Rambam - 1 Chapter a Day

Sefer HaMitzvot (negative commandment 150) and Sefer HaChinuch (mitzvah 609) include this commandment among the 613 mitzvot of the Torah.

For after the produce has been redeemed, it is ordinary produce.

With regard to partaking of such produce outside Jerusalem in a state of ritual purity, see the previous chapter.

For the prohibition is only Rabbinic in origin. This applies even if the produce had already been brought into Jerusalem and was then removed.

I.e., even though it has become impure. Before it becomes impure, it is forbidden to use it for purposes other than human consumption, as stated in Halachah 10.

This represents a stringency that exists with regard to impure produce of the second tithes, beyond that applying to impure terumah. For impure terumah can be burnt and this produce cannot.

Chapter 2, Halachah 8.

Where it is otherwise forbidden to redeem produce from the second tithe.

See Halachot 1 0-11.

I.e., we do not say that since it became impure before the second tithe was separated and thus the mitzvah associated with that produce could never be fulfilled, the mitzvah does not take effect.

See Hilchot Terumah 7:10; see also Hilchot Ma ‘aseh HaKorbanot 10:9; Hilchot Chagigah 2:1.

Leviticus 22:10.

And thus performs the act necessary to emerge from ritual impurity.

A person who purified himself must wait until nightfall before partaking of terumah. This stringency does not apply with regard to partaking of produce from the second tithe.

See the following halachah.

Sefer HaMitzvot (negative commandment 151) and Sefer HaChinuch (mitzvah 608) include this commandment among the 613 mitzvot of the Torah.
The Rambam explains why he considers this a negative commandment in General Principle 8 of Sefer HaMitzvot, saying that whenever the Torah requires us to declare that we did not perform a specific activity, the performance of that activity is forbidden by Scriptural Law. The Ramban does not accept this principle as he states in his Hasagot.

The Kessef Mishneh explains that this concept is derived from the prohibition against partaking of the second tithe in a state of ritual impurity mentioned in Halachah 1. Since the two prohibitions are mentioned in sequence by the Torah, we can assume that they share the same laws.

Even if the produce had passed through Jerusalem previously.

For his actions involve either the violation of a positive Scriptural command or a Rabbinic ordinance.

A person's mother, father, son, daughter, paternal brother and paternal sister (Hilchot Evel2:1).

Aaron asked this rhetorical question after Moses rebuked him for not partaking of the sin offering. Aaron was explaining that since his sons had died that day, it would not be appropriate for him to partake of a offering that day.

For the verse states today.

I.e., according to Scriptural Law; it is, however, forbidden by Rabbinic decree as above.

I.e., even according to Rabbinic Law, the laws of aninut do not apply.

See Hilchot Bi’at HaMikdash 2:9-10. See Sefer HaMitzvot (negative commandment 151) which explains that the prohibition is derived from the verse mentioned in the previous halachah and is included in this Scriptural commandment.

And it is forbidden to cause produce from the second tithe to contract ritual impurity.

Even in a state of Scriptural aninut.

Although it may contract ritual impurity. The produce may not, however, be eaten in a state of ritual impurity until it is redeemed. The amount that may be given to an unlearned person is, however, quite small, as stated in the following halachah.

I.e., he must separate an equivalent amount of produce from his possessions and partake of it according to the strictures of the second tithe. He is thus transferring the holiness of the first batch of produce to the second [the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (Demai 1:2)]. Since the obligation to separate the second tithe from demai is Rabbinic in origin, certain leniencies are allowed.

The Ra’avad protests the Rambam’s ruling. The Radbaz and the Kessef Mishneh explain that their disagreement stems from two different versions of the Tosefta (Ma’aser Sheni 4:3).

This is referring to an instance where we are certain that the second tithe was not separated from the produce beforehand in contrast to the second tithe that was separated from demai.

In order to prevent this from happening, the Torah gave the option of redeeming the produce, as will be explained.

See Hilchot Shabbat, chs. 8, 9, 18, which mention this measure as significant with regard to food (Kessef Mishneh).

The Ra’avad is more lenient and maintains that a larger amount, a portion the size of an egg, can be given to an unlearned person. The Radbaz and the Kessef Mishneh explain that the difference in the two opinions depends on a textual difference in their versions of Jerusalem Talmud (Demai I :2), the source for the Rambam’s ruling.

Here also, the Ra’avad is more lenient and maintains that a larger amount, a portion the size of an egg, can be given to an unlearned person. The Radbaz and the Kessef Mishneh explain that in this instance as well, the difference in the two opinions depends on a textual difference in their versions of the above source.

