Today in Judaism: Today is: Friday, 23 Shevat 5774 • 24 January
2014 and Shabbat, 24 Shevat 5774 • 25 January 2014
Today in Jewish History:
• War on Benjamin (1188 BCE)
Armies of the Tribes of Israel converged upon the tribe of
Benjamin in the aftermath of the "Concubine at Givah" incident, in a
war which nearly brought about the extinction of the Benjaminites (as related
in the Book of Judges, chapters 19-21).
Daily Quote:
Every spiritual malady has a cure, except for pride--Rabbi
Israel Baal Shem Tov (1698-1760)
-------
Torah Reading:
Mishpatim (Exodus - Shemot 21: [MISHPATIM]
1 Now these are the mishpatim which thou shalt set before them.
2 If thou acquire an eved Ivri, shesh shanim he shall serve; and
in the seventh he shall go out lachafeshi (to the freedom) for no charge.
3 If he came in by himself, he shall go out by himself; if he
were a ba’al isha, then his isha shall go out with him.
4 If his adon have given him an isha, and to him she gives birth
to banim or banot; the isha and her yeledim shall be her adon’s, and he shall
go out [free] by himself.
5 And if the eved shall plainly say, I love adoni, my isha, and
my banim; I will not go out lachafeshi (to the freedom);
6 Then his adon shall bring him unto HaElohim; he shall also
bring him to the delet (door), or unto the mezuzah; and his adon shall pierce
through his ozen (ear) with a piercing-tool; then he shall serve him l’olam.
7 And if an ish sell his bat to be an amah (maidservant), she
shall not go out as the avadim [go free].
8 If she please not her adon, who hath betrothed her to himself,
then shall he let her be redeemed [i.e., let her freedom be purchased]; to sell
her unto an am nochri (foreign people) he shall have no power, seeing he hath
dealt deceitfully with her.
9 And if he have betrothed her unto his ben, he shall deal with
her according to the mishpat habanot (rights of [free] daughters; i.e., those
rights of verse 10).
10 If he take him another, her food, her covering of clothing,
and her onah (conjugal rights) shall he not deprive.
11 And if he does not perform these three unto her, then shall
she go out free without kesef.
12 He that strikes down an ish, so that the ish die, shall be
surely put to death.
13 And if he lie not in ambush, but HaElohim deliver him into
his yad, then I will appoint thee a makom (i.e., city of refuge) where he shall
flee there.
14 But if an ish come premeditatedly upon his re’a, to murder
him by guile; thou shalt take him from Mine Mizbe’ach for capital punishment.
15 And he that striketh down his av, or his em, shall be surely
put to death.
16 And he that kidnaps an ish, and selleth him, or if he be
found in his power, the kidnapper shall surely be put to death.
17 And he that curseth his av, or his em, shall surely be put to
death.
18 And if anashim quarrel, and one strike another with an even
(stone), or with his egrof (fist), and he die not, but is bedfast;
19 If he rise again, and walk around outside upon his staff,
then shall he that struck down him be absolved; only shivto yiten (he shall
give for his lost time), and shall provide for him to be thoroughly healed.
20 And if an ish strikes his eved, or his amah, with a shevet
(rod), and he die under his yad; he shall be surely avenged.
21 Notwithstanding, if he continue a yom or two, he shall not be
avenged; for he is his kesef.
22 If men fight, and hurt an isha harah (pregnant woman), so
that she gives birth prematurely but not with any injury; he shall be surely
punished, according as the ba’al haisha will assess a fine upon him; and he
shall pay as the judges determine.
23 And if any ason (harm, fatality) follow, then thou shalt take
nefesh for nefesh,
24 Ayin for ayin, shen for shen, yad for yad, regel for regel,
25 Burn for burn, wound for wound, chaburah (stripe laceration)
for chaburah.
26 And if an ish strike the ayin of his eved, or the ayin of his
amah, that it perish; he shall let him go free for his ayin’s sake.
27 And if he strike his eved’s shen (tooth), or his amah’s shen;
he shall let him go free for his shen’s sake.
28 If an ox gore an ish or an isha, that they die; then the ox
shall be surely stoned, and his basar shall not be eaten; but the ba’al hashor
(owner of the ox) shall be exempt from punishment.
29 But if the shor habitually from mitmol (yesterday) gored, and
its ba’al has been warned, and he hath not kept it in the bull pen, and it hath
killed an ish or an isha; the shor shall be stoned, and his ba’al also shall be
put to death.
30 If there be laid on him a kofer (atonement payment, ransom),
then he shall give for the redemption of his nefesh whatsoever is assessed upon
him.
31 Whether he have gored a ben, or have gored a bat, according
to this mishpat shall it be done unto him.
32 If the ox shall gore an eved or an amah; he shall give unto
their adon sheloshim shekalim kesef, and the ox shall be stoned.
33 And if an ish shall open a bor (pit), or if an ish shall dig
a bor and not cover it, and an ox or a donkey fall therein;
34 The ba’al habor shall make restitution, and give kesef unto
their ba’alim; and the carcass shall be his.
35 And if the shor ish (ox of a man) hurt the ox of a neighbor,
that it die; then they shall sell the shor hachai (live ox), and divide the
kesef of it; and the carcass also they shall divide.
36 Or if it be known that the shor hath habitually from mitmol (yesterday)
gored, and his ba’al hath not kept it in the bull pen; he shall surely pay ox
for ox; and the carcass shall belong to him.
22: (21:37) If a ganav takes a shor, or a seh, and slaughter it,
or sell it; he shall restore five cattle for an ox, and the seh.
2 (1) If a ganav be caught breaking in, and be struck down so
that he die, there shall be no guilt of bloodshed for him.
3 (2) If the shemesh be risen upon him, there shall be guilt of
bloodshed; the ganav should make full restitution; if he have nothing, then the
ganav shall be sold to make restitution for his theft.
4 (3) If the theft be certainly found in his yad chayyim,
whether it be ox, or donkey, or seh; he shall pay back double.
5 (4) If a man shall allow livestock to graze over a sadeh or kerem
(vineyard), or he lets it loose and it graze over the sadeh of another, then
from the best of his own sadeh, and of the best of his own kerem (vineyard),
shall he make restitution.
6 (5) If eish break out, and spreads in kotzim (thorns), so that
the stacks of grain, or the standing grain, or the sadeh, be consumed
therewith; he that kindled the eish shall surely make restitution.
7 (6) If an ish shall give unto his re’a kesef or vessels to be
shomer over, and it be stolen out of the bais haish; if the ganav be found, let
him pay back double.
8 (7) If the ganav be not found, then the ba’al habais shall be
brought before HaElohim, to see whether he has put his yad on the property of
his neighbor.
9 (8) For all manner of pesha (trespass, liability), whether it
be for ox, for donkey, for seh, for clothing, or for any manner of avedah (lost
property, missing thing) which another says, This is it, the case of both shall
come before HaElohim; and whom Elohim shall condemn, he shall pay back double
unto his re’a.
10 (9) If an ish deliver unto his re’a a donkey, or an ox, or a
seh, or any behemah, to be shomer over; and it die, or be injured, or carried
away, with no eye witness;
11 (10) Then shall a shevuat Hashem be between them both, that
he hath not laid his yad on the property of his re’a; and the property’s ba’al
shall accept thereof, and he shall not make restitution.
12 (11) And if it be certainly stolen from him, he shall make
restitution unto the ba’al thereof.
13 (12) If it be indeed tarof (torn by a wild animal, predator),
then let him bring it for ed (witness), and he shall not make restitution for
the terefah (torn animal).
14 (13) And if an ish asks to borrow of his re’a, and the animal
borrowed be injured, or die, the ba’al thereof being not with it, he shall
surely make restitution.
15 (14) But if the ba’al thereof be with it, he shall not make
restitution; if it be sakhir (rented, hired), it came for its hire.
16 (15) And if an ish entice a betulah that is not orasah
(betrothed, pledged), and lie with her, he shall surely endow her with a
marriage contract as his isha.
17 (16) If her av utterly refuse to give her unto him, he shall
pay kesef according to the mohar habetulah (marriage contract, dowry of the
virgins).
18 (17) Thou shalt not allow a mekhashefah (witch, sorceress) to
live.
19 (18) Kol shochev (every one having sexual relations) with a
behemah shall surely be put to death.
20 (19) He that sacrificeth unto elohim (the g-ds), other than
unto Hashem only, he shall be destroyed.
21 (20) Thou shalt neither mistreat a ger, nor oppress him; for
ye were gerim in Eretz Mitzrayim.
22 (21) Ye shall not cause pain to any almanah, or yatom.
23 (22) If thou cause them pain in any way, and they cry at all
unto Me, I will surely hear their cry;
24 (23) And My wrath shall be kindled, and I will kill you with
the cherev; and your nashim shall be almanot, and your banim shall be yetomim.
25 (24) If thou lend kesef to any of My people that is poor
among thee, thou shalt not be to him as a nosheh (a usurer), neither shalt thou
lay upon him neshekh (usury, interest).
26 (25) If thou at all take the cloak of thy re’a as security,
thou shalt return it unto him by bo hashemesh (sunset);
27 (26) For that is his covering only, it is his cloak for his
skin; wherein shall he sleep? And it shall come to pass, when he crieth unto
Me, that I will hear; for I am channun (compassionate).
28 (27) Thou shalt not revile Elohim, nor curse the nasi of thy
people.
29 (28) Thou shalt not delay to offer thy fullness offering
(i.e., bikkurim) or thy kohen’s heave offering (i.e. terumah); the bechor of
thy banim shalt thou present unto Me.
30 (29) Likewise shalt thou do with thine oxen, and with thy
tzon; shivat yamim it shall be with its em; on the yom hashemi’ni thou shalt
give it Me.
31 (30) And ye shall be anshei kodesh unto Me; neither shall ye
eat any basar that is terefah (torn of beasts) in the sadeh; ye shall cast it
to the kelev (dog).
23: Thou shalt not spread a false report; put not thine hand
with the rashah to be an ed chamas (malicious witness).
2 Thou shalt not follow a multitude to do evil; neither shalt
thou speak in a riv (cause, lawsuit) to turn aside after many to pervert
justice;
3 Neither shalt thou favor a poor man in his riv (cause,
lawsuit).
4 If thou meet thine enemy’s shor (ox) or his chamor (donkey)
going astray, thou shalt surely bring it back to him again.
5 If thou see the chamor of him that hateth thee lying under his
massa, and wouldest refrain from helping him, thou shalt surely help with him.
6 Thou shalt not pervert the mishpat of thy poor in his riv
(cause, lawsuit).
7 Keep thee far from a devar sheker (false matter); and the naki
(innocent) and tzaddik slay thou not; for I will not acquit the rashah.
8 And thou shalt take no shochad (bribe, gift); for the shochad
blindeth the seeing, and perverteth the words of the tzaddikim.
9 Also thou shalt not oppress a ger; for ye know the nefesh of a
ger, seeing ye were gerim in Eretz Mitzrayim.
10 And shesh shanim thou shalt sow thy land, and shalt gather in
the crops thereof;
11 But the shevi’it thou shalt leave it shamat (unplowed) and
let it lie fallow; that the evyon (poor) of thy people may eat; and what they
leave the beasts of the sadeh shall eat. In like manner thou shalt deal with
thy kerem (vineyard), and with thy zayit (olive) grove.
12 Sheshet yamim thou shalt do thy work, and on the yom
hashevi’i thou shalt rest; that thine shor (ox) and thine chamor (donkey) may
rest, and the ben of thy amah (handmaid), and the ger, may be refreshed.
13 And in all things that I have said unto you be circumspect;
and make no mention of the shem elohim acherim, neither let it be heard out of
thy mouth.
14 Three times thou shalt keep a Chag unto Me in the shanah.
15 Thou shalt be shomer to keep the Chag HaMatzot; thou shalt
eat matzot shivah yamim, as I commanded thee, in the time appointed of the
month Aviv; for in it thou camest out from Mitzrayim; and none shall appear
before Me empty-handed;
16 And the Chag HaKatzir, Bikkurim (Firstfruits [see Ac chp 2])
of thy labors, which thou hast sown in the sadeh; and the Chag HaAsif (Feast of
Ingathering [see Yn chp 7]), which is in the end of the shanah, when thou hast
gathered in thy labors out of the sadeh.
17 Shalosh pa’amim in the shanah all thy zachar shall appear
before HaAdon Hashem.
18 Thou shalt not offer the dahm of My zevach with chametz;
neither shall the chelev of My sacrifice remain until the boker.
19 The reshit bikkurim of thy land thou shalt bring into the
Bais Hashem Eloheicha [see Ac chp 2]. Thou shalt not cook a kid in his mother’s
cholov.
20 Hinei, I send Malach before thee, to be shomer over thee in
the derech, and to bring thee into the place which I have prepared.
21 Pay heed to him, and obey his voice, provoke him not; for he
will not pardon your peysha’im; for My Shem is in him.
22 But if thou shalt indeed obey his [bat] kol, and do all that
I speak; then I will be an enemy unto thine enemies, and an adversary unto
thine adversaries.
23 For My Malach shall go before thee, and bring thee in unto
the Emori, and the Chitti, and the Perizzi, and the Kena’ani, the Chivi, and
the Yevusi; I will cut them off.
24 Thou shalt not bow down to their elohim, nor serve them, nor
follow after their works; but thou shalt utterly overthrow them, and completely
break down their matztzvot (memorial columns dedicated to idols).
25 And ye shall serve Hashem Eloheichem, and He shall bless thy
lechem, and thy mayim; and I will take machalah (sickness) away from the midst
of thee.
26 There shall nothing miscarry their young, nor be barren, in
thy land; the mispar (number) of thy yamim I will fulfill.
27 I will send My ehmah (terror) ahead of thee, and will throw
into confusion all the people to whom thou shalt come, and I will make all
thine enemies turn their backs unto thee.
28 And I will send the tzirah (hornet) ahead of thee, which
shall drive out the Chivi, the Kena’ani, and the Chitti, from before thee.
29 I will not drive them out from before thee in shanah echat;
lest ha’aretz become desolate, and the beast of the sadeh multiply against
thee.
30 Me’at me’at (little by little) I will drive them out from
before thee, until thou be increased, and inherit ha’aretz.
31 And I will establish thy borders from the Yam Suf even unto
the Yam Pelishtim, and from the Midbar unto the [Euphrates] River: for I will
deliver the inhabitants of ha’aretz into your hand; and thou shalt drive them
out before thee.
32 Thou shalt make no brit (covenant) with them, nor with their
elohim.
33 They shall not dwell in thy land, lest they make thee sin
against Me; for if thou serve their elohim, it will surely be a mokesh (snare)
unto thee.
24: And He said unto Moshe, Come up unto Hashem, thou, and
Aharon, Nadav, and Avihu, and shive’im (seventy) of the Ziknei Yisroel; and
worship ye afar off.
2 And Moshe alone shall come near Hashem; but they shall not
come near; neither shall HaAm go up with him.
3 And Moshe came and told HaAm kol divrei Hashem, and all the
mishpatim; and kol HaAm answered with one voice, and said, All the words which
Hashem hath said will we do.
4 And Moshe wrote kol divrei Hashem, and rose up early in the
boker, and built a Mizbe’ach at the base of HaHar, and twelve matzevah (stone
pillars), according to the twelve Shivtei Yisroel.
5 And he sent out na’arei Bnei Yisroel, which offered olot (burnt
offerings), and sacrificed shelamim (peace offerings) of bulls unto Hashem.
6 And Moshe took half of the dahm, and put it in bowls; and the
other half of the dahm he sprinkled upon the Mizbe’ach.
7 Then he took the Sefer HaBrit, and read it aloud in the ears
of HaAm, and they responded, All that Hashem hath said we will do, and be
obedient.
8 And Moshe took the remaining dahm, and sprinkled it on HaAm,
and said, Hinei dahm habrit, which Hashem hath cut with you concerning all
these words.
9 Then went up Moshe, and Aharon, Nadav, and Avihu, and shiv’im
Ziknei Yisroel;
10 And they saw the Elohei Yisroel; and there was under His feet
the likeness of sapphire stone pavement, and like the very Shomayim in its
clearness.
11 And against the leaders of the Bnei Yisroel He laid not His
yad; also they saw HaElohim, and did eat and drink.
12 And Hashem said unto Moshe, Come up to Me into HaHar, and
remain there; and I will give thee the Luchot HaEven, and the torah, and the
mitzvot which I have written to teach them.
13 And Moshe rose up, and Yehoshua meshareto (the one aiding
him, the one ministering to him); and Moshe went up into the Har HaElohim.
14 And he said unto the Zekenim, Tarry ye here for us, until we
come again unto you; and, hinei, Aharon and Chur are with you; if any man have
a grievance, let him come unto them.
15 And Moshe went up into HaHar, and an anan concealed HaHar.
16 And the Kevod Hashem abode upon Mt. Sinai, and the anan
concealed it sheshet yamim; and the yom hashevi’i He called unto Moshe out of
the midst of the anan.
17 And the sight of the Kevod Hashem was like eish ochelet
(devouring fire) on the top of HaHar in the eyes of the Bnei Yisroel.
18 And Moshe went into the midst of the anan, going up into
HaHar; and Moshe was in HaHar arba’im yom v’arba’im lailah.)
Today in Jewish History:
Zachariah's Prophecy (351 BCE)
"On the 24th day of the 11th month, which is the month of
Shevat, in the second year of the reign of Darius, the word of G-d came to
Zachariah the son of Berechiah the son of Ido the prophet, saying:
'...I will return to Jerusalem in mercy, my house will be built
within her...and the Lord shall yet console Zion and shall yet choose
Jerusalem.'" (Zechariah 1:7-17)
This was two years before the completion of the 2nd Temple on
the 3rd of Adar, 3412 (349 BCE).
Passing of Rebbetzin Menuchah Rachel (1888)
Rebbetzin Menuchah Rachel Slonim, daughter of Rabbi DovBer of
Lubavitch and granddaughter of Rabbi Schneur Zalman of Liadi, was born on
Kislev 19, 5559 (1798) -- the very day on which her illustrious grandfather was
freed from his imprisonment in the Peter-Paul Fortress in Petersburg; she was
thus named "Menuchah", meaning "tranquility" (Rachel was
the name of a daughter of Rabbi Schneur Zalman who died in her youth).
The Rebbetzin's lifelong desire to live in the Holy Land was
realized in 1845, when she and her husband, Rabbi Yaakov Culi Slonim (d. 1857),
led a contingent of Chassidim who settled in Hebron. Famed for her wisdom,
piety and erudition, she served as the matriarch of the Chassidic community in
Hebron until her passing in her 90th year in 1888.
Today’s Laws and Customs:
Bless New Month
This Shabbat is Shabbat Mevarchim ("the Shabbat that
blesses" the new month): a special prayer is recited blessing the Rosh
Chodesh ("Head of the Month") of upcoming month of Adar I, which
falls on Friday and Shabbat of next week.
Prior to the blessing, we announce the precise time of the
molad, the "birth" of the new moon. Click here for molad times.
It is a Chabad custom to recite the entire book of Psalms before
morning prayers, and to conduct farbrengens (chassidic gatherings) in the
course of the Shabbat.
Links: On the Significance of Shabbat Mevarchim; Tehillim (the
Book of Psalms); The Farbrengen
Daily Study:
Chitas and Rambam for today:
Chumash: Mishpatim, 6th Portion Exodus 23:20-23:25 with Rashi
and Parshat Mishpatim, 7th Portion (Exodus 23:26-24:18) with Rashi
• Chapter 23
20. Behold, I am sending an angel before you to guard you on the
way and to bring you to the place that I have prepared. כ. הִנֵּה אָנֹכִי שֹׁלֵחַ מַלְאָךְ
לְפָנֶיךָ לִשְׁמָרְךָ בַּדָּרֶךְ וְלַהֲבִיאֲךָ אֶל הַמָּקוֹם אֲשֶׁר הֲכִנֹתִי:
Behold, I am sending an angel before you: Here they were
informed that they were destined to sin, and the Shechinah would say to them,
“for I will not ascend in your midst” (Exod. 33: 3). -[From Exod. Rabbah 32:3]
הנה אנכי שולח מלאך: כאן נתבשרו שעתידין לחטוא, ושכינה אומרת להם (שמות
לג ג) כי לא אעלה בקרבך:
that I have prepared: to give to you. This is its simple
meaning. Its midrashic interpretation is: "That I have prepared": My
place is already recognizable opposite it. This is one of the verses that state
that the heavenly Temple is directly opposite the earthly Temple. [From Midrash
Tanchuma 18]
אשר הכינותי: אשר זמנתי לתת לכם, זהו פשוטו ומדרשו אל המקום אשר הכינותי
כבר מקומי ניכר כנגדו, וזה אחד מן המקראות שאומרים, שבית המקדש של מעלה מכוון כנגד
בית המקדש של מטה:
21. Beware of him and obey him; do not rebel against him, for he
will not forgive your transgression, for My Name is within him. כא.
הִשָּׁמֶר מִפָּנָיו וּשְׁמַע בְּקֹלוֹ אַל תַּמֵּר בּוֹ כִּי לֹא יִשָּׂא לְפִשְׁעֲכֶם
כִּי שְׁמִי בְּקִרְבּוֹ:
do not rebel against him: Heb. ךְתַּמֵּר, an expression of
rebellion הַמְרָאָה, like “Any man who rebels (יַמְרֶה) against your orders”
(Josh. 1:18).
אל תמר בו: לשון המראה, כמו (יהושע א יח) אשר ימרה את פיך:
for he will not forgive your transgression: He is not accustomed
to that [i.e., forgiving], for he is of the group that do not sin. And
moreover, he is a messenger, and he can do only his mission. -[From Midrash
Tanchuma 18]
כי לא ישא לפשעכם: אינו מלומד בכך, שהוא מן הכת שאין חוטאין, ועוד שהוא
שליח ואינו עושה אלא שליחותו:
for My Name is within him: [This clause] is connected to the
beginning of the verse: Beware of him because My Name is associated with him.
Our Sages, however, said: This is [the angel] Metatron, whose name is like the
name of his Master (Sanh. 38b). The numerical value of מֵטַטְרוֹן [314] equals
that of שַׁדַּי [314]. -[From Tikunei Zohar 66b]
כי שמי בקרבו: מחובר לראש המקרא, השמר מפניו כי שמי משותף בו, ורבותינו
אמרו זה מטטרו"ן ששמו כשם רבו. מטטרו"ן בגימטריא שדי:
22. For if you hearken to his voice and do all that I say, I
will hate your enemies and oppress your adversaries. כב. כִּי אִם שָׁמוֹעַ תִּשְׁמַע
בְּקֹלוֹ וְעָשִׂיתָ כֹּל אֲשֶׁר אֲדַבֵּר וְאָיַבְתִּי אֶת אֹיְבֶיךָ וְצַרְתִּי אֶת
צֹרְרֶיךָ:
and oppress: Heb. וְצַרְךְתִּי, as the Targum [Onkelos] renders:
וְאָעֵיק, and I will cause distress.
וצרתי: כתרגומו ואעיק:
23. For My angel will go before you, and bring you to the Amorites,
the Hittites, the Perizzites, the Canaanites, the Hivvites, and the Jebusites,
and I will destroy them. כג. כִּי יֵלֵךְ מַלְאָכִי לְפָנֶיךָ וֶהֱבִיאֲךָ
אֶל הָאֱמֹרִי וְהַחִתִּי וְהַפְּרִזִּי וְהַכְּנַעֲנִי הַחִוִּי וְהַיְבוּסִי וְהִכְחַדְתִּיו:
24. You shall not prostrate yourself before their gods, and you
shall not worship them, and you shall not follow their practices, but you shall
tear them down and you shall utterly shatter their monuments. כד. לֹא
תִשְׁתַּחֲוֶה לֵאלֹהֵיהֶם וְלֹא תָעָבְדֵם וְלֹא תַעֲשֶׂה כְּמַעֲשֵׂיהֶם כִּי הָרֵס
תְּהָרְסֵם וְשַׁבֵּר תְּשַׁבֵּר מַצֵּבֹתֵיהֶם:
but you shall tear them down: Those gods.
הרס תהרסם: לאותם אלהות:
their monuments: Heb. מַצֵּבֹתֵיהֶם. Stones they erect (מַצִּיבִין)
upon which to prostate themselves before them [idols].
מצבותיהם: אבנים שהם מציבין להשתחוות להם:
25. And you shall worship the Lord, your God, and He will bless
your food and your drink, and I will remove illness from your midst. כה.
וַעֲבַדְתֶּם אֵת יְהֹוָה אֱלֹהֵיכֶם וּבֵרַךְ אֶת לַחְמְךָ וְאֶת מֵימֶיךָ וַהֲסִרֹתִי
מַחֲלָה מִקִּרְבֶּךָ:
-------
Chapter 23
26. There will be no bereaved or barren woman in your land; I
will fill the number of your days. כו. לֹא תִהְיֶה מְשַׁכֵּלָה וַעֲקָרָה בְּאַרְצֶךָ
אֶת מִסְפַּר יָמֶיךָ אֲמַלֵּא:
There will be no bereaved… woman: if you comply with My will.
לא תהיה משכלה: אם תעשה רצוני:
bereaved… woman: Heb. מְשַׁכֵּלָה. [A woman who] miscarries or
buries her children is called מְשַׁכֵּלָה.
משכלה: מפלת נפלים או קוברת את בניה, קרויה משכלה:
27. I will send My fear before you, and I will confuse all the
people among whom you shall come, and I will make all your enemies turn their
backs to you. כז. אֶת אֵימָתִי אֲשַׁלַּח לְפָנֶיךָ וְהַמֹּתִי אֶת כָּל הָעָם אֲשֶׁר
תָּבֹא בָּהֶם וְנָתַתִּי אֶת כָּל אֹיְבֶיךָ אֵלֶיךָ עֹרֶף:
and I will confuse: Heb. וְהַמֹּתִי, like הָמַמְךְתִּי (I will
confound), and its Aramaic translation is וֶאשַׁגֵּשׁ. Likewise, any word whose
verb root has the last letter doubled, when it is converted to speak in the פָעַלְךְתִּי
form [i.e., the first person past tense], in some instances the doubled letter
is dropped [i.e., the third letter of the root], and a “dagesh” is placed into
the [second] letter, and it is vowelized with a “melupum” [a “cholam”], like וְהַמֹּתִי
[in this verse is] from the same root as in “and the wheel of his wagon shall
be confused (וְהָמַם) ” (Isa. 28:28); “And I turned about (וְסַבּוֹתִי) ”
(Eccl. 2:20), [which is] from the same root as “and go around (וְסָבַב) ” (I
Sam. 7:16); “I was poor (דַּלוֹתִי)” (Ps. 116:6), from the same root as “became
impoverished (דָלְלוּ)” (Isa. 19:6); “have I engraved you (חַקֹתִי) ” (Isa.
49:16), from the same root as “resolves of (חִקְקֵי) heart” (Jud. 5:15); “whom
did I oppress (רַצֹּתִי)” (I Sam. 12:3), from the same root as “When he
oppressed רִצַץ, he abandoned the poor” (Job 20:19). The one who translates וְהַמֹּתִי
as וְאֶקְטַל, “and I will kill,” is in error, because if this was from the same
root as מִיתָה, death, the “hey” of this word would not be vowelized with a
“pattach,” and the “mem” would not be punctuated with a “dagesh” and not be
vowelized with a “melupum,” rather וְהֵמַךְתִּי (with a “tzeirei,” ) like “and
You will kill (וְהֵמַךְתָּה) this nation” (Num. 14:15), and the “tav” would be
punctuated with a “dagesh,” because it would represent two “tav” s, one a root
letter (מוּת) and one [“tav”] a suffix, like “I said, (אָמַרְךְתִּי) ” “I
sinned (חָטָאתִי),” “I did (עָשִׂיתִי),” and so, in “and I will give (וְנָתַךְתִּי),”
the “tav” is punctuated with a “dagesh,” because it comes instead of two [“tav”
s], because there should have been three “tav” s, two of the root, like “on the
day the Lord delivered up (ךְתֵּת) ” (Josh. 10:12), “it is a gift of (מַךְתַּת)
God” (Eccl. 3:13), and the third [“tav”] as a suffix.
והמתי: כמו והממתי ותרגומו ואשגש. וכן כל תיבה שפועל שלה בכפל האות
האחרונה, כשתהפוך לדבר בלשון פעלתי, יש מקומות שנוטל אות הכפולה ומדגיש את האות ונוקדו
במלאפום, כגון והמותי, מגזרת (ישעיה כח כח) והמם גלגל עגלתו, (קהלת ב כ) וסבותי, מגזרת
(שמואל א' ז טז) וסבב בית אל, (תהלים קטז ו) דלותי, מגזרת (ישעיה יט ו) דללו וחרבו,
(שם מט טז) על כפים חקותיך, מגזרת (שופטים ה טו) חקקי לב, (שמואל א' יב ג) את מי רצותי,
מגזרת (איוב כ יט) רצץ עזב דלים. והמתרגם והמותי ואיקטל, טועה הוא, שאלו מגזרת מיתה
היה, אין ה"א שלה בפת"ח, ולא מ"ם שלו מודגשת, ולא נקודה מלאפום, אלא
והמתי, כגון (במדבר יד טו) והמתה את העם הזה, והתי"ו מודגשת, לפי שתבא במקום ב'
תוי"ן, האחת נשרשת, לפי שאין מיתה בלא ת"ו, והאחרת משמשת, כמו אמרתי, חטאתי,
עשיתי, וכן ונתתי, הת"ו מודגשת, שהיא באה במקום שתים, לפי שהיה צריך שלש תוי"ן,
שתים ליסוד, כמו (יהושע י יב) ביום תת ה', (קהלת ג יג) מתת א-להים היא, והשלישית לשמוש:
their backs: That they will flee from before you and turn their
backs to you.
ערף: שינוסו מפניך ויהפכו לך ערפם:
28. And I will send the tzir'ah before you, and it will drive out
the Hivvites, the Canaanites, and the Hittites from before you. כח.
וְשָׁלַחְתִּי אֶת הַצִּרְעָה לְפָנֶיךָ וְגֵרְשָׁה אֶת הַחִוִּי אֶת הַכְּנַעֲנִי
וְאֶת הַחִתִּי מִלְּפָנֶיךָ:
the tzir’ah: [This was] a kind of flying insect, which would
strike them [people] in their eyes, inject venom into them, and they would die
(Tanchuma 18). The tzir’ah did not cross the Jordan, and the Hittites and the
Canaanites are [those of] the land of Sihon and Og. Therefore, out of all the
seven nations [the Torah] did not count [any] but these. As for the Hivvites,
although they were on the other side of the Jordan, in tractate Sotah (36a) our
Rabbis taught: It stood on the bank of the Jordan and cast venom upon them.
הצרעה: מין שרץ העוף, והיתה מכה אותם בעיניהם ומטילה בהם ארס והם מתים,
והצרעה לא עברה את הירדן, והחתי והכנעני הם ארץ סיחון ועוג, לפיכך מכל שבע אומות לא
מנה כאן אלא אלו. וחוי אף על פי שהוא מעבר הירדן והלאה, שנו רבותינו במסכת סוטה (סוטה
לו א) על שפת הירדן עמדה וזרקה בהם מרה:
29. I will not drive them away from before you in one year, lest
the land become desolate and the beasts of the field outnumber you. כט.
לֹא אֲגָרְשֶׁנּוּ מִפָּנֶיךָ בְּשָׁנָה אֶחָת פֶּן תִּהְיֶה הָאָרֶץ שְׁמָמָה וְרַבָּה
עָלֶיךָ חַיַּת הַשָּׂדֶה:
desolate: Empty of human beings, since you are few and there are
not enough of you to fill it [the land].
שממה: ריקנית מבני אדם, לפי שאתם מעט ואין בכם כדי למלאות אותה:
and… outnumber you: Heb. וְרַבָּה, and will outnumber you. [The
word וְרַבָּה is not an adjective, but a verb in the past tense. The “vav”
converts it to the future.]
ורבה עליך: ותרבה עליך:
30. I will drive them out from before you little by little,
until you have increased and can occupy the land. ל. מְעַט מְעַט אֲגָרְשֶׁנּוּ
מִפָּנֶיךָ עַד אֲשֶׁר תִּפְרֶה וְנָחַלְתָּ אֶת הָאָרֶץ:
until you have increased: Heb. ךְתִּפְרֶה. You will increase, an
expression of fruit, similar to “Be fruitful (פְּרוּ) and multiply” (Gen.
1:28).
עד אשר תפרה: תרבה, לשון פרי, כמו פרו ורבו:
31. And I will make your boundary from the Red Sea to the sea of
the Philistines, and from the desert to the river, for I will deliver the
inhabitants of the land into your hands, and you shall drive them out from
before you. לא. וְשַׁתִּי אֶת גְּבֻלְךָ מִיַּם סוּף וְעַד יָם פְּלִשְׁתִּים וּמִמִּדְבָּר
עַד הַנָּהָר כִּי | אֶתֵּן בְּיֶדְכֶם אֵת ישְׁבֵי הָאָרֶץ וְגֵרַשְׁתָּמוֹ מִפָּנֶיךָ:
And I will make: Heb. וְשַׁךְתִּי, an expression of הִשָׁתָה,
[meaning] placing. The “tav” is punctuated with a “dagesh” because it represents
two “tav” s, since there is no [expression of] placing [or making, שִׁיתָה]
without a “tav,” and the second one is [needed] for a suffix.
ושתי: לשון השתה, והת"ו מודגשת מפני שבאה תחת שתים, שאין שיתה
בלא ת"ו, והאחת לשמוש:
to the river: [Meaning] the Euphrates. — [from targumim]
עד הנהר: פרת:
and you shall drive them out: Heb. וְגֵרַשְׁךְתָּמוֹ, [the
equivalent of] וּתְגָרְשֵׁם, and you shall drive them out.
וגרשתמו: ותגרשם:
32. You shall not form a covenant for them or for their gods. לב. לֹא
תִכְרֹת לָהֶם וְלֵאלֹהֵיהֶם בְּרִית:
33. They shall not dwell in your land, lest they cause you to
sin against Me, that you will worship their gods, which will be a snare for
you. לג.
לֹא יֵשְׁבוּ בְּאַרְצְךָ פֶּן יַחֲטִיאוּ אֹתְךָ לִי כִּי תַעֲבֹד אֶת אֱלֹהֵיהֶם
כִּי יִהְיֶה לְךָ לְמוֹקֵשׁ:
that you will worship, etc.: Heb. תַעִבֹד וְגוֹ כִּי-יִהְיֶה וְגוֹ
כִּי. These [instances of] כִּי are used instead of אִשֶׁר [i.e.,] that, and so
it is in many places. This is [similar to] the usage of אִי, if, which is one
of the four expressions for which כִּי is used (Rosh Hashanah 3a). We also find
אִם used as an expression of כַּאִשֶׁר, when, in many places, such as “And when
(וְאִם) you offer up an offering of first fruits (Lev. 2:14), which is
obligatory [and not optional].
כי תעבד כי יהיה לך למקש: הרי אלו כי משמשין במקום אשר, וכן בכמה מקומות,
וזהו לשון אי, שהוא אחד מארבע לשונות שהכי משמש. וגם מצינו בהרבה מקומות אם משמש בלשון
אשר, כמו (ויקרא ב יד) ואם תקריב מנחת בכורים, שהיא חובה:
Chapter 24
1. And to Moses He said, "Come up to the Lord, you and
Aaron, Nadab and Abihu, and seventy of the elders of Israel, and prostrate
yourselves from afar. א. וְאֶל משֶׁה אָמַר עֲלֵה אֶל יְהֹוָה אַתָּה
וְאַהֲרֹן נָדָב וַאֲבִיהוּא וְשִׁבְעִים מִזִּקְנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל וְהִשְׁתַּחֲוִיתֶם
מֵרָחֹק:
And to Moses He said, “Come up…: ” This section was [actually]
said before the Ten Commandments [were given] (Mechilta 19:10). On the fourth
of Sivan, “Come up” was said to him [Moses]. [Midrash Lekach Tov, based on
Mechilta and Mechilta d’Rabbi Shimon ben Yochai on Exod. 19:10, Shab. 88a] See
also Midrash Hagadol on this.
ואל משה אמר עלה: פרשה זו נאמרה קודם עשרת הדברות, ובארבעה בסיון נאמר
לו עלה:
2. And Moses alone shall approach the Lord but they shall not
approach, and the people shall not ascend with him." ב. וְנִגַּשׁ
משֶׁה לְבַדּוֹ אֶל יְהֹוָה וְהֵם לֹא יִגָּשׁוּ וְהָעָם לֹא יַעֲלוּ עִמּוֹ:
And Moses alone shall approach: to the opaque darkness.
-[Midrash Lekach Tov]
ונגש משה לבדו: אל הערפל:
3. So Moses came and told the people all the words of the Lord
and all the ordinances, and all the people answered in unison and said,
"All the words that the Lord has spoken we will do." ג. וַיָּבֹא
משֶׁה וַיְסַפֵּר לָעָם אֵת כָּל דִּבְרֵי יְהֹוָה וְאֵת כָּל הַמִּשְׁפָּטִים וַיַּעַן
כָּל הָעָם קוֹל אֶחָד וַיֹּאמְרוּ כָּל הַדְּבָרִים אֲשֶׁר דִּבֶּר יְהֹוָה נַעֲשֶׂה:
So Moses came and told the people: on that day.
ויבא משה ויספר לעם: בו ביום:
all the words of the Lord: The commandments of separation [of
the men from the women] and setting boundaries [around the mountain so that
people would not cross].
את כל דברי ה': מצות פרישה והגבלה:
and all the ordinances: The seven commandments that the
Noachides were commanded [to observe], in addition to [keeping] the Sabbath,
honoring one’s father and mother, [the laws of] the red cow, and laws of
jurisprudence, which were given to them in Marah. -[Mechilta on Exod. 19:10,
Sanh. 56b] [Since this was before the giving of the Torah, there were only
these commandments and ordinances.]
ואת כל המשפטים: שבע מצות שנצטוו בני נח. ושבת וכבוד אב ואם ופרה אדומה
ודינין שניתנו להם במרה:
4. And Moses wrote all the words of the Lord, and he arose early
in the morning and built an altar at the foot of the mountain and twelve
monuments for the twelve tribes of Israel.
ד. וַיִּכְתֹּב משֶׁה אֵת כָּל דִּבְרֵי
יְהֹוָה וַיַּשְׁכֵּם בַּבֹּקֶר וַיִּבֶן מִזְבֵּחַ תַּחַת הָהָר וּשְׁתֵּים עֶשְׂרֵה
מַצֵּבָה לִשְׁנֵים עָשָׂר שִׁבְטֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל:
And Moses wrote: [the Torah’s text] from “In the beginning” (Gen
1:1), until the giving of the Torah. He [also] wrote the commandments that they
were commanded in Marah. [Again, since all this took place before the giving of
the Torah, Moses could write only up to that point.]
ויכתב משה: מבראשית ועד מתן תורה, וכתב מצות שנצטוו במרה:
and he arose early in the morning: on the fifth of Sivan. -[From
Mechilta on Exod. 19: 10, Shab. 88a]
וישכם בבקר: בחמשה בסיון:
5. And he sent the youths of the children of Israel, and they
offered up burnt offerings, and they slaughtered peace offerings to the Lord,
bulls. ה. וַיִּשְׁלַח אֶת נַעֲרֵי בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל וַיַּעֲלוּ עֹלֹת וַיִּזְבְּחוּ
זְבָחִים שְׁלָמִים לַיהֹוָה פָּרִים:
the youths: Heb. נַעִרֵי, the firstborn. -[From targumim, Zev.
115b, Num. Rabbah 4:8]
את נערי: הבכורות:
6. And Moses took half the blood and put it into the basins, and
half the blood he cast onto the altar.
ו. וַיִּקַּח משֶׁה חֲצִי הַדָּם וַיָּשֶׂם
בָּאַגָּנֹת וַחֲצִי הַדָּם זָרַק עַל הַמִּזְבֵּחַ:
And Moses took half the blood: Who [first] divided it [exactly
in half]? An angel came and divided it. -[From Lev. Rabbah 6:5]
ויקח משה חצי הדם: מי חלקו, מלאך בא וחלקו:
in the basins: Two basins, one for half the blood of the burnt
offering and one for half the blood of the peace offering, [in order] to
sprinkle them on the people. From here our Sages learned that our ancestors
entered the covenant with circumcision, immersion [in a mikvah], and the
sprinkling of the blood [of the sacrifice on the altar], for there is no
sprinkling [of blood on a person] without immersion [preceding it]. -[From Yev.
46b, Kreis. 9b]
באגנות: שני אגנות אחד לחצי דם עולה ואחד לחצי דם שלמים להזות אותם
על העם. ומכאן למדו רבותינו שנכנסו אבותינו לברית במילה וטבילה והרצאת דמים שאין הזאה
בלא טבילה:
7. And he took the Book of the Covenant and read it within the
hearing of the people, and they said, "All that the Lord spoke we will do
and we will hear." ז. וַיִּקַּח סֵפֶר הַבְּרִית וַיִּקְרָא בְּאָזְנֵי
הָעָם וַיֹּאמְרוּ כֹּל אֲשֶׁר דִּבֶּר יְהֹוָה נַעֲשֶׂה וְנִשְׁמָע:
the Book of the Covenant: from “In the beginning” (Gen 1:1)
until the giving of the Torah, and he [also wrote] the commandments that they
were commanded in Marah. -[From Mechilta, Exod. 19: 10]
ספר הברית: מבראשית ועד מתן תורה ומצות שנצטוו במרה:
8. And Moses took the blood and sprinkled [it] on the people,
and he said, "Behold the blood of the covenant, which the Lord has formed
with you concerning these words."
ח. וַיִּקַּח משֶׁה אֶת הַדָּם וַיִּזְרֹק
עַל הָעָם וַיֹּאמֶר הִנֵּה דַם הַבְּרִית אֲשֶׁר כָּרַת יְהֹוָה עִמָּכֶם עַל כָּל
הַדְּבָרִים הָאֵלֶּה:
and sprinkled [it]: Heb. וַיִזְרֹק, an expression of sprinkling,
and the Targum renders: and sprinkled it on the altar to atone for the people.
