Rambam - 3 Chapters a Day

Avodah Zarah 62a derives this insight from the exegesis of Leviticus 25:6. The fact that the Rambam does not mention that prooftext here has raised a question among the commentaries: Does he consider the prohibition against using the produce of the Sabbatical year as merchandise as Scriptural or Rabbinic in origin?

Enough for three meals (Kessef Mishneh).

For selling a small amount is not considered as using the produce as merchandise.

For humans (see Chapter 5, Halachah 12).

Sukkah 40b derives this from the exegesis of Leviticus 25:12: "It shall be holy for you." Just as the sanctity of articles that are "holy," consecrated to the Temple, is transferred to the money received for them, so too, the holiness of the produce of the Sabbatical year is transferred to the money received for it.

See Halachot 6-7.

These refer to vegetables that grow under the circumstances described in Chapter 4, Halachah 4, or the like. Otherwise, the vegetables would be forbidden as sifichin. See the gloss of the Kessef Mishneh to Halachah 12.

This is forbidden even if one intends to use the proceeds to purchase food which he will eat according to the requirements of the holiness of the Sabbatical year [the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (Shivi'it 7:3)].

For it is obvious that he gathered the vegetables for his own personal use.

Since the person who reaped the produce was not the one who sold it, there is no prohibition involved (Radbaz).

The Radbaz states that one should also sell the produce at a lower price than usual.

When a person packages produce to take home from his field, he is not precise with regard to the amount he takes.

When a person packages produce to sell in the marketplace, he is careful to package an exact amount, so that the sale will be honest.

The Ra'avad differs with the Rambam's ruling, maintaining that as long as the type of produce is packaged to bring home, it can be packaged for sale. The Radbaz and the Kessef Mishneh support the Rambam's interpretation, explaining that when produce is packaged for sale, it is possible for an onlooker to appreciate that this is the intent from the way that it is packaged.

For an onlooker will not understand that the produce is from the Diaspora and will think that the produce of the Sabbatical year is being sold in an ordinary manner.

See Hilchot Arachin 6:4.

And it must be used to purchase food which will be eaten with the stringencies befitting the holiness of the produce of the Sabbatical year.

Leviticus 25:12. See the Sifra to this verse.

Leviticus 25:12. See the Sifra to this verse.

As is true with regard to the money used to redeem consecrated objects.

I.e., the food to be eaten; see the following halachah, for an explanation.

See Chapter 7, Halachah 1, which speaks about this subject.

I.e., one says: "The holiness of this produce is transferred to this other produce."

Note the parallel to Hilchot Ma'aser Sheni 4:6. There it is stated that if one makes such a transfer, it is not effective. The commentaries state that the same law applies in the present instance.

That the holiness may not be transferred to a living animal.

For the abovementioned difficulty does not apply.

This is considered similar to using it to purchase merchandise.

Shushbinut refers to a custom where a person sends money to a friend as a present at the time of the friend's wedding. Afterwards, when the person himself marries, his friend is expected to send a similar sum to him as a present. The money is considered as a debt and if he fails to so, he can be sued in court. See Hilchot Zechiyah UMatanah, ch. 7.

I.e., the person once lent him money. He may not use money received in return for the produce of the Sabbatical year to offer that person a loan (Radbaz, Hilchot Matanot Aniyim 6:17).

Since the person pledged money, satisfying his obligation with the produce of the Sabbatical year is comparable to using it to pay a debt.

I.e., providing that person with the meal of comfort at the time of bereavement (ibid.).

So that they treat it with the appropriate holiness and rid themselves of it when required. Also, the recipient will realize that he need not be overly grateful, for he was not given produce of full value.

For as mentioned above, such money may only be used for the purchase of food.

Our translation is taken from the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (Shivi'it 8:8).

See Hilchot Ma'aser Sheni 7:17.

As explained in Hilchot Mechusrei Kapparah, ch. 1, these individuals are required to bring pairs of doves as part of their sacrifices to emerge from impurity.

In his Commentary to the Mishnah (Ma'aser Sheni 1:7), the Rambam explains that money from the second tithes - and thus by extension, money from the Sabbatical year - may not be used for these sacrifices, for they are not eaten by their owners.

