Today in Jewish History:
• Torah Sages Escape (c. 75 BCE)
In the year 91 BCE, Alexander Yannai of the Hasmonean family succeeded his brother Yehuda Aristoblus to the throne of Judea. Alexander Yannai was a Sadducee who virulently persecuted the Pharisees. At one point during his bloody reign, following a victory he scored on a battlefield, he invited all the Torah scholars for a celebratory feast. During this feast he was slighted by one of the guests, which led him to execute all the Torah scholars in attendance.
A few of the sages managed to escape to the town of Sulukus in Syria. There, too, they encountered anti-Semitic enemies who murdered many of the exiled sages. The handful of surviving Torah scholars went in to hiding, finding refuge in the home of an individual named Zevadai. On the night of the 17th of Adar they escaped the hostile city of Sulukus.
Eventually these surviving scholars revived Torah Judaism. The date they escaped the clutches of death was established as a day of celebration.
Daily Quote:
For two-and-a--half years, the House of Shammai and the House of Hillel debated. These said: It is better for man not to have been created than to have been created; and those said: It is better for man to have been created than to not have been created. In the end, they voted on it and concluded: It is better for man not to have been created than to have been created; but now that he was created, he should search his deeds.[Talmud, Eruvin 13b]
Daily Study:
Chitas and Rambam for today:
Chumash: Shemini, 1st Portion Leviticus 9:1-9:16 with Rashi
• English / Hebrew Linear Translation | Video Class• Leviticus Chapter 9
1And it was on the eighth day, that Moses summoned Aaron and his sons and the elders of Israel. אוַֽיְהִי֙ בַּיּ֣וֹם הַשְּׁמִינִ֔י קָרָ֣א משֶׁ֔ה לְאַֽהֲרֹ֖ן וּלְבָנָ֑יו וּלְזִקְנֵ֖י יִשְׂרָאֵֽל:
And it was on the eighth day: of the investitures. It was the first of the month of Nissan, the very day on which the Mishkan was erected. And [this day] took ten “crowns” [of distinction], which are enumerated in Seder Olam 7. — [Torath Kohanim 9:1] ויהי ביום השמיני: שמיני למלואים, הוא ראש חודש ניסן, שהוקם המשכן בו ביום ונטל עשר עטרות השנויות בסדר עולם (פרק ז):
[called…] the elders of Israel: to inform them that it was by the express command of God that Aaron was entering into the Kehunah Gedolah , so that they should not say that he entered of his own accord. ולזקני ישראל: להשמיעם שעל פי הדבור אהרן נכנס ומשמש בכהונה גדולה, ולא יאמרו מאליו נכנס:
2And he said to Aaron, "Take for yourself a bull calf as a sin offering, and a ram as a burnt offering, [both] unblemished, and bring [them] near before the Lord. בוַיֹּ֣אמֶר אֶל־אַֽהֲרֹ֗ן קַח־לְ֠ךָ֠ עֵ֣גֶל בֶּן־בָּקָ֧ר לְחַטָּ֛את וְאַ֥יִל לְעֹלָ֖ה תְּמִימִ֑ם וְהַקְרֵ֖ב לִפְנֵ֥י יְהֹוָֽה:
Take for yourself a bull-calf: [This was] to inform [Aaron] that the Holy One, Blessed is He, had granted him atonement through this calf for the incident involving the [golden] calf, which he had made. — [see Tanchuma 10] קח לך עגל: להודיע שמכפר לו הקב"ה ע"י עגל זה על מעשה העגל שעשה:
3And to the children of Israel, you shall speak, saying, 'Take a he goat as a sin offering; and a calf and a lamb, [both] in their first year and [both] unblemished, as a burnt offering, גוְאֶל־בְּנֵ֥י יִשְׂרָאֵ֖ל תְּדַבֵּ֣ר לֵאמֹ֑ר קְח֤וּ שְׂעִֽיר־עִזִּים֙ לְחַטָּ֔את וְעֵ֨גֶל וָכֶ֧בֶשׂ בְּנֵֽי־שָׁנָ֛ה תְּמִימִ֖ם לְעֹלָֽה:
4and an ox and a ram as peace offerings, to slaughter before the Lord, and a meal offering mixed with oil, for today the Lord is appearing to you.' " דוְשׁ֨וֹר וָאַ֜יִל לִשְׁלָמִ֗ים לִזְבֹּ֨חַ֙ לִפְנֵ֣י יְהֹוָ֔ה וּמִנְחָ֖ה בְּלוּלָ֣ה בַשָּׁ֑מֶן כִּ֣י הַיּ֔וֹם יְהֹוָ֖ה נִרְאָ֥ה אֲלֵיכֶֽם:
for today the Lord is appearing to you: to make His Shechinah rest in the work of your hands [i.e., the work of the Mishkan], and for this reason, these sacrifices are obligatory for this day. כי היום ה' נראה אליכם: להשרות שכינתו במעשה ידיכם לכך קרבנות הללו באין חובה ליום זה:
5And they took what Moses had commanded, to the front of the Tent of Meeting, and the entire community approached and stood before the Lord. הוַיִּקְח֗וּ אֵ֚ת אֲשֶׁ֣ר צִוָּ֣ה משֶׁ֔ה אֶל־פְּנֵ֖י אֹ֣הֶל מוֹעֵ֑ד וַיִּקְרְבוּ֙ כָּל־הָ֣עֵדָ֔ה וַיַּֽעַמְד֖וּ לִפְנֵ֥י יְהֹוָֽה:
6And Moses said, "This is the thing the Lord has commanded; do [it], and the glory of the Lord will appear to you." ווַיֹּ֣אמֶר משֶׁ֔ה זֶ֧ה הַדָּבָ֛ר אֲשֶׁר־צִוָּ֥ה יְהֹוָ֖ה תַּֽעֲשׂ֑וּ וְיֵרָ֥א אֲלֵיכֶ֖ם כְּב֥וֹד יְהֹוָֽה:
7And Moses said to Aaron, "Approach the altar and perform your sin offering and your burnt offering, atoning for yourself and for the people, and perform the people's sacrifice, atoning for them, as the Lord has commanded. זוַיֹּ֨אמֶר משֶׁ֜ה אֶל־אַֽהֲרֹ֗ן קְרַ֤ב אֶל־הַמִּזְבֵּ֨חַ֙ וַֽעֲשֵׂ֞ה אֶת־חַטָּֽאתְךָ֙ וְאֶת־עֹ֣לָתֶ֔ךָ וְכַפֵּ֥ר בַּֽעַדְךָ֖ וּבְעַ֣ד הָעָ֑ם וַֽעֲשֵׂ֞ה אֶת־קָרְבַּ֤ן הָעָם֙ וְכַפֵּ֣ר בַּֽעֲדָ֔ם כַּֽאֲשֶׁ֖ר צִוָּ֥ה יְהֹוָֽה:
Approach the altar: [Moses had to order Aaron to do so,] because Aaron was bashful and afraid to approach [the altar]. So Moses said to him: “Why are you ashamed? For this [function] you have been chosen!” - [Torath Kohanim 9:7] קרב אל המזבח: שהיה אהרן בוש וירא לגשת. אמר לו משה למה אתה בוש, לכך נבחרת:
your sin offering: The bull-calf. את חטאתך: עגל בן בקר:
and your burnt offering: The ram. ואת עלתך: איל:
the people’s offering: The he-goat, the calf, and the lamb. Wherever the [unqualified] term עֵגֶל (calf) is stated [in Scripture], it denotes one in the first year. This [rule] is derived from this passage. [The term פַּר denotes one in the third year, עֵגֶל בֶּןבָּקָר one in the second year, and עֵגֶל one in the first year.]- [Torath Kohanim 4:208] קרבן העם: שעיר עזים ועגל וכבש. כל מקום שנאמר עגל, בן שנה הוא, ומכאן אתה למד:
8So Aaron approached the altar and slaughtered his sin offering calf. חוַיִּקְרַ֥ב אַֽהֲרֹ֖ן אֶל־הַמִּזְבֵּ֑חַ וַיִּשְׁחַ֛ט אֶת־עֵ֥גֶל הַֽחַטָּ֖את אֲשֶׁר־לֽוֹ:
9And Aaron's sons brought forward the blood to him, and he dipped his finger into the blood, placing [some] on the horns of the altar, and he poured the blood at the base of the altar. טוַ֠יַּקְרִ֠בוּ בְּנֵ֨י אַֽהֲרֹ֣ן אֶת־הַדָּם֘ אֵלָיו֒ וַיִּטְבֹּ֤ל אֶצְבָּעוֹ֙ בַּדָּ֔ם וַיִּתֵּ֖ן עַל־קַרְנ֣וֹת הַמִּזְבֵּ֑חַ וְאֶת־הַדָּ֣ם יָצַ֔ק אֶל־יְס֖וֹד הַמִּזְבֵּֽחַ:
10And the fat, the kidneys, and the diaphragm with the liver from the sin offering, he caused to [go up in] smoke on the altar, as the Lord had commanded Moses. יוְאֶת־הַחֵ֨לֶב וְאֶת־הַכְּלָיֹ֜ת וְאֶת־הַיֹּתֶ֤רֶת מִן־הַכָּבֵד֙ מִן־הַ֣חַטָּ֔את הִקְטִ֖יר הַמִּזְבֵּ֑חָה כַּֽאֲשֶׁ֛ר צִוָּ֥ה יְהֹוָ֖ה אֶת־משֶֽׁה:
11And he burned the flesh and the hide in fire, outside the camp. יאוְאֶת־הַבָּשָׂ֖ר וְאֶת־הָע֑וֹר שָׂרַ֣ף בָּאֵ֔שׁ מִח֖וּץ לַמַּֽחֲנֶֽה:
the flesh and the hide: We do not find [in Scripture] an outside sin-offering [i.e., one whose blood is sprinkled on the outside altar] to be burned, with the exceptions of this [instance] and [the sin-offerings] of the investitures. And all these [exceptions] were [burnt] at the express command [of God]. ואת הבשר ואת העור וגו': לא מצינו חטאת חיצונה נשרפת אלא זו ושל מלואים, וכולן על פי הדבור:
12And he slaughtered the burnt offering. And Aaron's sons presented the blood to him, and he dashed it on the altar, around. יבוַיִּשְׁחַ֖ט אֶת־הָֽעֹלָ֑ה וַ֠יַּמְצִ֠אוּ בְּנֵ֨י אַֽהֲרֹ֤ן אֵלָיו֙ אֶת־הַדָּ֔ם וַיִּזְרְקֵ֥הוּ עַל־הַמִּזְבֵּ֖חַ סָבִֽיב:
presented: Heb. וַיַּמְצִיאוּ. [This term] denotes “presentation” and “preparation.” וימצאו: לשון הושטה והזמנה:
13And they presented the burnt offering to him in its [prescribed] pieces, along with the head. And he caused [them] to [go up in] smoke on the altar. יגוְאֶת־הָֽעֹלָ֗ה הִמְצִ֧יאוּ אֵלָ֛יו לִנְתָחֶ֖יהָ וְאֶת־הָרֹ֑אשׁ וַיַּקְטֵ֖ר עַל־הַמִּזְבֵּֽחַ:
14And he washed the innards and the legs, and he caused [them] to [go up in] smoke on the altar, along with the burnt offering. ידוַיִּרְחַ֥ץ אֶת־הַקֶּ֖רֶב וְאֶת־הַכְּרָעָ֑יִם וַיַּקְטֵ֥ר עַל־הָֽעֹלָ֖ה הַמִּזְבֵּֽחָה:
15And he brought forward the people's sacrifice; he took the people's sin offering goat, slaughtered it, and made it a sin offering, like the first one. טווַיַּקְרֵ֕ב אֵ֖ת קָרְבַּ֣ן הָעָ֑ם וַיִּקַּ֞ח אֶת־שְׂעִ֤יר הַֽחַטָּאת֙ אֲשֶׁ֣ר לָעָ֔ם וַיִּשְׁחָטֵ֥הוּ וַיְחַטְּאֵ֖הוּ כָּֽרִאשֽׁוֹן:
and made it a sin-offering: Heb. וַיְחַטְּאֵהוּ. He sacrificed it according to the law of the sin-offering (חַטָּאת). ויחטאהו: עשהו כמשפט חטאת:
like the first one: like his own calf. כראשון: כעגל שלו:
16And he brought forward the burnt offering and prepared it according to the law. טזוַיַּקְרֵ֖ב אֶת־הָֽעֹלָ֑ה וַיַּֽעֲשֶׂ֖הָ כַּמִּשְׁפָּֽט:
and prepared it according to the law: which is specified regarding a voluntary burnt-offering in [Parashath] Vayikra (1: 117) - [Beitzah 20a] ויעשה כמשפט: המפורש בעולת נדבה בויקרא (פרק א):
Daily Tehillim: Chapters 83 - 87
• Hebrew text
• English text• Chapter 83
• Lessons in Tanya
• English Text
• English text• Chapter 83
A prayer regarding the wars against Israel in the days of Jehoshaphat, when the nations plotted against Israel.
