Rambam - 3 Chapters a Day

Licentious relations with a gentile man or woman are not included in the scope of this Scriptural prohibition, as stated in the following halachah.

Although the verse the Rambam cites as a prooftext refers to the seven Canaanite nations, all other gentiles are also included as reflected by the verse from Nechemiah.
The Tur (Even HaEzer 16) differs with the Rambam, explaining that the verse should be understood within its limited context, referring only to the seven nations. (The Rambam’s opinion has a source in the Sheiltot D ‘Rabbenu Achai Gaon, while that of the Tur is found in the Sefer Mitzvot Gadol) The crux of the difference is the exegesis of the continuation of the verse cited by the Rambam: “For he shall sway your son away.” Kiddushin 68b quotes Rabbi Shimon as focusing on the motivating rationale for the verse and thus including all those who might sway a person’s heart. Thus it refers to all gentiles. The Sages, however, do not accept this perspective.

Although the verse is contained in the Book ofNechemiah, the Rambam considers Ezra and Nechemiah as one book. See Hilchot Sefer Torah 7:15. Similarly, Sanhedrin 93b states that none of the books of the Tanach are named after Nechemiah.
The verse cited by the Rambam is part of the oath taken by the people to remain true to their faith upon their return to Zion. At that time, the gentiles living in the land were not Canaanites.

The Tur, loc. cit., differs with the Rambam concerning this point as well, stating that there is no concept of marriage between a Jew and non-Jew.

This was a decree passed by the court of the Hasmoneans when they saw that the Jews were sharing intimacy with Greek women (Avodah Zarah 36b). The transgressor is given stripes several times, once for each of the Rabbinic prohibitions he ignored.

According to Scriptural Law, if a Jew engages in relations with a gentile woman in public “the zealous may strike him,” as stated in Halachah 4. The Hasmoneons’ decree, however, applies even when relations were carried out in private. ·

The term zonah is generally translated as “prostitute.” It has, however, a precise halachic definition, as stated in Chapter 18, Halachah 1.

Note the contrast to the laws applying to a Jewish zonah, as mentioned in Chapter 17, Halachah 2.

The Ra’avad rules that the zealous person must warn the transgressor before striking him. The Maggid Mishneh states that the concept of a warning is relevant only with regard to execution by the court and not to the independent actions taken by a zealous person. The Rama (Choshen Mishpat 425:4) quotes the Ra’avad’s view.

I.e., a law which is not commanded by the Written Torah, yet communicated by the Oral Tradition.

As Numbers, ch. 25 relates, the Jews began worshiping idols, because they were lured to by Midianite women. Enraged Moses commanded that the worshipers be executed. Zimri, the prince of the tribe of Shimon, took a Midianite woman and confronted Moses, engaging in relations before him. When Pinchas saw this, he slew Zimri, giving expression to the law mentioned by the Rambam.

Our Sages relate that Pinchas’ javelin went through Zimri’s back and into her gut, killing them both in the midst of relations.

Even if he transgressed already.

Needless to say, a warning must be given and two acceptable witnesses must observe the slaying.

The initiative to slay the transgressor must be totally that of the zealous person. For the court has no obligation - and therefore no license - to exact such punishment.

For the zealous person is considered as a rodef, pursuer, whom the intended victim has the right to slay, as stated in Hilchot Rotzeach, ch. 1.

As explained in Chapter 14, Halachah 7, this refers to a non-Jew who accepted the seven universal laws commanded to Noah and his descendants.

The Maggid Mishneh writes that ifhe was given “stripes for rebellious conduct” by the court, he is no longer liable for karet. Our Sages (Makkot 23b) state a similar concept with regard to a person who receives lashes for the violation of a Scriptural prohibition. The Rambam extends the idea to include a person who is punished on the basis of Rabbinic decree.

This applies even if relations are conducted in private.

As interpreted by Yevamot 22b, 23a.

Indeed, Horiot 13a states that a mamzer who is a scholar receives precedence over a High Priest who is unlearned.

For adultery is prohibited to gentiles.

Note the gloss of the Maggid Mishneh who questions the source for the Rambam’s ruling, arguing that the passage from Numbers cannot be interpreted as definitive proof.

