Missionary Renegade

As in Chapter 1, Halachah 2.

See Hilchot Sanhedrin 16:3, 18:5, and notes for a definition of this punishment and the situations where it is applied. See also the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (Menachot 8:7).

As explained in Hilchot Arachin 5:9, blemished animals are the subject of the above verse. They can be "caused to stand before a priest." All of the above are inanimate objects that cannot be "caused to stand before a priest."

The fine flour, wine, and oil. Wood, fowl, and sacred utensils may never be redeemed.

Hilchot Shegagot 10:12. The verses and the latter source refer to an adjustable guilt offering. If a person was poor and therefore set aside a meal offering as required of one of his financial status and then became wealthy, he may sell the meal offering and use it to be an animal as is required of him in his new financial position.

The flour, wine, and oil that accompany a sacrifice.

The Radbaz states that this refers to offerings that became impure while on the top of the altar. If they became impure beforehand, they should not be brought there to be burnt.

See Hilchot Temidim UMusafim 10:6.

This is speaking about a situation in which the water that was taken for a libation before the Sabbath of the Sukkot and became impure on that Sabbath. We are forced to say this, for if we were speaking of an ordinary weekday, there would be no difficulty in going down to the Gichon Stream and getting new water. On the Sabbath, this is forbidden and the only alternative is restore the ritual purity of the water (Rashi, Meiri, Pesachim 34b).

Hilchot Tuma'at Ochalin 2:21 which explains that when a receptacle containing water has an ordinary sized opening and is submerged in a mikveh, the water can regain its status of ritual purity.

Even though the water regained its purity, it is no longer acceptable as an offering. This is a Rabbinic stringency (Pesachim, loc. cit.; see Halachah 8). Instead, water for the libation should be taken from the basin (seeHilchot Temidim UMusafim 10:10).

57 cc according to Shiurei Torah, 100 cc according to Chazon Ish.

The rationale is that as stated in Hilchot Tuma'at Ochalin 4:1, impure food will not cause other foods or liquids to contract ritual impurity unless the impure food is the size of an egg sized portion.

I.e., were the liquids to be of the body of the fruit, they would be considered impure like the fruit itself. It is, however, considered as if they are distinct entities (ibid. 1:2) and they do not have the possibility of becoming impure until they emerge from the fruit. Hence, if there is less than an egg-sized portion, the liquids will not become impure.

Even though it is acceptable with regard toterumah.

In his Commentary to the Mishnah (Zevachim 4:5) the Rambam writes that the only unfashioned wood which ever contracts ritual impurity is wood used for the altar.

Wine sweetened due to exposure to the sun; alternatively, wine to which a sweetener was added (see Hilchot Shabbat 29:14).

Wine stored in a utensil with a foul odor [the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (Menachot 8:6)].

This improves the flavor of the wine. See Rav Kappach's translation of the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (ibid.).

Grape juice that has not fermented.

All of these types of wine have an inferior flavor.

As explained in Hilchot Rotzeach UShemirat Nefesh 11:6-8:10, when wine was left uncovered, it is forbidden because it is possible that a snake might have deposited venom in it. Hence, it is forbidden for the altar.

See Chapter 3, Halachah 5.

Even slightly worm-ridden.

In his Commentary to the Mishnah (Avot5:14), the Rambam defines solet, translated as "fine flour," as the flour of substance that remains in the process of refinement andkemach, translated as "flour dust," as the dust that is cast off.

Our translation is taken from the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (Menachot8:2).

All of these types of flour are of inferior quality (ibid.).

And the grain growing from them is an entirely new entity. Were they not to have been sown, flour made from them would not be acceptable.

In vinegar or in brine.

As explained above, fruit grown under these conditions is of inferior quality.

40.

Both individual and communal offerings [the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (Menachot 8:1)].

41.

Grown in the present year.

42.

The offering of barley brought on the second day of Pesach.

43.

These concepts are evident from Leviticus 23:10 and, 16-17. See also Hilchot Temidim UMusafim 7:5-6; 8:2.

3 Chapters

Rambam - 3 Chapters a Day

Maaser - Chapter 10, Maaser - Chapter 11, Maaser - Chapter 12

Maaser - Chapter 10

Halacha 1

When a person makes a commitment to be considered trustworthy1 with regard to the tithes [so that] his produce will not be considered as demai, he must tithe [the produce] he eats,2 that which he sells, and that which he purchases,3 and he must not accept the hospitality of a common person. He must make these commitments in public.4 When trustworthy witnesses5[testify] that he made these commitments in public and that he continually observe these practices, he is considered trustworthy [and his word is accepted if] he says that his produce has been tithed.