ויזרק: ענין הזאה, ותרגומו וזרק על מדבחא לכפרא על עמא:
9. And Moses and Aaron, Nadab and Abihu, and seventy of the
elders of Israel ascended, ט. וַיַּעַל משֶׁה וְאַהֲרֹן נָדָב וַאֲבִיהוּא
וְשִׁבְעִים מִזִּקְנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל:
10. and they perceived the God of Israel, and beneath His feet
was like the forming of a sapphire brick and like the appearance of the heavens
for clarity. י. וַיִּרְאוּ אֵת אֱלֹהֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל וְתַחַת רַגְלָיו כְּמַעֲשֵׂה
לִבְנַת הַסַּפִּיר וּכְעֶצֶם הַשָּׁמַיִם לָטֹהַר:
and they perceived the God of Israel: They gazed and peered and
[because of this] were doomed to die, but the Holy One, blessed is He, did not
want to disturb the rejoicing of [this moment of the giving of] the Torah. So
He waited for Nadab and Abihu [i.e., to kill them,] until the day of the
dedication of the Mishkan, and for [destroying] the elders until [the following
incident:] “And the people were as if seeking complaints… and a fire of the
Lord broke out against them and devoured at the edge (בִּקְצֵה) of the camp”
(Num. 11:1). [בִקְצֵה denotes] the officers (בִקְצִינִים) of the camp [i.e.,
the elders]. -[From Midrash Tanchuma Beha’alothecha 16]
ויראו את אלהי ישראל: נסתכלו והציצו ונתחייבו מיתה, אלא שלא רצה הקב"ה
לערבב שמחת התורה, והמתין לנדב ואביהוא עד יום חנוכת המשכן, ולזקנים עד, (במדבר יא
א) ויהי העם כמתאוננים וגו' ותבער בם אש ה' ותאכל בקצה המחנה, בקצינים שבמחנה:
like the forming of a sapphire brick: that was before Him at the
time of the bondage, to remember Israel’s straits [i.e.,] that they were
enslaved in the making of bricks. -[From Lev. Rabbah 23:8]
כמעשה לבנת הספיר: היא היתה לפניו בשעת השעבוד לזכור צרתן של ישראל,
שהיו משועבדים במעשה לבנים:
and like the appearance of the heavens for clarity: Since they
were [finally] redeemed, there was light and joy before Him. -[From Lev. Rabbah
23:8]
וכעצם השמים לטהר: משנגאלו היה אור וחדוה לפניו:
and like the appearance: Heb. וּכְעֶצֶם, as the Targum (Onkelos)
renders וּכְמֶחֱזֵי : an expression meaning appearance.
וכעצם: כתרגומו, לשון מראה:
for clarity: Heb. לָטֹהַר, an expression meaning clear and
unclouded. -[From Lev. Rabbah 23:8] I.e., during the bondage of the Israelites,
the sapphire brick clouded the heavens, but after the Exodus, the heavens
became clear and not a cloud was in sight. -[Lev. Rabbah 23:8]
לטהר: לשון ברור וצלול:
11. And upon the nobles of the children of Israel He did not lay
His hand, and they perceived God, and they ate and drank. יא. וְאֶל
אֲצִילֵי בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל לֹא שָׁלַח יָדוֹ וַיֶּחֱזוּ אֶת הָאֱלֹהִים וַיֹּאכְלוּ
וַיִּשְׁתּוּ:
And upon the nobles: They are Nadab and Abihu and the elders.
-[From Midrash Tanchuma Beha’alothecha 16]
ואל אצילי: הם נדב ואביהוא והזקנים:
He did not lay His hand: This indicates that they deserved that
a hand be laid upon them.
לא שלח ידו: מכלל שהיו ראוים להשתלח בהם יד:
and they perceived God: They gazed at Him with levity, while
[they were] eating and drinking. So is the [interpretation of] Midrash Tanchuma
(Beha’alothecha 16). Onkelos, however, did not render [this clause] in this
manner. אִצִילֵי means great ones, like [in the phrases:] “and from its nobles
(וּמֵאִצִילֶיהָ) I called you” (Isa. 41:9); “and He magnified (וַיָּאצֶל) some
of the spirit” (Num. 11:25); “six large cubits (אַצִּילָה) ” (Ezek. 41:8).
ויחזו את הא-להים: היו מסתכלין בו בלב גס מתוך אכילה ושתיה, כך מדרש
תנחומא. ואונקלוס לא תרגם כן. אצילי לשון גדולים, כמו (ישעיה מא ט) ומאציליה קראתיך,
(במדבר יא כה) ויאצל מן הרוח, (יחזקאל מא ח) שש אמות אצילה:
12. And the Lord said to Moses, "Come up to Me to the
mountain and remain there, and I will give you the stone tablets, the Law and
the commandments, which I have written to instruct them." יב.
וַיֹּאמֶר יְהֹוָה אֶל משֶׁה עֲלֵה אֵלַי הָהָרָה וֶהְיֵה שָׁם וְאֶתְּנָה לְךָ אֶת
לֻחֹת הָאֶבֶן וְהַתּוֹרָה וְהַמִּצְוָה אֲשֶׁר כָּתַבְתִּי לְהוֹרֹתָם:
And the Lord said to Moses: After the giving of the Torah.
ויאמר ה' אל משה: לאחר מתן תורה:
Come up to Me to the mountain and remain there: for forty days.
עלה אלי ההרה והיה שם: ארבעים יום:
the stone tablets, the Law and the commandments, which I have written
to instruct them: All 613 mitzvoth are included in the Ten Commandments. In the
“Azharoth” that he composed for each commandment [of the Ten], Rabbenu Saadiah
[Goan] explained the mitzvoth dependent upon it [each commandment]. [from
Jonathan, Num. Rabbah 13:16]
את לחת האבן והתורה והמצוה אשר כתבתי להורתם: כל שש מאות ושלש עשרה
מצות בכלל עשרת הדברות הן, ורבינו סעדיה פירש באזהרות שיסד לכל דבור ודבור מצות התלויות
בו:
13. So Moses and Joshua, his servant, arose, and Moses ascended
to the mount of God. יג. וַיָּקָם משֶׁה וִיהוֹשֻׁעַ מְשָׁרְתוֹ וַיַּעַל
משֶׁה אֶל הַר הָאֱלֹהִים:
So Moses and Joshua, his servant, arose: I do not know what
business Joshua had here, but I would say that the disciple [Joshua] escorted
his mentor [Moses] until the place of the limits of the boundaries of the
mountain, for he was not permitted to go past that point. From there Moses
alone ascended to the mountain of God. Joshua pitched his tent and waited there
for forty days. So we find that when Moses descended, “Joshua heard the voice
of the people as they shouted” (Exod. 32:17). We learn [from there] that Joshua
was not with them.
ויקם משה ויהושע משרתו: לא ידעתי מה טיבו של יהושע כאן. ואומר אני,
שהיה התלמיד מלוה לרב עד מקום הגבלת תחומי ההר, שאינו רשאי לילך משם והלאה, ומשם ויעל
משה לבדו אל הר הא-להים, ויהושע נטה שם אהלו ונתעכב שם כל ארבעים יום, שכן מצינו, כשירד
משה (לקמן לב יז) וישמע יהושע את קול העם ברעה, למדנו שלא היה יהושע עמהם:
14. And to the elders he said, "Wait for us here until we
return to you, and here Aaron and Hur are with you; whoever has a case, let him
go to them." יד. וְאֶל הַזְּקֵנִים אָמַר שְׁבוּ לָנוּ בָזֶה
עַד אֲשֶׁר נָשׁוּב אֲלֵיכֶם וְהִנֵּה אַהֲרֹן וְחוּר עִמָּכֶם מִי בַעַל דְּבָרִים
יִגַּשׁ אֲלֵהֶם:
And to the elders he said: upon his departure from the camp.
ואל הזקנים אמר: בצאתו מן המחנה:
Wait for us here: Wait here with the rest of the people in the
camp [so that you will] be ready to judge each person’s quarrel.
שבו לנו בזה: והתעכבו כאן עם שאר העם במחנה להיות נכונים לשפוט לכל
איש ריבו:
Hur: He was Miriam’s son, and his father was Caleb the son of
Jephunneh, as it is said: “and Caleb took to himself Ephrath, and she bore to
him Hur” (I Chron. 2:19). Ephrath was Miriam, as is stated in Sotah (11b).
חור: בנה של מרים היה, ואביו כלב בן יפנה, שנאמר (דברי הימים א' ב יט)
ויקח לו כלב את אפרת ותלד לו את חור. אפרת זו מרים, כדאיתא בסוטה (יא ב):
whoever has a case: lit., whoever is a master of words, whoever
has litigation. -[From targumim]
מי בעל דברים: מי שיש לו דין:
15. And Moses went up to the mountain, and the cloud covered the
mountain. טו. וַיַּעַל משֶׁה אֶל הָהָר וַיְכַס הֶעָנָן אֶת הָהָר:
16. And the glory of the Lord rested on Mount Sinai, and the
cloud covered it for six days, and He called to Moses on the seventh day from
within the cloud. טז. וַיִּשְׁכֹּן כְּבוֹד יְהֹוָה עַל הַר סִינַי
וַיְכַסֵּהוּ הֶעָנָן שֵׁשֶׁת יָמִים וַיִּקְרָא אֶל משֶׁה בַּיּוֹם הַשְּׁבִיעִי מִתּוֹךְ
הֶעָנָן:
and the cloud covered it: Our Sages disagree on the matter. Some
say that these are the six days from the New Moon [until Shavuoth, the day of
the giving of the Torah -(old Rashi)].
ויכסהו הענן: רבותינו חולקין בדבר. יש מהם אומרים אלו ששה ימים שמראש
חודש עד עצרת יום מתן תורה:
and the cloud covered it: The mountain.
ויכסהו הענן: להר:
and He called to Moses on the seventh day: to say the Ten
Commandments, and [in fact] Moses and all Israel were standing [and listening
to the Ten Commandments], but the text bestowed honor upon Moses [by mentioning
only him]. Others say that the cloud covered Moses for six days after the Ten
Commandments [were given], and they [these days] were at the beginning of the
forty days that Moses ascended to receive the tablets (Yoma 4a). It teaches you
that whoever enters the camp of the Shechinah requires six days separation
[seclusion from society] (Yoma 3b).
ויקרא אל משה ביום השביעי: לומר עשרת הדברות, ומשה וכל בני ישראל עומדים,
אלא שחלק הכתוב כבוד למשה, ויש אומרים ויכסהו הענן למשה ששה ימים לאחר עשרת הדברות,
והם היו בתחלת ארבעים יום שעלה משה לקבל הלוחות, ולמדך, שכל הנכנס למחנה שכינה טעון
פרישה ששה ימים:
17. And the appearance of the glory of the Lord was like a
consuming fire atop the mountain, before the eyes of the children of Israel. יז. וּמַרְאֵה
כְּבוֹד יְהֹוָה כְּאֵשׁ אֹכֶלֶת בְּרֹאשׁ הָהָר לְעֵינֵי בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל:
18. And Moses came within the cloud, and he went up to the
mountain, and Moses was upon the mountain forty days and forty nights. יח. וַיָּבֹא
משֶׁה בְּתוֹךְ הֶעָנָן וַיַּעַל אֶל הָהָר וַיְהִי משֶׁה בָּהָר אַרְבָּעִים יוֹם
וְאַרְבָּעִים לָיְלָה:
within the cloud: This cloud was a kind of smoke, and the Holy
One, blessed is He, made a path (another version A canopy) within it. -[From
Yoma 4b]
בתוך הענן: ענן זה כמין עשן הוא, ועשה לו הקב"ה למשה שביל [חופה]
בתוכו:
-------
Tehillim Psalm Chapters 108 – 112 and Chapters 113-118
• Chapter 108
1. A song, a psalm by David.
2. My heart is steadfast, O God; I will sing and chant praises
even with my soul.
3. Awake, O lyre and harp; I shall awaken the dawn.
4. I will thank You among the nations, Lord; I will sing praises
to You among the peoples.
5. Indeed, Your kindness reaches above the heavens; Your truth
reaches to the skies.
6. Be exalted upon the heavens, O God, [show] Your glory upon
all the earth.
7. That Your beloved ones may be delivered, help with Your right
hand and answer me.
8. God spoke in His holiness that I would exult, I would divide
portions [of the enemies' land], I would measure the Valley of Succot.
9. Mine is Gilead, mine is Manasseh, and Ephraim is the
stronghold of my head, Judah is my prince.
10. Moab is my washbasin, I will cast my shoe upon Edom, I will
shout over Philistia.
11. Who brings me to the fortified city? Who led me unto Edom?
12. Is it not God, Who has [until now] forsaken us, and did not
go forth, O God, with our armies?
13. Give us help against the adversary; futile is the help of
man.
14. Through God we will do valiantly, and He will trample our
oppressors.
Chapter 109
David composed this psalm while fleeing from Saul. At that time
he faced many enemies who, despite acting friendly in his presence, spoke only
evil of him; he therefore curses them bitterly.
1. For the Conductor, by David, a psalm. O God of my praise, be
not silent.
2. For the mouth of the wicked and the mouth of the deceitful
have opened against me; they spoke to me with a false tongue.
3. They have surrounded me with words of hate, and attacked me
without cause.
4. In return for my love they hate me; still, I am [a man of]
prayer.
5. They placed harm upon me in return for my favor, and hatred
in return for my love.
6. Appoint a wicked man over him; let an adversary stand at his
right.
7. When he is judged may he go out condemned; may his prayer be
considered a sin.
8. May his days be few; may another take his position.
9. May his children be orphans and his wife a widow.
10. May his children wander about and beg; may they seek charity
from amid their ruins.
11. May the creditor seize all that he has, and may strangers
plunder [the fruits of] his labor.
12. May he have none who extends him kindness, and may none be
gracious to his orphans.
13. May his posterity be cut off; may their name be erased in a
later generation.
14. May the iniquity of his fathers be remembered by the Lord,
and the sin of his mother not be erased.
15. May they be before the Lord always, and may He cut off their
memory from the earth.
16. Because he did not remember to do kindness, and he pursued
the poor and destitute man and the broken-hearted, to kill [him].
17. He loved the curse and it has come upon him; he did not
desire blessing, and it has remained far from him.
18. He donned the curse like his garment, and it came like water
into his innards, like oil into his bones.
19. May it be to him like a cloak in which he wraps himself, as
a belt with which he girds himself always.
20. This is from the Lord for the deeds of my enemies, and [for]
those who speak evil against my soul.
21. And You, God, my Lord, do [kindness] with me for the sake of
Your Name; for Your kindness is good, rescue me!
22. For I am poor and destitute, and my heart has died within
me.
23. Like the fleeting shadow I am banished, I am tossed about
like the locust.
24. My knees totter from fasting, and my flesh is lean without
fat.
25. And I became a disgrace to them; they see me and shake their
heads.
26. Help me, Lord, my God, deliver me according to Your kindness.
27. Let them know that this is Your hand, that You, Lord, have
done it.
28. Let them curse, but You will bless; they arose, but they
will be shamed, and Your servant will rejoice.
29. May my adversaries be clothed in humiliation; may they wrap
themselves in their shame as in a cloak.
30. I will thank the Lord profusely with my mouth, and amid the
multitude I will praise Him,
31. when He stands at the right of the destitute one to deliver
him from the condemners of his soul.
Chapter 110
This psalm records the response of Eliezer, servant of Abraham
(to those who asked how Abraham managed to defeat the four kings). He tells of
Abraham killing the mighty kings and their armies. Read, and you will discover
that the entire psalm refers to Abraham, who merited prominence for recognizing
God in his youth.
1. By David, a psalm. The Lord said to my master, "Sit at
My right, until I make your enemies a stool for your feet.”
2. The staff of your strength the Lord will send from Zion, to
rule amid your enemies.
3. Your people [will come] willingly on the day of your
campaign; because of your splendid sanctity from when you emerged from the
womb, you still possess the dew of your youth.
4. The Lord has sworn and will not regret: "You shall be a
priest forever, just as Melchizedek!”
5. My Lord is at your right; He has crushed kings on the day of
His fury.
6. He will render judgement upon the nations, and they will be
filled with corpses; He will crush heads over a vast land.
7. He will drink from the stream on the way, and so will hold
his head high.
Chapter 111
This psalm is written in alphabetical sequence, each verse
containing two letters, save the last two verses which contain three letters
each. The psalm is short yet prominent, speaking of the works of God and their
greatness.
1. Praise the Lord! I will give thanks to the Lord with all my
heart, in the counsel of the upright and the congregation.
2. Great are the works of the Lord, [yet] available to all who
desire them.
3. Majesty and splendor are His work, and His righteousness
endures forever.
4. He established a memorial for His wonders, for the Lord is
gracious and compassionate.
5. He gave food to those who fear Him; He remembered His
covenant always.
6. He has declared the power of His deeds to His people, to give
them the inheritance of nations.
7. The works of His hands are true and just; all His mandates
are faithful.
8. They are steadfast for ever and ever, for they are made with
truth and uprightness.
9. He sent redemption to His people, [by] commanding His
covenant forever; holy and awesome is His Name.
10. The beginning of wisdom is fear of the Lord; sound wisdom
for all who practice it-His praise endures forever.
Chapter 112
This psalm, too, follows alphabetical sequence, each verse
containing two letters, save the last two which contain three letters each. It
speaks of the good traits man should choose, and of how to give charity-the
reward for which is never having to rely on others.
1. Praise the Lord! Fortunate is the man who fears the Lord, and
desires His commandments intensely.
2. His descendants will be mighty on the earth; he will be
blessed with an upright generation.
3. Wealth and riches are in his house, and his righteousness
endures forever.
4. Even in darkness light shines for the upright, for [He is]
Compassionate, Merciful, and Just.
5. Good is the man who is compassionate and lends, [but]
provides for his own needs with discretion.
6. For he will never falter; the righteous man will be an
eternal remembrance.
7. He will not be afraid of a bad tiding; his heart is
steadfast, secure in the Lord.
8. His heart is steadfast, he does not fear, until he sees his
oppressors [destroyed].
9. He has distributed [his wealth], giving to the needy. His
righteousness will endure forever; his might will be uplifted in honor.
10. The wicked man will see and be angry; he will gnash his
teeth and melt away; the wish of the wicked will be ruined.
-------
Chapter 113
This psalm recounts some of the wonders of the exodus from
Egypt.
1. Praise the Lord! Offer praise, you servants of the Lord;
praise the Name of the Lord.
2. May the Name of the Lord be blessed from now and to all
eternity.
3. From the rising of the sun to its setting, the Name of the
Lord is praised.
4. The Lord is high above all nations; His glory transcends the
heavens.
5. Who is like the Lord our God, Who dwells on high
6. [yet] looks down so low upon heaven and earth!
7. He raises the poor from the dust, lifts the destitute from
the dunghill,
8. to seat them with nobles, with the nobles of His people.
9. He transforms the barren woman into a household, into a
joyful mother of children. Praise the Lord!
Chapter 114
This psalm explains why the tribe of Judah merited kingship.
1. When Israel went out of Egypt, the House of Jacob from a
people of a foreign tongue,
2. Judah became His holy [nation], Israel, His domain.
3. The sea saw and fled, the Jordan turned backward.
4. The mountains skipped like rams, the hills like young sheep.
5. What is the matter with you, O sea, that you flee; Jordan,
that you turn backward;
6. mountains, that you skip like rams; hills, like young sheep?
7. [We do so] before the Master, the Creator of the earth,
before the God of Jacob,
8. Who turns the rock into a pool of water, the flintstone into
a water fountain.
Chapter 115
A prayer that God bring this long exile to an end, for the sake
of His Name-that it not be desecrated.
1. Not for our sake, Lord, not for our sake, but for the sake of
Your Name bestow glory, because of Your kindness and Your truth.
2. Why should the nations say, "Where, now, is their God?”
3. Indeed, our God is in heaven; whatever He desires, He does.
4. Their idols are of silver and gold, the product of human
hands.
5. They have a mouth, but cannot speak; they have eyes, but
cannot see;
6. they have ears, but cannot hear; they have a nose, but cannot
smell;
7. their hands cannot touch; their feet cannot walk; they can
make no sound in their throat.
8. Those who make them will become like them-all who put their
trust in them.
9. Israel, trust in the Lord; He is their help and their shield.
10. House of Aaron, trust in the Lord; He is their help and
their shield.
11. You who fear the Lord, trust in the Lord; He is their help
and their shield.
12. The Lord who is ever mindful of us, may He bless: May He
bless the House of Israel; may He bless the House of Aaron;
13. may He bless those who fear the Lord, the small with the
great.
14. May the Lord increase [blessing] upon you, upon you and upon
your children.
15. You are blessed by the Lord, the Maker of heaven and earth.
16. The heavens are the Lord's heavens, but the earth He gave to
the children of man.
17. The dead cannot praise the Lord, nor any who descend into
the silence [of the grave].
18. But we will bless the Lord from now to eternity. Praise the
Lord!
Chapter 116
This psalm contains magnificent praises to God. It also
describes David's love for God, in light of all the miracles He performed for
him. David does not know how to repay God, declaring it impossible to pay back
for all God has done for him.
1. I would love if the Lord would listen to my voice, to my
supplications;
2. if He would turn His ear to me on the days when I call.
3. The pangs of death encompassed me and the misery of the grave
came upon me; I encounter trouble and sorrow.
4. I invoke the Name of the Lord, "Lord, I implore you,
deliver my soul!”
5. The Lord is gracious and righteous; our God is compassionate.
6. The Lord watches over the simpletons; I was brought low, and
He saved me.
7. Return, my soul, to your tranquility, for the Lord has
bestowed goodness upon you.
8. For You have delivered my soul from death, my eyes from
tears, my feet from stumbling.
9. I shall walk before the Lord in the lands of the living.
10. I had faith even when I declared, "I am greatly
afflicted";
11. [even when] I said in my haste, "All men are
deceitful.”
12. How can I repay the Lord for all His beneficences to me?
13. I will raise the cup of deliverance and proclaim the Name of
the Lord.
14. I will pay my vows to the Lord in the presence of all His
people.
15. Grievous in the eyes of the Lord is the death of His pious
ones.
16. I thank you, Lord, that since I am Your servant, I am Your
servant the son of Your maidservant, You have loosened my bonds.
17. To You I will bring an offering of thanksgiving, and
proclaim the Name of the Lord.
18. I will pay my vows to the Lord in the presence of all His
people,
19. in the courtyards of the House of the Lord, in the midst of
Jerusalem. Praise the Lord!
Chapter 117
This psalm of two verses alludes to the Messianic era, when the
Children of Israel will enjoy their former glory. All will praise God, in
fulfillment of the verse, "All will then call in the Name of God."
1. Praise the Lord, all you nations; extol Him, all you peoples.
2. For His kindness was mighty over us, and the truth of the
Lord is everlasting. Praise the Lord!
Chapter 118
This psalm describes David's immense trust in God. It also
contains many praises to God, Who has fulfilled that which He has promised us.
1. Offer praise to the Lord for He is good, for His kindness is
everlasting.
2. Let Israel declare that His kindness is everlasting.
3. Let the House of Aaron declare that His kindness is
everlasting.
4. Let those who fear the Lord declare that His kindness is
everlasting.
5. From out of distress I called to God; with abounding relief,
God answered me.
6. The Lord is with me, I do not fear-what can man do to me?
7. The Lord is with me among my helpers, and I will see [the
downfall of] my enemies.
8. It is better to rely on the Lord than to trust in man.
9. It is better to rely on the Lord than to trust in nobles.
10. All the nations surrounded me, but in the Name of the Lord I
will cut them down.
11. They surrounded me, they encompassed me, but in the Name of
the Lord I will cut them down.
12. They surrounded me like bees, yet they shall be extinguished
like fiery thorns; in the Name of the Lord I will cut them down.
13. You [my foes] repeatedly pushed me to fall, but the Lord
helped me.
14. God is my strength and song, and He has been a help to me.
15. The sound of rejoicing and deliverance reverberates in the
tents of the righteous, "The right hand of the Lord performs deeds of
valor.
16. The right hand of the Lord is exalted; the right hand of the
Lord performs deeds of valor!”
17. I shall not die, but I shall live and recount the deeds of
God.
18. God has indeed chastised me, but He did not give me up to
death.
19. Open for me the gates of righteousness; I will enter them
and praise God.
20. This is the gate of the Lord, the righteous will enter it.
21. I offer thanks to You, for You have answered me, and You
have been my deliverance.
22. The stone which the builders scorned has become the chief
cornerstone.
23. From the Lord has this come about; it is wondrous in our
eyes.
24. This is the day which the Lord has made; let us be glad and
rejoice on it.
25. We implore You, Lord, deliver us. We implore You, Lord,
grant us success.
26. Blessed is he who comes in the Name of the Lord; we bless
you from the House of the Lord.
27. The Lord is a benevolent God and He has given us light; bind
the festival offering with cords until [you bring it to] the horns of the
altar.
28. You are my God and I will praise You, my God-and I will
exalt You.
29. Praise the Lord for He is good, for His kindness is
everlasting.
-------
Today in Tanya: Likutei Amarim, end of Chapter 23 and Likutei
Amarim, Chapter 24
• Friday, 23 Shevat 5774 – 24 January 2014 and Shabbat, 24
Shevat 5774 – 25 January 2014
• Lessons in Tanya
• Likutei Amarim, end of Chapter 23
ומזה יוכל המשכיל להמשיך עליו יראה גדולה בעסקו בתורה
From this explanation of the lofty stature of Torah study the
wise man will be able to draw upon himself a sense of great awe as he engages
in the study of the Torah, 1
כשיתבונן איך שנפשו ולבושיה שבמוחו ובפיו הם מיוחדים ממש בתכלית היחוד
ברצון העליון ואור אין סוף ברוך הוא ממש המתגלה בהם
when he considers how his soul and its “garments” of thought and
speech that are found in his brain and mouth are truly fused in perfect unity
with the Divine Will and the infinite light of Ein Sof that is manifest in them
i.e., in the soul and its garments when he studies Torah.
מה שכל העולמות עליונים ותחתונים כלא חשיבי קמיה וכאין ואפס ממש, עד
שאינו מתלבש בתוכם ממש, אלא סובב כל עלמין בבחינת מקיף להחיותם עיקר חיותם, רק איזו
הארה מתלבשת בתוכם מה שיכולים לסבול שלא יתבטלו במציאות לגמרי
This infinite light manifest in one’s Torah study is of such a
lofty level that all the upper and lower worlds are truly as naught in
comparison with it; are in fact as absolutely nothing at all, so much so that
they can only bear to have a minute glow of it clothed in them without their
reverting to nothingness altogether. Their main life-force which they receive
from it, however, is not clothed within them, but animates them from the
outside, so to speak, in a transcendent, encompassing manner.
When he considers that the very same Divine light that is
completely beyond the capacity of all the worlds manifests itself openly in his
Torah study, the thinking man will naturally experience a sense of awe when he
studies Torah.
וזהו שכתוב: ויצונו ה’ את כל החוקים האלה
ליראה את ה‘ וגו’
This is the meaning of the verse, 2 “And G‑d commanded us [to fulfill] all these statutes, in order to fear
G‑d.”
According to this verse, observing the mitzvot would appear to
be the first step, and this leads to the fear of G‑d. Logically, however, the performance of G‑d’s commandments would seem to be a result of one’s fear of Him,
and not vice versa. The Alter Rebbe therefore explains that the above verse
speaks of a higher level of awe than that which is a prerequisite for
performing the commandments. This level can only be attained as a result of
one’s observance of the commandments.
Now if the commandments lead one to a higher level in the fear
of G‑d, surely the study of the Torah leads one to a still higher
level. This the Alter Rebbe now discusses.
ועל יראה גדולה זו אמרו: אם אין חכמה אין יראה, והתורה נקראת אצלה תרעא
לדרתא, כמו שכתוב במקום אחר
(Regarding this great fear our Sages said, 3 “If there is no
wisdom there is no fear.” In this context, “wisdom” represents Torah study, and
“fear” — the higher level of the awe of G‑d which can be
reached only by way of the Torah. By contrast, the statement, “If there is no
fear, there is no wisdom,” refers to the lower level of fear which is a
prerequisite for Torah study, as stated above. In relation to this level of
fear, the Torah is called4 “a gateway to the dwelling,” i.e., the sole means of
entering the dwelling, viz., the higher level of fear, as is explained
elsewhere.)
אלא דלאו כל מוחא סביל דא יראה כזו. אך גם מאן דלא סביל מוחו כלל יראה
זו, לא מינה ולא מקצתה, מפני פחיתות ערך נפשו בשרשה ומקורה במדרגות תחתונות דעשר ספירות
דעשיה, אין יראה זו מעכבת בו למעשה, כמו שכתוב לקמן
Not every mind, however, can sustain such a fear. Yet even he
whose mind cannot bear such a fear, nor even a minute part of it, because the
root and source of his soul derives from an inferior level — the lower
gradations of the Ten Sefirot of the World of Asiyah, — even he should not be
deterred from the actual performance of the Torah and the mitzvot for want of
this fear, as will be explained further. 5
FOOTNOTES
1. The point of the following discussion of the awe of G-d that
Torah study engenders in the student, and its relevance here, are explained by
the Rebbe as follows: The Alter Rebbe has pointed out that the level of union
with G-d's Will found in the study of the Torah is greater than the union
attained through other mitzvot. He now goes on to say that as a result of this
superior quality, the study of the Torah is superior in yet another respect,
viz., it creates in the student a greater awe of G-d than that which the
mitzvot create in those who perform them. In fact, this latter quality is more
important than the former. Since the goal of all the mitzvot (and their
attendant union with G-d's Will) is to lead us to fear Him (as the Alter Rebbe
will quote shortly), the superiority of Torah over mitzvot in the attainment of
this goal is more important than its intrinsic superiority - in union with G-d's
Will. The relevance of this subject here lies in the fact that the entire
discussion of the qualities of Torah and mitzvot is intended to show how
"it is very near to you .... in your mouth and heart ......" (see our
introduction to chapter 18). Clearly, the greater one's awe of G-d, the more is
it "very near to you."
2. Cf. Devarim 6:24.
3. Avot 3:17.
4. Shabbat 31b; Yoma 72b.
5. Ch. 41.
-------
Likutei Amarim, Chapter 24
In ch. 18 the Alter Rebbe began to explain how it is very near
and accessible to each of us to serve G‑d out of a
feeling of love and awe, by means of awakening the hidden love latent in us
all. To clarify how this hidden love can lead to the observance of all the
mitzvot, the Alter Rebbe proceeded to discuss the relationship of all the
mitzvot to the precept of belief in G‑d’s unity and
to the prohibition against idolatry. The unity of G‑d, he explained, means not only that there is but one G‑d; rather that G‑d is the only
existing being, and all else is contained within Him. Conversely, idolatry does
not necessarily mean a denial of G‑d’s existence,
or of His being unique. Any assertion that something exists beyond and separate
from G‑d also constitutes idolatry.
In ch. 23, the Alter Rebbe went on to state that through Torah
and mitzvot, in which the Divine Will stands revealed, one reaches a perfect
union with G‑d. In this
chapter he explains that a transgression has exactly the opposite effect of a
mitzvah. Whereas a mitzvah joins one to G‑d, a
transgression severs one from Him; whereas a mitzvah attests to G‑d’s unity, a transgression implies idolatry.
וזה לעומת זה
Since everything in the realm of holiness has its counterpart in
the unholy realms of the sitra achra, there is also an unholy counterpart to
the observance of the mitzvot and to Torah study, which produce union with G‑d. Their counterpart is:
הן שס״ה מצות לא תעשה דאורייתא, וכל איסורי דרבנן
the 365 prohibitions stated in the Torah, and all the Rabbinical
prohibitions.
מאחר שהן נגד רצונו וחכמתו יתברך והפכם ממש, הם נפרדים מיחודו יתברך
ואחדותו יתברך בתכלית הפירוד ממש
Since they are contrary to and the very opposite of G‑d’s Will and wisdom, they represent total and complete
separation from His unity and oneness.
כמו הסטרא אחרא והקליפה הנקראת עבודה זרה ואלקים אחרים, מחמת הסתר פנים
של רצון העליון כנ״ל
They are the same as the sitra achra and the kelipah which are
called “idolatry” and “other gods,” since the internal aspect of the Divine
Will is concealed from them, as explained above1 — that they receive their
life-force from the “hinder-part” of the Divine Will, the level of ,אחוריים and
for this reason they are called אלקים אחרים — “other gods.”
כן ג‘ לבושי הנפש שמקליפת נוגה שבישראל, שהם מחשבה דבור ומעשה המלובשים בשס״ה
לא תעשה דאורייתא ודרבנן
Just as the forbidden actions themselves represent separation
from G‑dliness so too the three garments of a Jew’s animal soul, which
stems from the kelipah of nogah — namely, the thought, speech and action that
are clothed in i.e., that think, speak or act in violation of the 365
Torah-prohibitions, or any of the Rabbinic injunctions,
וכן מהות הנפש עצמה המלובשת בלבושיה
and similarly the essence of the soul itself which is clothed in
its garments, since it is the soul itself, after all, which thinks, speaks and
acts through its “garments” — the faculties of thought, speech and action,
כולם מיוחדים ממש בסטרא אחרא וקליפה זו הנקראת עבודה זרה
— all of them become completely united with this sitra achra and
kelipah called “avodah zarah,” i.e., idolatry.
ולא עוד אלא שבטלים וטפלים אליה, וגרועים ופחותים ממנה מאד
Not only are they united with the kelipah, and thus equal to it,
but furthermore they become secondary and subordinate to it, and much lower and
more debased than it.
כי היא אינה מלובשת בגוף חומרי, ויודעת את רבונה ואינה מורדת בו לפעול
פעולתה במשלחת מלאכי רעים שלה, שלא בשליחותו של מקום, ברוך הוא, חס ושלום
For the kelipah is not clothed in a corporeal body and hence is
more exposed to the divine light; it knows its Master and does not rebel
against Him (G‑d forbid) by
any independent act of sending its evil messengers, other than in the service of
G‑d.
Any evil act of the sitra achra is performed only in the service
of G‑d. Thus, the kelipot that are not clothed in a body cannot rebel
against G‑d’s Will; only
the animal soul clothed in the human body can do so. Hence, it is even lower
than the kelipah.
וכמאמר בלעם: לא אוכל לעבור את פי ה’ וגו‘
So did Bilaam say: 2 “I cannot violate the Word of G‑d”
Although Bilaam was a kelipah clothed in a body, yet when he
spoke for the spiritual kelipah within him, viz., the unholy prophetic power
with which he wished to curse the Jewish people, he said, “I cannot violate the
Word of G‑d.”
ואף שנקרא עבודה זרה, הא קרו ליה אלקא דאלקיא
Although the kelipot are called avodah zarah, idolatry, which is
a denial of G‑d, yet they
refer to Him as “the G‑d of gods,”
indicating that they do not deny Him completely.
ואינם יכולים לעבור כלל על רצונו יתברך, כי יודעים ומשיגים שהוא חיותם
וקיומם, שיונקים מבחינת אחוריים דאחוריים של רצון העליון, ברוך הוא, המקיף עליהם
They cannot violate G‑d’s Will, for
they know and perceive that He is their life and sustenance, since they derive
their nurture from the “hindermost aspect” of the Divine Will which encompasses
them.
אלא שיניקתם וחיותם היא בבחינת גלות בתוכם, להחשיב עצמן אלקות, והרי
זו כפירה באחדותו
It is only the sustenance and life-force that is within them,
i.e., the internal life-force which constitutes the identity of every created
being, as explained in ch. 22, that is in a state of exile, so that they regard
themselves as gods — which is a denial of G‑d’s unity.
אבל מכל מקום אינן כופרים וכחשו בה’ לגמרי ולומר לא
הוא, אלא דקרו ליה אלקא דאלקיא, דהיינו חיותם וקיומם הנמשך ויורד עליהם מרצונו יתברך
But they are not so completely heretical as to deny G‑d and to assert that He does not exist. On the contrary, they
regard Him as “the G‑d of gods,”
recognizing that their life and existence ultimately derive from His Will.
ולכן אינן עוברין רצונו יתברך לעולם
Therefore they never rebel against G‑d’s Will.
ואם כן האדם העובר על רצונו יתברך הוא גרוע ופחות הרבה מאד מהסטרא אחרא
וקליפה הנקראת עבודה זרה ואלקים אחרים
It follows, then, that the person who does violate G‑d’s Will is greatly inferior to and more debased than the
kelipah and sitra achra which are called avodah zarah and “other gods.”
והוא בתכלית הפירוד מיחודו ואחדותו של הקב״ה יותר ממנה, וכאלו כופר
באחדותו יותר ממנה, חס ושלום
He is separated completely from G‑d’s unity and
oneness even more than they are, as though denying His unity even more
radically than they, G‑d forbid.
וכמו שכתוב בעץ חיים שער מ״ב סוף פרק ד’, שהרע שבעולם הזה
החומרי הוא שמרי הקליפות הגסות כו‘, והוא תכלית הבירור
וכו’
This is similar to what is written in Etz Chayim, Portal 42, end
of ch. 4, that the evil in this corporeal world is the dregs of the coarse
kelipot; it is the sediment of the purifying process, and so on.
I.e., after whatever sparks of good that are found in the
kelipot have been isolated and elevated, what remains is kelipah in its lowest,
coarsest form. This kelipah is the evil found in this material world.
ולכן כל מעשה עולם הזה קשים ורעים, והרשעים גוברים בו וכו‘
For this reason, all matters of this world are harsh and evil,
and the wicked prevail in it, and so forth.
ולכן אמרו רז״ל על פסוק כי תשטה אשתו: אין אדם עובר עבירה כו’
This explains the commentary of our Sages on the verse, 3 “If a
man’s wife turns aside [and commits adultery].” 4 — “No man commits any
transgression unless a spirit of folly has entered into him.
The Sages thus relate the root ofתשטה — ”turns aside,“ toשטות —
”folly“.
דאפילו אשה המנאפת, שדעתה קלה, היתה מושלת ברוח תאותה לולי רוח שטות
שבה
For even an adulterous woman, with her frivolous nature, could
have controlled her passionate drive were it not for the spirit of folly within
her,
המכסה ומסתיר ומעלים את האהבה מסותרת שבנפשה האלקית, לדבקה באמונת ה‘ ויחודו ואחדותו,
ולא ליפרד חס ושלום מאחדותו, אפילו נוטלים את נפשה ממנה, לעבוד עבודה זרה, חס ושלום
which covers and conceals the hidden love within her divine
soul, that yearns to cleave to her faith in G‑d, and to His
unity and oneness, and that resists even on pain of death, any separation from
His unity through idol-worship, i.e., even this adultress would willingly
sacrifice her life, rather than submit to coercion to practice idolatry,
ואפילו בהשתחואה לבדה, בלי שום אמונה בלב כלל
even if this idol-worship would consist merely of an empty act
of prostrating herself before the idolized object, without any belief in her
heart in the validity of idol-worship.
וכל שכן לכבוש היצר ותאות הניאוף שהם יסורים קלים ממיתה, ה’ ישמרנו
Now, if her hidden love of G‑d has the
power to enable her to face death rather than be separated from Him, surely
then it is within its power to overcome the temptation and lust for adultery,
which is lighter suffering than death (May G‑d protect
us!).
It is only the ”spirit of folly,“ i.e., the notion that her sin
will not tear her away from G‑dliness, that
leads her to commit adultery.
It might be argued, however, that she differentiates between
idolatry and adultery; she regards the former as much more heinous (and thus
more certain to tear her away from G‑d) than the
latter. Perhaps this differentiation (not the ”spirit of folly“) is why she
would sacrifice her life rather than practice idolatry, yet at the same time
she would not sacrifice her temptation for adultery. In answer, the Alter Rebbe
states:
וההפרש שאצלה בין איסור ניאוף לאיסור השתחואה לעבודה זרה, הוא גם כן
רוח שטות דקליפה
The distinction she makes between the prohibition against
idolatry and that against adultery is also but a ”spirit of folly“ stemming
from the kelipah.
It renders her insensitive to the enormous breach between
herself and G‑d that is
created by every sin. If she were aware of this breach, she would certainly
overcome desire and refrain from sin.
המלבשת לנפש האלקית עד בחינת חכמה שבה, ולא עד בכלל, מפני אור ה‘ המלובש בחכמה כנ״ל
Yet the ”spirit of folly“ envelops the divine soul only up to,
but not including, its faculty of Chochmah which, as explained in ch. 18,
represents the power of faith in G‑d; this faith
is unaffected by the ”spirit of folly,“ because of the Divine light that is
clothed in the faculty of Chochmah, as explained above. 5
Therefore, when confronted with a matter that directly bears on
her faith in G‑d, such as
idolatry, where the ”spirit of folly“ is powerless, she would willingly
sacrifice her life. But when faced with the temptation for adultery, where the
”spirit of folly“ can — and does — conceal her faith in G‑d and her hidden love for Him, she succumbs. As stated, the
subjective distinction between the two stems from foolishness and
insensitivity.
אבל באמת לאמיתו, אפילו עבירה קלה, הרי העוברה עובר על רצון העליון,
ברוך הוא
In truth, however, even he who commits a minor sin transgresses
the Divine Will,
והוא בתכלית הפירוד מיחודו ואחדותו יתברך, יותר מסטרא אחרא וקליפה הנקראת
אלקים אחרים ועבודה זרה ממש, ויותר מכל הדברים הנשפעים ממנה בעולם הזה
and he is completely sundered from G‑d’s unity and oneness even more than the sitra achra and
kelipah, which are called ”strange gods“ and ”idolatry“, since kelipah does not
violate G‑d’s Will,
whereas he does, and more than all things of this world that are derived from
them,
שהם בהמות טמאות וחיות ועופות טמאים ושקצים ורמשים
namely, the unclean cattle, beasts, and birds, and the vermin
and reptiles which all receive their life-force from the three completely
unclean kelipot.
The person who transgresses even a minor sin, then, is worse and
lower than the kelipot and all that derives from them.
וכמאמר: יתוש קדמך
As our Sages have said, 6 ”When a man sins, he is told: ’The
gnat preceded you.'
The simple meaning of this statement is: ”You have no cause for
pride! Even the lowly gnat was created before you!“ But the deeper spiritual
meaning is that the gnat takes precedence over the sinner in rank — as the
Alter Rebbe goes on to explain:
פירוש: דאף יתוש שמכניס ואינו מוציא
This means that even the gnat which as the Talmud states
consumes [food] but does not excrete, indicating a kelipah which is the height
of selfishness — it does not give anything of itself,
שהיא קליפה היותר תחתונה ורחוקה מבחינת הקדושה, המשפעת בתכלית ריחוק,
קודמת לאיש החוטא בהשתלשלות וירידת החיות מרצון העליון, ברוך הוא
which is the very lowest form of kelipah, and is far removed
from holiness, which characteristically gives of itself even to those far from
it — for holiness implies humility, which leads to kindness and to benevolence,
while kelipah represents egocentricity and selfishness; now even the very
lowest kelipah, symbolized by the gnat, takes precedence over the sinner in the
order of descent of the Divine life-force from the Divine Will.
This means that the kelipah symbolized by the gnat derives its
life-force from a higher level of G‑dliness than
that from which the sinner is sustained.
וכל שכן שאר בעלי חיים הטמאים ואפילו חיות רעות, שכולם אינם משנים תפקידם,
ופקודתו יתברך שמרה רוחם, ואף על גב דאיהו לא חזי כו’
And surely the other unclean creatures and even the ferocious
beasts [are higher than the sinner]. All of these do not deviate from their
Divinely intended purpose, but obey G‑d’s command.
Although they cannot perceive it, for the animal cannot perceive G‑d’s command, yet their ”spirit“ perceives it. 7
I.e., the life-force animating them, which is aware of the
Divine Will, does not permit them to act in violation of it.
וכמו שכתוב: ומוראכם וחתכם יהיה על כל חית הארץ, וכפירוש רז״ל, שאין
חיה רעה מושלת באדם אלא אם כן נדמה לה כבהמה
As it is written: 8 ”The fear and dread of you shall lie upon
every beast of the earth,“ and as our Sages explain: 9 ”A wild beast will never
defy a human being unless he appears to it like an animal.“
והצדיקים, שאין צלם אלקים מסתלק מעל פניהם, כל חיות רעות אתכפיין קמייהו,
כמו שכתוב בזהר גבי דניאל בגוב אריות
In fact, when confronting tzaddikim, from whose face the Divine
image never departs, the evil beasts are humbled before them, as is stated in
the Zohar concerning Daniel in the lions’ den.
