Rambam — 3 Perakimרמב״ם ג׳ פרקים

א׳אֵין הַטֶּבֶל נִקְבָּע לְמַעַשְׂרוֹת מִן הַתּוֹרָה עַד שֶׁיַּכְנִיסֶנּוּ לְבֵיתוֹ שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (דברים כו יג) "בִּעַרְתִּי הַקֹּדֶשׁ מִן הַבַּיִת". וְהוּא שֶׁיַּכְנִיסֶנּוּ דֶּרֶךְ הַשַּׁעַר שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (דברים כו יב) "וְאָכְלוּ בִשְׁעָרֶיךָ". אֲבָל אִם הִכְנִיס תְּבוּאָתוֹ דֶּרֶךְ גַּגּוֹת וְקַרְפִּיפוֹת פָּטוּר מִן הַתְּרוּמָה וּמִן הַמַּעַשְׂרוֹת:

¹The obligation to tithe is not established for tevel1Produce from which the tithes (and/or terumah) have not been separated. In his Commentary to the Mishnah (Berachot 7:1), the Rambam interprets this as a composite of the words tav lo, meaning "it is not good." according to Scriptural Law until one2From Chapter 3, Halachah 7, and Halachah 5, of this chapter, one might surmise that this applies whether the owner of the produce or another person brought it into the owner's home. brings it3From Chapter 3, Halachah 4, it appears that this refers to produce for which all the tasks necessary to prepare it were completed. into his home,4Although according to Rabbinic Law, it is sufficient to bring the produce into one's courtyard as stated in Chapter 3, Halachah 3, according to Scriptural Law, it must be brought into one's home. as [implied by Deuteronomy 26:13]: "I removed the sacred produce from the home." [This applies] provided he brings the produce in through the gate, as [ibid.:12] states: "And you shall eat in your gates." If, however, he brought produce in from the roof or from the yard,5More particularly, the term karfef used by the Rambam, refers to an unprotected yard. he is exempt [from the obligation] to separate terumah and tithes.6He is, however, liable according to Rabbinic Law, in these instances. In his notes to Berachot 35b, the Meiri writes that even according to Scriptural Law, it is forbidden to do this as an initial preference; the leniency is granted only after the fact.

ב׳יֵרָאֶה לִי שֶׁאֵין לוֹקִין מִן הַתּוֹרָה עַל אֲכִילַת הַטֶּבֶל עַד שֶׁיִּקָבַע בִּכְנִיסָתוֹ לְבֵיתוֹ כְּמוֹ שֶׁבֵּאַרְנוּ מִפִּי הַשְּׁמוּעָה. אֲבָל אִם נִקְבַּע בִּשְׁאָר הַשִּׁשָּׁה דְּבָרִים שֶׁמָּנִינוּ אֵין לוֹקִין עָלָיו אֶלָּא מַכַּת מַרְדּוּת מִדִּבְרֵיהֶן. וְכֵן הָאוֹכֵל מִפֵּרוֹת שֶׁדַּעְתּוֹ לְהוֹלִיכָן לַשּׁוּק אַחַר שֶׁנִּגְמְרָה מְלַאכְתָּן אֵינוֹ לוֹקֶה אֶלָּא מַכַּת מַרְדּוּת כְּמוֹ שֶׁבֵּאַרְנוּ. שֶׁאֵין הַגּוֹמֵר לִמְכֹּר חַיָּב בְּמַעֲשֵׂר אֶלָּא מִדִּבְרֵיהֶם:

²It appears to me7This expression introduces a deduction for which the Rambam has no definite prior source in the Rabbinic literature. The Kessef Mishneh questions why the Rambam uses this expression when the Jerusalem Talmud (Ma'aserot 3:1) explicitly states that the obligation established by three of the six situations is Rabbinic in origin. He explains that there is no explicit source for the other three. Hence, this expression is appropriate. that lashes are not administered as required by Scriptural Law for eating tevel unless [the obligation to tithe] was established by bringing it into one's home as we explained according to the Oral Tradition.8In the previous halachah. If, however, the obligation was established through one of the six ways that we mentioned,9In Chapter 3, Halachah 3. he is given only stripes for rebellious conduct as mandated by Rabbinic Law.Similarly, a person who partakes of produce which he desires to bring to the market place after the tasks necessary to prepare it have been completed receives only stripes for rebellious conduct, as we explained.10See Chapter 2, Halachah 1. For a person who completes [the tasks necessary to prepare his produce] for sale is obligated to tithe only according to Rabbinic Law.

ג׳בַּיִת שֶׁאֵין בּוֹ אַרְבַּע אַמּוֹת עַל אַרְבַּע אַמּוֹת אֵינוֹ קוֹבֵעַ וְכֵן הַגַּגִּים אֵינָן קוֹבְעִין אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁהַבַּיִת שֶׁלְּמַטָּה קוֹבֵעַ. וְאִם לֹא הָיָה בַּגַּג אַרְבַּע אַמּוֹת עַל אַרְבַּע אַמּוֹת כְּגוֹן שֶׁהָיָה הַבַּיִת מְשֻׁפָּע וְעוֹלֶה אֵינוֹ פּוֹטֵר מִן הַמַּעֲשֵׂר אֶלָּא הֲרֵי גַּג זֶה כְּמִקְצָת אֲוִיר הַבַּיִת:

³When a house is less than four cubits by four cubits in area, [bringing produce into it] does not establish an obligation.11Since it is so small, it is not fit to serve as a dwelling. Based on Hilchot Mezuzah 6:2, one might assume that tithes are required if the home comprises this area even though it is not square in shape. Similarly, [bringing produce onto] a roof does not establish an obligation12For roofs are not considered as dwellings. even though [bringing it into] the house below would. If, however, the roof was not four cubits by four cubits in area, e.g., the house ascended on a slant, bringing [the produce] there does not absolve it from the obligation to tithe it.13I.e., since the roof is small, it is not considered as an independent entity, but instead, is considered as part of the home (Kessef Mishneh). Instead, [the roof] is considered as part of the domain of the home.

ד׳הַצְּרִיפִין וְהַבֻּרְגָּנִין וּבָתֵּי הַקַּיִץ וְהוּא אַרְבָּעָה עַמּוּדִים וְתִקְרָה עַל גַּבֵּיהֶן שֶׁנִּמְצָא בְּלֹא כְּתָלִים וְכֵן סֻכּוֹת שֶׁעוֹשִׂין בְּנֵי הַכְּרָמִים וּבְנֵי הַגִּנּוֹת בִּימֵי הַקַּיִץ אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁדָּרִין בָּהֶן כָּל יְמֵי הַקַּיִץ וְיֵשׁ בָּהֶם רֵחַיִם וְתַרְנְגוֹלִין אֵינָן קוֹבְעִין לְמַעֲשֵׂר. וְכֵן סֻכַּת הַיּוֹצְרִים הַחִיצוֹנָה וְסֻכַּת הֶחָג בֶּחָג אֵינָן קוֹבְעִין שֶׁכָּל אֵלּוּ אֵין דִּירָתָן קֶבַע:

⁴Leantos,14Shelters made of branches and wood [the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (Ma'aserot 3:7]. guardhouses,15Our translation is based on the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (ibid.). summer shelters - i.e., four pillars with a roof on top of them without walls,16Structures constructed to provide shade from the summer sun. and sukkot17Booths that do not have permanent roofs. built by workers who dwell in the vineyard and the gardens in the summer,18This is the meaning of the term sukkot Ginosar in the mishnah (loc. cit.). Ginosar (the area around Lake Kinneret) was known for the quality and abundance of its produce. Workers would be hired to pick this produce during the harvest and they would construct semi-permanent structures in which they would dwell over the summer. even though they dwell in them throughout the summer and [the sukkot] contain mills and chickens do not establish an obligation to tithe. Similarly, the outer sukkot built by potters19Potters would construct sukkot with two rooms. The inner room would be their dwelling, while the outer room would serve as a workshop and storefront. If produce was brought into the inner sukkah, the obligation to tithe is established. See the notes to Halachah 9 with regard to this ruling. and the sukkot for the holiday [of Sukkot] during that festival do not establish an obligation.20Note the clarification in the following halachah. For none of these are permanent dwellings.

ה׳הַצְּרִיפִין וְהַבֻּרְגָּנִין טוֹבְלִין לְבַעְלֵיהֶן אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁאֵינָן טוֹבְלִין לְכָל אָדָם וְכֵן בֵּית הַסֵּפֶר וּבֵית הַמִּדְרָשׁ טוֹבֵל לְזֶה שֶׁיּוֹשֵׁב וּמְלַמֵּד מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהֵם כְּבֵיתוֹ וְאֵין טוֹבְלִין לַאֲחֵרִים:

⁵Leantos and guardhouses establish an obligation to tithe for their owners,21I.e., if the owners of these structures bring produce into them, they are obligated to tithe it before partaking of it. even though they do not create such an obligation for all people.22I.e., if a person brings produce into a house belonging to a colleague, he is not obligated to tithe it. On the surface, the question may be raised: Even if a person brings produce into a colleague's home, he is not obligated to tithe it, as stated in Halachah 1. Why then are a leanto and a guardhouse singled out here?It is possible to explain, however, that if a person makes it a practice of bringing produce into a colleague's home, he becomes obligated to tithe it when he does so. In contrast, even if he makes a practice of bringing produce into his colleague's leanto, an obligation to tithe is not established, because a leanto is not a permanent dwelling. Similarly, [bringing produce into] a school or a house of study23From the Jerusalem Talmud (Ma'aserot 3:7), it appears that the term "school" refers to a school where young children are taught Scripture, while the term "house of study" refers to a study center where older students are taught the Oral Law. creates an obligation to tithe for a person who abides there and teaches, because they are comparable to his home.24Even if he does not have an apartment there, since he is continually there, it is considered as his established abode (Radbaz, gloss to Halachah 6). They do not create an obligation for others.

ו׳בֵּית הַכְּנֶסֶת וּבֵית הַמִּדְרָשׁ אִם יֵשׁ בָּהֶן בֵּית דִּירָה קוֹבְעִין וְאִם לָאו אֵין קוֹבְעִין. הָאוֹרִיאֲרוֹת הָאוֹצָרוֹת שֶׁבַּשָּׂדוֹת הָעֲשׂוּיוֹת לִמְכֻנָּס אֵינָן קוֹבְעִין וְאִם הָיוּ לְדִירָה קוֹבְעִין:

⁶When a synagogue or a house of study25In contrast to the house of study mentioned in the previous halachah, this is a house of study for adults where they meet and share ideas (Radbaz). have a dwelling,26For the sexton, as was common in certain situations. [bringing produce there] establishes [an obligation to tithe].27Since it contains a dwelling for the sexton, even the portion of the structure that serves as a synagogue or a house of study is considered as part of a dwelling (Radbaz). See also parallel rulings in Hilchot Mezuzah 6:6 and Hilchot Shabbat 28:4. If not, no [such obligation] is established.[Bringing produce to] stables28Our translation is based on the gloss of Rabbi Yosef Korcus who cites II Chronicles 9:25. and storehouses in the fields that are built to store produce does not establish an obligation to tithe.29For until the produce has been brought to a dwelling or the marketplace, it is still considered as being in an intermediate phase of preparation. If [these structures] were also intended as dwellings, an obligation is established.30In this instance as well, if the structure contains an apartment, e.g., for a guard or the like, bringing produce into any part of the structure establishes an obligation to tithe.

ז׳כְּשֵׁם שֶׁהַבַּיִת קוֹבֵעַ לְמַעֲשֵׂר כָּךְ הֶחָצֵר קוֹבַעַת לְמַעֲשֵׂר. וּמִשֶּׁיִּכָּנְסוּ לֶחָצֵר דֶּרֶךְ הַשַּׁעַר נִקְבְּעוּ אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁלֹּא הִכְנִיסָן לְתוֹךְ הַבַּיִת:

⁷Just as [bringing produce into] a home establishes an obligation to tithe, so too, [bringing produce into] a courtyard establishes such an obligation.31A distinction must, however, be made. The obligation to tithe produce brought into a home is Scriptural in origin and the obligation to tithe produce brought into a courtyard is of Rabbinic origin. When produce is brought into a courtyard through the gate,32In Halachah 1, the Rambam makes such statements with regard to bringing produce into a home. He deduces that similar concepts apply with regard to bringing it into a courtyard. an obligation is established even though it was not brought into the home.

ח׳אֵי זוֹ הִיא חָצֵר הַקּוֹבַעַת. כָּל שֶׁהַכֵּלִים נִשְׁמָרִין בְּתוֹכָהּ. אוֹ שֶׁאֵין אָדָם בּוֹשׁ מִלֶּאֱכל בְּתוֹכָהּ. אוֹ חָצֵר שֶׁאִם יִכָּנֵס אָדָם לָהּ אוֹמְרִין לוֹ מָה אַתָּה מְבַקֵּשׁ. וְכֵן חָצֵר שֶׁיֵּשׁ בָּהּ שְׁנֵי דִּיּוּרִין אוֹ שֶׁהִיא לִשְׁנֵי שֻׁתָּפִין שֶׁאֶחָד פּוֹתְחָהּ וְנִכְנָס וְאֶחָד בָּא וְנִכְנָס אוֹ יוֹצֵא וְנוֹעֵל הוֹאִיל וְהֵן פּוֹתְחִין וְנוֹעֲלִין הֲרֵי זוֹ קוֹבַעַת:

⁸[Into] which type of courtyard must [produce be brought] for an obligation [to tithe] to be established? Any one in which utensils are protected within, one in which a person will not be embarrassed to eat there, or one in which were a person to enter, he would be asked: "What are you looking for?"33All of these signs are indications that the courtyard is regarded as private property and not the public domain. The above also applies to a courtyard which has two inhabitants or is owned by two partners when one opens it and enters and then the other comes and enters or leaves and locks it. Since they open it and lock it, [bringing produce into] it establishes an obligation to tithe.34I.e., although two people share it, and one may carelessly leave it open, since the other locks it, it is regarded as private property. Hence bringing produce into it establishes the obligation to tithe.

