Q&A: Fruit Picked from a Field in a Kibbutz at This Time of Year
Fruit Picked from a Field in a Kibbutz at This Time of Year
Question
Hello Rabbi,
Secular relatives brought me fruit that was picked, with permission, from a field belonging to a kibbutz at this time of year. As far as I know, fruit picked during this period belongs to the Sabbatical year and is therefore exempt from tithes and terumot. In addition, even if the Sabbatical year was not observed in the kibbutz field, I am not aware that the fruit becomes forbidden. Is it permitted to eat this fruit? Does it need to be tithed?
Best regards,
Answer
Sabbatical-year fruit is exempt from tithes. The common practice is that there is no prohibition of produce from land that was worked on such fruit, so there is room to be lenient.
Discussion on Answer
As far as I remember, the dispute between the Beit Yosef and the Mabit is about whether a non-Jew’s ownership can nullify the Sabbatical-year status, not about whether one must declare the produce ownerless. That is the view of the Yere’im. Therefore, for fruit owned by a non-Jew, the obligation of tithing indeed would seemingly depend on that dispute, but there too it requires discussion, because the obligation of tithes also does not apply to a non-Jew’s produce—only if a Jew performed the final processing.
On looking again, I saw that they really did disagree about this as well: https://bhl.org.il/%D7%AA%D7%A8%D7%95%D7%9E%D7%95%D7%AA-%D7%95%D7%9E%D7%A2%D7%A9%D7%A8%D7%95%D7%AA-%D7%91%D7%A4%D7%99%D7%A8%D7%95%D7%AA-%D7%A9%D7%91%D7%99%D7%A2%D7%99%D7%AA/
And the Chazon Ish ruled that it is exempt from tithes.
Seemingly, the question of tithing in our case depends on whether the exemption from tithes is because of the sanctity of the Sabbatical year or because the fruit is ownerless.
As far as I know, the discussion whether it is exempt from tithes or not depends on the dispute between the Beit Yosef and the Mabit over whether the Sabbatical year is a royal annulment of ownership. According to the Beit Yosef, who holds that it is not a royal annulment of ownership and one must actively declare the produce ownerless, then if he did not declare it ownerless, it must be tithed.