Here's a great tip:
Enter your email address and we'll send you our weekly magazine by email with fresh, exciting and thoughtful content that will enrich your inbox and your life, week after week. And it's free.
Oh, and don't forget to like our facebook page too!

Rambam - 3 Chapters a Day

Maaser Sheini - Chapter 2, Maaser Sheini - Chapter 3, Maaser Sheini - Chapter 4

Video & Audio Classes
Show content in:

Maaser Sheini - Chapter 2

1

The second tithe should be eaten1 by its owners within the walls of Jerusalem,2 as [Deuteronomy 14:23] states: "And you shall eat before God, your Lord, in the place He chooses to cause His name to dwell."

It must be observed whether the Temple is standing or it is not standing.3 Nevertheless, we partake of it only while the Temple is standing,4 for [the verse states]: "the tithe of your grain, your wine, your oil, and the firstborn of your cattle or your sheep." According to the Oral Tradition, it was taught:5 Just as a firstborn is not eaten except while the Temple is standing, so too, the second tithe is not eaten except when the Temple is standing.

א

מעשר שני נאכל לבעליו לפנים מחומת ירושלים שנאמר ואכלת לפני י"י אלהיך במקום אשר יבחר לשכן שמו שם וגו' ונוהג בפני הבית ושלא בפני הבית אבל אינו נאכל בירושלים אלא בפני הבית שנאמר מעשר דגנך תירושך ויצהרך ובכורות בקרך וצאנך מפי השמועה למדו מה בכור אינו נאכל אלא בפני הבית אף מעשר שני לא יאכל אלא בפני הבית:

2

It is pious behavior6 to redeem the second tithe for its full value7 in the same manner as it should be redeemed while the Temple is standing.8 Our Sages, [however,] ruled that, in the present age, if one desires, he may redeem a maneh's9worth of produce for a p'rutah10as an initial and preferable measure,11 [for this produce] need not be considered more stringently than consecrated property.12 That p'rutah should be discarded in the Mediterranean Sea.13

ב

מדת חסידות שפודין מע"ש בזמן הזה בשוויו כדרך שפודין אותו בפני הבית והורו הגאונים שאם רצה לפדות שוה מנה בפרוטה לכתחלה בזה"ז פודה לא יהיה זה חמור מן הקודש ומשליך הפרוטה לים הגדול:

3

Similarly, if one transferred the holiness of a maneh's worth of produce that is the second tithe for a p'rutah's worth of other produce, the holiness is transferred. He should then burn the produce to which he transferred the holiness so that it will not present an obstacle to others, [following the same procedure] as the redemption of neta rivai'i in the present age, as we explained in Hilchot Ma'achalot Assurot.14

ג

וכן אם חילל מעשר שוה מנה על שוה פרוטה מפירות אחרות ה"ז מחולל ושורף את הפירות שחילל עליהם כדי שלא יהיו תקלה לאחרים כפדיון נטע רבעי בזה"ז כמו שבארנו בהלכות איסורי מאכלות:

4

Just as we do not partake of the second tithe in the present era in Jerusalem,15 so too, we do not redeem it there,16 nor transfer its holiness,17 or sell it.18 If [produce which is the second tithe] is brought into Jerusalem in the present era, it should not be removed from there.19 Instead, we leave it there until it rots. Similarly, if one transgressed and removed it from there, he should leave it until it rots.

For this reason,20 we do not separate the second tithe in the present era in Jerusalem. Instead, we remove the produce from the city while it is tevel and redeem it. If it was separated there in the present era, it should be left to rot.

ד

כשם שאין אוכלין מעשר שני בזמן הזה בירושלים כך אין פודין אותו שם ואין מחללין אותו ואין מוכרין אותו ואם נכנס בירושלים אף בזמן הזה אין מוציאין אותו משם ומניחים אותו שם עד שירקב וכן אם עבר והוציאו משם מניחין אותו עד שירקב לפיכך אין מפרישים מעשר שני בירושלים בזה"ז אלא מוציאין את הפירות בטבלן חוץ לעיר ומפרישין אותו שם ופודהו ואם הפרישו שם בזמן הזה ירקב:

5

Anyone who eats an olive-sized portion of [produce from] the second tithe or who drinks a revi'it of wine21 [from such produce] outside the walls of Jerusalem22 is liable for lashes, as [Deuteronomy 12:17] states: "In your gates,23 you may not partake of the tithe of your grain, your wine, and your oil."24

He is liable for lashes for each one individually.25 Therefore if he partakes of the three outside the walls [of Jerusalem], he is liable for three sets of lashes, for it is stated: And you shall eat before God in the place He chooses to cause His name to dwell."

It must be observed whether the Temple is standing or it is not standing.26 Nevertheless, we partake of it only while the Temple is standing,27 for [the Torah states]: "And you shall eat before God... the tithe of your grain, your wine, your oil," and "You may not partake of the tithe of your grain, your wine, and your oil."28 Why does [the Torah] mention them individually instead of saying: "Do not partake of them in your gates?" To make one liable for each one individually.

ה

כל האוכל כזית מעשר שני או ששתה ממנו רביעית יין חוץ לחומת ירושלים לוקה שנאמר לא תוכל לאכול בשעריך מעשר דגנך תירושך ויצהרך וגו' ולוקה על כל אחד ואחד בפני עצמו לפיכך אם אכל שלשתן חוץ לחומה לוקה שלש מלקיות שנאמר ואכלת לפני י"י אלהיך מעשר דגנך תירושך ויצהרך ונאמר לא תוכל לאכול בשעריך מעשר דגנך וגו' למה פרטן ולא אמר לא תאכלם בשעריך לחייב על כל אחד ואחד בפני עצמו:

6

According to Scriptural Law, one is not liable for lashes unless he partakes of produce [from the second tithe] after it had entered the walls of Jerusalem [and was removed], as it is written: "You may not partake... in your gates" and "And you shall eat before God." [Implied is that] since the produce enters the place where it should be eaten and then it was eaten outside [that place], one is liable for lashes. If, however, one ate such produce before it entered Jerusalem,29 he should be given stripes for rebellious conduct.30

ו

אינו לוקה מן התורה עד שיאכלנו אחר שנכנס לחומת ירושלים שנאמר לא תוכל לאכול בשעריך וגו' ואכלת לפני י"י אלהיך כיון שנכנס למקום אכילתו ואכלו בחוץ לוקה אבל אם אכלו קודם שיכנסו לירושלים מכין אותו מכת מרדות מדבריהם:

7

[The following rules apply if] a portion of [produce from the second] tithe is inside [Jerusalem] and a portion is outside. One who eats from the portion that has not entered [the city] should be given stripes for rebellious conduct.31 If one eats the portion that entered outside [the city], he is liable for lashes. 32

ז

מקצת מעשר בפנים ומקצתו מבחוץ האוכל מזה שעדיין לא נכנס מכין אותו מכת מרדות והאוכל בחוץ מזה שנכנס לוקה:

8

We do not redeem the second tithe in Jerusalem unless it became impure,33 as [Deuteronomy 14:24] states: "If the place34 will be distant from you...." [Implied is that such produce] may be redeemed when the place is distant, but not when it is close.

If a person is inside [Jerusalem] and his burden is outside, even if he is carrying it on a pole,35 since the produce from the second tithe itself was not brought into Jerusalem, it can be redeemed there next to the wall.36

ח

אין פודין מעשר שני בירושלים אא"כ נטמא שנאמר כי ירחק ממך המקום בריחוק מקום הוא נפדה ואינו נפדה בקירוב מקום היה הוא בפנים ומשאו בחוץ אפילו היה אוחז אותו בקנה הואיל ולא נכנס המעשר ה"ז מותר לפדותו שם בצד החומה:

9

Once produce from the second tithe - even if it is demai37 - is brought into Jerusalem, it is forbidden to remove it from there, for it has already been taken in by [the city's] barriers. Similar concepts apply with regard to produce purchased with money [from the redemption of] the second tithe, as [implied by] the verse: "And you shall eat before God your Lord."38 If a person transgressed and took [such produce] out of Jerusalem or it was taken out inadvertently, it should be returned and eaten in Jerusalem.

[The concept that produce from the second tithe that was brought into Jerusalem is] taken in by its partitions is a Rabbinic decree. Even produce from [the redemption of] the second tithe whose fifth is not worth a p'rutah which is [observed] by virtue of Rabbinic decree [alone]39is taken in by [the city's] partitions and it is forbidden to remove it.40 Money from [the redemption of] the second tithe, by contrast, may be brought into Jerusalem and then removed.41

ט

מעשר שני שנכנס לירושלים אפילו של דמאי אסור להוציאו משם שכבר קלטוהו מחיצות וכן פירות הנלקחין בכסף מעשר שנאמר ואכלת לפני י"י אלהיך עבר והוציאן או שיצאו בשגגה יחזרו ויאכלו בירושלים וקליטת מחיצות מדבריהם אפילו מעשר שאין בחומשו שוה פרוטה שהוא מדבריהם מחיצות קולטות אותו ואסור להוציאו אבל מעות מעשר שני נכנסין לירושלים ויוצאין:

10

When produce for which the tasks involved in its preparation have been completed42 is taken through Jerusalem and then removed, [its owner] cannot separate tithes from it from other produce which has not been brought into Jerusalem yet.43 Instead, the second tithe from this produce should be [separated,] and returned and eaten in Jerusalem. It cannot be redeemed outside the city. Even if one designates the entire quantity of produce which was removed as the second tithe for produce that was not yet brought [to Jerusalem], it must be returned and eaten in [that city].44 This is a stringency associated with the walls of Jerusalem. Once [produce] is taken in by them, it has been taken in.45

י

פירות שנגמרה מלאכתן ועברו בתוך ירושלים ויצאו אינו יכול להוציא עליהן מעשר שני מפירות אחרות שלא נכנסו לירושלים אלא יחזור מעשר שני שלהן ויאכל בירושלים ואינו נפדה בחוץ אפילו עשה כל הפירות האלו מעשר שני אחר שיצאו על פירות אחרות שלא נכנסו יחזרו ויאכלו בירושלים חומר הוא במחיצות ירושלים הואיל וקלטו קלטו:

