Unlocking the Sanctuary of the Soil: A Lomdische Dissection of Rambam’s Hilkhot Ma’aser Sheni V’Neta Reva’i (Chapters 5–7)

Sugya Map

The redemption of Ma'aser Sheni (Second Tithe) represents a fascinating halakhic intersection where property law, agricultural sanctity, and liturgy collide. Is Ma'aser Sheni classified as Mamon Gavoah (Divine property) or Mamon Ba'alim (private property owned by the farmer)? This ontological status is the grand axis upon which the entire mechanics of redemption, the chomesh (the added fifth), and the validity of transfer rotate.

                  [Ma'aser Sheni Ontological Status]
                                  │
         ┌────────────────────────┴────────────────────────┐
         ▼                                                 ▼
   [Mamon Gavoah]                                   [Mamon Ba'alim]
 (Divine Property)                                 (Private Property)
  - No gifting once tithed                          - Gifting permitted
  - Strictly regulated agency                       - Standard agency rules
  - Redemption transforms the object                - Redemption is a transaction

• The Core Issue: The structural nature of the chomesh (the fifth-part surcharge) and the parameters of halakhic agency (shelichut) in its avoidance through ha'aramah (guile).
• The Nafka Minot (Practical Ramifications):
  1. Exemption of Non-Owners & Women: If Ma'aser Sheni is redeemed by someone other than the original owner, or by a woman, is the chomesh bypassed?
  2. Gifts of Tevel: Can one circumvent the prohibition of gifting Ma'aser Sheni by giving the crop away as tevel (untithed produce) before the separation is complete?
  3. Nullification (Bitul) of Holy Mixtures: How do we treat a mixture of Ma'aser Sheni and chullin (common food) inside versus outside the walls of Jerusalem?
• Primary Sources:
  • Leviticus 27:31: The source of the chomesh obligation.
  • Deuteronomy 14:22-26: The mandate of consumption and redemption.
  • Mishnah Ma'aser Sheni 4:3-5: The mechanics of bidding, precedence, and ha'aramah.
  • Bava Kamma 69b: The classic talmudic debate between Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Yehuda regarding Mamon Gavoah versus Mamon Ba'alim.
  • Kiddushin 24a: The derivation excluding women and non-owners from the chomesh.
  • Bava Metzia 53b-54b: The talmudic sugya of ha'aramah and the mathematical calculation of chomesh milbar.

---

Text Snapshot

Let us examine the foundational wording of the Rambam in Mishneh Torah, Hilkhot Ma'aser Sheni V'Neta Reva'i 5:1-2:

"כשהאדם פודה מעשר שני שלו לעצמו... מוסיף חומש... שנאמר 'ואם גאל יגאל איש ממעשרו חמישיתו יסף עליו'. אשה שפדתה מעשר שני שלה שהפרישה אינה פורעת חומש, מפי השמועה למדו 'איש ממעשרו' ולא אשה."¹

Linguistic and Grammatical Nuances

Notice the precise syntax of the Rambam. He does not merely state that "an owner adds a fifth"; he writes "when a man redeems his second tithe for himself (lo l'atzmo)." This immediate qualification sets up the dual criteria of the obligation: ownership and self-benefit.

The derivation from the word "איש" (ish - a man) in Leviticus 27:31 is not merely a gender-based exclusion; it operates as a structural limitation on the chafetz (the object of sanctity). The verse reads: "If a man will redeem from his tithe (mi-ma'asro)." The suffix pronoun "ו" (his) links the personal identity of the redeemer to the ownership of the tithe.

Consequently, the Gemara in Kiddushin 24a exploits this textual tethering to generate two distinct exclusions:

1. "איש" ולא אשה (A man, and not a woman).
2. "ממעשרו" ולא מעשר של חברו (From his tithe, and not the tithe of his neighbor).

The Rambam’s choice of the phrase "מפי השמועה" (from the Oral Tradition) indicates a Sinaitic derivation that defies simple logical deduction. If Ma'aser Sheni is Mamon Gavoah, why should gender or agency affect the redemption surcharge? The surcharge is not a punitive tax on the individual; it is an intrinsic element of the redemption process. Yet, the Oral Law insists that the chomesh is a highly personalized obligation (chiyuv gavra) triggered only when there is a perfect identity match between the owner, the redeemer, and the masculine gender specified by the text.

