TODAY'S LAWS & CUSTOMS:
• FAST OF THE FIRSTBORN
Firstborn males over the age of Bar Mitzvah (13) are obligated to fast on the 14th of Nissan, in recognition of the fact that during the "Plague of the Firstborn" (which occurred at midnight of Nissan 15) G-d "passed over" the Jewish firstborn when He killed all firstborn Egyptians. If there is a firstborn male in the family under 13, the obligation to fast rests with the father. The prevailing custom, however, is for the firstborn to exempt themselves from the obligation to fast by participating in a seudat mitzvah (a meal marking the fulfillment of a mitzvah), such as a siyyum--a festive meal celebrating the conclusion of the study of a section of Torah).
• CHAMETZ EATING DEADLINE
The Torah (Exodus 12:15, as per Talmud, Pesachim 5a) sets midday of Nissan 14--today--as the deadline for the destruction and/or removal of all leavened foods ("chametz") from our possession in preparation for the festival of Passover, which begins this evening at nightfall. In practice, Torah law mandates that we desist from eating chametz two hours before midday, and that no leaven remain in our possession an hour before midday. These are not clock hours but "proportional hours", defined by Jewish law as a 12th part of the time between sunrise and sunset.
Click here for the chametz eating deadline for your location.
From this point until the end of the festival of Passover, it is forbidden to eat leaven, or anything containing even the slightest trace of leaven.
Links: What is Chametz; A Speck of Flour; The Escape Hatch
• BURN AND NULLIFY CHAMETZ
Chametz is disposed of by: a) selling it to a non-Jew; b) burning the chametz found in our search on the previous evening (see entry for Nissan 13); c) "nullifying" the chametz that has not been found by declaring it ownerless.
The deadline for selling, burning and nullifying chametz is one "proportional hour" before midday.Click here for the precise time for your location. From this point until the end of the festival of Passover, it is forbidden to eat leaven, derive benefit from it in any way, own it or have it in one's possession.
See the Getting-Rid-of-Chametz Wizard for more detailed instructions.
Links: More about Leaven
• PASSOVER OFFERING
When the Holy Temple stood in Jerusalem, the Passover offering was brought there on the afternoon of Nissan 14. Today it is commemorated by our recitation of the "Order of the Passover Offering" this afternoon, by the "shankbone" placed on the seder plate this evening, and the afikoman -- a portion of matzah eaten in its stead at the end of the seder meal.
Links: About the Passover offering
• PASSOVER SEDER TONIGHT
The 8-day festival of Passover--also called "The Festival of Matzahs" and "The Time of Our Freedom"--begins tonight at nightfall.
In the evening, we conduct a seder ("order") -- a 15-part ritualistic feast that encompasses the observances of the Passover festival: telling our children the story of the Exodus as described and expounded in the Haggadah; eating the matzah (unleavened bread), the bitter herbs dipped in charoset, and the afikoman (an additional portion of matzah eaten as "dessert" in commemoration of the Passover offering); drinking the four cups of wine; and numerous other symbolic foods and rituals commemorating both our slavery in Egypt and our liberation on this night.
Links:
www.Passover.org includes a Seder guide, text of the Haggadah, in-depth studies, and more
The Seder Wizard is a step-by-step guide to conducting the Seder
TODAY IN JEWISH HISTORY:
• MAIMONIDES BORN (1135)
Rabbi Moses ben Maimon, Talmudist, Halachist, physician, philosopher and communal leader, known in the Jewish world by the acronym "Rambam" and to the world at large as "Maimonides", was born in Cordova, Spain, on the 14th of Nissan of the year 4895 from creation--1135 of the Common Era [more...]
DAILY QUOTE:
It is a kindness that G d did to Israel, that He scattered them amongst the nations... Does a person then sow a measure of grain, if not to harvest many measures? So, too, the people of Israel were exiled amongst the nations only so that converts be added to them...--Talmud, Pesachim 87b
DAILY STUDY:
CHITAS AND RAMBAM FOR TODAY:
Chumash: Kedoshim, 2nd Portion Leviticus 19:15-19:22 with Rashi
• Chapter 19
15. You shall commit no injustice in judgment; you shall not favor a poor person or respect a great man; you shall judge your fellow with righteousness. טו. לֹא תַעֲשׂוּ עָוֶל בַּמִּשְׁפָּט לֹא תִשָּׂא פְנֵי דָל וְלֹא תֶהְדַּר פְּנֵי גָדוֹל בְּצֶדֶק תִּשְׁפֹּט עֲמִיתֶךָ:
You shall commit no injustice in judgment: This verse teaches us that a judge who corrupts the law is called unjust, hated and disgusting, fit to be destroyed, and an abomination. For an unjust person is called an abomination, as the verse says, “For whoever does these things, whoever perpetrates such injustice, is an abomination to the Lord…” (Deut. 25: 16); and an abomination, is called a חֵרֶם, [something doomed to destruction], and a disgusting thing, as the verse says (Deut. 7:26), “Nor should you bring an abomination into your house, lest you be destroyed (חֵרֶם) like it, but you shall utterly detest it (שַׁקֵּץ תְּשַׁקְּצֶנּוּ) ” [and an abomination is called hated, as it is said, “for every abomination to the Lord which He hates”] (Deut. 12:31).
לא תעשו עול במשפט: מלמד שהדיין המקלקל את הדין קרוי עול, שנאוי ומשוקץ, חרם ותועבה. שהעול קרוי תועבה, שנאמר (דברים כה טז) כי תועבת ה' וגו' כל עושה עול, והתועבה קרויה שקץ וחרם, שנאמר (שם ז כו) ולא תביא תועבה אל ביתך והיית חרם כמוהו שקץ תשקצנו וגו':
You shall not favor a poor person: [This means] that you shall not say, “This man is poor, and the rich man is obligated to provide him with sustenance; therefore, I will acquit him in judgment, and he will thus be sustained respectably.”- [Torath Kohanim 19:37]
לא תשא פני דל: שלא תאמר עני הוא זה והעשיר חייב לפרנסו, אזכנו בדין, ונמצא מתפרנס בנקיות:
or show respect to the great: [This means] that you shall not say, “This man is rich, the son of prominent people; how can I embarrass him and behold his shame? That would surely be a punishable act!” Therefore, Scripture says here, “or respect a great man.” - [Torath Kohanim 19:38]
ולא תהדר פני גדול: שלא תאמר עשיר הוא זה בן גדולים הוא זה, היאך אביישנו ואראה בבושתו, עונש יש בדבר, לכך נאמר ולא תהדר פני גדול:
Judge your fellow with righteousness: [This is to be understood] according to its apparent meaning. Another explanation is: Judge your fellow favorably [i.e., give him the benefit of the doubt].
בצדק תשפט עמיתך: כמשמעו. דבר אחר הוי דן את חברך לכף זכות:
16. You shall not go around as a gossipmonger amidst your people. You shall not stand by [the shedding of] your fellow's blood. I am the Lord. טז. לֹא תֵלֵךְ רָכִיל בְּעַמֶּיךָ לֹא תַעֲמֹד עַל דַּם רֵעֶךָ אֲנִי יְהוָֹה:
You shall not go around as a gossipmonger: Heb. לֹא תֵלֵךְ רָכִיל. I say that, since all those who instigate quarrels and speak evil talk go (הוֹלְכִים) into their friends’ houses in order to spy out (לְרַגֵּל) what evil they can see there, or what evil they can hear, to tell in the market-place, they are called הוֹלְכֵי רָכִיל, [which is the same as] הוֹלְכֵי רְגִילָה, - “those who go about spying” ; espiement in Old French, spying. A proof for my words is that we do not find [anywhere in Scripture] where the term רְכִילוּת is used without expressing it in terms of הֲלִיכָה, “going”; [for instance here,] לֹא תֵלֵךְ רָכִיל, “You shall not go around as a gossipmonger,” and, “going tale bearing (הוֹלְכֵי רָכִיל) (Jer. 6:28); [like] copper and iron.” With any other expression for evil talk, however, Scripture does not mention the term הֲלִיכָה, “going”; [for instance,], “He who slanders his fellow in secret” (Ps. 101: 5), and, “you deceitful tongue” (Ps. 120:3), and, “the tongue that speaks great things” (Ps. 12:4). Therefore, I say that the expression רָכִיל is an expression of “going around and spying מְרַגֵּל,” whereby [the letter] כ [of the word רָכִיל] is interchanged with [the letter] ג \'82 [so that the word רָכִיל is equivalent to רָגִיל]. For all letters which stem from the same source are interchangeable with one another [i.e., letters by the same speech organs, namely, the lips, tongue, teeth, palate, or throat]. [For example], [the letter] ב [is interchangeable] with פ or ו [as they are all labials; the letter] ג \'82 [is interchangeable] with כ as is [the letter] ק [since they are all palatals; the letter] נ [is interchangeable] with ל [because they are both linguals, and [the letters] ר and ז [are interchangeable] with צ [as they are all dentals]. Similarly, [the following verses illustrate how רָגַל is employed in connection with slander, just as is רָכִיל in our verse:], “And he slandered (וַיְרַגֵּל) your servant” (II Sam. 19:28), [lit.,] he spied deceitfully to say evil about me, and [likewise], “He did not slander (רָגַל) with his tongue” (Ps. 15:3). And likewise, [the term] רוֹכֵל means a merchant who goes around spying out (מְרַגֵּל) merchandise; [similarly,] one who sells perfumes with which women beautify themselves, since he constantly goes around in the towns, he is called a רוֹכֵל, equivalent to the term רוֹגֵל -one who spies. And the Targum renders [the phrase in our verse, לֹא תֵלֵךְ רָכִיל, as]: לָא תֵיכוּל קוּרְצִין, [lit., “You shall not eat the food of winking,” a figurative expression for slandering], as, וַאֲכַלוּ קַרְצֵיהוֹן דִּי יְהוּדָיֵא [lit., “and they ate their food of winking concerning the Jews” (Dan. 3:8), i.e., they informed against the Jews], and, אֲכַל בֵּהּ קֻרְצָא בֵּי מַלְכָּא [lit., “he ate the food of winking, concerning him, to the king’s palace” (Ber. 58a), i.e., he informed against him to the king. And why is the expression “eating the food of winking” used to signify slander?] It appears to me that it was the practice of these [informers and slanderers] to eat some sort of small snack at the house of those who listened to their words, for this [eating] acted as a [gesture of] final reinforcement, that the slanderer’s words were indeed well-founded and that he maintained them as the truth. This snack, then, is referred to as אֲכִילַת קוּרְצִין, [where the term קוּרְצִין is] denoted by [Scripture’s description of a faithless man], “He winks (קוֹרֵץ) with his eyes” (Prov. 6:13), for so is the way of all those who go around speaking evil talk, to wink with their eyes, thereby alluding to their slanderous words by innuendo, so that any other people listening will not understand.
לא תלך רכיל: אני אומר על שם שכל משלחי מדנים ומספרי לשון הרע הולכים בבתי רעיהם לרגל מה יראו רע או מה ישמעו רע לספר בשוק, נקראים הולכי רכיל, הולכי רגילה אשפיימנ"ט בלע"ז [ריגול]. וראיה לדברי, שלא מצינו רכילות שאין כתוב בלשון הליכה לא תלך רכיל, הולכי רכיל נחשת וברזל (ירמיה ו כח), ושאר לשון הרע אין כתוב בו הליכה מלשני בסתר רעהו (תהלים קא ה), לשון רמיה (שם קכ ב), לשון מדברת גדולות (שם יב ד), לכך אני אומר שלשון רכיל לשון הולך ומרגל, שהכ"ף נחלפת בגימ"ל, שכל האותיות שמוצאיהם ממקום אחד מתחלפות זו בזו, בי"ת בפ"א ובוי"ו, גימ"ל בכ"ף וקו"ף, נו"ן בלמ"ד, ורי"ש וזי"ן בצד"י וכן (ש"ב יט כח) וירגל בעבדך, רגל ותרמה לומר עלי רעה, וכן (תהלים טו ג) לא רגל על לשונו, וכן רוכל הסוחר ומרגל אחר כל סחורה, וכל המוכר בשמים להתקשט בהם הנשים, על שם שמחזר תמיד בעיירות נקרא רוכל, לשון רוגל. ותרגומו לא תיכול קורצין, כמו (דניאל ג ח) ואכלו קרציהון די יהודיא, אכל ביה קורצא בי מלכא (ברכות נח א). נראה בעיני שהיה משפטם לאכול בבית המקבל דבריהם שום הלעטה, והוא גמר חזוק, שדבריו מקויימים ויעמידם על האמת, ואותה הלעטה נקראת אכילת קורצין, לשון קורץ בעיניו (משלי ו יג), שכן דרך כל הולכי רכיל לקרוץ בעיניהם ולרמוז דברי רכילותן, שלא יבינו שאר השומעים:
You shall not stand by [the shedding of] your fellow’s blood: [I.e., do not stand by,] watching your fellow’s death, when you are able to save him; for example, if he is drowning in the river or if a wild beast or robbers come upon him. — [Torath Kohanim 19:41; Sanh. 73a]
לא תעמד על דם רעך: לראות במיתתו ואתה יכול להצילו, כגון טובע בנהר, וחיה או לסטים באים עליו:
I am the Lord: faithful to pay reward [to those who heed the above warnings], and faithful to exact punishment [upon those who transgress them].
