Rambam - 3 Chapters a Day

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).

At which point the obligation to tithe takes effect (Chapter 3, Halachah 1).

Rabbi Akiva Eiger and the Minchat Chinuch (mitzvah 395) explain that even if the person changes his mind and desires to sell the produce afterwards, he remains obligated to tithe.

If the person changes his mind and desires to partake of the produce himself afterwards, he is not obligated according to Scriptural Law. Since he was not obligated at the time of the initial requirement, he does not become obligated afterwards (ibid.).

Our Sages adopted this measure as a safeguard. Ignoring it can have serious repercussions. As Bava Metzia 88a states, the shopping area of Beit Hino was destroyed three years before Jerusalem because they did not tithe produce that was sold in the marketplace.

I.e., crops that you made ready for use.

The Ra’avad differs with the Rambam, maintaining that the purchaser of the produce is never liable to tithe according to Scriptural Law. The Radbaz and the Kessef Mishneh cite interpretations of Talmudic passages that support the Rambam’s position, but explain that there are other Rishonim who follow the Ra’avad’s position.

Our translation is taken from the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah (Sh‘vi‘it 4:8).

Even according to Rabbinic decree.

See the following halachot and Chapter 3 which discusses this subject in detail.

For this is not considered as the ordinary way of eating.

I.e., he may even salt them and roast them, even though these actions bring about the obligation to tithe when fruit has matured (Chapter 3, Halachah 3).

Our Rabbis interpreted this as meaning reaching a third of its natural growth. All the examples mentioned in the continuation of the halachah refer to this stage of growth as it applies to each individual species.

Thus if one partakes of them within 24 hours from their harvest without tithing them, be is not liable, for they are not ready to be eaten yet (Ma’aseh Rokeach).

That indicates that their shell has softened and the fluid has been generated within the fruit. See the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah (Ma’aserot 1 :2).

Our translation is based on authentic manuscripts and early printings of the Mishneh Torah and is reinforced by the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah (ibid.). The standard printed text reads slightly differently.

This is a sign that they have begun to ripen (ibid.).

See Chapter 1, Halachah 9, and notes.

The Ra’avad questions the Rambam’s ruling based on a different version of Sh’vi’it 4:7. The Radbaz and the Kessef Mishneh support the Rambam’s ruling.

Although Ma’aserot 1 :4 states that we are required to separate tithes from apples when they are small, it does not mention a stage of development. The Kessef Mishneh questions the source for the Rambam’s statements.

This is the common translation of these terms. In his notes to the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah (Kilayim 1:4), however, Rav Kapach suggests that the two terms may refer to apricots and peaches.

Our translation is based on Rav Kapach’s notes to the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah (Demai 1:1).

When these fruits are unripened, they are covered by a fuzz of hair. As they ripen, the hairs fall off.

I.e., based on Halachah 4, which states that produce that is fit to be eaten while small must be tithed.

The Radbaz explains the rationale for this ruling. Since one grape has already ripened sufficiently, the others will ripen shortly thereafter.

This addition is made on the basis of the gloss of the Kessef Mishneh.

Lest that person fail to tithe it and the seller thus be liable for “placing a stumbling block in the path of the blind.”

I.e., reached a stage when it was required to separate the tithes.

The Radbaz notes that this clause appears to be in contradiction with the final clause of the previous halachah. For, seemingly, if part of the crop has become obligated in the tithes, the entire crop has. He explains that if the grapes are growing on different vines, the stringency mentioned in the previous halachah does not apply.

I.e., the purchaser stated that he was purchasing them for this purpose. If, however, such a statement of intent is not made, these may be sold, for it is most likely they will be used as fuel for a fire.

The bracketed addition is made on the basis of the gloss of Rabbi Ovadiah of Bartenura to Ma’aserot 5:6. For there is no reason why that produce itself cannot be used for the tithes.

Hilchot Terumah 4:21. The Radbaz explains that this proviso is made with regard to terumah and not with regard to the tithes, because terumah is given by estimation, while the tithes must be measured exactly.

As long as the wine is not one fourth of the new mixture, it is not considered as significant.

Because at the time the obligation to tithe them took effect, the crops. were ordinary produce.

Because at the time the obligation to tithe them took effect, the crops were consecrated property and there is no obligation to tithe consecrated property.