1. A song, a psalm by Asaph.
2. O God, do not be silent; do not be quiet and do not be still, O God.
3. For behold, Your enemies are in uproar, and those who hate You have raised their head.
4. They plot deviously against Your nation, and conspire against those sheltered by You.
5. They say, "Come, let us sever them from nationhood, and the name of Israel will be remembered no more.”
6. For they conspire with a unanimous heart, they made a covenant against You-
7. the tents of Edom and the Ishmaelites, Moab and the Hagrites,
8. Geval and Ammon, and Amalek; Philistia with the inhabitants of Tyre.
9. Assyria, too, joined with them, and became the strength of the sons of Lot, Selah.
10. Do to them as to Midian; as to Sisera and Yavin at the brook of Kishon,
11. who were destroyed at Ein Dor, and were as dung for the earth.
12. Make their nobles like Orev and Ze'ev, all their princes like Zevach and Tzalmuna,1
13. who said, "Let us inherit the dwellings of God for ourselves.”
14. My God, make them like whirling chaff, like straw before the wind.
15. As a fire consumes the forest, and a flame sets the mountains ablaze,
16. so pursue them with Your tempest and terrify them with Your storm.
17. Fill their faces with shame, and they will seek Your Name, O Lord.
18. Let them be shamed and terrified forever; let them be disgraced and perish.
19. And they will know that You, Whose Name is the Lord, are alone, Most High over all the earth.
FOOTNOTES
1.These were the Midianite leaders who were captured (see Judges 7:25)
Chapter 84
In this psalm of prayers and entreaties, the psalmist mourns bitterly over the destruction of Temple from the depths of his heart, and speaks of the many blessings that will be realized upon its restoration. Fortunate is the one who trusts it will be rebuilt, and does not despair in the face of this long exile.
1. For the Conductor, on the gittit,1 a psalm by the sons of Korach.
2. How beloved are Your dwellings, O Lord of Hosts!
3. My soul yearns, indeed it pines, for the courtyards of the Lord; my heart and my flesh [long to] sing to the living God.
4. Even the bird has found a home, and the swallow a nest for herself, where she lays her young on the [ruins of] Your altars, O Lord of Hosts, my King and my God.
5. Fortunate are those who dwell in Your House; they will yet praise You forever.
6. Fortunate is the man whose strength is in You; the paths [to the Temple] are in his heart.
7. For those who pass through the Valley of Thorns, He places wellsprings; their guide will be cloaked in blessings.2
8. They go from strength to strength; they will appear before God in Zion.
9. O Lord, God of Hosts, hear my prayer; listen, O God of Jacob, forever.
10. See our shield,3 O God, and look upon the face of Your anointed one.
11. For better one day in Your courtyards than a thousand [elsewhere]. I would rather stand at the threshold of the house of my God, than dwell [in comfort] in the tents of wickedness.
12. For the Lord, God, is a sun and a shield; the Lord bestows favor and glory; He does not withhold goodness from those who walk in innocence.
13. O Lord of Hosts! Fortunate is the man who trusts in You.
FOOTNOTES
1.A musical instrument crafted in Gath (Metzudot).
2.God provides water for the pilgrims to Jerusalem, leading them to bless their guides for choosing a water-laden route (Metzudot)
3.Remember the Temple [and rebuild it](Metzudot).
Chapter 85
In this prayer, lamenting the long and bitter exile, the psalmist asks why this exile is longer than the previous ones, and implores God to quickly fulfill His promise to redeem us. Every individual should offer this psalm when in distress.
1. For the Conductor, a psalm by the sons of Korach.
2. O Lord, You favored Your land; You returned the captives of Jacob.
3. You forgave the iniquity of Your people, and covered all their sin forever.
4. You withdrew all Your fury, and retreated from Your fierce anger.
5. Return us, O God of our salvation, and annul Your anger toward us.
6. Will You forever be angry with us? Will You draw out Your anger over all generations?
7. Is it not true that You will revive us again, and Your people will rejoice in You?
8. Show us Your kindness, O Lord, and grant us Your deliverance.
9. I hear what the Almighty Lord will say; for He speaks peace to His nation and to His pious ones, and they will not return to folly.
10. Indeed, His deliverance is near those who fear Him, that [His] glory may dwell in the land.
11. Kindness and truth have met; righteousness and peace have kissed.
12. Truth will sprout from the earth, and righteousness will peer from heaven.
13. The Lord, too, will bestow goodness, and our land will yield its produce.
14. Righteousness shall walk before him, and he shall set his footsteps in [its] path.
Chapter 86
This psalm contains many prayers regarding David's troubles, and his enemies Doeg and Achitophel. It also includes many descriptions of God's praise. Every individual can offer this psalm when in distress.
1. A prayer by David. Lord, turn Your ear, answer me, for I am poor and needy.
2. Guard my soul, for I am pious; You, my God, deliver Your servant who trusts in You.
3. Be gracious to me, my Lord, for to You I call all day.
4. Bring joy to the soul of Your servant, for to You, my Lord, I lift my soul.
5. For You, my Lord, are good and forgiving, and exceedingly kind to all who call upon You.
6. Lord, hear my prayer and listen to the voice of my supplications.
7. On the day of my distress I call upon You, for You will answer me.
8. There is none like You among the supernal beings, my Lord, and there are no deeds like Yours.
9. All the nations that You have made will come and bow down before You, my Lord, and give honor to Your Name,
10. for You are great and perform wonders, You alone, O God.
11. Lord, teach me Your way that I may walk in Your truth; unify my heart to fear Your Name.
12. I will praise You, my Lord, my God, with all my heart, and give honor to Your Name forever.
13. For Your kindness to me has been great; You have saved my soul from the depth of the grave.
14. O God, malicious men have risen against me; a band of ruthless men has sought my soul; they are not mindful of You.
15. But You, my Lord, are a compassionate and gracious God, slow to anger and abounding in kindness and truth.
16. Turn to me and be gracious to me; grant Your strength to Your servant, and deliver the son of Your maidservant.
17. Show me a sign of favor, that my foes may see and be shamed, because You, Lord, have given me aid and consoled me.
Chapter 87
Composed to be sung in the Holy Temple, this psalm praises the glory of Jerusalem, a city that produces many great scholars, eminent personalities, and persons of good deeds. It also speaks of the good that will occur in the Messianic era.
1. By the sons of Korach, a psalm, a song devoted to the holy mountains [of Zion and Jerusalem].
2. The Lord loves the gates of Zion more than all the dwelling places of Jacob.
3. Glorious things are spoken of you, eternal city of God.
4. I will remind Rahav Egypt and Babylon concerning My beloved; Philistia and Tyre as well as Ethiopia, "This one was born there.”
5. And to Zion will be said, "This person and that was born there"; and He, the Most High, will establish it.
6. The Lord will count in the register of people, "This one was born there," Selah.
7. Singers as well as dancers [will sing your praise and say], "All my inner thoughts are of you."
Tanya: Likutei Amarim, middle of Chapter 37• Lessons in Tanya
• English Text
• Sunday, Adar II 17, 5776 · March 27, 2016
• Likutei Amarim, middle of Chapter 37
• ונמצא כי כל תכלית של ימות המשיח ותחיית המתים, שהוא גילוי כבודו ואלקותו יתברך, ולהעביר רוח הטומאה מהאר׳
• Sefer Hamitzvos:• English Text | Hebrew Text |
Audio: Listen | Download | Video Class• Sunday, Adar II 17, 5776 · March 27, 2016
Today's Mitzvah
A daily digest of Maimonides’ classic work "Sefer Hamitzvot"
Negative Commandment 137
A "Profaned" Woman Eating Holy Foods
And if a priest's daughter is married to a non-priest, she shall not eat of that which is set apart of the holy [foods]"—Leviticus22:12.
A chalalah [a woman who had sexual relations with a priest whom she is forbidden to marry because of his priestly status (e.g., she was a divorcee), or the daughter born from such a relationship] may not eat Terumah (the priestly tithe) or the chest and foreleg [of the Peace Offering that is gifted to the priest].
Included in this precept is the prohibition against the daughter of a priest who married a non-priest from partaking of the chest or foreleg—even if she has divorced or is widowed.
Full text of this Mitzvah »
It follows, therefore, that the purpose of the Messianic era and of the resurrection, namely, the revelation of His glory and Divinity, and the banishment of the spirit of impurity from the earth,
תלוי בהמשכת אלקותו ואור אין סוף ברוך הוא לנפש החיונית שבכללות ישראל בכל רמ״ח אבריה, על ידי קיומה כל רמ״ח מצות עשה
is entirely dependent on [our] drawing down His G‑dliness and the blessed Ein Sof-light upon all the 248 limbs of the vital soul of all Israel (for by way of the vital soul, all the world will be suffused with G‑dliness), and this is achieved by the vital soul’s performance of all the 248 positive mitzvot;
ולהעביר רוח הטומאה ממנה, בשמירתה כל שס״ה מצות לא תעשה, שלא יינקו ממנה שס״ה גידיה
and this purpose is also dependent on [our] banishing the spirit of impurity, i.e., the three impure kelipot, from the vital soul of all Israel (for by being banished from the vital soul, the spirit of impurity is banished from the entire world); and this is accomplished by the vital soul’s observance of all 365 prohibitive mitzvot, thus preventing its 365 blood vessels from drawing nurture from the spirit of impurity.
Why is it that suffusing the vital soul with Ein Sof-light and banishing the impure kelipot from the vital soul produces a parallel effect on the entire world?
Rambam:• Sefer Hamitzvos:• English Text | Hebrew Text |
Audio: Listen | Download | Video Class• Sunday, Adar II 17, 5776 · March 27, 2016Today's Mitzvah
A daily digest of Maimonides’ classic work "Sefer Hamitzvot"
Negative Commandment 137
A "Profaned" Woman Eating Holy Foods
And if a priest's daughter is married to a non-priest, she shall not eat of that which is set apart of the holy [foods]"—Leviticus22:12.
A chalalah [a woman who had sexual relations with a priest whom she is forbidden to marry because of his priestly status (e.g., she was a divorcee), or the daughter born from such a relationship] may not eat Terumah (the priestly tithe) or the chest and foreleg [of the Peace Offering that is gifted to the priest].
Included in this precept is the prohibition against the daughter of a priest who married a non-priest from partaking of the chest or foreleg—even if she has divorced or is widowed.
Full text of this Mitzvah »
A "Profaned" Woman Eating Holy Foods
Negative Commandment 137
Translated by Berel Bell
The 137th prohibition is that a chalalah1 is forbidden from eating those sacred portions she would otherwise be allowed to eat [by virtue of being in the family of a Kohen] — i.e. terumah, the brisket, and the leg [of peace offerings].
