Rambam - 3 Chapters a Day

I.e., he accepts the obligation upon himself. This is referred to as a vow (Hilchot Nedarim 1 :2).

Designating the coin for that purpose. This is referred to as a donation (ibid.).

For one is obligated to fulfill his pledges at the earliest possible date.

Deuteronomy 23:22 commands: “Do not delay in paying it” and Hilchot Ma ‘aseh HaKorbanot 14: 13 considers the prohibition against delaying payment of one’s vows as one of the 613 commandments.

He does not, however, have to seek out poor people to give it to them (Siftei Cohen 257:5).

Compare to Halachah 4.

See Hilchot Nedarim 3:3-4.

Although Nedarim 7a leaves this matter unresolved, the Rambam and other authorities rule stringently.

I.e., we obligate him to give until he is certain that he gave an amount that surpassed his vow.

Unlike a coin consecrated to the Temple treasury, there is no necessity for a formal process of exchange. The Tur and the Shu/chan Aruch ( Yoreh De ‘ah 259: I) mention a further leniency, stating that a person may lend out this money - either to himself or to others. See Halachah 5.

I.e., taking petty change and exchanging it for larger coins.

Lest they be suspected of profiting on the exchange.

And thus that suspicion will not apply.

Le., as long as they hold the money in their possession, they will continue trying to influence others to give. Once they give the money to the poor, we fear that they will cease their efforts.

I.e., to sell it and use the money for another charitable purpose.

The Radbaz states that, for that same purpose, if the name of the donor is engraved upon it, it may not be sold for a non-sacramental purpose. This ruling is quoted by the Rama (Yoreh De ‘ah 259:3).

From the wording of the Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De’ah 259:3), the Turei Zahav infers that the decision to exchange the article must be made by the community. It is not sufficient for the trustee of the synagogue to make it alone.

If, however, the donor’s name is no longer associated with it, it may be sold (Siftei Cohen 259: 13).

This.would lead to the desecration of God’s name (Turei Zahav 259:6).

These words were originally addressed to the heads of the gentile nations who offered to help the Jews who returned to Zion rebuild the Temple. Nevertheless, they apply with regard to all gentiles in every age.

The verse continues: “Instead, we ourselves will build it.”

And thus it would be forbidden to benefit from it.

I.e., specific entities like beams or stones. An entity that is not specific may be accepted, for there is no reason to be more stringent for the walls of Jerusalem than for the Temple itself (Radbaz).

These words, spoken by Nechemiah to the gentile enemies of the Jews who returned to Zion, are taken beyond their literal context and applied to building the city at all times.

Based on Hilchot Melachim 10: 10, we can assume that this is speaking about an idolater. If, however, a gentile accepts upon himself the observance of the Seven Universal Laws commanded to Noah and his descendants, we are permitted to accept charity from him.

The impression that the Jews cannot take care of their own and must rely on the gentiles for charity degrades the honor of God’s name (Turei Zahav 254:1). Indeed, a person who accepts charity from the gentiles in public is not acceptable as a witness (Hilchot Edut 11 :5). If, however, the gentiles’ charity is given in private, there is no difficulty in accepting it.

For it is highly likely that the king would take offense were he to hear that his charity was spurned.

We do not give it to the Jews, less this generate merit for the gentile king and allow his kingship to prosper (Bava Batra I Ob).

For diverting the charity from its intended purpose is also likely to arouse the king’s rage.
The Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De’ah 254:2) quotes the Rambam’s ruling. The Rama states that the king’s wishes should be heeded.

For as the Rambam continues to explain, all of the different aspects of charitable gifts are included in the redemption of captives (Bava Batra Sb).

For at any time, his captors may take his life.

An exception is made in this instance, because the captives’ lives are at risk.

From the Rambam’s wording, the Turei Zahav 252:21 infers that if the building is not complete, it may be sold.

The Siftei Cohen 252: 1 states that if the community has no way of raising the funds through other means, it may sell the synagogue.

I.e., they are evaluated like servants sold at a slave market (Meiri, Gittin 45a).

Gittin, loc. cit. gives two reasons: a) Were lawless men to know that they could receive exorbitant prices for the redemption of captives, they would be encouraged to kidnap them frequently. b) this would be very taxing for the community.
The Rambam follows the latter view. Hence, even family members who would be willing to pay the extra expense are forbidden to do so (Radbaz). When quoting this law, the Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De’ah 252:4) states that if the captive is a Torah scholar, an exception can be made and he may be redeemed for more than his worth.

