Rambam - 3 Chapters a Day

The plural term is used in this halachah and in many instances in this text, because there are two types of terumot: a) “the great terumah,” i.e., the terumah separated initially, and b) terumat ma’aser, the terumah the Levites separate from the tithes that are given them. See Hilchot Matnot Aniyim, ch. 6, for details regarding the separation of these allocations.

Here also the plural term is used because there are several tithes: the first tithe given to Levites, the second tithe which must be brought to Jerusalem, and the tithe for the poor. See Hilchot Matnot Aniyim, loc. cit.

Kiddushin 36b states that all the mitzvot involving the produce of the earth apply only in Eretz Yisrael.

Although the agricultural laws apply even when the Temple is not standing, there is a restriction to the time when they apply according to. Scriptural Law. The entire Jewish people must be located in our holy land, as stated in Halachah 26. (See also Hi/chot
Shemitah VeYovel 10:8-9.)

Even though Babylonia is further away than the other lands mentioned in this halachah, it had a larger Jewish community and there was far more contact between its populace and the Jewish community of Eretz Yisrael. Hence, the prophets gave it precedence over the other lands (Radbaz).

The Sages of the generation that followed Ezra [Rav Ovadiah of Bartenura (Yadayim3:3).

See also Hilchot Melachim 5:6.

The Rambam speaks of the land being given to Abraham, not merely being promised to him, since from the time God said that the land was his, spiritually, it became his possession. Moreover, as the Jerusalem Talmud (Challah 5:1) states, from Abraham’s time onward, even though the land was still possessed by the Canaanites, the Jews were already its legal owners. See also Bava Batra 119b.

I.e., the agricultural mitzvot that must be observed in Eretz Yisrael.

A king and a prophet.

I.e., since Joshua and his court had made this division, when the tribe went to conquer its portion, it was acting on behalf of the entire Jewish people.

These regions are located in contemporary Syria.

The wars to conquer these lands are classified as voluntary wars, and a voluntary war requires the consent of the High Court (Hile hot Melachim 5: 1 ).

See the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah (Demai 6: 11) where he criticizes King David for this approach, quoting the Sifri (Parshat Ekev) that states that he did not act in accordance with the Torah. The designation of the land as Eretz Yisrael is through Divine fiat as expressed through the Torah. Accordingly, a conquest that is not in accord with the Torah cannot bring about such a designation (Likkutei Sichot, Vol. V, p. 9).

With the consent of the High Court.

Even lands outside of the homeland promised to Abraham (Radbaz).

And the agricultural laws would have to be observed there.

In addition to those points the Rambam mentions below, among the other examples of this principle are: its air is not considered as a source of impurity (Hilchot Tuma ‘at Meit 11 :6); it is permitted to have a gentile compose a deed of purchase for land there on the Sabbath so that one will acquire the land (Hilchot Shabbat 6: 11 ).

Among the examples of the relevant laws: its earth is considered as a source of ritual impurity (Hilchot Tuma ‘at Meit, loc. cit.); a servant from Eretz Yisrael sold there is granted his freedom (Hilchot Avadim 8:6).

See Halachah 15.

For according to Scriptural Law, it is not part of Eretz Yisrael.

In Hilchot Heit HaBechirah 6: 16, the Rambam states: “It was no longer Eretz Yisrael,” i.e., none of the halachic obligations apply there.

Since it was established by conquest, it could be nullified by conquest. See Hilchot Heit HaHechirah, loc. cit. The Radbaz explains that when the Jews ascended from Egypt, they did not make a statement consecrating the land. Therefore its holiness could be nullified.

As Yevamot 16a states: “Much of the land that was conquered by [the Jews who] ascended from Egypt was not conquered by [the Jews who] ascended from Babylon.

Nevertheless, since the entire Jewish people did not return together with Ezra, this consecration is only of Rabbinic origin.

And thus at present, Ezra’s consecration of the land is still effective.
In his gloss to Hilchot Beit HaBechirah, loc. cit., the Kessef Mishnah finds these statements difficult to accept because of the following questions: a) On what basis is chazakah considered a more effective means of acquisition than conquest? b) After the initial conquest of Eretz Yisrael, the Jewish people manifested their ownership over it and thus, effected a chazakah. If so, why is Ezra’s chazakah, which was not preceded by conquest, more effective than the chazakah which followed the original conquest? Why should the conquest detract from the consecration of the land?
To explain: As mentioned above, the Jewish people's ownership of the land began with God's promise of the land to Abraham. The sanctity of the land, by contrast, did not begin until the Jewish people actually took possession of it, upon their reentry into the land after the exodus from Egypt and the journey through the desert. At that time, they were commanded to conquer the land and take it forcefully from the Gentiles (see Numbers 32:29,Deuteronomy 3:21, et al). Since God made the consecration of the land dependent upon its conquest by the Jewish people, it follows that conquest by a Gentile nation can nullify its holiness.
In contrast, Ezra was not commanded to reconquer Eretz Yisrael, but to settle it. In this instance, God made the sanctity of the land dependent on the Jewish people manifesting their ownership over it. In other words, the sanctity came from manifesting the true reality: that Eretz Yisrael is a Jewish land. Accordingly, since Eretz Yisrael remains our land, regardless of how many times it has been conquered by Gentiles, the sanctity effected by that manifestation of ownership also continues eternally (Likkutei Sichot, Vol. 15, pp. 102-109).

