Rambam - 3 Chapters a Day

The priests were divided into 24 watches. Each one would serve in the Temple for a week at a time.

See Hilchot Ma ‘aseh Korbanot IO: 15.

Hilchot Terumah 15:20, Chapter 2, above, et al.

I.e., within Jerusalem or outside the city.

It is forbidden to partake of the first fruits in all situations. One does not, however, become liable for this severe penalty unless they first entered the holy city. The rationale is that since a priest may not partake of them until they are brought to Jerusalem, the prohibition against a non-priest partaking of them does not apply until then.

The Aruch LeNer states that there is a difference of opinion among the Rabbis if this law applies when the produce is carried in a single container or only when it is carried in two containers.

I.e., in cities outside of Jerusalem.

Sefer HaMitzvot (negative commandment 149) and Sefer HaChinuch (mitzvah 449) include this commandment among the 613 mitzvot of the Torah.

Sefer HaMitzvot (negative commandment 149) and Sefer HaChinuch (mitzvah 449) include this commandment among the 613 mitzvot of the Torah.

Nevertheless, as indicated by the following halachah, the person bringing the first fruits need not make the declaration for them to be permitted.

I.e., this is included in the same negative commandment.

I.e., Jerusalem, the place where they may be eaten.

See the following halachah.

See Hilchot Ma’aser Sheni 3:1.

Although a priest is not allowed to partake of impure terumah, such a transgression is not punishable by lashes. It· is only a prohibition that results from a positive
commandment (Hilchot Terumah 7:3).

Aninut refers to the state of severe mourning experienced on the day of the death of one's relative. See Hilchot Ma'aser Sheni 3:6.

From this phrase, it is derived (Halachah 13) that it is necessary to bring peace offerings together with the first fruits. However, the two teachings are not exclusive.

Since the prohibition is not stated as a negative commandment in the Torah, one is not liable for lashes as prescribed by Scriptural Law. The Radbazand others question this ruling, because, as Yevamot 73b teaches, an association is established between the first fruits and the second tithe. Hence just as one is liable for lashes for partaking of the second tithe in a state of acute mourning, so too, one should be liable for partaking of the first fruits.

This order is prescribed by the 2:8. The commentaries explain that the rationale for this order is that the produce that is most perishable is placed on top and that which is preserved best on bottom.

Bikkurim 3:8 relates that the rich would bring their first fruits in gold and silver containers, while the poor would bring them in wicker baskets. The rich would thus be allowed to keep their containers, while the poor would have to give them to the priests. The rationale is that the metal containers are significant and thus cannot be considered to be ancillary to the fruits. Hence they must be returned to their owners. The wicker baskets, by contrast, are not significant and thus are considered to be ancillary to the fruits. Therefore they may be kept by the priests. In this regard, Bava Kama 91 b states, “Poverty pursues the poor,” i.e., because they were too poor to afford expensive containers, they were required to forfeit even their simple baskets.

Since the first fruits themselves are not given to the priests (see Chapter 4, Halachah 10), they do not acquire the containers either.

They were not placed on the baskets themselves, lest they soil the fruit [the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah (Bikkurim 3:5)].

For fowl that were given as a free-will offering were sacrificed only as burnt offerings.

The Ra’avad offers a different interpretation of the above mishnah, · explaining that only the first fruits were given to the. priests, the fowl would be offered as burnt offerings. The Radbaz and the Kessef Mishneh support the Rambam’s interpretation. Ne. vertheless, Rashi (Menachot 58a) and Rav Ovadiah of Bartenura follow the Ra’avad’s understanding.

Sefer HaMitzvot (positive comm;mdment 132) and Sefer HaChinuch (mitzvah 606) include this commandment among the 613 mitzvot of the Torah.

Sotah 32a understands this phrase as indicating that the passage should be recited exactly as it is written in the Torah.

I.e., the fact that they did not know the Holy Tongue would be an embarrassment for them. In his Commentary to the Mishnah (Bikkurim 3:7), the Rambam explains that this practice was instituted in the early portion of the Second Temple era when many of those who returned to Zion did not know the Holy Tongue, as indicated by Nechemiah 13:24.

