Mishneh Torah — Heave Offerings (Terumot) הלכות תרומות, Chapter 10

זָר שֶׁאָכַל תְּרוּמָה בִּשְׁגָגָה מְשַׁלֵּם קֶרֶן וְחֹמֶשׁ. אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁיּוֹדֵעַ שֶׁהִיא תְּרוּמָה וְשֶׁהוּא מֻזְהָר עָלֶיהָ אֲבָל לֹא יָדַע אִם חַיָּב עָלֶיהָ מִיתָה אִם לָאו הֲרֵי זוֹ שְׁגָגָה וּמְשַׁלֵּם קֶרֶן וְחֹמֶשׁ:

When a non-priests partakes of terumah unknowingly, he must make restitution for the principal and add a fifth. to make restitution, he must use ordinary grain (which is more expensive). This fifth becomes considered as terumah itself and must be eaten in a state of ritual purity. See also Halachah 15. 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.

אֶחָד הָאוֹכֵל דָּבָר שֶׁדַּרְכּוֹ לֶאֱכל וְאֶחָד הַשּׁוֹתֶה דָּבָר שֶׁדַּרְכּוֹ לִשְׁתּוֹת וְאֶחָד הַסָּךְ דָּבָר שֶׁדַּרְכּוֹ לָסוּךְ שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (ויקרא כב טו) "וְלֹא יְחַלְּלוּ אֶת קָדְשֵׁי בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל" לְרַבּוֹת אֶת הַסָּךְ. וְאֶחָד הָאוֹכֵל תְּרוּמָה טְהוֹרָה אוֹ טְמֵאָה בִּשְׁגָגָה מְשַׁלֵּם קֶרֶן וְחֹמֶשׁ. וְאֵינוֹ חַיָּב בְּחֹמֶשׁ עַד שֶׁיֹּאכַל כְּזַיִת שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (ויקרא כב יד) "כִּי יֹאכַל קֹדֶשׁ בִּשְׁגָגָה" וְאֵין אֲכִילָה פְּחוּתָה מִכְּזַיִת. וּכְשֵׁם שֶׁאֲכִילַת תְּרוּמָה בִּכְזַיִת כָּךְ שְׁתִיָּה בִּכְזַיִת:

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], (see Chapter 11, Halachah 1), these are the ways for which one is liable for partaking of it. 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. even if it is ritually impure. The rationale is that here a person is receiving atonement for his transgression. Hence, he is required to make full payment. 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. of a log, a larger measure than an olive-sized portion, in this instance an exception is made. The basis of his explanation is that this prohibition focuses on "eating" terumah, and as stated above, intaking an olive-sized portion constitutes eating.

אָכַל וְחָזַר וְאָכַל. שָׁתָה וְחָזַר וְשָׁתָה. אִם יֵשׁ מִתְּחִלַּת אֲכִילָה רִאשׁוֹנָה עַד סוֹף אֲכִילָה אַחֲרוֹנָה כְּדֵי אֲכִילַת פְּרָס וּמִתְּחִלַּת שְׁתִיָּה רִאשׁוֹנָה עַד סוֹף שְׁתִיָּה אַחֲרוֹנָה כְּדֵי שְׁתִיַּת רְבִיעִית הֲרֵי אֵלּוּ מִצְטָרְפִין לִכְזַיִת:

[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, some as brief as 2 minutes and some as long as 9 minutes. Based on Shiurei Torah, the suggested practice is to consider k'dai achilat pras as 4 minutes with regard to eating matzah on Pesach, but 9 minutes with regard to eating on Yom Kippur. See also Hilchot Ma'achalot Assurot 14:9 and notes. 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, is much less than k'dai achilat pras. The Ra'avad objects to the Rambam's ruling, maintaining that the latter measure of time should be applied in this instance as well. The Radbaz and the Kessef Mishneh cite sources to support the Rambam's view and note that he mentions this measure of time for drinking both with regard to the prohibition against drinking on Yom Kippur (Hilchot Shevitat Esor 2:4) and the prohibition against drinking gentile wine (Hilchot Ma'achalot Assurot 14:9). They do note, however, that in Hilchot Sha'ar Avot HaTumah 8:11, however, the Rambam mentions the time span of k'dai achilat pras even with regard to drinking.They differentiate between the rulings as follows: In all the instances involving prohibitions against eating, the Rambam mentions the time to drink a revi'it because a person will not feel satisfaction if his drinking the minimum measure is stretched out over a longer span of time. In Hilchot Sha'ar Avot HaTumah, by contrast, the concept involves considering a person ritually impure because of his having ingested a quantity of liquid. As long as he does not wait longer than k'dai achilat pras, the liquid is still collected in his digestive system and has not begun to circulate throughout his body. [all he consumes] is combined to comprise an olive-sized portion.

