Kashrut I

13. Demai and Other Doubts

In the language of the Sages, tevel refers to produce from which terumot and ma’asrot have not yet been separated. The word tevel may be understood as tov-lo – “not good” – meaning that the produce is not yet fit to eat. Demai refers to produce about which there is uncertainty: perhaps terumot and ma’asrot were separated from it, and perhaps not. The word demai is Aramaic, meaning, “What is this?” In other words, the produce stands in question: were the required separations performed or not?

In the time of the Sages, most amei ha’aretz separated terumot and ma’asrot, but some did not do so properly. The Sages therefore gave produce bought from them the status of demai. Since teruma gedola was commonly separated even by amei ha’aretz, the Sages did not require one to separate it from demai. They did require one to separate ma’aser rishon, terumat ma’aser, and either ma’aser sheni or ma’aser ani.

Even so, the Sages did not require one to distribute the ma’aser rishon to a levi or the ma’aser ani to a poor person. Since these gifts are monetary obligations, they follow the general rule: “One who seeks to take money from another bears the burden of proof.” Unless the levi or poor person can prove that the ma’asrot were not already separated from this produce, the owner need not give them the gifts. He must, however, separate terumat ma’aser from the ma’aser rishon and give it to a kohen, because terumat ma’aser has sanctity and may not be eaten by a non-kohen. Similarly, since ma’aser sheni has sanctity, it must be separated and eaten in Jerusalem in purity.

One does not recite a berakha when separating terumot and ma’asrot from demai, nor when redeeming its ma’aser sheni, following the well-known rule that we are lenient in cases of doubt concerning berakhot (see MT, Laws of Ma’aser 9:1–4). If one redeems ma’aser sheni of demai, he need not add the additional fifth (MT, Laws of Ma’aser Sheni and Neta Reva’i 5:4).

Today, when there is doubt whether produce has been tithed, that doubt includes teruma gedola as well, since even that is generally not separated by amei ha’aretz. Therefore, one separates all the terumot and ma’asrot without a berakha. As explained above, the monetary gifts – ma’aser rishon and ma’aser ani – need not be given to the levi or the poor person. The sanctified portions, however – teruma gedola and terumat ma’aser – must be set aside out of doubt, wrapped, and discarded respectfully. Ma’aser sheni must likewise be redeemed onto a peruta.

Whenever one is unsure whether the produce before him belongs to a ma’aser sheni year or a ma’aser ani year, he should separate both out of doubt and say: “If this produce requires ma’aser ani, this shall be ma’aser ani; and if it requires ma’aser sheni, this shall be ma’aser sheni.” He then redeems the ma’aser sheni onto a peruta and gives the ma’aser ani to a poor person. One who wishes to be lenient may separate ma’aser sheni alone.^[18]

01. Separating from the Best Produce

Terumot and ma’asrot should be separated from the best produce, as the Torah states: “When you raise up its choicest part from it” (Bamidbar 18:32). This means that, whenever the gifts will actually be given to a kohen or levi, one should choose the superior portion. If, however, no kohen or levi is available, and there is concern that the best ripe produce will spoil before it reaches them, it is better to separate produce that will keep longer, even if it is not the finest. If one separated inferior produce, the separation is valid, and the remaining produce may be eaten (Mishna, Terumot 2:4–6; MT, Laws of Terumot 5:1).

Today this distinction is especially significant. Since everyone today is presumed to carry corpse-impurity and kohanim cannot eat teruma in purity, all produce is effectively ‘inferior’ from the standpoint of the gift — and one may therefore separate from lower-quality produce from the outset. Ma’aser rishon, however, is given to a levi, and ma’aser ani is given to the poor. Since both may still be eaten, they should be separated from better-quality produce (SA YD 331:52; Vilna Gaon, Bi’ur ha-Gra 95; see below, sections 10–11).^[1]

Terumot and ma’asrot must also be separated from the same species. If one separates from one species for another, the separation is void, and he must separate again from the proper species. The guiding test is the law of kilayim: if two kinds may not be planted together as vegetables, or grafted together as trees, they are considered two species for terumot and ma’asrot as well. One may not separate from one for the other, even from the superior species for the inferior one.

However, different varieties of the same species may be separated for one another. Thus, all varieties and colors of grapes are one species, and all varieties and colors of cabbage are one species. Peaches and nectarines are likewise one species. Oranges and grapefruits, however, are two species (Mishna, Terumot 2:6; MT, Laws of Terumot 5:2–3; Mishpat Kohen §25; see above, 3, note 4).

02. Obligated vs. Exempt Produce, and Different Levels of Obligation

When separating terumot and ma’asrot, the portion set aside must have the same halakhic status as the produce it is meant to permit. Produce that is exempt cannot be used for produce subject to the obligation, and produce subject to the obligation cannot be used for exempt produce. Therefore, one may not separate from produce grown outside Eretz Yisrael, or from produce from which terumot and ma’asrot have already been separated, for produce still subject to the obligation. The reverse is also true. If one did so, the separation has no effect, and he must separate again from the produce subject to the obligation (MT, Laws of Terumot 5:12).

The same concern applies when the status of the produce is uncertain. If there are two batches of produce from different places, and each may or may not have been tithed, one should not separate from one batch for the other. One batch may already be tithed while the obligation still applies to the other. If so, he would be separating from exempt produce for produce still subject to the obligation, or the reverse.

The same principle applies across different levels of obligation. One may not separate from produce obligated only by rabbinic law for produce obligated by Torah law. Nor may one separate from produce obligated by Torah law for produce obligated only by rabbinic law.

The obligation applies by Torah law when the field owner grew the produce for his household, or when someone bought it from the field owner before its processing was complete and then completed the processing himself for his household. The obligation applies by rabbinic law when the field owner grew the produce for sale. The same is true of produce grown in an unperforated pot; the obligation applies only by rabbinic law. The law of one who mistakenly separated from one level of obligation for the other is explained in the note. ^[2]

There can even be different levels within rabbinic obligation itself. Some produce is subject to one rabbinic enactment, while other produce is subject to two rabbinic enactments. Ideally, one should not separate from one category for the other. Therefore, even though today all terumot and ma’asrot obligations are rabbinic (see below, 12:11), one should not separate from grapes harvested for home use for grapes harvested for sale. Nevertheless, if one did separate from one for the other, he has fulfilled his obligation. ^[3]

03. Mukaf – Separating from Produce Gathered Together

Teruma gedola should be separated from produce that is mukaf – meaning that all the produce must be present in one place, treated as a single batch. The idea is that the teruma should be taken from the body of produce whose status it is meant to correct, not from produce located elsewhere. If one did separate teruma gedola from produce that was not mukaf, the separation is valid (MT, Laws of Terumot 3:17, 20). Since terumat ma’aser is also called teruma, the Sages were careful to separate terumat ma’aser from mukaf as well.^[4]

What counts as mukaf depends on where the produce is located. If the produce is in an open field, it should be brought close together (SA YD 325:2). If it is in one room, the walls of the room join it together, even when some of the produce is on one side of the room and some on the other. The same is true when the produce is in open containers; as long as the containers are in one room, the room joins them together (SA YD 331:26).

When produce is about to be packed into closed boxes, bottles, or sacks, terumot and ma’asrot should ideally be separated beforehand. Since, according to some, permanent packaging separates foods from one another, they are no longer considered mukaf. In pressing circumstances, however, the packages may be brought close together, and one may separate even for the produce inside them.

With wine, however, the individual bottles or barrels play a more significant role. Since wine continues to age and improve in the sealed container, and opening it can harm its quality, each sealed barrel or bottle is viewed as its own separate unit. The wine inside one container is therefore not considered mukaf with the wine inside another. For this reason, one should separate the required amounts from the wine before sealing it in barrels or bottles, or else separate from each barrel or bottle after opening it (MT, Laws of Terumot 3:18; SA YD 331:26).

When another mitzva is at stake, one may separate even from produce that is not mukaf. For example, if one knows that tevel produce will be brought to him on Shabbat or Yom Tov, he may, before Shabbat or Yom Tov, separate terumot and ma’asrot from produce in his possession for the produce that will be brought later (Yevamot 93a). Similarly, if one mistakenly gave his friend tevel produce and cannot inform him that it must be tithed, he should separate from produce in his own possession to save his friend from eating tevel (Eruvin 32a).^[5]

04. Measuring Accurately and Correcting Mistakes

When separating ma’aser and terumat ma’aser, one should take care to designate the proper amount: exactly one-tenth, neither more nor less. Produce that is normally measured by volume should be measured in that same manner; produce that is normally counted should be counted. When possible, it is best to calculate by weight, since weight is the most accurate method (MT, Laws of Terumot 3:11; Laws of Ma’aser 1:14).

When one is unable to weigh, measure, or count the produce, he may separate the tithes by estimate. If he intended to separate the correct amount, his separation is valid even if his estimate was significantly off, provided it was the kind of mistake people sometimes make. Still, the Sages cautioned: “Do not tithe excessively by estimation” (Avot 1:16). ^[6]

Today, the accepted practice is not to remove actual produce for the tithes themselves. Instead, one designates one-tenth of the produce in a specific location, such as the north or south side, and that portion becomes the ma’aser. This allows the amount designated as ma’aser to be exact. One then gives the value of the ma’aser to the levi or poor person, while ma’aser sheni is redeemed on a peruta.

The terumot, however, have sanctity and must be physically removed. After being removed, they are wrapped and placed respectfully in the trash. The amount removed must be more than one percent of the produce: one percent for terumat ma’aser, plus an additional amount for teruma gedola. If one removed only one percent or less, no amount remains for teruma gedola. Since his declaration assumes that teruma gedola is separated first, the entire separation is invalid, and he must separate terumot and ma’asrot again in the proper order. See Merkavat ha-Mishneh and Yeshu’ot Malko to MT, Laws of Ma’aser 13:19; Ma’adanei Eretz, Terumot 3:23:8.

Once terumot and ma’asrot have been designated, the designation has halakhic force, similar in this respect to vows and consecrations. Therefore, if one wants to be released from that designation – for example, because he realizes that the separation was made incorrectly – he may ask a Torah scholar, together with two others, to annul it under the rules of vow annulment. The produce then returns to the status of tevel (MT, Laws of Terumot 4:17). The same applies to ḥalla; see below, 10:13.^[7]

05. The Law of Teruma Today

Today, kohanim may not eat teruma, even if the teruma has not become tamei. Since everyone is presumed to have contracted tum’a from the dead, and we cannot purify ourselves from this impurity without the ashes of the red heifer, kohanim are unable to eat teruma in a state of tahara.

At the same time, teruma retains its sanctity. This creates a practical tension: it must be kept from consumption, but it may not be treated disrespectfully or destroyed unnecessarily. Teruma that has not become tamei may not be burned or actively destroyed; it must be left until it decays on its own, or else buried. Teruma that has become tamei, by contrast, should ideally be burned, so that no one will mistakenly eat it.

For ordinary household amounts, the accepted practice is to wrap the teruma respectfully and place it in the trash, whether or not it has become tamei. Burning teruma is often difficult, and a person may not always know whether the teruma has become tamei; if it has not, burning it would be forbidden. Wrapping it solves both problems: it prevents people from eating it, while ensuring that it is not discarded disgracefully.

Large quantities of teruma require greater care. If the teruma has not become tamei, it may not be actively destroyed. It should be placed at the side of the field until it decays on its own. If there is concern that people may eat it, it is proper to bury it or cover it lightly with soil. If it has become tamei, it should ideally be burned; alternatively, it may be buried or crushed in a way that destroys it and prevents people from eating it.^[8]

If teruma becomes mixed with non-sacred produce (ḥullin) of the same species (min be-mino)– the teruma is nullified if the ḥullin is at least one hundred times the amount of teruma. If it becomes mixed with ḥullin of a different species – min be-she’eino mino – and the teruma cannot be separated from the mixture, as when everything has been crushed together, it is nullified if the ḥullin is at least sixty times the amount of teruma. In other words, once the non-sacred produce so overwhelms the teruma that its presence is halakhically insignificant, the mixture may be eaten. If there is not enough ḥullin to nullify the teruma, the entire mixture must be treated as teruma (MT, Laws of Terumot 13:1–2). In pressing circumstances, one may ask a Torah scholar to annul the original designation of terumot and ma’asrot, following the rules of vow annulment, as explained in the previous section.

