Rambam - 1 Chapter a Day

See Chapter 2, Halachot 1-2 which explain that according to Scriptural Law, one is obligated to tithe produce only when he harvests it for his own personal use. Similarly, one who purchases produce is not liable to tithe it according to Scriptural Law.
As indicated by the following halachah, this applies when the purchaser bought the produce to partake of it. If he purchased it as merchandise, the obligation to tithe does not take effect until one purchases it with the intent of partaking of it.

With regard to the laws of acquisition, according to Scriptural Law, the payment of money brings about a kinyan, the transfer of an object from one person’s domain to another. Nevertheless, our Sages decreed that such a transfer should be brought about by drawing the object to be acquired out of the seller’s domain (meshichah; see Hilchot Mechirah 3:5). Nevertheless, with regard to the obligation to tithe, they did not alter the Scriptural Law.

For making up his mind does not establish a binding obligation.

For a Torah sage should go beyond the letter of the law and accept financial responsibilities that are not mandated by Torah Law. See Hilchot De ‘ot, the conclusion of ch. 5.

The Radbaz and the Kessef Mishneh emphasize that he should not return the produce unless the seller agrees. Nevertheless, even if the seller agrees to accept the produce, the purchaser must make restitution from his own produce or funds for the produce that he tithed.

This applies even if the work necessary to prepare it has been completed.

Although our Sages required one who purchases produce to tithe it, they instituted this obligation only when one intended to partake of it himself, just as the Scriptural obligation to tithe applies only for a person who harvests produce to partake of it himself (Siftei Cohen 331: 119).

A coin used in the Talmudic era of moderate value.

His wording implies that he acquires them after he selects them and picks them from the tree, for the terms of purchase state that he would “select it,” i.e., detach it.

Without tithing.

I.e., though it was attached when he negotiated the deal, the purchase takes effect after he detaches it. Hence, he is obligated to tithe the produce, because a sale is one of the factors that establish such an obligation [the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah (Ma’aserot 2:6)].

The Radbaz questions why the Rambam mentions two clusters of figs. The same laws would apply if only one cluster was involved. He explains that since it is not common for people to purch~se a large amount of produce while it is still attached to the ground, it is important to emphasize that this law applies even when he purchases a large amount.

And a sale of attached produce does not convey an obligation to tithe.

As stated in Hilchat Mechirah 5: I, an exchange is considered as equivalent to a sale.

Hence it is forbidden even to snack from them.

Chapter 3, Halachah 3.

I.e., detached produce.

I.e., the produce is on the trees and it does not become the other person’s until he picks it.

The Ra’avad differs with the Rambam and maintains that the person who partakes of a particular number of figs is obligated to tithe them. The Radbaz and the Kessef Mishneh justify the Rambam’s ruling.

Instead, it is considered as if each person gave the other a present.

For partaking of untithed produce.

There are certain dimensions of Jewish business law in which a present is considered as a sale and others in which it is not (see Hilchot Gezeilah 9:13; Hilchot Mechirah 29:14). The Jerusalem Talmud (Ma’aserot 2:1) states that even those authorities who maintain that giving a present should be considered as a sale (see Hilchot Shemitah VeYovel 11:19) agree that this stringency should not be enforced in the present age, because in the present age, the obligation to tithe is of Rabbinic origin. The Rambam mentions this leniency without differentiating between the era when the obligation to tithe was Scriptural and the present age, because he maintains that the entire obligation to tithe produce obtained through purchase is of Rabbinic origin.

Who is not necessarily relied upon with regard to tithes.

As presents [the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah (Ma‘aserot 2:1)].

As a snack.

For we assume that the produce has not been taken home and thus has not incurred the obligation to be tithed. Hence, one is permitted to snack from it without tithing (ibid.).

Since the common person passed through the marketplace and did not stand there to sell his produce, we assume that he is one of those who brings his produce home. Furthermore, we proceed on the assumption that he has not taken the produce home yet and thus it never incurred the obligation to be tithed. Therefore when the recipients take it home, it incurs that obligation for the first time. Indeed, they must separate not only the tithes, but also terumah.

