What are the implications of the words "ve'el ha'Levi'im Tedaber"?
Yevamos, 87b: It implies that Ma'aser Rishon must be given to a Levi and not to a Kohen. 1
What are the implications of the words "me'eis B'nei Yisrael"?
Bechoros, 11b: It implies that Tevel that one purchases from a Nochri who performed Miru'ach (flattening the pile of corn after winnowing) is not subject to T'rumas Ma'aser. 1
Yerushalmi Ma'aser Sheini, 3:2 #1: It implies that, in spite of the fact that one may not give Ma'aser Rishon to a Kohen, 2 Kohanim are not obligated to give their Ma'aser Rishon to a Levi.
Yerushalmi Ma'aser Sheini, 3:2 #2: It implies that the Levi'im cannot claim Ma'aser Rishon from a Nochri who has purchased a field in Eretz Yisrael.
What are the ramifications of the comparison of Ma'aser Rishon to inheritance ("me'Itam be'Nachalaschem")?
Rosh Hashanah, 12b: It teaches us that, like inheritance, Ma'aser Rishon has no break 1 - but applies during all six years of the Sh'mitah cycle.
As opposed to Ma'aser Sheini and Ma'aser Ani. See Torah Temimah, note 91.
Why here, does the Torah describe Ma'aser Rishon as an inheritance, and in Pasuk 28, as payment for serving in the Beis-Hamikdash?
Oznayim la'Torah: Because they are indeed the two reasons that Yisrael are obligated to give the Levi'im Ma'aser Rishon: 1. to compensate them for not reveiving a portion in Eretz Yisrael; 2. as payment for serving on their behalf in the Beis-Hamikdash. 1
See Oznayim la'Torah in Pasukf 21 DH 'le'Nachalah'.
What are the connotations of "Vahare'mosem Mimenu"?
Why does the Torah insert the (otherwise superfluous) word " Vahare'mosem mimenu T?rumas Hashem"?
Sifri: To teach us that one must separate Ma'asros from the same species - and not from one species on to another. 1
Yerushalmi T'rumos, 2:1: To teach us that, even though one is not permitted to separate from Tahor corn on to Tamei corn, Bedi'eved, if one did, the Terumah is valid. 2
What are the implicatons of "Ma'aser min ha'Ma'aser"?
Beiztah, 13b: It implies "Ma'aser min ha'Ma'aser", 've'Lo Terumah Gedolah ... min ha'Ma'aser' - to exempt the Levi who collected Ma'aser Rishon whilst the grain was still 'stalks' (before the Miru'ach) from Terumah Gedolah. 1
See Torah Temimah, note 96.
Why did Hashem not command the Yisre'elim to give nine parts to the Levi and one to the Kohen?
Oznayim la'Torah #1: Either to merit the Levi'im in the Mitzvah of Terumah 1 or to demonstrate to the Levi'im that they are not on the level of the Kohanim, the servants of Hashem.
How will we reconcile the current Pasuk - implying that a Levi takes [only] T'rumas Ma'aser, but not Terumah Gedolah, with Pasuk 28, where the Torah writes "mi'Kol Matnoseichem Tarimu", which implies that he is also Chayav to give the Kohen Terumah Gedolah?
B'rachos 47a: The current Pasuk is speaking where the Levi receives Ma'aser Rishon from sheaves, Pasuk 28, where he receives it from a pile of grain (following the Miru'ach) - which is already subject to Terumah Gedolah, in which case he must give Terumah Gedolah as well.
R. Shimshon extrapolated that if a Levi received Ma'aser Rishon from sheaves, it is Ma'aser, since we need "Ma'aser min ha'Ma'aser" to exempt it from Terumah Gedolah (B'rachos 47a). Perhaps it is exempt, and the Pasuk exempts one who received Ma'aser Rishon from a K'ri?
Da'as Zekenim (in Bechukosai Vayikra, 27:30): If Ma'aser Rishon from sheaves would be invalid, and the Pasuk was coming to exempt one who received from a K'ri, we could not fulfill "mi'Kol Matnoseichem Tarimu" - in Pasuk 28.
If one separated Ma'aser from sheaves, before it is called 'Dagan', the Ma'aser is valid (B'rachos 47a). Why is this different than where one separated Chalah before kneading, which is not Chalah?
Refer to 18:26:152:1.
Da'as Zekenim (in Vayikra 27:30): Because the Sifri Darshens "mi'Zera ha'Aretz" to include garlic and cress (even though they do not fall under the category of Dagan, and the same applies to Ma'aser from sheaves).
