## Mishneh Torah, Heave Offerings Chapter 1

###### Mishneh Torah, Heave Offerings 1:1
[Mishneh Torah, Heave Offerings 1:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Mishneh%20Torah%2C%20Heave%20Offerings/r/1:1)

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:

**Mishneh Torah, trans. by Eliyahu Touger. Jerusalem, Moznaim Pub. c1986-c2007:**
According to Scriptural Law, [the obligation to separate] the *terumot¹* and the tithes² applies only in *Eretz Yisrael*.³ 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.⁴ 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.⁵. Hence, the prophets gave it precedence over the other lands (Radbaz). The Sages of the early generations⁶ 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*.

footnotes:
¹ The plural term is used in this halachah and in many instances in this text, because there are two types of terumot: a) "the great terumah," i.e., the terumah separated initially, and b) terumat ma'aser, the terumah the Levites separate from the tithes that are given them. See Hilchot Matanot Aniyim, ch. 6, for details regarding the separation of these allocations.
² Here also the plural term is used because there are several tithes: the first tithe given to Levites, the second tithe which must be brought to Jerusalem, and the tithe for the poor. See Hilchot Matanot Aniyim, loc. cit.
³ Kiddushin
⁴ Although the agricultural laws apply even when the Temple is not standing, there is a restriction to the time when they apply according to Scriptural Law. The entire Jewish people must be located in our holy land, as stated in Halachah 26. (See also Hilchot Shemitah VeYovel
⁵ Even though Babylonia is further away than the other lands mentioned in this halachah, it had a larger Jewish community and there was far more contact between its populace and the Jewish community of Eretz Yisrael
⁶ The Sages of the generation that followed Ezra [Rav Ovadiah of Bartenura (Yadayim


###### Mishneh Torah, Heave Offerings 1:2
[Mishneh Torah, Heave Offerings 1:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Mishneh%20Torah%2C%20Heave%20Offerings/r/1:2)

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:

**Mishneh Torah, trans. by Eliyahu Touger. Jerusalem, Moznaim Pub. c1986-c2007:**
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."⁷ 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 Abraham⁸ 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.⁹. For this reason, Joshua¹⁰ and his court divided the entire Land of Israel into tribal portions¹¹ 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.

footnotes:
⁷ See also Hilchot Melachim
⁸ The Rambam speaks of the land being given to Abraham, not merely being promised to him, since from the time God said that the land was his, spiritually, it became his possession. Moreover, as the Jerusalem Talmud (Challah
⁹ I.e., the agricultural mitzvot that must be observed in Eretz Yisrael
¹⁰ A king and a prophet.
¹¹ I.e., since Joshua and his court had made this division, when the tribe went to conquer its portion, it was acting on behalf of the entire Jewish people.


###### Mishneh Torah, Heave Offerings 1:3
[Mishneh Torah, Heave Offerings 1:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Mishneh%20Torah%2C%20Heave%20Offerings/r/1:3)

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:

**Mishneh Torah, trans. by Eliyahu Touger. Jerusalem, Moznaim Pub. c1986-c2007:**
The lands which [King] David conquered outside of the Land of Canaan, e.g., Aram Naharaim, Aram Tzovah, Achlab,¹² and the like, even though he was a King of Israel and he was acting with the consent of the High Court,¹³ 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*.¹⁴ 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 conquered¹⁵ other lands,¹⁶ his entire conquest would have been equivalent to *Eretz Yisrael* with regard to all matters.¹⁷ The lands which [King] David conquered are called Syria.

footnotes:
¹² These regions are located in contemporary Syria.
¹³ The wars to conquer these lands are classified as voluntary wars, and a voluntary law requires the consent of the High Court (Hilchot Melachim
¹⁴ See the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (Demai
¹⁵ With the consent of the High Court.
¹⁶ Even lands outside of the homeland promised to Abraham (Radbaz).
¹⁷ And the agricultural laws would have to be observed there.