The source of this prohibition is G‑d's statement,2 "When a Kohen's daughter marries a non-Kohen, she nay no longer eat the holy terumah."
Our Sages say tractate Yevamos,3 "The verse 'When a Kohen's daughter marries a non-Kohen' indicates that once she has had relations with someone forbidden to her, she becomes forbidden [to eat terumah]."
They interpret the phrase, "she may no longer eat the holy terumah" (terumas hakodashim) as referring to "that which is separated from the sacrifices" — i.e. the brisket, and the leg [of peace offerings].
The passage there states, "The verse could have said 'She may no longer eat kodashim.' Why does it say terumas hakodashim? To teach us two things." The meaning of this statement: the verse teaches [first of all] that once she has had relations with someone forbidden to her, she becomes forbidden to eat terumah; and [secondly] that if she married a non-Kohen and then he died, she can resume eating terumah but no the brisket and the leg.
Therefore this prohibition includes two parts: one that a chalalah may not eat holy offerings; and two, that a Kohen's daughter who married a non-Kohen may not eat the brisket and the leg even if her husband dies or divorces her.
However, the prohibition of eating terumah while she is still married to him is not derived from this verse; but the guardians of the Oral Tradition have learned it from the verse,4 "No non-Kohen may eat kodesh (holy things)." As long as she is married to a non-Kohen she is considered the same as he is, and is therefore the word zar (non-Kohen) refers to her as well. You should keep this in mind, and also that she also receives lashes for violating this prohibition.
FOOTNOTES
1.Literally, "a profaned woman." See N159.
This term refers to a woman whose status has been affected by one of the priestly marriage prohibitions. If a kohen marries a divorced woman, for example (which violates N360), both the woman and her daughter get the status of a chalalah.
2.Lev. 22:12.
3.68a.
4.Lev. 22:10.
• 1 Chapter: Issurei Mizbeiach Issurei Mizbeiach - Chapter 2 • English Text | Hebrew Text | Audio: Listen | Download | Video Class• Issurei Mizbeiach - Chapter 2
Audio: Listen | Download | Video Class• Issurei Mizbeiach - Chapter 2
Halacha 1
Halacha 2
There are other blemishes that are unique to animals and are not appropriate to be found in humans at all.4 There are 23 of these; they are: a) the animal's eyeball's are round like humans; b) one eye is large like a calf's and the other is small like a duck's;5 if, however, one ear is large and one ear is small, even if it is small as a bean, it is acceptable; c) if there is an eruption in the white of the eye that has a hair growing from it;6 d) if the cartilage between its two nostrils was perforated in a place which can be seen;7 e) its mouth resembles that of a swine; i.e., its upper jaw overlapped its lower jaw, even though it is not pointed like a spit.
Halacha 3
Halacha 4
j) If its horns and their inner fibrous tissue was removed and nothing of it remained;11 a female animal that has horns is acceptable;12 k) if the substance of the skin which covers the male organ of an animal was blemished; l) if the substance of the female organ of an animal was blemished;13 m) if the substance of the tail is blemished from its bone; [if its substance is blemished] from its joint, it is not [a blemish];14 n) if the tip of the tail was split into two with two separate bones; o) if there was a finger's breadth of flesh between every joint on the tail; p) if the tail was [overly] short.
To what extent? For a kid, one vertebra is a blemish, but two are not. For a lamb, a length of two vertebrae is a blemish, but three is acceptable. q) if the tail of a kid was soft and hanging loosely like that of a pig; r) if one of the tail bones was broken.15 If, however, one of the ribs are broken, it is acceptable, because [the blemish] is not visible.
Halacha 5
s) A five-legged animal; t) a three-legged animal;16 u) the hooves of one of its hindlegs or forelegs was round like that of a donkey even if has split hooves; v) if the hooves of one of its hindlegs or forelegs was not split like that of a donkey. This is the meaning of the termkalut mentioned in the Torah;17 w) if its hoofs and the fibrous substance inside has shriveled, even though there remains some of that fibrous substance next to the flesh,
Halacha 6
All of the 73 blemishes18 listed disqualify an animal from being offered as a sacrifice. If an animal that is consecrated contracts one of these blemishes, it should be redeemed and it becomes like an ordinary animal with the exception of an animal that is old, sick, or foul-smelling.19 Although such animals are unfit for sacrifice, they may not be redeemed.20 Instead, they should be maintained until they contract another permanent blemish.21 Then it should be redeemed. Similarly, a consecrated animal that contracts a temporary blemish should neither be redeemed,22 nor sacrificed.23
Halacha 7
Halacha 8
The are four other ailments that if found in an animal [prevent] it from being sacrificed. [The rationale is that such an animal] is not from the "choice," and Scripture [Deuteronomy 12:11] states [that sacrifices must come] "from the chosen of your vows."29
Halacha 9
Halacha 10
When an animal contracts one of the conditions that render it treifah38and cause it to be forbidden to be eaten, it is forbidden [to be sacrificed on] the altar.39 For behold it is written [Malachi 1:8]: "Present it please to your governor. Would he be pleased with you or show you favor?"40 Although it is not fit to be sacrificed, it is not redeemed.41 [The rationale is that] we do not redeem sacrificial animals to feed [their meat] to the dogs. Instead, it should pasture until it dies and then be buried.42
Halacha 11
If it was slaughtered and discovered to be tereifah, it should be taken out to the place of burning.43 [This law also applies] if it is discovered that one of its internal organs is lacking even if this does not cause it to be deemed atereifah, for example, it has [only] one kidney or its spleen has been removed.44 Such [an animal] is forbidden [to be offered] on the altar and must be burnt. [The rationale is] not because it is blemished, because an internal flaw is not considered as a disqualifying blemish.45 Instead, the rationale is that an animal that is lacking [an organ] should never be offered [as a sacrifice], as [Numbers 28:31] states: "They shall be perfect for you." [An animal] with an extra [organ] is considered as if it was lacking one.46Therefore if three kidneys or two spleens are found in [an animal], it is unacceptable.
Halacha 12
What is meant by a permanent degeneration of nerves in the eye?47 An animal which [was observed] for eighty days and it did not see. We inspect it three times: on the twenty-seventh day from the time when its difficulty was sensed, on the fifty-fourth day, and on the eightieth day. If its sight [returned and then was lost again],48we count from the time it stopped seeing.
Halacha 13
Halacha 14
How much of the fresh grass must be eaten in the season for fresh grass and the dried grass in the season for dried grass? At least54 an amount the size of a fig before its first meal in these three months.55 They must be eaten each day after drinking and it must be free [to roam] in the field while eating. It should not be alone, but with another animal for company. If all of this was done for it and it still was not healed, the water is definitely permanent. If one of these factors was lacking, there is a doubt concerning the matter56 and [the animal] should be neither offered,57 nor redeemed.58
Halacha 15
What is implied? It ate fresh grass as prescribed throughout Adar and during the first half of Nisan. Then it ate dried grass as prescribed during the second half of Nisan and the month of Iyar thus it ate the grasses for three months in the proper order.59 Or it ate a fig-sized amount of grass after eating or before drinking, or it was tied, alone, or located in a garden near a city. If it was not healed after all these treatments, there is an unresolved doubt whether [the blemish is considered] as permanent or temporary. Hence, if one blemished it in another manner, he is not liable for lashes.60 If it partook [of the grasses] in the prescribed manner during the prescribed times for eating and it was not healed, it is considered as permanently blemished.
Halacha 16
There is an unresolved doubt whether it is considered as permanently blemished from the time it contracted the condition or from the time they despaired of its recovery. Therefore if someone redeems it before they despaired of its recovery and then derived benefit from the object used to redeem the animal61 after they despaired of its recovery,62 there is an unresolved doubt whether he derived unauthorized benefit from consecrated animals. Therefore63 he does not bring a sacrifice to atone for this transgression, as will be explained in the appropriate place.64
FOOTNOTES
1.
I.e., a priest from serving in the Temple.
2.
From being offered as a sacrifice.
3.
See Hilchot Bi'at HaMikdash, ch. 7.
4.
See the gloss of the Radbaz who explains that it appears that the Rambam's intent is not that if these conditions are found in men, they do not disqualify a priest. Instead, the intent is that it is extremely uncommon to find such a condition in a human. Hence they are "not appropriate." Nevertheless, if a priest does have such a condition, it is considered as a blemish and he is disqualified.
5.
If, however, both are small or both are large, this is not considered a blemish. Note the contrast to the blemishes for humans mentioned in Hilchot Bi'at HaMikdash 8:6 (Kessef Mishneh).
6.
If, however, it does not have a hair, it is not considered as a blemish (Bechorot 40b).
7.
Compare to Hilchot Bi'at HaMikdash 7:6.
8.
Our translation is taken from the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (Bechorot 6:4). There he also suggests an alternate meaning, the animal's teeth.
9.
If, however, their substance was merely reduced, this is not considered as a disqualifying blemish. See Halachah 8 and notes.
10.
I.e., this explanation is necessary because usually, the inner tonsils are not seen.
11.
Compare to Halachah 8.
12.
Similarly, if a male was born without horns, their absence is not considered as a blemish (Ma'aseh Rokeach).
13.
I.e., the portion of the female organ that projects outside the body [the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (Bechorot 6:5)].
14.
Rashi (Bechorot 39b) explains that the tail of an animal is made up of several vertebrae. If it is severed in the midst of a vertebra, it is considered as a blemish. If, however, if is severed at the joint between one vertebra and another, it is not considered as a blemish.
15.
The commentaries refer to Hilchot Bi'at HaMikdash 7:11 which states: "Whenever there is a groove made in any bone that is apparent, it is considered a blemish. It is included in the category charutz mentioned in the Torah." The tail is considered such a limb; the ribs are not.
16.
See the parallel to Hilchot Shechitah 8:11.
18.
The 23 mentioned here and the 50 mentioned in Hilchot Bi'at HaMikdash, ch. 7.
19.
These blemishes are mentioned in Hilchot Bi'at HaMikdash 7:12-13.
20.
Rashi (Bechorot 41b) states: "Because these are not absolute blemishes."
21.
Which would disqualify it in its own right.
22.
Because as of yet, it is not permanently disqualified as a sacrifice.
23.
Because in its present state, it is not fit for sacrifice.
24.
In his Commentary to the Mishnah (Bechorot 2:2), the Rambam also mentions a dislocated or broken limb that can be healed.
25.
See Chapter 1, Halachah 5, and Hilchot Bi'at HaMikdash 6:4.
26.
Unlike the boils visited upon the Egyptians in the Ten Plagues (see Hilchot Bi'at HaMikdash 7:10), these boils are moist inside and can possibly heal.
27.
And thus prevents the animal or the person from seeing. As the Rambam explains in his Commentary to the Mishnah (Bechorot 6:3), there are times when this blemish will heal and the water will cease descending. Then the sight of the person or animal will return. See Halachot 13-15 which describe the process through which it is determined whether the water in an animal's eyes is permanent or not.
28.
See the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (loc. cit.).
29.
The commentaries note that the Hebrew wording is not quoted exactly. See also Chapter 7, Halachah 11.
30.
If hair is growing from it, it is considered as a permanent blemish, as stated in Halachah 2.
31.
Compare to Halachah 4.
32.
Compare to Halachah 3. Since its inner tonsils are seen only when it shrieks, as long as something of their substance remains, it is not considered a disqualifying blemish. Nevertheless, the animal is not sacrificed.
33.
For an animal is redeemed only when it has a disqualifying blemish.
34.
At which point, it can be redeemed.
35.
For its blemish did not disqualify it.
36.
It was sodomized, used for relations with a woman, worshiped as a false deity, or consecrated for that purpose, as stated in Chapter 3, Halachah 6.
37.