11

13When produce for which the tasks involved in its preparation have not been completed, e.g., baskets of grapes that are being taking to the vat46 or baskets of figs that are being taken to dry, is taken through Jerusalem and then removed, it is permitted to redeem the second tithe from them outside Jerusalem.47 Similarly, the second tithe from produce that is demai may be redeemed outside [of Jerusalem] even though the tasks involved in its preparation have been completed and it passed through the city.48

יא

פירות שלא נגמרה מלאכתן שעברו בירושלים ויצאו כגון סלי ענבים לגת וסלי תאנים במוקצה מותר לפדות מעשר שני שלהם בחוץ וכן פירות דמאי אף על פי שנגמרה מלאכתן ועברו בירושלים ויצאו פודין מעשר שני שלהן בחוץ:

12

[The following laws apply when] produce from the second tithe which became impure49 in Jerusalem was redeemed.50 If it became impure through contact with a secondary source of impurity, it is forbidden to remove it.51[Instead,] it should be eaten within [the city]. If it became impure as a result of contact with a primary source of impurity or it became impure outside [the city] even through contact with a secondary source of impurity, it may be redeemed and eaten in any place, even though it was brought into Jerusalem.52

יב

פירות מע"ש שנטמאו בירושלים ופדאן אם נטמאו בולד הטומאה אסור להוציאן אלא יאכלו בפנים מפני שולד הטומאה מדבריהם ואם נטמאו באב הטומאה או שנטמאו בחוץ ואפילו בולד הטומאה אע"פ שנכנסו לירושלים הרי אלו נפדין ונאכלין בכ"מ:

13

When does the above53 apply? When it was brought in with the intent that the barriers of [the city] would not take it in. If, however, he did not make such a stipulation, since it entered the city and it is ritually pure according to Scriptural Law, it is taken in by [the city's] barriers and should not be removed.54 For a secondary source of ritual impurity does not impart impurity to another entity according to Scriptural Law.

יג

בד"א כשהכניסן ע"מ שלא תתפשם המחיצות אבל אם לא התנה הואיל ונכנס הרי הוא טהור מן התורה [שאין ולד מטמא שני מן התורה] וכבר קלטוהו מחיצות ואינו יוצא:

14

It is permitted to partake of chilba from the second tithe while it is in its fresh, for then it is fit to be eaten.55 Similarly, vetch from the second tithe may be eaten while it is fresh.56 If one made a dough from them, it is permitted to take it into Jerusalem and remove it, because vetch is not considered as [ordinary] produce.57 If it became impure in Jerusalem, it may be redeemed and eaten outside [the city].

יד

תלתן של מע"ש מותר לאכלה צמחונין שכך היא ראויה לאכילה וכן כרשיני מעשר שני יאכלו צמחונין ואם עשה מהם עיסה הרי זו מותרת להכנס לירושלים ולהוציאה שאינן בכלל הפירות ואם נטמאו בירושלים יפדו ויאכלו בחוץ:

15

When a tree is standing within the walls of Jerusalem and its branches extend outside the wall, produce from the second tithe should not be eaten under [those] branches.58 If, however, produce from the second tithe was brought under its branches, it can no longer be redeemed, because it is considered as if it was brought into Jerusalem.59

טו

אילן שעומד לפנים מן החומה ונופו נוטה חוץ לחומה אין אוכלין תחת נופו מע"ש ומע"ש שנכנס תחת נופו אין פודין אותו שהרי הוא כמי שנכנס לירושלים:

16

[The following rules apply when] houses positioned at the side of the wall with their entrances within the wall, but the length of the house extends outside the wall. [The portions of the house that] are within the wall are considered as being within the city with regard to all matters. In those which are outside the wall, we may not eat [the produce of the second tithe] and as a stringency, produce from the second tithe should not be redeemed there.60 If the length of the house extends within [the wall] and the entrance is outside, [the portion that are] outside the wall are considered as outside the city.61 We may re redeem [produce from the tithes] there and may not partake of it there. [In the portion that is within the wall], we may not eat [such produce] there62 and as a stringency, we may not redeem it.63 The windows and the breadth of the walls are considered within the city.64

טז

בתים שבצד החומה שפתחיהם לפנים מן החומה וחללן לחוץ מכנגד החומה ולפנים כלפנים לכל דבר ומכנגד החומה ולחוץ אין אוכלים שם ואין פודין שם להחמיר היה חללן לפנים ופתחיהם לחוץ מכנגד החומה ולחוץ כלחוץ פודין בו ואין אוכלין ומכנגד החומה ולפנים אין אוכלין שם ואין פודין להחמיר והחלונות ועובי החומה כלפנים:

Footnotes
1.

Similarly, it can be used as a beverage or for anointing oneself, for these are also considered as "eating."

2.

As mentioned in the notes to the previous chapter, there are authorities who consider partaking of the second tithe as an independent mitzvah. The Rambam, however, considers it as part of the mitzvah of separating the second tithe.

3.

See Hilchot Beit HaBechirah 6:15 which states that the holiness of Jerusalem is not nullified even though the Temple is destroyed, for the city's holiness derives from the manifestation of God's presence and that holiness can never be nullified.

4.

When the Temple is not standing, the second tithe must be separated, but we do not partake of it. Instead, we redeem it, as stated in the following halachah.

6.

A commitment to observance that goes beyond the basic requirements of the law.

7.

The Jerusalem Talmud (Ma'aser Sheni 4:1) relates that the Sages of the Talmud would conduct themselves in this manner.

8.

See Chapter 4, Halachah 1, 18.

9.

100 silver coins.

10.

A copper coin of minimal value. Since when the Temple is standing, after the fact, such an exchange is acceptable, in the present era, it can be accepted as an initial and preferable measure (Radbaz).

11.

For, after all, it is being destroyed (Siftei Cohen 331:149).

12.

Which can be redeemed in this manner as an initial and preferable measure (Hilchot Arachin 8:10).

13.

I.e., in a place where it will permanently be lost. If it is being thrown to a river, it must first be ground to dust so that it will never be able to be used [Kessef Mishneh; Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 331:133)].

Here the Rambam uses the term yam hagadol, "the Great Sea," which in relation to Eretz Yisrael means the Mediterranean Sea. Sometimes, the term yam hamelech, "the Salt Sea, is used. Although in contemporary usage, the term is used in reference to the Dead Sea, the Rambam understands it as referring to the Mediterranean.

14.

See Hilchot Ma'achalot Assurot 10:17. Both here and in that source, the Ra'avad differs with the Rambam and maintains that a silver coin must be used for these redemptions. The Radbaz and the Kessef Mishneh support the Rambam's position. See also Chapter 2, Halachah 4 and notes.

15.

For the Temple is not standing, as stated in Halachah 1. Moreover, we are all ritually impure, and the second tithe may not be eaten in a state of ritual impurity, as stated in Chapter 3, Halachah 1.

It must be emphasized that with the term Jerusalem, we mean the city limits in the era of the Second Temple. The fact that an area is included in the contemporary metropolis of Jerusalem is not at all significant.

16.

For money.

The Kessef Mishneh states that if produce from the second tithe becomes ritually impure, it can be redeemed as indicated by Halachah 8. The Tur (Yoreh De'ah 331) [based on the Jerusalem Talmud (Ma'aser Sheni 3:6)] writes that we can water produce that has been detached so that it will become susceptible to ritual impurity. When it becomes ritually impure, it can be redeemed. These concepts are quoted by the Shulchan Aruch and Rama (Yoreh De'ah 331:135).

17.

For other produce. The rationale is that produce from the second tithe should not be redeemed or exchanged in Jerusalem as stated in Halachah 8.

18.

See also Chapter 3, Halachah 17.

19.

See Halachah 9.

20.

I.e., because it will be condemned to rot.

21.

See Hilchot Terumot 10:2.

22.

I.e., he partook of the produce after it was taken to Jerusalem and then taken out, as stated in the following halachah.

23.

I.e., in cities outside Jerusalem.

24.

Sefer HaMitzvot (negative commandments 141-142) and Sefer HaChinuch (mitzvot 442-444) include these as three of the 613 mitzvot of the Torah.

25.

The Rambam explains the rationale for this in General Principle 9 of his Sefer HaMitzvot, quoting Keritot 4b, and giving the explanation that he offers in this halachah.

26.

See Hilchot Beit HaBechirah 6:15 which states that the holiness of Jerusalem is not nullified even though the Temple is destroyed, for the city's holiness derives from the manifestation of God's presence and that holiness can never be nullified.

27.

When the Temple is not standing, the second tithe must be separated, but we do not partake of it. Instead, we redeem it, as stated in the following halachah.

28.

I.e., since the Torah mentions all three types of produce in both the positive and negative commandments, we can assume that the repetition was meant to teach us that one is liable for each type of produce individually. In his Hasagot, the Ramban disagrees and maintains that one who administers three sets of lashes for partaking of these types of produce is liable for striking a fellow Jew unnecessarily.

29.

Tosafot (Makkot 19b) explain that the violation of a positive commandment is involved, for we are commanded to redeem the produce from the second tithe that is not brought to Jerusalem.

30.

A punishment ordained by the Rabbis for breaking Rabbinic commandments or negative commandments that result from a positive commandment.

31.

I.e., one might think that he would be liable, because a portion of the produce was brought into the city. Hence, it is necessary to state that he is not. See Hilchot Bikkurim 3:2, for it is the source of this law.

32.

I.e., one might think that he would not be liable, because the entire quantity of produce was not brought into the city. Hence, it is necessary to state that he is.

33.

Even though produce from the second tithe that is pure should not be redeemed in Jerusalem, as stated in Halachah 4, if it becomes impure, it should be redeemed, for otherwise, it will be worthless, for it may not be eaten in that state.

Pesachim 36b derives this concept as follows: The mitzvah of redeeming produce from the second tithe is derived from Deuteronomy 14:24: "If you cannot carry it...." Se'as, the term for "carry" used in that verse is also used in connection with food as stated in Genesis 43:34. Hence, the verse can be interpreted as meaning that the produce should be redeemed if it cannot be eaten.

34.

Jerusalem. The verse speaks about the redemption of the second tithe.

35.

And thus he does not even have to walk outside to bring it inside (Kessef Mishneh; Or Sameach). Rashi interprets the passage differently.

36.

The converse is also true. If he was outside and his burden had been brought inside, it cannot be redeemed (Makkot 19b).

37.

