Rambam - 3 Chapters a Day

I.e., in the Temple.

The third and the sixth years of the seven year cycle.

For if it is left for any significant amount of time, it will spoil [the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah (Ma’aser Shei1ni 5:6)].

For they also will spoil if left for any significant amount of time.

One third of its growth, as stated in Hilchot Ma’aserot 2:5.

See Hilchot Mechirah, ch. 6, which describes how this transfer operates. This means of transfer is used, because this is the only way the ownership of this produce can be given to these individuals without an actual physical transfer.

See Hilchot Mechirah, ch. 5, for a description. Although this legal act is frequently employed, it is not appropriate in this instance, because the gift would resemble a sale and not a present.

When Ezra led the Jews back to Eretz Yisrael after the Babylonian exile, by and large, the Levites did not accompany him. Therefore, he punished them, decreeing that the tithes should be given to the priests instead (Hilchot Ma'aser 1:4). From the Rambam's statements here and also in that source, some have inferred that Ezra's decree applied only in his generation and not in later eras. This conclusion is not, however, borne out by his Commentary to the Mishnah (ibid. 5:15)].

Some interpret this as referring to the recitation of a blessing when making the separations. The commentaries question these interpretations, however, because the blessings were instituted by the Rabbis and here we are speaking of the exegesis of a Biblical verse. Others maintain that it refers to reciting grace after partaking of the grain, for that is a Scriptural command.

This refers to the first fruits. The second tithe need not be brought to the Temple.

A child born out of an adulterous or incestuous union. Even though they are forbidden to marry, they are considered heirs and are granted their ancestral heritage.

Although they may purchase land in Eretz Yisrael, they were not granted an ancestral heritage when the land was divided among the tribes and thus there is no portion of Eretz Yisrael that is theirs in an ultimate sense. For during the Jubilee year, any purchased land will return to its owner. Note the contrast to the declaration concerning the first fruits which they are required to make (Hilchot Bikkurim 4:3).

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.

The Rambam specifies and categorizes them in this chapter.

Numbers 18:19 speaks of “an eternal covenant of salt.” It is called a covenant of salt, because just as salt never spoils, so too, this covenant will endure forever (Rashi).

The Kessef Mishneh notes that Menachot 18b, the Rambam’s apparent source, states: “Any priest who does not acknowledge the priestly service does not receive a portion of the priesthood.” The Kessef Mishneh questions why the Rambam changes the wording of his source.

E. g., like terumah or the first fruits which are referred to as “holy.”

These presents also include elements of the sacrificial offerings. The Rambam speaks about the mitzvah to partake of these sacred foods in Hilchot Ma‘aseh HaKorbanot 10:1-2. And see a15:22 which describes partaking of terumah.

See Halachah 4. The division of the presents into these categories is not found in a prior Rabbinic source, but instead, was made by the Rambam himself (Kessef Mishneh).

See Halachah 5.

See Halachah 6.

See Halachah 7.

See Halachah 8.

See Hilchot Ma‘aseh HaKorbanot 9:1, 10:3.

In Halachah 13, however, the Rambam considers these two as separate presents. As the Radbaz clarifies, there is a difference in the procedure involved in these two offerings. See Hilchot Ma‘aseh HaKorbonot 1:1; 10:3.

See Hilchot Ma‘aseh HaKorbanot 1:4, 9:4.

I.e., the portion that remains after a handful is taken to be offered on the altar. See Hilchot Temidim UMusafim 7:12.

I.e., the portion that remains after a handful is taken to be offered on the altar. An Israelite's offering is mentioned in contrast to that of a priest which is offered on the altar entirely. See Hilchot Ma'aseh HaKorbanot 10:2-3, 12:9.

See Hilchot Temidim UMusafim 8:11.

See Hilchot Temidim UMusafim 4:9.

See Hilchot Mechusrei Kapparah 4:3.

See ibid. 9:12.

See Hilchot Bechorot 1:2.

See Chapter 3, Halachah 3.

And must be eaten in a state of ritual purity.

See Chapter 10, Halachah 1.

According to Rabbinic Law, terumah and challah are also separated in the Diaspora.

On the contrary, if they are taken to the Diaspora, they become impure (see Hilchot Terumah 2:17).

The foreleg, the jaw, and the maw; see Chapter 9, Halachah 1.

See Chapter 11.

See Hilchot Gezeilah 8:5.

See Hilchot Arachin VaCharamim 6:4.

The Rambam puts this present in a category of its own, because unlike all of the above which were given by individuals, this present comes from the Temple's property (Radbaz). Once the hides are given to the priests, they are considered as ordinary property and may be used for mundane purposes.

See Hilchot Ma ‘aseh HaKorbanot 1:17 with regard to the sacrifices of lesser sanctity. Chapter 3, Halachah 1, equates the first fruits with those sacrifices.

See Hilchot Ma’aseh HaKorbanot 10:17.