06. Using Teruma Today

As we learned above, 7:7, although a kohen may not eat teruma that has become tamei, it is preferable that he derive benefit from it as it is burned. In this way, the teruma is removed from use while still providing benefit to the kohen. For example, if the teruma is fruit, he may use it as fuel to heat an oven; if it is oil, he may use it to light a lamp.

When a kohen burns teruma fruit that became tamei to heat an oven for himself, or lights a lamp with teruma oil that became tamei, a non-kohen may also benefit from the heat or light. As the Sages say, “A lamp for one is a lamp for one hundred.” Even if the kohen later leaves, the non-kohen may continue benefiting from the lamp or oven that the kohen lit (MT, Laws of Terumot 11:18). However, just as one may not burn sacrificial meat that became tamei on Yom Tov, one may not burn teruma that became tamei on Yom Tov. Therefore, one may not light a lamp for Yom Tov with teruma oil that became tamei (Shabbat 24b).^[9]

When kohanim were able to purify themselves and eat teruma, a kohen could feed his animal only teruma produce that was not fit for human consumption. Food fit for people had to be preserved for the kohen himself. Today, however, kohanim cannot eat teruma at all. Therefore, a kohen may feed his animals or pets teruma produce, whether or not it has become tamei.

To prevent teruma from going to waste, some people transfer ownership of their animals to a Torah scholar who is a kohen. They may then feed those animals the teruma they separate for the kohen. Afterward, they calculate how much they saved by not buying animal feed and pay that amount to the kohen. ^[10]

07. A Kohen or Levi Who Owns Produce

Kohanim and levi’im who own produce must separate terumot and ma’asrot like everyone else. Their status as recipients of some of these gifts does not exempt their produce from the obligation. Rather, it affects what they do with the gifts after separating them. A kohen retains the terumot and treats them with the sanctity required by halakha. He also retains the ma’aser rishon, since he too belongs to the tribe of Levi and is not obligated to give it to another levi. A levi likewise separates terumot and ma’asrot from his produce, retains the ma’aser rishon, and gives the terumot to a kohen (MT, Laws of Ma’aser 1:3–4).

The Sages made an exception when a kohen or levi buys already-finished produce from a Yisrael. If the produce had already reached the stage at which the obligation of terumot and ma’asrot takes effect, the kohen or levi may not keep the terumot or ma’aser rishon for himself. Instead, he must give them to other kohanim and levi’im. The Sages imposed this penalty so that kohanim and levi’im would not make a practice of buying tevel from others and then keeping the gifts for themselves, thereby depriving their fellow kohanim and levi’im. If, however, they bought the produce before its processing was complete, they may keep the terumot and ma’aser rishon (Yerushalmi, Pe’a 1:5; MT, Laws of Ma’aser 6:15).

Ordinarily, after receiving ma’aser rishon, the levi would separate terumat ma’aser from it and choose which kohen should receive it. Nevertheless, the Yisrael owner may separate terumat ma’aser himself from the ma’aser rishon that he set aside for the levi and give it to a kohen together with the teruma gedola. He may do this even though it removes the levi’s right to choose which kohen will receive the terumat ma’aser from his tithe (Gittin 31a; MT, Laws of Terumot 3:12). Today, to prevent mistakes or forgetfulness, it is preferable for the Yisrael who separates the ma’aser to separate the terumat ma’aser immediately as well and then place the wrapped terumot respectfully in the trash.

08. Ma’aser Rishon in the Present Era

As we learned above, 7:8, the mitzva is to give ma’aser rishon to a levi. Many authorities maintain that because of Ezra’s penalty imposed on the levi’im, one may also give it to a kohen (Tosafot; Tur). Nevertheless, some authorities maintain that after the destruction of the Temple, Ezra’s penalty no longer applied, and the mitzva once again became to give ma’aser rishon specifically to a levi. Therefore, in order to satisfy all opinions, it is proper to give it to a levi specifically (MT; SA YD 331:19; Mishpat Kohen §56).

Some maintain that in the present era, although ma’aser rishon must still be separated and assigned a place – for example, by designating the produce on the north side – it need not actually be given to a levi. They argue that, after the upheavals of exile, today’s levi’im no longer have a reliable ḥezkat yiḥus – a halakhically recognized lineage status – strong enough to require others to give them ma’aser rishon. Since no one can prove that he descends from the tribe of Levi, they maintain that one is not obligated to give him the tithe (cited in Mahariṭ 1:85). A second argument focuses not on the history of exile, but on verification. As long as a person’s ḥezkat yiḥus has not been verified by a beit din, some maintain that his own claim should not be enough to receive the gifts. Otherwise, dishonest people may falsely claim to be levi’im to receive ma’aser rishon (cited in Ḥazon Ish, Shevi’it 5:12). Based on these arguments, some are lenient and maintain that although ma’aser rishon must be separated and assigned a place, it need not actually be given to a levi.

The overwhelming majority of poskim, however, maintain that ma’aser rishon must be given to a levi. In their view, we do rely on a levi’s ḥezkat yiḥus – his recognized lineage status – just as we rely on the recognized status of kohanim for pidyon ha-ben and Birkat Kohanim. Therefore, a levi’s status is sufficient for receiving ma’aser rishon. In practice, since a person must give ma’aser kesafim in any case, he should give the ma’aser rishon to a Torah scholar who is a levi and count it as part of his ma’aser kesafim, as will be explained in the following sections.^[11]

09. Ma’aser Ani

In the first, second, fourth, and fifth years of the shemita cycle, one separates ma’aser sheni; in the third and sixth years, one separates ma’aser ani. Ma’aser ani is similar to ma’aser rishon: both are ḥullin, non-sacred produce, and both are given to their recipients in the present era just as they were in the past. We will first explain the laws of ma’aser ani and then complete the laws that apply to both tithes.

Although, as explained above, a kohen and levi may retain their respective gifts after separating them, the law of a poor person is different. Even if he himself is poor, he may not keep the ma’aser ani from his own produce. He must separate it and give it to another poor person (Ḥullin 131b). The same applies to a poor person who bought tevel produce: he must separate the ma’aser ani and give it to another poor person (Pe’at ha-Shulḥan 5:25).

If the owner’s brother or son is poor, then as long as the ma’aser ani is not being distributed in the field, where other poor people have a claim to receive it as well, he may give all of it to that relative (see above, 7:11). Indeed, this is preferable, because in the mitzva of tzedaka one’s relatives take precedence.

A person qualifies as poor for purposes of ma’aser ani if he is unable to obtain his basic needs according to the accepted standard at that time and place. In a country that provides welfare support for the elderly and needy, this generally refers to those around the lowest economic tenth of society. In a country without such support, the percentage of people considered poor may reach one-fifth of the population. Beyond that, one should not define more than one-tenth or one-fifth of the population as poor, unless the society is suffering through years of famine.

Whether one is giving the actual produce of ma’aser ani or its monetary value, it may be given to charity administrators for the needs of the poor (Mishna, Ma’aser Sheni 5:9). It may also be given to a yeshiva that supports unmarried students who live modestly and whose parents cannot support them. Even if some students in the yeshiva are supported by their parents and live comfortably, one may still give ma’aser ani to the institution, provided that he intends the ma’aser ani funds to support the poor students.

Once a poor person receives ma’aser ani, it belongs to him, and he may eat the produce, sell it, or use the proceeds however he wishes. The produce itself, however, may not be taken outside Eretz Yisrael, as the verse states: “They shall eat in your gates and be satisfied” (Devarim 26:12; Sifrei to Devarim 26:12; AHS, Zera’im 14:18). If he did take it out, he may nevertheless eat it outside Eretz Yisrael; see Pe’at ha-Shulḥan 12:27.

10. Giving the Tithes to the Levi and the Poor in Practice

Ma’aser rishon, given to the levi, and ma’aser ani, separated in the third and sixth years of the shemita cycle, are the tithes that their recipients may eat even in the present era. Since they are ḥullin, non-sacred produce, they do not need to be eaten in a state of tahara.

Each of these tithes amounts to approximately nine percent of the total produce. Today, as we learned, only a minimal amount is separated for teruma gedola, so the total quantity of produce remains essentially unchanged. One then separates ma’aser rishon for the levi. From that ma’aser, one-tenth is separated for the kohen as terumat ma’aser, leaving the levi with about nine percent of the total produce. In the third and sixth years, ma’aser ani is then separated from what remains after ma’aser rishon. Since ma’aser rishon has already removed ten percent, ninety percent of the original produce remains; one-tenth of that remainder is nine percent of the original total.

The mitzva was originally fulfilled with the actual produce. After the owner finished gathering his produce from the field, he would separate terumot and ma’asrot, and the kohen, levi, and poor person would come to receive their portions. If they did not come, the Sages ordained that the owner, or one of his workers, bring the produce to their homes, and the recipients would pay the customary delivery fee (see above, 7:5).

In modern agricultural reality, however, distributing the actual produce is usually impractical. Farmers generally work on a large scale, with extensive fields and enormous yields. If they brought all of their tithe produce to one levi and one poor person, they would have nowhere to store it and would not know how to sell it. If farmers hired workers to distribute the tithe produce among many levi’im and poor people in household-sized portions, the cost charged to the recipients for that distribution would exceed the value of the produce itself. The levi’im and poor people would therefore prefer not to receive produce whose delivery costs more than it is worth.

To fulfill the mitzva in the way it is meant to function, the owner should first separate the tithes for a levi and a poor person. He then buys the tithe produce from them and gives them its value in money. Ideally, this should be done through a formal act of acquisition: the ma’aser rishon enters the possession of a specific levi, and the ma’aser ani enters the possession of a specific poor person. The owner then buys the produce back from them, as explained in the note. Alternatively, this can be arranged in advance through makirei leviya and makirei ani, as explained in the next section.

If no formal acquisition was made and no prior arrangement was in place, the owner should still give the levi and poor person the monetary value of the tithe produce. True, they did not authorize him in advance to convert the produce into money for them. Nevertheless, this is permitted because the produce would otherwise be wasted. By converting it into money and giving them its value, the owner is acting to preserve their property, similar to one who returns a lost object (Ḥullin 134b; MT, Laws of Bikurim 9:16). ^[12]

11. Giving the Tithes through Makirei Leviya and Makirei Ani

One of the best ways to give the tithes in the present era is to make a standing arrangement in advance with a Torah scholar who is a levi. The owner of the produce designates this levi as the regular recipient of his ma’aser rishon and gives him a monetary loan against the tithes he will separate during the coming year. Through this arrangement, the levi becomes his makir leviya – the recognized levi who receives his tithes.

Once this relationship has been established, each time the owner separates ma’aser rishon, the tithe produce enters the levi’s possession automatically, without the need for a new act of acquisition. The owner then calculates the value of that produce and deducts it from the amount the levi owes him. In effect, the levi repays part of the loan with the ma’aser rishon that has now become his, and the produce remains with the owner. When the value of the tithes reaches the amount of the loan, the loan is canceled. The owner may then give the levi another loan and continue the same arrangement. The same can be done with a poor person for ma’aser ani (MT, Laws of Ma’aser 7:5–6).

When valuing the produce for purposes of repaying the loan, the lower market price is used. Thus, if the fruit is expensive at the beginning of the season but cheaper in the middle of the season, it is valued throughout the season according to the lower price. This is not considered interest, because the arrangement is not an ordinary loan. It functions as an advance payment for future tithe produce, and repayment depends entirely on whether such produce is actually separated. If no tithe produce is separated against the loan, the loan is canceled (Gittin 30a; MT, Laws of Ma’aser 7:7).^[13]

12. Ma’aser Sheni and Its Redemption

The mitzva to eat ma’aser sheni in a state of tahara within the walls of Jerusalem depends on the existence of the Temple (see above, 7:9). Therefore, while the Temple remains in ruins, even if we were able to purify ourselves from impurity contracted from the dead, we still would not be able to eat ma’aser sheni. Nevertheless, ma’aser sheni must still be separated, because the mitzva of separating terumot and ma’asrot does not depend on the Temple (MT, Laws of Ma’aser Sheni 2:1).

The ma’aser sheni produce, however, need not be left to go to waste. The Torah established a process by which ma’aser sheni can be redeemed onto money. Through that redemption, the kedusha of ma’aser sheni is transferred to the money, and the produce becomes permitted to everyone. Ideally, one is required to redeem the produce for its full value plus one-fifth. Nevertheless, if one redeemed it on a peruta, the redemption is valid. Therefore, in the present era, when the redemption money must be destroyed and cannot be used, one may redeem ma’aser sheni on a single peruta from the outset. In practical terms, that is its value, since the produce itself may not be used for benefit (MT, Laws of Ma’aser Sheni 2:2; 4:18).

