Maaser - Chapter 3

See Chapter 2, Halachot 3-5, which also dwell on this subject.

According to Scriptural Law, there are no restrictions at all on partaking of this produce. Nevertheless, our Sages only allowed one to partake of it as a snack. They, however, did not allow him to partake of it as part of a significant meal (Rashi, Berachot 31a).

The difference between the two instances can be explained as follows: If he intends to sell it, then he will sell it when he meets a purchaser even before taking it to the marketplace. And the produce must be tithed before it is sold. Hence, as soon as the work associated with it is completed, he must tithe it. In contrast, when he intends to bring the produce home, everything is dependent on his own intent. Hence, he· is given this leniency [the Jerusalem Talmud (Ma’aserot I :5)].
The Ra’avad differs with the Rambam’s ruling, maintaining that since the Torah mentions grain from the grainheap and wine from the vat, the obligation to tithe these types of produces takes effect when they are in the grainheap and the vat. The Radbaz and the Kessef Mishneh support the Rambam’s ruling and it is cited as halachah by the Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De ‘ah 331 :82).

The definition of such acts is the subject of the following halachot.

The Ra’avad asks why the Rambam does not mentioning pickling, for that is also cited by the Mishnah (Ma’aserot 4:1). According to the Rambam, that act is included in salting, because he interprets the mishnah as meaning pickling in brine (see his Commentary to the Mishnah). It is, nevertheless, difficult why the mishnah mentions salting and pickling as separate activities. Note, however, Chapter 5, Halachah 14, which could also be interpreted as referring to pickling in vinegar.

According to Rabbinic Law. With regard to Scriptural Law, see the following chapter.

A courtyard that is protected (Chapter 4, Halachah 8). Here the intent of mentioning a courtyard is to refer to any dwelling as explained in Chapter 4.

See Chapter 5, Halachah lff.

See Chapter 5, Halachah 14.

Ibid.:18.

Ibid.: 19.

Ibid.:20.

Or even, as indicated in the previous halachah, it is brought into a courtyard that serves the home.

Even partaking from it as a snack is forbidden.

See Halachah 6.

Not only the portion for which he completed the work.

The Radbaz quotes the gloss of Rabbenu Shimshon as stating that the intent is not only figs, but all fruit that is set aside for drying. Even though one’s original intent is that the fruit be dried, since it is home and it is in a basket, it may be served at any time. Therefore, it is necessary to tithe it.

Since the fruit was not removed from the branches, it is considered as ,if the tasks preparing this fruit are not completed.

Since the produce is not their own, their intent in bringing the branches in is not significant.

For the fact that he brings them home indicates that from his perspective, all work has been completed.

For he will be performing further work to prepare the grain for produce.

In such an instance, the kernels are basically ready to be eaten and bringing them home is considered as collecting them in a grainheap.

For the kernels of legumes are generally not collected to be eaten at this stage of preparation and hence, there is no obligation to tithe.

Le., without having threshed it or winnowed it.

Feeding one's livestock is considered equivalent to eating a snack. Note, however, Halachah 20 which could qualify this statement (Kessef Mishneh).

Since the work to prepare it for human consumption has not been completed. The reason for this leniency is that according to Scriptural Law, there is no obligation to tithe until all the tasks associated with the produce are completed and it is brought within a home. Hence since only a Rabbinic prohibition is involved, there is room for leniency.

I.e., he need not feed it to his livestock with its chaff. Moreover, he can perform this activity several times. Different laws apply with regard to humans. They may snack from such produce, but may not partake of a significant amount of it (Siftei Cohen 331: 114).

I.e., those described in Halachah 3. In particular, the Radbaz asks questions concerning two of those situations: selling the produce and the commencement of the Sabbath. Seemingly, a sale cannot be made without the owner’s consent and the Sabbath is not dependent on the other person’s activity. The Radbaz explains that with regard to a sale, we are speaking about an instance where afterwards the owner consented to the sale. And with regard to the Sabbath, we are speaking about a situation where the other person completed the work associated with the produce before the Sabbath commenced. Thus when the Sabbath commenced, the produce was fit to be ready to be obligated in the tithes.

‍For the produce has reached the stage when it is necessary to tithe it. This is not dependent on the owner’s intent.

For there are those who do not make these preparatory steps, but rather sell the fruit as is.

