Rambam - 3 Chapters a Day

Otherwise, it is forbidden to give the second tithe as a present. See also Chapter 3, Halacha 17.

Although the produce of the second tithe belongs to God, as it were, since the person partakes of it, the Torah considers it as his with regard to the obligation to add a fifth (Bava Kama 69b).

This is true in all instances that the Torah requires that a fifth be added.

Kiddushin 24a.

Using it to purchase peace sacrifices or the like.

For example, if the produce was worth 4, the person redeeming it must originally pay 5 and then, he must pay an additional 1. He need not pay an additional 1.2.

Because anything less than a p’rutah is not considered as financially significant. From here, it appears that according to the Rambam, he must, however, redeem the produce. Rashi (Bava Metzia 54b) , by contrast, maintains that it need not be redeemed at all. See, however, the notes to Chapter 2, Halachah 9.

The Radbaz distinguishes between this instance and Chapter 4, Halachah 20, which states that when the value of produce is unknown, it should be assessed by three experts, explaining that that halachah is speaking about an instance where the produce has genuine worth, but it can only be determined by experts, not a common person. This halachah, by contrast, is speaking about an instance where its worth is not known at all.

This is acceptable for, as mentioned above, after the fact, the transfer of holiness from produce to money is acceptable even if the money is not of the same value as the produce.

And we assume that, as a safeguard, a person will be somewhat generous in the money he sets aside in redemption of the second tithe, setting aside a little more than the worth of the produce. The holiness of the produce whose fifth is worth less than a p’rutah is transferred to that extra amount (Radbaz).

Since the obligation to redeem the second tithe of demai is merely Rabbinic in origin, this added stringency was not imposed.

The reason why it is acceptable to use the money used to redeem other produce is explained in the following halachah and notes. This leniency is granted because the obligation to set aside the second tithe from such produce is Rabbinic in origin, as stated in Chapter 2, Halachah 9. We grant him this leniency rather than require him to bring that produce to Jerusalem or to wait until he has enough other produce so that the fifth will be worth a p’rutah [Rashi (Bava Metzia 53b)].

And we assume that, as a safeguard, a person will be somewhat generous in the money he sets aside in redemption of the second tithe, setting aside a little more than the worth of the produce. The holiness of the produce whose fifth is worth less than a p’rutah is transferred to that extra amount (ibid.; Radbaz).

In contrast, when a person redeems consecrated money for more than its worth, the extra amount is considered as consecrated [the Jerusalem Talmud (Ma’aser Sheni 4:3)].

In his Commentary to the Mishnah (Ma’aser Sheni 4:3; based on the Jerusalem Talmud), the Rambam explains that an increase in the principal is favored over a lesser amount of principal but a greater total, because there are “guileful” means to avoid paying the additional fifth as will be explained.

I.e., the intent of the person’s “guile” is to avoid paying the additional fifth.

All three of these individuals have an independent financial capacity. Hence, they are not considered as acting on behalf of the owner.

For then it appears that they are acting on his behalf.

For then the other people are considered as acting on their own initiative, even though he gave them instructions. This applies even if the owner of the produce gives the other
person an equivalent amount of money, but that person does not use it to redeem the produce.

As indicated by Hilchot Terumah 4:5, this is speaking about an instance where the child has reached the age when his vows are significant. In such an instance, his actions are effective even with regard to matters of Scriptural Law.

See Hilchot Avadim 5:3, et al.

In this instance, she will ultimately have an independent financial capacity when she comes of age. Nevertheless, at present, because she is a minor, she can act on behalf of others only with regard to matters of Rabbinic Law.

See Hilchot Terumah 5:14-16.

In this instance, she will ultimately have an independent financial capacity when she comes of age. Nevertheless, because she is a minor at present, she can act on behalf of others only with regard to matters of Rabbinic Law.

See Hilchat Lulav 8: l O and Hilchot Zechiyah UMatanah 4:7 which explain that a minor can acquire for him- or herself, but cannot do so on behalf of another person.

Once, however, the second tithe has been separated, it cannot be given as a present - except to be eaten immediately thereafter - for it is considered as “the property of the Most High.” Hence, the person who “owns” it on the earthly plane does not have the authority to give it to someone else (Chapter 3, Halachah 17, and Halachah 1 of the present chapter).

I.e., even if they are partners in other matters. As Chasdei David emphasizes, this leniency does not, however, apply to the redemption of produce which is owned in partnership.

When a woman marries, all of the property she owns is given to her husband to use. On the other hand, as the Rambam continues to explain, she is not the owner of the produce of the second tithe and hence, her husband also does not become its owner.

Chapter 3, Halachah 17.

