Maaser - Chapter 13

That grow wild and do not have an owner. Such produce does not have to be tithed.

Our definition of this and the following terms are dependent on the definitions given in the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (Demai 1:1) as interpreted by Rav Kapach.

The literal translation is "when they will become yeast," the intent is when they will swell like bread into which yeast was placed. See the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (Ma'aserot 1:2).

In which instance even if generally, the species is exempt, in this instance, the produce must be tithed.

The owners generally leave such produce free to be taken by anyone, as the Rambam proceeds to explain. Hence, there is no obligation to separate tithes from it.

The nets where grapes and figs that have been harvested are kept to dry [ibid. (Nedarim 8:4)].

The peels and seeds of the grapes and the dregs that are separated from the wine and fall to the bottom of the container [ibid. (Ma'aserot 5:6)].

Our translation follows the standard printed text of the Mishneh Torah. There are manuscripts and early printings that stated tamarim instead of temadim. According to that version, the translation would be "date vinegar." The Radbaz and the Kessef Mishneh, however, follow the version stated in the standard texts.

The Kessef Mishnehexplains that the rationale is that the wine dregs are usually left as ownerless. Hence, it is only in a place where that is the common practice that this law applies.

In contrast to the area inhabited by the Jews who ascended from Egypt in the first conquest.

See Hilchot Terumah, ch. 1, for a description of these geographic terms.

Conversely, we operate under the assumption that any produce found within the borders of Eretz Yisrael is bound by the restrictions of demai [the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (Demai 1:3)].

If, however, there is a doubt concerning the matter, we assume that the produce grew in the land where it was found.

Our translation is taken from the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (Demai 2:1).

All of these species grow only in Eretz Yisrael.

A city in Southern Lebanon, close to, but not immediately bordering on Eretz Yisrael.

Since the produce was brought by donkey-drivers who travel longer distances, we consider the possibility that it was brought from Eretz Yisrael (Radbaz). As indicated by a comparison to the following halachah, here we are speaking about a caravan of donkeys.

Because rice which requires plentiful water is not usually grown in Eretz Yisrael.

As explained in the previous halachah.

But instead, stored the local produce.

As opposed to the caravan mentioned in the previous halachah, a single donkey-driver will travel short distances.

Also a city in Southern Lebanon. It is very close to Eretz Yisrael.

The commentaries have questioned the Rambam's comments, noting that in actual fact, Tyre is closer to Eretz Yisrael than Tzidon. Among the explanations given is that there were two cities named Tzidon and the smaller one was in fact closer to Eretz Yisrael than Tyre. See Rambam LeAm.

Here as well we are speaking about a caravan of donkey-drivers who travel long distances. As such, it is unlikely that they brought produce from Eretz Yisrael, for it is relatively close.

If, however, the gentile grew the produce himself, it is exempt from the obligation of tithes.

In later eras, by contrast, the land was owned primarily by gentiles and there is no need to consider the produce as demai (Radbaz).

And it is possible that he brought from his own produce.

The Radbaz states that this applies to produce that was sold to a Jew who completed the tasks associated with its preparation. Even though such produce must be tithed, the stringency of demai does not apply.

For as in all matters, the ruling is dependent on the majority (Radbaz).

The particular species of plums the Rambam mentions grew primarily in Damascus and the laws of demai do not apply to produce that grows there (Chapter 12, Halachah 11).

I.e., one might say that as a result of these factors one could identify the source of the produce.

I.e., without tithing.

This is the interpretation of the term medina followed by most authorities. From the Rambam's wording in Hilchot Ishut 13:17, the interpretation of this halachah would be: "When there is a majority in a town, but not in a metropolis...."

To partake of it without observing the restrictions of demai.

See the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (Demai 1:3) for clarification regarding this and the other subjects mentioned in this halachah.

Produce used for purposes other than for food.

For challah like terumah carries a punishment of death at the hand of heaven and even the common people were careful with regard to its observance.

Since such a mixture contains terumah which involves such a severe penalty, the common people were careful with regard to the prohibitions involved.

I.e., after the second tithe is redeemed, the money used for its redemption must be used to purchase food in Jerusalem.