These separations must be made, for in such a situation, the produce incurs the obligation to be tithed after the work associated with its preparation was completed (see Chapter 3, Halachah 1).

As will be explained in Chapter 9, in the Second Temple period, the common people became somewhat lax with regard to the mitzvah of separating tithes. When they became aware of this situation, the Sages ordained that one should not partake of produce from a common person without tithing it, for perhaps he did not do so. One should not, however, recite a blessing, for it is possible that it was tithed. Similarly in this instance, it is possible that the common person tithed his produce, but it is possible that he did not.

I.e., he is assuring the recipients that they may take the produce home without qualms because it has already been tithed [the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah (loc. cit.)].

For we do not accept the common person’s word (ibid.).

Which could be interpreted as assurance that the produce had not been taken home by the unlearned person and thus it has not yet been tithed.

Because a large amount of produce will certainly not be eaten in the marketplace. We do not rely on the unlearned person’s assurance that he tithed it or that he will tithe it in the future.

For we are unsure of whether it was tithed or not. The same concepts apply with regard to the instances mentioned in the later clauses.

As in the first clause of the previous halachah.

As in the later clause. The fact that his statements are self-contradictory is not a matter of concern, for the obligation to tithe is Rabbinic in origin and our Sages established their rules as general guidelines to be applied even if some ramifications are difficult to understand (Aruch HaShulchan).

I.e., here to, the above principles produce seemingly contradictory rulings.

As a snack. They may not eat a significant meal.

Even if it is brought within the gate or the store.

For they are located there on a consistent basis [the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah (Ma’aserot 2:2)].

Chapter 4, Halachah 11. As the Ra’avad notes, the Rambam’s decision here appears somewhat contradictory to his ruling there. See the notes to that halachah.

And thus, the other people in the store or gate are not obligated to tithe.

See Hilchot Sechirut, ch. 12 which describes a worker’s right to partake of the produce with which he is working.

Because the worker. does not acquire the produce that he eats. Instead, he is eating because of the Torah’s license. Hence, he is not required to separate tithes (Siftei Cohen 331:123).

Who must tithe his produce as stated above.

To remove weeds so that the tree will grow better. In such an instance, he is not entitled to partake of the olives according to Scriptural Law, because his work does not involve the produce itself. See the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah (Ma’aserot 3:3).

As In Chapter 4, Halachah 15, et al. For in this manner, the work associated with the olives is not completed.

Because collecting even a small number of them would be considered as the completion of a task. He is obligated to tithe, because since he is eating due to the stipulation, it is considered as a purchase.

I.e., to remove small onions and/or weeds from an onion patch so that the large onions would have the opportunity to grow.

I.e., the leaves of the onions. According to Scriptural Law, the worker is not allowed to partake of the onions, because his efforts to do not complete the preparation of this produce (Hilchot Sechirut 12:4). Nevertheless, this owner agreed to allow the worker to partake of the onion leaves.

As explained in the previous halachah.

Who was performing work with the olives that would entitle him to partake of them according to Scriptural Law, e.g., he was harvesting them.

A Talmudic measure equivalent to half a log, 171 cc according to Shiurei Torah, 300 cc according to Chazon Ish.

As stated in Halachah 9.

It must be emphasized that we are speaking about an instance where the employer gives the worker special license to dip the olives in salt. Otherwise, he is forbidden to do so, as apparent from Hilchot Sechirut 12: 10 (Rambam LeAm ).

See Halachah 18.

As stated in Chapter 3, Halachah 3.

Our translation is based on the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah (Ma’aserot 2:8).

Without separating tithes.

Because that is not the species of produce with which he is working.

In his Commentary to the Mishnah (Ma’aserot 3:2), the Rambam states that we are not speaking about workers employed to harvest the produce of the field, for they would have a right to partake of this produce according to Scriptural Law. Instead, we are speaking of workers who are plowing or performing other similar tasks.

They may partake of the produce freely, not merely one at a time.

This addition is made on the basis of the gloss of the Radbaz.

For a present is not considered like a sale and does not obligate the separation of tithes, as stated in Halachah 5.