See Chapter 1, Halachot 16-18.

If, however, she is younger than three, the relations are not considered significant.

From that age onward, sexual relations in which he engages are. significant, as stated in Chapter 1, Halachah 13.

Who advised the Midianites and the Moabites to have their women seduce Jewish men to provoke God’s wrath.

See Chapter 14, Halachah 9.

I.e., the prohibition is Rabbinic in origin, as indicated by the conclusion of this halachah and the following halachot.

And not lashes, as is the punishment for the violation of a Scriptural commandment.

Were there to be a Scriptural prohibition involved, it would not be relaxed in the case of a servant.

So that the offspring will be the master’s.

Forbidding such relations to a Hebrew servant (Ma’aseh Roke’ach).

Chapter 3, Halachah 13.

Who composed the standard Aramaic translation of the Torah.

The Rambam does not fully accept the view of Onkelos. For Onkelos defines the scope of the Biblical prohibition as including these relations and the Rambam does not, as evident from the fact that the Rambam does not consider these relations as punishable by lashes. (The Rambam also has a different conception of the prohibition of relations with “a promiscuous woman”; see Hilchot lshut 1:4.) Nevertheless, the Rarnbam uses the view of Onkelos as support for his condemnation of this act (Mayim Chayim; see also Beit Shmuel 16:6). ·

In contrast to relations with a gentile woman (Halachah 4).

In contrast to marriage to a gentile woman (Halachah 1).

When explaining this possibility the Talmud gives the example of women who gave birth together in a cave. Today, unfortunately, such confusion has happened in hospitals.

Otherwise, because of the doubt, neither of the children would be able to marry. They could not marry a Jewess, for perhaps they were servants, nor a maid-servant, for perhaps they were Jews (compare to Hilchot Avadim 7:7).

Since we do not know which is the servant and which is the master, they must both free each other. And thus the servant will certainly have been freed by the master.
Before they reach adulthood, however, it is impossible for one to free the other, because a minor may not free a servant.

In this instance, the Rambam does not say that the owner must free the offspring, because there is no obligation for a woman to marry and bear children.

Thus they are forbidden to marry a priest, as stated in Chapter 18, Halachah 3 (Maggid Mishneh).

As described in Chapter 13.

At which time his conversion process is completed.

I.e., there is no difference between a convert and a native Israelite with regard to any matter of Jewish observance.

But not a priest (Maaseh Rokeach).

The rationale for this leniency is explained as follows. The Torah explains the reason for this prohibition: “Because of the fact that they did not greet you with bread and water on the way.” Now it is not appropriate for women to greet travelers with food. Hence, since the sin does not apply with regard to women -· the consequence of it - the prohibition against marrying into the Jewish people also does not apply with regard to them.

They may, however, marry women who converted to Judaism or freed maid-servants. Shaar HaMelech also states that these individuals may even marry maid-servants who were not yet freed.

Indeed, Ruth the maternal ancestor of King David - and ultimately of Mashiach - was a female Moabite convert. Initially, and indeed for several generations, there were questions whether she and her descendants were allowed to marry within the Jewish people. Ultimately, however, the ruling stated by the RaJnbam was accepted throughout the Jewish community. See Yevamot 76b.

Rashi differs and maintains that the child’s status depends on that of its mother. Thus if the mother is. a second generation Egyptian convert, the child is a third generation convert and is permitted. The Shulchan Aruch (Even HaEzer 4:4) quotes both views.

The Maggid Mishneh explains that the intent is that everyone knows that birth involves both a man and a woman. Hence the child must be the third generation of both the male and the female.

Who has converted.

The Maggid Mishneh refers to Yevamot 78b and maintains. that this ruling applies only when the offspring are male. If they are female, they are not considered as Ammonites (and hence, permitted). Instead, they are considered as Egyptian and forbidden for three generations, i.e., we follow the greater blemish. This view is quoted by the Shulchan Aruch (Even HaEzer 4:7).

This also can be considered as applying only when the offspring are male. If they are female, some opinions considered them as permitted (as a female Amrnonite) and others as Egyptian [Rama (Even HaEzer, Loc. cit.)].

