Rambam - 3 Chapters a Day

I.e., a tradition conveyed by the Oral Law, for which there is no explicit reference in the Written Law.

The Rabbis debate whether this prohibition applies to work with the land alone or also to work with trees. See Halachah 9 and notes.

In his Commentary to the Mishnah (Sh'vi'it 1:1), the Rambam explains that Rabban Gamliel released this prohibition after the destruction of the Temple, because he maintained that the prohibition applied only when the Temple was standing.

Which is allowed to be plowed until Shavuot.

I.e., 50 cubits by 50 cubits.

I.e., we estimate whether a fig tree with dimensions similar to this tree would produce 60 maneh of figs.

A maneh is one pound in contemporary measure (Shiurei Torah, p. 118). Rav Kehati (Sh'vi'it 1:2) considers it to be 400 grams, a slightly smaller measure.

Our Sages determined this to be four cubits. The rationale is that if they are grouped closer together the cattle will uproot them when trying to pass. See Bava Batra 83a.

Although the one tree produced the amount required of the entire orchard, since the other trees are not fit to produce any produce at all, they are not considered significant.

The Rambam interprets this as referring to a situation where all the trees together are fit to produce 60 maneh, although some individual trees are not fit to produce a significant amount. The Ra'avad offers a different interpretation of Sh'vi'it 1:3, the Rambam's source. Rabbenu Shimshon also interprets the mishnah in that manner and the Radbaz and the Kessef Mishneh agree that, at first glance, their interpretation fits the wording of the mishnah more easily than the Rambam's.

For even if they are not fit to produce fruit, such a large amount of trees is significant.

Saplings that were recently planted [the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (Sh'vi'it 1:6)]. See also Halachah 7.

Since they are saplings, they do not derive nurture from as wide an area as mature trees with longer roots do. Hence unless the saplings are spread out, this leniency is not granted (Radbaz).

More leniency is granted with regard to the saplings, because they need greater care (ibid.).

Our translation is based on the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (Sh'vi'it 1:6).

For they will not derive nurture from the entire field and it would appear that one is plowing the field for its own sake (Radbaz, Kessef Mishneh).

In his Commentary to the Mishnah (ibid.:7), the Rambam quotes the Jerusalem Talmud which states that this applies only to a Greek squash plant which is large like a tree. The Radbaz states that the majority of the ten must be saplings.

This is Rabbi Akiva's opinion in (Sh'vi'it 1:8). Others maintain it is given that status until three years (or seven) years have passed.

In his Commentary to the Mishnah (ibid.), the Rambam states that this view is accepted, because it is supported by a Tosefta. The commentaries have questioned which Tosefta the Rambam is referring to.

The Rambam's ruling has also attracted attention, because it appears to contradict his ruling in Hilchot Ma'aser Sheni 10:13 which states: "When a tree was cut down from above the earth and [a new tree grew from its roots], the prohibition of orlah applies." The implication there is that as long as the stump of the tree is above the earth, the laws of orlah do not apply. Only when it is cut down from below the earth is it considered like a new tree. Here, by contrast, even a handbreadth above the ground is considered as an existing tree.

The rationale for the distinction can be explained as follows: In this context, we follow the figures of speech employed by people at large. As long as the stump is within a handbreadth of the ground, people will consider any new growth as a new entity. When, by contrast, the stump is more than a handbreadth, it is significant and any new growth is considered as an extension of the existing plant (Rav Yosef Korcus).

Halachah 1.

These and the following activities are forbidden in the Sabbitical year itself only by virtue of Rabbinic decree. Our Sages were not overly stringent and did not enforce these prohibitions in the months preceding the Sabbatical year.

For hoeing is not plowing.

Our translation for these and the following terms are derived from the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (Sh'vi'it 2:1-5). Many of the activities mentioned were described in Chapter 1, Halachah 5, and notes.

The Tosafot Yom Tov (Sh'vi'it 2:2) explains that this leniency was granted in gardens where these plants grow and not in fields at large, because in the instance of these plants, the hoeing benefits the plants directly and not merely the field.

The first clause dealt with work with the land that is permitted in the latter months of the sixth year. This clause mentions work with trees. From this halachah it appears that the prohibition conveyed as a halachah to Moses at Sinai mentioned in Halachah 1 does not apply to work with trees.

