פירוש על תרומות 1:14

חמשה לא יתרומו – A number to exclude that which Rabbi Yehuda says further on (Mishnah 3), “A minor who did not bring forth two [pubic] hairs, his [separation of] heave-offering/Terumah/priest’s due is not a heave-offering, which tells us that his [separation of] heave-offering is not Terumah (the 2% initial sacred gift that one gives to the Kohen).

Introduction The first mishnah in Terumot deals with who may separate terumah from a person’s produce such that the separation is considered valid. We shall see that there are several important principles that make one qualified to separate terumah.

החרש והשוטה והקטן – All of them are derived from one Biblical verse, as it is written (Exodus 25:2): “Tell the Israelite people to bring Me gifts; [you shall accept for Me] from every person whose heart so moves him.” [The words] "אל בני ישראל" /”to the Israelite people” -except for a heathen; [the words] מאת כל איש/“from every person” – except for a minor; [the words] "אשר ידבנו לבו"/”whose heart so moves him” – except for a deaf-mute and imbecile, who lack the temperament to be able to donate. And a minor is not able [even] to do a little, from [the words] "אשר ידבנו לבו"/”whose heart so moves him,” for there is a minor who arrived at the season of taking vows, who has the temperament to be able to donate. [The words] "וזאת התרומה אשר תקחו מאתם"/”And these are the gifts that you shall accept from them” (verse 3), excluding to the person who donates what is not his. And the “imbecile”- who loses what they give him is called an imbecile/"שוטה".

Five may not give terumah, and if they do so, their terumah is not considered terumah:
A heresh (deaf-; an imbecile, a minor, According to the rabbis, the deaf-mute, the imbecile (who is either mentally retarded or crazy) and the minor all lack legal liability for their actions. In Hebrew they say that they do not have “da’at” which I usually translate as “awareness” of the consequences of their actions. I should stress that in the ancient world, sign language as we know it did not exist and this made it basically impossible to educate and even communicate with a deaf-mute. Sign language and the incorporation of the deaf into society is a relatively recent development. Since these people lack legal awareness of the consequences of their action, they cannot declare something to be terumah, even if it belongs to them.

אפילו ברשות – [even with the permission] of a Jew as an Israelite made him his agent to give Terumah/the heave-offering, his donation of Terumah is not a donation, as it is written (Numbers 18:28) “So shall you on your part set aside a gift [for the LORD from all the tithes that you receive from the Israelites]…” – also to include your agents. Just as you are members of the covenant, so also your agents [must be] members of the covenant (“Jews”).

And the one who gives terumah from that which is not his own. The produce must belong to the person who separates the terumah from it.

If a non-Jew gave terumah from that which belongs to an Israelite, even if it was with his permission, his terumah is not terumah. A non-Jew cannot separate terumah, even if the Israelite gave him permission to do so. This implies that if a Jew gave permission to another Jew to separate terumah, he can do so. A non-Jew cannot because he himself is not obligated in the laws of terumah.

לא יתרום – ab initio for one needs to let his ears hear as he makes the blessing (see Mishnah Berakhot, Chapter 3, Mishnah 3 which also deals with the issue of “letting his ears hear”/"צריך להשמיע לאזניו" .

Introduction Our mishnah clarifies the meaning of “heresh” which I translated in yesterday’s mishnah to mean “deaf-mute.”

חרש שדברו בו חכמים – it is not a general principle, for at the beginning of Tractate Hagigah it is taught that a deaf person who speaks but does not hear is included, and in the chapter מצות חליצה/The command of Halitzah (see specifically, Mishnah 4), regarding the subject of “removing the shoe” [of the dead husband’s brother who refuses to perform a levirate marriage].

A “heresh”, who speaks but cannot hear, may not give terumah, but if he does so, his terumah is terumah. In yesterday’s mishnah we learned that if a “heresh” separates terumah, his terumah is not terumah. Here we learn that mishnah one referred only to the typical type of “heresh,” one who neither speaks nor hears. However, if the heresh can speak but not hear then he still may not give terumah but if he does so, it is valid. The Talmud explains that he shouldn’t give terumah because he cannot hear the blessing. His terumah is valid because if he can communicate, then we know that he has “da’at” (legal cognizance of his actions.)

שאינו שומע ואינו מדבר – who born deaf from his mother’s womb, and since he never heard what they are saying to him, it is impossible for him that he could speak.

