Terumot - Chapter 1 - Texts & Writings

Introduction to Hilchos Terumot

They contain eight mitzvot: two positive commandments and six negative commandments. They are:

1) To separate terumah gedolah;
2) To separate terumas ma’aser;
3) Not to separate the terumot and the tithes in improper order, but instead to separate them in the prescribed order;
4) That one other than a priest should not partake of terumah;
5) That even a servant of a priest or his worker should not partake of terumah;
6) That an uncircumcised person not partake of terumah;
7) That an impure priest not partake of terumah;
8) That a challalah not partake of terumah or from the portions of the sacrifices given to priests;

These mitzvot are explained in the ensuing chapters.

הלכות תרומות - הקדמה

הלכות תרומות יש בכללן שמנה מצות שתים מצות עשה ושש מצות לא תעשה וזה הוא פרטן:

(א) להפריש תרומה גדולה
(ב) להפריש תרומת מעשר
(ג) שלא יקדים תרומות ומעשרות זה לזה אלא יפריש על הסדר
(ד) שלא יאכל זר תרומה
(ה) שלא יאכל אפילו תושב כהן או שכירו תרומה
(ו) שלא יאכל ערל תרומה
(ז) שלא יאכל כהן טמא תרומה
(ח) שלא תאכל חללה תרומה ולא מורם מן הקדשים

וביאור מצות אלו בפרקים אלו:

According to Scriptural Law, [the obligation to separate] the terumot1 and the tithes2 applies only in Eretz Yisrael.3 [It applies] whether the Temple is standing or not.4 The prophets ordained that these obligations should be observed in Babylon as well, because it is adjacent to Eretz Yisrael and the majority of the Jewish people journey to and from there.5 The Sages of the early generations6 ordained that they also be observed in the lands of Egypt and the lands of Ammon and Moab, because they are on the peripheries of Eretz Yisrael.

התרומות והמעשרות אינן נוהגין מן התורה אלא בארץ ישראל בין בפני הבית בין שלא בפני הבית ונביאים התקינו שיהו נוהגות אפילו בארץ שנער מפני שהיא סמוכה לא"י ורוב ישראל הולכין ושבין שם והחכמים הראשונים התקינו שיהיו נוהגות אף בארץ מצרים ובארץ עמון ומואב מפני שהם סביבות לא"י:

Whenever Eretz Yisrael is mentioned, the intent is the lands conquered by the King of Israel or a prophet with the consent of the entire Jewish people. This is called "a conquest of the community."7 If, however, an individual Jew, a family, or a tribe go and conquer a place for themselves - even in the land given to Abraham8 - it is not considered as Eretz Yisrael in the sense that one is obligated to observe all the mitzvot there.9 For this reason, Joshua10 and his court divided the entire Land of Israel into tribal portions11 even though it was not conquered [entirely] at that time. In this way, when every tribe would ascend and conquer its portion, it would not be considered as merely an individual conquest.

ארץ ישראל האמורה בכל מקום היא בארצות שכיבשן מלך ישראל או נביא מדעת רוב ישראל וזהו הנקרא כיבוש רבים אבל יחיד מישראל או משפחה או שבט שהלכו וכבשו לעצמן מקום אפילו מן הארץ שניתנה לאברהם אינו נקרא א"י כדי שינהגו בו כל המצות ומפני זה חלק יהושע ובית דינו כל א"י לשבטים אע"פ שלא נכבשה כדי שלא יהיה כיבוש יחיד כשיעלה כל שבט ושבט ויכבוש חלקו:

The lands which [King] David conquered outside of the Land of Canaan, e.g., Aram Naharaim, Aram Tzovah, Achlab,12 and the like, even though he was a King of Israel and he was acting with the consent of the High Court,13 is not considered as the Land of Israel with regard to all matters, nor is it like the Diaspora, i.e., Babylonia and Egypt with regard to all matters. Instead, it was removed from the category of the Diaspora, but did not enter the category of Eretz Yisrael.

Why was its level considered lower than that of Eretz Yisrael? Because David conquered them before he conquered all of Eretz Yisrael.14 Instead, there were still member of the seven nations there. If, however, he had conquered Eretz Yisrael entirely, in all of its boundaries, and afterwards conquered15 other lands,16 his entire conquest would have been equivalent to Eretz Yisrael with regard to all matters.17 The lands which [King] David conquered are called Syria.

הארצות שכבש דוד חוץ לארץ כנען כגון ארם נהרים וארם צובה ואחלב וכיוצא בהן אף על פי שמלך ישראל הוא ועל פי בית דין הגדול הוא עושה אינו כא"י לכל דבר ולא כחוצה לארץ לכל דבר כגון בבל ומצרים אלא יצאו מכלל חוצה לארץ ולהיותן כא"י לא הגיעו ומפני מה ירדו ממעלת א"י מפני שכבש אותם קודם שיכבוש כל א"י אלא נשאר בה משבעה עממים ואילו תפס כל ארץ כנען לגבולותיה ואחר כך כבש ארצות אחרות היה כיבושו כולו כא"י לכל דבר והארצות שכבש דוד הן הנקראין סוריא:

There are dimensions of [the laws that apply to] Syria that resemble [the laws that apply in] Eretz Yisrael18 and there are dimensions of [its laws] that resemble [those which apply] in the Diaspora.19 A person who purchases landed property [in Syria] is comparable to one who purchases [land] in Eretz Yisrael with regard to terumot, tithes, and the Sabbatical year.20 All [the laws that apply] in Syria are of Rabbinic origin.21

סוריא יש דברים שהיא בהן כא"י ויש דברים שהיא בהן כח"ל והקונה בה קרקע כקונה בא"י לענין תרומות ומעשרות ושביעית והכל בסוריא מדברי סופרים:

All of the lands that [the Jews] who ascended from Egypt took possession of were sanctified in the first consecration [of the land]. When they were exiled, that sanctity was nullified.22 [The rationale is that] the initial consecration came about because of the conquest. [Hence,] its consecration was effective for the time [it was under their rule], but not for all time.23 When, by contrast, the descendants of the exiles ascended [from Babylon] and took possession of a portion of the land,24 they consecrated it a second time.25 [This consecration] is perpetuated forever, for that time and for all time.26

