Rambam - 1 Chapter a Day

The Rambam proceeds to define each of these terms in the subsequent halachot. The prohibitions the Rambam mentions in this chapter apply universally. There are other prohibitions involving the consumption of agricultural products that apply with regard to non-priests, e.g., terumah, as explained in Sefer Zeraim and others involving the sacrifices as explained in Sefer HaAvodah (Radbaz).

The term chadash literally means “new.” It refers to new grain, i.e., grain that is harvested before the sixteenth of Nisan, as the Rambam proceeds to explain.

I.e., other species commonly identified as grain, e.g., com, rice, and millet, are not included in this ban.

These five species are commonly identified as wheat, barley, rye, oats, and spelt.

A measure of barley that is offered on the sixteenth of Nisan, as explained in Leviticus 23:9-15.

Sefer HaMitzvot (negative commandments 189-191) and Sefer HaChinuch (mitzvot 303-305) include these prohibitions among the 613 mitzvot of the Torah. The Radbaz states that the Rambam mentions chadash before the other prohibitions, because it occurs most frequently, recurring every year.

In the Diaspora, where crops of grain are sometimes planted after Pesach, this prohibition could present a problem. For all grain planted after Pesach, will not be permitted until the following year. In resolution, the Rama writes that unless we know otherwise, all grain is permitted after Pesach, based on the concept of sefek sefekah -multiple doubt. It is possible that it is from the previous year’s crop. Even if it is from this year’s crop, perhaps it took root before Pesach and is thus permitted.
The Bayit Chadash in his gloss to the Tur (Yoreh De ‘ah 293) elaborates on the concept that the prohibition against chadash applies only to grain belonging to a Jew. Grain belonging to a non-Jew is not bound by this prohibition. The Turei Zahav 293 :2 differs and maintains that it applies also to grain grown by a gentile. Most of the authorities respect the Bayit Chadash for his attempt to absolve most of the Jewish people from the prohibition (since by and large, the grain available in the Diaspora is grown by non-Jews) but accept the logic of the Turei Zahav. In practice, however, it is customary to rely on the leniency of the Rama.

I.e., the prohibition is not dependent on the offering of the omer, but instead applies even when no sacrifices are offered.

I.e., places that will not be able to hear a report when the omer was actually offered before noon because they are far removed from Jerusalem.

I.e., by midday, one can be certain that the omer had been sacrificed.

See Hilchot Kiddush HaChodesh, ch. 5, which explains that in places where messengers from Jerusalem would not inform the Jewish community when the new month had been sanctified, the festivals are observed for two days, for perhaps the day considered as the fifteenth of Nisan was really the fourteenth.

Since the observance of the second day was instituted because there was a doubt concerning the day on which the festival should be observed, our Sages ordained that the prohibition concerning chadash should be observed by Rabbinical decree until the conclusion of the seventeenth so as not to minimize. the importance of the festival. Even though there is no longer any doubt concerning the day on which the festival should be observed, we heed this prohibition to maintain our Sages’ original decree (Radbaz).

Provided he is given a separate warning for each one (Radbaz).

All three are mentioned in one verse. Thus one might think that we are speaking of a prohibition of a general nature and we follow the principle (expounded in Hilchot Sanhedrin 18:2-3) that lashes are not given for a prohibition of a general nature. Nevertheless, Keritot 5a explains why this instance is an exception.

I.e., even in places that follow a different agricultural cycle than Eretz Yisrael.

And had not sprouted (Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De’ah 293:4)..

And thus they would not be permitted until the following year.

Thus had one left it in the ground, it would have been permitted.

The Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De’ah 293:5) rules that such grain is forbidden because of the doubt.

The Hebrew term literally means “mixed species in a vineyard.”

The Rambam’s statements have attracted the attention of the commentaries, for they represent a contradiction to his statements in Hilchot Kelayim 8:1: “One is not liable for sowing kilai hakerem unless he sows wheat, barley, and grape seeds together.” The Radbaz explains that the laws governing sowing mixed species are different than those regarding partaking of them.

For as above, the prohibition against sowing mixed species and partaking of them are distinct.

Sefer HaMitzvot (negative commandment 193) and Sefer HaChinuch (mitzvah 549) include this prohibition among the 613 mitzvot of the Torah.

