Halacha
הלכה א
חֲמִשִׁים תְּאֵנוֹת שִׁחוֹרוֹת וַחֲמִשִּׁים לְבָנוֹת שֶׁנָּפְלָה לְתוֹכָן תְּאֵנָה אַחַת שֶׁל תְּרוּמָה. הָיְתָה לְבָנָה הַשְּׁחוֹרוֹת מֻתָּרוֹת וְהַלְּבָנוֹת מְדֻמָּעוֹת. הָיְתָה שְׁחוֹרָה הַשְּׁחוֹרוֹת מְדֻמָּעוֹת וְהַלְּבָנוֹת מֻתָּרוֹת. וְאִם אֵין יָדוּעַ אִם שְׁחוֹרָה הָיְתָה וְאִם לְבָנָה עוֹלָה בְּאֶחָד וּמֵאָה מִן הַכּל. יָדַע מֶה הָיְתָה אַחַר שֶׁנָּפְלָה וְשָׁכַח הֲרֵי כֻּלָּן מְדֻמָּעוֹת:
כסף משנה
1.
[The following laws apply when] there were fifty dark figs and fifty1The same laws also apply if there are 30 light figs and 70 dark ones, or any other combination of numbers (Radbaz). light figs and one fig that is terumah fell among them. If it was light, the dark figs are permitted2Because the fig that was terumah was not dark. and the light figs are considered miduma.3Because there are not enough to nullify its presence. We do not count the dark figs together with the light figs, because there is no possibility to mix the two with each other. If it was dark, the dark figs are miduma and the light figs are permitted. If it is not known whether it was light or dark, it can be nullified when the mixture is 101 times [the weight of] the original fig.4Although the fig that was mixed in has a specific color, both types of figs can be counted together to nullify it, for it is possible to press all the figs into a single cake of figs (Rav Ovadiah of Bartenura, Terumot 4:7). Alternatively, since we do not know which type of fig fell in, the fact that it was of a specific color is not significant to us (Yayin Malchut). If he knew what type of fig it was but forgot, they are all considered miduma.5The rationale is that since at the outset he knew the color of the fig and there are neither enough dark figs or light figs to nullify it, the fig is considered as forbidden. And once it is forbidden, his forgetting its color does not cause it to become permitted again (Radbaz).הלכה ב
וְכֵן עִגּוּלֵי דְּבֵלָה וּמַלְבְּנִים שֶׁל דְּבֵלָה שֶׁנָּפַל עִגּוּל אוֹ מַלְבֵּן שֶׁל תְּרוּמָה לְתוֹכָן וְאֵין יָדוּעַ אִם מַלְבֵּן הָיָה אוֹ עִגּוּל הֲרֵי הָעִגּוּלִין מִצְטָרְפִין לַמַּלְבְּנִים וְתַעֲלֶה הַתְּרוּמָה בְּאֶחָד וּמֵאָה מִן הַכּל. עִגּוּלֵי דְּבֵלָה גְּדוֹלִים וּקְטַנִּים שֶׁנָּפַל עִגּוּל דְּבֵלָה לְתוֹכָן וְאֵין יָדוּעַ אִם גָּדוֹל הָיָה אִם קָטָן הֲרֵי הֵן מַעֲלִין בֵּין בְּמִנְיָן בֵּין בְּמִשְׁקָל. כֵּיצַד. נָפַל עִגּוּל לְמֵאָה עִגּוּלִין גְּדוֹלִים וּקְטַנִּים הֲרֵינִי אוֹמֵר קָטָן נָפַל וּמַגְבִּיהַּ אֶחָד מִן הַקְּטַנִּים. נָפַל עִגּוּל לְתוֹךְ אַרְבָּעִים עִגּוּלִים מֵהֶן עֶשְׂרִים עִגּוּל מִשְׁקַל כָּל אֶחָד אַרְבַּע לִיטְרִין וּמֵהֶן עֶשְׂרִים עִגּוּל מִשְׁקַל כָּל אֶחָד לִיטְרָא הוֹאִיל וּמִשְׁקַל הַכּל מֵאָה לִיטְרִין וְאֶחָד הֲרֵינִי אוֹמֵר קָטָן נָפַל וּמַגְבִּיהַּ אֶחָד מִן הַקְּטַנִּים:
כסף משנה
2.