[The Sages] left those places that had been settled by [the Jews who] ascended from Egypt, but were not settled by those who ascended from Babylon in their previous [halachic status] and did not exempt them from [the obligations of] terumah and tithes so that the poor could rely upon them in the Sabbatical year.27 Our holy teacher28 released Beit Shan29 from those places which [the Jews] who ascended from Babylon did not take hold of. He decided that Ashkelon should be exempted from the tithes.30

כל שהחזיקו עולי מצרים ונתקדש קדושה ראשונה כיון שגלו בטלו קדושתן שקדושה ראשונה לפי שהיתה מפני הכיבוש בלבד קדשה לשעתה ולא קדשה לעתיד לבוא כיון שעלו בני הגולה והחזיקו במקצת הארץ קדשוה קדושה שנייה העומדת לעולם לשעתה ולעתיד לבוא והניחו אותם המקומות שהחזיקו בהם עולי מצרים ולא החזיקו בהם עולי בבל כשהיו ולא פטרום מן התרומה והמעשרות כדי שיסמכו עליהם עניים בשביעית ורבינו הקדוש התיר בית שאן מאותם המקומות שלא החזיקו בהם עולי בבל והוא נמנה על אשקלון ופטרה מן המעשרות:

Thus the entire earth is divided into three categories in relation to those mitzvot involving the land: Eretz Yisrael, Syria, and the Diaspora. Eretz Yisrael itself is divided into two categories: a) those portions settled by the Jews who ascended from Babylonia, and b) those portions that were settled only by the Jews who ascended from Egypt.

The Diaspora is divided into two categories: a) Egypt, Babylon, Ammon, and Moab in which the mitzvot are observed according to the decrees of the sages and the prophets and the other lands in which [the obligations of] the terumot and the tithes are not observed.

נמצא כל העולם לענין מצות התלויות בארץ נחלקת לג' מחלוקות א"י וסוריא וח"ל וא"י נחלקת לשנים כל שהחזיקו עולי בבל חלק א' וכל שהחזיקו עולי מצרים בלבד חלק שני וח"ל נחלקת לשנים ארץ מצרים ושנער ועמון ומואב המצות נוהגות בהם מד"ס ונביאים ושאר הארצות אין תרומות ומעשרות נוהגות בהן:

What are [the boundaries of] the land settled by the Jews who ascended from Egypt? From Rekem which is in the east of Eretz Yisrael until the Mediterranean Sea. From Ashkelon31 which is in the south of Eretz Yisrael until Acre which is in the north. As one proceeds from Acre to Kziv,32 the area to one's right, on the east, can generally be assumed to be of the Diaspora - it is impure as is the lands of the nations33 and is exempt from [the mitzvot of] the tithes and the Sabbatical year - unless it is known that it was part of Eretz Yisrael. The area to one's left, to the west, can generally be assumed to be part of Eretz Yisrael - it is pure [from the impurity associated with] the lands of the nations and is obligated with regard to [mitzvot of] the tithes and the Sabbatical year - unless it is known to be part of the Diaspora.34 With regard to the entire area that slopes downward from the Samnum Mountains:35 The inner [portion]36 is Eretz Yisrael, the portion outside the Samnum Mountains is the Diaspora.

With regard to the islands in the sea, we consider their [status dependent] on an [imaginary] line extended from the Samnum Mountains until the River of Egypt.37 Those within this line are part of Eretz Yisrael. Those outside this line are part of the Diaspora. This is a depiction of the matter.38

אי זו היא ארץ שהחזיקו בה עולי מצרים מרקם שהוא במזרח א"י עד הים הגדול מאשקלון שהיא לדרום א"י עד עכו שהיא בצפון היה מהלך מעכו לכזיב כל הארץ שעל ימינו שהוא מזרח הדרך הרי היא בחזקת ח"ל וטמאה משום ארץ העמים ופטורה מן המעשר ומן השביעית עד שיודע לך שאותו המקום מא"י וכל הארץ שעל שמאלו שהוא מערב הדרך הרי היא בחזקת א"י וטהורה משום ארץ העמים וחייבת במעשר ובשביעית עד שיודע לך שאותו מקום ח"ל וכל ששופע ויורד מטורי אמנום ולפנים א"י מטורי אמנום ולחוץ ח"ל והנסים שבים רואין אותן כאילו חוט מתוח עליהם מטורי אמנום ועד נחל מצרים מן החוט ולפנים א"י מן החוט ולחוץ ח"ל וזו היא צורתה:

Which area did the Jews who ascended from Babylonia settle in? [The area] from Kziv inward toward the east. They did not, however, take possession of the area from Kziv outward until Amana which is Samnum until the river, i.e., the River of Egypt.39 And they did not take possession of Kziv itself.

מהיכן החזיקו עולי בבל מכזיב ולפנים כנגד המזרח ומכזיב ולחוץ עד אמנה והיא אמנום ועד הנהר והוא נחל מצרים לא החזיקו בו וכזיב עצמה לא החזיקו בה:

What constitutes Syria? From Eretz Yisrael and below40 parallel to Aram Naharaim and Aram Tzovah, the entire region of the Euphrates until Babylonia, e.g., Damascus, Achalev, Charan, Minbag, and the like until Shinar41 and Tzahar. These are considered like Syria. Acre, by contrast, is considered part of the Diaspora, like Ashkelon.42 These are the boundaries of Eretz Yisrael.

אי זו היא סוריא מא"י ולמטה כנגד ארם נהרים וארם צובה כל יד פרת עד בבל כגון דמשק ואחלב וחרן ומגבת וכיוצא בהן עד שנער וצהר הרי היא כסוריא אבל עכו חוצה לארץ כאשקלון והם תחומי א"י:

When a gentile purchases land in Eretz Yisrael, he does not cause it to be absolved from [the observance of] the mitzvot.43 Instead, its holiness is still intact.44 Therefore, if a Jew purchases this land from [the gentile], it is not considered as a private conquest.45 Instead, he should separate the terumot and the tithes and bring the first fruits. All these [obligations] are Scriptural in origin, as if it was never sold to a gentile. When a gentile acquires land in Syria, his acquisition has the power to absolve [the land] from the obligations of tithes and the Sabbatical year,46 as will be explained.47

