9- General Rules of the Mitzva

[1]. Today, since kohanim do not eat teruma, one may separate teruma for wine from the liquid portion of wine sediment. The amount separated is calculated according to that liquid alone, which some estimate at roughly sixty percent (Divrei David 4, YD 61). Mishpetei Eretz 8:23 expresses hesitation, because that amount is difficult to calculate precisely. This concern is difficult to understand, however, because one can avoid the doubt by calculating conservatively.

The Sages ruled that one may not give the kohen or levi a gift that still requires significant processing. Therefore, if one separated terumot and ma’asrot from sheaves for kernels, from olives for oil, or from grapes for wine, the separation is void. In each case, the recipient has been disadvantaged, because he must now process the gift before it can be used. The owner must therefore separate terumot and ma’asrot again after the processing is complete (Mishna, Terumot 1:4; MT, Laws of Terumot 5:18).

If the owner already separated terumot and ma’asrot in this way, and the kohen and levi are willing to receive their gifts in the unprocessed form – sheaves, olives, or grapes – then after the fact, the separation is valid and the produce is no longer considered tevel (Rash; Rosh; Radvaz). R. Kook maintains that today, since kohanim cannot eat teruma in any case, the separation is effective even without their consent. Some disagree regarding ma’aser; see Ha-Ma’aser Ve-ha-Teruma 5:14 and Ma’adanei Eretz, Terumot 5:18:3.

When it comes to grapes and wine, the determining factor is intent at the moment the obligation of terumot and ma’asrot first applies. Therefore, if one bought grapes to eat, separated terumot and ma’asrot, and only afterward decided to make them into wine, he need not separate again (Mishna, Terumot 1:9; MT, Laws of Terumot 5:20). The original separation was effective, because the obligation had already applied to the grapes as fruit meant for eating.

The same principle applies in the opposite direction. If one bought grapes to eat and then decided to make wine before separating terumot and ma’asrot, he may no longer snack on them casually. Since the obligation took effect when he bought them for eating, that obligation remains even after he decides to process them into wine (Ma’adanei Eretz, Terumot 1:14:7).

[2]. When one separates from produce obligated by Torah law for produce obligated only by rabbinic law, the separation is effective for the second batch, and that produce may now be eaten. However, a problem remains with the produce he designated as terumot and ma’asrot. Since the second batch is subject only to a rabbinic obligation, it is considered exempt by Torah law. From the Torah’s perspective, then, he separated from obligated produce for exempt produce, which has no effect. As a result, the produce he designated still has the status of tevel and requires its own separation.

The question is how to correct the status of that designated produce. According to Rambam, one must separate terumot and ma’asrot for it from other produce (MT, Laws of Terumot 5:16). Ri explains that one should not correct it by separating from the designated produce itself, because he might mistakenly eat the remainder, even though he had previously treated that produce as terumot and ma’asrot (Tosafot, Yevamot 89b, s.v. mi-makom). According to Rashi in Kiddushin 46b and Meiri, however, one may separate from it for itself, because there is no such concern.

The reverse case has a different consequence. If one separated from produce obligated only by rabbinic law for produce obligated by Torah law, the separation takes effect only on the rabbinic level. Since, from the Torah’s perspective, he separated from exempt produce for obligated produce, the Torah obligation remains in place. He must therefore separate terumot and ma’asrot again from the produce obligated by Torah law (MT, Laws of Terumot 5:14).

[3]. According to Turei Even (Megilla 19b), one may even initially separate from produce with one layer of rabbinic obligation for produce with two layers, and the reverse. Most authorities, however, maintain that one should not do so initially. This is the position of Maharam of Rothenburg (§423), cited in Beit Yosef YD 330:6, as well as Mishneh la-Melekh, Sha’arei Tzedek, Ha-Ma’aser Ve-ha-Teruma, and Kerem Tziyon. Nevertheless, if one already separated from one for the other, he has fulfilled his obligation, since both categories are ultimately subject to a rabbinic obligation (Torat Ha-aretz; Ḥallat Leḥem; Mishpetei Eretz 8, note 30; see below, 12, note 21).

Ideally, one should also avoid separating from produce with two layers of rabbinic obligation for produce with three. In pressing circumstances, however, one may be lenient. These situations are common today. The Aḥaronim agree that nowadays terumot and ma’asrot are rabbinic, and most authorities maintain that, even in principle, most fruits are obligated only rabbinically, except for grain, wine, and oil. Therefore, when some produce is intended for household use and some for sale, the case generally involves produce with two layers of rabbinic obligation and produce with three (R. Azriel Ariel, “Separating Terumot and Ma’asrot in the Public System,” p. 53).

[4]. The requirement of mukaf applies most directly to teruma gedola. The Mishna teaches that teruma gedola must be taken from produce that is mukaf (Ḥalla 1:9). By contrast, the Mishna teaches that terumat ma’aser does not require mukaf (Bikurim 2:5). This latter ruling is derived from the verse, “from all your tithes that you receive” (Bamidbar 18:28), which the Yerushalmi understands to mean that terumat ma’aser may be separated even when “one portion is in Judea and one is in the Galilee” (Yerushalmi, Terumot 2:1).

