THE CHIYUV FOR TEVEL TO MA'ASEROS [Tevel:Ma'aser]
Chachamim say, Ma'aser is equated to Terumah to teach that just like failure to separate Terumah is Tovel (forbids eating the produce), also regarding Ma'aser Rishon:
Version #1 (Beraisa - R. Yosi) Question: One might have thought that one is liable for Tevel only if nothing was separated. What is the source to Mechayev if Terumah was separated but not Ma'aser Rishon, or Ma'aser Rishon was separated but not Ma'aser Sheni or (even) Ma'aser Oni?
Answer: It says "Lo Suchal Le'echol bi'Sh'arecha", and "V'Ochlu vi'Sh'arecha v'Sove'u". The latter verse refers to Ma'aser Oni. Likewise, the former forbids produce that still 'contains' (i.e. is Tevel to) Ma'aser Oni.
Had we learned only from these verses, one might have thought that eating such Tevel is only a Lav. Ma'aser is equated to Terumah to teach that one is Chayav Misah for it.
Version #2 - Question: We learn that Ma'aser Rishon is Tovel like R. Yosi does! (Why is the Hekesh to Terumah needed?)
Answer: R. Yosi teaches only that there is a Lav for such Tevel. The Hekesh teaches that there is Misah.
Sotah 48a (Beraisa): Yochanan Kohen Gadol sent to check in all of Yisrael, and found that everyone separated Terumah, but not everyone separated Ma'aseros. He told them that just like there is Misah (b'Yedei Shomayim) for Terumah Gedolah, there is Misah for Terumas Ma'aser and Tevel.
Makos 16b (Rav): If one ate Tevel to Ma'aser Oni (produce from which Ma'aser Oni was not taken) he is lashed.
This is like R. Yosi.
(Rav Yosef): Tana'im argue about this.
(Beraisa - R. Eliezer): (Demai is produce bought from an Am ha'Aretz (ignoramus). Most Amei ha'Aretz take Ma'aser. Mid'Oraisa, Demai is permitted, but mid'Rabanan one must be concerned for the minority and tithe it). When separating Ma'aseros on Demai, one need not designate Ma'aser Oni (since in any case he keeps it, since the poor cannot prove that Ma'aser Oni was not yet separated);
Chachamim say, one must designate it (but he himself may eat it).
Suggestion: Chachamim hold that Tevel to Ma'aser Oni is Tovel, therefore they obligate Kri'as Shem. R. Eliezer holds that it is not Tovel.
Objection (Abaye): If so, they should argue about eating (definite) Tevel to Ma'aser Oni!
(Abaye): Rather, all forbid Vadai Tevel to Ma'aser Oni. They argue about whether or not we are concerned lest an Am ha'Aretz did not separate Ma'aser Oni:
R. Eliezer is not concerned. Since Ma'aser Oni is permitted everywhere and to everyone, an Am ha'Aretz separates it and eats it himself (even though he is commanded to give it to the poor);
Chachamim are concerned lest he (did not know that a verbal declaration suffices and) did not want to toil to separate it.
Sanhedrin 86a (Beraisa): One who eats Tevel is Chayav Misah b'Yedei Shomayim.
(Shmuel): We learn from "V'Lo Yechalelu Es Kodshei Benei Yisrael Asher Yarimu". This refers to something from which one separate (Terumah), i.e. Tevel
We learn Misah from a Gezerah Shavah "Chilul-Chilul" from Terumah, for which a Zar is Chayav Misah.
Demai (4:3) (Mishnah - R. Eliezer): One need not be Korei Shem (declare) to Ma'aser Oni from Demai;
Chachamim require Kri'as Shem, but one need not physically separate it.
Eichah Rabah (1:3 DH Galsah): "Golsah Yehudah me'Oni" - for eating Ma'aser Oni;
(Rav): One who eat Tevel to Ma'aser Oni is Chayav Misah.
Rambam (Hilchos Ma'achalos Asuros 10:20): One is lashed for eating produce from which Terumah Gedolah and Terumas Ma'aser were separated but Ma'aseros were not yet separated, even Ma'aser Oni. However, there is Misah only for Tevel from which Terumah Gedolah or Terumas Ma'aser was not taken.
Support (Ra'avad): This is reasoning. I agree that one is liable only for these because these verses call them "Kodesh".
Question (Migdal Oz): This is not merely reasoning. It is explicit in Zevachim (11b), Sanhedrin (86a), Makos (16b) and the Sifri. '...From which Terumah was taken' refers to Terumah Gedolah and Terumas Ma'aser. One is Chayav Misah for both of these, for a Gezeirah Shavah "Chilul-Chilul" equates them. Both are called Kodesh and Terumah. "Kodshei (plural) Benei Yisrael" alludes to the two of them. The Gemara often answers 'we discuss produce Tevel to Terumah and Terumas Ma'aser'. This shows that they are equal.
