## Mishneh Torah, Heave Offerings Chapter 5

###### Mishneh Torah, Heave Offerings 5:1
[Mishneh Torah, Heave Offerings 5:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Mishneh%20Torah%2C%20Heave%20Offerings/r/5:1)

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

**Mishneh Torah, trans. by Eliyahu Touger. Jerusalem, Moznaim Pub. c1986-c2007:**
We should separate *terumah* only from the most choice [produce], as [implied by Numbers 18:30]: "When you separate its most choice portion from it."¹, translated as "most choice portion," literally means "fat."
When quoting this law, the *Shulchan Aruch* (*Yoreh De'ah* 331:52) states that in the present age, when *terumah* will be destroyed regardless, there is no need to separate the most choice portions as *terumah*.
See also the Ramban's *Hosafot* to *Sefer HaMitzvot* (Negative Mitzvah 7) which considers the adjuration against separating lower quality produce as *terumah* as one of the Torah's 613 prohibitions. If, however, there is no priest accessible,² will not be able to be given to the priest immediately. one should separate *terumah* from produce that will last³ even though there is more choice produce but it will not last.
What is implied? A person should separate fresh figs as *terumah* for dried figs.⁴ In a place where there are no priests, he should separate dried figs for fresh figs.⁵ If he is accustomed to dry fresh figs, he may separate fresh figs as *terumah* for dried figs even in a place where there is no priest.⁶ In a place where there is a priest, by contrast, dried figs are never separated as *terumah* for fresh figs, even in a place where it is customary to dry fresh figs.

footnotes:
¹ Chelbo
² And thus the terumah
³ I.e., since there is no priest immediately available, it is preferable to separate produce that will not spoil, so that ultimately, it can be given to a priest.
⁴ For fresh figs are tastier and considered as a higher grade produce.
⁵ I.e., since there is no priest immediately available, it is preferable to separate produce that will not spoil, so that ultimately, it can be given to a priest.
⁶ For he will dry the figs himself and prevent them from spoiling before they are given to the priest.


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

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

**Mishneh Torah, trans. by Eliyahu Touger. Jerusalem, Moznaim Pub. c1986-c2007:**
One may separate an entire onion as *terumah* even if it is small,⁷ 2:5)]. but not half an onion, even if it is large in all places.⁸). We do not separate one type of produce as *terumah* for another type of produce, as [implied by Numbers 18:30]: "As grain from the granary and as wine from the vat."⁹ and the produce for which it is being separated must be of the same species. If one made such a separation, it is not considered *terumah*.

footnotes:
⁷ A whole onion is considered more important and choicer than a portion of an onion [the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (Terumot
⁸ I.e., in places where a priest is present or those where he is not present, for a whole onion will keep longer than a cut one (ibid.
⁹ Implied is that the terumah


###### Mishneh Torah, Heave Offerings 5:3
[Mishneh Torah, Heave Offerings 5:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Mishneh%20Torah%2C%20Heave%20Offerings/r/5:3)

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

**Mishneh Torah, trans. by Eliyahu Touger. Jerusalem, Moznaim Pub. c1986-c2007:**
Zucchini and cucumbers are considered as one species.¹⁰ (*Hilchot Kilayim* 3:3). All of the types of wheat are one species. All of the types of figs,¹¹ dried figs, and blocks of figs are one species. [In the above instances,] one may separate *terumah* from one type for the other. [By contrast,] all types of produce which are considered as a mixture of species may not be separated as *terumah* for each other, even when one separates the choicest produce as *terumah* for produce of lesser quality.
What is implied? A person has 50 *se'ah* of wheat and 50 *se'ah* of barley in one building. If he separates two *se'ah* of wheat [as *terumah*] for the entire amount, his separation is not effective.¹² has not been separated even from the wheat alone. The rationale is that separating *terumah* is considered equivalent to taking a vow and if a portion of a vow has been nullified, the entire vow is nullified. When types of produce are not considered as a mixture of species, one may separate the better type as *terumah* for the lesser type, but not the lesser type as *terumah* for the better type. If one did separate [the lesser type of produce as *terumah* for the better type, after the fact,] the separation is effective with one exception. *Zunin*¹³may not be separated as *terumah* for wheat, because it is not used as food for humans.

footnotes:
¹⁰ They are also considered as one species with regard to the prohibition against kilayim
¹¹ I.e., light figs and dark figs.
¹² Because wheat and barley are different species. Moreover, it is considered as if terumah
¹³ A coarse species of wild wheat.


###### Mishneh Torah, Heave Offerings 5:4
[Mishneh Torah, Heave Offerings 5:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Mishneh%20Torah%2C%20Heave%20Offerings/r/5:4)

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

**Mishneh Torah, trans. by Eliyahu Touger. Jerusalem, Moznaim Pub. c1986-c2007:**
We do not separate *terumah* from produce for which all the work [in preparing it] was completed¹⁴ and the tithes falls upon it (see Chapter 1, Halachah 11, and notes). for produce for which the work [in preparing it] is incomplete, from produce for which the work [in preparing it] is incomplete for [other] produce for which the work [in preparing it] is incomplete, nor from produce for which the work [in preparing it] is incomplete for produce for which all the work [in preparing it] was completed.¹⁵ 1:10. [This is also derived from the above prooftext:] "As grain from the granary and as wine from the vat."¹⁶ 331:80 maintains that the law is a Rabbinic decree and the prooftexts are merely *asmachteot*, allusions cited for support. For that reason, after the fact, the separation is effective. [Implied is that *terumah* should be separated from produce] for which [all work] was completed for similar produce. If, however, one separated *terumah* [in any of the above instances], the separation is effective [after the fact].¹⁷

footnotes:
¹⁴ At which point the obligation to separate terumah
¹⁵ The commentaries note that the order of the clauses employed by the Rambam deviates slightly from the order of his source, Terumot
¹⁶ The Rambam and previous Rabbinic sources cite several prooftexts for this law. Nevertheless, the Siftei Cohen
¹⁷ See Halachot 18-20 for more particulars concerning this issue.


