Rambam - 3 Chapters a Day

Note, however, the qualification in the following halachah.

I.e., individuals who had no connection to the field.

This addition is made on the basis of the gloss of the Kessef Mishneh. The Radbaz
offers an alternate explanation.

I.e., the owner forgot it before the workers did.

But if one was conscious of it at the outset, it is not shichichah even if it was forgotten afterwards. The rationale is that the owner retains possession of it, because it was located in his field with his knowledge. Hence, to release it from his possession, he would have to consciously absolve himself from ownership. Forgetting it is not sufficient.

Bava Metzia I la derives this from the exegesis of the verse cited above. The Kessef Mishneh explains that since the owner is not near his field, his field cannot acquire it on his behalf.

I.e., they blocked him from seeing it and in that way caused him to forget it.

If, however, he also forgets the straw, it is Shichecha.

Even though he did not remove it from the field, since he picked it up with the intent of taking it to the city, he acquires it.

There is a difference of opinion regarding this issue in Pe’ah 6:3. The School of Shaimnai maintain that as soon as the person picks it up, he acquires it and the fact that he forgets it afterwards does not cause it to become shichichah. The School of Hillel maintain that as long as he did not have the intent of removing it from the field, it is shichichah.

Our translation is taken from the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah (Pe’ah, foe. cit.),

I.e., plowing utensils (ibid.).

And thus that sheaf will never be shichichah as stated in the previous halachah.

This law is also dependent on the previous halachah. Since the bottom sheaf was covered by the top one, the owner could not see it and hence, forgot it. Therefore it is not shichichah.
The Ra’avad differs with the Rambam’s ruling. The Radbaz and the Kessef Mishneh justify the Rambam’s view.

I.e., this verse, which serves as the source for the command to leave shichichah, speaks only of “your field,” and not a field belonging to a colleague.

For that is a clear sign that he forgot the fourth. Until he picks it up, we might think that he was planning to divide his work in halt: first picking up the first three sheaves and then picking up the second three. See Kessef Mishneh.

Skipping the fourth sheaf is an obvious sign that he has forgotten it.

Our translation follows authoritative manuscripts and early printings of the Mishneh Torah and also conforms to the wording of the Tosefta, Pe’ah, ch. 3, which is the Rambam’s source. The standard published text has a slightly different version. The intent is that rather than have the sheaves placed neatly at the end of the field’s rows, they are placed irregularly throughout the field.

The gloss of the P ‘nei Moshe to the Jerusalem Talmud, Pe’ah 6:3, explains that the laws of shichichah do not apply because the irregular pattern in which the sheaves were left caused him to forget the sheaf. It did not slip his mind without cause.

The fact that it is the earth - i.e., an outside factor - that prevents them from being seen is not significant, as in Halachah I.

Although it can be said that these persons forgot the produce because they did not see it, the laws of shichichah are not suspended. The darkness or the person’s inability to see are not considered an external cause - like those mentioned in Halachah 3 - for since he decided to harvest in this circumstance, it is his responsibility to search harder for the produce.

Since he was not planning to collect all the sheaves, the fact that he left some unintentionally is not significant (Radbaz).

This is a general principle, applicable in all contexts of Torah Law with the exception of financial matters.

The verse mentions “forget[ting] a sheaf in the field.” Since this grain will not be collected as sheaves, the mitzvah of shichichah does not apply.

For these smaller bundles are also not considered as sheaves.

Because he has already passed it while harvesting and would have to go back to harvest it.

Because he has not begun harvesting in that area and would not have to go back to harvest it.

And he is forbidden to go back and take it. The rationale is that the harvesting of the field and the collection of the sheaves is incumbent on both of them together. Hence if one would collect what his colleague left, he would have to turn back and this would be forbidden (Kessef Mishneh).