And receive the tithe of the poor.

Rabbi Yehudah HaNasi.

The Ra’avad differs with the Rambam and maintains that Beit She’an was released only from those obligations that are of Rabbinic origin.

The Kessef Mishneh relates that Rabbi Yehudah HaNasi released these cities from the obligation of the tithes, because they were not populated by Jews and were not close to the area settled by Jews.

Ashkelon - and similarly, the other cities the Rambam refers to - is located near, but not exactly on the same cite - as the city presently called by that name. With regard to Ashkelon in particular, there is discussion of the issue by the commentaries, for some sources (see Radbaz and Kessef Mishneh) explain that it was part of the land conquered by the Jews who ascended from Egypt. It was not, however, conquered by the Jews who ascended from Babylonia.

I.e.., proceeding northward.

Our Sages decreed that merely touching the earth of the Diaspora is sufficient to impart ritual impurity. See Hilchot Tuma ‘at Meit, ch. 11.

I.e., as depicted in the map drawn by the Rambam to accompany the Mishneh Torah, the borders of Eretz Yisrael ascend northward from Acre to Kziv, but there is a strip of land in the center that did not become part of Eretz Yisrael.

Our text is based on authoritative manuscripts of the Mishneh Torah as cited in the Rav Shabsie Frankel edition. The standard printed text refers to the Umenum Mountains See also the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah (Sh’vi’it 6:1).
In the map the Rambam drew to depict this matter, the Samnum Mountains are located in the southeastern comer of Eretz Yisrael, near Ashkelon. Most of the other commentaries understand this term as referring to the Umenum Mountain range in Northern Lebanon.

I.e., to the south.

According to the Radbaz, this refers to Wadi el Arish and not the Nile. Most other commentaries; however, identify “the River of Egypt” as the Nile.

I.e., the Rambam included the accompanying map so that the matter would be clearly understood. This reflects his thrust throughout the Mishneh Torah: to provide his readers with an applicable text without any ambiguity.

Thus it appears that the entire coastal range of Eretz Yisrael was not settled by the Jews who ascended from Babylon. Diagram

The term “below” in this context is problematic. It does not mean “south,” because significant portions of Syria are more northerly than Eretz Yisrael. Some commentaries understand it as meaning in height, because as Kiddushin 69b states, Eretz Yisrael is higher than other lands. (See maps on followong page).

Shinar itself, however, is part of the Diaspora, as evident from Halachah 1.

As mentioned above, there are commentaries who consider Ashkelon to be part of the land conquered by the Jews who ascended from Egypt, but not that conquered by the Jews ascending from Babylonia. Some also place Acre in this category.

See the following halachah for the practical application of this principle.

Gittin 47a derives this concept from Leviticus 25:23: “The entire land is Mine.” Implied is that the land belongs to God and His ownership cannot be absolved through conquest by any earthly power.
This ruling was a point of question for the Rambam. As indicated by the notes of Rav Kappach to his translation of the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah (Pe’ah 4:9; Gittin 4:9, et al), the Rambam changed his mind concerning the issue several times and amended his text of the Commentary to the Mishnah accordingly. At first, he stated the opinion quoted here, then adopted the opposite view, that a gentile’s acquisition does cause the agricultural obligations to be absolved, and finally returned to his original position. The Tur and the Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De’ah 331:3-4) follow the Rambam’s ruling here. See also Hilchot Shemitah VeYovel 4:29 where this issue is also discussed. 45. In which instance, the agriculture laws would not be applicable, as stated above in Halachah 2.

In which instance, the agriculture laws would not be applicable, as stated above in Halachah 2.Diagram

The entire obligation to observe the agricultural laws in Syria is Rabbinic in origin (Halachah 4) and our Sages did not enforce their decrees in this instance.

Halachot 15-19.

I.e., completed the work involved in preparing them. See Hilchot Ma’aser 3:13.

From the interpretation of the term by the Sages (Bechorot 11 b ), the intent seems to be that not only that the grain must belong to a Jew, but that he must perform the work to complete its preparation for use.

I.e., for the produce to be obligated in the agricultural laws according to Scriptural Law, it must belong to the Jew and the Jew must complete the work involved with preparing it. If only one of these conditions was met, the obligations must be fulfilled only because of Rabbinic decree. See Halachah 13.

The terumat ma’ aser is sold to the priest and not given to him for . the reason explained shortly aft~rwards by the Rambam. It cannot be kept by the owner, because he is forbidden to partake of it. Instead, it is consecrated and must be eaten by a priest in a state of ritual purity (Siftei Cohen 331: 10).

I.e., he must separate the first tithe to fulfill the agricultural obligations incumbent upon the produce, but is not obligated to give it to the Levites. There is no difficulty in him keeping the tithes, because, as the Rambam explains, he is not obligated to give them to the Levite. There is no prohibition against him partaking of them, because they are not consecrated at all and any person may partake of them, even when he is not in a state of ritual purity.

The gentile.

Had the gentile completed the tasks associated with preparing the grain, he would not have been under any obligation to make any of these separations. Hence, although the Jew is obligated to separate the various allocations, the obligation is primarily a ritual one and not a financial one. With the exception of the great terumah, he is not obligated to accept any loss and may keep the first tithes for himself.

I.e., like the first tithe, the terumat ma’aser must be separated, but it need not be given to the priest.

There is, by contrast, no such verse stated with regard to the great terumah. Hence, it is not considered the property of the owner, but instead, must be given - and not sold - to a priest.

