Heave Offerings

According to Scriptural Law, [the obligation to separate] the terumot and the tithes applies only in Eretz Yisrael. [It applies] whether the Temple is standing or not. The prophets ordained that these obligations should be observed in Babylon as well, because it is adjacent to Eretz Yisrael and the majority of the Jewish people journey to and from there. The Sages of the early generations ordained that they also be observed in the lands of Egypt and the lands of Ammon and Moab, because they are on the peripheries of Eretz Yisrael.

Whenever Eretz Yisrael is mentioned, the intent is the lands conquered by the King of Israel or a prophet with the consent of the entire Jewish people. This is called "a conquest of the community." If, however, an individual Jew, a family, or a tribe go and conquer a place for themselves - even in the land given to Abraham - it is not considered as Eretz Yisrael in the sense that one is obligated to observe all the mitzvot there. For this reason, Joshua and his court divided the entire Land of Israel into tribal portions even though it was not conquered [entirely] at that time. In this way, when every tribe would ascend and conquer its portion, it would not be considered as merely an individual conquest.

The lands which [King] David conquered outside of the Land of Canaan, e.g., Aram Naharaim, Aram Tzovah, Achlab, and the like, even though he was a King of Israel and he was acting with the consent of the High Court, is not considered as the Land of Israel with regard to all matters, nor is it like the Diaspora, i.e., Babylonia and Egypt with regard to all matters. Instead, it was removed from the category of the Diaspora, but did not enter the category of Eretz Yisrael. Why was its level considered lower than that of Eretz Yisrael? Because David conquered them before he conquered all of Eretz Yisrael. Instead, there were still members of the seven nations there. If, however, he had conquered Eretz Yisrael entirely, in all of its boundaries, and afterwards conquered other lands, his entire conquest would have been equivalent to Eretz Yisrael with regard to all matters. The lands which [King] David conquered are called Syria.

There are dimensions of [the laws that apply to] Syria that resemble [the laws that apply in] Eretz Yisrael and there are dimensions of [its laws] that resemble [those which apply] in the Diaspora. A person who purchases landed property [in Syria] is comparable to one who purchases [land] in Eretz Yisrael with regard to terumot, tithes, and the Sabbatical year. All [the laws that apply] in Syria are of Rabbinic origin.

All of the lands that [the Jews] who ascended from Egypt took possession of were sanctified in the first consecration [of the land]. When they were exiled, that sanctity was nullified. [The rationale is that] the initial consecration came about because of the conquest. [Hence,] its consecration was effective for the time [it was under their rule], but not for all time. When, by contrast, the descendants of the exiles ascended [from Babylon] and took possession of a portion of the land, they consecrated it a second time. [This consecration] is perpetuated forever, for that time and for all time. [The Sages] left those places that had been settled by [the Jews who] ascended from Egypt, but were not settled by those who ascended from Babylon in their previous [halachic status] and did not exempt them from [the obligations of] terumah and tithes so that the poor could rely upon them in the Sabbatical year. Our holy teacher released Beit Shan from those places which [the Jews] who ascended from Babylon did not take hold of. He decided that Ashkelon should be exempted from the tithes.

Thus the entire earth is divided into three categories in relation to those mitzvot involving the land: Eretz Yisrael, Syria, and the Diaspora. Eretz Yisrael itself is divided into two categories: a) those portions settled by the Jews who ascended from Babylonia, and b) those portions that were settled only by the Jews who ascended from Egypt. The Diaspora is divided into two categories: a) Egypt, Babylon, Ammon, and Moab in which the mitzvot are observed according to the decrees of the sages and the prophets and the other lands in which [the obligations of] the terumot and the tithes are not observed.

What are [the boundaries of] the land settled by the Jews who ascended from Egypt? From Rekem which is in the east of Eretz Yisrael until the Mediterranean Sea. From Ashkelon which is in the south of Eretz Yisrael until Acre which is in the north. As one proceeds from Acre to Kziv, the area to one's right, on the east, can generally be assumed to be of the Diaspora - it is impure as is the lands of the nations and is exempt from [the mitzvot of] the tithes and the Sabbatical year - unless it is known that it was part of Eretz Yisrael. The area to one's left, to the west, can generally be assumed to be part of Eretz Yisrael - it is pure [from the impurity associated with] the lands of the nations and is obligated with regard to [mitzvot of] the tithes and the Sabbatical year - unless it is known to be part of the Diaspora. With regard to the entire area that slopes downward from the Samnum Mountains: The inner [portion] is Eretz Yisrael, the portion outside the Samnum Mountains is the Diaspora. With regard to the islands in the sea, we consider their [status dependent] on an [imaginary] line extended from the Samnum Mountains until the River of Egypt. Those within this line are part of Eretz Yisrael. Those outside this line are part of the Diaspora. This is a depiction of the matter.

Which area did the Jews who ascended from Babylonia settle in? [The area] from Kziv inward toward the east. They did not, however, take possession of the area from Kziv outward until Amana which is Samnum until the river, i.e., the River of Egypt. And they did not take possession of Kziv itself.

What constitutes Syria? From Eretz Yisrael and below parallel to Aram Naharaim and Aram Tzovah, the entire region of the Euphrates until Babylonia, e.g., Damascus, Achalev, Charan, Minbag, and the like until Shinar and Tzahar. These are considered like Syria. Acre, by contrast, is considered part of the Diaspora, like Ashkelon. These are the boundaries of Eretz Yisrael.

When a gentile purchases land in Eretz Yisrael, he does not cause it to be absolved from [the observance of] the mitzvot. Instead, its holiness is still intact. Therefore, if a Jew purchases this land from [the gentile], it is not considered as a private conquest. Instead, he should separate the terumot and the tithes and bring the first fruits. All these [obligations] are Scriptural in origin, as if it was never sold to a gentile. When a gentile acquires land in Syria, his acquisition has the power to absolve [the land] from the obligations of tithes and the Sabbatical year, as will be explained.

[The following laws apply with regard to] produce belonging to a gentile that grew on land that he purchased in Eretz Yisrael. If all the work involving the produce was completed in the possession of a gentile and the gentile straightened the edges of the grain heap, they are exempt, because [the verse mentioning the obligation to separate terumah, Deuteronomy 18:4] mentions "your grain," [thus excluding] the grain of a gentile. If a Jew purchases [the produce] after it was harvested, but before the tasks involved with it were completed and they were completed by a Jew, all [of the agricultural obligations apply with regard to the produce] according to Scriptural Law. He must separate the great terumah and give it to a priest and [separate] the terumat ma'aser and sell it to a priest. The first tithe belongs to him, because he can tell a Levite with regard to the tithes and a priest with regard to the terumat ma'aser: "I am coming in the stead of a person from which you could not have collected anything." Why do we say that he should not give the terumat ma'aser to a priest as [he gives him] the great terumah? Because with regard to terumat ma'aser, it is written: "When you take the tithes from the children of Israel...." [Implied is that from] untithed produce that you purchase from a Jew, you should separate terumat ma'aser and give it to a priest, but from untithed produce that you purchase from a gentile, you need not give the priest the terumat ma'aser you separate from it. Instead, you sell it to the priest and take the money.

[The following laws apply if] a gentile sold his produce to a Jew while it was connected to the earth. If [he sold it] before it developed to a stage when he is obligated to separate tithes and the work [associated with it] was completed while it was owned by the Jew, [the Jew] is responsible for all of the agricultural obligations and should give the terumot and the tithes to their [appropriate] owners. If [the gentile] sold [the produce] after it developed to a stage when he is obligated to separate tithes, he should separate terumat ma'aser and the tithes and give them to their [appropriate] owners according to the [acceptable] reckoning. What is implied? If he purchased grain that had been sown from a gentile after it reached a third of its growth and the work associated with its completion was performed while it was in the possession of a Jew, he should separate the terumot and the tithes, as we explained. He should give two thirds of the tithes to a Levite. [With regard to the] terumat ma'aser, he should give two thirds to the priest and sell him one third.

[The following laws apply if] a Jew sold his produce to a gentile before it developed to a stage when he is obligated to separate tithes and the work [associated with it] was completed by the gentiles, it is exempt from the terumot and the tithes. If [he purchased it] after it developed to a stage when the tithes are obligated to be separated, even if the gentile completed the work associated with it, all of the agricultural obligations are incumbent upon it according to Rabbinic decree. Similarly, if a gentile completed [the work associated with] produce belonging to a Jew, since the work associated with them was completed by a gentile, the obligation for terumot and tithes is incumbent upon them, but it is only Rabbinic in origin.

If a gentile sold produce that was still connected to the earth after it reached the stage when the tithes are obligated to be separated and [another] gentile straightened the edges of the grain heap in the possession of a Jew, [the produce] is not obligated in the terumot or the tithes. Since the produce reached the stage when the tithes are obligated to be separated in the possession of a gentile and a gentile straightened the edges of the grain heap, [the fact] the produce belongs to a Jew [is not significant].

When a person purchases a field in Syria, he is obligated by Rabbinic decree to separate terumot and tithes like one who purchases [a field] in Jerusalem according to Scriptural Law, as we explained. If, however, a person [merely] purchases produce from a gentile - whether it was harvested or [still] connected to the earth - he is exempt, because [the produce] does not come from his land. [This applies] even if [he purchases the produce] before it develops to a stage when the tithes are obligated to be separated [and] even though a Jew straightened the edges of the grain heap.

[The following laws apply when a person] purchases land in Syria to which produce is attached. If it reached a stage when the tithes are obligated to be separated while in the possession of a gentile, it is exempt. [Conversely,] if it did not reach a stage when the tithes are obligated to be separated [in his possession], [the Jewish purchaser] is obligated to tithe it, since he purchased it together with the land.

When a Jew is working as a sharecropper for a gentile in Syria, his produce is exempt from the tithes, because he does not own the land itself at all. A gentile's purchase of land in Syria causes it to be absolved from [the obligation of] the tithes, as we explained. The same laws apply when one rents a field, but stipulates that the payment will be made in produce, enters into a sharecropping agreement as a mekabel, or rents a field for money from a gentile in Syria, he is absolved [from the obligations of] terumot and tithes.

[The following law applies when] a Jew purchases a field from a gentile in Syria before [the crops] reached a third of their development and sells it to a gentile after the crops reach a third of their development. If a Jew purchases it a second time, he is obligated [to separate] the terumot and the tithes, because [the field] incurred that obligation in the possession of a Jew.

When a Jew owns land in Syria and he hired a sharecropper and the sharecropper sent him produce, he is not obligated to separate [the terumot and tithes], for it is possible to say that [the sharecropper] purchased [the produce he gave him] from the marketplace. [This applies] provided this species is available in the marketplace.

There is an obligation [to separate] the terumot and the tithes [from crops grown on land owned in] partnership with a gentile. What is implied? When a Jew and a non-Jew purchased a field in partnership - even if they divided the field while the grain was standing, and needless to say, if they divided it after it was collected in a grain heap - tevel and ordinary produce are mixed together in each and every stalk of grain in the gentile's share. [This applies] even if the gentile straightened the edges of the grain heap and thus the obligation is Rabbinic in origin, as explained.

When does the above apply? In Eretz Yisrael, where [the obligation to] tithe is Scriptural in origin, and according to Scriptural Law, the principle of bereirah does not apply. If, however, he purchased a field in Syria, since [the obligation to] tithe there is Rabbinic in origin, even if they divided a grain heap, the portion of the gentile is exempt entirely.

When produce from Eretz Yisrael is taken to the Diaspora, it is exempt from the obligations of challah, the terumot, and the tithes, [for one of the prooftexts requiring the separation of these gifts, Numbers 15:18] states: "[the land] to which I am bringing you." [Implied is that] these obligations exist there alone. In the Diaspora, one is exempt. If [the produce] was taken to Syria, one is obligated by Rabbinic decree. Conversely, we are obligated [to separate] challah from produce from the Diaspora that was brought into Eretz Yisrael, as [suggested by the phrase] "to which." [Implied is that] one is liable [to make these gifts] there, whether the produce is from Eretz Yisrael or the Diaspora. If the obligation [to separate challah or the tithes] was established [because of the actions] of a Jew after the produce entered Eretz Yisrael, there is an obligation of Rabbinic origin to separate the tithes.

When earth from the Diaspora is brought to Eretz Yisrael by ship, if the ship's [bottom] comes in contact with the earth [of Eretz Yisrael], terumah and tithes must [be separated from produce] growing on [the earth in the ship] and the Sabbatical laws must be observed as if [the produce] was growing in Eretz Yisrael itself.

When a tree is standing in the Diaspora and its foliage leans into Eretz Yisrael or it is standing in Eretz Yisrael and its foliage leans into the Diaspora, [the determination of its status] depends on its roots. If some of its roots were in Eretz Yisrael and others were in the Diaspora - even if they were separated by glistening stone, [it is considered as if] tevel and ordinary produce are mixed together [throughout the entire produce].

[The following rules apply when] a plant in a flowerpot with a hole has not sprouted roots [outside the flowerpot]. If its roots were in Eretz Yisrael and its foliage in the Diaspora, [the determination of its status] depends on its foliage.

The priestly tithe at this time is not from Torah writ, but [rabbinic] - even in a place that those that came up from Babylonia held, and even at the time of Ezra - as you do not have the priestly tithe from the Torah except in the Land of Israel at the time that all of Israel is there, as it is stated, "When you come" (seemingly a reference to Numbers 15:18, which has, "In your coming") - the coming of all of you, like they were at the first possession, and like they are to return in the future for the third possession, and not like they were at the possession in the days of Ezra, which was a coming of some of them - and hence it was not from the Torah [then]. And so does it appear to me is the law of tithes [as well], that we are only obligated [rabbinically] at this time - like the priestly tithe.

[We are] obligated [to separate] terumah from food [designated] for human [consumption], that is guarded, and that grows from the earth. It is a positive commandment to separate the first portion [of such crops] for a priest, as [Deuteronomy 18:4] states: "You shall give him the first portion of your grain, your wine, and your oil." Just as grain, wine, and oil are [agricultural produce that] is food that is designated for humans, grows from the earth, and has an owner - as indicated by the term "your grain," - so, too, [we are] obligated to [separate] terumot and tithes from any analogous [agricultural produce].

[We are] obligated [to separate] terumah and tithes from vetch, even though it is not [usually] food for humans, since it is eaten [by humans] in a year of famine. [We are] obligated [to separate] tithes from siyah, hyssop, and koranit that are sown for human consumption. Similar laws apply to analogous species. If they were sown as animal fodder, even though the person changed his mind and thought to use them for human [consumption] while they were still connected to the ground, they are exempt. For the intent [of the owner] while [the produce] is growing is of no consequence. [The following rules apply if] these herbs grow in a courtyard on their own. If the produce growing in the courtyard is guarded, [we are] obligated to [separate the tithes], for most probably it is for human consumption. If the produce within is not guarded, it is exempt.

Seeds of garden vegetables that are not eaten, e.g., turnip seed, raddish seed, onion seed, and the like are exempt from terumah and tithes, because they are not used for human consumption. [We are,] by contrast, obligated [to separate] terumah and tithes from caraway seed.

Blossoms of chilba, mustard seed, white beans, capers, and the caper bark are exempt, because they are not considered as produce. When does the above apply? When they were sown for seed. When, however, they were sown for their produce, there is an obligation [to tithe]. Similarly, there is an obligation [to tithe] caper berries, because they are produce.

When coriander was sown for seed, its vegetable is exempt from terumah and the tithes. If it was sown as a vegetable, we must separate terumot and tithes from both the vegetables and the seed. Similarly, when shevet is sown for seed, its vegetable is exempt from terumah and the tithes. If it was sown as a vegetable, we must separate terumot and tithes from both the vegetables and the seed. The seed capsules need not be tithed. If he sowed it for the sake of the seed capsules, he must separate terumot and tithes from the vegetables, the seed, and the seed capsules. Similarly, when cress and wild cress were sown as a vegetable, we must separate tithes from both the seed and the vegetables. What is meant by [the statement] we must separate tithes from both the seed and the vegetables? That if he gathered the vegetables to eat them, he must separate terumah and the tithes and [only] then, eat. When [he allows the plant] to dry [and produce] seeds which he gathers, he must make these separations from the seed.

Even though vegetables are used for human consumption, the obligation to tithe them is only Rabbinic in origin. [The rationale is that] with regard to the tithes, [Deuteronomy 14:22] speaks of "the yield of your planting." Now the term tevuah [translated as "yield"] refers to grain and the like. Vegetables are not included as tevuah. Similarly, it appears to me that this also applies with regard to terumah, for with regard to terumah, it is stated: "your grain, your wine, and your oil." Implied is that the obligation is applied to all species resembling those. Instead, terumah which is separated from vegetables is a Rabbinic decree like their tithes.

We do not separate terumah and tithes from vegetables in the Diaspora, even in the places where we said that tithes should be separated, Similarly, vegetables that come from the Diaspora to Eretz Yisrael, even though there is earth in their roots, they are exempt and nothing was decreed concerning them. When grain or legumes are sown for their vegetables, the person's intent is not considered of consequence because of the prevailing conception of most people. [Hence,] their vegetables are exempt and [we are] obligated [to separate] terumah and tithes from their kernels.

