Rambam - 3 Chapters a Day

I.e., the Sanhedrin, Israel's highest court.

There is a certain lack of clarity in the Rambam’s words. For the donation of the half-shekel that was announced and collected in the month of Adar was for the sake of the communal offerings (Hilchot Shekalim 4: I 0).

See Chapter 3, Halachah 14.

A second opinion is always valuable lest one person err and a third is necessary, lest the two differ. None of the three is required to be a priest (Radbaz).

Megilah 23b derives this from the fact that Leviticus, ch. 27, mentions the word “priest” ten times when speaking of all of these types of evaluations. ·

It is not, however, necessary that all ten be priests (Megilah, Loc. cit.).

In such an instance, the person - or his limb’s - worth is evaluated like a servant being sold in the marketplace. Based on Leviticus 25:46, an equation is established between landed property and servants. Hence, the same evaluation process is used (Megilah, loc. cit.).

Note the contrast to Chapter 3, Halachot 19-20.

I.e., although he merely pledged the fifty, we follow the principle (Kiddushin 28b, et al): “A pledge to the Temple treasury is comparable to the actual transfer of an article to the possession of an ordinary person.” Nevertheless, he is only required to pay ten, since the Temple treasury can collect the forty from the other person.

I.e., since they retracted at the same time, the loss suffered by the Temple treasury is divided equally between them. The Ra’avad and Rashi (Arachin 27b) offer a different interpretation of how the sum is divided between the two. The Radbaz and the Kessef Mishneh, however, justify the Rainbam’s view.

And thus if the original owner and another person pledge the same amount, the Temple treasury will receive more if the original owner is allowed to redeem it.

They are given the opportunity to redeem it, because the Temple treasury will benefit more from their redemption than that of the other person.

A copper coin of minimal value.
The Ra’avad and Rashi (Arachin 27b) maintain that even if the original owners do not raise the bid, they are liable for 26 selaim, since they are liable for the sela added by the other bidder. The Radbaz and the Kessef Mishneh justify the Rambam’s approach.

Since this is the article’s worth, it is appropriate that the fifth be calculated accordingly.

I.e., a fourth of 25 selaim is six selaim and a dinar.

More precisely, anything above 25, so that his increase benefits the Temple treasury.

In Halachah 5.

This refers to dedication offerings for the sake of the Temple. With regard to dedication offerings to the priests, see Halachah 11.

Since the property was consecrated, it is forbidden to benefit from it. Hence, it must be disposed of in a manner in which no one will benefit. The Ra’avad emphasizes that the advice given by the Rambam applies in an instance when one does not desire to redeem the consecrated property. If one desires to redeem it, it is preferable to do so, following the guidelines set down in Halachah 10. The Kessef Mishneh states that the Rambam would not differ with this concept. See also the Rama (Yoreh De’ah 258:1) who suggests that if a person consecrates an article in the present age, he should ask a sage to repeal his vow.

I.e., a place where the money will be lost to human hands forever.

I.e., a gentile servant who is circumcised and immersed in the mikveh and then required to observe all the mitzvot incumbent upon women. See Hilchot Issurei Bi'ah 13:11.

In this way, the holiness associated with the servant will be transferred to the article and the article left in a place where no one will benefit from it.

As the Rambam states in Hilchot lssurei Bi’ah 14:9, after being purchased by a Jew, a gentile servant is given a year in which to decide whether he wishes to observe the mitzvot. The Rambam is speaking about the laws that apply in the midst of that year.

The Rambam makes similar statements with regard to idolworshiping gentiles in Hilchot Avodat Kochavim 10:1; Hilchot Rotzeach 4:11. The Radbaz interprets the Rambam’s intent in citing these concepts here as implying that the owner should not redeem the servant. Since he remains consecrated, it is forbidden to benefit from his labor.

In the present era, since nothing can be done with the money, our Sages allowed the consecrated property to be redeemed in this manner. Note the Rama (Yoreh De’ah 258:1) who rules that consecrated property cannot be redeemed in the present age. The Siftei Cohen 258:3, however, cites the Rambam’s view.

Chapter 7, Halachah 8. 27. See Chapter 6, Halachah 1.