I.e., if captives were wont to be helped to escape, kidnappers would become very strict and harsh when guarding other captives in the future.

For it appears that the father has no compunctions against selling himself or his children and thus the situation will merely repeat itself.

Lest they become assimilated among the nations. During their father’s lifetime, by contrast, we presume that he will educate them concerning their Jewish heritage even when they are held by the gentiles (Rashi, Gittin 47a).

For we do not place any financial concerns above Jewish life.

See Hilchot lssurei Bi’ah 13:11, 14:9, which explain that these steps are necessary for a servant to attain the status of a servant of the Jewish people.

If, however, he transgresses because it is to his benefit to do so, he may be redeemed, but there is no obligation to redeem him [Rama (Yoreh De ‘ah 251 :2)]:

There is another reason to give a woman precedence with regard to the redemption from captivity: We fear that the woman may be raped.

The Rambam is using a euphemism for sexual relations.

I.e., sodomic rape is against a man’s nature. Hence it is more shameful than ordinary rape.

Ketubot 67b says the woman should be given 50 dinarim, but those are not pure silver. Instead, they were seven eighths base metals and one eighth pure silver.

I.e. we give respect to the holiness of the priest’s lineage.

The term challal refers to the offspring of a priest who was born from intimate relations forbidden to a priest or is the descendant of the offspring of such relations. See Hilchot Issurei Bi'ah, ch. 19. Such a person - and similarly, those that are mentioned afterwards - is considered to be of blemished lineage. The extent of the blemish determines the person's place on the ladder of precedence. See the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (Horiot 3:8) which mentions further details concerning this order of succession.

The term shituki means "one who is silenced" and refers to a child who knows the identity of his mother, but does not definitely know the identity of his father. He is silenced when he inquires about that matter (Hilchot Issurei Bi'ah 15:12).

The term asufi means “one who was gathered in” and refers to a child who knows neither the identity of his mother, nor of his father, but instead was “gathered in” from the market place (Hilchot Issurei Bi’ah 15:13). Both a shituki and an asufi are mamzerim of questionable status, i.e., it is possible that they are mamzerim and it is possible that they are not. Hence, they are given precedence over a person who is definitely a mamzer [the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah (loc. cit.)].

The term mamzer refers to a child who was born from an incestuous or adulterous relationship. See Hilchot Issurei Bi'ah, ch. 15.

The term netin, means “the designated ones” and refers to the descendants of the Gibeonites, one of the seven Canaanite nations who converted en masse. Joshua decreed that they be forbidden to marry among the Jewish people. David reinforced that decree, causing it to apply even at a time when the Sanctuary is no longer standing (Hilchot Issurei Bi’ah 12:22-23).

I.e., as a Jew, and was educated in an environment of holiness 13 [the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (ibid.)].

With regard to servants, it is written (Genesis 9:25): “Cursed is Canaan. He shall be a servant of servants” (Rashi, Ketubot, loc. cit.).

Who is given the highest degree of respect in terms of position [the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah (Joe. cit.)].

Hilchot Talmud Torah 3:2 interprets Proverbs 3: 15 which states that the Torah is “Dearer than pearls” (mip ‘ninim) as meaning that the Torah receives precedence over the High Priest who enters the Temple’s inner most chamber (lifnei ulifnim).

The Rambam mentions the teacher before the father, because that is the order of precedence. The rationale is that one’s father brought one into this world, but his teacher brings him into the world to come. If, however, his father is a Torah scholar, even if he is a lesser scholar than the teacher, the father receives precedence (ibid. 5: 1; Hilchot Gezeilah 12:2).

The Radbaz questions why a person’s father is not given precedence over a Torah scholar even if the father is unlearned. Although the Shulchan Aruch ( Yoreh De ‘ah 251 :9) quotes the Rambam’s ruling, the Siftei Cohen 251: 17 states that one’s father receives precedence even when he is unlearned.

See Chapter 10, the conclusion of Halachah 8.

The term literally means “container” and refers to the charity box in which donations were placed and by extension, to the fund financed by those collections.

In his Commentary to the Mishnah (Keilim 13:3), the Rambam defines this term as a pot with compartments.

So that the poor will have their Sabbath needs provided for.

