ז׳
א׳כֹּהֵן טָמֵא אָסוּר לֶאֱכל תְּרוּמָה בֵּין טְמֵאָה בֵּין טְהוֹרָה שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (ויקרא כב ד) "אִישׁ אִישׁ מִזֶּרַע אַהֲרֹן וְהוּא צָרוּעַ אוֹ זָב בַּקֳדָשִׁים לֹא יֹאכַל". אֵי זֶהוּ קֹדֶשׁ שֶׁאוֹכְלִין אוֹתוֹ כָּל זֶרַע אַהֲרֹן זְכָרִים וּנְקֵבוֹת הֱוֵי אוֹמֵר זוֹ תְּרוּמָה. אֶלָּא שֶׁכָּל טָמֵא הָאוֹכֵל תְּרוּמָה טְהוֹרָה חַיָּב מִיתָה בִּידֵי שָׁמַיִם. וּלְפִיכָךְ לוֹקֶה שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (ויקרא כב ט) "וְשָׁמְרוּ אֶת מִשְׁמַרְתִּי וְלֹא יִשְׂאוּ עָלָיו חֵטְא". וְטָמֵא שֶׁאָכַל תְּרוּמָה טְמֵאָה אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁהוּא בְּלָאו אֵינוֹ לוֹקֶה שֶׁהֲרֵי אֵינָהּ קֹדֶשׁ:
1A priest who is ritually impure is forbidden to partake of terumah whether it is ritually pure or ritually impure,1Sefer HaMitzvot (Negative Commandment 136) and Sefer HaChinuch (Mitzvah 279) include this as one of 613 mitzvot of the Torah. as [Leviticus 22:4] states: "Any person from the seed of Aaron who is afflicted with tzaraat2Tzara'at is a physical affliction resembling, but not identical with leprosy, that comes as a result of gossip and imparts ritual impurity. or is a zav3This refers to a physical affliction resembling, but not identical with gonorrhea that imparts ritual impurity. may not partake of consecrated food." Which consecrated food may be eaten by all the descendants of Aaron, both male and female? We must say: terumah.4It does not refer to the breast and thigh of the peace offerings, for a woman of the priestly family who marries and is widowed or divorced may not partake of them (Yevamot 74b).[Thus] any impure person who eats terumah that is ritually pure is liable for death at the hand of heaven. Therefore he is given lashes,5If his transgression is observed by witnesses and they issued a warning. Whenever lashes are given on the earthly plane, the transgressor receives atonement and is no longer held liable for death by God. as [ibid.:9] states: "And you shall protect My charge and not bear sin because of it [and die because of it]."When an impure person partakes of terumah that is ritually impure, he does not receive lashes, although he transgresses a negative commandment,6From the fact that Sanhedrin 83a,b emphasizes that an impure priest is not liable for death for partaking of impure terumah, the Rambam concludes that a transgression is involved. for [impure terumah] is not holy.7Its impurity nullifies its holiness. See Chapter 6, Halachah 6 and notes, however.
ב׳אֵין הַטְּמֵאִים אוֹכְלִין בִּתְרוּמָה עַד שֶׁיַּעֲרִיב שִׁמְשָׁן וְיֵצְאוּ שְׁלֹשָׁה כּוֹכָבִים בֵּינוֹנִיִּים, וְזֶה הָעֵת כְּמוֹ שְׁלִישׁ שָׁעָה אַחַר שְׁקִיעַת הַחַמָּה שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (ויקרא כב ז) "וּבָא הַשֶּׁמֶשׁ וְטָהֵר" עַד שֶׁיִּטְהַר הָרָקִיעַ מִן הָאוֹר (ויקרא כב ז) "וְאַחַר יֹאכַל מִן הַקָּדָשִׁים":
2Impure [priests who have immersed to purify themselves] may not partake of terumah until the sun sets and three stars appear afterwards8The Kessef Mishneh states that this is approximately 20 minutes after sunset. This applies in Eretz Yisrael. In different latitudes, the duration of this time period varies.This represents a stringency over other laws where ritual purity is required. In many such instances, as soon as one immerses himself, his purification is completed and no further wait is necessary. See Hilchot Ma'aser Sheni 7:11. [on the day the impure person immerses himself], as [implied by ibid.:7]: "And the sun will set and he will become pure"9The simple meaning of the verse is that the person's purification process is not completed until the sun sets. The rules of Biblical exegesis, however, leave room for the meaning mentioned by the Rambam. - until the sky will become pure of the light - "afterwards he may partake of the consecrated foods."
ג׳כֹּהֵן טָהוֹר שֶׁאָכַל תְּרוּמָה טְמֵאָה אֵינוֹ לוֹקֶה מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהוּא בַּעֲשֵׂה שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (ויקרא כב ז) "וְאַחַר יֹאכַל מִן הַקֳדָשִׁים" מִדָּבָר שֶׁהוּא בִּקְדֻשָּׁתוֹ הוּא שֶׁיֹּאכַל כְּשֶׁיִּטְהַר אֲבָל דָּבָר טָמֵא לֹא יֹאכַל אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁיִּטְהַר וְלָאו הַבָּא מִכְּלָל עֲשֵׂה עֲשֵׂה הוּא:
3A priest who is ritually pure who ate terumah that is ritually impure is not liable for lashes, because [the prohibition is the result of] a positive commandment. For the verse states: "Afterwards he may partake of the consecrated foods."10The Rabaz emphasizes that with regard to partaking of the sacrifices, in certain instances, an impure priest must also bring a sacrifice to mark his immersion from impurity. [Implied is that,] after he becomes purified, he may partake of food that is in a state of holiness. Food which is impure, by contrast, he should not eat, even though he becomes purified. A prohibition that stems from a positive commandment11I,e., as in the case at hand, there is no verse that says "Do not eat impure terumah," but from the positive commandment regarding pure terumah, we can conclude that partaking of the impure terumah is prohibited. has the status of a positive commandment.12Hence, its violation is not punishable by lashes.
ד׳מִי שֶׁהָיָה אוֹכֵל בִּתְרוּמָה וְהִרְגִּישׁ שֶׁנִּזְדַּעְזְעוּ אֵיבָרָיו לְהוֹצִיא שִׁכְבַת זֶרַע אוֹחֵז בָּאַמָּה וּבוֹלֵעַ אֶת הַתְּרוּמָה:
4When [a priest] was partaking of terumah and he feels his limbs shudder to ejaculate.13Which would render him ritually impure. He should hold his member14For he does not become ritually impure until the semen actually emerges and in this way, he could swallow the terumah first (Niddah 40a). and swallow the terumah.
ה׳הַחֵרֵשׁ וְהַשּׁוֹטֶה מַטְבִּילִין אוֹתָן וּמַאֲכִילִין אוֹתָן תְּרוּמָה אַחַר שֶׁהֶעֱרִיב שִׁמְשָׁן. וּמְשַׁמְּרִין אוֹתָן שֶׁלֹּא יִישְׁנוּ אַחַר הַטְּבִילָה שֶׁאִם יִישְׁנוּ טְמֵאִים. אֶלָּא אִם כֵּן עָשׂוּ לָהֶם כִּיס שֶׁל נְחשֶׁת שֶׁמָּא יִרְאוּ קֶרִי:
5We may immerse a deaf-mute or intellectually or emotionally unstable [priest] and feed him terumah after nightfall on that day.15These individuals are not responsible for their conduct. Nevertheless, their priesthood is intact. Hence, we immerse them to purify them and then enable them to partake of terumah. We guard them to make sure that they do not sleep after immersing themselves, because if they sleep, they are [considered] impure for perhaps they had a seminal emission16I.e., because of the doubt, we considered them impure. unless a copper container is made for them.17Which would allow a seminal emission to be detected. Were the container to be made of cloth, the semen could be absorbed (Radbaz).
ו׳רוֹכְבֵי גְּמַלִּים אֲסוּרִין לֶאֱכל בִּתְרוּמָה עַד שֶׁיִּטְבְּלוּ וְיַעֲרִיב שִׁמְשָׁן שֶׁהֵן בְּחֶזְקַת טֻמְאָה מִפְּנֵי הַחִמּוּם שֶׁהָרְכִיבָה עַל עוֹר הַגָּמָל מוֹצִיא טִפָּה שֶׁל שִׁכְבַת זֶרַע:
6Camel-riders are forbidden to partake of terumah until they immerse themselves and [wait] until nightfall, because we presume that they are ritually impure. [The rationale is that] the physical stimulation18The literal meaning of the Hebrew is "warmth." produced by riding on the flesh of a camel produces a drop of semen.19See the gloss of the Radbaz who states that the Rambam's wording implies that this ruling applies only when one rides bareback [see Shulchan Aruch (Even HaEzer 23:6)]. He also explains why it applies only to camel-riders and not those who ride on other animals.
ז׳הַמְשַׁמֶּשֶׁת מִטָּתָהּ אִם לֹא נִתְהַפְּכָה בִּשְׁעַת תַּשְׁמִישׁ טוֹבֶלֶת וְאוֹכֶלֶת בִּתְרוּמָה לָעֶרֶב. וְאִם נִתְהַפְּכָה בִּשְׁעַת הַתַּשְׁמִישׁ הֲרֵי זוֹ אֲסוּרָה לֶאֱכל בִּתְרוּמָה כָּל שְׁלֹשָׁה יָמִים שֶׁאִי אֶפְשָׁר לָהּ שֶׁלֹּא תִּפְלֹט וְתִהְיֶה טְמֵאָה כְּמוֹ שֶׁיִּתְבָּאֵר בִּמְקוֹמוֹ:
7When a woman engages in intimacy, she may immerse herself and partake of terumah in the evening,20I.e., intimate relations cause both the man and the woman to become impure. To emerge from that impurity, they must each immerse in the mikvah and wait until nightfall (see Leviticus 15:18 . provided she did not turn over during intimacy.21Intimate relations can cause a woman to become impure for two reasons:a) as stated above, the very act of intimacy brings about ritual impurity;b) she comes in contact with semen and touching semen makes one ritually impure (Hilchot Sha'ar Avot HaTumah 5:9).As long as the semen is in the woman's vagina, it is not considered to have touched her, because it is touching her body internally, not externally. If, however, it flows outside her vagina and touches her externally, she does become impure. According to the Rambam, if the woman does not turn over in intimate relations, the semen will remain in her vagina and not flow outside. Hence, after immersing herself and waiting until nightfall, she may partake of terumah. If, however, she turned over in the midst of intimacy, the semen will flow out. Moreover, it is possible that it will not flow out immediately, but will do so over the course of the coming days. Now, semen is considered to remain viable until the third day after intimacy. Hence for three days, the woman must consider the possibility that the semen flowed out from her body and made her impure. Hence, she cannot immerse herself in the mikvah to regain ritual purity until three days have passed.The Ra'avad differs with the Rambam and maintains that even if the woman did not turn over during intimacy, as soon as she arises from bed, it is possible that semen will flow out from her vagina and touch her body. He quotes Niddah 41b in support of his explanation. The Radbaz and the Kessef Mishneh suggest that the Rambam had a different text of that Talmudic passage and they validate his ruling. If she turned over during intimacy she is forbidden to partake of terumah for a duration of three days. For it is impossible that she will not discharge [semen] and become impure,22Because of it touching her body. as will be explained in the appropriate place.23Ibid.:11. There the Rambam states that the intent is not that semen remains viable for three full days, but that it can remain viable until the third day after relations.
