Rambam - 1 Chapter a Day

I.e., a single Paschal sacrifice may not be divided to be eaten in two companies.

I.e., each company may eat it in only one place; it cannot be taken to a second place. See Pesachim 86a which quotes a difference of opinion concerning the interpretation of the charge (Exodus 12:46): “It shall be eaten in one house,” with one Sage offering the first explanation and another the second. The Rambam accepts the stringencies of both views (Meiri).

As stated in Hilchot Shabbat 18:1, one is not liable for transferring an article on the Sabbath unless it is of a significant size. With regard to all foods, that source defines the minimum measure as the size of a dried fig. Hence it is difficult to understand why the Rambam chooses another measure, an olive-sized portion. It is, however, possible to explain that since this is the measure with which one fulfills the mitzvah, it is also the measure for which one is liable for transferring the meat (Rav Yosef Corcus).

Sefer HaMitzvot (negative commandment 123) and Sefer HaChinuch (mitzvah 15) include this prohibition as one of 613 mitzvot.

As explained in Hilchot Shabbat 13:1, for a person to be liable for transferring an article from one domain to another on the Sabbath, he must pick it up from the initial domain and place it down in the second domain.

Although the previous clauses had defined the term “house” used in the prooftext as “company,” the term still retains its simple meaning. Thus if one removes the meat from the house in which it is being eaten, he violates the above prohibition (Rav Yosef Corcus).
Rav Yosef Corcus continues, stating that as long as there is only one company eating in a house, the physical parameters of the house define the limits relevant with regard to this prohibition. If there are two companies in the same house, it is the manner in which they are seated that is significant.

Note a parallel in Hilchot Beit HaBechirah 6:7 which states that the roofs and the lofts of the chambers in the Temple Courtyard were not consecrated.

Even if the meat is returned to its designated area, the prohibition against partaking of it still applies. The meat must be burnt. Note Rav Yosef Corcus and the Kessef Mishneh who state that some versions of the Mishneh Torah incorporated that concept into the text itself.

Hilchot Ma’aseh HaKorbanot 11:6. See also Hilchot Ma’achalot Assurot 5:9; the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah (Pesachim 7:12). There, based on the Mechilta to Exodus 22:6, the Rambam cites a non-literal interpretation of Exodus 22:30: “Meat in a field [from an animal that is] treifah, you shall not eat.” The use of the term “field” implies that once meat has left its designated place, it is considered as treifah.

I.e., a portion of the limb remains in the area where it was designated to be eaten and a portion is removed.

Our translation is taken from the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah (foe. cit.).

See Chapter 10, Halachah 1.

For the bones of the Paschal sacrifice need not be burnt (Pesachim 83a).

I.e., each company is partaking of a separate sacrifice. The Rambam is quoting the Mishnah (Pesachim 7:13). Although the Talmud (Pesachim 86b) offers a different interpretation of that mishnah, in view of the final halachic decision, that interpretation must be considered as having been offered as part of the dialectal give-and-take that characterizes the Talmud and the interpretation given by the Rambam is accepted as the conclusion.

In a response, the Rambam’s son, Rabbenu Avraham states that the partition need not be a wall, it is sufficient to place utensils around the groups in a manner that distinguishes one from the other.

The Kessef Mishneh asks: Since each company constructs a partition around its borders, why is it necessary for them to also face different directions? He explains that the Rambam could be understood as providing alternatives: either separate the companies by a partition or have them face opposite directions.

The wines of the Talmudic era were very strong and it was common practice to mix water into the wine before partaking of it.

Who serves both companies but eats as a member of one.

Le, before he turns to serve the other company, he must have his mouth closed.

I.e., until a divider is again positioned between them.

This is the rationale for the second clause which requires the company not to be separated from each other. See the gloss of Rav Yosef Corcus which offers a different interpretation.

This is the rationale for the first clause which requires the companies to remain distinct.

I.e., even though had all the others come on time, they would not have received such ample portions (Rav Yosef Corcus).