The Ra’avad cites a view that maintains that even though the field is not given to the priests, it becomes consecrated and can no longer be used by the person for his individual concerns.

See Hilchot Shemitah ViYoval 10:9.

See the Tur (Choshen Mishpat 95) and commentaries which debate whether this principle applies in all matters or only in this limited context.

As listed at the beginning of this set of halachot.

See The Guide to the Perplexed, Vol. III, ch. 39, which states that the purpose for these mitzvot is to cultivate the trait of generosity. Also by consecrating his property, one uses his wealth for a holy purpose rather than his own indulgence.

Compare to the conclusion of Hilchot Nedarim.

Arachin 28a.

The Rambam is very critical of those who can support themselves on their own, but instead, make wrong choices in the name of piety and thus, require others to support them. See for example, Hilchot Matanot Aniyim 10:18 which states:
Even a dignified sage who becomes poor should work in a profession, even a degrading profession, rather than seek public assistance. It is better to skin the hides of dead animals rather than tell people: “I am a sage, support me.”

Sotah 20a.

Ketubot 50a derives this concept 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 Matnot Aniyim 7:5.
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 who asks for alms. In response to that acute need, one may give more that a fifth. Here the Rambam is speaking about giving to charity when there is no acute need. Hence the limit should be adhered to.
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.

See Hilchot De’ot 5:10.

I.e., there are different obligations for certain sacrifices, e.g., the adjustable guilt offering (Leviticus 5:6-11), depending on one’s means.

This verse specifically applies to the festive sacrifices a person brings for the pilgrimage festivals (see Hilchot Chagigah 1 :2), but in an expanded sense, it applies to all offerings to the Temple.

But not in the Diaspora. See Halachah 3.

I.e., he transgresses a negative commandment, included as one of the 365 negative commandments by Sefer HaMitzvot (negative commandment 215) and Sefer HaChinuch (mitzvah 245).

The Radbaz states that the Rambam begins Sefer Zeraim with the laws of mixed substances - although the Mishnaic order of Zeraim begins with Pe‘ah because he concludes Sefer Hafla ‘ah (Hilchot Arachin 8:1) with the teaching that the High Court would concern itself with consecrated articles from the first of Adar onward. At that same time, they would also concern themselves with fields containing mixed substances (Shekalim 1:1). Hence, the Rambam mentions these subjects in sequence.
The Radbaz notes that this prooftext is also used to derive the prohibition against grafting two species of trees together and that this prohibition applies in the Diaspora as well as in Eretz Yisrael (see Halachah 5). He explains that although the prohibition against grafting trees is derived from this verse, since an equation is established between the prohibition against grafting and the prohibition against crossbreeding animals, there are certain dimensions of that prohibition that do not apply with regard to the prohibition against planting two species of produce together.

For by weeding a field, one stimulates the growth of crops. Although the Rambam considers weeding a derivative of plowing and not of sowing with regard to the forbidden Sabbath labors (Hilchot Shabbat 8:1), the Kessef Mishneh (to Hilchot Shabbat) explains that, in fact, it is a derivative of both forbidden labors, because one can weed for two intents: a) to improve the appearance of the field, in which instance, it is a derivative of plowing, and b) to cause the crops to grow better, in which instance, it is a derivative of sowing.

I.e., since the pot has a hole, the earth within it is considered to derive nurture from the earth and thus sowing within it is· considered equivalent to sowing in the earth itself (Kilayim 7:8). This principle applies, not only in this context, but in many other situations involving agricultural laws. The hole must be large enough to allow a small root to pass through (Kessef Mishneh).

The punishment given for transgressing Rabbinic prohibitions. Since the pot did not have a hole, the person is not liable for the violation of a Scriptural commandment. Nevertheless, our Sages prohibited sowing seeds in this manner (see Menachot 70a) and hence, doing so incurs this liability.

This applies to mixed species of seeds. With regard to mixed species in a vineyard, see Chapter 5, Halachah 5.

I.e., even in a field belonging to a gentile. For a gentile’s acquisition of property in Eretz Yisrael does not nullify the holiness of the land (see Hilchot Terumah 1:10). Hence, all of the mitzvot and prohibitions that apply previously continue to apply. See Turei Zahav 297:1.