---

Readings

1. The Ohr Sameach: The Ontology of Tevel and Gifting

The Ohr Sameach² grapples with a glaring contradiction in the Rambam’s system. In Hilkhot Ma'aser Sheni 3:17, the Rambam rules in accordance with Rabbi Meir that Ma'aser Sheni is Mamon Gavoah. Because it belongs to the Divine, a farmer has no proprietary rights over it; he cannot sell it, betroth a woman with it, or give it as a gift.

Yet, in Hilkhot Ma'aser Sheni 5:1, the Rambam writes:

"Whether it is from his own crops, he acquired it as an inheritance, or it was given to him while tevel (be-tiblo)..."

How can tevel (untithed produce) be given as a gift if it contains unseparated Ma'aser Sheni? If Ma'aser Sheni is Mamon Gavoah, and we rule matnot she'lo hurmu k'mi she'hurmu damyan (unseparated gifts are viewed as if they are already separated)³, then the Ma'aser portion inside the tevel already belongs to the Temple treasury! The owner should have no right to transfer it to a recipient.

       [The Tevel Gift Dilemma]
                  │
  Is the unseparated Ma'aser already
  divine property (K'mi Shehurmu)?
        ┌─────────┴─────────┐
        ▼                   ▼
     [Yes]                 [No]
 Gift should fail      Gift succeeds
 (Ohr Sameach's        (Before Miruach
  Kushya)               Resolution)

The Ohr Sameach resolves this with a brilliant distinction based on the developmental stages of agricultural processing:

"ולענ"ד לק"מ, דהא קיי"ל במע"ש... פירות שנגמרו מלאכתן ועברו בתוך ירושלים... ושלא נגמרה מלאכתן... הרי דוקא ממורח..."⁴

The Ohr Sameach argues that the principle of matnot she'lo hurmu k'mi she'hurmu damyan applies only after miruach (the completion of the grain pile's processing). Before miruach, the crop is not yet biblically obligated in tithes. Because the obligation has not crystallized, the unseparated tithes are not considered as if they have been separated. At this pre-obligatory stage, the crop is fully owned by the farmer.

If the farmer gifts the tevel at this point, the gift is 100% valid. When the recipient later completes the processing (miruach) and separates the Ma'aser Sheni, the recipient is the one who "creates" the sanctity. However, because the recipient did not grow the crop, and only acquired it as tevel, he is not the original owner. Thus, when he redeems it, he is exempt from the chomesh under "ממעשרו ולא מעשר של חברו."

Furthermore, the Ohr Sameach notes that even after miruach, if the obligation is merely Rabbinic (such as produce grown in an unperforated pot, atzietz she'eino nakuv), we do not say k'mi she'hurmu damyan to restrict gifting. The Rabbinic authority did not impose the structural straightjacket of Mamon Gavoah until the tithe was physically separated.

2. The Rogatchover Gaon: Is Chomesh an Extension of Sanctity or an Independent Debt?

In Tzofnath Paneach⁵, the Rogatchover Gaon analyzes Rambam's ruling in 5:3:

"When a person redeems the produce of his second tithe and adds a fifth, and then redeems the money itself a second time, he must add a second fifth of the principal alone. He need not add a fifth for the original fifth."

The Rogatchover asks: What is the metaphysical status of the chomesh once it is paid? Does the chomesh merge with the principal (keren) to become a single, indistinguishable pool of Ma'aser Sheni sanctity (ribui d'kedusha)? Or does the chomesh remain a separate, auxiliary layer of payment (chiyuv mamon nifrad)?

• If it is Ribui D'Kedusha: The chomesh coin itself becomes Ma'aser Sheni. Therefore, when you redeem that chomesh money for silver or gold, you should be required to add a chomesh of the chomesh!
• If it is an Independent Debt: The chomesh is merely a tax paid to facilitate the redemption of the principal. It carries the sanctity of Ma'aser so that it must be eaten in Jerusalem, but it does not possess the "genetic" capacity to trigger a secondary chomesh.

The Rogatchover proves that according to the Rambam, chomesh is a chiyuv gavra (personal obligation) that does not alter the identity of the principal. The Torah states "חמישיתו יסף עליו" (he shall add its fifth upon it). The fifth is added to the principal, but it is not of the same pedigree as the principal. When the redeemed money is redeemed again, we only calculate the 20% surcharge based on the original keren (principal), because the second redemption is a redemption of the original sanctity, not a redemption of the first surcharge.

3. Rashi and Tosafot: The Mathematics of Chomesh

In Bava Metzia 54a, the Sages debate the calculation of the fifth. The Rambam in 5:1 codifies:

"אם היה שווה ארבעה, נותן חמישה" (If it was worth four, he should give five).