Many authorities maintain that the requirement to separate teruma gedola from mukaf is Torah law, based on the word “from it” in the verses dealing with teruma (Bamidbar 18:27–32; Tosafot; Rabbeinu Tam; Rash; Rid; Tosafot Rosh; Rashba; Ran; Vilna Gaon). Others maintain that the requirement is rabbinic. Since teruma gedola was traditionally separated by estimate – one-fortieth, one-fiftieth, or one-sixtieth, according to the measures established by the Sages (see above, 7:2) – the Sages required the produce to be together so that the owner could view it as a whole and estimate the proper amount accurately (Radvaz; Shakh YD 331:49–50; apparently Ra’avad as well).

In practice, however, the separation is valid even if the produce was not mukaf. Even according to those who view mukaf as a Torah requirement, it is comparable to the requirement to separate from the best produce: one should ideally do so, but if one separated from inferior produce, the separation is still effective. R. Shaul Yisraeli adds that today there may be no obligation to separate from mukaf at all. Even if mukaf was originally required by Torah law, its purpose was to allow the owner to estimate the amount of teruma properly. Today, when we separate only a minimal amount for teruma gedola, that concern no longer applies (Ha-Torah Ve-ha-Aretz 3, p. 134).

At the same time, the law of mukaf may express a deeper idea: teruma should emerge from the produce as a whole. In this way, the sanctity expressed through the teruma leaves its imprint on all the produce from which it was taken.

The Gemara in Gittin 30b explains that the ḥaverim, Torah scholars meticulous in mitzva observance, were careful to separate terumat ma’aser from mukaf as well, because it too is called teruma. Still, there is a difference between the two. For teruma gedola, mukaf is a formal requirement. For terumat ma’aser, it is a meticulous practice of the ḥaverim. Therefore, one need not observe all the technical requirements of mukaf for terumat ma’aser; it is enough for the relevant produce to be visible together (MT, Laws of Terumot 3:20; Rash; Ramban; Rashba). According to Tosafot (Gittin 30b, s.v. ve-khi), the Torah requires mukaf for teruma gedola, and the Sages extended the requirement to terumat ma’aser. As for ma’aser rishon, ma’aser sheni, and ma’aser ani, Rambam and Shulḥan Arukh rule that they do not require mukaf (MT, Laws of Ma’aser 1:6; SA YD 331:71).

[5]. The Yerushalmi permits separating teruma for oil stored in sealed jugs, but not for wine stored in sealed jugs (Yerushalmi, Ma’aser Sheni 3:6; MT, Laws of Terumot 3:18; SA YD 331:26). Rash Sirilio explains that wine is different because people are careful to keep it sealed to preserve its quality; opening the container would diminish the wine. Radvaz explains the distinction differently: oil is generally sealed for a short time, while wine is commonly sealed for long-term storage.

This disagreement affects modern packaging as well. According to Radvaz’s reasoning, one should be stringent with produce stored in cans or large sacks, since these too are kept closed for extended storage and should not be treated as mukaf with other produce (Ḥut Shani; Mishpetei Eretz 12:9–10). R. Mordechai Eliyahu ruled similarly. In pressing circumstances, however, one may rely on Rash Sirilio’s explanation, according to which the stringency applies specifically to wine, whose quality depends on remaining sealed. One may then separate teruma even for produce inside sealed cans or bags. This leniency is further supported by R. Yisraeli’s view that today the requirement of mukaf no longer applies in the same way. When there is concern that people may eat tevel, one may rely on this leniency even for wine in bottles that are not mukaf.

I wrote above that produce, or open containers of produce, need not actually touch one another in order to be considered mukaf. This is the view of the overwhelming majority of poskim: MT, Laws of Terumot 3:18; Rash; Rosh; Rashba; Tur; SA YD 331:26; AHS, Zera’im 62:10. Rabbeinu Tam, however, maintains that when produce is in an open area without surrounding walls, the items must touch one another. Vilna Gaon similarly writes that open containers must touch one another (YD 325:8). Mishpetei Eretz 12:8 is stringent in accordance with this minority view.

[6]. Tosefta, Demai 8:10, and Yerushalmi, Demai 5:2, address one who designated the wrong amount as ma’aser: “One who separates less than the proper amount for his tithes – his tithes are in order, but his produce remains problematic. One who adds more than the proper amount for his tithes – his produce is in order, but his tithes remain problematic.”

If one deliberately designated less than one-tenth as ma’aser, some authorities maintain that the separation takes effect, but he must complete it by separating additional produce until he reaches the required tenth (Ribmatz; Rosh to Mishna, Terumot 4:1; Ramban; Ra’avad, Laws of Ma’aser 1:15; Vilna Gaon, YD 331:125). Others maintain that the separation is void since he did not designate a full tenth (MT, Laws of Terumot 3:7; Laws of Ma’aser 1:15; SA YD 331:77).

If one designated more than one-tenth as ma’aser rishon, the produce from which he separated may be eaten, since a full tenth was certainly removed. The separated portion itself, however, remains problematic. Only the required tenth has the status of ma’aser rishon; the extra produce added beyond that tenth remains tevel and still requires ma’aser sheni or ma’aser ani (Ramban and Ritva to Gittin 31a). Some maintain that once this extra produce has been mixed into the separated portion, there is no way to correct it (Meiri).