For then, he is not receiving direct physical benefit from the oil. See Chapter 5, Halachah 7.

But not use it for smearing. See Chapter 5, Halachah 12, and notes.

Our translation is taken from the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (Kilayim 9:3).

For, as stated, above, they may not be used for a purpose other than food.

For that is like using the money to purchase drinking water [the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (Shivi'it 8:5)]. He may not, however, give it to him to draw water for other purposes (Radbaz).

Even though the craftsman will be receiving a present and will return the favor to the person in some way, that is permitted. See Halachah 15 and notes.

A coin of small value used in the Talmudic period. In his Commentary to the Mishnah (Shivi'it 8:4), the Rambam states that this was the cost of inexpensive vegetables in the Talmudic era.

This refers to vegetables that grow in the manner described in Chapter 6, Halachah 4 (Kessef Mishneh).

I.e., it is not restricted to being used for eating or drinking as is money received in return for produce of the Sabbatical year.

See the rationale given in the following halachah.

The wording used by the employer clearly establishes such a connection. As the Radbaz explains, in the first instance, it appears that he is hiring him to work that day. In the second instance, it appears that he is hiring him to reap vegetables.

While it is permitted to bring a small amount of produce in the Sabbatical year from the fields as stated in Chapter 4, Halachah 24, these donkey-drivers brought oversized loads as they would do in other years.

And may only be used for food and drink. This stringency applies even if their employer hired them using wording that would be permitted when hiring a worker.

A coin of the Talmudic period that was twice the worth of an isar.

I.e., rather than pay him now, he promises that he will pay him in the future by bringing him vegetables.

The purchaser is not considered to be paying a debt with the produce from the Sabbatical year. Instead, since at the time he took the loaf of bread, he already stipulated that the exchange would be made, this is considered as an exchange for the produce of the Sabbatical year, which is permitted [the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (Shivi'it 8:4)].

The commentaries explain that this concept is alluded to by the Rambam's addition of the word bo, meaning "for it." This implies that the purchaser is clearly stipulating that he is making an exchange.

For it was received in exchange for produce of the Sabbatical year.

And does not pay him immediately.

As stated in Halachah 10. This applies even to debts incurred from purchasing food.

Or even in return for having perfomed a favor.

The Rambam is adding this point, to emphasize that we do not follow the opinion of Rabbi Yehudah who maintains that the School of Hillel permitted a person to partake of the produce of the Sabbatical year that belongs to a colleague only in expectation of favors (see Ediyot 5:1). Rabbi Yehudah's rationale is that it is not desirable for any person to have free access to a colleague's field and enter it at all times.

In his Commentary to the Mishnah (Shivi'it 4:1), the Rambam explains that the person tells a colleague: "Reap in my field and then I will reap in your field."

There is a difference of opinion regarding this issue in Shivi'it 9:9 and the Rambam's ruling does not follow either of the views mentioned there. Nevertheless, it can be explained that the mishnah is speaking according to Rabbi Eliezer's perspective and Rabbi Eliezer follows the opinion of the School of Shammai. The Rambam's ruling reflects the position that would be given by the School of Hillel, whose opinion is accepted as halachah.

See the Sifra to that verse.

From the fact that a verse from the Torah is brought as support, the Minchat Chinuch concludes that the obligation of biyur is of Scriptural origin. The P'nei Yehoshua (Pesachim 52b), however, maintains that the verse is merely an asmachta, a support brought by the Rabbis for their own ordinance, and in truth, the obligation is Rabbinic. He supports this thesis by the fact that, otherwise, it would have been appropriate for the Rambam to consider the obligation as one of the mitzvot.

I.e., a wild animal which you are not obligated to feed. See the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (Shivi'it 9:2).

As the Rambam states in the following halachah.

On the day of the biyur.

There is a difference of opinion concerning this matter in the mishnah (Sh'vi'it 5:3, 9:8).

This is how the Rambam [in the conclusion of his Commentary to the Mishnah, et al], interprets the phrase yam hamelech. See also Hilchot Ma'aser Sheni 2:2. Others interpret it as referring to the Dead Sea. In his Commentary to the Mishnah (Sh'vi'it 9:2), he mentions only casting the produce into the sea.

