TODAY'S LAWS & CUSTOMS:
• COUNT "FIFTEEN DAYS TO THE OMER" TONIGHT
Tomorrow is the fifteenth 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 fifteen days, which are two weeks and one day, 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: Chessed sheb'Tifferet -- "Kindness in Harmony"
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
DAILY QUOTE:
We were in our own eyes as locusts, and so we were in theirs--Numbers 13:33
DAILY STUDY:
CHITAS AND RAMBAM FOR TODAY:
Chumash: Emor, 3rd Portion Leviticus 22:17-22:33 with Rashi
• Chapter 22
17. And the Lord spoke to Moses, saying, יז. וַיְדַבֵּר יְהֹוָה אֶל משֶׁה לֵּאמֹר:
18. Speak to Aaron and to his sons and to all the children of Israel and say to them: Any man whatsoever from the house of Israel or from the strangers among Israel who offers up his sacrifice for any of their vows or for any of their donations that they may offer up to the Lord as a burnt offering יח. דַּבֵּר אֶל אַהֲרֹן וְאֶל בָּנָיו וְאֶל כָּל בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל וְאָמַרְתָּ אֲלֵהֶם אִישׁ אִישׁ מִבֵּית יִשְׂרָאֵל וּמִן הַגֵּר בְּיִשְׂרָאֵל אֲשֶׁר יַקְרִיב קָרְבָּנוֹ לְכָל נִדְרֵיהֶם וּלְכָל נִדְבוֹתָם אֲשֶׁר יַקְרִיבוּ לַיהֹוָה לְעֹלָה:
their vows: [when a person declares:] “It is incumbent upon me” [i.e., a personal commitment to bring a burnt offering," and therefore, if the animal he set aside is lost or blemished, he must fulfill his vow with a replacement animal, whereas];
נדריהם: הרי עלי:
their donations: [when a person declares:] “Behold, [I hereby consecrate] this [animal for a burnt offering,” since the declaration falls on the animal rather than on the person, if the consecrated animal is lost or blemished, the person is not responsible]. — [Meg. 8a]
נדבותם: הרי זו:
19. to be favorable for you, [it shall be] an unblemished, male, from cattle, from sheep, or from goats. יט. לִרְצֹנְכֶם תָּמִים זָכָר בַּבָּקָר בַּכְּשָׂבִים וּבָעִזִּים:
to be favorable for you: [God is saying here:] “Bring Me something that is worthy to appease (לִרְצוֹת) for you before Me, that will make you favorable (רָצוֹן) before Me.” [This word לִרְצֹנְכֶם has the meaning of] apaisement in French [like “appeasement” in English]. And what [animal] is worthy of attaining God’s appeasement?
לרצנכם: הביאו דבר הראוי לרצות אתכם לפני, שיהא לכם לרצון אפיימני"ט בלע"ז [פיוס]. ואיזהו הראוי לרצון:
an unblemished, male, from cattle, from sheep, or from goats: But with burnt-offerings of birds, no unblemished or male [birds] are required, and it is not rendered invalid if it has a defect unless a limb is missing. — [Torath Kohanim 22:106]
תמים זכר בבקר בכשבים ובעזים: אבל בעולת העוף אין צריך תמות וזכרות, ואינו נפסל במום אלא בחסרון אבר:
20. Any [animal] that has a blemish, you shall not offer up, for it will not be favorable for you. כ. כֹּל אֲשֶׁר בּוֹ מוּם לֹא תַקְרִיבוּ כִּי לֹא לְרָצוֹן יִהְיֶה לָכֶם:
21. And if a man offers up a peace offering to the Lord for declaring a vow or as a donation from cattle or from the flock to be accepted, it shall be unblemished. It shall not have any defect in it. כא. וְאִישׁ כִּי יַקְרִיב זֶבַח שְׁלָמִים לַיהֹוָה לְפַלֵּא נֶדֶר אוֹ לִנְדָבָה בַּבָּקָר אוֹ בַצֹּאן תָּמִים יִהְיֶה לְרָצוֹן כָּל מוּם לֹא יִהְיֶה בּוֹ:
for declaring a vow: For verbally designating [a particular animal. If he designated it merely in his mind, this does not obligate him as a vow]. — [Sifthei Chachamim]
לפלא נדר: להפריש בדיבורו:
22. [An animal that has] blindness, or [a] broken [bone], or [a] split [eyelid or lip], or [one that has] warts, or dry lesions or weeping sores you shall not offer up [any of] these to the Lord, nor shall you place [any] of these as a fire offering upon the altar to the Lord. כב. עַוֶּרֶת אוֹ שָׁבוּר אוֹ חָרוּץ אוֹ יַבֶּלֶת אוֹ גָרָב אוֹ יַלֶּפֶת לֹא תַקְרִיבוּ אֵלֶּה לַיהֹוָה וְאִשֶּׁה לֹא תִתְּנוּ מֵהֶם עַל הַמִּזְבֵּחַ לַיהֹוָה:
[An animal that has] blindness: עַוֶּרֶת. [This is] a noun, the feminine equivalent of עִוָּרוֹן, that the animal shall not have the defect of blindness.
עורת: שם דבר של מום עורון בלשון נקבה, שלא יהא בו מום של עורת:
or [a] broken [bone]: [lit., “or broken,” i.e., the animal] shall not be [broken].
או שבור: לא יהיה:
or [a] split [eyelid or lip]: חָרוּץ [lit. cut], an eyelid that was split or notched, and similarly, its lip which was split or notched. — [Torath Kohanim 22:113]
חרוץ: ריס של עין שנסדק או שנפגם, וכן שפתו שנסדקה או נפגמה:
or [one that has] warts: Verrue [wart] in French. \b or dry lesions\b0 Heb. גָרָב, a type of lichen, as יַלֶּפֶת (see Rashi on 21:20). The יַלֶּפֶת is similar to “And Samson grasped (וַיִּלְפֹּת)” (Jud. 16:29) for it bonds (מְלַפֶּפֶת) itself to him until the day of [his] death, for it has no cure. — [Bech. 41a]
יבלת: ורוא"ה בלע"ז [יבלת]:
you shall not offer up [(any of) these]: [This prohibition is stated] three times [here and in verses 20 and 25], as an admonition against (a) consecrating them, (b) slaughtering them and (c) dashing their blood. — [Temurah 6b]
גרב: מין חזזית וכן ילפת. ולשון ילפת, כמו (שופטים טז כט) וילפת שמשון, שאחוזה בו עד יום מיתה, שאין לה רפואה:
nor shall you place [(any) of these] as a fire-offering: [This is] an admonition against the burning them [on the altar]. — [Temurah 6b; Torath Kohanim 22:116]
לא תקריבו: שלש פעמים, להזהיר על הקדשן ועל שחיטתן ועל זריקת דמן:
23. As for an ox or sheep that has mismatching limbs or uncloven hooves you may make it into a donation, but as a vow, it will not be accepted. כג. וְשׁוֹר וָשֶׂה שָׂרוּעַ וְקָלוּט נְדָבָה תַּעֲשֶׂה אֹתוֹ וּלְנֵדֶר לֹא יֵרָצֶה:
mismatching limbs: i.e., one limb bigger than its [normal] counterpart. — [see Rashi on verse 21:18 above and Sifthei Chachamim there; Bech. 40a]
שרוע: אבר גדול מחבירו:
uncloven hooves: its hooves are uncloven [i.e., resembling those of a horse or donkey]. — [Bech. 40a]
וקלוט: פרסותיו קלוטות:
you may make it into a donation: [i.e., it may be sold and its money donated] to the maintenance of the Holy Temple.
נדבה תעשה אתו: לבדק הבית:
but as a vow: for the altar. — [Torath Kohanim 22:118]
ולנדר: למזבח:
it will not be accepted: What consecration comes to grant acceptance (לִרְצוֹת) ? I must say the consecration for the altar. - [Torath Kohanim 22:118][See Sifthei Chachamim, Mizrachi, and Nachalath Yaakov]
לא ירצה: איזהו הקדש בא לרצות, הוי אומר זה הקדש המזבח:
24. [Any animal whose testicles were] squashed, crushed, pulled out, or severed, you shall not offer up to the Lord, and in your land, you shall not do [it]. כד. וּמָעוּךְ וְכָתוּת וְנָתוּק וְכָרוּת לֹא תַקְרִיבוּ לַיהֹוָה וּבְאַרְצְכֶם לֹא תַעֲשׂוּ:
[Any animal] whose testicles were squashed, crushed, pulled out, or severed: [These terms refer to damage] to the testicles or the membrum. — [Bech. 39b]
ומעוך וכתות ונתוק וכרות: בביצים או בגיד:
squashed: Heb. וּמָעוּךְ, its testicles were squashed by hand.
מעוך: ביציו מעוכין ביד:
crushed: וְכָתוּת, more severely crushed than מָעוּךְ.
כתות: כתושים יותר ממעוך:
pulled out: Heb. נָתוּק, torn off by hand, until the threads upon which they are suspended snapped, but they are still contained within the scrotum, and the scrotum was not torn off.
נתוק: תלושין ביד עד שנפסקו חוטים שתלויים בהן, אבל נתונים הם בתוך הכיס, והכיס לא נתלש:
or severed: Heb., וְכָרוּת, severed with an instrument, but still contained within the scrotum.
וכרות: כרותין בכלי ועודן בכיס:
squashed: Heb. וּמָעוּךְ [Onkelos] renders this as וְדִימְרִיס, which is its equivalent in Aramaic, an expression of crushing.
ומעוך: תרגומו ודימריס, זה לשונו בארמית, לשון כתישה:
crushed: וְכָתוּת, [Onkelos] renders this as וְדִירְסִיס, like, “[and he will smite] the great house into splinters (רְסִיסִים)” (Amos 6:11), little pieces; likewise, קָנֶה הַמְרֻסָּס, meaning “a reed that is broken into pieces” (Shab. 80b).