Similar laws apply when there are cakes of pressed figs or blocks of pressed figs and a cake or block of [figs that are] terumah falls among them. If it is not known whether the one which fell in was a block or a cake, the cakes and the blocks are combined and the terumah can be nullified if their [combined weight] is 101 times that of the terumah. [Similarly,] when there are large cakes of figs and small ones and a cake of figs [that is terumah] falls among them, but it is not known whether the cake which fell in was large or small, [the existing cakes] can nullify the one which fell in whether by weight or by number.What is implied? A cake [of figs] fell into a mixture of 100 other cakes, both large and small. We assume that a small cake6If, however, we know that a large cake fell in, but we are uncertain about its size, we cannot merely count 101 cakes both large and small to nullify it (Rabbi Akiva Eiger). fell in and one may remove one of the small cakes.7I.e., since there were 101 cakes, 101 times the number of cakes that fell in, the cake that was terumah could be nullified. We assume that it was small and hence, to fulfill the obligation to remove a cake, we remove a small one. If a cake fell into 40 cakes, 20 of them weighing four litra each and 20 of them, weighing one litra each, since the combined weight is 101 litra, we assume a small one fell in and remove one of the small ones.8The remainder are permitted, because it is possible that there was 101 times the weight of the terumah in the mixture. It is sufficient to remove a small one. The rationale is that since the terumah has been nullified, the removal of the cake is required only as a financial matter: to give the priest his due. Hence, to receive a larger cake, the priest must prove that a larger cake did indeed fall in.
הלכה ג
וְהַקֶּמַח וְהַסּלֶת אֵינָן מִצְטָרְפִין לְהַעֲלוֹת אֶת הַתְּרוּמָה:
כסף משנה
3.
Flour and finely sifted flour cannot be combined together to nullify terumah.9I.e., there is one container of flour and one container of finely sifted flour. Terumah fell into one of the containers, but we do not know which one. We do not say that the two containers of flour should be considered like the two groups of figs and considered as a single entity. Instead, we judge them individually. The rationale is that once the terumah becomes mixed with the flour or the finely sifted flour, it is part of one mixture and not the other. Hence it is not appropriate to combine them (Radbaz).הלכה ד
סְאָה שֶׁל חִטִּים שֶׁנָּפְלָה עַל פִּי מְגוּרָה שֶׁל חִטִּים אֵין מְשַׁעֲרִין אוֹתָהּ בְּאֶחָד וּמֵאָה. שֶׁאֵין מְשַׁעֲרִין אֶלָּא אִם נִבְלְלָה תְּרוּמָה עִם הַחֻלִּין. אוֹ אִם אֵין יָדוּעַ בְּאֵיזֶה מָקוֹם נָפְלָה הַתְּרוּמָה. וְכֵיצַד יַעֲשֶׂה. רוֹאִין אֶת הַתְּרוּמָה כְּאִלּוּ הִיא חִטִּים עַל גַּבֵּי שְׂעוֹרִים וּמַפְרִישׁ הַתְּרוּמָה עַצְמָהּ שֶׁנָּפְלָה עַל גַּבֵּי הַמְּגוּרָה עִם מְעַט מִן הַחֻלִּין שֶׁנָּפְלָה עֲלֵיהֶן כְּמִי שֶׁמְּאַסֵּף חִטִּים מֵעַל גַּבֵּי שְׂעוֹרִין:
כסף משנה
4.
When a se'ah of wheat which is terumah falls on the mouth of the storage vat of wheat, we do not measure it against the 101 times [its weight or ordinary grain found] in the storage vat. For we do not make such an assessment unless the terumah has been mixed with the ordinary produce10And in this instance, that is not true, for it is positioned at the top of the storage container. or we do not know where the terumah fell.11And in this instance, we do.What should be done? We consider the terumah as if it is wheat placed above barley and separate the terumah itself which fell unto the storage vat with some of the ordinary produce upon which they fell as one would be collecting wheat from barley.
הלכה ה
שְׁתֵּי קֻפּוֹת אוֹ שְׁתֵּי מְגוּרוֹת שֶׁנָּפְלָה תְּרוּמָה לְתוֹךְ אַחַת מֵהֶן וְנִבְלְלָה וְאֵין יָדוּעַ לְאֵי זוֹ מֵהֶן נָפְלָה. אִם הָיוּ שְׁתֵּי מְגוּרוֹת בְּבַיִת אֶחָד הֲרֵי אֵלּוּ מִצְטָרְפוֹת וְתַעֲלֶה בְּאֶחָד וּמֵאָה מִן הַכּל כְּאִלּוּ הָיוּ שְׁתֵּיהֶן מְגוּרָה אַחַת וְהַקֻּפּוֹת מִצְטָרְפוֹת. וַאֲפִלּוּ הָיְתָה קֻפָּה בְּבַיִת זֶה וְקֻפָּה בְּבַיִת אַחֵר לְפִי שֶׁקָּרוֹב הַדָּבָר לְקַבֵּץ שְׁתֵּיהֶן בְּבַיִת אֶחָד. אֲבָל אִם הָיוּ שְׁתֵּי הַקֻּפּוֹת בִּשְׁתֵּי עֲיָרוֹת אֵינָן מִצְטָרְפוֹת:
כסף משנה
5.
