terumah

If he wrote for one and changed his mind and wrote for another, Rav says he cannot change his mind, Rav Abba bar Ḥuna and Rebbi Joḥanan say he may change his mind. What does it mean? If his first and second masters were Cohanim and the third an Israel, in the opinion of Rav he may not eat terumah, in the opinion of Rav Abba bar Ḥuna in the name of R. Joḥanan he may eat terumah. Everybody agrees that if his first master was an Israel, he may not eat terumah; maybe the giver will recuperate.

Rav Ḥisda said: The deaf-mute person is not mentioned; it is a formula. In which Mishnah? Rebbi Yose said: It is reasonable to think that Rav Ḥisda concedes that the statement from Terumot is from Rebbi Yose. Rebbi Yose bar Rebbi Abun said: It must be said that that one is Rebbi Yose’s since we have stated the first five cases and did not include it, because their terumah is not terumah. Then we have stated the five later ones and did not include it. So in the end you must say, that one is by Rebbi Yose.

Rav Ḥisda said: The deaf-mute person is not mentioned; it is a formula. In which Mishnah? Rebbi Yose said: It is reasonable to think that Rav Ḥisda concedes that the statement from Terumot is from Rebbi Yose. Rebbi Yose bar Rebbi Abun said: It must be said that that one is Rebbi Yose’s since we have stated the first five cases and did not include it, because their terumah is not terumah. Then we have stated the five later ones and did not include it. So in the end you must say, that one is by Rebbi Yose.

MISHNAH: One seah of impure heave that fell into less than 100 [seah] of profane produce, or First Tithe, or Second Tithe, or dedicated produce, be it pure or impure, must be left to rot. If that seah was pure, all should be sold to Cohanim for the price of terumah except for the value of that seah. If it fell into First Tithe, heave of the tithe must be given its name; if it fell into Second Tithe or dedicated produce, they should be redeemed. If it was impure and profane, it should be eaten as crackers, or dry roasted, or kneaded with fruit juice, or split into pieces of dough so that no volume of an egg should be together. One seah of impure heave that fell into 100 [seah] of pure profane produce, Rebbi Eliezer says it should be lifted and burned since I am saying that the seah which fell is the seah which was lifted. But the Sages say, it should be taken out and eaten as crackers, or dry roasted, or kneaded with fruit juice, or split into pieces of dough so that no volume of an egg should be together,. One seah of pure heave that fell into 100 [seah] of impure profane produce should be taken out and eaten as crackers, or dry roasted, or kneaded with fruit juice, or split into pieces of dough so that no volume of an egg should be together,.

Rebbi Simeon bar Laqish said in the name of Rebbi Jehudah ben Ḥanina: They voted at Usha that a person may donate a fifth of his property for good deeds. How far down? Rebbi Jeremiah and Rebbi Abba bar Cahana; one said corresponding to terumah and the terumah of the tithe, the other said (Prov. 3:9): “Honor the Eternal with your property” … “corresponding to the first of all your yield”. Rebbi Gamliel bar Ininia asked before Rebbi Mana: Does it mean one fifth every year? {One studies this in the first Halakhah of Peah.} Will he not die? But lest he die in the future.

Rebbi Simeon bar Laqish said in the name of Rebbi Jehudah ben Ḥanina: They voted at Usha that a person may donate a fifth of his property for good deeds. How far down? Rebbi Jeremiah and Rebbi Abba bar Cahana; one said corresponding to terumah and the terumah of the tithe, the other said (Prov. 3:9): “Honor the Eternal with your property” … “corresponding to the first of all your yield”. Rebbi Gamliel bar Ininia asked before Rebbi Mana: Does it mean one fifth every year? {One studies this in the first Halakhah of Peah.} Will he not die? But lest he die in the future.