Thus the Rambam interprets the word biyur as meaning "destruction." After the time of biyur, the produce must be destroyed. The Ramban (in his commentary to the Torah) and other Rishonim, however, interpret it as "removal" and maintain that after the biyur, all that is necessary is to renounce one's ownership over the produce and thus remove it from one's domain. Rav Yosef Corcus states that this view can be relied upon in the present era and, indeed, this is the practice in Eretz Yisrael today.

In a later addition to his Commentary to the Mishnah (Sh'vi'it 9:4; see Rav Kappach's notes), the Rambam states that fields within a city are considered like gardens. Here he is speaking of those in the outlying areas.

I.e., regarded as ownerless in the Sabbatical year.

I.e., a homeowner will not leave his courtyard open so that a wild beast can enter it at will. (He must, however, regard even the produce growing in his courtyard as ownerless and allow another person to enter and pick it.)

Since this fruit grows in the rainy season, which begins well after Rosh HaShanah, it is considered as the produce of the eighth year and not of the Sabbatical year.

And eaten or destroyed, as stated in Halachah 3. He is not, however, obligated to remove the other two types of produce. Although the one type of produce that is now forbidden has imparted its flavor to the other two types, that does not cause them to be forbidden.

Our translation is based on the interpretation of Mareh HaPonim (a gloss to the Jerusalem Talmud, Sh'vi'it 9:5). He explains that once a jar of pickled vegetables were opened (in pre-refrigeration eras), the vegetables would spoil rapidly. Hence, it is considered as if the entire batch was already removed from his possession.

In this context, there is no difference between the laws applying to food for humans and animal fodder.

For as stated in Chapter 6, Halachah 6, the holiness of the produce is transferred to the money received for it.

As above, these activities should be performed on the day the obligation of biyur takes place. The Radbaz explains that the person is required to purchase food with the money. It is not sufficient for him to distribute the money itself and tell the recipients to purchase food, for perhaps they will fail to do so.

I.e., as the Rambam proceeds to explain, Eretz Yisrael is not considered a single entity with regard to this obligation, for different conditions apply in each of the three regions. Each of those regions individually, however, is considered as a single integral entity although different conditions apply in each of its districts.

I.e., this region - as well as the other two - is subdivided into three districts.

The term Ever HaYarden, literally Trans-Jordan, is most commonly used to refer to the areas on the Eastern bank of the Jordan, as mentioned at the conclusion of the Book of Numbers, throughout the Book of Deuteronomy, and in many places throughout the Mishnah. There are many authorities (among them, Rabbenu Shimshon and Rabbenu Tam) who therefore consider that as the proper interpretation in this instance as well. In this instance, however, the Rambam understands the term differently. His view is accepted by Rabbenu Asher, Rav Ovadiah of Bartenura, and explained by Kaftor UPerach. See also the gloss of Rav Akiva Eiger.

Even if it is no longer available in the particular district in which one is located. See Sh'vi'it 9:2-3.

And one may eat these species in one region even though they are no longer available in that entire region, as long as they are available in other portions of Eretz Yisrael. Among the reasons given for the distinction between these species and other fruits is that there is little difference between the times these fruits grow in one region of Eretz Yisrael and another. Also, these species remain on the tree after they have ripened for longer than most fruits. Hence, there is added reason for seeking a common date.

A village near Jericho, a region renown for its dates. They grow there later than in other places in Eretz Yisrael.

The commentaries have questioned the Rambam's statements with regard to figs and grapes, for they imply that there is a universal time for the biyur of these species and yet they are not mentioned together with the three species at the beginning of the halachah. The Radbaz resolves this question by saying that the dates mentioned by the Rambam are the latest applicable in all of the three regions.

This is a general principle applied in several different contexts in Torah law to maintain unity within the Jewish community; see Hilchot Sh'vitat Yom Tov 8:20. With regard to the matter at hand, since the obligation of biyur has already taken effect in one of these regions, he is obligated to observe it.