The Ra’avad questions the Rambam’s wording, noting that he begins speaking about harvesting a field and concludes by speaking about gathering sheaves. The Radbaz notes this difficulty and also mentions that if this were the case, then the Rambam’s text would be redundant, because the second clause is merely a repetition of the first. Hence, hemaintains that the subject of the first clause should be “standing grain” and not sheaves. We, however, have not accepted his emendation, because all the authoritative manuscripts and early printings speak of sheaves. The Ra’avad also differs with the Rambam’s interpretation of Pe’ah 6:3, the source for this halachah, and offers an alternate understanding. The Radbaz and the Kessef Mishneh substantiate the Rambam’s position.

And only in that midpoint.

Since it is in line with the sheaves that run east to west, it does not appear as a separate entity.

As the Rambam explains in his Commentary to the Mishnah (Pe’ah 5:8), it was common for people to store grain in several types of intermediate storing areas until it was bound into larger sheaves and taken to the threshing floor.

This term is defined in the following halachah.

In his Commentary to the Mishnah (loc. cit. 5:8), the Rambam explains that just as with regard to harvesting, the obligation of shichichah applies only when one is completing the harvest, so too, with regard to moving sheaves, the obligation of shichichah applies when one is completing the task.

I.e., smaller collections of grain than sheaves.

I.e., we consider them as separate entities and they both may be taken.

For they are considered as too substantial a quantity to be forgotten. We assume that the owner had not completed gathering the sheaves from the field and was intending to return and collect them. The Radbaz explains that the halachah is speaking about three sheaves that are separate from each other. If, however, they are collected in one place, they arc considered as a single entity and the laws of shichichah do apply. There are, however, other opinions that do not follow this understanding.

The Kessef Mishneh states that we are speaking about an instance where the flax is being grown for its seeds which are to be eaten. If it is being grown to be used for making fabrics, the laws of shichichah do not apply.

The Radbaz explains that the Rambam is emphasizing that the laws of Shichecha apply even if the two trees have a substantial amount of fruit and thus could be likened to the sheaf containing two se'ah mentioned in Halachah 18.

Although this verse mentions peret and olelot and not shichichah, our Sages understand that these mitzvot are interrelated.

A kab is approximately 1382 cc according to Shiurei Torah and 2400 cc according to Chazon Ish.

Even though it is larger than the others, it is not large enough to be considered a significant entity like the. oversized sheaf mentioned in the following halachah.

For its size causes it to be considered a significant entity.

A se'ah is six kabbim.

I.e., because of its size, it is significant and it is not relevant to speak of it being forgotten.

For as above, they produce a quantity of grain too significant to be ignored.

Our translation follows the text of authoritative manuscripts and early printings of the Mishneh Torah. The standard printed text follows a slightly different version.

To be considered as two se’ah.

Since the standing grain is not forgotten and the owner can return and collect it, he can also return and collect any forgotten standing grain or sheaves that are in its surroundings.

In his Commentary to the Mishnah (Pe’ah 6:8), the Rambam explains that the two areas of standing grain must be close enough to each other that if one is bent over, it will reach the other.

And thus the laws of shichichah do not apply to it, as stated in Halachah 18. Even so, it cannot rescue the other sheaves.

In contrast to the sheaf mentioned in Halachah 18 and the standing grain
mentioned in Halachah 19. The Kessef Mishneh explains that the reason for the distinction is that a sheaf of two se’ah of grain or that amount of standing grain is considered significant, but one tree even if it contains a large quantity of fruit - is not significant in an entire orchard. In other words, the issue is relative: “When one has already begun focusing on a particular tree, two se’ah is considered a significant amount, but when one considers one tree as part of an entire orchard, its significance pales.
The Radbaz supports this differentiation, noting that Pe’ah 7:1 (quoted in Halachah 23) speaks of an olive tree with a specific name or distinction, but not one that is set apart by the fact that it produces a specific quantity of fruit. See also Halachah 24.

As in Halachot 14-16.

The Rambam’s words are based on Pe’ah 7:1. Although the mishnah speaks of olives. The same principles apply with regard to other trees as well.

Our translation is based on authoritative manuscripts and early printings of the Mishneh Torah. The standard printed text has a slightly different version. The Rambam follows the understanding of the mishnah cited above found in the Jerusalem Talmud. In · his Commentary to the Mishnah, however, he defines Netufah as being the name of a place.