The words of Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba disagree, for Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba said that Rebbi Yudan, son of Rebbi Simeon bar Ioḥai’s daughter, stated that Rebbi Simeon bar Ioḥai stated: Honoring father and mother is great because the Holy One, praise to Him, preferred it over His own honor. It is said (Ex. 20:12): “Honor your father and your mother,” and it is said (Prov. 3:9): “Honor the Eternal with your property.” How do you honor Him? From your property! One gives gleanings, forgotten sheaves, and peah, one gives terumah, the First and Second Tithes and the tithe for the poor, ḥallah, one makes a sukkah, and lulav,shofar, and tefillin, and ẓiẓit, one feeds the hungry and gives to drink to the thirsty. If you have the wherewhithal, you are obliged for all of these; if you have nothing, you are not obliged even for one of them. But when it comes to honoring father and mother, whether you own property or you do not, you must honor father and mother, even if you are a beggar at people’s doors.

From what time may the Shema' be read in the evening? From the time the priests enter [the Temple] to partake of their Terumah, until the end of the first watch. These are the words of R. Eliezer;

The Tanna bases his authority on Scripture ; for it is written, "When thou liest down and when thou risest up" (Deut. vi. 7). His statement in the Mishnah is to be understood thus : When is the time for reading the Shema' which is to be recited when lying down? From the time the priests enter [the Temple] to partake of their Terumah.

The teacher stated : From the time the priests enter [the Temple] to partake of their Terumah. Yes, but when do the priests partake of their Terumah ? From the time the stars appear. Then let him explicitly teach : "From the time of the appearance of the stars" !

The teacher stated : From the time the priests enter [the Temple] to partake of their Terumah. Yes, but when do the priests partake of their Terumah ? From the time the stars appear. Then let him explicitly teach : "From the time of the appearance of the stars" !

He wishes to tell us something incidentally : When do the priests partake of their Terumah ? From the time the stars appear. He thereby informs us that [the omission of] the sin-offering does not prevent [the priest from partaking of the Terumah]. This is in agreement with the teaching : "When the sun is down and it is clean" (Lev. xxii. 7) — i.e. the setting of the sun prevents him from partaking of the Terumah, but not [his failure to bring] his sin-offering.

He wishes to tell us something incidentally : When do the priests partake of their Terumah ? From the time the stars appear. He thereby informs us that [the omission of] the sin-offering does not prevent [the priest from partaking of the Terumah]. This is in agreement with the teaching : "When the sun is down and it is clean" (Lev. xxii. 7) — i.e. the setting of the sun prevents him from partaking of the Terumah, but not [his failure to bring] his sin-offering.

He wishes to tell us something incidentally : When do the priests partake of their Terumah ? From the time the stars appear. He thereby informs us that [the omission of] the sin-offering does not prevent [the priest from partaking of the Terumah]. This is in agreement with the teaching : "When the sun is down and it is clean" (Lev. xxii. 7) — i.e. the setting of the sun prevents him from partaking of the Terumah, but not [his failure to bring] his sin-offering.

The teacher stated : From the time the priests enter [the Temple] to partake of their Terumah. Against this I quote: From what time may the Shema' be read in the evening ? From the time when the poor man goes home to eat his bread with salt, until such time as he usually stands up to leave his meal !

I quote the following against our Mishnah : From what time may we begin to read the Shema' in the evening? From the time that people go home to eat their bread on the Sabbath-eve. These are the words of R. Meir ; but the Sages say : From the time the priests are entitled to partake of their Terumah. A sign for the matter is the appearance of the stars, and although there is no proof of this, yet is there some indication ; as it is said, "So we wrought in the work : and half of them held the spears from the rising of the morning till the stars appeared" (Neh. iv. 15), and it continues "That in the night they may be a guard to us, and may labour in the day" (ibid. v. 16).

The poor man and the priest have the same standard of time ! Against this I quote : From what time do we begin to read the Shema' in the evening ? From the time that the day becomes hallowed on the Sabbath-eve. These are the words of R. Eliezer. R. Joshua says : From the time the priests become ritually clean to partake of their Terumah. R. Meir says: From the time the priests bathe so as to be able to partake of their Terumah. (R. Judah asked him, "But do not the priests bathe while it is yet day ?") R. Hannina says : From the time the poor man goes home to eat his bread with salt. R. Ahai (another version : R. Aha) says : From the time when the majority of people go home to have their evening repast.