The “heresh” of whom the sages generally speak is one who neither hears nor speaks. This section clarifies that generally when we talk about the “heresh” it refers to a deaf-mute and not to a deaf person who can speak. Assumedly a deaf person who could speak would almost always have been someone who went deaf later in life. A person who was born deaf would probably, in those days, never learn to speak.

רבי יהודה אומר: תרומתו תרומה – de facto, for Rabbi Yehuda does not [hold] by this interpretation of מאת כל איש/”from every person” (Exodus 25:2) -except for a minor.

Introduction This mishnah brings in a debate with regard to terumah separated by a minor.

עד שלא בא לעונת נדרים – A male at the age of twelve years and one day and a female at the age of eleven years and one day, and from that period onward, if he donated the Terumah/the sacred heave-offering (2% gift to the Kohen), what he set aside is Terumah. And the Halakha is according to Rabbi Yosi.

A minor who has not yet produced two [pubic] hairs: Rabbi Judah says: his terumah is terumah. According to mishnah one above, the terumah separated by a minor is not terumah. Rabbi Judah disagrees. One sign of a child having reached majority age is the appearance of pubic hair. The rabbis usually say that the appearance of two hairs is a sign of puberty. Rabbi Judah holds that with regard to terumah, even if two hairs have not yet appeared, the terumah separated by a minor still counts as terumah.

Rabbi Yose says: if he has not arrived at the age when his vows are valid, his terumah is not terumah, but if he has arrived at an age where his vows are valid, his terumah is terumah. According to Rabbi Yose, the ability of a minor to separate terumah depends upon his ability to take a vow. If the child is old enough such that his vows are valid, then his terumah is terumah. For a boy this is at 12 and for a girl this is at 11. At this age the child is assumed to be able to grasp the meaning of vows, and so too, the child is assumed to be able to understand the consequences of declaring something to be terumah.

אין תורמין זיתים על השמן – He who has [olive] oil that he is liable to separate from it the [sacred] heave-offering (i.e., the 2% for the Kohen) and olives that he is liable to separate from them the [sacred] heave-offering is not able to give from [sacred] heave-offering from the olives according to the measure that he has to donate for the olives and the oil [together], and to be exempt from [donating] the oil with the heave-offering of the olives, as it is written (Numbers 18:27): “[This shall be accounted to you as your gift.] As with the new grain from the threshing floor [or the flow from the vat],” – from what is completed [you donate as heave-offering] for what is completed but you do not [donate as heave-offering] from what is not complete on what is complete.

Introduction Our mishnah teaches that one should not take terumah from something that has not been completely processed for a product from the same type of produce that has already been processed.

ואם תרם בית שמאי אומרים: תרומת עצמן יש להן – that is to say, there is no [sacred] heave-offering here, other than only on the olives, but not on the oil.

They should not take terumah from olives for oil, or from grapes for wine. One should not take terumah from olives or grapes (unprocessed) in order to exempt oil or wine (processed). In such a case where one has olives and olive oil, or grapes and wine, he must take the terumah from the oil or the wine in order to make these products permitted for consumption.

ובית הלל אומרים: אינה תרומה – for since he had the intention of donating [the heave-offering/priest’s due] also on the oil, there is no Terumah/heave-offering – neither on the olives nor on the oil, and it is as if he had not donated the [sacred] heave-offering at all.

If one did: Bet Shammai says: there is terumah in [the olives or grapes] themselves. If, despite the rule in section one, one does take terumah from the olives or grapes in order to exempt the oil or wine, Bet Shammai holds that there is terumah in the olives and oil that he separated, although they are not completely terumah. These olives and grapes must be treated with the sanctity of terumah mixed with non-sacred produce. However, the wine and oil are still considered as if terumah has not been separated from them.

But Bet Hillel says: the terumah is not terumah. According to Bet Hillel, the grapes and olives he declared to be terumah are not terumah at all.

אין תורמין מן הלקט מן השכחה ומן הפאה – whomever has a heap of produce, pending the separation of sacred gifts to the Kohanim and Levites may not set aside upon it priest’s due from produce that fell, was forgotten [in the field] or from the corner of the field that is in his hand, as these are gifts to the poor and one cannot to make his heaps of produce pending separation of the sacred gifts legally fit for use by giving the priestly due with the gifts to the poor.