We find several instances where a prohibition exists in telling a gentile to perform a forbidden act (Hilchot Shabbat 6:1; Hilchot Issurei Bi’ah 16:13; Hilchot Sechirut 13:3; see also Halachah 6). Thus the Ra’avad differs concerning this issue and maintains that making such statements to a gentile is forbidden. Both the Radbaz and the Kessef Mishneh explain that, we are speaking about an instance where the gentile is planting the mixed species in his own field. Hence, in this instance, since the gentile is acting for his own sake, there is no prohibition involved in the Jew telling the gentile to plant the mixed species. The Tur (Yoreh De’ah 296), however, interprets the Rambam as granting permission to tell a gentile to sow mixed species in the Jew’s field, but differs with that ruling himself.

If, however, he performs a deed that maintains the forbidden produce, he is liable for lashes (Jerusalem Talmud, Kilayim 8:1). This is the manner in which the Kessef Mishneh resolves the Ra’avad’s objections to the Rambam’s ruling.

There is not even a Rabbinic prohibition against doing so.

The Kessef Mishneh cites sources (including Chapter 5, Halachah 18) which indicate that the intent is not that the produce is not fit for human consumption, but rather that it is not fit for human use. Even if it is ordinarily used as animal fodder, it is still fit to be considered as a mixed substance. This interpretation is cited by the Turei Zahav 297:2.

For, as mentioned above, this restriction is derived from an association with the prohibition against cross-breeding different species of animals.

The Radbaz maintains that it is, however, permitted to graft a vegetable to a vegetable in the Diaspora, but not in Eretz Yisrael. The Tur and the Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De’ah 295:3), however, also forbid grafting two species of vegetables together. Similarly, they forbid grafting a fruit-bearing tree onto a non-fruit-bearing tree.

Two explanations are given for this prohibition:
a) A gentile is forbidden to graft different species of trees together (Hilchot Melachim 10:6). Hence, having him perform the act is “placing a stumbling block in the path of the blind.”
b) Since it is forbidden to do anything to maintain a forbidden graft, it is also forbidden to give instructions for such a graft to be made.

The Beit Yosef (Yoreh De’ah 295) emphasizes that, according to the Rambam, this leniency applies even in Eretz Yisrael. This runs contrary to the view of the Tur who maintains that this is forbidden in Eretz Yisrael. The Tur ‘s view is supported by the Ra’avad who differs with the Rambam and forbids such a practice. The Kessef Mishneh and the Radbaz support the Rambam’s view.

With regard to the prohibitions against forbidden labor on the Sabbath, by contrast, greater stringencies apply to a person who performed a forbidden labor benefiting from his actions than to others (Hilchot Shabbat 6:23).

The Radbaz states that here, the Rambam is speaking about the status of the produce according to law. As stated in the conclusion of the following chapter, as a punishment for violating the law, our Sages decreed that the entire field should be designated as ownerless.

Therefore it is permitted to plant nectarines and other mixed species;

From here to the conclusion of the chapter, the Rambam is outlining general principles that will be relevant in the coming chapters (Kessef Mishneh).

The commentaries note that the Rambam’s statements here appear to contradict his statement in Chapter 3, Halachah 18, and Hilchot Matnot Aniyim 3:11, where the Rambam states that it is customary to sow mustard seed in individual rows.

I.e., it is not customary to grow an entire field of them.

As stated in Halachah 6, this and the following halachot apply when the mixture came about unintentionally. If the mixture was made intentionally, even the slightest amount is forbidden.

When quoting this law, the Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De’ah 297:5) speaks of 24 se’ah of barley.

By removing the kernels.

So that the amount of wheat will no longer be considered significant.
The Jerusalem Talmud (Kilayim 2: I) refers to the general principle (Beitzah 4b) that we do not nullify the existence of a prohibited substance. Why then are we allowed to add more barley and thus nullify the presence of the wheat?
It explains that the mixture is forbidden only because of the appearance created, i.e., as stated in Chapter 3, Halachah 5, mixed substances are forbidden only if the mixture is noticeable to the eye. Hence, if the barley is added before the mixture is sown, when the crops grow, the mixture will not be noticeable. Hence, there is no prohibition involved (Rambam LeAm).

