Mishneh Torah — Heave Offerings (Terumot) הלכות תרומות, Chapter 1

הַתְּרוּמוֹת וְהַמַּעַשְׂרוֹת אֵינָן נוֹהֲגִין מִן הַתּוֹרָה אֶלָּא בְּאֶרֶץ יִשְׂרָאֵל. בֵּין בִּפְנֵי הַבַּיִת בֵּין שֶׁלֹּא בִּפְנֵי הַבַּיִת. וּנְבִיאִים הִתְקִינוּ שֶׁיְּהוּ נוֹהֲגוֹת אֲפִלּוּ בְּאֶרֶץ שִׁנְעָר מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהִיא סְמוּכָה לְאֶרֶץ יִשְׂרָאֵל וְרֹב יִשְׂרָאֵל הוֹלְכִין וְשָׁבִין שָׁם. וְהַחֲכָמִים הָרִאשׁוֹנִים הִתְקִינוּ שֶׁיִּהְיוּ נוֹהֲגוֹת אַף בְּאֶרֶץ מִצְרַיִם וּבְאֶרֶץ עַמּוֹן וּמוֹאָב מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהֵם סְבִיבוֹת לְאֶרֶץ יִשְׂרָאֵל:

According to Scriptural Law, [the obligation to separate] the terumot and the tithes applies only in Eretz Yisrael. 36b states that all the mitzvot involving the produce of the earth apply only in Eretz Yisrael. [It applies] whether the Temple is standing or not. 10:8-9.) The prophets ordained that these obligations should be observed in Babylon as well, because it is adjacent to Eretz Yisrael and the majority of the Jewish people journey to and from there.. Hence, the prophets gave it precedence over the other lands (Radbaz). The Sages of the early generations 3:3). ordained that they also be observed in the lands of Egypt and the lands of Ammon and Moab, because they are on the peripheries of Eretz Yisrael.

אֶרֶץ יִשְׂרָאֵל הָאֲמוּרָה בְּכָל מָקוֹם הִיא בָּאֲרָצוֹת שֶׁכִּבְּשָׁן מֶלֶךְ יִשְׂרָאֵל אוֹ נָבִיא מִדַּעַת רֹב יִשְׂרָאֵל וְזֶהוּ הַנִּקְרָא כִּבּוּשׁ רַבִּים. אֲבָל יָחִיד מִיִּשְׂרָאֵל אוֹ מִשְׁפָּחָה אוֹ שֵׁבֶט שֶׁהָלְכוּ וְכָבְשׁוּ לְעַצְמָן מָקוֹם אֲפִלּוּ מִן הָאָרֶץ שֶׁנִּתְּנָה לְאַבְרָהָם אֵינוֹ נִקְרָא אֶרֶץ יִשְׂרָאֵל כְּדֵי שֶׁיִּנְהֲגוּ בּוֹ כָּל הַמִּצְוֹת. וּמִפְּנֵי זֶה חִלֵּק יְהוֹשֻׁעַ וּבֵית דִּינוֹ כָּל אֶרֶץ יִשְׂרָאֵל לִשְׁבָטִים אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁלֹּא נִכְבְּשָׁה כְּדֵי שֶׁלֹּא יִהְיֶה כִּבּוּשׁ יָחִיד כְּשֶׁיַּעֲלֶה כָּל שֵׁבֶט וְשֵׁבֶט וְיִכְבּשׁ חֶלְקוֹ:

Whenever Eretz Yisrael is mentioned, the intent is the lands conquered by the King of Israel or a prophet with the consent of the entire Jewish people. This is called "a conquest of the community." 5:6. If, however, an individual Jew, a family, or a tribe go and conquer a place for themselves - even in the land given to Abraham 5:1) states, from Abraham's time onward, even though the land was still possessed by the Canaanites, the Jews were already its legal owners. See also Bava Batra 119b. - it is not considered as Eretz Yisrael in the sense that one is obligated to observe all the mitzvot there.. For this reason, Joshua and his court divided the entire Land of Israel into tribal portions even though it was not conquered [entirely] at that time. In this way, when every tribe would ascend and conquer its portion, it would not be considered as merely an individual conquest.

הָאֲרָצוֹת שֶׁכָּבַשׁ דָּוִד חוּץ לְאֶרֶץ כְּנַעַן כְּגוֹן אֲרַם נַהֲרַיִם וַאֲרַם צוֹבָה וְאַחְלָב וְכַיּוֹצֵא בָּהֶן אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁמֶּלֶךְ יִשְׂרָאֵל הוּא וְעַל פִּי בֵּית דִּין הַגָּדוֹל הוּא עוֹשֶׂה אֵינוֹ כְּאֶרֶץ יִשְׂרָאֵל לְכָל דָּבָר וְלֹא כְּחוּצָה לָאָרֶץ לְכָל דָּבָר כְּגוֹן בָּבֶל וּמִצְרַיִם. אֶלָּא יָצְאוּ מִכְּלַל חוּצָה לָאָרֶץ וְלִהְיוֹתָן כְּאֶרֶץ יִשְׂרָאֵל לֹא הִגִּיעוּ. וּמִפְּנֵי מָה יָרְדוּ מִמַּעֲלַת אֶרֶץ יִשְׂרָאֵל מִפְּנֵי שֶׁכָּבַשׁ אוֹתָם קֹדֶם שֶׁיִּכְבּשׁ כָּל אֶרֶץ יִשְׂרָאֵל אֶלָּא נִשְׁאַר בָּהּ מִשִּׁבְעָה עֲמָמִים. וְאִלּוּ תָּפַס כָּל אֶרֶץ כְּנַעַן לִגְבוּלוֹתֶיהָ וְאַחַר כָּךְ כָּבַשׁ אֲרָצוֹת אֲחֵרוֹת הָיָה כִּבּוּשׁוֹ כֻּלּוֹ כְּאֶרֶץ יִשְׂרָאֵל לְכָל דָּבָר. וְהָאֲרָצוֹת שֶׁכָּבַשׁ דָּוִד הֵן הַנִּקְרָאִין סוּרְיָא:

The lands which [King] David conquered outside of the Land of Canaan, e.g., Aram Naharaim, Aram Tzovah, Achlab, and the like, even though he was a King of Israel and he was acting with the consent of the High Court, 5:1). is not considered as the Land of Israel with regard to all matters, nor is it like the Diaspora, i.e., Babylonia and Egypt with regard to all matters. Instead, it was removed from the category of the Diaspora, but did not enter the category of Eretz Yisrael.Why was its level considered lower than that of Eretz Yisrael? Because David conquered them before he conquered all of Eretz Yisrael. 6:11) where he criticizes King David for this approach, quoting the Sifri (Parshat Ekev) that states that he did not act in accordance with the Torah. Since the designation of the land as Eretz Yisrael is through Divine fiat as expressed through the Torah. Accordingly, a conquest that is not in accord with the Torah cannot bring about such a designation (Likkutei Sichot, Vol. V, p. 9). Instead, there were still members of the seven nations there. If, however, he had conquered Eretz Yisrael entirely, in all of its boundaries, and afterwards conquered other lands, his entire conquest would have been equivalent to Eretz Yisrael with regard to all matters. The lands which [King] David conquered are called Syria.

