Today's Laws & Customs:
• Earliest Day for Megillah Reading
In Talmudic times, a special stipulation allowed for Jews living in small villages or hamlets to hear the reading of the Megillah (Book of Esther) on the Monday orThursday before Purim -- the days when villagers would come to town because the courts were in session. Depending on the year's configuration, this meant that the Megillah could be read as early as the 11th of Adar or as late as the 15th -- but no earlier or later than these dates (Talmud, beginning of Tractate Megillah).
Link: The Book of Esther with commentary
Today in Jewish History:
• First Print of Rashi (1475)
Rashi, the most basic commentary on the Torah, was printed for the first time, in Reggio di Calabria, Italy. In this print, the commentary on the Five Books of Moses, authored in the 11th century by Rabbi Shlomo Yitzchaki, was not on the same page as the text of the Scriptures, as it is normally printed today.
This was the first time that the rounded Hebrew font was used, the font which has since become known as "Rashi Letters."
Links:
Rashi
Did Rashi Lack a Scientific Method?
• Passing of the "Rogatchover Prodigy" (1936)
Rabbi Yosef Rosen, known as the Rogatchover Gaon (Prodigy/Genius), passed away in Vienna on Thursday, March 5, 1936.
Rabbi Rosen, born in 1858, and raised in the Belarusian city of Rogatchov, served for decades as a rabbi in the Latvian city of Dvinsk (Daugavpils). He was an unparalleled genius, whose in depth understanding of all Talmudic literature left the greatest of scholars awestruck. He habitually demonstrated that many of the famous debates between the Talmudic sages have a singular thread and theme.
Rabbi Rosen authored tens of thousands of responsa on the Talmud and Jewish law. Many of them have been compiled in the set of volumes Tzafnat Paneach.
Daily Quote:
Seek G-d when He may be found, call upon Him when He is near.[Isaiah 55:6]
Daily Study:
Chitas and Rambam for today:
Chumash: Ki Tisa, 2nd Portion Exodus 31:18-33:11 with Rashi
• Chapter 31
18When He had finished speaking with him on Mount Sinai, He gave Moses the two tablets of the testimony, stone tablets, written with the finger of God. יחוַיִּתֵּן אֶל משֶׁה כְּכַלֹּתוֹ לְדַבֵּר אִתּוֹ בְּהַר סִינַי שְׁנֵי לֻחֹת הָעֵדֻת לֻחֹת אֶבֶן כְּתֻבִים בְּאֶצְבַּע אֱלֹהִים:
He gave Moses: In the Torah, chronological order is not adhered to. The episode of the calf took place long before the command of the work of the Mishkan. For on the seventeenth of Tammuz the tablets were broken, and on Yom Kippur the Holy One, blessed is He, was reconciled to Israel. On the morrow [i.e., on the eleventh of Tishri], they commenced with the donation for the Mishkan, and it [the Mishkan] was erected on the first of Nissan. -[from Midrash Tanchuma, Ki Thissa 31] ויתן אל משה וגו': אין מוקדם ומאוחר בתורה. מעשה העגל קודם לצווי מלאכת המשכן ימים רבים היה, שהרי בשבעה עשר בתמוז נשתברו הלוחות, וביום הכפורים נתרצה הקב"ה לישראל, ולמחרת התחילו בנדבת המשכן והוקם באחד בניסן:
When He had finished: Heb. כְּכַלֹתוֹ. [This word should be spelled כְּכַלּוֹתוֹ. Here, however,] it is spelled defectively [without the first “vav”], as if to be read: כְּכַלָּתוֹ, [meaning] like his bride, for the Torah was delivered to him [Moses] as a gift, as a bride [is given] to a bridegroom, because [otherwise] he could not have learnt it all in such a short time (Tanchuma, Ki Thissa 18). Another explanation: Just as a bride is adorned with twenty-four ornaments [i.e.,] the ones listed in the book of Isaiah (3:18-22), so too must a Torah scholar be adorned with the twenty-four books [of the Scriptures, i.e., possess the knowledge of the entire Scriptures] (Tanchuma, Ki Thissa 16). ככלתו: ככלתו כתיב חסר, שנמסרה לו תורה במתנה ככלה לחתן, שלא היה יכול ללמוד כולה בזמן מועט כזה. דבר אחר מה כלה מתקשטת בעשרים וארבעה קשוטין, הן האמורים בספר ישעיה (ישעיה ג יח - כד) אף תלמיד חכם צריך להיות בקי בעשרים וארבעה ספרים:
speaking with him: the statutes and the ordinances in the section entitled: “And these are the ordinances” (Exod. 21-23) [i.e., in parshath Mishpatim]. לדבר אתו: החקים והמשפטים שבואלה המשפטים:
speaking with him: [The word “with”] teaches [us] that Moses would hear [the laws] from God and then they would both repeat the halachah together. -[from Exod. Rabbah 41:5] לדבר אתו: מלמד שהיה משה שומע מפי הגבורה וחוזרין ושונין את ההלכה שניהם יחד:
tablets: Heb. לֻחֹת. It is spelled לֻחֹת [without the “vav” of the plural, as if to be read לֻחַת, the singular form,] because they were both the same [size]. -[from Exod. Rabbah 41:6] לחת: לחת כתיב שהיו שתיהם שוות:
Chapter 32
1When the people saw that Moses was late in coming down from the mountain, the people gathered against Aaron, and they said to him: "Come on! Make us gods that will go before us, because this man Moses, who brought us up from the land of Egypt we don't know what has become of him." אוַיַּרְא הָעָם כִּי בשֵׁשׁ משֶׁה לָרֶדֶת מִן הָהָר וַיִּקָּהֵל הָעָם עַל אַהֲרֹן וַיֹּאמְרוּ אֵלָיו קוּם | עֲשֵׂה לָנוּ אֱלֹהִים אֲשֶׁר יֵלְכוּ לְפָנֵינוּ כִּי זֶה | משֶׁה הָאִישׁ אֲשֶׁר הֶעֱלָנוּ מֵאֶרֶץ מִצְרַיִם לֹא יָדַעְנוּ מֶה הָיָה לוֹ:
that Moses was late: Heb. בשֵׁשׁ, as the Targum [Onkelos] renders אוֹחַר, an expression for lateness. Likewise, [in the verse] “is his chariot late (בֹּשֵׁשׁ) ” (Jud. 5:28); “and they waited until it was late (בּוֹשׁ) ” (Jud. 3:25). When Moses went up the mountain, he said to them [the Israelites], “At the end of forty days I will come, within six hours” [from sunrise of the fortieth day]. They thought that the day he went up was included in the number [of the forty days], but [in fact] he had said to them, “forty days,” [meaning] complete [days], including the night. But the day of his ascent did not have its night included with it [because Moses ascended in the morning], for on the seventh of Sivan he ascended. Thus, the fortieth day [of Moses’ absence] was the seventeenth of Tammuz. On the sixteenth [of Tammuz], Satan came and brought confusion into the world and showed a semblance of darkness, [even] pitch darkness, and confusion, [as if] indicating [that] Moses had surely died and therefore, confusion had come upon the world. He [Satan] said to them, “Moses has died, for six [additional] hours have already passed, and he has not come, etc.,” as is found in tractate Shabbath (89a). We cannot say that their [the Israelites’] only error was that on a cloudy day [they were confused] between before noon and after noon, because Moses did not descend until the next day, as it is said: “On the next day, they arose early, offered up burnt offerings…” (verse 6). כי בשש משה: כתרגומו, לשון איחור, וכן בשש רכבו, (שופטים ה כח), ויחילו עד בוש (שם ג כה) כי כשעלה משה להר אמר להם לסוף ארבעים יום אני בא בתוך שש שעות. כסבורים הם, שאותו יום שעלה מן המנין הוא, והוא אמר להם שלימים, ארבעים יום ולילו עמו, ויום עלייתו אין לילו עמו, שהרי בשבעה בסיון עלה, נמצא יום ארבעים בשבעה עשר בתמוז. בששה עשר בא השטן וערבב את העולם והראה דמות חשך ואפילה וערבוביא לומר ודאי מת משה, לכך בא ערבוביא לעולם. אמר להם מת משה, שכבר באו שש שעות ולא בא וכו', כדאיתא במסכת שבת (דף פט). ואי אפשר לומר שלא טעו אלא ביום המעונן בין קודם חצות בין לאחר חצות, שהרי לא ירד משה עד יום המחרת, שנאמר וישכימו ממחרת ויעלו עולות:
that will go before us: אִשֶׁר יֵלְכוּ לְפָנֵינוּ [The word יֵלְכוּ is in the plural form.] They desired many deities for themselves. -[from Sanh. 63a] אשר ילכו לפנינו: אלהות הרבה איוו להם:
because this man Moses: Satan showed them something resembling Moses, being carried in the air, high above in the sky. -[from Shab. 89a, Midrash Tanchuma 19] כי זה משה האיש: כמין דמות משה הראה להם השטן, שנושאים אותו באויר רקיע השמים:
who brought us up from the land of Egypt: And directed us the way we should go up [from Egypt]. Now we need gods who will go before us [instead of Moses]. אשר העלנו מארץ מצרים: והיה מורה לנו דרך, אשר נעלה בה, עתה צריכין אנו לאלהות, אשר ילכו לפנינו:
2Aaron said to them, "Remove the golden earrings that are on the ears of your wives, your sons, and your daughters and bring them [those earrings] to me." בוַיֹּאמֶר אֲלֵהֶם אַהֲרֹן פָּרְקוּ נִזְמֵי הַזָּהָב אֲשֶׁר בְּאָזְנֵי נְשֵׁיכֶם בְּנֵיכֶם וּבְנֹתֵיכֶם וְהָבִיאוּ אֵלָי:
that are on the ears of your wives…: Aaron said to himself, “The women and children are fond of their jewelry. Perhaps the matter will be delayed, and in the meantime, Moses will arrive.” But they did not wait [for their wives and children to give them their earrings], and they took off their own [earrings]. -[from Midrash Tanchuma 21] באזני נשיכם: אמר אהרן בלבו הנשים והילדים חסים על תכשיטיהן, שמא יתעכב הדבר, ובתוך כך יבא משה, והם לא המתינו ופרקו מעל עצמן:
Remove: Heb. פָּרְקוּ, an imperative expression, from the same root as פָּרֵק in the singular. [This is] like בָּרְכוּ, bless, [which is] from the same root as בָּרֵ. פרקו: לשון צווי, מגזרת פרק ליחיד, כמו ברכו, מגזרת ברך:
3And all the people stripped themselves of the golden earrings that were on their ears and brought them to Aaron. גוַיִּתְפָּרְקוּ כָּל הָעָם אֶת נִזְמֵי הַזָּהָב אֲשֶׁר בְּאָזְנֵיהֶם וַיָּבִיאוּ אֶל אַהֲרֹן:
stripped themselves: Heb. וַיִתְפָּרְקוּ, an expression [used for] unloading a burden. When they removed them [the earrings] from their ears, they were found to be unloaded of their earrings, descharyer in Old French [decharger in modern French], to unload. ויתפרקו: לשון פריקת משא, כשנטלום מאזניהם נמצאו הם מפורקים מנזמיהם, דישקריי"ר בלעז (לפרוק):
of the golden earrings: Heb. אֶת-נִזְמֵי, like מִנַּזְמֵי, similar to “When I leave the city (אֶת-הָעִיר) ” (Exod. 9:29), [like] מִן-הָעִיר, [lit., when I go out of the city]. את נזמי: כמו מנזמי, כמו (שמות ט כט) כצאתי את העיר, מן העיר:
4He took [them] from their hand[s], fashioned it with an engraving tool, and made it into a molten calf, upon which they said: "These are your gods, O Israel, who have brought you up from the land of Egypt!" דוַיִּקַּח מִיָּדָם וַיָּצַר אֹתוֹ בַּחֶרֶט וַיַּעֲשֵׂהוּ עֵגֶל מַסֵּכָה וַיֹּאמְרוּ אֵלֶּה אֱלֹהֶיךָ יִשְׂרָאֵל אֲשֶׁר הֶעֱלוּךָ מֵאֶרֶץ מִצְרָיִם:
fashioned it with an engraving tool: Heb. וַיָּצַר אֹתוֹ בַּחֶרֶט. This [clause] can be rendered in two ways: One is [that] וַיָָּצַר is an expression of tying, and בַּחֶרֶט is an expression meaning a kerchief, similar to “and the tablecloths and the purses (וְהַחִרִיטִים) ” (Isa. 3:22); “and he tied two talents of silver in two purses (חִרִטִים) ” (II Kings 5:23). The second [way of rendering it] is [that] וַיָּצַר is an expression meaning a form, and בַּחֶרֶט is the tool of the smiths, with which they cut out and engrave (חוֹרְטִין) forms in gold. [The tool is] like a scribe’s stylus, which engraves letters on tablets and wax-covered tablets, as “and inscribe on it with a common pen (בְּחֶרֶט אֱנוֹשׁ) ” (Isa. 8:1). This [second interpretation] is what Onkelos rendered: וְצַר יָתֵיהּ בְּזִיפָא, an expression of זִיוּף, a tool with which people engrave letters and designs, known in French as nielle, niello work. With it, signets are engraved. ויצר אותו בחרט: יש לתרגמו בשני פנים האחד, ויצר לשון קשירה, בחרט לשון סודר, כמו (ישעיה ג כא) והמטפחות והחריטים, (מלכים ב ה כג) ויצר ככרים כסף בשני חריטים. והשני, ויצר לשון צורה, בחרט כלי אומנות הצורפין, שחורצין וחורטין בו צורות בזהב כעט סופר החורט אותיות בלוחות ופנקסין, כמו (ישעיה ח א) וכתוב עליו בחרט אנוש. וזהו שתרגם אונקלוס וצר יתיה בזיפא, לשון זיוף הוא כלי אומנות שחורצין בו בזהב אותיות ושקדים, שקורין בלעז ניאי"ל [תצריב שחור] ומזייפין על ידו חותמות:
a molten calf -: As soon as they had cast it into the fire of the crucible, the sorcerers of the mixed multitude who had gone up with them from Egypt came and made it with sorcery. [See commentary on Exod. 12:38.] Others say that Micah was there, who had emerged from the layer of the building where he had been crushed in Egypt. (Sanh. 101b). In his hand was a plate upon which Moses had inscribed “Ascend, O ox; ascend, O ox,” to [miraculously] bring up Joseph’s coffin from the Nile. They cast it [the plate] into the crucible, and the calf emerged. -[from Midrash Tanchuma 19] עגל מסכה: כיון שהשליכו לכור, באו מכשפי ערב רב שעלו עמהם ממצרים ועשאוהו בכשפים ויש אומרים מיכה היה שם שיצא מתוך דמוסי בנין שנתמעך בו במצרים, והיה בידו שם, וטס שכתב בו משה עלה שור, עלה שור, להעלות ארונו של יוסף מתוך נילוס, והשליכו לתוך הכור ויצא העגל:
molten: Heb. מַסֵּכָה, an expression related to מַךְתֶּכֶת, metal, [both derived from roots meaning to pour]. Another interpretation: One hundred and twenty-five centenaria of gold were in it, like the gematria of מַסֵּכָה. 40= מ, 60= ס, 20= כ, 5= ה, totaling 125] -[from Midrash Tanchuma 19] מסכה: לשון מתכת. דבר אחר מאה עשרים וחמשה קנטרין זהב היה בו, כגימטריא של מסכה:
These are your gods: But it does not say, “These are our gods.” -[from here [we learn] that the mixed multitude who had come up from Egypt were the ones who gathered against Aaron, and they were the ones who made it [the calf]. Afterwards, they caused the Israelites to stray after it. -[from Midrash Tanchuma 19] אלה אלהיך: ולא נאמר אלה אלהינו, מכאן שערב רב שעלו ממצרים, הם שנקהלו על אהרן, והם שעשאוהו, ואחר כך הטעו את ישראל אחריו:
5When Aaron saw [this], he built an altar in front of it, and Aaron proclaimed and said: "Tomorrow shall be a festival to the Lord." הוַיַּרְא אַהֲרֹן וַיִּבֶן מִזְבֵּחַ לְפָנָיו וַיִּקְרָא אַהֲרֹן וַיֹּאמַר חַג לַיהֹוָה מָחָר:
When Aaron saw: that it was alive, as it is said: “for the likeness of an ox eating grass” (Ps. 106:20), and he saw that Satan’s work had succeeded, and he had no words to stall them completely [i.e., to keep the Israelites from worshipping the calf, so then] וירא אהרן: שהיה בו רוח חיים, שנאמר (תהלים קו כ) בתבנית שור אוכל עשב, וראה שהצליח מעשה שטן, ולא היה לו פה לדחותם לגמרי:
he built an altar: to stall them. ויבן מזבח: לדחותם:
and said: “Tomorrow shall be a festival to the Lord.”: But [it will] not [be] today. Perhaps Moses would come before they would worship it. This is its simple meaning. Its midrashic meaning in Leviticus Rabbah (10:3) is [as follows]: Aaron saw many things. He saw his sister’s son Hur, who had reproved them [the Israelites], and they assassinated him. That is [the meaning of] וַיִּבֶן, [an expression of בִּינָה, understanding]. מִזְבֵּח לְפָנָיו [should be understood as if it were written] וַיִבֶן מִזָָּבוּחַ לְפָנָיו, [meaning] he understood from the slaughtered one in front of him. Moreover, he saw [the situation] and said, “Better I should be blamed and not they.” He also “saw” another thing and said, “If they build the altar [themselves], one will bring pebbles and [another] one will bring a stone. Thus, their work will be done all at once. Since I will build it, and I will neglect my work, in the meantime Moses will arrive.” ויאמר חג לה' מחר: ולא היום, שמא יבא משה קודם שיעבדוהו, זהו פשוטו. ומדרשו בויקרא רבה (ה /י/, ג) דברים הרבה ראה אהרן, ראה חור בן אחותו, שהיה מוכיחם והרגוהו, וזהו ויבן מזבח לפניו - ויבן מזבוח לפניו. ועוד ראה ואמר מוטב שיתלה בי הסירחון ולא בהם, ועוד ראה ואמר אם הם בונים אותו המזבח, זה מביא צרור וזה מביא אבן, ונמצאת מלאכתן נעשית בבת אחת, מתוך שאני בונה אותו ומתעצל במלאכתי, בין כך ובין כך משה בא:
a festival to the Lord: In his heart, he meant Heaven. He was confident that Moses would come, and they would worship the Omnipresent. -[from Lev. Rabbah 10:3] חג לה': בלבו היה לשמים, בטוח היה שיבא משה, ויעבדו את המקום:
6On the next day they arose early, offered up burnt offerings, and brought peace offerings, and the people sat down to eat and to drink, and they got up to make merry. ווַיַּשְׁכִּימוּ מִמָּחֳרָת וַיַּעֲלוּ עֹלֹת וַיַּגִּשׁוּ שְׁלָמִים וַיֵּשֶׁב הָעָם לֶאֱכֹל וְשָׁתוֹ וַיָּקֻמוּ לְצַחֵק:
they arose early: Satan roused them so that they would sin. וישכימו: השטן זרזם כדי שיחטאו:
to make merry: Heb. לְצַחֵק. In this word, there is [also] a connotation of sexual immorality, as it is said: “to mock (לְצַחֶק) me” (Gen. 39:17), and bloodshed, as it is said: “Let the boys get up now and play (וִישַׂחִקוּ) before us” (II Sam. 2:14). Here too, Hur was slain. -[from Midrash Tanchuma 20] לצחק: יש במשמע הזה גלוי עריות, כמו שנאמר (בראשית לט יז) לצחק בי, ושפיכות דמים, כמו שנאמר (שמואל ב' ב יד) יקומו נא הנערים וישחקו לפנינו, אף כאן נהרג חור:
7And the Lord said to Moses: "Go, descend, for your people that you have brought up from the land of Egypt have acted corruptly. זוַיְדַבֵּר יְהֹוָה אֶל משֶׁה לֶךְ רֵד כִּי שִׁחֵת עַמְּךָ אֲשֶׁר הֶעֱלֵיתָ מֵאֶרֶץ מִצְרָיִם:
And…said: Heb. וַיְדַבֵּר. [This is] an expression of harshness, like “and he spoke (וַיְדַבֵּר) to them harshly” (Gen. 42:7). וידבר: לשון קושי הוא, כמו (בראשית מב ז) וידבר אתם קשות:
Go, descend: Descend from your high position. I gave you this high position only for their sake (Ber. 32a). At that time, Moses was banished by a decree of the heavenly tribunal (Midrash Tanchuma 22, Exod. Rabbah 42:3). לך רד: מגדולתך, לא נתתי לך גדולה אלא בשבילם. באותה שעה נתנדה משה מפי בית דין של מעלה:
your people…have acted corruptly: Heb. שִׁחֵתעַמְ. It does not say, “The people have acted corruptly,” but “your people.” Those are the mixed multitude whom you accepted on your own initiative, and whom you converted without consulting Me. You said, “It is good that converts cleave to the Shechinah.” They have acted corruptly and have corrupted [others]. -[from Exod. Rabbah 42:6] שחת עמך: שחת העם לא נאמר אלא עמך, ערב רב שקבלת מעצמך וגיירתם ולא נמלכת בי, ואמרת טוב שידבקו גרים בשכינה, הם שחתו והשחיתו:
8They have quickly turned away from the path that I have commanded them; they have made themselves a molten calf! And they have prostrated themselves before it, slaughtered sacrifices to it, and said: 'These are your gods, O Israel, who have brought you up from the land of Egypt.' " חסָרוּ מַהֵר מִן הַדֶּרֶךְ אֲשֶׁר צִוִּיתִם עָשׂוּ לָהֶם עֵגֶל מַסֵּכָה וַיִּשְׁתַּחֲווּ לוֹ וַיִּזְבְּחוּ לוֹ וַיֹּאמְרוּ אֵלֶּה אֱלֹהֶיךָ יִשְׂרָאֵל אֲשֶׁר הֶעֱלוּךָ מֵאֶרֶץ מִצְרָיִם:
9And the Lord said to Moses: "I have seen this people and behold! they are a stiff necked people. טוַיֹּאמֶר יְהֹוָה אֶל משֶׁה רָאִיתִי אֶת הָעָם הַזֶּה וְהִנֵּה עַם קְשֵׁה עֹרֶף הוּא:
stiff-necked: Heb. קְשֵׁה-עֹרֶף. [This is a description of stubbornness, meaning] they turned the hardness of the backs of their necks toward those who reproved them, and they refused to listen. קשה ערף: מחזרין קשי ערפם לנגד מוכיחיהם, וממאנים לשמוע:
10Now leave Me alone, and My anger will be kindled against them so that I will annihilate them, and I will make you into a great nation." יוְעַתָּה הַנִּיחָה לִּי וְיִחַר אַפִּי בָהֶם וַאֲכַלֵּם וְאֶעֱשֶׂה אוֹתְךָ לְגוֹי גָּדוֹל:
leave Me alone: [It is unclear why God is saying this-which implies that Moses has made a demand-since] we have not yet heard that Moses prayed for them, and yet He [God] said, “Leave Me alone” ? But here, He opened a door for him and informed him that the matter [indeed] depended upon him [Moses], that if he [Moses] would pray for them, He [God] would not destroy them. [Therefore, God implores Moses to leave Him alone so that He can destroy Israel.] -[from Exod. Rabbah 42:9] הניחה לי: עדיין לא שמענו, שהתפלל משה עליהם, והוא אומר הניחה לי, אלא כאן פתח לו פתח והודיעו, שהדבר תלוי בו, שאם יתפלל עליהם לא יכלם:
11Moses pleaded before the Lord, his God, and said: "Why, O Lord, should Your anger be kindled against Your people whom You have brought up from the land of Egypt with great power and with a strong hand? יאוַיְחַל משֶׁה אֶת פְּנֵי יְהֹוָה אֱלֹהָיו וַיֹּאמֶר לָמָה יְהֹוָה יֶחֱרֶה אַפְּךָ בְּעַמֶּךָ אֲשֶׁר הוֹצֵאתָ מֵאֶרֶץ מִצְרַיִם בְּכֹחַ גָּדוֹל וּבְיָד חֲזָקָה:
Why, O Lord: Is anyone jealous of another, except a wise man of a wise man, or a strong man of a strong man? -[from Exod. Rabbah 43:6] למה ה' יחרה אפך: כלום מתקנא אלא חכם בחכם, גבור בגבור:
12Why should the Egyptians say: 'He brought them out with evil [intent] to kill them in the mountains and to annihilate them from upon the face of the earth'? Retreat from the heat of Your anger and reconsider the evil [intended] for Your people. יבלָמָּה יֹאמְרוּ מִצְרַיִם לֵאמֹר בְּרָעָה הוֹצִיאָם לַהֲרֹג אֹתָם בֶּהָרִים וּלְכַלֹּתָם מֵעַל פְּנֵי הָאֲדָמָה שׁוּב מֵחֲרוֹן אַפֶּךָ וְהִנָּחֵם עַל הָרָעָה לְעַמֶּךָ:
and reconsider: Heb. וְהִנָּחֵם, [i.e.,] formulate another thought to do good to them. והנחם: התעשת מחשבה אחרת להטיב להם:
the evil: that You thought for them. על הרעה: אשר חשבת להם:
13Remember Abraham, Isaac, and Israel, Your servants, to whom You swore by Your very Self, and to whom You said: 'I will multiply your seed like the stars of the heavens, and all this land which I said that I would give to your seed, they shall keep it as their possession forever.' " יגזְכֹר לְאַבְרָהָם לְיִצְחָק וּלְיִשְׂרָאֵל עֲבָדֶיךָ אֲשֶׁר נִשְׁבַּעְתָּ לָהֶם בָּךְ וַתְּדַבֵּר אֲלֵהֶם אַרְבֶּה אֶת זַרְעֲכֶם כְּכוֹכְבֵי הַשָּׁמָיִם וְכָל הָאָרֶץ הַזֹּאת אֲשֶׁר אָמַרְתִּי אֶתֵּן לְזַרְעֲכֶם וְנָחֲלוּ לְעֹלָם:
Remember Abraham: If [You argue that] they have transgressed the Ten Commandments, [let me remind You that] their [fore]father Abraham was tested with ten tests and has not yet received his reward. Give this [reward] to him [Abraham] so that the ten will cancel out the ten. -[from Midrash Tanchuma 24, Exod. Rabbah 44:4] זכר לאברהם: אם עברו על עשרת הדברות, אברהם אביהם נתנסה בעשרה נסיונות ועדיין לא קבל שכרו, תנהו לו, ויצאו עשרה בעשרה:
Abraham, Isaac, and Israel: If they are condemned to be burnt [in a fire], remember Abraham, who gave himself over to be burned for Your sake in Ur of the Chaldees; if they are condemned to be killed by the sword, remember Isaac, who stretched out his neck when he was bound; if they are condemned to exile, remember Jacob, who was exiled to Haran (Midrash Tanchuma 24, Exod. Rabbah 44:5). If they [the children of Israel] will not be saved in their [the Patriarchs’] merit, why do You say to me, “and I will make you into a great nation” ? If a chair with three legs cannot stand up before You when You are angry, how much less will a chair with one leg (Ber. 32a) ? לאברהם ליצחק ולישראל: אם לשרפה הם, זכור לאברהם שמסר עצמו לישרף עליך באור כשדים. אם להריגה, זכור ליצחק שפשט צוארו לעקידה. אם לגלות, זכור ליעקב שגלה לחרן, ואם אינן נצולין בזכותן, מה אתה אומר לי (פסוק י) ואעשה אותך לגוי גדול, ואם כסא של שלוש רגלים אינו עומד לפניך בשעת כעסך, קל וחומר לכסא של רגל אחת:
to whom You swore by Your very Self: You did not swear to them by something finite-not by the heavens and not by the earth, not by the mountains and not by the hills, but by Your very Self [You swore], for You exist, and Your oath exists forever, as it was said [to Abraham]: “By Myself I have sworn, says the Lord” (Gen. 22:16). To Isaac was said: “and I will establish the oath that I swore to Abraham, your father” (Gen. 26:3). To Jacob was said: “I am the Almighty God; be fruitful and multiply” (Gen. 35:11). Here He swore to him [Jacob] by the [Name] Almighty God. -[from Ber. 32a, Midrash Tanchuma 24, Exod. Rabbah 44:10] אשר נשבעת להם בך: לא נשבעת להם בדבר שהוא כלה, לא בשמים ולא בארץ לא בהרים ולא בגבעות, אלא בך, שאתה קיים ושבעותך קיימת לעולם, שנאמר (בראשית כב טז) בי נשבעתי נאם ה', וליצחק נאמר (שם כו ג) והקימותי את השבועה אשר נשבעתי לאברהם אביך, וליעקב נאמר (שם לה יא) אני אל שדי פרה ורבה, נשבע לו באל שדי:
14The Lord [then] reconsidered the evil He had said He would do to His people. ידוַיִּנָּחֶם יְהֹוָה עַל הָרָעָה אֲשֶׁר דִּבֶּר לַעֲשׂוֹת לְעַמּוֹ:
15Now Moses turned and went down from the mountain [bearing] the two tablets of the testimony in his hand, tablets inscribed from both their sides; on one side and on the other side they were inscribed. טווַיִּפֶן וַיֵּרֶד משֶׁה מִן הָהָר וּשְׁנֵי לֻחֹת הָעֵדֻת בְּיָדוֹ לֻחֹת כְּתֻבִים מִשְּׁנֵי עֶבְרֵיהֶם מִזֶּה וּמִזֶּה הֵם כְּתֻבִים:
from both their sides: the letters could be read. This was a miraculous phenomenon. -[from Shab. 104a, Meg. 2b] משני עבריהם: היו האותיות נקראות, ומעשה נסים היה:
16Now the tablets were God's work, and the inscription was God's inscription, engraved on the tablets. טזוְהַלֻּחֹת מַעֲשֵׂה אֱלֹהִים הֵמָּה וְהַמִּכְתָּב מִכְתַּב אֱלֹהִים הוּא חָרוּת עַל הַלֻּחֹת:
were God’s work: This is to be interpreted according to its apparent meaning, [i.e.,] that He personally made them. Another interpretation: Like a person who says to his friend, “All so-and-so’s activities are in such-and-such [a kind of] work.” So too, all the delight of the Holy One, blessed is He, is with the Torah. -[from Midrash Tanchuma 16] מעשה א-להים המה: כמשמעו הוא בכבודו עשאן. דבר אחר כאדם האומר לחבירו כל עסקיו של פלוני במלאכת פלונית, כך כל שעשועיו של הקב"ה בתורה:
engraved: Heb. חָרוּת. The terms חָרֹת and חָרֹט are one [and the same]. Both are an expression of engraving, entalyer in Old French, [entailler in modern French, meaning] to engrave. חרות: לשון חרת וחרט אחד הוא, שניהם לשון חיקוק אנטייליי"ר בלעז [לחתוך]:
17When Joshua heard the voice of the people in their shouting, he said to Moses: "There is a voice of battle in the camp!" יזוַיִּשְׁמַע יְהוֹשֻׁעַ אֶת קוֹל הָעָם בְּרֵעֹה וַיֹּאמֶר אֶל משֶׁה קוֹל מִלְחָמָה בַּמַּחֲנֶה:
in their shouting: Heb. בְּרֵעֹה, in their shouting, for they were shouting, rejoicing, and laughing.[The Israelites were so loud that they could be heard even from a distance.] ברעה: בהריעו, שהיו מריעים ושמחים וצוחקים:
18But [Moses] said: "[It is] neither a voice shouting victory, nor a voice shouting defeat; a voice of blasphemy I hear." יחוַיֹּאמֶר אֵין קוֹל עֲנוֹת גְּבוּרָה וְאֵין קוֹל עֲנוֹת חֲלוּשָׁה קוֹל עַנּוֹת אָנֹכִי שֹׁמֵעַ:
[It is] neither a voice shouting victory: This voice does not appear to be a voice of the shouting of heroes crying “Victory!” or the voice of weak [soldiers] crying “Woe!” or “Flee!” אין קול ענות גבורה: אין הקול הזה נראה קול עניית גבורים הצועקים נצחון ולא קול חלשים שצועקים וי או ניסה:
a voice of blasphemy: Heb. קוֹל עָנּוֹת. A voice of blasphemy and reviling, which distresses (הַמְעַנִין) the soul of the one who hears them when they are said to him. קול ענות: קול חרופין וגדופין המענין את נפש שומען כשנאמרין לו:
19Now it came to pass when he drew closer to the camp and saw the calf and the dances, that Moses' anger was kindled, and he flung the tablets from his hands, shattering them at the foot of the mountain. יטוַיְהִי כַּאֲשֶׁר קָרַב אֶל הַמַּחֲנֶה וַיַּרְא אֶת הָעֵגֶל וּמְחֹלֹת וַיִּחַר אַף משֶׁה וַיַּשְׁלֵךְ מִיָּדָו אֶת הַלֻּחֹת וַיְשַׁבֵּר אֹתָם תַּחַת הָהָר:
and he flung… from his hands: He said [to himself]: If [in regard to] the Passover sacrifice, which is [merely] one of the commandments, the Torah said: “No estranged one may partake of it” (Exod. 12:43), [now that] the entire Torah is here [i.e., the Ten Commandments includes the whole Torah], and all the Israelites are apostates, shall I give it to them? -[from Shab. 87a] וישלך מידיו וגו': אמר מה פסח שהיא אחת מן המצות, אמרה תורה (שמות יב מג) כל בן נכר לא יאכל בו, התורה כלה כאן, וכל ישראל משומדים ואתננה להם:
at the foot of the mountain: Heb. ךְתַּחַתהָהָר, lit., under the mountain, [meaning:] at the foot of the mountain. תחת ההר: לרגלי ההר:
20Then he took the calf they had made, burned it in fire, ground it to fine powder, scattered [it] upon the surface of the water, and gave [it to] the children of Israel to drink. כוַיִּקַּח אֶת הָעֵגֶל אֲשֶׁר עָשׂוּ וַיִּשְׂרֹף בָּאֵשׁ וַיִּטְחַן עַד אֲשֶׁר דָּק וַיִּזֶר עַל פְּנֵי הַמַּיִם וַיַּשְׁק אֶת בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל:
scattered: Heb. וַיִּזֶר, an expression of scattering. Similarly, “Brimstone shall be scattered (יְזֹרֶה) on his dwelling” (Job 18:15), and similarly, “For the net is scattered (מְזֹרָה) without cause” (Prov. 1:17), for they scatter corn and beans on it [the net]. ויזר: לשון נפוץ, וכן (איוב יח טו) יזרה על נוהו גפרית, וכן (משלי א יז) כי חנם מזורה הרשת, שזורין בה דגן וקטנית:וישק את בני ישראל נתכוין לבדקן כסוטות. שלש מיתות נדונו שם אם יש עדים והתראה בסייף, כמשפט אנשי עיר הנדחת שהן מרובים, עדים בלא התראה במגפה, שנאמר (פסוק לה) ויגוף ה' את העם, לא עדים ולא התראה בהדרוקן, שבדקום המים וצבו בטניהם:
and gave [it to] the children of Israel to drink: He intended to test them like women suspected of adultery [are tested, as prescribed in Num. 5:11-31] (A.Z. 44a). Three [different] death penalties were meted out there: (1) If there were witnesses [to the worship] and warning [had been issued to the sinners, they were punished] by the sword, according to the law (Deut. 13:13-18) that applies to the people of a city that has been led astray who are many [people involved]. (2) [Those who practiced idolatry with] witnesses but without warning [died] from a plague, as it is said: “Then the Lord struck the people with a plague” (verse 35). (3) [Those who practiced idolatry both] without witnesses and without warning [died] from dropsy, for the water tested them and their stomachs swelled up (Yoma 66b). :
21Moses said to Aaron: "What did this people do to you that you brought [such] a grave sin upon them?" כאוַיֹּאמֶר משֶׁה אֶל אַהֲרֹן מֶה עָשָׂה לְךָ הָעָם הַזֶּה כִּי הֵבֵאתָ עָלָיו חֲטָאָה גְדֹלָה:
What did this people do to you: How many tortures did you [Aaron] endure, that they tortured you until you brought this sin upon them? מה עשה לך העם הזה: כמה יסורים (סבלת) שיסרוך [סבלת], עד שלא תביא עליהם חטא זה:
22Aaron replied: "Let not my lord's anger grow hot! You know the people, that they are disposed toward evil. כבוַיֹּאמֶר אַהֲרֹן אַל יִחַר אַף אֲדֹנִי אַתָּה יָדַעְתָּ אֶת הָעָם כִּי בְרָע הוּא:
that they are disposed toward evil: They are always going in a bad direction and testing the Omnipresent. כי ברע הוא: בדרך רע הם הולכין תמיד ובנסיונות לפני המקום:
23They said to me, 'Make us gods who will go before us, because this man Moses, who brought us up from the land of Egypt we do not know what has become of him.' כגוַיֹּאמְרוּ לִי עֲשֵׂה לָנוּ אֱלֹהִים אֲשֶׁר יֵלְכוּ לְפָנֵינוּ כִּי זֶה | משֶׁה הָאִישׁ אֲשֶׁר הֶעֱלָנוּ מֵאֶרֶץ מִצְרַיִם לֹא יָדַעְנוּ מֶה הָיָה לוֹ:
24I said to them, 'Who has gold?' So they took it [the gold] off and gave it to me; I threw it into the fire and out came this calf." כדוָאֹמַר לָהֶם לְמִי זָהָב הִתְפָּרָקוּ וַיִּתְּנוּ לִי וָאַשְׁלִכֵהוּ בָאֵשׁ וַיֵּצֵא הָעֵגֶל הַזֶּה:
I said to them: one word only: “Who has gold?” [and not “give me your gold”], but they hurried and stripped themselves and gave it to me. ואמר להם: אמרתי להם דבר אחד למי זהב לבד, והם מהרו והתפרקו ויתנו לי:
I threw it into the fire: I did not know that this calf would come out, but out it came. ואשלכהו באש: ולא ידעתי שיצא העגל הזה ויצא:
25And Moses saw the people, that they were exposed, for Aaron had exposed them to be disgraced before their adversaries. כהוַיַּרְא משֶׁה אֶת הָעָם כִּי פָרֻעַ הוּא כִּי פְרָעֹה אַהֲרֹן לְשִׁמְצָה בְּקָמֵיהֶם:
exposed: Heb. פָרֻעַ, uncovered. Their shame and disgrace was revealed, as in “and he shall uncover (וּפָרַע) the woman’s head” (Num. 5:18). פרוע: מגולה, נתגלה שמצו וקלונו, כמו (במדבר ה יח) ופרע את ראש האשה:
to be disgraced before their adversaries: Heb. לְשִׁמְצָה בְּקָמֵיהֶם, that this thing should be a disgrace for them in the mouths of all who rise up against them. לשמצה בקמיהם: להיות להם הדבר הזה לגנות בפי כל הקמים עליהם:
26So Moses stood in the gate of the camp and said: "Whoever is for the Lord, [let him come] to me!" And all the sons of Levi gathered around him. כווַיַּעֲמֹד משֶׁה בְּשַׁעַר הַמַּחֲנֶה וַיֹּאמֶר מִי לַיהֹוָה אֵלָי וַיֵּאָסְפוּ אֵלָיו כָּל בְּנֵי לֵוִי:
“Whoever is for the Lord… to me!”: Let him come to me. מי לה' אלי: יבא אלי:כל בני לוי מכאן שכל השבט כשר:
all the sons of Levi: From here [we learn] that the entire tribe was righteous. -[from Yoma 66b] :
27He said to them: "So said the Lord, the God of Israel: 'Let every man place his sword upon his thigh and pass back and forth from one gate to the other in the camp, and let every man kill his brother, every man his friend, every man his kinsman.' " כזוַיֹּאמֶר לָהֶם כֹּה אָמַר יְהֹוָה אֱלֹהֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל שִׂימוּ אִישׁ חַרְבּוֹ עַל יְרֵכוֹ עִבְרוּ וָשׁוּבוּ מִשַּׁעַר לָשַׁעַר בַּמַּחֲנֶה וְהִרְגוּ אִישׁ אֶת אָחִיו וְאִישׁ אֶת רֵעֵהוּ וְאִישׁ אֶת קְרֹבוֹ:
So said the Lord, the God of Israel: Now, where did He say [this]? “He who slaughters [a sacrifice] to the gods shall be destroyed” (Exod. 22:19). So it was taught in the Mechilta. כה אמר וגו': והיכן אמר, (שמות כב יט) זובח לא-להים יחרם, כך שנויה במכילתא:
his brother: [i.e.,] from his mother, who was an [ordinary] Israelite [and not a Levite]. -[from Yoma 66b] אחיו: מאמו והוא מישראל:
28The sons of Levi did according to Moses' word; on that day some three thousand men fell from among the people. כחוַיַּעֲשׂוּ בְנֵי לֵוִי כִּדְבַר משֶׁה וַיִּפֹּל מִן הָעָם בַּיּוֹם הַהוּא כִּשְׁלשֶׁת אַלְפֵי אִישׁ:
29And Moses said: "Initiate yourselves today for the Lord for each man with his son and with his brother so that He may bestow a blessing upon you this day. " כטוַיֹּאמֶר משֶׁה מִלְאוּ יֶדְכֶם הַיּוֹם לַיהֹוָה כִּי אִישׁ בִּבְנוֹ וּבְאָחִיו וְלָתֵת עֲלֵיכֶם הַיּוֹם בְּרָכָה:
Initiate yourselves: You who kill them, with this thing [act] you will initiate yourselves to be servants [i.e., kohanim] of the Omnipresent. מלאו ידכם: אתם ההורגים אותם, בדבר זה תתחנכו להיות כהנים למקום:
for each man: Among you will initiate himself through his son and through his brother. כי איש: מכם ימלא ידו בבנו ובאחיו:
30It came to pass on the next day that Moses said to the people: "You have committed a grave sin. And now I will go up to the Lord; perhaps I will obtain atonement for your sin." לוַיְהִי מִמָּחֳרָת וַיֹּאמֶר משֶׁה אֶל הָעָם אַתֶּם חֲטָאתֶם חֲטָאָה גְדֹלָה וְעַתָּה אֶעֱלֶה אֶל יְהֹוָה אוּלַי אֲכַפְּרָה בְּעַד חַטַּאתְכֶם:
I will obtain atonement for your sin: Heb. אִכַפְּרָה בְּעַד חַטַּאתְכֶם. [This means] I will place a cleansing, a wiping away, and a barrier opposite your sin to separate you from your sin. אכפרה בעד חטאתכם: אשים כופר וקנוח וסתימה לנגד חטאתכם, להבדיל ביניכם ובין החטא:
31And Moses returned to the Lord and said: "Please! This people has committed a grave sin. They have made themselves a god of gold. לאוַיָּשָׁב משֶׁה אֶל יְהֹוָה וַיֹּאמַר אָנָּא חָטָא הָעָם הַזֶּה חֲטָאָה גְדֹלָה וַיַּעֲשׂוּ לָהֶם אֱלֹהֵי זָהָב:
a god of gold: [Moses is saying to God:] It was You Who caused them [to sin], for You lavished upon them gold and whatever they desired. What should they have done so as not to sin? [This may be illustrated by] a parable of a king who gave his son to eat and drink, dressed him up, hung a coin purse on his neck, and stationed him at the entrance of a brothel. What can the son do so as not to sin? -[from Ber. 32a] אלהי זהב: אתה הוא שגרמת להם שהשפעת להם זהב וכל חפצם מה יעשו שלא יחטאו? משל למלך שהיה מאכיל ומשקה את בנו ומקשטו,ותולה לו כיס בצוארו,ומעמידו בפתח בית זונות,מה יעשה הבן שלא יחטא?:
32And now, if You forgive their sin But if not, erase me now from Your book, which You have written." לבוְעַתָּה אִם תִּשָּׂא חַטָּאתָם וְאִם אַיִן מְחֵנִי נָא מִסִּפְרְךָ אֲשֶׁר כָּתָבְתָּ:
And now, if You forgive their sin…: good, I will not ask You to erase me, but if not, erase me. This is an elliptical verse, and there are many like it. ועתה אם תשא חטאתם: הרי טוב, איני אומר לך מחני. ואם אין, מחני, וזה מקרא קצר, וכן הרבה:מספרך מכל התורה כולה, שלא יאמרו עלי, שלא הייתי כדאי לבקש עליהם רחמים:
from Your book: From the entire Torah, so that they will not say about me that I was unworthy to beg mercy for them [the Israelites]. :
33And the Lord said to Moses: "Whoever has sinned against Me, him I will erase from My book!" לגוַיֹּאמֶר יְהֹוָה אֶל משֶׁה מִי אֲשֶׁר חָטָא לִי אֶמְחֶנּוּ מִסִּפְרִי:
34And now go, lead the people to [the place] of which I have spoken to you. Behold My angel will go before you. But on the day I make an accounting [of sins upon them], I will bring their sin to account against them." לדוְעַתָּה לֵךְ | נְחֵה אֶת הָעָם אֶל אֲשֶׁר דִּבַּרְתִּי לָךְ הִנֵּה מַלְאָכִי יֵלֵךְ לְפָנֶיךָ וּבְיוֹם פָּקְדִי וּפָקַדְתִּי עֲלֵהֶם חַטָּאתָם:
to [the place] of which I have spoken to you: Heb. דִּבַּרְךְתִּי לָ Here [we find] לָ [used] along with דִּבּוּר, speech, instead of אֵלֶי. Similarly [in the verse] “to speak to him (לְדַבֶּר לוֹ) for Adoniahu” (I Kings 2:19). אל אשר דברתי לך: יש כאן לך אצל דבור במקום אליך, וכן (מלכים א ב יט) לדבר לו על אדוניהו:
Behold My angel: But not I. הנה מלאכי: ולא אני:
But on the day I make an accounting, etc.: Now I have listened to you not to destroy them all at once, but always, always, when I take an accounting of their sins, I will also account a little of this sin with the other sins. [This means that] no punishment befalls Israel in which there is not part of the punishment for the sin of the [golden] calf. -[from Sanh. 102a] וביום פקדי וגו': עתה שמעתי אליך מלכלותם יחד, ותמיד תמיד כשאפקוד עליהם עונותיהם ופקדתי עליהם מעט מן העון הזה עם שאר העונות, ואין פורענות באה על ישראל שאין בה קצת מפרעון עון העגל:
35Then the Lord struck the people with a plague, because they had made the calf that Aaron had made. להוַיִּגֹּף יְהֹוָה אֶת הָעָם עַל אֲשֶׁר עָשׂוּ אֶת הָעֵגֶל אֲשֶׁר עָשָׂה אַהֲרֹן:
Then the Lord struck the people with a plague: [This was] death by the hands of Heaven for [those who sinned in the presence of] witnesses without warning. -[from Yoma 66b. See commentary above on verse 20.] ויגף ה' את העם: מיתה בידי שמים, לעדים בלא התראה:
Chapter 33
1The Lord spoke to Moses: "Go, ascend from here, you and the people you have brought up from the land of Egypt, to the land that I swore to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, saying: 'I will give it to your descendants.' אוַיְדַבֵּר יְהֹוָה אֶל משֶׁה לֵךְ עֲלֵה מִזֶּה אַתָּה וְהָעָם אֲשֶׁר הֶעֱלִיתָ מֵאֶרֶץ מִצְרָיִם אֶל הָאָרֶץ אֲשֶׁר נִשְׁבַּעְתִּי לְאַבְרָהָם לְיִצְחָק וּלְיַעֲקֹב לֵאמֹר לְזַרְעֲךָ אֶתְּנֶנָּה:
Go, ascend from here: The land of Israel is higher than all [other] lands (Zev. 54b). That is why it says: “ascend.” Another explanation: [This is] in contrast to what He said to him [Moses] in time of anger, “Go, descend,” (Exod. 32:7). In time of good will He said to him, Go, ascend (Midrash Tanchuma 26). לך עלה מזה: ארץ ישראל גבוהה מכל הארצות, לכך נאמר עלה, דבר אחר כלפי שאמר לו בשעת הכעס (שמות לב ז) לך רד, אמר לו בשעת רצון לך עלה:
you and the people: Here He did not say “Your people” [as He had said previously in Exod. 32:7 “for your people… have acted corruptly”]. אתה והעם: כאן לא נאמר ועמך:
2I will send an angel before you, and I will drive out the Canaanites, the Amorites, the Hittites, the Perizzites, the Hivvites, and the Jebusites בוְשָׁלַחְתִּי לְפָנֶיךָ מַלְאָךְ וְגֵרַשְׁתִּי אֶת הַכְּנַעֲנִי הָאֱמֹרִי וְהַחִתִּי וְהַפְּרִזִּי הַחִוִּי וְהַיְבוּסִי:
and I will drive out the Canaanites: They are six nations [listed here, although seven nations were mentioned in Gen. 15], and [this is because] the Girgashites got up and emigrated because of them [the Israelites] of their own accord. -[from Lev. Rabbah 17:6, Yerushalmi Shevi’ith 6:1]. וגרשתי את הכנעני וגו': שש אומות הן, והגרגשי עמד ופנה מפניהם מאליו:
3to a land flowing with milk and honey; because I will not go up in your midst since you are a stiff necked people, lest I destroy you on the way." גאֶל אֶרֶץ זָבַת חָלָב וּדְבָשׁ כִּי לֹא אֶעֱלֶה בְּקִרְבְּךָ כִּי עַם קְשֵׁה עֹרֶף אַתָּה פֶּן אֲכֶלְךָ בַּדָּרֶךְ:
to a land flowing with milk and honey: I tell you to take them [the Israelites] up. אל ארץ זבת חלב ודבש: אני אומר לך להעלותם:
because I will not go up in your midst: Therefore, I tell you, “I will send an angel before you.” כי לא אעלה בקרבך: לכך אני אומר לך ושלחתי לפניך מלאך:
since you are a stiff-necked people: And when My Shechinah is in your midst and you rebel against Me, I will increase My fury against you. כי עם קשה ערף אתה: וכששכינתי בקרבכם ואתם ממרים בי מרבה אני עליכם זעם:
I destroy you: Heb. אִכֶלְ, an expression of destruction (כִּלָיוֹן). אכלך: לשון כליון:
4[When] the people heard this bad news, they mourned, and no one put on his finery. דוַיִּשְׁמַע הָעָם אֶת הַדָּבָר הָרָע הַזֶּה וַיִּתְאַבָּלוּ וְלֹא שָׁתוּ אִישׁ עֶדְיוֹ עָלָיו:
this bad news: that the Shechinah would not rest [upon them] or go with them. הדבר הרע: שאין השכינה שורה ומהלכת עמם:איש עדיו כתרים שניתנו להם בחורב, כשאמרו נעשה ונשמע:
and no one… his finery: [I.e.,] the crowns given to them in Horeb when they said, “…we will do and we will hear” (Exod. 24:7) (Shab. 88a). :
5And the Lord said to Moses: "Say to the children of Israel: 'You are a stiff necked people; if I go up into your midst for one moment, I will destroy you; but now, leave off your finery, and I will know what to do to you.' " הוַיֹּאמֶר יְהֹוָה אֶל משֶׁה אֱמֹר אֶל בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל אַתֶּם עַם קְשֵׁה עֹרֶף רֶגַע אֶחָד אֶעֱלֶה בְקִרְבְּךָ וְכִלִּיתִיךָ וְעַתָּה הוֹרֵד עֶדְיְךָ מֵעָלֶיךָ וְאֵדְעָה מָה אֶעֱשֶׂה לָּךְ:
if I go up into your midst for one moment, I will destroy you: If I go up into your midst and you rebel against Me with stubbornness [again], I will be furious with you for one moment, which is the measure of My wrath (Ber. 7a), as it is said: “Hide for but a moment until the wrath passes” (Isa. 26: 20), and I will destroy you. Therefore, it is better for you that I send an angel [in My place]. רגע אחד אעלה בקרבך וכליתיך: אם אעלה בקרבך, ואתם ממרים בי בקשיות ערפכם, אזעום עליכם רגע אחד, שהוא שיעור זעמו, שנאמר (ישעיה כו כ) חבי כמעט רגע עד יעבור זעם, ואכלה אתכם, לפיכך טוב לכם שאשלח מלאך:
but now: this punishment you will suffer immediately, that you shall take off your finery. ועתה: פורענות זו תלקו מיד, שתורידו עדיכם מעליכם:
and I will know what to do to you: with the visitation of the rest of the sin. I know what is in My heart to do to you. ואדעה מה אעשה לך: בפקודת שאר העון. אני יודע מה שבלבי לעשות לך:
6So the children of Israel divested themselves of their finery from Mount Horeb. ווַיִּתְנַצְּלוּ בְנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל אֶת עֶדְיָם מֵהַר חוֹרֵב:
their finery from Mount Horeb: The finery that was in their possession from Mount Horeb. -[from Shab. 88a] את עדים מהר חורב: את העדי שהיה בידם מהר חורב:
7And Moses took the tent and pitched it for himself outside the camp, distancing [it] from the camp, and he called it the tent of meeting, and it would be that anyone seeking the Lord would go out to the tent of meeting, which was outside the camp. זוּמשֶׁה יִקַּח אֶת הָאֹהֶל וְנָטָה לוֹ | מִחוּץ לַמַּחֲנֶה הַרְחֵק מִן הַמַּחֲנֶה וְקָרָא לוֹ אֹהֶל מוֹעֵד וְהָיָה כָּל מְבַקֵּשׁ יְהֹוָה יֵצֵא אֶל אֹהֶל מוֹעֵד אֲשֶׁר מִחוּץ לַמַּחֲנֶה:
And Moses: from [the moment of] that sin [and] on. ומשה: מאותו עון והלאה:
took the tent: Heb. יִקַּח. This is a present tense, [meaning that] he would take his tent and pitch it outside the camp. He said, “One who is banished from the master is banished from the disciple.” -[from Tanchuma 27] יקח את האהל: לשון הווה הוא, לוקח אהלו ונוטהו מחוץ למחנה, אמר מנודה לרב, מנודה לתלמיד:
distancing [it]: two thousand cubits, like the matter that is stated: “But there shall be a distance between you and it just two thousand cubits by measure” (Josh. 3:4). -[from Midrash Tanchuma 27] הרחק: אלפים אמה, כענין שנאמר (יהושע ג ד) אך רחוק יהיה ביניכם וביניו כאלפים אמה במדה:
and he called it: And he would call it the tent of meeting. That is the meeting house of those seeking the Torah. וקרא לו: והיה קורא לו אהל מועד, הוא בית ועד למבקשי תורה:
anyone seeking the Lord: From here [we deduce] that one who seeks the presence of a sage is tantamount to one who seeks the presence of the Shechinah. -[from Tanchuma 27] כל מבקש ה': מכאן למבקש פני זקן כמקבל פני השכינה:
would go out to the tent of meeting: Heb. יֵצֵא, lit., will go out, like יוֹצֵא, would go out. Another interpretation: and it would be that anyone seeking the Lord-even the ministering angels-when they would ask for the place of the Shechinah, their companions would say to them, “Behold, it is in Moses’ tent” -[from Tanchuma 27] יצא אל אהל מועד: כמו יוצא. דבר אחר והיה כל מבקש ה' אפילו מלאכי השרת כשהיו שואלים מקום שכינה, חבריהם אומרים להם הרי הוא באהלו של משה:
8And it would be that when Moses would go out to the tent, all the people would rise and stand, each one at the entrance of his tent, and they would gaze after Moses until he went into the tent. חוְהָיָה כְּצֵאת משֶׁה אֶל הָאֹהֶל יָקוּמוּ כָּל הָעָם וְנִצְּבוּ אִישׁ פֶּתַח אָהֳלוֹ וְהִבִּיטוּ אַחֲרֵי משֶׁה עַד בֹּאוֹ הָאֹהֱלָה:
And it would be: Heb. וְהָיָה, a present tense. והיה: לשון הווה:
when Moses would go out: of the camp to go to the tent. כצאת משה מן המחנה: ללכת אל האהל:
all the people would rise: They would stand before him and not sit down until he was concealed from them. יקומו כל העם: עומדים מפניו ואין יושבין עד שנתכסה מהם:
and they would gaze after Moses: in admiration. [They would say,] “Fortunate is one born of woman who is so assured [by God] that the Shechinah follows him to the entrance of his tent.” -[from Kid. 33b, Shekalim 5:2. See also Tanchuma 27, Exod. Rabbah 45:4, 51:6] והביטו אחרי משה: לשבח, אשרי ילוד אשה שכך מובטח, שהשכינה תכנס אחריו לפתח אהלו:
9And it would be that when Moses entered the tent, the pillar of cloud would descend and stand at the entrance of the tent, and He would speak with Moses. טוְהָיָה כְּבֹא משֶׁה הָאֹהֱלָה יֵרֵד עַמּוּד הֶעָנָן וְעָמַד פֶּתַח הָאֹהֶל וְדִבֶּר עִם משֶׁה:
and He would speak with Moses: Heb. וְדִבֶּר, like וּמְדַבֵּר, and He would speak [in the present tense]. Its Aramaic translation is וּמִתְמַלֵל עִם משֶׁה, and He would speak to Himself with Moses, which is [denoting] respect for the Shechinah, like [in the verse] “he heard the voice speaking (מְדַּבֵּר) to him” (Num. 7: 89), but one does not read וּמְדַבֵּר אֵלָיו. When one reads מְדַּבֵּר, it means that the voice would speak to itself and the commoner would hear by himself. But when one reads מְדַבֵּר, it means that the king speaks with the commoner. ודבר עם משה: כמו ומדבר עם משה. תרגומו ומתמלל עם משה שהוא כבוד שכינה, כמו (במדבר ז פט) וישמע את הקול מדבר אליו, ואינו קורא מדבר אליו. כשהוא קורא מדבר פתרונו הקול מדבר בינו לבין עצמו, וההדיוט שומע מאליו, וכשהוא קורא מדבר משמע שהמלך מדבר עם ההדיוט:
10When all the people would see the pillar of cloud standing at the entrance of the tent, all the people would rise and prostrate themselves, each one at the entrance of his tent. יוְרָאָה כָל הָעָם אֶת עַמּוּד הֶעָנָן עֹמֵד פֶּתַח הָאֹהֶל וְקָם כָּל הָעָם וְהִשְׁתַּחֲווּ אִישׁ פֶּתַח אָהֳלוֹ:
and prostrate themselves: to the Shechinah. והשתחוו: לשכינה:
11Then the Lord would speak to Moses face to face, as a man would speak to his companion, and he would return to the camp, but his attendant, Joshua, the son of Nun, a lad, would not depart from the tent. יאוְדִבֶּר יְהֹוָה אֶל משֶׁה פָּנִים אֶל פָּנִים כַּאֲשֶׁר יְדַבֵּר אִישׁ אֶל רֵעֵהוּ וְשָׁב אֶל הַמַּחֲנֶה וּמְשָׁרְתוֹ יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בִּן נוּן נַעַר לֹא יָמִישׁ מִתּוֹךְ הָאֹהֶל:
Then the Lord would speak to Moses face to face: [The targumim render:] וּמִתְמַלֵּל עִם משֶׁה, [as explained on verse 9]. ודבר ה' אל משה פנים אל פנים: ומתמלל עם משה:
and he would return to the camp: After He spoke with him, Moses would return to the camp and teach the elders what he had learned. Moses conducted himself in this way from Yom Kippur until the Mishkan was erected, but no more [than that]. For on the seventeenth of Tammuz the tablets were broken, and on the eighteenth he burned the calf and judged the sinners, and on the nineteenth he went up [Mount Sinai], as it is said: “It came to pass on the next day that Moses said to the people, etc.” (Exod. 32:30). He spent forty days there and begged for mercy, as it is said: “And I cast myself down before the Lord, etc.” (Deut. 9:18). On Rosh Chodesh Elul it was said to him, “And in the morning you shall ascend Mount Sinai” (Exod. 34:2) to receive the second tablets, and he spent forty days there, as it is said concerning them, “And I remained upon the mountain just as the first days” (Deut. 10:10). Just as the first ones [days] were with good will [from the seventh of Sivan to the seventeenth of Tammuz], so were the last ones [days] with good will. [We may] deduce from this that the intermediate ones were with wrath. On the tenth of Tishri the Holy One, blessed is He, was appeased to Israel joyfully and wholeheartedly, and He said to Moses, “I have forgiven, as you have spoken.” He [God] gave over to him the second tablets, and he [Moses] descended, and He [God] began commanding him concerning the work of the Mishkan. They constructed it until the first of Nissan, and once it was erected, He no longer spoke with him except from the Tent of Meeting. -[from Midrash Tanchuma 31, Seder Olam ch. 6] ושב אל המחנה: לאחר שנדבר עמו, היה משה שב אל המחנה ומלמד לזקנים מה שלמד. והדבר הזה נהג משה מיום הכפורים עד שהוקם המשכן ולא יותר, שהרי בשבעה עשר בתמוז נשתברו הלוחות, ובשמונה עשר שרף את העגל ודן את החוטאים, ובתשעה עשר עלה, שנאמר (שמות לב ל) ויהי ממחרת ויאמר משה אל העם וגו', עשה שם ארבעים יום ובקש רחמים, שנאמר (דברים ט יח) ואתנפל לפני ה' וגו', ובראש חדש אלול נאמר לו (שמות לד ב) ועלית בבקר אל הר סיני, לקבל לוחות האחרונות, ועשה שם ארבעים יום, שנאמר בהם (דברים י י) ואנכי עמדתי בהר כימים הראשונים וגו', מה הראשונים ברצון אף האחרונים ברצון, אמור מעתה אמצעיים היו בכעס. בעשרה בתשרי נתרצה הקב"ה לישראל בשמחה ובלב שלם, ואמר לו למשה סלחתי כדברך, ומסר לו לוחות אחרונות. וירד והתחיל לצוותם על מלאכת המשכן ועשאוהו עד אחד בניסן, ומשהוקם לא נדבר עמו עוד אלא מאהל מועד:
and he would return to the camp: Its Aramaic translation is וְתָב לְמַשְׁרִיתָא [meaning] and he would return to the camp, because it is the present tense, and so is [the Aramaic translation of] the entire section: “all the people would see (וְרָאָה)” (verse 10) - וַחִזַן; and [they would] stand (וְנִצְּבוּ) (verse 8) - קַיְּימִין “and they [would] gaze (וְהִבִּיטוּ) ” (verse 8) וּמִסְךְתַּכְּלִין and [they would] prostrate themselves (וְהִשְׁךְתַּחִווּ) (verse 10) - וְסַגְדִין. [This is the simple meaning of the verses, which depict Moses’ usual conduct from after Yom Kippur until the Mishkan was erected.] Its midrashic interpretation, however, is: And the Lord spoke to Moses [saying] that he should return to the camp. He [the Lord] said to him, “I am angry, and you are angry. Who then will bring them near [to Me]?” (Midrash Tanchuma 27). ושב אל המחנה: תרגומו ותב למשריתא, לפי שהוא לשון הווה, וכן כל הענין וראה כל העם - וחזן, ונצבו - וקיימין, והביטו - ומסתכלין, והשתחוו - וסגדין. ומדרשו ודבר ה' אל משה שישוב אל המחנה, אמר לו אני בכעס ואתה בכעס, אם כן מי יקרבם:
Daily Tehillim: Psalms Chapters 60 - 65
• Chapter 60
• Lessons in Tanya
• Monday, Adar 11, 5775 · March 2, 2015
Rambam:
• Sefer Hamitzvos:
Monday, Adar 11, 5775 · March 2, 2015
Today's Mitzvah
A daily digest of Maimonides’ classic work "Sefer Hamitzvot"
Positive Commandment 222
Divorce
"And he shall write her a bill of divorce and place it in her hand"—Deuteronomy 24:1.
