CHABAD: Today in Judaism - TODAY IS: THURSDAY, NISSAN 17, 5774 • APRIL 17, 2014 - PASSOVER (CHOL HAMOED) • OMER: DAY TWO - GEVURAH SHEB'CHESSED
TODAY'S LAWS & CUSTOMS:
• 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.
• PASSOVER TORAH READINGS
Click here for a summary of the Passover Torah readings.
• COUNT "THREE DAYS TO THE OMER" TONIGHT
Tomorrow is the third 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 three 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: Tifferet sheb'Chessed -- "Harmony 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
TODAY IN JEWISH HISTORY:
• PASSING OF THE MAHARIN (1883)
Rabbi Yisrael Noach, son of the third Chabad Rebbe, Rabbi Menachem Mendel of Lubavitch, headed the yeshivah in Lubavitch during his father’s lifetime. He was known for his great humility and the many hours he would spend praying with intense emotions and concentration. Known as the "Maharin from Niezhen," he was one of Rabbi Menachem Mendel’s consultants in matters of Jewish thought, and Rabbi Menachem Mendel would delegate to him many of the questions he would receive.
Following his father's passing in 1866, he relocated to Niezhen where he served as a chassidic master.
He was interred in Niezhen next to his illustrious grandfather, the second Chabad Rebbe, Rabbi DovBer of Lubavitch.
DAILY QUOTE:
Who looks at the earth and it quakes; Who touches mountains and they smoke--Psalms 104:32
DAILY STUDY:
CHITAS AND RAMBAM FOR TODAY:
Chumash: Kedoshim, 5th Portion Leviticus 20:1-20:7 with Rashi
• Chapter 20
1. And the Lord spoke to Moses, saying, א. וַיְדַבֵּר יְהוָֹה אֶל משֶׁה לֵּאמֹר:
2. And to the children of Israel, you shall say: Any man of the children of Israel or of the strangers who sojourn among Israel, who gives any of his offspring to Molech, shall surely be put to death; the people of the land shall pelt him with stones. ב. וְאֶל בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל תֹּאמַר אִישׁ אִישׁ מִבְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל וּמִן הַגֵּר | הַגָּר בְּיִשְׂרָאֵל אֲשֶׁר יִתֵּן מִזַּרְעוֹ לַמֹּלֶךְ מוֹת יוּמָת עַם הָאָרֶץ יִרְגְּמֻהוּ בָאָבֶן:
And to the children of Israel, you shall say: [i.e., enumerate the following] punishments for the warnings [that were given in chapter 18.].
ואל בני ישראל תאמר: עונשין על האזהרות:
shall surely be put to death: By the court. And if the court is not [physically] powerful [enough to kill him by themselves], “the people of the land” must assist them. — [Torath Kohanim 20:91]
מות יומת: בבית דין, ואם אין כח לבית דין עם הארץ מסייעין אותן:
the people of the land: עַם הָאָרֶץ. [This may be rendered either: “the people of the earth” or “ the people of the land,” as follows:] The people for whose sake the earth was created, the people who are destined to possess the Land [of Israel], through [the observance of] these commandments. — [Torath Kohanim 20:91]
עם הארץ: עם שבגינו נבראת הארץ. דבר אחר עם שעתידין לירש את הארץ ע"י מצות הללו:
3. And I will set My attention upon that man, and I will cut him off from amidst his people, because he gave of his offspring to Molech in order to defile My holy ones and to profane My holy Name. ג. וַאֲנִי אֶתֵּן אֶת פָּנַי בָּאִישׁ הַהוּא וְהִכְרַתִּי אֹתוֹ מִקֶּרֶב עַמּוֹ כִּי מִזַּרְעוֹ נָתַן לַמֹּלֶךְ לְמַעַן טַמֵּא אֶת מִקְדָּשִׁי וּלְחַלֵּל אֶת שֵׁם קָדְשִׁי:
And I will set my attention: Heb., פָּנַי, i.e., My leisure (פְּנַאי). I will turn aside (פּוֹנֶה) from all My affairs and occupy Myself with him. — [Torath Kohanim 20:92]
אתן את פני: פנאי שלי, פונה אני מכל עסקי ועוסק בו:
[that] man: But not the [whole] community. — [Torath Kohanim 20:92] [I.e., if the entire community give their offspring over to Molech, they are not punished with excision,] because the entire community are not to be cut off.
באיש: ולא בצבור, שאין כל הצבור נכרתין:
because he gave of his offspring to Molech: [Are not this phrase here, and the phrase in the next verse, “when he gives of his offspring to Molech” superfluous? However,] since Scripture says, “[There shall not be found among you] anyone who passes his son or daughter through fire” (Deut. 18:10), how do we know [that the law applies as well to] his son’s son or his daughter’s son? Scripture, therefore, says, “because he gave of his offspring to Molech.” And how do we know that the law applies even to one’s illegitimate offspring [i.e., one produced from a halachically illegitimate union]? Scripture. therefore says (in the next verse),“when he gives of his offspring to Molech” [to include even his illegitimate offspring]. — [Torath Kohanim 20:93; Sanh. 64b]
כי מזרעו נתן למלך: לפי שנאמר מעביר בנו ובתו באש (דברים יח י), בן בנו ובן בתו מנין, תלמוד לומר כי מזרעו נתן למולך. זרע פסול מנין, תלמוד לומר בתתו מזרעו למולך:
In order to defile My holy ones: Heb. מִקְדָּשִׁי. [This is] the congregation of Israel, which is sanctified to Me. [This reference to Israel as מִקְדָּשִׁי, what is sanctified to Me, is] reminiscent of the expression [referring to the holy sacrifices], “he shall not desecrate My holy things (מִקְדָּשַׁי) ” (Lev. 21:23).
למען טמא את מקדשי: את כנסת ישראל, שהיא מקודשת לי, כלשון (ויקרא כא כג) ולא יחלל את מקדשי:
4. But if the people of the land ignore that man when he gives of his offspring to Molech, not putting him to death ד. וְאִם הַעְלֵם יַעְלִימוּ עַם הָאָרֶץ אֶת עֵינֵיהֶם מִן הָאִישׁ הַהוּא בְּתִתּוֹ מִזַּרְעוֹ לַמֹּלֶךְ לְבִלְתִּי הָמִית אֹתוֹ:
But if [the people of the land] ignore [that man]: Heb. הַעְלֵם יַעְלִימוּ. [The double expression intimates that] if they ignore one matter [i.e., even one sin], they will eventually ignore many matters, and if the Small Sanhedrin [of twenty-three judges] ignores the matter, eventually the Great Sanhedrin [of seventy-one judges, in Jerusalem,] will ignore the matter. — [Torath Kohanim 20:94]
ואם העלם יעלימו: אם העלימו בדבר אחד, סוף שיעלימו בדברים הרבה. אם העלימו סנהדרי קטנה, סוף שיעלימו סנהדרי גדולה:
5. I will set My attention upon that man, and upon his family, and I will cut him off, and all who stray after him to stray after Molech, from amidst their people. ה. וְשַׂמְתִּי אֲנִי אֶת פָּנַי בָּאִישׁ הַהוּא וּבְמִשְׁפַּחְתּוֹ וְהִכְרַתִּי אֹתוֹ וְאֵת | כָּל הַזֹּנִים אַחֲרָיו לִזְנוֹת אַחֲרֵי הַמֹּלֶךְ מִקֶּרֶב עַמָּם:
and upon his family: Rabbi Shimon says: [In] what [way] did the family sin [that they are punished]? However, this teaches you that there is no family in which there is an [unfair] tax collector which may not [be regarded as consisting] entirely of tax collectors, for they all cover up for him. — [Torath Kohanim 20:95; Shev. 39a]
ובמשפחתו: אמר ר' שמעון וכי משפחה מה חטאה, אלא ללמדך שאין לך משפחה שיש בה מוכס שאין כולם מוכסין, שכולם מחפין עליו:
and I will cut him off: Why is this stated? Because since Scripture says, “[I will set My attention upon that man] and upon his family,” one might think that his entire family is included in [the punishment of] excision. Scripture, therefore, says, “[I will cut] him [off]”-that man is to be excised [from the people of Israel], but the entire family is not included in excision, but with suffering. — [Torath Kohanim 20:96]
והכרתי אתו: למה נאמר, לפי שנאמר ובמשפחתו, יכול יהיו כל המשפחה בהכרת, תלמוד לומר אותו. אותו בהכרת ולא כל המשפחה בהכרת, אלא ביסורין:
to stray after Molech: [This phrase comes to] include [in this penalty] any other pagan deity that one worshipped in this manner, even though it is not its mode of worship. — [Sanh. 64b]
לזנות אחרי המלך: לרבות שאר עבודה זרה שעבדה בכך, ואפילו אין זו עבודתה:
6. And the person who turns to Ov or Yid'oni, to stray after them I will set My attention upon that person, and I will cut him off from amidst his people. ו. וְהַנֶּפֶשׁ אֲשֶׁר תִּפְנֶה אֶל הָאֹבֹת וְאֶל הַיִּדְּעֹנִים לִזְנֹת אַחֲרֵיהֶם וְנָתַתִּי אֶת פָּנַי בַּנֶּפֶשׁ הַהִוא וְהִכְרַתִּי אֹתוֹ מִקֶּרֶב עַמּוֹ:
7. You shall sanctify yourselves and be holy, for I am the Lord, your God. ז. וְהִתְקַדִּשְׁתֶּם וִהְיִיתֶם קְדשִׁים כִּי אֲנִי יְהוָֹה אֱלֹהֵיכֶם:
You shall sanctify yourselves: This [refers to] separation from idolatry. — [Torath Kohanim 20:100]
והתקדשתם: זו פרישות עבודה זרה:
-------
Tehillim: Psalms Chapters 83 - 87
• Chapter 83
A prayer regarding the wars against Israel in the days of Jehoshaphat, when the nations plotted against Israel.
1. A song, a psalm by Asaph.
2. O God, do not be silent; do not be quiet and do not be still, O God.
3. For behold, Your enemies are in uproar, and those who hate You have raised their head.
4. They plot deviously against Your nation, and conspire against those sheltered by You.
5. They say, "Come, let us sever them from nationhood, and the name of Israel will be remembered no more.”
6. For they conspire with a unanimous heart, they made a covenant against You-
7. the tents of Edom and the Ishmaelites, Moab and the Hagrites,
8. Geval and Ammon, and Amalek; Philistia with the inhabitants of Tyre.
9. Assyria, too, joined with them, and became the strength of the sons of Lot, Selah.
10. Do to them as to Midian; as to Sisera and Yavin at the brook of Kishon,
11. who were destroyed at Ein Dor, and were as dung for the earth.
12. Make their nobles like Orev and Ze'ev, all their princes like Zevach and Tzalmuna,1
13. who said, "Let us inherit the dwellings of God for ourselves.”
14. My God, make them like whirling chaff, like straw before the wind.
15. As a fire consumes the forest, and a flame sets the mountains ablaze,
16. so pursue them with Your tempest and terrify them with Your storm.
17. Fill their faces with shame, and they will seek Your Name, O Lord.
18. Let them be shamed and terrified forever; let them be disgraced and perish.
19. And they will know that You, Whose Name is the Lord, are alone, Most High over all the earth.
Chapter 84
In this psalm of prayers and entreaties, the psalmist mourns bitterly over the destruction of Temple from the depths of his heart, and speaks of the many blessings that will be realized upon its restoration. Fortunate is the one who trusts it will be rebuilt, and does not despair in the face of this long exile.
1. For the Conductor, on the gittit,1 a psalm by the sons of Korach.
2. How beloved are Your dwellings, O Lord of Hosts!
3. My soul yearns, indeed it pines, for the courtyards of the Lord; my heart and my flesh [long to] sing to the living God.
4. Even the bird has found a home, and the swallow a nest for herself, where she lays her young on the [ruins of] Your altars, O Lord of Hosts, my King and my God.
5. Fortunate are those who dwell in Your House; they will yet praise You forever.
6. Fortunate is the man whose strength is in You; the paths [to the Temple] are in his heart.
7. For those who pass through the Valley of Thorns, He places wellsprings; their guide will be cloaked in blessings.2
8. They go from strength to strength; they will appear before God in Zion.
9. O Lord, God of Hosts, hear my prayer; listen, O God of Jacob, forever.
10. See our shield,3 O God, and look upon the face of Your anointed one.
11. For better one day in Your courtyards than a thousand [elsewhere]. I would rather stand at the threshold of the house of my God, than dwell [in comfort] in the tents of wickedness.
12. For the Lord, God, is a sun and a shield; the Lord bestows favor and glory; He does not withhold goodness from those who walk in innocence.
13. O Lord of Hosts! Fortunate is the man who trusts in You.
Chapter 85
In this prayer, lamenting the long and bitter exile, the psalmist asks why this exile is longer than the previous ones, and implores God to quickly fulfill His promise to redeem us. Every individual should offer this psalm when in distress.
1. For the Conductor, a psalm by the sons of Korach.
2. O Lord, You favored Your land; You returned the captives of Jacob.
3. You forgave the iniquity of Your people, and covered all their sin forever.
4. You withdrew all Your fury, and retreated from Your fierce anger.
5. Return us, O God of our salvation, and annul Your anger toward us.
6. Will You forever be angry with us? Will You draw out Your anger over all generations?
7. Is it not true that You will revive us again, and Your people will rejoice in You?
8. Show us Your kindness, O Lord, and grant us Your deliverance.
9. I hear what the Almighty Lord will say; for He speaks peace to His nation and to His pious ones, and they will not return to folly.
10. Indeed, His deliverance is near those who fear Him, that [His] glory may dwell in the land.
11. Kindness and truth have met; righteousness and peace have kissed.
12. Truth will sprout from the earth, and righteousness will peer from heaven.
13. The Lord, too, will bestow goodness, and our land will yield its produce.
14. Righteousness shall walk before him, and he shall set his footsteps in [its] path.
Chapter 86
This psalm contains many prayers regarding David's troubles, and his enemies Doeg and Achitophel. It also includes many descriptions of God's praise. Every individual can offer this psalm when in distress.