Produce which is demai may be taken in and out of Jerusalem (Halachah 11). Once the second tithe has been separated from it, however, it may not be taken out of Jerusalem after it has been brought in. This represents a reversal of the Rambam's opinion from that stated in his Commentary to the Mishnah (Demai 3:6).

38.

The law is not derived from this verse, for as the Rambam stated previously, the prohibition is Rabbinic in origin. Instead, the verse is an asmachta, a support from the Torah for a Rabbinic law. Significantly, to this writer's knowledge, our Rabbis have not identified a previous Rabbinic source where this verse is cited as a prooftext.

[This alludes to a question frequently raised: Did the Rambam have sources from the Sages of the Talmud that were lost or were interpretations such as this his original work?]

39.

When a person redeems produce from the second tithe that belongs to him, it is necessary to add a fifth, as stated in Chapter 5, Halachah 1. Here, however, we are speaking about a situation where that fifth is not worth a p'rutah. Thus the redemption of such produce is not feasible. And since its redemption is not feasible, according to Scriptural Law, such produce need not be treated as produce from the second tithe (Meiri to Bava Metzia 53b). Nevertheless, our Rabbis were stringent and required that the fifth be separated even in such a situation.

40.

I.e., although two Rabbinic decrees are involved, we still rule stringently.

41.

For our Sages imposed their decree with regard to produce alone.

42.

And from which the second tithe has not been separated.

43.

I.e., in this regard, we consider it as if the second tithe had already been separated. Hence, since it passed through Jerusalem, it must be eaten there [the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (loc. cit.)].

44.

I.e., it cannot be redeemed for money.

45.

I.e., there is no alternative but to partake of the produce in the holy city.

46.

To be squeezed for wine [the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (loc. cit.)].

47.

Since there was no obligation to tithe them at the time they passed through Jerusalem, they are not considered to have been taken in by the city's barriers.

48.

Since the obligation to separate the second tithe from demai was instituted only because of a doubt, our Rabbis did not apply this stringency. See Halachah 9.

49.

And hence cannot be eaten.

50.

See Halachah 4.

51.

I.e., the decree imposed by our Sages must be upheld because this impurity is merely Rabbinic in origin and thus the holiness of the produce was not defiled [the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (loc. cit.):9].

52.

For when it was brought into Jerusalem, it was not fit to be eaten and thus did not possess a measure of holiness (ibid.).

53.

That produce that became impure due to conduct with a secondary source of impurity outside of Jerusalem can be redeemed or removed from the city after it was brought in. If, however, produce became impure through contact with a primary source of impurity, one's intent is not significant. A person may remove it from Jerusalem even if he did not have the intent originally.

54.

Instead, it should be redeemed and eaten in Jerusalem.

55.

After it has dried out, by contrast, it is not fit to be eaten. For that reason, it is forbidden to let it dry out [the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (loc. cit.) 2:3; see also Hilchot Terumah 2:8]. This explanation nullifies the Ra'avad's objections to the Rambam's ruling.

56.

Vetch refers to a species of beans generally used as cattle fodder. While they are fresh, however, they are fit for human consumption with difficulty (see ibid.:4; see also Hilchot Terumah 2:2; Hilchot Tuma'at Ochalin 1:9).

57.

Since they are not fit for ordinary human consumption, the restrictions that usually apply to produce from the second tithe were not placed upon a dough made from them. Indeed, the laws governing vetch are more lenient than those governing chilba, for chilba is frequently eaten by humans while fresh. Vetch, by contrast, is eaten only when ordinary food is not available.

The Ra'avad understands the Rambam as ruling that the restrictions are relaxed only with regard to dough made from vetch, but not with regard to vetch itself. If the actual beans were taken outside the city, they must be returned. The commentaries accept this understanding.

58.

I.e., in this context, one is considered to be outside the city.

59.

Note the parallel in Hilchot Rotzeach 8:11; see also Hilchot Ma'aser 4:16.

60.

I.e., in this context, it is considered as part of the city, because of the entrance.

61.

For neither the entrance to the home, nor this position of it is in the city.

62.

Because the entrance is the primary determinant.

63.

For in actual fact, one is within the city's walls.

64.

The commentaries note the concurrence between this ruling and that of Hilchot Beit HaBechirah 6:9, but the apparent contradiction between it and that of Hilchot Shemitah VeYoval 12:12. They conclude that there is no one general principle governing the situation and each set of laws has its own rules.

Maaser Sheini - Chapter 3

1

A person who partakes of produce from the second tithe in a state of ritual impurity is liable for lashes,1 as [implied by Deuteronomy 26:14]: "I did not consume it in a state of impurity." [This applies] whether the produce is impure and the person partaking of it is pure or the produce is pure and the person partaking of it is impure, provided he partakes of it in Jerusalem before it is redeemed.2 For one is liable for lashes for partaking of such produce in a state of ritual impurity in a place where it is fit to partake of it. If, however, one partakes of it in a state of ritual impurity outside of Jerusalem,3 he is liable for stripes for rebellious conduct.4

א

האוכל מע"ש בטומאה לוקה שנאמר ולא בערתי ממנו בטמא בין שהמעשר טמא והאוכל טהור בין שהמעשר טהור והאוכל טמא והוא שיאכלנו בירושלים קודם שיפדה שאינו לוקה על אכילתו בטומאה אלא במקום אכילתו אבל אם אכלו בטומאה חוץ לירושלים מכין אותו מכת מרדות:

2

Once it has become impure,5 it even forbidden to use such produce [as fuel] to kindle a lamp until it is redeemed, as [implied by]: "I did not consume it in a state of impurity."

ב

ואפילו להדליק [בו] את הנר אחר שנטמא אסור עד שיפדה שנאמר לא בערתי ממנו בטמא:

3

We already explained,6 that when produce from the second tithe becomes impure, it should be redeemed and eaten- even in Jerusalem.7 The proceeds [from its redemption] should [be used to purchase food that is] eaten in a state of ritual purity according to the laws governing produce from the second tithe, as will be explained.8 Even if all the produce became impure while it was tevel, one should separate the second tithe in a state of ritual impurity9 and redeem it.

ג

כבר בארנו שהמעשר שנטמא אפילו בירושלים פודין ויאכל ואוכלין את דמיו בטהרה בתורת פירות מעשר כמו שיתבאר אפילו נטמאו הפירות כולן כשהן טבל מפריש מע"ש בטומאה ופודהו:

4

An uncircumcised person is considered as if he is ritually impure. If he partakes of produce from the second tithe, he is liable for lashes according to Scriptural Law as he is liable for lashes for partaking of terumah.10 [This equivalence is established, because] terumah is referred to as "holy,"11 and produce from the second tithe is referred as "holy," for [Leviticus 26:30] describes it as being "holy unto God."

When a person who was impure immerses himself [in a mikveh],12he may partake of produce from the second tithe even though the sun has not set that day.13

ד

הערל כטמא ואם אכל מעשר שני לוקה מן התורה כדרך שלוקה על אכילת תרומה שהתרומה קרויה קדש ומע"ש קרוי קדש שהרי נאמר בו קדש לי"י וטמא שטבל אוכל מעשר שני אע"פ שלא העריב שמשו:

5

When a person partakes of produce from the second tithe in a Scripturally defined state of aninut,14 he is liable for lashes15 as [implied by Deuteronomy 26:14]: "I did not consume it in a state of aninut." [This applies,] provided he partakes of it in the place we are commanded to partake of it, [i.e.,] in Jerusalem.16 If, however, he partook of such produce outside Jerusalem17in a state of aninut or partook of it in Jerusalem in a Rabbinically defined state of aninut, he is given stripes for rebellious conduct.18

ה

האוכל מע"ש באנינות של תורה לוקה שנאמר לא אכלתי באוני ממנו והוא שיאכלנו במקום אכילתו בירושלים אבל אם אכלו בחוץ באנינות או שאכלו בפנים באנינות של דבריהם מכין אותו מכת מרדות:

6

Who is an onain? One is mourning for one of the relatives for whom he is obligated to mourn19 on the day of their death is an onain according to Scriptural law. At night, he is an onain according to Rabbinic decree. [This is derived from Leviticus 10:19]: "If I would partake of a sin offering today, would it find favor in the eyes of God?"20 [Implied is that the day is forbidden,21 but the night is permitted.22

If the deceased remains [unburied] for several days and is not buried until afterwards, [his relatives are] onanim according to Rabbinic decree throughout the days from the day of death until the day of the burial. [The status of] the day of burial is not extended until [the following] night.23

ו

איזהו אונן זה המתאבל על אחד מן הקרובים שהוא חייב להתאבל עליהן וביום המיתה הוא אונן מן התורה ובלילה אונן מדבריהן שנאמר ואכלתי חטאת היום הייטב בעיני י"י היום אסור ולילה מותר נשתהה המת ימים רבים ואחר כך נקבר כל אותן הימים שאחר יום המיתה עד יום הקבורה הוא אונן מדבריהן ואין יום הקבורה תופש לילו:

7

[This restriction does not apply] to the second tithe alone, [but also] to all sacrificial foods. If one partakes of them in a Scriptural state of aninut, he is liable for lashes. In a Rabbinic state of aninut, he is liable for stripes for rebellious conduct.24

ז

ולא מע"ש בלבד אלא כל הקדשים כולן אם אכלן באנינות של תורה לוקה ובאנינות של דבריהן מכין אותו מכת מרדות:

8

Produce from the second tithe, nor produce purchased with money from the second time, nor money from the redemption of the second tithe should not be given to a common person, because we operate under the assumption that he is impure.25

It is permitted to partake of produce from the second tithe that was separated from demai in a state of aninut26 and it may be given to a common person,27 provided he eats [an equivalent amount of produce] in place of them.28

Produce from the second tithe should not be entrusted [to a colleague for safekeeping], not even to a chavair,29 lest he die and the produce continue in the possession of his son, who is a common person. One may, however, entrust produce from the second tithe separated from demai to a common person.