אני ה': נאמן לשלם שכר, ונאמן להפרע:
17. You shall not hate your brother in your heart. You shall surely rebuke your fellow, but you shall not bear a sin on his account. יז. לֹא תִשְׂנָא אֶת אָחִיךָ בִּלְבָבֶךָ הוֹכֵחַ תּוֹכִיחַ אֶת עֲמִיתֶךָ וְלֹא תִשָּׂא עָלָיו חֵטְא:
but You shall not bear a sin on his account: I.e., [in the course of your rebuking your fellow,] do not embarrass him in public. — [Torath Kohanim 19:43; Arachin 16b]
ולא תשא עליו חטא: לא תלבין את פניו ברבים:
18. You shall neither take revenge from nor bear a grudge against the members of your people; you shall love your neighbor as yourself. I am the Lord. יח. לֹא תִקֹּם וְלֹא תִטֹּר אֶת בְּנֵי עַמֶּךָ וְאָהַבְתָּ לְרֵעֲךָ כָּמוֹךָ אֲנִי יְהוָֹה:
You shall neither take revenge: [For example:] He says to him, “Lend me your sickle,” and he [the latter] replies, “No!” The next day, he [the latter] says to him, “Lend me your ax.” [If] he says to him, “I will not lend it to you, just as you did not lend to me!” this constitutes revenge. And what constitutes “bearing a grudge?” [For example:] he says to him, “Lend me your ax,” and he [the latter] replies, “No!” Then the next day, he [the latter] says to him, “Lend me your sickle.” [Now, if] he says to him, “Here it is for you; I am not like you, who did not lend me!” this constitutes “bearing a grudge,” for he keeps the hatred in his heart, even though he does not take revenge. — [Torath Kohanim 19:44; Yoma 23a]
לא תקם: אמר לו השאילני מגלך. אמר לו לאו. למחר אמר לו השאילני קרדומך. אמר לו איני משאילך כדרך שלא השאלתני, זו היא נקימה. ואיזו היא נטירה, אמר לו השאילני קרדומך. אמר לו לאו. למחר אמר לו השאילני מגלך. אמר לו הא לך ואיני כמותך, שלא השאלתני. זו היא נטירה, שנוטר האיבה בלבו אף על פי שאינו נוקם:
You shall love your neighbor as yourself: Rabbi Akiva says: “This is a fundamental [all-inclusive] principle of the Torah.” - [Torath Kohanim 19:45]
ואהבת לרעך כמוך: אמר רבי עקיבא זה כלל גדול בתורה:
19. You shall observe My statutes: You shall not crossbreed your livestock with different species. You shall not sow your field with a mixture of seeds, and a garment which has a mixture of shaatnez shall not come upon you. יט. אֶת חֻקֹּתַי תִּשְׁמֹרוּ בְּהֶמְתְּךָ לֹא תַרְבִּיעַ כִּלְאַיִם שָׂדְךָ לֹא תִזְרַע כִּלְאָיִם וּבֶגֶד כִּלְאַיִם שַׁעַטְנֵז לֹא יַעֲלֶה עָלֶיךָ:
You shall observe My statutes: They are the following: “You shall not crossbreed your livestock with different species, etc.” [The term] חֻקִּים, “statutes,” refers to the decrees of the Divine King, which have no rationale.
את חקתי תשמרו: ואלו הן בהמתך לא תרביע כלאים וגו', חקים אלו גזרות מלך שאין טעם לדבר:
and a garment which has a mixture: Why is this stated? Since Scripture says, “ You shall not wear a mixture of wool and linen together” (Deut. 22:11), I might think that one may not wear [even] shearings of wool [beaten together with] stalks of linen. Therefore, Scripture says, “a garment” [thus excluding pieces of wool and linen combined together, which do not form a “garment”]. And how do we know that included [in this prohibition is also] felt [although it is not a garment, but only a belt]? Because Scripture employs the term שַׁעַטְנֵז, [an acronym of the terms] שׁוּעַ, combed, טָווּי, spun, and נוּז, woven. And נוּז, twisted. [i.e., even if the material in question is] “combed,” “spun” and “twined together” [although it does not form a garment]. And I say that [the term] נוּז denotes a material [made from fibers which have been] stretched and twined together in order to join it together; mestier in Old French, and similar to [the term employed by the Talmud], “…fit for use because of the hard [dry] seeds נַאֲזֵי that they have” (Moed Katan 12a), a term which we explain as meaning “hardened” [just as the fibers of the נוּז cloth become hardened when they are intertwined together]; flestre in Old French, wilted. And with regards to the actual term שַׁעַטְנֵז, Menahem [Ben Saruk] explains it to mean: “A combination of wool and linen.”
ובגד כלאים: למה נאמר, לפי שנאמר לא תלבש שעטנז צמר ופשתים יחדו (דברים כב יא), יכול לא ילבש גיזי צמר ואניצי פשתן, תלמוד לומר בגד. מנין לרבות הלבדים, תלמוד לומר שעטנז, דבר שהוא שוע טווי ונוז. ואומר אני נוז לשון דבר הנמלל ושזור זה עם זה לחברו, מישטי"ר בלע"ז [לערבב], כמו (מועד קטן יב ב) חזיין לנאזי דאית בהון, שאנו מפרשין לשון כמוש פלישטר"א [כמוש]. ולשון שעטנז פירש מנחם מחברת צמר ופשתים:
20. If a man lies carnally with a woman, and she is a handmaid designated for a man, and she had not been [fully] redeemed nor had her document of emancipation been granted her, there shall be an investigation; they shall not be put to death, because she had not been [completely] freed. כ. וְאִישׁ כִּי יִשְׁכַּב אֶת אִשָּׁה שִׁכְבַת זֶרַע וְהִוא שִׁפְחָה נֶחֱרֶפֶת לְאִישׁ וְהָפְדֵּה לֹא נִפְדָּתָה אוֹ חֻפְשָׁה לֹא נִתַּן לָהּ בִּקֹּרֶת תִּהְיֶה לֹא יוּמְתוּ כִּי לֹא חֻפָּשָׁה:
designated for a man: נֶחֱרֶפֶת, designated and specified for a [particular] man. And [regarding this term נֶחֱרֶפֶת,] I do not know of [a term] resembling it anywhere in Scripture, but the Scripture is speaking of a Canaanite handmaid, partly a handmaid and partly a free woman [i.e., she belonged to two partners and one freed his part of her], who is betrothed to a Hebrew slave, who is permitted to [marry] a handmaid. — [Torath Kohanim 19:52; Kereithoth 11a]
נחרפת לאיש: מיועדת ומיוחדת לאיש, ואיני יודע לו דמיון במקרא. ובשפחה כנענית שחציה שפחה וחציה בת חורין המאורסת לעבד עברי שמותר בשפחה, הכתוב מדבר:
and she had not been [fully] redeemed: Heb. וְהָפְדֵּה לֹא נִפְדְּתָה, she is redeemed, but not redeemed. And when the unqualified term פִּדְיוֹן, “redemption” is employed, it means [redeeming with money. — [Torath Kohanim 19:53]
והפדה לא נפדתה: פדויה ואינה פדויה וסתם פדיון בכסף:
nor had her document of emancipation been granted her: [the unqualified term חפשׁ, “freeing,” refers to doing so] with a document [of release]. — [Torath Kohanim 19:53]
או חפשה: בשטר:
there shall be an investigation: Heb. בִּקֹרֶת תִּהְיֶה [which will result in] the woman being given lashes but not the man (Torath Kohanim 19:54) The court is obligated to investigate the matter in order not to sentence him [her] to death, since “she had not been [completely] freed” [and therefore,] her marriage is not completely binding. Our Rabbis, however, learned from [this verse], that whoever is sentenced to lashes [as this woman, those lashes] shall be accompanied by a “recitation” [בִּקֹרֶת בִּקְרִיאָה, derived from the בִּקֹרֶת, so that the phrase בִּקֹרֶת תִּהְיֶה is expounded to mean “she is to be given lashes with a קֹּרֶת, a recitation.” And what is the recitation referred to here? It is] that the judges who mete out the lashes, shall recite to the one receiving them (Deut. 28:58-59),“If you will not observe to fulfill [all the words of this Torah]…the Lord will bring upon you…uniquely [horrible] plagues!”- [Kereithoth 11a]
בקרת תהיה: היא לוקה ולא הוא, יש על בית דין לבקר את הדבר שלא לחייבו מיתה, כי לא חפשה, ואין קידושיה קידושין גמורין. ורבותינו למדו מכאן שמי שהוא במלקות יהא בקריאה, שהדיינים המלקין קורין על הלוקה (דברים כח נח - נט) אם לא תשמור לעשות וגו' והפלא ה' את מכותך וגו':
because she had not been [completely] freed: And therefore, the man is not liable to the death penalty because of [his intimacy with] her, since her marriage is not binding. It follows then, that if she had been freed, her marriage would be binding, and he would be liable to the death penalty. — [Torath Kohanim 19:55; Gittin 43b]
כי לא חפשה: לפיכך אין חייב עליה מיתה, שאין קידושיה קידושין, הא אם חופשה, קידושיה קידושין וחייב מיתה:
21. He shall bring his guilt offering to the Lord, to the entrance of the Tent of Meeting, a guilt offering ram. כא. וְהֵבִיא אֶת אֲשָׁמוֹ לַיהֹוָה אֶל פֶּתַח אֹהֶל מוֹעֵד אֵיל אָשָׁם:
22. And the kohen shall effect atonement for him with the guilt offering ram, before the Lord, for the sin that he had committed; and he shall be forgiven for the sin that he had committed. כב. וְכִפֶּר עָלָיו הַכֹּהֵן בְּאֵיל הָאָשָׁם לִפְנֵי יְהֹוָה עַל חַטָּאתוֹ אֲשֶׁר חָטָא וְנִסְלַח לוֹ מֵחַטָּאתוֹ אֲשֶׁר חָטָא:
And he shall be forgiven for the sin that he had committed: [The apparently superfluous phrase, “for the sin that he had committed,” is written] to include the intentional sinner like the unintentional sinner [insofar as atonement is effected by bringing a guilt-offering]. — [Torath Kohanim 19:57; Kereithoth 9a]
ונסלח לו מחטאתו אשר חטא: לרבות את המזיד כשוגג:
-------
Tehillim: Psalms Chapters 72 - 76
• Chapter 72
David composed this psalm for Solomon, praying that he be granted the wisdom to provide justice for the poor.
1. For Solomon. O God, impart Your justice to the king, and Your righteousness to the son of the king.
2. May he judge Your people with righteousness, Your poor with justice.
3. May the mountains bear peace to the nation, also the hills, in [reward for their] righteousness.
4. May he judge the nation's poor, save the children of the destitute, and crush the oppressor,
5. so that they will fear You as long as the sun [shines] and the moon endures, generation after generation.
6. May [his words] descend like rain upon cut grass, like raindrops that water the earth.
7. In his days may the righteous flourish, with much peace until the moon is no more.
8. And may he rule from sea to sea, and from the river until the ends of the earth.
9. May nobles kneel before him, and may his enemies lick the dust.
10. The kings of Tarshish and the islands will return tribute, the kings of Sheba and Seba will offer gifts.
11. All kings will bow to him, all nations will serve him;
12. for he rescues the needy one who cries out, the poor one who has no one to help him.
13. He pities the impoverished and needy, and saves the souls of the destitute.
14. He redeems their soul from deception and violence, and their blood is precious in his eyes.
15. He revives [the poor], and gives him of the gold of Sheba; and so [the poor] pray for him always, and bless him all day.
16. May there be abundant grain in the land, upon the mountaintops; may its fruit rustle like the [cedars of] Lebanon, and may [people] blossom from the city like the grass of the earth.
17. May his name endure forever; may his name be magnified as long as the sun [shines]. And all nations will bless themselves by him, they will praise him.
18. Blessed is the Lord God, the God of Israel, Who alone performs wonders.
19. Blessed is His glorious Name forever, and may the whole earth be filled with His glory, Amen and Amen.
20. The prayers of David, son of Jesse, are concluded
Chapter 73
This psalm addresses the question of why the righteous suffer while the wicked prosper, and prays for an end to our long exile. Read, and you will find repose for your soul.
1. A psalm by Asaph. Truly God is good to Israel, to the pure of heart.
2. But as for me, my feet nearly strayed; in an instant my steps would have been swept aside.
3. For I envied the revelers when I saw the tranquility of the wicked.
4. For there are no bonds1 to their death, and their health is sound.
5. They have no part in the toil of men, nor are they afflicted like other mortals;
6. therefore they wear pride as a necklace; their bodies are enwrapped in violence.
7. Their eyes bulge from fat; they surpassed the fantasies of their heart.
8. They consume [others], and talk wickedly of oppression-from on high do they speak.
9. They set their mouths against Heaven, while their tongues walk upon the earth.
10. Therefore His people return here,2 and suck the full [cup of bitter] waters.
11. And they say, "How can it be that God knows? Is there knowledge in the Most High?”
12. Behold these are the wicked, and they are ever tranquil, they have gained much wealth.
13. Surely in vain have I purified my heart, and washed my hands in cleanliness;
14. for I was afflicted all day, and my rebuke came each morning.
15. Were I to say, "I shall tell it like it is," behold I would turn the generation of Your children to rebels.
16. And when I pondered to understand this, it was unjust in my eyes;
17. until I came to the sanctuaries of God, and perceived their end.
18. Only on slippery places do You set them, You cast them into darkness.
19. How they have become desolate in an instant! They came to an end, they were consumed by terrors,
20. like a dream upon awakening. O my Lord, disgrace their image in the city.
21. When my heart was in ferment, and my mind was sharpened,
22. I was a boor and did not understand, like an animal was I with You.
23. Yet I was always with You; You held my right hand.
24. Guide me with Your counsel, and afterward, receive me with honor.
25. Whom do I have in heaven [besides You]? And when I am with You I desire nothing on earth.
26. My flesh and my heart yearn; God is the rock of my heart and my portion forever.
27. For behold, all those who are far from You perish, You cut down all who stray from You.
28. But as for me, the nearness of God is my good; I have put my trust in my Lord, God, that I may recount all Your works.
Chapter 74
The psalmist mourns and weeps over all the synagogues and study halls that have been burned: the Philistines destroyed the Tabernacle of Shiloh; Nebuchadnezzar destroyed the first Temple. We have been in exile for so long, without seeing any signs of redemption! When will the redemption come? Read, and you will find lamentation and consolation.
1. A maskil1 by Asaph. Why, O God, have You abandoned us forever, does Your wrath fume against the sheep of Your pasture?
2. Remember Your congregation which You acquired long ago, the tribe of Your inheritance whom You redeemed [and brought to] Mount Zion, where You rested Your Presence.
3. Lift Your steps to inflict eternal ruin, because of all the evil done by the enemy in the Sanctuary.
4. Your foes roared in the midst of Your meeting place; they considered their omens to be [genuine] signs.
5. The axes in the thicket of trees2 were reckoned as bringing [an offering] to the Above.
6. And now, all her ornaments together are smashed by hammer and hatchet.
7. They set Your Sanctuary on fire; they desecrated the Abode of Your Name to the ground.
8. Their rulers thought together in their hearts; they burned all the meeting places of God in the land.
9. We have not seen our signs; there is no longer a prophet, and there is none among us who knows how long.
10. How long, O God, will the adversary disgrace, will the enemy blaspheme Your Name forever!
11. Why do You withdraw Your hand, even Your right hand? Cast it out from within Your bosom!
12. For God is my King from long ago, working salvations in the midst of the earth.
13. In Your might, You divided the sea; You shattered the heads of the sea-monsters on the waters.
14. You crushed the heads of the Leviathan,3 leaving him as food for the nation [wandering in] the wilderness.
15. You split [the rock, bringing forth] fountain and brook; You dried up mighty streams.
16. Yours is the day, the night is also Yours; You established the moon and the sun.
17. You set all the boundaries of the earth; summer and winter-You created them.
18. Remember this, how the enemy reviled the Lord, and the vile nation blasphemed Your Name.
19. Do not give the soul of Your turtledove to the wild beast; do not forget the life of Your poor forever.
20. Look to the covenant, for the dark places of the earth are filled with dens of violence.
21. Do not turn back the oppressed in disgrace; [then] the poor and needy will praise Your Name.
22. Arise, O God, champion Your cause; remember Your insults from the perverse all day long.
23. Forget not the voice of Your adversaries; the tumult of Your opponents ascends always.
Chapter 75
How great is Israel! During their holidays they do not engage in frivolity, but in song and praise, and the study of the holiday's laws. Also, when they proclaimed (at the giving of the Torah), "We will do and we will hear!" they allowed the world to remain in existence. This psalm also admonishes those who indulge in worldly pleasures and attribute their prosperity to their own efforts.