סוּרְיָא יֵשׁ דְּבָרִים שֶׁהִיא בָּהֶן כְּאֶרֶץ יִשְׂרָאֵל וְיֵשׁ דְּבָרִים שֶׁהִיא בָּהֶן כְּחוּצָה לָאָרֶץ. וְהַקּוֹנֶה בָּהּ קַרְקַע כְּקוֹנֶה בְּאֶרֶץ יִשְׂרָאֵל לְעִנְיַן תְּרוּמוֹת וּמַעַשְׂרוֹת וּשְׁבִיעִית. וְהַכּל בְּסוּרְיָא מִדִּבְרֵי סוֹפְרִים:

There are dimensions of [the laws that apply to] Syria that resemble [the laws that apply in] Eretz Yisrael 11:6); it is permitted to have a gentile compose a deed of purchase for land there on the Sabbath so that one will acquire the land (Hilchot Shabbat 6:11). and there are dimensions of [its laws] that resemble [those which apply] in the Diaspora.); a servant from Eretz Yisrael sold there is granted his freedom (Hilchot Avadim 8:6). A person who purchases landed property [in Syria] is comparable to one who purchases [land] in Eretz Yisrael with regard to terumot, tithes, and the Sabbatical year. All [the laws that apply] in Syria are of Rabbinic origin..

כָּל שֶׁהֶחֱזִיקוּ עוֹלֵי מִצְרַיִם וְנִתְקַדֵּשׁ קְדֻשָּׁה רִאשׁוֹנָה כֵּיוָן שֶׁגָּלוּ בָּטְלָה קְדֻשָּׁתָן. שֶׁקְּדֻשָּׁה רִאשׁוֹנָה לְפִי שֶׁהָיְתָה מִפְּנֵי הַכִּבּוּשׁ בִּלְבַד קָדְשָׁה לִשְׁעָתָהּ וְלֹא קָדְשָׁה לֶעָתִיד לָבוֹא. כֵּיוָן שֶׁעָלוּ בְּנֵי הַגּוֹלָה וְהֶחֱזִיקוּ בְּמִקְצָת הָאָרֶץ קִדְּשׁוּהָ קְדֻשָּׁה שְׁנִיָּה הָעוֹמֶדֶת לְעוֹלָם לִשְׁעָתָהּ וְלֶעָתִיד לָבוֹא. וְהִנִּיחוּ אוֹתָם הַמְּקוֹמוֹת שֶׁהֶחֱזִיקוּ בָּהֶם עוֹלֵי מִצְרַיִם וְלֹא הֶחֱזִיקוּ בָּהֶם עוֹלֵי בָּבֶל כְּשֶׁהָיוּ וְלֹא פְּטָרוּם מִן הַתְּרוּמָה וְהַמַּעַשְׂרוֹת כְּדֵי שֶׁיִּסְמְכוּ עֲלֵיהֶם עֲנִיִּים בִּשְׁבִיעִית. וְרַבֵּנוּ הַקָּדוֹשׁ הִתִּיר בֵּית שְׁאָן מֵאוֹתָם הַמְּקוֹמוֹת שֶׁלֹּא הֶחֱזִיקוּ בָּהֶם עוֹלֵי בָּבֶל. וְהוּא נִמְנָה עַל אַשְׁקְלוֹן וּפְטָרָהּ מִן הַמַּעַשְׂרוֹת:

All of the lands that [the Jews] who ascended from Egypt took possession of were sanctified in the first consecration [of the land]. When they were exiled, that sanctity was nullified. 6:16, the Rambam states: "It was no longer Eretz Yisrael," i.e., none of the halachic obligations apply there. [The rationale is that] the initial consecration came about because of the conquest. [Hence,] its consecration was effective for the time [it was under their rule], but not for all time. The Radbaz explains that when the Jews ascended from Egypt, they did not make a statement, consecrating the land. Therefore its holiness could be nullified. When, by contrast, the descendants of the exiles ascended [from Babylon] and took possession of a portion of the land, 16a states: "Much of the land that was conquered by [the Jews who] ascended from Egypt was not conquered by [the Jews who] ascended from Babylon. they consecrated it a second time. [This consecration] is perpetuated forever, for that time and for all time., the Kessef Mishnah finds these statements difficult to accept because of the following questions:a) On what basis is chazakah considered a more effective means of acquisition than conquest?b) After the initial conquest of Eretz Yisrael, the Jewish people manifested their ownership over it and thus, effected a chazakah. If so, why is Ezra's chazakah, which was not preceded by conquest, more effective than the chazakah which followed the original conquest? Why should the conquest detract from the consecration of the land?To explain: As mentioned above, the Jewish people's ownership of the land began with God's promise of the land to Abraham. The sanctity of the land, by contrast, did not begin until the Jewish people actually took possession of it, upon their reentry into the land after the exodus from Egypt and the journey through the desert. At that time, they were commanded to conquer the land and take it forcefully from the Gentiles (see Numbers 32:29,Deuteronomy 3:21, et al). Since God made the consecration of the land dependent upon its conquest by the Jewish people, it follows that conquest by a Gentile nation can nullify its holiness.In contrast, Ezra was not commanded to reconquer Eretz Yisrael, but to settle it. In this instance, God made the sanctity of the land dependent on the Jewish people manifesting their ownership over it. In other words, the sanctity came from manifesting the true reality: that Eretz Yisrael is a Jewish land. Accordingly, since Eretz Yisrael remains our land, regardless of how many times it has been conquered by Gentiles, the sanctity effected by that manifestation of ownership also continues eternally (Likkutei Sichot, Vol. XV, pp. 102-109).[The Sages] left those places that had been settled by [the Jews who] ascended from Egypt, but were not settled by those who ascended from Babylon in their previous [halachic status] and did not exempt them from [the obligations of] terumah and tithes so that the poor could rely upon them in the Sabbatical year. Our holy teacher. released Beit Shan from those places which [the Jews] who ascended from Babylon did not take hold of. He decided that Ashkelon should be exempted from the tithes. relates that Rabbi Yehudah HaNasi released these cities from the obligation of the tithes, because they were not populated by Jews and were not close to the area settled by Jews.