וכתות: תרגומו ודירסיס, כמו (עמוס ו יא) הבית הגדול רסיסים, בקיעות דקות, וכן (שבת פ ב) קנה המרוסס:
and in your land, you shall not do: this thing, to castrate any livestock or wild animal, even of an unclean species. This is why [our verse] says here “in your land” -to include any species found in your land. — [Torath Kohanim 22:121] for it is impossible to say that castration is prohibited only in Eretz Israel [“your land,”] because [the prohibition of] castration is an obligation [associated with] the body [of a person], and every commandment associated with the body [of a person] applies both in the Land [of Israel] and outside the Land [of Israel]. - [Kid. 36b]
ובארצכם לא תעשו: דבר זה, לסרס שום בהמה וחיה ואפילו טמאה, לכך נאמר בארצכם, לרבות כל אשר בארצכם, שאי אפשר לומר לא נצטוו על הסרוס אלא בארץ, שהרי סרוס חובת הגוף הוא, וכל חובת הגוף נוהגת בין בארץ בין בחוצה לארץ:
25. And from the hand of a gentile you shall not offer up as food for your God any of these [blemished animals], for their injury is upon them, there is a defect on them; they will not be accepted for you. כה. וּמִיַּד בֶּן נֵכָר לֹא תַקְרִיבוּ אֶת לֶחֶם אֱלֹהֵיכֶם מִכָּל אֵלֶּה כִּי מָשְׁחָתָם בָּהֶם מוּם בָּם לֹא יֵרָצוּ לָכֶם:
from the hand of a gentile: [lit., “and from the hand of a foreigner,” i.e.,] if a non-Jew brought a sacrifice and handed it over to the kohen to offer it up to Heaven, you shall not offer up on his behalf any blemished animal. And even though blemished animals are not deemed invalid as sacrifices from the children of Noah [i.e., by all non-Jews] unless they have a limb missing-that [rule] applies [only] to private altars in the fields. However, on the altar in the Mishkan, you shall not offer them up (Temurah 7b). You shall, however, accept an unblemished animal from them. That is why Scripture states earlier in this passage (verse 18 above), אִישׁ אִישׁ, “Any man whatsoever,” [where this double expression comes] to include non-Jews, who make vows and donations like Israelites. — [Temurah 2b]
ומיד בן נכר: נכרי שהביא קרבן ביד כהן להקריבו לשמים לא תקריבו לו בעל מום. ואף על פי שלא נאסרו בעלי מומין לקרבן בני נח אלא אם כן מחוסרי אבר, זאת נוהגת בבמה שבשדות, אבל על המזבח שבמשכן לא תקריבוה, אבל תמימה תקבלו מהם, לכך נאמר למעלה איש איש (לעיל פסוק יח), לרבות את הנכרים שנודרים נדרים ונדבות כישראל:
their injury: Heb. מָשְׁחָתָם, [as Onkelos renders it:] חִבּוּלְהוֹן, “their injury.”
משחתם: חבולהון:
they will not be accepted for you: to atone for you.
לא ירצו לכם: לכפר עליכם:
26. And the Lord spoke to Moses, saying: כו. וַיְדַבֵּר יְהֹוָה אֶל משֶׁה לֵּאמֹר:
27. When an ox or a sheep or a goat is born, it shall remain under its mother for seven days, and from the eighth day onwards, it shall be accepted as a sacrifice for a fire offering to the Lord. כז. שׁוֹר אוֹ כֶשֶׂב אוֹ עֵז כִּי יִוָּלֵד וְהָיָה שִׁבְעַת יָמִים תַּחַת אִמּוֹ וּמִיּוֹם הַשְּׁמִינִי וָהָלְאָה יֵרָצֶה לְקָרְבַּן אִשֶּׁה לַיהֹוָה:
When [an ox or a sheep or a goat] is born: [The expression “is born” comes] to exclude [from sacrifice an animal] delivered by Caesarean section. - [Chul. 38b]
כי יולד: פרט ליוצא דופן:
28. An ox or sheep you shall not slaughter it and its offspring in one day._ כח. וְשׁוֹר אוֹ שֶׂה אֹתוֹ וְאֶת בְּנוֹ לֹא תִשְׁחֲטוּ בְּיוֹם אֶחָד:
it and its offspring: [This prohibition] applies to the female [i.e., the mother] animal, namely, that it is prohibited to slaughter a mother animal and its male or female offspring [on the same day]. The prohibition does not apply, however, to males [i.e., to the father animals], and it is permissible to slaughter the father animal along with its male or female offspring [on the same day]. — [Chul. 78b]
אתו ואת בנו: נוהג בנקבה, שאסור לשחוט האם והבן או הבת, ואינו נוהג בזכרים, ומותר לשחוט האב והבן [או האב והבת]:
[you shall not slaughter] it and its offspring: Also included [in this prohibition is slaughtering] its offspring and [then] it. — [Chul. 82a]
אתו ואת בנו: אף בנו ואותו במשמע:
29. And when you slaughter a thanksgiving offering to the Lord, you shall slaughter it so that it should be acceptable for you. כט. וְכִי תִזְבְּחוּ זֶבַח תּוֹדָה לַיהֹוָה לִרְצֹנְכֶם תִּזְבָּחוּ:
you shall slaughter it so that it should be acceptable for you: From the very beginning of your slaughtering, take care that it should be “acceptable for you.” And what makes it acceptable?"
לרצנכם תזבחו: תחלת זביחתכם הזהרו שתהא לרצון לכם. ומהו הרצון:
It shall be eaten on that day: [Now, although it has already been stated that thanksgiving-offerings must be eaten on the day of sacrificing (Lev. 7:15), the Torah repeats this here] exclusively to warn us that the slaughtering must be performed on this condition. Do not slaughter it with the intention of eating it on the next day, for if you have this invalidating intention in mind, the sacrifice will not be “acceptable for you” (Torath Kohanim 22:135) [Indeed, it will be rejected (פִּגּוּל; see Rashi Lev. 7:18)]. Another explanation of לִרְצֹנְכֶם is: “knowingly.” From here, [we learn that] if someone slaughtered an animal in an incidental manner [i.e., according to Rashi , without intending to slaughter, just to pick up the knife or to throw it. According to Tosafoth, if he did not intend to slaughter, but only to sever the organs, or if he thought that it was an ordinary animal, and did not realize that it was to be slaughtered as a holy sacrifice], then [even though the animal is fit to be eaten as ordinary non-consecrated meat, nevertheless,] regarding being slaughtered as a holy sacrifice, it is deemed unfit. — [Chul. 13a] Now, although Scripture has already stated [that a sacrifice is “not acceptable” if, while slaughtering, one intended to eat it after its permissible time] in the case of sacrifices that may be eaten for two days (see Lev. 7:18), it specifies it again regarding those sacrifices that must be eaten on the same day (see Rashi Lev. 7:15), namely, that they [too] must be slaughtered with the intention of eating them within their permissible time.
ביום ההוא יאכל: לא בא להזהיר אלא שתהא שחיטה על מנת כן, אל תשחטוהו על מנת לאכלו למחר, שאם תחשבו בו מחשבת פסול לא יהא לכם לרצון. דבר אחר לרצונכם, לדעתכם, מכאן למתעסק שפסול בשחיטת קדשים. ואף על פי שפרט בנאכלים לשני ימים, חזר ופרט בנאכלין ליום אחד שתהא זביחתן על מנת לאכלן בזמנן:
30. It shall be eaten on that day; do not leave it over until morning. I am the Lord. ל. בַּיּוֹם הַהוּא יֵאָכֵל לֹא תוֹתִירוּ מִמֶּנּוּ עַד בֹּקֶר אֲנִי יְהֹוָה:
It shall be eaten on that day: [As explained above (see preceding Rashi)], Scripture states this here only to warn us that the slaughtering must be performed with this intention. For if it meant to fix the time limit for eating it, this has already been stated, “And the flesh of his thanksgiving peace-offering [shall be eaten on the day that it is offered…]” (Lev. 7:15). - [Torath Kohanim 7:113]
ביום ההוא יאכל: לא בא להזהיר אלא שתהא שחיטה על מנת כן, שאם לקבוע לו זמן אכילה, כבר כתוב (ויקרא ז טו) ובשר זבח תודת שלמיו וגו':
I am the Lord: Know Who decreed this matter, and do not perceive it as unimportant.
אני ה': דע מי גזר על הדבר ואל יקל בעיניך:
31. You shall keep My commandments and perform them. I am the Lord. לא. וּשְׁמַרְתֶּם מִצְוֹתַי וַעֲשִׂיתֶם אֹתָם אֲנִי יְהֹוָה:
You shall keep [My commandments]: This refers to learning [God’s commandments and “keeping” them organized and memorized in one’s heart]
ושמרתם: זו המשנה:
and perform them: meaning [putting them into] action. — [Mizrachi; Torath Kohanim 22:136]
ועשיתם: זה המעשה:
32. You shall not desecrate My Holy Name. I shall be sanctified amidst the children of Israel. I am the Lord Who sanctifies you, לב. וְלֹא תְחַלְּלוּ אֶת שֵׁם קָדְשִׁי וְנִקְדַּשְׁתִּי בְּתוֹךְ בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל אֲנִי יְהֹוָה מְקַדִּשְׁכֶם:
You shall not desecrate [My Holy Name]: By transgressing My commandments intentionally. Now, is it not already implied by the verse “ You shall not desecrate [My Holy Name,” that if you do not transgress, God’s Name will be sanctified? So] what do we learn by Scripture adding “I shall be sanctified [amidst the children of Israel]?” [It teaches us:] Surrender your life [and do not transgress God’s commandments], and [thus] sanctify My Name. Now, one might think [that this commandment applies even] in private [i.e., if he is not in the presence of ten or more Jews]. Scripture, therefore, says here “[I shall be sanctified] amidst the children of Israel” [i.e., one is obliged to sacrifice one’s life to avoid transgressing God’s commandments only in the presence of ten or more Jews]. And when one sacrifices oneself, one shall do so with the willingness to die, anyone who [submits to] sacrifices himself while assuming [that God will surely perform] a miracle [for him and save his life], for this person, God does not perform a miracle, for so we find in [the case of] Hananiah, Mishael and Azariah, that [when the evil Nebuchadnezzar threatened to throw them into a fiery furnace], they did not submit themselves on the condition [that God would perform] a miracle, as Scripture says, “[Behold, there is our God Whom we worship; He can save us from the burning, fiery furnace and from your hands, O king!] But if not, let it be known to you, O king [that we will not worship your god, neither will we prostrate ourselves to the golden image that you have set up]!” (Dan. 3:1718). [We see here that whatever the outcome,] whether [God would] rescue [them] or not- [they declared, regardless] “Let it be known to you, O king [that we will not prostrate ourselves…]!” - [Torath Kohanim 22:137]
ולא תחללו: לעבור על דברי מזידין. ממשמע שנאמר ולא תחללו, מה תלמוד לומר ונקדשתי, מסור עצמך וקדש שמי. יכול ביחיד, תלמוד לומר בתוך בני ישראל, וכשהוא מוסר עצמו, ימסור עצמו על מנת למות, שכל המוסר עצמו על מנת הנס, אין עושין לו נס, שכן מצינו בחנניה מישאל ועזריה שלא מסרו עצמן על מנת הנס, שנאמר (דניאל ג יח) והן לא, ידיע להוא לך מלכא די לאלהך לא איתנא פלחין וגו', מציל ולא מציל, ידיע להוא לך וגו':
33. Who took you out of the land of Egypt, to be a God to you. I am the Lord. לג. הַמּוֹצִיא אֶתְכֶם מֵאֶרֶץ מִצְרַיִם לִהְיוֹת לָכֶם לֵאלֹהִים אֲנִי יְהֹוָה:
Who took you out [of the land of Egypt]: on this very condition [i.e., to be willing to sacrifice your lives in sanctification of My Holy Name. — [Torath Kohanim 22:138] [And do not think that since it is an obligation, you will not receive reward for sacrificing yourselves, for]
המוציא אתכם: על מנת כן:
I am the Lord: faithful to give reward [to those who fulfill My Torah. — [Torath Kohanim 22:138]
אני ה': נאמן לשלם שכר:
-------
Tehillim: Psalms Chapters 140 - 144
• Chapter 140
David composed this psalm against his slanderers, especially the chief conspirator Doeg. Anyone confronted by slanderers should recite this psalm.