הַתְּרוּמָה וּתְרוּמַת מַעֲשֵׂר בֵּין שֶׁל דְּמַאי בֵּין שֶׁל וַדַּאי וְהַחַלָּה וְהַבִּכּוּרִים כֻּלָּן מִצְטָרְפִין לִכְזַיִת לְחַיֵּב עֲלֵיהֶן מִיתָה וְחֹמֶשׁ שֶׁכֻּלָּן נִקְרְאוּ תְּרוּמָה. וּמִן הַדִּין הָיָה שֶׁאֵין חַיָּבִין חֹמֶשׁ עַל תְּרוּמַת מַעֲשֵׂר שֶׁל דְּמַאי כְּמוֹ שֶׁאֵין חַיָּבִין עַל מַעֲשֵׂר [שֵׁנִי] שֶׁלּוֹ כְּמוֹ שֶׁיִּתְבָּאֵר. אֲבָל אָמְרוּ חֲכָמִים אִם לֹא יִתְחַיֵּב עָלֶיהָ חֹמֶשׁ יְזַלְזְלוּ בָּהּ:

Terumah, terumat ma'aser, whether the latter is from d'mai 331:59) explains that the term is a composite of two Aramaic words da mai which mean: "What is this?", i.e., the person is unaware of the status of the produce with which he is dealing. 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]. is referred to as terumah in Numbers 15:20 and the first fruits are referred to as terumah in Deuteronomy 12:17.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. 5:4. Since we are speaking about d'mai, produce from which separations are being made because of a doubt, there is no obligation according to Scriptural Law to add a fifth. With regard to ma'aser sheni, our Sages felt that if the obligation of an additional fifth was imposed, people would ignore the obligation to separate ma'aser sheni from d'mai entirely. With regard to terumat ma'aser from d'mai, they felt the converse is true. Were the obligation of an additional fifth not imposed, people would not treat the obligation to separate d'mai seriously. Nevertheless, our Sages said: If one is not liable for a fifth, people will treat it with disdain.

אָכַל תְּרוּמָה בְּמֵזִיד [וְהִתְרוּ בּוֹ לוֹקֶה וְאֵינוֹ מְשַׁלֵּם. לֹא הִתְרוּ בּוֹ] אִם הָיְתָה טְהוֹרָה מְשַׁלֵּם הַקֶּרֶן וְאֵינוֹ מְשַׁלֵּם אֶת הַחֹמֶשׁ. וְאִם הָיְתָה טְמֵאָה מְשַׁלֵּם דְּמֵי עֵצִים מִפְּנֵי שֶׁאֵינָהּ רְאוּיָה אֶלָּא לְהַסָּקָה. לְפִיכָךְ אִם אָכַל תְּרוּמַת תּוּתִים וְרִמּוֹנִים וְכַיּוֹצֵא בָּהֶם שֶׁנִּטְמְאוּ פָּטוּר מִן הַתַּשְׁלוּמִין שֶׁהֲרֵי אֵינָם רְאוּיִין לְהַסָּקָה:

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]. (Terumot 7:1). If [the terumah] was ritually pure, he is required to make restitution for the principal, but is not required to add a fifth. 7:1), the Rambam explains that the additional fifth was instituted for atonement and that was possible only when the transgression was violated unintentionally. When it was violated intentionally, the sin is too great for atonement to be granted in an ordinary manner. 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. can only be eaten only when it is ritually pure. 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.

הָאוֹכֵל תְּרוּמַת חָמֵץ בְּפֶסַח בֵּין בְּזָדוֹן בֵּין בִּשְׁגָגָה בֵּין טְמֵאָה בֵּין טְהוֹרָה פָּטוּר מִן הַתַּשְׁלוּמִין. אֲפִלּוּ הִפְרִישָׁהּ מַצָּה וְהֶחְמִיצָה פָּטוּר. וַאֲפִלּוּ דְּמֵי עֵצִים אֵינוֹ מְשַׁלֵּם שֶׁהֲרֵי אֵינָהּ רְאוּיָה לְהַסָּקָה מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהִיא אֲסוּרָה בַּהֲנָאָה אֵין לָהּ דָּמִים:

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. 32a) and the opinion stated by the Rambam does not appear to be accepted in a definitive manner. The Radbaz and the Kessef Mishneh provide interpretations of that passage that justify the Rambam's ruling. Even if he separated terumah from matzah, but it became chametz [before he ate it], he is exempt. speaks about an instance where a person steals terumah that is matzah from a priest and ate it. Even if it became chametz in the thief's domain in which instance, the thief caused the priest a loss, the thief is not liable financially. 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, 1:2,4, et al. it is of no value whatsoever.