נִמְצָא כָּל הָעוֹלָם לְעִנְיַן מִצְוֹת הַתְּלוּיוֹת בָּאָרֶץ נֶחְלֶקֶת לְשָׁלֹשׁ מַחֲלוֹקוֹת. אֶרֶץ יִשְׂרָאֵל. וְסוּרְיָא. וְחוּצָה לָאָרֶץ. וְאֶרֶץ יִשְׂרָאֵל נֶחְלֶקֶת לִשְׁנַיִם. כָּל שֶׁהֶחֱזִיקוּ עוֹלֵי בָּבֶל חֵלֶק אֶחָד. וְכָל שֶׁהֶחֱזִיקוּ עוֹלֵי מִצְרַיִם בִּלְבַד חֵלֶק שֵׁנִי. וְחוּצָה לָאָרֶץ נֶחְלֶקֶת לִשְׁנַיִם. אֶרֶץ מִצְרַיִם וְשִׁנְעָר וְעַמּוֹן וּמוֹאָב הַמִּצְוֹת נוֹהֲגוֹת בָּהֶם מִדִּבְרֵי סוֹפְרִים וּנְבִיאִים. וּשְׁאָר הָאֲרָצוֹת אֵין תְּרוּמוֹת וּמַעַשְׂרוֹת נוֹהֲגוֹת בָּהֶן:

Thus the entire earth is divided into three categories in relation to those mitzvot involving the land: Eretz Yisrael, Syria, and the Diaspora. Eretz Yisrael itself is divided into two categories: a) those portions settled by the Jews who ascended from Babylonia, and b) those portions that were settled only by the Jews who ascended from Egypt.The Diaspora is divided into two categories: a) Egypt, Babylon, Ammon, and Moab in which the mitzvot are observed according to the decrees of the sages and the prophets and the other lands in which [the obligations of] the terumot and the tithes are not observed.

אֵי זוֹ הִיא אֶרֶץ שֶׁהֶחֱזִיקוּ בָּהּ עוֹלֵי מִצְרַיִם. מֵרֶקֶם שֶׁהוּא בְּמִזְרַח אֶרֶץ יִשְׂרָאֵל עַד הַיָּם הַגָּדוֹל. מֵאַשְׁקְלוֹן שֶׁהִיא לִדְרוֹם אֶרֶץ יִשְׂרָאֵל עַד עַכּוֹ שֶׁהִיא בַּצָּפוֹן. הָיָה מְהַלֵּךְ מֵעַכּוֹ לִכְזִיב כָּל הָאָרֶץ שֶׁעַל יְמִינוֹ שֶׁהוּא מִזְרַח הַדֶּרֶךְ הֲרֵי הִיא בְּחֶזְקַת חוּצָה לָאָרֶץ וּטְמֵאָה מִשּׁוּם אֶרֶץ הָעַמִּים וּפְטוּרָה מִן הַמַּעֲשֵׂר וּמִן הַשְּׁבִיעִית. עַד שֶׁיִּוָּדַע לְךָ שֶׁאוֹתוֹ הַמָּקוֹם מֵאֶרֶץ יִשְׂרָאֵל. וְכָל הָאָרֶץ שֶׁעַל שְׂמֹאלוֹ שֶׁהוּא מַעֲרַב הַדֶּרֶךְ הֲרֵי הִיא בְּחֶזְקַת אֶרֶץ יִשְׂרָאֵל וּטְהוֹרָה מִשּׁוּם אֶרֶץ הָעַמִּים וְחַיֶּבֶת בְּמַעֲשֵׂר וּבִשְׁבִיעִית. עַד שֶׁיִּוָּדַע לְךָ שֶׁאוֹתוֹ מָקוֹם חוּצָה לָאָרֶץ. וְכָל שֶׁשּׁוֹפֵעַ וְיוֹרֵד מִטּוּרֵי אֲמָנוֹם וְלִפְנִים אֶרֶץ יִשְׂרָאֵל. מִטּוּרֵי אֲמָנוֹם וְלַחוּץ חוּצָה לָאָרֶץ. וְהַנִסִּים שֶׁבַּיָּם רוֹאִין אוֹתָן כְּאִלּוּ חוּט מָתוּחַ עֲלֵיהֶם מִטּוּרֵי אֲמָנוֹם וְעַד נַחַל מִצְרַיִם. מִן הַחוּט וְלִפְנִים אֶרֶץ יִשְׂרָאֵל. מִן הַחוּט וְלַחוּץ חוּצָה לָאָרֶץ. וְזוֹ הִיא צוּרָתָהּ:

What are [the boundaries of] the land settled by the Jews who ascended from Egypt? From Rekem which is in the east of Eretz Yisrael until the Mediterranean Sea. From Ashkelon) explain that it was part of the land conquered by the Jews who ascended from Egypt. It was not, however, conquered by the Jews who ascended from Babylonia. which is in the south of Eretz Yisrael until Acre which is in the north. As one proceeds from Acre to Kziv, the area to one's right, on the east, can generally be assumed to be of the Diaspora - it is impure as is the lands of the nations, ch. 11. and is exempt from [the mitzvot of] the tithes and the Sabbatical year - unless it is known that it was part of Eretz Yisrael. The area to one's left, to the west, can generally be assumed to be part of Eretz Yisrael - it is pure [from the impurity associated with] the lands of the nations and is obligated with regard to [mitzvot of] the tithes and the Sabbatical year - unless it is known to be part of the Diaspora., the borders of Eretz Yisrael ascend northward from Acre to Kziv, but there is a strip of land in the center that did not become part of Eretz Yisrael. With regard to the entire area that slopes downward from the Samnum Mountains: as cited in the Rav Shabsie Frankel edition. The standard printed text refers to the Umenum Mountains. See also the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (Sh'vi'it 6:1).In the map the Rambam drew to depict this matter, the Samnum Mountains are located in the southeastern corner of Eretz Yisrael, near Ashkelon. Most of the other commentaries understand this term as referring to the Umenum Mountain range in Northern Lebanon. The inner [portion] is Eretz Yisrael, the portion outside the Samnum Mountains is the Diaspora.With regard to the islands in the sea, we consider their [status dependent] on an [imaginary] line extended from the Samnum Mountains until the River of Egypt. Those within this line are part of Eretz Yisrael. Those outside this line are part of the Diaspora. This is a depiction of the matter.: to provide his readers with an applicable text without any ambiguity.

מֵהֵיכָן הֶחֱזִיקוּ עוֹלֵי בָּבֶל. מִכְּזִיב וְלִפְנִים כְּנֶגֶד הַמִּזְרָח. וּמִכְּזִיב וְלַחוּץ עַד אֲמָנָה וְהִיא אֲמָנוֹם וְעַד הַנָּהָר וְהוּא נַחַל מִצְרַיִם לֹא הֶחֱזִיקוּ בּוֹ. וּכְזִיב עַצְמָהּ לֹא הֶחֱזִיקוּ בָּהּ:

Which area did the Jews who ascended from Babylonia settle in? [The area] from Kziv inward toward the east. They did not, however, take possession of the area from Kziv outward until Amana which is Samnum until the river, i.e., the River of Egypt. was not settled by the Jews who ascended from Babylon. And they did not take possession of Kziv itself.