1. For the Conductor, a psalm by David.
2. Rescue me from the evil man, protect me from the man of violence,
3. who devise evil schemes in their heart; every day they gather for wars.
4. They sharpen their tongues like a serpent; the spider's venom is forever under their lips.
5. Guard me, Lord, from the hands of the wicked, protect me from the man of violence-those who plot to cause my steps to slip.
6. Arrogant ones have hidden a snare for me, and ropes; they spread a net by my path, they set traps for me continually.
7. I said to the Lord, "You are my God!" Listen, O Lord, to the voice of my pleas.
8. God, my Lord, the strength of my deliverance, You sheltered my head on the day of armed battle.
9. Grant not, O Lord, the desires of the wicked; fulfill not his scheme, make it unattainable forever.
10. As for the head of my besiegers, let the deceit of their own lips bury them.
11. Let burning coals fall upon them; let it cast them down into the fire, into deep pits, never to rise again.
12. Let not the slanderous man be established in the land; let the evil of the man of violence trap him until he is overthrown.
13. I know that the Lord will execute judgement for the poor, justice for the needy.
14. Indeed, the righteous will extol Your Name; the upright will dwell in Your presence.
Chapter 141
This psalm teaches an important lesson: One should pray for Divine assistance that his mouth not speak that which is not in his heart. The gatekeeper only allows the gate to be opened for a purpose; let it be the same with one's lips.
1. A psalm by David. O Lord, I have called You, hasten to me; listen to my voice when I call to You.
2. Let my prayer be set forth as incense before You, the raising of my hands as an afternoon offering.
3. O Lord, place a guard for my mouth, keep watch over the door of my lips.
4. Do not incline my heart to a bad thing-to perform deeds in wickedness, with men, doers of evil; let me not partake of their delicacies.
5. Let the righteous one strike me with kindness and let him rebuke me; like the finest oil, let my head not refuse it. For as long [as I live], my prayer is [to preserve me] from their harm.
6. For their judges have slipped because of their [hearts of] rock, though they heard my words and they were pleasant.
7. As one who chops and splinters [wood] on the ground, so have our bones been scattered to the mouth of the grave.
8. For to You, God, my Lord, are my eyes; in You I take shelter; do not pour out my soul.
9. Protect me from the hands of the snare they laid for me, and from the traps of the evildoers.
10. Let the wicked fall into their own nets together, until I pass over.
Chapter 142
David composed this psalm while hiding from Saul in a cave, at which time he had cut off the corner of Saul's garment (to prove that he was able to kill him but did not wish to do so). He declared, "Where can I turn, and where can I run? All I have is to cry out to You!"
1. A maskil1 by David, when he was in the cave, a prayer.
2. With my voice I will cry out to the Lord; with my voice I will call to the Lord in supplication.
3. I will pour out my plea before Him; I will declare my distress in His presence.
4. When my spirit is faint within me, You know my path. In the way in which I walk, they have hidden a snare for me.
5. Look to my right and see, there is none that will know me; every escape is lost to me. No man cares for my soul.
6. I cried out to You, O Lord; I said, "You are my refuge, my portion in the land of the living.”
7. Listen to my song of prayer, for I have been brought very low. Deliver me from my pursuers, for they are too mighty for me.
8. Release my soul from confinement, so that it may acknowledge Your Name. Because of me, the righteous will crown [You] when You will deal graciously with me.
Chapter 143
1. A psalm by David. O Lord, hear my prayer, lend Your ear to my supplications. With Your faithfulness answer me, and with Your righteousness.
2. Do not enter into judgment with Your servant, for no living being would be vindicated before You.
3. For the enemy has pursued my soul; he has crushed my life to the ground; he has set me down in dark places, like those who are eternally dead.
4. Then my spirit became faint within me; my heart was dismayed within me.
5. I remembered the days of old; I meditated on all Your deeds; I spoke of Your handiwork.
6. I spread out my hands to You; like a languishing land my soul yearns after You, Selah.
7. Answer me soon, O Lord, my spirit is spent; hide not Your face from me, lest I become like those who descend into the pit.
8. Let me hear Your kindness in the morning, for have I trusted in You. Let me know the way in which I should walk, for to You I have lifted my soul.
9. Deliver me from my enemies, O Lord. I have concealed [my troubles from all, save] You.
10. Teach me to do Your will, for You are my God. Let Your good spirit lead me in an even path.
11. For the sake of Your Name, O Lord, give me life; in Your righteousness, take my soul out of distress.
12. And in Your kindness, cut off my enemies and obliterate all those who oppress my soul, for I am Your servant.
Chapter 144
After triumphing in all his wars, David composed this psalm in praise of God.
1. By David. Blessed be the Lord, my Rock, Who trains my hands for battle and my fingers for war.
2. My source of kindness and my fortress, my high tower and my rescuer, my shield, in Whom I take refuge; it is He Who makes my people submit to me.
3. O Lord, what is man that You have recognized him; the son of a mortal, that You are mindful of him?
4. Man is like a breath; his days are like a passing shadow.
5. O Lord, incline Your heavens and descend; touch the mountains and they will become vapor.
6. Flash one bolt of lightning and You will scatter them; send out Your arrows and You will confound them.
7. Stretch forth Your hands from on high, rescue me and deliver me out of many waters, from the hand of strangers,
8. whose mouth speaks deceit and whose right hand is a right hand of falsehood.
9. God, I will sing a new song to You, I will play to You upon a harp of ten strings.
10. He who gives victory to kings, He will rescue David, His servant, from the evil sword.
11. Rescue me and deliver me from the hand of strangers, whose mouth speaks deceit and whose right hand is a right hand of falsehood.
12. For our sons are like plants, brought up to manliness in their youth; our daughters are like cornerstones, fashioned after the fashion of a palace.
13. Our storehouses are full, overflowing with all manner of food; our sheep increase by the thousands, growing by the tens of thousands in our open fields.
14. Our leaders bear the heaviest burden; there is none who break through, nor is there bad report, nor outcry in our streets.
15. Happy is the nation for whom this is so. Happy is that nation whose God is the Lord.
-------
Tanya: Likutei Amarim, middle of Chapter 44
• Lessons in Tanya
• Today's Tanya
• Tuesday, Nissan 29, 5774 • April 29, 2014
• Likutei Amarim, middle of Chapter 44
ואהבה רבה וגדולה מזו, והיא מסותרת גם כן בכל נפש מישראל בירושה מאבותינו, היא מה שכתוב ברעיא מהימנא: כברא דאשתדל בתר אבוי ואימיה, דרחים לון יתיר מגרמיה ונפשיה ורוחיה כו׳
A greater and more intense love than this (i.e., than the love which results from realizing that G‑d is one’s true soul and life), a love which is likewise concealed in every soul of Israel as an inheritance from our ancestors, is that which is defined in Ra‘aya Mehemna,1 in description of Moses’ divine service: “Like a son who strives for the sake of his father and mother, whom he loves even more than his own body, soul and spirit,... sacrificing his life for his father and mother in order to redeem them from captivity.”
This manner of service is not limited to Moses alone: it is within the province of every Jew,
כי הלא אב אחד לכולנו
for2 “have we not all one Father?”
Just as Moses possessed this love because G‑d is his Father, so, too, every Jew can possess this love, for G‑d is equally our Father.
This level of love is more selfless than that described by the phrase, “My soul, I desire You.” For love which results from realizing that G‑d is one’s true life will only be as intense as a person’s desire for life itself. It will not demand total self-sacrifice, which is the opposite of life. The love of a child for his parent, however, is not limited to his love for life; his parents‘ lives take precedence over his own, and he is ready to give his very life in order to save theirs.
ואף כי מי הוא זה ואיזהו אשר ערב לבו לגשת להשיג אפילו חלק אחד מני אלף ממדרגת אהבת רעיא מהימנא
And although one may ask, who is the man and where is he, who would dare presume in his heart to approach and attain even a thousandth part of the degree of love felt by Moses, “The Faithful Shepherd,”
How, then, do we say that every Jew can feel the same love of G‑d that Moses felt?
מכל מקום הרי אפס קצהו ושמץ מנהו מרב טובו ואורו מאיר לכללות ישראל בכל דור ודור, כמו שכתוב בתיקונים: דאתפשטותיה בכל דרא ודרא, לאנהרא לון וכו׳
nevertheless a minute portion and particle of his great goodness and light illumines the community of Israel in each generation, as it is stated in the Tikkunim,3 that “an emanation from him Moses is present in every generation,”...4 “To illumine them.”
Since this luminous particle is found in all Jews in all generations, it thus becomes possible for every Jew — through Moses‘ goodness and light — to feel the love that he possesses as an inheritance from the Patriarchs in a manner similar to that of Moses.5
רק שהארה זו היא בבחינת הסתר והעלם גדול בנפשות כל בית ישראל, ולהוציא אהבה זו המסותרת מההעלם וההסתר אל הגילוי, להיות בהתגלות לבו ומוחו, לא נפלאת ולא רחוקה היא, אלא קרוב הדבר מאד בפיך ובלבבך
Only, the glow from Moses‘ soul is present in the souls of all Israel in a manner of great obscurity and concealment. But to bring forth this hidden love from its latency and concealment to a state of revelation, so that it will be manifest in his heart and mind, is6 “not beyond reach, nor is it afar off, but it is very close to you, in your mouth and heart.”
דהיינו להיות רגיל על לשונו וקולו לעורר כוונת לבו ומוחו
That is to say, it should be habitual with his tongue and voice to arouse the intention of his heart and mind, for7 “the sound of one’s voice arouses the devout concentration” of heart and mind,
להעמיק מחשבתו בחיי החיים, אין סוף ברוך הוא, כי הוא אבינו ממש האמיתי ומקור חיינו, ולעורר אליו האהבה כאהבת הבן אל האב
so as to immerse his thought in the Life of life, the blessed Ein Sof, for He is literally our true Father and the Source of our life, and to awaken our love for Him like the love of a son for his father.
