Commento su Ma'aserot 3:11

המעביר תאנים – on the path of his courtyard, to bring them to a place where they do the fig-harvest.

Introduction This mishnah continues to deal with when workers can eat their employer’s produce without first tithing it.

אוכלין ופטורין – since the courtyard does not establish [as liable for] tithing, for its work had not been completed. But he is forbidden to eat other than in the place where they do the fig-harvest/fig-packing, because in his place, it is recognized that the work had not been completed and when he is not in his place, it is not recognized. But his children are permitted [to eat] even in the place where they don’t do the fig-harvest, for it is not dependent upon them to change their mind, and since the knowledge of their father is to make of them a fig-harvest/fig-packing, they are permitted [to eat], but he who is in his hand to change his mind is not permitted [to eat] other than in the place where they make the fig-harvest/fig-packing.

One who was taking figs through his courtyard to be dried, his children and the other members of his household may eat [of them] and they are exempt [from tithes]. Once the processing of fruit has been completed and one brings the produce into one’s courtyard, one can no longer eat the produce without first tithing it. In the case in this section, the processing of the figs was not yet complete because he was on his way to dry them. Therefore, he and the rest of the members of his family can continue to eat the figs before they are dried without having to first tithe them.

אבל אם יש להם עליו מזונות – that he cut for them, and they don’t eat from the laws of the Torah, since that it is not the completion of the work, for he did not hire them other than to transfer them to the place where they perform the fig-harvest/fig-packing.

The workers [who work] with him may eat and be exempt so long as he is not obliged to provide for them. If however, he is obligated to provide for them they may not eat. The workers here are those who work for the owner of the figs, but don’t work with the figs. The Torah does not mandate that they be allowed to eat the figs, because the Torah mandates only that a worker can eat from the type of produce with which he is working, as we learned in yesterday’s mishnah. Since these worker’s don’t eat because of the Torah’s mandate, they can eat the figs only if they are receiving them as a gift from the owner, and not as part of their wages. If he has no obligation to feed them, meaning this was not part of their contract, then he has given them the figs as a gift, and they are exempt from tithes. If, however, he was obligated to feed them, then the figs are treated as if they are wages. As we learned in the previous chapter, when produce is involved in a financial transaction it becomes obligated for tithes. Therefore, these workers must tithe before they can eat the figs.

הרי אלו לא יאכלו – for it is a transaction, and concerning the purchaser, it is considered like the work had been completed, for the eyes of the purchaser are upon his purchase.

המוציא פועליו לשדה – to another labor and not to harvest, fruit that now they don’t eat from the laws of the Torah.

Introduction Our mishnah continues to deal with the issue of when workers may eat of their employer’s produce without tithing.

אוכלין ופטורין – if he gave to them, for a gift is not like a sale.

One who brought his workers into the field, when he is not obligated to provide for them, they may eat and be exempt from tithes. These workers were brought out to the field but not to work with the figs, so again, the Torah does not mandate that they be allowed to eat the figs. If the employer is not obligated to feed them, then the figs that they eat are a present and since they are still out in the field, the workers may eat them without tithing them.

ואם יש להן עליו מזונות – that he cut for them.

If, however, he is obligated to provide for them they may eat of the figs one at a time, but not from the basket, nor from the large basket, nor from the storage yard. If he is giving the workers figs as part of his obligation to feed them, then they in principle must tithe the figs before eating. However, since these figs have not yet been put into a basket, the workers may eat from them one at a time, because their processing has not yet been completed. Once they have been put into any storage place, be it a type of basket or be it a storage yard, they can no longer be eaten until they have been tithed.

אוכלין אחת וכו' – for it is not fixed.

ולא מן המוקצה – a pile of figs.

לעשות בזיתים – to hoe and to cover up the roots of olive trees under the olives, but not to harvest, for now, he does not eat from the laws of the Torah.

Introduction According to the rabbis’ interpretation of the Torah, a worker may eat from his employer’s produce only if he is working at the end of the processing of the produce. If he is tending to the field, he may not pluck produce that is still attached to the ground and eat it. If the owner allows him to do so, this produce is considered wages, and cannot be eaten without first being tithed. Our mishnah deals with a person who is working in a field but not at the time when the produce’s processing is being completed.