I.e., it need not be brought back to Eretz Yisrael to be destroyed there as required by one opinion in Sh'vi'it 6:5. As stated in Chapter 5, Halachah 13, as an initial preference, the produce of the Sabbatical year should not be brought to the Diaspora.

For it is maintained in the earth only for a specific time.

Which produces a bluish dye.

Which produces a red dye.

The Rambam does not mention food for human's or animal fodder, for all species of these types of produce reach a point where they are no longer available in the field and the obligation of biyur takes effect at that time.

And thus is continually available to an animal.

I.e., until the end of the Sabbatical year. Some commentaries maintain that the text should read "after Rosh HaShanah," for the plants that grew in the Sabbatical year will continue growing into the eighth year. In his Commentary to the Mishnah (Sh'vi'it 7:2), the Rambam states: "We continue to use them and benefit from them until they cease [growing in the field]." The Radbaz follows this understanding, but maintains that after Rosh HaShanah, these plants should be declared ownerless. That fulfills the requirement of biyur with regard to them.

The laws of the Sabbatical year do not apply to kindling fuel, as stated in Chapter 5, Halachah 21.

Since a person has chosen to benefit from it, he must treat it as the produce of the Sabbatical year.

Since it is not considered as food or animal fodder, there is no limit until when it would normally be used.

The Rambam does not mention food for human's or animal fodder, for all species of these types of produce reach a point where they are no longer available in the field and the obligation of biyur takes effect at that time.

The Radbaz maintains that this refers to the inner shell which is useful as a dye. The hard outer shell, by contrast, is useful only for kindling and the laws of the Sabbatical year do not apply to it.

For they are useful as dyes (Radbaz).

When these branches are soft, they are occasionally cut off, pickled, and served as food [the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (Sh'vi'it 7:5)].

The requirements of biyur apply, because the tips of these branches will ultimately fall from the tree (Radbaz).

Apparently, these branches are also pickled on occasion.

From the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (ibid.), it would appear that the rationale is that these branches continue growing on the tree.

Because they fall from the branches and thus are not maintained in the earth (ibid.).

For at this point, they are no longer accessible to an animal in the field.

Our translation is taken from the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (Sh'vi'it 3:1)]. There he explains that although matok, the name the Mishnah uses, means "sweet," this fruit has a bitter taste and that term is used as a euphemism. Some have identified this species with the colocynth, a wild gourd with a very bitter flavor. The Radbaz identifies it with a bitter species of grass.

When these gourds have dried, fresh grass will no longer be available in the field for animals.

For animal fodder.

For the rains will spoil the grasses and they will no longer be available in the fields (Radbaz). In his Commentary to the Mishnah (Sh'vi'it 9:6), the Rambam explains that these rains usually come between the seventeenth of MarCheshvan and the first of Kislev.

Or for that matter the rich, for everyone is allowed to gather the fruit of the Sabbatical year (Radbaz).

In his Commentary to the Mishnah (Sh'vi'it 9:7), the Rambam explains that this concept also applies to the poor gathering the presents of leket, shichachah, and pe'ah in other years.

From this point on, there are no longer fruits available in the fields.

For these are all considered as fruit.

Because this sap does not come from the fruit of the tree, but from the tree itself.

For these are fruit.

For this is its sole product.

And treat it with the holiness of the Sabbatical year.

In his Commentary to the Mishnah (Sh'vi'it 7:7), the Rambam explains that since the oil is aged and the rose is fresh, the oil will not absorb the flavor of the rose unless it is left within it for a long time. Accordingly, the oil is considered as the produce of the sixth year.

Since the rose is aged, its flavor will be absorbed by the oil immediately (ibid.).

The wine absorbs the carobs' flavor immediately (ibid.).

E.g., the wine of the Sabbatical year with the wine of other years (ibid.).

If it has imparted its flavor to the mixture, the mixture must be treated as produce of the Sabbatical year. If it has not, those stringencies do not apply. The concept stated here is a general principle applying in other contexts. See Hilchot Ma'achalot Assurot 15:8.

As stated in Chapter 1.

They should not be given verbal encouragement. Needless to say, they should not be given assistance. Compare to Halachah 8.