וכשירגיל עצמו כן תמיד, הרי ההרגל נעשה טבע
And when one accustoms himself to this continually, habit will become nature.
FOOTNOTES
1.Zohar III, 281a.
2.Malachi 2:10.
3.Tikkun 69, 112a; 114a.
4.Cf. Zohar III, 216b; 273a.
5.The Rebbe responds to a question that may very well arise: It was previously explained that the love every Jew has for G‑d is an inheritance from the Patriarchs. Here, however, we learn that it is because Moses possessed such a love for G‑d, and there is an emanation of him present in every Jew in each generation.
The discrepancy cannot be explained by saying that since this love is concealed in the heart, it is Moses‘ emanation that enables a Jew to reveal it, for the revelation of love (which is about to be spoken of) is unconnected with the emanation from Moses.
The Rebbe explains: While it is indeed true that this love is an inheritance from the Patriarchs, yet the manner and intensity of this love is received from Moses. We need the emanation from Moses in order to ensure that the love be like the love of a child for his parents, a love so strong that the child is totally nullified to them and is ready to give his very life for them. For such was the manner of divine service and the love of Moses, and a minute particle of this love was transmitted by him to all Jews.
A wise man who by nature is drawn to the attribute of kindness, severity, or mercy will find that his wisdom enables him to achieve these traits in a wise manner. So, too, when one accomplishes self-abnegation it will enhance his natural attribute of love for G‑d, so that it will be felt in a manner of self-nullification.
Moses, whose essence was Daat and self-nullification, loved G‑d with these traits. And as a “faithful shepherd” he emanated these traits to all of Jewry as well.
This is why — the Rebbe says — the Alter Rebbe also quotes the beginning of the text in the Zohar, namely, “Like a son who strives for the sake of his father and mother,” which describes the manner of service, instead of beginning only with the continuation of the sentence in the Zohar, that speaks of the love itself — “whom he loves etc". Devarim 30:11, 14.
6.Cf. Devarim 30:11, 14.
7.Shnei Luchot HaBrit.
-------
Rambam:
• Daily Mizvah - Sefer Hamitzvos:
Tuesday, Nissan 29, 5774 • April 29, 2014
Today's Mitzvah
A daily digest of Maimonides’ classic work "Sefer Hamitzvot"
Important Message Regarding This Lesson
The Daily Mitzvah schedule runs parallel to the daily study of 3 chapters of Maimonides' 14-volume code. There are instances when the Mitzvah is repeated a few days consecutively while the exploration of the same Mitzvah continues in the in-depth track.
Positive Commandment 94
Fulfilling Verbal Obligations
"That which issues from your lips you shall keep and perform"—Deuteronomy 23:24.
We are commanded to carry through that which we pledge to do [or not to do].
Fulfilling Verbal Obligations
Positive Commandment 94
Translated by Berel Bell
The 94th mitzvah is that we are commanded to fulfill every verbal obligation we have taken upon ourselves, whether an oath, a vow, a korban,1 etc.
The source of this commandment is G‑d's statement,2 "You shall be careful to carry out whatever you say."
Although our Sages have split up this verse and explained each word separately as referring to something different, the general meaning of everything they say is: it is a positive commandment for a person to fulfill every verbal obligation he has taken upon himself, and a prohibition not to do so. This will be explained in our discussion of the prohibitions.3
The Sifri says, "The verse, 'Whatever you say,' constitutes a positive commandment." You find it obvious that the words, "whatever you say" by themselves have no meaning whatsoever. The intention [of the Sifri] is therefore as I explained above — that the plain meaning of the verse is that a person is obligated to carry out his verbal commitments.
This commandment is stated a second time in G‑d's statement,4 "A person must fulfill all he has verbally said."
The details of this mitzvah — i.e. how exactly the person must fulfill his obligation, and how he can be released [from his obligation] when in doubt regarding his statement — are explained in a number of passages in Sh'vuos, Nedarim, the end of Menachos, as well as in Kinim.
FOOTNOTES
1.Literally, a sacrifice. When a person says, "a sacrifice that I won't eat something of yours," he means to say that he considers that person's food to be forbidden for him to eat just as a sacrifice is forbidden to him. This constitutes a vow not to eat that person's food.
2.Deut. 23:24.
3.N157.
4.Num. 30:3.
________________________________________
Rambam:
• 1 Chapter: Mechirah Mechirah - Chapter Two Mechirah - Chapter Two
Halacha 1
A Canaanite servant is considered as landed property with regard to the laws of acquisition, and can be acquired through the transfer of money and a deed of sale, or through chazakah?
Halacha 2
What manifestation of ownership is effective in acquiring a servant? Making use of him as one makes use of a servant in the presence of his previous master.
What is implied? If the servant unties his new master's shoe, puts on his shoe, carries his articles to the bathhouse, undresses him, anoints him, combs his skin, dresses him or lifts him up, the master acquires the servant.
Similarly, if the master lifts up the servant, he acquires him.
Halacha 3
If the new owner pushes the servant and brings him close to him, he acquires him, for a Canaanite servant can be acquired through meshichah in this manner. If, however, he called the servant and he came to him, or the servant's previous owner told him to go to the purchaser, and he followed those instructions, the new owner does not acquire himuntil he pushes him or until he makes use of him in the manner described above.
If the new owner manifests his ownership over the servant outside the presence of the previous owner, the previous owner must tell him: "Go, manifest your ownership and acquire him" for the kinyan to be effective. 4. A servant below the age of majority is considered like an animal and can be acquired through both the processes by which an animal is acquired and those by which servants are acquired. Therefore, he can be acquired by meshichah even though the new owner did not push him.
Halacha 5
Livestock, whether light or heavy, can be acquired through meshichah. When lifting an animal is possible, it need not be lifted, because it may receive a blow when placed back on the earth. If a person lifts it up, he acquires it.
Lifting up an object serves as a kinyan in all places, while meshichah is effective as a kinyan only in a corner off the public domain, or in a courtyard whose ownership the buyer and the seller both share. Meshichah is not effective as a kinyan in the public domain or in a courtyard whose ownership is not shared by both the seller and the purchaser.
Halacha 6
How is an animal acquired through meshichah? Needless to say, the transaction is completed if the purchaser pulls the animal and it walks after him, or he rides upon it and causes it to walk. The transaction is effective even if he calls it and it comes, or he swats it with a stick and causes it to run. When the animal lifts both a forefoot and a hind foot, the purchaser acquires it.
The above applies provided the purchaser performs meshichah in the presence of the previous owner. If he performs meshichah outside the presence of the previous owner, that person must tell the purchaser before he performs meshichah, "Go, perform meshichah and acquire it."
Halacha 7
When a person sells a herd to a colleague or gives it to him as a gift, if he gives him the mashkuchit - i.e., the animal that leads the herd, that all the others follow - he does not have to tell him, "Perform meshichah and acquire it." For giving him this animal is tantamount to saying: "Go, perform meshichah and acquire it." Thus, once the purchaser or the recipient performs meshichah with the herd, he acquires it, even if he performs meshichah outside the presence of the previous owner.
Halacha 8
When a person tells a purchaser or a recipient of a gift: "Perform meshichah over an animal and then you will acquire it," or "Perform chazakah over property and then you will acquire it," he does not acquire it if he performs meshichah or chazakah. For the expression "you will acquire it" is in the future tense and implies that he has not transferred ownership to him yet.
Instead, the seller or the giver of the gift must say: "Go, perform chazakah and acquire it," "Go, perform meshichah and acquire it," or the like, using an expression that implies that he will acquire it at the time he performs meshichah or chazakah.
Halacha 9
When a person tells a colleague: "Perform meshichah with an animal and you will acquire it after 30 days," and he performs meshichah, he does not acquire it.
If he told him "...acquire it now and after 30 days," he acquires it, even if it is standing in a swamp on the thirtieth day. For this resembles a situation in which an acquisition was made in the present, conditional on a stipulation, in which instance, when the stipulation is met, the transaction becomes effective.
Whenever a person uses the expression "with the intent that...," it is as if he said that the transaction would take effect from the present.
Halacha 10
The following rules apply when a person sells an animal to a purchaser or gives it as a gift and tells the purchaser or the recipient: "Acquire it in the manner in which people normally acquire it." If he performs meshichah or hagbahah, he acquires it. If, however, he rides upon it a distinction is made: If this is done in the field, he acquires it. If it is done in the city, he does not acquire it, for it is not common for people to ride in a city.
For this reason, if the purchaser or recipient is an important person - who is accustomed to riding in a city, a very base person - who is not concerned about riding through the city, e.g., a person who raises animals or servants, or a woman, or if the animal is in the public domain where many walk, it can be acquired by riding, provided the rider causes the animal to proceed.
-------
Rambam:
• 3 Chapters: Nedarim Nedarim - Chapter 4, Nedarim Nedarim - Chapter 5, Nedarim Nedarim - Chapter 6
Nedarim - Chapter 4
Halacha 1
Vows taken because of coercion,1 vows taken unintentionally,2 and vows involving exaggerations are permitted,3 as we explained with regard to oaths.4
If men of coercion or customs collectors made him take a vow, saying: "Take a vow to us that meat is forbidden to you if you possess something on which customs duty is due," should he take a vow and say: "Bread, meat, and wine are forbidden to me...", he is permitted [to partake of] all of them5 even though he added to what they asked him [to say].6 Similarly, if they asked him to take a vow [on the condition] that his wife not benefit and he took a vow [on the condition] that his wife, his children, and his brothers not benefit from him, they are all permitted. Similar laws apply in all analogous situations.
Halacha 2
In all vows of this type, he must have the intent at heart for something that is permitted,7 for example, that they be forbidden for him for that day alone or for that hour alone or the like. He may rely on the intent in his heart, since he is being compelled by forces beyond his control.8 Thus at the time he is taking the vow for them, his mouth and his heart are not in concord. [This is required,] as we explained with regard to vows.9
Halacha 3
Similarly, vows of encouragement are permitted.10 What does this imply? One administered a vow to a colleague to eat at his [home] and that colleague took a vow not to eat there, because he did not want to trouble him. Whether he eat or did not eat, they are both exempt.
Similarly, if a merchant took a vow that he would not sell an article for less than a sela and a purchaser took a vow that he would not buy it for more than a shekel,11 if they agree on three dinarim,12 they are both exempt.13 Similar laws apply in all analogous situations. [The rationale is that] neither of them made a definite conclusion in his heart. He took the vow only to encourage his colleague without making a definite conclusion in his heart.14
Halacha 4
What is the source which teaches that it is forbidden for a person to take even these four types of vows which are permitted with the intent of nullifying them? It is written [Numbers 30:3): "He shall not desecrate his word," i.e., he should not make his word an inconsequential matter.