See below and Hilchot Ma’aserot 2:5 for a definition of this concept.

I.e., the tithes to a Levite and the terumot to a priest. It is as if the produce grew on land belonging to the Jew from the outset.

I.e., as explained in the previous halachah and notes, the terumot and the tithes must be separated even if they - or a portion of them - are kept by the owner.

He may keep one-third of the tithes as his own. The rationale is that since the produce reached one third of its growth in the possession of the gentile, the Jew is not liable to give away the terumat ma'aser and the tithes for that portion of the crop. With regard to that portion, the concepts stated in the previous halachah apply. With regard to the remaining two thirds, it is considered as produced owned by a Jew and is obligated in all agricultural laws.

As stated in the previous halachah, he must give the great terumah to the priest without receiving any return whatsoever.

It is as if the produce grew in the possession of the gentile from the outset, in which instance, they are exempt from all agricultural obligations, as stated in Halachah 11.
The Ra’avad objects to this ruling based on the principle stated in Halachah 10: “When a gentile purchases land in Eretz Yisrael, he does not cause it to be absolved from [the observance of] the mitzvot. Instead, its holiness is still intact.” The Radbaz explains that this principle applies only when the gentile purchases the land, but not when he purchases merely produce. The Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De’ah 331:6) quotes the Rambam’s view.

I.e., if the produce is later sold to a Jew, the Jew must separate the terumot and the tithes. The rationale is that since the produce grew in a Jew’s possession, it is considered as Jewish produce.

Our translation is based on the interpretation of Rav Y osef Corcus as quoted by the Kessef Mishneh. He explains that, based on the exegesis of Deuteronomy 18:4 by Bechorot I lb (see Halachah 11 and notes), as long as the work is completed by a gentile, the fact that the produce belongs to a Jew is not significant.

In one of his responsa, the Rambam writes (based on Menachot 67a) that this decree was enacted lest Jewish landowners have gentiles complete the work associated with the crops to avoid having to separate the tithes.

I.e., even according to Rabbinic Law.

I.e., performs the task which completes the work associated with the produce at which time the obligation to separate the terumot and tithes takes effect.

I.e., it is as if the produce belonged entirely to the gentile and the laws stated in Halachah 11 apply.

The Rambam is referring to the wording of Challah 4:11: “One who purchases [land) in Syria is comparable to one who purchases [land] in the suburbs of Jerusalem.”

Halachah 4.

Since the entire obligation to separate the terumot and tithes in Syria is Rabbinic in origin, our Sages applied it only when the Jew owned the land itself. Since the obligation to separate tithes when one purchases produce alone is merely Rabbinic in origin even in Eretz Yisrael, our Sages did not apply it in Syria.

I.e., it is considered as if it was the gentile’s produce entirely.

The previous growth of the produce is not significant.

Halachah 10.

Our translation is based on the Rambam’s definition of the term chocher in Hilchot Sechirut 8: 1.

Both the terms aris and mekabel refer to sharecropping agreements. The difference between them is that an aris is working for the owner of the field for a percentage of the crops (see Hilchot Shluchin 8:5), while a mekabel is renting the field from the owner for a percentage of the crops (Hilchot Sechirut 8:2).

The motivating principle behind these laws is that renting the field is not equivalent to purchasing it, for the land itself does not become his (Avodah Zarah 15a).
In Eretz Yisrael, by contrast, a person entering any one of these types of agreements would be obligated to separate the tithes (Radbaz).

See the Kessef Mishneh who debates whether, to be obligated, the Jew must purchase the field or whether it is sufficient for him to purchase the produce alone without purchasing the field itself. It appears that he concludes that if one does not purchase the field, he is exempt, as indicated by Halachah 15.

The Radbaz states that the Jew may not deduct from the tithes the portion of the produce that grew in the gentile’s possession. Since it incurred the obligation for tithes while in the Jew’s possession and was completed by him, everything else is not of consequence.

I.e., when it reached a third of its development.

As payment of the produce due the owner from his field.

I.e., we allow for the possibility that the sharecropper sold the produce from the field and then purchased other produce to pay the owner his due. The rationale for this leniency is that since the obligation to tithe in Syria is Rabbinic in origin, as long as we are not definitely certain that it applies, we rule leniently. In Eretz Yisrael, he would have to separate the tithes (Radbaz).

In such a situation, there is room to say that the principle of bereirah applies. Bereirah means that retroactively, it is considered as if the division that was ultimately made was made at the outset (see Hilchot Ma'aser 7:1). To explain within the context of the present situation: Were a portion of the field to belong to the gentile, there would be no obligation to separate the tithes from the grain that grew in that portion. To apply the principle of bereirah would mean that, after the division of the crops, it is clarified that at the outset, the portion of the field where the crops given to the gentile grew belonged to him. The accepted general principle is that in question of Scriptural Law, it does not apply. Thus in Eretz Yisrael, where the obligation to tithe is of Scriptural Law, we maintain that the Jew has a share in the grain given to the gentile and hence, it is under obligation to be tithed.

In this instance, all authorities agree that the principle of bereirah is not applied.

Produce which is forbidden because the terumot and the tithes were not separated from it.

Hence if a Jew purchases that produce, he must separate the terumot and the tithes.

In such an instance, there is room to say that the principle of bereirah should be applied, because the obligation to separate the tithes is Rabbinic in origin. Nevertheless, since the fundamental obligation is Scriptural, we rule stringently even with regard to this dimension which is Rabbinic (Radbaz).