ח׳תְּרוּמַת חוּצָה לָאָרֶץ הוֹאִיל וְעִקָּרָהּ מִדִּבְרֵיהֶן אֵינָהּ אֲסוּרָה בַּאֲכִילָה אֶלָּא לְכֹהֵן שֶׁטֻּמְאָה יוֹצְאָה עָלָיו מִגּוּפוֹ. וְהֵן בַּעֲלֵי קְרָיִין וְזָבִין וְזָבוֹת וְנִדּוֹת וְיוֹלְדוֹת. וְכֻלָּן שֶׁטָּבְלוּ מֻתָּרִין לַאֲכִילָה אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁלֹּא הֶעֱרִיב שִׁמְשָׁן. אֲבָל טְמֵאֵי מַגַּע טֻמְאוֹת בֵּין שֶׁנָּגַע בְּמֵת שֶׁאִי אֶפְשָׁר לָנוּ הַיּוֹם לִטַּהֵר מִמֶּנּוּ בֵּין שֶׁנָּגַע בְּשֶׁרֶץ אֵינוֹ צָרִיךְ לִטְבּל לִתְרוּמַת חוּצָה לָאָרֶץ:
8Since the primary obligation of terumah [separated] in the Diaspora is Rabbinic in origin,24As stated in Chapter 1, Halachah 1, according to Scriptural Law, the requirement to separate terumah applies only in Eretz Yisrael. The early Sages ordained that it should be observed in certain neighboring countries. it is forbidden only to a priest who becomes ritually impure because of a discharge from his body: i.e., men who had a seminal emission, zavim,25This refers to a physical affliction resembling, but not identical with gonorrhea that imparts ritual impurity. zavot,26Women who become impure because they experienced menstrual bleeding at times other than her ordinary cycle. niddot,27Women who become impure because they experienced ordinary menstrual bleeding. and women who give birth.28Who becomes impure as explained in Hilchot Issurei Bi'ah, ch. 10. Since the obligation to separate terumah in these lands is only Rabbinic in origin, the Sages were lenient regarding the restrictions incumbent on those who partake of terumah. All of these individuals may partake [of terumah] after they immersed even if they did not [wait] until nightfall.29In contrast to terumah prescribed by Scriptural Law when such a wait is necessary, as stated in Halachah 2. The Ra'avad differs with the Rambam concerning this point and refers to Bechorot 27a in support of his position. The Radbaz and the Kessef Mishneh offer different explanations of that passage that support the Rambam's interpretation. Those who, by contrast, became impure because of contact with a source of ritual impurity - whether contact with a human corpse, a form of impurity which is impossible to purge in the present age30For to purge the impurity resulting from contact with a human corpse, it is necessary to have the ashes from a Red Heifer sprinkled upon one's body and those ashes are not available in the present age. or contact with [the corpse of] a crawling animal - need not immerse themselves [to partake of] terumah separated in the Diaspora.
ט׳לְפִיכָךְ כֹּהֵן קָטָן שֶׁעֲדַיִן לֹא רָאָה קֶרִי וּקְטַנָּה שֶׁעֲדַיִן לֹא רָאֲתָה דַּם נִדָּה אוֹכְלִין אוֹתָהּ תָּמִיד בְּלֹא בְּדִיקָה שֶׁחֶזְקָתָן שֶׁלֹּא יָצְאָה טֻמְאָה עֲדַיִן עֲלֵיהֶם. וְהַמְצֹרָע הֲרֵי הוּא כְּמִי שֶׁטֻּמְאָה יוֹצְאָה עָלָיו מִגּוּפוֹ וְהוּא שֶׁיְּטַמֵּא אוֹתוֹ כֹּהֵן מְיֻחָס אֲבָל קֹדֶם שֶׁיְּטַמְּאֶנּוּ הַכֹּהֵן טָהוֹר הוּא:
9For this reason, a male priest who is a minor who has not yet had a seminal emission or a female of the priestly family who has never experienced menstrual bleeding may partake of [terumah from the Diaspora] at all times without undergoing an inspection, for the presumption that they did not have a discharge that would render them ritually impure applies to them.31Once a male or a female attains majority, by contrast, we assume that they have become impure and they must immerse themselves before partaking of terumah (Radbaz).A metzora32A metzora is somebody who has been afflicted with tzara'at. Tzara'at is a physical affliction resembling, but not identical with leprosy, that comes as a result of gossip and imparts ritual impurity. is considered as one who had a discharge that renders him impure,33For his impurity is also a result of a physical condition (ibid.). provided he is declared impure by a priest whose lineage is established.34For a person afflicted by tzara'at does not become ritually impure until a priest declares him so (Hilchot Tuma'at Tzara'at 9:2). With regard to the establishment of a priest's lineage, see the notes to Chapter 6, Halachah 2.The Radbaz adds that the reason the impurity of tzara'at is not observed in the present age is that we have no priests whose lineage is established to declare people ritually impure. The physical conditions for the impurity may exist in the present age.
י׳כֹּהֵן עָרֵל אָסוּר לֶאֱכל בִּתְרוּמָה מִדִּין תּוֹרָה. שֶׁהֲרֵי נֶאֱמַר (ויקרא כב י) "תּוֹשָׁב וְשָׂכִיר" בִּתְרוּמָה וְנֶאֱמַר תּוֹשָׁב וְשָׂכִיר בְּפֶסַח. מָה תּוֹשָׁב וְשָׂכִיר הָאָמוּר בְּפֶסַח עָרֵל אָסוּר בּוֹ אַף תּוֹשָׁב וְשָׂכִיר הָאָמוּר בִּתְרוּמָה עָרֵל אָסוּר בּוֹ. וְאִם אָכַל לוֹקֶה מִן הַתּוֹרָה. מָשׁוּךְ מֻתָּר לֶאֱכל בִּתְרוּמָה וְאַף עַל פִּי שֶׁנִּרְאֶה כְּעָרֵל וּמִדִּבְרֵי סוֹפְרִים שֶׁיָּמוּל פַּעַם שְׁנִיָּה עַד שֶׁיֵּרָאֶה מָהוּל:
10A priest who is uncircumcised is forbidden to partake of terumah according to Scriptural Law.35The Radbaz writes that this prohibition applies even if he is uncircumcised with the Torah's permission, e.g., his brothers died because of circumcision, in which instance, caution is shown before circumcising him. [This concept is derived as follows: Leviticus 22:10] speaks of a resident worker and a hired worker with regard to [partaking of] terumah and [Exodus 12:45] speaks of a resident worker and a hired worker with regard to [partaking of] the Paschal sacrifice. Just as with regard to the Paschal sacrifice, the resident worker and the hired worker spoken about refer to those who are uncircumcised and who are forbidden [to partake of] it,36See Hilchot Korban Pesach 9:7. so too, with regard to terumah, we learn that a resident worker and a hired worker who are uncircumcised are forbidden [to partake of] it. 37Sefer HaMitzvot (Negative Commandment 135) and Sefer HaChinuch (Mitzvah 282) include this as one of 613 mitzvot of the Torah. There is, however, a slight difficulty with this classification. The Rambam maintains that any commandment that is derived through one of the Thirteen Principles of Biblical Exegesis does not have the status of a Scriptural command, nor is such a prohibition punishable by lashes (Sefer HaMitzvot, General Principle 2) and as the Rambam states here, there is no direct commandment prohibiting an uncircumcised person from partaking of terumah. Instead, it is derived by our Sages (Yevamot 70a) through an association of verses (gezeirah shaveh). Hence, seemingly, it should not be placed in that category. The Rambam notes this difficulty when discussing this mitzvah in Sefer HaMitzvot and states that since our Sages mentioned that this mitzvah was of Scriptural origin, he considered it as having that status. If such a person partakes [of terumah], he is liable for lashes according to Scriptural Law.A person who extends his foreskin38I.e., one was originally circumcised, but underwent an operation so that it would appear that he was not circumcised. In the Hellenist and Roman periods, there were Jews who underwent such operations so that they would resemble non-Jews. is permitted to partake of terumah even though he appears uncircumcised.39For according to Scriptural Law, his original circumcision was effective and he can never revert to being uncircumcised. According to Rabbinic Law, however, he must be circumcised again until he appears circumcised.40The Radbaz writes that the intent is not that he is forbidden to partake of terumah until he is circumcised again. Instead, the intent is that he is advised to undergo the operation and not to partake of terumah until he does so. The Sefer HaMitzvot and the Sefer HaChinuch (loc. cit.), however, say that such an individual is prohibited by the Rabbis from partaking of terumah.
י״אהַנּוֹלָד מָהוּל אוֹכֵל בִּתְרוּמָה. וְהַטֻּמְטוּם אֵינוֹ אוֹכֵל מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהוּא סְפֵק עָרֵל. וְאַנְדְּרוֹגִינוּס מָל וְאוֹכֵל:
11One who is born circumcised may partake of terumah.41Although it is necessary to draw a drop of blood from such a person's organ (Hilchot Milah 1:11), it cannot be said that such a person is uncircumcised. Hence, he is permitted to partake of terumah (Radbaz). A tumtum42A child whose genital area is covered by a mass of flesh and thus his gender cannot be determined. may not partake of terumah for there is a doubt whether he is uncircumcised.43Since his gender is undetermined, we do not know whether or not he must be circumcised. An androgynus44A person with both male and female sexual organs. should be circumcised and then he may partake of terumah.45Although there are many unresolved questions about such a person's status vis-à-vis gender, there is no difficulty in him partaking of terumah for both males and females of the priestly family are permitted to partake of it.
י״בהֶעָרֵל וְכָל הַטְּמֵאִין אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁהֵן אֲסוּרִין לֶאֱכל בִּתְרוּמָה נְשֵׁיהֶן וְעַבְדֵיהֶן אוֹכְלִין:
12Although an uncircumcised priest and all those who are impure are forbidden to partake of terumah, their wives and their servants may partake [of it].46They are prohibited from partaking of terumah due to outside factors. Their membership in the priestly family is, however, intact. Hence, their wives and servants may partake of terumah (Radbaz).
