diff --git "a/json/Mishnah/Modern Commentary on Mishnah/English Explanation of Mishnah/Seder Zeraim/English Explanation of Mishnah Terumot/English/Mishnah Yomit by Dr. Joshua Kulp.json" "b/json/Mishnah/Modern Commentary on Mishnah/English Explanation of Mishnah/Seder Zeraim/English Explanation of Mishnah Terumot/English/Mishnah Yomit by Dr. Joshua Kulp.json" new file mode 100644--- /dev/null +++ "b/json/Mishnah/Modern Commentary on Mishnah/English Explanation of Mishnah/Seder Zeraim/English Explanation of Mishnah Terumot/English/Mishnah Yomit by Dr. Joshua Kulp.json" @@ -0,0 +1,625 @@ +{ + "language": "en", + "title": "English Explanation of Mishnah Terumot", + "versionSource": "http://learn.conservativeyeshiva.org/mishnah/", + "versionTitle": "Mishnah Yomit by Dr. Joshua Kulp", + "status": "locked", + "license": "CC-BY", + "shortVersionTitle": "Dr. Joshua Kulp", + "actualLanguage": "en", + "languageFamilyName": "english", + "isBaseText": true, + "isSource": true, + "isPrimary": true, + "direction": "ltr", + "heTitle": "ביאור אנגלי על משנה תרומות", + "categories": [ + "Mishnah", + "Modern Commentary on Mishnah", + "English Explanation of Mishnah", + "Seder Zeraim" + ], + "text": { + "Introduction": [ + "Terumah (sometimes translated as “heave offering”—a name I despise, for obvious reasons) is the name of the agricultural gift given to the priest. In addition, when a Levite receives his tithe he must afterwards give terumah from his tithe to the priest. For ease of reference, below are the biblical verses that are relevant to the issue of terumah:", + "There are certain rules and principles that we should go over before we begin to learn the mishnayot of the tractate.", + "1) Terumah cannot be eaten by non-priests and if they do, they are liable for death at the hands of heaven. In other words, this is a serious one—so be careful! This also means that someone who eats produce from which terumah has not been removed is subject to this penalty. 2) The Torah does not prescribe how much terumah a person has to separate from his produce. The recommended amount is 2 per cent, but other percentages are possible. 3) If terumah becomes mixed in with hullin, non-sacred produce, the entire mixture becomes doubtful terumah. This mixture cannot be eaten by a non-priest but it can be sold to the priest. The price should take into account that some of the mixture is actually terumah and does belong to the priest without him having to pay for it. Thus if one seah of terumah wheat falls into fifty seahs of hullin wheat and a seah of terumah sells for one dinar (terumah will be cheaper because it has less of a market) then he can sell it to the priest for fifty dinar, giving him the one seah for free. 4) However, if there are 100 parts of hullin for every part of terumah, then he can just take out the amount of terumah that fell into the mixture and the rest he can treat as hullin, non-sacred produce, which means he can eat it or sell it to anyone he wishes. 5) The Torah calls terumah “kadosh”, holy. Therefore it must be preserved in purity and one cannot cause it to become ruined. 6) The Torah specifies that terumah be taken from grain, wine and oil. However, the sages expanded this to include other produce. Anything that is edible, can be stored and grows from the ground is subject to the laws of tithes and terumah. ", + "There are other rules that we will learn throughout this tractate. I hope you enjoy learning the tractate. Good luck! " + ], + "": [ + [ + [ + "Introduction\nThe 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.", + "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.", + "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." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nOur mishnah clarifies the meaning of “heresh” which I translated in yesterday’s mishnah to mean “deaf-mute.”", + "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.)", + "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." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nThis mishnah brings in a debate with regard to terumah separated by a minor.", + "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." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nOur 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.", + "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.", + "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." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nMost of this mishnah teaches that one cannot take terumah from one category of produce in order to exempt another category of produce.", + "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.", + "[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.", + "[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.", + "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.", + "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.", + "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.", + "[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." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nThis 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.", + "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.", + "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.", + "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." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nAs 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." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nThis 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.", + "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.", + "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.", + "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." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nThis mishnah continues to deal with the topic of giving terumah from finished produce for unfinished produce.", + "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." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nThis 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.", + "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.", + "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." + ] + ], + [ + [ + "Introduction\nOne must give terumah from both pure and impure produce. The priest will be able to use the pure terumah for its general purpose and the impure produce he will have to burn but he can enjoy the produce while it is being burned. For instance, if he is given impure oil, he can burn it and use it to light his candles. If he is given impure wheat, he could burn it in his oven.\nOur mishnah teaches that one cannot give terumah from pure produce in order to exempt impure produce, even though this might seem to be beneficial to the priest.", + "They may not give terumah from pure [produce] for impure [produce], but if they did give, the terumah is terumah. As I stated in the introduction, one cannot give terumah from pure produce in order to exempt impure produce. If, however, he does so, his terumah is still valid.", + "In truth they said: If a cake of pressed figs had become partly defiled, one may give terumah from the clean part for that part which had become defiled. The same applies to a bunch of vegetables, or a stack of grain. The phrase, “In truth they said,” usually introduces a halakhah that deviates from the previous general rule. If one has a cake of pressed figs only part of which was impure, or a bunch of vegetables or a stack of grain, only part of which was impure, one can separate terumah from the pure part in order to exempt the entire cake, bunch or stack. Because it is all one pile or one group of produce, this is not considered taking from one pile/stack of pure produce on behalf of a different impure pile/stack.", + "If there were two cakes [of figs], two bunches [of vegetables], two stacks [of grain], one pure and one impure, one should not give terumah from one for the other. However, as stated in section one above, if the cakes, bunches of vegetables or stacks of grain were separate, then one should not give terumah from the pure one on behalf of the impure one.", + "Rabbi Eliezer says: one can give terumah from that which is pure for that which is impure. Rabbi Eliezer disagrees with the rules above and holds that one can give terumah from the pure for the impure." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nThis mishnah is the opposite of yesterday’s mishnah. Here we learn what happens if a person tries to give terumah from impure produce for pure produce. Obviously, this is much more problematic, because the impure terumah is far less useful to the kohen.", + "They may not give terumah from impure [produce] for that which is pure. One should not give terumah from impure produce on behalf of pure produce.", + "If he did give: If unwittingly, the terumah is valid; If intentionally he has done nothing. If, despite the fact that this is prohibited, the person did so anyway, if he did it without knowing what he was doing, the terumah is valid. However, if he did it intentionally, the terumah is not terumah and he must go back and take terumah out again.", + "So too, if a Levite had [unclean] tithe [from which terumah] had not been given, and he gave terumah from this, if unwittingly, the terumah is valid, if intentionally he has done nothing. As I stated in the introduction, a Levite must give terumah from the tithes that he receives. The Levite in our section has a pile of impure tithes and he tries to say that this tithe will be terumah on behalf of other tithes that he has received. The same rules apply here as applied in the case of regular terumah in section two. When it comes to the terumah taken from tithes, one also cannot give impure terumah to exempt pure terumah. However, Albeck notes that in the case of terumah from tithes, the opposite is not true one can give from pure produce for impure produce.", + "Rabbi Judah says: if he knew of it at the outset, even if done in error, he has done nothing. Rabbi Judah holds that if at some point he knew that the pile of tithes was impure, then even if he later forgot and thought that he was giving terumah from pure produce, his terumah does not count. The fact that he once knew means that he can never again be considered as having given it “accidentally.”" + ], + [ + "Introduction\nOur mishnah teaches other cases in halakhah where if someone did something prohibited unintentionally, he may benefit from it, but if he did it intentionally, he may not benefit from it.", + "One who immerses [unclean] vessels on Shabbat: If unwittingly, he may use them. But if intentionally, he may not use them. It is forbidden to immerse unclean vessels on Shabbat in order to purify them. The reason is that by immersing them he makes them usable. This is like “completing a vessel” which is forbidden on Shabbat. If he does so intentionally, he may not use them until after Shabbat is over, at a time when he could have immersed them in a permissible manner. However, if he did so unwittingly, meaning he either didn’t know that it was Shabbat or he didn’t know that he is not allowed to immerse vessels on Shabbat, then he can use the vessels immediately. Since he did so accidentally, he is not penalized by having to wait to use the vessels.", + "One who separates tithes, or cooks on Shabbat: If unwittingly, he may eat it. But if intentionally, he may not eat it. Similarly, one may not separate tithes or cook on Shabbat. Again, if he does so accidentally, he may eat the food immediately, but if he did so intentionally, he must wait until after Shabbat.", + "One who plants on Shabbat: If unwittingly, he may keep the tree. But if intentionally, he must uproot it. It is forbidden to plant on Shabbat. If one did so without knowing that it was Shabbat or that planting was forbidden, he may keep the tree. If not, he must get rid of the tree.", + "But if during the sabbatical year, whether [it was planted] unwittingly or intentionally he must uproot it. The one exception to the notion that if one did something unwittingly he may benefit from it is the sabbatical year. Albeck explains that Jews were suspected of working the land during the sabbatical year and then claiming that they had done so unwittingly. To prevent this, the rabbis made the rule especially stringent. Even if the Jew did the work unwittingly (or at least claimed to have done so), they are not allowed to benefit from it." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nThis mishnah deals with the rule that one cannot give terumah from one kind of produce on behalf of another. The second half of the mishnah deals with giving the terumah to the priest.", + "They may not give terumah from one kind for another kind, and if he did give, the terumah is not terumah. One cannot give terumah from any species that is “kilayim” (mixed seed) with another species (we will see this in mishnah six, below). And if one does try to give terumah from one species on behalf of another that is kilayim with it, the terumah doesn’t count.", + "All kinds of wheat count as one. Different species of wheat, such as white wheat and red wheat all count as wheat and one can give terumah from one on behalf of the other.", + "All kinds of fresh figs, dried figs and fig cakes count as one, and he may take terumah from one for the other. Similarly, all kinds of figs can be used for terumah for other kinds of figs. This is because all of these kinds of figs have, at least potentially, finished their processing.", + "Wherever there is a priest, one must give terumah from the very best, and where there is no priest, one must give terumah from that which lasts longest. Rabbi Judah says: he should always give only from the very best. The mishnah now turns its attention to what kind of terumah one should optimally give to the priest. If the priest is right there when the person is separating the terumah, he should give him the best of the produce. If he is not right there, then he should give him the part of the produce that will last the longest. For instance, if he has fresh figs and dried figs, if the priest is right there he should give him the fresh figs, but if he is not around, he should give him the dried ones. Rabbi Judah says he should always give him the best of the produce and we are not concerned lest the produce goes bad." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nOur mishnah deals with giving terumah from onions.", + "They should give terumah of a whole small onion, and not of half of a large onion. If one has a choice of giving either a whole small onion or half of a large onion as terumah, he should give the whole small onion. This seems to accord with what the sages said in yesterday’s mishnah, that one should give from something that will last, even though it is not the best of the produce.", + "Rabbi Judah says: not so, rather half of a large onion. Rabbi Judah holds that the large onion is of better quality and therefore it is preferable to give half of the large onion and not the small onion. [Personally, I like small onions, especially when we give them a fancy name like shallots].", + "So too, Rabbi Judah says: they give terumah from town onions for those from the village, but not from village onions for those from the town, since these are the food of its principal citizens. The onions that grow in the town are bigger than those that grow in the village. The principal citizens (in the Mishnah the word is “politikim” literally politicians!) eat only the big onions from their town. Hence, according to Rabbi Judah one can give from these types of onions in order to exempt the onions from the villages, but one cannot give from village onions in order to exempt the big onions. In other words, it is not just that town onions are better than village onions the finicky people from the town won’t even eat the village onions." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nThis mishnah continues to discuss giving terumah from one species for another.", + "They may give terumah from olives [to be used] for oil for those to be preserved, but not from olives due to be preserved for olives [to be used] for oil. The olives that are used for oil are of a better quality than the olives that are going to be preserved and eaten. Therefore, one can take terumah from olives that will later be used for oil in order to exempt olives that are going to be preserved. However, one cannot do the reverse take terumah from olives that will be preserved from olives that will be used for oil.", + "[They may give] from unboiled wine for boiled wine, but not from boiled wine for unboiled wine. The wine that is going to be boiled is the bad wine that will not taste as good as the unboiled wine (for a taste test, compare Golan to Manischewitz!). Therefore, he can’t give terumah from boiled wine for unboiled wine, but he can give unboiled wine for boiled wine.", + "This is the general rule: any two things which together are kilayim (mixed he should not give terumah from one for the other, even if one is superior and the other inferior. The mishnah now gives some general rules, which have been illustrated throughout the previous couple of mishnayot. First of all, anything which is kilayim with another species cannot be used as terumah for that species, even if one of the sets of produce is superior to the other.", + "But if they are not kilayim, then one may give terumah from the superior for that which is inferior, but not from the inferior for that which is superior. If the species are not kilayim with one another, then one can give terumah from the superior species for the inferior species, as we learned before.", + "If one does give terumah from the inferior for that which is superior, his terumah is terumah, except for zunin given for wheat, since these ( are not food. One should not give terumah from the inferior species for the superior species but if one does, the terumah is valid. For instance, if one gives terumah from boiled wine for unboiled wine, the terumah is valid. The only exception to this is “zunin” a type of species that grows between wheat and that is not kilayim with wheat (see Kilayim 1:1). Since “zunin” are inedible, they cannot be used for terumah.", + "Cucumbers and melon count are one kind. Rabbi Judah says: two kinds. In Kilayim 1:2 we learn that Rabbi Judah and the sages disagree whether melons and cucumbers are kilayim. Their dispute is brought here because according to the sages, one could give from one in order to exempt the other, whereas according to Rabbi Judah, one cannot." + ] + ], + [ + [ + "Introduction\nThis 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.", + "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.", + "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.", + "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." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nThis 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." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nThis 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?", + "[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." + ], + [ + "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." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nThis mishnah discusses ways in which one can designate terumah or tithes within a pile of produce.", + "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.”", + "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.", + "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." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nBelow 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." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nIn 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.", + "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?", + "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." + ], + [ + "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." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nOur mishnah teaches that if a non-Jew sets aside terumah, his act is valid and that which he designates terumah is indeed terumah.", + "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.", + "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.", + "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.”" + ] + ], + [ + [ + "One who sets aside only part of terumah and tithes, may take terumah from that [heap], but he may not take terumah from it for other produce. A person has a pile of produce from which he removed some of the terumah and tithes, but not all that he was supposed to give. He may subsequently take the rest of the terumah out of that same pile, since he is not obligated to separate all of the terumah and tithes at one point. However, he can’t take terumah out of this pile in order to exempt another pile. The reason is that this pile is already half-exempt and we look at it as if every part of it is half-exempt and half-liable. There is a rule that one is not allowed to take terumah out of an exempt pile of produce on behalf of another pile of produce that is still subject to the laws of terumah and tithes. Therefore he can’t use the half-tithed pile for another fully untithed pile.", + "Rabbi Meir says: he can also take terumah and tithes for produce elsewhere. Rabbi Meir disagrees and holds that he can even use the half-tithed pile to separate terumah and tithes for another pile. When he took some terumah out in the beginning, he was only exempting part of the pile. So when he goes back and takes more terumah out of that same pile in order to exempt another fully untithed pile, he can say that the part of the produce that he is taking out is the untithed part of the pile. It turns out that he is taking from liable produce for other liable produce which is fine." + ], + [ + "If one had his produce in a storehouse, and he gave a seah to a Levite and a seah to a poor person, he may set aside another eight seahs and eat them, the words of Rabbi Meir. But the sages say: he may only set aside according to proportion. A person has a storehouse of produce from which tithes have not been taken out. He sees a Levite and he gives him one seah of his produce and then he sees a poor person and gives him one seah of his produce. According to Rabbi Meir, he may then go to his produce and eat another 8 seahs, with the understanding that the seah that he gave to the Levite was first tithe and the seah that he gave to the poor person was poor person’s tithe (given in the third and sixth year of the sabbatical cycle). The remainder of his produce remains totally untithed. The sages do not allow this because they say that the two seahs he gave count towards the entire storehouse, which contains far more than eight other seahs of produce. Any seah that he removes from the storehouse is only partially tithed for, according to the percentage of produce that the two seahs that he did give would account for. For instance, if he had one hundred seahs in the storehouse, each seah that he takes out is only ten percent tithed (he removed two seahs and he should have taken twenty). Before he eats any of the remaining produce he must complete the tithing process." + ], + [ + "The amount of terumah: A generous amount: one fortieth. Beth Shammai say: one thirtieth. The average amount: one fiftieth. A stingy amount: one sixtieth.
