Rambam - 3 Chapters a Day

Here the Rambam is speaking according to Scriptural Law. See Halachah 3 with regard to a father’s obligation according to Rabbinic Law.

The modifying phrase applies to all three categories of individuals mentioned.

As the Rambam states in Hilchot Ishut 2:26, generally, when our Sages speak of a deaf person, they mean a deaf-mute. See Halachah 4.

One whose genital area is covered by a wall of flesh and it is impossible to determine the person’s gender.

One who has both male and female genital organs.

With regard to the tumtum, the doubt concerns the actual fact. Until an operation is performed, the person’s gender is unknown. With regard to the androgynus, the doubt is abstract. The Sages did not know how to define his status. See Hilchot Nizirut 2:10.

E. g., he had been owned by two owners in partnership. One freed him and one did not. See Hilchot Avadim 7:4-7.
The Ra’avad notes that although this is the original conception of the Talmud (Chagigah 2a), ultimately, the Sages agreed that the half-servant’s master should be compelled to free him. Hence he is already considered as free and obligated to make the pilgrimage. From the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah (Chagigah 1:1), it appears that he had an opposite understanding of that passage, maintaining that the original conception was that half-servants were obligated and the final ruling is that they were not.

Although this is a positive commandment whose observance is associated with a specific time, it is necessary for there to be an explicit Biblical phrase that excludes women, because one might think that since women are obligated in the mitzvah of Hakhel, they are also obligated in this mitzvah.

In his Commentary to the Mishnah (foe. cit., quoting Chagigah 4a), the Rambam gives another reason. Exodus 23:17 states that the pilgrimage is “to see the presence of the Master God.” This excludes a servant for he has another master.

Which speaks about the Hakhel gathering which, as explained in ch. 3, is an extension of the mitzvah to make the pilgrimage. Women are obligated in the observance of this mitzvah, but servants are not.

For they are not members of the Jewish people in a complete sense.

In his Commentary to the Mishnah (loc. cit.), the Rambam explains that a mentally and/or emotionally unstable person is excluded for this same reason. He is incapable of learning.

Chapter 3.

This includes even one who has license to remain uncircumcised, e.g., his brothers died because of circumcision. See also Halachah 4.

The latter two professions also involve foul-smelling odors.

Rav Yosef Corcus states that although there is an opinion in Chagigah 4a that these individuals are exempt, that applies only when these individuals did not cleanse themselves.

This follows the opinion of the School of Hillel. The School of Shammai is more stringent and requires a father to bring his son to the Temple when the child is old enough to be carried on the father’s shoulders.

The Lechem Mishneh emphasizes that although the father is obligated to train his son to go the Temple, he need not bring a sacrifice on his behalf.

The Rambam is quoting Chagigah 4a. That source clarifies that although reference is made to a Biblical prooftext, that is only a support (an asmachta). In truth, the obligation is Rabbinic in origin.

Thus even though the child will be obligated in the mitzvah when he comes of age - for at that time he would be healed - since he would not obligated in his present state at that time, his father need not train him (Chagigah 6a).

In Halachah 1.

As enumerated in Halachah 1.

I.e., they must ascend to Jerusalem and partake of the sacrifices in a spirit of happiness appropriate to the festivals.

In this instance, the person must lack both of these powers. For such a: person is considered as comparable to a mentally-deficient person.

Because of their inability to exercise intellectual and/or emotional control of their conduct.

Hilchot Bi’at HaMikdash, ch. 3, mentions the prohibition against impure people entering the Temple. With regard to one who is uncircumcised, see ibid. 2:12.

Hilchot Ma’aseh Hakorbanot 10:9 mentions the prohibition against these individuals partaking of sacrificial foods. See also Hilchot Terumah 7:10; Hilchot Ma’aser Sheni 3:4; and Hilchat Sanhedrin 19:4; sec, 69.

See Chapter 1, Halachah 4.