[The following laws apply when] there are two containers or two storage vats and terumah fell into one of them. It became mixed with [the contents of the container or storage vat] and it is not known which one it fell into. If the two storage vats were in the same building, they are considered as if they were combined and the terumah is nullified if the entire quantity is 101 times its weight. It is as if they were both contained in a single storage vat. Moreover, the containers are considered as combined together even if they are in two separate buildings, for it is possible to gather the two in one building.12In his Commentary to the Mishnah (Terumot 12:4), the Rambam writes that containers are frequently moved and in the process of their being moved, the two containers could be combined. Hence, we view them as if they were combined at present. This ruling is also quoted in other contexts; see Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 111:7). If, however, the two containers were in two cities, they are not combined.הלכה ו
וְכֵיצַד מַעֲלֶה סְאָה שֶׁנָּפְלָה. אִם רָצָה לְהַעֲלוֹת מֵאֶחָד מִשְּׁתֵּיהֶן מַעֲלֶה וְאִם רָצָה לְהַעֲלוֹת חֶצְיָהּ מִזּוֹ וְחֶצְיָהּ מִזּוֹ מַעֲלֶה. כַּדִּים מְלֵאִים תְּאֵנִים שֶׁל חֻלִּין שֶׁדָּרַס לִיטְרָא תְּאֵנִים שֶׁל תְּרוּמָה בְּפִי כַּד אֶחָד מֵהֶם וְאֵין יָדוּעַ אֵי זוֹ הִיא אִם הָיוּ שָׁם מֵאָה כַּד וְכַד הֲרֵי זוֹ תַּעֲלֶה וְלוֹקֵחַ כַּד אֶחָד מֵהֶם וּמוֹכְרָהּ לַכֹּהֵן חוּץ מִדְּמֵי אוֹתָהּ לִיטְרָא וְהַשְּׁאָר מֻתָּרִין. וְאִם הָיוּ פָּחוֹת מִמֵּאָה הַפּוּמִין כֻּלָּן מְדֻמָּעוֹת וְהַשּׁוּלַיִם מֻתָּרִין:
כסף משנה
6.
How should he remove the se'ah which fell in?13I.e., as stated in Chapter 13, Halachah 1, one se'ah must be removed from the mixture and given to the priest. How should that be done in the present instance? For the terumah fell into only one of the containers and we do not know which one. If he desires to remove it from one of them, he may. If he desires to remove half from one and half from the other, he may.[The following laws apply when] there are jugs filled with dried figs that are ordinary produce and [the owner] pressed a litra of figs that are terumah into the opening of one of them, but he does not remember which one. If there are 101 jugs, the terumah is considered nullified. He should take one jug and sell it to a priest except for the worth of the litra [of terumah]14Although only the figs on the top of the opening are terumah, we require himself to sell the entire jug, because of the impression that might be created (Shita Mekubetzet, Beitzah 4a). and the remainder [of the jugs] are permitted. If there are less than 100 jugs, [the figs at] the openings [of the jugs] are considered miduma and those at the bottom are permitted.15Since we are talking about compressed figs, they will not mix with the contents of the jugs, but instead will be found on the top of a jug. Hence, when considering nullifying the figs, only the tops of the jugs are considered, but not the bottoms. Therefore we require 101 jugs, not 101 times the weight of the initial amount of terumah.
The Radbaz explains that this situation differs from that described in Halachah 1. In that situation, although the light figs and the dark figs could be distinguished from each other, they were all mixed together. Hence, it is possible to speak about one type being combined with the other to nullify the terumah. In the situation described by our Halachah, the tops and the bottoms will always remain discrete.
הלכה ז
וְכֵן אִם דְּרָסָהּ עַל פִּי כַּוֶּרֶת אוֹ עַל פִּי עִגּוּל וְאֵין יָדוּעַ אֵי זֶה הוּא. דְּרָסָהּ עַל פִּי הָעִגּוּל וְאֵין יָדוּעַ אִם בִּצְפוֹנוֹ אוֹ בִּדְרוֹמוֹ וְלֹא אֵי זוֹ עִגּוּל הוּא. רוֹאִין אוֹתָם כְּאִלּוּ הֵם פְּרוּדוֹת וְתַעֲלֶה לְפִי הַמִּשְׁקָל. אִם יֵשׁ בְּכָל הָעִגּוּלִין מֵאָה לִיטְרִין תַּעֲלֶה. וְהוּא שֶׁיֵּשׁ בְּכָל עִגּוּל מֵהֶן יֶתֶר עַל שְׁנֵי לִיטְרִין כְּדֵי שֶׁתִּבָּטֵל הַתְּרוּמָה בְּרֹב. שֶׁסְּפֵק הַתְּרוּמָה בָּטֵל בְּרֹב הַחֻלִּין:
כסף משנה
7.
Similar laws apply if one pressed [a litra of] figs into the opening of a kaveret16The term kaveret literally means "bee-hive." Here we are talking about a storage compartment that is built like a bee-hive.or into the top of a cake.17I.e., we require 101 of the containers and count only the figs at the openings of the containers. If he pressed them onto the top of a cake, but does not know whether he pressed them onto the northern portion [of the cake] or its southern portion, nor does he know which cake he pressed them onto, we look at all the figs as if they were separate entities and [the figs that are terumah] should be nullified based on weight. If all the cakes weigh 10018I.e., without the terumah, 101 litra with the terumah. litra, the terumah is nullified19I.e., we consider the entire mixture as a single entity unlike the previous instances where the bottoms of the containers were considered as separate from the tops. In the previous instances, he knew that he pressed the terumah onto the tops of the container. Therefore only the tops are considered. In the present instance, he does not know the portion of the cakes unto which he pressed the figs. That lack of knowledge works to his advantage, enabling us to count in the entire mixture. provided each of the cakes weighs more than two litra so that in each cake, the terumah is nullified because there is a majority of ordinary produce.20In addition to considering the status of the entire mixture, we must consider the status of each cake individually. Each cake must have enough figs to nullify the presence of the terumah according to Scriptural Law. The rationale is that when there is a doubt concerning the presence of terumah, it is nullified when there is a majority of ordinary produce.הלכה ח
הַתְּרוּמָה וַדָּאָהּ אוֹסֵר בְּמֵאָה וּסְפֵקָהּ אוֹסֵר בַּחֲמִשִּׁים. וְאֵין לָהּ הֶתֵּר אֶלָּא בְּרֹב. וְאִם הָיָה בְּיוֹתֵר מֵחֲמִשִּׁים אֵינָהּ צְרִיכָה רֹב. כֵּיצַד. תְּאֵנָה אַחַת תְּרוּמָה שֶׁנָּפְלָה לְתִשְׁעִים וָתֵשַׁע וַהֲרֵי הַמֵּאָה קַיָּמִין הַכּל אָסוּר לְזָרִים כְּמוֹ שֶׁבֵּאַרְנוּ:
כסף משנה
8.
When terumah is definitely [present in a mixture], it is forbidden if the mixture is 100 [or less times its weight]. If there is merely a doubt concerning the presence of terumah, it is forbidden if there are only fifty. It is permitted only if one adds a majority [of the new mixture].21I.e., as the Rambam explains in the following halachah, one must add enough figs so that there is 101 times the amount of terumah that fell in (Kessef Mishneh). If there are more than fifty, one need not add such a majority.What is implied? One fig that is terumah fell into 99 figs and they are all present. They are all forbidden to non-priests, as explained.22As stated in Chapter 13, Halachah 1, it is necessary to have 101 times the amount of terumah.
הלכה ט
נָפְלָה אַחַת מֵחֲמִשִּׁים וְאָבְדָה אַחַת מִן הַכּל שֶׁמָּא אַחַת מִן הַחֻלִּין הִיא שֶׁאָבְדָה אוֹ הָאַחַת שֶׁנָּפְלָה הִיא שֶׁאָבְדָה הֲרֵי אֵלּוּ אֲסוּרוֹת עַד שֶׁיַּרְבֶּה עֲלֵיהֶן חֻלִּין מִמָּקוֹם אַחֵר וְיוֹסִיף עֲלֵיהֶן חֲמִשִּׁים תְּאֵנִים וְאַחַת יוֹתֵר עַל הַכּל. וְאִם נָפְלָה אַחַת שֶׁל תְּרוּמָה לְתוֹךְ חֲמִשִּׁים וְאַחַת וְאָבְדָה אַחַת מִן הַכּל הֻתַּר הַשְּׁאָר לְזָרִים:
כסף משנה
9.