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

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

**Mishneh Torah, trans. by Eliyahu Touger. Jerusalem, Moznaim Pub. c1986-c2007:**
When should *terumah* be separated from a granary? When the kernels are separated.¹⁸ If a person separated part [of the grain], he may designate the kernels he separated as *terumah* for the produce that was not separated. When one brings stalks of grain into his home to eat husked grain, he should separate *terumah* while the grain is in the stalks.¹⁹

footnotes:
¹⁸ When the grain has been threshed and winnowed and then the kernels separated from the chaff. Different commentaries suggest a slight change in the Rambam's wording which would cause the produce to be considered as complete at an earlier stage.
¹⁹ Because they will not be processed any further.


###### Mishneh Torah, Heave Offerings 5:6
[Mishneh Torah, Heave Offerings 5:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Mishneh%20Torah%2C%20Heave%20Offerings/r/5:6)

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

**Mishneh Torah, trans. by Eliyahu Touger. Jerusalem, Moznaim Pub. c1986-c2007:**
When should *terumah* be separated from a vat? When [the treaders] have walked horizontally and vertically over the grapes.²⁰
When should one separate *terumah* from olives? When [the beam of the press] is placed upon them.²¹

footnotes:
²⁰ For then, the wine has been separated from the grapes.
²¹ For then, the oil has been separated from the olives.


###### Mishneh Torah, Heave Offerings 5:7
[Mishneh Torah, Heave Offerings 5:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Mishneh%20Torah%2C%20Heave%20Offerings/r/5:7)

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

**Mishneh Torah, trans. by Eliyahu Touger. Jerusalem, Moznaim Pub. c1986-c2007:**
We should not separate *terumah* from ritually pure produce for produce that is not ritually pure.²² 2:1) derives this concept from the prooftext cited above: "As grain from the granary and as wine from the vat." It is impossible that a vat will be partially pure and partially impure, so, too, *terumah* and the produce for which it is being separated must be either pure or impure." If, however, one separated *terumah* [in this manner], the separation is effective [after the fact].
It is a halachah conveyed to Moses at Sinai that when a portion of a cake of dried figs has become impure, we may separate *terumah* from the pure portion of it for the impure portion of it as an initial preference.²³ 2:1), the Rambam explains the rationale for this law. Since the cake of figs is made from several discrete elements, it is not considered as a single entity with regard to the laws of ritual impurity. Hence, the fact that one portion has been touched by a source of ritual impurity does not cause another portion to become impure. Nevertheless, since it is one body of produce, *terumah* can be separated from one portion for the other. This applies not only to a cake of dried figs which appears as one mass, but also to a bundle of vegetables and even a mound of wheat.²⁴; see also *Hilchot Tuma'at Ochalin* 6:14). If a portion of it became impure, one may separate *terumah* from the pure portion for the impure portion.
If, however, there were two cakes of dried figs, two bundles of vegetables, or two mounds of wheat, one impure and one pure at its side, as an initial preference, one should not separate *terumah* from the produce that is pure for the produce that is impure.²⁵). After the fact, however, the separation is acceptable. One may, however, separate *terumat ma'aser* from produce that is pure for produce that is impure as an initial preference. [This is derived from Numbers 18:29:] "its sacred portion from it." [Implied is that] one should take from the sacred portion in it.²⁶, it is possible that there be a "sacred." i.e., pure, portion, and a portion that is not "sacred," i.e., impure, and the pure should be separated for the impure. As stated at the conclusion of ch. 3, the produce separated as *terumat ma'aser* need not be located together with the produce for which it is being separated.

footnotes:
²² The Jerusalem Talmud (Terumot
²³ In his Commentary to the Mishnah (Terumot
²⁴ In these instances as well, since the whole is made up of discrete entities, the fact that they are connected or somewhat associated is not of consequence (ibid.
²⁵ For the two are not considered as being "in the same place" (min hamukaf
²⁶ The verse indicates that when one is separating terumat ma'aser


###### Mishneh Torah, Heave Offerings 5:8
[Mishneh Torah, Heave Offerings 5:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Mishneh%20Torah%2C%20Heave%20Offerings/r/5:8)

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

**Mishneh Torah, trans. by Eliyahu Touger. Jerusalem, Moznaim Pub. c1986-c2007:**
We may not separate produce that is ritually impure as *terumah* for produce that is ritually pure.²⁷ If one made such a separation inadvertently, the portion separated is *terumah*.²⁸ 2:2), the Rambam explains that this is speaking about a situation where initially, at the time the obligation to separate *terumah* took effect, the produce separated as *terumah* was pure. If, however, it became impure before the work associated with its preparation was completed, even if it was inadvertently separated as *terumah*, the separation is not effective. If one made the separation intentionally, he did not fulfill the obligation for the remainder [of the produce], but [the produce] separated is *terumah*. He must separate *terumah* a second time.
When does the above apply? When he did not know of the impurity. If, however, he knew of the impurity, but erred in that he thought it was permitted to separate produce that is ritually impure as *terumah* for produce that is ritually pure, he is considered as if he acted intentionally.²⁹ Similar laws apply with regard to *terumat ma'aser*.

footnotes:
²⁷ The Radbaz states that this is a Rabbinic decree instituted so that the priest will not suffer a loss.
²⁸ For according to Scriptural Law, the separation is effective. In his Commentary to the Mishnah (Terumot
²⁹ And he must make another separation.