1. For the Conductor, a plea not to be destroyed. A psalm by Asaph, a song.
2. We gave thanks to You, O God, we gave thanks; and Your Name was near [when] they1 told of Your wonders.
3. When I choose the appointed time, I will judge with fairness.
4. When the earth and all its inhabitants were melting, I established its pillars forever.
5. I said to the perverse, "Do not pervert [Israel]," and to the wicked, "Do not raise your pride.”
6. Do not raise your pride heavenward, nor speak with an arrogant neck
7. For not from the east or the west, nor from the desert does greatness come.
8. For God is Judge; He humbles one, and elevates the other.
9. For there is a cup [of punishment] in the hand of the Lord, with strong wine of full mixture; He pours from this, and all the wicked of the earth will drink, draining even its dregs.
10. But as for me, I will tell of it forever; I will sing to the God of Jacob.
11. I will cut off all glory of the wicked, but the glory of the righteous will be raised up.
Chapter 76
This psalm contains the prophecy of when the vast army of Sennacherib was seized with a deep slumber that rendered the hands of the soldiers powerless to raise their weapons; thus did they all fall in battle.
1. For the Conductor, with instrumental music, a psalm by Asaph, a song.
2. God is known in Judah, His Name is great in Israel.
3. His Tabernacle was in Shalem,1 and His dwelling place in Zion.
4. There He broke the flying arrows of the bow, the shield, the sword and battle-forever.
5. You are illumination, mightier than the mountains of prey.
6. The stout-hearted were without sense, they slept their sleep, and all the warriors were unable to find their strength.
7. At Your rebuke, O God of Jacob, chariot and horse were stunned.
8. You, awesome are You! Who can stand before You once You are enraged.
9. From heaven You let the verdict be heard; the earth feared and was still,
10. when God rose to pass judgement, to save all the humble of the earth forever.
11. The anger of man will cause us to thank You;2 You will restrain the residue of wrath.
12. Make vows to the Lord your God and fulfill them; all who surround Him will bring tribute to the Awesome One.
13. He cuts down the spirit of nobles; He is awesome to the kings of the earth.
-------
Tanya: Likutei Amarim, middle of Chapter 41
• Lessons in Tanya
• Monday, Today's Tanya Lesson Nissan 14, 5774 • April 14, 2014
Likutei Amarim, middle of Chapter 41
מה שאין כן אם לומד ומקיים המצוה באהבה לבדה כדי לדבקה בו על ידי תורתו ומצותיו, אינה נקראת בשם עבודת עבד
On the other hand, if one studies [Torah] and performs a commandment with love alone, in order to cleave to Him through [the study of] His Torah and [the performance of] His commandments, then this is not termed “service of a servant,”
והתורה אמרה: ועבדתם את ה׳ אלקיכם וגו׳ ואותו תעבודו וגו׳
whereas the Torah has declared:1 “You shall serve (vaavadetem) the L rd your G d....” This verb is cognate with the noun eved (servant or slave), and signifies service motivated by the fear and awe of G d; and it is likewise written:2 “Him shall you serve (taavodu)....”
וכמו שכתוב בזהר פרשת בהר : כהאי תורא דיהבין עליה עול בקדמיתא, בגין לאפקא מיניה טב לעלמא כו׳, הכי נמי איצטריך לבר נש לקבלה עליה עול מלכות שמים בקדמיתא כו׳, ואי האי לא אשתכח גביה לא שריא ביה קדושה כו׳
As explained in the Zohar (Parshat Behar): “Just like the ox on which one first places a yoke in order to make it useful to the world,...so too must a human being first of all submit to the yoke of the Kingdom of Heaven,... and only then engage in divine service; and if this [submission] is not found in him, holiness cannot rest within him....”
וברעיא מהימנא שם דף קי״א עמוד ב׳, שכל אדם צריך להיות בשתי בחינות ומדריגות
And (in Ra‘aya Mehemna, ibid., 111b) it is written that every man must in his divine service belong to two categories and levels,
והן בחינת עבד ובחינת בן
namely, the category of a servant, who serves his master out of fear, and the category of a son, who serves his father out of love.
ואף דיש בן שהוא גם כן עבד, הרי אי אפשר לבא למדריגה זו בלי קדימת היראה עילאה, כידוע ליודעים
And although one may find a son who is also a servant, it is impossible to attain to this degree without the prerequisite of the higher level of fear and awe known as yirah ila‘ah, as is known to the initiated.
It is clear from all the above that even if one loves G d, but lacks a fear of Him, his spiritual labors will not be of the kind that the Torah calls avodah, divine service. And should he fail in his attempts at awakening a fear of G d in his heart, he should at least arouse a feeling of fear and awe in his mind.
FOOTNOTES
1. Shmot 23:25.
2. Devarim 13:5.
-------
Rambam:
• Daily Mitzvah - Sefer Hamitzvos:
Monday, Nissan 14, 5774 • April 14, 2014
Today's Mitzvah
A daily digest of Maimonides’ classic work "Sefer Hamitzvot"
Positive Commandment 150
Inspecting Birds for Kosher Signs
"You may eat all clean birds"—Deuteronomy 14:11.
We are commanded to inspect fowl before consuming them, to ascertain whether they possess the signs that characterize non-kosher birds. Though the Torah doesn't specify signs for non-kosher fowl, rather it supplies us with a list of forbidden fowl species, nevertheless, when studying the group of the listed birds, we can isolate certain common signs that they all share.
Inspecting Birds for Kosher Signs
Inspecting Birds for Kosher Signs
Positive Commandment 150
Translated by Berel Bell
The 150th mitzvah is that we are also commanded regarding the signs of birds; that only certain species are permissible. These signs are not listed in Scripture, but have been determined by investigation; that after examining each and every of the prohibited species, we have found characteristics common to all of them. These are the signs of a non-kosher bird.1 That we have been commanded to examine birds and declare one type non-kosher and another kosher is the positive commandment.
The Sifri says, "The statement,2 'You may eat every kosher bird,' is a positive commandment.' " This states clearly what we hinted to above.
The details of this mitzvah are explained in tractate Chullin.
FOOTNOTES
1.See Hilchos Ma'achalos Asuros, 1:16.
2.Deut. 14:11.
________________________________________
Positive Commandment 151
Inspecting Grasshoppers for Kosher Signs
"Yet these you may eat of every flying creeping thing"—Leviticus 11:21.
We are commanded to inspect grasshoppers before consuming them, to ascertain whether they possess the kosher sign: "jointed [leg like] extensions above their [regular] legs."
Inspecting Grasshoppers for Kosher Signs
Inspecting Grasshoppers for Kosher Signs
Positive Commandment 151
Translated by Berel Bell
The 151st mitzvah is that we are also commanded regarding the signs of grasshoppers. These signs are explained in Scripture as knees which extend above the feet.
This mitzvah is similar to the preceding ones, the relevant verse being,1 "The only flying insects [with four walking legs] that you may eat are...."
The details of this mitzvah are explained in the third chapter of tractate Chullin.
FOOTNOTES
1.Lev. 11:21.
________________________________________
Positive Commandment 152Inspecting Fish for Kosher Signs
"These you shall eat of all that is in the water"—Leviticus 11:9.
We are commanded to inspect fish before consuming them, to ascertain whether they possess the kosher signs [—fins and scales].
Inspecting Fish for Kosher Signs
Positive Commandment 152
Translated by Berel Bell
The 152nd mitzvah is that we are commanded regarding the signs of fish. These signs are explained in Scripture in G‑d's statement,1 "This is what you may eat of all that is in the water."
Our Sages said explicitly in Gemara Chullin,2 "One who eats a non-kosher fish transgresses both a positive commandment and a prohibition." This is because the statement "this you may eat" implies that other things you may not eat, and that a prohibition which is implied from a positive commandment is counted as a positive commandment. This shows that the phrase, "This is what you may eat" constitutes a positive commandment.
As mentioned previously, when we say that this is a positive commandment, we mean that we are commanded to judge according to these signs and declare "this may be eaten" and "this may not be eaten." This is clear from the verse,3 "You must separate out the clean animals and birds from the unclean," and this distinction can only be made through [examining] the signs. Therefore, each of these four categories of signs — those of beheimos and chayos, of birds, of grasshoppers, and of fish — constitutes a separate mitzvah. We have already quoted the language of our Sages where each is called a separate positive commandment.
The details of this mitzvah — regarding the signs of fish — are explained in the third chapter of tractate Chullin.
FOOTNOTES
1.Lev. 11:9.
2.66b.
3.Lev. 20:25.
________________________________________
Negative Commandment 172Non-Kosher Mammals
"These you shall not eat of those that [only] chew the cud or of those that [only] have the cloven hoof..."—Deuteronomy 14:7.
It is forbidden to eat any mammal that doesn't possess both kosher signs—split hooves and chewing cud.
Non-Kosher Mammals
Negative Commandment 172
Translated by Berel Bell
The 172nd prohibition is that we are forbidden eating from a non-kosher beheimah or chaya.
The source of this prohibition is G‑d's statement,1 "Among the animals that bring up their cud...there are some that you may not eat. These include the camel, the hare, the hyrax...and the pig."
Other non-kosher animals, however, are not listed explicitly; it is from the verse,2 "This you may eat every animal that has a true hoof...and which brings up its cud" that we know that without both these signs together, it may not be eaten. However, it is a prohibition which is implied from a positive commandment, which, as we have explained, is counted as a positive commandment. The general principle is that a prohibition which is implied from a positive commandment is counted as a positive commandment, and one is not punished by lashes.
However, from a kal va'chomer3 we learn that there is a direct prohibition against eating other non-kosher beheimos and chayos, and that one who does so incurs lashes. [The kal va'chomer is:] If one receives lashes for eating a pig or a camel, each of which has one sign of a kosher animal — certainly one receives lashes for eating another animal which has no kosher sign whatsoever.
Listen to what the Sifra says about this subject: "The verse 'This you may eat,' teaches that only that kind may you eat, and you may not eat one which is non-kosher. This teaches us the positive commandment; what is the source of the prohibition? The verse,4 'These are the ones that you may not eat from among the cud-chewing [hoofed animals: the camel... the hyrax...the hare...the pig...].' This teaches only these particular species; what is the source for other non-kosher species? It is a logical inference: 'if there is a prohibition against eating these animals, which have one sign of being kosher, certainly there is a prohibition against eating other animals which have no kosher sign whatsoever.'
"In summary, the camel, hare, hyrax and pig are prohibited by an explicit verse, and the other non-kosher animals are prohibited by a kal va'chomer. Therefore the positive commandment is derived from the verse, and the prohibition from a kal va'chomer. This kal va'chomer, however, is to reveal the existing law, as we explained regarding [the prohibition of incest with] a daughter," as explained in the appropriate place.5
Therefore, one who eats a kezayis of meat from any species of non-kosher beheimah or chaya receives lashes by Biblical law. Keep this in mind.
FOOTNOTES
1.Deut. 14:7-8.
2.Ibid. 14:6.
3.One of the 13 rules of Torah interpretation, that one can generalize from a less obvious case to a more obvious one.
4.Lev. 11:4.
5.N336. The Torah lists a grand-daughter among the incestual prohibitions, but not a daughter.
In the Second Introductory Principle, the Rambam explains that laws which are derived through the 13 rules of Torah interpretation are not included in the count of 613 mitzvos. Nevertheless, sometimes the law is not actually "derived" from the rule, but the law has been passed down orally as one of the 613, and is only "revealed" through the rule. In such cases, the law is included in the count of 613.
Although both these laws are derived from the principle of
________________________________________
Negative Commandment 174
Non-Kosher Birds
"And these you shall detest among the birds, they shall not be eaten"—Leviticus 11:13.
It is forbidden to eat any non-kosher bird.
Non-Kosher Birds
Negative Commandment 174
Translated by Berel Bell
The 174th prohibition is that we are forbidden from eating a non-kosher bird.
The source of this prohibition is G‑d's statement regarding those species,1 "These are the flying animals that you must avoid. Do not eat [the following:]. "
One who eats a kezayis of their meat also receives lashes.
The details of this mitzvah — along with the previous two2 — are explained in the third chapter of Chullin.3
FOOTNOTES
1.Lev. 11:13.
2.N172 and N173.
3.59a.
________________________________________
Rambam:
• 1 Chapter: Chovel uMazzik Chovel uMazzik - Chapter Eight Chovel uMazzik - Chapter Eight
Halacha 1
When a person informs about property belonging to a colleague and causes it to be taken by a strong, lawless person, he is required to reimburse the owner from the the finest property in his possession. If the person who informs about the property dies, the owner may collect his due from his heirs, as is the law concerning others who cause damage.
Whether the strong, lawless person is a gentile or a Jew, the person who informs about the property to be taken by him is considered a moseir and is required to reimburse the owner for everything taken by the lawless person. This applies even if the moseir did not actually hand the other person's property over to the lawless person, but merely informed him about it.
Halacha 2
When does the above apply? When the moseir showed the lawless person his colleague's property on his own volition. If, however, gentiles or Jews compelled a person to show them property belonging to a colleague, he is not liable to reimburse his colleague.
Nevertheless, should he physically give over his colleague's property to a lawless person, he is liable to reimburse his colleague even though he was forced to do so. The rationale is that a person who saves himself with money belonging to a colleague is obligated to reimburse him.
Halacha 3
What is implied? A king decreed that wine, straw or the like should be brought to him. A moseir arose and said: "So and so has a storehouse of wine or straw in this and this place." If the king's servants went and took possession of the other person's property, the moseir is required to compensate him.
If the king compelled this moseir to go and show him the storehouses of wine or straw, or to show him property belonging to a colleague who is fleeing from the king, and the moseir showed him because of the compulsion, he is not liable. If he had not shown these resources to the king, he would have been beaten or killed.
Halacha 4
If the moseir took his colleague's property and handed it to the lawless individual, he is liable to pay, although the king compelled him to do so.
When is he liable to pay if, under duress, he took his colleague's property and handed it to the lawless individual? When the property did not come into the lawless person's possession previously. Different laws apply if, however, the lawless person compelled a Jew to show him a colleague's property, and the lawless person stood over the colleague's property and it came into his possession.