Introduction Most of this mishnah teaches that one cannot take terumah from one category of produce in order to exempt another category of produce.

Concerning that which is הפקר/ownerless, it is written (Deuteronomy 14:29): “Then the Levite, who has not hereditary portion as you have….” from what you have and that he lacks, you are required to give, excluding that which is ownerless, for both your hand and his hand are equivalent [concerning this].

They do not take terumah from ‘gleanings’, from ‘the forgotten sheaf’, from peah or from ownerless produce. All of the agricultural gifts given to the poor are exempt from terumah and tithes. When a poor person receives these gifts he need not take out terumah or tithes. For an explanation of what these gifts are see the introduction to peah. Similarly, ownerless produce is exempt from terumah. Furthermore, as we shall learn below, one cannot separate terumah from that which is exempt on behalf of that which is liable for terumah.

ולא ממעשר ראשון שנטלה תרומתו – We do not donate from it the Kohen’s share of the produce (2%) on a pile of produce requiring separation of Levitical and Priestly tithes that is in his hand, and it was necessary for us to teach where they placed the son of a Levite ahead of a Kohen with regard to sheaves that are exempt from the “great Terumah”[the 2% that goes to the Kohen], and specifically where he took his priest’s due , but where he did not take his priest’s due, he can make the donation as it is taught in [Midrash] Sifrei [Bemidbar/Numbers, Piska 119] : From where does the son of a Levite who wanted to take from his First Tithe – the Great Terumah (the 2% for the Kohen), from where [do we learn] that he may do this? As the inference teaches us: (Numbers 18:24): “For it is the tithes set aside by the Israelites as a gift to the LORD [that I gave to the Levites their share]...,” that if he wanted to make it priest’s due for others, he may do so; he may, even after he has taken his priest’s due – he may make it priest’s due for others, as the inference teaches us (Numbers 18:29): “the part that of that is to be consecrated.” As long as its holiness is within it, he can make it Terumah/priest’s due for others; but if its holiness is not within it, he cannot make it Terumah for others.

[Neither is it taken] from first tithe from which terumah had already been taken, nor from second tithe and dedicated produce that had been redeemed. When the Levite receives tithe (first tithe), he takes out “terumat maaser” and gives it to the priest (see the introduction). Even if the tithes that he received came from produce that never had regular terumah taken out of it, for instance the Levite took his tithes earlier than was normal (usually terumah is taken first and then the tithes), it is not subject to regular terumah. The same is true for second tithe and sanctified produce that has been redeemed (exchanged for money in the case of second tithe the money is then taken to Jerusalem, and in the case of sanctified produce the money is given to the Temple). Even if terumah has never been taken from such produce, it is no longer subject to the laws of terumah.

ולא ממעשר שני והקדש שנפדו – This Tanna holds that Second Tithe [belongs] to On-High (God), and where it wasn’t redeemed, it is obvious that he cannot to make things legally fit for use by giving the priestly dues with his pile of produce which is forbidden to be eaten pending the separation of priestly gifts with the monies of On-High (God); but, where they had been redeemed, I might think I would say, that he is able to make them “the great Terumah’ (the 2% gift to the Kohen) on his produce which is forbidden to be eaten pending the separation of priestly gifts, and should you say, that this also is obvious, for that which is completely non-sacred is what is necessary, for where they were zealous with the sheaves, where he is exempt from [donating] the priest’s due/Terumah Gedolah , as we explained for First Tithe. והקדש שנפדה – It is also necessary when he sanctifies (i.e., as a gift to the Temple) produce which is forbidden to be eaten pending the separation of priestly gifts, and the treasure has smoothed out the pile and afterwards redeemed it, that it is exempt from Terumah/priest’s due. -

[Nor is it taken] from that which is subject [to terumah] for that which is exempt [from terumah], nor from that which is exempt for that which is subject. If one has two piles of produce, one pile from which he must remove terumah, and one pile from which he does not have to remove terumah, he can’t take terumah from one in order to exempt the other. Specifically, he can’t take from the exempt produce in order to have it count for the liable produce.

מן הפטור על החיוב – such as from produce that had not yet grown one-third (i.e., not one-third ripe), which are exempt from tithes on the produce instead of from produce that had grown one-third (i.e., that was one-third ripe).

