Torah Reading
Tzav: Leviticus 6:1 (8) Adonai said to Moshe, 2 (9) “Give this order to Aharon and his sons: ‘This is the law for the burnt offering [Leviticus 6:2 Hebrew: ‘olah]: it is what goes up [Leviticus 6:2 Hebrew: ‘olah] on its firewood upon the altar all night long, until morning; in this way the fire of the altar will be kept burning. 3 (10) When the fire has consumed the burnt offering on the altar, the cohen, having put on his linen garment and covered himself with his linen shorts, is to remove the ashes and put them beside the altar. 4 (11) Then he is to remove those garments and put on others, before carrying the ashes outside the camp to a clean place. 5 (12) In this way, the fire on the altar will be kept burning and not be allowed to go out. Each morning, the cohen is to kindle wood on it, arrange the burnt offering and make the fat of the peace offerings go up in smoke. 6 (13) Fire is to be kept burning on the altar continually; it is not to go out.
7 (14) “‘This is the law for the grain offering: the sons of Aharon are to offer it before Adonai in front of the altar. 8 (15) He is to take from the grain offering a handful of its fine flour, some of its olive oil and all of the frankincense which is on the grain offering; and he is to make this reminder portion of it go up in smoke on the altar as a fragrant aroma for Adonai. 9 (16) The rest of it Aharon and his sons are to eat; it is to be eaten without leaven in a holy place — they are to eat it in the courtyard of the tent of meeting. 10 (17) It is not to be baked with leaven. I have given it as their portion of my offerings made by fire; like the sin offering and the guilt offering, it is especially holy. 11 (18) Every male descendant of Aharon may eat from it; it is his share of the offerings for Adonai made by fire forever through all your generations. Whatever touches those offerings will become holy.’”
(ii) 12 (19) Adonai said to Moshe, 13 (20) “This is the offering for Adonai that Aharon and his sons are to offer on the day he is anointed: two quarts of fine flour, half of it in the morning and half in the evening, as a grain offering from then on. 14 (21) It is to be well mixed with olive oil and fried on a griddle; then bring it in, break it in pieces and offer the grain offering as a fragrant aroma for Adonai. 15 (22) The anointed cohen who will take Aharon’s place from among his descendants will offer it; it is a perpetual obligation. It must be entirely made to go up in smoke for Adonai; 16 (23) every grain offering of the cohen is to be entirely made to go up in smoke — it is not to be eaten.”
17 (24) Adonai said to Moshe, 18 (25) “Tell Aharon and his sons, ‘This is the law for the sin offering: the sin offering is to be slaughtered before Adonai in the place where the burnt offering is slaughtered; it is especially holy. 19 (26) The cohen who offers it for sin is to eat it — it is to be eaten in a holy place, in the courtyard of the tent of meeting. 20 (27) Whatever touches its flesh will become holy; if any of its blood splashes on any item of clothing, you are to wash it in a holy place. 21 (28) The clay pot in which it is cooked must be broken; if it is cooked in a bronze pot, it must be scoured and rinsed in water. 22 (29) Any male from a family of cohanim may eat the sin offering; it is especially holy. 23 (30) But no sin offering which has had any of its blood brought into the tent of meeting to make atonement in the Holy Place is to be eaten; it is to be burned up completely.
7:1 “‘This is the law for the guilt offering: it is especially holy. 2 They are to slaughter the guilt offering in the place where they slaughter the burnt offering, and its blood is to be splashed against all sides of the altar. 3 He is to offer all its fat — the fat tail, the fat covering the inner organs, 4 the two kidneys, the fat on them near the flanks, and the covering of the liver, which he will remove with the kidneys. 5 The cohen will make them go up in smoke on the altar as an offering made by fire to Adonai ; it is a guilt offering. 6 Every male from a family of cohanim may eat it; it is to be eaten in a holy place; it is especially holy. 7 The guilt offering is like the sin offering; the same law governs them — it will belong to the cohen who uses it to make atonement.
8 “‘The cohen who offers someone’s burnt offering will possess the hide of the burnt offering which he has offered.
9 “‘Every grain offering baked in the oven, cooked in a pot or fried on a griddle will belong to the cohen who offers it. 10 But every grain offering which is mixed with olive oil or is dry will belong to all the sons of Aharon equally.
(iii) 11 “‘This is the law for sacrificing peace offerings offered to Adonai: 12 If a person offers it for giving thanks, he is to offer it with the thanksgiving sacrifice of unleavened cakes mixed with olive oil, matzah spread with olive oil, and cakes made of fine flour mixed with olive oil and fried. 13 With cakes of leavened bread he is to present his offering together with the sacrifice of his peace offerings for giving thanks. 14 From each kind of offering he is to present one as a gift for Adonai; it will belong to the cohen who splashes the blood of the peace offerings against the altar. 15 The meat of the sacrifice of his peace offerings for giving thanks is to be eaten on the day of his offering; he is not to leave any of it until morning. 16 But if the sacrifice connected with his offering is for a vow or is a voluntary offering, then, while it is to be eaten on the day he offers his sacrifice, what remains of it may be eaten the next day. 17 However, what remains of the meat of the sacrifice on the third day is to be burned up completely. 18 If any of the meat of the sacrifice of his peace offerings is eaten on the third day, the sacrifice will neither be accepted nor credited to the person offering it; rather, it will have become a disgusting thing, and whoever eats it will bear the consequences of his wrongdoing. 19 Meat which touches something unclean is not to be eaten but burned up completely. As for the meat, everyone who is clean may eat it; 20 but a person in a state of uncleanness who eats any meat from the sacrifice of peace offerings made to Adonai will be cut off from his people. 21 Anyone who touches something unclean — whether the uncleanness be from a person, from an unclean animal or from some other unclean detestable thing — and then eats the meat from the sacrifice of peace offerings for Adonai, that person will be cut off from his people.’”
22 Adonai said to Moshe, 23 “Say to the people of Isra’el, ‘You are not to eat the fat of bulls, sheep or goats. 24 The fat of animals that die of themselves or are killed by wild animals may be used for any other purpose, but under no circumstances are you to eat it. 25 For whoever eats the fat of animals of the kind used in presenting an offering made by fire to Adonai will be cut off from his people. 26 You are not to eat any kind of blood, whether from birds or animals, in any of your homes. 27 Whoever eats any blood will be cut off from his people.’”
28 Adonai said to Moshe, 29 “Say to the people of Isra’el, ‘A person who offers his sacrifice of peace offerings to Adonai is to bring part of his sacrifice of peace offerings as his offering for Adonai. 30 He is to bring with his own hands the offerings for Adonai made by fire — he is to bring the breast with its fat. The breast is to be waved as a wave offering before Adonai. 31 The cohen is to make the fat go up in smoke on the altar, but the breast will belong to Aharon and his descendants. 32 You are to give the right thigh from your sacrifices of peace offerings to the cohen as a contribution. 33 The descendant of Aharon who offers the blood of the peace offerings is to have the right thigh as his share. 34 For the breast that has been waved and the thigh that has been contributed I have taken from the people of Isra’el out of their sacrifices of peace offerings and given them to Aharon the cohen and to his descendants as their share forever from the people of Isra’el.’”
35 On the day when Aharon and his sons were presented to serve Adonai in the office of cohen, this portion was set aside for him and his descendants from the offerings for Adonai made by fire. 36 On the day they were anointed, Adonai ordered that this be given to them by the people of Isra’el. It is their share forever through all their generations.
37 This is the law for the burnt offering, the grain offering, the sin offering, the guilt offering, the consecration offering and the sacrifice of peace offerings 38 which Adonai ordered Moshe on Mount Sinai on the day he ordered the people of Isra’el to present their offerings to Adonai, in the Sinai Desert.
8:1 (iv) Adonai said to Moshe, 2 “Take Aharon and his sons with him, the garments, the anointing oil, the bull for the sin offering, the two rams and the basket of matzah; 3 and assemble the entire community at the entrance to the tent of meeting.” 4 Moshe did as Adonai ordered him, and the community was assembled at the entrance to the tent of meeting. 5 Moshe said to the community, “This is what Adonai has ordered to be done.”
6 Moshe brought Aharon and his sons, washed them with water, 7 put the tunic on him, wrapped the sash around him, clothed him with the robe, put the ritual vest on him, wrapped around him the decorated belt and fastened the vest to him with it. 8 He put the breastplate on him, and on the breastplate he put the urim and tumim. 9 He set the turban on his head, and on the front of the turban he affixed the gold plate, the holy ornament, as Adonai had ordered Moshe.
10 Then Moshe took the anointing oil and anointed the tabernacle and everything in it, thus consecrating them. 11 He sprinkled some on the altar seven times, anointing the altar with all its utensils and the basin with its base, to consecrate them. 12 He poured some of the anointing oil on Aharon’s head and anointed him, to consecrate him. 13 Moshe brought Aharon’s sons, clothed them with tunics, wrapped sashes on them and put headgear on them, as Adonai had ordered Moshe.
(v) 14 Then the young bull for the sin offering was brought, and Aharon and his sons laid their hands on the head of the bull for the sin offering. 15 After it had been slaughtered, Moshe took the blood and put it on the horns of the altar all the way around with his finger, thus purifying the altar. The remaining blood he poured out at the base of the altar and consecrated it, to make atonement for it. 16 Moshe took all the fat on the inner organs, the covering of the liver, the two kidneys and their fat, and made it go up in smoke on the altar. 17 But the bull, its hide, its flesh and its dung were taken outside the camp and burned up completely, as Adonai had ordered Moshe.
18 Next, the ram for the burnt offering was presented. Aharon and his sons laid their hands on the head of the ram; 19 and after it had been slaughtered, Moshe splashed the blood on all sides of the altar. 20 When the ram had been cut in pieces, Moshe made the head, the pieces and the fat go up in smoke. 21 When the inner organs and the lower parts of the legs had been washed with water, Moshe made the entire ram go up in smoke on the altar; it was a burnt offering giving a fragrant aroma, an offering made by fire to Adonai — as Adonai had ordered Moshe.
(vi) 22 Then the other ram was presented, the ram of consecration; Aharon and his sons laid their hands on the head of the ram. 23 After it had been slaughtered, Moshe took some of its blood and put it on the tip of Aharon’s right ear, on the thumb of his right hand, and on the big toe of his right foot. 24 Next Aharon’s sons were brought, and Moshe put some of the blood on the tips of their right ears, on the thumbs of their right hands, and on the big toes of their right feet; then Moshe splashed the blood on all sides of the altar. 25 He took the fat, the fat tail, all the fat covering the inner organs, the covering of the liver, the two kidneys with their fat, and the right thigh. 26 From the basket of matzah that was before Adonai he took one piece of matzah, one cake of oiled bread, and one wafer, and placed them on the fat and on the right thigh. 27 Then he put it all in Aharon’s hands and in the hands of his sons and waved them as a wave offering before Adonai. 28 Moshe took them out of their hands and made them go up in smoke on the altar on top of the burnt offering; they were a consecration offering giving a fragrant aroma; an offering made by fire to Adonai. 29 Moshe took the breast and waved it as a wave offering before Adonai; it was Moshe’s portion of the ram of consecration — as Adonai had ordered Moshe.
(vii) 30 Moshe took some of the anointing oil and some of the blood which was on the altar and sprinkled it on Aharon and his clothing, and on his sons with him and their clothing, and consecrated Aharon and his clothing together with his sons and their clothing.
31 Moshe said to Aharon and his sons, “Boil the meat at the door of the tent of meeting; and eat it there with the bread that is in the basket of consecration, as I ordered when I said that Aharon and his sons are to eat it. 32 Whatever is left over of the meat and bread you are to burn up completely. (Maftir) 33 You are not to go out from the entrance to the tent of meeting for seven days, until the days of your consecration are over; since Adonai will be consecrating you for seven days. 34 He ordered done what has been done today, in order to make atonement for you. 35 You are to remain at the entrance to the tent of meeting day and night for seven days, thereby obeying what Adonai ordered done, so that you may not die. For this is what I was ordered.” 36 Aharon and his sons did all the things which Adonai ordered through Moshe.
Jeremiah 7:
21 Thus says Adonai-Tzva’ot, the God of Isra’el: “You may as well eat the meat of your burnt offerings along with that of your sacrifices. 22 For I didn’t speak to your ancestors or give them orders concerning burnt offerings or sacrifices when I brought them out of the land of Egypt. 23 Rather, what I did order them was this: ‘Pay attention to what I say. Then I will be your God, and you will be my people. In everything, live according to the way that I order you, so that things will go well for you.’ 24 But they neither listened nor paid attention, but lived according to their own plans, in the stubbornness of their evil hearts, thus going backward and not forward. 25 You have done this from the day your ancestors came out of Egypt until today. Even though I sent you all my servants the prophets, sending them time after time, 26 they would not listen or pay attention to me, but stiffened their necks; they did worse than their ancestors. 27 So tell them all this; but they won’t listen to you; likewise, call to them; but they won’t answer you. 28 Therefore, say to them,
‘This is the nation that has not listened
to the voice of Adonai their God.
They won’t take correction; faithfulness has perished;
it has vanished from their mouths.
; Jeremiah 9:22 (23) Here is what Adonai says:
“The wise man should not boast of his wisdom,
the powerful should not boast of his power,
the wealthy should not boast of his wealth;
23 (24) instead, let the boaster boast about this:
that he understands and knows me —
that I am Adonai, practicing grace,
justice and righteousness in the land;
for in these things I take pleasure,” says Adonai.
Today in Jewish History:• Rebuilding of Jerusalem Wall Begun (c. 41 CE)
Agrippa I, appointed by the Roman Emperor to rule over Judea, was pious and kind to his subjects. During his reign, the Jews began to prosper and live comfortably. The Sages of the time accorded him great respect.
Agrippa I started construction to repair, broaden and heighten the walls around Jerusalem. The Romans, wary of the Jews' rising prosperity, placed many obstacles in his way. Nonetheless, the wall was completed, though the finished product was not as magnificent as originally planned.
The 16th of Adar, the day when the construction commenced, was instituted to be a joyous day.
