Missionary Renegade

All of the entities the Rambam mentions are sacrifices or portions of sacrifices that were intended to be eaten and not offered on the altar.

See Hilchot Ma'aseh HaKorbanot 7:1; 9:1, which outlines the portions of the sacrifices that were eaten.

Ibid. 10:1.

Ibid. 12:9.

Hilchot Temidim UMusafim 7:12.

Hilchot Ma'aseh HaKorbanot 7:7.

Ibid. 12:3.

Hilchot Temidim UMusafim 8:11.

Hilchot Mechusrei Kapprah 4:2-3.

From the exegesis of Leviticus 2:12, theSifra and Menachot 57b derive that the altar's ramp is equivalent to the altar in this context.

The verse speaks about the two loaves offered on Shavuot and from them, inference is drawn to other sacrificial entities.

Although the Rambam considers this prohibition as Scriptural in origin, he does not consider it as one of the Torah's 613 mitzvot, Moreover, the Radbaz and theKessef Mishneh explain that although this prohibition is derived from the exegesis of the verse cited above, since it is not explicitly stated in a verse, lashes are not given for its violation.

Here the prohibition applies only to the altar and not to the ramp.

Which was designated to be eaten and not consumed.

I.e., non-kosher. Conversely, in this context, "pure" means kosher.

And generally, lashes are given only when a negative commandment is violated and not when a positive commandment is violated.

As stated in Deuteronomy 14:6; see Hilchot Ma'achalot Assurot 2:1.

In the verse stated at the conclusion of this halachah.

Hilchot Ma'achalot Assurot 2:1-2. There the Rambam explains that "with regard to the camel, the pig, the rabbit, and the hare, [Leviticus 11:4] states: 'These you may not eat from those which chew the cud and have split hoofs.' From this, you see that they are forbidden by a negative commandment, even though they possess one sign of kashrut." And he concludes "Certainly, this applies to other non-kosher domesticated animals and wild beasts that do not have any signs of kashrut." Thus although other non-kosher animals are not specifically mentioned in the prohibition, since they are included in the converse of the positive commandment, we conclude that the negative commandment applies to them as well.

The Ra'avad objects to this ruling, maintaining that just as one does not receive lashes for offering an animal with a blemish, so too, he does not receive lashes for offering an impure animal. His objection appears to be based on the principle that punishment is not given for transgressions that are derived by logical inference. Accordingly, since the obligation for lashes is explicit, even though it could be derived by logical inference, we should not make such a conclusion. The Radbaz and the Kessef Mishneh explain the Rambam's perspective: these cannot be considered as prohibitions derived from logical inferences, because they are forbidden due to the positive commandment. Logic only expands the scope of the person's liability.

All sacrifices are brought from behemot, domesticated animals, or fowl, not fromchayot, wild beasts.

The term tzon, translated here as "flocks," can be used in reference to both sheep and goats. This is the intent here.

This is a general principle, applicable in many different contexts. See Chapter 3, Halachah 8, Hilchot Ishut 1:8, et al.

The Radbaz quotes Bava Kama 66b which explains that this refers to an instance where a person steals an animal set aside as a sacrifice and offers it as that sacrifice. It reaches that conclusion for it is obvious that if the animal was not consecrated beforehand, its offering is not acceptable, for a person cannot consecrate an object that does not belong to him.

34.

When it comes to questions of monetary law, the owner's despair of the object's return is not enough to cause it to be acquired by the thief (Hilchot Geneivah 5:2-3; Hilchot Gezeilah VAveidah 2:1). Nevertheless, it is possible to say that according to Scriptural Law, the owner's despair is enough to effect the transfer of the property, further requirements are Rabbinic in origin and the Sages did not apply their decrees with regard to a sacrifice (Kessef Mishneh). Alternatively, with regard to questions of monetary law, a change of possession together with the owner's despair is sufficient to effect the transfer of the property (Hilchot Geneivah, loc. cit.). Similarly, in this instance, consecration of the animal is comparable to a change of possession (Lechem Mishneh, gloss toHilchot Ma'aseh HaKorbanot 18:14).

35.

The Rambam's words imply that certainly the concept would apply if a burnt-offering was involved, but even when a sin-offering is involved, the principle is applied, implying that a sin-offering is a more severe issue than a burnt offering. The Ra'avad differs and maintains that the word "even" should be omitted, implying that the two types of sacrifices are of equal standing.

(A similar concept applies with regard to the conclusion of the halachah: The Ma'aseh Rokeach suggests amending the text to read: "How much more so does this apply with regard to a burnt-offering?!" I.e., according to the Rambam, the sin offering is considered more severe, while the Ma'aseh Rokeach maintains that the burnt offering deserves more weight.)

The Kessef Mishneh explains that the Rambam uses "even" in reference to the first clause, even though the priests partake of such a sacrifice, it is unacceptable.

36.

The Radbaz asks: How can our Sages rule that the sacrifice is unacceptable and require that the person bring another offering? Since according to Scriptural Law, he has fulfilled his obligation, bringing the second sacrifice is in fact transgressing, for he is slaughtering an ordinary animal in the Temple Courtyard (see Hilchot Shechitah2:1). The Radbaz answers that from this we see the power of the Sages: that if there is a significant reason - as in this instance - their decrees can nullify the validity of the first sacrifice. Hence, when the person brings the second sacrifice, he is bringing a sacrifice required of him, not an ordinary animal.

37.

But not a sin-offering, for a sin-offering must be brought explicitly for the sake of the person receiving atonement (Radbaz).

