## Mishneh Torah, Heave Offerings Chapter 13

###### Mishneh Torah, Heave Offerings 13:1
[Mishneh Torah, Heave Offerings 13:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Mishneh%20Torah%2C%20Heave%20Offerings/r/13:1)

הַתְּרוּמָה עוֹלָה בְּאֶחָד וּמֵאָה. כֵּיצַד. סְאָה תְּרוּמָה שֶׁנָּפְלָה לְמֵאָה סְאָה שֶׁל חֻלִּין וְנִתְעָרֵב הַכֹּל מַפְרִישׁ מִן הַכֹּל סְאָה אַחַת וְנוֹתְנָהּ לַכֹּהֵן וְהַשְּׁאָר מֻתָּר לְזָרִים. וְכָל תְּרוּמָה שֶׁאֵין הַכֹּהֲנִים מַקְפִּידִין עָלֶיהָ כְּגוֹן תְּרוּמַת הַכְּלִיסִין וְהֶחָרוּבִין וְהַשְּׂעוֹרִים שֶׁל אֱדוֹם אֵינוֹ צָרִיךְ לְהַגְבִּיהַּ הוֹאִיל וְנָפְלָה בְּמֵאָה בָּטְלָה בְּמִעוּטָהּ וְהַכֹּל מֻתָּר לְזָרִים:

**Mishneh Torah, trans. by Eliyahu Touger. Jerusalem, Moznaim Pub. c1986-c2007:**
*Terumah* becomes nullified in a mixture 101 times the size of the original quantity.¹ 15:16, the Rambam explains:

Why did [the Sages] choose the figure of 100 for *terumot*? For *terumat ma'aser* is one hundredth of the entire crop, and yet it causes the entire crop to be "sanctified," as [Numbers 18:29] states: "its sacred part." Our Sages said: "An entity which must be separated from it sanctifies it, if it returns to it.

Nevertheless, from Halachah 13-14, it appears that according to Scriptural Law, *terumah* is nullified when mixed with a majority of ordinary produce and the verse is cited merely as a support.
What is implied? When a *se'ah* of *terumah* falls into 100 *se'ah* of ordinary produce and all the produce becomes mixed together,² is distinct, it is sufficient for him to remove it. he should separate one *se'ah* and give it to the priest. The remainder is permitted [to be eaten by] non-priests.³ 15:15, the Rambam explains: "Why is it necessary to separate [a measure of] *terumah* and not a measure of *orlah* or mixed species from a vineyard? Because *terumah* is the property of the priests." I.e., from a ritual perspective, it is not necessary to remove the *se'ah*, for the existence of the *terumah* has been nullified. Nevertheless, from a financial perspective, it is necessary to give the priest his due. This is the explanation of the concluding clause.
[Accordingly,] whenever the *terumah* is a substance which the priests do not care about, e.g., *terumah* from wild figs, carobs, Edomite barley and the like, it is not necessary to separate [a hundredth for the priest]. Instead, since it fell into a 100 times its amount, it is nullified because of its minimal size and the entire mixture is permitted to non-priests.

footnotes:
¹ In Hilchot Ma'achalot Assurot
² Obviously, if the produce which is terumah
³ In Hilchot Ma'achalot Assurot


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

נָפְלָה סְאָה תְּרוּמָה לְפָחוֹת מִמֵּאָה נַעֲשֶׂה הַכֹּל מְדֻמָּע וְיִמְכֹּר הַכֹּל לַכֹּהֲנִים בִּדְמֵי תְּרוּמָה חוּץ מִדְּמֵי אוֹתָהּ סְאָה. בַּמֶּה דְּבָרִים אֲמוּרִים כְּשֶׁנִּתְעָרֵב מִין בְּמִינוֹ. אֲבָל מִין בְּשֶׁאֵינוֹ מִינוֹ בְּנוֹתֵן טַעַם אִם יֵשׁ בַּכֹּל טַעַם תְּרוּמָה נַעֲשָׂה הַכֹּל מְדֻמָּע וְיִמָּכֵר לַכֹּהֲנִים חוּץ מִדְּמֵי תְּרוּמָה שֶׁבּוֹ. וְאִם טַעַם הַכֹּל טַעַם חֻלִּין הַכֹּל מֻתָּר לְזָרִים:

**Mishneh Torah, trans. by Eliyahu Touger. Jerusalem, Moznaim Pub. c1986-c2007:**
If a *se'ah* of *terumah* fell into less than 100 [*se'ah* of ordinary produce], the entire mixture becomes *miduma*.⁴ 1:3), the Rambam explains that Exodus 22:23 uses the term *dima* as a synonym for *terumah*. Hence our Sages referred to a mixture of *terumah* and ordinary produce in this manner. It should be sold to a priest at the price of *terumah*⁵ is not nullified, we have to consider the possibility that every kernel is *terumah*. with the exception of that *se'ah*.⁶
When does the above apply? When produce becomes mixed with its own kind. If, however, produce becomes mixed with produce of another type, [the ruling is dependent on whether] the flavor [of the *terumah*] is recognizable or not. If the entire mixture has the flavor of *terumah*, it is all considered as *miduma* and should be sold to the priests with the exception of the value of the *terumah*. If the flavor of the entire mixture is that of the ordinary produce, the entire mixture is permitted to non-priests.⁷is not recognizable, it is considered as nullified. This principle applies with regard to all the Torah's prohibitions [the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (*Orlah* 2:7)].

footnotes:
⁴ And it is forbidden for a non-priest to partake of it.In his Commentary to the Mishnah (Demai
⁵ Which is far less than the price of ordinary produce. Since the terumah
⁶ Which is given to him without cost.
⁷ Since the flavor of the terumah