With his own money. As mentioned in Halachah 2, a woman is never required to add a fifth when redeeming produce for herself. If, however, she redeems produce for her husband with her own money, she is required to add a fifth (Radbaz).

In which instance, it is a mitzvah to delight in food and drink.

As mentioned above, the second tithe must be redeemed with silver. Now gold is much more valuable than silver, so that by exchanging the silver for gold, the person will be lightening his load considerably. See Ma’aser Sheni 2:7 which states that Rabbi Akiva made such a transfer on behalf of Rabban Gamliel and Rabbi Yehoshua.

As stated in Chapter 4, Halachah 5, generally, a person cannot transfer the holiness of money of the second tithe to other money. In this and the following halachah, however, exceptions are made, for they are· to the benefit of the second tithe: making the money easier to transport and to use.

The addition of this word is based on the gloss of the Radbaz.

I.e., a sela is a coin of relatively large value. It is easier to shop for food with smaller coins. See the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (Ma'aser Sheni 2:9).

As mentioned above, although generally, a person cannot transfer the holiness of money of the second tithe to other money, an exception is made here, because of the produce that is included in the transfer.

The rationale is that when the produce is worth less than a dinar, it is not fit to be redeemed. (For a coin less than a dinar is small and of comparatively little value.) Hence it is to the benefit of the produce from the second tithe that the money be redeemed with it (Kessef Mishneh; based on the Jerusalem Talmud, Ma’aser Sheni 2:8).

A sela is four dinarim.

And if some coins are lost, the loss is deducted from the ordinary coins [the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah (Ma’aser Sheini 2:5)]. The rationale is that it is possible that the coins of only one type were lost. As a stringency, we assume that it was the ordinary coins that were lost.

Before they fell (ibid.).

Since they were all mixed together, it is not likely that the loss was suffered by one type of coin alone.
The Radbaz maintains that even if the coins were mixed together after they fell, the money should be divided proportionally, because there is no way of knowing which type of coins one has in hand.

This applies in both instances, whether they are scattered or mixed together [the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah (ibid.)].

It is, however, preferable to use silver (Radbaz). The Meiri differs and maintains that it is preferable to redeem the coins with copper.

As mentioned previously, in that time, the mintage of coins were not entirely standard and sometimes there were some fluctuations of weight. Also, some coins could have been affected by wear and tear.

Since it was not found in the place where he told him it was located, we assume that the produce from the second tithe was lost and this is new produce.

100 silver pieces.

I.e., we assume that his father did not mention the ordinary money that was there, but rather informed him only of the money that was from the second tithe, because only those funds were important from a ritual perspective.

Since the amount he discovered was not the same amount that he put there, we assume that the original funds were taken and that these are new funds. In this instance, the person placed the funds there himself. Hence, there is a difference between this instance and the first clause in which his father conveyed the information to him. The Ra’avad notes that the Rambam’s ruling appears to be a departure from the ruling of the Mishnah (Ma’aser Sheini 4:12) which states that all of the 100 are the second tithe. The Kessef Mishneh explains that the Rambam’s ruling is based on Beitzah 10b which follows this line of thinking.

We assume that the money from the second tithe was taken and that these are different funds.

In such an instance, one would have reason to think that one wallet contains the money that is the second tithe and the other ordinary money.

This is a stringency since it was not known which of the pouches contained the produce of the second tithe.

Lest in fact it had been the smaller ones that contain the produce from the second tithe.

See Hilchot Gerushin 2:16 which explains that a person who has lost his ability to speak, but is of sound mind is asked three questions which require different answers, i.e., two positive and one negative or vice versa. If he answers them correctly, the court concludes that he is mentally sound and continues asking him concerning the bill of divorce. See also Hilchot Mechirah 29:3.

And the produce is considered as ordinary produce.

See Hilchot Zechiyah UMatanah 10:7.

I.e., “even if you are dying of hunger do not take the money to spend on your own needs.”

9. I.e., we do not say that the father meant that the money was from the second tithe and should not be used for ordinary purposes.

So that he does not appear to be rich or so that his sons don't waste the money immediately.

See also Hilchot Zechiyah UMatanah 10:5.

In which instance, the container itself has value and we assume he consecrated it as well. In contrast, an earthenware container is not valuable and would not be consecrated.

The mem stands for ma’aser, “tithes.” We do not think that the intent is the first tithe or the tithe for the poor, for the consumption of these is not restricted to a specific group.

In which instance, the container itself has value and we assume he consecrated it as well. In contrast, an earthenware container is not valuable and would not be consecrated.

