TODAY'S LAWS & CUSTOMS:
• PASSOVER TORAH READINGS
Click here for a summary of the Passover Torah readings.
• CHOL HAMOED
Of the eight days of Passover, the first two and the last two are "yom tov" (festival days). The middle four days are called chol hamoed--"weekdays of the festival," also called "the intermediate days." (In Israel, where Passover is observed for seven days, the first and last days are yom tov, and the middle five days are chol hamoed).
The yom tov days are days of rest, during which all creative work is forbidden, as it is on the Shabbat, with the exception of certain types of work associated with food preparation (e.g., cooking and "carrying"). On chol hamoed the prohibition of work is less stringent--work whose avoidance would result in "significant loss" is permitted (except when chol hamoed is also Shabbat, when all work is forbidden).
The "Yaale V'yavo" prayer is included in all prayers and Grace After Meals. Hallel (partial) and Musaf are recited following the Shacharit (morning) prayers. It is the Chabad custom not to put on tefillin during the "intermediate days".
Click here for a more detailed treatment of the laws of Chol Hamoed.
• COUNT "SIX DAYS TO THE OMER" TONIGHT
Tomorrow is the sixth day of the Omer Count. Since, on the Jewish calendar, the day begins at nightfall of the previous evening, we count the omer for tomorrow's date tonight, after nightfall: "Today is six days to the Omer." (If you miss the count tonight, you can count the omer all day tomorrow, but without the preceding blessing.)
The 49-day "Counting of the Omer" retraces our ancestors' seven-week spiritual journey from the Exodus to Sinai. Each evening we recite a special blessing and count the days and weeks that have passed since the Omer; the 50th day is Shavuot, the festival celebrating the Giving of the Torah at Sinai.
Tonight's Sefirah: Yesod sheb'Chessed -- "Connection in Kindness"
The teachings of Kabbalah explain that there are seven "Divine Attributes" -- Sefirot -- that G-d assumes through which to relate to our existence: Chessed, Gevurah, Tifferet, Netzach, Hod, Yesod and Malchut ("Love", "Strength", "Beauty", "Victory", "Splendor", "Foundation" and "Sovereignty"). In the human being, created in the "image of G-d," the seven sefirot are mirrored in the seven "emotional attributes" of the human soul: Kindness, Restraint, Harmony, Ambition, Humility, Connection and Receptiveness. Each of the seven attributes contain elements of all seven--i.e., "Kindness in Kindness", "Restraint in Kindness", "Harmony in Kindness", etc.--making for a total of forty-nine traits. The 49-day Omer Count is thus a 49-step process of self-refinement, with each day devoted to the "rectification" and perfection of one the forty-nine "sefirot."
Links:
How to count the Omer
The deeper significance of the Omer Count
• NIGHT OF LEARNING
It is customary to remain awake on the eve of the Seventh of Passover (i.e., tonight) and spend the entire night in Torah study and joyous celebration of the great miracle of the splitting of the sea.
TODAY IN JEWISH HISTORY:
• PHARAOH CORNERS JEWS AT RED SEA (1313 BCE)
Pharaoh's pursuit of the Jews (see Jewish History for the 18th of Nissan) ended on this day, on the shores of the Red Sea.
A terrified Jewish nation divides into several factions. Some advocated mass suicide, others wanted to surrender and return to Egypt, the bolder ones prepared to battle the Egyptians, while others advised the nation to pray.
G-d thought otherwise. He instructed the Jews to simply proceed onwards -- despite the sea which stood in their path.
The Jews complied, and the entire following night they went through the parted waters of the Red Sea (see Jewish History for the 21st of Nissan)
Links:
In Hot Pursuit
The Four Factions
DAILY QUOTE:
Whether or not the person understands [words of Torah and Chassidic teaching], the soul hears--Rabbi DovBer of Lubavitch
DAILY STUDY:
CHITAS AND RAMBAM FOR TODAY:
Chumash: Kedoshim, 1st Portion Leviticus 19:1-19:14 with Rashi
• Chapter 19
1. And the Lord spoke to Moses, saying, א. וַיְדַבֵּר יְהוָֹה אֶל משֶׁה לֵּאמֹר:
2. Speak to the entire congregation of the children of Israel, and say to them, You shall be holy, for I, the Lord, your God, am holy. ב. דַּבֵּר אֶל כָּל עֲדַת בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל וְאָמַרְתָּ אֲלֵהֶם קְדשִׁים תִּהְיוּ כִּי קָדוֹשׁ אֲנִי יְהוָֹה אֱלֹהֵיכֶם:
Speak to the entire congregation of the children of Israel: [This] teaches us that this passage was stated in the assembly [of the entire congregation of Israel] because most of the fundamental teachings of the Torah are dependent on it [i.e., they are encapsulated in this passage]. — [Torath Kohanim 19:1; Vayikra Rabbah 24:5]
דבר אל כל עדת בני ישראל: מלמד שנאמרה פרשה זו בהקהל, מפני שרוב גופי תורה תלויין בה:
You shall be holy: Separate yourselves from sexual immorality and from sin, for wherever one finds a barrier against sexual immorality, one finds holiness, [for example:], “[They (the kohanim) shall not take in marriage] a woman who is a prostitute or one who was profaned…I, the Lord, Who sanctifies you [am holy]” (Lev. 21:7-8); and, “he shall not profane his offspring…I am the Lord, Who sanctifies him” (Lev. 21:15); and, “They shall be holy…[They shall not take in marriage] a woman who is a prostitute or one who was profaned” (Lev. 21:6-7). - [Vayikra Rabbah 24:4-6; and see also Sefer Hazikkaron]
קדשים תהיו: הוו פרושים מן העריות ומן העבירה, שכל מקום שאתה מוצא גדר ערוה אתה מוצא קדושה, אשה זונה וחללה וגו' אני ה' מקדשכם, (ויקרא כא ז - ח) ולא יחלל זרעו אני ה' מקדשו (ויקרא כא טו) קדושים יהיו אשה זונה וחללה וגו' (ויקרא כא ו - ז):
3. Every man shall fear his mother and his father, and you shall observe My Sabbaths. I am the Lord, your God. ג. אִישׁ אִמּוֹ וְאָבִיו תִּירָאוּ וְאֶת שַׁבְּתֹתַי תִּשְׁמֹרוּ אֲנִי יְהוָֹה אֱלֹהֵיכֶם:
Every man shall fear his mother and father: Every one of you shall fear his father and his mother. This is its simple meaning. Its Midrashic explanation, however, [is as follows]. Since the verse literally means, “Every man shall fear…,”] we know only [that this law applies to] a man; how do we know [that it applies to] a woman [as well]? When Scripture says, תִּירָאוּ [you shall fear, using the plural form], two are included [in the verse, namely, men and women]. But if this is so, why does the verse say, “Every man…?” Because a man has the ability to fulfill this [commandment without restriction, since he is independent and thus obliged to fear his parents], whereas a woman is [sometimes] under the authority of others [namely her husband. — [Kid. 30b; Torath Kohanim 19:3]
איש אמו ואביו תיראו: כל אחד מכם תיראו אביו ואמו, זהו פשוטו. ומדרשו אין לי אלא איש, אשה מנין, כשהוא אומר תיראו, הרי כאן שנים אם כן למה נאמר איש, שהאיש סיפק בידו לעשות, אבל אשה רשות אחרים עליה:
[Every man] shall fear his mother and his father: Here, Scripture mentions the mother before the father, because He is privy to the fact that a child fears his father more than his mother [and therefore, by mentioning the mother first, Scripture emphasizes the duty of fearing her also. However,] in the case of honoring [one’s parents], Scripture mentions the father before the mother, because He is privy to the fact that a child honors his mother more than his father, since she wins his favor by [speaking kind and loving] words. [Therefore, by mentioning the father first in the context of honor, Scripture emphasizes the duty of honoring him also]. — [Kid. 31a]
אמו ואביו תיראו: כאן הקדים אם לאב, לפי שגלוי לפניו שהבן ירא את אביו יותר מאמו, ובכבוד הקדים אב לאם, לפי שגלוי לפניו שהבן מכבד את אמו יותר מאביו, מפני שמשדלתו בדברים:
and you shall observe My Sabbaths: Scripture juxtaposes [the commandment of] observing the Sabbath with [that] of fearing one’s father [and mother], in order to state [the following principle]: “Although I have admonished you regarding the fear of your father, nevertheless, if he tells you to desecrate the Sabbath, do not listen to him.” And this is also the case with all the [other] commandments. — [B.M. 32a] [This is indicated by:]
ואת שבתתי תשמרו: סמך שמירת שבת למורא אב, לומר אף על פי שהזהרתיך על מורא אב, אם יאמר לך חלל את השבת אל תשמע לו, וכן בשאר כל המצות:
I am the Lord, your God: [where “your” is in the plural form, meaning to say,] both you and your father are obligated to honor Me! Therefore, do not listen to him to negate My commands. — [B.M. 32a] Now, what constitutes “fear”? One must not sit in his place, speak in his stead [when it is his father’s turn to speak] or contradict him. And what constitutes “honor”? One must give [the father and mother] food and drink, clothe them and put on their shoes, and accompany them when they enter or leave. — [Torath Kohanim 19:3; Kid. 31b]
אני ה' אלהיכם: אתה ואביך חייבים בכבודי, לפיכך לא תשמע לו לבטל את דברי. איזהו מורא, לא ישב במקומו ולא ידבר במקומו ולא יסתור את דבריו. ואיזהו כבוד, מאכיל ומשקה, מלביש ומנעיל, מכניס ומוציא:
4. You shall not turn to the worthless idols, nor shall you make molten deities for yourselves. I am the Lord, your God. ד. אַל תִּפְנוּ אֶל הָאֱלִילִם וֵאלֹהֵי מַסֵּכָה לֹא תַעֲשׂוּ לָכֶם אֲנִי יְהוָֹה אֱלֹהֵיכֶם:
You shall not turn to the worthless idols: to serve them. [The term] הָאֶלִילִם stems from אַל, naught , meaning that [these idols] are considered as naught.
אל תפנו אל האלילם: לעבדם. אלילים לשון אל, כלא הוא חשוב:
molten deities: At first, they are just worthless idols. But if you turn after them, eventually, you will make them into deities. — [Torath Kohanim 19:8]
ואלהי מסכה: תחילתן אלילים הם, ואם אתה פונה אחריהם, סופך לעשותן אלהות:
nor shall you make [molten deities] for yourselves: [This verse is to be understood as two separate admonitions, the first:] “Nor shall you make” [meaning] for other people; [the second:] “for yourselves” [meaning] nor shall others make them for you. Now, if you say that [this verse is one admonition, namely,] that you shall not make [molten deities] for yourselves, but others may make [them] for you, [this cannot be so, since] it has already been stated, “You shall not have [any other deities]” (Exod. 20:3) neither your own nor those of others. — [Torath Kohanim 19:9]
לא תעשו לכם: לא תעשו לאחרים ולא אחרים לכם. ואם תאמר לא תעשו לעצמכם אבל אחרים עושין לכם, הרי כבר נאמר (שמות כ ג) לא יהיה לך, לא שלך ולא של אחרים:
5. When you slaughter a peace offering to the Lord, you shall slaughter it for your acceptance. ה. וְכִי תִזְבְּחוּ זֶבַח שְׁלָמִים לַיהוָֹה לִרְצֹנְכֶם תִּזְבָּחֻהוּ:
When you slaughter…: This passage is stated only to teach us that the offerings must be slaughtered with the intent that they be eaten within this time, for if [you think that this passage comes to] fix a time limit for eating them, [this cannot be so, for] it has already been stated, “And if his sacrifice is a vow or a voluntary donation [it may be eaten]….” (Lev. 7:16). - [Torath Kohanim 19:10]
וכי תזבחו וגו': לא נאמרה פרשה זו אלא ללמד שלא תהא זביחתן אלא על מנת להאכל בתוך הזמן הזה, שאם לקבוע להם זמן אכילה, הרי כבר נאמר (ויקרא ז טז) ואם נדר או נדבה זבח קרבנו וגו':
you shall slaughter it for your acceptance: The very outset of your slaughtering [the offering] must be with the intent that [it is for the purpose of causing] contentment [to God, as it were,] for your acceptance [by Him]. For if you think an invalidating thought regarding it, [says God,] the sacrifice will not gain your acceptance before Me.