###### Mishneh Torah, Heave Offerings 13:3
[Mishneh Torah, Heave Offerings 13:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Mishneh%20Torah%2C%20Heave%20Offerings/r/13:3)

סְאָה תְּרוּמָה שֶׁנָּפְלָה לְמֵאָה וְהִגְבִּיהַּ סְאָה מִן הַכֹּל וְנָפְלָה הַסְּאָה שֶׁהִגְבִּיהַּ לְמָקוֹם אַחֵר אֵינָהּ מְדַמַּעַת אֶלָּא לְפִי חֶשְׁבּוֹן. וְכֵן סְאָה תְּרוּמָה שֶׁנָּפְלָה לְפָחוֹת מִמֵּאָה וְנַעֲשָׂה הַכֹּל מְדֻמָּע וְנָפַל מִן הַמְדֻמָּע לְמָקוֹם אַחֵר אֵינוֹ מְדַמֵּעַ אֶלָּא לְפִי חֶשְׁבּוֹן. כֵּיצַד. הֲרֵי שֶׁנָּפְלוּ עֶשֶׂר סְאִין שֶׁל תְּרוּמָה לְתִשְׁעִים סְאָה חֻלִּין וְנִדְמְעוּ הַכֹּל אִם נָפַל מִמְּדֻמָּע זֶה עֶשֶׂר סְאִין לְפָחוֹת מִמֵּאָה חֻלִּין נִדְמְעוּ שֶׁהֲרֵי יֵשׁ בְּעֶשֶׂר שֶׁל מְדֻמָּע סְאָה שֶׁל תְּרוּמָה. נָפַל לְתוֹכָן פָּחוֹת מֵעֶשֶׂר סְאִין אֵינָן מְדַמְּעוֹת:

**Mishneh Torah, trans. by Eliyahu Touger. Jerusalem, Moznaim Pub. c1986-c2007:**
When a *se'ah* of *terumah* falls into 100 *se'ah* and one *se'ah* was removed from the mixture⁸, if that *se'ah* fell into other produce, the question whether the mixture is considered as *miduma* is determined according to the proportion [of *terumah* in the first mixture].⁹ was taken out to be given to the priest, it is not considered as *terumah*. Instead, we calculate the proportion of *terumah* in the first mixture, on that basis, determine how much of the *se'ah* that fell is considered to be *terumah* and then see if that amount is one hundredth of the new mixture or not. For example, if one *se'ah* fell in one hundred *se'ah*, we consider the *se'ah* that was removed as slightly less than 1/100th *terumah*. Thus if it fell into a *se'ah* or more of ordinary produce, the second mixture is permitted [the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (*Terumot* 5:5)].Similarly, if a *se'ah* of *terumah* fell into less than one hundred *se'ah* [of ordinary produce] and the entire mixture became *miduma* and then some of this mixture fell into other [produce], the question whether the mixture is considered as *miduma* is determined according to the proportion [of *terumah* in the first mixture].
What is implied? Ten *se'ah* of *terumah* fell into 90 *se'ah* of ordinary produce and the entire mixture became *miduma*. If ten *se'ah* from this mixture fell into less than 100 *se'ah* of ordinary produce, the mixture is considered *miduma*, because in the ten *se'ah* of the [original] mixture, there was at least one *se'ah* of *terumah*.¹⁰ of *terumah* is being mixed with less than 100 *se'ah* of ordinary produce. If less than ten *se'ah* [of *terumah*] fell into [the original mixture], the [second] mixture is not considered as *miduma* [when one *se'ah* of the first mixture fell into 100 *se'ah*].

footnotes:
⁸ As required by Halachah 1.
⁹ Even though the se'ah
¹⁰ And thus a se'ah


###### Mishneh Torah, Heave Offerings 13:4
[Mishneh Torah, Heave Offerings 13:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Mishneh%20Torah%2C%20Heave%20Offerings/r/13:4)

בַּמֶּה דְּבָרִים אֲמוּרִים בְּדָבָר שֶׁאֵין דַּרְכּוֹ לְהִבָּלֵל כְּגוֹן חִטִּים לְחִטִּים אוֹ קֶמַח לְקֶמַח. אֲבָל דַּרְכּוֹ לְהִבָּלֵל כְּגוֹן שֶׁמֶן תְּרוּמָה לְשֶׁמֶן חֻלִּין אוֹ יֵין תְּרוּמָה לְיֵין חֻלִּין הוֹלְכִין אַחַר הָרֹב. אִם רֹב תְּרוּמָה הֲרֵי זֶה מְדַמֵּעַ כִּתְרוּמָה. וְאִם רֹב חֻלִּין הֲרֵי הוּא כְּחֻלִּין וְאֵינוֹ מְדַמֵּעַ אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁהַכֹּל אֲסוּרִים לְזָרִים:

**Mishneh Torah, trans. by Eliyahu Touger. Jerusalem, Moznaim Pub. c1986-c2007:**
When does the above apply? With regard to substances that do not become blended together, e.g., wheat kernels with wheat kernels or flour with flour.¹¹ and the ordinary produce (see Radbaz). When, however, substances blend together, e.g., oil that is *terumah* mixes with ordinary oil or wine that is *terumah* mixes with ordinary wine, we follow the majority. If the majority is *terumah*, should the mixture fall into other produce, the ruling is the same as if [the first mixture] was [entirely] *terumah*.¹² alone in the new mixture, we consider the first mixture as if it were *terumah*. Only if the second mixture is 100 times as large as the first is it permitted. If the majority of the [first] mixture is ordinary produce, should that mixture fall into other produce, [the entire first mixture] is considered as ordinary produce and there is never a difficulty concerning a mixture of *terumah*.¹³ in the second mixture. Even if the *terumah* is more than one hundredth of the second mixture, that mixture is permitted. Nevertheless, in all instances, the entire [first] mixture is forbidden to non-priests.