Halacha 5
When a person took a vow and then [changed his mind and] regretted his vow, he may approach a sage and ask for its release. The laws pertaining to the release of vows are the same as those applying to the release of oaths.15 A vow can be released only by a distinguished sage or by three ordinary men in a place where there are no sages.16 The same wording is used to release a vow as is used to release an oath.17 Similarly, all of the other concepts that we explained with regard to oaths apply to vows in the same way as they apply to oaths.
Halacha 6
We do not release a vow until it takes effect, as is the law pertaining to an oath.18
Halacha 7
Just as we may ask for the release of vows involving prohibitions and they are repealed, so, too, may we ask for the release of vows involving consecrated property and they are repealed.19 This applies both to [articles] consecrated for the upkeep of the Temple and [animals] consecrated to [be sacrificed] on the altar. When the holiness of a sacrifice is transferred from one animal to another, that holiness cannot be released.20
Halacha 8
Just as a father or a husband can nullify [a woman's] vows involving prohibitions,21 so, too, they can nullify vows of consecration that resemble vows involving prohibitions.
Halacha 9
When a person takes a vow, a colleague hears and says, "And also me," a third person hears and says, "And also me,"22 if the first asks for the release of his vow and it is released, all the others are also released.23
If [the one who agreed to the vow] last asks for a release and it was granted, he alone is released and the others are still bound by the vow.24 If the second person asks for a release and it was granted, he and all those after him are released,25 but the first is still bound by the prohibition.
Halacha 10
Similar principles apply when one has attached many entities to a single vow, e.g., he took a vow [forbidding] bread and extended it to meat,26 if he asks for release of [the prohibition against] bread and it is granted, the [prohibition against] meat is also released.27 If he asks for release of [the prohibition against] meat and it is granted, the [prohibition against] bread is not released.28
Halacha 11
When a person takes an oath or a vow saying: "I will not benefit from any one of you," if he asks for the release of his vow or oath concerning one of them and the release was granted, they are all released. [The rationale is that] when a vow is released in part, all of its [particulars] are also released.29
When a person says: "I will not benefit from this person, and from this person, and from this person," if [the prohibition against] the first is released, [the prohibitions against] all of them are released.30 If the prohibition against the last is released, that prohibition is released, but the others remain binding. If he said: "I will not benefit from this one; nor from this one; nor from this one," he must ask for a release for each one indidivually.31 Similar laws apply in all analogous situations.32
Halacha 12
When a person took a nazirite vow, a vow to bring a sacrifice, and an oath [forbidding himself from partaking of something], or he took a vow, but does not know concerning which of these he took the vow, one request for release [can release] all of them.33
Halacha 13
When a person takes a vow [not to benefit] from the people of a city and he ask for the release of that vow from the sage of that city34 or he took a vow [not to benefit] from the Jewish people and asks for the release of the vow from a Jewish sage,35 the vow is released.
Halacha 14
If one says: "This produce is forbidden to me today if I go to this-and-this place tomorrow," he is forbidden to partake of them that day. [This is a] decree lest he go that place tomorrow.36 If he transgressed and partook of it that day and then undertook the journey on the morrow, he is liable for lashes.37 If he did not go, he is not liable for lashes.38
Halacha 15
If one says: "This produce will be forbidden to me tomorrow if I go to this-and-this place today," he is permitted to go that place today and the produce will be forbidden for him tomorrow. Similar laws apply in all analogous situations. [The rationale is that] a person is careful about not violating a prohibition,39 but he is not careful in keeping a condition that will cause a permitted entity to become forbidden.40
Halacha 16
When a person takes a vow to fast for ten days,41 whenever he desires and he was fasting one day and had [to interrupt the fast] for the sake of a mitzvah42 or to honor a person of stature, he may eat and repay [the fast] on another day. [The rationale is that] he did not specify the days [he would fast] when he took the vow initially.43
If he took a vow that he would fast today, but forgot and ate, he must continue to refrain from eating.44 If he took a vow to fast for a day or two and when he began to fast, forgot and ate, he forfeits his fast and is obligated to fast again.45
FOOTNOTES
1.As explained immediately below.
2.See Chapter 8, Halachah 3.
3.Note, however, Halachah 4.
4.Hilchot Sh'vuot 3:1, 5.
5.Even though he possessed items for which customs duty was due. See Hilchot Sh'vuot 3:2.
6.I.e., one might think that since he was not compelled to mention the other substances, the vow would take effect with regard to them. Hence, the Rambam explains that since he was compelled to take the vow, his additions do not change its status.
7.See Hilchot Sh'vuot 3:3.
8.The Rama (Yoreh De'ah 232:14) emphasizes that the statement he makes may not be a direct contradiction to the intent in his heart. He also emphasizes that the vow may not be broken in a way that the gentile who forced the vow to be taken will be become aware of its violation. For this would lead to the desecration of God's name.
9.See Hilchot Sh'vuot 2:12.
10.The laws of this halachah do not apply with regard to oaths. Since an oath involves the mention of God's name, taking an oath for this purpose would be taking God's name in vain. A vow does not require the mention of God's name. Hence, this is permitted (Radbaz).
11.I.e., two dinarim which are half a sela.
12.The Rama (Yoreh De'ah 232:2) quotes opinions that maintain that each one can fluctuate slightly past the midway point, but may not accept the other's position completely. He also quotes other more lenient views.
13.For neither definitely meant what he said. Taking the vow was just a bargaining technique. See the Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 232:2) which states that this applies when they continue negotiating after taking the vow. Then it is clear that they were merely bargaining. If, however, they broke off negotiations, the vow is considered binding.
14.Thus it could be said that his heart and his mouth were not in concord (Radbaz).
15.See Hilchot Sh'vuot 6:1.
16.See Hilchot Sh'vuot 6:1.
17.See Hilchot Sh'vuot 6:4.
18.See Hilchot Sh'vuot 6:14.
19.Nevertheless, it is undesirable to do so. One should seek their release only in a pressing situation. See Chapter 13, Halachah 25.Since ultimately, the person did not desire to make the vow, it is as if the article were consecrated in error. In such an instance, the consecration is not effective (Radbaz, based on Ketubot 78a).
20.The rationale is that the release of vows is based on the principle that after the person changes his mind and regrets having made the vow, it is as if the vow was made in error. Since the transfer of holiness from a sacrificial animal to another animal is binding even if it is done in error (Temurah 17a), there is no reason why a release is possible after such a transfer has been effected (Radbaz, Kessef Mishneh). Nevertheless, if one regrets the original consecration, that can be nullified and then, as a matter of course, the animal to which the holiness was transferred will also lose its status (see Mishneh LeMelech).
21.See chs. 11-13.
22.The latter two are bound by the vow taken by the first, as stated in Chapter 3, Halachah 3.
23.For the vows of the latter individuals are dependent on the vow of the first. Once the first vow is nullified, they no longer have any basis on which they can stand.
24.For their vows are not dependent on his.
25.For his vow serves as the basis for theirs.
26.See Chapter 3, Halachah 4.
27.For it is dependent on the prohibition against bread.
28.For it is not dependent on the prohibition against meat.
29.I.e., at the outset, his intent was that the oath or vow include all the individuals in the group, once that intent is no longer valid, it is as if the entire vow or oath was taken in error. Hence, it is no longer binding. The Jerusalem Talmud (Nedarim 1:1) derives this concept from the exegesis of Numbers 30:3: "He should act according to everything that he uttered from his mouth." Since "everything" he uttered from his mouth need not be fulfilled, nothing must be fulfilled. If part of a vow is nullified, the entire vow is nullified.
30.Since the person said "and" between each one, he made the latter individuals dependent on the first. Nevertheless, in contrast to the first clause, all of the individuals are not considered as being included in the same vow.
31.Since he did not associate them by saying "and," it is considered as if he took a vow concerning each person individually. See also Hilchot Sh'vuot 7:10.
32.See Chapter 8, Halachah 6.
33.They are all considered as one vow. Hence, as in the previous halachah, once a portion of a vow is nullified, the entire vow is nullified. Even if he only has a reason to regret the last portion of the vow, the entire vow is nullified (Radbaz).
34.As the Rambam states in Chapter 7, Halachah 9, initially, it is forbidden for the person to ask such a sage to release his vow, for in this way, he is benefiting from the people of the city. After the fact, however, the vow is released, because retroactively, it is as if the vow were never taken.
35.In this instance, he may initially ask a Jewish sage to have his vow released, for he has no alternative. Only a Jewish sage can release a vow. In the previous instance, by contrast, he can ask a sage from another city to release the vow (Radbaz).
36.And then the vow would take effect retroactively.
37.As mentioned in the notes to Hilchot Sh'vuot 4:16, to be liable for lashes, one must be given a warning. This law indicates that even if the warning was delivered conditionally, the person can be held liable for lashes.
38.Despite the fact that he violated the advice of our Sages, since he did not violate a Scriptural commandment, he is not liable for lashes.
39.Hence, we do not fear that he will partake of the produce on the following day.
40.Therefore, in the previous halachah, he is forbidden to partake of the produce at the outset.
41.I.e., not consecutively.
42.I.e., to participate in a feast celebrating the observance of a mitzvah, e.g., a circumcision or the completion of a Talmudic tractate (Mishnah Berurah 568:9).
43.Since he did not stipulate the day on which he would fast, even though he began fasting on a particular day, he can change his mind and switch the fast to another day.
44.Since he took a vow against eating that day, the fact that he broke his fast does not make it permissible for him to eat afterwards. This applies even if he is willing to fast another day instead. Compare to Hilchot Ta'aniot 1:14. the Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 568:1) quotes the Rambam's ruling. The Rama adds that there are some who accept upon themselves to fast another day to compensate for the fast he did not keep.
45.Nevertheless, since he did not specify a particular day at the time of his vow, once he ate, he may eat on the day he began fasting.
Nedarim - Chapter 5
Halacha 1
When Reuven tells Shimon: "I [am forbidden] to you like a dedication offering"1 or "You are forbidden to benefit from me," it is forbidden for Shimon to benefit from Reuven.2 If he transgresses and benefits from him, he is not liable for lashes, because Shimon did not say anything.3 Reuven is permitted to derive benefit from Shimon, because he did not forbid this to himself.
Halacha 2
If he tells Shimon: "You [are forbidden] to me like a dedication offering" or "I am forbidden to benefit from you," Reuven is forbidden to benefit from Shimon. If he derives benefit, he is liable for lashes, because he desecrated his word. Shimon is permitted to benefit from Reuven.