For example, a person became impure through touching a dead crawling animal on the night of the fifteenth of Tishrei. On the following day, the first day of Sukkot, he is impure and the obligation to bring a sacrifice does not fall upon him. Even if he immerses himself during the day and thus regains ritual purity, his status is not completely changed until nightfall. During the day, he is considered a t’vul yom, In that state; he is forbidden to enter the Temple Courtyard Or partake of sacrificial food (Kessef Mishneh).

Since the obligation already felt upon him on the morning of the first day of the holiday, he remains obligated even when he became impute.

See Chapter 1, Halachot 1 and 5.

In this vein, Pe’ah 1:1 states: “These are the matters that have no limit:... [the offerings brought when] appearing [before God]” See also Chapter 1, Halachah 2.

In his commentary to Chagigah 8a, the Meiri writes that although he may no longer bring them as festive-offerings, he may bring them as celebratory peace-offerings.

By making an interruption, he indicated that he no longer wanted to offer them. The
Rambam’s ruling is based on Chagigah 8a. He does not, however, give any indication for the motivating rationales for his decision. It can be said that offering sacrificial animals that had been left over appears disrespectful to the mitzvah.

Because he had not taken his mind off sacrificing them.

And not with consecrated money or with money from the second tithe.

See Hilchot Ma’aseh HaKorbanot 16:15.

Money from the second tithe must be used to purchase food that is eaten in Jerusalem. Nevertheless, since the meat of the peace-offerings is eaten by the owners, there is no difficulty in using these funds for that purpose.

The tithe-offerings must be eaten in Jerusalem in a state of ritual purity. Hence there is seemingly no difficulty in using them for this offering. Nevertheless, the Ra’avad objects to the Rambam’s ruling based on the concepts explained in the previous halachah, that at least the initial portion of the festive sacrifice must be brought from non-consecrated funds or a non-consecrated animal and an animal designated as a tithe-offering is obviously consecrated. Moreover, it cannot be said that the Rambam is speaking about money received for selling such an animal, for such a sale is forbidden (Hilchot Bechorot 10:5). The Ra’avad does state that just as ordinary money and consecrated money can be combined together as stated in the previous halachah, so too, one may combine ordinary animals and consecrated animals and bring them all as festive peace-offerings. The Kessef Mishneh and Rav Yosef Corcus agree that this approach could explain the Rambam’s ruling, but acknowledge that it is not apparent from the wording he uses.

When work is forbidden.

Chagigah 8a explains that this is forbidden, because the tithing process involves marking the tithed animal with red paint (see Hilchot Bechorot 7:1) and that is forbidden (see Hilchot Shabbat 23:14).

For these sacrifices need not be brought from ordinary funds.

All of the portions of these sacrifices and the firstborn offering are brought by other individuals and given to the priests to eat - either in the Temple Courtyard or in Jerusalem.

I.e., there is no mitzvah for the person to bring the sacrifice himself.

Even though these are sacrificial foods given to the priests.

The Rambam, based on Chagigah 8a, is focusing on a natural tendency. We derive greater satisfaction from meat than from fowl or meal-offerings.

Hilchot Karban Pesach 10:13.

Which a person can decide to bring to complement the Paschal sacrifice.

The Ra’avad questions the use of the term “Therefore,” explaining that it has no place in the Rambam’s text. Possibly, the Rambam adds this word in explanation of why a person can fulfill his obligation for celebratory peace-offerings (Or Sameach).

For by partaking of this sacrifice, one will be eating sacrificial meat on the festival. See the conclusion of the following halachah.

As stated in Halachah 8.

There is some confusion about the numbering of the halachot of this chapter in the different versions of the Mishneh Torah.

When the prohibitions against owning and partaking of leaven take effect.

The thanksgiving offering is brought together with 40 loaves of bread, 10 from each of four different types. One of these types is leavened.

Were the leaven to be left past the fourth hour of the day, it would be forbidden to partake of it and this bread would be required to be burnt at the beginning of the sixth hour (see Hilchot Chametz UMatzah 1:9). Even though there is time to partake of the leaven before that hour, our Sages forbade this offering as a safeguard. See also Hilchot Pesulei HaMukdashim 6:5.

