Rambam - 3 Chapters a Day

Sefer HaMitzvot (Negative Commandment 136) and Sefer HaChinuch (Mitzvah 279) include this as one of 613 mitzvot of the Torah.

Tzara'at is a physical affliction resembling, but not identical with leprosy.

This refers to a physical affliction resembling, but not identical with gonorrhea that imparts ritual impurity.

It does not refer to the breast and thigh of the peace offerings, for a woman of the priestly family who marries and is widowed or divorced may not partake of them (Yevamot 74b).

If his transgression is observed by witnesses and they issued a warning. Whenever lashes are given on the earthly plane, the transgressor receives atonement and is no longer held liable for death by God.

From the fact that Sanhedrin 83a, b emphasizes that an impure priest is not liable for death for partaking of impure terumah, the Rambam concludes that a transgression is involved.

Its impurity nullifies its holiness. See Chapter 6, Halachah 6 and notes, however.

The Kessef Mishneh states that this is approximately 20 minutes after sunset. This applies in Eretz Yisrael. In different latitudes, the duration of this time period varies.
This represents a stringency over other laws where ritual purity is required. In many such instances, as soon as· one immerses himself, his purification is completed and no further wait is necessary. See Hilchot Ma’aser Sheni 7:11.

The simple meaning of the verse is that the person’s purification process is not completed until the sun sets. The rules of Biblical exegesis, however, leave room for the meaning mentioned by the Rambam.

The Radbaz emphasizes that with regard to partaking of the sacrifices, in certain instances, an impure priest must also bring a sacrifice to mark his immersion from impurity.

I, e., as in the case at hand, there is no verse that says “Do not eat impure terumah,” but from the positive commandment regarding pure terumah, we can conclude that partaking of the impure terumah is prohibited.

Hence, its violation is not punishable by lashes.

Which would render him ritually impure.

For he does not become ritually impure until the semen actually emerges and in this way, he could swallow the terumah first (Niddah 40a).

These individuals are not responsible for their conduct. Nevertheless, their priesthood is intact. Hence, we immerse them to purify them and thus enable them to partake of terumah.

I.e., because of the doubt, we considered them impure.

Which would allow a seminal emission to be detected. Were the container to be made of cloth, the semen could be absorbed (Radbaz).

The literal meaning of the Hebrew is “warmth.”

See the gloss of the Radbaz who states that the Rambam’s wording implies that this ruling applies only when one rides bareback [see Shulchan Aruch (Even HaEzer 23:7)]. He also explains why it applies only to camel-riders and not those who ride on other animals.

I.e., intimate relations cause both the man and the woman to become impure. To emerge from that impurity, they must each immerse in the mikvah and wait until nightfall (see Leviticus 15:18).

Intimate relations can cause a woman to become impure for two reasons: a) as stated above, the very act of intimacy brings about ritual impurity; b) she comes in contact with semen and touching semen makes one ritually impure (Hilchot Sha’ar Avot HaTumah 5:9).
As long as the semen is inside the woman’s body, it is not considered to have touched her, because it is touching her body internally, not externally. If, however, it flows outside her body and touches her externally, she does become impure. According to the Rambam, if the woman does not turn over in intimate relations, the semen will remain in her body and not flow outside. Hence, after immersing herself and waiting until nightfall, she may partake of terumah. If, however, she turned over in the midst of intimacy, the semen will flow out. Moreover, it is possible that it will not flow out immediately, but will do so over the course of the coming days. Now, semen is considered to remain viable until the third day after intimacy. Hence for three days, the woman must consider the possibility that the semen flowed out from her body and made her impure. Hence, she cannot immerse herself in the mikvah to regain ritual purity until three days have passed.

Because of it touching her body.

Ibid.: 11. There the Rambam states that the intent is not that semen remains viable for three full days, but that it can remain viable until the third day after relations.

As stated in Chapter 1, Halachah 1, according to Scriptural Law, the requirement to separate terumah applies only in Eretz Yisrael. The early Sages ordained that it should be observed in certain neighboring countries.

Women who become impure because they experienced menstrual bleeding at times other than her ordinary cycle.

Women who become impure because they experienced ordinary menstrual bleeding.