Not only did the lions not harm him, but on the contrary they
humbled themselves before him. 10 At any rate, what emerges from the above is
that even the animals do not violate G‑d’s Will.
ואם כן החוטא ועובר רצונו יתברך אפילו בעבירה קלה, בשעת מעשה הוא בתכלית
הריחוק מקדושה העליונה, שהיא יחודו ואחדותו יתברך
It is thus clear that he who sins and transgresses against G‑d’s Will even in a minor offense, is, at the time he commits it,
completely removed from the Divine Holiness, meaning G‑d’s unity and oneness,
יותר מכל בעלי חיים הטמאים ושקצים ורמשים המושפעים מסטרא אחרא וקליפת
עבודה זרה
even more so than all the unclean creatures, the vermin and the
reptiles which derive their sustenance from the sitra achra and the kelipah of
avodah zarah.
All the aforesaid demonstrates how one’s hidden love for G‑d can enable him to overcome his desire to transgress any sin.
When he considers that thereby he becomes separated from G‑d even more than the unclean creatures, he will recoil from
every sin just as he recoils from the thought of idolatry — because of his
awareness that it represents an attack on his love of G‑d and his faith in Him.
ומה שפיקוח נפש דוחה שאר עבירות וגם יעבור ואל יהרג
True, we find a principle that saving a life overrides other
prohibitions though not the prohibition of idolatry; so too the law sometimes
calls for one to commit a transgression rather than be killed, whereas with
idolatry, incest and murder, the law requires that he submit to death rather
than commit any one of the three.
This would seem to indicate that the Torah itself distinguishes
between idolatry and most other commandments — while the Alter Rebbe previously
stated that the adultress who makes such a distinction has been blinded by a
”spirit of folly,“ for in reality every sin tears one away from G‑d in the same way as idolatry.
In the following paragraph the Alter Rebbe states that there is
no contradiction here. The requirement or non-requirement to sacrifice one’s
life for a prohibition does not reflect its intrinsic worth.
היינו כפירוש חז״ל: אמרה תורה, חלל עליו שבת אחת כדי שישמור שבתות הרבה
This fact that saving a life overrides other prohibitions is
because, as the Sages explain; 11 ”The Torah declares: ‘Desecrate one Shabbat
for his sake so that he may live to observe other Shabbatot.’“
When the medical treatment of a patient involves an activity
normally forbidden on Shabbat, the Torah requires that we desecrate the Shabbat
to cure him so that he may live to observe Shabbat in the future. Thus the
precept of Shabbat has not been waived in the face of an external
consideration. It is in the interests of the Shabbat itself (i.e., the
patient’s future observance of Shabbat) that we desecrate this one Shabbat,
ולא משום קלות העבירות וחומרן
and it is not because of the relative leniency (of the Shabbat)
or gravity of the sins (such as idolatry), that one is waived while the other
is not.
תדע, שהרי שבת חמורה ושקולה כעבודה זרה לענין שחיטת מומר לדבר אחד,
ביורה דעה סימן ב‘
(12This contention is supported by the following fact: Violation
of the Shabbat is a grave offense, and comparable to idolatry with regard to
the law of Shechitah by anyone who habitually violates a particular precept, as
codified in Yoreh Deah, Section 2.
There the Shulchan Aruch states that one who regularly
desecrates the Shabbat is unfit for Shechitah, as though he habitually
practiced idolatry.
מה שאין כן במומר לגילוי עריות
A habitual sexual offender on the other hand does not have the
same law applied to him as a habitual idolator, indicating that the violation
of Shabbat is graver than sexual offenses.
ואפילו הכי פיקוח נפש דוחה שבת ולא גילוי עריות
Yet the consideration of life overrides Shabbat, but not the
sexual prohibitions.
Thus it cannot be argued that the requirement to sacrifice
oneself for the sexual prohibitions is due to their gravity, for we see that
the desecration of Shabbat is even graver than them with regard to Shechitah.
Hence we must conclude that the laws governing self-sacrifice are no measure of
the relative gravity of the mitzvot,
אלא דגזירת הכתוב הוא
but they are simply a matter of Scriptural decree. 13
The sinner, however, who does distinguish between the gravity of
the various transgressions, sacrificing his life for the prohibition of
idolatry but not even restraining his desire for others, surely has his
thinking clouded by the ”spirit of folly“ of the kelipah, which obscures his
hidden love of G‑d. For in
reality, every transgression creates the ultimate separation between the sinner
and G‑d.
The Alter Rebbe now goes on to say that if a difference is
indeed to be drawn between the various sins, it is only with regard to their
effect after they have taken place.
אלא שלאחר מעשה החטא, אם היא מעבירות שאין בהן כרת ומיתה בידי שמים
After the sinful act, however, if the sin is of the type that
carries neither the penalty of karet (spiritual extinction of the soul), or
death at the hands of heaven,
שאין נפשו האלקית מתה לגמרי ונכרתת משרשה באלקים חיים
in which case the divine soul does not completely perish and is
not entirely cut off from its source in the living G‑d;
רק שנפגם קצת דביקותה ואחיזתה בשרשה בחטא זה
except that through this sin its attachment to its source and
its connection with it has been weakened somewhat, in the case of such a sin,
the Alter Rebbe concludes (after a parenthetical note), the animal soul and the
body can rise out of the kelipah and unite with the holiness of the divine
soul.
The difference between — on the one hand — the sins carrying the
penalty of karet or death at the hands of heaven, and other sins, is explained
elsewhere14 as follows: The connection of the divine soul with its G‑dly source is comparable to a rope woven of 613 strands, each
strand representing one of the commandments. Every sin severs a corresponding
strand. When one strand is broken, the entire rope is weakened, but not severed
entirely. The penalties of karet or death at the hands of heaven, however, cut
the rope entirely, so to speak.
* * *
In the following note, the Alter Rebbe states that the varying
degrees of severity in the punishments imposed for various sins correspond to
the blemish caused by each sin. The purpose of punishment is not the punishment
per se, but purification of the soul from the blemish which the sin brought about.
Thus, the greater the blemish, the more severe the punishment.
הגהה
ולפי ערך וחלוקי בחינת הפגם בנפש ובשרשה בעליונים
NOTE
Corresponding to the extent and specific nature of the blemish
caused by the sin in the soul and in its source in the supernal worlds,
כך הם חלוקי בחינות המירוק והעונש בגיהנם או בעולם הזה
are the various purifying processes and punishments in purgatory
or in this world (i.e., the suffering of the soul in purgatory, or one's
suffering in this world - whose purpose is to purify the soul),
לכל עון וחטא עונש מיוחד, למרק ולהעביר הלכלוך והפגם
for each transgression and sin its appropriate punishment, for
the purpose of cleansing and removing the stain and the blemish caused by that
specific sin.
וכן בחייבי מיתה וכרת אין פוגמין כולם בשוה
Similarly, the blemish caused by the sins carrying the penalty
of death at the hands of heaven or karet varies from one sin to another.
END OF NOTE
הרי גם נפשו החיונית הבהמית המלובשת בגופו, וכן גופו
(To return to our original point:) After the sinful act, in the
case of those sins which do not carry the punishment of karet or death at the
hands of heaven, the sinner’s animal soul, which animates the body and is
clothed in it, as well as his body itself,
חוזרים ועולים מהסטרא אחרא וקליפה זו ומתקרבים לקדושת נפש האלקית המלובשת
בהם
return and rise from the sitra achra and kelipah whereto they
descended when the sin was committed, and they draw closer to the holiness of
the divine soul that pervades them.
המאמינה בה’ אחד, וגם בשעת החטא היתה באמנה אתו יתברך
The divine soul always believes in the One G‑d, and remains faithful to Him even while the sin is being
committed.
For it is only the animal soul, via the body, that performs the
sinful act.
רק שהיתה בבחינת גלות ממש תוך נפש הבהמית מסטרא אחרא, המחטיאה את הגוף
ומורידתו עמה בעמקי שאול
But at that time, [the divine soul] was in a state of veritable
exile in the animal soul — which derives from the sitra achra — which causes
the body to sin, and drags it down with itself to the lowest depths;
למטה מטה תחת טומאת הסטרא אחרא וקליפת עבודה זרה, ה‘ ישמרנו
so low, in fact, that it is even lower than the impurity of the
sitra achra and the kelipah of idolatry (May G‑d preserve
us!).
An exile’s foreign surroundings restrict him from expressing his
abilities and ideas. Similarly the divine soul (which is in exile within the
animal soul when one sins) is unable to express itself in mastery of the body
and in harnessing it for the service of G‑d, by reason
of the foreign environment of the kelipah.
ואין לך גלות גדול מזה, מאיגרא רמה כו’
There is no greater exile than this exile of the divine soul
within the animal soul, that is brought on through sin. It is a plunge ”from a
lofty roof [to a deep pit].“
וכמו שכתוב לעיל, דשרש ומקור נפשות כל בית ישראל הוא מחכמה עילאה, והוא
יתברך וחכמתו אחד וכו‘
For, as explained earlier, 15 the source and root of all Jewish
souls is in the Divine Wisdom, and G‑d and His
wisdom are one and the same... and sin plunges the soul from this lofty plane
to the depths of exile within the sitra achra.
והוא כמשל האוחז בראשו של מלך ומורידו למטה וטומן פניו בתוך בית הכסא
מלא צואה, שאין לך עלבון גדול מזה, אפילו עושה כן לפי שעה
It is comparable to one who seizes the king’s head, drags it
down, and dips his face in a privy full of filth — the ultimate in humiliation,
even if he does it only for a moment.
שהקליפות וסטרא אחרא נקראות קיא צואה, כנודע
For the kelipot and sitra achra are called ”vomit and filth,“ as
is known.
Similarly, when one seizes the divine soul, which stems from
Divine wisdom (”the king’s head“), and through his sins forces it into the
kelipah (”a privy full of filth“), he brings upon his soul the most unspeakable
humiliation — even if he does so only for a moment (for afterwards the soul
rises out of its exile).
We thus see that the differences between the various sins apply
only after the sin has been committed. During the act, however, every sin tears
one away from G‑d. Since every
Jew is endowed with a hidden love of G‑d, by virtue
of which he wishes to be constantly united with Him, and never to be separated
from Him, not even for a moment, he can employ this hidden love in fulfilling
all the mitzvot and in avoiding every sin — as the Alter Rebbe concludes in the
following chapter.
FOOTNOTES
1. Ch. 22.
2. Bamidbar 22:18.
3. Bamidbar 5:12.
4. Sotah 3a.
5. Ch. 19.
6. Sanhedrin 38a.
7. Cf. Megillah 3a.
8. Bereishit 9:2.
9. Sanhedrin 38:b.
10. Each of these two
quotations is cited in support of one part of the Alter Rebbe's contention
concerning the creatures' submission to G-d's Will: The first, relating to
"the fear and dread of man," proves that the creatures do not deviate
from their mission in that they dare not defy any human being, not even a child
(see Shabbat 151b: A day-old child need not be guarded from weasels and mice;
not so the corpse of Og, the mighty king of Bashan). The second, relating to
Daniel in the lions' den, demonstrates that "their spirit sees," to
the extent that they can discern whether the G-dly image rests upon one's face
- in which case they actually humble themselves before him, or whether this
image is absent - in which case they will merely not defy him, but will also
not humble themselves before him. (- Based on a note by the Rebbe.)
11. Shabbat 151b; Yoma
85b.
12. Parentheses are in the
original text.
13. Shabbat 151b; Yoma 85b.
14. Iggeret HaTeshuvah,
ch. 5.
15. Ch. 2.
-------
Rambam:
• Daily Mitzvah Sefer Hamitzvos:
N11, N12, N13, P185, N25, N22, N48, N50, N51, N30, N33, N31, N32
and N35, N38, N36, N37, N34, N43, N44, N40, N39, N41, N45, N171
Negative Commandment 11
A Structure Designated for Worship
"Do not erect a monument which the Lord, your G‑d, despises"—Deuteronomy 16:22.
It is forbidden to erect a structure designed for people to
gather around it to worship—even to worship the One G‑d. This is forbidden because erecting such a revered structure
was common practice amongst the ancient idol worshippers.
The 11th prohibition is that we are forbidden from making a
monument1 for people to gather around and honor, even if it was made for
serving G‑d. The reason
for this prohibition is so that our service of G‑d, exalted be
He, should not resemble that of idolatry, since they would build monuments and
place idols upon them.
The source of this commandment is G‑d's statement (exalted be He),2 "Do not erect a sacred
pillar, since this is something that G‑d your Lord
hates."3
One who transgresses this prohibition is punished by lashes.
FOOTNOTES
1. See Minchas Yitzchak
1:29.
2. Deut. 16:22
3. Even though Jacob did
erect a monument to G‑d (Gen 28:18),
"what was beloved in the days of the forefathers, became hated in the days
of the children," since the Canaanite nations started using monuments for
idolatry (Sifri).
Negative Commandment 12
Kneeling Stones
"You shall not install a kneeling stone in your land, to
bow down upon it"—Leviticus 26:1.
It is forbidden to make designated stones upon which to bow
down—even if bowing to the One G‑d. This is
forbidden because it was common practice amongst the ancient idol worshippers
to decorate "kneeling stones" and place them before their idols.
The 12th prohibition is that we are forbidden from making stones
which are prepared1 to bow down upon — even if this bowing down is to G‑d, exalted be He. The reason for this prohibition is also2 to
not resemble that of idolatry, since they would place stones decorated by
expert craftsmen3 in front of the idols, and bow down upon them to that idol.
The source of this commandment is G‑d's statement (exalted be He),4 "Do not place a designed5
stone in your land so you can prostrate yourselves on it."
One who transgresses this prohibition is punished by lashes.6
In the words of the Sifra,7 "The phrase, 'Do not place [a
designed stone] in your land,' teaches that only 'in [the rest of] your land'
you may not bow down upon stones; but you may bow down upon stones in the Holy
Temple."
The details of this mitzvah have been explained in the Talmudic
tractate Megillah.8
FOOTNOTES
1. Or
"designated," "intended" (Kapach, 5731, note 69). Chavel
erroneously translates, "figured stones."
2. In addition to the
previous N11.
3. Or, "decorated
professionally" (Kapach, 5731, note 70).
4. Lev. 26:1.
5. See Kapach, 5731, note
71. Hilchos Avodah Zarah 6:9 (Kapach edition, note 16)
6. In Hilchos Avodah
Zarah 6:9-12, the Rambam rules that this applies only if the person prostrates
himself to G‑d with his
arms and legs outstretched. If he does so without extending himself in this
way, he transgresses a Rabbinic prohibition. If he bows down to an idol,
however, he is executed by stoning regardless of the precise manner in which he
bows down.
7. Ibid.
8. 22b.
Negative Commandment 13
Trees in the Temple
"Do not plant for yourself an Asherah of any tree near the
altar of the Lord your G‑d"—Deuteronomy
16:21.
It is forbidden to plant any tree near the altar, or anywhere in
the Holy Temple. This is forbidden because it was common practice amongst the
ancient idol worshippers to plant beautiful decorative trees in their temples.
The 13th prohibition is that we are forbidden from planting
trees in the Holy Temple or next to the altar for decoration or beauty, even if
the intention is to serve G‑d. This is
because they would also honor idols in this way, i.e. by planting beautiful,
pleasant-looking trees in their houses of worship.
The source of this commandment is G‑d's statement (exalted be He),1 "Do not plant for yourself
an Asherah2 or any [other] tree near the altar of G‑d your Lord."
One who transgresses this prohibition is punished by lashes.3
The details of this mitzvah have been explained in the Talmudic
tractate Tamid.4 There it is explained that this planting is prohibited in the
entire Temple.5
FOOTNOTES
1. Deut. 16:21.
2. A tree which is itself
worshipped as an idol, or when the idol is placed underneath the tree (Hilchos
Avodah Zarah 7:11).
3. It is also prohibited
to use wood built into the Temple structure, but lashes are given only if the
tree was planted (Hilchos Avodah Zarah 6:14)
4. 28b.
5. I.e. the Temple
courtyard (Hilchos Avodah Zarah 6:13).
Positive Commandment 185
Destroying Idols
"Destroy all those places"—Deuteronomy 12:2.
We are commanded to utterly eradicate all vestiges of idol
worship from the Land of Israel. To shatter, burn, destroy and cut down—any
method needed to destroy the idols, their altars, and their houses of worship.
The 185th mitzvah is that we are commanded to demolish all idols
and their places of worship with all kinds of demolition and destruction —
breaking, burning, dismantling, and cutting down. Each method is to be used
where most effective, i.e. where it will achieve the most complete and speedy destruction.
The goal [of this commandment] is that there should not remain any remnant of
[idolatry].
The source of this commandment is G‑d's statement (exalted be He),1 "You must certainly destroy
all the places [where the nations … worship their gods]." Scripture also
states,2 "What you must do to them is tear down their altars [break their
monuments, cut down their idolatrous trees, and burn their statues]."
Scripture also states,3 "You must tear down their altars, break their
monuments [burn their idolatrous trees, and break their idolatrous
statues]."
In Tractate Sanhedrin,4 our Sages mention parenthetically a
positive commandment relating to idolatry. They then seek to clarify the point
by asking, "What positive commandment5 relating to idolatry is there? Rav
Chisda explains, The commandment, 'You must tear down [their altars].'"
In the words of the Sifri, "What is the source for the law
that if you cut down a tree which was worshipped as an idol, and it regrew
[after you have cut it down even] ten times, that you are still required to cut
it down? The Torah therefore says, 'a'beid t'ab'dun'."6 Our Sages also
said there, "The verse,7 '[You must tear down their altars, break their
monuments, burn their idolatrous trees, and break their idolatrous statues,] and
you shall obliterate their names from that place,' teaches that only in Eretz
Yisrael are you command to chase after them, but you are not commanded to chase
after them outside Eretz Yisrael."
FOOTNOTES
1. Deut. 12:2.
2. Deut. 7:5.
3. Deut. 12:3.
4. 90a.
5. This expression shows
that it counts as one of the 613 commandments.
6. The double expression
of destruction teaches that you must repeat the action until the purpose is
accomplished. See Bava Metzia 31b.
7. Deut. 12:3.
Negative Commandment 25
Benefiting from Idolatry
"Do not bring an offensive [idol] into your
house"—Deuteronomy 7:26.
We are forbidden from deriving any benefit from an idol, or any
of its implements. For example, it would be forbidden to cook on a fire fueled
by wood from an Asherah (worshipped) tree.
The 25th prohibition is that we are forbidden from adding to our
possessions anything having to do with idolatry. Rather, we distance ourselves
from it, from its places of worship, and from anything relating to it.1
The source of this commandment is G‑d's statement (exalted be He),2 "Do not bring an
abomination into your house."
One who gains benefit from anything [related to idolatry] is
punished by lashes.
It has been explained in tractate Makkos3 that one who cooks
using wood from an asherah4 is punished with two sets of lashes:5 one set for
transgressing the prohibition, "Do not bring an abomination into your
house," and another set for transgressing the prohibition,6 "Do not
allow anything that has been declared taboo to remain in your hands."
Understand this well.
The details of this mitzvah have been explained in the third
chapter of Avodah Zarah.
FOOTNOTES
1. This includes anything
which was brought as an offering and anything at all which was made for the
idol (Hilchos Avodah Zarah 7:3).
2. Deut. 7:26.
3. 24a.
4. See N13 above.
5. This shows that N24
and N25 count as separate commandments.
6. Deut. 13:18. See N24.
Negative Commandment 22
Benefiting from Idolatrous Decorations
"Do not covet the silver or the gold that is on
them"—Deuteronomy 7:25.
It is forbidden to derive any benefit from idolatrous
accoutrements, such as jewelry used to adorn an idol or the idol's gold
plating.
The 22nd prohibition is that we are forbidden from gaining
benefit from any ornaments which were used to adorn an idol.1
The source of this commandment is G‑d's statement,2 "Do not desire the gold and silver which is
on them."
The Sifra3 explains that the coverings of any idol are
forbidden, and bases this prohibition on G‑d's statement
(exalted be He),4 "Do not desire the gold and silver which is on
them."
One who transgresses this prohibition is punished by lashes.
The details of this mitzvah have been explained in the third
chapter of Avodah Zarah.5
FOOTNOTES
1. This applies even if
one is allowed to benefit from the idol itself, such as when the idolaters
worship a mountain. One may benefit from the mountain, but not from anything
used to adorn it. (See Hilchos Avodah Zarah 8:7.)
2. Deut. 7:25.
3. Lev. Parsha 2,
halachah 17.
4. Deut. Ibid.
5. 45a.
Negative Commandment 48
Treaties with the Seven Nations
"You shall not make a treaty with them"—Deuteronomy
7:2.
It is forbidden to make a peace treaty with the members of the
seven nations of Canaan and to allow them to live peacefully in our
midst—unless they agree to abandon their pagan ways.
The 48th prohibition is that we are forbidden from making a
covenant with the heretics, i.e. the seven nations,1 and to allow them to
remain2 in their heresy.
The source of this commandment is G‑d's statement (exalted be He),3 "Do not make a covenant
with them."
We have already explained in Positive Commandment 187 that the
war against the seven nations and everything connected with them can be counted
[in the 613 commandments], and are not placed in the category of commandments
which do not apply for all generations.4
FOOTNOTES
1. I.e. the seven
Canaanite nations. The standard printed edition of Mishneh Torah (Hilchos
Avodah Zarah 10:1) also brings this prohibition only in regard to the seven
nations. In the final revised version, however (preserved in the hand-written
Yemenite manuscripts and printed in Kapach's edition of Mishneh Torah), the
Rambam rules that this prohibition applies to all idol worshippers, not only
those from the seven nations. This is consistent with his ruling in Hilchos
Melachim 6:3 (Kapach 5731, note 56). See Minchas Chinuch 93.
2. Or possibly, "to
make peace with them" (Kapach 5731, note 55). In Hilchos Avodah Zarah
10:1, the Rambam mentions both: "to make peace with them and to allow them
to serve [idols].
3. Deut. 7:2.
4. In the Third
Introductory Principle, the Rambam explains that commandments which do not
applyfor all generations may not be counted among the total of 613. Although we
are unable today to identify these seven nations, the commandment itself is
still eternal, as explained in P187.
Negative Commandment 50
Kindness towards Idol-Worshipers
"Do not show mercy towards them"—Deuteronomy 7:2.
We are not to show mercy to idol-worshippers, nor are we
permitted to praise them. It is even forbidden to say about an idol-worshipper,
"Look at how attractive this individual is!"
The 50th prohibition is that we are forbidden from having pity
on idol worshippers or from being impressed1 with anything associated with
them.
The source of this commandment is G‑d's statement (exalted be He),2 "Lo techanem."
["You shall not allow them to find grace in your eyes."]
The Oral Tradition explains that this means, "Do not
ascribe grace to them." It is even prohibited to say about an idol
worshipper who has a beautiful appearance, "This person is
beautiful," or "This person has a beautiful face," as explained
in our Talmud.3
The Jerusalem Talmud, tractate Avodah Zarah4 says, "The
prohibition not to ascribe grace to them counts as a prohibition."
FOOTNOTES
1. Kapach translates the
Arabic "as'tachsan" into the Hebrew, "l'shabe'ach," which
is literally translated, "to praise" (as Chavel does). In note 62,
however, Kapach writes that he uses this word only because there is no Hebrew
word which expresses the Arabic, which connotates being emotionally affected by
the beauty of something of theirs.
2. Deut. ibid.
3. Avodah Zarah 20a.
4. Chapter 1, Halachah 9.
Negative Commandment 51
Allowing Idol-Worshipers to Reside in Israel
"They shall not dwell in your land lest they make you sin
against Me"—Exodus 23:33.
We must not allow idol-worshippers to dwell in our midst in the
Holy Land, lest we learn from their heretical ways. And it is certainly
forbidden to sell or even rent real estate to an idol-worshipper in the land.
In fact, if an idol-worshipper wants to pass through our land
while en route to his final destination, we do not allow passage unless he
forswears idolatry.
The 51st prohibition is that we are forbidden from allowing idol
worshippers to reside in our land, to prevent us from being influenced by their
heresy.
The source of this commandment is G‑d's statement (exalted be He),1 "Do not allow them to
reside in your land, since they may then make you sin against Me."
Even if he just wants to pass through2 our land, we are not
allowed to do so unless he accepts upon himself not to worship idols. Once he
does so, he is allowed to reside [in eretz Yisrael], and is called a ger
toshav,3 meaning that he is considered a convert only to the extent that he is
allowed to reside in our land. Our Sages said,4 "Who is a ger toshav? One
who accepts upon himself not to worship idols. This is the opinion of Rabbi
Yehuda."5
An idol worshipper, however, is not allowed to reside [in our
land], and we do not sell him land nor rent to him. The [Oral] Tradition states
clearly,6 "You may not allow him any residence in the land."
The details of this mitzvah have been explained in Sanhedrin and
in Avodah Zarah.
FOOTNOTES
1. Exodus 23:33.
2. Chavel mistakenly
translates, "stay in our land."
3. Literally, a
"resident convert," as opposed to a "ger tzedek," who
converts completely and becomes a Jew.
4. Avodah Zarah 64b.
5. Our version of the
Talmud quotes this in the name of Rabbi Meir. The majority of the Sages,
however, rule that he is not considered a ger toshav until he accepts all of
the Seven Noachide Commandments. The final ruling of the Rambam (Hilchot Avodah
Zarah 10:6. Shabbat 2:14. Isurei Bi'ah 14:7. Ma'achalot Asurot 11:7. Melachim
8:10) and the Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh Deah 124:2) is in accordance with the
Sages.
6. Avodah Zarah 20a.
Negative Commandment 30
The Practices of the Heathens
"You shall not walk in the practices of the nation that I
am sending away before you"—Leviticus 20:23.
We are forbidden from imitating the practices of the idolaters—even
in those areas not associated with their pagan rites. Even something as simple
as saying, "Since they dress in purple wool, I, too, will dress in purple
wool..." is forbidden.
The 30th prohibition is that we are forbidden from walking in
the ways of the heretics and from acting as they do — even in their clothing
and their gatherings in halls.
The source of this commandment is G‑d's statement,1 "Do not follow the customs of the nation
that I am driving out before you." This prohibition is repeating in G‑d's statement,2 "Do not follow their customs," which
is explained,3 " I [G‑d] have
prohibited only customs which have been established by them and their
ancestors.
In the words of the Sifra, "The verse,4 'Do not follow
their customs,' teaches that you may not follow the social customs which they
have established, such as [attending] theaters, circuses and arenas, which are
places where they would gather for idol worship. Rabbi Meir says that these
[customs] are the 'ways of the Amorites'5 which our Sages have listed. Rabbi
Yehuda ben Beteira says that [this teaches that] one may not nocher,6 nor grow
one's hair long, nor cut one's hair in "kumi"7 style."
One who does any of these is punished by lashes.
This same prohibition is repeated in a different way,8 "Be
very careful lest you be entrapped after them." In the words of the Sifri,
"'Be very careful' [hishomer], indicates a prohibition; 'lest' [pen],
indicates a prohibition; 'you be entrapped after them,' that you might imitate
them and act as they do, and it will be a stumbling block to you. One should
not say, 'Since they go out wearing purple, so too I will go out wearing
purple. Since they go out wearing telusin (which is a type of military
ornamentation), so too I will go out wearing telusin.'"
You are certainly aware of the words of the prophet,9 "[I
shall punish…] all who are wearing non-Jewish clothing." All this is to
keep us far away from them, and to despise all their customs, even their dress.
The details of this mitzvah have been explained in the sixth
chapter of Shabbos,10 and in Tosefta Shabbos.11
FOOTNOTES
1. Lev.20:23.
2. Lev.18:3.
3. Sifra
4. Lev.18:3.
5. These are types of
superstition. See Shabbos 67a.
6. This word normally
refers to slaughtering an animal in a non-kosher manner. This being the case,
it is difficult to understand why the Sifri should prohibit it as a non-Jewish
custom — it is already prohibited due to the laws of kosher slaughter! Others
(see Bach, Yoreh Deah 178) learn that it refers to a distinctive non-Jewish hairstyle.
Kapach 5731 (note 51) rejects this interpretation, and learns that it does
refer to killing animals. He explains that the reason it is mentioned in this
prohibition is because it refers to an idolatrous practice in which the animal
(particularly a camel) is slaughtered in a way that causes it to make unusually
load noises.
7. A non-Jewish hairstyle
in which hair from the front half of the head is cut off from one ear to the
other, leaving hair only on the rear half of the head.
8. Deut. 12:30.
9. Tzefaniah 1:8.
10. 67a.
11. Ch. 7-8.
Negative Commandment 33
Interpreting Omens
"There shall not be found among you... one who interprets
omens"—Deuteronomy 18:10.
It is forbidden to base one's actions on supposed good or bad
omens. The Midrash gives examples of "bad" omens: "My bread fell
out of my mouth, my staff fell out of my hand, a snake passed me on my right, a
fox on my left..."
The 33rd prohibition is that we are forbidden from acting on the
basis of omens [l'nachesh],1 for example when people say, "Since I just
come back from a trip, my will won't be carried out"2; or, "The first
thing I saw today was such-and-such — certainly I will earn something
today." This kind of behavior is very widespread among the masses of the
foolish nations.3
Anyone who acts based on an omen is punished by lashes, in
accordance with G‑d's statement
(exalted be He),4 "Among you there shall not be found anyone...who divines
auspicious times, who divines by omens [menachesh]." This prohibition is
repeated in G‑d's
statement,5 "Do not act on the basis of omens."
In the words of the Sifri, "Examples of a menachesh are one
who says, 'my bread fell from my mouth'6; 'my staff fell from my hand'; 'a
snake passed on my right'; 'a fox passed on my left.7'" The Sifra says,
"Examples of the prohibition, 'Do not act on the basis of omens,' are
those who divine omens from a weasel, birds, stars, etc."
The details of this mitzvah have been explained in the seventh
chapter of Shabbos,8 and in Tosefta Shabbos.9
FOOTNOTES
1. The Arabic term has a
dual connotation: doing something if one thing happens, and refraining from
something if another thing happens. (Kapach 5731, note 79)
2. Chavel, based on the
earlier "Kapach" translation, writes, "I will not be favored
with success."
3. Kapach 5731 (note 80)
writes that the Arabic term for "foolish," denotes a foolish belief
that an idol can do something supernatural.
4. Deut. 18:10.
5. Lev.19:26.
6. In Hilchos Avodah
Zarah 11:4, the Rambam adds, "therefore I won't go to a certain place
today, because if I go, my will won't be carried out."
7. In Hilchos Avodah
Zarah ibid., "Since a fox passed on my right, I won't leave my house the
entire day, because if I do, I will be harmed by a dishonest person."
8. 67b. In our versions,
chapter six.
9. Chapters 7-8.
Negative Commandment 31
Soothsaying
"There shall not be found among you... a
soothsayer"—Deuteronomy 18:10.
It is forbidden to use any of the methods employed by psychics
to stimulate their supposed clairvoyant talents—and to then predict the future
based on these actions.
The 31st prohibition is that we are forbidden from practicing
divination, i.e. to use any of the various ways of arousing one's faculty of
making educated guesses1 [regarding the future]. All those who have the faculty
of predicting the future before it occurs can do so only because they have a
strong ability to make educated guesses that are accurate and come true in the
majority of cases — they therefore estimate what will happen. Some people are
superior to others in this, just as some are superior to others in other
spiritual faculties.
Those who have this faculty of estimation must perform some
action in order to arouse this faculty and strengthen its effect2. Some will
continuously strike the ground with a stick, and cry out with strange shouts,
and clear away their thoughts; after doing so for a long period of time, they
go into a semi-conscious state and predict the future. I once witnessed this in
the inner West.3
Some will throw small stones on a piece of leather, and then
stare at them for a long period of time and then state their prediction. This
is well known in every place I have passed through. Some throw a long leather
belt onto the ground, and then stare at it and state their prediction.
The purpose of all these [actions] is to arouse the faculty
within the person; not that the particular object affects anything or indicates
anything. The common people are mistaken in this regard — when some of the
predictions come true, they think that those actions showed the person what
would be. This mistake reached the point4 where they thought that some of these
actions actually caused what occurred. This is what those who study the paths
of the stars5 believe, since this belongs to the same category, i.e., one of
the ways of arousing this faculty. Therefore no two individuals will make the
same prediction, even though they are equal in their knowledge of the rules [of
astronomy].
One who performs any of these actions or any others similar to
them is called a kosem [one who practices divination].
The source of this commandment is G‑d's statement (exalted be He),6 "Among you, there shall not
be found anyone...who practices divination [kosem k'samim]."
In the words of the Sifri, "Who is considered a kosem? One
who grasps a stick and says, 'Shall I go or not?'" It is regarding this
method of divination which was popular at that time that the prophet said,7
"My people ask their stick, and their staff speaks to them."
One who transgresses this prohibition — i.e. who does the
divination and makes his prediction through performing the particular action —
is punished by lashes. One who asked the kosem the question, however, is
[merely] very detestable.8
The details of this mitzvah have been explained in tractate
Sanhedrin,9 and in Tosefta Shabbos,10 and in Sifri.
FOOTNOTES
1. Kapach 5731, note 59,
explains that the Arabic word, chadas, indicates that the person bases himself
on a swift general grasp of all factors — those present, those which will be in
the future, and the past background. Chavel translates, "conjecture."
2. Kapach 5731, note 61.
Chavel translates, « rouse them to activity. »
3. Chavel, following the
Ibn Tibbon translation, writes "extreme West (i.e. Spain)."
4. Kapach 5731, note 64.
5. Chavel translates
"astrologers," but they would seem to fit under N32.
6. Deut. 18:10.
7. Hoshea 4:12.
8. And receives lashes
only by Rabbinic decree (Hilchos Avodah Zarah 11:7).
9. 65a.
10. Chapters 7-8.
Negative Commandment 32
Astrology and Divination
"There shall not be found among you... a diviner of
times"—Deuteronomy 18:10.
It is forbidden to predict the auspiciousness of times or dates
based on astrological formations: "This day is auspicious, and this day
not so." It is also forbidden to act based on such predictions.
Also included in this prohibition is sleight of hand. It is
forbidden to deceptively use sleight of hand to convince others that one has
magical powers.
The 32nd prohibition is that we are forbidden from acting
according to the guidelines of astrology, i.e. "this day is auspicious for
doing this action, and we will therefore do it," or "this day is not
auspicious for doing this action, and we will therefore not do it."
The source of this commandment is G‑d's statement (exalted be He),1 "Among you there shall not
be found anyone...who divines auspicious times [m'onen]." This prohibition
has been repeated in G‑d's
statement,2 "Do not act on the basis of auspicious times [lo
t'oneinu]."
In the words of the Sifra, "Lo t'oneinu means that you may
not assign times." The root of the [Hebrew] word is onah [time], and the
meaning is that a person should not establish times and say one time is good
and another time is bad.
One who transgresses this prohibition is also3 punished by
lashes. This refers to the one who advises4 regarding the times, not the one
who asked. Asking [the astrologer], however, is also prohibited, in addition to
[the entire practice] being false. One who thinks that a particular time is
lucky, or that it will bring him success in a particular action, and acts based
on that belief is punished by lashes, since he performed an action.
Included in this prohibition is making optical illusions. In the
words of our Sages,5 "A m'onen refers to one who deceives through optical
illusions.6 This covers a broad category of tricks and sleight of hand, causing
people to believe things which are untrue. We frequently see people who perform
in this way — he takes a rope, puts it in his pocket for everyone to see, and
then pulls out a snake; or he throws a ring into the air and then removes it
from the mouth of a person standing before him, and similar optical illusions
well known to the masses. All these are forbidden, and one who performs any of
them is called "ocheiz es ha'eina'im" [one who does optical
illusions"], which is a type of witchcraft, and he is therefore punished
by lashes.
He is also deceiving people,7 and causes tremendous damage by
leading fools, women, and children to view things which are impossible as being
possible. Their mind then becomes accustomed to accept the impossible, and to
think that it is also possible.
This should be well understood.
FOOTNOTES
1. Deut. 18:10.
2. Lev.19:26.
3. As with the previous
commandment, N31.
4. Kapach (note 76) asks
why the astrologer himself should receive lashes; lashes are given only when
the person performed an action, and here the astrologer only speaks. In Hilchos
Avodah Zarah 11:9, he notes, the Rambam only says it is prohibited, and says
that lashes are given only when an action is performed. He suggests that
perhaps taking the astrological books and making the calculations could be
considered in the realm of action.
5. Sanhedrin 65b.
6. The source of this
interpretation is that the word m'onen can also be read as containing the word,
"ayin," meaning, "eye."
7. See Hilchos De'ot 2:6.
Hilchos Mechirah 18:1.
-------
Negative Commandment 35 (Digest)
Incantations
"There shall not be found among you... a
charmer"—Deuteronomy 18:10-11.
It is forbidden to chant a magical incantation in the belief
that it can offer relief. For example, in times ago people would whisper a
certain incantation over a snake or scorpion bite, in the belief that it would
alleviate the pain.
The 35th prohibition is that we are forbidden from practicing
the ritual of chover ["incantations"], which is the recitation of
utterances1 that the person believes are helpful for certain things and
damaging for others.
The source of this commandment is G‑d's statement (exalted be He),2 "Among you there shall not
be found anyone...who utters incantations ['chover chaver']."
In the words of the Sifri, "The prohibition of uttering
incantations applies whether they are directed to a snake or to a
scorpion." This means that he utters these incantations over them because
he imagines that as a result they will not bite, or that he speaks over the
location of the bite in order to stop the pain.
One who transgresses this prohibition is punished by lashes.3
The details of this mitzvah have been explained in the seventh
chapter of tractate Shabbos.4
Rabbi Berel Bell is a well-known educator, author and lecturer.
He and his family reside in Montreal, Canada.
From "Sefer Hamitzvot in English," published by Sichos
in English.
FOOTNOTES
1. In Hilchos Avodah
Zarah 11:10, the Rambam elaborates: "He makes utterances that are not in
any language and that have no meaning — and in his foolishness he believes that
these utterances have some effect."
2. Deut. 18:10-11.
3. In Hilchos Avodah
Zarah ibid., the Rambam adds that lashes are given only where an action was
performed in addition to the speaking, such as one who gestures with his hand
or head, or who holds a key or a stone while speaking.
4. In our versions,
Chapter Six, page 67a.
Negative Commandment 38 (Digest)
Communication with the Dead
"There shall not be found among you... a
necromancer"—Deuteronomy 18:11.
It is forbidden to do any act that supposedly elicits
information from the dead. The Talmud speaks of people who would abstain from
food and go to sleep in a cemetery—in the hope that the dead would appear and
communicate with them.
The 38th prohibition is that we are forbidden from inquiring
information from the dead — as is imagined by those who are truly dead,1 even
thought they eat and feel — that when one performs certain actions and dresses
a certain way, the deceased will come to him in his sleep and answer the
questions he was asked.
The source of this commandment is G‑d's statement (exalted be He),2 "Among you there shall not
be found anyone...who attempts to communicate with the dead."
Our Sages said in tractate Sanhedrin,3 "The verse,4 'who
attempts to communicate with the dead,' refers to someone who starves himself
and sleeps in the cemetery in order that an impure spirit shall rest upon
him."
One who transgresses this prohibition is punished by lashes.
Rabbi Berel Bell is a well-known educator, author and lecturer.
He and his family reside in Montreal, Canada.
From "Sefer Hamitzvot in English," published by Sichos
in English.
FOOTNOTES
1. See Berachos 18b,
that, "The wicked, even during their lifetime, are called 'dead.'"
2. Deut. 18:10-11.
3. 65b.
4. Deut. 18:11.
Negative Commandment 36 (Digest)
Consulting Ov
"There shall not be found among you... one who inquires of
Ov"—Deuteronomy 18:10-11.
The Torah forbids us from consulting with an Ov practitioner, to
ask him for advice or information based on his Ov experience.
The Ov practice consisted of burning a certain incense and doing
certain acts known to the Ov followers. At that point, it would seem to the
person engaging in these acts that he hears a voice emanating from beneath his
armpit, which would answer questions that he posed.
The 36th prohibition is that we are forbidden from requesting
information or an answer to a question from one who performs the practice of
ov.1
The source of this commandment is G‑d's statement (exalted be He),2 "Among you there shall not
be found anyone...who consults ov."
One who transgresses this prohibition, i.e. who consults the
practitioner of ov, is not punished by death.3 It is nevertheless forbidden.4
Rabbi Berel Bell is a well-known educator, author and lecturer.
He and his family reside in Montreal, Canada.
From "Sefer Hamitzvot in English," published by Sichos
in English.
FOOTNOTES
1. See N8, where the
idolatrous practice of "ov" is described as burning a specific type
of incense and performing certain actions. The person then imagines that he
hears a voice speaking from under his armpit answering his questions. N8 is the
prohibition of performing these acts, and N36 is the prohibition on one who
goes to the practitioner.
2. Deut. 18:10-11.
3. In contrast to N8,
which is a capital offense.
4. In Hilchos Avodah
Zarah 11:14, the Rambam rules that if one acts based on the advice he receives,
he is punished by lashes. If he merely consults the ov, but does not behave
differently based on the advice, he receives lashes by Rabbinic decree, since
no action was performed.
Negative Commandment 37 (Digest)
Consulting Yi'doni
"There shall not be found among you... one who inquires of
Yid'oni"—Deuteronomy 18:10-11.
The Torah forbids us from consulting with a Yid'oni
practitioner, to ask him for advice or information based on his Yid'oni
experience.
The Yid'oni practice consisted of inserting into one's mouth a
bone from the yidoa fowl. After then burning incense, saying certain formulas
and doing certain rites, the person would enter a trance-like state, and he
would begin issuing predictions about the future.
The 37th prohibition is that we are forbidden from requesting
information or an answer to a question from one who performs the practice of
yidoni.1
The source of this commandment is G‑d's statement,2 "Among you there shall not be found
anyone...who consults ov or yidoni."
In the words of the Sifra, "[In the verse],3 'Do not turn
to the idols called ov or yidoni,' ov refers to a pitom4 who speaks5 from his
armpit, and yidoni is one who speaks6 from his mouth. They are punished by
stoning, and the one who consults them transgresses a prohibition.7
Rabbi Berel Bell is a well-known educator, author and lecturer.
He and his family reside in Montreal, Canada.
From "Sefer Hamitzvot in English," published by Sichos
in English.
FOOTNOTES
1. See N9, where the
Rambam quotes the description of the Sages, "Yidoni is when the person
places a bone from a yadu'a in his mouth, and it speaks by itself."
2. Deut. 18:10-11.
3. Lev.19:31.
4. The Pitom is the one
who performs this ritual (Rashi, Sanhedrin 65a). See N8.
5. I.e. imagines that he
hears speaking. See note to N36 above.
6. I.e. imagines that he
hears speaking. See note to N36 above.
7. But is not punished by
stoning. Regarding lashes, see note to N36 above.
