Commentary for Terumot 3:13

התורם וכו' - it is speaking about inadvertently, for nevertheless, it is close to be willfull, because that he should have [tasted it].

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.

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.

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.

אם ספק – prior to his separating out the heave-offering it had soured or after he separated out the heave offering, it soured.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

מדמעות בקטנה שבשתיהן – like the measure of the second [batch] which is the smaller of the two of them, and if here is in the non-sacred produce one hundred [parts] corresponding to the smaller [batch], it does not impose the status of heave-offering , but one takes from the non-sacred produce like the measure of those two heave-offerings that fell in them and he gives them to the Kohen and the rest of it is non-sacred produce as they were.

Introduction This mishnah is a direct continuation of the end of yesterday’s mishnah. There we learned that if a person is not sure if the wine he gave as terumah was vinegar when he gave it, the first terumah counts and he must give terumah again. The end of the mishnah stated that each of these terumot on its own does not make non-sacred produce into “medumma” which is a mixture into which terumah has fallen. Our mishnah discusses what happens if both terumot fall into the same mixture.

If one of them falls into non-sacred produce, it does not make [the mixture] medumma [a mixture into which terumah has fallen]. If the second of them falls [then] into another place, it also does not make it medumma. If any one of these terumot falls into a batch of non-sacred produce, it does not render it medumma. This is because neither of these are certainly terumah and doubtful terumah does not cause non-sacred produce to become medumma. The non-sacred produce remains permitted to non-priests.

But if both fall into one place, they do make it medumma, according to the size of the smaller of the two. However, between the two of them, one is certainly terumah (as I explained at the end of yesterday’s mishnah). Therefore, if both fall into non-sacred produce, they do render it medumma. Before we understand the last clause of this section, we need to remind ourselves about the laws of medumma. If terumah falls into non-sacred produce, if there are less than 100 parts non-sacred stuff for every part terumah, then the whole mixture can only be eaten by a priest. A person would sell the mixture to a priest, reducing the price of the terumah that fell in, which he must give him for free. However, if there are more than 100 parts non-sacred stuff for every part terumah, then the person may take out the measure of whatever terumah fell into the produce, and give the terumah to the priest and the rest goes back to being non-sacred produce. Here, the ratios are based on the smaller of the two terumot that fell into the other produce. So if one terumah is two pounds, and one terumah is 1 pound, if they fall into 100 pounds, he can simply take out the terumot and give them to the priest and keep the rest for himself.

תרומת שניהם תרומה – that is the heave-offering of each of them is one-half heave-offering and one-half non-sacred produce, it is found that twhen both of them separated heave offering, from fifty Seah, that this one [set aside] one Seah and that individual one Seah, that the heave-offering was not sanctified other than one-half Seah belonging to this one and one-half Seah belonging to that one, each one of them according to his portion.

Introduction This mishnah deals with two partners who jointly own a pile of produce and each gives terumah. For instance, they together own 50 seahs of wheat and each gives 1 seah of terumah (2 per cent). The question is, are both terumah? Neither? One and not the other?

אם תרם הראשון כשעור – one from fifty – according to the measure that the Sages gave, his heave-offering is a heave-offering. And the Halakha is according to Rabbi Yosi (see Tractate Terumot, Chapter 4, Mishnah 3) , for he comes to explain the words of the Sages. But there are those who explain that if the first [person] separated according to the measure that his colleague separated [for heave-offering] afterwards, his heave-offering is a heave-offering, as we see that it was easy for him for that latter one with what the first one set aside as a heave-offering , for it was his intention agrees with him, in the measure of the heave-offering. But, the first explanation appears in my eyes to be essential.

[Two] partners who took terumah, the one after the other:
Rabbi Akiva says: the terumah of them both is terumah. According to Rabbi Akiva, half of what each partner gave is terumah. Rabbi Akiva looks at this situation as if each partner gave terumah for the half that belonged to him. So each seah is half terumah and half hullin (non-sacred produce). Since we can’t determine which is which, each must treat the mixture as if it was medumma.

But the sages say: the terumah of the first is terumah. The sages say that only the first terumah is terumah. The second terumah was accidental because had the second person known that the other partner already gave terumah, he would not have given it.

Rabbi Yose says: if the first gave the prescribed amount, the terumah of the second is not terumah, but if the first did not give the prescribed amount, the terumah of the second is terumah. According to Rabbi Yose, if the first person gave the proper measure (see below 4:3, for more information on the proper measure for terumah) than his terumah alone counts. If the first person did not give the proper measure than the second terumah is also terumah.

במה דברים אמורים – that which Rabbi disputes above and states that the heave-offering of both is Terumah/heave-offering.

