Rambam - 1 Chapter a Day

Here the Rambam is speaking according to Scriptural Law. See Halachah 3 with regard to a father’s obligation according to Rabbinic Law.

The modifying phrase applies to all three categories of individuals mentioned.

As the Rambam states in Hilchot Ishut 2:26, generally, when our Sages speak of a deaf person, they mean a deaf-mute. See Halachah 4.

One whose genital area is covered by a wall of flesh and it is impossible to determine the person’s gender.

One who has both male and female genital organs.

With regard to the tumtum, the doubt concerns the actual fact. Until an operation is performed, the person’s gender is unknown. With regard to the androgynus, the doubt is abstract. The Sages did not know how to define his status. See Hilchot Nizirut 2:10.

E. g., he had been owned by two owners in partnership. One freed him and one did not. See Hilchot Avadim 7:4-7.
The Ra’avad notes that although this is the original conception of the Talmud (Chagigah 2a), ultimately, the Sages agreed that the half-servant’s master should be compelled to free him. Hence he is already considered as free and obligated to make the pilgrimage. From the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah (Chagigah 1:1), it appears that he had an opposite understanding of that passage, maintaining that the original conception was that half-servants were obligated and the final ruling is that they were not.

Although this is a positive commandment whose observance is associated with a specific time, it is necessary for there to be an explicit Biblical phrase that excludes women, because one might think that since women are obligated in the mitzvah of Hakhel, they are also obligated in this mitzvah.

In his Commentary to the Mishnah (foe. cit., quoting Chagigah 4a), the Rambam gives another reason. Exodus 23:17 states that the pilgrimage is “to see the presence of the Master God.” This excludes a servant for he has another master.

Which speaks about the Hakhel gathering which, as explained in ch. 3, is an extension of the mitzvah to make the pilgrimage. Women are obligated in the observance of this mitzvah, but servants are not.

For they are not members of the Jewish people in a complete sense.

In his Commentary to the Mishnah (loc. cit.), the Rambam explains that a mentally and/or emotionally unstable person is excluded for this same reason. He is incapable of learning.

Chapter 3.

This includes even one who has license to remain uncircumcised, e.g., his brothers died because of circumcision. See also Halachah 4.

The latter two professions also involve foul-smelling odors.

Rav Yosef Corcus states that although there is an opinion in Chagigah 4a that these individuals are exempt, that applies only when these individuals did not cleanse themselves.

This follows the opinion of the School of Hillel. The School of Shammai is more stringent and requires a father to bring his son to the Temple when the child is old enough to be carried on the father’s shoulders.

The Lechem Mishneh emphasizes that although the father is obligated to train his son to go the Temple, he need not bring a sacrifice on his behalf.

The Rambam is quoting Chagigah 4a. That source clarifies that although reference is made to a Biblical prooftext, that is only a support (an asmachta). In truth, the obligation is Rabbinic in origin.

Thus even though the child will be obligated in the mitzvah when he comes of age - for at that time he would be healed - since he would not obligated in his present state at that time, his father need not train him (Chagigah 6a).

In Halachah 1.

As enumerated in Halachah 1.

I.e., they must ascend to Jerusalem and partake of the sacrifices in a spirit of happiness appropriate to the festivals.

In this instance, the person must lack both of these powers. For such a: person is considered as comparable to a mentally-deficient person.

Because of their inability to exercise intellectual and/or emotional control of their conduct.

Hilchot Bi’at HaMikdash, ch. 3, mentions the prohibition against impure people entering the Temple. With regard to one who is uncircumcised, see ibid. 2:12.

Hilchot Ma’aseh Hakorbanot 10:9 mentions the prohibition against these individuals partaking of sacrificial foods. See also Hilchot Terumah 7:10; Hilchot Ma’aser Sheni 3:4; and Hilchat Sanhedrin 19:4; sec, 69.

See Chapter 1, Halachah 4.

For example, a person became impure through touching a dead crawling animal on the night of the fifteenth of Tishrei. On the following day, the first day of Sukkot, he is impure and the obligation to bring a sacrifice does not fall upon him. Even if he immerses himself during the day and thus regains ritual purity, his status is not completely changed until nightfall. During the day, he is considered a t’vul yom, In that state; he is forbidden to enter the Temple Courtyard Or partake of sacrificial food (Kessef Mishneh).

Since the obligation already felt upon him on the morning of the first day of the holiday, he remains obligated even when he became impute.

See Chapter 1, Halachot 1 and 5.

In this vein, Pe’ah 1:1 states: “These are the matters that have no limit:... [the offerings brought when] appearing [before God]” See also Chapter 1, Halachah 2.

In his commentary to Chagigah 8a, the Meiri writes that although he may no longer bring them as festive-offerings, he may bring them as celebratory peace-offerings.

By making an interruption, he indicated that he no longer wanted to offer them. The
Rambam’s ruling is based on Chagigah 8a. He does not, however, give any indication for the motivating rationales for his decision. It can be said that offering sacrificial animals that had been left over appears disrespectful to the mitzvah.