The priest would take a handful of flour from a meal offering to offer on the altar. The remainder was eaten by the priests. We do not suspect that the remainder was demai.

The first fruits of the seven species for which Eretz Yisrael is praised must be brought to the Temple and given to the priests as the bikkurim offerings. Occasionally, fruits of the same species were added to the offering to make it more impressive. These are referred to as "produce added to the bikkurim."

Nevertheless, even in these instances, the initial preference should be to purchase the produce from a trustworthy source (Radbaz).

The separations are necessary in this instance, for the gentile may sell the produce to another Jew (Radbaz).

For once he has incurred the obligation to make the separations associated with demai, he is not absolved from that responsibility until he does so (ibid.).

Olive oil mixed with fragrant spices [Rav Kappach's translation of the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (Demai 1:3)].

Wool would be combed to remove its dirt and other impurities attached to it. Oil was applied to the wool to make the combing process easier.

Like the oil applied to utensils mentioned in Halachah 14.

As protection for them in the weaving process.

See Hilchot Shivitat Esor 1:5.

I.e., he is asking a chavair to use the chavair's own oil for this purpose.

As a salve. If a chavair knows that produce has not been tithed, he may not use it in a manner that removes it from his possession or destroys it until he tithes it. For using it to benefit another person is equivalent to a sale (Chasdai David). With regard to demai, however, leniency may be shown, for he is using it for medical purposes for a gentile. If, however, he is using it for a Jew, the tithes must be separated even in this instance.

This refers even to oil from which we are certain separations have not been made.

One of the ways people would apply oil to their flesh was to place it on a marble tablet and then roll on the tablet.

Even though the oil will be applied to his flesh. The rationale is that once the gentile used it, the holiness vested in the terumah has been defiled and it is no longer necessary to make any separations from it. Note a parallel in Hilchot Terumot 11:8 (Chasdei David). In this instance, we are speaking about demai (which is feared to be tevel) and not terumah and in its present state, it is not holy. Nevertheless, the same principles can be applied.

As mentioned above, one should not apply oil that is demai to one's body. In this instance, however, the oil fell on the person's body against his will and its holiness is defiled at that time. Hence, what happens afterwards is not significant and he can continue rubbing that oil into to his flesh.

Because they were already distinct entities obligated in the restrictions of demai before the mixture came into being.

I.e., an entity that has an effect that is far greater than what could be expected from its size. This is a general principle applied with regard to all of the Torahs prohibitions; see Hilchot Ma'achalot Assurot 16:1-2.

He must give the terumat ma'aser to a priest and redeem the second tithe and use it to purchase food in Jerusalem.

Our translation follows the text suggested by the Kessef Mishneh. It is found in several authentic manuscripts of the Mishneh Torah. The version in the standard printed text - which was also the version possessed by the Ra'avad - differs slightly.

This is unnecessary, for we assume that terumah has already been separated. With regard to the tithes - the first tithe and the tithe for the poor - for demai, it is not necessary to give these to the Levite and the poor person, as one does when he is certain that the separations have not been made. Instead, all that is necessary is to make the separations.

In the latter instance, his deeds are of no consequence, because since he is not separating the great terumah, he is making the separations in improper order. Since that is undesirable, we assume that had he known what he was required to do, he would have made the separations in the appropriate order. Hence the separation that he did make is considered to have been made in error and therefore invalid.

Because it is possible that it is demai and it is possible that it is definitely tevel. Generally, we follow the principle that whenever the existence of an entity is fixed, we do not look at the actual ratio of permitted and forbidden entities. Instead, we consider it as if half are forbidden and half are permitted (see Hilchot Ma'achalot Assurot 8:11) . Now, in this instance, there is a stringency in considering the produce as tevel - that one must separate the great terumah. And there is a stringency in considering the produce as demai - that he must separate terumat ma'aser and the second tithe. To permit the use of the produce, he must fulfill both stringencies. He must also separate the first tithe and the tithe for the poor. He does not have to give this produce away, because of the doubt concerning its status. Instead, he may keep it for himself.

But we do not know which one.

In this instance as well, since it is possible that the separations have already been made, we do not require him to give the first tithe and the tithe of the poor. Those separations that involve prohibitions, by contrast, must be made.