To what does this apply? Only if one did not confer with the other, but if one allows a member of his household, or his slave or female slave to give terumah for him, this terumah is terumah.
If he annulled [this permission]: If he annulled it before the taking of the terumah, the terumah is not terumah; But if he annulled it after the terumah had been taken, the terumah is terumah.
Workers have no permission to give terumah, except for those who tread [grapes] for they defile the winepress immediately.
Today’s mishnah continues the discussion in yesterday’s mishnah concerning a partner who gives terumah from shared property. Our mishnah teaches that one person can give another member of his household permission to give terumah on his behalf.
Section one: This section is difficult for the mishnah begins by discussing partners but backs this up by mentioning members of one’s household. It seems that what the mishnah intends to say is that one partner agreed to that which the first person gave, then the first terumah is terumah. Albeck interprets this to be a continuation of Rabbi Yose’s words. Rabbi Yose says that the second terumah is valid if the first person did not give the proper measure of terumah. This is a case where the second partner did not agree with what the first partner having given less than the proper measure. However, if the second person did agree with what the first partner gave, then the terumah is valid despite its not being the proper measure because the Torah does not prescribe a fixed amount for terumah. The measure of terumah was only set by the sages.
Along with this, the mishnah teaches that a householder can give the members of his household permission to separate terumot on his behalf. Household members would include the slaves.
Section two: He may annul the permission that he gives to the members of his household to separate terumah. However, he must annul this permission before they separate the terumah. If he does so after they have already set aside the terumah, then their terumah is still valid.

בשלא דבר – that this one did not receive permission from his colleague to separate the heave-offering, but rather, he separated the heave-offering of his own accord.

אבל הרשה – that the owner gave permission [to his colleague] to separate the heave-offering, his heave-offering is a heave-offering.

בטל – if afer he had appointed an agent to separate the heave-offering, he cancelled his agency after the agent went from before him.

חוץ – the owners who are illiterate who hired workers who are members of the order for the observance of Levitical laws in daily intercourse in order to separate the heave-offering in ritual purity, are permitted to separate the heave offering until the illiterate owners arrived who would defile the heave-offering, because they ritually defile the vat for wine pressing, for the illiterate owners immediately when the when those who tread began to stamp and they went to the vat for wine pressing in the longitudinal and latitudinal directions are not more careful from coming into contact in their vas for wine-pressing and defile it, because they think that immediately when they begin to tread, their colleagues had separated out the Great Terumah/heave-offering (i.e., two percent for the Kohen). Therefore, they separate the members of the order for the observance of Levitical laws in daily intercourse that stamp from the wine in order [to reach] the measure of heave-offering that is necessary for the vat for wine-pressing immediately when they walked in it longitudinally and latitudinally. If the owners would come and defile the vat for wine pressing prior to their completing it, they have designated wine to separate everything in ritual purity.

קרא שם – and he must separate the heave-offering and to tithe from within it., but he is not able to separate [tithes] from another place. And even though the All-Merciful called the Terumah/heave offering "ראשית"/”the first” and we require that its remnants are recognized, for since he said, “within it,” it implies, in the middle of the pile will be the heave-offering, but there is surrounding it which is its remnants that are recognized.

Introduction This mishnah discusses ways in which one can designate terumah or tithes within a pile of produce.

עד שיאמר בצפונו או בדרומו – even though “within it” implies in its middle, it is not a specific place, and it is as if he did not say anything until he would say, in its northern portion or in its southern portion, and this is the Halakha.

If one says: “The terumah of this pile is within it,” or, “its tithes are within it,” or, “the terumah of tithe [terumat maaser] is within it:” Rabbi Shimon says: he has thereby designated it. But the sages say: not unless he said, “It is in the north or south of it.” According to Rabbi Shimon, if one says that the terumah, tithes or terumah taken from tithes [terumat maaser] is in a pile of produce but does not actually point out where in the pile the terumah, tithes or terumat maaser are, he has successfully designated them and the pile is no longer untithed produce. He can eat from the pile, as long at some point he removes that which he designated. The sages disagree and hold that he must set aside a place within the pile where the terumah, tithes and terumat maaser are. It is not enough just to say, “within it.”

תרומת הכרי ממנו עליו קרא שם – and we don’t require its remnants being recognized.

Rabbi Elazar Hisma says: one who says, “The terumah of this pile is taken from it for it,” he has thereby designated it. Rabbi Elazar Hisma says that one doesn’t even need to say “within it.” In other words, whereas Rabbi Shimon says that he must at least designate that the terumah is within the pile, for Rabbi Elazar Hisma it is sufficient just to say that one has set aside terumah for a given pile of produce.

עשור מעשר זה וכו' – Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov disputes on Rabbi Shimon who stated that this Terumah of the tithe (which the Levite to a Kohen) is within the pile that he validly designated, but after the tithe is separated, if he stated that the Terumah of the tithe is for it, he has validly designated it. But the Halakha is not like any of them, other than the Sages alone.

Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov says: one who says, “The tenth part of this tithe is terumah of tithe for that pile,” he has thereby designated it. Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov agrees with Rabbi Elazar Hisma and says that the same is true when it comes to separating terumat maaser from tithe. He need not say “within it” as long as he says he is separating it, he has successfully designated it.

שנאמר מלאתך ודמעך לא תאחר – this is what he said: he though he is transgressing a negative commandment, as it states (Exodus 22:28): “You shall not put off the skimming of the first yield of your vats,” nevertheless, what he did is done, as "מלאתך" /”your fullness,” – these are the first fruits, that fill the early seed/first-ripening, and "דמעך"/”full bloom”/”best part” – these are the heave-offerings, and First Tithe has the Terumah of the tithe (i.e., given by the Levite to the Kohen), "לא תאחר"/”do not put off,” you should not change the order.

Introduction Below in mishnah seven we will learn that bikkurim, first fruits, should be taken from produce before one takes out the terumah. Today we learn that if one nevertheless gives the offerings in the wrong order, his actions are valid.

He who gives terumah before first-fruits, or first tithe before terumah, or second tithe before first tithe, although he transgresses a negative commandment, that which he has done is done, for it is said: “You shall not delaying the skimming of the first yield of your vats” (Exodus 22:28). In all of these cases the person gives the agricultural offerings in the wrong order. He should have set aside first fruits while the fruits were still attached to the ground, but instead, what he did was first harvest them, then take out terumah and only afterwards set aside the bikkurim. Alternatively, he separated the tithes before the terumah or the second tithe before the first tithe. In all of these cases his actions are valid. One who took terumah out before the bikkurim has transgressed the negative commandment of delaying the giving of his first fruits, which is how this verse in Exodus is understood by the rabbis. However, despite the fact that this is a transgression, he still performed a valid act of separating terumah and he can eat the produce.

זה קרוי תרומה וראשית – "ביכורים"/”first fruits” is called "תרומה"/”heave-offering” , as the Master said [Tractate Pesahim 38b}: “or of your contributions”/"תרומת ידך" (Deuteronomy 12:17) – these are the first fruits, as it is written concerning them (Deuteronomy 26:4): “The priest shall take the basket from your hand [and set it down in front of the altar of the LORD your God.” And they are called: "ראשית"/ “choice” (Exodus 23:19): “he choice first fruits of your soil [you shall bring to the house of the LORD your God.” "תרומה"/heave-offering is called “Terumah” (Numbers 18:9) “I give you charge of My gifts,” and it is called (Deuteronomy 18:4): “[You shall also give him] the first fruits of your new grain [and wine and oil, and the first shearing of your sheep].”

Introduction In yesterday’s mishnah we learned that one must first separate “first-fruits (bikkurim)” from one’s produce and only afterwards separate terumah, then first tithe and finally second tithe. Today’s mishnah provides the scriptural support for this order.

כבורים שהן כבורים לכל – the language of "בכורים"/”first fruits”, is expounded, therefore, the All-Merciful One calls them "בכורים"/”first fruits”; alternatively, because it is written in the Torah portion of Kee Tissa (Exodus 34:26 – “The choice first fruits of your soil you shall bring to the house of the LORD your God”_ until they had not been commanded regarding the heave-offerings/Terumot.

From where do we derive that first-fruits must precede terumah, seeing that this one is called “terumah” and “the first” and the other is [also] called “terumah” and “the first”? First fruits are called “terumah,” at least according to rabbinic interpretation, in Deuteronomy 12:6, which states, “And there you are to bring your burnt offerings and other sacrifices, your tithes and contributions (terumah), your votive and freewill offerings, and the firstlings of your herds and flocks.” The terumah referred to in this verse is first fruits, according to the rabbis. The rabbis interpreted the verse this way because regular terumah does not need to be taken to the Temple. First fruits are called “first” in Exodus 23:19, “The choice first fruits of your soil you shall bring to the house of the LORD your God.” Terumah is called as terumah in Numbers 18:29 and it is called “first” in Numbers 18:12. Since both terumah and first fruits are referred to with the same terms, why does one have to separate first fruits before terumah?

שיש בו ראשית – that in the First tithe, it has in it the Terumah/heave-offering of the tithe, and the Terumah is called: "ראשית"/”first” – therefore, it is law that the First [Tithe] should come before the Second [Tithe].

Rather first-fruits take precedence since they are the first fruits of all produce. The answer is that first fruits are designated while the fruit is still attached to the ground, and hence they are separated first.

And terumah comes before the first tithe also because it is called “first.” Terumah is removed from produce before first tithe because Numbers 18:12 calls terumah “first.”