Halacha 2

Every Torah scholar is always considered trustworthy. There is no necessity to investigate his [conduct]. His children, the members of his household, his servants, and his wife, are given the same status. When a Torah scholar dies and leaves produce, even if it was gathered on the day of his death, we assume that [the appropriate separations were made].6

Halacha 3

When the daughter of a common person or his wife7 marries a chavair or the servant8 [of a common person] was sold to a chavair, they must accept the [above] requirements as at the outset.9 When the daughter of a chavair or his wife marries a common person or the servant [of a chavair] was sold to a common person, we assume that they maintain their observance10 until they act in a manner that arouses suspicion. A son or a servant of a chavair who would frequently visit a common person must formally accept [the above requirements].11When a son or a servant of a common person would frequently visit a chavair, as long as he is in his domain, he is considered like a chavair. When he departs, he is considered as a common person.12

Halacha 4

When a person himself is not considered as trustworthy, but one of his sons or servants or another member of his family is, food may be taken from him based on their statements.13 We do not harbor suspicions concerning the matter.

Halacha 5

If a person was considered trustworthy, but his wife was not considered trustworthy,14 we may purchase produce from him,15 but we do not accept his hospitality. If his wife is trustworthy and he is not, we may accept his hospitality, but we do not purchase produce from him. May a curse be visited on one whose wife is trustworthy, but he is not.

Halacha 6

A chavair should not serve as a waiter at a drinking party or a feast of a common person unless all [the food and drink] have been tithed and the appropriate separations made under his supervision.16 Therefore if one sees a chavair serving at a drinking party or a feast of a common person, he can operate under the presumption that the tithes and other separations have been made.17

If we see such a person eating together with a common person, we cannot assume that the food served at the feast has been tithed. Perhaps the chavairis relying on the stipulations made in his heart.18

Halacha 7

Just as a person may eat with a common person and rely on the conditions in his heart, so too, he must make a stipulation with regard to what his son eats.19 [This applies] even if his son is in another place.20 He does not have to make a stipulation with regard to another person aside from his son even if that person was together with him at the feast.

Therefore if the son of a chavair is present at a feast with a common person, we cannot assume that the food was tithed, for perhaps [the chavair] made a stipulation for [the food] his son ate.21

Halacha 8

When a common person gives a meah22 to a chavair and tells him: "Buy me a bunch of vegetables or a cake," he may purchase it for him without any qualification and is not obligated to tithe it.23 If [the agent] exchanged themeah, he is obligated to tithe [the produce he purchased].24

If the chavair was explicit and did not buy the produce without explanation, but instead said: "This bunch of produce that I am purchasing from you is being bought for my colleague and this bunch is being bought for myself," he is obligated to tithe [only] the produce that he took for himself. He does not have to tithe [the bunch he purchased for his colleague].25If these [two batches of produce] became intermingled, even if one measure [belonging to the chavair] becomes mixed with 100 [belonging to the common person], he must make the separations as if the entire quantity was demai.26 [Only] afterwards27 may he give the produce to the colleague who sent him to purchase them for him.

Halacha 9

When five people tell one person: "Bring us five bunches of vegetables," and [the agent] brings each person one bunch individually, the chavairim among [the recipients] are required to tithe only their portions.28 If [the agent] brought [the entire quantity] mixed together, the chavairim among [the recipients] are required to separate tithes for the entire amount.29

Halacha 10

When a common person tells a chavair: "Collect figs for me from my fig tree," the chavair may snack from them30 and tithe them as one tithes demai.31

If a chavair told a common person to gather figs for him and another chavairheard him, the latter may partake [of the figs] without tithing them. [The rationale is that] a chavair will not release produce from his domain unless the appropriate separations were made. [Thus] we can assume that [the owner] separated [terumah and the tithes for this produce] from other [produce]. Although [generally] we do not suspect that a chavair will separate terumahfrom produce that is not in the same place as the terumah,32 he may do so to prevent the common person from confronting a spiritual stumbling block.33

Halacha 11

It is permitted to feed34 demai to the poor and to guests.35 They must, however, be notified of such. If the poor person or the guest desire to make the appropriate separations, they should.

Halacha 12

The collectors of charity collect from all people36 without clarifying [whether separations have been made] and they divide the donations without specifications. If one desires to make the appropriate separations, he should.

Halacha 13

When a doctor who is a chavair is feeding a common person who is sick37from the produce of a common person, he should place [the food] in his hand, but not in his mouth.38 If the demai belonged to the doctor, he should not even place it in his hand. And similarly, if he knows that it is definitely tevel,39 it is forbidden to place it in his hand.

FOOTNOTES

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 UMoshav10:5, 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'shome, 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'sstandards.

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, achavair 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 (Demai6:12), 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 achavair, 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 toterumat ma'aser.

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

In his Commentary to the Mishnah (Demai3:1), 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, Sukkah 35b).

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 againstdemai 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.

