Rambam - 3 Chapters 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.

I.e., because the elements of the produce that are sacred have been removed from it [the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah (Demai 7:7)]. Terumat ma’aser should not be separated before the tithes themselves. Nevertheless, if one made such a separation, it is acceptable (Chapter 9, Halachah 5).

In this instance, the term tevel refers to produce from which the tithes and terumat ma’aser have not been separated. Although the term has a more inclusive meaning, from the continuation of the Rambam’s words, this appears to be the intent here.

I.e., were the tevel to be of another type of produce than the ordinary produce, the question of whether or not it is considered insignificant would depend on whether its flavor is detectable. In this situation, however, the two collections of produce are of the same species, so taste is not a factor and the tevel cannot be considered as insignificant.
When tevel is mixed with its own species, it is never nullified even if it is mixed with far more than its own size. The rationale is that it is a devar sheyeish lo matirin, i.e., the prohibition can be corrected by making the appropriate separations (Hilchot Issurei Ma’achalot 15:6).

I.e., if he knows how much produce was mixed in, he can make the appropriate separations even if the produce itself is not distinct.

I.e., one hundredth of the tevel. The Rambam explains what he means by forfeiting this amount and why one must do so in the following halachah.

I.e., it is considered as if the se’ah of terumat ma’aser fell into the ordinary produce in which instance, it would be necessary to remove one se’ah from the mixture [the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah (Demai 7:7)].

I.e., three se’ah: two se’ah for the great terumah and one se’ah for the terumat ma’aser.

For the se’ah that will ultimately be separated from the tevel can be considered as the se’ah that must be removed from the ordinary produce (ibid.).

For the opposite is true, the produce that remains is the ordinary produce (ibid.).

I.e., produce that had been separated as the tithes. Beforehand, terumah had been separated.

I.e., a person separated tithes and gave them to a Levite who did not separate terumat ma'aser from them as of yet.

Setting aside one tenth of the quantity of the tithes. This is the desired approach, because then the necessary separations are being made without losing anything.

And thus cannot exercise the above option.

I.e., one tenth of the tithes.

In his Commentary to the Mishnah (op. cit.), the Rambam explains that this ruling is given because the situation at hand is an intermediate level between an instance where terumat ma’aser becomes mixed with ordinary produce (in which instance 101 times the amount of terumat ma’aser would be necessary) and a situation where the terumat ma’aser need not be considered at all. There is a basis for such leniency, since ultimately, no separation had been made and terumat ma’aser was never mixed with the produce. On the other hand, since a tenth of the tithes is fit to be separated as terumat ma’aser, some recognition should be made. Hence our Sages arrived at the above compromise.

I.e., 11100th of the tevel.

The se’ah of terumat ma’aser from the tevel that is added is considered as mixed in with the tithes (ordinary) produce and therefore betal, subsumed, in it. Hence the person can make use of the produce in the ordinary manner.

The Ra’avad differs with the Rambam. The commentaries justify the Rambam’s view.

And thus separate an additional amount.

A mixture of terumah and ordinary produce. An ordinary person cannot benefit from such a mixture. Instead, it must be sold to a priest at the price of terumah with the exception of the price of the portion that is terumat ma’aser, as the Rambam continues to explain. The tithes would be meduma, because there would not be enough ordinary produce for the terumat ma’aser to be subsumed within them.

Which are ordinary produce.

In this way, he is forfeiting from the tithes the amount of terumat ma’aser in the tithes and the amount of terumat ma’aser in the tevel. The Ra’avad differs with the Rambam and the commentaries support the Rambam’s decision.

The commentaries explain that we are not speaking about an instance where he actually set aside the barrel as tithes, for the Rambam concludes the halachah by saying that he should set aside the tithes. Instead, he merely pledged to separate a barrel from that surface for ten barrels of other wine.

I.e., one of the external surfaces of the cube that is the pile [the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (Demai 7:8)].