For it is not common to make a pile of watermelons.

And it alone must be tithed (Radbaz).
The Radbaz and the Kessef Mishneh note that in Halachah 4, the Rambam states that as soon as he rubs the hair off one fruit or vegetable, the entire quantity is required to be tithed, while in this halachah, he states that only those he seeks to use immediately must be tithed. Among the resolutions they offer are:
a) in Halachah 4, the person’s intent is to prepare the entire quantity of produce. Therefore, as soon as he begins, that entire quantity must be tithed. Here, he only desires to prepare a limited quantity. Hence, it is only the quantity that he actually prepares that must be tithed.
b) Halachah 4 speaks about an instance when he prepares them in his home, while this halachah speaks about preparing them in the field to bring home.

I.e., this is allowed as an initial preference. The Radbaz explains that although the Rambam mentions only the separation of terumah, he also means the separation of the tithes, because it is unfeasible to think that terumah should be separated but not the tithes.

E.g., like garlic or onions that are woven together.

From the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah (Ma’aserot 1:5), it appears that after reapers would gather fruit, they would cover it with leaves or straw to protect it from the sun.

For the work in the field associated with their preparation has been completed.

I.e., it is obvious that the person’s intent is not to add other sheathes to the grain heap. Significantly, the Rambam’s definition here is slightly different than the definition he gives in his Commentary to the Mishnah (Pe‘ah 1 :6).

For it is common for pebbles to become mixed together with legumes and the legumes are sifted to remove them.

Our translation is taken from the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah (Ma’aserot 1 :6).

This is considered as a snack and hence, tithes are not required.

I.e., drink the equivalent of a snack. The Kessef Mishneh states that when one takes the wine before it reaches the storage vat, one may drink from it without tithing even though he removes the peels and seeds.

I.e., the place where the grapes were crushed to produce wine (ibid.:7).

The storage pit (ibid.).

In his Commentary to the Mishnah (ibid.), the Rambam explains that a basket was made of ropes and olives were placed within. Afterwards, they would press the olives in that basket. The translation of the two terms that follow are also from the same source.

The term "secondary vessel" refers to a utensil in which hot food was placed after it was removed from a fire. The Rambam is referring to the following difficulty. As stated in Halachah 3, subjecting produce to fire establishes an obligation to tithe. Thus as the Rambam states in Chapter 5, Halachah 16, if a person places oil into a pot that is on the fire or just removed from the fire, the obligation to tithe is established. In the instance described in our halachah, that is not the case, because food will not cook in a secondary vessel.

And an obligation to tithe will have been established. The Radbaz explains that this clause is not speaking about a secondary vessel, because a secondary vessel never cooks (Shabbat 40b). Alternatively, the laws of cooking are different with regard to the establishment of an obligation to tithe than with regard to the Sabbath laws or the laws of Kashrut. In this instance, when a secondary vessel is very hot, it can be considered as having cooked.

Our translation is taken from the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah (Ma’aserot 1 :8).

Since they have not been dried out, it is considered as if the tasks necessary to prepare them have not been completed.

I.e., moving them causes it to be considered as if the tasks have been completed.

Since he will ultimately do so, the tasks associated with their preparation have not been completed until he does so.

Even though he has brought the produce into his courtyard.

Before it was threshed.

There is, however, no necessity to separate the great terumah, as stated in Hilchot Terumot 3: 13.

The punishment given for the violation of Rabbinical commandments or other transgressions that are not punishable by lashes according to Scriptural Law.

Without having to tithe them.

For this is considered as if he was partaking of the meal in a significant manner, not merely snacking. Alternatively, because this represents the conclusion of the tasks associated with preparing the grain.

Which had been cooked on a fire.

I.e., just as when wine is placed in a cistern, the work involved in its preparation is considered to have been completed, so too, when it is placed in a cooked dish, the work involved is considered to be finished.

Applying oil is considered equivalent to eating (Chapter 13, Halachah 16). Nevertheless, such an application is considered as equivalent to merely partaking of a snack.

See Halachah 1.

I.e., giving them a large amount, not merely a snack.

E.g., he intended to bring the produce home and hence, the obligation to tithe is not established until he does so.