38.

I.e., he did not specify the reason for which it should be offered.

39.

I.e., it is as if he had the animal sacrificed himself.

40.

Produce from which the agricultural obligations of terumah and the tithes were not separated. See Hilchot Ma'achalot Assurot 10:19-21.

41.

This refers to produce from the five species of grain which is forbidden before the offering of the omer on the sixteenth of Nisan or the passage of that day. Seeibid.:2-5.

42.

A mixture of terumah and ordinary produce which may be eaten only a priest. See ibid.15:13; Hilchot Terumot 13:1-2. This is unacceptable, because the offerings must come from produce which is permitted to every Jew, not only a priest (Pesachim48a).

43.

The substances mentioned in the first clause, though forbidden at present, will ultimately be permitted, while those in this clause will never be permitted. Moreover, it is forbidden not only to partake of them, but also to benefit from them.

44.

Produce that grows during the first three years of a tree's growth or replanting. SeeHilchot Ma'achalot Assurot 10:9-10.

45.

When a species of grain or vegetable is sown together with a vineyard, both plants become forbidden (ibid.:6-8).

46.

This is a principle applicable in many other contexts as well. For example, Hilchot Lulav8:1 speaks of being unable to fulfill that mitzvah with a stolen lulav.

47.

I.e., once it is consecrated, it may never be used for ordinary purposes again, but must be destroyed like consecrated property that was disqualified.

48.

In his Commentary to the Mishnah (Menachot 10:6), the Rambam uses the previous verse in that Biblical passage as a prooftext.

49.

Implied is that these breads should be the first offerings brought from the new flour. Although it is permitted to be used by an ordinary person beforehand, it should not be used for sacrifices before then.

50.

Since it is permitted to be used by a private person, after the fact, it is acceptable (op. cit.).

51.

I.e., was placed with one's merchandise and was not intended to be used for one's individual purposes. Such wine is forbidden to be used on festivals, but not on the Sabbath. See Hilchot Shivitat Yom Tov 1:17.

52.

Although the Rabbis forbade the use of such wine for private use, it is fundamentally permitted. Hence using it for a libation is not considering as bringing a forbidden substance as an offering. The Radbaz states that the Sages never extended their prohibition to encompass sacrifices.

53.

Sefer HaMitzvot (positive commandment 62) and Sefer HaChinuch (mitzvah 119) include this commandment among the 613 mitzvot of the Torah.

54.

This commandment is mentioned many times in this text; among the references:Hilchot Ma'aseh HaKorbanot 2:1; 6:4, 21-22; 7:1-2; Hilchot Temidim UMusafim 4:10; 6:3;Hilchot Pesulei HaMukdashim 11:16.

55.

Although Menachot 21a explains that this concept can be derived from a verse, apparently, the Rambam does not accept the exegesis mentioned there.

56.

See Hilchot Ma'achalot Assurot 6:12.

57.

Sefer HaMitzvot (negative commandment 99) and Sefer HaChinuch (mitzvah 118) include this commandment among the 613 mitzvot of the Torah.

The question is raised: Why is he liable for lashes? Lashes are not given for a transgression that does not involve a deed (Hilchot Sanhedrin 18:2). In this instance, seemingly, the omission of salt does not involve a deed. In reply, it is explained that the offering of the sacrifice without salt is a deed and thus warrants lashes.

58.

See Hilchot Pesulei HaMukdashim 11:16 where this concept is discussed. Salt is not placed on the entire meal offering, only on that fistful which is offered on the altar.

59.

Although a private individual may donate wood for the altar (Hilchot K'lei HaMikdash6:9), he may not demand that this wood be used for his own sacrifice.

60.

See the gloss of Rav Yosef Corcus.

61.

See Hilchot Beit HaBechirah 5:17 where the chamber is mentioned.

3 Chapters: Maaser Maaser - Chapter 7, Maaser Maaser - Chapter 8, Maaser Maaser - Chapter 9 • English Text | Hebrew Text |

Audio: Listen | Download• Maaser - Chapter 7

Halacha 1

[The following laws apply when a person has a 100 log of wine that are tevelaccording to Scriptural Law.1 If he says: "The two lugim that I will separate areterumah;2 the ten are the first tithe, and the nine are the second tithe,"3 he should not begin drinking and leave over the quantity designated as terumahand the tithes at the end. Instead, he should make the separations and then drink. We do not say that the wine he left over at the end is retroactively considered as if it was set aside in the beginning.4 [The rationale for this stringency is that] the obligation [to separate] terumah and the tithes is Scriptural in origin, and with regard to [matters of] Scriptural Law, we do not say that we will consider it as if a separation has been made unless it actually has been made.5

Halacha 2

When a person specifies that his tithes were located at the opening of a jug [of wine], he should not drink from the bottom of the barrel. If he specifies that they are at the bottom, he should not drink from the top. [The rationale is that] the liquids intermingle.6 If, by contrast, one specified [that the tithes for produce] were at the opening of a storage container, one may eat from the bottom.7 If one specified that they were located at the bottom, one may eat from the top.8

Halacha 3

A person can designate certain produce as the second tithe and then redeem it.9 [Afterwards,] he may designate that same produce as the first tithe10 for this batch of produce or terumat ma'aser for other produce.11

Halacha 4

When a person sets aside produce to use them for the separation of tithes,12he may continue to separate tithes relying on this produce on the assumption that it is intact, eating and drinking [from the produce from which he intended to separate tithes] until the entire quantity that was set aside has become tithes. He then gives that to a Levite. [If later] he discovers that the produce that he set aside [for tithes] has been lost, he must show concern for all the tithes that he set aside.13 He should not, however, tithe [the second time] with certainty.14