1. A prayer by David. Lord, turn Your ear, answer me, for I am poor and needy.
2. Guard my soul, for I am pious; You, my God, deliver Your servant who trusts in You.
3. Be gracious to me, my Lord, for to You I call all day.
4. Bring joy to the soul of Your servant, for to You, my Lord, I lift my soul.
5. For You, my Lord, are good and forgiving, and exceedingly kind to all who call upon You.
6. Lord, hear my prayer and listen to the voice of my supplications.
7. On the day of my distress I call upon You, for You will answer me.
8. There is none like You among the supernal beings, my Lord, and there are no deeds like Yours.
9. All the nations that You have made will come and bow down before You, my Lord, and give honor to Your Name,
10. for You are great and perform wonders, You alone, O God.
11. Lord, teach me Your way that I may walk in Your truth; unify my heart to fear Your Name.
12. I will praise You, my Lord, my God, with all my heart, and give honor to Your Name forever.
13. For Your kindness to me has been great; You have saved my soul from the depth of the grave.
14. O God, malicious men have risen against me; a band of ruthless men has sought my soul; they are not mindful of You.
15. But You, my Lord, are a compassionate and gracious God, slow to anger and abounding in kindness and truth.
16. Turn to me and be gracious to me; grant Your strength to Your servant, and deliver the son of Your maidservant.
17. Show me a sign of favor, that my foes may see and be shamed, because You, Lord, have given me aid and consoled me.
Chapter 87
Composed to be sung in the Holy Temple, this psalm praises the glory of Jerusalem, a city that produces many great scholars, eminent personalities, and persons of good deeds. It also speaks of the good that will occur in the Messianic era.
1. By the sons of Korach, a psalm, a song devoted to the holy mountains [of Zion and Jerusalem].
2. The Lord loves the gates of Zion more than all the dwelling places of Jacob.
3. Glorious things are spoken of you, eternal city of God.
4. I will remind Rahav Egypt and Babylon concerning My beloved; Philistia and Tyre as well as Ethiopia, "This one was born there.”
5. And to Zion will be said, "This person and that was born there"; and He, the Most High, will establish it.
6. The Lord will count in the register of people, "This one was born there," Selah.
7. Singers as well as dancers [will sing your praise and say], "All my inner thoughts are of you."
-------
Tanya: Likutei Amarim, middle of Chapter 41
• Lessons in Tanya
• Today's Tanya Lesson
Thursday, Nissan 17, 5774 • April 17, 2014
Likutei Amarim, middle of Chapter 41
והנה בהכנה זו של מסירת נפשו לה׳
With this preparedness to surrender his soul to G d, i.e., through engaging in Torah and prayer in the same spirit in which a man surrenders his soul to G d before his demise,
יתחיל ברכות השחר: ברוך אתה כו׳
one should begin to recite the morning benedictions: “Blessed are You...,” and so on, these benedictions being the beginning of one’s prayers.
וכן בהכנה זו יתחיל ללמוד שיעור קבוע מיד אחר התפלה
Similarly, with this preparedness one should also begin a regular course of study immediately after prayer.
In the words of the Sages, “From the House of Prayer (lit., ‘the House of Assembly’) to the House of Study.” As with prayer, this regular study session should also be preceded by the resolve to surrender one’s soul wholly to G d.
וכן באמצע היום קודם שיתחיל ללמוד, צריכה הכנה זו לפחות
So also, in the course of the day, before one begins to study, such preparation at least is necessary,
כנודע שעיקר ההכנה לשמה לעכב, הוא בתחלת הלימוד בבינונים
as is known, that in the case of Beinonim, the essential preparation and intent “for its own sake,” where it is indispensable, is before the beginning of study.
וכמו בגט וספר תורה שצריכים לשמה לעכב
This is the same as in the case of [writing] a bill of divorce or a scroll of the Torah, where “for their own sake” is an indispensable requirement, and should this intention be lacking they are invalid,
ודיו שיאמר בתחלת הכתיבה: הריני כותב לשם קדושת ספר תורה או לשמו ולשמה כו׳
and it is sufficient if at the commencement of writing a Torah scroll [the scribe] says: “I am now about to write for the sacred purpose of the scroll of the Torah,” or in the case of a bill of divorce, “For him and for her,” and so on.
Similarly, it is sufficient for a Beinoni to have the intention of “for its own sake” at the beginning of his study.
וכשלומד שעות הרבה רצופות, יש לו להתבונן בהכנה זו הנ״ל בכל שעה ושעה על כל פנים
And when he studies for a number of consecutive hours he should reflect on the preparedness referred to above, at least at hourly intervals.
כי בכל שעה ושעה היא המשכה אחרת מעולמות עליונים להחיות התחתונים, והמשכת החיות שבשעה שלפניה חוזרת למקורה
For in each hour there is a different flow from the higher worlds to animate those who dwell here below, while the flow of vitality from on high of the previous hour returns to its source,
בסוד רצוא ושוב שבספר יצירה
(in accordance with the esoteric principle of “Advancing and Retreating” expounded in Sefer Yetzirah),
As the divine life-force animates the world, alternately “Advancing and Retreating,” it is first drawn down into this world, and then it returns to its source in the higher spiritual worlds. Each hour, then, the creative life-force of the previous hour returns to its source,
עם כל התורה ומעשים טובים של התחתונים
together with all the Torah and good deeds of those who dwell here below.
כי בכל שעה שולט צירוף אחד מי״ב צירופי שם ה׳ ברוך הוא בי״ב שעות היום, וצרופי שם אדנ״י בלילה, כנודע
For in each of the twelve hours of the day, there rules one of the twelve combinations of [the letters that form] the Four-Letter Name of G d,1 while the combinations of [the letters that comprise] the Divine Name A-D-N-Y rule at night, as is known.
FOOTNOTES
1. The Tetragrammaton is composed of the four letters: yud and hei, vav and another hei. Since two of the letters are similar, we are left with three different letters, which can form a total of twelve combinations — or so it would seem.
The Rebbe notes, however, that first of all, the Name A-D-N-Y consists of four different letters, providing for a total of twenty-four permutations (while only twelve of them predominate during the twelve hours of the night). Secondly, the two letters hei in the Tetragrammaton have significantly different spiritual connotations. Thus this Divine Name, too, is able to form twenty-four different (spiritual) permutations.
The Rebbe therefore explains that the Alter Rebbe is saying here that twelve of the twenty-four possible combinations of the Tetragrammaton rule during the twelve hours of the day (while the other twelve have no connection at all to time). The same principle applies to the twelve stitches in the tefillin of the hand, which according to the Mishnat Chassidim correspond to twelve combinations of A-D-N-Y. There, too, twelve of the possible twenty-four combinations are related to these stitches, while the other twelve are not related to the tefillin at all.
At any rate, twelve of the permutations of the Tetragrammaton rule during the twelve hours of the day, and twelve combinations of the Name A-D-N-Y rule during the twelve hours of the night.
-------
Rambam:
• Daily Mitzvah - Sefer Hamitzvos:
Nissan 17, 5774 • April 17, 2014
Today's Mitzvah
A daily digest of Maimonides’ classic work "Sefer Hamitzvot"
Negative Commandment 181
The Injured Animal
"You shall not eat any meat that is torn in the field"—Exodus 22:30.
It is forbidden to consume the flesh of an animal that has been attacked by another animal and sustained life-threatening injuries, or an animal that has sustained such injuries in another manner, even if it has been ritually slaughtered.
The fact that the Torah employs the words "in the field" when issuing this prohibition teaches us that certain other meats that have "left their natural borders" are also forbidden. This includes flesh of a sacrifice that has left its confines (e.g., the flesh of a "holy of holies" sacrifice that left the Temple Courtyard), and the fetus that has extended an arm [or leg outside his mother's womb and then its mother was slaughtered before it was born—this limb is forever forbidden for consumption].
This prohibition also includes any flesh torn from a living animal.
The Injured Animal
Negative Commandment 181
Translated by Berel Bell
The 181st prohibition is that we are forbidden from eating [meat from] an animal which is treifa.
The source of this prohibition is G‑d's statement,1 "Do not eat flesh torn off (treifa) in the field."
The simple meaning of this verse2 is as explained in the Mechilta, "The verse just speaks of the most common case, [a field being] the place where most animals are torn."
But in the Oral Tradition3 has an additional explanation of this verse: "Flesh in the field is treifa, therefore do not eat it." This means that once the flesh is moved outside its proper place, it is considered to be treifa. Examples of this are meat from kodshei kodshim which was taken outside the Temple courtyard; or meat from kodshim kalim which was taken outside the wall [of Yerushalayim]; or meat from the Pesach offering which was taken away from where its group was; or if a fetus stuck its hand out [of the womb], as explained in the fourth chapter of Chulin. In all these cases the meat is called treifa, and one who eats a kezayis of their flesh receives lashes by Torah law.
Flesh which was taken from a live animal is also considered to be treifa, and one who eats it is punished by lashes. Our Sages said in Gemara Chulin,4 "The verse, 'Do not eat flesh torn off (treifa) in the field,' refers to flesh from a live animal and flesh from a treifa.
This mitzvah, as well as the previous one [regarding neveilah], is repeated with regard to kohanim. This is in G‑d's statement to the kohanim,5 "He shall not eat a neveilah or a treifa, since it will defile him." The reason for the repetition is because they are commanded to eat from a bird which was brought as a sin offering, which is prepared with melikah.6 Melikah, when performed on a non-sanctified bird is undoubtedly neveilah, not valid slaughter. We might think that therefore they are permitted to eat even non-sanctified animals prepared through melikah, as well as any other invalid slaughter. Therefore [the verse] explains that they are included among all other Jews regarding the prohibition of eating neveilah and treifa. This is the explanation given by our Sages, in addition to another law derived from this verse, which we don't need to discuss in the present work.
However, a beheimah or chaya which develops one of the invalidating conditions (treifos) which are derived through the principles of Torah interpretation may not be eaten even if it is slaughtered properly. One who slaughters it in a kosher manner and eats from its flesh receives lashes by Rabbinic decree. The various types of treifos are explained in the third chapter of Chulin. The nine7 previous mitzvos are explained in that same chapter, as well as the last chapter of Makos and the first chapter of B'choros.
FOOTNOTES
1.Ex. 22:30.
2.Particularly why it mentions a field.
3.Chulin 68a.
4.102b.
5.Lev. 22:8.
6.Cutting through the back of the neck with a thumbnail. See N112.
7.N172-N181.
________________________________________
Negative Commandment 182
The Limb of a Living Animal
"And you may not eat the life with the meat"—Deuteronomy 12:23.
It is forbidden to eat a complete limb removed from a living animal.
The Limb of a Living Animal
Negative Commandment 182
Translated by Berel Bell
The 182nd prohibition is that we are forbidden from eating the limb of a living animal. This applies when the limb was cut from the animal while it was still alive, and one eats a kezayis from the limb as it was in its original form.1 Even if there was only a minute amount of actual flesh, one who eats [a kezayis] is punished by lashes.
The source of this prohibition is G‑d's statement,2 "Do not eat flesh with life in it."
The Sifri says, "The verse, 'Do not eat flesh with life in it,' refers to the limb of a live animal. The same explanation is given in Gemara Chulin,3 where our Sages said, "One who eats the limb of a live animal and the flesh of a live animal receives two sets of lashes." This is because there are two prohibitions: the first being the prohibition regarding a limb, "Do not eat flesh with life in it," and the second, the prohibition of eating the flesh of a live animal, "Do not eat flesh torn off (treifa) in the field," as explained previously.4
This same prohibition is repeated in other words in G‑d's statement5 to Noah prohibiting the limb of a live animal, "But you may not eat flesh of a creature that is still alive."
FOOTNOTES
1.I.e. including the bones, sinews, etc. In most mitzvos, the Biblical prohibition is transgressed only when a kezayis of the flesh is eaten, excluding bones, etc. Here, since the limb is complete, everything is included in the kezayis.
2.Deut. 12:23.
3.102b.
4.N181.
5.Gen. 9:4.
________________________________________
Negative Commandment 184
Consuming Blood
"You shall not eat any blood"—Leviticus 7:26.
It is forbidden to consume [a kosher mammal or bird's] blood. This prohibition is repeated several times in the Torah.
Consuming Blood
Negative Commandment 184
Translated by Berel Bell
The 184th prohibition is that we are forbidden from eating blood.
The source of this prohibition is G‑d's statement,1 "Do not eat any blood." This prohibition is repeated in Torah many times. It explains that one who transgresses intentionally receives kares, as it is written,2 "Whoever eats it shall receive kares." If it was transgressed accidentally, the person must bring a chatos offering.3
The details of this mitzvah are explained in the fifth chapter of tractate Krisus.
FOOTNOTES
1.Lev. 7:26.
2.Ibid. 17:14
3.See P69.
________________________________________
Negative Commandment 185
Forbidden Fats
"You shall eat no fat of an ox, sheep, or goat"—Leviticus 7:23.
It is forbidden to consume [certain] fats [that were offered on the Temple Altar] of kosher domesticated animals.
Forbidden Fats
Negative Commandment 185
Translated by Berel Bell
The 185th prohibition is that we are forbidden from eating the fats of a kosher animal.1
The source of this prohibition is G‑d's statement,2 "Do not eat any of the hard fat in an ox, sheep or goat."
This prohibition is also repeated and the punishment of kares explicitly stated.3 This applies if he transgressed intentionally, but it was accidental, he must bring a chatos offering.
The details of this mitzvah are explained in the 7th chapter of tractate Chulin.
FOOTNOTES
1.The fat of a nonkosher animal is already forbidden just as the flesh is.
2.Lev. 7:23.
3.Ibid. 7:25.
________________________________________
Negative Commandment 183
The Sciatic Nerve
"Therefore the children of Israel shall not eat the sciatic nerve"—Genesis 32:33.
It is forbidden to consume an animal's sciatic nerve.
The Sciatic Nerve
Negative Commandment 183
Translated by Berel Bell
The 183rd prohibition is that we are forbidden from eating the sciatic nerve (gid ha'nasheh).
The source of this prohibition is G‑d's statement,1 "The Jewish people therefore do not eat the sciatic nerve to this very day."
One who eats the entire nerve, even if it is minute in size, or one who eats a kezayis [even if it is not the entire nerve] receives lashes.
FOOTNOTES
1.Gen. 32:33.