אֲבָל הַשּׁוֹגֵג שֶׁאָכַל תְּרוּמָה בְּיוֹם הַכִּפּוּרִים אוֹ שֶׁאָכַל תְּרוּמָה נְקוּרָה. וְהַשּׁוֹתֶה יֵין תְּרוּמָה שֶׁנִּתְגַּלָּה. וְהַסָּךְ יַיִן וְשֶׁמֶן כְּאֶחָד אוֹ שֶׁשָּׁתָה שֶׁמֶן וְחֹמֶץ כְּאֶחָד אוֹ שֶׁכָּסַס אֶת הַחִטִּים אוֹ גָּמַע אֶת הַחֹמֶץ הֲרֵי זֶה מְשַׁלֵּם קֶרֶן וְחֹמֶשׁ:

If, however, one unknowingly ate terumah on Yom Kippur, in yeshivah terminology) and not the cheftza, the article in question. Hence he is liable. ate terumah that was perforated, is discovered with holes in it. Our Sages fear that the holes were made by a poisonous snake who deposited his venom in the dough. Hence, they forbade partaking of it (Hilchot Rotzeach UShemirat Nefesh 12:1). drank wine that was terumah that was left open,:6-7). In these two instances, although the substances are forbidden, they are forbidden only in consideration for the person's wellbeing. There is no ritual prohibition resting on the foods. Hence one is liable. 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, 6:1). The opinion cited by the Rambam is advanced by Rabbi Yehudah HaNasi while the majority of the Sages differ. Hence, he maintains that the Sages' view should be followed for, as stated in the following halachah with regard to barley, eating uncooked kernels of wheat is harmful. The Radbaz and the Kessef Mishneh justify the Rambam's view. As stated in Hilchot Berachot 3:2, one is required to make a blessing when eating such kernels. This indicates one is deriving benefit and if one derives benefit from terumah, he is required to make restitution. or swallowed vinegar, he is liable to make restitution for the principal and add a fifth.

הָיָה שָׂבֵעַ וְקָץ בִּמְזוֹנוֹ וְהוֹסִיף עַל שָׂבְעוֹ בַּאֲכִילַת תְּרוּמָה אֵינוֹ מְשַׁלֵּם אֶת הַחֹמֶשׁ שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (ויקרא כב יד) "כִּי יֹאכַל" לֹא שֶׁיַּזִּיק אֶת עַצְמוֹ. וְכֵן הַכּוֹסֵס אֶת הַשְּׂעוֹרִים פָּטוּר מִן הַחֹמֶשׁ מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהִזִּיק עַצְמוֹ:

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. 2:7). There too the Rambam rules that consuming food in such a state is not considered as "eating." Similarly, when one chews raw kernels of barley, he is not liable, because he harms himself.

זָר שֶׁבָּלַע שֵׁזָפִין שֶׁל תְּרוּמָה וֶהֱקִיאָן וּבָא אַחֵר וַאֲכָלָן גַּם הוּא בִּשְׁגָגָה הָרִאשׁוֹן מְשַׁלֵּם קֶרֶן וְחֹמֶשׁ וְהַשֵּׁנִי מְשַׁלֵּם דְּמֵי עֵצִים לָרִאשׁוֹן:

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. within them is considered to have been desecrated. For that reason, the first person who swallowed them is required to make restitution. They become his property and the second one is liable as one who damages the property of the first.

הַמַּאֲכִיל הַפּוֹעֲלִים וְאֶת הָאוֹרְחִים תְּרוּמָה הֵם מְשַׁלְּמִין קֶרֶן וְחֹמֶשׁ מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהֵן כְּשׁוֹגְגִין. וְהוּא מְשַׁלֵּם לָהֶם דְּמֵי סְעֻדָּתָן שֶׁדְּמֵי הַחֻלִּין יְתֵרִין מִדְּמֵי תְּרוּמָה שֶׁאָכְלוּ שֶׁדָּבָר הָאָסוּר נַפְשׁוֹ שֶׁל אָדָם חוֹתָה מִמֶּנּוּ:

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. 6:3), the Rambam elaborates on why the guests and not the host are responsible, citing the principle (Kiddushin 42b) that a person cannot act as an agent to perform a transgression for a colleague. Instead, the transgression is solely the responsibility of the person who performed it, in this instance, the people who partook of the food. He must pay them for their meal, for ordinary produce is more valuable than the terumah, (Radbaz). since a person's soul is repelled from forbidden food. 16:14. This principle is stated by the Jerusalem Talmud (Terumot, loc. cit.) in explanation of the reason the employer is required to reimburse his workers. Seemingly, he was required to provide them with a meal. He did and they ate to their satisfaction, why then is he liable to them? Our Sages explain, based on the above principle, that since the food was forbidden, their souls did not derive true satisfaction from it and hence, he is required to give them a meal.