Halachah 13.

When quoting these laws, the Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De’ah 331:11) states that in the present age, when the obligation to separate terumot and tithes in Eretz Yisrael is Rabbinic in origin (see Halachah 26), the laws applying to produce grown in Syria also apply to produce grown in Eretz Yisrael.

And from that verse which speaks of the obligation to separate challah, we learn that one is also obligated to separate the terumot and the tithes.

The Ra’avad differs and maintains that the exemption from the obligation to tithe applies only according to Scriptural Law. According to Rabbinic Law, all authorities agree that one is obligated, for this produce is comparable to that of Ammon and Moab. The Radbaz does not accept this perspective, stating that there is no source which maintains that a Rabbinic obligation exists. The Radbaz does, however, qualify the Rambam’s ruling, explaining that it applies only when the work that makes the produce obligated to be tithed is completed in the Diaspora. If this work is completed in Eretz Yisrael, the obligation to separate the tithes has already been incurred and they must be separated even if the produce was later taken to the Diaspora. For this reason, in most instances, terumah and tithes must be separated from produce that is grown in Eretz Yisrael in the present age and later exported to the Diaspora. This, however, applies to fruits only, not vegetables as stated in Chapter 2, Halachah 6.

The Kessef Mishneh questions why the obligation to separate the tithes is only of Rabbinic origin. Since the concept is based on the exegesis of the same- Biblical term as mentioned above, if the work that made the produce obligated to be tithed was performed in Eretz Yisrael, why is the obligation not Scriptural in origin? The Kessef Mishneh answers that since the prooftext mentions “the bread of the land,” one can conclude that the obligation applies only to produce grown in the Holy Land itself. Alternatively, the Kessef Mishneh suggests that indeed if the work that makes the produce obligated to be tithed is completed only in Eretz Yisrael, the obligation is indeed Scriptural in origin. This ruling is quoted by the Siftei Cohen 331 :22.

Our translation is based on the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah (Cha/lah 2:2).

Even if it does not have a hole, since wood is porous, it is as if the earth on the ship is connected to the earth in Eretz Yisrael.

I.e., if the trunk is located in Eretz Yisrael, the tithes must be separated from the produce. If it is located in the Diaspora, they need not. The Rambam LeAm notes that the laws in this halachah must be qualified on the basis of Halachah 22. For, if as stated there, everything depends on where the work that makes the produce obligated in the tithes is completed, what difference does it make where the produce grows? That text explains that if the person separates tithes from produce that grew in the Diaspora before the work that makes the produce obligated in the tithes is completed, even if that work is completed in Eretz Yisrael, the tithes separated are not significant. For at the time, they were separated, there was no obligation to tithe the produce.

Generally, if there is a hole in the bottom of a flowerpot, it is considered as if the plant is connected to the earth beneath it. Nevertheless, in this instance, Gittin 22a teaches that we follow the foliage of the plant and not the position of the hole in the flower pot.

Who brought about a consecration of Eretz Yisrael that is effective until the present day, as stated in Halachah 5.

More precisely, the majority of the Jewish people, for the majority is considered equivalent to the entire whole.

There is no such phrase in the Torah stated with regard to terumah or the tithes. The commentaries explain that Ketubot 25a makes such a statement with regard to the mitzvah of challah based on Numbers 15: 18 and the laws regarding terumah are derived from it. See also a parallel ruling in Hilchot Shemitah VeYovel 10:8.

The Ra’avad differs with the Rambam and maintains that the obligation to separate terumah has the status of a Scriptural commandment in the present age. In his Kessef Mishneh, Rav Yosef Caro elaborates in support of the Rambam’s position and in his Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De ‘ah 331:2), he rules accordingly.

In the era of Mashiach. At that time, the observance of all the agricultural laws will return to Scriptural status, as stated in Hilchot Melachim 11: 1.

Indeed, we find several sources (Yoma 9b) where our Sages criticized the majority of the people for remaining in Babylonia.

The commentaries point to Ezra 2:62-63 as indicating that in the era of the Second Temple, terumah was still observed with the status of a Scriptural mitzvah. For Ezra and Nechemiah restricted the priests whose . lineage was not affirmed from partaking of it. Nevertheless, it can be explained that at that time, they were expecting the majority of the people to return and then:, the status of the mitzvah would revert to that of Scriptural origin. Lest confusion arise concerning these priests were this to occur, they enforced these restrictions.

See Hilchot ma’aser 1 :7 which points to several dimensions of the equivalence between terumah and the tithes.

Although in Halachah 1, the Rambam writes that the Scriptural status of terumah and the tithes is not dependent on the Temple, there is no contradiction to this halachah. If the majority of the Jewish people are located in Eretz Yisrael, these mitzvos have the status of Scriptural Law, even if the Temple is not standing. Conversely, even if the Temple is standing, if the majority of the Jewish people are not located in Eretz Yisrael (as was the case in the Second Temple era), the status of these commandments is Rabbinic (Radbaz).

To exclude herbs grown as dyes and the like. This is derived from the fact that the prooftext cited states: “And you shall eat” [the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah (Ma’aserot 1:1)].

In contrast to animal fodder (Shabbat 68a).

By its owner, rather than left ownerless (the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah, loc. cit.).

This excludes mushrooms whose roots do not enter the earth.