Were it to have been observed by two witnesses, Torah Law would require it to be executed. This punishment is not given when the murder was observed only by one witness or the owner. See Chapter 4, Halachah 2.
38.
An animal that will die within twelve months and is hence, forbidden to be eaten.
39.
See the Kessef Mishneh who debates whether the disqualification is Scriptural or Rabbinic in origin.
40.
The passage in Malachi speaks of bringing blemished animals for sacrifice. The prophet asks whether a mortal governor would appreciate being given such offerings. Certainly, they are inappropriate to be offered to God.
41.
For there would be no purpose in its redemption, since it is inappropriate to use it as food for animals as the Rambam continues to explain.
42.
See Hilchot Pesulei HaMukdashin 19:11.
43.
I.e., the place where impure sacrifices are burnt not as offerings. See ibid.:1.
If the animal was known to be tereifah and slaughtered, it should be buried rather than burnt (Radbaz).
44.
See Hilchot Shechitah 8:25; 6:20 which states that these conditions do not render an animal as tereifah.
45.
See Halachah 4; Hilchot Bi'at HaMikdash7:11.
46.
And his hence disqualified as a sacrifice. This is a general principle in Torah Law. SeeHilchot Bi'at HaMikdash 7:5; Hilchot Shechitah 8:4, 11, et al.
47.
Which disqualifies an animal as a sacrifice, as stated in Hilchot Bi'at HaMikdash 7:5; see also Halachah 7 of this chapter.
48.
In the midst of the above period.
49.
Which disqualifies an animal as a sacrifice, as stated in Hilchot Bi'at HaMikdash 7:5; see also Halachah 7 of this chapter.
50.
In Eretz Yisrael, these months are directly after the rainy season and the grasses are still fresh.
51.
I.e., the grasses were eaten in this order.
52.
In these months, rain has not descended for more than half a year and the grasses have dried.
53.
Eating these grasses is a natural cure for this malady. See the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (Bechorot 6:3).
54.
Needless to say, eating more increases the therapeutic value.
55.
I.e., the two month and a half periods.
56.
All of these aspects of the animal's treatment are discussed by our Sages (Bechorot 39a). If the treatment was not administered correctly, it is possible that the blemish is not permanent and could be healed through proper treatment.
57.
For even if the blemish is merely temporary, it is, nevertheless, unfit to be sacrificed.
58.
For until it is established that the blemish is permanent, the animal cannot be redeemed.
59.
But not at the appropriate time of year.
60.
It is forbidden to cause a consecrated animal to incur a disqualifying blemish. Nevertheless, if the animal is already blemished, one who causes such a blemish is not liable for lashes, as stated in Chapter 1, Halachah 8. Since we are unsure of this animal's status, we cannot hold the one who causes the blemish liable.
61.
Thus if the redemption was valid, the article used to redeem the animal is consecrated and the person who benefited from it transgressed. If, however, the redemption was not valid, the article is not given that status and hence, there is no transgression involved.
62.
I.e., even if the benefit was derived after they despaired of its recovery in which instance, it was definitely permanently blemished, since it was redeemed before that time, the situation is still questionable as explained.
63.
I.e., because the matter is unresolved.
64.
See Hilchot Me'ilah 1:5; Hilchot Shegagot9:11. As will be explained in the notes to those halachot, it is not necessary to bring a sacrifice conditionally, stipulating: "If I transgressed, this will serve as atonement for my transgression, and if I did not transgress, it will be considered a free-will offering" (Radbaz).
• 3 Chapters: Terumot Terumot - Chapter 13, Terumot Terumot - Chapter 14, Terumot Terumot - Chapter 15
English Text | Hebrew Text | Audio: Listen | Download• Terumot - Chapter 13
Hayom Yom:
• English Text | Video Class• "Today's Day"
English Text | Hebrew Text |
Audio: Listen | Download• Terumot - Chapter 13
Halacha 1
Terumah becomes nullified in a mixture 101 times the size of the original quantity.1
What is implied? When a se'ah of terumah falls into 100 se'ah of ordinary produce and all the produce becomes mixed together,2 he should separate one se'ah and give it to the priest. The remainder is permitted [to be eaten by] non-priests.3
[Accordingly,] whenever the terumah is a substance which the priests do not care about, e.g., terumah from wild figs, carobs, Edomite barley and the like, it is not necessary to separate [a hundredth for the priest]. Instead, since it fell into a 100 times its amount, it is nullified because of its minimal size and the entire mixture is permitted to non-priests.
Halacha 2
If a se'ah of terumah fell into less than 100 [se'ah of ordinary produce], the entire mixture becomes miduma.4 It should be sold to a priest at the price ofterumah5 with the exception of that se'ah.6
When does the above apply? When produce becomes mixed with its own kind. If, however, produce becomes mixed with produce of another type, [the ruling is dependent on whether] the flavor [of the terumah] is recognizable or not. If the entire mixture has the flavor of terumah, it is all considered asmiduma and should be sold to the priests with the exception of the value of theterumah. If the flavor of the entire mixture is that of the ordinary produce, the entire mixture is permitted to non-priests.7
Halacha 3
When a se'ah of terumah falls into 100 se'ah and one se'ah was removed from the mixture8, if that se'ah fell into other produce, the question whether the mixture is considered as miduma is determined according to the proportion [ofterumah in the first mixture].9Similarly, if a se'ah of terumah fell into less than one hundred se'ah [of ordinary produce] and the entire mixture becamemiduma and then some of this mixture fell into other [produce], the question whether the mixture is considered as miduma is determined according to the proportion [of terumah in the first mixture].
What is implied? Ten se'ah of terumah fell into 90 se'ah of ordinary produce and the entire mixture became miduma. If ten se'ah from this mixture fell into less than 100 se'ah of ordinary produce, the mixture is considered miduma, because in the ten se'ah of the [original] mixture, there was at least one se'ahof terumah.10 If less than ten se'ah [of terumah] fell into [the original mixture], the [second] mixture is not considered as miduma [when one se'ah of the first mixture fell into 100 se'ah].
Halacha 4
When does the above apply? With regard to substances that do not become blended together, e.g., wheat kernels with wheat kernels or flour with flour.11When, however, substances blend together, e.g., oil that is terumah mixes with ordinary oil or wine that is terumah mixes with ordinary wine, we follow the majority. If the majority is terumah, should the mixture fall into other produce, the ruling is the same as if [the first mixture] was [entirely] terumah.12If the majority of the [first] mixture is ordinary produce, should that mixture fall into other produce, [the entire first mixture] is considered as ordinary produce and there is never a difficulty concerning a mixture of terumah.13Nevertheless, in all instances, the entire [first] mixture is forbidden to non-priests.
Halacha 5
When a se'ah of terumah falls into 100 se'ah, [a se'ah of the mixture] was removed, another [se'ah of terumah] fell in, [another se'ah] was removed, and another fell in, the ordinary produce is permitted14 until there is a majority ofterumah [in the mixture]. Thus if more than 100 se'ah of terumah fell into 100se'ah of ordinary produce, se'ah after se'ah [in above manner], the entire mixture is considered as miduma.15
Halacha 6
[The following rules apply when] a se'ah of terumah fell into 100 [se'ah of ordinary produce] and before one se'ah was removed, another se'ah ofterumah fell [into the mixture]. If [the owner] was aware of the first se'ah before the second se'ah fell, [the mixture] does not become miduma. Instead, he should remove two se'ah and the remainder is permitted. [The rationale is that] since it should have been taken out,16 we consider it as if it was taken out. If, however, he did not become aware of the first se'ah until after the second fell in, the mixture is considered miduma. It is as if both se'ah fell in at the same time.17
Halacha 7
The waste products of terumah are not combined with it [a mixture of it and ordinary produce] to cause the ordinary produce to be forbidden. The waste products of ordinary produce, by contrast, are combined with it to causeterumah to be nullified in a mixture.
What is implied? A se'ah of high quality wheat that is terumah fell into 100se'ah of wheat of low quality that is ordinary produce. The owner ground the entire quality. Even though there is much bran in the ordinary produce and a small amount in the terumah and thus the flour from the terumah is more than one hundredth of the flour from the ordinary produce,18 it is nullified. For we measure the flour with the bran and [together,] it is 101 times [the original amount of terumah]. If, however, a se'ah of low quality wheat that is terumahfalls into [slightly] less 100 se'ah of high quality wheat that is ordinary produce and [the owner] ground the entire quantity, [the weight of] the flour that isterumah will be one hundredth of [the weight of] the flour that is ordinary produce. Hence it is nullified because the mixture is 101 times the original amount [of terumah], for the weight of the ordinary produce increased and that of the terumah decreased.19
Halacha 8
When a log20 of clear wine that is terumah fell into 100 lugin of cloudy wine21that is ordinary produce, we do not remove the dregs from the wine [and only then calculate whether the ordinary wine is 100 times the terumah]. Instead, we nullify the log of terumah.22 Similarly, if a log of cloudy wine [that isterumah] fell into a 100 log of clear wine, we do not remove the dregs in [the wine that is terumah].23
Halacha 9
When a log of water fell into 99 lugim of wine and then a log of wine that isterumah fell into the mixture, the entire mixture is considered as miduma, because water does not nullify [the existence of] wine.24
Halacha 10
[The following rules apply when] a se'ah of terumah fell into less than 100se'ah of ordinary produce and then other ordinary produce fell into the mixture so that there was more than 100 times [the weight of the terumah]. If [the second batch of produce was added] unknowingly, [the terumah] is nullified because there is 101 [times the original weight]. If he mixed it intentionally, the entire mixture is considered as miduma, because we do not nullify the existence of substances prohibited by Scriptural Law as an initial preference.25
Halacha 11
It is, however, permitted to nullify terumah from the Diaspora [by mixing it] with a majority of permitted substances26 and eat it during the time when one is ritually impure.27 Not only that, if a person possesses wine that is terumahfrom the Diaspora, he should take one log of this wine and mix it with twolugim of ordinary [wine]. Thus there are three lugim.28 Afterwards, he can add another log of the terumah wine into the three lugim and then take one log from the four and drink it.29 He may then add another log [of terumah wine] and take out a log and drink it. Similarly, he may continue adding a log of terumahand removing a log until all the wine that is terumah is completed. Thus he can nullify several lugim [of terumah] in two lugim of ordinary produce.
Halacha 12
When one sows terumah next to ordinary produce and cannot identify which produce is terumah and which is ordinary produce, the entire batch is permitted even if there were 100 rows of terumah and [only] one row of ordinary produce.30
When does the above apply? With regard to produce whose seed decomposes in the earth, e.g., wheat, barley, and the like.31 If, however, the seeds do not decompose, e.g., garlic and onions,32 even if 100 rows are ordinary produce and one row is terumah, the entire mixture is miduma. 33 If the entire crop is harvested,34 terumah can be nullified in a mixture of 100 times its weight, but, as an initial and preferred option, one should not harvest the crop.35
Halacha 13
When there are two containers of produce, one containing terumah and one containing ordinary produce and it is not known [which contains the ordinary produce and which contains the terumah], if [the contents of] one of these containers falls into ordinary produce, [the mixture] is not considered asmiduma.36 [This same law applies if produce that is] terumah fell into one of two containers [of ordinary produce], but one does not know which one and afterwards, one of those containers fell into ordinary produce.
Similarly, if one sowed [the grain from] one of the two containers, the produce that grows is considered as ordinary produce with regard to all matters.37 [The produce in] the remaining container is considered as terumah.38 If [the contents of] the second container fell into other produce, [the mixture] is not considered as miduma.39 Similarly, if another person sowed [the contents of] the second container, the produce that grows is considered as ordinary produce.40
If [the contents of] both containers fall into one mixture of other produce, the mixture is considered miduma according to the amount of produce in the smaller container.41 If one person sowed both of them,42 if the produce is a species where the seed decomposes, the produce that grows is considered as ordinary produce.43If the seed does not decompose, the produce that grows is miduma.44
When does the above apply? When one sowed [the contents of] the second container before the first batch of produce was harvested.45 If, however, he harvested the first batch of produce before sowing the second, the produce that grows is considered as ordinary produce even when the seed does not decompose. [The rationale is that] produce that has been reaped and produce that is growing are not considered as indicators of each other's status.
