OMER: DAY EIGHT - CHESSED SHEB'GEVURAH
TODAY'S LAWS & CUSTOMS:
• "SEFIRAH" MOURNING PRACTICES
In remembrance of the tragic death of Rabbi Akiva's disciples who died in a plague in the weeks between Passover and Shavuot, several mourning practices are observed during this period: no marriages are conducted during this time, and like mourners, we don't cut our hair or enjoy the sound of music. Customs vary as to the proscribed activities and the dates during which the mourning is observed; consult your rabbi as to the traditions followed by your community.
Link: 24,000 Plus One
• COUNT "NINE DAYS TO THE OMER" TONIGHT
Tomorrow is the ninth 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 nine days, which are one week and two days, to the Omer." (If you miss the count tonight, you can count the omer all day tomorrow, but without the preceding blessing).
The 49-day "Counting of the Omer" retraces our ancestors' seven-week spiritual journey from the Exodus to Sinai. Each evening we recite a special blessing and count the days and weeks that have passed since the Omer; the 50th day is Shavuot, the festival celebrating the Giving of the Torah at Sinai.
Tonight's Sefirah: Gevurah sheb'Gevurah -- "Restraint in Restraint"
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
• ISRU CHAG
The day following a festival is called Isru Chag ("tied to the festival"). Tachnun (confession of sins) and similar prayers are omitted.
TODAY IN JEWISH HISTORY:
• SECOND CRUSADE MOURNED BY COLOGNE JEWS (1147)
The Jewish community of Cologne, Germany, designated the 23rd of Nissan as a day of fasting and mourning to commemorate the Jews of Cologne massacred in 1147 during the Second Crusade.
DAILY QUOTE:
The wholesome simplicity of the simple Jew touches on the utterly simple essence of G-d--Rabbi Israel Baal Shem Tov
DAILY STUDY:
CHITAS AND RAMBAM FOR TODAY:
Chumash: Kedoshim, 4th Portion Leviticus 19:33-19:37 with Rashi
• Chapter 19
33. When a stranger sojourns with you in your land, you shall not taunt him. לג. וְכִי יָגוּר אִתְּךָ גֵּר בְּאַרְצְכֶם לֹא תוֹנוּ אֹתוֹ:
you shall not taunt him: Heb. לֹא תוֹנוּ. [This refers to] tormenting with words [as opposed to torment through other means, e.g., financially (see Rashi Lev. 25:14)]. [For instance,] do not say to him, “Only yesterday you were an idol worshipper, and now you come to learn Torah, which was given over by the Almighty God Himself! ”. — [Torath Kohanim 19:82]
לא תונו: אונאת דברים. לא תאמר לו אמש היית עובד עבודה זרה ועכשיו אתה בא ללמוד תורה שנתנה מפי הגבורה:
34. The stranger who sojourns with you shall be as a native from among you, and you shall love him as yourself; for you were strangers in the land of Egypt. I am the Lord, your God. לד. כְּאֶזְרָח מִכֶּם יִהְיֶה לָכֶם הַגֵּר | הַגָּר אִתְּכֶם וְאָהַבְתָּ לוֹ כָּמוֹךָ כִּי גֵרִים הֱיִיתֶם בְּאֶרֶץ מִצְרָיִם אֲנִי יְהוָֹה אֱלֹהֵיכֶם:
for you were strangers: Do not accuse your fellow man with your own defect. - [B.M. 59b]
כי גרים הייתם: מום שבך אל תאמר לחברך:
I am the Lord, your God: [Here, the word for “your,” אלֹהֵיכֶם, is in the plural; thus, regarding the stranger, Scripture reminds you:] I am Your God and his God!
אני ה' אלהיכם: אלהיך ואלהיו אני:
35. You shall not commit a perversion of justice with measures, weights, or liquid measures. לה. לֹא תַעֲשׂוּ עָוֶל בַּמִּשְׁפָּט בַּמִּדָּה בַּמִּשְׁקָל וּבַמְּשׂוּרָה:
You shall not commit a perversion of justice: If we are dealing [here] with litigation, Scripture has already stated (verse above), “You shall commit no injustice in judgment.” So what is the “judgment” that is taught here? It refers to [“just” behavior regarding one’s dealing with] measures, weights or liquid measures: this teaches us that one who measures [out something in business,] is called a “judge,” for if he falsifies the measure, he is considered to be as one who perverts justice. He is [accordingly] called perverse, hated, disgusting, fit for destruction, and an abomination (see Rashi on verse 15 above). [Moreover,] he brings about the five things stated regarding a [corrupt] judge, namely, that he (a) defiles the Land, (b) desecrates the Name of God, (c) drives away the Divine Presence, (d) causes Israel to fall by the sword, and (e) exiles Israel from their Land. — [Torath Kohanim 19:84]
לא תעשו עול במשפט: אם לדין, הרי כבר נאמר לא תעשו עול במשפט (פסוק טו), ומהו משפט השנוי כאן, הוא המדה והמשקל והמשורה. מלמד שהמודד נקרא דיין, שאם שיקר במדה הרי הוא כמקלקל את הדין וקרוי עול, שנאוי, ומשוקץ, חרם ותועבה. וגורם לחמשה דברים האמורים בדיין מטמא את הארץ, ומחלל את השם, ומסלק את השכינה, ומפיל את ישראל בחרב, ומגלה אותם מארצם:
with measures: This refers to a land measure [i.e., measures of length or area of land]. — [Torath Kohanim 19:85; B.M. 61b];
במדה: זו מדת הארץ:
weights: [This is to be understood] according to its apparent meaning.
במשקל: כמשמעו:
liquid measures: Heb. וּבַמְּשׂוּרָה. This refers to liquid measures. — [see Torath Kohanim 19:85 and B.M. 61b]
ובמשורה: היא מדת הלח והיבש:
36. You shall have true scales, true weights, a true ephah, and a true hin. I am the Lord, your God, Who brought you out of the land of Egypt. לו. מֹאזְנֵי צֶדֶק אַבְנֵי צֶדֶק אֵיפַת צֶדֶק וְהִין צֶדֶק יִהְיֶה לָכֶם אֲנִי יְהוָֹה אֱלֹהֵיכֶם אֲשֶׁר הוֹצֵאתִי אֶתְכֶם מֵאֶרֶץ מִצְרָיִם:
true weights: Heb. אַבְנֵי צֶדֶק, lit. stones of righteousness. These are the weights [people use] to weigh against [i.e., as a standard weight on the scales].
אבני צדק: הם המשקולות ששוקלין כנגדן:
a true ephah: This is a [unit of] dry measure.
איפת: היא מדת היבש:
and a true hin: This is a [unit of] liquid measure.
הין: זו היא מדת הלח:
Who brought you out: on this condition [i.e., to observe these commandments]. — [Torath Kohanim 19:87] Another explanation: God says,] In Egypt, I discerned between the drop [of sperm that led to the conception] of a firstborn and the drop [of sperm that did] not [lead to the conception] of a firstborn. [Likewise,] I am the One faithful to exact punishment upon someone who secretly stores his weights in salt [thus altering their weight] in order to defraud people who do not recognize them [as weights that have been tampered with]. — [B.M. 61b]
אשר הוצאתי אתכם: על מנת כן. דבר אחר אני הבחנתי במצרים בין טפה של בכור לטפה שאינה של בכור, ואני הנאמן להפרע ממי שטומן משקלותיו במלח להונות את הבריות שאין מכירים בהם:
37. You shall observe all My statutes and all My ordinances, and fulfill them. I am the Lord. לז. וּשְׁמַרְתֶּם אֶת כָּל חֻקֹּתַי וְאֶת כָּל מִשְׁפָּטַי וַעֲשִׂיתֶם אֹתָם אֲנִי יְהוָֹה:
-------
Tehillim: Psalms Chapters 108 - 112
• Chapter 108
1. A song, a psalm by David.
2. My heart is steadfast, O God; I will sing and chant praises even with my soul.
3. Awake, O lyre and harp; I shall awaken the dawn.
4. I will thank You among the nations, Lord; I will sing praises to You among the peoples.
5. Indeed, Your kindness reaches above the heavens; Your truth reaches to the skies.
6. Be exalted upon the heavens, O God, [show] Your glory upon all the earth.
7. That Your beloved ones may be delivered, help with Your right hand and answer me.
8. God spoke in His holiness that I would exult, I would divide portions [of the enemies' land], I would measure the Valley of Succot.
9. Mine is Gilead, mine is Manasseh, and Ephraim is the stronghold of my head, Judah is my prince.
10. Moab is my washbasin, I will cast my shoe upon Edom, I will shout over Philistia.
11. Who brings me to the fortified city? Who led me unto Edom?
12. Is it not God, Who has [until now] forsaken us, and did not go forth, O God, with our armies?
13. Give us help against the adversary; futile is the help of man.
14. Through God we will do valiantly, and He will trample our oppressors.
Chapter 109
David composed this psalm while fleeing from Saul. At that time he faced many enemies who, despite acting friendly in his presence, spoke only evil of him; he therefore curses them bitterly.