As stated at the beginning of Chapter 3. If the tasks were completed, it would be forbidden to partake of a significant meal from this produce.

See Chapter 6, Halachah 9. The Radbaz mentions that the produce must have matured to the extent that it could be obligated to be tithed. Otherwise, there would be no prohibition in paying one’s debt with it.

And since the owner is required to provide them with food, allowing them to partake of this produce would be equivalent to paying a debt.

For the work associated with this produce is completed and it is forbidden to partake of it unless it is tithed.

I.e., cook without spices.

In brine, the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah (Ma’aserot 4:1).

This obligation is, however, merely Rabbinic in origin.

Our Sages [the Jerusalem Talmud (Nedarim 6: 1 )] raise this question and leave it unresolved. See the Radbaz who mentions instances where smoking is considered as cooking and others when it is not.

In his Commentary to the Mishnah (loc. cit.), the Rambam explains that when produce was picked before it was ripened, it would be buried in this manner to hasten its ripening and softening process.

Although this activity helps prepare them to be eaten, it is not considered as cooking or pickling (Radbaz; see also the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah, loc. cit.).

Apparently, this ruling applies even if the cooked food has been removed from the fire and placed in another utensil (a kli sheni). See Radbaz and Chapter 3, Halachah 15.

The Radbaz states that this applies whether the spices were untithed and the oil had been tithed previously or the oil was untithed and the spices had been tithed previously.

If they were not brought home. Crushing these pungent herbs and mixing them with oil is equivalent to cooking them.

Creating a liquid (wine) from the grapes is equivalent to cooking.

Containing other food.

Because the wine was absorbed immediately by the food in the pot and never became a distinct entity. We are speaking about food that is cold .. Otherwise, exposing the wine to heat would establish the obligation as stated in the previous halachah (Kessef Mishneh ).

As stated in Chapter 3, Halachah 3.

A white fluid that resembles milk in its appearance [the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah (Ma’aserot4: l)].

Where the olives are kept until they become soft and fit to be squeezed for their oil (Ma’aserot 4:3).

See Hilchot Terumah 5:14,15 which give examples of instances where a person made an improper separation of terumah and hence, was required to separate terumah a second time.

Chapter 3, Halachah 3, states that separating terumah creates an obligation to tithe the remaining produce. In this halachah, the Rambam emphasizes that even if the separation of terumah was defective and terumah had to be separated a second time, the obligation to tithe has still taken effect (Radbaz).

As stated in Chapter 3, Halachah 3, the onset of the Sabbath establishes an obligation to tithe. Nevertheless, this applies only when the tasks associated with the preparation of the produce was completed beforehand (Beitzah 35a).

The rationale is that since the work· associated with them has been completed, it is
possible to partake of them on the Sabbath. Now eating any food on the Sabbath is significant, for it is a dimension of the mitzvah of oneg Shabbat, taking pleasure in the Sabbath. Hence, the obligation to tithe is established (Siftei Cohen 331: 127).

Even a snack.

For the onset of the Sabbath establishes an obligation to tithe as above.
The Rambam is quoting the Mishnah (Ma’aserot 4:2). The Jerusalem Talmud raises the question: Why is it necessary to state that the children were intending to partake of them on the. Sabbath? Even if that was not their intent, the commencement of the Sabbath would have established the obligation to tithe. The Jerusalem Talmud answers that the new insight is that since it was children who hid the produce, it would be permitted to be eaten as a snack on Friday. If, however, adults set aside the produce for use on the Sabbath, it is not permitted to snack from it on Friday. See also Siftei Cohen 331: 129.

Its figs were of a high quality and hence, set aside to be used on the Sabbath when one must use produce of the highest quality.

Even during the week (Radbaz).

I.e., snacking. Eating a significant amount establishes an obligation to tithe.

The tithing should be done before the Sabbath, because it is forbidden to tithe on the Sabbath itself (Hilchot Shabbat 23:9).

Since he began partaking of them before the commencement of the Sabbath and places them aside so that he would not partake of them on the Sabbath, their status does not change. He need not tithe them if he partakes of them after the Sabbath (Siftei Cohen 331: 130).