Who becomes impure as explained in Hilchot Jssurei Bi ‘ah, ch. 10. Since the obligation to separate terumah in these lands is only Rabbinic in origin, the Sages were lenient regarding the restrictions incumbent on those who partake of terumah.

In contrast to terumah prescribed by Scriptural Law when such a wait is necessary, as stated in Halachah 2. The Ra’avad differs with the Rambam concerning this point and refers to Bechorot 27a in support of his position. The Radbaz and the Kessef Mishneh offer different explanations of that passage that support the Rambam’s interpretation. Note the apparent contradiction between the Rambam’s rulings here and his rulings in Hilchot Bikkurim 5:8..

For to purge the impurity resulting from contact with a human corpse, it is necessary to have the ashes from a Red Heifer sprinkled upon one’s body and those ashes are not available in the present age.

Once a male or a female attains majority, by contrast, we assume that they have become impure and they must immerse themselves before partaking of terumah (Radbaz).

For his impurity is also a result of a physical condition (ibid.).

For a person afflicted by tzara’at does not become ritually impure until a priest declares him so (Hilchot Tuma’at Tzara’at 9:2). With regard to the establishment of a priest’s lineage, see the notes to Chapter 6, Halachah 2.

The Radbaz writes that this prohibition applies even if he is uncircumcised with the Torah’s pennission, e.g., his brothers died because of circumcision, iii which instance, caution is shown before circumcising him.

See Hilchot Karban Pesach 9:7.

Sefer HaMitzvot (Negative Commandment 135) and Sefer HaChinuch (Mitzvah 282) include this as one of 613 mitzvot of the Torah. There is, however, a slight difficulty with this classification. The Rambam maintains that any commandment that is derived through one of the Thirteen Principles of Biblical Exegesis does not have the status of a Scriptural command, nor is such a prohibition punishable by lashes (Sefer HaMitzvot, General Principle 2) and as the Rambam states here, there is no direct commandment prohibiting an uncircumcised person from partaking of terumah. Instead, it is derived by our Sages (Yevamot 70a) through an association of verses (gezeirah shaveh). Hence, seemingly, it should not be placed in that category. The Rambam notes this difficulty when discussing this mitzvah in Sefer HaMitzvot and states that since our Sages mentioned that this mitzvah was of Scriptural origin, he considered it as having that status.

I.e., one was originally circumcised, but underwent an operation so that it would appear that he was not circumcised. In the Hellenist and Roman periods, there were Jews who underwent such operations so that they would resemble non-Jews.

For according to Scriptural Law, his original circumcision was effective and he can never revert to being uncircumcised.

The Radbaz writes that the intent is not that he is forbidden to partake of terumah until he is circumcised again. Instead, the intent is that he is advised to undergo the operation and not to partake of terumah until he does so. The Sefer HaMitzvot and the Sejer HaChinuch (foe. cit.), however, say that such an individual is prohibited by the Rabbis from partaking of terumah.

Although it is necessary to draw a drop of blood from such a person’s organ (Hilchot Milah 1 : 11), it cannot be said that such a person is uncircumcised. Hence, he is permitted to partake of terumah (Radbaz).

A child whose genital area is covered by a mass of flesh and thus his gender cannot be determined.

Since his gender is undetermined, we do not know whether or not he must be circumcised.

A person with both male and female sexual organs.

Although there are many unresolved questions about such a person’s status vis-a-vis gender, there is no difficulty in him partaking of terumah for both males and females of the priestly family are permitted to partake of it.

They are prohibited from partaking of terumah due to outside factors. Their membership in the priestly family is, however, intact. Hence, their wives and servants may partake of terumah (Radbaz).

Although their wounds prevent such priests from serving at the Altar, they are still members of the priestly family. Hence, they and their servants may partake of terumah.

As stated in Deuteronomy 23:2 and Hilchot Issurei Bi'ah, ch. 16, a person with such wounds is forbidden to marry a natural born Jewess. Hence, if a priest is intimate with his wife after suffering such wounds, she becomes a zonah and a chalalah and hence, is forbidden to partake of terumah.