Sefer HaMitzvot (positive commandment 126) and Sefer HaChinuch (mitzvah 507) include this commandment among the 613 mitzvot of the Torah.

I.e., grain that someone calls his own.

I.e., the Rambam considers grain, wine, and oil as examples, teaching that all similar produce must be tithed. Other commentaries (the Ra’avad, gloss to Hilchot Ma’aser 1 :9; Rashi, Berachot 36a) maintain that, according to Scriptural Law, we are obligated to separate ternmot and the tithes from only these three types of produce. They maintain that the obligation to separate the tithes from other types of produce is Rabbinic in origin. See also Halachah 6.

Beans that are used as animal fodder.

This is the common translation for the term aizov. In his notes to the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah, Sh’vi’it, ch. 8, note 6, Rav Kappach identifies the Arabic term used by the Rambam as “oregano.”

In his Commentary to the Mishnah (Ma'aserot 3:3), the Rambam identifies these species as types of hyssop that grow wildly in gardens and courtyards.

This is a principle applicable in other halachic contexts as well. See Hilchot Tuma ‘at Ocha/in 3:3.

E.g., it has a fence or the like around it.

For it is used for human consumption. The Radbaz maintains that the obligation is Scriptural in origin.

A pungent herb.

Our translation is taken from the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah (Ma’aserot 4:6).

The Radbaz maintains that the obligation is Rabbinic in origin.

Since it was sown as seed, the vegetables that grow are of no consequence.

For even the seed can be used for human consumption.

In his notes to the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (Pe'ah, ch. 3, note 4), Rav Kappach identifies this as dill.

See Rav Kappach’s Commentary to the Mishnah (Ma’aserot 4:5).

The obligation to make these separations from other fruits, by contrast, is Scriptural in origin. See Halachah 1 and notes.

The Rambam’s use of this expression in this instance has raised questions. Generally, he employs this expression to refer to laws that he derives through his powers of deduction without a previous Rabbinic source. In this instance, however, this concept is explicitly stated in the Jerusalem Talmud (Challah 4:4) and in the Babylonian Talmud (Zevachim 76a).

And vegetables are not comparable to these species.

See Chapter 1, Halachah 1, which states that tithes should be separated in Babylon, Ammon and Moab. Nevertheless, since there is no Scriptural obligation to tithe vegetables, our Sages did not impose such an obligation in the Diaspora. Thus even when vegetables from Eretz Yisrael are exported to the Diaspora in contemporary times, there is no need to separate terumah and tithes.

And thus they will continue growing in Eretz Yisrael.

According to Scriptural Law. Even though there is an obligation on other produce as stated in Chapter 1, Halachah 22, our Sages did not extend this obligation to vegetables.

By the Sages.

An herb identified as chilbah, a sharp and pungent herb used in Eretz Yisrael today.

And thus there are certain laws (see Chapter 11, Halachah 9; Chapter 12, Halachah 7) that deal with chi/bah as if it were not fit for human consumption.

When it is still soft and edible.

The Ra’avad takes issue with the Rambam, noting that in Halachah 4, he ruled that chilbah blossoms are exempt. The Kessef Mishneh explains that there is no contradiction, for there is a difference between chi/bah and chi/bah blossoms.

As explained in Hilchot Matnot Aniyim, all of these are portions of one’s crops that must be given to the poor. Since they are ownerless, they are exempt according to Scriptural Law, as indicated by Halachah 1.

Although the Jerusalem Talmud (Kilayim 6:2) equates a granary with a grainheap, the Babylonian Talmud (Berachot 40b) mentions only a granary (Kessef Mishneh).

As evident from the continuation of the Rambam’s statements, the obligation is Rabbinic in origin, lest an observer think that the harvesting process will have been completed by the owner of the field without the agricultural obligations being met. See Berachot, foe. cit.

A gentile is not required to leave these presents for the poor. Hence, if he does leave them, they are not given that status. Nevertheless, they are not considered as ownerless, but rather as a present given by the gentile to the poor (Radbaz). Hence, the produce is considered as produce from a gentile acquired by a Jew. If the Jew completes the work associated with the produce, terumah and the tithes must be separated from [Chapter 1, Halachot 10-11; see also the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah (Pe’ah 4:9)].

Because the produce is not considered significant until it reaches that size (Siftei Cohen 331:28).

Our translation is based on the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah (Ma’aserot 1:3).

If a separation was made from produce that was exempt for produce that was liable, a new separation must be made and none of the prohibitions applying to terumah are associated with the produce separated originally.

Although declaring property ownerless is in certain matters equivalent to taking a vow (Hilchot Nedarim 2: 14) and the laws of vows do not apply to a gentile, when a gentile declares property ownerless, his declaration is effective. This concept is not accepted by all authorities and some even suggest alternate versions of the Mishneh Torah. Nevertheless, it is borne out by the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah (Pe’ah, loc. cit.).

For the crops themselves are not ownerless (Radbaz).

He is considered to have transgressed, because, according to law, there is no obligation to · separate terumah from such produce. Even though the original owner himself took possession of the field, there is no difference between it and other ownerless crops. See Hilchot Matanot Aniyim 5:27.

While the grain is standing, separating a portion as terumah. would not be effective. Accordingly, if it was declared ownerless at that time, that declaration does not prevent the separation of terumah afterwards from being effective [Jerusalem Talmud (Ma’aserot 1: l)].