If, [after a fig that is terumah fell into 50 other figs, and then] one of the mixture becomes lost, it is possible that one of the ordinary figs was the one that was lost, but it is possible that it was the fig that fell in. Hence, the mixture is forbidden until one adds ordinary produce to it from another source,23It is, however, permitted to add such produce. We do not apply the principle that, as an initial preference, one should not nullify the presence of a forbidden substance, because here we are not certain that there is a forbidden substance present, for one fig has been lost. adding 51 figs to the entire quantity. If one fig fell into 51 figs and one of the mixture was lost, the remainder is permitted to non-priests.24Since one fig has been lost, 51 figs are sufficient. We do not require 101. Note th contrast to Chapter 15, Halachah 2.הלכה י
סְאָה תְּרוּמָה שֶׁנָּפְלָה לְפָחוֹת מִמֵּאָה מַעֲשֵׂר רִאשׁוֹן שֶׁלֹּא נִטְּלָה תְּרוּמָתוֹ אוֹ לְמַעֲשֵׂר שֵׁנִי וְהֶקְדֵּשׁ שֶׁלֹּא נִפְדּוּ וְנִדְמַע הַכּל אִם לְמַעֲשֵׂר רִאשׁוֹן נָפְלָה יִקְרָא שֵׁם לִתְרוּמַת מַעֲשֵׂר וְיִמְכֹּר הַכּל לַכֹּהֲנִים חוּץ מִדְּמֵי תְּרוּמָה שֶׁנָּפְלָה וּמִדְּמֵי תְּרוּמַת מַעֲשֵׂר שֶׁבּוֹ. וְאִם לְמַעֲשֵׂר שֵׁנִי וְהֶקְדֵּשׁ נָפְלָה הֲרֵי אֵלּוּ יִפָּדוּ וְיִמָּכְרוּ לַכֹּהֵן חוּץ מִדְּמֵי תְּרוּמָה:
כסף משנה
10.
[The following rules apply when] a se'ah of terumah fell into less than 100 se'ah of the first tithe from which terumat ma'aser was not separated or into [produce from] the second tithe or consecrated property that was not redeemed and the entire mixture became miduma. If [the terumah] fell into the first tithe, the terumat ma'aser should be designated,25So that the mitzvah of separating it has been fulfilled. and the entire mixture sold to the priests with the exception of the worth of the terumah that fell into it and the worth of the terumat ma'aser.26For such produce must be given to the priests as a present. The majority of the mixture, however, belongs to its owner. Even though it is being given to the priest, because the owner may not make use of it, the priest must reimburse the owner for its value. Nevertheless, as mentioned previously, the value of produce that is terumah is less than that of ordinary produce.The Radbaz mentions another possible solution to this difficulty: If the Levite has a large amount of produce from which terumat ma'aser has not been separated, he may make this entire mixture terumat ma'aser for that produce and in this way, not suffer any financial loss. If it fell into [produce from] the second tithe or consecrated property that was not redeemed, they should be redeemed27At which point they are considered as ordinary produce and the laws mentioned in Chapter 13, Halachah 2, apply. and then sold to a priest with the exception of the worth of the terumah.
הלכה יא
סְאָה תְּרוּמָה טְמֵאָה שֶׁנָּפְלָה לְפָחוֹת מִמֵּאָה חֻלִּין אוֹ מִמַּעֲשֵׂר רִאשׁוֹן אוֹ מַעֲשֵׂר שֵׁנִי אוֹ הֶקְדֵּשׁ בֵּין טְמֵאִין בֵּין טְהוֹרִים הוֹאִיל וְנִדְמַע הַכּל הֲרֵי הַכּל כִּתְרוּמָה טְמֵאָה שֶׁאֲסוּרָה בַּאֲכִילָה לַכּל וַהֲרֵי הַכּל אָסוּר לְעוֹלָם וּמַנִּיחִים אוֹתָן עַד שֶׁיֵּרָקְבוּ. בַּמֶּה דְּבָרִים אֲמוּרִים בְּדָבָר שֶׁאֵין דַּרְכּוֹ לְהֵאָכֵל חַי. אֲבָל בְּדָבָר שֶׁדַּרְכּוֹ לְהֵאָכֵל חַי לֹא יַנִּיחָן שֶׁמָּא יִתָּקֵל בָּהֶם וְיֹאכַל מֵהֶן. אֶלָּא יַדְלִיק הַכּל כְּדֶרֶךְ שֶׁמַּדְלִיקִין תְּרוּמָה טְמֵאָה:
כסף משנה
11.