This is the classic rule of חומש מלבר (chomesh milbar—a fifth from the outside) as opposed to חומש מלגיו (chomesh milgavan—a fifth from the inside).

[Chomesh Calculation: Principal = 4]

      Chomesh Milgavan (Inside)           Chomesh Milbar (Outside)
      (1/5 of Principal)                  (1/5 of Total)
      4 * (1/5) = 0.8                     Total / 5 = Chomesh
      Total Paid = 4.8                    (4 + X) / 5 = X  =>  X = 1
                                          Total Paid = 5

• Rashi's View: Rashi⁶ explains that the Torah wanted the added fifth to constitute exactly one-fifth of the final, redeemed sum. If the principal is 4, and you add 1, the total is 5. The added 1 is exactly 1/5 of 5. Mathematically, this is a 25% surcharge on the principal.
• Tosafot's View: Tosafot⁷ notes that this mathematical anomaly is unique to sacred redemptions (hekdesh and ma'aser). In standard damages or civil liabilities where a fifth is required, one might have thought we add a simple 20% (milgavan). However, the oral tradition derives from "חמישיתו יסף עליו"—the fifth must be "equalized" to the total value of the transaction. The redemption is not a standard commercial purchase; it is a replacement of holy energy. For the replacement to be valid, the surcharge must represent a full "hand" (one-fifth) of the ultimate sacred pool created by the transaction.

---

Friction

The Paradox of Halakhic Guile (Ha'aramah)

The most striking conceptual clash in Hilkhot Ma'aser Sheni is the explicit permission—and indeed, institutionalization—of ha'aramah (guile) to bypass the chomesh.

In 5:8, the Rambam states:

"מותר להערים במעשר שני... כיצד? אומר אדם לבנו ובתו הגדולים... הילך מעות אלו ופדה לך מעשר שני זה, כדי שלא יוסיפו חומש..." (It is permitted to act guilefully with regard to the second tithe... How so? A man may say to his adult son... 'Take this money and redeem this second tithe for yourself,' so that they do not add a fifth...)

But wait! Compare this to Rambam's ruling in 5:7:

"If the owner bids a sela to redeem it and another person also bids a sela, the owner is given precedence, because he is required to add a fifth. If, however, the owner bids a sela and another person bids a sela and a prutah, that other person is given precedence, because he increases the principal."

In his Commentary to the Mishnah⁸, the Rambam explains that we prefer the stranger's bid of a sela and a prutah over the owner's bid of a sela (which would yield a total of 1.25 selaim due to the chomesh) because we are afraid the owner will use guile (ha'aramah) to avoid the chomesh!

The Kushya

This is an open contradiction in the Rambam's conceptual framework:

1. If ha'aramah is completely permissible and halakhically kosher (as written in 5:8), why does the court penalize the owner in 5:7 by stripping him of his right of precedence? If the Torah and the Sages approve of this loophole, the owner's potential use of it should not be treated as a negative risk that justifies giving the stranger precedence!
2. If ha'aramah is a shady, degenerate practice that the court must actively suppress (which is why we give the stranger precedence in 5:7), why does the Rambam declare in 5:8: "מותר להערים" (it is permitted to act guilefully)? It should be, at best, a post-facto toleration (b'di'avad), not an initial permission (l'chatgila)!

                    [The Ha'aramah Contradiction]
                                  │
         ┌────────────────────────┴────────────────────────┐
         ▼                                                 ▼
   [Halachah 5:8]                                    [Halachah 5:7]
 "Mutar Leha'arim"                               Court blocks owner
 (Guile is explicitly                            due to fear of
   permitted)                                      guile

The Terutzim

Terutz A: The Kesef Mishneh's Institutional Distinction

The Kesef Mishneh⁹ resolves this by separating the individual's right from the court's mandate.

The Torah explicitly wrote "איש ממעשרו" to teach us that only the owner pays the chomesh. By definition, the Torah created a loophole. Therefore, the individual is fully permitted to walk through this door. There is no moral stain on the farmer who uses his adult children to redeem the crop; he is merely playing by the rules of the game designed by the Divine.

However, the Beit Din (court) and the administrators of the hekdesh treasury have a competing mandate: to maximize the sacred funds. The court cannot force the owner to act without guile, but the court is also not obligated to facilitate his cost-saving measures. When a stranger bids a sela and a prutah, the actual principal (keren) of the sacred food is increased. Since the owner might use his legal right to bypass the chomesh, the court must secure the guaranteed increase of the principal.

The permission to use guile is a subjective leniency for the farmer; the preference for the stranger is an objective protection of the treasury.