Separating terumah from sheaves is effective (even though all the work associated with preparing crops is not completed). Accordingly, if the sheaves are declared ownerless, that declaration prevents the separation of terumah from being effective (ibid.).

Our translation is based on the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah (Ma’aserot 5:7) where he explains that these species of garlic and onion are so pungent that they cause people to cry. He does, however, allow for the possibility that the Hebrew terms refer to names of places.

These types of beans and lentils are of abnormal shape and grow wild (ibid.).

And a separation between the two cannot be made.

From which terumah need not be separated.

From which he is obligated to separate terumah, but from which he did not separate it as of yet.

I.e., if five pounds of grapes from which there was an obligation to separate terumah become mixed with other grapes, we separate an amount of terumah sufficient for five pounds of grapes from an additional source of grapes. With regard to the measure of terumah appropriate to give, see the following chapter.

This is speaking about an instance where wine was made from the grapes and oil from the olives. Hence every drop contains a mixture of produce from which terumah is obligated to be separated and produce upon which there is no obligation.

He cannot merely separate the appropriate amount from the mixture, because one may not separate terumah (or tithes) from produce upon which there is no obligation for produce upon which there is an obligation. Since in every drop that he separates, there is a portion upon which there is no obligation, that separation is not effective (Siftei Cohen 331:28). As the Rambam writes in his Commentary to the Mishnah (Chai/ah 3:9), one must be stringent and separate terumah and terumat ma’aser for the entire amount, because one is liable for death at the hand of heaven for partaking of produce from which these allocations were not made properly.
In that source, the Rambam adds that the owner must buy the olives or the grapes to be given to the poor from them before he takes possession of the entire mixture.

The Siftei Cohen 331 :29 and the Turei Zahav 331 :7 explain that the intent is that one should separate the tithes for the entire amount, but give the Levite only the tithe for the amount upon which the obligation originally lay. In this manner, he will not have separated the tithes from produce upon which there is no obligation and yet will not have given the Levite more than would have had to.

In the verse, the noun terumah uses a plural form alluding to two types of terumah: pure terumah and impure terumah. See also Hilchot Ma’aser 6:2.

It is forbidden to· partake of it.

It may not, however, be given to animals as animal fodder. See Sefer HaMitzvot (positive commandment 90) which states that it is a mitzvah to bum impure terumah. Impure terumah from fruits that cannot be used as fuel must be buried.

As stated in Hilchot Berachot 11 :2, 6, 12, a blessing should be recited before the observance of every positive commandment.

If the terumah is pure, it should not be taken to the Diaspora, because the very earth of the Diaspora is considered as impure by Rabbinic decree (see Hilchot Tuma ‘at Meit, ch. 11) and the terumah will become impure. Even if the terumah was already impure, it should be burnt in Eretz Yisrael. See Sh’vi’it 6:5.

Lest the priests seek to leave Eretz, Yisrael to collect it [Jerusalem Talmud (Sh’vi’it 6:6)].

59. I.e., by Rabbinic decree.

i.e., it is forbidden in the Diaspora, because of the doubt that perhaps it came into contact with a corpse. Nevertheless, we do not burn it until we know certainly that it became impure.

For all leaven must be burnt at this time.

Since the produce will ultimately be burnt, there is no purpose in setting aside more than the very minimum. The Radbaz notes that the priests are also given the opportunity to benefit from impure terumah, because they use it as fuel. Why then shouldn’t they be given a full measure of impure terumah? He explains that since this is not the primary use of terumah, our Sages did not feel that for the minimal benefit the priest receives from burning the terumah, it was necessary to require the people to separate a larger amount.

As stated in Hilchol ma’aser Sheni I :3, there are certain species of carobs which are generally not eaten by humans. There is no obligation to separate terumah from them according to Scriptural Law. Here we are speaking about carobs from which one is obligated to separate lerumah according to Scriptural Law. Nevertheless, since they are not considered important by the priests, there is no need to separate more than the minimal amount.

As explained in Chapter 11, Halachot 21 and 27, when produce that is terumah is sown, according to Scriptural Law, the produce which grows is ordinary produce and terumah and tithes must be separated from it. Nevertheless, our Sages were stringent and declared that the entire crop should be considered as terumah and sold to the priests (at a price substantially less than that of ordinary produce). Since the owners are required to consider the entire crop as terumah, our Sages did not require them to separate more than a sixtieth to be given as terumah (Tosefta, Terumot, ch. 5).

Tevel is produce from which terumah and tithes were not separated. As indicated by Chapter 13, Halachah 1, if there are more than 100 times the amount of tevel as terumah, it is necessary to remove the amount of terumah that became mixed with the tevel and then separate the terumah. Since the person is already separating the amount of terumah from the mixture, our Sages did not require him to separate a large quantity of terumah from the tevel. As noted in Chapter 13, Halachah 2, more stringent laws apply when terumah becomes mixed with less than 100 times the amount of other produce.

The Radbaz questions: Why is it not sufficient to separate the slightest amount as terumah as is the practice in the present age (Halachah 1 )? He explains that in the present age, all terumah will become ritually impure. Hence, there is no need to give a significant amount at all. In the time of the Talmud, by contrast, significant amounts of terumah that is pure must be separated. If an inconsequential amount of impure terumah would beseparated, people might refrain from giving an appropriate amount of pure terumah.