Even though tiltan is not considered as fit for human consumption when it becomes hard, since most people eat it at the beginning [of its development], [we are] obligated [to separate] terumah and tithes from it.

The following are exempt from terumah and tithes: Leket, shichachah, pe'ah, individual grapes that separate from a cluster, and underdeveloped grape clusters. This applies even if [a poor person] collects them in a grainheap. If, however, he collects them in a granary in the field, it is established that there is an obligation for tithes upon them and terumah and tithes must be separated from them. If, however, he collects them in a granary in a town, they are exempt, for the matter is spoken about and everyone knows that [the produce] is leket, shichachah, and pe'ah.

One is obligated [to separate] terumah and tithes from leket, shichachah, and pe'ah [left] by a gentile unless he declared them ownerless. Similarly, if grain and olives did not reach a third of their growth, they are exempt from terumah and the tithes. How can one know [whether produce has reached a third of its growth]? When [the kernels] would grow if they were sown, it is known that it has reached a third of its growth. If a person transgressed and separated [terumah] from grain and olives before they reached a third of their growth, [the separated produce] is not terumah.

Similarly, produce that is declared ownerless is exempt from terumah and tithes. [This applies also to produce] declared ownerless by a gentile. Nevertheless, if one planted [crops] on a field that was declared ownerless, he is obligated [to separate] terumah and tithes [from the crops].

When a person declares standing grain ownerless, takes possession of it, and then transgresses and separates terumah, the laws of terumah apply to the produce separated. If, however, he declared sheaves [of grain] ownerless, takes possession of them, and transgresses and separates terumah, the laws of terumah do not apply to the produce separated. Similarly, whenever a person separates [terumah] from produce from which terumah is not obligated to be separated, the laws of terumah do not apply to the produce separated. Similarly, with regard to tithes, produce which the majority of people do not ordinarily sow in their gardens and fields, but instead, can be assumed to have grown ownerless are exempt from terumah and tithes. [This includes] garlic that makes one cry, onions of Rikpah, a pearled Cilcilian bean, Egyptian lentils, and the like.

[The following laws apply if] produce from which we are obligated to separate terumah becomes mixed with produce which is exempt, e.g., olives gathered by the poor become mixed with olives reaped [by the owner], underdeveloped grape clusters become mixed with grapes that were harvested. If the person has other produce, he separates [terumah from it] for the produce upon which the obligation lies according to the appropriate reckoning. If this is all the produce the person has, he should separate terumah and terumat ma'aser for the entire mixture, as if there was an obligation to separate terumah from the entire amount. He should separate the first and second tithes for the produce upon which the obligation lies according to the appropriate reckoning.

Terumah [must be given] to a priest whether it is in a state of ritual purity or not. Even if all the grain or the wine became impure before [terumah] was separated, he is obligated to separate the terumah that is impure and give it to a priest, as [Numbers 18:8] states: "And behold I have given you the watch over My terumah," i.e., whether it is pure or impure. The pure [terumah] may be eaten by the priests and they can benefit from the impure [terumah] by burning it. If it is oil, it can be kindled [as fuel for a lamp]. If it is grain or the like, it can be used as fuel for an oven.

Similarly, if terumat ma'aser became impure - or if the tithes became impure, he must separate [terumat ma'aser] in impurity and give it to a priest to benefit from by using it as fuel.

Anyone who separates the great terumah or terumat ma'aser should recite a blessing before separating it, just as one recites a blessing over the observance of all the mitzvot, as we explained in [Hilchot] Berachot.

Terumah - even impure terumah - should not be taken from Eretz Yisrael to the Diaspora. We should not bring terumah from the Diaspora to Eretz Yisrael. If it was brought [from the Diaspora], it should not be eaten, because it is impure because [of contact with] the earth of the nations. It should not be burnt, lest people say: "We saw terumah that did not become impure being burnt." It should not be returned to the Diaspora, lest people say: "Terumah may be taken [from Eretz Yisrael] to the Diaspora." Instead, we leave it until it becomes impure because of a known source of impurity or until the day before Pesach if it was leaven, and then it will be burnt.

There is no minimum requirement for the great terumah according to Scriptural Law, as [implied by Deuteronomy 18:4]: "The first of your grain," i.e., even the slightest amount. Even one kernel of grain fulfills the requirement for the entire grain heap. Idealy, one should separate only according to the measures specified by our Sages. In the present age, when [the terumah] will be burnt because of impurity, a person may separate even the smallest amount as an initial and prefatory measure.

What is the measure that our Sages established? A generous measure is one fourtieth [of the crop]. The average [measure] is one fiftieth and a parsimonious measure is one sixtieth.

Idealy, we may separate one sixtieth [of the crop] as terumah from species to which the priests do not pay attention, e.g., carobs and kilisin beans. [Similarly,] we [may separate] one sixtieth [of the crop as terumah] in the following situations: terumah separated from produce grown from terumah, terumah that is mixed [with tevel], or impure terumah that became impure against one's will or inadvertently, terumah taken from consecrated crops, terumah [separated in] the Diaspora, terumah from ketzach, kilisin, carobs, poor quality wild figs, red barley kernels, and the like, and produce grown in a flower-pot that does not have a hole. Similarly, when guardians separate [terumah] from the produce of orphans, they should separate one sixtieth.

One should not separate this terumah with a measure, a scale, or by number, because [the Torah] did not specify a measure for this [allocation]. Instead, one makes an estimation and separates one fiftieth according to his conception. One may, however, separate terumah from [produce that is] measured, weighed, or counted. He should not separate terumah using a basket or a container whose measure is known. He may, however, separate terumah by [filling] half or a third of their measure. One should not separate terumah [by using] half [a measure of] a se'ah, because its half is also a measure.

When a person separates a large measure of terumah, as long as he leaves a certain portion as ordinary produce, [the separated portion] is terumah. If, however, he said: "All of this produce is terumah," his statements are of no consequence. If a person intended to separate one tenth [of his crop] as terumah, but it happened that he actually set aside one sixtieth, [the separated portion] is terumah. If, however, he intended to give the sixtieth as terumah, but it happened that he actually set aside one fiftieth, [the separated portion] is not terumah.

When a person sets aside terumah and it happened that he gave one twentieth [of his crop], [the separated portion] is terumah. If he set aside terumah and it happened that he gave one sixtieth [of his crop] and hence, he added more produce for the sake of terumah, the tithes must be separated from that additional amount. The priest must separate them and only then may he partake of it. If a person set aside terumah and it happened that he gave one sixty-first [of his crop], [the separated portion] is terumah, but he must set aside a second portion to complete the measure that he originally intended to give. This additional measure may be set aside with a measure, a scale, or by number. He should set aside [the terumah] only from the produce that is encompassed [in the same area] as is true with regard to the initial separation [of terumah].

When a person separates a portion of the terumah [that he originally intended to separate], that portion does not have the status of terumah. Nevertheless, the terumah from that portion should be separated from it and not from other produce.

When a person separates a portion of terumah from one grain heap and a portion of terumah from a second grain heap of the same species, he should not separate terumah from one grain heap for the other. [The following rules apply when a person] says: "The terumah for this grain heap is in its midst." If he specified a place - on the north side or the south - he has designated terumah and is obligated to separate terumah from that [portion of the grain heap]. If he did not specify a place, his statements are of no consequence.

If [a person separating terumah] said: "The terumah for this grain heap is this and the terumah for this grain heap is like that one," at the place where the terumah for the first grain heap ended, the terumah for the second grain heap also ended.

Terumat Ma'aser may not be separated by estimation. [Instead,] one must be precise in its measure, even in the present age, because its measure is explicitly stated in the Torah.

[Produce] that is usually measured in volume, should be measured in volume. [Produce] that is weighed should be weighed and if it can [easily] be counted, it should be counted. If it could [easily] be counted, weighed, or measured in volume, it is praiseworthy to count it, more praiseworthy to measure its volume, and most praiseworthy to weigh it.

The mitzvah [to separate] terumat ma'aser is for a Levite to separate it from the tithe [given] him, as [Numbers 18:26] states: "When you take the tithe from the children of Israel...." An Israelite may separate terumat ma'aser and give it to a priest and then give the tithes to a Levite after separating the terumat [ma'aser] from it, i.e., a tenth of a tenth.

When an Israelite separates the first tithe while the crop is still stalks [of grain] and gives it to the Levite before it was threshed and before he separated the great terumah, the Levite is not required to separate the great terumah from it after he threshes it, only terumat ma'aser. If, however, the Israelite threshed [the crop] and separated a tithe of the grain and gave it to the Levite before he separated the great terumah, the Levite is obligated to separate the great terumah and terumat ma'aser, since [the crop] has already been [separated into kernels of] grain, the obligation [to separate] terumah has fallen upon it, as [implied by the phrase]: "The first of your grain."

When a Levite took grain while it was in stalks, he should not give the terumah to the priest in stalks. Instead, we penalize him [and require him] to thresh [the crop], winnow it, and give the priest a tenth of a tenth of the kernels of the grain. He is not required to give him a tenth of the straw or the chaff. If he set aside terumat ma'aser while the crop was in stalks as it was given to him, he must crush it and give the priest the kernels and the straw. Why did they penalize him and make him crush it? Because he accepted the tithe while it was in the stalks and thus precluded the separation of the great terumah.

When an Israelite tells a Levite: "My father told me: 'I have ma'aser for you in my possession,' we are not concerned about [the possibility of] it containing terumat ma'aser. [We are confident] that his father separated the terumat ma'aser. Therefore he commanded him that the [entire] tithe should be given to the Levite. If [the Israelite] told [the Levite]: "My father told me: 'I have a kor of ma'aser for you in my possession,' we are concerned about [the possibility of] it containing terumat ma'aser.

Terumat ma'aser that is an eighth of an eighth [of a log] should be brought to a priest. For less than that, [we do not trouble him] to bring it to a priest. Instead, he may throw it into the fire and burn it. With regard to wine and oil, by contrast, even the smallest amount [of terumat ma'aser] should be brought to a priest provided it is definitely terumat ma'aser and ritually pure. If it was ritually impure or if it was demai, if it does not contain [the above] measure, he is not required to trouble himself with it. Instead, he should burn it.

We should separate the great terumah only from [produce] in the same location. What is implied? A person had 50 se'ah in one room and 50 se'ah in another, he should not separate two se'ah from one room for the entire 100 se'ah, for he would be separating produce from one location for produce from another. [After the fact,] if one separated terumah from one location for produce in another, the separation is effective, provided the produce separated [as terumah] is protected. If, however, a person possessed jugs of oil and/or wine and saw that they were breaking, should he say: "These are terumah for the produce in my home," his words are of no consequence.

When produce is scattered in a room or there are two granaries in the same room, one may separate terumah from one for the entire amount. When sacks of grain, spheres of dried figs, or jugs of figs are in the same place, one may separate from one for the entire amount. With regard to jugs of wine, until one has sealed their lids closed, he may separate terumah from one for the entire amount. After they have been sealed, he must separate terumah from each one individually.

When a person was gathering bunches of vegetables and leaving them in [his] garden, he may separate terumah from one for the entire amount. If he brings another type of produce between them, he must separate terumah from each one individually. If he brought several species together in a container, e.g., cabbage on top, cabbage on bottom, and another species in between, he should not separate terumah from the top head for the bottom head. If he collected five piles in one granary, he may separate terumah from one for the entire amount provided the fundamental collection is intact. If the fundamental collection is not intact, he must separate terumah from each one individually.

Terumat ma'aser may be separated even if [the produce] is not in the same location. [This is implied by Numbers 18:28]: Separate terumah "from all of your tithes." [Implied is that] even if there is one [collection of] tithes in one city and another [collection of] tithes in another city, one may separate terumat [ma'aser] once for all of them. Torah scholars separate even terumat ma'aser only from [produce] in one location.

When a Levite possessed [produce from] the first tithe from which terumat ma'aser was not separated and he left it so that he could continuously separate terumat ma'aser [for other crops] from it while it is still tevel, his actions are viable. [This is derived from Numbers 18:24]: "For the tithes of the children of Israel [from] which they will separate terumah...." Implied is that [the tithes] can be transformed into terumat [ma'aser] in their entirety.

If one separated terumat ma'aser first and then left [the produce] so that one could continually separate terumat ma'aser for other produce from it until it becomes terumat ma'aser in its entirety, at which he would give it to a priest, his actions are of no consequence. [This is derived from ibid.:29]: "The sacred portion from it." Implied is that when its sacred portion is in it, it can be made terumat [ma'aser] for other [crops]. If its sacred portion is no longer in it, it cannot be made terumat [ma'aser] for other [crops]. Similarly, when a person sets aside crops to separate the great terumah from them, they must be tevel with regard to terumah. If a person sets aside crops to separate the tithes from them, they must be tevel with regard to the tithes.

When terumah and the tithes are separated, we separate them in proper sequence. What is implied? Before everything, one separates bikkurim. Afterwards, [he separates] the great terumah, the first tithe, then the second tithe or the tithe for the poor. If a person separated the second [tithe] before the first, or the tithes before terumah, or terumah before bikkurim, his actions are effective despite the fact that he has transgressed a negative commandment. What is the source which teaches that a negative commandment is involved? [Exodus 22:28] states: "Do not delay your fullness offering or your priestly heave-offering." [Implied is a command] not to delay [the separation of produce] that should come first. Lashes are not given [as punishment for the violation] of this prohibition.

When a person desires to separate the great terumah and terumat ma'aser at the same time, he should separate 1/33.33 of his crop. He should say: "One hundredth of [the produce] that is here - i.e., on the side of the produce which I set aside - is ordinary produce. The remainder of what I separated is terumah for the entire crop. The tithes which are necessary to be separated for these hundred portions of ordinary produce are at the side of [the produce] that I separated. The remainder of what I separated aside from the terumah is terumat ma'aser on the entire amount."

A person may appoint an agent to separate terumah and the tithes for him, as [Numbers 18:28] states: "So shall you separate, also you." [The wording implies] the inclusion of an agent. A gentile may not be appointed as an agent, because [the phrase] "also you" [implies an equation between you and your agent]. Just as you are a member of the covenant, your agent must be a member of the covenant.

There are five [types of individuals] who should not separate terumah and [even] if they do, [the produce] they separated is not considered as terumah: A deaf-mute, a mentally or emotionally unstable person, a minor, a gentile who separated terumah from produce belonging to a Jew, even with his permission, and a person who separates terumah from produce that does not belong to him without the owner's permission. If, however, a person separates terumah from his own produce for the produce of others, the produce is terumah and [the colleague's] produce has been prepared for use. The satisfaction [of allocating the terumah] belongs [to the person who separated it and he may] give to whichever priest he desires.

[The following rules apply when a person] separates terumah [from a colleague's produce] without permission or descends into his colleague's field and gathered produce without permission so that he could take them [for himself], but separate some as terumah. When the owner comes and says: "You should have taken better ones," if there are better ones than those separated as terumah, the separation is effective, because [the owner] did not object. If there are not better ones, his separation is not effective, for his statements were made as an objection. If the owner came and gathered produce and added it to the quantity separated, whether he possesses better produce or not, his separation is effective.

There are five who should not separate terumah, but if they do, their separation is effective: a person who is deaf, but not mute, because he cannot hear the blessing, a mute who can hear, but not speak and a person who is naked, because they cannot recite the blessing, and a person who is drunk and a blind person, because they cannot make distinctions and separate the most attractive portion [as terumah].

When a minor reaches the age when his vows may be of consequence - even though he has not manifested signs of physical maturity and he has not attained majority - separates terumah, his separation is of consequence. [This applies] even with regard to terumah mandated by Scriptural Law. [The rationale is that] their vows and their consecration [of property] is valid according to Scriptural Law, as explained in [Hilchot] Nedarim.

When a person tells his agent: "Go and separate terumah for me" and he goes to separate terumah, but [the principal] does not know whether he [actually] separated terumah or not, [even] when he discovers that terumah was separated from the granary, we do not assume that [he] separated terumah. For with regard to prohibitions, we apply the principle: "An agent can be assumed to have carried out his mission," only when that leads to a stringency, not when it leads to a leniency. [Instead,] we suspect that another person separated the terumah without his permission.

When a person tells his agent: "Go and separate terumah," he should separate according to the temperament of the owner. If he knows that he is parsimonious, he should separate one sixtieth. If he was generous, he should separate one fortieth. If he does not know his temperament, he should make the average separation, one fiftieth. If he intended to make the average separation, but it turned out that he separated one fortieth or one sixtieth, his separation is effective. If he intended to add to the average separation, and he separated even one forty-ninth, his separation is not effective.

There is an obligation to separate terumah and tithes from produce belonging to partners, for [Numbers 18:28] speaks of "your tithes," [using a plural term,] implying even from two people. Partners do not have to receive permission from each other. Instead, whenever anyone separates terumah, the separation is effective. [The following rules apply when] one of them separated terumah and then the other came and separated terumah, because he did not know that his colleague had separated it. If they relied on each other, the terumah separated by the second is not of consequence. If they did not rely on each other, but the first one separated an appropriate amount, the separation of the second one is of no consequence. If the first did not separate the appropriate amount, the separation of the second one is also of consequence.