Daily Study:
Chitas and Rambam for today:
Chumash: Tzav, 7th Portion Leviticus 8:30-8:36 with Rashi
• English / Hebrew Linear Translation | Video Class• Leviticus Chapter 8
30And Moses took some of the anointing oil and some of the blood that was on the altar, and he sprinkled it on Aaron and on his garments, and on his sons, and on his sons' garments, and he sanctified Aaron, his garments, his sons and his sons' garments with him. לוַיִּקַּ֨ח משֶׁ֜ה מִשֶּׁ֣מֶן הַמִּשְׁחָ֗ה וּמִן־הַדָּם֘ אֲשֶׁ֣ר עַל־הַמִּזְבֵּ֒חַ֒ וַיַּ֤ז עַל־אַֽהֲרֹן֙ עַל־בְּגָדָ֔יו וְעַל־בָּנָ֛יו וְעַל־בִּגְדֵ֥י בָנָ֖יו אִתּ֑וֹ וַיְקַדֵּ֤שׁ אֶת־אַֽהֲרֹן֙ אֶת־בְּגָדָ֔יו וְאֶת־בָּנָ֛יו וְאֶת־בִּגְדֵ֥י בָנָ֖יו אִתּֽוֹ:
31And Moses said to Aaron and to his sons, "Cook the flesh at the entrance of the Tent of Meeting and eat it there, and the bread that is in the basket of the investiture offerings, as I have commanded, saying, 'Aaron and his sons shall eat it.' לאוַיֹּ֨אמֶר משֶׁ֜ה אֶל־אַֽהֲרֹ֣ן וְאֶל־בָּנָ֗יו בַּשְּׁל֣וּ אֶת־הַבָּשָׂר֘ פֶּ֣תַח אֹ֣הֶל מוֹעֵד֒ וְשָׁם֙ תֹּֽאכְל֣וּ אֹת֔וֹ וְאֶ֨ת־הַלֶּ֔חֶם אֲשֶׁ֖ר בְּסַ֣ל הַמִּלֻּאִ֑ים כַּֽאֲשֶׁ֤ר צִוֵּ֨יתִי֙ לֵאמֹ֔ר אַֽהֲרֹ֥ן וּבָנָ֖יו יֹֽאכְלֻֽהוּ:
32And whatever is left over from the flesh and the bread, you shall burn in fire. לבוְהַנּוֹתָ֥ר בַּבָּשָׂ֖ר וּבַלָּ֑חֶם בָּאֵ֖שׁ תִּשְׂרֹֽפוּ:
33And you shall not leave the entrance of the Tent of Meeting for seven days, until the day of the completion of your investiture days, he will inaugurate you for seven days. לגוּמִפֶּ֩תַח֩ אֹ֨הֶל מוֹעֵ֜ד לֹ֤א תֵֽצְאוּ֙ שִׁבְעַ֣ת יָמִ֔ים עַ֚ד י֣וֹם מְלֹ֔את יְמֵ֖י מִלֻּֽאֵיכֶ֑ם כִּ֚י שִׁבְעַ֣ת יָמִ֔ים יְמַלֵּ֖א אֶת־יֶדְכֶֽם:
34As he did on this day, so the Lord has commanded to do, to effect atonement for you. לדכַּֽאֲשֶׁ֥ר עָשָׂ֖ה בַּיּ֣וֹם הַזֶּ֑ה צִוָּ֧ה יְהֹוָ֛ה לַֽעֲשׂ֖ת לְכַפֵּ֥ר עֲלֵיכֶֽם:
so the Lord has commanded to do: on all the seven days [of investitures]. And our Rabbis expounded on the verse as follows: [The word] לַעִשׂת alludes to the procedure involving the “red cow”; (see Num. Chapter 19) [the word] לְכַפֵּר alludes to the service of Yom Kippur. And this comes to teach us that [just as there were seven days of the investitures, so too,] the Kohen Gadol [who performed the service on Yom Kippur,] was required to separate [from his home] seven days before Yom Kippur, and so was the kohen who performed the burning of the “red cow.” צוה ה' לעשת: כל שבעת הימים. ורבותינו ז"ל דרשו לעשות - זה מעשה פרה. לכפר - זה מעשה יום הכפורים, וללמד שכהן גדול טעון פרישה קודם יום הכפורים שבעת ימים, וכן הכהן השורף את הפרה:
35And you shall stay day and night for seven days at the entrance to the Tent of Meeting. You shall observe the Lord's command, so that you will not die, for thus I was commanded. להוּפֶ֩תַח֩ אֹ֨הֶל מוֹעֵ֜ד תֵּֽשְׁב֨וּ יוֹמָ֤ם וָלַ֨יְלָה֙ שִׁבְעַ֣ת יָמִ֔ים וּשְׁמַרְתֶּ֛ם אֶת־מִשְׁמֶ֥רֶת יְהֹוָ֖ה וְלֹ֣א תָמ֑וּתוּ כִּי־כֵ֖ן צֻוֵּֽיתִי:
So that you will not die: But if you do not do so, you incur the death penalty. ולא תמותו: הא אם לא תעשו כן, הרי אתם חייבים מיתה:
36And Aaron and his sons did all the things that the Lord commanded through Moses. לווַיַּ֥עַשׂ אַֽהֲרֹ֖ן וּבָנָ֑יו אֵ֚ת כָּל־הַדְּבָרִ֔ים אֲשֶׁר־צִוָּ֥ה יְהֹוָ֖ה בְּיַד־משֶֽׁה:
And Aaron and his sons did [all the things]: To tell their praise, namely, that they did not deviate to the right or to the left. ויעש אהרן ובניו: להגיד שבחן שלא הטו ימין ושמאל:
Daily Tehillim: Chapters 79 - 82
• Hebrew text
• English text•
• Lessons in Tanya• English Text
• English text•
Chapter 79
In this psalm, Asaph thanks God for sparing the people and directing His wrath upon the wood and stones (of the Temple). Still he cries bitterly, mourning the immense destruction: The place where the High Priest alone was allowed to enter-and only on Yom Kippur-is now so desolate that foxes stroll through it!
1. A psalm by Asaph. O God, nations have entered Your inheritance, they defiled Your Holy Sanctuary; they turned Jerusalem into heaps of rubble.
2. They have rendered the corpses of Your servants as food for the birds of heaven, the flesh of Your pious ones for the beasts of the earth.
3. They spilled their blood like water around Jerusalem, and there is no one to bury [them].
4. We became the object of disgrace to our neighbors, ridicule and scorn to those around us.
5. Until when, O Lord! Will You be angry forever? Will Your jealousy burn like fire?
6. Pour Your wrath upon the nations that do not know You, upon the kingdoms that do not call Your Name,
7. for they devoured Jacob and desolated His abode.
8. Do not recall our former sins; let Your mercies come swiftly towards us, for we have fallen very low.
9. Help us, God of our deliverance, for the sake of the glory of Your Name; save us and pardon our sins for the sake of Your Name.
10. Why should the nations say, "Where is their God?" Let there be known among the nations, before our eyes, the retribution of the spilled blood of Your servants.
11. Let the groan of the prisoner come before You; liberate those condemned to death, as befits the greatness of Your strength.
12. Repay our neighbors sevenfold into their bosom, for the disgrace with which they reviled You, O Lord.
13. And we, Your people, the flock of Your pasture, will thank You forever; for all generations we will recount Your praise.
Chapter 80
An awe-inspiring prayer imploring God to draw near to us as in days of old.
1. For the Conductor, on the shoshanim, 1 a testimony by Asaph, a psalm.
2. Listen, O Shepherd of Israel, Who leads Joseph like sheep. Appear, You Who is enthroned upon the cherubim.
3. Arouse Your might before Ephraim, Benjamin and Menashe, for it is upon You to save us.
4. Return us, O God; cause Your countenance to shine, that we may be saved.
5. O Lord, God of Hosts, until when will You fume at the prayer of Your people?
6. You fed them bread of tears, and gave them tears to drink in great measure.
7. You have made us an object of strife to our neighbors; our enemies mock to themselves.
8. Return us, O God of Hosts; cause Your countenance to shine, that we may be saved.
9. You brought a vine out of Egypt; You drove out nations and planted it.
10. You cleared space before it; it took root and filled the land.
11. Mountains were covered by its shade, and its branches became mighty cedars.
12. It sent forth its branches till the sea, and its tender shoots to the river.
13. Why did You breach its fences, so that every passerby plucked its fruit?
14. The boars of the forest ravage it, and the creepers of the field feed upon it.
15. O God of Hosts, please return! Look down from heaven and see, and be mindful of this vine,
16. and of the foundation which Your right hand has planted, and the son whom You strengthened for Yourself.
17. It is burned by fire, cut down; they perish at the rebuke of Your Presence.
18. Let Your hand be upon the man of Your right hand, upon the son of man whom You strengthened for Yourself.
19. Then we will not withdraw from You; revive us, and we will proclaim Your Name.
20. O Lord, God of Hosts, return us; cause Your countenance to shine that we may be saved.
FOOTNOTES
1.A musical instrument shaped like a shoshana, a rose (Metzudot).
Chapter 81
This psalm was chanted in the Holy Temple on Rosh Hashanah, a day on which many miracles were wrought for Israel.
1. For the Conductor, upon the gittit,1 by Asaph.
2. Sing joyously to God, our strength; sound the shofar to the God of Jacob.
3. Raise your voice in song, sound the drum, the pleasant harp, and the lyre.
4. Blow the shofar on the New Month, on the designated day of our Holy Day;
5. for it is a decree for Israel, a ruling of the God of Jacob.
6. He ordained it as a precept for Joseph when he went forth over the land of Egypt; I heard a language which I did not know.
7. I have taken his shoulder from the burden; his hands were removed from the pot.2
8. In distress you called and I delivered you; [you called] in secret, and I answered you with thunderous wonders; I tested you at the waters of Merivah, Selah.
9. Hear, My people, and I will admonish you; Israel, if you would only listen to Me!
10. You shall have no alien god within you, nor shall you bow down to a foreign deity.
11. I am the Lord your God who brought you up from the land of Egypt; open wide your mouth, [state all your desires,] and I shall grant them.
12. But My people did not heed My voice; Israel did not want [to listen to] Me.
13. So I sent them away for the willfulness of their heart, for following their [evil] design.
14. If only My people would listen to Me, if Israel would only walk in My ways,
15. then I would quickly subdue their enemies, and turn My hand against their oppressors.
16. Those who hate the Lord would shrivel before Him, and the time [of their retribution] shall be forever.
17. I would feed him [Israel] with the finest of wheat, and sate you with honey from the rock.
FOOTNOTES
1.A musical instrument crafted in Gath (Metzudot).
2.The cooking vessels used to prepare food for their captors (Rashi)
Chapter 82
This psalm admonishes those judges who feign ignorance of the law, dealing unjustly with the pauper or the orphan, while coddling the rich and pocketing their bribes.
1. A psalm by Asaph. God stands in the council of judges; among the judges He renders judgment:
2. How long will you judge wickedly, ever showing partiality toward the evildoers?
3. Render justice to the needy and the orphan; deal righteously with the poor and the destitute.
4. Rescue the needy and the pauper; deliver them from the hand of the wicked.
5. But they do not know, nor do they understand; they go about in darkness, [therefore] all the foundations of the earth tremble.
6. I said that you are angels, supernal beings, all of you;
7. but you will die as mortals, you will fall like any prince.
8. Arise, O God, judge the earth, for You possess all the nations.
Tanya: Likutei Amarim, middle of Chapter 37• Lessons in Tanya• English Text
• Hebrew Text
• Audio Class: Listen | Download
• Video Class• Today's Tanya Lesson
• Audio Class: Listen | Download
• Video Class• Today's Tanya Lesson
• Shabbat, Adar II 16, 5776 · March 26, 2016
• Likutei Amarim, middle of Chapter 37
• ומאחר שכללות נפש החיונית שבכללות ישראל תהיה מרכבה קדושה לה׳
Rambam:
• Sefer Hamitzvos:• English Text | Hebrew Text |
Audio: Listen | Download | Video Class• Shabbat, Adar II 16, 5776 · March 26, 2016
Today's Mitzvah
A daily digest of Maimonides’ classic work "Sefer Hamitzvot"
Negative Commandment 135
An Uncircumcised Individual Eating of the Priestly Tithe
An uncircumcised male may not eat Terumah (the priestly tithe), as well as all other holy foods which he is precluded from eating.
Though there is no explicit verse stating this prohibition, our Sages extrapolated this precept from the verses, and asserted that this is counted as one of the 613 mitzvot.
The rabbis added to this prohibition, forbidding a circumcised individual who extended his foreskin so that it appears that he is uncircumcised from partaking of any of these holy foods.
Full text of this Mitzvah »
A Ritually Impure Priest Eating of the Priestly Tithe
"Any man of the seed of Aaron who is afflicted with tzaraat or is a zav shall not eat of the holy [food] until he is pure"—Leviticus 22:4.
A ritually impure priest is forbidden to consume Terumah (the priestly tithe).
Full text of this Mitzvah »
Once the totality of the vital soul of the community of Israel will become a holy chariot for G‑d,
אזי גם כללות החיות של עולם הזה, שהיא קליפת נוגה עכשיו, תצא אז מטומאתה וחלאתה ותעלה לקדושה
then also the general vitality of this world, which now consists of kelipat nogah, will also emerge from its impurity and sickness (the term “impurity” refers to the evil of the kelipah; “sickness” refers to the element of good thatkelipat nogah contains, which is nevertheless the good of kelipah, not holiness), and will ascend to holiness,
להיות מרכבה לה׳, בהתגלות כבודו
to become a chariot for G‑d, upon the revelation of His glory (in the World to Come).
וראו כל בשר יחדיו, ויופיע עליהם בהדר גאון עוזו, וימלא כבוד ה׳ את כל האר׳
Then all flesh will behold [G‑dliness] together, and He will appear upon them with the majestic beauty of His power, and “the glory of G‑d will fill the whole world.”
וישראל יראו עין בעין, כבמתן תורה
Israel will see “eye to eye” — the human eye will see the truth of G‑dliness just as the Supernal “eye” sees it — just as [they saw] at the giving of the Torah,
דכתיב: אתה הראת לדעת כי ה׳ הוא אלקים, אין עוד מלבדו
of which it is written,1 “You showed Yourself, so that it be known that ‘G‑d is the L‑rd (lit.: the Four-Letter Divine Name is ELOKIM; i.e., despite the concealment of the Four-Letter Divine Name (which denotes G‑d’s limitless power) by the name Elokim (which signifies G‑d’s self-limitation), it is the former that still pervades all existence); there is nothing else besides Him.”
But whereas the revelation at Sinai lasted only a short time, the revelation in the future will be permanent.
ועל ידי זה יתבלעו ויתבטלו לגמרי כל השלש קליפות הטמאות
Through this ascent of kelipat nogah to holiness, the three unclean kelipot will be utterly annihilated and nullified.
כי יניקתן וחיותן מהקדושה עכשיו, היא על ידי קליפת נוגה, הממוצעת ביניהן
For the nurture and vitality which they now receive from holiness, comes to them [only] by way of kelipat nogah, the intermediary between them.
Kelipat nogah, containing both good and evil, is the medium through which these kelipot which are completely evil receive their vitality from G‑dliness, which is completely good. When kelipat nogah ascends to G‑dliness, the impure kelipot,no longer having any access to G‑dly vitality, cease to exist.
| FOOTNOTES | |
| 1. | Devarim 4:35. |
• Sefer Hamitzvos:• English Text | Hebrew Text |
Audio: Listen | Download | Video Class• Shabbat, Adar II 16, 5776 · March 26, 2016Today's Mitzvah
A daily digest of Maimonides’ classic work "Sefer Hamitzvot"
Negative Commandment 135
An Uncircumcised Individual Eating of the Priestly Tithe
An uncircumcised male may not eat Terumah (the priestly tithe), as well as all other holy foods which he is precluded from eating.
Though there is no explicit verse stating this prohibition, our Sages extrapolated this precept from the verses, and asserted that this is counted as one of the 613 mitzvot.
The rabbis added to this prohibition, forbidding a circumcised individual who extended his foreskin so that it appears that he is uncircumcised from partaking of any of these holy foods.
Full text of this Mitzvah »
An Uncircumcised Individual Eating of the Priestly Tithe
Negative Commandment 135
Translated by Berel Bell
The 135th prohibition is that an uncircumcised [Kohen] is forbidden from eating terumah. He is also forbidden from eating any other sanctified foods.
This prohibition is not explicitly stated, but learned through a gezera shava (the principle that, when handed down by tradition, two laws can be compared because they share an identical word). In passing this law down, our Sages explained that it counts as a Biblical commandment rather than of Rabbinic origin.1
In the words of tractate Yevamos:2 "What is the source for the law that an uncircumcised [Kohen] may not eat terumah? Since the words toshav v'sachir are written both by the Pesach offering and by terumah, we can compare them — just as by the Pesach sacrifice, the uncircumcised man is prohibited just like the toshav v'sachir, so too regarding terumah, the uncircumcised man is prohibited just like the toshav v'sachir." This applies [not only to terumah, but] to other sanctified things.
The above passage is repeated in Sifra.3
There [in the Sifra,] Rabbi Akiva explains that the phrase, "Any man" comes to include one who is uncircumcised.
In Yevamos4 it is explained that a mashuch [i.e. one whose remaining foreskin was pulled down after circumcision, making it appear as if he was not circumcised] is allowed to eat terumah by Biblical law. He is forbidden only by Rabbinic law because he has the appearance of one who is uncircumcised.
It has therefore been explained that it is a Biblical prohibition for an uncircumcised man to eat terumah, and it is the mashuch who is forbidden by Rabbinic law. You should understand this.
It is also explained there that a mashuch must be circumcised [a second time] by Rabbinic law.5
FOOTNOTES
1.In the 2nd Principle, the Rambam explained that a law learned through a gezera shava does not count among the 613 — unless the Sages say explicitly that it does (as is the case here).
2.70a.
3.Lev. 22:10.
4.72a.
5.Evidently, the Rambam brings this as a further proof that this is a Biblical commandment. We see from this passage that the reason a mashuch is forbidden from eating terumah is only Rabbinic is because he is considered uncircumcised only by Rabbinic law. Therefore, one who is uncircumcised by Biblical law is forbidden by Biblical law.
Negative Commandment 136A Ritually Impure Priest Eating of the Priestly Tithe
"Any man of the seed of Aaron who is afflicted with tzaraat or is a zav shall not eat of the holy [food] until he is pure"—Leviticus 22:4.
A ritually impure priest is forbidden to consume Terumah (the priestly tithe).