In this context, the Rambam writes in his Commentary to the Mishnah (Sh'vi'it 5:6):

God declared (Leviticus 19:14): "Do not place a stumbling block before the blind." The intent is that when someone has been blinded by desire and his bad character traits should not be assisted in his blindness to add to his warped conduct.

One may, however, sell these utensils to someone who is not suspect of violating the laws of the Sabbatical year, as stated in Halachah 4.

A long pronged tool.

As long as there is a possibility that the person will use it for a permitted purpose, we assume that this is his intent (Avodah Zarah 15b).

See Chapter 4, Halachot 1, 24.

See Chapter 4, Halachot 1, 24.

The person does not have to establish a reputation as an observer of the Sabbatical year. As long as he is not known to violate its laws, one may sell to him.

For these are the amounts each person is permitted to store (Chapter 4, Halachah 24).

Even in Eretz Yisrael (Sh'vi'it 5:7).

To sell there. In both these instances, since it is possible that the Sabbatical laws will not be broken, we do not suspect that they will [the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (Sh'vi'it 5:7)].

As an agricultural measure, without considering the holiness of the Sabbatical year.

For otherwise, the person will certainly violate the laws of the Sabbatical year, by harvesting all the fruit of the orchard.

Where he could measure the produce of the Sabbatical year. As mentioned in Chapter 6, Halachah 3, one should not measure the produce of the Sabbatical year. Even when selling it, one should sell it by estimation.

For then his actions would obviously be considering as rendering assistance to the violation of the laws of the Sabbatical year.

The Mishnah (Sh'vi'it 5:9) states that these leniencies are granted only "because of darchei shalom ('the paths of peace')," i.e., to establish unity and brotherhood among the Jewish people.

For it is logical to assume that the other woman would be using the produce of the Sabbatical year and working with her would be considered as encouragement.

Even in a matter that does not involve the violation of the laws of the Sabbatical year.

And thus the Jew will receive some benefit from the work performed by the gentile in the Sabbatical year.

If, by contrast, a Jew breaks the ground of his field in the Sabbatical year, it is forbidden to hire his field from him, as stated in Chapter 1, Halachah 13.

Which is not part of Eretz Yisrael and hence, is not covered by the Scriptural prohibitions against work in the Sabbatical year, but where working the land in that year was forbidden by the Rabbis, as stated in Chapter 4, Halachah 27.

Even though the produce was grown in the Sabbatical year.

For all of these activities are permitted even in Eretz Yisrael according to Scriptural Law, it is only Rabbinic Law that prohibits them.

Chapter 6, Halachah 1.

The bracketed addition is based on the gloss of the Radbaz. Alternatively, to guard the produce in his field so that it will not be taken during the Sabbatical year (Kin'at Eliyahu).

For when one pays for the produce, the holiness of the produce is transferred to the money, as explained in Chapter 6, Halachot 6-7.

Thus by purchasing the produce and giving him money, one would be - at least indirectly - causing him to violate the prohibitions of the Sabbatical year. Although in many of the instances mentioned in the previous halachot, we followed the principle that as long as there was a possibility that he would not transgress, we do not restrict transactions with people who might violate the laws of the Sabbatical year, in this instances, it is very likely that a transgression will occur. Hence, we are more stringent.

In his Commentary to the Mishnah (Sh'vi'it 9:1), the Rambam mentions a different reason for the prohibition against purchasing fruit from a common person, because he is likely to have harvested them and stored them in violation of the laws of the Sabbatical year.

I.e., a lulav to use for the fulfillment of the mitzvah on Sukkot. This sale is permissible, because the laws of the Sabbatical year do not apply to a lulav, for it is part of the tree and not a fruit [the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (Sukkah 3:9)].

Which is a fruit and hence, may not be sold.

But instead, desires payment.

And thus, he will be paying for the lulav and not for the esrog.

Prohibition against purchasing even the slightest amount of produce from a common person.

Both of these are fragrant herbs. Our translation is taken from Rav Kappach's notes to the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (Sh'vi'it 9:1).

These fruits and herbs grew naturally and are not cultivated. Hence, we do not assume that the person stored them away and therefore there is room for limited leniency (Radbaz).

Which are also very pungent tasting. Our definition of terms is taken from the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (Ma'aserot 5:9).