עכו"ם שקנה קרקע בא"י לא הפקיעוה מן המצוות אלא הרי היא בקדושתה לפיכך אם חזר ישראל ולקחה ממנו אינה ככיבוש יחיד אלא מפריש תרומות ומעשרות ומביא בכורים והכל מן התורה כאילו לא נמכרה לעכו"ם מעולם ויש קנין לעכו"ם בסוריא להפקיע מן המעשרות ומן השביעית כמו שיתבאר:

[The following laws apply with regard to] produce belonging to a gentile that grew on land that he purchased in Eretz Yisrael. If all the work involving the produce was completed in the possession of a gentile and the gentile straightened the edges of the grain heap,48 they are exempt, because [the verse mentioning the obligation to separate terumah, Deuteronomy 18:4] mentions "your grain," [thus excluding] the grain of a gentile.49

If a Jew purchases [the produce] after it was harvested, but before the tasks involved with it were completed and they were completed by a Jew, all [of the agricultural obligations apply with regard to the produce] according to Scriptural Law.50 He must separate the great terumah and give it to a priest and [separate] the terumat ma'aser and sell it to a priest.51 The first tithe belongs to him,52 because he can tell a Levite with regard to the tithes and a priest with regard to the terumat ma'aser: "I am coming in the stead of a person53 from which you could not have collected anything."54

Why do we say that he should not give the terumat ma'aser to a priest as [he gives him] the great terumah?55 Because with regard to terumat ma'aser, it is written: "When you take the tithes from the children of Israel...."56 [Implied is that from] untithed produced that you purchase from a Jew, you should separate terumat ma'aser and give it to a priest, but from untithed produce that you purchase from a gentile, you need not give the priest the terumat ma'aser you separate from it. Instead, you sell it to the priest and take the money.

יא

פירות העכו"ם שגדלו בקרקע שקנה בא"י אם נגמרה מלאכתם ביד עכו"ם ומרחן העכו"ם פטורין מכלום שנאמר דגנך ולא דגן עכו"ם ואם לקחן ישראל אחר שנתלשו קודם שתגמר מלאכתן וגמרן ישראל חייבין בכל מן התורה ומפריש תרומה גדולה ונותנה לכהן ותרומת מעשר ומוכרה לכהן ומעשר ראשון היא שלו מפני שהוא אומר ללוי במעשר ולכהן בתרומת מעשר אני באתי מכח איש שאין אתם יכולין ליטול ממנו כלום ומפני מה אמרו לא יתן תרומת מעשר לכהן כתרומה גדולה לפי שנאמר בתרומת מעשר כי תקחו מאת בני ישראל את המעשר טבל שאתה לוקח מישראל אתה מפריש ממנו תרומת מעשר ונותנה לכהן אבל טבל שאתה לוקח מן העכו"ם אין אתה נותן לכהן התרומת מעשר שהפריש ממנו אלא מוכרה לכהן ולוקח דמיה:

[The following laws apply if] a gentile sold his produce to a Jew while it was connected to the earth. If [he sold it] before it developed to a stage when he is obligated to separate tithes57 and the work [associated with it] was completed while it was owned by the Jew, [the Jew] is responsible for all of the agricultural obligations and should give the terumot and the tithes to their [appropriate] owners.58 If [the gentile] sold [the produce] after it developed to a stage when he is obligated to separate tithes, he should separate terumat ma'aser and the tithes and give them to their [appropriate] owners according to the [acceptable] reckoning.

What is implied? If he purchased grain that had been sown from a gentile after it reached a third of its growth and the work associated with its completion was performed while it was in the possession of a Jew, he should separate the terumot and the tithes, as we explained.59 He should give two thirds of the tithes to a Levite.60 [With regard to the] terumat ma'aser, he should give two thirds to the priest and sell him one third.61

יב

מכר העכו"ם הפירות שלו לישראל כשהן מחוברין בקרקע אם עד שלא בא לעונת המעשרות ונגמרו ביד ישראל חייבין בכל ונותן התרומות והמעשרות לבעלים ואם מכרן אחר שבאו לעונת המעשרות מפריש תרומת מעשר ומעשר ונותן מהן לבעלים לפי חשבון כיצד לקח תבואה זרועה מן העכו"ם אחר שהביאה שליש ונגמרה ביד ישראל מפריש תרומות ומעשרות כמו שביארנו ונותן שני שלישי המעשר ללוי ושני שלישי תרומת מעשר לכהן ומוכר לו השליש:

[The following laws apply if] a Jew sold his produce to a gentile before it developed to a stage when he is obligated to separate tithes and the work [associated with it] was completed by the gentiles, it is exempt from the terumot and the tithes.62 If [he purchased it] after it developed to a stage when the tithes are obligated to be separated, even if the gentile completed the work associated with it, all of the agricultural obligations are incumbent upon it according to Rabbinic decree.63

Similarly, if a gentile completed [the work associated with] produce belonging to a Jew,64 since the work associated with them was completed by a gentile, the obligation for terumot and tithes is incumbent upon them, but it is only Rabbinic in origin.65

יג

ישראל שמכר פירותיו לעכו"ם קודם שיבואו לעונת המעשרות וגמרן העכו"ם פטורין מן התרומה ומן המעשרות ואם אחר שבאו לעונת המעשרות אף ע"פ שגמרן העכו"ם חייב בכל מדבריהם וכן העכו"ם שגמר פירות ישראל הואיל ודיגונן ביד עכו"ם אינן חייבין בתרומה ומעשרות אלא מדבריהן:

If a gentile sold produce that was still connected to the earth after it reached the stage when the tithes are obligated to be separated and [another] gentile straightened the edges of the grain heap in the possession of a Jew, [the produce] is not obligated in the terumot or the tithes.66 Since the produce reached the stage when the tithes are obligated to be separated in the possession of a gentile and a gentile straightened the edges of the grain heap,67 [the fact] the produce belongs to a Jew [is not significant].68

יד

מכר עכו"ם לישראל פירות מחוברין אחר שבאו לעונת המעשרות ומירחן העכו"ם ברשות ישראל אינן חייבין בתרומה ומעשרות הואיל ובאו לעונת המעשרות ברשות עכו"ם ומירחן העכו"ם אעפ"י שהן ברשות ישראל:

When a person purchases a field in Syria, he is obligated by Rabbinic decree to separate terumot and tithes like one who purchases [a field] in Jerusalem69 according to Scriptural Law, as we explained.70 If, however, a person [merely] purchases produce from a gentile - whether it was harvested or [still] connected to the earth - he is exempt, because [the produce] does not come from his land.71 [This applies] even if [he purchases the produce] before it develops to a stage when the tithes are obligated to be separated [and] even though a Jew straightened the edges of the grain heap.72

טו

הקונה שדה בסוריא חייב בתרומות ומעשרות מדבריהם כמו שיתחייב מן התורה הקונה בירושלים כמו שביארנו אבל הקונה פירות מן העכו"ם בסוריא בין תלושין בין מחוברים אפי' קודם שבאו לעונת המעשרות אע"פ שמירחן ישראל הואיל ואינו מקרקע שלו פטור:

[The following laws apply when a person] purchases land in Syria to which produce is attached. If it reached a stage when the tithes are obligated to be separated while in the possession of a gentile, it is exempt.73 [Conversely,] if it did not reach a stage when the tithes are obligated to be separated [in his possession],74 [the Jewish purchaser] is obligated to tithe it, since he purchased it together with the land.

טז

קנה קרקע מן העכו"ם בסוריא ופירות מחוברין בה אם הגיעו לעונת המעשרות ביד העכו"ם פטורין ואם עדיין לא הגיעו לעונת המעשרות הואיל וקנה אותם עם הקרקע חייב לעשר:

When a Jew is working as a sharecropper for a gentile in Syria, his produce is exempt from the tithes, because he does not own the land itself at all. A gentile's purchase of land in Syria causes it to be absolved from [the obligation of] the tithes, as we explained.75 The same laws apply when one rents a field, but stipulates that the payment will be made in produce,76 enters into a sharecropping agreement as a mekabel,77 or rents a field for money from a gentile in Syria, he is absolved [from the obligations of] terumot and tithes.78

יז

ישראל שהיה אריס לעכו"ם בסוריא פירותיו פטורין מן המעשרות לפי שאין לו בגוף הקרקע כלום ויש לעכו"ם קנין בסוריא להפקיע מן המעשרות כמו שביארנו וכן החוכר והמקבל והשוכר שדה מן העכו"ם בסוריא פטור מן התרומות ומן המעשרות:

[The following law applies when] a Jew purchases a field from a gentile in Syria before [the crops] reached a third of their development and sells it to a gentile after the crops reach a third of their development. If a Jew purchases it a second time,79 he is obligated [to separate] the terumot and the tithes,80 because [the field] incurred that obligation in the possession of a Jew.81

יח

ישראל שלקח בסוריא שדה מן העכו"ם עד שלא הביאה שליש וחזר ומכרה לעכו"ם מאחר שהביאה שליש אם חזר ישראל ולקחה פעם שנייה ה"ז חייב בתרומות ומעשרות שהרי נתחייבה ביד ישראל:

When a Jew owns land in Syria and he hired a sharecropper and the sharecropper sent him produce,82 he is not obligated to separate [the terumot and tithes], for it is possible to say that [the sharecropper] purchased [the produce he gave him] from the marketplace.83 [This applies] provided this species is available in the marketplace.

יט

ישראל שהיה לו קרקע בסוריא והוריד לה אריס ושלח לו האריס פירות הרי אלו פטורים שאני אומר מן השוק לקחן והוא שיהיה אותו המין מצוי בשוק:

There is an obligation [to separate] the terumot and the tithes [from crops grown on land owned in] partnership with a gentile.

What is implied? When a Jew and a non-Jew purchased a field in partnership - even if they divided the field while the grain was standing,84 and needless to say, if they divided it after it was collected in a grain heap85 - tevel86 and ordinary produce are mixed together in each and every stalk of grain in the gentile's share.87 [This applies] even if the gentile straightened the edges of the grain heap and thus the obligation is Rabbinic in origin,88 as explained.89

שותפות העכו"ם חייבת בתרומות ומעשרות כיצד ישראל ועכו"ם שלקחו שדה בשותפות אפילו חלקו שדה בקמתה ואין צריך לומר אם חלקו גדיש הרי טבל וחולין מעורבין בכל קלח וקלח מחלקו של עכו"ם אף על פי שמרחן העכו"ם וחיובם מדבריהם כמו שבארנו:

When does the above apply? In Eretz Yisrael, where [the obligation to] tithe is Scriptural in origin, and according to Scriptural Law, the principle of bereirah does not apply. If, however, he purchased a field in Syria, since [the obligation to] tithe there is Rabbinic in origin, even if they divided a grain heap, the portion of the gentile is exempt entirely.90

כא

במה דברים אמורים בא"י שהמעשרות של תורה ובשל תורה אין ברירה אבל אם לקחו שדה בסוריא הואיל והמעשרות שם מדבריהם אפילו חלקו הגדיש חלקו של עכו"ם פטור מכלום:

When produce from Eretz Yisrael is taken to the Diaspora, it is exempt from the obligations of challah, the terumot, and the tithes, [for one of the prooftexts requiring the separation of these gifts, Numbers 15:18]91states: "[the land] to which I am bringing you." [Implied is that] these obligations exist there alone. In the Diaspora, one is exempt.92 If [the produce] was taken to Syria, one is obligated by Rabbinic decree.

Conversely, we are obligated [to separate] challah from produce from the Diaspora that was brought into Eretz Yisrael, as [suggested by the phrase] "to which." [Implied is that] one is liable [to make these gifts] there, whether the produce is from Eretz Yisrael or the Diaspora. If the obligation [to separate challah or the tithes] was established [because of the actions] of a Jew after the produce entered Eretz Yisrael, there is an obligation of Rabbinic origin to separate the tithes.93

כב

פירות א"י שיצאו חוצה לארץ פטורין מן החלה ומן התרומות ומן המעשרות שנאמר אשר אני מביא אתכם שמה שמה אתם חייבין בח"ל פטורין ואם יצאו לסוריא חייבין מדבריהם וכן פירות חוצה לארץ שנכנסו לארץ חייבין בחלה שנאמר שמה שמה אתם חייבין בין בפירות הארץ בין בפירות חוצה לארץ ואם נקבעו למעשר ביד ישראל אחר שנכנסו לארץ חייבין במעשרות מדבריהם:

When earth from the Diaspora is brought to Eretz Yisrael by ship, if the ship's [bottom] comes in contact with the earth [of Eretz Yisrael],94 terumah and tithes must [be separated from produce] growing on [the earth in the ship] and the Sabbatical laws must be observed as if [the produce] was growing in Eretz Yisrael itself.95

כג

עפר חוצה לארץ שבא בספינה לארץ בזמן שהספינה גוששת לארץ הרי הצומח בו חייב בתרומה ומעשרות ושביעית כצומח בא"י עצמה:

When a tree is standing in the Diaspora and its foliage leans into Eretz Yisrael or it is standing in Eretz Yisrael and its foliage leans into the Diaspora, [the determination of its status] depends on its roots.96 If some of its roots were in Eretz Yisrael and others were in the Diaspora - even if they were separated by glistening stone, [it is considered as if] tevel and ordinary produce are mixed together [throughout the entire produce].