In the previous halachah.
Rav Yosef Corcus raises a question: A thanksgiving offering may be eaten only on the day it was offered and on the following night. Thus on the day of the fifteenth of Nisan when the Pesach holiday begins, it will be forbidden to partake of this sacrifice. He answers that perhaps the explanation is that he fulfills his obligation for the celebratory offering by partaking of the sacrifice at night. He notes, however, that there is no explicit source which states that one can fulfill his obligation for the celebratory offerings at that time. Indeed, Pesachim 71a appears to rule directly to the contrary. He offers a resolution that appears forced - that the Rambam is speaking about a thanksgiving offering brought in the midst of Pesach itself.

See Halachah 8.

Indeed, the Sifri, Parshat Re’eh interprets Exodus 23:15: “You shall not appear in My presence empty-handed,” as meaning “without charity.”

Who were considered unfortunate because they did not have any ancestral property, as the Rambam continues to explain.

This term refers to a convert who also does not have an ancestral portion in Eretz Yisrael.

See Hilchot Sh’vitat Yom Tov 6:18 where the Rambam states this concept with even harsher words of criticism. See also Hilchot Megilah 2:17; Hilchot Matanot Aniyim 10:16.

As indicated by the fact that the Levite is mentioned first in the prooftext.

I.e., all the other tribes were given a portion of land which was divided among all the members of the tribe. From this land, each person could earn his livelihood. The Levites, by contrast, were not given such portions of land. See Deuteronmy 14:29; Hilchot Shemitah VeYovel 13:10.

Like the priests.

See Numbers 18:24, Hilchot Ma’aserot 1:1 which state that the tithes are given to Levites. See ibid. 1:4 which notes that Ezra penalized the Levites and decreed that the tithes should be given to the priests and not to the Levites. In the notes to that halachah, it is discussed whether this decree applied for all time or just to Ezra’s generation.

Sefer HaMitzvot (negative commandment 229) and Sefer HaChinuch (mitzvah 450) include this prohibition as one of 613 mitzvot.

“Beware lest” connotes a negative commandment (Menachot 36b).

Sefer HaMitzvot (positive commandment 16) and Sefer HaChinuch (mitzvah 612) include this as one of 613 mitzvot. The wording of the Rambam is somewhat problematic because it implies that the obligation is to gather the people together, while from Halachah 2, it appears that the obligation is incumbent on every individual. There are certain authorities who explain that even in the present age, it is appropriate to make gatherings that recall this mitzvah.

The seventh year of the agricultural cycle when the land is left to rest.

I.e., on Sukkot, as stated in Halachah 3.

As delineated in Halachah 3.

See Chapter 2, Halachah 1.

The Hebrew term for the abovementioned gathering.

The verse specifically mentions both women and children, indicating that they are obligated. It would appear that although the verse mentions children, the obligation is not incumbent upon them, but rather on their parents who bring them, for in all matters of Torah Law, minors are not considered as responsible for their conduct. This conclusion is supported by Chagigah 3a which states that the obligation of children is “to bring a good reward to those who bring them.”

Although an uncircumcised person is considered equivalent to one ritually impure, that is a Rabbinic decree which was not upheld in the face of a Scriptural mitzvah. Moreover, as the Rambam states in Halachah 4, the Hakhel reading was not held in the Temple Courtyard itself. Hence there is no reason to prevent one who is uncircumcised from attending (Rav Yosef Corcus).

And the only reason they are not obligated in the mitzvah of appearing before God is that perhaps they are—or are halachically considered as—female.

This is derived from the fact that the verse states; “When all Israel come.” That implies the beginning of the pilgrimage festival.

If there is no king, the passage would be read by the High Priest. Sotah 41 b relates that Agrippas, one of the kings of the Herodian dynasty, conducted this reading. Now the Herodian kings were usurpers and not entitled to the kingship according to Torah Law. Nevertheless, they were granted - or at least, allowed - this privilege.