ואם צירף – two together, he liable, for this is something fixed/established.

One who hired a worker to work with olives and he said to him, “On condition that I may eat the olives,” he may eat of them one at a time and be exempt [from tithes]. If, however, he gathered several together he is liable [for tithes]. Since this worker was working with the olives at a time when their processing was not completed, the olives that he does receive are part of his wages and hence cannot be eaten without being tithed. As we saw in yesterday’s mishnah, he can eat one olive at a time, but if he gathers them together, he cannot eat them without first tithing them.

לנכש בבצלים – to uproot the bad grasses that grow within the onions.

[If he had been hired] to weed out onions, and he said to him, “On condition that I may eat the vegetables,” he may pluck leaf by leaf, and eat [without tithing]. If, however, he gathered several together, he is liable [for tithes]. The section teaches basically the same rule with regard to a person hired to work weeding onions. He can pluck the leaves up one at a time and eat them, but he cannot gather them together and eat them without first tithing.

מקרסם – to cut, and it is similar to (Psalms 80:14): “wild boards gnaw at it [and creatures of the field feed on it?]”

ואפילו בצד שדה קציעות -for the matter is proved that from this field they fell, and even so, they are permitted because of theft, for in general, the owners despaired from [finding] them.

Introduction Most of this mishnah deals with fruit that one finds can one eat it without tithing?

ופטורות מן המעשר – like the law of renunciation of ownership.

If one found cut figs on the road, or even beside a field [where cut figs] have been spread [to dry], and similarly, if a fig tree overhangs the road, and he found figs beneath it, they are allowed [with regard to the laws] of robbery, and they are exempt from tithe. The person who finds these cut figs may keep them, even if it is quite clear from which field they came. Taking them is not considered stealing because it is common for the field owner to make them ownerless, probably because he doesn’t consider it worth his while to pick up the figs that fell by the side of the road. The figs are also exempt from tithes because ownerless produce is always exempt from tithes (see chapter one, mishnah one).

ובזיתים ובחרובים חייבים – because the owners do not despair of [recovering] them, for their appearance proves to them that they fell from this tree. But figs with their falling are repulsive and it is not known from which tree it is.

But if they were olives and carobs, they are liable. Olives and carobs are assumed to be of greater value than figs. The owner does not make them ownerless, and therefore, the rules are opposite of those in section one which discussed figs. One who finds olives and carobs near their likely sources may not take them and if he does, he cannot eat them before they are tithed because they are not ownerless.

אם דרסו רוב דם – if most people of that city already tread their dried figs in their fields, they can say that this is from their treading, and their work was already completed, and it is obligated to tithe.

If one found dried figs, then if the majority of people had already trodden [their figs], he must tithe [them], but if not he is exempt. Figs are liable for tithes once they have been pressed into a jar (see 1:8). The figs that he finds have been dried, but he doesn’t know if they have already been pressed into a jar. In this case the status of the figs is determined by what the majority of people in that area have done. If most people have already pressed their figs, then he must assume that these figs were already pressed and he cannot eat them without first tithing. If most people have not pressed their figs, then he may eat them without tithing.

פלחי דבילה – after they were trodden in a round cake, they divide the cake into several segments/slices, and there is in a slice many cakes of figs stuck to each other.

If one found slices of fig-cake he is liable [to tithe] since it is obvious they come from something whose processing had been fully completed. If he finds pieces of fig cakes, then he can be certain that they were already pressed into a jar and he cannot eat them without tithing.

עד שלא כנסן לראש הגג – to make of them a pile, and that is their harvesting time to make them liable to tithes, as is taught in the Mishnayot (2-7) in the first chapter.