This ruling depends on the Rambam’s interpretation of the prohibition: “You shall not intermarry with them” mentioned at the beginning of the chapter. As explained, according to the Rambam, the verse applies to all gentiles, not only Canaanites, and only before they convert. Once they convert, all gentiles - except the four nations mentioned in the previous halachot - may marry freely among the Jewish people. The other authorities, by contrast, maintain that the prohibition applies to the Canaanite nations alone and after conversion. Otherwise, they maintain, it is unnecessary, for there is no concept of marriage between a Jew and a non-Jew.

Note Joshua, ch. 9, which relates how the Gibeonites deceived the Jewish people and established a covenant with them.

Because of the deception they perpetrated.

For the narrative in Ezra speaks of a time when the Temple had already been destroyed.

As related in II Samuel, ch. 21, there was a famine for three years in Eretz Yisrael. Through prophetic vision, David learned that the reason for the famine was Saul's oppression of the Gibeonites (exactly what Saul did to oppress them is a matter of discussion among the Rabbis). David asked the Gibeonites what they desired to be appeased for this oppression. They answered that they wanted to slay seven of his descendants. David handed over seven of Saul's descendants to them and they hung them and left their corpses on the gallows. For this act of cruelty, David decreed that they should never marry among the Jewish people. For Israel should be characterized by kindness and mercy. See Chapter 19, Halachah 17, which further develops this theme.

I.e., in order to thwart the possibility· of local peoples organizing rebellions against him, Sannecherib destroyed the national identity of people by exiling them from their native lands and forcing them to intermingle with other peoples.

This principle applies in many instances when forbidden and permitted substances or individuals become mixed together. See for example, Yoma 84b, Zevachim 73a, b.

The Shulchan Aruch (Even HaEzer 4:10) quotes this ruling, but states that according to the opinion of Rabbenu Asher, Sannecherib did not succeed in erasing the identity of the Egyptians and the prohibition against marrying their converts still applies.

Tosafot, Keritot 9a, refer to this as the covenant which separated the Jews from the other nations. The Rambam is emphasizing that all of these acts were. performed in preparation for the Giving of the Torah when the covenant took effect.

See Hilchot Avodat Kochavim 1:3 which describes·the extent of the Jews’ assimilation in Egypt.

Implied is that together with these ritual acts, the gentile must also- accept the yoke of Jewish observance. As Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De’ah 268:3) emphasizes, this is a fundamental element of the conversion process.

If he had been circumcised as a gentile, a small amount of blood must be drawn from him for the sake of conversion [Chapter 14, Halachah 5; Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De’ah 268:l)].

In contrast to other situations when a pair of such doves are offered and one is brought as a burnt offering and one as a sin offering.

For the Temple is destroyed.

The Rambam mentions the two acts in the desired order: circumcision and then,
immersion. Nevertheless, if a convert immerses before circumcision, there is a difference of opinion among the later Rabbis if the immersion is acceptable or not [Rama (Yoreh De ‘ah 268:1)]. Hence he should immerse again because of the doubt (Siftei Cohen 268:2).

Yevamot 46a quotes an opinion which requires the convert to actually set aside the money. The Talmud’s conclusion, however, is that it would be undesirable to do so, lest the funds be used for other purposes, which would be a transgression.
It must be emphasized that even before the convert brings a sacrifice, he is considered as a full-fledged member of the Jewish people.

Numbers 15:16 states: “There will be one judgment for you and the convert.” Since the verse uses the term judgment; Yevamot 46b states that like in a judgment, three judges are necessary. There are opinions that emphasize that this is merely an asmachta, a Rabbinic ruling that uses a Biblical verse as a support. Kin ‘at Eliyahu explains the rationale for this view. Were the concept to have its source in Scriptural Law, judges possessing semichah, the unique ordination that ceased in the Talmudic era, would be required and thus it would be impossible to accept converts in the present age.

For a court does not hold sessions at these times. Another reason why the immersion should not be performed at this time is that it amends the person’s state, and that is not permitted on the Sabbath. Nevertheless, the Rambam considers the first rationale of primary importance (Kessef Mishneh).