Negative Commandment 34 (Digest)
Witchcraft
"There shall not be found among you...one who practices
witchcraft"—Deuteronomy 18:10.
We are forbidden from engaging in any form of magic or
witchcraft.
The 34th prohibition is that we are forbidden from performing
any act of witchcraft.
The source of this commandment is G‑d's statement (exalted be He),1 "Among you there shall not
be found anyone...who practices witchcraft."
One who transgresses this prohibition intentionally is punished
by stoning, as said in G‑d's statement
(exalted be He),2 "Do not allow a sorceress to live." If he did so
unintentionally he must bring a sin-offering,
The details of this mitzvah have been explained in the seventh
chapter of Sanhedrin.3
Rabbi Berel Bell is a well-known educator, author and lecturer.
He and his family reside in Montreal, Canada.
From "Sefer Hamitzvot in English," published by Sichos
in English.
FOOTNOTES
1. Deut. 18:10.
2. Exodus 22:17.
3. 67a.
Negative Commandment 43 (Digest)
Sideburns
"You shall not round the corners of your
heads"—Leviticus 19:27.
It is forbidden for a man to cut off his sideburns, leaving his
hairline rounded at the sides, for such was the practice of ancient
idol-worshippers. (This prohibition also applies if one cuts all his hair. Even
if there is no hairline, the sideburns must never be cut off.)
The 43rd prohibition is that we are forbidden from shaving1 the
temples of our heads.
The source of this commandment is G‑d's statement (exalted be He),2 "Do not round off the
corners of your head."
This prohibition also3 has the goal of preventing us from
emulating idol worshippers, since it was the practice of idol worshippers to
shave only the sides [of their heads]. For this reason the Sages had to explain
in Tractate Yevamos4 that, "Shaving the entire head is also included in
the prohibition of 'rounding,'" so that you should not say that the actual
prohibition is shaving the temples and leaving the rest of the hair, as the
idolatrous priests do; but if you shave the entire head, you are not emulating
them. The Sages therefore informed us that it is prohibited to shave the
temples in any manner — not by themselves and not with the rest of the head.
One is punished by lashes separately for each side; therefore
one who shaves his entire head receives two sets of lashes. We do not count
them as two separate commandments although there are two sets of lashes because
there are no two phrases [in Scripture] for the one prohibition. If Scripture
would say, "Do not round off the right corner of your head nor the left
corner of your head," and we would find [that our Sages] stipulated two
sets of lashes, then we could count them as two commandments. But since there
is only one expression and one type of action, it counts as one commandment.
And even though this prohibition is explained as including different parts of
the body, and that one receives lashes for each part separately, this does not
require it to be counted as more than one commandment.
The details of this mitzvah have been explained at the end of
tractate Makkos.5 Women are exempt from this prohibition.6
Rabbi Berel Bell is a well-known educator, author and lecturer.
He and his family reside in Montreal, Canada.
From "Sefer Hamitzvot in English," published by Sichos
in English.
FOOTNOTES
1. See Kapach 5731,
footnote 13.
2. Lev.19:27.
3. As with the previous
prohibitions.
4. 5a.
5. 20a.
6. In Hilchos Avodah
Zarah 12:2, the Rambam quotes tractate Kiddushin 35b, and explains that this
prohibition is in the same verse as the prohibition against shaving the beard.
Just as the prohibition of shaving does not apply to women, so too this
prohibition does not apply to women. See Kesef Mishneh, ibid.
Negative Commandment 44 (Digest)
Shaving
"You shall not destroy the corners of your
beard"—Leviticus 19:27.
It is forbidden for a man to shave with a razor (or razor-like
implement) the "corners" of his beard. The Sages identified five
corners: the upper right cheek, the lower right cheek, the upper left cheek,
the lower left cheek, and the chin. Shaving the beards with razors was the way
of ancient pagan priests.
The 44th prohibition is that we are forbidden from shaving the
beard, which has five sections: the upper right jaw, the upper left jaw, the
lower right jaw, the lower left jaw, and the chin.
This prohibition is contained in the following expression,1
"Do not destroy the corner of your beard," because all [the parts]
are included in the term, "beard." Scripture does not write, "Do
not destroy your beard," but, "Do not destroy the corner of your
beard," meaning that one may not destroy even one corner from the entire
beard.
The Oral Tradition explains that there are five corners, as we
have categorized, and that one is punished by five sets of lashes if he shaves
them all, even if he shaved them all at once. In the words of the Mishneh,2
"For [shaving] the beard [one receives] five [sets of lashes]: two for one
side, two for the other side, and one for the bottom. Rabbi Eliezer says, 'If
they were all shaved at once, one receives only one [set of lashes].'" The
Talmud3 says, "We see that Rabbi Eliezer holds that it is all one prohibition."
This is a clear proof that the first opinion holds that they constitute five
separate prohibitions, and that is the law.
This [shaving of the beard] was also4 the practice of the
idolatrous priests, as is well known today that among the adornments of the
European ascetics5 is that they shave their beards.
It does not count as five separate commandments, since the
prohibition is expressed in the singular ["beard"] and there is only
one type of action, as we explained in the previous commandment.
The details of this mitzvah have been explained in the end of
Makkos. This prohibition is also not binding upon women.
Rabbi Berel Bell is a well-known educator, author and lecturer.
He and his family reside in Montreal, Canada.
From "Sefer Hamitzvot in English," published by Sichos
in English.
FOOTNOTES
1. Lev.19:27.
2. Makkos 3:5.
3. Ibid. 21a.
4. As was the case with
the previous prohibitions.
5. The Rambam L'am
edition translates, "European priests. Ibn Tibbon translates,
"idolatrous priests." This seems to be the source of the vernacular
reference, "galach," for a priest.
Negative Commandment 40 (Digest)
Men Cross-Dressing
"A man shall not put on a woman's garment"—Deuteronomy
22:5.
It is forbidden for a man to don clothing or ornaments that are
considered women's garment or gear in that locale. There are two reasons why a
man would wear women's clothing, both anathema to G‑d: a) To facilitate lewd behavior, or b) in conformance with
once-prevalent idolatrous ritual.
The 40th prohibition is that men are also1 forbidden from
adorning themselves with women's ornaments.
The source of this commandment is G‑d's statement,2 "A man shall not wear a woman's
garment."
Any man who adorns3 himself or wears an article which is known
in that place to be specifically for women is punished by lashes.
You should know that this practice — of women adorning
themselves with male articles or men with female articles — is sometimes done
to arouse lust, as is well known among the nations; and sometimes done as a
kind of idolatrous worship, as explained in books dealing with this subject.4
It is often stipulated in making some kame'ot5 that if a man is making it, he
must wear women's clothing, and wear gold jewelry, pearls and the like; and if
a woman is making it, she must wear armor and weapons. This is very well known
among those who practice it.
Rabbi Berel Bell is a well-known educator, author and lecturer.
He and his family reside in Montreal, Canada.
From "Sefer Hamitzvot in English," published by Sichos
in English.
FOOTNOTES
1. In addition to N39,
which prohibits a woman from wearing men's garments. In the original Sefer
HaMitzvos, that commandment comes first, but in his legal code (which is the
order followed in this edition), he lists N40 before N39.
2. Deut. 22:5.
3. Kapach 5731, footnote
1 points out that this choice of words comes to include a man dying white hair
black (see Hilchos Avodah Zarah 12:10).
4. See Guide to the
Perplexed, Section III, Chapter 37, where the Rambam quotes the book,
"Tumtum," as saying that when a men stands to serve Venus, he must
wear a colored woman's garment, and when a woman stands to serve Mars, she must
wear armor and weapons.
5. This term refers to a
parchment bearing written letters or marks, or a collection of herbs and
spices.
Negative Commandment 39 (Digest)
Women Cross-Dressing
"A woman shall not wear that which pertains to a
man"—Deuteronomy 22:5.
It is forbidden for a woman to don clothing or ornaments that
are considered men's garment or gear in that locale.
The 39th prohibition is that we are forbidden from walking in
the ways of heretics in that women wear male garments and their adornments.1
The source of this commandment is G‑d's statement (exalted be He),2 "No male article shall be
on a woman."
Any woman who wears a male article — which is known in that
place to be specifically for men — is punished by lashes.
Rabbi Berel Bell is a well-known educator, author and lecturer.
He and his family reside in Montreal, Canada.
From "Sefer Hamitzvot in English," published by Sichos
in English.
FOOTNOTES
1. This includes wearing
armor or weapons (see N40 and Hilchos Avodah Zarah 12:10). It also includes
cutting her hair as a man does (ibid.) or going with her hair uncovered (ibid.
according to the Yemenite manuscripts quoted by Kapach 5731, footnote 99. These
manuscripts have "t'galeh," ["uncovered"] with the letter
"hei" instead of "t'gale'ach" ["cut"] with the
letter "chet").
2. Deut. 22:5.
Negative Commandment 41 (Digest)
Tattoos
"You shall not print any marks upon you"—Leviticus
19:28.
We are forbidden from tattooing our bodies. Tattooing was common
practice amongst the ancient idol-worshippers.
The 41st prohibition is that we are forbidden from tattooing our
bodies with blue, red or other markings, as is done by idol worshippers and
common among the Copts to this day.
The source of this prohibition is G‑d's statement (exalted be He),1 "Do not make any tattoo
marks."
One who transgresses this prohibition is punished by lashes.2
The details of this mitzvah have been explained in the end of
tractate Makkos.
Rabbi Berel Bell is a well-known educator, author and lecturer.
He and his family reside in Montreal, Canada.
From "Sefer Hamitzvot in English," published by Sichos
in English.
FOOTNOTES
1. Lev.19:28.
2. In Hilchos Avodah
Zarah 12:11, the Rambam adds that this applies to the one who engraves the
tattoo. The one who receives it is punished by lashes only if he actually helps
in the engraving (rather than sitting passively).
Negative Commandment 45 (Digest)
Scarring
"You shall not cut yourselves"—Deuteronomy 14:1.
It is forbidden to cut ourselves in the course of mourning a
deceased—as this was a common practice amongst idol-worshippers. It is also
forbidden to follow the ancient practice of self-mutilation as part of pagan
ritual.
The 45th prohibition is that we are forbidden from intentionally
bruising ourselves, as the idol worshippers do.
The source of this commandment is G‑d's statement (exalted be He),1 "Do not mutilate yourselves
(lo sis'godidu)." This prohibition is repeated in different words:2
"Do not make cuts in your skin for the dead."
It has been explained in the Talmudic tractate Yevamos3 that the
verse, "Do not mutilate yourselves," is needed for itself4, i.e. to
teach us that one may not mutilate oneself for someone who died.
Our Sages said in tractate Makkos5 that "s'rita"6 and
"g'didah"7 are the same.8 There it is also explained that [for
cutting oneself] for the dead, one incurs punishment whether done by hand or
with an instrument. [If one cut oneself] for an idol, one incurs punishment
only when done with an instrument, as is written in the Prophets,9 "They
cut themselves with swords and spears, according to their custom." When
done by hand, however, one is exempt.10
Our Sages11 said that this prohibition also includes not stating
conflicting messages12 or having public disagreement. They said, "The
phrase "lo sis'godidu" means not to make different groups
(agudos)." This is like a drash13; the verse itself they explain as
meaning that one may not mutilate oneself for someone who died.
So too their statement,14 "Anyone who carries on a dispute
transgresses a prohibition, as it is written,15 'Do not be like Korach and his
congregation,'" is also a type of drash. As our Sages explain, the verse
itself is a warning and a negative statement, not a prohibition.16 Our Sages
explained that G‑d notified
that anyone in future generations who disagrees with [the status of] the
Kohanim and claims it for himself will not meet the same fate as Korach and
will not be punished by being swallowed up.17 His punishment will instead be,18
"As G‑d said to him
through [literally, 'by the hand of'] Moses," i.e. tzora'as, as G‑d (exalted be He) told Moshe,19 "Place your hand on your
chest [… and his hand was covered with tzora'as like snow]," and as is
explained regarding Uzziah.20
To return to this prohibition, its details have been explained
in the end of Makkos,21 and one who transgresses it is punished by lashes.
Rabbi Berel Bell is a well-known educator, author and lecturer.
He and his family reside in Montreal, Canada.
From "Sefer Hamitzvot in English," published by Sichos
in English.
FOOTNOTES
1. Deut. 14:1.
2. Lev.19:28.
3. 13b.
4. The Talmud previously
tried to establish that the phrase, "lo tit'god'du," prohibits
different communities observing different practices. To this the Talmud
responds that the phrase is needed "for itself." See below in this
commandment.
5. 21a.
6. "Do not make
cuts," from Lev. 19:28.
7. "Do not
mutilate," from Deut. 14:1.
8. This proves that the
two verses refer to the same act and therefore count as just one prohibition.
9. Kings I, 18:28,
referring to the false prophets of the idol Baal when they were tested by
Elijah.
10. Although he is not
punished with lashes, he nevertheless transgresses the prohibition.
11. Yevamos 13b.
12. Kapach 5731, in
footnote 31 and P173, footnote 55, insists that the Arabic original is
mistranslated by others, and was changed without his knowledge in the Rambam
L'am edition.
13. "An
interpretation," seeming to indicate that the prohibition is Rabbinic in
nature. In Hilchos Avodah Zarah (12:14), however, the Rambam seems to rule that
it is included in the Biblical prohibition. See Kapach's edition of Mishneh
Torah (ibid. footnote 34), S'dei Chemed (Klal Lamed, 78), and the sources
quoted in Mishneh Torah, Frankel edition, Sefer HaMafte'ach, p. 479.
14. Sanhedrin 110a.
15. Num.17:5.
16. See Introductory
Principle Eight, which discusses this commandment in particular.
17. Num. 16:32.
18. Ibid. 17 :5.
19. Exodus 4:6.
20. Chronicles II, 26:19.
See Tanchuma, Tzav 15, and Introductory Principle Eight, where this
interpretation is explained. King Uzziah attempted to usurp the position of
Kohen, as Korach did, by offering incense in the Temple. His punishment,
however, was tzora'as, rather than being swallowed up in the ground as Korach
was. The Tanchuma learns that the statement, "Do not be like Korach and
his congregation, as G‑d said to him
by the hand of Moses," alludes to the fact that subsequent generations
will be punished in this manner. This is because the phrase, "by the hand
of Moses," alludes to "the hand of Moses" being covered with
tzora'as in Exodus 4:6.
21. 20a.
Negative Commandment 171 (Digest)
Tearing Out Hair
"Do not make any baldness between your eyes for the
dead"—Deuteronomy 14:1.
When a loved one dies, we mustn't allow our anguish to cause us
to rip out our hair leaving a bald spot.
The 171st prohibition is that we are forbidden from tearing our
hair from our head for someone who died, as the fools do.
The source of this prohibition is G‑d's statement,1 "Do not make a bald patch between your eyes
for the dead."
This prohibition is repeated regarding Kohanim,2 "They
shall not make bald patches on their head," in order to complete the
commandment. From the phrase, "between your eyes," we would think
that the prohibition applies only to the front of the head. The other verse
therefore explains, "They shall not make bald patches on their head,"
to make the prohibition applyto the entire head as it does to "between
your eyes." [On the other hand,] if it would only say, "They shall
not make bald patches on their head," we would think it applies whether it
is done for the dead or for another reason. The other verse therefore explains,
"for the dead."
Whoever makes a bald patch the size of a "gris"3 by
tearing the hair from his head for the dead is punished by lashes. He is
punished by one set of lashes for each bald patch, regardless of whether he is
a Kohen Gadol or a regular Jew.
This that Scripture repeats the prohibition regarding Kohanim,4
"They shall not shave the corners of their beards, not shall they make
cuts in their flesh," is also to complete the commandment, as explained in
the end of Makkos.5
Rabbi Berel Bell is a well-known educator, author and lecturer.
He and his family reside in Montreal, Canada.
From "Sefer Hamitzvot in English," published by Sichos
in English.
FOOTNOTES
1. Deut. 14:1.
2. Lev.21:5.
3. Literally, a bean. In
modern terms, this between 14-21 mm in diameter. See Shiurei Torah 3:20.
4. Lev. 21:5.
5. 21a.
-------
Rambam: Kelim Chapter 8 and Kelim Chapter 9
• 1 Chapter:
Chapter 8
Halacha 1
All metal keilim are not susceptible to ritual impurity
until the tasks involved in fashioning them are totally completed and they are
no further tasks to be performed with them at all. Unfinished metal keilim, by contrast, are not
susceptible to impurity at all.
Halacha 2
The following are unfinished metal
utensils: anything that will be smoothed with a file, have its surfaced
leveled, have its uneven points scraped away, be polished, be pounded with a
hammer, or is lacking a handle or a rim. Such a utensil is not susceptible to
impurity until it was finished and beautified to the extent that no work is
required for it at all.
What is implied? A sword does not
contract impurity until it has been smoothed, nor a knife until it has been
sharpened. Similar concepts apply
with regard to other comparable acts.
Accordingly, when one makes utensils from a block of iron ore, a bar of metal,
or the iron surface of a wheel, from plates, from the coverings of utensils,
from the base of utensils, from the rims of utensils, from the handles of
utensils, from metal scrap removed from utensils or pieces cut away from
utensils, they are pure. For all of these are considered as unfinished metal
utensils.
with regard to other comparable acts.
Accordingly, when one makes utensils from a block of iron ore, a bar of metal,
or the iron surface of a wheel, from plates, from the coverings of utensils,
from the base of utensils, from the rims of utensils, from the handles of
utensils, from metal scrap removed from utensils or pieces cut away from
utensils, they are pure. For all of these are considered as unfinished metal
utensils.
If, however, one fashions a utensil
from broken metal utensils or from utensils that have worn out over the course
of time, or from nails that were made from utensils, these are susceptible to
impurity, because they are not in an unfinished state. If, however, it is not
known whether nails were made from utensils or from blocks of iron ore, they
are pure. Even if they were formed into a k'li,
they are not susceptible to impurity.
Halacha 3
When a metal k'li is only lacking a cover, it is
susceptible to ritual impurity. For the cover is not considered as part of the k'li itself.
Halacha 4
When a needle was made without a hole,
but instead was smoothed and prepared for use in such a state at the outset, it
is susceptible to impurity, because it can be used to remove a splinter. If,
ultimately, however, one intends to make a hole in it, it is like other
unfinished metal utensils and is not susceptible to impurity.
Halacha 5
We have explained that, according to
Scriptural Law, unfinished metal keilim are pure and unfinished wooden keilim are impure and conversely, flat metal keilimare impure and flat
wooden keilim are pure. Thus keilim that are impure when made from wood
are pure when made from metal. And keilim that are impure when made from metal
are pure when made from wood.
Halacha 6
All articles of war, e.g., a sword, a
spear, a helmet, armor, soldiers' boots, and the like are susceptible to ritual
impurity. All ornaments for humans, e.g., a necklace, earrings, rings - whether
with a seal or without a seal - or the like, are susceptible to ritual
impurity. Even if a dinar was disqualified for use and it was
adapted to be hung from the neck of a girl, it is susceptible to impurity.
Similarly, a metal amulet is susceptible to impurity like other jewelry for
humans.
Halacha 7
All ornaments used for animals and keilim, by contrast - e.g., the
rings made for the neck of an animal and for the handles of keilim are pure and are not susceptible to
impurity independently with the exception of the bell of an animal or a k'li that creates a sound desired by
humans.
What is implied? When one makes bells
for a spice mill, a cradle, book-covers, and children's diapers, they are pure.
If one made clappers for them, they are susceptible to impurity. Since they
were made to create a sound for a person, they are considered as ornaments for
humans. Even if the clapper was removed afterwards, they are still susceptible
to impurity, because it is still fit to generate a sound by banging it on a
shard.
Halacha 8
The following rules apply when a bell
was made for a person. If it was made for a minor, it is not susceptible to
impurity unless it has its clapper, because it was meant to produce a sound. If
it was made for an adult, it is considered as an ornament and is susceptible to
impurity even though it does not have a clapper.
Halacha 9
All masks are susceptible to impurity.
All seals are pure with the exception of a metal seal that is used to imprint a
seal. All rings are pure except the rings worn on a finger. In contrast, the
ring used to gird one's loins or one that is tied between one's shoulders is
pure. A ring used as an animal collar is susceptible to impurity, because a
person uses it to pull the animal. Similarly, a staff made of metal used to
control an animal is susceptible to impurity.
Halacha 10
All keilim can become susceptible to impurity
through thought, but do not lose that susceptibility unless a deed is performed
to change their function. A deed negates the influence of a previous deed or
thought, but thought does not negate the influence of a previous thought or
deed.
What is implied? A ring used for an
animal or a k'li that one thought to use as a ring for
a person. That thought itself causes a change in the ring's status and makes it
subject to ritual impurity, as if originally it was made with the intent of
being used for a human. If, afterwards, one reconsidered and thought to leave
it as a ring for an animal as it was, it remains susceptible to impurity, even
though a person never used it as an ornament. For one thought does not negate
the effect of another thought unless one performs a deed in the actual physical
substance of the entity, for example, to polish it or to adjust it as is done
for an animal.
If there was a ring used for humans
and one thought to use it for an animal, it is still susceptible to impurity as
it was originally, for a k'li's
susceptibility to impurity cannot be nullified by thought. If one performed a
deed, changing it into an animal's ring, it is not susceptible to impurity, for
deed can negate the influence of a previous deed.
Halacha 11
The deeds of a deafmute, a mentally or
emotionally compromised individual, or a minor are significant. Their thoughts
are not significant, as explained above with regard to making foods susceptible
to impurity.
Halacha 12
When one thought of using a bell used
for a door for an animal, it is susceptible to impurity. When one made the bell
of an animal suitable for a door, even if he attached it to the ground and even
when he attached it with a nail, it remains susceptible to impurity until one
performs a deed affecting the substance of the bell itself.
Halacha 13
The following laws apply when a craftsman makes - and carries a
stock - of bells for both animals and doors. If the majority of his stock is
made for entities that cause them to be susceptible to impurity, the entire
stock is considered as susceptible to ritual impurity unless he sets aside a
portion specifically for entities that do not cause them to be susceptible to
impurity. If the majority is made for entities that do not cause them to be
susceptible to impurity, the entire stock is not considered as susceptible to
ritual impurity unless he sets aside a portion of the stock specifically for
entities that cause them to be susceptible to impurity.
when a craftsman makes - and carries a
stock - of bells for both animals and doors. If the majority of his stock is
made for entities that cause them to be susceptible to impurity, the entire
stock is considered as susceptible to ritual impurity unless he sets aside a
portion specifically for entities that do not cause them to be susceptible to
impurity. If the majority is made for entities that do not cause them to be
susceptible to impurity, the entire stock is not considered as susceptible to
ritual impurity unless he sets aside a portion of the stock specifically for
entities that cause them to be susceptible to impurity.
Halacha 14
Wherever bells are found, they are
susceptible to impurity, except in large cities, for there the majority are
made for doors.
Halacha 15
If a person tells a craftsman:
"Make me two bells, one for a door and one for an animal,"
"...two mats, one to lie on and one to use in constructing a tent,"
"...two sheets, one for designs and one for a curtain for a tent,"
they both are susceptible to impurity unless he explicitly states: "This
is for this purpose and this is for the other.
-------
Chapter 9
Halacha 1
All metal keilim that have independent names
are susceptible to impurity except a door, a bolt, a lock, a holder for a door
hinge a hinge, a beam, and a drainpipe. The latter are not susceptible to
impurity, because they serve the earth or wood. This applies even before they
are affixed to a building or to wood.
Any metal k'li that has an auxiliary name does
not contract impurity independently because it is only part of a k'li.
What is implied? The "scorpion" of a muzzle is impure and the iron
plates placed on the cheeks of the animal on both sides are pure, because they
do not have an independent name. When all these articles are connected to the
reins, everything is susceptible to impurity.
Halacha 2
When metal plates are placed on a person's cheeks for protection
at the time of battle, they are not susceptible to impurity, because they do
not have an independent name. If, however, they have a receptacle for water,
they are susceptible to impurity like all receptacles.
Halacha 3
When a ring is fashioned like a bowl from below and a lentil
from above, and the bowl becomes detached, it is susceptible to impurity in its
own right, for it has a receptacle. The lentil is susceptible to impurity,
because it has an independent name. The ring's wire, i.e., the portion that
enters the ear or the nose, is not susceptible to impurity in its own right.
If a ring is made like a cluster of grapes and it becomes
separated, it is pure. The rationale is that it does not have a receptacle,
none of the "berries" has an independent name, and while broken up,
it is not fit to be used as an ornament.
Halacha 4
A ring worn by young girls around a leg is referred to as a birit.
It is not susceptible to impurity, because it does not have the form of an
ornament. Instead, it is like a ring of a k'li or a ring one
ties between his shoulders. The set of two rings which young girls put around
their legs with a chain connecting one to the other is susceptible to ritual
impurity. The rationale is that it is an ornament for young girls. This set is
called kevalim.
Halacha 5
When there is a necklace with metal links on a string of wool or
linen and the string snaps, each of the links is susceptible to impurity,
because each is considered as a k'li independently. If the
strand was of metal and the links of jewels, pearls, or glass and the links
broke, but the chain remained, the chain is susceptible to impurity
independently. The remnants of a necklace continue to impart impurity and to be
susceptible to impurity as long as they are large enough to go around the neck
of a young girl.
Halacha 6
All of the metal coverings of receptacles are pure. They are not
susceptible to impurity, because they do not have an independent name with the
exception of the covering of a samovar and the covering of doctor's
prescription box. Since bandages are placed in it, it becomes a receptacle.
Halacha 7
When one scrapes down and polishes the metal cover of a
container, making it into a mirror, it is susceptible to impurity.
Halacha 8
All metal weights are susceptible to impurity. They are called unkiyot. The
wooden crossbeam of a scale is susceptible to impurity, because of the weights
hanging from it.
When does the above apply? To the crossbeams of the scales of
flax merchants and wool merchants. The crossbeams of the scales of private
persons are not susceptible to impurity unless the weights are permanently
affixed to it.
Halacha 9
When weights have been broken, even though one brought the
pieces together and weighed objects with them, they are not susceptible to
impurity. If one designated the broken pieces as half-litra weights,
one-third-litra weights, or one-quarter-litra weights,
they are susceptible to impurity.
Halacha 10
When a sela was disqualified, if it was
adjusted to use as a weight, it is susceptible to impurity.
Halacha 11
A porter's hook is pure. Hooks used by perfume salesmen are
susceptible to impurity. The hooks of bed-poles are pure. Those of a small
platform are susceptible to impurity.
The hooks of the bee-hived-shaped snare used by fishermen to
catch fish are pure. Those of a chest are susceptible to impurity. The hooks of
wooden lamps are pure. Those of a table are susceptible to impurity.
This is the general principle: Whenever a k'li is
susceptible to impurity in and of itself according to Scriptural Law, its metal
hook and its chain are susceptible to impurity. Whenever a k'li is
not susceptible to impurity, e.g., flat wooden keilim, oversized
wooden keilim, and the like, its metal hook and its chain are not
susceptible to impurity. When either of them is considered independently, it is
pure, because neither a hook or a chain is considered as a k'li in
its own right; they are only as parts of a k'li. Even hooks on the
wall upon which keilim, clothes, and the like are hung are pure.
Halacha 12
When a chain has a lock, it is susceptible to impurity. If it is
meant to secure an entity, it is pure.
Halacha 13
Chains used by wholesalers are susceptible to impurity, because
they are used to lock the stores. Those owned by private persons are pure,
because they are meant only as ornaments.
Halacha 14
The chains of the measurers of land and the pegs that they
insert into the ground at the time they conduct their measurement are
susceptible to impurity. Those used by gatherers of wood are pure, because they
serve wood.
Halacha 15
The four handbreadths of a chain for a large bucket that are
closest to the bucket contract impurity with the bucket for it is necessary for
its use. The remainder is pure, because it does not have an independent name.
Ten handbreadths of the chain of a small bucket are susceptible to impurity.
Halacha 16
All of the following: a metal ball, an anvil, an iron shaft of a
builder, a carpenter's leveling tool, a smith's "donkey,"
plumb-weights used by builders, the iron beams used to press olives, a metal
dispenser for a mill, the blade with which scribes cut of the tips of the reeds
with which they write, a metal pen, a stylus and a ruler with which scribes
rule lines are all susceptible to impurity. For each one of these articles has
an independent name.
-------
Rambam:
• 3 Chapters: Avodah Kochavim Chapter Seven, Avodah Kochavim
Chapter Eight, Avodah Kochavim Chapter Nine and Avodah Kochavim Chapter Ten,
Avodah Kochavim Chapter Eleven, Avodah Kochavim Chapter Twelve
Chapter Seven
Halacha 1
It is a positive commandment to
destroy false deities, all their accessories, and everything that is made for
their purposes, as [Deuteronomy 12:2] states: "You shall
surely destroy all the places [where the gentiles... served their gods]"
and, as [implied by Deuteronomy 7:5]: "Rather, what you
should do to them is tear down their altars."
In Eretz
Yisrael, the mitzvah requires us to hunt after idol worship until it is
eradicated from our entire land. In the diaspora, however, we are not required
to hunt after it. Rather, whenever we conquer a place, we must destroy all the
false deities contained within.
[The source for this distinction is Deuteronomy 12:3,
which] states: "And you shall destroy their name from H3this place,"
[implying that] you are obligated to hunt false deities in Eretz Yisrael, but you are not
obligated to do so in the diaspora.
Halacha 2
It is forbidden to benefit from false
deities, their accessories, offerings for them, and anything made for them, as
[implied by Deuteronomy 7:26]: "Do not bring an
abomination to your home."
Anyone who derives benefit from any of
the above receives two measures of lashes: one because of the prohibition,
"Do not bring an abomination...," and one because of the prohibition,
"Let nothing which is condemned cling to your hand."
Halacha 3
It is forbidden to benefit from an
animal which was sacrificed to false deities in its entirety - even its
excrement, its bones, its horns, its hooves, and its hide. It is forbidden to
benefit from it at all.
To cite an example, the hide of an
animal which is marked by a sign that indicates that it was offered as a
sacrifice to false deities - e.g., it has a round hole in the place of the
heart through which the heart is extracted, which was a common practice [of
idolaters] - It is forbidden to benefit from all of these hides and others of
the like.
Halacha 4
What is the difference between an idol
belonging to a gentile and one belonging to a Jew? It is forbidden to benefit
from an idol belonging to a gentile immediately [after it is fashioned], as
[implied by Deuteronomy 7:25]: "You shall burn the
sculptures of their gods with fire" - i.e., they are considered gods as
soon as they have been sculpted.
[In contrast,] it is not forbidden to
benefit from a Jew's [idol] until he worships it, as [implied by Deuteronomy 27:15]: "[Cursed is the
person who makes an idol...] and places it in a hidden place" - i.e., it
is not forbidden until he does private acts - i.e., worship - on its behalf.
The accessories of idol worship,
whether belonging to a Jew or to a gentile, are not forbidden until they were
actually used for the purpose of idol worship.
Halacha 5
[When] a person makes an idol for
another person - although he receives lashes - his wage is permitted. [This
applies] even when he made [the idol] for a gentile, and it is therefore
forbidden immediately.
[What is the rationale for the latter
decision? The idol] is not forbidden until it is completed and the
hammer-stroke which completes it is not worth a penny.
[The following rules apply when] a person buys scrap metal from a
gentile and finds idols within it: If he has already paid the money, but has
not taken possession of it, he should return it to the gentile. The same
[rules] apply if he took possession of it, but did not pay the money. Though
taking possession represents a formal transfer of ownership in dealings with a
gentile, the transaction was made in error. If he paid the money and took
possession [of the scrap], he must take [the idols] to the Dead Sea.
when] a person buys scrap metal from a
gentile and finds idols within it: If he has already paid the money, but has
not taken possession of it, he should return it to the gentile. The same
[rules] apply if he took possession of it, but did not pay the money. Though
taking possession represents a formal transfer of ownership in dealings with a
gentile, the transaction was made in error. If he paid the money and took
possession [of the scrap], he must take [the idols] to the Dead Sea.
Similarly, when a gentile and a
convert [divide] the estate of their father - a gentile - the convert may tell
the gentile, "Take the idols and I will take the money," "Take
the forbidden wine and I will take the produce." Once [idols] come into
the possession of the convert, however, they are forbidden.
Halacha 6
We are allowed to benefit from images
which gentiles made for aesthetic purposes. It is forbidden, however, to
benefit from images that are made for the purpose of idol worship.
What is implied? It is forbidden to
benefit from any images found in villages, for one may assume that they were
made for the sake of idol worship. When images are found in a city, they are
forbidden only when they are found at the entrance to the city and hold a
staff, bird, globe, sword, crown, or ring in their hands. Otherwise, we may
assume that they were made for aesthetic purposes, and benefit from them is
permitted.
Halacha 7
Statues of false deities which are
found discarded in the marketplace or in a scrap metal heap are permitted.
Needless to say, this applies to pieces of statues.
In contrast, should one find a hand, a
foot, or another limb from the form of one of the constellations or celestial
signs, it is forbidden to benefit from it. Since one knows that this limb is
one of the images that is worshiped, the prohibition against [benefiting from
it] remains until one knows that the gentiles who worshiped it, nullified it.
Halacha 8
[The following laws apply when] a person finds articles which
have the form of the sun, the moon, or a d'rakon upon them: If they are golden or
silver objects, or silk garments, or if these forms were engraved on a
nose-ring or finger-ring, they are forbidden. If these forms are found on other
articles, they are permitted, since we may assume that they were made for
aesthetic purposes. Similarly, we may assume that any other form which is found
on an article was intended for aesthetic purposes. Therefore, [the articles]
are permitted.
when] a person finds articles which
have the form of the sun, the moon, or a d'rakon upon them: If they are golden or
silver objects, or silk garments, or if these forms were engraved on a
nose-ring or finger-ring, they are forbidden. If these forms are found on other
articles, they are permitted, since we may assume that they were made for
aesthetic purposes. Similarly, we may assume that any other form which is found
on an article was intended for aesthetic purposes. Therefore, [the articles]
are permitted.
Halacha 9
A false deity, its accessories, and
the objects offered to it are always forbidden, regardless of the proportion
[of a mixture they make up].
What is implied? If an idol becomes
mixed together with statues made for aesthetic purposes - even if the
proportion is merely one in several thousand - the entire group must be taken
to the Dead Sea. Similarly, if a goblet [used for] idol worship becomes mixed
together with many other goblets, or a piece of meat [coming from a sacrifice
to a false deity] becomes mixed with other meat, the entire group must be taken
to the Dead Sea. Similarly, if a hide with a hole through which the heart was
removed becomes mixed with other hides, it is forbidden to benefit from the
entire mixture.
[When] a person transgresses and sells
a false deity, one of its accessories, or an object that was offered to it, it
is forbidden to benefit from the money received, and that prohibition [remains
if these funds become mixed with others], regardless of the proportion [of the
mixture] they make up. [Deuteronomy 7:26]
states: "Lest you become condemned like it." [From this we infer,]
that anything that comes from a false deity, from any of its accessories, or
from [anything] offered to it is [governed by the same prohibitions] as it is.
Halacha 10
When a false deity or an asherah is burned, it is forbidden to benefit
from its ashes. A coal taken from an idol is forbidden; a flame [from an idol]
is permitted, for it is not an entity with substance.
When there is a doubt whether an
object is connected to idol worship or not, it is forbidden. If, however, that
doubt is questionable, it is permitted.
What is implied? Should a goblet used
for idol worship fall into a storage room of goblets, they are all forbidden,
because a false deity and all its accessories are always forbidden, regardless
of the proportion [of a mixture they make up]. If one of the cups from this
mixture falls together with two other cups, the the [entire second mixture] is
permitted.
Should a ring [used to adorn] an idol
become mixed together with one hundred other rings, and then two of them fall
into the Mediterranean Sea, it is permissible to use all of them. We presume
that the [forbidden] ring was among the two [which fell].
Should [a forbidden ring] become mixed
together with a hundred others and then [the group] becomes divided, forty
being separated in one group and sixty in another, and then the entire [group
of] forty fall into another group of rings, it is permissible to use all of
them. We presume that the forbidden ring remained among the majority. If the
[group of] sixty fall into another group of rings, they are all forbidden.
Halacha 11
Sitting under the shade of the trunk
of an asherah - whether it is worshiped itself or
whether an idol was placed under it - is forbidden. It is, however, permissible
to sit under the shade of its branches and its leaves.
If a person has another route, it is
forbidden for him to pass under it. If he has no other route, he may pass under
it, provided he runs.
Halacha 12
Chicks which do not need their mother
and nest in [an asherah]
are permitted. In contrast, the chicks and eggs which need their mother are
forbidden for theasherah is
considered as if it is a base for them. The nest itself - [even though it is]
in the top of the tree - is permitted, for the birds bring the wood for it from
other places.
Halacha 13
It is forbidden to benefit from wood
which one takes from it. Should a person have heated the oven with such wood,
he must cool it off. Afterwards, he should kindle it with other, permitted,
wood and then bake within.
Should he bake bread in [an oven heated
in this manner] without cooling it, he is forbidden to benefit from the bread.
If [such a loaf] became mixed together with others, he must bring the value of
that loaf to the Dead Sea so that he will never benefit from it. The other
loaves, however, are permitted.
Halacha 14
If one took [a piece of wood from an asherah to use as] a shuttle, and wove a
garment with it, it is forbidden to benefit from [the garment]. Should the
garment become mixed together with other garments, he must bring the value of
that garment to the Dead Sea. All the other garments, however, are permitted.
It is permissible to plant vegetables
under [an asherah] -
whether in the summer - when they need the shade - or in the winter. [This
leniency is granted] because the vegetables' growth is produced by two factors:
the shade of theasherah, which is forbidden, and the earth, which is
permitted. Whenever an effect is produced by the combination of a forbidden
factor and a permitted factor, it is permitted. Therefore, if a field was fertilized
with fertilizer [that was forbidden because of a connection with] idol worship,
one may sow it. Similarly, [the meat of] a cow that was fed with beans [that
were forbidden because of a connection with] idol worship, may be eaten. The
same principle applies in other similar situations.
Halacha 15
It is not forbidden to benefit from
meat, wine, and fruits that were prepared as offerings for idols. Although they
were brought into the temple of a false deity, [they are not prohibited] until
they are actually brought as offerings.
Once they are brought as offerings,
[their status changes] and they remain forbidden forever, even if they were
later removed [from the temple].
Torah law forbids benefiting from
anything that is found in a temple of a false deity, even water or salt. If a
person eats even the slightest amount from such substances, he is [punished by]
lashing.
Halacha 16
[The following laws apply when] a
person finds garments, utensils, or money [placed] on the head of an idol. If
he finds them [placed] in a derisive manner, they are permitted. If he finds
them [placed] in a deferential manner, they are forbidden.
What is implied? If one finds a purse
hanging around its neck, folded garments placed on its head, or a utensil
overturned on its head, they are permitted, because [they were placed] in a
derisive manner. The same applies to other similar situations. [In contrast,]
if one finds an object of a type which is used as an offering for the [Temple]
altar on the head [of an idol], it is forbidden.
When does the above apply? When one
finds such articles outside its [usual] place of worship. When, however, one
finds such articles within the [idol's place of worship], regardless of whether
it was placed in a derisive manner or in a deferential manner, or whether it is
of the type of objects used as sacrifices for the [Temple] altar, any article
found within [such a structure] - even water or salt - becomes forbidden.
[Different laws apply regarding] Pe'or
and Marculis. It is forbidden to benefit from anything that is found together
with them, whether [it is found] in their [temple] or outside of it. Similarly,
with regard to the stones [found near a symbol of] Marculis: If a stone appears
to be together with it, it is forbidden to benefit from it.
Halacha 17
When [the shrine of] a false deity
possesses a bathhouse or a garden, benefit may be derived from it, provided one
does not offer appreciation [in return]. [If] one must offer appreciation, it
is forbidden.
[If the garden or bathhouse] is
mutually owned by [the shrine] and another entity, one may derive benefit from
it even if one provides its priests with appreciation. One may not, however,
pay a fee.
Halacha 18
It is permitted to bathe in a
bathhouse even though an idol is located within, because it is placed there for
aesthetic purposes and not to be served. [This leniency can be inferred from
the use by Deuteronomy 12:2 of the term:] "their gods" -
i.e., the prohibition applies when they treat them as gods, and not when they
humiliate them, such as in an instance where [the idol] stands over the sewage
pipe and they urinate before it.
Should [the idol's] worship involve
such activities, it is forbidden to enter [the bathhouse].
Halacha 19
It is permitted to benefit from [an
animal] slaughtered using a knife [forbidden because of its connection to] idol
worship, because one is detracting from [the animal's] value. If the animal is
in danger [of dying], it is forbidden, because one is enhancing its value, and
this improvement involves benefit from an accessory of idol worship.
Similarly, it is forbidden to cut meat
with [such a knife], because one is enhancing its value. Should one cut with a
destructive intent, causing a loss, the meat is permitted.
Commentary Halacha 1
It is a positive commandment - Sefer HaMitzvot (Positive Commandment 185) and Sefer HaChinuch (Mitzvah 436) consider this to
be one of the 613 mitzvot of the Torah.
to destroy false deities - The process of destruction is
described in Chapter 8, Halachah 6.
all their accessories, and everything
that is made for their purposes - Sefer
HaMitzvot (ibid.) states that
the mitzvah is to destroy "every entity which is worshiped and their
temples," from which one might conclude that the destruction of the
accessories of idol worship is a Rabbinic injunction. Avodat HaMelech, however, cites Avodah Zarah 51b, which also derives the injunction
to destroy the accessories of idol worship from a Biblical proof-text.
as [Deuteronomy 12:2] states: "You shall
surely destroy all the places [where the gentiles... served their gods]" - Note the Bnei Binyamin, which states
that when fulfilling this commandment, we should recite a blessing:
"Blessed... who commanded us to eradicate idol worship from our
land." Other commentaries explain that reciting a blessing is inappropriate,
based on the principle (Rashba, Vol. I, Responsum 18) that a blessing is not
recited for a mitzvah that comes to correct a sin. The Bnei Binyamin, however,
maintains that this principle does not apply here, since the transgression was
committed by gentiles.
and, as [implied by Deuteronomy 7:5]: "Rather, what you
should do to them is tear down their altars." - Kinat Eliyahu questions the purpose of the
second proof-text.
In Eretz Yisrael, the mitzvah requires
us to hunt after idol worship until it is eradicated from our entire land. - Kinat Eliyahu explains that this obligation
has its source in the uniqueness of Eretz
Yisrael. Because it is God's holy land, we must rid it of idol worship. In
contrast,
In the diaspora, however - The obligation to destroy false
deities is of a different nature.
we are not required to hunt after it.
- Since these lands are not holy,
we are not obligated to eradicate idol worship from them.
Rather, whenever we conquer a place,
we must destroy all the false deities contained within - because a false deity may not exist
under a Jew's authority.
In his notes on the Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 146:20), the Vilna Gaon explains that
the Rambam's statements appear to mean that whenever the Jews conquer a land,
they are obligated to destroy all false deities and their places of worship.
These statements may, however, also be interpreted as meaning that whenever an
individual finds or takes possession of a false deity, it must be destroyed.