[The following rules apply when a person] tells his agent, his attendant, his servant, or his maid-servant to separate terumah and they went to separate the terumah, but he nullified their agency before they made the separation. If the agent did not deviate [from the principal's instructions], his separation is effective. If he did deviate, e.g., the principal told him: "Separate from the northern side," and he separated from the southern side, since he nullified the agency previously, the separation is not effective.

[The following rules apply when] a sharecropper separates terumah and the owner [of the land] objects. If he objects before he completes the separation of the terumah, the separation is not of consequence. If he objected after the separation, the separation is of consequence. Guardians may separate terumah from the property of orphans.

The separation of terumah by a thief, a robber, and a man of force is effective. If the owner is pursuing them, the separation is not effective.

A child, a worker, a servant, and a wife should separate terumah for [produce] that they are eating, but not for the entire [crop]. For a person should not separate terumah from [produce] that does not belong to him. When a son eats together with his father and a woman [makes] dough, they may separate terumah, because they have license to do so.

Workers do not have license to separate terumah without the consent of the owner with the exception of those who tread grapes in the vat. [They are given this license because] if they desired to make the wine impure, they could do so immediately. Since the wine was thus given over to their domain and they were entrusted with it, they are considered as agents. If they separate terumah, the separation is effective.

When a worker is told by the owner: "Bring my granary in and separate terumah," but he separates and then brings the granary in, his separation is effective.

When a gentile separates terumah from his own produce, according to Scriptural Law, the separation is not effective, because he is not obligated to do so. [Our Rabbis] decreed that his separation should be effective, because of the wealthy, [i.e., they were fearful] lest the money belong to a Jew and he say that it belongs to a gentile to make it exempt. We cross-examine the gentile who separates terumah. If he says: "I separated it so that it should be like a Jew's," we give it to a priest. If not, it should be entombed, for perhaps his intent was [to dedicate it] to heaven. When does the above apply? In Eretz Yisrael. Our Sages did not, however, issue a decree if a gentile separates terumah in the Diaspora. We tell him that he is not obligated to do this and the produce is not terumah at all.

When a person [makes a separation and] intends to say terumah, but instead says tithes, or intends to say tithes, but instead says terumah, his statement is of no consequence unless his mouth and his heart are in accord. If one separates terumah in his mind without uttering anything verbally, the separation is effective, as [implied by Numbers 18:27]: "And your terumah will be considered for you as the terumah of the granary." Through thought alone, it becomes terumah.

[The following rules apply when a person] separates terumah with a stipulation. If the stipulation is fulfilled, the separation is effective. If not, it is not effective. When a person separates terumah and/or the tithes and then regrets [his act], he may approach a sage and ask for its repeal as other vows are repealed. The produce then reverts to being ordinary produce as it was before until he makes a separation a second time, [setting aside] either the same produce he separated initially or other produce.

[The following rules apply when a person] separates terumah from a cistern of wine, saying: "Behold [the contents of] this [container] are terumah on the condition that it ascends intact [from the cistern]," [for the condition to have been met, the container] must ascend intact from being broken or spilt. [The stipulation does not cover the wine] becoming impure. If [the container] is broken [and the wine] spills back into the cistern, it does not cause the mixture to become meduma. If [he lifted the container from the cistern and] put it in a place where if it breaks or rolls, it will not reach the cistern, [should the wine later spill into the cistern], it causes the mixture to become meduma, because the stipulation was fulfilled.

When does the above apply? With regard to the great terumah. With regard to terumat ma'aser, by contrast, [different rules apply] because it is permitted to make this separation from produce that is not in the same place. [Hence as soon as the container] ascends [from the cistern], his stipulation is considered to have been fulfilled and [the wine separated] is terumat ma'aser, even though [afterwards, the container] breaks or [the wine] spills. Needless to say, this applies if [the terumat ma'aser] becomes impure.

When a person says: "The produce in the upper portion [of this container] is terumah and that in its lower portion is ordinary produce" or "The produce in the upper portion [of this container] is ordinary produce and that in its lower portion is terumah," his statements are effective. For the matter is dependent on the thought of the person making the separation.

When a person separates terumah from [grain in] a granary, he must have the intent in his heart that [the produce separated] will be terumah for this grain heap, the stalks of wheat that were cut [and not threshed], [the grain] on the side of the grain heap, and [the kernels] in the straw. When a person separates terumah from a vat [of wine], he must have the intent in his heart that he is separating terumah for [the wine absorbed] in the kernels and the peels. When a person separates terumah from a cistern of wine, he must have the intent in his heart that he is separating terumah for [the wine absorbed] in the peat. [in all the above instances,] if he separates terumah without having a specific intent, all of the produce is included. For it is a condition of the court that [when one separates terumah, it] includes everything. When a person separates terumah from a basket of figs and other figs are found at the side of the basket, terumah need not be separated from them, because in his heart, a person has the intent to separate terumah for all the produce.

We should separate terumah only from the most choice [produce], as [implied by Numbers 18:30]: "When you separate its most choice portion from it." If, however, there is no priest accessible, one should separate terumah from produce that will last even though there is more choice produce but it will not last. What is implied? A person should separate fresh figs as terumah for dried figs. In a place where there are no priests, he should separate dried figs for fresh figs. If he is accustomed to dry fresh figs, he may separate fresh figs as terumah for dried figs even in a place where there is no priest. In a place where there is a priest, by contrast, dried figs are never separated as terumah for fresh figs, even in a place where it is customary to dry fresh figs.

One may separate an entire onion as terumah even if it is small, but not half an onion, even if it is large in all places. We do not separate one type of produce as terumah for another type of produce, as [implied by Numbers 18:30]: "As grain from the granary and as wine from the vat." If one made such a separation, it is not considered terumah.

Zucchini and cucumbers are considered as one species. All of the types of wheat are one species. All of the types of figs, dried figs, and blocks of figs are one species. [In the above instances,] one may separate terumah from one type for the other. [By contrast,] all types of produce which are considered as a mixture of species may not be separated as terumah for each other, even when one separates the choicest produce as terumah for produce of lesser quality. What is implied? A person has 50 se'ah of wheat and 50 se'ah of barley in one building. If he separates two se'ah of wheat [as terumah] for the entire amount, his separation is not effective. When types of produce are not considered as a mixture of species, one may separate the better type as terumah for the lesser type, but not the lesser type as terumah for the better type. If one did separate [the lesser type of produce as terumah for the better type, after the fact,] the separation is effective with one exception. Zuninmay not be separated as terumah for wheat, because it is not used as food for humans.

We do not separate terumah from produce for which all the work [in preparing it] was completed for produce for which the work [in preparing it] is incomplete, from produce for which the work [in preparing it] is incomplete for [other] produce for which the work [in preparing it] is incomplete, nor from produce for which the work [in preparing it] is incomplete for produce for which all the work [in preparing it] was completed. [This is also derived from the above prooftext:] "As grain from the granary and as wine from the vat." [Implied is that terumah should be separated from produce] for which [all work] was completed for similar produce. If, however, one separated terumah [in any of the above instances], the separation is effective [after the fact].

When should terumah be separated from a granary? When the kernels are separated. If a person separated part [of the grain], he may designate the kernels he separated as terumah for the produce that was not separated. When one brings stalks of grain into his home to eat husked grain, he should separate terumah while the grain is in the stalks.

When should terumah be separated from a vat? When [the treaders] have walked horizontally and vertically over the grapes. When should one separate terumah from olives? When [the beam of the press] is placed upon them.

We should not separate terumah from ritually pure produce for produce that is not ritually pure. If, however, one separated terumah [in this manner], the separation is effective [after the fact]. It is a halachah conveyed to Moses at Sinai that when a portion of a cake of dried figs has become impure, we may separate terumah from the pure portion of it for the impure portion of it as an initial preference. This applies not only to a cake of dried figs which appears as one mass, but also to a bundle of vegetables and even a mound of wheat. If a portion of it became impure, one may separate terumah from the pure portion for the impure portion. If, however, there were two cakes of dried figs, two bundles of vegetables, or two mounds of wheat, one impure and one pure at its side, as an initial preference, one should not separate terumah from the produce that is pure for the produce that is impure. One may, however, separate terumat ma'aser from produce that is pure for produce that is impure as an initial preference. [This is derived from Numbers 18:29:] "its sacred portion from it." [Implied is that] one should take from the sacred portion in it.

We may not separate produce that is ritually impure as terumah for produce that is ritually pure. If one made such a separation inadvertently, the portion separated is terumah. If one made the separation intentionally, he did not fulfill the obligation for the remainder [of the produce], but [the produce] separated is terumah. He must separate terumah a second time. When does the above apply? When he did not know of the impurity. If, however, he knew of the impurity, but erred in that he thought it was permitted to separate produce that is ritually impure as terumah for produce that is ritually pure, he is considered as if he acted intentionally. Similar laws apply with regard to terumat ma'aser.

We may not separate produce that is still attached to the earth as terumah for produce that has already been detached. Nor may produce that has already been detached be separated as terumah for produce that is still attached to the earth. What is implied? A person had produce that was detached and said: "This produce will be terumah for this produce which is attached to the earth" - and even if he said "...when [the attached produce] is detached," his words are of no consequence. [This ruling also applies] if he possessed two rows [of produce] and said: "The produce of this row which is detached will be terumah for this row which is attached," or "The produce of this row which is attached will be terumah for this row which is detached." [Diferent rules apply should] he say: "The produce of this row which is detached will be terumah for this row when it will be detached," if [the produce] is [later] detached - since it is within his potential to detach it - when they are both detached, his words are binding, provided both [types of produce] had attained at least a third of their standard size at the time he made his statements.

We may not separate fresh produce as terumah for dried produce, nor dried produce as terumah for fresh produce. If, however, one made such a separation, it is effective. What is implied? One reaped a type of vegetable one day and then reaped the same [type of vegetable] the following day. One may not separate one as terumah for the other unless this vegetable remains fresh for two days. Similarly, if a vegetable usually remains fresh for three days, e.g., cucumbers, all [of that type of vegetable] that are harvested for three days may be joined together and terumah may be separated from one for the other. When a type of vegetable remains fresh for only one day and one harvested some in the morning and some in the evening, one may separate one as terumah for the other.

One may not separate produce from the present year as terumah for produce of the previous year, nor may one separate produce from the previous year as terumah for produce of the present year. If one made such a separation, it is not effective, as [indicated by Deuteronomy 14:22]: "From year to year."Thus if one harvested a vegetable on the day preceding Rosh HaShanah before sunset and harvested another after sunset, one may not separate terumah from one for the other. For one is considered "old" and the other, "new." Similarly, if one harvested an esrog on the day before the fifteenth of Shvat on the evening before sunset and harvested another one after sunset [that day], one may not separate terumah from one for the other. [The rationale is that] the first of Tishrei is the Rosh HaShanah for tithing grain, legumes, and vegetables and the fifteenth of Shvat is Rosh HaShanah for tithing [of the produce] of trees.

We may not separate produce from Eretz [Yisrael] as terumah for produce of the Diaspora, nor may produce of the Diaspora be separated for produce from Eretz Yisrael, nor may produce of Eretz Yisrael be separated for produce from Syria, and nor may produce of Syria be separated for produce from Eretz Yisrael. Similarly, [we may not separate terumah] from produce for which terumah need not be separated, e.g., leket, shichachah, and pe'ah or from produce from which terumah was already separated for produce for which terumah must be separated. Nor may we separate terumah from produce for which terumah must be separated for produce for which there is no obligation. [Even] if the terumah was separated, the separation is not of consequence.

When a person separates terumah [for other produce] from produce that was designated as the first tithe, but from which its terumah had not been separated or from produce which was designated as the second tithe or that had been consecrated, but which had not been redeemed, the separation is not effective.

We may not separate terumah from produce for which we are required to separate terumah according to Scriptural Law for produce for which we are required to separate terumah [only] according to Rabbinic Law, nor from produce for which we are required to separate terumah [only] according to Rabbinic Law for produce for which we are required to separate terumah according to Scriptural Law. If one separated terumah [in the above instance], the produce separated is considered as terumah, but he must separate terumah again [for the obligation incumbent on this produce to be fulfilled].

A flowerpot with a hole is considered as [connected] to the earth. How large must the hole be [for this law to apply]? Large enough for a small root to pass through it. This is smaller than an olive. [The following rules apply when a person] planted grain in a flowerpot that did not have a hole and it reached a third of its maturity. Afterwards, he perforated [the flowerpot] and the grain completed [its growth] while [the flowerpot] was perforated. It is, [nevertheless,] considered as if it grew in [a flowerpot] without a hole. [This ruling changes] only when [the flowerpot] was perforated before [the grain] reached a third of its maturity.

When a person separates terumah from produce which grows in the earth for produce that grows in a perforated flowerpot or from produce which grows in a perforated flowerpot for produce which grows in the earth, the separation is effective. If he separates terumah from [produce growing] in a [flowerpot] that was not perforated for [produce growing] in a perforated [flowerpot], the produce separated is considered as terumah, but he must separate terumah again. If he separates terumah from [produce growing] in a perforated [flowerpot] for [produce growing] in a [flowerpot] that was not perforated, the produce separated is considered as terumah. [Nevertheless, the priest to whom it was given] should not partake of it until [the owner] separates terumah and tithes for [the portion separated] from other produce.

When a person separates terumat [ma'aser] from produce that is demai for other produce that is demai or from produce that is demai for produce from which we are certain that the tithes were not separated, the produce separated is considered as terumat [ma'aser]. [Nevertheless,] he should separate terumah again for each type of produce individually. When he separates terumah from produce from which we are certain that the tithes were not separated for produce that is demai, the produce separated is considered as terumat [ma'aser]. [Nevertheless, the priest to whom it was given] should not partake of it until [the owner] separates terumah and tithes for [the portion separated].

We may not separate stalks of grain as terumah for kernels of grain, olives [as terumah] for oil, or grapes [as terumah] for wine. If one made such a separation, it is not effective. This is a decree [enacted] lest one cause the priest to undertake the difficulty of treading [on the grapes] or pressing [the olives]. One may, however, separate oil as terumah for olives that are being pickled or wine as terumah for grapes that are being dried as raisins. What does this resemble? To separating terumah from two species that are not considered kilayim, separating from the good for the bad. Similarly, one may separate terumah from olives from which oil will be squeezed for olives that will be pickled, but not from olives that will be pickled for olives from which oil will be squeezed. [One may separate terumah] from wine that has not been boiled for wine that has been boiled, but not from [wine] that has been boiled for [wine] that has not been boiled. [One may separate terumah] from [wine that is] clear for [wine that is] not clear, but not from [wine that is] not clear for wine [that is] clear. [One may separate terumah] from a specific number of fresh figs for a specific number of dried figs and from a measure of dried figs for a measure of fresh figs, but not from a measure of fresh figs for a measure of dried figs, nor for a specific number of dried figs for a specific number of fresh figs. [The rationale for all the above is that] one should always separate terumah in a generous manner. One may separate terumah from kernels of wheat for bread, but not from bread for kernels of wheat according to the appropriate calculations. In all the above situations, if one separated terumah [when it was stated that one should not], the separation is effective.

We do not separate terumah from oil for olives that are being pressed, nor [do we separate terumah] from wine for grapes that are being tread, for this resembles separating terumah from produce for which all work has been completed for produce for which the work has not been completed. If he did separate terumah [in such a situation], the produce separated is considered as terumah, but he must separate terumah from the olives and the grapes from them themselves. [When mixed with other produce,] the first creates a situation of dimua alone. One who eats it is liable for it, as one is liable [for partaking] of other terumah that is clearly defined as such. This does not apply with regard to the second terumah [separated].

When a person separated oil as terumah for olives that he intended to eat or he separated olives for olives when he intended to eat the entire quantity and then changed his mind and decided to press the olives [for oil] and indeed pressed them after separating terumah for them, he is not required to separate terumah again. [This law also applies if] one separated wine for grapes that he intended to eat or grapes for grapes when he intended to eat the entire quantity and then changed his mind and decided to tread the grapes for wine and indeed had them tread upon after separating terumah for them.

We do not separate vinegar as terumah for wine, but we may separate wine as terumah for vinegar, for wine and vinegar are one type of produce. If one had the intent of separating wine for wine and it was discovered that what he separated was vinegar, the separation is not effective. If one had the intent of separating vinegar for vinegar and it was discovered that what he separated was wine, the separation is effective.

[The following rules apply when a person] separates a barrel of wine as terumah for wine and it is discovered to be vinegar. If it was known to be vinegar before it was separated, the separation is not effective. If it became vinegar after it was designated as terumah, the separation is effective. If there is a doubt, the separation is effective, but he should make a second separation. The same laws apply when one separates squash as terumah and it is discovered to be bitter or one separates a watermelon as terumah and it has become spoiled or perforated. If he separated a barrel of wine as terumah and it was discovered to have been left open in which instance, it is forbidden to drink it, it is terumah, but he should make a second separation. [In all these situations, when mixed with other produce,] neither of the two [portions separated as terumah] creates a situation of dimua alone. Nor is a person who eats only one of the two obligated to pay a fifth.

