Rambam - 3 Chapters a Day

Sefer HaMitzvot (Negative Commandment 271) and Sefer HaChinuch (Mitzvah 258) consider this to be one of the 613 mitzvot of the Torah.

Bava Metzia 61b considers a person who uses false weights and measures to be a gazlan, a robber, and not a ganav, a thief. A gazlan is not liable for double payment.

Sefer HaMitzvot (Negative Commandment 272) and Sefer HaChinuch (Mitzvah 602) consider this to be one of the 613 mitzvot of the Torah.

As stated in Hilchot Sanhedrin 18:1-2, whenever a deed is not involved in the transgression of a commandment, lashes are not administered.
Moreover, even when one makes or purchases the imperfect measure, and thus a deed is involved, lashes are not administered. For this transgression is defined as not to possess a false measure, and “possession” does not involve a deed.

E. g., from a city’s inspection agency.

Since it lacks a seal, it is obviously not an acceptable measure.

The laws concerning a coin that has damage in its center are discussed in Halachah 6. When a blemish is made at the side of a coin, we fear that a corrupt person will file it down to make it appear as if it were not blemished, without stating that its weight has been reduced.

Today, the term Yam HaMelech is used to refer to the Dead Sea. In certain of the Rambam’s texts, he uses this term to refer to the Mediterranean Sea as well.

For the difference between half a sela and a sela is obvious.

The Ra’avad interprets this as meaning that it should not be used to weigh other selaim. Note the Rambam’s Commentary on the Mishnah (Keilim 12:7), which states that these laws apply only when a coin is used as currency.

The Ra’avad states that if one gives it to another person with the understanding that it is whole, one has deceived him. The Shulchan Aruch (Choshen Mishpat 227:6) differs and maintains that if a coin is assigned a specific worth, there are no difficulties in using such a coin, even it was damaged, provided that the damage does not exceed one sixth.
Note the Ramah (Choshen Mishpat 227:16), who states that the principles that apply with regard to coins are different from those that apply with regard to other subjects, and the measure of difference allowed is one twelfth and not one sixth.

Since these individuals inspire fear, a person will not think carefully when involved in transactions with them and will accept a lesser measure unknowingly.

Since it has a hole in its center, it is obviously worth less than its original value.

In modem measure, a se’ah is equivalent to 8,294 cubic centimeters according to Shiurei Torah, and 14,333 cubic centimeters according to the Chazon Ish.

In modem measure, a kav is equivalent to 138 cubic centimeters according to Shiurei Torah, and 239 cubic centimeters according to the Chazon Ish.

In modem measure, a hin is equivalent to 414 cubic centimeters according to Shiurei Torah, and 717 cubic centimeters according to the Chazon Ish. A hin is equivalent to twelve log.

In modem measure, a log is equivalent to 345.6 cubic centimeters according to Shiurei Torah, and 597 cubic centimeters according to the Chazon Ish.

As Numbers 28:14 states: “(A libation of] a third of a hin of wine should be given for a ram, and a fourth of a hin should be given for a sheep.” See Hilchot Klei HaMikdash 1:17.

See Chapter 1, Halachah 1, which states that the prohibition against stealing applies equally to stealing from a gentile or from a Jew.

This verse refers to the redemption of a Hebrew servant who had been sold to a gentile master.
In his Commentary on the Mishnah (Keilim 12:7), the Rambam elaborates at length with regard to the prohibition against stealing from a gentile, explaining that doing so: a) transgresses God’s will, b) reinforces undesirable character traits, and c) can lead to the desecration of God’s name. He concludes his discussion of the matter as follows: [“With these extensive comments,] we have departed from our purpose, but we have made note of a matter that is not fit to ignore”.

As stated in Chapter 8, Halachah 7, a mesurah is 1/36 of a log.

I.e., they demand that they receive the exact amount that they are entitled to, and are not willing to forgo anything at all.