It was given this name because it did not produce much oil.

For he will remember it afterwards.

For it then has a specific location, like the tree next to the vat or next to the opening mentioned in the previous halachah.

For there is nothing that distinguishes these olive trees from the others in that grove.

When viewed in relation to the orchard as a whole, the tree is distinct and leaving it unharvested does not mean it is no longer in mind. Once, however, one has begun harvesting the produce of that tree, the laws of shichichah apply to it.

Based on his interpretation of Pe’ah 7:2, the Ra’avad maintains that this principle should apply to all trees, even those that are not distinguished by a particular quality. When one ceased harvesting their produce in the middle, if two se’ah of produce remain, it is significant and the laws of shichichah do not apply. The Radbaz and the Kessef Mishneh, however, provide explanations that indicate that this concept applies only with regard to a. distinguished tree.

As stated in Halachot 18 and 19.

In Halachah 22.

Thus it is considered as something forgotten due to an external cause.

The Roman Caesar Adrian had many of the olive trees in Eretz Yisrael destroyed and hence, all those that remained were important. For this reason, in many instances, the laws of Shichecha were suspended. See the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah (Pe’ah 7:1).

Or from the ladder on which he ascends.

According to this explanation, all of the above clauses have to be reinterpreted to mean that he was harvesting fruit on the surrounding vines or trees. The Kessef Mishneh mentions a view that maintains that there is a printing error and the text should read: “When does the above apply? When he began [harvesting its fruit]. If, however, he did not begin harvesting its fruit....” According to that version, the Rambam’s words can be understood with more ease.

I.e., these obligations apply only with regard to a field that one owns and not one that he acquires after the crops have already grown. Nevertheless, an exception is made in this instance, for as the Rambam explains, there is no reason to free the owner of responsibility. The commentaries note that the Rambam cites a different prooftext than Rashi (Niddah 5 la) and other traditional sources.

See Hilchot Terumot 2:9, 11-12.

I.e., in addition to leket, peret, ollelot, shichichah, and peah (Radbaz).

See Hilchot Terumot 5:4-5.

One fiftieth is the average amount separated. As explained in Hilchot Terumot, ch. 3, there is no prescribed amount of terumah required according to Scriptural Law. And even according to Rabbinic Law, there are varying amounts.

It is called the great terumah in comparison to terumat ma’aser which is only one hundredth of the crop.

I.e., the tithe is one tenth of the remainder after terumah has been separated and not one tenth of the original sum.

Although Ezra penalized the Levites for not making aliyah and ordained that the tithes should be given to the priests and not to them, that ordinance applied only in that generation and not for all time (Hilchot Ma’aser 1 :4).

In a state ofritual purity.

I.e., the order is significant. It is undesirable to separate them in a different order.

More than two tithes are never separated. Thus in the years that the second tithe is separated, the tithe for the poor is not separated. And in the years that the tithe for the poor is separated, the second tithe is not separated.

Although the verse mentions Levites, the intent is that he should collect the initial tithe (Rashi on the verse; Siftei Cohen, Yoreh De ‘ah 331 :39). The tithe given afterwards, by contrast, is not necessarily given to the Levites, but to the poor, as the verse continues.

As stated at the conclusion of the previous chapter, none of the agricultural obligations apply with regard to ownerless produce. All of the produce of the Sabbatical year is ownerless by Divine decree (Bava Metzia 39a).

Here the meaning of the term Diaspora is limited applying only to those lands mentioned by the Rambam here. Crops from all other parts of the Diaspora are not obligated in any of the agricultural laws that apply to the produce of Eretz Yisrael.

See Hi/chat Shemitah 4:25-27.

Pe’at HaShulchan 23:27 explains that the Rambam is speaking about the portions of Ammon and Moav that were not conquered by the Jewish people upon their entry into Eretz Yisrael and thus never became part of the Holy Land. There were, by contrast, certain portions of Ammon and Moab that were conquered by Sichon. After he was vanquished by the Jewish people, that land became part of Eretz Yisrael. They are bound by the same laws that apply in Eretz Yisrael. Although this interpretation is accepted by most authorities, it appears to contradict the Rambam’s own statements in his Commentary to the Mishnah (Yedayim 4:3).