Terutz B: The Brisker Rav (Rav Yitzchok Ze'ev Soloveitchik) — Keren vs. Chomesh

The Brisker Rav¹⁰ offers a profound lomdische distinction between two types of monetary values in redemption: קדושת הגוף של הקרן (the intrinsic sanctity of the principal) versus חיוב ממון של חומש (the monetary debt of the fifth).

               [Brisker Rav's Value Distinction]
                               │
         ┌─────────────────────┴─────────────────────┐
         ▼                                           ▼
   [The Keren]                                 [The Chomesh]
 - Intrinsic Sanctity                        - Personal Debt
 - Kedushat Chafetz                           - Chiyuv Gavra
 - Enriches the Holy Object                  - Outside Surcharge
 - Stranger's bid increases this             - Bypassed via agency

When a stranger redeems the Ma'aser for a sela and a prutah, the extra prutah enters the principal coin (keren). This means the actual, physical sanctity of the Ma'aser is now concentrated in a more valuable vessel.

When the owner redeems the Ma'aser for a sela, he will pay an extra quarter-sela as chomesh. However, this chomesh does not elevate the value of the principal coin; it is an outside surcharge (chiyuv gavra).

The Rambam’s rule in 5:7 is not a "punishment" for potential guile. Rather, it is a structural law of priorities: An increase in the principal (the chafetz of sanctity) always takes precedence over an increase in the surcharge (the gavra of debt). Even though the owner's total payout (1.25 selaim) is higher than the stranger's (1 sela and 1 prutah), the stranger’s bid is superior because it enriches the keren.

The reason the Mishnah mentions "guile" is to explain why we cannot count on the owner's chomesh to override the stranger's prutah: because the chomesh is fragile and easily bypassed through agency, whereas the principal is concrete and absolute.

---

Intertext

1. The Hekdesh Parallel

The laws of redeeming Ma'aser Sheni closely mirror the laws of redeeming Hekdesh (property consecrated to the Temple treasury). In Leviticus 27:15, the Torah states:

"ואם המקדיש יגאל את ביתו ויסף חמישית כסף ערכך עליו והיה לו." (If he who consecrates will redeem his house, he shall add a fifth of the money of your valuation to it, and it shall be his).

Both Ma'aser Sheni and Hekdesh require a chomesh only when redeemed by the owner. However, there is a massive conceptual wedge between them regarding ha'aramah (guile).

In Hilkhot Arachin V'Charamin (Redemption of Vows and Consecrations), the Sages are far more restrictive of ha'aramah. Why?

• Hekdesh is absolute Mamon Gavoah with no human partnership. Any attempt to minimize its redemption value is seen as an encroachment on the Divine domain.
• Ma'aser Sheni is a hybrid. Although the Rambam rules it is Mamon Gavoah, it is ultimately destined to be eaten by the owner himself in Jerusalem. It is "the table of the Most High" to which the owner is invited as a guest. Because the Torah's ultimate goal is for the owner to enjoy this food in spiritual purity, the Sages were highly lenient, actively encouraging loopholes like ha'aramah so that the farmer would not find the financial burden of the pilgrimage too heavy to bear.

2. The Shulchan Aruch and Nullification (Bitul)

Let us trace how the Rambam’s rules of mixtures in Chapter 6 land in the Shulchan Aruch, Yoreh Deah 102 and 331.

The Rambam in 6:15 writes:

"When produce from the second tithe becomes mixed with ordinary produce... if such a mixture takes place in Jerusalem, even the smallest amount... becomes forbidden... Since the produce is in Jerusalem, it is considered as an entity that can be permitted (davar she'yesh lo matirin) and should not be nullified."

               [Mixture of Ma'aser Sheni & Chullin]
                                │
         ┌──────────────────────┴──────────────────────┐
         ▼                                             ▼
 [Inside Jerusalem]                            [Outside Jerusalem]
 - Path to permit exists                       - No path to permit
   (Eat in purity)                               (Walls have fallen)
 - Davar She'yesh Lo Matirin                   - Standard Bitul applies
 - Afilu B'Elef Lo Batel                       - Nullified by Simple Majority
   (Never nullified)                             (Rov - 50.1%)

In the laws of dietary prohibitions (Issur V'Heter), a classic davar she'yesh lo matirin (an item that can become permitted without halakhic nullification, such as an egg laid on Yom Tov) is never nullified, even in a ratio of one to a thousand (afilu b'elef lo batel).¹¹

The Shulchan Aruch¹² codifies this distinction. If a basket of Ma'aser Sheni fruit is mixed with a hundred baskets of common fruit inside Jerusalem, the entire mixture must be eaten in purity, because you can easily fulfill this condition.