אֵי זוֹ הִיא סוּרְיָא. מֵאֶרֶץ יִשְׂרָאֵל וּלְמַטָּה כְּנֶגֶד אֲרַם נַהֲרַיִם וַאֲרַם צוֹבָה כָּל יַד פְּרָת עַד בָּבֶל כְּגוֹן דַּמֶּשֶׂק וְאַחְלָב וְחָרָן וּמִגְּבַת וְכַיּוֹצֵא בָּהֶן עַד שִׁנְעָר וְצֹהַר הֲרֵי הִיא כְּסוּרְיָא. אֲבָל עַכּוֹ חוּצָה לָאָרֶץ כְּאַשְׁקְלוֹן וְהֵם תְּחוּמֵי אֶרֶץ יִשְׂרָאֵל:

What constitutes Syria? From Eretz Yisrael and below. Some commentaries understand it as meaning in height, because as Kiddushin 69b states, Eretz Yisrael is higher than other lands. parallel to Aram Naharaim and Aram Tzovah, the entire region of the Euphrates until Babylonia, e.g., Damascus, Achalev, Charan, Minbag, and the like until Shinar and Tzahar. These are considered like Syria. Acre, by contrast, is considered part of the Diaspora, like Ashkelon. These are the boundaries of Eretz Yisrael.

עַכּוּ"ם שֶׁקָּנָה קַרְקַע בְּאֶרֶץ יִשְׂרָאֵל לֹא הִפְקִיעוּהָ מִן הַמִּצְווֹת אֶלָּא הֲרֵי הִיא בִּקְדֻשָּׁתָהּ. לְפִיכָךְ אִם חָזַר יִשְׂרָאֵל וּלְקָחָהּ מִמֶּנּוּ אֵינָהּ כְּכִבּוּשׁ יָחִיד אֶלָּא מַפְרִישׁ תְּרוּמוֹת וּמַעַשְׂרוֹת וּמֵבִיא בִּכּוּרִים. וְהַכּל מִן הַתּוֹרָה כְּאִלּוּ לֹא נִמְכְּרָה לְעַכּוּ"ם מֵעוֹלָם וְיֵשׁ קִנְיָן לְעַכּוּ"ם בְּסוּרְיָא לְהַפְקִיעַ מִן הַמַּעַשְׂרוֹת וּמִן הַשְּׁבִיעִית כְּמוֹ שֶׁיִּתְבָּאֵר:

When a gentile purchases land in Eretz Yisrael, he does not cause it to be absolved from [the observance of] the mitzvot. Instead, its holiness is still intact. 47a derives this concept from Leviticus 25:23: "The entire land is Mine." Implied is that the land belongs to God and His ownership cannot be absolved through conquest by any earthly power.This ruling was a point of question for the Rambam. As indicated by the notes of Rav Kappach to his translation of the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (Pe'ah 4:9; Gittin 4:9, et al), the Rambam changed his mind concerning the issue several times and amended his text of the Commentary to the Mishnah accordingly. At first, he stated the opinion quoted here, then adopted the opposite view, that a gentile's acquisition does cause the agricultural obligations to be absolved, and finally returned to his original position. The Tur and the Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 331:3-4) follow the Rambam's ruling here. See also Hilchot Shemitah VeYovel 4:29 where this issue is also discussed. Therefore, if a Jew purchases this land from [the gentile], it is not considered as a private conquest. Instead, he should separate the terumot and the tithes and bring the first fruits. All these [obligations] are Scriptural in origin, as if it was never sold to a gentile. When a gentile acquires land in Syria, his acquisition has the power to absolve [the land] from the obligations of tithes and the Sabbatical year, as will be explained.

פֵּרוֹת הָעַכּוּ"ם שֶׁגָּדְלוּ בְּקַרְקַע שֶׁקָּנָה בְּאֶרֶץ יִשְׂרָאֵל. אִם נִגְמְרָה מְלַאכְתָּם בְּיַד עַכּוּ"ם וּמֵרְחָן הָעַכּוּ"ם פְּטוּרִין מִכְּלוּם שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (דברים יח ד) "דְּגָנְךָ" וְלֹא דְּגַן עַכּוּ"ם. וְאִם לְקָחָן יִשְׂרָאֵל אַחַר שֶׁנִּתְלְשׁוּ קֹדֶם שֶׁתִּגָּמֵר מְלַאכְתָּן וּגְמָרָן יִשְׂרָאֵל חַיָּבִין בַּכּל מִן הַתּוֹרָה. וּמַפְרִישׁ תְּרוּמָה גְּדוֹלָה וְנוֹתְנָהּ לַכֹּהֵן. וּתְרוּמַת מַעֲשֵׂר וּמוֹכְרָהּ לַכֹּהֵן. וּמַעֲשֵׂר רִאשׁוֹן הִיא שֶׁלּוֹ מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהוּא אוֹמֵר לַלֵּוִי בְּמַעֲשֵׂר וְלַכֹּהֵן בִּתְרוּמַת מַעֲשֵׂר אֲנִי בָּאתִי מִכֹּחַ אִישׁ שֶׁאֵין אַתֶּם יְכוֹלִין לִטּל מִמֶּנּוּ כְּלוּם. וּמִפְּנֵי מָה אָמְרוּ לֹא יִתֵּן תְּרוּמַת מַעֲשֵׂר לַכֹּהֵן כִּתְרוּמָה גְּדוֹלָה. לְפִי שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר בִּתְרוּמַת מַעֲשֵׂר (במדבר יח כו) "כִּי תִקְחוּ מֵאֵת בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל אֶת הַמַּעֲשֵׂר" טֶבֶל שֶׁאַתָּה לוֹקֵחַ מִיִּשְׂרָאֵל אַתָּה מַפְרִישׁ מִמֶּנּוּ תְּרוּמַת מַעֲשֵׂר וְנוֹתְנָהּ לַכֹּהֵן. אֲבָל טֶבֶל שֶׁאַתָּה לוֹקֵחַ מִן הָעַכּוּ"ם אֵין אַתָּה נוֹתֵן לַכֹּהֵן הַתְּרוּמַת מַעֲשֵׂר שֶׁהִפְרִישׁ מִמֶּנּוּ אֶלָּא מוֹכְרָהּ לַכֹּהֵן וְלוֹקֵחַ דָּמֶיהָ:

[The following laws apply with regard to] produce belonging to a gentile that grew on land that he purchased in Eretz Yisrael. If all the work involving the produce was completed in the possession of a gentile and the gentile straightened the edges of the grain heap, 3:13. they are exempt, because [the verse mentioning the obligation to separate terumah, Deuteronomy 18:4] mentions "your grain," [thus excluding] the grain of a gentile. 11b), the intent seems to be that not only that the grain must belong to a Jew, but that he must perform the work to complete its preparation for use.If a Jew purchases [the produce] after it was harvested, but before the tasks involved with it were completed and they were completed by a Jew, all [of the agricultural obligations apply with regard to the produce] according to Scriptural Law. He must separate the great terumah and give it to a priest and [separate] the terumat ma'aser and sell it to a priest. is sold to the priest and not given to him for the reason explained shortly afterwards by the Rambam. It cannot be kept by the owner, because he is forbidden to partake of it. Instead, it is consecrated and must be eaten by a priest in a state of ritual purity (Siftei Cohen 331:10). The first tithe belongs to him, because he can tell a Levite with regard to the tithes and a priest with regard to the terumat ma'aser: "I am coming in the stead of a person from which you could not have collected anything.", he is not obligated to accept any loss and may keep the first tithes for himself.Why do we say that he should not give the terumat ma'aser to a priest as [he gives him] the great terumah? must be separated, but it need not be given to the priest. Because with regard to terumat ma'aser, it is written: "When you take the tithes from the children of Israel....". Hence, it is not considered the property of the owner, but instead, must be given - and not sold - to a priest. [Implied is that from] untithed produce that you purchase from a Jew, you should separate terumat ma'aser and give it to a priest, but from untithed produce that you purchase from a gentile, you need not give the priest the terumat ma'aser you separate from it. Instead, you sell it to the priest and take the money.