In his Commentary to the Mishnah (loc. cit.), the Rambam explains that there is a support for this in the Biblical verse cited above: “And you shall respond and say.” Anita, translated as “respond,” has the connotation of repeating what someone else says.

As stated in Chapter 2, Halachah 21, a person should not send his first fruits to Jerusalem via an agent and if he does so, he may not make the declaration (Chapter 4, Halachah 8). Nevertheless, if he himself is bringing them, he may lighten his burden by having another person carry them. All of this applies before he reaches the Temple Mount At that point, he must carry them himself.

The Mishnah (Bikkurim 3 :4) cites as an example, the conduct of King Aggripas.

In his Commentary to the Mishnah (loc. cit.), the Rambam states that the Torah explicitly requires the person to bring the first fruits to the priest by hand.

This practice, referred to as tenufah, is required when bringing the peace offerings and other sacrifices.

The side which is before the entrance to the Sanctuary, for the first fruits must be placed down “before God” (Radbaz).

As required by Deuteronomy 26: IO.

After the fact, the first fruits are acceptable even if the sacrifices were not brought. The rationale is that the offering is not explicitly mentioned in the Biblical passage (Radbaz to Halachah 14). This concept also applies with regard to the song that should accompany them.

See Chapter 4, Halachah 17.

This psalm relates to the theme of thanksgiving, and was also recited over the thanksgiving offering (Sh ‘vuot 15b).

The Radbaz and the Kessef Mishneh clarify that even if the person does not bring a sacrifice, he is still required to stay in Jerusalem overnight because of the first fruits.

Which speaks about the pilgrimage festivals, not bringing first fruits.

The commentaries question why, since, this is a general theme, the Rambam mentions it only here and not in other places.

As explained in the concluding halachot of the previous chapter.

A person whose genital area is covered with a mass of flesh and whose gender is impossible to detect.

A person with male and female sexual characteristics.

With regard to an androgynus, the doubt concerns the individual’s halachic status. With regard to the tumtum, the doubt concerns the actual facts: Which gender is covered by the mass of flesh?

In his Commentary to the Mishnah (Bikkurim 1:5), the Rambam explains that Eretz Yisrael was given as an ancestral heritage only to males who are free men. Thus this disqualifies all of those mentioned in this clause and also the servant mentioned in the following clause.

For the first fruits they are bringing are not from their own land. They are acting on behalf ofothers.

For he taught all mankind faith [the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah (loc. cit.:4)].

I.e., all future converts are considered as Abraham’s seed and thus have a share in the land “that God swore to [give] to your ancestors.” Indeed, based on Ezekiel 47:22, Kapot Temarim states that in the Messianic era, convertswill be given a share of the Holy Land.

As related in Numbers, ch. 35, in addition to the six cities of refuge, the Levites were given 42 cities that were scattered throughout the entire land of Eretz Yisrael. Although the land was given them from the tribal inheritances of the other tribes, it is still appropriate for them to speak of the land which God gave them, because the gifts were given as a result of God's command (Radbaz). See also Hilchot Ma'aser Sheni 11:17.

He does not purchase the land. Nevertheless, since he purchased two trees, our Sages question whether he is given the right to the land around the trees. If, however, he purchases three trees, all agree that he has the right to the land.

Bava Batra 82a questions: Reciting the declaration is no more than reciting verses from the Torah. Even if he is not obligated to do so, what would be wrong with reciting these verses? In resolution, it explains that a) it appears that he. is lying (because he is praising God for giving him land which in fact may not be his); orb) by bringing them as first fruits, he will prevent the terumah and the tithes from being separated from them.

Le., before bringing them to the Temple Courtyard.

The consecration has a questionable status, because a person may not consecrate property that does not belong to him (Hilchot Arachin VaCharamim 6:16). And if the produce is first fruits, it does not belong to him.

For if the land docs not belong to him, they are not considered as first fruits.

This is a general principle. See Jlilchot Shechitah 2:3.

According to Scriptural Law, tithes must be given to the Levites. Nevertheless, when the Levites failed to return to Zion with Ezra in large numbers, he punished them and decreed that they should not be given the tithes. Afterwards, according to many views, it was possible to give the tithes either to the priests or the Levites. Nevertheless, in this instance, the tithes must be given to the priests for the reason stated by the Rambam.