The poor man and the priest have the same standard of time ! Against this I quote : From what time do we begin to read the Shema' in the evening ? From the time that the day becomes hallowed on the Sabbath-eve. These are the words of R. Eliezer. R. Joshua says : From the time the priests become ritually clean to partake of their Terumah. R. Meir says: From the time the priests bathe so as to be able to partake of their Terumah. (R. Judah asked him, "But do not the priests bathe while it is yet day ?") R. Hannina says : From the time the poor man goes home to eat his bread with salt. R. Ahai (another version : R. Aha) says : From the time when the majority of people go home to have their evening repast.

We have learnt elsewhere in the Mishnah : A deaf man who speaks but cannot hear may not separate the Terumah ; but if he has done so, his Terumah is valid.

We have learnt elsewhere in the Mishnah : A deaf man who speaks but cannot hear may not separate the Terumah ; but if he has done so, his Terumah is valid.

Who is the authority for the teaching : [The Terumah separated by] a deaf man who speaks but cannot hear is post factum valid, but not ab initio?

[not translated] Only in the matter of the reading of the Shema, which is an ordinance of the Torah, does R. Jose say that the man has not fulfilled his obligation ; but in the matter of Terumah [the deaf man would have fulfilled it], because it is a question of saying the benediction and the saying of the benediction is ordained by the Rabbis, and [the validity of the Terumah] is not dependent upon the benediction.

[not translated] Only in the matter of the reading of the Shema, which is an ordinance of the Torah, does R. Jose say that the man has not fulfilled his obligation ; but in the matter of Terumah [the deaf man would have fulfilled it], because it is a question of saying the benediction and the saying of the benediction is ordained by the Rabbis, and [the validity of the Terumah] is not dependent upon the benediction.

Having demonstrated that [the Mishnah about Terumah] is in accord with R. Jose, what, however, of the following ? There is a teaching: A man must not say the Grace after meals in his heart [inaudibly] ; but if he has done so, he has fulfilled his obligation. Whose view is this?

What, however, of the following? R. Judah, the son of R. Simeon b. Pazzi, taught : A deaf person who can speak but cannot hear may separate the Terumah ab initio. In accordance with whose view is this ?

Having demonstrated that [the Mishnah about the reading of the Megillah] is in accord with R. Judah and post factum it is permissible, but not ab initio, what, however, of the teaching of R. Judah, the son of R. Simeon b. Pazzi : A deaf person who speaks but cannot hear may separate the Terumah ab initio ? Whose view is that?

Come and hear: Dill, when it gives a taste to the dish, does not come under the law of Terumah and does not contract the impurity of foods. Conclude from this that it is used to sweeten the taste! Draw that conclusion.

R. Jeremiah b. Abba said : It is like [the discussion of] the Tannaim, viz.: We take Terumah with a whole onion, though small in size, but not with half of a large onion. R. Judah says : Not so, but we take it with the half of a large onion. Do they not differ on the following point : One maintains that which is of greater value is to be preferred, while the other maintains that which is whole is to be preferred ?

Where there is a priest present, there is no difference of opinion that what is of greater value is to be preferred, the disagreement arising where there is no priest. For there is a Mishnaic teaching : Wherever there is a priest present, the Terumah is to be taken from the best, but where there is no priest, it is to be taken from that which is most durable ; R. Judah says : It is only to be taken from the best.

MISHNAH Three who ate together are under the obligation of Zimmun. One who has eaten Demai, or the first tithe from which Terumah has been taken, or the second tithe or food belonging to the Sanctuary which had been redeemed, and the attendant who has eaten food the size of an olive and the Samaritan may be included for Zimmun.

One who has eaten of the untithed, or the first tithe from which Terumah has not been taken, or the second tithe or food belonging to the Sanctuary which had not been redeemed, and the attendant who has eaten Iess than the size of an olive, and the idolator may not be included for Zimmun. Women, slaves and minors may not be included. How much [must one have eaten at the meal] to be included for Zimmun ? The size of an olive. R. Judah says : The size of an egg.

The first tithe from, which Terumah has been taken. This is evident ! No ; it is necessary to state it for the case where [the Levite] anticipated with the ears of corn and separated therefrom the Terumah of the tithe before [the priest] had separated the great Terumah. This is in accord with R. Abbahu who said in the name of R. Simeon b. Lakish : The first tithe, which [the Levite] anticipated and separated from the ears, is exempt from the great Terumah ; as it is said, "Ye shall set apart of it a gift for the Lord, even a tithe of the tithe" (Num. xviii. 26) — i.e. "a tithe of the tithe" I tell thee [to set apart], but not a great Terumah or a Terumah of a tithe of a tithe.