What is implied? If one [of the two portions separated as terumah] fell into ordinary produce, it does not cause it to be considered as dimua. If the other [portion] fell into other produce, it does not cause it to be considered as dimua. If, however, both fell into the same produce, it is considered as dimua according to the size of the smaller of the two. Similarly, if a person other than a priest ate both of them, he should make restitution for the smaller one and its additional fifth. What should he do with the two [portions separated]? He should give them to one priest and take the value of the greater portion from him.

[The following rules apply when a person] checks a barrel [of wine] and then leaves it to separate terumah [from it] on other [wine] until it becomes terumah in its entirety, [at which point,] he would give it to the priest. After a certain time, he checked the barrel again and discovered that it had become vinegar. [We rule that the wine] certainly remained wine for three days after the inspection. [The obligations for terumah] have certainly been met for all of the wine for which he considered the wine in the barrel as its terumah during those [three days]. From that time afterwards, there is a doubt [whether the wine had already turned to vinegar] and a second separation [of terumah] must be made.

At three times [during the year], it is necessary to check the wine that one set aside to separate terumah from lest it have become vinegar. They are: When the east wind blows after the Sukkos holiday, when grapes form, when fluid begins to enter the unripened grapes. [When one has wine] from the vat, he may use it for the separation [of terumah] for 40 days with the presumption that it is still wine.

[The following rules apply when a person] sets aside produce to separate terumah from until [the entire amount] becomes terumah. Although as an initial preference, one should separate terumah only from the same collection of produce, if one separates terumah [in such a manner], we operate under the presumption that the produce continues to exist. If he discovers that they perished, he should entertain doubts that all [the produce for which he thought he separated terumah is in fact tevel]. For perhaps, he did not make any separation until [the produce set aside] perished. Therefore he should separate terumah a second time for them.

The great terumah and terumat ma'aser may be eaten by priests, both adults and minors, both males and females and their Canaanite servants, and their livestock, as [Leviticus 22:11] states: "When a priest will purchase a man, he is a financial acquisition...." When the servant of a priest flees or the wife of a priest rebels against him, they may still partake of terumah.

Terumah required by Scriptural Law may only be eaten by a priest whose lineage [has been affirmed]. Priests whose status is accepted on the basis of a prevailing assumption may partake only of terumah required by Rabbinic decree. Terumah that is ritually pure, whether the great terumah or terumat ma'aser, whether required by Scriptural or Rabbinic Law is given only to a priest who is a Torah scholar because it is forbidden to partake of terumah that is ritually impure. All of the unlearned people are presumed to be ritually impure. For these reasons, one may give impure terumah to any priest one chooses.

When an Israelite woman marries a priest, even a minor three years and one day old, she may partake of terumah and the breast and thigh [given the priests from the peace sacrifices]. According to Scriptural Law, she may partake of these foods from the time that she was consecrated. Our Sages, however, forbade her from partaking of them until she enters the chupah. [This is a] decree, [instituted] lest she give her father and brother terumah to eat while she is a consecrated woman in her father's home.

A deaf-mute and a mentally or emotionally unstable woman who is married to a priest may not partake of terumah. [This restriction applies] even if her father concluded her marriage. [This is] decree, [instituted] lest a priest who is himself a deaf-mute marry a woman who is a deaf-mute and give her [terumah] to eat. For this reason, our Sages decreed that a deaf-mute who is the daughter of an Israelite should not partake of terumah at all.

A non-priest is forbidden to partake of terumah, as [Leviticus 22:10] states: "All non-priests shall not partake of the consecrated food." [This prohibition applies] even to a resident [worker] of the priest or his hired [worker], as [ibid.] states: "A resident [worker] of the priest or his hired [worker] shall not partake of the consecrated food." [The term] "resident [worker]" refers to one hired forever. [The term] "hired [worker]" refers to one hired for years. A Hebrew servant is comparable to a resident [worker] or a hired [worker]. A woman of priestly lineage who is married to a non-priest is considered as a non-priest, as [implied by the wording] "all non-priests" - i.e., neither he nor his wife.

A non-priest who willfully partook of terumah - regardless of whether he was ritually pure or impure and regardless of whether [the terumah] was ritually pure or impure - is liable for death at the hand of heaven, as [ibid.:9] states: "They shall die because of it, for they have defiled it." He is liable for lashes, but does not make financial restitution for what he consumed, because [a transgressor] is never subjected to both lashes and a financial penalty. If he partook [of terumah] inadvertently, [he must make restitution and] add a fifth, as [ibid.:14] states: "When a person eats sanctified food inadvertently, he should add a fifth."

[Leviticus 22:12] states: "When the daughter of a priest will marry a non-priest, she should not partake of the sanctified terumah." There are two concepts included in this prohibition: a) that if a woman engages in sexual relations with a man prohibited to her and thus become a zonah or a chalalah, as we explained in Hilchot Issurei Bi'ah, is forbidden to partake of the terumot forever, as is the law with regard to any challal. For a challal is considered as a non-priest with regard to all matters; and b) that if she marries an Israelite, she is forbidden to partake of the portions of the sacrifices given the priests, the breast and the thigh forever, even if she is divorced or widowed.

She may, however, partake of terumah after [her husband] the Israelite divorces her or dies provided he did not leave any children that she bore, as [ibid.:13] states: "When the daughter of a priest will become a widow or a divorcee and she has no descendants, she shall return to her father's home as in her youth. She may partake of the bread of her father."

According to the Oral Tradition, [that verse was interpreted] "from the bread," but not all the bread. She returns to partake of terumah, but not the breast and the thigh.

[This concept applies] not only to the daughter of a priest, but to the daughter of a Levite or an Israelite. If she engage in relations with a man forbidden to her, since she became a zonah, she is forbidden to partake of terumah forever, even if she has a descendant born to her from a priest.

For this reason, a woman who was taken captive may not partake of terumah even though she says that she was not defiled. Whenever the word of a captive woman who says that she was not defiled is accepted or there is a witness [who testifies to this effect] and she is permitted to her husband, she is permitted to partake of terumah. When a woman engaged in sexual relations with an animal, she is not disqualified from the priesthood and may partake of terumah.

A daughter of an Israelite who has an offspring [she bore] from a priest may partake of terumah by virtue of her child. [This applies] whether the child is male or female or even a tumtum or an androgynus. Even the offspring of offspring until the end of time [enable her to partake of terumah], as [indicated by the prooftext]: "She has no descendants."

Just as the descendants from an Israelite [born] to the daughter of a priest disqualify her [from partaking of terumah], so too, the descendants from a priest [born] to the daughter of an Israelite entitle her [to partake of terumah]. [This applies] even if the descendants are of blemished lineage. What is implied? A daughter of an Israelite married a priest or the daughter of a priest married an Israelite and [that woman] gave birth to a daughter. A person who is an ervah for the daughter entered into relations with her or [the daughter] married a mamzer [and the daughter gave birth to a baby which is a mamzer]. [Afterwards,] the daughter dies, but the mamzer remains alive.

If [the mamzer's] grandmother was the daughter of an Israelite who [married] a priest, she may partake of terumah. If she was the daughter of a priest who [married] an Israelite, she may not partake of terumah. Thus we learn that [the daughter of an Israelite] may partake of terumah by virtue of her descendants even though the lineage of that descendant is blemished, even though [the descendant] is not even [on the level of an ordinary] Israelite. Needless to say that if a woman [who married a priest] has a daughter born to her by him - even if the daughter is married to an Israelite and even if she became a challalah - she may partake of terumah by virtue of the daughter of blemished lineage.

Similarly, the daughter of a priest may not eat by virtue of her descendant from an Israelite husband, even if that descendant is a priest. What is implied? A daughter of a priest married an Israelite and gave birth to a daughter that he conceived. That daughter married a priest and gave birth to a son that he conceived. [This son] is fitting to become a High Priest. He enables his mother to partake of terumah and disqualifies his maternal grandmother [from doing so]. [This applies] even if [the priest's] mother dies. [The grandmother] can say: "[One should] not be like my grandson, the High Priest, who disqualifies me from partaking of terumah."

The descendants of a servant do not disqualify [a woman from partaking of terumah], nor do they enable [a woman to do so]. What is implied? The daughter of a priest married an Israelite or the daughter of an Israelite married a priest. A son was born to that woman. The son [then] went and became attached to a Canaanite maid-servant and conceived [a son] with her. [That son is] a servant. [The following rules apply if the woman's son] dies and the servant remains alive: If the servant's paternal grandmother was the daughter of an Israelite who had married to a priest, she may not partake of terumah. If she was the daughter of a priest who had married an Israelite, she may partake [of terumah], because this offspring is not considered as a descendant, because the concept of parental lineage does not apply with regard to servants.

[The above concepts are also relevant in the following instance.] The daughter of an Israelite married a priest and he died. She had borne a son to him. Afterwards, she married an Israelite. [Hence,] she may not partake of terumah. If her Israelite [husband] died, but she bore him a son, she may not partake of terumah because of that son. If that son dies, she may partake of terumah by virtue of her first son.

[Similar concepts apply when] the daughter of a priest marries an Israelite. [If] she bore him a son and then married a priest, she may partake of terumah. If [her second husband] dies, but she had borne him a son, she may partake of terumah. If her son conceived by the priest dies, she is forbidden to partake of terumah because of her son conceived by [her first husband,] the Israelite. If her son conceived by the Israelite dies, she returns to her father's home as in her youth. She may partake of terumah, but not of the breast and thigh [of the peace offerings].

[Similar laws apply when] a daughter of an Israelite marries an Israelite first and has a son that she bore to him. If she marries a priest [after her first husband dies], she may partake of terumah. If [her second husband, the priest,] dies, but she bore him a son, she may partake [of terumah] by virtue of the son [she bore him]. For he enables her to partake of terumah as his father did.

A priest who is ritually impure is forbidden to partake of terumah whether it is ritually pure or ritually impure, as [Leviticus 22:4] states: "Any person from the seed of Aaron who is afflicted with tzaraat or is a zav may not partake of consecrated food." Which consecrated food may be eaten by all the descendants of Aaron, both male and female? We must say: terumah. [Thus] any impure person who eats terumah that is ritually pure is liable for death at the hand of heaven. Therefore he is given lashes, as [ibid.:9] states: "And you shall protect My charge and not bear sin because of it [and die because of it]." When an impure person partakes of terumah that is ritually impure, he does not receive lashes, although he transgresses a negative commandment, for [impure terumah] is not holy.

Impure [priests who have immersed to purify themselves] may not partake of terumah until the sun sets and three stars appear afterwards [on the day the impure person immerses himself], as [implied by ibid.:7]: "And the sun will set and he will become pure" - until the sky will become pure of the light - "afterwards he may partake of the consecrated foods."

A priest who is ritually pure who ate terumah that is ritually impure is not liable for lashes, because [the prohibition is the result of] a positive commandment. For the verse states: "Afterwards he may partake of the consecrated foods." [Implied is that,] after he becomes purified, he may partake of food that is in a state of holiness. Food which is impure, by contrast, he should not eat, even though he becomes purified. A prohibition that stems from a positive commandment has the status of a positive commandment.

When [a priest] was partaking of terumah and he feels his limbs shudder to ejaculate. He should hold his member and swallow the terumah.

We may immerse a deaf-mute or intellectually or emotionally unstable [priest] and feed him terumah after nightfall on that day. We guard them to make sure that they do not sleep after immersing themselves, because if they sleep, they are [considered] impure for perhaps they had a seminal emission unless a copper container is made for them.

Camel-riders are forbidden to partake of terumah until they immerse themselves and [wait] until nightfall, because we presume that they are ritually impure. [The rationale is that] the physical stimulation produced by riding on the flesh of a camel produces a drop of semen.

When a woman engages in intimacy, she may immerse herself and partake of terumah in the evening, provided she did not turn over during intimacy. If she turned over during intimacy she is forbidden to partake of terumah for a duration of three days. For it is impossible that she will not discharge [semen] and become impure, as will be explained in the appropriate place.

Since the primary obligation of terumah [separated] in the Diaspora is Rabbinic in origin, it is forbidden only to a priest who becomes ritually impure because of a discharge from his body: i.e., men who had a seminal emission, zavim, zavot, niddot, and women who give birth. All of these individuals may partake [of terumah] after they immersed even if they did not [wait] until nightfall. Those who, by contrast, became impure because of contact with a source of ritual impurity - whether contact with a human corpse, a form of impurity which is impossible to purge in the present age or contact with [the corpse of] a crawling animal - need not immerse themselves [to partake of] terumah separated in the Diaspora.

For this reason, a male priest who is a minor who has not yet had a seminal emission or a female of the priestly family who has never experienced menstrual bleeding may partake of [terumah from the Diaspora] at all times without undergoing an inspection, for the presumption that they did not have a discharge that would render them ritually impure applies to them. A metzora is considered as one who had a discharge that renders him impure, provided he is declared impure by a priest whose lineage is established.

A priest who is uncircumcised is forbidden to partake of terumah according to Scriptural Law. [This concept is derived as follows: Leviticus 22:10] speaks of a resident worker and a hired worker with regard to [partaking of] terumah and [Exodus 12:45] speaks of a resident worker and a hired worker with regard to [partaking of] the Paschal sacrifice. Just as with regard to the Paschal sacrifice, the resident worker and the hired worker spoken about refer to those who are uncircumcised and who are forbidden [to partake of] it, so too, with regard to terumah, we learn that a resident worker and a hired worker who are uncircumcised are forbidden [to partake of] it. If such a person partakes [of terumah], he is liable for lashes according to Scriptural Law. A person who extends his foreskin is permitted to partake of terumah even though he appears uncircumcised. According to Rabbinic Law, however, he must be circumcised again until he appears circumcised.

One who is born circumcised may partake of terumah. A tumtum may not partake of terumah for there is a doubt whether he is uncircumcised. An androgynus should be circumcised and then he may partake of terumah.

Although an uncircumcised priest and all those who are impure are forbidden to partake of terumah, their wives and their servants may partake [of it].

[The following laws apply to a priest] who has maimed testicles or a severed member. They and their servants may partake of terumah. Their wives may not partake of terumah. If [such a priest] was not intimate with his wife after suffering these wounds, [his wife] may partake of terumah. Similarly, if he married the descendent of converts, she may partake of terumah.

When a priest with maimed testicles consecrates the daughter of a priest, she may not partake of terumah. [When a priest is] a eunuch who was brought to this state through natural means, he, his wife, and his servants may partake of terumah. [When a priest is] a tumtum or an androgynus, their servants may partake of terumah, but not their wives.

When a [priest who was] a deaf-mute, a mentally or emotionally unstable person, or a minor purchased servants, they may not partake of terumah. If, however, the local court or their guardian purchases servants for them or they acquire them by inheritance, [the servants] may partake of terumah.

When an androgynus [of the priestly family] engages in intimacy - whether through anal intercourse or vaginal intercourse - with a person who is disqualified from partaking of terumah, he is disqualified from partaking of terumah as a woman would be. His servants also may not partake of terumah. Similarly, if he engages in intimacy with another adrogynus with whom relations would disqualify a woman from partaking of terumah, he is disqualified. Neither he nor his servants may partake of terumah. [The latter law] applies when he engages in intimacy through vaginal intercourse. If, however, he is intimate through anal intercourse, [the above does not apply], because a male does not disqualify another male from priestly [privileges].

When a servant belongs to partners and one of them is a priest that does not entitle others to partake of terumah, this servant is forbidden to partake [of terumah]. Whenever [the ownership of a servant] entitles him to partake of terumah, it also entitles him to partake of the breast and the thigh [of the peace sacrifices].

When a daughter of an Israelite marries a priest and brings servants [to his domain] - regardless of whether they are classified as nichsei milog or nichsei tzon barzel - they may partake [of terumah]. Similarly, when the servants of priests purchase servants or the servants of a priest's wife purchase servants, they may partake of terumah, as [intimated by Leviticus 22:11]: "[When a priest] will purchase a soul, the acquisition of his money, [he shall partake of it]." Implied is even an acquisition of an acquisition. An acquisition of [a priest] who is permitted to partake of terumah may entitle others to partake [of terumah]. An acquisition who does not partake of terumah may not entitle others to partake [of terumah].

When the daughter of a priest marries an Israelite and brings servants [to his domain] - regardless of whether they are classified as nichsei milog or nichsei tzon barzel - they may not partake [of terumah].

[The following laws apply when] a widow marries a High Priest or a divorcee or a woman who underwent chalitzah - whether the daughter of a priest or an Israelite - marries an ordinary priest or [a priest] marries another one of the women with whom marriage is prohibited [by Scriptural Law]. If she brings servants [to his domain] which are classified as nichsei milog or nichsei tzon barzel [to his domain], those classified as nichsei milog may not partake [of terumah], even though he is required to provide for their sustenance. Those classified as nichsei tzon barzel may partake of terumah, for they are the husband's property. If [a priest] married a shniyah, she may partake [of terumah], but her servants who are nichsei milog may not partake [of terumah].

When the daughter of a priest who is a widow is consecrated by a High Priest or one who is divorced is consecrated by an ordinary priest, they may not partake of terumah, because they are designated for intimate relations that are forbidden according to Scriptural Law. Similarly, if they enter the chupah without being consecrated, they may not partake [of terumah]. For [entering into] the chupah disqualifies them. If such a woman is widowed or divorced after consecration [but before marriage], she returns to suitability and may partake of terumah. If, however, she had married, she may not partake of terumah, because she already became a chalalah.