For when an agent brings first fruits, a declaration should not be made, as stated in aHalachah 2.

Bava Batra, loc. cit., explains that when there would be no difficulty in making the declaration, the fact that it is not made does not disqualify the first fruits from being eaten. When, however, it is required to be made, but cannot be made foraparticular reason, the failure to make it disqualifies the offering.

Praising God for giving him the land.

And first fruits should be brought only once for each species. In his Commentary to the Mishnah (Bikkurim 1 :7, based on the Jerusalem Talmud), the Rambam states that this is derived from Deuteronomy 26:3 which states: “I am making a statement to God your Lord today,” implying that the statement can be made only once (see also Halachah 11).

For the concept derived above applies primarily to making the declaration and not at:tually bringing the first fruits.

Since they are being brought by two individuals, the fact that one species has been brought already does not disqualify the first fruits brought by the other person. If, however, they were being brought by the same person, he would not make the declaration again, as stated in Halachah 11.

And thus he cannot rightfully praise God for giving him the land.

This refers even to property which the husband receives as nichsei milog (see Hilchot!shut 16:1-2), i.e., the property itself belongs to the woman, but he is entitled to derive benefit from it.

“Your household” can be interpreted as referring to one’s wife. Thus even though the land belongs to his wife, he should make the declaration.

The husband inherits his wife’s property. Thus now he owns both the land and the produce.

And ancestral property is returned to its original owner. See Hilchot Shemitah VeYovel, ch. 11.

For he is the owner of the land and the produce. Although he is required to return the land in the Jubilee year, that is a result of the Torah’s decree and does not diminish the purchaser’s ownership of the land.

Since the owner does not have the experience of having his land returned to him, he does not consider it a surety that it will be returned to him. In his mind, it is sold (Radbaz).

And he knows that the land will be returned. Accordingly, it is as if he purchased only the produce and not the land.

As stated in Halachah 6.

This reflects the Rambam’s version of the Jerusalem Talmud (Bikkurim I :5). The version in the standard published text is slightly different (Radbaz, Kessef Mishneh).

While the owner of the produce is alive, the person fit to inherit the estate is
considered as an agent, and hence may not make the declaration. Eventhough he was not explicitly appointed, we assume that this is the owner’s desire. According to the Rambam’s conception, if the owner is ill, but is not in mortal danger, another person cannot serve as his agent unless he is appointed as such.

In any manner, as indicated by Chapter 2, Halachah 20.

For he is required to replace them (ibid.).

Our translation is based on the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah (Bikkurim I :8). The Ra’avad maintains that the produce should be left in the Temple Courtyard until it rots. From Chapter 2, Halachah 19, some have inferred that according to the Rambam, the impure produce should be burnt. Kin ‘at Eliyahu maintains that this approach is far more appropriate than leaving it to rot in the Temple Courtyard.

For the declaration is made as a statement of thanks giving after the first fruits are successfully offered and that is not possible in the present situation.

The bracketed additions are based on the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah (Bikkurim I :6).

In its present state, the land is not able to produce fruit. Hence, it is as if he no longer possesses it (ibid.; according to Rav Kappach’s text).

This is the harvest season when a person feels happy with the bounty God has granted him.

I.e., those mentioned from Halachah 5 and onward.

I.e., both “the great terumah” and terumat ma’aser.

I.e., when a non-priest partakes of any of the above mentioned substances, he is obligated to pay the principal and a fifth as restitution.

See Chapter 9.

Even a non-priest.

The Radbaz questions why a Torah scroll is mentioned. If he is allowed to purchase a non-kosher animal with these objects, seemingly, it is obvious that he should be able to use them to purchase a Torah scroll. He explains that one might think that it is preferable that a person write a Torah scroll himself than purchase one. The Ma ‘aseh Rokeach explains that in contrast to other types of property, a Torah scroll may never be sold. Hence, if he uses the money from these objects to purchases it, he will never be able to derive physical benefit from these substances.

Hilchot Ma’achalot Asuurot 15:3; Hilchot Terumot 15:20-21.