I.e., crops that were consecrated after the work involving their harvest was completed (at which time the obligation to separate terumah became incumbent upon them), but from which terumah was not actually separated. There is no need to separate terumah from crops that grew in a field belonging to the Temple treasury.

Note, however, Hilchot Ma’aser Sheni I :3.

I.e., all of these species are types of produce that are not usually considered valuable.

This leniency is granted, because the obligation to separate terumah from such .produce is merely Rabbinic in origin. Hence it is sufficient to separate one-sixtieth as an initial measure.

Because special consideration is given to the orphans’ property.

In his Commentary to the Mishnah (Terumot I :7), Rambam states that separating terumah in this manner is “forbidden.” The commentaries question whether his use of different wording in this halachah indicates a change of position or not.

This is the average measure. Our translation follows authoritative manuscripts of the Mishneh Torah. The standard printed text reads “one sixtieth.”

The Jerusalem Talmud (Terumah 1:7) derives this from Numbers 18:27: “And your terumah will be considered for you .... “ Venechshav translated as “considered” shares the root chashav meaning “thought” or “estimate.” Implied is that terumah should be given by estimation. Although this verse is speaking about terumat ma’aser which must be separated by exact measure (see Halachah 10), we follow the principle (see Rashi, Pesachim 24a): If a concept explicitly stated with regard to terumat ma’aser cannot be applied to it, we assume that it is referring to the great terumah [the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah (loc. cit.)].

I.e., one measures the produce and then separates terumah by estimation (ibid.).

For that is obviously equivalent to separating with a measure.

I.e., a measure above that stated by the Sages.

I.e., he did not designate the entire crop as terumah.

For Numbers 15:21 speaks of giving “from the first of your kneading.” Implied is that one must give “from the first/’ but not all the first [the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah (Terumot 4:5, based on the Jerusalem Talmud)].

For he had intended to give this amount of produce and more as terumah (Kessef Mishneh). And when giving terumah, one’s deed must be aligned - at least partially with his intent. Since the terumah is acceptable, there is no need for the person to supplement the amount separated and give the amount he originally intended (Radbaz).

For he had not intended to give this amount as terumah (ibid.).

I.e., without either desiring to give this amount or having a desire to give a lesser amount. Note the gloss of the Radbaz who suggests that there is a printing error in the text.

The fact that he gave a larger measure than usual as terumah does not disqualify his gift.

So that he would not be giving a parsimonious measure.

Although normally, there is no obligation to separate tithes from terumah, since the portion he separated originally fulfilled his obligation, it immediately became necessary to separate tithes from the remainder of the produce.

He must observe all the obligations required when partaking of terumah.

With the intent of giving the measure required by our Sages.

Although initially, one should not give a measured amount of terumah, as stated in Halachah 4, in this instance, he is required to give a measured amount so that he will give the amount that he originally intended.

As is required by Halachah 17, as an initial preference.

In contrast to the situation described in the previous halachah, in this instance, the person originally intended to separate more. Hence, what he separated is not considered as terumah.

Since the separation was not effective, that portion is considered as tevel, and terumah must be separated from it. Since it was set aside as a separate portion, the terumah should be separated from it and not from other produce. See the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah (Terumot 4:1).
The Ra’avad differs with the Rambam’s interpretation of that mishnah and maintains that the separated produce is in fact terumah. The Kessef Mishneh justifies the Rambam’s interpretation.

For as mentioned above and in Halachah I 7, preferably, one should separate terumah from the grain for which it is being separated and not from other grain.

And he may separate terumah from other produce. The rationale is that terun:,ah is called “the first.” Implied is that it must be set aside from produce that is not “first” and in this instance, that has not been done (Siftei Cohen 331 :45).

I.e., he designated a certain portion of the first grain heap as terumah.

I.e., the terumah for the second grain heap should be separated in a way entirely parallel to the separation from the first. It should be taken from an equivalent place and have the measure. Our translation is based on the version of the Mishneh Torah possessed by the Radbaz and the Kessef Mishneh and their interpretations of that text. There are other slightly different versions of the text.

As stated in Halachah 12, after a tenth of the produce is given to the Levites, they must separate a tenth of that tenth and give it to the priests as terumat ma’aser.

I.e., in contrast to “the great terumah,” as mentioned in Halachah 4. As stated in the notes to that halachah, a verse ostensibly referring to terumat ma’aser (Numbers 18:27) states: “And your terumah will be considered for you .... “ As explained above, implied is that terumah should be given by estimation. Nevertheless, according to the Jerusalem Talmud (Terumah 1 :7), that verse refers to the great terumah and not to terumat ma’aser (Radbaz).

When it will be destroyed because of impurity.

I.e., separating the terumat ma’aser after counting it is praiseworthy [the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah (Terumot 4:6)].

For in this way, the measurement is most precise.

Se/er HaMitzvot (positive commandment 129) and Se/er HaChinuch (mitzvah 396) include this commandment among the 613 mitzvot of the Torah.

I.e., the Torah’s requirement is for the Israelite to give the tithes to the Levite and for the Levite to separate one tenth of the tithes as terumat ma’aser. Nevertheless, if the Israelite desires to fulfill this mitzvah, he has the option. It is not considered as if he is usurping the Levite’s right.

Berachot 47a derives this concept from the exegesis of Numbers 18:26 which speaks of taking “a tenth from the tithe.” Implied is that only a tenth is separated from the tithe and nothing more.

And completed all the other tasks to make it obligated for tithing.