1. For the Conductor, by David, a psalm. O God of my praise, be not silent.
2. For the mouth of the wicked and the mouth of the deceitful have opened against me; they spoke to me with a false tongue.
3. They have surrounded me with words of hate, and attacked me without cause.
4. In return for my love they hate me; still, I am [a man of] prayer.
5. They placed harm upon me in return for my favor, and hatred in return for my love.
6. Appoint a wicked man over him; let an adversary stand at his right.
7. When he is judged may he go out condemned; may his prayer be considered a sin.
8. May his days be few; may another take his position.
9. May his children be orphans and his wife a widow.
10. May his children wander about and beg; may they seek charity from amid their ruins.
11. May the creditor seize all that he has, and may strangers plunder [the fruits of] his labor.
12. May he have none who extends him kindness, and may none be gracious to his orphans.
13. May his posterity be cut off; may their name be erased in a later generation.
14. May the iniquity of his fathers be remembered by the Lord, and the sin of his mother not be erased.
15. May they be before the Lord always, and may He cut off their memory from the earth.
16. Because he did not remember to do kindness, and he pursued the poor and destitute man and the broken-hearted, to kill [him].
17. He loved the curse and it has come upon him; he did not desire blessing, and it has remained far from him.
18. He donned the curse like his garment, and it came like water into his innards, like oil into his bones.
19. May it be to him like a cloak in which he wraps himself, as a belt with which he girds himself always.
20. This is from the Lord for the deeds of my enemies, and [for] those who speak evil against my soul.
21. And You, God, my Lord, do [kindness] with me for the sake of Your Name; for Your kindness is good, rescue me!
22. For I am poor and destitute, and my heart has died within me.
23. Like the fleeting shadow I am banished, I am tossed about like the locust.
24. My knees totter from fasting, and my flesh is lean without fat.
25. And I became a disgrace to them; they see me and shake their heads.
26. Help me, Lord, my God, deliver me according to Your kindness.
27. Let them know that this is Your hand, that You, Lord, have done it.
28. Let them curse, but You will bless; they arose, but they will be shamed, and Your servant will rejoice.
29. May my adversaries be clothed in humiliation; may they wrap themselves in their shame as in a cloak.
30. I will thank the Lord profusely with my mouth, and amid the multitude I will praise Him,
31. when He stands at the right of the destitute one to deliver him from the condemners of his soul.
Chapter 110
This psalm records the response of Eliezer, servant of Abraham (to those who asked how Abraham managed to defeat the four kings). He tells of Abraham killing the mighty kings and their armies. Read, and you will discover that the entire psalm refers to Abraham, who merited prominence for recognizing God in his youth.
1. By David, a psalm. The Lord said to my master, "Sit at My right, until I make your enemies a stool for your feet.”
2. The staff of your strength the Lord will send from Zion, to rule amid your enemies.
3. Your people [will come] willingly on the day of your campaign; because of your splendid sanctity from when you emerged from the womb, you still possess the dew of your youth.
4. The Lord has sworn and will not regret: "You shall be a priest forever, just as Melchizedek!”
5. My Lord is at your right; He has crushed kings on the day of His fury.
6. He will render judgement upon the nations, and they will be filled with corpses; He will crush heads over a vast land.
7. He will drink from the stream on the way, and so will hold his head high.
Chapter 111
This psalm is written in alphabetical sequence, each verse containing two letters, save the last two verses which contain three letters each. The psalm is short yet prominent, speaking of the works of God and their greatness.
1. Praise the Lord! I will give thanks to the Lord with all my heart, in the counsel of the upright and the congregation.
2. Great are the works of the Lord, [yet] available to all who desire them.
3. Majesty and splendor are His work, and His righteousness endures forever.
4. He established a memorial for His wonders, for the Lord is gracious and compassionate.
5. He gave food to those who fear Him; He remembered His covenant always.
6. He has declared the power of His deeds to His people, to give them the inheritance of nations.
7. The works of His hands are true and just; all His mandates are faithful.
8. They are steadfast for ever and ever, for they are made with truth and uprightness.
9. He sent redemption to His people, [by] commanding His covenant forever; holy and awesome is His Name.
10. The beginning of wisdom is fear of the Lord; sound wisdom for all who practice it-His praise endures forever.
Chapter 112
This psalm, too, follows alphabetical sequence, each verse containing two letters, save the last two which contain three letters each. It speaks of the good traits man should choose, and of how to give charity-the reward for which is never having to rely on others.
1. Praise the Lord! Fortunate is the man who fears the Lord, and desires His commandments intensely.
2. His descendants will be mighty on the earth; he will be blessed with an upright generation.
3. Wealth and riches are in his house, and his righteousness endures forever.
4. Even in darkness light shines for the upright, for [He is] Compassionate, Merciful, and Just.
5. Good is the man who is compassionate and lends, [but] provides for his own needs with discretion.
6. For he will never falter; the righteous man will be an eternal remembrance.
7. He will not be afraid of a bad tiding; his heart is steadfast, secure in the Lord.
8. His heart is steadfast, he does not fear, until he sees his oppressors [destroyed].
9. He has distributed [his wealth], giving to the needy. His righteousness will endure forever; his might will be uplifted in honor.
10. The wicked man will see and be angry; he will gnash his teeth and melt away; the wish of the wicked will be ruined.
-------
Tanya: Likutei Amarim, middle of Chapter 42
• Lessons in Tanya
• Today's Tanya Lesson
Wednesday, Nissan 23, 5774 • April 23, 2014
Likutei Amarim, middle of Chapter 42
והנה כל אדם מישראל, יהיה מי שיהיה, כשיתבונן בזה שעה גדולה בכליום, איך שהקב״ה מלא ממש את העליונים ואת התחתונים, ואת השמים ואת האר׳ ממש מלא כל האר׳ כבודו ממש
Now, therefore, each individual Jew, whoever he may be, i.e., whatever his spiritual state, when he ponders upon this for a considerable time each day — how G d is truly omnipresent in the higher and lower [worlds], and the actual heaven and earth (i.e., not only the spiritual heaven and earth, the Supernal Sefirot, but the actual heaven and earth itself) is truly filled with His glory,
וצופה ומביט ובוחן כליותיו ולבו וכל מעשיו ודבוריו, וכל צעדיו יספור
and that He looks, seeks and searches his “kidneys and heart” (i.e., his inner thoughts and emotions) and all his actions and words, and counts his every step —
אזי תקבע בלבו היראה לכל היום כולו, כשיחזור ויתבונן בזה אפילו בהתבוננות קלה
then fear will be implanted in his heart throughout the day, even when he is occupied with other matters and cannot contemplate the above, when he will again meditate on this, even with a superficial reflection that does not demand a particular effort and a set time;
בכל עת ובכל שעה יהיה סור מרע ועשה טוב במחשבה דבור ומעשה, שלא למרות חס ושלום עיני כבודו אשר מלא כל האר׳
at any time1 or moment, he will thus turn away from evil and do good, (i.e., he will refrain from transgressing negative commands and perform positive commands) in thought, speech and deed, so as not to rebel, G d forbid, in the sight of His glory whereof the whole world is filled.
וכמאמר רבן יוחנן בן זכאי לתלמידיו כנ״ל
This is in accord with the statement2 of Rabbi Yochanan ben Zakkai to his disciples, quoted above, viz., “May it be G d’s Will that the fear of heaven be upon you [and keep you from sinning] like the fear of a human being [who by observing your actions keeps you from sinning].”
וזה שאומר הכתוב: כי אם ליראה את ה׳ אלקיך, ללכת בכל דרכיו
This, then, is the meaning of the verse:3 “[G d demands of you] only to fear the L rd your G d, to walk in all His ways.”
The question arises: Is attaining the fear of G d such an easy thing that the verse says, “only to fear Him”? The answer which is given (“For Moses it is a simple matter”) is difficult to comprehend, for the verse speaks of what “G d demands of you” — of every Jew. The explanation is as follows: the verse is referring here to a level of fear which is indeed simple for every Jew to reach, that level being fear that leads one to “walk in all His ways.”
שהיא יראה המביאה לקיום מצותיו יתברך, בסור מרע ועשה טוב, והיא יראה תתאה הנ״ל
For this is the fear that leads to the fulfillment of G d’s commandments, which involve turning away from evil and doing good. This is the “lower-level fear” which has been discussed earlier.