The first tithe from, which Terumah has been taken. This is evident ! No ; it is necessary to state it for the case where [the Levite] anticipated with the ears of corn and separated therefrom the Terumah of the tithe before [the priest] had separated the great Terumah. This is in accord with R. Abbahu who said in the name of R. Simeon b. Lakish : The first tithe, which [the Levite] anticipated and separated from the ears, is exempt from the great Terumah ; as it is said, "Ye shall set apart of it a gift for the Lord, even a tithe of the tithe" (Num. xviii. 26) — i.e. "a tithe of the tithe" I tell thee [to set apart], but not a great Terumah or a Terumah of a tithe of a tithe.

The first tithe from, which Terumah has been taken. This is evident ! No ; it is necessary to state it for the case where [the Levite] anticipated with the ears of corn and separated therefrom the Terumah of the tithe before [the priest] had separated the great Terumah. This is in accord with R. Abbahu who said in the name of R. Simeon b. Lakish : The first tithe, which [the Levite] anticipated and separated from the ears, is exempt from the great Terumah ; as it is said, "Ye shall set apart of it a gift for the Lord, even a tithe of the tithe" (Num. xviii. 26) — i.e. "a tithe of the tithe" I tell thee [to set apart], but not a great Terumah or a Terumah of a tithe of a tithe.

The first tithe from, which Terumah has been taken. This is evident ! No ; it is necessary to state it for the case where [the Levite] anticipated with the ears of corn and separated therefrom the Terumah of the tithe before [the priest] had separated the great Terumah. This is in accord with R. Abbahu who said in the name of R. Simeon b. Lakish : The first tithe, which [the Levite] anticipated and separated from the ears, is exempt from the great Terumah ; as it is said, "Ye shall set apart of it a gift for the Lord, even a tithe of the tithe" (Num. xviii. 26) — i.e. "a tithe of the tithe" I tell thee [to set apart], but not a great Terumah or a Terumah of a tithe of a tithe.

The first tithe from, which Terumah has been taken. This is evident ! No ; it is necessary to state it for the case where [the Levite] anticipated with the ears of corn and separated therefrom the Terumah of the tithe before [the priest] had separated the great Terumah. This is in accord with R. Abbahu who said in the name of R. Simeon b. Lakish : The first tithe, which [the Levite] anticipated and separated from the ears, is exempt from the great Terumah ; as it is said, "Ye shall set apart of it a gift for the Lord, even a tithe of the tithe" (Num. xviii. 26) — i.e. "a tithe of the tithe" I tell thee [to set apart], but not a great Terumah or a Terumah of a tithe of a tithe.

The first tithe from, which Terumah has been taken. This is evident ! No ; it is necessary to state it for the case where [the Levite] anticipated with the ears of corn and separated therefrom the Terumah of the tithe before [the priest] had separated the great Terumah. This is in accord with R. Abbahu who said in the name of R. Simeon b. Lakish : The first tithe, which [the Levite] anticipated and separated from the ears, is exempt from the great Terumah ; as it is said, "Ye shall set apart of it a gift for the Lord, even a tithe of the tithe" (Num. xviii. 26) — i.e. "a tithe of the tithe" I tell thee [to set apart], but not a great Terumah or a Terumah of a tithe of a tithe.

Rab Pappa said to Abbai : In that case, even if [the Levite] anticipated [and separated his tithe] from the corn-heap, it would likewise [be exempt from the great Terumah] ! He replied : To meet thy objection the Scriptures state,

The first tithe from which Terumah has not been taken. That is evident ! No ; it is necessary [to mention it] for the case where [the Levite] anticipated [the priest by taking the tithe] from the corn-heap. Thou mayest argue that it is as Rab Pappa said to Abbai. Therefore we are informed that it is as Abbai answered him.

What is the point of difference between them? Bet Shammai hold that it is forbidden to use a table [unclean in] the second degree through fear of those who are eating Terumah;

but Bet Hillel hold that it is permitted to use a table unclean in the second degree, because those who eat Terumah are careful.

