Rambam - 1 Chapter a Day

Note the qualification of this matter in Halachah 3.

See Halachah 4 ff.

The Rambam defines the term epicurus (the term used here) in Hilchot Teshuvah 3:8. It appears, however, that here, he is not referring to the precise definition of that term, but rather to a more general conception of heresy. It must be noted that many of the authoritative manuscripts of the Mishneh Torah use the term min (see Hilchot Teshuvah 3:7).

As the Rambam continues to explain in the following halachah, a heretic should be slain. Any person may - and should - take the law into his own hands in this regard. There is no need to wait for judicial process.

Indeed, if the pit has a ladder, the ladder should be removed. Compare to Hilchot Rotzeach 4:10 which says that if it is possible, one should kill such individuals with a sword in public view.

I.e., there is no difference if the person denies the Oral Law or the Written Law.

People who seek to give gentile authorities control over the lives or the property of their fellow Jews. As stated in Hilchot Chovel UMazik 8:9-10, if possible, it is a mitzvah to kill such people, even in the era of exile.

As evident from the Shulchan Aruch (Choshen Mishpat 425:5), this terms refers to people who transgress with the intent of angering God. If, however, a person transgresses because he cannot control his desires, these severe measures do not apply.

Compare to Hilchot Avodat Kochavim 10:1 which states that these individuals “cause difficulty to the Jews and sway the people away from God.” See also the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah (Chullin 1:2) where he states that the progenitors of deviant approaches should be killed for corrupting the Torah.

These were two of the greatest students of Antigonus of Socho. As the Rambam states in his Commentary to the Mishnah (Avot 1:3), after they heard Antigonus teach: “Do not be as servants who serve their master for the sake of receiving a reward,” they forsook Jewish practice, saying: “Is it just that we labor without receiving a reward?”
They began splinter sects with the intent of swaying the people after them. At first, they sought to abandon Jewish practice entirely. They saw, however, the people would not accept this and so they focused their complaints on the Oral Law, arguing that although the Written Law was of Divine origin, the Oral Law was not. Their intent, however, was to deny the entire Torah. Similarly, the individuals mentioned by the Rambam deny “the Oral Law first,” i.e., their intent is to deny the entire connection with God and the Torah.

The Karaites represented a sect of deviant Jews who followed the approach of Tzadok and Beitus, rejecting the observance of the Oral Law although maintaining a certain amount of deference to Jewish tradition. In the Rambam's era, they had won the allegiance of many of the Jews in Egypt and North Africa. Their belief, however, was not perpetuated and after a brief epoch in history, they ceased to exist in significant numbers.

The concept of a child captured and raised by gentiles is found in Shabbat 68b. It is explained that when such a child comes of age and later desires to atone for his conduct, he is required to bring only one sin offering for each transgression which he performed no matter how often he repeated it (in contrast to an ordinary person who must bring a sin offering for every act of transgression he performs). He is judged more leniently and not held fully responsible for his deeds, because he was raised in a non-Jewish environment. Similarly, the Rambam is postulating, the descendants of the Karaites should not be held responsible for their transgressions, for they were brought up in an environment that drew them away from the Torah and its mitzvot.

As reflected in the manuscript copies of the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah (Chullin 1:2), these words of patience and forbearance reflected a change in the Rambam’s thinking. In his youth, he concluded his treatment of the subject without including them. When he rewrote his Commentary to the Mishnah in his later years and here in the Mishneh Torah, he felt it necessary to include them.
Contemporary Rabbinic experts have applied the Rambam’s statements here to the question of how to do deal with Reform and Conservative Jews today.

See the conclusion of the Rambam’s Iggeret HaShmad where he also urges a loving approach to sinners. themselves, stating: “It is not appropriate to ostracize and detest those who desecrate the Sabbath. Instead, one should draw them close and encourage them to perform mitzvot.... Even if a person transgresses intentionally, when he comes to the synagogue to pray, he should be accepted and should not be abused.”

Deuteronomy, ch. 17.

I.e., “the rebellious elder” must be a sage, as evident from the following halachah.

I.e., derives concepts using the accepted principles of Biblical exegesis.

