💾 Archived View for scholasticdiversity.us.to › scriptures › jewish › t › Mishneh%20Torah%2C%20Heave… captured on 2024-05-10 at 12:19:29. Gemini links have been rewritten to link to archived content
-=-=-=-=-=-=-
5 [1] We should separate *terumah* only from the most choice [produce], as [implied by Numbers 18:30]: "When you separate its most choice portion from it." If, however, there is no priest accessible, one should separate *terumah* from produce that will last even though there is more choice produce but it will not last.
What is implied? A person should separate fresh figs as *terumah* for dried figs. In a place where there are no priests, he should separate dried figs for fresh figs. If he is accustomed to dry fresh figs, he may separate fresh figs as *terumah* for dried figs even in a place where there is no priest. In a place where there is a priest, by contrast, dried figs are never separated as *terumah* for fresh figs, even in a place where it is customary to dry fresh figs. [2] One may separate an entire onion as *terumah* even if it is small, but not half an onion, even if it is large in all places. We do not separate one type of produce as *terumah* for another type of produce, as [implied by Numbers 18:30]: "As grain from the granary and as wine from the vat." If one made such a separation, it is not considered *terumah*. [3] Zucchini and cucumbers are considered as one species. All of the types of wheat are one species. All of the types of figs, dried figs, and blocks of figs are one species. [In the above instances,] one may separate *terumah* from one type for the other. [By contrast,] all types of produce which are considered as a mixture of species may not be separated as *terumah* for each other, even when one separates the choicest produce as *terumah* for produce of lesser quality.
What is implied? A person has 50 *se'ah* of wheat and 50 *se'ah* of barley in one building. If he separates two *se'ah* of wheat [as *terumah*] for the entire amount, his separation is not effective. When types of produce are not considered as a mixture of species, one may separate the better type as *terumah* for the lesser type, but not the lesser type as *terumah* for the better type. If one did separate [the lesser type of produce as *terumah* for the better type, after the fact,] the separation is effective with one exception. *Zunin*may not be separated as *terumah* for wheat, because it is not used as food for humans. [4] We do not separate *terumah* from produce for which all the work [in preparing it] was completed for produce for which the work [in preparing it] is incomplete, from produce for which the work [in preparing it] is incomplete for [other] produce for which the work [in preparing it] is incomplete, nor from produce for which the work [in preparing it] is incomplete for produce for which all the work [in preparing it] was completed. [This is also derived from the above prooftext:] "As grain from the granary and as wine from the vat." [Implied is that *terumah* should be separated from produce] for which [all work] was completed for similar produce. If, however, one separated *terumah* [in any of the above instances], the separation is effective [after the fact]. [5] When should *terumah* be separated from a granary? When the kernels are separated. If a person separated part [of the grain], he may designate the kernels he separated as *terumah* for the produce that was not separated. When one brings stalks of grain into his home to eat husked grain, he should separate *terumah* while the grain is in the stalks. [6] When should *terumah* be separated from a vat? When [the treaders] have walked horizontally and vertically over the grapes.
When should one separate *terumah* from olives? When [the beam of the press] is placed upon them. [7] We should not separate *terumah* from ritually pure produce for produce that is not ritually pure. If, however, one separated *terumah* [in this manner], the separation is effective [after the fact].
It is a halachah conveyed to Moses at Sinai that when a portion of a cake of dried figs has become impure, we may separate *terumah* from the pure portion of it for the impure portion of it as an initial preference. This applies not only to a cake of dried figs which appears as one mass, but also to a bundle of vegetables and even a mound of wheat. If a portion of it became impure, one may separate *terumah* from the pure portion for the impure portion.