When a se'ah of impure terumah falls into less than 100 se'ah of ordinary produce or into produce that is from the first tithe, or from the second tithe, or from consecrated property - whether [the latter three] are ritually pure or ritually impure - [the mixture] is miduma.28Because there are less than 100 se'ah to nullify the se'ah of terumah. Hence, the entire mixture is like impure terumah which is forbidden to everyone. Thus it is all forbidden and must be left until it rots.29One would think that it should be used as fuel and thus the person will derive some benefit from it. The Radbaz explains that this is not allowed for the following reason. Since there is not enough other produce to nullify the terumah, the entire mixture is considered as terumah. Nevertheless, since it is not impure, it should not be burnt, because it is forbidden to burn pure terumah. This stringency is, however, only observed when there is no danger that the terumah will be eaten, as the Rambam proceeds to explain.When does the above apply? With regard to an entity that is not eaten raw.30E.g., wheat or barley. When, by contrast, it is normal practice to partake of a type of produce uncooked,31E.g., oil. one should not set them aside lest someone encounter them and partake of it.32See Chapter 12, Halachah 12, which states that impure terumah should be placed in repugnant container so that no one will accidentally partake of it. Instead, the entire mixture should be used as fuel, like impure terumah is used as fuel.
הלכה יב
סְאָה תְּרוּמָה טְהוֹרָה שֶׁנָּפְלָה לְפָחוֹת מִמֵּאָה חֻלִּין טְמֵאִין יִמָּכֵר הַכּל לַכֹּהֲנִים חוּץ מִדְּמֵי תְּרוּמָה וְהַכֹּהֵן אוֹכֵל מְדֻמָּע זֶה קְלָיוֹת. אוֹ יָלוּשׁ אוֹתוֹ בְּמֵי פֵּרוֹת שֶׁאֵינָן מַכְשִׁירִין כְּדֵי שֶׁלֹּא תִּטָּמֵא הַתְּרוּמָה שֶׁבּוֹ מִן הַחֻלִּין הַטְּמֵאִין. אוֹ יָלוּשׁ מְדֻמָּע זֶה פָּחוֹת מִכַּבֵּיצָה שֶׁאֵין אֹכֶל טָמֵא מְטַמֵּא אֹכֶל אַחֵר עַד שֶׁיִּהְיֶה כַּבֵּיצָה. אוֹ יִתְחַלֵּק מְדֻמָּע זֶה פָּחוֹת מִכַּבֵּיצָה בְּכָל עִסָּה כְּדֵי שֶׁלֹּא תִּטָּמֵא הַתְּרוּמָה שֶׁבּוֹ:
כסף משנה
12.
When a se'ah of pure terumah falls into less than 100 se'ah of ordinary produce that is impure, the entire mixture should be sold to a priest with the exception of the worth of the terumah. The priest should eat this mixture which is miduma as roasted kernels33In which instance, the impure grain does not cause the pure terumah to become impure, for produce does not become fit to contract impurity until comes in contact with one of seven liquids (Hilchot Tumat Ochalin 1:1-2). Since the kernels of the terumah are roasted without contact with water, they are never fit to contract impurity. or he should make them into a dough using fruit juice which does not render produce fit to contract impurity,34Fruit juice is not one of these seven liquids. Hence dough made with fruit juice is not susceptible to ritual impurity (Ibid. 3; 13:13). so that [contact with] the impure ordinary produce will not render the terumah as impure.35It is not only that the priest will be suffering a loss because the terumah becomes impure. It is forbidden to cause terumah to become impure as stated above.Alternatively, he should make this mixture that is miduma into a dough that is less than the size of an egg. [This is beneficial], because impure food does not cause other food to become impure until [the impure food] is the size of an egg.36See Ibid. 4:1, 12. Making the mixture into small loaves is the Rambam's interpretation of the term nikudim in the Mishnah (Terumot 5:1). Or he may divide the mixture that is miduma and place a portion of it that is less than the size of an egg in each dough so that the terumah in it will not become impure.
הלכה יג
סְאָה תְּרוּמָה טְמֵאָה שֶׁנָּפְלָה לְמֵאָה חֻלִּין טְהוֹרִין. וְכֵן סְאָה תְּרוּמָה טְהוֹרָה שֶׁנָּפְלָה לְמֵאָה חֻלִּין טְמֵאִין. תַּעֲלֶה בְּאֶחָד וּמֵאָה וְתֵאָכֵל קְלָיוֹת אוֹ תִּלּוֹשׁ בְּמֵי פֵּרוֹת אוֹ פָּחוֹת מִכַּבֵּיצָה. שֶׁאֵין הַסְּאָה שֶׁנָּפְלָה הִיא הַסְּאָה עַצְמָהּ שֶׁעָלְתָה:
כסף משנה
13.