Some authorities are stringent and understand the earlier rule to apply even when one tried to separate the proper amount by estimation but ended up with too much or too little; see Mishpetei Eretz 18 note 18. This reading is difficult, both textually and logically. Many authorities state explicitly that the rule applies only when one intentionally increased or decreased the tithe. If, however, he intended to separate the proper amount and simply miscalculated, his separation is valid, even if he was estimating rather than measuring. This is the view of Rash (Terumot 1:7), Tosafot (Gittin 31a, s.v. nitelit), Kaftor Va-feraḥ ch. 24, Sha’arei Tzedek 10:11, and AHS 61:3. This also seems to follow from R. Yosi’s statement in Yerushalmi, Demai 5:2 that the court’s stipulation extended “to the point that the mind errs.” In other words, the Torah commands human beings to separate terumot and ma’asrot, and human beings cannot be perfectly precise. An ordinary human error therefore does not invalidate the tithes. Even the most precise scale cannot produce absolute precision, since the edible portion of each fruit varies depending on its peel, pit, or seeds, and no scale measures with perfect exactness. This is even more true when one separates by volume or by number, where ordinary variation will naturally lead some people to separate slightly more than one-tenth and others slightly less. Therefore, the mitzva cannot require absolute mathematical precision. A normal human miscalculation does not invalidate the separation. Still, the Sages instructed that, whenever possible, one should not separate by estimation. The goal is not absolute precision, which human beings cannot achieve, but to come as close as possible to the proper tenth.

[7]. One may seek annulment of the separation only while doing so will not create a new halakhic problem. Therefore, once people have already eaten from the produce, one should not annul the separation, as that would retroactively render what they ate tevel (Rema 323:1; Shakh YD 323:6). According to Ḥatam Sofer (YD 253), in pressing circumstances one may be lenient and seek annulment even after people have eaten from the produce. Since the produce was permitted when they ate it, the later annulment does not retroactively make them sinners. See Ha-Ma’aser Ve-ha-Teruma 4:27.

Once the owner has given the teruma to the kohen or the ma’aser to the levi, he can no longer seek annulment. Since the gift has already left his possession, the designation is no longer under his control (Rosh and Ran to Nedarim 59a; Mishpat Kohen 39:2; Ha-Ma’aser Ve-ha-Teruma 4:20).

If one separates again after the original separation was annulled, some maintain that no new berakha is recited. Since the original berakha may still cover the second separation, this is treated as a doubtful case of berakhot, and no new berakha is recited (Rashash to Nedarim 59a).

[8]. Teruma that has not become tamei may not be destroyed (MT, Laws of Terumot 12:1). Sefer ha-Teruma writes that it should therefore be buried, so that no one mistakenly comes to eat it. This is also the view of Smag, Tur YD 331:19, Yam Shel Shlomo, and Taz 331:9.

However, when dealing with teruma that has become tamei, a different issue arises. The Mishna states that such teruma is burned (Temura 33b), but the authorities disagree about what this requirement entails. According to Rashi, Rid, and R. Ovadia of Bartenura, the essential requirement is to remove it from use so that no one mistakenly eats it. Burning is one way to do that, but it is not required specifically. According to Tosafot, Ramban, Rashba, and Ritva, however, it must be burned, like sacrificial meat that became disqualified (Shabbat 25a). We saw a similar dispute above, 2, note 3, regarding orla and vineyard kilayim: some authorities require burning specifically, while others understand that the main requirement is to prevent improper benefit. Ḥatam Sofer (OḤ 180) writes that one who burns teruma that became tamei fulfills a mitzva, but is not obligated to do so. In all cases, one must ensure that no one comes to eat it.

This background explains the accepted practice today. People generally do not follow the stricter practice of burning teruma, both because burning is burdensome and because delay in finding a way to burn it could itself lead to mistakes. In addition, since the obligation of teruma today is rabbinic, we may rely in a case of doubt on Rashi’s view, which does not require burning specifically. Even where the obligation to separate teruma applies by Torah law, Tosafot (Shabbat 25a) write that it is uncertain whether the requirement to burn teruma that became tamei is itself a Torah obligation. Therefore, the custom is to wrap the teruma and place it in the trash, whether or not it has become tamei. The wrapping prevents disgrace, since it is forbidden to treat teruma disrespectfully even after it has become tamei (Yerushalmi, Shevi’it 8:2; Ha-Ma’aser Ve-ha-Teruma 1, note 39).

Some object to this practice when the teruma has not become tamei. They argue that produce may rot more quickly when sealed inside a bag and placed in the trash. Furthermore, when the bag is later transferred to a larger communal trash bin, the bag may tear, leaving the teruma exposed, filthy, and degraded.

In practice, however, these concerns are not enough to prohibit the accepted custom. It is not certain that teruma rots more quickly in a bag (see Peninei Halakha: Shevi’it 4, note 2), and there is also a reasonable chance that the bag will remain intact when placed in the communal bin. Thus, any possible destruction would be only a doubtful case of indirect causation – safek grama – and any degradation would be an unintended result – davar she-eino mitkaven. Therefore, there is no prohibition.