As explained in Hilchot K'lei HaMikdash 4:3, the priestly family was divided into 24 watches. Each one would serve in the Temple for a week. During that week, its members had the rights to all the sacrifices offered during that time.

This sacrifice is not given to the priests of the weekly watch, but instead to the priest of the owner's choice [Hilchot Bechorot 1:15; the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (Challah 4:9)]. That priest in turn offers it on the altar and may give its meat to whichever members of the priestly family, males and females, he desires to (see Radbaz).

See Hilchot Terumah 12:22.

For the laws applying to terumah apply to both of these.

Tosefta, Challah 2:7.

Obviously these hides are not eaten in Jerusalem, but instead, can be sold and the proceeds used for any purpose, the Rambam places them in this category, because the priests would not take them out of the holy city. Instead, as a token of respect for their holiness, they would sell them there and use the proceeds to partake of food that was eaten in that holy place (Radbaz, gloss to Halachah 5).

A thanksgiving offering is one type of peace offering.

I.e., from the nazirite's ram, the priest is given a foreleg, a hindleg, and the breast. And he is also given a portion of bread that is offered with that sacrifice.

See the sources given above.

See Hilchot Gezeilah 8:5.

See Hilchot Gezeilah 8:5.

See chs. 2-4.

See chs. 5-8.

See chs. 5-8.

See ch. 10.

See ch. 11.

See ch. 12.

Sefer HaMitzvot (positive commandment 125) and Sefer HaChinuch (mitzvah 91) include this commandment among the 613 mitzvot of the Torah.

I.e., from the land given specifically to you, Eretz Yisrael.

I.e., only when the House of God, the Temple, is standing.

I.e., the lands on the eastern side of the Jordan that were conquered from these kings by Moses.

Lands to the north of Eretz Yisrael. These lands are not considered as part of Eretz Yisrael according to Scriptural Law. See Hilchot Terumah 1:9.

Lands to the southeast of Eretz Yisrael which were not conquered by the Jews upon their initial conquest of the land. Moses as he led our people to the promised land. These territories were not part of the land flowing with milk and honey promised to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. The Rambam’s position here represents a reversal from his position in Sefer HaMitzvot, loc. cit., where he writes that according to Scriptural Law, the mitzvah of the first fruits applies in these lands. Similarly, in his Commentary to the Mishnah (Bikkurim 1:10), he states that the mitzvah applies in these lands according to Scriptural Law.

See Hilchot Terumah I: 1.

And instead are considered as ordinary produce. The rationale is that the first fruits must be ritually pure and all produce coming from the Diaspora is ritually impure by Rabbinic decree.

Deuteronomy 8:8.

See the gloss of Rabbi Akiva Eiger which states that rye, oats, and spelt, although considered as subspecies of wheat and barley in other contexts, should not be brought as the first fruits.

The Jerusalem Talmud (Bikkurim 1:3) derives this from the exegesis of Deuteronomy 26:2: “And you shall take of the first of all the fruit of the land. “Take of’ implies an exclusion. Not all of the fruit may be brought as first fruits.

As the Rambam explains in his Commentary to the Mishnah (Shvi’it 2:5), these techniques are used to hurry the ripening of figs. Although they are effective, they reduce the quality of the figs.

I.e., at times, fires were lit under grape vines to kill worms and insects in the vine. This, however, reduced the quality of the fruit.

I.e., one may not bring juice from pomegranates, dates, and figs.

From the conclusion of the tractate of Challah, it would appear that it is not acceptable to bring wine or oil either. Nevertheless, the Rambam does not accept that teaching, favoring instead Terumah 11:3 which deems them acceptable. See the explanation in the Kessef Mishneh.

For it is preferable that fresh fruits should be brought.

For if they bring fresh fruit, it will spoil.

After Chanukah, it is not appropriate to bring the first fruits, because they are to be brought at the time of the harvest and the harvest is concluded by Sukkot. Moreover, if one brings the first fruits between Sukkot and Chanukah, he cannot make the declaration concerning them (Chapter 4, Halachah 13). The Ra’avad objects to the Rambam’s words, for their implication is that the first fruit brought after Chanukah becomes consecrated. The Ra’avad maintains that since the fruit did not ripen until then, the first fruits are considered as of low quality and do not become consecrated. Nor, the Ra’avad maintains, can they be considered as being from the following year, as the Rambam states, because until the 15th of Shvat, they are considered as from the crops of the previous year. The Kessef Mishneh supports the Rambam, maintaining that since the crops have generally been harvested, any produce that does grow is considered as belonging to the coming year. The Radbaz emphasizes that here too, we are speaking of produce that will not spoil. Otherwise, it is not consecrated.

Yevamot 73b states that there is an equation between the tithes and the first fruits. Hence, just as the tithes may not be brought from one harvest for another (Hilchot Terumah 5:11; Hilchot Ma’aser 1:7), so too, the law applies with regard to the first fruits.

This refers to the first fruits brought from fruit. With regard to wheat and barley, the date when a change is made is Rosh HaShanah.