Halacha 5

When a person lends money to a priest,15 a Levite,16 or a poor person,17 so that he can separate [produce] for the money [they owe] from the portions due them,18 he may continue to separate tithes on their behalf on the assumption that they are alive. He need not show concern that the priest or Levite died or the poor man became wealthy.19

Halacha 6

How should he make these separations on their behalf? He should separateterumah, the first tithe, or the tithe for the poor20 and give it to another person for the sake of the priest, Levite, or poor person to whom he lent money.21 If [the debtors] would frequently take these separations from him or if he was accustomed to give these separations to them alone, he need not give them to another person on their behalf.22

After [the lender] makes these separations, he calculates the worth of the produce he separated and deducts it from the loan. [He continues doing this] until he repays the entire debt. He may sell the terumah to any priest of his choice and may partake of the tithes [himself].

Halacha 7

When he calculates the worth of the produce that he set aside, he has the right to consider their value according to the lower market price.23 This is not considered as interest.24 The Sabbatical year does not remit such a debt.25

If the lender desires to nullify this arrangement, he may not.26 But if [the borrowers] seek to do so, they may. If the owner despaired of receiving payment from them, he can no longer make these separations on their behalf. For we may not make separations because of [a debt that] was lost.27

If the priest, Levite, or poor person who borrowed money dies, he cannot continue to separate on their behalf unless he receives permission from the heirs.28 [Moreover, even if permission is granted,] it is effective only when [the deceased] left the heirs [a tract of] land at least the size of a needle.29 If, however, he left them only money, permission from the heir is not effective.30If he made the loan in court on the condition that he will make the separations on their behalf for this money, it is not necessary for him to receive permission from the heirs.31

If the poor person became wealthy, he may no longer separate [the tithe for the poor] on his behalf.32 Even though he made the loan in court, [the recipient] may retain the funds in his possession.33

Halacha 8

When an Israelite tells a Levite: "I am in possession of a kor34 of tithes for you," the Levite has the right to designate that produce as terumat ma'aser for other produce even if he did not draw it into his possession.35 If the Israelite gives it to another Levite, the first individual has nothing more than complaints against him.36

Halacha 9

When a person has produce in a silo and gives a se'ah to a Levite37and ase'ah to a poor person,38 he should not set aside eight se'ah from the silo and partake of it39 unless he knows with certainty that the two se'ah of the tithes are still intact. If, however, the Levite and/or the poor person partook of them, he may set aside only an amount of grain proportionate to what remains from the two se'ah.40

Halacha 10

[The following laws apply when] poor people exchange the presents given them with the owner of the field, i.e., they gave him a se'ah of leket, shichachah, peah or the tithes for the poor and they took a se'ah of grain from the grain pile.41 [The grain] he takes from them is exempt from the tithes,42even though it was prepared in the domain of the owner. [Tithes] must be separated from [the grain] they take from him even though it was given in exchange for their presents that are exempt.

Halacha 11

[The following laws apply when] there are two baskets of tevel from whichterumah was separated in front of a person and he says: "Let the tithes from this one be in the other one." The tithing of the first basket is effective, for he has established its tithes within the second basket. The tithing of the second basket is not effective because tithes cannot be set aside from the first basket because the obligation to tithe has already been discharged for the second basket from which the tithes from both must be separated.43

Halacha 12

If one says: "With regard to the tithes for these two baskets. The tithes for each one are established in the other," he has designated the tithes by name and has established the tithes within them. He therefore separates the tithes from them. He may not separate the tithes from another source.44

Halacha 13

How are the tithes separated [in the above situation]? One may separate the tithes for both of them from one of them or he should separate the tithes from each one of them from itself if they were of equal [size].45 If one of them was larger than the other, one should separate the tithes for the larger one from the smaller one and the tithes for the smaller one from the larger one.46

FOOTNOTES

One might argue that this law does not apply at present. And indeed, did not apply throughout the entire Second Temple period. As explained in Hilchot Terumah 1:26 and notes, from the time of the exile of the tribes of Reuven and Gad towards the end of the First Temple period, the mitzvah to separate tithes was no longer required by Scriptural Law. On the other hand, since the source of the mitzvot are Scriptural, even though their observance now is Rabbinic, we follow stringencies as if the Scriptural mitzvah still applies.

I.e., he is giving one fiftieth which is the ordinary measure separated as terumah(ibid. 3:2).

For the second tithe is given as a tenth of the new total once the first tithe has been separated.

See Chapter 9, Halachah 10.

There is a difference of opinion among the Sages of the Talmud if this principle, referred to as bereirah should be applied or not (seeBeitzah 37b). Because the matter is not resolved, with regard to questions of Scriptural Law, we are stringent, but with regard to matters of Rabbinic Law, we rule leniently.

And there is no way one can drink from the top without drinking from the bottom or drink from the bottom without drinking from the top.

This does not represent a contradiction to the previous halachah. In that instance, the person had not separated the terumah and the tithes. He had merely stated that he would. In this instance, he has made a separation even though he did not physically remove it.

For the produce will not become intermingled.

See Hilchot Ma'aser Sheni, ch. 4, which describes how the second tithe can be redeemed for silver coinage.

I.e., this is referring to a situation where the person did not make the separations in the desired sequence. This is undesirable, as stated in Hilchot Terumah 3:23.