When the husband of the daughter of a priest who is himself a priest dies and she falls before yevamim, one of which is a challal, she may not partake of terumah because of her connection to the challal. [This applies] even if one of the acceptable [brothers] issued a mamar to her, for a maamar does not constitute a complete acquisition of a yevamah.

[Although a yavam who is] a priest gives a bill of divorce to his yevamah, [despite the fact that] she becomes forbidden to him, she still remains connected to him. Hence, she is entitled to partake of terumah. [She is not disqualified,] because she is designated for relations that are forbidden [only] by Rabbinic decree, since a bill of divorce disqualifies a yevamah only according to Rabbinic decree. Similarly, the daughter of a priest who underwent the rite of chalitzah or is a shniyah who became consecrated to a priest may partake of terumah. [Also,] when an ordinary priest marries an ailonot, she may partake of terumah.

A fetus, a yavam, consecration, a deaf-mute, and a child of nine years old disqualify [a woman] from partaking of terumah, but do not entitle her to partake [of it].

What is meant [by the above statement] with regard to a fetus? A daughter of an Israelite who was impregnated by a priest is not entitled to partake of terumah by virtue of the fetus. When the daughter of a priest, by contrast, was impregnated by an Israelite, she is prohibited against partaking of terumah because of the fetus. [This is derived from Leviticus 22:13:] "And she shall return to her father's home as in her maidenhood." This excludes a pregnant woman.

When an Israelite has relations with a daughter of a priest, we do not suspect that she became pregnant. Instead, she may immerse herself [in the mikveh] and partake [of terumah] in the evening. If she was married to an Israelite and her husband died, she may immerse herself and partake of terumah in the evening [and continue doing so] for 40 days. If her fetus is recognized [afterwards], retroactively, her [actions] are objectionable from the fortieth day onward. For, throughout the forty days, the embryo is not considered as a fetus, merely as water.

When a daughter of an Israelite was married to a priest and he died, leaving her pregnant, her servants should not partake of terumah because of the fetus. For only a child that was born entitles others to partake [of terumah]. One which is not born does not entitle others to partake [of terumah]. Therefore if the fetus was a challal [and the woman had other acceptable children, the fetus] does not disqualify the servants from partaking of terumah. Instead, they may partake of it by virtue of his brothers who are acceptable priests until this challal is born, at which point, the servants become forbidden to partake [of terumah].

What is meant [by the initial statement] with regard to a yavam? When a daughter of an Israelite is under the obligation to perform yibbum with a priest, she may not partake of terumah, for [ibid.:11] states: "When a priest will purchase a soul" and this [yavam] has not acquired [the woman] yet. When the daughter of a priest is under the obligation to perform yibbum with an Israelite, she is forbidden [to partake of terumah] because of her yavam, as [implied by the verse:] "And she shall return to her father's home as in her maidenhood." This excludes a woman under obligation to perform yibbum.

When a yavam who is a priest engages in relations with his yevamah by force or without intent or he merely uncovers her and does not complete the act of intercourse, he acquires [his yevamah], as stated in Hilchot Yibbum. Nevertheless, he does not entitle her to partake of terumah until he completes the act of intercourse with her consent. When does the above apply? When [the yevamah] was widowed after consecration [alone]. If, however, she had been married, since she had been partaking of terumah previously, she is entitled to partake of it by virtue of [the inferior] acts of intimacy mentioned above.

What is meant [by the initial statement] with regard to a consecration? When a daughter of a priest is consecrated by an Israelite, she is forbidden to partake [of terumah], for he has already acquired her. When the daughter of an Israelite has been consecrated by a priest, she may not partake [of terumah] until she enters the chupah, lest she give terumah to the members of her father's household, as we explained.

When an Israelite tells the daughter of a priest: "Behold, you are consecrated to me after 30 days," she may partake [of terumah] for these 30 days, for the consecration has not taken effect yet. If, however, he told her: "You are consecrated to me from the present and after 30 days," she is forbidden to partake [of terumah] immediately. Similar laws apply with regard to other conditional agreements of this type.

What is meant [by the initial statement] with regard to a deaf-mute? When a daughter of a priest is married to an Israelite who is a deaf-mute, she may not partake [of terumah], since he acquires her by virtue of the ordinance of our Sages who instituted marriage for him. When a daughter of an Israelite marries a priest who is a deaf-mute, she may not partake [of terumah], because he does not acquire [her] according to Scriptural Law, because he is not of [adequate] intellectual capacity.

[When a woman] was consecrated by a priest of ordinary mental capacity, but he did not marry her until he became a deaf-mute, she may not partake [of terumah]. [In the above situation, if after consecrating a woman, a priest] died and she fell before a yavam who is a deaf-mute, she may not partake [of terumah]. If, however, he married her when he was of ordinary mental capacity and then became a deaf-mute, she may [continue] to partake [of terumah]. If he died and she fell before a yavam who is a deaf-mute and he performs yibbum with her, she may [also continue to] partake [of terumah]. [The rationale for the leniency is] that she was partaking of terumah beforehand. When the wife of [a priest who is] a deaf-mute bears him a child, she may partake [of terumah] by virtue of her child.

What is meant [by the initial statement] with regard to a child of nine years old? [When a daughter of a priest] engaged in relations with a child of nine years old who is forbidden to her, since sexual relations in which he engages are significant, she is disqualified from the priesthood and forbidden to partake of terumah, because she becomes a zonah or a chalalah, as we explained. [This applies] even if [the child] is sexually impotent. When a daughter of an Israelite marries a priest who is nine years old, even though the relations in which he engages are significant, she is not entitled to partake of terumah because of [this] child, because he cannot acquire her [as his wife] until he reaches majority. If there is a doubt whether [a child forbidden to a daughter of a priest] is nine years old or not, she is forbidden to partake [of terumah]. [This same ruling applies] if she married a boy thirteen years old and there was a question whether he manifested physical signs of maturity or not.

All of the relationships [mentioned above] that do not entitle a woman to partake of terumah prescribed by Scriptural Law also do not entitle her to partake of terumah prescribed by Rabbinic Law. [This is] a decree lest they have them partake of terumah prescribed by Scriptural Law.

The [following] individuals neither disqualify [the daughter of a priest from partaking of terumah] or enable [the daughter of an Israelite] to partake of it:a rapist, a seducer, or a mentally or emotionally unstable person. [This applies] provided she is not forbidden to them, in which instance, they disqualify her through relations, because she becomes a zonah or a chalalah, as we explained.

When a woman married a priest who was intellectually or emotionally unstable or a priest raped her or seduced her and she bore him a child, she may partake of terumah because of her son. There is a doubt concerning the matter, for since she was not consecrated to him, it is possible that she was impregnated by another person. Nevertheless, we operate under the presumption that the child was conceived by [the priest] who engaged in relations with her. [This applies] provided rumors did not circulate concerning her with another person. Instead, everyone gossips about her and this priest. Similar concepts apply when an Israelite who is intellectually or emotionally unstable engages in relations with the daughter of a priest or [an Israelite] raped or seduced her and she became pregnant. She may not partake of terumah because of the fetus. If the fetus is aborted, she may partake [of terumah].

When witnesses concerning a [sotah] warning and witnesses concerning [a sotah] meeting testify against a woman married [to a priest], she is forbidden to partake of terumah until she drinks the bitter water, because there is a question whether she is a zonah. If her husband dies before she drinks the water or she is one of the women who are absolved from drinking and do not receive the money due them by virtue of their ketubah, she is forbidden to partake of terumah forever. Whenever the wife of a priest says: "I have been unfaithful," she is forbidden to partake of terumah.

When a daughter of an Israelite who has not attained majority marries a priest without her father's consent, whether in his presence or in his absence, she may not partake of terumah even though her father consecrated her. [The rationale is that] her father might object and then she would retroactively be unfit [to partake of terumah]. [The reason] he remains silent even though he sees is because he is angry because she married without his consent.

A woman may partake of terumah until her bill of divorce reaches her hand or the hand of her agent whom she appointed to receive it. Whenever there is a doubt whether or not a woman was divorced, she may not partake of terumah. When a woman appoints an agent to receive her bill of divorce, she is forbidden to partake of terumah immediately. If she said: "Receive the bill of divorce for me in this-and-this place," she is not forbidden [to partake of terumah] until the agent reaches that place. If she sent an agent to bring her the bill of divorce, she may partake of terumah until the bill of divorce reaches her hand. When a person tells his wife: "This is your bill of divorce; [it is effective] one hour before my death" she is forbidden to partake of terumah immediately.

[The inhabitants of] a city under siege, [the voyagers on] a ship in danger of sinking at sea, and a suspect to be judged [for a crime worthy of capital punishment] are presumed to be alive. Needless to say, this applies to one who goes on a caravan journey. [In the following instances,] however: a city was captured by besieging forces, a ship was lost at sea, or a person was going out to be executed by a gentile court, a person dragged by a wild beast, one upon whom a landslide fell, or one carried away by a river, we regard the individuals with the stringencies appropriate to both the living and the dead. Therefore if among the women were the daughter of a priest married to an Israelite or the daughter of an Israelite married to a priest, they may not partake [of terumah]. If, however, a person was sentenced to death in a [Jewish] court and was taken to the place where he will be stoned, we presume that he is dead and his wife may not partake [of terumah].

If a woman left her husband while he was in his death throes in another country, she may not partake of terumah, whether she is the daughter of a priest married to an Israelite or the daughter of an Israelite married to a priest. [The rationale is that] most people in their death throes die. If one witness testifies that [a woman's husband] has died and one testifies that he has not died, she may not partake [of terumah].

[When a man is married to two wives and] one of the wives tells the other that their husband died, since [the other wife] cannot marry by virtue of this testimony, she may continue to partake of terumah on the presumption that her husband is alive until a person upon whose testimony is sufficient to enable her to marry testifies concerning her. [The same ruling applies] if such testimony is given by any of the five women whose testimony is not accepted if they say that her husband died.

When [a priest] frees his servant, from the time he transfers his bill of emancipation to him, he disqualifies him from partaking of terumah. Whenever a servant is given his freedom, but his bill of emancipation is withheld as will be explained in Hilchot Avadim, he is, nonetheless, forbidden to partake of terumah.

There is a doubt [whether the transfer of the ownership of a servant is effective in the following situation]. A person composed a legal document transferring his property - which included servants - to another person. He [did not give the document to that person directly, but instead] gave it to another person on his behalf. The recipient [of the present] remained silent and afterwards, protested. There is a doubt whether his protests reflected his initial disposition and thus [the servants] have never left the initial domain or whether his protest after his initial silence is [interpreted as] a renunciation of his initial position. Therefore, [the servants] may not partake of terumah. [This applies] whether the second master was an Israelite and the first master, a priest or the first master was an Israelite and the second, a priest.

When an Israelite rents livestock from a priest, he may feed it terumah. When a priest rents livestock from an Israelite, although he is obligated to provide it with food, he may not feed it terumah, because it is not his financial acquisition.

When an Israelite receives a cow from a priest for the sake of fattening it and has it evaluated so that its increase in value will be split, he may not feed it terumah even though the priest has a share in its increase in value. If, by contrast, a priest receives a cow from an Israelite for the sake of fattening it and has it evaluated, he may feed it terumah. [The rationale is that] although the Israelite has a share in its increase in value, its body belongs to the priest, because he has [accepted responsibility] for its value.

When a cow belonging to an Israelite gives birth to its firstborn, the owner may feed it terumah, for the firstborn belongs to the priests. A person may store vetch that is terumah in his dovecote. He need not worry that his doves will come and eat it.

It appears to me that if a priest sold his cow to an Israelite and took payment, he can no longer feed it terumah even though the purchaser has not drawn it into his domain as of yet. [The rationale is that] according to Scriptural Law, the transfer of money completes a transaction, as will be explained in Hilchot Mekach UMemcar. [Conversely,] if an Israelite sold a cow to a priest, he should not feed it terumah until he draws it into his domain even though he already made payment.

When a non-priests partakes of terumah unknowingly, he must make restitution for the principal and add a fifth. Even if he knows that it is terumah and that he is warned against partaking of it, but he does not know whether or not he is liable for death, he is considered to have acted unknowingly and he must make restitution for the principal and add a fifth.

A person who eats an article [that is terumah] that is ordinarily eaten, drinks something that is ordinarily drunk, or smears himself with something ordinarily used for that purpose [is liable], as [derived from Leviticus 22:15]: "And they shall not defile the sacraments of the children of Israel." This includes one who smears himself. Whether one partakes of terumah which is ritually pure or ritually impure unknowingly, one must make restitution for the principal and add a fifth. He is not liable for a fifth until he eats an olive-sized portion, as [indicated by ibid.:14]: "When one will eat a sacrament unknowingly"; eating implies consuming no less than an olive-sized portion. Just as one is liable for eating an olive-sized portion, so too, [one is liable for] drinking an olive-sized portion.

[The following laws apply if a person] ate terumah and then ate again, drank and then drank again. If there is sufficient time to eat a half a loaf of bread from the time he began to eat until he concluded or sufficient time to drink a revi'it from the time he began to drink until he concluded, [all he consumes] is combined to comprise an olive-sized portion.

Terumah, terumat ma'aser, whether the latter is from d'mai or from produce from which the tithes were definitely [not separated], challah, and the first fruits can all be combined together to comprise an olive-sized portion for which one is liable for death or [restitution, plus] a fifth, for they are all called terumah [at different times in the Torah]. According to law, one should not be liable for a fifth for [the unknowing consumption of] terumat ma'aser that is d'mai, just as one is not liable for the second tithe [from d'mai], as will be explained. Nevertheless, our Sages said: If one is not liable for a fifth, people will treat it with disdain.

When a person partook terumah intentionally [after] receiving a warning, he is liable for lashes and is not required to make financial restitution. If he did not receive warning, [he is required to make financial restitution]. If [the terumah] was ritually pure, he is required to make restitution for the principal, but is not required to add a fifth. If [the terumah] was ritually impure, he is required to pay only as if it were wood, because it is fit only to use as fuel. Accordingly, if one ate berries or pomegranates or the like that were terumah that became impure, he is not obligated to make restitution, because these are not fit to be used as fuel.

When a person eats terumah that is chametz on Pesach, whether willfully or unknowingly, whether it is ritually impure or pure, he is exempt from financial liability. Even if he separated terumah from matzah, but it became chametz [before he ate it], he is exempt. He is not even required to pay as if it were wood, because it is not fit for use as fuel. [Instead,] since it is forbidden to benefit from it, it is of no value whatsoever.

If, however, one unknowingly ate terumah on Yom Kippur, ate terumah that was perforated, drank wine that was terumah that was left open, smeared himself with wine and oil [that were terumah] at the same time, or drank oil and vinegar [that were terumah] at the same time, chewed raw kernels of wheat, or swallowed vinegar, he is liable to make restitution for the principal and add a fifth.

When a person is satisfied and is disgusted by his food, but continues eating terumah despite the fact that he is satisfied, he is not required to add a fifth [when making restitution, for the prooftext cited above] states: "When one will eat...." [Implied is that he is when he eats in an ordinary manner] and not when he harms himself. Similarly, when one chews raw kernels of barley, he is not liable, because he harms himself.

When a non-priest swallowed prunes of terumah [whole unknowingly] and then regurgitated them, and another person came and also ate them unknowingly, the first person is required to make restitution for the principal and add a fifth and the second person is obligated to pay the first one as if the prunes were wood.

When one feeds terumah to workers or to guests, they are required to make restitution for the principal and add a fifth, for they acted unknowingly. He must pay them for their meal, for ordinary produce is more valuable than the terumah, since a person's soul is repelled from forbidden food.

When [a non-priest] feeds terumah to his children who were below majority or to his servants whether they are above or below majority, he must pay the principal, but not the additional fifth. [This ruling also applies to] one who partakes of terumah from the Diaspora, one who eats or drinks less than an olive-sized portion, a nazarite who unknowingly drank wine that was terumah, one drinks oil [without it being mixed with other liquids] and one who smears himself with wine.

When the daughter of a priest who was married to an Israelite or disqualified [from partaking of terumah for other reasons] partook of terumah, she must make restitution for the principal, but she is not required to add a fifth. When a woman was partaking of terumah and she was told: "Your husband died," or "...divorced you," she is required to pay only the principal. If the terumah was chametz on the day preceding Pesach, she is exempt from making restitution. [The rationale is that then] the time is pressing and she hurried to eat without investigating. [These same laws apply] when a servant was partaking [of terumah] and he was told: "Your master died and left an heir who does not entitle you to eat," "...sold you to an Israelite," "...gave you to him as a present," or "...freed you," and when a priest was partaking [of terumah] and he discovered that he is the son of a divorcee or a woman who underwent chalitzah. In all of these instances, if these individuals had terumah in their mouths when they discovered that they were forbidden to partake of it, they should spit it out.