On fast days, it was customary to distribute food to the poor after the evening service at the conclusion of the fast. The poor would look forward to this meal and rely on it to break their fast. If it was not provided to them, they would go to bed without food (Rashi,
Sanhedrin 35a).

We have translated the verse according to the meaning with which it is employed by the Rambam. In its literal context, it would be translated differently.

Because regardless, this does not provide the poor with readily available food and they were not depending on it for their meal (Rashi, loc. cit.).

Three individuals are not necessary for we are speaking about a specific sum levied upon each person and there is no aspect of judgment involved (Tosafot, Sanhedrin 35a).

Since it does not involve a fixed amount, it is comparable to a judgment and hence, requires three individuals (the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah, as quoted by the Radbaz).

This bracketed addition is based on the gloss of the Radbaz who emphasizes that the kupah was intended to provide the local poor people with their essential needs, while the tamchui was intended as a supplement for them from which others were also allowed to take. From other authorities, however, it appears that the intent is that only poor people from other places are allowed to benefit from the tamchui.

I.e., including poor people from other places.

If, however, a stipulation was made that the funds donated be used for a specific charitable purpose, they may be used only for that purpose.

The Rama (Yoreh De ‘ah 256:4) states that this same law applies with regard to a charity collector appointed by the community.

In this way, no one will have the impression that the trustee misappropriated the money (Rashi, Bava Batra 9b ).

I.e., in a manner in which each remains in the other’s sight (Bava Batra, foe. cit.).

Which as the discoverer he is entitled to keep for himself.

Lest people say that he is taking money from the charitable fund (Rashi, Joe. cit.).

I.e., people might say that he is counting pairs and then taking one of each pair for himself (ibid.).

Implied is that not only should one not transgress, but that there would not be the slightest suspicion of transgression.

Coins of greater worth.

Lest people think that he is profiting by the transaction.

And use- the proceeds. for the tamchui at a later date.

I.e., we do not ask them to make a precise reckoning of the income and expenses of the charitable fund.

This verse describes the practice conducted by King Josiah with regard to the money collected from the people for the renovation of the Temple. It, however, is understood as applying beyond immediate context and applies with regard to all those who oversee charitable funds. The Shu/chan Aruch (Yoreh De ‘ah 257:2) quotes the Rambam’s ruling. The Rama adds that, in the spirit of the verse from Numbers cited above, it is desirable for a trustee to give an account. Moreover, he continues, the above applies only with regard to those trustees who have an honorable reputation and.who were appointed to their position by the community. If a trustee does not have such a reputation or he seized his position by force, he is required to make an accounting.

I.e., the kupah represents the most urgent needs of a community. Hence, as soon as a person has been there for a significant time, he is required to pay the levy for that fund. The longer he stays in the community, the more communal responsibility he is required to undertake.

The commentaries note that the standard version of Bava Batra 8b, the source for the Rambam’s ruling, reverses the text and makes one responsible for the tamchui before the kupah. They explain, however, that there are versions of the -text that support the Rambam’s ruling. It is quoted by Shu/chan Aruch (Yoreh De’ah 256:5).

The Radbaz and the Shu/chan Aruch (Zoe. cit.) emphasize that these guidelines apply when a person has not expressed his intent to become part of the city he is visiting. If, however, a visitor decides to become a permanent resident in a city, he immediately becomes responsible for all charitable levies.

I.e., since he has enough food for the day, he should not take from the fund whose . purpose is to provide people with their food for that day [the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah (Pe’ah 8:7)].

I.e., since he has enough food for the week, he should not take from the fund whose purpose is to provide people with their food for the week (ibid.).

For 50 zuz which one invests and uses to earn income is more desirable than 200 that do not provide one with income.

From charity, i.e., since he is deemed poor, he is allowed to take charity, even if doing so will lift him far above the poverty level.

For in these instances, it is as if the money he possesses is not his own.

I.e., functional utensils, used in his day-to-day life. Since he has become used to valuable utensils, he will not feel comfortable using lesser ones (Ketubot 68a).

Since these utensils are used for simple purposes, there is no difficulty in using less valuable ones.

The leniency of the first clause which allows the person to maintain possession of his property.

I.e., he is given charity by individuals, but not by the community at large [Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 253:1)].