Since they were not intimate, she has not become a cha/a/ah and may partake of terumah. The Kessef Mishneh states that this refers to an instance where the couple were married and then he suffered this wound. If, however, a priest suffers such a wound and then consecrates a woman, she may not partake of terumah. See the notes to the following halachah.

Ordinarily, a priest cannot marry a convert or the descendant of a convert. In this instance, however, because of his injury, the full measure of the holiness of the priesthood does not rest upon him and he may marry such a woman (Hilchot Issurei Bi'ah 16:1). Once he marries such a woman, she is entitled to partake of terumah, because she is the wife of a priest.

Since this woman is prepared to engage in intimate relations that are forbidden to her, our Sages prohibited her from partaking of terumah even though she had not actually engaged in such relations. Moreover, she is no longer permitted to partake of terumah by virtue of her being a member of the priestly family, because she was consecrated, as stated in Chapter 8, Halachah 1.

See Hilchot!shut 2:14 for a more precise definition of the term used by the Rambam. As stated in Hilchot lssurei Bi ‘ah 16:9, such a person is permitted to marry a natural born Jewess. Hence, there is no difficulty with the wife of a priest with such a condition partaking of terumah.

For in this context, there is no difference between them and the servants of an ordinary priest.

For there is an unresolved doubt if their marriages are acceptable. Needless to say, if a tumtum undergoes an operation and it is determined that he is a male, his wife may partake of terumah even if he consecrated her before the operation.

These individuals are considered as not being responsible for their actions and their acquisitions are not valid. Hence, the servants they purchase by themselves are not their property according to Scriptural Law and may not partake of terumah.

Because the acquisitions are binding and they have become the property of a priest.

The literal translation of the Rambam’s words would be “as a male would be the object of intimacy.”

For such relations would cause a woman to be considered as a chalalah. Since there is an unresolved question regarding the gender of an androgynus, we are stringent and consider the possibility that he is a female. And a female is disqualified from terumah if she engages in intimacy that would render her a chalalah regardless of whether it is vaginal or anal intercourse (Radbaz).

For their right to partake of terumah is dependent on that of their owner.

For such relations would render a woman a chalahah and, because of the unresolved question regarding the status of the androgynus, we apply that stringency to him as well.

A male priest does not become a chalal because he entered into a forbidden sexual relationship.
The Ra’avad and the Kessef Mishneh question the Rambam’s ruling, noting that, seemingly, the person should be disqualified from partaking of terumah based on the same rationale as the first clause of the halachah: i.e., that the androgynus also has a feminine dimension and that feminine dimension will be disqualified through anal intercourse. Hence, they ask: Why does the Rambam only view this relationship as intimacy between males and hence, not able to disqualify the androgynus? Why not see it as a relationship between a male and a female? Among the explanations given is that since both of the individuals are engaging in relations as males, it is not appropriate to deem one a male and one a female.

The Jerusalem Talmud (the conclusion of tractate Terumot) states that for a servant to partake of terumah, he must belong to priests entirely. If an Israelite has even a one-hundredth share in the ownership of the servant, he may not partake of terumah.

Which may be eaten by all the members of the priest’s household.

When a woman marries, her husband receives the right to benefit from her property. As explained in Hilchot Ishut, ch. 16, there are two arrangements under which a husband is allowed to benefit from his wife’s property:
nichsei milog - in this instance, in the event of divorce or the husband’s death, the property reverts to the ownership of the woman according to its value at that time, regardless of the profit or loss she suffers;
nichsei tzon barzel - in this instance, the property is evaluated at the time of marriage; in the event of divorce or the husband’s death, the woman receives that amount, regardless of the worth of the property at that time.
Servants can be classified in either of these categories. In both instances, they have the right to partake of terumah. With regard to servants who are nichsei tzon barzel, they are the husband’s (the priest’s) acquisitions, for it is as if he acquired them when he accepted financial responsibility for their worth. With regard to those who are nichsei milog, they are “the acquisition of his acquisition,” i.e., property belonging to his wife whom he has acquired. See Halachah 20.

I.e., servants acquired by servants who were acquired by the priest. The inference is derived based on the fact that the verse contains to derivatives of the word koneh - “acquire.”