He may not, however, separate it as terumat m'aser for this batch of produce, for it is not proper to separate terumat ma'aser before one separates the tithes themselves. See Chapter 9, Halachah 5.

The Ra'avad states that one may use it asterumat ma'aser for other produce, but not as ordinary terumah.

I.e., he puts aside this batch of produce. Whenever he has new produce, he measures it and calculates a tenth. Afterwards, he considers that quantity of the produce set aside as tithes. When that entire batch of produce has been designated as tithes, he gives it to a Levite. See also (Hilchot Terumah 5:26).

I.e., he must separate tithes again, lest he had made the original separation after the produce which he designated for his tithes was lost. The Mishnah (Gittin 3:8) mentions the opinion of Rabbi Elazar who maintains that one shows concern only for the separations made within the last 24 hours. Other Sages differ, however, and maintain that one must show concern for all produce separated (Kessef Mishneh; see Rav Kapach's edition of the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah).

Tosafot Yom Tov (Gittin, loc. cit.) states that the Rambam's wording implies that one should separate tithes for one's produce even if that produce has already been eaten. Other authorities, however, do not accept this deduction.

For perhaps, the produce that he had set aside was intact at the time he made the separation.

Who is entitled to receive both terumah and the tithes.

Who is entitled to receive the tithes.

Who is entitled to receive the tithe for the poor.

I.e., the lender lent a Levite 100 zuz, but did not require him to pay it. Instead, he said that he would continually deduct the money in exchange for the produce he would set aside as tithes until the debt was paid, as described in the following halachah.

In which instance, they - and therefore, the lender - would not be entitled to the crops separated for these purposes.

There is obviously a printing error in the standard published text of the Mishneh Torah.

In this way, the produce separated formally becomes the property of the debtor. Even though ultimately the lender will be receiving the produce, he must make the separations so that the main batch of produce will not betevel.

He must, however, make these separations. He need not give them to another person, because since these individuals are accustomed to receiving this produce, it is considered as if he already received them (Rashi, Gittin 30a).

I.e., whenever produce is sold, there is a buyer's bid and a seller's bid. The buyer's bid is always lower than the seller's. The lender may price the produce according to the buyer's bid.

Despite the fact that he is receiving an advantage - considering the produce's worth at a lower price - for having made the loan.

Although the Sabbatical year remits debts (Hilchot Shemitah, ch. 9), it remits only those debts for which a person must demand payment. In this instance, it is as if the payment has already been arranged (Meiri,Gittin 30a).

Our Sages ordained this measure for the sake of the recipients (Gittin, loc. cit.).

Rashi (Gittin, loc. cit.) explains that we are speaking about a situation where the lender stipulated that he would receive payment for the loan from the terumah or tithes from a particular year. That year was a year of drought and his harvest appeared lost entirely. He made a public statement of despair, acknowledging that he no longer expected to be able to collect the debt, because his fields would not grow enough crops. If, despite this condition, his fields produced crops, he is not entitled to keep the terumah and/or tithes for himself. The rationale is that he has already given up hope of their recovery.

I.e., the arrangement to pay the debt is not automatically transferred to the heirs of the estate. They must agree to it.

As long as the testator possesses land, his estate is responsible for the debt, because the land is on lien to it. Hence, his heirs can continue the arrangement if they so choose.

If the deceased left only movable property, the debt does not create a lien on the estate. There is a mitzvah for them to pay the debt, but no binding obligation. Hence, they cannot have terumah or tithes separated for the sake of paying the debt.

For it is as if the court agreed that all the priests and/or Levites would accept responsibility for the debt in the event of the debtor's death.

For a wealthy person cannot be a recipient of the tithes for the poor.

For it is as if the lender specified that he would accept this method as payment for the debt. If that method is no longer viable, he must suffer the loss.

34.

A measure of volume.

35.

I.e., and thus, he has not formally acquired it as his own. Nevertheless, he can rely on the assumption that a Jew will not act unfaithfully and will keep his word (Bava Metzia 49a).

36.

The fact that by changing his mind and failing to keep his word, the Israelite caused a spiritual difficulty for the first Levite - for he caused him to violate a transgression by partaking of tithes for which terumat ma'aserwas not separated - does not create a financial liability.

37.

As the tithes.

38.

As the tithe for the poor. As the Rambam writes in his Commentary to the Mishnah (Terumot 4:2), he does not have to separate a full se'ah as the tithes for the poor, for once the first tithe has been separated, all that is necessary is to separate a tenth from the new total and this will be slightly less than a se'ah.

39.

I.e., he is thinking that the tithes will have been separated for these eight se'ah.

40.

I.e., the produce possessed by each of the recipients should be one tenth of the amount of produce that he uses. We do not say that the produce that he originally separated can serve as the tithes for the produce he will set aside afterwards unless it is intact. See Halachah 4.

41.

I.e., the owner acted generously with the poor people, taking a se'ah of their presents - which is usually produce of inferior quality - and exchanging it for a se'ah of quality produce from the grain pile.

42.

For there is no obligation to separate tithes from the presents of the poor (Hilchot Terumah 2:9).

43.

As stated in Chapter 1, Halachah 6, one may not separate tithes from produce that is exempt from the mitzvah of tithing or for which the obligation to tithe has already been discharged.

44.

For he has designated the tithes as coming from those baskets.

45.

From the Tosefta (Demai 8:12), it appears that if the piles of produce are equal, it makes no difference to the person from which pile he makes the separations. Thus he can separate them as he desires (Radbaz).

46.