If he gave terumah and discovered that it was only one sixtieth, his terumah is valid and he need not give again.
If he does go back and add to it, [the extra amount] is liable to tithes.
If he found that it was only one sixty-first it is valid, but he must give terumah again according to his established practice, in measure, weight or number.
Rabbi Judah says: even if it be not from produce close by.
As I stated in the introduction the Torah does not prescribe how much terumah a person must give as it does for tithe. Our mishnah gives recommendations as to how much a person should give.
Section one: This section lists various percentages of terumah that a person might give, depending on his generosity. In the mishnah Bet Shammai disagrees only concerning the definition of a generous amount. In the Tosefta, Bet Shammai adds that an average amount is one fortieth, and that a stingy amount is one fiftieth.
Section two: If he intended to give an average or above average amount and he gave only one sixtieth, considered a stingy amount, it still counts and he has fulfilled his duty. He need not give any more terumah.
Section three: If despite this he does try to give more terumah, the extra terumah that he gives is not considered terumah. It is still untithed produce, and before it can be eaten, tithes must be removed. This section teaches us that if one gives one sixtieth, he has fulfilled his obligation and he can’t add to it later on.
Section four: This is the opposite scenario. He thought that he had given a sufficient amount, but it turns out he gave less than one sixtieth. He now must give terumah again and when he gives he should give according to his established practice. If he usually gives 1/40, he should give that amount, etc. In addition, there are a couple of leniencies that apply to this situation. First of all, he can give by measuring the amount he is giving, although usually one is not supposed to give terumah in this manner (see 1:7).
Rabbi Judah allows him to give from produce that is not nearby, meaning that it is not close to the original pile of not fully tithed produce. Normally one should give terumah from produce that is close to the produce for which he is separating." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nOne can appoint a messenger (or agent) to separate terumah on his behalf. The question that our mishnah asks is, how much terumah should the messenger take out?", + "One who says to his messenger: “Go and give terumah [for me],” he should give terumah in accordance with the mind of the owner. If the messenger knows how much terumah the owner of the produce usually gives, then he should give that amount.", + "If he does not know the mind of the owner, he gives according to the average amount one fiftieth. If he doesn’t know, then he should give an average amount.", + "If he gave ten parts less or more, the terumah is terumah. If he gave ten parts more or ten parts less, meaning he gave one fortieth or one sixtieth, it is still valid because these are all valid amounts of terumah.", + "If, however, his intention was to add even one part more, his terumah is not terumah. However, if he knew how much the owner usually gives, and he intentionally added even one part or gave even one part less, then his actions are competely invalid. For instance, if the owner usually gave one fiftieth, and the messenger intentionally gave 1/51 or 1/49 his terumah is not terumah at all." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nIn mishnah three we learned the minimum amounts that one can give as terumah. Today we learn the maximum amounts.", + "One who wishes to give more terumah:
Rabbi Eliezer says: he may give up to a tenth part, as in the case of heave-offering of tithe. [If he gave] more than this [measure] he must make it terumah of tithe for other produce. Rabbi Eliezer says that one cannot give more than one tenth of one’s produce as terumah. This is equivalent to the amount of terumah that the Levite separates and gives to the priest from the tithe that he receives. If he gave more than this, then the extra amount doesn’t count as terumah. Rather it is considered untithed and one must tithe it before it is eaten. However, he can’t give any of it to the Levite because there is terumah mixed in with it (the ten percent does count as terumah). So what he can do is let the Levite use the entire amount that he separated as terumat maaser (terumah taken from first tithe) for other produce that he has received as tithe. In this way it will all become terumah.", + "Rabbi Ishmael says: half non-sacred produce and half terumah. According to Rabbi Ishmael, he can give half of the pile as terumah.", + "Rabbi Tarfon and Rabbi Akiba say: as long as he retains a part as non-sacred produce. Rabbi Tarfon and Rabbi Akiva allow him to give as much as he wants, as long as some of the pile remains non-sacred produce." + ], + [ + "On three occasions they measure the contents of the basket: Three times a year a person should check the basket where he collects and stores his fruit, especially figs, to see how much he has gathered so that he will be able to know how much terumah to give. For instance, if he sees that the basket contains 100 figs, he will know to give about two figs.", + "At the full time of the first ripe fruits, and of the late summer fruits, and in the middle of the summer. The three periods are: 1) the time when the fruits that ripen quickest have ripened. These fruits are largest and the basket won’t be able to contain very many of them. 2) The late summer fruits. These are smaller and the baskets can hold a larger quantity of them. 3) The middle of the summer, when there is a lot of fruit but they are of average size.", + "He who counts [the fruit] is praiseworthy, he who measures it is more praiseworthy, and he who weighs them is most praiseworthy of all. We learned in 1:7 that when one separates terumah, he does not separate them by measuring that which he takes out, but that he can separate from a pile of fruit that has been measured. Our mishnah teaches that there are three ways of finding out how much fruit is in the basket and that some ways are better than others. The first way is to simply count the fruit this is better than not measuring at all and is praiseworthy. The second way is to measure the container this is more praiseworthy. The final way is weigh the basket this is the most praiseworthy of all. I should emphasize that when he takes out the terumah, he is not supposed to count, measure or weigh that which he is separating. He is only supposed to do so to the entire basket of untithed produce." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nI have already explained on several occasions that if terumah falls into non-sacred produce it renders the entire mixture “medumma.” “Medumma” is doubtful terumah and it can only be eaten by a priest. However, if the amount of non-sacred produce was large enough, the terumah can be removed, given to a priest and the rest of the mixture returns to being non-sacred produce. This is obviously a much better scenario for the person who owns the mixture because he can eat all of the hullin. Our mishnah teaches how much non-sacred produce there must be in relation to the amount of terumah that fell in.", + "Rabbi Eliezer says: terumah can be taken out [if it falls into] a hundred and one parts. According to Rabbi Eliezer there must be a full one hundred parts non-sacred produce (hullin) for every part terumah. So if one seah of terumah falls into one hundred seahs hullin, there will be a total of 101 seahs, and the terumah can be removed. One seah is given to the priest and the rest reverts back to hullin.", + "Rabbi Joshua says: in a hundred and more, and this “more” has no definite measure. Rabbi Judah holds that if one seah of terumah falls into 99 seahs and a little bit more of hullin, thereby making a mixture that has a total of 100 parts and a little bit more, the terumah can be taken out. This “more,” the amount over 99 seahs, can be of any amount, even the smallest amount.", + "Rabbi Yose ben Meshullam says: this ‘more’ must be a kav to a hundred seahs, a sixth [of the seah] which renders the whole as medumma. Rabbi Yose ben Meshullam agrees in principle with Rabbi Joshua, but says that there is a measure to this small amount. In the situation described above, where one seah of terumah falls into a vat of hullin, there must be 99 seahs and one kav of hullin in order for the terumah to be nullified. The kav is 1/6 of the seah of terumah that fell in. In other words, the extra amount must be 1/6 of the amount of terumah that one is attempting to nullify." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nOur mishnah deals with the issue of whether the kind of terumah that fell into the hullin (non-sacred produce) must be exactly like all of the hullin into which it fell.", + "Rabbi Joshua says: black figs can bring up white ones, and white ones can bring up black ones. In the case of cakes of figs, the large can bring up the small, and the small can bring up the large. Round cakes of figs can bring up square cakes, and square cakes can bring up round ones. According to Rabbi Joshua if a black terumah fig fell into a pile of 100 hullin figs, fifty of which were white and fifty black, the owner can remove one fig, give it to the priest and eat the rest. Even though it is clear that the fifty white figs were not the terumah fig that fell in, so that in reality there are only fifty-one figs that could have been the terumah fig (the fifty one black figs), the white figs can join with the black figs to make up the required 100 to 1 ratio. Rabbi Joshua goes on to the say that the same is true if a large cake of figs fell into a pile of small and large cakes of figs, or if a round cake fell into a pile of round and square cakes. Since they are all figs, they all join to create the required ratio to “bring up” the terumah figs.", + "Rabbi Eliezer prohibits this. Rabbi Eliezer forbids this for the reason that I explained above in this scenario only fifty-one of the figs is potentially terumah and therefore we don’t have the required 100-1 ratio.", + "Rabbi Akiba says: if the kind which fell in is known, then the one kind cannot bring up the other kind, but if the kind is not known, the one kind can bring up the other. Rabbi Akiva mediates between their two opinions. If we know that a white fig fell in, then only white figs can count to the ratio of 100-1. But if we don’t know which color fig fell in, then all of the figs could have been terumah and we will have the required ratio. It seems that conceptually Rabbi Akiva agrees more with Rabbi Eliezer, but that he notes that if we don’t know exactly what fell in, then it doesn’t matter what color the figs are, as long as there is a 100-1 ratio." + ], + [ + "Introduction Our mishnah is a continuation of Rabbi Akiva’s statement from yesterday’s mishnah.", + "How so? If there were fifty black figs and fifty white fig, and a black fig fell in, the black figs are forbidden, but the white figs are permitted; and if a white fig fell in them, the white figs are forbidden and the black figs are permitted. In yesterday’s mishnah Rabbi Akiva stated that if they knew which type of fig fell in, then only similar figs can help in counting towards the 100 to 1 ratio. So if we know what color fig fell in, then all of the figs of the same color are forbidden because they are “medumma” (doubtful terumah). But the other color figs are fine because we know that they didn’t fall in.", + "If it is unknown which kind fell in, then each kind helps to bring up the other. If they don’t know which color fig fell in, then all the figs are potentially the terumah fig, and as long as there is a 100-1 ratio, one fig can be removed and the rest remains hullin, as we stated in yesterday’s mishnah.", + "In this case, Rabbi Eliezer is stringent and Rabbi Joshua is lenient. Rabbi Eliezer was strict in this case, and Rabbi Joshua was lenient in this case (there opinions are found in yesterday’s mishnah). In tomorrow’s mishnah we will see an opposite case, one where Rabbi Eliezer is more lenient than Rabbi Joshua." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nYesterday’s mishnah ended with a note that Rabbi Joshua was more lenient than Rabbi Eliezer. Today we learn that in a different, yet similar case, Rabbi Joshua was more stringent.", + "But in this, Rabbi Eliezer is more lenient and Rabbi Joshua more stringent. One was pressing a litra of dried figs [of terumah] into a jar and he didn’t know which: Rabbi Eliezer says: they are to be regarded as if they were separated, so that those below can bring up those above. Rabbi Joshua says: it cannot be brought up unless there are a hundred jars. In mishnaic times they used to make cakes of figs by pressing the figs into a jar. The jar would be filled up layer by layer, each layer being an individual cake. In the case in our mishnah someone pressed a liter of terumah figs into the top of a jar that already had 100 liters of non-terumah figs. He then forgot which jar he put the figs into, and there were a number of jars there. The question is: can the figs on the bottom of the jar join with the figs on the top of the jar to make a 100-1 ratio, in which case he can take out one liter of figs and then eat the rest as hullin? Or are we stricter because we know that the terumah figs are on top of one of the jars and the figs on the bottoms of the jars are certainly not terumah? According to Rabbi Eliezer we can look at the figs in the jar as if they are separated, meaning they are loose in the jar. This way we can look at the bottom figs as if they are mixed in with the top figs and if there are 100 liters of non-terumah figs in the jars, then they cancel out the one liter of terumah figs that may be on one of the jar. The difference between this situation and the situation in yesterday’s mishnah is that the white figs and black figs look different and therefore one colored fig cannot serve to “bring up” the other. In today’s case the figs look the same and even though we are certain that the bottom figs are not terumah, they count in reckoning the required 100-1 ratio. According to Rabbi Joshua, we know that the bottom figs were not terumah, and therefore the 100-1 ratio must come from the number of jars into which the terumah figs may have been placed. There must be 100 jars into which the terumah figs might have been pressed. When it came to the white and black figs, since they were actually mixed in together, Rabbi Joshua held that they each could “bring up” the other, despite the fact that they look different." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nOur mishnah continues to deal with cases of terumah getting mixed in with hullin and again we see that Rabbi Joshua and Rabbi Eliezer disagree.", + "A seah of terumah which fell on top of a pile and he skimmed it off: Rabbi Eliezer says: if in that which he skimmed off there are hundred seahs, it can be taken out [through a ratio of] one hundred to one. The case in our mishnah is one in which a seah of terumah fell on top of a pile of hullin and the terumah remained on top of the pile. Rabbi Eliezer holds that if in the top part of the pile there are one hundred seahs of hullin, then the one seah can be removed and the rest can be eaten. In other words, when trying to figure out if we have a 100-1 ratio, we can only take into consideration that which is on the top because, as we shall learn below, when terumah falls on top of a pile, one must skim it off. The bottom rows of produce cannot count toward the ratio.", + "But Rabbi Joshua says: it cannot be brought up. Rabbi Joshua holds that since he must skim off the top, he can’t also take out one seah, even if there is a 100-1 ratio.", + "A seah of terumah which fell on top of a pile, he must skim it off. If so, why did they say that terumah can be taken up in one hundred and one parts? [Only] if it is not known whether it has become mixed up or where it has fallen. This section explains the rule that stands behind the debate in the previous sections. When terumah falls into a pile of non-sacred produce (hullin) the first thing that one must do is attempt to skim it off the top. The rule that if there are 100 parts hullin to one part terumah one may take out any one part and give that to the priest and eat the rest only applies in two situations. 