become impure and it is forbidden to partake of impure terumah. nor should it be burnt.8Lest it not be impure and the person would be destroying terumah unnecessarily. Instead, one should place it aside until it becomes definitely impure, [at which time,] it should be burnt. There are situations in which doubt has arisen that mandate that terumah should be burnt as will be explained with regard to [the laws of] ritual purity and impurity.9See Hilchot Sha'ar Avot HaTumah 13:13.

ג׳חָבִית שֶׁל תְּרוּמָה שֶׁנּוֹלַד לָהּ סְפֵק טֻמְאָה הֲרֵי זֶה לֹא יְחַדֵּשׁ בָּהּ דָּבָר. לֹא יְזִיזֶנָּה מִמְּקוֹמָהּ וְלֹא יְגַלֶּנָּה אֶלָּא יַנִּיחֶנָּה עַד שֶׁתִּטָּמֵא וַדַּאי וְתִשָּׂרֵף. וְאֵין חוֹשְׁשִׁין שֶׁמָּא תֵּאָכֵל:

³When a question arises whether a jug of wine has become ritually impure, one should not do anything with it. One should not move it from its place, nor reveal it. Instead, he should leave it in its place until it definitely becomes impure and must be burnt.10The Rambam is ruling according to the opinion of Rabban Gamliel in Terumot 8:8. Other opinions in the mishnah maintain that the terumah should be protected that it does not become impure and still others maintain that it should be left in a place where it is likely to become impure so that we will not have to wait for the mandate to destroy it. We are not concerned that perhaps it will be eaten.

ד׳חָבִית שֶׁנִּשְׁבְּרָה בַּגַּת הָעֶלְיוֹנָה וְהַתַּחְתּוֹנָה טְמֵאָה. אִם יָכוֹל לְהַצִּיל מִמֶּנָּה רְבִיעִית בְּטָהֳרָה יַצִּיל וְאִם לָאו יַצִּיל בְּיָדָיו בְּלֹא נְטִילַת יָדַיִם וְאַף עַל פִּי שֶׁהוּא מְטַמְּאָהּ כְּמוֹ שֶׁיִּתְבָּאֵר בְּעִנְיָן טָהֳרוֹת:

⁴[The following rules apply when] a jug [of wine that is terumah which is pure] is broken in an upper vat and the lower vat [contains ordinary wine that is] impure.11And thus we are concerned that the pure terumah will flow into the vat of impure wine. In such a situation, an ordinary person will not be able to partake of it, because of the terumah that has become mixed with it. And a priest will not be able to partake of it, because the wine that is terumah has become impure. Thus it will not be useful at all. If it is possible for a person to save a revi'it of wine in a state of purity,12When both his hands and the articles he uses are ritually pure [the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (Terumot 8:10)]. he should do so.13Even though by doing so, he will cause the wine which is terumah to mix with the impure wine and thus the entire mixture will become unfit for use. It is, nevertheless, desirable for him to do this, because in this way, he will be saving at least a revi'it of wine that is pure terumah. If not, he should save [the wine] with his hands without washing them even though he imparts ritual impurity [to the terumah],14Even though he will make the wine ritually impure in this manner, it will become ritually impure anyway. (Moreover, the ritual impurity that he will impart to it will be only Rabbinic in origin; see also the notes to the following halachah.) And in this way, he will prevent the terumah from mixing with the ordinary produce and disqualifying it. as will be explained [in the laws pertaining to] ritual purity.15See Hilchot Sha'ar Avot HaTumah 8:8,10; 9:5.

ה׳בַּמֶּה דְּבָרִים אֲמוּרִים בְּחָבִית שֶׁל יַיִן וְהוּא שֶׁיִּהְיֶה בַּגַּת הַתַּחְתּוֹנָה פָּחוֹת מִמֵּאָה שֶׁהֲרֵי יִדָּמַע הַכּל וְיִפָּסֵל. אֲבָל אִם הָיָה בַּתַּחְתּוֹנָה מֵאָה בְּזוֹ הֶחָבִית שֶׁהֲרֵי הִיא עוֹלָה בְּאַחַת וּמֵאָה. אוֹ שֶׁהָיְתָה חָבִית שֶׁל שֶׁמֶן. תֵּרֵד וְתִטָּמֵא וְאַל יְטַמְּאֶנָּה בְּיָדָיו שֶׁהֲרֵי הַכּל רָאוּי לְהַדְלָקָה וְאֵין שָׁם הֶפְסֵד מְרֻבֶּה. וְכֵן חָבִית שֶׁמֶן שֶׁנִּשְׁפְּכָה אִם יָכוֹל לְהַצִּיל רְבִיעִית בְּטָהֳרָה יַצִּיל וְאִם לָאו יַצִּיל בְּטֻמְאָה. שֶׁכֵּיוָן שֶׁנִּשְׁבְּרָה הֶחָבִית אֵינוֹ מֻזְהָר שֶׁלֹּא לְהַצִּיל בְּטֻמְאָה מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהוּא בָּהוּל:

⁵When does the above apply? To a jug of wine, [and then] provided that the contents of the lower vat are less than 100 times the amount [that falls in], in which instance, the terumah wine will mix with the ordinary wine and everything will be disqualified.16For, as stated above, an ordinary person will not be able to partake of it because of the terumah and even a priest will not be able to partake of it because the terumah will have become impure. If, however, the lower vat contained 100 times the amount of the jug and thus [the wine that descends] will be nullified because [the mixture] is 101 times the original17See Chapter 13, Halachah 1. or the jug contains oil, he should allow it to descend and become impure instead of making it impure with his own hands. [The rationale is that] the entire quantity is fit to use as fuel and there will be no great loss.18I.e., even though the oil that is terumah becomes impure and mixed with the contents of the lower vat, the person will not suffer the loss of the entire mixture, because it can be used as fuel.Similarly, if a jug of oil is spilling,19To the earth and thus will be spoiled entirely. if it is possible for one to save a revi'it of oil in a state of purity, he should do so. If not, he should save it while ritually impure.20From a comparison to the wording used in Halachah 4, the Or Sameach rules that with regard to wine, one is permitted to save the wine only if merely his hands are ritually impure. If his entire person is ritually impure, he is forbidden to do so. In this instance, by contrast, the person may save the oil even if his person is ritually impure.The difference between the two instances can be explained as follows. With regard to wine, what the person is doing is saving the ordinary wine, not the terumah, because there is no use for impure wine. Hence, he is permitted to do so only if he does not impart ritual impurity of Scriptural origin to the terumah. With regard to the oil, he is saving the oil that is terumah - for impure oil can be used as fuel. Hence, he is allowed to do so even if he will be making it ritually impure. Since the jug is broken, he is not adjured against saving it in a state of ritual impurity, because he is agitated.21Over the possible loss of his money.

ו׳הָיָה עוֹבֵר מִמָּקוֹם לְמָקוֹם וּבְיָדוֹ כִּכָּרוֹת שֶׁל תְּרוּמָה. אָמַר לוֹ הַנָּכְרִי תֵּן לִי אַחַת מֵהֶן וְאִם לָאו הֲרֵינִי נוֹגֵעַ בְּכֻלָּן וּמְטַמְּאָן יַנִּיחַ לְפָנָיו אַחַת עַל הַסֶּלַע וְאַל יִתְּנֶנָּה לְתוֹךְ יָדוֹ כְּדֵי שֶׁלֹּא יְטַמֵּא הַתְּרוּמָה בְּיָדַיִם:

⁶[The following laws apply when] one was traveling from place to place, carrying loaves that are terumah, and a gentile tells him: "Give me one of them. If not, I will touch all of them and make them ritually impure."22For according to Rabbinic decree, a gentile is considered as ritually impure and can convey that impurity to other objects. See Hilchot Tumat Meit 1:13-14. He should place one of them on a rock,23So that the gentile can take it. If one of the loaves is ritually impure, he should leave that loaf for the gentile. but he should not place it in his hand so that he will not be a direct cause of the terumah becoming ritually impure.

ז׳הַתִּלְתָּן וְהַכַּרְשִׁינִין שֶׁל תְּרוּמָה הוֹאִיל וְאֵינוֹ מַאֲכַל אָדָם הֲרֵי זֶה מֻתָּר לַעֲשׂוֹת כָּל מַעֲשֵׂיהֶן בְּטֻמְאָה. וְאֵינוֹ נִזְהָר אֶלָּא בְּעֵת שְׁרִיָּתָן בְּמַיִם. שֶׁאִם שָׁרָה אוֹתָם בְּטֻמְאָה הֲרֵי טִמֵּא אוֹתָם בְּיָדַיִם. אֲבָל אַחַר הַשְּׁרִיָּה אֵינוֹ נִזְהָר. לֹא בְּעֵת שֶׁשָּׁף הַכַּרְשִׁינִין וְלֹא בְּעֵת שֶׁמַּאֲכִילָן לִבְהֵמָה. לְפִיכָךְ נוֹתְנִין תְּרוּמַת תִּלְתָּן וְכַרְשִׁינִין לְכֹהֵן עַם הָאָרֶץ:

⁷[The following laws apply with regard to] chilbah and vetch that are terumah. Since they are not fit for human consumption,24Under ordinary circumstances. Nevertheless, they are eaten by humans from time to time. Otherwise, there would be no obligation to separate terumah from them. See Chapter 2, Halachah 8, and Chapter 11, Halachah 9. it is permitted to carry out all the actions [connected with their preparation] in a state of ritual impurity. One must be careful only when placing them in the water to soak. For if one placed them in the water to soak while ritually impure, one will have made them ritually impure directly.25And that is forbidden. Even though the person will be causing the produce to contract ritual impurity later, in his Commentary to the Mishnah (Ma'aser Sheni 2:3), the Rambam explains that this stage of preparation is singled out because it is when the produce comes in contact with the water that it becomes fit to contract ritual impurity. Once one has soaked them, however, one need not be concerned with ritual impurity at the time one crushes the vetch26To remove their coatings. or when one feeds them to an animal. For this reason, one may give chilbah and vetch that are terumah to a priest who is a common person.27As stated in Chapter 6, Halachah 2, it is forbidden to give terumah that is ritually pure to a priest who is a common person, for we fear that he will be ritually impure and yet will not be aware of his state. In this instance, however, there is no difficulty for we are not concerned with this terumah becoming ritually impure.The Kessef Mishneh notes that this ruling is a minority opinion in the Mishnah (Challah 4:9) and the majority of the Sages rule that it is forbidden to give such terumah to an unlearned priest. Why then, he asks, does the Rambam accept the minority view. (Significantly, in his own Commentary to the Mishnah, the Rambam states that the majority opinion is accepted.)