הַמַּאֲכִיל אֶת בָּנָיו הַקְּטַנִּים וְאֶת עֲבָדָיו בֵּין גְּדוֹלִים בֵּין קְטַנִּים. וְהָאוֹכֵל תְּרוּמַת חוּצָה לָאָרֶץ. וְהָאוֹכֵל אוֹ הַשּׁוֹתֶה פָּחוֹת מִכְּזַיִת. וְנָזִיר שֶׁשָּׁגַג וְשָׁתָה יַיִן שֶׁל תְּרוּמָה. וְהַשּׁוֹתֶה שֶׁמֶן וְהַסָּךְ אֶת הַיַּיִן. כָּל אֵלּוּ מְשַׁלְּמִים אֶת הַקֶּרֶן וְלֹא אֶת הַחֹמֶשׁ:

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, 7:3)]. a nazarite who unknowingly drank wine that was terumah, or not and our Sages explain that eating a forbidden substance is not considered "eating." In this context, a distinction can be made between eating on Yom Kippur which is an issur gavra, i.e., the food is not forbidden, the person is forbidden to partake of it, and wine for a nazirite, which is an issur cheftza, the wine itself becomes forbidden for him (Pri Megadim, Eshel Avraham 202:11). This explanation resolves an objection lodged by the Ra'avad who cites a Tosefta that rules differently than the Rambam. one drinks oil [without it being mixed with other liquids] and one who smears himself with wine.

בַּת כֹּהֵן שֶׁהָיְתָה נְשׂוּאָה לְיִשְׂרָאֵל אוֹ שֶׁנִּפְסְלָה וְאַחַר כָּךְ אָכְלָה תְּרוּמָה מְשַׁלֶּמֶת אֶת הַקֶּרֶן וְלֹא אֶת הַחֹמֶשׁ. הָאִשָּׁה שֶׁהָיְתָה אוֹכֶלֶת בִּתְרוּמָה וְאָמְרוּ לָהּ מֵת בַּעְלִיךְ אוֹ גֵּרְשֵׁךְ. וְכֵן הָעֶבֶד שֶׁהָיָה אוֹכֵל וְאָמְרוּ לוֹ מֵת רַבְּךָ וְהִנִּיחַ יוֹרֵשׁ שֶׁאֵינוֹ מַאֲכִיל אוֹ שֶׁמְּכָרְךָ לְיִשְׂרָאֵל אוֹ נְתָנְךָ לוֹ אוֹ שִׁחְרֶרְךָ. וְכֵן כֹּהֵן שֶׁהָיָה אוֹכֵל וְנוֹדַע לוֹ שֶׁהוּא בֶּן גְּרוּשָׁה אוֹ בֶּן חֲלוּצָה. הֲרֵי אֵלּוּ מְשַׁלְּמִין הַקֶּרֶן בִּלְבַד. וְאִם הָיְתָה תְּרוּמַת חָמֵץ וְהָיָה עֶרֶב הַפֶּסַח הֲרֵי אֵלּוּ פְּטוּרִין מִלְּשַׁלֵּם מִפְּנֵי שֶׁזְּמַנָּהּ בָּהוּל נֶחְפְּזוּ לֶאֱכל וְלֹא בָּדְקוּ. וְכֻלָּן שֶׁהָיְתָה לָהֶן תְּרוּמָה בְּתוֹךְ פִּיהֶן כְּשֶׁיָּדְעוּ שֶׁהֵן אֲסוּרִין לֶאֱכל הֲרֵי אֵלּוּ יִפְלֹטוּ:

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. previously, a distinction is made between her and other non-priest. See the Sifra to Leviticus 22:12.When a woman [the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (Terumot 8:1)]. 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. explains that since it is a pressing time, it is considered as if the transgression was violated due to forces beyond her control (ones).[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," or he had no sons and his daughter was married to an Israelite (ibid.). "...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. previously, he is not held responsible for the additional fifth. With regard to the priest who was disqualified, we find that he still has a certain vestige of connection to the priesthood, as evidenced by the fact that were he to bring an offering in the Temple, it would be acceptable after the fact (Hilchot Bi'at HaMikdash 6:10). Therefore it is sufficient for him to make restitution for the principal [the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (loc. cit.)]. 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., that is preferable to swallowing it. For until he swallows it, he is not considered to have partaken of it (Radbaz).

הָיָה אוֹכֵל וְאָמְרוּ לוֹ נִטְמֵאתָ. אוֹ נִטְמֵאת הַתְּרוּמָה. טָמֵא הָיִיתָ. אוֹ טְמֵאָה הָיְתָה הַתְּרוּמָה. אוֹ נוֹדַע שֶׁהוּא טֶבֶל אוֹ מַעֲשֵׂר רִאשׁוֹן שֶׁלֹּא נִטְּלָה תְּרוּמָתוֹ. אוֹ מַעֲשֵׂר שֵׁנִי וְהֶקְדֵּשׁ שֶׁלֹּא נִפְדּוּ. אוֹ שֶׁטָּעַם טַעַם פִּשְׁפֵּשׁ לְתוֹךְ פִּיו. הֲרֵי אֵלּוּ יִפְלֹטוּ:

[Similarly, when a priest] was partaking [of terumah] and he was told: "You became impure," "The terumah became impure," 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. [the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (loc. cit.)].