מָכַר הָעַכּוּ"ם הַפֵּרוֹת שֶׁלּוֹ לְיִשְׂרָאֵל כְּשֶׁהֵן מְחֻבָּרִין בַּקַּרְקַע. אִם עַד שֶׁלֹּא בָּא לְעוֹנַת הַמַּעַשְׂרוֹת וְנִגְמְרוּ בְּיַד יִשְׂרָאֵל חַיָּבִין בַּכּל וְנוֹתֵן הַתְּרוּמוֹת וְהַמַּעַשְׂרוֹת לַבְּעָלִים. וְאִם מְכָרָן אַחַר שֶׁבָּאוּ לְעוֹנַת הַמַּעַשְׂרוֹת מַפְרִישׁ תְּרוּמַת מַעֲשֵׂר וּמַעֲשֵׂר וְנוֹתֵן מֵהֶן לַבְּעָלִים לְפִי חֶשְׁבּוֹן. כֵּיצַד. לָקַח תְּבוּאָה זְרוּעָה מִן הָעַכּוּ"ם אַחַר שֶׁהֵבִיאָה שְׁלִישׁ וְנִגְמְרָה בְּיַד יִשְׂרָאֵל. מַפְרִישׁ תְּרוּמוֹת וּמַעַשְׂרוֹת כְּמוֹ שֶׁבֵּאַרְנוּ וְנוֹתֵן שְׁנֵי שְׁלִישֵׁי הַמַּעֲשֵׂר לַלֵּוִי וּשְׁנֵי שְׁלִישֵׁי תְּרוּמַת מַעֲשֵׂר לַכֹּהֵן וּמוֹכֵר לוֹ הַשְּׁלִישׁ:

[The following laws apply if] a gentile sold his produce to a Jew while it was connected to the earth. If [he sold it] before it developed to a stage when he is obligated to separate tithes 2:5 for a definition of this concept. and the work [associated with it] was completed while it was owned by the Jew, [the Jew] is responsible for all of the agricultural obligations and should give the terumot and the tithes to their [appropriate] owners. to a priest. It is as if the produce grew on land belonging to the Jew from the outset. If [the gentile] sold [the produce] after it developed to a stage when he is obligated to separate tithes, he should separate terumat ma'aser and the tithes and give them to their [appropriate] owners according to the [acceptable] reckoning.What is implied? If he purchased grain that had been sown from a gentile after it reached a third of its growth and the work associated with its completion was performed while it was in the possession of a Jew, he should separate the terumot and the tithes, as we explained. and the tithes must be separated even if they - or a portion of them - are kept by the owner. He should give two thirds of the tithes to a Levite. and the tithes for that portion of the crop. With regard to that portion, the concepts stated in the previous halachah apply. With regard to the remaining two thirds, it is considered as produce owned by a Jew and is obligated in all agricultural laws. [With regard to the] terumat ma'aser, he should give two thirds to the priest and sell him one third. to the priest without receiving any return whatsoever.

יִשְׂרָאֵל שֶׁמָּכַר פֵּרוֹתָיו לְעַכּוּ"ם קֹדֶם שֶׁיָּבוֹאוּ לְעוֹנַת הַמַּעַשְׂרוֹת וּגְמָרָן הָעַכּוּ"ם פְּטוּרִין מִן הַתְּרוּמָה וּמִן הַמַּעַשְׂרוֹת. וְאִם אַחַר שֶׁבָּאוּ לְעוֹנַת הַמַּעַשְׂרוֹת אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁגְּמָרָן הָעַכּוּ"ם חַיָּב בַּכּל מִדִּבְרֵיהֶם. וְכֵן הָעַכּוּ"ם שֶׁגָּמַר פֵּרוֹת יִשְׂרָאֵל. הוֹאִיל וְדִגּוּנָן בְּיַד עַכּוּ"ם אֵינָן חַיָּבִין בִּתְרוּמָה וּמַעַשְׂרוֹת אֶלָּא מִדִּבְרֵיהֶן:

[The following laws apply if] a Jew sold his produce to a gentile before it developed to a stage when he is obligated to separate tithes and the work [associated with it] was completed by the gentiles, it is exempt from the terumot and the tithes., he does not cause it to be absolved from [the observance of] the mitzvot. Instead, its holiness is still intact." The Radbaz explains that this principle applies only when the gentile purchases the land, but not when he purchases merely produce. The Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 331:6) quotes the Rambam's view. If [he purchased it] after it developed to a stage when the tithes are obligated to be separated, even if the gentile completed the work associated with it, all of the agricultural obligations are incumbent upon it according to Rabbinic decree. and the tithes. The rationale is that since the produce grew in a Jew's possession, it is considered as Jewish produce.Similarly, if a gentile completed [the work associated with] produce belonging to a Jew,. He explains that, based on the exegesis of Deuteronomy 18:4 by Bechorot 11b (see Halachah 11 and notes), as long as the work is completed by a gentile, the fact that the produce belongs to a Jew is not significant. since the work associated with them was completed by a gentile, the obligation for terumot and tithes is incumbent upon them, but it is only Rabbinic in origin. 67a) that this decree was enacted lest Jewish landowners have gentiles complete the work associated with the crops to avoid having to separate the tithes.

מָכַר עַכּוּ"ם לְיִשְׂרָאֵל פֵּרוֹת מְחֻבָּרִין אַחַר שֶׁבָּאוּ לְעוֹנַת הַמַּעַשְׂרוֹת וּמֵרְחָן הָעַכּוּ"ם בִּרְשׁוּת יִשְׂרָאֵל אֵינָן חַיָּבִין בִּתְרוּמָה וּמַעַשְׂרוֹת. הוֹאִיל וּבָאוּ לְעוֹנַת הַמַּעַשְׂרוֹת בִּרְשׁוּת עַכּוּ"ם וּמֵרְחָן הָעַכּוּ"ם אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁהֵן בִּרְשׁוּת יִשְׂרָאֵל:

If a gentile sold produce that was still connected to the earth after it reached the stage when the tithes are obligated to be separated and [another] gentile straightened the edges of the grain heap in the possession of a Jew, [the produce] is not obligated in the terumot or the tithes. Since the produce reached the stage when the tithes are obligated to be separated in the possession of a gentile and a gentile straightened the edges of the grain heap, and tithes takes effect. [the fact] the produce belongs to a Jew [is not significant].

