Rambam - 1 Chapter a Day

See the Sifra to that verse. a 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 otherRishonim, however, interpret it as “removal” and maintain that after the biyur, all that is necessary is to renounce one’s ownership of the produce and thus remove it from one’s possession. Rav Y osef 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 renowned 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 Yorn 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 humans 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 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 pickle_g_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: l)]. 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 animal fodder.

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

n his Commentary to the Mishnah, 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, fruits are no longer available in the fields.

For these are all considered as fruit.

For these are fruit.

For this is its sole product.

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.