Rambam - 1 Chapter a Day

For preferably, the tithes should be separated in order, as stated in Hilchot Terumah 3:23.

Sefer HaMitzvot (positive commandment 128) and Sefer HaChinuch (mitzvah 473) include this commandment among the 613 mitzvot of the Torah. In Sefer HaMitzvot, the Rambam states that separating the second tithe and partaking of it in Jerusalem are considered two facets of one mitzvah. The Ramban (in his Hosafot to Sefer HaMitzvot) differs and considers partaking of the produce in Jerusalem as another positive mitzvah.

From the context of the passage, it is obvious that it is referring to another tithe and not to the first tithe which is given to the Levites.

Hilchot Matanot Aniyim 6:3; Hilchot Ma’aser 9:3-4.

I.e., with regard to the reckoning of the years of the agricultural cycle. These concepts also apply to with regard to the Sabbatical year.

This is the popular translation of the Hebrew term kitniyot. More particularly, the Hebrew term includes many species that are not legumes.

Vegetables are not mentioned here, because different laws apply to them, as stated in Halachah 4. With regard to kitniyot, note, however, Halachah 8.

I.e., one third of their full growth, as stated in Hilchot Ma'aser 2:5.

I.e., they reached this level of growth during the second year of the agricultural cycle. As mentioned above, the second tithe is separated in the second year of the agricultural cycle and the tithe for the poor in the third year.

Even though their initial growth was in the second year.

Black spots begin to appear upon them. This is “the phase of tithing” for them, as stated in Hilchot Ma’aser 2:5.

I.e., the year when they are harvested.

See Hilchot Terumah 3:3; Hilchot Ma’aser 1 :9.
Because the obligation is Rabbinic in origin, they are tithed like vegetables (see Halachah 4) for which the obligation to tithe is also of Rabbinic origin.

According to Scriptural Law, there is no obligation to tithe them, because most people do not partake of them. Nevertheless since there are some who do partake of them, our Sages imposed this obligation.

And the mitzvah of tithing them is of Scriptural origin.
The Ra’avad differs with the Rambam, maintaining that the carobs of Tzalmona need not be tithed at all and that the obligation to tithe all trees is Rabbinic in origin. The Ra’avad and the Kessef Mishneh discuss these points at length.

Our Sages (Kiddushin 3a) explain the difference between vegetables and other crops as follows: Unlike other crops for which the water from the rains suffice, vegetables require irrigation.

It is forbidden for a Jew to harvest produce on Rosh HaShanah. We are speaking about produce belonging to a Jew harvested by a gentile.

In contrast to the fruit mentioned in Halachah 2.

In contrast to the species mentioned in Halachah 8.

For it also requires water from irrigation.

Here the Rambam is outlining the laws governing the tithes. The laws governing the Sabbatical year are described in Hilchot Shemitah 4:12.

Because with regard to trees, the fourth year does not start until the fifteenth of Shvat.

I.e., reached “the phase of tithing.”

The Ra’avad has a different understanding of Rosh HaShanah l 5a-b, the source for the Rambam’s ruling, and differs on that basis. The Radbaz justifies the Rambam’s understanding of that passage and hence his ruling here.

The Ra’avad notes that the Rambam’s ruling appears to contradict Berachot 36a which cites the position quoted by the Rambam in the name of the School of Shammai, while the School of Hillel considers it only as the fruits of a tree. The Kessef Mishneh justifies the Rambam’s ruling, explaining that capers are considered as the fruits of a tree only with regard to the prohibitions of kilayim and orlah. With regard to the second tithe, by contrast, since there is no loss in observing both stringencies, we follow the stricter ruling.

Reaching one third of their growth.

The Rambam LeAm suggests amending the text to read “after the fifteenth of Shvat.” For if the berries were picked before the fifteenth of Shvat, it would be obvious that the tithes should be separated according to the previous year.

Which as reflected in the continuation of the halachah will serve as both the second tithe and the tithe for the poor.

As is done with the second tithe.

As is done with the tithe for the poor.

According to some opinions, the translation of these two terms should be reversed.

The Ra’avad questions that Rambam’s ruling for, seemingly, if everything depends on when the produce reaches maturity, it is not necessary to gather all the produce together. Instead, it can be tithed as it is gathered. The Kessef Mishneh explains that the Rambam is saying that even if the produce is gathered all together, there is no difficulty. We do not say that the produce is from different years, because everything depends on when the produce reaches maturity. He is not, however, required to gather the produce together.

See Halachah 10 where the Rambam mentions other particulars with regard to Egyptian beans.