הַקּוֹנֶה שָׂדֶה בְּסוּרְיָא חַיָּב בִּתְרוּמוֹת וּמַעַשְׂרוֹת מִדִּבְרֵיהֶם כְּמוֹ שֶׁיִּתְחַיֵּב מִן הַתּוֹרָה הַקּוֹנֶה בִּירוּשָׁלַיִם כְּמוֹ שֶׁבֵּאַרְנוּ. אֲבָל הַקּוֹנֶה פֵּרוֹת מִן הָעַכּוּ"ם בְּסוּרְיָא בֵּין תְּלוּשִׁין בֵּין מְחֻבָּרִים אֲפִלּוּ קֹדֶם שֶׁבָּאוּ לְעוֹנַת הַמַּעַשְׂרוֹת אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁמֵרְחָן יִשְׂרָאֵל הוֹאִיל וְאֵינוֹ מִקַּרְקַע שֶׁלּוֹ פָּטוּר:

When a person purchases a field in Syria, he is obligated by Rabbinic decree to separate terumot and tithes like one who purchases [a field] in Jerusalem 4:11: "One who purchases [land] in Syria is comparable to one who purchases [land] in the suburbs of Jerusalem." according to Scriptural Law, as we explained. If, however, a person [merely] purchases produce from a gentile - whether it was harvested or [still] connected to the earth - he is exempt, because [the produce] does not come from his land. and tithes in Syria is Rabbinic in origin, our Sages applied it only when the Jew owned the land itself. Since the obligation to separate tithes when one purchases produce alone is merely Rabbinic in origin even in Eretz Yisrael, our Sages did not apply it in Syria. [This applies] even if [he purchases the produce] before it develops to a stage when the tithes are obligated to be separated [and] even though a Jew straightened the edges of the grain heap. and tithes takes effect.

קָנָה קַרְקַע מִן הָעַכּוּ"ם בְּסוּרְיָא וּפֵרוֹת מְחֻבָּרִין בָּהּ אִם הִגִּיעוּ לְעוֹנַת הַמַּעַשְׂרוֹת בְּיַד הָעַכּוּ"ם פְּטוּרִין. וְאִם עֲדַיִן לֹא הִגִּיעוּ לְעוֹנַת הַמַּעַשְׂרוֹת הוֹאִיל וְקָנָה אוֹתָם עִם הַקַּרְקַע חַיָּב לְעַשֵּׂר:

[The following laws apply when a person] purchases land in Syria to which produce is attached. If it reached a stage when the tithes are obligated to be separated while in the possession of a gentile, it is exempt. [Conversely,] if it did not reach a stage when the tithes are obligated to be separated [in his possession], [the Jewish purchaser] is obligated to tithe it, since he purchased it together with the land.

יִשְׂרָאֵל שֶׁהָיָה אָרִיס לְעַכּוּ"ם בְּסוּרְיָא פֵּרוֹתָיו פְּטוּרִין מִן הַמַּעַשְׂרוֹת לְפִי שֶׁאֵין לוֹ בְּגוּף הַקַּרְקַע כְּלוּם. וְיֵשׁ לְעַכּוּ"ם קִנְיָן בְּסוּרְיָא לְהַפְקִיעַ מִן הַמַּעַשְׂרוֹת כְּמוֹ שֶׁבֵּאַרְנוּ. וְכֵן הַחוֹכֵר וְהַמְקַבֵּל וְהַשּׂוֹכֵר שָׂדֶה מִן הָעַכּוּ"ם בְּסוּרְיָא פָּטוּר מִן הַתְּרוּמוֹת וּמִן הַמַּעַשְׂרוֹת:

When a Jew is working as a sharecropper for a gentile in Syria, his produce is exempt from the tithes, because he does not own the land itself at all. A gentile's purchase of land in Syria causes it to be absolved from [the obligation of] the tithes, as we explained. The same laws apply when one rents a field, but stipulates that the payment will be made in produce, in Hilchot Sechirut 8:1. enters into a sharecropping agreement as a mekabel, and mekabel refer to sharecropping agreements. The difference between them is that an aris is working for the owner of the field for a percentage of the crops (see Hilchot Shluchin 8:5), while a mekabel is renting the field from the owner for a percentage of the crops (Hilchot Sechirut 8:2). or rents a field for money from a gentile in Syria, he is absolved [from the obligations of] terumot and tithes. 15a).In Eretz Yisrael, by contrast, a person entering any one of these types of agreements would be obligated to separate the tithes (Radbaz).

יִשְׂרָאֵל שֶׁלָּקַח בְּסוּרְיָא שָׂדֶה מִן הָעַכּוּ"ם עַד שֶׁלֹּא הֵבִיאָה שְׁלִישׁ וְחָזַר וּמְכָרָהּ לְעַכּוּ"ם מֵאַחַר שֶׁהֵבִיאָה שְׁלִישׁ אִם חָזַר יִשְׂרָאֵל וּלְקָחָהּ פַּעַם שְׁנִיָּה הֲרֵי זֶה חַיָּב בִּתְרוּמוֹת וּמַעַשְׂרוֹת שֶׁהֲרֵי נִתְחַיְּבָה בְּיַד יִשְׂרָאֵל:

[The following law applies when] a Jew purchases a field from a gentile in Syria before [the crops] reached a third of their development and sells it to a gentile after the crops reach a third of their development. If a Jew purchases it a second time, who debates whether, to be obligated, the Jew must purchase the field or it is sufficient for him to purchase the produce alone without purchasing the land. It appears that he concludes that if one does not purchase the field, he is exempt as indicated by Halachah 15. he is obligated [to separate] the terumot and the tithes, because [the field] incurred that obligation in the possession of a Jew.

יִשְׂרָאֵל שֶׁהָיָה לוֹ קַרְקַע בְּסוּרְיָא וְהוֹרִיד לָהּ אָרִיס וְשָׁלַח לוֹ הָאָרִיס פֵּרוֹת הֲרֵי אֵלּוּ פְּטוּרִים שֶׁאֲנִי אוֹמֵר מִן הַשּׁוּק לְקָחָן. וְהוּא שֶׁיִּהְיֶה אוֹתוֹ הַמִּין מָצוּי בַּשּׁוּק:

When a Jew owns land in Syria and he hired a sharecropper and the sharecropper sent him produce, he is not obligated to separate [the terumot and tithes], for it is possible to say that [the sharecropper] purchased [the produce he gave him] from the marketplace., he would have to separate the tithes (Radbaz). [This applies] provided this species is available in the marketplace.