י״גפְּצוּעַ דַּכָּא וּכְרוּת שָׁפְכָה הֵם וְעַבְדֵיהֶן אוֹכְלִין. וּנְשֵׁיהֶן לֹא יֹאכְלוּ. וְאִם לֹא יָדַע אֶת אִשְׁתּוֹ מִשֶּׁנַּעֲשָׂה פְּצוּעַ דַּכָּא וּכְרוּת שָׁפְכָה הֲרֵי אֵלּוּ יֹאכְלוּ. וְכֵן אִם נָשָׂא בַּת גֵּרִים הֲרֵי זוֹ אוֹכֶלֶת:
13[The following laws apply to a priest] who has maimed testicles or a severed member. They and their servants may partake of terumah.47Although their wounds prevent such priests from serving at the Altar, they are still members of the priestly family. Hence, they and their servants may partake of terumah. Their wives may not partake of terumah.48As stated in Deuteronomy 23:2 and Hilchot Issurei Bi'ah, ch. 16, a person with such wounds is forbidden to marry a natural born Jewess. Hence, if a priest is intimate with his wife after suffering such wounds, she becomes a zonah and a chalalah and hence, is forbidden to partake of terumah. If [such a priest] was not intimate with his wife after suffering these wounds, [his wife] may partake of terumah.49Since they were not intimate, she has not become a chalalah and may partake of terumah. The Kessef Mishneh states that this refers to an instance where the couple were married and then he suffered this wound. If, however, a priest suffers such a wound and then consecrates a woman, she may not partake of terumah. See the notes to the following halachah. Similarly, if he married the descendent of converts, she may partake of terumah.50Ordinarily, a priest cannot marry a convert or the descendant of a convert. In this instance, however, because of his injury, the full measure of the holiness of the priesthood does not rest upon him and he may marry such a woman (Hilchot Issurei Bi'ah 16:1). Once he marries such a woman, she is entitled to partake of terumah, because she is the wife of a priest.
י״דפְּצוּעַ דַּכָּא כֹּהֵן שֶׁקִּדֵּשׁ בַּת כֹּהֵן אֵינָהּ אוֹכֶלֶת. סְרִיס חַמָּה הוּא וְאִשְׁתּוֹ וַעֲבָדָיו אוֹכְלִין. טֻמְטוּם וְאַנְדְּרוֹגִינוּס עַבְדֵיהֶן אוֹכְלִין אֲבָל לֹא נְשׁוֹתֵיהֶן:
14When a priest with maimed testicles consecrates the daughter of a priest, she may not partake of terumah.51Since this woman is prepared to engage in intimate relations that are forbidden to her, our Sages prohibited her from partaking of terumah even though she had not actually engaged in such relations. Moreover, she is no longer permitted to partake of terumah by virtue of her being a member of the priestly family, because she was consecrated, as stated in Chapter 8, Halachah 1. [When a priest is] a eunuch who was brought to this state through natural means,52See Hilchot Ishut 2:14 for a more precise definition of the term used by the Rambam. As stated in Hilchot Issurei Bi'ah 16:9, such a person is permitted to marry a native-born Jewess. Hence, there is no difficulty with the wife of a priest with such a condition partaking of terumah. he, his wife, and his servants may partake of terumah. [When a priest is] a tumtum or an androgynus, their servants may partake of terumah,53For in this context, there is no difference between them and the servants of an ordinary priest. but not their wives.54For there is an unresolved doubt if their marriages are acceptable. Needless to say, if a tumtum undergoes an operation and it is determined that he is a male, his wife may partake of terumah even if he consecrated her before the operation.
ט״וחֵרֵשׁ שׁוֹטֶה וְקָטָן שֶׁקָּנוּ לָהֶן עֲבָדִים אֵינָן אוֹכְלִין. אֲבָל אִם קָנוּ לָהֶם בֵּית דִּין אוֹ אַפּוֹטְרוֹפּוֹס אוֹ שֶׁנָּפְלוּ לָהֶן בִּירֻשָּׁה הֲרֵי אֵלּוּ אוֹכְלִין:
15When a [priest who was] a deaf-mute, a mentally or emotionally unstable person, or a minor purchased servants, they may not partake of terumah.55These individuals are considered as not being responsible for their actions and their acquisitions are not valid. Hence, the servants they purchase by themselves are not their property according to Scriptural Law and may not partake of terumah. If, however, the local court or their guardian purchases servants for them or they acquire them by inheritance, [the servants] may partake of terumah.56Because the acquisitions are binding and they have become the property of a priest.
ט״זאַנְדְּרוֹגִינוּס שֶׁנִּבְעַל לְפָסוּל מִן הַתְּרוּמָה בֵּין דֶּרֶךְ זִכְרוּתוֹ בֵּין דֶּרֶךְ נְקֵבוּתוֹ נִפְסַל מִלֶּאֱכל בִּתְרוּמָה כְּנָשִׁים. וְאֵין עֲבָדָיו אוֹכְלִין. וְכֵן אִם נִבְעַל לְאַנְדְּרוֹגִינוּס אַחֵר שֶׁהוּא פּוֹסֵל בְּבִיאָתוֹ לְאִשָּׁה נִפְסַל וְאֵינוֹ אוֹכֵל וְלֹא מַאֲכִיל עֲבָדָיו. וְהוּא שֶׁיִּבְעל אוֹתוֹ דֶּרֶךְ נְקֵבוּתוֹ. אֲבָל דֶּרֶךְ זִכְרוּתוֹ אֵין זָכָר פּוֹסֵל זָכָר מִן הַכְּהֻנָּה:
16When an androgynus [of the priestly family] engages in intimacy - whether through anal intercourse57The literal translation of the Rambam's words would be "as a male would be the object of intimacy." or vaginal intercourse - with a person who is disqualified from partaking of terumah, he is disqualified from partaking of terumah as a woman would be.58For such relations would cause a woman to be considered as a chalalah. Since there is an unresolved question regarding the gender of an androgynus, we are stringent and consider the possibility that he is a female. And a female is disqualified from terumah if she engages in intimacy that would render her a chalalah regardless of whether it is vaginal or anal intercourse (Radbaz). His servants also may not partake of terumah.59For their right to partake of terumah is dependent on that of their owner.Similarly, if he engages in intimacy with another adrogynus with whom relations would disqualify a woman from partaking of terumah, he is disqualified. Neither he nor his servants may partake of terumah. [The latter law] applies when he engages in intimacy through vaginal intercourse.60For such relations would render a woman a chalahah and, because of the unresolved question regarding the status of the androgynus, we apply that stringency to him as well. If, however, he is intimate through anal intercourse,61The literal translation of the Rambam's words would be "as a male would be the object of intimacy." [the above does not apply], because a male does not disqualify another male from priestly [privileges].62A male priest does not become a chalal because he entered into a forbidden sexual relationship.The Ra'avad and the Kessef Mishneh question the Rambam's ruling, noting that, seemingly, the person should be disqualified from partaking of terumah based on the same rationale as the first clause of the halachah: i.e., that the androgynus also has a feminine dimension and that feminine dimension will be disqualified through anal intercourse. Hence, they ask: Why does the Rambam only view this relationship as intimacy between males and hence, not able to disqualify the androgynus? Why not see it as a relation between a male and a female? Among the explanations given is that since both of the androgynies are engaging in relations as males, it is not appropriate to deem one a male and one a female.
י״זעֶבֶד שֶׁל שְׁנֵי שֻׁתָּפִין שֶׁהָיָה אֶחָד מֵהֶן כֹּהֵן אֵינוֹ מַאֲכִיל הֲרֵי זֶה הָעֶבֶד אָסוּר לֶאֱכל. וְכָל הַמַּאֲכִיל בִּתְרוּמָה מַאֲכִיל בֶּחָזֶה וְשׁוֹק:
17When a servant belongs to partners and one of them is a priest that does not entitle others to partake of terumah,63The Jerusalem Talmud (the conclusion of tractate Terumot) states that for a servant to partake of terumah, he must belong to priests entirely. If an Israelite has even a one-hundredth share in the ownership of the servant, he may not partake of terumah. this servant is forbidden to partake [of terumah]. Whenever [the ownership of a servant] entitles him to partake of terumah, it also entitles him to partake of the breast and the thigh [of the peace sacrifices].64Which may be eaten by all the members of the priest's household.
י״חבַּת יִשְׂרָאֵל שֶׁנִּשֵּׂאת לְכֹהֵן וְהִכְנִיסָהּ לוֹ בֵּין עַבְדֵי מְלוֹג בֵּין עַבְדֵי נִכְסֵי צֹאן בַּרְזֶל הֲרֵי אֵלּוּ יֹאכְלוּ. וְכֵן עַבְדֵי כֹּהֵן שֶׁקָּנוּ עֲבָדִים וְעַבְדֵי אִשְׁתּוֹ שֶׁקָּנוּ עֲבָדִים יֹאכְלוּ שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (ויקרא כב יא) "כִּי יִקְנֶה נֶפֶשׁ קִנְיַן כַּסְפּוֹ" אֲפִלּוּ קִנְיַן הַקִּנְיָן. וְקִנְיַן הָאוֹכֵל מַאֲכִיל (אֲחֵרִים) וְקִנְיָן שֶׁאֵינוֹ אוֹכֵל אֵינוֹ מַאֲכִיל:
18When a daughter of an Israelite marries a priest and brings servants [to his domain] - regardless of whether they are classified as nichsei milog or nichsei tzon barzel65When a woman marries, her husband receives the right to benefit from her property. As explained in Hilchot Ishut, ch. 16, there are two arrangements under which a husband is allowed to benefit from his wife's property:nichsei milog - in this instance, in the event of divorce or the husband's death, the property reverts to the ownership of the woman according to its value at that time, regardless of the profit or loss she suffers;nichsei tzon barzel - in this instance, the property is evaluated at the time of marriage; in the event of divorce or the husband's death, the woman receives that amount, regardless of the worth of the property at that time.Servants can be classified in either of these categories. In both instances, they have the right to partake of terumah. With regard to servants who are nichsei tzon barzel, they are the husband's (the priest's) acquisitions, for it is as if he acquired them when he accepted financial responsibility for their worth. With regard to those who are nichsei milog, they are "the acquisition of his acquisition," i.e., property belonging to his wife whom he has acquired. See Halachah 20. - they may partake [of terumah]. Similarly, when the servants of priests purchase servants or the servants of a priest's wife purchase servants, they may partake of terumah, as [intimated by Leviticus 22:11]: "[When a priest] will purchase a soul, the acquisition of his money, [he shall partake of it]." Implied is even an acquisition of an acquisition.66I.e., servants acquired by servants who were acquired by the priest. The inference is derived based on the fact that the verse contains two derivatives of the word koneh - "acquire." An acquisition of [a priest] who is permitted to partake of terumah may entitle others to partake [of terumah]. An acquisition who does not partake of terumah may not entitle others to partake [of terumah].67When the wife of a priest is not entitled to partake of terumah (see Halachot 20-22), her servants may also not partake of terumah.
י״טבַּת כֹּהֵן שֶׁנִּשֵּׂאת לְיִשְׂרָאֵל וְהִכְנִיסָה לוֹ בֵּין עַבְדֵי מְלוֹג בֵּין עַבְדֵי צֹאן בַּרְזֶל הֲרֵי אֵלּוּ לֹא יֹאכְלוּ:
19When the daughter of a priest marries an Israelite and brings servants [to his domain] - regardless of whether they are classified as nichsei milog or nichsei tzon barzel - they may not partake [of terumah].68The servants who are nichsei tzon barzel certainly may not partake of terumah for they are now the property of an Israelite. Even the servants who are nichsei milog may not partake of terumah, for at this time, their owner - the Israelite's wife - is disqualified from partaking of terumah.