If, however, there were two cakes of dried figs, two bundles of vegetables, or two mounds of wheat, one impure and one pure at its side, as an initial preference, one should not separate *terumah* from the produce that is pure for the produce that is impure. One may, however, separate *terumat ma'aser* from produce that is pure for produce that is impure as an initial preference. [This is derived from Numbers 18:29:] "its sacred portion from it." [Implied is that] one should take from the sacred portion in it. [8] We may not separate produce that is ritually impure as *terumah* for produce that is ritually pure. If one made such a separation inadvertently, the portion separated is *terumah*. If one made the separation intentionally, he did not fulfill the obligation for the remainder [of the produce], but [the produce] separated is *terumah*. He must separate *terumah* a second time.
When does the above apply? When he did not know of the impurity. If, however, he knew of the impurity, but erred in that he thought it was permitted to separate produce that is ritually impure as *terumah* for produce that is ritually pure, he is considered as if he acted intentionally. Similar laws apply with regard to *terumat ma'aser*. [9] We may not separate produce that is still attached to the earth as *terumah* for produce that has already been detached. Nor may produce that has already been detached be separated as *terumah* for produce that is still attached to the earth.
What is implied? A person had produce that was detached and said: "This produce will be *terumah* for this produce which is attached to the earth" - and even if he said "...when [the attached produce] is detached," his words are of no consequence. [This ruling also applies] if he possessed two rows [of produce] and said: "The produce of this row which is detached will be *terumah* for this row which is attached," or "The produce of this row which is attached will be *terumah* for this row which is detached."
[Diferent rules apply should] he say: "The produce of this row which is detached will be *terumah* for this row when it will be detached," if [the produce] is [later] detached - since it is within his potential to detach it - when they are both detached, his words are binding, provided both [types of produce] had attained at least a third of their standard size at the time he made his statements. [10] We may not separate fresh produce as *terumah* for dried produce, nor dried produce as *terumah* for fresh produce. If, however, one made such a separation, it is effective.
What is implied? One reaped a type of vegetable one day and then reaped the same [type of vegetable] the following day. One may not separate one as *terumah* for the other unless this vegetable remains fresh for two days. Similarly, if a vegetable usually remains fresh for three days, e.g., cucumbers, all [of that type of vegetable] that are harvested for three days may be joined together and *terumah* may be separated from one for the other. When a type of vegetable remains fresh for only one day and one harvested some in the morning and some in the evening, one may separate one as *terumah* for the other. [11] One may not separate produce from the present year as *terumah* for produce of the previous year, nor may one separate produce from the previous year as *terumah* for produce of the present year. If one made such a separation, it is not effective, as [indicated by Deuteronomy 14:22]: "From year to year."Thus if one harvested a vegetable on the day preceding Rosh HaShanah before sunset and harvested another after sunset, one may not separate *terumah* from one for the other. For one is considered "old" and the other, "new."
Similarly, if one harvested an esrog on the day before the fifteenth of Shvat on the evening before sunset and harvested another one after sunset [that day], one may not separate *terumah* from one for the other. [The rationale is that] the first of Tishrei is the Rosh HaShanah for tithing grain, legumes, and vegetables and the fifteenth of Shvat is Rosh HaShanah for tithing [of the produce] of trees. [12] We may not separate produce from *Eretz [Yisrael]* as *terumah* for produce of the Diaspora, nor may produce of the Diaspora be separated for produce from *Eretz Yisrael*, nor may produce of *Eretz Yisrael* be separated for produce from Syria, and nor may produce of Syria be separated for produce from *Eretz Yisrael*.
Similarly, [we may not separate *terumah*] from produce for which *terumah* need not be separated, e.g., *leket, shichachah*, and *pe'ah* or from produce from which *terumah* was already separated for produce for which *terumah* must be separated. Nor may we separate *terumah* from produce for which *terumah* must be separated for produce for which there is no obligation. [Even] if the *terumah* was separated, the separation is not of consequence. [13] When a person separates *terumah* [for other produce] from produce that was designated as the first tithe, but from which its *terumah* had not been separated or from produce which was designated as the second tithe or that had been consecrated, but which had not been redeemed, the separation is not effective. [14] We may not separate *terumah* from produce for which we are required to separate *terumah* according to Scriptural Law for produce for which we are required to separate *terumah* [only] according to Rabbinic Law, nor from produce for which we are required to separate *terumah* [only] according to Rabbinic Law for produce for which we are required to separate *terumah* according to Scriptural Law. If one separated *terumah* [in the above instance], the produce separated is considered as *terumah*, but he must separate *terumah* again [for the obligation incumbent on this produce to be fulfilled]. [15] A flowerpot with a hole is considered as [connected] to the earth. How large must the hole be [for this law to apply]? Large enough for a small root to pass through it. This is smaller than an olive.
