Commentary for Terumot 3:1
הַתּוֹרֵם קִשּׁוּת וְנִמְצֵאת מָרָה, אֲבַטִּיחַ וְנִמְצָא סָרוּחַ, תְּרוּמָה, וְיַחֲזֹר וְיִתְרֹם. הַתּוֹרֵם חָבִית שֶׁל יַיִן וְנִמְצֵאת שֶׁל חֹמֶץ, אִם יָדוּעַ שֶׁהָיְתָה שֶׁל חֹמֶץ עַד שֶׁלֹּא תְרָמָהּ, אֵינָה תְרוּמָה. אִם מִשֶּׁתְּרָמָהּ הֶחֱמִיצָה, הֲרֵי זוֹ תְרוּמָה. אִם סָפֵק, תְּרוּמָה, וְיַחֲזֹר וְיִתְרֹם. הָרִאשׁוֹנָה, אֵינָהּ מְדַמַּעַת בִּפְנֵי עַצְמָהּ, וְאֵין חַיָּבִין עָלֶיהָ חֹמֶשׁ. וְכֵן הַשְּׁנִיָּה:
If one set aside a gourd as <i>Terumah</i> [produce consecrated for priestly consumption] and it was found to be bitter, a melon and it was found to be rotten, it is [considered valid] <i>Terumah</i> but he must again give <i>Terumah</i>. If one set aside a barrel of wine as <i>Terumah</i> and it was found to be vinegar, if it was known to be vinegar before he set it aside as <i>Terumah</i>, is is [not considered valid] <i>Terumah</i>. But if it had become vinegar after he had given it as <i>Terumah</i>, behold it is <i>Terumah</i>. In a case of doubt, it is <i>Terumah</i> but he must again give <i>Terumah</i>. The first [set of <i>Terumah</i>] will not render on its own [another substance that it falls into] <i>Demai</i> [produce from which it is uncertain if tithes are already taken] and does not require a fine of a fifth [of its value if eaten by an Israelite], and so too with the second [set of <i>Terumah</i>].
Bartenura on Mishnah Terumot
התורם וכו' - it is speaking about inadvertently, for nevertheless, it is close to be willfull, because that he should have [tasted it].
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
English Explanation of Mishnah Terumot
Introduction
This mishnah deals with a person who gave something as terumah that seemed to be good when he gave it but turned out to be bad afterwards.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Bartenura on Mishnah Terumot
ונמצאת של חומץ כו' – for a person who separates out heaveoffering from the vinegar on the wine, his heave-offering is not a heave-offering, for wine and vinegar are two [different] species.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
English Explanation of Mishnah Terumot
If one gave a cucumber as terumah and it was found to be bitter, a melon and it was found to be rotten, it is considered terumah, but he must again give terumah. If one gave melons or cucumbers as terumah thinking that they were good and then it turned out that they were bad, the terumah counts, but he must again give terumah. The fact that this is terumah fits with that which we said in 2:6 (yesterday’s mishnah) that if one gives terumah from bad produce for good produce his terumah counts. The new information here is that he must again give terumah. The Yerushalmi explains that bitter cucumbers and bad melons may not even count as food and hence it turns out that he may not have given any terumah whatsoever. Therefore, he must give terumah again.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Bartenura on Mishnah Terumot
אם ספק – prior to his separating out the heave-offering it had soured or after he separated out the heave offering, it soured.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
English Explanation of Mishnah Terumot
If one gave a jar of wine as terumah and it was found to be vinegar: If prior to his act he knew that it was vinegar, the terumah is not valid; But if it had turned sour after he had given it as terumah, behold it is terumah. If he gives wine as terumah, knowing that the wine has already turned into vinegar then the terumah doesn’t count. The Yerushalmi explains that according to this mishnah holds that vinegar and wine are two different kinds, and as we learned above, when one tries to give one kind for another kind, his terumah is not valid. Had this been a case of giving “bad” for “good” his terumah should have counted. However, if it turned into vinegar after he had already set it aside as terumah, then it is terumah, because when he made it into terumah, it was still wine.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Bartenura on Mishnah Terumot
תרומה ויחזור ויתרום – and he gives both of them to the Kohen, and the Kohen gives him the monetary value of the firs which islarger than the second, and second’s [value] is reduced according to what the heave-offering of the first costs, and since the Kohen makes a claim against his colleague, and we hold that in every place that “the claimant must produce evidence”/ "המוציא מחבירו עליו הראיה"(see Tractate Bava Metzia, Chapter 3, Mishnah 11), therefore, he does not acquire without money but the smaller/lesser object, and he must give him the monetary value of the larger/more important object which is the first.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
English Explanation of Mishnah Terumot
In case of doubt, it is terumah but he must again give terumah. The first terumah does not render on its own [produce into which it falls] “doubtful terumah” and it is not subject to the added fifth, and so the second. If he doesn’t know whether the wine was vinegar or wine when he declared it terumah, he must act stringently. The first terumah remains terumah and he must give again. If the first terumah fell into a pile of regular produce, it does not render the entire pile “doubtful terumah” because this terumah may not really be terumah (if it was vinegar before he gave it as terumah for the wine). Similarly, if the second terumah falls into a pile of regular produce, it doesn’t render that pile into doubtful terumah” because it too may not in actuality be terumah (if the first terumah was wine before he gave it as terumah, then the second terumah was unnecessary). Only if they fall in together do they cause the other produce into which they fall to become doubtful terumah. Furthermore, a non-priest who eats either of the terumot is not liable to pay back an extra fifth, as is normally the case when a non-priest eats terumah. However, if he ate both terumot, he would have to pay the extra fifth because in such a case he certainly has eaten terumah. For an explanation of a similar, yet somewhat different case, see above 1:8.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Bartenura on Mishnah Terumot
הראשונה אינה מדמעת בפני עצמה – if less than one-hundred of non-sacred produce had fallen, something otherwise exempt, does not become subject to the law of Terumah, to mix non-sacred grain/wine/oil with Terumah in proportions to make the whole prohibited to non-priests, lest it is not Terumah but rather the second one is Terumah, and similarly, the second part does not become a mixture of sacred and non-sacred produce on its own, lest the firs part was Terumah and not the second.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Bartenura on Mishnah Terumot
ואין חייבים עליה חומש – a foreigner (i.e., non-Kohen) who ate the first [batch] (which may have doubtfully been Terumah since it may have fermented) alone or the second [batch] alone, he does not pay the one-fifth penalty like the law of others who consume heave-offering inadvertently.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy