Mishneh Torah — Heave Offerings (Terumot) הלכות תרומות, Chapter 5

אֵין תּוֹרְמִין אֶלָּא מִן הַיָּפֶה שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (במדבר יח ל) (במדבר יח לב) "בַּהֲרִימְכֶם אֶת חֶלְבּוֹ מִמֶּנּוּ". וְאִם אֵין שָׁם כֹּהֵן תּוֹרֵם מִן הַמִּתְקַיֵּם אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁיֵּשׁ שָׁם יָפֶה שֶׁאֵינוֹ מִתְקַיֵּם. כֵּיצַד. תּוֹרֵם תְּאֵנִים עַל הַגְּרוֹגָרוֹת. וּבְמָקוֹם שֶׁאֵין שָׁם כֹּהֵן תּוֹרֵם גְּרוֹגָרוֹת עַל הַתְּאֵנִים. וְאִם רָגִיל לַעֲשׂוֹת תְּאֵנִים גְּרוֹגָרוֹת תּוֹרֵם מִן הַתְּאֵנִים עַל הַגְּרוֹגָרוֹת אֲפִלּוּ בְּמָקוֹם שֶׁאֵין שָׁם כֹּהֵן. אֲבָל בְּמָקוֹם שֶׁיֵּשׁ בּוֹ כֹּהֵן אֵין תּוֹרְמִין מִן הַגְּרוֹגָרוֹת עַל הַתְּאֵנִים אֲפִלּוּ לְמָקוֹם שֶׁדַּרְכָּן לַעֲשׂוֹת תְּאֵנִים גְּרוֹגָרוֹת:

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.", translated as "most choice portion," literally means "fat."When quoting this law, the Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 331:52) states that in the present age, when terumah will be destroyed regardless, there is no need to separate the most choice portions as terumah.See also the Ramban's Hosafot to Sefer HaMitzvot (Negative Mitzvah 7) which considers the adjuration against separating lower quality produce as terumah as one of the Torah's 613 prohibitions. If, however, there is no priest accessible, will not be able to be given to the priest immediately. 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.

תּוֹרְמִין בָּצָל שָׁלֵם אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁהוּא קָטָן. אֲבָל לֹא חֲצִי בָּצָל אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁהוּא גָּדוֹל. בְּכָל מָקוֹם אֵין תּוֹרְמִין מִמִּין עַל שֶׁאֵינוֹ מִינוֹ שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (במדבר יח כז) "כַּדָּגָן מִן הַגֹּרֶן וְכַמְלֵאָה מִן הַיֶּקֶב". וְאִם תָּרַם אֵין תְּרוּמָתוֹ תְּרוּמָה:

One may separate an entire onion as terumah even if it is small, 2:5)]. 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." and the produce for which it is being separated must be of the same species. If one made such a separation, it is not considered terumah.

הַקְּשׁוּת וְהַמְּלָפְפוֹן מִין אֶחָד. כָּל מִין חִטִּים אֶחָד. כָּל מִין תְּאֵנִים וּגְרוֹגָרוֹת וּדְבֵלָה אֶחָד. וְתוֹרֵם מִזֶּה עַל זֶה. וְכָל שֶׁהוּא כִּלְאַיִם בַּחֲבֵרוֹ לֹא יִתְרֹם מִזֶּה עַל זֶה אֲפִלּוּ מִן הַיָּפֶה עַל הָרַע. כֵּיצַד. הָיוּ לוֹ חֲמִשִּׁים סְאָה חִטִּין וַחֲמִשִּׁים סְאָה שְׂעוֹרִים בְּבַיִת אֶחָד וְהִפְרִישׁ עַל הַכּל שְׁנֵי סְאִין חִטִּין אֵינָן תְּרוּמָה. וְכָל שֶׁאֵינוֹ כִּלְאַיִם בַּחֲבֵרוֹ תּוֹרֵם מִן הַיָּפֶה עַל הָרַע אֲבָל לֹא מִן הָרַע עַל הַיָּפֶה. וְאִם תָּרַם תְּרוּמָתוֹ תְּרוּמָה חוּץ מִן הַזּוֹנִין עַל הַחִטִּים מִפְּנֵי שֶׁאֵינָן אֹכֶל אָדָם:

Zucchini and cucumbers are considered as one species. (Hilchot Kilayim 3:3). 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. has not been separated even from the wheat alone. The rationale is that separating terumah is considered equivalent to taking a vow and if a portion of a vow has been nullified, the entire vow is nullified. 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.

אֵין תּוֹרְמִין מִדָּבָר שֶׁנִּגְמְרָה מְלַאכְתּוֹ עַל דָּבָר שֶׁלֹּא נִגְמְרָה מְלַאכְתּוֹ. וְלֹא מִדָּבָר שֶׁלֹּא נִגְמְרָה מְלַאכְתּוֹ עַל דָּבָר שֶׁלֹּא נִגְמְרָה מְלַאכְתּוֹ. וְלֹא מִדָּבָר שֶׁלֹּא נִגְמְרָה מְלַאכְתּוֹ עַל דָּבָר שֶׁנִּגְמְרָה מְלַאכְתּוֹ. שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (במדבר יח כז) "כַּדָּגָן מִן הַגֹּרֶן וְכַמְלֵאָה מִן הַיֶּקֶב" מִן הַגָּמוּר עַל הַגָּמוּר. וְאִם תָּרְמוּ תְּרוּמָתָן תְּרוּמָה:

We do not separate terumah from produce for which all the work [in preparing it] was completed and the tithes falls upon it (see Chapter 1, Halachah 11, and notes). 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. 1:10. [This is also derived from the above prooftext:] "As grain from the granary and as wine from the vat." 331:80 maintains that the law is a Rabbinic decree and the prooftexts are merely asmachteot, allusions cited for support. For that reason, after the fact, the separation is effective. [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].

מֵאֵימָתַי תּוֹרְמִין אֶת הַגֹּרֶן מִשֶּׁיִּבְרֹר. בָּרַר מִקְצָת תּוֹרְמִין מִן הַבָּרוּר עַל שֶׁאֵינוֹ בָּרוּר. הַמַּכְנִיס שִׁבֳּלִים לְתוֹךְ בֵּיתוֹ לַעֲשׂוֹתָן מְלִילוֹת הֲרֵי זֶה תּוֹרֵם מִן שִׁבֳּלִים:

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.

מֵאֵימָתַי תּוֹרְמִין אֶת הַגַּת מִשֶּׁיְּהַלְּכוּ בָּהּ שְׁתִי וָעֵרֶב. מֵאֵימָתַי תּוֹרְמִין אֶת הַזֵּיתִים מִשֶּׁיִּטְעֲנוּ:

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.

אֵין תּוֹרְמִין מִן הַטָּהוֹר עַל הַטָּמֵא וְאִם תָּרַם תְּרוּמָתוֹ תְּרוּמָה. וַהֲלָכָה לְמשֶׁה מִסִּינַי שֶׁעִגּוּל שֶׁל דְּבֵלָה שֶׁנִּטְמָא מִקְצָתוֹ תּוֹרְמִין לְכַתְּחִלָּה מִן הַטָּהוֹר שֶׁבּוֹ עַל הַטָּמֵא שֶׁבּוֹ. וְלֹא הָעִגּוּל בִּלְבַד שֶׁהוּא גּוּף אֶחָד אֶלָּא אֲפִלּוּ אֲגֻדָּה שֶׁל יָרָק אֲפִלּוּ עֲרֵמוֹת שֶׁל חִטִּים שֶׁנִּטְמְאָה מִקְצָתָהּ תּוֹרְמִין מִן הַטָּהוֹר שֶׁבָּהּ עַל הַטָּמֵא שֶׁבָּהּ. אֲבָל אִם הָיוּ שְׁנֵי עִגּוּלִים אוֹ שְׁתֵּי אֲגֻדּוֹת אוֹ שְׁתֵּי עֲרֵמוֹת אַחַת טְמֵאָה וְאַחַת טְהוֹרָה בְּצִדָּהּ לֹא יִתְרֹם מִן הַטָּהוֹר עַל הַטָּמֵא לְכַתְּחִלָּה. וְתוֹרְמִין תְּרוּמַת מַעֲשֵׂר מִן הַטָּהוֹר עַל הַטָּמֵא לְכַתְּחִלָּה שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (במדבר יח כט) "אֶת מִקְדָּשׁוֹ מִמֶּנּוּ" טֹל מִן הַמְקֻדָּשׁ שֶׁבּוֹ:

We should not separate terumah from ritually pure produce for produce that is not ritually pure. 2:1) derives this concept from the prooftext cited above: "As grain from the granary and as wine from the vat." It is impossible that a vat will be partially pure and partially impure, so, too, terumah and the produce for which it is being separated must be either pure or impure." 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. 2:1), the Rambam explains the rationale for this law. Since the cake of figs is made from several discrete elements, it is not considered as a single entity with regard to the laws of ritual impurity. Hence, the fact that one portion has been touched by a source of ritual impurity does not cause another portion to become impure. Nevertheless, since it is one body of produce, terumah can be separated from one portion for the other. 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.; see also Hilchot Tuma'at Ochalin 6:14). 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.). After the fact, however, the separation is acceptable. 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., it is possible that there be a "sacred." i.e., pure, portion, and a portion that is not "sacred," i.e., impure, and the pure should be separated for the impure. As stated at the conclusion of ch. 3, the produce separated as terumat ma'aser need not be located together with the produce for which it is being separated.

אֵין תּוֹרְמִין מִן הַטָּמֵא עַל הַטָּהוֹר וְאִם תָּרַם בְּשׁוֹגֵג תְּרוּמָתוֹ תְּרוּמָה. בְּמֵזִיד לֹא תִּקֵּן אֶת הַשְּׁיָרִים וְזֶה שֶׁהֵרִים תְּרוּמָה וְיַחֲזֹר וְיִתְרֹם. בַּמֶּה דְּבָרִים אֲמוּרִים שֶׁלֹּא יָדַע בַּטֻּמְאָה. אֲבָל אִם יָדַע וְשָׁגַג שֶׁמֻּתָּר לִתְרֹם מִן הַטָּמֵא עַל הַטָּהוֹר הֲרֵי הוּא כְּמֵזִיד. וְכֵן בִּתְרוּמַת מַעֲשֵׂר:

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. 2:2), the Rambam explains that this is speaking about a situation where initially, at the time the obligation to separate terumah took effect, the produce separated as terumah was pure. If, however, it became impure before the work associated with its preparation was completed, even if it was inadvertently separated as terumah, the separation is not effective. 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.

אֵין תּוֹרְמִין מִן הַמְחֻבָּר עַל הַתָּלוּשׁ וְלֹא מִן הַתָּלוּשׁ עַל הַמְחֻבָּר. כֵּיצַד. הָיוּ לוֹ פֵּרוֹת תְּלוּשִׁין וְאָמַר פֵּרוֹת אֵלּוּ יִהְיוּ תְּרוּמָה עַל פֵּרוֹת אֵלּוּ הַמְחֻבָּרִים אֲפִלּוּ (אָמַר) לִכְשֶׁיִּתָּלְשׁוּ. אוֹ שֶׁהָיוּ לוֹ שְׁתֵּי עֲרוּגוֹת וְאָמַר פֵּרוֹת עֲרוּגָה זוֹ תְּלוּשִׁין יִהְיוּ תְּרוּמָה עַל פֵּרוֹת עֲרוּגָה זוֹ מְחֻבָּרִים. אוֹ שֶׁאָמַר פֵּרוֹת עֲרוּגָה זוֹ מְחֻבָּרִים יִהְיוּ תְּרוּמָה עַל פֵּרוֹת עֲרוּגָה זוֹ תְּלוּשִׁין לֹא אָמַר כְּלוּם. אֲבָל אִם אָמַר פֵּרוֹת עֲרוּגָה זוֹ תְּלוּשִׁין יִהְיוּ תְּרוּמָה עַל פֵּרוֹת עֲרוּגָה זוֹ לִכְשֶׁיִּתָּלְשׁוּ וְנִתְלְשׁוּ הוֹאִיל וּבְיָדוֹ לְתָלְשָׁן אֵינוֹ מְחֻסָּר מַעֲשֶׂה וְלִכְשֶׁיִּתָּלְשׁוּ שְׁנֵיהֶם דְּבָרָיו קַיָּמִין. וְהוּא שֶׁיָּבִיאוּ שְׁתֵּיהֶן שְׁלִישׁ בְּעֵת שֶׁאָמַר:

We may not separate produce that is still attached to the earth as terumah for produce that has already been detached. derives this from the exegesis of Numbers 18:26: "And you shall separate from it...." Since the produce is still attached to the earth, it is not considered as the same type as the produce which is 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,". Ordinarily, if a person separated terumah from produce belonging to him for produce that does not belong to him, his separation is valid, as stated in Chapter 4, Halachah 2. In this instance, however, since the attached produce does not belong to him and he has no control of when it will be detached, he does not have the potential to designate his own produce as terumah for it. 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, as stated in Chapter 2, Halachah 10. Therefore, even if one separated terumah for it, the separation is not effective. at the time he made his statements.

אֵין תּוֹרְמִין מִן הַלַּח עַל הַיָּבֵשׁ וְלֹא מִן הַיָּבֵשׁ עַל הַלַּח. וְאִם תָּרַם תְּרוּמָתוֹ תְּרוּמָה. כֵּיצַד. לִקֵּט יָרָק הַיּוֹם וְלִקֵּט מִמֶּנּוּ לְמָחָר אֵין תּוֹרְמִין מִזֶּה עַל זֶה אֶלָּא אִם כֵּן דַּרְכּוֹ לְהִשְׁתַּמֵּר שְׁנֵי יָמִים. וְכֵן יָרָק שֶׁדַּרְכּוֹ לְהִשְׁתַּמֵּר שְׁלֹשָׁה יָמִים כְּגוֹן הַמְּלָפְפוֹנוֹת כָּל שֶׁלִּקֵּט בִּשְׁלֹשֶׁת יָמִים מִצְטָרֵף וְתוֹרֵם מִזֶּה עַל זֶה. יָרָק שֶׁדַּרְכּוֹ לְהִשְׁתַּמֵּר יוֹם אֶחָד בִּלְבַד וְלִקֵּט בְּשַׁחֲרִית וְלִקֵּט בָּעֶרֶב תּוֹרֵם מִזֶּה עַל זֶה:

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. 331:83 states that this is a Rabbinic decree, enacted as a safeguard so that one will not separate produce from one type over another. Hence, after the fact, the separation 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.

אֵין תּוֹרְמִין מִפֵּרוֹת שָׁנָה זוֹ עַל פֵּרוֹת שָׁנָה שֶׁעָבְרָה. וְלֹא מִפֵּרוֹת שָׁנָה שֶׁעָבְרָה עַל פֵּרוֹת שָׁנָה זוֹ. וְאִם תָּרַם אֵינָהּ תְּרוּמָה שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (דברים יד כב) "שָׁנָה שָׁנָה". לִקֵּט יָרָק עֶרֶב רֹאשׁ הַשָּׁנָה עַד שֶׁלֹּא בָּאָה הַשֶּׁמֶשׁ וְחָזַר וְלִקֵּט אַחַר שֶׁבָּאָה הַשֶּׁמֶשׁ אֵין תּוֹרְמִין מִזֶּה עַל זֶה שֶׁזֶּה חָדָשׁ וְזֶה יָשָׁן. וְכֵן אִם לִקֵּט אֶתְרוֹג בְּעֶרֶב ט"ו בִּשְׁבָט עַד שֶׁלֹּא בָּא הַשֶּׁמֶשׁ וְחָזַר וְלִקֵּט אֶתְרוֹג אַחֵר מִשֶּׁבָּאָה הַשֶּׁמֶשׁ אֵין תּוֹרְמִין מִזֶּה עַל זֶה מִפְּנֵי שֶׁאֶחָד בְּתִשְׁרֵי רֹאשׁ הַשָּׁנָה לְמַעַשְׂרוֹת תְּבוּאָה וְקִטְנִיּוֹת וִירָקוֹת. וְט"ו בִּשְׁבָט רֹאשׁ הַשָּׁנָה לְמַעַשְׂרוֹת הָאִילָן:

One may not separate produce from the present year as terumah for produce of the previous year, 14b). As the Rambam proceeds to explain, a Scriptural decree causes such produce to be considered as a discrete entity, distinct from the same type of produce harvested in the present 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.".In his Commentary to the Mishnah (Terumot 1:5), the Rambam cites a different prooftext for the derivation of this principle.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 were eaten as fruit, not only used for the mitzvah on Sukkot. 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. is singled out, because unlike other fruit, the time when it is picked - and not the time it reaches the stage of development when we are required to separate the tithes - determines the year of the agricultural cycle we follow. See Hilchot Ma'aser Sheni 1:1-4. [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.

אֵין תּוֹרְמִין פֵּרוֹת הָאָרֶץ עַל פֵּרוֹת חוּצָה לָאָרֶץ. וְלֹא מִפֵּרוֹת חוּצָה לָאָרֶץ עַל פֵּרוֹת הָאָרֶץ. [וְלֹא מִפֵּרוֹת הָאָרֶץ עַל פֵּרוֹת סוּרְיָא. וְלֹא מִפֵּרוֹת סוּרְיָא עַל פֵּרוֹת הָאָרֶץ]. וְלֹא מִפֵּרוֹת שֶׁאֵינָן חַיָּבִין בִּתְרוּמָה כְּגוֹן לֶקֶט שִׁכְחָה וּפֵאָה. אוֹ פֵּרוֹת שֶׁנִּתְרְמָה תְּרוּמָתָן עַל פֵּרוֹת שֶׁחַיָּבִין בִּתְרוּמָה. וְלֹא מִפֵּרוֹת שֶׁחַיָּבִין בִּתְרוּמָה עַל פֵּרוֹת הַפְּטוּרִין. וְאִם תָּרַם אֵינָהּ תְּרוּמָה:

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, 1:5), the Rambam explains that this concept is derived from Leviticus 27:30: "All the tithes of the land from the plantings of the land." Implied is that both the tithes and the produce must be from "the land," from Eretz Yisrael. Although the verse speaks of the tithes, the principle derived is also applied to terumah. 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. was separated, the separation is not of consequence. [Even] if the terumah was separated, the separation is not of consequence.

הַמַּפְרִישׁ תְּרוּמָה מִמַּעֲשֵׂר רִאשׁוֹן שֶׁלֹּא נִטְּלָה תְּרוּמָתוֹ. אוֹ מִמַּעֲשֵׂר שֵׁנִי וְהֶקְדֵּשׁ שֶׁלֹּא נִפְדּוּ עַל פֵּרוֹת אֲחֵרוֹת אֵין תְּרוּמָתָן תְּרוּמָה:

When a person separates terumah [for other produce] from produce that was designated as the first tithe, but from which its terumah, the terumah that must be separated from the tithes. had not been separated 1:5, Rav Kapach's edition), the Rambam explains that this is referring to a situation in which a Levite took produce that he had been given as tithes by an Israelite, but from which he had not separated terumat ma'aser and desired to use it to separate terumah for produce from his own field from which he is obligated to separate terumah. This is unacceptable, because there is no longer any obligation to separate terumah from the produce given as tithes, even though there is an obligation to separate terumat ma'aser from it.This explanation is somewhat unique. Most commentaries interpret the mishnah as referring to a situation where the person tithed his crop, but did not separate terumah from it. Nor did he separate terumat ma'aser. Afterwards, he desired to separate terumah for other produce from the tithes. The Rambam's interpretation avoids several difficulties that arise according to the other approach. or from produce which was designated as the second tithe or that had been consecrated, or the tithes from it. but which had not been redeemed, the separation is not effective. that has not been separated.) The Ra'avad raises objections to the Rambam's ruling. The Radbaz and the Kessef Mishneh respond to them. If, however, they would have followed the Rambam's explanation in his Commentary to the Mishnah as explained above, the difficulties would not arise.

אֵין תּוֹרְמִין מִדָּבָר שֶׁהוּא חַיָּב מִן הַתּוֹרָה עַל דָּבָר שֶׁהוּא חַיָּב מִדִּבְרֵיהֶן וְלֹא מִן הַמְחֻיָּב מִדִּבְרֵיהֶן עַל הַחַיָּב מִן הַתּוֹרָה. וְאִם תָּרַם תְּרוּמָתוֹ תְּרוּמָה וְיַחֲזֹר וְיִתְרֹם:

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, from this produce. Hence, it is as if one is separating terumah from produce obligated in terumah for produce for which there is no obligation. The Kessef Mishneh explains that this general principle is derived from the law quoted in the following halachah. 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. from produce for which there is no obligation to separate terumah, for produce for which such an obligation exists. 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]., this applies only to the second clause. The laws regarding the situation described in the first clause are explained in Halachah 16.In the situation described in the second clause, the priest is allowed to partake of the produce, for although according to Scriptural Law, the separation is insignificant, there is no difficulty in having the priest partake of the produce for there is no obligation incumbent upon it.

עָצִיץ נָקוּב הֲרֵי הוּא כְּאֶרֶץ. וְכַמָּה יְהֵא בַּנֶּקֶב כְּדֵי שֹׁרֶשׁ קָטָן וְהוּא פָּחוֹת מִכְּזַיִת. זָרַע תְּבוּאָה בְּעָצִיץ שֶׁאֵינוֹ נָקוּב וְהֵבִיאָה שְׁלִישׁ וְאַחַר כָּךְ נִקְּבוֹ וְנִגְמְרָה הַתְּבוּאָה וְהוּא נָקוּב הֲרֵי הוּא כַּצּוֹמֵחַ בְּשֶׁאֵינוֹ נָקוּב עַד שֶׁיִּקְּבֶנּוּ קֹדֶם שֶׁיָּבִיא שְׁלִישׁ:

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. from produce which grows within such a flowerpot according to Scriptural Law [the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (Demai 5:10)]. 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. from it according to Scriptural Law (ibid.). Here a question arises, because the flowerpot was perforated afterwards. The Rambam clarifies that as long as the produce reaches a third of its growth, the point at which we are obligated to separate terumah, under conditions in which we are not obligated to separate terumah, an obligation is not incurred even though afterwards, those conditions change. See Halachah 9; see also Chapter 1, Halachot 11-13. 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.

הַתּוֹרֵם מִפֵּרוֹת הַגְּדֵלִין בְּאֶרֶץ עַל הַגְּדֵלִין בְּעָצִיץ נָקוּב אוֹ מִפֵּרוֹת עָצִיץ נָקוּב עַל הַגְּדֵלִין בָּאָרֶץ תְּרוּמָתוֹ תְּרוּמָה. תָּרַם מִשֶּׁאֵינוֹ נָקוּב עַל הַנָּקוּב תְּרוּמָתוֹ תְּרוּמָה וְיַחֲזֹר וְיִתְרֹם. תָּרַם מִן הַנָּקוּב עַל שֶׁאֵינוֹ נָקוּב תְּרוּמָתוֹ תְּרוּמָה וְלֹא תֵּאָכֵל עַד שֶׁיּוֹצִיא עָלֶיהָ תְּרוּמָה וּמַעַשְׂרוֹת מִמָּקוֹם אַחֵר:

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. from both sets of produce according to Scriptural Law.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. as stated in Halachah 14.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. is not effective according to Scriptural Law. Hence, according to Scriptural Law, not only is this produce not terumah, it remains tevel, produce from which terumah and the tithes were not separated. Although our Sages ruled stringently and determined that it must be considered as terumah, they did not change its status as tevel. Hence, for the priest to partake of it, it is necessary that he separate terumah and tithes for it from other produce [see the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (Demai 5:10)].The terumah and the tithes for this produce must be separated from other produce, lest one think that what remains is ordinary produce and can be eaten be a person other than a priest (Tosafot, Yevamot 89b).

הַתּוֹרֵם מִן הַדְּמַאי עַל הַדְּמַאי וּמִן הַדְּמַאי עַל הַוַּדַּאי תְּרוּמָתוֹ תְּרוּמָה וְיַחֲזֹר וְיִתְרֹם מִכָּל אֶחָד וְאֶחָד בִּפְנֵי עַצְמוֹ. תָּרַם מִן הַוַּדַּאי עַל הַדְּמַאי תְּרוּמָתוֹ תְּרוּמָה וְלֹא תֵּאָכֵל עַד שֶׁיּוֹצִיא עָלֶיהָ תְּרוּמָה וּמַעַשְׂרוֹת:

When a person separates terumat [ma'aser] from produce that is demai refers to produce concerning which we are uncertain whether the tithes were separated from it or not. According to Rabbinic Law, we are required to separate terumat ma'aser, terumah which the Levites are required to separate from the tithes from such produce (see Hilchot Ma'aserot, Chapter 9). 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]., because it is possible that previously tithes and terumat ma'aser had been separated from the produce that was demai. Were that to be the case, one would be separating terumat ma'aser from produce for which one is obligated to make a separation from produce for which no such obligation exists. See the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (loc. cit.). [Nevertheless,] he should separate terumah again for each type of produce individually. is not effective, the owner must make a second separation.In this instance, the priest is allowed to partake of the produce given him. The rationale is that in the second instance, when one separates terumat ma'aser from produce that is demai for produce from which we are certain that the tithes were not separated, the priest is certainly allowed to partake of the produce given him. If terumat ma'aser had not been separated from such produce previously, it is being made at present. And if it had been made previously, according to Scriptural Law, the produce to be given the priest is ordinary produce that may be consumed.If the separation was made from produce that is demai for other produce that is demai, there is a difficulty, for it is possible that a separation had previously been made for the produce for which the terumat ma'aser is being separated, but not from the produce from which the separation is being made at present. Since such a separation is invalid according to Scriptural Law, in such an instance, the priest is being given produce from which tithes and terumat ma'aser have not been separated. Nevertheless, since the majority of the people do in fact separate tithes and the prohibition of demai is just a stringency, in this instance, our Sages were lenient (Rabbi Akiva Eiger).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]. is not effective - as would be the case if a separation had been made from the produce classified as demai - there is an obligation to separate terumat ma'aser from the produce being separated as terumat ma'aser. Hence, until that separation is made, the priest is forbidden to partake of the produce given him.There is, however, a difference between this halachah and the previous one. In the previous instance, the separation had to be made from other produce, while in this instance, the separation can be made from the produce given to the priest. In the previous instance, care had to be taken because of the impression that might be created, i.e., an onlooker might not realize that there is a Rabbinic obligation to separate terumot and tithes from produce growing in a flowerpot that is not perforated. No such difficulty exists in this instance, because the obligations incumbent on demai are well known. See the gloss of Ra'avad to Hilchot Ma'aser 13:19.

אֵין תּוֹרְמִין שִׁבֳּלִים עַל הַחִטִּים. וְזֵיתִים עַל שֶׁמֶן. וַעֲנָבִים עַל יַיִן. וְאִם תָּרַם אֵינָהּ תְּרוּמָה גְּזֵרָה שֶׁמָּא יַטְרִיחַ הַכֹּהֵן לִדְרֹךְ וְלִכְתּשׁ. אֲבָל תּוֹרְמִין שֶׁמֶן עַל הַזֵּיתִים הַנִּכְבָּשִׁין וְיַיִן עַל עֲנָבִים לַעֲשׂוֹתָן צִמּוּקִין. לְמָה זֶה דּוֹמֶה לְתוֹרֵם מִשְּׁנֵי מִינִין שֶׁאֵינָן כִּלְאַיִם זֶה בָּזֶה מִן הַיָּפֶה עַל הָרַע. וְכֵן תּוֹרְמִין מִזֵּיתֵי שֶׁמֶן עַל זֵיתֵי כֶּבֶשׁ. אֲבָל לֹא מִזֵּיתֵי כֶּבֶשׁ עַל זֵיתֵי שֶׁמֶן. מִיַּיִן שֶׁאֵינוֹ מְבֻשָּׁל עַל הַמְבֻשָּׁל. אֲבָל לֹא מִן הַמְבֻשָּׁל עַל שֶׁאֵינוֹ מְבֻשָּׁל. מִן הַצָּלוּל עַל שֶׁאֵינוֹ צָלוּל. אֲבָל לֹא מִשֶּׁאֵינוֹ צָלוּל עַל הַצָּלוּל. מִתְּאֵנִים עַל גְּרוֹגָרוֹת בְּמִנְיָן. מִגְּרוֹגָרוֹת עַל הַתְּאֵנִים בְּמִדָּה. אֲבָל לֹא תְּאֵנִים עַל גְּרוֹגָרוֹת בְּמִדָּה. וְלֹא גְּרוֹגָרוֹת עַל הַתְּאֵנִים בְּמִנְיָן. כְּדֵי שֶׁיִּתְרֹם לְעוֹלָם בְּעֵין יָפָה. וְתוֹרְמִין חִטִּים עַל הַפַּת. אֲבָל לֹא מִן הַפַּת עַל הַחִטִּים לְפִי חֶשְׁבּוֹן. וּבְכָל אֵלּוּ אִם תָּרַם תְּרוּמָתוֹ תְּרוּמָה:

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 2:6), the Rambam explains that the Hebrew terms refers to olives that contain much oil and their oil is of high quality. for olives that will be pickled, from higher quality produce for lower quality produce which is permitted as stated above. but not from olives that will be pickled for olives from which oil will be squeezed. from lower quality produce for higher quality produce which is forbidden as an initial preference, as stated in Halachah 3. [One may separate terumah] from wine that has not been boiled for wine that has been boiled, from higher quality produce for lower quality produce. 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. (loc. cit.:63) states that in the present era when the produce separated as terumah is discarded, there is no need to show these precautions.

אֵין תּוֹרְמִין שֶׁמֶן עַל הַזֵּיתִים הַנִּכְתָּשִׁין. וְלֹא יַיִן עַל עֲנָבִים הַנִּדְרָכוֹת שֶׁזֶּה דּוֹמֶה לְתוֹרֵם מִדָּבָר שֶׁנִּגְמְרָה מְלַאכְתּוֹ עַל דָּבָר שֶׁלֹּא נִגְמְרָה מְלַאכְתּוֹ. וְאִם תָּרַם תְּרוּמָתוֹ תְּרוּמָה וְיַחֲזֹר וְיִתְרֹם מִן הַזֵּיתִים וְהָעֲנָבִים בִּפְנֵי עַצְמָן. הָרִאשׁוֹנָה מְדַמַּעַת בִּפְנֵי עַצְמָהּ וְהָאוֹכְלָהּ חַיָּב עָלֶיהָ כִּשְׁאָר תְּרוּמוֹת גְּמוּרוֹת אֲבָל לֹא מִן הַשְּׁנִיָּה:

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. should not be separated in such an instance and did not see the need for an additional safeguard. In this situation, since work with that produce has already begun, they felt that a safeguard was necessary (Rambam LeAm). Other commentaries offer different rationales for the difference in the rulings. 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. a second time for that oil or wine [the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (Terumot 1:8)].[When mixed with other produce,] the first creates a situation of dimua and ordinary produce, as mentioned in Chapter 13, Halachah 2. 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]. only as a result of Rabbinic decree.

מִי שֶׁתָּרַם שֶׁמֶן עַל זֵיתִים שֶׁדַּעְתּוֹ לְאָכְלָן. אוֹ זֵיתִים עַל זֵיתִים וְדַעְתּוֹ עַל הַכּל לַאֲכִילָה. אוֹ שֶׁתָּרַם יַיִן עַל עֲנָבִים שֶׁהֵם לַאֲכִילָה. אוֹ עֲנָבִים עַל עֲנָבִים וְהַכּל לַאֲכִילָה. וְנִמְלַךְ לְדָרְכָן וְדָרַךְ הַזֵּיתִים וְהָעֲנָבִים שֶׁכְּבָר תָּרַם עֲלֵיהֶם. אֵינוֹ צָרִיךְ לַחֲזֹר וְלִתְרֹם:

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. was separated, the work associated with this produce was completed according to his intent at that time [the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (Terumot 1:9)]. Although he changed his mind, we do not penalize him for making such a decision (Radbaz). [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.

אֵין תּוֹרְמִין חֹמֶץ עַל יַיִן. אֲבָל תּוֹרְמִין יַיִן עַל חֹמֶץ. שֶׁהַיַּיִן וְהַחֹמֶץ מִין אֶחָד הֵן. (הָיָה בְּלִבּוֹ לִתְרֹם מִן הַיַּיִן עַל הַיַּיִן וְנִמְצָא בְּיָדוֹ חֹמֶץ אֵינָהּ תְּרוּמָה). הָיָה בְּלִבּוֹ לִתְרֹם חֹמֶץ עַל חֹמֶץ וְנִמְצָא הַחֹמֶץ שֶׁתָּרַם יַיִן תְּרוּמָתוֹ תְּרוּמָה:

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. (Kessef Mishneh). If one had the intent of separating vinegar for vinegar and it was discovered that what he separated was wine, the separation is effective. (Kessef Mishneh; Siftei Cohen 331:95).

הַתּוֹרֵם חָבִית שֶׁל יַיִן עַל הַיַּיִן וְנִמְצָא חֹמֶץ אִם יוֹדֵעַ שֶׁהָיְתָה חֹמֶץ עַד שֶׁלֹּא תְּרָמָהּ אֵינָהּ תְּרוּמָה. וְאִם אַחַר שֶׁתְּרָמָהּ הֶחְמִיצָה הֲרֵי זוֹ תְּרוּמָה. וְאִם סָפֵק תְּרוּמָה וְיַחֲזֹר וְיִתְרֹם. וְכֵן הַתּוֹרֵם קִשּׁוּת וְנִמְצֵאת מָרָה אֲבַטִּיחַ וְנִמְצָא סָרוּחַ אוֹ שֶׁנִּמְצְאוּ נְקוּרִין. תָּרַם חָבִית שֶׁל יַיִן וְנִמְצֵאת מְגֻלָּה שֶׁאָסוּר לִשְׁתּוֹתָהּ תְּרוּמָה וְיַחֲזֹר וְיִתְרֹם שְׁנִיָּה. וְאֵין אַחַת מִשְּׁתֵּיהֶן מְדַמַּעַת בִּפְנֵי עַצְמָהּ. וְהָאוֹכֵל אַחַת מִשְּׁתֵּיהֶן אֵינוֹ חַיָּב חֹמֶשׁ:

[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, however, he intended to separate vinegar, the separation is effective after the fact (Radbaz). 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 3:1)]. 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, 12:2). it is terumah, but he should make a second separation. was separated or not.[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. inadvertently, as stated in Chapter 6, Halachah 6.