Maaser - Chapter 11

Halacha 1

It is forbidden to sell demai to a common person or to send demai [as a present to a common person], because one assists him in partaking of forbidden food. It can, however, be sold or sent to a Torah scholar, for a Torah scholar will not partake of it until he tithes it or until a trustworthy person tells him that it has been tithed.1

Halacha 2

All of those who add to the measure when they sell in large quantities, e.g., wholesalers and grain merchants are permitted to sell and send demai [as a present].2 Since they add to the measure,3 our Sages ordained that the purchaser or the recipient be the one who separates the tithes from thedemai.4 When, by contrast, people measure with a small measure, since the seller is the one who profits, he should make the separations. [Hence,] he should not sell or send [produce] unless the appropriate separations have been made.

Halacha 3

What is meant by a large measure? With regard to dry measure, half a se'ah;5with regard to liquid measure, something that holds a dinar's6 worth of the said liquid.

Halacha 4

Even though a person sells baskets of olives and grapes or containers of vegetables by estimation,7 he is forbidden to sell them as demai.8

Halacha 5

If one of them, [either the seller or the buyer] - whether the sale is made with a small measure or a large measure9 - says: "Come let us make the separations for this produce," the seller should separate terumat ma'aser and the purchaser should separate the second tithe.10 This is an edict of the court.

Halacha 6

When a chavair and a common person inherit [the estate] of their father who was a common person,11 [the chavair] may say: "Take the wheat in this-and-this place and I will take the wheat in this-and-that place. Take the wine in this-and-this place and I will take the wine in this-and-that place."12 He should not say: "Take wheat and I will take the barley. Take the produce that is fresh and I will take what is dry," for this is considered as selling demai.13

Halacha 7

When a person is carrying [a load of] vegetables,14 his load becomes heavy for him and he desires to cast some vegetables on the road to lessen his burden, he should not cast them away until he tithes them.15 [This is necessary] so that it shall not create a stumbling block for the common people who consume demai.

Halacha 8

When a person purchases vegetables16 from the market and draws them into his possession, even though he did not weigh them, measure them, or pay for them, if he changes his mind and returns them to the owner of the store,17 he should not return them until he tithes them.18

Halacha 9

[The following laws apply when a person] discovers produce on the way. If the majority [of the local populace] bring the produce to their homes, he is not required to tithe it, for the obligation to tithe has not yet taken effect.19 If, however, the majority bring it to sell in the marketplace, it is considered asdemai.20 If the ratio is half and half, it is considered as demai.21

Halacha 10

If a person took [the produce]22 with the intent of partaking of it and changed his mind [and decided to] store it, he should not keep it until he tithes it, so that it will not present a stumbling block to others.23 If he took it originally only so that it would not perish,24 he can store it25 until he desires to partake of it, send it [as a present], or sell it. At that point, he should tithe it as demai.

Halacha 11

The extremities of vegetables that are found in a garden26 are exempt from [the laws of] demai.27 Those that belong to a homeowner and found in his home28 are obligated [to be tithed].29 Those on a dung heap - wherever it is found - are permitted.30

Halacha 12

When a person gives [produce] to a female inn-keeper to cook or bake for him,31 he must tithe what he gives her - lest it present a stumbling block to others32 - and what he receives from her,33 for she is suspect to exchange produce belonging to one person for that belonging to another. He may, by contrast, give produce to his mother-in-law - whether her daughter is hisarusah or his wife34 - or to his neighbor to cook or bake for him and he need not show concern, neither for tithes, nor for produce of the Sabbatical year,35because [these individuals] are not suspect to exchange produce.36

When does the above apply? When he [also] gave her yeast for a dough and spices for a cooked dish. If he did not, we must show concern because of the tithes and because of [produce of] the Sabbatical year.37 Therefore in the Sabbatical year, [the bread] is forbidden, for perhaps the yeast came from produce that grew in the Sabbatical year.

Halacha 13

When a person brings wheat38 to a miller who is a common person he may assume that their status is unchanged.39 He is not suspect to exchange it [for other wheat].40If he brought them to a gentile miller, they are demai; [we suspect] that he exchanged it for the wheat of a common person.41 Similarly, if one entrusts [produce] to a common person for safe-keeping, it is permitted. He is not suspect to exchange the produce entrusted to him.42

Halacha 14

When a common person is managing a store belonging to a chavair, it is permitted [to partake of the produce].43 We do not suspect that he exchanged it. [This applies] even if the chavair [only] goes in and out [of the store from time to time].44

Halacha 15

When produce was entrusted to a gentile for safekeeping, [the produce one receives is] considered as the gentile's produce, for we assume that he exchanged it for his own produce.