Halacha 14
When there are two containers [of produce], one containing ordinary produce and the other, containing terumah and two se'ah, one of ordinary produce and one of terumah, and both se'ah fall into these containers, [one into each], the produce is permitted. We assume that the ordinary produce fell into [the container of] ordinary produce and that the terumah fell into [the container of]terumah. [This applies] even though the weight of the ordinary produce is not greater than that of the terumah.46
Halacha 15
Halacha 16
If there were two grainheaps before a person and he said: 'The terumah for both grainheaps is in one of them," they are both considered miduma.53
If there were two se'ah of grain and one grainheap before a person and he said: "One of these se'ah is considered terumah for this grainheap," one of them is terumah and he does not know which.54 If there were two grainheaps and one se'ah before him and he said: "This is terumah for one of the grainheaps," [the se'ah] is terumah and [terumah has been separated from] one of the grainheaps, but he does not know which one is no longer tevel.55
FOOTNOTES
1.
In Hilchot Ma'achalot Assurot 15:16, the Rambam explains:
Why did [the Sages] choose the figure of 100 forterumot? For terumat ma'aser is one hundredth of the entire crop, and yet it causes the entire crop to be "sanctified," as [Numbers 18:29] states: "its sacred part." Our Sages said: "An entity which must be separated from it sanctifies it, if it returns to it.
Nevertheless, from Halachah 13-14, it appears that according to Scriptural Law,terumah is nullified when mixed with a majority of ordinary produce and the verse is cited merely as a support.
2.
Obviously, if the produce which is terumahis distinct, it is sufficient for him to remove it.
3.
In Hilchot Ma'achalot Assurot 15:15, the Rambam explains: "Why is it necessary to separate [a measure of] terumah and not a measure of orlah or mixed species from a vineyard? Because terumah is the property of the priests." I.e., from a ritual perspective, it is not necessary to remove the se'ah, for the existence of the terumah has been nullified. Nevertheless, from a financial perspective, it is necessary to give the priest his due. This is the explanation of the concluding clause.
4.
And it is forbidden for a non-priest to partake of it.
In his Commentary to the Mishnah (Demai1:3), the Rambam explains that Exodus 22:23 uses the term dima as a synonym forterumah. Hence our Sages referred to a mixture of terumah and ordinary produce in this manner.
5.
Which is far less than the price of ordinary produce. Since the terumah is not nullified, we have to consider the possibility that every kernel is terumah.
6.
Which is given to him without cost.
7.
Since the flavor of the terumahis not recognizable, it is considered as nullified. This principle applies with regard to all the Torah's prohibitions [the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (Orlah 2:7)].
8.
As required by Halachah 1.
9.
Even though the se'ah was taken out to be given to the priest, it is not considered asterumah. Instead, we calculate the proportion of terumah in the first mixture, on that basis, determine how much of the se'ahthat fell is considered to be terumah and then see if that amount is one hundredth of the new mixture or not. For example, if onese'ah fell in one hundred se'ah, we consider the se'ah that was removed as slightly less than 1/100th terumah. Thus if it fell into ase'ah or more of ordinary produce, the second mixture is permitted [the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (Terumot 5:5)].
10.
And thus a se'ah of terumah is being mixed with less than 100 se'ah of ordinary produce.
11.
In this instance, every entity remains discrete. It's only that an observer cannot distinguish between the terumah and the ordinary produce (see Radbaz).
12.
I.e., instead of calculating the percentage ofterumah alone in the new mixture, we consider the first mixture as if it wereterumah. Only if the second mixture is 100 times as large as the first is it permitted.
13.
We do not calculate the percentage ofterumah in the second mixture. Even if theterumah is more than one hundredth of the second mixture, that mixture is permitted.
14.
Since the mixture was permitted, it is considered as if the se'ah of terumah that fell into it does not exist. We do not consider it as existing within the mixture, so that were it to be combined with other terumah, the entire mixture would be considered miduma.
15.
The Ra'avad differs with the Rambam concerning this figure, maintaining that the mixture is considered as miduma if 51 se'ahof terumah fall into the ordinary produce in the above manner. His rationale is that since a se'ah is removed from the mixture, it is possible that he is removing a se'ah of ordinary produce. Hence, after 51 se'ah fell and 50 se'ah were removed, it is possible that there is a majority of terumah in the mixture. The Radbaz justifies the Rambam's ruling, explaining that it is logical to assume that each se'ah that is removed has an proportionate amount of terumah and ordinary produce.
16.
And thus the entire mixture would be considered as permitted.
17.
The Ra'avad comments on the Rambam's ruling, noting that he is following what appears to be the minority opinion inTerumot 5:8. The Kessef Mishneh questions the intent of the Ra'avad's comments and asserts that according to the Tosefta, the majority opinion also accepts the distinction the Rambam makes here. This interpretation is borne out by the Rambam's Commentary to that mishnah.
18.
For high quality grain produces more flour and less bran than lower quality grain. Thus more of the lower quality grain is bran and more of the higher quality grain is flour.
19.
The Ra'avad notes that the Jerusalem Talmud (Terumot 5:9) goes even further and says that the bran in the terumah, since it is considered waste and not food, can be considered as part of the ordinary produce and if there is 100 times the weight of the flour from the terumah when this bran is added to the ordinary produce, the terumahis nullified. The Radbaz and the Kessef Mishneh suggest that the Rambam does not mention this point, because he feels that the Babylonian Talmud - according to which halachah is decided - does not accept it. Nevertheless, it appears that the Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 99:1) follows the Ra'avad's view, although the Rama states that as a stringency, the Rambam's perspective should be followed.
20.
A measure of liquid weight of the Talmudic period.
21.
I.e., the dregs had been removed from the wine that is terumah, but had not been removed from the wine which was ordinary produce.
22.
Counting the dregs of the ordinary produce as part of the mixture.
23.
The Rambam is apparently saying that in this instance, the dregs of the terumah wine are counted and unless the ordinary wine is 100 times the amount of that wine including its dregs, it is considered as miduma. See Chapter 11, Halachah 13, which states that the dregs are considered as terumah.
The Ra'avad differs and maintains that in this instance, like the one described in the previous halachah, the dregs of the terumahare not counted, because they are wastes. The Radbaz justifies the Rambam's ruling, explaining that wine dregs are different than the wastes mentioned in the previous halachah, because they have the flavor of wine and can produce wine.
24.
The Ra'avad explains the rationale for this ruling as follows: The water is not considered as the same type as wine. Hence, it cannot nullify it unless the flavor of the wine is no longer noticeable. The wine, by contrast, is considered its type and it requires 100 times the weight of theterumah. The Kessef Mishneh explains that this can be understood as the Rambam's intent.
25.
The Radbaz notes that in Hilchot Ma'achalot Assurot 15:25, the Rambam writes:
It is forbidden to nullify a substance forbidden by Scriptural Law as an initial and preferred measure. If, however, one nullified it, the mixture is permitted. Nevertheless, our Sages penalized such a person and forbade the entire mixture. It appears to me that since this is a penalty, we forbid this mixture only to the person who transgressed and nullified the prohibited substance. For others, however, the entire mixture is permitted.
In the present instance, however, it appears that the produce is considered as miduma, not only for the person who mixed together, but for everyone. The Radbaz differentiates between the two situations, explaining that inHilchot Ma'achalot Assurot, the Rambam is speaking about a forbidden substance. Hence, if it was considered forbidden, it would have no value entirely. In our halachah, even if the mixture is consideredmiduma, it can be sold to priests and thus, it will not be wasted entirely.
26.
I.e., since the prohibition is of Rabbinic origin, one may nullify it as an initial preference, as stated in Hilchot Ma'achalot Assurot 15:26.
27.
The Radbaz explains that the mixture may be eaten by a priest even when he is ritually impure or by a non-priest.
28.
And the wine that is terumah is nullified, because it is mixed with a majority of ordinary produce.
29.
The Ra'avad differs, maintaining that once there is no longer a majority of ordinary produce, the mixture is forbidden. TheKessef Mishneh justifies the Rambam's ruling, explaining that once the terumah is nullified, it does not become a factor again if other terumah is added.
30.
The rationale is that the produce that grows from terumah is not terumah and is forbidden to non-priests only as a stringency (Chapter 11, Halachot 21-22). Hence, if there is any confusion about which produce is terumah, it is all permitted.
31.
For then there is no trace of the original plant.
32.
In which instance, the new plant grows from a bulb of the original one and that original plant never decomposes entirely.
33.
For the terumah is distinct and has not become mixed with the ordinary produce [the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (Terumot 9:5)].
34.
Without paying attention to the prohibition.
35.
For as stated above, as an initial preference, a prohibited substance should not be nullified. It must, however, be emphasized, the Rambam's intent is not to let the produce remain in the ground forever. Instead, it should be harvested as produce which ismiduma and sold to priests at the price ofterumah.
36.
Since we are unsure of the identity of the produce that fell into the mixture, we do not rule it forbidden because of the doubt. Instead, we say that the ordinary produce fell into it.
This halachah involves produce that is forbidden as terumah according to Rabbinic decree, e.g., terumah from the Diaspora or a mixture of terumahand a majority of ordinary produce. These principles are also applied in other contexts, see Chapter 10, Halachah 14, and Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah111:1).
37.
Even if the original was terumah
38.
Because of the doubt applying to its status.
39.
The same principle applies here. Since we are unsure if the identity of the produce which fell into the mixture, we do not rule that it is forbidden because of the doubt.
40.
Since each person asks concerning the status of the produce that he sowed individually, both are permitted, because in each instance, there is a doubt.
41.
I.e., if the larger container contained onese'ah and the smaller container contained half a se'ah, we require the mixture to contain 50 ½ se'ah to be permitted, not 101se'ah.
42.
And thus the same person is asking about both plantings of produce. Hence, there is more room for stringency.
43.
Since no trace of the original produce remains, we rule leniently.
44.
Since the produce concerning which a doubt arose originally continues to exist, stringency is called for.
45.
For then it is considered as if he sowed them both together.
46.
But rather they are of the same weight. Were there to be a majority of ordinary produce, according to Scriptural Law, the existence of the terumah would already be nullified and thus there would be greater room for leniency. Nevertheless, as the Rambam continues to explain, even when there is not a majority, since the entire question is one of Rabbinic Law, we allow leniency. If, however, there is a majority ofterumah, even when it is forbidden only according to Rabbinic Law, the mixture is forbidden.
47.
See Chapter 1, Halachah 26.
48.
In such an instance, the existence of theterumah would already be nullified and thus there would be greater room for leniency, since then the question is one of Rabbinic Law. The above leniency applies only with regard to such questions and not to questions involving Scriptural Law.
49.
From which terumah and the tithes have not been separated.
50.
Though in and of itself, the amount ofterumah which fell in the grainheap would not disqualify it, when it is combined with theterumah that was designated it does.
The Ra'avad appears to have had a different version of the Jerusalem Talmud, Terumot3:3, the Rambam's source. Hence he differs with the Rambam's ruling..
51.
This law applies even if no terumah has fallen into the grainheap.
52.
Because there is less than one hundred times the weight of the terumah in that corner.
53.
The one which contains the terumah is certainly miduma. Since we do not know which one that is, they are both considered as miduma.
54.
Hence he must observe the restrictions ofterumah with regard to both of them.
55.
Hence terumah must be separated in a conditional manner. One must bring other produce and say: "If terumah has not been separated for this grainheap, than this isterumah for it. But if it is the other grainheap from which terumah has not been separated, it is terumah for that."