A peruta is the smallest amount of money with halakhic significance for acquisition or redemption. Accordingly, ma’aser sheni cannot be redeemed on less than that amount. A peruta is the value of 1/45 gram of silver, which means that its value will fluctuate in accordance with the market price of silver. In recent years, it has generally been worth about four or five agurot.

Although redemption should ordinarily be done with money, in pressing circumstances one may redeem ma’aser sheni on food worth at least a peruta. Since the kedusha is then transferred to that food, it should be wrapped and placed respectfully in the trash, just as one does with teruma.

Someone who redeems ma’aser sheni regularly should designate a specific coin for that purpose. If a peruta is worth about five agurot, a five-shekel coin can be used for one hundred redemptions, and a ten-shekel coin for two hundred. To prevent the coin from being used accidentally, it is best to mark it with a sticker.^[14]

After completing the separation, one recites the berakha before redeeming the ma’aser sheni: “Blessed are You, the Lord our God, King of the universe, Who sanctified us with His mitzvot and commanded us to redeem ma’aser sheni.” He then performs the redemption by saying: “This ma’aser sheni, together with its fifth, is redeemed on one peruta of the coin I have designated for redeeming ma’aser sheni.”

If he is redeeming it on food, he says instead: “This ma’aser sheni, together with its fifth, is redeemed on this food.” The food is then wrapped and placed in the trash, so that it is not treated disgracefully.

13. Additional Laws of Redemption

When redeeming ma’aser sheni onto money, one must use a coin that is accepted as legal currency in the country where the redemption is being performed. A coin that is not used there is not considered money for this purpose (MT, Laws of Ma’aser Sheni 4:9–10).

A coin designated for redeeming ma’aser sheni can be used repeatedly, as long as it still contains unused peruta units. A person may also allow family members and friends to redeem their ma’aser sheni onto his coin, provided that he estimates that the coin contains enough peruta units for all the redemptions that will be made. When the coin is used often – whether by him alone or by others as well – it can become difficult to keep track of how many peruta units remain available. Therefore, if he is unsure whether one coin will suffice, he should designate two coins – for example, a ten-shekel coin and a five-shekel coin – and mark them clearly, preferably by taping them together so they will not be used accidentally.

The larger coin serves as the regular redemption coin. Each redemption is made onto one peruta of that coin. Periodically, as needed, he transfers all the kedusha that has accumulated on the used peruta units of the larger coin onto one peruta of the smaller coin. This clears the larger coin for further use. He continues this system until the time of bi’ur ma’asrot. At the time of bi’ur ma’asrot, he transfers all the kedusha remaining on both coins onto ordinary food, wine, or oil worth at least a peruta. Once the coins have been cleared, they may be used again in future years.

If the final transfer was made onto a piece of fruit or other food, he should wrap it respectfully and place it in the trash. If it was made onto wine or oil, he should pour it down the sink, but not into the toilet.^[15]

When one redeems his own ma’aser sheni onto someone else’s coin, he does not add one-fifth. He should say: “This ma’aser sheni is redeemed on a peruta of the coin that so-and-so designated for the redemption of ma’aser sheni” (MT, Laws of Ma’aser Sheni 5:1, 8).

When the ma’aser sheni produce is worth less than four perutot, the additional fifth is worth less than a peruta. Since an amount below a peruta has no halakhic significance for redemption, one does not add the fifth. He should say: “This ma’aser sheni is redeemed on a peruta of the coin that I designated for the redemption of ma’aser sheni” (MT, Laws of Ma’aser Sheni 5:4). If he mistakenly added the fifth when it was not required, the redemption is valid.^[16]

14. When Ma’aser Sheni May Not Be Redeemed: Less Than a Peruta or in Jerusalem

If the ma’aser sheni is worth less than a peruta, it cannot be redeemed (Bava Metzia 53b). An item worth less than a peruta is not significant enough for an act of acquisition or redemption. Since this produce cannot be redeemed, yet may not be eaten, destroyed, or treated disrespectfully, it should be wrapped and placed in the trash, as is done with teruma. One who wishes to rely on a lenient approach may treat it as worth a peruta and redeem it onto a peruta. However, the idea of using a peruta ḥamura here is difficult to justify and serves no practical purpose; it should therefore not be used, as explained in the note.^[17]

A second limitation applies to ma’aser sheni in a state of tahara once it is already in Jerusalem. The Torah established redemption as a way to bring the value of ma’aser sheni to Jerusalem when the produce itself cannot easily be brought there, as the verse states: “If the distance is too great for you, and you cannot carry it… then you shall turn it into money, bind up the money in your hand, and go to the place that the Lord your God will choose” (Devarim 14:24–25). Once ma’aser sheni produce in a state of tahara is already within the ancient walls of sanctified Jerusalem – including the City of David and Mount Zion, which were within those walls – it may no longer be redeemed^[18] If one redeemed it there, the redemption is void (Yerushalmi, Ma’aser Sheni 1:3; MT, Laws of Ma’aser Sheni 2:4; Yeshu’ot Malko).

Since such produce cannot be redeemed, and today it cannot be eaten either, it must be set aside without being actively destroyed or degraded. If the amount is significant, it should be placed somewhere private until it rots on its own. If the amount is small, it may be wrapped and placed in the trash, as is done with teruma.^[19]

01. The Nusach for Separating Terumot and Ma’asrot, with a Simple Explanation

Introduction: The terumot must be separated and removed from the produce, because they are designated for the kohanim and are sacred. Since they cannot be eaten today, they are wrapped and placed in the garbage. By contrast, the ma’asrot are separated by designating a specific place among the produce – for example, the right side or the north side – thereby setting them apart from the rest. That designation is made so that the value of ma’aser rishon can later be given to a levi, the value of ma’aser ani to a poor person, and ma’aser sheni can be redeemed onto a peruta. Afterward, the produce designated as ma’asrot is eaten together with the rest. Alternatively, one may physically separate the produce for ma’aser rishon and ma’aser ani and give it to a levi and a poor person; this is an enhancement of the mitzva, as explained above, 9:10.

When it is clear that terumot and ma’asrot have not been separated from the produce, one recites a berakha. When there is doubt, one does not recite a berakha.

The nusach of the berakha is: “Barukh ata Adonai Eloheinu Melekh ha-olam, asher kideshanu be-mitzvotav ve-tzivanu le-hafrish terumot u-ma’asrot.” (Blessed are You, Lord our God, King of the universe, Who has sanctified us with His mitzvot and commanded us to separate terumot and ma’asrot.)

After reciting the berakha, one takes a little more than one percent of the produce and separates it from the rest. This portion is designated for teruma gedola and terumat ma’aser. One then says: “The portion in excess of one-hundredth of what I have separated, which is located on my right side, shall be teruma gedola.”

The portion initially separated contains one percent plus a small additional amount; the amount beyond the one percent becomes teruma gedola, and its place is on the right side of the produce designated for the terumot.

One continues: “The one-hundredth that remains here, together with nine equivalent portions on the right side of this produce, shall be ma’aser rishon.” This separates ma’aser rishon. The produce itself, or its value, should afterward be given to a levi.

“That one-hundredth which I made ma’aser rishon and which has been set apart from the produce shall be terumat ma’aser.” This separates terumat ma’aser. The terumot should then be wrapped and placed in the garbage.

“A tenth of what remains, on the left side of the produce, shall be ma’aser sheni. If ma’aser ani applies to this produce, it shall be ma’aser ani.” This refers to ten percent of what remains after what has already been separated. This designates the place of the ma’aser sheni or ma’aser ani. In the first, second, fourth, and fifth years of the shemita cycle, one separates ma’aser sheni; in the third and sixth years, one separates ma’aser ani. When one separates ma’aser ani, he should afterward give the produce itself, or its value, to a poor person.

When one separates ma’aser sheni, it must be redeemed in order to remove its sanctity. When the produce is certainly untithed and clearly from a ma’aser sheni year, one first recites the berakha: “Barukh ata Adonai Eloheinu Melekh ha-olam, asher kideshanu be-mitzvotav ve-tzivanu lifdot ma’aser sheni.” (“Blessed are You, Lord our God, King of the universe, Who has sanctified us with His mitzvot and commanded us to redeem ma’aser sheni.”)

If there is doubt, one redeems it without a berakha.

One then says: “This ma’aser sheni, together with its fifth, shall be redeemed onto one peruta of the coin that I designated for redeeming ma’aser sheni.”

“This ma’aser sheni” refers to the produce whose place was designated on the left side. “Together with its fifth” refers to the Torah’s command to add a fifth when redeeming it. When necessary, one may redeem it onto food worth a peruta. In that case, he says: “It shall be redeemed onto this food,” as explained above, 9:12.

The nusach can be difficult to follow at first reading. One can resolve this by reciting the main nusach printed here while reviewing the explanations in parentheses. In this way, one fulfills the mitzva.

On Pesaḥ of the fourth and seventh years, one must perform bi’ur ma’asrot, including disposing of the money used to redeem ma’aser sheni, as explained above, 7:12 and 9:13.

02. Who May Separate Terumot and Ma’asrot

The mitzva of separating terumot and ma’asrot falls to the owner of the produce. If someone else separated terumot and ma’asrot from another person’s produce without the owner’s consent, his act is void. However, a person may separate terumot and ma’asrot from his own produce on behalf of another person’s produce, even without receiving permission from him. Since he is taking the terumot and ma’asrot from his own produce, he also has the right to choose to whom they will be given (MT, Laws of Terumot 4:2).

When two people are partners in produce, either partner may separate terumot and ma’asrot from the produce without requesting permission from the other. If one of them separated without the other’s knowledge, and the second then came and separated again, the second separation is void, since the first partner’s separation had already made the produce permitted (MT, Laws of Terumot 4:8).

One who lacks the understanding needed to grasp the mitzva of terumot and ma’asrot and how it is performed cannot fulfill it. Therefore, a person lacking halakhic competence, such as one who regularly tears his clothing or destroys what is given to him; a person who is both deaf and mute and cannot read and learn; and minors may not separate terumot and ma’asrot. If they did so, their act is void. However, during the year before minors reach mitzva age – from age eleven for girls and age twelve for boys – if they separated terumot and ma’asrot and it later became clear that they understood the mitzva, then after the fact their separation is valid, since they have already reached the age at which their vows are halakhically binding (MT, Laws of Terumot 4:2, 5; below, 11, note 5).

Ideally, separation should be performed by someone who can recite the berakha and choose suitable produce for terumot and ma’asrot. Therefore, five categories of people should ideally not perform the separation. Three should not do so because of the berakha: one who cannot speak, because he cannot articulate the berakha; a deaf person, because one who recites a berakha should be able to hear it; and one who is unclothed, because one may not recite a berakha in that state. Two others should not perform the separation because there is a mitzva to choose good produce for terumot and ma’asrot, and it is assumed that they cannot do so properly: an intoxicated person and a blind person. After the fact, however, if any of these people performed the separation, it is valid and the produce may be eaten, because the mitzva is fulfilled even without a berakha and even if one separated inferior produce (Mishna, Terumot 1:6; MT, Laws of Terumot 4:4).

03. A Condensed Nusach, Agency, and Kashrut Supervision

Some authorities allow someone who lacks full understanding of these concepts to simply recite a condensed formula and say: “All the separations and the redemption of ma’aser sheni shall take effect as written in the nusach in my possession.” He must also physically separate more than one percent for the terumot and set aside a coin for redeeming ma’aser sheni (Ḥazon Ish, Demai 15:6; Minḥat Yitzḥak 1:85).

In practice, however, one should not rely on this. As we have learned, one who does not understand the meaning of this mitzva and its components cannot fulfill it. Moreover, even one who reads the nusach but does not understand it has not fulfilled his obligation (Mahariṭ Algazi). This was also the ruling of R. Tzvi Pesaḥ Frank (Har Tzvi, Zera’im 1:48) and R. Ovadia Yosef (Ḥazon Ovadia: Terumot and Ma’asrot, p. 192). My teacher, Rav Tzvi Yehuda Kook, of blessed memory, was very insistent about this; on occasion, he even erased this suggestion from his students’ prayer books.