###### Mishneh Torah, Heave Offerings 5:9
[Mishneh Torah, Heave Offerings 5:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Mishneh%20Torah%2C%20Heave%20Offerings/r/5:9)

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

**Mishneh Torah, trans. by Eliyahu Touger. Jerusalem, Moznaim Pub. c1986-c2007:**
We may not separate produce that is still attached to the earth as *terumah* for produce that has already been detached.³⁰ derives this from the exegesis of Numbers 18:26: "And you shall separate from it...." Since the produce is still attached to the earth, it is not considered as the same type as the produce which is detached. Nor may produce that has already been detached be separated as *terumah* for produce that is still attached to the earth.
What is implied? A person had produce that was detached and said: "This produce will be *terumah* for this produce which is attached to the earth" - and even if he said "...when [the attached produce] is detached,"³¹. Ordinarily, if a person separated *terumah* from produce belonging to him for produce that does not belong to him, his separation is valid, as stated in Chapter 4, Halachah 2. In this instance, however, since the attached produce does not belong to him and he has no control of when it will be detached, he does not have the potential to designate his own produce as *terumah* for it. his words are of no consequence. [This ruling also applies] if he possessed two rows [of produce] and said: "The produce of this row which is detached will be *terumah* for this row which is attached," or "The produce of this row which is attached will be *terumah* for this row which is detached."
[Diferent rules apply should] he say: "The produce of this row which is detached will be *terumah* for this row when it will be detached," if [the produce] is [later] detached - since it is within his potential to detach it³² - when they are both detached, his words are binding, provided both [types of produce] had attained at least a third of their standard size³³, as stated in Chapter 2, Halachah 10. Therefore, even if one separated *terumah* for it, the separation is not effective. at the time he made his statements.

footnotes:
³⁰ The Sifri
³¹ To reconcile the apparent contradiction between the Rambam's ruling here and that in the following clause, the commentaries explain that here we are speaking of attached produce that does not belong to the person who wishes to separate terumah
³² This is his own produce which he is allowed to detach.
³³ For until produce reaches this size, there is no obligation to separate terumah


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

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

**Mishneh Torah, trans. by Eliyahu Touger. Jerusalem, Moznaim Pub. c1986-c2007:**
We may not separate fresh produce as *terumah* for dried produce, nor dried produce as *terumah* for fresh produce. If, however, one made such a separation, it is effective.³⁴ 331:83 states that this is a Rabbinic decree, enacted as a safeguard so that one will not separate produce from one type over another. Hence, after the fact, the separation is effective.
What is implied? One reaped a type of vegetable one day and then reaped the same [type of vegetable] the following day. One may not separate one as *terumah* for the other unless this vegetable remains fresh for two days. Similarly, if a vegetable usually remains fresh for three days, e.g., cucumbers, all [of that type of vegetable] that are harvested for three days may be joined together and *terumah* may be separated from one for the other. When a type of vegetable remains fresh for only one day and one harvested some in the morning and some in the evening, one may separate one as *terumah* for the other.

footnotes:
³⁴ The Siftei Cohen


###### Mishneh Torah, Heave Offerings 5:11
[Mishneh Torah, Heave Offerings 5:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Mishneh%20Torah%2C%20Heave%20Offerings/r/5:11)

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

**Mishneh Torah, trans. by Eliyahu Touger. Jerusalem, Moznaim Pub. c1986-c2007:**
One may not separate produce from the present year as *terumah* for produce of the previous year,³⁵ 14b). As the Rambam proceeds to explain, a Scriptural decree causes such produce to be considered as a discrete entity, distinct from the same type of produce harvested in the present year. nor may one separate produce from the previous year as *terumah* for produce of the present year. If one made such a separation, it is not effective,³⁶ as [indicated by Deuteronomy 14:22]: "From year to year."³⁷.
In his Commentary to the Mishnah (*Terumot* 1:5), the Rambam cites a different prooftext for the derivation of this principle.Thus if one harvested a vegetable on the day preceding Rosh HaShanah before sunset and harvested another after sunset, one may not separate *terumah* from one for the other. For one is considered "old" and the other, "new."
Similarly, if one harvested an esrog³⁸ were eaten as fruit, not only used for the mitzvah on Sukkot. on the day before the fifteenth of Shvat on the evening before sunset and harvested another one after sunset [that day], one may not separate *terumah* from one for the other.³⁹ is singled out, because unlike other fruit, the time when it is picked - and not the time it reaches the stage of development when we are required to separate the tithes - determines the year of the agricultural cycle we follow. See *Hilchot Ma'aser Sheni* 1:1-4. [The rationale is that] the first of Tishrei is the Rosh HaShanah for tithing grain, legumes, and vegetables and the fifteenth of Shvat is Rosh HaShanah for tithing [of the produce] of trees.

footnotes:
³⁵ To clarify the point under discussion in this halachah: As indicated by the concluding phrase of the halachah, "produce from the previous year" does not necessarily mean produce that is a year old. Instead, every Rosh HaShanah, the year of the agricultural cycle changes with regard to vegetables (Rosh HaShanah
³⁶ Even after the fact.
³⁷ In its entirety, the verse reads: "Tithe all the crops of your sowing produced by the field, year by year." Implied is an exclusion: that the produce of each year is a separate entity. Although the verse refers to the tithes, the same principles also apply to terumah
³⁸ In that era, esrogim
³⁹ An esrog


###### Mishneh Torah, Heave Offerings 5:12
[Mishneh Torah, Heave Offerings 5:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Mishneh%20Torah%2C%20Heave%20Offerings/r/5:12)