When there are large quantities of teruma that has not become tamei, and there is concern that people may eat it, one possible solution is to spray it with a foul-smelling substance. Since the substance can be washed off, this does not destroy the produce. One may not, however, turn the produce into compost, because that actively speeds up its decay; see R. Azriel Ariel’s article in Ha-Torah Ve-ha-Aretz 4.

[9]. When there is a realistic possibility that a kohen will benefit from burning the teruma, it is best to make the produce tamei before its processing is complete (Tur; Rema 331:19). Once processing is complete, however, one may no longer make it tamei (Shakh YD 331:35). Some are lenient and allow one to make the produce tamei after processing is complete but before teruma has been separated. However, once the teruma itself has been separated, all agree that it may not be made tamei (Kaftor Va-feraḥ; Radvaz).

Produce becomes susceptible to tum’a once it has come into contact with one of the seven liquids (see above, 7:7). After that, if a Jew touches the produce with his hand, or if the produce touches a vessel that is tamei, the produce becomes tamei. The simplest way to make produce tamei is to spray it with water that first passed over a Jew’s hand. The water becomes tamei and then immediately makes the produce tamei as well.

The hand of a living gentile, however, does not make the water tamei for this purpose. Although the Sages decreed that gentiles have the status of a zav or zava, teruma is not burned on the basis of that rabbinic tum’a, since it has no basis in Torah law (Nidda 34a; MT, Laws of Those Who Impart Impurity by Lying or Sitting 2:10).

Contact with a corpse is different. The corpse of either a Jew or a gentile generates tum’a through direct contact by Torah law, at the level of avi avot ha-tum’a. With respect to tum’at ohel – tum’a transmitted by being under the same covering – only the corpse of a Jew generates tum’a; the corpse of a gentile does not (MT, Laws of Impurity from the Dead 1:12–13).

[10]. The basic concern is that teruma fit for human consumption should not be treated as animal food, because doing so destroys food that could have been eaten by a kohen. Thus, Sifra (Emor 5:6) and Tanna De-vei Eliyahu Rabba 14 explain that one may not give an animal teruma that is fit for people. A kohen’s animal may be given only teruma produce that people would eat only in pressing circumstances, such as vetch, a legume commonly used as animal fodder. Produce that is not fit for human consumption at all is exempt from terumot and ma’asrot. This is also the view of Rash, R. Ovadia of Bartenura (Terumot 11:9), Ra’avad, Ritva, and Kaftor Va-feraḥ.

Other authorities distinguish between teruma that has become tamei and teruma that has not. Tosafot and Rashba maintain that a kohen may feed his animal teruma that has not become tamei, even if it is fit for human consumption. However, if the teruma has become tamei, it must be burned and may not be fed to an animal. Rambam and Rashi go further still, and maintain that even teruma that has become tamei may be given to an animal, because feeding it to the animal also removes it from the world.

The opinions therefore form three basic views: Rambam and Rashi permit a kohen to feed his animal teruma whether or not it has become tamei. Tosafot and Rashba permit this only when the teruma has not become tamei; once it has become tamei, they apparently require it to be burned. Rash and those who agree with him would apparently prohibit feeding an animal any teruma fit for human consumption.

However, Maharam Ḥaviv, in Kol Gadol §56, argues that today, since kohanim cannot eat teruma, even Rash and those who agree with him would permit feeding it to the animals of kohanim from the outset. In his view this is not considered a loss because the teruma cannot be eaten by the kohen in any case. R. Tzvi Pesaḥ Frank adds that it is even preferable to feed teruma that has become tamei to a kohen’s animal, because the kohen benefits from it as it is being removed from the world (Har Tzvi, Zera’im 1:101). R. Herzog rules similarly (Ketavim U-fesakim 3:32). R. Kook writes that one who is lenient has a basis on which to rely (Mishpat Kohen 38:1–2).

A further view maintains that even when relying on this leniency, one should not feed the teruma to the animal directly. Instead, one should place the teruma before the animal at an unusual distance. In this way, even according to the stringent view, the loss of the teruma occurs only indirectly, through grama (R. Shmuel Salant; Ḥazon Ovadia: Terumot U-ma’asrot, p. 236).

[11]. Some are lenient, based on the view attributed to Ḥazon Ish (Mitzvot Ha-aretz 11:2; Ha-aretz U-mitzvoteha, Terumot U-ma’asrot 5:4). However, the overwhelming majority of poskim write that ma’aser rishon must be given to a levi. This is the ruling of SA YD 331:19; Responsa Mahariṭ 1:85; Shnei Luḥot Ha-berit, Sha’ar Ha-otiyot, letter kuf, Kedushat Ha-akhila; Responsa R. Betzalel Ashkenazi §2; Eretz Ḥayim Sathon 331:4; Har Tzvi, Zera’im 1:107; and Siddur Olat Re’iya, vol. 1, p. 350. R. Yehuda Amichai concludes that this is the practical ruling and writes that R. Shaul Yisraeli and R. Mordechai Eliyahu ruled this way as well (Ha-Torah Ve-ha-Aretz 4).