But did Abaye say that R. Meir is concerned because of the possibility of death while R. Judah is not concerned? But haven't we learned: If the daughter of an Israelite was married to a priest, and her husband went to a country beyond the sea, she may eat of terumah on the presumption that he is still alive

And when we pointed to the following contradiction: [If a priest said to his wife,] ‘Here is your get [to take effect] one hour before my death’, she is forbidden to eat of terumah immediately.

As it has been taught, If a man buys wine from Samaritans he may say, ‘Two log which I intend to set aside are terumah, ten are the first tithe, and nine the second tithe’, and then he redeems it and may drink it at once, the words of R. Meir.

1) An etrog which is stolen or withered is invalid. 2) One from an asherah or a condemned city is invalid. 3) Of orlah or of unclean terumah—it is invalid. 4) Of clean terumah, he should not take it, but if he did take it, it is valid. 5) Of demai (doubtfully-tithed): a) Bet Shammai says it invalid, b) And Bet Hillel says it valid. 6) Of second tithe, it should not be taken [even] in Jerusalem, but if he took it, it is valid.

1) An etrog which is stolen or withered is invalid. 2) One from an asherah or a condemned city is invalid. 3) Of orlah or of unclean terumah—it is invalid. 4) Of clean terumah, he should not take it, but if he did take it, it is valid. 5) Of demai (doubtfully-tithed): a) Bet Shammai says it invalid, b) And Bet Hillel says it valid. 6) Of second tithe, it should not be taken [even] in Jerusalem, but if he took it, it is valid.

Now you should think that the one who insists on permission to eat it [in order for it to be valid] does not insist upon [its having] monetary value, and that the one who insists upon monetary value does not insist upon permission to eat it It was taught: [An etrog] of unclean terumah, is invalid. This goes well according to him who explains, because there is no permission to eat it, but according to him who explains [that it can't be used] because it has no monetary value, why not? Behold he can kindle it under his cooking!

Or of unclean terumah, it is invalid; because there is no permission to eat it.

If it was of clean terumah, he should not take it. R. Ammi and R. Assi disagree: One explains: Because he renders it susceptible [to ritual uncleanness], while the other explains because he diminishes it

What is the practical difference between them? For instance in a case where he called it terumah except for its outer peel. According to the one who explains: Because he renders it susceptible [to ritual uncleanness], the prohibition does apply. According to the one who explains, because he diminishes it, the prohibition does not apply.

If [the minor] knows how to take care of his body we may eat food that has been prepared in ritual purity though his body [touched it]; If he knows how to take care of hands, we may eat food that has been prepared in ritual purity even though his hands [touched it]. If he knows how to answer [questions on whether he touched any ritual uncleanliness], a doubtful case on his part that occurs in a private domain is regarded as unclean, but if in a public domain as clean. [If he knows how] to spread out his hands [in priestly benediction] they may give him terumah on the threshingfloors.

Then that which was taught by R. Judah the son of R. Shimon b. Pazzi: One who can speak but not hear may set aside terumah ab initio. Whose view is this? If you say, R. Judah, he holds that this is only ex post facto, but not ab initio. If you say R. Yose, he invalidates the action even ex post facto.

Abaye said: "In Shkhem there are also many murders, as it is written, 'The haveir kohanim [NJPS: gang of priests] is like the ambuscade of bandits, who murder on the road to Shkhem' (Hosea 6:9)." What is "haveit kohanim"? Rabbi Elazar said: "That they would join together to kill people like those priests who would join together to separate terumah [gifts to the priests] in the granary."

One who eats tevel [untithed produce] or maiser reshon from which terumah was not separated or maiser shenei and hekdesh that were unredeemed.