Accordingly, the Gemara’s answer (“For Moses it is a simple matter”) is now understandable. It means:
ולגבי משה, דהיינו, לגבי בחינת הדעת שבכל נפש מישראל האלקית, מילתא זוטרתי היא, כנ״ל
As it applies to “Moses”, that is to say, in relation to the quality of Daat that is in the divine soul of every Jew, this quality being the quality of Moses found within “you”, within each Jewish soul, this is indeed a minor thing, as has been stated above — that when a Jew reflects with his Daat upon matters that arouse fear of G d, he will surely succeed in attaining it,
שהדעת הוא המקשר מצפוני בינת הלב אל בחינת גילוי במחשבה ממש, כידוע ליודעי ח״ן
(4for Daat is [the faculty] which connects the hidden understanding of the heart with revelation in actual thought, as is known to those who are familiar with the Esoteric Discipline).
As mentioned earlier, all Jews possess a “hidden treasure of fear of heaven” in their hearts. Through the faculty of Daat, this fear of heaven is revealed and felt in one’s thought, and also affects his speech and actions.
* * *
FOOTNOTES
1.Note of the Rebbe: At first glance it would seem that there is no compelling evidence as to whether “at any time or moment” is connected to the earlier clause (“when he will again meditate... even with a superficial reflection at any time or moment”), or whether it is connected to the following clause (“at any time or moment, he will turn away from evil and do good...”).
However, since “any time or moment” is mentioned in ch. 14 with regard to a person’s ability to become a Beinoni, and the Alter Rebbe explains there that this phrase refers to his thought, speech and deed, it follows that here, too, “at any time or moment” relates to the following clause — “he will turn away from evil and do good, in thought, speech and deed.”
2.Berachot 28b.
3.Devarim 10:12.
4.Parentheses are in the original text.
-------
Rambam:
• Daily Mitzvah - Sefer Hamitzvos:
Wednesday, Nissan 23, 5774 • April 23, 2014
Today's Mitzvah
A daily digest of Maimonides’ classic work "Sefer Hamitzvot"
Positive Commandment 148
Sending Away the Mother Bird
"You shall surely send away the mother, and the children you may take for yourself"—Deuteronomy 22:7.
We are commanded to send away the mother bird before taking its young.
Sending Away the Mother Bird
Positive Commandment 148
Translated by Berel Bell
The 148th mitzvah is that we are commanded regarding shiluach hakan ("sending away the nest").1
The source of this commandment is G‑d's statement,2 "You must first chase away the mother, and only then may you take the young."
The details of this commandment are fully explained in the last chapter of Chullin.
FOOTNOTES
1.Rather than taking both the mother bird and the chicks (or eggs), we are commanded to chase away the mother and only thereafter take the young.
2.Deut. 22:7.
________________________________________
Rambam:
• 1 Chapter: Rotseah uShmirat Nefesh Rotseah uShmirat Nefesh - Chapter Nine Rotseah uShmirat Nefesh - Chapter Nine
Halacha 1
The following procedure should be adhered to when the corpse of a slain person is found lying on the earth, and it is not known who struck him. It is left in place. Five elders from the High Court in Jerusalem come and measure from the corpse to the nearby cities, as indicated by Deuteronomy 21:2: "And your elders and your judges shall go out and measure...."
Even if the corpse is found right next to a city, or it is clearly obvious that a particular city is closer, it is a mitzvah to measure.
Halacha 2
After they measure and establish which city is closest, they bury the person who was murdered in the place he was found. The elders from Jerusalem return to their city, and the court of the city that was designated brings a calf paid for by all the inhabitants. They bring the the calf to a river that flows forcefully. This is the meaning of the term eitan found in the Torah (Deuteronomy 21:4).
Halacha 3
It should be decapitated there with a cleaver, from behind. The court of that city and all the elders of the city, even if they are 100 in number, must wash their hands at the place where the calf was decapitated.
There, in the midst of the river, the elders declare in the holy tongue Deuteronomy 21:7: "Our hands did not shed this blood, nor did we see this with our eyes." Their intent is that the murdered person did not come into their city and they let him leave without giving him provisions for the way, nor did they see him go and they let him leave without accompaniment.
The priests then say in the Holy Tongue Ibid.:8: "Atone for Your nation Israel...." They depart. The Holy One, blessed be He, then forgives the shedding of the blood, as the above verse continues: "And the blood will be atoned."
Halacha 4
When the judges measure the distance from the corpse to the nearest city, they must measure exactly and not by estimation. They should measure only to a city that has a court of 23 judges.
They should never measure, however, to Jerusalem, for the inhabitants of Jerusalem are never required to bring a calf to be decapitated. For Jerusalem was never divided among the tribes, and the mitzvah of decapitating a calf applies "in the land that God your Lord is giving you to inherit" Deuteronomy 19:1.
Halacha 5
If the corpse is found close to Jerusalem or close to a city that does not have a court, that city should be ignored, and a measurement should be made to the other cities close by.
If the corpse is found close to a border city or to a city inhabited by gentiles, no measurement is made at all. For we presume that the person was killed by gentiles.
Halacha 6
The city that is closest to the corpse does not bring the calf unless its population is equal to that of the city that is further away. If, however, the population of the city that is further away exceeds that of the closer city, the number of inhabitants becomes the determining factor, and the more populous city must bring the calf.
Halacha 7
Although at times the Torah considers number to be a determining factor, and at times proximity to be a determining factor, number carries more weight than proximity.
Halacha 8
If a corpse is found equidistant between two cities, and both cities have the same number of inhabitants, they should bring a calf in partnership and make the following stipulation: If this city is the closer, the calf belongs to its inhabitants, and the others are giving them their portion in it as a present. And if the other city is closer, the calf belongs to its inhabitants and the others are giving them their portion in it as a present. For it is impossible to be exact in measurement, even with regard to something that comes about as a result of human activity.
Halacha 9
From which portion of the corpse should we measure? From the nose.
If the body of a corpse is found in one place and the head in another place, the body is brought to the head, and then the corpse is buried in that place. Similarly, whenever a corpse is found with no one to bury it, the body is brought to the head, and then the corpse is buried in that place.
Halacha 10
If many corpses were found next to each other, a measurement should be made from the nose of each one individually. If one city is discovered to be closest to all of them, it brings one calf for all the corpses.
If the corpses are found piled one on top of the other, we should measure from the top corpse, since it is lying on top of the others.
Halacha 11
Deuteronomy 21:1 states: "When a corpse is found...." Challal, the term used for corpse indicates a person slain with a sword, and not strangled to death, nor a person in his death throes; these are not implied by the term challal.
The verse continues "on the earth" - i.e., not buried in a mound; "fallen" and not hanging from a tree; "in the field" - and not floating on the water. "And it is not known who killed him" - thus, if the murderer's identity is known, a calf was not decapitated.
Halacha 12
Even if only one witness - or even a servant,a woman, or a person disqualified to serve as a witness because of his transgressions - saw the murderer, the calf would not be decapitated. For this reason, in the later part of the Second Temple Period, when the number of those who murdered overtly increased, the decapitation of the calf was nullified.
Halacha 13
If one witness says: "I saw the murderer," and another witness disputes his statement, saying: "You did not see him," the calf would be decapitated.
When does the above apply? When the two witnesses came at the same time. If, however, the witness who claims to have seen the murderer came first and testified, his word is believed as would be that of two witnesses in this context. Therefore, if another witness comes and disputes his testimony, claiming that the first witness did not see the murderer, the words of the second witness are of no consequence, and the calf would not be decapitated.
Halacha 14
If after the one witness testifies that he saw the murderer, two witnesses come and testify that he did not see him, it is considered as if there are two testimonies of equal weight, disputing each other, and the calf should be decapitated.
If a woman says: "I saw the murderer," and another woman disputes her testimony and says: "You did not see," the calf should be decapitated. This applies regardless of whether the women came together or one after the other.
If two say: "We saw him," and one says, "You did not see him," the calf should not be decapitated. If one says: "I saw him," and two say, "You did not see him," the calf should be decapitated.
Halacha 15
When does the above apply? When the three witnesses mentioned are either all acceptable or all unacceptable. If, however, one acceptable witness says: "I saw the murderer," and two women or two unacceptable witnesses contradict him and say that he did not see him, the calf should not be decapitated.
Halacha 16
When two women or two unacceptable witnesses say: "We saw the murderer," and one acceptable witness denies their statements and says that they did not see him, the calf should be decapitated.
Even when 100 women or 100 unacceptable witnesses say: "We saw the murderer", and one acceptable witness denies all their statements, all the unacceptable witnesses are considered as if they were one man, with the weight of a single witness.
Halacha 17
When three women or three unacceptable witnesses say: "We saw the murderer," and four women or four unacceptable witnesses say: "You did not see him," the calf should be decapitated. This is the guiding principle: With regard to unacceptable witnesses, accept the testimony supported by the most witnesses in all situations.