Terumot - Chapter 14
Halacha 1
[The following laws apply when] there were fifty dark figs and fifty1 light figs and one fig that is terumah fell among them. If it was light, the dark figs are permitted2 and the light figs are considered miduma.3 If it was dark, the dark figs are miduma and the light figs are permitted. If it is not known whether it was light or dark, it can be nullified when the mixture is 101 times [the weight of] the original fig.4 If he knew what type of fig it was but forgot, they are all considered miduma.5
Halacha 2
Similar laws apply when there are cakes of pressed figs or blocks of pressed figs and a cake or block of [figs that are] terumah falls among them. If it is not known whether the one which fell in was a block or a cake, the cakes and the blocks are combined and the terumah can be nullified if their [combined weight] is 101 times that of the terumah. [Similarly,] when there are large cakes of figs and small ones and a cake of figs [that is terumah] falls among them, but it is not known whether the cake which fell in was large or small, [the existing cakes] can nullify the one which fell in whether by weight or by number.
What is implied? A cake [of figs] fell into a mixture of 100 other cakes, both large and small. We assume that a small cake6 fell in and one may remove one of the small cakes.7 If a cake fell into 40 cakes, 20 of them weighing fourlitra each and 20 of them, weighing one litra each, since the combined weight is 101 litra, we assume a small one fell in and remove one of the small ones.8
Halacha 3
Flour and finely sifted flour cannot be combined together to nullify terumah.9
Halacha 4
When a se'ah of wheat which is terumah falls on the mouth of the storage vat of wheat, we do not measure it against the 101 times [its weight or ordinary grain found] in the storage vat. For we do not make such an assessment unless the terumah has been mixed with the ordinary produce10 or we do not know where the terumah fell.11
What should be done? We consider the terumah as if it is wheat placed above barley and separate the terumah itself which fell unto the storage vat with some of the ordinary produce upon which they fell as one would be collecting wheat from barley.
Halacha 5
[The following laws apply when] there are two containers or two storage vats and terumah fell into one of them. It became mixed with [the contents of the container or storage vat] and it is not known which one it fell into. If the two storage vats were in the same building, they are considered as if they were combined and the terumah is nullified if the entire quantity is 101 times its weight. It is as if they were both contained in a single storage vat. Moreover, the containers are considered as combined together even if they are in two separate buildings, for it is possible to gather the two in one building.12 If, however, the two containers were in two cities, they are not combined.
Halacha 6
How should he remove the se'ah which fell in?13 If he desires to remove it from one of them, he may. If he desires to remove half from one and half from the other, he may.
[The following laws apply when] there are jugs filled with dried figs that are ordinary produce and [the owner] pressed a litra of figs that are terumah into the opening of one of them, but he does not remember which one. If there are 101 jugs, the terumah is considered nullified. He should take one jug and sell it to a priest except for the worth of the litra [of terumah]14 and the remainder [of the jugs] are permitted. If there are less than 100 jugs, [the figs at] the openings [of the jugs] are considered miduma and those at the bottom are permitted.15
Halacha 7
Similar laws apply if one pressed [a litra of] figs into the opening of akaveret16or into the top of a cake.17 If he pressed them onto the top of a cake, but does not know whether he pressed them onto the northern portion [of the cake] or its southern portion, nor does he know which cake he pressed them onto, we look at all the figs as if they were separate entities and [the figs that are terumah] should be nullified based on weight. If all the cakes weigh 10018litra, the terumah is nullified19 proved each of the cakes weighs more than twolitra so that in each cake, the terumah is nullified because there is a majority of ordinary produce.20 The rationale is that when there is a doubt concerning the presence of terumah, it is nullified when there is a majority of ordinary produce.
Halacha 8
When terumah is definitely [present in a mixture], it is forbidden if the mixture is 100 [or less times its weight]. If there is merely a doubt concerning the presence of terumah, it is forbidden if there are only fifty. It is permitted only if one adds a majority [of the new mixture].21 If there are more than fifty, one need not add such a majority.
What is implied? One fig that is terumah fell into 99 figs and they are all present. They are all forbidden to non-priests, as explained.22
Halacha 9
If, [after a fig that is terumah fell into 50 other figs, and then] one of the mixture becomes lost, it is possible that one of the ordinary figs was the one that was lost, but it is possible that it was the fig that fell in. Hence, the mixture is forbidden until one adds ordinary produce to it from another source,23 adding 51 figs to the entire quantity. If one fig fell into 51 figs and one of the mixture was lost, the remainder is permitted to non-priests.24
Halacha 10
[The following rules apply when] a se'ah of terumah fell into less than 100se'ah of the first tithe from which terumat ma'aser was not separated or into [produce from] the second tithe or consecrated property that was not redeemed and the entire mixture became miduma. If [the terumah] fell into the first tithe, the terumat ma'aser should be designated,25 and the entire mixture sold to the priests with the exception of the worth of the terumah that fell into it and the worth of the terumat ma'aser.26 If it fell into [produce from] the second tithe or consecrated property that was not redeemed, they should be redeemed27and then sold to a priest with the exception of the worth of theterumah.
Halacha 11
When a se'ah of impure terumah falls into less than 100 se'ah of ordinary produce or into produce that is from the first tithe, or from the second tithe, or from consecrated property - whether [the latter three] are ritually pure or ritually impure - [the mixture] is miduma.28 Hence, the entire mixture is like impure terumah which is forbidden to everyone. Thus it is all forbidden and must be left until it rots.29
When does the above apply? With regard to an entity that is not eaten raw.30When, by contrast, it is normal practice to partake of a type of produce uncooked,31 one should not set them aside lest someone encounter them and partake of it.32 Instead, the entire mixture should be used as fuel, like impureterumah is used as fuel.
Halacha 12
When a se'ah of pure terumah falls into less than 100 se'ah of ordinary produce that is impure, the entire mixture should be sold to a priest with the exception of the worth of the terumah. The priest should eat this mixture which is miduma as roasted kernels33 or he should make them into a dough using fruit juice which does not render produce fit to contract impurity,34 so that [contact with] the impure ordinary produce will not render the terumah as impure.35
Alternatively, he should make this mixture that is miduma into a dough that is less than the size of an egg. [This is beneficial], because impure food does not cause other food to become impure until [the impure food] is the size of an egg.36 Or he may divide the mixture that is miduma and place a portion of it that is less than the size of an egg in each dough so that the terumah in it will not become impure.
Halacha 13
When a se'ah of impure terumah falls into 100 se'ah of ordinary produce that is pure or a se'ah of pure terumah falls into 100 se'ah of ordinary produce that is impure, it should be removed and the terumah is nullified, because the new mixture is 101 times [the size of the terumah that fell in. That se'ah] should be eaten as roasted kernels, or it should be made into dough with fruit juice, or into dough that is less than the size of an egg.37 [The rationale is that] these'ah which fell in is not [necessarily] the se'ah that was removed.38
Halacha 14
Halacha 15
There were two containers [of grain, each containing less than 100 se'ah]. Ase'ah of terumah fell into one of them and it was known into which one it fell.41Afterwards, a second se'ah of terumah, but it was not known into which it fell. [The rationale is that] we assume that the second se'ah fell into the same place as the first se'ah, for we associate the problematic issue with the [previous] problem.
If, however, the first se'ah fell into one of the containers, but it was not known into which it fell and afterwards, a second se'ah fell into one and it was known into which one it fell, we do not say that the first one fell into the same place as the second. Instead, both are considered to be problematic.42
Halacha 16
Halacha 17
When there are two containers, one containing pure terumah45 and one containing impure ordinary produce,46 should a se'ah of pure terumah fall into one of them,47 we assume that it fell into the one containing terumah.48 The ordinary produce should, however, be eaten in a state of ritual purity liketerumah.49
Halacha 20
Halacha 21
If a se'ah of impure terumah fell into one of these containers, both of them are forbidden.56 [The rationale is that when] there is a doubt [whether produce is] impure terumah, it is forbidden to be eaten, while when there is a doubt whether it is miduma, it is permitted. For the prohibition against partaking of impure terumah is Scriptural in origin,57 while the prohibition against partaking of a mixture that is miduma is Rabbinic in origin58 based on the principles explained in Hilchot Ma'achalot Assurot.59
FOOTNOTES
1.
The same laws also apply if there are 30 light figs and 70 dark ones, or any other combination of numbers (Radbaz).
2.
Because the fig that was terumah was not dark.
3.
Because there are not enough to nullify its presence. We do not count the dark figs together with the light figs, because there is no possibility to mix the two with each other.
4.
Although the fig that was mixed in has a specific color, both types of figs can be counted together to nullify it, for it is possible to press all the figs into a single cake of figs (Rav Ovadiah of Bartenura, Terumot 4:7). Alternatively, since we do not know which type of fig fell in, the fact that it was of a specific color is not significant to us (Yayin Malchut).
5.
The rationale is that since at the outset he knew the color of the fig and there are neither enough dark figs or light figs to nullify it, the fig is considered as forbidden. And once it is forbidden, his forgetting its color does not cause it to become permitted again (Radbaz).
6.
If, however, we know that a large cake fell in, but we are uncertain about its size, we cannot merely count 101 cakes both large and small to nullify it (Rabbi Akiva Eiger).
7.
I.e., since there were 101 cakes, 101 times the number of cakes that fell in, the cake that was terumah could be nullified. We assume that it was small and hence, to fulfill the obligation to remove a cake, we remove a small one.
8.
The remainder are permitted, because it is possible that there was 101 times the weight of the terumah in the mixture. It is sufficient to remove a small one. The rationale is that since the terumah has been nullified, the removal of the cake is required only as a financial matter: to give the priest his due. Hence, to receive a larger cake, the priest must prove that a larger cake did indeed fall in.
9.
I.e., there is one container of flour and one container of finely sifted flour. Terumah fell into one of the containers, but we do not know which one. We do not say that the two containers of flour should be considered like the two groups of figs and considered as a single entity. Instead, we judge them individually. The rationale is that once theterumah becomes mixed with the flour or the finely sifted flour, it is part of one mixture and not the other. Hence it is not appropriate to combine them (Radbaz).
10.
And in this instance, that is not true, for it is positioned at the top of the storage container.
11.
And in this instance, we do.
12.
In his Commentary to the Mishnah (Terumot12:4), the Rambam writes that containers are frequently moved and in the process of their being moved, the two containers could be combined. Hence, we view them as if they were combined at present. This ruling is also quoted in other contexts; seeShulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 111:7).
13.
I.e., as stated in Chapter 13, Halachah 1, one se'ah must be removed from the mixture and given to the priest. How should that be done in the present instance? For the terumah fell into only one of the containers and we do not know which one.
14.
Although only the figs on the top of the opening are terumah, we require himself to sell the entire jug, because of the impression that might be created (Shita Mekubetzet, Beitzah 4a).
15.
Since we are talking about compressed figs, they will not mix with the contents of the jugs, but instead will be found on the top of a jug. Hence, when considering nullifying the figs, only the tops of the jugs are considered, but not the bottoms. Therefore we require 101 jugs, not 101 times the weight of the initial amount of terumah.
The Radbaz explains that this situation differs from that described in Halachah 1. In that situation, although the light figs and the dark figs could be distinguished from each other, they were all mixed together. Hence, it is possible to speak about one type being combined with the other to nullify theterumah. In the situation described by our Halachah, the tops and the bottoms will always remain discrete.
16.
The term kaveret literally means "bee-hive." Here we are talking about a storage compartment that is built like a bee-hive.
17.
I.e., we require 101 of the containers and count only the figs at the openings of the containers.
18.
I.e., without the terumah, 101 litra with theterumah.
19.
I.e., we consider the entire mixture as a single entity unlike the previous instances where the bottoms of the containers were considered as separate from the tops. In the previous instances, he knew that he pressed the terumah onto the tops of the container. Therefore only the tops are considered. In the present instance, he does not know the portion of the cakes unto which he pressed the figs. That lack of knowledge works to his advantage, enabling us to count in the entire mixture.