With carobs, if they had not yet been on the top of the roof, he may take some down for his animals and be exempt [from tithe] since he returns that which is left over. The final step in the processing of carobs, the step that makes them fit for human consumption, is to bring them up to one’s roof to dry them out. Before he has brought them to the roof he can feed them to his cattle without tithing. We don’t say that by feeding them to his cattle he has shown that their processing is complete and therefore he must tithe them. The reason we don’t make such an assumption is that sometimes a person may begin feeding them to his cattle and then bring them back up to his roof to dry them out, so that people could eat them.

מוריד מהן לבהמה – but he cannot eat them, for we don’t consume on the stored objects other than in their place, meaning to say, the fruit, when we spread them out to dry, that their work was not completed, we don’t eat from them other than in their place, for when they are not in their place, it is not recognized that their work was not completed, but, however, when you feed from them to the cattle, even not in their place, because the carobs are not food for cattle, it is well knwn that their work was not completed and they have not dried out completely.

מפני שהוא מחזיר את המותר – to the place that he stretched them out to dry, and wherever its surplus returns, it is not made obligatory for the setting aside of tithes.

היזו היא חצר שחייבת במעשר – that establishes [liability] for tithing like a house.

Introduction Bringing produce into a house causes it to become liable for tithes. Under certain circumstances, bringing the produce into a courtyard can also make it liable for tithes. In our mishnah five (!) tannaim debate what type of courtyard makes produce liable for tithes. The general principle is clear: if the courtyard is protected it makes the food liable for tithes because it is like a house.

חצר צורית – for in Tzur, they would place a guard at the entrance of the courtyard.

Which courtyard is it which makes [the produce] liable to tithe?
Rabbi Ishmael says: the Tyrian yard for the vessels are protected therein. Both talmudim explain that a guard sits outside of the Tyrian courtyard and protects it. Since this courtyard is protected, food brought into it is liable for tithes the courtyard is like a house.

כל שאחד פותח ואחד נועל – such as, for example in the courtyard, two houses for two people. When one of them opens the entrance to the courtyard, the second comes and locks it. And when one locks, it, the second protests with his hand and opens it. It is found that the courtyard is not guarded.

Rabbi Akiva says: any courtyard which one person may open and another may shut is exempt. If two people share a courtyard, and when one person opens up the courtyard, the other is the one who closes it, then this courtyard is not well protected. Since it is not well-protected, produce that is brought into it is not liable for tithes.

ואין אומרים לו מה אתה מבקש פטורה – and even though he is not embarrassed to eat within it.

Rabbi Nehemiah says: any courtyard in which a man is not ashamed to eat is liable. In mishnaic times it was considered impolite or uncultured to eat in public. If the courtyard into which the produce was brought was closed off enough so that a person would eat in it, then the produce is liable for tithes. But if a person wouldn’t eat there, then the produce is not liable.

והחיצונה פטורה – since there is in the internal section entering one’s ground, it is not guarded, and we hold that the Halakha is according to all of them for stringency.

Rabbi Yose says: any courtyard into which a person may enter and no one says to him, “what are you looking for” is exempt. If no one says anything to a stranger who enters into a courtyard, then it is not protected and produced brought into it is not liable for tithes.

Rabbi Judah says: if there are two courtyards one within the other, the inner one makes liable and the outer one is exempt. In the case of two courtyards, the inner one, the one closer to the house, makes the produce liable to be tithed because it is relatively well-guarded and those from the outer courtyard cannot enter into the inner courtyard. In contrast, the outer courtyard, through which the people who live in the inner courtyard can walk, is less-guarded and food brought into it is not liable for tithes.

אע"פ שהן של חצר חייבת – and the brings up the fruit/produce to the roof through the courtyard, even though it doesn’t make it obligatory for the setting aside of tithes, since for at the time that he brought them into the courtyard, it was his intention to raise them and to eat the on the roof. And these words apply when there is a on the roof four cubits by four cubits, but if there isn’t four cubits by four cubits on the roof, it is nullified regarding the courtyard.

Introduction Our mishnah deals with other architectural structures and with whether they, like some courtyards, cause produce to become liable for tithes.

בית שער – near the entrance to the courtyard.