________________________________________
Rambam:• 1 Chapter: Rotseah uShmirat Nefesh Rotseah uShmirat Nefesh - Chapter Three
Rotseah uShmirat Nefesh - Chapter Three
Halacha 1
The following rule applies when a person strikes a colleague intentionally with a stone or a piece of wood and causes his death. We assess the object with which he was struck, and the place where he was struck, and determine whether or not it is likely that such an article would cause death when used to give a blow in such a place.
This is implied by Numbers 35:17-18, which states: "If he struck him with a fist-sized stone that could cause death... or if he struck him with a fist-sized wooden article that could cause death." "That could cause death" teaches that the murder weapon must be such that would likely cause him to die.
Striking a person on his heart cannot be compared to striking him on his thigh.
Halacha 2
Since the verse states "That could cause death," this phrase also implies that we assess the place where the victim was struck.
Just as we assess the object with which he was struck, and the place where he was struck, we also assess the force of the blow. This is implied by the phrase (Ibid.): "a fist-sized stone," from which we infer that we evaluate the force of the hand. For one cannot compare a person who throws a stone at his colleague from a distance of two cubits to one who throws a stone from a distance of ten cubits. At ten cubits, the stone will have more force. Nor can one compare a person who throws a stone at his colleague from a distance of ten cubits to one who throws a stone from a distance of 100 cubits. For over an extended distance, the force of the blow will be diminished.
Halacha 3
Similarly, the blow itself and the power of the killer and the victim should be assessed: Is he large or small? Is he strong or weak? Is he healthy or sickly? These and all similar questions should be investigated. This is all implied by the phrase: "That could cause death." It teaches that all the factors involved in the person's death should be assessed.
Halacha 4
The Torah did not mention a minimum size with regard to an iron object, as Numbers 35:16 states: "If he struck him with an iron utensil and he dies, he is a murderer." This applies even to a needle, provided the object is pointed like a needle, a spit, a knife or the like.
If, however, a person strikes a colleague with a hunk of metal or the like, we evaluate the blow as we would evaluate it if it had been dealt with a piece of wood or a stone.
Halacha 5
When a person strikes a colleague without an object and kills him - e.g., he strikes him with his hand or foot or butts him with his head and kills him - we should assess the force of the blow, the strength of the victim and the place where the blow was given. One cannot compare a person poking at a colleague with his finger to one who kicks his colleague with all his strength. Nor can one compare a blow given on the heart to a blow given in the groin. Nor can one compare a weak person who strikes a healthy, strong person to a healthy, strong person who strikes a weak or sickly person.
Halacha 6
What is the source that teaches that an assessment must be made in such an instance? Numbers 35:21 states: "Or if he maliciously strikes him with his hand and he dies, the one who strikes him shall certainly die." Although it mentions "with his hand," the verse also states that the blow must be given "maliciously." Implied is that we assess the force of the blow.
Halacha 7
Similarly, when a person pushes a colleague from a rooftop, causing him to fall and die, we assess the height of the place from which he pushed him and the strength of the person who was pushed. For an infant who fell cannot be compared to an adult who fell.
What is the source that teaches that we must assess the height from which the victim fell? Numbers 35:20 states: "If he pushes him down with hatred."
It appears to me that any place that is not more than ten handbreadths high is not considered of sufficient height to kill, as explained with regard to an animal that fell into a cistern.
Halacha 8
The same laws apply if a person strikes a colleague with a stone, a block of wood, a clod of earth, a block of salt or sulfur, or a basket full of dust or pebbles, or even if he strikes him with a cake of dried figs. This is implied by the phrase "That could cause death" - i.e., anything that may cause death. And it is the weight of the object that makes it fit to cause death.
Halacha 9
When a person pushes a colleague into water or into a fire, an assessment should be made. If the person could ascend, the one who pushed him is not liable for execution. If he could not ascend, the one who pushed him is liable.
Similarly, if one held a colleague in water or in fire until he did not have any strength to ascend, and the colleague died, the one who held him is liable, even if he did not push him there at the outset.
Similarly, a person is liable for execution in all of the following instances: he held his hand over a colleague's mouth and nose until he left him in his death throes, unable to live; he bound a colleague and left him in the sun or the cold until he died; he built an airtight construction over him that prevented air from coming in; he placed a colleague in a house or a cave and filled it with smoke until he died; or he placed a colleague in an airtight marble building and lit a candle, causing the colleague to die because of the lack of air. In all of these instances, the person who caused the victim's death is executed; it is as if he had strangled him by hand.
Halacha 10
Different rules apply, however, in the following instances: A person binds a colleague and leaves him to starve to death; he binds him and leaves him in a place that will ultimately cause him to be subjected to cold or heat, and these influences indeed come and kill the victim; he covers him with a barrel; he uncovers the roof of the building where he was staying; or he causes a snake to bite him. Needless to say, a distinction is made if a colleague dispatches a dog or a snake at a colleague. In all the above instances, the person is not executed. He is, nevertheless, considered to be a murderer, and "the One who seeks vengeance for bloodshed" will seek vengeance for the blood he shed.
Halacha 11
Similarly execution is not required in the following instances. A person pushed his colleague into a cistern and there was a ladder that he could have used to climb out, or he shot an arrow at him, but he was holding a shield with which he could protect himself - and another person came and took away the ladder or the shield. Neither of the two is executed by the court.
Moreover, even if the person who pushed the victim is himself the one who takes away the ladder, he is not liable for execution. God will, however, seek him out and avenge the bloodshed.
Halacha 12
When a person throws a stone against a wall, and the stone rebounds and kills a person, the thrower of the stone is liable for execution by the court. For it was propelled by the power of the person who threw it.
A similar principle applies with regard to a person playing with a ball, who was given a warning and caused death by throwing it. If the victim was within four cubits of the wall, he is not liable. If the victim was beyond four cubits away, even if he was standing at the end of a distance of 100 cubits, the thrower is liable, provided the ball is of sufficient weight to kill, as explained.
Halacha 13
If a person threw a stone upward and it went to the side and caused death, the one who threw it is liable.
If a person binds a colleague and puts him in a place where he cannot flee, and then turns a current of water on him, causing him to die, the killer should be executed. This law applies provided the victim dies from the first burst of water that flows because of his deeds.
-------
Rambam:
• 3 Chapters: Ma'achalot Assurot Ma'achalot Assurot - Chapter 11, Ma'achalot Assurot Ma'achalot Assurot - Chapter 12, Ma'achalot Assurot Ma'achalot Assurot - Chapter 13
Ma'achalot Assurot - Chapter 11
Halacha 1
When wine has been poured as a libation to a false divinity,1 it is forbidden to benefit from it. A person who drinks even the smallest quantity2 of [such wine] is liable for lashes according to Scriptural Law. Similarly, anyone who partakes of the smallest quantity of something offered to a false deity, e.g., meat or fruit, even water or salt, is worthy of lashes, as [implied by Deuteronomy 32:38]: "The fat of whose offerings they would eat; they would drink the wine of their libations. Let them stand."3
Halacha 2
Wine poured as a libation to a false deity is like a sacrifice offered to it. Since this prohibition stems from [the prohibition against] the worship of false deities, there is no minimum measure involved, as stated with regard to the worship of false deities [ibid. 13:18]: "Let no trace of the condemned [entity] cling to your hand."4
Halacha 3
When we do not know whether wine belonging to a gentile was used for a libation or not, it is called "ordinary [gentile] wine." It is forbidden to benefit from it, as it is forbidden to benefit from wine used as a libation. [This matter] is a Rabbinic decree.5 When a person drinks a revi'it6 of "ordinary [gentile] wine," he is liable for "stripes for rebellious conduct."7
Halacha 4
It is forbidden [to benefit from] any wine that a gentile touches;8for perhaps he poured it as a libation. For the thought of a gentile is focused on the worship of false deities.9 From this, we learn that it is forbidden to benefit [even from] wine belonging to a Jew which was touched by a gentile; it is governed by the laws that apply to ordinary gentile wine.
Halacha 5
When a gentile touches wine unintentionally10 and similarly, when a gentile child11 touches wine, it is forbidden to drink it,12 but it is permitted to benefit from it.
When one purchases servants from a gentile and they were circumcised and immersed [in the mikveh] immediately,13 they no longer pour libations to false deities.14 It is permitted to drink wine which they touch even though they have yet to conduct themselves according to the Jewish faith and they still speak of idolatry.
Halacha 6
[With regard to] the children of gentile maidservants that were born in a Jewish domain15 and circumcised, but were not immersed yet:16 The older ones cause wine that they touch to become forbidden. The younger ones17 do not cause it to become forbidden.18
Halacha 7
With regard to a resident alien, i.e., one who accepted the observance of the seven universal laws [commanded to Noah and his descendants],19 as we explained:20 It is forbidden to drink his wine, but it is permitted to benefit from it.21 We may deposit wine in his possession for a short time, but may not entrust it to him for a lengthy period.22
With regard to any gentile who does not serve false deities, e.g., the Arabs:23It is forbidden to drink his wine, but it is permitted to benefit from it. The Geonim rule in this manner. With regard to those who worship false deities,24 by contrast, it is forbidden to benefit from their ordinary wine.
Halacha 8
Whenever it is stated that wine is forbidden in this context, if the gentile who causes the wine to be forbidden worships false deities, it is forbidden to benefit from it. If he does not worship false deities, it is merely forbidden to drink it. Whenever we refer to a gentile without any further description, we mean one who worships false deities.25
Halacha 9
Only wine that is fit to be offered on the altar is used for libations for false deities. Therefore when [our Sages] decreed against ordinary gentile wine, ordaining that it is forbidden to benefit from any wine touched by a gentile, their decree involved only wine that is fit to be used as a libation. Accordingly, wine that was boiled26 that was touched by a gentile is not forbidden. It is permitted to drink it together with a gentile27 in one cup. If, however, [a gentile] touches wine blended [with water] and wine that began to turn into vinegar,28 but can still be drunken is forbidden.
Halacha 10
The Geonim of the west ruled that if a small amount of a sweetener29 or yeast became mixed with Jewish wine, since it is no longer fit for the altar,30 it is considered as if were boiled or as if it were beer and will not be used as a libation. It is permitted to drink it together with a gentile.
Halacha 11
When does wine belonging to a gentile become forbidden? When the grapes have been crushed and the wine begins to flow,31 even though it has not descended into the cistern and is still in the wine press, it is forbidden. For this reason, we do not crush grapes together with a gentile in a wine press,32 lest he touch it with his hand33 and offer it as a libation. [This applies] even if he is bound. [Similarly,] we do not purchase a wine press [filled with] crushed [grapes] even if the wine is still mixed with the seeds and peels and has not descended into the cistern.
Halacha 12
When a gentile crushes [grapes for] wine without touching it34 and a Jew is standing over him,35 and a Jew is the one who collects it in jugs, it is forbidden [only] to be drunken.36
Halacha 13
It is forbidden to benefit from vinegar belonging to a gentile, because it became [forbidden like] wine offered as a libation before it became vinegar.37
When a gentile is crushing grapes in a barrel, we are not concerned that the wine [becomes forbidden] as wine used for a libation. If a gentile was eating from the baskets [of grapes brought to a winepress] and left over, a se'ah or two and threw them into the winepress, he does not cause the wine [to become forbidden] as wine used for a libation, even though it spatters over the grapes.38
Halacha 14
Grape seeds and peels belonging to a gentile are forbidden39 for twelve months. After twelve months, they have already dried out, they contain no moisture and they are permitted to be eaten. Similarly, the dregs of wine that have dried out are permitted to be eaten after twelve months.40 [The rationale is that] no trace of wine remains; they are just like dust or earth.
Halacha 15
It is forbidden to put wine in wineskins or barrels in which gentiles had kept wine41 until:
a) they are allowed to dry for twelve months;42
b) they are placed in a fire until their pitch becomes soft or they become hot;43
c) water is placed in them for three days for a full 24 hour period; [one places water in them], pours it out after 24 hours, and puts other water in. [This should be done] three times in three days.
[This applies] whether the containers belong to them or they belonged to a Jew from whom they borrowed them and then placed their wine into them. If one put wine in them before purifying them, it is forbidden to drink [that wine].44
Halacha 16
It is permitted to place beer, fish brine, or fish oil in these containers immediately.45 None of these [purging processes] are necessary. After one placed fish brine or fish oil in them, one may place wine in them, for the salt [in the fish brine or fat] will burn out [any residue of wine].
Halacha 17
When a person purchases new utensils that were not covered with pitch from a gentile, he may place wine in them immediately, he need not worry that gentile wine had been placed in them. If they were covered with pitch, he should wash them thoroughly even though they are new.46
Similarly, [any] utensil in which gentile wine was placed, but was not stored there for an extensive period, e.g., a bucket used to draw wine from a cistern, a funnel, or the like, should be swashed in water. That is sufficient for it.47
Halacha 18
Similarly, it is forbidden to drink from an earthenware cup that a gentile had drunken from. If one washed it thoroughly three times, it is permitted, for all traces of wine have been washed away.48 This applies provided it is glazed with lead as potters do or covered with pitch. If, however, it is of earthenware, washing it thoroughly [once] is [all that is] required.49
Halacha 19
When earthenware utensils that are glazed with lead50 are used for gentile wine, they are permitted51 if they are white, red, or black. If they are green, they are forbidden, because they absorb.52 If they have a portion where the earthenware is revealed,53 they are forbidden54 whether they are white or green, because they absorb.
It appears to me that this ruling applies only when wine was placed in them for long term storage.55 If, however, it was not placed in them for long term storage, [it is necessary merely to] wash them.56 They are then permitted, even if they are earthenware.57
Halacha 20
When a gentile treads on grapes in a winepress of stone or of wood58 or a gentile applied pitch to a winepress of stone59 even though he did not tread the grapes there, one must wash [the press] thoroughly with water and ashes60 four times. Afterwards, one may tread grapes there. If [the press] is still moist, one should place the ashes in before the water. If it is not moist, one should place the water in first.