שְׁתֵּי קֻפּוֹת אַחַת שֶׁל תְּרוּמָה וְאַחַת שֶׁל חֻלִּין וְנָפְלָה תְּרוּמָה לְתוֹךְ אַחַת מֵהֶן וְאֵין יָדוּעַ לְאֵי זוֹ נָפְלָה הֲרֵינִי אוֹמֵר לְתוֹךְ שֶׁל תְּרוּמָה נָפְלָה. אֵין יָדוּעַ אֵי זוֹ הִיא שֶׁל תְּרוּמָה אָכַל זָר אַחַת מֵהֶן הֲרֵי זֶה פָּטוּר מִן הַתַּשְׁלוּמִין שֶׁהַמּוֹצִיא מֵחֲבֵרוֹ עָלָיו הָרְאָיָה. וְהַשְּׁנִיָּה נוֹהֵג בָּהּ כִּתְרוּמָה. אָכַל אַחֵר אֶת הַשְּׁנִיָּה אַף הוּא פָּטוּר. אָכַל אֶחָד אֶת שְׁתֵּיהֶן מְשַׁלֵּם כַּקְּטַנָּה שֶׁבִּשְׁתֵּיהֶן. אִם מֵזִיד קֶרֶן. וְאִם שׁוֹגֵג קֶרֶן וְחֹמֶשׁ:

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. fell into the other container, we consider it as ordinary produce. The rationale is that we were operating under the chazzakah, prevailing assumption, that the container was filled with ordinary produce. Hence, unless there is a strong likelihood otherwise, we continue to operate under that perspective.This reflects a principle that has ramifications beyond the laws of terumah. Although generally, we maintain that when there is a doubt regarding a Scriptural prohibition, we rule stringently, in this instance, since there is a plausible explanation for the lenient ruling, it is accepted. See also Chapter 13, Halachah 13-14, and the Tur and the Shulchan Aruch, Yoreh De'ah, sec. 111.There is, however, a point that has to be clarified. In Chapter 13, it is explained that this principle applies with regard to matters of Rabbinic Law, but not matters of Scriptural Law, and yet, here we are dealing even with questions involving terumah of Scriptural status. Nevertheless, there is no difficulty, because here we are not speaking about whether it is permissible to partake of the mixture or not. That question was discussed in Chapter 13, and the ruling was rendered that it is forbidden. Here the question concerns financial restitution: Is the non-priest required to pay for the produce that he ate? With regard to this point, the Rambam explains that we can use the above reasoning.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 second one should be given to him as payment for the first. And if the one that was eaten was not terumah, than the remaining one is and it must be given to the priest. [The rationale is that when a person seeks] to expropriate money from a colleague, the burden of proof is on him..This is a fundamental principle in Jewish Law. Whenever there is a doubt with regard to the ownership of money or movable property, the person in physical possession of the property in question is allowed to maintain possession until the claimant proves his claim. See Hilchot Mechirah 20:5, et al. 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.. Nevertheless, since we do not know which one was terumah, he can only be held liable for the smaller one, because of the principle stated above. 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.

הָאוֹכֵל אֶת הַחֹמֶשׁ בִּשְׁגָגָה הֲרֵי זֶה מוֹסִיף עָלָיו חֻמְשׁוֹ. שֶׁהַחֹמֶשׁ כְּקֶרֶן לְכָל דָּבָר. וְכֵן מוֹסִיף חֹמֶשׁ עַל חֹמֶשׁ לְעוֹלָם. כָּל הַמְשַׁלֵּם קֶרֶן וְחֹמֶשׁ הֲרֵי הַתַּשְׁלוּמִין כִּתְרוּמָה לְכָל דָּבָר. אֶלָּא שֶׁאִם נִזְרְעוּ גִּדּוּלֵיהֶן חֻלִּין. וְאִם רָצָה הַכֹּהֵן לִמְחל אֵינוֹ מוֹחֵל. וְכָל הַמְשַׁלֵּם אֶת הַקֶּרֶן בִּלְבַד הֲרֵי הַתַּשְׁלוּמִין חֻלִּין וְאִם רָצָה הַכֹּהֵן לִמְחל מוֹחֵל:

When a person eats the additional fifth unknowingly, he must [make restitution for it and] add another fifth. and compensation must be made for it. For the fifth is considered as the principal with regard to all matters. Similarly, he continues to add a fifth for every fifth forever. 6:1)].Whenever a person makes restitution for the principal and the additional fifth, [the grain] he gives is terumah with regard to all matters (the mixture of terumah) apply (ibid.). [with one exception]. If they were sown, the grain that grows is ordinary produce. is considered as terumah (Chapter 11, Halachah 21). 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 apply to it. and if the priest desires to forgo payment, he may.