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

**Mishneh Torah, trans. by Eliyahu Touger. Jerusalem, Moznaim Pub. c1986-c2007:**
We may not separate produce from *Eretz [Yisrael]* as *terumah* for produce of the Diaspora, nor may produce of the Diaspora be separated for produce from *Eretz Yisrael*,⁴⁰ 1:5), the Rambam explains that this concept is derived from Leviticus 27:30: "All the tithes of the land from the plantings of the land." Implied is that both the tithes and the produce must be from "the land," from *Eretz Yisrael*. Although the verse speaks of the tithes, the principle derived is also applied to *terumah*. nor may produce of *Eretz Yisrael* be separated for produce from Syria, and nor may produce of Syria be separated for produce from *Eretz Yisrael*.⁴¹
Similarly, [we may not separate *terumah*] from produce for which *terumah* need not be separated, e.g., *leket, shichachah*, and *pe'ah*⁴² or from produce from which *terumah* was already separated for produce for which *terumah* must be separated. Nor may we separate *terumah* from produce for which *terumah* must be separated for produce for which there is no obligation.⁴³ was separated, the separation is not of consequence. [Even] if the *terumah* was separated, the separation is not of consequence.

footnotes:
⁴⁰ In his Commentary to the Mishnah (Terumot
⁴¹ For according to Scriptural Law, Syria is also part of the Diaspora.
⁴² See Chapter 2, Halachah 9.
⁴³ In this instance, the fundamental point the Rambam is emphasizing is the following clause: that even if the terumah


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

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

**Mishneh Torah, trans. by Eliyahu Touger. Jerusalem, Moznaim Pub. c1986-c2007:**
When a person separates *terumah* [for other produce] from produce that was designated as the first tithe, but from which its *terumah*⁴⁴, the *terumah* that must be separated from the tithes. had not been separated⁴⁵ 1:5, Rav Kapach's edition), the Rambam explains that this is referring to a situation in which a Levite took produce that he had been given as tithes by an Israelite, but from which he had not separated *terumat ma'aser* and desired to use it to separate *terumah* for produce from his own field from which he is obligated to separate *terumah*. This is unacceptable, because there is no longer any obligation to separate *terumah* from the produce given as tithes, even though there is an obligation to separate *terumat ma'aser* from it.
This explanation is somewhat unique. Most commentaries interpret the mishnah as referring to a situation where the person tithed his crop, but did not separate *terumah* from it. Nor did he separate *terumat ma'aser*. Afterwards, he desired to separate *terumah* for other produce from the tithes. The Rambam's interpretation avoids several difficulties that arise according to the other approach. or from produce which was designated as the second tithe⁴⁶ or that had been consecrated,⁴⁷ or the tithes from it. but which had not been redeemed, the separation is not effective.⁴⁸ that has not been separated.) The Ra'avad raises objections to the Rambam's ruling. The Radbaz and the *Kessef Mishneh* respond to them. If, however, they would have followed the Rambam's explanation in his Commentary to the Mishnah as explained above, the difficulties would not arise.

footnotes:
⁴⁴ I.e., terumah ma'aser
⁴⁵ In his Commentary to the Mishnah (Terumot
⁴⁶ Produce separated as the second tithe must be eaten in Jerusalem in a state of ritual purity. It is not considered as the person's private property.
⁴⁷ Since it is consecrated, there is no obligation to separate terumah
⁴⁸ In all these instances, the produce that is being separated is holy and is not the owner's individual property. (For even the tithes which the Levites own have a dimension of holiness to them, because of the terumat ma'aser


###### Mishneh Torah, Heave Offerings 5:14
[Mishneh Torah, Heave Offerings 5:14](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Mishneh%20Torah%2C%20Heave%20Offerings/r/5:14)

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

**Mishneh Torah, trans. by Eliyahu Touger. Jerusalem, Moznaim Pub. c1986-c2007:**
We may not separate *terumah* from produce for which we are required to separate *terumah* according to Scriptural Law for produce for which we are required to separate *terumah* [only] according to Rabbinic Law,⁴⁹ from this produce. Hence, it is as if one is separating *terumah* from produce obligated in *terumah* for produce for which there is no obligation. The *Kessef Mishneh* explains that this general principle is derived from the law quoted in the following halachah. nor from produce for which we are required to separate *terumah* [only] according to Rabbinic Law for produce for which we are required to separate *terumah* according to Scriptural Law.⁵⁰ from produce for which there is no obligation to separate *terumah*, for produce for which such an obligation exists. If one separated *terumah* [in the above instance], the produce separated is considered as *terumah*,⁵¹ but he must separate *terumah* again [for the obligation incumbent on this produce to be fulfilled].⁵², this applies only to the second clause. The laws regarding the situation described in the first clause are explained in Halachah 16.
In the situation described in the second clause, the priest is allowed to partake of the produce, for although according to Scriptural Law, the separation is insignificant, there is no difficulty in having the priest partake of the produce for there is no obligation incumbent upon it.

footnotes:
⁴⁹ According to Scriptural Law, there is no obligation to separate terumah
⁵⁰ For this is as if one is separating terumah
⁵¹ This is a Rabbinic stringency. According to Scriptural Law, the separation is of no consequence at all.
⁵² According to the Radbaz and the Kessef Mishneh


###### Mishneh Torah, Heave Offerings 5:15
[Mishneh Torah, Heave Offerings 5:15](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Mishneh%20Torah%2C%20Heave%20Offerings/r/5:15)