###### Mishneh Torah, Heave Offerings 1:4
[Mishneh Torah, Heave Offerings 1:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Mishneh%20Torah%2C%20Heave%20Offerings/r/1:4)

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:

**Mishneh Torah, trans. by Eliyahu Touger. Jerusalem, Moznaim Pub. c1986-c2007:**
There are dimensions of [the laws that apply to] Syria that resemble [the laws that apply in] *Eretz Yisrael*¹⁸ 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.¹⁹); 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.²⁰ All [the laws that apply] in Syria are of Rabbinic origin.²¹.

footnotes:
¹⁸ In addition to those points the Rambam mentions below, among the other examples of this principle are: its air is not considered as a source of impurity (Hilchot Tuma'at Meit
¹⁹ Among the examples of the relevant laws: its earth is considered as a source of ritual impurity (Hilchot Tuma'at Meit, loc. cit.
²⁰ See Halachah 15.
²¹ For according to Scriptural Law, it is not part of Eretz Yisrael


###### Mishneh Torah, Heave Offerings 1:5
[Mishneh Torah, Heave Offerings 1:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Mishneh%20Torah%2C%20Heave%20Offerings/r/1:5)

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:

**Mishneh Torah, trans. by Eliyahu Touger. Jerusalem, Moznaim Pub. c1986-c2007:**
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.²² 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.²³ 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,²⁴ 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.²⁵ [This consecration] is perpetuated forever, for that time and for all time.²⁶, 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.²⁷ Our holy teacher²⁸. released Beit Shan²⁹ 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.³⁰ 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.

footnotes:
²² In Hilchot Beit HaBechirah
²³ Since it was established by conquest, it could be nullified by conquest. See Hilchot Beit HaBechirah, loc. cit.
²⁴ As Yevamot
²⁵ Nevertheless, since the entire Jewish people did not return together with Ezra, this consecration is only of Rabbinic origin.
²⁶ And thus at present, Ezra's consecration of the land is still effective.In his gloss to Hilchot Beit HaBechirah, loc. cit.
²⁷ And receive the tithe of the poor.
²⁸ Rabbi Yehudah HaNasi
²⁹ The Ra'avad differs with the Rambam and maintains that Beit Shan was released only from those obligations that are of Rabbinic origin.
³⁰ The Kessef Mishneh


###### Mishneh Torah, Heave Offerings 1:6
[Mishneh Torah, Heave Offerings 1:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Mishneh%20Torah%2C%20Heave%20Offerings/r/1:6)

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:

**Mishneh Torah, trans. by Eliyahu Touger. Jerusalem, Moznaim Pub. c1986-c2007:**
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.


###### Mishneh Torah, Heave Offerings 1:7
[Mishneh Torah, Heave Offerings 1:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Mishneh%20Torah%2C%20Heave%20Offerings/r/1:7)

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:

**Mishneh Torah, trans. by Eliyahu Touger. Jerusalem, Moznaim Pub. c1986-c2007:**
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 Ashkelon³¹) 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,³² 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 nations³³, 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.³⁴, 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:³⁵ 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]³⁶ 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.³⁷ 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.³⁸: to provide his readers with an applicable text without any ambiguity.

footnotes:
³¹ Ashkelon - and similarly, the other cities the Rambam refers to - is located near, but not exactly on the same site - as the city presently called by that name. With regard to Ashkelon in particular, there is discussion of the issue by the commentaries, for some sources (see Radbaz and Kessef Mishneh
³² I.e., proceeding northward.
³³ Our Sages decreed that merely touching the earth of the Diaspora is sufficient to impart ritual impurity. See Hilchot Tuma'at Meit
³⁴ I.e., as depicted in the map drawn by the Rambam to accompany the Mishneh Torah
³⁵ Our text is based on authoritative manuscripts of the Mishneh Torah
³⁶ I.e., to the south.
³⁷ According to the Radbaz, this refers to Wadi el Arish and not the Nile. Most other commentaries, however, identify "the River of Egypt" as the Nile.
³⁸ I.e., the Rambam included the accompanying map so that the matter would be clearly understood.. This reflects his thrust throughout the Mishneh Torah


###### Mishneh Torah, Heave Offerings 1:8
[Mishneh Torah, Heave Offerings 1:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Mishneh%20Torah%2C%20Heave%20Offerings/r/1:8)

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:

**Mishneh Torah, trans. by Eliyahu Touger. Jerusalem, Moznaim Pub. c1986-c2007:**
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.³⁹ was not settled by the Jews who ascended from Babylon. And they did not take possession of Kziv itself.