The Ra’avad questions this ruling based on the Jerusalem Talmud (Ma’aserot 1 :6) which quotes Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar as stating that once produce is brought into a person’s courtyard (i.e., his residence), it cannot be fed to an animal without tithing. The Radbaz explains that according to the Rambam, our Sages differ with Rabbi Shimon hen Elazar on this point and do not require tithing. The rationale is that since the entire obligation to tithe animal fodder is Rabbinic in origin, this obligation was instituted only when the animal was fed a significant amount.

Our translation is based on the Rambam LeAm. Generally, amir is translated as “straw.” In this instance, we have favored this translation, because straw is not food for humans.

For this represents the completion of the tasks associated with the preparation of this produce. Although chilba is occasionally used as food for humans, it is primarily considered as animal fodder.

Our translation is based on the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah (Ma’aserot 3:4). There he explains that the term ketzitzot refers to “individual fruits that have been detached from any species of fruit.” Often, the term is used to refer to fresh figs.

For we assume that the owners despaired of their return when the fruit fell outside their property. This is considered equivalent to declaring them ownerless. When produce was declared ownerless before the work involved in its preparation was concluded, there is no obligation to tithe.

Taking those sheaves is considered as theft and forbidden (see Hilchot Gezeilah VeAveidah 15:8-10), because the owners will not despair of their recovery. Hence, they are not considered as ownerless and must be tithed .. See also Hilchot Terumot 4: 11.

Since the owner will have no way of retrieving them, he relinquishes his ownership. And since they were ownerless, there is no obligation to tithe them.

Because of their size, they are not considered ownerless even in the public domain.

Straightening the surface of the bundle causes the obligation to tithe to be established with regard to it, as stated in Halachah 13. Hence, even if the owner despairs of the recovery of the grain, since the obligation to tithe was established before the produce became ownerless, it is not rescinded.

Based on the Jerusalem Talmud (Ma’aserot 3:3), we must assume the intent is terumat ma’ aser, for once grain has been moved from its original grainheap, we assume that terumah was separated.

Although it is forbidden to use produce to separate tithes and terumat ma’aser, if these separations have already been made from it, we are not concerned that perhaps that has happened as the Rambam proceeds to explain.

Even though tithes are required to be separated from it, we assume that the owner would not tithe produce until he brought it to his home.

See Halachah 9. As stated there, covering the fruit establishes the obligation to tithe.

Here also, once the obligation to tithe has been established, it is not rescinded if the fruit becomes ownerless.

See Halachah 2.

We are uncertain whether or not the owner separated the tithes from it, but we are certain that he separated terumah, as explained in Chapter 9.

Since there is no obligation to separate terumah and the tithes until the produce is brought home, we assume that none of the separations were made.

In this instance, however, he must also separate terumah, lest it not have been separated beforehand.

The Radbaz states that this applies not only to olives and carobs, but to any fruit that is recognizable as coming from the tree under which it is found.

Based on Bava Metzia 21 b, it appears that we are speaking about olives and carobs that resemble the olives and carobs on the trees. Hence, we assume that they fell from the tree and have not yet been tithed. See also the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah (Ma’aserot 3:4). Since the fruit has fallen under the tree and can be recognized as coming from the tree, the owner does not consider them ownerless and taking them is considered as theft.

Thus unlike the olives and carobs mentioned above, it cannot be determined whether they fell from the tree under which they were found. Hence, the owner despairs of their recovery. It is not forbidden to take the fruit and there is no obligation to tithe it. It is, however, necessary to tithe it as one tithes demai (ibid.).

After it reached the stage that the tithes were required to be separated (see Chapter 2, Halachah 8). This is indicated by the expression "detached produce" (Radbaz).

For at the time the obligation to tithe took effect, the produce was privately owned and not in the possession of the Temple treasury.

For there is no obligation to tithe produce owned by the Temple treasury. The Jerusalem Talmud (Ma’aserot 1: 1) teaches that Deuteronomy 12: 17 speaks of tithing “your grain.” This can be understood as an exclusion, “your grain,” i.e., that owned by a private person, and not that owned by the Temple treasury.

The intent is that not only the grain that is used for the meal offerings is not obligated to be tithed, but also the remainder that is not used for that purpose, but is instead, redeemed and used for private purposes. Even so, the person who redeems it is not obligated to tithe it, as explained in the conclusion of ch. 2.