If he then compelled a Jew to transport the colleague's property to another place, even if the person who transported the property is the moseir who showed it to the lawless person, the Jew is not liable. The rationale is that since the lawless person stood at the side of the storehouse, it is considered as if all its contents had been already destroyed; it is as if they had been consumed by fire.
Halacha 5
The following rule applies when two litigants are involved in a dispute concerning landed or movable property, each one claiming that it belongs to him. If one of them turns the property in question over to a gentile, he should be placed under a ban of ostracism until he removes the lawless person from the situation, returns the circumstances to their former state and brings the matter for judgment in a Jewish court.
Halacha 6
When a person was apprehended by gentiles because of a colleague, and his money was taken by them because of that colleague, the colleague is not liable to reimburse him.
The only instance that reimbursement is required from a colleague when a person is apprehended on that colleague's behalf is when a person is apprehended because of someone's failure to pay the head tax that is applied to all the inhabitants of a country each year, or because of the gift that every individual is required to give the king when he or his soldiers require hospitality. In these instances, the person who failed to pay is obligated to reimburse the person who made the payment, provided the money was taken from him explicitly on account of his colleague, and this took place in the presence of witnesses.
Halacha 7
The following laws apply when there are witnesses that a person informed about property belonging to a colleague to a lawless person in a manner that obligates him for reimbursement - i.e., he pointed out his colleague's property on his own initiative or was compelled actually to bring the property to the lawless person, but the witnesses do not know the value of the loss he caused. If the person whose property was taken claims that he lost a specific amount, while the moseir denies that such a loss took place, and the person whose property was taken seizes property belonging to the moseir, it is not expropriated from him. Instead, the plaintiff is required to take an oath while holding a sacred article, and then he is entitled to maintain possession of the property he seized.
If the plaintiff did not seize the moseir's property, property may not be expropriated from the moseir unless there is definite proof of the extent of the loss he caused.
Halacha 8
A moseir who showed a colleague's property to a lawless man on his own initiative is not given the prerogative of taking an oath. This applies both to a severe oath, or a sh'vuat hesset. For such a person is deemed wicked; there is no disqualifying factor greater than this.
When, however, a person was compelled to show a lawless man a colleague's property or compelled actually to bring this property to the lawless person, in which instance he is liable to pay, he is not deemed a wicked person. He may be liable to pay, but he is entitled to take an oath, like other worthy men.
Halacha 9
It is forbidden to inform about a colleague to the gentiles and endanger his physical person or his property. This applies even when the person concerned is a wicked person who commits sins, and even if he causes one irritation and discomfort. Anyone who actually informs about a Jew and endangers his person or his property to the gentiles will not receive a portion in the world to come.
Halacha 10
It is permissible to kill a moseir in any country,even in the present age, when the court no longer metes out capital punishment.
It is permitted to kill him before he informs. When he says: "I will inform on so and so and endanger his person and/or his property" - even property of minimal value - he has made it permissible for others to kill him.
He should be warned and told: "Do not inform." If he says brazenly, "No. I will inform about him," it is a mitzvah to kill him, and whoever kills him receives merit.
Halacha 11
If the moseir carried out his threat and informed on a fellow Jew, it appears to me that it is forbidden to kill him, unless he has made it an established pattern to inform. In such an instance, he should be killed, lest he inform on others.
In the cities of the west, the common practice is to kill the mosrim who have made an established pattern of informing with regard to people's property, and to hand the mosrim over to gentiles to punish them, beat them and imprison them, according to their wicked ways.
Similarly, one who causes difficulty and irritation to the community may be handed over to the gentiles to be beaten, imprisoned and fined. It is, however, forbidden to hand over to gentilesa person for causing irritation to one individual.
It is forbidden to destroy property belonging to a moseir, although it is permitted to destroy his life. The reason is that his money is given to his heirs.
Halacha 12
When a rodef pursues another Jew to kill or to rape him or her and breaks utensils - either those belonging to the person he is pursuing, or those belonging to another person - he is not liable to make financial restitution. The rationale is that he is liable to be killed, for pursuing another Jew warrants his own death.
Halacha 13
When a person who is being pursued destroys utensils belonging to the rodef, he is not liable. The rationale is that the rodef's property should not be considered dearer than his life. If he breaks utensils belonging to others, he is liable. For a person who saves his own life with property belonging to someone else must make restitution.
Halacha 14
When a person pursues a rodef to save the person he is pursuing, and in so doing breaks utensils - whether those belonging to the rodef or those belonging to another person - he is not liable. This does not follow the letter of the law, but is a Rabbinic ordinance, enacted so that a person will not refrain from trying to save his colleague, or will hesitate and proceed carefully while he chases after the rodef.
Halacha 15
When a ship is about to sink because it is heavily loaded, and one person stands up and makes it lighter by jettisoning some of its cargo, he is not liable. For the cargo is considered like a rodef who is pursuing them to kill the passengers. On the contrary, by jettisoning the cargo and saving them, he performed a great mitzvah.
This concludes "The Laws of Injury and Damages" with God's help.
-------
Rambam:
• 3 Chapters: Ma'achalot Assurot Ma'achalot Assurot - Chapter 2, Ma'achalot Assurot Ma'achalot Assurot - Chapter 3, Ma'achalot Assurot Ma'achalot Assurot - Chapter 4
Ma'achalot Assurot - Chapter 2
Halacha 1
Since it is written [Deuteronomy 14:6]: "Any animal that has split hooves, [whose foot] is divided into two hoofs and chews the cud, [this may you eat],"1one may derive that any animal that does not chew its cud and have split hoofs is forbidden. A negative commandment that comes as a result of a positive commandment is considered as a positive commandment.2
With regard to the camel, the pig, the rabbit, and the hare, [Leviticus 11:4]3states: "These you may not eat from those which chew the cud and have split hoofs." From this, you see that they are forbidden by a negative commandment, even though they possess one sign of kashrut. Certainly, this applies to other non-kosher domesticated animals and wild beasts that do not have any signs of kashrut.4 The prohibition against eating them involves a negative commandment in addition to the positive commandment that is derived from "This may you eat."
Halacha 2
Therefore anyone who eats an olive sized portion5 of the meat of a non-kosher domesticated animal or wild beasts is liable for lashes according to Scriptural Law. This applies whether he partook of the meat or the fat. For the Torah did not distinguish between the meat and fat of non-kosher animals.6
Halacha 3
With regard to humans: Although [Genesis 2:7] states: "And the man became a beast with a soul," he is not included in the category of hoofed animals. Therefore, he is not included in the [above] prohibition.7 Accordingly, one who partakes of meat or fat from a man - whether alive or deceased - is not liable for lashes. It is, however, forbidden [to partake of human meat] because of the positive commandment [mentioned above].8 For the Torah [Leviticus 11:2] lists the seven species of kosher wild beasts and says: "These are the beasts of which you may partake." Implied is that any other than they may not be eaten. And a negative commandment that comes as a result of a positive commandment is considered as a positive commandment.
Halacha 4
When one partakes of an olive-sized portion of a non-kosher fowl, he is liable for lashes according to Scriptural Law, as [Leviticus 11:13] states: "These shall you detest from the fowl. You shall not partake of them." And he violates a positive commandment, as [Deuteronomy 14:11] states: "You may partake of all kosher fowl." Implied is that the non-kosher may not be eaten.
Anyone who partakes of an olive-sized portion of a non-kosher fish is liable for lashes according to Scriptural Law, as [Leviticus 11:11] states: "They shall be detestable for you. Do not partake of their meat." And he violates a positive commandment, as [Deuteronomy 14:9] states: "All that possess fins and scales, you may eat." Implied is that those that do not possess fins and scales may not be eaten. We thus learn that anyone who partakes of a non-kosher fish, domesticated animal, wild beast, or fowl nullified a positive commandment and violated a negative commandment.9
Halacha 5
A non-kosher locust is included among [the category of] flying teeming animals.10 One who partakes of an olive-sized portion11 of flying teeming animals is liable for lashes according to Scriptural Law, as [Deuteronomy 14:19] states: "All flying teeming animals are non-kosher for you. They may not be eaten."12
What is meant by a flying teeming animal? For example, a fly, a mosquito, a hornet, a bee, or the like.
Halacha 6
When one partakes of an olive-sized portion of a teeming animal of the land, he is liable for lashes, as [Leviticus 11:41] states: "Any teeming animal that swarms on the ground is detestable to you. It should not be eaten."13
What is meant by a teeming animal of the land? Snakes, scorpions, beetles, centipedes, and the like.
Halacha 7
The eight teeming animals that are mentioned in the Torah14 are: the weasel, the mouse, the ferret, the hedgehog, the chameleon, the lizard, the snail, and the mole. A person who eats a lentil-sized portion of their meat is liable for lashes. The minimum measure that one is prohibited to partake of their meat is the same as the minimum measure that conveys ritual impurity. They all may be combined together to reach the measure of a lentil.
Halacha 8
When does the above apply? When one partakes of them after they have died.15 If, however, one cuts off a limb from a living creature from one of these species and eats it, he does not receive lashes unless he [partakes of] an olive-sized portion of meat. They all may be combined together to reach the measure of an olive.
One who eats an entire limb of a teeming animal after it dies does not receive lashes unless it contains a lentil-sized amount of meat.16
Halacha 9
The blood of these eight teeming animals and their flesh can be combined to reach the minimum measure of a lentil, provided the blood is still attached to their flesh.17 Similarly, the blood of a snake18 is combined with its flesh to reach the measure of an olive and one receives lashes for it. The rationale is that its flesh is not separate from its blood, even though it does not impart ritual impurity.19 Similar concepts apply with regard to other teeming animals that do not convey ritual impurity.
Halacha 10
When a person collects the blood of teeming animals that has been separated [from their bodies] and partakes of it, he receives lashes if he partakes of a portion the size of an olive.20 [This applies] provided he was warned against partaking of it because [of the prohibition against partaking of] a teeming animal. If, however, he is warned against partaking of it because [of the prohibition against partaking of] blood, he is not liable. For we are liable only for the blood of domesticated animals, wild beasts, and fowl.21
Halacha 11
All these measures - and the distinctions between them22 - are halachot received by Moses at Sinai [and transmitted via the Oral Tradition].
Halacha 12
One who partakes of an olive-sized portion of a aquatic teeming animal is liable for lashes according to Scriptural Law, as [Leviticus 11:43] states: "Do not make your souls detestable [by partaking] of any teeming animal that swarms... and do not become impure because of them." Included in this prohibition are teeming animals of the land, that fly, and of the water.23
What is meant by a aquatic teeming animal? Both small creatures like worms and leeches that inhabit the water24 and larger creatures that are beasts of the sea. To state a general principle: Any aquatic creature that does not have the characteristics of a fish, neither a non-kosher fish or a kosher fish, e.g., a seal, a dolphin, a frog, or the like.
Halacha 13
The species that come into existence in garbage heaps and the carcasses of dead animals, e.g., maggots, worms, and the like which are not brought into being from male-female [relations],25 but from filth that decays and the like are called "those which creep on the earth." A person who partakes of an olive-sized portion [of these creations] is liable for lashes,26 as [Leviticus 11:44] states: "Do not make your souls impure with any teeming animal that creeps on the earth," even thought they do not reproduce. Teeming animals that swarm on the earth, by contrast, are those that reproduce from male-female [relations].
Halacha 14
[The following laws apply with regard to] species that come into being from fruits and other foods.27 Should they depart from [the source from where they came into being] and go to the earth,28 a person who partakes of an olive-sized portion of them is liable for lashes,29 as [Leviticus 11:42] states: "With regard to any teeming animal that swarms on the earth, [do not eat them]." This forbids those that departed to the earth, even though they returned to the food. If, however, they did not depart, it is permitted to eat the fruit together with the worm in it.
Halacha 15
When does the above apply? When the food became worm-ridden after it was uprooted from the earth.30 If, however, it became worm-ridden while it was connected [to its source of nurture], that worm is forbidden as if it became departed to the earth. For it was created on the earth. One is liable for lashes [for partaking of it]. If there is a doubt, it is forbidden.
Therefore all fruits that commonly become worm-ridden31 when connected [to their source of nurture] should not be eaten until one checks the fruit from its inside,32 for perhaps it contains a worm. If the fruit remains twelve months after being severed [from its source], it may be eaten without being inspected. For a worm inside of it will not endure for twelve months.33
Halacha 16
If [the worm] departed to the atmosphere, but did not reach the earth, or only a portion of it reached the earth, it departed after it died, the worm was found on the seed on the inside, or it departed from one food to another, [in] all these [situations, the worm] is forbidden because of the doubt, but lashes are not administered [if one partakes of it].
Halacha 17
A worm found in the stomach of a fish, in the brain within the head of an animal, and one found in meat are forbidden. When, however, salted fish becomes worm-ridden, the worms in it are permitted.34 This is comparable to fruit which has become worm-ridden after it has been separated from the earth. It is permitted to eat them together with the worm that is in them.
Similarly, if water35 in a utensil produces teeming animals, those teeming animals are permitted to be drunken together with the water, as [can be inferred from Leviticus 11:9]: "All that possess fins and scales in the water, seas, and rivers, they you may eat." Implied is that you may eat those that possess [fins and scales] in the water, seas, and rivers and those that do not possess them, you may not eat. But those creatures [that come into existences] in utensils are permitted whether they possess [fins and scales] or not.
Halacha 18
[Since the water found] in cisterns, trenches and caves is not flowing water, but instead is collected there,36 it is comparable to water found in containers. [Hence], aquatic teeming animals that are created [in these places] are permitted. A person may bend down and drink37 without holding back even though he swallows these flimsy teeming animals when drinking.38
Halacha 19
When does the above apply? When the teeming animals did not depart from the place where they came into being. If they did, even though they later return to the container or the cistern, they are forbidden. If they went out to the walls of the barrel and then fell back into the water or the beer, they are permitted.39 Similarly, if they went out to the walls of the cistern and the cave and returned to the water, they are permitted.
Halacha 20
When a person strains wine, vinegar, or beer and eats the insects, bugs, and worms that he strains, he is liable for lashes for partaking of an aquatic teeming animal or [for partaking of] a flying teeming animal and an aquatic teeming animal.40 [This applies] even if they returned to the container after they were strained, for they departed from the place where they came into existence. If, however, they did not depart, one may drink without holding back, as we explained.41
Halacha 21
When, in this chapter, we have spoken about partaking of an olive-sized portion, [the intent is that] one ate an olive-sized portion of a large creature or one collected some from one species and some from another similar species42 until one partakes of an olive sized portion. If, however, one eats an entire forbidden creature by itself, one is liable for lashes according to Scriptural Law even if it is smaller than a mustard seed.43
[This applies] whether one partook of it after it died or while it was alive. Even if the creature decayed and lost its form,44 one is liable for lashes since one consumed it in its entirety.