כד

אילן שעומד בחוצה לארץ ונופו נוטה לארץ או עומד בארץ ונופו נוטה לחוצה לארץ הכל הולך אחר העיקר היו מקצת שרשיו בארץ ומקצתן חוצה לארץ אפילו היה צחיח סלע מבדיל ביניהן הרי טבל וחולין מעורבין זה בזה:

[The following rules apply when] a plant in a flowerpot with a hole has not sprouted roots [outside the flowerpot]. If its roots where in Eretz Yisrael and its foliage in the Diaspora, [the determination of its status] depends on its foliage.97

כה

עציץ נקוב שהיה בו זרע שלא השריש והיה עיקרו בארץ ונופו חוצה לארץ הולכים אחר הנוף:

In the present era, even in the areas settled by the Jews who ascended from Babylonia, even those [settled] in the era of Ezra,98 [the obligation to separate] terumah does not have the status of a Scriptural commandment, merely that of a Rabbinic decree. [The rationale is that] the Scriptural [commandment to separate] terumah applies only in Eretz Yisrael and only when the entire99 Jewish people are located there. [This is derived from the phrase]100 "When you enter...." [Implied is that] the entire [Jewish people] must enter [the land], as they did when they took possession of the land originally101 and as will happen in the future when they take possession of the land a third time.102 In contrast, the second time [the people] took possession of the land, in the time of Ezra, only a portion entered.103Hence, they were not obligated according to Scriptural Law.104 Similarly, it appears to me that the same concept applies with regard to the tithes.105 In the present era, this obligation [as well] has the status of a Rabbinic decree like terumah.106

כו

התרומה בזמן הזה ואפילו במקום שהחזיקו עולי בבל ואפילו בימי עזרא אינה מן התורה אלא מדבריהן שאין לך תרומה של תורה אלא בא"י בלבד ובזמן שכל ישראל שם שנאמר כי תבואו ביאת כולכם כשהיו בירושה ראשונ' וכמו שהן עתידין לחזור בירושה שלישית לא כשהיו בירושה שנייה שהיתה בימי עזרא שהיתה ביאת מקצתן ולפיכך לא חייבה אותן מן התורה וכן יראה לי שהוא הדין במעשרות שאין חייבין בזמן הזה אלא מדבריהם כתרומה:

Terumot - Chapter 2

Footnotes

The plural term is used in this halachah and in many instances in this text, because there are two types of terumot: a) "the great terumah," i.e., the terumah separated initially, and b) terumat ma'aser, the terumah the Levites separate from the tithes that are given them. See Hilchot Matanot Aniyim, ch. 6, for details regarding the separation of these allocations.

Here also the plural term is used because there are several tithes: the first tithe given to Levites, the second tithe which must be brought to Jerusalem, and the tithe for the poor. See Hilchot Matanot Aniyim, loc. cit.

Kiddushin 36b states that all the mitzvot involving the produce of the earth apply only in Eretz Yisrael.

Although the agricultural laws apply even when the Temple is not standing, there is a restriction to the time when they apply according to Scriptural Law. The entire Jewish people must be located in our holy land, as stated in Halachah 26. (See also Hilchot Shemitah VeYovel 10:8-9.)

Even though Babylonia is further away than the other lands mentioned in this halachah, it had a larger Jewish community and there was far more contact between its populace and the Jewish community of Eretz Yisrael. Hence, the prophets gave it precedence over the other lands (Radbaz).

The Sages of the generation that followed Ezra [Rav Ovadiah of Bartenura (Yadayim 3:3).

See also Hilchot Melachim 5:6.

The Rambam speaks of the land being given to Abraham, not merely being promised to him, since from the time God said that the land was his, spiritually, it became his possession. Moreover, as the Jerusalem Talmud (Challah 5:1) states, from Abraham's time onward, even though the land was still possessed by the Canaanites, the Jews were already its legal owners. See also Bava Batra 119b.

I.e., the agricultural mitzvot that must be observed in Eretz Yisrael.

10.

A king and a prophet.

11.

I.e., since Joshua and his court had made this division, when the tribe went to conquer its portion, it was acting on behalf of the entire Jewish people.

12.

These regions are located in contemporary Syria.

13.

The wars to conquer these lands are classified as voluntary wars, and a voluntary law requires the consent of the High Court (Hilchot Melachim 5:1).

14.

See the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (Demai 6:11) where he criticizes King David for this approach, quoting the Sifri (Parshat Ekev) that states that he did not act in accordance with the Torah. Since the designation of the land as Eretz Yisrael is through Divine fiat as expressed through the Torah. Accordingly, a conquest that is not in accord with the Torah cannot bring about such a designation (Likkutei Sichot, Vol. V, p. 9).

15.

With the consent of the High Court.

16.

Even lands outside of the homeland promised to Abraham (Radbaz).

17.

And the agricultural laws would have to be observed there.

18.

In addition to those points the Rambam mentions below, among the other examples of this principle are: its air is not considered as a source of impurity (Hilchot Tuma'at Meit 11:6); it is permitted to have a gentile compose a deed of purchase for land there on the Sabbath so that one will acquire the land (Hilchot Shabbat 6:11).

19.

Among the examples of the relevant laws: its earth is considered as a source of ritual impurity (Hilchot Tuma'at Meit, loc. cit.); a servant from Eretz Yisrael sold there is granted his freedom (Hilchot Avadim 8:6).

20.

See Halachah 15.