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

**Mishneh Torah, trans. by Eliyahu Touger. Jerusalem, Moznaim Pub. c1986-c2007:**
A flowerpot with a hole is considered as [connected] to the earth.⁵³ How large must the hole be [for this law to apply]? Large enough for a small root to pass through it.⁵⁴ from produce which grows within such a flowerpot according to Scriptural Law [the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (*Demai* 5:10)]. This is smaller than an olive.
[The following rules apply when a person] planted grain in a flowerpot that did not have a hole and it reached a third of its maturity.⁵⁵ from it according to Scriptural Law (*ibid.*). Here a question arises, because the flowerpot was perforated afterwards. The Rambam clarifies that as long as the produce reaches a third of its growth, the point at which we are obligated to separate *terumah*, under conditions in which we are not obligated to separate *terumah*, an obligation is not incurred even though afterwards, those conditions change. See Halachah 9; see also Chapter 1, Halachot 11-13. Afterwards, he perforated [the flowerpot]⁵⁶ and the grain completed [its growth] while [the flowerpot] was perforated. It is, [nevertheless,] considered as if it grew in [a flowerpot] without a hole. [This ruling changes] only when [the flowerpot] was perforated before [the grain] reached a third of its maturity.

footnotes:
⁵³ Because the nurture from the power of growth in the earth is drawn to the earth in the flowerpot through the hole. This concept is relevant not only in this particular context, but in many others.
⁵⁴ For then it can be considered to have derived nurture from the earth through its root. Hence, we are obligated to separate terumah
⁵⁵ If produce grows in a flowerpot without a hole, there is no obligation to separate terumah
⁵⁶ And thus enabled the produce to derive nurture from the earth.


###### Mishneh Torah, Heave Offerings 5:16
[Mishneh Torah, Heave Offerings 5:16](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Mishneh%20Torah%2C%20Heave%20Offerings/r/5:16)

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

**Mishneh Torah, trans. by Eliyahu Touger. Jerusalem, Moznaim Pub. c1986-c2007:**
When a person separates *terumah* from produce which grows in the earth for produce that grows in a perforated flowerpot or from produce which grows in a perforated flowerpot for produce which grows in the earth, the separation is effective.⁵⁷ from both sets of produce according to Scriptural Law.
If he separates *terumah* from [produce growing] in a [flowerpot] that was not perforated for [produce growing] in a perforated [flowerpot], the produce separated is considered as *terumah*,⁵⁸ but he must separate *terumah* again.⁵⁹ as stated in Halachah 14.
If he separates *terumah* from [produce growing] in a perforated [flowerpot] for [produce growing] in a [flowerpot] that was not perforated, the produce separated is considered as *terumah*. [Nevertheless, the priest to whom it was given] should not partake of it until [the owner] separates *terumah* and tithes for [the portion separated] from other produce.⁶⁰ is not effective according to Scriptural Law. Hence, according to Scriptural Law, not only is this produce not *terumah*, it remains *tevel*, produce from which *terumah* and the tithes were not separated. Although our Sages ruled stringently and determined that it must be considered as *terumah*, they did not change its status as *tevel*. Hence, for the priest to partake of it, it is necessary that he separate *terumah* and tithes for it from other produce [see the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (*Demai* 5:10)].
The *terumah* and the tithes for this produce must be separated from other produce, lest one think that what remains is ordinary produce and can be eaten be a person other than a priest (*Tosafot, Yevamot* 89b).

footnotes:
⁵⁷ For in both instances, we are obligated to separate terumah
⁵⁸ This is a Rabbinic decree, as stated in Halachah 14 and notes.
⁵⁹ In order to fulfill the obligation of terumah
⁶⁰ The setting aside of the produce as terumah


###### Mishneh Torah, Heave Offerings 5:17
[Mishneh Torah, Heave Offerings 5:17](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Mishneh%20Torah%2C%20Heave%20Offerings/r/5:17)

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

**Mishneh Torah, trans. by Eliyahu Touger. Jerusalem, Moznaim Pub. c1986-c2007:**
When a person separates *terumat [ma'aser]* from produce that is *demai*⁶¹ refers to produce concerning which we are uncertain whether the tithes were separated from it or not. According to Rabbinic Law, we are required to separate *terumat ma'aser*, *terumah* which the Levites are required to separate from the tithes from such produce (see *Hilchot Ma'aserot*, Chapter 9). for other produce that is *demai* or from produce that is *demai* for produce from which we are certain that the tithes were not separated, the produce separated is considered as *terumat [ma'aser]*.⁶², because it is possible that previously tithes and *terumat ma'aser* had been separated from the produce that was *demai*. Were that to be the case, one would be separating *terumat ma'aser* from produce for which one is obligated to make a separation from produce for which no such obligation exists. See the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (*loc. cit.*). [Nevertheless,] he should separate *terumah* again for each type of produce individually.⁶³ is not effective, the owner must make a second separation.
In this instance, the priest is allowed to partake of the produce given him. The rationale is that in the second instance, when one separates *terumat ma'aser* from produce that is *demai* for produce from which we are certain that the tithes were not separated, the priest is certainly allowed to partake of the produce given him. If *terumat ma'aser* had not been separated from such produce previously, it is being made at present. And if it had been made previously, according to Scriptural Law, the produce to be given the priest is ordinary produce that may be consumed.
If the separation was made from produce that is *demai* for other produce that is *demai*, there is a difficulty, for it is possible that a separation had previously been made for the produce for which the *terumat ma'aser* is being separated, but not from the produce from which the separation is being made at present. Since such a separation is invalid according to Scriptural Law, in such an instance, the priest is being given produce from which tithes and *terumat ma'aser* have not been separated. Nevertheless, since the majority of the people do in fact separate tithes and the prohibition of *demai* is just a stringency, in this instance, our Sages were lenient (Rabbi Akiva Eiger).
When he separates *terumah* from produce from which we are certain that the tithes were not separated for produce that is *demai*, the produce separated is considered as *terumat [ma'aser]*.⁶⁴ [Nevertheless, the priest to whom it was given] should not partake of it until [the owner] separates *terumah* and tithes for [the portion separated].⁶⁵ is not effective - as would be the case if a separation had been made from the produce classified as *demai* - there is an obligation to separate *terumat ma'aser* from the produce being separated as *terumat ma'aser*. Hence, until that separation is made, the priest is forbidden to partake of the produce given him.
There is, however, a difference between this halachah and the previous one. In the previous instance, the separation had to be made from other produce, while in this instance, the separation can be made from the produce given to the priest. In the previous instance, care had to be taken because of the impression that might be created, i.e., an onlooker might not realize that there is a Rabbinic obligation to separate *terumot* and tithes from produce growing in a flowerpot that is not perforated. No such difficulty exists in this instance, because the obligations incumbent on *demai* are well known. See the gloss of Ra'avad to *Hilchot Ma'aser* 13:19.