בַּת יִשְׂרָאֵל שֶׁאָכְלָה תְּרוּמָה וְאַחַר כָּךְ נִשֵּׂאת לְכֹהֵן. אִם תְּרוּמָה שֶׁלֹּא זָכָה בָּהּ כֹּהֵן אָכְלָה מְשַׁלֶּמֶת קֶרֶן וְחֹמֶשׁ לְעַצְמָהּ. וְאִם תְּרוּמָה שֶׁזָּכָה בָּהּ כֹּהֵן אָכְלָה מְשַׁלֶּמֶת קֶרֶן לַבְּעָלִים וְחֹמֶשׁ לְעַצְמָהּ. שֶׁכָּל הַמְשַׁלֵּם קֶרֶן וְחֹמֶשׁ מְשַׁלֵּם הַקֶּרֶן לַבְּעָלִים וְהַחֹמֶשׁ לְכָל כֹּהֵן שֶׁיִּרְצֶה:

[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., she may take the terumah she separates as her own. 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.

לֹא הִסְפִּיקָה לְשַׁלֵּם עַד שֶׁנִּתְגָּרְשָׁה בֵּין כָּךְ וּבֵין כָּךְ אֵינָהּ מְשַׁלֶּמֶת לְעַצְמָהּ וַהֲרֵי הִיא כְּמִי שֶׁלֹּא נִשֵּׂאת לְכֹהֵן מֵעוֹלָם:

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.

כָּל הָאוֹכֵל תְּרוּמָה בֵּין בְּשׁוֹגֵג בֵּין בְּמֵזִיד אֵינוֹ מְשַׁלֵּם אֶלָּא מִן הַחֻלִּין הַמְתֻקָּנִים שֶׁהוֹצִיאוּ מֵהֶן תְּרוּמוֹת וּמַעַשְׂרוֹת. וּמְשַׁלְּמִין מִן הַלֶּקֶט וּמִן הַשִּׁכְחָה וּמִן הַפֵּאָה וּמִן הַהֶפְקֵר וּמִמַּעֲשֵׂר רִאשׁוֹן שֶׁנִּטְּלָה תְּרוּמָתוֹ אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁעֲדַיִן לֹא נִטְּלָה תְּרוּמָה גְּדוֹלָה שֶׁיֵּשׁ בּוֹ אִם הִקְדִּים הַמַּעֲשֵׂר לַתְּרוּמָה. וּמְשַׁלְּמִין מִמַּעֲשֵׂר שֵׁנִי וְהֶקְדֵּשׁ שֶׁנִּפְדּוּ וְאַף עַל פִּי שֶׁנִּפְדּוּ שֶׁלֹּא כַּהֲלָכָה. וּמִן הֶחָדָשׁ עַל הַיָּשָׁן אֲבָל לֹא מִמִּין עַל שֶׁאֵינוֹ מִינוֹ שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (ויקרא כב יד) "וְנָתַן לַכֹּהֵן אֶת הַקֹּדֶשׁ". כַּקֹּדֶשׁ שֶׁאָכַל:

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, for a definition of these terms. They are acceptable for this purpose, because once they are acquired by a poor person, they become his private property. ownerless grain, need not be separated from such grain or from the presents for the poor. 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. explains that we are referring to an instance where the person separated the first tithe while the crop is still stalks of grain and gave it to the Levite before it has been winnowed. As explained in Chapter 3, Halachah 13, in such an instance, it is not necessary to separate the great terumah. If, however, it is ordinary grain from which the separations were not made in the proper order, it cannot be used to make restitution for 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. 6:5), the Rambam explains that this refers to the second tithe that was redeemed using an unminted coin or consecrated property that was redeemed with land. The commentaries have questioned this interpretation, noting that usually redemption with such articles is not effective at all (see Hilchot Ma'aser Sheni 4:9; Hilchot Arachin 7:1). They cite the Rambam's Commentary to Berachot 7:1 which interprets this term as referring to a situation where the principal was paid, but the additional fifth that is required was not. And one may make restitution using new grain offering. Old grain refers to grain from the previous harvest. 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.

הָאוֹכֵל קִשּׁוּאִין שֶׁל עֶרֶב שְׁבִיעִית יַמְתִּין לַקִּשּׁוּאִין שֶׁל מוֹצָאֵי שְׁבִיעִית וִישַׁלֵּם מֵהֶן. שֶׁאֵינוֹ יָכוֹל לְשַׁלֵּם חוֹבוֹ מִפֵּרוֹת שְׁבִיעִית כְּמוֹ שֶׁיִּתְבָּאֵר בִּמְקוֹמוֹ:

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. 6:10 which states that the crops of the Sabbatical year may not be used to pay debts, for this is comparable to using them for commercial purposes which is forbidden.