ח׳אֵין מַפְקִידִין תְּרוּמָה אֵצֶל כֹּהֵן עַם הָאָרֶץ מִפְּנֵי שֶׁלִּבּוֹ גַּס בָּהּ לְאָכְלָהּ. אֲבָל מַפְקִידִין אוֹתוֹ אֵצֶל יִשְׂרָאֵל עַם הָאָרֶץ בִּכְלִי חֶרֶשׂ הַמֻּקָּף צְמִיד פָּתִיל. וּבִלְבַד שֶׁלֹּא יִהְיוּ פֵּרוֹת מֻכְשָׁרִין. גְּזֵרָה שֶׁלֹּא תְּסִיטֵם אִשְׁתּוֹ נִדָּה:

⁸We do not entrust terumah to a priest who is an unlearned person, because he is easygoing about it and may partake of it.28I.e., he knows that he is a priest and that terumah should be eaten by priests. He does not consider himself impure and does not understand why he should not be allowed to partake of the terumah. Even if it is sealed with a wrapper, we fear that he will break open the wrapper and partake of the terumah (Radbaz). We may, however, entrust [terumah] to an unlearned Israelite if it is stored in an earthenware container sealed with a wrapper,29Since it is sealed closed, the Israelite will realize that there are questions of ritual purity involved and will not dare to touch it. provided it is not produce that is already made fit to contract ritual impurity. [This is] a decree lest it be moved by his wife while she is in the nidah state.30A woman in such a state can cause an article to become impure by moving it even though she does not touch it. See Hilchot Mitamei Mishkav UMoshav 8:2-3. Nevertheless, both the Ra'avad and the Kessef Mishneh question the Rambam's ruling, for seemingly, since the produce has not become fit to contract ritual impurity, why would the woman's moving it cause the produce to contract impurity?

ט׳אֵין עוֹשִׂין לְעַם הָאָרֶץ תְּרוּמַת זֵיתָיו בְּטָהֳרָה. אֲבָל עוֹשִׂין לוֹ זֵיתֵי חֻלִּין בְּטָהֳרָה מִשּׁוּם כְּדֵי חַיָּיו שֶׁל בָּדָד (לְבַד). וְכֵיצַד עוֹשֶׂה. נוֹטֵל כְּדֵי הַתְּרוּמָה וּמַנִּיחָהּ בִּכְלִי שֶׁאֵינוֹ מְקַבֵּל טֻמְאָה כְּגוֹן כְּלִי אֲבָנִים. וּכְשֶׁיָּבוֹא עַם הָאָרֶץ לִטּל הַחֻלִּין וְהַתְּרוּמָה אוֹמְרִין לוֹ הִזָּהֵר שֶׁמָּא תִּגַּע בַּתְּרוּמָה שֶׁלֹּא תַּחֲזֹר לְטִבְלָהּ:

⁹We do not separate terumah from olives in a state of ritual purity for an unlearned person.31Quite often the owner of the produce would be an unlearned person whom we assume is not precise in his observance of the laws of ritual purity. Nevertheless, he would often employ workers or hire a vat owner who was precise in his observance so that his produce would comply with the laws of ritual purity. The first clause is speaking about a situation where the owner of the produce had already put olives in the press and squeezed the oil from them before asking the person precise in his observance to separate terumah. Since the olives became subject to contract ritual impurity because of the oil, we assume that they became ritually impure through contact with an impure person. Hence, if the person who was precise in his observance would separate terumah, there is a probability that it is impure, but people will think that it is pure, because of the reputation of the person who is precise in his observance. Hence, he is forbidden to separate terumah from it. We may, however, prepare ordinary olives for him in a state of ritual purity.32I.e., a person who is precise in his observance may perform the entire process, crushing the olives for their oil and separating terumah . [This leniency was granted] so that the operator of the vat could earn his livelihood.33I.e., since the owner of the produce is not precise in his observance of ritual purity, it would be preferable not to separate terumah for him under any circumstances. Nevertheless, leniency was granted so that the owner of the vat could earn his livelihood.How should this process be carried out?34I.e., after preparing the oil and separating the terumah, what precautions should he take that the owner of the produce does not cause the terumah to contract ritual impurity? He should separate an amount of produce sufficient for terumah and place it in a utensil that cannot contract ritual impurity, e.g., a stone utensil. When the unlearned person comes to take the ordinary produce and the terumah, we tell him: "Be careful not to touch the terumah.35I.e., he is permitted to touch the utensil, but not the terumah itself. Otherwise, the produce will become tevel again."36Although this is not true, he is given this warning so that he will be careful not to touch the terumah. We are confident that he will heed the warning, because even the unlearned people were careful in the observance of the prohibition against partaking of tevel (see Hilchot Ma'aser 9:1).