Answer #1 (Radvaz): The simple reading of the Gemara connotes that one is not Chayav Misah if Ma'aser Rishon was not taken at all. (Rather, one is liable for Ma'aser Rishon Tevel to Terumas Ma'aser.) The Rambam teaches that if one separates Terumas Ma'aser, even if the rest of the Ma'aser was not separated (even though it is improper to do so), there is no Chiyuv Misah. This is why the Rambam says '...Ma'aseros were not yet separated.'
Answer #2 (Kesef Mishneh): The Gemara only said that one is liable for them; it did not explicitly say that one is Chayav Misah for them. Rav taught that one is lashed for Tevel to Ma'aser Oni; The Rambam needed to teach that there is no Misah for it.
Question (Kesef Mishneh): Why there is no Misah for Tevel to Ma'aser Sheni? It is called Kodesh!
Answer (Lechem Mishneh): The verse that forbids Ma'aser Sheni (outside Yerushalayim) does not call it Kodesh, therefore we do not say that the Torah was so stringent about it. This is why the Ra'avad said 'these verses call Terumah and Terumas Ma'aser "Kodesh".
Tosfos (Yevamos 86a DH Iy): Perhaps there is no Misah for Tevel to Ma'aser Oni. Or, perhaps just like we do not distinguish between Tevel (to Terumah or to Ma'aseros) regarding the Isur, we do not distinguish regarding Misah.
Gilyon ha'Shas (Yerushalmi Demai 18a): The text of the Yerushalmi should say that Rav is Mechayev Misah for Tevel to Ma'aser Oni (like the Medrash Eichah; also, this was the discussion there). The Rambam relies on the BAvid l'Igluyeii, which connotes that there is no Misah for it.
Question (Divrei Emes, brought in Amudei Yerushalayim, Demai 18a): Why didn't Tosfos bring a proof from this Yerushalmi that there is Misah?
Answer (Amudei Yerushalayim): R. Shimshon explains that all agree that there is Misah, but the Pnei Moshe explains that Chachamim require Kri'as Shem because there is no Misah, so Amei ha'Aretz are suspected. Tosfos was unsure which way to learn.
Bartenura (Demai 4:3): R. Eliezer does not suspect Amei ha'Aretz, for they know that there is Misah for Tevel to Ma'aser Oni. Even so, Chachamim require Kri'as Shem because there is no loss.
'Rashi' (Nedarim Sof 84a): Chachamim required separating Terumas Ma'aser from Demai because people do not know that there is Misah for this, since it is learned from a Hekesh.
Perush ha'Mishnayos (Reish Demai): One who eats Tevel from which a gift to the Kohen was not separated is Chayav Misah b'Yedei Shomayim.
Bartenura (Reish Demai): One need not separate Ma'aser Rishon and Ma'aser Oni from Demai. Even though Amei ha'Aretz were suspected of it, the Levi or Oni must prove that Ma'aser was not taken. One must separate Terumas Ma'aser from Demai, because there is Misah for Tevel to Matanos Kehunah. He must separate Ma'aser Sheni, lest he eat it b'Tum'ah or outside Yerushalayim.
Tosfos Yom Tov: Chachamim did not require separating Ma'aser Rishon or Oni because there is no Misah for them.
Tosfos Chodoshim (DH Demai): This is like the Rambam. Rashi holds that there is Misah for Tevel to Ma'aser Rishon, therefore one must separate it. He may keep it and eat it. Even though R. Meir forbids Ma'aser Rishon to Yisraelim, since this is only a Lav, he relies on the majority of Amei ha'Aretz who take Ma'aser. The Rambam says that there is no Misah for Tevel to Ma'aser Rishon. It is not clear how he explains the Gemara in Yevamos.
Meleches Shlomo (DH b'Firush): The Bartenura requires Kri'as Shem for Ma'aser Rishon and Oni, like Chachamim (Demai 4:3). He this teaches that one need not physically separate it.
Tosfos R. Akiva Eiger (3): There is Misah also for Tevel to Ma'aser Rishon or Oni! The Bartenura means that Kri'as Shem is not enough for Terumas Ma'aser. One must separate it, for a Zar who eats it is Chayav Misah.
Shulchan Aruch (YD 331:130): Once there is a Chiyuv to take Ma'aser, one may not eat the produce until taking also Ma'aser Sheni or Ma'aser Oni.
Beis Yosef (DH v'Chosav ha'SMaG): The SMaG says that there is Misah only for Tevel to Terumah Gedolah or Terumas Ma'aser. However, according to Rashi the Gemara (Yevamos 86a) expounds Misah also for Tevel to Ma'aser Rishon. Tosfos was unsure about Misah for Ma'aser Oni.