When the wife of a priest is not entitled to partake of terumah (see Halachot 20-22), her servants may also not partake of terumah.

The servants who are nichsei tzon barzel certainly may not partake of terumah for they are now the property of an Israelite. Even the servants who are nichsei milog may not partake of terumah, for at this time, their owner - the Israelite’s wife is disqualified from partaking of terumah.

These three types of relationships are forbidden, the first two by Scriptural Law, the latter by Rabbinic Law. Thus the woman will become a chalalah and hence, forbidden to partake of terumah. Since she is forbidden to partake of terumah, her servants are likewise forbidden.

I.e., a woman who is forbidden to him because of one of the prohibitions that apply to all Jews, even non-priests. Nevertheless, if he engages in relations with that woman, she becomes a zonah and thus prohibited against partaking of terumah. In this instance as well, since she is forbidden to partake of terumah, her servants are likewise forbidden.

For they are the woman’s property, it is just that they are “on loan” to her husband, as it were.

A relatively distant female relative with whom our Sages prohibited marriage as a safeguard against the Scriptural prohibitions of incest. See Hilchot Ishut 1:6.

For according to Scriptural Law, she is the priest’s wife and relations with him do not disqualify her, neither as a zonah or a chalalah.

Seemingly, since such a woman has the right to partake of terumah, her servants should also be so entitled. The Radbaz explains that since her marriage is not sanctioned by Rabbinic Law, her husband is under no obligation to sustain her. Hence, her servants do not receive the right to partake of terumah. Those servants that are nichsei tzon barzel are permitted to partake of terumah according to all authorities, for they are her husband’s acquisitions, as explained above.

I.e., were it not for the reason stated by the Rambam, they would be permitted to partake of terumah by virtue of their membership in the priestly family.

Entering the chupah means entering a private place with her husband. This is the act that constitutes the beginning of the second phase of the marriage relationship, nissuin.

Even though a woman enters the chupah without consecration, that act causes her to be considered as designated for intimate relations that are forbidden.

Through intimate relations with her husband.

I.e., her husband, the priest, had several brothers, one of whom was born from a relationship forbidden to the priesthood, and thus had the status of a challal.

Since she could. be married by the challal, she is disqualified even though · she is a member of the priestly family.

A maamar is a Rabbinic institution in which a yevam declares his intention to marry his brother's childless widow by consecrating her through giving her money (Hilchot Yibbum 2:1).

If another brother would perform yibbum with the widow, he would become her husband despite the maamar given by his brother. Thus the connection to the yevam who is a cha/la/ is still intact.

I.e., instead of performing chalitzah which would absolve the connection between him and his yevamah, he gave her a bill of divorce. According to Scriptural Law, the bill of divorce is not effective at all. Nevertheless, according to Rabbinic Law, it disqualifies the woman from carrying out yibbum with any of the brothers (Hilchot Yibbum VeChalitzah 5:1).

For according to Scriptural Law, their connection is still intact.

And thus became forbidden to a priest by Rabbinic decree.

Because she is a member of the priestly family. In contrast to the women mentioned in Halachah 21, these women are designated for relations that are forbidden only by Rabbinic decree. Hence, they are not disqualified.
Were the yevamah to be the daughter of an Israelite, she would not be permitted to partake of terumah despite the fact that she is bound to a priest through the obligation of yibbum (Radbaz).

A women whose female sexual characteristics are underdeveloped.

Although the priest may divorce her because she cannot have children, until he does so, he may be intimate with her. Hence, she is entitled to partake of terumah.

This statement is explained in the halachot that follow.

Without being married to the priest or after being widowed from him.

I.e., as soon as the baby is born, the mother is entitled to eat by virtue of her child. Until it is born, however, the restrictions apply.

Rashi (Yevamot 67b) explains that a pregnant woman is excluded, because she does not resemble a maiden.

To purify herself from the impurity she contracted because of the relations in which she engaged (see Leviticus 15:18). Note, however, Chapter 7, Halachah 7.

For even if she became pregnant, the pregnancy is not significant as the Rambam continues to explain. Hence, after 40 days passed, she should refrain from partaking of terumah until it is clear that she is not pregnant.