What are laws that govern it? If the tasks necessary to prepare the produce were not completed as of yet and they were completed by the Jew after he took back the produce he entrusted, he must separate the tithes as we explained.45 If the produce that he entrusted was tevel and the tasks necessary for its preparation were completed, he is obligated to separate the tithes, for perhaps the gentile did not exchange it. For this reason, it appears to me, that the status of the tithes he separates is doubtful.46

If he entrusted ordinary produce from which the required separations were made, he is not obligated to separate anything, for even if the gentile exchanged [it for his own], it is exempt. As we explained in Hilchot Terumot,47[the obligation to tithe] is on "your grain," and not the grain of a gentile.48

FOOTNOTES

Produce which definitely has not been tithed may not be sent even to a Torah scholar. It may, however, be sent to him in a pressing situation (Chapter 6, Halachah 6).

I.e., to Torah scholars, but not to common people, as stated in the previous halachah.

And the purchaser receives more than what he deserves [the Rambam's Commnentary to the Mishnah (Demai 2:4)].

Hence, the purchaser must assume that the produce is untithed.

A se'ah is 8.3 liter in modern measure according to Shiurei Torah and 16.2 liter according to Chazon Ish.

A dinar is a silver coin of significant value.

I.e., instead of weighing the produce, the seller gives the purchaser a full basket or container, whatever its weight might be. One might think that since the seller is selling by estimation, he is considered as being generous like the wholesalers mentioned above. The Rambam (based on Demai 2:5) teaches us that this is not so.

The Ra'avad questions the Rambam's ruling, noting that the mishnah quotes Rabbi Yossi as exempting the seller in this situation and does not mention a differing opinion. The Radbaz and the Kessef Mishneh explain that the wording of the mishnah indicates that Rabbi Yossi's view is being cited as a minority opinion and not as a view accepted by all.

I.e., he must make the required separations first.

I.e., the individual who would not be obligated to make the separations suggests that they be made as a joint effort, thus obligating himself even though he would otherwise be exempt (Radbaz in response to the Ra'avad).

I.e., the separations are not made equally.

And thus we cannot assume that the produce was tithed beforehand.

I.e., it is not considered as if he is exchanging one batch of produce for another and he is not required to separate tithes for his brother's portion. The rationale is that with regard to matters concerning Rabbinic Law, including demai, we apply the principle of bereirah, and retroactively - after the division of the property has been made - we consider that from the outset, it was as if the estate had originally been bequeathed to each of the sons separately, according to this division.

For we do not apply the principle of bereirahwith regard to two different types of produce.

I.e., produce that is demai which had reached the stage where the tithes were required to be separated from it.

If produce is declared hefker, ownerless, before the obligation to tithe becomes incumbent upon it, there is no need to tithe it afterwards. If, however, that obligation has already taken effect, declaring produce ownerless does not remove that obligation (see Chapter 3, Halachah 20; Radbaz).

I.e., produce that is demai which had reached the stage where the tithes were required to be separated from it.

I.e., the owner of the store must consent to accept the produce, for as explained in the following note, the purchaser has already acquired the produce. See the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (Demai 3:2).

According to Rabbinic Law, once a person draws movable property (the vegetables) into his possession, he acquires it. The fact that he does not perform any of the other activities mentioned does not detract from his acquisition. Hence, by returning it to the seller, he is in effect selling it back to him. Hence, he is required to tithe it.

Since the obligation to tithe will take effect when the person brings it home, we assume that he tithed it. Hence, the person who discovers it is not required to tithe it again [(the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (Machshirin 2:10)]. It must be noted that the Radbaz and many other commentaries offer different interpretations of this law. Indeed, the Rambam in Chapter 3, Halachah 22, appears to operate according to another perspective.

The person bringing his produce to the marketplace may not tithe it until he reaches there, because until that point it is not common to partake of it in an substantial manner only as a snack. Hence, it is possible that it is tevel (ibid.). Nevertheless, the possibility also exists that the tithes have been separated and hence it is considered as demai.

As a safeguard. One might ask: Seemingly, the situation is a sefek-sefeikah, a situation where the doubt is compounded, i.e., perhaps it came from those who bring it home. Even if it came from those who bring it to the marketplace, perhaps these individuals tithed it. Nevertheless, extra stringency is shown with regard to the prohibition against demai than is shown with regard to other prohibitions (Kessef Mishnehto Halachah 13).

I.e., produce discovered in a community where it is customary to bring produce to the marketplace.

I.e., the members of his household who might partake of it under the impression that it has been tithed.

I.e., he took it without the intent of acquiring it as his own, but only to protect it from enemy armies, a fire, or the like [the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (Demai 3:3)].

Without tithing it. Since he did not acquire it as his own, he is under no obligation to tithe it.

I.e., the leaves pruned by a gardener. Our translation is based on the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (Ediot 3:3). Compare to Hilchot Terumah 11:10.

