Rambam - 1 Chapter a Day

One might argue that this law does not apply at present. And indeed, did not apply throughout the entire Second Temple period. As explained in Hilchot Terumah I :26 and notes, from the time of the exile of the tribes of Reuven and Gad towards the end of the First Temple period, the mitzvah to separate tithes was no longer required by Scriptural Law. On the other hand, since the source of the mitzvot are Scriptural, even though their observance now is Rabbinic, we follow stringencies as if the Scriptural mitzvah still applies.

I.e., he is giving one fiftieth which is the ordinary measure separated as terumah (ibid. 3:2).

For the second tithe is given as a tenth of the new total once the first tithe has been separated.

See Chapter 9, Halachah 10.

There is a difference of opinion among the Sages of the Talmud if this principle, referred to as bereirah should be applied or not (see Beitzah 37b). Because the matter is not resolved, with regard to questions of Scriptural Law, we are stringent, but with regard to matters of Rabbinic Law, we rule leniently.

And there is no way one can drink from the top without drinking from the bottom or drink from the bottom without drinking from the top.

This does not represent a contradiction to the previous halachah. In that instance, the person had not separated the terumah and the tithes. He had merely stated that he would. In this instance, he has made a separation even though he did not physically remove it.

For the produce will not become intermingled.

See Hilchot ma’aser Sheni, ch. 4, which describes how the second tithe can be redeemed for silver coinage.

I.e., this is referring to a situation where the person did not make the separations in the desired sequence. This is undesirable, as stated in Hilchot Terumah 3:23.

He may not, however, separate it as terumat m ‘aser for this batch of produce, for it is not proper to separate terumat ma’aser before one separates the tithes themselves. See Chapter 9, Halachah 5.
The Ra’avad states that one may use it as terumat ma’aser for other produce, but not as ordinary terumah.

I.e., he puts aside this batch of produce. Whenever he has new produce, he measures it and calculates a tenth. Afterwards, he considers that quantity of the produce set aside as tithes. When that entire batch of produce has been designated as tithes, he gives it to a Levite. See also (Hilchot Terumah 5:26).

I.e., he must separate tithes again, lest he had made the original separation after the produce which he designated for his tithes was lost. The Mishnah ( Gittin 3 :8) mentions the opinion of Rabbi Elazar who maintains that one shows concern only for the separations made within the last 24 hours. Other Sages differ, however, and maintain that one must show concern for all produce separated (Kessef Mishneh; see Rav Kapach’s edition of the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah).
Tosafot Yom Tov (Gittin, loc. cit.) states that the Rambam’s wording implies that one should separate tithes for one’s produce even if that produce has already been eaten. Other authorities, however, do not accept this deduction.

For perhaps, the produce that he had set aside was intact at the time he made the separation.

Who is entitled to receive both terumah and the tithes.

Who is entitled to receive the tithes.

Who is entitled to receive the tithe for the poor.

I.e., the lender lent a Levite 100 zuz, but did not require him to repay it. Instead, he said that he would continually deduct the money in exchange for the produce he would set aside as tithes until the debt was paid, as described in the following halachah.

In which instance, they - and therefore, the lender - would not be entitled to the crops separated for these purposes.

There is obviously a printing error in the standard published text of the Mishneh Torah.

In this way, the produce separated formally becomes the property of the debtor. Even though ultimately the lender will be receiving the produce, he must make the separations so that the main batch of produce will not be tevel.

He must, however, make these separations. He need not give them to another person, because since these individuals are accustomed to receiving this produce, it is considered as if he already had received them (Rashi, Giffin 30a).

I.e., whenever produce is sold, there is a buyer’s bid and a seller’s bid. The buyer’s bid is always lower than the seller’s. The lender may price the produce according to the buyer’s bid.

Despite the fact that he is receiving an advantage - considering the produce’s worth at a lower price for having made the loan.

Although the Sabbatical year remits debts (Hilchot Shemitah, ch. 9), it remits only those debts for which a person must demand payment. In this instance, it is as if the payment has already been arranged (Meiri, Gittin 30a).

Our Sages ordained this measure for the sake of the recipients (Gittin, loc. cit.).

Rashi (Gittin, loc. cit.) explains that we are speaking about a situation where the lender stipulated that he would receive payment for the loan from the terumah or tithes from a particular year. That year was a year of drought and his harvest appeared lost entirely. He made a public statement of despair, acknowledging that he no longer expected to be able to collect the debt, because his fields would not grow enough crops. If, despite this condition, his fields produced crops, he is not entitled to keep the terumah and/or tithes for himself. The rationale is that he has already given up hope of their recovery.

I.e., the arrangement to pay the debt is not automatically transferred to the heirs of the estate. They must agree to it.

As long as the testator possesses land, his estate is responsible for the debt, because the land is on lien to it. Hence, his heirs can continue the arrangement if they so choose.

If the deceased left only movable property, the debt does not create a lien on the estate. There is a mitzvah for them to pay the debt, but no binding obligation. Hence, they cannot have terumah or tithes separated for the sake of paying the debt.

For it is as if the court agreed that all the priests and/or Levites would accept responsibility for the debt in the event of the debtor’s death.

For a wealthy person cannot be a recipient of the tithes for the poor.

For it is as if the lender specified that he would accept this method as payment for the debt. If that method is no longer viable, he must suffer the loss.

A measure of volume.

I.e., and thus, he has not formally acquired it as his own. Nevertheless, he can rely on the assumption that a Jew will not act unfaithfully and will keep his word (Bava Metzia 49a).

The fact that by changing his mind and failing to keep· his word, the Israelite caused a spiritual difficulty for the first Levite - for he caused him to violate a transgression by partaking of tithes for which terumat ma’aser was not separated - does not create a financial liability.

As the tithes.

As the tithe for the poor. As the Rambam writes in his Commentary to the Mishnah (Terumot 4:2), he does not have to separate a full se’ah as the tithes for the poor, for once the first tithe has been separated, all that is necessary is to separate a tenth from the new total and this will be slightly less than a se’ah.

I.e., he is thinking that the tithes will have been separated for these eight se’ah.

I.e., the produce possessed by each of the recipients should be one tenth of the amount of produce that he uses. We do not say that the produce that he originally separated can serve as the tithes for the produce he will set aside afterwards unless it is intact. See Halachah 4.

I.e., the owner acted generously with the poor people, taking a se’ah of their presents - which is usually produce of inferior quality - and exchanging it for a se’ah of quality produce from the grain pile.

For there is no obligation to separate tithes from the presents of the poor (Hilchot Terumah2:9).

As stated in Chapter 1, Halachah 6, one may not separate tithes from produce that is exempt from the mitzvah of tithing or for which the obligation to tithe has already been discharged.

For he has designated the tithes as coming from those baskets.

From the Tosefta (Demai 8:12), it appears that if the piles of produce are equal, it makes no difference to the person from which pile he makes the separations. Thus he can separate them as he desires (Radbaz).

For his statements indicate that he desired to separate the tithes for one pile from the other.