The Rambam’s source (Yedayim, loc. cit.) mentions the separation of the tithe for the poor, but not the separation of the first tithe. Since the tithe for the poor is never separated unless the first tithe is separated, the Rambam concluded that ·it should also be separated at this time (Radbaz).

See Hilchot Terumot 1:1.

Our Sages also ordained that terumah and the tithes be separated there for the reasons stated by the Rambam (ibid.). Since it is distant from Eretz Yisrael, the poor of Eretz Yisrael would not gain any significant advantage by having the tithe for the poor separated in that year.

It is governed by all the ritual restrictions applying to the great terumah.

In contrast to the tithe for the poor distributed from one’s home, as mentioned in Halachot 10, 12.

See the following halachah for a definition of this term.

Sefer HaMitzvot (positive commandment 130) and Sefer HaChinuch (mitzvah 474) include this commandment as one of the 613 mitzvot of the Torah.

A kab is approximately 1382 cc according to Shiurei Torah and 2400 cc according to Chazon Ish. This quantity will enable him to produce a quantity of food appropriate for a meal.

Significantly, Pe’ah 8:5, the Rambam’s source mentions a kab and a half. The commentaries question why the Rambam does not state that figure.

Since the figs are collected in a mass, a measure of weight is given, rather than of volume (Radbaz).

A total of 91 grams in contemporary measure.

A log is approximately 345 cc according to Shiurei Torah and 600 cc according to Chazon Ish.

In this and the following instances, the Rambam mentions a measure appropriate to sell and purchase with the proceeds, food for two meals.

In his Commentary to the Mishnah (Pe’ah 8:6), the Rambam explains that the poor should divided it equally among themselves.

For the verse requiring that it be separated (Deuteronomy 14:28) states: “And you shall set it down in your gates” and does not mention “giving” it (Nedarim 84b).

For a second verse concerning the tithe to the poor (Deuteronomy 26:12) speaks of “giv[ing] it to the Levites, the strangers, to the orphan,... “(Chu/in 131 a, b).

He must, however, give an olive-sized portion, because Deuteronomy, lac. cit., speaks of”giv[ing]” and the term “giving” implies giving a significant amount. K’ritot 6b states that anything less than an olive-sized portion is not significant.

The Radbaz states that certainly this law applies if the man and the woman approach the person apportioning his tithes in his fields. The Rambam LeAm, however, cites authorities who rule otherwise.

For it is more embarrassing for a woman to beg than for a man (Yevamot 100a).

A poor person who owns a field may not take the tithe of the poor from his field for himself (Gittin 12a). Nevertheless, despite the fact that these individuals are very close to him, he is permitted to give them his tithes.

This is an extension of the principle stated in the previous halachah.

In return for a certain share of the produce as the Rambam proceeds to explain.

In his Commentary to the Mishnah (Pe’ah 5:5), the Rambam explains the difference between the two instances. In the first instance, the harvester has a right to the entire field even before he begins the harvest. Hence he is not considered as poor. In the second instance, since he does not own anything until the harvest is completed, he is considered as poor.

The rationale is not necessarily that he is no longer poor, but that since he has a share in the harvest, he cannot take a portion for himself as stated in Halachah 10 (Radbaz).

If, however, one owns the land and the other, the produce, they are both forbidden to acquire the presents for the poor.

I.e., once he has acquired it through a kinyan, a formal process of acquisition, it is his regardless of whether he paid for it or not.

I.e., a poor person who receives it may not use it to pay a debt he owes, for it was given to him for his own personal expenses alone.

I.e., one person may not give another the tithe of the poor as a loan, because the recipient gave him a loan on a previous occasion.

To be given to a mourner in exchange for food that he once gave (Radbaz).

So that he will know to use it only for his personal use, not to do a favor in return for it, and not to take it to the Diaspora.

Since we are obligated to redeem captives, using the tithe for the poor for this purpose is equivalent to using it to pay a debt (Siflei Cohen 331:166).