footnotes:
¹¹ In this instance, every entity remains discrete. It's only that an observer cannot distinguish between the terumah
¹² I.e., instead of calculating the percentage of terumah
¹³ We do not calculate the percentage of terumah


###### Mishneh Torah, Heave Offerings 13:5
[Mishneh Torah, Heave Offerings 13:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Mishneh%20Torah%2C%20Heave%20Offerings/r/13:5)

סְאָה תְּרוּמָה שֶׁנָּפְלָה לְמֵאָה הִגְבִּיהָהּ וְנָפְלָה אַחֶרֶת הִגְבִּיהָהּ וְנָפְלָה אַחֶרֶת הֲרֵי הַחֻלִּין מֻתָּרִין עַד שֶׁתִּרְבֶּה תְּרוּמָה עֲלֵיהֶן. שֶׁאִם נָפְלוּ לְתוֹךְ הַמֵּאָה חֻלִּין מֵאָה סְאָה וְעוֹד שֶׁל תְּרוּמָה סְאָה אַחַר סְאָה נַעֲשָׂה הַכֹּל מְדֻמָּע:

**Mishneh Torah, trans. by Eliyahu Touger. Jerusalem, Moznaim Pub. c1986-c2007:**
When a *se'ah* of *terumah* falls into 100 *se'ah*, [a *se'ah* of the mixture] was removed, another [*se'ah* of *terumah*] fell in, [another *se'ah*] was removed, and another fell in, the ordinary produce is permitted¹⁴ of *terumah* that fell into it does not exist. We do not consider it as existing within the mixture, so that were it to be combined with other *terumah*, the entire mixture would be considered *miduma*. until there is a majority of *terumah* [in the mixture]. Thus if more than 100 *se'ah* of *terumah* fell into 100 *se'ah* of ordinary produce, *se'ah* after *se'ah* [in above manner], the entire mixture is considered as *miduma*.¹⁵ if 51 *se'ah* of *terumah* fall into the ordinary produce in the above manner. His rationale is that since a *se'ah* is removed from the mixture, it is possible that he is removing a *se'ah* of ordinary produce. Hence, after 51 *se'ah* fell and 50 *se'ah* were removed, it is possible that there is a majority of *terumah* in the mixture. The Radbaz justifies the Rambam's ruling, explaining that it is logical to assume that each *se'ah* that is removed has an proportionate amount of *terumah* and ordinary produce.

footnotes:
¹⁴ Since the mixture was permitted, it is considered as if the se'ah
¹⁵ The Ra'avad differs with the Rambam concerning this figure, maintaining that the mixture is considered as miduma


###### Mishneh Torah, Heave Offerings 13:6
[Mishneh Torah, Heave Offerings 13:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Mishneh%20Torah%2C%20Heave%20Offerings/r/13:6)

סְאָה תְּרוּמָה שֶׁנָּפְלָה לְמֵאָה וְלֹא הִסְפִּיק לְהַגְבִּיהָהּ עַד שֶׁנָּפְלָה סְאָה אַחֶרֶת. אִם יָדַע בָּרִאשׁוֹנָה קֹדֶם שֶׁתִּפּל הַשְּׁנִיָּה לֹא נִדְמְעוּ. אֶלָּא מַפְרִישׁ סָאתַיִם וְהַשְּׁאָר מֻתָּר הוֹאִיל וְהָיָה לָהּ לַעֲלוֹת הֲרֵי הִיא כְּאִלּוּ עָלְתָה. וְאִם לֹא יָדַע בִּסְאָה רִאשׁוֹנָה אֶלָּא אַחַר שֶׁנָּפְלָה הַשְּׁנִיָּה הֲרֵי זֶה מְדֻמָּע וּכְאִלּוּ נָפְלוּ שְׁתֵּיהֶן כְּאַחַת:

**Mishneh Torah, trans. by Eliyahu Touger. Jerusalem, Moznaim Pub. c1986-c2007:**
[The following rules apply when] a *se'ah* of *terumah* fell into 100 [*se'ah* of ordinary produce] and before one *se'ah* was removed, another *se'ah* of *terumah* fell [into the mixture]. If [the owner] was aware of the first *se'ah* before the second *se'ah* fell, [the mixture] does not become *miduma*. Instead, he should remove two *se'ah* and the remainder is permitted. [The rationale is that] since it should have been taken out,¹⁶ we consider it as if it was taken out. If, however, he did not become aware of the first *se'ah* until after the second fell in, the mixture is considered *miduma*. It is as if both *se'ah* fell in at the same time.¹⁷ 5:8. The *Kessef Mishneh* questions the intent of the Ra'avad's comments and asserts that according to the *Tosefta*, the majority opinion also accepts the distinction the Rambam makes here. This interpretation is borne out by the Rambam's Commentary to that mishnah.

footnotes:
¹⁶ And thus the entire mixture would be considered as permitted.
¹⁷ The Ra'avad comments on the Rambam's ruling, noting that he is following what appears to be the minority opinion in Terumot


###### Mishneh Torah, Heave Offerings 13:7
[Mishneh Torah, Heave Offerings 13:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Mishneh%20Torah%2C%20Heave%20Offerings/r/13:7)