An open area before, but lower than the Temple Courtyard. See Hilchot Beit HaBechirah 5:7-9.

For that is a token of respect for the Torah. Accordingly, even a king is permitted to waive his honor for this reason. Sotah, foe. cit., relates that King Agrippas read while standing and was praised by the Sages.

Le., the Book or Deuteronomy, This book is chosen because it is referred to as Mishneh Torah, “a review of the Torah,’’ which recapitulates the major themes in the preceding books.

Deuteronomy 6:9. Rashi (Sotah, loc. cit.) explains that the Shema is included because it involves the acceptance of the yoke of God’s kingship.

Ibid. 11:13-21. This passage is included because it involves the acceptance of the yoke of God’s commandments [Rashi (op. cit.). so-sog>

Ibid. 14:22. The reading begins with these passages because they include the tithes and the gifts to the poor which are relevant in the festive season [Rashi (op. cit. cit.

The Lechem Mishneh notes that the Rambam probably had a slightly different version of the Mishnah (Sotah, loc. cit.). Hence his ruling is different than that of other commentaries.

This represents an acceptance of the covenant of the Torah, its rewards and its punishments [Rashi (op. cit.).]

Ibid. 28:69,

The Tosefta, Sotah, ch. 7, relates that on that day, priests would fan out throughout Jerusalem with gold trumpets in their hands. They would stand on fences and in every open place and sound them to summon the people to the Temple.

See Hilchot Beit HaBechirah 1:9 which prohibits building with wood in the Temple. In his notes to that source, the Ra’avad explains that this platform does not violate that prohibition because it was built in the Women’s Courtyard and the prohibition applies only in the inner portion of the Temple Courtyard. Rav Yosef Corcus explains that since this is not a permanent structure, there is no need for concern,

Rav Yosef Corcus states that the Rambam’s wording implies that the platform was not built in the Women’s Courtyard. Instead, it was built elsewhere and then brought to the Women’s Courtyard.

The High Priest's assistant. See Hilchot K'lei HaMikdash 4:16.

See the Rambam LeAm which questions whether the intent is respect for the king or respect for the Torah scroll. Sotah 41 b, however, focuses on the concept of respect for the king.

As stated in the previous halachah.

As is done before reading from the Torah (Hilchot Tefilah 12:5).

Ibid.

See the parallels to the blessings recited by the High Priest on Yom Kippur (Hilchot Avodat Yom HaKippurim 3:11). With the exception of the third blessing - in which the High Priest focuses on the forgiveness of Yom Kippur, while the king elaborates on the theme of the pilgrimage festivals - the blessings are the same. The Rambam elaborates slightly more in that source.

The first two of these blessings are recited in every prayer service, the third, in the Shemoneh Esreh of the festivals.

I.e., in contrast to the following blessings where the text is improvised, each king reciting a version he chooses. See Hilchot Ta’aniot 3:7.

And thus might not understand. Some have suggested that a printing error crept into the text and these should be the first words of the following halachah. Alternatively, that the phrase “converts who do not...” should be included in this halachah.

Literally “their hearts.”

I.e., a person distant from the king who cannot hear his voice.

The second day of Sukkot, as stated in Halachah 3.

Recited by the king in his blessings.

As stated in Hilchot Ta’aniot 1:6, trumpets may not be sounded, nor may supplications be recited on the Sabbath.

More particularly, the Rambam considers these as three separate commandments. He discusses the mitzvah to redeem firstborn sons in Hilchot Bikkurim UMatanot Kehunah, ch. 11. See also Sefer HaMitzvot (positive commandment 80) and Sefer HaChinuch (mitzvah 392).

This is the mitzvah under discussion in these chapters. Sefer HaMitzvot (positive commandment 79) and Sefer HaChinuch (mitzvah 18) include it as one of 613 mitzvot of the Torah.

This is also a separate mitzvah discussed in Hilchot Bikkurim UMatanot Kehunah, ch. 12. See also Sefer HaMitzvot (positive commandment 81) and Sefer HaChinuch (mitzvah 22).