[The source for this distinction is Deuteronomy 12:3, which] states: "And
you shall destroy their name from this place," - i.e., Eretz Yisrael. The opening
verse of the Biblical passage cited states: "These are the statutes... you
must heed... in the land that God... is giving you."
[implying that] you are obligated to
hunt false deities in Eretz Yisrael, but you are not obligated to do so in the
diaspora. - The Bnei Binyaminwrites that even
according to the opinions which permit gentiles to believe in Christianity,
Jews are obligated to destroy their objects of worship and churches. This
raises a question regarding the churches that exist in Eretz Yisrael today. Should their existence be
tolerated, or are we, as a people and as individuals, obligated to destroy
them?
Commentary Halacha 2
It is forbidden to benefit from false
deities - i.e., statues, trees,
or other entities which are worshiped.
their accessories, offerings for them
- The Rambam considers the
prohibition against benefiting from wine offered as a libation for false
deities as a mitzvah in its own right (Negative Commandment 194). Therefore, he
does not mention the laws governing this prohibition here, but in Hilchot Ma'achalot Asurot,
where he devotes three chapters to the subject.
[The fact that the Rambam associates
the prohibition against benefitting from objects offered to idols with a
Biblical proof-text appears to indicate that he considers this prohibition as
having its roots in the Torah itself. Note Tosafot,
Bava Kama 72a which states
that the prohibition is Rabbinic in origin.]
and anything made for them, as
[implied by Deuteronomy 7:26]: "Do not bring an
abomination to your home." - Note
the Pri Chadash,who
questions whether a person who brings a false deity home without benefiting
from it also receives lashes.
Anyone who derives benefit - Yad HaMelech contrasts the prohibition
against benefiting from false gods with other Torah prohibitions where benefit
is forbidden: e.g., non-kosher species of animals. In the latter case, though
all types of benefit are forbidden, the Torah requires that punishment be
administered only for eating the forbidden substances, and not for deriving
other types of benefit (Hilchot Ma'achalot Asurot8:16), while with
regard to false deities, punishment is administered for deriving any type of
benefit.
The source for this difference is that
the Torah uses the expression "Do not eat" or the like when
forbidding the other prohibitions. Accordingly, punishment is administered only
for eating. In contrast, the verses prohibiting false deities are more
inclusive in nature.
from any of the above receives two
measures of lashes: one because of the prohibition, "Do not bring an
abomination..." -Sefer HaMitzvot(Negative Commandment 25) and Sefer HaChinuch (Mitzvah 429) consider this to
be one of the 613 mitzvot of the Torah.
and one because of the prohibition,
"Let nothing which is condemned cling to your hand." - As mentioned in Chapter 4, Halachah 7,
the latter prohibition primarily concerns the property of a condemned city (עיר
הנדחת). Nevertheless, since false deities are also described as
"condemned," benefiting from them is also included in the scope of
the above prohibition (Megillat Esther, Sefer HaMitzvot, Negative
Commandment 194).
Though the Ramban (Hasagot L'Sefer
HaMitzvot) disputes the Rambam's decision, support for the Rambam's opinion
can be found in several Talmudic sources - e.g., Avodah Zarah 34b, 51b.
The prohibition stated in this
halachah and the positive commandment mentioned in the previous one serve as
the foundation for all the laws discussed in this and the following chapter.
Commentary Halacha 3
It is forbidden - because of the prohibition mentioned
in the previous halachah. (See also Deuteronomy 32:38.)
to benefit from an animal which was
sacrificed to false deities in its entirety - The
standard published text of the Mishneh
Torah states שהקריבוה כולה לעכוóם
- i.e., the phrase "in its entirety" modifies the verb
"sacrifices," leading to the conclusion that were an animal to be
consecrated only partially to a false deity different rules would apply. Note
the Kessef Mishneh, Avodat
HaMelech, and Or Sameach,
which discuss this concept.
Authoritative manuscripts of the Mishneh Torah, however, read אסורה
כולה - i.e., "in its entirety" modifies "forbidden."
According to this version, the explanation is straightforward, when an animal
is sacrificed to a false deity the prohibition includes
even its excrement, its bones, its
horns, its hooves, and its hide - i.e.,
the prohibition involves not only the animal's meat, but even these less
important elements of its being.
It is forbidden to benefit from it at
all. To cite an example, the hide of an animal which is marked by a sign that
indicates that it was offered as a sacrifice to false deities - e.g., it has a
round hole - if the hole is
oblong, there is no prohibition (Avodah Zarah 2:3).
in the place of the heart through
which the heart is extracted - They
would slit open the animal's hide and kill it by cutting out the heart (Keter
HaMelech)
which was a common practice [of
idolaters] - when offering
sacrifices (Avodah Zarah, ibid.):
It is forbidden to benefit from all of
these hides and others of the like -because we assume that the animal was used
as a sacrifice to idols and is therefore forbidden.
Commentary Halacha 4
What is the difference - with
regard to the prohibition mentioned in the previous law
between an idol belonging to a gentile
and one belonging to a Jew? It is forbidden to benefit from an idol belonging
to a gentile immediately [after it is fashioned], as [implied by - the Torah's command to destroy idols
Deuteronomy 7:25]: "You shall burn
the sculptures of their gods with fire;" i.e. - the mention of the word
"sculptures" is an addition, teaching that
they are considered gods as soon as
they have been sculpted - whether
they have been worshiped or not. Therefore, they are forbidden from that time
onward. Note the comments of the Lechem
Mishneh, which mentions an apparent contradiction between these statements
and Chapter 8, Halachah 8. (See our commentary on that halachah.)
[In contrast,] it is not forbidden to
benefit from a Jew's [idol] until he worships it, as [implied by Deuteronomy 27:15]: "[Cursed is the
person who makes an idol...] and places it in a hidden place," - When does the curse fall? Not when the
idol is made, but when it is placed in a hidden place.
i.e., it is not forbidden until he
does private acts - i.e., worship - for
it is unlikely that a Jew would worship a false deity openly.
on its behalf.
The accessories of idol worship,
whether belonging to a Jew or to a gentile, are not forbidden until they were
actually used for the purpose of idol worship. - Avodah Zarah 51b derives this concept from
the exegesis of Deuteronomy 12:2, which states "You
shall surely destroy all the places where the gentiles... served their
gods." The gentiles' places of worship and the other accessories to idol
worship are not forbidden until the false deities are "served."
Commentary Halacha 5
[When] a person makes an idol for
another person - although he receives lashes - as stated above, Chapter 3,
Halachah 9
his wage is permitted. - We do not say that the wage is benefit
derived from false deities, and is therefore forbidden.
[This applies] even when he made [the
idol] for a gentile, and it is therefore forbidden immediately - as explained in the previous halachah.
[What is the rationale for the latter
decision? The idol] is not forbidden until it is completed and the
hammer-stroke which completes it - See Shabbat 73a, 75b and commentaries regarding
the final hammer-stroke which completes a project.
is not worth a penny. - Avodah Zarah 19b explains that this law is
dependent on the following principle of business law: Every moment an artisan
works on a project is considered as a separate entity. When he finishes the
project, it is considered as if the entire sum of money - with the exception of
the value of the final hammer-stroke - is owed him from beforehand. Since
benefit from the idol is not forbidden until it is completed, the money which
is owed him previously is permitted.
[The following rules apply when] a
person buys scrap metal from a gentile - There
is an apparent contradiction between the laws which follow and Halachah 7,
which states that idols found in a scrap metal heap are permitted. Two possible
resolutions are offered:
a) According to the version (see our commentary on that halachah) which reads "statues" and not "statues of idols," there is no contradiction.
b) The prohibitions mentioned in this halachah were instituted because of the appearance that might be created if the Jew were to keep the idols he purchased. Accordingly, stricter laws were instituted.
a) According to the version (see our commentary on that halachah) which reads "statues" and not "statues of idols," there is no contradiction.
b) The prohibitions mentioned in this halachah were instituted because of the appearance that might be created if the Jew were to keep the idols he purchased. Accordingly, stricter laws were instituted.
and finds idols within it: - Once the Jew becomes the full legal
owner of the idols, he is obligated to destroy them, and cannot nullify the
transaction and return them. The question in the following instances is whether
the transaction has been completed or not.
If he has already paid the money, but
has not taken possession - We
have taken some liberty in translating the word, ומשך. Literally, it means
"and drew it after him." Performing this activity, however, is one of
the means of formalizing a business transaction (see Hilchot Mechirah 3:1) and, therefore, the word was translated
as above.
of it, he should return it to the
gentile. - Though paying money
represents the finalization of a transaction (kinyan) between a Jew and
gentile (see Hilchot Zechiyah
UMatanah 1:14), the
transaction was made in error, as explained below. Since, in transactions
carried out between two Jews, the transaction would not be completed until the
recipient takes possession of the article, a Jew can return the idols to the
gentile in this instance.
The same [rules] apply if he took
possession of it, but did not pay the money. Although taking possession
represents a formal transfer of ownership in dealings with a gentile - See Hilchot
Zechiyah UMatanah, ibid.
the transaction was made in error - Since, in transactions carried out
between two gentiles, the transaction would not be completed until the money
was paid, it can be nullified in this instance.
If he paid the money and took
possession [of the scrap] - even
though the transaction was carried out in error, since it appears to have been
completed, it is forbidden to benefit from the idols because of the impression
it may create. Therefore, they must be destroyed (Avodah Zarah 53a, 71b). (See also Siftei Cohen 1464.)
Our commentary follows the interpretation
of Rav Kapach. It must be noted that many of the classic commentaries on the Mishneh Torah have questioned why the Rambam
mentions the concept of a transaction made in error only in the case when the
Jew took possession and did not pay, but not when he paid and did not take
possession. They have offered several possible resolutions, including a
sweeping statement by Avodat
HaMelech that our Sages
nullified the effectiveness of monetary payment as an effective means of
finalizing the transfer of property (kinyan), not only with regard to
transactions between two Jews (see Hilchot
Mechirah 3:1,4-5), but also
with regard to transactions between a Jew and a gentile.
(Interestingly, though the Rambam's
phraseology has raised such problems, it is quoted verbatim by the Shulchan Aruch, Yoreh De'ah 146:3.)
When stating that a forbidden object
must be destroyed, our Sages frequently used the expression:
he must take [the idols] to the Dead
Sea. -Tosafot, Avodah Zarah 43b,
explain that one need not literally take the idols to the Dead Sea. By using
that term, our Sages implied a place where the idols will never benefit man.
Similarly, the Beit
Yosef (Yoreh De'ah 146) explains that the Dead Sea
is mentioned because it is a desolate area, not frequented by ships. If an
article is cast into that sea, we can assume that it will not be recovered.
Tosafot also relates that, in practice, one
need not take the idols to the Dead Sea. All that is necessary is to destroy
the article in a manner in which neither it, nor its ashes or dust, will
benefit man. See also Chapter 8, Halachah 6.
[It must be noted that though the
Rambam occasionally uses the term 18חלמהáםי to
refer to the Mediterranean Sea (see the conclusion to his Commentary to the
Mishnah), in this context, it is clear that his intent is the Dead Sea.]
Similarly, when a gentile and a
convert [divide] the estate of their father - a gentile - The problem in this instance is that
it is forbidden to exchange an idol for other property. Hence, before taking
possession of the inheritance,
the convert may tell the gentile,
"Take the idols and I will take the money" or "Take the
forbidden wine and I will take the produce." - In which case, the idols have never
come into the convert's possession and, hence, he is not considered to have
benefited from their exchange.
Once [idols] come into the possession
of the convert, however - they
are considered to be idols belonging to a Jew, and
they are forbidden - and must be destroyed.
In his Commentary on the Mishnah (D'mai 6:10), the Rambam writes that were a
similar situation - an inheritance containing property from which one heir
would be allowed to benefit from and one would be forbidden - to occur among
Jews, the leniencies mentioned above would not be permitted.
The difference between the two cases
is that when a Jew inherits property from his father, the transfer of ownership
is immediate, and from the moment of his father's death, the forbidden property
belongs to the heir, who must take responsibility for it. In contrast, a
convert's inheritance of his gentile father's estate is a Rabbinic decree,
instituted in consideration of the convert. According to the Torah, once he
converts, he has no connection to his natural parents. The Sages extended the
leniency they granted in allowing him to acquire the inheritance to include the
right to barter these forbidden articles before they actually become his
property. (See also Siftei
Cohen, Yoreh De'ah 146:5.
Commentary Halacha 6
We are allowed to benefit - i.e., enjoy the artistic talent and/or
sell or use as scrap metal
from images - The Tur (Yoreh De'ah 141) states that these laws apply only
to human images. Other authorities (and indeed certain interpretations of the Tur) disagree, and consider the
statements as referring to all images. From the Rambam's Commentary on the
Mishnah (Avodah Zarah 3:1),
it appears that the latter opinion reflects his view.
which gentiles made for aesthetic
purposes. - Note Chapter 3,
Halachah 10, with regard to the prohibition against Jews making human images
even for these purposes. See our commentary on that halachah, with regard to
the place of art in Jewish life.
It is forbidden, however, to benefit
from images that are made for the purpose of idol worship - even if they are artistic
masterpieces. Thus, the entire realm of the gentile's sacramental art is
forbidden to us.
What is implied? - The Siftei
Cohen (Yoreh De'ah 141:4) explains that the statements
that follow (which are based on Avodah
Zarah 41a) reflect the
socio-cultural environment in which the Rambam lived. The criteria he mentions
are thus not hard and fast rules, and will vary if different conditions prevail
in other societies.
In his Commentary on the Mishnah (Avodah
Zarah, ibid., based on Avodah
Zarah 40-41), the Rambam
explains that although Rabbi Meir maintained that all gentile images were
forbidden because they would be used for different pagan rites, the Sages
disagreed and laid down the following general rules.
It is forbidden to benefit from any
images found in villages for - Simple
villagers are not expected to have artistic tastes. Therefore,
one may assume that they were made for
the sake of idol worship. -Even if we have no proof to that effect, we follow
the general rule that it is forbidden to benefit from an image which is merely
suspected of being worshiped as an idol.
When images are found - even when the circumstances mentioned
in the following halachah do not apply
in a city - Since the inhabitants of a metropolis
are expected to be cultured and sophisticated, the images found there are not
necessarily idols. Hence,
they are forbidden only when they are
found at the entrance to the city -a position which implies their authority
over the entire city.
and hold a staff, bird, globe, sword,
crown, or ring in their hands. - All
of these are also symbols of authority or sovereignty.
Otherwise, we may assume - The Shulchan
Aruch, Yoreh De'ah 141:1,
which frequently quotes the Rambam verbatim, changes the phraseology used in
this clause from "we may assume" to "surely." The Siftei Cohen (141:1) explains that this change
clarifies that even though it is forbidden to benefit from an image which is
merely suspected to have been worshiped as an idol (see Halachah 10), our
assumption
that they were made for aesthetic
purposes - is so strong that this
is not considered as a case of doubt
and benefit from them is permitted.
Commentary Halacha 7
Statues of false deities - Our text
follows the published texts of the Mishneh
Torah. The words "of false deities" and several of the other
points in this halachah appear to be printer's additions, which are not found
in the authoritative manuscripts and run contrary to the explanation of these
concepts in the Rambam's Commentary on the Mishnah (Avodah Zarah 3:2). Note also the apparent
contradiction mentioned in our commentary on Halachah 5.
Significantly, the Shulchan Aruch, Yoreh De'ah 141:2 does not mention
"idols," but "statues."
which are found discarded in the
marketplace or in a scrap metal heap are permitted. - Avodah Zarah 41a-b explains this law as
follows. The Mishnah uses the expression "statues" - i.e., a statue
which we do not know that it has been worshiped. Shmuel, one of the Talmudic
sages, adds, however, that the leniency also applies to idols which we know
were worshiped.
His decision is based on the principle
(Chapter 8, Halachah 8) that if the gentiles who worship an idol no longer
consider it a god, the prohibition against benefiting from it is nullified. In
this instance, the fact that these statues were found discarded is the clearest
proof that their worshipers forsook them.
Afterwards, the Talmud quotes a
difference of opinion between Rabbi Yochanan and Resh Lakish, concerning idols
which are broken accidentally. In the context of the explanation of that
difference of opinion, the Talmud mentions the explanation of the Mishnah in
question by Rabbi Yochanan (whom the halachah follows, see Chapter 8, Halachah
11). He explains that the pieces of the statues (not idols) are permitted because we
are not sure that they were ever worshiped. Even if they have been worshiped,
it is possible that they were nullified.
Thus, according to the Talmud, the
interpretation of these laws is as follows: If one finds an idol that was
obviously purposefully broken (Shmuel's law), it is permitted to benefit from
it. If, however, the idol was not destroyed with an obvious destructive intent,
it is forbidden to benefit from it, as Rabbi Yochanan states.
Needless to say, this applies to
pieces of statues. - The fact
that they were broken would appear to indicate that their worshipers nullified
them.
In contrast, should one find a hand, a
foot, or another limb from the form of one of the constellations or celestial
signs - The phrase, "from the form of one of the constellations or
celestial signs," is a printer's addition, which runs contrary to the
Rambam's Commentary on the Mishnah, Avodah
Zarah, ibid. This phrase implies that this clause refers to a limb broken
from an idol. The authoritative manuscripts state "should one find a
hand... which is the form of a deity."
In his Commentary on the Mishnah, the
Rambam states that this clause (found both in the mishnah and in this halachah)
does not refer to a limb that is broken from an idol, but rather to an instance
where the limb itself is worshiped. The Rambam explains that since the previous
clause states that broken limbs of statues are permitted, this clause must be
speaking about a different concept.
it is forbidden to benefit from it. - Though the fact that it was abandoned
in a scrap heap could be considered as an indication that it was nullified,
Since one knows that this limb is one
of the images that is worshiped -i.e., the prohibition against its use is
firmly established,
the prohibition against [benefiting
from it] remains until one knows - i.e.,
it is established with equal certainty
that the gentiles who worshiped it,
nullified it - at which point its
use is no longer prohibited, as explained in Chapter 8, Halachah 8.
Commentary Halacha 8
[The following laws apply when] a
person finds articles which have the form of the sun, the moon - As mentioned in the commentary on
Chapter 3, Halachah 11, the Rambam writes in his Commentary on the Mishnah, Avodah Zarah 3:3:
This does not mean a sphere which
represents the sun, or a hemisphere which represents the moon, but rather the
images which the astrologers [i.e., those following Greek mythology] attribute
to the stars... - e.g., Saturn is represented as a dark old man of venerable
age, Venus is represented as a beautiful maiden adorned with gold, and the sun
is represented as a king with a diadem sitting in a chariot.
The Ramah (Yoreh De'ah 141:3) quotes this explanation as
halachah.
or a d'rakon - In his Commentary on the Mishnah
(ibid.), the Rambam describes this image as a fishlike man with fins and many
scales, probably referring to the Greek god Neptune. Rashi, Avodah Zarah 42b, and others interpret the form as
that of an animal similar to a serpent. Perhaps this term is the source for the
word "dragon."
upon them: - The question is whether these forms
should be considered to be representations of deities (and hence, forbidden).
If they are golden or silver objects,
or silk garments - i.e., objects
of great value.
or if these forms were engraved on a
nose-ring or finger-ring - Rings,
in addition to their value, also are a symbol of subservience: a slave wears
his master's ring.
they are forbidden. - The Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 141:3) mentions that even
valuable objects are permitted if one is certain that they have never been used
as articles of worship.
If these forms are found on other
articles, they are permitted - The
Mishnah (Avodah Zarah, ibid.) states the general rule: "If these
articles are found on objects of value, they are forbidden. If they are found
on articles of little worth, they are permitted." The Shulchan Aruch (ibid.) mentions pots or kettles as
examples of objects of little worth.
since we may assume that they were
made for aesthetic purposes. - The
Jerusalem Talmud (Avodah Zarah 3:3)
states that if we are certain that these images were made for the purposes of
worship, the article is forbidden even if it is of little value. TheShulchan
Aruch (ibid.) quotes this
principle.
The Ramah states that since paganism
is not common at present, we assume that these forms were made for artistic
purposes. Hence, it is not forbidden to benefit from an article even if it
contains pagan images. One may not, however, keep such an article in one's
possession. He adds that even at present, certain individuals are stringent
with themselves and do not benefit from an article containing the three forms
mentioned above.
Similarly, we may assume that any
other form which is found on an article was intended for aesthetic purposes. - Avodah Zarah 42b asks rhetorically:
"Are these the only forms that are worshiped?" and explains that it
is possible that the other forms would also be worshiped, but they are
generally not made for that purpose. In contrast, the three forms mentioned
above are generally made for the purpose of worship.
Therefore, [the articles] are
permitted.
Commentary Halacha 9
A false deity, its accessories, and
the objects offered to it - Avodah
Zarah 29b derives the
prohibition against benefiting from wine used by pagans as a libation (yayin
nesech) from the prohibition against benefiting from animals sacrificed to
idols. Since the mishnah (Avodah Zarah 74a)
specifically mentions yayin
nesechas forbidden, regardless of the proportion of the mixture involved,
the same principle applies to all objects offered to an idol.
are always forbidden, regardless of
the proportion [of a mixture they make up]. - As mentioned in Hilchot Ma'achalot Asurot,
Chapter 16, the prohibition against benefiting from different substances can be
negated when the substance is accidentally mixed with other substances. For
example, the prohibition against eating certain forbidden foods (e.g.,
non-kosher meat, fats, mixtures of meat and milk) is lifted when these
substances become mixed with 60 times their amount of other substances. The
prohibitions against terumah (and any other substances which are
also called terumah) are
lifted when it becomes mixed with 100 times their amount of other substances
and similarly, the prohibitions against orlah andkilai hakerem are lifted when these substances are
mixed with 200 times their amount of other substances.
Because of the serious nature of the
prohibition against idol worship, these principles do not apply and anything
connected with it is forbidden, regardless of the proportion of the mixture the
forbidden substances make up. (See the Rambam's Commentary on the Mishnah, Avodah Zarah 5:8.)
What is implied? If an idol becomes
mixed together with statues made for aesthetic purposes - which are permitted
even if the proportion is merely one
in several thousand - the entire group must be taken to the Dead Sea - i.e., it is forbidden to benefit from
them and they must be destroyed.
Similarly, if a goblet [used for] idol
worship - i.e., an accessory of
idol worship
becomes mixed together with many other
- identical
goblets - Needless to say, if one can
distinguish between the forbidden goblet and the permitted ones, there is no
reason to forbid the use of the permitted ones.
or a piece of meat [coming from a
sacrifice to a false deity] becomes mixed with other meat - See the following halachah.
the entire group must be taken to the
Dead Sea. - TheLechem Mishneh(noting
the Rambam's statements, Hilchot
Ma'achalot Asurot 16:29)
questions why in this instance, the Rambam does not suggest that the entire
mixture be sold to a gentile, and then, the value of the forbidden article
destroyed. This question is discussed by many commentaries; their consensus is
that, although such a provision is made regarding closed barrels of yayin nesech, it applies in
that specific case alone, but not with regard to other instances.
Similarly, if a hide with a hole
through which the heart was removed -i.e., a round hole, as mentioned in
Halachah 3. This was one of the common practices of idol worship.
becomes mixed with other hides, it is
forbidden to benefit from the entire mixture - and it must be destroyed.
[When] a person - i.e., a Jew.
Different laws apply regarding a gentile. (SeeShulchan Aruch, Yoreh De'ah 132:7, 144:1.)
transgresses and sells a false deity,
one of its accessories, or an object that was offered to it - The sale is forbidden, because it is forbidden
to derive any benefit from a false deity. This prohibition is unique; whenever
one sells other forbidden substances (with the exception of the fruits of the
seventh year), the fact that their sale was forbidden does not affect the
status of the money received for them. In contrast, when selling anything
forbidden because of idol worship
it is forbidden to benefit from the
money received - Rather, the
money must be destroyed, like the idols themselves. If the proceeds from the
sale or exchange of an idol are used to acquire another object, that object is
also forbidden. See Chapter 8, Halachah 1.
and that prohibition [remains if these
funds become mixed with others] regardless of the proportion [of the mixture]
they make up. - i.e., the same
severe restrictions that would apply to an idol itself, apply to the money
received from its sale.
This principle is derived as follows:
[Deuteronomy 7:26] states: - "Do not bring an abomination (an
idol) into your house...
"Lest you become condemned like
it." [From this - The Hebrew
word והיה
we - Avodah
Zarah 54b
infer] that anything that comes - into your possession
from a false deity, from any of its
accessories, or from [anything] offered to it - See Shulchan
Aruch, Yoreh De'ah 132:5-7,
which elaborates on this concept with regard to the laws pertaining to yayin nesech.
is [governed by the same prohibitions]
as it is. - Note the commentary
ofMishneh LaMelech, which questions whether the same ruling would be
rendered if the purchaser did not know that the article which he acquired is
connected with a false deity. Mishneh
LaMelech maintains that the
transaction is nullified, and the money the seller receives must be returned to
the purchaser.
Commentary Halacha 10
When a false deity or an asherah - For a definition of the term asherah, see Chapter 6,
Halachah 9, and see the following halachah.
is burned, it is forbidden to benefit
from its ashes. - Ash was used
for certain purposes - e.g., the manufacture of soap.
Although the idol was destroyed, the
prohibition that applied to it applies to its ashes as well. (For this reason,
our Sages suggested taking idols to the Dead Sea. Since this is a desolate
area, there is little likelihood that anyone will ever benefit from the idols.)
Temurah 34a notes that this prohibition differentiates
substances associated with idols from other forbidden substances that must be
burned.
A coal taken from - a fire which is lit as an act of
service to
an idol - is considered to be an accessory of
the idol. It
is forbidden - to be used for any other purpose.
a flame [from an idol] is permitted, - to be used - e.g., to light another
flame
for it is not an entity with substance
- i.e., there is no entity to
which the prohibition can be attached. Although as a safeguard, the Rabbis
forbade the use of certain flames, they did not pass such a decree against
flames from idol worship. In general, Jews were repelled by any association
with idol worship. Hence, the Rabbis did not feel that it was necessary to
institute a prohibition (Beitzah 39a).
When there is a doubt whether an
object is connected to idol worship or not, it is forbidden. - When there is a doubt regarding
whether a substance is prohibited or not, we follow the principle that מדאורייתא
(according to Torah law), it is permitted. מדרבנן (according to Rabbinic
decree), it is forbidden.
If, however, that doubt is
questionable - The Hebrew, 18קפס אקיפס,
implies that there is a doubt whether our original suspicion continues to
apply, as illustrated by the examples mentioned in the latter clauses of the
halachah.
The prohibition against benefiting
from an object whose prohibited status is in question is only Rabbinic in
nature. Whenever there is a doubt regarding whether a Rabbinic prohibition
applies or not, a lenient approach is permitted (ספק דרבנן לקולא).
it is permitted. - For the Rabbis did not feel it
necessary to institute a decree in such an instance.
What is implied? Should a goblet used
for idol worship - i.e., an
accessory of idol worship, which is forbidden, as mentioned in the previous
halachah.
fall into a storage room of - identical
goblets, they are all forbidden, because
a false deity and all its accessories are always forbidden, regardless of the
proportion [of a mixture they make up]. - Since
there is a doubt whether each of the goblets is the forbidden one or not, none
of them may be used.
If one of the cups from this mixture
falls together with two - This
translation follows the standard printed text of the Mishneh Torah, which reads כוסות
שנים. The Radbaz (Vol. V, Responsum 1406) suggests (and indeed, many
manuscripts of the Mishneh
Torah support this
contention) that the text read כוסות שניים, which would be rendered as
"other cups." This version is closer to the text of Zevachim 74a, the Talmudic passage that serves
as the source for this law.
other cups - Here, there is a doubt whether our
original suspicion continues to apply. Perhaps the cup one chooses from the new
mixture did not come from the original mixture. Even if it did come from the
original mixture, perhaps it is not the cup that was used for idol worship.
the [entire second mixture] is
permitted. - The Kessef Mishneh and other commentaries question the
Rambam's decision, noting that the text of Zevachim,
ibid., appears to indicate that it is necessary for there to be three mixtures.
Indeed, in Hilchot Ma'achalot
Asurot 16:10, when discussing
the prohibitions of a דבר חשוב (a forbidden substance whose importance prevents
it from ever being nullified in a mixture), the Rambam himself appears to
follow this view, stating:
If one pomegranate from a mixture
[containing a forbidden pomegranate] falls together with two other
pomegranates... and from these three, one pomegranate falls together with other
pomegranates, the latter [mixture] is permitted.
Indeed, on the basis of the statements
in Hilchot Ma'achalot Asurot,
theShulchan Aruch (Yoreh
De'ah 140) deviates from the
Rambam's opinion and requires three mixtures.
This approach, however, is not
followed by all commentaries. Rashi and Tosafot(Zevachim,
ibid.) explain that even with regard to a דבר חשוב, only two mixtures are
necessary. These views are quoted as halachah by the Turei Zahav and theSiftei Cohen in their glosses on the Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 110:8).
Among the suggestions made by the
commentaries to resolve the difference between the Rambam's statements here and
those in Hilchot Ma'achalot
Asurotare the following:
a) Most people are careful regarding the prohibition against benefiting from any object connected with idol worship. Therefore, there is no need to reinforce the prohibition. In contrast, the prohibition against benefiting from a דבר חשוב is far less known. Hence, the Rabbis added severe safeguards to make sure that it be observed (Kessef Mishneh).
b) Here, the Rambam is speaking about a prohibition against benefiting from a forbidden object (איסור הנאה). In contrast, Hilchot Ma'achalot Asurot is concerned with partaking of forbidden foods, where the prohibition is more severe (Siftei Cohen, Yoreh De'ah 110:52).
a) Most people are careful regarding the prohibition against benefiting from any object connected with idol worship. Therefore, there is no need to reinforce the prohibition. In contrast, the prohibition against benefiting from a דבר חשוב is far less known. Hence, the Rabbis added severe safeguards to make sure that it be observed (Kessef Mishneh).
b) Here, the Rambam is speaking about a prohibition against benefiting from a forbidden object (איסור הנאה). In contrast, Hilchot Ma'achalot Asurot is concerned with partaking of forbidden foods, where the prohibition is more severe (Siftei Cohen, Yoreh De'ah 110:52).
Even the authorities who permit the
second mixture to be used do not allow a single individual to partake of the
entire mixture at one time. In such an instance, there would be only a single
doubt whether he used the forbidden object or not.
The Rabbis (Zevachim, 74b)
mentioned another example of a mixture which is permitted because of
circumstances which create a doubt whether our original suspicion continues to
apply:
Should a ring [used to adorn] an idol
become mixed together with one hundred other rings, and - they would thus all be forbidden
according to the above principles. However, if
then two of them fall - accidentally. If one intentionally
throws one into the sea, the leniency does not apply (Shulchan Aruch, Yoreh
De'ah 110:7).
into the Mediterranean Sea - and are thus lost. If two merely
become separated from the group, the others remain prohibited (Shulchan
Aruch, ibid.). (Note the Kessef
Mishneh's comments that here,
the Dead Sea is intended.)
it is permissible to use all of them.
- i.e., all the rings that
remain. The prohibition does not continue to apply, because
We presume that the [forbidden] ring
was among the two - The Kessef Mishneh notes that when stating a similar law
in Hilchot Terumah 15:2, the Rambam required only a
single barrel of wine to be lost. The difference between these two laws can be
resolved by taking into account the nature of the prohibited substances: Rings
are small, and the loss of a single ring does not make a substantial difference
to the entire group. In contrast, barrels of wine are large, and the loss of
even one will attract attention.
[which fell]. - The Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 140) limits this leniency, stating
that it is forbidden to use a single ring alone, nor may one person benefit
from the entire group of rings at once.
The Rabbis (Zevachim, ibid.)
mentioned a third example of a mixture which is permitted because of
circumstances which create a doubt whether our original suspicion continues to
apply:
Should [a forbidden ring] become mixed
together with a hundred others and - they
would thus be forbidden according to the above principles. However, if
then [the group] becomes divided,
forty - i.e., the minority
being separated in one group, and
sixty - i.e., the majority
in another, and then the entire [group
of] forty fall into another group of rings, it is permissible to use all of
them - the second mixture.
We presume that the forbidden ring
remained among the majority. -There is a doubt whether the forbidden ring was
among the forty. Even if it had been included within that forty, perhaps the
ring one chooses from the second mixture is not the forbidden one.
In this instance, the Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 140) does not accept the Rambam's
view, and forbids the second mixture. Even according to the Rambam, it is not
permissible to eat the entire second mixture at one time, for then there would
be only a single doubt.
If the - entire
[group of] sixty fall into another
group of rings, they are all forbidden. -Should, however, only a portion of the
sixty fall into another mixture, the Rambam (but not the Shulchan Aruch) would permit
their use. In such an instance, their status would parallel that of the second
mixture of goblets mentioned above.
Sitting under the shade of the trunk
of an asherah - a tree associated
with the worship of false deities
whether it is worshiped itself - as mentioned in Chapter 8, Halachah 3.
or whether an idol was placed under it
- as mentioned in Chapter 6,
Halachah 9, and Chapter 8, Halachah 4. In such instances, the tree was intended
for aesthetic purposes and for offering shade to the worshipers.
is forbidden - because one will be deriving benefit
from a false deity or its accessories.
It is, however, permissible to sit
under the shade of its branches and its leaves. - This decision has been
questioned by other authorities, who wonder why the Rambam distinguished
between the tree's trunk and branches. On the surface, the same prohibition
should apply to both of them.
The Rambam's decision is based on his
interpretation of Avodah Zarah 48b, which is derived from the
Jerusalem Talmud (Avodah Zarah 3:8).
The Talmud explains that even though the shade of an asherah is forbidden, צל הצל, literally,
"the shade of its shade," is permitted. The Jerusalem Talmud
interprets 18לצ לצה as shade produced by the parts of the tree which would not
touch the trunk if they fell.
[Rashi offers a different
interpretation of Avodah Zarah,
ibid. His view is accepted by most commentaries. When quoting this law, the Shulchan Aruch(Yoreh De'ah 142:9) does not differentiate between
the shade produced by the trunk and that of its leaves.
If a person has another route - to
reach his desired destination, which is no longer than the one which passes
under the asherah. If the
alternate route is longer, the person is not required to deviate from the path
leading under theasherah (Shulchan
Aruch, ibid.).
it is forbidden for him to pass under
it. - This prohibition appears to
have been instituted lest one benefit from the tree's shade. Note, however, the
Ramah's statements (Yoreh De'ah, ibid.), which permit one to pass under
theasherah's shade, though
not under the tree itself. According to his opinion, the prohibition stems from
the impurity of idol worship.
If he has no other route, he may pass
under it, provided he runs -Avodah Zarah (ibid.) relates that Rav
Sheshet would run when he passed under an asherah.
This Talmudic passage mentions the requirement to run only with regard to a
person of distinction. Nevertheless, since there is no great difficulty in
running for this short distance, the Rambam imposes this stringency on all
people (Kessef Mishneh).
Commentary Halacha 12
Chicks which do not need their mother
- i.e., which can fly on their own
and nest in [an asherah] are
permitted. - Even though these
chicks are permitted, Me'ilah 14a does not allow one to climb up the
tree and take them in a normal manner. Rather, one must knock the chicks down
with a stave, and then collect them. The Hagahot
Maimoniot (and the Turei Zahav, Yoreh De'ah142:12)
explain that climbing on the tree or using it as support for a ladder would
involve deriving benefit from the forbidden tree.
The Rambam's Commentary on the
Mishnah, Me'ilah 3:9, suggests a different
interpretation. There, the Rambam specifically writes that when taking the nest
- as stated in the final clause of this halachah - it permissible to climb up
the tree in the normal manner. Therefore, it appears that one should knock down
the chicks to see if they are capable of flying on their own or not. This
explanation also clarifies why the Rambam does not mention in this halachah the
need to knock down the chicks. By stating that only those which do not need
their mother are permitted, he implies that one must determine whether or not
the chicks need their mother (Rav Kapach).
In contrast, the chicks and eggs which
need their mother are forbidden, for the asherah is considered as if it is a
base for them. - Avodah
Zarah42b explains that this is a Rabbinic decree imposed lest the people
desire to benefit from the asherah itself. Since these chicks and
eggs require the asherah,
they are prohibited as the asherah is.
The nest itself - [even though it is]
in the top of the tree - is permitted, -and the wood from which it is composed
may be used for other purposes
for the birds bring the wood for it from
other places. - Were the wood,
however, to come from the asherah itself, it would be forbidden even
though it had been separated from it already, as is obvious from Chapter 8,
Halachah 3.
The Ra'avad states that one must
explicitly know that the birds built their nest from other wood. Avodat HaMelech explains that the Rambam does not
require such knowledge, because of the following Talmud principle: When there
is a question whether a substance came from the most probable source (רוב) or
the closest source (קרוב), we presume it came from the most probable source.
Commentary Halacha 13
It is forbidden to benefit from wood which one takes from it. -
i.e., from anasherah. Even though the wood has been separated from the
tree itself, it is forbidden to benefit from the wood. (See Chapter 8, Halachot
1,3, and 4 for additional explanations regarding the nature of this
prohibition.)
This prohibition applies not merely לכתחילה
(a priori), but even in the following instance.
Should a person have heated an oven with
such wood - and thus seek to
benefit from the forbidden wood, he is not permitted to use the oven. Rather,
he must cool it off. - Note the contrast between the Rambam's
statements here and those in Hilchot
Ma'achalot Asurot 16:22,
where the Rambam states that if an oven is heated with the shells or peels of
fruit which is forbidden (because it is either orlah or kil'ei
hakerem), it is sufficient to remove the wood which is burning. The coals
and the heat produced by the initial fire, however, are not forbidden and one
may bake with them. He does not make such statements here, because, as stated
in Halachah 10, even the coals and ashes of an asherah are forbidden.
[Curiously, when mentioning these laws
in the Shulchan Aruch (142:4), Rav Yosef Karo quotes the
Rambam's statements in Hilchot
Ma'achalot Asurot, substituting forbidden wood for orlah, without distinguishing
between the different prohibitions. Accordingly the commentaries on the Shulchan Aruch(Turei Zahav 145:5, Siftei Cohen 145:10) object to his decision.]
Afterwards, he should - remove the forbidden wood and
kindle it with other, permitted wood
and then bake within. - In his
Commentary on the Mishnah (Avodah Zarah 3:9), the Rambam explains that the
above decision applies whether the oven is new or old.
The Mishnah states that if such wood
is used in a new oven, the oven may never be used again. In Talmudic times, the
ovens were made of clay and the clay would not harden sufficiently until the
oven was kindled once. Thus, since kindling the oven for the first time
prepared it to be used on all subsequent occasions, some Rabbis forbade its use
when this first kindling was made with a forbidden substance. This opinion is,
nevertheless, not accepted as halachah. The Rambam's view is quoted by the Shulchan Aruch, Yoreh De'ah,
ibid. (See the explanation of זה וזה גורם in the following halachah.)
Furthermore, this prohibition is
extended beyond the oven:
Should he bake bread in [an oven
heated in this manner] without cooling it - even
if, afterwards, he added permitted wood
he is forbidden to benefit from the
bread - because the beneficial
effect of the forbidden wood preceded the influence of the permitted wood.
If [such a loaf] became mixed together
with others - the entire mixture
is forbidden. He can, however, cause that prohibition to be lifted if he
carries out the following instructions.
[This mixture of bread can be differentiated
from the mixtures mentioned in Halachah 10. Those mixtures involved objects
which were themselves used as accessories for idol worship, while here the loaf
itself was never used for such purposes. Hence, the severe laws mentioned there
do not apply in this instance.]
he must bring the value of that loaf - even if it is more valuable than the
wood (Siftei Cohen 142:9).
to the Dead Sea - or destroy it in another way (see the
notes on Halachah 5)
so that he will never benefit from it.
- The Siftei Cohen 142:8 states that the Rambam's [and,
thus, the Shulchan Aruch's (Yoreh De'ah 142:3)] phraseology implies that it is
not sufficient to destroy the value of the wood (regardless of whether the
forbidden loaf becomes mixed with others or not). He does, however, suggest
selling the loaf to a gentile (less the value of the forbidden wood) in a
manner in which one could be sure that it would not be resold to a Jew.
The other loaves, however, are
permitted - even to be eaten. In
other similar situations, one is permitted to benefit from a forbidden mixture
(e.g., sell it to a gentile), but partaking of it oneself is prohibited. (See Hilchot Ma'achalot Asurot 16:29.) Here, one is allowed to
partake of the bread itself (Siftei Cohen142:10).
Commentary Halacha 14
If one took [a piece of wood from an
asherah to use as] a shuttle - the
piece of the loom which passes the woof through the threads of the warp.
and wove a garment with it, it is
forbidden to benefit from [the garment] - because
it is prohibited to use anything made from idol worship.
Should the garment become mixed
together with other garments, he must bring the value of that garment to the
Dead Sea. - Note the Rambam's
Commentary on the Mishnah (Avodah Zarah 3:9), where he explains why it is
necessary to state both cases (the bread and the garment).
All the other garments, however, are
permitted - as explained in the
previous halachah. (See also Shulchan
Aruch, Yoreh De'ah 142:3.)
It is permissible - 18הליחתכל (a priori)
to plant vegetables under [an
asherah], whether in the summer - when they need the shade - and thus, one will receive direct
benefit from theasherah
or in the winter - when the influence of the asherah is less felt.
[This leniency is granted] because the
vegetables' growth is produced by two factors: the shade of the asherah, which
is forbidden, and the earth, which is permitted. - We follow a principle that is employed
in many other areas of Torah law:
Whenever an effect is produced by the
combination of a forbidden factor and a permitted factor, it is permitted. - In such instances, the leniency is
generally granted only בדיעבד (after the fact). In this situation, however, the
leniency is granted a priori,
because the person does not receive any benefit when he sows the field and,
afterwards, the benefit comes in and of itself (Rabbenu Nissim).
Therefore, if a field was fertilized
with fertilizer [that was forbidden because of a connection with] idol worship,
one may sow it - because the crop
growth also depends on the earth, which is not forbidden. At the outset,
however, it is forbidden to use such fertilizer (Siftei Cohen 142:11).
Similarly, [the meat of] a cow that
was fed with beans - The Hebrew
term כרשינים refers to "vetch," a species of bean commonly used for
animal fodder.
[that were forbidden because of a
connection with] idol worship, it may be eaten - because its growth was also influenced
by the permitted food it ate. If, however, it was raised solely on forbidden
food, different rules apply (Turei Zahav 142:17).
[Significantly, in Hilchot Issurei Mizbe'ach 3:9, the Rambam feels it necessary to
give a different reason why a cow that was given such a diet might be used as a
sacrifice. The Sages, however, always ruled more stringently with regard to
sacrifices than with regard to food consumed by private individuals.]
The same principle applies in other
similar situations.
Commentary Halacha 15
It is not forbidden to benefit from
meat, wine, and fruits that were prepared as offerings for idols. - This law
reflects a contrast to the Temple offerings. Once a person dedicated an animal
to be offered as a sacrifice, or an article to be donated to the Temple
treasury, it became consecrated (הקדש) and could no longer be used for mundane
purposes. This principle does not apply with regard to articles designated to
be used as offerings for idols, as explained in Chapter 8, Halachah 1.