ח

אין נותנין פירות מעשר שני לעם הארץ ולא פירות הנלקחות במעות מעשר ולא מעות מעשר מפני שהוא בחזקת טומאה ומותר לאכול מע"ש של דמאי באנינות וליתנו לעם הארץ והוא שיאכל כנגדו אין מפקידין מעשר שני אפילו אצל חבר שמא ימות ונמצא המעשר תחת יד בנו עם הארץ אבל מפקידים מע"ש של דמאי אצל עם הארץ:

9

It is forbidden to cause the loss of even a small amount of produce from the second tithe30 on the journey [to Jerusalem].31 Instead, one must transport it in its entirety or the proceeds [from its redemption] to Jerusalem. It is, however, permitted, to cause the loss of a small amount of produce from the second tithe separate from demai on the journey.

What is meant by a small portion? Less than the size of a dried fig,32 whether it is eaten whole or sliced. We may not, however, cause the loss of a portion the size of a dried fig.33

When a person separates a portion less than the size of a dried fig from produce from the second tithe separated from demai, he may give it to a common person34provided he eats [a comparable portion in Jerusalem] in exchange for it. At the outset, he should not set it aside to be lost, for produce should not be set aside to be lost.

ט

מע"ש אסור לאבד אפילו מיעוטו בדרכים אלא מוליכו כל שהוא או מוליך דמיו לירושלים ומותר לאבד מיעוט מעשר שני של דמאי בדרכים וכמה היא מיעוט פחות מכגרוגרת בין באוכל שלם בין בפרוס אבל כגרוגרות אין מאבדין אותו והמפריש מעשר שני של דמאי פחות מכגרוגרת ה"ז נותנו לעם הארץ ואוכל כנגדו אבל לא יפרישנו לכתחלה לאבדו שאין מפרישין לאבד:

10

The produce of the second tithe may be used to eat and to drink, as [implied by Deuteronomy 14:23]: "And you shall eat before God, your Lord."35 Smearing oneself is considered as drinking.36

It is forbidden to use [this produce] for any of one's other needs,37 to purchase utensils, clothes, or servants, as [ibid. 26:14] states: "I did not give from it to a corpse," i.e., I did not use it [to purchase] an object that does not maintain the body.38 If a person uses this produce for other purposes, even for a mitzvah, e.g., he uses it to purchase a coffin and shrouds for an abandoned corpse,39 he must eat other food in place of it,40 according to the laws governing the second tithe.

י

מעשר שני ניתן לאכילה ושתיה שנאמר ואכלת לפני י"י אלהיך וסיכה כשתיה ואסור להוציאו בשאר צרכיו כגון ליקח בו כלים ובגדים ועבדים שנאמר לא נתתי ממנו למת כלומר לא הוצאתי אותו בדבר שאינו מקיים את הגוף ואם הוציא ממנו בשאר דברים אפילו בדבר מצוה כגון שלקח ממנו ארון ותכריכין למת מצוה ה"ז אוכל כנגדו בתורת מעשר:

11

[With regard to produce from the second] tithe: One should eat produce that is normally eaten,41 drink what is normally drunk, and smear on oneself what is normally smeared. He should not smear wine or vinegar, but he may smear oil.42 He should not squeeze fruit to extract its juice with the exception of olives and grapes.43 We do not mix spices with oil, 44 but do so with wine.45

We do not require a person to eat bread that has become moldy or oil that has become rancid. Instead, as soon as it has become spoiled to the point that it is not fit for human consumption, its holiness has departed from it.46

יא

מעשר אוכל דבר שדרכו להאכל ושותה דבר שדרכו לשתות וסך דבר שדרכו לסוך ולא יסוך יין וחומץ אבל סך הוא את השמן ולא יסחוט את הפירות להוציא מהן משקין חוץ מזיתים וענבים בלבד [ואין מפטמין את השמן אבל מפטמין את היין] ואין מחייבין אותו לאכול פת שעיפשה ושמן שנסרח אלא כיון שנפסל מאוכל אדם פקעה קדושה ממנו:

12

Whatever parts of produce from terumah that non-priests are permitted to eat47 may also be eaten from produce of the second tithe like ordinary produce.48 When [grape] dregs from the second tithe were placed in water,49 the first [quantity of drink produce] is forbidden like the produce from the second tithe.50 The second is permitted, like ordinary produce.51 [If the produce of the second tithe was] from demai, even the first quantity is permitted.52

יב

כל שמותר לזרים לאוכלו בתרומה כך מותר במע"ש לאוכלו בתורת חולין שמרים של מע"ש שנתן עליהם מים ראשון אסור כמעשר ושני מותר כחולין ושל דמאי אפילו ראשון מותר:

13

When honey and spices53 fell into wine from the second tithe and improved its flavor, the improvement is judged proportionately.54 Similarly, if fish were cooked with leek from the second tithe and their flavor was improved, the improvement is judged proportionately.

יג

יין של מעשר שנפל לתוכו דבש והתבלין והשביחו השבח לפי חשבון וכן דגים שנתבשלו עם קפלוטות של מעשר שני והשביחו השבח לפי חשבון:

14

When a dough made with flour from the second tithe was baked55 and improved, the improvement is accredited to the second tithe.56 This is the general principle: Whenever the improvement57 is obvious, if the volume of the produce is increased, the improvement is judged proportionately. If the volume of the produce is not increased, the improvement is accredited to the second tithe alone. Whenever the improvement is not obvious, the improvement is attributed to the second tithe alone even when the volume is not increased.

יד

עיסה של מעשר שני שאפאה והשביחה השבח לשני זה הכלל כל ששבחו ניכר אם הותיר במדה השבח לפי חשבון ואם לא הותיר המדה השבח לשני בלבד וכל שאין שבחו ניכר אפילו הותיר המדה השבח לשני בלבד:

15

What is meant by the phrase "the improvement is judged proportionately"? Honey and spices worth a zuz fall into wine from the second tithe that is worth three [zuz], increasing its volume and improving its flavor.58 The combined worth is now five zuz, we consider the worth [for the tithes] as four and a fourth.59 Similar rules apply with regard to other substances.

טו

כיצד השבח לפי חשבון יין של מעשר ששוה ג' שנפל לתוכו דבש ותבלין שוה זוז אחד והוסיפה במדתו והשביחוהו והרי הכל שוה ה' חושבין הכל בארבעה ורביע וכן ע"ד זה בשאר הדברים:

16

Although produce from the second tithe may be used for smearing,60it should not be placed on a foot infection or on boils, nor may it be used as an amulet or the like, because it was not intended to be used as medication.61

טז

מע"ש אע"פ שניתן לסיכה אין נותנין אותו לא ע"ג צינית ולא ע"ג חזזית ואין עושין ממנו קמיע וכיוצא בו שהרי לא ניתן לרפואה:

17

The second tithe is considered the property of the Most High, as [Leviticus 27:30] states: "It is God's." Therefore it cannot be acquired [when given] as a present,62 unless one gives a colleague tevel and he separates the second tithe from it.

It may not be used to consecrate a woman,63 nor may it be sold, nor may it be taken as security.64 It may not be exchanged,65 nor may it be given as surety.

יז

מע"ש ממון גבוה הוא שנאמר ליי' הוא לפיכך אינו נקנה במתנה אא"כ נתן לו הטבל והמקבל מפריש המעשר ואין מקדשין בו את האשה ואין מוכרין אותו ואין ממשכנין אותו ואין מחליפין אותו ואין מרהינין אותו:

18

What is meant by the prohibition against taking it as security? One should not enter [the debtor's] home66 and take produce from the second tithe of his as security. If one transgressed and took such produce as security, it is expropriated from him.

What is meant by the prohibition against giving it as surety? One should not tell a colleague: "Take this produce from the second tithe. Keep it in your possession and lend me money because of it."67

What is meant by the prohibition against exchanging it? A person should not tell a colleague: "Here is wine from the second tithe for you and give me oil from the second tithe."68 He may, however, tell a colleague: "Here is wine from [the second tithe] for you, but I don't have oil." If his colleague desires to give him oil, it is permitted, because he did not exchange it with him.69 He merely notified him that he lacked it. Thus if that person desired to give him, he may.

יח

כיצד אין ממשכנין אותו לא יכנס לביתו וימשכננו מע"ש שלו עבר ומשכנו מוציאין אותו מידו כיצד אין מרהינין אותו לא יאמר לו הא לך מעשר זה ויהיה בידך ותן לי עליו מעות כיצד אין מחליפין אותו לא יאמר לו הא לך יין מעשר ותן לי שמן מעשר אבל אומר לו הא לך יין שאין לי שמן ואם רצה חבירו ליתן לו שמן מותר שהרי לא החליף עמו אלא הודיעו שאין לו ואם רצה הלה ליתן יתן:

19

We do not use produce from the second tithe as a weight for anything, even for golden dinarim.70 [This is forbidden] even to [weigh coins] onto which the holiness from other produce will be transferred.71 [This is] a decree,72 [enacted] lest he balance his scales on this basis and the produce be lacking in weight.73 Thus if he uses them to weigh coins upon which to transfer the holiness of other produce from the second tithe, he will be redeeming such produce for less than its worth.

יט

מע"ש אין שוקלין כנגדו אפילו דינרי זהב ואפילו לחלל עליהם מע"ש אחר גזירה שמא לא יכוין ממנו משקלו ונמצאו הפירות חסרים והוא שוקל בהן מעות לחלל עליהם מעשר אחר נמצא מוציא מעשר לחולין בפחות בדמיו:

20

When brothers divide produce from the second tithe [left them in an estate], they should not weigh them against each other.74 Similarly, coins [upon which the holiness of] the second tithe [has been transferred] should not be weighed against each other. [Such coins] should not be sold, nor exchanged, nor given as surety. One may not give them to a moneychanger to use to create an impression.75 One may not lend them to boost his image.76 It is, however, permitted to lend them so that they will not rust.