This is consistent with the fact that we rely on a kohen’s recognized lineage status regarding pidyon ha-ben (Ḥatam Sofer, end of §291; AHS YD 305:30; Sdei Ḥemed, letter kaf, klal 92; unlike She’eilat Ya’avetz 1:155). Furthermore, even Ḥazon Ish himself did not rule leniently in practice, and he personally gave the tithe to a levi (Derekh Emuna, Laws of Terumot 6, Bi’ur Halakha 78).

Since a person must give ma’aser kesafim in any case, it is proper – even according to those who question whether ma’aser rishon must be given to a levi – to give the ma’aser rishon to a Torah scholar who is a levi and count it toward ma’aser kesafim, as will be explained in the next section.

In cases of great financial pressure, when it is difficult to require farmers to give ma’aser rishon to a levi outright, the levi can be asked to act generously. The owner first transfers the ma’aser rishon to the levi, and afterward the levi may transfer it back to the owner of the produce, similar to the practice of many kohanim with pidyon ha-ben money. R. Kook ruled this way, as related in Eleh Mas’ei, p. 118, and Igrot ha-Re’iya, letter 119.

[12]. The mitzva is to give the actual produce designated as the tithe to the levi, and similarly to the poor person, rather than paying money in its place (Responsa Mahari Kurkus in Avkat Rokhel §16; Peri Ḥadash YD 61:16; Maḥazik Berakha 10 regarding priestly gifts). In the present reality, however, bringing the produce itself to the levi’im and the poor is often impractical and may even undermine the purpose of the gift.

In the past, when most of a person’s labor was devoted to obtaining food, food was expensive relative to wages. It was therefore worthwhile for levi’im to come to the fields and receive the tithe produce for their household needs. If they did not come, the produce would be brought to their homes, and the recipients would pay for delivery, because the cost of delivery was lower than the value of the produce.

Today, the situation is very different. It is generally not worthwhile for a levi to travel to the fields in order to receive one type of produce for his household, nor is it worthwhile for him to pay to have it delivered. As modern agriculture has developed, the cost of producing food has dropped greatly. A family can now buy basic food for a month for an amount equal to roughly one-tenth of an average salary, and much of that price reflects transportation and marketing, not the food itself. As a result, delivering produce from the field to one person’s home for household consumption often costs more than the produce is worth.

Nor can one demand that the farmer give the entire tithe to one levi. The obligation is to give each recipient an amount suited to his needs, not an overwhelming quantity he cannot use. Even if the farmer did deliver all the tithe produce to one levi, the levi would have no practical way to store and market such a large amount. Since the produce would spoil if left in the field, the best way to preserve its value is to replace the produce with its monetary value and give that value to the recipients.

Ideally, the tithe produce should first be legally transferred to a specific levi and a specific poor person. To do this, a third party performs an act of acquisition on their behalf. Although the levi and poor person do not know that the acquisition is being made for them, it is nonetheless effective, following the principle of zakhin le-adam she-lo be-fanav – one may acquire something beneficial for another person even when that person is not present (Gittin 30a).

When there is a large amount of produce, it is often difficult to transfer ownership through hagbahah, the usual act of physically lifting the item being acquired. In that case, the acquisition can be done through kinyan agav: the produce is acquired together with a small piece of land or space that is rented for this purpose. The person acquiring for the levi and poor person pays one shekel to rent a defined space of one tefaḥ by one tefaḥ for one day, and through that rented space he acquires the tithe produce for them; see SA ḤM 202. In pressing circumstances, the acquisition may also be done through kinyan sudar, a symbolic exchange. The person acquiring for the levi and poor person gives a garment or utensil to the owner of the produce, and through that exchange acquires the produce for them (Minḥat Shlomo 62:15).

If no other person is present to acquire the produce on behalf of the levi and poor person, the owner may still replace the produce with its monetary value on the basis of hashavat aveda, the mitzva of returning lost property. Since the produce would otherwise spoil, converting it into money preserves value that belongs to the recipients. This is the principle explained regarding priestly gifts in Ḥullin 134b, MT, Laws of Bikurim 9:16, and SA 61:10. Radvaz (1:340) likewise defends the widespread practice of paying money instead of giving the actual gifts.

[13]. Just as the advance loan may be given to a levi or to a poor person, it may also be given to a yeshiva that provides stipends to students who are levi’im or poor, or that employs rabbis who are levi’im.

When the farmer buys back the tithe produce, the price is calculated according to its value in the field when the harvest is complete, before any further handling. The owner of the produce is not obligated to market the levi’s tithe produce for the levi. Therefore, if the farmer receives between 1,000 and 3,000 shekels from a wholesaler for a ton of fruit, the value of a ton of tithe produce may be only about 700 shekels. First, the produce is valued according to the lower market price, which in this case is 1,000 shekels. Second, the farmer is not required to care for the levi’s produce, arrange its sale, or find a buyer. The levi is the one who would have to come to the field and take it. Even if the farmer, because of his connections and experience, can sell the fruit for 1,000 shekels, another person might be able to obtain only 700 shekels. That lower amount may therefore be the true value of the produce in the field.

