## Mishneh Torah, Heave Offerings Chapter 10

###### Mishneh Torah, Heave Offerings 10:1
[Mishneh Torah, Heave Offerings 10:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Mishneh%20Torah%2C%20Heave%20Offerings/r/10:1)

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:

**Mishneh Torah, trans. by Eliyahu Touger. Jerusalem, Moznaim Pub. c1986-c2007:**
When a non-priests partakes of *terumah* unknowingly, he must make restitution for the principal and add a fifth.¹ 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,² he is considered to have acted unknowingly and he must make restitution for the principal and add a fifth.

footnotes:
¹ As stated in Halachah 26, the intent is one fifth of the new total. Thus if a person eats the value of four measures of grain, he must pay five. Moreover, he may not use grain that is terumah
² At the hand of heaven.


###### Mishneh Torah, Heave Offerings 10:2
[Mishneh Torah, Heave Offerings 10:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Mishneh%20Torah%2C%20Heave%20Offerings/r/10:2)

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:

**Mishneh Torah, trans. by Eliyahu Touger. Jerusalem, Moznaim Pub. c1986-c2007:**
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],³ (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.⁴
Whether one partakes of *terumah* which is ritually pure or ritually impure unknowingly, one must make restitution for the principal and add a fifth.⁵ 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.⁶ 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.

footnotes:
³ Since these are the ways in which one may benefit from terumah
⁴ The implication of the verse is that just as eating involves tangible physical satisfaction, so too, smearing oneself produces tangible physical satisfaction.
⁵ It appears that in contrast to the intentional violation of the prohibition mentioned in Halachah 5, in this instance, the transgressor should pay the full value of the terumah
⁶ The Radbaz explains at length why although with regard to most prohibitions, the minimum measure for which one is liable for drinking is a revi'it


###### Mishneh Torah, Heave Offerings 10:3
[Mishneh Torah, Heave Offerings 10:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Mishneh%20Torah%2C%20Heave%20Offerings/r/10:3)

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:

**Mishneh Torah, trans. by Eliyahu Touger. Jerusalem, Moznaim Pub. c1986-c2007:**
[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 bread⁷, 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,⁸ 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.

footnotes:
⁷ I.e., an equivalent of three egg-sized portions. If a person stretches out his consumption of an olive-sized beyond this time span, it s not considered as "eating," for he will not have ingested a significant amount at once. The Rabbis mention different opinions with regard to this time span, referred to as k'dai achilat pras
⁸ The time to drink a revi'it


###### Mishneh Torah, Heave Offerings 10:4
[Mishneh Torah, Heave Offerings 10:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Mishneh%20Torah%2C%20Heave%20Offerings/r/10:4)

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:

**Mishneh Torah, trans. by Eliyahu Touger. Jerusalem, Moznaim Pub. c1986-c2007:**
*Terumah, terumat ma'aser*, whether the latter is from *d'mai*⁹ 331:59) 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*,¹⁰ and the first fruits can all be combined together to comprise an olive-sized portion¹¹ for which one is liable for death¹² or [restitution, plus] a fifth,¹³ for they are all called *terumah* [at different times in the Torah].¹⁴ 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.¹⁵ 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.

footnotes:
⁹ Produce that we are unsure whether or not the tithes have been separated. The Rama (Yoreh De'ah
¹⁰ The portion of dough separated and given to the priests.
¹¹ I.e., if one eats a little bit of any combination of these forbidden substances and the entire amount is an olive-sized portion, one is liable.
¹² If the transgression was intentional.
¹³ If the transgression was performed unknowingly.
¹⁴ Challah
¹⁵ Hilchot Ma'aser Sheni


###### Mishneh Torah, Heave Offerings 10:5
[Mishneh Torah, Heave Offerings 10:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Mishneh%20Torah%2C%20Heave%20Offerings/r/10:5)

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:

**Mishneh Torah, trans. by Eliyahu Touger. Jerusalem, Moznaim Pub. c1986-c2007:**
When a person partook *terumah* intentionally [after] receiving a warning, he is liable for lashes and is not required to make financial restitution.¹⁶ If he did not receive warning, [he is required to make financial restitution].¹⁷ (*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.¹⁸ 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.¹⁹ 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.²⁰

footnotes:
¹⁶ A person never receives both corporal punishment and a financial penalty. Hence, he is liable only for lashes. See the notes to Chapter 6, Halachah 6, which explain why here he is punished by lashes and not required to make restitution.
¹⁷ When he makes restitution, the produce he gives the priest is considered as ordinary produce and not as terumah
¹⁸ An addition of a fifth was required only in the case of inadvertent transgression. In his Commentary to the Mishneh (Terumot
¹⁹ For terumah
²⁰ Since they have no value, there is no need for restitution.


###### Mishneh Torah, Heave Offerings 10:6
[Mishneh Torah, Heave Offerings 10:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Mishneh%20Torah%2C%20Heave%20Offerings/r/10:6)

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:

**Mishneh Torah, trans. by Eliyahu Touger. Jerusalem, Moznaim Pub. c1986-c2007:**
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.²¹ 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. ²² 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,²³ 1:2,4, *et al*. it is of no value whatsoever.

footnotes:
²¹ The Ra'avad objects to the Rambam's decision, noting that it is the subject of a difference of opinion between the Sages of the Mishneh (see Pesachim
²² Pesachim, loc. cit.,
²³ See Hilchot Chametz UMatzah


###### Mishneh Torah, Heave Offerings 10:7
[Mishneh Torah, Heave Offerings 10:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Mishneh%20Torah%2C%20Heave%20Offerings/r/10:7)

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:

**Mishneh Torah, trans. by Eliyahu Touger. Jerusalem, Moznaim Pub. c1986-c2007:**
If, however, one unknowingly ate *terumah* on Yom Kippur,²⁴ in yeshivah terminology) and not the *cheftza*, the article in question. Hence he is liable. ate *terumah* that was perforated,²⁵ 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,²⁶:6-7). 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,²⁷ chewed raw kernels of wheat,²⁸ 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,²⁹ he is liable to make restitution for the principal and add a fifth.

footnotes:
²⁴ When a person is forbidden to eat. In this instance, the prohibition rests on the person (the gavra
²⁵ I.e., dough that is terumah
²⁶ This too was forbidden for a similar reason. We fear that a poisonous snake drank from it and deposited his venom there (ibid.
²⁷ Halachah 11 states that one drinks oil or smears oneself with wine, he is liable only for the principal, for as the commentaries state there, that is not the customary manner of benefiting from these substances. In this halachah, the Rambam clarifies that if one combines the substances as he states here, this is considered as the normal pattern and one is liable.
²⁸ The Ra'avad notes that there is a difference of opinion concerning this matter in the Jerusalem Talmud (Terumot
²⁹ It is uncommon to partake of these foods in this manner. Nevertheless, it is not so infrequent a practice to reduce one's liability.


###### Mishneh Torah, Heave Offerings 10:8
[Mishneh Torah, Heave Offerings 10:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Mishneh%20Torah%2C%20Heave%20Offerings/r/10:8)

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:

**Mishneh Torah, trans. by Eliyahu Touger. Jerusalem, Moznaim Pub. c1986-c2007:**
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.³⁰ 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.

footnotes:
³⁰ Note the parallel with regard to the prohibition against eating on Yom Kippur (Hilchot Shivitat Esor


###### Mishneh Torah, Heave Offerings 10:9
[Mishneh Torah, Heave Offerings 10:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Mishneh%20Torah%2C%20Heave%20Offerings/r/10:9)

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

**Mishneh Torah, trans. by Eliyahu Touger. Jerusalem, Moznaim Pub. c1986-c2007:**
When a non-priest swallowed prunes of *terumah* [whole³¹ 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 fifth³² and the second person is obligated to pay the first one as if the prunes were wood.³³ 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.

footnotes:
³¹ If, however, he chewed them before swallowing them, the second person is not liable at all. For once they have been chewed, they are entirely worthless (Radbaz).
³² For swallowing the fruit whole is also considered eating.
³³ After the person swallowed the prunes, the sanctity of terumah


###### Mishneh Torah, Heave Offerings 10:10
[Mishneh Torah, Heave Offerings 10:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Mishneh%20Torah%2C%20Heave%20Offerings/r/10:10)

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:

**Mishneh Torah, trans. by Eliyahu Touger. Jerusalem, Moznaim Pub. c1986-c2007:**
When one feeds *terumah* to workers³⁴ or to guests, they are required to make restitution for the principal and add a fifth, for they acted unknowingly.³⁵ 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,³⁶ for ordinary produce is more valuable than the *terumah*,³⁷ (Radbaz). since a person's soul is repelled from forbidden food.³⁸ 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.

footnotes:
³⁴ Whom he agreed to supply with meals in addition to their wages.
³⁵ In his Commentary to the Mishnah (Terumot
³⁶ I.e., the full price of the meal were it to have been prepared from ordinary produce.
³⁷ For this reason, it is preferable for the workers to have the employer pay them rather than having him pay the principal for the terumah
³⁸ Note a similar ruling in Hilchot Mechirah


###### Mishneh Torah, Heave Offerings 10:11
[Mishneh Torah, Heave Offerings 10:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Mishneh%20Torah%2C%20Heave%20Offerings/r/10:11)

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:

**Mishneh Torah, trans. by Eliyahu Touger. Jerusalem, Moznaim Pub. c1986-c2007:**
When [a non-priest] feeds *terumah* to his children who were below majority³⁹ or to his servants whether they are above or below majority,⁴⁰ he must pay the principal, but not the additional fifth.⁴¹. [This ruling also applies to] one who partakes of *terumah* from the Diaspora,⁴² one who eats or drinks less than an olive-sized portion,⁴³ 7:3)]. a nazarite who unknowingly drank wine that was *terumah*,⁴⁴ 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.⁴⁵

footnotes:
³⁹ The children are not liable, for they are not obligated in the observance of the mitzvot.
⁴⁰ The servants are not liable, for they have no independent financial capacity.
⁴¹ See Halachah 15 which states that whenever a person is required to pay only the principal, the grain that he pays is not considered as terumah
⁴² For it is forbidden only according to Rabbinic Law and the Sages did not require this additional payment.
⁴³ One is not liable in this instance, because the prooftext requiring payment of the additional fifth mentions "eating," and eating or drinking less than an olive-sized portion is not considered as "eating" [the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (Terumot
⁴⁴ Wine is forbidden to a nazirite whether it is terumah
⁴⁵ In the latter two instances, these are not ordinary ways of benefiting from these products.


###### Mishneh Torah, Heave Offerings 10:12
[Mishneh Torah, Heave Offerings 10:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Mishneh%20Torah%2C%20Heave%20Offerings/r/10:12)

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:

**Mishneh Torah, trans. by Eliyahu Touger. Jerusalem, Moznaim Pub. c1986-c2007:**
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.⁴⁶ previously, a distinction is made between her and other non-priest. See the *Sifra* to Leviticus 22:12.
When a woman⁴⁷ [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.⁴⁸ 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.⁴⁹ 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,"⁵⁰ 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*.⁵¹ 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.⁵², that is preferable to swallowing it. For until he swallows it, he is not considered to have partaken of it (Radbaz).

footnotes:
⁴⁶ Since she was entitled to partake of terumah
⁴⁷ The daughter of an Israelite married to a priest who was therefore entitled to partake of terumah
⁴⁸ As in the previous clause.
⁴⁹ The Kessef Mishneh
⁵⁰ E.g., his son was a challal
⁵¹ With regard to the servant, the same logic that applies with regard to the women mentioned previously applies to him. Since he was allowed to partake of terumah
⁵² Even though by spitting it out, he is spoiling the terumah


###### Mishneh Torah, Heave Offerings 10:13
[Mishneh Torah, Heave Offerings 10:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Mishneh%20Torah%2C%20Heave%20Offerings/r/10:13)

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:

**Mishneh Torah, trans. by Eliyahu Touger. Jerusalem, Moznaim Pub. c1986-c2007:**
[Similarly, when a priest] was partaking [of *terumah*] and he was told: "You became impure," "The *terumah* became impure,"⁵³ became impure. "You were impure," or "the *terumah* was impure,"⁵⁴. 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,⁵⁵ or *ma'aser sheni*⁵⁶ or consecrated property that was not redeemed, or [when partaking of the *terumah*,] he tasted a bug.⁵⁷ [the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (*loc. cit.*)].

footnotes:
⁵³ In these instances, when he began eating, he was permitted to do so, it is only afterwards, that he or the terumah
⁵⁴ Thus from the outset, he should not have partaken of the terumah
⁵⁵ In which instance, it is forbidden to partake of it until the appropriate separations are made.
⁵⁶ The second tithe which cannot be eaten outside of Jerusalem unless it is redeemed.
⁵⁷ And the disgusting taste of the bug prevented him from swallowing the terumah


###### Mishneh Torah, Heave Offerings 10:14
[Mishneh Torah, Heave Offerings 10:14](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Mishneh%20Torah%2C%20Heave%20Offerings/r/10:14)

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:

**Mishneh Torah, trans. by Eliyahu Touger. Jerusalem, Moznaim Pub. c1986-c2007:**
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*.⁵⁸ 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.⁵⁹, 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.⁶⁰.
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.⁶¹. If, however, one person eats them both, he must make restitution for the smaller one.⁶². 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.

footnotes:
⁵⁸ In this instance, although there is reason to suspect that the terumah
⁵⁹ For the additional fifth. The principal, i.e., the remaining container, must certainly be given to the priest. For if the one which was eaten was terumah
⁶⁰ Thus if the priest seeks to expropriate the additional fifth, he must prove that the container consumed was terumah
⁶¹ From the additional fifth. For in this instance as well, we are not certain that he partook of terumah
⁶² For he definitely partook of terumah


###### Mishneh Torah, Heave Offerings 10:15
[Mishneh Torah, Heave Offerings 10:15](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Mishneh%20Torah%2C%20Heave%20Offerings/r/10:15)

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:

**Mishneh Torah, trans. by Eliyahu Touger. Jerusalem, Moznaim Pub. c1986-c2007:**
When a person eats the additional fifth unknowingly, he must [make restitution for it and] add another fifth.⁶³ and compensation must be made for it. For the fifth is considered as the principal with regard to all matters.⁶⁴ Similarly, he continues to add a fifth for every fifth forever.⁶⁵ 6:1)].
Whenever a person makes restitution for the principal and the additional fifth, [the grain] he gives is *terumah* with regard to all matters⁶⁶ (the mixture of *terumah*) apply (*ibid.*). [with one exception]. If they were sown, the grain that grows is ordinary produce.⁶⁷ is considered as *terumah* (Chapter 11, Halachah 21). If the priest wishes to forgo [the payment], he cannot.⁶⁸ Whenever, [by contrast,] a person makes restitution only for the principal,⁶⁹ [the grain] he gives is ordinary grain⁷⁰ apply to it. and if the priest desires to forgo payment, he may.

footnotes:
⁶³ For the fifth originally added becomes considered as terumah
⁶⁴ I.e., it must be eaten in a state of ritual purity.
⁶⁵ When Leviticus 5:24 speaks of adding a fifth, it uses a form that could be interpreted as plural, "its fifths." The implication is that he may have to add many fifths [the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (Terumot
⁶⁶ I.e., if it becomes mixed with ordinary grain, the laws of dimua
⁶⁷ In contrast, grain growing from terumah
⁶⁸ For we are not speaking about a mere financial payment owed the priest, but a means of attaining atonement.
⁶⁹ See Halachah 5 and Halachot 11-12.
⁷⁰ I.e., none of the restrictions of terumah


###### Mishneh Torah, Heave Offerings 10:16
[Mishneh Torah, Heave Offerings 10:16](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Mishneh%20Torah%2C%20Heave%20Offerings/r/10:16)

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:

**Mishneh Torah, trans. by Eliyahu Touger. Jerusalem, Moznaim Pub. c1986-c2007:**
[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,⁷¹ she may make restitution of the principal and the additional fifth to herself.⁷², 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,⁷³ 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.

footnotes:
⁷¹ I.e., it had been separated, but had not been given to a priest.
⁷² She must separate this grain to receive atonement. Nevertheless, since as a priest's wife, she is entitled to partake of terumah
⁷³ That priest.


###### Mishneh Torah, Heave Offerings 10:17
[Mishneh Torah, Heave Offerings 10:17](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Mishneh%20Torah%2C%20Heave%20Offerings/r/10:17)

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

**Mishneh Torah, trans. by Eliyahu Touger. Jerusalem, Moznaim Pub. c1986-c2007:**
If she was not able to make restitution before she was divorced,⁷⁴ she can no longer make restitution to herself and she is like a person who never married a priest at all.

footnotes:
⁷⁴ Or she was widowed and left childless (Radbaz).


###### Mishneh Torah, Heave Offerings 10:18
[Mishneh Torah, Heave Offerings 10:18](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Mishneh%20Torah%2C%20Heave%20Offerings/r/10:18)

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:

**Mishneh Torah, trans. by Eliyahu Touger. Jerusalem, Moznaim Pub. c1986-c2007:**
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,*⁷⁵ 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,⁷⁶ 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*.⁷⁷ 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.⁷⁸ 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 grain⁷⁹ 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.

footnotes:
⁷⁵ See Hilchot Matanot Aniyim
⁷⁶ Terumah
⁷⁷ The Kessef Mishneh
⁷⁸ In his Commentary to the Mishnah (Terumot
⁷⁹ New grain refers to grain harvested after the omer


###### Mishneh Torah, Heave Offerings 10:19
[Mishneh Torah, Heave Offerings 10:19](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Mishneh%20Torah%2C%20Heave%20Offerings/r/10:19)

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

**Mishneh Torah, trans. by Eliyahu Touger. Jerusalem, Moznaim Pub. c1986-c2007:**
When a person eats zucchini from the sixth year,⁸⁰ 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.⁸¹ 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.

footnotes:
⁸⁰ In the seventh year and thus there is no way he can acquire the zucchini of the sixth year.
⁸¹ See Hilchot Shemitah VeYovel


###### Mishneh Torah, Heave Offerings 10:20
[Mishneh Torah, Heave Offerings 10:20](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Mishneh%20Torah%2C%20Heave%20Offerings/r/10:20)

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:

**Mishneh Torah, trans. by Eliyahu Touger. Jerusalem, Moznaim Pub. c1986-c2007:**
When a person ate *terumah* that was ritually impure, he makes restitution from ordinary produce, whether pure or impure.⁸². 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.⁸³ 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.

footnotes:
⁸² The produce he gives as restitution will be considered as impure terumah
⁸³ For if the grain is impure, it will not be an adequate replacement.


###### Mishneh Torah, Heave Offerings 10:21
[Mishneh Torah, Heave Offerings 10:21](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Mishneh%20Torah%2C%20Heave%20Offerings/r/10:21)

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

**Mishneh Torah, trans. by Eliyahu Touger. Jerusalem, Moznaim Pub. c1986-c2007:**
When a person partook of *terumah* belonging to a *chaver*,⁸⁴, ch. 10. he should make restitution to him. If he partook of *terumah* belonging to a common person,⁸⁵ he should make restitution to a *chaver*,⁸⁶ and take its worth from him and give it to the common person whose *terumah* he ate.⁸⁷ For we do not give articles that require ritually purity to a common person.

footnotes:
⁸⁴ A person who is careful to observe the laws of ritual purity. See Chapter 6, Halachah 2; Hilchot Ma'aser
⁸⁵ Who is not necessarily careful concerning the laws of ritual purity.
⁸⁶ So that the laws of ritual purity are adhered to.
⁸⁷ So that he is reimbursed for his loss.


###### Mishneh Torah, Heave Offerings 10:22
[Mishneh Torah, Heave Offerings 10:22](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Mishneh%20Torah%2C%20Heave%20Offerings/r/10:22)

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:

**Mishneh Torah, trans. by Eliyahu Touger. Jerusalem, Moznaim Pub. c1986-c2007:**
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,⁸⁸ 8:2-3. but rather to another heir⁸⁹ 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 fifth⁹⁰ 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.⁹¹, 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*.

footnotes:
⁸⁸ Even though he is an heir, since we are speaking about stolen property, he may not maintain possession of it, but instead must remove it from his domain and give it to someone else. Note the parallel in Hilchot Gezeilah
⁸⁹ Since the terumah
⁹⁰ This is speaking about an instance where the person did not know that the produce he ate was terumah
⁹¹ To explain this ruling: Since these individuals are not entitled to partake of terumah