כ

האחים שחלקו מע"ש אין שוקלין זה כנגד זה וכן מעות מע"ש אין שוקלים כנגדן ואין מוכרין אותם ואין מחליפין ולא מרהינין ולא יתנם לשולחני להתנאות בהן ולא ילוה אותן להתגדל בהן ואם הלוון שלא יעלה חלודה מותר:

21

We may not use [this money] to repay loans. They may not be used as wedding gifts,77 nor may they be used to repay favors.78 They may not be used to pay for charity levied upon him in the synagogue.79 One may, however, send them [as gifts] for charitable purposes.80 One must, however, [notify the recipient].81

כא

ואין פורעין מהם את המלוה אין עושין מהן שושבינות ואין משלמין מהן הגמולין ואין פוסקין מהם צדקה בב"ה אבל משלמין מהן דברים שהן גמילות חסדים וצריך להודיע:

22

A person should not tell a colleague: "Bring this produce to Jerusalem and take your wages from it," for such an arrangement is equivalent to taking his wages for transporting the produce to Jerusalem.82 He may, however, tell him: "Bring it to Jerusalem so that we can eat it and drink it there."83

כב

לא יאמר אדם לחבירו העל את הפירות האלו לירושלים וטול מהן חלקך שנמצא זה כנוטל שכר ממע"ש על הבאתו לירושלים אבל אומר לו העלם שנאכלם ושנשתם בירושלים:

23

In Jerusalem, a person may ask a colleague to smear oil from the second tithe upon him even though the oil also becomes smeared on the colleague's hand. This is not considered as a wage for smearing it upon him.84

כג

אומר אדם לחבירו בירושלים לסוך אותו בשמן מע"ש אף על פי שניסוכה ידו ואין זה בשכר סיכתו:

24

We have already explained85 that the produce from the second tithe belongs to the Most High. Therefore we say that one who steals produce from the second tithe is not obligated to make a double payment, nor is one who robs it obligated to add a fifth.86

כד

כבר ביארנו שהמעשר ממון גבוה הוא לפיכך אנו אומרים שהגונב מעשר שני אינו משלם תשלומי כפל והגוזלו אינו משלם חומש:

25

When a person consecrates produce from the second tithe to the Temple treasury,87 the one88 who redeems it should redeem it with the intent of giving what is due to the Temple treasury to it and what is due to the second tithe to it.

כה

המקדיש מעשר שני שלו לבדק הבית הרי זה פודה אותו מי שפודהו על מנת ליתן להקדש את שלו ולמעשר שני את שלו:

Footnotes
1.

Sefer HaMitzvot (negative commandment 150) and Sefer HaChinuch (mitzvah 609) include this commandment among the 613 mitzvot of the Torah.

2.

For after the produce has been redeemed, it is ordinary produce.

3.

With regard to partaking of such produce outside of Jerusalem in a state of ritual purity, see the previous chapter.

4.

For the prohibition is only Rabbinic in origin. This applies even if the produce had already been brought into Jerusalem and was then removed.

5.

I.e., even though it has become impure. Before it becomes impure, it is forbidden to use it for purposes other than human consumption, as stated in Halachah 10.

6.

Chapter 2, Halachah 8.

7.

Where it is otherwise forbidden to redeem produce from the second tithe.

8.

See Halachot 10-11.

9.

I.e., we do not say that since it became impure before the second tithe was separate and thus the mitzvah associated with that produce could never be fulfilled, the mitzvah does not take effect.

10.

See Hilchot Terumah 7:10; see also Hilchot Ma'aseh HaKorbanot 10:9; Hilchot Chagigah 2:1.

12.

And thus performs the act necessary to emerge from ritual impurity.

13.

A person who purified himself must wait until nightfall before partaking of terumah. This stringency does not apply with regard to partaking of produce from the second tithe.

14.

See the following halachah.

15.

Sefer HaMitzvot (negative commandment 151) and Sefer HaChinuch (mitzvah 608) include this commandment among the 613 mitzvot of the Torah.

The Rambam explains why he considers this a negative commandment in General Principle 8 of Sefer HaMitzvot, saying that whenever the Torah requires us to declare that we did not perform a specific activity, the performance of that activity is forbidden by Scriptural Law. The Ramban does not accept this principle as he states in his Hasagot.

16.

The Kessef Mishneh explains that this concept is derived from the prohibition against partaking of the second tithe in a state of ritual impurity which is mentioned in Halachah 1. Since the two prohibitions are mentioned in sequence by the Torah, we can assume that they share the same laws.

17.

Even if the produce had passed through Jerusalem previously.

18.

For his actions involve either the violation of a positive Scriptural command or a Rabbinic ordinance.

19.

A person's mother, father, son, daughter, paternal brother and paternal sister (Hilchot Evel 2:1).

20.

Aaron asked this rhetorical question after Moses rebuked him for not partaking of the sin offering on the day of the dedication of the Sanctuary. Aaron was explaining that since his sons had died that day, it would not be appropriate for him to partake of a sin offering that day.

21.

For the verse states today.

22.

I.e., according to Scriptural Law; it is, however, forbidden by Rabbinic decree as above.

23.

I.e., even according to Rabbinic Law, the laws of aninut do not apply.

24.

See Hilchot Bi'at HaMikdash 2:9-10. See Sefer HaMitzvot (negative commandment 151) which explains that the prohibition is included in this Scriptural commandment.

25.

And it is forbidden to cause produce from the second tithe to contract ritual impurity.

26.

Even in a state of Scriptural aninut.

27.

Although it may contract ritual impurity. The produce may not, however, be eaten in a state of ritual impurity until it is redeemed. The amount that may be given to a common person is, however, quite small, as stated in the following halachah.

28.

I.e., he must separate an equivalent amount of produce from his possessions and partake of it according to the strictures of the second tithe. He is thus transferring the holiness of the first batch of produce to the second [the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (Demai 1:2)]. Since the obligation to separate the second tithe from demai is Rabbinic in origin, certain leniencies are allowed.

29.

The Ra'avad protests the Rambam's ruling. The Radbaz and the Kessef Mishneh explain that their disagreement stems from two different versions of the Tosefta (Ma'aser Sheni 4:3).

30.

This is referring to an instance where we are certain that the second tithe was not separated from the produce beforehand in contrast to the second tithe that was separated from demai.

31.

In order to prevent this from happening, the Torah gave the option of redeeming the produce, as will be explained.

32.

See Hilchot Shabbat, chs. 8, 9, 18, which mention this measure as significant with regard to food (Kessef Mishneh).

33.

The Ra'avad is more lenient and maintains that a larger amount, a portion the size of an egg, can be given to a common person. The Radbaz and the Kessef Mishneh explain that the difference in the two opinions depends in a textual difference in their versions of Jerusalem Talmud (Demai 2:1), the source for the Rambam's ruling.

34.

Here also, the Ra'avad is more lenient and maintains that a larger amount, a portion the size of an egg, can be given to a common person. The Radbaz and the Kessef Mishneh explain that in this instance as well, the difference in the two opinions depends in a textual difference in their versions of the above source.

35.

And drinking is included in eating (Yoma 76b). In his Commentary to the Mishnah (Ma'aser Sheni 2:1), the Rambam also cites Deuteronomy 14:26 which speaks about using the money from the redemption of the produce from the second tithe to purchase meat, oil, and wine.

36.

In his Commentary to the Mishnah (ibid.), the Rambam cites the Jerusalem Talmud (Ma'aser Sheni 2:1) derives the permission to use oil from the second tithe for smearing as follows: It is forbidden to use oil for a corpse. Now what would oil be used for a corpse? To smear on it. Thus we can infer that it is permitted to use oil to smear on a living person. Others note that smearing oneself is frequently equated with drinking. See Hilchot Sh'vitat Esor 1:4-5; Hilchot Terumot 11:1.

37.

Sefer HaMitzvot (negative commandment 152; see also General Principle 8) and Sefer HaChinuch (mitzvah 610) include this commandment among the 613 mitzvot of the Torah.

38.

In his Commentary to the Torah, the Ramban objects to the Rambam's interpretation of this verse, but the Kessef Mishneh justifies it.

39.

The literal translation of the Rambam's words is "a corpse [that it is] a mitzvah [to bury]. As explained in Hilchot Evel 3:5, this refers to a corpse that is abandoned on the road without anyone to bury it.

40.

I.e., he is not liable for lashes, because he can correct the transgression by purchasing food worth the value of the produce and eating it in place of that produce (Radbaz). This applies if the seller is no longer present or he cannot return the money. If, however, he can return the money, he must, as stated in Chapter 7, Halachah 16.

41.

In his Commentary to the Mishnah (Ma'aser Sheni 2:1), the Rambam explains that this phrase implies an exclusion: Something that is normally eaten must be eaten. We cannot benefit from it in another manner. The examples the Rambam proceeds to give reflect how foods are used for functions other than their primary purpose. See also Hilchot Shemitah 5:2-3.

42.

Even though oil is primarily used as food, it is also common to smear it on one's flesh (Radbaz). Wine or vinegar, by contrast, are generally not applied as ointments.

43.

For producing juice from other fruits is not considered the ordinary way of befitting from this produce. See also Chapter 9, Halachah 3; Hilchot Terumot 11:3; Hilchot Tuma'at Ochalin 1:5.

44.

For this spoils the oil's taste and thus reduces the amount of people who would partake of it [The Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (loc. cit.)].

45.

For this enhances the wine's taste.

46.

In his Commentary to the Mishnah (loc. cit., the Rambam explains that this concept is also derived from the phrasing of that Mishnah: "To eat what is normally eaten." Since this food has spoiled, it is not "normally eaten."

47.

I.e., parts of the plant that are not usually eaten. See Hilchot Terumah 11:10-13 for examples.

48.

I.e., it need not be eaten in Jerusalem, nor in a state of ritual purity.

49.

To impart their flavor to the water.

50.

For it is considered as if a significant amount of the fruit was imparted to the water.

51.

Because it does not contain a significant amount of the fruit.

52.

Since there is a doubt whether the produce is really from the second tithe, we do not impose this stringency.

53.

That were ordinary produce.

54.

As explained in Halachah 15.

55.

With ordinary wood [the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (Ma'aser Sheni 2:1)].

56.

I.e., if one seeks to redeem the bread, one must pay its full value, even though as dough it was worth far less. The rationale is that its flavor is enhanced, but not its measure.

57.

In the taste of the produce.

The Ra'avad has protested this ruling based on the Jerusalem Talmud (Ma'aser Sheni 2:1). Indeed, the ruling is difficult to understanding because it runs contrary to the Rambam's commentary on the Mishnah that serves as the source for the Jerusalem Talmud.

To explain: The Mishnah states: "This is the general principle: Whenever the improvement is obvious, the improvement is judged proportionately. Whenever the improvement is not obvious, the improvement is accredited to the second [tithe]."

The Rambam comments: "I.e., the entity that was improved had its weight... and volume increased, it is not [merely] that the effect of the ordinary produce increased the quality of the produce from the second tithe."