[The following rules apply when a person] planted grain in a flowerpot that did not have a hole and it reached a third of its maturity. Afterwards, he perforated [the flowerpot] and the grain completed [its growth] while [the flowerpot] was perforated. It is, [nevertheless,] considered as if it grew in [a flowerpot] without a hole. [This ruling changes] only when [the flowerpot] was perforated before [the grain] reached a third of its maturity. [16] When a person separates *terumah* from produce which grows in the earth for produce that grows in a perforated flowerpot or from produce which grows in a perforated flowerpot for produce which grows in the earth, the separation is effective.
If he separates *terumah* from [produce growing] in a [flowerpot] that was not perforated for [produce growing] in a perforated [flowerpot], the produce separated is considered as *terumah*, but he must separate *terumah* again.
If he separates *terumah* from [produce growing] in a perforated [flowerpot] for [produce growing] in a [flowerpot] that was not perforated, the produce separated is considered as *terumah*. [Nevertheless, the priest to whom it was given] should not partake of it until [the owner] separates *terumah* and tithes for [the portion separated] from other produce. [17] When a person separates *terumat [ma'aser]* from produce that is *demai* for other produce that is *demai* or from produce that is *demai* for produce from which we are certain that the tithes were not separated, the produce separated is considered as *terumat [ma'aser]*. [Nevertheless,] he should separate *terumah* again for each type of produce individually.
When he separates *terumah* from produce from which we are certain that the tithes were not separated for produce that is *demai*, the produce separated is considered as *terumat [ma'aser]*. [Nevertheless, the priest to whom it was given] should not partake of it until [the owner] separates *terumah* and tithes for [the portion separated]. [18] We may not separate stalks of grain as *terumah* for kernels of grain, olives [as *terumah*] for oil, or grapes [as *terumah*] for wine. If one made such a separation, it is not effective. This is a decree [enacted] lest one cause the priest to undertake the difficulty of treading [on the grapes] or pressing [the olives].
One may, however, separate oil as *terumah* for olives that are being pickled or wine as *terumah* for grapes that are being dried as raisins. What does this resemble? To separating *terumah* from two species that are not considered *kilayim*, separating from the good for the bad.
Similarly, one may separate *terumah* from olives from which oil will be squeezed for olives that will be pickled, but not from olives that will be pickled for olives from which oil will be squeezed. [One may separate *terumah*] from wine that has not been boiled for wine that has been boiled, but not from [wine] that has been boiled for [wine] that has not been boiled. [One may separate *terumah*] from [wine that is] clear for [wine that is] not clear, but not from [wine that is] not clear for wine [that is] clear.
[One may separate *terumah*] from a specific number of fresh figs for a specific number of dried figs and from a measure of dried figs for a measure of fresh figs, but not from a measure of fresh figs for a measure of dried figs, nor for a specific number of dried figs for a specific number of fresh figs. [The rationale for all the above is that] one should always separate *terumah* in a generous manner.
One may separate *terumah* from kernels of wheat for bread, but not from bread for kernels of wheat according to the appropriate calculations. In all the above situations, if one separated *terumah* [when it was stated that one should not], the separation is effective. [19] We do not separate *terumah* from oil for olives that are being pressed, nor [do we separate *terumah*] from wine for grapes that are being tread, for this resembles separating *terumah* from produce for which all work has been completed for produce for which the work has not been completed. If he did separate *terumah* [in such a situation], the produce separated is considered as *terumah*, but he must separate *terumah* from the olives and the grapes from them themselves.