Roofs do not render [produce] liable, even though they belong to a courtyard which renders it liable. Bringing produce onto a roof does not make it liable for tithes, even if the roof is adjacent to a courtyard that does make the produce liable. While the courtyard does offer protection to the produce, the roof does not and therefore the produce is not liable.

אכסדרה – surrounded by three partitions and from a beam above.

A gate house, portico, or balcony, are like the courtyard [to which it belongs]; if [the courtyard] makes the [produce] liable [for tithes] so do they, and if it does not, they do not. The three structures mentioned here take on the status of the courtyard to which they are attached. The “gate house” is a little house in which a guard would sit to watch over the courtyard. The “portico” is a roofed colonnade, but without closed walls. The “balcony” juts out from the second story of the house. If the courtyard offers protection to the produce, then these structures do as well and the produce brought into them will be liable for tithes.

מרפסת – a place in front of the upper chambers, and they go out from the upper chambers to the balcony and from the balcony they descend by ladder to the courtyard.

הצריפים – they lack a roof, but the beams above approach each other and become wider and enlarged downward.

Introduction This mishnah deals with huts or “sukkah” like structures and whether they render produce liable for tithes. Part of the issue here is how similar these structures are to houses, which do render produce liable for tithes.

הבורגנים (turrets) – like kinds of dove-cotes, made in the fields to store in them the fruit/produce.

Cone-shaped huts, watchtowers, and sheds in the field do not render [produce] liable. A cone-shaped hut does not have a roof and the rabbis defined houses as structures with roofs. Hence, it does not render the produce liable for tithes. While people spend time in watchtowers, they do not live in them, and therefore they are not considered houses. Neither do people live in sheds in a field they too do not render produce liable for tithes.

והאלקטיות (sheds) – booths that they make during the hot days for shade; It is the Aramaic Targum for summer (sun-dried [fruits]).

A sukkah-hut like those used in Ginnosar, even though it contains millstones and poultry, does not render [produce] liable. Sukkah-like huts all have roofs and therefore, they might render produce liable for tithes. In Ginnosar, which is on the shores of the Galilee, people would dwell in these huts most of the year in order to guard the produce in the field. They would even bring millstones in order to grind wheat and poultry in order to have eggs and perhaps some meat. Nevertheless, since they do not live in these huts all year round, they do not cause produce to become liable for tithes.

סכת גינוסר- the Sea of Galilee we translate [into Aramaic] as Ginosar, and it is a place in the Land of Israel that its fruits are plentiful and good, and its drwellers make booths and dwell in them during the season of the fruits.

As for the potter’s sukkah-hut, the inner part renders [produce] liable and the outer part does not. The potter’s sukkah is divided into two parts the inner part, which the potter and his family use for living quarters, and the outer part, where they do their work. The outer part does not count as a house and therefore, it does not make produce liable for tithes, whereas the inner part does.

אע"פ שיש שם רחים ותרנגולים – it is not fixed/established [for liability for tithing].

Rabbi Yose says: anything which is not both a sunny season and rainy season dwelling does not render [produce] liable [to tithes]. Rabbi Yose clarifies that in order for a structure to count as a house it must be a structure in which people would live in both the summer and winter months. Otherwise, the produce that is brought into it does not need to be tithed. I should note that it doesn’t seem that Rabbi Yose is saying that the person must actually live there all year round. Vacation homes, if built like normal homes, would make produce liable for tithes. What he is saying is that if the house is built only to be used in one season, then it is not truly a “house” and it does not make liable for tithes.

סוכת היוצרים – it is customary to make two booths, one inside the other; in the inner one they hide their pots/dishes, and dwell there, and in the outer one, they do their work and sell their dishes.

A sukkah used on the Festival [of Sukkot]: Rabbi Judah says: this renders [produce] liable [for tithes] But the sages exempt. The final section in our mishnah is concerned with the sukkah used during the holiday of Sukkot. According to Rabbi Judah, since during Sukkot the sukkah is perceived, at least by him, as a “permanent dwelling place” it does render produce liable for tithes. Although one lives there only during Sukkot, for that week it is like one’s permanent home and just as one’s home renders liable for tithes, so too does the Sukkah. The rabbis disagree and hold that it is not truly a permanent home, since one lives there for only one week.