It is understandable why Reish Lakash does not hold like Rebbi Yochanon, [as he can say that] he does not learn that gezaira shava. But what is the reason that Rebbi Yochanon does not say like Reish Lakash? [Rebbi Yochanon] would say to you, [b'chol kodesh lo sigah] is giving a scriptual warning for [consuming] Terumah [while impure],

And then where does Reish Lakash derive a scriptual warning for Terumah [if he uses b'chol kodesh lo sigah to teach against eating sacrificial meats]? He derives it from (Leviticus 22,4) "Any man from the seed of Ahron, who is a lepor or zav". What is fit [only] for the seed of Ahron? You must say that this is referring to Terumah. And what does Rebbi Yochanon use that verse for [if he learns Terumah from elsewhere]? That verse is for consuming [Terumah while one is impure] and this verse [b'chol kodesh lo sigah] is for touching [Terumah while one is impure].

And then where does Reish Lakash derive a scriptual warning for Terumah [if he uses b'chol kodesh lo sigah to teach against eating sacrificial meats]? He derives it from (Leviticus 22,4) "Any man from the seed of Ahron, who is a lepor or zav". What is fit [only] for the seed of Ahron? You must say that this is referring to Terumah. And what does Rebbi Yochanon use that verse for [if he learns Terumah from elsewhere]? That verse is for consuming [Terumah while one is impure] and this verse [b'chol kodesh lo sigah] is for touching [Terumah while one is impure].

And then where does Reish Lakash derive a scriptual warning for Terumah [if he uses b'chol kodesh lo sigah to teach against eating sacrificial meats]? He derives it from (Leviticus 22,4) "Any man from the seed of Ahron, who is a lepor or zav". What is fit [only] for the seed of Ahron? You must say that this is referring to Terumah. And what does Rebbi Yochanon use that verse for [if he learns Terumah from elsewhere]? That verse is for consuming [Terumah while one is impure] and this verse [b'chol kodesh lo sigah] is for touching [Terumah while one is impure].

And then where does Reish Lakash derive a scriptual warning for Terumah [if he uses b'chol kodesh lo sigah to teach against eating sacrificial meats]? He derives it from (Leviticus 22,4) "Any man from the seed of Ahron, who is a lepor or zav". What is fit [only] for the seed of Ahron? You must say that this is referring to Terumah. And what does Rebbi Yochanon use that verse for [if he learns Terumah from elsewhere]? That verse is for consuming [Terumah while one is impure] and this verse [b'chol kodesh lo sigah] is for touching [Terumah while one is impure].

And then where does Reish Lakash derive a scriptual warning for Terumah [if he uses b'chol kodesh lo sigah to teach against eating sacrificial meats]? He derives it from (Leviticus 22,4) "Any man from the seed of Ahron, who is a lepor or zav". What is fit [only] for the seed of Ahron? You must say that this is referring to Terumah. And what does Rebbi Yochanon use that verse for [if he learns Terumah from elsewhere]? That verse is for consuming [Terumah while one is impure] and this verse [b'chol kodesh lo sigah] is for touching [Terumah while one is impure].

And does Reish Lakash indeed use b'chol kodesh lo sigah to teach this [eating sacrificial meats while one is impure]? But he needs it to teach about an impure person who touched sacrificial meats. That it was said about an impure person who touched sacrificial meats. Reish Lakash says he is liable to malkus, and Rebbi Yochanon says that he is not liable to malkus. Reish Lakash says that he is liable to malkus because of b'chol kodesh lo sigah, and Rebbi Yochanon says that he is not liable to malkus because [b'chol kodesh lo sigah] is just a scriptural warning for Terumah [not for touching sacrificial meats].

Who is this ruling in accordance with? It's in accordance to the following Tanna, that it was taught in a baraisa, Rebbi Yossi said, I might think that a person is only liable for tevel which no tithes were separated from. But if he separated terumah gedolah but did not separate maiser rishon, or he separated maiser rishon but did not separate maiser sheni, or even if maeser ani [was the only tithe unseparated], where do we know [that he is still liable for eating it]?

What is the view of Rebbi Shimon? That it was taught in a baraisa, (Deutermany 12, 17) "And the terumah of your hand" this is refering to bikorim.

Rebbi Yossi asked [a possible contradiction from the following baraisa,] A Kohen that held in his hand a fig of tevel [untithed produce], and said that this fig has its Terumah portion in its stem, its maaser rishon in its northern part, and its maaser sheni in its southern part, and it is in a year of Maaser Sheni and he is in Jerusaelem or it is in a year of maaser ani and he is in the outskirts, if he then eats it