The Meiri writes that this is not desirable and they should leave over at least one olive-sized portion for each member of the company.

This represents the Rambam’s understanding of Pesachim 86b (and is reflected in Rabbenu Chananel’s treatment of the passage). The Ra’avad interprets that passage differently (as does Rashi) and hence, objects to the Rambam’s ruling.

Until at least a third member of the company arrives (Meiri).

Here also the Ra’avad objects to the Rambam’s ruling. Rav Yosef Corcus explains that since they agreed to partake of the Paschal sacrifice as a company, one might think that it is necessary for each participant to wait until all completed eating. Hence, the Rambam clarifies that the other members of the company do not have such a responsibility.

Sefer HaMitzvot (negative commandment 128) and Sefer HaChinuch (mitzvah 13) include this prohibition as one of 613 mitzvot.
The commentaries have drawn attention to the fact that, in contrast to the command mentioned immediately afterwards, in his listing of the commandments at the beginning of these halachot, the Rambam words this command as “that an apostate should not partake of [the Paschal sacrifice],” i.e., the commandment is addressed to the apostate himself (compare to note 34). The wording here and in Sefer HaMitzvot, however, implies that the prohibition is against enabling such a person to partake of the sacrifice.

As stated in Hilchot Issurei Bi’ah 14:7, this term refers to “a non-Jew who makes a commitment not to worship false deities and to observe the other [six] universal laws commanded to Noah’s descendants. He does not circumcise himself or immerse [in a mikveh].” See also Hilchot Avodat Kochavim 10:6; Hilchot Melachim 8:10.

The Mechilta explains that this refers to a non-Jew who has not accepted these commandments.

Sefer HaMitzvot (negative commandment 126) and Sefer HaChinuch (mitzvah 14) include the prohibition against enabling these individuals to partake of the Paschal sacrifice as a separate mitzvah and count it as one of 613.
Significantly, the Ra’avad interprets this prohibition differently, explaining that it prohibits one from giving the meat of the Paschal sacrifice to one of the members of his household or his workers (even if they are Jewish), if they were not enumerated on the Paschal sacrifice beforehand.

The Meiri and the Sefer HaChinuch, op. cit., explain that the person giving the food to these individuals is not liable for lashes for he did not perform a forbidden act. Even if he gave these individuals the meat of the sacrifice, they still did not have to partake of it. See also note 34 below.

Exodus 12:43. From the Mechilta to the verse, it appears that “the foreigner” mentioned in the command could be either an apostate Jew or a gentile idolater.

The prohibition is obviously not addressed to the gentiles themselves (for the Torah is the heritage of the Jews). Thus the charge must be interpreted as meaning: “Do not bring about a situation that will enable a gentile to partake of it.” Since the prohibition is not explicitly stated, a person is not liable for lashes for violating it (Kessef Mishneh).

Sefer HaMitzvot (negative commandment 127) and Sefer HaChinuch (mitzvah 17) include this prohibition as one of 613 mitzvot. Here it is obvious that the commandment is addressed to the uncircumcised person. Even if a Jew has halachic dispensation not to be circumcised - e.g., his brothers died because of circumcision - he may not partake of the Paschal sacrifice.

Indeed, he is obligated according to Scriptural Law to partake of matzah.

See Chapter 5, Halachah 5.

I.e., how can there be a situation where one is prevented from partaking of the Paschal sacrifice because he has not circumcised his son or servant, but he was not prevented from slaughtering it for that reason.

E. g., the son's fever abated at 4:30 in the afternoon on the seventh of Nisan. It is not until 4:30 PM on the fourteenth—which is after the time of the slaughter of the Paschal sacrifice, but before it is eaten that he is obligated to be circumcised.

The baby was scheduled to be circumcised on the fourteenth in the morning. His eyes hurt and because of the danger, the circumcision was postponed, but he was healed by the afternoon. In such a situation, there is no need to wait seven days. See Shabbat 137a; Hilchot Milah 1:16.

A person whose genitalia is covered by a mound of flesh and it is impossible to detect his gender.