This calculation is complex and must be made honestly and with fear of Heaven, so that the levi and the poor person are not deprived of what is due to them. When the farmer is uncertain, he should consult a rabbi or an expert who can calculate the price impartially. In the merit of the tithes, he will be blessed with wealth.

The ma’aser rishon and ma’aser ani may be counted toward one’s ma’aser kesafim and ḥomesh, since ma’aser kesafim and ḥomesh were instituted as a substitute for terumot and ma’asrot from a person’s other earnings. At first glance, these agricultural tithes may seem more demanding than ordinary ma’aser kesafim, because they are taken from the total produce before deducting the costs of planting, irrigation, fertilizing, and labor, whereas ma’aser kesafim is given only from net profit.

In practice, however, the burden is usually smaller than it appears. As explained above, the tithe produce is valued according to its lower field price. The amount given to the levi may therefore be only a tenth of roughly one-third of the price the farmer ultimately receives for the crop, or even less. Even in the third and sixth years, when he must also give ma’aser ani, the total may still not exceed one-fifth of his profits, which is the ideal measure for giving toward mitzvot (SA YD 249:1). If the tithes are given to a yeshiva, the farmer may also receive tax benefits.

Strictly speaking, the obligation of terumot and ma’asrot remains in force even if fulfilling it costs more than one-fifth of the farmer’s profits. If all farmers observe the mitzva properly, the cost becomes part of the ordinary cost of production, and no farmer is placed at a competitive disadvantage. The problem begins when some farmers do not observe the mitzva properly. Farmers who observe the mitzva properly must then compete with farmers who can sell at a cheaper price because they are not fulfilling the mitzva as required. For that reason, one should not demand that these farmers give more than one-fifth of their profits. In pressing circumstances, they should not be required to give more than one-tenth of their net profits, comparable to ma’aser kesafim. If the required tithes exceed that amount, the levi and poor person should be asked to act generously toward the farmer by returning part of what they received. In extreme hardship, authorities were lenient enough to ask the levi and poor person to forgo almost the entire tithe, as explained above, note 11.

A makir is not merely a preferred recipient. He is the kohen, levi, or poor person who has become the owner’s established recipient for these gifts. Once that relationship exists, the gift becomes his automatically when it is separated, without the need for a new act of acquisition each time. The question is when that relationship is strong enough to have this effect. If the owner gave the levi only a small loan, it may be unclear whether that is enough to establish him as the owner’s makir (Mishpetei Eretz 17:10). But if the owner gives the levi a substantial loan at the beginning of the season against the ma’aser rishon he expects to separate, the arrangement clearly identifies that levi as his regular recipient. He thereby becomes the owner’s makir, and from then on acquires the ma’aser rishon automatically when it is separated. This automatic acquisition can be understood in two ways. According to Rashi, once this levi is established as the regular recipient, the other levi’im relinquish their claim to that tithe (Rashi to Gittin 30a). According to Tosafot, the owner has committed himself to give the tithe to this levi, and he may not violate his word (Tosafot, Bava Batra 123b, s.v. hakha).

Even if the owner later forgot to give his established levi recipient a new loan, the arrangement does not immediately lapse. Since the owner has already established this levi as his regular recipient, the ma’aser rishon still becomes the levi’s when it is separated, even without a new act of acquisition. The owner should then promptly pay the levi the value of that tithe and give him a new loan, so that future tithes can continue to be handled through the loan arrangement.

A farmer privileged to give large amounts of ma’aser may designate several levi’im as regular recipients. Ideally, this should be arranged through a yeshiva or charity administrator. See the Herḥavot.

[14]. The value of a peruta is based on the weight of half a barleycorn of pure silver (SA YD 331:134). According to R. Ḥayim Naeh, this equals 1/40 gram of silver, and Ḥazon Ish writes similarly (ḤM 16:30). However, based on comparisons between the peruta, other coins, and the measure of a barleycorn, Middot Ve-shi’urei Torah concludes that a peruta equals 1/45 gram of silver (22:12; 25:4).

In practice, the monetary value of a peruta fluctuates with the price of silver. For decades, it was worth less than three agurot. In 5760 (1999–2000), its value began to rise; by 5765 (2004–2005), it reached about five agurot; and in 5772 (2011–2012), it peaked at thirteen agurot before falling again. In the three years before this was written, it ranged between four and five agurot. This was written in 5778 (2017–2018).

[15]. In principle, one should not transfer the kedusha of ma’aser sheni from one coin to another. Nevertheless, if one did so, the redemption is valid (MT, Laws of Ma’aser Sheni 4:5). Therefore, in the present era, when ma’aser sheni produce cannot be eaten in any case, one may transfer the kedusha from one coin to another even from the outset and may do so repeatedly (Kaftor Va-feraḥ ch. 40).

Some authorities maintain that one should not transfer ma’aser sheni money from one coin to another; rather, the coin onto which the ma’aser sheni was redeemed should be destroyed (Ḥazon Ish, Demai 3:12; Mishpetei Eretz 15, notes 55–58). In practice, however, destroying a coin is both physically difficult and prohibited by civil law. The accepted practice, therefore, is to transfer the kedusha from coin to coin until the time of bi’ur ma’asrot, and no authority maintains that such a transfer is invalid.