Halacha 22
When an ant has lost even one of its legs,45 one is not liable for lashes for partaking of it unless one eats an olive-sized portion. For this reason,46 one who eats an entire fly or an entire mosquito whether alive or dead is worthy of lashes for partaking of a flying teeming animal.
Halacha 23
[The following laws apply if] a particular creature is [included in the categories of] a flying teeming animal, an aquatic teeming animal, and a teeming animal of the earth, e.g., it has wings, it walks on the earth like other [earthbound] teeming animals, and it reproduces in the water. If one partakes of it, he is liable for three [sets of] lashes.47
If, in addition to the above, it is one of the species which are brought into being in the earth in fruit, he is liable for a fourth [set of] lashes. If it is one of the species that reproduce,48 he is liable for a fifth [set of] lashes. If it also can be considered as a non-kosher fowl in addition to being considered a flying teeming animal,49 he is liable for six [sets of] lashes: [for partaking of] a non-kosher fowl, a flying teeming animal, a teeming animal of the earth, an aquatic teeming animal, an animal that swarms on the earth, and a worm from fruit.
[This applies whether] he partook of the entire creature or he partook of an olive-sized portion of it. Therefore one who eats an ant that flies that breeds in the water is liable for five [sets of] lashes.
Halacha 24
When one crushed ants, added another complete ant to those that were crushed so that the entire quantity was equal to an olive-sized portion, and partook of it, he is liable for six [sets of] lashes: five [for partaking of] the one ant50 and an additional one, because he partook of an olive-sized portion of dead non-kosher animals.51
FOOTNOTES
1.Similar verses are also stated in that passage with regard to fish, fowl, and locusts. Like verses are also stated in Leviticus, except that in Leviticus, there is no such commandment with regard to a kosher fowl. To include that as well, the Rambam refers to the passage in Deuteronomy.
2.I.e., it does not have the severity of a negative commandment. Hence its violation is not punishable by lashes.
The Rambam is explaining that the Torah is not commanding us to eat kosher species, for there is no obligation to partake of them. Instead, it is commanding us to take precautions - through checking distinguishing signs - against partaking of non-kosher ones. See Sefer HaMitzvot (General Principle 6) where the Rambam elaborates in the explanation of the concept of a prohibition derived from a positive commandment. See also Chapter 1, Halachah 1, and notes which deals with this issue.
3.Here the Rambam cites the verses from Leviticus - although like verses also appear in Deuteronomy - for Leviticus comes first in the Torah.
4.The commentaries have raised a question concerning the Rambam's statements. There is a general principle (Pesachim 24a, et al): "We do not issue a warning on the basis of logical deduction." Implied is that a person is not given lashes when a prohibition is not explicitly mentioned in the Torah, but instead derived through logic. Why then, these commentaries ask, are lashes given for partaking of non-kosher species other than the four mentioned specifically by the Torah?
The Rambam offers a resolution to this question in his Sefer HaMitzvot (negative commandment 172). There he explains that in this instance, we are not deriving the prohibition on the basis of logic, for it is already stated in the positive commandment. We are using logic only to derive that this prohibition is also included in the negative commandment.
5.Approximately, an ounce in contemporary measure.
6.Such a distinction is made with regard to the meat and fat of kosher animals. With regard to non-kosher animals, by contrast, the two are included in the same category and the same prohibition applies to both of them.
7.For the prohibition mentions the animal's hoofs.
8.The Ra'avad and the Rashba differ with the Rambam's ruling, maintaining that there is no prohibition at all against partaking of meat from a human. The Rama (Yoreh De'ah 80:1) follows the Rambam's ruling.
The Maggid Mishneh explains the Rambam's position, noting that - as stated in Chapter 3, Halachah 2, and in Chapter 6, Halachot 1-2 - there is no Scriptural prohibition against partaking of milk and blood from a human. Now these leniencies are derived from the exegesis of verses from the Torah. Were the meat of a human not to be forbidden, why would it be necessary to teach that his milk and blood are permitted? Who would have thought otherwise?
9.Sefer HaMitzvot (negative commandment 172, 173, 174) and Sefer HaChinuch (mitzvot 154, 156, 157) include these among the 613 mitzvot of the Torah.
10.I.e., there is no separate commandment not to partake of a non-kosher locust. Instead, this is included in the general prohibition against partaking of non-kosher teeming animals. The Lechem Mishneh and others note that, in contrast, to the previous halachot, the Rambam does not mention the fact that there is a prohibition against partaking of locusts that results from the positive commandment to partake of them.
11.Or an entire teeming animal even if it is smaller than an olive; see Halachah 21.
12.Sefer HaMitzvot (negative commandment 175) and Sefer HaChinuch (mitzvah 471) include this as one of the 613 mitzvot of the Torah.
As explained in the halachot that follow and summarized in Halachah 23, there are five prohibitions in the Torah that refer to teeming animals. The categories are not mutually exclusive and it is possible that one particular creature may be included in several - or all - of these categories.
13.Sefer HaMitzvot (negative commandment 176) and Sefer HaChinuch (mitzvah 162) include this as one of the 613 mitzvot of the Torah.
14.Leviticus 11:29-30. The translation of the names of these eight species is a matter of debate among both Torah commentaries and zoologists. Our translation is taken from Rabbi Aryeh Kaplan's Living Torah. Consult the notes there for a detailed discussion of the matter.
The Torah singles these teeming animals out from others and states that they convey ritual purity. It does not mention anything about them with regard to the prohibition against partaking of their flesh. Nevertheless, since this quantity of their flesh is significant in another halachic context, it is also considered significant with regard to this prohibition (Meilah 16b). This explains why the minimum measure for which they are liable is less than that associated with other prohibitions.
15.For their flesh only conveys ritual impurity after they have died.
16.Hilchot Shaar Avot HaTumah 4:3 states that there is no minimum measure with regard to the limbs of a teeming animal within the context of ritual impurity. A person who touches an entire limb of a such an animal after its death becomes impure even if the limb is smaller than the size of a lentil. Nevertheless, we do not rule that one is liable if he eats such a limb.
Meilah, loc. cit., explains that although the limbs of other animals also convey ritual impurity no matter what their size, one is not liable unless he partakes of an olive-sized portion. Hence, there is no reason to extend the stringency that applies with regard to these teeming animals any further.
17.If not, one is not liable until he partakes of an olive-sized portion, as stated in the following halachah.
18.Which is not one of the teeming animals explicitly mentioned by the Torah.
19.In contrast to the blood of the eight teeming animals that were singled out by the Torah.
20.The Maggid Mishneh (in his gloss to Halachah 9) states that this applies even to the eight teeming animals mentioned explicitly in the Torah. Once their blood is separated from their bodies, the minimum measure is the same as that of other species.
21.As stated in Chapter 6, Halachah 1.
22.That for some one is liable for an olive-sized portion and for others, for a lentil-sized portion.
23.Sefer HaMitzvot (negative commandment 179) and Sefer HaChinuch (mitzvah 164) include this as one of the 613 mitzvot of the Torah. As obvious from the Rambam's words here and as explained in greater length in Sefer HaMitzvot, this is not a specific commandment relating to aquatic teeming creatures, but a general commandment relating to all teeming animals. Accordingly, when a person partakes of a teeming animal of the land or a flying teeming animal, he is liable for two transgressions.
The Ramban (Hasagot to Sefer HaMitzvot, General Principle 9) and the Maggid Mishneh differ with the Rambam and maintain that this is not considered as a separate mitzvah.
24.See Halachot 18-19.
25.The Rambam is stating - based on Midrashic and Talmudic sources - that there are creatures which spontaneously regenerate. It is not our place to defend these concepts against the findings of science. It must, however, be said that many Rabbinical leaders who are aware of the work of Pasteur and others did not doubt the teachings of the Torah and accepted these laws.
26.Sefer HaMitzvot (negative commandment 177) and Sefer HaChinuch (mitzvah 165) include this as one of the 613 mitzvot of the Torah.
27.See Halachot 18-19.
28.The Rambam's wording is borrowed from the prooftext cited. Even if these crawling animals do not reach the earth, but merely appear on the surface of the fruit, they become forbidden., as stated in Sefer HaMitzvot (negative commandment 178). Note, however, Halachah 16.
29.Sefer HaMitzvot (negative commandment 178) and Sefer HaChinuch (mitzvah 163) include this as one of the 613 mitzvot of the Torah.
30.Or removed from its tree.
31.This is a halachic issue that is given much attention today. We find certain Jewish groups who have taken it upon themselves to grow vegetables without any exposure to insects. There is a heightened consciousness with regard to the need to check and many books and tools have been produced with this purpose in mind. It must be emphasized, however, that although there are no vegetables that are absolutely insect and larvae free, the common halachic approach is not to show concern for any insects and/or larvae that are not visible to the naked eye. Conversely, we assume that all insects we discover came from male-female relationships or came into being while the fruit was connected to its source and do not permit any because they might have come from the fruit itself after it was detached.
32.I.e., an external search is not sufficient and one must cut the fruit or vegetable open and search from the inside.
33.Since a crawling animal will not live for more than twelve months inside produce and the produce has been detached for more than twelve months, it follows that the animal came into being from the produce itself and thus the produce and the animal can be eaten together.
Nevertheless, the Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 84:8) states that the produce should be checked lest there be crawling animals that have left the produce. One of the ways to select grains, legumes, and the like is to soak them first. Any ones with holes will float to the top. They should be discarded, lest they be worm-ridden.
34.Provided they have not departed from the fish itself (Maggid Mishneh).
The Maggid Mishneh explains the Rambam's approach as follows: All worms that are found in both meat and fish while the animals are alive are forbidden, for we assume that they entered from the outside. Even after a fish dies, we can assume that the worms in its stomach were swallowed when it was alive. Similarly, those in an animal's brain can be assumed to have entered its nose from the outside and are hence, forbidden. Those found in the body of a fish are considered to have been spontaneously generated are hence permitted. Those found in the meat of an animal are not permitted. The rationale is that anything that comes from an animal is permitted to be eaten only after it has been slaughtered according to law. Even though the animal itself was slaughtered, since that slaughter preceded the existence of the worms, they are not permitted.
The Ra'avad and many other Rishonim differ with the Rambam's understanding and permit worms that came into being in meat from animals that were ritually slaughtered, e.g., in meat that was salted to be used at a later time. The Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 84:16) quotes both views, but appears to favor the more lenient one. The Rama states that it is customary to follow the more lenient view. In practice, in the present age, this problem is far less prevalent, for because of refrigeration and freezing, it is less likely for worms to exist in meat.
35.Or other beverages (Siftei Cohen 84:1). This is evident from Halachot 19-20.
36.I.e., water that is stored in storage compartments dug into - or naturally found within - the earth.
The Maggid Mishneh states that irrigation ditches and breeding ponds which water flows through are not included in this category, because - in contrast to water found in containers - the water in them does not stand still. The Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 84:1) quotes a difference of opinion on this issue.
37.Commenting on the citation of this ruling by the Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 84:2), the Rama states that if one finds worms in a bucket of water drawn from such bodies, the worms are forbidden, because we fear that the worms came from the bucket and not from the water.
38.Or other beverages (Siftei Cohen 84:1). This is evident from Halachot 19-20.
39.For the walls are still considered as "the place where the teeming animals came into existence."
40.If the insect has the characteristics of both the prohibited species, as stated in Halachah 23.
41.Halachah 18. I.e., he need not worry that perhaps they became separated (Maggid Mishneh).
42.For the portions of forbidden insects to be combined, they need not be of the same species. They must, however, be included in the same prohibition. See Chapter 4, Halachah 17.
43.This is a general principle applying in many contexts in the laws of kashrut. The creature must, however, be visible to the naked eye.
44.If, however, it has decayed to the extent that it is no longer fit for human consumption, one is not liable, as stated in Chapter 14, Halachah 11.
45.For it is no longer considered as a complete creation.
46.This phrase refers to the previous halachah.
47.The Rambam's statements are based on Makkot 16b: "If one eats a potisa, one is liable for four [sets of] lashes, an ant, five [sets of] lashes." As he explains in Sefer HaMitzvot (negative commandment 179), the intent is not that one is liable for additional sets of lashes because several prohibitions are stated with regard to a particular creature. Instead, the intent is that if one creature falls into several forbidden categories, one is liable for a set of lashes for every forbidden category. See Maggid Mishneh.
It must be emphasized that the Ra'avad, Rav Moshe HaCohen, the Ramban, and other Rishonim do not accept the Rambam's interpretation and instead, maintain that the prohibitions mentioned in Makkot, loc. cit., refer to the repetition of prohibitions concerning a single creature.
48.I.e., although this particular creature was spontaneously generated, it was brought into being in a manner that it could reproduce and bear offspring.
49.In Sefer HaMitzvot (loc. cit.), the Rambam is sensitive to the question that might arise and states: "Do not wonder how it is possible for a fowl to come into being from the decay of fruits, for we have seen this take place frequently." In that source, he also explains that it is possible for a single creature to have the characteristics of a non-kosher fowl and a flying teeming animal.
50.As stated in the previous halachah.
51.The Rambam is not referring to the prohibition against partaking of an animal that is not ritually slaughtered. For that prohibition applies only with regard to kosher animals, as stated in Chapter 4, Halachah 2. For this reason, the Maggid Mishneh (in his gloss to that halachah) raises questions with the Rambam's statement here. The Kessef Mishneh and others attempt to offer resolutions.
Ma'achalot Assurot - Chapter 3
Halacha 1
Any food that is produced from forbidden species for which lashes are given for partaking of1 is forbidden to be eaten according to Scriptural Law, e.g., milk from a forbidden species of domesticated animal or wild beast or the eggs of a forbidden species of birds or fish. [This is derived from Leviticus 11:16 which mentions]: "the bat of the ostrich." [Our Sages2 commented:] "This refers to its egg." The same law applies to all species that are forbidden like an ostrich and all entities [that are produce] like eggs.
Halacha 2
Human milk is permitted to be eaten,3 although the meat of a human is forbidden to be eaten. We have already explained4 that it is forbidden by virtue of a positive commandment.5
Halacha 3
Honey produced by bees and hornets6 is permitted. [The rationale is that] it is not a product of their bodies. Instead, it is collected in their mouths from herbs and then expelled in their hive so that they will be able to partake of it in the rainy season.
Halacha 4
Although human milk is permitted, our Sages prohibited an adult to nurse from [a woman's] breasts. Instead, the woman should express it into a container7 and the adult should partake of it. An adult who nurses from [a woman's] breast is like one who nurses from a teeming animal.8 He is given stripes for rebellious conduct.