לרצנכם תזבחהו: תחלת זביחתו תהא על מנת נחת רוח שיהא לכם לרצון, שאם תחשבו עליו מחשבת פסול לא ירצה עליכם לפני:
for your acceptance: Heb., apaisement in French, appeasement. [Note that the spelling in Mikraoth Gedoloth matches the Italian appaciamento, more closely than the French. In Old French, it is spelled apayement according to Greenberg, or apaiemant according to Gukovitzki, and this form appears in many editions of Rashi.] This is according to its simple meaning. Our Rabbis, however, learned from here, that if someone was involved in another activity (מִתְעסֵּק) and accidentally slaughtered [e.g., if he threw a knife, and in its path it slaughtered an animal] designated for a holy sacrifice, it is invalid, because [in the context of sacrifices] one must intend to slaughter. — [Chul. 13a]
לרצנכם: אפיימנ"ט [פיוס]. זהו לפי פשוטו. ורבותינו למדו (חולין יג א), מכאן למתעסק בקדשים שפסול, שצריך שיתכוין לשחוט:
6. It may be eaten on the day you slaughter it and on the morrow, but anything left over until the third day, shall be burned in fire. ו. בְּיוֹם זִבְחֲכֶם יֵאָכֵל וּמִמָּחֳרָת וְהַנּוֹתָר עַד יוֹם הַשְּׁלִישִׁי בָּאֵשׁ יִשָּׂרֵף:
It may be eaten on the day you slaughter it: When you slaughter it, you must slaughter it with the intent that you will eat it within this time limit, which I have already fixed for you [regarding that particular sacrifice]."
ביום זבחכם יאכל: כשתזבחוהו, תשחטוהו על מנת לאכלו בזמן שקבעתי לכם כבר:
7. And if it would be eaten on the third day, it is abominable; it shall not be accepted. ז. וְאִם הֵאָכֹל יֵאָכֵל בַּיּוֹם הַשְּׁלִישִׁי פִּגּוּל הוּא לֹא יֵרָצֶה:
And if it would be eaten…: If this [verse] does not refer to [an intention to eat the sacrifice] outside its time limit, since this has already been stated, “And if, [on the third day,] any of the flesh of his sacrifice would be eaten,” (Lev. 7:18) [explained there by Rashi to refer to someone who, while slaughtering the sacrifice, intends, to eat it outside its time limit], it must be utilized to refer to [someone who, while slaughtering the sacrifice, intends to eat it] outside its permitted location. — [Torath Kohanim 19:10] Now, one might think that if someone eats from it, he is liable to the punishment of excision [just like a sacrifice slaughtered with the intention to eat it outside its time limit]. Scripture, therefore, states, “And the person who eats from it, shall bear his sin” (Lev. 7:18)-“from it,” but not from anything like it. This excludes [from the punishment of excision, a sacrifice] slaughtered with the intention [of eating it] outside its [permitted] location. — [Zev. 29a]
ואם האכל יאכל וגו': אם אינו ענין לחוץ לזמנו, שהרי כבר נאמר (ויקרא ז יח) ואם האכל יאכל מבשר זבח שלמיו וגו', תנהו ענין לחוץ למקומו. יכול יהיו חייבין כרת על אכילתו, תלמוד לומר (שם) והנפש האוכלת ממנו עונה תשא, ממנו ולא מחבירו, יצא הנשחט במחשבת חוץ למקומו:
it is abominable: Heb. פִּגּוּל, abominable, like, “and broth of abominable things (פִּגּוּלִים) is in their vessels” (Isa. 65:4).
פגול: מתועב, כמו (ישעיה סה ד) ומרק פגולים כליהם:
8. And whoever eats it shall bear his sin, because he has profaned what is holy to the Lord, and that person shall be cut off from his people. ח. וְאֹכְלָיו עֲוֹנוֹ יִשָּׂא כִּי אֶת קֹדֶשׁ יְהוָֹה חִלֵּל וְנִכְרְתָה הַנֶּפֶשׁ הַהִוא מֵעַמֶּיהָ:
And whoever eats it, shall bear his sin: Scripture is referring to a sacrifice actually left over (נוֹתָר) [past its time limit]. But one is not punished by excision in the case of a sacrifice slaughtered [with the intention of eating it] outside its permitted location, for Scripture has already excluded this case [from the punishment of excision (see Rashi on verse 7 above)]. Rather, this verse is referring to actual נוֹתָר. [And how do we know this?] In Tractate Kereithoth (5a) we learn this through a gezeirah shavah [a Rabbinical tradition that links the word קֹדֶשׁ common to our verse and to Exod. 29:34, the latter dealing with actual נוֹתָר].
ואכליו עונו ישא: בנותר גמור הכתוב מדבר ואינו ענוש כרת על הנשחט חוץ למקומו שכבר מיעטו הכתוב. וזהו בנותר גמור מדבר. ובמסכת כריתות (ה א) למדוהו מגזירה שוה:
9. When you reap the harvest of your land, you shall not fully reap the corner of your field, nor shall you gather the gleanings of your harvest. ט. וּבְקֻצְרְכֶם אֶת קְצִיר אַרְצְכֶם לֹא תְכַלֶּה פְּאַת שָׂדְךָ לִקְצֹר וְלֶקֶט קְצִירְךָ לֹא תְלַקֵּט:
You shall not fully reap the corner of your field: [meaning] that one should leave the corner at the edge of his field [unharvested]. — [Torath Kohanim 19:15]
לא תכלה פאת שדך: שיניח פאה בסוף שדהו:
gleanings of your harvest: Heb. לֶקֶט. [This refers to individual] stalks that fall down at the time of harvest. [And how many stalks constitute לֶקֶט ?] One or two; three, however, do not constitute לֶקֶט [and the owner may gather them for himself]. — [Peah 6:5]
ולקט קצירך: שבלים הנושרים בשעת קצירה אחת או שתים, אבל שלש אינן לקט:
10. And you shall not glean your vineyard, nor shall you collect the [fallen] individual grapes of your vineyard; you shall leave them for the poor and the stranger. I am the Lord, your God. י. וְכַרְמְךָ לֹא תְעוֹלֵל וּפֶרֶט כַּרְמְךָ לֹא תְלַקֵּט לֶעָנִי וְלַגֵּר תַּעֲזֹב אֹתָם אֲנִי יְהוָֹה אֱלֹהֵיכֶם:
And you shall not glean: Heb. לֹא תְעוֹלֵל, you shall not take the small clusters (עוֹלֵלוֹת) therein, and these are identifiable. “Which clusters עוֹלֵלוֹת ? Any one which has neither a כָּתֵף [a shoulder] or a נָטֵף [drippings].” [Peah 7:4. See Rashi Deut. 24:21 for explanation.]
לא תעולל: לא תטול עוללות שבה והן ניכרות. איזהו עוללות כל שאין לה לא כתף ולא נטף:
the [fallen] individual grapes: Heb. וּפֶרֶט. Individual grapes which fall off at the time of the vintage.
ופרט כרמך: גרגרי ענבים הנושרים בשעת בצירה:
I am the Lord, your God: A Judge Who exacts punishment; and [for this sin] I will exact from you nothing less than [your] souls, as it is said, “Do not rob a poor man…for the Lord will plead their cause, and rob those who rob them, of life” (Prov. 22: 2223). - [Torath Kohanim 19:22]
אני ה' אלהיכם: דיין להפרע ואיני גובה מכם אלא נפשות, שנאמר (משלי כב - כג) אל תגזל דל וגו' כי ה' יריב ריבם וגו':
11. You shall not steal. You shall not deny falsely. You shall not lie, one man to his fellow. יא. לֹא תִּגְנֹבוּ וְלֹא תְכַחֲשׁוּ וְלֹא תְשַׁקְּרוּ אִישׁ בַּעֲמִיתוֹ:
You shall not steal: Heb. לֹא תִּגְנֹבוּ. This is an admonition against someone stealing money, while “You shall not steal (לֹא תִגְנֹב) ” in the Ten Commandments is an admonition against stealing people [i.e., kidnapping]. [This is] a matter derived from its context [namely, “You shall not murder,” “ You shall not commit adultery,” each of which is] a capital crime, [which is the case of kidnapping but not of stealing money]. — [see Rashi on Exod. 20:13; Sanh. 86a]
לא תגנבו: אזהרה לגונב ממון, אבל לא תגנוב (שמות כ יג) שבעשרת הדברות, אזהרה לגונב נפשות, דבר הלמד מענינו, דבר שחייבין עליו מיתת בית דין:
You shall not deny falsely: Since Scripture says, “and he denies it” (Lev. 5:22), he must pay the principal and [an additional] fifth [of its value], we know the punishment [involved]. But where do we find the admonition [against denying a rightful claim]? Therefore, Scripture says, “You shall not deny falsely.”
ולא תכחשו: לפי שנאמר (ויקרא ה כב) וכחש בה, משלם קרן וחומש. למדנו עונש, אזהרה מנין, תלמוד לומר ולא תכחשו:
You shall not lie: Since Scripture says “and he…swears falsely” (Lev. 5:22), he must pay back the principal and [an additional] fifth [of its value], we know the punishment [involved]. [But] where do we find the admonition [against swearing falsely]? Therefore, Scripture says, “You shall not lie.”
ולא תשקרו: לפי שנאמר (שם) ונשבע על שקר, ישלם קרן וחומש. למדנו עונש, אזהרה מנין, תלמוד לומר ולא תשקרו:
You shall not steal. You shall not deny falsely. You shall not lie,… You shall not swear [falsely]: If you steal, you will eventually come to deny falsely, and consequently, you will come to lie and then swear falsely. — [Torath Kohanim 19:26]
לא תגנבו ולא תכחשו ולא תשקרו ולא תשבעו: אם גנבת, סופך לכחש, סופך לשקר, סופך להשבע לשקר:
12. You shall not swear falsely by My Name, thereby profaning the Name of your God. I am the Lord. יב. וְלֹא תִשָּׁבְעוּ בִשְׁמִי לַשָּׁקֶר וְחִלַּלְתָּ אֶת שֵׁם אֱלֹהֶיךָ אֲנִי יְהוָֹה:
You shall not swear falsely by My Name: Why is this stated? Since Scripture says, “You shall not take the Name of the Lord (יהוה), your God in vain” (Exod. 20:7), one might think that a person is liable only regarding the special Name [of God יהוה]. How do we know that included [also in this prohibition] are the כִּנּוּיִין [i.e., all the ancillary Names that represent various attributes of God, thus adopting the status of a “Name of God”]? Because Scripture says here, “You shall not swear falsely by My Name”- [meaning,] any Name that I have. — [Torath Kohanim 19:27]
ולא תשבעו בשמי: למה נאמר, לפי שנאמר (שמות כ ז) לא תשא את שם ה' אלהיך לשוא, יכול לא יהא חייב אלא על שם המיוחד, מנין לרבות כל הכנויין, תלמוד לומר ולא תשבעו בשמי לשקר, כל שם שיש לי:
13. You shall not oppress your fellow. You shall not rob. The hired worker's wage shall not remain with you overnight until morning. יג. לֹא תַעֲשֹׁק אֶת רֵעֲךָ וְלֹא תִגְזֹל לֹא תָלִין פְּעֻלַּת שָׂכִיר אִתְּךָ עַד בֹּקֶר:
You shall not oppress: Heb. לֹא תַעֲשֹׁק. This refers to one who withholds a hired worker’s wages. — [Torath Kohanim 19:29]
לא תעשק: זה הכובש שכר שכיר:
shall not remain… overnight: Heb. לֹא תָלִין. This [verb] is feminine in gender, referring to פְּעֻלַּת, the wages. [Although the word תָלִין, could be understood as, “You shall not keep overnight,” i.e., a command in the second person masculine, since it always appears as an intransitive verb, Rashi prefers to interpret it as the third person feminine, referring to פְּעֻלַּת.]