ט׳בֵּית שַׁעַר שֶׁל חָצֵר וְהָאַכְסַדְרָה וְהַמִּרְפֶּסֶת הֲרֵי הֵן כְּחָצֵר אִם הָיְתָה קוֹבַעַת קוֹבְעִין וְאִם לָאו אֵינָן קוֹבְעִין:

⁹A gatehouse to a courtyard, an excedra,35A structure common in Greek and Roman times with two or three walls and a roof. (Occasionally, there would be an opening in the roof.) and a porch are governed by the same laws as a courtyard.36In and of themselves, these structures are not considered dwellings and bringing produce into them would not create an obligation. Nevertheless, since they lead to and/or are auxiliaries to an area that is considered part of a permanent dwelling, they are considered as part of that dwelling.The Radbaz notes that in Halachah 4 and in the following halachah, the Rambam states that bringing produce into a potter's outer sukkah does not create an obligation, while bringing it into the inner sukkah does. Why don't we, he asks, apply the same principle? Let us say that the outer sukkah is an entrance and/or auxiliary to the inner one. He explains that for the inner sukkah to create an obligation is itself a new development and the obligation is not strong enough to be extended to the outer sukkah. If [bringing produce into] a courtyard would establish an obligation to tithe, [bringing produce into these] establishes an obligation. If not, an obligation is not established in these instances as well.37For as above, in and of themselves, these structures are not considered significant dwellings.

י׳שְׁתֵּי חֲצֵרוֹת זוֹ לְפָנִים מִזּוֹ שְׁתֵּיהֶן קוֹבְעוֹת. סֻכַּת הַיּוֹצְרִים זוֹ לְפָנִים מִזּוֹ הַפְּנִימִית קוֹבַעַת וְהַחִיצוֹנָה אֵינָהּ קוֹבַעַת וְהַחֲנוּת קוֹבַעַת כְּבַיִת:

¹⁰When there are two courtyards, one inside the other, [bringing produce into] either of them establishes an obligation to tithe.38For they are both considered as permanent structures, leading to and auxiliary to the home. When a potter has [two] sukkot one leading to the other, [bringing produce into] the inner sukkah establishes an obligation to tithe. [Bringing it into] the outer one does not.39See the notes to Halachah 4 and those to the previous halachah. The commentaries question why the Rambam repeats the same law in such close proximity. [Bringing produce into] a store establishes an obligation like a home does.40Since a person spends much time in his store, it is considered as equivalent to a home for him.

י״אהַמּוֹלִיךְ פֵּרוֹתָיו מִמָּקוֹם לְמָקוֹם אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁהוּא נִכְנָס בָּהֶן לְבָתִּים וְלַחֲצֵרוֹת בַּדֶּרֶךְ לֹא נִקְבְּעוּ אֶלָּא אוֹכֵל עַרְאַי עַד שֶׁיַּגִּיעַ לְמָקוֹם שֶׁהוּא סוֹף מְגַמָּתוֹ וְכֵן בַּחֲזָרָה:

¹¹When a person transports his produce from one place to another, an obligation to tithe is not established even though he brings it into homes and courtyards while on his journey.41The Radbaz emphasizes that if the person spends a Sabbath on his journey, the commencement of the Sabbath establishes an obligation to tithe as stated in Chapter 3, Halachah 3. He may snack from it until he reaches his ultimate destination. [These laws] also [apply] when he returns.42I.e., if he does not transport the produce to his intended destination, but instead, changes his mind in the middle, and returns with it (Kessef Mishneh).

י״בהָרוֹכְלִין הַמַּחְזִירִין בַּעֲיָרוֹת שֶׁהֵן נִכְנָסִין מֵחָצֵר לְחָצֵר אוֹכְלִין עַרְאַי עַד שֶׁמַּגִּיעִין לְבַיִת שֶׁלָּנִין בּוֹ:

¹²Traveling salesmen43Who sell perfumes to women [the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (Ma'aserot 2:3)]. who journey through villages and pass from one courtyard to another may snack from their produce44This is speaking about their own produce or produce which was given to them to partake of (ibid.). If they were intending to sell the produce, there is an immediate obligation to tithe it. It is like bringing it to the marketplace (see Chapter 3, Halachah 2). until they reach the home where they will spend the night.45Rav Yosef Korcus explains that in this instance - in contrast to the previous halachah - the obligation falls before they reach their ultimate destination. The rationale for the distinction is that since these traveling salesmen do not have an ultimate goal, wherever they spend the night is significant for them.

י״גהַמֵּבִיא תְּאֵנִים מִן הַשָּׂדֶה לְאָכְלָן בֶּחָצֵר הַפְּטוּרָה מִן הַמַּעַשְׂרוֹת. שָׁכַח וְהִכְנִיסָן לְתוֹךְ בֵּיתוֹ הֲרֵי זֶה מֻתָּר לְהוֹצִיאָן וְלֶאֱכל מֵהֶן עַרְאַי וְכֵן אִם שָׁכַח וְהֶעֱלָן לַגַּג אוֹכֵל מֵהֶן בַּגַּג עַרְאַי. הֱבִיאָן לְאָכְלָן בְּרֹאשׁ גַּגּוֹ וְשָׁכַח וְהִכְנִיסָן לְתוֹךְ חֲצַר חֲבֵרוֹ נִקְבְּעוּ וְלֹא יֹאכַל עַד שֶׁיְּעַשֵּׂר:

¹³When a person brings figs from a field to partake of them in a courtyard which is exempt from the obligation to tithe,46I.e., one which is not guarded (Halachah 8). but then he forgot and brought them into his home, he is permitted to take them out from the home and snack from them.47For bringing produce into his home does not establish an obligation to tithe unless the person brings them there intentionally (see Chapter 3, Halachah 5). The person must, however, remove them from the home. He may not partake of them in the home without tithing them. Similarly, if he forget [and after taking them into his home], took them up to the roof,48For bringing produce to a roof does not establish an obligation to tithe (Halachah 3). he may snack from them on the roof.If he brought them to partake of them49This is the version in the standard printed texts of the Mishneh Torah and is also found in authoritative manuscripts and early printings. The version of the Mishneh Torah which the Radbaz and Rav Yosef Korcus followed states: "brought them to dry them on the roof." on his roof and brought them into a friend's courtyard, an obligation to tithe is established and he should not partake of them until he tithes them.50The Ra'avad differs with the Rambam's ruling, explaining that bringing produce into a friend's courtyard does not establish an obligation to tithe unless one does so intentionally, but not when one does so out of forgetfulness. He also cites a version of the Tosefta (Ma'aserot 2:10) which supports his understanding.Rav Yosef Korcus offers two justifications for the Rambam's ruling. First of all, he states that the phrase "he should not partake of them" could be interpreted as referring to the owner of the courtyard and not to the owner of the produce. Alternatively, he explains that even if it refers to the owner of the produce, since the courtyard he brings it into is part of a permanent dwelling, he should not partake of it until he tithes it. Leniency was given to traveling salesmen (Halachah 13), because they brought the produce into the courtyard with the intent of removing it immediately. In this instance, however, the owner does not necessarily intend to remove it immediately. Why then should he not be obligated to tithe?In his gloss to Chapter 5, Halachah 8, the Ra'avad notes a seeming contradiction to the Rambam's ruling here. In his gloss to that halachah, the Radbaz explains that the stringency here is to correct a misimpression that might result in the eyes of an observer. The Kessef Mishneh, however, finds the Rambam's rulings difficult to reconcile and suggests that there is a printing error here.Nevertheless, Rav Yosef Korcus continues, the Rambam's statements appear to be self-contradictory, because in the previous clause it appears that if one brings produce into a home after forgetting, he is not obligated to tithe it, but this clause states that if he brings it into his colleague's courtyard, he is. Seemingly, bringing it into one's own home would be a stronger factor than bringing it into a colleague's courtyard. Among the resolutions he offers is that when a person forgets and brings the produce into his own home, he is certainly acting inadvertently, without intent. If, however, he brings it into his colleague's courtyard, that could be considered as a conscious change of mind.

י״דחָצֵר שֶׁהִיא נֶעְדֶּרֶת הֲרֵי הִיא כְּגִנָּה וְאוֹכְלִין בְּתוֹכָהּ עַרְאַי. וְהוּא שֶׁיֵּעָדֵר רֻבָּהּ. וְאִם זָרַע רֻבָּהּ אֵין אוֹכְלִין עַרְאַי וְכֵן אִם נָטַע רֻבָּהּ. וְאִם נָטַע לְנוֹי חָצֵר הוֹאִיל וְהִיא נֶעְדֶּרֶת הֲרֵי זֶה אוֹכֵל עַרְאַי מֵאוֹתָן אִילָנוֹת:

¹⁴When a courtyard has been plowed, it is considered like a garden51I.e., it is no longer considered as an extension of the home, but as a separate entity like a field. and one may snack in it. [This applies] provided he plowed the majority [of the courtyard].52For once he has plowed the majority, he will certainly plow the remainder. If he sowed the majority of it,53But not the entirety of the courtyard. he may not snack in it.54The rationale is that since he did not sow the entire courtyard, we assume that his sowing is only temporary and soon, he will revert to considering the courtyard as that and not as a field. The same law applies if he planted trees in it.55The Ra'avad differs with the Rambam on this point, maintaining that planting trees does not remove land from the category of a courtyard. He explains that the Rambam used an incorrect version of the Jerusalem Talmud (Ma'aserot 3:10). For the Rambam's version of that passage conflicts with the rulings of Eruvin 23a regarding eruvin. The Kessef Mishneh explains that the obligations of eruvin and tithes are governed by different principles and deductions cannot necessarily be made from one situation to the other. If he planted trees in the courtyard to make it attractive,56This indicates that he is not intending to uproot them and return the area to the function of an ordinary courtyard. Hence, it is considered as an orchard and he may snack from the produce before tithing. since the field has been plowed, he may snack from those trees [without tithing].

ט״ותְּאֵנָה הָעוֹמֶדֶת בֶּחָצֵר אוֹכֵל מִמֶּנָּה אַחַת אַחַת וּפָטוּר. וְאִם צֵרֵף חַיָּב בְּמַעֲשֵׂר. בַּמֶּה דְּבָרִים אֲמוּרִים בְּשֶׁהָיָה עוֹמֵד בַּקַּרְקַע. אֲבָל אִם עָלָה לְרֹאשׁ הַתְּאֵנָה מְמַלֵּא חֵיקוֹ וְאוֹכֵל שָׁם שֶׁאֵין אֲוִיר חָצֵר קוֹבֵעַ לְמַעֲשֵׂר:

¹⁵When a fig tree is growing in a courtyard, one may eat57In this and in the following halachot, the intent is to snack, not to eat a significant meal. figs from it one by one while exempt [from tithing]. If he gathers them together, he is obligated to tithe.58For he is then considered to have completed the work associated with harvesting figs and they are in a courtyard. Compare to Chapter 5, Halachah 3.When does the above apply? When he is standing on the ground. If, however, he climbs to the top59I.e., any place above three handbreadts off the ground (Radbaz). of the fig tree, he may fill his bosom with them and eat them there. For the open space of a courtyard does not create an obligation to tithe.

ט״זהָיְתָה עוֹמֶדֶת בְּחָצֵר וְנוֹטָה לְגִנָּה הֲרֵי זֶה אוֹכֵל מִמֶּנָּה בַּגִּנָּה כְּדַרְכּוֹ כְּאִלּוּ הָיְתָה נְטוּעָה בַּגִּנָּה. הָיְתָה נְטוּעָה בַּגִּנָּה וְנוֹטָה לְחָצֵר הֲרֵי זוֹ כִּנְטוּעָה בֶּחָצֵר שֶׁאֵינוֹ אוֹכֵל שָׁם אֶלָּא אַחַת [אַחַת]:

¹⁶[If a fruit tree] was standing in a courtyard and leaning into a garden, one may partake of the tree while standing in the garden in his ordinary manner,60I.e., he can collect them instead of eating from them one by one. as if the tree was planted in the garden.61In other instances (see Ma'aserot 3:10), the foliage of the tree is considered as being in the same domain as its trunk. In this instance, however, the ruling depends on the domain in which the produce is collected. If [the tree] was planted in a garden and leaning into a courtyard, it is considered as if it was planted in the courtyard and one may only partake of them one at a time.

י״זגֶּפֶן שֶׁנְּטוּעָה בֶּחָצֵר לֹא יִטּל אֶת כָּל הָאֶשְׁכּוֹל וְיֹאכַל אֶלָּא מְגַרְגֵּר אֶחָד אֶחָד. וְכֵן בְּרִמּוֹן לֹא יִטּל אֶת כָּל הָרִמּוֹן אֶלָּא פּוֹרֵט אֶת הָרִמּוֹן בָּאִילָן וְאוֹכֵל הַפֶּרֶד מִשָּׁם. וְכֵן בָּאֲבַטִּיחַ כּוֹפְתוֹ בַּקַּרְקַע וְאוֹכְלוֹ שָׁם. הָיָה אוֹכֵל בְּאֶשְׁכּוֹל בַּגִּנָּה וְנִכְנַס מִן הַגִּנָּה לֶחָצֵר אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁיָּצָא מִן הֶחָצֵר לֹא יִגְמֹר עַד שֶׁיְּעַשֵּׂר:

¹⁷When a vine is planted in a courtyard, one should not pick an entire cluster and partake of it. Instead, one should pick the grapes one by one.62Following the same logic stated in Halachah 15. Similarly, with regard to pomegranates, one should not take the entire pomegranate, but instead should divide the pomegranate while it is on the tree and partake of the seeds from it. Similarly, with regard to a watermelon, one should bend it over to the ground and partake of it there.If one was eating a cluster [of grapes] in a garden and brought it into a courtyard,63This applies to an instance where one intentionally brought the produce into the courtyard. If one did so unintentionally, there is no obligation to tithe as stated in Halachah 13. one should not continue eating until he tithes even if he departs from the courtyard.64I.e., once the produce has entered the courtyard, the obligation to tithe is irrevocably established.