Halacha 5
An infant may continue to nurse for even four or five years. If, however, he was weaned for three days or more in a state of health and not because of sickness, he should not be allowed to nurse again.9 [The above applies] provided he was weaned after 24 months. If he was weaned within that time, even if he was weaned for a month or two, it is permitted to have him nurse again until the conclusion of 24 months.10
Halacha 6
Although the milk of a non-kosher animal and the egg of a non-kosher fowl are forbidden according to Scriptural Law, [one is] not [liable for] lashes [for partaking of them. [This is derived from Leviticus 11:8] which states: "You may not eat from their flesh." [Implied is that] one is liable for lashes for [partaking of] their flesh, but is not liable for lashes for [partaking of] their eggs and milk. One who partakes [of these substances] is like one who eats half the minimum measure [of a forbidden substance]. This is forbidden according to Scriptural Law, but one is not liable for lashes. Instead, he receives stripes for rebellious conduct.11
Halacha 7
It appears to me that eating the eggs of non-kosher species of fish that are found in their bellies is comparable to eating the insides of the forbidden fish themselves12 and one is liable for lashes according to Scriptural Law. Similarly, when a person partakes of the eggs of a non-kosher fowl that are hanging in a cluster without being separated from the mother's body or completed, he is liable for lashes as if he ate the insides of [the fowl itself].13
Halacha 8
When one partakes the egg of a non-kosher fowl inside of which an embryo has begun to take form, he is liable for eating a flying teeming animal.14If, however, one partakes of the egg of a kosher fowl inside of which an embryo has begun to take form, he is liable for stripes for rebellious conduct.15
Halacha 9
[The following laws apply if] a blood spot is found on an egg.16 If it is found on the white, one should discard the blood and eat the remainder of the egg.17 If it is found on the yolk, the entire egg is forbidden.18 Unfertilized eggs - a refined person partakes of them.19
Halacha 10
When a chick is hatched, even if its eyes have not opened, it is permitted [to slaughter it and] eat it.20
When a kosher animal became trefe,21 its milk is forbidden like the milk of a non-kosher animal.22 Similarly, the egg of a kosher fowl that became trefe is comparable to the egg of a non-kosher fowl and is forbidden.23
Halacha 11
When a chick is hatched from an egg from a trefe fowl, it is permitted, for it is not from a non-kosher species.24 When there is an unresolved question whether a fowl is trefe or not, we retain25 all the eggs it lays in its first batch.26 If it grows another batch and begins laying them, the first ones are permitted.27 For if it was trefe, it would no longer lay eggs. If it does not lay eggs, [the first batch] are forbidden.
Halacha 12
The milk of a non-kosher animal will not congeal and solidify as the milk of a kosher animal does. If the milk of a non-kosher animal is mixed together with the milk of a kosher animal, when the mixture is [set aside for cheese to be made], the kosher milk will solidify and the non-kosher milk will be expelled together with the whey of the cheese.
Halacha 13
Accordingly, logic would dictate that any milk found in the possession of a gentile is forbidden, lest the gentile have mixed the milk of a non-kosher animal with it. And the cheese of the gentiles should be permitted, for the milk of a non-kosher animal will not form cheese. Nevertheless, during the age of the Sages of the Mishnah, they issued a decree against gentile cheese and forbade it, lest they use the skin of the stomach of an animal they slaughtered - which is forbidden as a nevelah28 - to cause it to solidify.29
If one would say: The stomach skin is a very small entity when compared to the milk that it is used to solidify. Why is it not nullified because of its insignificant size?30 Because it is used as the catalyst to cause the cheese to curdle. Since the catalyst which causes it to curdle is forbidden, everything is forbidden, as will be explained.31
Halacha 14
[The following laws apply when] cheese is left to solidify with herbs or fruit juice, e.g., fig syrup, and it is apparent [that these substances were used for] the cheese. There are some of the Geonim who have ruled that it is forbidden, for [our Sages] already decreed that all the cheeses of gentiles are forbidden, whether they caused them to solidify with a forbidden entity or with a permitted entity.32This is a decree, [instituted] because they cause them to solidify using forbidden entities.
Halacha 15
When a person partakes of cheese from gentiles or milk that was milked by a gentile without a Jew observing him, he is given stripes for rebellious conduct.33 With regard to butter produced by gentiles, some of the Geonim permit it, for [our Sages] did not decree against butter and some of the Geonim forbid it,34 because of the drops of milk that remain in it. For the whey in the butter is not mixed with the butter35 so that it will be nullified because of its minimal quantity. And we suspect that any milk [from gentiles] is mixed with the milk of a non-kosher animal.
Halacha 16
It appears to me36 that if one purchased butter from gentiles and cooked it until the drops of milk in it disappeared, it is permitted.37 For if one will say that [drops of non-kosher milk] were mixed with the butter and it was all cooked together, they became insignificant because of the small quantity [involved].38 When, however, the butter is cooked by gentiles themselves,39 it is forbidden because of the effusion of gentile [foods], as will be explained.40
Halacha 17
When a Jew sits near a herd belonging to a gentile and the gentile brings him milk from the herd, it is permitted [for him to partake of it] even though there are non-kosher animals in the herd. [This applies] even though he did not see him milk the animal, provided he could have seen him were he to stand.41 [The rationale is that] the gentile is afraid to milk the non-kosher animal lest [the Jew] stand and see him.42
Halacha 18
When both of the ends of an egg are rounded, both are pointed, or the yolk is on the outside and the white is on the inside, it is certainly from a non-kosher species. If one end is pointed, the other rounded, and the white is on the outside and the yolk is on the inside, it is possible that it is the egg of a non-kosher species and it is possible that it is the egg of a kosher species.43 Accordingly, the Jew should inquire of the Jewish44 hunter who sells them. If he tells him that they are from such-and-such a fowl and that this fowl is kosher, he may rely on him.45 If, however, he tells him that they are from a kosher fowl, but does not mention its name, he may not rely on him.46
Halacha 19
For this reason, we do not purchase eggs from gentiles unless one recognizes the eggs and can identify them as being from a particular kosher species of fowl.47 We do not suspect that they came from a fowl that was trefe or nevelah.48 And we do not purchase an [unshelled and] stirred egg from a gentile at all.49
Halacha 20
The distinguishing signs of fish eggs are the same as those for fowl. When both of the ends of an egg are rounded or both are pointed, it is non-kosher. If one end is pointed and the other rounded, he should inquire of the Jew who sells them.50 If he tells him that he salted them51 and removed them from a kosher species,52 he may partake of them on the basis of his statements. If he tells him that they are kosher, he may not rely on him unless he is a person who has an established reputation for observance.
Halacha 21
Similarly, we may not purchase cheese and pieces of fish that do not have distinguishing signs except from a Jew who has an established reputation for observance. In Eretz Yisrael, at the time it was populated primarily by [observant] Jews,53 one could purchase these items from any Jew located there. And it is permitted to purchase milk from any Jew, anywhere.
Halacha 22
When a person pickles non-kosher fish, the brine produced is forbidden. The brine produced by non-kosher locusts, by contrast, is permitted, because they do not possess any moisture.54 Accordingly, we do not purchase brine from gentiles unless there is a kosher fish floating in it.55 Even one fish is sufficient.
Halacha 23
When a gentile brings a trough filled with open barrels of brine and there is a kosher fish in one of them, they are all permitted.56 If they are closed, one opens one and finds a kosher fish and one opens a second and finds a kosher fish, they are all permitted.57 [This applies] provided the head of the fish and its backbone are present so that it is recognizable that they are from a kosher species of fish.58
For this reason, we do not purchased crushed, salted fish from gentiles which are called terit terufah.59 If, however, the head and the backbone of a fish is recognizable, even though it is crushed, it is permitted to purchase it from a gentile.60
Halacha 24
When a gentile brings a keg of pieces of evenly cut up fish and it is obvious that they are from one fish,61 they are all permitted if he finds scales on one of the pieces.62
FOOTNOTES
1.I.e., foods that are forbidden by a negative commandment.
2.Chullin 64b. The term literally means "the daughter of the ostrich." Our Sages, however, expanded the interpretation of the term as the Rambam explains.
3.I.e., even by an adult. Note, however, Halachah 4.
4.Chapter 2, Halachah 3.
5.Thus it does not contradict the general principle mentioned in the previous halachah.
6.As the Maggid Mishneh mentions, there is a difference of opinion among the Sages in Bechorot 7b whether the honey of hornets is forbidden. This difference of opinion is perpetuated among the later authorities. See the Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 81:9).
7.Or into a person's hands. She may not, however, express it into the person's mouth [the Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 81:7)].
8.The Ra'avad and the Turei Zahav 81:9 explains that these words of censure were issued because an observer might think that the milk of a non-kosher animal is also permitted.
9.Needless to say, if there is a danger to the child's life, he may be allowed to nurse again regardless of the amount of time for which he had been weaned [the Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 81:7)].
10.When an infant has never been weaned, he may continue past the 24 month limit as the Rambam states at the beginning of the halachah. If, however, he has been weaned, he is bound by this restriction [Beit Yosef (Yoreh De'ah 81)].
11.See Chapter 4, Halachah 16, Hilchot Shivitat Esor 2:3, et al.
12.For they are part of the fish's body and are not separated by a shell.
13.For this instance as well, the eggs are not a distinct entity, but instead are considered part of the fowl's body. The Maggid Mishneh brings proof of this concept from Chapter 9, Halachot 4-5, which states that it is forbidden to eat such eggs together with milk and from Hilchot Sha'ar Avot HaTumah 3:10 which states that they convey ritual impurity like the meat of the fowl itself.
14.The embryo is not considered as a non-kosher fowl. Nevertheless, it is already a distinct entity. Hence it is considered as a non-kosher teeming animal. The Maggid Mishneh mentions that there are other Rishonim who do not accept the Rambam's position.
The Siftei Cohen 15:1 explains that while the embryo is within the egg, it has the characteristics of a teeming animal.
15.From Chullin 64a, it appears that there is only a Rabbinic prohibition against partaking of this embryo. Hence, this punishment is given.
16.This refers to an egg that could have been fertilized. If, however, we know that an egg was not fertilized, it is acceptable no matter where the blood spot is found. The blood itself, however, must be discarded [the Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 66:7)]. Most of the eggs commercially sold are not fertilized.
17.For the embryo has not begun to form and has not affected the entire egg.
18.At this stage of development, the entire egg has been affected. See the Shulchan Aruch and Rama (Yoreh De'ah 66:2-3) which also mention other halachic perspectives with regard to blood found in fertilized eggs.
19.Even though they could be considered spoiled [see Rashi, Chullin 77a; Rama (Yoreh De'ah 66:7)].
20.Until it is hatched, however, it is forbidden is indicated by Halachah 8. See also Siftei Cohen15:2 who mentions authorities who suggest that one should wait until its wings start to develop before slaughtering it.
21.Forbidden because it contracted a wound that will cause it to die within a year.
22.Although the milk comes from a kosher species, since the animal itself is unacceptable, its milk is also deemed unacceptable.
23.According to Rabbinic decree, this law applies to eggs that are found within a fowl that died without being ritually slaughtered [Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 86:3)].
24.Chulin 31a states that the fact that the egg from which the embryo is formed is trefe does not present a halachic problem. The rationale is that, for the embryo to form, the egg must decompose. Hence its halachic status does not affect that of the embryo.
25.For 21 days [Bechorot 8a; the Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 86:99]. This is the amount of time our Sages thought necessary for a fowl to begin laying a new batch of eggs.
26.I.e., the eggs it was carrying when it first became trefe. Although Chulin 58a states that a fowl which is trefe will not lay eggs, the intent is that it will not lay a new batch of eggs. It will, however, lay the batch it is presently carrying.
27.There are opinions in the Ashkenazic halachic tradition that forbid such a chick. The Rama (Yoreh De'ah 86:7) states that the initial and preferred option is to respect these views.
28.This term refers to an animal from a kosher species which died without being ritually slaughtered.
29.For milk to solidify as cheese, it needs a catalyst, rennin, to cause it to curdle. One of the most common sources of rennin was the digestive organs of an animal. For the enzymes that facilitate the digestion of food also produce such an effect. Using the skin of a non-kosher organ causes the cheese to be non-kosher for the reasons the Rambam proceeds to explain. See also Chapter 4, Halachah 19, and Chapter 9, Halachah 15.
As the Ra'avad and Maggid Mishneh mention, Avodah Zarah 35a gives several additional reasons for these prohibitions. The Rambam, however, does not mention them because the factors causing the prohibition could be nullified as explained in the following note. The Maggid Mishneh mentions that there are opinions that maintain that the motivating factor behind the prohibition against non-Jewish cheese is to prevent social interaction between Jews and non-Jews. Hence the prohibitions are never nullified even if there is a substantially larger quantity of the kosher substance.
30.As will be explained, according to Scriptural Law, when a forbidden substance is mixed together with a kosher substance, it is nullified - i.e, considered as if it has become part of the permitted substance - if the quantity of the permitted substance is greater than it. According to Rabbinic Law, this is true when the quantity of the permitted substance is so great that the taste of the forbidden substance would not be detected. That would certainly be true in the instance at hand. Nevertheless, the forbidden substance is not nullified for the reason explained by the Rambam.
31.Chapter 9, Halachah 16; Chapter 16, Halachah 26.
32.This is also the Rambam's view. It is quoted by the the Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 115:2. The Rama states that it is customary to follow this view. The Rama continues, stating that when a Jew observes a gentile milking the cows and making the cheese, it is permitted to partake of it even though the cheese belongs to the gentiles. He continues, stating that even if the Jew does not observe the gentile milking the cow, as long as he observes him making the cheese, the cheese is acceptable after the fact. The Turei Zahav 115:11 and the Siftei Cohen 115:22 quote opinions that differ and maintain that the prohibition should be observed even if a Jew did not observe the milking.
This difference of opinion is relevant today, reflecting the difference between chalav Yisrael cheese and ordinary kosher cheese. In both instances, the cheesemaking process is supervised. Chalav Yisrael cheese uses milk that was supervised when milked, while ordinary kosher cheese does not.
33.For his behavior is in violation of an explicit Rabbinic prohibition. Even though the rationale for the original decree is no longer applicable, the prohibition established by our Rabbis is still in force. (See Hilchot Mamrim 2:2.)
In the present era, there are certain Rabbis (see Rav Moshe Feinstein, Igros Moshe) who give a rationale for leniency with regard to this prohibition, stating that government supervision makes it impossible for gentiles to mix non-kosher milk together with cow's milk and thus there is no necessity to heed that prohibition. It must be emphasized, however, that this responsum was authored before the time when it became relative easy to procure chalav Yisrael and that many other Rabbinical authorities never accepted this decision. On the contrary, basing themselves on the ruling of Hilchot Mamrim 2:2, they explain that the original decree must still be observed. As a result of their forceful stance, at present, it is possible to obtain chalav Yisrael products in almost every major Jewish community.
34.The Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 115:3) states that one should not rebuke those who permit the use of such butter, but if the local custom is to forbid it, that custom should be respected. At present, since it is possible to obtain chalav Yisrael butter in almost every major Jewish community, many Rabbis urge that this prohibition be observed.