She is required to make restoration of the terumah and add a fifth of its value as atonement.

Without any other children.

She herself may also not partake of teromah, as stated in Halachah 2. This halachah is speaking about her servants that are nichsei tzon barze/ and thus belong to the heirs of her husband’s estate. Until the fetus is born, it is not a significant entity and the servants that belong to it do not have the right to partake of terumah because of it.

The Ra’avad differs with the Rambam concerning this point and maintains that the right of the fetus to the servants is significant even before the fetus is born. Hence, he disqualifies them from partaking of terumah. The Radbaz and the Kessef Mishneh offer interpretations of the relevant Talmudic portions that substantiate the Rambam’s ruling.

Until the estate is divided and each brother receives his share.

Regardless of the age of the prospective yavam.

Although she was married to the brother of the yavam, the yavam does not acquire her until he performs yibbum. The Radbaz emphasizes that this ruling applies even if the yavam gave her a ma ‘amar, designating her as his wife.

Which, were she not obligated to her yavam, she could partake of by virtue of her membership in the priestly family.

Rashi (/oc. cit. 67b) explains that such a woman is excluded, because she may not return to her father’s home.

As stated in Hilchot Issurei Bi’ah 1:10, the term “uncover” is of Biblical origin (Leviticus 20:18) and refers to the insertion of the corona alone in the woman’s vaginal channel. “Completing relations” refers to the insertion of the entire male organ.

Hilchot Yibbum VeChalitzah 2:3.

And thus was not yet entitled to partake of terumah by virtue of her initial marriage.

I.e., during her first marriage.

Chapter 6, Halachah 3, explains that the Sages forbade such a woman from partaking of terumah for this reason. According to Scriptural Law, she is entitled to partake of it.

By virtue of her ancestral right.

When a woman’s husband words his statement in that manner, the consecration does not take effect until the 30 days pass (Hilchot!shut 7:10).

In which instance, the wording he uses is confusing and there is a doubt whether the consecration takes effect immediately or only after 30 days (ibid.:12).

Because of the doubt regarding her status.

I.e., if the man consecrated the woman conditionally, but stated that when the condition is fulfilled, the consecration would take effect from the present time (see ibid.: 6:16).

According to Scriptural Law, a deaf-mute does not have the capacity to consecrate a woman as his wife. Our Sages, however, desired that these individuals be given a chance to enjoy the basics of family life (see Hilchot /shut 4:9, 11 :4).

And the acquisition ordained by our Sages does not have the power to supersede Scriptural Law.

For her consecration did not entitle her to partake of terumah and her marriage to a deaf-mute (through yibbum) does not give her this right either.

In this instance, the yibbum performed by the deaf-mute creates a marriage-bond that is effective according to Scriptural Law. Nevertheless, the relations in which he engages with her resemble the inadvertent relations mentioned in Halachah 6 and hence do notentitle the woman to partake of terumah.

For she is married according to Scriptural Law.

And the relations with the yavam restore her to her previous status.

The Rambam speaks about a boy “nine years and one day old.” Nevertheless, the intent is that he has completed nine years of life and entered his tenth year. Even a portion of a day is considered as an entire day. Thus as soon as a child reaches his ninth birthday, he is nine years and one day old. Hence, for the purpose of brevity, we have translated as above.

Although such a child is a minor and not entirely sexually potent, at this age, he is somewhat physically mature. Hence, relations in which he engage are significant to a certain extent. See Hilchot Ishut 11:3; Hilchot Yibbum 1:16; Hilchot Issurei Bi'ah 1:13.

See Chapter 6, Halachah 7.

Le., and he inserted his organ in hers without an erection. The Radbaz explains that this is the fundamental new concept taught by this halachah. Otherwise, it would be obvious that since relations with this child are significant and they are forbidden to this woman, they disqualify her from partaking of terumah.

For a male cannot acquire a wife until he reaches majority. Such a marriage is not significant even according to Rabbinic Law (Hilchot!shut 11 :6-7).

In which instance, she would be forbidden to partake of terumah.

In which instance, she would be permitted.

Because of the doubt.