י״חכֻּסְבַּר הַזְּרוּעָה בֶּחָצֵר מְקַרְסֵם עָלֶה עָלֶה וְאוֹכְלוֹ. וְאִם צֵרֵף חַיָּב לְעַשֵּׂר. וְכֵן כָּל כַּיּוֹצֵא בָּזֶה:

¹⁸When coriander65Our translation is taken from Rav Kappach's translation of the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (Ma'aserot 3:10). is planted in a courtyard,66One in which the majority was sown as stated in Halachah 14. one may pick it leaf by leaf and partake of it. If one gathers them together, he is obligated to tithe. Similar laws apply in all analogous situations.

א׳הַלוֹקֵחַ פֵּרוֹת תְּלוּשִׁין לְאָכְלָן נִקְבְּעוּ לְמַעֲשֵׂר מִדִּבְרֵיהֶם כְּמוֹ שֶׁבֵּאַרְנוּ. וּמֵאֵימָתַי יִקָבְעוּ. מִשֶּׁיִּתֵּן אֶת הַדָּמִים אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁלֹּא מָשַׁךְ. הֲרֵי שֶׁלֹּא נָתַן דָּמִים וְהָיָה בּוֹרֵר וּמַנִּיחַ בּוֹרֵר וּמַנִּיחַ אֲפִלּוּ כָּל הַיּוֹם כֻּלּוֹ וְאַף עַל פִּי שֶׁגָּמַר בְּלִבּוֹ לִקַּח לֹא נִתְחַיֵּב לְעַשֵּׂר. וְאִם הָיָה יְרֵא שָׁמַיִם מִשֶּׁגָּמַר בְּלִבּוֹ מְעַשֵּׂר וְאַחַר כָּךְ יַחֲזִיר לַמּוֹכֵר אִם רָצָה לְהַחֲזִיר:

¹When a person purchases detached produce to partake of it, he is obligated to tithe it according to Rabbinic decree as we explained.1See Chapter 2, Halachot 1-2 which explain that according to Scriptural Law, one is obligated to tithe produce only when he harvests it for his own personal use. Similarly, one who purchases produce is not liable to tithe it according to Scriptural Law.As indicated by the following halachah, this applies when the purchaser bought the produce to partake of it. If he purchased it as merchandise, the obligation to tithe does not take effect until one purchases it with the intent of partaking of it.When is the obligation [to tithe] established? When [the purchaser] pays [for the produce], even if he has not drawn it [into his domain].2With regard to the laws of acquisition, according to Scriptural Law, the payment of money brings about a kinyan, the transfer of an object from one person's domain to another. Nevertheless, our Sages decreed that such a transfer should be brought about by drawing the object to be acquired out of the seller's domain (meshichah; see Hilchot Mechirah 3:5). Nevertheless, with regard to the obligation to tithe, they did not alter the Scriptural Law. If [a potential purchaser] was selecting and setting aside, selecting and setting aside, even if he did so the entire day and even if he made up his mind to purchase the produce,3For making up his mind does not establish a binding obligation. he is not obligated to tithe it. If he is a God-fearing person, from the time he made up his mind, he should tithe it.4For a Torah sage should go beyond the letter of the law and accept financial responsibilities that are not mandated by Torah Law. See Hilchot De'ot, the conclusion of ch. 5. Afterwards, if he desires to return it to the seller, he may return it.5The Radbaz and the Kessef Mishneh emphasize that he should not return the produce unless the seller agrees. Nevertheless, even if the seller agrees to accept the produce, the purchaser must make restitution from his own produce or funds for the produce that he tithed.

ב׳הַלּוֹקֵחַ בִּמְחֻבָּר לַקַּרְקַע אוֹ שֶׁלָּקַח תָּלוּשׁ לִשְׁלֹחַ לַחֲבֵרוֹ לֹא נִקְבְּעוּ וְיֵשׁ לוֹ לֶאֱכל מֵהֶן עַרְאַי:

²When a person purchases produce that is attached to the ground or purchases detached produce6This applies even if the work necessary to prepare it has been completed. to send to a colleague, [an obligation to tithe] is not established and he may snack from them.7Although our Sages required one who purchases produce to tithe it, they instituted this obligation only when one intended to partake of it himself, just as the Scriptural obligation to tithe applies only for a person who harvests produce to partake of it himself (Siftei Cohen 331:119).

ג׳הָאוֹמֵר לַחֲבֵרוֹ הֵא לְךָ אִיסָר זֶה וְתֵן לִי בּוֹ חֲמֵשׁ תְּאֵנִים הֲרֵי זֶה אוֹכֵל אַחַת אַחַת וּפָטוּר. וְאִם צֵרֵף חַיָּב לְעַשֵּׂר. הֵא לְךָ אִיסָר זֶה בְּעֶשְׂרִים תְּאֵנִים שֶׁאָבֹר לִי. בּוֹרֵר אַחַת אַחַת וְאוֹכֵל. בְּאֶשְׁכּוֹל שֶׁאָבֹר לִי מְגַרְגֵּר מִמֶּנּוּ בָּאִילָן וְאוֹכֵל. בְּרִמֹּן שֶׁאָבֹר לִי פּוֹרְטוֹ בָּאִילָן וְאוֹכֵל. בַּאֲבַטִּיחַ שֶׁאָבֹר לִי כּוֹפֵת בַּקַּרְקַע וְאוֹכֵל. וְאִם קָצַץ אֶת הַתְּאֵנִים וְצֵרְפָם אוֹ שֶׁקִּצֵּץ הָאֶשְׁכּוֹל אוֹ הָאֲבַטִּיחַ. חַיָּב לְעַשֵּׂר. שֶׁהֲרֵי לֹא קָנָה אֶלָּא הַנִּתְלָשׁ. אֲבָל אִם אָמַר לוֹ הֵא לְךָ אִיסָר בִּשְׁתֵּי תְּאֵנִים אֵלּוּ בִּשְׁנֵי אֶשְׁכּוֹלוֹת אֵלּוּ בִּשְׁנֵי רִמּוֹנִים אֵלּוּ בִּשְׁנֵי אֲבַטִּיחִים אֵלּוּ קוֹצֵץ כְּדַרְכּוֹ וְאוֹכֵל עַרְאַי וּפָטוּר שֶׁלֹּא נִקְבְּעוּ בְּמִקָּח שֶׁהֲרֵי לְקָחָן בִּמְחֻבָּר:

³When a person tells a colleague: "Here is an isar8A coin used in the Talmudic era of moderate value. and give me five figs for it," he may eat them one by one and he is exempt [from the obligation to tithe]. If [the seller] gathers them together, he is obligated to tithe them.[If he says:] "Here is an isar for 20 figs that I will select,"9His wording implies that he acquires them after he selects them and picks them from the tree, for the terms of purchase state that he would "select it," i.e., detach it. he may select them one by one and eat them.10Without tithing. "...For a cluster of grapes that I will select," he may pick them individually from the tree and partake of them. "...For a pomegranate that I will select," he may remove the seeds while on the tree and partake of them. "...For a watermelon that I will select," he may bend it over to the ground and partake of it.If he cut off the figs and gathered them together or cut off the cluster of grapes or the watermelon, he is obligated to tithe, because he purchased the produce in its detached state.11I.e., though it was attached when he negotiated the deal, the purchase takes effect after he detaches it. Hence, he is obligated to tithe the produce, because a sale is one of the factors that establish such an obligation [the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (Ma'aserot 2:6)]. If, however, he told him: "Here is an isar for these 20 figs," "...for these two12The Radbaz questions why the Rambam mentions two clusters of figs. The same laws would apply if only one cluster was involved. He explains that since it is not common for people to purchase a large amount of produce while it is still attached to the ground, it is important to emphasize that this law applies even when he purchases a large amount. clusters of grapes," "...for these two pomegranates," or "...for these two watermelons," he may harvest the produce in an ordinary manner and snack on it," for the obligation to tithe was not established, for he purchased the produce while it was attached.13And a sale of attached produce does not convey an obligation to tithe.

ד׳הַמַּחֲלִיף עִם חֲבֵרוֹ זֶה לֶאֱכל וְזֶה לֶאֱכל שְׁנֵיהֶן נִקְבְּעוּ לְמַעַשְׂרוֹת שֶׁהֲרֵי לָקְחוּ בְּתָלוּשׁ. זֶה לִקְצוֹת וְזֶה לִקְצוֹת שְׁנֵיהֶן לֹא נִקְבְּעוּ שֶׁאֵין הַמֶּכֶר קוֹבֵעַ דָּבָר שֶׁלֹּא נִגְמְרָה מְלַאכְתּוֹ כְּמוֹ שֶׁבֵּאַרְנוּ. לָקַח הָאֶחָד פֵּרוֹת שֶׁהֶחֱלִיף לַאֲכִילָה וְלָקַח הָאַחֵר חֲלִיפֵיהֶן לְהַקְצוֹתָן. זֶה שֶׁלָּקַח לַאֲכִילָה חַיָּב לְעַשֵּׂר. וְזֶה שֶׁלָּקַח לְהַקְצוֹתָן לֹא נִקְבַּע לַמַּעֲשֵׂר:

⁴When a person exchanges [produce]14As stated in Hilchot Mechirah 5:1, an exchange is considered as equivalent to a sale. with a colleague and each have the intent of eating, an obligation has been established to tithe both lots of produce, for they have been purchased while detached.15Hence it is forbidden even to snack from them. [If they are exchanged while attached, with] each one having to reap the other's crops, an obligation has not been established for either of them, for a sale does not establish an obligation [to tithe] unless the work associated with its preparation is completed as we explained.16Chapter 3, Halachah 3.If one purchased produce to eat17I.e., detached produce. in an exchange and the other purchased produce to reap in the same exchange, the one who purchased produce to eat is obligated to tithe, while the obligation to tithe has not been established for the one who purchased produce to reap.

ה׳הָאוֹמֵר לַחֲבֵרוֹ צֵא וְלַקֵּט לְךָ עֶשְׂרִים תְּאֵנִים מִשֶּׁלִּי וַאֲנִי אֲמַלֵּא אֶת כְּרֵסִי מִשֶּׁלְּךָ שְׁנֵיהֶם פְּטוּרִים שֶׁאֵין זֶה חֲלִיפִין כְּדֵי שֶׁיִּהְיֶה מֶכֶר. וְאִם צֵרֵף וְאָכַל חַיָּב:

⁵When a person tells a colleague: "Go out and gather 20 figs of mine for yourself18I.e., the produce is on the trees and it does not become the other person's until he picks it. and I will fill my gut with your produce," both are exempt.19The Ra'avad differs with the Rambam and maintains that the person who partakes of a particular number of figs is obligated to tithe them. The Radbaz and the Kessef Mishneh justify the Rambam's ruling. This is not considered as an exchange that is comparable to a sale.20Instead, it is considered as if each person gave the other a present. If he gathers [the produce] together and partakes of it, he is liable.21For partaking of untithed produce.

ו׳וְהַמַּתָּנָה אֵינָהּ קוֹבַעַת כְּמֶכֶר. עַם הָאָרֶץ שֶׁהָיָה עוֹבֵר בַּשּׁוּק וְאָמַר טְלוּ לָכֶם תְּאֵנִים אוֹכְלִים וּפְטוּרִין שֶׁאֵין הַמַּתָּנָה קוֹבַעַת. וְאִם הִכְנִיסוּ לְבָתֵּיהֶן אִם רֹב הָעָם מַכְנִיסִים לַבָּתִּים מְעַשְּׂרִים וַדַּאי. וְאִם רֹב הָעָם מַכְנִיסִים לַשּׁוּק אֵין מְתַקְּנִים אֶלָּא דְּמַאי שֶׁמָּא עִשֵּׂר וְאַחַר כָּךְ הֵבִיא לַשּׁוּק. וְאִם אָמַר טְלוּ לָכֶם וְהַכְנִיסוּ לַבָּתִּים כְּשֶׁמַּכְנִיס לַבַּיִת מְעַשֵּׂר דְּמַאי. נָתַן לוֹ דָּבָר מְרֻבֶּה אֲפִלּוּ אָמַר לוֹ טֹל וֶאֱכל הֲרֵי זֶה כְּמִי שֶׁאָמַר לוֹ טֹל וְהַכְנֵס שֶׁאֵינוֹ אוֹכֵל עַד שֶׁיְּתַקֵּן דְּמַאי. וְכֵן אִם נָתַן לוֹ דָּבָר שֶׁאֵין דַּרְכּוֹ לְהֵאָכֵל חַי אוֹ שֶׁהָיָה אָדָם גָּדוֹל שֶׁאֵין דַּרְכּוֹ לֶאֱכל בַּשּׁוּק הֲרֵי זֶה מְתַקֵּן דְּמַאי:

⁶[Giving produce as] a present does not establish an obligation to tithe as a sale does.22There are certain dimensions of Jewish business law in which a present is considered as a sale and others in which it is not (see Hilchot Gezeilah 9:13; Hilchot Mechirah 29:14). The Jerusalem Talmud (Ma'aserot 2:1) states that even those authorities who maintain that giving a present should be considered as a sale (see Hilchot Shemitah VeYoval 11:19) agree that this stringency should not be enforced in the present age, because in the present age, the obligation to tithe is of Rabbinic origin. The Rambam mentions this leniency without differentiating between the era when the obligation to tithe was Scriptural and the present age, because he maintains that the entire obligation to tithe produce obtained through purchase is of Rabbinic origin. When a common person23Who is not necessarily relied upon with regard to tithes. is passing through the marketplace and saying: "Take figs,"24As presents [the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (Ma'aserot 2:1)]. one may partake of them25As a snack. and one is exempt [from the obligation to tithe], for a present does not establish such an obligation.26For we assume that the produce has not been taken home and thus has not incurred the obligation to be tithed. Hence, one is permitted to snack from it without tithing (ibid.).[Different rules apply when the recipients] brings the produce home. If the majority of the people [who harvest] bring their produce home [before taking it to the marketplace], one must certainly separate the tithes.27Since the common person passed through the marketplace and did not stand there to sell his produce, we assume that he is one of those who brings his produce home. Furthermore, we proceed on the assumption that he has not taken the produce home yet and thus it never incurred the obligation to be tithed. Therefore when the recipients take it home, it incurs that obligation for the first time. Indeed, they must separate not only the tithes, but also terumah. If most of the people take the produce directly to the market place, he should only make the separations28These separations must be made, for in such a situation, the produce incurs the obligation to be tithed after the work associated with its preparation was completed (see Chapter 3, Halachah 1). as one does for demai,29As will be explained in Chapter 9, in the Second Temple period, the common people became somewhat lax with regard to the mitzvah of separating tithes. When they became aware of this situation, the Sages ordained that one should not partake of produce from a common person without tithing it, for perhaps he did not do so. One should not, however, recite a blessing, for it is possible that it was tithed. Similarly in this instance, it is possible that the common person tithed his produce, but it is possible that he did not. for perhaps he tithed it and then brought it to the marketplace.If [the common person] said: "Take them and bring them to your homes,"30I.e., he is assuring the recipients that they may take the produce home without qualms because it has already been tithed [the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (loc. cit.)]. when one takes them home, he must tithe them as one tithes demai.31For we do not accept the common person's word (ibid.). If [the common person] gave him a large amount of produce - even if he told him: "Take it and eat it,"32Which could be interpreted as assurance that the produce had not been taken home by the common person and thus it has not yet been tithed. - it is as if he told him, "Take it and bring it home."33Because a large amount of produce will certainly not be eaten in the marketplace. We do not rely on the common person's assurance that he tithed it or that he will tithe it in the future. He may not partake of it until he makes the separations as one does for demai.34For we are unsure of whether or not it was tithed or not. The same concepts apply with regard to the instances mentioned in the later clauses. Similarly, if he gave him produce that is not usually eaten uncooked or the recipient was a person of stature who would not ordinarily eat in the marketplace, he should make the separations as one does for demai.

ז׳הָיוּ שְׁנַיִם אָמַר לְאֶחָד טֹל וֶאֱכל וְאָמַר לְשֵׁנִי טֹל וְהַכְנֵס זֶה אוֹכֵל וּפָטוּר וְזֶה אוֹכֵל וְחַיָּב:

⁷If there were two [prospective recipients] and [the common person] said to one: "Take it and partake of it [here in the marketplace]," and he told the other: "Take it and bring it home," the first may partake of it and be exempt [from the obligation to tithe],35As in the first clause of the previous halachah. while the second is obligated if he eats.36As in the later clause. The fact that his statements are self-contradictory is not a matter of concern, for the obligation to tithe is Rabbinic in origin and our Sages established their rules as general guidelines to be applied even if some ramifications are difficult to understand (Aruch HaShulchan).

ח׳וְכֵן אֲנָשִׁים שֶׁהָיוּ יוֹשְׁבִים בַּשַּׁעַר אוֹ בַּחֲנוּת וְאָמַר לָהֶם טְלוּ וְאִכְלוּ הֲרֵי אֵלּוּ אוֹכְלִין וּפְטוּרִין. וּבַעַל הַשַּׁעַר אוֹ בַּעַל הַחֲנוּת לֹא יֹאכַל עַד שֶׁיְּעַשְּׂרוּ דְּמַאי. שֶׁנִּמְצָא כְּאוֹמֵר לְאֵלּוּ טְלוּ וְהַכְנִיסוּ לְבָתֵּיכֶם שֶׁהֲרֵי הֵם כְּבָתֵּיהֶם. וּכְבָר בֵּאַרְנוּ שֶׁאֵין הַבַּיִת שֶׁאֵינוֹ שֶׁלּוֹ קוֹבֵעַ לוֹ כְּשֶׁיַּעַבְרוּ הַפֵּרוֹת בְּתוֹכוֹ:

⁸Similarly,37I.e., here to, the above principles produce seemingly contradictory rulings. if there were people sitting at the gate [of a courtyard] or in a store and [the common person] told them: "Take [this produce] and partake of it," they may partake of it38As a snack. They may not eat a significant meal. and are exempt [from the obligation to tithe].39Even if it is brought within the gate or the store. The owner of the gate or the owner of the store may not partake of it until he makes the separations as one does for demai. For it is as if [the common person] told these people: "Take it and bring it home," for [these places] are considered like their homes.40For they are located there on a consistent basis [the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (Ma'aserot 2:2)]. As we already explained,41Chapter 4, Halachah 11. As the Ra'avad notes, the Rambam's decision here appears somewhat contradictory to his ruling there. See the notes to that halachah. having produce pass through a house that is not one's own does not establish [an obligation to tithe].42And thus, the other people in the store or gate are not obligated to tithe.

ט׳הַשּׂוֹכֵר אֶת הַפּוֹעֲלִים לַעֲשׂוֹת עִמּוֹ בְּפֵרוֹת בֵּין בִּתְלוּשִׁין בֵּין בִּמְחֻבָּרִין הוֹאִיל וְיֵשׁ לָהֶם לֶאֱכל מִן הַתּוֹרָה בְּמַה שֶּׁהֵן עוֹשִׂין הֲרֵי אֵלּוּ אוֹכְלִין וּפְטוּרִים מִן הַמַּעֲשֵׂר. וְאִם הִתְנָה עִמָּהֶן שֶׁיֹּאכְלוּ מַה שֶּׁלֹּא זָכְתָה לָהֶן תּוֹרָה כְּגוֹן שֶׁהִתְנָה עִמָּהֶן הַפּוֹעֵל שֶׁיֹּאכְלוּ בָּנָיו עִמּוֹ אוֹ שֶׁיֹּאכַל בְּנוֹ בִּשְׂכָרוֹ אוֹ שֶׁיֹּאכַל אַחַר גְּמַר מְלַאכְתּוֹ בְּתָלוּשׁ הֲרֵי זֶה אָסוּר לֶאֱכל עַד שֶׁיְּעַשֵּׂר הוֹאִיל וְאוֹכֵל מִפְּנֵי הַתְּנַאי הֲרֵי זֶה כְּלוֹקֵחַ:

⁹[The following rules apply when one] hires workers to perform work with him concerning produce, whether produce that has been detached or that which is attached. Since [the workers] have the right to partake of the produce with which they are working according to Scriptural Law,43See Hilchot Sechirut, ch. 12, based on Deuteronomy 23:25-26, which describes a worker's right to partake of the produce with which he is working. they may partake of it and are exempt from tithing.44Because the worker does not acquire the produce that he eats. Instead, he is eating because of the Torah's license. Hence, he is not required to separate tithes (Siftei Cohen 331:123).[Different rules apply if the employer] agreed to a condition that allowed them to partake of produce to which the Torah did not entitle them, e.g., the worker stipulated that his son could partake of the produce with him, his son could partake of the produce as payment of his wages, or that he would be able to [continue] partaking of the produce which was harvested after the work [involved in its preparation] was completed, he is forbidden to partake of the produce until he tithes it. [The rationale is that] since he is partaking of the produce because of the condition, he is like a purchaser.45Who must tithe his produce as stated above.

י׳שְׂכָרוֹ לְנַכֵּשׁ עִמּוֹ בְּזֵיתִים וְהִתְנָה הַפּוֹעֵל שֶׁיֹּאכַל בְּזֵיתִים הֲרֵי זֶה אוֹכֵל מִן הָאִילָן אַחַת אַחַת וּפָטוּר וְאִם צֵרֵף חַיָּב:

¹⁰If [an employer] hired [a worker] to hoe around olive trees46To remove weeds so that the tree will grow better. In such an instance, he is not entitled to partake of the olives according to Scriptural Law, because his work does not involve the produce itself. See the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (Ma'aserot 3:3). and the worker stipulated that he could partake of the olives, he may eat them one by one from the tree and he is exempt [from the obligation to tithe].47As In Chapter 4, Halachah 15, et al. For in this manner, the work associated with the olives is not completed. If he gathers them together, he is obligated.48Because collecting even a small number of them would be considered as the completion of a task. He is obligated to tithe, because since he is eating due to the stipulation, it is considered as a purchase.

י״אשְׂכָרוֹ לְנַכֵּשׁ בִּבְצָלִים וְהִתְנָה לֶאֱכל יָרָק מְקַרְסֵם עָלֶה עָלֶה וְאוֹכֵל וְאִם צֵרֵף חַיָּב. קָצַץ הַפּוֹעֵל שֶׁיֹּאכַל לִיטְרָא שֶׁל זֵיתִים אוֹכֵל אַחַת אַחַת וְאִם צֵרֵף חַיָּב לְעַשֵּׂר הוֹאִיל וְהוּא אוֹכֵל דָּבָר קָצוּב הֲרֵי זֶה כְּלוֹקֵחַ שֶׁאִם צֵרֵף נִקְבַּע. לֹא קִצֵּץ אֶלָּא הָיָה אוֹכֵל כְּדִין תּוֹרָה. מְצָרֵף וְאוֹכֵל כָּל מַה שֶּׁיִּרְצֶה וְהוּא שֶׁלֹּא יִסְפּוֹת בְּמֶלַח. אֲבָל אִם סָפַת בְּמֶלַח אַחַת אַחַת מֻתָּר שְׁתַּיִם שְׁתַּיִם אָסוּר שֶׁהֲרֵי נִקְבְּעוּ [בְּמֶלַח]:

¹¹If one hired [a worker] to hoe around onions49I.e., to remove small onions and/or weeds from an onion patch so that the large onions would have the opportunity to grow. and he stipulated that he could partake of the green onions,50I.e., the leaves of the onions. According to Scriptural Law, the worker is not allowed to partake of the onions, because his efforts to do not complete the preparation of this produce (Hilchot Sechirut 12:4). Nevertheless, this owner agreed to allow the worker to partake of the onion leaves. he can cut off leaf by leaf and partake of them [without tithing], if he gathered them together, he is obligated.51As explained in the previous halachah.If a worker52Who was performing work with the olives that would entitle him to partake of them according to Scriptural Law, e.g., he was harvesting them. stipulated that he could eat a litra53A Talmudic measure equivalent to half a log, 171 cc according to Shiurei Torah, 300 cc according to Chazon Ish. of olives, he may eat them one by one [without having to tithe them]. If he gathered them together, he is obligated to tithe. [The rationale is that] since he is eating a fixed measure, he is considered as a purchaser and [in such an instance,] if the produce is gathered together, his obligation to tithe is established. If he did not make a stipulation and instead, was eating as authorized by Torah Law, he may gather together and eat as much as he desires,54As stated in Halachah 9. provided he does not dip them in salt. If he dips them in salt,55It must be emphasized that we are speaking about an instance where the employer gives the worker special license to dip the olives in salt. Otherwise, he is forbidden to do so, as apparent from Hilchot Sechirut 12:10 (Rambam LeAm). he is permitted [to eat them] one by one [without tithing].56See Halachah 18. [To eat them] two by two is forbidden, for the obligation to tithe is established by dipping them in salt.57As stated in Chapter 3, Halachah 3.

י״בפּוֹעֵל שֶׁהָיָה עוֹשֶׂה בִּלְבָסִין לֹא יֹאכַל בִּבְנוֹת שֶׁבַע. בִּבְנוֹת שֶׁבַע לֹא יֹאכַל בַּלְּבָסִין עַד שֶׁיְּעַשֵּׂר. אֲבָל יֵשׁ לוֹ לִמְנֹעַ עַצְמוֹ עַד שֶׁיַּגִּיעַ לִמְקוֹם הַיָּפוֹת:

¹²When a worker was performing work with lower quality figs,58Our translation is based on the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (Ma'aserot 2:8). he should not partake59Without separating tithes. of higher quality figs.60Because that is not the species of produce with which he is working. If he was performing work with higher quality figs, he should not partake of lower quality figs unless he tithes them. He is permitted, however, to refrain from eating until he reaches the higher quality figs.