There are those who interpret the Jerusalem Talmud as implying that in this instance,
the prohibition is merely Rabbinic in origin. Hence, they question this ruling. According
to the explanation in the previous note, however, there is no difficulty.

There are six kab in a se'ah. Thus there is not enough of any one different species for it to be considered as a forbidden mixture on its own. Nevertheless, since when combined, there is a significant amount of seeds of other species, the mixture is forbidden.

The seeds of garden vegetables are far smaller than those of grains and legumes. Thus a far lesser amount is necessary to produce a crop. We must take this factor into consideration in these calculations [Rav Ovadiah of Bartenura (Kilayim 2:2)].

I.e., a square 50 cubits by 50 cubits, or any area of 2500 sq. cubits.

According to the Rambam’s statement in Halachah 1, the intent is not a se’ah, but one-twenty-fourth less.

One sixth of a se'ah.

I.e., we are speaking about sowing seeds that are bulkier than the seeds of grain and a larger amount is necessary to be sown in the area in which a se'ah of grain seeds would be sown.

I.e., one twenty-fourth of two se'ah, double the ordinary amount.

I.e., after the two species were mixed together accidentally, the person sowed the mixture with the intent of benefiting from both species (Kessef Mishneh).

I.e., with the intent that each one grow in a separate place.

And he does not desire to benefit from the intermingled species (Turei Zahav 297:3).

In the initial halachot of this chapter, a Scriptural prohibition was involved, as evident from the fact that the person was punished by lashes. For those halachot were speaking about instances where the person desired to benefit from the forbidden mixture. In this instance, we are speaking about an instance where he did not desire to benefit. Hence there is only a Rabbinic prohibition involved (Turei Zahav 297:4). Alternatively, the explanation given in note 3 can be employed here as well.

A pungent herb also known as fenugreek.

Instead of for animal fodder, as is also done on occasion.

I.e., it is not sown in a haphazard manner [the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah (Kilayim 2:5) based on Bava Kama 81a].

That place has to be flat and smooth so that the grain can be threshed (ibid.).

For anything more than one species would be considered kilayim.

I.e., grafting vegetables onto any other tree is also forbidden, as stated in Chapter 1, Halachah 5.

If, however, they are not tied as a bundle, more stringent laws apply as indicated in the conclusion of the halachah. The rationale is that the fact that the vegetables are tied in a bundle indicates that they were placed in the earth for storage in that era, there was no refrigeration and not so that they would grow.

The Rambam mentions a vine, because that is the wording used in his source (ibid.), but it applies to other trees as well.
From the connection to the initial clause of the halachah and from the fact that other trees aside from a vine are mentioned, we can conclude that this clause also focuses on grafting. For there is no prohibition against planting vegetables in an orchard of trees other than a vineyard. What grafting is involved? It is possible to explain that the intermingling of the roots of the vegetable and the roots of the tree or vine could be considered as grafting (Rambam LeAm).

Nor those involving the Sabbatical year, the tithes, or the Sabbath labors (ibid.).

For this is not the ordinary way to plant these vegetable.

The Rambam’s ruling is based on his interpretation of Kilayim 2:5. The Ra’avad objects, offering a different understanding of that mishnah. The Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De’ah 297:12) follows the Rambam’s understanding.

For after these steps, the seeds that were planted initially will no longer grow [the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (Kilayim 2:3)].

For the plowing will destroy the plants that have grown. In contrast to the previous halachah, in this instance, he does not have to wait three days, because we do not think that the seeds will produce another plant.

This is the time when plants first begin to grow and it is possible to see whether one’s fields and orchards have mixed species growing in them or not.

And hence, they would be lax in doing so themselves.

See the Sefer Meirat Einayim 273 :27 which states that according to the Shulchan Aruch (and the Rambam) the court’s agents must declare the field ownerless. According to the Tur, by contrast, if a person sees mixed species are growing in a field, he may take possession of it, for it is considered ownerless even though the court has not made a declaration to that effect as of yet.