For they discard produce that is really unsuitable for ordinary consumption.

The tops and the stems of vegetables that are discarded by a homeowner when preparing the vegetables to be served.

For even though the homeowner may not desire to serve them, they are still fit to be eaten.

For they are no longer considered as food.

In his Commentary to the Mishnah (Demai3:5), the Rambam explains that guests would give the mistress of an inn flour and meat and she would prepare meals for them. As the Rambam states, this woman is suspect to exchange the food given for other food of the same type, but of lesser quality. She rationalizes that since she cooks for her guests for little or no payment, she is entitled to make this exchange (Chullin 6b).

I.e., he must tithe the produce he gives her, lest she give it to others and they partake of it without tithing it.

Lest she have given him untithed produce.

According to Jewish Law, marriage is a two-staged process involving erusin, "consecration," and nisuin, "marriage." Aftererusin, the marriage bond has been established and the woman cannot marry another man without a divorce. Nevertheless, the couple do not begin living together as man and wife until the second stage, nisuin. The Rambam is clarifying that even if the couple have not begun living together, he still trusts his mother-in-law.

I.e., we do not suspect that he gave produce from the sixth year and these women exchanged it for produce of the seventh year which is forbidden.

This appears to represent a reversal of the Rambam's ruling in his Commentary to Mishnah (Demai 3:6). The Radbaz explains that the Rambam's ruling here is based on the Jerusalem Talmud.

For even though she is not suspect to exchange, we fear that she used forbidden yeast or spices.

From which the tithes have already been separated.

Both with regard to tithes and the prohibitions of the Sabbatical year.

40.

Though we suspect that he is lax in his observance of the mitzvah of tithing, we do not suspect that he will commit a transgression that involves a colleague's money (see Gittin 61b).

41.

Who also gave him wheat to grind without separating the tithes from it [the Rambam's Commentary to Mishnah (Demai 3:6)]. We do not know whether he tithed them. Therefore, they are considered as demai.

The Ra'avad questions the Rambam's ruling: Seemingly, the situation is one of compounded doubt (sefek-sefeikah). Perhaps the gentile did not exchange the grain. Even if he exchanged it, perhaps he exchanged it with grain from a common person which need be tithed only because of a doubt. (The Ra'avad himself accepts the Rambam's ruling, but uses it as support for his thesis that there is an obligation for a Jew to tithe produce belonging to a gentile if it comes into his possession, for he maintains that the possibility is that the gentile exchanged it with his own produce.)

The Kessef Mishneh does not accept that thesis and instead offers a resolution, explaining that extra stringency is shown with regard to the prohibition against demaithan is shown with regard to other prohibitions. He supports that contention based on Shabbat 23a which states that the majority of the common people separate tithes and yet our Sages imposed stringencies.

42.

With regard to produce given to a gentile for safekeeping, see Halachah 15.

43.

Without tithing.

44.

And is not involved in the management of every particular of its operation. This reflects a general principle with regard to questions involving the kashrut of a person's produce. As long as the owner makes his presence known from time to time, his workers - even gentiles - are not suspected to exchange his produce with other produce.

Implied is that if the owner does not enter from time to time, we would suspect that the worker would exchange the produce. The Radbaz notes that the previous ruling implies that a Jew who is a common person would not be suspect to exchange the produce even if the owner did not enter from time to time. He therefore suggests that this phrase be omitted from the text. There are, however, other commentaries who offer explanations why a manager is judged more stringently than the bailee mentioned in the previous halachah. After all, he is working on an ongoing basis.

45.

Hilchot Terumot 1:11.

46.

I.e., since it is possible that the gentile did exchange, it is possible that there is no obligation to tithe.

47.

Hilchot Terumot, loc cit..

48.

We do not suspect that the gentile exchanged the grain with grain belonging to a Jew who did not separate the tithes, because it is not that common for people to entrust their produce to others. In contrast, people do bring containers of grain to a miller. Hence as mentioned in Halachah 13, we fear that the miller exchanged one person's grain with another's (the Radbaz and Kessef Mishneh in resolution of the Ra'avad's objections).

Maaser - Chapter 12

Halacha 1

When a person purchases produce from a person upon whom we do not rely with regard to the tithes1 and forgot2 to tithe it before the commencement of the Sabbath or a festival - upon which he may not tithe it3 - he should ask that person regarding their status. If he tells him that it is tithed, he may rely on his word on [that] Sabbath.4

Similarly, if another person upon whom we cannot rely tells him that it was tithed, he may partake of it because of his word on that Sabbath.5 [This applies] even if he possesses other produce of that type from which the separations have been made. [The rationale is that] the awe of Sabbath affects the common people and they will not violate a transgression on that day.