1) It is not known whether the terumah was mixed up or not; 2) the exact location of the terumah is unknown. However, if one knows that the terumah has not become mixed up and he knows where it is, he should just skim it off the top." + ], + [ + "Two baskets or two piles and a seah of terumah fell on top of one of them and it is not known into which it had fallen, they bring up the terumah in the other. Rabbi Shimon says: even if they are in two cities, they bring up the terumah in the other. A seah of terumah falls into a basket or a pile of non-sacred produce and it is unknown which of two piles or baskets it falls into. The fact that the terumah could have fallen into either of the two baskets or piles means that the total amount of hullin in the two piles or baskets counts towards the 100-1 ratio needed to take the terumah out of the mixture. Even though the piles and baskets are separate, since we don’t know which the terumah fell into, both count towards the ratio. Rabbi Shimon said that this remains true even if the two baskets or piles are in different cities. For instance a person had a bottle of terumah wine, and he put it into his wine rack and he doesn’t know if he put it in his wine rack in his home in Paris or in his summer home in Nice (a posh mishnah). If there are a total of 100 bottles of non-terumah wine in his wine racks in Paris and Nice, he can give one bottle to the priest (not hard to find in Paris, but perhaps a bit more difficult in Nice) and the rest remains hullin." + ], + [ + "Rabbi Yose said: A case once came before Rabbi Akiva concerning fifty bundles of vegetables into which a bundle of the same size had fallen, half of which was terumah. And I said in front of him, that it can be brought up, not because terumah can be brought up in fifty-one, but because there were one hundred and two halves there. The issue in this case is how do we look at the fifty bundles of hullin vegetable into which one bundle of vegetables, half of which was terumah, has been mixed? Is this a case of fifty one bundles, in which case one would not be able to remove one bundle, give it to a priest and consider the rest to be hullin? Or do we simply look at the total amount of hullin and the total amount of terumah, in which case there is sufficient hullin to allow one to remove one half of one bundle, give it to a priest and keep the rest as hullin? Rabbi Yose teaches that we take the latter option we look at the total amount of vegetables and not the number of bundles." + ] + ], + [ + [ + "Introduction\nThis mishnah continues to deal with various scenarios where terumah falls into hullin. Here we deal with cases where the hullin or the terumah is impure. Impure terumah cannot be eaten and rather must be burned.", + "If a seah of unclean terumah fell into less than a hundred seahs of hullin, or first tithe, or second tithe, or dedicated property, whether these were unclean or clean, they must all be left to rot. If the terumah was unclean it cannot be eaten and since it fell into a pile of less than one hundred parts hullin, it cannot be taken out. It doesn’t matter if the pile was first tithe, or second tithe or property dedicated to the Temple, or whether this pile was clean or unclean. Since the pile has a seah of unclean terumah in it which cannot be eaten, the entire pile must be left to rot. Commentators ask why the mishnah teaches that it should be left to rot and not burned, as is customary with unclean terumah. There are two answers. The Rambam states that if this type of produce is eaten raw, for instance, figs, then it must be burned. The mishnah refers to produce not eaten raw-this may be left to rot because no one will eat it in its current state. Other commentators say that it is better to always leave it to rot, lest by telling him that he can burn it, he may come to benefit from it before he burns it.", + "If the seah [of terumah] was clean, [the mixture] must be sold to priests at the price of terumah, excluding the value of that seah itself. This is the standard law if both the terumah and the pile of hullin was clean, then if there was not a 100-1 ratio, the whole mixture must be sold only to priests at the price of terumah and he must give one of the seahs to the priest for free, since one of the seahs is actually terumah.", + "If it fell into first tithe, he should declare terumah of tithe. If the terumah fell into a pile of tithe, then what he should do is declare that he is separating the terumat maaser, the terumah taken from the tithes, and leaving it in this pile. Before he declares the terumat maaser the priest cannot eat it for even a priest cannot eat produce from which the various types of terumah has not been removed. He then can sell the whole mixture to a priest, minus the value of the seah of terumah that fell in, and minus the amount of terumat maaser that he would have had to take out of that pile and given to the priest for free.", + "And if it fell into second tithe or dedicated property, they must be redeemed. If it fell into a pile of second tithe or dedicated property then the pile must be redeemed before he can sell it to the priest. In the case of second tithe, the money would be brought to Jerusalem and used to buy food there, and in the case of dedicated property, the money would be given to the Temple. After having been redeemed, the pile reverts to a normal case of terumah mixed in with hullin and the rules in section two apply.", + "If the hullin was unclean, it may be eaten in small quantities, or roasted, or kneaded with fruit juice, or divided into pieces of dough so that the size of one egg be not in any one place. The mishnah now refers to a case where the pile was unclean and the terumah was clean and it was sold to a priest, as described in section two. A priest can eat unclean hullin, the problem is how do we make sure that the unclean hullin does not cause the terumah to become unclean? We should first note that just touching the unclean hullin does not make the terumah unclean. This is because the mixture is still dry. Once the mixture is wet the terumah will become unclean. There are several ways around this problem. The first thing he can do is prepare and eat small amounts at a time, specifically, less than an olive’s worth. Food that is less than the volume of an olive does not transmit impurities, and hence, the mixed-in terumah will not become impure. The second option is to cook the grain without water by roasting it. The third option is to knead the dough made from the grain in fruit juice, since fruit juice is not one of the liquids that causes impurities to be transmitted (the six liquids that cause impurities to be transmitted are: water, dew, milk, honey, wine, blood and oil.) The final option would be to split the dough up into small batches so that each is less than the bulk of an olive." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nToday’s mishnah deals with a case where a seah of unclean terumah fell into a seah of clean hullin. The terumah is unclean but it doesn’t cause the hullin to become unclean because it is not wet (as we learned in yesterday’s mishnah).", + "A seah of unclean terumah which fell into a hundred of clean hullin:
Rabbi Eliezer says: [a seah] must be taken out and burnt, for I say that the seah taken out is the one that fell in. Rabbi Eliezer holds that the seah of terumah has to be taken out but that it can’t be eaten because we assume that the seah that is taken out is the seah of terumah that fell in and was unclean.", + "But the sages say: it may be taken out and eaten in small quantities, or roasted, or kneaded with fruit juice, or divided into pieces of dough so that the size of one egg be not in any one place. The other rabbis hold that when the seah of terumah fell into the pile of 100 seahs of hullin it was nullified in the pile, so when he took a seah out we don’t assume that it is the same one that fell in. However, there is still 1/100 parts of the pile that is unclean and therefore part of that which he takes out is unclean. In order to prevent the unclean part from impurifying the clean part he must eat it in the same way described in the end of yesterday’s mishnah. We should note that what he gives to the priest is not actually terumah, for if it were, the priest wouldn’t be able to eat it unclean terumah is forbidden. The portion that the person takes out of the pile and gives to the priest is hullin that replaces the terumah owed to him. Unclean hullin can be eaten, however in this case since the priest received the seah in place of terumah owed to him, he must preserve its purity and eat it so that it doesn’t all become impure." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nOur mishnah deals with a case of clean terumah that falls into unclean hullin.", + "A seah of clean terumah fell into a hundred of unclean hullin, it may be eaten in small quantities, or roasted, or kneaded with fruit juice, or divided into pieces of dough so that the size of one egg be not in any one place. Since there is a 100-1 ratio in the mixture, the seah can be taken out, given to the priest and the remainder of the mixture reverts to being regular hullin. The seah given to the priest is not itself terumah, but rather it is given to him as a replacement for the terumah owed to him. Since he is eating it in place of terumah, he must try to preserve its purity and therefore he eats it in this way, as explained in mishnah one. In this case, Rabbi Eliezer does not disagree. When Rabbi Eliezer said that we look at the seah that is taken out as being the same seah that fell in, we say that in order to be stringent, as he was in the case of an unclean seah of terumah that fell into clean hullin. In our case, were we to say that the seah that fell in was the same that was taken out, then he could eat it without trying to maintain its purity. Since this would be a leniency, Rabbi Eliezer agrees that we don’t say this." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nToday’s mishnah contains a discussion of unclean terumah that falls into clean terumah. The question is: does the 100-1 ratio work to allow one to take out one seah and consider the rest, and perhaps even that seah itself, to be clean?", + "A seah of unclean terumah that falls into one hundred seahs of clean terumah: Bet Shammai prohibits, But Bet Hillel permits. Bet Shammai holds that unclean terumah is not nullified in a 100-1 mixture of clean terumah, whereas Bet Hillel holds that just as 100 seah of hullin serves to nullify 1 seah of terumah, 100 seahs of clean terumah serve to nullify 1 seah of unclean terumah.", + "Bet Hillel said to Bet Shammai: since clean [terumah] is forbidden to non-priests and unclean [terumah is forbidden] to priests, then just as clean [terumah] is brought up, so too unclean [terumah] can be brought up. Bet Hillel argues that clean terumah is to non-priests as unclean terumah is to priests both are prohibited. So if clean terumah is nullified by falling into hullin (when there is a 100-1 ratio), unclean terumah should be nullified by clean terumah. In both cases, something unedible to the owner is nullified by something edible.", + "Bet Shammai answered them: No! If hullin which is treated more leniently [in that it is permitted to non-priests] allows us to bring up clean [terumah that falls into it], does terumah [which is more stringent in that it is forbidden to non-priests] also allow us to bring up that which is unclean? Bet Shammai says that Bet Hillel’s argument is faulty, for they were comparing a case of something that falls into hullin, which is treated leniently in that anyone can eat it, with a case of something that falls into terumah, which is treated stringently, in that only priests can eat it. Therefore, Bet Shammai holds that the unclean terumah is not nullified and that the whole mixture is prohibited because of the one unclean part.", + "After [Bet Shammai] had agreed [with Bet Hillel], Rabbi Eliezer said: it should be taken out and burned. But the sages say: it is gone, on account of its being a tiny [portion of the whole mixture]. The mishnah relates that Bet Shammai eventually admitted that Bet Hillel’s argument was good and that the one seah of unclean terumah can be taken out and the rest treated as pure terumah. Rabbi Eliezer adds that the one seah taken out must be treated as unclean terumah and be burned. Again, Rabbi Eliezer holds that the seah taken out is treated the same as the seah that fell in, as long as this creates a stringent law. The other rabbis again disagree and say that the ratio of 100-1 serves to utterly nullify the seah that fell in. The seah that falls in is nullified by its being such a tiny minority of the mixture. Therefore, it can be treated as clean terumah and eaten by the priests." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nThis mishnah deals with the status of the one seah that is taken out of the 100-1 hullin/terumah mixture. Is this one seah considered to be terumah?", + "A seah of terumah that fell into a hundred [of hullin], and he lifted it out and fell into [hullin] elsewhere:
Rabbi Eliezer says: it renders medumma as though it were certainly terumah. According to Rabbi Eliezer, when a seah of terumah falls into one hundred seahs of hullin and then one seah is taken out to be given to a priest, the seah that is taken out is considered to be the same seah of terumah that fell in. Therefore, if the seah that is taken out falls into another pile of hullin, it again will cause the entire pile to be medumma, doubtful terumah. If the pile does not have 100 seahs of hullin, then the entire pile is forbidden to non-priests and it must be sold to a priest at the price of terumah. The main point is that the seah taken out has the same status as that which fell in it is terumah.", + "But the sages say: it is rendered medumma only according to proportion. The other sages hold that the seah taken out of the original pile into which it fell is considered to be 1/101 terumah. If that seah falls into another pile, then as long as the amount of terumah is less than 1/100 of the second pile into which it falls (which it almost certainly will be), then 1/101 of a seah can be taken out, given to the priest and the rest remains hullin." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nIn this mishnah there is another ramification of the debate between Rabbi Eliezer and the sages. As a reminder, Rabbi Eliezer holds that when a seah of terumah falls into a pile of more than 100 seahs of hullin, and a seah is removed, the seah that is taken out is treated as if it were the same seah that fell in. In contrast, the rabbis hold that the amount of terumah in the seah taken out is the same as the amount of terumah in the whole mixture, in this case 1/100.", + "A seah of terumah which fell into less than a hundred [of hullin], and rendered the whole medumma, and part of this mixture fell afterwards into another place: Rabbi Eliezer says: it renders again medumma as if certain terumah [had fallen in]. But the sages say: the [first] mixture renders medumma only according to the proportion. The seah that is taken out of a mixture where the ratio was greater than 100 parts hullin to 1 part terumah is treated by Rabbi Eliezer as if it were the same terumah that fell in. Therefore, when it falls into another pile of terumah, it renders the new pile medumma (doubtful terumah) as if it was certain terumah. The sages hold that it only renders medumma according to the portion of terumah in it. So since it is by definition less than 1/100 terumah, it is doubtful that it will render anything medumma.", + "[Similarly], that which is leavened [with terumah] renders other dough leavened [as with terumah] only according to the proportion. The mishnah now brings several other examples of cases where the rabbis say that something acts according to its proportion. The first is a case of hullin dough that is leavened with terumah starter dough (heavily leavened dough used to preserve the yeast). If this dough falls into another patch of dough it only renders medumma according to the percentage of terumah that is in the part that causes the leavening, the starter dough. In other words, if there is enough terumah in the part that falls in to the second dough in order to leaven the new dough, then it is treated as terumah and it is forbidden to an Israelite.", + "And drawn water disqualifies a ritual bath also only according to the proportion. A mikveh that doesn’t have 40 seahs of water into which three logs (a small measure) of drawn water fall is disqualified. If this drawn water is mixed in with non-drawn water, which is okay for a mikveh, then the mixture disqualifies the mikveh according to the percentage of drawn water in the mixture." + ], + [ + "If a seah of terumah fell into a hundred [of hullin] and he lifted [a seah] out, and then another fell in, and he lifted another out and another fell in, the pile is permissible as long as the amount of terumah does not exceed that of the hullin. A seah of terumah falls into one hundred seahs of hullin and then one seah is removed. The rabbis hold that the seah removed is not the seah of terumah. Therefore, the mixture remains about 1/100 terumah. If another seah of terumah falls in, it too is neutralized and a seah can be taken out. However, there are now about 2/100 terumah in the mixture. This process can keep on repeating itself until there are more parts terumah in the mixture. Once that happens, the mixture can no longer serve to neutralize the terumah that falls in. We should note that as long as the mixture is less than fifty per cent terumah, it is treated as hullin." + ], + [ + "If a seah of terumah fell into a hundred [of hullin], and before he could take it out, another fell in, the whole becomes forbidden. Rabbi Shimon permits it. Once the second seah falls into the mixture, it is now 2/102 terumah, and that is more terumah than the required 1/101 (one seah of terumah falling into one hundred seahs of hullin). Therefore, the sages say that the whole pile is medumma and is forbidden to non-priests. What they are in essence saying is that until the seah is removed, the pile is treated like terumah. Rabbi Shimon holds that as soon as the terumah falls into the 100 hullin, the terumah is neutralized and it is treated as if it no longer exists. Therefore, if another seah of terumah falls in, it is treated as if it fell into a pile of 100 seahs of hullin and it too is neutralized." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nSometimes when one grinds up wheat the volume seems to increase or decrease, depending on the quality of the wheat. Our mishnah deals with the ramifications that this has on the ratio of a pile into which terumah fell in.", + "If a seah of terumah fell into a hundred [of hullin], and they were ground together and reduced in bulk, just as the hullin was reduced so too the terumah was reduced, and it is permitted. When the seah fell into the terumah the pile had the required 100-1 ratio and therefore, the seah could be taken out. However, before he succeeded in taking out the one seah the pile was ground and it was reduced in bulk. The mishnah rules that we can assume that the mixture was uniformly reduced, both the terumah and the hullin. Therefore, the mixture will be permitted to non-priests once he takes out the seah.", + "If a seah of terumah fell into less than a hundred [of hullin] and they were ground together and increased in bulk, just as the hullin became more, so too the terumah became more, and it is forbidden. If it is known that the kernels of hullin were better than the terumah, it is permitted. Conversely, if a seah of terumah fell into less than one hundred of hullin, the mixture is prohibited to a non-priest. If he grinds it and it increases in bulk, it is still forbidden to non-priests because we assume that just as the terumah increased so too did the hullin. However, there is one situation where we would not make this assumption. If the kernels of hullin were known to be of higher quality than the kernels of terumah, then we can assume that the hullin increased and not the terumah.", + "If a seah of terumah fell into less than a hundred [of hullin], and more hullin fell in afterwards, if it was accidental it is permissible, but if intentional it is forbidden. In this case, when the seah originally fell into the pile there was not sufficient hullin to neutralize it. Subsequently more hullin fell in, thereby creating the necessary 100-1 ratio. If this hullin fell in accidentally, then the mixture becomes permissible. However, if he puts it in intentionally, then it is prohibited. One cannot intentionally create the 100-1 ratio." + ] + ], + [ + [ + "Introduction\nTerumah can be eaten only by priests (Leviticus 22:10, according to how the rabbis understood the verse). According to the rabbis, one who eats terumah intentionally is liable for death at the hands of heaven. Our mishnah deals with the consequences of eating terumah unwittingly.", + "One who eats terumah unwittingly must repay its value plus a fifth, whether he eats it or drinks it, or anoints himself with it, or whether the terumah is clean or unclean. One who unwittingly eats, drinks or anoints himself with terumah must pay back the amount he ate plus an added fifth. The fifth in rabbinic literature is what we would call a fourth. It is a fifth of the total amount at the end. Thus if he eats 100 seahs of terumah, he must pay back 125: 100 is the principal and 25 is the 1/5 of the total amount 125.", + "[If he eats the added fifth] he must pay its fifth, and a fifth of that fifth. If he sets aside an extra fifth to pay back the priest, and then he unwittingly eats that as well, he must pay back an added fifth of the fifth. This section teaches us that the added fifth has the status of terumah, just as the principle that he pays back has the status of terumah, as we see below.", + "He may not repay with terumah, but rather with tithed hullin, which becomes terumah. It would seem obvious that he can’t pay back with other terumah because that would be cheating the priest (like paying old taxes with new ones). When he pays back he must use hullin from which tithes have been properly separated.", + "And whatever may be repaid in its place also becomes terumah and if the priest wishes to forego [the fine], he cannot do so. As we learned above in section two, that which he pays back to the priest becomes terumah. This is true even if the priest forgives him the fine. That which he must pay back becomes terumah regardless of whether the priest wants it to or not. It seems that what this section transforms the payment from being restitution to the priest into an obligation upon the person who ate the terumah to make up for his transgression. In a sense, we might say that the payment allows him to receive atonement for his albeit unwitting sin. As such, unlike a normal debt, the priest cannot forgive the debtor his obligation. This is also evident in section one, which states that he must repay even if the terumah was unclean. Unclean terumah cannot be used and therefore he hasn’t really damaged any priest. Nevertheless, he must pay back the amount he used because the issue at stake is atonement and not restitution for a loss." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nWhen an Israelite woman is married to a priest, she can eat terumah. Our mishnah deals with a woman who ate terumah before she was married to a priest and then was married to a priest.", + "A daughter of an Israelite ate terumah and afterwards married a priest:
If the terumah she ate had not yet been acquired by another priest she can repay to herself the value and the fifth. If she ate the terumah before she had given it to a priest and then she was married to a priest she can just give the repayment and the one-fifth to herself. Note that she still has to give it to herself, because as we explained in yesterday’s mishnah, there is an element of atonement in paying back the terumah and the added one-fifth. Even if no restitution must be made, the amounts must be given for atonement to be effected.", + "But if a priest had already acquired the terumah she had eaten, she must repay the value to the owners, but [she can repay] the fifth to herself, because they said that he who eats terumah unwittingly, pays the value to the owners and the fifth to whoever he wants. But if a priest had already acquired the terumah before she ate it, then she has taken away from a priest and she must make restitution to him. The mishnah rules that she has to pay back only the principle, the exact amount that she took. The extra fifth she can pay back to whomever she wants and therefore she can pay back to herself." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nThis mishnah deals with a person who accidentally feeds his workers or his guests terumah.", + "If one gives his workmen or his guests terumah to eat he must repay the principal and they must pay the fifth, the words of Rabbi Meir. According to Rabbi Meir, the person who gave them the terumah pays the principal, the amount that the terumah was actually worth. Since these were his guests or workers, people whom he had an obligation to feed, he has benefited by fulfilling this duty. Therefore, he has to pay back the amount that they ate to the kohen. On the other hand, they were the ones who actually ate the terumah, and therefore, they are the ones who pay back the added fifth.", + "But the sages say: they must pay both the value and the fifth, and he must pay them for the price of their meal. The sages hold that since they were the ones who ate the food, they have to pay back the terumah to the priest, both the principal and the added fifth. However, since he gave them food that they shouldn’t have eaten, meaning he did not fulfill his duty, he has to pay them back the value of the food they ate. In this case, since they ate terumah which has lower value then regular produce, he will end up paying them back less than the amount that they will have to pay." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nA thief is obligated to pay back double the amount that he stole. Our mishnah deals with a person who steals terumah.", + "If one stole terumah but did not eat it, he must return double-payment at the price of terumah. As we have stated many times, terumah was cheaper than regular produce because terumah has less of a market. If one steals terumah he needs to pay back only twice the amount that he stole, which is the value of terumah.", + "If he ate it, he must pay twice the value plus a fifth, one principal value and a fifth at the price of hullin, and the other principal at the price of terumah. However, if he ate it, our problem becomes more complex. He must still pay back twice the value, but one of those amounts is the amount that the produce would have been worth if it was hullin, non-sacred produce, because whenever a person eats terumah (that is a person who is not supposed to eat terumah) he must pay back the value in hullin. The second value he can pay back at the cheaper terumah price because that is the value of the produce which he actually stole. He must also pay back an added fifth as a penalty for eating terumah, but he doesn’t need to pay back two fifths.", + "If one stole terumah of dedicated property and ate it, he must repay two fifths and the principal value, for the laws of double-payment do not apply to dedicated property. In this case a person steals terumah that a priest had dedicated to the Temple. When he eats it, he transgresses two prohibitions eating terumah and benefiting from sanctified property. For each of these transgressions he brings an added fifth, so he brings two added fifths. However, the laws of double-payment for theft do not apply here, because these laws only apply when one steals something from another person, and not when one steals from Temple property (see Bava Metzia 4:9). It turns out that in this case the person pays back one principal and two fifths." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nThis mishnah teaches that when one makes repayment for having accidentally eaten terumah, there are certain things that he cannot use for repayment.", + "They may not make repayment from gleanings, from forgotten sheaf, from peah or ownerless property. None of the things listed in this section were ever liable to have terumah separated from them (see above chapter one, mishnah five). Hence, one cannot use them to repay terumah that one accidentally ate.", + "Nor from first tithe from which terumah has been taken, nor from second tithe or dedicated produce which have been redeemed, because one dedicated thing ( cannot be used to redeem another dedicated thing (, the words of Rabbi Meir. Tithe from which terumah has been removed, and second tithe and dedicated produce which were redeemed (meaning they were exchanged for money) are all things that used to be holy (kadosh) and are now no longer kadosh. According to Rabbi Meir one cannot use something that was kadosh, even if it is no longer kadosh, to redeem another thing that is kadosh. This is true even though these things were once liable to have terumah taken from them because they came from produce that was initially liable for terumah.", + "But the sages permit [payment] with these. The sages allow one to use the things in section two because they come from produce that was originally liable for terumah, unlike the list in section one that was never liable." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nIn this mishnah Rabbi Akiva and Rabbi Eliezer debate whether one can pay back terumah with a different kind of produce from that which he ate.", + "Rabbi Eliezer says: they may make repayment from one kind for another, provided that it is from a superior kind for an inferior kind. According to Rabbi Eliezer if one ate, for instance, barley that was terumah, one could make compensation with wheat, considered to be superior to barley. Rabbi Eliezer does not care that these are from different species.", + "Rabbi Akiva says: they may make repayment only from the same kind. Hence if a man ate cucumbers grown a year before the seventh year, he must wait for those grown after the termination of the seventh year and repay with them. Rabbi Akiva says that he must pay back with the same species that he ate. This will pose a problem for paying back vegetables that he ate towards the end of the sixth year. The year of the sabbatical cycle for vegetables is determined by the year in which they were picked. If he eats sixth year cucumbers he will not be able to pay back with seventh year cucumbers because seventh year produce is exempt from terumah. Since he can’t make compensation with anything but cucumbers and only seventh year cucumbers are available, he will have to wait until the eighth year to make compensation. In contrast, Rabbi Eliezer holds that he could just pay back with another species.", + "The same source which causes Rabbi Eliezer to be lenient causes Rabbi Akiva to be stringent, for it says: “And he shall give the priest the holy thing (” (Leviticus 22:14), [implying,] whatever is liable to become “kodesh,” the words of Rabbi Eliezer. But Rabbi Akiva says: “And he shall give the priest the holy thing (,” [implying] the same kind of holy thing which he ate. The dispute between Rabbi Akiva and Rabbi Eliezer is actually based on different midrashic interpretations of the same verse. We should first of all note that this verse is curious its wording piques our interpretive imaginations. The curious thing about the verse is that it is referring to a person making compensation for eating a holy thing, and yet it calls that which he makes compensation with “holy.” This is curious because it would seem that he is making payment with non-holy produce for having eaten something holy. Rabbi Eliezer takes this strange wording to mean that whatever he makes compensation with becomes holy, even if it is not the same species that he ate. Rabbi Akiva interprets the verse to mean that he must make compensation with the same species of produce that he ate in the first place." + ] + ], + [ + [ + "Introduction\nIn 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.", + "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.", + "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." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nThis 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?", + "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.", + "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.", + "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." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nThis 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.", + "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." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nThe 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.", + "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.", + "[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.", + "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." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nThis 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." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nThis mishnah is a continuation of the previous two mishnayot.", + "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.", + "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." + ] + ], + [ + [ + "Introduction\nThis mishnah deals with cases where a person was allowed to eat terumah and while they were eating it became known that their status had changed and that they were not allowed to eat terumah. The question is do they have to make full repayment, including the added fifth.", + "If a woman was eating terumah, and they came and said to her, “Your husband is dead”, or “He divorced you.” When a woman is married to a priest, she is allowed to eat terumah. When the marriage is terminated upon death or divorce, she loses the ability to eat terumah, assuming that she has no children from that marriage and that she herself was an Israelite.", + "Or, if a slave was eating terumah, and they came and said to him: “Your master is dead”, or “He sold you to an Israelite”, or “He gave you away as a gift”, or “He emancipated you.” A slave owned by a priest is allowed to eat terumah. When that relationship is terminated, the slave loses the right to eat terumah.", + "So too, if a priest was eating terumah and it became known that he was the son of a divorced woman or a halutzah (a woman released from levirate: A priest whose mother is a divorcee or a halutzah (a woman who had been previously released from levirate marriage marriage to her dead husband’s brother) cannot eat terumah because his father shouldn’t have married his mother.", + "Rabbi Eliezer says: they must repay both the value and the fifth. In all three of these cases, Rabbi Eliezer holds that the person must repay both the value of the terumah s/he ate and the added fifth.", + "But Rabbi Joshua exempts them [from the added fifth]. Rabbi Joshua exempts them from the added fifth (according to the explanation founding in the Yerushalmi) because there was nothing that they could have done in this situation. In normal situations when a person unwittingly eats terumah, he must pay the added fifth because he should have been more careful and made sure that the food he was eating was not terumah. In these cases, the food was not the problem, the person was. Therefore, Rabbi Joshua exempts from the added fifth, meaning there is no need for atonement.", + "If [a priest] was standing and sacrificing on the altar and it became known that he was the son of a divorced woman or a halutzah: Rabbi Eliezer says: all the sacrifices he had offered on the altar are disqualified. But Rabbi Joshua pronounces them valid. This is the same debate as that above. A priest whose mother was a divorcee or a halutzah is a disqualified priest and cannot serve on the altar at the Temple. If in the middle of performing Temple worship he finds out that he is disqualified, Rabbi Eliezer says that all of the sacrifices he previously offered are disqualified. Rabbi Eliezer takes a “realistic” point of view since he was not actually a valid priest, his sacrifices are invalid. Rabbi Joshua does not disqualify his prior sacrifices. According to the traditional interpretation, Rabbi Joshua holds that a disqualified priest’s sacrifices are still valid. I might also suggest that Rabbi Joshua takes what we might call a “legalistic” point of view since he was at the time that he offered the sacrifices considered a valid priest, his sacrifices are valid, even though in reality he was not a valid priest.", + "If it, however, it became known that he possessed a blemish, his service is disqualified. Both sages agree that if it turns out that the priest was blemished with one of the blemishes that disqualify a priest from serving in the Temple that all of his sacrifices are disqualified. It seems that Rabbi Joshua cannot ignore the “reality” in this situation and he must agree with Rabbi Eliezer." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nIn today’s mishnah, which is a continuation of yesterday’s mishnah, Rabbi Eliezer and Rabbi Joshua debate whether a person who finds out that s/he has begun to eat something forbidden but has not yet swallowed the food, must spit it out.", + "In all the above cases, if terumah was still in their mouth: Rabbi Eliezer says: they may swallow it. But Rabbi Joshua says: they must spit it out. Albeck explains that according to Rabbi Eliezer since in these cases s/he is going to have to pay back the value and the added fifth in any case, it is not forbidden for him/her to swallow the food that is in his/her mouth. Rabbi Joshua, in contrast, held above that s/he will not have to pay back the added fifth. Since he will have to pay back less, he has to make sure that he doesn’t eat or even swallow any terumah whatsoever intentionally.", + "[If it was said to him], “Your have become unclean”, or “the terumah has become unclean”, Rabbi Eliezer says: he may swallow it. But Rabbi Joshua says: he must spit it out. In this case, while the terumah was still in his mouth someone told him that he had just become impure or that the terumah had just become impure. In other words, when he began to eat the terumah, he was pure and the terumah was pure, but while eating he, or the terumah became impure. In this case, again Rabbi Eliezer says he may swallow that which is in his mouth whereas Rabbi Joshua says he has to spit it out. This is similar to the previous cases because when he began to eat it was permitted for him to do so.", + "[If it was said to him], “You were unclean” or “the terumah was unclean”, or it became known that [the food he was eating] was untithed, or that it was first tithe from which terumah had not yet been taken, or second tithe or dedicated produce that had not been redeemed, or if he tasted the taste of a bug in his mouth, he must spit it out. In this section, it is made known to him that he or the terumah was impure before he began to eat. Alternatively, it is made known to him that the food he was eating was forbidden in some way. For instance, it was not tithed, or it was tithe from which terumah had not been removed, or it was second tithe or dedicated produce that had not yet been redeemed. Or he tasted a bug in his mouth (yuk!). In these cases, he is simply one who unwittingly ate food that he shouldn’t have eaten and hence Rabbi Eliezer agrees with Rabbi Joshua that he must spit it out. The mishnah distinguishes between cases of accidentally eating something forbidden in these cases a person should have been more careful and cases where a person couldn’t have done anything to prevent the food from becoming prohibited in these cases Rabbi Eliezer holds that he may swallow the rest of his food." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nIn our mishnah a person begins to eat untithed grapes while he is still in the field, which is permitted. After beginning to eat the grapes they become liable for tithes. Rabbi Eliezer and Rabbi Joshua again disagree as to whether he may finish eating.", + "If he was eating a bunch of grapes, and he entered from the garden into the courtyard: Rabbi Eliezer says: he may finish eating. But Rabbi Joshua says: he may not finish. While still out in the garden, one may eat produce without tithing it, as long as he is eating it in an “ad hoc” fashion, meaning he is not making a meal out of it. However, once he brings the grapes into the courtyard he cannot eat them until they have been tithed. Rabbi Eliezer says that since he began to eat the grapes with permission, he may finish doing so without tithing them. Rabbi Joshua says he cannot finish them until he tithes.", + "If dusk set in at the eve of Shabbat: Rabbi Eliezer says: he may finish eating. But Rabbi Joshua says: he may not finish. When Shabbat begins one cannot eat untithed food, even in an ad hoc fashion out in the garden. In essence, all eating on Shabbat is considered formal and therefore food cannot be eaten untithed. If he begins eating it before Shabbat, Rabbi Eliezer says he may continue, whereas Rabbi Joshua again says that he may not." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nOur mishnah teaches that it was forbidden to drink water, wine and milk that had been left uncovered for fear that a snake had put poison into the mixture. Whether this was a realistic fear, or a superstition shared by many people, I don’t know. We should note that by the middle ages most halakhic authorities had stated that this halakhah no longer applies.", + "If wine of terumah was left uncovered, it must be poured out, and there is no need to say this in the case of hullin. Normally, it is forbidden to cause terumah to come to ruin. Pure terumah must be eaten. However, if the terumah wine was left uncovered, the rabbis considered it dangerous to drink it. The concern for the danger to one’s life overrides the prohibition of causing terumah to be lost and therefore, if the terumah wine was left uncovered, he should spill it out. It is obvious that he should spill out hullin (non-sacred) wine that had been left uncovered.", + "Three kinds of liquids are forbidden if they were left uncovered: water, wine and milk, but all other drinks are permitted. It was assumed that snakes wouldn’t drink from anything but water, wine and milk. Therefore, only these three are prohibited if left uncovered. I wonder if they had had Coca-Cola back then, would snakes have drunk from it?", + "How long do they remain uncovered for them to become prohibited? The time it takes the snake to creep out from a place near by and drink. The liquid must be left uncovered long enough for a snake to sneak up and inject his poison into it. If you just leave your cup uncovered for a moment while you get something from the refrigerator (to be anachronistic) you can still go back and finish your drink. But if you go out to the backyard to play football with your kids for a few minutes, leaving your glass of milk on the table, you may be at risk." + ], + [ + "Introduction Our mishnah continues to deal with the issue of uncovered water that might have poison in it.", + "The amount of water that is uncovered: enough to negate the poison. There are two explanations to this section. The first explanation is that if there is enough water to negate the effects of the poison, then even uncovered water is permitted. The second explanation is opposite if there is enough water so that one cannot taste the poison, then it is prohibited. If there is not that much water it is assumed that the poison would have taste, and therefore it is permitted.", + "Rabbi Yose says: in vessels [it is forbidden] whatever the quantity, but for water on the ground, it must be forty se'ahs. According to the first interpretation, Rabbi Yose says that if the water is in vessels, even if there is a lot of water, it is prohibited. The vessels concentrate the solution, making the poison more potent. According to the second interpretation, we would have to say that even if there is little water, it is prohibited. Perhaps the vessels would mask the taste. However, if the water is on the ground, the standard measure is forty seahs. According to the first interpretation, more than that is permitted, assuming that the poison is nullified. The second interpretation would seem to have some difficulty in interpreting this line." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nOur mishnah deals with fruit and animals that may have been bitten by a snake.", + "Figs, grapes, cucumbers, pumpkins, melons or watermelons that have bite marks, even if they are in a jar, both large or small, both plucked or still attached to the soil, they are forbidden as long as there is juice in them. Any fruit that has a bite mark on it, one that could have come from a snake, is forbidden. The fear is that the snake left some poison in the fruit and the moisture that remains in the fruit will convey the poison to all parts of the fruit. That is why the mishnah says “as long as there is juice in them.” If the fruit is dry, then they can get rid of the part near the bite and safely eat the rest (I’m not necessarily recommending this at home). The prohibition holds true even if the fruit is in a jar, because it may have been bitten before it was put in the jar. It also holds true no matter the size of the fruit, or whether it is still attached to the ground.", + "[An animal] bitten by a snake is forbidden on account of the danger to life. If an animal was bitten by a snake, it is prohibited to eat that animal because of the danger to one’s life." + ], + [ + "A wine-filter [used as a cover] does not prevent [the wine from becoming] forbidden by being uncovered.
But Rabbi Nehemiah permits it.