Wedding gifts; see Hilchot Zechiyah UMatanah, chap. 7.

I.e., that is not considered as an affront to his dignity.

I.e., in a city that belongs to you, for it is part of your land.

Sefer HaMitzvot (positive commandment 195) and Sefer HaChinuch (mitzvah 479) include this commandment as one of the 613 mitzvot of the Torah.

Note, however, Halachah 7.

I.e., his needs as defined by his social standing.

I.e., he is not obligated to borrow to give charity to a colleague. Alternatively, he is not obligated to give more than one fifth of his own resources, as stated in Halachah 5 (Rav Yosef Corcus).

The Tzaphnat Paneach states that the negative commandment is violated only when the poor person asks. If he does not, there is no prohibition.

Sefer HaMitzvot (negative commandment 232) and Sefer HaChinuch (mitzvah 478) includes this commandment as one of the 613 mitzvot of the Torah.

To announce his coming.

Ketubot 67b relates that a person from a dignified family became impoverished and the great Sage Hillel would hire a servant to run before him and announce his coming. Once Hillel could not find such a servant and performed this service himself.

Because of his previous lifestyle, this person feels a severe lack if he does not have these conveniences.

Thus there are times when providing a certain person with what he feels are his needs will require a greater expense than providing another with what he views as luxuries.
The Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De’ah 250:1) quotes the Rambam’s ruling. The Rama states that this ruling applies to a collector of charity or to the community at large, but not to an individual person. An individual is not required to personally attempt to meet all of a colleague’s needs. Instead, it is sufficient for him to inform the community of the problem. If, however, there are no communal resources, he is individually obligated to help the person if he has the capacity. See also Halachot 5 and 7 and notes.

I.e., first we provide him with those matters that are essential· for him to maintain a household. Only afterwards do we assist him in marrying. See also Hile hot De’ ot 5:11 which states that a person should build a home and find a profession before marrying.

This also reflects an upper limit. As Ketubot 50a states: “Even a person who distributes money to charity with largess should not distribute more than a fifth.” This concept is derived from Jacob’s vow to tithe (Genesis 28:22). There the verb which conveys the promise to tithe is repeated, allowing for the concept of giving two tithes. See also Hilchot Arachin 8:13 which cites Leviticus 27:28 which speaks of a person designating a dedication offering “from all that is his.” The Rambam continues:
[Implied is that he should not give] “all that is his,” as our Sages explained. This is not piety, but foolishness, for he will lose all his money and become dependent on others. We should not show mercy to such a person. In a similar vein, our Sages said: “A man of foolish piety is among those who destroy the world.” Instead, a person who distributes his money for mitzvot should not distribute more than a fifth, and he should conduct himself as our Prophets advised [cf. Psalms 112:5]: “He arranges his affairs with judgment,” both with regard to matters involving Torah and worldly concerns.
Yayin Malchut notes that in his Commentary to the Mishnah (Pe’ah 1:1), the Rambam writes that as an act of piety, a person may give more than a fifth. Nevertheless, there is not necessarily a contradiction between the two. In his Commentary to the Mishnah, the Rambam is speaking about giving to a needy person who asks for alms. In response to that acute need, one may give more than a fifth. Here the Rambam is speaking about giving to charity when there is no acute need. Hence a limit can be established. See also Ketubot 67b which states that these restrictions apply during a person’s lifetime. He may leave a greater percentage of his resources to charity in his will.
In Iggeret HaTeshuvah, Rav Shneur Zalman of Liadi states that one may give more than a fifth of his resources to charity to atone for his sins, for just as one is not concerned with the amount one gives when it comes to healing a physical wound or blemish, so too, one should not be worried about cost when healing a spiritual blemish.

The Sifri derives this from the fact that Deuteronomy 14:22, the verse that conveys the Biblical command to tithe repeats the verb, implying an obligation to tithe not only one’s produce - but all income.

This is slightly less than seven grams of silver.

For hunger involves a risk to life. Clothing, by contrast, does not (Bava Batra 9a).

According to his social standing.