Full text of this Mitzvah »
A Ritually Impure Priest Eating of the Priestly Tithe
Negative Commandment 136
Translated by Berel Bell
The 136th prohibition is that a Kohen who is tameh (ritually impure) is forbidden from eating terumah.
The source of this prohibition is G‑d's statement,1 "Any descendant of Aharon who has a leprous mark or a discharge may not eat any sacred offering until he has purified himself."
In tractate Makkos,2 our Sages say, "What is the source for the prohibition of [a Kohen who is tameh] eating terumah? From the verse, 'Any descendant...' The only thing equal to all of Aharon's descendants is terumah."
The meaning of this phrase "equal to all of Aharon's descendants": is that the verse refers to something all his descendants — male and female — are allowed to eat.3
This prohibition is repeated in the verse,4 "They [i.e. the Kohanim] shall keep My charge [and not profane the sacred offering]."
One who transgresses this prohibition is punished by misah bidei shamayim.
In the 9th chapter of tractate Sanhedrin,5 our Sages enumerate those who receive misa bidei shamayim, and include among them the Kohen who eats terumah t'hora (which is ritually pure) when he is tameh. The prove this from the verse "They [i.e. the Kohanim] shall keep My charge [and not profane the sacred offering], which is a sin that can cause them to die."
FOOTNOTES
1.Lev. 25:10.
2.14b.
3.This must mean terumah, because only males may eat from the sacrifices.
4.Lev. 22:9.
5.83a.
• 1 Chapter: Issurei Mizbeiach Issurei Mizbeiach - Chapter 1
• English Text | Hebrew Text | Audio: Listen | Download | Video Class• Issurei Mizbeiach - Chapter 1
Audio: Listen | Download | Video Class• Issurei Mizbeiach - Chapter 1
Halacha 1
It is a positive commandment for all the sacrifices to be unblemished and of choice quality,1 as [Leviticus 22:21] states: "unblemished to arouse favor."2This is a positive commandment.3
Halacha 2
[Conversely,] anyone who consecrates a blemished animal for the altar violates a negative commandment4 and is liable for lashes5 for consecrating it, as [ibid.:20] states: "Whatever has a blemish should not be sacrificed." According to the Oral Tradition, we learned that this is a warning against consecrating a blemished animal. Even one who consecrates such an animal for the money to pay for libations6 is liable for lashes, for this represents a disgrace to the sacrifices.7
Halacha 3
[When a person consecrates an animal and] intends to say [that it is consecrated as] a peace offering, but actually says "as a burnt offering," or [intended to consecrate it] as a burnt offering, but said, "a peace offering," his statements are of no consequence unless his mouth and his heart are identical.8 Therefore if one intended to consecrate a blemished animal as a burnt offering, but consecrated it as peace offering or intended to consecrate it as a peace offering, but consecrated it as burnt offering, he is not liable for lashes even though he intended to perform a transgression.
If someone thought that it was permitted to consecrate a blemished animal for the altar and did so, the consecration is effective and he is not liable for lashes.9
Halacha 4
One who slaughters a blemished animal for the sake of a sacrifice10 is liable for lashes,11 for [ibid.:22] states: "Do not offer these12 to God." According to the Oral Tradition, we learned that this is a warning to one who slaughters.
Similarly, one who pours the blood of blemished animals on the altar is liable for lashes,13 for, with regard to them,14 [ibid.:24] states: "Do not offer to God." According to the Oral Tradition, we learned that this is a warning to one who pours the blood of blemished animals on the altar.
And also one who sets afire the selected portions of blemished sacrifices on the altar is liable for lashes,15 for, with regard to them,16 [ibid.:22] states: "Do not place them as a fire offering on the altar." This refers to the fats. Thus we can deduce that one who consecrates a blemished animal, slaughter it, poured its blood [on the altar], and set afire its selected portions is worthy of four sets of lashes.
Halacha 5
One transgresses the above commandments whether the animal has a permanent blemish or a temporary blemish, he violates all of these commandments, as [Deuteronomy 17:1] states: "Do not sacrifice to God your Lord an ox or a sheep that has a blemish." According to the Oral Tradition, we learned that this is a warning [against offering] an animal with a temporary blemish,17 for example, an animal had a moist skin eruption or a boil.18 If he sacrificed, it, he is liable for lashes.
Halacha 6
[The above applies], not only to sacrifices of the Jewish people, but also to the sacrifices brought by gentiles.19 If [a priest] offered [such sacrifices] and the animals were blemished, he is liable for lashes,20 as [Leviticus 22:25] states: "From the hands of foreigners, you may not offer the food of your God from all of these."21
Halacha 7
One who brings about a blemish in a sacrificial animal, e.g., he blinded its eye or cut off its hand,22 is liable for lashes.23 For with regard to a sacrifice, [Leviticus 22:21] states: "It shall not have any blemish." According to the Oral Tradition, we learned that this is a warning not to cause a blemish."
Lashes are given [for the violation of this prohibition] only when the Temple was standing, for then [the animal] was fit to be offered a sacrifice and [the person] disqualified it. In the present age, by contrast, even though one transgressed a negative commandment, he is not liable for lashes.24
Halacha 8
Halacha 9
[This prohibition applies] both with regard to one who causes a blemish in sacrificial animals themselves or in animals to which their holiness was transferred27with the exception of a firstborn or a tithed animal. In those instances, one who causes a blemish in an animal to which their holiness was transferred is not liable for lashes, for they are not fit to be sacrificed, as will be explained in the appropriate place.28 Similarly, one who causes a blemish in the ninth animal which was mistakenly called the tenth,29 is not liable for lashes.
Halacha 10
Although one who consecrates a blemished animal30 [for the sacrifices of] the altar is liable for lashes,31 [the animal] becomes consecrated. It must be redeemed [after] evaluation by a priest.32 It then reverts to the status of an ordinary [animal]33 and its money should be used to purchase [an animal for the same type of] sacrifice. This law also applies when a consecrated animal contracts a disqualifying blemish.34
It is a positive commandment to redeem sacrificial animals that contracted disqualifying blemishes and cause them to revert to the status of an ordinary animals so that one may partake of them,35 as [Deuteronomy 12:15] states: "Nevertheless, whenever your heart desires, you may slaughter and partake of meat." According to the Oral Tradition, we learned that the verse is speaking about consecrated animals that must be redeemed.36We already explained in [Hilchot] Arachin37 that [Leviticus 27:11]: "With regard to any impure animal38 of which a sacrifice should not be brought as an offering to God, [you shall have the animal stand before the priest...]",39 is speaking about blemished animals that have been redeemed.
Halacha 11
What are the differences between [the laws pertaining to an animal] with a permanent blemish and one with a temporary blemish? If an animal with a permanent blemish40 gives birth while it is consecrated,41 the offspring must be redeemed; it then receives the status of an ordinary animal even if it is unblemished.42[The rationale is that] a secondary entity should not be treated with greater severity than the primary entity.43 If it became pregnant before it was redeemed and it gave birth after it was redeemed, the offspring has the status of an ordinary animal.44If [the consecrated animal that was blemished] died before it was redeemed, it should be redeemed after it died.45 [The rationale is that] holiness never encompassed its actual body only on its worth, because it had a permanent blemish.46
If, by contrast, one consecrates an animal that possesses a temporary blemish or he consecrates an unblemished animal and after he consecrated it, it contracted a permanent blemish [different laws apply]. If it died before it was redeemed, it should be buried like other unblemished consecrated animals,47because it must be stood before the court and evaluated,48 as we explained in[Hilchot] Arachin.49 If it was slaughtered before it was redeemed, it may be redeemed as long as it is making convulsive motions.50 Afterwards, one may partake of it. If it gave birth, its offspring may be sacrificed.51 If it became pregnant before it was redeemed52and it gave birth before it was redeemed, the offspring is forbidden.53 It may not be redeemed. What should be done? Before the mother is redeemed, the offspring should be dedicated to the same [type of] sacrifice as its mother,54 because it may not be offered because of [the sanctification of] its mother, because its [holiness] comes from sanctification that was suspended.55
Halacha 12
Whenever a consecrated animal that was disqualified56 is redeemed, it may be slaughtered in a butchers' market and sold there, [after] being weighed with a scale like ordinary meat.57 [The only] exceptions are the firstborn animals and the tithes.58
[The rationale for the distinction is that] selling the animal in the market causes its price to rise. Therefore other sacrifices whose value remains consecrated - for they are sold and the proceeds of the sale are used to bring another animal as a sacrifice - it should be sold in the market like an ordinary animal.59In contrast, with regard to a first born animal and a tithed animal - since the proceeds of their sale do not remain consecrated, instead, the animals may be eaten [as ordinary meat,] because of the blemish, as will be explained60 - they may not be slaughtered in a butchers' market or sold there.61 Even if [the value of] the firstborn animal was consecrated,62 it should not be weighed in a scale and sold in a market.63 [The rationale is that] one may consecrate only an article that he has acquired in a complete and total manner.64
FOOTNOTES
1.
See the conclusion of these halachot (Chapter 7, Halachah 11).
2.
The Sifra explains that the phrase should be understood, not only as a description.
3.
Sefer HaMitzvot (positive commandment 61) and Sefer HaChinuch (mitzvah 286) include this commandment among the 613 mitzvot of the Torah.
4.
Sefer HaMitzvot (negative commandment 91) and Sefer HaChinuch (mitzvah 285) include this commandment among the 613 mitzvot of the Torah. One is liable for merely consecrating such an animal even if it is never actually offered on the altar (Sefer HaChinuch).
5.
The Sefer HaChinuch questions why lashes should be given, because the transgression does not involve a deed, but explains that it can be considered comparable to temurah, exchanging an animal for a sacred animal. There too the exchange/consecration of the animal is considered as significant enough to warrant lashes.
6.
And thus the animal will be sold, rather than offered on the altar itself.
7.
For as above, the sacrifices should be associated only with perfect and unblemished animals. Anything less is an insult to He to Whom they are offered.
8.
See Hilchot Ma'aseh HaKorbanot 14:12;Hilchot Nizirut 9:8. This is a general principle: Whenever a person wants to take a vow, consecrate an article, or set it aside as holy, his statements must reflect the will of his heart.
9.
Since he did not know of the prohibition involved, his act does not minimize the holiness of the sacrifices. Hence the consecration is effective. And since, he did not act intentionally. He is not liable for lashes. The Ra'avad takes issue with the Rambam on this point, based on his understanding of Temurah 17a. The commentaries elaborate on this difference of opinion.
10.
The Kessef Mishnehemphasizes that he must slaughter the animal for the sake of a sacrifice to be liable.
11.
Sefer HaMitzvot (negative commandment 92) and Sefer HaChinuch (mitzvah 288) include this commandment among the 613 mitzvot of the Torah.
12.
The verse speaks of animals with physical blemishes.
13.
Sefer HaMitzvot (negative commandment 93) and Sefer HaChinuch (mitzvah 289) include this commandment among the 613 mitzvot of the Torah.
14.
The verse speaks of animals with physical blemishes.
15.
Sefer HaMitzvot (negative commandment 94) and Sefer HaChinuch (mitzvah 290) include this commandment among the 613 mitzvot of the Torah.
16.
Sefer HaMitzvot (negative commandment 92) and Sefer HaChinuch (mitzvah 288) include this commandment among the 613 mitzvot of the Torah.
17.
Sefer HaMitzvot (negative commandment 95) and Sefer HaChinuch (mitzvah 494) include this commandment among the 613 mitzvot of the Torah. In his hasagot to Sefer HaMitzvot, the Ramban differs and maintains that this should not be considered as a separate commandment, but rather as an element of the above commandments. Even according to the Rambam, this one negative commandment includes all of the three prohibitions mentioned above.
18.
See Chapter 2, Halachah 7, where these blemishes are listed.
19.
See Hilchot Ma'aseh HaKorbanot 3:2-3 for a description of these sacrifices.
20.
Sefer HaMitzvot (negative commandment 96) and Sefer HaChinuch (mitzvah 292) include this commandment among the 613 mitzvot of the Torah.
21.
The verse speaks of animals with physical blemishes.
22.
The examples the Rambam gives are permanent blemishes. Generally, temporary blemishes cannot be brought about by human acts. Moreover, even if a person does cause a temporary blemish, he does not violate this prohibition. There is a logical basis for this conclusion, because as long as the animal is not permanently blemished, it is not disqualified as an offering (Radbaz;Minchat Chinuch, mitzvah 287).
23.
Sefer HaMitzvot (negative commandment 97) and Sefer HaChinuch (mitzvah 287) include this commandment among the 613 mitzvot of the Torah.
24.
The Radbaz explains that this concept can be derived from the prooftext cited in Halachah 1: "unblemished to arouse favor." Implied is that when a sacrificial animal can arouse favor, i.e., when there is a Temple where it can be offered, it must be unblemished. If that is not the case, there is no penalty for causing such a blemish.
The Kessef Mishnehand other commentaries have noted that the Rambam's ruling appears to be in contradiction with Avodah Zarah 13b which implies that there is no prohibition at all in causing a blemish in the present era, because there is no Temple where the sacrifices can be offered. The Minchat Chinuch (loc. cit.) and others explain that the difference can be resolved on the basis of the Rambam's ruling (Hilchot Beit HaBechirah 6:15) that if the altar is constructed on the Temple Mount, sacrifices may be brought even if the entire Temple has not been rebuilt.
25.
From Chapter 2, Halachah 15, it would appear that if the first merely brought about a temporary blemish, the second would be liable.
26.
For the animal was already disqualified due to the actions of the first person. Although the second person is not liable for lashes, he is still considered to have violated a Scriptural prohibition.
27.
Although it is forbidden to transfer the holiness of a sacrificial animal to another animal, once that act has been performed, the second animal is consecrated and the prohibitions associated with a sacrifice apply to it.
28.
Hilchot Temurah 3:1.
29.
As explained in Hilchot Bechorot 8:1-2, when a person is tithing his flocks and he mistakenly calls the ninth animal to emerge, the tenth. In such an instance, a certain measure of holiness is conveyed upon that animal and it cannot be eaten until it becomes blemished. It should not, however, be offered on the altar. Since it is not fit to be offered, causing a blemish in it does not make one liable for lashes.
30.
This is speaking about an animal with a permanent blemish. The laws that apply if it has merely a temporary blemish are mentioned in the following halachah.
31.
As stated in Halachah 1.
32.
As indicated by the sources cited by the Rambam at the conclusion of this halachah, the evaluation of the animal's worth must be made by a priest and not by any other person.
33.
Once such an animal has been redeemed, it may be shorn or used for labor (Hilchot Me'ilah 1:9).
34.
I.e., they should be redeemed and a sacrifice brought with the money, as stated in Hilchot Arachin 5:11.
35.
Sefer HaMitzvot (positive commandment 86) and Sefer HaChinuch (mitzvah 441) include this commandment among the 613 mitzvot of the Torah.
36.
I.e., the new concept taught by the verse is not that one may slaughter ordinary animals and partake of their meat, for there is no need for a verse to teach us that. Instead, the new idea is that consecrated animals can be redeemed and then used as food. It is, however, forbidden to shear them and perform work with them even after they have been redeemed (Hilchot Me'ilah, loc. cit.).
37.
Hilchot Arachin, loc. cit.
38.
Bechorot 37b explains that the intent is not an animal from an impure species, but rather an animal from a kosher species that became disqualified because of a blemish, for there is a second verse (27:27) that speaks about evaluating non-kosher animals.
39.
To be evaluated and then it may be redeemed.
40.
It had a permanent blemish before it was consecrated.
41.
I.e., before it was redeemed.
42.
This represents a departure from the usual practice, because generally, unblemished animals are not redeemed, but are offered as sacrifices; see Teumrah 33b.
43.
I.e., it would not be appropriate for the animal that was consecrated not to be offered as a sacrifice and its offspring, which was never directly consecrated, to be used for that purpose.
44.
For it was redeemed together with its mother.
45.
And then its meat can be used even as food for animals, and certainly for humans. Moreover, a formal process of evaluation by a court is not required before its redemption.
46.
The Rambam is explaining why leniency is granted to redeem it after it died although generally we do not redeem a consecrated animal to feed its meat to the dogs (Chapter 2, Halachah 10; based on Temurah 6:5). In this instance, however, because the animal was blemished permanently, the consecration never affected its actual body, only its worth (i.e., it was not destined to be sacrificed itself, but rather to be sold and the proceeds used to purchase a sacrifice). Hence, after it dies, it can still be sold after it is redeemed.