Because he had not taken his mind off sacrificing them.

And not with consecrated money or with money from the second tithe.

See Hilchot Ma’aseh HaKorbanot 16:15.

Money from the second tithe must be used to purchase food that is eaten in Jerusalem. Nevertheless, since the meat of the peace-offerings is eaten by the owners, there is no difficulty in using these funds for that purpose.

The tithe-offerings must be eaten in Jerusalem in a state of ritual purity. Hence there is seemingly no difficulty in using them for this offering. Nevertheless, the Ra’avad objects to the Rambam’s ruling based on the concepts explained in the previous halachah, that at least the initial portion of the festive sacrifice must be brought from non-consecrated funds or a non-consecrated animal and an animal designated as a tithe-offering is obviously consecrated. Moreover, it cannot be said that the Rambam is speaking about money received for selling such an animal, for such a sale is forbidden (Hilchot Bechorot 10:5). The Ra’avad does state that just as ordinary money and consecrated money can be combined together as stated in the previous halachah, so too, one may combine ordinary animals and consecrated animals and bring them all as festive peace-offerings. The Kessef Mishneh and Rav Yosef Corcus agree that this approach could explain the Rambam’s ruling, but acknowledge that it is not apparent from the wording he uses.

When work is forbidden.

Chagigah 8a explains that this is forbidden, because the tithing process involves marking the tithed animal with red paint (see Hilchot Bechorot 7:1) and that is forbidden (see Hilchot Shabbat 23:14).

For these sacrifices need not be brought from ordinary funds.

All of the portions of these sacrifices and the firstborn offering are brought by other individuals and given to the priests to eat - either in the Temple Courtyard or in Jerusalem.

I.e., there is no mitzvah for the person to bring the sacrifice himself.

Even though these are sacrificial foods given to the priests.

The Rambam, based on Chagigah 8a, is focusing on a natural tendency. We derive greater satisfaction from meat than from fowl or meal-offerings.

Hilchot Karban Pesach 10:13.

Which a person can decide to bring to complement the Paschal sacrifice.

The Ra’avad questions the use of the term “Therefore,” explaining that it has no place in the Rambam’s text. Possibly, the Rambam adds this word in explanation of why a person can fulfill his obligation for celebratory peace-offerings (Or Sameach).

For by partaking of this sacrifice, one will be eating sacrificial meat on the festival. See the conclusion of the following halachah.

As stated in Halachah 8.

There is some confusion about the numbering of the halachot of this chapter in the different versions of the Mishneh Torah.

When the prohibitions against owning and partaking of leaven take effect.

The thanksgiving offering is brought together with 40 loaves of bread, 10 from each of four different types. One of these types is leavened.

Were the leaven to be left past the fourth hour of the day, it would be forbidden to partake of it and this bread would be required to be burnt at the beginning of the sixth hour (see Hilchot Chametz UMatzah 1:9). Even though there is time to partake of the leaven before that hour, our Sages forbade this offering as a safeguard. See also Hilchot Pesulei HaMukdashim 6:5.

In the previous halachah.
Rav Yosef Corcus raises a question: A thanksgiving offering may be eaten only on the day it was offered and on the following night. Thus on the day of the fifteenth of Nisan when the Pesach holiday begins, it will be forbidden to partake of this sacrifice. He answers that perhaps the explanation is that he fulfills his obligation for the celebratory offering by partaking of the sacrifice at night. He notes, however, that there is no explicit source which states that one can fulfill his obligation for the celebratory offerings at that time. Indeed, Pesachim 71a appears to rule directly to the contrary. He offers a resolution that appears forced - that the Rambam is speaking about a thanksgiving offering brought in the midst of Pesach itself.

See Halachah 8.

Indeed, the Sifri, Parshat Re’eh interprets Exodus 23:15: “You shall not appear in My presence empty-handed,” as meaning “without charity.”

Who were considered unfortunate because they did not have any ancestral property, as the Rambam continues to explain.

This term refers to a convert who also does not have an ancestral portion in Eretz Yisrael.

See Hilchot Sh’vitat Yom Tov 6:18 where the Rambam states this concept with even harsher words of criticism. See also Hilchot Megilah 2:17; Hilchot Matanot Aniyim 10:16.

As indicated by the fact that the Levite is mentioned first in the prooftext.

I.e., all the other tribes were given a portion of land which was divided among all the members of the tribe. From this land, each person could earn his livelihood. The Levites, by contrast, were not given such portions of land. See Deuteronomy 14:29; Hilchot Shemitah VeYovel 13:10.

Like the priests.

See Numbers 18:24, Hilchot Ma’aserot 1:1 which state that the tithes are given to Levites. See ibid. 1:4 which notes that Ezra penalized the Levites and decreed that the tithes should be given to the priests and not to the Levites. In the notes to that halachah, it is discussed whether this decree applied for all time or just to Ezra’s generation.

Sefer HaMitzvot (negative commandment 229) and Sefer HaChinuch (mitzvah 450) include this prohibition as one of 613 mitzvot.

“Beware lest” connotes a negative commandment (Menachot 36b).