The Jerusalem Talmud cites the following difference of opinion between Rabbi Yochanan and Reish Lakish in connection with our Mishnah:

Rabbi Yochanan says: "Whenever the volume of the produce has increased, the increase is proportionate. Whenever the volume has not increased, the increase is accredited to the second tithe."

Reish Lakish says: "Whenever the improvement in flavor is obvious, the increase is proportionate. Whenever the improvement in flavor is not obvious, the increase is accredited to the second tithe."

Now the general rule is that whenever there is a difference of opinion between Rabbi Yochanan and Reish Lakish, the halachah follows Rabbi Yochanan. The Radbaz and the Kessef Mishneh understand Rabbi Yochanan to be explaining and amplifying the Mishnah, stating that the improvement must be both in flavor and in size, while Reish Lakish maintains that an improvement in flavor is also sufficient.

58.

Thus meeting the two requirements mentioned above.

59.

The Ra'avad objects to the Rambam's ruling and states that four zuz minus a fourth should be considered as the second tithe. Some commentaries suggest that there is a printing error and the Rambam also agrees with this ruling. "According to that version, the reckoning is straightforward. The zuz of increase is divided proportionately according to the ratio of the original value of the substances.

The Kessef Mishnehmaintains the present text of the Mishneh Torah and explains as follows: When everything belongs to one person, three ands three quarters zuz are considered as the second tithe as the Ra'avad maintains. When, however, the honey and spices belong to two people, the value of the entire mixture is considered as four and a fourth zuz. One and a fourth is given to the owner of the honey. Thus the owner of the wine has three and three fourths zuz worth which he must eat in accordance with the laws of the second tithe. Note the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (Ma'aser Sheni 2:1) which follows these same principles, but describes the situation differently.

60.

As stated in Halachah 10.

61.

But rather as food, or for smearing that is pleasurable like eating (Radbaz). Note the parallel in Hilchot Shemitah 5:11.

62.

The Rambam is not saying that it may not be given as a present, because a person may give produce from the second tithe tithe to a colleague. Nevertheless, the recipient does not acquire that produce as his own. Instead, it is as if he is a guest of the giver, partaking of his property. More particularly, it is as if the recipient is partaking of God's property.

63.

Indeed, if one attempts to consecrate a woman with such produce, the consecration is not effective, for the money used to consecrate a woman must belong to the husband (Hilchot Ishut 5:4,6).

64.

See the following halachah for examples of all these prohibitions.

65.

For an exchange is equivalent to a sale [the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (Ma'aser Sheni 1:1)].

66.

See Hilchot Loveh UMalveh 3:7 which describes when a creditor can enter the debtor's home to collect security.

67.

In contrast to the previous instance, this is referring to security willingly given by the debtor to the creditor.

68.

I.e., the exchange is forbidden even if he receives produce from the second tithe in return. The Mishnah (Ma'aser Sheni 1:1)] states that such an exchange is forbidden even in Jerusalem where the produce would be eaten.

69.

For the recipient of the wine is under no obligation to provide the giver with oil or anything else.

70.

For this is deprecating to the holiness of the second tithe [the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (Ma'aser Sheni 1:1)].

71.

I.e., one knows the weight of the produce and one uses it in order to weigh the golden coins onto which the holiness from other produce from the second tithe will be transferred.

72.

I.e., one might think that this is permitted for after all, he is using the produce from the second tithe for a mitzvah, to enable him to transfer the holiness of other produce.

73.

I.e., the produce may dry out, be eaten by mice, or spoil, and thus weigh less than the owner thought (Rav Yosef Corcus).

74.

The Ra'avad differs with the Rambam and maintains that this is permitted. The Kessef Mishneh states that the passage which the Ra'avad uses as a source can be explained differently. Nevertheless, he questions the rationale for the Rambam's ruling.

75.

I.e., to stack them on his table so that he will appear to have an active business.

76.

One gives the loan only for appearance sake - to create an impression that he is wealthy - and the borrower returns it immediately.

77.

It was customary for a person's friends to give him money as wedding gift and for him to repay the favor when the friends married. See Hilchot Zechiyah UMatanah, ch. 7, for a detailed explanation. This is forbidden, because the present is considered as a loan.

78.

I.e., a person invited a colleague for a meal with the expectation that the colleague return the favor (P'nei Moshe, the Jerusalem Talmud, Demai 3:1). Produce from the second tithe cannot be used for such meals, for it is like an exchange.

79.

For he will be paying an obligation levied upon him with funds belonging to God (ibid.).

80.

As long is the donor is not obligated to make these payments.

81.

So that he will use it as required for money from the second tithes.

82.

That would be forbidden because it would be equivalent to using the produce from the second tithe to pay his debt.

83.

Hinting at such an arrangement without specifically mentioning it.

84.

This is permitted, because the oil smeared on his hand is not financially significant [the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (Ma'aser Sheni 2:2)]. Nevertheless, a non-priest is not to put oil which is terumah on his hand to smear it on a priest. The difference between the two situations is that there is no prohibition against having a colleague use oil from the second tithe, while a non-priest is not allowed to benefit from terumah.

85.

Halachah 17.

86.

These are the penalties one would be required to pay for taking a person's individual property. The thief is, however, required to return the principal. See Hilchot Geneivah 2:1.

87.

The consecration is effective. Since the person has the right to partake of the produce, that right has monetary value and hence may be consecrated. See Chapter 7, Halachah 19, with regard to dedicating the second tithes for the purchase of sacrifices.

88.

I.e., not necessarily the owner, for anyone can redeem consecrated property. The owner, however, must add a fifth (see Hilchot Arachin 7:2-4). Similarly, when a person redeems produce from the second tithe that belongs to him, he must add a fifth, as stated in Chapter 5, Halachah 1. See Radbaz.

Maaser Sheini - Chapter 4

1

A person who desires to redeem produce from the second tithe should1 redeem it according to its worth2 and say: "These coins3 take the place of this produce" or "The holiness of this produce is transferred to these coins."

If he did not make such an explicit statement, but merely set aside the coins equivalent to [the value of] the produce, it is sufficient. He need not make an explicit statement.4

The produce then is considered ordinary produce and the coins must be taken to Jerusalem and spent there,5 as [Deuteronomy 14:23] states: "When the journey will be too great for you, because you cannot transport it...."

א

הרוצה לפדות פירות מע"ש פודה אותן בדמיהן ואומר הרי המעות האלו תחת הפירות האלו או הפירות האלו מחוללות על המעות האלו ואם לא פירש אלא הפריש מעות בלבד כנגד הפירות דיו ואינו צריך לפרש ויצאו הפירות לחולין ויעלו המעות לירושלים ויוציאם שם שנאמר וכי ירבה ממך הדרך כי לא תוכל שאתו:

2

Similarly, if a person desires to transfer the holiness of produce from the second tithe to other produce, he should bring the other produce6 to Jerusalem and eat it there. He should not transfer the holiness of produce from one species to produce from another species,7 nor from high quality produce from one species to lower quality produce even if it is of the same species. If, however, he transferred the holiness of produce in these instances, the transfer is effective.

ב

וכן אם רצה לחלל פירות המעשר על פירות אחרות יעלו הפירות השניות ויאכלו בירושלים ולא יחלל ממין על שאינו מינו ולא מן היפה על הרע ואפילו באותו המין ואם חילל הרי הן מחוללות:

3

A person who redeems produce from the second tithe should recite a blessing:8 "[Blessed are You...] who sanctified us with His commandments and commanded us concerning the redemption of the second tithe." If he transferred the holiness to other produce or he transferred the holiness of money to produce,9 he should recite the blessing: "...concerning the transfer of the holiness of the second tithe."10 A person who redeems or transfers the holiness of demai need not11 recite a blessing.12

ג

הפודה מע"ש מברך אקב"ו על פדיון מע"ש ואם חיללן על פירות אחרות או שחילל מעות על הפירות מברך על חילול מע"ש והפודה או המחלל מע"ש של דמאי אינו צריך ברכה:

4

When one redeems produce from the second tithe, he should not redeem it as the second tithe, but rather as ordinary produce. He should say: "How much is this ordinary produce worth." [This applies] even if everyone knows that the produce is from the second tithe, so that it will not be disgraced.13

ד

כשפודין את המעשר אין פודין אותו לשם מעשר אלא לשם חולין ואומרין כמה שוין פירות חולין אלו ואע"פ שהכל יודעין שהן מעשר כדי שלא יתבזה:

5

The holiness of coins [used to redeem produce from] the second tithe should not be transferred to other coins.14 [This applies] whether both sets of coins were silver or both were brass, the first set was silver and the second brass, or the first set was brass and the second silver. If one transgressed and transferred the holiness, the transfer is effective.15

ה

אין מחללין מעות מעשר שני על מעות אחרות בין שהיו אלו ואלו כסף או אלו ואלו נחושת [או הראשונות כסף והשניות נחשת או] הראשונות נחושת והשניות כסף ואם עבר וחילל הרי אלו מחוללין:

6

[Outside of Jerusalem,] the holiness of money of the second tithe should not be transferred to produce. If such a transfer was made, the produce should be brought to Jerusalem and eaten there.16 [Similarly, the holiness of money from the second tithe] should not be transferred to living domesticated animals, beasts, or fowl. If one [attempted to] make such a transfer, the holiness of the second tithe is not transferred. [This is a decree,]17 lest one raise them in herds. If one transferred the [holiness of such funds] to animals that were slaughtered, they are considered as produce. They must be brought to Jerusalem and eaten there and the money is considered as ordinary funds.18

ו

אין מחללין מעות מעשר על הפירות ואם חילל יעלו הפירות ויאכלו בירושלים ולא יחללם על בהמה חיה ועוף חיין ואם חילל לא קנה מעשר שמא יגדל מהם עדרים עדרים אבל אם חילל על שחוטים הרי הן כשאר הפירות ויעלו ויאכלו בירושלים ויצאו המעות לחולין:

7

In a pressing situation,19 it is permitted to transfer the holiness of silver coins to brass ones. One should not maintain this situation, however.20 Instead, [when he has] a respite he should transfer the holiness of the brass back to silver coins.

