Rambam - 1 Chapter a Day

Le, all the other tribes were given portions of the land as an ancestral heritage. Levi was not given such a portion. Indeed, as stated in Halachah 10, a Scriptural prohibition is involved in them receiving such a portion.

Sefer HaMitzvot (positive commandment 183) and Sefer HaChinuch (mitzvah 408) include the commandment to provide cities for the Levites among the 613 mitzvot of the Torah.

One might infer from this wording (borrowed from Numbers 35:2) that the cities do not belong to the Levites per se. They are merely given the right “to dwell” in them. Nevertheless, from the Rambam’s rulings: a) (Hilchot Ma’aser Sheni 11:17) that the Levites must recite. the declaration after separating the second tithes, for they possess these cities; and b) his ruling (Hilchot Rptzeach 8:10) that an accidental killer who flees to the cities of the Levites must pay rent, we can conclude that they are the owners of these cities in a way similar to the other tribes’ ownership of their ancestral heritages (Likkutei Sichot, Vol. XXV, p. 93).

Our translation follows the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah (Arachin 9:8) which defines the term migrash as “the settlements close to the city which we refer to as outlying districts where shepherds and workers dwell.”

In Deuteronomy, ch. 19, the Torah commands the Jewish people to set aside three cities
of refuge in the portion of Eretz YisraeJ west of the Jordan and three in TransJordan. It then continues (Deuteronomy 19:8-9): “When God will expand your borders... you must add three more cities.” In Hilchot MeJachim 11 :2, the Rambam refers to this command as a proof of Mashiach ‘s ultimate coming, for “This command was never fulfilled. [Surely,] God did not give this command in vain.” Ultimately, there will come an era, the era of Mashiach, when this command will be fulfilled and these cities will be separated. See also Hilchot Rotzeach 8:2-4, 9-10.

And additional land must be given for that purpose. Ne”. ertheless, a person who accidentally killed a colleague and who fled to one of these cities should be buried within these cities, as stated in Hilchot Rotzeach 7:3 (Radbaz).

See Arachin 33b.

Sefer HaMitzvot (negative commandment 228) and Sefer HaChinuch (mitzvah 342) include this commandment with the above interpretation among the 613 mitzvot of the Torah.

I.e., the intent should be to make the land a residential center.

See Chapter 11 which describes the redemption of a field that is an ancestral heritage. aSee Chapter 12 which describes the redemption of a home in a walled city.

In contrast to the fields of an ancestral heritage that must be sold for at least two years, as stated in Chapter 11, Halachah 9. In the listing of the mitzvot at the beginning of these halachot, the Rambam mentions giving the Levites the potential to redeem the land as part of the prohibition against selling the lands of the Levite. This enables that mitzvah to be understood in two contexts: a) the halachic understanding expressed in halachot 4-5, that the status of the properties should not change, b) the simple understanding of the verse, that the Levites’ property should never be permanently sold, but rather there should always be the opportunity to redeem it.

When, by contrast, an ordinary person does not redeem his field after consecrating it, it becomes the property of the Temple treasury in the Jubilee (Hilchot Arachin 4:20-21).

An ordinary person, by contrast, can redeem such houses only during the first year (Chapter 12, Halachah 7).

I.e., his maternal grandfather had no sons and his property was therefore inherited by his daughter. The daughter was married to an Israelite and so her children are Israelites. Whether she dies in her father’s lifetime or afterwards, his property is inherited by her son, an Israelite.

And when the Israelite inherited his grandfather’s property, he inherited all the rights his grandfather possessed.

I.e., a Levite married an Israelite women who gave birth to a son. That son is a Levite.

Sefer HaMitzvot (negative commandment 169) and Sefer HaChinuch (mitzvah 504) include this commandment with the above interpretation among the 613 mitzvot · of the
Torah.

Sefer HaMitzvot (negative commandment 170) and Sefer HaChinuch (mitzvah 505) include this commandment with the above inte_rpretation among the 613 mitzvot of the Torah. Sefer HaMitzvot, loc. cit., elaborates in explanation why the two charges are counted as separate commandments.

The verse is addressed to Aaron as the leader of the entire tribe of Levi.

The Radbaz states that it would appear that this applies only when one has destroyed the portion that he took. If, however, it can be returned, it should be returned and he is not subjected to lashes. (This is also the view of Sefer HaChinuch, loc. cit.) Nevertheless, the

For land can never be misappropriated from its rightful owners. Hence, his taking it is of no consequence and therefore, he is not punished (Radbaz).

This phrase introduces a ruling that the Rambam arrived at through deduction, without any explicit, prior Rabbinic source.

The Ra’avad objects to the Rambam’s statement, stating that if so, the priests and the Levites would not have the rights to terumah and the tithes in these lands, for (see the following halachah and Hilchot Bikkurim 10:5), these presents were given to the priests instead of an ancestral portion. The Kessef Mishneh strengthens the Ra’avad’s argument, noting that were it not for a special Divine commandment, the priests and the Levites would not have been given a portion of the spoil gained in the war against Midian. Nevertheless, the Kessef Mishneh as well as the Radbaz explain that the spoils from the war against Midian can be used as a source to teach that similar concepts apply with regard to other wars.

In Moses’ blessing to the tribe of Levi.

The Rambam cites the first portion of this verse in Halachah10 as proof that the Levites are not entitled to a portion of the spoil nor an ancestral heritage in Eretz Yisrael. In this halachah, he explains the rationale for that exclusion. The Levites are set aside from material involvement so that they can devote themselves to the spiritual. God, however, promises that this exchange will not cause them any loss, for He will provide for their material needs.

This wording could also imply gentiles.

This expression is used by I Chronicles 23:12 to refer to the holiness of Aaron, the High Priest. The Rambam is implying that every individual can reach a similar level of holiness.

I.e., the Rambam is explaining that the motif that applies with regard to the priests and the Levites can be extended and in truth applies with regard to any person who is willing to devote his life to God's service.