אֵין פְּסֹלֶת שֶׁל תְּרוּמָה מִצְטָרֶפֶת עִמָּהּ לֶאֱסֹר הַחֻלִּין. אֲבָל פְּסֹלֶת הַחֻלִּין מִצְטָרֶפֶת עִם הַחֻלִּין לְהַעֲלוֹת הַתְּרוּמָה. כֵּיצַד. סְאָה חִטִּים יָפוֹת שֶׁל תְּרוּמָה שֶׁנָּפְלָה לְמֵאָה סְאָה חִטִּים רָעוֹת שֶׁל חֻלִּין וְטָחַן הַכֹּל. אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁהַמֻּרְסָן שֶׁל חֻלִּין מְרֻבִּין וְשֶׁל תְּרוּמָה מֻעָט וַהֲרֵי קֶמַח שֶׁל תְּרוּמָה בְּפָחוֹת מִמֵּאָה מִקֶּמַח הַחֻלִּין הֲרֵי זֶה עוֹלֶה וּמְשַׁעֲרִין בְּקֶמַח עִם הַמֻּרְסָן שֶׁהוּא מֵאָה וְאֶחָד. אֲבָל אִם נָפְלָה סְאָה חִטִּים רָעוֹת שֶׁל תְּרוּמָה לְפָחוֹת מִמֵּאָה סְאָה חִטִּים יָפוֹת שֶׁל חֻלִּין וְטָחַן הַכֹּל וַהֲרֵי הַקֶּמַח שֶׁל תְּרוּמָה אֶחָד מִמֵּאָה מִקֶּמַח הַחֻלִּין הֲרֵי זֶה עוֹלֶה בְּמֵאָה וְאֶחָד שֶׁהֲרֵי הוֹתִירוּ הַחֻלִּין וּפָחֲתָה הַתְּרוּמָה:

**Mishneh Torah, trans. by Eliyahu Touger. Jerusalem, Moznaim Pub. c1986-c2007:**
The waste products of *terumah* are not combined with it [a mixture of it and ordinary produce] to cause the ordinary produce to be forbidden. The waste products of ordinary produce, by contrast, are combined with it to cause *terumah* to be nullified in a mixture.
What is implied? A *se'ah* of high quality wheat that is *terumah* fell into 100 *se'ah* of wheat of low quality that is ordinary produce. The owner ground the entire quantity. Even though there is much bran in the ordinary produce and a small amount in the *terumah* and thus the flour from the *terumah* is more than one hundredth of the flour from the ordinary produce,¹⁸ it is nullified. For we measure the flour with the bran and [together,] it is 101 times [the original amount of *terumah*]. If, however, a *se'ah* of low quality wheat that is *terumah* falls into [slightly] less 100 *se'ah* of high quality wheat that is ordinary produce and [the owner] ground the entire quantity, [the weight of] the flour that is *terumah* will be one hundredth of [the weight of] the flour that is ordinary produce. Hence it is nullified because the mixture is 101 times the original amount [of *terumah*], for the weight of the ordinary produce increased and that of the *terumah* decreased.¹⁹ 5:9) goes even further and says that the bran in the *terumah*, since it is considered waste and not food, can be considered as part of the ordinary produce and if there is 100 times the weight of the flour from the *terumah* when this bran is added to the ordinary produce, the *terumah* is nullified. The Radbaz and the *Kessef Mishneh* suggest that the Rambam does not mention this point, because he feels that the Babylonian Talmud - according to which halachah is decided - does not accept it. Nevertheless, it appears that the *Shulchan Aruch* (*Yoreh De'ah* 99:1) follows the Ra'avad's view, although the Rama states that as a stringency, the Rambam's perspective should be followed.

footnotes:
¹⁸ For high quality grain produces more flour and less bran than lower quality grain. Thus more of the lower quality grain is bran and more of the higher quality grain is flour.
¹⁹ The Ra'avad notes that the Jerusalem Talmud (Terumot


###### Mishneh Torah, Heave Offerings 13:8
[Mishneh Torah, Heave Offerings 13:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Mishneh%20Torah%2C%20Heave%20Offerings/r/13:8)

לוֹג יַיִן שֶׁל תְּרוּמָה צָלוּל שֶׁנָּפַל לְמֵאָה לוֹגִין עֲכוּרִין אֵין מוֹצִיאִין שְׁמָרִים שֶׁבָּהֶם. אֶלָּא מַעֲלִין אֶת הַלּוֹג. וְכֵן אִם נָפַל לוֹג עָכוּר לְמֵאָה לוֹגִין צְלוּלִין אֵין מוֹצִיאִין שְׁמָרִים שֶׁבּוֹ:

**Mishneh Torah, trans. by Eliyahu Touger. Jerusalem, Moznaim Pub. c1986-c2007:**
When a *log*²⁰ of clear wine that is *terumah* fell into 100 *lugin* of cloudy wine²¹, but had not been removed from the wine which was ordinary produce. that is ordinary produce, we do not remove the dregs from the wine [and only then calculate whether the ordinary wine is 100 times the *terumah*]. Instead, we nullify the *log* of *terumah*.²² Similarly, if a *log* of cloudy wine [that is *terumah*] fell into a 100 *log* of clear wine, we do not remove the dregs in [the wine that is *terumah*].²³ wine are counted and unless the ordinary wine is 100 times the amount of that wine including its dregs, it is considered as *miduma*. See Chapter 11, Halachah 13, which states that the dregs are considered as *terumah*.
The Ra'avad differs and maintains that in this instance, like the one described in the previous halachah, the dregs of the *terumah* are not counted, because they are wastes. The Radbaz justifies the Rambam's ruling, explaining that wine dregs are different than the wastes mentioned in the previous halachah, because they have the flavor of wine and can produce wine.

footnotes:
²⁰ A measure of liquid weight of the Talmudic period.
²¹ I.e., the dregs had been removed from the wine that is terumah
²² Counting the dregs of the ordinary produce as part of the mixture.
²³ The Rambam is apparently saying that in this instance, the dregs of the terumah


###### Mishneh Torah, Heave Offerings 13:9
[Mishneh Torah, Heave Offerings 13:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Mishneh%20Torah%2C%20Heave%20Offerings/r/13:9)

