Comentário sobre Terumot 7:9

האוכל תרומה מזיד – without warning, for whereas if they warned him, he is flogged and does not pay. But even thought that without warning, he is liable for death at the hands of heaven, he is not exempted from payment/indemnity.

Introduction In the previous chapters we saw that one who eats terumah unwittingly must repay the amount that he ate plus an added fifth. Our mishnah and the mishnayot that follow discuss a non-priest who intentionally eats terumah.

ואינו משלם את החומש – for the Torah did not obligate the added fifth, other than for one who consumes heave-offering inadvertently.

One who eats terumah intentionally must repay its value, but not the fifth. Paradoxically one who intentionally eats terumah pays less than one who does so accidentally. He does not pay the added fifth. There are two reasons for this. One is that the Torah specifies that one who eats terumah unwittingly pays the extra fifth (Leviticus 22:14). The rabbis read this verse precisely only if one eats unwittingly does one pay the extra fifth. The second reason seems to be conceptual. The added fifth functions as atonement, and atonement is only given to one who accidentally sins. One who sins intentionally is not given the opportunity to atone, at least not in this simple and automatic way.

התשלומין חולין – for payment of someone who acted inadvertently alone, the All-Merciful calls him “holy,” as it is written (Leviticus 22:14): “[but if a man eats of a sacred donation unwittingly,] he shall pay the priest for the sacred donation, [adding one-fifth of its value],” but payment of someone who acts willfully is unconsecrated produce, for since they are unconsecrated, if the Kohen wants to refuse, he can refuse, what is not the case with payment of a person who acts inadvertently, that if he wants to refuse it, he cannot refuse it because they are holy.

And the repayment remains hullin, therefore, if the priest wishes to forgive the repayment, he may. The repayment he makes does not become terumah, as it does in the case of one who eats unwittingly. Therefore, if the priest wants to forgive receiving his repayment, he may do so and the person who ate the terumah won’t have to pay anything (compare above, 6:1). It is interesting to compare this with the case of one who ate unwittingly. In that case the priest cannot forgive repayment because he must give the person a chance to atone for having eaten terumah. In this case he can’t atone through the repayment because he intentionally committed the sin. Therefore the repayment remains hullin and the priest can forgive the debt.

בת כהן שנשאת לישראל – and she is forbidden to consume heave-offering.

Introduction This mishnah deals with the special status of the daughter of a priest who marries an Israelite, the question being to what extent has her status changed? Does she retain her genealogical status as the daughter of a priest?

משלמת את הקרן – according to the law of someone who steals from his neighbor, but not the added fifth, for she is the daughter of a Kohen, as it is written (Leviticus 22:10): “No lay person shall eat of the sacred donations,” excluding this one who is not a foreigner (for after all, she is the daughter of a Kohen), and it is possible for her that she will return to the house of her father like in her youth (i.e., if she is divorced by her husband, for example) and she would be permitted to eat heave-offering.

If the daughter of a priest married an Israelite and afterwards ate terumah, she must repay the value but not the fifth, and her death-penalty [for adultery] is by burning. The daughter of a priest who marries an Israelite loses the right to eat terumah (see Leviticus 22:12.) If she unwittingly eats terumah, while she does have to repay the value of the terumah she ate, she does not pay the added fifth, as would a regular Israelite who unwittingly ate terumah. The Torah states, “Any foreigner (zar) may not eat it and a person who does eat kodesh (terumah) unwittingly must pay an added fifth.” According to rabbinic interpretation, the word “foreigner” implies non-priest, but only a person who was never allowed to eat terumah. One who was once allowed to eat terumah but now may not is not included in this verse and therefore she does not pay the added fifth. It seems to me that this mishnah also expresses the opinion that although a daughter of a priest who marries an Israelite loses her status as a daughter of a priest, some of her genealogical heritage stays with her. The daughter of a priest who commits adultery is punished with the execution of burning (see Leviticus 21:9), unlike a regular Israelite who is punished with strangulation for committing adultery. Our mishnah teaches that this punishment applies to the daughter of a priest even if she marries an Israelite. Again, she retains her genealogical identity.