The Rashba explains that a legal case that is begun during the day may be completed at night. Hence, the convert's immersion may also be accepted at night.

Conversion, a change in status, must be brought about through a conscious decision by the convert. A minor is not considered as able to make mature decisions and is not held responsible for his conduct. Therefore he cannot make the decision to convert. Nevertheless, the Jewish court makes this decision on his behalf.
The converted child, however, has. the option of refuting the conversion when he comes -of age. If he protests his conversion at that time, he is considered a gentile and need not observe the mitzvot. If, however, he accepts his conversion when he comes of age, but regrets afterwards, he is bound by his original decision.

A person cannot act on another person’s behalf unless it is considered to his benefit, but our Sages consider becoming part of the Jewish people a benefit sufficient to justify their actions. The Maggid Mishneh explains that although the Torah and its mitzvot compel a person to restrain his conduct, as long as he is young and has not become habituated to forbidden conduct, he will be able to accommodate himself to the Torah’s guidelines.

For the fetus is considered as part of her body and her immersion is sufficient for the fetus as well.

For two people do not constitute a court (Hilchot Sanhedrin 2:10).

For as mentioned in the previous halachah, three judges must be present.
The Rambam’s perspective is not accepted by all authorities. Rabbenu Asher maintains that the requirement applies only at the outset. After the fact, even if a gentile circumcised himself and immersed on his own, the immersion is acceptable, provided he accepted the mitzvot in the presence of three Jews.. The Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De’ah 268:3) mentions both opinions, but appears to favor that of Rabbenu Asher.

As indicated by Halachah 10, this refers to a situation where previously, we know that the person was a gentile. If not, different laws apply. In all instances, the person must observe the mitzvot because of his statements. We, however, do not rely on his word alone with regard to marriage.

And he is not allowed to continue living with his wife until he performs the conversion rites again.
The Siftei Cohen 268:22 quotes Rabbenu Asher who rules that his statements are of no consequence whatsoever. For example, if he enters into relations with a married Jewish woman: Were he to be a gentile, the woman would be able to continue living with her husband, but if he was Jewish (i.e., his conversion was acceptable), the relations are considered as adulterous and she is forbidden. According to Rabbenu Asher, his word is not accepted and she is not forbidden.

The Maggid Mishneh questions: How is it possible to disqualify his children? Even if he was indeed a gentile, the children would be Jewish, because of their mother. He explains that there is a halachic difference in a situation where both the parents converted privately. In that instance, were we to disqualify the children because of the father’s statements, there would be a change in their status.

Rabbi Akiva Eiger adds that according to the Rambam, he must also have blood drawn from his male organ as is the case of a convert who was circumcised while a gentile.

According to the authorities who do not require a convert’s immersion to be performed in the presence of a court after the fact, this immersion could also serve as the immersion for the sake of conversion.

I.e., we knew nothing of the person’s identity before he came before us. He was the one who raised the doubt whether he was Jewish - by saying that he was a convert - and he resolved it - by saying that he converted in a proper court. This follows the principle of miggo, if he desired to lie, he could have told a more effective lie, saying that he was a native-born Israelite.

The Ra’avad differs with the Ram. barn, explaining that there are two Talmudic opinions: one that accepts the convert’s word both in Eretz Yisrael and in the Diaspora and one that requires him to bring proof in both places. Similarly, the Ramban and the Rashba differ and maintain that the convert’s word is accepted in all places. The Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De’ah 268:10) mentions the Rambam’s view, but appears to follow that of the Ramban and the Rashba. Today the custom is for a court to be careful and investigate a convert’s conversion before allowing him to marry among the Jewish people.

For becoming a servant is also a change of status, causing the servant to depart from the status of a gentile, as stated in Chapter 12, Halachah 11.

Yevamot 45b-46a explains the rationale for this law: The gentile owner who sold the servant does not own his physical person in the same manner as a Jew does. That degree of ownership is a new factor established through immersion. Hence, if the servant takes the initiative, he can avoid being acquired.

For taking this independent act in the presence of his master is considered as if he made an explicit statement.

He must, however, reimburse the master for his value [Maggid Mishneh; Rama (Yoreh De’ah 267:9)].