footnotes:
³⁹ Thus it appears that the entire coastal range of Eretz Yisrael


###### Mishneh Torah, Heave Offerings 1:9
[Mishneh Torah, Heave Offerings 1:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Mishneh%20Torah%2C%20Heave%20Offerings/r/1:9)

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:

**Mishneh Torah, trans. by Eliyahu Touger. Jerusalem, Moznaim Pub. c1986-c2007:**
What constitutes Syria? From *Eretz Yisrael* and below⁴⁰. 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 Shinar⁴¹ and Tzahar. These are considered like Syria. Acre, by contrast, is considered part of the Diaspora, like Ashkelon.⁴² These are the boundaries of *Eretz Yisrael*.

footnotes:
⁴⁰ The term "below" in this context is problematic. It does not mean "south," because significant portions of Syria are more northerly than Eretz Yisrael
⁴¹ Shinar itself, however, is part of the Diaspora, as evident from Halachah 1.
⁴² As mentioned above, there are commentaries who consider Ashkelon to be part of the land conquered by the Jews who ascended from Egypt, but not that conquered by the Jews ascending from Babylonia. Some also place Acre in this category.


###### Mishneh Torah, Heave Offerings 1:10
[Mishneh Torah, Heave Offerings 1:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Mishneh%20Torah%2C%20Heave%20Offerings/r/1:10)

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:

**Mishneh Torah, trans. by Eliyahu Touger. Jerusalem, Moznaim Pub. c1986-c2007:**
When a gentile purchases land in *Eretz Yisrael*, he does not cause it to be absolved from [the observance of] the mitzvot.⁴³ Instead, its holiness is still intact.⁴⁴ 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.⁴⁵ 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,⁴⁶ as will be explained.⁴⁷

footnotes:
⁴³ See the following halachah for the practical application of this principle.
⁴⁴ Gittin
⁴⁵ In which instance, the agriculture laws would not be applicable, as stated in Halachah 2.
⁴⁶ The entire obligation to observe the agricultural laws in Syria is Rabbinic in origin (Halachah 4) and our Sages did not enforce their decrees in this instance.
⁴⁷ Halachot 15-19.


###### Mishneh Torah, Heave Offerings 1:11
[Mishneh Torah, Heave Offerings 1:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Mishneh%20Torah%2C%20Heave%20Offerings/r/1:11)

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:

**Mishneh Torah, trans. by Eliyahu Touger. Jerusalem, Moznaim Pub. c1986-c2007:**
[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,⁴⁸ 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.⁴⁹ 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.⁵⁰ He must separate the great *terumah* and give it to a priest and [separate] the *terumat ma'aser* and sell it to a priest.⁵¹ 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,⁵² 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 person⁵³ from which you could not have collected anything."⁵⁴, 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*?⁵⁵ 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...."⁵⁶. 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.

footnotes:
⁴⁸ I.e., completed the work involved in preparing them. See Hilchot Ma'aser
⁴⁹ From the interpretation of the term by the Sages (Bechorot
⁵⁰ I.e., for the produce to be obligated in the agricultural laws according to Scriptural Law, it must belong to the Jew and the Jew must complete the work involved with preparing it. If only one of these conditions was met, the obligations must be fulfilled only because of Rabbinic decree. See Halachah 13.
⁵¹ The terumat ma'aser
⁵² I.e., he must separate the first tithe to fulfill the agricultural obligations incumbent upon the produce, but is not obligated to give it to the Levites. There is no difficulty in him keeping the tithes, because, as the Rambam explains, he is not obligated to give them to the Levite and there is no prohibition against him partaking of them, because they are not consecrated at all and any person may partake of them, even when he is not in a state of ritual purity.
⁵³ The gentile.
⁵⁴ Had the gentile completed the tasks associated with preparing the grain, he would not have been under any obligation to make any of these separations. Hence, although the Jew is obligated to separate the various allocations, the obligation is primarily a ritual one and not a financial one. With the exception of the great terumah
⁵⁵ I.e., like the first tithe, the terumat ma'aser
⁵⁶ There is, by contrast, no such verse stated with regard to the great terumah


