As we learned above in section 8, when the Men of the Great Assembly sanctified the Land, they sanctified the place of settlement – that is, gevul olei Bavel, the area settled by those who ascended from Babylonia. As a result, the sanctity was also reawakened in all the places conquered by olei Mitzrayim, on both sides of the Jordan, and even spread to Syria. The Sages determined that by virtue of that sanctity, the communal-national mitzvot dependent on the Land would apply in all these places. The difference was in the level of obligation: in gevul olei Bavel, the basis of the obligation was Torah law, while in gevul olei Mitzrayim and Syria, it was rabbinic. Later, Yoḥanan the High Priest instituted the enactment of demai. Under this enactment, one who purchased produce from amei ha-aretz had to separate the tithes and terumat ma’aser out of doubt. Yoḥanan determined that this enactment would apply in gevul olei Bavel, but not in gevul olei Mitzrayim. According to most Rishonim, this is the only difference between gevul olei Bavel and gevul olei Mitzrayim with respect to terumot and ma’asrot, and this is how the Aḥaronim ruled.
However, some Rishonim maintain that the difference between them is more extensive. They argue that in the territory of olei Bavel one must separate terumot and ma’asrot from all fruits and vegetables by rabbinic enactment, whereas in the territory of olei Mitzrayim one must separate only from grain, wine, and oil, the only categories that, according to most Rishonim, are subject to terumot and ma’asrot by Torah law (Rashi, Raavad, and Kaftor Va-feraḥ). [14]
In practice, the Aḥaronim agree that one must separate terumot and ma’asrot from all types of produce even in gevul olei Mitzrayim and Syria; only the enactment of demai does not apply there (Sha’arei Tzedek 13:44; Gevulot Ha-sadeh 3:8). As for cities formerly inhabited mainly by non-Jews, one could have relied on Rambam’s view and exempted them from terumot and ma’asrot altogether. However, since the precise location of the exempt areas is uncertain, and according to most Rishonim these cities remain obligated, the ruling is to separate there without a berakha (see Mishpetei Eretz 3:6).
Regarding Syria, all agree that as a matter of basic law, one must separate terumot and ma’asrot there. Nevertheless, many had the practice not to separate them. They maintained that even land purchased by Jews was not truly theirs, because ultimate ownership remained with the king. If so, the produce was considered to have grown on non-Jewish land; and in Syria, produce grown on non-Jewish land does not require terumot and ma’asrot, even if a Jew completed the final processing of the fruit (Gittin 47a; above, end of note 4). In practice, however, the authorities write that one must separate terumot and ma’asrot in Syria from produce grown on land registered in a Jew’s name. [15]
[14]. The Mishna states: “From Keziv onward, one is exempt from demai” (Mishna, Demai 1:3). “From Keziv onward” refers to gevul olei Mitzrayim. This means that one is exempt there only from the laws of demai; produce that is definite tevel still requires the separation of terumot and ma’asrot. The Gemara likewise relates that R. Meir ate a vegetable in Beit She’an without separating tithes, and that R. Yehuda Ha-nasi relied on this to exempt Beit She’an (Ḥullin 6b). According to this understanding, R. Meir ate a vegetable that was only demai, not produce that was definite tevel. Thus, even though Beit She’an lay within the broader area of olei Bavel, because it was mostly a non-Jewish city, the Sages did not treat it as fully settled and sanctified by olei Bavel. Instead, they left it with the status of gevul olei Mitzrayim: exempt from demai, but not from definite tevel. This is the view of Rabbeinu Tam, Ramban, Rashba, Ritva, and Tosafot Ha-Rosh. Rambam agrees with the basic principle that in gevul olei Mitzrayim, one must separate terumot and ma’asrot from produce that is definite tevel, and is exempt only from demai. In his view, however, the Sages gave a fuller exemption to cities inhabited mainly by non-Jews: even though they were within gevul olei Mitzrayim, produce from those cities was exempt from terumot and ma’asrot altogether. This was the law in Ashkelon, Caesarea, and Beit She’an (MT, Laws of Terumot 1:5).
Some authorities understand the difference more broadly. In their view, in gevul olei Bavel one must separate terumot and ma’asrot from all produce, whereas in gevul olei Mitzrayim one must separate only from grain, wine, and oil. As we learned above (8:1), according to most Rishonim, these are the only species from which terumot and ma’asrot must be separated by Torah law. On this understanding, R. Yehuda Ha-nasi ruled on the basis of R. Meir’s action that Beit She’an has the status of gevul olei Mitzrayim, and therefore one need not separate terumot and ma’asrot there from vegetables (Rashi, Raavad, and Kaftor Va-feraḥ). A few authorities maintain that in gevul olei Mitzrayim and in cities inhabited mainly by non-Jews, one was entirely exempt from terumot and ma’asrot (Rabbeinu Gershom and Tashbetz). In practice, however, the Aḥaronim agree that even in gevul olei Mitzrayim and Syria, one must separate terumot and ma’asrot from all types of produce; the exemption applies only to the enactment of demai (Sha’arei Tzedek 13:44; Gevulot Ha-sadeh 3:8). Regarding cities inhabited mainly by non-Jews, there would have been room to rely on Rambam and not separate terumot and ma’asrot there. However, since the precise locations included in that exemption are uncertain, and according to most Rishonim one must separate terumot and ma’asrot there, the ruling is to separate without a berakha; see Mishpetei Eretz 3:6. Today, after the establishment of the State of Israel, in all places under its rule, one must separate terumot and ma’asrot in full, with a berakha, as explained below in note 20.
[15]. In Syria, many had the practice not to separate terumot and ma’asrot, though those who were meticulous did separate them. R. Laniado, rabbi of Aram Tzova, wrote in Beit Dino Shel Shlomo §3 that the lenient practice was based on the claim that the crown retained legal title to the land, and that the taxes paid by the farmers were therefore effectively rent. Since the halakha in Syria is that a non-Jew’s acquisition exempts the produce from terumot and ma’asrot, they did not separate them. R. Laniado himself, however, rejected this reasoning and ruled that terumot and ma’asrot must be separated from produce grown on land in Jewish possession. Many authorities rule this way as well, including Maharam Galanti §57; the rabbi of Damascus in Nivḥar Mi-kesef, YD 23; and Ḥida, Shi’urei Berakha 331:1. Nevertheless, some wrote that the practice not to separate should be accepted as halakha (Mishpetei Eretz 3:9). Regarding ma’aser sheni in Syria, see above, end of note 4.
