Maaser - Chapter 1

This is the preferable course of behavior. If, however, one separates the tithes before terumah, the separation is binding.

Thus it is not a tenth of the entire crop.

Sefer HaMitzvot (positive commandment 127) and Sefer HaChinuch (mitzvah 395) include this commandment among the 613 mitzvot of the Torah.

I.e., unlike terumah where these restrictions apply.

Which must be eaten in Jerusalem in a state of ritual purity.

Until terumat ma’aser has been separated from it, however, we· may not partake of it (Radbaz).

And we fear that she was raped by her captors. With regard to terumah, by contrast, once the daughter of a priest engages in forbidden relations, she is forbidden to partake of it (Hilchot Terumah 6:7). Our Sages did not decree that a Levite’s daughter who engages in forbidden relationships should not be allowed to partake of terumah, for it is uncommon for a woman to engage in forbidden relationships (Yevamot 91a).

If, however, she did not marry, she is not forbidden, even if she was consecrated by another man.

I.e., this is a Rabbinic decree, enacted to maintain the moral level of the Jewish people.

I.e., since the priests and the Levites are allowed to keep the tithes, one might ask: Why is it necessary for them to separate it at the outset? The Rambam answers that the separation is necessary, because until terumat ma'aser is separated from the tithes, it is forbidden to partake of them.

With the expression “other types of terumah,” the Rambam includes challah and bikkurim. See Hilchot Terumah 15:20.

The intent is only the first tithe. The second tithe and the tithe for the poor are not given to the priests.

They may not, however, partake of the produce without making these separations as the Rambam proceeds to explain.

I.e., from an Israelite and not from a priest.

A priest must separate the presents. He need not, however, give them to another priest, but instead may keep them for himself.

There are some who interpret the Rambam as implying that the penalty was applied only in Ezra’s era, but not in subsequent generations. Indeed, we find that even Sages gave their tithes to Levites (Ma’aser Sheni 5:9). For this reason, it appears that Ezra’s penalty was that if there were both a priest and a Levite present, the tithes should preferably be given to the priest, but they could also be given to a Levite (Radbaz). Alternatively, in Ezra’s generation, the tithes should be given only to the priests. Subsequently, however, when more Levites ascended and settled in Eretz Yisrael, the decree was rescinded and tithes could also be given to the Levites. Nevertheless, in order not to nullify Ezra’s words entirely, it was still possible to give the tithes to the priests (Kessef Mishneh). [Note, however, the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah (Ma’aser Sheni 5:15) which indicates that the tithes were given to the priests in the generations after Ezra as well. See also Hilchot Ma’aser Sheni 11:14.] All agree that the Levites themselves were never required to give the tithes to the priests.
The Minchat Chinuch (Mitzvah 395) asks: How was it possible for Ezra to nullify the Torah’s command? For the Scriptural obligation is to give the tithes to the Levites. He answers that in Ezra’s time, the mitzvah to tithe was only Rabbinic in origin (see Hilchot Terumot, ch. 1). Hence, it was possible for him to make the priests the recipients.

See Ezra 8:15 which states that the descendants of the Levites were not found among the people who returned to Israel from Babylon. There were many among the Jewish people who had achieved financial security and comfortable living circumstances in Babylon and did not want to give this up to live in the Holy Land. Nevertheless, aside from the Levites, there was no distinct group that did not return to Israel in significant numbers.

I.e., before terumah and the tithes have been separated.

I.e., before terumat ma'aser has been separated.

See Hilchot Ma’achalot Assurot 10:19.

I.e., the priests (or the Levites) who would be given the terumah or the tithes. With regard to terumah, by contrast, when a person partakes of terumah unknowingly, he is required to make restitution. See Hilchot Terumah 6:6.

In the lands directly bordering on Eretz Yisrael where our Sages ordained that the agricultural laws be observed. See Hilchot Terumah 1 :6.

Since the obligation to make these separations from the crops is Rabbinic in origin, our Sages granted this leniency. See Hilchot Terumah 1 :21.

In contrast to terumah, in which instance, the initial preference is to separate the terumah from the same produce for which it is being taken (Hilchot Terumah 3:17).

This holds true for terumah as well, as stated in Hilchot Terumah 5:3.

This also applies with regard to terumah, see ibid.:2, 12.

It need not be given to a Levite and if necessary, new tithes must be separated.

E. g., produce that has been reaped for produce that is attached to the ground (ibid.:9), produce reaped in one year for produce reaped in another year (ibid.: 11), or produce from the Diaspora for produce from Eretz Yisrael (ibid.: 12).