For a child does not reach maturity - and hence, a marriage that he enters is not significant until he manifests bodily signs, two pubic hairs for a male, that he has reached maturity. Attaining the age of maturity is itself not sufficient (Hilchot!shut 2:10-11).
Seemingly, this clause is also speaking about an instance where the daughter of a priest is marrying a youth who disqualifies her and the question is whether he is of sufficient physical maturity for the marriage to be significant. In that instance, however, it would be proper to speak of consecration, not marriage. For this reason, Rav Yosef Korcus defines this clause as referring to a daughter of an Israelite who is marrying a priest and the question is whether the marriage entitles her to partake of terumah or not.

If the individual involved is an Israelite fit to marry this woman.

If the individual involved is a priest.

I.e., one who seduced a girl under majority. In that instance, even though the relations were with consent, since the girl is a minor, they are considered to have been carried out against her will.

In the first two instances, since the relations were carried out outside the context of marriage, they are not significant with regard to terumah. In the latter instance, since the marriage of an intellectual or emotionally unstable person is of no significance whatsoever (Hilchot /shut 11 :6), the relations are considered as talcing place outside the context of marriage.

See Chapter 6, Halachah 7. In such an instance, the woman is. disqualified even if the relations were carried out under duress.

Since he is a priest, he entitles his mother to partalce of terumah. See Chapter 6, Halachah 12.

I.e., she resumes her previous status.

A sotah is a woman suspected of adultery who is subjected to a test of her fidelity by drinking special water, the "bitter water" mentioned by the Rambam, prepared in the Temple. For a woman to be required to take this test, two witnesses must testify that she was warned by her husband not to enter into privacy with a particular man and two witnesses must testify that she in fact entered into privacy with the said person (Hilchot Sotah 1:1).

See Hilchot Sotah 2:2 which mentions fifteen women that are placed in this category.

For the sotah test is necessary to very whether or not she was faithful to her husband and that test is not administered unless the husband is alive (ibid. 2:7).

This is not speaking about a sotah, but rather an ordinary woman married to a priest.
Hilchot /shut 24:23 states that, in this situation, we do not accept the woman’s word and we require her to remain married to her husband, for we suspect that she was not unfaithful and made this statement only so that she would be divorced and free to marry someone else. Nevertheless, her word is accepted with regard to terumah and her husband must provide her with other food.

Until a girl attains majority, she cannot marry without her father's consent. Thus it is as if the marriage is conditional until he consents and if he does not consent, it is nullified (Hilchot Ishut 3:13, 22:5). Hence, we do not allow her to partake of terumah, for if the marriage is nullified, she would have no right to partake of terumah.

And does not desire to. speak his mind until he calms down.

This latter point requires qualification as the Rambam proceeds to state.

For a Scriptural prohibition is involved and we follow the general principle: Whenever there is a question regarding a point of Scriptural Law, we rule stringently. Hence, even though her husband is liable to provide her with her sustenance in such a situation (Hilchot Ishut 5:13), he may not give her terumah.

This is a corollary to the point mentioned beforehand. Since a woman is forbidden to partake of terumah whenever there is a doubt that she was divorced, she is forbidden as soon as she appoints her agent, for he may receive her bill of divorce at any time. Even though the matter is not entirely in the agent’s hands, for the bill of divorce must be given on the husband’s initiative, we follow the presumption that the agent will fulfill the mission with which he is charged (Radbaz).

For the bill of divorce is not effective if given elsewhere (Hilchot Gerushin 9:34).

For in this instance, the agent is acting in place of the husband and the divorce is not completed until he gives the woman the bill of divorce (ibid. 6:5).

Such an arrangement was often made when a couple were childless so that if the husband died, the woman would be free of the obligation of ytbbum.

For we fear that he might die at any moment. Hence, from the previous hour onward, she would have partaken of terumah without having the right to do so.

And if they are priests, their wives may continue partaking of terumah.

We are speaking about a caravan journey through the desert. Although there is a certain amount of danger to the travelers, we operate under the presumption that they are alive until we receive information otherwise.

We presume that the officers of a gentile court are likely to accept bribes. Hence, the fact that one was sentenced to death is not necessarily proof that he died.