It is forbidden to take or give a loan on the Sabbath or a festival, lest one transgress the forbidden labor of writing (Hilchot Shabbat 23:12).

I.e., he moves the property boundary distinguishing between the two domains.

See Chapter 1, Halachah 3, which makes these distinctions.

Which is also a prohibition in the diaspora as well.

Sefer HaMitzvot (Negative Commandment 246) and Sefer HaChinuch (Mitzvah 522) consider this to be one of the Torah’s 613 commandments.

I.e., in Eretz Yisrael, the land that God has granted the Jews as an eternal heritage.

Using false measures.

Licentious sexual behavior. A sin between a man and a colleague is considered more severe than a sin between man and God, because a sin between man and God can be atoned for by teshuvah alone. With regard to a sin between man and man, teshuvah is not effective until the person corrects the wrong he inflicted upon his colleague. In this instance, this, involves return of the stolen object.

I.e., it is mentioned in the first of the Ten Commandments.

For it is through the exodus that the Jews left Egypt and accepted God’s commandments at Mount Sinai.
The equivalence between the two is established by the Sifra in its commentary on Leviticus 19:36. The Maggid Mishneh explains that the connection between the two is also theoretical as well. When a person uses false measure, he implies that God does not involve Himself in material matters. The falseness of that premise was proven by the exodus from Egypt, at which time He wrought awesome miracles within our material framework of reference.

I.e., one must check both the mechanism of the scale and the weights used.

Sefer HaMitzvot (Positive Commandment 208) and Sefer HaChinuch (Mitzvah 259) consider this to be one of the 613 mitzvot of the Torah. (See also Chapter 7, Halachah 1.)

A spice that was very expensive at the time of the Mishnah.

An irrigation ditch would serve many fields while passing through a locale. It was considered to be public property. Accordingly, it is expected that the owners of the adjoining lands would not object if a small portion of their property were also included as part of the public domain.

See Hilchot Nizkei Mammon 13:26, which states that “An empty space should be left next to the banks on both sides of a river, wide enough for the crewmen who descend and pull a boat.” This space was not considered the private property of the owner of the adjacent field, but rather part of the public domain.

The halachah is speaking about an instance in which two partners (or two heirs) seek to divide land that they jointly own.

Because of the dry heat. Thus, the division of the property will not be just, for the person whose share was measured in the winter will receive more land.

I.e., substances whose size will not be altered by climate fluctuations.

The Shulchan Aruch (Choshen Mishpat 231:10) and the Ramah quote opinions that allow weights to be made from silver or gold.

I.e., a measure would be filled with flour, salt or the like and then leveled off by passing a stick over the top.

And thus the seller will be cheated.

And thus the purchaser will be cheated.

I.e., solid woods that will allow for even distribution of the substance being sold.

For this will lead to an uneven measure.

The Tur and the Shulchan Aruch (Choshen Mishpat 231:6) reverse the positions. Both the Rambam and these sources agree that the measure should be leveled with one slow, careful sweep of the leveling stick.

Others explain that burying weights in salt will make them heavier.

Rashi (Bava Metzia 61b) and the Shulchan Aruch (Choshen Mishpat 231:7) interpret this to refer to the boiling of the liquid. When the liquid is boiling, it expands and the vapor arising from it fills the measure. Alternatively, the vapor arising from the liquid will prevent the purchaser from seeing that the measure is lacking.

This is the Rambam’s version of Bava Metzia 61b and Bava Batra 89b. It is shared by Rabbenu Yitzchak Alfasi and others. The standard published text states one thirty-sixth.
Based on the measures of Rabbenu Avraham, the Rambam’s son, the Shitah Mekubetzet determines this to be approximately 10.75 grams.

Since the scale is being used to weigh heavy substances, it needs to be large and have ample room for the balances to sway back and forth. For smaller substances being weighed, a smaller balance is used.

Since these substances are very valuable, they are sold in small quantities, and thus a small measure is also satisfactory.