If he tells him: "I [am forbidden] to you like a dedication offering and you are [forbidden] to me" or "I am forbidden to benefit from you and you are forbidden to benefit from me," they are both forbidden to benefit from each other. Similar laws apply in all analogous situations.
Halacha 3
If Reuven tells Shimon: "So-and-so's produce is forbidden to you" or "You are forbidden to benefit from so-and-so," his words are of no consequence. For a person cannot cause his colleague to be prohibited with regard to a matter that is not his unless [that person] responds Amen, as we explained.4
Halacha 4
When a person tells a colleague: "This loaf [of bread] mine is forbidden to you," it [remains] forbidden to him even if he gives it to him as a present.5 If he dies, and [the other person] inherits it or [it is acquired by a third party] who gives it to him as a present, he is permitted. For [the one taking the vow said] "My loaf," and now it is not his.6
Halacha 5
If he tells him: "This produce is forbidden to you," but does not say: "My produce," even if he sold it or died and it became the property of another person,7 it [remains] forbidden to him. For when a person causes his property to be forbidden to a colleague, it remains forbidden unless he says: "my property," "my house," "my produce," or uses another similar term. For in those instances, he only forbade [using] the articles while they were in his possession.8
Halacha 6
When a person tells his son: "You are forbidden to benefit from me" or he takes and oath that his son is forbidden to benefit from him, when he dies, the son may inherit his property. For this is as if he says: "My property is forbidden to you." If he forbade [the son] from benefiting from him and specified: "During my lifetime and after my death," if he dies, [the son] should not inherit his [estate].9 For this is as if he said: "This property is forbidden to you."
Halacha 7
When a person forbids his son from benefiting from him10 and says: "If this son's son will be a Torah scholar,11 this son will acquire this property to transfer it to his son,"12 this is permissible. The son is forbidden [to benefit] from his father's estate and the grandson is permitted to derive such benefit13 if he is a Torah scholar as was stipulated.
Halacha 8
If this son who is forbidden to benefit from his father's estate gives14 [the property] he inherits from his father to his brother or his sons, they are permitted to benefit from them.15 This also applies if he paid a debt with them or paid [the money due] his wife [by virtue of] her ketubah.16He must tell [the recipients] that [the payment they receive] is from the estate of his father which was forbidden to him. [The rationale for this leniency is that] when a person takes an oath that a colleague will not benefit from his property, he may pay that colleague's debt, as will be explained.17
Halacha 9
When a person was forbidden - either through a vow or an oath - to partake of a type of food, he is permitted to partake of other types of food that were cooked or mixed together with [the forbidden] food, even though it has [acquired] the flavor of the forbidden food.18 If he was forbidden to partake of specific produce19 and that produce became mixed with others, if they have the flavor of the forbidden food, [the other food] is forbidden. If not,20 it is permitted.
Halacha 10
What is implied? A person who is forbidden to partake of meat or wine may partake of soup or vegetables that were cooked with meat or wine. [This applies] even if they have the flavor of meat or wine. He is forbidden only to eat meat alone or drink wine alone.
Halacha 11
If, however, he forbade himself [to partake of] "this meat" or "this wine,"21 if the vegetables have the flavor of meat or wine, they are forbidden. If not, they are permitted. For this meat or this wine become considered like the meat of nevelot, teeming animals, or the like. Similar laws apply in all analogous situations. Therefore if one says: "This meat is forbidden for me," he is forbidden to partake of it, its sauce, and the spices [cooked] with it.22
Halacha 12
If the wine which he forbade himself23 became mixed with other wine,24 even one drop in an entire barrel, the entire quantity becomes forbidden. [The rationale is that] since he has the possibility to ask for the release of his vow, [the forbidden substance] is considered as an entity that can be permitted and hence, never becomes nullified in [a majority of permitted] substances of its own kind, as explained in Hilchot Ma'achalot Assurot.25
Halacha 13
When a person says: "This produce is like a sacrifice for me," "...a sacrifice to my mouth,"26 or "...a sacrifice because of my mouth," he is forbidden to partake of anything exchanged for them or produce that grows from them.27 Needless to say, this applies to juices produced by them.
Halacha 14
[The following rules apply] if a person took a vow or an oath not to eat [produce] or not to taste it. If it is an entity whose seed decomposes when it is sown like wheat or barley, he is permitted [to partake of] the articles exchanged for it28 and the produce that grows from it.29 If it was an entity whose seed does not decompose in the earth when it is sown, like onions or garlic,30 even the produce that grows from the produce that grows from it is forbidden.31 In all situations, there is a doubt [whether he is forbidden to drink] the juices they produce.32 Therefore, if he drinks them, he is not liable for lashes.
Halacha 15
Similarly, if a person tells his wife: "The work produced by your hands33 is like a sacrifice to me," "...a sacrifice to my mouth," or "...a sacrifice because of my mouth," he is forbidden to partake of anything exchanged for [her earnings] or produce that grows from her work.34 If he says that he will not to eat [from the work of her hands], nor taste it, if the produce [that grew from] the work of her hands is an entity whose seed decomposes, he is permitted [to partake of] articles exchanged for it and the produce that grows from it. If it was an entity whose seed does not decompose, even the produce that grows from the produce that grows from them is forbidden.
Why do we not consider the original produce that is forbidden insignificant because of the [new] growth that is larger than it? Because the original produce is an entity whose prohibition can be released, which is not nullified [when mixed] with a majority [of permitted substances], as explained.35
Halacha 16
When a person forbids his produce to a colleague, whether by vow or by an oath, there is an unresolved question if the produce that grows from it36 and articles exchanged for it [are permitted to the colleague].37 Therefore the produce that grows from it and articles exchanged for it are forbidden to his colleague. If he transgresses and benefits, he has benefited.38
FOOTNOTES
1.See Chapter 1, Halachah 14; Chapter 2, Halachah 8.
2.It is as if Reuven designated his property as consecrated with regard to Shimon (Or Sameach).
3.And the prohibition which Reuven established does not make Shimon liable. If, however, Shimon said Amen, he would be liable, as stated in Chapter 2, Halachah 1.
See Chapter 10, Halachah 12, from which it is apparent that if Reuven voluntarily allows Shimon to benefit from his property, Reuven is liable for lashes, for he is desecrating his own vow.
As indicated by Hilchot Meilah 4:9, even though the person is not liable for lashes, he is liable to bring a sacrifice for atonement, since with regard to him, it is as if he benefited from consecrated property.
4.Chapter 2, Halachah 1.
5.For there is no way that he can acquire it in a permitted manner.
6.I.e., once he dies, the loaf no longer belongs to him.
7.The Tur (Yoreh De'ah 216) states that this applies when the person taking the vow says: "During my lifetime and after my death." From the Rambam's words and a comparison to Halachah 6, it is apparent that he need not make such a specification. See Turei Zahav 216:10 which discusses these two perspectives.
8.For that is the implication of the term "my." Compare to Chapter 8, Halachah 11.
9.See Halachah 8 which explains that the estate does become the son's property and he may use it in certain ways.
10.And specifies that this applies after his death as well, as in the previous halachah.
11.This is speaking about a situation in which the grandson is not born yet or is still a minor in which instance, the grandfather cannot transfer the property to him directly Alternatively, he is not yet a Torah scholar (Radbaz).
12.The Ra'avad and others question the Rambam's ruling, for seemingly, it does not involve any new concept. The son becomes the owner of the estate regardless. Although he is forbidden to benefit from it, he has the right to give it to his son whether he is a Torah scholar or not as stated in the following halachah. The Kessef Mishneh explains that ordinarily, the son may use the estate to pay a debt or to give it to his brother as a present. If, however, the grandson is a Torah scholar, this is forbidden and it is as if the estate was transferred to him directly and the father cannot use it for other purposes. The Radbaz explains that this is speaking about a situation where the father had two sons and if this son's son was not a Torah scholar, he would give his entire estate to the other son.
13.The Kessef Mishneh interprets this as meaning that the estate will be given to the grandson. The Bayit Chadash (Yoreh De'ah 223) explains that implicit in the grandfather's statement is the stipulation that if the grandson is not a Torah scholar, he - like his father - will be forbidden to benefit from the estate. See Siftei Cohen 223:4.
14.Rabbenu Nissim explains that the intent is not that he actually gives the money to the recipients, but he informs them of where it is and allows them to take it. See Siftei Cohen 223:3.
15.Here also, the son must tell the recipients that they are receiving property that he is forbidden to benefit from. Implied is that the estate becomes the son's property. He is forbidden to benefit from it. Nevertheless, as indicated here, he may receive indirect benefit, for certainly the recipients of his gifts will be thankful to him and repay him in some way or other.
16.For this also considered as another debt.
17.Chapter 6, Halachah 4. The person is not considered to have received benefit from the payment of his debt, since holding back a creditor from pressing claim is not considered as benefit (Radbaz).
The Tur (Yoreh De'ah 223) questions the Rambam's ruling, explaining that although the father would have been permitted to pay the son's debt, for the son to pay his own debt with the estate's money is considered as benefiting from the estate. Nevertheless, the Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 223:4) accepts the Rambam's ruling.
18.For his vow involved only the food itself - i.e., something that people would have in mind when using that term - but not its flavor. It does not become like forbidden food, in which case, even the flavor is forbidden (Kessef Mishneh).
19.That produce is considered as if it was inherently forbidden and hence, even its flavor is forbidden (Kessef Mishneh).
20.I.e., a person who had not taken the vow tasted the food and said that the flavor of the forbidden food could not be detected. Alternatively, there was more than 60 times the amount of the forbidden food.
21.I.e., designating a particular piece of meat or quantity of wine.
22.For these other entities will derive the flavor of the meat.
23.The Or Sameach emphasizes that the Rambam is speaking about a vow which a person made himself, for he can have such a vow released. If, however, he responds to another person, he cannot ask for the vow's release.
24.If, however, the wine becomes mixed with a liquid of another type, its presence becomes nullified if its taste is no longer detectable (Turei Zahav 216:13).
25.Chapter 15, Halachah 10. The rationale is that since the prohibition can be released, it is preferable to do that rather than have the prohibition nullified.
26.I.e., just as he may not partake of a sacrifice with his mouth, he may not partake of this produce.
27.I.e., if the produce forbidden because of the vow was sown and other produce grew from it, that produce is also forbidden.
Since the produce forbidden by the vow is equated to a sacrifice, like a sacrifice, it is forbidden to derive any benefit from it (Kessef Mishneh).