By manifesting his control over him in this manner, he emphasizes that he is acquiring him as a servant.

The Maggid Mishneh cites views that maintain that this immersion is Rabbinic in origin. Rabbi Akiva Eiger cites Tosafot who emphasize that it is a Scriptural requirement.

As required of a convert (Halachah 6).

See the initial halachot of the following chapter which describe the manner in which a gentile and a servant are informed about the mitzvot.

See Hilchot Mikveot which elaborates at length concerning both concepts mentioned in this halachah: what makes a mikveh acceptable and which substances disqualify an immersion when they intervene between a person’s flesh and the water. For this reason, a servant or a convert should trim his nails and hair [Rama (Yoreh De’ah 268:2); see also Siftei Cohen 268:7].

See II Shmuel 12:25, as interpreted by Menachot 53a, et al.

Tosafot cites the narrative (Shabbat 31a) which relates that a gentile came to Hillel and asked him to convert him· on the condition that he become the High Priest. Hillel agreed. Later the convert discovered the error of his ways and accepted Jewish practice genuinely. Tosafot explains that from the outset, Hillel recognized his potential sincerity and therefore accepted him even though originally, his motives were self-oriented. The Bayit Chadash and the Siftei Cohen 268:23 state that Hillel’s example may be emulated and the Jewish courts have the prerogative of making a decision to accept a convert even though at the outset, he seeks to convert for ulterior motives.

For as the Rambam continues to explain, a convert’s lack of observance could have a negative effect on the entire people. There is no obligation to convert. A gentile who observes the seven universal laws commanded to Noah and his descendants is on a very high rung. Hence unless a gentile is motivated by a very sincere commitment, it is preferable for him not to change his status and serve God in his present state.

At first, Naomi tried to dissuade Ruth from converting. When, however, she saw her sincerity, she allowed her to join her. See Chapter 14, Halachah 1, which describes how this concept is applied.

I.e., because their motives were not genuine, as the Rambam continues to explain.

I.e., these individuals did not know that the converts should not be accepted.

I.e., would they accept Jewish practice genuinely.

See Judges 14:3, I Kings 11:4.

The Maggid Mishneh states that even if the court does not notify the potential convert of the mitzvot, the conversion is effective. The Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De’ah 268:12) when quoting this law, changes the text to ‘’the reward for the mitzvot,” implying that the gentile must accept the mitzvot before immersion. As the commentaries to the Shulchan Aruch explain, according to the Shulchan Aruch, if a convert does not accept the observance of mitzvot, the conversion is not acceptable even if he becomes circumcised and immerses. This concept is particularly relevant in the presence age when there are many non-halachic “conversions.”

Hence a get (formal bill of divorce) is required before the woman can marry another Jew.

The basic concept is that a convert who sins is considered as a Jew who sins. Even if he or she commits serious transgressions, the conversion is not revoked. The Kessef Mishneh maintains that if the convert intentionally worships false deities, a lost object that belonged to him is not returned, as indicated by Hilchot Gezeilah ViAvedah 11 :2.

I.e., because despite their sins, they remained Jewesses.

I.e., their connection to idolatry.

Yevamot 47a. It must be emphasized that sincere converts are given the highest praise. In a renowned letter to a convert named Ovadiah, the Rambam states: “We [i.e., native-born Jews] share a connection with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. Your connection is with the One who spoke and created the world.”

Our Sages explain that in both instances, it was the erev rav, the mixed multitude of converts who accompanied the Jews out of Egypt, who enticed the people to perform these sins. Kivrot HaTa'avah refers to the incident, Numbers, ch. 11, where the people complained because they desired other food in addition to the manna.

See Chapter 13, Halachah 14.

The halachah is quoted from Yevamot 47a. As early as the Talmudic era, potential converts were dissuaded in this manner.

Our translation is based on Rashi’s commentary to Yevamot, loc. cit.

Because they are the fundamentals of our faith (Maggid Mishneh).

This law, quoted by the Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De’ah 268:2) indicates that even the opinions which require a convert to accept the observance of the mitzvot do not require him to accept all of the mitzvot individually. Instead, he must make a general commitment to conform to Jewish practice.