47.
Rather than redeemed. See Hilchot Pesulei HaMukdashim 19:11.
48.
And this process of evaluation must be performed while the animal is alive.
49.
Hilchot Arachin 5:12.
50.
For as long as it is making convulsive motions, it is considered alive and the process of evaluation can take place (ibid.:13).
51.
See Hilchot Temurah 4:9.
52.
But after it contracted a permanent blemish.
53.
To be used for ordinary purposes by Rabbinic decree. Although according to Scriptural Law, its holiness has departed, our Sages forbade its use, lest many such animals be maintained and flocks of them raised (Bechorot 15b).
54.
It then receives holiness on its own accord, independent of its mother.
55.
Since the mother was unfit to be sacrificed because of its blemish, its holiness is considered to be suspended. Because the holiness of the mother was suspended, the offspring is not considered to be consecrated to the complete extent. Hence it must be consecrated again.
(It must be noted that the commentaries have questioned this ruling, because inHilchot Ma'aseh HaKorbanot 15:4, the Rambam writes that the holiness of consecrated animals is never suspended. It can, however, be explained that a suspension stemming from a permanent blemish is different, because the animal can never be fit for sacrifice again. See a parallel in Hilchot Temurah 3:4.)
56.
Because of a blemish or similar reason.
57.
I.e., we do not say that since the animal was originally consecrated, it is disrespectful to treat it in this manner after it was redeemed. The Radbaz adds that the purchaser need not be notified that the meat came from a sacrifice that was disqualified.
58.
See Hilchot Bechorot 1:18; 6:5-7 which mentions the restrictions against selling such meat.
59.
So that the best price could be received for it.
60.
Hilchot Pesulei HaMukdashim 6:18; Hilchot Bechorot 1:3; 6:4; Hilchot Temurah 3:1-2.
61.
For this represents disdain for consecrated property.
62.
By the priest who received it after it was blemished.
63.
One might think that since its value will be given to the Temple treasury, one would be allowed to sell it like normal meat to increase its price, as explained above.
64.
In this instance, the priest cannot sell this animal in the market as private property. Hence he does not have the right to give this privilege to the Temple treasury (Rashi,Zevachim 75b).
• 3 Chapters: Terumot Terumot - Chapter 10, Terumot Terumot - Chapter 11, Terumot Terumot - Chapter 12 • English Text | Hebrew Text | Audio: Listen | Download• Terumot - Chapter 10
Hayom Yom:
• English Text | Video Class• "Today's Day"
Audio: Listen | Download• Terumot - Chapter 10
Halacha 1
When a non-priests partakes of terumah unknowingly, he must make restitution for the principal and add a fifth.1 Even if he knows that it is terumahand that he is warned against partaking of it, but he does not know whether or not he is liable for death,2 he is considered to have acted unknowingly and he must make restitution for the principal and add a fifth.
Halacha 2
A person who eats an article [that is terumah] that is ordinarily eaten, drinks something that is ordinarily drunk, or smears himself with something ordinarily used for that purpose [is liable],3 as [derived from Leviticus 22:15]: "And they shall not defile the sacraments of the children of Israel." This includes one who smears himself.4
Whether one partakes of terumah which is ritually pure or ritually impure unknowingly, one must make restitution for the principal and add a fifth.5 He is not liable for a fifth until he eats an olive-sized portion, as [indicated byibid.:14]: "When one will eat a sacrament unknowingly"; eating implies consuming no less than an olive-sized portion. Just as one is liable for eating an olive-sized portion, so too, [one is liable for] drinking an olive-sized portion.6
Halacha 3
[The following laws apply if a person] ate terumah and then ate again, drank and then drank again. If there is sufficient time to eat a half a loaf of bread7from the time he began to eat until he concluded or sufficient time to drink arevi'it from the time he began to drink until he concluded,8 [all he consumes] is combined to comprise an olive-sized portion.
Halacha 4
Terumah, terumat ma'aser whether the latter is from d'mai9or from produce from which the tithes were definitely [not separated], challah,10 and the first fruits can all be combined together to comprise an olive-sized portion11 for which one is liable for death12 or [restitution, plus] a fifth,13 for they are all called terumah [at different times in the Torah].14
According to law, one should not be liable for a fifth for [the unknowing consumption of] terumat ma'aser that is d'mai, just as one is not liable for the second tithe [from d'mai], as will be explained.15 Nevertheless, our Sages said: If one is not liable for a fifth, people will treat it with disdain.
Halacha 5
When a person partook terumah intentionally [after] receiving a warning, he is liable for lashes and is not required to make financial restitution.16 If he did not receive warning, [he is required to make financial restitution].17 If [the terumah] was ritually pure, he is required to make restitution for the principal, but is not required to add a fifth.18 If [the terumah] was ritually impure, he is required to pay only as if it were wood, because it is fit only to use as fuel.19 Accordingly, if one ate berries or pomegranates or the like that were terumah that became impure, he is not obligated to make restitution, because these are not fit to be used as fuel.20
Halacha 6
When a person eats terumah that is chametz on Pesach, whether willfully or unknowingly, whether it is ritually impure or pure, he is exempt from financial liability.21 Even if he separated terumah from matzah, but it became chametz[before he ate it], he is exempt. 22 He is not even required to pay as if it were wood, because it is not fit for use as fuel. [Instead,] since it is forbidden to benefit from it,23 it is of no value whatsoever.
Halacha 7
If, however, one unknowingly ate terumah on Yom Kippur,24 ate terumah that was perforated,25 drank wine that was terumah that was left open,26 smeared himself with wine and oil [that were terumah] at the same time, or drank oil and vinegar [that were terumah] at the same time,27 chewed raw kernels of wheat,28 or swallowed vinegar,29 he is liable to make restitution for the principal and add a fifth.
Halacha 8
When a person is satisfied and is disgusted by his food, but continues eatingterumah despite the fact that he is satisfied, he is not required to add a fifth [when making restitution, for the prooftext cited above] states: "When one will eat...." [Implied is that he is when he eats in an ordinary manner] and not when he harms himself.30 Similarly, when one chews raw kernels of barley, he is not liable, because he harms himself.
Halacha 9
When a non-priest swallowed prunes of terumah [whole31 unknowingly] and then regurgitated them, and another person came and also ate them unknowingly, the first person is required to make restitution for the principal and add a fifth32 and the second person is obligated to pay the first one as if the figs were wood.33
Halacha 10
When one feeds terumah to workers34 or to guests, they are required to make restitution for the principal and add a fifth, for they acted unknowingly.35 He must pay them for their meal,36 for ordinary produce is more valuable than theterumah,37 since a person's soul is repelled from forbidden food.38
Halacha 11
When [a non-priest] feeds terumah to his children who were below majority39or to his servants whether they are above or below majority,40 he must pay the principal, but not the additional fifth.41 [This ruling also applies to] one who partakes of terumah from the Diaspora,42 one who eats or drinks less than an olive-sized portion,43 a nazarite who unknowingly drank wine that wasterumah,44 one drinks oil [without it being mixed with other liquids] and one who smears himself with wine.45
Halacha 12
When the daughter of a priest who was married to an Israelite or disqualified [from partaking of terumah for other reasons] partook of terumah, she must make restitution for the principal, but she is not required to add a fifth.46
When a woman47 was partaking of terumah and she was told: "Your husband died," or "...divorced you," she is required to pay only the principal.48 If theterumah was chametz on the day preceding Pesach, she is exempt from making restitution. [The rationale is that then] the time is pressing and she hurried to eat without investigating.49
[These same laws apply] when a servant was partaking [of terumah] and he was told: "Your master died and left an heir who does not entitle you to eat,"50"...sold you to an Israelite," "...gave you to him as a present," or "...freed you," and when a priest was partaking [of terumah] and he discovered that he is the son of a divorcee or a woman who underwent chalitzah.51 In all of these instances, if these individuals had terumah in their mouths when they discovered that they were forbidden to partake of it, they should spit it out.52
Halacha 13
[Similarly, when a priest] was partaking [of terumah] and he was told: "You became impure," "The terumah became impure,"53 "You were impure," or "theterumah was impure,"54 he should spit it out. [The same ruling applies] if he discovered that [the terumah] was tevel, the first tithe from which terumat ma'aser had not been separated,55 or ma'aser sheni56 or consecrated property that was not redeemed, or [when partaking of the terumah,] he tasted a bug.57
Halacha 14
When there are two containers, one of terumah and one of ordinary produce, and terumah fell into one of them, but it is not known which one, we operate under the supposition that it fell into the one which [contained] terumah.58
If it is not known which one is terumah and a non-priest partakes of one of them, he is not liable for payment.59 [The rationale is that when a person seeks] to expropriate money from a colleague, the burden of proof is on him.60He must treat the other one as if it were terumah. If another person partakes of the other one, however, he is also exempt.61 If, however, one person eats them both, he must make restitution for the smaller one.62 If he did so intentionally, he is required to make restitution for the principal. If he did so unknowingly, he is required to make restitution for the principal, plus a fifth.
Halacha 15
When a person eats the additional fifth unknowingly, he must [make restitution for it and] add another fifth.63 For the fifth is considered as the principal with regard to all matters.64Similarly, he continues to add a fifth for every fifth forever.65
Whenever a person makes restitution for the principal and the additional fifth, [the grain] he gives is terumah with regard to all matters66 [with one exception]. If they were sown, the grain that grows is ordinary produce.67 If the priest wishes to forgo [the payment], he cannot.68 Whenever, [by contrast,] a person makes restitution only for the principal,69 [the grain] he gives is ordinary grain70 and if the priest desires to forgo payment, he may.
Halacha 16
[The following laws apply if] a daughter of an Israelite partakes of terumah and then marries a priest. If [she partook] of terumah that had not been acquired by a priest,71 she may make restitution of the principal and the additional fifth to herself.72 If she partook of terumah that a priest had acquired, she is required to make restitution of the principal to its owner,73 but she may keep the additional fifth as her own. For whenever a person makes restitution and pays an additional fifth, he may give the additional fifth to whichever priest he desires.
Halacha 17
If she was not able to make restitution before she was divorced,74 she can no longer make restitution to herself and she is like a person who never married a priest at all.
Halacha 18
Whenever a person partakes of terumah whether unknowingly or intentionally, he may make restitution only from ordinary produce from which the terumotand the tithes have been separated. Restitution may be made from leket, shichichah, pe'ah75 ownerless grain,76 and grain from the first tithe afterterumat ma'aser was separated i.e., even if the great terumah from that crop had not been separated, for the person separated the tithes before theterumah.77
One may make restitution from the second tithes and consecrated property that were redeemed, even though they were not redeemed in an appropriate manner.78 And one may make restitution using new grain79 for old grain. One may not, however, make restitution from one type [of grain] for another type [of grain]. [This is derived from Leviticus 22:14:] "And he shall give the priest the sanctified [food]." [Implied is that it must be the same] as the sanctified food he ate.
Halacha 19
Halacha 20
When a person ate terumah that was ritually impure, he make restitution from ordinary produce whether pure or impure.82 If he partook of terumah that was ritually pure, he should make restitution with ordinary grain that is pure.83 If he made restitution from ordinary grain that was impure whether intentionally or unknowingly, the restitution he made is accepted, but he must make restitution again from ritually pure grain.
Halacha 21
When a person partook of terumah belonging to a chaver,84 he should make restitution to him. If he partook of terumah belonging to a common person,85he should make restitution to a chaver,86 and take its worth from him and give it to the common person whose terumah he ate.87 For we do not give articles that require ritually purity to a common person.
Halacha 22
When [an Israelite] stole terumah from his maternal grandfather who was a priest and consumed it [unknowingly], and afterwards, his maternal grandfather died, he may not make restitution to himself,88 but rather to another heir89 from [the priestly] tribe. Similarly, if he inherited terumah from his maternal grandfather and partook of it, a creditor collected terumah [as payment] for a debt and he partook of it or a woman [received it as part of the money due her by virtue of] her ketubah and she partook of it, they must make restitution for the principle and the additional fifth90 to a priest who is achaver and that chaver gives them the monetary equivalent of the terumah at the time they partook of it.91
Halacha 23
When a person steals terumah but does consume it, he should pay twice its worth92 to the owners.93 He may make this payment according to the worth ofterumah.94 If he stole it and ate it, he must pay twice the principal and a fifth of the principal: i.e., the principal and an additional fifth from ordinary grain,95 and the principal according to the worth of terumah.96
Halacha 24
When a person steals terumah that is consecrated to the Temple treasury97and eats it, he is not required to pay a double amount, for a double amount is not paid to the Temple treasury, as explained in the appropriate place.98 He must, however, make restitution for the principal and add two fifths, one fifth [to atone] for partaking of terumah and one fifth [to atone] for benefiting from consecrated property.99
Halacha 25
Why does the prohibition against benefiting from consecrated property fall [on this grain when it is already forbidden because of] the prohibition againstterumah?102 Because the terumah was forbidden to a non-priest and permitted to a priest. Once he consecrated it, it became forbidden to a priest. Therefore a prohibition was added to it even for an Israelite in the manner explained in the laws of forbidden relationships and forbidden foods.103
Halacha 26
When a person obtains terumah by robbery,104 he must make restitution for the principal and add one fifth.105 [The rationale is that] the fifth that he is liable for [to atone for partaking of] terumah fulfills his obligation for robbery,106 as [implied by Leviticus 22:14:] "And you shall give the priest the sacred [food]." He is liable only for the fifth [associated with atonement for] the sacred [food]. If he obtains terumah through robbery and feeds it to another person, that person must make restitution for the principal and add a fifth.107
Whenever we have said that a person must make restitution for the principal and add a fifth, [the intent is that] if he ate grain worth forth [zuz], he must pay five108 from the type of grain from which he partook. Whenever we mentioned [payment of] the principal and two fifths, [the intent is that] if he ate grain worth forth [zuz], he must pay six. Whenever we mentioned [payment of] two principals and one fifth, [the intent is that] if he ate grain worth forth [zuz], he must pay nine.
Whenever he makes restitution, he must pay for the worth of the grain at the time he partook of it whether its value depreciated at the time he made restitution or appreciated.109
FOOTNOTES
1.
As stated in Halachah 26, the intent is one fifth of the new total. Thus if a person eats the value of four measures of grain, he must pay five. Moreover, he may not use grain that is terumah to make restitution, he must use ordinary grain (which is more expensive). This fifth becomes considered as terumah itself and must be eaten in a state of ritual purity. See also Halachah 15.
2.
At the hand of heaven.
3.
Since these are the ways in which one may benefit from terumah (see Chapter 11, Halachah 1), these are the ways for which one is liable for partaking of it.
4.
The implication of the verse is that just as eating involves tangible physical satisfaction, so too, smearing oneself produces tangible physical satisfaction.
5.
It appears that in contrast to the intentional violation of the prohibition mentioned in Halachah 5, in this instance, the transgressor should pay the full value of theterumah even if it is ritually impure. The rationale is that here a person is receiving atonement for his transgression. Hence, he is required to make full payment.
6.
The Radbaz explains at length why although with regard to most prohibitions, the minimum measure for which one is liable for drinking is a revi'it of a log, a larger measure than an olive-sized portion, in this instance an exception is made. The basis of his explanation is that this prohibition focuses on "eating" terumah, and as stated above, intaking an olive-sized portion constitutes eating.
7.
I.e., an equivalent of three egg-sized portions. If a person stretches out his consumption of an olive-sized beyond this time span, it s not considered as "eating," for he will not have ingested a significant amount at once. The Rabbis mention different opinions with regard to this time span, referred to as k'dai achilat pras, some as brief as 2 minutes and some as long as 9 minutes. Based on Shiurei Torah, the suggested practice is to consider k'dai achilat pras as 4 minutes with regard to eating matzah on Pesach, but 9 minutes with regard to eating on Yom Kippur. See alsoHilchot Ma'achalot Assurot 14:9 and notes.
8.
The time to drink a revi'it is much less thank'dai achilat pras. The Ra'avad objects to the Rambam's ruling, maintaining that the latter measure of time should be applied in this instance as well. The Radbaz and theKessef Mishneh cite sources to support the Rambam's view and note that he mentions this measure of time for drinking both with regard to the prohibition against drinking on Yom Kippur (Hilchot Shevitat Esor 2:4) and the prohibition against drinking gentile wine (Hilchot Ma'achalot Assurot 14:9). They do note, however, that in Hilchot Sha'ar Avot HaTumah 8:11, however, the Rambam mentions the time span of k'dai achilat praseven with regard to drinking.