See Chapter 2, Halachot 3-5, which also dwell on this subject.

According to Scriptural Law, there are no restrictions at all on partaking of this produce. Nevertheless, our Sages only allowed one to partake of it as a snack. They, however, did not allow him to partake of it as part of a significant meal (Rashi, Berachot 31a).

The difference between the two instances can be explained as follows: If he intends to sell it, then he will sell it when he meets a purchaser even before taking it to the marketplace. And the produce must be tithed before it is sold. Hence, as soon as the work associated with it is completed, he must tithe it. In contrast, when he intends to bring the produce home, everything is dependent on his own intent. Hence, he· is given this leniency [the Jerusalem Talmud (Ma’aserot I :5)].
The Ra’avad differs with the Rambam’s ruling, maintaining that since the Torah mentions grain from the grainheap and wine from the vat, the obligation to tithe these types of produces takes effect when they are in the grainheap and the vat. The Radbaz and the Kessef Mishneh support the Rambam’s ruling and it is cited as halachah by the Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De ‘ah 331 :82).

The definition of such acts is the subject of the following halachot.

The Ra’avad asks why the Rambam does not mentioning pickling, for that is also cited by the Mishnah (Ma’aserot 4:1). According to the Rambam, that act is included in salting, because he interprets the mishnah as meaning pickling in brine (see his Commentary to the Mishnah). It is, nevertheless, difficult why the mishnah mentions salting and pickling as separate activities. Note, however, Chapter 5, Halachah 14, which could also be interpreted as referring to pickling in vinegar.

According to Rabbinic Law. With regard to Scriptural Law, see the following chapter.

A courtyard that is protected (Chapter 4, Halachah 8). Here the intent of mentioning a courtyard is to refer to any dwelling as explained in Chapter 4.

See Chapter 5, Halachah lff.

See Chapter 5, Halachah 14.

Ibid.:18.

Ibid.: 19.

Ibid.:20.

Or even, as indicated in the previous halachah, it is brought into a courtyard that serves the home.

Even partaking from it as a snack is forbidden.

See Halachah 6.

Not only the portion for which he completed the work.

The Radbaz quotes the gloss of Rabbenu Shimshon as stating that the intent is not only figs, but all fruit that is set aside for drying. Even though one’s original intent is that the fruit be dried, since it is home and it is in a basket, it may be served at any time. Therefore, it is necessary to tithe it.

Since the fruit was not removed from the branches, it is considered as, if the tasks preparing this fruit are not completed.

Since the produce is not their own, their intent in bringing the branches in is not significant.

For the fact that he brings them home indicates that from his perspective, all work has been completed.

For he will be performing further work to prepare the grain for produce.

In such an instance, the kernels are basically ready to be eaten and bringing them home is considered as collecting them in a grainheap.

For the kernels of legumes are generally not collected to be eaten at this stage of preparation and hence, there is no obligation to tithe.

Le., without having threshed it or winnowed it.

Feeding one's livestock is considered equivalent to eating a snack. Note, however, Halachah 20 which could qualify this statement (Kessef Mishneh).

Since the work to prepare it for human consumption has not been completed. The reason for this leniency is that according to Scriptural Law, there is no obligation to tithe until all the tasks associated with the produce are completed and it is brought within a home. Hence since only a Rabbinic prohibition is involved, there is room for leniency.

I.e., he need not feed it to his livestock with its chaff. Moreover, he can perform this activity several times. Different laws apply with regard to humans. They may snack from such produce, but may not partake of a significant amount of it (Siftei Cohen 331:114).

I.e., those described in Halachah 3. In particular, the Radbaz asks questions concerning two of those situations: selling the produce and the commencement of the Sabbath. Seemingly, a sale cannot be made without the owner’s consent and the Sabbath is not dependent on the other person’s activity. The Radbaz explains that with regard to a sale, we are speaking about an instance where afterwards the owner consented to the sale. And with regard to the Sabbath, we are speaking about a situation where the other person completed the work associated with the produce before the Sabbath commenced. Thus when the Sabbath commenced, the produce was fit to be ready to be obligated in the tithes.

‍For the produce has reached the stage when it is necessary to tithe it. This is not dependent on the owner’s intent.

For there are those who do not make these preparatory steps, but rather sell the fruit as is.