As illustrated in the following halachot.

As is required of all those who are executed; see Hilchot Sanhedrin 13:1.

In contrast, those who deny the Oral Law are not granted a portion in the world to come (Kessef Mishneh, based on Hilchot Teshuvah, ch. 3).

Stating that we must follow the rulings of the majority and not deviate from them.

As explained in Hilchot Sanhedrin, ch. 4.

See Chapter 4, Halachah 2. The Rambam’s ruling is dependent on his understanding of a difference of opinion among the Sages (Sanhedrin 86b, 87a).
Perhaps, tefillin are singled out, because “the entire Torah is equated to tefillin” (Yayin Malchut).

If, however, he maintains that theoretically, the other sages are wrong, but refrains from giving a directive to others to act on his instructions and does not act upon them himself, he is not liable, as stated in Halachot 6 and 8.

I.e., the chamber outside the Temple Courtyard where they would hold court. See Halachah 7.

I.e., it does not apply to a scholar who lacks knowledge of more fundamental issues.

The classic example of this principle is Akkavya ben Mahallel who received four teachings from his teachers which - though they represented the majority views at that time - were not accepted by the majority of the Sages in the following generation. Akkavya refused to change his conception of these laws, and yet, in deference to the majority, did not issue rulings for action according to his conception. Moreover, before his passing, he advised his son to accept the ruling of the majority (Ediot 5:6-7; Sanhedrin 88a).

See Hilchot Talmud Torah, chs. 6 and 7.

The Maharitz Chayot states that although this is a general guideline, in practice, the matter is left to the interpretation of every court. For that reason, Akkavya ben Mahallel was not ostracized or subjected to corporal punishment. Since Akkavya sought to minimize the discord and the lack of respect for the court that could result from different approaches being taught, he was not subjected to punishment.

I.e., as an abstract concept without telling people that they should conduct themselves in this manner.

In contrast to other cases where capital punishment is administered (Hilchot Sanhedrin 12:2). This ruling represents a change from the Rambam’s position in his Commentary to the Mishnah (Sanhedrin 11:2) where he states that such a warning is required.

For a court of 23 judges has the authority to issue sentences of capital punishment.

When the entire Jewish people gather together in Jerusalem. There the announcement and the execution will attract the most attention.
As evident from Hilchot Sanhedrin, 11:2. 13:5, executions are not held on the sacred days of the festivals, but on Chol HaMoed.

The Radbaz explains that the execution of these four individuals is announced publicly, because in each instance, there is a rationale that might lead one to think that the transgression is not so severe: The rebellious elder did not actually commit a transgression; he merely instructed others to. The lying witnesses are not executed if the person was executed on the basis of their testimony, only when he has not yet been executed. Hence, one might think there is room for leniency. Similarly, as will be explained, the wayward and rebellious son is not executed because of the transgressions he performed, for stealing and eating gluttonously do not make him worthy to die. Instead, the Torah appreciates the ultimate outcome of his conduct. As such, there is room to argue that, at present, there is room for leniency. And the person who entices others to idol worship can argue that he himself did not commit the transgression. Hence, to make people aware that these transgressions are indeed severe, a public announcement is made.

The commentaries have noted that Hilchot Avodat Kochavim, ch. 5, where the Rambam discusses the laws pertaining to someone who entices others to worship idols, does not mention that the execution of such a person is announced publicly. They explain that perhaps he relied on his statements here.

The commentaries note that Hilchot Edut 18:17 (which speaks about the announcement of the execution of lying witnesses) and Chapter 7, Halachah 13, of these halachot (which speaks about the announcement of the execution of a wayward and rebellious son) do not mention that these individuals should be executed during a pilgrimage festival. Instead, they state that a proclamation concerning these individual’s execution should be circulated among the Jewish people. This has led the Kessef Mishneh to conclude that according to the Rambam, only the rebellious elder must be executed at that time. This view is supported by an opinion in the Tosefta (Sanhedrin 9:1). Others, however, point to another opinion in the Tosefta (ibid. 11:3) which states that all four individuals should be executed on a pilgrimage festival.