Halacha 21
When a gentile treaded [grapes] in a stone winepress covered with pitch or [applied] pitch to a wooden winepress61 even though he did not tread grapes there, one must peel the pitch.62 If one left it for twelve months or placed water in it for three days, it is not necessary to peel [the pitch off].63 [The laws applying to] a winepress need not be more stringent than those applying to barrels.64 [The option of] peeling was given only to allow [the winepress to be used] immediately.65
Halacha 22
An earthenware winepress [is governed by more stringent rules].66Even if one peels the pitch, it is forbidden to tread grapes in it immediately. [Instead, one must] heat it with fire until the pitch softens. If, however, one leaves it for twelve months or places water in it for three successive days, it is permitted,67as we explained.68
Halacha 23
[The following laws apply to] a filter that had been used for wine belonging to a gentile. If it is made of hair, it should be washed thoroughly69 and then it may be used as a filter. If it is made from wool, it should be washed thoroughly four times with water and ashes and then left it70 until it dries. If it was from flax,71 it should be left for twelve months. If it has knots, they should be untied [before the filter is washed out].72
Similar [laws apply with regard to] utensils from reeds,73 from date bast, or similar utensils like wicker baskets that are used to tread grapes. If they were sewed with ropes, they should be washed thoroughly. If they are tangled together with snarls that are difficult to undo, they should be washed four times with ashes and with water. [After] they are dried, they may be used. If they are sewed with flax, they should be left unused for twelve months. If they have knots, they should be untied.74
Halacha 24
How can the utensils of a winepress used by a gentile for gentile wine be purified so that a Jew may use them? The boards,75 the balls of clay,76and the palm branches77 should be washed thoroughly. The restraints78 of wood and of canvas should be dried out.79 Those from water grasses and from bullrushes should be left unused for twelve months.
If he desires to purify them immediately, he should place them in boiling water,80 seal them with water used to cook olives,81 or place them under a drain through which water flows continually or in a stream of running water for twelve hours.82 Afterwards, they are permitted.
Halacha 25
In the era when the land of Israel was entirely within the possession of the Jewish people, it was permitted to purchase wine from any Jewish person without holding anyone in suspicion.83 In the Diaspora, they would only purchase [wine] from a person whose reputation [for observance] has been established. In the present age, in every place, we only purchase wine from a person whose reputation for observance has been established.84These laws also apply to meat, cheese, and a cut of fish that does not have a sign as we explained.85
Halacha 26
When a person enjoys the hospitality of a homeowner in any place and at any time and that homeowner brings him wine, meat, cheese, or a piece of fish, it is permitted. There is no need to inquire concerning it.86 [This law applies] even if he does not know him at all; all that he knows is that he is Jewish.
If [the host] has an established reputation for non-observance and for not paying attention to these matters, it is forbidden to accept his hospitality. If one transgresses and accepts his hospitality, it is forbidden to eat meat and drink wine [despite] his assurances unless a person who has an established reputation for observance testifies [to their acceptability].
FOOTNOTES
1.As explained in Hilchot Avodat Kochavim 3:3, pouring a libation and sacrificing are among the four acts of service for which one is liable to any false deity, even if this is not its mode of service.
2.See the following halachah.
3.Sefer HaMitzvot (negative commandment 194) includes this prohibition among the 613 mitzvot of the Torah. According to the Rambam, it is actually the last of the mitzvot which the Torah mentions.
Although the verse does not specifically mention a prohibition, the Rambam derives the prohibition as follows: As stated in Hilchot Avodat Kochavim 7:2, we are forbidden to derive benefit from anything offered to a false deity. Since the prooftext quoted establishes an equation between a libation and an offering, we conclude that just as an offering is forbidden by a negative commandment; so, too, there is a negative commandment involving a libation (see Avodah Zarah 29b).
The Ramban (in his Hasagot to Sefer HaMitzvot) and the Sefer HaChinuch (Mitzvah 111) maintain that both are included in a single prohibition. They should not be counted as separate negative commandments. They all agree, however, that the prohibition against such wine is Scriptural in origin. As the Rambam explains in Sefer HaMitzvot, loc. cit., there are statements of our Sages that appear to imply that the prohibition is Rabbinic in origin. Those statements, however, apply to wine handled by gentiles (see Halachah 3) and not to wine that was actually used for a libation.
4.This verse is most particularly related to the prohibition against benefiting from the property of a city who were drawn after idol worship (ir hanidachat). Nevertheless, since all false deities can be considered as "condemned," the verse applies to them as well (Megillat Esther, Sefer HaMitzvot, negative commandment 25). The expression "any trace" implies even the slightest amount of benefit is prohibited.
5.We find an allusion to this decree in Scripture itself for Daniel 1:8 speaks of how Daniel refrained from drinking the king's wine. Avodah Zarah 36b states that the decree against drinking wine handled by gentiles was instituted lest this lead to familiarity and ultimately, to intermarriage. From the Rambam's wording in the following halachah, however, it would appear that the prohibition was instituted as a safeguard against benefiting from idolatry (Ma'aseh Rokeach; see also Halachah 7 and notes).
6.One fourth of a log, 86 cc. According to Shiurei Torah and 150 cc. According to Chazon Ish. This is the standard liquid measure involved in ritual matters.
7.It is forbidden to drink even the slightest amount, but one is liable only for drinking a revi'it (Lechem Mishneh).
8.See Chapter 12, Halachot 1-2, which define what is meant by a gentile touching wine. As implied by the contrast to the following halachah, for it to be forbidden to benefit from the wine, the gentile must touch it intentionally. Similarly, he must know that it is wine (Radbaz).
9.Therefore even if there is no false deity present, it is possible that the gentile intended to use it as a libation. See Halachah 7 and notes which discuss which gentiles we are referring to.
10.See Chapter 12, Halachah 5.
11.Here the term child is not defined chronologically, but in terms of his relation to idolatry. Does he praise the name of a false deity or not? [Avodah Zarah 57a; Tur, Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 124:1)].
12.In both instances, we cannot say that the person had the intent to use the wine as a libation. In the first instance, he did not intend to touch the wine and in the second, the child does not know about idolatrous worship. Nevertheless, the wine is still forbidden as a safeguard. See Chapter 12, Halachah 5. See also the Rama (Yoreh De'ah 124:24) who states that in the present era, most gentiles are not idolaters. Even so, if they touch wine unintentionally, although there are authorities who say there is room for leniency, the prevailing custom is to be stringent unless a significant loss is involved. See Siftei Cohen 124:71.
13.Thus reaching the intermediate stage of Jewish servants, as Hilchot Issurei Bi'ah 12:11 states, they "have departed from the category of gentiles, but have yet to enter the category of Jews."
14.Their "conversion" to Judaism will prevent them from offering such a libation. See the Tur who also mentions the opinion of Rabbenu Chananel who maintains that a gentile servant causes wine to be forbidden for twelve months.
The Tur clarifies that the debate concerns only a servant, because his acceptance of Judaism is forced. All agree that no such strictures apply to a convert who willingly accepts Judaism.
15.If they were not born in a Jewish domain, the circumcision alone is of no consequence and even minors cause wine to become forbidden to drink (Kessef Mishneh).
16.If they were not immersed yet, even young children cause wine they touch to become forbidden to drink (the Kessef Mishneh's interpretation of the Rambam's opinion). The Rashba, however, differs and maintains even if these children were neither circumcised or immersed, they do not cause wine to be forbidden. The Turei Zahav124:3 and the Siftei Cohen 124:9 differ and maintain that even the Rambam would accept the Rashba's approach.
17.Here the term child is not defined chronologically, but in terms of his relation to idolatry. Does he praise the name of a false deity or not? [Avodah Zarah 57a; Tur, Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 124:1)].
18.I.e., it is permitted entirely, even to drink it.
19.The prohibitions against the worship of false deities, blasphemy, murder, theft, incest and adultery, eating the flesh of a living animal, and the obligation to establish courts. See Hilchot Melachim 8:10.
20.See Hilchot Issurei Bi'ah 14:7.
21.The Kessef Mishneh explains that there are two dimensions to the prohibition against drinking the wine of gentiles:
a) The desire to limit familiarity with gentiles, lest it lead to intermarriage. This applies to resident aliens as well. Therefore there is a prohibition against drinking their wine.
b) A safeguard against benefiting from wine used as libations. This does not apply with regard to resident aliens. Therefore there is no prohibition against deriving benefit from their wine.
22.Since we do not suspect that he will use the wine for a libation - or allow other gentiles to do so - we do not forbid one to leave it there for a short while. Nevertheless, if it is left there for a long time, we fear that the gentile will exchange it with his own wine and as stated above, it is forbidden for Jews to drink his own wine (see Rashi, Avodah Zarah 64b).
23.The Rambam's wording has attracted the attention of the commentaries, for from the beginning of the halachah, it appears that the gentile must accept all seven mitzvot, while this clause appears to imply that it is sufficient for him to accept only the prohibition against idolatry. The Kessef Mishneh explains that when the entire nation does not worship false deities, then we do not fear that wine will be used as a libation. When, however, that is not the case, a gentile must accept all seven mitzvot for his wine to be permitted.
24.Our translation follows the standard version of the Mishneh Torah. The uncensored text reads: "Christians, by contrast, are idolaters. It is forbidden to benefit...." The Rama (Orach Chayim 155:1) rules that Christianity violates only the prohibition against shituf, worshipping another entity together with God, and gentiles are not prohibited against such worship. It must be emphasized that today, though many gentiles are nominally Christian, their observance is minimal and they have an awareness of monotheism.
See also the statements of the Rama (Yoreh De'ah 123:1, 124:24) who quotes opinions that maintain that in the present age, it is not customary for gentiles to pour wine as libations to false deities. Nevertheless, the prohibition against drinking such wine, however, remains intact.
25.For in the Rambam's age, most gentiles were idolaters. The Rabbinic authorities question whether one can make such an assumption in the present age. For many gentiles do not worship according to any religious rites at all and others, like the Arabs, have a conception of monotheism.
26.Hilchot Issurei Mizbeach 6:9 states that wine that was cooked to the extent that its taste changed is forbidden to be used as a libation on the altar. To put the concept in contemporary terms, wine that was pasteurized is included in this category.
27.Avodah Zarah 30b relates that the Sage Shmuel actually drank boiled wine together with a gentile.
The Kessef Mishneh quotes Rabbenu Asher who asks: If the decree against wine touched by a gentile was instituted to prevent intermarriage, what difference does it make if it was boiled or not? Will boiling the wine prevent familiarity from arising with gentiles?
In resolution, he explains that perhaps since boiled wine is uncommon, our Sages did not apply their decree in such a situation. Even though today, it has become common to drink boiled - i.e., pasteurized wine - our Sages decree has not been expanded. It must be emphasized that this leniency applies to wine belonging to a Jew that was boiled. Wine belonging to a gentile becomes forbidden before it is boiled and thus cannot be drunken.
28.Although they are unfit to be used for a libation.
29.This includes any wine to which sugar was added.
30.Hilchot Issurei Mizbeach 6:9.
31.In their days, grape presses were built on an incline, so that after the grapes were pressed, the juice would flow naturally toward a cistern.
32.The Turei Zahav 123:14 states that some interpret the Rambam as speaking only about a winepress that is open. If it is plugged close, there is room to say that the prohibition does not apply. Nevertheless, the Turei Zahav quotes other views that maintain that the prohibition applies even in such an instance.
33.Implied is that a libation cannot be offered with one's feet (Kessef Mishneh based on Avodah Zarah 56b; the Siftei Cohen 123:43, however, maintains that this is not the correct understanding of the Rambam's words). The Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 124:11), however, rules that a gentile who touches the wine with his feet causes it to be come forbidden. The Rama, however, rules leniently and maintains that the prohibition applies only to drinking such wine.
34.The Turei Zahav 124:17 interprets this as referring to an instance where he does not touch the wine at all, not even with his feet. The Kessef Mishneh, however, explains that this is referring to a situation where the gentile touches the wine with his feet, but not with his hands.
35.And watching that the gentile does not touch it.
36.It is, however, permitted to benefit from it. 36. The fact that it becomes vinegar afterwards does not cause it to become permitted.
The Radbaz states that one can conclude from the Rambam's wording that if a gentile topuches vinegar belonging to a Jew, it is permitted, for it is no longer wine.
37.
38.Our translation is based on authoritative manuscripts and early printings of the Mishneh Torah. The standard published text is difficult to understand. As the Radbaz and the Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 125:6) state, the Rambam is referring to a situation where a certain amount of grape juice collects in the bottom of the baskets. Even though that juice spatters of the grapes, it does not cause the wine to be considered forbidden, for this prohibition does not apply until the wine begins to flow, as stated in Halachah 11 (Radbaz).
39.Even to benefit from them [Kessef Mishneh; Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 123:14)]. See also the Rama who states that the prohibition applies only when the peels were in contact with gentile wine. If the gentiles had merely crushed the grapes, but the wine had not begun flowing from the winepress, the peels are not forbidden.
40.See the Shulchan Aruch (ibid. ) which quotes more stringent views in certain circumstances.
41.For a certain quantity of wine is absorbed in the container. Afterwards, when the kosher wine is placed in the container, it will be soaked into the container and the wine in the container will be released into it.
42.See the Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 135:16) which explains that even if one used the containers for water during this period, this does not prevent the containers from becoming permitted.
43.I.e., if they are not covered with tar (Kessef Mishneh). By heating them, one will achieve the results of libbun and purge any absorbed wine through heat.
See also the Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 135:15) which state that hagalah, filling the containers with boiling water is also acceptable.
44.It is, however, permitted to benefit from this wine (Kessef Mishneh).
45.For these substances nullify the taste of wine (Rashi, Avodah Zarah 33b).
46.I.e., even though they appear new, we suspect that a gentile used them to store wine. Hence they must be washed. Nevertheless, the fact that they appear new indicates that they were not used for a long time. Hence, washing them is sufficient.
This stringency applies only with regard to containers covered with pitch. Since they are dark black, it is not evident whether they were used previously or not. With regard to other containers, it is much more clearly apparent whether or not they were used. Hence there is no need for this stringency (Kessef Mishneh).
47.The Kessef Mishneh notes that Avodah Zarah 74b appears to require that such utensils be dried. He questions why the Rambam does not mention this point. As a possible resolution, he suggests that perhaps the Talmud is speaking about utensils belonging to a gentile, while the Rambam is speaking about those belonging to a Jew.
48.The Rambam's ruling is dependent on his interpretation of Avodah Zarah 33b. Other authorities including Rashi and the Ra'avad have a different understanding of the passage. Their view is cited by the Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 135:4).