footnotes:
⁶¹ The term demai
⁶² By Rabbinic decree. According to Scriptural Law, the produce separated is not terumat ma'aser
⁶³ Since it is possible that the separation of the terumat ma'aser
⁶⁴ This is a Rabbinic stringency as mentioned above.
⁶⁵ For as in the previous halachah, if the original separation of terumat ma'aser


###### Mishneh Torah, Heave Offerings 5:18
[Mishneh Torah, Heave Offerings 5:18](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Mishneh%20Torah%2C%20Heave%20Offerings/r/5:18)

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

**Mishneh Torah, trans. by Eliyahu Touger. Jerusalem, Moznaim Pub. c1986-c2007:**
We may not separate stalks of grain as *terumah* for kernels of grain, olives [as *terumah*] for oil, or grapes [as *terumah*] for wine.⁶⁶ If one made such a separation, it is not effective.⁶⁷ This is a decree [enacted] lest one cause the priest to undertake the difficulty of treading [on the grapes] or pressing [the olives].
One may, however, separate oil as *terumah* for olives that are being pickled⁶⁸ or wine as *terumah* for grapes that are being dried as raisins. What does this resemble? To separating *terumah* from two species that are not considered *kilayim*, separating from the good for the bad.⁶⁹
Similarly, one may separate *terumah* from olives from which oil will be squeezed⁷⁰ 2:6), the Rambam explains that the Hebrew terms refers to olives that contain much oil and their oil is of high quality. for olives that will be pickled,⁷¹ from higher quality produce for lower quality produce which is permitted as stated above. but not from olives that will be pickled for olives from which oil will be squeezed.⁷² from lower quality produce for higher quality produce which is forbidden as an initial preference, as stated in Halachah 3. [One may separate *terumah*] from wine that has not been boiled for wine that has been boiled,⁷³ from higher quality produce for lower quality produce. but not from [wine] that has been boiled for [wine] that has not been boiled. [One may separate *terumah*] from [wine that is] clear⁷⁴ for [wine that is] not clear, but not from [wine that is] not clear for wine [that is] clear.
[One may separate *terumah*] from a specific number of fresh figs for a specific number of dried figs⁷⁵ and from a measure of dried figs for a measure of fresh figs,⁷⁶ but not from a measure of fresh figs for a measure of dried figs, nor for a specific number of dried figs for a specific number of fresh figs. [The rationale for all the above is that] one should always separate *terumah* in a generous manner.⁷⁷
One may separate *terumah* from kernels of wheat for bread,⁷⁸ but not from bread for kernels of wheat according to the appropriate calculations.⁷⁹ In all the above situations, if one separated *terumah* [when it was stated that one should not], the separation is effective.⁸⁰ (*loc. cit.*:63) states that in the present era when the produce separated as *terumah* is discarded, there is no need to show these precautions.

footnotes:
⁶⁶ This applies even if one separates a measure of produce sufficient to produce the said quantity of wheat, wine, or oil.
⁶⁷ The Radbaz states that, after the fact, if a priest agrees to accept such produce, the separation is acceptable, for there are times when one will consider that preferable.
⁶⁸ But have not been squeezed yet.
⁶⁹ This is permissible as stated in Halachah 3.
⁷⁰ In his Commentary to the Mishnah (Terumot
⁷¹ I.e., these olives have little oil. Hence, they are set aside to be used for pickling. Thus making such a separation would be considered as separating terumah
⁷² For this is considered as separating terumah
⁷³ Boiling detracts from wine's flavor. Hence, one is separating terumah
⁷⁴ I.e., does not have dregs suspended in it.
⁷⁵ When a priest is present and he is being given the figs, fresh figs are obviously considered as more desirable than dried figs.
⁷⁶ For the measure of dried figs will be more compact than that of fresh figs. Thus the priest will be receiving a greater quantity of fruit.
⁷⁷ E.g., giving and produce of a higher quality or giving more ample portions.
⁷⁸ Kernels of wheat are considered as having an advantage over grain, because a) one can use them for whatever purposes one desires, and b) they store longer than grain.
⁷⁹ i.e., how many kernels of wheat it would take to produce this quantity of bread.
⁸⁰ As stated in Halachah 3. The Shulchan Aruch


###### Mishneh Torah, Heave Offerings 5:19
[Mishneh Torah, Heave Offerings 5:19](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Mishneh%20Torah%2C%20Heave%20Offerings/r/5:19)