Because it is improper that a person of some means should receive communal funds and, in this way, reduce the amount given to poor people who have no resources whatsoever (the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah, Pe’ah 8:r8).
After quoting the Rambam’s ruling, the Shulchan Aruch (Joe. cit.:2) states: “There are opinions that maintain that the above measures applied only in their era. In the present time, by contrast, a person may accept [charity] until he has sufficient principal [ to invest] so that he and his family can sustain themselves from the profits. These are words of reason.”

And has money at hand again.

In his Commentary to the Mishnah (Pe’ah 5:4), the Rambam writes that it is pious behavior to repay the money one received from charity.

This refers to a home that he does not dwell in since, as stated in Halachah 14, we do not obligate him to sell his home.

For market conditions would dictate lower prices at that time, since the purchaser will not begin to benefit from the fields and vineyards until the spring (Rashi, Bava Kama 7a).

We do not give him more than that amount, for a person will never lose more than half the value of his property by selling it at an unsuitable time (Radbaz).
The Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De ‘ah 253:3) quotes the Rambam’s ruling. The Tur and the Rama interpret the passage from Bava Kama differently. According to their perspective, we enable him to receive charity until he finds someone who is willing to purchase his property at half price.

If, however, property prices at large are depressed, we do not allow one to gain time by benefiting from charity (Siftei Cohen 253:7).

I.e., since people at large are aware of his plight, they would only offer him low prices in an attempt to pressure him to sell.

And thus he will not be in immediate need of funds.

I.e., to redeem other captives in the future.

To use for the rehabilitation of his personal situation.

I.e., to bury other deceased individuals in the future.

The intent is not that the deceased acquired the money and his heirs inherited it from him, for he never formally acquired it. Instead, since there was a certain measure of embarrassment involved for the deceased in having the money raised, he is willing to grant the financial benefit for that embarrassment to his heirs (Sanhedrin 48a).
After quoting these laws, the Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De ‘ah 253:6) states: “If the communal officers see that there is an immediate need and they wish to change [the objective to which charity is given], they have that authority.”

Even though, as stated in Chapter 7, Halachah 5, even a poor person who derives his livelihood from charity is obligated to give charity, that obligation is his own responsibility. The community does not compel him to give (Radbaz). Alternatively, that obligation applies only when he has enough for his livelihood. If he does not have enough, he is not required to give (Siftei Cohen 253: 11 ).

Similarly, Bava Batra 9a states that charity is equivalent to all the rnitzvot.

Similarly, Yevamot 79a mentions deeds of kindness as one of the three distinguishing signs of the Jewish people.

On the contrary, it leads to blessing, as Proverbs 28:27 states: “He who gives to the poor will not lack.”

Beitzah 32b states: “Whenever one does not show mercy to the created beings, it can be recognized that he is not from the seed of Abraham our patriarch.”

See also the conclusion of Hilchot Avadim.

There is no verse that fits the wording the Rarnbarn quotes. Commentaries have notes that Job 34:28 reads: “He hears the cry of the poor” and Psalms 22:25 states: “And when he cries out to Hirn, He will listen.”

Chagigah 5a states that it is preferable for one not to give charity at all than for him to give in an undesirable manner.”

Bava Batra 9b states: “A person who gives a p’rutah to a poor person is granted six blessings, while one who conciliates with him is granted eleven.”

The word ma’aseh translated as “work” can also be interpreted as meaning “compel.” In that context, the verse can be interpreted as praise for a person who compels a colleague to give charity.

The Siftei Cohen 249:7 states that this is the most preferable way of helping a person.

Before the person has fallen into poverty, his financial position is still viable. Hopefully, with a little bit of assistance, he can rectify his situation and return to prosperity. In that vein, the Sifra (Behar, sec. v) compares it to a person supporting a colleague who is stumbling. Before he falls, one person can hold him up. Once he falls, even five people cannot raise him. Moreover, if a person is given gifts in this way, his self-esteem is not impaired and he does not develop a negative self-image.

I.e., since neither the donor nor the recipient know the other’s identity, there can be no ulterior motive involved.

For in this instance, as well, the person does not know to whom his donation is being given and the recipient does not know who made the donation.

Avodah Zarah 17b gives an example of Rabbi Chananya’s faithfulness. He was collecting both for the ordinary charity fund and for the special charity fund for Purim and the money from the two collections became mixed together. To make sure that the poor were not short-changed, he compensated for any possible discrepancy from his own funds.
Tosafot, Bava Batra Wb, states that we do not expect every charity collector to be as righteous as Rabbi Chananya ben Tradyon, but we do expect that he approximate his faithfulness.