And drinking is included in eating (Yoma 76b). In his Commentary to the Mishnah (Ma'aser Sheni 2:1), the Rambam also cites Deuteronomy 14:26 which speaks about using the money from the redemption of the produce from the second tithe to purchase meat, oil, and wine.

In his Commentary to the Mishnah (ibid.), the Rambam cites the Jerusalem Talmud (Ma’aser Sheni 2: l) which derives the permission to use oil from the second tithe for smearing as follows: It is forbidden to use oil for a corpse. Now what would oil be used for a corpse? To smear on it. Thus we can infer that it is permitted to use oil to smear on a living person. Others note that smearing oneself is frequently equated with drinking. See Hilchot Sh ‘vitat Asor 1:4-5; Hilchot Terumot 11: l.

Sefer HaMitzvot (negative commandment 152; see also General Principle 8) and Sefer HaChinuch (mitzvah 610) include this commandment among the 613 mitzvot of the Torah.

In his Commentary to the Torah, the Ramban objects to the Rambam’s interpretation of this verse, but the Kessef Mishneh justifies it.

The literal translation of the Rambam’s words is “a corpse [that it is] a mitzvah [to bury].” As explained in Hilchot Evel 3:5, this refers to a corpse that is abandoned on the road without anyone to bury it.

I.e., he is not liable for lashes, because he can correct the transgression by purchasing food worth the value of the produce and eating it in place of that produce (Radbaz). This applies if the seller is no longer present or he cannot return the money. If, however, he can return the money, he must, as stated in Chapter 7, Halachah 16.

In his Commentary to the Mishnah (Ma’aser Sheni 2:1), the Rambam explains that this phrase implies an exclusion: Something that is normally eaten must be eaten. We cannot benefit from it in another manner. The examples the Rambam proceeds to give reflect how foods are used for functions other than their primary purpose. See also Hilchot Shemitah 5 :2-3.

Even though oil is primarily used as food, it is also common to smear it on one’s flesh (Radbaz). Wine or vinegar, by contrast, are generally not applied as ointments.

For producing juice from other fruits is not considered the ordinary way of benefiting from this produce. See also Chapter 9, Halachah 3; Hilchot Terumot 11 :2; Hilchot Tuma‘at Ochalin 1 :5.

For this spoils the oil’s taste and thus reduces the number of people who would partake of it [The Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah (loc. cit.)].

For this enhances the wine’s taste.

In his Commentary to the Mishnah (loc. cit.), the Rambam explains that this concept is also derived from the phrasing of that mishnah: “To eat what is normally eaten.” Since this food has spoiled, it is not “normally eaten.”

I.e., parts of the plant that are not usually eaten. See Hilchot Terumah 11:10-13 for examples.

I.e., it need not be eaten in Jerusalem, nor in a state ofritual purity.

To impart their flavor to the water.

For it is considered as if a significant amount of the fruit’s flavor was imparted to the water.

Because it does not contain a significant amount of the fruit.

Since there is a doubt whether the produce is really from the second tithe, we do not impose this stringency.

That were ordinary produce.

As explained in Halachah 15.

With ordinary wood [the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah (Ma’aser Sheni 2:1)].

I.e., if one seeks to redeem the bread, one must pay its full value, even though as dough it was worth far less. The rationale is that its flavor is enhanced, but not its measure.

In the taste of the produce.
The Ra’avad has protested this ruling based on the Jerusalem Talmud (Ma’aser Sheni 2:1). Indeed, the ruling is difficult to understand, because it runs contrary to the Rambam’s Commentary on the Mishnah and that mishnah serves as the source for the Jerusalem Talmud.
To explain: The Mishnah states: “This is the general principle: Whenever the improvement is obvious, the improvement is judged proportionately. Whenever the improvement is not obvious, the improvement is accredited to the second [tithe].”
The Rambam comments: “Le., the entity that was improved had its weight... and volume increased, it is not [merely] that the effect of the ordinary produce increased the quality of the produce from the second tithe.”
The Jerusalem Talmud cites the following difference of opinion between Rabbi Yochanan and Reish Lakish in connection with our Mishnah:
Rabbi Yochanan says: “Whenever the volume of the produce has increased, the increase is proportionate. Whenever the volume has not increased, the increase is accredited to the second tithe.”
Reish Lakish says: “Whenever the improvement in flavor is obvious, the increase is proportionate. Whenever the improvement in flavor is not obvious, the increase is accredited to the second tithe.”
Now the general rule is that whenever there is a difference of opinion between Rabbi Yochanan and Reish Lakish, the halachah follows Rabbi Yochanan. The Radbaz and the Kessef Mishneh understand Rabbi Yochanan to be explaining · and amplifying the Mishnah, stating that the improvement must be both in flavor and in size, while Reish Lakish maintains that an improvement in flavor alone is sufficient.