35.We are speaking about homemade butter which always has some small drops of whey within it. These drops, however, are not mixed with the butter itself, but instead remain as a separate entity. Hence, they cannot be nullified. See Kessef Mishneh.
36.This expression connotes a law derived by the Rambam through his deductive reasoning without an existing prior Rabbinic source.
37.The Kessef Mishneh explains that not only is this permitted after the fact, one may do so at the outset (lechatchilah). For it is possible that there is no forbidden substance present at all.
The Rama (Yoreh De'ah 115:3) quotes this ruling. Nevertheless, most of the authorities who forbid using non-Jewish butter maintain that, in practice, one should refrain from cooking it as well.
38.I.e., the amount of non-kosher milk is surely insignificant in relation to the quantity of the mixture as a whole. Hence it is nullified.
39.I.e., in their own utensils.
40.As explained in Chapter 17, Halachah 2, it is forbidden to cook food in utensils belonging to gentiles, for the utensil will have absorbed some of the non-kosher food cooked in it previously and will discharge it into the kosher food during the cooking process.
The Kessef Mishneh and the Rama (loc. cit.) differ with the Rambam regarding this issue. See the notes to Chapter 17 Halachah 18, for a discussion of this matter.
41.Similarly, if the Jew walks in and out of the place where the milking is taking place, it is acceptable. For the gentile will fear that any moment, the Jew will return (Turei Zahav 115:3).
42.The Rambam is explaining that although our Sages require that a Jew observe the milking of an animal, it is not necessary that he watch the actual milking. As long as he is present and could see what the gentile is doing, the gentile will refrain from mixing in a non-kosher substance.
The Rama (Yoreh De'ah 115:1) states that this ruling applies only after the fact. At the outset, the Jew must observe the milking and also check the container into which the gentile is milking.
The Maggid Mishneh clarifies that this ruling applies only when the gentile is milking the animal for the Jew and knows that the Jew will not drink the milk of the non-kosher animal. If he is not aware of the prohibition, we suspect that he will give the Jew milk from any animal in his herd.
43.I.e., all kosher eggs have these characteristics, but not all eggs with these characteristics are kosher.
44.But not a non-Jewish hunter, as evident from the following halachah.
45.We are certain that he will not lie, because it is possible to bring other eggs from that species and see that they are not alike (Turei Zahav 86:1; Siftei Cohen 86:3).
46.For the method of verification mentioned in the previous note does not apply.
The Ra'avad rules that if the hunter has an established reputation for observance, we may rely on his word, even though he does not name the species of the fowl. The Maggid Mishneh states that, as indicated by the conclusion of Halachah 20, the Rambam would also accept that ruling. According to this understanding, the hunter we are speaking about is not known for his observance. Nevertheless, we rely on his statements.
In his notes to Halachah 20, the Rashba emphasizes that we are not speaking about a person who is known to sell non-kosher food as kosher. As evident from Hilchot Maaserot 12:16, such a person is considered as a gentile and his word is not accepted at all. Instead, the intent is someone whose reputation for observance has not been established, but is also not suspect to cause others to transgress.
47.The Maggid Mishneh quotes the Ramban who differs with the Rambam and maintains that there is no difference between a Jew whose reputation for observance is not established and a gentile. Just like we accept the Jew's word, we accept that of the gentile. For we assume that he will not risk his reputation by making false statements. The Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 86:1) quotes the Rambam's ruling, while the Tur and the Rama cite that of the Ramban.
The Maggid Mishneh also quotes Rashba who states that in the present age, we purchase eggs from gentiles without compunction, because non-kosher species are uncommon and the overwhelming proportion of eggs sold are from chickens or geese. This ruling is quoted by the Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 86:2).
48.I.e., that died without being ritually slaughtered; see Chapter 4, Halachah 1. We rule leniently, because it is very uncommon to have eggs from fowl in such a condition (Maggid Mishneh).
49.For we fear that it came from an egg that was trefe (Maggid Mishneh).
50.For the distinguishing signs themselves are not sufficient for the eggs to be considered kosher. The Maggid Mishneh explains that although Avodah Zarah 40a would appear to indicate that the distinguishing signs are sufficient, since Chullin 64a compares fish eggs to fowl eggs, we assume that all the laws that apply to one apply to the other.
In his Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 83:8), Rav Yosef Caro quotes the Rambam's ruling, but states that at present, it has become customary to buy any red fish eggs, even from gentiles. Black fish eggs, however, may not be purchased. In his Beit Yosef 81:12, he explains that the Rabbinic authorities of the earlier ages researched the matter and discovered that there are no common non-kosher fish that lay red eggs. See Siftei Cohen 83:27 who quotes other sources from which it is not clear whether or not this ruling was accepted in all communities.
51.I.e., to preserve them, for it is common to bring fish eggs from distant places.
52.Naming the species as in Halachah 18.
53.As indicated by Chapter 11, Halachah 25, today, the same principles that apply in the Diaspora apply in Eretz Yisrael. 54. In the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (Terumot 10:9), he states that they possess very little moisture. The Ra'avad differs with the Rambam's ruling and forbids brine from non-kosher locusts.
54.
55.For then we assume that the brine came from this species of fish.
56.For we consider all the open barrels as a single entity and the one fish indicates that the entire quantity is acceptable. See Kessef Mishneh. This represents the Rambam's understanding of Avodah Zarah 39b-40a. The rulings of the Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 83:6) quotes the Rambam's ruling, but also those of others who interpret that passage differently.
57.The intent is not that all the barrels are considered as a single entity, but that since two barrels are discovered to be kosher, we assume that the others are also kosher (Kessef Mishneh).
58.I.e., by looking at the head and the backbone, the person is able to recognize that the fish comes from a kosher species. One alone, i.e., either the head or the backbone, is not sufficient (Avodah Zarah 40a).
59.In his Commentary to the Mishnah (Avodah Zarah 2:6), the Rambam explains that it was customary to crush and stir the fish until it produces a mixture like dough that was used as a dip.
60.I.e., if we discover the head and the backbone of one fish, we may purchase a larger quantity, because we do not expect that kosher fish and non-kosher fish were salted together (Maggid Mishneh).
61.The Siftei Cohen 83:4 notes that the Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 83:4) does not quote the Rambam's wording and explains that according to that source, it is not necessary for it to be obvious that they all come from one fish.
If it is not obvious that they come from one fish, the the Shulchan Aruch (loc. cit.) rules that only the piece with scales is permitted.
62.For every fish that has scales will also have fins.
Ma'achalot Assurot - Chapter 4
Halacha 1
A person who partakes of an olive-sized portion of a domesticated animal, wild beast, or fowl which dies is liable for lashes, as [Deuteronomy 14:21] states: "Do not partake of any nevelah."1 All animals that were not slaughtered in the appropriate manner are considered as if they died. In the Laws of Shechitah, we will explain which types of slaughter are appropriate and which are not.
Halacha 2
Only animals from kosher species are forbidden as a nevelah, for they are the species that are fit to be ritually slaughtered and if they are slaughtered in a kosher manner, it is permitted to partake of them. [When,] by contrast, one partakes of [meat from] a non-kosher species, [since] ritual slaughter is of no consequence with regard to them, whether they are slaughtered in a kosher manner, whether they died in a natural manner, or whether one cut meat from a living animal and ate it, one does not receive lashes for partaking of a nevelah or partaking of trefe meat,2 only because one ate the meat of a non-kosher animal.3
Halacha 3
When a person eats an [entire] kosher fowl4 of any size, he is liable for lashes for partaking of a nevelah, even though he ate less than an olive-sized portion. [The rationale is that] he consumed it in its entirety.5 If he ate it after it died, it must be the size of an olive [for him to be liable].6 Even though it does not have an olive-sized portion of meat on it, since as a whole, it is the size of an olive, he is liable for [partaking of] a nevelah.7
Halacha 4
When a person partakes of an olive-sized portion of a stillborn fetus8of a kosher animal, he is liable for lashes for partaking of a nevelah.
It is forbidden to partake of a newborn animal until the night of the eighth day [of its life].9 For whenever an animal has not lived for eight days, we consider it as stillborn, but lashes are not administered [for partaking] of it.10 [Moreover,] if it is known that the animal was born after a full term period of gestation, i.e., nine months for a large domesticated animal and five months for a small domesticated animal, it is permitted on the day that it was born.11
Halacha 5
The placenta that is expelled together with the newborn is forbidden to be eaten. A person who eats it, however, is not liable,12 because it is not [considered] meat.13
Halacha 6
When a person eats an olive-sized portion of a kosher14 domesticated animal, wild beast, or fowl that was mortally wounded is liable for lashes, as [Exodus 22:30] states: "Do not eat meat [from an animal that was] mortally wounded (trefe) in the field. Cast it to the dogs."15
The term trefe employed by the Torah refers to [an animal] mortally wounded by a wild beast, e.g., a lion, a tiger, or the like, or a fowl mortally wounded by a bird of prey, e.g., a hawk or the like.16 We cannot say that the term trefe refers to an animal that was attacked and killed, for if it died, it is a nevelah. What difference does it make if it died naturally, was struck by a sword or died, or was battered by a lion and died? Thus [the term trefe] must refer to an instance when it was mortally wounded, but did not die.
Halacha 7
If an animal that is mortally wounded is forbidden, shall we say that if a wolf or a lion comes and drags a kid by its foot, its tail, or its ear, and a man pursues [the beast] and saves [the kid], it will be forbidden, because it was attacked?17The Torah states: "Do not eat meat [from an animal that was] mortally wounded (trefe) in the field. Cast it to the dogs." [An animal is not considered trefe] unless it was brought to a state that its meat is fit [only] for the dogs. Thus we have learned that the term trefe employed by the Torah refers to [an animal] that was attacked by a wild beast and battered by it that has not died yet. Even if the person hurries and slaughters it before it dies, it is forbidden as trefe. For it is impossible that it will live after suffering such wounds.
Halacha 8
Thus we have learned that the Torah forbade [an animal] that died, a nevelah, and it forbade one that was on the verge of death because of its wounds even though it has not died yet, i.e., a trefe.
Now we do not make a distinction with regard to an animal that has died regardless of whether it died naturally, it fell and died, it was strangled until it died, or it was attacked by a wild beast who killed it. Similarly, we do not make a distinction between an animal that is on the verge of death, regardless of whether it was attacked by an animal and battered, fell from the roof and broke the majority of its ribs,18fell and crushed its limbs, it was shot with an arrow and its heart or lung pierced, it developed an illness that caused its heart or lung to be perforated, one broke the majority of its ribs, or the like. Since it is on the verge of death regardless of the cause, it is a trefe. [This applies] whether [its wound] was caused by flesh and blood or by God's hand.
If so, why does the Torah use the term trefe? For Scripture speaks with regard to prevalent situations.19 [We are forced] to say this. If not, only an animal that was mortally wounded in the field would be forbidden.20 One that is mortally wounded in a courtyard would not be forbidden. Thus we learn that Scripture [is employing this example,] only because it speaks with regard to prevalent situations.
Halacha 9
The intent of the verse is that [an animal] that is mortally wounded and will not live21 because of these wounds is forbidden. On this basis, our Sages said:22 "This is the general principle: Whenever [an animal] in this condition will not live, it is trefe." In Hilchot Shechitah,23 we will explain which conditions cause an animal to be deemed trefe and which do not cause it to be deemed trefe.
Halacha 10
Similarly, when one cuts meat from a living kosher24 animal, one receives lashes for partaking of a trefe.25 For this meat comes from an animal that has not been ritually slaughtered and has not died. [Hence it is comparable to a trefe.] What difference does it make to me if it was attacked by an animal or cut by a knife? And what difference does it make if [the animal] was [wounded] in its totality or only a portion of it was wounded?26 For the verse states: "Do not eat meat [from an animal that was] trefe in the field." Since [a portion of] the animal was made meat in the field,27 it is trefe.
Halacha 11
When an animal is sick because it is weakened and is on the verge of death, it is permitted, because it did not suffer a wound in any one of the limbs and organs that will cause it to die. For the Torah forbade only those situations resembling an animal mortally wounded by a preying wild beast. In that situation, the animal wounded it with a blow that caused it to die.28
Halacha 12
Although it is permitted, the great sages would not partake [of the meat] of an animal which people were hurrying to slaughter before it died.29 [This applies] even if it makes convulsive movements after being slaughtered.30 This is a matter that does not involve a prohibition. Nevertheless, whoever desires to accept this stringency upon himself is praiseworthy.31
Halacha 13
When a person slaughters a domesticated animal, wild beast, or fowl and blood does not flow out from them, they are permitted. We do not say: perhaps they were dead already. Similarly, when one slaughters a healthy animal and it does not make convulsive movements, it is permitted.
Different [rules apply with regard to an animal that] is dangerously ill, i.e., one which cannot maintain itself when others cause it to stand it up.32 [It is placed in this category] even if it eats the food of healthy animals. If [such an animal] is slaughtered and does not make any convulsive movements at all, it is a nevelah33and one is liable for lashes [for partaking] of it. If it makes convulsive movements, it is permitted.
The convulsive movements must be made at the end of the slaughter. If they are made at the beginning, they are of no consequence.
Halacha 14
What is meant by convulsive movements? For a small domesticated animal and for both a small and a large wild beast, the intent is that it extended its foreleg and returned it, extended its hind leg even though it did not return it, or merely bent its hind leg.34 This is considered a convulsive movement and [the animal] is permitted. If, however, it merely extended its foreleg and did not return it, it is forbidden. [This movement is] merely a result of the expiration of the soul.
With regard to a large domesticated animal, [more lenient laws apply]. If it either extended its foreleg or its hind leg without bending it or bent its foreleg or hind leg without extending it, it is considered as a convulsive movement and it is permitted. If, however, it neither extended or bent its foreleg or its hind leg at all, it is considered as a nevelah.
With regard to a fowl, even if it only blinked its eyelid35 or swatted its tail, it is considered a convulsive movement.36
Halacha 15
When one slaughters an animal that is dangerously ill at night and does not know37 whether or not it made convulsive movements, it is forbidden, because of the possibility that it is a nevelah.38
Halacha 16
None of the substances prohibited by the Torah can be combined with each other [to reach the minimum measure for which one is liable for lashes] with the exception of the prohibitions that apply to a nazarite, as explained in that source.39 Therefore when a person takes a small amount of fat, a small amount of blood, a small amount of the meat of a non-kosher animal, a small amount of the meat of a nevelah, a small amount of the meat of a non-kosher fish, a small amount of the meat of a non-kosher fowl, or the like from other prohibited substances, although he collects an olive-sized portion from the entire mixture and partakes of it, he is not liable for lashes. He is bound by the laws that apply when one eats half the minimum measure [of a forbidden] substance.40
Halacha 17
All [types of] nevelot may be combined together. A nevelah may be combined with a trefe. All the non-kosher animals and wild beasts may be combined with each other. But the meat of a nevelah and the meat of a non-kosher animal may not be combined.