The owner of the produce may appoint an agent to separate terumot and ma’asrot on his behalf. Moreover, if he has made it clear that he approves of his son, daughter, or someone else separating terumot and ma’asrot from his produce, that person may do so for him without requesting explicit permission. Still, it is preferable to receive explicit permission.

Many field and factory owners appoint a kashrut supervisor authorized by the Rabbinate as their agent to separate terumot and ma’asrot on their behalf. The owner should first understand the meaning of the mitzva, and it is proper for him to give the supervisor written authorization appointing him to fulfill the mitzva on his behalf.

04. Separating Terumot and Ma’asrot on Shabbat and Yom Tov

One may not separate terumot and ma’asrot or ḥalla on Shabbat. Separating them resembles an act of consecration, which is not performed on Shabbat. It also appears to make the produce fit for use: before the separation, the produce may not be eaten; through the separation, that restriction is removed and the produce becomes permitted. One may not redeem ma’aser sheni or neta reva’i on Shabbat either. If one mistakenly separated or redeemed on Shabbat, the produce may be eaten that Shabbat. If he did so intentionally, the separation or redemption is effective and the produce is permitted, but no Jew may eat from it until Shabbat ends. The same law applies on Yom Tov (SA, OḤ 339:4; 524:1; MB 339:25–26; Ḥatam Sofer, OḤ 79; below, 11:13).

If one is concerned that he will not manage to separate terumot and ma’asrot before Shabbat from produce intended for Shabbat, he may prepare for this before Shabbat. He does so by reciting the nusach for separating terumot and ma’asrot, without a berakha, in the future tense, referring to the produce he will separate on Shabbat. This begins the process of separation before Shabbat. He may then complete the separation on Shabbat using the regular nusach and recite the berakha. The same method may be used by one who is concerned that he will not manage to separate ḥalla before Shabbat.^[1]

Only the owner of the produce can use this method, because only he can begin the separation before Shabbat and complete it on Shabbat. A guest who is concerned that his host may forget to separate terumot and ma’asrot should ask the host before Shabbat to appoint him as his agent for this purpose. Once appointed, the guest may begin the separation before Shabbat on the host’s behalf and complete it on Shabbat (Mishna, Demai 7:1, 5; Yerushalmi, Demai 7:1; MT, Laws of Ma’aser 9:7–9).^[2]

05. Separating on Behalf of Produce Still Attached to the Ground

One may not separate from detached produce on behalf of produce that is still attached to the ground, nor from attached produce on behalf of detached produce, because they are not at the same stage of obligation: detached produce is already subject to terumot and ma’asrot, while attached produce is not (Mishna, Terumot 1:5).

When necessary, however, one may separate terumot and ma’asrot from detached produce on behalf of attached produce, provided that he stipulates that the terumot and ma’asrot will take effect only after the attached produce is picked. This is permitted only if the attached produce is already fit to eat, at least in pressing circumstances, as explained in the note.^[3]

01. The Meaning of Separating Ḥalla from Bread

There is a mitzva to set aside a portion of dough intended for bread as ḥalla and give it to a kohen. The kohen and his family would use it to prepare bread and cakes and eat them in a state of tahara. These gifts helped sustain them as they fulfilled their sacred mission of teaching Torah to Israel. As the Torah states: “The Lord spoke to Moshe, saying: Speak to the Children of Israel and say to them: When you come to the land to which I am bringing you, then, when you eat of the bread of the land, you shall raise up an offering to the Lord. The first of your doughs you shall raise up as ḥalla, as an offering; like the offering of the threshing floor, so shall you raise it up. From the first of your doughs you shall give an offering to the Lord throughout your generations” (Bamidbar 15:17–21).

Bread is humanity’s staple food, and it reveals something central to human uniqueness: the human being does not merely consume what the world provides. He takes the raw materials of creation and, through choice, learning, and labor, turns them into something new. Animals eat what is available to them – grasses, leaves, grains, vegetables, fruits, and meat. Bread, by contrast, reaches the table only through a long chain of human work: the soil is plowed, the grain is sown, the stalks are harvested, the kernels are separated from stalks and chaff through threshing, winnowing, and sorting, the kernels are ground into flour, the flour is kneaded with water into dough, and the dough is baked into bread. Of all the foods people eat, bread is the one most shaped by human intelligence and craft.

So too, the human being does not arrive in the world fully formed. Animals quickly and instinctively learn how to survive and reproduce. A person must spend years learning how to secure food, clothing, and shelter, how to build a family, and how to harness the immense forces of nature. This capacity – to choose, to learn, to create, and to refine the world – is an expression of the image of God within humanity.

Yet the very powers that make human creativity possible can also be turned toward evil. A person can use his intelligence and skill to raise himself above others, to deceive and steal, to destroy and betray, and to place his desires at the center of life. The prohibition against eating bread before ḥalla has been separated reminds him that his creative powers are not self-generated; God gave them to him, and he must not misuse them. By giving ḥalla to the kohen, the bread – and the entire human process that produced it – becomes linked to holiness. Those who eat from this bread can thereby elevate their creative strength and direct it toward goodness and blessing. This is what the Sages meant when they said: “Whoever fulfills the mitzva of ḥalla is as though he has nullified idolatry, and whoever neglects the mitzva of ḥalla is as though he has upheld idolatry” (Vayikra Rabba 15:6). In this broader sense, “idolatry” includes all the ways a person turns his life toward the false gods of money, desire, and pride.

The Sages further taught that the human being is “the ḥalla of the world.” God created the earth and all its raw materials, kneaded them, as it were, with rainwater, and from that “dough” brought forth all plant and animal life. From within that “dough,” He then separated ḥalla – and from it created the human being in His image, so that humanity would guide the world toward goodness. When Adam Ha-rishon sinned, he brought tum’a upon himself and upon the entire world. To repair that sin, Israel was commanded to separate ḥalla for the kohen and preserve it in a state of tahara, so that they would remember their calling. This mitzva is especially connected to women, because a woman has a unique capacity to shape and direct the creative forces of human life, and through that, to help repair the sin (see Bereishit Rabba 14:1; 17:7–8).

The Sages also taught: “By virtue of three things the world was created: by virtue of ḥalla, by virtue of ma’asrot, and by virtue of bikurim” (Bereishit Rabba 1:4). All three mitzvot are called “first,” teaching us that the first aim of creation is to reveal holiness within the world. Bikurim, terumot, and ma’asrot are given from produce that grows through the ordinary processes of nature. Through bikurim, one connects to the overarching vision of the people of Israel (above, 7:15). Through terumot and ma’asrot, blessing spreads to the fields and their crops (above, 7:13). Ḥalla, by contrast, is given from the work of human hands. Through it, a person merits that blessing rest upon his labor and his home, as the verse states: “And the first of your doughs you shall give to the kohen – to bring blessing upon your house” (Yeḥezkel 44:30).

02. The Distinctive Character of Ḥalla

Ḥalla is one of the twenty-four gifts that Israel is obligated to give to the kohanim. These gifts are meant to free the kohanim from the burden of earning a livelihood, enabling them to fulfill their sacred mission of teaching Torah to Israel and guiding them in mitzvot and proper conduct. Among these gifts, ḥalla has a distinctive place. It comes from bread, humanity’s staple food, and it creates a continuous bond between the holiness of the priesthood and the ordinary work of preparing food in the Jewish home.

Unlike terumot and ma’asrot, which landowners distributed in the fields in large quantities several times a year, ḥalla was woven into the rhythm of daily life. Each day, as bread was prepared in the home, a Jewish woman would give ḥalla to her kohenet neighbor. In this way, the making of bread – the most ordinary and necessary act of household life – became connected to the values of holiness.

Once ḥalla is separated, it becomes sanctified like teruma: non-kohanim may not eat it, and kohanim may eat it only in a state of tahara, as the Torah states: “Like the gift of the threshing floor, so shall you set it aside” (Bamidbar 15:20). For this reason, great care had to be taken that the ḥalla not become tamei, because once it did, it could no longer be eaten.

This made the mitzva unusually delicate. Produce becomes susceptible to tum’a only after it has come into contact with water for washing, food preparation, or some other use. Until then, it cannot contract tum’a. Teruma from fruit could usually be separated before the fruit had been exposed to water, thereby avoiding the problem of tum’a at the outset. The obligation of ḥalla, however, begins only after flour is mixed with water and turned into dough. If the person preparing the dough was tamei, her hands would make the dough tamei, and the ḥalla separated from it would also become tamei. This would dishonor the mitzva and cause the ḥalla to be lost, since it would no longer be fit for the kohen to eat.

Therefore, when a woman was kneading dough while in a state of nidda or another form of tum’a, she would call her kohenet neighbor to knead the dough for her. The woman who owned the dough would recite the berakha over separating ḥalla, and the kohenet would take her portion (Yerushalmi, Ḥalla 3:1). In this way, the mitzva of ḥalla greatly strengthened the bond between Jewish households and the families of kohanim.^[1]

By Torah law, the mitzva of ḥalla is fulfilled by separating even a small amount. The Sages, however, required a meaningful gift: at least one twenty-fourth of the dough, about four percent. For a commercial baker, whose livelihood depends on the bread he sells, they set a smaller minimum of one forty-eighth, about two percent; since he generally works with large batches, even this smaller fraction is still a respectable gift. If the dough became tamei unintentionally, even someone baking at home separates only one forty-eighth, since the kohen cannot eat the ḥalla in any case (Mishna, Ḥalla 1:9; 2:7; Yerushalmi, Ḥalla 2:3; SA YD 328:1).

03. The Mitzva in Eretz Yisrael and Outside the Land

Like terumot and ma’asrot, the mitzva of ḥalla is tied to Eretz Yisrael, as the Torah states: “When you come to the land to which I am bringing you… when you eat of the bread of the land, you shall set aside a gift for the Lord” (Bamidbar 15:18–19). These mitzvot also depend on the Jewish people’s national presence in the Land. They apply by Torah law only when most of Israel lives there, as the Sages derive from the phrase “when you come to the land”: “when all of you come, and not when only some of you come” (Ketubot 25a). This teaches a fundamental principle: the holiness embedded in nature is revealed when the people of Israel, created to reveal the word of God, live in Eretz Yisrael, the Land through which holiness is meant to be revealed.

There is, however, an important difference between ḥalla and terumot and ma’asrot. Terumot and ma’asrot are determined by the produce itself: one must still separate terumot and ma’asrot from fruit or grain that grew in Eretz Yisrael and had its processing completed there, even if it is later taken outside the Land (above, 8:9). Ḥalla, by contrast, is determined by where the dough is made. One must separate ḥalla from dough kneaded in Eretz Yisrael even when the flour came from grain grown outside the Land; by Torah law, dough kneaded outside the Land is exempt from ḥalla, even if the flour came from grain grown in Eretz Yisrael (Yerushalmi, Ḥalla 2:1). With terumot and ma’asrot, the sanctity follows produce that grew in the Land. With ḥalla, the sanctity is attached to the human work done in the Land. Even if the grain itself grew elsewhere, once Jews knead it into dough in Eretz Yisrael, that creative act must be sanctified through the separation of ḥalla.

After the destruction of the First Temple and Israel’s exile from the Land, most Jews no longer lived in Eretz Yisrael, and the Torah obligation of ḥalla came to an end. Even with the building of the Second Temple, the biblical obligation was not restored, because most of the Jewish people remained in exile. Therefore, the Sages of the Great Court at the beginning of the Second Temple period, led by Ezra the Scribe, enacted that terumot, ma’asrot, and ḥalla continue to be separated by rabbinic law even when most of Israel is not living in its Land.

The Sages extended the mitzva even further with respect to ḥalla, requiring Jews outside the Land to separate it from their dough so that the mitzva would not be forgotten. They did not make a similar enactment for terumot and ma’asrot, because their obligation is tied directly to produce grown in the Land. Ḥalla is different: although it too is rooted in Eretz Yisrael, its obligation begins when a person kneads dough. In that respect, it resembles mitzvot that depend on human action rather than on the soil itself, and the Sages were therefore able to extend it even to dough prepared outside the Land (Tosafot, Kiddushin 36b; below, 12:10).

This enactment carries a deeper meaning as well. Because Israel fulfilled the mitzva of ḥalla in Eretz Yisrael throughout the First Temple period, the Sages were able to draw its holiness outward, extending the obligation to dough prepared by Jews even outside the Land. In this way, Jewish creativity in the Diaspora remains bound to the holiness that begins in Eretz Yisrael and will ultimately spread from there to the entire world.