לוֹג מַיִם שֶׁנָּפַל לְתִשְׁעִים וְתִשְׁעָה לוֹגִין יַיִן וְאַחַר כָּךְ נָפַל לְתוֹךְ הַכֹּל לוֹג יַיִן שֶׁל תְּרוּמָה נִדְמַע הַכֹּל. שֶׁאֵין הַמַּיִם מַעֲלֶה אֶת הַיַּיִן:

**Mishneh Torah, trans. by Eliyahu Touger. Jerusalem, Moznaim Pub. c1986-c2007:**
When a *log* of water fell into 99 *lugim* of wine and then a *log* of wine that is *terumah* fell into the mixture, the entire mixture is considered as *miduma*, because water does not nullify [the existence of] wine.²⁴. The *Kessef Mishneh* explains that this can be understood as the Rambam's intent.

footnotes:
²⁴ The Ra'avad explains the rationale for this ruling as follows: The water is not considered as the same type as wine. Hence, it cannot nullify it unless the flavor of the wine is no longer noticeable. The wine, by contrast, is considered its type and it requires 100 times the weight of the terumah


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

סְאָה תְּרוּמָה שֶׁנָּפְלָה לְפָחוֹת מִמֵּאָה חֻלִּין וְנָפְלוּ חֻלִּין אֲחֵרִים עַד שֶׁהוֹסִיפוּ עַל מֵאָה. אִם בְּשׁוֹגֵג הֲרֵי זוֹ עוֹלָה בְּמֵאָה וְאֶחָד. וְאִם בְּמֵזִיד הֲרֵי הַכֹּל מְדֻמָּע שֶׁאֵין מְבַטְּלִין אִסּוּרֵי תּוֹרָה לְכַתְּחִלָּה:

**Mishneh Torah, trans. by Eliyahu Touger. Jerusalem, Moznaim Pub. c1986-c2007:**
[The following rules apply when] a *se'ah* of *terumah* fell into less than 100 *se'ah* of ordinary produce and then other ordinary produce fell into the mixture so that there was more than 100 times [the weight of the *terumah*]. If [the second batch of produce was added] unknowingly, [the *terumah*] is nullified because there is 101 [times the original weight]. If he mixed it intentionally, the entire mixture is considered as *miduma*, because we do not nullify the existence of substances prohibited by Scriptural Law as an initial preference.²⁵ 15:25, the Rambam writes:

It is forbidden to nullify a substance forbidden by Scriptural Law as an initial and preferred measure. If, however, one nullified it, the mixture is permitted. Nevertheless, our Sages penalized such a person and forbade the entire mixture. It appears to me that since this is a penalty, we forbid this mixture only to the person who transgressed and nullified the prohibited substance. For others, however, the entire mixture is permitted.

In the present instance, however, it appears that the produce is considered as *miduma*, not only for the person who mixed together, but for everyone. The Radbaz differentiates between the two situations, explaining that in *Hilchot Ma'achalot Assurot*, the Rambam is speaking about a forbidden substance. Hence, if it was considered forbidden, it would have no value entirely. In our halachah, even if the mixture is considered *miduma*, it can be sold to priests and thus, it will not be wasted entirely.

footnotes:
²⁵ The Radbaz notes that in Hilchot Ma'achalot Assurot


###### Mishneh Torah, Heave Offerings 13:11
[Mishneh Torah, Heave Offerings 13:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Mishneh%20Torah%2C%20Heave%20Offerings/r/13:11)

תְּרוּמַת חוּצָה לָאָרֶץ מֻתָּר לְבַטְּלָהּ בְּרֹב וְאוֹכְלָהּ בִּימֵי טֻמְאָתוֹ וְלֹא עוֹד אֶלָּא אִם הָיָה לוֹ יַיִן שֶׁל תְּרוּמַת חוּצָה לָאָרֶץ נוֹטֵל מִמֶּנּוּ לוֹג אֶחָד וְנוֹתֵן עָלָיו שְׁנֵי לוֹגִין חֻלִּין וְנִמְצָא הַכֹּל שְׁלֹשָׁה וְאַחַר כָּךְ נוֹטֵל מִיַּיִן שֶׁל תְּרוּמָה לוֹג וְנוֹתֵן לְתוֹךְ הַשְּׁלֹשָׁה וּמַגְבִּיהַּ מֵאַרְבַּעְתָּן לוֹג וְשׁוֹתֶה. וְחוֹזֵר וּמַשְׁלִיךְ לְתוֹכָן לוֹג אַחֵר וְחוֹזֵר וְנוֹטֵל לוֹג וְשׁוֹתֶה. וְכֵן נוֹתֵן לוֹג תְּרוּמָה וְנוֹטֵל לוֹג מִן הַתַּעֲרֹבֶת עַד שֶׁיִּכְלֶה כָּל הַיַּיִן שֶׁל תְּרוּמָה. וְנִמְצָא שֶׁנָּטַל כַּמָּה לוֹגִין בִּשְׁנֵי לוֹגִין שֶׁל חֻלִּין:

**Mishneh Torah, trans. by Eliyahu Touger. Jerusalem, Moznaim Pub. c1986-c2007:**
It is, however, permitted to nullify *terumah* from the Diaspora [by mixing it] with a majority of permitted substances²⁶ 15:26. and eat it during the time when one is ritually impure.²⁷ Not only that, if a person possesses wine that is *terumah* from the Diaspora, he should take one log of this wine and mix it with two *lugim* of ordinary [wine]. Thus there are three *lugim*.²⁸ is nullified, because it is mixed with a majority of ordinary produce. Afterwards, he can add another *log* of the *terumah* wine into the three *lugim* and then take one *log* from the four and drink it.²⁹ justifies the Rambam's ruling, explaining that once the *terumah* is nullified, it does not become a factor again if other *terumah* is added. He may then add another *log* [of *terumah* wine] and take out a *log* and drink it. Similarly, he may continue adding a *log* of *terumah* and removing a *log* until all the wine that is *terumah* is completed. Thus he can nullify several *lugim* [of *terumah*] in two *lugim* of ordinary produce.