Although they were brought into the
temple of a false deity, [they are not prohibited] until they are actually
brought as offerings. - However,
as is obvious from the latter clause of this halachah, an object found in a
temple of a false deity is forbidden, unless we have explicit knowledge that it
was not brought as an offering. We assume that it was used for this forbidden
purpose.
Once they are brought as offerings,
[their status changes] and they remain forbidden - as stated in Halachah 2
forever, - Avodat HaMelech interprets this as a reference
to Chapter 8, Halachah 9, where the Rambam states that the prohibition against
using an offering brought to an idol can never be nullified. Although the
prohibition against using an idol itself can be nullified, more stringent rules
apply with regard to an offering.
even if they were later removed [from
the temple]. - The change in
their location does not effect a change in status.
Torah law - not merely Rabbinic decree
forbids benefiting from anything that
is found in a temple of a false deity, even water or salt. - See the following halachah. (Also note Shulchan Aruch, Yoreh De'ah 139:3.)
If a person eats even the slightest
amount from such substances, he is [punished by] lashing. - Note Halachah 2, where the Rambam
states that a person who benefits from offerings brought to a false deity
receives a double measure of lashes. Apparently, the Rambam is not explicit
here because he is relying on this previous statement.
Commentary Halacha 16
[The following laws apply when] a
person finds garments, utensils, or money [placed] on the head of an idol. - Avodah Zarah 51b states that the prohibition
applies only when the articles are placed on the idol itself. The fact that
they are positioned near the idol is not sufficient to have them forbidden.
If he finds them [placed] in a
derisive manner, they are permitted -because the manner in which they are
placed indicates that they were not intended as adornment or service for the
idol.
If he finds them [placed] in a
deferential manner, they are forbidden. -Avodah Zarah, ibid., derives
this concept from the exegesis ofDeuteronomy 29:16:
"You saw their putridities (their idols)... the gold and silver which is
with them," explaining that "anything which is 'with them' is
'putrid,' forbidden as the idols are. Since these are articles that are used to
adorn an idol, they are prohibited.
What is implied? If one finds a purse
hanging around its neck, folded garments placed on its head, or a utensil
overturned on its head, they are permitted, because [they were placed] in a
derisive manner. - The position
of the article indicates that it was not placed there with the intent of
adorning the idol. On the contrary, placing these articles on an idol in such a
fashion reflects one's contempt for it. Therefore, there is no reason for the
article to be forbidden.
The same applies to other similar
situations. [In contrast,] if one finds an object of a type which is used as an
offering for the [Temple] altar -This includes the animals used as sacrifices,
wine, flour, or oil. Avodah
Zarah51b notes that this prohibition includes even water, which is used for
the water libation on Sukkot, and salt, which is added to all the sacrifices
offered on the altar.
on the head [of an idol], it is
forbidden. - The fact that these
articles are used as offerings in the Temple leads to the conclusion that they
were presented to the idol for a similar purpose.
When does the above - distinction
between a deferential and a derisive position
apply? When one finds such articles
outside its - the idol's
[usual] place of worship. When,
however, one finds such articles within the [idol's place of worship] - The fact that the article was brought
into the idol's temple indicates that it was used in its service. Accordingly,
regardless of whether it was placed in
a derisive manner or in a deferential manner, or whether it is of the type of
objects used as sacrifices for the [Temple] altar, any article found within
[such a structure] - even if it
is not placed upon the idol itself
even water or salt - The Rambam's mention of these articles
is somewhat problematic. Since they were offered on the Temple altar, as
explained above, they are forbidden even if they are not found within the
temple of an idol. The commentaries explain that since these articles are of
little consequence and are not generally themselves brought as offerings to an
idol, we would not think that they were forbidden. Therefore, it is necessary
to mention them explicitly.
becomes forbidden. - Note Hilchot
Sha'ar Avot HaTum'ot 6:7,
where the Rambam states that the forbidden nature of foods offered to idols can
never be negated. When, however, utensils are offered, the prohibition against
using them can be negated, as explained in Chapter 8, Halachah 8.
[Different laws apply regarding] Pe'or
and Marculis. - See the description of the service of these deities in Chapter
3, Halachah 2.
It is forbidden to benefit from
anything that is found together with them, whether [it is found] in their
[temple] or outside of it. - Since
these deities are served in a derisive manner, no distinction is made between
the manner in which articles placed upon them are found. Even when an article
is found in a derisive position, it is forbidden.
Similarly, with regard to the stones
[found near a symbol of] Marculis: If a stone appears to be together with it - Since a shrine to this deity consists
of stones piled on each other, we assume that any stone found in proximity to
it was once part of such a pile. Hence,
it is forbidden to benefit from it. - Rashi, Avodah Zarah 50a states that all stones within a
cubit of the deity are forbidden. Stones which are further removed are
permitted. Tosafot maintains that any stones found within
a radius of four cubits are forbidden.
Commentary Halacha 17
When [the shrine of] a false deity possesses a bathhouse or a
garden, benefit may be derived from it, provided one does not offer
appreciation - We have rendered טובה
as "appreciation" because, as evident from the final clause of the
halachah, the benefit mentioned by the Rambam is not monetary or even goods
that can be exchanged for money (Kessef Mishneh).
[Thus, the Rambam's interpretation
differs from that of Rashi, who, in his commentary on Avodah Zarah 51b, understands טובה as referring to
monetary payment.]
[in return]. - Our translation follows the standard
published texts of theMishneh Torah. The manuscript versions read:
"provided one does not offer benefit to its priests." This version is
supported by the Rambam's Commentary on the Mishnah (Avodah Zarah 4:3). If the benefit is offered to the
idol's worshipers and not to its priests, one may make use of the bathhouse or
garden even if it is necessary to pay a fee (Shulchan Aruch, Yoreh De'ah 143:3).
[If] one must offer appreciation, it
is forbidden. - The Kessef Mishnehexplains that
this prohibition was instituted lest a person develop close feelings towards
the priests who serve a false deity.
[If the garden or bathhouse] is
mutually owned by [the shrine] and another entity, one may derive benefit from
it - and one is not considered to have benefited from a false deity,since the
bathhouse or garden is not itself a shrine
even if one provides its priests with
appreciation. - The commentaries
explain that since the prohibition is Rabbinic in nature (because it is
appreciation and not a fee which is being offered), if the appreciation is not
being given solely to the priests, the Rabbis did not feel it necessary to
impose a prohibition.
One may not, however, pay a fee - because doing so provides direct
benefit to the false deity.
This prohibition caused severe
problems in Europe, where frequently many of the community services necessary
for everyday life - e.g., flour mills, ovens, and the like - were owned by the
Catholic Church. The rabbinic authorities of these areas interpreted these laws
more leniently, offering different explanations of how one could benefit from
church-owned property. (See Ramah and the Turei
Zahav, Yoreh De'ah, ibid.) All authorities, however, agree that if a fee
must be paid to the false deity itself and not to its attendants, no benefit is
permitted.
Commentary Halacha 18
It is permitted to bathe in a
bathhouse even though an idol is located within - This halachah is based on the Mishnah, Avodah Zarah 3:4, which relates:
Rabban Gamliel was bathing in the
bathhouse of Aphrodite (the Greek goddess of beauty) in Akko, and Praclus ben
Paluslus asked him: "Why are you bathing in Aphrodite's bathhouse? Does
your Torah not command: 'Let nothing which is condemned cling to your hand'?
He responded: "One does not reply in a bathhouse." After he had departed, he told him, "I did not come into her territory, she came into mine. One does not say, 'This bathhouse is becoming to Aphrodite.' One says, 'Aphrodite is becoming to the bathhouse.' Furthermore, no matter how much money you were offered, you would not enter your idol's temple naked... and urinate before it." (The mishnah continues, mentioning the interpretation ofDeuteronomy 12:2 quoted by the Rambam.)
He responded: "One does not reply in a bathhouse." After he had departed, he told him, "I did not come into her territory, she came into mine. One does not say, 'This bathhouse is becoming to Aphrodite.' One says, 'Aphrodite is becoming to the bathhouse.' Furthermore, no matter how much money you were offered, you would not enter your idol's temple naked... and urinate before it." (The mishnah continues, mentioning the interpretation ofDeuteronomy 12:2 quoted by the Rambam.)
[Significantly, Rashi (Avodah Zarah 44b) interprets the mishnah
differently from the Rambam. They explain that rather than the idol being
located within the bathhouse, the bathhouse was located within premises
belonging to the idol.]
because it is placed there for
aesthetic purposes and not to be served. - This
is the Rambam's interpretation of Rabban Gamliel's first point. He did not
enter a place where the statue was served (Aphrodite's territory). Rather, he
entered a bathhouse (his territory) where a statue had been placed as an
adornment.
[The Rambam's interpretation is also
found in the Tosafot Rid and the Eshkol. Rashi and others
interpret Rabban Gamliel's statements differently.]
[This leniency can be inferred from
the use by Deuteronomy 12:2 of the term:] "their
gods" - when describing the
commandment to nullify idol worship
i.e., the prohibition applies when
they - the gentiles
treat them - their statues
as gods, and not when they humiliate
them, such as in an instance where [the idol] stands over the sewage pipe and
they urinate before it. - Avodah
Zarah 44b clarifies
that the performance of a humiliating act before an idol does not necessarily
nullify its forbidden character. (See Chapter 8, Halachah 10.) Nevertheless,
since an idol placed in a bathhouse is constantly subjected to deprecating
situations, we can assume that the gentiles do not regard it as a god.
Should [the idol's] worship involve
such activities - As explained in
Chapter 3, Halachah 2, there are some idols which are worshiped in a
deprecatory manner - e.g., Pe'or, whose worshipers would defecate before it.
it is forbidden to enter [the
bathhouse]. - As explained in
Chapter 3, Halachah 5, even when a person performs these activities with the
intent of humiliating the idol, since this is its mode of worship, he is
considered to have inadvertently violated the commandment against idol worship,
and is obligated to bring a sin offering for atonement.
Commentary Halacha 19
It is permitted to benefit - The Kessef
Mishneh interprets the
Rambam's phraseology as implying that although, after the fact, the meat is not
forbidden, at the outset (לכתחילה), it is forbidden to slaughter an animal with
such a knife. Other authorities, however, do not share this opinion, and
maintain that there is no prohibition against using such a knife. (See Ramah, Yoreh De'ah 142:2 and the Shulchan Aruch, Yoreh De'ah,
10:1, which accept the latter view as halachah.)
from [an animal] slaughtered using a
knife [forbidden because of its connection to] idol worship] - Chulin 8b clarifies that we are
speaking about an instance where the knife has already been kashered, and thus,
the only question involves benefiting from an accessory of idol worship. In Hilchot Ma'achalot Asurot 17:7, the Rambam discusses the
process of kashering the knife and what must be done if the knife was used
without being kashered. (See also Shulchan
Aruch, Yoreh De'ah, ibid.)
because one is detracting from [the
animal's] value. - While an
animal is alive, it can be used for work and for breeding, and is therefore of
greater value.
If the animal is in danger [of dying],
it is forbidden, because one is enhancing its value - If the animal dies naturally, a Jew
will not be permitted to eat its meat. Thus, the animal's slaughter enhances
its value.
and this improvement involves benefit
from an accessory of idol worship. - Hence,
it is forbidden, as stated in Halachah 2. The Kessef
Mishnehstates that, based on Halachot 12 and 13, it would appear that the
Rambam maintains that all the meat from the animal is forbidden, and there is
no way one may benefit from it. The Kessef
Mishneh does not accept that
view, and argues that it is sufficient to destroy an amount of meat equivalent
to the value of the knife.
Similarly, it is forbidden to cut meat
- i.e., cut large pieces of meat into smaller ones
with [such a knife], because one is
enhancing its value - making it
fit to be sold or cooked. The Siftei
Cohen (Yoreh De'ah 142:6) relates that if one cut pieces
of meat with such a knife, even the Rambam would not forbid use of the meat
entirely. It would be necessary, however, to destroy an amount of meat
equivalent to the value of the knife.
Should one cut with a destructive
intent, causing a loss - e.g.,
cut pieces which are of a size fit for cooking into smaller ones, which would
be less attractive. See Chulin 8b.
the meat is permitted - because no benefit was derived from an
accessory of an idol. On the contrary, a loss was caused.
Chapter Eight
Halacha 1
It is permitted to derive benefit from
anything that has not been manipulated by man or that was not made by man, even
though it was worshiped [as a deity]. Therefore, it is permitted to benefit
from mountains, hills, trees - provided they were planted originally with the
intent of harvesting their fruit - springs which provide water for many people,
and animals, despite their having been worshiped by pagans. It is permitted to
partake of fruits that were worshiped in the place where they grow and to
partake of such an animal.
Needless to say, it is permitted to
partake of an animal that was set aside for the purpose of idol worship. It is
permitted regardless of whether it was set aside to be worshiped or to be
sacrificed [to another deity].
When do the above statements
permitting the use of an animal apply? When a deed involving it was not
committed for the sake of idol worship. If, however, any deed whatsoever was
committed involving it, it is forbidden; for example, one cut one of its signs
for the sake of an idol. Should one exchange it for an idol, it is forbidden.
Similarly, it is forbidden if it was exchanged for an article that was itself
exchanged for an idol, since the latter article is considered to be
"payment for an idol."
When does the above apply? Regarding
one's own animal. If, however, one slaughtered a colleague's animal for the
sake of a false deity, or exchanged it for an idol, it does not become
forbidden, because a person cannot cause an article that does not belong to him
to become forbidden.
When a person bows down to virgin
earth, he does not cause it to become forbidden. If he digs pits, channels, and
caverns in it for the sake of a false deity, it becomes forbidden.
Halacha 2
When a person bows down to water which
was lifted up by a wave, he does not cause [the water] to become forbidden. If,
however, he picked [water] up with his hands and bowed down to it, it becomes
forbidden.
If rocks which had slid down from a
mountain were worshiped in the place where they [landed], they are permitted,
since they were not manipulated by man.
Halacha 3
When a Jew stands a brick up with the
intention of bowing down to it, but does not bow down to it, and then a gentile
comes and bows down to it, benefit from [the brick] becomes forbidden, because
standing it up is considered to be a deed. Similarly, if he stands an egg up
and a gentile comes and bows down to it, it becomes forbidden.
If one cuts off a gourd or the like
and bows down to it, it is forbidden. Even when one bows down to only half the
gourd, and the other half is still attached to it, it is forbidden because of
the doubt involved: perhaps the second half is considered to be a handle for
the half which was worshiped.
It is forbidden to benefit from a tree
which was planted for the purpose of being worshiped. This is the asherah that the Torah mentions. When a tree
which had been planted previously was pruned and carved for the sake of idol
worship - even if it was extended or a growth was grafted onto the trunk of the
tree - and branches grew, one must cut off [these] branches, and benefit from
them is forbidden. The remainder of the tree, however, is permitted.
Similarly, when a person bows down to
a tree, even though the tree itself is not forbidden, it is forbidden to
benefit from all the branches, leaves, sprouts, and fruits which it produces
during the time it is worshiped.
When gentiles guard the fruits of a
tree and say that they are designated to be used to make alcoholic beverages
for a particular pagan temple, and [the fruits] are used for alcoholic
beverages which are drunken on their pagan holidays, it is forbidden to benefit
from this tree. This is the ritual associated with anasherah.
Accordingly, we can assume that [the tree] is an asherah, and therefore its
fruits will be used for such purposes.
Halacha 4
[The following rules apply to] a tree
under which a false deity was placed: It is forbidden to benefit from it as
long as the deity is located under it. When it is removed, we are permitted [to
benefit] from it, since the tree itself is not the entity which was worshiped.
When a gentile constructs a building
with the intention that the building itself be worshiped, and, similarly, when
a person bows down to a building that has already been constructed, they become
forbidden.
When a [building] which had already
been constructed, was plastered and embellished for the sake of worship to the
extent that it is considered to be a new entity, one must remove all the new
additions, and it is forbidden to benefit from them, since they were made with
the intention of being worshiped. It is, however, permitted to benefit from the
remainder of the building.
If one placed an idol within a house,
it is forbidden to benefit from the house while the idol is located within.
When it is removed, the house becomes permitted.
Similarly, it is forbidden to benefit
from a stone which was hewn from a mountain with the intention that it be
worshiped. If it had already been hewn out, but was adorned and embellished
with the intention that it be worshiped - even if the stone itself was adorned
and embellished and, needless to say, if the adornment was added to it - one
must remove all the new additions, and it is forbidden to benefit from them,
since they were made with the intention of being worshiped. It is, however,
permitted to benefit from the remainder of the stone.
Halacha 5
A stone on which an idol is placed is
forbidden as long as the idol is upon it. Once [the idol] is removed, it is
permitted.
When a person's house which is located
next to [a shrine of] an idol falls, it is forbidden for him to rebuild it.
What must he do? He must move [the wall] within his own four cubits, and then
rebuild it. The empty space must not be left free for the sake of the shrine of
the idol. Rather, he should fill it with thorns or feces.
If the wall belonged jointly to both a
private individual and an idol, it should be considered to belong to them
equally. It is permitted to benefit from his half; the [half] belonging to the
idol, however, is forbidden. [Similarly,] it is forbidden to benefit from all
[the wall's] stones, beams, and earth.
Halacha 6
How must one destroy a false deity and
the other entities which are forbidden on its account - e.g., its accessories
and offerings? One must grind them and scatter [the dust] in the wind, or burn
them and deposit the ashes in the Dead Sea.
Halacha 7
Although [as mentioned above,] an
entity which cannot be manipulated by man - e.g., a mountain, animal, or tree -
even when worshiped remains permitted, it is forbidden to benefit from its
coatings. A person who derives any benefit from them whatsoever is [liable for]
lashes, as [Deuteronomy 7:25] states: "Do not desire
the silver and gold which are upon them."
Any coating of a false deity is
considered to be one of its accessories.
Halacha 8
It is permitted to benefit from a
false deity belonging to a gentile whose deification was nullified [by
gentiles] before it entered the possession of a Jew, as [Deuteronomy, ibid.] states, "You must burn
the statues of their gods with fire." [This command applies] only if they
are treated as gods when they enter our possession. If, however, their
deification was nullified, they are permitted.
Halacha 9
A false deity belonging to a Jew can
never be nullified. Even if he owns it in partnership with a gentile, its
nullification is of no consequence. Rather, it is forbidden to benefit from it
forever, and it must be entombed.
Similarly, when a false deity belonging
to a gentile enters the possession of a Jew, and then is nullified by a
gentile, the nullification is of no consequence, and it is forbidden to benefit
from it forever.
A Jew cannot nullify a false deity
even when it is in the possession of a gentile. A gentile who is a minor or a
fool cannot nullify a false deity. When a gentile is forced to nullify a false
deity - whether it belongs to him or to other gentiles, even when he is forced
to do so by Jews - the nullification is of consequence.
The gentile who nullifies idol worship
must himself be an idolater. If he is not an idolater, his nullification is of
no consequence.
When [a gentile] nullifies a false
deity, he also nullifies [the connection to idol worship of] its accessories.
When he nullifies [the connection to idol worship of] its accessories, it is
permitted to benefit from the accessories. [The deity] itself, however, remains
forbidden until it is nullified. [The connection to idol worship of] an object
that was brought to an idol as an offering can never be nullified.
Halacha 10
How is [an idol] nullified? When one
cuts off the tip of its nose, the tip of its ear, or the tip of its finger,
smoothes out its face - even though none of its substance was destroyed - or
sells it to a Jewish jeweler, it is nullified.
If, however, one gave it as security
for a loan, sold it to a gentile, [sold it] to a Jew who is not a jeweler,
[left it] after it was covered by fallen articles without removing them, did
not demand its return after it was stolen by thieves, spat in its face,
urinated upon it, dragged it [in mud], or threw feces upon it, it is not
nullified.
Halacha 11
When a false deity was abandoned by
its worshipers in a time of peace, it is apparent that they nullified it.
Hence, benefit may be derived from it. [If it was abandoned] in a time of war,
it is forbidden. The only reason they abandoned it was the war.
When a false deity becomes broken in
the course of nature, it is forbidden to benefit from its broken pieces until
they have been nullified. Accordingly, when a person finds broken pieces of an
idol, [he must regard them] as forbidden, lest the gentiles have not nullified
them.
[The following principles apply to an
idol] which comes in pieces: If it could be reassembled by an ordinary person,
each piece must be nullified individually. If [an ordinary person] could not
reassemble it, once one has nullified one of its limbs, all of them are
nullified.
Halacha 12
Though an altar for idol worship has
been damaged, it is still forbidden to benefit from it until the majority of it
has been destroyed by gentiles. A platform which has been damaged is permitted.
What is considered a platform, and
what, an altar? A platform consists of a single stone; an altar, of many
stones.
How are the stones of Marculis
nullified? When one constructs a building from them or uses them to pave the
roads or the like, it is permitted to benefit from them.
How is an asherah nullified? When one pulls off a leaf,
cuts off a branch, takes a staff or scepter from it, or planes off its sides in
a manner which does not benefit it, it is nullified. When one planes its sides
in a manner which benefits it, it is forbidden, but its shavings are permitted.
If [the sides of] an asherah which belongs to a Jew [are planed
off], both it and its shavings are forbidden forever, regardless of whether [it
was planed] for its benefit or not, because a false deity belonging to a Jew
can never be nullified.
Commentary Halacha 1
It is permitted to derive benefit from
anything that has not been manipulated by man or that was not made by man - Idol worship is a human error. Hence,
an object whose existence is not dependent on man cannot become forbidden
because of it.
even though it was worshiped [as a
deity]. - Although generally, it
is forbidden to benefit from any entity worshiped as a false deity, as stated
in Chapter 7, Halachah 2, this law does not apply in such instances.
Therefore, it is permitted to benefit
from mountains, hills, trees - Avodah
Zarah 45a derives this
concept from the exegesis of Deuteronomy 12:2: "You shall surely
destroy all the places where the gentiles... served their gods: on the
mountains, on the hills, and under any luxuriant tree." The Sages
explained that the verse indicates that shrines which are "on" the
mountains and the hills and "under" the trees must be destroyed, but
not the mountains, hills, and trees themselves. Our Sages exclaim: "Must
God cause His world to be destroyed because of the fools?"
provided they were planted originally
with the intent of harvesting their fruit - If,
however, the trees were planted with the intent that they be worshiped, they
are considered to be an asherah and forbidden, as explained in
Halachah 3.
springs which provide water for many
people - The Rambam's phraseology
leads to the conclusion that a spring which provides water for only one person
is forbidden if it is worshiped. The Prisha (Yoreh De'ah 145, based on Avodah Zarah 47a), explains that were an individual
to quarry out a spring to worship as a deity, it would be forbidden to benefit
from it. Accordingly, when a spring that is worshiped provides water for only
one person, we fear that it was quarried out for these purposes. In contrast, when
many people benefit from a spring, we do not harbor such suspicions, even when
the spring is worshiped.
[In their commentaries on Yoreh De'ah 145:1, the Turei Zahav and the Siftei Cohen reject this premise and maintain that
as long as the water is attached to the spring, it is not forbidden, despite
its being worshiped. Indeed, the Turei
Zahav explains that even the
Rambam would accept such a decision. See the commentary on the following
halachah.]
and animals - Temurah 29a derives this concept as follows:
Our Sages required a special verse from the T'nach to teach us that an animal
that was worshiped as a deity may not be offered as a sacrifice. Were such an
animal to be forbidden for use by a common person, no verse would be necessary
to teach us that it is not fit for sacrificial purposes.
despite their having been worshiped by
pagans. It is permitted to partake of fruits that were worshiped in the place
where they grow -Nevertheless, after the tree has been worshiped, all the
fruits which grow on it during the time it is worshiped are forbidden, as
explained in Halachah 3.
and to partake of such an animal. - The Paschal sacrifice offered by our
ancestors in Egypt serves as an example of this principle. Though the Egyptians
worshiped the lamb, our ancestors offered it as a sacrifice to God.
Needless to say, it is permitted to
partake of an animal that was set aside - but not yet used
for the purpose of idol worship. It - such an animal
is permitted regardless of whether it
was set aside to be worshiped - as
a deity itself.
or to be sacrificed [to another
deity]. - See Chapter 7, Halachah
15, which explains that anything set aside to be offered to an idol is not
forbidden until it has actually been offered.
Temurah 28b cites a striking example of this principle.
Judges (Chapter 6) relates that Gideon offered as a sacrifice to God a bull
which his father had been fattening for seven years to offer as a sacrifice to
Baal.
When do the above statements
permitting the use of an animal - dedicated to an idol
apply? When a deed involving it was
not committed for the sake of idol worship. If, however, any deed whatsoever
was committed involving it, it is forbidden - Temurah 29a gives two examples: One shears the
animal for the sake of idol worship or uses it to perform work for an idol. See
also Hilchot Issurei Mizbeach 4:4.
for example, one cut one of its signs
- The term "signs"
refers to the windpipe and esophagus, which must both be slit open for ritual
slaughter to be acceptable. (See Hilchot
Shechitah 1:9.)
for the sake of an idol - as are all sacrifices offered to idols
(Chapter 7, Halachah 2).
Should one exchange it for an idol, it
is forbidden - as explained in
Chapter 7, Halachah 9. The Or
Sameach explains that this
prohibition applies only with regard to an idol worsiped by a Jew. We are
permitted to benefit from anything which a gentile exchanged for an idol.
Similarly, it is forbidden if it was
exchanged for an article that was itself exchanged for an idol, since the
latter article is considered to be "payment for an idol." - The Tur and the Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 145:9) do not accept this prohibition
and permit the use of an article exchanged for an article that was exchanged
for an idol.
When does the above apply? Regarding
one's own animal. If, however, one - According to the Beit Yosef (Yoreh De'ah 145), this leniency does not apply
when such actions are performed by a gentile. [In this regard, an apostate Jew
is considered like a gentile.]
Though the halachah follows the Beit Yosef's opinion, theOr Sameach offers a different interpretation of
the Rambam's words, explaining that his statements are explicit, and neither
Jew nor gentile can cause his colleague's property to become forbidden.
slaughtered a colleague's animal for
the sake of a false deity, or exchanged it for an idol, it does not become
forbidden, because a person cannot cause an article that does not belong to him
to become forbidden. - According
to the Or Sameach, this is
a blanket statement, applying under all circumstances. The Kessef Mishneh, however, cites Hilchot Shechitah2:21 (which is
based on Chulin 41a), where the Rambam clarifies the
rationale for this decision, explaining that the person presenting the offering
is only performing the act to "cause his colleague discomfort."
The phrasing of the present halachah
appears to indicate that a person has no potential to cause his colleague's
property to become forbidden. From Hilchot
Shechitah, however, it appears that were he to, in fact, desire to
sacrifice an animal to a idol, he would cause it to become forbidden. Leniency
is granted only because his intent is not to do so, and he appears to do so
merely to cause his colleague suffering.
The Tur and the Shulchan Aruch 145:8 (based on the passage from Chulin) rule that if a person
was warned against offering the sacrifice to an idol and acknowledged the
warning, it is forbidden to benefit from the animal. See also Halachah 3 and
the commentary.
When a person bows down to virgin
earth, he does not cause it to become forbidden - because the earth cannot be
manipulated, nor was it made by man, as above.
If he digs pits, channels, and caverns
in it for the sake of a false deity, it becomes forbidden. - From the Rambam's statements, it
appears that if these diggings were carried out for the sake of an idol, they
are automatically forbidden. The Tur (ibid.) differs and maintains
that one must worship the land after the digging is completed. The Shulchan Aruch (ibid., 145:7) quotes the
Rambam's statement.
Commentary Halacha 2
When a person bows down to water which
was lifted up by a wave, he does not cause [the water] to become forbidden. - Avodah Zarah 59a states that since the water was
not separated by human activity, it is considered to be attached to its source.
Hence, it is governed by the principles mentioned in the beginning of the
previous halachah.
If, however, he picked [water] up with
his hands - it is
"manipulated by man"
and - is no longer governed by the same
rules. Therefore, if a person
bowed down to it, it becomes forbidden
- as an idol would.
The Ra'avad disputes the Rambam's
decision, basing his opinion on Avodah
Zarah 47a, which states:
"Water that belongs to the many is never prohibited." Accordingly, he
explains that the water can become prohibited only if it is the private
property of a single individual. If it belongs to the public at large, it
remains permitted even if it was picked up by human hands and worshiped.
The Rambam interprets the passage from Avodah Zarah differently, and maintains that once
water is picked up by an individual, it is considered to be his property, and
hence can become prohibited. The Shulchan
Aruch does not mention this
law, leading to the conclusion that it accepts the Ra'avad's view. The later
authorities (e.g., Siftei
Cohen 145:2), however, follow
the Rambam's view.
[Note the comments of the Turei Zahav 145:3, who explains that the Rambam
mentions "Springs which provide water for many people" in the
previous halachah only to negate the Ra'avad's opinion. By making such a
statement, the Rambam clarifies that water belonging to many people remains
permitted at all times when it is a "spring." If separated from its
source by human activity, it can become forbidden.]
If rocks which had slid down from a
mountain - The Turei Zahav 145:2 explains that this decision
applies even when they slid far from the mountain. This decision, however, is
not accepted by all authorities.
were worshiped in the place where they
[landed], they are permitted, since they were not manipulated by man. - Hence, the leniencies mentioned in the
previous halachah apply.
The Ra'avad objects to this decision
as well, noting that the matter is debated by the Sages in Avodah Zarah 46a, and no decision is reached. Since
this is a question of Torah law, it would seem appropriate to follow the more
stringent view.
The Siftei
Cohen (Yoreh De'ah 145:1) explains that the Rambam's
decision is based on the Jerusalem Talmud (Avodah Zarah 3:6), which rules that these rocks are
permitted.
Commentary Halacha 3
When a Jew stands a brick up with the
intention of bowing down to it, but does not bow down to it - Were the scenario to be completed at
this point, the brick would not be forbidden, because an object of worship does
not become forbidden until it is actually worshiped.
and then a gentile comes and bows down
to it - serving it as a false
deity
benefit from [the brick] becomes
forbidden, because standing it up is considered to be a deed. - The explanation of this law (quoted
from Avodah Zarah 46a) depends on the difference of
interpretation between the Beit
Yosefand the Or Sameach mentioned in the commentary on
Halachah 1.
According to the Or Sameach, who maintains that
a gentile cannot cause property belonging to a Jew to become forbidden, this
law can be explained as follows: Although the gentile's actions would not
generally cause the brick to become forbidden, since the Jew indicated his
desire to worship the brick, we assume that he is pleased with the gentile's
act. Therefore, it becomes forbidden.
According to the Beit Yosef's opinion (see Yoreh De'ah 145), which maintains that a gentile
can cause a Jew's property to become forbidden, this passage teaches us that
the Jew's act is considered sufficient to cause the brick to become forbidden.
Similarly, if he - a Jew
stands an egg up and a gentile comes
and bows down to it, it becomes forbidden. - This
situation is left as an unresolved question in Avodah Zarah(ibid.).
Rashi explains that the question is whether standing up an egg is, like
standing up a brick, a significant act, or whether, because an egg is much
smaller than a brick, standing it up is of no significance. Because the
question is left unresolved, the Rambam follows the more severe view.
This and the previous law indicate
that for a Jew's acceptance of idol worship to be significant in this context,
it is necessary for him to perform a deed; a verbal statement or thought is of
no consequence.
If one cuts off a gourd or the like
and bows down to it, it is forbidden. -As long as a plant is attached to its
source, the fact that it is worshiped does not cause it to be forbidden, as
explained in Halachah 1. When, however, it is cut off and worshiped, it becomes
forbidden.
Even when one bows down to only half
the gourd and the other half is still attached to it, it is forbidden because
of the doubt involved. Perhaps the second half is considered to be a handle for
the half which was worshiped. - The
Ra'avad objects to this decision, stating that the principle of considering one
object as a "handle" of another applies only with regard to questions
of ritual purity, and not regarding the prohibition of articles because of
their connection with idol worship.
Though Rashi's interpretation of Chulin 128a appears to support the Ra'avad's
view, the Kessef Mishneh and the Radbaz explain that the
passage can also be interpreted according to the Rambam's perspective.
It is forbidden to benefit from a tree
which was planted for the purpose of being worshiped. - Although, as stated in Halachah 1,
worshiping a tree does not cause it to become forbidden, since at the time the
tree was planted it could be "manipulated by man," idol worship could
cause it to become forbidden.
This is the asherah that the Torah
mentions - in Exodus 34:13 and
inDeuteronomy 7:5 and 12:3. There are many more
references in the works of the prophets. See Chapter 6, note 28, which
describes the worship of asherot.
Note also the statements of the Zohar (Vol. I, 49a), which associate the
rites of anasherah with
the worship of the moon.
When a tree which had been planted
previously - not for the pupose
of idol worship
was pruned and carved for the sake of
idol worship - even if it was extended - 18הכרבה refers to a technique quite popular as
a means of extending vines. A large branch of the original vine is implanted
into the ground. It becomes the base from which a new vine sprouts.
or a growth was grafted onto the trunk
of the tree - and branches grew, one must cut off [these] branches, and benefit
from them is forbidden. -Since these branches come about as a result of a human
activity carried out for the sake of idol worship, they are forbidden.
The remainder of the tree, however, is
permitted. - Although a deed was
carried out with the tree itself, the tree - unlike the animals mentioned in
Halachah 1 - does not become forbidden (Avodah Zarah 48a).
Similarly, when a person bows down to
a tree, even though the tree itself is not forbidden, it is forbidden to
benefit from all the branches, leaves, sprouts, and fruits which it produces
during the time it is worshiped. - All
the fruits and branches that are growing on the tree when it is first worshiped
are permitted. The prohibition only applies to those which begin growing from
the time the tree was worshiped (Siftei Cohen, Yoreh De'ah145:5).
When gentiles guard the fruits of a
tree and say that they are designated to be used to make alchoholic beverages
for a particular pagan temple, and [the fruits] are - known to be
used for alchoholic beverages which
are - customarily
drunken on their pagan holidays, it is
forbidden to benefit from this tree. - Avodah
Zarah (ibid.) mentions
this law with regard to date palms in Babylon that were set aside for the
purpose of making beer for pagan celebrations.
This is the ritual associated with an
asherah. - Thus, we see that its
worship also involved Bacchanalian rites.
Accordingly, we can assume that [the
tree] is an asherah, and therefore its fruits will be used for such purposes. - Although we generally do not accept a
gentile's word, we accept his statements in this instance, since the
circumstances attest to their genuineness.
Commentary Halacha 4
[The following rules apply to] a tree
under which a false deity was placed: - See
also Chapter 7, Halachah 11, which explains (based on Avodah Zarah 48a) that such a tree is also
considered to be an asherah.
It is forbidden to benefit from it as
long as the deity is located under it. -Rabbenu Nissim explains that this
prohibition applies only when the tree was originally planted for this purpose.
Otherwise, as in an instance when the tree itself is worshiped (see Halachah
1), it is not forbidden.
Tosafot (Avodah Zarah 47b) do not accept this view. They
explain that, although according to Torah law (מדאורייתא), the tree is
permitted, the Rabbis forbade deriving benefit from it as long as the false
deity is located under it.
From the Rambam's inclusion of this
law in this halachah, it would appear that he subscribes to the latter view.
Though the Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah145:6) quotes this
law without specifying that the tree must be planted for this intent, the Siftei Cohen (145:19) mentions this factor.
When it is removed - The Rambam's phraseology differs
slightly from his source, Avodah
Zarah (ibid.), which
states, "when it (the deity) is negated."
we are permitted [to benefit] from it
- The Kessef Mishneh explains that, in contrast to the
previous halachah, in this instance even the branches of the tree which grew
while the deity was located under the tree are permitted
since the tree itself is not the
entity which was worshiped.
When a gentile - The Rambam mentions a gentile in this
instance because, as stated in Chapter 7, Halachah 4, a false deity made by a
gentile is prohibited immediately. In contrast, if it was made by a Jew, it is
not forbidden until it was worshiped.
constructs a building with the
intention that the building itself be worshiped, and, similarly, when a person
bows down to a building that has already been constructed, they become
forbidden. - Although a building
that has already been constructed is connected to the earth, and thus cannot be
"manipulated by man," it can still become forbidden. Avodah Zarah47b explains that
since the building materials were originally separate from the earth, the fact
that they were later attached to the earth is of no significance.
The Radbaz (Vol. V, Responsum 1492)
and other authorities note that in other places in the Mishneh Torah - e.g., Hilchot Me'ilah 5:5 - the Rambam considers a house,
like a mountain or a tree, to be an article which is attached to the earth and
beyond man's control. The Radbaz explains that the more stringent position was
adopted in our particular instance because of the serious nature of the
prohibition against the worship of false deities.
When a [building] which had already
been constructed, was plastered and embellished - with artistic forms (Rambam's
Commentary on the Mishnah,Avodah Zarah 3:7)
for the sake of worship - This also refers to an instance where
the building itself is worshiped, and not where it is merely serving as a
shrine for the worship of other deities.
to the extent that it is considered to
be a new entity, one must remove all the new additions - If the house belonged to a gentile, it
is unnecessary for all the additions to be removed. After making minor changes
to nullify the house's connection with worship, benefiting from it is
permissible (Turei Zahav, Yoreh De'ah 145:8).
and it is forbidden to benefit from
them, since they were made with the intention of being worshiped. - If these "improvements" were
made by a Jew, his intent is not taken into consideration and the prohibition
takes effect only if the building is actually worshiped.
It is, however, permitted to benefit
from the remainder of the building -since it was not constructed with a
forbidden intent.
If one placed an idol within a house,
it is forbidden to benefit from the house while the idol is located within. -
Although the house was not originally constructed to be a shrine, as long as it
serves this purpose, it is forbidden to benefit from it.
When it is removed, the house becomes
permitted. - The Ramah (Yoreh
De'ah 145:3) relates that if
the house was originally constructed to be a shrine for a false deity, the
removal of the idol is not sufficient to cause it to become permitted. Rather,
the connection it shares with idol worship must be nullified. Furthermore, such
nullification is effective only when the house is owned by a gentile. If it is
owned by a Jew, the nullification is of no consequence.
Similarly, it is forbidden to benefit
from a stone which was hewn from a mountain with the intention that it be
worshiped. - Note the differences
in the laws involving Jews and gentiles mentioned above.
If it had already been hewn out, but
was adorned and embellished with the intention that it be worshiped - even if
the stone itself was adorned and embellished - i.e.,the substance of the stone was
itself carved and
and, needless to say, if the adornment
was - from other substances that
were
added to it - one - a Jew, see above regarding a gentile
must remove all the new additions, and
it is forbidden to benefit from them, since they were made with the intention
of being worshiped. It is, however, permitted to benefit from the remainder of
the stone - since it was hewn
from the ground without a forbidden intent.
Commentary Halacha 5
A stone on which an idol is placed is
forbidden as long as the idol is upon it - even
though it was not originally hewn out for this intention.
Once [the idol] is removed, it is
permitted. - In this case as
well, we must assume that the stone was not originally hewn out for this
intention. Otherwise, the prohibition would continue even after the idol was
removed.
When a person's house which is located
next to [a shrine of] - Rashi, Avodah
Zarah 47a, states that this
refers to a house which is itself worshiped.
an idol - The commentaries explain that the
person's house and the shrine share a single wall. The wall is located,
however, on property belonging to the shrine.
falls, it is forbidden for him to
rebuild it - to its former
boundaries. By rebuilding the wall, the person completes the construction of
the idol's shrine.
What must he do? He must move [the
wall] within his own four cubits -The Rambam's text of the source of this
halachah, the Mishnah, Avodah
Zarah3:6, does not mention "four cubits," nor is this phrase
included in many manuscripts of the Mishneh
Torah. The intent appears to be that he should move the wall entirely onto
his own property. Other authorities, however, include this phrase in the
Mishnah. According to their view (which is accepted by theSiftei Cohen,
Yoreh De'ah 143:2), one must
leave open a space of four cubits.
and then rebuild it. The empty space
must not be left free for the sake of the shrine of the idol - lest the shrine be expanded.
Rather, he should fill it with thorns
or feces. - Avodah Zarah 47b states that the space should be
used "as an outhouse for children."
If the wall belonged jointly to both a
private individual and an idol - i.e.,
the space upon which the wall originally stood belonged to both. Therefore,
when the property lines are drawn again,
it should be considered to belong to
them equally. - This is the
common practice when a wall falls. (See Bava
Batra 1:1.)
It is permitted to benefit from his
half - Though he must leave an
open space between the wall he builds and the wall of the shrine, he may
include his portion of the area from the fallen wall as part of this space (Beit
Yosef, Yoreh De'ah 143).
the [half] belonging to the idol,
however, is forbidden - and
cannot be included in the open space.
[Similarly,] it is forbidden to benefit
from all [the wall's] stones, beams, and earth. - Our translation follows Rashi's
commentary. Rabbenu Nissim maintains that if the wall was built jointly by the
two parties, the Jew is entitled to half of the building materials.
Nevertheless, even though he follows this view in principle, in practice, he
forbids the Jew from using any of the building materials which he does not
recognize as his own. The Ramah (Yoreh De'ah, ibid.) quotes Rabbenu Nissim's
view.
Commentary Halacha 6
How must one destroy a false deity - The placement of this halachah appears
problematic. On the surface, it would have been more appropriate to relate it
after Chapter 7, Halachah 1, which mentions the commandment to destroy idol
worship, or after the following halachah, which completes the description of
the types of articles that are forbidden because of their association with idol
worship.
Perhaps, since the prohibition against
benefiting from the coating of an idol is considered to be a mitzvah in its own
right, the Rambam concludes his discussion of the mitzvah to destroy prohibited
articles before entering that subject (Kinat Eliyahu).
and the other entities which are
forbidden on its account - e.g., its accessories and offerings? - See Chapter 7, Halachot 2 and 9.
One must grind them and scatter [the
dust] in the wind - The Sages
objected to this opinion, maintaining that the dust will serve as fertilizer,
and thus benefit man. This objection is not accepted, since the fertilizer is
not the only factor causing the crops to grow (see the commentary on Chapter 7,
Halachah 14, which describes the concept of 18הז םרוגáהזו), and it was not
intentionally used for this purpose (Tosafot, Avodah Zarah 43a).
or burn them and deposit the ashes in
the Dead Sea. - See the
commentary on Chapter 7, Halachah 5, which explains why the Dead Sea is
mentioned.
The Merchevat
HaMishneh cites Hilchot Chametz UMatzah 11:3, which states:
How must chametz be destroyed? It may
be burned, crumbled and tossed to the wind, or thrown to the sea.
On this basis, he explains that there
are three options to destroy a false deity: grinding and tossing it to the
wind, burning (where the article must be destroyed), and throwing it into the
Dead Sea. Since the Dead Sea is a barren place, which is not frequented by
ships, the article need not be destroyed. Even if it is left whole, we assume
that no benefit will come from it to man.
This interpretation is not accepted by
all authorities. Tosafot (ibid.) maintains that even an
idol tossed into the Dead Sea must be destroyed first.
The Shulchan
Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 146:15) mentions letting an idol sink
"in the sea" (not "the Dead Sea"), without requiring that
it be destroyed first. The Siftei
Cohen (145:13) and the Turei Zahav (145:11), however, require an idol to
be destroyed before it is deposited in any sea other than the Dead Sea.