04. The Mitzva of Ḥalla in the Present Era

After the destruction of the Second Temple, as Jewish settlement in the Land diminished, the process of purification through the ashes of the red heifer was no longer available. As a result, kohanim are considered tamei met and may not eat teruma or ḥalla (above, 7:1). Even so, the obligation to separate ḥalla remains. Until ḥalla has been separated, the bread or cakes may not be eaten; once it is separated, it is burned or respectfully buried so that no one mistakenly eats it. The law outside the Land will be explained below, section 13. Since the separated portion can no longer be eaten by the kohen, one need not separate one twenty-fourth of the dough, as was required when ḥalla was given as an edible priestly gift. It is enough to separate any amount.

Although the mitzva in the present era is rabbinic, and although kohanim may not eat the ḥalla, separating it still keeps the mitzva’s vision alive. It reminds us that our bread – and the human labor that produces it – must remain connected to holiness, and through that connection blessing is drawn into the home. For this reason, some women enhance the mitzva by baking an amount of dough that requires ḥalla on Erev Shabbat (Rema OḤ 242:1).

The same development took place outside the Land. At the beginning of the Second Temple period, the Sages required Jews outside Eretz Yisrael to separate ḥalla, and at that stage kohanim would eat it in a state of tahara. Several generations later, however, the Sages decreed that the lands outside Eretz Yisrael have the status of tum’a (below, 12:9). From then on, ḥalla separated outside the Land became tamei, and kohanim could no longer eat it.

To ensure that people would still remember that ḥalla is meant to be eaten by kohanim, the Sages instituted the separation of two portions outside the Land. The first was burned, like all tamei ḥalla that may not be eaten. The second was given to kohanim to eat, even though they were tamei. Over time, however, most Diaspora communities adopted the practice of separating only one portion of ḥalla, which is burned or buried. Since the whole purpose of the second portion was to preserve the memory of edible ḥalla as it existed in Eretz Yisrael, once kohanim in Eretz Yisrael could no longer eat ḥalla because of tum’a, it was no longer fitting for kohanim outside the Land to eat it either. Therefore, outside the Land as well, the accepted practice is to separate one portion of ḥalla and burn it (Rema OḤ 322:5; below, 12:10).^[2]

In summary: In the present era, even though kohanim may not eat ḥalla, whenever a Jew prepares dough from which ḥalla must be separated – whether in Eretz Yisrael or outside the Land – he must separate at least some amount by rabbinic law. When the majority of the Jewish people lives in Eretz Yisrael, the obligation of ḥalla there will again become biblical, and blessing will increase. Even then, however, kohanim will not be able to eat the ḥalla until the laws of tahara can once again be observed in practice. When that day comes, kohanim will again reveal holiness through eating ḥalla, and blessing will grow within Israel until it spreads openly to the entire world, so that “all the families of the earth” are blessed through us. The Sages’ enactment to separate ḥalla even outside the Land hints at this future expansion of blessing from Israel to the whole world.

05. The Practical Procedure for Separating Ḥalla

The mitzva of ḥalla applies to dough intended for baking when its flour comes from the five species of grain, as explained below, and when it contains a significant amount of flour – enough flour to provide food for at least a full day. This means that the flour must have a volume of at least 43.2 eggs, approximately 2.160 liters, as explained in the next section.

The mitzva applies to men and women alike. When husband and wife knead the dough together, however, the wife is given the first opportunity to perform the mitzva, because she generally carries greater responsibility for the inner life and needs of the home (see Or Zaru’a, end of §225; Rashi, Shabbat 32a).

The obligation of ḥalla begins only once flour and water have come together to form dough. Therefore, one who separated ḥalla from dry flour has not fulfilled the mitzva. Though ḥalla may be separated once dough has begun to form, the preferred time is after the kneading is complete (SA YD 327:3).

Before separating ḥalla, one recites the berakha: “Blessed are You, Lord our God, King of the universe, Who has sanctified us with His mitzvot and commanded us le-hafrish ḥalla.” Some communities use a slightly different concluding formula: Sephardic communities generally say le-hafrish ḥalla teruma, while many Ashkenazic and North African communities say le-hafrish ḥalla min ha-issa.^[3]

After reciting the berakha, one separates a small piece of dough as ḥalla. Many have the practice of declaring at the time of separation, “This is ḥalla.” Since the ḥalla may not be eaten, it should be burned so that no one mistakenly eats it. Alternatively, it may be wrapped respectfully and placed in the garbage, which is the practice of many (above, 9:5, note 8).^[4]

If one forgot to separate ḥalla before baking, one separates it afterward, thereby permitting the baked goods. If one is unsure whether ḥalla was separated from baked goods served to him, one should separate a small crumb as ḥalla and place it somewhere it will not be eaten.

Girls and boys may perform the mitzva once they reach the age of mitzvot.^[5]

One may also appoint another Jew to separate ḥalla on one’s behalf, in which case the appointed person separates it with a berakha. A cook may likewise be appointed as a standing representative to separate ḥalla from all dough prepared during the course of employment. However, ḥalla separated without the owner’s consent is ineffective (SA YD 328:3).

[3]. There are various customs regarding the nusach of the berakha, all of which are valid: le-hafrish ḥalla (MT, Laws of Bikkurim 5:11; KSA 35:1; AHS 328:2; Olat Re’iya, p. 353; SSK 42:12; Derekh Emuna 5:100); le-hafrish ḥalla teruma (Ben Ish Ḥai; Kaf ha-Ḥayim 457:9); le-hafrish ḥalla min ha-issa (Rashba; Siddur Beit Yaakov); le-hafrish teruma (SA YD 328:1; Vilna Gaon, Bi’ur ha-Gra 2); and le-hafrish teruma ḥalla (Maharshal; Ḥatam Sofer). These variations reflect the dual meaning of the word ḥalla. In biblical usage, ḥalla refers to the dough, while the portion separated from it is called teruma, as the verse states: “The first of your doughs – ḥalla – you shall set aside as teruma” (Bamidbar 15:20). In rabbinic usage, however, both the mitzva and the portion given to the kohen are called ḥalla; even the tractate devoted to this mitzva is called Ḥalla.

[4]. Rambam and SA do not require one to declare, “This is ḥalla.” Based on Raavad, however, there is a view that one should make such a declaration. Many women follow this practice, though it is not obligatory.

As explained above, 9, note 8, many Rishonim maintain that there is a mitzva to burn teruma and ḥalla that have become tamei, and several authorities rule this way in practice (Sha’arei Tzedek 14:34; Ha-Ma’aser Ve-ha-Teruma 10, note 30; Tevu’at ha-Sadeh 9:10). Since ḥalla is prohibited for consumption, one must dispose of it in a way that prevents anyone from eating it and also avoids having its taste absorbed into utensils. Therefore, when burning the ḥalla, one should not place it on a baking tray; instead, it should be placed on the bottom of the oven. This may be done even while other food is baking there, because the taste of the ḥalla will not enter the food. Some are stringent and wrap the ḥalla in aluminum foil before burning it (see Tevu’at ha-Sadeh 8:6).

In practice, many people do not burn the ḥalla. Since burning can be difficult, and waiting to burn it may lead to mistakes, the accepted lenient practice is to wrap it respectfully and place it in the garbage. There is also a view that when less than a kezayit is separated as ḥalla, all agree that it need not be burned (Yehuda Ya’aleh YD 352). On the other hand, Rema YD 322:5 writes that the custom is to enhance the mitzva by separating a kezayit. One may choose which enhancement to follow.

When kohanim would eat ḥalla, people were careful to keep it from becoming tamei. They therefore separated it at the earliest possible time, once most of the flour had mixed with the water. In the present era, since we are all in a state of tum’a and the ḥalla will not be eaten, we wait until the preferred time: when the mixture has become a cohesive dough (SA YD 327:2–3).

[5]. If a boy or girl separated ḥalla during the year immediately before reaching the age of mitzvot, Rambam maintains that the separation is valid after the fact, provided the child understood what he or she was doing. This follows the law of a mufla ha-samukh le-ish – a child close to adulthood whose halakhic declarations can take effect when made with understanding (MT, Laws of Terumot 4:5; SA YD 331:33). According to another view, children do not have the halakhic capacity to separate ḥalla until they actually reach the age of mitzvot (Vilna Gaon, Bi’ur ha-Gra 331:78, following the straightforward reading of Mishna, Terumot 1:1).

06. The Amount That Triggers the Obligation of Ḥalla

The threshold for ḥalla is learned from the Torah’s phrase “the first of your kneading” – arisoteikhem (Bamidbar 15:20). The Sages connect this to the dough of the generation of the desert, made from each person’s daily portion of manna: an omer per person (Shemot 16:16). Since the manna could be ground and kneaded into dough (Bamidbar 11:8), and since an omer is one-tenth of an eifa (Shemot 16:36), this became the minimum measure for ḥalla (Eruvin 83b). From dough containing less than this amount, one does not separate ḥalla, because it lacks sufficient halakhic significance.

One-tenth of an eifa is equivalent to the volume of forty-three and one-fifth eggs – 2.160 liters, assuming an egg volume of about 50 cc. In practice, it is best to round the amount to 2.200 liters. This threshold is measured by the volume of the flour before water is added; ingredients added later, such as salt or spices, do not count toward the ḥalla threshold. The most accurate method, therefore, is to measure the flour by volume, using a container with volume markings.

When one cannot measure the flour by volume, one may rely on weight as an estimate. This estimate is not exact, because flour of the same volume can weigh more or less depending on the type of flour and how densely it is packed. Therefore, when using weight, there are two practical amounts. Once the lower threshold is reached, one separates ḥalla without a berakha, since the obligation remains uncertain. Once the higher threshold is reached, one separates with a berakha, since the obligation is then clear. Since different flours have different densities, each type of flour has its own amounts, as shown in the table.^[6]

07. Combining Doughs and Baked Goods

When several doughs or baked goods are each below the ḥalla threshold, but together contain enough flour to trigger the obligation, they can combine; once they have combined, one must separate ḥalla from them. This combination occurs in one of two ways. The first is physical attachment: if two doughs became stuck together during kneading or baking to the point that separating them would pull off a bit of one with the other, they are considered joined. The second is shared containment: if the doughs or baked goods are placed in one vessel or bag, or are covered together with one cloth, they combine and are treated as a single unit (SA YD 325:1). If they were placed together in a refrigerator, freezer, oven, or wall-mounted cabinet, it is uncertain whether they combine; therefore, one separates ḥalla from them without a berakha.^[7]

A person is permitted to bake the amount he needs and is not required to increase the batch merely in order to fulfill the mitzva of ḥalla. However, if he already intends to bake enough dough to trigger the obligation of ḥalla, he may not divide it into two smaller portions in order to avoid the mitzva (Yerushalmi, Ḥalla 3:1; SA YD 324:14). Even in the present era, when the mitzva is rabbinic and kohanim cannot eat the ḥalla because of tum’a, one may not evade it. Through separating the ḥalla, even though we cannot give it to the kohen, we nevertheless remain connected to the holiness and purpose it is meant to bring into our bread and our homes.

If two doughs or two batches of baked goods each contain enough flour to trigger the obligation, one may separate from one for the other, provided they are together in the same place. This is the requirement of mukaf, as explained above, 9:3. If one separated when the doughs or baked goods were not mukaf, the separation is valid after the fact. Therefore, if people forgot to separate ḥalla and the baked goods have already been distributed, one may separate ḥalla from one remaining baked item for the others, even though they are now elsewhere (SA YD 325:2; 331:25; above, 9:3).

08. Dough Intended to Be Divided Does Not Combine

Doughs combine for ḥalla only when they can be treated as one shared unit. When two doughs are normally kept separate because they are meant for different kinds of baked goods – such as yeast dough and shortcrust pastry dough – they do not combine. Even a single dough may be treated as divided. If it is intended

from the outset to be split into distinct parts – for example, half for a sweet baked good and half for a savory one – those parts do not combine toward the ḥalla threshold, even though they are currently one mass (SA YD 326:1).

This also applies when several women knead one dough together but intend from the outset that each will take her own portion. Since the dough is already marked for division, it is not treated as one shared unit, even if it contains the amount from which ḥalla would otherwise have to be separated. The same remains true after baking: if each woman recognizes her own baked item and is particular to take it for herself, the baked goods do not combine, even if they were all baked in one oven.