ומיתתה בשריפה – if she ran about as a prostitute underneath her Israelite husband, as it is written (Leviticus 21:9): “When the daughter of a priest defiles herself through harlotry, [it is her father whom she defiles; she shall be put to the fire],” as long as she is the daughter of a Kohen, it doesn’t matter whether the wife of a Kohen nor the wife of an Israelite, she is [put to death] through burning by fire.

If she married any of those disqualified [from marrying her], she must pay back both the value and the fifth, and her death-penalty [for adultery] is by strangling, the words of Rabbi Meir. In this case the daughter of the priest marries a man who was himself disqualified from eating terumah, such as a mamzer or a disqualified priest (halal) and thereby she herself becomes disqualified from eating terumah, even if he dies and she goes back to her father’s house. According to Rabbi Meir, this girl has now lost her genealogical status as the daughter of a priest and she is treated as a regular Israelite. If she eats terumah she must pay back the value of that which she ate plus the added fifth and if she commits adultery she is punished by strangulation, which is the normal execution for adultery.

נשאת לאחד מכל הפסולים – as, for example, one unfit for the priesthood on account of his father’s illegitimate connection/חלל, a descendant of the Gibeonites/נתין and an illegitimate child/ממזר, pays the principle and an added fifth, for she became degraded/desecrated through his sexual union [with her] and she is not worthy any longer to consume heave-offering, and behold, she is like a foreign woman.

But the sages say: in either case, she repays the value but not the fifth, and the death penalty is by burning. The other rabbis disagree with Rabbi Meir and hold that even if she marries someone who is disqualified, she still retains her status as a priest’s daughter and she still does not pay the added fifth, and her death penalty for adultery is burning.

ומיתתה בחנק – as it is written (Leviicus 21:9): “When the daughter of a priest defiles herself though harlotry.” Whomever is worthy of returning to her father’s house, if it were not for this prostitution, she [would be punished] by fire/burning, excluding if she had sexual intercourse with someone who is unfit for her where she is not worthy to return to her father’s house, for this is not [punishable] through burning.

וחכמים אומרים כוכ' – for she is not a “foreign woman” until she is a foreigner from her beginning until her hend, and this since she has already eaten heave-offering, she does not pay the added firth.

ומיתתה בשריפה – “when the daughter of a priest” (Leviticus 21:9) is written, anyway. And he Halakha is according to the Sages.

המאכיל את בניו הקטנים – for these [minor-age children] are not liable, and his slaves, even if they are adults.

Introduction This mishnah deals with other cases where a person has to pay back the value of the terumah that he ate or gave to someone else, yet he does not have to pay back the added fifth.

ותרומה חוץ לארץ – even though it is subject to the laws of heave-offering/Terumah, we don’t add the added-fifth [payment] to it.

One who feeds [terumah] to his small children, or to his slaves whether they are of majority age or minors, or one who eats terumah from outside the land, or less than an olive’s bulk of terumah, must repay the value, but not the fifth; and the repayment remains hullin. Therefore, if the priest wishes to forgive the repayment, he may. In this mishnah, there are three different categories of people who must repay the value of the terumah that they ate or fed to others but no one has to pay back the added fifth. The first is one who feeds terumah to those whom he is responsible to feed, such as his small children or his slaves, whether they are of majority age or minors. In 6:3 we learned that one who feeds his guests or workers terumah pays back the value of that which they ate and they who actually ate the terumah pay the added fifth. In these cases, since the minor child or slave who actually ate the terumah doesn’t have any money to pay back with, they don’t have to pay the added fifth. The one who gave them the food still has to pay back the amount that he gave them, as he does in all cases when he gives terumah to someone he has a responsibility to feed. The Torah dictates that terumah be separated only inside the land of Israel. Terumah separated outside the land of Israel has the status of “derabanan” of rabbinic origin. Therefore, if one eats terumah from outside the land of Israel, he is liable to pay back only the principal value (after all, he did take something that belonged to someone else) but not the added fifth (he doesn’t need atonement). The final category is one who eats less than an olive’s worth. Eating such a small amount doesn’t generally count as eating, and therefore he hasn’t transgressed a biblical commandment. While he must, as always, restore the amount he took, he need not pay the added fifth. In all of these cases, the repayment being made is to restore the amount that he took; it is not part of atoning for having eaten terumah. The repayment doesn’t become terumah and therefore, the priest can forgive the debt (see above, mishnah one).