The Rambam mentions this point, because otherwise, one could rightly ask: Why does the Mishnah (ibid.) speak about only one barrel of wine as tithes for 100 barrels (Radbaz)?

Our translation is taken from the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah (ibid.). The intent is that each of the barrels on the comers is part of two outer rows. Since he is taking a barrel from opposite comers, he will have certainly taken a barrel from the outer row he intended. Nevertheless, since he does not know which one of the two is appropriate, he should ‘mix them together.

Preferably, he should also use the remaining amount as tithes for other produce. Thus the barrel separated will be used entirely as tithes (Kin ‘at Eliyahu).

These and the following bracketed additions are made on the basis of the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah (loc. cit.).

Each of the barrels is part of two outer half rows, so that the barrel he intended to allocate is certainly among these four barrels.

By doing so, he will have taken a barrel from every row.

In a criss-cross as depicted in the accompanying diagram.

I.e., not the Hasmonean High Priest of that name who became a Sadducee (Kessef Mishneh).

Since it is punishable by death at the hand of heaven, people were meticulous in separating it [the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah (Demai 1:1)]

The majority of the unlearned people would separate the tithes as well. Nevertheless, because there was a significant minority who did not, our Sages imposed this stringency.

See Chapter 10, Halachot 1-2.

I.e., if such people say that their produce was tithed, we accept their word.

The name demai is a composite of the Aramaic words da mai, meaning “This, what is its status?” (Radbaz).

I.e., to whom these tithes would be given.

I.e., the Sages ordained this stringency with regard to the tithe for the poor, so that the people will be careful in their observance of the second tithe.

Although one’s observance fulfills a decree of our Sages and blessings are recited for the observance of Rabbinic commandments, e.g., lighting Shabbat and Chanukah candles, and the like, a blessing is not recited in this instance, because this obligation was instituted only because of doubt, not as a practice with inherent positive virtue.

I.e., were a blessing required, one would be forbidden to separate it in such a state, because a blessing could not be recited [the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah (Demai l:4)].

The Radbaz emphasizes that he need not set the remainder of the tithes aside. Indeed, he continues, doing so would be an indication that he should give this produce to the Levite.

As a present. There is reason to say that since the matter is one of doubt, one is not required to give it to the priest, but instead, could sell it to him. Nevertheless, our Sages ordained that it be given away. See the commentaries to Sotah 48a.

See Hilchot Terurnot 3:23.

Generally, the tithes must be separated in the appropriate order (ibid.). An exception is made with regard to demai, for the obligation to separate it is only a Rabbinic stringency (the Jerusalem Talmud, Demai 1 :4). See also Hilchot Ma’aser Sheni 11: 13.

i.e., if rather than partaking of the produce in Jerusalem as is required with regard to the second tithe, he chooses to redeem it, transferring its holiness to money. That money should be taken to Jerusalem and used to purchase food there. See Hilchot Ma’aser Sheni, chs. 4-5.

I.e., it is not necessary to actually take this produce to Jerusalem and partake of it as the second tithe. Instead, its holiness could be transferred to money and the money is then taken up to be spent in Jerusalem

I.e., a baker who is an unlearned person in which instance the precautions concerning demai must be taken.

In his Commentary to the Mishnah (Demai 5:1), the Rambam states that one should not separate this portion from the loaf. Instead, one should slice a piece from the loaf, without cutting the slice away entirely. The commentaries question whether this is the intent here or if here, the Rambam changed his mind and is speaking of a complete separation.

As stated in Hilchot Bikkurim 5:1-2, before one is permitted to partake of bread, one must separate a portion as challah. According to Scriptural Law, there is no minimum amount required for this separation. According to the Rabbis, a private person must separate one twenty-fourth of the loaf and a baker one forty-eighth. In this instance, the latter amount should be separated together with one hundredth for terumat ma’aser.

As in Halachah 5.

When it is forbidden to separate tithes (Hilchot Shabbat 23:14).