י׳יִשְׂרָאֵל שֶׁעוֹשֶׂה פֵּרוֹתָיו בְּטֻמְאָה אֵין בּוֹצְרִין עִמּוֹ. וְאֵין צָרִיךְ לוֹמַר שֶׁאֵין דּוֹרְכִין עִמּוֹ מִפְּנֵי הַתְּרוּמָה שֶׁתֵּעָשֶׂה בְּטֻמְאָה. אֲבָל מוֹלִיכִין עִמּוֹ חָבִיּוֹת לַגַּת וּמְבִיאִין מִן הַגַּת:

¹⁰When an Israelite performs the tasks associated with the preparation of his produce while ritually impure, we should not harvest grapes with him. Needless to say, we should not tread the grapes with him,37In the first instance, the grapes being picked are considered fit to contract ritual impurity only by Rabbinic decree (Hilchot Tumat Ochalin 11:1). In the second instance, the wine is already starting to flow and the impurity is of Scriptural origin. Hence, the Rambam uses the expression: "Needless to say." because the terumah will be made ritually impure.38I.e., the wine will be ritually impure, and thus the terumah separated from it will be ritually impure and of no value. Hence, performing these tasks is forbidden, because one is aiding a Jew in the performance of a transgression. For it is forbidden to cause produce from which terumah has not been separated to become impure [Avodah Zarah 55a; the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (Avodah Zarah 4:9)]. One may, however, carry barrels to39For these barrels are empty. and from the vat for him.40For the wine has already been rendered impure.

י״אזֵיתִים וַעֲנָבִים שֶׁנִּטְמְאוּ סוֹחֲטָן וְעוֹשֶׂה אוֹתָן תְּרוּמָה. וְאִם נִטְמְאוּ אַחַר שֶׁנַּעֲשׂוּ תְּרוּמָה וְסוֹחֲטָן פָּחוֹת פָּחוֹת מִכַּבֵּיצָה הֲרֵי הַמַּשְׁקֶה הַיּוֹצֵא מֵהֶן מֻתָּר בִּשְׁתִיָּה לַכֹּהֲנִים. וַאֲפִלּוּ לִנְסָכִים הָיָה רָאוּי שֶׁהַמַּשְׁקֶה כְּאִלּוּ הוּא מֻפְקָד בְּתוֹךְ הָאֹכֶל. וְלֹא אָמְרוּ פָּחוֹת פָּחוֹת מִכְּבֵיצָה אֶלָּא גְּזֵרָה שֶׁמָּא יַעֲשֶׂה יוֹתֵר מִכַּבֵּיצָה וְנִמְצָא הַמַּשְׁקֶה מִתְּטַמֵּא בִּכְבֵיצָה. וְאִם הָיוּ פֵּרוֹת אֵלּוּ שְׁלִישִׁי לְטֻמְאָה דּוֹרְכָן בְּגַת וּבְבֵית הַבַּד וְהַמַּשְׁקֶה תְּרוּמָה טְהוֹרָה. שֶׁאֵין שְׁלִישִׁי עוֹשֶׂה רְבִיעִי בִּתְרוּמָה כְּמוֹ שֶׁיִּתְבָּאֵר בְּעִנְיַן טָהֳרוֹת:

¹¹When olives and grapes have become ritually impure, we may squeeze them and separate terumah [from the oil or wine].41I.e., and the wine or oil is considered as ritually pure. The Kessef Mishneh explains that we are speaking about a situation in which the olives or grapes had become impure with a person who himself had come in contact with a source of ritual impurity. Thus the grapes and olives are considered as ritually impure to the second degree. Making the grapes and the olives impure does not make the wine and the oil impure, because something that is impure to the second degree does not convey impurity to ordinary produce (see Hilchot Sha'ar Avot HaTumah 11:2). Hence once this wine and oil has been squeezed out, terumah that is ritually pure can be separated from it. The Radbaz emphasizes that in this instance as well, we are speaking about using less than an egg-sized portion of produce at a time as will be explained. If [grapes or the olives] became impure after they themselves were designated as terumah, they should be squeezed [using] less than an egg-sized portion at a time.42Hilchot Tumat Ochalin 9:2 explains that as long as the impure produce is less than an egg-sized portion, the fact that it comes in contact with the liquids is not significant. In such an instance, the liquid that flows from them is permitted to be drunk by the priests. Indeed, it would be fit to be used for libations on the altar. [The rationale is that] the liquid is considered as set aside within the fruit.43Thus touching the fruit is not considered as touching the liquids (ibid.). The reason that [our Sages] spoke of less than an egg-sized portion44And not an egg-sized portion itself. is that this is a decree lest one use more than an egg-sized portion and the liquid become impure because of [contact with] the egg-sized portion.45For with regard to terumah, impurity of the second degree can impart impurity of the third degree (Hilchot Sha'ar Avot HaTumah 11:3).If the produce was impure to the third degree, one may tread upon it in the vat and the liquid produced from it can be used for pure terumah.46Even though it came into contact with the olives or grapes that were impure. [The rationale is that] ritual impurity of the third degree does not bring about ritual impurity of the fourth degree with regard to terumah, as will be explained with regard to the concept of ritual purity.47Hilchot Sha'ar Avot HaTumah, loc. cit.:2