כ׳אַלְמָנָה לְכֹהֵן גָּדוֹל גְּרוּשָׁה וַחֲלוּצָה לְכֹהֵן הֶדְיוֹט בֵּין כֹּהֶנֶת בֵּין יִשְׂרְאֵלִית וְכֵן שְׁאָר חַיָּבֵי לָאוִין וְהִכְנִיסָה לוֹ עַבְדֵי מְלוֹג וְעַבְדִּי צֹאן בַּרְזֶל. עַבְדֵי מְלוֹג לֹא יֹאכְלוּ אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁהוּא חַיָּב בִּמְזוֹנוֹתָם. וְעַבְדֵי צֹאן בַּרְזֶל יֹאכְלוּ מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהֵם שֶׁל בַּעַל. נָשָׂא שְׁנִיָּה הִיא אוֹכֶלֶת וְעַבְדֵי מְלוֹג שֶׁלָּהּ לֹא יֹאכְלוּ:
20[The following laws apply when] a widow marries a High Priest or a divorcee or a woman who underwent chalitzah - whether the daughter of a priest or an Israelite - marries an ordinary priest69These three types of relationships are forbidden, the first two by Scriptural Law, the latter by Rabbinic Law. Thus the woman will become a chalalah and hence, forbidden to partake of terumah. Since she is forbidden to partake of terumah, her servants are likewise forbidden. or [a priest] marries another one of the women with whom marriage is prohibited [by Scriptural Law].70I.e., a woman who is forbidden to him because of one of the prohibitions that apply to all Jews, even non-priests. Nevertheless, if he engages in relations with that woman, she becomes a zonah and thus prohibited against partaking of terumah. In this instance as well, since she is forbidden to partake of terumah, her servants are likewise forbidden. If she brings servants [to his domain] which are classified as nichsei milog or nichsei tzon barzel [to his domain], those classified as nichsei milog may not partake [of terumah],71For they are the woman's property, it is just that they are "on loan" to her husband, as it were. even though he is required to provide for their sustenance. Those classified as nichsei tzon barzel may partake of terumah, for they are the husband's property. If [a priest] married a shniyah,72A relatively distant female relative with whom our Sages prohibited marriage as a safeguard against the Scriptural prohibitions of incest. See Hilchot Ishut 1:6. she may partake [of terumah],73For according to Scriptural Law, she is the priest's wife and relations with him do not disqualify her, neither as a zonah or a chalalah. but her servants who are nichsei milog may not partake [of terumah].74Seemingly, since such a woman has the right to partake of terumah, her servants should also be so entitled. The Radbaz explains that since her marriage is not sanctioned by Rabbinic Law, her husband is under no obligation to sustain her. Hence, her servants do not receive the right to partake of terumah. Those servants that are nichsei tzon barzel are permitted to partake of terumah according to all authorities, for they are her husband's acquisitions as explained above.
כ״אכֹּהֶנֶת אַלְמָנָה שֶׁנִּתְאָרְסָה לְכֹהֵן גָּדוֹל אוֹ גְּרוּשָׁה לְכֹהֵן הֶדְיוֹט הוֹאִיל וְהֵן מְשַׁמְּרוֹת לְבִיאָה פְּסוּלָה שֶׁל תּוֹרָה הֲרֵי אֵלּוּ לֹא יֹאכְלוּ. וְכֵן אִם נִכְנְסוּ לַחֻפָּה בְּלֹא אֵרוּסִין אֵינָן אוֹכְלוֹת שֶׁהַחֻפָּה פּוֹסַלְתָּן מִלֶּאֱכל. נִתְאַלְמְנוּ אוֹ נִתְגָּרְשׁוּ מִן הָאֵרוּסִין חָזְרוּ לְהֶכְשֵׁרָן וְאוֹכְלוֹת. מִן הַנִּשּׂוּאִין לֹא יֹאכְלוּ שֶׁכְּבָר נִתְחַלְּלוּ:
21When the daughter of a priest who is a widow is consecrated by a High Priest or one who is divorced is consecrated by an ordinary priest, they may not partake of terumah,75I.e., were it not for the reason stated by the Rambam, they would be permitted to partake of terumah by virtue of their membership in the Priestly family. because they are designated for intimate relations that are forbidden according to Scriptural Law. Similarly, if they enter the chupah76Entering the chupah means entering a private place with her husband. This is the act that constitutes the beginning of the second phase of the marriage relationship, nissuin. without being consecrated, they may not partake [of terumah]. For [entering into] the chupah disqualifies them.77Even though a woman enters the chupah without consecration, that act causes her to be considered as designated for intimate relations that are forbidden.If such a woman is widowed or divorced after consecration [but before marriage], she returns to suitability and may partake of terumah. If, however, she had married, she may not partake of terumah, because she already became a chalalah.78Through intimate relations with her husband.
כ״בכֹּהֶנֶת שֶׁמֵּת בַּעְלָהּ כֹּהֵן וְנָפְלָה לִפְנֵי יְבָמִים שֶׁיֵּשׁ בָּהֶן חָלָל לֹא תֹּאכַל מִפְּנֵי זִקַּת הֶחָלָל. וַאֲפִלּוּ עָשָׂה בָּהּ אֶחָד מִן הַכְּשֵׁרִים מַאֲמָר. שֶׁאֵין הַמַּאֲמָר קוֹנֶה בִּיבָמָה קִנְיָן גָּמוּר:
22When the husband of the daughter of a priest who is himself a priest dies and she falls before yevamim, one of which is a challal,79I.e., her husband, the priest, had several brothers, one of whom was born from a relationship forbidden to the priesthood, and thus had the status of a challal. she may not partake of terumah because of her connection to the challal.80Since she could be married by the challal, she is disqualified even though she is a member of the priestly family. [This applies] even if one of the acceptable [brothers] issued a mamar81A maamar is a Rabbinic institution in which a yevam declares his intention to marry his brother's childless widow by consecrating her through giving her money (Hilchot Yibbum 2:1). to her, for a maamar does not constitute a complete acquisition of a yevamah.82If another brother would perform yibbum with the widow, he would become her husband despite the maamar given by his brother. Thus the connection to the yevam who is a challal is still intact.
כ״גכֹּהֵן שֶׁנָּתַן גֵּט לִיבִמְתּוֹ הַכֹּהֶנֶת שֶׁהֲרֵי נֶאֶסְרָה עָלָיו וַעֲדַיִן זִקָּתוֹ עָלֶיהָ הֲרֵי זוֹ אוֹכֶלֶת בִּתְרוּמָה מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהִיא מְשַׁמֶּרֶת לְבִיאָה פְּסוּלָה שֶׁל דִּבְרֵיהֶן. שֶׁאֵין הַגֵּט פּוֹסֵל הַיְבָמָה אֶלָּא מִדִּבְרֵיהֶן. וְכֵן כֹּהֶנֶת חֲלוּצָה אוֹ שְׁנִיָּה שֶׁנִּתְאָרְסָה לְכֹהֵן אוֹכֶלֶת. כֹּהֵן הֶדְיוֹט שֶׁנָּשָׂא אַיְלוֹנִית הֲרֵי זוֹ אוֹכֶלֶת בִּתְרוּמָה:
23[Although a yavam who is] a priest gives a bill of divorce83I.e., instead of performing chalitzah which would absolve the connection between him and his yevamah, he gave her a bill of divorce. According to Scriptural Law, the bill of divorce is not effective at all. Nevertheless, according to Rabbinic Law, it disqualifies the woman from carrying out yibbum with any of the brothers (Hilchot Yibbum VeChalitzah 5:1). to his yevamah, [despite the fact that] she becomes forbidden to him, she still remains connected to him.84For according to Scriptural Law, their connection is still intact. Hence, she is entitled to partake of terumah. [She is not disqualified,] because she is designated for relations that are forbidden [only] by Rabbinic decree, since a bill of divorce disqualifies a yevamah only according to Rabbinic decree.Similarly, the daughter of a priest who underwent the rite of chalitzah85And thus became forbidden to a priest by Rabbinic decree. or is a shniyah86A relatively distant female relative with whom our Sages prohibited marriage as a safeguard against the Scriptural prohibitions of incest. See Hilchot Ishut 1:6. who became consecrated to a priest may partake of terumah.87Because she is a member of the priestly family. In contrast to the women mentioned in Halachah 21, these women are designated for relations that are forbidden only by Rabbinic decree. Hence, they are not disqualified.Were the yevamah to be the daughter of an Israelite, she would not be permitted to partake of terumah despite the fact that she is bound to a priest through the obligation of yibbum (Radbaz). [Also,] when an ordinary priest marries an ailonot,88A women whose female sexual characteristics are underdeveloped. she may partake of terumah.89Although the priest may divorce her because she cannot have children, until he does so, he may be intimate with her. Hence, she is entitled to partake of terumah.
ח׳
א׳הָעֻבָּר וְהַיָּבָם וְהָאֵרוּסִין וְהַחֵרֵשׁ וּבֶן תֵּשַׁע שָׁנִים וְיוֹם אֶחָד פּוֹסְלִין וְלֹא מַאֲכִילִין:
1A fetus, a yavam, consecration, a deaf-mute, and a child of nine years old disqualify [a woman] from partaking of terumah, but do not entitle her to partake [of it].1This statement is explained in the halachot that follow.
ב׳הָעֻבָּר כֵּיצַד. בַּת יִשְׂרָאֵל הַמְעֻבֶּרֶת מִכֹּהֵן לֹא תֹּאכַל בִּשְׁבִיל הָעֻבָּר. וּבַת כֹּהֵן הַמְעֻבֶּרֶת מִיִּשְׂרָאֵל אֲסוּרָה לֶאֱכל מִפְּנֵי הָעֻבָּר. שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (ויקרא כב יג) "וְשָׁבָה אֶל בֵּית אָבִיהָ כִּנְעוּרֶיהָ" פְּרָט לִמְעֻבֶּרֶת:
2What is meant [by the above statement] with regard to a fetus? A daughter of an Israelite who was impregnated by a priest2Without being married to the priest or after being widowed from him. is not entitled to partake of terumah by virtue of the fetus.3I.e., as soon as the baby is born, the mother is entitled to eat by virtue of her child. Until it is born, however, the restrictions apply. When the daughter of a priest, by contrast, was impregnated by an Israelite,4Without being married to the priest or after being widowed from him. she is prohibited against partaking of terumah because of the fetus. [This is derived from Leviticus 22:13:] "And she shall return to her father's home as in her maidenhood." This excludes a pregnant woman.5Rashi (Yevamot 67b) explains that a pregnant woman is excluded, because she does not resemble a maiden.