The Torah does not specifically mention that it is forbidden to partake of the mixed species. Nevertheless, it states that it is forbidden to derive benefit from them. There is no greater derivation of benefit than eating (Radbaz). From the Rambam’s wording, one would surmise that one is not liable for lashes from merely benefiting from kilai hakerem.

I.e., when one eats some of the grapes and some of the vegetables, if the combined volume is the size of an olive, he is liable.

Liability for lashes.

In his Commentary to the Mishnah (Orlah 3:10), the Rambam writes that this concept is derived from Deuteronomy 22:9: “Do not sow kilayim in your vineyard.” For the only vineyard that can truly be considered as “yours,” i.e., belonging to a Jew, is one in Eretz Yisrael.
The Mishneh LiMelech writes that in the present era, when the observance of the agricultural laws in Eretz Yisrael is only a matter of Rabbinic- Law (as reflected by Hilchot Terumah 1 :26), the prohibition against kilai hakerem is also of Rabbinic origin.

One of the Halachot in Sefer Zeraim.

The term literally means “covered.” Thus the Jerusalem Talmud (Ma’aserot 4:4) speaks of “something which covers (oral) its fruit.” For that reason, a foreskin is described as an orlah, because it covers the male organ. Here also this fruit is “covered” by a forbidden quality.

I.e., replants an existing seedling or plants a seed and grows the tree from the outset (Radbaz).

Sefer HaMitzvot (negative commandment 192) and Sefer HaChinuch (mitzvah 246) include this prohibition among the 613 mitzvot of the Torah.

I.e., an element of the Oral Tradition that has no explicit source in the Written Law.

One of the Halachot in Sefer Zeraim.

I.e., which type of planting or replanting incurs the prohibition against orlah and which does not.

A Scriptural prohibition is involved. Hence we follow the principle: Whenever a Scriptural prohibition is involved, we rule stringently.

As explained in Hilchot Terumah 1:3, King David conquered parts of Syria before he completed the conquest of Eretz Yisrael. Hence, these lands were not considered as part of Eretz Yisrael proper. Nevertheless, certain laws concerning the produce of Eretz Yisrael were applied there by Rabbinic decree.

Thus violating the prohibition against kilai hakerem.

I.e., permission is granted even in an instance where it is highly likely that the produce is prohibited.

I.e., one may purchase the produce even if one is certain it comes from the vineyard in question. Indeed, one may even pick the produce from that vineyard by oneself (Radbaz; Hilchot Ma’ aser Sheni 10:11).

This represents the Rambam’s interpretation of Bava Batra 24a. Others interpret that passage as stating that we are even permitted to partake of the wine. This is the view quoted by the Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De’ah 294:11).
Tosafot questions: Why isn’t the wine forbidden as yayin nesech, wine touched by a gentile? They reply that we assume that the thieves were Jewish. Thus if there is reason to think that the thieves are gentile, the wine is forbidden (Siftei Cohen 294:22).

I.e., the gentile takes care of the orchard in the orlah years, and the Jew in the subsequent years. He is not considered as benefiting from the produce that is orlah, because it never belonged to him.

For the crops that are orlah are considered to have become the Jew’s property and he is bartering them. Rashi and Rabbenu Asher (Avodah Zarah 22a) differ and permit such an arrangement to be made. They explain that although if such an arrangement is not made at the outset, it is forbidden to make it with regard to the Sabbath, different rules apply here. On the Sabbath, it is forbidden for the gentile to perform work on behalf of the Jew. In this instance, no such prohibition exists (Siftei Cohen 294:28). The Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De’ah 294:13) follows the Rambam’s approach, while the Rama follows that of Rabbenu Asher.

Here also, the authorities who rule leniently, as mentioned in the previous note, would rule leniently (Siftei Cohen 294:29).

This term refers to the produce of the fourth year of a tree's growth. This produce must be taken to Jerusalem and eaten in a state of ritual purity or redeemed and the money taken to Jerusalem to be used for food to be eaten there.

See Hilchot Terumot 1:4; Hilchot Shemitah 4:27.

Hilchot Ma ‘aser Sheni 9:1.

Where the laws of the tithes and the Sabbatical year do not apply at all.