I.e., in the era of Roman persecution when the Romans tried to stamp out the observance of the mitzvot and the Jews were afraid to write out the entire word.

Such a mixture might give the impression that this money was set aside for the second tithe, for generally people do not keep different types of coins together (Rav Yosef Corcus).

Generally, we assume that the money found in Jerusalem is ordinary money, because during the majority of the year, there are not that many pilgrims there. Thus we assume that the money fell from one of the inhabitants of Jerusalem. One might, however, object and say that perhaps the money fell from one of the pilgrims during the festivals (see below), but was not discovered until afterwards. Our Sages (Bava Metzia 26a) resolve that query by explaining that since - as a precaution, to remove dead lizards or other objects that impart ritual impurity - the streets of Jerusalem are swept every day, we can assume that any money lost on the festivals would already have been discovered and these are ordinary funds.

We do not suspect that perhaps the person was carrying ordinary money and the shard was from a container in which he had once stored money from the second tithe [the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah (Ma’aser Sheini 4:9)].

Ffor then the majority of people in Jerusalem are pilgrims. They bring the money from the second tithes that they collected throughout the year to purchase food in Jerusalem. Thus at that time, most of the money circulating in Jerusalem is from the second tithe.

Animals could be purchased with the funds from the second tithe and this indeed was the practice of the majority of the pilgrims [see the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah (Ma’aser Sheini 1 :4)]. Even during the remainder of the year, there were some pilgrims who came to Jerusalem and they were the majority of the purchasers of animals for slaughter.

People were not allowed to bring money to the Temple Mount (Hilchot Beit HaBechirah 7:2). Hence it is most likely that the money found there came from the Temple treasury. Now the priests would not take the money from the Temple treasury until they transferred its holiness to an animal. Hence we can assume that the holiness of the money had already been transferred and the status of the money found was ordinary [see the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (Shekalim 7:2)].

The Kessef Mishneh notes that this situation is discussed in greater detail in Pesachim 7a and questions why the Rambam does not cite all the particulars mentioned there.

The Ra’avad states that we should rule stringently and consider the majority as from the second tithe. The Radbaz also suggests that they should be considered as from the second tithe and redeemed on other money.

See parallels in Hilchot Shekalim 3:15; Hilchot Gezeilah ViAveidah 15:18

As required by Hilchot Terumah 11:7.

See ibid. 7:2.

See Chapter 2, Halachah 1.

The Radbaz states that this is also speaking about a situation where the mixed produce is equidistant from the other two. Chasdei David emphasizes that the Rambam does not say “according to the stringencies that apply to both,” because there are no stringencies in the laws applying to the second tithe of demai over produce that is definitely from the second tithe. The stringencies applying to produce that is definitely from the second tithe are mentioned in Chapter 3, Halachot 8-9, Chapter 5, Halachah 4, and Chapter 11, Halachah 8.

Where it is forbidden to redeem produce from the second tithe (Chapter 2, Halachah 8).

Our translation differs from the standard published text of the Mishneh Torah and is based on authoritative manuscripts and early printings. Note the Kessef Mishneh which offers an alternative explanation. See Hilchot Ma’achalot Assurot 15:12 which states that the stringency governing an entity that can be permitted applies only to mixtures of the same species.

Because no prohibition will be violated if, as the Rambam continues, the entire mixture will be eaten in a state of ritual impurity.

When it can no longer be redeemed.

And must be treated with all the restrictions incumbent on such produce. This applies even if the seed from which the produce grows decomposes.

At which point it can still be redeemed.

Preferably, one should redeem it so that one is not nullifying a prohibition by leaving it in the ground, for this should not be done as an initial preference (Hilchot Ma’achalot Assurot 16:12). After the fact, however, the prohibition is nullified.

As is the law when a substance is mixed with a forbidden substance of the same type (see Hilchot Ma’achalot Assurot 15:1).

In which instance, the obligation to separate the second tithe is merely Rabbinic in origin (see Chapter 2, Halachah 9, and notes).

Hilchot Ma’achalot Assurot 15:11 places restrictions on nullifying substances that can become permitted. Implied is that if a substance cannot become permitted, no such restrictions apply.

The rationale is that since the produce was redeemed once, it should not be redeemed a second time.

Our translation follows authoritative manuscripts and early printings. The standard printed text of the Mishneh Torah adds the phrase “[since their impurity stems] from a Rabbinic decree.”

The rules governing this produce have a double dimension of severity. Since according to Scriptural Law, this produce is ritually pure, our Sages were stringent and required it to be brought to Jerusalem and eaten there. Nevertheless, to support their decree of ritual impurity, they also required that it be redeemed (Kessef Mishneh).

I.e., and not animal fodder.