Therefore, if women wish to bake together in order to fulfill the mitzva of separating ḥalla, and none has enough dough on her own to trigger the obligation, they must remain full partners in all the baked goods until the baking is complete. Only afterward should each take a portion at random, without any marking that identifies a particular baked good as hers. In that case, one of them may separate ḥalla for everyone. If, however, each woman shapes or braids her own dough in a distinctive way and intends to take it afterward, the doughs are considered divided before baking and do not combine. Similarly, when a kindergarten teacher bakes ḥallot with children before Shabbat, and each child kneads a separate dough with his or her name attached to it, the ḥallot do not combine.^[8]

09. Flour and Liquids

The mitzva of ḥalla applies specifically to dough intended for baking bread, as the Torah states: “When you eat of the bread of the land” (Bamidbar 15:19). In this context, “bread” means dough made from one of the five species of grain: wheat, barley, spelt, oats, and rye. These grains are unique because their dough can ferment and become ḥametz, which makes them suitable for bread and cakes; when one prevents the dough from fermenting, they can also be used to make matza for the mitzva on Pesaḥ. By contrast, one does not separate ḥalla from baked goods made from corn flour or rice flour, because their dough cannot become ḥametz and is not considered bread. For the same reason, they cannot be used to make matza for Pesaḥ (see Peninei Halakha: Pesaḥ 2:3). It should be noted that buckwheat – called kusemet in modern Hebrew – is a legume; therefore, even when it is ground into flour, one does not separate ḥalla from it, since it is not one of the grain species.

Flours from the five species of grain combine with one another. Therefore, if together they reach the ḥalla threshold, one must separate ḥalla (SA YD 324:2). When other ingredients are added, such as cornstarch, sugar, cocoa, or eggs, for ḥalla to be relevant, the grain component must define the mixture. Three factors determine this: the finished baked good must taste of grain; the grain flour itself must reach the ḥalla threshold; and the grain flour must make up the majority of the mixture. If all three conditions are met, one separates ḥalla with a berakha. If the first two conditions are met, but the grain flour is not the majority, one separates ḥalla without a berakha. If the baked good does not taste of grain, or if the grain flour itself does not reach the ḥalla threshold, one does not separate ḥalla from it.^[9]

The liquid used to knead the flour also affects the obligation. When flour is kneaded with one of the seven liquids that halakha treats as significant, one must separate ḥalla from the dough. Six of these liquids are edible: water, dew, olive oil, wine, milk, and bee honey; the seventh, blood, is forbidden for consumption. If the flour is kneaded with other liquids, such as fruit juice or eggs, it is uncertain whether one must separate ḥalla from the dough, and therefore one separates ḥalla without a berakha. If even a small amount of water is added to the fruit juice, however, one separates ḥalla with a berakha.^[10]

10. Dough for Baked Grain Products

As we have learned, the mitzva of ḥalla applies to dough intended for baking bread, as the Torah states: “When you eat of the bread of the land… from the first of your doughs you shall give a gift to the Lord throughout your generations” (Bamidbar 15:19–21). In this context, “bread” includes all grain-based baked goods: cakes, crackers, biscuits, pastries filled with meat, cheese, or vegetables, pretzels, breadsticks, and baklava.

There is, however, an important difference between ordinary bread and other baked grain products. Bread is the food on which people normally establish a meal, and therefore one always recites ha-motzi and Birkat Ha-mazon over it. Other baked goods are generally eaten casually. Therefore, when one establishes a meal on them, he recites ha-motzi and Birkat Ha-mazon; but when he eats them in their usual manner, as a snack, he recites mezonot and al ha-miḥya. Cooked grain dishes, however, always remain in the category of cooked foods rather than bread. Therefore, even if one establishes a meal on them, he still recites mezonot and al ha-miḥya.

This is the general rule: baked grain products are considered bread for purposes of ḥalla, and one must separate ḥalla from them. Cooked grain dishes are not considered bread, and no ḥalla is separated from them. This is the view of most poskim, as explained in the next section.

The distinction between baking and cooking is therefore crucial. Both use heat, but cooking takes place in boiling liquid, while baking occurs when the dough is heated without being immersed in liquid. A baked good may contain liquid – indeed, that moisture allows it to bake properly rather than burn – but during baking it is not sitting in liquid. Baking is usually done in an oven, but it can also be done in a frying pan or pot placed over a fire. Even if a small amount of oil is added to the bottom of the pan or pot to prevent sticking or to add flavor, the food is still considered baked, since the dough is surrounded by only a minimal amount of liquid. Therefore, one separates ḥalla with a berakha from foods such as malawaḥ and mufleta, which are baked in a pan, and kubaneh and jaḥnun, which are baked in a pot. If one establishes a meal on them, he recites ha-motzi and Birkat Ha-mazon.^[11]

11. Thick Dough Intended for Cooking

When thick dough is prepared for foods such as sufganiyot, noodles, ptitim, kreplach, or soup croutons, and these foods will be prepared by boiling in water or deep-frying in oil, one does not separate ḥalla from them. Although the dough is thick and could be baked as bread, its intended preparation is cooking rather than baking, and it is therefore not considered bread.

Rabbenu Tam, however, disagrees. In his view, the obligation of ḥalla begins at the time of kneading; since at that moment the dough is thick and fit to be baked as bread, one must separate ḥalla even if one intends to cook it. In practice, the halakha follows the majority of poskim, who maintain that one does not separate ḥalla from these doughs because they are intended for cooking. Accordingly, even if one establishes a meal on them, he recites mezonot and al ha-miḥya. Nevertheless, to account for Rabbenu Tam’s view, the accepted practice is to separate ḥalla from them without a berakha.^[12]

If one bakes even a small portion of dough that was otherwise intended for cooking – even the size of a small cookie – all agree that one must separate ḥalla from it with a berakha. Therefore, one who wishes to avoid the uncertainty should decide from the outset to bake a small portion of the dough, either in an oven or in a pan (Maharam of Rothenburg; SA YD 329:4).^[13]

12. Liquid Batter – Blintzes and Laḥuḥ

As a general rule, dough intended for baking is thick, since it is meant to become a baked grain product. By contrast, batter prepared for cooking – such as porridge or soup that contains a large amount of flour – never takes on the status of bread, and therefore one is not obligated to separate ḥalla from it. For the same reason, even if one eats enough of it to constitute a full meal, he recites mezonot and al ha-miḥya.

Sometimes, however, liquid batter is poured into a pot, baking pan, or frying pan and gradually sets into a baked item, such as pancakes. Once it takes on the form of bread – that is, the form of a baked grain product – one must separate ḥalla from it. If one establishes a meal on it, he recites ha-motzi and Birkat Ha-mazon. Only once the batter has finished baking does the obligation of ḥalla take effect; until then, it remains a batter rather than bread dough (Sefer ha-Teruma; Torat ha-Aretz I 4:92–93). However, even after baking, one separates ḥalla only if the baked items contain enough flour to reach the ḥalla threshold. Since a single pancake or similar item generally does not contain that amount on its own, ḥalla becomes relevant only when several such items are combined, as explained above, section 7.

This is the rule for pancakes, laḥuḥ, blintzes, Belgian waffles, and similar foods. When the batter bakes into a product with real thickness – the kind of thickness created as it rises during baking – it has the form of a baked grain product. One must therefore separate ḥalla from it, and if one eats enough of it to constitute a full meal, he recites ha-motzi and Birkat Ha-mazon. If, however, the batter is made especially thin, the finished product does not have the form of a baked good; one does not separate ḥalla from it, and even if one eats enough of it to constitute a full meal, he recites mezonot and al ha-miḥya. When it is uncertain whether the items are ordinary baked products or especially thin ones, one separates ḥalla without a berakha.^[14]

13. Additional Laws

Ḥalla that became mixed back into the dough: If one separated ḥalla and the piece then became mixed back into the dough, the dough remains permitted only if there is enough ordinary dough to nullify the ḥalla. The required ratio is one hundred to one: if the dough contains one hundred times the volume of the ḥalla, the ḥalla is considered insignificant within the mixture and is nullified. If the dough does not contain that amount, the mixture is prohibited.

However, if people have not yet begun eating from the baked goods, the original designation can still be undone. The person who separated the ḥalla goes to a Torah scholar, who sits together with two others as a beit din, and asks that the designation be annulled. Since separating ḥalla functions like a vow, it can be undone through a similar process; once that is done, the piece is no longer ḥalla retroactively (Rema YD 323:1).

To undo the designation, the one who separated the ḥalla states before the beit din that he regrets having separated it and that had he known it would become mixed back into the dough, he would not have done so. The beit din then says to him three times, “It is permitted to you,” or “The ḥalla is nullified.” At that point, the dough or baked goods are permitted. However, since the original designation has been undone, he must now separate ḥalla again, without a berakha (Halakhot Ketanot 1:48; Birkei Yosef 323:2; Yabi’a Omer YD 1:21; according to Ḥatam Sofer YD 320, one should recite a berakha. The same applies to terumot and ma’asrot; see above, 9:4, note 7).

Ḥalla outside the Land: As we learned above, sections 3–4, the Sages extended the obligation of ḥalla to dough prepared outside the Land as well. Since most of the nation is not presently living in the Land, ḥalla in Eretz Yisrael is also rabbinic. Even so, it remains more stringent than ḥalla outside the Land, for ḥalla in Eretz Yisrael is rooted in a Torah obligation, while ḥalla outside the Land was rabbinic from the outset.

The main practical leniency concerns separating from one dough for another. In Eretz Yisrael, when each dough independently contains enough flour to trigger the obligation, one may separate from one for the other only when both doughs are in the same place; this is the requirement of mukaf, as explained above, section 7. Outside the Land, one may separate even when the other dough is elsewhere. The leniency goes even further: one may bake the dough, begin eating from it, and only near the end separate ḥalla from what remains for what has already been eaten (SA YD 323:1).

Shabbat: Just as one may not separate terumot and ma’asrot on Shabbat, one may not separate ḥalla on Shabbat (SA OḤ 339:4; MB 339:26; above, 10:4). If one is concerned that he will not manage to separate ḥalla before Shabbat, he may make a stipulation beforehand: “Whatever I separate on Shabbat as ḥalla shall be ḥalla.” He may then recite the berakha on Shabbat and separate ḥalla, as explained above, 10:4, note 1. Outside the Land, as noted, one may eat from the baked goods on Shabbat, leave over a small amount for Motza’ei Shabbat, and then separate ḥalla from what remains for what was eaten (Rema OḤ 506:3; MB 506:21).

Ḥalla of a non-Jew: One is not required to separate ḥalla from dough owned by a non-Jew, even if a Jew kneaded it for him. Therefore, ḥalla is not separated in a bakery owned by non-Jews, even if all the workers are Jewish. This differs from teruma: when a non-Jew separates teruma, it becomes sanctified, but when he separates ḥalla, the portion does not become ḥalla at all (SA and Rema YD 330:1; SA YD 331:44; above, 8:11). Therefore, if a non-Jew did separate a portion as ḥalla, he should be told that it has no ḥalla status and need not be reserved for kohanim (Shakh YD 330:3). If dough is jointly owned by a Jew and a non-Jew, and the Jewish partner’s share contains enough flour to trigger the obligation of ḥalla, ḥalla must be separated from the Jewish partner’s share (SA YD 330:3).

01. The General Principle of Land-Dependent Mitzvot

The Torah was given to Israel so that they would study it and fulfill its mitzvot in Eretz Yisrael, so that through their observance, blessing would flow to the Land and from there to the entire world. In Eretz Yisrael, God’s kingship, Torah, and blessing are revealed, and from there they spread to the whole world; outside the Land, by contrast, it is difficult for them to be revealed. Therefore, in the Land it is revealed that “the Lord is God,” whereas outside the Land He referred to only as “God of gods.” This is why the Sages said that a Jew who lives outside the Land is comparable to one who worships idols (Ketubot 110b). They further taught: “As long as you are in the Land, I am God to you; when you are not in the Land, it is as though I am not your God” (Tosefta, Avoda Zara 4:5). For this reason, the mitzva of settling the Land is said to be equivalent to all the mitzvot (Sifrei, Re’eh 80; Ramban to Vayikra 18:25).