And first tithe [precedes second tithe,] because it includes that which is called “first.” First tithe, the tithe given to the Levites, is removed from produce before second tithe because first tithe includes “terumah” in it. This refers to the terumah that the Levite takes from his tithe and gives to the priest. We should note that first tithe is not called “first tithe” by the Torah. The name “first tithe” is given to it by the rabbis because it is removed first.

עד שיהיו פיו ולבו שוין – as it is written (Deuteronomy 23:24): “You must fulfill what has crossed your lips [and perform what you have voluntarily vowed to the LORD your God, having made the promise with your own mouth],” and it is written (Exodus 35:22 – the printed text listed Chapter 34, an error): [“Men and women] whose hearts moved them, [all who would gladly make an elevation of gold to the LORD],” How now? We require that he resolved in his heart and enunciating [the same thought] with his lips.

He who intends saying ‘terumah’ and says ‘tithe’, or ‘tithe’ and says ‘terumah’;
‘Burnt-offering’ and he says ‘peace-offering’, or ‘peace-offering’ and he says ‘burnt-offering’;
‘[I vow] that I will not enter this house,’ and says ‘that house’,
‘That I will not derive any benefit from this [man],’ and says ‘from that [man],’ he has said nothing until his heart and mind are at one.
This mishnah deals with a person who intends to say one thing but instead says another. Is there any validity to either his words or to his intent?
This mishnah seems to be quite understandable, so I will keep it brief.
In order for the person’s statement to have any validity, he must actually say what he intends to say. Therefore, if he intended to say that something would be terumah and he instead said that it would be tithe, that which he separated is neither tithe nor terumah. The same is true for all of the other examples in the mishnah.

הנכרי והכותי תרומתן תרומה – if they separated the heave-offering from heir grain, but if the heathen separated the heave-offering from that belonging to an Israelite through his agency, his heave-offering is not a heave offering, as we expound from (Numbers 18:28): “so shall you on your part set aside a gift [for the LORD from all the tithe s that you receive from the Israelites;” just as you are children of the covenant (i.e., Israelites), so your agents are also children of the covenant.

Introduction Our mishnah teaches that if a non-Jew sets aside terumah, his act is valid and that which he designates terumah is indeed terumah.

וחכ"א יש לו – and the Halakha is according to the Sages.

Terumah given by a non-Jew or a Samaritan is terumah and their tithes are tithes and their dedications [to the Temple] are dedications. Terumah, tithe or a dedication given by a non-Jew or a Samaritan is valid. Although a non-Jew is not liable to separate tithes or terumah, if he does so his action is valid. Other commentators explain that this law implies that it does not matter who owns the land, as long as the produce grew in the land of Israel, it is subject to the laws of terumah and tithes.

תרומת הנכרי מדמעת – if their fell at least from one-hundred, everything becomes prohibited to non-priests and is considered as Terumah.

Rabbi Judah says: the law of the vineyard in the fourth year is not applicable to a non-Jew. But the sages say: it is. In the fourth year of the growth of a vineyard, the grapes must be brought to Jerusalem and consumed there. According to Rabbi Judah, a non-Jew’s vineyard is exempt from this law. In the Tosefta (a collection of laws that is somewhat of a companion to the Mishnah) it is explained that Rabbi Judah was only referring to Syria, the land that borders Israel. Rabbi Judah agrees with the sages that in the land of Israel itself, the non-Jew’s vineyard is subject to this law. The other sages hold that even in Syria the vineyard is subject to the laws of the fourth year. Both the sages and Rabbi Judah agree that during the first three years of the vineyard’s growth, its grapes may not be consumed anywhere.

וחייבין עליה חומש – a foreigner (i.e., non-Kohen) who consumed it inadvertently pays the principal plus an added fifth.

The terumah of a non-Jew renders [produce into which it falls] medumma and [one who eats it unwittingly] is obligated [to pay back an extra] fifth. But Rabbi Shimon exempts it. This is the mishnah’s way of saying that the terumah separated by a non-Jew is actually terumah. If it falls into non-sacred produce, it renders it “medumma” a mixture of terumah and non-sacred produce. If there are less than 100 parts non-sacred per part terumah, then the whole mixture can be eaten only by a priest. One who eats this terumah unwittingly, must pay back the value of that which he ate, plus another fifth. Rabbi Shimon disagrees and holds that he is not liable for the extra fifth. According to the Tosefta and the Yerushalmi, Rabbi Shimon also disagrees with the other rules in this section and holds that if it falls into non-sacred produce, it does not cause the mixture to become “medumma.”

ור"ש פוטר – from the added firth, but he admits that non-sacred grain, wine, oil mixed with Terumah in proportions sufficient to make the who prohibited to non-priests, but the Halakha is not according to Rabbi Shimon.