לא תלין: לשון נקבה מוסב על הפעולה:
until morning: The verse is speaking about a worker hired for a day, whose departure [from his work] is at sunset. Therefore, the time for him to collect his wages is the entire night [and the employer has till dawn to pay him]. But elsewhere, Scripture says, “[You shall give him his wage on his day and not let the sun set over it,” (Deut. 24:15) [which seems to contradict our verse. However, that verse] is speaking about a worker hired for the night, the completion of whose work is at the break of dawn. Therefore, the time for him to collect his wages is the entire day because the Torah gave the employer time, namely, an עוֹנָה [a twelve-hour period] to seek money [to pay his workers]. — [B.M. 110b]
עד בקר: בשכיר יום הכתוב מדבר, שיציאתו מששקעה החמה, לפיכך זמן גבוי שכרו כל הלילה. ובמקום אחר הוא אומר (דברים כד טו) ולא תבוא עליו השמש, מדבר בשכיר לילה, שהשלמת פעולתו משיעלה עמוד השחר, לפיכך זמן גבוי שכרו כל היום, לפי שנתנה תורה זמן לבעל הבית עונה לבקש מעות:
14. You shall not curse a deaf person. You shall not place a stumbling block before a blind person, and you shall fear your God. I am the Lord. יד. לֹא תְקַלֵּל חֵרֵשׁ וְלִפְנֵי עִוֵּר לֹא תִתֵּן מִכְשֹׁל וְיָרֵאתָ מֵאֱלֹהֶיךָ אֲנִי יְהוָֹה:
You shall not curse a deaf person: [From this verse] I know only that [one may not curse] a deaf person. But from where do I know that this [prohibition] includes [cursing] any person [even if he is not deaf]? Therefore, Scripture says, “You shall not curse…among your people.” But if this is so [that this law is not exclusive to deaf people], why does it say here, “a deaf person?” (Exod. 22:27). [The answer is that] just as a deaf person is special insofar as he is alive, likewise, [one is prohibited from cursing] anyone who is alive. This excludes [cursing] a dead person, for he is not alive. — [Torath Kohanim 19:35]
לא תקלל חרש: אין לי אלא חרש, מנין לרבות כל אדם, תלמוד לומר (שמות כב כז) בעמך לא תאר, אם כן למה נאמר חרש, מה חרש מיוחד שהוא בחיים אף כל שהוא בחיים, יצא המת שאינו בחיים:
You shall not place a stumbling block before a blind person: Before a person who is “blind” regarding a matter, you shall not give advice that is improper for him. [For instance,] do not say to someone,“ Sell your field and buy a donkey [with the proceeds], ”while [in truth,] you plan to cheat him since you yourself will take it from him [by lending him money and taking the donkey as collateral. He will not be able to take the field because a previous creditor has a lien on it.] - [Torath Kohanim 19:34]
ולפני עור לא תתן מכשל: לפני הסומא בדבר לא תתן עצה שאינה הוגנת לו, אל תאמר מכור שדך וקח לך חמור, ואתה עוקף עליו ונוטלה הימנו:
and you shall fear your God: [Why is this mentioned here?] Because this matter [of misadvising someone] is not discernible by people, whether this person had good or evil intentions, and he can avoid [being recriminated by his victim afterwards] by saying, “I meant well!” Therefore, concerning this, it says, “and you shall fear your God,” Who knows your thoughts! Likewise, concerning anything known to the one who does it, but to which no one else is privy, Scripture says, “and you shall fear your God.” - [Torath Kohanim 19:34]
ויראת מאלהיך: לפי שהדבר הזה אינו מסור לבריות לידע אם דעתו של זה לטובה או לרעה, ויכול להשמט ולומר לטובה נתכוונתי, לפיכך נאמר בו ויראת מאלהיך המכיר מחשבותיך. וכן כל דבר המסור ללבו של אדם העושהו ואין שאר הבריות מכירות בו, נאמר בו ויראת מאלהיך:
-------
Tehillim: Psalms Chapters 97 - 103
• Chapter 97
1. When the Lord will reveal His kingship, the earth will exult; the multitudes of islands will rejoice.
2. Clouds and dense darkness will surround Him; justice and mercy will be the foundation of His throne.
3. Fire will go before Him and consume His foes all around.
4. His lightnings will illuminate the world; the earth will see and tremble.
5. The mountains will melt like wax before the Lord, before the Master of all the earth.
6. The heavens will declare His justice, and all the nations will behold His glory.
7. All who worship graven images, who take pride in idols, will be ashamed; all idol worshippers will prostrate themselves before Him.
8. Zion will hear and rejoice, the towns of Judah will exult, because of Your judgments, O Lord.
9. For You, Lord, transcend all the earth; You are exceedingly exalted above all the supernal beings.
10. You who love the Lord, hate evil; He watches over the souls of His pious ones, He saves them from the hand of the wicked.
11. Light is sown for the righteous, and joy for the upright in heart.
12. Rejoice in the Lord, you righteous, and extol His holy Name.
Chapter 98
This psalm describes how Israel will praise God for the Redemption.
1. A psalm. Sing to the Lord a new song, for He has performed wonders; His right hand and holy arm have wrought deliverance for Him.
2. The Lord has made known His salvation; He has revealed His justice before the eyes of the nations.
3. He has remembered His kindness and faithfulness to the House of Israel; all, from the farthest corners of the earth, witnessed the deliverance by our God.
4. Raise your voices in jubilation to the Lord, all the earth; burst into joyous song and chanting.
5. Sing to the Lord with a harp, with a harp and the sound of song.
6. With trumpets and the sound of the shofar, jubilate before the King, the Lord.
7. The sea and its fullness will roar in joy, the earth and its inhabitants.
8. The rivers will clap their hands, the mountains will sing together.
9. [They will rejoice] before the Lord, for He has come to judge the earth; He will judge the world with justice, and the nations with righteousness.
Chapter 99
This psalm refers to the wars of Gog and Magog, which will precede the Redemption.
1. When the Lord will reveal His kingship, the nations will tremble; the earth will quake before Him Who is enthroned upon the cherubim,
2. [before] the Lord Who is in Zion, Who is great and exalted above all the peoples.
3. They will extol Your Name which is great, awesome and holy.
4. And [they will praise] the might of the King Who loves justice. You have established uprightness; You have made [the laws of] justice and righteousness in Jacob.
5. Exalt the Lord our God, and bow down at His footstool; He is holy.
6. Moses and Aaron among His priests, and Samuel among those who invoke His Name, would call upon the Lord and He would answer them.
7. He would speak to them from a pillar of cloud; they observed His testimonies and the decrees which He gave them.
8. Lord our God, You have answered them; You were a forgiving God for their sake, yet bringing retribution for their own misdeeds.
9. Exalt the Lord our God, and bow down at His holy mountain, for the Lord our God is holy.
Chapter 100
This psalm inspires the hearts of those who suffer in this world. Let them, nevertheless, serve God with joy, for all is for their good, as in the verse: "He whom God loves does He chastise." The psalm also refers to the thanksgiving sacrifice-the only sacrifice to be offered in the Messianic era.
1. A psalm of thanksgiving. Let all the earth sing in jubilation to the Lord.
2. Serve the Lord with joy; come before Him with exultation.
3. Know that the Lord is God; He has made us and we are His, His people and the sheep of His pasture.
4. Enter His gates with gratitude, His courtyards with praise; give thanks to Him, bless His Name.
5. For the Lord is good; His kindness is everlasting, and His faithfulness is for all generations.
Chapter 101
This psalm speaks of David's secluding himself from others, and of his virtuous conduct even in his own home.
1. By David, a psalm. I will sing of [Your] kindness and justice; to You, O Lord, will I chant praise!
2. I will pay heed to the path of integrity-O when will it come to me? I shall walk with the innocence of my heart [even] within my house.
3. I shall not place an evil thing before my eyes; I despise the doing of wayward deeds, it does not cling to me.
4. A perverse heart shall depart from me; I shall not know evil.
5. He who slanders his fellow in secret, him will I cut down; one with haughty eyes and a lustful heart, him I cannot suffer.
6. My eyes are upon the faithful of the land, that they may dwell with me; he who walks in the path of integrity, he shall minister to me.
7. He that practices deceit shall not dwell within my house; the speaker of lies shall have no place before my eyes.
8. Every morning I will cut down all the wicked of the land, to excise all evildoers from the city of the Lord.
Chapter 102
An awe-inspiring prayer for the exiled, and an appropriate prayer for anyone in distress.
1. A prayer of the poor man when he is faint [with affliction], and pours out his tale of woe before the Lord.
2. O Lord, hear my prayer, let my cry reach You!
3. Hide not Your face from me on the day of my distress; turn Your ear to me; on the day that I call, answer me quickly.
4. For my days have vanished with the smoke; my bones are dried up as a hearth.
5. Smitten like grass and withered is my heart, for I have forgotten to eat my bread.
6. From the voice of my sigh, my bone cleaves to my flesh.
7. I am like the bird of the wilderness; like the owl of the wasteland have I become.
8. In haste I fled; I was like a bird, alone on a roof.
9. All day my enemies disgrace me; those who ridicule me curse using my name.1
10. For I have eaten ashes like bread, and mixed my drink with tears,
11. because of Your anger and Your wrath-for You have raised me up, then cast me down.
12. My days are like the fleeting shadow; I wither away like the grass.
13. But You, Lord, will be enthroned forever, and Your remembrance is for all generations.
14. You will arise and have mercy on Zion, for it is time to be gracious to her; the appointed time has come.
15. For Your servants cherish her stones, and love her dust.
16. Then the nations will fear the Name of the Lord, and all the kings of the earth Your glory,
17. when [they see that] the Lord has built Zion, He has appeared in His glory.
18. He turned to the entreaty of the prayerful, and did not despise their prayer.
19. Let this be written for the last generation, so that the newborn nation will praise the Lord.
20. For He looked down from His holy heights; from heaven, the Lord gazed upon the earth,
21. to hear the cry of the bound, to untie those who are doomed to die,
22. so that the Name of the Lord be declared in Zion, and His praise in Jerusalem,
23. when nations and kingdoms will gather together to serve the Lord.
24. He weakened my strength on the way; He shortened my days.
25. I would say: "My God, do not remove me in the midst of my days! You Whose years endure through all generations.”
26. In the beginning You laid the foundations of the earth, and the heavens are the work of Your hands.
27. They will perish, but You will endure; all of them will wear out like a garment; You will exchange them like a robe, and they will vanish.
28. But You remain the same; Your years will not end.
29. The children of Your servants will abide; their seed shall be established before You.
Chapter 103
David's prayer when he was ill, this psalm is an appropriate prayer on behalf of the sick, especially when offered by the sick person himself while his soul is yet in his body. He can then bless God from his depths, body and soul. Read, and find repose for your soul.
1. By David. Bless the Lord, O my soul; and all my being, His holy Name.
2. My soul, bless the Lord; forget not all His favors:
3. Who forgives all your sins, Who heals all your illnesses;
4. Who redeems your life from the grave, Who crowns you with kindness and mercy;
5. Who satisfies your mouth with goodness; like the eagle, your youth is renewed.
6. The Lord executes righteousness and justice for all the oppressed.
7. He made His ways known to Moses, His deeds to the Children of Israel.
8. The Lord is compassionate and gracious, slow to anger and of great kindness.
9. He will not contend for eternity, nor harbor ill will forever.
10. He has not dealt with us according to our transgressions, nor requited us according to our sins.
11. For as high as heaven is above the earth, so has His kindness been mighty over those who fear Him.
12. As far as the east is from the west, so has He distanced our transgressions from us.
13. As a father has compassion on his children, so has the Lord had compassion on those who fear Him.
14. For He knows our nature; He is mindful that we are but dust.
15. As for man, his days are like grass; like a flower of the field, so he sprouts.
16. When a wind passes over him, he is gone; his place recognizes him no more.
17. But the kindness of the Lord is forever and ever upon those who fear Him, and His righteousness is [secured] for children's children,
18. to those who keep His covenant, and to those who remember His commands to do them.
19. The Lord has established His throne in the heavens, and His kingship has dominion over all.
20. Bless the Lord, you His angels who are mighty in strength, who do His bidding to obey the voice of His speech.
21. Bless the Lord, all His hosts, His servants who do His will.
22. Bless the Lord, all His works, in all the places of His dominion. My soul, bless the Lord!
-------
Tanya: Likutei Amarim, middle of Chapter 42
• Lessons in Tanya
• Today's Tanya Lesson
Sunday, Nissan 20, 5774 • April 20, 2014
Likutei Amarim, middle of Chapter 42
וכח זה ומדה זו, לקשר דעתו בה׳, יש בכל נפש מבית ישראל ביניקתה מנשמת משה רבנו, עליו השלום
This capacity and this quality of attaching one’s Daat to G d, so that he not only understands, but also feels G dliness and so becomes wholly united with Him, is present in every soul of the House of Israel, by virtue of its nurture (yenikah, lit., “suckling”) from the soul of our teacher Moses, peace unto him.