[When mixed with other produce,] the first creates a situation of *dimua* alone. One who eats it is liable for it, as one is liable [for partaking] of other *terumah* that is clearly defined as such. This does not apply with regard to the second *terumah* [separated]. [20] When a person separated oil as *terumah* for olives that he intended to eat or he separated olives for olives when he intended to eat the entire quantity and then changed his mind and decided to press the olives [for oil] and indeed pressed them after separating *terumah* for them, he is not required to separate *terumah* again. [This law also applies if] one separated wine for grapes that he intended to eat or grapes for grapes when he intended to eat the entire quantity and then changed his mind and decided to tread the grapes for wine and indeed had them tread upon after separating *terumah* for them. [21] We do not separate vinegar as *terumah* for wine, but we may separate wine as *terumah* for vinegar, for wine and vinegar are one type of produce. If one had the intent of separating wine for wine and it was discovered that what he separated was vinegar, the separation is not effective. If one had the intent of separating vinegar for vinegar and it was discovered that what he separated was wine, the separation is effective. [22] [The following rules apply when a person] separates a barrel of wine as *terumah* for wine and it is discovered to be vinegar. If it was known to be vinegar before it was separated, the separation is not effective. If it became vinegar after it was designated as *terumah*, the separation is effective. If there is a doubt, the separation is effective, but he should make a second separation. The same laws apply when one separates squash as *terumah* and it is discovered to be bitter or one separates a watermelon as *terumah* and it has become spoiled or perforated. If he separated a barrel of wine as *terumah* and it was discovered to have been left open in which instance, it is forbidden to drink it, it is *terumah*, but he should make a second separation.
[In all these situations, when mixed with other produce,] neither of the two [portions separated as *terumah*] creates a situation of *dimua* alone. Nor is a person who eats only one of the two obligated to pay a fifth. [23] What is implied? If one [of the two portions separated as *terumah*] fell into ordinary produce, it does not cause it to be considered as *dimua*. If the other [portion] fell into other produce, it does not cause it to be considered as *dimua*. If, however, both fell into the same produce, it is considered as *dimua* according to the size of the smaller of the two.
Similarly, if a person other than a priest ate both of them, he should make restitution for the smaller one and its additional fifth. What should he do with the two [portions separated]? He should give them to one priest and take the value of the greater portion from him. [24] [The following rules apply when a person] checks a barrel [of wine] and then leaves it to separate *terumah* [from it] on other [wine] until it becomes *terumah* in its entirety, [at which point,] he would give it to the priest. After a certain time, he checked the barrel again and discovered that it had become vinegar. [We rule that the wine] certainly remained wine for three days after the inspection. [The obligations for *terumah*] have certainly been met for all of the wine for which he considered the wine in the barrel as its *terumah* during those [three days]. From that time afterwards, there is a doubt [whether the wine had already turned to vinegar] and a second separation [of *terumah*] must be made. [25] At three times [during the year], it is necessary to check the wine that one set aside to separate *terumah* from lest it have become vinegar. They are: When the east wind blows after the Sukkos holiday, when grapes form, when fluid begins to enter the unripened grapes. [When one has wine] from the vat, he may use it for the separation [of *terumah*] for 40 days with the presumption that it is still wine. [26] [The following rules apply when a person] sets aside produce to separate *terumah* from until [the entire amount] becomes *terumah*. Although as an initial preference, one should separate *terumah* only from the same collection of produce, if one separates *terumah* [in such a manner], we operate under the presumption that the produce continues to exist. If he discovers that they perished, he should entertain doubts that all [the produce for which he thought he separated *terumah* is in fact *tevel*]. For perhaps, he did not make any separation until [the produce set aside] perished. Therefore he should separate *terumah* a second time for them.
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