-------
Rambam:
• 3 Chapters: Shechitah Shechitah - Chapter 12, Shechitah Shechitah - Chapter 13, Shechitah Shechitah - Chapter 14
Shechitah - Chapter 12
Halacha 1
When a person slaughters an animal and its offspring on the same day, the meat is permitted to be eaten.1 The slaughterer, however, is punished by lashes,2as [Leviticus 22:28] states: "Do not slaughter [an ox or a sheep]3 and its offspring on one day." He receives lashes only for slaughtering the second animal. Accordingly, if one person slaughtered one of such a pair and another person slaughtered the second, [the one who slaughtered the second alone] receives lashes.
Halacha 2
The prohibition against slaughtering [an animal] and its offspring applies in all times and in all places, with regard to ordinary animals and sacrificial animals. [With regard to the latter category, it applies] with regard to sacrifices of which we partake and with regard to sacrifices of which we do not partake.4 Therefore if one slaughtered the first animal in the Temple courtyard and the second outside of it or the first outside the Temple courtyard and the second inside, the one who slaughtered the second animal receives lashes [for violating the prohibition against slaughtering] an animal and its offspring. [This applies] whether they were both ordinary animals,5 they were both sacrificial animals,6 or one7 was an ordinary animal and one, a sacrificial one.
Halacha 3
The prohibition against slaughtering [an animal] and its offspring applies only with regard to ritual slaughter, as the verse states: "Do not slaughter." [Implied] is that the prohibition involves the slaughter of both animals. If, however, one chopped off the head of one of them or it became a nevelah in his hand,8 it is permitted to slaughter [the other]. Similarly, if he slaughtered the first and chopped off the head of the second or it became a nevelah in his hand, he is not liable.
Halacha 4
When a deaf-mute, an intellectually or emotionally incapable person, or a minor slaughtered the first animal privately,9 it is permitted to slaughter the second animal afterwards because their slaughter is not considered as slaughter.10
Halacha 5
When one slaughters the first animal, but a question arises whether it is a nevelah or not, it is forbidden to slaughter the second [animal].11 If one slaughters it, he is not liable for lashes.12
Halacha 6
Slaughter from which it is not fit to eat is, nevertheless, considered slaughter. Therefore if the first person slaughtered an ordinary animal in the Temple courtyard,13 one which is trefe, an ox condemned to be stoned, a calf whose neck is to be broken, a red heifer, or slaughtered for the sake of a false deity,14a person who slaughters the second animal is liable. Similarly, if one slaughtered the first animal and another slaughtered the second though it is an ordinary animal in the Temple courtyard, an ox condemned to be stoned, a calf whose neck is to be broken, or a red heifer, [the second person] is liable for lashes.
Halacha 7
When [the second animal] is slaughtered for the sake of a false deity,15[the slaughterer] is not liable because of [the prohibition against slaughtering] an animal and its offspring, for he is liable for capital punishment.16If, however, he was given a warning for [the prohibition against slaughtering an animal] and its offspring and was not given a warning for the worship of false deities,17 he receives lashes.18
Halacha 8
The prohibition against slaughtering [an animal] and its offspring applies only with regard to a kosher domesticated animal. [This is derived from the exegesis of Leviticus, loc. cit.]:19 "Do not slaughter [an ox or a sheep] and its offspring on one day."
[This prohibition] does apply with regard to hybrid species. What is implied? When a [male] deer mates with a [female] goat and one slaughters the goat and its offspring, one is liable. When, however, a [male] goat mates with a [female] deer and one slaughters the deer and its offspring, it is forbidden to slaughter [the deer and its offspring], if one slaughters them, however, one is not liable for lashes.20 The Torah forbade slaughtering a cow21 and its offspring and not a deer and its offspring.
Halacha 9
If the offspring of this deer was female and it gave birth to offspring, one is liable for lashes should he slaughter the female offspring of this deer and its offspring [on the same day].22 Similarly, if a hybrid species is produced by mating a sheep and a goat - regardless of which is male and which is female - [the slaughterer can be held liable for] lashes for [violating the prohibition against slaughtering] an animal and its offspring.
Halacha 10
It is permitted to slaughter a pregnant animal. The fetus is considered as a limb of its mother.23 If the fetus emerged alive after the slaughter of its mother and stepped on the ground,24 one should not slaughter it on the same day. If one did, one is not liable for lashes.25
Halacha 11
The prohibition against slaughtering [an animal] and its offspring applies with regard to a mother, for the offspring is certainly its own. If one knows with certainty that a male fathered offspring, the two should not be slaughtered on the same day. If one slaughtered [them together, however,] he is not liable for lashes, for there is a doubt whether or not the prohibition applies with regard to males.26
Halacha 12
When a person slaughters a cow and afterwards slaughters two of its offspring, he is liable for two sets of lashes.27 If he slaughters [several of] its offspring and then it, he is liable for [only] one set of lashes.28 If he slaughtered it, its female offspring and the offspring of its offspring, he is liable for two sets of lashes.29 If he slaughtered it, the offspring of its offspring and its female offspring, he is liable for [only] one set of lashes.30
Halacha 13
When two people [each] purchased an animal: one the mother and one the offspring and they brought the matter for judgment,31 the one who purchased [the animal] first is allowed to slaughter it first,32 the other one should wait until the next day. If the second purchaser slaughtered [his animal] first, he gains and the first must wait until the next day.
Halacha 14
Four times a year, it is necessary for a person who sells an animal to a colleague to inform him that he already sold the mother or the daughter of the animal to another person for the sake of slaughtering it so that the latter purchaser will wait and not slaughter until the next day.33 They are: the day preceding the final holiday of Sukkot,34 the day preceding the first holiday of Pesach,35 the day preceding Shavuot,36 and the day preceding Rosh HaShanah.37
Halacha 15
When does the above apply? When he saw that the person who purchased it last was anxious to buy and it was at the end of the day, [in which instance,] it can be presumed that he will slaughter it immediately. If, however, there was ample time during the day, he is not required to inform him, for perhaps he will not slaughter until the following day.38
Halacha 16
When one sells the mother to a groom and the daughter to the bride, he must notify them.39 For certainly, they will slaughter them both on the same day. Similar laws apply in all analogous situations.
Halacha 17
[With regard to the term] one day mentioned in the context of [the prohibition against slaughtering an animal] and its offspring, the day follows the night.40 what is implied? He slaughtered the first animal at the beginning of Tuesday night, he may not slaughter the other one until the beginning of Wednesday night. Similarly, if he slaughtered one at the close of Wednesday, before bein hashemashot,41 he may slaughter the other one at the beginning of Wednesday night. If he slaughtered the first during bein hashemashot Wednesday evening, he may not slaughter the second until after nightfall on Thursday.42 If he slaughtered it during the day on Thursday, he does not receive lashes.43
FOOTNOTES
1.The Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 16:3) mentions a difference of opinion concerning this matter, for some authorities forbid partaking of the meat. The Rama clarifies that the difference of opinion applies only with regard to the second animal. The first animal is permitted. Moreover, even the more stringent authorities maintain that the prohibition applies:
a) only that day, and
b) only for the transgressor himself. It is a penalty imposed upon him by the Sages and not a prohibition of Scriptural Law. See Maggid Mishneh; Turei Zahav 16:23.
2.Sefer HaMitzvot (negative commandment 101) and Sefer HaChinuch (mitzvah 294) include this prohibition among the 613 mitzvot of the Torah.
See Moreh Nevuchim, Vol. III, ch. 48, that states that this prohibition was given to us to prevent cruelty. For an animal will be severely aggrieved if its offspring or its mother is slaughtered before its eyes. Note, however, Hilchot Tefilah 9:7 where the Rambam emphasizes that the Torah's mitzvot were not given to us for the sake of any particular rationale. Note, however, the conclusion of Hilchot Temurah which explains that there are two dimensions to every mitzvah: that it is God's decree and that He issued that decree for a particular rationale. (See also Halachah 3 which indicates that the prohibition is a Divine decree, not limited to that rationale.)
3.The Torah (and the Rambam) use the masculine although the prohibition applies primarily to a mother and its offspring. See Halachah 11.
4.For the prohibition concerns slaughter.
5.And it is forbidden to slaughter an ordinary animal in the Temple courtyard.
6.And thus may not be sacrificed outside the Temple courtyard.
7.I.e., either the one that was sacrificed inside the Temple or the one sacrificed outside. The point of these statements is, as stated in Halachah 6, even though the slaughter is not befitting, within the context of this prohibition, it is considered as ritual slaughter.
8.I.e., the slaughter was unacceptable. If, however, it was discovered that the animal was trefe, it is considered to have been slaughtered and it is forbidden to slaughter the second animal (Halachah 6, Siftei Cohen 16:18).
9.If, however, they slaughtered under the supervision of a knowledgeable adult, their slaughter is acceptable (Chapter 4, Halachah 5). Hence, this prohibition applies. See Rama (Yoreh De'ah 16:9).