Commentary Halacha 7
Although [as mentioned above,] an
entity which cannot be manipulated by man - e.g., a mountain, animal, or tree -
even when worshiped remains permitted - Though,
as mentioned in Halachah 1, benefit from these entities is not forbidden, their
worship is still considered to be idol worship. Therefore,
it is forbidden to benefit from its
coatings - since they are
considered to be an accessory of idol worship. Sefer HaMitzvot (Negative Commandment 22) andSefer
HaChinuch (Mitzvah 428)
consider this to be one of the 613 mitzvot of the Torah.
A person who derives any benefit from
them whatsoever is [liable for] lashes - The
commentaries note that in Chapter 7, Halachah 2, the Rambam states that a
person who benefits from an idol or its accessories receives two measures of
lashes. Thus, one might assume that for this transgression, one should receive
two or three measures of lashes. (See the Ramban, Hasagot l'Sefer HaMitzvot,
Negative Commandment 194.)
Avodat HaMelech explains that since the deity itself is not
forbidden, this prohibition is considered to be a separate commandment.
Accordingly, its transgression is not related to any other prohibitions.
Accordingly, its transgression is not related to any other prohibitions.
as [Deuteronomy 7:25] states: "Do not
desire the silver and gold which are upon them." - Although, literally, the subject of
the Biblical proof-text is "the statues of their gods," the
interpretation quoted by the Rambam has its source in Avodah Zarah 45a.
Any coating of - Though the verse
mentions only silver and gold, any substance which was intended to adorn an
entity worshiped as
a false deity is considered to be one
of its accessories - and
forbidden.
Commentary Halacha 8
It is permitted to benefit from a
false deity belonging to a gentile - but not one belonging to a Jew, as
explained in the following halachah. That halachah also states that the gentile
must be an idolater. If he does not worship idols, different rules apply.
whose deification was nullified - by performing one of the deeds
mentioned in Halachah 10
by gentiles - but not by Jews (see the following
halachah)
before - but not after, (see the following
halachah.)
it entered the possession of a Jew, as
[Deuteronomy, ibid.]
states, "You must burn the statues of their gods with fire." - Avodah Zarah 52a notes that the root לספ can mean
both "statue" and "nullify." Thus, it comments, "Which
is the source from where we learn that a gentile can nullify his deity? 'You
must burn the statues of their gods.'"
K'nesset HaGedolah notes a difficulty in this halachah, based on the
principle that two new concepts cannot be derived from the same verse. Avodah Zarah,ibid.,
mentions that the same phrase is quoted as the source for both this concept and
the law stated in Chapter 7, Halachah 4. It therefore seeks to derive one of
these laws from a different source. The Rambam, however, quotes the same phrase
as the proof-text for both laws.
K'nesset HaGedolah and the Lechem
Mishneh explain - using this
as an example for a principle that applies throughout the Mishneh Torah - that the Rambam's goal was to
present the laws in the manner which it could be most easily appreciated by a
reader, even if in doing so he did not follow all the principles of Biblical
exegesis accepted by the Talmud.
[This command applies] only if they
are treated as gods when they enter our possession. If, however, their
deification was nullified, they are permitted - and may be used for whatever purposes
a Jew desires. It appears, however, that they are forbidden to be used for the
Temple's purposes, even after they were nullified.
Commentary Halacha 9
A false deity belonging to a Jew can
never be nullified. - Since a Jew's sin of idol worship is more severe than a
gentile's, it is forbidden to derive benefit from the object of that worship
forever.
Even if he owns it in partnership with
a gentile, its nullification is of no consequence. - Avodah Zarah 53a explains that we consider the Jew
to have worshiped the idol through his own process of choice, and not merely as
a result of the gentile's influence. Therefore, even though the gentile
nullifies his portion, the idol is still forbidden because of the Jew.
Rather, it is forbidden to benefit
from it forever, and it must be entombed. - Avodah
Zarah 52a derives this from Deuteronomy 27:15: "Cursed be the man who
makes an idol... and places it in a secret place." We can infer: What must
be done with an idol made by a Jew? It must be placed in a "secret
place" - i.e., entombed.
The Kessef
Mishneh and others
question why a Jew's idol should be entombed instead of destroyed, as required
in Halachah 6. [Note thatTosafot, Avodah
Zarah, ibid.,
interpret the Hebrew genizah to mean
"destruction," rather than entombment, in this instance.]
Avodat HaMelech explains that since the concept is derived from a
Biblical proof-text, there is no difficulty. It is all a matter of Divine
decree. In one instance, God desires that the false deities be destroyed, while
in another instance He desires that they be entombed.
Similarly, when a false deity - Note
that the Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 146:2) distinguishes between a false
deity itself and its accessories and adornments, stating that the latter may be
nullified by a gentile even after they have been acquired by a Jew.
belonging to a gentile enters the
possession of a Jew, and then is nullified by a gentile, the nullification is
of no consequence - The Beit Yosef (Yoreh De'ah 146) explains that this is a Rabbinic
decree.
and it is forbidden to benefit from it
forever. - Therefore, whenever a
Jew wants to take possession of a false deity, he must have it nullified by a
gentile before he assumes ownership of it.
A Jew cannot nullify a false deity -
An idol can be nullified as a divinity only by a person who once attached importance
to it. Since a Jew is, in essence, a believer in the true God, his attachment
to idols is merely superficial. Hence, his acts can have no effect upon them.
even when it is in the possession of a
gentile. - The Kessef Mishnehexplains that
this decision applies even when the gentile gives the Jew permission to nullify
it.
A gentile who is a minor or a fool
cannot nullify a false deity. - Avodah
Zarah 43a relates the
following narrative:
Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi related: Once
I was following Rabbi Elazar HaKappar the Great on a road. He found a ring with
the imprint of a d'rakon(see
Chapter 7, Halachah 8) on it. He passed a gentile child without saying anything
to him. Afterwards, he met a gentile adult and asked him to nullify it. He
refused. Rabbi Elazar struck him and he nullified it.
We learn from this three things: a) a gentile can nullify an idol whether it belongs to him or to his colleague; b) a gentile who is knowledgeable about idol worship can nullify it, while one who is not knowledgeable cannot nullify it; c) a gentile's nullification of idol worship is effective even if he is compelled to do so.
We learn from this three things: a) a gentile can nullify an idol whether it belongs to him or to his colleague; b) a gentile who is knowledgeable about idol worship can nullify it, while one who is not knowledgeable cannot nullify it; c) a gentile's nullification of idol worship is effective even if he is compelled to do so.
Neither a minor nor a fool is
considered "knowledgeable about idol worship." hence, their
nullification is not acceptable.
When a gentile is forced to nullify a
false deity - whether it belongs to him or to other gentiles - even when he is
forced to do so by Jews, the nullification is of consequence.
The gentile who nullifies idol worship
must himself be an idolater. - It does not, however, matter whether the
idolater worships the particular idol he nullifies or not. For example, a
worshiper of Pe'or can nullify a shrine of Marculis (Avodah Zarah 64b).
If he is not an idolater, his
nullification is of no consequence. - Avodah
Zarah (ibid.)
states that a ger toshav - a gentile who accepts the observance
of the seven universal laws given to Noach and his descendants - cannot nullify
an idol.
.)
states that a ger toshav - a gentile who accepts the observance
of the seven universal laws given to Noach and his descendants - cannot nullify
an idol.
As stated in Chapter 10, Halachah 6, a ger toshav must formalize his acceptance of these
laws before a Rabbinic court. Also, the laws of a ger toshavapply only during the era when the Jubilee
year is observed. Nevertheless, from Hilchot
Ma'achalot Asurot 11:7 and
13:11, it appears that even a gentile who observes the seven Noachide laws cannot
nullify an idol in the present era. There, the Rambam explains that the Moslems
are not considered to be idolaters regarding the laws of yayin nesech. Thus, it can be
assumed that their nullification of idol worship would not be of consequence.
only during the era when the Jubilee
year is observed. Nevertheless, from Hilchot
Ma'achalot Asurot 11:7 and
13:11, it appears that even a gentile who observes the seven Noachide laws cannot
nullify an idol in the present era. There, the Rambam explains that the Moslems
are not considered to be idolaters regarding the laws of yayin nesech. Thus, it can be
assumed that their nullification of idol worship would not be of consequence.
See also the statements of the Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 124:2) and the Ramah (Yoreh De'ah 124:5), which appear to accept this
decision.
When [a gentile] nullifies a false
deity, he also nullifies [the connection to idol worship of] its accessories - and it becomes permitted to benefit
from them. The Ramah (Yoreh De'ah 146:13)
states that this law applies even if a Jew had already taken possession of the
accessories, so long as the false deity remained in the possession of the
gentile.
When he nullifies [the connection to
idol worship of] its accessories, it is permitted to benefit from the
accessories. [The deity] itself, however, remains forbidden until it is
nullified. - On the contrary, the
fact that the gentile did not nullify the false deity itself indicates that he
still has some reverence for it.
[The connection to idol worship of] an
object that was brought to an idol as an offering - whether it was brought by a Jew or
gentile
can never be nullified. - From Hilchot
Sha'ar Avot HaTum'ah 6:7, it
appears that this decision applies only to foods which were offered to a false
deity. If other articles were brought as offerings, different laws apply.
Commentary Halacha 10
How is [an idol] nullified - by
a gentile, as mentioned in Halachah 8?
When one cuts off the tip of its nose,
the tip of its ear, or the tip of its finger - By doing so, one mars its appearance
and thus reveals that one no longer regards it with reverence.
smooths out its face - Our translation follows the Rambam's
Commentary on the Mishnah (Avodah Zarah 4:4). Others (see Rashi, Avodah Zarah 53a) render it as "smashes its
face."
even though none of its substance was
destroyed - Once the face of an
idol is no longer recognizable, the idol is obviously not considered to be a
deity. The Rambam emphasizes that it is only when the face of the idol is
smoothed out that it is nullified. Smoothing out any other portion of the idol
is not effective.
or sells it to a Jewish jeweler - By doing so, the gentile implies his
willingness to have the Jew smelt down the idol to its precious metal value.
Thus, he obviously no longer considers it to be a god.
This point is debated in Avodah Zarah 53a, and no explicit conclusion is
reached. Most other authorities (and the Shulchan
Aruch, Yoreh De'ah 146:8)
maintain that selling it to a Jewish jeweler is insufficient to nullify it.
it is nullified. - Note the Ramah's decision (Yoreh
De'ah 146:7) that making a
verbal statement is sufficient to nullify it as an idol in most cases. A deed
such as those mentioned above is necessary only when a gentile is compelled to
nullify it.
If, however, one gave it as security
for a loan, sold it to a gentile - even
a jeweler
[sold it] to a Jew who is not a
jeweler - In these instances,
although the gentile used the idol for business purposes, it is still possible
that he sold it with the intent that the purchaser use the idol as a god.
Hence, we cannot be certain that it was nullified by the seller.
[left it] after it was covered by
fallen articles without removing them, did not demand its return after it was
stolen by thieves - Such acts
appear to indicate that the gentile has little reverence for his idol. (Why
should he? Once he sees that the idol cannot save itself, why should he think
that it will benefit him?) Nevertheless, as long as he does not do anything
that explicitly clarifies that he no longer reveres it, it is not nullified.
spat in its face, urinated upon it,
dragged it [in mud] - The
bracketed additions are based on Rashi's commentary (Avodah Zarah, ibid.).
or threw feces upon it - Although these acts are irreverent in
nature, they could be interpreted as temporary expressions of anger rather than
a sincere nullification of the idol's divinity.
it is not nullified. - Avodah Zarah 53a derives this from the exegesis of Isaiah 8:21-22, which implies that though
temporarily the people may "curse their king and god (idol) and look
upward (to the true God)," shortly afterwards they will return and
"look to the earth" (worship their idol again).
Commentary Halacha 11
When a false deity was abandoned by
its worshipers in a time of peace, it is apparent that they nullified it. -
Were they still to worship it, they would not have abandoned it. Note Avodah Zarah 53b, which applies these principles to
the Tower of Babel.
Hence, benefit may be derived from it.
[If it was abandoned] in a time of war, it is forbidden. The only reason they
abandoned it was the war. -Note the Shulchan
Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 146:10)
which states that if the gentiles could return to the idol but do not, it is
considered to have been nullified.
When a false deity becomes broken in
the course of nature, it is forbidden to benefit from its broken pieces until
they have been nullified. - Avodah
Zarah 41b quotes a difference
of opinion on this matter between Resh Lakish and Rabbi Yochanan. Resh Lakish
maintains that we can assume that the gentiles nullified their worship of the
idol. If it could not save itself, surely it cannot save them.
Rabbi Yochanan does not accept this
opinion and maintains that even when an idol is broken it is revered. Avodah Zarah 49b states that the gentiles would
even worship the broken pieces of an idol. (See also the Jerusalem Talmud,Avodah
Zarah 3:3.)
Accordingly, when a person finds
broken pieces of an idol, [he must regard them] as forbidden, lest the gentiles
have not nullified them. -Avodah Zarah 41b
explains that although the possibility exists that the idol was nullified, we
must still regard it as forbidden. Since it is recognized as an idol, the
prohibition against using it becomes an established fact, which cannot be
changed until we are certain that it has been nullified as an object of
worship. (Note also our commentary on Chapter 7, Halachah 7.)
[The following principles apply to an
idol] which comes in pieces: If it could be reassembled by an ordinary person - the fact that it is broken is not of
consequence. Indeed, the laws which govern it are more stringent than if it
remained whole.
each piece must be nullified
individually - for each is
considered to be a separate entity.
If [an ordinary person] could not
reassemble it, once one has nullified one of its limbs, all of them are
nullified. - Since the idol is
broken and cannot be reassembled by an ordinary person, it is treated more
leniently, and if one part of it is nullified, the entire idol becomes
permitted. In contrast to the Ra'avad and some other authorities, the Rambam
does require that at least this minimal nullification be carried out. The Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 146:11) follows the Rambam's view.
Commentary Halacha 12
Though an altar for idol worship has
been damaged, it is still forbidden to benefit from it until the majority of it
has been destroyed - Avodah
Zarah 54a cites an allusion
to this law in Isaiah 27:9: "All the stones of the altar
will be as chalkstones that are cracked open."
by gentiles. - As stated in Halachah 9, the
nullification of false deities must be performed by gentiles.
A platform which has been damaged is
permitted. - Avodah Zarah 53b relates that since a platform
consists of only a single stone, if it is damaged another one will be brought
to replace it.
Halachah 5 states that once an idol is
removed from a stone, one is permitted to benefit from it. Thus, we are forced
to say that this law is speaking about an instance where the stone is presently
being used as a platform. It can be interpreted as applying when the damage
happens as a matter of course. The Rambam is teaching us that even though the
stone is being used as a platform at present, since it will soon be replaced,
it is permitted. Alternatively, it is speaking about a stone which was
originally hewn out to be used as a platform. In such an instance, the damage
must be purposely caused by a gentile with the intention of nullifying the
platform.
What is considered a platform, and
what, an altar? A platform consists of a single stone; an altar, of many
stones. - Rather than
differentiate between them because of the functions they serve, explaining that
a platform is used to place idols upon, and an altar, to bring sacrifices, the
Rambam (based onAvodah Zarah, ibid.,)
considers size the determinant.
How are the stones of Marculis
nullified? - As mentioned, a
shrine to Marculis consists of three stones placed one on top of the other.
When one constructs a building from
them or uses them to pave the roads or the like, it is permitted to benefit
from them. - Avodah Zarah 50a relates that even Rabbi Menachem
b'Rabbi Simai, who was called the son of the holy because he would not look at
the image of a coin, lest it carry the form of an idol, would walk on such
roads.
How is an asherah - A tree which is worshiped or one which
offers shade for an idol
nullified? When one pulls off a leaf,
cuts off a branch - Our
translation is based on the text of the Mishnah (Avodah Zarah 3:10) and the Rambam's commentary. A
printing error appears has crept into the standard published texts of the Mishneh Torah, which read זרק
rather than זרד.
takes a staff or scepter from it, or
planes off its sides in a manner which does not benefit it, it is nullified. - These actions indicate a lack of
reverence for the tree. Hence, they are sufficient to nullify it.
When one planes its sides in a manner
which benefits it - to improve
its appearance or to prune it so that it will grow better
it is forbidden - Since these actions are no indication
of a lack of reverence,
but its shavings are permitted - since they are not worshiped.
If [the sides of] an asherah which
belongs to a Jew - or if a Jew
does this to an asherah of a gentile
[are planed off] - even by a gentile
both it and its shavings - Even though the shavings will not be
worshiped, since they come from a false deity which was not nullified, they
also
are forbidden forever, regardless of
whether [it was planed] for its benefit or not, because a false deity belonging
to a Jew can never be nullified - as
stated in Halachah 10.
Chapter Nine
Halacha 1
It is forbidden to purchase or sell
any durable entity to an idolater within three days of one of their holidays.
[Similarly, within this period, it is forbidden] to borrow from them, to lend
to them, to accept payment from them or to repay them for a loan that is
supported by a promissory note or collateral. It is, however, permitted to
collect a loan which is supported by a verbal commitment alone, because one is
saving one's property from being lost to them.
It is permitted to sell them an entity
which will not endure - e.g., vegetables, or a cooked dish - until the day of
their festival.
When does the above apply? In Eretz Yisrael. In other lands,
however, it is forbidden [to engage in such activities] only on the day of
their festival itself.
If one transgressed and did business
with them during these three days, one may derive benefit from the results of
these transactions. When, however, one does business with them on the day of
their festival itself, it is forbidden to benefit from the results of these
transactions.
Halacha 2
It is forbidden to send a present to a
gentile on one of his holidays, unless one knows that he does not acknowledge
or worship idols. Similarly, if a gentile sends a present to a Jew on one of
[the gentile's] holidays, the Jew should not accept it. If, however, there is
the possibility of ill-feeling arising, he should take it from him.
Nevertheless, he should not derive any benefit from it until he finds out that
the gentile does not acknowledge or worship idols.
Halacha 3
If the idolaters' festival lasts
several days - whether three, four, or ten - all the days [of the festival] are
considered as a single day. [Carrying out transactions] on any of these days,
or on the three days preceding them, is forbidden.
Halacha 4
The Canaanites are idol worshipers,
and Sunday is their festival. Accordingly, inEretz Yisrael, it is
forbidden to conduct transactions with them on Thursday and Friday each and
every week, and, needless to say, on Sunday itself, when transactions with them
are forbidden everywhere.
Halacha 5
The day on which the idolaters gather
together to crown a king and offer sacrifice and praise to their false deities
is considered to be one of their holidays, since it is comparable to their
other holidays. In contrast, on a day which is celebrated by an individual
idolater as a festival on which he gives thanks and praise to the star he
[worships] - for example, his birthday, the day on which he shaves his beard or
hair, the day on which he returns from a sea-voyage, the day on which he leaves
prison, the day on which he makes a [wedding] feast for his son, and the like -
it is forbidden [to do business] on that particular day only with that
individual man.
Similarly, when [it is customary] that
the day on which one of them dies is marked with festivities, it is forbidden
[to do business] with those individuals on that day. Whenever [a person's]
death is marked by the burning of his utensils and the offering of incense, we
can assume that idol worship is [involved in the ritual].
The [above] prohibition applies only
to those who worship [the false deity]. In contrast, it is permitted to do
business with those who join in the celebrations by eating, drinking, and
observing it as a matter of custom or in deference to the king.
Halacha 6
Articles which are distinguished by
their use [in the worship] of one of the false deities in a particular locale
may never be sold to the worshipers of that deity in that locale. Articles
which are not characterized by such uniqueness may be sold to them without
enquiring [about the purpose for which they will be used].
If, however, an idolater specifically
states that he is purchasing the article for the sake of idol worship, it is
forbidden to sell it to him unless one blemishes it in a manner which
disqualifies it for use as an offering to the idol. An animal lacking a limb is
not offered as a sacrifice to an idol.
Halacha 7
It is permitted to sell articles which
are distinguished [by their use in the worship of a false deity] that are mixed
together with articles that are not used for such purposes - e.g., pure
frankincense with black frankincense - without enquiring [about the purpose for
which they will be used]. We do not suspect that [the purchaser] will separate
the pure frankincense to use for idol worship. The same applies in other
similar situations.
Halacha 8
Just as it is forbidden to sell
idolaters articles that assist them in idol worship, it is forbidden to sell
them articles that can cause harm to many people - for example, bears, lions,
weapons, fetters, and chains. [Similarly,] it is forbidden to sharpen their
weapons.
Everything that is forbidden to be
sold to idolaters is also forbidden to be sold to a Jew who is suspect that he
will sell to idolaters. Similarly, it is forbidden to sell dangerous objects to
a Jewish thief.
Halacha 9
When the Jews dwell among the idolaters
and have established a covenant with them, it is permissible to sell weapons to
the servants of the king and his to his soldiers, because they use them to wage
war against the enemies of the country and to protect it. Thus, they also
protect us, for we dwell among them.
It is permitted to walk around a city
in which an idol is located. It is, however, forbidden to enter [the city]. If
the idol is located outside the city, it is permitted to walk within it.
Halacha 10
A person who is journeying from one
place to another may not pass through a city in which a false deity is located.
When does this apply? When this is the
only way to his destination. If, however, there is an alternate route to his
destination and, by chance, he took [the route which passed through this city],
it is permissible.
Halacha 11
It is forbidden to build - [even]
together with an idolater - a dome under which an idol is placed. If one
transgressed and built such a structure, however, one's wage is permitted. A priori, one may construct the
palace or the courtyard where that dome is located.
Halacha 12
[The following laws apply] when an
idol is located within a city and there some shops which are adorned and some
which are not: It is forbidden to benefit from those which are adorned or [to
use] anything they contain, since we can assume that they were adorned for the
sake of idol worship. It is permitted to benefit from those which are not
adorned.
It is forbidden to do business with a
store owned by a false deity, because one offers benefit to the false deity.
Halacha 13
When a person sells his house to an
idol, it is forbidden to benefit from the proceeds of the sale. Rather, they
must be taken to the Dead Sea. If, however, an idolater steals a Jew's house
against his will and places an idol within, it is permitted [to accept
whatever] money [he offers]. [The Jew] may compose [a bill of sale] and
formalize it in accordance with the civil law procedures.
Halacha 14
Flutes belonging to idolaters should
not be used in a funeral dirge.
One may attend a pagan commercial fair
and purchase livestock, gentile servants and maidservants before they convert,
houses, fields, and vineyards. One may compose a bill of sale and formalize it
in accordance with the civil law procedures, since by doing so one saves [one's
property] from them.
When does the above apply? When one
buys from a private individual who does not have to pay a tax [to the false
deity]. If, however, one buys from a merchant, it is forbidden, for a merchant
must pay a tax which must be given to the false deity. Hence, [by making such a
purchase], one is giving benefit to a false deity.
[The following laws apply]
if one transgressed and purchased [merchandise] from a merchant: If one
purchased livestock, one should cut off the animal's hooves from below the anklebone.
If one purchased garments or other objects, one should let them rot. If one
purchased money or metal utensils, one should bring them to the Dead Sea. If
one purchased a servant, one may not help him up [from a pit], nor should one
push him into one.
]
if one transgressed and purchased [merchandise] from a merchant: If one
purchased livestock, one should cut off the animal's hooves from below the anklebone.
If one purchased garments or other objects, one should let them rot. If one
purchased money or metal utensils, one should bring them to the Dead Sea. If
one purchased a servant, one may not help him up [from a pit], nor should one
push him into one.
Halacha 15
When an idolater makes a [wedding]
party for his son or daughter, it is forbidden to benefit from the feast. It is
even forbidden for a Jew to eat and drink his own food there, since it is being
consumed at a celebration of idolaters.
When is it forbidden to eat such an
idolater's food? From when he began to prepare for the wedding feast, the
entire duration of the wedding feast, and for thirty days afterwards.
[Furthermore,] if he makes another celebration because of the wedding even after
thirty days have passed, it is forbidden [to participate] until twelve months
[have passed].
This stringency was imposed because of
idol worship, as [implied by Exodus 34:15-16]: "And he shall call to
you and you shall eat from his slaughter, and you shall choose from his
daughters for your sons. His daughters will stray after their gods, and they
will lead your sons astray after these gods."
Halacha 16
A Jewish woman should not nurse the
child of an idolater, since, by doing so, she raises a son who will be an
idolater. She should not serve as a midwife for an idolatrous woman [without
charge]. She may, however, do so for a fee, lest strife arise.
An idolatrous woman may serve as a
midwife for a Jewess and nurse her child. [This must be done] in premises
belonging to a Jew, lest the idolatrous woman kill the child.
Halacha 17
It is forbidden to trade with
[gentiles] on their way to reproachful places of idol worship, but it is
permitted to trade with them when they return. This applies when they do not
journey in a caravan. If, however, they are traveling in a caravan, they may
change their mind and return.
If a Jew journeys to a reproachful
place of idol worship, one may trade with him on his way, since he may change
his mind. On his way back, it is forbidden. [It is forbidden to trade with] an
apostate Jew on his way there and on his way back.
Halacha 18
When a Jew attends a fair of idol
worshipers it is forbidden to trade with him when he returns. Perhaps he sold
an idol to them, and it is forbidden to benefit from the proceeds of the sale
of idol worship possessed by a Jew.
It is, however, permitted to benefit
from [the proceeds of the sale of an idol] possessed by an idolater. Therefore,
it is permitted to trade with an idolater coming from such a fair, but not with
a Jew. It is forbidden to trade with an apostate Jew on his way to and on his
way from such a fair.
-------
Chapter Ten
Halacha 1
We may not draw up a covenant with
idolaters which will establish peace between them [and us] and yet allow them
to worship idols, as [Deuteronomy 7:2] states:
"Do not establish a covenant with them." Rather, they must renounce
their [idol] worship or be slain. It is forbidden to have mercy upon them, as
[Deuteronomy, ibid.]
states: "Do not be gracious to them."
.]
states: "Do not be gracious to them."
Accordingly, if we see an idolater
being swept away or drowning in the river, we should not help him. If we see
that his life is in danger, we should not save him. It is, however, forbidden
to cause one of them to sink or push him into a pit or the like, since he is
not waging war against us.
To whom do the above apply?
To gentiles. It is a mitzvah, however, to eradicate Jewish traitors, minnim, and apikorsim, and to cause them to
descend to the pit of destruction, since they cause difficulty to the Jews and
sway the people away from God.
?
To gentiles. It is a mitzvah, however, to eradicate Jewish traitors, minnim, and apikorsim, and to cause them to
descend to the pit of destruction, since they cause difficulty to the Jews and
sway the people away from God.
Halacha 2
From the above, we can infer that it
is forbidden to offer medical treatment to an idolater even when offered a
wage. If, however, one is afraid of the consequences or fears that ill feeling
will be aroused, one may treat them for a wage, but to treat them free is
forbidden.
[With regard to] a ger toshav, since we are
commanded to secure his well-being, he may be given medical treatment at no
cost.
Halacha 3
It is forbidden to sell them homes and
fields in Eretz Yisrael.
In Syria, one may sell them homes, but not fields.
One may rent them homes in Eretz Yisrael, provided that a
neighborhood [of idolaters] is not established. Fewer than three [homes] does
not constitute a neighborhood. It is, however, forbidden to rent them fields.
In Syria, one may rent them fields.
Why did [the Rabbis issue] more
stringent laws regarding fields? Because two difficulties are involved: One
removes the obligation of tithes [from these fields], and one gives them a
resting place in our land.
It is permitted to sell them houses
and fields in the Diaspora, because it is not our land.
Halacha 4
Even when it is permitted to rent
[homes to idolaters], it is not permitted to rent to them for use as a
dwelling, because they will bring idols into them, as [Deuteronomy 7:26] states: "Do not bring
an abomination into your home." It is, however, permitted to rent them
homes to use as storehouses.
It is forbidden to sell them fruit,
grain, or other produce while it is attached to the earth. One may sell [these
products] after they have been harvested or [before they have been harvested],
on the condition that they will be harvested, and he must harvest them.
Why is it forbidden to sell them [land
or anything attached to the land]? Because [Deuteronomy 7:2] states: "Do not be
gracious with them." [This phrase can also be interpreted:] "Do not
give them a resting place in the land." As long as they do not have a
resting place in the land, their stay will be a temporary one.
[This prohibition also] forbids
speaking about [idolaters] in a praiseworthy manner. It is even forbidden to
say, "Look how beautiful that idolater's body is." How much more so
is it forbidden to praise their deeds or to hold their words dear, as [the
phrase states]: "Do not be gracious with them." [This phrase can also
be interpreted:] "Do not look at them graciously," for doing so will
cause you to draw close to them and learn from their wicked behavior.
[Also implicit in the above phrase is
that] it is forbidden to give them a present. A present may, however, be given
to a ger toshav, [as
implied by Deuteronomy 14:21:] "You may give it to
the stranger in your gates so that he may eat it; or sell it to a
gentile," [i.e., to an idolater]; it should be sold, not given.
Halacha 5
We should provide for poor idolaters
together with poor Jews for the sake of peace. One should not rebuke idolaters
[from taking] leket, shich'chah, andpe'ah,
for the sake of peace. One may inquire about their well-being - even on their
festivals - for the sake of peace.
One may never repeat good wishes to
them. Also, one should not enter the house of a gentile on one of his festivals
to wish him well. If one encounters him in the marketplace, one may greet him
meekly with a serious countenance.
Halacha 6
All the above matters apply only in an era when Israel is in exile
among the idolaters or in an era when the idolaters are in power. When,
however, Israel is in power over them, it is forbidden for us to allow an
idolater among us.
only in an era when Israel is in exile
among the idolaters or in an era when the idolaters are in power. When,
however, Israel is in power over them, it is forbidden for us to allow an
idolater among us.
Even a temporary resident or a
merchant who travels from place to place should not be allowed to pass through
our land until he accepts the seven universal laws commanded to Noah and his
descendants, as [Exodus 23:33] states: "They shall not
dwell in your land" - i.e., even temporarily.
A person who accepts these seven
mitzvot is a ger toshav. A ger toshav may be accepted only in the era when
the [laws of the] Jubilee Year are observed. In an era when the [laws of the]
Jubilee Year are not observed, however, we may accept only full converts [to
Judaism].
Chapter Eleven
Halacha 1
We may not follow the statutes of the
idolaters or resemble them in their [style] of dress, coiffure, or the like, as
[Leviticus 20:23] states: "Do not follow
the statutes of the nation [that I am driving out before you]," as [Leviticus 18:3] states: "Do not follow
their statutes," and as [Deuteronomy 12:30]
states: "Be careful, lest you inquire after them."
[All these verses] share a single
theme: they warn us not to try to resemble [the gentiles]. Instead, the Jews
should be separate from them and distinct in their dress and in their deeds, as
they are in their ideals and character traits. In this context, [Leviticus 20:26] states: "I have
separated you from the nations [to be Mine]."
[Thus,] one may not wear a garment
which is unique to them or grow the tresses of our hair as they do. We may not
shave our heads from the sides and leave hair in the center as they do. This is
called a blorit. We may
not shave the hair on the front of our faces from ear to ear and leave a growth
at the back of our heads as they do. We may not build Temples in order that
many people may enter as they do. Whoever performs one of the above or a deed
of this nature is [liable for] lashes.
Halacha 2
When a Jew is cutting a idolater's
hair, he must stop when he approaches within three fingerbreadths of his blorit on all sides.
Halacha 3
A Jew who has an important position in
a gentile kingdom and must sit before their kings, and would be embarrassed if
he did not resemble them, is granted permission to wear clothes which resemble
theirs and shave the hair on his face as they do.
Halacha 4
It is forbidden to practice
soothsaying as idolaters do, as [Leviticus 19:26]
states: "Do not act as a soothsayer."
What is meant by a soothsayer? For
example, those who say: Since my piece of bread fell out of my mouth, or my
staff fell from my hand, I will not travel to this place today, since if I were
to go I would not be able to accomplish my desires.
Since a fox passed on my right side, I
will not go out of my door today, since if I were to go out I would meet a
deceiver.
Similarly, [this category includes]
those who hear the chirping of a bird and say: This will happen or this will
not happen; it is beneficial to do this or it is detrimental to do this. [Also,
it includes] those who say: Slaughter this rooster that crowed like a raven;
slaughter this hen that crowed like a rooster.
Similarly, a person who sets up omens
for himself; e.g., if this and this happens, I will do this. If it will not
happen, I will not do it, as Eliezer, the servant of Abraham did, and the
things of the like - all this is forbidden. Anyone who does one of these things
because of such omens is [liable for] lashes.
Halacha 5
[A different ruling applies when] a
person says, "This dwelling which I built will be a good omen for
me"; "This woman whom I married or this animal that I purchased was
blessed. From the time I purchased it onward, I have become rich."
The same applies to a person who
rejoices and exclaims, "This is a good omen" when he asks a child,
"Which verse are you studying?" and the child reads him a verse of
blessing. This and the like are permitted, since the person did not perform an
act or hold himself back from performing an act [because of the omen]. All he
did was consider something that had already happened as a sign.
Halacha 6
What is meant by a diviner? This
refers to a person who performs certain deeds to cause him to fall into a
trance and have his mind cleared of all thoughts until he can predict the
future, saying, "This will happen" or "This will not
happen;" or saying, "it is proper to do such and such. Be careful to
do so."
There are some diviners who use sand
or stones [to obtain their answers]. Others prostrate themselves on the ground,
make strange motions and scream. Others look at a metal or crystal mirror,
fantasize, and speak. Still others carry a staff and lean on it and tap with it
until they fall into a trance and speak. This is what the prophet [Hoshea
(4:12) meant by] saying, "My people will inquire of their rods. Their
staffs will tell them."
Halacha 7
It is forbidden to divine or to
inquire of a diviner. A person who inquires of a diviner is given "stripes
for rebelliousness." In contrast, the diviner himself is [punished by]
lashes if he performs one of the above or other similar acts, as [Deuteronomy 18:10] states: "There shall
not be found among you one who passes..., one who practices divination."
Halacha 8
Who is a fortuneteller? A person who
tries to predict auspicious times, using astrology and saying, "This day
will be a good day," "This day will be a bad day," "It is
appropriate to perform a particular task on a certain day"; or "This
year" or "This month will not be opportune for this particular
matter."
Halacha 9
It is forbidden to tell fortunes.
[This applies] even though one does not perform a deed, but merely relates the
falsehoods which the fools consider to be words of truth and wisdom. Anyone who
performs a deed because of an astrological calculation or arranges his work or
his journeys to fit a time that was suggested by the astrologers is [liable
for] lashes, as [Leviticus 19:26] states: "Do not tell
fortunes."
Also included in the scope of this
prohibition is one who performs magic tricks and deludes those who observe him
into thinking that he performs wonders although he is not doing so. He is
[liable for] lashes.
Halacha 10
Who is a person who casts spells? A
person who chants incantations that have no meaning in people's speech or any
connotation and imagines in his foolish perception that his words have an
effect. Such people will say: If you cast a particular spell on a snake or a
scorpion, they will do no harm. If you cast a particular spell on a person, he
will never be harmed. Some of them will hold a key or a rock in their hands
while they are talking, or perform other similar deeds. All of these are
forbidden.
A person who casts spells is [punished
by lashes] if he holds anything in his hand or performs an act while speaking,
even if he merely gestures with his finger, as [Deuteronomy 18:10-11] states: "There
shall not be found among you... one who casts spells." If, however, the
person merely spoke without moving his finger or his head and without holding
anything in his hand, and similarly, a person who has a spell cast upon him
through the utterance of such incantations, thinking that this will help him,
he is given "stripes for rebelliousness" because he participated in
the foolish activities of a spell-caster.
All these deplorable incantations and
strange names will not do harm, nor will they bring any benefit.
Halacha 11
When a person has been bitten by a
scorpion or a snake, it is permitted to recite incantations over the bite.
[This is permitted] - even on the Sabbath - in order to settle his mind and
strengthen his feelings. Even though [the incantations] are of no avail, since
the victim's life is in danger, permission was granted lest he become overly
disturbed.
Halacha 12
A person who whispers an incantation
over a wound and then recites a verse from the Torah, who recites a verse over
a child so that he will not become scared, or who places a Torah scroll or tefillin over a baby so that it will sleep, is
considered to be a soothsayer or one who cast spells. Furthermore, such people
are included among those who deny the Torah, because they relate to the words
of Torah as if they are cures for the body, when, in fact, they are cures for
the soul, as [Proverbs 3:22] states: "And they shall be
life for your soul."
It is, however, permitted for a
healthy person to read verses [from the Bible] or chapters from Psalms so that
the merit of reading them will protect him and save him from difficulties and
injury.
Halacha 13
Who is one who seeks [information]
from the dead? A person who starves himself and goes to sleep in a cemetery so
that a deceased person will come to him in a dream and reply to his questions.
There are others who wear special clothes, recite incantations, burn a
particular type of incense, and sleep alone so that a deceased person will come
to them and speak to them in a dream. To summarize: Anyone who performs a deed
in order that a deceased person should come to him and give him information is
[liable for] lashes, as [Deuteronomy 18:10]
states: "There shall not be found among you one who passes..., one who
seeks [information] from the dead."
Halacha 14
It is forbidden to inquire of a person
who practices [divination with an] ov or ayid'oni, as [Deuteronomy 18:10-11] states: "There
shall not be found among you one who passes..., one who seeks [information]
from an ov or a yid'oni."
Thus, a person who practices
[divination with an] ov or a yid'oni himself is stoned to death, and a
person who inquires of them violates a negative commandment and receives
stripes for rebelliousness. One who plans his deeds and acts according to their
instructions is [liable for] lashes.
Halacha 15
A sorcerer must be condemned to
execution by stoning. This applies when he commits a deed of sorcery. If,
however, he merely deludes those who observe him into thinking that he is
performing an act although he actually does not, he is given stripes for rebelliousness.
[The reason is] that the prohibition
against sorcery is stated in the prohibition [Deuteronomy 18:10-11]: "There shall not
be found among you one who... [practices sorcery]." It is, however, a
prohibition which is punishable by execution by the court, as [Exodus 22:17] states: "Do not allow a
witch to live." [Therefore,] lashes are not administered for its
violation.
Halacha 16
All the above matters are falsehood
and lies with which the original idolaters deceived the gentile nations in
order to lead them after them. It is not fitting for the Jews who are wise
sages to be drawn into such emptiness, nor to consider that they have any value
as [implied by Numbers 23:23]: "No black magic can be
found among Jacob, or occult arts within Israel." Similarly, [Deuteronomy 18:14] states: "These nations
which you are driving out listen to astrologers and diviners. This is not [what
God... has granted] you."
Whoever believes in [occult arts] of
this nature and, in his heart, thinks that they are true and words of wisdom,
but are forbidden by the Torah, is foolish and feebleminded. He is considered
like women and children who have underdeveloped intellects.
The masters of wisdom and those of
perfect knowledge know with clear proof that all these crafts which the Torah
forbade are not reflections of wisdom, but rather, emptiness and vanity which
attracted the feebleminded and caused them to abandon all the paths of truth.
For these reasons, when the Torah warned against all these empty matters, it
advised [Deuteronomy 18:13]: "Be of perfect faith
with God, your Lord."
Chapter Twelve
Halacha 1
We may not shave the corners of our
heads as the idolaters and their priests do, as [Leviticus 19:27] states: "Do not cut off
the corners of your heads."
One is liable for each corner.
Therefore, a person who shaves both his temples - even if he were to do so
simultaneously and had received only a single warning – is [liable for] two
measures of lashes.
[This prohibition applies equally to]
one who shaves off only the corners of his head and leaves the remainder of his
hair, and to one who shaves his entire head at once. Since he has shaved the
corners, he is [liable for] lashes.
To whom does the above apply? To the
person who shaves. The person [whose head] is shaven is not lashed unless he
assists the one who is shaving him. One who shaves [the corners of] a child's
[head] should be [liable for] lashes.
Halacha 2
A woman is exempt if she shaves the
head of a man or has her own head shaven. [Since Leviticus 19:27] states: "Do not cut off
the corners of your heads and do not destroy the corners of your beards,"
[an association between the two prohibitions is established]. Whoever is liable
for shaving is liable for cutting off the corners. Therefore, because women are
not liable for shaving - since they do not have beards - they are not liable
for cutting off the corners [of their heads]. Accordingly, slaves are forbidden
to cut off the corners of their heads, since they do possess beards.
Halacha 3
All the Torah's prohibitions apply
equally to men and women, with the exception of the prohibition against
shaving, cutting off the corners of one's head, and the prohibition against
priests contracting impurity through contact with a dead body.
Women are not obligated with regard to
all positive commandments which apply from time to time and are not constant
obligations, with the exception of the sanctification of [the Sabbath] day,
eating matzah on Pesach night, eating and offering
the Paschal sacrifice, hakhel,
and the festive peace-offering for which they are obligated.
Halacha 4
The status of a tumtum and an androgynous is doubtful. Therefore, the
stringencies applying to both a man and a woman are applied to them, and they
are obligated by all [the mitzvot]. If, however, they transgress, they are not
[liable for] lashes.
Halacha 5
Although a woman is permitted to shave
the corners of her own head, she is forbidden to shave the corners of a man's
head. She is even forbidden to shave the corners of a child's [head].
Halacha 6
The Sages did not determine the amount
[of hair] which must be left in the corners of our temples. We have, however,
heard from our elders that one must leave at least forty hairs.
One may remove the [hairs from] the
corners [of our heads] with scissors. The prohibition applies only to total
removal with a razor.
Halacha 8
It is customary for pagan priests to
remove their beards. Therefore, the Torah forbade the removal of one's beard.
The beard has five
"corners": the upper and lower cheek on both the right and left
sides, and the hair on the chin. One is [liable for] lashes for the removal of
each "corner." A person who removes them all at the same time is
[liable for] five measures of lashes.
One is liable only when one shaves
with a razor, as [implied by Leviticus 19:27]: "Do not destroy the
corners of your beard." [We can infer that this applies only] to shaving
which utterly destroys [one's facial hair]. Therefore, a person who removes his
beard with scissors is exempt.
A person who allows himself to be
shaved is not [liable for] lashes unless he provides assistance. A woman who
has facial hair is allowed to shave it. If she shaves a man's beard, she is
exempt.
Halacha 8
It is permitted to shave one's
mustache - i.e., the hair on the upper lip, and, similarly, the hair which
hangs from the lower lip. Even though the removal [of this hair] is permitted,
it is customary for the Jews not to destroy it entirely. Rather, its ends may
be removed so that it will not interfere with eating or drinking.
Halacha 9
The Torah does not forbid the removal
of hair from other portions of the body - e.g., the armpits or the genitalia.
This is, however, prohibited by the Rabbis. A man who removes [such hair] is
given stripes for rebelliousness.
Where does the above apply? In places
where it is customary only for women to remove such hair, so that one will not
beautify himself as women do. In places where it is customary for both men and
women to remove such hair, one is not given stripes. It is permitted to remove
hair from our other limbs with scissors in all communities.
Halacha 10
A woman should not adorn herself as a
man does - e.g., she may not place a turban or a hat on her head or wear armor
or the like. She may not cut [the hair of] her head as men do.