I.e., instances where a separation of terumah is undesirable, nevertheless, after the fact, it is acceptable. For. example, one separated produce for which all the work concerning it was not completed (ibid. :4); one separated lower grade produce as terumah for higher grade produce (ibid. :.8); or one unknowingly separated impure produce as terumah for pure produce.

For example, produce not fit for human consumption (ibid. 2:1); produce that was leket, pe’ah, or the like (ibid. :9).

A person who is deaf, but not mute, a mute who can hear, but not speak, a person who is naked, a person who is drunk and a blind person (ibid. 4:4).

A deaf-mute, a mentally or emotionally unstable person, a minor, a gentile who separated terumah from produce belonging to a Jew, even with his permission, and a person who separate terumah from produce that does not belong to him without the owner’s permission (ibid. :2).

Since he willingly appointed him as an agent, we assume that he relies on him and can follow the accepted presumption that an agent will carry out the task assigned to him. [Our translation and commentary follow the gloss of the Radbaz. Others offer different interpretations.]

Since he did not appoint him voluntarily, we are not certain that he will carry out the agency in good faith.

The Ra’avad differs with the Rambam and maintains that according to Scriptural Law, the only trees from which we are required to separate the tithes are grapes and olives. As explained in the notes to Hilchot Terumah 2:1, this is a difference of opinion involving many authorities.

Based on Hilchot Ma’aser Sheni 1 :3, it appears that here the Rambam is speaking of carobs that grow in Tzalmona or other species that are usually not eaten. The carobs that grow commonly and are eaten by many must be tithed according to Scriptural Law.
Those that grow in Tzalmona and the like are also eaten by some people. Hence the Rabbis ordained that they be tithed. Species of produce that are not usually consumed by people are exempt, as stated in the following clause.

When such almonds are small, they are not bitter. Nevertheless, they are still unfit to be eaten because they have not fully matured (see Rashi, Chullin 25b).

Even though some may partake of them, the majority do not. Indeed, the minority is so insignificant that we do not require a separation of terumah even according to Rabbinic Law.

It is produce of the field from which we must tithe (the Jerusalem Talmud, Orlah 1:2).

If, however, the fruit is picked one by one, a person is not obligated to tithe it.
This law is stated in the Mishnah (Ma’aserot 3:8). Now a courtyard is not considered a field. Hence in order that this law not contradict the law cited from the Jerusalem Talmud, we must assume that the Mishnah is speaking according to Rabbinic Law, while the Jerusalem Talmud is speaking according to Scriptural Law. The Ra’avad differs with this ruling and differentiates between produce growing in a courtyard and that which grows in a house. The Radbaz and the Kessef Mishneh support the Rambarri’s ruling.

I.e., they are exempt according to Scriptural Law, and even according to Rabbinic Law, there is no obligation to separate tithes, because the person would not desire to have the plants grow (Or Sameach).

Destroying the roof of the loft.

The Rambam is speaking about an instance where the figs and the other fruits growing in the field have for the most part been harvested. There were, however, a few figs left growing in scattered places around the field. The grapes, however, grow later than the other crops and hence, had not been harvested yet. The owner was protecting his field for the sake of his grapes. The question is: Are the other fruits considered as ownerless because the owner is no longer primarily concerned with them? Or do we say that since he is guarding his field because of the grapes, he is also guarding the other produce?

Which grow even later than grapes.

Even though it has little value. We are forbidden to take even the slightest amount of a colleague’s property against his will.

It is as if he has declared them ownerless (Radbaz). See a parallel ruling in Hilchot Ishut 5:8.

For ownerless produce need not be tithed. Similarly, terumah need not be separated from it (Radbaz, based on Hilchot Terumah 2:11).

The same concept applies with regard to terumah, as stated in Hilchot Terumah 2:4,6.

This is both the correct wording of the verse and the manuscript copies of the Mishneh Torah. The standard printed text is in error.

See Avot 1:16. In contrast terumah should be separated in this manner (Hilchot Terumah 3:4).

The volume of the produce.

The order of preference is number, volume, weight. See Terumot 4:6.

For giving them does not fulfill the requirement.

Although usually, one may set aside tithes from one collection of produce for another (Halachah 6), an exception is made in this instance, because he originally separated this produce with the intent that it be tithes [the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (Terumot 4:1)]. it would appear that one is separating tithes from produce for which one is required to separate tithes for produce for which one is not obligated to make such a separation (see notes to Halachah 7).

See Hilchot Berachot 11:6, 12; Hilchot Terumah 2:16.

I.e., terumat ma'aser.

This applies if one sets aside terumah and tithes for his own produce. If he sets it aside for others, he should. conclude the blessing “concerning the separation of tithes” (Hilchot Berachot 11:12-13).