10.Hence it is equivalent to cutting off the head of the animal and the previous halachah applies.
11.For perhaps the animal was kosher and one would be violating the prohibition.
12.Because there is a doubt involved.
13.Rambam LeAm questions why this concept is mentioned. It was already stated in Halachah 2.
14.In all these instances, it is forbidden to benefit from the slaughtered animal. (See Hilchot Nizkei Mammon 11:9; Hilchot Rotzeach 10:6, Hilchot Parah Adumah 1:7; Hilchot Avodat Kochavim 7:2.)
15.Seemingly, the same principles stated in the previous halachah would apply in this instance. Nevertheless, in this case, there is another factor involved as the Rambam continues to explain.
16.As befits one who sacrifices to a false deity. One is not liable for both capital punishment and lashes for the same act. Since he is liable for capital punishment, he is not held liable for lashes. (See Ketubot 33b; Chullin 81b.)
17.I.e., when the witnesses administered the warning, they mentioned the lesser transgression and not the more severe one.
18.For in this instance, he is not liable for the more severe punishment. There is a difference of opinion among the Sages of the Talmud concerning whether one is absolved from liability for lashes in such a situation or not and the halachah follows the opinion of Rabbi Yochanan who maintains that one is liable. See Ketubot 34b-35a, Chullin, loc. cit.
19.See the Sifra to the verse which states that the first excludes wild beasts and fowl.
20.See the Turei Zahav 16:11 and the Siftei Cohen 16:16 who debate the rulings of the Rashba and the Maharshal who permit one to slaughter the deer and its offspring even as an initial and preferred option.
21.I.e., a kosher domesticated animal.
22.Since ultimately, the ancestor of the hybrid deer was a domesticated animal, we hold the slaughterer liable (see Chullin 80a). Although in his Kessef Mishneh, Rav Yosef Caro quotes the opinion of the Rashba who does not hold the slaughtered liable for lashes, in his Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 16:8), he cites the Rambam's view. The Turei Zahav 16:12 and the Siftei Cohen 16:17 debate this issue and side with the more lenient views, questioning the Rambam's ruling in light of his position in Halachah 11.
23.And not a separate entity for whose slaughter one is held liable.
24.If the fetus does not step on the ground, it need not be slaughtered (Hilchot Ma'achalot Assurot 5:14). Hence, the prohibition against slaughtering an animal and its offspring would not apply.
25.The Tosefta states: Since it is not required to slaughter such an animal, one is not liable for slaughtering it together with its mother.
26.This issue was apparently a matter of uncertainty for the Rambam, for in his Commentary to the Mishnah (Chullin 5:6) he revised his interpretation several times. His final text (see Rav Kapach's version which differs from the standard published text) parallels the text here. Note, however, Bechorot 7:7 which appears to refer to this prohibition with regard to males.
27.For he violated the prohibition twice.
28.For he performed one forbidden act.
29.For in this instance as well, he violated the prohibition twice.
30.Although the same act caused two violations of the prohibition, since it was only one deed, the majority opinion in Chullin 82a only holds the person liable for set of lashes. As Rashi explains: There is one prohibition, one deed, and one warning.
31.I.e., they both desired to slaughter their animal that day.
32.The Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 16:6) states that this law applies only when the two purchased the animals from the same person. If they purchased them from different individuals, neither has precedence over the other.
33.In other situations, it is not necessary to notify him, for it is not certain that either purchaser will slaughter the animal on that day.
34.This is the holiday of Shemini Atzeret/Simchas Torah, a day of great rejoicing. Hence it is appropriate that meat be part of the festive meals. On the first day of Sukkot, by contrast, because the people are involved in preparing a sukkah and a lulav, they do not have the energy for excessive celebration.
35.For the Seder is a time of great rejoicing and celebration. The seventh day of Pesach, by contrast, is not considered that important a festival.
36.Rashi explains that the animals were necessary for sacrifices to be brought for the holiday. Tosafot states that Shavuos is customarily marked by great celebration in commemoration of the Giving of the Torah.
37.For it is customary to begin the new year with celebratory feasts.
38.The fact that he shows repose indicates that he may be purchasing the animal for a later date. The Ra'avad differs and maintains that the person's repose is taken into consideration only when he purchases the animal on the day before the day preceding the festival. The Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 16:6) quotes the Raa'vad's ruling.
39.That the other animal was also sold. This applies even if he did not sell them both on the same day [Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 16:6)].
40.I.e., it is a calendar day according to the Jewish calendar, not a day from sunrise to sunset or a 24-hour period beginning from the time one animal is slaughtered.
41.This term literally means "between the suns." It refers to the time between the setting of the sun and the appearance of the stars. There is an unresolved doubt whether the day ends at sunset or at the appearance of the stars. Hence, the halachic status of this period of time is one of question.
42.Lest the period until the appearance of the stars be considered as part of the previous day.
43.For punishment may not be given in a situation where doubt exists.
Shechitah - Chapter 13
Halacha 1
When a person takes a mother together with its young and slaughters it, the meat is permitted to be eaten.1 He is, however, liable for lashes for slaughtering the mother,2 as [Deuteronomy 22:6] states: "Do not take the mother together with its offspring." Similarly, if it died before he sent it away, he is liable for lashes.3 If he sent it away after he took it, he is not liable.4
Halacha 2
Similarly, [with regard to] all negative commandments that can be corrected by a positive commandment,5 one is obligated to fulfill the positive commandment. If he does not fulfill it, he is liable for lashes.6
Halacha 3
If another person comes and seizes the mother bird from his hands and sends it away or it took flight from his possession without his knowledge, he is liable for lashes. [This is implied by ibid.:7]: "You shall certainly send away [the mother]," i.e., he must send away [the mother bird] himself. [If not,] he did not fulfill the related positive commandment.7
Halacha 4
If he took a mother bird together with its young, cut off its wings so that it cannot fly and sent it away,8 he is given stripes for rebellious conduct.9 [He must] keep [the mother bird] in his possession until her wings grow back and then send her away. If [the mother] died before this or fled and was lost, he is liable for lashes, for he did not fulfill the related positive commandment.
Halacha 5
How must one send away the mother? He holds her by her wings and has her fly away. If he sent her away and she returned, he sent her away and she returned10 - even if this happens - four or five times, he is obligated to send her away, as [implied by the repetition of the verb in the] phrase: "You shall certainly send away."11
Halacha 6
Although a person says "I will take the mother bird and send away the young,"12 he is obligated to send away the mother bird, as the verse states: "You shall certainly send away the mother."
Halacha 7
If he [sent away the mother,]13 took the offspring and [then] returned them to the nest and the mother came back to them, he is not obligated to send [her] away.14
It is permitted to send away the mother and then snare her again. The Torah forbade snaring only when she cannot fly away because of her offspring over which she is hovering so that they not be taken,15 as [ibid.:6] states: "And the mother is resting on the chicks." If, however, he removed her from his grasp and then snared her again, it is permitted.
Halacha 8
[The mitzvah to] send away the mother bird applies only with regard to a kosher species of fowl16 that are not at hand, e.g., doves that rested in a dovecote or on a loft,17 wild fowl that nested in an orchard. [This is derived from the phrase (ibid.)]: "When you will chance upon." When, however, [fowl is] at hand, e.g., ducks, chicken, and doves that nested in a building, one is not liable to send away the mother.
Halacha 9
If the chicks could fly and thus they no longer needed their mother or [the mother was sitting on] unfertilized eggs,18 he is not obligated to send away [the mother]. If the chicks were trefot, it is comparable to unfertilized eggs and he is not liable to send away [the mother].19
Halacha 10
When a male fowl is resting on a nest, one is not obligated to send him away [before taking the young].20 When a non-kosher bird is resting on the nest of the eggs of a kosher fowl or a kosher fowl is resting on the eggs of a non-kosher fowl, one is not obligated to send away [the fowl that is resting].21
Halacha 11
When a [kosher fowl] was resting on kosher eggs of a different species, one should send [the bird] away. If, however, one fails to do so, one is not liable.22If the mother is trefe, he is obligated to send her away.23
Halacha 12
When one slits a portion of the gullet24 [of the mother]25 before he took her, he is liable to send her away. If he did not send her away, he is not liable for lashes.26
Halacha 13
[The following laws apply if the mother bird] was hovering [over the nest]: If her wings were touching the nest, one is obligated to send her away.27 If not, he is not obligated. If there was a cloth or feathers intervening between her wings and the nest, he must send her away. If he did not send her away, he is not liable for lashes.28
Halacha 14
If there were two rows of eggs and [the mother bird's] wings were touching [only] the top row, [the mother bird] was sitting on unfertilized eggs, but there were good eggs below them, one female was sitting on another female, a male was sitting on the nest and the female was sitting on the male - [in all these situations,] one should not take [the mother bird with the offspring]. If he takes [her], he should send her away. But if he does not send her away, he is not liable for lashes.29
Halacha 15
If [the mother bird] was sitting among the young or the eggs and was not touching them,30 one is not liable to send her away.31 Similarly, if she was at the side of the nest and her wings were touching the nest from the side, he is not obligated to send her away.