I.e., thus giving the purchaser slightly more than he ordered.

I.e., at the outset, the seller should weigh out 101 percent of the amount purchased [Shulchan Aruch (Choshen Mishpat 231:14)].

The Maggid Mishneh states that a greater amount is given for the liquid measure because some of the liquid will remain in the measure.

Since it is customary to add to the measure sold, by using a larger measure the purchaser will be shortchanged, for he will not receive the extra amount given each time a new small measure is used (Sefer Me’irat Einayim 231:13).

For the seller will be shortchanged and will be forced to add to the measure more times than would ordinarily be required.

For this will enable the seller to deceive the purchaser (ibid.:14).
Alternatively, buying and selling in this manner may cause an unnecessary fluctuation in the market prices for these commodities. For people may hear the price paid per measure without hearing that either a heaping or leveled off measure was used, and they may adjust the prices of their own commodities accordingly.

Sefer Me’irat Einayim 231:28 states that this limit was imposed because we found that our Sages increased the value of a sela from 20 to 24 me’ah. This precedent is supported by a logical premise. It is possible that people coming from other locales will not know about the revaluation and will continue to do business as if the old standard were still being followed. Since the laws against ona’ah, charging more than the fair price, do not apply when the difference is less than a sixth, we assume that they will be willing to forgo the difference.

In his Kessef Mishneh, Rav Yosef Karo questions the Rambam’s ruling. Nevertheless, he quotes it in his Shulchan Aruch (Choshen Mishpat 231:7).

To clean them from oils and the like.

I.e., accidentally. This reflects the Rambam’s (and Rabbenu Yitzchak Alfasi’s) interpretation of Bava Batra 89a. The standard published text of the Talmud [and the Shulchan Aruch (Choshen Mishpat 231:14)] reads “lest he cause to fall,” implying that the seller may deliberately attempt to deceive the purchaser. The Maggid Mishneh mentions other textual differences between the Rambam’s version and the standard text of the Talmud.

Thus, he will receive only half a pound of meat.

There is a difference of opinion among our Sages (Bava Batra 89a) whether the prices of commodities should be allowed to fluctuate or should be arbitrarily fixed. The Rambam [and the Shulchan Aruch (Choshen Mishpat 231:20)] follow the opinion that maintains that the local sages should fix the prices. See Hilchot Mechirah 14:8-11 for further discussion of this matter.

Sefer HaMitzvot (Negative Commandment 243) and Sefer HaChinuch (Mitzvah 36) consider this to be one of the Torah’s 613 mitzvot.

Since the other prohibitions surrounding it - murder and adultery - are subject to capital punishment, Sanhedrin 86a concludes that this commandment also refers to a theft punishable by execution - i.e., kidnapping.

Either male or female, minor or adult.
Although a Jew is not liable for kidnapping a gentile, a gentile is liable for kidnapping a fellow gentile. See Hilchot Melachim 9:9 regarding the Seven Universal Laws commanded to Noah and his descendants

The sequence is important, as reflected in the following halachah.

A p’rutah is a copper coin of minimal value. Generally, we follow the principle that “anything valued less than a p’rutah is not considered of monetary worth.” In this instance, however, we are not concerned with “monetary worth,” but rather with the fact that use was made of the abducted person.

Exodus 21:16, which speaks of kidnapping, speaks of the abducted person being “found in [the kidnapper’s] hand.” The Mechilta explains that in this context “hand” means “domain.”

For the kidnapper’s conduct must follow the sequence stated in the verse. Implied is that even if he made use of him afterwards, he is nonetheless not liable.

Although in translation, the intent of this phrase is that the kidnapped person must be one of our Jewish brethren, the principles of Biblical exegesis also allow for this interpretation. See Sanhedrin 86a.

Sanhedrin 85b leaves this question unresolved, and therefore the Rambam does not hold the person liable for capital punishment (Maggid Mishneh).