Halacha 2

Even though one relies on the word of a common person to eat on the Sabbath, he should not partake of that produce after the conclusion of the Sabbath until he separates the tithes as appropriate for demai for the entire amount, what he ate on the Sabbath and what remains. For the leniency [to] trust him was granted only out of necessity for that Sabbath.6

If the Sabbath and a festival followed in succession,7 if one asked [a common person concerning produce] on one, he may partake of it on the other,8because he did not have the opportunity to tithe in the interim. Similar laws apply with regard to the two days [for each festival celebrated] in the Diaspora.

Halacha 3

When a person takes an oath9 that a colleague partake of his hospitality on the Sabbath, but [the guest] does not trust [the host] with regard to tithes, he may ask him10 and eat based on his statements the first Sabbath. On the second Sabbath, even though he took an oath not to benefit from him unless he accepts his hospitality, he should not eat until he tithes as one does fordemai.

Halacha 4

When we see a person who is not trustworthy11 [with regard to the separation of tithes] separate terumat ma'aser from produce belonging to him that isdemai and we saw that it later fell back in, whether to that [store of produce] or another and he said: "I separated it,"12 we accept his word - even during the week - and may partake of the produce on that basis. Just as the common people are in dread of the Sabbath,13 so too, they are in dread of dimua,14 and they are not suspect to cause others to partake of such produce.15

Halacha 5

When we see that a person who is not trustworthy separates the first tithes from such produce and he says that he separated the second tithes, his word is accepted.16 If he separated the second tithe in our presence and said that he separated the first tithe, his word is not accepted, because the second tithe belongs to him.17 [Thus] one who is trusted with regard to the second tithe is not trusted with regard to the first, but one who is trusted with regard to the first is trusted with regard to the second.

Accordingly, when a person who is not trusted brings produce from his home and says: "This is the first tithe," his word is accepted18 and there is no need to separate terumot19 and tithes20 from [the produce separated].21 If he says: "This is the second tithe," his word is not accepted. [The produce separated] is considered as demai and we must separate terumat ma'aser from it. It appears to me that he must redeem the entire amount.22

Halacha 6

When one tells a person whose word is not accepted with regard to the tithes: "Purchase [produce] for me who tithes." And that person went and brought him produce, his word is not accepted.23 If he told him: "Purchase [produce] for me from so-and-so," the other person's word is accepted if he says that he purchased it from him, for he will fear [to lie], lest [the principal] ask that person.24 If he went to purchase [the produce] from the person who was named, but said: "I could not find him, so I purchased it for you from another person who is trustworthy," his word is not accepted.

Halacha 7

[The following rules apply when a person] enters a city where he does not know anyone and asks: "Who is trustworthy? Who tithes?" If someone answers: "I am," his word is not accepted.25 If he says: "So-and-so," his word is accepted26 and [the wayfarer] may purchase [produce] from that person and eat on that basis. If [the wayfarer] went and purchased from that person and asked him: "Who here sells vintage wine?" and the person answers: "The one who sent you," his word is accepted even though it appears that they are in collusion.27

Halacha 8

When does the above apply? When [the wayfarer] is not familiar with any person in that place.28 If, however, he is familiar with people there, he should purchase only from a person [with an established reputation] for observance.29 If he stays in that place for 30 days, even if he is not familiar with anyone there, he should purchase produce only from an expert.30

Halacha 9

These leniencies were granted only with regard to terumot and the tithes,31but with regard to produce of the Sabbatical year and questions of ritual purity, one should purchase only from a person [with an established reputation] for observance.32

Halacha 10

When donkey-drivers33 enter a city and one says: "The appropriate separations have not been made from my produce, but they have been made from my colleague's produce," his word is not accepted. [We fear that] perhaps they are colluding in deception.34

Halacha 11

When a person sells produce in Syria35 and says that it comes from Eretz Yisrael,36 the purchaser is required to tithe it.37 If he says that it has been tithed, his word is accepted.38 [The rationale is that] the same person whose words aroused our suspicion also allayed it.39

If he says: "They are mine,"40 [the purchaser] is obligated to tithe it.41 If he says that it has been tithed, his word is accepted. [The rationale is that] the same statement that aroused our suspicion also allayed it. If it is known that [the seller] owns land in Syria and most [of the produce] he sells is from his own field, one who purchases from him is obligated to tithe,42 for we assume that he brought the produce from his own field.

Halacha 12

When poor people43 say: "This produce is from leket, shichachah, andpe'ah,44 their word is accepted as long as there are granaries in which leket, shichachah, and pe'ah can be found and provided [a poor person] is close enough to the granary so that he can go [to it] and return on the same day.

If they said: "They are from the tithes given to the poor,"45 their word is accepted throughout those years.46 The word of these individuals is accepted only with regard to objects which people would ordinarily give [to the poor].