At the time of bi’ur ma’asrot, all the kedusha remaining on the coins should be transferred onto food worth at least a peruta. Although Ḥazon Ish maintains that ma’aser sheni money cannot be transferred onto food (Ḥazon Ish, Demai 3:10), the overwhelming majority of poskim maintain that it can. Ideally, the food used for this transfer should not have become tamei, in accordance with the view of Tosafot (Kiddushin 56a, s.v. be-mezid). Nevertheless, if the transfer was made onto food that had become tamei, it is valid. On this basis, authorities explain the earlier custom of transferring the kedusha onto bread (Responsa R. Betzalel Ashkenazi §2; Tal Orot YD 1; see Mishpetei Eretz 15:16).

1. Shmuel Salant would transfer the kedusha of ma’aser sheni coins onto a piece of sugar. Some objected that sugar should not be considered food, but only a seasoning. R. Tzvi Pesaḥ Frank responded that for this purpose, sugar is considered food (Har Tzvi, Zera’im 1:116:8). Minḥat Shlomo writes similarly (3:151). Others objected that sugar can become tamei. Nevertheless, the accepted custom in Jerusalem was to use sugar, as R. Tikochinsky and R. Mordechai Eliyahu write.
2. Shlomo Zalman Auerbach initially followed the Jerusalem custom of using sugar, but later instructed that it is preferable to use a piece of potato instead. Today, however, one must ensure that the food used is certainly worth a peruta, since an ordinary piece of potato or spoonful of sugar may not be worth that amount.

If the final transfer is made onto wine or oil, it is best to pour it onto the ground, though not in a way intended to fertilize. Pouring it into the sink involves a slight degradation, since it carries the wine or oil into the sewage system. When pouring it onto the ground is burdensome, however, one may pour it into the sink. It should not be poured into the toilet, just as food may not be placed in the trash unless it is first wrapped respectfully.

[16]. Some question the standard nusach accepted in Jewish practice, and therefore introduce a new stringency: one should say, “This ma’aser sheni, together with its fifth, is redeemed on a peruta and a quarter.” Their concern is that there are cases in which the fifth is not required at all or is required only rabbinically. If one follows the customary nusach and says, “This ma’aser sheni, together with its fifth, is redeemed on one peruta,” perhaps the principal ma’aser sheni – which certainly requires redemption – is left with less than a full peruta (Ḥazon Ish, Demai 15:11).

The overwhelming majority of poskim, however, were not concerned about this. The redemption is valid as long as it is made on a full peruta, even if the nusach also mentions the fifth or other elements that may not be necessary. The person redeeming does not mean to divide the peruta into separate portions, assigning part to the ma’aser sheni and part to the fifth. Rather, he intends to redeem the ma’aser sheni on the entire peruta; the fifth and any other elements included in the nusach are attached to that same peruta as well. In any case, the peruta is not being used as the true market value of the produce today.

Indeed, the accepted practice for generations has been to redeem ma’aser sheni on one peruta of a coin without adding anything. This is the position of R. Ḥayim Vital in Sha’ar Ha-mitzvot, Parashat Vayelekh; Olat Re’iya, vol. 1, p. 353; Ḥazon Ovadia: Terumot U-ma’asrot, p. 190; R. Eliyahu in his siddur; and many others.

[17]. The basic ruling is that ma’aser sheni worth less than a peruta should be buried in the ground, or wrapped and placed in the trash in a way that prevents disgrace. Ḥazon Ish, Demai 15:12, however, proposed a lenient solution: one may redeem produce worth less than a peruta onto a coin onto which a full peruta of ma’aser sheni has already been redeemed. This is based on Ḥizkiya’s statement in Bava Metzia 52b: once produce has been redeemed onto part of a coin, one may later redeem produce worth less than a peruta, according to its exact value, onto the remaining value of that same coin.

The logic is that the exact value of ma’aser sheni produce cannot be calculated with complete precision. When a person redeems it, he presumably intends to redeem it onto a coin worth more than the produce’s exact value. The unused surplus remaining on that coin can then serve as the basis for redeeming produce worth less than a peruta. However, the first peruta redeemed onto the coin must be from the highest level of obligation. If that first peruta came from produce subject only to two rabbinic layers of obligation, it could not help redeem produce subject to only one rabbinic layer of obligation; see Bava Metzia 53a. Therefore, the first peruta should come from ma’aser sheni of produce whose obligation is by Torah law and that was grown for personal use, such as grapes grown in one’s garden; see above, 8:1. This first peruta is called a peruta ḥamura. Even when transferring all the other perutot on the coin onto one peruta of another coin, this peruta ḥamura must be left in place, so that it remains the basis for redeeming produce worth less than a peruta. After bi’ur ma’asrot, a new peruta ḥamura would have to be created for future redemptions (Mishpetei Eretz 15:11–12, 19).

Ḥazon Ish wrote to R. Kook about this question (Mishpat Kohen §53), and R. Kook rejected this application of Ḥizkiya’s ruling. He explained that redeeming produce worth less than a peruta onto a coin that already contains a full peruta works only when the first redemption was made according to the produce’s actual value within the coin. In that case, the remaining value on the coin is connected to the original redemption, because it is the surplus left from that exact valuation. Today, however, when we redeem onto fixed peruta units within the coin, one peruta is not connected to another. The remaining perutot are therefore not considered surplus from the peruta onto which the original ma’aser sheni was redeemed.