י״בפַּת תְּרוּמָה שֶׁנִּטְמֵאת מַשְׁלִיכָהּ לְבֵין הָעֵצִים עַד שֶׁיִּשְׂרְפֶנָּה. וְכֵן שֶׁמֶן שֶׁנִּטְמָא נוֹתְנוֹ בִּכְלִי מָאוּס עַד שֶׁיַּדְלִיק כְּדֵי שֶׁלֹּא יִהְיֶה תַּקָּלָה לַאֲחֵרִים וְיֹאכְלוּהוּ. וְחִטִּים שֶׁנִּטְמְאוּ שׁוֹלְקָן וּמַנִּיחָן בִּכְלִי מָאוּס כְּדֵי שֶׁלֹּא יִהְיוּ רְאוּיִין לַאֲכִילָה וְאַחַר כָּךְ יַסִּיק בָּהֶן תַּנּוּר וְכִירַיִם. וּמַשְׁקִין שֶׁאֵין רְאוּיִין לְהַדְלָקָה שֶׁנִּטְמְאוּ כְּגוֹן הַיַּיִן קוֹבְרִין אוֹתָן:

¹²When a loaf of bread that is terumah becomes impure, it should be discarded among the firewood48I.e., if it is placed in the woodpile, people will not regard it as food and they will not partake of it. The point of this entire halachah is to emphasize appropriate safeguards so that people will not partake of impure terumah. Needless to say, it is desirable to burn the impure terumah immediately. The point of this halachah is to provide guidelines should one desire to save it to use as fuel. until one uses it for fuel. Similarly, if oil [that is terumah] becomes impure, it should be placed in a repugnant container until it is used as fuel so that it will not create a stumbling block for others, [lest] they partake of it.When wheat [kernels] become impure, one should parboil them49So that they will no longer be fit to be used to make flour. and place them in a repugnant container until they are no longer fit to be eaten and then use them as fuel for an oven or range. Liquids that are not fit to be used as fuel, e.g., wine, should be buried.50The Kessef Mishneh notes that wine that is terumah that became impure could also be used for its fragrance. Nevertheless, our Sages did not desire that such wine be set aside for this purpose, lest one partake of it unknowingly.

י״גיֵין תְּרוּמָה שֶׁנִּתְגַּלָּה הוֹאִיל וְאָסוּר בִּשְׁתִיָּה יִשָּׁפֵךְ. וְכֵן תְּאֵנִים וַעֲנָבִים וְקִשּׁוּאִים וְדִלּוּעִין וַאֲבַטִּיחִין וּמְלָפְפוֹנוֹת שֶׁל תְּרוּמָה שֶׁנִּמְצְאוּ מְנֻקָּרוֹת הֲרֵי אֵלּוּ אֲסוּרִין בַּאֲכִילָה מִפְּנֵי סַכָּנַת נְפָשׁוֹת. מַה יַּעֲשֶׂה בָּהֶן יַשְׁלִיךְ לַיָּם אוֹ יִקָּבְרוּ:

¹³When wine that is terumah is left uncovered, since it is forbidden to drink it,51Lest a poisonous snake have drank from the wine and deposited its venom there [the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (Terumot 8:4); see also Hilchot Rotzeach UShemirat Nefesh 11:7-8)]. it should be poured out. Similarly, figs, grapes, marrow, squash, watermelon, and cucumbers that are terumah that were discovered to be perforated are forbidden to be eaten because of the mortal danger involved.52Here also we fear that the produce was perforated by a poisonous snake who deposited its venom there (ibid. 12:2). What should be done with them? They should be discarded in the sea or buried.

י״דעִסָּה שֶׁנִּלּוֹשָׁה בְּמַיִם מְגֻלִּים אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁהִיא תְּרוּמָה תִּשָּׂרֵף:

¹⁴When a dough was kneaded with water that was left uncovered,53And is thus forbidden for the reason mentioned in the notes to the previous halachah (ibid. 11:15). it should be burnt even though it is terumah.54Even though one will be wasting terumah, we show concern for the danger that could be involved.

