Mi Yodeya is a question and answer site for those who base their lives on Jewish law and tradition and anyone interested in learning more. It's 100% free, no registration required.

Sign up
Here's how it works:
  1. Anybody can ask a question
  2. Anybody can answer
  3. The best answers are voted up and rise to the top

Produce grown in the Land of Israel has to have Teruma, two of three different kinds of Ma'aser, and Terumat Ma'aser removed, as described in this OU Kosher article. Of these five separations, three - Teruma, Ma'aser Sheini, and Terumat Ma'aser - can only be eaten in a state of purity which is unavailable today, so it makes sense to do what we can to minimize or redeem them.

The other two - Ma'aser Rishon and Ma'aser 'Ani - are meant to be given to Levites and poor people, respectively. However, according to Footnote 7 of the article linked above, the original owner of the food may keep it, because these separations have no inherent sanctity, these gifts only constitute monetary obligations to the potential recipients, and there's enough of a doubt about the obligation that they couldn't successfully demand their due in court ("hamotzi meichaveiro - 'alav hara'aya").

It seems to me that what this doubt establishes is that it's possible to evade having to give these gifts to their intended recipients. However, why is this (as I understand it is) standard practice? Isn't it avoiding a chance to do Mitzvot and also undermining the clear intent of these Mitzvot - to provide for Levites and poor people?

I understand that if I buy a Jaffa orange in the US, it's impractical and undesirable for me to try to bestow one of the segments on a local Levite or poor person. But wouldn't it make sense for food producers or even home gardeners in Israel who want to live in accordance with the Torah as much as possible to follow through with these Mitzvot as originally commanded and practiced? (Or do some actually do this?)

share|improve this question
1  
I've given Maaser Rishon to a Levi a number of times. (Once, actually, to a Bat Levi. [EDIT: now more than once]) Though I wouldn't bother to do so if I was only separating misafek (ie only in instances where I said a bracha). – Double AA Jan 29 '13 at 17:52
    
@DoubleAA, so maybe I'm off-base. This isn't done by frum farms in Israel, though, is it? – Isaac Moses Jan 29 '13 at 17:52
    
I don't know; I've never owned one :) – Double AA Jan 29 '13 at 17:53
1  
@DoubleAA I don't know what you're problem is with my representation of #2 (ואילו ספק טבל ... חייבים להפריש בלי ברכה וגם אין מצות נתינה של מעשר עני). And yes, from #11 I did omit the statement that there are some people who are careful. If I understand the question correctly, he was asking why people are allowed to rely on המוציא מחבירו עליו הראיה in this case if you aren't allowed to rely on it, for example, in order to steal a piece of clothing from someone in a place where there are no witnesses. – b a Jan 29 '13 at 22:50
2  
@DoubleAA, Sources that recommend giving these gifts contemporarily would constitute a valid answer. – Isaac Moses Aug 1 '14 at 14:10
up vote 3 down vote accepted

R Avrohom Yeshaya Karelitz (Chazon Ish Shevi'it 5:12) writes that were we to give Maaser Rishon nowadays to Leviyim on the basis that they claim the Levi Aliya in Shul, more people would lie and pretend to be Leviyim because of the financial benefit.

However, most authorities seem to think that Maaser Rishon (taken from certain Tevel) should (at least ideally) be given to a Levi even today. See articles about it here, here and here and note that R Karelitz's nephew, R Chaim Kanievsky, writes (Derekh Emunah Terumot 6 Tziyun Hahalakha 78) that the R Karelitz himself was careful to give Maaser Rishon (taken from certain Tevel) to a Levi.

I know of no exemption today from giving Maaser Ani (taken from certain Tevel) to a poor person.

In the case of doubtful gifts where המוציא מחבירו applies: supporting the needy is always a good thing if you can, but we aren't going to force you to do so against your will.

share|improve this answer
    
For a lengthy discussion of how to minimize adverse affects of Maaser Ani on the already-not-rich farming population in Israel, see R Azriel Ariel's article in HaTorah VeHaAretz Volume 2. – Double AA Nov 24 '15 at 21:53
    
The standard formula for taking off trumot and maasrot as appears to simply designate areas of the produce as maaser. If someone wants to actually give it to a Levi or poor person is there any change to the formula? – Scimonster Jun 7 at 7:59
    
@Scimons The commonly seen text of the Chazon Ish designates the Maaser Rishon on the north side IIRC. So just give the 9% of the fruit that's on the north side. That text isn't holy at all, so if you prefer a different side that's fine. I usually separate out a chunk of fruit of at least 9% and declare the MR to be the 9% of the fruit which is on the north side of that chunk. Then I give the Levi the whole chunk. It's easier then remembering what direction exactly is north, and you're going to separate 9% anyway. I found this alternate text online now with a similar idea bit.ly/1RWizw5 – Double AA Jun 7 at 15:19

http://chinuchathome.info/index.php/Halachos-/-Laws/Eretz-Yisrael/Special-Mitzvos-of-Eretz-Yisrael.html

After separation of terumah gedolah, ma'aser rishon is separated from the remainder.

How much does one separate? Exactly one-tenth of the remainder. Ma'aser rishon is not sanctified produce, but rather the private property of the Levi. The Levi may thus sell or give it to a Yisroel, who may then eat it, even when unclean (provided that terumas ma'aswer has been separated). Even today you must take from the best part of the fruits for ma'aser rishon. When you are not sure whether fruits have been tithed, and especially today when there is no Levi of certain descent to claim them, you can {retain and} eat {no eating prohibition as soon above} the ma'aser rishon (after the terumas ma'aser has been separated). (emphasis added) {curly brackets added}

share|improve this answer
    
This doesn't address the case of Vadai Tevel. A very weak answer if one at all. – Double AA Aug 7 '14 at 14:41
    
I do not understand your complaint – user6781 Aug 7 '14 at 14:44
    
Your source discusses Safek Tevel where Hamotzi Meichavero Alav Haraya applies in a completely extrinsic fashion – Double AA Aug 7 '14 at 15:24
1  
The permission you quote here is mentioned in the question already, which wonders why not give the maaser anyway. I don't see how this answers the question. – msh210 Aug 7 '14 at 19:31
    
Dead link............ – Double AA Jun 7 at 15:23

Your Answer

 
discard

By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.