ג׳בַּת כֹּהֵן שֶׁבָּא עָלֶיהָ יִשְׂרָאֵל אֵין חוֹשְׁשִׁין שֶׁמָּא נִתְעַבְּרָה אֶלָּא טוֹבֶלֶת וְאוֹכֶלֶת לָעֶרֶב. הָיְתָה נְשׂוּאָה לְיִשְׂרָאֵל וּמֵת בַּעְלָהּ טוֹבֶלֶת וְאוֹכֶלֶת בִּתְרוּמָה לָעֶרֶב עַד אַרְבָּעִים יוֹם. וְאִם הֻכַּר עֻבָּרָהּ הֲרֵי זוֹ מְקֻלְקֶלֶת לְמַפְרֵעַ עַד אַרְבָּעִים יוֹם. שֶׁכָּל הָאַרְבָּעִים יוֹם אֵינוֹ עֻבָּר אֶלָּא מַיִם בָּעוֹלָם הוּא חָשׁוּב:
3When an Israelite has relations with a daughter of a priest,6Without being married to the priest or after being widowed from him. we do not suspect that she became pregnant. Instead, she may immerse herself [in the mikveh]7To purify herself from the impurity she contracted because of the relations in which she engaged (see Leviticus 15:18 . Note, however, Chapter 7, Halachah 7, and notes, from which it is apparent that there are times when a woman will have to wait longer. and partake [of terumah] in the evening. If she was married to an Israelite and her husband died, she may immerse herself and partake of terumah in the evening [and continue doing so] for 40 days.8For even if she became pregnant, the pregnancy is not significant as the Rambam continues to explain. Hence, after 40 days passed, she should refrain from partaking of terumah until it is clear that she is not pregnant. If her fetus is recognized [afterwards], retroactively, her [actions] are objectionable9She is required to make restoration of the terumah and add a fifth of its value as atonement. from the fortieth day onward. For, throughout the forty days, the embryo is not considered as a fetus, merely as water.
ד׳בַּת יִשְׂרָאֵל שֶׁנִּשֵּׂאת לְכֹהֵן וּמֵת וְהִנִּיחָהּ מְעֻבֶּרֶת לֹא יֹאכְלוּ עֲבָדֶיהָ בִּתְרוּמָה בִּשְׁבִיל הָעֻבָּר. שֶׁהַיְלוּד הוּא שֶׁמַּאֲכִיל שֶׁאֵינוֹ יְלוּד אֵינוֹ מַאֲכִיל. לְפִיכָךְ אִם הָיָה הָעֻבָּר חָלָל אֵינוֹ פּוֹסֵל הָעֲבָדִים אֶלָּא אוֹכְלִין בִּגְלַל אֶחָיו הַכְּשֵׁרִים עַד שֶׁיִּוָּלֵד זֶה הֶחָלָל וְיֵאָסְרוּ הָעֲבָדִים מִלֶּאֱכֹל:
4When a daughter of an Israelite was married to a priest and he died, leaving her pregnant,10Without any other children. her servants11She herself may also not partake of terumah, as stated in Halachah 2. This halachah is speaking about her servants that are nichsei tzon barzel and thus belong to the heirs of her husband's estate. Until the fetus is born, it is not a significant entity and the servants that belong to it do not have the right to partake of terumah because of it. should not partake of terumah because of the fetus. For only a child that was born entitles others to partake [of terumah]. One which is not born does not entitle others to partake [of terumah]. Therefore if the fetus was a challal [and the woman had other acceptable children, the fetus] does not disqualify the servants from partaking of terumah.12The Ra'avad differs with the Rambam concerning this point and maintains that the right of the fetus to the servants is significant even before the fetus is born. Hence, he disqualifies them from partaking of terumah. The Radbaz and the Kessef Mishneh offer interpretations of the relevant Talmudic portions that substantiate the Rambam's ruling. Instead, they may partake of it by virtue of his brothers who are acceptable priests until this challal is born, at which point, the servants become forbidden to partake [of terumah].13Until the estate is divided and each brother receives his share.
ה׳הַיָּבָם כֵּיצַד. בַּת יִשְׂרָאֵל הַזְּקוּקָה לְיָבָם כֹּהֵן לֹא תֹּאכַל שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (ויקרא כב יא) "וְכֹהֵן כִּי יִקְנֶה נֶפֶשׁ" וְזֶה עֲדַיִן לֹא קְנָאָהּ. וּבַת כֹּהֵן הַזְּקוּקָה לְיִשְׂרָאֵל אֲסוּרָה מִפְּנֵי יְבָמָהּ שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (ויקרא כב יג) "וְשָׁבָה אֶל בֵּית אָבִיהָ כִּנְעוּרֶיהָ" פְּרָט לְשׁוֹמֶרֶת יָבָם:
5What is meant [by the initial statement] with regard to a yavam? When a daughter of an Israelite is under the obligation to perform yibbum with a priest,14Regardless of the age of the prospective yavam. she may not partake of terumah, for [ibid.:11] states: "When a priest will purchase a soul" and this [yavam] has not acquired [the woman] yet.15Although she was married to the brother of the yavam, the yavam does not acquire her until he performs yibbum. The Radbaz emphasizes that this ruling applies even if the yavam gave her a ma'amar, designating her as his wife.When the daughter of a priest is under the obligation to perform yibbum with an Israelite, she is forbidden [to partake of terumah]16Which, were she not obligated to her yavam, she could partake of by virtue of her membership in the priestly family. because of her yavam, as [implied by the verse:] "And she shall return to her father's home as in her maidenhood." This excludes a woman under obligation to perform yibbum.17Rashi (loc. cit. 67b) explains that such a woman is excluded, because she may not return to her father's home.
ו׳יָבָם כֹּהֵן שֶׁבָּא עַל יְבִמְתּוֹ בְּאֹנֶס אוֹ בִּשְׁגָגָה אוֹ שֶׁהֶעֱרָה בָּהּ וְלֹא גָּמַר אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁקְּנָאָהּ כְּמוֹ שֶׁבֵּאַרְנוּ בְּהִלְכוֹת יִבּוּם אֵינוֹ מַאֲכִילָהּ בִּתְרוּמָה עַד שֶׁיִּבְעל בְּעִילָה גְּמוּרָה בְּרָצוֹן. בַּמֶּה דְּבָרִים אֲמוּרִים שֶׁנִּתְאַלְמְנָה מִן הָאֵרוּסִין. אֲבָל מִן הַנִּשּׂוּאִין הוֹאִיל וְהָיְתָה אוֹכֶלֶת תֹּאכַל בְּבִיאָה זוֹ:
6When a yavam who is a priest engages in relations with his yevamah by force or without intent or he merely uncovers her and does not complete the act of intercourse,18As stated in Hilchot Issurei Bi'ah 1:10, the term "uncover" is of Biblical origin (Leviticus 20:18 and refers to the insertion of the corona alone in the woman's vaginal channel. "Completing relations" refers to the insertion of the entire male organ. he acquires [his yevamah], as stated in Hilchot Yibbum.19Hilchot Yibbum VeChalitzah 2:3. Nevertheless, he does not entitle her to partake of terumah until he completes the act of intercourse with her consent.When does the above apply? When [the yevamah] was widowed after consecration [alone].20And thus was not yet entitled to partake of terumah by virtue of her initial marriage. If, however, she had been married, since she had been partaking of terumah previously,21I.e., during her first marriage. she is entitled to partake of it by virtue of [the inferior] acts of intimacy mentioned above.
ז׳הָאֵרוּסִין כֵּיצַד. בַּת כֹּהֵן שֶׁנִּתְאָרְסָה לְיִשְׂרָאֵל אֲסוּרָה לֶאֱכל שֶׁהֲרֵי יֵשׁ לוֹ בָּהּ קִנְיָן. וּבַת יִשְׂרָאֵל שֶׁנִּתְאָרְסָה לְכֹהֵן לֹא תֹּאכַל עַד שֶׁתִּכָּנֵס לַחֻפָּה שֶׁמָּא תַּאֲכִיל לִבְנֵי בֵּית אָבִיהָ כְּמוֹ שֶׁבֵּאַרְנוּ:
7What is meant [by the initial statement] with regard to a consecration? When a daughter of a priest is consecrated by an Israelite, she is forbidden to partake [of terumah], for he has already acquired her. When the daughter of an Israelite has been consecrated by a priest, she may not partake [of terumah] until she enters the chupah, lest she give terumah to the members of her father's household, as we explained.22Chapter 6, Halachah 3, explains that the Sages forbade such a woman from partaking of terumah for this reason. According to Scriptural Law, she is entitled to partake of it.
ח׳יִשְׂרָאֵל שֶׁאָמַר לְכֹהֶנֶת הֲרֵי אַתְּ מְקֻדֶּשֶׁת לִי אַחַר שְׁלֹשִׁים יוֹם הֲרֵי זוֹ אוֹכֶלֶת בִּתְרוּמָה כָּל הַשְּׁלֹשִׁים שֶׁעֲדַיִן לֹא נִתְאָרְסָה. וְאִם אָמַר לָהּ הֲרֵי אַתְּ מְקֻדֶּשֶׁת לִי מֵעַכְשָׁו וּלְאַחַר שְׁלֹשִׁים יוֹם הֲרֵי זוֹ אֲסוּרָה לֶאֱכל מִיָּד וְכֵן שְׁאָר הַתְּנָאִים כַּיּוֹצֵא בָּזֶה:
8When an Israelite tells the daughter of a priest: "Behold, you are consecrated to me after 30 days," she may partake [of terumah] for these 30 days,23By virtue of her ancestral right. for the consecration has not taken effect yet.24When a woman's husband words his statement in that manner, the consecration does not take effect until the 30 days pass (Hilchot Ishut 7:10). If, however, he told her: "You are consecrated to me from the present and after 30 days,"25In which instance, the wording he uses is confusing and there is a doubt whether the consecration takes effect immediately or only after 30 days (ibid.:12). she is forbidden to partake [of terumah] immediately.26Because of the doubt regarding her status. Similar laws apply with regard to other conditional agreements of this type.27I.e., if the man consecrated the woman conditionally, but stated that when the condition is fulfilled, the consecration would take effect from the present time (see ibid.: 6:16).
ט׳הַחֵרֵשׁ כֵּיצַד. כֹּהֶנֶת שֶׁנִּשֵּׂאת לְיִשְׂרָאֵל חֵרֵשׁ לֹא תֹּאכַל שֶׁהֲרֵי קוֹנֶה בְּתַקָּנַת חֲכָמִים שֶׁתִּקְּנוּ לוֹ נִשּׂוּאִין. וּבַת יִשְׂרָאֵל שֶׁנִּשֵּׂאת לְכֹהֵן חֵרֵשׁ לֹא תֹּאכַל שֶׁאֵינוֹ קוֹנֶה מִן הַתּוֹרָה שֶׁאֵינוֹ בֶּן דַּעַת:
9What is meant [by the initial statement] with regard to a deaf-mute? When a daughter of a priest is married to an Israelite who is a deaf-mute, she may not partake [of terumah], since he acquires her by virtue of the ordinance of our Sages who instituted marriage for him.28According to Scriptural Law, a deaf-mute does not have the capacity to consecrate a woman as his wife. Our Sages, however, desired that these individuals be given a chance to enjoy the basics of family life (see Hilchot Ishut 4:9, 11:4). When a daughter of an Israelite marries a priest who is a deaf-mute, she may not partake [of terumah], because he does not acquire [her] according to Scriptural Law,29And the acquisition ordained by our Sages does not have the power to supercede Scriptural Law. because he is not of [adequate] intellectual capacity.