footnotes:
²⁶ I.e., since the prohibition is of Rabbinic origin, one may nullify it as an initial preference, as stated in Hilchot Ma'achalot Assurot
²⁷ The Radbaz explains that the mixture may be eaten by a priest even when he is ritually impure or by a non-priest.
²⁸ And the wine that is terumah
²⁹ The Ra'avad differs, maintaining that once there is no longer a majority of ordinary produce, the mixture is forbidden. The Kessef Mishneh


###### Mishneh Torah, Heave Offerings 13:12
[Mishneh Torah, Heave Offerings 13:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Mishneh%20Torah%2C%20Heave%20Offerings/r/13:12)

הַזּוֹרֵעַ תְּרוּמָה בְּצַד הַחֻלִּין וְלֹא נוֹדַע אֵי זֶהוּ זֶרַע תְּרוּמָה אֲפִלּוּ הָיָה מֵאָה לְגִנָּה שֶׁל תְּרוּמָה וּלְגִנָּה אַחַת שֶׁל חֻלִּין כֻּלָּן מֻתָּרִין. בַּמֶּה דְּבָרִים אֲמוּרִים בְּדָבָר שֶׁזַּרְעוֹ כָּלֶה בַּקַּרְקַע כְּגוֹן הַחִטִּים וְהַשְּׂעוֹרִים וְכַיּוֹצֵא בָּהֶן. אֲבָל דָּבָר שֶׁאֵין זַרְעוֹ נִפְסָד בָּאָרֶץ כְּגוֹן הַשּׁוּם וְהַבְּצָלִים אֲפִלּוּ מֵאָה לְגִנָּה שֶׁל חֻלִּין וּלְגִנָּה אַחַת שֶׁל תְּרוּמָה תַּעֲרֹבֶת בֵּינֵיהֶן הֲרֵי הַכֹּל מְדֻמָּע. וְאִם נִתְלַשׁ הַכֹּל תַּעֲלֶה הַתְּרוּמָה בְּאֶחָד וּמֵאָה וְלֹא יִתְלֹשׁ לְכַתְּחִלָּה:

**Mishneh Torah, trans. by Eliyahu Touger. Jerusalem, Moznaim Pub. c1986-c2007:**
When one sows *terumah* next to ordinary produce and cannot identify which produce is *terumah* and which is ordinary produce, the entire batch is permitted even if there were 100 rows of *terumah* and [only] one row of ordinary produce.³⁰ is not *terumah* and is forbidden to non-priests only as a stringency (Chapter 11, Halachot 21-22). Hence, if there is any confusion about which produce is *terumah*, it is all permitted.
When does the above apply? With regard to produce whose seed decomposes in the earth, e.g., wheat, barley, and the like.³¹ If, however, the seeds do not decompose, e.g., garlic and onions,³² even if 100 rows are ordinary produce and one row is *terumah*, the entire mixture is *miduma*. ³³ is distinct and has not become mixed with the ordinary produce [the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (*Terumot* 9:5)]. If the entire crop is harvested,³⁴ *terumah* can be nullified in a mixture of 100 times its weight, but, as an initial and preferred option, one should not harvest the crop.³⁵ and sold to priests at the price of *terumah*.

footnotes:
³⁰ The rationale is that the produce that grows from terumah
³¹ For then there is no trace of the original plant.
³² In which instance, the new plant grows from a bulb of the original one and that original plant never decomposes entirely.
³³ For the terumah
³⁴ Without paying attention to the prohibition.
³⁵ For as stated above, as an initial preference, a prohibited substance should not be nullified. It must, however, be emphasized, the Rambam's intent is not to let the produce remain in the ground forever. Instead, it should be harvested as produce which is miduma


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

שְׁתֵּי קֻפּוֹת אַחַת שֶׁל תְּרוּמָה וְאַחַת שֶׁל חֻלִּין וְאֵין יָדוּעַ אֵי זוֹ הִיא. אוֹ שֶׁנָּפְלָה סְאָה שֶׁל תְּרוּמָה לְתוֹךְ אַחַת מֵהֶן וְאֵין יָדוּעַ לְהֵיכָן נָפְלָה וְאַחַר כָּךְ נָפְלָה אַחַת מִשְּׁתֵּי קֻפּוֹת לְתוֹךְ הַחֻלִּין אֵינָן מְדַמַּעְתָּן. וְכֵן אִם זָרַע אַחַת מֵהֶם הַגִּדּוּלִין חֻלִּין לְכָל דָּבָר. וְהַשְּׁנִיָּה נוֹהֵג בָּהּ כִּתְרוּמָה. נָפְלָה הַקֻּפָּה הַשְּׁנִיָּה לְמָקוֹם אַחֵר אֵינָהּ מְדַמַּעַת. וְכֵן אִם זָרַע אַחֵר אֶת הַשְּׁנִיָּה הַגִּדּוּלִין חֻלִּין. נָפְלוּ שְׁתֵּיהֶן לְמָקוֹם אֶחָד מְדַמַּעַת כַּקְּטַנָּה שֶׁבִּשְׁתֵּיהֶן. זָרַע אֶחָד אֶת שְׁתֵּיהֶם בְּדָבָר שֶׁזַּרְעוֹ כָּלֶה הַגִּדּוּלִין חֻלִּין. וּבְדָבָר שֶׁאֵין זַרְעוֹ כָּלֶה הַגִּדּוּלִין מְדֻמָּע. בַּמֶּה דְּבָרִים אֲמוּרִים בְּזוֹרֵעַ אֶת הַשְּׁנִיָּה עַד שֶׁלֹּא קָצַר אֶת הָרִאשׁוֹנָה. אֲבָל קָצַר אֶת הָרִאשׁוֹנָה וְאַחַר כָּךְ זָרַע אֶת הַשְּׁנִיָּה אֲפִלּוּ בְּדָבָר שֶׁאֵין זַרְעוֹ כָּלֶה הַגִּדּוּלִין חֻלִּין שֶׁאֵין תָּלוּשׁ וּמְחֻבָּרִין נַעֲשִׂין חוֹבָה זֶה לָזֶה:

**Mishneh Torah, trans. by Eliyahu Touger. Jerusalem, Moznaim Pub. c1986-c2007:**
When there are two containers of produce, one containing *terumah* and one containing ordinary produce and it is not known [which contains the ordinary produce and which contains the *terumah*], if [the contents of] one of these containers falls into ordinary produce, [the mixture] is not considered as *miduma*.³⁶ according to Rabbinic decree, e.g., *terumah* from the Diaspora or a mixture of *terumah*and a majority of ordinary produce. These principles are also applied in other contexts, see Chapter 10, Halachah 14, and *Shulchan Aruch* (*Yoreh De'ah* 111:1). [This same law applies if produce that is] *terumah* fell into one of two containers [of ordinary produce], but one does not know which one and afterwards, one of those containers fell into ordinary produce.
Similarly, if one sowed [the grain from] one of the two containers, the produce that grows is considered as ordinary produce with regard to all matters.³⁷ [The produce in] the remaining container is considered as *terumah*.³⁸ If [the contents of] the second container fell into other produce, [the mixture] is not considered as *miduma*.³⁹ Similarly, if another person sowed [the contents of] the second container, the produce that grows is considered as ordinary produce.⁴⁰
If [the contents of] both containers fall into one mixture of other produce, the mixture is considered *miduma* according to the amount of produce in the smaller container.⁴¹ and the smaller container contained half a *se'ah*, we require the mixture to contain 50 ½ *se'ah* to be permitted, not 101 *se'ah*. If one person sowed both of them,⁴² if the produce is a species where the seed decomposes, the produce that grows is considered as ordinary produce.⁴³If the seed does not decompose, the produce that grows is *miduma.*⁴⁴
When does the above apply? When one sowed [the contents of] the second container before the first batch of produce was harvested.⁴⁵ If, however, he harvested the first batch of produce before sowing the second, the produce that grows is considered as ordinary produce even when the seed does not decompose. [The rationale is that] produce that has been reaped and produce that is growing are not considered as indicators of each other's status.

footnotes:
³⁶ Since we are unsure of the identity of the produce that fell into the mixture, we do not rule it forbidden because of the doubt. Instead, we say that the ordinary produce fell into it.This halachah involves produce that is forbidden as terumah
³⁷ Even if the original was terumah
³⁸ Because of the doubt applying to its status.
³⁹ The same principle applies here. Since we are unsure if the identity of the produce which fell into the mixture, we do not rule that it is forbidden because of the doubt.
⁴⁰ Since each person asks concerning the status of the produce that he sowed individually, both are permitted, because in each instance, there is a doubt.
⁴¹ I.e., if the larger container contained one se'ah
⁴² And thus the same person is asking about both plantings of produce. Hence, there is more room for stringency.
⁴³ Since no trace of the original produce remains, we rule leniently.
⁴⁴ Since the produce concerning which a doubt arose originally continues to exist, stringency is called for.
⁴⁵ For then it is considered as if he sowed them both together.


###### Mishneh Torah, Heave Offerings 13:14
[Mishneh Torah, Heave Offerings 13:14](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Mishneh%20Torah%2C%20Heave%20Offerings/r/13:14)

שְׁתֵּי קֻפּוֹת אַחַת שֶׁל חֻלִּין וְאַחַת שֶׁל תְּרוּמָה וְלִפְנֵיהֶן שְׁתֵּי סְאִין אַחַת שֶׁל חֻלִּין וְאַחַת שֶׁל תְּרוּמָה וְנָפְלוּ אֵלּוּ לְתוֹךְ אֵלּוּ מֻתָּרִין. שֶׁאֲנִי אוֹמֵר חֻלִּין לְתוֹךְ חֻלִּין נָפְלוּ וּתְרוּמָה לְתוֹךְ הַתְּרוּמָה וְאַף עַל פִּי שֶׁלֹּא רַבּוּ חֻלִּין עַל הַתְּרוּמָה. בַּמֶּה דְּבָרִים אֲמוּרִים בִּתְרוּמָה בַּזְּמַן הַזֶּה שֶׁהוּא מִדִּבְרֵיהֶם. אֲבָל בִּתְרוּמָה שֶׁל תּוֹרָה עַד שֶׁיִּרְבּוּ חֻלִּין עַל הַתְּרוּמָה:

**Mishneh Torah, trans. by Eliyahu Touger. Jerusalem, Moznaim Pub. c1986-c2007:**
When there are two containers [of produce], one containing ordinary produce and the other, containing *terumah* and two *se'ah*, one of ordinary produce and one of *terumah*, and both *se'ah* fall into these containers, [one into each], the produce is permitted. We assume that the ordinary produce fell into [the container of] ordinary produce and that the *terumah* fell into [the container of] *terumah*. [This applies] even though the weight of the ordinary produce is not greater than that of the *terumah*.⁴⁶ would already be nullified and thus there would be greater room for leniency. Nevertheless, as the Rambam continues to explain, even when there is not a majority, since the entire question is one of Rabbinic Law, we allow leniency. If, however, there is a majority of *terumah*, even when it is forbidden only according to Rabbinic Law, the mixture is forbidden.
When does the above apply? With regard to *terumah* in the present era, for the requirement is of Rabbinic origin.⁴⁷ If the *terumah* is mandated by Scriptural Law, [the above ruling does not apply unless] the weight of the ordinary produce is greater than that of the *terumah*.⁴⁸ would already be nullified and thus there would be greater room for leniency, since then the question is one of Rabbinic Law. The above leniency applies only with regard to such questions and not to questions involving Scriptural Law.