To protect them from rain or sun.

Note Rav Kappach's edition of the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (Sh'vi'it 2:5) which states that the text of that source also reflects this ruling. (He maintains that there is a printing error in the standard published text of that source. According to his view, the Rambam did not reverse his opinion regarding this law as some maintain.)

Even though the fruit reaches a third of its growth before the Sabbatical year begins or does not reach that point of growth until after the the Sabbatical year ends, this restriction is still applied, because of the impression the performance of these tasks will create.

I.e., it might appear that the steps are being built so that a person will be able to descend and irrigate his fields in the valley in the Sabbatical year.

I.e., replant the head of a vine or the trunk of a tree in the ground so that it will develop new roots and another source of nurture. Thus new growths will emerge from it [the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (Sh'vi'it 2:6)].

Our translation is taken from the above source.

Rabbi Akiva Eiger explains the basis for such a supposition. If the tree is not planted before 44 days preceding the new year, we count the beginning of its orlah years from Rosh HaShanah (Hilchot Ma'aser Sheni 9:10). Thus it will be considered halachically as if the tree was planted in the Sabbatical year.

I.e., the heir must also help prevent the misimpression from being created. For this reason, the leniency shown in Chapter 1, Halachah 13, is not shown here.

As opposed to fruit; see Halachah 3.

As indicated by Halachah 9, this refers to produce that reached the stage of growth that obligates the separation of tithes - i.e., one third of its growth - after Rosh HaShanah of the Sabbatical year. If the produce reached this stage of growth beforehand, it is permitted to be harvested in the Sabbatical year.

This term is generally translated as "aftergrowth."

There is an opinion that such produce is forbidden according to Scriptural Law, but the Rambam's view follows the opinion of Menachot 5b.

Our translation is taken from the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (Sh'vi'it 4:2, based on the Jerusalem Talmud).

Sefer HaMitzvot (negative commandment 222) and Sefer HaChinuch (mitzvah 328) includes this commandment among the 613 mitzvot of the Torah.

I.e., harvesting produce will enable the land to generate better produce in the future. This apparently is the intent of Chapter 1, Halachah 1.

To separate the grain from the chaff.

For fruit will grow from trees without any effort on man's part.

Since they are not sown by most people, there is no reason to forbid them from being reaped in the Sabbatical year, for it is unlikely that anyone would plant them.

Both of these are fragrant herbs. Our translation is taken from Rav Kappach's notes to the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (Sh'vi'it 9:1).

The Radbaz questions the Rambam's statement, for seemingly, the Rabbinic decree was against eating, not gathering. He, however, states that from the Jerusalem Talmud (Sh'vi'it 9:1), it would appear that the decree also included gathering the aftergrowth.

In his Commentary to the Mishnah (Pe'ah 2:1), the Rambam defines this term as a field left desolate and untilled.

Apparently, this refers to a field where crops had been sown in the sixth year and they reached more than a third of their growth in that year. Hence, it is permitted to harvest them in the Sabbatical year.

For that would bring about the violation of the prohibition of kilayim, mixed species in a vineyard, and cause the vineyard to become forbidden. See Hilchot Kilayim 6:1.

Although it is not forbidden, it must be treated with the holiness of the Sabbatical year (Ra'avad; see Chapter 5, Halachah 19-20, 23).

I.e., that attained one third of their growth in the Sabbatical year.

If the aftergrowth of the Sabbatical year was allowed, it is possible that transgressors would sow their fields at the end of the Sabbatical year and then say that the crops that are growing are merely an aftergrowth.

And in that way, destroy the crops. We are not concerned with the fact that they will fertilize the field or serve as food for his animals, for there is no prohibition against benefiting from the aftergrowth.

For by that time, the majority of the produce will have grown in the eighth year. The Ra'avad questions the Rambam's source. The commentaries maintain that it follows the wording of the version of the Jerusalem Talmud, Demai 2:1, possessed by the Rambam.

The rationale is that this produce is brought about by a combination of two factors: one (the earth) which is permitted and one (the aftergrowth) which is forbidden. In such situations, the produce is permitted. See Hilchot Ma'aser Sheni 10:21.

For it is possible that these are onions of the eighth year. And if they are from the Sabbatical year, it is possible that they increased their size to the extent that the majority of their growth took place in the eighth year (Radbaz).