The Torah similarly states: “For you are crossing the Jordan to come and inherit the land that the Lord your God is giving you; you shall inherit it and dwell in it. And you shall observe to perform all the statutes and ordinances that I place before you today. These are the statutes and ordinances that you shall observe to perform in the land that the Lord, God of your fathers, has given you to inherit, all the days that you live upon the earth” (Devarim 11:32–12:2). This implies that the obligation of the mitzvot applies specifically in the Land. Yet, by contrast, it is stated there (11:16–18): “Take care lest your heart be seduced, and you turn aside and worship other gods and bow down to them. Then the anger of the Lord will burn against you… and you will quickly perish from upon the good land that the Lord is giving you. [Nevertheless, even when you are in exile,] you shall place these words of Mine upon your heart and upon your soul; you shall bind them as a sign upon your hand, and they shall be as frontlets between your eyes.” Thus, even in exile, one is commanded to fulfill the mitzvot.

The Sages explained that land-dependent mitzvot – that is, mitzvot rooted in the soil – apply specifically in Eretz Yisrael. Mitzvot that are not land-dependent, however, remain obligatory even in exile, so that the nation will remember them and know how to fulfill them when it returns to the Land. Their observance in exile also stirs the nation to repentance and helps bring its redemption nearer (Yerushalmi, Shevi’it 6:1; Mishna, Kiddushin 1:8; Kiddushin 37a; Sifrei, Ekev 43–44).

The land-dependent mitzvot are: ḥalla, orla, kil’ei zera’im, kil’ei ha-kerem, ḥadash, leket, shikḥa, pe’a, peret, olelot, bikurim, terumot and ma’asrot, reishit ha-gez, shevi’it, and yovel. According to many authorities, this category also includes the priestly gifts of the foreleg, cheeks, and maw (below, section 16). Although these mitzvot apply primarily in the Land, many of them extend in some measure even outside the Land, as explained in the note. There are also many public mitzvot dependent on the Land, such as establishing a judicial system, as well as many mitzvot dependent on the building and functioning of the Temple. These will not be addressed in this chapter.^[1]

The obligation of all land-dependent mitzvot depends not only on Eretz Yisrael itself, but also on the Jewish people’s national presence there. The obligation began only after Israel entered the primary part of the Land – the western side of the Jordan, the land of the seven Canaanite nations. For some mitzvot, the Torah requires an even more complete national settlement: shevi’it and yovel apply by Torah law only when the nation dwells in its Land properly, each tribe in its inheritance (below, section 14), while ḥalla and terumot and ma’asrot apply by Torah law only when most of the Jewish people are in the Land (below, sections 2, 10, and 11).

In brief, the public mitzvot dependent on the Land include: the mitzva of settling the Land and all that it entails, such as the war to conquer it; “They shall not dwell in your land”; “You shall not show them favor”; the Levite cities and cities of refuge; the eradication of idolatry; appointing a king, or another form of leadership with the status of a king; appointing judges and officers in all the gates of Israel; ordaining judges; sanctifying months; intercalating years; egla arufa; the rebellious elder; building the Temple and performing the sacrificial service; walled-city houses; house afflictions; and the condemned city.

02. The Beginning of the Obligation

From the moment the nation entered the Land, it became obligated in the mitzvot that are incumbent on individuals independently: ḥadash, orla, kil’ei zera’im, and kil’ei ha-kerem. These mitzvot applied to the territory west of the Jordan that those who left Egypt were commanded to conquer, as described in Parashat Mas’ei (Bamidbar 34). Once the nation crossed the Jordan, the obligation applied to that entire territory, even though it had not yet been conquered in practice. Since the eastern side of the Jordan had already been conquered, the obligation extended there as well. However, in areas outside gevul olei Mitzrayim – the borders of the Land as settled by those who came out of Egypt – even if they lie within the broader borders of Eretz Yisrael, from the River of Egypt to the Euphrates, these mitzvot did not apply unless those areas were conquered by the Jewish people collectively.^[2]

A second group consists of mitzvot tied to the nation’s collective life in the Land. This includes terumot and ma’asrot, which field owners give to kohanim, levi’im, and the poor, as well as shevi’it and yovel, which structure the life of the nation as a whole. The nation became obligated in these mitzvot only after the conquest of the Land was complete and the Land had been divided among the tribes. The conquest took seven years. Dividing the Land among the tribes and families took another seven years, until every Jew received his portion. Thus, in the fifteenth year after entering the Land, they began counting the years toward shevi’it and yovel, separating terumot and ma’asrot, and leaving the gifts for the poor. In the twenty-first year, they observed the first shevi’it; in the sixty-fourth year, they observed the first yovel (Sifrei, Ekev 41; Peninei Halakha: Shemita Ve-yovel 5:1).^[3]

Before the Temple was built in Jerusalem, ma’aser sheni and neta reva’i were eaten near the Mishkan in Shilo, and bikurim were brought there as well (Mishna, Zevaḥim 14:4–8). This was the practice throughout the 369 years that the Mishkan stood in Shilo. Afterward, the Mishkan was located in Nov and Givon for another 57 years. From there, the center of worship moved to Jerusalem, to the Temple built by Shlomo, which stood for 410 years (Zevaḥim 118b; MT, Laws of the Temple 1:2).

03. Syria

Beyond the territory conquered by Moshe and Yehoshua, where the twelve tribes had settled, King David later conquered Syria. Syria included areas within the borders of Eretz Yisrael, such as Aram Damascus, as well as areas beyond those borders, such as Aram Naharayim, between the Euphrates and the Tigris. David’s aim was to subdue enemies who might threaten the nation in the future. Rather than allow hostile kingdoms to develop there, he appointed governors who collected tribute, thereby strengthening his kingdom (2 Shmuel 8:3–13; 10:16–19).

The Sages said that this conquest was not carried out in the proper order. The mitzva was first to conquer all the land of Canaan within the borders described in Parashat Mas’ei (Bamidbar 34), whereas David conquered Syria before conquering Jerusalem, which was then controlled by the Yevusites (Sifrei, Ekev 51). Apparently, David departed from the proper order because he did not intend to designate Syria for Jewish settlement; at that time, the Jewish people had not yet properly settled the areas inherited in the days of Yehoshua bin Nun. He reasoned that since he was conquering Syria only to subdue enemies and collect tribute for the kingdom, this would not be considered a violation of the proper order. For this reason, his conquest is called kibbush yaḥid, an “individual conquest” – a conquest undertaken to strengthen his kingdom, not to settle the Land.

Because Syria had been conquered outside the proper order, its halakhic status became disputed. According to R. Meir, even kibbush yaḥid is halakhically effective by Torah law; therefore, Syria became subject to the land-dependent mitzvot by Torah law. One must separate terumot and ma’asrot there by Torah law, and one may not sell a house there to a non-Jew. According to R. Yose, however, kibbush yaḥid does not give Syria the full status of the Land. The land-dependent mitzvot therefore apply there only by rabbinic enactment, including terumot and ma’asrot, and when necessary, one may sell a house there to a non-Jew. The halakha follows R. Yose (Gittin 8a–b; Avoda Zara 21a; MT, Laws of Idolatry 10:3).

Even so, Syria is not treated simply as outside the Land. Since all territories up to the Euphrates are within the broader borders of Eretz Yisrael, there is a mitzva to settle them and purchase homes there. The mitzva to settle these areas is significant enough that if the opportunity to purchase a house there arises on Shabbat, a Jew may even set aside a rabbinic prohibition classified as shevut in order to complete the purchase (MT, Laws of Shabbat 6:11). ^[4]

04. The Exile and the Destruction of the First Temple

When the tribes of Reuven, Gad, and half of Menashe were exiled – in the year 3188 from Creation, about 150 years before the destruction of the First Temple – shevi’it and yovel ceased to apply by Torah law. The Torah states with regard to yovel: “You shall proclaim liberty throughout the land to all its inhabitants” (Vayikra 25:10). The Sages explain that yovel applies only when all its inhabitants are in the Land, not when some of them have been exiled. Once yovel no longer applies by Torah law, shevi’it no longer applies by Torah law either (Arakhin 32b; Gittin 36a; see Peninei Halakha: Shemita Ve-yovel 1:9 and 5:3 for the reason). At that point, however, terumot and ma’asrot still applied by Torah law. Although shevi’it itself was then observed only by rabbinic enactment or as a matter of custom, the years were still counted according to the Torah’s shevi’it cycle, and that count determined the order of the tithes – when ma’aser sheni was separated and when ma’aser ani was separated. See MT, Laws of Shemita Ve-yovel 10:5 and Tosafot, Arakhin 12b, s.v. hanakh shanei.

About eighteen years after that, in the year 3206 from Creation, ḥalla, terumot, and ma’asrot also ceased to apply by Torah law, because most of the Jewish people were no longer in the Land. With the destruction of the First Temple, the sanctity that had served as the basis for the national-collective land-dependent mitzvot was annulled. This affected ḥalla and teruma, which are given to kohanim; ma’aser rishon, given to levi’im; ma’aser sheni, eaten in Jerusalem; ma’aser ani, given to the poor; and shevi’it and yovel. What all these mitzvot have in common is that they depend on the national condition of the Jewish people in their Land. Some depend on most of the Jewish people being in the Land; others, such as shevi’it and yovel, depend on all the tribes dwelling in their inheritances. Therefore, when that national order collapsed, the basis for these mitzvot lapsed as well. This is what the Sages meant when they said: “The first sanctification sanctified for its time but not for the future” (Ḥullin 7a). In other words, the first sanctification of the Land was annulled with the destruction of the First Temple.

Individual land-dependent mitzvot, by contrast, such as orla and kilayim, continue to apply by Torah law even after the destruction of the Temple and the exile of the Jewish people. Since their obligation began when the nation entered the Land, before the conquest and division into inheritances, destruction and exile do not annul that obligation. ^[5]

05. The Prophetic Enactment of Terumot and Ma’asrot in Babylonia

Toward the end of the First Temple period, after the exile of Yehoyakhin, a Jewish community began taking shape in Babylonia. At that point, the prophets instituted the separation of terumot and ma’asrot from produce grown in Shinar, that is, Babylonia. Since Babylonia was adjacent to Eretz Yisrael, and many Jews were leaving for Babylonia and settling there, the prophets sought to preserve the values embodied by the mitzva among the exiles and to support the poor. They may also have been concerned that some Jews would leave the Land in order to avoid separating approximately one-fifth of their produce as terumot and ma’asrot. For these reasons, they required terumot and ma’asrot in Babylonia as well. Since shemita does not apply there, the enactment remained in force even during the seventh year; in Babylonia, one would separate ma’aser sheni in that year as well, as will be explained below in section 13.

It seems that Jews in Babylonia continued separating terumot and ma’asrot even after the destruction of the Temple. They also continued counting the shemita years, because that cycle determined which tithe was separated: in years 1, 2, 4, 5, and 7, the tithe was classified as ma’aser sheni; in years 3 and 6, as ma’aser ani (see MT, Laws of Shemita Ve-yovel 10:5). After the destruction, however, ma’aser sheni could no longer be eaten in Jerusalem in its normal manner and therefore had to be redeemed.

In Eretz Yisrael itself, however, one was no longer obligated to separate terumot and ma’asrot. Some presumably continued separating them as a continuation of ancestral practice, but the obligation did not return until the Men of the Great Assembly returned and sanctified the Land a second time.

Even after the Land was sanctified a second time, the enactment established by the prophets concerning Babylonia remained in force. The elders who led the Jewish people after Ezra the Scribe later extended this requirement to Egypt, where a large Jewish community emerged as well. Since shemita does not apply outside the Land, they determined that during the seventh year ma’aser ani should be separated in Egypt, so that the poor of Eretz Yisrael could benefit from it during the year in which they received no gifts from the Land’s fields. Later, they extended this requirement to Ammon and Moav as well: terumot and ma’asrot were to be separated there too, and during the seventh year of the cycle, the second tithe was designated as ma’aser ani, as in Egypt, so that the poor of Eretz Yisrael could benefit from it during shemita (Mishna, Yadayim 4:3).^[6]

06. The Acceptance of Torah in the Days of Ezra

Fifty-two years after the destruction of the First Temple, Cyrus, king of Persia, granted the Jews of Babylonia permission to return to the Land and rebuild the Temple. Yet only 42,000 volunteered to ascend. The returnees settled in Jerusalem and its surroundings, built the altar, offered sacrifices upon it, and prepared to build the Temple. However, because of accusations sent by the peoples of the land to the Persian kingdom, construction was halted for eighteen years, until Daryavesh II, son of Aḥashverosh and Queen Esther, authorized the building of the Temple (Megilla 11b–12a, and Rashi there).