21.

For according to Scriptural Law, it is not part of Eretz Yisrael.

22.

In Hilchot Beit HaBechirah 6:16, the Rambam states: "It was no longer Eretz Yisrael," i.e., none of the halachic obligations apply there.

23.

Since it was established by conquest, it could be nullified by conquest. See Hilchot Beit HaBechirah, loc. cit. The Radbaz explains that when the Jews ascended from Egypt, they did not make a statement, consecrating the land. Therefore its holiness could be nullified.

24.

As Yevamot 16a states: "Much of the land that was conquered by [the Jews who] ascended from Egypt was not conquered by [the Jews who] ascended from Babylon.

25.

Nevertheless, since the entire Jewish people did not return together with Ezra, this consecration is only of Rabbinic origin.

26.

And thus at present, Ezra's consecration of the land is still effective.

In his gloss to Hilchot Beit HaBechirah, loc. cit., the Kessef Mishnah finds these statements difficult to accept because of the following questions:

a) On what basis is chazakah considered a more effective means of acquisition than conquest?

b) After the initial conquest of Eretz Yisrael, the Jewish people manifested their ownership over it and thus, effected a chazakah. If so, why is Ezra's chazakah, which was not preceded by conquest, more effective than the chazakah which followed the original conquest? Why should the conquest detract from the consecration of the land?

To explain: As mentioned above, the Jewish people's ownership of the land began with God's promise of the land to Abraham. The sanctity of the land, by contrast, did not begin until the Jewish people actually took possession of it, upon their reentry into the land after the exodus from Egypt and the journey through the desert. At that time, they were commanded to conquer the land and take it forcefully from the Gentiles (see Numbers 32:29,Deuteronomy 3:21, et al). Since God made the consecration of the land dependent upon its conquest by the Jewish people, it follows that conquest by a Gentile nation can nullify its holiness.

In contrast, Ezra was not commanded to reconquer Eretz Yisrael, but to settle it. In this instance, God made the sanctity of the land dependent on the Jewish people manifesting their ownership over it. In other words, the sanctity came from manifesting the true reality: that Eretz Yisrael is a Jewish land. Accordingly, since Eretz Yisrael remains our land, regardless of how many times it has been conquered by Gentiles, the sanctity effected by that manifestation of ownership also continues eternally (Likkutei Sichot, Vol. XV, pp. 102-109).

27.

And receive the tithe of the poor.

28.

Rabbi Yehudah HaNasi.

29.

The Ra'avad differs with the Rambam and maintains that Beit Shan was released only from those obligations that are of Rabbinic origin.

30.

The Kessef Mishneh relates that Rabbi Yehudah HaNasi released these cities from the obligation of the tithes, because they were not populated by Jews and were not close to the area settled by Jews.

31.

Ashkelon - and similarly, the other cities the Rambam refers to - is located near, but not exactly on the same cite - as the city presently called by that name. With regard to Ashkelon in particular, there is discussion of the issue by the commentaries, for some sources (see Radbaz and Kessef Mishneh) explain that it was part of the land conquered by the Jews who ascended from Egypt. It was not, however, conquered by the Jews who ascended from Babylonia.

32.

I.e., proceeding northward.

33.

Our Sages decreed that merely touching the earth of the Diaspora is sufficient to impart ritual impurity. See Hilchot Tuma'at Meit, ch. 11.

34.

I.e., as depicted in the map drawn by the Rambam to accompany the Mishneh Torah, the borders of Eretz Yisrael ascend northward from Acre to Kziv, but there is a strip of land in the center that did not become part of Eretz Yisrael.

35.

Our text is based on authoritative manuscripts of the Mishneh Torah as cited in the Rav Shabsie Frankel edition. The standard printed text refers to the Umenum Mountains. See also the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (Sh'vi'it 6:1).

In the map the Rambam drew to depict this matter, the Samnum Mountains are located in the southeastern corner of Eretz Yisrael, near Ashkelon. Most of the other commentaries understand this term as referring to the Umenum Mountain range in Northern Lebanon.

36.

I.e., to the south.

37.

According to the Radbaz, this refers to Wadi el Arish and not the Nile. Most other commentaries, however, identify "the River of Egypt" as the Nile.

38.

I.e., the Rambam included the accompanying map so that the matter would be clearly understood.. This reflects his thrust throughout the Mishneh Torah: to provide his readers with an applicable text without any ambiguity.

39.

Thus it appears that the entire coastal range of Eretz Yisrael was not settled by the Jews who ascended from Babylon.

40.

The term "below" in this context is problematic. It does not mean "south," because significant portions of Syria are more northerly than Eretz Yisrael. Some commentaries understand it as meaning in height, because as Kiddushin 69b states, Eretz Yisrael is higher than other lands.

41.

Shinar itself, however, is part of the Diaspora, as evident from Halachah 1.

42.

As mentioned above, there are commentaries who consider Ashkelon to be part of the land conquered by the Jews who ascended from Egypt, but not that conquered by the Jews ascending from Babylonia. Some also place Acre in this category.

43.

See the following halachah for the practical application of this principle.

44.

Gittin 47a derives this concept from Leviticus 25:23: "The entire land is Mine." Implied is that the land belongs to God and His ownership cannot be absolved through conquest by any earthly power.

This ruling was a point of question for the Rambam. As indicated by the notes of Rav Kappach to his translation of the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (Pe'ah 4:9; Gittin 4:9, et al), the Rambam changed his mind concerning the issue several times and amended his text of the Commentary to the Mishnah accordingly. At first, he stated the opinion quoted here, then adopted the opposite view, that a gentile's acquisition does cause the agricultural obligations to be absolved, and finally returned to his original position. The Tur and the Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 331:3-4) follow the Rambam's ruling here. See also Hilchot Shemitah VeYovel 4:29 where this issue is also discussed.

45.

In which instance, the agriculture laws would not be applicable, as stated in Halachah 2.

46.

The entire obligation to observe the agricultural laws in Syria is Rabbinic in origin (Halachah 4) and our Sages did not enforce their decrees in this instance.

47.

Halachot 15-19.

48.

I.e., completed the work involved in preparing them. See Hilchot Ma'aser 3:13.

49.

From the interpretation of the term by the Sages (Bechorot 11b), the intent seems to be that not only that the grain must belong to a Jew, but that he must perform the work to complete its preparation for use.