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

**Mishneh Torah, trans. by Eliyahu Touger. Jerusalem, Moznaim Pub. c1986-c2007:**
We do not separate *terumah* from oil for olives that are being pressed, nor [do we separate *terumah*] from wine for grapes that are being tread, for this resembles separating *terumah* from produce for which all work has been completed for produce for which the work has not been completed.⁸¹ should not be separated in such an instance and did not see the need for an additional safeguard. In this situation, since work with that produce has already begun, they felt that a safeguard was necessary (*Rambam LeAm*). Other commentaries offer different rationales for the difference in the rulings. If he did separate *terumah* [in such a situation], the produce separated is considered as *terumah*, but he must separate *terumah* from the olives and the grapes from them themselves.⁸² a second time for that oil or wine [the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (*Terumot* 1:8)].
[When mixed with other produce,] the first creates a situation of *dimua*⁸³ and ordinary produce, as mentioned in Chapter 13, Halachah 2. alone.⁸⁴ One who eats it is liable for it, as one is liable [for partaking] of other *terumah* that is clearly defined as such.⁸⁵ This does not apply with regard to the second *terumah* [separated].⁸⁶ only as a result of Rabbinic decree.

footnotes:
⁸¹ See Halachah 4 above. In the situation described in that halachah, the person is not required to make a second separation, because our Sages felt that people understood that terumah
⁸² I.e., after he completed pressing the olives or treading the grapes, he should separate terumah
⁸³ A mixture of terumah
⁸⁴ I.e., even if it is not mixed with the produce separated a second time in contrast to the situation described in Halachah 22. The rationale is that, in this instance, after the fact, the first separation is effective, as stated in Halachah 4 above.
⁸⁵ See Chapter 6, Halachah 6.
⁸⁶ For it is terumah


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

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

**Mishneh Torah, trans. by Eliyahu Touger. Jerusalem, Moznaim Pub. c1986-c2007:**
When a person separated oil as *terumah* for olives that he intended to eat or he separated olives for olives when he intended to eat the entire quantity and then changed his mind and decided to press the olives [for oil] and indeed pressed them after separating *terumah* for them, he is not required to separate *terumah* again.⁸⁷ was separated, the work associated with this produce was completed according to his intent at that time [the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (*Terumot* 1:9)]. Although he changed his mind, we do not penalize him for making such a decision (Radbaz). [This law also applies if] one separated wine for grapes that he intended to eat or grapes for grapes when he intended to eat the entire quantity and then changed his mind and decided to tread the grapes for wine and indeed had them tread upon after separating *terumah* for them.

footnotes:
⁸⁷ For at the time the terumah


###### Mishneh Torah, Heave Offerings 5:21
[Mishneh Torah, Heave Offerings 5:21](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Mishneh%20Torah%2C%20Heave%20Offerings/r/5:21)

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

**Mishneh Torah, trans. by Eliyahu Touger. Jerusalem, Moznaim Pub. c1986-c2007:**
We do not separate vinegar as *terumah* for wine,⁸⁸ but we may separate wine as *terumah* for vinegar, for wine and vinegar are one type of produce.⁸⁹ If one had the intent of separating wine for wine and it was discovered that what he separated was vinegar, the separation is not effective.⁹⁰ (*Kessef Mishneh*). If one had the intent of separating vinegar for vinegar and it was discovered that what he separated was wine, the separation is effective.⁹¹ (*Kessef Mishneh*; *Siftei Cohen* 331:95).

footnotes:
⁸⁸ For this is equivalent to separating produce of inferior quality for produce of superior quality which should not be done at the outset, as stated in Halachah 3. Nevertheless, if one made such a separation, after the fact, the separation s effective.
⁸⁹ For when wine sours, it becomes vinegar.
⁹⁰ For his separation was made in error and the error lowers the quality of the terumah
⁹¹ For in this instance, his error improves the quality of the terumah


###### Mishneh Torah, Heave Offerings 5:22
[Mishneh Torah, Heave Offerings 5:22](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Mishneh%20Torah%2C%20Heave%20Offerings/r/5:22)

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

**Mishneh Torah, trans. by Eliyahu Touger. Jerusalem, Moznaim Pub. c1986-c2007:**
[The following rules apply when a person] separates a barrel of wine as *terumah* for wine and it is discovered to be vinegar. If it was known to be vinegar before it was separated, the separation is not effective.⁹². If, however, he intended to separate vinegar, the separation is effective after the fact (Radbaz). If it became vinegar after it was designated as *terumah*, the separation is effective.⁹³ If there is a doubt, the separation is effective,⁹⁴ but he should make a second separation.⁹⁵ The same laws apply when one separates squash as *terumah* and it is discovered to be bitter or one separates a watermelon as *terumah* and it has become spoiled⁹⁶ 3:1)]. or perforated.⁹⁷ If he separated a barrel of wine as *terumah* and it was discovered to have been left open in which instance, it is forbidden to drink it,⁹⁸ 12:2). it is *terumah*, but he should make a second separation.⁹⁹ was separated or not.
[In all these situations, when mixed with other produce,] neither of the two [portions separated as *terumah*] creates a situation of *dimua* alone.¹⁰⁰. Nor is a person who eats only one of the two obligated to pay a fifth.¹⁰¹ inadvertently, as stated in Chapter 6, Halachah 6.

footnotes:
⁹² As in the previous halachah, this is speaking about an instance where the person had the intent of separating wine as terumah
⁹³ For at the time of the separation, wine was separated as the person intended. The fact that it soured afterwards is not his responsibility.
⁹⁴ Because of the doubt involved. Perhaps it had not become sour at the time it was separated and the first separation was effective.
⁹⁵ For perhaps it was sour before the first separation was made and thus the separation was not effective.
⁹⁶ I.e., its contents are not fit for consumption [the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (Terumot
⁹⁷ In which instance, we fear that the holes were made by a poisonous snake which deposited its venom in the watermelon.
⁹⁸ Because of the danger involved. We fear that perhaps a poisonous snake or the like deposited venom in it (Hilchot Rotzeach UShemirat Nefesh
⁹⁹ This appears to be speaking about a situation in which he is unsure when the snake drank from the wine before the terumah
¹⁰⁰ I.e., since we are unsure which of the separations is effective, neither alone is considered as terumah
¹⁰¹ As is required when one partakes of terumah