Thus meeting the two requirements mentioned above.

The Ra’avad objects to the Rambam’s ruling and states that four zuz minus a fourth should be considered as the second tithe. Some commentaries suggest that there is a printing error and the Rambam also agrees with this ruling. According to that version, the reckoning is straightforward. The zuz of increase is divided proportionately according to the ratio of the original value of the substances.
The Kessef Mishneh maintains the accuracy of the present text of the Mishneh Torah, explaining as follows: When everything belongs to one person, three and three quarters zuz are considered as the second tithe as the Ra’avad maintains. When, however, the honey and spices belong to two people, the value of the entire mixture is considered as four and a fourth zuz. One and a fourth is given to the owner of the honey. Thus the owner of the wine has three and three fourths zuz worth which he must eat in accordance with the laws of the second tithe. Note the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah (Ma’aser Sheni 2:1) which follows these same principles, but describes the situation differently.

As stated in Halachah 10.

But rather as food, or for smearing that is pleasurable like eating (Radbaz). Note the parallel in Hilchot Shemitah 5:11.

A person may give produce from the second tithe tithe to a colleague. Nevertheless, the recipient does not acquire that produce as his own. Instead, it is as if he is a guest of the giver, partaking of his property. More particularly, it is as if the recipient is partaking of God's property.

Indeed, if one attempts to consecrate a woman with such produce, the consecration is not effective, for the money used to consecrate a woman must belong to the husband (Hilchat Ishut 5:4,6).

See the following halachah for examples of all these prohibitions.

For an exchange is equivalent to a sale [the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah (Ma’aser Sheni 1:1)]

See Hilchot Loveh UMalveh 3:7 which describes when a creditor can enter the debtor’s home to collect security.

In contrast to the previous instance, this is referring to security willingly given by the debtor to the creditor.

I.e., the exchange is forbidden even if he receives produce from the second tithe in return. The Mishnah (Ma‘aser Sheni l: I) states that such an exchange is forbidden even in Jerusalem where the produce would be eaten.

For the recipient of the wine is under no obligation to provide the giver with oil or anything else.

For this is deprecating to the holiness of the second tithe [the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah (Ma‘aser Sheni l: I)].

I.e., one knows the weight of the produce and he uses it in order to weigh the golden coins onto which the holiness from other produce from the second tithe will be transferred.

I.e., one might think that this is permitted for after all, he is using the produce from the second tithe for a mitzvah, to enable him to transfer the holiness of other produce.

I.e., the produce may dry out, be eaten by mice, or spoil, and thus weigh less than the owner thought (Rav Yosef Corcus).

The Ra’avad differs with the Rambam and maintains that this is permitted. The Kessef Mishneh states that the passage which the Ra’avad uses as a source can be explained differently. Nevertheless, he questions the rationale for the Rambam’s ruling.

I.e., to stack them on his table so that he will appear to have an active business.

One gives the loan only for appearance sake - to create an impression that he is wealthy - and the borrower returns it immediately.

It was customary for a person’s friends to give him money as a wedding gift and for him to repay the favor when the friends married. See Hilchot Zechiyah UMatanah, ch. 7, for a detailed explanation. This is forbidden, because the present is considered as a loan.

I.e., a person invited a colleague for a meal with the expectation that the colleague return the favor (P’nei Moshe, the Jerusalem Talmud, Demai 3:1). Produce from the second tithe cannot be used for such meals, for it is like an exchange.

For he will be paying an obligation levied upon him with funds belonging to God.

As long is the donor is not obligated to make these payments.

So that he will use it as required for money from the second tithes.

That would be forbidden because it would be equivalent to using the produce from the second tithe to pay his debt.

Hinting at such an arrangement 'without specifically mentioning it.'

This is permitted, because the oil smeared on his hand is not financially significant [the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah (Ma’aser Sheni 2:2)]. Nevertheless, a non-priest is not to put oil which is terumah on his hand to smear it on a priest. The difference between the two situations is that there is no prohibition against having a colleague use oil from the second tithe, while a non-priest is not allowed to benefit from terumah.

Halachah 17.

These are the penalties one would be required to pay for taking a person’s individual property. The thief is, however, required to return the principal. See Hilchot Geneivah 2:1.

The consecration is effective. Since the person has the right to partake of the produce, that right has monetary value and hence may be consecrated. See Chapter 7, Halachah 19, with regard to dedicating the second tithes for the purchase of sacrifices.

I.e., not necessarily the owner, for anyone can redeem consecrated property. The owner, however, must add a fifth (see Hilchot Arachin 7:2-4). Similarly, when a person redeems produce from the second tithe that belongs to him, he must add a fifth, as stated in Chapter 5, Halachah 1. See Radbaz.