If, however, they become mixed with a substance of another species, the presence of the first fruits can be nullified. See Hilchot Ma’achalot Assurot 15:12.

See Hilchot Ma’aser Sheni 6:14-15.

This refers even to first fruits belonging to an Israelite. Hence, they are considered only “like an entity that could be permitted,” but are not actually in that category (Radbaz).

For the entire mixture could be eaten by priests in a state of ritual purity (See Hilchot Ma’achalot Assurot 15:10).

And thus the forbidden fruit itself no longer exists.

This is a penalty imposed upon him because the mixture could have been - and the produce that grows could..,.. be given to the priests. See the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah (Bikkurim 2:2).

6. Since the first fruits may not be eaten outside Jerusalem, the mixture is not judged with the severity that applies to a mixture containing a forbidden entity that could become permitted. Instead, it is considered as an ordinary mixture and the presence of the first fruits can be nullified.

See Hilchot K’lei HaMikdash 6:1 for more particulars concerning the Hebrew term.

Thus coming as a group is a greater act of Divine glorification.

I.e., the first fruits must be brought in a state of ritual purity, and if a person bringing them enters a home, he may unknowingly contract ritual impurity, because he was under the same shelter as a corpse.

Cf. Jeremiah 31:5.

For of the seven species, olive branches are the most attractive [the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah (Bikkurim 3:3)].

This would impress them and the inhabitants of the towns through which they passed with the importance of their pilgrimage. Also, it allowed for people of many regions to congregate and ascend to Jerusalem together.

See Chapter 3, Halachot 7 and 9.

Because fresh produce is more attractive.

The Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah (loc. cit.).

Kiddushin 33a notes that this is a great mark of respect for those who bring the first fruits. After all, artisans are not required to stand before Torah scholars and yet they would stand before the people who brought the first fruits.

See Chapter 3, Halachah 12.

See Chapter 3, Halachah 13.

This phrase translates the Hebrew terumah, for that term is also applied to challah in certain contexts. For that reason several of the laws that apply to terumah also apply to challah.

Sefer HaMitzvot (positive commandment 133) and Sefer HaChinuch (mitzvah 385) include this commandment among the 613 mitzvot of the Torah. The Rambam considers separating the dough and giving it to the priests as two parts of the same mitzvah. The Ramban, by contrast, considers them as separate mitzvot.

The heading of this set of halachot is “The Laws of the First Fruits and the Other Presents [Given] to Priests in the Outlying Areas.” In the first four chapters, the Rambam discussed the first fruits. Now he proceeds to explain the other presents. He begins with because it also involves grain and is also called terumah. See Radbaz.

By calling it “the first,” the Torah is implying that there is a second, i.e., that something is left over [the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah (Challah 1:9), based on the Jerusalem Talmud]. See also Hilchot Terumah 3:5 and note the contrast to Chapter 2, Halachah 17.

The Jerusalem Talmud (Challah 2:7) gives another reason for the difference in measures. Ideally, the requirement would only be one forty-eighth. Nevertheless, generally, the one separating challah from the dough is a woman and women are by nature tightfisted. If they are told to give one twenty-fourth, they will ultimately give a forty-eighth. The Siftei Cohen 322:2 gives another reason for. reducing the measure required of a baker. He is preparing the dough for profit and our Sages did not desire to cause him a loss.

Our Sages desired that their laws be uniform out of fear that once distinctions were made, individuals would ultimately give less than the desired amount.

. Cha/lahwhich is impure may not be eaten by a priest and may be used only as fuel. An ordinary person may, however, partake of a loaf made from impure dough. Hence, rather than waste the dough, it is preferable to give a smaller portion as challah.

Challah which is impure may not be eaten by a priest and may be used only as fuel. An ordinary person may, however, partake of a loaf made from impure dough. Hence, rather than waste the dough, it is preferable to give a smaller portion as challah.

I.e. the person separating the dough would benefit from it becoming impure, because he will have to give a smaller portion to the priest.

See Hilchot Terumah 11:1. At present, since all dough is impure, theoretically, this is the measure which should be given (Siftei Cohen 322:3). In practice, however, even impure challah is not given to a priest in the present era.

Who led the return to Zion after the Babylonian exile.

