💾 Archived View for scholasticdiversity.us.to › scriptures › jewish › t › Mishneh%20Torah%2C%20Heave… captured on 2024-05-10 at 12:12:07. Gemini links have been rewritten to link to archived content
-=-=-=-=-=-=-
9 [1] A 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.
Whenever there is a doubt whether or not a woman was divorced, she may not partake of *terumah*. When a woman appoints an agent to receive her bill of divorce, she is forbidden to partake of *terumah* immediately. 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.
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. When a person tells his wife: "This is your bill of divorce; [it is effective] one hour before my death" she is forbidden to partake of *terumah* immediately. [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. Needless to say, this applies to one who goes on a caravan journey.
[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, 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. Therefore if among the women were the daughter of a priest married to an Israelite or the daughter of an Israelite married to a priest, 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, we presume that he is dead and his wife may not partake [of *terumah*]. [3] If 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.
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*]. [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, she may continue to partake of *terumah* 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. [5] When [a priest] frees his servant, from the time he transfers his bill of emancipation 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*, he is, nonetheless, forbidden to partake of *terumah*. [6] There 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. The recipient [of the present] remained silent and afterwards, protested. There is a doubt whether his protests reflected his initial disposition 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. Therefore, [the servants] may not partake of *terumah*. [This applies] whether the second master was an Israelite and the first master, a priest or the first master was an Israelite and the second, a priest. [7] When an Israelite rents livestock from a priest, he may feed it *terumah*. 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. [8] When 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, 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. [9] When a cow belonging to an Israelite gives birth to its firstborn, the owner may feed it *terumah*, for the firstborn belongs to the priests. A person may store vetch that is *terumah* in his dovecote. He need not worry that his doves will come and eat it. [10] It appears to me 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*. [Conversely,] if an Israelite sold a cow to a priest, he should not feed it *terumah* until he draws it into his domain even though he already made payment.
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