Lest one be partaking of an onion that grew in the Sabbatical year.

From a person who is suspect of violating the prohibitions of the Sabbatical year.

Our translation is based on the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (Sh'vi'it 6:4).

See Halachot 12-13.

The Radbaz quotes the Jerusalem Talmud (Sh'vi'it 5:5) as explaining that this refers to after the Pesach festival.

The year is considered to begin from that date. See also Chapter 10, Halachah 4.

The mention of fruit is somewhat problematic, because, as stated in Hilchot Ma'aser Sheni 1:2, the fifteenth of Shvat is "the New Year of the Trees." The Radbaz, however, explains that there is no contradiction. Each "new year" is considered in its own context. With regard to the calculation of the cycle of the tithes and the laws of orlah, the fifteenth of Shvat is "the New Year of the Trees." With regard to the prohibitions of the Sabbatical year, by contrast, the new year begins on Rosh HaShanah.

The Shelah, however, states that even with regard to the Sabbatical year, the fifteenth of Shvat is the Rosh HaShanah of the Trees and wit regard to them, the laws of the Sabbatical year begin from that date. This is the present practice in Eretz Yisrael.

I.e., one third of its growth.

It is permitted to harvest them and partake of them without any restrictions. Nor are they endowed with the holiness of the crops of the Sabbatical year. Similar laws apply with regard to the separation of tithes (ibid.).

As explained in the following halachah.

And harvested.

See Chapters 5-6.

From Rav Kappach's translation of the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (Sh'vi'it 2:8), it appears that the intent is that his purpose is to use the kernels as seed and not to partake of them. Others, however, interpret the Rambam's Commentary as meaning that he desires to eat the seeds and not the pods. Were the person concerned with eating the pods - or even the kernels according to the first interpretation - the plants would be considered like vegetables; see Halachah 14.

I.e., they are not considered like vegetables, in which the time when they are gathered determines the ruling (Halachah 12), because they are not gathered immediately after their growth is completed, but rather left growing in the earth so that they dry. Nor are they considered like grain or beans in which instance, the time when they reach one third of their growth determines the ruling (Halachah 9), because they complete their growth at different times. See also Hilchot Ma'aser Sheni 1:8 which sets these species aside from others.

It is bound by the agricultural laws governing the year in which it was reaped (ibid.:4).

The produce of the Sabbatical year need not be tithed. Nevertheless, as a stringency, the ruling governing an esrog is dependent on when the fruit first budded (Rosh HaShanah 15b). Hence, it is necessary to tithe such an esrog. Compare to ibid. 1:6.

And must be eaten with consideration shown for the special holiness of that year (Radbaz).

As in Halachah 9. Thus if they complete one third of their growth before the advent of the eighth year, they are considered as produce of the Sabbatical year.

As in Halachah 11. I.e., whether in the Sabbatical year or in the eighth year.

As in Halachah 12. The Rambam does not mention the laws pertaining to an esrog, because since it is reaped in the eighth year, it is considered entirely as the produce of the eighth year. None of the restrictions of the Sabbatical year apply and tithes must be separated.

Since it was sowed for seed, that intent determines the ruling, and the laws stated in Halachah 11 apply. Since as a whole, the plant is considered as the produce of the sixth year, even if part of the plant is harvested as a vegetable, we are not concerned about when it was harvested and it is still considered as produce of the sixth year.

The ruling is governed by that intent and the laws mentioned in Halachah 12 apply, even to the seeds.

Because of the impression that might be created. With regard to this question, the standard published text of the Jerusalem Talmud (Sh'vi'it 5:5) states that the seed is permitted and the vegetable is forbidden. The Radbaz maintains that the Rambam's ruling should be interpreted in the same manner (as might be understood from the conclusion of the following halachah). The Kessef Mishneh suggests that perhaps the Rambam had a different version of the Jerusalem Talmud.

The ruling is determined by when the growth of the produce was completed, in this instance, the Sabbatical year. Hence, it is forbidden as are the other sifichin of that year (Halachah 5).

For the ruling concerning vegetables depends on when they were harvested.

The Ra'avad differs with the Rambam's ruling, maintaining that there is no room for leniency with regard to produce that was sown in the Sabbatical year. The Radbaz justifies the Rambam's ruling, maintaining that it is based on a passage from the Jerusalem Talmud. Rav Yosef Corcus explains that even though sowing the land involves a transgression and in the Sabbatical year, the crops should be uprooted, if that did not happen, the vegetables are not forbidden.