אָכַל תְּרוּמָה טְמֵאָה מְשַׁלֵּם חֻלִּין בֵּין טְמֵאִין בֵּין טְהוֹרִין. אָכַל תְּרוּמָה טְהוֹרָה מְשַׁלֵּם חֻלִּין טְהוֹרִין וְאִם שִׁלֵּם חֻלִּין טְמֵאִין בֵּין בְּשׁוֹגֵג בֵּין בְּמֵזִיד תַּשְׁלוּמָיו תַּשְׁלוּמִין וְיַחֲזֹר וִישַׁלֵּם מִן הַטְּהוֹרִין:

When a person ate terumah that was ritually impure, he makes restitution from ordinary produce, whether pure or impure.. Hence, there is no difficulty in him giving impure produce. 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.

אָכַל תְּרוּמַת חָבֵר מְשַׁלֵּם לוֹ. אָכַל תְּרוּמַת עַם הָאָרֶץ מְשַׁלֵּם לֶחָבֵר וְנוֹטֵל דָּמֶיהָ מִמֶּנּוּ וְנוֹתֵן לְעַם הָאָרֶץ שֶׁאָכַל תְּרוּמָתוֹ שֶׁאֵין מוֹסְרִין טָהֳרוֹת לְעַם הָאָרֶץ:

When a person partook of terumah belonging to a chaver,, ch. 10. 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.

גָּזַל תְּרוּמָה מֵאֲבִי אִמּוֹ כֹּהֵן וַאֲכָלָהּ וְאַחַר כָּךְ מֵת אֲבִי אִמּוֹ אֵינוֹ מְשַׁלֵּם לְעַצְמוֹ אֶלָּא לְיוֹרֵשׁ אַחֵר מִשְּׁאָר הַשֵּׁבֶט. וְכֵן אִם נָפְלָה לוֹ תְּרוּמָה מֵאֲבִי אִמּוֹ וַאֲכָלָהּ. וּבַעַל חוֹב שֶׁגָּבָה תְּרוּמָה בְּחוֹבוֹ וְהָאִשָּׁה בִּכְתֻבָּתָהּ וַאֲכָלוּהָ מְשַׁלְּמִין קֶרֶן וְחֹמֶשׁ לְכֹהֵן חָבֵר וְהֶחָבֵר נוֹתֵן לָהֶם דָּמִים שֶׁהָיוּ מוֹכְרִין בָּהּ אוֹתָהּ הַתְּרוּמָה כְּמוֹ שֶׁאָכְלוּ:

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, 8:2-3. but rather to another heir belonged to his maternal grandfather, it is not appropriate that the restitution be given to someone who does not share a family connection with him. Hence he may give it to any member of the family who is a priest, e.g., one of his uncles (Radbaz). 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 and thus transgressed unknowingly. 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., they must atone for partaking of it by making restitution and adding a fifth. Nevertheless, the terumah legitimately belonged to them. Hence, after the priest receives the grain given for atonement, he should reimburse the person for the worth of the terumah.

הַגּוֹנֵב תְּרוּמָה וְלֹא אֲכָלָהּ מְשַׁלֵּם תַּשְׁלוּמֵי כֶּפֶל לַבְּעָלִים. וְיֵשׁ לוֹ לְשַׁלֵּם מִדְּמֵי תְּרוּמָה. גְּנָבָהּ וַאֲכָלָהּ מְשַׁלֵּם שְׁנֵי קְרָנִין וְחֹמֶשׁ. קֶרֶן וְחֹמֶשׁ מִן הַחֻלִּין. וְקֶרֶן אֲפִלּוּ מִדְּמֵי תְּרוּמָה:

When a person steals terumah but does not consume it, he should pay twice its worth to the owners. is consecrated, it belongs to its owners. For even an Israelite has the right to give it to the priest he desires. He may make this payment according to the worth of terumah., it is necessary to pay with ordinary grain. In this instance, however, he need not atone for partaking of terumah. All that is necessary is to pay twice the amount of the article he stole. 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.

הָיְתָה הַתְּרוּמָה הֶקְדֵּשׁ לְבֶדֶק הַבַּיִת וּגְנָבָהּ וַאֲכָלָהּ אֵינוֹ מְשַׁלֵּם תַּשְׁלוּמֵי כֶּפֶל. שֶׁאֵין תַּשְׁלוּמֵי כֶּפֶל בְּהֶקְדֵּשׁ כְּמוֹ שֶׁיִּתְבָּאֵר בִּמְקוֹמוֹ. אֲבָל מְשַׁלֵּם קֶרֶן וּשְׁנֵי חֳמָשִׁים. חֹמֶשׁ מִשּׁוּם אוֹכֵל תְּרוּמָה. וְחֹמֶשׁ מִשּׁוּם שֶׁנֶּהֱנָה מִן הַהֶקְדֵּשׁ. וּלְמִי מְשַׁלֵּם. אִם הָיָה בָּהּ כְּזַיִת וְאֵין בָּהּ שְׁוֵה פְּרוּטָה מְשַׁלֵּם לַכֹּהֲנִים. וְאִם יֵשׁ בָּהּ שְׁוֵה פְּרוּטָה בֵּין שֶׁיֵּשׁ בָּהּ כְּזַיִת בֵּין שֶׁאֵין בָּהּ כְּזַיִת מְשַׁלֵּם לַהֶקְדֵּשׁ:

When a person steals terumah that is consecrated to the Temple treasury and consecrated it to the Temple treasury [the Ramban's Commentary to the Mishnah (Terumot 6:4)]. We are forced to say this because terumah separated by an Israelite must be given to a priest and may not be given 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. 2:1. When speaking about the thief's obligation to pay double, Exodus 22:8 states: "He shall pay his colleague double," i.e., his colleague, another human, and not the Temple treasury (Bava Metzia 57b). 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. 1:3,5).To whom does he make restitution? If [the terumah] was the size of an olive depends on the produce being 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.