רק מאחר שנתלבשה הנפש בגוף, צריכה ליגיעה רבה ועצומה, כפולה ומכופלת
Only, since the soul has clothed itself in the body, it needs a great and mighty exertion, doubled and redoubled, in order to feel and be attached to G d.
While it is true that the soul has this capacity by dint of its being nurtured from the soul of Moses (for were the soul lacking this capacity, then even the greatest effort would be of no avail, for how can a created being possibly comprehend and feel its Creator? How can a soul enclothed in a body feel and be bound to G dliness?), nevertheless, even after possessing this capacity, it requires a prodigious effort to actually comprehend and feel G dliness.
האחת היא יגיעת בשר, לבטש את הגוף ולהכניעו, שלא יחשיך על אור הנפש
First is the “exertion of the flesh,” to throw off the bodily shackles, to pound the body, i.e., to weaken its corporeality, and gain its submission, so that it shall not obscure the light of the soul, thus making it possible for one to understand and feel G dliness,
כמו שנאמר לעיל בשם הזהר, דגופא דלא סליק ביה נהורא דנשמתא, מבטשין ליה, והיינו על ידי הרהורי תשובה מעומק הלב, כמו שכתוב שם
as has been mentioned above1 in the name of the Zohar, that “A body into which the light of the soul does not penetrate should be crushed,” this being accomplished by means of penitential reflections from the depths of the heart, as is explained there.
When one has weakened the grossness of the body, so that it hinders no longer, it becomes possible for the “light of the soul” to be manifest. This, then, is one manner of exertion, known as “exertion of the flesh.”
FOOTNOTES
1. Beginning of ch. 29
-------
Rambam:
• Daily Mitzvah - Sefer Hamitzvos:
Nissan 20, 5774 • April 20, 2014
Today's Mitzvah
A daily digest of Maimonides’ classic work "Sefer Hamitzvot"
Negative Commandment 101
Slaughtering an Animal and its Offspring on the Same Day
"You shall not slaughter it and its child on the same day"—Leviticus 22:28.
It is forbidden to slaughter an animal and its offspring on the same day—even if offered as a sacrifice to G d.
Slaughtering an Animal and its Offspring on the Same Day
Negative Commandment 101
Translated by Berel Bell
The 101st prohibition is that we are forbidden from slaughtering an animal and her child on the same day. This applies both to sanctified and non-sanctified animals.
The source of this prohibition is G‑d's statement,1 "Do not slaughter an animal and her child on the same day."
One who transgressed this prohibition and slaughtered them is punished by lashes.
The details of this mitzvah are fully explained in the fifth chapter of tractate Chulin.
Negative Commandment 102
FOOTNOTES
1.Lev. 22:28.
________________________________________
Rambam:
• 1 Chapter: Rotseah uShmirat Nefesh Rotseah uShmirat Nefesh - Chapter Six Rotseah uShmirat Nefesh - Chapter Six
Halacha 1
There are three categories of unintentional killers.
Halacha 2
There is a person who kills unintentionally, without at all knowing that this will be the consequence of his actions. Concerning such a person, Exodus 21:13 says: "Who did not lay in ambush." The law applying to such a person is that he should be exiled to a city of refuge, as we have explained in the previous chapter.
Halacha 3
There is a person who kills unintentionally, whose acts resemble those caused by forces beyond his control - i.e., that the death will be caused by an extraordinary phenomenon that does not commonly occur. Such a person is not liable to be exiled, and if he is slain by the blood redeemer, the blood redeemer should be executed for killing him.
Halacha 4
There is a person who kills unintentionally, whose acts resemble those willfully perpetrated - e.g., they involve negligence or that care should have been taken with regard to a certain factor and it was not. Such a person is not sentenced to exile, because his sin is very severe and exile cannot bring him atonement, nor do the cities of refuge served as a haven for him. For they serve as a haven only for those obligated to be exiled. Therefore, if the blood redeemer finds this killer anywhere and slays him, he is not liable.
Halacha 5
What should such a person do? Sit and protect himself from the blood redeemer.
Similarly, if the blood redeemer slays any of the murderers whose acts were observed by only one witness, or who were not given a warning or the like, the blood redeemer is not liable for execution. Killing such individuals should not be considered more severe than killing a person who killed unintentionally.
Halacha 6
What does the above imply? When a person throws a stone into the public domain and it causes death or he tears down his wall into the public domain, and a stone falls and causes death - whether he tears down the wall during the day or during the night - he is considered to be close to having acted intentionally. A city of refuge does not serve as a haven for him. For he should have checked the surroundings and then thrown the stone or torn down the wall.
Halacha 7
The following rules apply if a person tears down a wall into a garbage dump at night. If it is likely that people are there, he is considered to be close to having acted intentionally, and a city of refuge does not serve as a haven for him. If people are never found there, the death is considered close to having been caused by forces beyond his control, and he is not liable for exile.
Halacha 8
Different rules apply if people would use a garbage dump to relieve themselves at night, but would not use it for this purpose during the daytime. If it happened that a person sat there during the day, and he was killed by a stone that came from a person tearing down his wall, the person who tore down his wall should be exiled.
If after the stone began to fall, the person came and sat down, and the stone struck him and caused his death, the person who tore down his wall is not liable to be exiled.
Halacha 9
Similarly, if a person threw a stone into the public domain, and after the stone left his hand, the victim stuck his head out from a window and was struck by it, the person who threw the stone is not liable for exile. This is derived from Deuteronomy 19:5, which states: "the iron slips from the wood and finds his fellow." This excludes an instance when the victim causes himself to be found by the iron or other object that causes death.
Halacha 10
When a person who hates the victim kills unintentionally, the city of refuge does not serve as a haven for him. This is implied by Numbers 35:23, which states that a person who is exiled: "is not the victim's enemy." We operate under the presumption that one who is an enemy is close to having acted willfully.
Who is considered to be an enemy? A person who did not speak to the victim for at least three days because of animosity.
Similarly, all the following individuals are considered close to having acted willfully, and a city of refuge does not serve as a haven for them:
a) a person who entered an intersection holding an open knife in his hand without realizing that the victim was approaching from the other side and unintentionally stabbed him, causing his death;
b) a person who unintentionally pushed a colleague to his death with his body and not with his hands;
c) a person who intended to throw a stone that could kill two cubits, and instead threw it four;
d) a person who thought that it was permitted to kill;
e) a person who intended to kill one person and instead killed another. This applies even if he intended to kill a gentile or an animal and instead killed a Jew.
Halacha 11
When a person enters a courtyard of a homeowner without permission, and the homeowner kills him unintentionally, the homeowner is not liable to be exiled as can be inferred from Deuteronomy 19:5, which, when describing a person who must be exiled speaks of one: "Who encounters his colleague in the forest." Our Sages commented: A forest is a place that the victim has the right to enter. Similarly, in all such places, and only in such places, is a killer liable to be exiled.
Therefore, if a person enters a carpenter's shop without permission, and a block of wood flies forth and strikes him in the face and kills him, and he dies, the carpenter is not liable to be exiled. If he entered with permission, the carpenter should be exiled.
Halacha 12
When a person was lifting a barrel with a pulley to bring it up to a roof, and the the rope broke, causing it to fall on a colleague, or a person was climbing up a ladder and fell on a colleague and killed him, the person who caused the death is not liable to be exiled. This is considered to be something beyond his control. For this is not something that is likely to happen, but is rather an extraordinary occurrence.
If, by contrast, a person was lowering a barrel with a rope and it fell on a colleague and killed him, he was descending on a ladder and fell on a colleague, or he was shining with a polisher and it fell on a colleague and killed him, the person responsible should be exiled.
This is derived from Numbers 35:23, which states: "And it fell upon him, and he died," implying that the article must descend in an ordinary manner. An object that descends frequently causes damage. Indeed, it is likely that this will happen, for the nature of a heavy object is to descend downward speedily. Therefore, if the person did not hurry and act appropriately and properly while the object descended, he is responsible and should be exiled. The same applies in other analogous situations.
Halacha 13
The following rules apply when a butcher was cutting meat and lifted his hands backward while holding a cleaver, and then brought them forward to break a bone, as butchers do. If anyone is killed while he draws the cleaver back - i.e., while he lifts it up in front of him or while he causes it to descend behind him, the butcher is not exiled. If anyone is killed when he brings the cleaver forward - i.e., while he lifts it up behind him or while he causes it to descend in front of him - the butcher should be exiled.
This is the governing principle. Whenever the object that kills is descending, the person responsible should be exiled. If it is not descending, he should not be exiled. Even a descent for the purpose of ascent does not cause the person to be exiled.
Halacha 14
What is an example of a "descent for the purpose of an ascent"? If a person was ascending on a ladder, and a rung gave way under his feet and fell and caused death, the person climbing is not obligated to be exiled.
Similarly, in the following situations, the death is considered close to having been caused by factors beyond the control of the individuals involved and they are not exiled:
a) a person intended to throw an article in one direction and it went in another direction,
b) a person had a stone in his bosom that he had never been made aware of and when he stood up it fell, or
c) a blind man killed someone unintentionally.
Halacha 15
If there was a stone in his bosom that he was aware of and he forgot it, and then he stood up, the stone fell and caused death, he is exiled, as implied by Numbers 35:15, which mentions the death taking place "unintentionally." From the use of that term, we can infer that he knew of the stone's existence beforehand.
If the iron slips from the axe rebounding from the tree he is chopping, he is not exiled, because this does not come from his own force, but from the effect generated by his force. Thus, it is like a factor that is beyond his control.
Similarly, if a person throws a stone into a date palm to knock down dates, and the dates fall on an infant and kill him, the person who throws the stone is not liable to be exiled, because the infant was killed, not by force that he generated, but from the effect generated by his force. Similar principles apply with regard to other blows brought about by analogous situations.
-------
Rambam:
• 3 Chapters: Shechitah Shechitah - Chapter 3, Shechitah Shechitah - Chapter 4, Shechitah Shechitah - Chapter 5
Shechitah - Chapter 3
Halacha 1
There are five factors that disqualify ritual slaughter and the fundamentals of the laws of shechitah are to guard against each of these factors: They are: shehiyah, dirasah, chaladah, hagramah, and ikur.1
Halacha 2
What is meant by shehiyah? A person began to slaughter and lifted up his hand before he completed the slaughter and waited. Whether he did so inadvertently, intentionally, or because of forces beyond his control, [the following rules apply] if he or another person completed the slaughter. If he waited the amount of time it would take to lift up the animal, cause it to lie down, and slaughter it, his slaughter is not acceptable. If he waited less than this amount of time, his slaughter is acceptable.
Halacha 3
With regard to a small domesticated animal:2, the measure of shehiyah is the amount of time it would take to lift up the animal, cause it to lie down, and slaughter it. With regard to a large domestic animal,3 the measure of shehiyah is the amount of time it would take to lift up the animal, cause it to lie down, and slaughter it.4 With regard to a fowl, the measure of shehiyah is the amount of time it would take to lift up a small animal, cause it to lie down, and slaughter it.5
Halacha 4
When a person cut [the signs] for a while, waited for a while, cut for a while, waited for a while until he concluded the slaughter without waiting the measure that disqualifies an animal at any one time, but over the times he waited over the entire period would equal the measure of shehiyah, there is an unresolved doubt whether [the animal is considered] a nevelah.6
Similarly, if he waited the amount of time it takes to lift up the animal, cause it to lie down, and cut only a portion of the signs, but not to slaughter it entirely, there is an unresolved doubt whether [the animal is considered] a nevelah.
Halacha 5
If he slaughtered the majority of one of the signs for a fowl or the majority of both signs for an animal, the slaughter is permitted even if he waited half the day and then returned and finished cutting the signs.7 For since the minimum measure for slaughter was met, it is as if he is cutting slaughtered meat.
Halacha 6
If one cuts half or less of the windpipe and waits an extended period, he may return and complete the slaughter; [his previous acts] are of no consequence.8 If, however, he cut the majority of [an animal's] windpipe or perforated the gullet even slightly and then waited the [disqualifying] measure, [the slaughter] is unacceptable.9 [This applies] whether he returned and completed cutting where he began or slaughtered the animal entirely in a different place. [The rationale is] that when the majority of the windpipe is slit or the gullet of either an animal or a fowl is perforated even slightly, the animal is comparable to a nevelah and ritual slaughter is not effective for it, as will be explained.10
Halacha 7
It is thus explained for you that the concept of shehiyah does not exist with regard to the windpipe of a fowl at all. For if he slit the majority of the windpipe and waited, he has already completed the slaughter of [the fowl]. When he goes back and completes it, it is as if he is cutting meat.11 If he slit less than half the windpipe and waited, he may return and [complete the] slaughter whenever he desires,12 for it is not disqualified as a nevelah unless the majority of the windpipe has been cut.