When a se'ah of impure terumah falls into 100 se'ah of ordinary produce that is pure or a se'ah of pure terumah falls into 100 se'ah of ordinary produce that is impure, it should be removed and the terumah is nullified, because the new mixture is 101 times [the size of the terumah that fell in. That se'ah] should be eaten as roasted kernels, or it should be made into dough with fruit juice, or into dough that is less than the size of an egg.37I.e., he should use the grain in a manner that will prevent it from contracting ritual impurity, as described in the previous halachah. [The rationale is that] the se'ah which fell in is not [necessarily] the se'ah that was removed.38I.e., and hence it is permitted to be eaten.הלכה יד
סְאָה תְּרוּמָה טְמֵאָה שֶׁנָּפְלָה לְמֵאָה סְאָה שֶׁל תְּרוּמָה טְהוֹרָה בָּטְלָה בְּמִעוּט וְאוֹכְלִין הַכּל בְּטָהֳרָה. וְאִם נָפְלָה לְפָחוֹת מִמֵּאָה יַנִּיחַ הַכּל עַד שֶׁיֵּרָקֵב:
כסף משנה
14.
When a se'ah of impure terumah falls into 100 se'ah of pure terumah, it is nullified because of the insignificant amount and the entire mixture should be eaten in a state of ritual purity.39There is no need for any safeguards. If it fell into less than 100, he should leave the entire mixture until it rots.40As explained in Halachah 11.הלכה טו
שְׁתֵּי קֻפּוֹת שֶׁנָּפְלָה סְאָה שֶׁל תְּרוּמָה לְתוֹךְ אַחַת מֵהֶן וְנוֹדַע לְאֵי זוֹ מֵהֶן נָפְלָה וְאַחַר כָּךְ נָפְלָה סְאָה שְׁנִיָּה וְאֵין יָדוּעַ לְאֵי זוֹ מֵהֶן נָפְלָה. אוֹמְרִים לְמָקוֹם שֶׁנָּפְלָה רִאשׁוֹנָה נָפְלָה שְׁנִיָּה לְפִי שֶׁתּוֹלִין אֶת הַקַּלְקָלָה בַּמְקֻלְקָל. נָפְלָה סְאָה רִאשׁוֹנָה לְתוֹךְ אַחַת מֵהֶם וְאֵין יָדוּעַ לְאֵי זוֹ מֵהֶן נָפְלָה וְאַחַר כָּךְ נָפְלָה סְאָה שְׁנִיָּה וְנוֹדַע לְאֵי זוֹ מֵהֶן נָפְלָה. אֵין אוֹמְרִים לְמָקוֹם שֶׁנָּפְלָה שְׁנִיָּה נָפְלָה רִאשׁוֹנָה אֶלָּא שְׁתֵּיהֶן מְקֻלְקָלוֹת:
כסף משנה
15.
There were two containers [of grain, each containing less than 100 se'ah]. A se'ah of terumah fell into one of them and it was known into which one it fell.41And the contents of that container was considered as miduma. Afterwards, a second se'ah of terumah fell into one of them, but it was not known into which it fell. [The rationale is that] we assume that the second se'ah fell into the same place as the first se'ah, for we associate the problematic issue with the [previous] problem.If, however, the first se'ah fell into one of the containers, but it was not known into which it fell and afterwards, a second se'ah fell into one and it was known into which one it fell, we do not say that the first one fell into the same place as the second. Instead, both are considered to be problematic.42I.e., they are both miduma. The rationale is that the problematic status of the two containers was established before the second one fell in and the fact that we know into which one it fell cannot resolve the existing problem.
Rav Yosef Korcus maintains that this is the interpretation of the Rambam's ruling. Nevertheless, he and the Radbaz both maintain that this law applies even if the first container contains 100 se'ah and the first se'ah is nullified. Since one se'ah has to be removed from it, it can also be considered as problematic.
הלכה טז
הָיוּ שְׁתֵּי קֻפּוֹת אַחַת טְמֵאָה וְאַחַת טְהוֹרָה וְנָפְלָה סְאָה שֶׁל תְּרוּמָה לְאַחַת מֵהֶן וְאֵין יָדוּעַ אֵי זוֹ הִיא אוֹמְרִין לְתוֹךְ הַטְּמֵאָה נָפְלָה:
כסף משנה
16.
If there were two containers [of grain], one ritually pure and one ritually impure,43The Kessef Mishneh explains that this law applies whether the grain in the containers was terumah or ordinary produce. and a se'ah of terumah fell into one and it was not known into which, we assume that it fell into the impure one.44I.e., we follow the same principle mentioned in the first clause of the previous halachah, because the impure grain is also considered as "problematic."הלכה יז
שְׁתֵּי קֻפּוֹת אַחַת תְּרוּמָה טְהוֹרָה וְאַחַת שֶׁל חֻלִּין טְמֵאִין נָפְלָה סְאָה תְּרוּמָה טְהוֹרָה לְתוֹךְ אַחַת מֵהֶן אוֹמְרִין לְתוֹךְ שֶׁל תְּרוּמָה נָפְלָה וְהַחֻלִּין יֵאָכְלוּ בְּטָהֳרָה כִּתְרוּמָה:
כסף משנה
17.