Our translation is based on the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (Sh'vi'it 5:1).

As stated in Halachah 9, this is the determining factor with regard to fruit from trees. Hence they are considered as fruit of the Sabbatical year.

I.e., in a manner which acknowledges their holiness.

Our translation is based on the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (Sh'vi'it 2:9). The term seris means "eunuch." It is used in this instance because generally, onions produce scallions if they are left in a moist place after being uprooted from the earth. Just as a eunuch cannot produce seed, this species does not produce scallions.

Here too our translation is based on the above source.

In that age, when water pumps and piping did not exist, irrigation was a much more complicated matter and plants would be irrigated at specific periods. When a farmer would like to harvest his produce, he begins withholding water from it beforehand, so that it will begin to dry.

Even if they are harvested in the Sabbatical year, for it is considered as if their growth was completed in the sixth year.

For it is considered as if they were still growing at the end of the sixth year.

They dried out [the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (Sh'vi'it 2:10)].

For they did not grow in the Sabbatical year.

And thus they grew in the Sabbatical year.

And they must be destroyed, for it is forbidden to take produce of the Sabbatical year and set it aside to be used for seed in future years (ibid.).

For they did not grow in the Sabbatical year.

And thus they grew in the Sabbatical year.

The Tosefta, Sh'vi'it 2:11 explains that the prohibition stems from the impression that might be created. An onlooker might think that they were planted in the Sabbatical year (Kessef Mishneh).

Wild onions grow in the ground for up to three years. Hence, there is no question about what an onlooker might say, for the majority of the produce will have grown at a time when it is permitted.

Our translation is taken from Rav Kappach's notes to the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (Uktzin 1:6). Our text follows the version of the Mishneh Torah published by Rav Shabse Frankel. The standard printed text offers a slightly different version. Since the artichoke plant grows primarily in the ground and that portion is not visible, it need not be uprooted.

This is necessary. Because the leaves are soft and edible, we are concerned with the impression an observer might receive.

The Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (Sh'vi'it 5:4) states that we are speaking about onions that have reached the stage that all that is necessary is to dig them out and uproot them.

Which become dried out (ibid.).

A plant which produces a powerful red dye.

Although using the metal hatchets would overturn the earth, this is not considered as tilling the land, because one's intent is obviously to harvest the produce (Radbaz).

We are speaking about onions that had completed their growth before the Sabbatical year, but had been left in the ground.

As long as the leaves are green, they are considered as if they come from the onion itself [the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (Sh'vi'it 6:2)].

As the leaves grew, the onion produces roots. As the roots grow, the leaves turn dark green.

For their growth was completed before the advent of the Sabbatical year.

The onion becomes permitted when the majority of its mass is permitted. The new growth nullifies the forbidden matter.

I.e., growing in the earth in the Sabbatical year.

Increasing its size in the eighth year.

The Ra'avad objects to the Rambam's ruling, noting that the Jerusalem Talmud (Sh'vi'it 6:3) appears to imply that the leniency is granted only when the leaves of the onions were bent over. Otherwise, the onions remain forbidden. The Radbaz and the Kessef Mishneh justify the Rambam's ruling, stating that it reflects the treatment of the subject in the Babylonian Talmud (Nedarim 59b). Moreover, even the Jerusalem Talmud can be interpreted in this manner.

The prohibition does not prevent us from reaping the fruits of the trees during the Sabbatical year. On the contrary, the fruits are ownerless and are meant to be eaten by people at large, as Leviticus 11:39 states, "[The fruit produced as] the land rests shall be yours to eat." The point of the mitzvah is that one may not reap in the same manner that he usually does [the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (Sh'vi'it 8:6)].

Sefer HaMitzvot (negative commandment 223) and Sefer HaChinuch (mitzvah 329) include this commandment among the 613 mitzvot of the Torah.

I.e., what changes should be made to the usual manner of reaping.

Our translation of this halachah is based on the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (Sh'vi'it 8:6).

To produce wine.

To extract their oil.

After olives were pressed once and the higher quality of oil extracted, the olives would be ground and pressed again to produce more oil. Compare to Hilchot Issurei Mizbeiach 7:8.