I.e., the prooftext implies that the obligation applies to any and all situations where these species grow (see Menachot 84b and Radbaz).

The plural form of the term indicates that the obligation applies even when the produce is owned by two people jointly (Chullin 136a).

Produce that grows in such a situation is considered as growing from the earth in certain contexts. Nevertheless, the prooftext indicates that the first fruits are an exception.

'Extending' refers to planting a bough from a tree or a vine in the ground, so that an extension can grow from it [the Rambam' s Commentary to the Mishnah (Bikkurim 1:1)].

Without his colleague's permission as obvious from the following halachah.

And even the fruit that grow from the trunk are nurtured to a certain extent from the end that was implanted.

There is, however, no way one can be granted permission to use the public domain in this manner.

See Hilchot Shechenim 10:8.

This applies even to the fruit which grew in his colleague’s domain. Since his colleague gave him pennission to grow the produce there, it can be considered as his land.

The commentaries note that when Hilchot Nizkei Mammon 10:8 mentions the ten conditions on which basis Joshua gave the land to the people as an inheritance, this condition is not included among them. Among the resolutions given is that the conditions mentioned there apply also in the Diaspora, while this condition applies only in Eretz Yisrael.

The former give the owners a share of the crops; the latter rent the fields for money. See Hilchot Ma’aser 6:13; the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah (Bikkurim 1:2).

This was, unfortunately, a common practice in Eretz Yisrael during the Roman era, when the gentiles and their Jewish comrades would threaten a person until he was forced to sell his land for far below its worth.

One who takes land without paying at all.

And none of the above are rightful owners of the land.

For land can never be stolen and always remains the property of its rightful owners (see Hilchot Gezeilah 8:14).

See Hilchot Mechirah 24:1-2. The rationale is that since he purchased this amount of trees, he also receives the land necessary to tend to them. Although he is not the legal owner of the land and has only the right to use it, that right is sufficient the land to be called his own.

Because he is the owner of both the land and the tree (Our bracketed additions are based on the gloss of the Radbaz. We are forced to accept this interpretation, since, as stated above, the first fruits must come from “your land.”)

I.e., even if he does not purchase the fruit and the land at the same time, as long as he owns both at the time appropriate to bring the first fruits, he should bring them (Radbaz).

See the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah (Gittin 4:9); note the differences between his initial version and his final version. There is a debate among the commentaries if the obligation to bring the first fruits is Rabbinic in origin (as was the Rambam's initial view) or Scriptural in origin (as is his view here).

The Ra’avad comments that this applies even though the produce reached maturity while in the possession of the gentile. The commentaries state that the Rambam would accept this ruling.

Hilchot Terumah 1:10.

A tree that was worshiped, as was the practice of both the Canaanites and the Greeks. When a gentile owns an entity that is worshiped, he can nullify its connection with idolatrous worship and from that time onward, it may be used for ordinary purposes. Nevertheless, it is not fit to be used for an offering on the Altar, because of its previous connection with idolatry. An entity owned by a Jew that was worshiped can never be nullified.

As stated in Hilchot Issurei Mizbeiach 3:6, if an animal was once associated with the worship of false deities, it may no longer be used as a sacrifice in the Temple.

And the stringencies applied to the first fruits, e.g., that they be eaten in a state of ritual purity, are also applied to them.

As the first fruits themselves.

Le., even from Transjordan and Syria (Radbaz).

One may, however, adorn figs with grapes and grapes with dates (Bikkurim 3:10).

As a sign, so that he will recognize them later. There is no obligation to use a reed for this purpose. Another sign is also acceptable. The Rambam was merely stating a common practice (Commentary to the Mishnah, Bikkurim 3:1).

Although they must reach a complete stage of development by the time they are brought to the Temple, it is not necessary that they reach this stage at the time of their designation.

Unless he designates them, the fact that they are set aside is not sufficient for them to be considered as first fruits.

See parallels in Hilchot Ma’aser Sheini 3:9; Hilchot Meilah 4:7. Terumah and the second tithe, by contrast, should be set aside even if the produce is impure, for they will not be wasted.

And consecrated articles may not be destroyed. It is necessary for the Rambam to give this explanation, because the Torah refers to the first fruits as terumah and impure terumah may be kindled.

See Halachah 3 which states that spoiled produce is unacceptable.

For then, they are no longer fit to be offered.

He does not, however, make the declaration for the first fruits when bringing these fruits, as stated in Chapter 4, Halachah 9.

Once he brings them to the Temple Courtyard, he is not liable to replace even if they become impure (Radbaz).

The rationale for this ruling can be explained as follows: When a person sends his first fruits to the Temple via an agent, the agent does not make the declaration (Chapter 4, Halachah 2). Since they were harvested in a manner that allows that declaration to be made, it is improper for them to be sent in a manner that prevents it from being made.

For in this instance, they were harvested with the intent that the declaration not be made.