This question is also left unresolved by Sanhedrin, ibid.

Most commentaries explain that the same law would apply even if the brother or son were above majority. It is, however, more likely for this to be possible if the son or brother is below majority.

I.e., individuals like those cited above, who are always - or at least frequently - under the supervision of those responsible for them are not included in this charge.

The Maggid Mishneh explains that this is not an inference from the proof-text cited, but rather a reflection of a general principle: “All the punishments stated in the Torah apply equally to men and women.”

I.e., he had been owned by two masters. One freed him, but the other did not.
Deuteronomy 24:7 mentions “stealing... of his brethren, of the children of Israel.” Sanhedrin 86a interprets this to be an exclusion of these individuals, for they are not full-fledged members of the Jewish brotherhood.

Although Exodus 22:2 speaks of “the sun shining upon him,” this is interpreted, as explained in Halachah 10, as referring to a person who one knows will not kill him, and not to a theft that takes place during the day.
The Ra’avad objects to the Rambam’s ruling, explaining that a thief who steals during the day is not expecting to be apprehended and does not have in mind the possibility of killing the homeowner. Therefore, it is forbidden to kill him. The Maggid Mishneh, however, justifies the Rambam’s decision.

See Halachah 9, which explains why this license was granted.
See the Tur and the Ramah (Choshen Mishpat 425:1), from which it appears that if the house-owner can disable the thief by wounding him, he is not granted license to kill him. Compare to Hilchot Rotzeach 1:13.

The court does not deliver - or administer - the death sentence on the Sabbath, but here the person is killing in self-defense.

Rashi, Sanhedrin 72b, explains that a thief who does not break in must be given a warning before the house-owner is entitled to kill him. It does not, however, appear that the Rambam shares this opinion.

The explanation to follow is taken from Sanhedrin 72a.

See Hilchot Rotzeach, Chapter 1, Halachah 6.

A minor cannot be sentenced to death by the court, but here the person is killing in self-defense.

According to the Maggid Mishneh, these are not absolutes, but rather statements of probability. Generally, a father will never desire to kill a son, while a son may desire to kill his father. If, however, one knows for certain that a son will certainly not kill his father, the father may not kill him if he apprehends him breaking into his home. Conversely, if a son is certain that his father will kill him, he may kill him if he apprehends him breaking in.
The same concepts apply with regard to other people who are not related. If one is certain that the person breaking in will not kill, one may not kill him.

I.e., he had already begun to leave through the tunnel through which he had broken in (Migdal Oz, based on the Jerusalem Talmud). The Ra’avad interprets this to be referring to a person seen fleeing from the home.

Whether he stole or not, if he was caught as he left the tunnel, he may not be killed (Maggid Mishneh, based on Sanhedrin 72a).

For in such a situation, he will not attempt to slay the homeowner, since it is possible that he will be overpowered.

Since the witnesses will appear in court and have him convicted, he will not slay the house-owner (Ramban and Onkelos on Exodus 22:1).

In a home, there is some probability that the owner will apprehend the thief. Therefore, a thief breaking into a home is considered to have the intent to kill the homeowner if he discovers him. In the types of enclosures mentioned in this halachah, there is little chance that the owner will apprehend the thief. Therefore, the thief is not considered to have come with the intent to kill.

Although this involves the violation of the Sabbath laws, the threat to human life takes precedence.
The Rambam mentions only a person who is not deserving of death. This leads to the conclusion that a person who is deserving of death should be left to die. Others differ and maintain that since he is caught under the avalanche, there is no longer any chance that he will kill the house-owner. Therefore, if he is still alive, his life should be saved (Ma’aseh Rokeach).

There is no difference between him and any other person who causes damages.

As explained in Chapter 3, Halachah 1, whenever a person is liable for capital punishment, he is not liable for any financial responsibilities. Since this person is liable to be killed at any moment, he is not liable for the damages he causes. (See also Hilchot Chovel UMazik 8:12.)