Rambam - 1 Chapter a Day

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.