The Ra'avad (in his gloss to Halachah 16) asks: Why is the produce that grows from the forbidden produce prohibited. Seemingly, we should follow the principle: Zeh vizeh goraim mutar, when an entity is produced by two factors, one permitted and one forbidden, it is permitted. Here as well, since the second generation produce was produced by the forbidden produce and also by the earth, it should be permitted.
The Radbaz explains that since a vow is involved, we follow the principle mentioned in Halachah 12, that since the prohibition involved can be released entirely, we do not consider it nullified because another factor is also involved.
28.For his vow specified only eating or tasting the produce, not benefiting from it. Nor is there any taste of the original produce in the produce that grows from its seeds.
29.For the second generation produce is not the same substance concerning which the vow was taken.
30.The onion or the garlic head is put in the ground and a new plant grows from it.
31.For ultimately, even the third generation produce has the flavor of the first generation produce. As the Rambam explains at the conclusion of Halachah 15, we do not say that its flavor will be nullified because the greater portion of the substance of the new produce is permitted, because, as stated in Halachah 12, the forbidden fruit is an entity whose prohibition could be released.
32.Nedarim 52b leaves unresolved the question whether in this context the juice produced from the fruit is considered as the fruit or not. Hence, because of the doubt, one is forbidden to partake of it, but cannot be held liable for punishment. This refers to fruits other than grapes or olives. In the latter instances, the liquid is considered as the fruit.
33.The Siftei Cohen 216:8 states that we are referring to an instance that the husband uses wording similar to that suggested in Chapter 3, Halachah 11; alternatively, that he is referring to work which his wife already performed. Otherwise, there would be a difficulty because a vow is not effective unless the object concerned already exists.
34.I.e., if she planted a tree, he is forbidden to partake of its fruit. The Rambam (based on Nedarim 57a) is restating the concepts mentioned in the previous halachah in a different context.
35.See Halachah 12 which explains that he has the potential to have his vow released.
36.The Ra'avad protests the Rambam's ruling, maintaining that based on Nedarim 47a, it appears that the produce grown from the fruits of his efforts is definitely forbidden. The Radbaz, however, explains that the Rambam has a different way of understanding that Talmudic passage.
37.Nedarim, loc. cit., explains that the question is: Since these entities have not come into existence as of yet, can he cause them to be forbidden to his colleague.
38.I.e., he is not liable. Firstly, lashes are not given when an unresolved question is involved. Also, as stated in Halachah 1, when a person becomes forbidden because of another person's vow, he is not liable for lashes unless he responds Amen.
Nedarim - Chapter 6
Halacha 1
When a person tells a colleague: "Benefit that leads to your food is forbidden to me," or "Benefit that leads to my food is forbidden to you," the person who is forbidden should not borrow from the other person: a sifter, a strainer, a hand mill, an oven, or any other utensil used to prepare food. He may, however, borrow from him bracelets, rings, and other articles that are not used to produce food. He is forbidden to borrow from him a sack or a donkey to carry produce.1
Halacha 2
[In the above situation,] in a place where utensils are given out only for a fee, it is forbidden to borrow [without charge] even utensils that are not used to produce food.2If they were in a place where a fee is not charged and he borrowed from him utensils that are not used to produce food to look impressive to others because of them so that he will receive benefit from them3 or he sought to pass through his property so that he could reach a place where he would derive benefit,4 there is an unresolved question whether it is prohibited.5 Therefore, if he transgresses, he is not liable for lashes.
Halacha 3
There is no difference between one who takes a vow not to benefit from a colleague and one who takes a vow not to derive benefit that leads to food except [permission to] pass through [property]6 and borrowing utensils that are not used to produce food in a place where they are borrowed without charge.7
Halacha 4
When Reuven was forbidden to benefit from Shimon, either through a vow or through an oath, Shimon may give the half-shekel which Reuven is obligated to give.8 Similarly, he may pay a debt that he owes. [The rationale is that] Reuven does not receive anything, all [Shimon does] is prevent a claim from being lodged against him. And preventing a claim from being lodged is not included in the prohibition against [giving] benefit.9
Therefore [Shimon] may provide food for [Reuven's] wife,10 his sons, and his servants, even his Canaanite servants,11 even though [Reuven] is obligated to provide for their sustenance. He may not, however, provide food for [Reuven's] animal, whether a kosher animal or a non-kosher one,12 for any increase in the animal's weight is benefit given to Reuven.
Halacha 5
If Shimon was a priest, he is permitted to offer sacrifices brought by Reuven. [The rationale is that] the priests are agents of God and not the agents of the person bringing the sacrifice.13
Shimon may marry off his daughter who is passed majority to Reuven with her consent.14 If, however, she is a na'arah,15 she is under his domain. [Hence,] it is forbidden [to marry her to him],16 because this is like giving him a maid-servant to serve him.
Halacha 6
Shimon may separate terumah on behalf of Reuven and separate his tithes with his consent.17 What is meant by "with his consent"? For example, Reuven said: "Whoever desires to separate terumah [from my produce] may do so." He may not, however, tell Shimon to separate terumah on his behalf, for then he is making him his agent and this is [deriving] benefit from him.
Halacha 7
[Shimon] may instruct [Reuven] in the Oral Law,18 for it is forbidden to charge a wage for teaching it.19 The Written Law, by contrast, may not be taught by him, because a wage can be charged for teaching it.20 If it is not customary [in that community] to charge for instruction in the Written Law, this is permitted. Regardless of [the local custom with regard to payment], [Shimon] may teach [Reuven's] son.21
Halacha 8
If Reuven becomes ill, Shimon may come and visit him.22 In a place where one who sits with a person who is ill to keep him company receives a wage, Shimon should not sit with him. Instead, he should visit him and stand.23 He may personally give him medical treatment, for this fulfills a mitzvah.24
Halacha 9
When an animal belonging to Reuven becomes ill,25 Shimon should not give it veterinary attention. He may, however, tell him: "Do such and such for it."26
[Shimon] may wash with Reuven in a large bath,27 but not in a small bath, because he gives him pleasure by raising the water over him.28 He may sleep in the same bed as him in the summer,29 but not in the winter, because he warms him.30 He may sit on the same couch as him and eat at the same table,31but may not eat from the same plate or from the same food trough that is placed before workers. [The rationale is that we fear that] Shimon will leave a nice piece of meat and refrain from eating it so that Shimon will eat it or move it closer to him and in this way, bring him benefit.32 Similar concepts apply with regard to produce in a food trough. It is, however, permitted for Shimon to eat from a plate even though he knows that when he returns it to the host, the host will place it before Reuven. We do not fear that [Shimon] will leave a choice cut of meat for [Reuven].33
Halacha 10
It is permitted for Reuven to drink a cup of comfort34 of his own [wine] from Shimon's hand. Similarly, he may give him the cup of the bathhouse,35 for this does not involve satisfaction.36
Halacha 11
Reuven is forbidden to use Shimon's coal, but he is permitted to use his flame.37
Halacha 12
[The following laws apply if] Shimon owned a bathhouse or an olive press that were hired out [to others] in the city. If Shimon retains a hold on them, e.g., he left a portion for himself and did not hire it out, it is forbidden for Reuven to enter that bathhouse or tread in that olive press.38 [This applies] even if he retains merely one tub in the bathhouse or one press39 in the olive press. If he did not retain anything for himself, but rather hired it out in its entirety, it is permitted [for Reuven to enter].40
Halacha 13
It is forbidden for Reuven to partake of the produce of Shimon's field, even during the Sabbatical year when everything is ownerless, for he took the vow before the beginning of the Sabbatical year.41 If he took the vow in the Sabbatical year itself, [Reuven] may partake of the produce that hangs outside the field.42 He may not, however, enter the field even though the land is ownerless. [This is] a decree lest he remain there after he partook of [the produce],43 for the Torah declared [the land] ownerless only during the time the produce is found within it.
Halacha 14
When does the above apply? When he told him: "Benefit from this property is forbidden to you."44 If, however, [Shimon] told [Reuven]: "It is forbidden for you to benefit from my property,"45 or Reuven took an oath or a vow [prohibiting him from benefiting] from Shimon's property, when the Sabbatical year begins, he may partake of the produce of his field, for they have left Shimon's domain.46 He may not, however, enter his field for the reasons we explained [in the previous halachah].
Halacha 15
[Different laws apply if] only benefiting from Shimon's food was forbidden to Reuven,47 If, either because of a vow or an oath, the prohibition took effect before the Sabbatical year, he may enter his field,48 but may not eat his produce.49If the prohibition took effect in the Sabbatical year, he may enter his field and partake of his produce, for this produce does not belong to Shimon. Instead, it is ownerless.50
Halacha 16
It is forbidden for Reuven to lend [articles] to Shimon. [This is] a decree, lest he borrow from him although it is forbidden for him to benefit from him. Similarly, it is forbidden for [Reuven] to give [Shimon] a loan. [This is] a decree, lest he borrow from him.51 Similarly, he may not sell something to him. [This is] a decree, lest he buy from him.52
Halacha 17
If it happened that [Shimon] was working with [Reuven], e.g., they were harvesting together, he should work far from him. [This is] a decree, lest he help him.
When [a father] takes a vow, forbidding his son to benefit from him because the son does not occupy himself in Torah study, the father is permitted to fill up a jug of water [for his son], light a lamp [for him], or roast a small fish. For [the father's] intent was only to forbid [his son] from deriving significant pleasure and these matters are not considered important by the son.53
Halacha 18
When a person took an oath or a vow not to speak to a colleague,54 he may write to him55 or speak to another person even though [the person whom he forbade] hears the idea he wants to communicate to him.56 The Geonim ruled in this manner.
FOOTNOTES
1.For this also leads to him deriving pleasure from food.
2.For the money that he saved by not paying the fee could be used to purchase food.
3.E.g., he lent him attractive clothing which created a favorable impression on others who gave him gifts as a result.
4.To attend a feast, but not when going to his business as stated in the notes to the following halachah.
5.In both cases, he did not give him direct benefit, but he did enable him to receive benefit.
6.I.e., to tend to his business. If he took a vow against benefiting from him, he may not pass through the property, for he is deriving some benefit. Nevertheless, that benefit does not lead to food. Hence, one who prohibits all benefit is forbidden, but one who forbids benefit that leads to food is permitted. If, however, he wishes to pass through his property to attend a feast, he is forbidden in all instances, as stated in the previous halachah (Radbaz).
7.This is benefit, but not benefit that leads to food.
8.I.e., the half-shekel which every Jew is obligated to pay to the Temple treasury as his share in the communal sacrifices. See Hilchot Shekalim 1:1.
9.See Hilchot Malveh ViLoveh 26:6 where the Rambam states that if "a person pays a promissory note of a colleague without that colleague's knowledge, even if it is a debt for which security was given, the borrower is not required to pay him anything. The borrower may take his security.... The other person forfeits his money. [The rationale is that] perhaps the borrower would have been able to appease the lender and have him waive the debt." Thus by paying Reuven's debt, Shimon is not considered to have given him anything.