Halacha 8
[The following rules apply when] one slaughtered a fowl and waited, but does not know whether the gullet was perforated or not.13 He should return and cut the windpipe alone in another place,14 let [the fowl] be until it dies, and then check the gullet from the inside.15 If a drop of blood was not found on it, it is apparent that it was not perforated and it is acceptable.
Halacha 9
What is meant by chaladah?16 For example, one inserted the knife between one sign and another.17 Whether one then slits the upper sign above or cuts the lower sign below in the manner of ritual slaughter, [the slaughter] is unacceptable.
Halacha 10
If he inserted the knife beneath the [animal's] skin and slit both the signs in the ordinary fashion, hid the knife under tangled wool, or spread a cloth over the knife and the neck18 and slaughtered under the cloth, since the knife is not openly revealed, there is an unresolved doubt whether [the animal is considered] a nevelah. Similarly, if slaughtered less than half the signs with chaladah and completed the slaughter without chaladah, there is an unresolved doubt whether [the animal is considered] a nevelah.
Halacha 11
What is meant by dirasah?19 For example, one struck the neck with a knife as one strikes with a sword, cutting the signs at one time, without passing [the knife] back and forth or one placed the knife on the neck and pressed, cutting downward like one cuts radishes or squash until he cuts the signs, [the slaughter] is unacceptable.
Halacha 12
What is meant by hagramah?20 This refers to one who slaughters at a high point on the windpipe21 where it is not fit to slaughter. There are two [nodes, like kernels of] wheat at the top of the windpipe, at the large ring.22 [The following rules apply if] one slaughtered in the midst of these kernels. If he left even the slightest portion of them intact above [the place of slaughter], it is acceptable, for he slaughtered from the slanting cap [of the windpipe] or lower. This is within the place that is fit for ritual slaughter. If, however, he did not leave any portion of them intact, but instead cut above them, this is considered as [being slaughtered with] hagramah and it is unacceptable.
Halacha 13
If one slit the majority of one sign [for a fowl] or the majority of both signs [for an animal] and then completed the slaughter through dirasah or hagramah, it is acceptable, for the minimum measure was slaughtered in the proper manner.23
If at first, he slit a third [of the windpipe]24 through hagramah, and then cut two thirds in the appropriate manner, the slaughter is acceptable.25 If he cut a third in the appropriate manner, cut a third through hagramah, and then cut the last third in the appropriate manner, the slaughter is acceptable.26 If at first, he slit a third through hagramah, cut a third in the appropriate manner, and then cut a third through hagramah, the slaughter is unacceptable.27 If one cut [a portion of] an animal's throat with derisah or chaladah, it is unacceptable, whether it was the first or second third.28
Halacha 14
What is meant by ikur? That the gullet and/or the windpipe were displaced29 and slid [from their place] before the conclusion of the slaughter. If, however, one slit an entire sign or its majority in a fowl, and then the second sign slipped, the slaughter is acceptable.30
Halacha 15
If one of the signs was displaced and afterwards, one slit the other, the slaughter is unacceptable.31 If one slit one of the signs [of a fowl] and then discovered that the other one was displaced, but it is unknown whether it was displaced before slaughter32 or after slaughter,33 there is an unresolved question whether [the fowl] is a nevelah.
Halacha 16
If the sign that was cut for ritual slaughter is discovered to have been displaced, [the fowl or animal]34 is acceptable, for certainly, it was displaced after the slaughter. For if it had been displaced before ritual slaughter, it would have hung loosely and it would not have been able to be slaughtered [effectively].35
Halacha 17
When does the above apply? When [the slaughterer] did not hold the signs in his hand when he slit them. If, however, he held the signs and slaughtered, it is possible that [the signs] could have been slit [effectively even] after they were displaced.36 Therefore, if a sign is discovered to be displaced and slaughtered,37 there is an unresolved question whether [the animal or the fowl] is a nevelah.
Halacha 18
Whenever we have used the term "unacceptable," the animal is a nevelah and if a person partakes of an olive-sized portion of it, he is liable for lashes for partaking of a nevelah. For only an acceptable slaughter as commanded by Moses our teacher of blessed memory prevents an animal from being considered a nevelah as we explained.38 Whenever there is an unresolved doubt whether slaughter [is acceptable], there is an unresolved doubt whether the animal is a nevelah.39 A person who partakes of it is liable for stripes for rebellious conduct.
Halacha 19
When the thigh of an animal and [the meat40 of] its hollow were removed and thus it appears lacking when it crouches, it is a nevelah.41 [It is] as if half of it was cut away and it was divided into two bodies. Thus slaughter is not effective with regard to it.
Similarly, if [the animal's] backbone was broken together with the majority of the meat, its back was ripped open like a fish, the majority of the windpipe was been severed,42 or the gullet was perforated in a place fit for slaughter,43 it is considered as a nevelah while alive and slaughter will not be effective with regard to it. The same laws apply to both an animal and a fowl with regard to all these matters.
Halacha 20
The gullet has two membranes: the external membrane is red and the inner membrane is white.44 If only one of them is perforated, [the animal] is acceptable.45 If they are both perforated even to the slightest degree in a place fit for slaughter, it is a nevelah.46 [This applies] whether it was slaughtered in the place of the perforation or in another place, slaughter will not be effective with regard to it. If they were both perforated, [even when] one [hole] does not correspond to the other, the animal is a nevelah47.
Halacha 21
When the gullet is perforated and a scab forms which covers it, the scab is of no consequence and it is considered perforated as it was beforehand.48 If a thorn is detected standing in the gullet, there is an unresolved doubt whether the animal is a nevelah. We fear that perhaps a scab developed in the place of a perforation and it is not visible.49 If, however, a thorn is lying lengthwise50 in the gullet, we are not concerned about it, for most desert animals eat thorns continuously.51
Halacha 22
The gullet cannot be checked from the outside, only from the inside.52 What is implied? One should turn it inside out and check it. If a drop of blood is found upon it, it can be concluded that it was perforated.
Halacha 23
When the majority of the cavity of the windpipe53 has been severed in the place fit for slaughtering,54 [the animal] is a nevelah. This also applies if it has a hole the size of an isar.55
[The following rules apply if the windpipe of an animal] was perforated with small holes.56 If the perforations did not detract [from the flesh, they disqualify the animal if,] when they are added together, they constitute the majority [of the windpipe]. If they detract from the flesh, [they disqualify the animal if,] when they are added together, their sum is the size of an isar.57 Similarly, if a strand [of flesh] is removed from [the windpipe], it [disqualifies the animal if its area] is the size of an isar.
With regard to a fowl, [a more stringent rule applies]:58 Whenever the strip [of flesh that was removed] or the holes that detract from the flesh [are large enough so that they] could be folded so that when placed over the opening of the windpipe, it would cover the majority [of its cavity],59 it is a nevelah. If not, it is acceptable.
Halacha 24
If the windpipe was perforated on both sides with a hole large enough for the thickness of isar60 to be inserted into it, it is a nevelah. If it is slit lengthwise, even if only the slightest portion of the place fit to slaughter [an animal] remains above and below, it is acceptable.61
Halacha 25
When a windpipe has been perforated62 and it is not known whether it was perforated before the slaughter or afterwards,63 we perforate it again in another place and compare the two holes. If they resemble each other, it is permitted.64
We compare only [a hole in] a large ring to [a hole in] a large ring or [a hole in] a small [ring] to [a hole in] a small [ring], but not [a hole in] a small [ring] to a [a hole in] a large [ring]. For the entire windpipe is made up of a series of rings. Between each [large] ring is a small, soft ring.
FOOTNOTES
1.The Rambam describes each of these terms in the subsequent halachot in this chapter.
2.I.e., a sheep or a goat.
3.I.e., a cow.
4.I.e., each animal is considered according to its category. It will take more time to deal with a large animal than a smaller one and the time factor is adjusted accordingly.
5.The Rambam's ruling favors the opinion of Shmuel over Rav. In his Kessef Mishneh, Rav Yosef Caro explains that generally, we follow the principle that the halachah follows Rav's approach with regard to the Torah prohibitions. Nevertheless, in this instance, since there are other Sages who support Shmuel's view, the Rambam favors his opinion. In his Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 23:2), in addition to the Rambam's view, Rav Yosef Caro quotes Rashi's position which rules much more stringently with regard to shehiyah for a fowl. The Rama states that the common custom is to disqualify any ritual slaughter involving shehiyah of the slightest time for both animals and fowl.
6.Although the Ra'avad and Rav Moshe HaCohen dispute the Rambam's ruling, it is accepted by the Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah23:3). The Rama reiterates the stringency stated above.
7.In addition to the Rambam's view, the Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 23:5) quotes the view of Rashi cited by the Tur that as long as the cutting of the signs is not completed, shehiyah can disqualify an animal. Hence, as an initial and preferred option, one should show respect for this view. The Rama rules even more stringently, stating that even after the fact, the slaughter is disqualified. For that reason, he continues, if the majority of the signs are cut, but the animal is lingering alive, rather than cut the signs further, one should hit it on its head to kill it.
8.For until half of the windpipe is cut, the animal is not considered as trefe.
9.He cannot return and correct the slaughter, for the animal is already considered as a nevelah.
10.Halachah 19.
11.As stated in Halachah 5.
12.As stated in Halachah 6.
13.If the gullet was perforated, the slaughter is unacceptable. If not, it is acceptable.
14.Theoretically, he could also cut the windpipe in the same place and complete the slaughter in that manner. Nevertheless, our Sages advised against doing so, for in this way, it is much easier to perforate the gullet when cutting the windpipe and thus he might disqualify the slaughter unnecessarily (Kessef Mishneh). See the Turei Zahav 23:6 who offers another rationale. As mentioned above, the Rama rules that whenever one waits during the slaughter of a fowl or an animal, the slaughter is disqualified.
A parallel law - slaughtering the animal in a different place - does not apply with regard to an animal. For to slaughter the animal, he must slit the gullet and we fear that he will cut at a place where it had been perforated previously (Kessef Mishneh).
15.I.e., he should cut the gullet off at its top and/or bottom and turn it inside out. If he is able to find a drop of blood, he can assume that it is perforated and it is unacceptable. An external examination of the gullet is not sufficient for the surface of the gullet is red and a drop of blood will not be noticeable. Its inner surface, however, is skin-colored and the blood will be noticed (Kessef Mishneh).
16.Chullin 20b states that this term is derived from the word chuldah meaning "weasel," i.e., an animal that hides in the foundation of homes. Similarly, chaladah involves "hiding" the knife when slaughtering; i.e., inserting it in a way that the blade is not open to the eye. Implied is that the proper way to slaughter is for the slaughterer to hold the animal or fowl with its neck upward and to draw the knife back and forth across the neck.
17.Certainly, this applies when he inserted the knife below both signs and slaughtered the animal by moving the knife back and forth while pointed upward (Siftei Cohen 24:6).
18.In his Kessef Mishneh, Rav Yosef Caro quotes other authorities who explain that this is referring to a situation where the person tied the cloth around the animal's neck, attached it with wax, or the like. If, however, he merely loosely spread the cloth over the animal, the slaughter is acceptable. He concludes, however, that the Rambam's opinion should be respected. In his Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 24:8), he rules according to the other views, but states: "One should show concern for his (the Rambam's) opinion at the outset."
19.The term doreis means "prey" or "strike," i.e., killing with a blow, rather than drawing back and forth as is required for ritual slaughter.
20.The Maggid Mishneh gives two interpretations of the term hagramah:
a) "lift up," as in II Kings 9:13; i.e., he lifted the knife above its proper place; and
b) "tip," as in Bava Batra 88b; i.e., he tipped the knife upward.
21.The Rambam speaks only with regard to the windpipe, because he defines hagramah as slaughtering the animal in an improper place. If one would slit the gullet above the proper place, the animal would become disqualified as a trefe immediately (Kessef Mishneh).
22.The Maggid Mishneh states that the windpipe is made up of many rings. Over the top ring, there is a flap (cap) of flesh which is slanted. (This is the area of the larynx. See also Chapter 1, Halachah 7, and notes.) At the top of this flap, there are two kernel-like buttons of flesh. As long as the slaughterer leaves some portion of these kernels intact, the slaughter is acceptable.