See Hilchot Terumah 1:5, 26. Even the Ra’avad, who differs with the Rambam with regard to terumah, finds this position acceptable with regard to challah. See also Hilchot Issurei Bi’ah 20:3.

Provided the dough is made in Eretz Yisrael. The converse applies with regard to the following clause. The dough must be made in the Diaspora (Radbaz).

The Ra’ avad maintains that challah must be separated from such dough by Rabbinic decree. The Kessef Mishneh states that this is obvious from the following halachah.

See Hilchot Terumah 2:17. Since the Diaspora is ritually impure by Rabbinic decree, any dough brought from there to Eretz Yisrael would be consigned to destruction. However, it should not be burnt immediately, because we do not know that it definitely contracted ritual impurity in Eretz Yisrael, and it is forbidden to bum challah unnecessarily. Nor may it be returned to the Diaspora, lest people think it is permitted to take challah from Eretz Yisrael to the Diaspora [the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah (Challah 4:10)].

See Chapter 2, Halachah I.

Since the dough is chametz, “leavened,” it must be destroyed before the onset of the Pesach holiday.

See Hilchot Terumah 1:8.

See Halachah 2.

See Hilchot Terumah 1 :7.

Thus in a strict halachic sense, this land has the status of the Diaspora.

Since this land was once Eretz Yisrael, not everyone knows that it is impure like the Diaspora.

Where certain of the agricultural laws that must be observed in Eretz Yisrael are observed. See Hilchot Terumah 1 :4.

For everyone knows that the Diaspora is impure.

So that food is not wasted.

A man becomes a zav when he has an emission from his urinary tract similar, but not identical to that which results from gonorrhea. A woman becomes a zavah when she experiences vaginal bleeding at times other than would be expected due to her menstrual cycle. In both cases, the individuals are ritually impure. See Leviticus, ch. 15.

In certain instances, a distinction is made between impurity that results from a physical condition in one’s body - such as the above - and other types of impurity (see Halachah 10). However, no such distinction is made here. The Ra’avad differs with this ruling and maintains that the challah is forbidden to any priest who is ritually impure, citing his statements in Hilchot Terumah 7:8. The Rambam’s ruling here appears to differ from his ruling in that source. The Kessef Mishneh explains that the leniency here applies only after the priests have immersed in a mikveh. The Radbaz explains that here we are speaking about two challot, with one being burnt. Hence the one given to the priest may be eaten.

The shifting of this phrase from the previous halachah to this halachah is based on authoritative manuscripts of the Mishneh Torah and also makes for an easier reading of the text.

Which affects everyone in the present age, for we do not have a red heifer to purify ourselves.

As is the law with regard to challah that became impure because of factors beyond one’s control (Halachah 4).

At present the obligation to separate challah in Eretz Yisrael is Rabbinic in origin (Halachah 5). Nevertheless, since the original obligation there wasScriptural, the challah that is separated must have a minimum measure even though it is burnt.

Although at present, everyone knows that all the people living there are ritually impure, no deviation was made from the original ruling.

For according to Scriptural Law, there is no need to separate it.

Because there is a more serious dimension to their ritual impurity {the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah (Challah 4:8)]. See also Hilchot Terumot 7:8-9. As mentioned there, the Ra’avad differs with this ruling.

A woman who is impure because of menstrual bleeding.

A skin malady resembling - but not entirely similar to - leprosy which renders a person ritually impure.

To be burnt. Since he is not separating a second challah, the law is more stringent than in Halachah 8, which can be eaten by priests with this level of impurity (R. adbaz).

And a priest who immersed himself to emerge from ritual impurity could not partake of terumah until sunset of the day he immersed himself (Hilchot Terumah 7:4).

For purification from such itnpurity requires the ashes of the Red Heifer and those were not available after the destruction of the Temple.
The Ra’avad differs with this ruling as well and maintains that even after immersing, such a priest may not partake of challah. The Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De ‘ah 322:3-5) quotes the Rambam’s rulings in all the above matters. The Rama writes that since at present, it is not customary to partake of challah in any place, even in Eretz Yisrael, only one challah is separated. There is no minimum measure to it (although it is desirable that · it be the size of an olive). This challah is burnt.