כל שאינה דירת החמה ודירת הגשמים – and the inner booth, the creator does not dwell there during the rainy season, therefore it is exempt [from being liable for tithing]. But the Halakha is not according to Rabbi Yosi.

רבי יהודה מחייב – Rabbi Yehuda according to his reasoning who holds that we require that the Sukkah is a permanent dwelling and is liable for a Mezuzah. But the Halakha is not according to Rabbi Yehuda.

תאנה שהיא עומדת בחצר – a fig tree that stands in the courtyard, and the courtyard establishes [liability] for tithing.

Introduction This mishnah deals with the interesting situation of a tree that is growing in one’s courtyard can one eat from the fruit without tithing? In other words, does this count as “produce brought into the courtyard” which usually means that it can’t be eaten without tithing?

ואם צירף – two [together], he is liable [to tithe].

A fig tree which stands in a courtyard: one may eat the figs from it one at a time and be exempt [from tithes], but if he gathered some together he is liable. Since this tree is in the courtyard, the figs must be tithed before they are eaten. However, he can still eat one at a time without tithing as was the rule regarding produce that was purchased (see 3:3).

ר"ש אומר אחת בימינו – even three in a case like this, is not a combination, and is permitted, but the Halakha is not according to Rabbi Shimon.

Rabbi Shimon says: if he has [one in his right hand and one in his left hand and one in his mouth, he is exempt. Rabbi Shimon adds that it doesn’t count as “gathering together” if all he has is one in each hand and one in his mouth. The status of “gathered” figs means that he has more than one in at least one of his hands.

עלה לראשה – to the top of the fig [tree].

If he ascended to the top [of it], he may fill his bosom and eat. If he climbs up to the top of the tree to gather the figs, he can put a bunch in his shirt and eat them while he is up in the tree. However, if he brings them down he can no longer eat them until they have been tithed.

ממלא חיקו ואוכל – there, and as long as he doesn’t bring it down to the courtyard.

נוטל את האשכול – he eats in his normal manner and he doesn’t need to pick single berries, and similarly with pomegranates, he does not need to eat single grapes, and similarly, with a melon, he does not need to eat a slice, that is to cut thin slices.

Introduction Our mishnah continues to deal with plants growing inside a courtyard.

ר"ע אומר – and the Halakha is according to Rabbi Akiva.

A vine which was planted in a courtyard: one may take a whole cluster [and eat it without tithing]. Similarly with a pomegranate, or a melon, the words of Rabbi Tarfon. According to Rabbi Tarfon, one can eat the whole unit of fruit without tithing in the cases of a grape vine, pomegranate or melon growing in the courtyard. The cluster of grapes is treated as one integral unit, and therefore he can eat the whole thing.

כוסבר – this is its name in Arabic and it is coriander seed.

Rabbi Akiva says: he can pick single berries from the cluster, or split the pomegranate into slices, or cut slices of melon [and eat without tithing]. Rabbi Akiva rules more strictly and says that one can only eat pieces of these fruits without tithing. If he wants to eat the whole cluster of grapes, the whole pomegranate or the whole melon, he must first tithe it because it is already in the courtyard.

מקרסם – cut/sever.

Coriander which was sown in a courtyard: one may pluck leaf by leaf and eat [without tithing], but if he ate them together he is liable [for tithes]. As was the case with the figs in yesterday’s mishnah, if he gathers several leaves together he must tithe before he eats, but if he plucks and eats them one at a time, he can eat without tithing.

סיאה – in Arabic PUDNAG, and in the foreign language POLIO.

Savory and hyssop, and thyme which are in the courtyard, if they are kept watch over, they are liable for tithe. If a person has grown these plants to be spices for human consumption, and he is watching over them, then the fact that they are in the courtyard makes them immediately liable for tithing. He can’t eat them at all until they are tithed.

הקורנית – in Arabic CHASHA, and in the foreign language SHADRIAH.