An animal with a physical condition that will cause it to die within twelve months. Such an animal is forbidden to be eaten. Nevertheless, the priest may still benefit from its hide, as stated in Chapter 3, Halachah 10. Significantly, when a firstborn son is treifah, he is not obligated to be redeemed, as stated in Hilchot Bikkurim UMatnot Kehunah 11:17.

As indicated by Numbers 18:15. See also Hilchot Bikkurim UMatanot Kehunah, ch. 1.

As commanded by Exodus 13:3, paying five silver pieces for a firstborn son and giving a sheep for a firstborn donkey.

Hilchot Ma’aseh HaKorbanot 5:17-18, 9:25. More particularly, as stated in the first source, the blood of a firstborn offered is poured on the altar, rather than cast, but pouring can be considered as casting. Indeed, Numbers 18:17 uses that term (Rav Yosef Corcus).

See Hilchot Ma’aseh HaKorbanot 9:25, 10:5.

See Chapter 2 where this term is defined and discussed.

I.e., it need not be taken to Jerusalem like a sacrificial animal.

See Halachah 18.

Nevertheless, he is forbidden to shear it or work with it (Hilchot Me’ilah 1:9).

Rabbenu Asher and the Tur (Yoreh De’ah 306:1) differ and maintain that such a statement need not be made. The Shulchan Aruch quotes the Rambam’s view. The Rama does not comment.

The bracketed additions are based on Hilchot Temurah 4:12.

For the fundamental dimension of the mitzvah - that the firstborn offspring is consecrated - applies in both places. This is the correct version of the Rambam’s text. Several commentaries had versions that stated that the mitzvah does not apply in the Diaspora and, hence, they objected.

See Hilchot Terumot 1:1-9.

I.e., ultimately, they will be like ordinary property after they become blemished and redeemed. Even then, they are not entirely like ordinary property. See Ra’avad.

Challah 4:11 relates that ben Antinas brought his firstborn animals from Babylonia to Jerusalem to offer in the Temple and the Sages did not allow them to be offered. Their unwillingness to accept them was not just a Rabbinic safeguard (as was the case regarding the second Paschal sacrifice mentioned there), but was a reflection of Scriptural Law. See Hilchot Ma’aser Sheni 1:14.

When the Temple is not standing, the way the mitzvah is observed in Eretz Yisrael is comparable to its observance in the Diaspora at all times.

See Hilchot Terumot 1:1.

Once the animals are redeemed, however, the mitzvah applies to the firstborn offspring in certain instances. See Chapter 5, Halachah 8.

Some versions of Sefer HaMitzvot, foe. cit., state that Levites are exempt from this mitzvah.

Halachah 2.

See Halachah 16. The firstborn sacrifice must also be eaten in a state of ritual purity and it may be eaten only until sunset on the day following its offering.

Hilchot Bikkurim UMatanot Kehunah 11:9, 12:14.

With regard to the laws pertaining if it was not eaten within that time, see Halachah 13.

Implied is that just as an unblemished animal should be eaten in its first year, so too, should a blemished one.

This also applies if it was born unblemished and became blemished afterward (Tosafot, Rosh HaShanah 7a).

Leviticus 22:27; Hilchot Issurei HaMizbeiach, ch. 3.

For if an animal was not born after a full-term pregnancy, it is not considered a viable birth until it lives eight days.

I.e., for the first twelve months of its life, but no longer.

The priest would desire that the animal remain alive longer so that it will grow and become larger.

When the firstborn animal cannot be offered as a sacrifice.

Even if doing so causes one to keep it for more than a year.

See Chapter 3, Halachah 1, which states that the blemishes must be analyzed by a sage and verified.

Rosh HaShanah 6a relates a difference of opinion among the Sages. Although some favor following the solar calendar, the halachah follows the opinion which places the emphasis on the lunar calendar.

When an extra month is added.

Thus even though it is older than the second lamb, its year ends after that lamb’s year.