[Similarly, when a priest] was partaking [of terumah] and he was told: "You became impure," "The terumah became impure," "You were impure," or "the terumah was impure," he should spit it out. [The same ruling applies] if he discovered that [the terumah] was tevel, the first tithe from which terumat ma'aser had not been separated, or ma'aser sheni or consecrated property that was not redeemed, or [when partaking of the terumah,] he tasted a bug.

When there are two containers, one of terumah and one of ordinary produce, and terumah fell into one of them, but it is not known which one, we operate under the supposition that it fell into the one which [contained] terumah. If it is not known which one is terumah and a non-priest partakes of one of them, he is not liable for payment. [The rationale is that when a person seeks] to expropriate money from a colleague, the burden of proof is on him. He must treat the other one as if it were terumah. If another person partakes of the other one, however, he is also exempt. If, however, one person eats them both, he must make restitution for the smaller one. If he did so intentionally, he is required to make restitution for the principal. If he did so unknowingly, he is required to make restitution for the principal, plus a fifth.

When a person eats the additional fifth unknowingly, he must [make restitution for it and] add another fifth. For the fifth is considered as the principal with regard to all matters. Similarly, he continues to add a fifth for every fifth forever. Whenever a person makes restitution for the principal and the additional fifth, [the grain] he gives is terumah with regard to all matters [with one exception]. If they were sown, the grain that grows is ordinary produce. If the priest wishes to forgo [the payment], he cannot. Whenever, [by contrast,] a person makes restitution only for the principal, [the grain] he gives is ordinary grain and if the priest desires to forgo payment, he may.

[The following laws apply if] a daughter of an Israelite partakes of terumah and then marries a priest. If [she partook] of terumah that had not been acquired by a priest, she may make restitution of the principal and the additional fifth to herself. If she partook of terumah that a priest had acquired, she is required to make restitution of the principal to its owner, but she may keep the additional fifth as her own. For whenever a person makes restitution and pays an additional fifth, he may give the additional fifth to whichever priest he desires.

If she was not able to make restitution before she was divorced, she can no longer make restitution to herself and she is like a person who never married a priest at all.

Whenever a person partakes of terumah whether unknowingly or intentionally, he may make restitution only from ordinary produce from which the terumot and the tithes have been separated. Restitution may be made from leket, shichichah, pe'ah, ownerless grain, and grain from the first tithe after terumat ma'aser was separated i.e., even if the great terumah from that crop had not been separated, for the person separated the tithes before the terumah. One may make restitution from the second tithes and consecrated property that were redeemed, even though they were not redeemed in an appropriate manner. And one may make restitution using new grain for old grain. One may not, however, make restitution from one type [of grain] for another type [of grain]. [This is derived from Leviticus 22:14:] "And he shall give the priest the sanctified [food]." [Implied is that it must be the same] as the sanctified food he ate.

When a person eats zucchini from the sixth year, he should wait until [he acquires] the zucchini of the eighth year to make restitution from them. For he cannot pay his debt from the crops of the seventh year, as will be explained in that place.

When a person ate terumah that was ritually impure, he makes restitution from ordinary produce, whether pure or impure. If he partook of terumah that was ritually pure, he should make restitution with ordinary grain that is pure. If he made restitution from ordinary grain that was impure whether intentionally or unknowingly, the restitution he made is accepted, but he must make restitution again from ritually pure grain.

When a person partook of terumah belonging to a chaver, he should make restitution to him. If he partook of terumah belonging to a common person, he should make restitution to a chaver, and take its worth from him and give it to the common person whose terumah he ate. For we do not give articles that require ritually purity to a common person.

When [an Israelite] stole terumah from his maternal grandfather who was a priest and consumed it [unknowingly], and afterwards, his maternal grandfather died, he may not make restitution to himself, but rather to another heir from [the priestly] tribe. Similarly, if he inherited terumah from his maternal grandfather and partook of it, a creditor collected terumah [as payment] for a debt and he partook of it or a woman [received it as part of the money due her by virtue of] her ketubah and she partook of it, they must make restitution for the principal and the additional fifth to a priest who is a chaver and that chaver gives them the monetary equivalent of the terumah at the time they partook of it.

When a person steals terumah but does not consume it, he should pay twice its worth to the owners. He may make this payment according to the worth of terumah. If he stole it and ate it, he must pay twice the principal and a fifth of the principal: i.e., the principal and an additional fifth from ordinary grain, and the principal according to the worth of terumah.

When a person steals terumah that is consecrated to the Temple treasury and eats it, he is not required to pay a double amount, for a double amount is not paid to the Temple treasury, as explained in the appropriate place. He must, however, make restitution for the principal and add two fifths, one fifth [to atone] for partaking of terumah and one fifth [to atone] for benefiting from consecrated property. To whom does he make restitution? If [the terumah] was the size of an olive and it was not worth a p'rutah, he should make restitution to the priests. If it is worth a p'rutah - whether or not it is the size of an olive - he should pay the Temple treasury.

Why does the prohibition against benefiting from consecrated property fall [on this grain when it is already forbidden because of] the prohibition against terumah? Because the terumah was forbidden to a non-priest and permitted to a priest. Once he consecrated it, it became forbidden to a priest. Therefore a prohibition was added to it even for an Israelite in the manner explained in the laws of forbidden relationships and forbidden foods.

When a person obtains terumah by robbery, he must make restitution for the principal and add one fifth. [The rationale is that] the fifth that he is liable for [to atone for partaking of] terumah fulfills his obligation for robbery, as [implied by Leviticus 22:14:] "And you shall give the priest the sacred [food]." He is liable only for the fifth [associated with atonement for] the sacred [food]. If he obtains terumah through robbery and feeds it to another person, that person must make restitution for the principal and add a fifth. Whenever we have said that a person must make restitution for the principal and add a fifth, [the intent is that] if he ate grain worth four [zuz], he must pay five from the type of grain from which he partook. Whenever we mentioned [payment of] the principal and two fifths, [the intent is that] if he ate grain worth four [zuz], he must pay six. Whenever we mentioned [payment of] two principals and one fifth, [the intent is that] if he ate grain worth four [zuz], he must pay nine. Whenever he makes restitution, he must pay for the worth of the grain at the time he partook of it whether its value depreciated at the time he made restitution or appreciated.

Terumah may be used for eating, drinking, and smearing upon oneself, for smearing upon oneself is equivalent to drinking, as [indicated by Psalms 109:18]: "It has entered his innards like water and like oil into his bones." And drinking is like eating. [One should] eat a substance fit to be eaten, drink a substance fit to be drunk, and smear a substance fit to be smeared. One should not smear wine and vinegar. One may, however, smear oneself with pure oil and may kindle impure oil. It is referred to as oil [fit for] burning universally.

It is permitted to compress dates that are terumah and collect them as a cake of dried dates. It is, however, forbidden to make them into beer. [For the same reason,] we do not make dates into honey, nor apples, wine, nor fall produce into vinegar. Similarly, with regard to other produce, we do not change them from their natural state if they are terumah; the only exceptions are olives and grapes. If one transgressed and made food into a beverage, one should drink it. When a non-priest partakes of date-honey, apple-wine, or the like that is terumah inadvertently, he is not liable to make restitution. If he partook [of such products] intentionally, he should be given stripes for rebellious conduct.

We may not place dried dates and dried figs [that are terumah] into brine. One may, however, place wine in brine. We do not place fragrant herbs in oil, because doing so removes it from the category of food and makes it oil for smearing. One may mix wine, honey, pepper, and the like, in order to partake of them.

We do not boil wine that is terumah, because this reduces its quantity. We do not pickle onions that are terumah in vinegar that is terumah, because this spoils the vinegar. We do not mix grain with legumes. All substances that become distinct from each other when they are sorted through a sieve may be mixed together. When the land of Judah was laid waste, [the people] began mixing one type of grain with another and one type of legumes with another. They did not, however, [mix] grain with legumes.

In the same way as ordinary flour is sifted, so too, a priest [sifts flour] that is terumah. He sifts [what is fit] to eat and discards the bran. If he desires to make fine flour, he should sift it many times until he produces a kab or two kabbim from a se'ah. He should not discard the remainder, because it is fit to be eaten. Instead, he should place it in a private place.

Oil that is terumah should not be used to seal an oven or a range, nor should it be smeared on a shoe or sandal. Nor should one smear it on his foot while [the foot] is in a shoe or sandal. He may, however, smear [oil that is terumah] on his foot and put on a shoe or smear his entire body and then roll on a new leather mat. Even though they will be smeared, he need not show concern. He should not, however, place oil on a marble tablet to roll upon because he causes it to be ruined.

Whenever anyone partakes of terumah - even fruit - he must wash his hands [before doing so. This applies] even if his hands are pure, as will be explained in the appropriate place. It may not be eaten on a table at which a non-priest [is dining; this is] a decree lest he partake of it. Terumah from the Diaspora may be eaten on a table at which a non-priest [is dining] and, like ordinary food, does not require that one wash his hands before partaking of it. We do not smear oil that is terumah with soiled hands. If, however, [such oil] fell on his flesh, he can rub it with soiled hands. One may apply oil that is terumah to an infant during the seven days after he was born [even though he is uncircumcised]. For a newborn is not considered as uncircumcised for the first seven days [of his life].

A priest may smear oil that is terumah on himself and then bring his daughter's son who is an Israelite and roll him on his back. If he smears oil [that is terumah] on his body and enters a bathhouse, a non-priest may massage him in the bathhouse even though [the oil] will be applied to him.

When the daughter of a priest applied chilbah which is terumah to her hair, an Israelite woman is not permitted to apply [the remaining chilbah] to [her hair]. She may, however, rub her hair together with the hair [of the daughter of the priest]. Why were priests given permission to apply chilbah which is terumah to their hair? Because it is not fit for human consumption [as food].

The stems of figs, dried figs, wild figs, carobs, the insides of melons, the peels of melons, esrogim, and cucumbers even if they do not contain any food, and the extremities of the vegetables that are discarded by homeowners [when preparing vegetables], are forbidden to non-priests. The extremities of the vegetables that are cut off by gardeners, by contrast, are permitted to non-priests. The casings of beans and sesame seeds are forbidden if they contain food. If they do not contain food, they are permitted.

The seeds of esrogim are permitted to be eaten. The seeds of olives, dates, and carobs, [by contrast,] even though they were not collected by a priest, are forbidden to a non-priest. With regard to other seeds, [the rule is]: If they were collected and have moisture, so that they can be sucked, they are forbidden to a non-priest. If they were discarded, they are permitted.

Bran from wheat: Fresh bran is forbidden, for it is fit to be eaten by humans. Aged bran is permitted. Until when is the bran considered fresh? For the entire time that people are accustomed to beat the grain at the granaries.

Lower quality and slight rotten kernels of grain that are terumah are forbidden. If they already produce dust, they are permitted. When one pours water over dregs [of grapes] that are terumah, the first and second batches are forbidden to non-priests, but the third is permitted. If one does not pour water over them, but instead, strains off the wine from the seeds, even the third straining is forbidden to non-priests.

When one has cleared the kernels of wheat that are terumah from a grainheap, we do not require the owner to sit and collect the [leftover] kernels one by one and [only after collecting them] bring ordinary grain there. Instead, he may sweep the area in the ordinary manner, and then bring ordinary grain there. Similarly, when a jug of oil that is terumah spills, we don't require [the owner] to sponge it up until [the earth] is dry. Instead, he may conduct himself as he does with ordinary [oil].

When a person pours out oil that is terumah from a jug, he should continue to pour until the stream [of oil] ceases and the oil begins to drip, little by little. Once three drops have dropped one after the other, it is sufficient. It is permitted to place ordinary oil in that jug. If, however, he did not place ordinary oil and leaned the jug on its side until the remnants [of the oil] collected together, those remnants are terumah.

A priest may fill a lamp with oil fit to be burnt and give it to an Israelite to ascend to a loft and enter a room to perform tasks on behalf of a priest, but not for the sake of an Israelite. If they were partners, it is permitted.

When an Israelite was a guest at a priest's [home] and the priest kindled oil fit to be burnt for him and then departed, he is not required to extinguish [the lamp] until it burns out on its own. An Israelite may dip a wick in the lamp of a priest and kindle it so that he may proceed [using] it.

When livestock belonging to a priest was standing next to livestock belonging to an Israelite or when garments belonging to a priest were being woven next to garments belonging to an Israelite, oil that is fit for burning may be kindled because of them without the permission of the priest. Similarly, we can light oil that is fit to be burnt in synagogues, houses of study, and dark alleyways without the permission of a priest. And a person who does not have ordinary oil to kindle a Chanukah lamp may kindle oil that is fit to be burnt without permission of a priest. We may kindle oil that is fit to be burnt above [the bed of] a sick person with the permission of a priest.

When a daughter of an Israelite who is married to a priest frequently visits her father, he may light [such oil] with her permission. It is permitted for a priest to kindle oil fit to be burnt in a house of mourning or at a wedding celebration even though a multitude of people are present. We do not suspect that the people will partake of it. At a wedding celebration, [this will not take place] because they will not touch it because of their garments are clean, and in a house of mourning, the people will not feel free to do so because of their mourning.

When a person sows terumah unknowingly, he should turn it over. If he did so intentionally, he must maintain [the crop]. Once it reaches a third of its growth, whether he sowed it intentionally or unknowingly, he must maintain [the crop]. If it was flax, even if it reached a third of its growth and even if he sowed it intentionally, he must turn it over. This is a penalty so that he should not sow it with the intention of benefiting from its fibers.

Produce that grows from terumah is considered as ordinary produce with regard to all matters except that it is forbidden to non-priests. Our Sages decreed that it be forbidden to non-priests like terumah [as a safeguard], lest a priest maintain possession of impure terumah with the intent of sowing it and producing [a crop of] ordinary produce and this lead to undesirable consequences. Therefore, it is permitted to eat the products [of such plantings] with impure hands and a person who has immersed himself that day may partake of them like ordinary produce.

Produce grown from produce grown [from terumah] are like ordinary produce with regard to all matters. [This applies] even to types of produce whose seeds do not decompose provided the new growth exceeds the root in the second generation of produce. [In such a situation,] the new growth elevates the root even if the seed does not decompose and the entire [plant] is permitted to be eaten by non-priests. The same applies with regard to [produce that grows from] terumah from the Diaspora, terumah mixed with ordinary produce, extra terumah, or seeds from garden vegetables that are not eaten themselves, e.g., turnips and radishes. Although the turnips and radishes themselves are terumah, [the produce] growing from their [seeds] is like ordinary produce with regard to all matters.Similarly, when a person sows flaxseed that is terumah, the plants growing from it are permitted to non-priests.

When a person sows terumah that is impure, even though the produce that grows is ritually pure, it is forbidden to partake of it. [The rationale is that] since the terumah that was sown was forbidden to be eaten, it was already cast off. [Hence, it remains forbidden].

If he cut off the leaves that grew and then another set of leaves grew and he cut them off, the produce that emerge afterwards is permitted to be eaten.

When plants of ordinary produce became impure and afterwards, they were sown and designated as terumah, they are permitted [to be eaten. The rationale is that] sowing them caused them to be considered pure and they did not become impure while they were terumah so that they would be forbidden.

When a stalk [of grain] was in the midst of a grain heap and one straightened the edges of the grain heap, this stalk is considered tevel, because it was in the grain heap when it was straightened. If [that stalk] was planted, and then it was singled out and designated as terumah, there is an unresolved question if it is terumah. Since it was planted, it is possible to say that it was released from the categorization as tevel and is considered as produce for which all the required work was not completed. If, however, it was designated as terumah before it was planted, it is terumah. Therefore if one ripped off [a portion] of it and ate it willfully, he is liable for death [at the hand of heaven]. If he did so unknowingly, he must [make restitution and add] a fifth. If he bent over and ate from the ground with his mouth, his intent is of no consequence because of the approach of people at large [and] it is not the ordinary practice for people to eat in this manner. Therefore he is not liable for death, nor for the [additional] fifth if he acted unknowingly.

The obligations of leket, shichichah, pe'ah, terumah the tithes and the tithe given to the poor apply with regard to a field of produce that grew from terumah. Poor Israelites and poor priests come and take these presents. The poor priests eat those that they acquire. The poor Israelites sell theirs to the priests for the price of terumah. Similarly, a Levite must sell his tithes to a priest.

A person who crushes such produce is praiseworthy. When a person threshes it with an animal, what should he do? He should tie a bucket around the animals neck and place the type of grain it is threshing in it. Thus he will neither be muzzling the animal, nor feeding it terumah.

It is forbidden to cause the terumah of Eretz Yisrael to contract ritual impurity, as [is the rule with regard to] other sacred articles. One should not bring it to a state of ritual impurity, nor should one spoil it. Instead, he should partake of pure [terumah] and kindle impure terumah. It is permitted to cause terumah from the Diaspora to become impure, even with impurity mandated by Scriptural Law. Although it is only ritually impure because of the impurity stemming from the Diaspora which is a Rabbinic decree, [this leniency is granted] because the obligation to separate [such terumah] is also of Rabbinic origin. For this reason, a woman may separate challah while in the niddah state in the Diaspora, for she is cautioned only against eating it, not against touching it, as we explained.