When there are two containers, one containing pure terumah45The Kessef Mishneh suggests that the text should read "impure terumah." and one containing impure ordinary produce,46The Kessef Mishneh suggests that the text should read "pure ordinary produce." His rationale for these emendations is that if the ordinary produce is impure, it is not proper to say that it should be "eaten in a state of ritual purity." With these emendations, he resolves the objections of the Ra'avad. As will be explained, the Radbaz offers an interpretation that preserves the standard version of the text. should a se'ah of pure terumah fall into one of them,47But we do not know which. we assume that it fell into the one containing terumah.48This represents the converse of the principle mentioned in Halachah 15, just as there, we associate the problematic issue with the existing problem, here we associate the produce that is of a positive nature (terumah) with the existing terumah (Radbaz). The ordinary produce should, however, be eaten in a state of ritual purity like terumah.49I.e., according to one of the three suggestions given in Halachah 12. The intent is that we are not certain that the terumah did indeed fall into the container containing terumah. Were it to have fallen into the other container, it would be forbidden to prepare a dough from it in the ordinary manner, because that would cause the terumah to contract ritual impurity which is forbidden.הלכה יח
נָפְלָה סְאָה תְּרוּמָה טְמֵאָה לְתוֹךְ אַחַת מֵהֶן אוֹמְרִין לְתוֹךְ שֶׁל תְּרוּמָה נָפְלָה וְהַחֻלִּין יֵאָכְלוּ קְלָיוֹת בְּטָהֳרָה כִּתְרוּמָה גְּדוֹלָה:
כסף משנה
18.
[18-19]50Our text is taken from the Shabsei Frankel printing of the Mishneh Torah which is based on authentic manuscripts and early printing. The standard printed text is both redundant and problematic. When a se'ah of impure terumah falls into one of the above mentioned containers, we say that it fell into the terumah.51For we assume that the terumah fell into terumah. The ordinary produce should, however, be eaten as roasted kernels or made into dough with fruit juice.52To prevent it from contracting ritual impurity as mentioned above.הלכה יט
סְאָה תְּרוּמָה טְמֵאָה שֶׁנָּפְלָה לְתוֹךְ אַחַת מֵהֶן אוֹמְרִין לְתוֹךְ שֶׁל תְּרוּמָה נָפְלָה וְהַחֻלִּין יֵאָכְלוּ קְלָיוֹת אוֹ יִלּוֹשׁוּ בְּמֵי פֵּרוֹת:
כסף משנה
19.
—הלכה כ
שְׁתֵּי קֻפּוֹת אַחַת שֶׁל תְּרוּמָה טְמֵאָה וְאַחַת שֶׁל חֻלִּין טְהוֹרִין וְנָפְלָה סְאָה שֶׁל תְּרוּמָה טְהוֹרָה לְתוֹךְ אַחַת מֵהֶן אוֹמְרִין לְתוֹךְ שֶׁל תְּרוּמָה נָפְלָה וְהַחֻלִּין יֵאָכְלוּ קְלָיוֹת:
כסף משנה
20.
When there are two containers, one containing impure terumah and the other ordinary produce that is pure, and a se'ah of pure terumah falls into one of them,53Here also the Kessef Mishneh suggests inverting the words pure and impure in the text. Otherwise, this ruling would be a contradiction to Halachah 17. we assume that it fell into the terumah,54And thus the entire mixture is considered as impure terumah. but the ordinary produce should be eaten as roasted kernels.55So that the terumah will not be subject to contracting ritual impurity (Kessef Mishneh).הלכה כא
נָפְלָה סְאָה שֶׁל תְּרוּמָה טְמֵאָה לְתוֹךְ אַחַת מֵהֶן שְׁתֵּיהֶן אֲסוּרוֹת שֶׁסְּפֵק תְּרוּמָה טְמֵאָה אָסוּר וּסְפֵק הַמְדֻמָּע מֻתָּר מִפְּנֵי שֶׁאִסּוּר תְּרוּמָה טְמֵאָה מִן הַתּוֹרָה וְאִסּוּר הַמְדֻמָּע מִדִּבְרֵיהֶן עַל הָעִקָּרִים שֶׁבֵּאַרְנוּ בְּהִלְכוֹת אִסּוּרֵי מַאֲכָלוֹת:
כסף משנה