Nevertheless, R. Kook writes that in pressing circumstances, one may rely on the authorities who permit redeeming ma’aser sheni worth less than a peruta. According to this approach, Ḥizkiya’s statement teaches only that the additional fifth is not added in such a case. This appears to be Rambam’s view as well (MT, Laws of Ma’aser Sheni 5:4). Kesef Mishneh and Vilna Gaon likewise support this lenient reading of Rambam: although Rashi and those who agree with him maintain that produce worth less than a peruta cannot be redeemed, Rambam and those who follow his approach maintain that it can. This is also the view of R. Ovadia of Bartenura and R. Eliyahu Fulda.

Other considerations support this leniency as well. If this fruit would be worth a peruta in another market, one may take that higher market value into account. The produce can then be treated as possibly having the minimum value required for redemption. In addition, some maintain that when the Sages said produce worth less than a peruta cannot be redeemed, they meant only that it cannot be redeemed for less than a peruta. If, however, the person redeems that produce onto a full peruta, the redemption takes effect. This seems to follow from Ramban to Bava Metzia 53b, and this is also the view of R. Akiva Eiger. Since the obligation of ma’aser sheni today is rabbinic, these uncertainties may be resolved leniently, as explained in Kiddushin 12a and Shabbat 151a.

Therefore, in pressing circumstances, one may redeem ma’aser sheni worth less than a peruta onto a full peruta. Strictly speaking, there is even room to permit this from the outset, since the obligation today is rabbinic and doubtful cases of rabbinic law are treated leniently. Nevertheless, the preferred practice is not to redeem produce worth less than a peruta, but to dispose of it respectfully, as one does with terumot.

One who wishes to be especially meticulous should do the same even when the ma’aser sheni is worth no more than four perutot. According to one view in Bava Metzia 53b, produce cannot be redeemed unless the additional fifth is itself worth at least a peruta. This is also the position of Olat Re’iya, vol. 1, p. 350, and Minḥat Shlomo 3:152.

[18]. The Mishna states: “One may not add to the city or to the Temple courtyards except with a king, a prophet, the Urim Ve-tummim, a Sanhedrin of seventy-one, two thanksgiving offerings, and song. The court walks, the two thanksgiving offerings follow them, and all Israel follows them…” (Shevu’ot 14a–b). The Gemara explains that according to Rav Huna, Jerusalem becomes sanctified only when all these elements are present. Therefore, in Ezra’s time, no sanctity was added beyond the area that had already been sanctified during the First Temple period. According to Rav Naḥman, however, even one of these elements is sufficient to sanctify the city. In his view, the original sanctity was annulled, and in the Second Temple period Jerusalem was sanctified anew with eternal sanctity (Shevu’ot 16a).

Rambam rules in accordance with Rav Huna (MT, Laws of the Temple 6:14). Accordingly, the sanctified boundaries of Jerusalem follow the walls of the First Temple period. These included the Temple Mount, the Jewish and Armenian Quarters, Mount Zion outside today’s walls, and the City of David down to the Shilo’aḥ. The Christian and Muslim Quarters, however, were not included in the sanctified area.

1. Kook, however, is also concerned for the area enclosed by the wall built during the Second Temple period (Mishpat Kohen 96:6). In his view, Rambam may have meant only that one is not liable to lashes for entering the areas added during the Second Temple period; nevertheless, those areas may still have rabbinic sanctity. Presumably, R. Kook’s concern refers to the area enclosed by what is known as the Second Wall, built by the later Ḥashmona’i kings, which included most of the Muslim and Christian Quarters. It does not refer to the Third Wall, completed near the end of the Second Temple period, which extended as far as today’s Ha-ḥoma ha-Shelishit Street near Mea She’arim.
2. Tikochinsky maintains that this restriction applies throughout the entire area within the present Old City walls, because in his view the walls of Jerusalem in the First Temple period already extended that far (Ir ha-Kodesh Ve-ha-Mikdash 2:3:2–3). R. Mordechai Eliyahu ruled similarly. In practice, one must be stringent in the areas certainly included in the original sanctity: the Temple Mount, the Jewish Quarter, the Armenian Quarter, Mount Zion, and the City of David. It is proper to be stringent throughout the area enclosed by the present Old City walls as well.

[19]. One who does not want to leave the ma’aser sheni produce in Jerusalem until it rots should take the produce outside the sanctified boundary of Jerusalem’s ancient walls. There, he should separate terumot and ma’asrot and redeem the ma’aser sheni in the usual way. If, after the fact, he already brought the produce inside those boundaries and it is difficult to take it out, he should first make the produce tamei. To do this, he should take water, touch it with his hands so that it becomes tamei, and then pour it over the produce. The ma’aser sheni he separates will then be tamei, and it may be redeemed even in Jerusalem since it can no longer be eaten there (Makkot 19b; MT, Laws of Ma’aser Sheni 2:8; Mishpat Kohen 38:3).