These types of beans and lentils are of abnormal shape and grow wild (ibid.).

Since these species are not usually eaten as food, they are not bound by the Scriptural prohibitions of terumah and the tithes (Hilchot Terumah 2:3). Hence there is also room for leniency with regard to the Sabbatical year.

Whose reputation vis-à-vis the observance of the Sabbatical year has not been established.

The reason that it is forbidden to purchase flax from such a person is that flax seeds are sometimes considered as food. Even though the flax has been combed to some degree, there is still the possibility that it contains some seeds that are useful as food.

At this stage of processing, the flax will never be used as food.

As the Rambam states in his Commentary to the Mishnah (Bechorot 4:10), generally when two prohibitions are of the same degree of severity, if one is considered suspect to violate one, he is considered as suspect to violate the other. Nevertheless, this instance is an exception for the reasons stated by the Rambam.

Literally, the Rambam's words mean "the place," recalling Deuteronomy 12:11: "the place which God... will choose to cause His name to dwell." See Hilchot Ma'aser Sheni 2:1. This stringency does not apply with regard to the produce of the Sabbatical year which can be eaten in any place.

I.e., even after its redemption, it remains holy (Chapter 6, Halachah 6). In contrast, once the produce of the second tithe is redeemed, it is considered as ordinary produce (Hilchot Ma'aser Sheni 4:1).

As stated in Hilchot Sha'ar Avot HaTumah 8:10.

Since the Scriptural prohibitions are more severe, we assume that the person will respect them.

As stated in the notes to Hilchot Ma'aser 12:17, the Ra'avad does not accept this principle and maintains that if someone is considered as suspect regarding a particular issue, he is not accepted as a judge or witness concerning such matters. The Kessef Mishneh supports the Rambam's view.

I.e., we fear that they will not remove the produce of the Sabbatical year from their possession at the time of biyur, but instead will store it and sell it afterwards.

At the hand of heaven (Hilchot Terumah 6:5-6.

And given to the priests. They must partake of it as if it were terumah, as stated in ibid. 13:1. As explained there, this act is necessary in order to enable non-priests to partake of the entire mixture. And since we permit the entire mixture to non-priests, we do not suspect that the priests will keep the produce beyond the biyur.

As stated in ibid. 13:2, when terumah falls into less than 100 se'ah of ordinary produce, the presence of the terumah is not nullified. Instead, the entire mixture is considered as miduma and is sold to the priests as if it were terumah (which is sold at a significantly lower price than ordinary produce). In this instance, we do not follow that ruling, because of the suspicion stated by the Rambam.

People who fatten animals.

Bran is used to provide body for paint and also to fatten cattle.

The rationale is that the prohibition against benefiting from sefichin is only Rabbinic in origin. Hence, we do not employ a safeguard because of a doubtful situation.

The city-wide charitable fund to which donations are made for the sustenance of the poor (see Hilchot Matanot Aniyim 9:1).

The Radbaz maintains that this is speaking of individuals whom we merely suspect that they violate the laws of the Sabbatical year. If we know with certainty that they violate those laws, we may not take any produce from them.

We do not suspect that a person will do a mitzvah - giving charity - in a manner that will cause a transgression - causing another Jew to violate the laws governing produce of the Sabbatical year [Jerusalem Talmud (Sh'vi'it 8:2)].

In these instances as well, we do not suspect that the person intentionally gave the money received for the produce for the Sabbatical year (or eggs received for that produce). Instead, we suspect that because he was a common person, he was not aware of the relevant laws (Radbaz).

The borrower must have such produce in his possession. Otherwise, it is forbidden to borrow the produce as a safeguard to the prohibition against taking interest (ibid.).

This leniency is granted only as consideration for the needs of the poor (ibid.). He may not purchase it from him, for in that instance, the money would become money received for produce of the Sabbatical year. We are afraid that the common person will not purchase food with that money and eat it before the obligation of biyur takes effect.

They should not be repaid with the produce of the Sabbatical year, because the produce of the Sabbatical year should not be given to a common person. We do not say the produce with which he repays him is produce received for produce of the Sabbatical year, because the exchange was not made in that year.