###### Mishneh Torah, Heave Offerings 1:12
[Mishneh Torah, Heave Offerings 1:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Mishneh%20Torah%2C%20Heave%20Offerings/r/1:12)

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:

**Mishneh Torah, trans. by Eliyahu Touger. Jerusalem, Moznaim Pub. c1986-c2007:**
[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 tithes⁵⁷ 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.⁵⁸ 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.⁵⁹ 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.⁶⁰ 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.⁶¹ to the priest without receiving any return whatsoever.

footnotes:
⁵⁷ See below and Hilchot Ma'aserot
⁵⁸ I.e., the tithes to a Levite and the terumot
⁵⁹ I.e., as explained in the previous halachah and notes, the terumot
⁶⁰ He may keep one-third of the tithes as his own. The rationale is that since the produce reached one third of its growth in the possession of the gentile, the Jew is not liable to give away the terumat ma'aser
⁶¹ As stated in the previous halachah, he must give the great terumah


###### Mishneh Torah, Heave Offerings 1:13
[Mishneh Torah, Heave Offerings 1:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Mishneh%20Torah%2C%20Heave%20Offerings/r/1:13)

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:

**Mishneh Torah, trans. by Eliyahu Touger. Jerusalem, Moznaim Pub. c1986-c2007:**
[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.⁶², 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.⁶³ 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,⁶⁴. 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.⁶⁵ 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.

footnotes:
⁶² It is as if the produce grew in the possession of the gentile from the outset in which instance, they are exempt from all agricultural obligations, as stated in Halachah 11.The Ra'avad objects to this ruling based on the principle stated in Halachah 10: "When a gentile purchases land in Eretz Yisrael
⁶³ I.e., if the produce is later sold to a Jew, the Jew must separate the terumot
⁶⁴ Our translation is based on the interpretation of Rav Yosef Corcus as quoted by the Kessef Mishneh
⁶⁵ In one of his responsa, the Rambam writes (based on Menachot


###### Mishneh Torah, Heave Offerings 1:14
[Mishneh Torah, Heave Offerings 1:14](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Mishneh%20Torah%2C%20Heave%20Offerings/r/1:14)

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:

**Mishneh Torah, trans. by Eliyahu Touger. Jerusalem, Moznaim Pub. c1986-c2007:**
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.⁶⁶ 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,⁶⁷ and tithes takes effect. [the fact] the produce belongs to a Jew [is not significant].⁶⁸

footnotes:
⁶⁶ I.e., even according to Rabbinic Law.
⁶⁷ I.e., performs the task which completes the work associated with the produce at which time the obligation to separate the terumot
⁶⁸ I.e., it is as if the produce belonged entirely to the gentile and the laws stated in Halachah 11 apply.


###### Mishneh Torah, Heave Offerings 1:15
[Mishneh Torah, Heave Offerings 1:15](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Mishneh%20Torah%2C%20Heave%20Offerings/r/1:15)

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:

**Mishneh Torah, trans. by Eliyahu Touger. Jerusalem, Moznaim Pub. c1986-c2007:**
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 Jerusalem⁶⁹ 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.⁷⁰ 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.⁷¹ 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.⁷² and tithes takes effect.

footnotes:
⁶⁹ The Rambam is referring to the wording of Challah
⁷⁰ Halachah 4.
⁷¹ Since the entire obligation to separate the terumot
⁷² I.e., performs the task which completes the work associated with the produce at which time the obligation to separate the terumot


###### Mishneh Torah, Heave Offerings 1:16
[Mishneh Torah, Heave Offerings 1:16](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Mishneh%20Torah%2C%20Heave%20Offerings/r/1:16)

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:

**Mishneh Torah, trans. by Eliyahu Touger. Jerusalem, Moznaim Pub. c1986-c2007:**
[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.⁷³ [Conversely,] if it did not reach a stage when the tithes are obligated to be separated [in his possession],⁷⁴ [the Jewish purchaser] is obligated to tithe it, since he purchased it together with the land.

footnotes:
⁷³ I.e., it is considered as if it was the gentile's produce entirely.
⁷⁴ The previous growth of the produce is not significant.