In our mishnah there is a dispute concerning a wine jug covered by a filter. According to the first opinion, poison can pass through the filter and therefore the wine is halakhically considered to be uncovered and it is prohibited. Rabbi Nehemiah says that the poison will not pass through the filter and hence it is permitted." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nOur mishnah discusses a jar of terumah that may have become impure but is not definitely impure. The problem is that it is forbidden to get rid of terumah (or intentionally make it impure) and it is forbidden to eat impure terumah. So he can’t use this terumah lest it is impure, but he can’t get rid of it, lest it is pure. Rabbi Eliezer and Rabbi Joshua, the sages who disputed each other throughout the chapter, resume their series of disputes here.", + "A jar of terumah which may have become impure:
Rabbi Eliezer says: if it had been deposited in an exposed place, he must now place it in a hidden place; and if it had formerly been uncovered, it must now be covered. According to Rabbi Eliezer, one should protect this jar of terumah so that it doesn’t go from being doubtfully impure to certainly impure. For instance, if it had been in an exposed place, where it will likely become impure, he should put it into a more protected place. If it had been uncovered, then he should cover it so that a snake doesn’t put poison in it. In other words, even though he can’t use this terumah, lest it is impure, he should treat it as carefully as possible so that it is not defiled or made poisonous.", + "But Rabbi Joshua says: if it had been in a hidden place, he must now place it in an exposed place; and if it had formerly been covered up, he must now uncover it. Rabbi Joshua holds that one should do everything he can so that the jar becomes certainly prohibited and he can legally get rid of it. If it had been previously protected in a hidden place, he should now put it in an exposed place so that it is more likely to become impure. If it was covered, he should uncover it so that it becomes prohibited to drink and permitted to pour out. In other words, since he can’t use it, he should cause it to become strictly forbidden, thereby allowing him to pour it out, or burn it (if it was made impure). If he leaves it around, he might accidentally use it, and thereby perhaps transgress (if it was actually impure).", + "Rabban Gamaliel says: let him not do anything new to it. Rabban Gamaliel says one shouldn’t do anything to the jar. On the one hand, he holds that it is forbidden to intentionally put the jar somewhere where it will become more prohibited. Therefore, he can’t agree with Rabbi Joshua. On the other hand, he is not obligated to go out of his way to protect the jar, as Rabbi Eliezer says. So the best he can do is just leave it wherever it may already be. If it becomes impure, so be it. If it doesn’t then he must refrain from using it in any way." + ], + [ + "A jar [of terumah] was broken in the upper part of the wine-press, and the lower part was unclean: Both Rabbi Eliezer and Rabbi Joshua agree that if one can save at least a reviit of it in cleanness he should save it. Our mishnah deals with a case where there is a jar of pure terumah in the upper part of a wine-press, and the lower part of the wine-press contains impure hullin wine. If the terumah flows down to the lower part it will all become impure medumma (doubtful terumah) and no one will be able to drink it not a priest because it is impure and not an Israelite, because it contains terumah. The person does not have any pure vessels handy with which to immediately save the terumah. Both Rabbi Eliezer and Rabbi Joshua agree that if he can fetch clean vessels and save at least a reviit of pure terumah wine before it all flows into the lower part he should do so. In other words, rather than save all of the terumah wine in impure vessels, he should save a small amount of it in a pure vessel, even though the rest of the terumah wine will render undrinkable the hullin in the lower part.", + "But if not: Rabbi Eliezer says: let it flow down and become unclean of its own accord, and let him not make it unclean with his own hands. Rabbi Eliezer and Rabbi Joshua debate what to do in a situation in which it is impossible to save a reviit before the terumah flows down into the lower parts. Rabbi Eliezer says he should just let it all flow into the impure hullin below and that he should not defile the terumah with his own hands by putting it into unclean vessels, even though this will make the hullin below undrinkable for everyone. Rabbi Joshua’s response to Rabbi Eliezer will come mishnah eleven below, so stay tuned!" + ], + [ + "Introduction\nThis mishnah contains a very similar scenario to the mishnah we learned yesterday.", + "Similarly a jar of [terumah] oil which spilled: Both Rabbi Eliezer and Rabbi Joshua agree that if he can save at least a reviit in purity he should save it; In this case a jar of pure terumah oil fall on the ground and it will take time for him to get clean vessels to scoop it up. The choice is to let the oil seep into the ground or to pick it up with unclean vessels. Again, both agree that if he can save at least a reviit, he should do so, even though most will be lost. The reason is that he should do whatever he can to save the purity of the pure terumah. Note that they do not disagree with regard to a situation in which the oil is in the upper part of an oil press and it will flow down into a vat impure hullin oil, thereby making the entire mixture impure medumma (terumah mixed in with hullin). The reason is that such impure medumma oil can be burned, and therefore the loss is not so great. In such a situation all would agree that he should just let the pure terumah oil flow into the impure hullin oil. This is different from the scenario in yesterday’s mishnah where there is no use for impure medumma wine.", + "But if not: Rabbi Eliezer says: let it flow down and be swallowed up by the ground, and let him not make it unclean with his own hands. Rabbi Eliezer and Rabbi Joshua again disagree if there is no other way to save the oil besides using the unclean vessels. Rabbi Eliezer says that he may not use the unclean vessels and he should rather just let the whole mixture go to waste. Rabbi Joshua’s response is in tomorrow’s mishnah. I’m sure the suspense is just killing you." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nFinally, we get Rabbi Joshua’s response. The mishnah also contains another scenario in which Rabbi Joshua and Rabbi Eliezer debate.\nI should note that I have explained the mishnah according to the version of the mishnah which Albeck claims is correct and is found in most good manuscripts of the Mishnah. The text of other versions is slightly different and they also have a different interpretation.", + "Concerning both cases Rabbi Joshua said: This is not the kind of terumah over which I am cautioned lest I defile it, but rather to eat of it and not to defile it. Regarding the cases mentioned in mishnayot nine (the wine) and ten (the oil) Rabbi Joshua says it is not prohibited to defile them by putting them in unclean vessels. Meaning if the wine or oil is going to be completely lost, it is not prohibited to bring unclean vessels and save whatever can be saved. Rather, what he should do is try to save some of it, if he can save at least a reviit. If he can’t, he is allowed to make it unclean, rather than let it and all the hullin in the lower vat (in the case of the wine in mishnah nine) go to complete waste.", + "If one was passing from place to place with loaves of terumah in his hand and a Gentile said to him: “Give me one of these and I will make it unclean; for if not, I will defile them all,” let him defile them all, and not give him deliberately one to defile, the words of Rabbi Eliezer. In this scenario a Gentile tells a Jew to give him a loaf of terumah which he will defile and that if he doesn’t give it to him, the Gentile will defile all of the loaves. Rabbi Eliezer is strict and holds that the Jew should let the Gentile defile all of the loaves rather than give over one of the loaves himself. Again, Rabbi Eliezer does not seem concerned that the result will be that all of the terumah loaves will become inedible.", + "But Rabbi Joshua says: he should place one of them on a rock. Rabbi Joshua agrees with Rabbi Eliezer that he may not give over one of the loaves. Rather what he should do is place one on a rock and let the Gentile take it himself. This way he will hopefully prevent all of the loaves from becoming unclean while at the same time he will not give one over with his own hands." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nYesterday we learned about a Gentile who threatens to defile a Jew’s bread. In today’s mishnah, the Gentile becomes far more dangerous, threatening to defile Jewish women.", + "Similarly, if gentiles say to women, “Give us one of you that we may defile her, and if not, we will defile you all”, then let them all be defiled rather than hand over to them one soul from Israel. In this case even Rabbi Joshua, who yesterday said he could leave one loaf of bread on a rock for the Gentile to take, agrees that the women should in no way give over one of the other women to be raped. We should note that the same halakhah is true for murder. If a murderer says to a group, “Give over one person that we may kill him, or we will kill everyone” it is forbidden to give over that person. Needless to say, Jews have been through such situations, especially in the Shoah. This is probably one of the most difficult dilemmas a person could ever face (I’m reminded of “Sophie’s choice”) and I don’t think any of us could know what we would actually do in such a horrible situation. The halakhah expresses the idealistic notion that it would be impossible to choose one person to die, because everyone’s life has equal worth. Whether this is the correct, smart or sane solution in the real world, I leave for you to ponder." + ] + ], + [ + [ + "Introduction\nThis mishnah and the rest of the chapter deals with the issue of a person who planted terumah, which is prohibited. The problem with having planted terumah seeds is that the rabbis decreed that the plants that grow from the seeds will be terumah as well. This seems to have been a way of preventing a person from intentionally planting his terumah seeds.", + "He who plants terumah, if unwittingly, may overturn it, but if intentionally, he must allow it to remain. If one plants terumah accidentally, meaning he didn’t know that the seeds were terumah seeds, the mishnah is lenient and allows him to overturn the plants before they grow into terumah. This way he will be able to replant his field with regular, more lucrative plants (the price of terumah is lower than that of hullin). However, if he plants them intentionally, the mishnah penalizes him for having done so and he must allow them to remain and then he will have to treat the plants as terumah.", + "If it had already grown a third of its full size, whether he had planted it unwittingly or intentionally, he must allow it to remain. The previous section referred to a situation where the plants had barely begun to grow. If they have already grown to 1/3 of their eventual size, then even if they were planted unintentionally, they must be allowed to remain because it is forbidden to actively destroy terumah. Before they grow to 1/3 of their size they are not treated as terumah, and therefore one can overturn them.", + "But in the case of flax, even when planted intentionally he must overturn it. The exception to this rule is flax, which must be overturned when planted intentionally even when it has grown to over 1/3 of its eventual size. The reason is that the flax capsules which contain the flax seeds remain hullin. Since he will benefit from the use of these capsules, the rabbis penalized him for having planted terumah seeds in the first place. He shouldn’t receive any “hullin” benefit when what he planted was terumah. However, if he planted flax unintentionally, it is treated like all other plants and it may be overturned if it has not yet grown to 1/3 of its eventual size." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nThis mishnah begins to deal with the rules that apply to a field that has been sewn with terumah seeds. As we stated before, the plants are now considered terumah, at least by decree of the rabbis.", + "And it is subject to gleanings, the forgotten sheaf and peah. The agricultural gifts must be given from this field, just as they must be given from a normal field.", + "Poor Israelites and poor priests may glean them, but the poor Israelites must sell theirs to priests for the price of terumah and the money becomes theirs. There is now a debate concerning who may take the gleanings, the sheaves that have fallen to the ground and must be left for the poor. According to the first opinion, both poor Israelites and poor priests may collect the gleanings. Poor Israelites will have to sell the gleanings to priests because these gleanings are treated like terumah and cannot be eaten by Israelites. However, the poor Israelites can keep the money for themselves because the gleanings did belong to them, unlike terumah which one separates from one’s produce which must be given free to the priest.", + "Rabbi Tarfon says: only poor priests may glean them, lest [the others] forget and put it into their mouths. Rabbi Tarfon holds that poor Israelites cannot collect these gleanings lest they forget that they are terumah and they eat them themselves. Since poor people are not used to treating their gleanings like terumah, it would indeed seem likely that this would be a problem.", + "Rabbi Akiva said to him: if that be so, then only those who are clean should be allowed to glean. Rabbi Akiva points out that if we are concerned lest people forget that the usual rules of gleanings don’t apply here, then even poor priests shouldn’t collect. Generally, anybody can collect terumah, even people who are impure. However, if the person was impure when collecting the terumah, he would cause the terumah to become impure, thereby rendering it forbidden for consumption. So according to Rabbi Tarfon’s logic, even poor priests shouldn’t collect the gleanings lest they forget that the gleanings are terumah and they defile them. Rabbi Akiva seems to say that just as we let poor priests collect, and we are not concerned lest they be impure, so too we should let poor Israelites collect and not be concerned lest they eat the gleanings themselves." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nThis mishnah continues to discuss how to deal with a field that has been planted with terumah seeds.", + "And it is also subject to tithes and poor man’s tithe. As stated above, this field is subject to the usual agricultural offerings.", + "Both Israelites and priests that are poor may accept them, but the poor Israelites must sell that which is theirs to the priest for the price of terumah and the money belongs to them. This opinion seems to match that which we saw in section two of yesterday’s mishnah. Even a poor Israelite, or in the case of tithes, a Levite, may accept these gifts, but they must then sell them to a priest because they are terumah and a non-priest cannot eat them.", + "He who beats the grain with sticks [instead of threashing with an animal] is to be praised. Normally, threshing is done by having an animal walk on the grain. The problem is that the animal will eat the grain and the animal is not allowed to eat terumah. The only exception is a beast that belongs to a priest that beast can eat grain that was intended to be used as animal fodder. The person cannot muzzle the animal because the Torah prohibits one from muzzling an animal while it is threshing (Deuteronomy 25:4). The best solution would be to beat the grain with sticks and not use an animal at all. One who does so is to be praised.", + "But he who threshes it [by having an animal walk on it] what should he do? He must suspend baskets from the neck of the animal and place in them from the same kind, with the result that he will neither muzzle the animal nor feed it terumah. If the person still wants to thresh by the traditional method of using an animal, he should suspend baskets from the animal’s neck that contain the same type of grain that the animal is threshing. This way it won’t want to eat the grain it is threshing because it can eat the same grain even more easily from the basket. In this way he prevents both problems the animal is not muzzled and it doesn’t eat terumah." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nOur mishnah distinguishes between plants that grow from terumah and plants that grow from various other agricultural offerings.", + "What grows from terumah is terumah, but that which grows from growths [of terumah] is hullin. As we have learned, plants that grow from terumah seeds are considered to be terumah. This is because the rabbis punished the person who planted the seeds and dictated that the new plants would be terumah as well. According to the Talmud, the reason for this punishment is that the rabbis feared that a priest would keep the seeds until it was time for planting and that he would defile them by keeping them for so long. However, if these plants have seeds and then they are planted, the new plants are not considered terumah. The rabbis did not punish him in this case, because the status of the seeds was only “terumah derabanan.”", + "As for untithed produce, first tithe, after-growths from the sabbatical year, terumah grown outside the land, mixtures of hullin with terumah ( and first-fruits what grows from them is hullin. In contrast with the case, the rabbis did not rule that plants that grow from other various types of agricultural offerings would retain their status. We shall see some qualifications of this rule below in mishnah six. The rabbis seem to have been stricter with terumah because it is strictly forbidden to non-priests and it is forbidden to cause terumah to become impure.", + "What grows from dedicated produce and second tithe is hullin and it is to be redeemed [at its value] at the time when it was sown. Dedicated produce and hullin are usually redeemed for money. The money becomes holy and is either given to the Temple, in the case of dedicated produce, or used to buy food in Jerusalem, in the case of second tithe. If a person plants seeds that come from dedicated produce or second tithes, the plants that grow from them are hullin, but he must redeem the new plants according to the value of the seeds that he used to plant them. In other words, when the mishnah says that they are hullin, what it means is that the plants themselves are not treated as if they were holy and need to be redeemed, but that one must still exchange money for the value of the seeds that he used." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nOur mishnah and the following mishnah distinguish between two types of plants: those whose seeds disintegrate in the soil and those whose seeds do not.", + "If a hundred rows were planted with terumah seeds and one with hullin, they all are permitted, if they are of a kind whose seed disintegrates in the soil. If the seed of the plant disintegrates in the soil then the rabbis were especially lenient and allowed one to treat as hullin a case where 100 rows were planted with terumah and one with hullin. Meaning a mixture is permitted even if only a very small percentage is grown from hullin. This leniency is possible because the plants that grow from terumah seeds are not terumah “deoraita” from Torah law.", + "But if they are of a kind whose seed does not disintegrate in the soil, then even if there be a hundred [rows] of hullin and one of terumah, they all are prohibited. This is the flipside to the previous section. If it is a type of plant whose seed does not disintegrate, then even if there are one hundred rows of hullin and one of terumah, they all must be treated as terumah. This is because the rule that terumah is nullified in a 100-1 ratio does not apply when the terumah is still attached to the ground." + ], + [ + "Introduction This mishnah continues to deal with the difference between plants whose seeds disintegrate in the soil and plants whose seeds do not.", + "As for untithed produce, what grows from it is permissible if of a kind whose seed disintegrates [in the soil]. If one plants seeds that come from untithed produce, and it is a type of plant whose seed disintegrates in the soil, then the plant that grows from the seeds is “permitted.” What this in actuality means is that this plant is treated like all other plants as far as the issue of tithing. One can eat from the fruit before it becomes liable for tithes, which usually occurs when one finishes processing the grain by making it into a pile. We shall discuss in great detail when produce becomes liable for tithes in tractate Maasrot.", + "But if of a kind whose seed does not disintegrate, then even what grows from plants which grew out of it are forbidden. However, if the seed does not disintegrate in the soil then it must be treated like untithed produce even before the new fruit would normally become liable for tithes. Because the seed was liable for being tithed before it was planted, and the seed was still there, one will in all cases have to tithe this produce before it is eaten, even if it is eaten out in the field, where one can usually eat food without tithing it. The mishnah is quite strict on this issue and rules that this rule applies not only to the plants that grow from the original seeds, but the next generation of plants as well. It seems that the mishnah can be extra strict in this case because the result of their being untithed is not so drastic all he has to do is tithe them a bit earlier than normal.", + "Which is the kind whose seed does not disintegrate? Like luf, garlic and onions. Rabbi Judah says: garlic is like barley. The type of produce whose seed does not disintegrate in the soil seems to be bulbous vegetables, such as luf (arum, a type of onion), onions and garlic. Grain is a type of produce whose seed does disintegrate in the soil. Rabbi Judah holds that garlic is like barley and that its seed does disintegrate in the soil." + ], + [ + "He who weeds allium plants (whose seeds do not for a Gentile, even though the produce is untithed he eat from them in a casual fashion. Allium are plants whose seed remains in the soil. The mishnah discusses a situation where a Jew is working in a field owned by a Gentile but they are in the land of Israel. The plants that grow in such a field must be tithed before a Jew eats them. If the Jew had planted this field with untithed allium plants, he would not be allowed to eat them from even in a casual fashion until he had tithed them. However, since the Jew is working in the Gentile’s field and the Gentile planted them, the rabbis were lenient and allowed him to eat from them in a casual fashion before he had tithed them.", + "Saplings of terumah which had become unclean and were re-planted, become clean from their uncleanness. Saplings are parts of plants that are cut off and then replanted elsewhere to make them grow stronger. In this case the saplings were cut off and then became impure. By planting them again they lose their impurity because plants attached to the ground cannot be impure.", + "But they must not be eaten until the edible part [of the stalk] has been lopped off. Rabbi Judah says: he must [before eating] lop off a second time that which grew on the edible part. Nevertheless, when they replant them they must lop off the edible part of the plant because that part should not be eaten at all, even by priests. The rabbis were strict with regard to the edible parts and continued to treat them as impure terumah which cannot be eaten. The new fruit that grows back will be pure and can be eaten by priests. Rabbi Judah rules more stringently and says that he must lop off twice before he can eat." + ] + ], + [ + [ + "Introduction\nThis chapter deals with terumah that has been placed together in a dish with hullin after it has been cooked, and with whether the whole mixture has to be treated like terumah.", + "An onion [of terumah] was placed into lentils:
If the onion was whole, it is permissible; In this mishnah one of the two characters, the onion or the lentils, is terumah and the other is hullin. If the onion is whole it won’t impart its taste to the lentils, nor will the lentils impart their taste to the onion. Lentils don’t have a lot of taste nor do they easily take on the taste of things cooked with them. Since one cannot taste the other both retain their former status and whichever one was hullin is still permitted to the non-priest.", + "But if [the onion] had been cut up, [it is forbidden if it] imparts a flavor. If the onion had been cut up then it will impart its taste to the lentils if there is sufficient quantity of onion, and if there is sufficient quantity of lentils, they will impart their taste to the cut-up onion. Therefore, if the terumah food imparts its taste to the non-terumah food, the non-terumah food must be treated like terumah and it can be eaten only by a priest. The priest should taste the non-terumah food and if it has the taste of the terumah food, then only the priest can keep eating it.", + "In the case of other dishes, whether the onion is whole or cut up [it is forbidden] if it imparts a flavor. The previous was true with regard to lentils which don’t have a strong taste and are not so susceptible to the taste of the onion. When it comes to other dishes, it doesn’t matter whether the onion was cut up or not, the dish is prohibited if the onion can be tasted.", + "Rabbi Judah permits it in the case of mashed fish, because it is used only to remove the unpleasant flavor. Rabbi Judah says that if a terumah onion was put into a mixture of mashed up fish, a mixture which has a bad smell, the fish remain permitted to a non-priest because they were put there not to give taste but to get rid of the bad smell." + ], + [ + "If an apple [of terumah] was chopped and placed into dough [of hullin] so that it leavened it, [the dough] is forbidden. If someone chops up an apple and puts it into dough to use the sugars in the apple as a leavening agent, the dough must be treated like terumah because the apple caused the leavening.", + "If barley [of terumah] fell into a cistern of water, though [the barley] stinks up the water, the water is permissible. In this case terumah barley falls into a cistern and rots, thereby causing the water to stink up. The water is permitted to non-priests even though it has the taste of terumah because the taste that it imparts is not a desirable taste. Something that leaves a bad taste does not cause the other food to become prohibited." + ], + [ + "One who removes warm bread from an oven and places it over an open barrel of terumah wine:
Rabbi Meir says: it is forbidden. Rabbi Meir says that the warm bread absorbs enough taste from the wine such that the bread must be treated as terumah.", + "Rabbi Judah permits it. Rabbi Judah holds that the bread does not absorb the taste of the wine and therefore it retains its status as hullin.", + "Rabbi Yose permits the bread of wheat but not of barley, because barley absorbs. Rabbi Yose distinguishes between barley bread, which is absorbent, and wheat bread which is not. I highly encourage people to perform this taste test at home, perhaps with some guests. Just don’t use terumah wine!" + ], + [ + "Introduction\nOur mishnah teaches that hullin that absorbs the smell of something that was terumah is still permitted to non-priests.", + "If an oven was heated with cumin of terumah and bread was baked in it, the bread is permitted, for there is no taste of cumin, just the smell of cumin. If someone uses sticks of terumah cumin as kindling for his oven the bread cooked in the oven does not take on the status of terumah because the cumin gives off a smell but not a taste. The fact that the bread smells like terumah does not make it prohibited to non-priests because non-priests can smell terumah, they just can’t eat it." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nBoth the seeds and the stalk of fenugreek can impart flavor to something they are mixed in with. This mishnah deels with fenugreek which falls into a vat of wine.", + "Fenugreek which fell into a vat of wine:
If it was terumah or second tithe and there is in the seed alone without the stalk sufficient to impart a flavor [it is forbidden]. If the fenugreek which falls into the wine is of terumah or second tithe, then there needs to be enough fenugreek seed to impart flavor to the wine to make it prohibited. In this case we ignore the stalk. This is because the stalk of the fenugreek is not considered to be “kadosh” as far as terumah and second tithe are concerned only the seed is considered to be kadosh. Therefore, the stalk can’t cause the wine to be prohibited.", + "But if it was seventh year produce or mixed seeds in vineyards, or dedicated produce, [it is forbidden] if in both seed and stalk there is sufficient to impart a flavor. However, when it comes to fenugreek that grew in the seventh year, or grew in a vineyard, or was dedicated to the Temple, in all of these cases the laws apply to the stalks the same way that they apply to the seeds. Therefore, if the stalks and seeds together impart a taste, then the wine takes on the laws of the fenugreek. If the fenugreek was seventh year produce, then the wine must be treated as seventh year wine and it can be drunk only while grapes are found in the field. If the fenugreek is from mixed seeds, then the wine is prohibited. If it was dedicated to the Temple, then the wine too must be given to the Temple." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nThe mishnah continues to deal with laws concerning fenugreek.", + "If one had bunches of fenugreek of mixed seeds of the vineyard, they must be burned. Seeds that grew in a vineyard must be burned. Since this rule applies to the stalks as well as the seeds, all of the fenugreek must be burned.", + "If he had bunches of fenugreek of untithed produce, he must beat them and calculate the amount of seed within them and set aside [terumah] from the seed, but he need not separate terumah from the stalks. The stalks of the fenugreek are not obligated in tithes or in terumah. So if he has bunches of fenugreek what he should do is beat them and thereby separate the seeds and then estimate how much he has to give to terumah from the seeds. He need not take the stalks into account.", + "But if he did set aside [the terumah from the stalks before he beat the bunches] he must not say: “I will beat out [the seed] and take the stalks and give only the seed” but he must give the stalks together with the seed. If he declared the terumah before he beat out the seed, he can’t go back and say that only the seeds will count for terumah. Once he has declared that there is terumah in the stalks as well as the seeds, he will need to separate terumah from the stalks together with the seed." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nThis mishnah discusses hullin olives that were pickled together with terumah olives.", + "Olives of hullin which were pickled together with olives of terumah, whether it was a case where crushed [olives] of hullin [which were pickled together] with crushed [olives] of terumah, or crushed [olives] of hullin with whole [olives] of terumah, or with juice of terumah, they are forbidden. If the hullin olives were crushed and then put in a mixture where there was any form of terumah olives, be they crushed or whole, or even if it is just juice that came from already pickled terumah olives, they must be treated like terumah and would be prohibited to non-priests. Since the hullin olives were crushed, they are susceptible to the taste of that which they are pickled with.", + "But if whole [olives] of hullin were pickled with crushed [olives] of terumah, they are permitted. However, if the hullin olives are whole, then they are not susceptible to the taste and they are permitted, even if they were pickled with crushed terumah olives. In other words, whole olives may give off taste (see previous section), but whole olives are not susceptible to taste, at least according to our mishnah." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nThis mishnah deals with brine that comes from a barrel in which unclean fish were mixed with clean fish.", + "Unclean fish which was pickled with clean fish:
If the jug contains two seahs and the unclean fish weighs ten zuz in Judean measure, which is five selas in Galilean measure, the brine is forbidden. We have to pay careful attention to the measurements being mentioned here. The jug contains two seahs, which is equivalent to 48 logs. There are ten zuz of unclean fish in Judean measure which is equivalent to five selas in Galilean measure, which equals twenty zuz Judean zuz are twice the size of Galilean zuz. In two seahs there are 9,600 Judean zuz (each log has 200 zuz). So if 1/960 of the mixture’s volume is unclean fish, the brine is prohibited.", + "Rabbi Judah says: it needs be a quarter [of a log] in two seahs. One quarter of a log is equivalent to 50 zuz. So if there are 50/9600 (=1/192) parts unclean fish, Rabbi Judah holds that all of the brine is forbidden.", + "Rabbi Yose says: one-sixteenth of it. Rabbi Yose says that the unclean fish must be 1/16 of the whole jug before the brine becomes forbidden. This means that unless there are three logs of unclean fish (600 zuz), the brine is still permitted. His is by far the most lenient opinion. The first opinion forbade at ten zuz, and Rabbi Judah at fifty zuz." + ], + [ + "Introduction Leviticus 11:22 states that some locusts can be eaten, but according to the rabbis there are other types of locusts that may not be eaten. In the time of the Mishnah they knew how to tell the difference between the kosher and the non-kosher locusts, but most Jews today do not eat locusts. Perhaps this is cultural bias, but I don’t really feel like I’m missing out.", + "If unclean locusts were pickled together with clean ones, they do not make the brine forbidden. The locusts will not pick up the taste of the other locusts that they are pickled with. Therefore, the clean ones remain permitted. Furthermore, the brine itself is permitted because it does not pick up the taste of the unclean locusts.", + "Rabbi Zadok testified that the brine of unclean locusts is clean. According to Rabbi Zadok even the brine is permitted." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nThis mishnah deals with vegetables that are pickled together.", + "[Vegetables] pickled together are permitted, except [when pickled] with allium (onions, garlic,. When vegetables of terumah are pickled together with vegetables of hullin the hullin vegetables do not take on the taste of the terumah vegetables and they remain permitted to non-priests. The exception to this rule is allium vegetables, which includes onions, garlic and leeks. These do impart their taste to other vegetables", + "Allim of hullin [pickled] with allium of terumah, or other vegetables of hullin with leeks of terumah are forbidden. Since terumah onions, garlic or leeks will impart their taste to whatever they are pickled with, the other vegetables must be treated like terumah.", + "But allium of hullin with vegetables of terumah are permitted. Garlic, onions and leeks impart their flavor to other vegetables, but they do not take on the flavor of other vegetables. Therefore, if they are hullin and the other vegetables are terumah, they remain hullin." + ], + [ + "Rabbi Yose says: Anything stewed with [terumah] beets becomes forbidden, because they impart a flavor. Stewing refers to cooking vegetables or meat until they are very soft. Rabbi Yose says that hullin vegetables stewed together with terumah vegetables remain permitted, with the exception of terumah beets which do impart a flavor to that which they are stewed with.", + "Rabbi Shimon says: cabbage from a field artificially irrigated [that is stewed] with [terumah] cabbage from a field watered by rain, is forbidden because it absorbs. According to Rabbi Shimon, cabbage that grows in a field that is artificially irrigated is more susceptible to outside flavor than cabbage grown in a field watered by rain. Hence, if the latter is terumah cabbage and it is stewed with the former, all of the cabbage must be treated like terumah.", + "Rabbi Akiba says: all things cooked together are permitted, except those with meat. Rabbi Akiba says that anything cooked (not stewed) together is permitted, except for forbidden meat. If, for instance, pork was placed in a pot of beef, the beef would absorb the taste of the pork and it would become prohibited.", + "Rabbi Yohanan ben Nuri says: liver renders other things forbidden, but does not become forbidden, because it gives off [flavor] but does not absorb. Rabbi Yohanan ben Nuri says that liver gives off flavor and therefore if it is cooked with other meat it renders it prohibited, but it itself does not absorb flavor. Hence if the liver is permitted and the other meat is prohibited, the liver remains permitted. This is because the taste of liver is very strong (never developed a taste for it myself)." + ], + [ + "If an egg is boiled with forbidden spices even its yolk is forbidden, because it absorbs. Even the yoke of an egg will take on the taste of the terumah spices with which it is cooked. The whole egg becomes prohibited to non-priests.", + "The water in which terumah has been stewed or pickled is forbidden to non-priests. The water in which terumah is stewed or pickled takes on the taste of the terumah vegetables and it too becomes prohibited to non-priests." + ] + ], + [ + [ + "Introduction\nOur mishnah teaches that a priest shouldn’t perform actions with terumah that causes it to be ruined.", + "One must not put a cake of pressed [terumah] figs or dried [terumah] figs into fish-brine, since it spoils them. Occasionally they would put various types of figs into fish-brine in order to make the brine taste better. This, however, would cause the figs to be ruined, and hence one shouldn’t do so with terumah figs.", + "But one may place [terumah] wine into fish brine. However, one may put terumah wine into the brine because the wine will be eaten along with the brine so it is not ruined.", + "One must not perfume the oil, One shouldn’t use terumah oil for making perfumes for two reasons. First of all, the oil stops being fit for eating. The second is that the spices will soak up the terumah oil and they will go to waste.", + "But one may put honey and pepper into wine. It is permitted to put honey and pepper into wine because they will still be eaten.", + "One may not boil terumah wine, because it decreases it. Rabbi Judah permits this, because it improves it. One shouldn’t boil terumah wine because boiling it decreases its volume. Rabbi Judah disagrees and holds that although this decreases the volume of the wine, it improves the quality." + ], + [ + "[A non-priest drank] honey of dates, wine of apples, vinegar from winter grapes, and all other kinds of fruit juice of terumah: Rabbi Eliezer makes him liable to repay their value and the fifth; But Rabbi Joshua exempts from the fifth.