ז

בשעת הדחק מותר לחלל מעות הכסף על של נחשת לא שיקיים כן אלא עד שימצא ריוח ויחזור ויחלל מעות הנחשת על מעות הכסף:

8

As an initial preference,21 one may transfer the holiness of coins of the second tithe from demai, transferring the holiness from silver to silver, from silver to brass, from brass to brass, and from brass to produce. That produce should be brought to Jerusalem and eaten there.22

ח

מעשר שני של דמאי מחללים אותו לכתחלה כסף על כסף וכסף על נחשת ונחשת על נחשת ונחשת על הפירות ויעלו אותן הפירות ויאכלו בירושלים:

9

The produce from the second tithe may only be redeemed23 for silver, as [implied by Deuteronomy 14:25]: "And you shall bundle the silver." Similarly, if a person redeems the silver for himself and adds a fifth,24 that fifth must be silver like the principal.25

One should not use uncoined silver for the redemption [of the second tithe]. Instead, one must use silver imprinted with an image or with writing.26 If one [attempted to] redeem [produce from the second tithe] with silver bullion or the like - this is referred as an asimon - his actions are of no consequence. We may not redeem [produce from the second tithe] with [a coin less valuable] than a p'rutah,27 because this is considered as redeeming with an asimon.

ט

אין פודין פירות מעשר אלא בכסף שנאמר וצרת הכסף וכן אם פדה לעצמו והוסיף חומש לא יהיה החומש אלא כסף כקרן ואין פודין בכסף שאינו מטבע אלא בכסף מפותח שיש עליו צורה או כתב [שנאמר וצרת הכסף] ואם פדה בלשון של כסף וכיוצא בו והוא הנקרא אסימון לא עשה כלום ואין פודין בפחות מפרוטה מפני שהוא כפודה באסימון:

10

We may not redeem [produce from the second tithe] with a coin that is not legal tender in that place and at that time,28 as [implied by ibid.:26]: "And you shall exchange the silver for anything your heart desires." [Implied is that the silver] must be fit for exchange.29 A coin minted by kings of an earlier era30 may be used for redemption if it is still circulated as currency.

י

אין פודין במטבע שאינו יוצא באותו זמן ובאותו מקום שנאמר ונתת הכסף בכל אשר תאוה נפשך עד שיהיה ראוי להוצאה ומטבע מלכים הראשונים אם יוצא משמם פודין בו:

11

We may not redeem [produce from the second tithe] with coins that are not in one's possession,31 as [implied by] the verse: "And you shall bundle the silver in your hand."32 If a person's pouch fell into a cistern, but it is possible for him to remove it from there, he may use [the coins in] it for redemption,33 for it is [still] in his domain.

יא

אינו פודה במעות שאינן ברשותו שנאמר וצרת הכסף בידך נפל כיסו לבור והוא יכול להוציאו פודה בו מפני שהוא ברשותו:

12

[The following rules apply when] one was traveling on the road, carrying money, and a man of force was approaching him.34 If he could save [his money, even] with difficulty, he can use it to redeem produce of the second tithe in his home.35 If he cannot, and he says: "The holiness of the produce that is in my house is transferred to this money," his statements are of no consequence.

יב

היה בא בדרך ומעות בידו ואנס בא כנגדו אם יכול להציל על ידי הדחק פודה בהן פירות שבביתו ואם לאו ואמר פירות שיש לי בתוך ביתי מחוללין על המעות הללו לא אמר כלום:

13

When a person sets aside money upon which to transfer the holiness of produce from the second tithe, he may [continue to] redeem his produce under the assumption that the money exists in his possession. If he discovers that the money has been lost, he must be concerned about all the produce that he redeemed with that money.36

יג

המניח מעות להיות מחלל עליהן מעשר שני הרי זה פודה בהן בחזקת שהן קיימים מצאן שאבדו חושש לכל מה שפדה בהן למפרע:

14

When a person located in Tiberias has money in Babylonian coinage in Babylon, he may not transfer the holiness [of the produce of the second tithe] to them.37If, by contrast, [although he is in Tiberias,] he possesses money of Tiberian coinage in Babylon, he may transfer the holiness [of the produce of the second tithe] to them.38 Similarly laws apply in all analogous situations.

יד

מי שהיה עומד בטבריא ויש לו מעות (בבל) בבבל אינו מחלל עליהם היו לו מעות ממטבע טבריא בבבל מחלל עליהם וכן כל כיוצא בזה:

15

When a person says: "The holiness of produce from the second tithe is transferred to the first sela that I will take out of this wallet," "...on the sela I will receive when I exchange this golden dinar," "...on the pundiyon39 I will receive when I exchange this sela, the transfer is effective.40 The sela that he will take out or receive in exchange is money of the second tithe.

טו

האומר מעשר שני מחולל על סלע שתעלה בידי מכיס זה על סלע שאפרוט מדינר זהב זה על פונדיון שאפרוט מסלע זה ה"ז חילל וסלע שתעלה בידו או שיפרוט תהי מעשר:

16

When a person says: "The holiness of the produce of the second tithe is transferred to the sela in my son's possession, the holiness is not transferred. Perhaps the sela was not in his possession at that time.41

טז

אמר הרי מעשר מחולל על סלע שהיתה ביד בני לא חילל שמא לא היתה בידו באותה שעה:

17

When a person redeems the produce from the second tithe before he separates it, e.g., he says: "The second tithe of this produce42 is redeemed with this money," his statements are of no consequence and the tithes have not been defined. If, however, he says: "The second tithe from this produce is in its northern portion" or "...in its southern portion43 and its holiness is transferred to this money," the redemption is effective.

יז

הפודה מעשר שני קודם שיפרישנו כגון שאמר מעשר שני של פירות אלו פדוי במעות אלו לא אמר כלום ולא קבע מעשר אבל אם קבע ואמר מע"ש שלהן בצפון או בדרום מחולל על המעות אלו ה"ז פדוי:

18

When the produce of the second tithe is redeemed, it should be redeemed for its fair value.44 One may, however, value it at the buying price, i.e., what the storekeeper would pay if he purchased it and not the price he would charge if he sold it.45 Similarly, he may pay money according to the rate that a moneychanger would pay and not according to the rate he would charge.46 If a person transgresses and redeemed [produce] worth a maneh47 with [a coin] worth a p'rutah, the holiness [of the produce] is transferred.48

יח

כשפודין מע"ש פודין אותו בשויו ויש לו לפדות בשער הזול כמות שהחנוני לוקח ולא כמות שהוא מוכר ונותן המעות כמות שהשולחני פורט לא כמות שהוא מצרף ואם עבר ופדה שוה מנה בפרוטה או חילל שוה מנה על שוה פרוטה ה"ז מחולל:

19

[The following laws apply if] a sela was lacking a sixth or less [than its weight].49 If it would be accepted [in business dealings even] with difficulty, one may transfer the holiness a sela's worth [of produce of the second tithe] to it without concern.50 If one redeemed [produce] with a sela and it was discovered to be unacceptable,51 he should exchange it.52

יט

היתה הסלע חסירה שתות או פחות משתות אם היתה יוצאת על ידי הדחק מחלל עליה לכתחלה בשוה סלע ואינו חושש פדה בסלע ונמצאת רעה יחליפנה:

20

One should not redeem produce from the second tithe by estimation.53 Instead, one should be precise concerning its volume or its weight and give their value. If the value [of the produce] was known,54 he may redeem it in the presence of only one person.55 If its value was not known, e.g., wine that had begun turning into vinegar,56 produce that spoiled, or coins that corroded, he should redeem them according to the appraisal of three merchants.57 [It is acceptable] even if one of them is a gentile or the owner of the produce58 of the second tithe. It is even acceptable to redeem [produce] based on the appraisal of a man and his two wives.59We compel the owner to make the first bid [to redeem the produce].60 This is a stringency applied with regard to produce from the second tithe over consecrated property.61

כ

אין פודין מע"ש אכסרה אלא מדקדק במדתו או במשקלו ונותן דמיו אם היו דמיו ידועים יפדה על פי אחד ואם דבר שאין דמיו ידועים כגון יין שהתחיל להחמיץ ופירות שהרקיבו או מעות שהחלידו יפדה ע"פ ג' תגרים ואפילו היה אחד מהן עכו"ם או בעל המעשר אפילו איש ושתי נשיו פודין על פיהם וכופין את הבעלים לפתוח ראשון וזה חומר במעשר מן ההקדש:

21

We should not transport produce62 from the second tithe from one place to another to redeem it there. When a person transports produce from a place where it is expensive to a place where it is inexpensive should redeem it according to its value in the place he is redeeming it. If it is demai,63 we may redeem it at the inexpensive price, since it was possible to sell it at that price.

כא

אין מוליכין פירות מעשר ממקום למקום לפדותם שם והמוליך ממקום היוקר למקום הזול או ממקום הזול למקום היוקר פודה כשער מקום הפדייה ואם היו דמאי פודין אותו כשער הזול הואיל ונראו להמכר בזול:

22

If a person possessed produce from the second tithe in his granary and spent money to transport them from his house to the town,64 thus causing the value of the produce to increase, he should redeem it according to the price ion the city. He forfeits the expenses he undertook.65

כב

היו לו פירות מעשר שני בגורן והוציא עליהם יציאות מביתו עד שהביאן לעיר והשביחו פודה כשער העיר והפסיד יציאותיו:

Footnotes
1.

Although there is a difference of opinion concerning this manner in the Mishnah (Ma'aser Sheni 4:7), the variance in views applies only after the fact. According to all views, the initial and preferable option is for him to make an explicit statement.

2.

See Halachah 18 and Chapter 2, Halachah 2.

3.

The coins need not be in front of him when he makes the declaration. As long as they are within his possession, it is acceptable. See Halachot 11-13.

4.

For the circumstances clarify the nature of his intent [the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (Ma'aser Sheni 4:7)].

In some printings of the Mishneh Torah, there is a note (which some ascribe to the Ra'avad) that states that for the redemption to be acceptable when he does not make an explicit statement, he must have been involved with the matter beforehand. Rav Yosef Corcus discusses this issue at length, noting that this is indeed the law with regard to the consecration and divorce of a woman (Hilchot Ishut 3:8, Hilchot Gerushin 1:11). He makes two distinctions regarding the situations:

a) in contrast to consecration and divorce, setting aside money for produce from the second tithe is a self-explanatory act; the intent is directly obvious;

b) consecration and divorce must be observed by witnesses. Hence, one must make his intent clear to them. There is no such obligation with regard to the redemption of produce. The Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 31:136) quotes the Rambam's ruling.