For it is not common to make a pile of watermelons.

And it alone must be tithed (Radbaz).
The Radbaz and the Kessef Mishneh note that in Halachah 4, the Rambam states that as soon as he rubs the hair off one fruit or vegetable, the entire quantity is required to be tithed, while in this halachah, he states that only those he seeks to use immediately must be tithed. Among the resolutions they offer are:
a) in Halachah 4, the person’s intent is to prepare the entire quantity of produce. Therefore, as soon as he begins, that entire quantity must be tithed. Here, he only desires to prepare a limited quantity. Hence, it is only the quantity that he actually prepares that must be tithed.
b) Halachah 4 speaks about an instance when he prepares them in his home, while this halachah speaks about preparing them in the field to bring home.

I.e., this is allowed as an initial preference. The Radbaz explains that although the Rambam mentions only the separation of terumah, he also means the separation of the tithes, because it is unfeasible to think that terumah should be separated but not the tithes.

E. g., like garlic or onions that are woven together.

From the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah (Ma’aserot 1:5), it appears that after reapers would gather fruit, they would cover it with leaves or straw to protect it from the sun.

For the work in the field associated with their preparation has been completed.

I.e., it is obvious that the person’s intent is not to add other sheathes to the grain heap. Significantly, the Rambam’s definition here is slightly different than the definition he gives in his Commentary to the Mishnah (Pe‘ah 1 :6).

For it is common for pebbles to become mixed together with legumes and the legumes are sifted to remove them.

Our translation is taken from the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah (Ma’aserot 1 :6).

This is considered as a snack and hence, tithes are not required.

I.e., drink the equivalent of a snack. The Kessef Mishneh states that when one takes the wine before it reaches the storage vat, one may drink from it without tithing even though he removes the peels and seeds.

I.e., the place where the grapes were crushed to produce wine (ibid.:7).

The storage pit (ibid.).

In his Commentary to the Mishnah (ibid.), the Rambam explains that a basket was made of ropes and olives were placed within. Afterwards, they would press the olives in that basket. The translation of the two terms that follow are also from the same source.

The term "secondary vessel" refers to a utensil in which hot food was placed after it was removed from a fire. The Rambam is referring to the following difficulty. As stated in Halachah 3, subjecting produce to fire establishes an obligation to tithe. Thus as the Rambam states in Chapter 5, Halachah 16, if a person places oil into a pot that is on the fire or just removed from the fire, the obligation to tithe is established. In the instance described in our halachah, that is not the case, because food will not cook in a secondary vessel.

And an obligation to tithe will have been established. The Radbaz explains that this clause is not speaking about a secondary vessel, because a secondary vessel never cooks (Shabbat 40b). Alternatively, the laws of cooking are different with regard to the establishment of an obligation to tithe than with regard to the Sabbath laws or the laws of Kashrut. In this instance, when a secondary vessel is very hot, it can be considered as having cooked.

Our translation is taken from the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah (Ma’aserot 1 :8).

Since they have not been dried out, it is considered as if the tasks necessary to prepare them have not been completed.

I.e., moving them causes it to be considered as if the tasks have been completed.

Since he will ultimately do so, the tasks associated with their preparation have not been completed until he does so.

Even though he has brought the produce into his courtyard.

Before it was threshed.

There is, however, no necessity to separate the great terumah, as stated in Hilchot Terumot 3:13.

The punishment given for the violation of Rabbinical commandments or other transgressions that are not punishable by lashes according to Scriptural Law.

Without having to tithe them.

For this is considered as if he was partaking of the meal in a significant manner, not merely snacking. Alternatively, because this represents the conclusion of the tasks associated with preparing the grain.

Which had been cooked on a fire.

I.e., just as when wine is placed in a cistern, the work involved in its preparation is considered to have been completed, so too, when it is placed in a cooked dish, the work involved is considered to be finished.

Applying oil is considered equivalent to eating (Chapter 13, Halachah 16). Nevertheless, such an application is considered as equivalent to merely partaking of a snack.

See Halachah 1.

I.e., giving them a large amount, not merely a snack.