50.

I.e., for the produce to be obligated in the agricultural laws according to Scriptural Law, it must belong to the Jew and the Jew must complete the work involved with preparing it. If only one of these conditions was met, the obligations must be fulfilled only because of Rabbinic decree. See Halachah 13.

51.

The terumat ma'aser is sold to the priest and not given to him for the reason explained shortly afterwards by the Rambam. It cannot be kept by the owner, because he is forbidden to partake of it. Instead, it is consecrated and must be eaten by a priest in a state of ritual purity (Siftei Cohen 331:10).

52.

I.e., he must separate the first tithe to fulfill the agricultural obligations incumbent upon the produce, but is not obligated to give it to the Levites. There is no difficulty in him keeping the tithes, because, as the Rambam explains, he is not obligated to give them to the Levite and there is no prohibition against him partaking of them, because they are not consecrated at all and any person may partake of them, even when he is not in a state of ritual purity.

53.

The gentile.

54.

Had the gentile completed the tasks associated with preparing the grain, he would not have been under any obligation to make any of these separations. Hence, although the Jew is obligated to separate the various allocations, the obligation is primarily a ritual one and not a financial one. With the exception of the great terumah, he is not obligated to accept any loss and may keep the first tithes for himself.

55.

I.e., like the first tithe, the terumat ma'aser must be separated, but it need not be given to the priest.

56.

There is, by contrast, no such verse stated with regard to the great terumah. Hence, it is not considered the property of the owner, but instead, must be given - and not sold - to a priest.

57.

See below and Hilchot Ma'aserot 2:5 for a definition of this concept.

58.

I.e., the tithes to a Levite and the terumot to a priest. It is as if the produce grew on land belonging to the Jew from the outset.

59.

I.e., as explained in the previous halachah and notes, the terumot and the tithes must be separated even if they - or a portion of them - are kept by the owner.

60.

He may keep one-third of the tithes as his own. The rationale is that since the produce reached one third of its growth in the possession of the gentile, the Jew is not liable to give away the terumat ma'aser and the tithes for that portion of the crop. With regard to that portion, the concepts stated in the previous halachah apply. With regard to the remaining two thirds, it is considered as produced owned by a Jew and is obligated in all agricultural laws.

61.

As stated in the previous halachah, he must give the great terumah to the priest without receiving any return whatsoever.

62.

It is as if the produce grew in the possession of the gentile from the outset in which instance, they are exempt from all agricultural obligations, as stated in Halachah 11.

The Ra'avad objects to this ruling based on the principle stated in Halachah 10: "When a gentile purchases land in Eretz Yisrael, he does not cause it to be absolved from [the observance of] the mitzvot. Instead, its holiness is still intact." The Radbaz explains that this principle applies only when the gentile purchases the land, but not when he purchases merely produce. The Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 331:6) quotes the Rambam's view.

63.

I.e., if the produce is later sold to a Jew, the Jew must separate the terumot and the tithes. The rationale is that since the produce grew in a Jew's possession, it is considered as Jewish produce.

64.

Our translation is based on the interpretation of Rav Yosef Corcus as quoted by the Kessef Mishneh. He explains that, based on the exegesis of Deuteronomy 18:4 by Bechorot 11b (see Halachah 11 and notes), as long as the work is completed by a gentile, the fact that the produce belongs to a Jew is not significant.

65.

In one of his responsa, the Rambam writes (based on Menachot 67a) that this decree was enacted lest Jewish landowners have gentiles complete the work associated with the crops to avoid having to separate the tithes.

66.

I.e., even according to Rabbinic Law.

67.

I.e., performs the task which completes the work associated with the produce at which time the obligation to separate the terumot and tithes takes effect.

68.

I.e., it is as if the produce belonged entirely to the gentile and the laws stated in Halachah 11 apply.

69.

The Rambam is referring to the wording of Challah 4:11: "One who purchases [land] in Syria is comparable to one who purchases [land] in the suburbs of Jerusalem."

70.

Halachah 4.

71.

Since the entire obligation to separate the terumot and tithes in Syria is Rabbinic in origin, our Sages applied it only when the Jew owned the land itself. Since the obligation to separate tithes when one purchases produce alone is merely Rabbinic in origin even in Eretz Yisrael, our Sages did not apply it in Syria.

72.

I.e., performs the task which completes the work associated with the produce at which time the obligation to separate the terumot and tithes takes effect.

73.

I.e., it is considered as if it was the gentile's produce entirely.

74.

The previous growth of the produce is not significant.

75.

Halachah 10.

76.

Our translation is based on the Rambam's definition of the term chocher in Hilchot Sechirut 8:1.

77.

Both the terms aris and mekabel refer to sharecropping agreements. The difference between them is that an aris is working for the owner of the field for a percentage of the crops (see Hilchot Shluchin 8:5), while a mekabel is renting the field from the owner for a percentage of the crops (Hilchot Sechirut 8:2).

78.

The motivating principle behind these laws is that renting the field is not equivalent to purchasing it, for the land itself does not become his (Avodah Zarah 15a).

In Eretz Yisrael, by contrast, a person entering any one of these types of agreements would be obligated to separate the tithes (Radbaz).

79.

See the Kessef Mishneh who debates whether, to be obligated, the Jew must purchase the field or it is sufficient for him to purchase the produce alone without purchasing the land. It appears that he concludes that if one does not purchase the field, he is exempt as indicated by Halachah 15.

80.

The Radbaz states that the Jew may not deduct from the tithes the portion of the produce that grew in the gentile's possession. Since it incurred the obligation for tithes while in the Jew's possession and was completed by him, everything else is not of consequence.

81.

I.e., when it reached a third of its development.

82.

As payment of the produce due the owner from his field.

83.

I.e., we allow for the possibility that the sharecropper sold the produce from the field and then purchased other produce to pay the owner his due. The rationale for this leniency is that since the obligation to tithe in Syria is Rabbinic in origin, as long as we are not definitely certain that it applies, we rule leniently. In Eretz Yisrael, he would have to separate the tithes (Radbaz).

84.