Sefer HaMitzvot (positive commandment 134) and Sefer HaChinuch (mitzvah 84) includes this commandment among the 613 mitzvot of the Torah.

The Rambam's wording implies that the commandment is incumbent on the person; he must consider his property ownerless. Other commentaries note that Bava Metzia 39a speaks of "the land being declared ownerless by the King," i.e., that automatically, the person's right to his produce is removed from him by Divine order. See Likkutei Sichot, Vol. XVII, p. 287ff., which clarifies the difference between these perspectives.

The Kessef Mishneh quotes the Mechilta which explains that according to Scriptural Law, it would appear that one should rip down the fences around his fields. Our Sages did not require that. They did, however, forbid erecting new fences.

The rich as well as the poor.

I.e., although the owner of the land does not have greater privileges than others, he does not have lesser privileges either and may take some of the produce.

For this is an ordinary amount which a person would store for immediate use. To set aside produce for long term storage is forbidden in the Sabbatical year.

For ultimately, he has not treated the field as his own, but has left it ownerless.

Implying that these mitzvot are observed only in that land.

For this reason, the laws of the Sabbatical year were observed even before the Temple was constructed (Radbaz).

Although the laws of the Sabbatical year are not dependent on whether or not the Temple is standing, they are dependent on the presence of the majority of the Jewish people in Eretz Yisrael, as stated in Chapter 10, Halachah 9. As stated in Halachah 8 of that chapter, after the exile of the tribe of Reuven and Gad, slightly more than a hundred years before the destruction of the First Temple, this criterion was not met and the Sabbatical year and many other mitzvot are observed only because of Rabbinic decree.

(As will be explained in the notes to that source, there is some difference of the opinion concerning both the actual ruling and the Rambam's stance on that issue.)

As the Rambam explains in Hilchot Terumah, ch. 1, and Hilchot Beis HaBechirah, ch. 6, when the Jews conquered Eretz Yisrael after the exodus from Egypt, the land became holy and all the agricultural laws incumbent on it took effect. After the exile of the tribes of Reuven and Gad, these laws no longer applied according to Scriptural Law. When Ezra led the people back from the Babylonian exile, he sanctified the land a second time according to Rabbinic decree. At this time, however, the people settled in a much smaller area than they had originally lived. Kziv was the northern boundary of that area and is considered outside the area. See the maps accompanying Hilchot Terumah, loc. cit. See also the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (Sh'vi'it 6:1).

According to the Radbaz (Hilchot Terumah 1:9), this refers to Wadi el Arish and not the Nile. There are, however, other sources which identify "the River of Egypt" as the Nile.

A mountain range in Northern Lebanon. This represents the boundaries of the land conquered by the Jews after the Exodus from Egypt. As the Rambam explains, our Sages imposed certain restrictions on this land as well.

This area is considered as part of the Diaspora and none of the agricultural laws relating to Eretz Yisrael apply there. The Umanum Mountains themselves are part of the Diaspora.

"The lands which [King] David conquered outside of the Land of Canaan, e.g., Aram Naharaim, Aram Tzovah, Achlab [which are located slightly north of Eretz Yisrael]... before he conquered Eretz Yisrael entirely." See Hilchot Terumah 1:3 and the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (Demai 6:11).

Countries to the southeast of Eretz Yisrael.

See Hilchot Terumah 1:6.

Transjordan refers to the area extending outward from the eastern bank of the Jordan. The tribes of Reuven, Gad, and half the tribe of Menasheh settled there. Rav Yosef Corcus maintains that according to Scriptural Law, the Sabbatical year never had to be observed there (see Sifra, the beginning of Behar), because it is not part of Eretz Yisrael in certain contexts. Others maintain that according to Scriptural Law, in the era of the First Temple, the Sabbatical year was to be observed there. All agree that our Sages required its partial observance.

The Radbaz explains that this applies even if the Jews returning from Babylon had settled in a portion of this territory, the sificihin are not forbidden.

I.e., we are allowed to purchase this produce and partake of it. This applies even in the portion of the land where the Sabbatical year is observed according to Rabbinic decree.