However, if the mixture occurs outside Jerusalem, and the walls of the city have fallen (or the person is ritually impure), the Ma'aser cannot be eaten. Since it cannot be eaten, can it be redeemed? Yes! But if it cannot be redeemed (e.g., it already entered Jerusalem and left, making redemption impossible), it loses its status as a davar she'yesh lo matirin.

At that point, the Shulchan Aruch rules that it is nullified by a simple majority (rov—50.1%). This is a massive leniency: standard forbidden foods require a 1:60 ratio (shishim) for nullification, yet Ma'aser Sheni is nullified by a simple majority because it is not an issur (a forbidden substance) but a mamon (sanctified property) that has run out of legal avenues for resolution.

---

Psak/Practice

Contemporary Agricultural Practice

How do these ancient temple-centric dynamics operate in the modern era? Today, in the absence of the Beit HaMikdash, we cannot fulfill the mitzvah of eating Ma'aser Sheni or Neta Reva'i (Fourth-Year Fruit) in Jerusalem, as we are all under the status of tumat meit (impurity from contact with the dead).

Consequently, the halakha operates through a highly structured, symbolic redemption system:

              [Contemporary Redemption Process]
                              │
             [Separate 10% of crop as Ma'aser Sheni]
                              │
             [Take a coin worth at least a Prutah]
                              │
             [Recite the blessing of Chillul Ma'aser]
                              │
           [Transfer holiness of crop onto the coin]
                              │
             [Destroy the coin (Cast into the sea)]

1. Separation: The farmer separates 10% of his crop as Ma'aser Sheni.
2. Redemption: The farmer takes a coin (usually silver or copper) that is worth at least a prutah (the minimal currency unit, currently worth a few cents).
3. The Formula: The farmer recites the blessing and says: "The holiness of this produce and its fifth are transferred to this coin."
4. Destruction: The coin is then cast into the Mediterranean Sea, melted down, or otherwise permanently destroyed to prevent anyone from using it.

Do we add a Chomesh today?

According to the Shulchan Aruch¹³, when a person redeems his own contemporary Ma'aser Sheni, he must technically add a chomesh.

However, look at the brilliant application of Rambam 5:4:

"When the fifth of the produce of the second tithe is not worth a p'rutah, he need not add a fifth."

Because we redeem thousands of dollars' worth of produce onto a single prutah coin, the mathematical chomesh of that prutah is a mere fraction of a cent—far below the value of a prutah. Consequently, no actual chomesh is ever paid in contemporary practice.

The Sages utilized this structural loophole to protect farmers from financial loss while preserving the memory of the Temple (zecher l'mikdash) without violating the severe prohibitions of me'ilah (misappropriation of sacred property).

---

Takeaway

Ma'aser Sheni is the ultimate halakhic canvas of divine-human partnership: a hybrid property that belongs to the Almighty but is redeemed through mathematical precision and legal loopholes, ensuring that the bounty of the earth remains a source of joy rather than a financial burden.

---

Footnotes

1. Rambam, Mishneh Torah, Hilkhot Ma'aser Sheni V'Neta Reva'i 5:1-2.
2. Ohr Sameach (R' Meir Simcha of Dvinsk, 1843–1926), ad loc., s.v. "בין שניתן לו בטבלו מתנה".
3. See Talmud Bavli, Bechorot 11b; Mishneh Torah, Hilkhot Ma'aser 2:2.
4. Ohr Sameach, Hilkhot Ma'aser Sheni 5:1.
5. Tzofnath Paneach (R' Yosef Rosen of Rogatchov, 1858–1936), ad loc.
6. Rashi, Bava Metzia 54a, s.v. "חומש מלבר".
7. Tosafot, Bava Metzia 54a, s.v. "אמר קרא ויסף חמישיתו עליו".
8. Rambam, Commentary on the Mishnah, Ma'aser Sheni 4:3.
9. Kesef Mishneh (R' Yosef Karo, 1488–1575), Hilkhot Ma'aser Sheni 5:7-8.
10. Chiddushei Maran Riz Halevi (R' Yitzchok Ze'ev Soloveitchik, 1886–1959), Hilkhot Ma'aser Sheni.
11. Talmud Bavli, Beitzah 3b.
12. Shulchan Aruch, Yoreh Deah 102:1-3.
13. Shulchan Aruch, Yoreh Deah 331:135.