Despite all this, the national and spiritual state of the Jewish people was still at a low point. The overwhelming majority of the nation chose to remain in exile, while the Jewish settlement in the Land was small in number and spiritually impoverished. Few were engaged in Torah; many mitzvot were neglected; and even many from among the kohanim sinned by marrying non-Jewish women. Apparently, many believed that once the Jewish people had become scattered and dispersed among the nations, there was no longer an obligation to observe the mitzvot. It therefore became necessary, at the beginning of this new period, to determine how Torah observance would continue among Israel.

In the sixth year of the Temple’s construction, Ezra the Scribe, a towering spiritual figure, ascended from Babylonia and began stirring the people to engage in Torah and observe the mitzvot. The Sages described his greatness in remarkable terms: “Ezra was worthy for the Torah to be given through him, had Moshe not preceded him” (Sanhedrin 21b). They further said: “When Torah was forgotten from Israel, Ezra ascended from Babylonia and established it” (Sukka 20a). Ezra was not only a sage but also a prophet; according to the Sages, Malakhi was his prophetic name (Megilla 15a). About thirteen years after Ezra’s ascent, Neḥemya, a minister in the Persian court, ascended to Jerusalem with governing authority from the king of Persia. Together, Ezra and Neḥemya strengthened the Jewish settlement in the Land, both nationally and religiously.

The Sages compared the nation’s return to the Land in the days of Ezra to its first entry in the days of Yehoshua bin Nun. Just as the nation accepted the mitzvot upon itself when it first entered the Land under Yehoshua, so too it had to accept them anew upon returning in the days of Ezra. And just as those who left Egypt were commanded, after entering the Land, to renew the covenant over the Torah they had received at Sinai, at Mount Gerizim and Mount Eival (Devarim 11:29–32; 27:1–26), so too the covenant had to be renewed in the days of Ezra (Yerushalmi, Shevi’it 6:1; Arakhin 32b).

Indeed, this is exactly what the verses describe: in the days of Ezra and Neḥemya, the nation accepted upon itself to keep the Torah, with special emphasis on the mitzvot that required strengthening. As it is stated (Neḥemya 10:1–40): “And because of all this we make a covenant and write it, and our officers, our levi’im, and our kohanim are sealed upon it. And upon those sealed [were the priestly and Levitical clans and the heads of the people] … And they enter into a curse and an oath to walk in the Torah of God, which was given by the hand of Moshe, servant of God, and to observe and perform all the mitzvot of the Lord our Master, His ordinances, and His statutes. We will not give our daughters to the peoples of the land [the non-Jews], nor take their daughters for our sons. And as for the peoples of the land who bring merchandise or any grain on Shabbat to sell – we will not buy from them on Shabbat or on a holy day [that is, we will not conduct commerce on Shabbat or festivals]; and we will leave the seventh year [to rest during shemita], and every debt [the remission of debts]… And we will bring the first fruits of our soil and the first fruits of every fruit tree, year by year, to the house of the Lord. And the firstborn of our sons and of our animals, as written in the Torah, and the firstborn of our cattle and our flocks, we will bring to the house of our God, to the kohanim who serve in the house of our God. And the first of our doughs [ḥalla], our terumot, and the fruit of every tree, wine, and oil, we will bring to the kohanim, to the chambers of the house of our God, and the tithe of our soil to the levi’im…”

To reestablish Torah among the Jewish people, Ezra the Scribe founded the Great Assembly, the greatest and most important court in Jewish history. It consisted of 120 sages, among them the last prophets. This court examined the state of Jewish life and instituted the structures that would allow the Jewish people to endure even in dispersion, with part of the nation in the Land and the majority outside it. Among other things, the Men of the Great Assembly established the text of the tefillot and berakhot, the times for public Torah reading in the synagogues, and the days on which courts would sit to judge interpersonal disputes. Through these measures, the Men of the Great Assembly restored Torah to the Jewish people and laid the foundation for the continued development of the Oral Torah. They raised many students and paved the way for the sages of later generations to issue ordinances and establish safeguards according to the needs of each generation. ^[7]

07.The Second Sanctification and Its Halakhic Effect for the Communal-National Mitzvot

One of the most painful expressions of the crisis that befell the Jewish people after the destruction of the First Temple was that they were no longer obligated to observe the communal-national mitzvot dependent on the Land: shemita and yovel, terumot and ma’asrot, and the gifts to the poor. Through these mitzvot, the values of Torah enter the nation’s practical public life, and through them the Jewish people’s distinctive character is revealed. It stands to reason that even after the destruction, some Jews continued to observe these mitzvot to some degree; still, they did so as a continuation of ancestral practice, not because they were obligated. Ezra’s great achievement was restoring the obligation to observe these mitzvot. In the seventh year after the Temple was built, Ezra and his court renewed the halakhic sanctity of the Land with respect to the mitzvot dependent on it. They resumed the count toward shemita and yovel, and the Jewish people once again became obligated in the Land’s communal-national mitzvot: terumot and ma’asrot, ḥalla, the gifts to the poor, and shemita.

The Sages taught that the first sanctification, by which the Land was sanctified in the days of Yehoshua bin Nun for the communal-national mitzvot, was limited to its time and therefore was nullified with the destruction and exile. The second sanctification, in the days of Ezra, remained forever. The Torah states that after the Jewish people sin and suffer the punishment of exile, God will bring them back to their Land a second time: “The Lord your God will restore your fortunes and have compassion upon you, and He will return and gather you from among all the peoples where the Lord your God has scattered you… And the Lord your God will bring you to the land that your fathers possessed, and you shall possess it…” (Devarim 30:3–5). The Sages explain: “that your fathers possessed” refers to the first inheritance of the Land, in the days of Yehoshua bin Nun; “and you shall possess it” refers to the second inheritance, in the days of Ezra. Since the Torah does not mention a third inheritance, the sanctity created through the second inheritance remains forever. Therefore, even after the destruction of the Second Temple, the sanctity of the Land was not nullified (Yevamot 82b).

The first sanctification took effect through conquest; when the Land was taken from us and the conquest ended, that sanctity was nullified as well. The second sanctification, by contrast, was established through the Jewish people’s settlement of the Land and their hold upon it despite all difficulties. Since this sanctity took effect through settlement even without Jewish sovereignty, it was grounded in the Jewish people’s enduring claim to their Land – a claim based not on political control, but on the divine promise. Since that claim can never lapse, the sanctity established through it can likewise never be nullified, even after destruction and exile (see Rambam, MT, Laws of Terumot 1:5 and Laws of the Temple 6:16).

It appears, however, that the first sanctification served as the basis for the second. The sanctity of the Land as it applies to the mitzvot dependent on it reaches its full expression when the mitzva of settling the Land is fulfilled in both its dimensions: conquest and settlement. As the Torah states, “You shall possess it and dwell in it” (Devarim 11:31): “possess it” refers to conquest, and “dwell in it” refers to settlement. Once the Jewish people acquired their Land through both dimensions of the mitzva, the Land remained sanctified for its mitzvot forever.

Although some Rishonim disagree and maintain that the second sanctification, too, was nullified after the destruction (Rashba, Ritva, and Ran), the accepted halakha is that the second sanctification is never nullified. ^[8]p>

Some Rishonim maintain that the halakha follows the Sages: the second sanctification was nullified with the destruction, and therefore, after the destruction, the obligation to separate terumot and ma’asrot is rabbinic (Rashba, Ritva, Ran, Sefer ha-Teruma, and Tashbetz). Other Rishonim maintain that the halakha follows R. Yose: the second sanctification was not nullified, and therefore one must separate terumot and ma’asrot today by Torah law (Rashi, Raavad, Tur in the name of Ri, and Kaftor Va-feraḥ).

Rambam takes a third position. In his view, the second sanctification was not nullified. Nevertheless, the obligation to separate terumot and ma’asrot today is rabbinic, because the Torah obligation applies only when the majority of the Jewish people are in the Land. One may therefore explain that, according to Rambam, even the Sages who disagree with R. Yose agree that the second sanctification itself was not nullified. R. Yoḥanan’s point, then, is that according to the Sages, terumot and ma’asrot are rabbinic today because the Torah obligation depends on the majority of the Jewish people dwelling in the Land, as explained in Nidda 47a. This is how Rambam rules (MT, Laws of Terumot 1:26). This also appears to be the view of Sefer Mitzvot Gadol, positive commandment 133; Sefer ha-Ḥinukh §507; Maggid Mishneh to MT, Laws of Forbidden Relations 20:3; and Mahariṭ 1:25.

Likewise, virtually all Aḥaronim agree that the second sanctification sanctified the Land permanently. In practice, however, the Torah obligation to separate terumot and ma’asrot applies only when the majority of the Jewish people are in the Land (Radvaz; SA, YD 331:2; AHS).

Yerushalmi, Shevi’it 6:1 cites a baraita: “The nation’s entry in the days of Ezra is compared to its entry in the days of Yehoshua. Just as, when they entered in the days of Yehoshua, they had been exempt and then became obligated, so too, when they entered in the days of Ezra, they had been exempt and then became obligated.”

The Amora’im disagree about the level of obligation created in the days of Ezra. According to R. Yose bar Ḥanina, it was a Torah obligation. On the contrary, their greatness lay precisely in accepting the mitzvot despite their weakness: they were few in number, they lived under foreign rule, and they had not conquered the entire Land. It is about this that the Torah says, “He will do good to you and multiply you more than your fathers” (Devarim 30:5). Perhaps precisely because the Land was sanctified through such difficult settlement, its sanctity endured for generations: through their struggle to settle the Land, the Jewish people’s claim to their Land was clarified with greater force and for all time. See there. According to R. Elazar, however, Ezra’s return did not yet restore a Torah obligation. The people accepted the mitzvot upon themselves through rabbinic authority, and precisely for that reason they needed to seal this acceptance through a covenantal pledge (Neḥemya 10:1, 33, 36–38). On this view, the full and enduring inheritance of the Land still lies in the future, when the Land will again be sanctified by Torah law. This seems to indicate that the halakha follows R. Elazar.

Many, however, explain R. Elazar’s view in line with Rambam. On this reading, R. Elazar does not mean that the second sanctification was merely temporary or lacked Torah force at its core. Rather, during the Second Temple period, one was obligated to separate terumot and ma’asrot and to observe shemita and yovel only by rabbinic enactment, because the necessary national conditions had not yet been met: the majority of the Jewish people were not in the Land, and the tribes were not dwelling there in their proper order (Mahara Fulda, Penei Moshe, and Rash Sirilio). Nevertheless, R. Elazar agrees that the second sanctification has a Torah-law foundation and remains in force for all generations. Therefore, once the majority of the Jewish people are in the Land, the Torah obligation of these mitzvot will take effect without any further sanctification.

1. Shimshon of Sens, in his commentary to Shevi’it 6:1, explains the Yerushalmi’s dispute differently. In his view, R. Yose bar Ḥanina and R. Elazar both agree that when the second sanctification took effect, one was obligated by Torah law to separate terumot and ma’asrot. Their dispute concerns the permanence of that sanctification. According to R. Yose bar Ḥanina, the nation was required by Torah law to sanctify the Land, just as in the days of Yehoshua; for that reason, its sanctity remained for generations. According to R. Elazar, however, the nation had the authority to sanctify the Land by Torah law, but chose to sanctify it only for as long as the Temple stood. Therefore, once the Temple was destroyed, the obligation to separate terumot and ma’asrot became rabbinic. With the third entry into the Land, however, the obligation will again become Torah law without any further sanctification. This explains the view of Rashba, Ritva, and Ran.

According to the Vilna Gaon (Bi’ur Ha-Gra 331:6), the halakha follows R. Elazar: the second sanctification was rabbinic in origin, yet it sanctified the Land for all generations, as Rambam rules. Even so, the Vilna Gaon agrees that no third sanctification will be necessary. The second sanctification remains in place, and when the majority of the Jewish people are in the Land, one will be obligated by Torah law to separate terumot and ma’asrot.

Above, I followed the earlier views, which maintain that the Land was sanctified in the days of Ezra by Torah law. According to Rambam and those who agree with him, however, shemita, terumot, and ma’asrot remained rabbinic at that time because the majority of the Jewish people were not in the Land.