20.
In addition to considering the status of the entire mixture, we must consider the status of each cake individually. Each cake must have enough figs to nullify the presence of the terumah according to Scriptural Law.
21.
I.e., as the Rambam explains in the following halachah, one must add enough figs so that there is 101 times the amount of terumahthat fell in (Kessef Mishneh).
22.
As stated in Chapter 13, Halachah 1, it is necessary to have 101 times the amount ofterumah.
23.
It is, however, permitted to add such produce. We do not apply the principle that, as an initial preference, one should not nullify the presence of a forbidden substance, because here we are not certain that there is a forbidden substance present, for one fig has been lost.
24.
Since one fig has been lost, 51 figs are sufficient. We do not require 101. Note th contrast to Chapter 15, Halachah 2.
25.
So that the mitzvah of separating it has been fulfilled.
26.
For such produce must be given to the priests as a present. The majority of the mixture, however, belongs to its owner. Even though it is being given to the priest, because the owner may not make use of it, the priest must reimburse the owner for its value. Nevertheless, as mentioned previously, the value of produce that isterumah is less than that of ordinary produce.
The Radbaz mentions another possible solution to this difficulty: If the Levite has a large amount of produce from which terumat ma'aser has not been separated, he may make this entire mixture terumat ma'aser for that produce and in this way, not suffer any financial loss.
27.
At which point they are considered as ordinary produce and the laws mentioned in Chapter 13, Halachah 2, apply.
28.
Because there are less than 100 se'ah to nullify the se'ah of terumah.
29.
One would think that it should be used as fuel and thus the person will derive some benefit from it. The Radbaz explains that this is not allowed for the following reason. Since there is not enough other produce to nullify the terumah, the entire mixture is considered as terumah. Nevertheless, since it is not impure, it should not be burnt, because it is forbidden to burn pure terumah. This stringency is, however, only observed when there is no danger that the terumah will be eaten, as the Rambam proceeds to explain.
30.
E.g., wheat or barley.
31.
E.g., oil.
32.
See Chapter 12, Halachah 12, which states that impure terumah should be placed in repugnant container so that no one will accidentally partake of it.
33.
In which instance, the impure grain does not cause the pure terumah to become impure, for produce does not become fit to contract impurity until comes in contact with one of seven liquids (Hilchot Tumat Ochalin 1:1-2). Since the kernels of the terumah are roasted without contact with water, they are never fit to contract impurity.
34.
Fruit juice is not one of these seven liquids. Hence dough made with fruit juice is not susceptible to ritual impurity (Ibid. 3; 13:13).
35.
It is not only that the priest will be suffering a loss because the terumah becomes impure. It is forbidden to cause terumah to become impure as stated above.
36.
See Ibid. 4:1, 12. Making the mixture into small loaves is the Rambam's interpretation of the term nikudim in the Mishnah (Terumot5:1).
37.
I.e., he should use the grain in a manner that will prevent it from contracting ritual impurity, as described in the previous halachah.
38.
I.e., and hence it is permitted to be eaten.
39.
There is no need for any safeguards.
40.
As explained in Halachah 11.
41.
And the contents of that container was considered as miduma.
42.
I.e., they are both miduma. The rationale is that the problematic status of the two containers was established before the second one fell in and the fact that we know into which one it fell cannot resolve the existing problem.
Rav Yosef Korcus maintains that this is the interpretation of the Rambam's ruling. Nevertheless, he and the Radbaz both maintain that this law applies even if the first container contains 100 se'ah and the firstse'ah is nullified. Since one se'ah has to be removed from it, it can also be considered as problematic.
43.
The Kessef Mishneh explains that this law applies whether the grain in the containers was terumah or ordinary produce.
44.
I.e., we follow the same principle mentioned in the first clause of the previous halachah, because the impure grain is also considered as "problematic."
45.
The Kessef Mishneh suggests that the text should read "impure terumah."
46.
The Kessef Mishneh suggests that the text should read "pure ordinary produce." His rationale for these emendations is that if the ordinary produce is impure, it is not proper to say that it should be "eaten in a state of ritual purity." With these emendations, he resolves the objections of the Ra'avad. As will be explained, the Radbaz offers an interpretation that preserves the standard version of the text.
47.
But we do not know which.
48.
This represents the converse of the principle mentioned in Halachah 15, just as there, we associate the problematic issue with the existing problem, here we associate the produce that is of a positive nature (terumah) with the existing terumah(Radbaz).
49.
I.e., according to one of the three suggestions given in Halachah 12. The intent is that we are not certain that theterumah did indeed fall into the container containing terumah. Were it to have fallen into the other container, it would be forbidden to prepare a dough from it in the ordinary manner, because that would cause theterumah to contract ritual impurity which is forbidden.
50.
Our text is taken from the Shabsei Frankel printing of the Mishneh Torah which is based on authentic manuscripts and early printing. The standard printed text is both redundant and problematic.
51.
For we assume that the terumah fell intoterumah.
52.
To prevent it from contracting ritual impurity as mentioned above.
53.
Here also the Kessef Mishneh suggests inverting the words pure and impure in the text. Otherwise, this ruling would be a contradiction to Halachah 17.
54.
And thus the entire mixture is considered as impure terumah.
55.
So that the terumah will not be subject to contracting ritual impurity (Kessef Mishneh).
56.
I.e., the leniencies of assuming that the problematic se'ah fell into the produce that was already problematic or that terumah fell into terumah are not granted, because, as the Rambam continues to explain, here a Scriptural prohibition is involved.
57.
See Chapter 7, Halachah 3. The impureterumah does not become nullified because it was mixed with a larger quantity of other produce.
58.
For according to Scriptural Law, as long as there is a majority of non-terumah produce, the terumah is nullified.
59.
See Chapter 15:1-3, 13, 15.
Terumot - Chapter 15
Halacha 1
A sealed barrel [of wine that is terumah] makes a mixture miduma whatever the ratio [between it and the other barrels].
Halacha 2
When a sealed barrel [that contains terumah] becomes mixed with 100 barrels and then one falls into the Mediterranean Sea, they are all permitted. We assume that it is the one that is terumah that fell in. This is not the case when a fig falls into 100 figs. In the latter instance, it is necessary to set aside one [fig].3 [The rationale for the distinction is] that a barrel that falls into the sea is noticeable. A fig and the like which fall are not noticeable.
Halacha 3
When a sealed barrel [that contains terumah] becomes mixed with 100 barrels and one of them is opened,4 he should remove one hundredth of it,5 and then he may drink the barrel.6 The other barrels are, however, forbidden until they are opened. Whenever any one of them is opened, he should remove the percentage that causes the mixture to be miduma and drink the remaining hundred portions.
If a barrel [containing terumah] became mixed with 150 barrels and 100 of them were opened, he should remove the percentage that causes the mixture to be miduma, i.e., one barrel and drink [he remaining barrels]. The remaining 50 are still forbidden; we do not presume that the barrel that was terumah was among the majority [that were opened].7 Even if there are several thousand barrels, they are all considered miduma. Whenever any one is opened, he should remove one hundredth of it and then he may drink the remainder [of that barrel]. The other barrels, however, are miduma,
Halacha 4
We have already explained in Hilchot Ma'achalot Assurot8 that a leavening agent or a spice9 causes a mixture to be forbidden regardless of how small the amount is mixed in.10 Therefore if a person pureed an apple that wasterumah and put it in a dough and it caused [the dough] to leaven, the entire dough becomes miduma and is forbidden to non-priests.
Halacha 5
When an egg, even its yolk,11 was flavored with spices that are terumah, it is forbidden, because it absorbs.
Halacha 6
When yeast that is terumah fell into a dough and it was removed and afterwards, the mixture became leavened, [the dough] is permitted.12
Halacha 7
We have already explained13 that if terumah becomes mixed with a substance of a different type, [the mixture is forbidden if the terumah] imparts its flavor [to the mixture]. Therefore, [the following laws apply when] a diced onion is cooked together with other food. If the onion is terumah and the other food is ordinary produce and it is flavored by the onion, the other food is forbidden to non-priests. If the onion is ordinary produce and the cooked food is terumahand the flavor of the cooked food was imparted to the onion, the onion is forbidden [to non-priests].14
Halacha 8
[The following laws apply if] lentils were cooked and then a dry onion was placed among them: If the onion was whole, it is permitted.15 If it was diced, [the ruling depends on whether] its flavor was imparted.16 If he cooked the onion with the lentils, whether it is whole or diced, we estimate whether it imparted its flavor.17 With regard to the remainder of the cooked food,18regardless of whether the onion was placed upon it after it was cooked or cooked with it, or whether it was whole or diced, we estimate whether it imparted its flavor.19
Why do we not estimate [whether flavor was imparted] when a whole onion was placed among cooked lentils? Because it does not absorb from them, for it is whole, nor does it impart [flavor] to them, because they have already been cooked. If the onions were soft,20 it is considered as if they were diced. Similarly, if its tip or its outer shell21 was removed or it was moist, it is considered as if it was diced. Wild onions, whether moist or dry, whether whole or diced, we see if they have imparted their flavor.
Halacha 9
When one pickles vegetables that are ordinary produce with those of terumah,they are permitted to non-priests22 with the exception of onions, scallions, and garlic.23 [With regard to these species,] if one pickled vegetables that are ordinary produce with onions that are terumah or onions that are ordinary produce with onions that are terumah, they are forbidden to non-priests. If one pickled vegetables that are terumah with an onion that is ordinary produce, the onion is permitted to non-priests.24
Halacha 10
[The following rules apply when] olives that are ordinary produce were pickled together with olives that are terumah. If they were both crushed, or the ordinary olives were crushed, but those which were terumah were whole,25 or they were pickled in brine that was terumah, they are forbidden to non-priests.26 If, however, they were both whole or the olives that were terumahwere crushed and those that were ordinary produce were whole, they are permitted, because those that are crushed absorb from those which are whole.
Halacha 11
Water in which terumah was pickled or cooked is forbidden to non-priests.27
Halacha 12
The laws governing terumah apply to anise as long as it has not yet flavored a dish [of food].28 Once it has flavored a dish, the laws of terumah no longer apply.
Halacha 13
Halacha 14
When an oven has been heated with cumin that is terumah, the bread is permitted. For it does not have the flavor of the cumin, only its fragrance and fragrance does not create a prohibition.31
Halacha 15
When barley that is terumah falls into a cistern of water, the water is permitted even if [the barley] spoils the flavor of the water, for food that imparts an undesirable flavor does not bring about a prohibition.32
Halacha 16
Halacha 17
When there are two cups of wine: one of terumah and one of ordinary wine35and they were each mixed with water and then combined, we consider it as if the ordinary wine was not present and as if the wine that was terumahwas mixed with the water alone, for water is not of its type. If that water is sufficient to nullify the taste of the terumah wine in the mixture, the entire mixture is permitted to non-priests. If not, it is forbidden, for as we have explained,36water does not nullify wine.
Halacha 18
When wine that is terumah falls on produce, one may wash the fruits and they are permitted.37 Similarly, when oil that is terumah falls on produce, one may wash the fruits and they are permitted.38
When oil [that is terumah] falls on [ordinary] wine, one should make it coagulate39 and the wine is then permitted to non-priests. If [oil that isterumah] mixes with brine, it should be made to coagulate, then the upper layer of the brine should be removed40 so that all the brine that has the taste of oil will be removed.