What is implied? When one takes [some meat] from a nevelah of an ox, some from the nevelah of a deer, some from the nevelah of a chicken and combined it so that he has an olive-sized portion of meat, he is liable for lashes if he eats it. Similarly, if he collected half of an olive-sized portion from the nevelah of a kosher animal and half of an olive-sized portion from a trefe, or half of an olive-sized portion from the meat of a nevelah and half from meat taken from a living kosher animal,41 he is liable if he eats it. Similarly, if he collects an olive-sized portion [by combining] the meat of a camel, a pig, and a hare,42 he is liable if he eats it.
If, by contrast, he takes half of an olive-sized portion of a nevelah of an ox and half an olive-sized portion of a camel [an eats it], they are not combined.43Similar principles apply in all analogous situations. Similarly, the meat of a non-kosher animal, fowl, or fish are not combined for they involve different prohibitions. For each one is forbidden by a separate negative commandment, as we explained.44 Nevertheless, all the forbidden species of fowl can be combined as may all the forbidden species of domesticated animals and wild beasts.
This is the general principle: Whenever substances are included in the same prohibition, they may be combined. [If they are included] in two [separate] prohibitions, they are not combined. The [only] exceptions are a nevelah and a trefe. [The rationale is that] a trefe is the beginning of [an animal] becoming a nevelah.
Halacha 18
When a person eats the skin, the bones, the sinews,45 the horns, or the hoofs46 of a nevelah, a trefe, or a non-kosher domesticated animal or wild beast, from the nails of a non-kosher fowl in the places where blood would spurt through when they are cut off, or from their placenta,47 although this is forbidden, he is not liable. [The rationale is that] they are not fit to be eaten. They cannot be combined with meat [in the measure of] an olive-sized portion.
Halacha 19
[Milk found in] the stomach of a nevelah and the stomach of a non-kosher animal48 is permitted, for it is like other waste products of the body. Therefore, it is permitted to use [milk found in] the stomach of an animal slaughtered by a gentile or the stomach of a non-kosher domesticated animal or wild beast to cause cheese to solidify.49 The skin of the stomach, by contrast, is like the other digestive organs and is forbidden.
Halacha 20
The placenta of a donkey50 is permitted to be eaten because it is like dung and urine which is permitted. There is skin which is considered like meat and one who partakes of an olive-sized portion is considered like one who eats an olive-sized portion of meat, provided one partakes of it when it is soft.51
Halacha 21
The following [types of] skins are considered like meat: the skin of a human, the skin of a domesticated pig,52 the skin of a camel's hump upon which a burden has never been loaded, [because] it has not reached the age [to serve as a beast] of burden, for then it is still soft, the skin of genital area, the skin that is below the tail, the skin of a fetus, the skin of the hedgehog, the chameleon, the lizard, the snail.53 When all of these skins are soft, they are considered like meat with regard to all matters, whether with regard to [liability54 for] the prohibition against partaking of them or with regard to the laws of ritual purity.55
Halacha 22
With regard to an ox condemned to be stoned,56 [Exodus 21:28] states: "Its meat shall not be eaten." Now, how could one think that it would be eaten after it was stoned to death, for it is a nevelah?57 Instead, the Torah is coming to teach you that once it has been sentenced to execution by stoning, it becomes forbidden; it becomes like a non-kosher animal. [Even] if one hurried and slaughtered it in an acceptable manner [before it was executed], it is forbidden to benefit from it.58 If one eats an olive-sized portion of its meat, he is liable for lashes. And when it is executed by stoning, its [meat] should not be sold or given to the dogs or to a gentile, [as implied by the phrase]: "shall not be eaten."59 It is permitted [to benefit from] the dung of an ox condemned to be stoned.60
If it is discovered that [a condemned ox] is not liable to be stoned after it was sentenced, e.g., the witnesses who testified against it were disqualified, it may be sent out to pasture with the herd. If this was discovered after it was executed, it is permitted to benefit from [its meat].
FOOTNOTES
1.Sefer HaMitzvot (negative commandment 180) and Sefer HaChinuch (mitzvah 472) include this among the 613 mitzvot of the Torah.
2.See Halachah 10.
3.From Chullin 100b, it would appear that the rationale for this ruling is the general principle: "One prohibition does not fall upon another prohibition." Since the meat is already prohibited because it is from a non-kosher species, the prohibition of nevela does not apply to it. The Rambam's wording, however, is slightly different and may be alluding to a slightly different rationale.
4.Which was not correctly slaughtered.
5.This reflects a general concept with regard to the laws of kashrut. As stated in Chapter 2, Law 21, whenever "one eats an entire forbidden creature by itself, one is liable for lashes according to Scriptural Law even if it is smaller than a mustard seed."
The commentaries (Maggid Mishneh, Rav Moshe HaCohen) question why the Rambam states that the person is liable for eating a nevelah. Seemingly, the prohibition he transgresses is eating a limb from a living animal (see Chapter 5). The Meiri explains the Rambam's position, stating that an entire creature cannot be considered as "a limb."
6.For the conception of being liable for an entire creature even though it is not the size of an olive, applies only when that creature is inherently forbidden (Meiri). While alive, the bird is considered as an entire forbidden entity, like a non-kosher species. After its death, that distinction does not apply.
7.For we include the bones and the sinews as well (Chullin 102b).
8.The same laws apply if the fetus is born alive, but it is obvious that the birth is not viable. Even if the animal is slaughtered in the appropriate manner, we are forbidden to partake of it.
9.I.e., even if the animal is slaughtered properly, it is forbidden because it is possible that the birth is not viable. Although our Sages (Chulin 136a) spoke of the eighth day of an animal's life, their intent was the beginning of the eighth day (Maggid Mishneh).
10.Since it is not a definite matter, lashes are not administered (ibid.).
11.In contrast, an animal may not be offered as a sacrifice until the eighth day of its life (Exodus 22:29; Turei Zahav 15:3).
12.I.e., he is not considered to have partaken of a nevelah.
13.For as stated in Halachah 18, these are not considered meat, but rather comparable to an animal's wastes. For that reason, the Ra'avad (in his gloss to Chapter 5, Halachah 13) states that there is no prohibition against partaking of a placenta.
14.I.e., like the prohibition of nevelah, the prohibition of trefe does not apply with regard to non-kosher species.
15.I.e., even if it was slaughtered properly before it died, the meat is, nevertheless, forbidden, as stated in the following halachah. Sefer HaMitzvot (negative commandment 181) and Sefer HaChinuch (mitzvah 73) include this among the 613 mitzvot of the Torah.
16.As the Rambam proceeds to explain in Halachah 8, the term trefe also applies in other situations. Nevertheless, there is an added dimension of severity to the laws applying to animals that are mortally wounded by beasts, as stated in Hilchot Shechitah 5:3 (Maggid Mishneh; Kessef Mishneh).
17.The term trefe literally means "preyed upon." Our translation "mortally wounded" is the halachic definition as the Rambam proceeds to explain.
18.This and the following examples are specifically mentioned by the Rambam in Hilchot Shechitah 10:1, 9:8, 11:4, 6:1.
19.This is a general principle employed by our Sages with regard to the interpretation of the Torah's language. When it mentions a specific situation, it is not confining itself to the limited setting mentioned in the verse, but applies to other circumstances as well. Why is that situation mentioned? Because it is common.
20.For only that is in the direct scope of the verse.
21.Longer than twelve months (Hilchot Shechitah 11:1).
22.Chulin 42a.
23.From Chapter Five to Chapter Eleven. A concise list is found in Chapter 10, Halachah 9.
24.For as mentioned above, the prohibition against partaking of a trefe applies only with regard to kosher animals.
25.See Chapter Five, Halachot 2-3, where the Rambam distinguishes between this prohibition and the prohibition against partaking of a limb from a living animal. Note, however, Hilchot Melachim 9:10-11 where the Rambam includes eating the meat from an animal and eating a limb from an animal as a single prohibition for a gentile.
26.I.e., just as we forbid the meat of an animal that was mortally wounded, we should forbid a portion of meat that was cut off with a knife.
27.I.e., the meat was cut off from its natural place. See also Chapter 5, Halachah 9.
28.With this explanation, the Rambam is clarifying the distinction Chulin 37a makes between an animal which is misukenet (dangerously ill) and trefe. The trefe condition is a result of wound, while in the case of a misukenet, all of its limbs and organs are sound. Nevertheless, as stated in Hilchot Trefot 5:2, there are other physical conditions which render an animal trefe even if it has not been attacked by an animal. These conditions were communicated as halachot to Moses at Sinai.
29.The Maggid Mishneh (based on Chullin 37b) interprets this as a gesture of pious conduct. Note, however, Siftei Cohen 17:8.
30.Such a convulsive movement is a sign that it was alive at the time that it was slaughtered, as the Rambam continues to explain in the following halachah.
31.The Maggid Mishneh quotes opinions that maintain that this leniency was granted only to alleviate the financial loss a Jewish owner of an animal would suffer. Therefore, meat from an animal belonging to a gentile which is in such a condition should not be eaten. The Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 116:7) quotes this ruling.
32.It must be able to stand up on its own when called or hit with a switch. If it is stood up by hand, it is still considered dangerously ill even if it is able to remain standing [Rama (Yoreh De'ah 17:1); Siftei Cohen 17:1].
33.I.e., we assume that it died before the slaughter was completed (see Chulin 38a).
34.The Maggid Mishneh and the Siftei Cohen 17:4 quote opinions that rule that if a small domesticated animal's foreleg was extended and it bent it, that is sufficient to render it acceptable.
35.Note the Siftei Cohen 17:5 which quotes different versions of Chullin 38b that state that a fowl must move its wing. Winking its eyes is not sufficient.
36.The Maggid Mishneh (and the Turei Zahav 17:4 and the Siftei Cohen 17:6) quote opinions that maintain that swishing its tail is also sufficient for an animal to be considered as having made a convulsive movement.
37.I.e., because he cannot see. Needless to say, if the room is illuminated, this law does not apply.
38.I.e., we follow the principle that when a doubt concerning a Scriptural prohibition is involved, we rule stringently.
39.As stated in Hilchot Nazirut 5:3, although there are separate prohibitions against eating raisins, grape peels, grape seeds, and partaking of wine, if one combined all these substances together, one is liable.
40.In which instance, the prohibition is Scriptural in origin, but lashes are not given (Chapter 3, Halachah 6).
The Rambam's statements in this and th following halachah touch on an issue of general significance. Rabbi Meir (Avodah Zarah 66a) maintains that forbidden substances of different types can be combined together to make a person liable for lashes. The Sages differ and maintain that they cannot be combined, but instead are judged individually. If there is enough of the one substance to make one liable, he is liable. If not, he is exempt.
The principle stated in Halachot 18-19 is a correlory to these concepts. Since the forbidden substances are not combined with each other, but are instead considered as discrete entities, they help nullify each other, as explained there.
41.For this is included in the prohibition against a trefe, as stated in Halachah 10.
42.Although each one of these species is mentioned separately in the Torah, they are all included in the same prohibition.
43.The Ra'avad mentions that this point is the subject of a difference of opinion among the Sages of the Talmud, seemingly implying that the opinion which maintains that they should be combined should be followed. The Maggid Mishneh justifies the Rambam's position.
44.See Chapter 2.
45.Note the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (Chulin 9:1) which interprets the Hebrew term giddim as also referring to veins, arteries, and nerves.
46.This applies even if the portions eaten were soft and blood spurts from them.
47.As stated in Halachah 5.
48.The Rambam does not distinguish between milk that has coagulated and milk that is fluid. For even if it is fluid, it is already considered as a waste product. (Kessef Mishneh).
49.I.e., since the digestive juices from the animal's stomach have already mixed with this milk, it will be an effective catalyst to cause the large quantity of milk to curdle and harden into cheese. See also Chapter 3, Halachah 13, and Chapter 9, Halachah 15.
The Rama (Yoreh De'ah 81:6) differs and quotes Rabbenu Tam's opinion states that liquid milk found in the stomach of a forbidden species is forbidden. Moreover, at the outset, one should not use even dried milk found in the stomach of a non-kosher animal as a catalyst because of the impression it will create. After the fact, it is permitted.
50.Our translation is based on the glosses of Rashi and Tosafot, Bechoros 7b. The Ra'avad differs with the Rambam's ruling and maintains that this placenta is forbidden. The Maggid Mishneh justifies the Rambam's ruling.
51.And not processed so that it becomes hard like leather.
52.That of a wild boar, by contrast, is too tough to be eaten.
53.As mentioned in the notes to Chapter 2, Halachah 7, the names of these species are a matter of debate.
54.This addition is necessary, for there is a prohibition against partaking of any skin, as stated in Halachah 18.
55.For an olive-sized portion of the meat of a nevelah can convey ritual impurity, while a hide or a piece of leather that size does not.
56.For goring a human being. See Hilchot Nizkei Mammon, ch. 10, which explains the pertinent laws.
57.For it died without ritual slaughter.
58.Sefer HaMitzvot (negative commandment 188) and Sefer HaChinuch (mitzvah 52) include this among the 613 mitzvot of the Torah.
Instead, the corpse of the executed animal should be buried (Hilchot Pesulei HaMukdashim 19:11).
59.As stated in Chapter 8, Halachah 15, unless there is a teaching that states otherwise, this phrase implies both a prohibition against eating and a prohibition against deriving benefit.
60.As stated in Hilchot Ishut 5:2, the rationale is that the dung is considered of negligible importance with regard to the ox itself. As implied by Halachah 20, the dung of an animal is not considered as part of the animal itself, nor is it included in the prohibitions applying to it.
-------
Hayom Yom:
• Monday, Nissan 14, 5774 • 14 April 2014
"Today's Day"
Monday, Nissan 14, 5703
B'dikat chametz after Maariv.
Torah lessons: Chumash: Acharei Mot, Sheini with Rashi.
Tehillim: 72-76.
Tanya: On the other hand (p. 209)...known to the initiated. (p. 209).
With regard to selling the chametz it is the custom in the Rebbe's family not to designate the rabbi as an agent (empowered to sell the chametz to the non-Jew) but to sell the chametz outright to the rabbi with an areiv kablan, a third party guarantor.
My father would personally supervise the baking of the sh'mura matza on erev Pesach afternoon. He, too, would recite the hallel, but he would interrupt - even in the middle of a chapter - to give instructions regarding the kneading, baking and so forth.
-------
Daily Thought:Creating a Need for Wisdom If G‑d had made a perfect world, what need would there be for wisdom? So He left shattered vessels for us to repair. And in doing so, we engage a wisdom deeper than that which fashioned the earth, the sun and the stars.
-------
No comments:
Post a Comment