For his statements indicate that he desired to separate the tithes for one pile from the other.

Maaser - Chapter 8

Halacha 1

Produce from which the great terumah and terumat ma'aser have been separated are referred to as "ordinary produce."1 When the other tithes have been separated from it, it is universally called "ordinary produce that has been made acceptable."

Halacha 2

[The following laws apply when] tevel2 becomes mixed together with the same species of ordinary produce that has been made acceptable in which instance, [the tevel cannot be considered insignificant] because its flavor [cannot be detected].3 If he has other produce, he should separate the terumat [ma'aser] and the tithes for the tevel according to the appropriate reckoning.4If he does not have other produce from which to make the separations for thattevel, the entire mixture is forbidden until he makes separations from it. When he makes these separations, he forfeits a portion from the ordinary produce that has been made acceptable that is equivalent to the terumat ma'aser that must be separated from the tevel.5

Halacha 3

What is implied? If 100 se'ah of tevel is mixed with 100 se'ah of ordinary produce that has been made acceptable, he should separate 101 [se'ah] from the entire mixture. Everything that he sets aside is considered as tevel. Thus 99 se'ah of ordinary produce that has been made acceptable remain. He has thus lost a se'ah [of the ordinary produce].6 Similarly, if terumah had also not been separated from the tevel, he must forfeit an amount from the ordinary produce that has been made acceptable that is equivalent to the terumah andterumat ma'aser [to be separated from the tevel].7

Why must he forfeit this se'ah?8 So that he will not say: "The 100 se'ah that I set aside are ordinary produce and the 100 that remain are tevel."9 Similarly, if the amount of the tevel exceeded or was less than ordinary produce, one should separate [an amount equivalent] to the tevel and [an amount] from the ordinary produce [equivalent] to the terumat ma'aser [to be separated from thetevel] or equivalent to the terumah and terumat ma'aser [to be separated] if it was tevel from which terumah was not separated.

Halacha 4

Similarly, if tithes10 that were tevel11 became mixed with ordinary produce that has been made acceptable, even the slightest amount causes the mixture to be prohibited. If the person has other tithes, he should make a separation for the terumat ma'aser for the tithes that require this according to the appropriate proportion.12If he does not have other tithes,13 he should remove the tithes and forfeit from the ordinary produce that has been made acceptable an amount equal to the terumat ma'aser in the tithes.14

Halacha 5

What is implied? 100 [se'ah of] tithes become mixed with 100 [se'ah of] ordinary produce that has been made acceptable. He should separate 110se'ah from the entire mixture. Everything that he separates is considered as the tithes. The 90 [se'ah] that remain are ordinary produce as before. Similarly, if the amount of the ordinary produce exceeds or is less than that of these tithes, he should separate the tithes and from the ordinary produce, an amount equivalent to the terumat ma'aser in the tithes.15

Halacha 6

[The following laws apply when] tevel becomes mixed together with tithes16that were tevel.17 If the amount of tevel was equivalent to the amount of the tithes, he must forfeit from the tevel an amount equivalent to the terumat ma'aser it contains.18

What is implied? There were 100 se'ah of tevel that became mixed with 100se'ah of tithes. He should separate 101 [se'ah]; they are considered as tithes.19 The 99 remaining are considered as tevel.20

If there was more tevel than tithes, he should separate the tithes alone and he does not forfeit anything from the tevel. For if he would designate the terumat ma'aser of the tevel,21 the tithes would be meduma,22 a mixture of [the tithes]23 and the terumat ma'aser from the tithes which are separated together.

If there were more tithes than tevel, he should designate the terumat ma'aserin the tevel, setting aside the tevel and an amount equivalent to the terumat ma'aser for the tevel, i.e., one one-hundredth of the tithe. The tevel should be considered as if it is all meduma and sold to a priest with the exception of the worth of the two [portions of] terumah in it. Thus he will forfeit one hundredth of the tithes which is equivalent to the terumat ma'aser in the tevel.

What is implied? If there were 100 [se'ah] tevel with 200 [se'ah] of the tithes, he should set aside 103. The three [se'ah] are the terumat ma'aser of the 100 [se'ah] of tevel and the measure of terumat ma'aser for the 200 [se'ah of the tithes]. [This separation is necessary] so that people will not come to err if [the tithes] became mixed with an equivalent amount [of tevel]. Therefore he should leave 197 [se'ah] which will remain tithes as they were.24

Halacha 7

[The following laws apply when a person] has [a stack with] ten lines, each containing ten barrels of wine and [the owner] allocated25 one barrel of the outer line26 as tithes for other wine,27 but he does not know which outer line [he intended]. He should take two barrels from [the corners] on a diagonal,28mix them, and separate [the tithes] from them.29

Halacha 8

If he allocated [one barrel from] the half30 of an outer row [as tithes], but does not know from which [outer] half a row, he should take four barrels, [one] from each of the corners.31 If he allocated [a barrel from] one row, but does not know which row, he should take [a barrel] from a diagonal row.32 If he allocated [a barrel from] half a row, but does not know which half a row, he should take [a barrel] from two diagonal rows.33 Thus he will be taking a barrel from each half row. He should then mix them together and separate [the tithes].

Halacha 9

If he allocated one barrel as tithes but does not know which barrel it is, he should take [some wine] from each of the 100 barrels, mix it together, and separate enough for one barrel as tithes.

FOOTNOTES

I.e., because the elements of the produce that are sacred have been removed from it [the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (Demai 7:7)]. Terumat ma'aser should not be separated before the tithes themselves. Nevertheless, if one made such a separation, it is acceptable (Chapter 9, Halachah 5).