The Radbaz and the Kessef Mishneh refer to the Kaftor VePerach who states that seemingly, although produce grown by a gentile in Eretz Yisrael in the Sabbatical year is permitted, it would have to eaten with respect to its holiness, as described in the following chapter. For as the Rambam states in Hilchot Terumah 1:10: "When a gentile purchases land in Eretz Yisrael, he does not cause it to be absolved from [the observance of] the mitzvot. Instead, its holiness is still intact." Thus although there is no reason to forbid one from partaking of the produce grown by a gentile, seemingly, it should be considered "holy."

They note that in their time this was not the common practice, (nor is it the practice in Eretz Yisrael today). They justify this conduct on the grounds that, according to certain views (see Chapter 10, Halachah 9, where this subject is discussed) that in the present era, the observance of the Sabbatical year is a Rabbinic ordinance (and not of Scriptural authority). And our Sages did not impose any restrictions on produce grown by gentiles.

In addition to the material motive involved, there is a ritual dimension to this restriction. We are forbidden to allow a gentile to partake of the produce of the Sabbatical year (Chapter 5, Halachah 13). The Radbaz questions if watchmen should be appointed to guard the fields of Jews in Eretz Yisrael that are not located on the border, but are near areas where gentiles are located and there is a possibility that they will take the produce that is left ownerless.

Drinking is considered as eating (Yoma 76b).

See Hilchot Sh'vitat Esor 1:4-5; Hilchot Terumot 11:1, Hilchot Ma'aser Sheni 3:10 which equate smearing oneself with oil and drinking.

Leviticus 25:7 states: "And for the animal and the beast in your land shall (tihiyeh) be all the produce to eat." The Sifra derives the above concept from this verse.

For these activities also bring direct benefit to man.

See Hilchot Terumah, ch. 11, and Hilchot Ma'aser Sheni, ch. 3, for more particulars concerning these laws.

Which is usually eaten raw.

See Hilchot Ma'aser Sheni 3:11 which states: "We do not require a person to eat bread that has become moldy or oil that has become rancid. Instead, as soon as it has become spoiled to the point that it is not fit for human consumption, its holiness has departed from it."

In his Commentary to the Mishnah (Sh'vi'it 8:7), the Rambam describes this concept as follows: When terumah becomes ritually impure, it is disqualified and forbidden to be eaten. Now if the oil becomes ritually impure, it will disqualify the vegetable that was cooked in it and require that it be destroyed. Thus one will have caused the produce of the Sabbatical year to be destroyed unnecessarily.

The Kessef Mishneh explains that the Rambam's wording should not be interpreted as implying that only after the fact, once one has cooked the vegetable in the oil, one may partake of it. Instead, this is permitted at the outset.

Implying that the produce of the Sabbatical year may be eaten by animals.

Even though oil is primarily used as food, it is also common to smear it on one's flesh (Radbaz). Wine or vinegar, by contrast, are generally not applied as ointments. See Hilchot Ma'aser Sheni, loc. cit.

Because doing so removes it from the category of food and makes it oil for smearing (Hilchot Terumah 11:3).

For applying oil that is holy in a place where people are unclothed is an act of disrespect.

Since the oil is already absorbed in one's skin.

For this will be using it for a purpose other than a person's direct physical benefit.

This strengthens the sandal, but does not provide a person with direct physical benefit.

The intent is not necessarily impure hands, but any hands that one has not watched carefully to make sure that they are pure. For if one touches oil with such hands, it becomes impure by Rabbinic decree (Hilchot Sha'ar Avot HaTuma'ah 8:8-10). Making the oil impure would reduce the number of people who could partake of it. Hence, it is improper to do so.

For once the oil has been applied to one's flesh, there is no difficulty in it becoming impure, because its sacred quality is divested. See parallels in Hilchot Terumah 11:7.

Because the oil will be applied to the shoe directly.

Even though the oil will be applied indirectly to the shoe or the mat, that does not present a difficulty, because as above, once it has been applied to his flesh, its sacred quality is divested.

As stated in Halachah 12, it is permitted to sell produce of the Sabbatical year that is fit for human consumption and use the proceeds to purchase other food. One may not, however, use such proceeds for other purposes even though they benefit man.

In which instance, the oil for which the oil from the Sabbatical year was exchanged receives the status of produce of the Sabbatical year (see Chapter 6, Halachot 6-7).

One may use oil from the Sabbatical year for kindling, because this is a function for which that produce is ordinarily used. Nevertheless, oil is considered primarily as food fit for human consumption. Hence, the proceeds from its sale or exchange may be used for that purpose alone.