This is the general principle: whenever one has to repay both the value and the fifth, the repayment becomes terumah, and if the priest desires to forgive the repayment, he cannot forgive.
But whenever one has to repay the value only and not the fifth, the repayment remains hullin (non-sacred, and if the priest wishes to forgive the repayment, he can.
This rule summarizes a principle that we have already seen in mishnayot one and three, concerning the status of the repayment as terumah or hullin and concerning the ability of the priest to forgive the repayment. Since we have already learned this twice, there is no commentary below.

לתך על תרומה נפלה – and that of heave-offering is permitted, and specifically, with two bins, one of unconsecrated produce and one of heave-offering. We suspend heave-offering into heave-offering that fell that has a permission for two bins. But if one of them is unconsecrated produce and one of them are eatables forbidden pending the separation of sacred gifts/טבל, or First Tithe and similar kinds of things, we do not suspend that the heave-offering fell into eatables forbidden pending the separation of sacred gifts in order to permit the unconsecrated produce, for after that the eatables forbidden pending the separation of sacred gifts became totally prohibited to non-priests, and for why do you see it appropriate to prohibit this bin more than that one? And similarly, with ritually impure or ritually pure, we suspend with ritually impure or with something completely forbidden to non-Kohanim and that which is not completely forbidden to non-Kohanim we suspend with that which is completely forbidden to non-Kohanim? The general principle of the matter is that wherever that one is not spoiled/ruined, we suspend it.

Introduction The next three mishnayot deal with a case where there are two baskets of produce, one of terumah and one of hullin and it is unclear which basket he ate from. We should note that this mishnah is very lenient in these situations, and it always assumes that a person did not eat terumah, unless that assumption becomes impossible.

אבל אחת מהן פטור – for perhaps he ate from unconsecrated produce.

If there were two baskets, one of terumah and one of hullin, and a seah of terumah fell into one of them, but it is not known into which, behold I can assume that it had fallen into that of the terumah. In this case the mishnah is lenient, and rules that we can assume that the terumah fell into the basket of terumah and that the basket of hullin is not a mix of terumah and hullin.

וחייבת בחלה – for it is doubtful unconsecrated produce.

[Two baskets] and it is not known which was of terumah and which of hullin, and he eats from one of them, he is exempt, and the second basket is treated as terumah and subject to the laws of hallah, the words of Rabbi Meir. But Rabbi Yose exempts it. In this case there is a doubt which basket is of terumah and which is of hullin. If a person eats from one of the baskets, then we can assume that that basket was the basket of hullin and he is exempt. This is the same rule as that in the previous section we assume that the basket he ate from had no terumah in it. The second basket has to be treated as terumah and can only be eaten by a priest. Nevertheless, if one comes to make bread from the grain of that basket, he must separate hallah (dough given to the priest) from it, even though terumah is exempt from hallah. The reason for this stringency is that this dough may not be terumah, in which case it is liable for hallah. Rabbi Yose disagrees and holds that the basket is treated as terumah and it is not liable for hallah. It seems that Rabbi Yose holds that we can look at the second basket the same way we looked at the first, and we can be lenient with both.

ורבי יוסי פוטר – for since he did not know it would be like something forbidden to non-Kohanim (i.e., the that which is Terumah mixed with unconsecrated produce) , which is exempt from Hallah. And the Halakha is according to Rabbi Yosi in all three segments of our Mishnah.

