Rambam - 1 Chapter 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.