וּמִפְּנֵי מָה חָל אִסּוּר הֶקְדֵּשׁ עַל אִסּוּר הַתְּרוּמָה מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהַתְּרוּמָה אֲסוּרָה לְזָר וּמֻתֶּרֶת לַכֹּהֵן. הִקְדִּישָׁהּ נֶאֶסְרָה עַל הַכֹּהֵן. לְפִיכָךְ נוֹסָף בָּהּ אִסּוּר אַף עַל יִשְׂרָאֵל עַל דֶּרֶךְ שֶׁבֵּאַרְנוּ בְּהִלְכוֹת בִּיאוֹת אֲסוּרוֹת וְאִסּוּרֵי מַאֲכָלוֹת:

Why does the prohibition against benefiting from consecrated property fall [on this grain when it is already forbidden because of] the prohibition against terumah? 14a). 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. 17:9; Hilchot Ma'achalot Assurot 14:19. In these sources, it is explained that one of the exceptions to this principle is an issur mosif, a negative commandment that increases the scope of the prohibition, including entities that were not originally forbidden. See the Ramban's Commentary to the Mishnah (loc. cit.).

הַגּוֹזֵל תְּרוּמָה וַאֲכָלָהּ מְשַׁלֵּם קֶרֶן וְחֹמֶשׁ אֶחָד. שֶׁהַחֹמֶשׁ שֶׁחַיָּב בּוֹ מִשּׁוּם תְּרוּמָה יָצָא בּוֹ יְדֵי גְּזֵלוֹ שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (ויקרא כב יד) "וְנָתַן לַכֹּהֵן אֶת הַקֹּדֶשׁ" אֵינוֹ חַיָּב אֶלָּא בְּחֹמֶשׁ שֶׁל קֹדֶשׁ בִּלְבַד. גְּזָלָהּ וְהֶאֱכִילָהּ לְאַחֵר. הָאוֹכֵל מְשַׁלֵּם קֶרֶן וְחֹמֶשׁ. כָּל מָקוֹם שֶׁאָמַרְנוּ מְשַׁלֵּם קֶרֶן וְחֹמֶשׁ אִם אָכַל שְׁוֵה אַרְבָּעָה מְשַׁלֵּם שְׁוֵה חֲמִשָּׁה מִמִּין שֶׁאָכַל. וְכָל מָקוֹם שֶׁאָמַרְנוּ מְשַׁלֵּם קֶרֶן וּשְׁנֵי חֳמָשִׁין אָכַל שְׁוֵה אַרְבָּעָה מְשַׁלֵּם שִׁשָּׁה. וְכָל מָקוֹם שֶׁאָמַרְנוּ מְשַׁלֵּם שְׁנֵי קְרָנִין וְחֹמֶשׁ אֶחָד אָכַל שְׁוֵה אַרְבָּעָה מְשַׁלֵּם דְּמֵי תִּשְׁעָה. וּלְעוֹלָם אֵינוֹ מְשַׁלֵּם אֶלָּא לְפִי דָּמִים שֶׁהָיְתָה שָׁוָה בִּשְׁעַת אֲכִילָה בֵּין שֶׁהוּזְלָה בִּשְׁעַת תַּשְׁלוּמִין בֵּין שֶׁהוּקְרָה:

When a person obtains terumah by robbery, (theft) and gezeilah (robbery) can be explained as follows: Theft implies taking a colleague's property discreetly. Robbery, by contrast, involves taking something by force against the will of its owner (Hilchos Geneivah 1:3). 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, 7:1-2. The commentaries explain that according to the Rambam, it is sufficient to give one fifth, for that atones for both transgressions. Although in Halachah 24, the Rambam requires two different fifths to be given, that is because one is required to atone for partaking of consecrated property. That is a different type of transgression and that requirement is not paralleled with regard to the transgression against taking a false oath. 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. unknowingly, as in Halachah 10.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 4:5; Hilchot Meialah 1:5, Hilchot Gezeilah 7:5, et al. 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. directly after stealing it. The Kessef Mishneh states that this halachah is not necessarily speaking about a thief, but about any person who partakes of terumah unknowingly. The time when he partakes of the terumah is equivalent to the time of theft.