Nor from produce already plucked [from the soil] for that attached to it, nor from that attached [to the soil] for that already plucked. Produce that is still attached to the ground is not yet liable to have terumah taken from it. Therefore, one cannot remove terumah from produce already plucked in order to exempt produce that is still attached, nor vice versa.

ולא מן התלוש על המחובר – as it is written (Numbers 18:26): “you shall set aside from them [one-tenth of the tithe as a gift to the LORD],” you shall not give from what is detached instead of what is attached, and not what is attached instead of what is detached, for the language הרמה/separating the priest’s gift does not belong other than with detached [produce], and from it, it implies, that the priest’s due and the non-sacred produce are similar.

Nor from new produce for old, nor from old for new. New produce (from this year’s harvest) and old produce (meaning aged produce from the previous year’s harvest) are different categories. One cannot take terumah from one in order to exempt the other.

מן החדש על הישן – from the produce of this year instead of the produce from the previous year nor the produce from the previous year instead of from the produce of this year, as it is written (Deuteronomy 14:22): “that is brought from the field every year,” but a field that produces two harvesting seasons in a year such as a field which needs irrigation you make the gift of priest’s due from this [year] instead of from the produce of the previous year.

Nor from produce from the land of Israel for produce grown outside the land, nor from that grown out of the land for that grown in the land. Produce grown outside of the land of Israel is not subject to the laws of terumah. Therefore, one cannot take terumah from such produce in order to exempt produce that grew inside the land, nor vice versa.

ולא מפירות הארץ על פירות חוצה לארץ – As it is written (Leviticus 27:30): “All tithes from the land, whether seed from the ground [or fruit from the tree, are the LORD’s…,” the Biblical verse reveals concerning [First] Tithe and the same law applies for Terumah/priest’s due, and similarly, one does not donate as priest’s due from the produce of the Land of Israel instead of the produce that is found in Syria, nor from the produce that is in Syria instead of the produce from the Land of Israel.

[In all these cases] if they did take terumah, their terumah is not terumah. In all of these cases, if one does separate such terumah it is not considered terumah and even a non-priest could eat it.

חמשה לא יתרומו – This number excludes from what Rabbi Yehuda said [in Mishnah 3] that a minor who donated the priest’s due/heave-offering, his donation is an offering.

Introduction This mishnah is the foil to the first mishnah of the tractate, where we learned of five categories of people who may not give terumah and if they do, their terumah is not terumah. Today we learn of five categories of people who should not give terumah, but if they do, their terumah is valid.

האלם – and he hears but stopped speaking as a result of illness, he should not donate priest’s due because he is unable to recite the Blessing. And similarly, is unable to recite the blessing , as it is written (Deuteronomy 23:15): “[Since the LORD your God moves about in your camp to protect you…]; let Him not find anything unseemly among you [and turn away from you];” at the time when you speak about it, He will not find anything unseemly.

Five may not give terumah, but if they do, their terumah is terumah.
A mute person; The mute person cannot recite a blessing, therefore he should not give terumah. However, he is assumed to be intelligent, and therefore if he does give terumah, it is valid.

ובעל קרי – also at the time of the ordinance in His presence for since his ritual immersion has been nullified, he was not able to recite the blessing as it is taught in the Mishnah [i.e. Berakhot, Chapter 3, Mishnah 4] that one to whom a pollution (i.e., nocturnal emission) occurred, only thinks (i.e., recites the Shema] in his heart (which, according to Talmud Berakhot 20b – that reviewing a passage in one’s mind is as good as loud recitation).

A drunken person; One who is drunk will probably not know how to properly separate terumah, and therefore he shouldn’t do it. However, if he does, his terumah is valid.

והשכור והסומא – who do not know how to single out/sift from that which is fine and we require that the person who donates the priest’s due/Terumah sift and donate that which is fine, as it is written (Numbers 18:29): “from each thing its best portion, [the part thereof that is to be consecrated];” and a drunk person is called such as all who are unable to speak in the presence of the King as a result of his drunkenness.

One who is naked; A naked person cannot recite a blessing, therefore he shouldn’t give terumah. But if he did, the terumah is valid.

A blind person; A blind person shouldn’t give terumah lest he doesn’t know what he is giving from. He may give from the bad produce to exempt the good which is not a preferable way of giving terumah. However, unlike deaf-mutes who were considered to lack intelligence because they couldn’t communicate, blind people could communicate perfectly well, and therefore, if they did separate terumah, it is valid.