Halacha 19
A pot in which terumah was cooked should not be used to cook ordinary produce. If it was cooked in it, it causes it to be forbidden if its flavor is recognizable. If he washes out the pot with wine or with water, it is permitted to cook in it.41 If he cooked [terumah] in part of the pot, it is not necessary to wash out the entire pot, only the place where it was cooked.42
Halacha 20
The great terumah, terumat ma'aser, challah,43 and the first fruits are all referred to as terumah.44 With regard to terumat ma'aser, [Numbers 18:26] states: "And you shall remove the terumah of G‑d from it" and [ibid. 15:20] states that it should be "like the terumah of your grain heap."45
With regard to challah, [ibid.] states: "You shall separate challah as terumah." And [Deuteronomy 12:17]: "You may not eat in your gates the tithes of your grain, your wine, and your oil,... and the terumah of your hand." Now there are no substances that are required to be brought [to Jerusalem to be eaten] that are not explicitly mentioned in the verse except the first fruits. Thus the phrase "the terumah of your hand" can be applied to them. Thus we see that they are [also] called terumah.
Halacha 21
Therefore the laws regarding partaking of all four types of substances and mixtures of them and other substances are the same. All can be nullified in a mixture of 101 times the original substance. They are also all combined with each other.46 If they become impure, they should all be burnt. The laws that apply to terumat ma'aser that is demai,47 are the same that apply to terumat ma'aser separated from produce [from which the tithes were] definitely [not separated]. It is only that its violation is not punishable by lashes.
Halacha 22
Anyone who partakes of terumah should recite the blessing for that particular food and then recite the blessing:487 "[Blessed are You... who has sanctified us with the holiness of Aaron and commanded us to partake of terumah."49We have received the tradition and observed that people would recite this blessing even when partaking of challah separated in the Diaspora.50 For even partaking of sacred foods from the boundaries [of our Holy Land] is like service [in the Temple],51 as [Numbers 18:7] states: "I have granted you your priestly service as a gift."
Blessed be the Merciful One who grants assistance.
FOOTNOTES
1.
This follows the principle devar shebiminyan lo betal: "The presence of an object that is sold by number is never considered insignificant." Since these objects are sold by number, each one is considered important and it is not appropriate to say that one is insignificant (Hilchot Ma'achalot Assurot 16:1-3).
2.
For once the barrels are opened, they are no longer considered as important. It is, however, forbidden to open the barrels, for this would be considered as purposefully nullifying a forbidden substance and that is prohibited (Radbaz).
3.
And give it to a priest. The Jerusalem Talmud (Terumot 4:7) records a difference of opinion concerning this matter between Reish Lakish and Rabbi Yochanan. Reish Lakish's opinion is the one cited by the Rambam. Rabbi Yochanan, however, differs and maintains that the same law applies even with regard to figs. The Rambam rules according to Reish Lakish's opinion, for the Babylonian Talmud (Zevachim 74b) mentions his view only and not that of Rabbi Yochanan. See also Hilchot Avodat Kochavim 7:10 where the Rambam issues a similar ruling.
The Ra'avad does not accept this ruling. He maintains that the Babylonian Talmud mentions Reish Lakish's opinion only in connection with the discussion of another minority view. Hence, it is not necessary to mention Rabbi Yochanan's view.
4.
Inadvertently. It is forbidden to open such a barrel intentionally.
5.
More precisely, 1/101. I.e., the percent of the mixture that is terumah. This is given to a priest.
6.
It is true that this ruling is somewhat problematic. For if the barrel is in factterumah, the entire barrel, not only the hundredth portion, must be given to the priest. And if it is not terumah, it is permitted to drink it in its entirety. Nothing need be given to the priest.
The Ma'aseh Rokeach explains the reason for the stringency. Were this safeguard not taken, one might permit the barrels even when they were all opened.
7.
Although when considering those barrels, it is necessary to give a barrel to a priest because of the suspicion that one isterumah, we are still stringent regarding those remaining.
8.
Chapter 16, Halachah 1.
9.
Based on Hilchot Ma'achalot Assurot 16:26, the Radbaz states that this same law applies if terumah is used to cause cheese to harden.
10.
I.e., the standard ration of 1/101 is not effective to nullify the terumah. In his Commentary to the Mishnah (Orlah 2:4;Terumot 10:2), the Rambam explains that since the effects of the terumah are evident in the food - it rises or it is spiced because of it - we cannot say that the terumah is nullified.
11.
We are speaking about a situation where the egg is cooked whole. Thus despite the fact that the yolk is on the inside and covered by the whites, a spice intended for it can cause it to be forbidden, because it absorbs (Radbaz, Kessef Mishneh).
12.
Since the yeast was removed, we do not say that it caused the dough to rise. Instead, we assume that the dough rose on its own accord (Radbaz).
13.
Chapter 13, Halachah 2; Hilchot Ma'achalot Assurot 15:1,6.
14.
How do we know whether the flavor of theterumah was imparted to the mixture. We give it to a priest to taste (ibid. 15:29).
15.
In his Commentary to the Mishnah (Terumot10:1), the Rambam explains that this applies whether the onion is terumah and the lentils ordinary produce or the reverse. In both instances, since the lentils are already cooked and the onion is whole, there is little likelihood that one will absorb the flavor from the other.
16.
Here also the same principle applies whether it is the onion or the lentils which areterumah. Since the onion is diced, it will both impart and absorb flavor easier.
17.
Since the onion is cooked, even if it is whole, it can both impart and absorb flavor easily.
18.
I.e., in addition to the lentils.
19.
As the Rambam proceeds to explain, lentils are considered as being unique. Once they are cooked, they do not absorb flavor from other foods easily. Other foods are more absorbent. Even after they have been cooked, they may absorb the flavor of the onion.
20.
The Kessef Mishneh suggests that the text should read rabbim, "many," instead ofrachim, "soft;" i.e., one onion that is whole will not impart that much flavor, but several onions will.
21.
Once the tip or the outer shell is removed, its flavor will be imparted easily even though it is still whole.
22.
In certain contexts (see Hilchot Ma'achalot Assurot 15:34), pickling is considered as cooking. Nevertheless, in this instance, the Rambam rules leniently.
23.
Because their sharp and pungent taste nature causes their flavor to be imparted to any vegetables pickled with them [the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (Terumot 10:10)].
24.
For the onion will not absorb the flavor of the other produce.
25.
When olives are crushed, they will absorb easier [the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (Terumot 10:7)].
26.
For the brine imparts its flavor to the objects pickled in within it.
27.
For it has absorbed the flavor of theterumah.
28.
Anise is used as flavoring. Once it has flavored other foods, it is discarded. Hence, until it has flavored other foods, it is significant and the laws of terumah apply. Afterwards, it is considered as a wasteproduct (Radbaz).
29.
Even though the bread may absorb the fragrance of the wine, it does not absorb its substance and the fragrance alone is of no consequence. This is a general principle that applies with regard to all prohibited foods; see Hilchot Ma'achalot Assurot 15:33.
30.
It is considered as the actual substance of the wine has been imparted to the bread.
31.
In Hilchot Ma'achalot Assurot 16:22, the Rambam writes that when an oven is heated with shells of produce that is orlah or mixed species in a vineyard, whatever is cooked in the oven is forbidden. The commentaries note, however, that there is a fundamental distinction between the two instances. It is forbidden to benefit from - not only to eat - the prohibited substances mentioned inHilchot Ma'achalot Assurot. It is, by contrast, permitted to benefit from terumah.
32.
This concept also applies with regard to all the Torah's prohibitions; see Hilchot Ma'achalot Assurot 15:28.
33.
A pungent herb.
34.
I.e., without the influence of the plant whose flavor is similar to that of the seeds. The rationale is that the plant is not considered as terumah [the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (Terumot 10:5)]. See also Chapter 2, Halachah 4.
35.
And the ordinary wine is less than 100 times the amount of terumah wine.
36.
See Chapter 13, Halachah 9, which explains that the water is not combined with the ordinary wine to create a mixture 100 times the amount of the terumah.
37.
The Radbaz notes that in Hilchot Ma'achalot Assurot 16:32, the Rambam writes a similar law with regard to wine associated with idol worship that fell on produce. There, however, he rules stringently, stating that the fruits are forbidden if the wine is poured upon them while they are broken open. The Radbaz explains that the Rambam did not mention the point here, because he relied on what he had stated earlier. Indeed, if the fruit was broken open and the wine improved its flavor, it should be sold to a priest at the price of terumah.
38.
Even though oil is more likely to cling to fruit than wine, it is sufficient to wash the fruit. Generally, oil does not improve the taste of fruit (Radbaz).
39.
For in this way, the oil can be removed without it mixing with the wine. Similarly, oil impairs the flavor of wine (ibid.).
40.
This stringency is necessary, because oil improves the flavor of brine (ibid.).
41.
The Ra'avad questions the Rambam's ruling, asking why this instance is different from the laws involving non-kosher food absorbed in a utensil. In that instance, it is not sufficient to wash out the utensil, one must perform hagalah, boiling water in the utensil to purge the absorbed matter. The Radbaz explains that the Rambam maintains that this concept applies with regard to sanctified foods and other prohibitions, but not with regard to terumah. The rationale is that if the priests consider the terumahinsignificant - as would be the case with regard to terumah absorbed in a pot - it is no longer of consequence. He draws support for this explanation from the mishnah inTerumot 11:8 (quoted in Chapter 11, Halachah 15) which states that after one pours out the contents of a jug of wine ofterumah, one can pour ordinary wine into the container even if there is a small amount of residue from the previous wine. This explanation is also given in one of the responsa ascribed to the Rambam in a response to a question concerning this subject by the sages of Lunil. The Kessef Mishneh also cites these ideas and states that the reason the Rambam requires that the pot be washed out is because the contents are being cooked. If they were not to be cooked, even washing would not be necessary.
42.
This leniency applies only with regard toterumah and not to prohibited food absorbed in a utensil. The rationale is the same as in the previous note: Since the priests consider this terumah insignificant, we do not show concern about it (Radbaz).
43.
The portion of dough that must be separated and given to a priest.
44.
See Chapter 10, Halachah 4.
45.
This verse refers to challah; or it is comparing challah to the great terumah. Perhaps a scribal error crept into the text and this was intended as support for the following clause. The Radbaz, however, gives an explanation why it was included here.
46.
I.e., to cause a mixture to be forbidden to non-priests.
47.
Produce from which we are unsure that the tithes have been separated.
48.
For partaking of terumah is a mitzvah and we are required to recite a blessing before the observance of all mitzvot (Kessef Mishneh).
49.
See Hillchot Bikkurim 1:2.
50.
Even though it is only a Rabbinic commandment.
51.
Pesachim 72b relates that one day Rabbi Tarfon did not come to the House of study. Rabban Gamliel rebuked him for his absence. Rabbi Tarfon answered that he was carrying out priestly worship. Rabban Gamliel asked him how that was possible, for they lived in the era of the Temple's destruction. Rabbi Tarfon replied that partaking of terumah was equivalent to serving in the Temple.
• English Text | Video Class• "Today's Day"
Sunday, Adar II 17, 5776 · 27 March 2016
Wednesday Adar Sheini 17 5703
Torah lessons: Chumash: Tzav, Revi'i with Rashi.
Tehillim: 83-87.
Tanya: It follows, (p. 173)...nurture from it. (p. 173).
In the Tehillim of this day (87:7), say kol maayanei boch (kol with a kamatz). In Birkat hamazon, say kol (in the same verse) with a cholam.
• Daily Thought:
Un-Prophets
If we were prophets or people of vision, we would see what is important and what is not, what will bear fruits and what will remain barren.
But we are simple people in an age of confusion. Our lives are filled with uncertainties—anything could happen, we have no way of telling.
We cannot decide which mitzvah is important and which will bear fruit. Neither are we expected to make our decisions that way.
All that's expected of us is to simply grab whatever G‑d sends our way, and do our very best at it. What will come of it? What is its purpose? Only He needs to know.
In truth, therein lies the greatness of our deeds, beyond that of those more enlightened before us—that we are transparent, selfless agents for a force of good far beyond us.
---------------------
No comments:
Post a Comment