Why does the Torah write "ve'el ha'Levi'im Tedaber"?
Yevamos, 87b: To teach us that Ma'aser Rishon must be given to a Levi and not to a Kohen. 1
What are the implicatons 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.
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, 1 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 haaaaaas 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 on Pasuk 21 DH 'le'Nachalah'.
What are the connotations of "va'Hare'mosem Mimenah"?
Sifri: It implies that Ma'asros are confined to corn that is detached - and one cannot separate from what is attached on what is detached, or vice-versa. 1
See Torah Temimh, note 93.
Why does the Torah insert the (otherwise superfluous) word "Mimenu"?
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'. 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 their level compared to 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 proper 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 Kri?
Da'as Zekenim (on 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, it is Ma'aser (B'rachos 47a). If one separated Chalah before kneading, it is not Chalah?