They differentiate between the rulings as follows: In all the instances involving prohibitions against eating, the Rambam mentions the time to drink a revi'it because a person will not feel satisfaction if his drinking the minimum measure is stretched out over a longer span of time. In Hilchot Sha'ar Avot HaTumah, by contrast, the concept involves considering a person ritually impure because of his having ingested a quantity of liquid. As long as he does not wait longer than k'dai achilat pras, the liquid is still collected in his digestive system and has not begun to circulate throughout his body.
9.
Produce that we are unsure whether or not the tithes have been separated. The Rama (Yoreh De'ah 331:59) explains that the term is a composite of two Aramaic words da maiwhich mean: "What is this?", i.e., the person is unaware of the status of the produce with which he is dealing.
10.
The portion of dough separated and given to the priests.
11.
I.e., if one eats a little bit of any combination of these forbidden substances and the entire amount is an olive-sized portion, one is liable.
12.
If the transgression was intentional.
13.
If the transgression was performed unknowingly.
14.
Challah is referred to as terumah inNumbers 15:20 and the first fruits are referred to as terumah in Deuteronomy 12:17.
15.
Hilchot Ma'aser Sheni 5:4. Since we are speaking about d'mai, produce from which separations are being made because of a doubt, there is no obligation according to Scriptural Law to add a fifth. With regard toma'aser sheni, our Sages felt that if the obligation of an additional fifth was imposed, people would ignore the obligation to separate ma'aser sheni from d'mai entirely. With regard to terumat ma'aser from d'mai, they felt the converse is true. Were the obligation of an additional fifth not imposed, people would not treat the obligation to separate d'mai seriously.
16.
A person never receives both corporal punishment and a financial penalty. Hence, he is liable only for lashes. See the notes to Chapter 6, Halachah 6, which explain why here he is punished by lashes and not required to make restitution.
17.
When he makes restitution, the produce he gives the priest is considered as ordinary produce and not as terumah (Terumot 7:1).
18.
An addition of a fifth was required only in the case of inadvertent transgression. In his Commentary to the Mishneh (Terumot 7:1), the Rambam explains that the additional fifth was instituted for atonement and that was possible only when the transgression was violated unintentionally. When it was violated intentionally, the sin is too great for atonement to be granted in an ordinary manner.
19.
For terumah can only be eaten only when it is ritually pure.
20.
Since they have no value, there is no need for restitution.
21.
The Ra'avad objects to the Rambam's decision, noting that it is the subject of a difference of opinion between the Sages of the Mishneh (see Pesachim 32a) and the opinion stated by the Rambam does not appear to be accepted in a definitive manner. The Radbaz and the Kessef Mishneh provide interpretations of that passage that justify the Rambam's ruling.
22.
Pesachim, loc. cit., speaks about an instance where a person steals terumah that is matzah from a priest and ate it. Even if it became chametz in the thief's domain in which instance, the thief caused the priest a loss, the thief is not liable financially.
23.
See Hilchot Chametz UMatzah 1:2,4, et al.
24.
When a person is forbidden to eat. In this instance, the prohibition rests on the person (the gavra) in yeshivah terminology) and not the cheftza, the article in question. Hence he is liable.
25.
I.e., dough that is terumah is discovered with holes in it. Our Sages fear that the holes were made by a poisonous snake who deposited his venom in the dough. Hence, they forbade partaking of it (Hilchot Rotzeach UShemirat Nefesh 12:1).
26.
This too was forbidden for a similar reason. We fear that a poisonous snake drank from it and deposited his venom there (ibid.:6-7). In these two instances, although the substances are forbidden, they are forbidden only in consideration for the person's wellbeing. There is no ritual prohibition resting on the foods. Hence one is liable.
27.
Halachah 11 states that one drinks oil or smears oneself with wine, he is liable only for the principal, for as the commentaries state there, that is not the customary manner of benefiting from these substances. In this halachah, the Rambam clarifies that if one combines the substances as he states here, this is considered as the normal pattern and one is liable.
28.
The Ra'avad notes that there is a difference of opinion concerning this matter in the Jerusalem Talmud (Terumot 6:1). The opinion cited by the Rambam is advanced by Rabbi Yehudah HaNasi while the majority of the Sages differ. Hence, he maintains that the Sages' view should be followed for, as stated in the following halachah with regard to barley, eating uncooked kernels of wheat is harmful. The Radbaz and the Kessef Mishneh justify the Rambam's view. As stated in Hilchot Berachot 3:2, one is required to make a blessing when eating such kernels. This indicates one is deriving benefit and if one derives benefit fromterumah, he is required to make restitution.
29.
It is uncommon to partake of these foods in this manner. Nevertheless, it is not so infrequent a practice to reduce one's liability.
30.
Note the parallel with regard to the prohibition against eating on Yom Kippur (Hilchot Shivitat Esor 2:7). There too the Rambam rules that consuming food in such a state is not considered as "eating."
31.
If, however, he chewed them before swallowing them, the second person is not liable at all. For once they have been chewed, they are entirely worthless (Radbaz).
32.
For swallowing the fruit whole is also considered eating.
33.
After the person swallowed the figs, the sanctity of terumah within them is considered to have been desecrated. For that reason, the first person who swallowed them is required to make restitution. They become his property and the second one is liable as one who damages the property of the first.
34.
Whom he agreed to supply with meals in addition to their wages.
35.
In his Commentary to the Mishnah (Terumot6:3), the Rambam elaborates on why the responsibility is the hosts and not the guests, citing the principle (Kiddushin 42b) that a person cannot act as an agent to perform a transgression for a colleague. Instead, the transgression is solely the responsibility of the person who performed it, in this instance, the people who partook of the food.
36.
I.e., the full price of the meal were it to have been prepared from ordinary produce.
37.
For this reason, it is preferable for the workers to have the employer pay them rather than having him pay the principal for the terumah (Radbaz).
38.
Note a similar ruling in Hilchot Mechirah16:14. This principle is stated by the Jerusalem Talmud (Terumot, loc. cit.) in explanation of the reason the employer is required to reimburse his workers. Seemingly, he was required to provide them with a meal. He did and they ate to their satisfaction, why then is he liable to them? Our Sages explain, based on the above principle, that since the food was forbidden, their souls did not derive true satisfaction from it and hence, he is required to give them a meal.
39.
The children are not liable, for they are not obligated in the observance of the mitzvot.
40.
The servants are not liable, for they have no independent financial capacity.
41.
See Halachah 15 which states that whenever a person is required to pay only the principal, the grain that he pays is not considered as terumah.
42.
For it is forbidden only according to Rabbinic Law and the Sages did not require this additional payment.
43.
One is not liable in this instance, because the prooftext requiring payment of the additional fifth mentions "eating," and eating or drinking less than an olive-sized portion is not considered as "eating" [the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (Terumot 7:3)].
44.
Wine is forbidden to a nazirite whether it isterumah or not and our Sages explain that eating a forbidden substance is not considered "eating." In this context, a distinction can be made between eating on Yom Kippur which is an issur gavra, i.e., the food is not forbidden, the person is forbidden to partake of it, and wine for a nazirite, which is an issur cheftza, the wine itself becomes forbidden for him (Pri Megadim, Eshel Avraham 202:11). This explanation resolves an objection lodged by the Ra'avad who cites a Tosefta that rules differently than the Rambam.
45.
In the latter two instances, these are not ordinary ways of benefiting from these products.
46.
Since she was entitled to partake of terumahpreviously, a distinction is made between her and other non-priest. See the Sifra toLeviticus 22:12.
47.
The daughter of an Israelite married to a priest who was therefore entitled to partake of terumah [the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (Terumot 8:1)].
48.
As in the previous clause.
49.
The Kessef Mishneh explains that since it is a pressing time, it is considered as if the transgression was violated due to forces beyond her control (ones).
50.
E.g., his son was a challal or he had no sons and his daughter was married to an Israelite (ibid.).
51.
With regard to the servant, the same logic that applies with regard to the women mentioned previously applies to him. Since he was allowed to partake of terumahpreviously, he is not held responsible for the additional fifth. With regard to the priest who was disqualified, we find that he still has a certain vestige of connection to the priesthood, as evidenced by the fact that were he to bring an offering in the Temple, it would be acceptable after the fact (Hilchot Bi'at HaMikdash 6:10). Therefore it is sufficient for him to make restitution for the principal [the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (loc. cit.)].
52.
Even though by spitting it out, he is spoiling the terumah, that is preferable to swallowing it. For until he swallows it, he is not considered to have partaken of it (Radbaz).
53.
In these instances, when he began eating, he was permitted to do so, it is only afterwards, that he or the terumah became impure.
54.
Thus from the outset, he should not have partaken of the terumah.
55.
In which instance, it is forbidden to partake of it until the appropriate separations are made.
56.
The second tithe which cannot be eaten outside of Jerusalem unless it is redeemed.
57.
And the disgusting taste of the bug prevented him from swallowing the terumah[the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (loc. cit.)].
58.
In this instance, although there is reason to suspect that the terumah fell into the other container, we consider it as ordinary produce. The rationale is that we were operating under the chazzakah, prevailing assumption, that the container was filled with ordinary produce. Hence, unless there is a strong likelihood otherwise, we continue to operate under that perspective.
This reflects a principle that has ramifications beyond the laws of terumah. Although generally, we maintain that when there is a doubt regarding a Scriptural prohibition, we rule stringently, in this instance, since there is a plausible explanation for the lenient ruling, it is accepted. See also Chapter 13, Halachah 13-14, and the Tur and the Shulchan Aruch, Yoreh De'ah, sec. 111.
There is, however, a point that has to be clarified. In Chapter 13, it is explained that this principle applies with regard to matters of Rabbinic Law, but not matters of Scriptural Law, and yet, here we are dealing even with questions involving terumah of Scriptural status. Nevertheless, there is no difficulty, because here we are not speaking about whether it is permissible to partake of the mixture or not. That question was discussed in Chapter 13, and the ruling was rendered that it is forbidden. Here the question concerns financial restitution: Is the non-priest required to pay for the produce that he ate? With regard to this point, the Rambam explains that we can use the above reasoning.
59.
For the additional fifth. The principal, i.e., the remaining container, must certainly be given to the priest. For if the one which was eaten was terumah, the second one should be given to him as payment for the first. And if the one that was eaten was not terumah, than the remaining one is and it must be given to the priest.
60.
Thus if the priest seeks to expropriate the additional fifth, he must prove that the container consumed was terumah.
This is a fundamental principle in Jewish Law. Whenever there is a doubt with regard to the ownership of money or movable property, the person in physical possession of the property in question is allowed to maintain possession until the claimant proves his claim. See Hilchot Mechirah 20:5,et al.
61.
From the additional fifth. For in this instance as well, we are not certain that he partook ofterumah.
62.
For he definitely partook of terumah. Nevertheless, since we do not know which one was terumah, he can only be held liable for the smaller one, because of the principle stated above.
63.
For the fifth originally added becomes considered as terumah and compensation must be made for it.
64.
I.e., it must be eaten in a state of ritual purity.
65.
When Leviticus 5:24 speaks of adding a fifth, it uses a form that could be interpreted as plural, "its fifths." The implication is that he may have to add many fifths [the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (Terumot 6:1)].
66.
I.e., if it becomes mixed with ordinary grain, the laws of dimua (the mixture of terumah) apply (ibid.).
67.
In contrast, grain growing from terumah is considered as terumah (Chapter 11, Halachah 21).
68.
For we are not speaking about a mere financial payment owed the priest, but a means of attaining atonement.
69.
See Halachah 5 and Halachot 11-12.
70.
I.e., none of the restrictions of terumah apply to it.
71.
I.e., it had been separated, but had not been given to a priest.
72.
She must separate this grain to receive atonement. Nevertheless, since as a priest's wife, she is entitled to partake of terumah, she may take the terumah she separates as her own.
73.
That priest.
74.
Or she was widowed and left childless (Radbaz).
75.
See Hilchot Matanot Aniyim for a definition of these terms. They are acceptable for this purpose, because once they are acquired by a poor person, they become his private property.
76.
Terumah need not be separated from such grain or from the presents for the poor.
77.
The Kessef Mishneh explains that we are referring to an instance where the person separated the first tithe while the crop is still stalks of grain and gave it to the Levite before it has been winnowed. As explained in Chapter 3, Halachah 13, in such an instance, it is not necessary to separate the great terumah. If, however, it is ordinary grain from which the separations were not made in the proper order, it cannot be used to make restitution for terumah.
78.
In his Commentary to the Mishnah (Terumot6:5), the Rambam explains that this refers to the second tithe that was redeemed using an unminted coin or consecrated property that was redeemed with land. The commentaries have questioned this interpretation, noting that usually redemption with such articles is not effective at all (seeHilchot Ma'aser Sheni 4:9; Hilchot Arachin7:1). They cite the Rambam's Commentary to Berachot 7:1 which interprets this term as referring to a situation where the principal was paid, but the additional fifth that is required was not.
79.
New grain refers to grain harvested after theomer offering. Old grain refers to grain from the previous harvest.
80.
In the seventh year and thus there is no way he can acquire the zucchini of the sixth year.
81.
See Hilchot Shemitah VeYovel 6:10 which states that the crops of the Sabbatical year may not be used to pay debts, for this is comparable to using them for commercial purposes which is forbidden.
82.
The produce he gives as restitution will be considered as impure terumah. Hence, there is no difficulty in him giving impure produce.
83.
For if the grain is impure, it will not be an adequate replacement.
84.
A person who is careful to observe the laws of ritual purity. See Chapter 6, Halachah 2;Hilchot Ma'aser, ch. 10.
85.
Who is not necessarily careful concerning the laws of ritual purity.
86.
So that the laws of ritual purity are adhered to.
87.
So that he is reimbursed for his loss.
88.
Even though he is an heir, since we are speaking about stolen property, he may not maintain possession of it, but instead must remove it from his domain give it to someone else. Note the parallel in Hilchot Gezeilah8:2-3.
89.
Since the terumah belonged to his maternal grandfather, it is not appropriate that the restitution be given to someone who does not share a family connection with him. Hence he may give it to any member of the family who is a priest, e.g., one of his uncles (Radbaz).
90.
This is speaking about an instance where the person did not know that the produce he ate was terumah and thus transgressed unknowingly.
91.
To explain this ruling: Since these individuals are not entitled to partake of terumah, they must atone for partaking of it by making restitution and adding a fifth. Nevertheless, the terumah legitimately belonged to them. Hence, after the priest receives the grain given for atonement, he should reimburse the person for the worth of the terumah.
92.
As is required when making restitution for theft (Exodus 22:3).
93.
Although terumah is consecrated, it belongs to its owners. For even an Israelite has the right to give it to the priest he desires.
94.
Which is less expensive than ordinary grain. When making restitution to atone for partaking of terumah, it is necessary to pay with ordinary grain. In this instance, however, he need not atone for partaking ofterumah. All that is necessary is to pay twice the amount of the article he stole.
95.
To atone for partaking of terumah.
96.
To atone for the theft.
97.
I.e., a priest was given terumah and consecrated it to the Temple treasury [the Ramban's Commentary to the Mishnah (Terumot 6:4)]. We are forced to say this because terumah separated by an Israelite must be given to a priest and may not be given to the Temple treasury.
98.
Hilchot Geneivah 2:1. When speaking about the thief's obligation to pay double, Exodus 22:8 states: "He shall pay his colleague double," i.e., his colleague, another human, and not the Temple treasury (Bava Metzia57b).
99.
This is the standard penalty to atone for this transgression (Hilchot Meilah 1:3,5).
100.
For the liability for terumah depends on the produce being the size of an olive.
101.
For the liability of misusing consecrated property depends on it being worth ap'rutah,
102.
The Rambam's question is based on the principle that, generally, once an object is forbidden because of one prohibition, it does not become forbidden again, because of a second one (see Keritot 14a).
103.
See Hilchot Issurei Bi'ah 17:9; Hilchot Ma'achalot Assurot 14:19. In these sources, it is explained that one of the exceptions to this principle is an issur mosif, a negative commandment that increases the scope of the prohibition, including entities that were not originally forbidden. See the Ramban's Commentary to the Mishnah (loc. cit.).
104.