A man should not adorn himself as a
woman does - e.g., he should not wear colored garments or golden bracelets in a
place where such garments and such bracelets are worn only by women. Everything
follows local custom.
A man who adorns himself as a woman
does, and a woman who adorns herself as a man does, are [liable for] lashes.
When a man removes white hairs from among the dark hairs of his head or beard,
he should be lashed as soon as he removes a single hair, because he has
beautified himself as a woman does. Similarly, if he dyes his hair dark, he is
given lashes after dyeing a single hair.
A tumtum and an androgynous may not wrap their heads [in a veil]
as women do, or cut [the hair of] their head as men do. If they do [either of
the above], they are not [liable for] lashes.
Halacha 11
The tattooing which the Torah forbids
involves making a cut in one's flesh and filling the slit with eye-color, ink,
or with any other dye that leaves an imprint. This was the custom of the
idolaters, who would make marks on their bodies for the sake of their idols, as
if to say that they are like servants sold to the idol and designated for its
service.
When a person makes a mark with one of
the substances that leave an imprint after making a slit in any place on his
body, he is [liable for] lashes. [This prohibition is binding on] both men and
women.
If a person wrote and did not dye, or
dyed without writing by cutting [into his flesh], he is not liable. [Punishment
is administered] only when he writes and dyes, as [Leviticus 19:28] states: "[Do not make] a
dyed inscription [on yourselves]."
To whom does this apply? To the person
doing the tattooing. A person who is tattooed [by others], however, is not
liable unless he assisted the tattooer to the extent that it is considered that
he performed a deed. If he did not perform a deed, he is not lashed.
Halacha 12
A person who gouges himself for the
dead is lashed, as [Leviticus 19:28] states: "Do not gouge
your flesh for the dead." This [prohibition] applies both to priests and
to Israelites.
A person who makes a single gouge for
five dead people or five gouges for a single dead person is [liable for] five
measures of lashes, provided he is given a warning for each individual matter.
Halacha 13
Gashing and gouging oneself are
[governed by] a single [prohibition]. Just as the pagans would gouge their
flesh in grief over their dead, they would mutilate themselves for their idols,
as [I Kings 18:28] states: "And they
mutilated themselves according to their custom."
This is also forbidden by the Torah,
as [Deuteronomy 14:1] states: "Do not
mutilate yourselves." [The difference between the two is that if one
gouges himself in grief over] the dead, whether he did so with his bare hands
or with an instrument, he is [liable for] lashes; for the sake of idols, if one
uses an instrument, one is liable for lashes. If one does so with one's bare
hands, one is exempt.
Halacha 14
This commandment also includes [a
prohibition] against there being two courts which follow different customs in a
single city, since this can cause great strife. [Because of the similarity in
the Hebrew roots,] the prohibition against gashing ourselves [can be
interpreted] to mean: "Do not separate into various different
groupings."
Halacha 15
A person who creates a bald spot [on
his head] for a dead person is [liable for] lashes, as [Deuteronomy 14:1] states: "Do not make a
bald spot between your eyes for a dead person." When either a priest or an
Israelite makes a bald spot [on his head] for a dead person, he is [liable for]
only a single measure of lashes.
A person who makes four or five bald
spots for a single dead person is [liable for] a measure of lashes equivalent
to the number of bald spots he made, provided he received a separate warning
for each bald spot. There is no difference whether one created the bald spot
with his hands or with a potion. If a person dipped his fingers into a potion
and positioned them in five places on his head at the same time, since he
created five bald spots, he is [liable for] five measures of lashes even though
only a single warning was given, for they were all created at the same time.
One is liable [for creating a bald
spot] on any part of the head, [not only] "between the eyes" [as is
inferred from Leviticus 21:5]: "Do not make a bald spot
on your heads."
What is the measure of a bald spot? An
area on one's head the size of a griswhich
is free of hair.
Halacha 16
16. A
person who makes a bald spot on his head or gouges his flesh because his house
falls or because his ship sinks at sea is exempt. One is lashed only [if he
carries out these acts] for the sake of a deceased person or if he gashes his
flesh for the sake of an idol.
[The following laws apply] when a
person creates a bald spot on a colleague's head, makes a gash on a colleague's
flesh, or tattoos his colleague's flesh while his colleague assists him. If
they both intended to violate the prohibition, both receive lashes. If one
violated the prohibition inadvertently and the other did so intentionally, the
one who performed the act intentionally is [liable for] lashes, and his
colleague is exempt.
Commentary Halacha 1
In this chapter, the Rambam describes
several prohibitions which comprise rites that do not involve the actual
worship of idols. The Torah forbids them, however, because they are connected
with ceremonial practices performed by idolaters. Note also the Guide for the
Perplexed, Vol. III, Chapter 37, where the Rambam mentions this concept.
The Tur (Yoreh De'ah 181) takes issue with the Rambam's
statements, noting that there is no statement in the Bible, the Mishnah, or the
Talmud, which mentions this point. He objects to the association of the mitzvot
with any particular rationale. From a halachic perspective, the mitzvot should
be fulfilled because they are God's decrees, independent of any rational
explanation.
The Beit
Yosef (Yoreh De'ah, ibid.) defends the Rambam's
statements, based on the ending of Hilchot
Me'ilah, where the Rambam states:
It is proper for a person to meditate
on the judgments of the holy Torah and know their ultimate rationale to the
extent of his capacity.
There are other authorities who draw
out halachic concepts from the association of these prohibitions with idol
worship. For example, based on this connection, the Minchat Chinuch (Mitzvah 251) and Sefer HaKovetz forbid the removal of facial hair even
when the prohibition against shaving is not violated, as mentioned in the commentary
on Halachah 7.
We may not shave - The Torah's prohibition applies only
to shaving. One may cut this hair with scissors, as explained in Halachah 6.
the corners of our heads - The definition of this term is found
in Halachah 6.
as the idolaters and their priests do
- Sefer HaChinuch (Mitzvah 251) explains that this is a
particularly severe prohibition, since its violation involves making a sign for
idolatry on our own bodies.
as [Leviticus 19:27] states: "Do not cut
off the corners of your heads." -Sefer HaMitzvot (Negative Commandment 43) and Sefer HaChinuch (ibid.) consider this
prohibition to be one of the 613 mitzvot of the Torah.
One is liable for each corner.
Therefore, a person who shaves both his temples - even if he were to do so
simultaneously and had received only a single warning - is [liable for] two
measures of lashes. - In Sefer HaMitzvot (ibid.), the Rambam explains
that although this prohibition involves two different activities (shaving the
right corner and shaving the left corner), it is not considered to be two
mitzvot, because the Torah's expression forbidding such shaving includes both
sides in the same phrase. Had the Torah mentioned both the right and left
sides, it would be considered to be two mitzvot.
[This prohibition applies equally to]
one who shaves off only the corners of his head and leaves the remainder of his
hair - As mentioned in Chapter 11, Halachah 1, this style of cutting hair is
referred to as a blorit and was practiced by the gentiles.
and to one who shaves his entire head
at once - in which case, he does
not resemble the gentiles (Sefer HaMitzvot, ibid.).
Since he has shaved the corners, he is
[liable for] lashes. - From this,
we see that the mitzvah is not dependent on the rationale mentioned above.
To whom does the above apply? To the
person who shaves - either his own head or a colleague's head. When, however, a
person shaves a colleague's head,
The person [whose head] is shaven is
not lashed - The Ra'avad
maintains that this person is not punished because he did not perform a deed.
He is, however, considered to have transgressed the Torah's prohibition. The Kessef Mishneh disagrees and maintains that since he
did not perform the deed of shaving, he is not considered to have violated the
prohibition at all. This applies even when he specifically ordered the person
who shaved him to do so. The Ra'avad's opinion is, however, supported by the Lechem Mishneh and other authorities.
unless he assists the one who is
shaving him - by moving his head
so that it is easier to shave.
One who shaves [the corners of] a
child's - a minor below the age
of 13
[head] should be [liable for] lashes.
- A child would not be held
responsible if he shaved himself, because a child is not held liable for the
violation of any of the Torah's prohibitions until he reaches majority.
Nevertheless, an adult is responsible for shaving the child's head (Nazir 57b).
This point is not, however, accepted
by all authorities. The Beit
Yosef (Yoreh De'ah, ibid.) mentions other opinions
which do not hold a person liable for shaving a child's head.
Commentary Halacha 2
A woman is exempt if she shaves the
head of a man - who would be
liable if he shaved his own head
or - assists
the shaver while she
has her own head shaven. - The Kessef
Mishneh differentiates
between these two instances. With regard to shaving a man's head, he explains
that although a woman is exempt, she is, nevertheless, forbidden to do so
(Halachah 5). With regard to shaving her own head, there is no prohibition
whatsoever.
[Since Leviticus 19:27] states: "Do not cut
off the corners of your heads and do not destroy the corners of your
beards," [an association between the two prohibitions is established]. - This association also teaches other
concepts - among them, that one is liable only when one removes the hair with a
razor.
Whoever is liable for shaving is
liable for cutting off the corners. Therefore, because women are not liable for
shaving - since they -generally
do not have beards - Although Kiddushin 35b mentions several ways to derive
this concept through Biblical exegesis, the Rambam chooses to rely on the
simple fact of the matter.
they are not liable for cutting off
the corners [of their heads]. Accordingly, slaves - whose performance of mitzvot is
generally equated with that of women (Chaggigah 4a)
are forbidden to cut off the corners
of their heads, since they do possess beards. - Had the Rambam derived the above point
from the exegesis of a Biblical verse, this conclusion would not be acceptable.
Since, however, he derives the concept from logic, the same logic leads to the
conclusion that slaves be held liable for this act (Kessef Mishneh).
Commentary Halacha 3
This halachah can be understood within
the context of the Rambam's conception of the Mishneh
Torah as a guide to the Oral
Law in its entirety, as he states in his introduction to that text:
Directly after reading the Written
Law, one will read this text and understand from it the entire Oral Law,
without requiring to read any other text.
Thus, although the subject matter of
this and the following halachah are of a far greater scope than the particular
prohibition discussed previously, the Rambam mentions these principles for the
sake of the text's more encompassing goal.
All the Torah's prohibitions apply
equally to men and women - Kiddushin35a
derives this concept from Numbers 5:6, "When a man or a woman
commits any of the transgressions that men commit...."
with the exception of the prohibition
against shaving, cutting off the corners of one's head - as mentioned in the previous halachah,
and the prohibition against priests
contracting impurity through contact with a dead body. - The verse prohibiting such contact, Leviticus 21:1,
begins, "Speak unto the sons of Aharon...."Kiddushin 35b explains that this expression
excludes women.
Women are not obligated with regard to
all positive commandments which apply from time to time and are not constant
obligations - This refers to
mitzvot which are applicable only on certain days - e.g., the blowing of the
shofar and the taking of the lulav and etrog - and also mitzvot that are
applicable during the day and not the night - e.g., Tefillin.
with the exception of the sanctification
of [the Sabbath] day - through
the recitation of kiddush.
Since women are obligated by the prohibition against working on the Sabbath,
they are also obligated by the positive commandment of sanctifying its holiness
(Berachot 20b).
The restriction of this mitzvah to the
Sabbath follows the opinion of the Lechem
Mishnah, who maintains that the sanctification of the festivals is a
Rabbinic injunction. There are, however, other opinions, which consider the
mitzvah as applying to the festivals as well.
eating matzah on Pesach night - Since women are obligated by the
prohibition against eating chametz, they are also obligated by the positive
commandment of eating matzah (Pesachim 43b).
eating and offering the Paschal
sacrifice - Pesachim 91b explains that the Torah uses the
expression (Exodus 12:4): "According to the number of
souls [in a household]... individuals should be designated for the lamb,"
to include women in the observance of this mitzvah.
hakhel - The gathering of the entire Jewish
people to hear the reading of the Torah by the king which is held every seven
years. (See Deuteronomy 31:10-13.) Here, the Torah
explicitly mentions that women should attend.
and celebration of the festivals - Though in a larger sense this refers
to all forms of celebration, in particular it refers to the offering of peace
sacrifices in connection with the festival. (See Hilchot Chaggigah 1:1.)
In this instance as well, the Torah
specifically mentions the obligation of women to participate in the
celebrations, as Deuteronomy 16:14 states: "And you shall rejoice,
you, your son, your daughter, your male and female servants...."
for which they are obligated. - Similarly, women are obligated to
fulfill most positive commandments whose observance is not associated with a
specific time - e.g., the belief in God, mezuzah, and Tzedakah. There are,
however, several positive commandments whose observance is not associated with
a specific time which women are not obligated to fulfill - e.g., Torah study,
the redemption of the first born, and the remembrance of Amalek. (See also the
Rambam's Commentary on the Mishnah, Kiddushin 1:7.)
Commentary Halacha 4
The status of a tumtum - The word tumtum has its roots in the word atum, which means "a solid
block." It refers to a person whose genitalia are covered by skin, and it
is impossible to determine whether he is male or female. (See alsoHilchot
Ishut 2:25.)
Should a tumtum undergo an operation and it be
revealed that he is either male or female, he is bound by the laws which apply
to that gender.
and an androgynous - Androgynous is a combination of the Greek words
meaning "man" and "woman." It refers to a person who
possesses the sexual organs of both genders. (See also Hilchot Ishut 2:24.)
is doubtful - i.e., it is doubtful whether they are
governed by the laws applying to a man or those applying to a woman. The doubts
are, however, different in nature. With regard to a tumtum, we are doubtful what is
his true gender. With regard to an androgynous,
however, the question revolves around the Sages' failure to define his status.
Therefore, the stringencies applying
to both a man - The obligation to
perform all the positive commandments that are associated with time, and the
various other commandments which men are obligated to perform, but women are
not.
and a woman - Bikkurim 4:3 explains that this refers to the
prohibition against being alone with men (yichud), and the laws of ritual
impurity that apply to women.
are applied to them, and they are
obligated by all [the mitzvot]. If, however, they transgress - any of the three commandments for
which men are held liable and women are not
they are not [liable for] lashes. - Punishment is not administered when we
are in doubt of the person's obligation.
Commentary Halacha 5
Although a woman is permitted to shave
the corners of her own head -as mentioned in Halachah 2
she is forbidden to shave the corners
of a man's head. - As stated in
that halachah, she is not punished for doing so. The Ra'avad and the Kessef Mishneh maintain that this prohibition is
Rabbinic in origin. Other authorities, however, state that the prohibition
stems from the Torah itself.
She is even forbidden to shave the
corners of a child's [head]. - Though
the child himself would not be held liable, an adult is liable for shaving the
corners of his head, as stated in Halachah 1. Therefore, even a woman is
forbidden to shave the corners of his head. Rabbenu Yitzchak Alfasi, based onNazir 57b, does not accept the Rambam's
view, and maintains that a woman may shave a child's head.
Commentary Halacha 6
The Sages did not determine the amount
[of hair] which must be left in the corners of our temples. - The Shulchan
Aruch, Yoreh De'ah 181:1,
defines "corners" as referring to the place where the skull is joined
to the jaw. The Beit Lechem
Yehudah writes that the area
which the Ari zal would leave uncut extended slightly
above his ears.
We have, however, heard from our
elders that one must leave at least forty - The Tur's text of the Rambam stated
"four" instead of "forty."
hairs. - In one of his responsa, the Rambam
writes that the forbidden area is about the size of a thumb.
One may remove the [hairs from] the
corners [of our heads] with scissors. - In one of his responsa, the Rambam
writes that he would trim the corners of his head. He explains that - in
contrast to the law applying to a Nazarite's hair - there is no positive
commandment to allow this hair to grow and no need to do so. In many Jewish
communities, however, it is customary to allow this hair to grow. Since its
removal involves the violation of a Torah prohibition, they consider the growth
of this hair as a sign of Jewish identity.
The prohibition applies only to total
removal with a razor. - As is
explained in the commentary on the following halachah, there is a debate among
the Rabbinic authorities if it is permissible to remove this hair using
scissors or even using implements whose effectiveness is equivalent to that of
a razor.
Commentary Halacha 7
It is customary for pagan priests to
remove their beards. - Note our
commentary on Halachah 1. In Sefer
HaMitzvot (Negative
Commandment 44), the Rambam notes that even in his time, it was customary for
Christian monks to shave their faces.
Therefore, the Torah forbade the
removal of one's beard. - Sefer
HaMitzvot (ibid.) and Sefer HaChinuch (Mitzvah 252) consider this
prohibition to be one of the 613 mitzvot of the Torah.
The beard has five
"corners": the upper and lower cheek on both the right and left
sides, and the hair on the chin. - The Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 181:11) writes that there are many
opinions with regard to the definition of these five "corners."
There, "anyone who fears heaven should fulfill all the opinions and not
shave any portion of his beard with a razor."
One is [liable for] lashes for the
removal of each "corner." - As
implied by the verse's mention of "the corners of your beard," and
not merely "your beard" (Sefer HaMitzvot, ibid.).
A person who removes them all at the
same time is [liable for] five measures of lashes. - Nevertheless, as explained in the
commentary on Halachah 1, the prohibition is considered to be a single mitzvah,
and not five.
One is liable only when one shaves
with a razor, as [implied by Leviticus 19:27]: "Do not destroy the
corners of your beard." [We can infer that this applies only] to shaving
which utterly destroys [one's facial hair]. Therefore, a person who removes his
beard with scissors is exempt. - From the Rambam's expression, it appears that
the removal of facial hair with scissors is forbidden. One is not, however,
punished for such an act (Sefer HaChinuch, ibid.; Ma'aseh Rokeach). The Beit Yosef (Yoreh De'ah 181) differs, and maintains that it is
permitted to remove one's facial hair as long as one does not use a razor.
In addition, as mentioned in the
commentary on Halachah 1, the Minchat
Chinuch and Sefer HaKovetz explain that by mentioning the fact
that gentile priests remove their facial hair, the Rambam implies that removing
such hair violates the prohibition of following "the paths of the
gentiles." (See Chapter 11, Halachah 1.) In the context of this prohibition,
the means used to remove the facial hair are of no consequence.
Other authorities (Rashba, Vol. IV,
Responsum 90; Shibbolei Leket; Tzemach Tzedek, Yoreh De'ah,
Responsum 93) forbid the removal of one's facial hair within the context of the
prohibition against a man's adorning himself in the same manner as a woman.
(See Halachot 9 and 10.) In this context as well, it makes no difference how
one removes the hair.
Many contemporary authorities have
explained that in addition to all these points, growing a beard has been
accepted as a sign that a person is God-fearing and precise in his observance
of the mitzvot. Accordingly, anyone who desires to be viewed as such should not
remove his beard even if he does not use a razor.
A person who allows himself to be
shaved is not [liable for] lashes unless he provides assistance. - Note our
commentary on Halachah 1.
A woman who has facial hair is allowed
to shave it - since this is not
the norm. Kiddushin 35b derives this concept from the
exegesis of the verse from Leviticus quoted above.
If she shaves a man's beard, she is
exempt. - It is, however,
forbidden for her to do so, as explained in Halachah 1.
Commentary Halacha 8
It is permitted to shave one's
mustache - i.e., the hair on the upper lip, and, similarly, the hair which
hangs from the lower lip. - Mo'ed
Katan 18a allows the shaving
of this hair because it is not one of the five "corners" of the
beard.
Even though the removal [of this hair]
is permitted, it is customary for the Jews not to destroy it entirely. - This statement reinforces the
interpretation mentioned in the previous halachah, that maintains which the
Rambam did not allow one's facial hair to be removed by means other than
shaving.
It must be noted that there are
authorities who object to the shaving of the mustache. Rabbenu Chanan'el
explained that the corners of the mustache are the two lower
"corners" of the beard. Others (among them Rabbenu Yonah and the Bayit Chadash) associate its
removal with the prohibitions against following the "ways of
gentiles" and adorning oneself as does a woman.
Rather, its ends may be removed so
that it will not interfere with eating or drinking. - The Rabbis have explained that it is
proper manners to remove the hair which interferes with eating. Even the
Kabbalists who would not touch their beards at all would trim their mustaches (Ben
Ish Chai).
Commentary Halacha 9
The Torah does not forbid the removal
of hair from other portions of the body - e.g., the armpits or the genitalia - which are often shaved by women.
This is, however, prohibited by the
Rabbis - as an extension of the
prohibition against a man beautifying himself in the same manner as a woman
does. The classification of the removal of such hair as a Rabbinic prohibition
is not agreed upon by all authorities. The Tzemach
Tzedek (Yoreh De'ah,
Responsum 93) brings opinions which maintain that shaving this hair is within
the scope of the Torah prohibition.
The Kessef
Mishneh explains the
distinction between the Torah prohibition and the Rabbis' decree as follows:
The Torah prohibition involves any adornment which is openly detectable. The
Rabbis extended the scope of the prohibition and included even acts of
beautification which are private.
A man who removes [such hair] is given
stripes for rebelliousness. -The punishment given for violating any Rabbinic
ordinance.
Where does the above apply? In places
where it is customary only for women to remove such hair, so that one will not
beautify himself as women do. - Which is prohibited, as mentioned in the
following halachah.
In places where it is customary for
both men - The Prisha (Yoreh De'ah182) states that
the word "men" refers even to gentiles. Even if gentile men follow
this practice, a Jew is not punished for doing so.
and women to remove such hair, one is
not given stripes. It is permitted - The
expression, "one is not given stripes," and the contrasting
statement, "It is permitted," lead to the conclusion that, even in
these communities, it is forbidden for men to remove this hair. The Ramah (Yoreh
De'ah 182:1) differs, and
grants permission for men to remove such hair in these communities.
When there are medical reasons
requiring the removal of such hair, even the more stringent views allow it to
be shaved off (Shulchan Aruch, Yoreh De'ah182:4).
to remove hair from our other limbs
with scissors - but not with a
razor (Siftei Cohen 182:3).
in all communities.
Commentary Halacha 10
A woman should not adorn herself as a
man does - Sefer HaMitzvot(Negative
Commandment 39) and Sefer
HaChinuch (Mitzvah 542)
consider this prohibition to be one of the 613 mitzvot of the Torah. Curiously,
with regard to this and the following prohibition, the Rambam departs from his
usual custom and does not mention the Biblical proof-text, Deuteronomy 22:5,
for these prohibitions.
e.g., she may not place a turban or a
hat on her head - Needless to say, a hat that was styled for women is
permitted. As the Rambam states later in the halachah, everything depends on
local custom.
or wear armor - Many sources (e.g., Nazir 59a; Targum
Onkelos on Deuteronomy, ibid.) directly associate this
prohibition with a woman's donning armor or carrying weapons. Significantly, in
the listing of mitzvot which precedes these halachot, the Rambam defines the
mitzvah as prohibiting a woman from wearing "armament or a man's apparel."
or the like. She may not cut [the hair
of] her head as men do - i.e., a
woman's coiffure may not resemble a man's. The Yemenite manuscripts of theMishneh
Torah read יגלה,
"reveal," instead of יגלח, "cut." According to that
version, the Rambam is saying that when a woman goes out without covering her
head, in addition to violating the basic laws of modesty (see Hilchot Ishut24:11-12; Hilchot Issurei Bi'ah 21:17), she is also transgressing this
Torah prohibition.
A man should not adorn himself as a
woman does - Sefer HaMitzvot(Negative
Commandment 40) and Sefer
HaChinuch (Mitzvah 543)
consider this prohibition to be one of the 613 mitzvot of the Torah.
In Sefer
HaMitzvot (ibid.), the
Rambam mentions two rationales for this and the previous prohibition:
a) Such behavior would lead to licentiousness;
b) The pagans would often dress in this manner for their rituals.
a) Such behavior would lead to licentiousness;
b) The pagans would often dress in this manner for their rituals.
e.g., he should not wear colored
garments or golden bracelets in a place where such garments and such bracelets
are worn only by women. Everything follows local custom. - Accordingly, the definition of the
pertinent rulings changes according to the norms of the society. Garments which
might have been forbidden for men or women in one era may be permitted in
another, depending on the standards set by the particular society.
A man who adorns himself as a woman
does, and a woman who adorns herself as a man does, are [liable for] lashes. -
Note the Ramah's statements, Orach
Chayim 696:8, which state
that on Purim or at a wedding, this prohibition may be waived for the sake of
adding to the festive mood of the celebration. The Bayit Chadash and others, however, do not accept
this leniency.
When a man removes white hairs from
among the dark hairs of his head or beard - to
prevent the process of aging from being detected
he should be lashed - for violating this prohibition. The
Ra'avad (see alsoSho'el UMeshiv, Vol. I, Responsum 210) differs, and
maintains that such an act violates only a Rabbinic prohibition. His opinion,
however, is not accepted by the later authorities (Darchei Teshuvah 182:15).
as soon as he removes a single hair,
because he has beautified himself as a woman does. - Women are accustomed - and therefore,
allowed - to hide their age, but not men.
Similarly, if he dyes his hair dark,
he is given lashes after dyeing a single hair. - The prohibition applies only when one
attempts to look younger. Dyeing one's hair grey is not forbidden (Turei
Zahav 182:7).
A tumtum and an androgynous - whose status with regard to gender is
doubtful, as explained in Halachah 4.
may not wrap their heads [in a veil]
as women do, or cut [the hair of] their head as men do. - As the Rambam states in that halachah,
"the stringencies of both a man and a woman are applied to them."
Hence, they are not allowed to clothe themselves in a manner which is distinct
to either a man or a woman.
According to the Yemenite manuscripts
mentioned above which substitute יגלה, "reveal," for יגלח,
"cut," this clause also must be amended accordingly.
If they do [either of the above],they
are not [liable for] lashes - because
we are unsure of their gender. Accordingly, it cannot be definitely said that a
prohibition has been violated.
Commentary Halacha 11
The tattooing which the Torah forbids
- Sefer HaMitzvot (Negative Commandment 41) and Sefer HaChinuch (Mitzvah 253) consider this
prohibition to be one of the 613 mitzvot of the Torah.
involves making a cut in one's flesh
and filling the slit with eye-color, ink, or with any other dye that leaves an
imprint. - The Minchat Chinuch(Mitzvah 253)
states that the order mentioned by the Rambam is significant. If it is reversed
and the ink is placed on the skin before an incision is made, one is exempt.
TheSiftei Cohen (Yoreh
De'ah 180:1), however, does
not accept this view.
This was the custom of the idolaters,
who would make marks on their bodies for the sake of their idols - branding themselves
as if to say that they are like
servants sold to the idol and designated for its service. - In Sefer
HaMitzvot (ibid.), the
Rambam states that certain sects in Egypt followed these practices in his time
as well.
When a person makes a mark with one of
the substances that leave an imprint after making a slit in any place on his
body, he is [liable for] lashes. - TheTosefta (Makkot 3:9) adds that one must have the
intent that the inscription is made for the sake of idol worship. This point,
however, is not accepted by the halachic authorities.
[This prohibition is binding on] both
men and women. - The Shulchan Aruch, Yoreh De'ah 180:4, states that one is exempt for
branding a servant. The Ramah, however, explains that it is, nevertheless,
forbidden to do so.
If a person wrote - by cutting into his flesh
and did not dye, or dyed without
writing by cutting [into his flesh], he is not liable - for punishment. The Rambam's
expression implies that although the person is not lashed, both of these acts
are forbidden.
The Minchat
Chinuch (ibid.)
explains that the prohibition against writing on one's flesh applies only when
the imprint left by the ink or dye is permanent. If it is removable, it is not
forbidden. In this manner, he justifies the acts of people who jot down notes
on their flesh when they have no paper available.
[Punishment is administered] only when
he writes and dyes, as [Leviticus 19:28]
states: "[Do not make] a dyed inscription [on yourselves]." - The two words "dyed
inscription" imply that both activities must be performed for the person
to be held liable.
To whom does this apply? To the person
doing the tattooing - on himself or on a colleague.
A person who is tattooed [by others],
however, is not liable unless he assisted the tattooer to the extent that it is
considered that he performed a deed. If he did not perform a deed, he is not
lashed. - TheKessef Mishneh compares this to the prohibition
against shaving the corners of one's head (Halachah 1). Based on this
comparison, there are authorities who maintain that although punishment is not
administered - because punishment is administered only when a person commits a
deed which violates a prohibition - the person who is tattooed is still
considered to have transgressed this Torah prohibition.
Commentary Halacha 12
A person who gouges himself for the
dead - The prohibition applies
only when a person makes such gouges as a sign of bereavement over the dead.
Even when he gouges himself as an expression of grief for other matters, he is
not liable, as stated in Halachah 16. Nevertheless, as stated in the following
halachah, one is also liable for gashing or gouging oneself for idols.
is lashed, as [Leviticus 19:28] states: "Do not
gouge your flesh for the dead." - Sefer
HaMitzvot (Negative
Commandment 45) and Sefer
HaChinuch(Mitzvah 467) consider this prohibition to be one of the 613
mitzvot of the Torah.
This [prohibition] applies both to
priests and to Israelites. - ThoughLeviticus 21:5 specifically forbids the priests from
expressing their grief in this manner, that injunction is not considered to be
a separate commandment. This prohibition applies to both men and women.
A person who makes a single gouge for
five dead people -Makkot 20b
and theSifra derive this
concept through the exegesis of the verse from Leviticus cited above. Although
he performs only a single activity, the verse teaches us that he is held
responsible for each person he has in mind.
or five gouges for a single dead
person is [liable for] five measures of lashes - Each separate act warrants
retribution.
provided he is given a warning for
each individual matter. - Note
Halachah 15, which explains an instance where one is liable for five measures
of lashes even though only a single warning is given, Seemingly, the same law
would apply in this instance (Turei Even).
in this instance (Turei Even).
Commentary Halacha 13
Gashing and gouging oneself - Based on Makkot 21a, it appears that gashing is done
with an instrument, and gouging with one's bare hands. Nevertheless, they
are [governed by] a single
[prohibition]. - Thus, regardless
of how one performs the act, if one mutilates oneself in grief over the dead,
one is held liable. There are opinions (see Shulchan
Aruch, Yoreh De'ah 180:7),
however, which allow one to beat one's flesh in grief until blood flows.
Just as the pagans would gouge their
flesh in grief over their dead, they would mutilate themselves for their idols
- TheKessef Mishnehexplains
that this mutilation was not part of the rites used to worship the false deity
- for if so, a violator would be executed - but rather a voluntary act,
intended to attract the deity's attention.
as [I Kings 18:28] states - regarding the prophets of the Baal who
engaged in the confrontation with the prophet Elijah at Mount Carmel:
"And they mutilated themselves
according to their custom." - This
implies that this was not an isolated occurrence, but rather the routine
followed by the Baal's priests.
This is also forbidden by the Torah,
as [Deuteronomy 14:1] states: "Do not
mutilate yourselves." - This injunction is not considered to be a separate
commandment, but rather a further explanation of the mitzvah stated previously.
[The difference between the two is
that if one gouges himself in grief over] the dead, whether he did so with his
bare hands or with an instrument, he is [liable for] lashes; - Since the verse
from Deuteronomy also concludes "for the dead," it appears that both
gashing and gouging are forbidden essentially as mourning rites. There is,
however, an added dimension to the prohibition against gashing; doing so
for the sake of idols - In such an instance
if one uses an instrument, one is
liable for lashes. - Since that
is the normal practice, as the verse from Kings continues: "With their
swords and lances."
If one does so with one's bare hands,
one is exempt. - Doing so is,
nevertheless, forbidden (Tzemach Tzedek).
Commentary Halacha 14
This commandment also includes [a
prohibition] - In Sefer HaMitzvot(Negative
Commandment 45), the Rambam explains that the interpretation which follows is an
allegory, and the simple meaning of the verse is to prohibit gashing oneself in
grief. Nevertheless, it is significant that the Rambam includes this
"allegory" in a text which is, as he states in his introduction,
"halachot, halachot." Thus, he emphasizes how important unity is to
the Jewish people.
There is an important halachic
dimension to the Rambam's explanation in Sefer
HaMitzvot. One of the principles of Torah law is that punishment is never
administered for the violation of a לאו שבכללות ("a prohibition which
includes within it several different injunctions;" see Hilchot Sanhedrin 18:2-3). If this allegorical
interpretation of the mitzvah were considered to be included in the simple
meaning of the mitzvah, this principle would also apply regarding this mitzvah, and lashes
might not be administered when one gashed oneself in mourning (Kessef
Mishneh).
regarding this mitzvah, and lashes
might not be administered when one gashed oneself in mourning (Kessef
Mishneh).
against there being two courts which
follow different customs in a single city, since this can cause great strife. - This decision has been the subject of
much discussion among the Rabbis, because it appears to run contrary to one of
the accepted principles of halachah.
The Rabbis concluded that whenever
there is a difference in opinion between Abbaye and Ravva, the halachah follows
Ravva, with the exception of six specific instances (יעל קגם). In the present
case, the Rambam quotes Abbaye's opinion even though Ravva differs, stating
that the prohibition applies only when one follows a divergent opinion without
the support of a formal Rabbinical court (Yevamot 14a). When, however, there is a
Rabbinical court which advocates each of the differing opinions - e.g., the
differences of opinion between the School of Shammai and the School of Hillel -
there is no prohibition against following either view until the halachah is
determined by the supreme Sanhedrin.
Many authorities have advanced
different explanations for the Rambam's decision. The most straightforward is
that of the Radbaz (Vol. V, Responsum 1384), who explains that the Rambam
favored Abbaye's view because of the emphasis on unity. Furthermore, selecting
it over Ravva's in this instance does not represent a break with the accepted
tradition, since the difference of opinion here does not center on positions
adopted by Abbaye and Ravva independently, but rather on their interpretation
of Resh Lakish's statements.
[Because of the similarity in the
Hebrew roots,] - The Hebrew גדד
means both "gash" and "group."
the prohibition against gashing
ourselves [can be interpreted] to mean: "Do not separate into various
different groupings." - It
must be noted that the Shulchan
Aruch does not quote this
halachah as law. It would appear that while many of the subsequent Rabbis
appreciate the ideal of unity this halachah espouses, they felt that compelling
people to conform to a uniform standard would create more strife than would
result from the existence of different views.
One of the practical applications of
the issues under discussion is the issue of differences between Sephardic and
Ashkenazic religious practices (and similarly, the variety of different
approaches that exist within these two major groupings). All of the
contemporary authorities agree that it is desirable for each group to adhere to
its native customs without change. This plurality of halachic perspectives is
an expression - and not a negation - of the all-encompassing unity that
permeates Torah Judaism. (See Ezrat
Cohen, Responsum 103.)
Commentary Halacha 15
A person who creates a bald spot [on
his head] for a dead person - Even
today, we find the colloquialism, "tear out his hair in grief."
is [liable for] lashes - Sefer HaMitzvot (Negative Commandment 171) andSefer
HaChinuch (Mitzvah 468)
consider this prohibition to be one of the 613 mitzvot of the Torah. It is
significant that the Rambam did not list this prohibition together with the
previous ones in Sefer
HaMitzvot.
as [Deuteronomy 14:1] states: "Do not
make a bald spot between your eyes - Menachot 37b explains that here the intent is
not the area which is literally "between the eyes," but rather the
center of the head.
for a dead person." When either a
priest or an Israelite makes a bald spot [on his head] for a dead person, he is
[liable for] only a single measure of lashes. - Although, as the Rambam quotes below, Leviticus 21:5states
specifically that a priest may not create a bald spot on his head, that verse
should not be understood to be a separate commandment, but rather a further
elaboration of this prohibition.
In Sefer
HaMitzvot (Negative
Commandment 171), the Rambam elaborates on this subject, explaining that since
the mitzvah cannot be derived in its entirety from the verse in Deuteronomy,
the verse in Leviticus is not considered to be a second mitzvah applying to
priests alone, but rather a further definition of that same command.
A person who makes four or five bald spots for a single dead person is
[liable for] a measure of lashes equivalent to the number of bald spots he
made, provided he received a separate warning for each bald spot - as explained in Halachah 12. If,
however, he creates a single bald spot for five individuals, he is [liable for]
only a single measure of lashes. In contrast, were he to gouge himself once for
each of these individuals he would receive a commensurate number of measures of
lashes.
for a single dead person is
[liable for] a measure of lashes equivalent to the number of bald spots he
made, provided he received a separate warning for each bald spot - as explained in Halachah 12. If,
however, he creates a single bald spot for five individuals, he is [liable for]
only a single measure of lashes. In contrast, were he to gouge himself once for
each of these individuals he would receive a commensurate number of measures of
lashes.
There is no difference whether one
created the bald spot with his hands - pulling
his hair out
or with a potion - that removes the hair chemically.
If a person dipped his fingers into a
potion and positioned them in five places on his head at the same time, since
he created five bald spots,
he is [liable for] five measures of lashes - because
it is considered as if he performed five different activities.
,
he is [liable for] five measures of lashes - because
it is considered as if he performed five different activities.
even though only a single warning was
given - That warning can be
applied to each of the bald spots he created
he created
for they were all created at the same
time.
One is liable [for creating a bald
spot] on any part of the head, [not only] "between the eyes" - as mentioned in the verse from
Deuteronomy quoted above.
[as is inferred from Leviticus 21:5]: "Do not make a bald
spot on your heads." - Makkot 20b explains that this verse is used
to define the scope of the prohibition for everyone, both priests and
Israelites.
What is the measure of a bald spot? An
area on one's head the size of a gris - Nega'im 6:1 defines a gris as an area which encompasses 36 hairs
as they stand naturally on one's head. Contemporary authorities explain that
this is approximately the size of an American dime or slightly smaller than an
Israeli telephone token.
which is free of hair. - Rabbenu Asher disagrees and maintains
that one is liable even if he removes two hairs. Furthermore, even the removal
of a single hair is forbidden. (See Shulchan
Aruch, Yoreh De'ah 180:9; Gilyon HaMaharsha.)
Commentary Halacha 16
A person who makes a bald spot on his head or gouges his flesh - for sources of grief other than a
person's death - e.g.,
because his house falls or because his
ship sinks at sea is exempt. -Though it is forbidden to do, punishment is not
administered.
One is lashed only [if he carries out
these acts] for the sake of a deceased person - as mentioned in the Biblical
proof-texts
or if he gashes his flesh - with a utensil
for the sake of an idol - as explained in Halachah 13.
[The following laws apply]
when a person creates a bald spot on a colleague's head, makes a gash on a
colleague's flesh, or tattoos his colleague's flesh while his colleague assists
him. - As explained above, the
person who performs these activities is held liable. In contrast, the person to
whom these acts are done is held liable only if he assists in the performance
of the deed.
]
when a person creates a bald spot on a colleague's head, makes a gash on a
colleague's flesh, or tattoos his colleague's flesh while his colleague assists
him. - As explained above, the
person who performs these activities is held liable. In contrast, the person to
whom these acts are done is held liable only if he assists in the performance
of the deed.
If they both intended to violate the
prohibition, both receive lashes. -Each is held liable as if he performed the
prohibition himself in its entirety.
If one violated the prohibition
inadvertently and one did so intentionally, the one who performed the act
intentionally is [liable for] lashes, and his colleague is exempt. - Apparently, he is not required even to
bring a sacrifice. The obligation to bring a sacrifice is a sign of Divine
mercy, intended to allow a person to gain atonement. Since his colleague is
[liable for] lashes for the transgression, he is not given the opportunity to
atone for his part in the sin merely through offering a sacrifice.
-------
Hayom Yom:
• Friday, 23 Shevat 5774 – 24 January 2014 and Shabbat, 24
Shevat 5774 – 25 January 2014
"Today's Day"
Friday, 23 Sh'vat 5703
Torah lessons: Chumash:
Yitro, Shishi with Rashi.
Tehillim: 108-112.
Tanya: From this the intelligent (p.97)...as will be explained
later. (p. 99).
Once, as the Alter Rebbe stepped out of his room, he overheard
his wife remarking to several women, "Mine1 says..."
The Rebbe said: "With one mitzva I am yours; with how many
are we G-d's!" With these words he fell onto the doorpost in dveikut.2 On
"awakening" from the dveikut he said: "Go out and see"3 -
to step out of self and perceive the Divine, comes from (the following words in
that verse) "daughters of Zion," Malchut arousing z'a.4 The Future
will bring the fulfillment of "A valorous woman is her husband's
crown."5
FOOTNOTES
1. "Mine" is
understood in Yiddish to refer to one's husband or wife.
2. Profound concentration,
a communion with the Divine that removes one from physical awareness.
3. Shir Hashirim 3:11.
4. Malchut (lit.
"royalty") is the tenth attribute, for which the moon is a metaphor,
having no light of its own but reflecting (see "Tzemach Tzedek and Haskala
Movement" p. 110, Note 3). Malchut then, is a "feminine"
attribute, receiving. Z'a or z'er anpin, the "minor visage,"
represents the earlier six attributes, starting with chessed, gevura,
(kindness, severity) etc. The six act through malchut which makes them
effective. The "stepping out of self," negation of ego, and the
resultant "perceiving the Divine" are elicited by the "daughters
of Zion," the "feminine" aspect, malchut.
5. Mishlei 12:4. While
apparently the feminine attribute is recipient, its true status will in the
future be revealed as Crown, transcendent, higher than the highest attributes
of intellect, as the crown encompasses the head.
-------
Shabbat, 24 Sh'vat 5703
During the reading of the Ten Commandments, stand facing the
Sefer-Torah. Haftora: Bishnat...matzavta. Bless Rosh Chodesh Adar I. Say the
entire Tehillim in the early morning. Day of farbrengen.
Torah lessons: Chumash:
Yitro, Shevi'i with Rashi.
Tehillim: 113-118.
Tanya: Ch. 24. Antithetically (p. 99)...as is known. (p. 105).
"The people saw and moved."1 Simply perceiving G-dhood
caused the people to move, a movement showing vitality, life.
* * *
If you only knew - The Tzemach Tzedek said - the power of verses
of Tehillim and their effect in the highest Heavens, you would recite them
constantly. Know that the chapters of Tehillim shatter all barriers, they
ascend higher and still higher with no interference; they prostrate themselves
in supplication before the Master of all worlds, and they effect and accomplish
with kindness and compassion.
Compiled and arranged by the Lubavitcher Rebbe, Rabbi Menachem
Mendel Schneerson, of righteous memory, in 5703 (1943) from the talks and
letters of the sixth Chabad Rebbe, Rabbi Yosef Yitzchak Schneersohn, of
righteous memory.
FOOTNOTES
1. Sh'mot 20:15.
-------
Daily Thought:
Life on Mars
A young biologist was working at NASA on a project to find life
on Mars. He asked the Rebbe, “Is this okay? Some religions say we shouldn’t
search. After all, the Bible doesn’t say anything about life on Mars.”
The Rebbe replied, “Professor Greene, you should look for life
on Mars. And if you don’t find it there, you should look elsewhere. Because for
you to sit here and say that G‑d didn’t
create life elsewhere is to put limits on G‑d, and no one
can do that.”
-------
Life on Mars
A young biologist was working at NASA on a project to find life
on Mars. He asked the Rebbe, “Is this okay? Some religions say we shouldn’t
search. After all, the Bible doesn’t say anything about life on Mars.”
The Rebbe replied, “Professor Greene, you should look for life
on Mars. And if you don’t find it there, you should look elsewhere. Because for
you to sit here and say that G‑d didn’t
create life elsewhere is to put limits on G‑d, and no one
can do that.”
-------
No comments:
Post a Comment