💾 Archived View for scholasticdiversity.us.to › scriptures › jewish › t › Mishneh%20Torah%2C%20Heave… captured on 2024-03-21 at 15:44:25. Gemini links have been rewritten to link to archived content
-=-=-=-=-=-=-
4 [1] A person may appoint an agent to separate *terumah* and the tithes for him, as [Numbers 18:28] states: "So shall you separate, also you." [The wording implies] the inclusion of an agent. A gentile may not be appointed as an agent, because [the phrase] "also you" [implies an equation between you and your agent]. Just as you are a member of the covenant, your agent must be a member of the covenant. [2] There are five [types of individuals] who should not separate *terumah* and [even] if they do, [the produce] they separated is not considered as *terumah*: A deaf-mute, a mentally or emotionally unstable person, a minor, a gentile who separated *terumah* from produce belonging to a Jew, even with his permission, and a person who separates *terumah* from produce that does not belong to him without the owner's permission. If, however, a person separates *terumah* from his own produce for the produce of others, the produce is *terumah* and [the colleague's] produce has been prepared for use. The satisfaction [of allocating the *terumah*] belongs [to the person who separated it and he may] give to whichever priest he desires. [3] [The following rules apply when a person] separates *terumah* [from a colleague's produce] without permission or descends into his colleague's field and gathered produce without permission so that he could take them [for himself], but separate some as *terumah*. When the owner comes and says: "You should have taken better ones," if there are better ones than those separated as *terumah,* the separation is effective, because [the owner] did not object. If there are not better ones, his separation is not effective, for his statements were made as an objection. If the owner came and gathered produce and added it to the quantity separated, whether he possesses better produce or not, his separation is effective. [4] There are five who should not separate *terumah*, but if they do, their separation is effective:
a person who is deaf, but not mute, because he cannot hear the blessing, a mute who can hear, but not speak and a person who is naked, because they cannot recite the blessing, and a person who is drunk and a blind person, because they cannot make distinctions and separate the most attractive portion [as *terumah*]. [5] When a minor reaches the age when his vows may be of consequence - even though he has not manifested signs of physical maturity and he has not attained majority - separates *terumah*, his separation is of consequence. [This applies] even with regard to *terumah* mandated by Scriptural Law. [The rationale is that] their vows and their consecration [of property] is valid according to Scriptural Law, as explained in *[Hilchot] Nedarim*. [6] When a person tells his agent: "Go and separate *terumah* for me" and he goes to separate *terumah*, but [the principal] does not know whether he [actually] separated *terumah* or not, [even] when he discovers that *terumah* was separated from the granary, we do not assume that [he] separated *terumah*. For with regard to prohibitions, we apply the principle: "An agent can be assumed to have carried out his mission," only when that leads to a stringency, not when it leads to a leniency. [Instead,] we suspect that another person separated the *terumah* without his permission. [7] When a person tells his agent: "Go and separate *terumah*," he should separate according to the temperament of the owner. If he knows that he is parsimonious, he should separate one sixtieth. If he was generous, he should separate one fortieth. If he does not know his temperament, he should make the average separation, one fiftieth. If he intended to make the average separation, but it turned out that he separated one fortieth or one sixtieth, his separation is effective. If he intended to add to the average separation, and he separated even one forty-ninth, his separation is not effective. [8] There is an obligation to separate *terumah* and tithes from produce belonging to partners, for [Numbers 18:28] speaks of "your tithes," [using a plural term,] implying even from two people.
Partners do not have to receive permission from each other. Instead, whenever anyone separates *terumah*, the separation is effective. [The following rules apply when] one of them separated *terumah* and then the other came and separated *terumah*, because he did not know that his colleague had separated it. If they relied on each other, the *terumah* separated by the second is not of consequence. If they did not rely on each other, but the first one separated an appropriate amount, the separation of the second one is of no consequence. If the first did not separate the appropriate amount, the separation of the second one is also of consequence. [9] [The following rules apply when a person] tells his agent, his attendant, his servant, or his maid-servant to separate *terumah* and they went to separate the *terumah*, but he nullified their agency before they made the separation. If the agent did not deviate [from the principal's instructions], his separation is effective. If he did deviate, e.g., the principal told him: "Separate from the northern side," and he separated from the southern side, since he nullified the agency previously, the separation is not effective. [10] [The following rules apply when] a sharecropper separates *terumah* and the owner [of the land] objects. If he objects before he completes the separation of the *terumah*, the separation is not of consequence. If he objected after the separation, the separation is of consequence.
Guardians may separate *terumah* from the property of orphans. [11] The separation of *terumah* by a thief, a robber, and a man of force is effective. If the owner is pursuing them, the separation is not effective. [12] A child, a worker, a servant, and a wife should separate *terumah* for [produce] that they are eating, but not for the entire [crop]. For a person should not separate *terumah* from [produce] that does not belong to him.