If a doubt arose whether terumah became impure, it should not be eaten, nor should it be burnt. Instead, one should place it aside until it becomes definitely impure, [at which time,] it should be burnt. There are situations in which doubt has arisen that mandate that terumah should be burnt as will be explained with regard to [the laws of] ritual purity and impurity.

When a question arises whether a jug of wine has become ritually impure, one should not do anything with it. One should not move it from its place, nor reveal it. Instead, he should leave it in its place until it definitely becomes impure and must be burnt. We are not concerned that perhaps it will be eaten.

[The following rules apply when] a jug [of wine that is terumah which is pure] is broken in an upper vat and the lower vat [contains ordinary wine that is] impure. If it is possible for a person to save a revi'it of wine in a state of purity, he should do so. If not, he should save [the wine] with his hands without washing them even though he imparts ritual impurity [to the terumah], as will be explained [in the laws pertaining to] ritual purity.

When does the above apply? To a jug of wine, [and then] provided that the contents of the lower vat are less than 100 times the amount [that falls in], in which instance, the terumah wine will mix with the ordinary wine and everything will be disqualified. If, however, the lower vat contained 100 times the amount of the jug and thus [the wine that descends] will be nullified because [the mixture] is 101 times the original or the jug contains oil, he should allow it to descend and become impure instead of making it impure with his own hands. [The rationale is that] the entire quantity is fit to use as fuel and there will be no great loss. Similarly, if a jug of oil is spilling, if it is possible for one to save a revi'it of oil in a state of purity, he should do so. If not, he should save it while ritually impure. Since the jug is broken, he is not adjured against saving it in a state of ritual impurity, because he is agitated.

[The following laws apply when] one was traveling from place to place, carrying loaves that are terumah, and a gentile tells him: "Give me one of them. If not, I will touch all of them and make them ritually impure." He should place one of them on a rock, but he should not place it in his hand so that he will not be a direct cause of the terumah becoming ritually impure.

[The following laws apply with regard to] chilbah and vetch that are terumah. Since they are not fit for human consumption, it is permitted to carry out all the actions [connected with their preparation] in a state of ritual impurity. One must be careful only when placing them in the water to soak. For if one placed them in the water to soak while ritually impure, one will have made them ritually impure directly. Once one has soaked them, however, one need not be concerned with ritual impurity at the time one crushes the vetch or when one feeds them to an animal. For this reason, one may give chilbah and vetch that are terumah to a priest who is a common person.

We do not entrust terumah to a priest who is an unlearned person, because he is easygoing about it and may partake of it. We may, however, entrust [terumah] to an unlearned Israelite if it is stored in an earthenware container sealed with a wrapper, provided it is not produce that is already made fit to contract ritual impurity. [This is] a decree lest it be moved by his wife while she is in the nidah state.

We do not separate terumah from olives in a state of ritual purity for an unlearned person. We may, however, prepare ordinary olives for him in a state of ritual purity. [This leniency was granted] so that the operator of the vat could earn his livelihood. How should this process be carried out? He should separate an amount of produce sufficient for terumah and place it in a utensil that cannot contract ritual impurity, e.g., a stone utensil. When the unlearned person comes to take the ordinary produce and the terumah, we tell him: "Be careful not to touch the terumah. Otherwise, the produce will become tevel again."

When an Israelite performs the tasks associated with the preparation of his produce while ritually impure, we should not harvest grapes with him. Needless to say, we should not tread the grapes with him, because the terumah will be made ritually impure. One may, however, carry barrels to and from the vat for him.

When olives and grapes have become ritually impure, we may squeeze them and separate terumah [from the oil or wine]. If [grapes or the olives] became impure after they themselves were designated as terumah, they should be squeezed [using] less than an egg-sized portion at a time. In such an instance, the liquid that flows from them is permitted to be drunk by the priests. Indeed, it would be fit to be used for libations on the altar. [The rationale is that] the liquid is considered as set aside within the fruit. The reason that [our Sages] spoke of less than an egg-sized portion is that this is a decree lest one use more than an egg-sized portion and the liquid become impure because of [contact with] the egg-sized portion. If the produce was impure to the third degree, one may tread upon it in the vat and the liquid produced from it can be used for pure terumah. [The rationale is that] ritual impurity of the third degree does not bring about ritual impurity of the fourth degree with regard to terumah, as will be explained with regard to the concept of ritual purity.

When a loaf of bread that is terumah becomes impure, it should be discarded among the firewood until one uses it for fuel. Similarly, if oil [that is terumah] becomes impure, it should be placed in a repugnant container until it is used as fuel so that it will not create a stumbling block for others, [lest] they partake of it. When wheat [kernels] become impure, one should parboil them and place them in a repugnant container until they are no longer fit to be eaten and then use them as fuel for an oven or range. Liquids that are not fit to be used as fuel, e.g., wine, should be buried.

When wine that is terumah is left uncovered, since it is forbidden to drink it, it should be poured out. Similarly, figs, grapes, marrow, squash, watermelon, and cucumbers that are terumah that were discovered to be perforated are forbidden to be eaten because of the mortal danger involved. What should be done with them? They should be discarded in the sea or buried.

When a dough was kneaded with water that was left uncovered, it should be burnt even though it is terumah.

It is forbidden for a priest to take terumah or any other of the presents given to him until they were separated by the owners [of the produce], as [implied by the verses, Numbers 18:12]: "The first [of the produce] which they will give to G-d I have given to you" and [ibid.:19]: "...that the children of Israel will offer up to G-d are given to you." [Implied is that] the children of Israel must offer it up and then [the priests] can acquire it. [The priests] should not take [these presents] after they have been set aside except with the knowledge of the owners. For the owners have the right to give them to any priest that they desire, as [ibid. 5:10] states: "A person's sacraments will belong to him." [Nevertheless,] if [a priest] takes them without the owner's knowledge, he acquires them. For all that belongs to the owner is the right to apportion them and that right is not financially significant.

When terumah was given to a priest and he found other entities in it, it is forbidden for him [to take them]. This is comparable to theft, for perhaps other people placed them [in the terumah] to take them [afterwards].

An Israelite is not required to trouble himself with terumah and bring it from the granary until a city or from a desert until a settled area. Instead, the priests should go out to the granaries and the Israelites should give them their portions there. If they did not go out [to collect the terumah, the owner] should separate it and leave it in the granary. Our Sages ordained that if there are beasts or animals who would eat it there and it is not protected from them, [the owner] should take the trouble of dealing with it and bringing it to the city. He may collect a wage for bringing it [to the city] from the priest. [This is done,] because if he separated it and left it for the animals and beasts, G-d's name would be desecrated.

It is forbidden for the priests and the Levites to assist [farmers] in the granaries in order to receive the agricultural presents given them. Whoever renders such assistance desecrates the holiness of G-d's name. Concerning such people is applied [the malediction, Malachi 2:8]: "You have defiled the covenant of Levi." It is forbidden for an Israelite to allow [a priest] to help him. Instead, he should grant them their portion with honor.

When a person gives terumah to a priest on the condition that he returns it, he has fulfilled his obligation to give. It is, however, forbidden to do so, for [the priest] is considered like one who helps in the granaries. Similarly, it is forbidden for [the priests] to seize the terumot and the tithes. It is even forbidden for them to make a verbal request for them. Instead, they should take them with honor, for they are eating and drinking from the table of G-d. These presents are given to Him and He apportioned them to them, as [Numbers 18:8] states: "Behold I have given to you the safeguard of My terumah."

A person should not give terumah to the watchman of his vat, nor a firstborn animal to the watchman of his flock, nor the presents [given when an animal is slaughtered] to the shepherd of his animals. If he gave them [to these individuals], he desecrated [their honor] unless he gave them their wages for watching first. One Israelite may tell another Israelite: "Here is a sela. Give terumah...", "...a firstborn...", or other presents [given to the priests] "...to so-and-so, the priest, who is my daughter's son, or "...my sister's son," or the like.

When does the above apply? When the owner desired to give [the presents] to one of two priests or [tithes] to one of two Levites gratis and his colleague told him: "Here is this and give to that one." If, however, an owner told a priest or a Levite: "Here is this portion. [Give me something in exchange] for my privilege to give it to whom I want," this is forbidden. Similarly, it is forbidden to sell terumah as merchandise even though he purchases it from a priest and sells it to a priest.

There are ten individuals to whom terumah is not given in the granaries even though they may partake of it or grant others the right to partake of it: a deaf-mute, an intellectually or emotionally unstable person, or a child who does not know how to spread out his hands to recite the priestly blessing, these [are not given terumah], because they lack sufficient knowledge; a tumtum and an androgynus, because they are unique types of people; a servant, lest passersby in the field [see him taking terumah] and give testimony that he is a priest; an uncircumcised person and a ritually impure person, because they are abhorrent; a woman [married to a priest], lest she be divorced and [to prevent her from] entering into seclusion [with someone in the granary]; and a person who marries a woman who is not appropriate for him; he was penalized in that [terumah] would not be allocated to him in the granaries until he divorces her. In all the above instances, [terumah] may be sent to their homes and allocated to them as is the law regarding other sacramental foods dependent on the boundaries [of Eretz Yisrael] with the exception of a person who marries a woman who is not appropriate for him, an uncircumcised person and a ritually impure person, to whom [terumah] is not sent at all.

Terumah becomes nullified in a mixture 101 times the size of the original quantity. What is implied? When a se'ah of terumah falls into 100 se'ah of ordinary produce and all the produce becomes mixed together, he should separate one se'ah and give it to the priest. The remainder is permitted [to be eaten by] non-priests. [Accordingly,] whenever the terumah is a substance which the priests do not care about, e.g., terumah from wild figs, carobs, Edomite barley and the like, it is not necessary to separate [a hundredth for the priest]. Instead, since it fell into a 100 times its amount, it is nullified because of its minimal size and the entire mixture is permitted to non-priests.

If a se'ah of terumah fell into less than 100 [se'ah of ordinary produce], the entire mixture becomes miduma. It should be sold to a priest at the price of terumah with the exception of that se'ah. When does the above apply? When produce becomes mixed with its own kind. If, however, produce becomes mixed with produce of another type, [the ruling is dependent on whether] the flavor [of the terumah] is recognizable or not. If the entire mixture has the flavor of terumah, it is all considered as miduma and should be sold to the priests with the exception of the value of the terumah. If the flavor of the entire mixture is that of the ordinary produce, the entire mixture is permitted to non-priests.

When a se'ah of terumah falls into 100 se'ah and one se'ah was removed from the mixture, if that se'ah fell into other produce, the question whether the mixture is considered as miduma is determined according to the proportion [of terumah in the first mixture].Similarly, if a se'ah of terumah fell into less than one hundred se'ah [of ordinary produce] and the entire mixture became miduma and then some of this mixture fell into other [produce], the question whether the mixture is considered as miduma is determined according to the proportion [of terumah in the first mixture]. What is implied? Ten se'ah of terumah fell into 90 se'ah of ordinary produce and the entire mixture became miduma. If ten se'ah from this mixture fell into less than 100 se'ah of ordinary produce, the mixture is considered miduma, because in the ten se'ah of the [original] mixture, there was at least one se'ah of terumah. If less than ten se'ah [of terumah] fell into [the original mixture], the [second] mixture is not considered as miduma [when one se'ah of the first mixture fell into 100 se'ah].

When does the above apply? With regard to substances that do not become blended together, e.g., wheat kernels with wheat kernels or flour with flour. When, however, substances blend together, e.g., oil that is terumah mixes with ordinary oil or wine that is terumah mixes with ordinary wine, we follow the majority. If the majority is terumah, should the mixture fall into other produce, the ruling is the same as if [the first mixture] was [entirely] terumah. If the majority of the [first] mixture is ordinary produce, should that mixture fall into other produce, [the entire first mixture] is considered as ordinary produce and there is never a difficulty concerning a mixture of terumah. Nevertheless, in all instances, the entire [first] mixture is forbidden to non-priests.

When a se'ah of terumah falls into 100 se'ah, [a se'ah of the mixture] was removed, another [se'ah of terumah] fell in, [another se'ah] was removed, and another fell in, the ordinary produce is permitted until there is a majority of terumah [in the mixture]. Thus if more than 100 se'ah of terumah fell into 100 se'ah of ordinary produce, se'ah after se'ah [in above manner], the entire mixture is considered as miduma.

[The following rules apply when] a se'ah of terumah fell into 100 [se'ah of ordinary produce] and before one se'ah was removed, another se'ah of terumah fell [into the mixture]. If [the owner] was aware of the first se'ah before the second se'ah fell, [the mixture] does not become miduma. Instead, he should remove two se'ah and the remainder is permitted. [The rationale is that] since it should have been taken out, we consider it as if it was taken out. If, however, he did not become aware of the first se'ah until after the second fell in, the mixture is considered miduma. It is as if both se'ah fell in at the same time.

The waste products of terumah are not combined with it [a mixture of it and ordinary produce] to cause the ordinary produce to be forbidden. The waste products of ordinary produce, by contrast, are combined with it to cause terumah to be nullified in a mixture. What is implied? A se'ah of high quality wheat that is terumah fell into 100 se'ah of wheat of low quality that is ordinary produce. The owner ground the entire quantity. Even though there is much bran in the ordinary produce and a small amount in the terumah and thus the flour from the terumah is more than one hundredth of the flour from the ordinary produce, it is nullified. For we measure the flour with the bran and [together,] it is 101 times [the original amount of terumah]. If, however, a se'ah of low quality wheat that is terumah falls into [slightly] less 100 se'ah of high quality wheat that is ordinary produce and [the owner] ground the entire quantity, [the weight of] the flour that is terumah will be one hundredth of [the weight of] the flour that is ordinary produce. Hence it is nullified because the mixture is 101 times the original amount [of terumah], for the weight of the ordinary produce increased and that of the terumah decreased.

When a log of clear wine that is terumah fell into 100 lugin of cloudy wine that is ordinary produce, we do not remove the dregs from the wine [and only then calculate whether the ordinary wine is 100 times the terumah]. Instead, we nullify the log of terumah. Similarly, if a log of cloudy wine [that is terumah] fell into a 100 log of clear wine, we do not remove the dregs in [the wine that is terumah].

When a log of water fell into 99 lugim of wine and then a log of wine that is terumah fell into the mixture, the entire mixture is considered as miduma, because water does not nullify [the existence of] wine.

[The following rules apply when] a se'ah of terumah fell into less than 100 se'ah of ordinary produce and then other ordinary produce fell into the mixture so that there was more than 100 times [the weight of the terumah]. If [the second batch of produce was added] unknowingly, [the terumah] is nullified because there is 101 [times the original weight]. If he mixed it intentionally, the entire mixture is considered as miduma, because we do not nullify the existence of substances prohibited by Scriptural Law as an initial preference.

It is, however, permitted to nullify terumah from the Diaspora [by mixing it] with a majority of permitted substances and eat it during the time when one is ritually impure. Not only that, if a person possesses wine that is terumah from the Diaspora, he should take one log of this wine and mix it with two lugim of ordinary [wine]. Thus there are three lugim. Afterwards, he can add another log of the terumah wine into the three lugim and then take one log from the four and drink it. He may then add another log [of terumah wine] and take out a log and drink it. Similarly, he may continue adding a log of terumah and removing a log until all the wine that is terumah is completed. Thus he can nullify several lugim [of terumah] in two lugim of ordinary produce.

When one sows terumah next to ordinary produce and cannot identify which produce is terumah and which is ordinary produce, the entire batch is permitted even if there were 100 rows of terumah and [only] one row of ordinary produce. When does the above apply? With regard to produce whose seed decomposes in the earth, e.g., wheat, barley, and the like. If, however, the seeds do not decompose, e.g., garlic and onions, even if 100 rows are ordinary produce and one row is terumah, the entire mixture is miduma. If the entire crop is harvested, terumah can be nullified in a mixture of 100 times its weight, but, as an initial and preferred option, one should not harvest the crop.

When there are two containers of produce, one containing terumah and one containing ordinary produce and it is not known [which contains the ordinary produce and which contains the terumah], if [the contents of] one of these containers falls into ordinary produce, [the mixture] is not considered as miduma. [This same law applies if produce that is] terumah fell into one of two containers [of ordinary produce], but one does not know which one and afterwards, one of those containers fell into ordinary produce. Similarly, if one sowed [the grain from] one of the two containers, the produce that grows is considered as ordinary produce with regard to all matters. [The produce in] the remaining container is considered as terumah. If [the contents of] the second container fell into other produce, [the mixture] is not considered as miduma. Similarly, if another person sowed [the contents of] the second container, the produce that grows is considered as ordinary produce. If [the contents of] both containers fall into one mixture of other produce, the mixture is considered miduma according to the amount of produce in the smaller container. If one person sowed both of them, if the produce is a species where the seed decomposes, the produce that grows is considered as ordinary produce.If the seed does not decompose, the produce that grows is miduma. When does the above apply? When one sowed [the contents of] the second container before the first batch of produce was harvested. If, however, he harvested the first batch of produce before sowing the second, the produce that grows is considered as ordinary produce even when the seed does not decompose. [The rationale is that] produce that has been reaped and produce that is growing are not considered as indicators of each other's status.