49.The Kessef Mishneh explains that we are speaking of an instance where the glazing of the lead or the pitch was not completed in a thorough manner and the surface of the utensil is not smooth. Therefore such a utensil will absorb wine more easily than an ordinary earthenware utensil. Hence, three washings are required. The following halachah, by contrast, is speaking about a utensil that is glazed in a more thorough manner, producing a smooth surface. Hence it is less likely to absorb the wine than an ordinary earthenware utensil.
50.As mentioned above, the Kessef Mishneh interprets this to mean that they were glazed in a manner that produced a smooth surface. Hence they do not absorb the wine easily.
51.After being washed alone.
52.In order to produce a green color, a substance called netar, alum crystals [Rama (Yoreh De'ah 135:5)], is mixed into the glazing. This substance is very absorbent. The Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah, loc. cit.) states that utensils made from this substance can never be purified.
53.I.e., the glazing does not cover the entire utensil.
54.Until the wine is purged as mentioned in Halachah 15.
55.The Kessef Mishneh quotes the Rashba as stating that from the fact that these statements are made about earthenware utensils, one can conclude that metal utensils do not absorb even when gentile wine was placed in them for an extended period of time. They will absorb only when liquids are heated.
56.For even if the wine was not placed in them for an extended period, it is possible that there will be a certain amount of residue left in the container.
57.For over a short period of time, they will not absorb.
58.That is not covered with pitch (Kessef Mishneh) .
59.Rashi (Avodah Zarah 74b) and the Tur and the Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 138:1) explain that after pitch is applied to a vat, a small amount of wine is placed in the vat to remove the unfavorable odor of the pitch.
60.I.e., rubbing the walls with ashes and then washing them (Kessef Mishneh).
61.Since a larger amount of pitch is necessary, it will absorb more.
62.The Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 138:1) follows the position of other Rishonim who maintains that even after peeling the outer layer of the pitch, one must apply ashes and water, as stated in the previous halachah.
63.As stated with regard to barrels in Halachah 15. The Ra'avad and most other Rishonim differ with regard to this ruling and require the barrel to be pealed.
64.Indeed, one would suspect the laws governing barrels to be more stringent, for wine is stored there for long periods. It remains in a winepress, by contrast, for only a short time.
65.Without having to wait any time at all.
66.For earthenware absorbs more readily than other substances. In the previous halachah, we assume that the winepress itself did not absorb any wine. In this case, we assume that it did (Kessef Mishneh).
67.Without peeling off the pitch as stated in the previous halachah. Here also the Ra'avad differs and rules that the pitch must be peeled off. The Shulchan Aruch (loc. cit.) follows the Rambam's ruling.
68.In Halachah 15.
69.Hair does not absorb liquid at all. Hence, it need only be washed to remove the wine that may be sticking to its surface.
70.Our translation follows the authoritative manuscripts and early printings of the Mishneh Torah. The standard printed text differs slightly.
71.Which is more absorbant.
72.So that the residue will not collect there.
73.Our translation is based on the Rama (Yoreh De'ah 135:8).
74.When citing this law in his Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 138:7, 9), Rav Yosef Caro does not mention the need to untie the knots in this instance. As evident from his Kessef Mishneh, he follows the approach of the Rashba who maintains that when an object is left for twelve months, there is no need to untie the knots. The Siftei Cohen 138:8 differs and states that the Rambam's ruling should be followed.
75.Upon which the grapes are placed.
76.Used to crush the grapes (see the conclusion of the gloss of the Lechem Mishneh to Halachah 17).
77.Which are used as brooms to collect the grapes (Rashi, Avodah Zarah 75a).
78.In his Commentary to the Mishneh, Taharot 10:8, the Rambam states that this refers to the restraints placed around olives (and grapes) when they are being squeezed to gather them together.
79.This term refers to the process of applying ashes and water mentioned above.
80.To purge the wine absorbed in this fashion.
81.Cooking them in such water will cause whatever wine that was absorbed to be sealed in its place and never to be released.
82.This will also purge the absorbed wine. See Hilchot Tumat Ochalin 11:17 which mentions these same processes in a different context.
83.A Jew who worships false divinities, does not observe the Sabbath, or denies the Torah and its mitzvot is considered equivalent to a gentile and his wine is forbidden just as a gentile's is (see Hilchot Shabbat 30:15). When Eretz Yisrael was populated solely by Jews, our Sages maintained that there was no need to suspect that a person fell into the above categories.
84.The Ra'avad objects to the Rambam's ruling, stating that a common person will not necessarily cause another to transgress. The Radbaz states that even if the common people will not necessarily transgress themselves, they will not be careful about protecting another person's observance and may sell him forbidden articles. This view is cited by the Rama (Yoreh De'ah 119:1).
85.Chapter 3, Halachah 21; Chapter 8, Halachah 7.
86.We assume that the host is observant and that he is giving his guest the same food that he eats himself (Radbaz).
Ma'achalot Assurot - Chapter 12
Halacha 1
How do we define the term touch when we say that a gentile1 who touches wine causes it to be forbidden? Touching the wine itself whether with his hands2 or with any of his other limbs with which it is customary to pour a libation3 and shook the wine.4
If, however, he extended his hand to a barrel and his hand was grabbed before he could remove [any wine] or shake it, [there is room for leniency]. If the barrel was opened from below and the wine was allowed to flow out to the extent that it reached below his hand, the wine is not forbidden.5
Similarly, if he held an open container6 of wine and shake it, the wine becomes forbidden even though he did not lift up the container or touch the wine.7
Halacha 2
If he took an [open]8 container of wine, lifted it up, and poured it out, the wine becomes forbidden,9 even though he did not shake it. For the wine moved as a result of his power. If he lifted the container up, but did not shake it or touch it, it is permitted.10
Halacha 3
When a gentile was holding a container on the ground and a Jew poured wine into it, the wine is permitted.11 If the gentile shakes the container, the wine becomes forbidden.
Halacha 4
It is permitted to have a gentile move a closed [container of wine] from one place to another even though the wine moves. For this is not the manner in which a libation is made.12
When [a gentile] moves a wineskin containing wine from one place to another while [a Jew]13 was holding the opening of the wineskin with his hand, it is permitted.14 [This applies] whether the wineskin was entirely full or not and [applies] even though the wine moves.
[When a gentile] transfers15 an open earthenware16 vessel that is filled with wine, it is prohibited,17 for perhaps he touched it.18 If it was only partially full, [the wine] is permitted unless he shook it.19
Halacha 5
When a gentile touches wine without intending to, it is permitted only to benefit from the wine.20 What is implied? He fell on an [open]21 wineskin or stretched his hand out to a barrel under the impression that it contained oil and it actually contained wine.
Halacha 6
If wine moves because of a gentile's power although he did not intend to do so, since he did not touch the wine, it is permitted to drink it.22 What is implied? If he lifted up a container of wine and poured it into another container while thinking that it was beer or oil, [the wine] is permitted.
Halacha 7
If a gentile entered a house or a store seeking wine and extended his hand to search for it and touched wine,23 [the wine] is forbidden. [The rationale is that] he was intending [to touch] wine. This is not considered as touching without intent.
Halacha 8
When a barrel is split lengthwise and a gentile comes and embraces it so that the halves will not separate24 it is permitted to benefit from [the wine].25 If, however, it split widthwise and he grabbed the upper half so that it will not fall, it is permitted to drink [the wine]. For the wine is not affected by the gentile's power.
Halacha 9
When a gentile fell into a cistern of wine and was hoisted up dead,26measured a cistern containing wine with a reed, swatted away a fly or a hornet from it with a reed,27 patted a boiling bottle of wine so that the boiling would cease28 or took a barrel and threw it into the cistern in anger,29it is merely permitted to benefit from the wine. If, [in the first instance,] the gentile was raised [from the cistern] alive, it is forbidden to benefit from the wine.30
Halacha 10
When there is a hole on the side of a barrel, the stopper slips away from the hole, and a gentile places his finger over the hole so that the wine will not flow out, all of the wine from the top of the barrel until the hole is forbidden.31 It is, however, permitted to drink the wine beneath the hole.32
Halacha 11
[The following rules apply when] one end of a bent outflow pipe made from metal, glass, or the like is placed in wine and the other end extends out of the barrel. If one sucked on the wine and the wine began flowing out as is always done, and a gentile came and place his finger at the end of the outflow pipe and prevent the wine from flowing outward, all of the wine in the barrel is forbidden.33 [The rationale is that] were it not for his hand, everything [in the barrel] would have flowed out. Thus all the wine is affected by his power.
Halacha 12
When a person pours wine into a receptacle containing gentile wine, all of the wine in the upper container is forbidden.34 [The rationale is that] the column of wine being poured connects35 between the wine in the upper container and the wine in the lower container. Therefore when a person is measuring wine for a gentile into a container in the latter's hands, he should interrupt [the column of wine before it reaches the utensil] or throw the wine so that [the column of wine] being poured will not establish a connection and cause the wine remaining in the upper container to become forbidden.
Halacha 13
When a funnel that was used to measure wine for a gentile has an obstruction that prevents wine [from flowing] the funnel should not be used to measure wine for a Jew36 until it was washed thoroughly and dried.37If he did not wash it thoroughly,38 [the Jew's wine] is forbidden.39
Halacha 14
[The following rules apply with regard to] a container possessed by a Jew that has two "nostrils,"40 that emerge from it, like containers that are used to wash hands, and is filled with wine. If a Jew is sucking and drinking from one nostril and a gentile is sucking and drinking from the other nostril, this is permitted,41 provided the Jew begins [drinking] and concludes while the gentile is still drinking. When the gentile stops drinking, all the wine that was in the nostril will return to the container and cause all the wine in it to be forbidden. [The rationale is that] the wine [in the nostril] was moved by [the gentile's] power.42
Halacha 15
When a gentile sucks wine from a container with an outflow pipe, all the wine in the container becomes forbidden.43 For when he ceases [sucking], all of the wine that entered the outflow pipe through his sucking will return to the barrel and cause it to become forbidden.
Halacha 16
When a gentile is transferring barrels of wine from one place to another together with a Jew and [the Jew] is walking after them to protect them, they are permitted even if he separates from him for a mil.44 [The rationale is] that he is afraid of him and will say: "He will suddenly appear before us and observe us."
[More stringent rules apply if the Jew] tells [gentile porters]: "Proceed and I will follow after you."45 If they pass beyond his sight to the extent that [they have time] to uncover the opening of the barrel, seal it again, and [allow it] to dry out,46 it is forbidden to drink all of the wine.47 If for a lesser [time], [the wine] is permitted.48
Halacha 17
Similarly, if a Jew leaves a gentile in his store, even though he departs and enters, [going back and forth] the entire day, the wine is permitted.49 If he informs him that he is departing for a significant period, should he wait long enough [to enable the gentile] to open the barrel, seal it again, and [allow it] to dry out, it is forbidden to drink the wine.50
Similarly, if a person left his wine in a wagon or a ship51 with a gentile and enters a city to tend to his needs, the wine is permitted.52 If he informs him that he is departing for a significant period, should he wait long enough [to enable the gentile] to open the barrel, seal it again, and [allow it] to dry out, it is forbidden to drink the wine.
All of the above rulings apply with regard to closed barrels. If they are open,53 even if he did not wait, since he told him that he was departing for a significant period, the wine is forbidden.54
Halacha 18
When a Jew was eating together with a gentile, left wine open on the table and on the counter, and departed, the wine on the table is forbidden, while that on the counter is permitted.55 If [the Jew] told him: "Mix [the wine] and drink," all the open wine in the house is forbidden.56
Halacha 19
When [a Jew] was drinking together with a gentile and he heard the sound of prayer in the synagogue and departed, even the open wine is permitted. For the gentile will say: "Soon he will remember the wine, come hurriedly and see me touching his wine." Therefore [we do not suspect that] the gentile will move from his place. Hence only the wine that is before him57 becomes forbidden.58
Halacha 20
[The following rules apply when] a gentile and a Jew are living together in one courtyard59 and they both left in agitation60 to see a bridegroom or a funeral. If the gentile returns and closes the entrance and the Jew comes later, the open wine in the Jew's home remains permitted. [We assume that] the gentile closed [the entrance] with the assumption that the Jew had already entered his home and no one remained outside; [i.e.,] he thought that the Jew came before him.
Halacha 21
[The following rules apply when] wine belonging to both a Jew and a gentile [is being stored] in one building and [the Jew's] barrels were open. If the gentile entered the building and locked the door behind him,61 all the wine is forbidden.62 If there is a window in the door that enables a person standing behind the door to see in front of him, all of the barrels that are opposite the window are permitted. Those on the sides are forbidden. [The leniency is granted,] because the gentile will fear from those who can see him.
Halacha 22
Similarly, if a lion roared or the like and the gentile fled and hid among the open barrels, the wine is permitted. For he will say, "Perhaps another Jew also hid here and will see me if I touch [the wine]."
Halacha 23
[The following laws apply with regard to] a wine cellar whose barrels were open, a gentile also stored wine in that inn,63 and the gentile was discovered standing among the open barrels belonging to the Jew. If he was frightened when discovered and it would be considered as if he was a thief,64 it is permitted to drink the wine. For because of his fear and dread, he will not have the opportunity to pour a libation. If he would not be considered as a thief, but instead, he feels secure there, the wine is forbidden.65
When a [gentile] baby is discovered among the barrels, regardless of whether he would be considered like a thief or not, all of the wine is permitted.66
Halacha 24
When a battalion [of soldiers] enter a country with an approach of peace, all of the open barrels [of wine] in the stores are forbidden.67 The closed ones, by contrast, are permitted.68 At a time of war, however, if a battalion spread through a city and moved on, both are permitted,69 because they do not have time to make libations.
Halacha 25
[The following laws apply when] a gentile is discovered standing next to a cistern of wine [belonging to a Jew]. If [the Jew] owes him a debt for which this wine serves is collateral, [the wine] is forbidden.70 Since he feels privileged, he will extend his hand and make a libation. If it is not collateral for a debt, it is permitted to drink the wine.71
Halacha 26
When a gentile harlot is present at a Jewish feast, the wine is permitted. For she is in dread of them and will not touch [the wine].72 When, however, a Jewish harlot is present at a gentile feast, her wine73 that is before her in her utensils is forbidden, for [the gentiles] will touch it without her consent.74
Halacha 27
[The following lays apply when] a gentile is discovered in a winepress:75 If there is enough moisture from wine that when one places his hand in it, [the hand] will become moist to the extent that if it touches his other hand, that hand will become moist,76 it is necessary to wash out the winepress thoroughly and dry it out.77 If this amount is not present, all that is necessary is to wash it out thoroughly. This is an extra measure of stringency.78
Halacha 28
[The following rules apply with regard to] a barrel floating in the river. If it was found near a city populated primarily by Jews, we are permitted to benefit from it.79 Near a city populated primarily by gentiles, it is forbidden.
