{"id":12237,"date":"2026-07-12T00:12:51","date_gmt":"2026-07-11T21:12:51","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/ph.yhb.org.il\/en\/?p=12237"},"modified":"2026-08-05T14:36:33","modified_gmt":"2026-08-05T11:36:33","slug":"17-12-12","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/ph.yhb.org.il\/en\/17-12-12\/","title":{"rendered":"12. Other Areas with Respect to Terumot and Ma\u2019asrot"},"content":{"rendered":"
As we learned above in section 8, when the Men of the Great Assembly sanctified the Land, they sanctified the place of settlement \u2013 that is, gevul olei Bavel<\/em>, the area settled by those who ascended from Babylonia. As a result, the sanctity was also reawakened in all the places conquered by olei Mitzrayim<\/em>, on both sides of the Jordan, and even spread to Syria. The Sages determined that by virtue of that sanctity, the communal-national mitzvot dependent on the Land would apply in all these places. The difference was in the level of obligation: in gevul olei Bavel<\/em>, the basis of the obligation was Torah law, while in gevul olei Mitzrayim<\/em> and Syria, it was rabbinic. Later, Yo\u1e25anan the High Priest instituted the enactment of demai<\/em>. Under this enactment, one who purchased produce from amei ha-aretz<\/em> had to separate the tithes and terumat ma\u2019aser<\/em> out of doubt. Yo\u1e25anan determined that this enactment would apply in gevul olei Bavel<\/em>, but not in gevul olei Mitzrayim<\/em>. According to most Rishonim, this is the only difference between gevul olei Bavel<\/em> and gevul olei Mitzrayim<\/em> with respect to terumot<\/em> and ma\u2019asrot<\/em>, and this is how the A\u1e25aronim ruled.<\/p>\n However, some Rishonim maintain that the difference between them is more extensive. They argue that in the territory of olei Bavel<\/em> one must separate terumot<\/em> and ma\u2019asrot<\/em> from all fruits and vegetables by rabbinic enactment, whereas in the territory of olei Mitzrayim<\/em> one must separate only from grain, wine, and oil, the only categories that, according to most Rishonim, are subject to terumot<\/em> and ma\u2019asrot<\/em> by Torah law (Rashi, Raavad, and Kaftor Va-fera\u1e25<\/em>). [14]<\/a><\/sup><\/p>\n In practice, the A\u1e25aronim agree that one must separate terumot<\/em> and ma\u2019asrot<\/em> from all types of produce even in gevul olei Mitzrayim<\/em> and Syria; only the enactment of demai<\/em> does not apply there (Sha\u2019arei Tzedek<\/em> 13:44; Gevulot Ha-sadeh<\/em> 3:8). As for cities formerly inhabited mainly by non-Jews, one could have relied on Rambam\u2019s view and exempted them from terumot<\/em> and ma\u2019asrot<\/em> altogether. However, since the precise location of the exempt areas is uncertain, and according to most Rishonim these cities remain obligated, the ruling is to separate there without a berakha (see Mishpetei Eretz<\/em> 3:6).<\/p>\n Regarding Syria, all agree that as a matter of basic law, one must separate terumot<\/em> and ma\u2019asrot<\/em> there. Nevertheless, many had the practice not to separate them. They maintained that even land purchased by Jews was not truly theirs, because ultimate ownership remained with the king. If so, the produce was considered to have grown on non-Jewish land; and in Syria, produce grown on non-Jewish land does not require terumot<\/em> and ma\u2019asrot<\/em>, even if a Jew completed the final processing of the fruit (Gittin<\/em> 47a; above, end of note 4). In practice, however, the authorities write that one must separate terumot<\/em> and ma\u2019asrot<\/em> in Syria from produce grown on land registered in a Jew\u2019s name. [15]<\/a><\/sup><\/p>\n