The literal translation of the Rambam’s words (taken from Shivi’it 2:9) is “eunuch onions.” In his Commentary to the Mishnah, he explains that term: “[Generally,] when onions are left in a moist place after being uprooted from the ground, they sprout forth green leaves. There is one type that does not do this. They are called ‘eunuch onions,’ for they represent a eunuch who does not produce seed.”

I.e., three periods in which they would ordinarily be watered. For example, if it was customary to water them every week, the laws that follow would apply if one withheld water from tem for three weeks.

Even though they are not harvested immediately, their growth has already ceased.

And thus one might think that their growth has been completed.

From Rav Kappach’s translation of the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah (Sh’vi’it 2:8), it appears that the intent is that his purpose is to use the kernels as seed and not to partake of them. Others, however, interpret the Rambam as meaning that he desires to eat the seeds and not the pods. Were the person concerned with eating the pods - or even the kernels according to the first interpretation - the plants would be considered like vegetables.

I.e., even the vegetables. For the vegetables are considered as secondary to the seed (beans). Thus these plants are judged as other legumes, in which case, the ruling depends on when the beans reach one third of their growth, as stated in Halachah 2.

I.e., the leaves of the plant.

I.e., even the seed. For the seed are considered as secondary to the vegetables and vegetables should be tithed according to when they are gathered, as stated in Halachah 4.

I.e., he separates one tithe for both the vegetables and the seeds, even though there is reason to say that the tithes for each of the two should be separated separately. If he harvested the plants primarily for the seeds, even the vegetables should be tithed as if they were seeds. Conversely, if he harvested the plants primarily as vegetables, even the seeds should be tithed as such.

Only in such a situation should the produce be tithed as produce of the second year. The Ra’avad notes that this ruling is problematic: Since the produce has not reached a third of its growth, why is there a need to tithe it? The Radbaz explains that since the person gathers it, it is considered as significant for him, and, as far as he is concerned, it has reached its full growth.

For the vegetables, this ruling is obvious. It applies even for the seeds, because the plants did not reach one third of their growth in the previous year.

And they should be tithed according to when they are harvested.

When produce is grown to be used as a vegetable, it is watered before it is harvested. When it is grown for seeds, it is not (Radbaz). The Ra’avad questions the Hebrew term used by the Rambam. The Radbaz states that it means “harvests,”· because, as explained above, vegetables are usually watered before they are harvested.

For his intent to be significant, it has to bereinforced by a deed.

Otherwise, it would not be appropriate for them to be tithed as produce of the second year.

The Ra’avad questions the Rambam’s ruling in this instance as well and again the Radbaz and the Kessef Mishneh justify the Rambam’s approach.

For they reached a level of growth that obligated them to be tithed at that time.

Since he intended to use the plants for vegetables, we do not say that the vegetables are entirely insignificant.

Rosh HaShanah 13b.

As explained in Halachah 8.

I.e., the entire quantity of produce is tithed according to the laws governing the majority. For we assume that any individual fruit was separated from the majority.

The Ra’avad differs and maintains that the tithe for the poor should also be separated, for if it is not separated, the produce is tevel. Rav Yosef Korcus differs, explaining that the same logic could be used with regard to the first clause of the halachah, and that ruling is based on an explicit mishnah (Machshirin 2:11). This explanation provides us with a new definition of tevel - produce from which the separations have not been made to the best of man’s ability.

I.e., it is considered as sacred property, as stated in Chapter 3, Halachah 17.

See Hilchot Ma’aser 1:7.

See Hilchot Terumot 4:4.

See ibid.:2.

I.e., through one of the six situations mentioned in Hilchot Ma’aser 3:2-3.

For the prohibition against partaking of tevel applies until all the tithes have been separated. See Hilchot Ma‘achalot Assurot 10:20.

As explained in the following chapter.

The Scriptural obligation to separate the second tithe applies only in Eretz Yisrael. Furthermore, not only is there no Rabbinic obligation, one should not do so.

The firstborn offspring of kosher animals must be offered as a sacrifice. Nevertheless, a firstborn animal in the Diaspora should not be brought to Jerusalem. Indeed, even if it is brought to the Temple, it is not offered as a sacrifice. See Hilchot Bechorot 1:5.

I.e., since the second tithe should not be brought from Syria to Jerusalem, our Sages did not require its separation there. The Ra’avad differs with the Rambam’s ruling, but it is justified by the Radbaz and the Kessef Mishneh.

See Hilchot Terumot 1:1 which states that our Prophets and Sages ordained that terumah should be separated in these lands.

I.e., there was always a substantial Jewish community in these lands and our Sages wanted to provide the poor with an opportunity to receive their livelihood. This provision was not enacted with regard to Syria, because it was relatively close to Eretz Yisrael and the poor could receive their livelihood from the tithe for the poor separated there (Radbaz).