The difference between geneivah (theft) and gezeilah (robbery) can be explained as follows: Theft implies taking a colleague's property discreetly. Robbery, by contrast, involves taking something by force against the will of its owner (Hilchos Geneivah 1:3).
105.
And only one fifth, in contrast to the law regarding a thief in Halachah 23, where he is required to atone for the theft as well.
106.
The Ra'avad questions the Rambam's ruling, asking why the person is not liable for an additional fifth to atone for taking a false oath concerning the robbery, as required by Hilchot Gezeilah 7:1-2. The commentaries explain that according to the Rambam, it is sufficient to give one fifth, for that atones for both transgressions. Although in Halachah 24, the Rambam requires two different fifths to be given, that is because one is required to atone for partaking of consecrated property. That is a different type of transgression and that requirement is not paralleled with regard to the transgression against taking a false oath.
107.
For he must atone for partaking of terumahunknowingly, as in Halachah 10.
108.
I.e., the fifth is one fifth of the new total. See parallels in Hilchot Arachin 4:5; Hilchot Meialah 1:5, Hilchot Gezeilah 7:5, et al.
109.
The Ra'avad questions the Rambam's ruling, asking why is the person not required to pay the worth at the time of the robbery if the grain depreciated in price. The Radbaz explains that this is, in fact, the Rambam's intent and this halachah is speaking about an instance when he ate the terumah directly after stealing it. TheKessef Mishneh states that this halachah is not necessarily speaking about a thief, but about any person who partakes of terumahunknowingly. The time when he partakes of the terumah is equivalent to the time of theft.
Terumot - Chapter 11
Halacha 1
Terumah may be used for eating, drinking, and smearing upon oneself, for smearing upon oneself is equivalent to drinking, as [indicated by Psalms 109:18]: "It has entered his innards like water and like oil into his bones." And drinking is like eating.1
Halacha 2
It is permitted to compress dates that are terumah and collect them as a cake of dried dates.4 It is, however, forbidden to make them into beer.5 [For the same reason,] we do not make dates into honey, nor apples, wine, nor fall produce into vinegar.6 Similarly, with regard to other produce, we do not change them from their natural state if they are terumah; the only exceptions are olives and grapes.7
If one transgressed and made food into a beverage, one should drink it.8When a non-priest partakes of date-honey, apple-wine, or the like that isterumah inadvertently, he is not liable to make restitution.9 If he partook [of such products] intentionally, he should be given stripes for rebellious conduct.10
Halacha 3
We may not place dried dates and dried figs [that are terumah] into brine.11One may, however, place wine in brine.12 We do not place fragrant herbs in oil, because doing so removes it from the category of food and makes it oil for smearing. One may mix wine, honey, pepper, and the like, in order to partake of them.13
Halacha 4
We do not boil wine that is terumah, because this reduces its quantity.14 We do not pickle onions that are terumah in vinegar that is terumah, because this spoils the vinegar.
We do not mix grain with legumes.15 All substances that become distinct from each other when they are sorted through a sieve may be mixed together. When the land of Judah was laid waste,16 [the people] began mixing one type of grain with another17 and one type of legumes with another. They did not, however, [mix] grain with legumes.
Halacha 5
In the same way as ordinary flour is sifted, so too, a priest [sifts flour] that isterumah. He sifts [what is fit] to eat and discards the bran.18 If he desires to make fine flour, he should sift it many times until he produces a kab or twokabbim from a se'ah.19 He should not discard the remainder, because it is fit to be eaten.20 Instead, he should place it in a private place.21
Halacha 6
Oil that is terumah should not be used to seal an oven or a range,22nor should it be smeared on a shoe or sandal.23 Nor should one smear it on his foot while [the foot] is in a shoe or sandal.24 He may, however, smear [oil that isterumah] on his foot and put on a shoe or smear his entire body and then roll on a new leather mat. Even though they will be smeared, he need not show concern.25 He should not, however, place oil on a marble tablet to roll upon because he causes it to be ruined.26
Halacha 7
Whenever anyone partakes of terumah - even fruit27 - he must wash his hands [before doing so. This applies] even if his hands are pure, as will be explained in the appropriate place.28 It may not be eaten on a table at which a non-priest [is dining; this is] a decree lest he partake of it. Terumah from the Diaspora29 may be eaten on a table at which a non-priest [is dining] and, like ordinary food, does not require that one wash his hands before partaking of it.
We do not smear oil that is terumah with soiled30 hands.31 If, however, [such oil] fell on his flesh, he can rub it with soiled hands.32 One may apply oil that isterumah to an infant during the seven days after he was born [even though he is uncircumcised].33 For a newborn is not considered as uncircumcised for the first seven days [of his life].34
Halacha 8
Halacha 9
Halacha 10
The stems of figs, dried figs, wild figs, carobs, the insides of melons,41 the peels of melons, esrogim, and cucumbers even if they do not contain any food, and the extremities of the vegetables that are discarded by homeowners [when preparing vegetables],42 are forbidden to non-priests.43 The extremities of the vegetables that are cut off by gardeners, by contrast, are permitted to non-priests.44
The casings of beans and sesame seeds are forbidden if they contain food. If they do not contain food, they are permitted.
Halacha 11
The seeds of esrogim are permitted to be eaten.45 The seeds of olives, dates, and carobs, [by contrast,] even though they were not collected by a priest, are forbidden to a non-priest.46 With regard to other seeds, [the rule is]: If they were collected and have moisture, so that they can be sucked, they are forbidden to a non-priest. If they were discarded, they are permitted.47
Halacha 12
Bran from wheat: Fresh bran is forbidden, for it is fit to be eaten by humans. Aged bran is permitted.48 Until when is the bran considered fresh? For the entire time that people are accustomed to beat the grain at the granaries.
Halacha 13
Lower quality and slight rotten kernels of grain that are terumah are forbidden.49 If they already produce dust,50 they are permitted. When one pours water over dregs [of grapes] that are terumah, the first and second batches are forbidden to non-priests, but the third is permitted.51 If one does not pour water over them, but instead, strains off the wine from the seeds, even the third straining is forbidden to non-priests.
Halacha 14
When one has cleared the kernels of wheat that are terumah from a grainheap, we do not require the owner to sit and collect the [leftover] kernels one by one and [only after collecting them] bring ordinary grain there. Instead, he may sweep the area in the ordinary manner, and then bring ordinary grain there.52 Similarly, when a jug of oil that is terumah spills, we don't require [the owner] to sponge it up until [the earth] is dry.53 Instead, he may conduct himself as he does with ordinary [oil].54
Halacha 15
When a person pours out oil that is terumah from a jug, he should continue pour until the stream [of oil] ceases and the oil begins to drip, little by little. Once three drops have dropped one after the other, it is sufficient. It is permitted to place ordinary oil in that jug.55 If, however, he did not place ordinary oil and leaned the jug on its side until the remnants [of the oil] collected together, those remnants are terumah.56
Halacha 16
Halacha 17
When an Israelite was a guest at a priest's [home]59 and the priest kindled oil fit to be burnt for him and then departed, he is not required to extinguish [the lamp] until it burns out on its own.60An Israelite may dip a wick in the lamp of a priest61 and kindle it so that he may proceed [using] it.62
Halacha 18
When livestock belonging to a priest was standing next to livestock belonging to an Israelite or when garments belonging to a priest were being woven next to garments belonging to an Israelite, oil that is fit for burning may be kindled because of them without the permission of the priest.63
Similarly, we can light oil that is fit to be burnt in synagogues, houses of study, and dark alleyways without the permission of a priest.64And a person who does not have ordinary oil to kindle a Chanukah lamp may kindle oil that is fit to be burnt without permission of a priest.65 We may kindle oil that is fit to be burnt above the sick with the permission of a priest.66
Halacha 19
When a daughter of an Israelite who is married to a priest frequently visits her father, he may light [such oil] with her permission.67 It is permitted for a priest to kindle oil fit to be burnt in a house of mourning or at a wedding celebration68even though a multitude of people are present. We do not suspect that the people will partake of it. At a wedding celebration, [this will not take place] because they will not touch it because of their garments are clean,69 and in a house of mourning, the people will not feel free to do so because of their mourning.70
Halacha 20
When a person sows terumah unknowingly, he should turn it over.71 If he did so intentionally, he must maintain [the crop].72 Once it reaches a third of its growth, whether he sowed it intentionally or unknowingly, he must maintain [the crop].73 If it was flax, even if it reached a third of its growth and even if he sowed it intentionally, he must turn it over.74 This is a penalty so that he should not sow it with the intention of benefiting from its fibers.75
Halacha 21
Produce that grows from terumah is considered as ordinary produce with regard to all matters76 except that it is forbidden to non-priests.77 Our Sages decreed that it be forbidden to non-priests like terumah [as a safeguard], lest a priest maintain possession of impure terumah with the intent of sowing it and producing [a crop of] ordinary produce and this lead to undesirable consequences. Therefore, it is permitted to eat the products [of such plantings] with impure hands78 and a person who has immersed himself that day79 may partake of them like ordinary produce.
Halacha 22
Produce grown from produce grown [from terumah] are like ordinary produce with regard to all matters.80 [This applies] even to types of produce whose seeds do not decompose81 provided the new growth exceeds the root82 in the second generation of produce. [In such a situation,] the new growth elevates the root even if the seed does not decompose and the entire [plant] is permitted to be eaten by non-priests.83
The same applies with regard to [produce that grows from] terumah from the Diaspora,84 terumah mixed with ordinary produce,85 extra terumah,86 or seeds from garden vegetables that are not eaten themselves, e.g., turnips and radishes. Although the turnips and radishes themselves are terumah, [the produce] growing from their [seeds] is like ordinary produce with regard to all matters.87Similarly, when a person sows flaxseed that is terumah, the plants growing from it are permitted to non-priests.88
Halacha 23
When a person sows terumah that is impure, even though the produce that grows is ritually pure, it is forbidden to partake of it.89 [The rationale is that] since the terumah that was sown was forbidden to be eaten, it was already cast off. [Hence, it remains forbidden].
Halacha 24
If he cut off the leaves that grew and then another set of leaves grew and he cut them off, the produce that emerge afterwards is permitted to be eaten.90
Halacha 25
When plants of ordinary produce became impure and afterwards, they were sown and designated as terumah, they are permitted [to be eaten. The rationale is that] sowing them caused them to be considered pure and they did not become impure while they were terumah so that they would be forbidden.
Halacha 26
When a stalk [of grain] was in the midst of a grain heap and one straightened the edges of the grain heap,91 this stalk is considered tevel, because it was in the grain heap when it was straightened. If [that stalk] was planted,92 and then it was singled out and designated as terumah, there is an unresolved question if it is terumah. Since it was planted, it is possible to say that it was released from the categorization as tevel93 and is considered as produce for which all the required work was not completed.
If, however, it was designated as terumah before it was planted, it isterumah.94 Therefore if one ripped off [a portion] of it and ate it willfully, he is liable for death [at the hand of heaven]. If he did so unknowingly, he must [make restitution and add] a fifth. If he bent over and ate from the ground with his mouth, his intent95 is of no consequence because of the approach of people at large [and] it is not the ordinary practice for people to eat in this manner. Therefore he is not liable for death, nor for the [additional] fifth if he acted unknowingly.
Halacha 27
The obligations of leket, shichichah, pe'ah, terumah the tithes and the tithe given to the poor apply with regard to a field of produce that grew fromterumah. Poor Israelites and poor priests come and take these presents. The poor priests eat those that they acquire. The poor Israelites sell theirs to the priests for the price of terumah.96 Similarly, a Levite must sell his tithes to a priest.97
Halacha 28
A person who crushes such produce is praiseworthy. When a person threshes it with an animal, what should he do?98 He should tie a bucket around the animals neck and place the type of grain it is threshing in it. Thus he will neither be muzzling the animal, nor feeding it terumah.
FOOTNOTES
1.
The intent is that a person may benefit fromterumah in all the ways one ordinarily benefits from produce.
2.
For it is not common to smear these substances.
3.
One may not, however, burn pure terumahoil. Since it is fit to be used for a person's direct satisfaction, it should not be used merely as kindling fuel (Radbaz).
4.
For this is considered as benefiting from dates as food.
5.
In Babylon, it was customary to make beer out of dates. Nevertheless, it is forbidden to do this from dates which are terumah, because one should not make terumahwhich is food into a liquid (the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah, Terumot 11:3).
6.
Although fall grapes are not of the same quality as ordinary summer grapes and thus might be used for vinegar, since this is a deviation of the ordinary way in which the grapes are used, it is not appropriate to useterumah produce in this manner.
7.
For using them to produce oil and wine respectively is considered an ordinary - if not the preferable way - of using them. Indeed, when mentioning these products,Numbers 18:12 refers to them as "oil" and "wine," not as olives and grapes [the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (Terumot 11:3)].
8.
For it is still considered as terumah and it should not be wasted.
9.
For they are not considered as the fruit itself, merely as its by-products.
The Ra'avad maintains that if these products were already given to a priest, the non-priest must make restitution for their value. For taking them is equivalent to stealing. The Radbaz and the Kessef Mishnehmaintain that the Rambam would also accept this ruling, for in his Commentary to the Mishnah (ibid.:2), he states that the person who partakes of these products is liable for the principal, but not for an additional fifth.
10.
The punishment given for violating a Rabbinic prohibition. He is not considered as liable for lashes, because he is not liable for the transgression of a Scriptural prohibition for the same reason mentioned in the previous note.
11.
Because this ruins them. Putting these fruits into brine would allow the juice they contained to be extracted.
12.
This is done to improve the flavor of the brine.
13.
It was common to make such a mixture in the Talmudic era.
14.
This applies even though boiling it improves its taste and fragrance [the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (ibid.)].
15.
For this ruins the grain and grain is more important than legumes (Radbaz).
16.
In the Roman conquest.
17.
There was a sparsity of grain and the people did not care to differentiate one species from the other.
18.
Even though it is terumah and he will thus be discarding bran that is terumah. This is allowed since he is doing the same as he would with ordinary produce.
19.
A se'ah contains six kabbim. Nevertheless, because the person is sifting the flour carefully, he may be left with only one or twokabbim from the entire se'ah.
20.
Hence it is forbidden to destroy it.
21.
Where it will not be taken by another person.
22.
For this will be using it for a purpose other than a person's direct physical benefit.
23.
Applying oil to leather objects strengthens them (Kessef Mishneh).
24.
Because the oil will be applied to the shoe and the sandal directly.
25.
Once the oil has been applied to his flesh, its sacred quality is divested. Hence, the fact that afterwards, the oil becomes applied to the leather is not significant.
26.
One certainly is not allowed to place oil that is terumah on a leather mat, because that will cause it to be absorbed in the mat and thus not applied to the person's skin. One might, however, think that it is permitted to use a marble tablet for this purpose, because none of the oil will be absorbed. Nevertheless, a certain amount of oil will remain on the tablet and thus be ruined. This is forbidden (Kessef Mishneh).
27.
Washing one's hands before partaking of ordinary fruit is, by contrast, considered a sign of haughtiness (Hilchot Berachot 6:3). With regard to bread, however, our Sages ordained that one must wash even before partaking of ordinary bread.
28.
See Hilchot Sha'ar Avot HaTumah 8:8. See also the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (Challah 1:9).
29.
Which is separated only by virtue of Rabbinic decree.
30.
The intent is not necessarily impure hands, but any hands that one has not watched carefully to make sure that they are pure. For if one touches oil with such hands, it is impure by Rabbinic decree (Hilchot Sha'ar Avot HaTuma'ah 8:8-10).
31.
For this would make the terumah impure and that is forbidden. Instead, one must wash his hands before applying oil to his body (Kessef Mishneh).
32.
For once it comes in contact with his flesh, its sacred quality departs and the fact that one's hands are impure is not significant (ibid., based on Keritot 7a).
33.
And it is forbidden for an uncircumcised person to make use of terumah, as stated in Chapter 7, Halachah 10.
34.
In his gloss to the Mishneh Torah, B'nei Yaakov notes that although this question is left unresolved by the Babylonian Talmud (Yevamot 71a), the Rambam's ruling is based on the Jerusalem Talmud where the question is resolved.
35.
Even though his Israelite grandson will come in contact with the oil and benefit from it, that is of no concern for once it touches the flesh of the priest, its holiness departs and even a non-priest may benefit from it.
36.
The Kessef Mishneh offers this interpretation in order to maintain the standard version of the Mishneh Torah. He, however, suggests that the version is in error and that the proper version is that he can attend to him.