Two baskets, one of un-dedicated produce and one of dedicated produce, and before them are two vessels, one of un-dedicated produce and one of dedicated produce, and the latter fell into the former - they are permitted, as I can say that the un-dedicated fell into the un-dedicated, and that the dedicated fell into the dedicated. And even though there is more un-dedicated produce than dedicated. What case are we speaking of? One of dedicated produce in our times, which is a Rabbinic commandment; but dedicated produce that derives from a Torah commandment, until the un-dedicated food outnumbers the dedicated food [a non-priest cannot eat it].

When a se'ah of terumah falls into a grainheap and [the owner] states: "The terumah of this grainheap is in its midst," the borders of the terumah are defined where the se'ah fell and the entire mixture becomes miduma because of the terumah which fell in and the terumah of the grainheap. If he said: "The terumah of the grainheap is in its northern portion," we divide the grainheap in half, and then the northern half in half. Thus the northern most quarter of the grainheap is miduma.

If there were two grainheaps before a person and he said: 'The terumah for both grainheaps is in one of them," they are both considered miduma. If there were two se'ah of grain and one grainheap before a person and he said: "One of these se'ah is considered terumah for this grainheap," one of them is terumah and he does not know which. If there were two grainheaps and one se'ah before him and he said: "This is terumah for one of the grainheaps," [the se'ah] is terumah and [terumah has been separated from] one of the grainheaps, but he does not know which one is no longer tevel.

[The following laws apply when] there were fifty dark figs and fifty light figs and one fig that is terumah fell among them. If it was light, the dark figs are permitted and the light figs are considered miduma. If it was dark, the dark figs are miduma and the light figs are permitted. If it is not known whether it was light or dark, it can be nullified when the mixture is 101 times [the weight of] the original fig. If he knew what type of fig it was but forgot, they are all considered miduma.

Similar laws apply when there are cakes of pressed figs or blocks of pressed figs and a cake or block of [figs that are] terumah falls among them. If it is not known whether the one which fell in was a block or a cake, the cakes and the blocks are combined and the terumah can be nullified if their [combined weight] is 101 times that of the terumah. [Similarly,] when there are large cakes of figs and small ones and a cake of figs [that is terumah] falls among them, but it is not known whether the cake which fell in was large or small, [the existing cakes] can nullify the one which fell in whether by weight or by number. What is implied? A cake [of figs] fell into a mixture of 100 other cakes, both large and small. We assume that a small cake fell in and one may remove one of the small cakes. If a cake fell into 40 cakes, 20 of them weighing four litra each and 20 of them, weighing one litra each, since the combined weight is 101 litra, we assume a small one fell in and remove one of the small ones.

Flour and finely sifted flour cannot be combined together to nullify terumah.

When a se'ah of wheat which is terumah falls on the mouth of the storage vat of wheat, we do not measure it against the 101 times [its weight or ordinary grain found] in the storage vat. For we do not make such an assessment unless the terumah has been mixed with the ordinary produce or we do not know where the terumah fell. What should be done? We consider the terumah as if it is wheat placed above barley and separate the terumah itself which fell unto the storage vat with some of the ordinary produce upon which they fell as one would be collecting wheat from barley.

[The following laws apply when] there are two containers or two storage vats and terumah fell into one of them. It became mixed with [the contents of the container or storage vat] and it is not known which one it fell into. If the two storage vats were in the same building, they are considered as if they were combined and the terumah is nullified if the entire quantity is 101 times its weight. It is as if they were both contained in a single storage vat. Moreover, the containers are considered as combined together even if they are in two separate buildings, for it is possible to gather the two in one building. If, however, the two containers were in two cities, they are not combined.

How should he remove the se'ah which fell in? If he desires to remove it from one of them, he may. If he desires to remove half from one and half from the other, he may. [The following laws apply when] there are jugs filled with dried figs that are ordinary produce and [the owner] pressed a litra of figs that are terumah into the opening of one of them, but he does not remember which one. If there are 101 jugs, the terumah is considered nullified. He should take one jug and sell it to a priest except for the worth of the litra [of terumah] and the remainder [of the jugs] are permitted. If there are less than 100 jugs, [the figs at] the openings [of the jugs] are considered miduma and those at the bottom are permitted.

Similar laws apply if one pressed [a litra of] figs into the opening of a kaveretor into the top of a cake. If he pressed them onto the top of a cake, but does not know whether he pressed them onto the northern portion [of the cake] or its southern portion, nor does he know which cake he pressed them onto, we look at all the figs as if they were separate entities and [the figs that are terumah] should be nullified based on weight. If all the cakes weigh 100 litra, the terumah is nullified provided each of the cakes weighs more than two litra so that in each cake, the terumah is nullified because there is a majority of ordinary produce. The rationale is that when there is a doubt concerning the presence of terumah, it is nullified when there is a majority of ordinary produce.

When terumah is definitely [present in a mixture], it is forbidden if the mixture is 100 [or less times its weight]. If there is merely a doubt concerning the presence of terumah, it is forbidden if there are only fifty. It is permitted only if one adds a majority [of the new mixture]. If there are more than fifty, one need not add such a majority. What is implied? One fig that is terumah fell into 99 figs and they are all present. They are all forbidden to non-priests, as explained.

If, [after a fig that is terumah fell into 50 other figs, and then] one of the mixture becomes lost, it is possible that one of the ordinary figs was the one that was lost, but it is possible that it was the fig that fell in. Hence, the mixture is forbidden until one adds ordinary produce to it from another source, adding 51 figs to the entire quantity. If one fig fell into 51 figs and one of the mixture was lost, the remainder is permitted to non-priests.

[The following rules apply when] a se'ah of terumah fell into less than 100 se'ah of the first tithe from which terumat ma'aser was not separated or into [produce from] the second tithe or consecrated property that was not redeemed and the entire mixture became miduma. If [the terumah] fell into the first tithe, the terumat ma'aser should be designated, and the entire mixture sold to the priests with the exception of the worth of the terumah that fell into it and the worth of the terumat ma'aser. If it fell into [produce from] the second tithe or consecrated property that was not redeemed, they should be redeemed and then sold to a priest with the exception of the worth of the terumah.

When a se'ah of impure terumah falls into less than 100 se'ah of ordinary produce or into produce that is from the first tithe, or from the second tithe, or from consecrated property - whether [the latter three] are ritually pure or ritually impure - [the mixture] is miduma. Hence, the entire mixture is like impure terumah which is forbidden to everyone. Thus it is all forbidden and must be left until it rots. When does the above apply? With regard to an entity that is not eaten raw. When, by contrast, it is normal practice to partake of a type of produce uncooked, one should not set them aside lest someone encounter them and partake of it. Instead, the entire mixture should be used as fuel, like impure terumah is used as fuel.

When a se'ah of pure terumah falls into less than 100 se'ah of ordinary produce that is impure, the entire mixture should be sold to a priest with the exception of the worth of the terumah. The priest should eat this mixture which is miduma as roasted kernels or he should make them into a dough using fruit juice which does not render produce fit to contract impurity, so that [contact with] the impure ordinary produce will not render the terumah as impure. Alternatively, he should make this mixture that is miduma into a dough that is less than the size of an egg. [This is beneficial], because impure food does not cause other food to become impure until [the impure food] is the size of an egg. Or he may divide the mixture that is miduma and place a portion of it that is less than the size of an egg in each dough so that the terumah in it will not become impure.

When a se'ah of impure terumah falls into 100 se'ah of ordinary produce that is pure or a se'ah of pure terumah falls into 100 se'ah of ordinary produce that is impure, it should be removed and the terumah is nullified, because the new mixture is 101 times [the size of the terumah that fell in. That se'ah] should be eaten as roasted kernels, or it should be made into dough with fruit juice, or into dough that is less than the size of an egg. [The rationale is that] the se'ah which fell in is not [necessarily] the se'ah that was removed.

When a se'ah of impure terumah falls into 100 se'ah of pure terumah, it is nullified because of the insignificant amount and the entire mixture should be eaten in a state of ritual purity. If it fell into less than 100, he should leave the entire mixture until it rots.

There were two containers [of grain, each containing less than 100 se'ah]. A se'ah of terumah fell into one of them and it was known into which one it fell. Afterwards, a second se'ah of terumah fell into one of them, but it was not known into which it fell. [The rationale is that] we assume that the second se'ah fell into the same place as the first se'ah, for we associate the problematic issue with the [previous] problem. If, however, the first se'ah fell into one of the containers, but it was not known into which it fell and afterwards, a second se'ah fell into one and it was known into which one it fell, we do not say that the first one fell into the same place as the second. Instead, both are considered to be problematic.

If there were two containers [of grain], one ritually pure and one ritually impure, and a se'ah of terumah fell into one and it was not known into which, we assume that it fell into the impure one.

When there are two containers, one containing pure terumah and one containing impure ordinary produce, should a se'ah of pure terumah fall into one of them, we assume that it fell into the one containing terumah. The ordinary produce should, however, be eaten in a state of ritual purity like terumah.

[18-19] When a se'ah of impure terumah falls into one of the above mentioned containers, we say that it fell into the terumah. The ordinary produce should, however, be eaten as roasted kernels or made into dough with fruit juice.

When there are two containers, one containing impure terumah and the other ordinary produce that is pure, and a se'ah of pure terumah falls into one of them, we assume that it fell into the terumah, but the ordinary produce should be eaten as roasted kernels.

If a se'ah of impure terumah fell into one of these containers, both of them are forbidden. [The rationale is that when] there is a doubt [whether produce is] impure terumah, it is forbidden to be eaten, while when there is a doubt whether it is miduma, it is permitted. For the prohibition against partaking of impure terumah is Scriptural in origin, while the prohibition against partaking of a mixture that is miduma is Rabbinic in origin based on the principles explained in Hilchot Ma'achalot Assurot.

A sealed barrel [of wine that is terumah] makes a mixture miduma whatever the ratio [between it and the other barrels]. What is implied? When a sealed barrel [of wine] that is terumah becomes mixed with several thousand sealed barrels [of ordinary wine], the entire mixture becomes miduma. If the barrels are opened, [the presence of the terumah] is nullified when 101 times its contents are present.

When a sealed barrel [that contains terumah] becomes mixed with 100 barrels and then one falls into the Mediterranean Sea, they are all permitted. We assume that it is the one that is terumah that fell in. This is not the case when a fig falls into 100 figs. In the latter instance, it is necessary to set aside one [fig]. [The rationale for the distinction is] that a barrel that falls into the sea is noticeable. A fig and the like which fall are not noticeable.

When a sealed barrel [that contains terumah] becomes mixed with 100 barrels and one of them is opened, he should remove one hundredth of it, and then he may drink the barrel. The other barrels are, however, forbidden until they are opened. Whenever any one of them is opened, he should remove the percentage that causes the mixture to be miduma and drink the remaining hundred portions. If a barrel [containing terumah] became mixed with 150 barrels and 100 of them were opened, one should remove the percentage that causes the mixture to be miduma, i.e., one barrel and drink [the remaining barrels]. The remaining 50 are still forbidden; we do not presume that the barrel that was terumah was among the majority [that were opened]. Even if there are several thousand barrels, they are all considered miduma. Whenever any one is opened, he should remove one hundredth of it and then he may drink the remainder [of that barrel]. The other barrels, however, are miduma,

We have already explained in Hilchot Ma'achalot Assurot that a leavening agent or a spice causes a mixture to be forbidden regardless of how small the amount is mixed in. Therefore if a person pureed an apple that was terumah and put it in a dough and it caused [the dough] to leaven, the entire dough becomes miduma and is forbidden to non-priests.

When an egg, even its yolk, was flavored with spices that are terumah, it is forbidden, because it absorbs.

When yeast that is terumah fell into a dough and it was removed and afterwards, the mixture became leavened, [the dough] is permitted.

We have already explained that if terumah becomes mixed with a substance of a different type, [the mixture is forbidden if the terumah] imparts its flavor [to the mixture]. Therefore, [the following laws apply when] a diced onion is cooked together with other food. If the onion is terumah and the other food is ordinary produce and it is flavored by the onion, the other food is forbidden to non-priests. If the onion is ordinary produce and the cooked food is terumah and the flavor of the cooked food was imparted to the onion, the onion is forbidden [to non-priests].

[The following laws apply if] lentils were cooked and then a dry onion was placed among them: If the onion was whole, it is permitted. If it was diced, [the ruling depends on whether] its flavor was imparted. If he cooked the onion with the lentils, whether it is whole or diced, we estimate whether it imparted its flavor. With regard to the remainder of the cooked food, regardless of whether the onion was placed upon it after it was cooked or cooked with it, or whether it was whole or diced, we estimate whether it imparted its flavor. Why do we not estimate [whether flavor was imparted] when a whole onion was placed among cooked lentils? Because it does not absorb from them, for it is whole, nor does it impart [flavor] to them, because they have already been cooked. If the onions were soft, it is considered as if they were diced. Similarly, if its tip or its outer shell was removed or it was moist, it is considered as if it was diced. Wild onions, whether moist or dry, whether whole or diced, we see if they have imparted their flavor.

When one pickles vegetables that are ordinary produce with those of terumah, they are permitted to non-priests with the exception of onions, scallions, and garlic. [With regard to these species,] if one pickled vegetables that are ordinary produce with onions that are terumah or onions that are ordinary produce with onions that are terumah, they are forbidden to non-priests. If one pickled vegetables that are terumah with an onion that is ordinary produce, the onion is permitted to non-priests.

[The following rules apply when] olives that are ordinary produce were pickled together with olives that are terumah. If they were both crushed, or the ordinary olives were crushed, but those which were terumah were whole, or they were pickled in brine that was terumah, they are forbidden to non-priests. If, however, they were both whole or the olives that were terumah were crushed and those that were ordinary produce were whole, they are permitted, because those that are crushed absorb from those which are whole.

Water in which terumah was pickled or cooked is forbidden to non-priests.

The laws governing terumah apply to anise as long as it has not yet flavored a dish [of food]. Once it has flavored a dish, the laws of terumah no longer apply.

[The following laws apply when a person] removes a warm loaf of bread [from the oven] and places it over a barrel of wine that is terumah. If the loaf is from wheat, it is permitted. If it is from barley, it is forbidden, because it draws forth [the wine itself].

When an oven has been heated with cumin that is terumah, the bread is permitted. For it does not have the flavor of the cumin, only its fragrance and fragrance does not create a prohibition.

When barley that is terumah falls into a cistern of water, the water is permitted even if [the barley] spoils the flavor of the water, for food that imparts an undesirable flavor does not bring about a prohibition.

[The following law applies when] chilba that is terumah and its plant fall into a cistern of wine. If the chilba seed itself is of sufficient quantity to impart its flavor to the wine, the wine is forbidden to non-priests.

When there are two cups of wine: one of terumah and one of ordinary wine and they were each mixed with water and then combined, we consider it as if the ordinary wine was not present and as if the wine that was terumahwas mixed with the water alone, for water is not of its type. If that water is sufficient to nullify the taste of the terumah wine in the mixture, the entire mixture is permitted to non-priests. If not, it is forbidden, for as we have explained, water does not nullify wine.

When wine that is terumah falls on produce, one may wash the fruits and they are permitted. Similarly, when oil that is terumah falls on produce, one may wash the fruits and they are permitted. When oil [that is terumah] falls on [ordinary] wine, one should make it coagulate and the wine is then permitted to non-priests. If [oil that is terumah] mixes with brine, it should be made to coagulate, then the upper layer of the brine should be removed so that all the brine that has the taste of oil will be removed.

A pot in which terumah was cooked should not be used to cook ordinary produce. If it was cooked in it, it causes it to be forbidden if its flavor is recognizable. If he washes out the pot with wine or with water, it is permitted to cook in it. If he cooked [terumah] in part of the pot, it is not necessary to wash out the entire pot, only the place where it was cooked.

The great terumah, terumat ma'aser, challah, and the first fruits are all referred to as terumah. With regard to terumat ma'aser, [Numbers 18:26] states: "And you shall remove the terumah of G‑d from it" and [ibid. 15:20] states that it should be "like the terumah of your grain heap." With regard to challah, [ibid.] states: "You shall separate challah as terumah." And [Deuteronomy 12:17]: "You may not eat in your gates the tithes of your grain, your wine, and your oil,... and the terumah of your hand." Now there are no substances that are required to be brought [to Jerusalem to be eaten] that are not explicitly mentioned in the verse except the first fruits. Thus the phrase "the terumah of your hand" can be applied to them. Thus we see that they are [also] called terumah.

Therefore the laws regarding partaking of all four types of substances and mixtures of them and other substances are the same. All can be nullified in a mixture of 101 times the original substance. They are also all combined with each other. If they become impure, they should all be burnt. The laws that apply to terumat ma'aser that is demai, are the same that apply to terumat ma'aser separated from produce [from which the tithes were] definitely [not separated]. It is only that its violation is not punishable by lashes.

Anyone who partakes of terumah should recite the blessing for that particular food and then recite the blessing: "[Blessed are You... who has sanctified us with the holiness of Aaron and commanded us to partake of terumah." We have received the tradition and observed that people would recite this blessing even when partaking of challah separated in the Diaspora. For even partaking of sacred foods from the boundaries [of our Holy Land] is like service [in the Temple], as [Numbers 18:7] states: "I have granted you your priestly service as a gift."