Halacha 29
In a place where most of the wine merchants are Jewish, if one discovers large containers that are generally used only by wine merchants to store wine and which are filled with wine, it is permitted to benefit from [the wine].80
When a barrel has been opened by thieves, if most of the local thieves are Jewish, it is permitted to drink the wine. If not, it is forbidden.
FOOTNOTES
1.As the Rambam stated in Chapter 11, Halachah 8, unless otherwise specified, when he uses the term "gentile," he is referring to an idolater.
2.Or with an article held in his hand [Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 124:11)].
3.As evident from Chapter 11, Halachah 11, according to the Rambam, it is not customary to pour a libation with one's feet. Note, however, the Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 124:11) which forbids wine that a gentile touched with his feet. The Rama, however, quotes the Rambam's view.
4.If, however, he did not cause the wine to move, it is forbidden to drink it, but one is allowed to benefit from it (Radbaz). In his Kessef Mishneh, however, Rav Yosef Caro notes that although there are authorities who agree with the ruling of the Radbaz, from the Rambam's wording, it appears that the wine is permitted entirely. In his Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 124:13), he follows the majority view and rules that it is permitted only to benefit from such wine.
5.The Rambam is citing an incident that transpired as recorded by Avodah Zarah 59b. It is not forbidden to benefit from the wine. The question of whether or not it is forbidden to drink it depends on the difference of opinion mentioned in the previous note.
6.With regard to a closed container, see Halachah 4.
7.The Ra'avad objects to this ruling, maintaining that as long as the gentile does not touch the wine itself, lift the container, or cause the wine to spatter, moving an open utensil does not cause it to be forbidden. The Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 124:17) quotes the Rambam's ruling as a minority opinion and the Rama states that it need not be followed if financial loss is involved.
8.This addition is made on the basis of the gloss of the Radbaz.
9.There is a difference of opinion among the commentaries if only the wine that is poured out is forbidden or also the wine which remains in the container (Kessef Mishneh). The Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 125:1) quotes the more stringent view. The Rama mentions the more lenient opinion, but states that it may be followed only in a case of severe loss.
10.I.e., even to drink the wine. For merely lifting up the wine is of no consequence.
11.One may even drink it [Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 125:8)].
12.A libation is made only from an open container (see Avodah Zarah 60a).
13.This addition was made on the basis of the gloss of the Radbaz.
14.For this is equivalent to closing it.
15.The Rambam's source (Avodah Zarah 60a) and also the Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 125:10) emphasize that we are referring to a situation where the Jew is following the gentile. Otherwise, the wine is certainly forbidden.
16.The Radbaz states that the same laws apply regardless of what the container was made of. Therefore he maintains that the word "earthenware" is a printer's error.
17.Although the Rashba maintains that one may benefit from the wine, most authorities rule that it is prohibited to benefit from it as well as to drink it [Shulchan Aruch (loc. cit.)].
18.Since the container is both open and full, it is highly likely that the gentile touched the wine (Avodah Zarah 60a).
19.For shaking the wine is equivalent to pouring it as a libation, as stated in Halachah 1.
20.I.e., it is forbidden to drink it, as stated in Chapter 11, Halachah 5.
The Rama (Yoreh De'ah 124:24) states that in the present era, most gentiles are not idolaters. Therefore, if they touch wine unintentionally, the wine is not forbidden at all.
21.This addition was made on the basis of the gloss of the Kessef Mishneh.
22.According to Scriptural Law, as long as the gentile does not touch the wine, it is not forbidden. Although our Sages forbade wine which he shook without touching as a safeguard, that applies only when the gentile intentionally touches the container of the wine (see Avodah Zarah 58a).
23.Shaking it (Kessef Mishneh). According to the Rambam, this applies even though he did not know for certain that the article he touched was wine. The Ra'avad differs and maintains that the gentile must know that the container contains wine when shaking it. Otherwise, it is not forbidden. The Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 124:12) quotes the Rambam's ruling.
24.And thus the wine will not spill.
25.See Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 124:22).
26.In this instance, it is permitted to benefit from the wine, because the gentile is considered to have touched it without intending to. See Halachah 5. According to the Rama's view that the gentiles of the present age are not considered as idolaters, there is no prohibition against using such wine at all. This leniency should be accepted if a significant loss is involved (Siftei Cohen 124:55). This concept also applies to the remainder of the instances mentioned in this halachah.
27.In these instances, since the gentile did not touch the wine directly, merely by means of another entity, it is not forbidden to benefit from it.
28.Rashi, Avodah Zarah 60a, states that it is not forbidden to benefit from this wine, because this is not the ordinary way that one makes a libation. Kin'at Eliyahu asks: Since the wine is boiling, the entire prohibition against gentile wine seemingly should not apply, as stated in Chapter 11, Halachah 9?
29.In this instance also, the gentile did not touch the wine directly. Hence it is permitted to benefit from it.
The Ra'avad protests to this ruling, stating that if he threw the barrel into the cistern in anger, the wine in the cistern is not forbidden at all. Even if he intentionally threw the barrel into the cistern, it is still permitted to benefit from the wine for the reason mentioned. The Radbaz notes that the wording of Avodah Zarah, loc. cit., appears to support the Ra'avad's perspective, for it states that our Sages hikshiru, "considered acceptable," the wine. He, however, cites a passage from the Jerusalem Talmud (Avodah Zarah 4:11) which appears to fit the Rambam's perspective. The Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 124:19) quotes the Rambam's view. Nevertheless, the commentaries note that in Yoreh De'ah 125:5, the Shulchan Aruch, appears to support the Ra'avad's view.
30.For we assume that in his happiness over being saved, he will offer the wine as a libation to his false deity (Avodah Zarah, loc. cit.). The Turei Zahav 124:19 states that if the gentile was alive when taken from the cistern, the wine is forbidden even if he dies immediately afterwards.
31.One may not even benefit from it. Since the wine would have flowed out had the gentile not place his finger there, our Sages considered it as if he touched all of that wine.
32.Because this wine was not affected by the gentile's touch at all. Although this wine is touching the wine that is forbidden, it is not forbidden. The Ra'avad objects to such a ruling, maintaining that the entire barrel should be considered as mixed together. The Radbaz and the Kessef Mishneh justify the Rambam's ruling, explaining that had the gentile inserted his finger in the hole and touched the wine, the entire barrel would have been forbidden. Here, however, we are speaking about an instance where the gentile stopped the wine from flowing by placing his finger on the outside. Therefore the wine above the hole is forbidden because it was affected by his power, as stated in the following halachah. This is merely a Rabbinic decree. Hence, the wine below the hole is not forbidden at all. The Tur and the Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 124:23) follow the Ra'avad's view. See also Hilchot Tum'at Ochalin 8:6.
33.This ruling applies when the opening to the outflow pipe is placed at the bottom of the barrel, so that all the wine would actually have flowed out had the gentile allowed it to. If it was not placed at the bottom of the barrel, the laws mentioned in the previous halachah apply (Radbaz; Siftei Cohen 124:69).
34.From the Rambam's wording, it appears that this ruling applies with regard to all gentile wine, even when it was not known to have been used as a libation for a false deity. The Rambam, moreover, appears to forbid benefit from the wine, not only partaking of it. The Ra'avad rules that it is permitted to benefit from the wine, but not to partake of it. The Tur (Yoreh De'ah 126) mentions the opinion of Rabbbenu Tam which is more lenient, ruling that this stringency does not apply to ordinary gentile wine. He rules that it is even permitted to partake of the wine. The Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 126:1-2) follows the ruling of the Maharam of Rutenburg, who states the Rambam's stringency should be followed only when a small loss is involved. If there is a significant loss involved, we may rely on the perspective of Rabbenu Tam.
See also the Tur who mentions a perspective that maintains that the above stringency applies only to wine used as a libation for a false deity, but not to ordinary gentile wine.
35.Compare to Hilchot Tumat Ochalin 7:1,5 where this principle is not applied. It appears that it is applied in this instance because of the stringency of the prohibition against gentile wine.
36.Because the wine held back in the funnel is forbidden because of the connection to the column of wine that extends to the gentile's utensil.
37.Drying refers to the process of applying water and ashes mentioned in Chapter 11, Halachah 20.
38.The Kessef Mishneh offers the following interpretation of the Rambam's wording: As long as the funnel was washed thoroughly, even if it was not dried out, it does not cause other wine to become forbidden. He also, however, makes a distinction between a funnel that has been used by a gentile frequently and one that was used just once. In the former instance, he states, it is possible that washing it thoroughly alone is not sufficient.
39.I.e., it is forbidden to benefit from the entire quantity of wine [Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 124:11)]. According to the Rama, one is permitted to benefit from the wine if the loss will be significant (Siftei Cohen 124:23).
The rationale for the prohibition is that the wine in the container will mix with the small quantity of gentile wine in the funnel and become forbidden.
40.I.e., outflow pipes.
41.Since the wine which the Jew is drinking and that which the gentile is drinking are flowing in opposite directions, they are not considered to be connected.
42.For it was his sucking that drew it into the outflow pipe. When that wine returns to the container and becomes mixed with the wine in the container, all the wine becomes forbidden as indicated by the following halachah.
43.Even if the wine never touched his mouth (Kessef Mishneh).
44.A Talmudic measure equivalent to approximately a kilometer. The Lechem Mishneh notes that as stated in Hilchot Mitamei Moshav UMerkav 13:5, a mil is not a cut off point. As long as the gentile has reason to fear that the Jew will appear suddenly, the wine is permitted.
45.These words will imply to the porters that he will not be coming immediately. Hence there is reason to fear that they will take from the wine.
46.I.e., so that it would not be apparent that they touched it.
47.Implied is that one is permitted to benefit from it. The rationale is that since the barrel is sealed, we follow the principle stated in Chapter 13, Halachah 9. See also the Rama (Yoreh De'ah 129:1) who rules that if the loss is significant, we may rely on the views that one seal is sufficient.
48.I.e., one may even partake of it.
49.One may drink it. For the gentile will be afraid to touch the wine, for he will never feel that the Jew has left him alone with the opportunity to do whatever he wants.
50.As in the previous halachah, since the gentile knows that the Jew is departing for a significant period, we fear that he will use the opportunity to take the wine.
51.See the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (Avodah Zarah 5:4) which explains why it is necessary to mention all three instances: the store, the wagon, and the ship.
52.The Tur and the Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 129:1) state that this applies only when the Jew went on a side path that would enable him to surprise the gentile. If, however, he follows the ordinary path, the wine is forbidden. For the gentile will watch to see whether he is coming.
53.And thus: a) the wine is easily accessible, and b) the barrel does not have to be sealed close to hide the fact that one took from the wine.
54.It would appear that according to the Rambam, it is even forbidden to benefit from the wine (Kessef Mishneh).
55.We assume that he will touch the wine on the table, because it is open before him. But we don't think that he will take the risk of appearing as a thief by touching the wine on the counter. For it is not proper for a guest to take food left on the counter until the host has it brought to the table [the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (Avodah Zarah 5:5)].
The Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 129:7) rules slightly more stringently, stating that any wine which is in the gentile's reach is forbidden.
56.Since the Jew gave him license, we have no reason to think that he will restrain himself. Here, too, the Shulchan Aruch (loc. cit.) rules more stringently, stating that if the Jew remains outside for a prolonged period (as mentioned in the previous halachah), even the closed barrels are forbidden.
57.I.e., the wine on the table, as in the previous halachah (Kessef Mishneh).
58.As above, when quoting this law, the Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 129:7) mentions the possibility of the Jew coming from a side path and surprising the gentile. If this is not possible, that source does not accept this leniency.
59.Avodah Zarah 70a (the Rambam's source) and the Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 129:9) state that this leniency applies when the Jew and the gentile live in a two-storey home, with the Jew living in the upper storey. The Rambam does not appear to think that is necessary (Kessef Mishneh).
60.The Kessef Mishneh states that the Rambam chose his words carefully. This leniency is granted because they left in agitation. Hence, it was probable that they would not notice each other outside. If, however, they left with calm reserve, it is possible that the gentile would have looked to see that the Jew was not returning and then entered his home and touched his wine.
The Rama (Yoreh De'ah 129:9) quotes this understanding as halachah. The Turei Zahav 129:19, however, differs, explaining that even when a person leaves his home in an agitated state, he will not necessarily return in an agitated state.
61.If, however, we do not know that the door was locked - even though it was closed and it has a lock - the wine is permitted (Turei Zahav 128:5).
62.If, however, the Jew's barrels were closed, the wine in the closed barrels is permitted unless the gentile remained in the closed building alone for the time it would take to open a barrel, seal it closed again, and for its lid to dry, as stated in Halachah 16 [Kessef Mishneh; Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 128:3)].
63.I.e., in an inn, there were several wine cellars, one in which a Jew stored wine and one in which a gentile stored wine (Kessef Mishneh).
64.I.e., if he was brought before the judges of a city on the complaint that he touched the wine, the judges would consider him a thief [Rashi (Avodah Zarah 61b)]. The Kessef Mishneh states that it is possible that the Rambam interprets the term differently, understanding it as meaning "if he would think he would be considered a thief." According to this interpretation, it could refer not only to the gentile's touching the wine, but also entering the wine cellar.
To explain: Since the gentile also stores wine in that inn, he has permission to be in the inn, but he does not necessarily have permission to be in the Jew's wine cellar. This is precisely the question the Rambam is focusing on. Would the gentile be considered as a thief for being found in the Jew's wine cellar or not?
65.Since he feels unthreatened, there is a high likelihood that he touched the Jews' wine.
66.For a baby never pours wine as a libation. In Chapter 11, Halachah 5, the Rambam states that it is forbidden to drink wine touched by a gentile baby. Here, he permits the wine entirely, because we are not certain that the baby in fact touched the wine. The Radbaz explains the rationale for the Rambam's ruling.: Since the baby does not think of using the wine as a libation, there is no reason for it to trouble itself and touch it.