In this instance, the term tevel refers to produce from which the tithes and terumat ma'aser have not been separated. Although the term has a more inclusive meaning, from the continuation of the Rambam's words, this appears to be the intent here.

I.e., were the tevel to be of another type of produce than the ordinary produce, the question of whether or not it is considered insignificant would depend on whether its flavor is detectable. In this situation, however, the two collections of produce are of the same species, so taste is not a factor and the tevel cannot be considered as insignificant.

When tevel is mixed with its own species, it is never nullified even if it is mixed with far more than its own size. The rationale is that it is a devar sheyeish lo matirin, i.e., the prohibition can be corrected by making the appropriate separations (Hilchot Issurei Ma'achalot 15:6).

I.e., if he knows how much produce was mixed in, he can make the appropriate separations even if the produce itself is not distinct.

I.e., one hundredth of the tevel. The Rambam explains what he means by forfeiting this amount and why one must do so in the following halachah.

I.e., it is considered as if the se'ah of terumat ma'aser fell into the ordinary produce in which instance, it would be necessary to remove one se'ah from the mixture [the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (Demai 7:7)].

I.e., three se'ah, two se'ah for the greatterumah and one se'ah for the terumat ma'aser.

For the se'ah that will ultimately be separated from the tevel can be considered as the se'ah that must be removed from the ordinary produce (ibid.).

For the opposite is true, the produce that remains is the ordinary produce (ibid.).

I.e., produce that had been separated as the tithes. Beforehand, terumah had been separated.

I.e., a person separated tithes and gave them to a Levite who did not separateterumat ma'aser from them as of yet.

Setting aside one tenth of the quantity of the tithes. This is the desired approach, because then the necessary separations are being made without losing anything.

And thus cannot exercise the above option.

I.e., one tenth of the tithes.

In his Commentary to the Mishnah (op. cit.), the Rambam explains that this ruling is given because the situation at hand is an intermediate level between an instance where terumat ma'aser becomes mixed with ordinary produce (in which instance 101 times the amount of terumat ma'aser would be necessary) and a situation where theterumat ma'aser need not be considered at all. There is a basis for such leniency, since ultimately, no separation had been made andterumat ma'aser was never mixed with the produce. On the other hand, since a tenth of the tithes is fit to be separated as terumat ma'aser, some recognition should be made. Hence our Sages arrived at the above compromise.

I.e., produce that had been separated as the tithes. Beforehand, terumah had been separated.

I.e., a person separated tithes and gave them to a Levite who did not separateterumat ma'aser from them as of yet.

I.e., 1/100th of the tevel.

The se'ah of terumat ma'aser from the tevelthat is added is considered as mixed in with the tithes (ordinary) produce and thereforebetal, subsumed, in it. Hence the person can make use of the produce in the ordinary manner.

The Ra'avad differs with the Rambam. The commentaries justify the Rambam's view.

And thus separate an additional amount.

A mixture of terumah and ordinary produce. An ordinary person cannot benefit from such a mixture. Instead, it must be sold to a priest at the price of terumah with the exception of the price of the portion that is terumat ma'aser, as the Rambam continues to explain. The tithes would be meduma, because there would not be enough ordinary produce for the terumat ma'aser to be subsumed within them.

Which are ordinary produce.

In this way, he is forfeiting from the tithes the amount of terumat ma'aser in the tithes and the amount of terumat ma'aser in the tevel. The Ra'avad differs with the Rambam and the commentaries support the Rambam's decision.

The commentaries explain that we are not speaking about an instance where he actually set aside the barrel as tithes, for the Rambam concludes the halachah by saying that he should set aside the tithes. Instead, he merely pledged to separate a barrel from that surface for ten barrels of other wine.

I.e., one of the external surfaces of the cube that is the pile [the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (Demai 7:8)].

The Rambam mentions this point, because otherwise, one could rightly ask: Why does the Mishnah (ibid.) speak about only one barrel of wine as tithes for 100 barrels (Radbaz)?

Our translation is taken from the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (ibid.). The intent is that each of the barrels on the corners is part of two surfaces. Since he is taking a barrel from opposite corners, he will have certainly taken a barrel from the surface he intended. Nevertheless, since he does not know which one of the two is appropriate, he should mix them together.

Preferably, he should also use the remaining amount as tithes for other produce. Thus the barrel separated will be used entirely as tithes (Kin'at Eliyahu).

These and the following bracketed additions are made on the basis of the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (loc. cit.).

Each of the barrels is part of two outer half rows, so that the barrel he intended to allocate is certainly among these four barrels.

By doing so, he will have taken a barrel from every row.

In a criss-cross as depicted in the accompanying diagram.

Maaser - Chapter 9

Halacha 1

In the age of Yochanan the High Priest who served after Shimon the Just,1the High Court sent emissaries who searched throughout the entire territory of Israel. They discovered that everyone was careful with regard to the greatterumah2and would separate it. But with regard to the first tithe, the second tithe, and the tithe for the poor, the common people among Israel would be lax and would not separate it.3 Therefore [the Sages] decreed that only the word of trustworthy people4 would be relied upon with regard to tithes.5 [The status of the produce of] the common people, by contrast is doubtful. We do not rely on them if they say that they separated the tithes. This is called demai.6

Halacha 2

They ordained that a person should separate only terumat ma'aser from thedemai, for it is a transgression punishable by death and the second tithe, for there is no loss in doing so since the owner partakes of it. One need not, however, separate the first tithe or the tithe for the poor from demai because [the obligation] is doubtful and [whenever one desires] to expropriate property from a colleague, the burden of proof is on him. Therefore he tells the Levite or the poor person:7 "Bring proof that it is not tithed," and then take the tithes.