שֻׁתָּפוּת הָעַכּוּ"ם חַיֶּבֶת בִּתְרוּמוֹת וּמַעַשְׂרוֹת כֵּיצַד. יִשְׂרָאֵל וְעַכּוּ"ם שֶׁלָּקְחוּ שָׂדֶה בְּשֻׁתָּפוּת אֲפִלּוּ חִלְּקוּ שָׂדֶה בְּקָמָתָהּ וְאֵין צָרִיךְ לוֹמַר אִם חִלְּקוּ גָּדִישׁ הֲרֵי טֶבֶל וְחֻלִּין מְעֹרָבִין בְּכָל קֶלַח וְקֶלַח מֵחֶלְקוֹ שֶׁל עַכּוּ"ם אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁמֵרְחָן הָעַכּוּ"ם וְחִיּוּבָם מִדִּבְרֵיהֶם כְּמוֹ שֶׁבֵּאַרְנוּ:

There is an obligation [to separate] the terumot and the tithes [from crops grown on land owned in] partnership with a gentile.What is implied? When a Jew and a non-Jew purchased a field in partnership - even if they divided the field while the grain was standing, applies. Bereirah means that retroactively, it is considered as if the division that was ultimately made was made at the outset (see Hilchot Ma'aser 7:1). To explain within the context of the present situation: Were a portion of the field to belong to the gentile, there would be no obligation to separate the tithes from the grain that grew in that portion. To apply the principle of bereirah would mean that, after the division of the crops, it is clarified that at the outset, the portion of the field where the crops given to the gentile grew belonged to him. There is a debate among the Sages whether the principle of bereirah can be applied and with regard to halachah, the accepted general principle is that in question of Scriptural Law, it does not apply. Thus in Eretz Yisrael, where the obligation to tithe is one of Scriptural Law, we do not accept this principle and maintain that the Jew has a share in the grain given to the gentile and hence, it is under obligation to be tithed. and needless to say, if they divided it after it was collected in a grain heap is not applied. - tevel and the tithes were not separated from it. and ordinary produce are mixed together in each and every stalk of grain in the gentile's share. and the tithes. [This applies] even if the gentile straightened the edges of the grain heap and thus the obligation is Rabbinic in origin, should be applied, because the obligation to separate the tithes is Rabbinic in origin. Nevertheless, since the fundamental obligation is Scriptural, we rule stringently even with regard to this dimension which is Rabbinic (Radbaz). as explained.

בַּמֶּה דְּבָרִים אֲמוּרִים בְּאֶרֶץ יִשְׂרָאֵל שֶׁהַמַּעַשְׂרוֹת שֶׁל תּוֹרָה וּבְשֶׁל תּוֹרָה אֵין בְּרֵרָה אֲבָל אִם לָקְחוּ שָׂדֶה בְּסוּרְיָא הוֹאִיל וְהַמַּעַשְׂרוֹת שָׁם מִדִּבְרֵיהֶם אֲפִלּוּ חִלְּקוּ הַגָּדִישׁ חֶלְקוֹ שֶׁל עַכּוּ"ם פָּטוּר מִכְּלוּם:

When does the above apply? In Eretz Yisrael, where [the obligation to] tithe is Scriptural in origin, and according to Scriptural Law, the principle of bereirah does not apply. If, however, he purchased a field in Syria, since [the obligation to] tithe there is Rabbinic in origin, even if they divided a grain heap, the portion of the gentile is exempt entirely. (Yoreh De'ah 331:11) states that in the present age, when the obligation to separate terumot and tithes in Eretz Yisrael is Rabbinic in origin (see Halachah 26), the laws applying to produce grown in Syria also apply to produce grown in Eretz Yisrael.

פֵּרוֹת אֶרֶץ יִשְׂרָאֵל שֶׁיָּצְאוּ חוּצָה לָאָרֶץ פְּטוּרִין מִן הַחַלָּה וּמִן הַתְּרוּמוֹת וּמִן הַמַּעַשְׂרוֹת שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (במדבר טו יח) "אֲשֶׁר אֲנִי מֵבִיא אֶתְכֶם שָׁמָּה". שָׁמָּה אַתֶּם חַיָּבִין בְּחוּצָה לָאָרֶץ פְּטוּרִין. וְאִם יָצְאוּ לְסוּרְיָא חַיָּבִין מִדִּבְרֵיהֶם. וְכֵן פֵּרוֹת חוּצָה לָאָרֶץ שֶׁנִּכְנְסוּ לָאָרֶץ חַיָּבִין בְּחַלָּה שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר שָׁמָּה. שָׁמָּה אַתֶּם חַיָּבִין בֵּין בְּפֵרוֹת הָאָרֶץ בֵּין בְּפֵרוֹת חוּצָה לָאָרֶץ. וְאִם נִקְבְּעוּ לְמַעֲשֵׂר בְּיַד יִשְׂרָאֵל אַחַר שֶׁנִּכְנְסוּ לָאָרֶץ חַיָּבִין בְּמַעַשְׂרוֹת מִדִּבְרֵיהֶם:

When produce from Eretz Yisrael is taken to the Diaspora, it is exempt from the obligations of challah, the terumot, and the tithes, [for one of the prooftexts requiring the separation of these gifts, Numbers 15:18], we learn that one is also obligated to separate the terumot and the tithes. states: "[the land] to which I am bringing you." [Implied is that] these obligations exist there alone. In the Diaspora, one is exempt., the obligation to separate the tithes has already been incurred and they must be separated even if the produce was later taken to the Diaspora. For this reason, in most instances, terumah and tithes must be separated from produce that is grown in Eretz Yisrael in the present age and later exported to the Diaspora. This, however, applies to fruits only, not vegetables as stated in Chapter 2, Halachah 6. If [the produce] was taken to Syria, one is obligated by Rabbinic decree.Conversely, we are obligated [to separate] challah from produce from the Diaspora that was brought into Eretz Yisrael, as [suggested by the phrase] "to which." [Implied is that] one is liable [to make these gifts] there, whether the produce is from Eretz Yisrael or the Diaspora. If the obligation [to separate challah or the tithes] was established [because of the actions] of a Jew after the produce entered Eretz Yisrael, there is an obligation of Rabbinic origin to separate the tithes. questions why the obligation to separate the tithes is only of Rabbinic origin. Since the concept is based on the exegesis of the same Biblical term as mentioned above, if the work that made the produce obligated to be tithed was performed in Eretz Yisrael, why is the obligation not Scriptural in origin? The Kessef Mishneh answers that since the prooftext mentions "the bread of the land," one can conclude that the obligation applies only to produce grown in the Holy Land itself. Alternatively, the Kessef Mishneh suggests that indeed if the work that makes the produce obligated to be tithed is completed only in Eretz Yisrael, the obligation is indeed Scriptural in origin. This ruling is quoted by the Siftei Cohen 331:22.