In these situations, there is a high likelihood - but no definite proof that the person died. Hence, his wife must assume that he is dead and accept all the stringencies which that state would imply. At the same time, she cannot act on the assumption that he is dead and remarry. The Rambam proceeds to explain the implications of this status vis-a-vis terumah.

She must presume her husband is alive and may not partake of tenunah for that reason.

She must presume her husband is dead and may not partake of terumah for that reason.

A person sentenced to be executed may be given a reprieve from execution if a redeeming factor is found for him (Hilchot Sanhedrin 13:1). Nevertheless, once he has already been brought to the place of execution, it is very unlikely that this will happen (Kessef Mishneh).

I.e., if she is the daughter of an Israelite married to a priest. If she is the daughter of a priest married to an Israelite, she may partake of terumah.

Hence, the daughter of the Israelite may not partake of terumah. On the other hand, not all die. Hence, since a daughter of the priest married to an Israelite was not partaking of terumah beforehand, this is not considered sufficient reason to allow her to do so (Radbaz).

Hilchot Gerushin 12:16 states that, if no one contradicts the testimony, whenever a witness testifies that a woman's husband died, his or her word is accepted with the exception of five women: another wife of that man, a woman who is her husband's yevamah, the woman's mother-in-law, her mother-in-law's daughter, and her husband's daughter from another wife. In all these instances, we fear that there is enmity between these women and the man's wife and they will testify falsely so that she will marry another man and hence, be forced to accept a divorce from her husband.

The Ra’avad does not accept the Rambam’s ruling and maintains that even though the woman is not allowed to remarry, she should not be allowed to partake of terumah. For perhaps these women are telling the truth. The Radbaz supports the Rambam’s ruling.

The Rambam’s wording allows for the interpretation that this ruling applies whether he gives the bill of emancipation to the servant or to another person on behalf of the servant (see Hilchot Avadim 6: l).

The formal legal contract freeing him from slavery.

As stated in Hilchot Avadim 5:4, et al, there are certain situations where a servant is deserving of his freedom. Nevertheless, he does not receive the status of a freed servant until he receives his bill of emancipation. Even so, he is forbidden to partake of terumah from the time he becomes worthy of freedom.

In such a situation, we say that since generally, it is considered desirable to receive a gift, the intended recipient acquires the property unless he lodges an objection at the time he hears about the gift. See Hilchot Zechiyah UMatanah 4:2.

I.e., that he never desired to receive the present and thus it never left the domain of its initial owner (ibid. :3).

And thus, he is considered to have acquired the property and the servants - and then to have renounced ownership of it and them.

The recipient of the present.

For in either situation, there is a possibility that their present owner is an Israelite.

Because the rental does not interrupt the priests’s ownership. The Israelite must, however, transfer ownership of the terumah to the priest before feeding it to the animal

There are, however, contexts where rental is considered equivalent to purchase. See Hilchot Sechirut 7:1.

This was a popular arrangement in the Talmudic era. The owner of livestock would give it to a shepherd to fatten. The shepherd would have it evaluated and accept responsibility for its value although he did not actually pay the priest anything. Afterwards, when it has been fattened, the value which the shepherd accepted responsibility for is returned to the owner and the two share the profits equally. See Hilchot Shluchin VeShutafim 8:1-4 and Hilchot Malveh ViLoveh 8:12 for more details concerning this arrangement.

And thus the law mentioned in the first clause of Halachah 7 applies.

A type of legume used as animal fodder.

Even a priest may not feed his doves terumah, for terumah may only be given to domesticated animals. Nevertheless, everyone, even Israelites, need not take precautions against an animal eating vetch that is terumah on its own initiative. The Radbaz explains that the rationale is that the obligation to separate terumah from vetch is merely Rabbinic in origin. Implied is that if the obligation was Scriptural in origin, one could not take such leniency. It must be noted, however, that not all authorities consider the obligation to separate terumah from vetch as Rabbinic..

This introduction precedes a law which the Rambam derived through his own process of deduction without an explicit source in the previous Rabbinic literature.

Hilchot Mechirah 3:1. There it is explained that the Rabbis required the purchaser to draw the article into his possession for the transaction to be completed.

And thus completes the transaction.