23.The Rambam derived this concept from a comparison to the laws of shehiyah mentioned in Halachah 5. The same concept applies if one slaughters more than half the signs appropriately and then completes the slaughter through chaladah. Indeed, it can be explained that the Rambam does not mention this law with regard to chaladah, because it is obvious. For in chaladah, the slaughter is essentially correct; it is only the manner in which one inserts the knife that is unacceptable (Kessef Mishneh).
As mentioned in the notes to Halachah 5, there are opinions who differ and disqualify the slaughter. Similarly, with regard to the laws at hand, there are opinions that are more stringent, except with regard to hagramah. In that instance, they accept the leniency mentioned by the Rambam. The Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 24:12) quotes both of the views without stating which should be followed. The Rama goes further and states that it is customary to rule stringently even with regard to hagramah, and even with regard to fowl.
24.This addition is necessary, for as stated above, if the gullet is perforated, the slaughter is disqualified.
25.For the majority of the windpipe was cut in an acceptable manner and the preliminary cutting did not cause the animal to be considered as a trefe.
26.Here also, the majority of the windpipe is cut in an acceptable manner. The fact that the two thirds were not cut directly after each other is not significant.
27.For the majority of the windpipe has not been slit in an acceptable manner.
28.The rationale for the Rambam's words has been discussed at length by the commentaries, because with regard to chaladah, in Halachah 10, he writes that there is an unresolved question whether the slaughter is disqualified, while here he appears to say that it is definitely unacceptable. The Rivosh (Responsum 187), the Kessef Mishneh, the Maggid Mishneh, and the Siftei Cohen 24:18 all offer lengthy - and somewhat forced - explanations to attempt to resolve the apparent contradiction. The core of the explanation of the Kessef Mishneh is that since the majority of the windpipe was slit in the proper place, it is not disqualified because a portion was not.
Needless to say, if one cuts the last third in either of these fashions, according to the Rambam, the slaughter is not disqualified, for it has already been completed (through slitting more than half of the sign[s] in an acceptable manner). The Rama, however, would disqualify the slaughter as stated above.
29.The term ikur means "uproot." The Kessef Mishneh states that, according to the Rambam, the fact that the signs have slipped from their place does not cause the animal to be deemed a trefe (see, however, Chapter 9, Halachah 21, and notes). Nevertheless, such a condition disqualifies the animal, for it is impossible for the ritual slaughter to be carried out in the proper manner.
30.For the slaughter was already completed in an acceptable manner. Compare to the following halachah.
31.This applies even with regard to a fowl. Although it is only necessary for one of the signs of a fowl to be cut in the appropriate manner, the other one must be fit to be slit in an appropriate manner (Kessef Mishneh).
32.In which instance it would disqualify it.
33.In which instance, it would be acceptable.
34.With regard to a fowl, the sign in question is the only sign slit. With regard to an animal, the other sign must have been slaughtered effectively.
35.The Tur and the Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 24:18) rule more stringently and maintain that it is necessary to slaughter another animal, displace its signs afterwards, and compare the two. Only if they are similar is the slaughter accepted. Moreover, the Shulchan Aruch continues stating that, at present, we are not expert at making this comparison and hence, forbid an animal whenever such a condition arises.
36.Because the slaughterer will hold the signs in the proper position by hand.
37.And we do not know whether the slaughterer held it by hand or not.
38.See Chapter 1, Halachot 1 and 4.
39.Since an animal is forbidden during its lifetime, its meat is permitted only when we are certain that the slaughter was acceptable (Radbaz).
40.The addition is made on the basis of the gloss of the Maggid Mishneh.
41.I.e., even though the animal still has a certain vestige of vitality, it is considered as if it has died already and it imparts ritual impurity as a nevelah does (Hilchot Shaar Avot HaTumah 2:1).
42.In this and the following instance, the Siftei Cohen 33:4 rules that the animal is a trefe and not a nevelah.
43.If, however, the gullet was perforated at a higher point in the neck (see Halachah 12), it is considered as a trefe and not a nevelah.
44.I.e., skin-colored.
45.For the one that is not perforated is sufficient to protect the animal sufficiently for it to survive.
This leniency applies when the inner membrane is perforated due to sickness. If, however, it is perforated due to a thorn, we fear that the outer membrane may also be perforated, but that perforation cannot be detected [see Halachah 22; Rama (Yoreh De'ah 33:4)].
46.As above, if the gullet was perforated at a higher point in the neck (see Halachah 12), it is considered as a trefe and not a nevelah (Kessef Mishneh).
47.With regard to other organs which have two membranes, e.g., the brain and the lungs, the animal is not considered as trefe unless the holes correspond to each other. In this instance, however, the ruling is much more severe because the gullet is stretched and becomes extended. Thus even if the place of the holes do not correspond, they can match each other at times [Kessef Mishneh, Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 33:4)].
48.For as the gullet expands, it is possible that the scab will open (Rashi, Chullin 42a).
49.The Rama (Yoreh De'ah 33:9) rules more leniently, stating that unless a trace of blood is detected on the outer side, we do not disqualify an animal because a thorn was implanted in the gullet.
50.The Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 33:9) rules that this applies even if the thorn is lying widthwise, as long as it is not implanted in the membrane. [Indeed, some versions of the Mishneh Torah substitute widthwise for lengthwise.]
51.And yet do not suffer any internal damage.
52.Because, as stated above (see Halachot 8, 19), since its outer membrane is red, a trace of blood will not be obvious.
53.I.e., the slit goes from side to side in a manner in which the majority of the cavity is slit. The Rambam (based on Chullin 44a,b) is emphasizing that this measure disqualifies an animal even if when including the thickness of the flesh of the windpipe, the slit would not cover the majority of the windpipe.
54.See Chapter 1, Halachah 7, and notes.
55.An Italian coin, frequently used in the Talmudic era. In his commentary to the Mishnah (Mikveot 9:5), the Rambam states that an isar is the weight of four barley corns.
The Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 34:2) states that we are unfamiliar with the measure of an isar. Therefore, the laws applying to an animal should resemble those applying to a fowl and if the slit covers the majority of the cavity of the windpipe, it is disqualified. The Rama states that, for an animal, an isar is smaller than the majority of the cavity of the windpipe. Therefore he states that perhaps the intent of the Shulchan Aruch, is the majority of the cavity of a fowl. He cautions anyone who has a doubt to rule stringently and disqualify the animal.
56.When quoting this law, the Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 33:3) speaks of perforating the windpipe "like a sifter."
57.In his Kessef Mishneh and his Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 34:3), Rav Yosef Caro writes that as long as the flesh between the holes is not larger than the holes themselves, it is included together with them in this measure.
58.For the entire windpipe of a fowl may not be the size of an isar (Rashi, Chullin 45a).
59.The addition is based on the gloss of the Kessef Mishneh. For each particular fowl, this measure is calculated individually (Maggid Mishneh).
60.Our translation is based on the gloss of the Kessef Mishneh who quotes the Tur (Yoreh De'ah 34) who explains that in contrast to the previous halachah which speaks of a hole the area of an isar, this halachah is speaking about a hole through which an isar can be slipped through on its side.
It must be emphasized that the Rambam's ruling depends on the interpretation of Chullin 54a advanced by Rabbenu Yitzchak Alfasi. Rashi advances a different interpretation of that passage on which basis, the Ra'avad objects to the Rambam's ruling. The Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 34:5-6) quotes both opinions without stating which is favored.
61.The Kessef Mishneh quotes Rashi who explains that if the windpipe is slit across we rule more stringently, for the stress of breathing will extend the windpipe and cause the slit to expand. This does not apply when it is split lengthwise.
62.In a manner that would disqualify the animal.
63.Were it to have been perforated afterwards, the perforation would not be significant.
64.For it is apparent that the first hole was also made after the animal's death. The Rama (Yoreh De'ah 34:9) states that we are not proficient in inspecting the animal in this way and should disqualify it in all situations.
Shechitah - Chapter 4
Halacha 1
When a Jew who does not know the five factors that disqualify ritual slaughter and the like concerning the laws of shechitah that we explained1slaughters [an animal] in private,2 it is forbidden for him and others to partake [of the animal that] he slaughtered. It is close to being considered a nevelah because of the doubt involved.3 When a person eats an olive-sized portion of its meat, he is worthy of stripes for rebellious conduct.
Halacha 2
Even if [such a person] slaughtered [animals] properly in our presence four or five times and this slaughter which he performed in private appears to be a proper and complete the slaughter, it is forbidden to partake of it. Since he does not know the factors that can disqualify ritual slaughter, it is possible that he will cause the slaughter to be disqualified unknowingly.4 For example, he may wait, apply pressure to the animal's neck and slit it, slaughter with a blemished knife, or the like inadvertently.
Halacha 3
[Even] when a Jew knows the laws of ritual slaughter, he should not slaughter in private as an initial and preferred option until he slaughters in the presence of a wise man many times until he is familiar and ardent.5 If, however, at the outset, he slaughtered in private, his slaughter is acceptable.6
Halacha 4
When one knows the laws of ritual slaughter and slaughters in the presence of a wise man until he becomes familiar with ritual slaughter, he is called an expert. Any expert may slaughter in private as an initial and preferred option. Even women7 and servants8 may slaughter as an initial and preferred option.
Halacha 5
When deaf-mute,9 an intellectually or emotionally imbalanced person, a child,10 or a drunkard whose mind became befuddled11 slaughters, their slaughter is unacceptable. Since they do not have [adequate] mental control, we fear that they blundered. Therefore if they slaughtered in the presence of a knowledgeable person and he saw that they slaughtered properly, their slaughter is acceptable.
Halacha 6
When a person whose reputation12 has not been established among us slaughters in private, we question him. If it is discovered that he knows the fundamental principles of ritual slaughter,13 his slaughter is acceptable.14
Halacha 7
When we saw from a distance that a Jew slaughtered [an animal] and departed and we do not know whether or not he knows the laws of ritual slaughter or not, [the animal] is permitted. Similarly, if a person tells his agent: "Go out and slaughter an animal on my behalf," and he finds a slaughtered animal, but does not know whether his agent or another person slaughtered it, [the animal] is permitted.15 [The rationale for both these laws is] that the majority of people who slaughter are expert.16
Halacha 8
[The following rules apply when a person] loses a kid or a chicken. If he finds it slaughtered at home, it is permitted. [The rationale is that] the majority of people who slaughter are expert. If he finds it in the market place, it is forbidden; perhaps [it was slaughtered improperly and] became a nevelah and was therefore cast into the market place.17 Similarly, if he finds it on the waste dump at home, it is forbidden.18
Halacha 9
When an expert [slaughterer] loses his power of speech, but he is [still] capable of understanding, he can hear and he is of sound mind, he may slaughter as an initial and preferred option.19 Similarly, a person who does not hear,20 may slaughter.
Halacha 10
A blind man should not slaughter as an initial and preferred option unless others supervise him.21 If he slaughters, his slaughter is acceptable.22
Halacha 11
When a gentile slaughters, even though he slaughters in the presence of a Jew, [using] a finely [honed] knife,23 and even if he was a minor,24 his slaughter is a nevelah. According to Scriptural Law, one is liable for lashes for partaking of it,25 as [implied by Exodus 34:15]: "[Lest] he shall call you and you shall partake of his slaughter." Since the Torah warns lest one partake of his slaughter, you can infer that his slaughter is forbidden. He cannot be compared to a Jew who does not know the laws of ritual slaughter.
Halacha 12
[Our Sages] established a great safeguard concerning this matter, [decreeing] that even [an animal] slaughtered by a gentile who does not serve false deities26 is a nevelah.27
Halacha 13
If a gentile began to slaughter and slit the minority of the signs and a Jew completed the slaughter or a Jew began the slaughter and a gentile completed it,28 it is invalid.29 [The rationale is that] slaughter [is considered an integral act, a single continuity] from the beginning to the end.30 If, however, a gentile slit [a portion of] an organ that does not cause the animal to be considered a nevelah, e.g., he slit half the windpipe and a Jew completed the slaughter, it is acceptable.31
Halacha 14
A Jew who is an apostate because of his transgression of a particular transgression32 who is an expert slaughterer may slaughter as an initial and preferred option.33 A Jew of acceptable repute must check the knife and afterwards give it to this apostate to slaughter with, for it can be presumed that he will not trouble himself to check [the knife].34
If, by contrast, he was an apostate because of worship of false deities, one who violates the Sabbath in public,35 or a heretic who denies the Torah and [the prophecy of] Moses our teacher, as we explained in Hilchot Teshuvah,36 he is considered as a gentile and [an animal] he slaughters is a nevelah.