י״גהַמּוֹצִיא פּוֹעֲלִים לַעֲשׂוֹת לוֹ מְלָאכָה בַּשָּׂדֶה בִּזְמַן שֶׁאֵין לָהֶן עָלָיו מְזוֹנוֹת אוֹכְלִין מִפֵּרוֹת שֶׁבַּשָּׂדֶה וּפְטוּרִין מִן הַמַּעֲשֵׂר וְהוּא שֶׁלֹּא נִגְמְרָה מְלַאכְתָּן. אֲבָל אִם יֵשׁ לָהֶן עָלָיו מְזוֹנוֹת לֹא יֹאכְלוּ וְאַף עַל פִּי שֶׁלֹּא נִגְמְרָה מְלַאכְתָּן שֶׁאֵין פּוֹרְעִין חוֹב מִן הַטֶּבֶל. אֲבָל אוֹכְלִין אַחַת אַחַת מִן הַתְּאֵנָה אֲבָל לֹא מִן הַסַּל וְלֹא מִן הקֻפָּה וְלֹא מִן הַמֻּקְצֶה:

¹³When a person takes workers out to his field to perform work for him there,61In his Commentary to the Mishnah (Ma'aserot 3:2), the Rambam states that we are not speaking about workers employed to harvest the produce of the field, for they would have a right to partake of this produce according to Scriptural Law. Instead, we are speaking of workers who are plowing or performing other similar tasks. if he is not required to provide them with food, they may partake of the produce of the field62They may partake of the produce freely, not merely one at a time. [when granted permission by the owner],63This addition is made on the basis of the gloss of the Radbaz. and they are exempt from the tithes,64For a present is not considered like a sale and does not obligate the separation of tithes, as stated in Halachah 5. provided the tasks associated with [the preparation of the produce] are not completed.65As stated at the beginning of Chapter 3. If the tasks were completed, it would be forbidden to partake of a significant meal from this produce. If, however, he is required to provide them with food, they should not eat [of the produce of the field] even though they have not completed their tasks.66See Chapter 6, Halachah 9. The Radbaz mentions that the produce must have matured to the extent that it could be obligated to tithed. Otherwise, there would be no prohibition in paying one's debt with it. [The rationale is that] we do not pay a debt from tevel.67And since the owner is required to provide them with food, allowing them to partake of this produce would be equivalent to paying a debt. [Even in such a situation, the workers] should partake of the figs one by one. They may not, however, [partake of those] in a basket or in a container or those set aside.68For the work associated with this produce is completed and it is forbidden to partake of it unless it is tithed.

י״דאֶחָד הַמְבַשֵּׁל וְאֶחָד הַשּׁוֹלֵק וְאֶחָד הַכּוֹבֵשׁ קוֹבֵעַ לְמַעֲשֵׂר. אֲבָל הַמְעַשֵּׁן אֶת הַפֵּרוֹת עַד שֶׁהִכְשִׁירָן הֲרֵי זֶה סָפֵק:

¹⁴When one cooks produce, boils it,69I.e., cook without spices. or pickles it,70In brine, the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (Ma'aserot 4:1). one establishes an obligation to tithe.71This obligation is, however, merely Rabbinic in origin. If, however, one smokes produce until it is prepared [to be eaten], there is a doubt [whether there is an obligation to tithe].72Our Sages [the Jerusalem Talmud (Nedarim 6:1)] raise this question and leave it unresolved. See the Radbaz who mentions instances where smoking is considered as cooking and others when it is not.

ט״והַטּוֹמֵן פֵּרוֹת בַּאֲדָמָה אוֹ בַּתֶּבֶן אוֹ בַּזֶּבֶל עַד שֶׁהִכְשִׁירָן לַאֲכִילָה לֹא נִקְבְּעוּ לְמַעֲשֵׂר:

¹⁵When a person buries his produce in the ground, in straw, or in fertilizer before preparing them to be eaten,73In his Commentary to the Mishnah (loc. cit.), the Rambam explains that when produce was picked before it was ripened, it would be buried in this manner to hasten its ripening and softening process. the obligation to tithe them is not established.74Although this activity helps prepare them to be eaten, it is not considered as cooking or pickling (Radbaz; see also the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah, loc. cit.).

ט״זהַנּוֹתֵן יַיִן לְתַבְשִׁיל חַם אוֹ שֶׁנָּתַן שֶׁמֶן לִקְדֵרָה בְּאִלְפַס כְּשֶׁהֵן מְרֻתָּחִין נִקְבְּעוּ לְמַעֲשֵׂר. מָזַג יַיִן בְּמַיִם חַמִּים נִקְבַּע. וְאֵין צָרִיךְ לוֹמַר אִם בִּשֵּׁל הַיַּיִן וַאֲפִלּוּ בְּגַת שֶׁאָסוּר לִשְׁתּוֹת מִמֶּנּוּ עַד שֶׁיְּעַשֵּׂר:

¹⁶When a person places wine into a cooked dish that is hot75Apparently, this ruling applies even if the cooked food has been removed from the fire and placed in another utensil (a kli sheni). See Radbaz and Chapter 3, Halachah 15. or he places oil in a pot or a baking dish when they are boiling, he establishes an obligation to tithe. If he mixes wine with hot water, he establishes an obligation to tithe. Needless to say, that if he cooks wine, even in the wine press, it is forbidden to drink from it unless he tithes it.

י״זהַשּׁוּם וְהַשַּׁחֲלִים וְהַחַרְדָּל שֶׁשְּׁחָקָן בַּשָּׂדֶה בְּשֶׁמֶן נִטְבְּלוּ לְמַעֲשֵׂר. וְכֵן הַסּוֹחֵט אֶשְׁכּוֹל לְתוֹךְ הַכּוֹס נִקְבַּע. לְתוֹךְ הַתַּמְחוּי אֵינוֹ נִקְבָּע:

¹⁷When garlic, cress, or mustard seed were crushed in the field and mixed with oil,76The Radbaz states that this applies whether the spices were untithed and the oil had been tithed previously or the oil was untithed and the spices had been tithed previously. an obligation to tithe was established.77If they were not brought home. Crushing these pungent herbs and mixing them with oil is equivalent to cooking them. Similarly, if one squeezes a cluster [of grapes] into a cup, an obligation to tithe was established.78Creating a liquid (wine) from the grapes is equivalent to cooking. [If he squeezes it] into a pot,79Containing other food. an obligation was not established.80Because the wine was absorbed immediately by the food in the pot and never became a distinct entity. We are speaking about food that is cold. Otherwise, exposing the wine to heat would establish the obligation as stated in the previous halachah (Kessef Mishneh).

י״חהַמּוֹלֵחַ פֵּרוֹת בַּשָּׂדֶה נִקְבְּעוּ. טָבַל הַזֵּיתִים אֶחָד אֶחָד בְּמֶלַח וְאָכַל פָּטוּר. הַפּוֹצֵעַ זֵיתִים כְּדֵי שֶׁיֵּצֵא הַשָּׂרָף מֵהֶם פָּטוּר. הַנּוֹטֵל זֵיתִים מִן הַמַּעֲטָן טוֹבֵל אֶחָד אֶחָד בְּמֶלַח וְאוֹכֵל. וְאִם מָלַח וְנָתַן לְפָנָיו חַיָּב. וְכֵן כָּל כַּיּוֹצֵא בָּזֶה:

¹⁸When a person salts produce in the field, an obligation to tithe is established.81As stated in Chapter 3, Halachah 3. If, however, he dips olives into salt one by one and eats them, he is exempt. A person who opens olives so their fluid82A white fluid that resembles milk in its appearance [the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (Ma'aserot 4:1)]. will flow out, is exempt. A person who removes olives from the storage vat,83Where the olives are kept until they become soft and fit to be squeezed for their oil (ibid. 4:3). may dip them in salt one by one and eat them. If, however, he salted [several] and served them, he is obligated [to tithe]. Similar laws apply in all analogous situations.

י״טהַתּוֹרֵם פֵּרוֹתָיו תְּרוּמָה שֶׁצָּרִיךְ לִתְרֹם אַחֲרֶיהָ שְׁנִיָּה נִקְבְּעוּ לְמַעֲשֵׂר. וְלֹא יֹאכַל מֵהֶן עַרְאַי עַד שֶׁיּוֹצִיא הַתְּרוּמָה הַשְּׁנִיָּה וִיעַשֵּׂר:

¹⁹[Even though] a person separates terumah from his produce in a manner that requires him to make a second separation,84See Hilchot Terumah 5:14,15 which give examples of instances where a person made an improper separation of terumah and hence, was required to separate terumah a second time. the obligation to tithe is established.85Chapter 3, Halachah 3, states that separating terumah creates an obligation to tithe the remaining produce. In this halachah, the Rambam emphasizes that even if the separation of terumah was defective and terumah had to be separated a second time, the obligation to tithe has still taken effect (Radbaz). He should not [even] snack from it until he separates terumah a second time and tithes.

כ׳פֵּרוֹת שֶׁנִּגְמְרָה מְלַאכְתָּן וְחָשְׁכָה עֲלֵיהֶן לֵילֵי שַׁבָּת נִקְבְּעוּ וְלֹא יֹאכַל מֵהֶן אֲפִלּוּ לְאַחַר הַשַּׁבָּת עַד שֶׁיְּעַשֵּׂר:

²⁰When the work associated with the preparation of produce has been completed86As stated in Chapter 3, Halachah 3, the onset of the Sabbath establishes an obligation to tithe. Nevertheless, this applies only when the tasks associated with the preparation of the produce was completed beforehand (Beitzah 35a). and nightfall arrives on Friday, the obligation to tithe takes effect.87The rationale is that since the work associated with them has been completed, it is possible to partake of them on the Sabbath. Now eating any food on the Sabbath is significant for it is a dimension of the mitzvah of oneg Shabbat, taking pleasure in the Sabbath. Hence, the obligation to tithe is established (Siftei Cohen 331:127). One may not partake of them88Even a snack. even after the Sabbath until they are tithed.

כ״אתִּינוֹקוֹת שֶׁטָּמְנוּ תְּאֵנִים לְשַׁבָּת וְשָׁכְחוּ לְעַשְּׂרָן לֹא יֵאָכְלוּ לְמוֹצָאֵי שַׁבָּת עַד שֶׁיְּעַשְּׂרוּ:

²¹When children hid figs for the Sabbath and forgot to tithe them, one should not partake of them Saturday night until they are tithed.89For the onset of the Sabbath establishes an obligation to tithe as above.The Rambam is quoting the Mishnah (Ma'aserot 4:2). The Jerusalem Talmud raises the question: Why is it necessary to state that the children were intending to partake of them on the Sabbath? Even if that was not their intent, the commencement of the Sabbath would have established the obligation to tithe. The Jerusalem Talmud answers that the new insight is that since it was children who hid the produce, it would be permitted to be eaten as a snack on Friday. If, however, adults set aside the produce for use on the Sabbath, it is not permitted to snack from it on Friday. See also Siftei Cohen 331:129.

כ״בתְּאֵנָה שֶׁהָיְתָה מְיֻחֶדֶת לוֹ לֶאֱכל פֵּרוֹתֶיהָ בְּשַׁבָּת וְלִקֵּט מִמֶּנָּה כַּלְכָּלָה לֹא יֹאכַל עַד שֶׁיְּעַשֵּׂר הוֹאִיל וּפֵרוֹת אֵלּוּ מְיֻחָדִין לְשַׁבָּת וְהַשַּׁבָּת קוֹבַעַת:

²²If there was a fig tree that was designated for one to partake of its produce on the Sabbath90Its figs were of a high quality and hence, set aside to be used on the Sabbath when one must use produce of the highest quality. and one gathered a basket [of these figs], one may not partake of them91Even during the week (Radbaz). until he tithes them. [This stringency was established,] because these figs are designated for the Sabbath and the Sabbath establishes an obligation to tithe.

כ״גהָיָה אוֹכֵל בְּאֶשְׁכּוֹל וְחָשְׁכָה עָלָיו לֵילֵי שַׁבָּת לֹא יִגְמֹר אֲכִילָתוֹ בְּשַׁבָּת עַד שֶׁיְּעַשֵּׂר. וְאִם הִנִּיחָן לְאַחַר שַׁבָּת הֲרֵי זֶה גּוֹמְרוֹ:

²³If a person was eating92I.e., snacking. Eating a significant amount establishes an obligation to tithe. a cluster of grapes and nightfall arrived on Friday, he should not finish eating them on the Sabbath unless he tithes them.93The tithing should be done before the Sabbath, because it is forbidden to tithe on the Sabbath itself (Hilchot Shabbat 23:9). If he sets them aside until after the Sabbath, he may finish them.94Since he began partaking of them before the commencement of the Sabbath and places them aside so that he would not partake of them on the Sabbath, their status does not change. He need not tithe them if he partakes of them after the Sabbath (Siftei Cohen 331:130).

א׳מַחְלִיקִין בִּתְאֵנִים וַעֲנָבִים שֶׁל טֶבֶל וְאֵין בָּזֶה מִשּׁוּם הֶפְסֵד. וְכָל שֶׁאָסוּר לְזָרִים לְאָכְלוֹ בִּתְרוּמָה כְּגוֹן הַגַּרְעִינִין וְכַיּוֹצֵא בָּהֶן כָּךְ אָסוּר לְאָכְלוֹ מִן הַטֶּבֶל וּמִן הַמַּעֲשֵׂר שֶׁלֹּא נִטְּלָה תְּרוּמָתוֹ וּמִמַּעֲשֵׂר שֵׁנִי וְהֶקְדֵּשׁ שֶׁלֹּא נִפְדּוּ. וְכָל שֶׁמֻּתָּר לְזָרִים לְאָכְלוֹ בִּתְרוּמָה מִדְּבָרִים אֵלּוּ כָּךְ מֻתָּר בְּטֶבֶל וּבְמַעֲשֵׂר שֶׁלֹּא נִטְּלָה תְּרוּמָתוֹ וּמַעֲשֵׂר שֵׁנִי וְהֶקְדֵּשׁ שֶׁלֹּא נִפְדּוּ:

¹One may rub the surface of figs and grapes [of tevel];1Produce from which terumah and tithes were not separated. It was common to rub the surface of grapes and figs to smooth them (Kessef Mishneh). The Radbaz states that oil was applied to their surface. this does not cause a [significant] loss.2Although this activity causes the produce to spoil slightly faster, this is not significant over the long run. See the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (Ma'aserot 1:8). Whatever is forbidden for non-priests to partake of with regard to terumah, e.g., the seeds or the like,3The Rambam is speaking about aspects of produce, e.g., leaves, peels, seeds, some of which are considered waste products (and hence, permitted to be eaten by non-priests) and some of which are considered as food (and forbidden to them). See Hilchot Terumah 11:10-13 where the Rambam gives many different examples of these categories. Any substance that is considered as food with regard to terumah is also considered as food with regard to the other prohibitions mentioned by the Rambam. Conversely, any substance that is not considered as food with regard to terumah is also not considered as food in the other contexts. may not be eaten from tevel, from the tithes from which terumat ma'aser has not been separated, or from the second tithe and consecrated property that were not redeemed. Whatever non-priests may partake of with regard to terumah is also permitted to be eaten from tevel, from the tithes from which terumat ma'aser has not been separated, and from the second tithe and consecrated property that were not redeemed.