עֲפַר חוּצָה לָאָרֶץ שֶׁבָּא בִּסְפִינָה לָאָרֶץ. בִּזְמַן שֶׁהַסְּפִינָה גּוֹשֶׁשֶׁת לָאָרֶץ הֲרֵי הַצּוֹמֵחַ בּוֹ חַיָּב בִּתְרוּמָה וּמַעַשְׂרוֹת וּשְׁבִיעִית כַּצּוֹמֵחַ בְּאֶרֶץ יִשְׂרָאֵל עַצְמָהּ:

When earth from the Diaspora is brought to Eretz Yisrael by ship, if the ship's [bottom] comes in contact with the earth [of Eretz Yisrael], 2:2). terumah and tithes must [be separated from produce] growing on [the earth in the ship] and the Sabbatical laws must be observed as if [the produce] was growing in Eretz Yisrael itself..

אִילָן שֶׁעוֹמֵד בְּחוּצָה לָאָרֶץ וְנוֹפוֹ נוֹטֶה לָאָרֶץ. אוֹ עוֹמֵד בָּאָרֶץ וְנוֹפוֹ נוֹטֶה לְחוּצָה לָאָרֶץ. הַכּל הוֹלֵךְ אַחַר הָעִקָּר. הָיוּ מִקְצָת שָׁרָשָׁיו בָּאָרֶץ וּמִקְצָתָן חוּצָה לָאָרֶץ אֲפִלּוּ הָיָה צְחִיחַ סֶלַע מַבְדִּיל בֵּינֵיהֶן הֲרֵי טֶבֶל וְחֻלִּין מְעֹרָבִין זֶה בָּזֶה:

When a tree is standing in the Diaspora and its foliage leans into Eretz Yisrael or it is standing in Eretz Yisrael and its foliage leans into the Diaspora, [the determination of its status] depends on its roots., the tithes must be separated from the produce. If it is located in the Diaspora, they need not.The Rambam LeAm notes that the laws in this halachah must be qualified on the basis of Halachah 22. For if as stated there, everything depends on where the work that makes the produce obligated in the tithes is completed, of what difference does it make where the produce grows. That text explains that if the person separates tithes from produce that grew in the Diaspora before the work that makes the produce obligated in the tithes is completed, even if that work is completed in Eretz Yisrael, the tithes separated are not significant. For at the time, they were separated, there was no obligation to tithe the produce. If some of its roots were in Eretz Yisrael and others were in the Diaspora - even if they were separated by glistening stone, [it is considered as if] tevel and ordinary produce are mixed together [throughout the entire produce].

עָצִיץ נָקוּב שֶׁהָיָה בּוֹ זֶרַע שֶׁלֹּא הִשְׁרִישׁ וְהָיָה עִקָּרוֹ בָּאָרֶץ וְנוֹפוֹ חוּצָה לָאָרֶץ הוֹלְכִים אַחַר הַנּוֹף:

[The following rules apply when] a plant in a flowerpot with a hole has not sprouted roots [outside the flowerpot]. If its roots were in Eretz Yisrael and its foliage in the Diaspora, [the determination of its status] depends on its foliage. 22a teaches that we follow the foliage of the plant and not the position of the hole in the flower pot.

הַתְּרוּמָה בַּזְּמַן הַזֶּה וַאֲפִלּוּ בְּמָקוֹם שֶׁהֶחֱזִיקוּ עוֹלֵי בָּבֶל וַאֲפִלּוּ בִּימֵי עֶזְרָא אֵינָהּ מִן הַתּוֹרָה אֶלָּא מִדִּבְרֵיהֶן. שֶׁאֵין לְךָ תְּרוּמָה שֶׁל תּוֹרָה אֶלָּא בְּאֶרֶץ יִשְׂרָאֵל בִּלְבַד וּבִזְמַן שֶׁכָּל יִשְׂרָאֵל שָׁם שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (ויקרא כה ב) "כִּי תָבֹאוּ" בִּיאַת כֻּלְּכֶם כְּשֶׁהָיוּ בִּירֻשָּׁה רִאשׁוֹנָה וּכְמוֹ שֶׁהֵן עֲתִידִין לַחֲזֹר בִּירֻשָּׁה שְׁלִישִׁית. לֹא כְּשֶׁהָיוּ בִּירֻשָּׁה שְׁנִיָּה שֶׁהָיְתָה בִּימֵי עֶזְרָא שֶׁהָיְתָה בִּיאַת מִקְצָתָן וּלְפִיכָךְ לֹא חִיְּבָה אוֹתָן מִן הַתּוֹרָה. וְכֵן יֵרָאֶה לִי שֶׁהוּא הַדִּין בְּמַעַשְׂרוֹת שֶׁאֵין חַיָּבִין בַּזְּמַן הַזֶּה אֶלָּא מִדִּבְרֵיהֶם כִּתְרוּמָה:

In the present era, even in the areas settled by the Jews who ascended from Babylonia, even those [settled] in the era of Ezra, that is effective until the present day, as stated in Halachah 5. [the obligation to separate] terumah does not have the status of a Scriptural commandment, merely that of a Rabbinic decree. [The rationale is that] the Scriptural [commandment to separate] terumah applies only in Eretz Yisrael and only when the entire Jewish people are located there. [This is derived from the phrase] or the tithes. The commentaries explain that Ketubot 25a makes such a statement with regard to the mitzvah of challah based on Numbers 15:18 and the laws regarding terumah are derived from it. See also a parallel ruling in Hilchot Shemitah VeYovel 10:8. "When you enter...." [Implied is that] the entire [Jewish people] must enter [the land], as they did when they took possession of the land originally has the status of a Scriptural commandment in the present age. In his Kessef Mishneh, Rav Yosef Caro elaborates in support of the Rambam's position and in his Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 331:2), he rules accordingly. and as will happen in the future when they take possession of the land a third time. 11:1. In contrast, the second time [the people] took possession of the land, in the time of Ezra, only a portion entered. 9b) where our Sages criticized the majority of the people for remaining in Babylonia. Hence, they were not obligated according to Scriptural Law. was still observed with the status of a Scriptural mitzvah. For Ezra and Nechemiah restricted the priests whose lineage was not affirmed from partaking of it. Nevertheless, it can be explained that at that time, they were expecting the majority of the people to return and then, the status of the mitzvah would revert to that of Scriptural origin. Lest confusion arise concerning these priests were this to occur, they enforced these restrictions. Similarly, it appears to me that the same concept applies with regard to the tithes. 1:7 which points to several dimensions of the equivalence between terumah and the tithes. In the present era, this obligation [as well] has the status of a Rabbinic decree like terumah. and the tithes is not dependent on the Temple, there is no contradiction to this halachah. If the majority of the Jewish people are located in Eretz Yisrael, these mitzvos have the status of Scriptural Law, even if the Temple is not standing. Conversely, even if the Temple is standing, if the majority of the Jewish people are not located in Eretz Yisrael (as was the case in the Second Temple era), the status of these commandments is Rabbinic (Radbaz).