In such a situation, there is room to say that the principle of bereirah applies. Bereirah means that retroactively, it is considered as if the division that was ultimately made was made at the outset (see Hilchot Ma'aser 7:1). To explain within the context of the present situation: Were a portion of the field to belong to the gentile, there would be no obligation to separate the tithes from the grain that grew in that portion. To apply the principle of bereirah would mean that, after the division of the crops, it is clarified that at the outset, the portion of the field where the crops given to the gentile grew belonged to him. There is a debate among the Sages whether the principle of bereirah can be applied and with regard to halachah, the accepted general principle is that in question of Scriptural Law, it does not apply. Thus in Eretz Yisrael, where the obligation to tithe is one of Scriptural Law, we do not accept this principle and maintain that the Jew has a share in the grain given to the gentile and hence, it is under obligation to be tithed.

85.

In this instance, all authorities agree that the principle of bereirah is not applied.

86.

Produce which is forbidden because the terumot and the tithes were not separated from it.

87.

Hence if a Jew purchases that produce, he must separate the terumot and the tithes.

88.

In such an instance, there is room to say that the principle of bereirah should be applied, because the obligation to separate the tithes is Rabbinic in origin. Nevertheless, since the fundamental obligation is Scriptural, we rule stringently even with regard to this dimension which is Rabbinic (Radbaz).

89.

Halachah 13.

90.

When quoting these laws, the Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 331:11) states that in the present age, when the obligation to separate terumot and tithes in Eretz Yisrael is Rabbinic in origin (see Halachah 26), the laws applying to produce grown in Syria also apply to produce grown in Eretz Yisrael.

91.

And from that verse which speaks of the obligation to separate challah, we learn that one is also obligated to separate the terumot and the tithes.

92.

The Ra'avad differs and maintains that the exemption from the obligation to tithe applies only according to Scriptural Law. According to Rabbinic Law, all authorities agree that one is obligated, for this produce is comparable to that of Ammon and Moav. The Radbaz does not accept this perspective, stating that there is no source which maintains that a Rabbinic obligation exists. The Radbaz does, however, qualify the Rambam's ruling, explaining that it applies only when the work that makes the produce obligated to be tithed is completed in the Diaspora. If this work is completed in Eretz Yisrael, the obligation to separate the tithes has already been incurred and they must be separated even if the produce was later taken to the Diaspora. For this reason, in most instances, terumah and tithes must be separated from produce that is grown in Eretz Yisrael in the present age and later exported to the Diaspora. This, however, applies to fruits only, not vegetables as stated in Chapter 2, Halachah 6.

93.

The Kessef Mishneh questions why the obligation to separate the tithes is only of Rabbinic origin. Since the concept is based on the exegesis of the same Biblical term as mentioned above, if the work that made the produce obligated to be tithed was performed in Eretz Yisrael, why is the obligation not Scriptural in origin? The Kessef Mishneh answers that since the prooftext mentions "the bread of the land," one can conclude that the obligation applies only to produce grown in the Holy Land itself. Alternatively, the Kessef Mishneh suggests that indeed if the work that makes the produce obligated to be tithed is completed only in Eretz Yisrael, the obligation is indeed Scriptural in origin. This ruling is quoted by the Siftei Cohen 331:22.

94.

Our translation is based on the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (Challah 2:2).

95.

Even if it does not have a hole, since wood is porous, it is as if the earth on the ship is connected to the earth in Eretz Yisrael.

96.

I.e., if the trunk is located in Eretz Yisrael, the tithes must be separated from the produce. If it is located in the Diaspora, they need not.

The Rambam LeAm notes that the laws in this halachah must be qualified on the basis of Halachah 22. For if as stated there, everything depends on where the work that makes the produce obligated in the tithes is completed, of what difference does it make where the produce grows. That text explains that if the person separates tithes from produce that grew in the Diaspora before the work that makes the produce obligated in the tithes is completed, even if that work is completed in Eretz Yisrael, the tithes separated are not significant. For at the time, they were separated, there was no obligation to tithe the produce.

97.

Generally, if there is a hole in the bottom of a flowerpot, it is considered as if the plant is connected to the earth beneath it. Nevertheless, in this instance, Gittin 22a teaches that we follow the foliage of the plant and not the position of the hole in the flower pot.

98.

Who brought about a consecration of Eretz Yisrael that is effective until the present day, as stated in Halachah 5.

99.

More precisely, the majority of the Jewish people, for the majority is considered equivalent to the entire whole.

100.

There is no such phrase in the Torah stated with regard to terumah or the tithes. The commentaries explain that Ketubot 25a makes such a statement with regard to the mitzvah of challah based on Numbers 15:18 and the laws regarding terumah are derived from it. See also a parallel ruling in Hilchot Shemitah VeYovel 10:8.

101.

The Ra'avad differs with the Rambam and maintains that the obligation to separate terumah has the status of a Scriptural commandment in the present age. In his Kessef Mishneh, Rav Yosef Caro elaborates in support of the Rambam's position and in his Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 331:2), he rules accordingly.

102.

In the era of Mashiach. At that time, the observance of all the agricultural laws will return to Scriptural status, as stated in Hilchot Melachim 11:1.

103.

Indeed, we find several sources (Yoma 9b) where our Sages criticized the majority of the people for remaining in Babylonia.

104.

The commentaries point to Ezra 2:62-63 as indicating that in the era of the Second Temple, terumah was still observed with the status of a Scriptural mitzvah. For Ezra and Nechemiah restricted the priests whose lineage was not affirmed from partaking of it. Nevertheless, it can be explained that at that time, they were expecting the majority of the people to return and then, the status of the mitzvah would revert to that of Scriptural origin. Lest confusion arise concerning these priests were this to occur, they enforced these restrictions.

105.

See Hilchot Ma'aser 1:7 which points to several dimensions of the equivalence between terumah and the tithes.

106.

Although in Halachah 1, the Rambam writes that the Scriptural status of terumah and the tithes is not dependent on the Temple, there is no contradiction to this halachah. If the majority of the Jewish people are located in Eretz Yisrael, these mitzvos have the status of Scriptural Law, even if the Temple is not standing. Conversely, even if the Temple is standing, if the majority of the Jewish people are not located in Eretz Yisrael (as was the case in the Second Temple era), the status of these commandments is Rabbinic (Radbaz).

Translated by Eliyahu Touger

The text on this page contains sacred literature. Please do not deface or discard.

More in this section

You may also be interested in...