Halacha 16
When [the mother bird was perched] on two branches of a tree and the nest was positioned between them, we make an evaluation. In all instances where the mother would fall on the nest if the branches were removed, one is obligated to send her away.32
Halacha 17
When the mother is resting on one chick or on one egg, one is obligated to send her away.33 When a person finds a nest floating on the water or positioned on the back of an animal, he is obligated to send the mother away. [The verse] mentions "chicks or eggs"34 and "on any tree or on the ground" [not as exclusions], but because the Torah speaks about the commonplace situations.35
Halacha 18
It is forbidden to acquire the eggs as long as the mother is resting upon them. Therefore even if a mother bird was resting on eggs or chicks in one's loft or dovecote, they are not considered as "at hand" and his courtyard does not acquire them for him.36 Just as he cannot acquire them on behalf of others [until he sends away the mother], so, too, his courtyard cannot acquire them on his behalf.37 Therefore, he must send [her] away.38
Halacha 19
It is forbidden to take a mother bird together with her offspring, even to purify a person with tzara'at.39 If he took [the mother], he is obligated to send her away. If he did not, he is liable for lashes.40 [The rationale is that] a positive commandment41 does not supersede the observance of a negative commandment [that is reinforced] by a positive commandment.42 And a positive commandment does not supersede another positive commandment.43
Halacha 20
[The following rule applies when] a person consecrates a wild fowl to the Temple treasury, it flies away from his hand, but he recognizes it and finds it resting on chicks or on eggs. He should take the entire [nest]44 and bring it to the Temple treasurer. [The rationale is that the mitzvah of] sending away the mother bird does not apply with regard to consecrated [fowl], as [implied by Deuteronomy 22:7]: "And you may take the offspring for yourself." These may not [be taken] for yourself.45
Halacha 21
When a fowl killed a human being, one is not obligated to send it away. [The rationale is that] one is commanded to bring it to court so that it will be judged.46
FOOTNOTES
1.The fact that he violated a transgression in taking the mother does not cause the meat to be prohibited.
2.Sefer HaMitzvot (negative commandment 306) and Sefer HaChinuch (mitzvah 544) include this prohibition among the 613 mitzvot of the Torah.
The person transgresses the prohibition when he takes the mother and the offspring. Nevertheless, as long as the mother is alive and he can correct his deed by sending her away, he is not liable for lashes. This follows the principle of lav hanitak li'asai, a prohibition that can be corrected by a positive commandment, as stated in the following halachah.
3.For he can no longer fulfill the positive commandment.
4.For he corrected his actions through the positive commandment. Nevertheless, at the outset, it is forbidden for him to take the mother. He must send it away first, as is the simple meaning of the Torah's commandment. See Siftei Cohen 292:11.
5.The positive commandment to send away the mother bird is also considered as one of the 613 mitzvot of the Torah [Sefer HaMitzvot (positive commandment 148); Sefer HaChinuch (mitzvah 545)].
See the Kessef Mishneh (to Halachah 19) which explains that Chullin 141a mentions a difference of opinion concerning this mitzvah between Rabbi Yehudah and the Sages. Rabbi Yehudah maintains - and this is the simple meaning of the verse - that the positive commandment requires one to send away the mother bird only before taking it. Thus according to his view, sending away the mother after it was taken does not fulfill a mitzvah and hence, does not correct the transgression. The Sages differ and maintain that the halachic definition of the mitzvah also includes sending away the bird after it was taken. Therefore, if one took the mother together with its young, he can correct his transgression by sending away the mother. The Rambam's decision reflects the Sages' position.
6.See Makkot 16b which mentions a difference of opinion concerning the matter. One view maintains that as long as the person does not prevent himself from correcting the transgression through his own conduct, e.g., with regard to the matter at hand, he did not kill the mother bird, he is not lible for lashes. The other view, which as above is accepted as halachah by the Rambam, is that the person becomes liable for lashes when he violates the transgression. It is just that the punishment is suspended as long as he has the opportunity to correct the matter. Once, however, that opportunity no longer exists, even if it is not his fault - e.g., in the matter at hand, the bird dies - that punishment is meted out.
7.And is therefore held liable for the violation of the negative commandment.
8.I.e., he is trying to perform the mitzvah by sending the mother bird away on its feet so that he will not be held liable and yet will be able to take it again shortly afterwards. See Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 292:4).
9.I.e., he is punished for his defiance of the spirit of the Torah's commandments even though it is possible that he will not actually be held liable for lashes.
10.I.e., as long as the mother returns before he takes the young so that the mitzvah is still relevant (Siftei Cohen 292:8).
11.See Bava Metzia 31a which gives several examples of how the repetition of a verb in the Torah implies that a commandment must be fulfilled even 100 times.
12.And thus seemingly, he will be fulfilling the intent of the Torah's commandment, for he will not be taking the mother and the young together.
13.This addition is made on the basis of Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 292:5).
14.Once he has taken the offspring, they are considered as "at hand," and this mitzvah no longer applies as stated in the following halachah and notes (Siftei Cohen 292:10).
15.For, as emphasized in Moreh Nevuchim, Vol. III, ch. 48, which explains that this is the motivating rationale for this mitzvah: to prevent the cruel act of taking the young in front of the mother. Note, however, Hilchot Tefilah 9:7 and the resolution of the apparent contradiction in the previous chapter.
16.Chullin 139b derives this concept from the exegesis of the prooftext from Deuteronomy.
17.When quoting this law, the Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 292:2 and commentaries) emphasizes that if the nest is within the person's property and the mother bird lifts itself up, the person automatically acquires the offspring. From that time on, they are considered as "at hand" and the mitzvah does not apply. See Halachah 18 and notes.
18.Our translation is based on Rashi's commentary to Chullin 64b.
19.Chullin, loc. cit., notes that the verse mentions both eggs and chicks and derives both of these concepts from an equation it establishes between the two: Just as the chicks are entities that will continue to exist, so too, the eggs must be entities that will continue to exist [in contrast to unfertilized eggs that will spoil after a certain time]. Just as the eggs require their mother, so too, the chicks must require their mother.
20.Chullin 140a emphasizes that the verse mentions a mother, implying "and not a father."
21.For Chullin 138b states that the verse forbids taking the bird and its offspring "for yourself." Implied is that there is no prohibition when taking it for your dogs, i.e., taking a non-kosher species which is fit only to be fed to the dogs.
22.There is an unresolved question concerning this issue in Chullin 140b. Hence, it is forbidden to take the birds, but one is not liable for lashes because of the doubt.
23.Even though it is forbidden to eat the mother, there is a difference between it and a fowl from a non-kosher species. A mother from a non-kosher species is excluded because the prooftext uses the term tzipor which indicates a kosher species. A bird which is trefe, though forbidden, is still a tzipor (Siftei Cohen 292:1).
24.The literal meaning of the Rambam's words is "If he cut a portion of the signs." We have translated the Rambam's words as above because as obvious from the conclusion of his ruling, there is a doubt whether he is obligated to send away the mother bird. And with regard to the windpipe there is no doubt that he is obligated to send away the mother.
To explain: Chullin 140b questions: "Do we say that since after slitting a portion of the signs the animal will be trefe, is there a need to send it away?" Now, if a person slits less than half the windpipe, the fowl is not trefe and if he slits more than half of it, its slaughter is completed. Hence, we are forced to say that he is speaking about cutting a portion - but less than half - of the gullet. If he does not complete the slaughter, making such a slit will render the fowl trefe.
25.The fact the Rambam uses the term sheyikachenah, "before he takes her," implies that he is speaking about the mother bird. This understanding is also acknowledged by the Tur and Rabbenu Nissim. In his Kessef Mishneh, Rav Yosef Caro questions that interpretation, noting that even if the mother bird was made trefe by slitting its gullet, it would have to be sent away as stated in the previous halachah. Therefore, he suggests amending the text of the Mishneh Torah to imply that the signs of the chicks were slit and the question is, since he is involved in the slaughter of the chicks and stopping to send away the mother would render them trefe, must he stop and send her away or not. He follows this interpretation in his Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 292:10).
26.Since the Talmud does not resolve the question it raises, one cannot be held liable for lashes because of the doubt.
27.The Torah uses the expression "resting on the nest." Chullin 40b infers that if the mother is hovering over the nest, the mitzvah does not imply. Since the verse does not use the term "sitting," however, we learn that the obligation exists even when the mother is not sitting in the nest but lingering close by in a manner that its wings are touching.
28.This question is left unresolved by Chullin, loc. cit. Hence, the Rambam rules that one must be stringent and send away the mother, but because of the doubt, cannot be held liable for lashes if he did not.