These refer to different obligations from the crops that must be left for the poor. See Hilchot Matnot Aniyim, ch. 1.

Although this is the version in the standard published text of the Mishneh Torah, many manuscripts and early printings state ‘’the tithe for the poor.” This fits both the context and the Rambam’s source, Yevamot 47a.
These mitzvot are mentioned because the giver has no control over them. When a prospective convert sees that Judaism places such financial obligations upon him, he may regret his choice (Rashi, Yevamot, Loe. cit.).

This can be interpreted as referring to the warnings concerning the transgressions.

And this, to the encouragement based on the knowledge of the reward for mitzvot.

The commentaries have questioned the Rambam’s statements here noting that in Hilchot Teshuvah 3:5 and other sources, he states that the pious among the gentiles have a share in the World to Come. Among the resolutions offered is that “All of Israel have a share in the World to Come” (Sanhedrin 10:1). By virtue of the essential Godliness of the Jewish soul, they are granted a portion in this eternal good. A gentile must, however, earn his portion through his deeds. It is not “hidden away” for him.

I.e., the outcome of prosperity was not increased observance, but the opposite: rebellion against God’s will.

For we do not postpone the performance of a mitzvah.

I.e., a small wound is made on his male organ to draw blood for the sake of the covenant. The expression "the blood of the covenant" is derived from Exodus 24:8. See also Zechariah 9:11.

For we fear that, otherwise, the immersion might cause the wound to become infected (Rashi, Yevamot 47b).
The commentaries ask: Why don’t we have him immerse first and then circlilncise himself? In this way, he will not have to delay his conversion any longer. The Ramban (cited by Turei Zahav 268:4) states that we fear that he might refuse to become circumcised. This will be problematic, for the immersion will have completed the conversion process. Hence, we have him become circumcised before the conversion is irreversible.

Rashi (loc. cit.) explains that since the immersion completes his conversion, the convert must accept the yoke of mitzvot at that time.

And thus it would be immodest for her to enter the mikveh in the presence of the judges.

See Hilchot Avodat Kochavim 10:6 which states that in an era when the Jews have undisputed authority over Eretz Yisrael, they may not allow an idolater to dwell in the holy land. Only when a gentile accepts these seven universal laws is · he granted this privilege. The rationale for the Rambam’s ruling is derived from the prooftext he cites. (Exodus 23:33): “They shall not dwell in your land, lest they cause you to sin against Me.” Since gentiles may turn into a negative spiritual influence, they should be prevented from dwelling in the land. If, however, a gentile has made a commitment to the observance of these seven laws, he will not lower the moral climate of the land.
As explained by the commentaries to Hilchot Avodat Kochavim, the Rambam’s opinion is not universally accepted. The Ra’avad interprets the prooftext as referring to the seven Canaanite nations alone. Never, he claims, were other gentiles prohibited from living among us.

The Jubilee must be observed only when the entire Jewish people are dwelling in Eretz Yisrael. Therefore when the tribes of Reuven and Gad, and half the tribe of Menasheh were exiled by the kingdom of Assyria (this took place approximately 150 years before the destruction of the First Temple), the laws of the Jubilee ceased to be observed according to Scriptural Law (Hilchot Shemitah ViYoval 10:8).

The Rambam’s source (Bechorot 30b) states: “one minor point of Rabbinic Law.” The commentaries question why the Rambam omits this point.

As the Rambam states in Hilchot Avodat Kochavim, loc. cit., in the present era, we accept only full converts. Implied is that in the present era, were we to have the authority, we should prevent gentiles from living in Eretz Yisrael.
The Ra’avad differs with the Rambam concerning this point, explaining that with regard to certain matters the status of a gentile who accepts the observance of the seven mitzvot in the present age is more severe than that before the revocation of the Jubilee laws and in other matters, it is more lenient. According to his opinion, however, there is no reason why a gentile should be prohibited against living in Eretz Yisrael. In his gloss to Hilchot Avodat Kochavim, the Kessef Mishneh states that even the Rambam would agree. For since the gentile is living a moral lifestyle, there is no reason to fear that he will lead a Jew to sin. The Rambam’s directive here is directed at the courts. They cannot formalize a resident alien’s status in the present age.
In that vein, it must be emphasized that although the concept of a resident alien does not apply in the present age, we are obligated to teach the gentiles the seven universal laws commanded to Noah’s descendants, as firmly emphasized by the Rambam in Hilchot Melachim 8:10.