Rabbi Eliezer declares [these] susceptible to uncleanness as liquids.
Rabbi Joshua says: the sages have not enumerated seven liquids as those that count spices, but rather they stated: seven liquids make things susceptible to uncleaness, whereas all other liquids do not make susceptible.
This mishnah deals with the halakhic status of various types of fruit juices made from terumah.
Section one: One should not use terumah to make these liquids, because these are not the usual way these fruits are eaten, and therefore it diminishes their importance. This is different from making wine from grapes or oil from olives, for that is what is usually done with grapes and olives, and in no way diminishes their value.
Rabbi Eliezer says that if a non-priest drinks one of these liquids, he is liable to pay back the value and the added fifth, as one always is when one eats terumah.
Rabbi Joshua exempts the non-priest from paying the added fifth because these liquids do not have the same rule that governs the fruits from which they came. Nevertheless, he has to pay back the value because he ate something that didn’t actually belong to him.
Section two: The mishnah now brings a related debate concerning fruit juices, namely whether they can make another food item susceptible to receiving uncleanness. Food cannot become impure unless it has come into contact with a liquid. The question is whether fruit juice counts as a liquid. As we saw in section one, Rabbi Eliezer treats fruit juice the same way he would treat wine or oil a non-priest who drinks them is liable to repay the value and the added fifth. So too here, food that comes into contact with one of these is susceptible to impurity.
Rabbi Joshua disagrees and holds that only the seven liquids listed by the rabbis, (dew, water, wine, oil, blood, milk, and bee honey) make foods susceptible to impurity. When the rabbis listed these liquids in Mishnah Makshirim (which we’ll get to eventually) they weren’t listing things in the way a spice makers list things, which was not accurate. Rather, their list was accurate and since fruit juice is not on the list, it can’t be put there." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nOur mishnah teaches several key halakhic differences between wine and oil, and the products that come from other fruits, such as dates and apples.", + "One must not make dates into honey, apples into wine, winter-grapes into vinegar, or change any other kind of fruit that is terumah or second tithe from their natural state, except olives and grapes. As we learned in yesterday’s mishnah, it is forbidden to change the state of fruit which is terumah or second tithe, with the exception of grapes and olives, which can be made into wine and oil. Terumah and second tithe are called “holy” and changing them into juice was considered a reduction in their value. Hence it was prohibited. Wine and oil do not reduce the value of grapes and olives, hence it was permitted.", + "One does not receive forty lashes on account of orlah except with that which comes from olives and grapes. It is forbidden to eat the fruit of a tree for the first three years of its existence, and one who does so has transgressed a negative commandment. However, this only refers to eating the fruit. When it comes to drinking liquids that are derived from the fruit, he is only liable to receive forty lashes (the penalty for the transgression of a negative commandment) if he drinks wine or olive oil. While other juices derived from orlah are prohibited, one who drinks them has not transgressed the biblical prohibition of orlah.", + "Liquids cannot be brought as first fruits, except with that which comes from olives and grapes. Only wine and olive oil can be brought as first fruits in place of grapes and olives. When it comes to other fruits, the fruit itself must be brought, and not the juice.", + "And no fruit juice is susceptible to uncleanness as liquids except with that which comes from olives and grapes. This was taught above at the end of mishnah two the only liquids derived from fruit that make food susceptible to impurities are wine and oil. Other fruit juices do not.", + "And nothing [that is derived from fruit] can be offered on the altar except with that which comes from olives and grapes. The only two “fruit-derivatives” that can be offered on the altar in the Temple are wine and oil, which were a regular part of the Temple service, oil accompanying grain offerings and wine for libations. Other fruit juices are never offered in the Temple." + ], + [ + "The stems of fresh figs and dried figs, klisim and carobs of terumah are forbidden to non-priests. The mishnah lists either parts of fruits or types of fruits that priests generally don’t care about, and yet still count as terumah and are therefore prohibited to non-priests. The stems of fresh and dry figs are not really food, but since sometimes a person might eat them, they count as terumah. Klisim are a type of fruit that comes from a large bush. Albeck identifies klisim as “prosopis stephaniana,” which you are welcome to google. According to Albeck they taste like carob. A priest is generally not going to bother preserving these foods in order to eat them, but since he might occasionally do so, they are prohibited to non-priests." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nThis mishnah deals with the status of the parts of produce that are not generally eaten, but that sometimes might be. There are two related questions here: 1) can non-priests eat these parts? 2) Can the priest throw these parts away, without concern for the prohibitions of throwing away terumah? Basically, the issue is whether the laws of terumah apply to these parts.", + "Seeds of terumah [fruit]: When he gathers them in, they are prohibited. But if he throws them away, they are permitted. If a priest gathers in seeds from terumah fruit in order to eat them, then they have to be treated as terumah and they are forbidden to non-priests. However, if he throws them away, thereby revealing that he doesn’t care about them, then they are not considered terumah and they may be eaten by a non-priest.", + "Similarly, the bones of holy things: When he gathers them in, they are prohibited. But if he throws them away, they are permitted. The same rules apply to the bones of animals offered as sacrifices. If the priest eating them gathers them in, perhaps to suck out the marrow, then the laws of sacrifices apply to them and they may not be eaten by a non-priest. However, if the priest throws them away, then they may be eaten by anyone.", + "Coarse bran is permitted. Coarse bran is the part of the kernel of grain that is sifted out in the first sifting when making flour (I guess they didn’t know how healthy this stuff is now we pay quite a bit for it!). Since it was usually not eaten, the laws of terumah do not apply to it.", + "Fine bran of new wheat is forbidden, and old wheat permitted. New wheat is harder to grind. Therefore, when one grinds it, there will be a lot of flour mixed up with the bran and it is more likely to get eaten. Hence the rules of terumah apply. In contrast, with the old wheat it is easier to separate the fine bran from the flour and usually this fine bran won’t get eaten. It is accordingly permitted to non-priests.", + "One may act with regard to terumah as one does with hullin. Although it is not permitted to throw away terumah because it is holy, one can treat terumah the same way that one treats the same produce when it is hullin. Parts of produce that one customarily throws away can still be thrown away when the produce is terumah, without concern that this is letting terumah go to waste.", + "One who sifts a kav or two [of fine flour] from a seah of wheat, must not leave the rest to ruin, but rather he should put it in a hidden place. If one sifts a kav (1/6 of a seah) from a seah of wheat in order to make finely sifted flour, he can’t just leave the rest to go to waste because it is still fit as food. What he should do is put it in a safe place so that it does not get ruined." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nThis mishnah deals with a person who is cleaning out a storehouse that had been used to store terumah wheat.", + "If a store-chamber was cleared of terumah wheat, they do not need to force him to sit down and collect each grain, but rather he may sweep it all up in his usual manner and then deposit hullin in it. When one cleans out a storehouse used to store terumah grains he need not make sure that each and every grain is cleaned out of the storehouse. It is sufficient to give it its usual sweeping and then he can put hullin grain in there. If there are some grains of terumah left in there, he need not be concerned about them." + ], + [ + "Similarly, if a jar of oil is upset, they do not need to force him to sit down and scoop it up [with his fingers], but he may deal with it as he would in a case of hullin.
Yesterday we learned that when one is cleaning out a storehouse of terumah wheat, one can clean it out in a normal fashion and he need not be worried about cleaning out every last grain of terumah. In today’s mishnah we learn that the same halakhah is true when one comes to clean up a spill of terumah oil." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nThis mishnah continues to deal with someone clearing out a container that had been used to store terumah and which he now wants to use to store hullin, a similar topic to that in the previous two mishnayot.", + "One who pours from jar to jar and three drops drip, he may place in it hullin. If one is pouring out a jug of wine that had been used to store terumah wine or oil into a different jug, and after he is finished pouring he turns the jug upside down and three last drops come out, then he has sufficiently emptied out the jug and he may now use it to store hullin wine or oil. The fact that three separate drops come out, one at a time, is a sign that he has taken out enough of the liquid and he need not be concerned with that which is left.", + "But if he inclined the jar [on its side] in order to drain it, it is terumah. However, if after the three drops come out of the jar, he tilts the jar on the side in order to drain out the remaining dregs that had been absorbed by the sides of jug, this wine or oil counts as terumah. In other words, although he is allowed to put hullin wine or oil into this jug and not worry that the wine or oil left inside will be considered terumah, before he does so, any wine or oil that he does succeed in getting out is still considered terumah.", + "How much terumat maaser of demai must there be for him to take it to the priest? One eighth of an eighth [of a log]. Terumat maaser is the terumah that the Levite gives from the tithes he receives. Demai is doubtfully tithed produce. Our mishnah is discussing someone who separates tithes from demai. The tithes do not actually have to be given to the Levite (because the produce might already have been tithed), but the terumat maaser must be given to the priest (because terumah is prohibited to non-priests, whereas tithe is not). The question our mishnah asks is how much terumat maaser of demai has to be gathered together before it must be put aside to be given to the priest. The answer the mishnah gives is is one eighth of one eighth of a log, 1/64 of a log. If he has less than this amount he can simply throw it away, although he cannot eat it. If this had been terumah taken from regular tithes, and not from demai, he would have had to bring even the smallest amount to the priest, because such terumah is certainly forbidden to non-priests. In contrast, terumah taken from demai is only possibly forbidden to non-priests, and therefore the halakhah is more lenient. The reason that this halakhah is here is that it again mentions a case in which one must not be concerned about a small amount that may be terumah." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nOur mishnah deals with “vetches” a plant that is fit for human consumption when cooked, but that is usually used as animal fodder. Since it is fit for human consumption, the laws of terumah do apply, but since it is usually given to animals, terumah vetches may be fed to animals.", + "Vetches of terumah may be given to cattle, to wild beasts or fowls. As stated in the introduction, since vetches are normally given to animals, terumah vetches may also be given to animals. In contrast, food that is normally human food, for instance wheat, cannot be given to animals when it is terumah.", + "If an Israelite hired a cow from a priest, he may give it vetches of terumah to eat. But if a priest hired a cow from an Israelite, even though the responsibility of feeding it is his, he must not feed it with vetches of terumah. Animals owned by priests may be given terumah, whereas animals owned by Israelites may not. When an Israelite hires (rents) a cow from a priest, the cow is still considered to be owned by the priest, and therefore the Israelite may give it vetches of terumah to eat. The same holds true in the other direction when a priest hires a cow from an Israelite, he may not give it terumah. The mishnah teaches that renting an animal does not establish ownership over it such that its terumah rules would follow the rules governing the renter.", + "If an Israelite undertakes the care of a cow from a priest, he must not feed it with vetches of terumah. But if a priest undertakes the care of a cow from an Israelite, he may feed it on vetches of terumah. This section describes a business deal in which one person receives a cow from another person in order to raise the cow and eventually receive a share of the profits. He is like a sharecropper, but with an animal and not land. In this case, unlike the case of the renter, the receiver is considered the owner of the cow and the cow’s terumah rules follow those of the owner. Thus if the receiver was an Israelite, he may not feed the cow terumah, but if the priest was the receiver he may feed the cow terumah." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nWhen terumah oil becomes impure it must be burnt. The priest may benefit from the burning of the oil, but a non-priest generally cannot, just as he cannot benefit from eating teruamh. Our mishnah teaches that in certain circumstances, anyone can benefit from the burning of the terumah oil.", + "One may burn terumah oil that has to be burnt in synagogues, houses of study, dark alleys, and for sick people with permission of the priest. This section lists four situations in which one may burn terumah oil, as long as the priest who owns the terumah permits it. According to the Yerushalmi, the permission of the priest is only necessary for burning the oil for the sick. In the three cases of public need (the synagogue, the house of study and the dark alley) they may burn the oil even without permission from the priest.", + "If the daughter of an Israelite married to a priest regularly goes to her father's house, her father may burn [such oil] with her permission. The daughter of an Israelite who is married to a priest is allowed to eat and use terumah. Here the mishnah is lenient and allows her father, an Israelite, to burn terumah oil for her because she regularly comes to his house. Note that he can burn it even when she is not there, under the assumption that she might come by at any time.", + "One may also burn [such oil] in a house of celebration but not in a house of mourning, the words of Rabbi Judah. Rabbi Yose says: in the house of mourning, but not in a house of celebration. Rabbi Meir forbids it in both places. But Rabbi Shimon permits it in both places. There are now four different opinions as to whether it is permitted to burn terumah oil in a house of celebration (a wedding) or in a house of mourning. Every combination is represented in this mishnah, so we will just explain what grounds there are to permit burning in either situation. The reason that Rabbi Judah and Rabbi Shimon allow burning it in a house of celebration is that they wear clean clothes and they won’t come to touch the oil, which would be a problem because that oil would not be burned. The reason to prohibit is that because of their joy they may forget that it is terumah oil and they will come to use it. The reason that Rabbi Yose and Rabbi Shimon allow it in a house of mourning is that because one is sad, one won’t come to use the terumah oil. The reason to prohibit is that since their clothes are not necessarily clean, they will come to touch the oil. Congratulations! We have finished Terumot! It is a tradition at this point to thank God for helping us finish learning the tractate and to commit ourselves to going back and relearning it, so that we may not forget it and so that its lessons will stay with us for all of our lives. Tomorrow we begin Tractate Maasrot." + ] + ] + ] + }, + "schema": { + "heTitle": "ביאור אנגלי על משנה תרומות", + "enTitle": "English Explanation of Mishnah Terumot", + "key": "English Explanation of Mishnah Terumot", + "nodes": [ + { + "heTitle": "הקדמה", + "enTitle": "Introduction" + }, + { + "heTitle": "", + "enTitle": "" + } + ] + } +} \ No newline at end of file