29.All of these situations are questions left unresolved by Chullin 140b. Hence, as above, one must be stringent and send away the mother, but because of the doubt, cannot be held liable for lashes if he did not.
30.In his Kessef Mishneh, Rav Yosef Caro mentions a question raised by Rabbenu Nissim: Since touching the nest from the side is not sufficient as indicated by the concluding clause in the halachah, what does it matter if the mother bird touches its young from the side when it sits among them? Based on that objection, in his Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 292:12), he incorporates Rabbenu Nissim's understanding when quoting this law.
31.For the Torah speaks about the mother "resting on the eggs or the chicks" and not sitting at their side.
32.Rashi, Chullin 140b, states that this applies even if the mother's wings are not touching the nest. As long as she is resting directly above the nest, it is considered as if she was resting on it. The Siftei Cohen 292:17 quotes this point as halachah.
33.As evident from Chullin 12:3, the Biblical command speaks about "a nest." As long as a nest contains one egg or chick, it is still considered a nest.
34.Using a plural form.
35.This is a general principle applying with regard to many Biblical commandments. See Yevamot 15:2, Shabbat 65a, Nedarim 48a.
36.The Rambam is referring to a principle in Jewish business law which maintains that a person can acquire property by virtue of its presence in his domain. As the Rambam states in Hilchot Gezelah Va'Avedah 17:8-11:
A person's courtyard can acquire property for him without him being aware of it. Thus, if a lost object falls into a person's courtyard, he acquires it.
When does the above apply? When the courtyard is protected. [When, by contrast, a lost article enters a person's] field or garden [different rules apply]. If he is standing at the side of his field and says, "May my field acquire it for me," he acquires it. If, however, he is not standing there, or he is standing there but does not make such a statement [he does not acquire it.]...
The [potential for] a man [to acquire property by virtue of its presence in his] courtyard is derived, by contrast, from [the fact that] he is able to acquire an article via an agent. Just as an agent can acquire [an article] for him, so too, can he acquire [an article by virtue of its presence in his] courtyard....
[The following rules apply when a person] sees... young doves that cannot fly [in his property]: [When the following conditions are met:] he was standing at the side of his field, [the animals] were on his property, and he could catch them if he ran, he can acquire them [by virtue of their presence in] his field if he states: "May my field acquire them for me."
Thus in the case at hand, since the person cannot acquire the eggs himself until he sends away the mother, his courtyard cannot acquire them on his behalf (Chullin 141b).
37.For as stated in the quoted portion, the potential for a person's property to acquire an article on his behalf is derived from the laws of agency.
38.As mentioned above, the Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 292:2) states that if the mother bird lifted itself up, the person can acquire the chicks by virtue of their presence in his property even if he does not remove them from their nest. From that time on, they are considered as "at hand" and this mitzvah does not apply. Indeed, he can tap the nest so that the mother will rise up and then acquire the young (Kessef Mishneh).
39.A skin condition, resembling leprosy, that is visited upon a person as retribution for speaking gossip and slander. The purification process for such a person is described in Leviticus, ch. 14, and Hilchot Tuma'at Tzara'at 11:1.
40.As stated in Halachah 2. Even if he used the mother bird for a mitzvah, he still receives lashes for violating the transgression.
41.The purification of the person with tzara'at.
42.The prohibition of taking the mother which is reinforced by the mitzvah to send her away. Note the Kessef Mishneh who questions whether the two mitzvot should be placed in this category, for according to the Sages (whose opinion is accepted as halachah), the two mitzvot do not apply at the same time.
43.I.e., once he has taken the mother bird, he is obligated to send her away and the observance of another positive commandment, e.g., the purification rite mentioned above, does not supplant it.
44.For not only the mother, but also the offspring, belong to the Temple treasury. For the mother gave birth to them after she had been consecrated.
45.For as above the offspring are also the property of the Temple treasury.
Significantly, although the Rambam's ruling is based on Chullin 138b, he does not quote the wording of the Talmud, but instead, explains the derivation of the ruling in a different manner. The Lechem Mishneh explains that this reflects a pattern found frequently in the Mishneh Torah: The Rambam will explain the derivation of a law differently than the Talmud if it appears to him that his derivation is simpler and more direct.
46.See Hilchot Sanhedrin 5:2 which states that an animal that kills a human must be judged by a court of 23 judges.
Shechitah - Chapter 14
Halacha 1
It is a positive commandment1 to cover the blood of a kosher wild beast or fowl2 that was slaughtered, as [Leviticus 17:13] states: "If you will snare a wild beast or a fowl that may be eaten, you shall pour out its blood and cover it with earth." Therefore, before covering it, he is obligated to recite the blessing: Blessed are You, God, our Lord, King of the earth who has sanctified us with His commandments and commanded us to cover the blood.
Halacha 2
[The mitzvah] to cover the blood applies to animals that are at hand and those that are not at hand. [The verse mentions:] "If you will snare" only because it speaks about the commonplace situation. It applies with regard to ordinary animals, but not to those consecrated: whether they were consecrated [to be offered on] the altar or consecrated to the Temple treasury. If a person transgresses3 and slaughters [such an animal], he is not obligated to cover its blood.
Halacha 3
If a person slaughters a wild beast or a fowl and afterwards, consecrates them - or consecrates the blood - he is obligated to cover the blood.4
Halacha 4
It is necessary to cover the blood of a hybrid that comes from the mating of an animal and a wild beast or an animal that we do not know whether to classify as a domesticated animal or a wild beast,5 but one does not recite the blessing.6 When a person slaughters for the sake of a sick person on the Sabbath, he is obligated to cover the blood after the Sabbath.7 Similarly, when a person slaughters an animal whose status is doubtful or is a hybrid on a festival, he should cover its blood after the festival.8
Halacha 5
When a person slaughters many fowl and several types of wild beasts in one place, he should recite one blessing and cover the blood of all of them together at one time.9
Halacha 6
When blood becomes mixed with water, one is obligated to cover it if it has the appearance of blood. If not, one is not liable. If it became mixed with wine or the blood of a domesticated animal, one considers it as if they were water. If were [the wine or blood] to have been water, [the mixture] would have appeared to be blood, he is obligated to cover the entire mixture. If not, he is not obligated.
Halacha 7
If a person covered blood and then it became revealed, he is not obligated to cover it a second time.10 If blood was covered by [dust blown] by the wind, one is not obligated to cover it.11 If it became revealed again after the wind covered it, he is obligated to cover it.12
Halacha 8
If there is no other blood [from the slaughter] except the blood which spurted out [while the animal was being slaughtered] and the blood on the knife,13 one is obligated to cover it.14
Halacha 9
[The following rules apply if] one slaughters and the blood is absorbed in the ground. If a mark remains, he is obligated to cover it. If not, it is as if it was covered by the wind15 and he is not obligated to cover it.
Halacha 10
The only blood that must be covered is the blood of slaughter [that produces meat] that is fit to be eaten, as [the prooftext cited] states: "that may be eaten."16 Therefore, if a person slaughters and the animal is discovered to be trefe, one slaughters ordinary [fowl or beasts] in the Temple Courtyard,17 one slaughters fowl or beasts that were condemned to be stoned to death,18 one slaughters an animal and causes it to become a nevelah, one is not obligated to cover the blood. Similarly when a deaf-mute, a mentally or emotional incompetent person or a minor slaughters in private, there is no obligation19 to cover the blood [of the animal] they slaughtered.20
Halacha 11
With what should [the blood] be covered? With earth,21 lime, gypsum, fine fertilizer, fine sand that need not be crushed by a potter, crushed rocks and earthen-ware, fine flax chips, fine saw dust, bricks, burnt mud,22 and sealing clay that are crushed, for all of these are types of "earth." If, however, one covered it with a utensil or with stones, it is not considered as "covered," for the verse states "with earth."
Halacha 12
For this reason, we do not cover [blood] with coarse fertilizer, coarse sand, flour, bran, grain fiber, or filings from metal utensils, for these are not types of "earth." There is one exception: filings of gold alone may be used to cover [blood], for they are called "dust,"23 as [Job 28:6] states: "And it possesses the dust of gold" and [Deuteronomy 9:21] speaks [of grinding the Gold Calf] "until it was thin, into dust."
Halacha 13
We may cover [blood] with oven soot, stibium,24 powder from mills, and ashes. [This includes] ashes from trees and ashes from clothes, even ashes from meat that was burnt, for [Numbers 19:17] speaks of "the ashes of the burnt sin-offering."25 It is permitted to cover [blood] with the ashes of a city that went astray [and was therefore destroyed].26
Halacha 14
One who slaughters must place earth below27 and then slaughter, [pouring the blood] into [the earth]. Afterwards, he covers it with earth. He should not slaughter [and pour the blood] into a container28 and then cover it with earth.