Although a person who is meticulous in his observance of the tithes should not eat in a common person’s home (Chapter 10, Halachah 1), it can be explained that this is speaking about an instance where the person accepted the invitation without knowing that the host was not meticulous in his observance of the mitzvah. We are, however, speaking about a situation where the guest merely suspects that his host is not meticulous in his observance. The leniencies to follow were granted only for the sake of the Sabbath, but not during the week.

This leniency is granted because the obligation to make these separations is Rabbinic in origin.

I.e., how can a stipulation be made before the Sabbath for produce that we know is tevel to be tithed on the Sabbath?

And thus he cannot physically separate them before the onset of the Sabbath.

He may not, however, partake of the figs and then leave the tithes. The rationale is that in questions of Scriptural Law, the principle of bereirah is not applied and we do not consider it as if the separation that he will ultimately·make was made from the outset [the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah (Demai 7:5)]. See also Chapter 1, Halachah 9.

Stating that he had made a stipulation on the previous day.

The reason it is forbidden to separate tithes on the Sabbath.

If, however, such a stipulation was not made before the onset of the Sabbath, it is forbidden to move the tevel. Since it is forbidden to partake of it on the Sabbath, it is comparable to a stone (Hilchot Shabbat 25: 19).

Since after the separations will be made, it will be permitted to partake of it, one never diverted his attention from using it on the Sabbath.

Even if the tithes have not been taken away from the produce, since they have already been separated and their place is distinct, it is as if they have been separated already. We do not have to rely on the principle of bereirah (Radbaz).

This is an extension of the principles stated in Halachah 7. In this instance as well, the unlearned person had invited him to dine with him on the Sabbath and thus he was unable to make the separations before the Sabbath.

Since demai is a Rabbinic decree, we may rely on the principle of bereirah, that a separation made afterwards is retroactively considered as if was made beforehand. Thus the wine in the cup is not considered as tevel even though the tithes were not actually separated until later [the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah (Demai 72:2)].

I.e., the money he has set aside at home for the redemption of the second tithe.

11100th of the cup.

The Radbaz questions · why the Rambam deviates from the wording used by the Mishnah (Demai 7:1) which speaks of a person inviting a colleague to dine.

We are speaking about a situation in which the worker is entitled to partake of the produce as a result of a contractual stipulation and not because the Torah gives him the right to do so. See Chapter 5, Halachah 9.

In contrast to the previous halachot, this is not speaking about a situation where the person partakes of the food on the Sabbath. Instead, it is speaking about a situation during the week and the separation is made at the time the tithes are designated.

Actually, the nine.

Here also, the intent is nine. See Chapter 7, Halachah 1.

Since he will use this money for food in Jerusalem, he will not suffer a loss by separating it from his own.

I.e., the worker is entitled to take an extra fig from the employer as reimbursement for the produce he gives the priest as terumat ma’aser.

In his Commentary to the Mishnah (Demai 2:4, based on Yoma 9a), the Rambam writes that this leniency was instituted because the local officials would keep steady watch over the bakers and regulate their sales, preventing them from charging higher prices. In consideration of their position, our Sages did not require them to separate the second tithe.

For he will not be suffering a loss, for he will use the money from the second tithe to purchase food in Jerusalem. For the baker, however, making this separation would be a severe loss, for he would never spend all the money for the grain he uses on his own provisions in Jerusalem.

In which instance, the initial baker is not pressured to lower his price to the same degree.

I.e., they divided the grapes originally and he tithed his grapes before they were crushed and made into wine.

47.1.e., he must separate tithes for the share of his partner.

We assume that each drop of wine is equally blended between the tithed portion and the portion that is demai. Thus the share to be tithed is no more than half the amount the person is taking, for he already separated the tithes for his own share.

If his share of the produce was one-third, he would have separated that amount of the total yield. Thus he would have to tithe two-thirds of the produce he receives.