###### Mishneh Torah, Heave Offerings 5:23
[Mishneh Torah, Heave Offerings 5:23](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Mishneh%20Torah%2C%20Heave%20Offerings/r/5:23)

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

**Mishneh Torah, trans. by Eliyahu Touger. Jerusalem, Moznaim Pub. c1986-c2007:**
What is implied? If one [of the two portions separated as *terumah*] fell into ordinary produce, it does not cause it to be considered as *dimua*. If the other [portion] fell into other produce, it does not cause it to be considered as *dimua*.¹⁰², since we do not know which one, we rule leniently with regard to both. If, however, both fell into the same produce, it is considered as *dimua* according to the size of the smaller of the two.¹⁰³ has obviously become mixed with the ordinary produce. Nevertheless, since we do not know which of the two is *terumah*, we require him to be concerned only with the smaller amount.
Similarly, if a person other than a priest ate both of them, he should make restitution for the smaller one and its additional fifth.¹⁰⁴ inadvertently, as stated in Chapter 6, Halachah 6. What should he do with the two [portions separated]?¹⁰⁵, because he does not have a definite obligation to give either to a priest. He should give them to one priest and take the value of the greater portion from him.¹⁰⁶ is less than that than he would pay for ordinary produce.

footnotes:
¹⁰² Although one of the two is obviously dimua
¹⁰³ In this instance, the terumah
¹⁰⁴ As is required when one partakes of terumah
¹⁰⁵ Although both must be considered as terumah
¹⁰⁶ For he is obligated to give at least the value of the smaller portion to the priest; for the remainder the priest must pay. Nevertheless, the price he pays for produce designated as terumah


###### Mishneh Torah, Heave Offerings 5:24
[Mishneh Torah, Heave Offerings 5:24](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Mishneh%20Torah%2C%20Heave%20Offerings/r/5:24)

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

**Mishneh Torah, trans. by Eliyahu Touger. Jerusalem, Moznaim Pub. c1986-c2007:**
[The following rules apply when a person] checks a barrel [of wine]¹⁰⁷ and then leaves it to separate *terumah* [from it] on other [wine] until it becomes *terumah* in its entirety, [at which point,] he would give it to the priest.¹⁰⁸ for all the wine that he would continue to produce until the barrel became *terumah* in its entirety. After a certain time, he checked the barrel again and discovered that it had become vinegar.¹⁰⁹ would not be effective, as stated above. [We rule that the wine] certainly remained wine for three days after the inspection. [The obligations for *terumah*] have certainly been met for all of the wine for which he considered the wine in the barrel as its *terumah* during those [three days]. From that time afterwards, there is a doubt [whether the wine had already turned to vinegar] and a second separation [of *terumah*] must be made.¹¹⁰

footnotes:
¹⁰⁷ To make sure that it had not become vinegar.
¹⁰⁸ I.e., the person took a barrel of wine and set it aside with the intent that he would consider an appropriate measure of wine from it as terumah
¹⁰⁹ Thus there is a question regarding the status of the produce that he separated previously. For if the barrel had become vinegar earlier, the separation of terumah
¹¹⁰ As explained above.


###### Mishneh Torah, Heave Offerings 5:25
[Mishneh Torah, Heave Offerings 5:25](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Mishneh%20Torah%2C%20Heave%20Offerings/r/5:25)

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

**Mishneh Torah, trans. by Eliyahu Touger. Jerusalem, Moznaim Pub. c1986-c2007:**
At three times [during the year], it is necessary to check the wine that one set aside to separate *terumah* from¹¹¹ for all the wine that he would continue to produce until the barrel became *terumah* in its entirety. lest it have become vinegar. They are: When the east wind blows after the Sukkos holiday, when grapes form,¹¹² when fluid begins to enter the unripened grapes.¹¹³ [When one has wine] from the vat,¹¹⁴ he may use it for the separation [of *terumah*] for 40 days with the presumption that it is still wine.¹¹⁵

footnotes:
¹¹¹ I.e., the person took a barrel of wine and set it aside with the intent that he would consider an appropriate measure of wine from it as terumah
¹¹² When the flowers of the grape vine fall and the actual fruit begins to form.
¹¹³ When the juice of the grape begins to collect within the fruit.Since these are times of change for grapes, there is also a possibility that wine will also be affected.
¹¹⁴ I.e., freshly squeezed grape juice.
¹¹⁵ For it is unlikely to turn into vinegar before then.


###### Mishneh Torah, Heave Offerings 5:26
[Mishneh Torah, Heave Offerings 5:26](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Mishneh%20Torah%2C%20Heave%20Offerings/r/5:26)

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

**Mishneh Torah, trans. by Eliyahu Touger. Jerusalem, Moznaim Pub. c1986-c2007:**
[The following rules apply when a person] sets aside produce to separate *terumah* from until [the entire amount] becomes *terumah*.¹¹⁶ Although as an initial preference, one should separate *terumah* only from the same collection of produce,¹¹⁷ if one separates *terumah* [in such a manner], we operate under the presumption that the produce continues to exist. If he discovers that they perished, he should entertain doubts that all [the produce for which he thought he separated *terumah* is in fact *tevel*].¹¹⁸ was not acceptable. For perhaps, he did not make any separation until [the produce set aside] perished. Therefore he should separate *terumah* a second time for them.¹¹⁹

footnotes:
¹¹⁶ I.e., he sets aside produce to serve the same purpose as the wine mentioned in Halachah 24.
¹¹⁷ See Chapter 3, Halachah 17. As explained there, after the fact, such a separation is acceptable.
¹¹⁸ I.e., he should entertain the possibility that perhaps from the outset, the separation of the terumah
¹¹⁹ As explained in Halachah 22.