י׳נִתְאָרְסָה לְכֹהֵן פִּקֵּחַ וְלֹא הִסְפִּיק לְכָנְסָהּ עַד שֶׁנִּתְחָרֵשׁ אֵינָהּ אוֹכֶלֶת. מֵת וְנָפְלָה לִפְנֵי יָבָם חֵרֵשׁ וְיִבְּמָהּ אֵינָהּ אוֹכֶלֶת. אֲבָל אִם נְשָׂאָהּ כְּשֶׁהוּא פִּקֵּחַ וְנִתְחָרֵשׁ הֲרֵי זוֹ אוֹכֶלֶת. מֵת וְנָפְלָה לִפְנֵי יָבָם חֵרֵשׁ וְיִבְּמָהּ הֲרֵי זוֹ אוֹכֶלֶת הוֹאִיל וְהָיְתָה אוֹכֶלֶת בַּתְּחִלָּה. וְאֵשֶׁת חֵרֵשׁ שֶׁיָּלְדָה מִמֶּנּוּ הֲרֵי זוֹ אוֹכֶלֶת בִּשְׁבִיל בְּנָהּ:
10[When a woman] was consecrated by a priest of ordinary mental capacity, but he did not marry her until he became a deaf-mute, she may not partake [of terumah].30For her consecration did not entitle her to partake of terumah and her marriage to a deaf-mute (through yibbum) does not give her this right either. [In the above situation, if after consecrating a woman, a priest] died and she fell before a yavam who is a deaf-mute, she may not partake [of terumah].31In this instance, the yibbum performed by the deaf-mute creates a marriage-bond that is effective according to Scriptural Law. Nevertheless, the relations with which he engages with her resemble the inadvertent relations mentioned in Halachah 6 and hence do not entitle the woman to partake of terumah. If, however, he married her when he was of ordinary mental capacity and then became a deaf-mute, she may [continue] to partake [of terumah].32For she is married according to Scriptural Law. If he died and she fell before a yavam who is a deaf-mute and he performs yibbum with her, she may [also continue to] partake [of terumah]. [The rationale for the leniency is] that she was partaking of terumah beforehand.33And the relations with the yavam restore her to her previous status.When the wife of [a priest who is] a deaf-mute bears him a child, she may partake [of terumah] by virtue of her child.
י״אבֶּן תֵּשַׁע שָׁנִים וְיוֹם אֶחָד כֵּיצַד. מִי שֶׁנִּבְעֲלָה לְאָסוּר לָהּ וְהוּא בֶּן תֵּשַׁע שָׁנִים וְיוֹם אֶחָד הוֹאִיל וּבִיאָתוֹ בִּיאָה נִפְסְלָה מִן הַכְּהֻנָּה וַאֲסוּרָה מִלֶּאֱכל בִּתְרוּמָה מִפְּנֵי שֶׁנַּעֲשֵׂית זוֹנָה אוֹ חֲלָלָה כְּמוֹ שֶׁבֵּאַרְנוּ. אֲפִלּוּ הָיָה שָׁחוּף. וּבַת יִשְׂרָאֵל שֶׁנִּשֵּׂאת לְכֹהֵן בֶּן תֵּשַׁע שָׁנִים וְיוֹם אֶחָד אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁבִּיאָתוֹ בִּיאָה אֵינָהּ אוֹכֶלֶת בִּשְׁבִיל הַקָּטָן לְפִי שֶׁאֵינוֹ קוֹנֶה עַד שֶׁיַּגְדִּיל. סָפֵק שֶׁהוּא בֶּן תֵּשַׁע שָׁנִים וְיוֹם אֶחָד סָפֵק שֶׁאֵינוֹ. נִשֵּׂאת לְבֶן שְׁלֹשׁ עֶשְׂרֵה שָׁנָה וְיוֹם אֶחָד סָפֵק שֶׁהֵבִיא שְׁתֵּי שְׂעָרוֹת סָפֵק שֶׁלֹּא הֵבִיא. הֲרֵי זוֹ אֲסוּרָה לֶאֱכל:
11What is meant [by the initial statement] with regard to a child of nine years old?34The Rambam speaks about a boy "nine years and one day old." Nevertheless, the intent is that he has completed nine years of life and entered his tenth year. Even a portion of a day is considered as an entire day. Thus as soon as a child reaches his ninth birthday, he is nine years and one day old. Hence, for the purpose of brevity, we have translated as above. [When a daughter of a priest] engaged in relations with a child of nine years old who is forbidden to her, since sexual relations in which he engages are significant,35Although such a child is a minor and not entirely sexually potent, at this age, he is somewhat physically mature. Hence, relations in which he engage are significant to a certain extent. See Hilchot Ishut 11:3; Hilchot Yibbum 1:16; Hilchot Issurei Bi'ah 1:13. she is disqualified from the priesthood and forbidden to partake of terumah, because she becomes a zonah or a chalalah, as we explained.36See Chapter 6, Halachah 7. [This applies] even if [the child] is sexually impotent.37I.e., and he inserted his organ in hers without an erection. The Radbaz explains that this is the fundamental new concept taught by this halachah. Otherwise, it would be obvious that since relations with this child are significant and they are forbidden to this woman, they disqualify her from partaking of terumah.When a daughter of an Israelite marries a priest who is nine years old, even though the relations in which he engages are significant, she is not entitled to partake of terumah because of [this] child, because he cannot acquire her [as his wife] until he reaches majority.38For a male cannot acquire a wife until he reaches majority. Such a marriage is not significant even according to Rabbinic Law (Hilchot Ishut 11:6-7).If there is a doubt whether [a child forbidden to a daughter of a priest] is nine years old39In which instance, she would be forbidden to partake of terumah. or not,40In which instance, she would be permitted. she is forbidden to partake [of terumah].41Because of the doubt. [This same ruling applies] if she married a boy thirteen years old and there was a question whether he manifested physical signs of maturity or not.42For a child does not reach maturity - and hence, a marriage that he enters is not significant - until he manifests bodily signs, two pubic hairs for a male, that he has reached maturity. Attaining the age of maturity is itself not sufficient (Hilchot Ishut 2:10-11).Seemingly, this clause is also speaking about an instance where the daughter of a priest is marrying a youth who disqualifies her and the question is whether he is of sufficient physical maturity for the marriage to be significant. In that instance, however, it would be proper to speak of consecration, not marriage. For this reason, Rav Yosef Korcus defines this clause as referring to a daughter of an Israelite who is marrying a priest and the question is whether the marriage entitles her to partake of terumah or not.
י״בכָּל אֵלּוּ כְּשֵׁם שֶׁאֵין מַאֲכִילִין בִּתְרוּמָה שֶׁל תּוֹרָה כָּךְ אֵין מַאֲכִילִין בִּתְרוּמָה שֶׁל דִּבְרֵיהֶם גְּזֵרָה שֶׁמָּא יַאֲכִילוּ בְּשֶׁל תּוֹרָה:
12All of the relationships [mentioned above] that do not entitle a woman to partake of terumah prescribed by Scriptural Law also do not entitle her to partake of terumah prescribed by Rabbinic Law. [This is] a decree lest they have them partake of terumah prescribed by Scriptural Law.
י״גוְאֵלּוּ לֹא פּוֹסְלִין וְלֹא מַאֲכִילִין. הָאוֹנֵס. וְהַמְפַתֶּה. וְהַשּׁוֹטֶה שֶׁנָּשָׂא אִשָּׁה. אֶלָּא אִם כֵּן הָיְתָה אֲסוּרָה לָהֶן שֶׁהֵן פּוֹסְלִין אוֹתָהּ בְּבִיאָתָם מִפְּנֵי שֶׁנַּעֲשֵׂית זוֹנָה וַחֲלָלָה כְּמוֹ שֶׁבֵּאַרְנוּ:
13The [following] individuals neither disqualify [the daughter of a priest from partaking of terumah]43If the individual involved is an Israelite fit to marry this woman. or enable [the daughter of an Israelite] to partake of it:44If the individual involved is a priest.a rapist, a seducer,45I.e., one who seduced a girl under majority. In that instance, even though the relations were with consent, since the girl is a minor, they are considered to have been carried out against her will. or a mentally or emotionally unstable person.46In the first two instances, since the relations were carried out outside the context of marriage, they are not significant with regard to terumah. In the latter instance, since the marriage of an intellectual or emotionally unstable person is of no significance whatsoever (Hilchot Ishut 11:6), the relations are considered as taking place outside the context of marriage. [This applies] provided she is not forbidden to them, in which instance, they disqualify her through relations, because she becomes a zonah or a chalalah, as we explained.47See Chapter 6, Halachah 7. In such an instance, the woman is disqualified even if the relations were carried out under duress.
י״דמִי שֶׁנִּשֵּׂאת לְכֹהֵן שׁוֹטֶה אוֹ שֶׁאָנַס אוֹתָהּ אוֹ שֶׁפִּתָּה אוֹתָהּ כֹּהֵן וְיָלְדָה אוֹכֶלֶת בִּשְׁבִיל בְּנָהּ. וְאַף עַל פִּי שֶׁהַדָּבָר סָפֵק הוֹאִיל וּבְלֹא קִדּוּשִׁין הִיא שֶׁמָּא מֵאַחֵר נִתְעַבְּרָה הֲרֵי הַוָּלָד בְּחֶזְקַת זֶה שֶׁבָּא עָלֶיהָ. וְהוּא שֶׁלֹּא יָצָא עָלֶיהָ קוֹל עִם אַחֵר אֶלָּא הַכּל מְרַנְּנִין אַחֲרֶיהָ בְּזֶה הַכֹּהֵן. וְכֵן כֹּהֶנֶת שֶׁבָּא עָלֶיהָ יִשְׂרָאֵל שׁוֹטֶה אוֹ שֶׁאֲנָסָהּ אוֹ פִּתָּה אוֹתָהּ וְנִתְעַבְּרָה אֵינָהּ אוֹכֶלֶת מִפְּנֵי הָעֻבָּר. נִתְחַתֵּךְ הָעֻבָּר הֲרֵי זוֹ תֹּאכַל:
14When a woman married a priest who was intellectually or emotionally unstable or a priest raped her or seduced her and she bore him a child, she may partake of terumah because of her son.48Since he is a priest, he entitles his mother to partake of terumah. See Chapter 6, Halachah 12. There is a doubt concerning the matter, for since she was not consecrated to him, it is possible that she was impregnated by another person. Nevertheless, we operate under the presumption that the child was conceived by [the priest] who engaged in relations with her. [This applies] provided rumors did not circulate concerning her with another person. Instead, everyone gossips about her and this priest.Similar concepts apply when an Israelite who is intellectually or emotionally unstable engages in relations with the daughter of a priest or [an Israelite] raped or seduced her and she became pregnant. She may not partake of terumah because of the fetus. If the fetus is aborted, she may partake [of terumah].49I.e., she resumes her previous status.