ב׳אֵין מַדְלִיקִין בְּטֶבֶל טָמֵא אֲפִלּוּ בְּחל וְאֵין צָרִיךְ לוֹמַר בְּשַׁבָּת שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (במדבר יח ח) "אֶת מִשְׁמֶרֶת תְּרוּמֹתָי" מַה תְּרוּמָה טְהוֹרָה אֵין לְךָ בָּהּ אֶלָּא מִשְּׁעַת הֲרָמָתָהּ אַף תְּרוּמָה טְמֵאָה אֵין לְךָ לֵהָנוֹת בָּהּ אֶלָּא מִשְּׁעַת הֲרָמָתָהּ וְאֵילָךְ:

²We4Even priests who are permitted to use impure terumah (Radbaz). may not kindle impure tevel,5Impure terumah, e.g., oil, may be used as fuel for kindling. The priest might think: "Since I want to use all of this oil as fuel, why should I separate the terumah? Let me kindle it all as tevel." This is not permitted as the Rambam proceeds to explain.Our translation follows the interpretation of the Radbaz. Others interpret the term mechapin as "cover." even during the week. Needless to say, this applies on Sabbath.6I.e., kindling the Sabbath lights with oil that is tevel. This is certainly forbidden, because terumah and the tithes may not be separated on the Sabbath. [This is implied by Numbers 18:8]: "the watch of My terumah."7In the verse, the noun terumah uses a plural form alluding to two types of terumah: pure terumah and impure terumah. See also Hilchot Terumah 2:14. Just as pure terumah may not be used until after it has been separated, so too, we may not benefit from impure terumah until after it was separated.

ג׳אֵין מְחַפִּין בְּטֶבֶל וְאֵין זוֹרְעִין אֶת הַטֶּבֶל וַאֲפִלּוּ פֵּרוֹת שֶׁלֹּא נִגְמְרָה מְלַאכְתָּן אָסוּר לִזְרֹעַ מֵהֶן עַד שֶׁיְּעַשֵּׂר. בַּמֶּה דְּבָרִים אֲמוּרִים בִּתְבוּאָה וְקִטְנִיּוֹת וְכַיּוֹצֵא בָּהֶן. אֲבָל הָעוֹקֵר שְׁתִילִים שֶׁיֵּשׁ בָּהֶן פֵּרוֹת מִמָּקוֹם לְמָקוֹם בְּתוֹךְ שָׂדֵהוּ הֲרֵי זֶה מֻתָּר וְאֵינוֹ כְּזוֹרֵעַ טֶבֶל שֶׁהֲרֵי לֹא אָסַף הַפֵּרוֹת. וְכֵן הָעוֹקֵר לֶפֶת וּצְנוֹנוֹת וּשְׁתָלָם בְּמָקוֹם אַחֵר אִם נִתְכַּוֵּן לְהוֹסִיף בְּגוּפָן מֻתָּר. וְאִם שְׁתָלָן כְּדֵי שֶׁיְּקַשּׁוּ וְיִקַּח הַזֶּרַע שֶׁלָּהֶן אָסוּר מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהוּא כְּזוֹרֵעַ חִטִּים אוֹ שְׂעוֹרִים שֶׁל טֶבֶל:

³We may not cover tevel with earth,8To cover seeds that were strewn over the field with earth (Radbaz). It was forbidden to do this until after terumah and the tithes were separated because this resembles sowing tevel. nor may we sow it. It is forbidden to sow even produce for which the work associated with their preparation has not been completed9The obligation to separate terumah and the tithes does not take effect until the work associated with the preparation of the produce has been completed (see Chapter 3, Halachot 8-13). Since the produce has not reached this stage, one might think that there is no prohibition against sowing it. until it has been tithed.10According to Scriptural Law, there is no prohibition against sowing tevel. The obligation to tithe applies only when one eats. Nevertheless, our Sages (Pe'ah 1:16) imposed this stringency.When does the above apply? With regard to grains, legumes, and the like.11For gathering them together to sow them completes the work associated with their preparation [the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (Ma'aserot 1:8)]. If, however, one uproots saplings that contain fruit and replants them in another place in his field,12The Radbaz states that if he gives the trees to a colleague for the colleague to plant in his field, the fruit must be tithed. it is permitted. It is not considered as sowing tevel, for he did not gather the fruit.13Thus the fruit was never considered as an independent entity from the tree so that the obligation to tithe it could be considered.Similarly, when one uproots turnips and radishes and replants them elsewhere, if he intends to add to their bulk, it is permitted.14For they were not gathered with the intent of reaping produce and thus the obligation to tithe did not fall upon them. If one plants them so that they will produce stalks so that he can take their seed, it is forbidden [to plant them without tithing],15For the obligation to tithe was incurred when the produce was harvested originally. because it is like sowing wheat or barley that is tevel.

ד׳לִיטְרָא מַעֲשֵׂר טָבוּל שֶׁזְּרָעָהּ וְהִשְׁבִּיחָהּ וַהֲרֵי הִיא עֶשֶׂר לִיטְרִין חַיֶּבֶת בְּמַעֲשֵׂר. וְאוֹתָהּ לִיטְרָא מְעַשֵּׂר עָלֶיהָ מִמָּקוֹם אַחֵר לְפִי חֶשְׁבּוֹן. לִיטְרָא בְּצָלִים שֶׁתִּקְּנָם וּזְרָעָם אֵינוֹ מְעַשֵּׂר לְפִי חֶשְׁבּוֹן הַתּוֹסֶפֶת אֶלָּא מְעַשֵּׂר לְפִי כֻּלּוֹ:

⁴[The following laws apply when a person] sows a litra of produce16The Ra'avad states that this applies only to crops like onions or the like where a bulb is planted and it increases as it grows. If, however, seeds which do not grow until they decompose are planted, this law does not apply. The Radbaz states that the Rambam would not necessarily accept this limitation. that was separated as tithes, but terumat ma'aser had not been separated from it. If it increased and it is now 10 litra, [the entire new crop] is required to be tithed.17I.e., not only the new crop but also the old crop which was tithed and then sown, as explained in the subsequent notes. A tenth18The percentage to be separated as terumat ma'aser. should be separated for the [original] litra from other produce19Which was reaped in the same year as that produce was reaped, for it is forbidden to separate the terumah [or terumat ma'aser] for produce from one year from produce from a different year (Hilchot Terumot 5:11). according to the appropriate reckoning.20For although it is now considered as part of the new crop, since it still physically exists, there is an obligation to separate terumat ma'aser for it.If one separated [terumah and tithes] from a litra of onions and sowed them, one should not separate the tithes according to the reckoning of the increase, but according to the entire sum of the crop.21Since one sowed the onions themselves and tithes had already been separated from them, there is reason to think that there would be no need to tithe them again. Indeed, it would be undesirable to do so, for it is improper to tithe produce that has already been tithed. Nevertheless, in this instance, there is an obligation to tithe. The rationale is that the new growth of the onions outweighs their initial mass and that initial mass is considered as betal, insignificant and subsumed in the greater whole. This concept is illustrated in other contexts; see Hilchot Terumot 11:22; Hilchot Shemitah 4:21, et al.

ה׳זֵרְעוֹנִים שֶׁהֵבִיאוּ שְׁלִישׁ וּמְרָחָן וְעִשְּׂרָן וְאַחַר כָּךְ זְרָעָן וְהוֹסִיפוּ וְאֵין זַרְעָם כָּלֶה הֲרֵי זֶה סָפֵק אִם חַיָּבִין בְּמַעֲשֵׂר מִדִּבְרֵיהֶם הוֹאִיל וְהוֹסִיפוּ. אוֹ אֵין חַיָּבִין שֶׁהֲרֵי הַזֶּרַע שֶׁעֲדַיִן הוּא קַיָּם וְלֹא אָבַד מְעֻשָּׂר הוּא. וְאֵין אֵלּוּ דּוֹמִים לִבְצָלִים שֶׁהַבְּצָלִים אֵין דַּרְכָּן לְהִזָּרַע:

⁵There is an unresolved doubt regarding the ruling when stalks of produce whose seed does not decompose that reached a third of their growth,22At which point the obligation to tithe applies. were [gathered,] their stack was straightened, and he tithed them,23I.e., this completes the tasks associated with the preparation of the produce and causes the obligation to tithe to be incurred. he subsequently sowed them, and they increased in size. [One might say that] there is a Rabbinic obligation to tithe them, because they increased in size.24And the produce which existed previously is considered as betal to the new produce, as above. [But one might say] that there is no obligation25To tithe the original produce. Even this opinion agrees that the new produce which grows must be tithed. since the seed which continues to exist and did not decompose was tithed. [The laws governing these species] do not resemble [those that apply to] onions, because it is not common practice to sow onions.26Hence, the laws governing onions cannot provide guidance in this instance (Kessef Mishneh).

ו׳הַזּוֹרֵעַ אֶת הַטֶּבֶל בֵּין דָּבָר שֶׁזַּרְעוֹ כָּלֶה בֵּין דָּבָר שֶׁאֵין זַרְעוֹ כָּלֶה אִם אֶפְשָׁר לְלָקְטוֹ קוֹנְסִין אוֹתוֹ וּמְלַקְּטוֹ. וְאִם צָמַח אֵין מְחַיְּבִין אוֹתוֹ לַעֲקֹר וְהַגִּדּוּלִין חֻלִּין. וְאִם הָיָה דָּבָר שֶׁאֵין זַרְעוֹ כָּלֶה אֲפִלּוּ גִּדּוּלֵי גִּדּוּלִין אֲסוּרִין עַד שָׁלֹשׁ גֳּרָנוֹת וְהָרְבִיעִי מֻתָּר. וּמִפְּנֵי מָה הַגִּדּוּלִין אֲסוּרִין מִפְּנֵי תְּרוּמַת מַעֲשֵׂר וּתְרוּמָה גְּדוֹלָה שֶׁבָּהּ. וְכֵן הַדִּין בְּזוֹרֵעַ מַעֲשֵׂר שֶׁלֹּא נִטְּלָה תְּרוּמָתוֹ. אֵין מוֹכְרִין אֶת הַטֶּבֶל אֶלָּא לְצֹרֶךְ וּלְחָבֵר. וְאָסוּר לִשְׁלֹחַ אֶת הַטֶּבֶל וַאֲפִלּוּ חָבֵר לְחָבֵר שֶׁמָּא יִסְמְכוּ זֶה עַל זֶה וְיֵאָכֵל הַטֶּבֶל:

⁶[The following laws apply when one] sows tevel, whether a crop whose seed decomposes27E.g., wheat or barley. or a crop whose seed does not decompose.28Like onions or garlic. If it is possible for him to gather it [before it takes root in the ground], we penalize him29For violating our Sages' decree not to sow tevel. and [require him to] gather it. [If the seed decomposes], should it grow, we do not require him to uproot [the plants].30For the prohibited entity no longer exists. [The growths] are considered as ordinary produce.31I.e., it is permitted to partake of them and the required separations must be made.If the produce is of a type whose seed does not decompose, even the produce that grows from the growths - indeed, even until the third generation - is forbidden. The fourth generation is permitted. Why are the growths forbidden? Because of the terumat ma'aser and the terumah within them.32Compare to Hilchot Terumah 11:21 and notes. These same laws apply when one sows produce separated as the tithes from which terumat ma'aser was not separated.It is forbidden to sell tevel except when there is a necessity to do so and [then,] only to a Torah scholar.33We are translating the term chaver according to the Rambam's wording in his Commentary to the Mishnah (Demai 5:8). More specifically, it refers to a person who adheres to the laws of tithing. Torah scholars are mentioned, because we assume that they adhere to those laws (Chapter 9, Halachah 1, Chapter 10, Halachot 1-2). It is forbidden to send [presents] of tevel, even from one Torah scholar to another, perhaps one will rely on the other34I.e., since both are known to tithe their produce, it is possible that both will think that the other one tithed, when in fact neither of them did so. and thus cause tevel to be eaten.

ז׳הַמּוֹכֵר פֵּרוֹת לַחֲבֵרוֹ וְנִזְכַּר שֶׁהֵם טֶבֶל וְרָץ אַחֲרָיו לְתַקְּנוֹ וְלֹא מְצָאוֹ. אִם יָדוּעַ שֶׁאֵין קַיָּמִין וְשֶׁכְּבָר אָבְדוּ אוֹ נֶאֶכְלוּ אֵינוֹ צָרִיךְ לְעַשֵּׂר עֲלֵיהֶם. וְאִם סָפֵק שֶׁהֵם קַיָּמִין אוֹ אֵין קַיָּמִין צָרִיךְ לְהוֹצִיא עֲלֵיהֶן מַעַשְׂרוֹת מִפֵּרוֹת אֲחֵרוֹת:

⁷[The following rules apply when a person] sells produce35Which both the seller and the purchaser thought had been tithed. to a colleague, but then remembers that it is tevel and although he afterwards runs to pursue him to make the appropriate separations,36I.e., this is the first step such a person should take. he cannot find him. If he knows that the produce no longer exists - it was already lost or consumed - he does not have to separate tithes for it.37Once the produce has ceased to exist, there is no way a person can correct his past lapses. If there is a doubt whether it exists or do not exists, he should separate tithes for it from other produce.38The Ra'avad states that the produce separated must itself be tithed, for it is possible that in fact the original produce had been lost. The Radbaz states that the Rambam would also accept this point.

