The mitzva of terumot and ma’asrot is one of the mitzvot dependent on the Land. Therefore, anything that grows within the territories of Eretz Yisrael is included in the mitzva, including the east side of the Jordan and Syria. However, the level of obligation depends on the presence of the Jewish people in the Land. When most of the Jewish people live in Eretz Yisrael, the obligation applies by Torah law. When most of the people do not live in the Land, as is the case today, the obligation is rabbinic. Some maintain that in the areas settled by those who returned from Babylonia during the Second Temple period, the obligation remains by Torah law even when most of the Jewish people are not living in the Land (see below, 12:11–12; Peninei Halakha: Shevi’it and Yovel 11:4, where this is explained).
Produce grown anywhere under the rule of the State of Israel requires terumot and ma’asrot, and one recites a berakha when separating from it. One may also separate from produce grown in one part of the State of Israel on behalf of produce grown in another part.
However, one should not separate from produce grown in parts of Eretz Yisrael that are under foreign rule – such as Jordan, Syria, Lebanon, and Egypt – on behalf of produce grown within the State of Israel, or the reverse. Some maintain that in areas under Israeli rule the mitzva has a basis in Torah law, while outside the state’s borders its obligation is rabbinic. When most of the Jewish people live in the Land, the obligation will be by Torah law in all territories under Israeli rule, as explained at length below, 12:17.
When produce crosses between Eretz Yisrael and the Diaspora, the basic rule depends on where its gmar melakha is completed.
Produce grown in Eretz Yisrael and exported to the Diaspora requires separation of terumot and ma’asrot if its gmar melakha was completed before it left the Land. If its gmar melakha was completed only after it left Eretz Yisrael, it is exempt.
There is one additional debate regarding exported produce. If, already at the time of picking, the owner intended to export the produce, some exempt it from terumot and ma’asrot even if its gmar melakha was later completed in Eretz Yisrael (Maharsham). Others are stringent (Ḥazon Ish; Igrot Moshe). Since the obligation in this case is rabbinic, those who wish to be lenient may do so.[13]
Produce grown in the Diaspora and brought into Eretz Yisrael follows the same basic principle. If its gmar melakha was completed before it entered the Land, it is exempt. If its gmar melakha was completed in Eretz Yisrael, terumot and ma’asrot must be separated by rabbinic law (MT, Laws of Terumot 1:22).
Several Aḥaronim limit this last ruling to produce grown in a Jewish-owned field in the Diaspora. Produce grown there in a non-Jewish-owned field remains exempt, even if its gmar melakha was completed in Eretz Yisrael (Aḥiezer; R. Shlomo Zalman Auerbach). Although Ḥazon Ish is stringent, the lenient view appears correct. Since the obligation is rabbinic, the halakha follows those who are lenient.[14]
[13]. Rambam writes that produce from Eretz Yisrael that is exported to the Diaspora is exempt from terumot and ma’asrot (MT, Laws of Terumot 1:22). Raavad disagrees and maintains that it is subject to a rabbinic obligation even if its gmar melakha is to be completed in the Diaspora. The Aḥaronim write that the halakha follows Rambam, but they disagree about how to understand his ruling. According to Baḥ and Minḥat Ḥinukh, the produce is exempt even if its gmar melakha was completed in Eretz Yisrael. According to Radvaz, Mishneh la-Melekh, and most Aḥaronim, Rambam exempts only when the gmar melakha was completed outside the Land. If the gmar melakha was completed in Eretz Yisrael, terumot and ma’asrot apply to the produce.
Maharsham 1:72 adds that even those who interpret Rambam stringently would agree in one case: if the produce’s gmar melakha was completed in Eretz Yisrael with the intent to export it, it is exempt. Mishpetei Uziel, vol. 6, YD 98, rules similarly. However, Aḥiezer, Ḥazon Ish, Demai 15:4, and Igrot Moshe, YD 3:127, are stringent. Since produce exported for sale is, in any event, subject only to rabbinic obligation, those who wish to be lenient may do so.
If one may rely on this leniency even when the produce is certainly untithed, then all the more so one may be lenient when produce from Eretz Yisrael is already in the Diaspora and there is doubt whether terumot and ma’asrot were separated before export. This is the view of R. Isser Zalman Meltzer, R. Rosenthal, and Yabi’a Omer 10, YD 46.
[14]. Aḥiezer 2:39:6 and Ma’adanei Eretz, Laws of Terumot 1:22:9, exempt produce grown in a non-Jew’s field in the Diaspora, even if a Jew later completed its gmar melakha in Eretz Yisrael. The dispute turns on how broadly to understand Rambam’s ruling that Diaspora produce whose gmar melakha was completed in Eretz Yisrael is subject to a rabbinic obligation. According to the lenient view, Rambam’s ruling applies only to produce grown in a Jewish-owned field in the Diaspora. Produce grown in a non-Jew’s field is different, since everyone agrees that non-Jewish ownership of land in the Diaspora is fully effective. Therefore, completing its gmar melakha later in Eretz Yisrael does not create an obligation to separate from it. Ḥazon Ish is stringent, understanding Rambam to include all Diaspora produce whose gmar melakha was completed by a Jew in Eretz Yisrael (Ḥazon Ish, Shevi’it 2:1). Ha-Ma’aser Ve-ha-Teruma 3:29 inclines in that direction as well. Nevertheless, the lenient view appears correct. Since the obligation here is rabbinic, doubts in rabbinic law are resolved leniently.