footnotes:
⁴⁶ But rather they are of the same weight. Were there to be a majority of ordinary produce, according to Scriptural Law, the existence of the terumah
⁴⁷ See Chapter 1, Halachah 26.
⁴⁸ In such an instance, the existence of the terumah


###### Mishneh Torah, Heave Offerings 13:15
[Mishneh Torah, Heave Offerings 13:15](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Mishneh%20Torah%2C%20Heave%20Offerings/r/13:15)

סְאָה תְּרוּמָה שֶׁנָּפְלָה לְתוֹךְ הַכְּרִי וְאָמַר תְּרוּמַת הַכְּרִי זֶה לְתוֹכוֹ בְּמָקוֹם שֶׁנָּפְלָה אוֹתָהּ סְאָה שָׁם נִסְתַיְּמָה תְּרוּמַת הַכְּרִי וְנִדְמַע הַכֹּל בִּתְרוּמָה שֶׁנָּפְלָה וּבִתְרוּמַת הַכְּרִי. אָמַר תְּרוּמַת הַכְּרִי בִּצְפוֹנוֹ חוֹלְקִין אוֹתוֹ לִשְׁנַיִם וְהַחֵצִי שֶׁבַּצָּפוֹן לִשְׁנַיִם וְנִמְצָא רְבִיעַ הַכְּרִי שֶׁהוּא צְפוֹן צְפוֹנִי הוּא הַמְדֻמָּע:

**Mishneh Torah, trans. by Eliyahu Touger. Jerusalem, Moznaim Pub. c1986-c2007:**
When a *se'ah* of *terumah* falls into a grainheap⁴⁹ and the tithes have not been separated. and [the owner] states: "The *terumah* of this grainheap is in its midst," the borders of the *terumah* are defined where the *se'ah* fell and the entire mixture becomes *miduma* because of the *terumah* which fell in and the *terumah* of the grainheap.⁵⁰ which fell in the grainheap would not disqualify it, when it is combined with the *terumah* that was designated it does.
The Ra'avad appears to have had a different version of the Jerusalem Talmud, *Terumot* 3:3, the Rambam's source. Hence he differs with the Rambam's ruling..
If he said: "The *terumah* of the grainheap is in its northern portion,"⁵¹ has fallen into the grainheap. we divide the grainheap in half, and then the northern half in half. Thus the northern most quarter of the grainheap is *miduma*.⁵² in that corner.

footnotes:
⁴⁹ From which terumah
⁵⁰ Though in and of itself, the amount of terumah
⁵¹ This law applies even if no terumah
⁵² Because there is less than one hundred times the weight of the terumah


###### Mishneh Torah, Heave Offerings 13:16
[Mishneh Torah, Heave Offerings 13:16](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Mishneh%20Torah%2C%20Heave%20Offerings/r/13:16)

הָיוּ לְפָנָיו שְׁנֵי כְּרָיִים וְאָמַר תְּרוּמַת שְׁנֵי כְּרָיִים בְּאֶחָד מֵהֶן הֲרֵי שְׁנֵיהֶן מְדֻמָּעִין. הָיוּ לְפָנָיו שְׁתֵּי סְאִין וּכְרִי אֶחָד וְאָמַר הֲרֵי אַחַת מִן הַסְּאִין הָאֵלּוּ עֲשׂוּיָה תְּרוּמָה עַל הַכְּרִי הַזֶּה הֲרֵי אַחַת מֵהֶן תְּרוּמָה וְאֵין יָדוּעַ אֵי זוֹ הִיא. הָיוּ לְפָנָיו שְׁנֵי כְּרָיִים וּסְאָה אַחַת וְאָמַר הֲרֵי זוֹ תְּרוּמָה עַל אֶחָד מִן הַכְּרָיִים הַלָּלוּ הֲרֵי הוּא תְּרוּמָה וְנִתְקַן אֶחָד מֵהֶן וְאֵין יָדוּעַ אֵי זֶה הוּא הַמְתֻקָּן מִן הַטֶּבֶל:

**Mishneh Torah, trans. by Eliyahu Touger. Jerusalem, Moznaim Pub. c1986-c2007:**
If there were two grainheaps before a person and he said: 'The *terumah* for both grainheaps is in one of them," they are both considered *miduma*.⁵³ is certainly *miduma*. Since we do not know which one that is, they are both considered as *miduma*.
If there were two *se'ah* of grain and one grainheap before a person and he said: "One of these *se'ah* is considered *terumah* for this grainheap," one of them is *terumah* and he does not know which.⁵⁴ with regard to both of them. If there were two grainheaps and one *se'ah* before him and he said: "This is *terumah* for one of the grainheaps," [the *se'ah*] is *terumah* and [*terumah* has been separated from] one of the grainheaps, but he does not know which one is no longer *tevel*.⁵⁵ must be separated in a conditional manner. One must bring other produce and say: "If *terumah* has not been separated for this grainheap, than this is *terumah* for it. But if it is the other grainheap from which *terumah* has not been separated, it is *terumah* for that."

footnotes:
⁵³ The one which contains the terumah
⁵⁴ Hence he must observe the restrictions of terumah
⁵⁵ Hence terumah