I.e., these types of livestock do not grow from the earth, but they derive their nurture by pasturing on the earth’s products.

Moreover, even if water and salt are mixed together, that mixture should not be purchased with money from the second tithes (Radbaz). See Halachah 14 with regard to such purchases.

Truffles and mushrooms do not have roots and do not derive nurture from the earth.

I.e., it will spoil in the course of the journey.

Which are detached entities that can make the journey to Jerusalem without being spoiled.

Eggs and milk are animal products and the animals receive their nurture from the earth and honey is actually the sap of flowers.

In his Commentary to the Mishnah (Ma’aser Sheini 1:3), the Rambam explains that terned is made by mixing grape dregs with water and leaving it to tum into vinegar.

For the water originally included in it is not considered significant.

The Radbaz explains that when the transaction was first made, it was invalid. Hence, the money remained holy. Afterwards, when the mixture turns into vinegar, the transaction is completed and the holiness of the money is transferred. Rashi (Chulin 26a) offers a different explanation.

I.e., the restriction against purchasing a mixture of grape dregs and water with money from the second tithe.

And thus the water drew out a significant amount of grape juice from the dregs.

In his Commentary to the Mishnah (Shvi’it 7:5; Uktzin 3:4), the Rambam explains that branches of vines are pickled in brine while they are still soft and then eaten. They are, nevertheless, not eaten by all people and the money from the second tithe may only be used to purchase food that would be eaten by an average person.

This refers to branches of the carob tree, because the carobs themselves are considered as food, as stated in Chapter 1, Halachah 3.

Because in this state, they are not fit to be eaten.
The commentaries have noted that the Rambam’s ruling in Hilchot Shabbat 18:6 implies the direct opposite: that before they become sweet, they are considered as food for humans and after they become sweet, they are considered as food for animals. This issue is discussed by the later commentaries.

A sub-species of the onion family.

Since these species are more commonly eaten, they are considered as food even though they are not yet fit to be to eaten.

The tip of the date palm which is like dried cheese and is eaten by people (Commentary to the Mishnah, Uktzin 3:4).

In his Commentary to the Mishnah · (ibid. :5), the Rambam gives cinnamon, nutmeg, spikenard, and other similar species as examples.

A sharp and pungent herb.

This refers to a mixture of milk and bread crumbs referred to in the Talmud as kutach.

See Hilchot Tuma ‘at Ochalin 1:7 which makes similar statements with regard to anise.

For in truth, only the oil can be purchased with the money of the second tithe. Nevertheless, the water and the salt are considered as subordinate to the oil and hence, can be included in its price.

The Rambam uses a plural term for terumah, for he includes both the great terumah and terumat ma'aser in this prohibition.

See Hilchot Terumah 7:2. Needless to say, it may also be eaten by priests who were ritually pure and who did not need to immerse themselves, but the Rambam is mentioning the aspect of the laws in which it differs from the second tithe, as he proceeds to state.

As indicated by the following clause, the second tithe differs from terumah in all these matters.

The second tithe must also be eaten in a state of ritual purity. Nevertheless, in contrast to terumah, it may be eaten directly after one immerses oneself in a mikveh. He need not wait until the evening.

And it is forbidden to restrict the consumption of sacred foods. See Hilchot Pesulei HaMukdashin 6:12 and Hilchot Ma’aseh HaKorbanot 10:10.

In Jerusalem. See Halachah 16 and Chapter 4, Halachah 6.

See the Commentary of Rav Ovadiah of Bartenura to Ma’aser Sheini 1:2 which states that the fundamental mitzvah is to use the money from the second tithe to purchase peace offerings.

I.e., certain portions of the peace offerings are given to the owners.

For by offering them on the altar, they would have to give certain portions of the meat to the priests.

E. g., deer. Our Sages did not include the purchase of these animals in their decree.

See Hilchot Shemitah VeYovel 7:1 which explains that after the Sabbatical year, the produce that remains must be destroyed. Thus by purchasing this produce with funds from the second tithe, one would be reducing its use.

All of these should not be purchased with money from the second tithe, as stated in Halachah 4.

The holiness of the money of the second tithe is not transferred to them.

The Ra’avad challenges the Rambam’s ruling, maintaining that the holiness of the second tithe remains associated with the money and the seller must return it to the purchaser. The Radbaz explains that the Rambam derives his ruling from the wording of the Mishnah (Ma’aser Sheini 1:5). There the Mishnah has two clauses: one, quoted in this halachah, which states that the items are not acquired by the second tithe and the second, quoted in the following halachah, which states that the money should be returned. The variance in wording indicates that there is a difference in law. The Radbaz states, however, that the Rambam would agree that the holiness of the funds of the second tithe is not nullified entirely. Instead, the purchaser must eat an equivalent amount of food in Jerusalem, keeping all the restrictions applying to the produce of the second tithe. See Halachah 1 7.