Halacha 15
[Even though] a person is disqualified as a witness because of his violation of a Scriptural prohibition,37 he may [still] slaughter in private if he was an expert.38 For he would not leave something which is permitted and partake of something that is forbidden.39 This is a presumption that applies with regard to all Jews, even those who are wicked.
Halacha 16
These Tzadukkim, Beotosim, 40 their disciples and all that err, following their path, who do not believe in the Oral Law - their slaughter is forbidden. If, however, they slaughtered [an animal] in our presence, it is permitted. For their slaughter is forbidden only because it is possible they blunder. Since they do not believe in the laws of ritual slaughter, we do not accept their word when they say, "We did not blunder."41
Halacha 17
When the Jews were journeying through the desert, they were not commanded to slaughter non-sacrificial animals.42 Instead, they would cut off their heads or slaughter them and eat as the other nations do. In the desert, they were commanded that everyone who desires to slaughter an animal [in the prescribed way] should slaughter only for the sake of a peace offering, as [Leviticus 17:3-5] states: "When a man from the house of Israel will slaughter an ox... and he will not bring it to the Tent of Meeting... [it will be considered as (spilled) blood]... so that the Children of Israel will bring their sacrifices... and slaughter these sacrifices as peace-offerings." If, however, a person desired to cut an animal's head off and partake [of the animal], in the desert, this was allowed.
Halacha 18
This mitzvah43 is not observed forever, nor in the desert alone, at the time it was permitted to kill animals [and partake of them]. There they were commanded that when they would enter Eretz Yisrael, killing animals [for food] would be forbidden and ordinary animals could only be eaten after ritual slaughter. They would be allowed to slaughter in every place except the Temple Courtyard,44 as [Deuteronomy 12:20-21] states: "When God your Lord will expand your boundaries... and you shall slaughter from your cattle and your sheep which God your Lord gave you." This is the mitzvah to be observed for generations - to slaughter and then to eat.
FOOTNOTES
1.The five factors mentioned in the previous chapter and how to prepare a knife [Kessef Mishneh; Rama (Yoreh De'ah 1:2)].
2.If, however, a wise man supervises his actions, the slaughter is acceptable, as indicated by Halachah 5. The Maggid Mishneh quotes the Rashba as ruling that such a person may slaughter in the presence of a wise man even as an initial and preferred option. The Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 1:3) accepts this ruling, but the Rama does not.
3.There is no factor that we see that would cause us to disqualify the slaughter. Nevertheless, since it is highly probable that he slaughtered the animal in a way that disqualified it and rendered it a nevelah, the animal is prohibited and placed in this category.
4.Moreover, even if afterwards, he is taught the laws of ritual slaughter and states that he observed them when he slaughtered the animal, the ruling is not revised. Since he did not know the laws at that time, we fear that he did not observe them (Kessef Mishneh).
5.This training process is still observed in the present age. Even though a person is familiar with the laws of ritual slaughter, he must first undergo apprenticeship under the guidance of a master and receive authorization to slaughter [Rama (Yoreh De'ah 1:1).
6.I.e., after the fact, since he knows the laws, we do not disqualify the slaughter.
7.The Rama (Yoreh De'ah 1:1) states that woman should not be allowed to slaughter as an initial and preferred option.
8.This refers to Canaanite servants whose Halachic status is the same as women. The Tur (Yoreh De'ah 1) rules that in general servants may not serve as ritual slaughterers. See Siftei Cohen 1:2.
9.See Halachah 9 which grants a person with only one of these handicaps to slaughter.
10.The Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 1:5) states that this refers to a child who does not know how to maneuver his hands for ritual slaughter. If he knows how to maneuver his hands he may be given an animal to slaughter at the outset. The Rama emphasizes that even so, the child may only slaughter in the presence of others. He may not slaughter alone. Furthermore, the Rama states that it is not customary for a person to receive authorization to slaughter until he is eighteen. The Siftei Cohen 1:25, however, rules more stringently.
11.The Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 1:8) states that one who becomes as drunk as Lot (see Genesis, ch. 19) may not slaughter. One who has not reached this stage of inebriation may slaughter at the outset. The Rama rules more stringently, stating that a person should never slaughter when drunk, for it is likely that he will disqualify the slaughter.
12.With regard to his proficiency in the laws of ritual slaughter.
13.Those mentioned in the previous chapter and how to check a knife; there is no need for him to be knowledgeable with regard to all the particulars of the laws of ritual slaughter.
14.The Kessef Mishneh explains that when there is no alternative (see the following halachah), we rely on the principle that most of those who slaughter are knowledgeable regarding its laws. Nevertheless, in this instance, since we have the opportunity to clarify the matter, we do so.
15.With regard to questions of business law, we rely on the presumption that an agent will perform the mission with which he was charged. We do not, however, accept this principle with regard to questions involving the Torah's prohibitions (Hilchot Terumot 4:6). Nevertheless, even if we know for certain that the agent did not slaughter the animal, we consider it as permitted because of the reason stated by the Rambam.
16.And when there is no alternative we can rely on this presumption.
From the statements of the Rama (Yoreh De'ah 1:1), it appears that there is a slight difference between the present age and the Talmudic period. In the Talmudic era, most people were proficient in both the laws and practice of ritual slaughter. In the present age, this applies only to those who are occupied professionally in this field. Nevertheless, the laws remain the same, for we assume that only a person who is knowledgeable will actually slaughter animals.
17.We are not speaking about a waste dump in the market place. In such an instance, all opinions would agree that the animal is forbidden. Instead, we are speaking about a situation where it was found in the marketplace at large. Chullin 12b records a dispute between two Sages concerning this matter and the Rambam chooses the more stringent ruling.
18.For the circumstances indicate that it was discarded.
As mentioned, there is a difference of opinion in the Talmud regarding this issue. Most Rishonim follow the more lenient view and rule that if the slaughtered animal is found in an ordinary place in the marketplace or in a waste dump at home, it is permitted. The Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 1:4) also follows this view.
19.Another person should recite the blessing for him [Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 1:7)].
20.As long as he has the ability to speak, he is not considered to be intellectually underdeveloped.
Rabbenu Asher explains that such a person should not slaughter as an initial and preferred option, because there is a difficulty with his recitation of the blessing. For a person must recite a blessing in a manner that enables him to hear it and that is impossible for such an individual. Indeed, the Jerusalem Talmud (Terumot 1:6) rules that a person who is dumb should not separate terumah at the outset for that reason [Maggid Mishneh; Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 1:6)].
21.For we fear that he will err and not detect his error. The Siftei Cohen 1:35 quotes opinions that rule that a blind person should not slaughter even when others are watching him.
22.In this instance as well, the Siftei Cohen 1:36 mentions views that maintain that a person who was never able to see should not slaughter. Even after the fact, one should not partake of his slaughter.
23.And is well-versed in the laws of ritual slaughter [the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (Chullin 1:1)].
24.One might think that the slaughter of a minor has an advantage, because a minor's worship of idols is not significant.
25.Thus a gentile's slaughter is not recognized by Scriptural Law. See, however, the following halachah.
In his Commentary to the Mishnah (ibid.), the Rambam explains that the reason the animal is forbidden is that, in general, when a gentile slaughters, his intent is that the animal is an offering to his false deity, it is, however, permissible to benefit from the animal. We do not consider it as a sacrifice to idols (Chullin 13b; see Chapter 2, Halachah 2), because we assume the gentile is not really sincere in his worship, he is merely mimicking his ancestors.
Rabbeinu Asher differs and explains that the Scriptural command for ritual slaughter states: "And you shall slaughter," implying that the slaughtering must be a Jew. Hence, a gentile is inherently disqualified; his thoughts are of no consequence. See the Siftei Cohen 2:2 and the Turei Zahav 2:1 who discuss this issue.
26.E.g., a resident alien who accepts the Seven Universal Laws Commanded to Noah and his descendants (see Hilchot Issurei Bi'ah 14:7).
27.According to the Rambam, if he does not serve false deities and knows the laws of ritual slaughter, his slaughter is acceptable according to Scriptural Law.
One might ask: If so, why is an animal slaughtered by a child a nevelah? A child is not liable for the service of false deities. The Lechem Mishneh answers that ultimately, the child will grow up and worship false deities.
28.See the Siftei Cohen 2:27 maintains that if the Jew slit the majority of the gullet and windpipe, the slaughter is acceptable even if the gentile completed it.
29.Thus if a gentile slit the majority of the windpipe or any portion of the gullet, the slaughter is disqualified [Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 2:10)].
30.See Hilchot Pesulei HaMukdashim 1:18 for another application of this principle.
31.For, as stated in Chapter 1, Halachah 11, even if the windpipe is half slit because of other factors, it can be slaughtered acceptably.
32.As the Rambam states in Hilchot Teshuvah 3:9, there is a concept of an apostate with regard to one transgression, i.e., "a person who has made a fixed practice of willfully violating a certain transgression [to the extent that] he is accustomed to transgressing and his deeds are public knowledge... provided he does so with the intent of angering God."
33.Although he repeatedly violates that particular transgression, we do not assume that he will not slaughter correctly.
In his Kessef Mishneh, Rav Yosef Caro cites Chullin 4a which states that as long as if given a choice whether to eat kosher meat or non-kosher meat, the person would choose the kosher meat - even if he would partake of the non-kosher meat if kosher meat was not available - it is permitted to partake of an animal he slaughtered. The Kessef Mishneh continues, explaining that as long as one does not transgress with the intent of angering God, one may partake of an animal he slaughtered. In his Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 2:5), he rules that an apostate who transgresses with the intent of angering God resembles a gentile and his slaughter is inherently unacceptable.
Kin'at Eliyahu notes that there is some difficulty with the Kessef Mishneh's interpretation, because Hilchot Teshuvah specifically states that a person is deemed an apostate only when his transgression is performed with the intent of angering God.
34.Although we do not assume that he will definitely transgress, it is logical to presume that he will not be careful in his observance.
Although it also cites the Rambam's view, the Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 2:6) mentions the opinion of the Tur and others who rule that if the person is not an apostate with regard to partaking of non-kosher meat, it is not even necessary to check his knife. He may slaughter in private. If, however, he is an apostate with regard to partaking of non-kosher meat, his knife must be checked. Moreover, if he shows no concern for kashrut at all, his slaughter is not acceptable [Rama (Yoreh De'ah 2:50].
35.See the conclusion of Hilchot Shabbat.
36.Hilchot Teshuvah 3:8.
37.See Hilchot Edut 10:1-3.
38.In this instance, the Rambam does not even require him to have another person observe him. Since his disregard for Jewish observance is not as severe as that of an apostate, he is allowed to slaughter on his own.
39.I.e., he would not slaughter the animal in an invalid way when it would be just as easy for him to slaughter it in an acceptable way.
40.Tzadok and Beotus were two of the greatest students of Antigonus of Socho. As the Rambam states in his Commentary to the Mishnah (Avot 1:3), after they heard Antigonus teach: "Do not be as servants who serve their master for the sake of receiving a reward," they forsook Jewish practice, saying: "Is it just that we labor without receiving a reward?"
They began splinter sects with the intent of swaying the people after them. At first, they sought to abandon Jewish practice entirely. They saw, however, the people would not accept this and so they focused their complaints on the Oral Law, arguing that although the Written Law was of Divine origin, the Oral Law was not. Their intent, however, was to deny the entire Torah.
41.The Rambam appears to be saying that there is no inherent difficulty with these individuals slaughtering an animal. The only question is whether or not they slaughtered correctly. Hence, when it is possible to verify that the slaughter was performed correctly, the animal is permitted. They are not placed in the same category as apostates. Kin'at Eliyahu adds that, based on the previous halachah, these Tzadukim must also be Sabbath observant.
42.There is a difference of opinion concerning this point among the Sages (Chullin 17a). The Rambam follows Rabbi Akiva's perspective.
43.The obligation to offer as a sacrifice an animal which one desires to ritually slaughter.
44.See Chapter 2, Halachah 1.
Shechitah - Chapter 5
Halacha 1
We have already explained in Hilchot Ma'achalot Assurot1that the term trefe employed by the Torah refers to an animal that is on the verge of death. The term trefe - which literally means "torn apart" - was employed only because the Torah speaks with regard to prevalent situations, e.g., a lion or the like attacked it and wounded it, but it had not died yet.