Ketubot 67b relates that Mar Ukva would throw a certain amount of money under a poor neighbor’s doorstep every day. One day, the poor man desired to see who his benefactor was and when he saw the money, he ran out to the street. Mar Ukva saw him coming and fled. To avoid detection, he entered an oven which though still hot, no longer had fire. When asked to explain his behavior, he said: “It is preferable for a person to cast himself into an oven than to embarrass a colleague in public.”

In such an instance, it would not be desirable for a person to distribute his charity himself rather than give it to the charitable fund.

Ketubot, loc. cit., relates that Rabbi Abba would conduct himself in this manner.

In this way, at least the poor person is not humbled by having to ask for the alms.

Giving to a charity box is also sufficient to fulfill this purpose.

According to Kabbalah, charity should not be given before the evening service unless a poor person actually asks for a donation.

Bava Batra I Oa relates that Rabbi Eliezer would conduct himself in this manner.

Tzedek, “righteousness,” and tzedakah, “charity,” share the same root.

Strictly speaking, this refers to children above the age of six (Hilchot Ishut 12:14), for in the Talmudic period, children were able to fend for themselves from that age onward and the parents were no longer obligated to support them. (Today, there are many authorities who require parents to support their children until much more advanced ages.) Ketubot 50a applies the verse (Psalms 106:3): “Happy is he... who performs charity at all times” to a person who supports children of this age.

The mitzvah of honoring one’s parents does not require a person to tap his own resources to support them. Instead, he must feed them and clothe them from their resources (Hilchot Mamrim 6:3). The Tur and the Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De’ah 251:3) qualifies that this proviso applies only when the parents are not in need.

Hence a person may use money that he tithes (ma’aser) for this purpose.

See Chapter 7, Halachah 13, above.

I.e., not only does he provide them with food, he makes them feel part of his household.

The passage from Isaiah concludes: “Then you will delight in God.”

Avot 1:5. In his Commentary to the Mishnah, the Rambam mentions the concepts stated here.

The Tur (Yoreh De ‘ah 251) states that this is considered as giving charity.

In that vein, Avot 2:7 states: “One who increases servants increases theft; one who increases maidservants increases lewdness.”

Pesachim 112a.

I.e., restrict your spending even in areas in which the Torah advises that men of means should be lavish. See Hilchot Shabbat 30:7.

An unpleasant and demeaning task.

In general, the Rambam appreciated the positive dimension of earning one’s livelihood through one’s own efforts and not relying on others. In particular, he felt that this was important for Torah scholars, because a) it is forbidden to derive material benefit from Torah study, and b) by doing so, he disgraces the Torah in the eyes of people at large. Thus he writes (Hile hot Talmud Torah 3: 10):
Anyone who comes to the conclusion that he should involve himself in Torah study without doing work and derive his livelihood from charity, desecrates [God’s] name, dishonors the Torah, extinguishes the light of faith, brings evil upon himself, and forfeits the life of the world to come, for it is forbidden to derive benefit from the words of Torah in this world.
Our Sages declared: “Whoever benefits from the words of Torah forfeits his life in the world.” Also, they commanded and declared: “Do not make them a crown to magnify oneself, nor an axe to chop with.” Also, they commanded: “Love work and despise Rabbinic positions” and “All Torah that is not accompanied by work will eventually be nullified and will lead to sin.” Ultimately, such a person will steal from others.
See also Hilchot Talmud Torah 1:7 and the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah (Avot 4:7).

In his Commentary to the Mishnah (lac. cit.), the Rambam mentions that Hillel earned his livelihood in this manner. It must be noted that although Yoma 35b describes Hillel as having earned a meager livelihood through physical work, neither it, nor any other known source, explicitly states that Hillel would chop wood.

Gittin 67b states that Rav Sheshet would haul beams. See the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah (loc. cit.), where he elaborates on the labor performed by the sages. He apparently had a slightly different version of the Talmud, for he refers to different sages than those mentioned in the standard published text.

Ketubot I 05a mentions that Rav Huna was a water-carrier.

Berachot 28b states that Rabbi Yehoshua would work in this capacity.

I.e., the hardship he endured by not accepting charity.

For he should have accepted the charity so that he could live his life in an ordinary manner. If it is a person’s lot to receive his livelihood from charity, he should not show false pride and refrain from doing so.