E. g., he intended to bring the produce home and hence, the obligation to tithe is not established until he does so.

The Ra’avad questions this ruling based on the Jerusalem Talmud (Ma’aserot 1 :6) which quotes Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar as stating that once produce is brought into a person’s courtyard (i.e., his residence), it cannot be fed to an animal without tithing. The Radbaz explains that according to the Rambam, our Sages differ with Rabbi Shimon hen Elazar on this point and do not require tithing. The rationale is that since the entire obligation to tithe animal fodder is Rabbinic in origin, this obligation was instituted only when the animal was fed a significant amount.

Our translation is based on the Rambam LeAm. Generally, amir is translated as “straw.” In this instance, we have favored this translation, because straw is not food for humans.

For this represents the completion of the tasks associated with the preparation of this produce. Although chilba is occasionally used as food for humans, it is primarily considered as animal fodder.

Our translation is based on the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah (Ma’aserot 3:4). There he explains that the term ketzitzot refers to “individual fruits that have been detached from any species of fruit.” Often, the term is used to refer to fresh figs.

For we assume that the owners despaired of their return when the fruit fell outside their property. This is considered equivalent to declaring them ownerless. When produce was declared ownerless before the work involved in its preparation was concluded, there is no obligation to tithe.

Taking those sheaves is considered as theft and forbidden (see Hilchot Gezeilah VeAveidah 15:8-10), because the owners will not despair of their recovery. Hence, they are not considered as ownerless and must be tithed.. See also Hilchot Terumot 4:11.

Since the owner will have no way of retrieving them, he relinquishes his ownership. And since they were ownerless, there is no obligation to tithe them.

Because of their size, they are not considered ownerless even in the public domain.

Straightening the surface of the bundle causes the obligation to tithe to be established with regard to it, as stated in Halachah 13. Hence, even if the owner despairs of the recovery of the grain, since the obligation to tithe was established before the produce became ownerless, it is not rescinded.

Based on the Jerusalem Talmud (Ma’aserot 3:3), we must assume the intent is terumat ma’ aser, for once grain has been moved from its original grainheap, we assume that terumah was separated.

Although it is forbidden to use produce to separate tithes and terumat ma’aser, if these separations have already been made from it, we are not concerned that perhaps that has happened as the Rambam proceeds to explain.

Even though tithes are required to be separated from it, we assume that the owner would not tithe produce until he brought it to his home.

See Halachah 9. As stated there, covering the fruit establishes the obligation to tithe.

Here also, once the obligation to tithe has been established, it is not rescinded if the fruit becomes ownerless.

See Halachah 2.

We are uncertain whether or not the owner separated the tithes from it, but we are certain that he separated terumah, as explained in Chapter 9.

Since there is no obligation to separate terumah and the tithes until the produce is brought home, we assume that none of the separations were made.

In this instance, however, he must also separate terumah, lest it not have been separated beforehand.

The Radbaz states that this applies not only to olives and carobs, but to any fruit that is recognizable as coming from the tree under which it is found.

Based on Bava Metzia 21 b, it appears that we are speaking about olives and carobs that resemble the olives and carobs on the trees. Hence, we assume that they fell from the tree and have not yet been tithed. See also the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah (Ma’aserot 3:4). Since the fruit has fallen under the tree and can be recognized as coming from the tree, the owner does not consider them ownerless and taking them is considered as theft.

Thus unlike the olives and carobs mentioned above, it cannot be determined whether they fell from the tree under which they were found. Hence, the owner despairs of their recovery. It is not forbidden to take the fruit and there is no obligation to tithe it. It is, however, necessary to tithe it as one tithes demai (ibid.).

After it reached the stage that the tithes were required to be separated (see Chapter 2, Halachah 8). This is indicated by the expression "detached produce" (Radbaz).

For at the time the obligation to tithe took effect, the produce was privately owned and not in the possession of the Temple treasury.

For there is no obligation to tithe produce owned by the Temple treasury. The Jerusalem Talmud (Ma’aserot 1:1) teaches that Deuteronomy 12:17 speaks of tithing “your grain.” This can be understood as an exclusion, “your grain,” i.e., that owned by a private person, and not that owned by the Temple treasury.

The intent is that not only the grain that is used for the meal offerings is not obligated to be tithed, but also the remainder that is not used for that purpose, but is instead, redeemed and used for private purposes. Even so, the person who redeems it is not obligated to tithe it, as explained in the conclusion of ch. 2.