I.e., he purchased produce with money from the second tithe without knowing that he used such funds.

The produce purchased does not receive the holiness of the second tithe, but instead, must be returned to the seller [the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah (Ma’aser Sheini 1:5)].

Rav Ovadiah of Bartenura explains that since he made the purchase inadvertently, it is as if the transaction was conducted in error and hence it is nullified.

The transaction is binding and the purchaser is compelled to treat the produce he purchased as produce of the second tithe.

See Chapter 2, Halachah 1.

Since the transaction is binding, the produce receives that holiness and hence, may not be used for any other purpose.

We are speaking about a kosher animal that does not have a blemish and hence is fit to be offered as a sacrifice.

When it dies. It is not killed before its time. Burying it prevents one from benefiting from it [the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah (Ma’aser Sheini 1:6)]. See also Chapter 8, Halachah 6; Hilchot Pesulei HaMukdashim 19:11.

The equation between transgressing intentionally and unintentionally represents a change of approach on the part of the Rambam. In his Commentary to the Mishnah (Ma’aser Sheni 1:7), the Rambam states that if the transgression was intentional, in all instances, the purchaser should use an equivalent amount of money to buy food in Jerusalem. The sale is nullified only when the sale is made unintentionally. The Rambam’s ruling here is based on Kiddushin 56b.

So that the money could not be returned and the sale nullified.

And the sale nullified.

This is forbidden, because the animal - partially or entirely - is offered on the altar and/or eaten by the priests. Thus the money from the second tithe is not being used for its designated purpose.

For once the offerings were brought, the transaction cannot be nullified.

This is unacceptable, because peace offerings may be brought only from domesticated animals.

This is also unacceptable, because as stated in Halachah 12, our Sages forbade using money from the second tithe for such a purpose [the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah (Ma’aser Sheini 1:4)].

Instead, the sale is nullified. If the animal was already slaughtered, the hide is considered as consecrated with the holiness of the second tithe and the proceeds from its sale must be used as the money of the second tithe.

As is required when an animal designated as a peace offering becomes blemished in a manner that prevents it from being sacrificed.

If, however, one redeems a sacrifice for someone else, a fifth need not be added, as stated in Hilchot Arachin 7:4.

The Ra’avad objects to the Rambam’s wording, for he considers it obvious that a fifth must be added. The Radbaz explains that one might think a fifth is unnecessary based on the following reasoning: Since the animal is a peace offering, from the standpoint of the second tithe, it does not belong to him, because it is not his private property, but instead is consecrated. From the standpoint of the peace offering, it can be said that it does not belong to him, because it is the second tithe which is “the property of the Most High.” Alternatively, the explanation of the Rambam’s wording depends on a concept explained in Hilchot Arachin, loc. cit.: “[One is] obligate to add a fifth [when redeeming the article that was] consecrated originally, but one [need] not add a fifth [when redeeming an article] whose consecration was a derivative.” A derivative means that it was consecrated in the process of redeeming another article (see ibid. :5). To apply those concepts to the question at hand: Since the consecration of the animal as a peace offering comes as part of the redemption of the money from the second tithe, one might think that there is no need to add a fifth. For that reason, the Rambam [based on the Jerusalem Talmud (Ma’aser Sheini 3:2)] emphasizes that in this instance, the additional fifth is necessary, because since the holiness of the second tithe was removed from it, it is as if it was consecrated initially and it is not considered as a derivative (Rambam LeAm)

As mentioned in Halachah 12, one can - and according to many opinions, it is desirable - to purchase an animal to be sacrificed as a peace offering with money from the second tithe. Here, however, we are speaking about a situation where the person designates the money to be used for that purpose, but does not make the purpose as of yet. The Rambam is clarifying that the designation is not effective and the money may be used to purchase any other types of food.

Chapter 3, Halachah 17. I.e., when a person consecrates his own money for a peace offering, the consecration is effective, because the money belongs to him and he has the authority to consecrate it. Money from the second tithe, by contrast, does not belong to him. Hence, it cannot be consecrated as a peace offering.

I.e., he should cry out to G‑d in repentance. He, however, has no other way of atoning for his conduct, because he has eaten the produce upon which the holiness of the second tithe rested.

Since the money exists, the holiness from the second tithe has not departed from it. Hence, if it is returned to the owner or its holiness transferred by the owner purchasing other food with its value, the owner fulfills his obligation.