The commandment not to delay the payment of one’s ritual obligations. See Hilchot Ma’aseh HaKorbanot 14:13; Sefer HaMitzvot (negative commandment 155); Sefer HaChinuch (mitzvah 574).

On the contrary, as evident from Deuteronomy 14:28, if the tithes were kept for a longer period, they are not invalidated (see Rashi, Rosh HaShanah 5b).

See the parallel in Hilchot Ma’aseh HaKorbanot 14:15.

And Numbers 18:8 uses the term limashchah, interpreted by Zevachim 28a, et al, as “for eminence,” in relation to the presents given to the priests.

A sheep or a goat.

I.e., a calf.

I.e., the priest is willing to sacrifice the work necessary to care for the animal to ensure that it will in fact be given to him. This exchange is prohibited as the Rambam continues to state.

Hilchot Terumot 12:18-20. That source states: Whoever renders such assistance desecrates the holiness of God’s name. Concerning such people is applied [the malediction, Malachi 2:8]: “You have defiled the covenant of Levi.” It is forbidden for an Israelite to allow [a priest] to help him. Instead, he should grant them their portion with honor.

To receive Terumah and the tithes.

To receive the forearm, jawbone, and maw which must be given to the priests.

To receive the firstborn animals and the first shearings.

Since the priest states that he will be slaughtering the animal immediately, he will not be performing any work to care for it and thus he will not be exchanging work for the rights to the animal.

I.e., the priest need not be a member of the priestly watch serving in the Temple that week. Similarly, it makes no difference whether the priest is learned or unlearned. See Hilchot Terumot 6:2. It can be said that perhaps that latter point is the reason the Rambam uses the term “it appears to me,” which implies a concept inferred by logic and not found in prior sources, while seemingly, this idea is stated in Challah 4:9 (see Rav Yosef Corcus).

The minimum measure for which one is liable for lashes.

Sefer HaMitzvot (negative commandment 144) and Sefer HaChinuch (mitzvah 445) include this prohibition as one of 613 mitzvot of the Torah. See Hilchot Ma’aseh HaKorbanot 11:5 which refers to the same prooftext as an admonition prohibiting one from partaking of the sacrifices outside the areas prescribed for their consumption.

This refers to the second tithes.

I.e., in cities other than Jerusalem.

Similarly, the same prohibition includes a priest who partakes of such a sacrifice before its blood was poured on the altar (Hilchot Ma’aseh HaKorbanot 11:4).

In contrast to a firstborn son and a firstborn donkey.

To be used as ordinary property. This applies even if it is blemished.

Sefer HaMitzvot (negative commandment 108) and Sefer HaChinuch (mitzvah 393) include this prohibition as one of 613 mitzvot of the Torah.

This refers to the animal while it is alive. The prohibition against selling the meat of a firstborn animal is mentioned in the following halachah.

Although the Torah gave a priest a right to this animal, that right involves only partaking of it as a sacrifice, not using it as his private property.

After it becomes blemished.

After the firstborn animal contracts a blemish, it must be given to a priest. It becomes that priest’s private property and can be sold or given to whomever he wants without restriction.

Hilchot Issurei Mizbeiach 1:12. As explained there, this is a difference between a firstborn offering and a tithe offering and other sacrificial animals. The other sacrificial animals may be sold publicly, because the money will be used to purchase another sacrifice and hence, it is preferable to get the best price for it. The firstborn and tithe offerings, by contrast, become ordinary property and selling them publicly, is not respectful for them, since they originally were sacrificial animals.

Even if they use a scale for that purpose [see the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah (Bechorot 5:1)].

As explained in Hilchot Shvitat Yom Tov 3:6, riggul refers to a technique where the hide of an animal is skinned off entirely as one unit via its feet, so that it will be useful as a pouch, as a bellows, or the like. Rashi (Temurah 24a) maintain that this method of skinning is forbidden because it is comparable to performing labor with consecrated animals. The Tur and the Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 307:1) accept Rashi’s view.

And later redeemed.