ט״ואָסוּר לְכֹהֵן לִטּל תְּרוּמָה אוֹ שְׁאָר מַתָּנוֹת שֶׁלּוֹ עַד שֶׁיַּפְרִישׁוּ אוֹתָם הַבְּעָלִים שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (במדבר יח יב) "רֵאשִׁיתָם אֲשֶׁר יִתְּנוּ לַה' לְךָ נְתַתִּים" וְנֶאֱמַר (במדבר יח יט) "אֲשֶׁר יָרִימוּ בְנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל לַה' נָתַתִּי לְךָ" עַד שֶׁיָּרִימוּ וְאַחַר כָּךְ יִזְכֶּה בָּהֶם. וְלֹא יִטְלֵם אַחַר שֶׁהוּרְמוּ אֶלָּא מִדַּעַת בְּעָלִים שֶׁהֲרֵי הֵם שֶׁל בְּעָלִים לִתְּנָן לְכָל כֹּהֵן שֶׁיִּרְצוּ שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (במדבר ה י) "וְאִישׁ אֶת קֳדָשָׁיו לוֹ יִהְיוּ". וְאִם לָקַח שֶׁלֹּא מִדַּעַת בְּעָלִים זָכָה בָּהֶן שֶׁאֵין לַבְּעָלִים מֵהֶן אֶלָּא טוֹבַת הֲנָאָה וְטוֹבַת הֲנָאָה אֵינָהּ מָמוֹן:

¹⁵It is forbidden for a priest to take terumah or any other of the presents given to him until they were separated by the owners [of the produce], as [implied by the verses, Numbers 18:12]: "The first [of the produce] which they will give to God I have given to you" and [ibid.:19]: "...that the children of Israel will offer up to God are given to you." [Implied is that] the children of Israel must offer it up and then [the priests] can acquire it.[The priests] should not take [these presents] after they have been set aside except with the knowledge of the owners. For the owners have the right to give them to any priest that they desire, as [ibid. 5:10] states: "A person's sacraments will belong to him."55I.e., though he may not make use of them, the right to give them away is his. [Nevertheless,] if [a priest]56The Radbaz states that this applies even to an unlearned priest. Although terumah should not be given to such a priest lest he cause it to become impure, if he takes it, we do not expropriate it from him. takes them without the owner's knowledge, he acquires them. For all that belongs to the owner is the right to apportion them and that right is not financially significant.

ט״זכֹּהֵן שֶׁנָּתְנוּ לוֹ תְּרוּמָה וּמָצָא בָּהּ דְּבָרִים אֲחֵרִים הֲרֵי אֵלּוּ אֲסוּרִים מִשּׁוּם גֵּזֶל שֶׁמָּא אֲחֵרִים הִנִּיחוּם שָׁם עַד שֶׁיִּטְּלוּם:

¹⁶When terumah was given to a priest and he found other entities in it, it is forbidden for him [to take them]. This is comparable to theft, for perhaps other people placed them [in the terumah] to take them [afterwards].57I.e., we suspect that a person understood that the terumah was set aside, not to be used, and deposited other articles there for safekeeping.

י״זאֵין יִשְׂרָאֵל חַיָּבִין לְהִטָּפֵל בַּתְּרוּמָה וְלַהֲבִיאָהּ מִן הַגֹּרֶן לָעִיר וּמִן הַמִּדְבָּר לַיִּשּׁוּב אֶלָּא כֹּהֲנִים יוֹצְאִין לָגֳרָנוֹת וְיִשְׂרָאֵל נוֹתְנִים לָהֶם חֶלְקָן שָׁם. וְאִם לֹא יָצְאוּ הֲרֵי זֶה מַפְרִישׁ וּמַנִּיחָהּ בַּגֹּרֶן. וְאִם הָיְתָה חַיָּה אוֹ בְּהֵמָה אוֹכַלְתָּהּ שָׁם וְאֵינָהּ מִשְׁתַּמֶּרֶת שָׁם מֵהֶם הִתְקִינוּ חֲכָמִים שֶׁיִּטָפֵל בָּהּ וִיבִיאֶנָּה לָעִיר וְיִטּל שְׂכַר הֲבָאָתָהּ מִכֹּהֵן. שֶׁאִם הִפְרִישָׁהּ וְהִנִּיחָהּ לִבְהֵמָה וּלְחַיָּה הֲרֵי זֶה חִלּוּל הַשֵּׁם:

¹⁷An Israelite is not required to trouble himself with terumah and bring it from the granary until a city or from a desert until a settled area. Instead, the priests should go out to the granaries and the Israelites should give them their portions there. If they did not go out [to collect the terumah, the owner] should separate it and leave it in the granary. Our Sages ordained that if there are beasts or animals who would eat it there and it is not protected from them, [the owner] should take the trouble of dealing with it and bringing it to the city. He may collect a wage for bringing it [to the city] from the priest. [This is done,] because if he separated it and left it for the animals and beasts, God's name would be desecrated.58For terumah is referred to as "sanctified," allowing it to be destroyed in this manner desecrates God's name (Radbaz).

י״חאָסוּר לְכֹהֲנִים וּלְוִיִּם לְסַיֵּעַ בְּבֵית הַגֳּרָנוֹת כְּדֵי לִטּל מַתְּנוֹתֵיהֶן. וְכָל הַמְסַיֵּעַ חִלֵּל קֹדֶשׁ הַשֵּׁם. וַעֲלֵיהֶם נֶאֱמַר (מלאכי ב ח) "שִׁחַתֶּם בְּרִית הַלֵּוִי". וְאָסוּר לְיִשְׂרָאֵל לְהַנִּיחוֹ שֶׁיְּסַיְּעֵהוּ אֶלָּא נוֹתֵן לָהֶם חֶלְקָן בְּכָבוֹד:

¹⁸It is forbidden for the priests and the Levites59To whom the tithes are given. to assist [farmers] in the granaries in order to receive the agricultural presents given them.60This applies to the presents required by Scriptural Law. They may, however, render assistance in order to receive those mandated by Rabbinic Law (Hilchot Bikkurim 5:13). Whoever renders such assistance desecrates the holiness of God's name. Concerning such people is applied [the malediction, Malachi 2:8]: "You have defiled the covenant of Levi." It is forbidden for an Israelite to allow [a priest] to help him. Instead, he should grant them their portion with honor.