כֵּיצַד. נָפְלָה אַחַת מֵהֶן עַל הַחֻלִּין אֵינָהּ מְדַמַּעַת. נָפְלָה שְׁנִיָּה לְמָקוֹם אַחֵר אֵינָהּ מְדַמַּעְתָּהּ. נָפְלוּ שְׁתֵּיהֶן לְמָקוֹם אֶחָד מְדַמְּעוֹת בַּקְּטַנָּה שֶׁבִּשְׁתֵּיהֶן. וְכֵן אִם אָכַל זָר שְׁתֵּיהֶן מְשַׁלֵּם בַּקְּטַנָּה שֶׁבִּשְׁתֵּיהֶן וְחֻמְשָׁהּ. וְכֵיצַד הוּא עוֹשֶׂה בִּשְׁתֵּיהֶן נוֹתְנָן לְכֹהֵן אֶחָד וְנוֹטֵל מִן הַכֹּהֵן דְּמֵי הַגְּדוֹלָה:

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., since we do not know which one, we rule leniently with regard to both. If, however, both fell into the same produce, it is considered as dimua according to the size of the smaller of the two. has obviously become mixed with the ordinary produce. Nevertheless, since we do not know which of the two is terumah, we require him to be concerned only with the smaller amount.Similarly, if a person other than a priest ate both of them, he should make restitution for the smaller one and its additional fifth. inadvertently, as stated in Chapter 6, Halachah 6. What should he do with the two [portions separated]?, because he does not have a definite obligation to give either to a priest. He should give them to one priest and take the value of the greater portion from him. is less than that than he would pay for ordinary produce.

הַבּוֹדֵק אֶת הֶחָבִית וְהִנִּיחָהּ לְהַפְרִישָׁהּ תְּרוּמָה עַל אֲחֵרִים עַד שֶׁתֵּעָשֶׂה כֻּלָּהּ תְּרוּמָה וְיִתְּנֶנָּה לַכֹּהֵן. וּלְאַחַר זְמַן בְּדָקָהּ וּמְצָאָהּ חֹמֶץ. מֵעֵת שֶׁבְּדָקָהּ תְּחִלָּה עַד שְׁלֹשָׁה יָמִים וַדַּאי יַיִן וְכָל יַיִן שֶׁחָשַׁב אוֹתָן הַיָּמִים שֶׁהַתְּרוּמָה שֶׁלּוֹ בְּחָבִית זוֹ הֲרֵי הוּא מְתֻקָּן. מִכָּאן וְאֵילָךְ סָפֵק וְצָרִיךְ לְהַפְרִישׁ מִמֶּנּוּ תְּרוּמָה שְׁנִיָּה:

[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. for all the wine that he would continue to produce until the barrel became terumah in its entirety. After a certain time, he checked the barrel again and discovered that it had become vinegar. would not be effective, as stated above. [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.

בִּשְׁלֹשָׁה פְּרָקִים צָרִיךְ לִבְדֹּק אֶת הַיַּיִן שֶׁהִנִּיחוֹ לִפְרשׁ עָלָיו שֶׁמָּא הֶחְמִיץ. וְאֵלּוּ הֵן. בְּקַדִּים שֶׁל מוֹצָאֵי הֶחָג. וּבְהוֹצָאַת הַסְּמָדַר. וּבִשְׁעַת כְּנִיסַת מַיִם לַבֹּסֶר. וְיַיִן מִגִּתּוֹ מַפְרִישִׁין עָלָיו בְּחֶזְקַת שֶׁהוּא יַיִן [עַד] אַרְבָּעִים יוֹם:

At three times [during the year], it is necessary to check the wine that one set aside to separate terumah from for all the wine that he would continue to produce until the barrel became terumah in its entirety. 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.

הַמַּנִּיחַ פֵּרוֹת לִהְיוֹת מַפְרִישׁ עֲלֵיהֶן עַד שֶׁיֵּעָשׂוּ תְּרוּמָה אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁאֵין מַפְרִישִׁין לְכַתְּחִלָּה אֶלָּא מִן הַמֻּקָּף אִם הִפְרִישׁ הֲרֵי הֵן בְּחֶזְקַת קַיָּמִין. מְצָאָן שֶׁאָבְדוּ הֲרֵי זֶה חוֹשֵׁשׁ לְכָל מַה שֶּׁתִּקֵּן שֶׁמָּא לֹא הִפְרִישׁ עֲלֵיהֶן אֶלָּא אַחַר שֶׁאָבְדוּ לְפִיכָךְ מַפְרִישׁ תְּרוּמָה שְׁנִיָּה:

[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]. was not acceptable. For perhaps, he did not make any separation until [the produce set aside] perished. Therefore he should separate terumah a second time for them.