Halacha 13

What is implied?47 [Poor people say:] "This wheat is from leket, shichachah,and pe'ah,"48 their word is accepted.49 [If they say:] "This flour50 from leket, shichachah, and pe'ah," their word is not accepted.51 Needless to say, their word is not accepted when they say that bread comes from presents to the poor. Instead, [such articles] should be tithed as demai is.

Halacha 14

Similarly, their word is accepted with regard to kernels of rice [while in their husks]. Their word is not accepted, however, with regard to husked kernels or cooked ones.52 Their word is accepted with regard to beans [in their kernels]. Their word is not accepted, however, with regard to raw, husked beans or cooked beans.

Their word is accepted when they say that oil was from the tithe for the poor. Their word is not accepted, however, if they say it comes from leftover olives.53 Their word is accepted with regard to raw vegetables, but not with regard to cooked vegetables unless we are speaking about a small quantity. For it is customary for homeowners to give a poor person some vegetables from their pot. And since he can say: "A homeowner gave it to me," he can say: "I cooked it from the presents given me."54

Halacha 15

Similarly, the word of a Levite55 who says: "This produce is from the first tithe from which terumah was separated" is always56 accepted with regard toterumat ma'aser,57 just as the word of an Israelite is always accepted with regard to the great terumah.58 [The Levite's59 word] is not accepted, however, with regard to exempting [the grain] from the second tithe.60

Halacha 16

All of the above61 applies with regard to a common person who is neither suspect [to violate these prohibitions], nor trustworthy [in their observance]. If, however, someone is suspected of selling terumah as ordinary produce, it is forbidden to purchase anything from him that has a connection to terumah and the tithes.62 Even the intestines of fish [may not be purchased from him] because oil is mixed with them.63 It is, however, only forbidden to purchase the produce that is being sold by such a person at that time. It is, by contrast, permitted to purchase from his storehouse, because he will fear to mixterumah into his stores [of produce], lest the matter become known and he lose everything.64

Similarly, it is forbidden to purchase anything that has a connection to tithes from a person who is suspect of selling the second tithe65 as ordinary produce. All of this is a penalty [imposed] by Rabbinic decree.

Halacha 17

When a person who is suspect to transgress attests [to the tithes being separated from produce] belonging to another person, his word is accepted.66[The rationale is that we operate] under the presumption that a person will not sin without receiving any benefit. Needless to say, this applies with regard to a common person.67 Therefore, if a common person says: "[This produce] istevel and this is terumah. This is definitely untithed and this is demai," his word is accepted, even with regard to his own produce.68 If he said: "The required separations have been made from this produce," his word is accepted with regard to the produce of others69 provided it does not appear that they are acting in collusion, as we explained.70

Halacha 18

When a person sells produce to a colleague and, after the produce leaves his hand, he tells the purchaser: "The produce I sold you is tevel. The meat is meat from a firstborn animal.71 And the wine is wine that was poured as a libation to a false deity.72 The letter of the law dictates that the seller's word should not be accepted, even if he is a chavair.73 A person who is eager should be stringent with himself. If he accepts his word, [his conduct] is praiseworthy, even if [the seller] is a common person.

FOOTNOTES

From Halachah 16, it is apparent that here the Rambam is speaking about a common person whose level of observance is a matter of doubt. If, however, it is known that a person is lax with regard to the separation of tithes, his word is not accepted even on the Sabbath.

The Jerusalem Talmud (Demai 4:1) emphasizes that this leniency is granted only when a person failed to tithe out of forgetfulness. If he intentionally did not tithe the produce, there is no leniency upon which he can rely to partake of it on the Sabbath.

Hilchot Shabbat 23:9, 14; Shvitat Yom Tov4:26.

Because of the holiness of the day, the common people regard transgressing on the Sabbath as more severe than transgressing on other days [the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (Demai 4:1)].

In his Commentary to the Mishnah (ibid.), the Rambam notes that there is a general principle (Kiddushin 63b) that a person will not sin unless he personally benefits. Thus one might think that we could rely on this person's word, even during the week. Hence, it is necessary to explain that we rely on his statements only on the Sabbath. The rationale is that the presumption that he will not lie applies to most people. There are, however, some that will lie even on the Sabbath [the Jerusalem Talmud (Demai4:1)].

The Rambam is clarifying that the statement made in Halachah 2: that we trust that the common person will not lie on the Sabbath is conditional. It is a leniency accepted to allow a person to honor the Sabbath alone.

I.e., the festival fell on Friday or on Sunday.

This leniency is granted even though the two days are not considered as a single continuum of holiness (see Hilchot Eruvin8:5).