Halacha 3

Even though one does not separate the tithe for the poor from demai, it is necessary to designate it without separating it. One says: "A tenth of what is here is the tithe for the poor. [This is done] to firmly establish [the obligation of] the second tithe.8 For the tithe for the poor is given in the third and sixth years instead of the second tithe given in the other years of the Sabbatical cycle.

Halacha 4

When terumat ma'aser and the second tithe are separated from demai, a blessing is not recited, because [the obligation was instituted because] of a doubt.9 Therefore it is permitted to separate it when one is naked.10

Halacha 5

How should tithes be separated from demai? One should set aside an amount equivalent to the measure of terumat ma'aser, i.e., one hundredth of the entire amount, and place it next to the produce and say: "This is the tithe as is the remainder of the tithes that are adjacent to it." He then says: "This [portion] which I [first] set aside as the tithes, is terumat ma'aser for the remainder of the tithes that are adjacent to it."11 He then takes it and gives it to a priest.12This order is required, because, as an initial and prefatory measure, it is forbidden to separate terumat ma'aser before the tithes themselves.13Afterwards, he should separate the second tithe.

Halacha 6

It is permissible to set aside the second tithe before the first tithe [when tithing]demai.14 If one desires,15 he should say: "The second tithe of this produce is located in the northern portion - or the southern portion - of the produce and its [holiness] is transferred to this money."16

Similarly, a person who purchases a loaf of bread from a baker17 should separate18 from it the amount to be separated as terumat ma'aser and aschallah,19and say: "The one hundredth of [the total] that is here is [part of] the tithes as well as the remainder of the tithes that are next to it.20 May this portion that I set aside as tithes, serve as terumat ma'aser for the remainder of the tithes that are next to it. The remainder of what I set aside that exceeds one hundredth of the total is challah and the second tithe in its northern - or southern - portion, and its [holiness] is transferred to this money." He may then partake [of the bread].

Halacha 7

Similarly, if a person invites a colleague to dine with him [on the Sabbath]21and [the guest] does not trust [the host] with regard to the separation of the tithes,22[the guest should do the following]: On Friday, he should say: "[The produce] that I will separate tomorrow is [part of] the tithes, as is the remainder of the tithes which are adjacent to it. That portion which I [first] designated as the tithes is terumat ma'aser for the remainder which is adjacent to it. The second tithe in its northern - or southern - portion, and its [holiness] is transferred to [this] money."

[This is permitted,] because a person may make such stipulations with regard to demai even though it is not in his possession.23 When, however, we are certain [that the tithes have not been separated,] he may make stipulations only concerning produce that is in his possession.

Halacha 8

What is implied?24 If, [on Friday,] he had 100 figs that were tevel in his home and he is in the house of study or in the field25 and he is afraid that night will fall and he will not be able to tithe the produce on the Sabbath, he should say: "The two figs that I will separate are terumah. The ten that I will separate after them are the first tithe. And the nine that I will separate after them are the second tithe." On the morrow, he makes these separations and may then partake [of the figs].26

Halacha 9

He must whisper inaudibly [the appropriate statements]27 when he is making these separations one after the other. He is not considered as making an article fit for use on the Sabbath,28 because he made the stipulation previously.

When such a stipulation has been made concerning tevel, it is permitted to move it on the Sabbath,29 [even] before the separations were made.30 He should focus his attention on [a portion of the produce, designating it asterumah and tithes] and partake of the remainder.31

Halacha 10

If a common person gave him a cup [of wine] to drink [on the Sabbath], he should say:32 "What I will leave in the bottom of the cup is [part of] the tithes,33as is the remainder of the tithes which are adjacent to it. That portion which I [first] designated as the tithes is terumat ma'aser for the remainder which is adjacent to it. The second tithe is located at the brim of the cup and its [holiness] is transferred to the money."34 He may then [drink] the cup, leaving a portion equivalent to [the amount to be separated as] terumat ma'aser35 in the bottom of the cup.

Halacha 11

Similarly, if a colleague invites him to drink on the Sabbath,36 he should make such a stipulation on Friday with regard to everything that he will desire to partake of at his [home].

Similarly, when a worker does not trust his employer [with regard to the tithing of the food that he is given],37 he should take one fig and say:38 "This and the nine which follow are considered as tithes for the 100 that I will eat. This one is considered as terumat ma'aser for the ten39 that follow. The ten40 that follow after that are considered as the second tithe and their [holiness] is transferred to [this] money." He then takes the fig that he set aside and gives it to the priest.

The worker should separate the money for the second tithe from his own [funds].41 For it is a condition of the court that the terumat ma'aser should come from the employer42 and the second tithe from the worker.

Halacha 12

[Our Sages] did not obligate bakers to separate the second tithe [from grain] that is demai,43 only terumat ma'aser. It is separated in a state of ritual purity together with the challah. The purchaser must separate the second tithe.44

When does the above apply? To one who sells in his store or at the entrance to his store. If, however, he sells it to a wholesale baker or to a store adjacent to a wholesale baker,45 he is obligated to separate the second tithe as well.