ח׳הַמּוֹכֵר פֵּרוֹת לַחֲבֵרוֹ מוֹכֵר אוֹמֵר עַל מְנָת שֶׁהֵן טֶבֶל מָכַרְתִּי. וְלוֹקֵחַ אוֹמֵר לֹא לָקַחְתִּי מִמְּךָ אֶלָּא מְעֵשָּׂרִין. כּוֹפִין אֶת הַמּוֹכֵר לְתַקֵּן. קְנָס הוּא לוֹ מִפְּנֵי שֶׁמָּכַר טֶבֶל:

⁸[The following rule applies when there is a dispute when] a person sells produce to a purchaser.] The seller says: "I sold them with the stipulation that they were tevel."39He says this after the sale, so that the purchaser knows that the produce must be tithed. He must bring witnesses who testify that he is telling the truth, i.e., that the produce is tevel. Otherwise, the seller's word would not be accepted. See also Chapter 12, Halachah 18, and notes. The purchaser said: "I purchased tithed produce from you."40And thus the seller is required to reimburse him for the tithed produce. We compel the seller to make the appropriate separations.41I.e., separating the tithes for the produce that was sold from other produce. [This is a] penalty imposed upon him for selling tevel.42I.e., ordinarily, the ruling would favor the seller, based on the principle: "When a person seeks to expropriate property from a coleague, the burden of proof is upon him." In this instance, however, the seller is penalized, because he violated a Rabbinic prohibition by selling tevel (Radbaz).

ט׳אֵין פּוֹרְעִין חוֹב מִן הַטֶּבֶל מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהוּא כְּמוֹכְרוֹ:

⁹One may not pay a debt from tevel, for this resembles a sale.43For one is receiving a monetary advantage for the tevel.

י׳מִי שֶׁלָּקְחוּ בֵּית הַמֶּלֶךְ אֶת פֵּרוֹתָיו וְהֵם טְבָלִים. אִם מֵחֲמַת שֶׁהוּא חַיָּב לָהֶן צָרִיךְ לְהוֹצִיא עֲלֵיהֶן מַעַשְׂרוֹת. וְאִם לָקְחוּ בְּאֹנֶס אֵינוֹ צָרִיךְ לְעַשֵּׂר עֲלֵיהֶם:

¹⁰[The following laws apply when a person's] crops were seized by the king's authorities while they were tevel. If [they were taken] because he owed this amount,44I.e., the king had levied a tax on all his countrymen equally. Such a tax must be paid, because "the law of the land is your law" (Hilchot Gezeilah 5:12). he must separate the tithes for this produce.45Otherwise, he would be paying a debt with tevel. If they were taken from him by force, he does not have to separate tithes for them.

י״אהַלּוֹקֵחַ טֶבֶל מִשְּׁנֵי מְקוֹמוֹת מְעַשֵּׂר מִזֶּה עַל זֶה. הַמְקַבֵּל שָׂדֶה מִיִּשְׂרָאֵל אוֹ מִן הַנָּכְרִי חוֹלֵק וְנוֹתֵן לְבַעַל הַשָּׂדֶה בְּפָנָיו כְּדֵי שֶׁיֵּדַע שֶׁטֶּבֶל נָטַל. אֲבָל הַחוֹכֵר שָׂדֶה מִיִּשְׂרָאֵל אִם נָתַן לוֹ מִזֶּרַע אוֹתָהּ שָׂדֶה תּוֹרֵם וְאַחַר כָּךְ נוֹתֵן לוֹ מִזּוֹ שֶׁקָּצַץ לִתֵּן לוֹ וּבַעַל הַשָּׂדֶה מְעַשֵּׂר לְעַצְמוֹ. וְאִם נָתַן לוֹ מִזֶּרַע שָׂדֶה אַחֶרֶת אוֹ מִמִּין אַחֵר מוֹצִיא הַמַּעֲשֵׂר וְאַחַר כָּךְ נוֹתֵן לוֹ:

¹¹When a person purchases tevel from two sources,46I.e., both sellers inform the purchaser that they are selling him tevel (Radbaz). he may separate the tithes from one for the other.47We do not suspect that the two batches of produce are from different years and thus the tithes for one should not be separated from the other (ibid.). When a person receives a field from a Jew or from a gentile as part of a sharecropping agreement,48See Halachah 13 for a definition of the Hebrew terms chokar and mekabel used in the Hebrew text of this halachah. he should make the division [of the produce] in the presence of the owner of the field and give him his share then, so that he knows that he received tevel.49The sharecropper does not have to tithe the crop before he gives the owner his share. This is not considered as selling tevel, for the owner's share of the produce never belonged to the sharecropper. Nevertheless, if the division is not made in the presence of the owner, the sharecropper should separate the tithes, lest the owner think the produce he receives has been tithed and transgress by partaking of it without tithing (ibid.). Even if the owner is a gentile, this applies for another Jew may see the Jewish sharecropper bringing produce to the gentile and purchase it from him under the impression that it was tithed (ibid.).[Different rules apply, however, when a person] rents a field from a Jew on the condition that he pay the owner a specific amount of produce. If he pays him with produce from the field he rented, [the renter] must separate terumah.50For it is forbidden to take produce from the grainheap in which it is gathered without separating terumah (ibid.). Afterwards, he gives him the measure he stipulated he would give him and the owner of the field must separate the tithe himself.51The renter does not have to separate the tithes, because - as above - this portion of the crop never belonged to him. From the outset, it was designated for the owner. If, however, [the renter] pays the owner from the produce of another field or with another type of produce, [the renter] must first separate the tithes and then pay [the owner].52For in that instance, he is paying the owner with the untithed produce and that is forbidden.

י״בהַחוֹכֵר שָׂדֶה מִן הָעַכּוּ"ם מְעַשֵּׂר וְאַחַר כָּךְ נוֹתֵן לוֹ. קְנָס קְנָסוּהוּ בָּזֶה כְּדֵי שֶׁלֹּא יַחְכֹּר מִן הָעַכּוּ"ם, וְנִמְצֵאת הַשָּׂדֶה בּוּרָה לְפָנָיו עַד שֶׁיִּצְטָרֵךְ וְיִמְכְּרֶנָּה לְיִשְׂרָאֵל. וְכֵן הַמְקַבֵּל שְׂדֵה אֲבוֹתָיו מִן הָעַכּוּ"ם קְנָסוּהוּ שֶׁיְּעַשֵּׂר וְאַחַר כָּךְ יִתֵּן חֶלְקוֹ לְעַכּוּ"ם מְעֻשָּׂר כְּדֵי שֶׁלֹּא יִקְפֹּץ וִיקַבְּלָהּ מִמֶּנּוּ מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהִיא שְׂדֵה אֲבוֹתָיו עַד שֶׁתִּשָּׁאֵר לְפָנָיו בּוּרָה כְּדֵי שֶׁיִּמְכְּרֶנָּה לְיִשְׂרָאֵל:

¹²When a person rents a field from a gentile on the condition that he pay him a specific amount of produce, he must tithe the produce before giving it to him. This is a penalty imposed upon him so that he will not rent the field from the gentile.53The Radbaz notes that - as indicated by the previous halachah - a penalty was not imposed on a person who enters into a sharecropping agreement with a gentile unless it was his ancestral field. The Radbaz explains the difference between the two situations: When a person rents a field for a specific amount of produce, he usually does so as a last resort and receives only a minimal amount. Therefore, if there are restrictions made against him doing so, he may sell the land. When, by contrast, a person seeks a sharecropper, he is reserving the option to sow it himself. Hence, he is less likely to sell it. In this way, the field will lie fallow [before the gentile]54For no one will seek to hire it from him. and, of necessity, he will sell it to a Jew.55This and the measure mentioned in the following clause were part of the safeguards the Sages employed to uphold the Jews' possession of our Holy Land. For in the Roman era, gentiles would frequently seize Jewish property without cause. Rather than have it remain in the gentile's possession, our Sages desired that he be compelled to sell it back to a Jew.In his Commentary to the Mishnah (Demai 6:2), the Rambam states that this ruling applies only in Eretz Yisrael, for it is only there that we are careful about land not being sold to a gentile. The Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 331:121), however, quotes this law without making that restriction. It is possible to explain that even in the Diaspora, there is a concept of maintaining the stability of the Jewish community by not giving up Jewish land to gentiles.Similarly, when a person accepts his ancestral field from a gentile as a sharecropper,56I.e., the gentile seized a field which a Jew had inherited from his ancestors. Because of his connection to the field, the Jew desired to till it and promised to give the gentile a share under a sharecropping agreement. he was penalized and required to tithe the produce before giving the gentile his share of produce after it was tithed. [This measure was instituted] so that a person should not jump at the opportunity to receive it because it was his ancestral field. In this manner, it will remain fallow before the gentile so that he will sell it to a Jew.

י״גאֵי זֶהוּ חוֹכֵר וְאֵי זֶהוּ מְקַבֵּל. חוֹכֵר שֶׁחוֹכֵר הַקַּרְקַע בְּדָבָר קָצוּב מִן הַזֶּרַע בְּכָךְ וְכָךְ סְאָה בֵּין עָשְׂתָה הַרְבֵּה בֵּין עָשְׂתָה מְעַט. מְקַבֵּל הוּא שֶׁיְּקַבֵּל אוֹתָהּ בְּחֵלֶק מִמַּה שֶּׁתֵּעָשֶׂה חֶצְיוֹ אוֹ שְׁלִישׁוֹ אוֹ מַה שֶּׁיִּתְּנוּ בֵּינֵיהֶן. שׂוֹכֵר הוּא שֶׁשּׂוֹכֵר הַקַּרְקַע בְּמָעוֹת:

¹³What is meant by a chokar and what is meant by a mekabel?57These terms refer to sharecroppers operating under different types of agreements. A chokar hires the field for a specific amount of produce - these-and-these many se'ah - whether the field produced a lot or a little. A mekabel hires the field for a percentage of its yield, half, a third, or whichever amount they agree on. A sochar is one who rents the land for [a sum of] money.58See Hilchot Sechirut 8:1-2 which also discusses these distinctions.

י״דשְׁנַיִם שֶׁקִּבְּלוּ שָׂדֶה בַּאֲרִיסוּת אוֹ יָרְשׁוּ אוֹ נִשְׁתַּתְּפוּ יָכוֹל הָאֶחָד לוֹמַר לַחֲבֵרוֹ טֹל אַתָּה חִטִּים שֶׁבְּמָקוֹם פְּלוֹנִי וַאֲנִי חִטִּים שֶׁבְּמָקוֹם פְּלוֹנִי אַתָּה יַיִן שֶׁבְּמָקוֹם פְּלוֹנִי וַאֲנִי יַיִן שֶׁבְּמָקוֹם פְּלוֹנִי. אֲבָל לֹא יֹאמַר טֹל אַתָּה חִטִּים וַאֲנִי שְׂעוֹרִים אַתָּה יַיִן וַאֲנִי שֶׁמֶן מִפְּנֵי שֶׁמּוֹכְרִין אֶת הַטֶּבֶל:

¹⁴When two people receive a field as sharecroppers together, they inherit the field, or join as partners with regard to it, one may tell the other: "Take the wheat in this-and-this place and I will take the wheat from that-and-that place. You [take] the wine in this-and-this place and I will take the wine from that-and-that place."59I.e., making a division for the sake of convenience [see the standard printed text of the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (Demai 6:8); Rav Kappach's version differs)]. He should not say: "You take the wheat and I will take the barley. You take the wine and I will take the oil," for that constitutes selling tevel.

ט״וכֹּהֵן אוֹ לֵוִי שֶׁלָּקְחוּ פֵּרוֹת מִיִּשְׂרָאֵל אַחַר שֶׁנִּגְמְרָה מְלַאכְתָּן מוֹצִיאִין אֶת הַתְּרוּמָה וְהַמַּעַשְׂרוֹת מִידֵיהֶן וְנוֹתְנִין אוֹתָם לְכֹהֲנִים וְלִלְוִיִּם אֲחֵרִים. קְנָס הוּא לָהֶם כְּדֵי שֶׁלֹּא יִקְפְּצוּ לָגֳרָנוֹת וּלְגִתּוֹת וְיִקְנוּ טְבָלִים כְּדֵי לְהַפְקִיעַ מַתְּנוֹת אֲחֵיהֶם הַכֹּהֲנִים. וְאִם קָנוּ קֹדֶם שֶׁתִּגָּמֵר מְלַאכְתָּן אֵין מוֹצִיאִים מִיָּדָם:

¹⁵When a priest or a Levite purchased produce from an Israelite after the tasks [associated with their preparation] were completed,60But before terumah and the tithes were separated. Since the priests or Levites are entitled to the tithes and/or the terumah, they wished to purchase the produce and separate them for themselves. See Chapter 1, Halachah 3. we expropriate the terumah and tithes from their possession and give them to other priests and Levites. This is a penalty imposed on them so that they will not hurry to the grainheaps and winepresses and purchase tevel to grab the presents of their priestly brethren.61The Ra'avad accepts the Rambam's ruling, but differs with regard to its motivating rationale. He explains that since the Israelite completed the tasks associated with the preparation of the grain, he has the right to give away the terumah and the tithes and the priest or Levite is not entitled to take that from him. The Radbaz and the Kessef Mishneh note that the rationale given by the Rambam is mentioned in the Jerusalem Talmud (Pe'ah 1:6) and thus question the Ra'avad's position. If, however, they purchase [the produce] before [these] tasks are completed, we do not expropriate [the presents] from their possession.62Since there is a certain amount of difficulty involved in the completion of these tasks, we do not penalize them.