It is not common practice to pour oil into a fire. Hence, although license is given to kindle with oil, one may do so only in the ordinary manner.

For this is the ordinary practice.

As the continuation of the Rambam's words imply, the dye is then considered as imbued with the holiness of the Sabbatical year.

Two plants with natural alcalic properties that make them fit for use as detergents.

For this is their primary use.

Since fruit is primarily used as food, it is improper to use it for any other purpose.

In his Commentary to the Mishnah (Sh'vi'it 8:1), the Rambam explains the derivation of the word milugma. It is a composite of the words molei lugma, meaning "cheekful." It was common to chew kernels of wheat, figs, or other produce, and then place them on wounds. Since the primary use of such produce is food, it cannot be used for these purposes.

The explanation is dependent on the principle stated in the following halachah.

Liquids were occasionally sprinkled over wounds to induce clotting.

And for no other purpose, even if it is beneficial to man.

I.e., it may be used for a purpose that brings man benefit.

Our translation is based on Rav Kappach's notes to the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (loc. cit.). Others render it as "hyssop."

In his Commentary to the Mishnah, the Rambam explains that these are herbs that are used both as spices and for medicinal purposes.

And the holiness of the Sabbatical year does not rest upon it.

And is infused with that holiness.

This represents a change in the Rambam's thinking from his initial version of his Commentary to the Mishnah (loc. cit.) in which he states that the stringency involved with animal fodder is that it can only be eaten during the time the produce is available in the field. In the final version of the Commentary to the Mishnah, he adopts the position stated here that is based on the Jerusalem Talmud.

As stated in the notes to Halachah 8, when the produce from the Sabbatical year is sold, the proceeds from the sale may be used only for the purchase of food for humans.

This is a decree imposed so that there will not be a dearth of produce in Eretz Yisrael. See Chapter 7, Halachah 12, which states what should be done if such produce is brought to the Diaspora.

This is derived from Leviticus 25:6 which states that the produce of the Sabbatical year "shall be yours to eat." Implied is that it is for "you" and not for gentiles.

This is referring to a worker hired only for a day(s). Since he is hired for only a short time, it appears as if the person is paying his debt with the produce of the Sabbatical year which is forbidden, see Chapter 6, Halachah 11.

Rav Yosef Corcus states that this and the above clause even refer to a gentile guest or worker.

This is not considered as paying a debt.

This halachah is referring to a woman whose husband traveled to a distant place without leaving his wife adequate support. If she approaches the court, the court expropriates property belonging to her husband and sells it to provide for her support. See Hilchot Ishut 12:16.

For the husband is liable for her support.

Since she has access to the household provisions, it is not considered as if someone is paying the debt to her (Rav Yosef Corcus).

I.e., before it reaches one third of its growth. Until that point, they are unfit to be eaten [the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (Shivi'it 4:7)].

I.e., until they have ripened.

For it is also common practice to taste a small amount of fruit in the field even in its very early stages of ripening (ibid.).

I.e., until the produce reaches one third of its development (Hilchot Ma'aserot 2:3). That would reflect a further stage of development.

At that time, their surface becomes smooth and there is a certain amount of sap inside them [the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (Shivi'it 4:7)]. At this stage of development, it is ordinary practice for a person in the field to taste a small amount of the fruit.

Our translation of the terms in this clause is based on the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (Shivi'it 4:8).

A revi'it of a log is 86 cc according to Shiurei Torah and 150 cc according to Chazon Ish.

This is the ordinary way in which olives are eaten [the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (Shivi'it 4:9)], for there is a bitter liquid beneath this covering.

At this stage of development, the amount of oil produced is not significant enough for one to smear himself with it.

Leviticus 25:6. As stated in Halachah 10, this phrase is also an exclusion, preventing the use of the produce for other purposes.

In his Commentary to the Mishnah (Shivi'it 4:10), the Rambam writes that cutting the trees down at this stage of the fruits' development is forbidden, because it is tantamount to theft. For the fruit was granted to people at large and by cutting down the tree, other people are prevented from harvesting it.

It was permitted to harvest the fruit from this stage of development. Since people already had the opportunity of harvesting it and failed to do so, it is not forbidden to destroy the tree.