10.See also Hilchot Ishut 12:19 which states that when a husband traveled to a distant country and left his wife without resources, if another person gives the woman money without clearly specifying that he is extending a loan to her, he forfeits his money. Even though the husband is obligated to pay for his wife's provisions, as long as a debt is not formally established, the person who pays the money has no claim upon him.
11.The qualifier "even" is mentioned for the Canaanite servants, because it is not as great a mitzvah to sustain them as the others who are full-fledged members of the Jewish people.
12.This applies even though the non-kosher animal may not be eaten by the Jew, he may sell it to a gentile and will receive a greater payment because of its increase in weight.
13.And thus he is not considered as having performed a favor for the person bringing the sacrifice.
14.For then, she is considered as having carried out the marriage. Her father is merely acting as her agent and thus is not considered as offering Reuven benefit.
15.A girl between the ages of twelve and twelve and a half who has manifested signs of physical maturity (Hilchot Ishut 2:1-2). Needless to say, this applies if the girl is a minor, in which instance, her consecration is dependent entirely on her father.
16.For at this age, she cannot marry without her father's consent, as stated in Hilchot Ishut 3:11.
17.If, however, Reuven does not consent, the separation of the terumah is not effective (Bava Metzia 22a).
18.Since Shimon is forbidden to receive a wage from teaching Reuven, he is not giving him tangible benefit. Although he is enabling him to observe a mitzvah, the mitzvot were not given for our satisfaction (Eruvin 31a).
19.See Hilchot Talmud Torah 1:7, 3:10 where the Rambam issues such a ruling and explains that this is derived from Deuteronomy 4:5: "Behold, I [Moses] have taught you laws and statutes, as God commanded me." On this basis, Nedarim 37a teaches that Moses was implying: "Just as I learned at no cost, so, too, you have been instructed at no cost by me. And so, too, should you teach the coming generations at no cost."
In his Commentary to the Mishnah (Nedarim 4:3), the Rambam writes:
According to our Torah, there is no way that it is permitted to take a wage for teaching any of the Torah's professions....
I am amazed at the men of stature who aroused by desire, denied the truth had wages designated for themselves for giving Torah rulings and instruction, citing flimsy support.
See also the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah Avot 4:7. It must, however, by noted that most authorities [see Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 246:5) allow a teacher to charge for the time he spends teaching Torah on the basis of the principle of sechar batalah, i.e., he could have spent the time he spends teaching working at another profession which would bring him an income. He is allowed to be reimbursed for the money he loses by choosing to teach Torah instead. For this reason, the Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 221:2) does not accept the Rambam's ruling and forbids Shimon from teaching Reuven.
20.Nedarim 37a gives two reasons why it is permitted for a teacher of young children to charge a wage for his services: a) he is not charging for teaching; he is charging for being a disciplinarian; b) he is not charging for teaching the wordings of Torah; he is charging for teaching the cantillation notes. (For at that time, there were no texts with vowels and the Written Law was studied by memorizing its chants.) The first rationale does not apply with regard to adults, but the second does.
21.A father is obligated to teach his son the Torah. Hence, by instructing Reuven's son, Shimon is freeing him of an obligation. Nevertheless, this is not considered as providing him with benefit, for teaching his son is a mitzvah. And as stated above, the mitzvot were not given for our satisfaction. Moreover, it is possible that Reuven could find another person to teach his son without charge.
22.For this is also a mitzvah. Even though the sick person derives benefit from the person's visit, the benefit is not granted him directly (see Nedarim 39a).
23.I.e., pay a short visit and leave promptly. Since sitting with the sick person is worth money in that community, it is forbidden, by doing so, he will be providing the sick person with a tangible benefit. Payment is not given for visiting while standing. Therefore, there is no prohibition against doing so. See Siftei Cohen 221:19 who writes that if he charges for his time, he may sit and pay the sick person a longer visit.
24.In his Commentary to the Mishnah (Nedarim 4:4), the Rambam states that it is a mitzvah of Scriptural origin for a doctor to heal a sick person.
The Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 221:4) states that when medical attention is given without charge, he may treat him without charge. If, however, it is customary for a doctor to charge, he must also do so.
25.In certain manuscripts and early printings of the Mishneh Torah, this clause is included as the conclusion of the previous halachah rather than at the beginning of this one.
26.I.e., he may give him advice with regard to which treatments to employ, but may not treat the animal himself. The rationale is that treating a colleague's animal is not considered a mitzvah (Tosafot, Nedarim 41b). The Beit Yosef (Yoreh De'ah 221) explains that if there is no one else capable of treating the animal but Shimon, Shimon may do so, because the mitzvah of returning a lost object also includes doing what is necessary to save a colleague's livestock. The Radbaz also adds the rationale that Scriptural Law requires us to alleviate an animal's discomfort.
27.For the entrance of one person into a large bath is not significant.
28.And that is considered as pleasurable.
29.Because the increase in warmth is not desirable.
30.The more people under the same bed clothes, the greater the warmth produced. The Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 221:5) states that this applies with regard to a small bed. If the bed is large, even in the winter, it is permitted.
31. alone is not enough to create suspicion that he will offer him food.
32. Meiri explains that even though the two are at odds - and for that reason one has taken a vow not to offer the other benefit - we fear that he might make such a gesture out of good manners.
33.The custom was that before passing the tray to another person, the host would fill it up again. Hence there would be no need for Shimon to worry about leaving a piece for Reuven [Radbaz; Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 221:5)]. The Rama adds that if the serving plate contained a very large amount, there is no prohibition.
34.It was customary to drink wine in the house of mourners to help him overcome his sorrow (see Ketubot 8b).
35.A cup of hot water that was provided for bathers by the owner of the bathhouse (i.e., and not one belonging to Shimon).
Nedarim 38b states that Shimon may give Reuven "the cup of peace" and advances these two interpretations for the term. The Rambam does not consider the interpretations as mutually exclusive, for the same principle - that the satisfaction Shimon gives Reuven is minimal - applies in both instances (Kessef Mishneh).
36.The Ra'avad offers a different interpretation than the Rambam, explaining that the "cup of the bathhouse" is given to save the person's life, lest he dehydrate. Moreover, he explains that since the cup belongs to Reuven, there is no difficulty. And he states that giving the cup of comfort is a mitzvah.
37.For the coal is considered an entity of substance, while the flame is not (Siftei Cohen 221:57).
38.Since Shimon retains a certain dimension of ownership, when Reuven makes use of it, he is still considered as benefiting from Shimon's property.
39.In his Commentary to the Mishnah (Maaserot 1:7) the Rambam defines the term ekal as referring to a container made from ropes in which olives are placed and crushed.
40.Provided Shimon did not specifically forbid Reuven from entering these structures, as indicated by Halachah 14.
41.And once an entity has become forbidden because of a vow, it remains forbidden.
42.For that is ownerless and is not affected by the vow.
43.Although he is allowed to benefit from the produce, he is not allowed to set foot in Shimon's land, as stated in Halachah 3, and as the Rambam continues to explain.
44.For then, benefit from that particular field itself becomes forbidden to Reuven forever. Compare to Chapter 5, Halachah 5.
45.In which case, the prohibition involves only property actually owned by Shimon without applying to any particular property individually.
46.For the entrance of the Sabbatical year causes them to be considered as ownerless. Shimon cannot cause the produce to be forbidden for Reuven, for a person cannot cause food that does not belong to him to be forbidden to a colleague (Nedarim 42b). And when Reuven takes an oath or a vow not to benefit from Shimon's property, the oath or the vow does not pertain to this produce, for it does not belong to Shimon.
47.See Halachot 1 and 3.
48.Because in such a situation, he is not forbidden to enter Shimon's property.
49.Since the prohibition took effect before the Sabbatical year, it continues during the Sabbatical year, as stated in Halachah 13.
50.Hence Shimon cannot cause it to be forbidden for Reuven, as above.
51.Reuven is not receiving any benefit from lending out either his articles or his money. Nevertheless, he is forbidden lest Shimon reciprocate and that would involve receiving benefit.
52.In a sale, even though the purchaser receives an article in return for his money, the seller is considered to have benefited. For if this was not so, he would not have sold the article.
53.The Ra'avad differs with the Rambam, explaining the source for this law (Nedarim 38b) in another way. The Radbaz explains that halachically, both interpretations are acceptable. The Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 223:1) quotes the Ra'avad's interpretation, but not of the Rambam. Accordingly, the Bayit Chadash maintains that according to the Shulchan Aruch, the Rambam's interpretation is not accepted. See also Turei Zahav 223:1 and Siftei Cohen 223:1.
54.See Chapter 3, Halachot 10-11, for details on how a vow of this nature must be worded for it to be effective.
55.The Baer HaGolah 221:65 rules that he may not write a note specifically for that person. Instead, he should write on the wall with the intent that the person see. Others, however, do not accept this stringency.
56.He may not, however, speak to the wall, for in this instance, it is obvious that he is speaking to his colleague. The Beit Yosef (Yoreh De'ah 221) is even more stringent, stating that when it is obvious that he is intending for the person to whom he is forbidden to speak to hear, he may not speak even to another colleague.
-------
Hayom Yom:
• Tuesday, Nissan 29, 5774 • 29 April 2014
"Today's Day"
Tuesday, Nissan 29, 14th day of the omer, 5703
Torah lessons: Chumash: K'doshim, Shlishi with Rashi.
Tehillim: 140-144.
Tanya: A great and more (p. 233)...will become nature. (p. 235).
The Introduction to "Likutei Torah On Three Parshiot" is the maamar which begins, "To understand the matter of the G-dly soul; it is written, You shall not eat ..."1. This maamar was originally said by the Alter Rebbe to the Tzemach Tzedek. The Tzemach Tzedek repeated the maamar in the Alter Rebbe's presence, who then said to him, "Nu, and the flavoring?" The Tzemach Tzedek then wrote a transcript of the maamar with parenthetical notes. The Alter Rebbe reviewed and corrected the transcript and ordered that the parenthetical notes be entered as part of the body of the maamar text.
At my father's suggestion this maamar was selected to serve as an introduction to the "Likutei Torah (On Three Parshiot," of the Rebbe Maharash).
FOOTNOTES
1. Vayikra 19:26.
-------
Daily Thought:
Good Citizens
“Destroy Man’s desire to sin,” our sages tell us, “and you would destroy the world.”
Not that anyone needs to sin. But one who lacks the desire to sin is not a citizen of this world.
And without citizens, who will effect lasting change?
-------
No comments:
Post a Comment