When a son eats together with his father and a woman [makes] dough, they may separate *terumah*, because they have license to do so. [13] Workers do not have license to separate *terumah* without the consent of the owner with the exception of those who tread grapes in the vat. [They are given this license because] if they desired to make the wine impure, they could do so immediately. Since the wine was thus given over to their domain and they were entrusted with it, they are considered as agents. If they separate *terumah*, the separation is effective. [14] When a worker is told by the owner: "Bring my granary in and separate *terumah*," but he separates and then brings the granary in, his separation is effective. [15] When a gentile separates *terumah* from his own produce, according to Scriptural Law, the separation is not effective, because he is not obligated to do so. [Our Rabbis] decreed that his separation should be effective, because of the wealthy, [i.e., they were fearful] lest the money belong to a Jew and he say that it belongs to a gentile to make it exempt.
We cross-examine the gentile who separates *terumah*. If he says: "I separated it so that it should be like a Jew's," we give it to a priest. If not, it should be entombed, for perhaps his intent was [to dedicate it] to heaven.
When does the above apply? In *Eretz Yisrael*. Our Sages did not, however, issue a decree if a gentile separates *terumah* in the Diaspora. We tell him that he is not obligated to do this and the produce is not *terumah* at all. [16] When a person [makes a separation and] intends to say *terumah*, but instead says tithes, or intends to say tithes, but instead says *terumah*, his statement is of no consequence unless his mouth and his heart are in accord.
If one separates *terumah* in his mind without uttering anything verbally, the separation is effective, as [implied by Numbers 18:27]: "And your *terumah* will be considered for you as the *terumah* of the granary." Through thought alone, it becomes *terumah*. [17] [The following rules apply when a person] separates *terumah* with a stipulation. If the stipulation is fulfilled, the separation is effective. If not, it is not effective.
When a person separates *terumah* and/or the tithes and then regrets [his act], he may approach a sage and ask for its repeal as other vows are repealed. The produce then reverts to being ordinary produce as it was before until he makes a separation a second time, [setting aside] either the same produce he separated initially or other produce. [18] [The following rules apply when a person] separates *terumah* from a cistern of wine, saying: "Behold [the contents of] this [container] are *terumah* on the condition that it ascends intact [from the cistern]," [for the condition to have been met, the container] must ascend intact from being broken or spilt. [The stipulation does not cover the wine] becoming impure. If [the container] is broken [and the wine] spills back into the cistern, it does not cause the mixture to become *meduma*. If [he lifted the container from the cistern and] put it in a place where if it breaks or rolls, it will not reach the cistern, [should the wine later spill into the cistern], it causes the mixture to become *meduma*, because the stipulation was fulfilled. [19] When does the above apply? With regard to the great *terumah*. With regard to *terumat ma'aser*, by contrast, [different rules apply] because it is permitted to make this separation from produce that is not in the same place. [Hence as soon as the container] ascends [from the cistern], his stipulation is considered to have been fulfilled and [the wine separated] is *terumat ma'aser*, even though [afterwards, the container] breaks or [the wine] spills. Needless to say, this applies if [the *terumat ma'aser*] becomes impure. [20] When a person says: "The produce in the upper portion [of this container] is *terumah* and that in its lower portion is ordinary produce" or "The produce in the upper portion [of this container] is ordinary produce and that in its lower portion is *terumah*," his statements are effective. For the matter is dependent on the thought of the person making the separation. [21] When a person separates *terumah* from [grain in] a granary, he must have the intent in his heart that [the produce separated] will be *terumah* for this grain heap, the stalks of wheat that were cut [and not threshed], [the grain] on the side of the grain heap, and [the kernels] in the straw. When a person separates *terumah* from a vat [of wine], he must have the intent in his heart that he is separating *terumah* for [the wine absorbed] in the kernels and the peels.
When a person separates *terumah* from a cistern of wine, he must have the intent in his heart that he is separating *terumah* for [the wine absorbed] in the peat. [in all the above instances,] if he separates *terumah* without having a specific intent, all of the produce is included. For it is a condition of the court that [when one separates *terumah*, it] includes everything. When a person separates *terumah* from a basket of figs and other figs are found at the side of the basket, *terumah* need not be separated from them, because in his heart, a person has the intent to separate *terumah* for all the produce.
Version: Mishneh Torah, trans. by Eliyahu Touger. Jerusalem, Moznaim Pub. c1986-c2007
Source: https://www.nli.org.il/he/books/NNL_ALEPH001020101/NLI
License: CC-BY-NC