In his Commentary to the Mishnah (loc. cit.), the Rambam clarifies that we are speaking about a situation where the tree does not produce a large amount of produce and hence, it is permitted to cut it down and use it for wood. Otherwise, it is forbidden to cut down a fruit tree. See Hilchot Melachim 6:8-9.

I.e., when does the initial stage of development mentioned in the previous halachah begin for various types of fruit.

The interpretation of this clause offered by standard published text of the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (loc. cit.) is somewhat confusing. See Rav Kappach's translation. It is the source for our translation of the following clauses.

Our translation is dependent on the gloss of the Radbaz and Rav Kappach's notes to the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (Orlah 1:9).

The Radbaz explains that this is referring to a species of dates that never produces edible fruit, but the clusters themselves are eaten like hearts of palms.

The Kessef Mishneh explains that this license is derived through a process of deduction. Shivi'it 9:7 states that the hay and straw of the Sabbatical year may not be used for kindling until the second rain of the eighth year descends. Thus one can obviously conclude that it was forbidden to use them previously.

Hence it should be used for that purpose; see Halachah 3.

For they are not useful for any other purposes.

Seemingly, this halachah contradicts the preceding one. Since it is forbidden to use hay and straw from the Sabbatical year for kindling, one would think that it is forbidden to bathe in water heated through such a fire. Why then is bathing in such a bathhouse permitted?

The Kessef Mishneh first states that license to use the bathhouse is only granted after the fact. At the outset, one should not use such hay and straw for this purpose. Alternatively, he explains - as does the Radbaz - that there is no difficulty in using such hay and straw for this purpose, for just as animal fodder of the Sabbatical year can be used to make a compress for a person (Halachah 11), it can be used to heat a bath for him.

The Kessef Mishneh offers this interpretation, resolving the question posed by the Ra'avad who had objected to granting license to use such hay and straw when payment is taken, for that resembles selling the produce of the Sabbatical year as merchandise which is forbidden (Chapter 6, Halachah 1). The Kessef Mishneh explains that the prohibition against selling the produce of the Sabbatical year involves only selling food.

That are fit to be eaten [the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (Shivi'it 8:11)].

The Rambam is explaining the rationale for the restriction stated in the above mishnah. Others maintain that the rationale is that an important person should not rely on the leniency and, instead, should be stringent not to derive even such benefit from the produce of the Sabbatical year.

Instead of using them as food.

See Hilchot Terumah 11:10-11. The Radbaz explains that this can be derived from a logical inference. If leniency was granted with regard to terumah which is punishable by death, surely, it should be granted with regard to the Sabbatical year, for its prohibitions are not punishable as severely.

In which instance the holiness of the Sabbatical year falls upon them, as stated in Halachah 9.

For there are many who eat this type of produce as food, while it is soft. See Hilchot Berachot 8:6. Needless to say, if it hardens to the point it is no longer edible, it is considered as mere wood (Radbaz).

Since the spices were placed in a wrapping, they could be removed from the food after it was cooked. Their status depends on whether their flavor is retained or not.

The holiness of the Sabbatical year does not rest upon them, for they no longer are considered as food.

I.e., to use the mud for building. Since the straw and hay are fit for use as animal fodder, it is improper to use them for purposes that do not bring direct benefit to man or animals.

Because they are no longer suitable for use as animal fodder. The Ra'avad [based on the Jerusalem Talmud (Shivi'it 9:7)] states that one must actually sleep on the pillow, for the status of the straw to change. The commentaries note, however, that the Tosefta (Shivi'it 5:11) does not make such a qualification.

I.e., one should not cook in it while it is hot, so as not to benefit from the kindling of the produce of the Sabbatical year. The license granted in Halachah 20 is not appropriate here, because in this instance, the person is not receiving direct benefit from the burning of the straw (Radbaz).

In his Commentary to the Mishnah (Pe'ah 8:1), the Rambam explains that, in Eretz Yisrael, there is one wave of rain at the end of the summer. Afterwards at the beginning of the winter - i.e., depending on the year, between the seventeenth of Cheshvan and the first of Kislev, there is a second wave of rains which are very important for the success of the crops of that land.

The Jerusalem Talmud (Shivi'it 9:7) explains that from the time the rain descends, the straw in the field is no longer fit for an animal to eat. Therefore, there is no longer any restriction on using the straw in one's home.