The Rambam’s wording is somewhat misleading. The laws of neta reva‘i are not dependent on the existence of the Temple. Even if the Temple is not standing, this mitzvah applies. Nevertheless, according to Scriptural Law, they apply only when the sanctity of Eretz Yisrael is intact. And according to Scriptural Law, that sanctity was nullified after the conquest of the land by the Assyrians and Babylonians. According to Rabbinic Law, however, these laws do apply in Eretz Yisrael in the present age.

The harvest of a vineyard must be redeemed, but not that of any other type of tree.

The Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De ‘ah 294:7) quotes opinions that state that the laws applying to neta reva‘i also apply in the Diaspora, as well as the Rambam’s view that they do not apply. The Tur and the Rama quote the opinion of the Geonim who maintain that these laws apply with regard to a vineyard, but not with regard to any other types of produce.

The Radbaz emphasizes that even if the fourth year passes, fruit which grew during that year is forbidden in the fifth year until it is redeemed. This is also included as one of the 613 mitzvot. The Rambam, however, lists that mitzvah in Hilchot Ma ‘aser Sheni.

I.e., in the present era. See the following note.

In Hilchot Ma‘aser Sheni, the Rambam explains that in the era of the Temple, the produce would be taken to be eaten in Jerusalem in a state of ritual purity (or redeemed for its value and that money taken to Jerusalem to be used to purchase food to be eaten there iri a state of ritual purity). Since that is not possible in the present era, different laws apply.

A copper coin of minimal value. In the era of the Temple, it was necessary to redeem the produce for its value and add a fifth (Hilchot Ma’aser Sheni 4:1,9). In the present era, since there is no opportunity to use the money as required, a p’rutah is sufficient for one’s entire harvest (Arachin 29a).

I.e., a place where no one will benefit from it.

Seemingly, the wording of the blessing should also be altered as indicated by Hilchot Ma‘aser Sheni 4:3.

This is also a leniency granted in the present age. In the era of the Temple, at the outset, one should not transfer the holiness from one species of produce to another (Hilchot Ma ‘aser Sheni 4:2).

These kernels of grain must also be eaten in Jerusalem in a state of ritual purity. Since this is impossible, they should be destroyed, lest another person transgress by eating them elsewhere.

Before produce may be eaten, a person must separate bikkurim (the first fruits), terumah gedolah (a small portion - 1/40 to 1/60 of the produce) which is given to the priests, ma’aser (tithes, which is given to the Levites), and ma’aser sheni (the second tithe, which is eaten in a state of purity in Jerusalem) or ma’aser oni (the tithe given to the poor). From the tithe which the Levites receive, they must give a tithe to the priests as terumat ma’aser.

Sefer HaMitzvot (negative commandment 153) and Sefer HaChinuch (mitzvah 284) include this prohibition among the 613 mitzvot of the Torah.

There is a question if this prohibition applies even to a priest who would later be permitted to partake of terumah. To explain: There is a discussion among the Achronim if tevel is considered as an independent prohibition or if it is forbidden because of terumah that has not been separated (see Tzaphnat Paneach; Atvan D ‘Oraita). According to the former view, even a priest is liable, while according to the second view, there is room for leniency.

I.e., he will die before his time.

Terumat Ma‘aser should be separated after the tithes are separated. Nevertheless, after the fact, if one separated it beforehand, the separation is valid.

The Ra’avad explains the Rambam’s ruling on the basis of the prooftext cited in the previous halachah which puts an emphasis on “the sacraments of the children of Israel.” That term refers to terumah. The Kessef Mishneh, however, notes that the second tithe is also referred to as “a sacrament.” The Lechem Mishneh, however, offers a resolution.

Although that prohibition forbids eating. the second tithe outside of Jerusalem, it also has this intent.

E. g., produce that grows in a flower pot without a hole on the bottom.

See Halachah 8 and 10.

The Maggid Mishneh (in his gloss to Chapter 8, Halachah 16) states that this is not the ordinary way which one benefits from such produce. The Lechem Mishneh explains that other juices, in contrast to wine and oil, are not considered to have the substance of the fruit.

See Chapter 18 of Hilchot Pesulei HaMekedashim where these prohibitions are discussed.

In all other instances, it is the substance (cheftzah) that is forbidden. On Yorn Kippur, the prohibition does not apply to the substance, but to the person (the gavra). He is forbidden to partake of all foods.