37.
A pungent herb.
38.
Although the chilbahwill also be applied to the hair of the Israelite woman, since it was first applied to the hair of the priest's daughter, its holiness has departed and it can then be applied to the Israelite woman's hair.
39.
For this is not considered direct physical benefit, like eating.
40.
I.e., it is not normally eaten, because its taste is too sharp. If, however, it was entirely unfit for human consumption, there would be no obligation to separate terumah from it (Kessef Mishneh, see Chapter 2, Halachah 8, and Chapter 12, Halachah 7).
41.
The seeds and the juice in the melon [the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (Ediot 3:3)].
42.
The tops and stems of vegetables that are cut off when preparing a vegetable for cooking (ibid.).
43.
Even though they are not fit to be eaten, since they are in contact with the food, they are considered like food (Radbaz).
44.
For they cut off only those leaves that are not at all fit to be eaten, a homeowner, by contrast, will discard even those that are slightly undesirable (Kessef Mishneh). The Rambam is apparently relying on a version of the Jerusalem Talmud (Terumot 11:4) which is different than the standard printed version of the text.
45.
For they are bitter and are not fit to be eaten (Radbaz).
46.
For usually, there is a certain amount of food attached to them.
The commentaries note that the Rambam's ruling here represents a reversal of his position in his Commentary to the Mishnah (Terumot 11:5) where he rules more leniently with regard to carob seeds.
47.
The rationale is that since it is only fit to be eaten under pressing circumstances, there is no obligation to separate terumahaccording to Scriptural Law. Instead, the obligation is Rabbinic in origin. It is a decree, instituted so that it not be exchanged with other produce. Since it has been discarded, it will not be exchanged. Hence, the decree was never applied in such situations.
48.
For it is no longer considered as food.
49.
For they are still fit to be eaten.
50.
If they are aged to the degree that they produce dust, they are no longer considered food and there is no prohibition against partaking of them.
51.
For the influence of the grapes is not significant at that time. The Radbaz states that this leniency applies even if the mixture has the flavor of wine.
52.
The fact that there will be some grain that isterumah is not significant.
53.
Our translation is taken from the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (Terumot 11:6).
54.
Even though some oil that is terumah will be left to spoil on the ground.
55.
Even though there will be some remnants of the oil that was terumah there, we do not require him to clean the jug thoroughly (ibid.:8).
56.
The fact that he has diverted his attention from the oil is not significant; we do not suspect that other oil was added to the jug (ibid.).
57.
I.e., oil that is terumah that is ritually impure and hence, fit to be used as fuel for a lamp.
58.
The oil should be burnt for the sake of the priest and not for the sake of an Israelite. Nevertheless, since the priest derives benefit from the Israelite's acts, this is permitted.
59.
When referring to this law, the Rama (Yoreh De'ah 331:19) mentions the converse situation as well. A priest visited an Israelite and the Israelite kindled a lamp for him using impure oil that is terumah. The Israelite may allow the lamp to continue burning after the priest departs.
60.
Since the priest originally benefited from it, there is no prohibition in allowing it to continue to burn for the sake of the Israelite.
61.
I.e., even though it contains oil from terumahthat is impure.
62.
The Mishneh LiMelech explains that according to the Rambam, the prohibition against an Israelite benefiting from impure oil that is terumah is Rabbinic in origin. Our Sages did not impose their decree in a situation where a Jew would be forced to walk in the dark. Because of the danger involved, the Israelite is entitled to do this even without the permission of the priest (Kessef Mishneh).
63.
Since the priest is deriving benefit from the oil, it may be kindled without asking him. And since he is deriving benefit from it, the Israelite may also derive benefit.
The Radbaz emphasizes that this applies only when the priest does not object. If, however, he specifically lodges an objection, it is forbidden.
64.
In all these instances, it is a mitzvah that benefits people at large to kindle the light and our Sages did not institute their decrees when doing so would impede the performance of such a mitzvah.
65.
The rationale is that he is performing a mitzvah. Since mitzvot were not given for our personal satisfaction (Rosh HaShanah28a), he is not considered to be deriving personal benefit from kindling the Chanukah lamp. Nevertheless, if he has other oil, it is preferable for him to use that rather than impure terumah oil.
66.
A priest must explicitly give permission for the oil to be kindled there [the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (Terumot11:10)]. In contrast to the previous instances, the priest's permission is necessary in this situation, because only one individual - not people at large - are benefiting from the light (Radbaz, Kessef Mishneh).
67.
Since she is married to a priest, she is permitted to benefit from the kindling of this oil. And thus, all the laws mentioned above with regard to a priest, also apply with regard to her.
68.
For this is also considered as a mitzvah that benefits people at large.
69.
The garments worn by people at a wedding celebration are very clean and they will not want to soil them with oil that was used for a lamp [the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (Terumot 11:10)].
70.
They will be too preoccupied with their mourning to consider anything else (ibid.).
71.
And thus destroy what he sowed (ibid. 9:1). This will be beneficial because he will be able to sow a new crop of ordinary produce instead.
72.
This will cause him to suffer a loss, for as the Rambam states in the following halachah, the produce of such a field may not be eaten by non-priests. Thus he will not be able to sell it at the price of ordinary produce. And yet he will have to till his land just as it was ordinary produce.
73.
For at this point, the crop is already considered significant (see Hilchot Ma'aser2:3-5). Thus destroying it would be similar to destroying terumah which is forbidden.
74.
And destroy it, so that he will not make use of it.
75.
We fear that he will interpret the prohibition as applying only to using the flax seeds as food and not to using the plant's fibers for other purposes.
76.
Hence all the agricultural obligations that are incumbent on ordinary produce are incumbent upon it, as stated in Halachah 27. Although Terumot 9:4 states that produce which grows from terumah is terumah, the intent is that it is forbidden to non-priests. This was one of the decrees enacted by our Sages on the day the students of the School of Shammai outnumbered those of the School of Hillel [the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (Terumot 9:4), based onShabbat 1:3].
77.
I.e., it does possess the sacred quality that characterizes terumah.
78.
When one hands are in a state of impurity, because of touching food that is ritually impure, as a result of a Rabbinic decree. It is not necessary to wash one's hands before partaking of such produce.
79.
To be purified from ritual impurity, a person must immerse himself and then wait until nightfall that day. The immersion itself is not sufficient to bring one to a state of ritual purity.
80.
They may even be eaten by non-priests.
81.
Plants like onions or garlic (Terumot 9:4) that grow from an existing bulb. Although that bulb is produce grown from terumah, since it is forbidden only according to Rabbinic Law, when it is planted again and new produce grows from it, the Rabbinic prohibition can be nullified.
82.
I.e., a simple majority is sufficient. We do not require 60 times its substance.
83.
The Ra'avad differs with the Rambam's ruling, stating that if the seed does not decompose, even the second generation produce that grows is forbidden. He supports his ruling based on Terumot 9:4 which makes such statements with regard to tevel, produce from which the terumot and tithes have not been separated. The Radbaz and the Kessef Mishneh, however, support the Rambam's position.
84.
Since such terumah is forbidden only by Rabbinic decree and it is not a common matter, our Sages did not enforce their decree with regard to it.
85.
Even though the produce which is terumahis mixed with less than 100 times its volume and thus it is not nullified (see ch. 13), if the mixture is planted, the produce that grows is permitted to all.
86.
This is referring to a situation similar to those described in Chapter 3, Halachah 6, when originally, the person gave less than the required amount of terumah and hence was required to separate terumah again. The second separation is considered as terumahonly because of Rabbinic decree and produce which grows from it is permitted.
87.
Since the seeds themselves are not edible, they are not considered as terumah(although the vegetables themselves are). And since they are not considered asterumah, the produce that grows from them is also not considered as terumah.
88.
Since flaxseed is usually not eaten, the requirement to separate terumah is only Rabbinic in origin. Hence, when the terumahfrom flaxseed is sown, it is permitted (Radbaz). The Ra'avad, however, differs concerning this and the previous instance and maintains that produce that grows from this type of terumah is not permitted.
89.
Even by priests. Instead, it must be burnt, as was required of the seeds from which it grew [the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (Terumot 9:7)].
90.
By a priest. It is permitted because planting it purified it from impurity. It is not permitted to an Israelite, however, because it is still the first generation of offspring from terumahand not the second (Ra'avad, as explained by Radbaz and Kessef Mishneh).
91.
This obligates that terumah and tithes be separated from the produce as stated inHilchot Ma'aser 3:13.
92.
Before terumah was separated from that grain heap.
93.
The Rambam's words require some qualification. Certainly, the fact that the stalk is replanted does not cause the categorization as tevel to be released, as evident from Hilchot Ma'aser 6:6. The question here is whether the designation asterumah remains or not.
94.
The fact that it was replanted does not change its own status.
95.
To eat in this manner.
96.
Which is less than the price of ordinary produce. This is necessary, because as stated in Halachah 21, it is forbidden for an Israelite to partake of such produce.
97.
It is, however, forbidden to sell the second tithe. Instead, this produce must be given to the priests (Radbaz).
98.
I.e., if the animal partakes of the produce, the owner will be benefiting from produce grown from terumah. And if he muzzles the animal to prevent it from doing so, he will be violating the prohibition (Deuteronomy 25:4): "Do not muzzle an ox while it is threshing."
Terumot - Chapter 12
Halacha 1
It is forbidden to cause the terumah of Eretz Yisrael to contract ritual impurity,1as [is the rule with regard to] other sacred articles.2 One should not bring it to a state of ritual impurity,3 nor should one spoil it. Instead, he should partake of pure [terumah] and kindle impure terumah.
It is permitted to cause terumah from the Diaspora to become impure, even with impurity mandated by Scriptural Law. Although it is only ritually impure4because of the impurity stemming from the Diaspora which is a Rabbinic decree,5 [this leniency is granted] because the obligation to separate [suchterumah] is also of Rabbinic origin. For this reason, a woman may separatechallah6 while in the niddah state in the Diaspora, for she is cautioned only against eating it, not against touching it, as we explained.
Halacha 2
If a doubt arose whether terumah became impure, it should not be eaten,7 nor should it be burnt.8 Instead, one should place it aside until it becomes definitely impure, [at which time,] it should be burnt. There are situations in which doubt has arisen that mandate that terumah should be burnt as will be explained with regard to [the laws of] ritual purity and impurity.9
Halacha 3
When a question arises whether a jug of wine has become ritually impure, one should not do anything with it. One should not move it from its place, nor reveal it. Instead, he should leave it in its place until it definitely becomes impure and must be burnt.10 We are not concerned that perhaps it will be eaten.
Halacha 4
[The following rules apply when] a jug [of wine that is terumah which is pure] is broken in an upper vat and the lower vat [contains ordinary wine that is] impure.11 If it is possible for a person to save a revi'it of wine in a state of purity,12 he should do so.13 If not, he should save [the wine] with his hands without washing them even though he imparts ritual impurity [to theterumah],14 as will be explained [in the laws pertaining to] ritual purity.15
Halacha 5
When does the above apply? To a jug of wine, [and then] provided that the contents of the lower vat are less than 100 times the amount [that falls in], in which instance, the terumah wine will mix with the ordinary wine and everything will be disqualified.16 If, however, the lower vat contained 100 times the amount of the jug and thus [the wine that descends] will be nullified because [the mixture] is 101 times the original17 or the jug contains oil, he should allow it to descend and become impure instead of making it impure with his own hands. [The rationale is that] the entire quantity is fit to use as fuel and there will be no great loss.18
Similarly, if a jug of oil is spilling,19 if it is possible for one to save a revi'it of oil in a state of purity, he should do so. If not, he should save it while ritually impure.20 Since the jug is broken, he is not adjured against saving it in a state of ritual impurity, because he is agitated.21
Halacha 6
[The following laws apply when] one was traveling from place to place, carrying loaves that are terumah, and a gentile tells him: "Give me one of them. If not, I will touch all of them and make them ritually impure."22 He should place one of them on a rock,23 but he should not place it in his hand so that he will not be a direct cause of the terumah becoming ritually impure.
Halacha 7
[The following laws apply with regard to] chilbah and vetch that are terumah. Since they are not fit for human consumption,24 it is permitted to carry out all the actions [connected with their preparation] in a state of ritual impurity. One must be careful only when placing them in the water to soak. For if one placed them in the water to soak while ritually impure, one will have made them ritually impure directly.25 Once one has soaked them, however, one need not be concerned with ritual impurity at the time one crushes the vetch26 or when one feeds them to an animal. For this reason, one may give chilbah and vetch that are terumah to a priest who is a common person.27
Halacha 8
We do not entrust terumah to a priest who is an unlearned person, because he is easygoing about it and may partake of it.28 We may, however, entrust [terumah] to an unlearned Israelite if it is stored in an earthenware container sealed with a wrapper,29 provided it is not produce that is already made fit to contract ritual impurity. [This is] a decree lest it be moved by his wife while she is in the nidah state.30
Halacha 9
We do not separate terumah from olives in a state of ritual purity for an unlearned person.31 We may, however, prepare ordinary olives for him in a state of ritual purity.32 [This leniency was granted] so that the operator of the vat could earn his livelihood.33
How should this process be carried out?34 He should separate an amount of produce sufficient for terumah and place it in a utensil that cannot contract ritual impurity, e.g., a stone utensil. When the unlearned person comes to take the ordinary produce and the terumah, we tell him: "Be careful not to touch theterumah.35Otherwise, the produce will become tevel again."36
Halacha 10
When an Israelite performs the tasks associated with the preparation of his produce while ritually impure, we should not harvest grapes with him. Needless to say, we should not tread the grapes with him,37 because theterumah will be made ritually impure.38 One may, however, carry barrels to39and from the vat for him.40
Halacha 11
When olives and grapes have become ritually impure, we may squeeze them and separate terumah [from the oil or wine].41 If [grapes or the olives] became impure after they themselves were designated as terumah, they should be squeezed [using] less than an egg-sized portion at a time.42 In such an instance, the liquid that flows from them is permitted to be drunk by the priests. Indeed, it would be fit to be used for libations on the altar. [The rationale is that] the liquid is considered as set aside within the fruit.43 The reason that [our Sages] spoke of less than an egg-sized portion44 is that this is a decree lest one use more than an egg-sized portion and the liquid become impure because of [contact with] the egg-sized portion.45
If the produce was impure to the third degree, one may tread upon it in the vat and the liquid produced from it can be used for pure terumah.46 [The rationale is that] ritual impurity of the third degree does not bring about ritual impurity of the fourth degree with regard to terumah, as will be explained with regard to the concept of ritual purity.47
Halacha 12
When a loaf of bread that is terumah becomes impure, it should be discarded among the firewood48 until one uses it for fuel. Similarly, if oil [that is terumah] becomes impure, it should be placed in a repugnant container until it is used as fuel so that it will not create a stumbling block for others, [lest] they partake of it.
Halacha 13
When wine that is terumah is left uncovered, since it is forbidden to drink it,51it should be poured out. Similarly, figs, grapes, marrow, squash, watermelon, and cucumbers that are terumah that were discovered to be perforated are forbidden to be eaten because of the mortal danger involved.52 What should be done with them? They should be discarded in the sea or buried.
Halacha 14
When a dough was kneaded with water that was left uncovered,53 it should be burnt even though it is terumah.54
15 It is forbidden for a priest to take terumah or any other of the presents given to him until they were separated by the owners [of the produce], as [implied by the verses, Numbers 18:12]: "The first [of the produce] which they will give to God I have given to you" and [ibid.:19]: "...that the children of Israel will offer up to God are given to you." [Implied is that] the children of Israel must offer it up and then [the priests] can acquire it.
[The priests] should not take [these presents] after they have been set aside except with the knowledge of the owners. For the owners have the right to give them to any priest that they desire, as [ibid. 5:10] states: "A person's sacraments will belong to him."55 [Nevertheless,] if [a priest]56 takes them without the owner's knowledge, he acquires them. For all that belongs to the owner is the right to apportion them and that right is not financially significant.