If another person eats from the second basket he is exempt. If one man ate of both, he must repay the value of the smaller of the two. If another person ate from the second basket, he too is exempt, because each person can say that the other basket was the basket of terumah. However, if one person ate from both baskets, he has certainly eaten terumah and he must make repayment. When he repays he repays according to the smaller of the two baskets, assuming he ate all of both baskets. This is again a leniency because he can assume that the terumah was in the smaller basket.

אכל – another person ate from the second [bin], he is exempt.

כקטנה שבשניהם – to be lenient.

אינה מדמעת – for perhaps it is identical with that of unconsecrated produce.

Introduction This mishnah is a continuation of yesterday’s mishnah, which discussed a case where there are two baskets, one of terumah and one of hullin and it is unclear which is of which.

If one of these [baskets] fell into hullin, it does not render it medumma (doubtful, but the second is treated as terumah and subject to the law of hallah, the words of Rabbi Meir. Rabbi Yose exempts it. Generally, when terumah falls into hullin and there is less than 100 parts hullin to one part terumah, the terumah renders the hullin “medumma”, doubtful terumah which must be treated as if it was terumah. It must be sold to a priest at the lower price of terumah. However, in this case we can assume that the non-terumah basket fell into the basket of hullin and it doesn’t render it medumma. Since we assumed that the first basket was not terumah, the second basket must be treated as terumah. The dispute between Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Yose is the same as that which we saw in yesterday’s mishnah.

If the second falls elsewhere [into hullin] it does not render it medumma. If the second falls into a different basket of produce, it also doesn’t render the other produce “medumma.” This is parallel to the situation in yesterday’s mishnah where different people ate the two baskets.

If both of them fall into one place, they render it medumma according to [the proportion] of the smaller of the two. However, if both baskets fall into one basket of hullin, it is clear that there is terumah mixed in with hullin. It will render the hullin “medumma” according to the amount of produce in the smaller basket. Let’s say the larger basket had 3 seahs and the smaller basket had 1 seah. These both fall into a basket of one hundred seahs. They don’t cause the hullin to become “medumma” because there is a ratio of 100-1 between the basket into which they fell and the smaller basket. In this case one seah may be removed and treated as terumah and the rest can remain hullin. Were we to fear that the larger basket was that of terumah, the hullin would all become medumma, and it would all have to be sold to a priest.

זרע אחת מהן פטור – he who sows heave-offering/Terumah inadvertently, must turn over the ground, and if he did not overturn it, the large ones are Terumah/heave-offering, but here he is exempt because they are like unconsecrated produce.

Introduction This mishnah is a continuation of the previous two mishnayot.

בדבר שזרעו כלה (the seed does not disintegrate) – as, for example, wheat and barley; it is permitted to foreigners (i.e., non-Kohanim) for this is not definitely heave offering, but we consider it like the growth [of produce entirely forbidden to foreigners] as is taught in the Mishnah in chapter nine (see Tractate Terumot, Chapter 9, Mishnayot 5-6) that they are unconsecrated produce.

If he used one of these [baskets] as seed, he is exempt, and the second is treated as if it were terumah and subject to the law of hallah, the words of Rabbi Meir. But Rabbi Yose exempts it. This section is basically the same situation as that in the previous two mishnayot, except instead of eating one of the two baskets, he uses it as seed. The dispute between Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Yose is the same as we’ve already seen twice.

כדבר שאין זרעו כלה – as, for example, garlic and onions which are forbidden, even though we consider it as something completely forbidden to non-priests, and not like Terumah, for in a case where the seed does not disintegrate, we must be more stringent.

If another person uses the second as seed, then he is exempt. If one man uses both as seed, if it is of a kind whose seed disintegrates [in the ground] it is permissible, but if it is of the kind whose seed does not disintegrate it is prohibited. The only difference between this section and the previous mishnah is that there is a special rule that applies to the use of terumah as seed. If the seed disintegrates in the ground, meaning that it is a species whose seed cannot be recognized in the new plants, then the new plants that grow from it are not considered to be terumah. If the seeds do not disintegrate, then the plants are treated as terumah and they are prohibited, provided one man planted the seeds from both baskets. In all other cases, the new plants would be permitted.