Mishnah Terumos, chapter 11, mishnah 9, which is the hundredth mishnah of the tractate - only this one and one more remain before us. The subject of the mishnah is karshinin, a bitter type of legume. There is something interesting about it: on the one hand it is fit for human consumption, but people would prefer to avoid eating it because it tastes so bad; on the other hand, for animals it is excellent food.
For this reason, according to many commentators, the status of karshinin in the laws of Terumah is unique:
On the one hand: since it is human food, even though it is not fine food, it is subject to the laws of Terumah - for items that are not fit for human consumption carry no obligation of Terumah at all.
On the other hand: since people do not actually eat it while animals do, it is permitted to give it to an animal.
This permission is exceptional, because the rule is that one may not squander Terumah or use it in an unfitting manner, which includes feeding it to animals, since it is designated for human beings. Karshinin, then, are the exception to the rule, and that is the subject of our mishnah.
The Rambam's view:
According to the Rambam, karshinin are not unique at all, and this law applies to any food that meets the same criterion. For example, a loaf of Terumah bread that has become moldy, which a horse would be happy to eat while a person would rather not - it appears from the Rambam's words that the kohen may give it to his own horse, and that too would be fine.
The wording of the mishnah:
In any case, the mishnah comes to discuss how one handles karshinin, and its wording is: "Karshinei terumah - ma'achil osam labeheimah v'lachayah v'latarnegolim" - karshinin of Terumah may be fed to domesticated animals, to wild animals and to chickens. That is, a person may feed them to the animals in his possession:
"Labeheimah" - domesticated animals.
"V'lachayah" - undomesticated animals, such as deer roaming on his estate.
"V'latarnegolim" - domestic fowl.
An interesting side point: almost always the grouping of animals appears as "beheimos, chayos and ofos," where ofos means birds in general, whereas here the mishnah says specifically "tarnegolim," which is odd. One possible reason is that certain birds, such as hawks, are able to provide for their own food; but using Terumah to feed animals is meant to be done specifically with an animal that depends on its owner for its sustenance, such as chickens. That is one possible answer.
Ownership of the animal - a kohen's or a Yisrael's:
The mishnah continues and draws an important distinction, which is really a lesson in the laws of ownership in general, even apart from Terumah. The principle is this: an animal owned by a kohen may eat karshinin, even though they are Terumah; but an animal not owned by a kohen may not consume Terumah karshinin. The mishnah focuses on two financial arrangements, the first of which is rental.
In a rental, the renter does not become the owner of the animal: ownership remains with the original owner, and the renter acquires only certain rights in the animal. Therefore, when a Yisrael rents an animal from a kohen, the animal may still be fed Terumah; but when a kohen rents an animal from a Yisrael, he may not feed it Terumah.
And so the Mishnah states: "Yisrael sheshachar parah mikohen - ma'achilah karshinei terumah" - a Yisrael may feed the vetch of Terumah to the kohen's cow. And from the other side: "V'chohen sheshachar parah miYisrael, af al pi shemezonoseha alav - lo ya'achilenah karshinei terumah" - even though the kohen is the one obligated to provide the animal's food, that makes no difference, and he may not use Terumah to feed it; he must use other feed.
Here a question arises: how may the Yisrael who rents the cow use Terumah to feed it? Even if there is no problem from the standpoint of the Terumah itself, this is not the Yisrael's Terumah - the Terumah belongs to the kohanim, and although it has not yet been given to any particular kohen, he owes it to the kohanim. How, then, is he permitted to use someone else's property to feed a cow that he is responsible to feed?
The Bartenura understands this in an interesting way, and he is apparently among the minority of the Rishonim: a person may give his Terumah to whichever kohen he wishes, and among the options before him is the kohen who owns this cow. And there is here an 'anan sahadi' - loosely translated, something self-evident that we can testify to - that the owner of this cow would be very pleased if the vetch ended up in his cow's stomach, since vetch is excellent animal feed. Therefore, says the Bartenura, it is as though he gave the Terumah to the kohen and afterward used it to feed the animal, since we can safely assume that this is exactly what the kohen would have wanted done with the vetch.
Many others find this explanation strange, and they therefore understand that there must have been a prior arrangement with the kohen, according to which the responsibility for feeding the rented cow falls on the kohen and not on the Yisrael, and this was the content of their agreement: the Yisrael gives the vetch to the kohen, and that same vetch is used to feed the cow.
The Second Arrangement: Shuma:
The second financial arrangement the Mishnah deals with is shuma, an arrangement unfamiliar to us in the 21st century. Shuma, which literally means an appraisal or estimate, is essentially similar to what we saw with sharecropping and land tenancy: the wealthy landowner has the capital but needs a farmer to work the field, and they make a deal in which the landowner tells the worker to invest his labor and effort in working the field, and the profits will be split between them in half, whatever the outcome may be. This is an arrangement designed for those engaged in agriculture.
In animal raising there is a similar arrangement: the owner of the asset, the cow in our case, makes a deal with a person who will take the cow, invest in it and fatten it, and then return it; the cow will then be sold, its value having risen as a result of the fattening, and the proceeds will be divided between them, for example half and half. This arrangement is called shuma - appraisal - because when the person doing the work takes the cow from the original owner, he takes on an obligation and guarantees the appraised value that was set.
For example: a Yisrael comes to a kohen and tells him that he will fatten the cow for him and the profits will be split half and half. How is the profit calculated? First they appraise the value of the cow - let us say one hundred dollars - and then the Yisrael takes the cow. When he returns it, and let us say it is now worth four hundred dollars, the three hundred dollars of profit is divided half and half, and each one receives one hundred and fifty dollars. But what happens if, after the Yisrael appraised the cow at one hundred dollars and took it from the kohen, an act of Heaven occurred and lightning struck the cow and killed it? Who is responsible for the loss? The answer is the Yisrael, and his responsibility is total: whatever happens to the cow, he must return at the very least the one hundred dollars of value that he took from the kohen. It emerges that this is considered a purchase of the cow, and if he afterward returns it to the kohen instead of selling it as his agent, that is perhaps considered a return and a fresh transfer of ownership of the cow.
The point, then, is that shuma is in effect an assumption of ownership. Therefore, unlike the earlier cases where we said that when the Yisrael is the renter and the owner is a kohen the cow may eat Terumah because it still belongs to the kohen - here, when the one doing the work is the Yisrael and the original owner is a kohen, the cow may not be fed Terumah. For once the Yisrael takes the cow from the kohen following the appraisal, he assumes ownership of it, and thereby it goes from being a kohen's cow to being a Yisrael's cow, and it is no longer entitled to eat Terumah.
And so the Mishnah states: "Yisrael shesham parah mikohen - lo ya'achilenah karshinei terumah". The Yisrael takes the cow on the basis of that fixed value of one hundred dollars and obligates himself to return at least that value, and therefore he may not feed it vetch of Terumah, since it has ceased to be a kohen's cow and has become a Yisrael's cow. And from the other side: "V'chohen shesham parah miYisrael - ma'achilah karshinei terumah" - once the kohen has taken the cow from the Yisrael it has become his, and therefore he may feed it Terumah.
The principle that emerges from the two Mishnayos is this: in a rental we follow the original owner, whereas in shuma we follow the one who took upon himself the responsibility and the value - for he is the one who acquired the animal.