Maaser - Chapter 10

Such a person is called a chavair. In his Commentary to the Mishnah (Demai 2:3), the Rambam explains that this term is used because, as indicated by the following halachah, the term refers to Torah scholars. Chavair means "friend." This term is appropriate to be used with regard to Torah scholars, because since their friendship is based on the Torah, it is true friendship, for its motivation is for the sake of heaven.

Whether his own produce or produce he is given by others.

Both produce that he purchases for his own consumption and that which he purchases for commercial purposes.

From Hilchot Tumat Mishkav UMoshav 10:5, it appears that he must make these statements in the presence of three people who are themselves considered as trustworthy in this regard.

I.e., witnesses who meet the criteria for acceptable witnesses spelled out in Hilchot Edut.

I.e., we assume that he separated the tithes from the produce before he died, for "We can presume that a chavair will not release anything from under his hand unless the appropriate separations have been made" (Pesachim 9a).

I.e., after she is divorced or widowed from the common person.

I.e., a Canaanite servant, for a Jewish servant is not sold to another master (Hilchot Avadim 4:10).

I.e., if a woman or servant does not have a history of non-observance, it is assumed that when they become part of a chavair's home, they will accept the standards of the home. In this instance, however, because they have a history of non-observance, they must formally accept the chavair's standards.

This applies even when they are in the common person's domain.

I.e., since he freely associates with the common people, we suspect that he has accepted certain dimensions of their lifestyle.

Rambam LeAm compares the final two clauses of this halachah and draws an ethical lesson. It is more likely that a person with proper habits will become lax due to the bad habits of a friend than a person with improper habits will change to the better due a friend's positive influence.

I.e., if they state that the appropriate separations have been made from the produce, we accept their word.

The Jerusalem Talmud (Demai 2:2) compares this to dwelling with a snake in its den.

For the sale of produce will be under his direct supervision.

I.e., he cannot rely on the common person's word that the separations have been made. He must supervise the separations himself.

To cite a contemporary application of this concept: If one sees a mashgiach, kashrut supervisor, in a restaurant, one may assume that the food is kosher.

As explained in Chapter 9, Halachot 7-11, a chavair may eat at a common person's home and separate the tithes by leaving over portions of food. He separates the tithes for his portion alone and not for all the food served. If he is serving the meal, the responsibility for the kashrut of the food is his. If he is merely dining, he has no general responsibility as stated in the following halachah.

I.e., just as the previous halachah explains how the chavair must make stipulations for himself, so too, he must make stipulations for his son.

The son was eating together with a common person, but the father was not.

As the previous halachah stated with regard to his own self.

A silver coin of little value employed in the Talmudic era.

I.e., as stated in Halachah 1, a chavair must tithe what he buys and sells. Nevertheless, in this instance, he is not considered as buying or selling, but merely as acting as an agent for the common person.

In his Commentary to the Mishnah (Demai 6:12), the Rambam elaborates in his description of this situation, explaining that we are speaking about a situation where the seller of the produce is also a chavair and knows that the other chavair has been sent by the common person to purchase produce. If the chavair who is the agent asks to purchase produce without qualifying his statements and explaining who he is purchasing it for, the seller must give him tithed produce. For he knows that the agent is purchasing for the common person and he does not want to cause the common person to sin.

If the seller sees that the agent uses his own money, he might suspect that he is purchasing the produce for himself and not for the common person. Hence, the seller might not tithe the produce (Kessef Mishneh).

The seller will not give him untithed produce for the common person, because he fears that he will partake of it without tithing it. He may, however, give the chavair untithed produce, for he knows that the chavair will not partake of it without tithing it (the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah loc. cit.).

We do not apply the principle of bereirah and say that the produce that the agent takes as his own was in fact the produce from which he separated the tithes.

All the above applies if the purchaser does not ask the seller if the produce was tithed. If, however, he asks the seller and the seller states that the produce was tithed, the agent does not have to make any separations, since the seller is also trustworthy (ibid.). Kin'at Eliyahu questions the very basis of the Rambam's assumption. For if the seller is a chavair, he would always tithe his produce and there would be no obligation to tithe produce purchased from him. See also the Radbaz who understands the halachah as speaking about a seller who is a common person.

I.e., after he separated the tithes.

We do not require them to separate tithes for the entire amount. They are not responsible for the portion of the other individuals.

Since the portion belonging to the common person is not distinct, we do not apply the principle of bereirah (Radbaz). Thus when making the division, it is as if each person is selling to the other (Kessef Mishneh). Alternatively, the agent indeed purchased the produce for all five individuals and then the entire mixture became intermingled (Rav Yosef Korcus).

Without tithing. Since a present is not like a sale (Chapter 5, Halachah 6), he is not considered to have purchased the figs from the common person. That would have required him to tithe (Radbaz).

If he desires to eat a significant meal of them. He cannot be certain that the produce is untithed, because it is possible that the common person separated the tithes from other produce (ibid.). The Kessef Mishneh, by contrast, explains that there is an error in the text and he is in fact making separations from produce that is definitely untithed.

See Hilchot Terumah 3:17 with regard to the great terumah, ibid.:20 with regard to terumat ma'aser.

For we fear that the common person will partake of the produce without separating the tithes and thus without separating terumat ma'aser. We do not, however, fear that the common person will partake of produce without separating the great terumah.

In his Commentary to the Mishnah (Demai 3:1), the Rambam explains that this wording implies that the poor are given only one meal's worth of food. If they are given a substantial amount, they must make the appropriate separations. Support for this leniency can be derived from the fact that the majority of the common people do in fact separate the tithes.

Without separating tithes from it. This is a leniency instituted so that people will give charity and show hospitality (ibid.).

Although guests may themselves be wealthy, since they are required to accept hospitality, they are considered as poor (Meiri, Eruvin 31a).

I.e., even common people.

But not in mortal danger. Needless to say, if the sick person is in mortal danger, any prohibition can be violated to save his life. A person who is not dangerously ill is generally not permitted to partake of any substance that is forbidden by Rabbinic decree (Shulchan Aruch, Yoreh De'ah 155:3). Nevertheless, since the prohibition against demai is more of a safeguard than an outright ban, leniency was granted.

So that he will not be directly responsible for feeding him demai.

Even if it belongs to the common person.