The Ra’avad states that one should conclude “to separate terumah,” for challah is also referred to as terumah. The Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De’ah 328:1) quotes the Ra’avad’s ruling. The Rama states that the Rambam’s version of the blessing is also acceptable. The Turei Zahav and the Siftei Cohen 328: 1 speak of a conclusion that combines both terms “to separate terumah, challah.”

Even though the obligation to separate challah in the Diaspora is only Rabbinic in origin, it is appropriate to recite a blessing, as it is appropriate to do so when fulfilling other Rabbinic commandments (Radbaz).

And it is not fitting to observe a mitzvah without reciting a blessing.

For her nakedness is covered by the ground. A man’s, by contrast, projects outward.

I.e., the individuals who are impure because of a physical condition mentioned in Halachah 10.

Although her touch would render an article ritually impure, it is ritually impure in any case, because we are all impure due to contact with a human corpse. Hence, there is no difficulty with her touching·it.

See Halachot 10-11.

The term midama'at used by the Rambam refers to a mixture of terumah (or challah of Scriptural status) with other substances.

I.e., according to Scriptural Law, the presence of a forbidden substance is nullified when it is mixed with a greater quantity of permitted substances (bittul berov). In this instance, it is not necessary to have a majority of permitted food, half and half is sufficient, for this challah is forbidden only as a Rabbinic injunction.
The Radbaz and the Kessef Mishneh explain that although Bechorot 27a indicates that a majority is necessary, the Rambam’s ruling is based on the Jerusalem Talmud (Challah 4:8), from which it is evident that half and half is acceptable. Moreover, the Tur (Yoreh De ‘ah 323) states that according to the Rambam’s understanding that at the outset, it is pennitted to nullify a Rabbinic prohibition, one may intentionally make such a mixture.
The Rambam’s ruling is cited by the Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De’ah 323:1). The Tur and the Rama cite Rabbenu Asher’s view that, like terumah, there must be 101 times the forbidden amount before the challah is nullified.

As stated in Hilchot Terumah 6:2, an unlearned priest is unfamiliar with and/or careless in the observance of the laws of ritual purity. Hence, he is not given terumah, lest he cause it to become impure.

Our translation is slightly loose. The literal meaning of the Rambam’s words, quoted from Bechorot 27a is “(the decree against] a priest helping in the granary does not apply to him.” As stated in Hilchot Terumah 12:19, our Sages forbade that because it would appear that he is working so that he will be given the terumah. Instead, the terumah should be given him in a manner that connotes respect and reverence.

When the obligation is Scriptural in origin, partaking of the food on the basis of a stipulation that one will separate challah (or terumah) afterwards is forbidden. As explained in Hilchot Terumah 1:21, the principle of bereirah - that retroactively, an action performed afterwards is considered as if it were performed at the outset - applies only with regard to matters of Rabbinic Law and not with regard to matters of Scriptural Law.
The Siftei Cohen 323:1 emphasizes that the leniencies in this halachah apply only with regard to challah from the Diaspora, for there never was an obligation to separate it according to Scriptural Law. Although, at present, separating challah in Eretz Yisrael is also a Rabbinic obligation, since originally the obligation was Scriptural, none of these leniencies are granted.

Our translation is taken from the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah (Chall ah 1:9).

See Hilchot Terumah 3:17.

See Hilchot Terumah 5:7. After the fact, however, the separation is effective.

A deaf-mute, a mentally or emotionally unstable person, a minor, a gentile who separated fromproduce belonging to a Jew, even with his permission, and a person who separated from produce that does not belong to him without the owner’s permission (Hilchot Terumah 4:2).

See Hilchot Terumah, ch. 5.

A non-priest and an impure person.

A priest, his wife, and his servants.

We are speaking of a person who is still in control of his faculties, but whose judgment is slightly blurred. If he loses control of his faculties entirely, he is considered as an emotionally unstable person. See Hilchot Mechirah 29:18.

I.e., with regard to terumah, such individuals are told not to separate terumah as an initial preference, because terumah must be separated from the superior produce and they are incapable of making that distinction (Hilchot Terumah 4:4). Nevertheless, this rationale does not apply with regard to challah.