Or one who has had a seminal emission. They may not give terumah, but if they do their terumah is valid. One who has had a seminal emission cannot recite a blessing until he goes to the mikveh (Berachot 3:6). Therefore, he shouldn’t separate terumah, but if he does do so, it is valid.

אין תורמין לא במדה – As it is written (Numbers 18:27): “ This shall be accounted to you as your gift…” by thought, you donate [the sacred gift], that is to say, by estimation, but you do not donate neither by measure nor by weight nor by number. And even though this Biblical verse is written concerning the tithe of the tithe which the Levite owes to the Kohen (Numbers 18:26 – which is 10% of what he had received from Israelites -תרומת מעשר ), if it has no relation to the tithe of the tithe, for the Torah indeed had given it a measure, and he must measure in order that he gives the appropriate size/limit.

Introduction As I stated in the introduction, the Torah does not establish a precise measure for how much terumah a person is supposed to give. The rabbis do set a measure, saying that 2 per cent is the standard measure, less is stingy and more is generous. Nevertheless, when one comes to give terumah, in order to retain some sense of the Torah’s original meaning, one should not separate his terumah by measuring it in a precise fashion.

They may not give terumah according to measure, or weight, or number, but one may give it from that which has already been measured, weighed or counted. When one gives terumah, one should not give it by using a precise measure, such as a measuring cup, a scale or by the number of units he is giving. However, he may give the terumah from produce that has already been measured. He would just have to estimate exactly how much terumah he is giving, instead of giving it in by using a precise measure.

They may not give terumah in a basket or a hamper of a measured capacity, but one may give in it when it is a half or a third filled. Although one shouldn’t give terumah by putting the produce in a type of basket whose precise measure is known, he can give by filling up such a container to a half or a third full.

He may not give a half of seah in a seah measuring vessel, for this half constitutes a known measure. The one exception is giving half a seah in a vessel usually used to measure a seah. This is also a standard measure and thus one should not give terumah in such a manner.

הזיתים הנכתשים – it was customary to crush olives in a mortar-shaped cavity to remove their oil.

Introduction This mishnah is a foil to mishnah four above, where we learned that one does not give terumah from an unfinished product in order to exempt a finished product. Here we learn that one also should not give terumah from a finished product for an unfinished product. However, the difference is that while Bet Hillel held in mishnah four that if he did give terumah, his terumah is not terumah, in today’s case if he did give terumah it is valid.

תרומתו תרומה – it is completed, from the Torah.

They may not give terumah from oil for crushed olives nor may [they give terumah from] wine for trodden grapes. One may not give terumah from oil or wine for olives or grapes that have begun to be processed but have not yet completed their processing, such as crushed olives or trodden grapes.

ויחזור ויתרום – from the perspective of the Rabbis, after he has completed the pounding of those olives and the treading of the grapes, he will go back and remove the priest’s due a second time according to the measure that is needed for oil and win that he has removed.

If he did so, his terumah is terumah, but he must give terumah again. Here we get a halakhah the likes of which we have not yet seen. On the one hand, if one does give terumah from finished produce for unfinished produce, his terumah is valid. However, he must go back and give terumah again for the wine and oil that are produced after he gave the first time.

הראשונה מדמעת – if it fell to less than one-hundred [parts] non-holy produce, everything is made subject to the law of Terumah through an admixture and it is prohibited to “foreigners” (i.e., non-Kohanim) and everything is sold to a Kohen – for it is complete priest’s due according to the Torah.

The first terumah renders on its own [produce into which it falls] “doubtful terumah” and is subject to the added fifth, but not the second. The first terumah is real terumah, while the second is not. The mishnah lets us know this by relating that if this terumah falls into other non-terumah produce, it renders the entire mixture “doubtful terumah.” A non-priest who accidentally eats such a mixture will have to repay the amount he ate, plus an added fifth. However, the second terumah that he separated is not terumah that the Torah mandated, and therefore, the penalties for it falling into regular produce is not enacted. This second terumah was only a penalty on the person for having separated terumah from unfinished produce on behalf of finished produce.

וחייבין עליה חומש – a foreigner (i.e., non-Kohen) who eats it inadvertently pays the principle and [an additional] one-fifth according to the law regarding all foreigners who eat priest’s due.