ט״זכֹּהֵן אוֹ לֵוִי שֶׁמָּכְרוּ פֵּרוֹת תְּלוּשִׁין לְיִשְׂרָאֵל קֹדֶם שֶׁתִּגָּמֵר מְלַאכְתָּן וְאֵין צָרִיךְ לוֹמַר אִם מָכְרוּ בִּמְחֻבָּר הֲרֵי הַתְּרוּמָה אוֹ הַמַּעֲשֵׂר שֶׁלָּהֶם. וְאִם מָכְרוּ אַחַר גְּמַר מְלָאכָה הֲרֵי הַתְּרוּמָה וְהַמַּעֲשֵׂר שֶׁל לוֹקֵחַ וּמַפְרִישׁ וְנוֹתֵן לְכָל כֹּהֵן אוֹ לֵוִי שֶׁיִּרְצֶה:

¹⁶When a priest or Levite sold produce that was detached to an Israelite63But not to a fellow priest or Levite. before the tasks [associated with their preparation] were completed - and certainly, if they sold the produce while it was attached - the terumah or the tithes belong to [the priest or Levite].64The rationale is that we operate under the presumption that when the priest or Levite sold the produce, he included a stipulation that the terumah and/or the tithes were his. Even though this stipulation was not explicitly made, we assume that it was understood (Rav Yosef Korcus).Although they sold tevel - and thus it would be appropriate to penalize them - since they made it known that the produce was tevel, no penalty is imposed. If they sold it after these tasks were completed, the terumah and the tithes belong to the purchaser.65Since the tasks associated with the produce were completed, the obligation to tithe is immediate. Hence, if the priest or Levite desired to retain possession of the terumah and tithes, they would have to make an explicit stipulation. He must separate them and may give them to the priest or Levite of his choice.

י״זכֹּהֵן וְלֵוִי שֶׁקִּבְּלוּ שָׂדֶה מִיִּשְׂרָאֵל כְּשֵׁם שֶׁחוֹלְקִין בְּחֻלִּין כָּךְ חוֹלְקִין בִּתְרוּמָה וּבְמַעַשְׂרוֹת וְהַיִּשְׂרָאֵל נוֹטֵל חֶלְקוֹ וְנוֹתֵן לְכָל כֹּהֵן אוֹ לֵוִי שֶׁיִּרְצֶה. אֲבָל יִשְׂרָאֵל שֶׁקִּבֵּל שָׂדֶה מִכֹּהֵן אוֹ מִלֵּוִי הַתְּרוּמָה אוֹ הַמַּעֲשֵׂר לְבַעַל הַשָּׂדֶה וּשְׁאָר הַמַּתָּנוֹת חוֹלְקִין:

¹⁷When a priest or Levite receive a field from an Israelite under a sharecropping agreement, they should divide the terumah and the tithes, as they divide up the ordinary produce. The Israelite should take his portion and give it to the priest or Levite of his choice. When, however, an Israelite receives a field from a priest or a Levite under a sharecropping agreement, the terumah and/or the tithes belong to the owner of the field.66In this instance as well, since the field belongs to the priest or Levite, it is as if he made a stipulation that the terumah and/or tithes should be given to him. The remainder of the presents67The second tithe or the tithe given to the poor. should be divided.

י״חהַמְקַבֵּל זֵיתִים לְהוֹצִיא מֵהֶן שֶׁמֶן בֵּין יִשְׂרָאֵל מִכֹּהֵן אוֹ לֵוִי בֵּין כֹּהֵן אוֹ לֵוִי מִיִּשְׂרָאֵל כְּשֵׁם שֶׁחוֹלְקִין בְּחֻלִּין כָּךְ חוֹלְקִין בִּתְרוּמָה וּמַעַשְׂרוֹת מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהַשֶּׁמֶן חָשׁוּב הוּא:

¹⁸When a person - whether an Israelite from a priest or Levite or a priest or Levite from an Israelite - receive olives68I.e., olives that have already been harvested from the tree (Radbaz). to produce oil, they should divide the terumah and the tithes, as they divide up the ordinary produce. [The rationale is that] oil is an important [commodity].69Hence if the priest or Levite desired that the terumah and/or tithes be left for him, he would have to make an explicit stipulation to that effect. Thus if the olives - or any other produce - have not been harvested, if the land is owned by a priest or Levite, he retains the right to the terumah and/or tithes as above.

י״טכֹּהֵן שֶׁמָּכַר שָׂדֶה לְיִשְׂרָאֵל וְאָמַר לוֹ עַל מְנָת שֶׁהַמַּעֲשֵׂר שֶׁלָּהּ שֶׁלִּי לְעוֹלָם הֲרֵי הֵן שֶׁלּוֹ כֵּיוָן שֶׁאָמַר עַל מְנָת נַעֲשֶׂה כְּמִי שֶׁשִּׁיֵּר מְקוֹם הַמַּעֲשֵׂר. וְאִם מֵת הַכֹּהֵן הֲרֵי בְּנוֹ כִּשְׁאָר הַכֹּהֲנִים. וְאִם אָמַר לוֹ עַל מְנָת שֶׁהַמַּעַשְׂרוֹת לִי וְלִבְנִי מֵת הוּא יִטְלֵם בְּנוֹ. עַל מְנָת שֶׁהַמַּעַשְׂרוֹת שֶׁלִּי כָּל זְמַן שֶׁהִיא לְפָנֶיךָ מְכָרָהּ לְאַחֵר אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁחָזַר וּלְקָחָהּ אֵין לַכֹּהֵן אוֹתָם הַמַּעַשְׂרוֹת:

¹⁹When a priest sells a field to an Israelite and tells him: "[I am selling it] on the condition that the tithes from it belong to me forever," they belong to him.70Even if the purchaser later sells that field to another person, he cannot override the stipulation that was part of the original sale. [The rationale is that] saying "on the condition that" is tantamount to setting aside for himself [the portion of the field] where the tithes [grow].71Were his stipulation not to be powerful enough to retain a portion of the land itself, it would not be effective, because it would be tantamount to purchasing an entity that has not come into existence. Such a purchase is not effective (Bava Batra 63a).The commentaries note an apparent contradiction between the Rambam's ruling here and his ruling in Hilchot Bikkurim 9:11. Although there are explicit Talmudic sources for both rulings, their logic appears contradictory. Among the resolutions offered is that here, the Rambam is speaking about landed property, while in Hilchot Bikkurim, he is speaking about an animal and the principles of ownership are different in these two instances.If the priest [who sold the land] dies, his son is like all other priests.72I.e., he no longer has any special rights to the terumah or tithes. If [the priest] told [the purchaser]: "[I am selling it] on the condition that the tithes from it belong to me and my son," [when] he dies, his son73His grandson, however, does not have a right to them (Aruch HaShulchan). should take [the tithes]. If he sold it "...on the condition throughout the time it is in your possession," should the purchaser sell it to another person - even if he later buys it back, the priest is no longer entitled to those tithes.

כ׳יִשְׂרָאֵל שֶׁקִּבֵּל שָׂדֶה מִכֹּהֵן וְלֵוִי וְאָמַר לוֹ עַל מְנָת שֶׁהַמַּעַשְׂרוֹת שֶׁלִּי אַרְבַּע אוֹ חָמֵשׁ שָׁנִים מֻתָּר. עַל מְנָת שֶׁהֵן שֶׁלִּי לְעוֹלָם אָסוּר שֶׁאֵין כֹּהֵן עוֹשֶׂה כֹּהֵן. וְכֵן בֶּן לֵוִי שֶׁהָיָה עָלָיו חוֹב לְיִשְׂרָאֵל לֹא יִהְיֶה יִשְׂרָאֵל זֶה גּוֹבֶה מֵאֲחֵרִים וּמַפְרִישׁ עַד שֶׁיִּפְרַע כְּנֶגֶד חוֹבוֹ שֶׁאֵין לֵוִי זֶה עוֹשֶׂה בַּעַל חוֹב שֶׁלּוֹ כְּלֵוִי אַחֵר שֶׁיִּגְבֶּה מַעֲשֵׂר מֵאֲחֵרִים:

²⁰When an Israelite received a field under a sharecropping agreement from a priest or Levite and stipulated that [the agreement is being made] "on the condition that the tithes are mine74I.e., the Israelite's. for four or five years," this is permitted.75The Israelite is stipulating that he retains the right to separate the terumah and the tithes for all of the produce and give them to any priest or Levite he desires. Although as stated above, when the owner of the field is a priest, he can retain the rights to the terumah and the tithes. Nevertheless, as part of his contractual arrangement with the renter, he may give him the right to distribute them (Radbaz). "...On the condition that they are mine forever," this is forbidden. [The rationale is that] one priest cannot make another priest.76I.e., a priest cannot give his right to collect terumah to a person who is not a priest. Similarly, a Levite may not make another Levite. Since the renter desires to make the arrangement permanent, it is forbidden, for a person who does not have a right to take the terumah and tithes is taking them.Similarly, if a Levite owed money to an Israelite, the Israelite may not collect produce from others and set aside the tithes for himself until he repays his debt.77I.e., the creditor will continue to deduct the value of the tithes from the debt until the debt is paid. For a Levite cannot make his creditor a Levite so that he can collect the tithes from others.78Even though the creditor is taking them for the Levite, since he does not have an inherent right to them, he may not collect them.

כ״איִשְׂרָאֵל שֶׁיָּרַשׁ טֶבֶל מְמֹרַח מֵאֲבִי אִמּוֹ כֹּהֵן וְאוֹתוֹ אֲבִי אִמּוֹ יְרָשׁוֹ מֵאֲבִי אִמּוֹ יִשְׂרָאֵל הֲרֵי זֶה מַפְרִישׁ מִמֶּנּוּ מַעַשְׂרוֹתָיו וְהֵן שֶׁלּוֹ. שֶׁהַמַּתָּנוֹת הָרְאוּיוֹת לִיתָרֵם כְּמוֹ שֶׁהוּרְמוּ הֵן אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁלֹּא הוּרְמוּ:

²¹When an Israelite inherits tevel that was found in a grainheap whose edges had been straightened79I.e., at this stage, the tasks associated with the preparation of the produce were completed and tithes are required to be separated from it. from his maternal grandfather who was a priest who in turn inherited it from his maternal grandfather who was an Israelite, [the Israelite who was the heir] may separate the tithes and keep them as his own. [The rationale is that] presents which are fit to be separated are considered as if they have already been separated although in actual fact they were not separated.80To summarize the situation: The first testator, the Israelite, had completed the tasks involved with the preparation of his produce, but died before he had the opportunity to separate the terumah and the tithes. The first heir and second testator, the priest, also died before he had the opportunity to make these separations. Nevertheless, since had he in fact separated them, he would have been allowed to keep them as his own, we consider it as if he actually did so. Therefore when the final heir, the Israelite, takes possession of the produce, he must separate the terumah and the tithes to fulfill the mitzvah. He may then, however, keep them as his own property. (He may not, however, partake of the terumah, he must sell it to a priest.)

כ״בהַנּוֹתֵן שָׂדֵהוּ בְּקַבָּלָה לְעַכּוּ"ם אוֹ לְמִי שֶׁאֵינוֹ נֶאֱמָן עַל הַמַּעַשְׂרוֹת אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁלֹּא בָּאוּ לְעוֹנַת מַעַשְׂרוֹת צָרִיךְ לְעַשֵּׂר עַל יָדָם. נְתָנָהּ לְעַם הָאָרֶץ עַד שֶׁלֹּא בָּאוּ לְעוֹנַת הַמַּעַשְׂרוֹת אֵינוֹ צָרִיךְ לְעַשֵּׂר עַל יָדָם. וּמִשֶּׁבָּאוּ לְעוֹנַת הַמַּעַשְׂרוֹת צָרִיךְ לְעַשֵּׂר עַל יָדָם. כֵּיצַד הוּא עוֹשֶׂה. עוֹמֵד עַל הַגֹּרֶן וְנוֹטֵל וְאֵינוֹ חוֹשֵׁשׁ לְמַה שֶּׁאָכְלוּ שֶׁאֵין אָנוּ אַחְרָאִין לָהֶם:

²²When a person gives his field81This halachah is speaking about an instance where the person worded the arrangement with the gentile in such a manner that the gentile does not receive possession of the produce until after it reaches the "phase of tithing." Otherwise, there would be no obligation to separate tithes. See Hilchot Terumah 1:13. to a gentile or to someone upon whom we cannot rely with regard to the tithes82In contrast to the following clause, this phrase does not refer to an ordinary common person, but one who has a reputation for being lax in the observance of this mitzvah (see Ra'avad). For with regard to a common person, we apply certain safeguards lest he not have tithed, but nevertheless, we are not certain that he has not tithed. On the contrary, our presumption is that he did tithe. in a sharecropping arrangement, he must separate the tithes in lieu of them even though [the produce] had not reached the "phase of tithing" [when the arrangement was made].83This is a penalty, imposed so that a person will not give his field to a person who does not observe the mitzvah of tithing.If he entered into such an arrangement with a common person [different rules apply]. If [the arrangement began] before the crops reached the "phase of tithing," he does not have to tithe in lieu of him.84Since the majority of the common people tithe (Shabbat 23a), since he has not incurred the responsibility to tithe at all, he was not penalized. [If it began] after they reached the "phase of tithing," he must tithe in lieu of him.85Since the produce reached the "phase of tithing," and there are some common people who do not tithe, our Sages required that this measure be taken.What must he do? He should stand over the grainheap86Before a division of produce is made. and take [the produce that must be separated]. He need not be concerned with what they ate,87I.e., if they partook of some of the produce while it was forbidden for them to do so. for we are not responsible for their actions.