67.The Rambam's wording appears to imply that the open barrels in the homes are permitted. The soldiers would take the liberty of entering stores and making themselves free with their contents. They would not, however, feel that confident to enter homes. The Radbaz objects to this interpretation, noting that we see that soldiers often enter homes to loot. Indeed, when mentioning this law, the Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 129:12) speaks of homes and not stores.
Compare also to Hilchot Issurei Bi'ah 18:26 which discusses a similar situation with regard to the question whether the women of the town have been raped.
68.We can be certain that had the soldiers open the wine for use as a libation, they would not have taken the trouble of closing them again [Kessef Mishneh, Shulchan Aruch (loc. cit.)].
69.The Kessef Mishneh states that if a barrel was closed and it is discovered open, it is forbidden. For we see that the soldiers did have time to touch the wine.
70.The Kessef Mishneh explains the Rambam's ruling as follows: If the wine is security for a debt owed the gentile, the gentile will certainly not be considered a thief for touching the wine. Therefore it is forbidden. If the wine is not considered as security for a loan, when the gentile would be considered as a thief, the wine is permitted. When he would not be considered as a thief, it is forbidden.
71.This applies even if the Jew owes him money, and the loan is due, but he has not designated the wine as security for the debt [Rashi (Avodah Zarah 60a); Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 128:2)].
72.Although the Jews are willing to give in to their lust for forbidden relations, they are not suspect to drink gentile wine (Avodah Zarah 69b). Even the gentile harlot realizes this.
73.I.e., wine that she herself brought.
74.Since they are employing her as a harlot, they look down upon her and show no consideration for her religious obligations.
75.I.e., a winepress that does not contain any wine, except for some remnants on the floor.
76.This is the meaning of the Hebrew phrase tofach al minat litfiach.
77.Applying water and ashes, as stated in Chapter 11, Halachah 20.
78.We are not certain that the gentile try to touch the wine. Even if he did try to touch the wine, there is no reason for a prohibition, for we are speaking of a dry winepress. Hence washing it out is certainly sufficient (Radbaz).
79.The Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 129:17) quotes this law as applying only in situations when there are obstructions in the river that prevent wine from being carried down the river from other places. In such a situation, we follow the principle of rov, i.e., since the majority of the city's inhabitants are Jewish, we assume that the barrel came from one of them. We are, nevertheless, forbidden to drink the wine. See the notes to the following halachah.
80.In his Kessef Mishneh, Rav Yosef Caro questions the Rambam's ruling. The Rambam's logic appears to be that since it is obvious that the wine came from a wine merchant and most of the wine merchants are Jewish, we follow the majority and rule that the wine is permitted. Nevertheless, since the majority of the inhabitants of the town are gentile, we forbid drinking the wine. The Kessef Mishneh asks: "If we fear that the gentile touched the wine, it should be forbidden to benefit from it as well. And if not, it should be permitted to drink it." Indeed, he proposes that perhaps the Rambam's intent is that it is permitted to benefit only from the barrels. In his Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 129:19), he follows the Rambam's ruling. Based on his Beis Yosef, it is possible to explain that we are speaking about closed barrels. We assume that had a gentile opened them and touched the wine, he would not have closed them again. Alternatively, since we do not know for certain that the gentile touched the wine, we do not forbid benefiting from it.
Ma'achalot Assurot - Chapter 13
Halacha 1
[The following rules apply when a Jew] purchases or rents a building in a courtyard belonging to a gentile and fills it with wine. If the Jew lives in that courtyard, the wine is permitted even if the entrance is open. [The rationale is that] the gentile will always worry, saying: "He may suddenly enter his building and find me there." If the Jew lives in another courtyard,1 he should not depart until he closes the building and keeps the key and the seal2 in his possession. He need not fear that the gentile will make a copy of the key to the building.
Halacha 2
When [the Jew] left [the building] without closing the entrance or closed it and gave the key to the gentile, it is forbidden to drink the wine. Perhaps the gentile entered and poured a libation, for the Jew is not present there.3
If [the Jew] told [the gentile]: "Hold the key for me until I come," the wine is permitted. He did not entrust him with guarding the house, only with guarding the key.4
Halacha 3
[The following laws apply when] a gentile hires a Jew to prepare wine for him in a state of ritual purity5 so that it will be permitted to the Jews and they will purchase it from wine. The wine is [stored] in a building belonging to the gentile. If the Jew who is guarding the wine lives in that courtyard, the wine is permitted. [This applies] even if the entrance is open and the [Jewish] guard goes out and returns.6
If the guard lives in another courtyard,7 the wine is forbidden even though the key and the seal are in the possession of a Jew. [The rationale is that] since the wine belongs to the gentile and is found in his domain, he does not fear falsifying [the seal and/or key] and to enter the building. He will say: "What could be? If they find out about this, they will not purchase [the wine] from me."8
Halacha 4
Even if a gentile wrote [a legal document] for the Jew stating that he received the money for which he agreed to sell him the wine,9 since the Jew cannot remove the wine from the gentile's domain until he pays him the money, the wine belongs to the gentile and it is forbidden unless the guard lives in the courtyard.
The guard does not have to sit and guard [the wine] at all times. Instead, he may come in and go out, as explained. [This applies whether the wine is stored] in the domain belonging to the owner of the wine or in a domain belonging to another gentile.
Halacha 5
When the pure wine belonging to a gentile was placed in the public domain or in a building that is open to the public domain and there are Jews going back and forth, it is permitted.10 For it has not entered the gentile's domain.
Halacha 6
[When wine is located] in a garbage dump, a window, or under a palm tree even if it does not have fruit, it is as [if it is located in] the public domain.11When a gentile is located near wine located in such a place, it is not forbidden. A house which is open to such a place is considered as if it as open to the public domain.
Halacha 7
[The following rule applies when] there is a courtyard divided by low barriers,12 on one side there is a gentile and on the other, a Jew, there are two roofs, with the Jew's roof located above the gentile's roof, or [the two roofs are located] side by side, but there are dividers separating them. Even though the gentile can reach the Jew's portion, he need not worry about [the gentile pouring] his wine as a libation13 or [disqualifying] articles that are ritually pure.14
Halacha 8
It is permitted for a Jew to entrust his wine to a gentile for safekeeping in a closed container, provided it has two distinguishing marks. This is referred to as "a seal within a seal."15
What is implied? [A Jew] closed a barrel with a utensil that is not tightly fitting as most people do and then sealed it with clay, it is considered as one seal. If the container is tightly fitting and he applied clay to it from above, it is considered as "a seal within a seal."
Similarly, if one tied the opening to a wineskin close, it is considered as one seal. If he turned the opening to the wineskin inside and then tied it close, it is considered as "a seal within a seal." Similarly, any deviation from the ordinary pattern people follow is considered as one seal and applying clay or tying it is a second seal.16
Halacha 9
If [a Jew] entrusted [wine that was closed] with one seal to a gentile for safekeeping, it is forbidden to drink it, but it is permitted to benefit from it provided he designates a [specific] corner for it.17
Halacha 10
Two seals are not necessary when one deposits boiled wine, beer, wine which is mixed with other substances, e.g., honey or oil,18 vinegar, cheese, and any substance that is forbidden only according to Rabbinic Law with a gentile. Instead, one seal is sufficient.19 Nevertheless, two seals are necessary for wine, meat, and pieces of fish that do not have signs and which were entrusted to a gentile.20
Halacha 11
It appears to me that anywhere in this context that we have stated that our wine is forbidden to be drunk, but it is permitted to benefit from it because of the possibility that a gentile touched it, we are speaking about an instance where the gentile is an idolater. If, however, the prohibition has arisen because of a gentile who is not an idolater, e.g., an Arab,21 who touched our wine unintentionally or tapped the top of a barrel,22 [the wine] is permitted to be drunken. Similar laws apply in all analogous situations.
Halacha 12
When, however, one deposits wine in the domain of a resident alien23 sends wine with him and departs for an extended period, or leaves one's home open in a courtyard that [one shares with] a resident alien, it is forbidden to drink the wine. For it appears to me that the suspicions that a gentile will exchange [wine] and forge [a seal] apply equally to all gentiles. Since the wine enters their domain,24 it is forbidden at least to drink it.25
Halacha 13
There are situations where the prohibition against wine poured as a libation does not apply at all, yet our Sages forbade them as a safeguard against libation. They are: a gentile should not mix water into wine in a Jew's possession lest he come to pour wine into water. A gentile should not bring grapes to the winepress lest he come to press them or touch the wine. He should not help a Jew when he pours wine from one container to another lest he leave the wine in the possession of the gentile and the wine [flow] because of [the gentile's] power. If the gentile assists [the Jew], mixes water [into wine] or brings grapes, [the wine] is permitted.26
Halacha 14
Similarly, it is permitted for a gentile to smell the fragrance of our wine27 and it is permitted for a Jew to smell the fragrance of a barrel of wine that had been used as a libation.28 There is no prohibition against this, because fragrance is of no consequence since it has no substance.29
Halacha 15
We already explained,30 that whenever it is forbidden to benefit from a substance, if one transgresses and sells it, it is permitted [to make use of] the money with the exception of false deities, their accessories, offerings made to them, and wine poured as a libation to it. Our Sages were stringent with regard ordinary gentile wine [and ruled that] money given for it is forbidden like money given for wined poured as a libation to a false deity.
Accordingly, when a gentile hires a Jew to work with him with wine, his wages are forbidden.31
Halacha 16
Similarly, when a person rents a donkey or a boat to transport wine, the payment for them is forbidden.32 If he gave him money, he should bring them to the Dead Sea.33 If he gave him clothes, utensils, or produce as payment, he should burn it and bury the dust so that he34 does not benefit from it.
Halacha 17
If a gentile rented a donkey to ride and placed containers of wine on it, the rental fee for the donkey is permitted.35 If [a gentile] hires a Jew to break barrels of wine used as a libation, his fee is permitted. May he be blessed because he eliminated obscenity.
Halacha 18
When a person hires a worker and tells him: "Transport 100 barrels of beer for me for 100 p'rutot," and it is discovered that one of them is [gentile] wine, his entire wage is forbidden.36
Halacha 19
If he told him: "Transport barrels for me at a p'rutah each," and he transported them and barrels of wine were discovered among them, the wage for the barrels of wine is forbidden. The remainder of the wage is permitted.37
Halacha 20
When a gentile sends Jewish craftsmen a barrel of wine as part of their wages, it is permitted for them to tell him: "Give us its worth."38 Once it enters their domain, it is forbidden.39
Halacha 21
When a gentile owed a Jew a maneh,40 it is permitted for the gentile to sell a false deity and wine that had been poured as a libation and bring him the money. If, before he sells them, he tells [the Jew]: "Wait until I sell the false deity or libation wine that I own and [then] I will bring you [the money]," if he sells it and brings [the money] to him, [the money] is forbidden. [This applies] even with regard to ordinary gentile wine. [The rationale is that] the Jew desires that [the false deity or the wine] to continue to exist so that he will be able to pay him his debt.41
Halacha 22
Similarly, when a convert and a gentile were partners and they came to divide the resources [of the partnership], the convert may not tell the gentile: "You take the false deity and I will take the money. You take the wine and I will take the produce." [The rationale is that] he desires that [the forbidden entities] continue to exist so that he will be able to receive something in exchange for them.42
When, by contrast, a convert and a gentile inherit the estate of their father who was a gentile, [the convert] may tell [the gentile]: "You take the false deity and I will take the money. You take the wine and I will take the oil." This is a leniency granted with regard to an estate inherited by a convert so that he will not return to his deviant ways.43 If [the forbidden entities] entered the domain of the convert, it is forbidden.44
Halacha 23
[The following rules apply when] a Jew sells his wine to a gentile. If he established a price before he measured out [the wine], the money is permitted. [The rationale is that] from the time a price was established, [the gentile] definitely agreed [to the purchase] and when he pulled [the wine] into his domain, he acquired it.45 And it does not become [comparable to] wine offered as a libation until he touches it. Therefore at the time of sale, it was permitted.
If he measured it out for him before he established a price, the money is forbidden. [The rationale is that the gentile] did not definitely agree [to the purchase], even though he pulled [the wine] into his domain.46 Thus at the time he touched [the wine], he had not definitely agreed to the purchase. Hence the wine becomes forbidden because of his touch and it is as if [the Jew] is selling gentile wine.
Halacha 24
When does the above apply? When the Jew measured [the wine] into his own containers. If, however, he measured it into the gentile's containers or to a container belonging to a Jew in the gentile's possession, he must take the money,47 before measuring out [the wine]. If he measured out [the wine,] but did not take the money, the money is forbidden even though he established a price. As soon as [the wine] enters [the gentile's] container, it is forbidden as ordinary gentile wine.48
Halacha 25
When [a Jewish employer] gives a dinar to a gentile storekeeper and tells his gentile employee: "Go, drink, and eat [on my account] from the storekeeper and I will settle the accounts with him," he must show concern lest [the employee] will drink wine.49 Thus it will be as if he purchased wine used as a libation and gave it to him.
A similar arrangement with regard to the Sabbatical year50 is also forbidden; i.e., one gives a dinar to a Jewish storekeeper who is a common person and tells his Jewish employee: "Go, drink, and eat [on my account] from the storekeeper and I will settle the accounts with him." If the worker eats food that was not tithed, it is forbidden.51
Halacha 26
If, however, he told them: "Eat and drink the worth of this dinar," or "Eat and drink from the storekeeper on my account and I will pay him," this is permitted. Although the Jew becomes liable, his liability is not specifically related [to the foods from which the employees partake].52 [Therefore,] he need not be concerned, not about wine used as a libation, not about produce of the Sabbatical year, nor about untithed produce.53
Halacha 27
[The following rules apply when] a [gentile] king distributes his wine among the people and takes money for it, as he desires.54 A [Jew] may not tell a gentile: "Take 200 zuz and go into the king's storehouse in place of me," so that the gentile will take the wine designated for the Jew and give the money to the king.55 He may, however, tell him: "Here is 200 zuz for you. Save me from [going to] the storehouse."56
Halacha 28
When a gentile touches57 a Jew's wine against [the Jew's] will,58 it is permitted to sell that wine to that gentile alone.59 [The rationale is] since that gentile wished to cause a Jew a loss [by] having his wine forbidden, it is as if he destroyed it or burnt it, in which instance, he would be obligated to pay. Thus the money [the Jew] takes from him is money for the loss and not money for a sale.60
FOOTNOTES
1.And thus it is less likely for him to come at frequent intervals.