אבל לא שניה – because it is not other than a Rabbinic ordinance; therefore it is not eaten until priest’s due and tithes are separated from it from another placer, since from the Torah, it is completely produce that cannot be eaten until Levitical and Priestly gifts have been separated, and if you ask – what is the difference here when one separates priest’s due from [olive] oil instead of from pounded olives, that his separated priest’s due is priest’s due, and then separates priest’s due again and what is the difference above concerning one who separates priest’s due olives instead of [olive] oil and grapes instead of wine where his separation of priest’s due is not priest’s due? And one can say that regarding a person who separates priest due from olives instead of [olive] oil, where there is a loss to the Kohen, his separating priest’s due is priest’s due/Terumah, but that the Rabbis are they who decreed that he should go back and separate priest’s due once again.

זיתים הנכבשים – olives that are salty or pickled in wine or vinegar in order that they would be preserved and would be consider as something where its preparation had been completed; therefore, we separate priest’s due from the [olive] oil on them, and especially, [olive] oil instead of the olives which are about to have their oil removed from them, and similar wine in place of grapes which are about to be trodden upon – that is what is prohibited to from it the priest’s due, but wine in place of raisins, and [olive] oil in place of olives that are pickled is permitted, and when he separates the priest’s due from the [olive] - instead of the preserved olives, and from the wine instead of the raisins, he separates the priest’s due according to the appropriate oil that came out from the preserved olives and according to the appropriate wine that came out from the grapes.

Introduction This mishnah continues to deal with the topic of giving terumah from finished produce for unfinished produce.

אין צריך לתרום – since when he separated the priest’s due, he did so well, for at that hour, they were meant to be eaten.

They may give terumah from oil for pickled olives, or from wine for grapes made into raisins. Pickled olives and raisins are finished produce. Therefore, he can give terumah from oil or wine in order to exempt them.

Behold, he gave terumah from oil for olives intended for eating, or from [other] olives for olives intended for eating, or for wine for grapes intended for eating, of from [other] grapes for grapes intended for eating, and he decided afterwards to press them, he need not give terumah again. In all of these cases, one at first gives terumah from finished produce for produce that he intends to eat in its current state. This is okay because one can give terumah from one finished product (wine or oil) in order to exempt another finished product (olives or grapes intended for eating). Then after having already separated terumah to exempt these olives or grapes that he thought he was going to eat, he decides that he does want to press them and make them into wine or oil. Now it turns out he separated terumah from finished produce for unfinished produce, which is, as we have learned, a no-no. Nevertheless, since when he did separate the terumah he did it correctly, he need not give terumah again.

אין תורמים מדבר שנגמרה מלאכתו – from something that was shaped into an even pile.

Introduction This mishnah completes the series of mishnayot that taught that terumah cannot be taken from one pile of produce that is one stage of processing on behalf of another pile that is in a different, either more advanced or less advanced, stage in its processing.

על דבר שלא נגמרה מלאכתו – that was not shaped into an even pile, as it is written (Numbers 18:27): “As with the new grain from the threshing floor or from the flow from the vat,” that whose preparation is completed with that which is completed and not from that whose preparation has been completed in place of that which is completed and not from what is not completed in place of what is completed.

They may not take terumah from produce whose processing has been completed for produce whose processing has not been completed, or from produce whose processing has not been completed for produce whose processing has been completed or from produce whose processing has not been completed for other produce whose processing has not been completed. Basically, the only time one can separate terumah from one pile of produce for another is if both piles are completely processed. For instance, if one has one barrel of wine, one could take terumah from it and thereby exempt another barrel of wine.

ואם תרם תרומתו תרומה – and specifically for the rest of the produce, but when one donates for priest’s due from olives in place of olive oil or from grapes in place of wine, that which we said above (Mishnah 4), that his donation of priest’s due is not a valid gift, because there is a loss to the Kohen as we have said.

If they did take terumah, their terumah is terumah. In all of these cases, if one nevertheless did take out terumah, the terumah is still valid. This last clause seems to contradict that which was taught in the end of mishnah four, concerning one who gives terumah from olives or grapes in order to exempt oil or wine. One explanation for this is that that case was different because grapes and oil require a lot of work to process. Therefore, the rabbis penalized one who tried to give them to the priest instead of giving the oil or wine. This clause also seems to contradict mishnah eight which said that the terumah is terumah, but he must go back and give terumah again. Again, one possible explanation is that there is a difference between oil and wine and other types of produce, and that the rules are stricter with regard to the former.