ט״ואֵשֶׁת אִישׁ שֶׁבָּאוּ עָלֶיהָ עֵדֵי קִנּוּי וְעֵדֵי סְתִירָה הֲרֵי זוֹ אֲסוּרָה לֶאֱכל בִּתְרוּמָה עַד שֶׁתִּשְׁתֶּה מֵי הַמָּרִים מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהִיא סְפֵק זוֹנָה. מֵת בַּעְלָהּ קֹדֶם שֶׁיַּשְׁקֶנָּה. אוֹ שֶׁהָיְתָה מִן הַנָּשִׁים שֶׁאֵינָן שׁוֹתוֹת וְלֹא נוֹטְלוֹת כְּתֻבָּה. הֲרֵי זוֹ אֲסוּרָה לֶאֱכל בִּתְרוּמָה לְעוֹלָם. וְכָל אֵשֶׁת כֹּהֵן שֶׁאָמְרָה טְמֵאָה אֲנִי הֲרֵי זוֹ אֲסוּרָה לֶאֱכל בִּתְרוּמָה:
15When witnesses concerning a [sotah] warning and witnesses concerning [a sotah] meeting testify against a woman50A sotah is a woman suspected of adultery who is subjected to a test of her fidelity by drinking special water, the "bitter water" mentioned by the Rambam, prepared in the Temple. For a woman to be required to take this test, two witnesses must testify that she was warned by her husband not to enter into privacy with a particular man and two witnesses must testify that she in fact entered into privacy with the said person (Hilchot Sotah 1:1). married [to a priest], she is forbidden to partake of terumah until she drinks the bitter water, because there is a question whether she is a zonah. If her husband dies before she drinks the water or she is one of the women who are absolved from drinking51See Hilchot Sotah 2:2 which mentions fifteen women that are placed in this category. and do not receive the money due them by virtue of their ketubah, she is forbidden to partake of terumah forever.52For the sotah test is necessary to very whether or not she was faithful to her husband and that test is not administered unless the husband is alive (ibid. 2:7). Whenever the wife of a priest says: "I have been unfaithful," she is forbidden to partake of terumah.53This is not speaking about a sotah, but rather an ordinary woman married to a priest.Hilchot Ishut 24:23 states that, in this situation, we do not accept the woman's word and we require her to remain married to her husband, for we suspect that she was not unfaithful and made this statement only so that she would be divorced and free to marry someone else. Nevertheless, her word is accepted with regard to terumah and her husband must provide her with other food.
ט״זקְטַנָּה בַּת יִשְׂרָאֵל שֶׁנִּשֵּׂאת לְכֹהֵן שֶׁלֹּא מִדַּעַת אָבִיהָ בֵּין בִּפְנֵי אָבִיהָ בֵּין שֶׁלֹּא בְּפָנָיו אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁקִּדְּשָׁהּ אָבִיהָ אֵינָהּ אוֹכֶלֶת בִּתְרוּמָה. שֶׁאִם מִחָה תֵּעָשֶׂה זָרָה לְמַפְרֵעַ. וְזֶה שֶׁרוֹאֶה וְשׁוֹתֵק כּוֹעֵס הוּא לְפִי שֶׁנִּשֵּׂאת שֶׁלֹּא לְדַעְתּוֹ:
16When a daughter of an Israelite who has not attained majority marries a priest without her father's consent, whether in his presence or in his absence, she may not partake of terumah even though her father consecrated her.54Until a girl attains majority, she cannot marry without her father's consent. Thus it is as if the marriage is conditional until he consents and if he does not consent, it is nullified (Hilchot Ishut 3:13, 22:5). Hence, we do no allow her to partake of terumah, for if the marriage is nullified, she would have no right to partake of terumah. [The rationale is that] her father might object and then she would retroactively be unfit [to partake of terumah]. [The reason] he remains silent even though he sees is because he is angry because she married without his consent.55And does not desire to speak his mind until he calms down.
ט׳
א׳הָאִשָׁה אוֹכֶלֶת בִּתְרוּמָה עַד שֶׁיַּגִּיעַ גֵּט לְיָדָהּ אוֹ לְיַד שְׁלוּחָהּ שֶׁעָשְׂתָה לְקַבָּלָה. וְכָל שֶׁהִיא סְפֵק גְּרוּשָׁה הֲרֵי זוֹ לֹא תֹּאכַל. הָאִשָּׁה שֶׁעָשְׂתָה שָׁלִיחַ לְקַבֵּל לָהּ גִּטָּהּ אֲסוּרָה לֶאֱכל בִּתְרוּמָה מִיָּד. וְאִם אָמְרָה קַבֵּל לִי גִּטִּי בְּמָקוֹם פְּלוֹנִי אֵינָהּ אֲסוּרָה עַד שֶׁיַּגִּיעַ שָׁלִיחַ לְאוֹתוֹ מָקוֹם. שָׁלְחָה שָׁלִיחַ לְהָבִיא לָהּ גִּטָּהּ אוֹכֶלֶת בִּתְרוּמָה עַד שֶׁיַּגִּיעַ גֵּט לְיָדָהּ. הָאוֹמֵר לְאִשְׁתּוֹ הֲרֵי זֶה גִּטֵּךְ שָׁעָה אַחַת קֹדֶם לְמִיתָתִי אֲסוּרָה לֶאֱכל בִּתְרוּמָה מִיָּד:
1A woman may partake of terumah until her bill of divorce reaches her hand or the hand of her agent whom she appointed to receive it.1This latter point requires qualification as the Rambam proceeds to state.Whenever there is a doubt whether or not a woman was divorced, she may not partake of terumah.2For a Scriptural prohibition is involved and we follow the general principle: Whenever there is a question regarding a point of Scriptural Law, we rule stringently. Hence, even though her husband is liable to provide her with her sustenance in such a situation (Hilchot Ishut 5:13), he may not give her terumah. When a woman appoints an agent to receive her bill of divorce, she is forbidden to partake of terumah immediately.3This is a corollary to the point mentioned beforehand. Since a woman is forbidden to partake of terumah whenever there is a doubt that she was divorced, she is forbidden as soon as she appoints her agent, for at any time, he may receive her bill of divorce. Even though the matter is not entirely in the agent's hands, for the bill of divorce must be given on the husband's initiative, we follow the presumption that the agent will fulfill the mission with which he is charged (Radbaz). If she said: "Receive the bill of divorce for me in this-and-this place," she is not forbidden [to partake of terumah] until the agent reaches that place.4For the bill of divorce is not effective if given elsewhere (Hilchot Gerushin 9:34).If she sent an agent to bring her the bill of divorce, she may partake of terumah until the bill of divorce reaches her hand.5For in this instance, the agent is acting in place of the husband and the divorce is not completed until he gives the woman the bill of divorce (ibid. 6:5). When a person tells his wife: "This is your bill of divorce; [it is effective] one hour before my death"6Such an arrangement was often made when a couple were childless so that if the husband died the woman would be free of the obligation of yibbum. she is forbidden to partake of terumah immediately.7For we fear that he might die at any moment. Hence, from the previous hour onward, she would have partaken of terumah without having the right to do so.
ב׳עִיר שֶׁהִקִּיפוּהָ כַּרְקוֹם וּסְפִינָה הַמִּטָּרֶפֶת בַּיָּם וְהַיּוֹצֵא לִדּוֹן הֲרֵי אֵלּוּ בְּחֶזְקַת קַיָּמִין. וְאֵין צָרִיךְ לוֹמַר מְפָרֵשׁ וְיוֹצֵא בְּשַׁיָּרָא. אֲבָל עִיר שֶׁכְּבָשׁוּהָ כַּרְקוֹם וּסְפִינָה שֶׁאָבְדָה בַּיָּם וְהַיּוֹצֵא לֵהָרֵג מִבָּתֵּי דִּינֵי עַכּוּ"ם וּמִי שֶׁגְּרָרַתּוּ חַיָּה אוֹ נָפְלָה עָלָיו מַפּלֶת אוֹ שְׁטָפוֹ נָהָר נוֹתְנִין לוֹ חֻמְרֵי מֵתִים וְחֻמְרֵי חַיִּים. לְפִיכָךְ אִם הָיוּ נְשׁוֹתֵיהֶן בַּת כֹּהֵן לְיִשְׂרָאֵל אוֹ בַּת יִשְׂרָאֵל לְכֹהֵן הֲרֵי אֵלּוּ לֹא יֹאכְלוּ. אֲבָל מִי שֶׁנִּגְמַר דִּינוֹ בְּבֵית דִּין וְהִנִּיחוּהוּ בְּבֵית הַסְּקִילָה לֵהָרֵג הֲרֵי זֶה בְּחֶזְקַת מֵת וְלֹא תֹּאכַל אִשְׁתּוֹ:
2[The inhabitants of] a city under siege, [the voyagers on] a ship in danger of sinking at sea, and a suspect to be judged [for a crime worthy of capital punishment] are presumed to be alive.8And if they are priests, their wives may continue partaking of terumah. Needless to say, this applies to one who goes on a caravan journey.9We are speaking about a caravan journey through the desert. Although there is a certain amount of danger to the travelers, we operate under the presumption that they are alive until we receive information otherwise.[In the following instances,] however: a city was captured by besieging forces, a ship was lost at sea, or a person was going out to be executed by a gentile court,10The officers of a gentile court are likely to accept bribes. Hence, the fact that one was sentenced to death is not necessarily proof that he died. a person dragged by a wild beast, one upon whom a landslide fell, or one carried away by a river, we regard the individuals with the stringencies appropriate to both the living and the dead.11In these situations, there is a high likelihood - but no definite proof that the person died. Hence, his wife must assume that he is dead and accept all the stringencies that state would apply. At the same time, she cannot act on the assumption that he is dead and remarry. The Rambam continues explaining the implications of this status vis-à-vis terumah. Therefore if among the women were the daughter of a priest married to an Israelite12She must presume her husband is alive and may not partake of terumah for that reason. or the daughter of an Israelite married to a priest,13She must presume her husband is dead and may not partake of terumah for that reason. they may not partake [of terumah].If, however, a person was sentenced to death in a [Jewish] court and was taken to the place where he will be stoned,14A person sentenced to be executed may be given a reprieve from execution if a redeeming factor is found for him (Hilchot Sanhedrin 13:1). Nevertheless, once he has already been brought to the place of execution, it is very unlikely that this will happen (Kessef Mishneh). we presume that he is dead and his wife may not partake [of terumah].15I.e., if she is the daughter of an Israelite married to a priest. If she is the daughter of a priest married to an Israelite, she may partake of terumah.
ג׳הִנִּיחָה בַּעְלָהּ גּוֹסֵס בִּמְדִינָה אַחֶרֶת בֵּין שֶׁהָיְתָה כֹּהֶנֶת אֵשֶׁת יִשְׂרָאֵל אוֹ יִשְׂרְאֵלִית אֵשֶׁת כֹּהֵן לֹא תֹּאכַל שֶׁרֹב גּוֹסְסִין לְמִיתָה. אֶחָד אוֹמֵר מֵת וְאֶחָד אוֹמֵר לֹא מֵת הֲרֵי זוֹ לֹא תֹּאכַל:
3If a woman left her husband while he was in his death throes in another country, she may not partake of terumah, whether she is the daughter of a priest married to an Israelite or the daughter of an Israelite married to a priest. [The rationale is that] most people in their death throes die.16Hence, the daughter of the Israelite may not partake of terumah. On the other hand, not all die. Hence, since a daughter of the priest married to an Israelite was not partaking of terumah beforehand, this is not considered sufficient reason to allow her to do so (Radbaz).If one witness testifies that [a woman's husband] has died and one testifies that he has not died, she may not partake [of terumah].17Although a woman is not given permission to remarry in such an instance (Hilchot Gerushin 12:18), she is still not permitted to partake of terumah.