י״טנָתַן תְּרוּמָה לְכֹהֵן עַל מְנָת לְהַחֲזִירָהּ יָצָא יְדֵי נְתִינָה. וְאָסוּר לַעֲשׂוֹת כֵּן מִפְּנֵי שֶׁנִּמְצָא כִּמְסַיֵּעַ בְּבֵית הַגֳּרָנוֹת. וְכֵן אָסוּר לָהֶן שֶׁיַּחְטְפוּ תְּרוּמוֹת וּמַעַשְׂרוֹת וַאֲפִלּוּ לִשְׁאל חֶלְקָן בְּפִיהֶן אָסוּר אֶלָּא נוֹטְלִין בְּכָבוֹד. שֶׁעַל שֻׁלְחַן הַמָּקוֹם הֵם אוֹכְלִין וְעַל שֻׁלְחָנוֹ הֵם שׁוֹתִים וּמַתָּנוֹת אֵלּוּ לַה' הֵם וְהוּא זִכָּה לָהֶן שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (במדבר יח ח) "וַאֲנִי נָתַתִּי לְךָ אֶת מִשְׁמֶרֶת תְּרוּמֹתָי":

¹⁹When a person gives terumah to a priest on the condition that he returns it,61And then the terumah would belong to the Israelite who - although he could not partake of it - could sell it to a priest. he has fulfilled his obligation to give.62For such a present is a valid transfer of property. See Hilchot Lulav 8:10; Hilchot Zechiyah UMatanah 3:9. It is, however, forbidden to do so, for [the priest] is considered like one who helps in the granaries.63I.e., he is performing a favor for the owner in return for his terumah. Similarly, it is forbidden for [the priests] to seize the terumot and the tithes. It is even forbidden for them to make a verbal request for them. Instead, they should take them with honor, for they are eating and drinking from the table of God.64Since the presents are God's, as it were, they should be treated with honor. These presents are given to Him and He apportioned them to them, as [Numbers 18:8] states: "Behold I have given to you the safeguard of My terumah."65I.e., the verse implies that terumah belongs to God and that He grants it to the priests.

כ׳לֹא יִתֵּן אָדָם תְּרוּמָה לְשׁוֹמֵר גִּתּוֹ. וְלֹא בְּכוֹר לְשׁוֹמֵר עֶדְרוֹ. וְלֹא מַתָּנוֹת לְרוֹעֵה בְּהֶמְתּוֹ. וְאִם נָתַן חִלֵּל אֶלָּא אִם כֵּן נָתַן לָהֶם שְׂכַר שְׁמִירָתָן תְּחִלָּה. וְרַשַּׁאי יִשְׂרָאֵל לוֹמַר לְיִשְׂרָאֵל אַחֵר הָא לְךָ סֶלַע זוֹ וְתֵן תְּרוּמָה אוֹ בְּכוֹר אוֹ שְׁאָר מַתָּנוֹת לִפְלוֹנִי הַכֹּהֵן בֶּן בִּתִּי אוֹ בֶּן אֲחוֹתִי. וְכָל כַּיּוֹצֵא בָּזֶה:

²⁰A person should not give terumah to the watchman of his vat, nor a firstborn animal to the watchman of his flock, nor the presents [given when an animal is slaughtered]66See Hilchot Bikkurim, ch. 9. to the shepherd of his animals. If he gave them [to these individuals], he desecrated [their honor] unless he gave them their wages for watching first.67If he gives them the presents first, it would appear that he is bargaining with them to reduce their wages. This would be similar to a priest assisting in the granary which is forbidden.One Israelite68The Radbaz emphasizes that such statements may be made only by an Israelite. A priest is forbidden to do so, for this is similar to helping in the granaries. may tell another Israelite: "Here is a sela.69A silver coin of the Talmudic period. Give terumah...", "...a firstborn...", or other presents [given to the priests] "...to so-and-so, the priest, who is my daughter's son, or "...my sister's son," or the like.70Since the owner has the right to do what he wants with the presents, he is permitted to receive gifts for them as well.