I.e., he takes an oath that he will never benefit from him unless he partakes of his hospitality [the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (Demai 4:3)]. (Although the mishnah speaks of taking a vow, the Rambam speaks of an oath.) The oath is taken to emphasize to the colleague that the failure to accept his hospitality is a sign of serious enmity between them. Hence, this leniency was granted to encourage feelings of closeness.

Kaftor VePerach, ch. 39, states that we are speaking about a situation where the oath was taken on the Sabbath itself. Otherwise, the guest could make a stipulation allowing for a retroactive separation as described in Chapter 9, Halachah 7. The Radbaz, by contrast, states that we are speaking about a situation where the interaction took place during the week. Otherwise, there would be nothing new taught by this halachah, everything could be understood from the previous one.

Whether the tithes were separated or not.

I.e., the terumat ma'aser fell in a manner in which it was distinct and could easily be separated from the store of produce.

As stated in Halachah 2.

Produce into which terumah or terumat ma'aser has been mixed. The rationale is that partaking of such substances is punishable by death at the hand of Heaven.

The Ra'avad objects to the Rambam's ruling. The Radbaz and the Kessef Mishnehoffer interpretations that substantiate the Rambam's ruling.

The Jerusalem Talmud (Demai 4:1) explains the logic: If he is willing to separate the first tithe which is given to a Levite, he is certainly willing to separate the second tithe which remains his own (but must be eaten in Jerusalem). See Halachah 15.

While the first tithe must be given away as above.

The Ra'avad objects to this ruling, stating that it is not necessarily a logical continuation of the ruling in the previous clause.

I.e., terumahand terumat ma'aser, if he said that he made these separations (Kessef Mishneh).

I.e., both the first tithe and the second tithe.

This bracketed addition represents the resolution offered by the Radbaz and theKessef Mishneh to the Ra'avad's objection.

I.e., even the amount separated as terumat ma'aser. For although we are stringent and do not accept his word, we do not reject his statements entirely. Certainly, he himself must bear their consequences and consider the separated produce as if it is required to be redeemed (Radbaz).

Since he is not trustworthy in this regard, his word is not accepted with regard to others as well. Even though one might say that he would not lie since his falsehood could easily be revealed, for it is possible to ask the identity of the seller and determine if he is trustworthy, the agent could always excuse himself saying: "I thought he was trustworthy" (Radbaz).

Although one might argue that there is no reason for him to sin, for he will not benefit from it, that argument is not accepted. For the ease the person experiences in bringing the produce from a close person could be considered enough of a benefit to influence him to lie.

And the lie be detected.

Because he would personally benefit from the wayfarer's acceptance of his statements.

The Ra'avad clarifies the Rambam's ruling, noting that his text of the Jerusalem Talmud (Demai 4:5) states: "In the presence [of the person being recommended], his word is not accepted. Outside his presence, his word is accepted." The Radbaz states that this concept is implied by the Rambam's words, since "so-and-so" implies that the person is not present. The Kessef Mishneh interprets the standard version of the Jerusalem Talmud as follows: "If he says he is not trustworthy, in his presence, he is not considered trustworthy (for he would not say so unless it was true). If he says so outside his presence, he is considered trustworthy (for the other person's statements are considered as slander)." This interpretation fits the Rambam's ruling.

Because we follow the principle that a person will not sin unless he personally benefits (Kiddushin 63b). This, however, is a leniency, granted to the person, because he is a wayfarer [the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (Demai 4:7)].

And thus could be lying. See parallels inHilchot Issurei Bi'ah 20:11.

The Ra'avad qualifies the Rambam's ruling, stating that it applies only when the person he knows is trustworthy. If he is not trustworthy, his recommendation cannot be relied upon. Rav Yosef Korcus states that this is also the Rambam's intent.

In the present age, this problem is solved by Rabbis and/or institutions giving kashrut certificates that are hung in the respective stores or institutions.

For after 30 days have passed, the person has had ample time to familiarize himself with the place and there is no need for further leniency. He will certainly have found a place that will offer him hospitality (Radbaz).

The rationale for the leniency is that the majority of the common people do separate tithes. The laws of demai are merely an additional stringency.

For the common people are generally lax in observance of these prohibitions.

Who bring produce from other places to a city for sale.

The Radbaz asks: Why are we more suspicious here than in the situation mentioned in Halachah 7. In resolution, he explains that people coming to sell their merchandise from another place are more likely to act in collusion than two businessmen in a city.

As explained in Hilchot Terumot1:3, the status of Syria is an intermediate level between that of Eretz Yisrael and the Diaspora. There terumah and the tithes have to be separated because of Rabbinic decree, but not because of Scriptural Law. For this reason, our Sages did not enforce the restrictions of demai on such produce [the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (Demai 6:11)].

And was purchased from a common person so that the restrictions associated withdemai apply.

The fact that they have been taken out ofEretz Yisrael is not significant.

And tithing is not required.