ד׳אָמְרָה לָהּ צָרָתָהּ אוֹ אַחַת מֵהֶחָמֵשׁ נָשִׁים שֶׁאֵינָן נֶאֱמָנוֹת לְהָעִידָהּ שֶׁמֵּת בַּעְלָהּ הוֹאִיל וְאֵינָהּ נִשֵּׂאת עַל פִּיהֶן הֲרֵי זוֹ אוֹכֶלֶת בִּתְרוּמָה בְּחֶזְקַת שֶׁבַּעְלָהּ קַיָּם. עַד שֶׁיָּעִיד לָהּ מִי שֶׁהוּא נֶאֱמָן לְהַשִּׂיאָהּ עַל פִּיו:
4[When a man is married to two wives and] one of the wives tells the other that their husband died, since [the other wife] cannot marry by virtue of this testimony,18Hilchot Gerushin 12:16 states that, if no one contradicts the testimony, whenever a witness testifies that a woman's husband died, his or her word is accepted with the exception of five women: another wife of that man, a woman who is her husband's yevamah, the woman's mother-in-law, her mother-in-law's daughter, and her husband's daughter from another wife. In all these instances, we fear that there is enmity between these women and the man's wife and they will testify falsely so that she will marry another man and hence, be forced to accept a divorce from her husband. she may continue to partake of terumah19The Ra'avad does not accept the Rambam's ruling and maintains that even though the woman is not allowed to remarry, she should not be allowed to partake of terumah. For perhaps these women are telling the truth. The Radbaz supports the Rambam's ruling. on the presumption that her husband is alive until a person upon whose testimony is sufficient to enable her to marry testifies concerning her. [The same ruling applies] if such testimony is given by any of the five women whose testimony is not accepted if they say that her husband died.20Hilchot Gerushin 12:16 states that, if no one contradicts the testimony, whenever a witness testifies that a woman's husband died, his or her word is accepted with the exception of five women: another wife of that man, a woman who is her husband's yevamah, the woman's mother-in-law, her mother-in-law's daughter, and her husband's daughter from another wife. In all these instances, we fear that there is enmity between these women and the man's wife and they will testify falsely so that she will marry another man and hence, be forced to accept a divorce from her husband.
ה׳הַמְשַׁחְרֵר אֶת עַבְדּוֹ מִשֶּׁיְּזַכֶּה לוֹ בְּגֵט שִׁחְרוּר פְּסָלוֹ מִלֶּאֱכל בִּתְרוּמָה. וְכָל עֶבֶד שֶׁיָּצָא לְחֵרוּת וַעֲדַיִן הוּא מְעֻכָּב גֵּט שִׁחְרוּר כְּמוֹ שֶׁיִּתְבָּאֵר בְּהִלְכוֹת עֲבָדִים אַף עַל פִּי כֵן הֲרֵי הוּא אָסוּר לֶאֱכל בִּתְרוּמָה:
5When [a priest] frees his servant, from the time he transfers21The Rambam's wording allows for the interpretation that this ruling applies whether he gives the bill of emancipation to the servant or to another person on behalf of the servant (see Hilchot Avadim 6:1). his bill of emancipation22The formal legal contract freeing him from slavery. to him, he disqualifies him from partaking of terumah. Whenever a servant is given his freedom, but his bill of emancipation is withheld as will be explained in Hilchot Avadim,23As stated in Hilchot Avadim 5:4, et al, there are certain situations where a servant is deserving of his freedom. Nevertheless, he does not receive the status of a freed servant until he receives his bill of emancipation. Even so, he is forbidden to partake of terumah from the time he becomes worthy of freedom. he is, nonetheless, forbidden to partake of terumah.
ו׳הַכּוֹתֵב נְכָסָיו לְאַחֵר וְזִכָּה לוֹ עַל יְדֵי אַחֵר וְהָיוּ בָּהֶן עֲבָדִים וְשָׁתַק זֶה שֶׁנָּתְנוּ לוֹ וְאַחַר כָּךְ צָוַח הֲרֵי זֶה סָפֵק אִם זֶה שֶׁצָּוַח הוֹכִיחַ סוֹפוֹ עַל תְּחִלָּתוֹ וַעֲדַיִן לֹא יָצְאוּ מֵרְשׁוּת רִאשׁוֹן אוֹ זֶה שֶׁצָּוַח אַחַר שֶׁשָּׁתַק חָזַר בּוֹ. לְפִיכָךְ אֵין אוֹכְלִין בִּתְרוּמָה בֵּין שֶׁהָיָה רַבּוֹ שֵׁנִי יִשְׂרָאֵל וְהָרִאשׁוֹן כֹּהֵן בֵּין שֶׁהָיָה רַבּוֹ רִאשׁוֹן יִשְׂרָאֵל וְהַשֵּׁנִי כֹּהֵן:
6There is a doubt [whether the transfer of the ownership of a servant is effective in the following situation]. A person composed a legal document transferring his property - which included servants - to another person. He [did not give the document to that person directly, but instead] gave it to another person on his behalf.24In such a situation, we say that since generally, it is considered desirable to receive a gift, the intended recipient acquires the property unless he lodges an objection at the time he hears about the gift. See Hilchot Zechiyah UMatanah 4:2. The recipient [of the present] remained silent and afterwards, protested. There is a doubt whether his protests reflected his initial disposition25I.e., that he never desired to receive the present and thus it never left the domain of its initial owner (ibid.:3). and thus [the servants] have never left the initial domain or whether his protest after his initial silence is [interpreted as] a renunciation of his initial position.26And thus, he is considered to have acquired the property - and the servants - and then to have renounced ownership of it and them. Therefore, [the servants] may not partake of terumah. [This applies] whether the second master27The recipient of the present. was an Israelite and the first master, a priest or the first master was an Israelite and the second, a priest.28For in either situation, there is a possibility that their present owner is an Israelite.
ז׳יִשְׂרָאֵל שֶׁשָּׂכַר בְּהֵמָה מִכֹּהֵן מַאֲכִילָהּ תְּרוּמָה וְכֹהֵן שֶׁשָּׂכַר בֶּהֱמַת יִשְׂרָאֵל אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁהוּא חַיָּב בִּמְזוֹנוֹתֶיהָ לֹא יַאֲכִילֶנָּה תְּרוּמָה מִפְּנֵי שֶׁאֵינָהּ (ויקרא כב יא) "קִנְיַן כַּסְפּוֹ":
7When an Israelite rents livestock from a priest, he may feed it terumah.29Because the rental does not interrupt the priests's ownership. The Israelite must, however, transfer ownership of the terumah to the priest before feeding it to the animal. When a priest rents livestock from an Israelite, although he is obligated to provide it with food, he may not feed it terumah, because it is not his financial acquisition.30There are, however, contexts where rental is considered equivalent to purchase. See Hilchot Sechirut 7:1.
ח׳יִשְׂרָאֵל שֶׁשָּׁם פָּרָה מִכֹּהֵן לְפַטְּמָהּ וְלִהְיוֹת הַשֶּׁבַח בֵּינֵיהֶן לֹא יַאֲכִילֶנָּה בִּתְרוּמָה אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁיֵּשׁ לַכֹּהֵן חֵלֶק בְּשִׁבְחָהּ. אֲבָל כֹּהֵן שֶׁשָּׁם פָּרָה מִיִּשְׂרָאֵל לְפַטְּמָהּ אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁיֵּשׁ לְיִשְׂרָאֵל חֵלֶק בַּשֶּׁבַח הוֹאִיל וְגוּפָהּ לַכֹּהֵן שֶׁהֲרֵי שָׁמָהּ עַל עַצְמוֹ הֲרֵי זֶה מַאֲכִילָהּ תְּרוּמָה:
8When an Israelite receives a cow from a priest for the sake of fattening it and has it evaluated so that its increase in value will be split,31This was a popular arrangement in the Talmudic era. The owner of livestock would give it to a shepherd to fatten. The shepherd would have it evaluated and accept responsibility for its value although he did not actually pay the priest anything. Afterwards, when it has been fattened, the value which the shepherd accepted responsibility for is returned to the owner and the two share the profits equally. See Hilchot Shluchin VeShutafim 8:1-4 and Hilchot Malveh ViLoveh 8:12 for more details concerning this arrangement. he may not feed it terumah even though the priest has a share in its increase in value. If, by contrast, a priest receives a cow from an Israelite for the sake of fattening it and has it evaluated, he may feed it terumah. [The rationale is that] although the Israelite has a share in its increase in value, its body belongs to the priest, because he has [accepted responsibility] for its value.
ט׳פָּרָתוֹ שֶׁל יִשְׂרָאֵל שֶׁיָּלְדָה בְּכוֹר מַאֲכִילוֹ תְּרוּמָה. שֶׁהַבְּכוֹר לַכֹּהֲנִים. וְאוֹצֵר אָדָם כַּרְשִׁינֵי תְּרוּמָה לְתוֹךְ שׁוֹבָכוֹ וְאֵינוֹ חוֹשֵׁשׁ שֶׁמָּא יָבוֹאוּ הַיּוֹנִים שֶׁלּוֹ וְיֹאכְלוּ אוֹתָן:
9When a cow belonging to an Israelite gives birth to its firstborn, the owner may feed it terumah, for the firstborn belongs to the priests.32And thus the law mentioned in the first clause of Halachah 7 applies. A person may store vetch33A type of legume used as animal fodder. that is terumah in his dovecote. He need not worry that his doves will come and eat it.34Even a priest may not feed his doves terumah, for terumah may only be given to domesticated animals. Nevertheless, everyone, even Israelites, need not take precautions against an animal eating vetch that is terumah on its own initiative. The Radbaz explains that the rationale is that the obligation to separate terumah from vetch is merely Rabbinic in origin. Implied is that if the obligation was Scriptural in origin, one could not take such leniency. It must be noted, however, that not all authorities consider the obligation to separate terumah from vetch as Rabbinic.
י׳יֵרָאֶה לִי שֶׁאִם מָכַר הַכֹּהֵן פָּרָתוֹ לְיִשְׂרָאֵל וְלָקַח הַדָּמִים אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁעֲדַיִן לֹא מָשַׁךְ הַלּוֹקֵחַ הֲרֵי זֶה אָסוּר לְהַאֲכִילָהּ תְּרוּמָה שֶׁדִּין תּוֹרָה מָעוֹת קוֹנוֹת כְּמוֹ שֶׁיִּתְבָּאֵר בְּהִלְכוֹת מִקָּח וּמִמְכָּר. וְאִם מָכַר יִשְׂרָאֵל לַכֹּהֵן אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁנָּתַן הַדָּמִים לֹא תֹּאכַל בִּתְרוּמָה עַד שֶׁיִּמְשֹׁךְ:
10It appears to me35This introduction precedes a law which the Rambam derived through his own process of deduction without an explicit source in the previous Rabbinic literature. that if a priest sold his cow to an Israelite and took payment, he can no longer feed it terumah even though the purchaser has not drawn it into his domain as of yet. [The rationale is that] according to Scriptural Law, the transfer of money completes a transaction, as will be explained in Hilchot Mekach UMemcar.36Hilchot Mechirah 3:1. There it is explained that the Rabbis required the purchaser to draw the article into his possession for the transaction to be completed. [Conversely,] if an Israelite sold a cow to a priest, he should not feed it terumah until he draws it into his domain37And thus completes the transaction. even though he already made payment.