Rambam - 1 Chapter a Day

I.e., a deer, a wild goat or other kosher animal that has not been domesticated.

I.e., if the animal’s internal chemistry could change the makeup of the poison and render it harmless, and the animal lived a sufficient time for this chemical reaction to take place, the animal’s meat is permitted. (See Chulin 59a.)

This is one of the examples that illustrates the principle “[A suspicion of] danger is more severe than [a suspicion of] a prohibition.” Although we do not suspect that the animal was taref, we forbid it because of the possible danger.

The Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De’ah 60:3) quotes the Rambam’s ruling. The Ramah writes that since poisonous snakes are uncommon in our lands, just as we do not suspect that uncovered water has been poisoned, we do not forbid such meat.

I.e., the entire fruit is forbidden. Despite the fruit’s being large, we do not require a certain portion near the hole to be cut off, allowing the remainder to be eaten. The rationale is that we suspect that the venom became mixed with the juice of the fruit and spread throughout the entire fruit.

If, by contrast, the produce is dry, one may cut off the portion that has been bitten and partake of the remainder.

I.e., we do not conclude that the holes were made by the bird or the rat and not by a poisonous animal.

The fact that there are no outward signs of the venom’s presence indicates that either there is none, or that it has aged so long that it is no longer dangerous.

The Ra’avad notes that the Jerusalem Talmud (Terumot 2:5), the source for this halachah, uses the term פס. In contrast to the Rambam, who interprets it as referring to the palm of one’s hand, the Ra’avad interprets it as referring to a slice of bread or meat.

I.e., one’s hands may touch a person or a substance without one’s being aware.

This refers to the practice, adopted from the Romans, in which the gentry would eat while reclining on couches.
The Ra’avad states that the Jerusalem Talmud (ibid.) is referring to a bed on which one is sleeping, and the difficulty refers to the spirit of impurity that is generated when a person sleeps. As an extension of this concept, one should not store food or clothing under a bed, lest it be affected by this spirit of impurity. Similarly, one should be careful not to touch food or clothing before washing with negel vasser after rising in the morning.

The Ra’avad offers a different rationale for this law, explaining that doing so would be an act of disrespect for these foods. The Kessef Mishneh states that the Jerusalem Talmud (ibid.), the source for this halachah, can be interpreted either way, and a God-fearing person should respect both approaches.

And may fall at any moment.

Lest it collapse entirely; alternatively, because snakes, scorpions, and other poisonous animals are often found there.

This also includes living in or passing through various neighborhoods or cities.

This advice is being given to a right-handed person. The intent is that since his right hand is stronger, it will be easier for the person to defend himself in this position if necessary.

Even when they are both on level ground.

The above laws and those that follow were enacted in the time of the Roman occupation of Israel, when the gentiles were wont to perpetuate violence against the Jews for no reason. From the fact that the Rambam included these laws in his code written almost 1000 years later [and they are also cited by the Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De’ah 153:2-3), written approximately 350 years after the Rambam lived] indicates that unfortunately, such violence had remained a common factor within Jewish life. Although in America such wanton acts seem difficult to conceive, we have only to go back in history 40 years or think of the murders being perpetuated today in Eretz Yisrael to understand why such laws are mentioned.

Literally, “extend the road for him”; see the following note.

I.e., despite the fact that Jacob never intended to come to Seir, he told Esau that he would, in the hope that Esau would wait for him there and perpetrate any violence he desired at that time, when he would be in his home surroundings. Similarly, the intent is that a Jew should give such a misleading answer to a gentile, giving him a further destination, so that if the gentile lies in wait for him, one hopes that the Jew will have turned from the road beforehand.