אם היו נשמרים חייבים – for there is no liability for tithing other than eating and something guarded.

אוכל כדרכו – from the branches/bough that stands in the garden.

Introduction This mishnah deals with the situation in which the trunk of a tree is found in one type of domain but its branches hang over into another.

אוכל אחת אחת – from the branch that extends to the courtyard

A fig tree which stands in a courtyard, and hangs over into a garden: one may eat in his customary fashion and be exempt [from tithes]. When it comes to tithes, what matters is where the branches are, because that is where the fruit is. So if it stands in the courtyard, but the fruit is on branches hanging over into the garden, then he may eat from the tree without tithing.

ואם צירף – two [figs together], he is liable [for tithing].

If it stands in the garden and hangs over into the courtyard, one may eat [the figs] one at a time and be exempt, but if he gathers them together, he is liable [for tithes]. The opposite is also true if the tree is in the garden but the branches hang over into the courtyard, then he can only eat one fig at a time. Since the branches are in the courtyard, the fruit is liable for tithes.

הכל הולך אחר העיקר – for we cast the bough after its root, which is the place of the absorbing of the tree.

If it stands in the land [of Israel] and hangs over [into the territory] outside the land, or if it stands outside the land, and hangs over into the land, [in all these cases the law is] decided according to the position of the root. Only fruit that is grown on a tree entirely within the land of Israel is liable for tithes. The location of the tree is determined by its trunk. In this case it matters not where the fruit is, but rather, where the tree, i.e. the trunk, is.

ובבתי ערי חומה הכל הולך אחר העיקר – even the bough/branch that extends outside the wall, if he did not redeem it within the year, it becomes permanently irredeemable/sold, as if it was within the wall, since the root of the tree is within the wall.

And as regards houses in walled cities, everything is decided according to the position of the root. According to Leviticus 25:29-31, houses that are sold within a walled city can be redeemed by the seller for one year. If they are not redeemed within the year then permanent title belongs to the purchaser. According to the rabbis, the same rule applies to trees sold within a walled city. In this case the tree’s location within or outside the walled city is determined by its roots. Again, what is determinant is the location of the tree and not the fruit, as was the case with tithes in sections one and two, and therefore, its location follows its root.

ובערי מקלט הכל הולך אחר הנוף – even after the bough/branch, it is stated, for if its root is inside within the wall of the city of refuge and its bough extends outside the border, for just as at its root, the blood avenger is not able to kill the murderer through its bough, he also is not able to kill him for we cast the bough after its root, but if its root is outside and its bough is inside, just as that with its bough he is not able to kill him, with its root, he also is not able to kill him, for we cast its root after its bough for stringency. And similarly in Jerusalem, he follow after the bough regarding the Second Tithe, that is also for stringency, for its root is outside and its bough is inside, just as with its bough, he is not able to redeem, for pure tithes are redeemed within Jerusalem by its roots, he also would not abe able to redeem it, but if its root is inside and its bough is outside, just as that in the place of its bough, he is not able to eat it without redeeming it, for it is outside of Jerusalem, so here too, in a place where its root, even though it is inside, he is not able to eat it without redemption.

But as regards cities of refuge, everything is decided [also] according to the location of the branches. Accidental murderers are supposed to flee to one of the cities of refuge. Once there the blood avenger can no longer kill them, and if he does so he is liable for murder. In this case, the location of the tree follows that of the branches. If the blood avenger kills him under the branches which are inside the borders of the refuge city, the blood avenger is guilty of murder, but if the branches are outside the city, he is exempt.

And in what concerns Jerusalem, everything is decided by the location of the branches. Second tithe is to be brought to Jerusalem, but if one wants, it is permitted to exchange it for money outside of Jerusalem and then bring the money to Jerusalem and use it to buy food there. It is impossible, however, to redeem food that is already in Jerusalem. In this case the status of the tree is determined by the branches, which is where the fruit is located. If the branches are located within Jerusalem, then the produce cannot be redeemed and it must be eaten in the city. If the trunk is within the walls of the city but the branches are outside, then it is permitted to redeem the produce and use the money to buy food.