Halacha 2
There are other maladies which if they affect an animal will cause it to be considered trefe. They were transmitted as a halachah to Moses at Sinai. [In particular,] eight [conditions that cause an animal to be considered as] trefe were transmitted to Moses at Sinai.2 They are derusah, nekuvah, chaseirah, netulah, pesukah, keru'ah, nefulah, and sheburah.3
Halacha 3
Although they were all transmitted as halachot to Moses at Sinai,4since only derusah is explicitly mentioned in the Torah,5 [our Sages] ruled more stringently with regard to it. Any questionable situation that arises with regard to derisah [causes the animal] to be forbidden. There are, by contrast, questionable situations that may arise with regard to the seven other conditions [that render an animal] trefe in which [the animal] is permitted as will be explained.6
Halacha 4
Derusah refers to a situation where a lion or the like will attack an animal and assault it with its paw or a hawk, an eagle, or the like will assault a fowl.7 [The laws of] derisah apply with regard to a large domesticated animal8 or a large wild beast only when it is attacked by a lion.9 [The laws of derisah apply with regard to] a small domesticated animal10 or a small wild beast only when it is attacked by a wolf or a larger animal. [The laws of] derisah apply with regard to kids and lambs even when attacked by cats, foxes, martens,11 and the like. Needless to say, this applies with regard to fowl.12
Halacha 5
When a hawk attacks, the laws of derisah apply even with regard to a larger fowl.13 With regard to other birds of prey the laws of derisah apply only with regard to fowl their size and not with regard to fowl which are larger than they are.14
Halacha 6
[The laws of] derisah apply [when] a weasel attacks a fowl. [The laws of] derisah do not apply at all when a dog attacks, not when it attacks a fowl, an animal, or a beast. [The laws of] derisah apply [when] an hawk attacks kids or lambs should its claws penetrate to [the animal's] inner cavity.15
Halacha 7
[The laws of] derisah apply only [when] the attacking animal [strikes its victim] with its forelegs. If it strikes it with its hindlegs,16 we show no concern.17 [Similarly, the laws of] derisah apply only [when the attacking animal strikes its victim] with its claw. If it bites it, we show no concern unless it penetrates to its internal cavity.18 We then check if it perforated one of the organs [that cause an animal to be considered trefe if] even the tiniest perforation was made.
[The laws of] derisah apply only [when] the attacking animal has that intent. If, however, the beast of prey fell and its claws became lodged in the other animal, [the laws of] derisah do not apply.19 [Similarly, the laws of] derisah apply only [when the attacking animal] is alive. If, however, it attacked and was killed, but its claws remained lodged in the victim and were not removed until after [the attacker's] death, we are not concerned.20
Halacha 8
What are the laws applying to an animal that was attacked? Whenever we stated that "we show concern," the attacked animal should be slaughtered and its entire internal cavity - from its feet to its forehead - must be checked. If it is found to be flawless with regard to all the factors [that render an animal] trefe and there is no sign that it was attacked,21 it is permitted.22 If there is a sign that it was attacked, it is trefe and forbidden by Scriptural Law.
Halacha 9
What is meant by "a sign that it was attacked"? That the flesh above the intestines turns red.23 If the flesh above the intestines decays to the extent it becomes like flesh which a doctor would scrape from a wound, we consider that flesh as if it were lacking and [rule that the animal is] trefe.24
Halacha 10
If [the predator] attacked the "signs" [which must be cut for ritual slaughter, the animal is] trefe if they turn red.25 The slightest wound [is significant]. If even the smallest portion of them becomes red because of an attack, [the animal is] trefe.26
Halacha 11
When there is a question whether [an animal] has been attacked or not, we do not permit it unless it is checked as one would [an animal] that had definitely been attacked.27
What is implied? When a lion enters among oxen and a claw was found in the back of one of them,28 we suspect that the lion attacked it. We do not rationalize and say: "Maybe it scratched itself on a wall."29
Similarly, if a fox or a marten enter among fowls, [the predator] is silent and they crowing, we fear that he attacked.30 If, however, the predator is roaring and they are crowing, [we assume that] they are crowing out of fear of him and his roaring. Similarly, if he cuts off the head of one of them,31 we assume his fury has subsided. Similarly, if both [the predator] and [the fowl] are silent, we do not suspect [anything]. For if he had harmed them, they would crow.32
Halacha 12
When there is a question of whether or not a predator entered [a place where animals are kept] or we saw [an animal] enter [such a place], but were unable to see if it is one of the predators or not, we do not harbor suspicions.33
Similarly, if a fowl entered a woods or reeds and came out with its head or neck dripping blood, we do not suspect that it was attacked. Instead, we say: "Perhaps it was wounded among the trees."34
FOOTNOTES
1.Hilchot Ma'achalot Assurot 4:8-9.
2.All the 70 conditions the Rambam mentions in Chapter 10 are included in these eight general categories.
3.These terms are defined in this and the following chapters.
4.And thus all are judged with the severity appropriate for questions of Scriptural Law.
5.Exodus 22:30 speaks of "meat torn apart in the field."
6.The Beit Yosef (Yoreh De'ah 29) questions the Rambam's statements, for since these other conditions are considered questions of Scriptural Law, whenever a doubt arises, we rule stringently. The Turei Zahav 29:1 explains that the severity involving derisah concerns a sefek seifkah, a condition of multiple doubt. See also the gloss of the Maggid Mishneh which offers several resolutions to this question.
7.As will be explained in the following halachot, the laws of derisah do not concern only the wounds to the victim's organs that the attacking animal causes. Instead, the concern is that even a superficial wound can cause the victim to die, because there is poison in the attacker's claws that will affect the victim. (Exactly, what that means in contemporary terms is difficult to understand. Some have suggested that the attacker's claws are infected with bacteria which could be considered comparable to poison. That explanation, however, cannot be easily resolved with some of the points in the subsequent halachot.)
The intent of this and the following halachah is that "the poison" of certain animals or fowl is effective in harming some and not in harming others.
8.An ox.
9.If, however, it is attacked by smaller animals of prey, even a tiger, we assume that its strength will enable it to defend itself (Kessef Mishneh). The Rama (Yoreh De'ah 57:1) follows a more stringent opinion which rules that the laws of derisah apply when any predator larger than a wolf attacks a large animal.
10.A sheep or a goat.
11.We have quoted the definition of this term given by Rashi. In his Commentary to the Mishnah (Bava Batra 2:5), the Rambam defines the term in Arabic as alnamas, a small predator.
12.See Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 57:5) which discusses the question whether leniency can be granted when a cat enters a chicken coop.
13.For it can harm fowl larger than itself.
The Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 57:3) qualifies this matter, saying that these laws do not apply when a hawk attacks a chicken. The Tur and the Rama, however, state that this applies only to large chickens, but not to smaller ones.
14.Here also, the Tur and the Rama (loc. cit.) add a further point, stating that the laws of derisah apply with regard to a falcon regardless of the size of the bird it attacks.
15.Compare to the following halachah. The Kessef Mishneh explains that in this halachah, the Rambam is not concerned with the question of whether the attacker perforated one of the organs whose perforation disqualifies an animal. For if so, it would not have been necessary for the Rambam to mention derisah. If such an organ was perforated, even a large animal is disqualified. Instead, the intent is whether the "poison" of the attacker is sufficient to kill the victim.
16.This refers to a beast. The laws of derisah apply, by contrast, when a fowl attacks with its feet (Turei Zahav 57:10; Siftei Cohen 57:19).
17.Needless to say, if it delivers a mortal wound with its hindlegs, the victim is disqualified. Here, however, we are speaking about "poisoning" an animal through derisah and that applies only when it attacks with its foreleg and with its claws [Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 57:6)].
18.With regard to this and wounding with its legs, the Shulchan Aruch (loc. cit.) states, "they are no different than a thorn," i.e., there is no question of "poison."
19.For then it will not release its poison.
20.For it releases its "poison" only when it withdraws its claws and only when it is alive.
For this same reason, if ritual slaughter is performed on the animal that is being attacked before the attacking animal removes its claws, the slaughtered animal is permitted [Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 57:8)].
21.As explained in the following halachah.
22.The Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 57:18) mentions a difference of opinion among the Rabbis if such an examination can be relied upon in the present age. The Rama rules that we should be stringent, not rely on the examination, and hence, declare any animal that was attacked - or there is a question whether it was attacked - forbidden.
23.In his Kessef Mishneh, Rav Yosef Caro explains that the fact that the flesh turns red indicates that the poison from the predator has penetrated the animal's flesh and will ultimately, cause the intestines to be perforated. The Kessef Mishneh questions, however, why the Rambam mentions only the intestines. Since - as mentioned in the previous halachah - it is necessary to inspect the entire body, seemingly (and indeed, the Tur rules accordingly), the same laws would apply if red marks were found on the flesh above any organ whose perforation can disqualify the animal. He explains that perhaps this is indeed the Rambam's intent and he mentions the intestines only because there are many disqualifying factors involved with them. Nevertheless, in his Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 57:16), he quotes the Rambam's wording without emendation. The Siftei Cohen 57:38) quotes the Tur's ruling.
24.Here also we assume that the poison will ultimately cause the organ below the flesh to become perforated (Kessef Mishneh).
25.Here too the rationale is that once the poison has begun to have an effect, it will ultimately penetrate through and perforate the entire organ. There is, however, a difference between the signs and the other organs. With regard to the other organs, as soon as the flesh above the organ is affected, the animal is considered trefe. With regard to the signs, they themselves must be affected. It is possible to explain that the signs are tougher and more resilient than the other organs. Hence, the fact that the flesh above them is affected is no proof that they will also be affected (Kessef Mishneh).
26.This applies even when a small portion of the windpipe becomes red. Although a perforation in the windpipe does not disqualify it unless it is the size of the majority of its cavity (Chapter 3, Halachah 23), we assume that the poison of the predator will ultimately cause such a perforation (Siftei Cohen 57:40).
27.As mentioned in Halachah 8. As stated in the notes to that halachah, there are authorities - and this is the custom cited by the Rama - it is customary in the present era not to rely on this examination and to regard any animal that was attacked - or even if there is a doubt whether it was attacked - as trefe.
28.An animal does not release its poison until the claw is removed (Halachah 7), and is this instance, it is implanted in the animal. We, nevertheless, disqualify it, for in this instance, we say that the animal released its poison when it lost its claw (Turei Zahav 57:21). Alternatively, we fear that it was also attacked with another claw and that claw was removed (Rambam LeAm).
29.And the claw which had been implanted in the wall became stuck in it. The Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 57:14) emphasizes that this ruling is followed even if the claw is dried out (and thus is unlikely to have come from an animal recently).
30.And that is why they are clamoring.
31.The Rama 57:9 states that this applies when we do not see that he attacked others. If, however, we see that he attacked others, we do not assume that his rage subsided.
32.The Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 57:11) states that this applies only when we see that he did not attack any animals. If, however, we saw an attack, the fact that he and the victims were silent is not significant.
33.For there is a multiple doubt involved. Perhaps the predator entered and perhaps it did not. Even if it entered, perhaps it wounded the animal and perhaps it did not (see Chullin 53b).
34.I.e., it scratched itself and caused itself a wound. We must, however, check to see that the gullet was not perforated (Radbaz). The Rama (Yoreh De'ah 57:13) states in the present age we do not rely on our inspection and therefore forbid any fowl that comes to us with a neck that is bleeding.
-------
Hayom Yom:
• Sunday, Nissan 20, 5774 • 20 April 2014
"Today's Day"
Sunday, Nissan 20, 5th day of the omer, 5703
Torah lessons: Chumash: Acharei Mot, first parsha with Rashi.
Tehillim: 97-103.
Tanya: This capacity (p. 219)...as is explained there. (p. 219).
One Pesach, Reb Chayim Avraham (the Alter Rebbe's son) went to his brother (the Mitteler Rebbe) to wish him gut yom-tov. Reb Chayim Avraham related on that occasion that the Alter Rebbe had said, "On Pesach one does not offer a guest food and drink, but the guest may help himself."1
FOOTNOTES
1. Since many people have personal stringencies on Pesach they decline to eat outside their own homes. Offering food might prove awkward or embarrassing.
-------
Daily Thought:
From Beyond, With Love A miracle is what occurs when a force from beyond the finite cosmos enters within. That is why to see a miracle, you need an open heart and mind. Open enough to receive the Infinite.
-------
No comments:
Post a Comment