###### Mishneh Torah, Heave Offerings 1:17
[Mishneh Torah, Heave Offerings 1:17](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Mishneh%20Torah%2C%20Heave%20Offerings/r/1:17)

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:

**Mishneh Torah, trans. by Eliyahu Touger. Jerusalem, Moznaim Pub. c1986-c2007:**
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.⁷⁵ The same laws apply when one rents a field, but stipulates that the payment will be made in produce,⁷⁶ in *Hilchot Sechirut* 8:1. enters into a sharecropping agreement as a *mekabel*,⁷⁷ 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.⁷⁸ 15a).
In *Eretz Yisrael*, by contrast, a person entering any one of these types of agreements would be obligated to separate the tithes (Radbaz).

footnotes:
⁷⁵ Halachah 10.
⁷⁶ Our translation is based on the Rambam's definition of the term chocher
⁷⁷ Both the terms aris
⁷⁸ The motivating principle behind these laws is that renting the field is not equivalent to purchasing it, for the land itself does not become his (Avodah Zarah


###### Mishneh Torah, Heave Offerings 1:18
[Mishneh Torah, Heave Offerings 1:18](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Mishneh%20Torah%2C%20Heave%20Offerings/r/1:18)

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:

**Mishneh Torah, trans. by Eliyahu Touger. Jerusalem, Moznaim Pub. c1986-c2007:**
[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,⁷⁹ 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,⁸⁰ because [the field] incurred that obligation in the possession of a Jew.⁸¹

footnotes:
⁷⁹ See the Kessef Mishneh
⁸⁰ The Radbaz states that the Jew may not deduct from the tithes the portion of the produce that grew in the gentile's possession. Since it incurred the obligation for tithes while in the Jew's possession and was completed by him, everything else is not of consequence.
⁸¹ I.e., when it reached a third of its development.


###### Mishneh Torah, Heave Offerings 1:19
[Mishneh Torah, Heave Offerings 1:19](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Mishneh%20Torah%2C%20Heave%20Offerings/r/1:19)

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:

**Mishneh Torah, trans. by Eliyahu Touger. Jerusalem, Moznaim Pub. c1986-c2007:**
When a Jew owns land in Syria and he hired a sharecropper and the sharecropper sent him produce,⁸² 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.⁸³, he would have to separate the tithes (Radbaz). [This applies] provided this species is available in the marketplace.

footnotes:
⁸² As payment of the produce due the owner from his field.
⁸³ I.e., we allow for the possibility that the sharecropper sold the produce from the field and then purchased other produce to pay the owner his due. The rationale for this leniency is that since the obligation to tithe in Syria is Rabbinic in origin, as long as we are not definitely certain that it applies, we rule leniently. In Eretz Yisrael


###### Mishneh Torah, Heave Offerings 1:20
[Mishneh Torah, Heave Offerings 1:20](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Mishneh%20Torah%2C%20Heave%20Offerings/r/1:20)

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:

**Mishneh Torah, trans. by Eliyahu Touger. Jerusalem, Moznaim Pub. c1986-c2007:**
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,⁸⁴ 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 heap⁸⁵ is not applied. - *tevel*⁸⁶ 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.⁸⁷ and the tithes. [This applies] even if the gentile straightened the edges of the grain heap and thus the obligation is Rabbinic in origin,⁸⁸ 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.⁸⁹

footnotes:
⁸⁴ In such a situation, there is room to say that the principle of bereirah
⁸⁵ In this instance, all authorities agree that the principle of bereirah
⁸⁶ Produce which is forbidden because the terumot
⁸⁷ Hence if a Jew purchases that produce, he must separate the terumot
⁸⁸ In such an instance, there is room to say that the principle of bereirah
⁸⁹ Halachah 13.


###### Mishneh Torah, Heave Offerings 1:21
[Mishneh Torah, Heave Offerings 1:21](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Mishneh%20Torah%2C%20Heave%20Offerings/r/1:21)

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:

**Mishneh Torah, trans. by Eliyahu Touger. Jerusalem, Moznaim Pub. c1986-c2007:**
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.⁹⁰ (*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*.

footnotes:
⁹⁰ When quoting these laws, the Shulchan Aruch


###### Mishneh Torah, Heave Offerings 1:22
[Mishneh Torah, Heave Offerings 1:22](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Mishneh%20Torah%2C%20Heave%20Offerings/r/1:22)

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:

**Mishneh Torah, trans. by Eliyahu Touger. Jerusalem, Moznaim Pub. c1986-c2007:**
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]⁹¹, 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.⁹², 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.⁹³ 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.

footnotes:
⁹¹ And from that verse which speaks of the obligation to separate challah
⁹² The Ra'avad differs and maintains that the exemption from the obligation to tithe applies only according to Scriptural Law. According to Rabbinic Law, all authorities agree that one is obligated, for this produce is comparable to that of Ammon and Moav. The Radbaz does not accept this perspective, stating that there is no source which maintains that a Rabbinic obligation exists. The Radbaz does, however, qualify the Rambam's ruling, explaining that it applies only when the work that makes the produce obligated to be tithed is completed in the Diaspora. If this work is completed in Eretz Yisrael
⁹³ The Kessef Mishneh


###### Mishneh Torah, Heave Offerings 1:23
[Mishneh Torah, Heave Offerings 1:23](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Mishneh%20Torah%2C%20Heave%20Offerings/r/1:23)

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

**Mishneh Torah, trans. by Eliyahu Touger. Jerusalem, Moznaim Pub. c1986-c2007:**
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*],⁹⁴ 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.⁹⁵.

footnotes:
⁹⁴ Our translation is based on the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (Challah
⁹⁵ Even if it does not have a hole, since wood is porous, it is as if the earth on the ship is connected to the earth in Eretz Yisrael


###### Mishneh Torah, Heave Offerings 1:24
[Mishneh Torah, Heave Offerings 1:24](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Mishneh%20Torah%2C%20Heave%20Offerings/r/1:24)

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:

**Mishneh Torah, trans. by Eliyahu Touger. Jerusalem, Moznaim Pub. c1986-c2007:**
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.⁹⁶, 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].

footnotes:
⁹⁶ I.e., if the trunk is located in Eretz Yisrael


###### Mishneh Torah, Heave Offerings 1:25
[Mishneh Torah, Heave Offerings 1:25](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Mishneh%20Torah%2C%20Heave%20Offerings/r/1:25)

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

**Mishneh Torah, trans. by Eliyahu Touger. Jerusalem, Moznaim Pub. c1986-c2007:**
[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.⁹⁷ 22a teaches that we follow the foliage of the plant and not the position of the hole in the flower pot.

footnotes:
⁹⁷ Generally, if there is a hole in the bottom of a flowerpot, it is considered as if the plant is connected to the earth beneath it. Nevertheless, in this instance, Gittin


###### Mishneh Torah, Heave Offerings 1:26
[Mishneh Torah, Heave Offerings 1:26](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Mishneh%20Torah%2C%20Heave%20Offerings/r/1:26)

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:

**Mishneh Torah, trans. by Eliyahu Touger. Jerusalem, Moznaim Pub. c1986-c2007:**
In the present era, even in the areas settled by the Jews who ascended from Babylonia, even those [settled] in the era of Ezra,⁹⁸ 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 entire⁹⁹ Jewish people are located there. [This is derived from the phrase]¹⁰⁰ 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 originally¹⁰¹ 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.¹⁰² 11:1. In contrast, the second time [the people] took possession of the land, in the time of Ezra, only a portion entered.¹⁰³ 9b) where our Sages criticized the majority of the people for remaining in Babylonia. Hence, they were not obligated according to Scriptural Law.¹⁰⁴ 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.¹⁰⁵ 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*.¹⁰⁶ 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).

footnotes:
⁹⁸ Who brought about a consecration of Eretz Yisrael
⁹⁹ More precisely, the majority of the Jewish people, for the majority is considered equivalent to the entire whole.
¹⁰⁰ There is no such phrase in the Torah stated with regard to terumah
¹⁰¹ The Ra'avad differs with the Rambam and maintains that the obligation to separate terumah
¹⁰² In the era of Mashiach. At that time, the observance of all the agricultural laws will return to Scriptural status, as stated in Hilchot Melachim
¹⁰³ Indeed, we find several sources (Yoma
¹⁰⁴ The commentaries point to Ezra 2:62-63 as indicating that in the era of the Second Temple, terumah
¹⁰⁵ See Hilchot Ma'aser
¹⁰⁶ Although in Halachah 1, the Rambam writes that the Scriptural status of terumah