Halacha 15
The person who slaughters [the animal] should cover its blood,29 as [the above prooftext ] states: "[You shall pour out its blood and] cover it with earth."30 If he did not cover the blood and another person sees it, he is obligated to cover it, for this is an independent mitzvah and is not dependent on the slaughterer alone.31
16When a person covers the blood, he should not cover it with his feet,32 but instead with his hands, a knife, or a utensil, so that he will not treat it with disdain and regard the mitzvoth with scorn. For the mitzvot in and of themselves are not worthy of honor. Instead, [the honor is] due He, blessed be He, who commanded us to observe them and [thus] saved us from groping in darkness and thus granted us a lamp to straighten crooked paths and a light to illumine the upright ways.33 And so [Psalms 119:105] states: "Your words are a lamp to my feet and a light for my ways."
Blessed be G-d who grants assistance.
FOOTNOTES
1.Sefer HaMitzvot (positive commandment 147) and Sefer HaChinuch (mitzvah 187) include this prohibition among the 613 mitzvot of the Torah.
2.Both a wild fowl and a domesticated one. One need not, by contrast, cover the blood of a domesticated animal that was slaughtered.
3.For it is forbidden to slaughter animals consecrated to the Temple treasury until they have been redeemed.
4.Because when the blood was poured out, it did not have a connection to the Temple treasury, and at that time, the person became obligated to cover it.
5.The commentaries to Chullin 83a employ this interpretation with regard to a kevi, an animal which one opinion in Chullin 80a understands as referring to an animal whose species could not be identified as a domesticated animal or a wild beast. The Rama (Yoreh De'ah 28:4) employs this concept with regard to a buffalo.
6.We are unsure of the status of this animal and do not know whether there is an obligation to cover its blood or not. Hence, we cover it, but do not recite a blessing, lest the blessing be recited in vain.
7.For covering it on the Sabbath would be a violation of the prohibition against performing labor.
8.He is required to cover the animal's blood because of the doubt as stated in the first clause. Nevertheless, he may not cover it on the festival, for perhaps he is not obligated to do so, and hence, will be performing a forbidden labor on the festival for no valid reason. For this reason, the Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 28:3) rules that, as an initial and preferred option, one should not slaughter such an animal on a festival. See also Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 498:18) which states that even if one has earth prepared before the festival so that covering the blood will not involve the transgression of a prohibition, one should not cover it on a festival because of the impression that will be created. People might think that it was definitely determined that it is a wild beast and may therefore partake of its fat [the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (Chullin 6:1) based on Beitzah 8b].
See also the Siftei Cohen 28:10 which states that the blood must be poured out on the ground on the festival. It cannot be saved in a utensil (because of the prohibition mentioned in Chapter 2, Halachah 5) and spilled out after the festival.
9.I.e., it is not necessary to cover the blood immediately. Instead, one may wait until he has slaughtered all the animals he desires and then cover the blood.
10.For he has already fulfilled the mitzvah involved.
11.For the Torah's commandment obligates one to cover only blood that is apparent. If it is covered, there is no mitzvah involved.
12.Since the person never covered the blood himself, it is as if it was never covered. See Pitchei Teshuvah 28:4; Magen Avraham 586:6 which discuss whether there is a definite obligation to cover the blood in such a situation or there is an unresolved question and one does so because of the doubt involved. The question of whether or not to recite a blessing in this situation depends on the clarification of this issue.
13.Usually, a certain quantity of blood is poured out directly after the slaughter as well.
14.According to the Rambam's interpretation of the mishnah (Chullin 6:6), if there is other blood aside from this, it is sufficient to cover that other blood. It is not necessary to cover all the blood. The Ra'avad differs and maintains that all the blood must be covered. The Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 28:15 follows the Rambam's view.
15.See Halachah 7.
16.This prooftext causes the ruling to be different from that applying to the prohibition against slaughtering an animal and its offspring on the same day. See Chullin 85a.
17.Which are forbidden to be eaten (Chapter 2, Halachah 2).
18.I.e., an animal or fowl that killed a human.
19.We have used a non-literal translation, for these individuals are not obligated in the performance of any mitzvot. See Siftei Cohen 28:24 which states that we are forbidden to cover this blood.
20.As stated in Chapter 4, Halachah 5, if these individuals slaughter privately, the slaughter is unacceptable. If, however, they slaughter in the presence of an expert and he states that they slaughtered correctly, the slaughter is acceptable and the blood must be covered.
21.Though this term is not found in the standard printed texts. It is found in authoritative manuscripts and early printings. The version of the standard printed text can be interpreted to mean that in this halachah, the Rambam is clarifying which other substances can be considered as "earth."
When quoting this law, the Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 28:23) gives the following introduction: "Any substance in which seeds will grow is called סearth'.... If [seeds] will not grow in it, but it is called סearth,' we may cover [blood] with it."
22.This translation is based on the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (Ma'aser Sheni 5:1). In his commentary to 3:7, 10:2, he interprets the term as "crushed earthenware." We, however, used the former translation to avoid redundancy. Others cite the interpretation of the Aruch who explains that the term refers to a type of lime.
23.The Hebrew term afar has both the meaning "earth" and "dust."
24.A blue-powder uses for makeup and medicinal purposes in Talmudic times.
25.I.e., the red heifer.
26.See Deuteronomy ch. 13 and Hilchot Avodat Kochavim, ch. , which explain that if an entire city is led astray and worships false deities, the city is condemned, the transgressors executed, and the city burnt. With the ruling in this halachah, the Rambam is explaining that although it is forbidden to benefit from the property - and even the ashes - of such a condemned city, its ashes may be used for this purpose. The rationale is that using the ashes for the mitzvah is not considered as benefiting from them, because the mitzvoth were not given for our benefit (Chullin 89a).
27.Moreover, this earth must be loose. One should not slaughter over a place where the earth is hard [Kessef Mishneh; Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 28:5)].
28.Even if the utensil contains murky water and thus the prohibition mentioned in Chapter 2, Halachah 5, does not apply.
29.One may, however, give another person the privilege of fulfilling the mitzvah. For that reason, there are many who ask the ritual slaughterer for the privilege of fulfilling the mitzvah of covering the blood after fulfilling the custom of kapporot. Nevertheless, one must ask the slaughterer for the privilege, one who takes it without asking is liable to pay the slaughterer a fine for "stealing" his mitzvah. See Turei Zahav 28:8.
30.Chullin 87a states: "The one who סpours out its blood' should סcover it.'"
31.Chullin, loc. cit., notes that the passage states: "And you shall say to the children of Israel," implying that the mitzvah is the concern of the entire people.
32.I.e., by kicking the earth over the blood.
33.As Bereishis Rabbah 44:1 states: "The mitzvoth were given to the Jewish people solely to refine the created beings with them." See also Moreh Nevuchim, Vol. III, ch. 26.
-------
Hayom Yom:
• Wednesday, Nissan 23, 5774 • 23 April 2014
"Today's Day"
Wednesday, Nissan 23, Issru chag, 8th day of the omer, 5703
Torah lessons: Chumash: Acharei Mot, Revi'i with Rashi.
Tehillim: 108-112.
Tanya: Now, therefore (p. 223)...the Esoteric Discipline). (p. 225).
The presence of Mashiach is revealed on Acharon Shel Pesach, and this revelation has relevance to all Israel: Pesach is medaleg,1 "skipping over" (rather than orderly progress), and leil shimurim,2 the "protected night." In general the mood of Pesach is one of liberty. Then Pesach ends, and we find ourselves tumbling headlong into the outside world. This is where Mashiach's revealed presence comes into play - imbuing us with a powerful resoluteness that enables us to maintain ourselves in the world.
FOOTNOTES
1. Shir HaShirim 2:8. Midrash Raba on that verse describes the Exodus as medaleg, "skipping over" calculations and rationales for redemption, bringing Israel out of exile regardless of their merit, regardless of the length of the exile. Later in that section the Midrash applies the verse to Mashiach.
2. Sh'mot 12:42, as Rashi notes, the night destined for redemption.
-------
Daily Thought:
Meditation Through a Sea of Reeds Accept the world at its face value and it won’t let you move forward. Every impulse must be bridled, every step carefully balanced —and even then, for every step forward, you fall back two. You are enslaved within an Egypt of your own making. Here is your route of escape: Meditate deeply upon the inner soul of the world; struggle to see the vision described by our teachers. Part the murky waters of a coarse, material world; enter the reality that lies beneath it; let that be your path from bondage. Grasp that inner vision and it will flow outward through the heart to the conscious self, down to the heel that steps upon the earth, until all these, as well, become mind. Your eyes are now open, your heart is awake, your hands themselves know what to grab and what to avoid, as your feet know where to walk. In the struggle for deeper vision, life becomes effortless. You are free.
-------
No comments:
Post a Comment