Halacha 16
When terumah was given to a priest and he found other entities in it, it is forbidden for him [to take them]. This is comparable to theft, for perhaps other people placed them [in the terumah] to take them [afterwards].57
Halacha 17
An Israelite is not required to trouble himself with terumah and bring it from the granary until a city or from a desert until a settled area. Instead, the priests should go out to the granaries and the Israelites should give them their portions there. If they did not go out [to collect the terumah, the owner] should separate it and leave it in the granary. Our Sages ordained that if there are beasts or animals who would eat it there and it is not protected from them, [the owner] should take the trouble of dealing with it and bringing it to the city. He may collect a wage for bringing it [to the city] from the priest. [This is done,] because if he separated it and left it for the animals and beasts, God's name would be desecrated.58
Halacha 18
It is forbidden for the priests and the Levites59 to assist [farmers] in the granaries in order to receive the agricultural presents given them.60 Whoever renders such assistance desecrates the holiness of God's name. Concerning such people is applied [the malediction, Malachi 2:8]: "You have defiled the covenant of Levi." It is forbidden for an Israelite to allow [a priest] to help him. Instead, he should grant them their portion with honor.
Halacha 19
When a person gives terumah to a priest on the condition that he returns it,61he has fulfilled his obligation to give.62 It is, however, forbidden to do so, for [the priest] is considered like one who helps in the granaries.63 Similarly, it is forbidden for [the priests] to seize the terumot and the tithes. It is even forbidden for them to make a verbal request for them. Instead, they should take them with honor, for they are eating and drinking from the table of God.64These presents are given to Him and He apportioned them to them, as [Numbers 18:8] states: "Behold I have given to you the safeguard of Myterumah."65
Halacha 20
A person should not give terumah to the watchman of his vat, nor a firstborn animal to the watchman of his flock, nor the presents [given when an animal is slaughtered]66 to the shepherd of his animals. If he gave them [to these individuals], he desecrated [their honor] unless he gave them their wages for watching first.67
Halacha 21
When does the above apply? When the owner desired to give [the presents] to one of two priests or [tithes] to one of two Levites gratis and his colleague told him: "Here is this and give to that one." If, however, an owner told a priest or a Levite: "Here is this portion. [Give me something in exchange] for my privilege to give it to whom I want," this is forbidden.71 Similarly, it is forbidden to sell terumah as merchandise even though he purchases it from a priest and sells it to a priest.72
Halacha 22
There are ten individuals to whom terumah is not given in the granaries even though they may partake of it or grant others the right to partake of it:73
a deaf-mute, an intellectually or emotionally unstable person, or a child who does not know how to spread out his hands to recite the priestly blessing,74these [are not given terumah], because they lack sufficient knowledge;
a servant, lest passersby in the field [see him taking terumah] and give testimony that he is a priest;
an uncircumcised person and a ritually impure person,77 because they are abhorrent;
a woman [married to a priest], lest she be divorced78 and [to prevent her from] entering into seclusion [with someone in the granary];79 and
a person who marries a woman who is not appropriate for him;80 he was penalized in that [terumah] would not be allocated to him in the granaries until he divorces her.
In all the above instances, [terumah] may be sent to their homes and allocated to them as is the law regarding other sacramental foods dependent on the boundaries [of Eretz Yisrael] with the exception of a person who marries a woman who is not appropriate for him, an uncircumcised person81 and a ritually impure person, to whom [terumah] is not sent at all.
FOOTNOTES
1.
I.e., to cause it to contract ritual impurity directly.
2.
See Hilchot Pesulei HaMukdashim 18:2. TheSefer Mitzvot Gadol considers this as one of the 613 mitzvot. The Rambam does not, however.
3.
To bring about a situation where it is likely that the terumah will contract impurity.
4.
One might still think that causing it to become impure would be forbidden, because although it is impure by Rabbinic decree, it is not impure according to Scriptural Law, and it is forbidden to spread ritual impurity.
5.
As the Rambam states in Hilchot Tumat Meit11:1-2, our Sages decreed that everyone living in the Diaspora is considered as if he became impure because of contact with a human corpse. Now impurity of Rabbinic origin is less severe than impurity of Scriptural origin. Nevertheless, since the obligation to separate this terumah is only Rabbinic in origin, our Sages did not forbid making it incur Scriptural impurity.
6.
Which is bound by the same rules asterumah.
7.
Lest it have become impure and it is forbidden to partake of impure terumah.
8.
Lest it not be impure and the person would be destroying terumah unnecessarily.
9.
See Hilchot Sha'ar Avot HaTumah 13:13.
10.
The Rambam is ruling according to the opinion of Rabban Gamliel in Terumot 8:8. Other opinions in the mishnah maintain that the terumah should be protected that it does not become impure and still others maintain that it should be left in a place where it is likely to become impure so that we will not have to wait for the mandate to destroy it.
11.
And thus we are concerned that the pureterumah will flow into the vat of impure wine. In such a situation, an ordinary person will not be able to partake of it, because of theterumah that has become mixed with it. And a priest will not be able to partake of it, because the wine that is terumah has become impure. Thus it will not be useful at all.
12.
When both his hands and the articles he uses are ritually pure [the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (Terumot8:10)].
13.
Even though by doing so, he will cause the wine which is terumah to mix with the impure wine and thus the entire mixture will become unfit for use. It is, nevertheless, desirable for him to do this, because in this way, he will be saving at least a revi'it of wine that is pureterumah.
14.
Even though he will make the wine ritually impure in this manner, it will become ritually impure anyway. (Moreover, the ritual impurity that he will impart to it will be only Rabbinic in origin; see also the notes to the following halachah.) And in this way, he will prevent the terumah from mixing with the ordinary produce and disqualifying it.
15.
See Hilchot Sha'ar Avot HaTumah 8:8,10; 9:5.
16.
For, as stated above, an ordinary person will not be able to partake of it because of theterumah and even a priest will not be able to partake of it because the terumah will have become impure.
17.
See Chapter 13, Halachah 1.
18.
I.e., even though the oil that is terumahbecomes impure and mixed with the contents of the lower vat, the person will not suffer the loss of the entire mixture, because it can be used as fuel.
19.
To the earth and thus will be spoiled entirely.
20.
From a comparison to the wording used in Halachah 4, the Or Sameach rules that with regard to wine, one is permitted to save the wine only if merely his hands are ritually impure. If his entire person is ritually impure, he is forbidden to do so. In this instance, by contrast, the person may save the oil even if his person is ritually impure.
The difference between the two instances can be explained as follows. With regard to wine, what the person is doing is saving the ordinary wine, not the terumah, because there is no use for impure wine. Hence, he is permitted to do so only if he does not impart ritual impurity of Scriptural origin to theterumah. With regard to the oil, he is saving the oil that is terumah - for impure oil can be used as fuel. Hence, he is allowed to do so even if he will be making it ritually impure.
21.
Over the possible loss of his money.
22.
For according to Rabbinic decree, a gentile is considered as ritually impure and can convey that impurity to other objects. SeeHilchot Tumat Meit 1:13-14.
23.
So that the gentile can take it. If one of the loaves is ritually impure, he should leave that loaf for the gentile.
24.
Under ordinary circumstances. Nevertheless, they are eaten by humans from time to time. Otherwise, there would be no obligation to separate terumah from them. See Chapter 2, Halachah 8, and Chapter 11, Halachah 9.
25.
And that is forbidden. Even though the person will be causing the produce to contract ritual impurity later, in his Commentary to the Mishnah (Ma'aser Sheni2:3), the Rambam explains that this stage of preparation is singled out because it is when the produce comes in contact with the water that it becomes fit to contract ritual impurity.
26.
To remove their coatings.
27.
As stated in Chapter 6, Halachah 2, it is forbidden to give terumah that is ritually pure to a priest who is a common person, for we fear that he will be ritually impure and yet will not be aware of his state. In this instance, however, there is no difficulty for we are not concerned with this terumah becoming ritually impure.
The Kessef Mishneh notes that this ruling is a minority opinion in the Mishnah (Challah4:9) and the majority of the Sages rule that it is forbidden to give such terumah to an unlearned priest. Why then, he asks, does the Rambam accept the minority view. (Significantly, in his own Commentary to the Mishnah, the Rambam states that the majority opinion is accepted.)
28.
I.e., he knows that he is a priest and thatterumah should be eaten by priests. He does not consider himself impure and does not understand why he should not be allowed to partake of the terumah. Even if it is sealed with a wrapper, we fear that he will break open the wrapper and partake of theterumah (Radbaz).
29.
Since it is sealed closed, the Israelite will realize that there are questions of ritual purity involved and will not dare to touch it.
30.
A woman in such a state can cause an article to become impure by moving it even though she does not touch it. See Hilchot Mitamei Mishkav UMoshav 8:2-3. Nevertheless, both the Ra'avad and theKessef Mishneh question the Rambam's ruling, for seemingly, since the produce has not become fit to contract ritual impurity, why would the woman's moving it cause the produce to contract impurity?
31.
Quite often the owner of the produce would be an unlearned person whom we assume is not precise in his observance of the laws of ritual purity. Nevertheless, he would often employ workers or hire a vat owner who was precise in his observance so that his produce would comply with the laws of ritual purity. The first clause is speaking about a situation where the owner of the produce had already put olives in the press and squeezed the oil from them before asking the person precise in his observance to separate terumah. Since the olives became subject to contract ritual impurity because of the oil, we assume that they became ritually impure through contact with an impure person. Hence, if the person who was precise in his observance would separateterumah, there is a probability that it is impure, but people will think that it is pure, because of the reputation of the person who is precise in his observance. Hence, he is forbidden to separate terumah from it.
32.
I.e., a person who is precise in his observance may perform the entire process, crushing the olives for their oil and separating terumah .
33.
I.e., since the owner of the produce is not precise in his observance of ritual purity, it would be preferable not to separate terumahfor him under any circumstances. Nevertheless, leniency was granted so that the owner of the vat could earn his livelihood.
34.
I.e., after preparing the oil and separating theterumah, what precautions should he take that the owner of the produce does not cause the terumah to contract ritual impurity?
35.
I.e., he is permitted to touch the utensil, but not the terumah itself.
36.
Although this is not true, he is given this warning so that he will be careful not to touch the terumah. We are confident that he will heed the warning, because even the unlearned people were careful in the observance of the prohibition against partaking of tevel (see Hilchot Ma'aser 9:1).
37.
In the first instance, the grapes being picked are considered fit to contract ritual impurity only by Rabbinic decree (Hilchot Tumat Ochalin 11:1). In the second instance, the wine is already starting to flow and the impurity is of Scriptural origin. Hence, the Rambam uses the expression: "Needless to say."
38.
I.e., the wine will be ritually impure, and thus the terumah separated from it will be ritually impure and of no value. Hence, performing these tasks is forbidden, because one is aiding a Jew in the performance of a transgression. For it is forbidden to cause produce from which terumah has not been separated to become impure [Avodah Zarah55a; the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (Avodah Zarah 4:9)].
39.
For these barrels are empty.
40.
For the wine has already been rendered impure.
41.
I.e., and the wine or oil is considered as ritually pure. The Kessef Mishneh explains that we are speaking about a situation in which the olives or grapes had become impure with a person who himself had come in contact with a source of ritual impurity. Thus the grapes and olives are considered as ritually impure to the second degree. Making the grapes and the olives impure does not make the wine and the oil impure, because something that is impure to the second degree does not convey impurity to ordinary produce (see Hilchot Sha'ar Avot HaTumah 11:2). Hence once this wine and oil has been squeezed out, terumah that is ritually pure can be separated from it. The Radbaz emphasizes that in this instance as well, we are speaking about using less than an egg-sized portion of produce at a time as will be explained.
42.
Hilchot Tumat Ochalin 9:2 explains that as long as the impure produce is less than an egg-sized portion, the fact that it comes in contact with the liquids is not significant.
43.
Thus touching the fruit is not considered as touching the liquids (ibid.).
44.
And not an egg-sized portion itself.
45.
For with regard to terumah, impurity of the second degree can impart impurity of the third degree (Hilchot Sha'ar Avot HaTumah11:3).
46.
Even though it came into contact with the olives or grapes that were impure.
47.
Hilchot Sha'ar Avot HaTumah, loc. cit.:2
48.
I.e., if it is placed in the woodpile, people will not regard it as food and they will not partake of it. The point of this entire halachah is to emphasize appropriate safeguards so that people will not partake of impure terumah. Needless to say, it is desirable to burn the impure terumahimmediately. The point of this halachah is to provide guidelines should one desire to save it to use as fuel.
49.
So that they will no longer be fit to be used to make flour.
50.
The Kessef Mishneh notes that wine that isterumah that became impure could also be used for its fragrance. Nevertheless, our Sages did not desire that such wine be set aside for this purpose, lest one partake of it unknowingly.
51.
Lest a poisonous snake have drank from the wine and deposited its venom there [the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (Terumot 8:4); see also Hilchot Rotzeach UShemirat Nefesh 11:7-8)].
52.
Here also we fear that the produce was perforated by a poisonous snake who deposited its venom there (ibid. 12:2).
53.
And is thus forbidden for the reason mentioned in the notes to the previous halachah (ibid. 11:15).
54.
Even though one will be wasting terumah, we show concern for the danger that could be involved.
55.
I.e., though he may not make use of them, the right to give them away is his.
56.
The Radbaz states that this applies even to an unlearned priest. Although terumahshould not be given to such a priest lest he cause it to become impure, if he takes it, we do not expropriate it from him.
57.
I.e., we suspect that a person understood that the terumah was set aside, not to be used, and deposited other articles there for safekeeping.
58.
For terumah is referred to as "sanctified," allowing it to be destroyed in this manner desecrates God's name (Radbaz).
59.
To whom the tithes are given.
60.
This applies to the presents required by Scriptural Law. They may, however, render assistance in order to receive those mandated by Rabbinic Law (Hilchot Bikkurim5:13).
61.
And then the terumah would belong to the Israelite who - although he could not partake of it - could sell it to a priest.
62.
For such a present is a valid transfer of property. See Hilchot Lulav 8:10; Hilchot Zechiyah UMatanah 3:9.
63.
I.e., he is performing a favor for the owner in return for his terumah.
64.
Since the presents are God's, as it were, they should be treated with honor.
65.
I.e., the verse implies that terumah belongs to God and that He grants it to the priests.
66.
See Hilchot Bikkurim, ch. 9.
67.
If he gives them the presents first, it would appear that he is bargaining with them to reduce their wages. This would be similar to a priest assisting in the granary which is forbidden.
68.
The Radbaz emphasizes that such statements may be made only by an Israelite. A priest is forbidden to do so, for this is similar to helping in the granaries.
69.
A silver coin of the Talmudic period.
70.
Since the owner has the right to do what he wants with the presents, he is permitted to receive gifts for them as well.
71.
For such an arrangement looks like the person is selling the terumah.
72.
For it was granted to the priests for consumption and not for commercial purposes.
73.
I.e., their wives and servants may partake of it.
74.
Our translation is taken from the Kessef Mishneh. Although Hilchot Tefilah 15:4 states that a priest should not bless the people until he is old enough to grow a beard, that can be interpreted as meaning that he should not bless the people alone. With other priests, however, he may bless them.
75.
A person with a massive of flesh covering his sexual organs that prevents his gender from being known.
76.
A person with both masculine and feminine sexual organs.
77.
They are forbidden to partake of terumah, but they could be taking for their wives, children, or servants.
78.
And thus become forbidden to partake ofterumah.
79.
For these are not places frequented by multitudes of people. Yevamot 99b mentions these two rationales as separate views. The Rambam, however, does not see them as mutually exclusive and combines them both.
80.
Rashi (Yevamot, loc. cit.) interprets this as meaning a woman whom the priest is forbidden to marry.
81.
The Kessef Mishneh notes that Yevamot, loc. cit., does not place an uncircumcised person in this category if his failure to circumcise himself comes as a result of forces beyond his control, e.g., his brothers died because of circumcision. He suggests that perhaps the Rambam had a different version of that passage.
• English Text | Video Class• "Today's Day"
Shabbat, Adar II 16, 5776 · 26 March 2016
Tuesday Adar Sheini 16 5703
Torah lessons: Chumash: Tzav, Shlishi with Rashi.
Tehillim: 79-82.
Tanya: Thus, when the (p. 171)...intermediary between them. (p. 173).
Avoda for the businessman includes arousing within himself the faith and perfect trust in the One Who feeds and sustains all flesh, that He will provide him with an ample livelihood. He must be truly happy and cheerful, as though all his livelihood were already in hand.
• Daily Thought:
Being Not That
Be simple.
In whatever you do,
in whatever form you take,
in whatever you decide you are,
. . . always remember you are not that.
No comments:
Post a Comment