As we tell a prospective convert. We do not make this statement to a servant, for he is not coming to convert on his own volition.

A male servant is also circumcised before conversion. It is questionable why the Rambam does not mention this point.

He must be sold to the Diaspora or to a gentile (Hilchot Avadim 8:12).

The Rama (Yoreh De’ah 267:4) writes that in the lands where he lived (Central Europe), it was forbidden to convert a gentile to Judaism. Therefore it is taken for granted that the servant was purchased on the condition that his status not be altered. Hence, he may be maintained indefinitely as a gentile.

Hilchot Melachim 9:5.

See Halachah 17 which emphasizes that even while a servant, a servant need not show concern for these prohibitions.

I.e., it would appear that he was bound by more severe prohibitions before conversion.

This applies even to maternal relatives. Since they were married before, we do not force them to separate (Siftei Cohen 269:2). We do not fear that these converts will say that they entered a lower level of holiness, because there are relations - a mother and a sister - to which they are forbidden. This makes it obvious that the distinction in the laws results from their change in status (Kessef Mishneh).

I. e; one might say that the reason for the prohibition is that one is certain that he is related to his maternal relatives. Those reputed to be his paternal relatives, however, might in fact not be related to him at all, because the man reputed to be his father may not be his parent, for the gentiles are known to be promiscuous. This is not the reason for the leniency. Instead, the Torah does not have any concept of paternal lineage with regard to a gentile (Maggid Mishneh).

Although this woman is forbidden to him as a gentile, after conversion, she is permitted.
There are opinions which forbid the wife of the convert’s father [Tur, Rama (Yoreh De ‘ah 269:3)). The Siftei Cohen 269:4 adds that the convert should also refrain from relations with the sister of his father.

For their conversion is of no consequence in this context. They are considered as having no family ties.

But was never married to the brother according to Jewish Law.

I.e., they were conceived before their mother converted and born after she converted.

For it is considered as if the two brothers are ordinary Jews and bol. Uld by the laws that apply to members of our people. Nevertheless, they may not fulfill the mitzvah of yibbum, for they are not brothers in the complete sense [Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De’ah 269:4)].

This is a Rabbinic decree. According to Scriptural Law, the marriages are valid. Nevertheless, our Rabbis were stringent and forbade this union, for were the women to be native-born Jewesses, this would be forbidden. Hence, formal divorce proceedings are necessary.

In this instance, as well, were the women to be native-born Jewesses, this would be forbidden. See Siftei Cohen 269:10 which cites opinions that maintain that the Rabbinic prohibition applies after the woman’s death as well.

In Halachah 13. Note the contrast to the previous clause which speaks about relations with maternal sisters.

This term refers to relatives more distantly removed than those forbidden by Scriptural Law. Relations with them are forbidden by Rabbinic decree, as explained in Chapter 1, Halachah 8; Hilchot Ishut 1:6. Since the prohibition is a Rabbinic safeguard, our Sages did not add a further safeguard with regard to a convert. For we do not ordain a safeguard for a safeguard.

Our translation follows the text of the authoritative manuscripts of the Mishneh Torah. The Siftei Cohen 269:12 justifies this reading, explaining that relations with a woman’s maternal grandmother (the version in the standard published text of the Mishneh Torah) is a Scriptural prohibition, not a Rabbinic safeguard.

I.e., before he is freed.

See Chapter 12, Halachah 11.

This phrase points to a conclusion deduced by the Rambam for which he has no explicit source in previous Rabbinic literature. The Ra’avad, however, considers the concept as blatantly obvious.
The Maggid Mishneh adds that he is also executed for relations with a married Jewish woman and questions why the Rambam does not mention this transgression.

The word “executed” is plural. Both men or the man and the animal are executed (Or Sameach).

I.e., we do not enforce monogamy.

See Hilchot Melachim 9:5.