For we are familiar with his character and do not think that he will prove to be a deceiver.

One might interpret the Rambam’s words as implying that only when a gentile comes together with a Jew should he be given charity, lest he feel that he is being subjected to discrimination. The Siftei Cohen 251 :2, however, does not accept this interpretation and maintains that even if a gentile comes alone, he may be given charity.

This clause refers to a Jew.

For he is appealing to people at large for help. Hence, no one individual feels the onus to deal with his problem entirely.

Half a me’ah. A pundiyon is equivalent to eight barleycorns of pure silver, approximately 4 grams in contemporary measure.

In his Commentary to the Mishnah (Pe’ah 8:7), the Rambam explains that this is a loaf of bread made from a quarter of a kab of flour. The commentaries explain that a loaf this size provides food for two meals. Thus the intent is that we provide him with the minimum necessary for his immediate needs.

In Hilchot Eruvin l: 12-13, Hilchot Shekalim 1 :23, Hilchot Arachin 4:3-4.

Which must be eaten in honor of the Sabbath (Hilchot Shabbat 30:19).

The· Radbaz adds that we should also provide him with a meal for Saturday night. We assume that he will have with him provisions for at least one meal which he will use Sunday morning.

For in this way, he will not be embarrassed to take.

I.e., we do not support him with charity.

A punishment instituted by the Sages in many instances including the failure to observe a positive Scriptural commandment.

But not in his absence (Ketubot 48a; Sifiei Cohen 248:4). See also the ruling in Hi/chot /shut 12:15.

I.e., we do not excuse a person from giving based on the rationale that he is preoccupied with his Sabbath preparations.

Taanit 24a relates that Rabbi Elazar of Birta would give all of his money to charity. The charity collectors would flee from him so that he would not see them

I.e., orphans who are under majority.

Which is of the highest level of charity, as indicated by Chapter 8, Halachah 10

The Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De ‘ah 248:3) quotes the Rambam’s ruling. The Rama states that if the donation to charity is for a specific and limited purpose or that withholding the donation will bring shame upon the orphan’s family, donations may be taken from them.

I.e., that they receive renown as persons of wealth. This is permitted if the court thinks that acquiring such a reputation will be to their benefit.
The Bayit Chadash (Yoreh De ‘ah 248) states that if the orphans already have a reputation as wealthy individuals, it is forbidden to assess such a levy upon their estate.

When quoting this law, the Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De ‘ah 248:4) emphasizes that if a woman’s husband objects, it is forbidden to accept any donations from her.

Thus what would be considered a small donation for some would be considered as a large donation for others.

“Your brother” is mentioned first implying that a person’s first responsibility is to his family.

I.e., the prooftext mentions “your land,” to imply that one’s first obligations is to give the poor that are in his immediate proximity.
Although the poor of Eretz Yisrael are given priority over the poor of other cities, they are not given priority of the poor of one’s own city (Siftei Cohen 25 l :6).

It was customary in Talmudic times, for a community to request that a percentage of the profits from business dealings be given to charity.

Since he is only one person, he cannot argue that his failure to give charity will have a significant effect on the fortunes of the poor of his own city.

The Radbaz states that we are speaking about an instance where the majority of the people in a city journey to do business in another city. Hence when they return home, it is proper that they take the money that they gave to charity with them so that they will be able to support the poor in their own city. For, otherwise, there will be no one to support them. Alternatively, he states that it applies even if only three people from one city go to another city. Since they are a significant group, they are considered as an independent entity.

And give it to the charity collector in that city to show that they respect the ordinances of that city (Rashi, Megilah 27a).

I.e., a Torah scholar charged with the administration of the needs of the city (ibid. 27db).

The Shulchan Aruch (Choshen Mishpat 253:23) quotes this law with regard to a person’s division of his estate on his deathbed. This interpretation explains why we do not simply ask him to clarify his intent.

For it is most likely that this was his intent.

Our translation follows the gloss of the Radbaz. With regard to a Torah scroll that cannot be divided, it should be read in one synagogue half of the time and half of the time in the other.

For we assume that he desired to give the gift to those whom he is obligated to support.