5.

To purchase food. See Chapter 7, Halachah 3.

6.

The original produce, by contrast, is now considered as ordinary produce and can be eaten anywhere. The Ra'avad differs and maintains that the transfer is not effective, for he maintains that the holiness of the produce from the second tithe can only be transferred to money. Nevertheless, as a stringency, he maintains that the second batch of produce must also be taken to Jerusalem. The Radbaz and the Kessef Mishneh justify the Rambam's ruling.

7.

The Ra'avad differs with the Rambam on this issue as well and again the commentaries justify the Rambam's position.

8.

Before separating the produce.

9.

See Halachah 6.

10.

In continuation of his comments on the previous halachah, the Ra'avad states that a blessing should not be recited. Since the person is not allowed to transfer the holiness of the produce in this manner, he should not recite a blessing.

11.

Indeed, he should not, lest he be taking God's name in vein.

12.

Because there is no definite Scriptural obligation incumbent on this produce.

13.

Produce from the second tithe is sold for a lower price than ordinary produce, because restrictions apply with regard to its consumption. Hence, if produce from the second tithe is offered for evaluation and its identity is known, people will look at it less favorably. The Kessef Mishneh questions this rationale, noting that once this produce is redeemed, there is no difference between it and ordinary produce and hence, its price should not be reduced. He explains that, nevertheless, since it originally was from the second tithe, it is still viewed less favorably.

The Ra'avad differs with the Rambam's ruling and maintains that such a ploy is not necessary. The commentaries follow the Rambam's view.

14.

The Radbaz and the Kessef Mishneh state that the Rambam derives this from the fact that Demai 1:2 states that such a redemption may be made with coins upon which the holiness of the second tithe of demai had been transferred. Implied is that if we are certain that the produce is from the second tithe, no such redemption can be made. See the Rambam's Commentary to that mishnah where he states that the concept is derived from Deuteronomy 14:25 which states: "And you shall exchange it for silver and you shall bundle the silver," i.e., the silver originally used for the redemption must be the silver taken to Jerusalem.

See the conclusion of Chapter 5 and the beginning of Chapter 6 which mentions some exceptions to this general principle.

15.

See also Halachah 7 which states that redemption may be made in a pressing situation.

16.

I.e., if the produce was purchased intentionally with money of the second tithe. See Chapter 7, Halachot 1, 15.

17.

I.e., our Sages rescinded the transfer of the holiness to the animal for the reason stated (Sukkah 40b).

18.

See Chapter 7, Halachah 16.

19.

E.g., the situation described in Chapter 6, Halachah 2. This example is also discussed by the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (Ma'aser Sheni 2:6).

20.

I.e., one should not leave the brass coins in a state of holiness (ibid.). Among the reasons silver coins are preferred is that they are more prestigious and they do not corrode.

21.

Since the separation of the second tithe from demai is merely a Rabbinic stringency, our Sages granted leniency in its application.

22.

I.e., its holiness should not be transferred back to coins.

23.

The Radbaz distinguishes between pediah, "redemption," which requires coined silver, and chillul, "the transfer of holiness." The latter does not required coinage at all.

24.

As required by Chapter 5, Halachah 1.

25.

See parallels in Hilchot Terumah 10:15; Hilchot Arachin 7:2.

26.

This is also derived from the above prooftext. Vitzarta, translated as "you shall bundle," relates to the word tzurah meaning "form" or "image." Thus the prooftext is implying that one may redeem produce from the second tithe with silver with an imprint [the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (Ma'aser Sheni 1:2); based on Bava Metzia 47b].

27.

A p'rutah is a copper coin of minimal value. One may not use a silver coin less valuable than this copper coin. The rationale is that its minimal value causes it to be considered as uncoined silver (Radbaz; Kessef Mishneh).

28.

I.e., it has an imprint and was once issued by a government as currency, but is no longer accepted by the present ruling authorities.

29.

The Rambam mentions this interpretation of the verse in his Commentary to the Mishnah (loc. cit.). The commentaries have not cited a common prior Rabbinic source. See, however, Midrash HaGadol and Midrash Tana'im.

30.

But which is no longer being minted at present.

31.

E.g., his pouch fell into the sea, in which instance, his coins are no longer accessible to him (Bava Kama 98a).

32.

The word "yadecha," translated as "your hand," can also be interpreted as "your domain." That is the intent here, because the money need not actually be in one's hand. As long as they are in one's domain, and they are accessible, it is acceptable, as evident from this and the subsequent halachot.

33.

The cost of recovering the coins must, however, be deducted before one uses the money to redeem produce [the Jerualem Talmud (Ma'aser Sheni 1:2)].

34.

And he is certain that he will rob him.

35.

I.e., the person knows that he will lose his money. Hence, rather than forfeit it without receiving anything for it, he decides that it is preferable for him to use it for something - to redeem his produce. The Kessef Mishneh maintains that the Rambam is not stating that, a priori, he may use the money to redeem his produce. Instead, the intent is that after the fact if he redeems the produce with this money, after the fact, the redemption is effective.

36.

I.e., he must operate under the premise that the money was lost immediately after he saw it last and all the produce that he sought to redeem from that time onward was thus not redeemed. See Hilchot Ma'aser 7:4, however, which mentions a similar situation with regard to tithing produce and rules that although the produce must be tithed again, the status of that tithing is only doubtful.

37.

I.e., the Rambam's perspective is that in these instances, there are two negative factors: a) the coinage is not legal tender in the place where he is located; b) he does not have the money at hand. Hence, he cannot redeem the produce of the second tithe with it.

38.

Because there is only one difficulty, that the person is not located in the same place as the money, the money is not disqualified.

The Ra'avad differs with the Rambam and maintains that there is only one significant factor, whether the money is legal tender in the place it is located. The Radbaz and the Kessef Mishneh discuss the two views at length.

39.

All of the italicized terms are coins used in the Talmudic era.

40.

In all these instances, the transfer of holiness is effective even though the coin was not singled out at the time when the declaration was made. Nevertheless, the transfer of holiness is not effective retroactively, i.e., we do not say that once the coin is taken, the transfer of holiness takes effect from the time the declaration was made.

The above follows the explanation given by Rav Yosef Corcus who notes that the Rambam (Hilchot Terumot 1:21) does not accept the principle of bereirah with regard to questions of Scriptural Law. The Radbaz explains that this explanation is not necessary, because the Rambam rules that the obligation to separate the second tithe in the present age is Rabbinic in origin.

41.

Even if the coin was later discovered in the son's possession, the transfer of holiness is not effective, because we do not know whether it was in his possession at the time the declaration was made (Rashas). One might conclude that if one knows that the coin was in the son's possession at the time of the declaration, the separation is effective.

42.

Which he has not yet separated.

43.

Making such a statement is equivalent to separating the second tithe. Note the parallels in Hilchot Terumah 3:8.

44.

I.e., at the time the Temple was standing; alternatively, in the present age, as an expression of piety (Chapter 2, Halachah 2).

45.

I.e., the storekeeper obviously sells the produce for a higher price than the price at which he purchases it.

46.

In his Commentary to the Mishnah (Ma'aser Sheni 4:2), the Rambam explains that a moneychanger will take 25 me'ah for a sela, but will only give 24. If the produce is worth a sela, the person redeeming it need not pay more than 24.

47.

100 large silver pieces.

48.

Bava Metzia 57a makes such a statement with regard to consecrated property (see Hilchot Arachin 7:8). The Rambam draws the parallel since the laws governing consecrated property are more stringent than those governing the second tithe.

49.

In previous eras, the minting of coins was less precise and it was possible that a coin would weigh slightly less than the standard weight for it. Alternatively, wear and tear could have reduced its weight.

50.

This is also a leniency, for in ordinary business dealings one would have to reimburse the other party for the difference in value (Hilchot Mechirah 10:12).

51.

I.e., its worth is more than a sixth less than the value of a sela.

52.

Transferring the holiness from it to a coin of fair value. There is no difficulty with the original transfer of holiness from the produce to the coin, for - after the fact - as long as a coin is worth a p'rutah, the transfer of holiness to it is effective as stated in the previous halachah.

53.

For as stated above, the initial preference is to redeem the produce of the second tithe at its fair market price. That can only be established after its measure is known.

54.

I.e., we are speaking about ordinary produce that has a fixed market value.

55.

Because in such an instance, it is not necessary to evaluate its worth.

56.

Which is still valuable, but is not as valuable as ordinary wine and hence, must be assessed, for once the produce has started to spoil, its value is not a cut-and-dry matter [the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah Talmud (Ma'aser Sheni 4:2)].

57.

For they will be able to assess the true value of the produce.

58.

Two gentiles or two owners, however, are not acceptable [Jerusalem Talmud (Ma'aser Sheni 4:2)].

59.

Sanhedrin 14b relates that Rav Papa's wife help evaluate his produce.

60.

Because the owner must add a fifth.

61.

The Rambam's ruling is based on his version of the Tosefta, Ma'aser Sheni 3:3. The Ra'avad maintains that the proper version of that source is: "We compel him to make the first bid. If he desires to retract he may. This is the stringency of consecrated property over the second tithes." The Kessef Mishneh notes that this is indeed the version of the Tosefta commonly followed. There is an added difficulty with the Rambam's ruling, because in all instances of consecrated property, he requires the owner to make the first bid. See Hilchot Arachin, ch. 5, in contrast to the statements of Radbaz here.

62.

By contrast, money to which the holiness of the second tithe has been transferred may of course be transported.

63.

In which instance, leniency is allowed, because the obligation is of Rabbinic origin.

64.

The price of produce is a town is always higher than their price in the field, because someone had to undertake the transportation costs. See the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (Ma'aser Sheni 2:1)].

65.

I.e., they are included in the price of the produce of the second tithe. The rationale is that until the produce is redeemed, any increase in its value is considered part of the produce. Just like he is obligated to bring the produce to Jerusalem, he is obligated to do anything to facilitate its being brought to Jerusalem, including bringing it to a place where it is redeemed.

Published and copyright by Moznaim Publications, all rights reserved.
To purchase this book or the entire series, please click here.
The text on this page contains sacred literature. Please do not deface or discard.