Based on Rashi, Avodah Zarah 27a, b, it appears that the rationale for this prohibition is that we fear that the gentile will poison the Jew. This suspicion is also mentioned by the Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De’ah 155:1).
The Shulchan Aruch [based on the statements of Tosafot (Avodah Zarah 27b)], however, adds a provision - that it is permitted to be treated by a gentile doctor if he is a recognized professional. Based on this position, in the present era, when physicians are licensed by the government and vicarious wrongdoing would not be allowed to go unpunished, it is obviously permissible to be treated by a gentile doctor. Indeed, we see that many leading Rabbis have done so, when necessary.
Moreover, Tosafot (ibid.) also explains that the prohibition applies only when the remedy given by the doctor is associated with the false deity worshiped by the gentile. If there is no such association, there is no prohibition.
(The fact that the Rambam mentions these laws here, in the laws that involve protecting our lives, and not in Hilchot Avodat Kochavim, which explain in detail our relation with idolaters, appears to indicate that he shares Rashi’s perspective.)

I.e., since there is no hope that the patient will recover by natural means, it is preferable to take the risk of being treated by the gentile than to resign oneself to death.

For we fear that one will be impressed by him and adopt his lifestyle. Physical death is thus preferred to spiritual death.
In practice, we see that many leading Rabbis have themselves been treated - and have instructed others to be treated - by doctors whose level of Torah observance leaves much to be desired. Their position can be explained by the rationale from Tosafot mentioned above.

Since only money is at stake, one may take the risk of going to a gentile doctor or not, at one’s own discretion.

Avodah Zarah 27a considers this a financial matter alone, since there is no threat of death.

See Hilchot Shabbat 2:4-5, which defines these ailments.

Rashi, Avodah Zarah 27b explains this leniency as follows: Since the gentile doctor sees that the patient is merely asking his opinion and is not relying on him, he will not give him bad advice, lest the advice be proven wrong and the doctor damage his reputation thereby.

He is afraid that the person’s absence will be noted, and others will investigate his disappearance and discover the murder.

I.e., although the person himself is not important, he puts on airs of being so, to create an impression on the gentile barber.

Rashi, Avodah Zarah 15a, states that the reason for this prohibition is that we fear they will use the weapons to harm Jews.

Iron that was used for making weaponry.

These animals were used by the Romans to fight gladiators in their stadiums.

One may question if this law is applicable today, particularly in light of the fact that a large portion of the income of the State of Israel comes from the arms trade, and none of the Torah authorities in the Holy Land or in the diaspora have called for a cessation of these activities.
It is possible to explain that this law was instituted in the Talmudic period, when the Roman rulers of Eretz Yisrael saw the Jews as a separate political body and persecuted them vicariously. Hence, anyone selling weaponry to the Romans could easily have been considered as contributing to the harm of our people. This situation was perpetuated throughout most of the subsequent period until the modern age.
In a large portion of today’s democracies, the Jews are not singled out as separate entities, and there is no fear of the local armies turning against them. Hence, it might be said that although we are anxiously awaiting the time when nations will “beat their swords into plowshares and their spears into pruning hooks,” until that prophecy is fulfilled, Jews who engage in the arms trade with nations that are not enemies of our people are not worthy of censure.

For ultimately it will lead to the same negative purpose.

Kin’at Eliyahu interprets Avodah Zarah 16a, the source for this halachah, as giving license to sell to the ruling army when they defend the Jewish inhabitants.

For without weaponry, he would not dare to sin.

Sefer HaMitzvot (Negative Commandment 299) and Sefer HaChinuch (Mitzvah 232) consider this to be one of the 613 mitzvot of the Torah.
In Sefer HaMitzvot, the Rambam emphasizes that the commandment extends the verse beyond its literal meaning and interprets it as referring to a person who deceives a colleague by giving him improper advice. As in this halachah, he also applies the prohibition to one who supports or aids a transgressor of Torah law.

Although a servant is also commanded to observe the mitzvot, since he is wicked he should be left to his perversity. The Rambam’s source is the behavior of Bava ben Buta, who gave Herod advice to rebuild the Temple. Bava Batra 4a states that it is only out of deference to the Temple that he was permitted to give such advice.

Of being thrown into the lions’ den (Bava Batra, ibid.).

Nebuchadnezzar had seen a disturbing vision in a dream. Daniel interpreted the dream to mean that Nebuchadnezzar would be driven from all human habitation and would dwell in the field like a beast. He advised the king to give charity to avert this evil. Nebuchadnezzar followed this advice, and the evil was not visited upon him until he boastfully raised his head in pride.