I.e., once produce has been reduced to kernels of grain, the obligation to separate terumah takes effect. Hence, the Levite must separate terumah from the tithe as well as terumat ma'aser.

I.e., he is penalized by being required to perform the work necessary to process the stalks of grain until they are reduced to kernels.

For the obligation to tithe is incumbent only on the food and not on the other parts of the plant.

He is required to perform the tasks necessary to process the grain for the reasons mentioned above. Nevertheless, he must give the priest the chaff because he designated it as terumah while it was in its stalks. That sacred designation does not depart from the chaff when the kernels are separated from it.

I.e., his statements indicate that his father desired that the entire tithe be given to the Levite. Hence, we assume that he already separated the terumat ma’aser.

The mention of a measure indicates that he expects the Levite to separate the terumat ma'aser required for this measure.

This measure is slightly less than 5 cc. according to Shiurei Torah and approximately 9.5 cc. according to Chazon Ish.

Because such a small amount is of little value. On the basis of the Jerusalem Talmud (Terumot 11 :4), the Ra’avad questions the Rambam’s ruling, maintaining that even the slightest amount of pure grain should also be brought to a priest if there was a definite obligation to tithe. The Radbaz and the Kessef Mishneh . acknowledge the validity of Ra’avad’s questions, but offer possible resolutions for the Rambam’s approach.

He must, however, separate it. Otherwise, it is forbidden to benefit from the tithes.

For even a small amount of these substances is of value for a priest (Radbaz).

If it was not ritually pure, it would be of little benefit to the priest, for he could use it only as fuel. Hence we do not require that it be brought to him.

Produce from which we are uncertain whether the tithes had been separated and hence, require that the tithes be separated again. Since the tithes are being separated merely as a safeguard and thus it is possible that there is no Scriptural obligation from this crop, we do not trouble him to bring a priest a very small amount.

Our translation is taken from the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah (Challah 1 :9). Note the contrast to terumat ma’aser as stated in Halachah 20.

We have chosen this translation for bayit based on the gloss of the Kessef Mishneh to Halachah 18 where he explains that when one grain heap is in a room and another in the loft of the same building, they are considered as being in the same place. This interpretation enables us to understand an otherwise difficult passage in the Tosefta, Terumot 3:9.

Everything that is in the same room is considered as being in the same location even if the two piles of produce are not touching each other (Radbaz; see the following halachah).

The Siftei Cohen 331 :49 explains the rationale for the above restriction and why it is not binding after the fact. As mentioned above, according to Rabbinic Law, one must separate between one fortieth and one sixtieth of the crop as terumah and that separation must be made by estimation. Hence, in order to make an appropriate estimation, one must be in the same place as the produce. Nevertheless, since according to Scriptural Law, one fulfills his obligation with even one grain, after the fact, such a separation is not disqualified.

And thus try to receive something of value for the wine and/or oil that will be spilled.

Since the jugs are breaking, we consider them as having been broken already and the produce as having been spilled. When quoting this law, the Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De ‘ah 331 :25) states that in the present age, when terumah is destroyed regardless because of its impurity, even when the jugs are breaking, the separation is effective.

Since they are in the same room, they are considered as being in the same place.

It is considered as if they were all mixed together [see the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah (ma’aser Sheni 3: 12)].

Each closed jug is considered as a separate entity, even though they are all in the same room.

For the entire garden is considered as a single entity.

The fact that they are in the same granary causes them to be ·considered as a single entity.

I.e., provided he has not begun removing produce from the granary.

I.e., provided he has not begun removing produce from the granary.

The Rambam is not quoting the verse as it appears in the Torah.

The Siftei Cohen 331 :48 describes this as the most choice way of observing the mitzvah. The Radbaz emphasizes that this is a stringency that Torah scholars have accepted upon themselves and, according to the Rambam, is not even a Rabbinic obligation. The Ra’avad explains that an Israelite need not separate terumat ma’aser from produce that is in one place, but a Levite must. The Kessef Mishneh does not accept that position and quotes sources in support of the Rambam’s view.

And it is as if terumat ma’aser has never been separated for the produce for which he intended that it serve that purpose.

I.e., terumat ma'aser has not yet been separated.

I.e., terumah has never been separated from them. See Chapter 5, Halachah 12.

I.e., the tithes have never been separated from them. See Hilchot Ma’aser 1:7.

The first fruits.

I.e., either one or the other. For in the year the second tithe is separated, the tithe for the poor is not separated.

Sefer HaMitzvot (negative commandment 154) and Se/er HaChinuch (mitzvah 72) include this commandment among the 613 mitzvot of the Torah.

“Your fullness offering” refers to bikkurim for they are separated when the produce becomes full. “Your priestly heave-offering” refers to terumah. Thus the bikkurim precede terumah. See also Terumot 3:6-7.

Temurah 4b explains that this prohibition is considered as correctable by the fulfillment of a positive commandment, for one may make separations in the proper order. See the gloss of Radbaz.

I.e., three hundredths of his crop. An average donation of terumah is one fifitieth, two hundredths. And terumat ma’aser is one tenth of the first tithe, another hundredth. See the Rambam’s Commentary to Demai 5:2.

This refers to the portion that will be separated as terumat ma’aser. Initially, it is to remain as ordinary produce, so that the prohibition against making the separations in improper sequence is not violated.

I.e., including that which was separated as terumah.

In this way, he will have separated terumah, the tithes, and terumat ma'aser in proper sequence.