Halacha 13

[The following rules apply when] two people harvested their vineyards into a common vat, and one of them is not trusted with regard to the tithes. Even though the one who is trusted [with regard to the tithes] already tithed his own produce,46 when he takes his portion of the wine, he is obligated to separate tithes as one does for demai for the portion of the common person.47

What is implied? If they were equal partners and one takes 200 log as his portion, he should separate one log as terumat ma'aserand ten48log as the second tithe for the 100 log [of the common person]. [This is all that is required,] for he already separated the tithes for the produce that was definitely not tithed for half of the entire quantity in the vat.49 Similarly, if his share was a third or a fourth, he must separate [the tithes from the produce he takes] proportionately.50

FOOTNOTES

I.e., not the Hasmonean High Priest of that name who became a Sadducee (Kessef Mishneh).

Since it is punishable by death at the hand of heaven, people were meticulous in separating it [the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (Demai 1:1).

The majority of the common people would separate the tithes as well. Nevertheless, because there was a significant minority who did not, our Sages imposed this stringency.

See Chapter 10, Halachot 1-2.

I.e., if such people say that their produce was tithed, we accept their word.

The name demai is a composite of the Aramaic words da mai, meaning "This, what is its status?" (Radbaz).

See also Hilchot Berachot 1:20 which states that it is necessary to recite a blessing before partaking of demai. That indicates that although our Sages ordained that one should separate the tithes before partaking of it, they did not consider partaking of it an outright prohibition. For if so, reciting a blessing would not be in place.

I.e., to whom these tithes would be given.

I.e., the Sages ordained this stringency with regard to the tithe for the poor, so that the people will be careful in their observance of the second tithe.

Although one's observance fulfills a decree of our Sages and blessings are recited for the observance of Rabbinic commandments, e.g., the recitation of Hallel, lighting Shabbat and Chanukah candles, washing hands, and the like, a blessing is not recited in this instance, because this obligation was instituted only because of doubt, not as a practice with inherent positive virtue.

I.e., were a blessing required, one would be forbidden to separate it in such a state, because a blessing could not be recited [the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (Demai 1:4)].

The Radbaz emphasizes that he need not set the remainder of the tithes aside. Indeed, he continues, doing so would be an indication that he should give this produce to the Levite.

As a present. There is reason to say that since the matter is one of doubt, one is not required to give it to the priest, but instead, could sell it to him, our Sages ordained that it be given away. See the commentaries toSotah 48a.

See Hilchot Terumot 3:23.

Generally, the tithes must be separated in the appropriate order (ibid.). An exception is made with regard to demai, for the obligation to separate it is only a Rabbinic stringency (the Jerusalem Talmud, Demai 1:4). See also Hilchot Ma'aser Sheni 11:13.

i.e., if rather than partaking of the produce in Jerusalem as is required with regard to the second tithe, he chooses to redeem it, transferring its holiness to money. That money should be taken to Jerusalem and used to purchase food there. See Hilchot Ma'aser Sheni, chs. 4-5.

I.e., it is not necessary to actually take this produce to Jerusalem and partake of it as the second tithe. Instead, its holiness could be transferred to money and

I.e., a baker who is a common person in whose instance the precautions concerningdemai must be taken.

In his Commentary to the Mishnah (Demai5:1), the Rambam states that one should separate this portion from the loaf. Instead, one should slice a piece from the loaf, without cutting the slice away entirely. The commentaries question whether this is the intent here or that here, the Rambam changed his mind and is speaking of a complete separation.

As stated in Hilchot Bikkurim 5:1-2, before one is permitted to partake of bread, one must separate a portion as challah. According to Scriptural Law, there is no minimum amount required for this separation. According to the Rabbis, a private person must separate one twenty-fourth of the loaf and a baker one forty-eighth. In this instance, the latter amount should be separated together with one hundredth for terumat ma'aser.

As in Halachah 5.

When it is forbidden to separate tithes (Hilchot Shabbat 23:14).

Although a person who is meticulous in his observance of the tithes should not eat in a common person's home (Chapter 10, Halachah 1), it can be explained that this is speaking about an instance where the person accepted the invitation without knowing that the host was not meticulous in his observance of the mitzvah. We are, however, speaking about a situation where the guest merely suspects that his host is not meticulous in his observance. If he is certain that he is not meticulous, different rules apply, as the Rambam states in the final clause of the halachah. The leniencies to follow were granted only for the sake of the Sabbath, but not during the week.

This leniency is granted because the obligation to make these separations is Rabbinic in origin.

I.e., how can a stipulation be made before the Sabbath for produce that we know istevel to be tithed on the Sabbath?

And thus he cannot physically separate them before the onset of the Sabbath.

He may not, however, partake of the figs and then leave the tithes. The rationale is that in questions of Scriptural Law, the principle of bereirah is not applied and we do not consider it as if the separation that he will ultimately make was made from the outset [the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (Demai 7:5)]. See also Chapter 1, Halachah 9.

Stating that he had made a stipulation on the previous day.

The reason it is forbidden to separate tithes on the Sabbath.

If, however, such a stipulation was not made before the onset of the Sabbath, it is forbidden to move the tevel. Since it is forbidden to partake of it on the Sabbath, it is comparable to a stone (Hilchot Shabbat25:19).

Since after the separations will be made, it will be permitted to partake of it, one never diverted his attention from using it on the Sabbath.

Even if the tithes have not been taken away from the produce, since they have already been separated and their place is distinct, it is as if they have been separated already. We do not have to rely on the principle ofbereirah (Radbaz).

This is an extension of the principles stated in Halachah 7. In this instance as well, the common person had invited him to dine with him on the Sabbath and thus he was unable to make the separations before the Sabbath.