###### Mishneh Torah, Heave Offerings 10:23
[Mishneh Torah, Heave Offerings 10:23](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Mishneh%20Torah%2C%20Heave%20Offerings/r/10:23)

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:

**Mishneh Torah, trans. by Eliyahu Touger. Jerusalem, Moznaim Pub. c1986-c2007:**
When a person steals *terumah* but does not consume it, he should pay twice its worth⁹² to the owners.⁹³ 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*.⁹⁴, 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,⁹⁵. and the principal according to the worth of *terumah*.⁹⁶

footnotes:
⁹² As is required when making restitution for theft (Exodus 22:3 .
⁹³ Although terumah
⁹⁴ Which is less expensive than ordinary grain. When making restitution to atone for partaking of terumah
⁹⁵ To atone for partaking of terumah
⁹⁶ To atone for the theft.


###### Mishneh Torah, Heave Offerings 10:24
[Mishneh Torah, Heave Offerings 10:24](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Mishneh%20Torah%2C%20Heave%20Offerings/r/10:24)

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:

**Mishneh Torah, trans. by Eliyahu Touger. Jerusalem, Moznaim Pub. c1986-c2007:**
When a person steals *terumah* that is consecrated to the Temple treasury⁹⁷ 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.⁹⁸ 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.⁹⁹ 1:3,5).
To whom does he make restitution? If [the *terumah*] was the size of an olive¹⁰⁰ depends on the produce being the size of an olive. and it was not worth a *p'rutah*,¹⁰¹, 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.

footnotes:
⁹⁷ I.e., a priest was given terumah
⁹⁸ Hilchot Geneivah
⁹⁹ This is the standard penalty to atone for this transgression (Hilchot Meilah
¹⁰⁰ For the liability for terumah
¹⁰¹ For the liability of misusing consecrated property depends on it being worth a p'rutah


###### Mishneh Torah, Heave Offerings 10:25
[Mishneh Torah, Heave Offerings 10:25](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Mishneh%20Torah%2C%20Heave%20Offerings/r/10:25)

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:

**Mishneh Torah, trans. by Eliyahu Touger. Jerusalem, Moznaim Pub. c1986-c2007:**
Why does the prohibition against benefiting from consecrated property fall [on this grain when it is already forbidden because of] the prohibition against *terumah*?¹⁰² 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.¹⁰³ 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.*).

footnotes:
¹⁰² The Rambam's question is based on the principle that, generally, once an object is forbidden because of one prohibition, it does not become forbidden again, because of a second one (see Keritot
¹⁰³ See Hilchot Issurei Bi'ah


###### Mishneh Torah, Heave Offerings 10:26
[Mishneh Torah, Heave Offerings 10:26](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Mishneh%20Torah%2C%20Heave%20Offerings/r/10:26)

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:

**Mishneh Torah, trans. by Eliyahu Touger. Jerusalem, Moznaim Pub. c1986-c2007:**
When a person obtains *terumah* by robbery,¹⁰⁴ (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.¹⁰⁵ [The rationale is that] the fifth that he is liable for [to atone for partaking of] *terumah* fulfills his obligation for robbery,¹⁰⁶ 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.¹⁰⁷ 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 five¹⁰⁸ 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.¹⁰⁹ 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.

footnotes:
¹⁰⁴ The difference between geneivah
¹⁰⁵ And only one fifth, in contrast to the law regarding a thief in Halachah 23, where he is required to atone for the theft as well.
¹⁰⁶ The Ra'avad questions the Rambam's ruling, asking why the person is not liable for an additional fifth to atone for taking a false oath concerning the robbery, as required by Hilchot Gezeilah
¹⁰⁷ For he must atone for partaking of terumah
¹⁰⁸ I.e., the fifth is one fifth of the new total. See parallels in Hilchot Arachin
¹⁰⁹ The Ra'avad questions the Rambam's ruling, asking why is the person not required to pay the worth at the time of the robbery if the grain depreciated in price. The Radbaz explains that this is, in fact, the Rambam's intent and this halachah is speaking about an instance when he ate the terumah