כ״אבַּמֶּה דְּבָרִים אֲמוּרִים כְּשֶׁהָיוּ הַבְּעָלִים רוֹצִים לִתֵּן אוֹתָם לְאֶחָד מִשְּׁנֵי כֹּהֲנִים אֵלּוּ אוֹ לְאֶחָד מִשְּׁנֵי לְוִיִּים אֵלּוּ בְּחִנָּם וְאָמַר לוֹ חֲבֵרוֹ הֵא לְךָ וְתֵן לָזֶה. אֲבָל הַבְּעָלִים שֶׁאָמְרוּ לַכֹּהֵן אוֹ לַלֵּוִי הֵא לְךָ חֵלֶק זֶה בְּטוֹבַת הֲנָאָה הֲרֵי זֶה אָסוּר. וְכֵן אָסוּר לַעֲשׂוֹת סְחוֹרָה בִּתְרוּמוֹת אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁהוּא לוֹקֵחַ מִכֹּהֵן וּמוֹכֵר לְכֹהֵן:

²¹When does the above apply? When the owner desired to give [the presents] to one of two priests or [tithes] to one of two Levites gratis and his colleague told him: "Here is this and give to that one." If, however, an owner told a priest or a Levite: "Here is this portion. [Give me something in exchange] for my privilege to give it to whom I want," this is forbidden.71For such an arrangement looks like the person is selling the terumah. Similarly, it is forbidden to sell terumah as merchandise even though he purchases it from a priest and sells it to a priest.72For it was granted to the priests for consumption and not for commercial purposes.

כ״בעֲשָׂרָה אֵין חוֹלְקִין לָהֶן תְּרוּמָה בְּבֵית הַגֳּרָנוֹת אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁהֵן אוֹכְלִין אוֹתָהּ אוֹ מַאֲכִילִין אוֹתָהּ. וְאֵלּוּ הֵן. הַחֵרֵשׁ. וְהַשּׁוֹטֶה. וְהַקָּטָן שֶׁאֵין בּוֹ דַּעַת לִפְרשׁ חֻקּוֹ. מִפְּנֵי שֶׁאֵין בְּאֵלּוּ דַּעַת. וְהַטֻּמְטוּם וְהָאַנְדְּרוֹגִינוּס מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהֵן בְּרִיָּה בִּפְנֵי עַצְמָן. וְהָעֶבֶד שֶׁמָּא יִרְאוּהוּ הָעוֹבְרִים בַּשָּׂדֶה וְיָעִידוּ עָלָיו שֶׁהוּא כֹּהֵן. וְהֶעָרֵל וְהַטָּמֵא מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהֵן מְאוּסִין. וְהָאִשָּׁה שֶׁמָּא תִּתְגָּרֵשׁ וּמִפְּנֵי הַיִּחוּד. וְהַנּוֹשֵׂא אִשָּׁה שֶׁאֵינָהּ הוֹגֶנֶת לוֹ קָנְסוּ אוֹתוֹ שֶׁלֹּא יַחֲלֹק בְּבֵית הַגֳּרָנוֹת עַד שֶׁיְּגָרְשֶׁנָּה. וְכֻלָּן מְשַׁלְּחִין לָהֶן לְבָתֵּיהֶן וְחוֹלְקִין לָהֶן כִּשְׁאָר קָדְשֵׁי הַגְּבוּל. חוּץ מִן הַנּוֹשֵׂא אִשָּׁה שֶׁאֵינָהּ הוֹגֶנֶת לוֹ וְהַטָּמֵא וְהֶעָרֵל שֶׁאֵין מְשַׁלְּחִין לָהֶן כְּלָל:

²²There are ten individuals to whom terumah is not given in the granaries even though they may partake of it or grant others the right to partake of it:73I.e., their wives and servants may partake of it.a deaf-mute, an intellectually or emotionally unstable person, or a child who does not know how to spread out his hands to recite the priestly blessing,74Our translation is taken from the Kessef Mishneh. Although Hilchot Tefilah 15:4 states that a priest should not bless the people until he is old enough to grow a beard, that can be interpreted as meaning that he should not bless the people alone. With other priests, however, he may bless them. these [are not given terumah], because they lack sufficient knowledge;a tumtum75A person with a massive of flesh covering his sexual organs that prevents his gender from being known. and an androgynus,76A person with both masculine and feminine sexual organs. because they are unique types of people;a servant, lest passersby in the field [see him taking terumah] and give testimony that he is a priest;an uncircumcised person and a ritually impure person,77They are forbidden to partake of terumah, but they could be taking for their wives, children, or servants. because they are abhorrent;a woman [married to a priest], lest she be divorced78And thus become forbidden to partake of terumah. and [to prevent her from] entering into seclusion [with someone in the granary];79For these are not places frequented by multitudes of people. Yevamot 99b mentions these two rationales as separate views. The Rambam, however, does not see them as mutually exclusive and combines them both. anda person who marries a woman who is not appropriate for him;80Rashi (Yevamot, loc. cit.) interprets this as meaning a woman whom the priest is forbidden to marry. he was penalized in that [terumah] would not be allocated to him in the granaries until he divorces her.In all the above instances, [terumah] may be sent to their homes and allocated to them as is the law regarding other sacramental foods dependent on the boundaries [of Eretz Yisrael] with the exception of a person who marries a woman who is not appropriate for him, an uncircumcised person81The Kessef Mishneh notes that Yevamot, loc. cit., does not place an uncircumcised person in this category if his failure to circumcise himself comes as a result of forces beyond his control, e.g., his brothers died because of circumcision. He suggests that perhaps the Rambam had a different version of that passage. and a ritually impure person, to whom [terumah] is not sent at all.