2.Implied is that the entrance is closed with two seals, as required by Halachah 8. The Rama (Yoreh De'ah 130:2) writes that since in the present age, most gentiles are not idolaters, only one seal is necessary. The Siftei Cohen 130:11) states that this principle should be applied in the present instance.
3.Nevertheless, since we do not know for certain that the gentile touched the wine, we do not forbid benefiting from it (Radbaz).
4.Since the gentile was not given permission to enter the house, he would be considered as a thief if he did so. Hence, we assume that he did not enter the home to pour a libation.
The Ra'avad states that the Rambam's words apply only when the house belongs to the Jew. When, however, the house belongs to the gentile, the wine is forbidden, even if he did not entrust him with the key. The rationale is that since the gentile has a connection to the house, he will have an excuse to enter it. Hence we fear that he entered it and touched the Jew's wine. The Radbaz defends the Rambam's ruling explaining that since the house is rented the owner does not have the right to enter it at will. The Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 129:5) quotes the Rambam's ruling.
5.We have translated the Rambam's words literally. The intent, however, appears to be not ritual purity per se, but "without contact with gentiles."
6.I.e., he is not present at all times. Nevertheless, it is possible that he will return at any given moment. Hence, the gentile will not take liberties. See Halachah 4.
7.Since he does not live on the premises, he is not considered as a permanent watchman. Hence, the fact that he enters from time to time during the day is not significant (Lechem Mishneh). The Ra'avad differs and maintains that as long as the Jew enters and leaves at will, that is sufficient to inhibit the gentile from touching the wine. [Significantly, in his Commentary to the Mishnah (Avodah Zarah 4:11), the Rambam adopts a position similar to that of the Ra'avad.]
The Tur and the Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 131:1 adopt an intermediate position, stating that if there is another Jew living in that city and the entrance to the building where the wine is stored is visible from the public domain, the wine is permitted. For the owner will be afraid to break the lock to the door lest he be seen and the matter become known. (This approach is also mentioned in the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (loc. cit).
8.There is, however, nothing preventing him from selling it to other gentiles.
9.I.e., he wrote the bill of sale in advance, before the Jew actually paid to clarify that his intent was to sell it to him.
The Siftei Cohen 131:1 writes that these stringencies apply only if the Jew did not pay the gentile anything at all. Once the Jew pays the gentile something, the wine is considered his and more lenient rules apply. It is questionable, however, if the Rambam would accept this leniency, for as stated in Chapter 12, Halachah 25, he rules that as long as wine is security for a debt, a gentile creditor will feel free to do with it as he desires.
10.Since Jews can see whether or not the gentile touches it, he is afraid to do so, lest his investment be ruined. See the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (Avodah Zarah 4:11).
11.Because these places are also in public view and/or acces.
12.Our translation follows Rashi's commentary to Avodah Zarah 70a. The Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 129:16) defines the term as meaning pillars.
13.Since the gentile would be considered as a thief for overstepping these boundaries, we do not fear that he would do so.
14.Were a gentile to touch them, they would be disqualified.
15.The rationale is that we assume that a gentile will not trouble himself to reseal the container with two seals as the Jew had sealed it. Hence the fact that he founds it with the two seals he left it is a sign that it has not been tampered with.
16.To apply these concepts in contemporary terms: When a bottle of wine is closed with a cork or a bottle-cap, that is one seal. If there is a paper or plastic wrapper around the cork or the cap, that is the second seal.
17.Based on Avodah Zarah 31a, some interpret this as is speaking about an instance where the corner the gentile grants the Jew is closed off with a seal. The Rama (Yoreh De'ah 130:2) writes that there are opinions which rule that after the fact, one seal is sufficient in this situation.
The Lechem Mishneh explains that even if the place is not closed off, since it is designated for the Jew, one seal is sufficient. See Turei Zahav 130:4).
18.For in none of these instances do we fear that the gentile will use the beverage for a libation, as stated in Chapter 11, Halachot 9-10.
19.In these instances, we fear that the gentile will exchange another substance, for the substance deposited. One seal is sufficient to dispel these suspicions (Lechem Mishneh).
20.Since the prohibition involved in these instances is Scriptural in origin, we are more stringent.
21.See Chapter 11, Halachah 7. That halachah states that when a gentile who is not an idolater touches wine, it is only forbidden to drink it. In this instance, since the gentile did not intend to touch the wine, we are more lenient and do not forbid it at all (Radbaz).
As mentioned previously, the Rama (Yoreh De'ah 124:24) rules that in the present era, none of the gentiles are considered as idolaters and the leniency suggested by the Rambam applies universally. On that basis, he and the subsequent Ashkenazic authorities have suggested several leniencies.
22.See Chapter 12, Halachot 5 and 9.
23.A gentile who has made a formal commitment to accept the Seven Universal Laws Commanded to Noah and His Descendants. These include the prohibition against worshipping false divinities.
24.I.e., a place where it can be exchanged without a Jew noticing.
25.For we fear that he exchanged it with his own wine and it is forbidden to drink such wine. Although a resident alien also accepted the prohibition against theft, we fear that he - and certainly, other gentiles - will not abide by his commitment (Radbaz).
26.For these are merely safeguards. Although Rashi (Avodah Zarah 58b) and other Rishonim rule more stringently, the Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 125:3,6,7) accepts the Rambam's position.
27.Doing so does not arouse a suspicion that perhaps he used it as a libation for his false deity. Smelling is not considered as tasting or drinking.
28.It is not included in the prohibition mentioned at the beginning of Ch. 11.
29.See the conclusion of Ch. 5 of Hilchot Meilah, where the Rambam delivers a slightly contradictory ruling.
30.Chapter 8, Halachah 16. See also Hilchot Avodat Kochavimn 7:9 and Hilchot Ishut 5:2.
31.For he is deriving benefit from gentile wine.
32.Even though the Jew himself does nothing to help transport the gentile wine.
33.I.e., throw in a place where neither he nor anyone else will benefit from them.
34.Nor others.
35.For the rental fee was not primarily paid for the sake of the wine (Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 133:3). The Radbaz emphasizes that this leniency applies when the donkey was rented primarily for human transport and, by the way, the gentile placed wine upon it. If, however, he rented it primarily to transport packages - and later the owner discovered that wine was included among them - the rental fee is forbidden even if the person also rides on the donkey.
36.He is being paid for the entire work as a collective entity. Were he not to have transported all the barrels, he would not be paid at all (Rashi, Avodah Zarah 65a). Accordingly, the payment for transporting the beer was never distinct from that of the wine. Hence his entire wage is forbidden.
The Ra'avad differs and maintains that it is sufficient to destroy the wage paid for the forbidden barrels. The Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 133:3) follows the Rambam's stringency.
37.Since the wage was paid for each barrel individually, the wage paid for the barrels of beer is a separate and distinct entity. Hence it is not forbidden. Nevertheless, at the outset, it is forbidden to accept such a job [Shulchan Aruch (loc. cit.)].
38.For the craftsman have not accepted the wine and the employer owes them money.
39.For then it is as if they are exchanging the wine for wine.
The Rama (Yoreh De'ah 132:3) writes that in the present age, (when gentiles are not actually idolaters,) a worker may return the barrel of wine even though it has entered his domain.
40.One hundred silver zuzim.
41.Hence he has benefited from existence of the gentile wine. Hence, it is forbidden.
The Rama (Yoreh De'ah 132:7) states that, even if the Jew desires that the false deity continue to exist, leniency can be granted in an instance where the gentile has other resources to pay the debt or alternatively, when the debt is secured by a guarantor. Moreover, if all that is concerned is ordinary gentile wine, in the present age, there is no prohibition for the reason stated above.
42.Here leniency is not granted, because the convert has a share in the entities belonging to the partnership. Thus he is exchanging money for a false deity.
43.I.e., our Sages feared that the convert will be so disturbed about being unable to receive his inheritance, that he will forsake Jewish practice and return to his previous mode of conduct. This is undesirable, because once a person converts, he is a full-fledged Jew. If he conducts himself undesirably, his conduct affects the entire Jewish people.
44.For they have already entered the domain of the convert and are, therefore, forbidden. Hence it is forbidden to exchange them for others, for then one will be deriving benefit.
45.I.e., he acquires the wine through the kinyan of meshichah [see Maggid Mishneh, Hilchot Zechiyah UMatanah 1:14; Turei Zahav 132:4) and the money is considered as a loan which he owes the Jew.
The Radbaz questions why the Rambam mentions meshichah, drawing the wine into his own domain. Seemingly, once a price was established and the wine was poured, the gentile acquires it whether or not he performs meshichah immediately. Conversely, if meshichah finalizes the transaction, seemingly as long as a price was set before meshichah, the wine should be permitted
The Kessef Mishneh explains that the Rambam is speaking according to the common practice. It was customary to establish a price either before measuring the wine or after meshichah.
46.For he fears that the Jew will ask an exorbitant price (Radbaz). Hence he always keeps the option of negating the sale.
47.For the payment of the money formalizes the transfer of the wine (effecting a kinyan), Thus the gentile has paid for the wine before it entered his domain and became forbidden.
48.There are several explanations for this ruling. The gentile left some of his wine in the container and thus as the Jew was pouring the new wine in, it became forbidden. Alternatively, the gentile was holding the container and moved it (see Chapter 12, Halachah 3). This is sufficient to cause the wine to become forbidden (Radbaz).
The Ra'avad objects to the Rambam's ruling, stating that (as the Rambam himself rules in Chapter 16, Halachah 29) if kosher wine becomes mixed with non-kosher wine, it is forbidden to drink it, but one may benefit from it. Nevertheless, he does not provide a rebuttal to the second explanation given above.
The Kessef Mishneh explains that since the wine in the container the gentile is holding becomes forbidden, the wine the Jew is pouring also becomes forbidden, as stated above in Chapter 12, Halachah 12.
49.Since he gave the storekeeper the money in advance, it is as if he paid the storekeeper for what his worker would eat. Thus it is as if the worker is drinking the employer's wine.
50.The Rambam's source (Avodah Zarah 58b) mentions both produce from the Sabbatical year and untithed produce, because it is possible that a common person is lax in his observance of both these mitzvot. Apparently, the Rambam also had this intent because he begins by mentioning produce of the Sabbatical year and concludes by mentioning untithed produce.
51.I.e., it is forbidden for the employer to do this, because it would be considered as if he personally gave his employee produce from the Sabbatical year or untithed produce.
52.I.e., he undertakes a financial obligation to the storekeeper, but since he does not pay him the money beforehand, that obligation is not explicitly associated with the food or drink of which the worker partakes.
53.The Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 450:6) mentions opinions that ate more stringent with regard to an employer taking financial responsibility for the food a gentile will eat on Pesach. The Turei Zahav 460:4 explains that with regard to Pesach, there is a greater reason for stringency, for it is almost certain that the gentile will eat chametz. In the situations mentioned in our halachah, by contrast, it is possible that none of the prohibitions will be violated, for the gentile will not want wine, nor the Jewish workers, the untithed or Sabbatical produce.
54.A gentile king produced wine from the royal vineyard as a means of financing his nation's expenses. He would obligate each of the person's in his kingdom to buy a standard amount of wine. For a Jew, that represents a problem for the wine is gentile wine. Not only is it forbidden to drink it, it is forbidden to benefit from it. Thus not only may a Jew not partake of such wine, nor may he take it and sell it. He is forbidden even to purchase it from the king.
This represents the Rambam's interpretation of Avodah Zarah 71a. It is quoted by the Rashba and other Rishonim. Rashi, the Ra'avad, and others, however, have different interpretations of the passage. The Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 132:6) quotes the Rambam's interpretation.
55.The Radbaz explains that in this way, the gentile is purchasing the wine from the Jew. Others explain that the gentile is acting as the Jew's agent.
56.For in this way, the gentile is not acting as the Jew's agent.
57.This law applies when the gentile intentionally touches the wine. If the gentile touches it unintentionally, he is not liable. The rationale is that this is damage which is not outwardly noticeable (i.e., although the ritual status of the wine has changed, outwardly it is the same). In such an instance, Hilchot Chovel UMazik 7:3 states, one is not liable for causing damage inadvertently.
The Kessef Mishneh states that even if the gentile intentionally touched the wine, but did not know that by touching it, he caused it to be forbidden, the gentile is not liable and this leniency does not apply. The Siftei Cohen 132:2, however, interprets this wording as implying that even if the gentile caused it to become forbidden inadvertently, the Jew may sell it to him.
See also Hilchot Chovel UMazik 7:4 and commentaries, where a similar concept is discussed.
58.For if the Jew could have stopped the gentile from touching the wine and didn't, he is responsible for the loss (Radbaz).
59.The Rama (Yoreh De'ah 124:2) rules that in the present age, when it is not customary for gentiles to use wine as libations, the wine may be sold to any gentile.
60.Avodah Zarah 59b states that in such a situation, he may charge the gentile the full price of the wine.
-------
Hayom Yom:
• Thursday, Nissan 17, 5774 • 17 April 2014
"Today's Day"
Thursday, Nissan 17, 2nd day of the omer, 5703
Torah lessons: Chumash: Acharei Mot, Chamishi with Rashi.
Tehillim: 83-87.
Tanya: With this preparedness (p. 215)...as is known. (p. 215).
"Whoever expands on the narrative of the exodus from Egypt, this person (harei zeh) is to be praised" (Haggada). The Hebrew word zeh ("this") indicates a state of holiness, as in the phrase, "Here, this (zeh) is our G-d" (p. 336). Whoever expands on the narrative of the exodus, his zeh, his element of holiness, is enriched.
-------
Daily Thought:
The Freedom Connection
We are limited by the very fact that we have human form. There is no freedom in following our whim, only further slavery to our own limited selves. Freedom can come only by connecting to something infinite and beyond us.
And so Moses was told, “When you take the people out from Egypt, you shall all serve G‑d on this mountain.”
-------
No comments:
Post a Comment