In the event that a couple decides to divorce, it is a mitzvah for the husband to effectuate the divorce through a bill of divorce, known as a get.
• 3 Chapters: Gerushin Gerushin - Chapter One, Gerushin Gerushin - Chapter Two, Gerushin Gerushin - Chapter Three
• Monday, Adar 11, 5775 · 03/02/2015
"Today's Day"
Torah lessons: Chumash: Tetzaveh, Shlishi with Rashi.
Tehillim: 60-65.
Tanya: Compare the (p. 125)...the man himself. (p. 125).
The following is well-known and is a tradition, regarding the kavanot (mystical "intentions") in davening: For those intellectually incapable of meditating on thosekavanot (either because they lack knowledge, or because they cannot remember the specific kavanot during prayer) it is sufficient that they keep one general kavana in mind: That his prayer be heard by G-d, with all the kavanot described in the Kabala literature.
Fast of Esther, advanced. Selichot (p. 359), Avinu malkeinu (p. 277). Half-shekel.
Torah lessons: Chumash: Vayikra, Chamishi with Rashi.
Tehillim: 60-65.
Tanya: Later, however, (p. 167)...of the world..." (p. 167).
Chassidus contains two fundamental principles:
(a) Understanding every halacha (Torah law) on its spiritual plane, in its root and ultimate source, namely in the Sefirot and planes in every World1 according to that World's character, as explained in Chassidus.
(b) Comprehending the subject of every halacha in avoda; meaning, although thehalacha is an expression of G-dly wisdom and intelligence and is a law in Torah, nevertheless one must discover in it an avoda - concept to guide man's conduct in his life here in This World.
FOOTNOTES
1. Briefly, the Sefirot refer to G-d's attributes, intellectual and emotive, that are paralleled in man. The term "World" refers to the Four Worlds that are stages in the progression downward from the Infinite to the finite universe. The Sefirot exist on each of these Worlds, progressively more concrete and less abstract, and each World in turn comprises countless strata or planes. Thus in the physical Worldtefillin are understood in simple material terms, while in higher Worlds the term "tefillin" indicates spiritual parallels, progressively more spiritual, less amenable to man's material understanding. (See Tanya II, Ch. 1, note 3; On Learning Chassidus. Also, Translator's Notes).
In Talmudic times, a special stipulation allowed for Jews living in small villages or hamlets to hear the reading of the Megillah (Book of Esther) on the Monday orThursday before Purim -- the days when villagers would come to town because the courts were in session. Depending on the year's configuration, this meant that the Megillah could be read as early as the 11th of Adar or as late as the 15th -- but no earlier or later than these dates (Talmud, beginning of Tractate Megillah).
Link: The Book of Esther with commentary
Today in Jewish History:
• First Print of Rashi (1475)
Rashi, the most basic commentary on the Torah, was printed for the first time, in Reggio di Calabria, Italy. In this print, the commentary on the Five Books of Moses, authored in the 11th century by Rabbi Shlomo Yitzchaki, was not on the same page as the text of the Scriptures, as it is normally printed today.
This was the first time that the rounded Hebrew font was used, the font which has since become known as "Rashi Letters."
Links:
Rashi
Did Rashi Lack a Scientific Method?
• Passing of the "Rogatchover Prodigy" (1936)
Rabbi Yosef Rosen, known as the Rogatchover Gaon (Prodigy/Genius), passed away in Vienna on Thursday, March 5, 1936.
Rabbi Rosen, born in 1858, and raised in the Belarusian city of Rogatchov, served for decades as a rabbi in the Latvian city of Dvinsk (Daugavpils). He was an unparalleled genius, whose in depth understanding of all Talmudic literature left the greatest of scholars awestruck. He habitually demonstrated that many of the famous debates between the Talmudic sages have a singular thread and theme.
Rabbi Rosen authored tens of thousands of responsa on the Talmud and Jewish law. Many of them have been compiled in the set of volumes Tzafnat Paneach.
Daily Quote:
Seek G-d when He may be found, call upon Him when He is near.[Isaiah 55:6]
Daily Study:
Chitas and Rambam for today:
Chumash: Ki Tisa, 2nd Portion Exodus 31:18-33:11 with Rashi
• Chapter 31
18When He had finished speaking with him on Mount Sinai, He gave Moses the two tablets of the testimony, stone tablets, written with the finger of God. יחוַיִּתֵּן אֶל משֶׁה כְּכַלֹּתוֹ לְדַבֵּר אִתּוֹ בְּהַר סִינַי שְׁנֵי לֻחֹת הָעֵדֻת לֻחֹת אֶבֶן כְּתֻבִים בְּאֶצְבַּע אֱלֹהִים:
He gave Moses: In the Torah, chronological order is not adhered to. The episode of the calf took place long before the command of the work of the Mishkan. For on the seventeenth of Tammuz the tablets were broken, and on Yom Kippur the Holy One, blessed is He, was reconciled to Israel. On the morrow [i.e., on the eleventh of Tishri], they commenced with the donation for the Mishkan, and it [the Mishkan] was erected on the first of Nissan. -[from Midrash Tanchuma, Ki Thissa 31] ויתן אל משה וגו': אין מוקדם ומאוחר בתורה. מעשה העגל קודם לצווי מלאכת המשכן ימים רבים היה, שהרי בשבעה עשר בתמוז נשתברו הלוחות, וביום הכפורים נתרצה הקב"ה לישראל, ולמחרת התחילו בנדבת המשכן והוקם באחד בניסן:
When He had finished: Heb. כְּכַלֹתוֹ. [This word should be spelled כְּכַלּוֹתוֹ. Here, however,] it is spelled defectively [without the first “vav”], as if to be read: כְּכַלָּתוֹ, [meaning] like his bride, for the Torah was delivered to him [Moses] as a gift, as a bride [is given] to a bridegroom, because [otherwise] he could not have learnt it all in such a short time (Tanchuma, Ki Thissa 18). Another explanation: Just as a bride is adorned with twenty-four ornaments [i.e.,] the ones listed in the book of Isaiah (3:18-22), so too must a Torah scholar be adorned with the twenty-four books [of the Scriptures, i.e., possess the knowledge of the entire Scriptures] (Tanchuma, Ki Thissa 16). ככלתו: ככלתו כתיב חסר, שנמסרה לו תורה במתנה ככלה לחתן, שלא היה יכול ללמוד כולה בזמן מועט כזה. דבר אחר מה כלה מתקשטת בעשרים וארבעה קשוטין, הן האמורים בספר ישעיה (ישעיה ג יח - כד) אף תלמיד חכם צריך להיות בקי בעשרים וארבעה ספרים:
speaking with him: the statutes and the ordinances in the section entitled: “And these are the ordinances” (Exod. 21-23) [i.e., in parshath Mishpatim]. לדבר אתו: החקים והמשפטים שבואלה המשפטים:
speaking with him: [The word “with”] teaches [us] that Moses would hear [the laws] from God and then they would both repeat the halachah together. -[from Exod. Rabbah 41:5] לדבר אתו: מלמד שהיה משה שומע מפי הגבורה וחוזרין ושונין את ההלכה שניהם יחד:
tablets: Heb. לֻחֹת. It is spelled לֻחֹת [without the “vav” of the plural, as if to be read לֻחַת, the singular form,] because they were both the same [size]. -[from Exod. Rabbah 41:6] לחת: לחת כתיב שהיו שתיהם שוות:
Chapter 32
1When the people saw that Moses was late in coming down from the mountain, the people gathered against Aaron, and they said to him: "Come on! Make us gods that will go before us, because this man Moses, who brought us up from the land of Egypt we don't know what has become of him." אוַיַּרְא הָעָם כִּי בשֵׁשׁ משֶׁה לָרֶדֶת מִן הָהָר וַיִּקָּהֵל הָעָם עַל אַהֲרֹן וַיֹּאמְרוּ אֵלָיו קוּם | עֲשֵׂה לָנוּ אֱלֹהִים אֲשֶׁר יֵלְכוּ לְפָנֵינוּ כִּי זֶה | משֶׁה הָאִישׁ אֲשֶׁר הֶעֱלָנוּ מֵאֶרֶץ מִצְרַיִם לֹא יָדַעְנוּ מֶה הָיָה לוֹ:
that Moses was late: Heb. בשֵׁשׁ, as the Targum [Onkelos] renders אוֹחַר, an expression for lateness. Likewise, [in the verse] “is his chariot late (בֹּשֵׁשׁ) ” (Jud. 5:28); “and they waited until it was late (בּוֹשׁ) ” (Jud. 3:25). When Moses went up the mountain, he said to them [the Israelites], “At the end of forty days I will come, within six hours” [from sunrise of the fortieth day]. They thought that the day he went up was included in the number [of the forty days], but [in fact] he had said to them, “forty days,” [meaning] complete [days], including the night. But the day of his ascent did not have its night included with it [because Moses ascended in the morning], for on the seventh of Sivan he ascended. Thus, the fortieth day [of Moses’ absence] was the seventeenth of Tammuz. On the sixteenth [of Tammuz], Satan came and brought confusion into the world and showed a semblance of darkness, [even] pitch darkness, and confusion, [as if] indicating [that] Moses had surely died and therefore, confusion had come upon the world. He [Satan] said to them, “Moses has died, for six [additional] hours have already passed, and he has not come, etc.,” as is found in tractate Shabbath (89a). We cannot say that their [the Israelites’] only error was that on a cloudy day [they were confused] between before noon and after noon, because Moses did not descend until the next day, as it is said: “On the next day, they arose early, offered up burnt offerings…” (verse 6). כי בשש משה: כתרגומו, לשון איחור, וכן בשש רכבו, (שופטים ה כח), ויחילו עד בוש (שם ג כה) כי כשעלה משה להר אמר להם לסוף ארבעים יום אני בא בתוך שש שעות. כסבורים הם, שאותו יום שעלה מן המנין הוא, והוא אמר להם שלימים, ארבעים יום ולילו עמו, ויום עלייתו אין לילו עמו, שהרי בשבעה בסיון עלה, נמצא יום ארבעים בשבעה עשר בתמוז. בששה עשר בא השטן וערבב את העולם והראה דמות חשך ואפילה וערבוביא לומר ודאי מת משה, לכך בא ערבוביא לעולם. אמר להם מת משה, שכבר באו שש שעות ולא בא וכו', כדאיתא במסכת שבת (דף פט). ואי אפשר לומר שלא טעו אלא ביום המעונן בין קודם חצות בין לאחר חצות, שהרי לא ירד משה עד יום המחרת, שנאמר וישכימו ממחרת ויעלו עולות:
that will go before us: אִשֶׁר יֵלְכוּ לְפָנֵינוּ [The word יֵלְכוּ is in the plural form.] They desired many deities for themselves. -[from Sanh. 63a] אשר ילכו לפנינו: אלהות הרבה איוו להם:
because this man Moses: Satan showed them something resembling Moses, being carried in the air, high above in the sky. -[from Shab. 89a, Midrash Tanchuma 19] כי זה משה האיש: כמין דמות משה הראה להם השטן, שנושאים אותו באויר רקיע השמים:
who brought us up from the land of Egypt: And directed us the way we should go up [from Egypt]. Now we need gods who will go before us [instead of Moses]. אשר העלנו מארץ מצרים: והיה מורה לנו דרך, אשר נעלה בה, עתה צריכין אנו לאלהות, אשר ילכו לפנינו:
2Aaron said to them, "Remove the golden earrings that are on the ears of your wives, your sons, and your daughters and bring them [those earrings] to me." בוַיֹּאמֶר אֲלֵהֶם אַהֲרֹן פָּרְקוּ נִזְמֵי הַזָּהָב אֲשֶׁר בְּאָזְנֵי נְשֵׁיכֶם בְּנֵיכֶם וּבְנֹתֵיכֶם וְהָבִיאוּ אֵלָי:
that are on the ears of your wives…: Aaron said to himself, “The women and children are fond of their jewelry. Perhaps the matter will be delayed, and in the meantime, Moses will arrive.” But they did not wait [for their wives and children to give them their earrings], and they took off their own [earrings]. -[from Midrash Tanchuma 21] באזני נשיכם: אמר אהרן בלבו הנשים והילדים חסים על תכשיטיהן, שמא יתעכב הדבר, ובתוך כך יבא משה, והם לא המתינו ופרקו מעל עצמן:
Remove: Heb. פָּרְקוּ, an imperative expression, from the same root as פָּרֵק in the singular. [This is] like בָּרְכוּ, bless, [which is] from the same root as בָּרֵ. פרקו: לשון צווי, מגזרת פרק ליחיד, כמו ברכו, מגזרת ברך:
3And all the people stripped themselves of the golden earrings that were on their ears and brought them to Aaron. גוַיִּתְפָּרְקוּ כָּל הָעָם אֶת נִזְמֵי הַזָּהָב אֲשֶׁר בְּאָזְנֵיהֶם וַיָּבִיאוּ אֶל אַהֲרֹן:
stripped themselves: Heb. וַיִתְפָּרְקוּ, an expression [used for] unloading a burden. When they removed them [the earrings] from their ears, they were found to be unloaded of their earrings, descharyer in Old French [decharger in modern French], to unload. ויתפרקו: לשון פריקת משא, כשנטלום מאזניהם נמצאו הם מפורקים מנזמיהם, דישקריי"ר בלעז (לפרוק):
of the golden earrings: Heb. אֶת-נִזְמֵי, like מִנַּזְמֵי, similar to “When I leave the city (אֶת-הָעִיר) ” (Exod. 9:29), [like] מִן-הָעִיר, [lit., when I go out of the city]. את נזמי: כמו מנזמי, כמו (שמות ט כט) כצאתי את העיר, מן העיר:
4He took [them] from their hand[s], fashioned it with an engraving tool, and made it into a molten calf, upon which they said: "These are your gods, O Israel, who have brought you up from the land of Egypt!" דוַיִּקַּח מִיָּדָם וַיָּצַר אֹתוֹ בַּחֶרֶט וַיַּעֲשֵׂהוּ עֵגֶל מַסֵּכָה וַיֹּאמְרוּ אֵלֶּה אֱלֹהֶיךָ יִשְׂרָאֵל אֲשֶׁר הֶעֱלוּךָ מֵאֶרֶץ מִצְרָיִם:
fashioned it with an engraving tool: Heb. וַיָּצַר אֹתוֹ בַּחֶרֶט. This [clause] can be rendered in two ways: One is [that] וַיָָּצַר is an expression of tying, and בַּחֶרֶט is an expression meaning a kerchief, similar to “and the tablecloths and the purses (וְהַחִרִיטִים) ” (Isa. 3:22); “and he tied two talents of silver in two purses (חִרִטִים) ” (II Kings 5:23). The second [way of rendering it] is [that] וַיָּצַר is an expression meaning a form, and בַּחֶרֶט is the tool of the smiths, with which they cut out and engrave (חוֹרְטִין) forms in gold. [The tool is] like a scribe’s stylus, which engraves letters on tablets and wax-covered tablets, as “and inscribe on it with a common pen (בְּחֶרֶט אֱנוֹשׁ) ” (Isa. 8:1). This [second interpretation] is what Onkelos rendered: וְצַר יָתֵיהּ בְּזִיפָא, an expression of זִיוּף, a tool with which people engrave letters and designs, known in French as nielle, niello work. With it, signets are engraved. ויצר אותו בחרט: יש לתרגמו בשני פנים האחד, ויצר לשון קשירה, בחרט לשון סודר, כמו (ישעיה ג כא) והמטפחות והחריטים, (מלכים ב ה כג) ויצר ככרים כסף בשני חריטים. והשני, ויצר לשון צורה, בחרט כלי אומנות הצורפין, שחורצין וחורטין בו צורות בזהב כעט סופר החורט אותיות בלוחות ופנקסין, כמו (ישעיה ח א) וכתוב עליו בחרט אנוש. וזהו שתרגם אונקלוס וצר יתיה בזיפא, לשון זיוף הוא כלי אומנות שחורצין בו בזהב אותיות ושקדים, שקורין בלעז ניאי"ל [תצריב שחור] ומזייפין על ידו חותמות:
a molten calf -: As soon as they had cast it into the fire of the crucible, the sorcerers of the mixed multitude who had gone up with them from Egypt came and made it with sorcery. [See commentary on Exod. 12:38.] Others say that Micah was there, who had emerged from the layer of the building where he had been crushed in Egypt. (Sanh. 101b). In his hand was a plate upon which Moses had inscribed “Ascend, O ox; ascend, O ox,” to [miraculously] bring up Joseph’s coffin from the Nile. They cast it [the plate] into the crucible, and the calf emerged. -[from Midrash Tanchuma 19] עגל מסכה: כיון שהשליכו לכור, באו מכשפי ערב רב שעלו עמהם ממצרים ועשאוהו בכשפים ויש אומרים מיכה היה שם שיצא מתוך דמוסי בנין שנתמעך בו במצרים, והיה בידו שם, וטס שכתב בו משה עלה שור, עלה שור, להעלות ארונו של יוסף מתוך נילוס, והשליכו לתוך הכור ויצא העגל:
molten: Heb. מַסֵּכָה, an expression related to מַךְתֶּכֶת, metal, [both derived from roots meaning to pour]. Another interpretation: One hundred and twenty-five centenaria of gold were in it, like the gematria of מַסֵּכָה. 40= מ, 60= ס, 20= כ, 5= ה, totaling 125] -[from Midrash Tanchuma 19] מסכה: לשון מתכת. דבר אחר מאה עשרים וחמשה קנטרין זהב היה בו, כגימטריא של מסכה:
These are your gods: But it does not say, “These are our gods.” -[from here [we learn] that the mixed multitude who had come up from Egypt were the ones who gathered against Aaron, and they were the ones who made it [the calf]. Afterwards, they caused the Israelites to stray after it. -[from Midrash Tanchuma 19] אלה אלהיך: ולא נאמר אלה אלהינו, מכאן שערב רב שעלו ממצרים, הם שנקהלו על אהרן, והם שעשאוהו, ואחר כך הטעו את ישראל אחריו:
5When Aaron saw [this], he built an altar in front of it, and Aaron proclaimed and said: "Tomorrow shall be a festival to the Lord." הוַיַּרְא אַהֲרֹן וַיִּבֶן מִזְבֵּחַ לְפָנָיו וַיִּקְרָא אַהֲרֹן וַיֹּאמַר חַג לַיהֹוָה מָחָר:
When Aaron saw: that it was alive, as it is said: “for the likeness of an ox eating grass” (Ps. 106:20), and he saw that Satan’s work had succeeded, and he had no words to stall them completely [i.e., to keep the Israelites from worshipping the calf, so then] וירא אהרן: שהיה בו רוח חיים, שנאמר (תהלים קו כ) בתבנית שור אוכל עשב, וראה שהצליח מעשה שטן, ולא היה לו פה לדחותם לגמרי:
he built an altar: to stall them. ויבן מזבח: לדחותם:
and said: “Tomorrow shall be a festival to the Lord.”: But [it will] not [be] today. Perhaps Moses would come before they would worship it. This is its simple meaning. Its midrashic meaning in Leviticus Rabbah (10:3) is [as follows]: Aaron saw many things. He saw his sister’s son Hur, who had reproved them [the Israelites], and they assassinated him. That is [the meaning of] וַיִּבֶן, [an expression of בִּינָה, understanding]. מִזְבֵּח לְפָנָיו [should be understood as if it were written] וַיִבֶן מִזָָּבוּחַ לְפָנָיו, [meaning] he understood from the slaughtered one in front of him. Moreover, he saw [the situation] and said, “Better I should be blamed and not they.” He also “saw” another thing and said, “If they build the altar [themselves], one will bring pebbles and [another] one will bring a stone. Thus, their work will be done all at once. Since I will build it, and I will neglect my work, in the meantime Moses will arrive.” ויאמר חג לה' מחר: ולא היום, שמא יבא משה קודם שיעבדוהו, זהו פשוטו. ומדרשו בויקרא רבה (ה /י/, ג) דברים הרבה ראה אהרן, ראה חור בן אחותו, שהיה מוכיחם והרגוהו, וזהו ויבן מזבח לפניו - ויבן מזבוח לפניו. ועוד ראה ואמר מוטב שיתלה בי הסירחון ולא בהם, ועוד ראה ואמר אם הם בונים אותו המזבח, זה מביא צרור וזה מביא אבן, ונמצאת מלאכתן נעשית בבת אחת, מתוך שאני בונה אותו ומתעצל במלאכתי, בין כך ובין כך משה בא:
a festival to the Lord: In his heart, he meant Heaven. He was confident that Moses would come, and they would worship the Omnipresent. -[from Lev. Rabbah 10:3] חג לה': בלבו היה לשמים, בטוח היה שיבא משה, ויעבדו את המקום:
6On the next day they arose early, offered up burnt offerings, and brought peace offerings, and the people sat down to eat and to drink, and they got up to make merry. ווַיַּשְׁכִּימוּ מִמָּחֳרָת וַיַּעֲלוּ עֹלֹת וַיַּגִּשׁוּ שְׁלָמִים וַיֵּשֶׁב הָעָם לֶאֱכֹל וְשָׁתוֹ וַיָּקֻמוּ לְצַחֵק:
they arose early: Satan roused them so that they would sin. וישכימו: השטן זרזם כדי שיחטאו:
to make merry: Heb. לְצַחֵק. In this word, there is [also] a connotation of sexual immorality, as it is said: “to mock (לְצַחֶק) me” (Gen. 39:17), and bloodshed, as it is said: “Let the boys get up now and play (וִישַׂחִקוּ) before us” (II Sam. 2:14). Here too, Hur was slain. -[from Midrash Tanchuma 20] לצחק: יש במשמע הזה גלוי עריות, כמו שנאמר (בראשית לט יז) לצחק בי, ושפיכות דמים, כמו שנאמר (שמואל ב' ב יד) יקומו נא הנערים וישחקו לפנינו, אף כאן נהרג חור:
7And the Lord said to Moses: "Go, descend, for your people that you have brought up from the land of Egypt have acted corruptly. זוַיְדַבֵּר יְהֹוָה אֶל משֶׁה לֶךְ רֵד כִּי שִׁחֵת עַמְּךָ אֲשֶׁר הֶעֱלֵיתָ מֵאֶרֶץ מִצְרָיִם:
And…said: Heb. וַיְדַבֵּר. [This is] an expression of harshness, like “and he spoke (וַיְדַבֵּר) to them harshly” (Gen. 42:7). וידבר: לשון קושי הוא, כמו (בראשית מב ז) וידבר אתם קשות:
Go, descend: Descend from your high position. I gave you this high position only for their sake (Ber. 32a). At that time, Moses was banished by a decree of the heavenly tribunal (Midrash Tanchuma 22, Exod. Rabbah 42:3). לך רד: מגדולתך, לא נתתי לך גדולה אלא בשבילם. באותה שעה נתנדה משה מפי בית דין של מעלה:
your people…have acted corruptly: Heb. שִׁחֵתעַמְ. It does not say, “The people have acted corruptly,” but “your people.” Those are the mixed multitude whom you accepted on your own initiative, and whom you converted without consulting Me. You said, “It is good that converts cleave to the Shechinah.” They have acted corruptly and have corrupted [others]. -[from Exod. Rabbah 42:6] שחת עמך: שחת העם לא נאמר אלא עמך, ערב רב שקבלת מעצמך וגיירתם ולא נמלכת בי, ואמרת טוב שידבקו גרים בשכינה, הם שחתו והשחיתו:
8They have quickly turned away from the path that I have commanded them; they have made themselves a molten calf! And they have prostrated themselves before it, slaughtered sacrifices to it, and said: 'These are your gods, O Israel, who have brought you up from the land of Egypt.' " חסָרוּ מַהֵר מִן הַדֶּרֶךְ אֲשֶׁר צִוִּיתִם עָשׂוּ לָהֶם עֵגֶל מַסֵּכָה וַיִּשְׁתַּחֲווּ לוֹ וַיִּזְבְּחוּ לוֹ וַיֹּאמְרוּ אֵלֶּה אֱלֹהֶיךָ יִשְׂרָאֵל אֲשֶׁר הֶעֱלוּךָ מֵאֶרֶץ מִצְרָיִם:
9And the Lord said to Moses: "I have seen this people and behold! they are a stiff necked people. טוַיֹּאמֶר יְהֹוָה אֶל משֶׁה רָאִיתִי אֶת הָעָם הַזֶּה וְהִנֵּה עַם קְשֵׁה עֹרֶף הוּא:
stiff-necked: Heb. קְשֵׁה-עֹרֶף. [This is a description of stubbornness, meaning] they turned the hardness of the backs of their necks toward those who reproved them, and they refused to listen. קשה ערף: מחזרין קשי ערפם לנגד מוכיחיהם, וממאנים לשמוע:
10Now leave Me alone, and My anger will be kindled against them so that I will annihilate them, and I will make you into a great nation." יוְעַתָּה הַנִּיחָה לִּי וְיִחַר אַפִּי בָהֶם וַאֲכַלֵּם וְאֶעֱשֶׂה אוֹתְךָ לְגוֹי גָּדוֹל:
leave Me alone: [It is unclear why God is saying this-which implies that Moses has made a demand-since] we have not yet heard that Moses prayed for them, and yet He [God] said, “Leave Me alone” ? But here, He opened a door for him and informed him that the matter [indeed] depended upon him [Moses], that if he [Moses] would pray for them, He [God] would not destroy them. [Therefore, God implores Moses to leave Him alone so that He can destroy Israel.] -[from Exod. Rabbah 42:9] הניחה לי: עדיין לא שמענו, שהתפלל משה עליהם, והוא אומר הניחה לי, אלא כאן פתח לו פתח והודיעו, שהדבר תלוי בו, שאם יתפלל עליהם לא יכלם:
11Moses pleaded before the Lord, his God, and said: "Why, O Lord, should Your anger be kindled against Your people whom You have brought up from the land of Egypt with great power and with a strong hand? יאוַיְחַל משֶׁה אֶת פְּנֵי יְהֹוָה אֱלֹהָיו וַיֹּאמֶר לָמָה יְהֹוָה יֶחֱרֶה אַפְּךָ בְּעַמֶּךָ אֲשֶׁר הוֹצֵאתָ מֵאֶרֶץ מִצְרַיִם בְּכֹחַ גָּדוֹל וּבְיָד חֲזָקָה:
Why, O Lord: Is anyone jealous of another, except a wise man of a wise man, or a strong man of a strong man? -[from Exod. Rabbah 43:6] למה ה' יחרה אפך: כלום מתקנא אלא חכם בחכם, גבור בגבור:
12Why should the Egyptians say: 'He brought them out with evil [intent] to kill them in the mountains and to annihilate them from upon the face of the earth'? Retreat from the heat of Your anger and reconsider the evil [intended] for Your people. יבלָמָּה יֹאמְרוּ מִצְרַיִם לֵאמֹר בְּרָעָה הוֹצִיאָם לַהֲרֹג אֹתָם בֶּהָרִים וּלְכַלֹּתָם מֵעַל פְּנֵי הָאֲדָמָה שׁוּב מֵחֲרוֹן אַפֶּךָ וְהִנָּחֵם עַל הָרָעָה לְעַמֶּךָ:
and reconsider: Heb. וְהִנָּחֵם, [i.e.,] formulate another thought to do good to them. והנחם: התעשת מחשבה אחרת להטיב להם:
the evil: that You thought for them. על הרעה: אשר חשבת להם:
13Remember Abraham, Isaac, and Israel, Your servants, to whom You swore by Your very Self, and to whom You said: 'I will multiply your seed like the stars of the heavens, and all this land which I said that I would give to your seed, they shall keep it as their possession forever.' " יגזְכֹר לְאַבְרָהָם לְיִצְחָק וּלְיִשְׂרָאֵל עֲבָדֶיךָ אֲשֶׁר נִשְׁבַּעְתָּ לָהֶם בָּךְ וַתְּדַבֵּר אֲלֵהֶם אַרְבֶּה אֶת זַרְעֲכֶם כְּכוֹכְבֵי הַשָּׁמָיִם וְכָל הָאָרֶץ הַזֹּאת אֲשֶׁר אָמַרְתִּי אֶתֵּן לְזַרְעֲכֶם וְנָחֲלוּ לְעֹלָם:
Remember Abraham: If [You argue that] they have transgressed the Ten Commandments, [let me remind You that] their [fore]father Abraham was tested with ten tests and has not yet received his reward. Give this [reward] to him [Abraham] so that the ten will cancel out the ten. -[from Midrash Tanchuma 24, Exod. Rabbah 44:4] זכר לאברהם: אם עברו על עשרת הדברות, אברהם אביהם נתנסה בעשרה נסיונות ועדיין לא קבל שכרו, תנהו לו, ויצאו עשרה בעשרה:
Abraham, Isaac, and Israel: If they are condemned to be burnt [in a fire], remember Abraham, who gave himself over to be burned for Your sake in Ur of the Chaldees; if they are condemned to be killed by the sword, remember Isaac, who stretched out his neck when he was bound; if they are condemned to exile, remember Jacob, who was exiled to Haran (Midrash Tanchuma 24, Exod. Rabbah 44:5). If they [the children of Israel] will not be saved in their [the Patriarchs’] merit, why do You say to me, “and I will make you into a great nation” ? If a chair with three legs cannot stand up before You when You are angry, how much less will a chair with one leg (Ber. 32a) ? לאברהם ליצחק ולישראל: אם לשרפה הם, זכור לאברהם שמסר עצמו לישרף עליך באור כשדים. אם להריגה, זכור ליצחק שפשט צוארו לעקידה. אם לגלות, זכור ליעקב שגלה לחרן, ואם אינן נצולין בזכותן, מה אתה אומר לי (פסוק י) ואעשה אותך לגוי גדול, ואם כסא של שלוש רגלים אינו עומד לפניך בשעת כעסך, קל וחומר לכסא של רגל אחת:
to whom You swore by Your very Self: You did not swear to them by something finite-not by the heavens and not by the earth, not by the mountains and not by the hills, but by Your very Self [You swore], for You exist, and Your oath exists forever, as it was said [to Abraham]: “By Myself I have sworn, says the Lord” (Gen. 22:16). To Isaac was said: “and I will establish the oath that I swore to Abraham, your father” (Gen. 26:3). To Jacob was said: “I am the Almighty God; be fruitful and multiply” (Gen. 35:11). Here He swore to him [Jacob] by the [Name] Almighty God. -[from Ber. 32a, Midrash Tanchuma 24, Exod. Rabbah 44:10] אשר נשבעת להם בך: לא נשבעת להם בדבר שהוא כלה, לא בשמים ולא בארץ לא בהרים ולא בגבעות, אלא בך, שאתה קיים ושבעותך קיימת לעולם, שנאמר (בראשית כב טז) בי נשבעתי נאם ה', וליצחק נאמר (שם כו ג) והקימותי את השבועה אשר נשבעתי לאברהם אביך, וליעקב נאמר (שם לה יא) אני אל שדי פרה ורבה, נשבע לו באל שדי:
14The Lord [then] reconsidered the evil He had said He would do to His people. ידוַיִּנָּחֶם יְהֹוָה עַל הָרָעָה אֲשֶׁר דִּבֶּר לַעֲשׂוֹת לְעַמּוֹ:
15Now Moses turned and went down from the mountain [bearing] the two tablets of the testimony in his hand, tablets inscribed from both their sides; on one side and on the other side they were inscribed. טווַיִּפֶן וַיֵּרֶד משֶׁה מִן הָהָר וּשְׁנֵי לֻחֹת הָעֵדֻת בְּיָדוֹ לֻחֹת כְּתֻבִים מִשְּׁנֵי עֶבְרֵיהֶם מִזֶּה וּמִזֶּה הֵם כְּתֻבִים:
from both their sides: the letters could be read. This was a miraculous phenomenon. -[from Shab. 104a, Meg. 2b] משני עבריהם: היו האותיות נקראות, ומעשה נסים היה:
16Now the tablets were God's work, and the inscription was God's inscription, engraved on the tablets. טזוְהַלֻּחֹת מַעֲשֵׂה אֱלֹהִים הֵמָּה וְהַמִּכְתָּב מִכְתַּב אֱלֹהִים הוּא חָרוּת עַל הַלֻּחֹת:
were God’s work: This is to be interpreted according to its apparent meaning, [i.e.,] that He personally made them. Another interpretation: Like a person who says to his friend, “All so-and-so’s activities are in such-and-such [a kind of] work.” So too, all the delight of the Holy One, blessed is He, is with the Torah. -[from Midrash Tanchuma 16] מעשה א-להים המה: כמשמעו הוא בכבודו עשאן. דבר אחר כאדם האומר לחבירו כל עסקיו של פלוני במלאכת פלונית, כך כל שעשועיו של הקב"ה בתורה:
engraved: Heb. חָרוּת. The terms חָרֹת and חָרֹט are one [and the same]. Both are an expression of engraving, entalyer in Old French, [entailler in modern French, meaning] to engrave. חרות: לשון חרת וחרט אחד הוא, שניהם לשון חיקוק אנטייליי"ר בלעז [לחתוך]:
17When Joshua heard the voice of the people in their shouting, he said to Moses: "There is a voice of battle in the camp!" יזוַיִּשְׁמַע יְהוֹשֻׁעַ אֶת קוֹל הָעָם בְּרֵעֹה וַיֹּאמֶר אֶל משֶׁה קוֹל מִלְחָמָה בַּמַּחֲנֶה:
in their shouting: Heb. בְּרֵעֹה, in their shouting, for they were shouting, rejoicing, and laughing.[The Israelites were so loud that they could be heard even from a distance.] ברעה: בהריעו, שהיו מריעים ושמחים וצוחקים:
18But [Moses] said: "[It is] neither a voice shouting victory, nor a voice shouting defeat; a voice of blasphemy I hear." יחוַיֹּאמֶר אֵין קוֹל עֲנוֹת גְּבוּרָה וְאֵין קוֹל עֲנוֹת חֲלוּשָׁה קוֹל עַנּוֹת אָנֹכִי שֹׁמֵעַ:
[It is] neither a voice shouting victory: This voice does not appear to be a voice of the shouting of heroes crying “Victory!” or the voice of weak [soldiers] crying “Woe!” or “Flee!” אין קול ענות גבורה: אין הקול הזה נראה קול עניית גבורים הצועקים נצחון ולא קול חלשים שצועקים וי או ניסה:
a voice of blasphemy: Heb. קוֹל עָנּוֹת. A voice of blasphemy and reviling, which distresses (הַמְעַנִין) the soul of the one who hears them when they are said to him. קול ענות: קול חרופין וגדופין המענין את נפש שומען כשנאמרין לו:
19Now it came to pass when he drew closer to the camp and saw the calf and the dances, that Moses' anger was kindled, and he flung the tablets from his hands, shattering them at the foot of the mountain. יטוַיְהִי כַּאֲשֶׁר קָרַב אֶל הַמַּחֲנֶה וַיַּרְא אֶת הָעֵגֶל וּמְחֹלֹת וַיִּחַר אַף משֶׁה וַיַּשְׁלֵךְ מִיָּדָו אֶת הַלֻּחֹת וַיְשַׁבֵּר אֹתָם תַּחַת הָהָר:
and he flung… from his hands: He said [to himself]: If [in regard to] the Passover sacrifice, which is [merely] one of the commandments, the Torah said: “No estranged one may partake of it” (Exod. 12:43), [now that] the entire Torah is here [i.e., the Ten Commandments includes the whole Torah], and all the Israelites are apostates, shall I give it to them? -[from Shab. 87a] וישלך מידיו וגו': אמר מה פסח שהיא אחת מן המצות, אמרה תורה (שמות יב מג) כל בן נכר לא יאכל בו, התורה כלה כאן, וכל ישראל משומדים ואתננה להם:
at the foot of the mountain: Heb. ךְתַּחַתהָהָר, lit., under the mountain, [meaning:] at the foot of the mountain. תחת ההר: לרגלי ההר:
20Then he took the calf they had made, burned it in fire, ground it to fine powder, scattered [it] upon the surface of the water, and gave [it to] the children of Israel to drink. כוַיִּקַּח אֶת הָעֵגֶל אֲשֶׁר עָשׂוּ וַיִּשְׂרֹף בָּאֵשׁ וַיִּטְחַן עַד אֲשֶׁר דָּק וַיִּזֶר עַל פְּנֵי הַמַּיִם וַיַּשְׁק אֶת בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל:
scattered: Heb. וַיִּזֶר, an expression of scattering. Similarly, “Brimstone shall be scattered (יְזֹרֶה) on his dwelling” (Job 18:15), and similarly, “For the net is scattered (מְזֹרָה) without cause” (Prov. 1:17), for they scatter corn and beans on it [the net]. ויזר: לשון נפוץ, וכן (איוב יח טו) יזרה על נוהו גפרית, וכן (משלי א יז) כי חנם מזורה הרשת, שזורין בה דגן וקטנית:וישק את בני ישראל נתכוין לבדקן כסוטות. שלש מיתות נדונו שם אם יש עדים והתראה בסייף, כמשפט אנשי עיר הנדחת שהן מרובים, עדים בלא התראה במגפה, שנאמר (פסוק לה) ויגוף ה' את העם, לא עדים ולא התראה בהדרוקן, שבדקום המים וצבו בטניהם:
and gave [it to] the children of Israel to drink: He intended to test them like women suspected of adultery [are tested, as prescribed in Num. 5:11-31] (A.Z. 44a). Three [different] death penalties were meted out there: (1) If there were witnesses [to the worship] and warning [had been issued to the sinners, they were punished] by the sword, according to the law (Deut. 13:13-18) that applies to the people of a city that has been led astray who are many [people involved]. (2) [Those who practiced idolatry with] witnesses but without warning [died] from a plague, as it is said: “Then the Lord struck the people with a plague” (verse 35). (3) [Those who practiced idolatry both] without witnesses and without warning [died] from dropsy, for the water tested them and their stomachs swelled up (Yoma 66b). :
21Moses said to Aaron: "What did this people do to you that you brought [such] a grave sin upon them?" כאוַיֹּאמֶר משֶׁה אֶל אַהֲרֹן מֶה עָשָׂה לְךָ הָעָם הַזֶּה כִּי הֵבֵאתָ עָלָיו חֲטָאָה גְדֹלָה:
What did this people do to you: How many tortures did you [Aaron] endure, that they tortured you until you brought this sin upon them? מה עשה לך העם הזה: כמה יסורים (סבלת) שיסרוך [סבלת], עד שלא תביא עליהם חטא זה:
22Aaron replied: "Let not my lord's anger grow hot! You know the people, that they are disposed toward evil. כבוַיֹּאמֶר אַהֲרֹן אַל יִחַר אַף אֲדֹנִי אַתָּה יָדַעְתָּ אֶת הָעָם כִּי בְרָע הוּא:
that they are disposed toward evil: They are always going in a bad direction and testing the Omnipresent. כי ברע הוא: בדרך רע הם הולכין תמיד ובנסיונות לפני המקום:
23They said to me, 'Make us gods who will go before us, because this man Moses, who brought us up from the land of Egypt we do not know what has become of him.' כגוַיֹּאמְרוּ לִי עֲשֵׂה לָנוּ אֱלֹהִים אֲשֶׁר יֵלְכוּ לְפָנֵינוּ כִּי זֶה | משֶׁה הָאִישׁ אֲשֶׁר הֶעֱלָנוּ מֵאֶרֶץ מִצְרַיִם לֹא יָדַעְנוּ מֶה הָיָה לוֹ:
24I said to them, 'Who has gold?' So they took it [the gold] off and gave it to me; I threw it into the fire and out came this calf." כדוָאֹמַר לָהֶם לְמִי זָהָב הִתְפָּרָקוּ וַיִּתְּנוּ לִי וָאַשְׁלִכֵהוּ בָאֵשׁ וַיֵּצֵא הָעֵגֶל הַזֶּה:
I said to them: one word only: “Who has gold?” [and not “give me your gold”], but they hurried and stripped themselves and gave it to me. ואמר להם: אמרתי להם דבר אחד למי זהב לבד, והם מהרו והתפרקו ויתנו לי:
I threw it into the fire: I did not know that this calf would come out, but out it came. ואשלכהו באש: ולא ידעתי שיצא העגל הזה ויצא:
25And Moses saw the people, that they were exposed, for Aaron had exposed them to be disgraced before their adversaries. כהוַיַּרְא משֶׁה אֶת הָעָם כִּי פָרֻעַ הוּא כִּי פְרָעֹה אַהֲרֹן לְשִׁמְצָה בְּקָמֵיהֶם:
exposed: Heb. פָרֻעַ, uncovered. Their shame and disgrace was revealed, as in “and he shall uncover (וּפָרַע) the woman’s head” (Num. 5:18). פרוע: מגולה, נתגלה שמצו וקלונו, כמו (במדבר ה יח) ופרע את ראש האשה:
to be disgraced before their adversaries: Heb. לְשִׁמְצָה בְּקָמֵיהֶם, that this thing should be a disgrace for them in the mouths of all who rise up against them. לשמצה בקמיהם: להיות להם הדבר הזה לגנות בפי כל הקמים עליהם:
26So Moses stood in the gate of the camp and said: "Whoever is for the Lord, [let him come] to me!" And all the sons of Levi gathered around him. כווַיַּעֲמֹד משֶׁה בְּשַׁעַר הַמַּחֲנֶה וַיֹּאמֶר מִי לַיהֹוָה אֵלָי וַיֵּאָסְפוּ אֵלָיו כָּל בְּנֵי לֵוִי:
“Whoever is for the Lord… to me!”: Let him come to me. מי לה' אלי: יבא אלי:כל בני לוי מכאן שכל השבט כשר:
all the sons of Levi: From here [we learn] that the entire tribe was righteous. -[from Yoma 66b] :
27He said to them: "So said the Lord, the God of Israel: 'Let every man place his sword upon his thigh and pass back and forth from one gate to the other in the camp, and let every man kill his brother, every man his friend, every man his kinsman.' " כזוַיֹּאמֶר לָהֶם כֹּה אָמַר יְהֹוָה אֱלֹהֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל שִׂימוּ אִישׁ חַרְבּוֹ עַל יְרֵכוֹ עִבְרוּ וָשׁוּבוּ מִשַּׁעַר לָשַׁעַר בַּמַּחֲנֶה וְהִרְגוּ אִישׁ אֶת אָחִיו וְאִישׁ אֶת רֵעֵהוּ וְאִישׁ אֶת קְרֹבוֹ:
So said the Lord, the God of Israel: Now, where did He say [this]? “He who slaughters [a sacrifice] to the gods shall be destroyed” (Exod. 22:19). So it was taught in the Mechilta. כה אמר וגו': והיכן אמר, (שמות כב יט) זובח לא-להים יחרם, כך שנויה במכילתא:
his brother: [i.e.,] from his mother, who was an [ordinary] Israelite [and not a Levite]. -[from Yoma 66b] אחיו: מאמו והוא מישראל:
28The sons of Levi did according to Moses' word; on that day some three thousand men fell from among the people. כחוַיַּעֲשׂוּ בְנֵי לֵוִי כִּדְבַר משֶׁה וַיִּפֹּל מִן הָעָם בַּיּוֹם הַהוּא כִּשְׁלשֶׁת אַלְפֵי אִישׁ:
29And Moses said: "Initiate yourselves today for the Lord for each man with his son and with his brother so that He may bestow a blessing upon you this day. " כטוַיֹּאמֶר משֶׁה מִלְאוּ יֶדְכֶם הַיּוֹם לַיהֹוָה כִּי אִישׁ בִּבְנוֹ וּבְאָחִיו וְלָתֵת עֲלֵיכֶם הַיּוֹם בְּרָכָה:
Initiate yourselves: You who kill them, with this thing [act] you will initiate yourselves to be servants [i.e., kohanim] of the Omnipresent. מלאו ידכם: אתם ההורגים אותם, בדבר זה תתחנכו להיות כהנים למקום:
for each man: Among you will initiate himself through his son and through his brother. כי איש: מכם ימלא ידו בבנו ובאחיו:
30It came to pass on the next day that Moses said to the people: "You have committed a grave sin. And now I will go up to the Lord; perhaps I will obtain atonement for your sin." לוַיְהִי מִמָּחֳרָת וַיֹּאמֶר משֶׁה אֶל הָעָם אַתֶּם חֲטָאתֶם חֲטָאָה גְדֹלָה וְעַתָּה אֶעֱלֶה אֶל יְהֹוָה אוּלַי אֲכַפְּרָה בְּעַד חַטַּאתְכֶם:
I will obtain atonement for your sin: Heb. אִכַפְּרָה בְּעַד חַטַּאתְכֶם. [This means] I will place a cleansing, a wiping away, and a barrier opposite your sin to separate you from your sin. אכפרה בעד חטאתכם: אשים כופר וקנוח וסתימה לנגד חטאתכם, להבדיל ביניכם ובין החטא:
31And Moses returned to the Lord and said: "Please! This people has committed a grave sin. They have made themselves a god of gold. לאוַיָּשָׁב משֶׁה אֶל יְהֹוָה וַיֹּאמַר אָנָּא חָטָא הָעָם הַזֶּה חֲטָאָה גְדֹלָה וַיַּעֲשׂוּ לָהֶם אֱלֹהֵי זָהָב:
a god of gold: [Moses is saying to God:] It was You Who caused them [to sin], for You lavished upon them gold and whatever they desired. What should they have done so as not to sin? [This may be illustrated by] a parable of a king who gave his son to eat and drink, dressed him up, hung a coin purse on his neck, and stationed him at the entrance of a brothel. What can the son do so as not to sin? -[from Ber. 32a] אלהי זהב: אתה הוא שגרמת להם שהשפעת להם זהב וכל חפצם מה יעשו שלא יחטאו? משל למלך שהיה מאכיל ומשקה את בנו ומקשטו,ותולה לו כיס בצוארו,ומעמידו בפתח בית זונות,מה יעשה הבן שלא יחטא?:
32And now, if You forgive their sin But if not, erase me now from Your book, which You have written." לבוְעַתָּה אִם תִּשָּׂא חַטָּאתָם וְאִם אַיִן מְחֵנִי נָא מִסִּפְרְךָ אֲשֶׁר כָּתָבְתָּ:
And now, if You forgive their sin…: good, I will not ask You to erase me, but if not, erase me. This is an elliptical verse, and there are many like it. ועתה אם תשא חטאתם: הרי טוב, איני אומר לך מחני. ואם אין, מחני, וזה מקרא קצר, וכן הרבה:מספרך מכל התורה כולה, שלא יאמרו עלי, שלא הייתי כדאי לבקש עליהם רחמים:
from Your book: From the entire Torah, so that they will not say about me that I was unworthy to beg mercy for them [the Israelites]. :
33And the Lord said to Moses: "Whoever has sinned against Me, him I will erase from My book!" לגוַיֹּאמֶר יְהֹוָה אֶל משֶׁה מִי אֲשֶׁר חָטָא לִי אֶמְחֶנּוּ מִסִּפְרִי:
34And now go, lead the people to [the place] of which I have spoken to you. Behold My angel will go before you. But on the day I make an accounting [of sins upon them], I will bring their sin to account against them." לדוְעַתָּה לֵךְ | נְחֵה אֶת הָעָם אֶל אֲשֶׁר דִּבַּרְתִּי לָךְ הִנֵּה מַלְאָכִי יֵלֵךְ לְפָנֶיךָ וּבְיוֹם פָּקְדִי וּפָקַדְתִּי עֲלֵהֶם חַטָּאתָם:
to [the place] of which I have spoken to you: Heb. דִּבַּרְךְתִּי לָ Here [we find] לָ [used] along with דִּבּוּר, speech, instead of אֵלֶי. Similarly [in the verse] “to speak to him (לְדַבֶּר לוֹ) for Adoniahu” (I Kings 2:19). אל אשר דברתי לך: יש כאן לך אצל דבור במקום אליך, וכן (מלכים א ב יט) לדבר לו על אדוניהו:
Behold My angel: But not I. הנה מלאכי: ולא אני:
But on the day I make an accounting, etc.: Now I have listened to you not to destroy them all at once, but always, always, when I take an accounting of their sins, I will also account a little of this sin with the other sins. [This means that] no punishment befalls Israel in which there is not part of the punishment for the sin of the [golden] calf. -[from Sanh. 102a] וביום פקדי וגו': עתה שמעתי אליך מלכלותם יחד, ותמיד תמיד כשאפקוד עליהם עונותיהם ופקדתי עליהם מעט מן העון הזה עם שאר העונות, ואין פורענות באה על ישראל שאין בה קצת מפרעון עון העגל:
35Then the Lord struck the people with a plague, because they had made the calf that Aaron had made. להוַיִּגֹּף יְהֹוָה אֶת הָעָם עַל אֲשֶׁר עָשׂוּ אֶת הָעֵגֶל אֲשֶׁר עָשָׂה אַהֲרֹן:
Then the Lord struck the people with a plague: [This was] death by the hands of Heaven for [those who sinned in the presence of] witnesses without warning. -[from Yoma 66b. See commentary above on verse 20.] ויגף ה' את העם: מיתה בידי שמים, לעדים בלא התראה:
Chapter 33
1The Lord spoke to Moses: "Go, ascend from here, you and the people you have brought up from the land of Egypt, to the land that I swore to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, saying: 'I will give it to your descendants.' אוַיְדַבֵּר יְהֹוָה אֶל משֶׁה לֵךְ עֲלֵה מִזֶּה אַתָּה וְהָעָם אֲשֶׁר הֶעֱלִיתָ מֵאֶרֶץ מִצְרָיִם אֶל הָאָרֶץ אֲשֶׁר נִשְׁבַּעְתִּי לְאַבְרָהָם לְיִצְחָק וּלְיַעֲקֹב לֵאמֹר לְזַרְעֲךָ אֶתְּנֶנָּה:
Go, ascend from here: The land of Israel is higher than all [other] lands (Zev. 54b). That is why it says: “ascend.” Another explanation: [This is] in contrast to what He said to him [Moses] in time of anger, “Go, descend,” (Exod. 32:7). In time of good will He said to him, Go, ascend (Midrash Tanchuma 26). לך עלה מזה: ארץ ישראל גבוהה מכל הארצות, לכך נאמר עלה, דבר אחר כלפי שאמר לו בשעת הכעס (שמות לב ז) לך רד, אמר לו בשעת רצון לך עלה:
you and the people: Here He did not say “Your people” [as He had said previously in Exod. 32:7 “for your people… have acted corruptly”]. אתה והעם: כאן לא נאמר ועמך:
2I will send an angel before you, and I will drive out the Canaanites, the Amorites, the Hittites, the Perizzites, the Hivvites, and the Jebusites בוְשָׁלַחְתִּי לְפָנֶיךָ מַלְאָךְ וְגֵרַשְׁתִּי אֶת הַכְּנַעֲנִי הָאֱמֹרִי וְהַחִתִּי וְהַפְּרִזִּי הַחִוִּי וְהַיְבוּסִי:
and I will drive out the Canaanites: They are six nations [listed here, although seven nations were mentioned in Gen. 15], and [this is because] the Girgashites got up and emigrated because of them [the Israelites] of their own accord. -[from Lev. Rabbah 17:6, Yerushalmi Shevi’ith 6:1]. וגרשתי את הכנעני וגו': שש אומות הן, והגרגשי עמד ופנה מפניהם מאליו:
3to a land flowing with milk and honey; because I will not go up in your midst since you are a stiff necked people, lest I destroy you on the way." גאֶל אֶרֶץ זָבַת חָלָב וּדְבָשׁ כִּי לֹא אֶעֱלֶה בְּקִרְבְּךָ כִּי עַם קְשֵׁה עֹרֶף אַתָּה פֶּן אֲכֶלְךָ בַּדָּרֶךְ:
to a land flowing with milk and honey: I tell you to take them [the Israelites] up. אל ארץ זבת חלב ודבש: אני אומר לך להעלותם:
because I will not go up in your midst: Therefore, I tell you, “I will send an angel before you.” כי לא אעלה בקרבך: לכך אני אומר לך ושלחתי לפניך מלאך:
since you are a stiff-necked people: And when My Shechinah is in your midst and you rebel against Me, I will increase My fury against you. כי עם קשה ערף אתה: וכששכינתי בקרבכם ואתם ממרים בי מרבה אני עליכם זעם:
I destroy you: Heb. אִכֶלְ, an expression of destruction (כִּלָיוֹן). אכלך: לשון כליון:
4[When] the people heard this bad news, they mourned, and no one put on his finery. דוַיִּשְׁמַע הָעָם אֶת הַדָּבָר הָרָע הַזֶּה וַיִּתְאַבָּלוּ וְלֹא שָׁתוּ אִישׁ עֶדְיוֹ עָלָיו:
this bad news: that the Shechinah would not rest [upon them] or go with them. הדבר הרע: שאין השכינה שורה ומהלכת עמם:איש עדיו כתרים שניתנו להם בחורב, כשאמרו נעשה ונשמע:
and no one… his finery: [I.e.,] the crowns given to them in Horeb when they said, “…we will do and we will hear” (Exod. 24:7) (Shab. 88a). :
5And the Lord said to Moses: "Say to the children of Israel: 'You are a stiff necked people; if I go up into your midst for one moment, I will destroy you; but now, leave off your finery, and I will know what to do to you.' " הוַיֹּאמֶר יְהֹוָה אֶל משֶׁה אֱמֹר אֶל בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל אַתֶּם עַם קְשֵׁה עֹרֶף רֶגַע אֶחָד אֶעֱלֶה בְקִרְבְּךָ וְכִלִּיתִיךָ וְעַתָּה הוֹרֵד עֶדְיְךָ מֵעָלֶיךָ וְאֵדְעָה מָה אֶעֱשֶׂה לָּךְ:
if I go up into your midst for one moment, I will destroy you: If I go up into your midst and you rebel against Me with stubbornness [again], I will be furious with you for one moment, which is the measure of My wrath (Ber. 7a), as it is said: “Hide for but a moment until the wrath passes” (Isa. 26: 20), and I will destroy you. Therefore, it is better for you that I send an angel [in My place]. רגע אחד אעלה בקרבך וכליתיך: אם אעלה בקרבך, ואתם ממרים בי בקשיות ערפכם, אזעום עליכם רגע אחד, שהוא שיעור זעמו, שנאמר (ישעיה כו כ) חבי כמעט רגע עד יעבור זעם, ואכלה אתכם, לפיכך טוב לכם שאשלח מלאך:
but now: this punishment you will suffer immediately, that you shall take off your finery. ועתה: פורענות זו תלקו מיד, שתורידו עדיכם מעליכם:
and I will know what to do to you: with the visitation of the rest of the sin. I know what is in My heart to do to you. ואדעה מה אעשה לך: בפקודת שאר העון. אני יודע מה שבלבי לעשות לך:
6So the children of Israel divested themselves of their finery from Mount Horeb. ווַיִּתְנַצְּלוּ בְנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל אֶת עֶדְיָם מֵהַר חוֹרֵב:
their finery from Mount Horeb: The finery that was in their possession from Mount Horeb. -[from Shab. 88a] את עדים מהר חורב: את העדי שהיה בידם מהר חורב:
7And Moses took the tent and pitched it for himself outside the camp, distancing [it] from the camp, and he called it the tent of meeting, and it would be that anyone seeking the Lord would go out to the tent of meeting, which was outside the camp. זוּמשֶׁה יִקַּח אֶת הָאֹהֶל וְנָטָה לוֹ | מִחוּץ לַמַּחֲנֶה הַרְחֵק מִן הַמַּחֲנֶה וְקָרָא לוֹ אֹהֶל מוֹעֵד וְהָיָה כָּל מְבַקֵּשׁ יְהֹוָה יֵצֵא אֶל אֹהֶל מוֹעֵד אֲשֶׁר מִחוּץ לַמַּחֲנֶה:
And Moses: from [the moment of] that sin [and] on. ומשה: מאותו עון והלאה:
took the tent: Heb. יִקַּח. This is a present tense, [meaning that] he would take his tent and pitch it outside the camp. He said, “One who is banished from the master is banished from the disciple.” -[from Tanchuma 27] יקח את האהל: לשון הווה הוא, לוקח אהלו ונוטהו מחוץ למחנה, אמר מנודה לרב, מנודה לתלמיד:
distancing [it]: two thousand cubits, like the matter that is stated: “But there shall be a distance between you and it just two thousand cubits by measure” (Josh. 3:4). -[from Midrash Tanchuma 27] הרחק: אלפים אמה, כענין שנאמר (יהושע ג ד) אך רחוק יהיה ביניכם וביניו כאלפים אמה במדה:
and he called it: And he would call it the tent of meeting. That is the meeting house of those seeking the Torah. וקרא לו: והיה קורא לו אהל מועד, הוא בית ועד למבקשי תורה:
anyone seeking the Lord: From here [we deduce] that one who seeks the presence of a sage is tantamount to one who seeks the presence of the Shechinah. -[from Tanchuma 27] כל מבקש ה': מכאן למבקש פני זקן כמקבל פני השכינה:
would go out to the tent of meeting: Heb. יֵצֵא, lit., will go out, like יוֹצֵא, would go out. Another interpretation: and it would be that anyone seeking the Lord-even the ministering angels-when they would ask for the place of the Shechinah, their companions would say to them, “Behold, it is in Moses’ tent” -[from Tanchuma 27] יצא אל אהל מועד: כמו יוצא. דבר אחר והיה כל מבקש ה' אפילו מלאכי השרת כשהיו שואלים מקום שכינה, חבריהם אומרים להם הרי הוא באהלו של משה:
8And it would be that when Moses would go out to the tent, all the people would rise and stand, each one at the entrance of his tent, and they would gaze after Moses until he went into the tent. חוְהָיָה כְּצֵאת משֶׁה אֶל הָאֹהֶל יָקוּמוּ כָּל הָעָם וְנִצְּבוּ אִישׁ פֶּתַח אָהֳלוֹ וְהִבִּיטוּ אַחֲרֵי משֶׁה עַד בֹּאוֹ הָאֹהֱלָה:
And it would be: Heb. וְהָיָה, a present tense. והיה: לשון הווה:
when Moses would go out: of the camp to go to the tent. כצאת משה מן המחנה: ללכת אל האהל:
all the people would rise: They would stand before him and not sit down until he was concealed from them. יקומו כל העם: עומדים מפניו ואין יושבין עד שנתכסה מהם:
and they would gaze after Moses: in admiration. [They would say,] “Fortunate is one born of woman who is so assured [by God] that the Shechinah follows him to the entrance of his tent.” -[from Kid. 33b, Shekalim 5:2. See also Tanchuma 27, Exod. Rabbah 45:4, 51:6] והביטו אחרי משה: לשבח, אשרי ילוד אשה שכך מובטח, שהשכינה תכנס אחריו לפתח אהלו:
9And it would be that when Moses entered the tent, the pillar of cloud would descend and stand at the entrance of the tent, and He would speak with Moses. טוְהָיָה כְּבֹא משֶׁה הָאֹהֱלָה יֵרֵד עַמּוּד הֶעָנָן וְעָמַד פֶּתַח הָאֹהֶל וְדִבֶּר עִם משֶׁה:
and He would speak with Moses: Heb. וְדִבֶּר, like וּמְדַבֵּר, and He would speak [in the present tense]. Its Aramaic translation is וּמִתְמַלֵל עִם משֶׁה, and He would speak to Himself with Moses, which is [denoting] respect for the Shechinah, like [in the verse] “he heard the voice speaking (מְדַּבֵּר) to him” (Num. 7: 89), but one does not read וּמְדַבֵּר אֵלָיו. When one reads מְדַּבֵּר, it means that the voice would speak to itself and the commoner would hear by himself. But when one reads מְדַבֵּר, it means that the king speaks with the commoner. ודבר עם משה: כמו ומדבר עם משה. תרגומו ומתמלל עם משה שהוא כבוד שכינה, כמו (במדבר ז פט) וישמע את הקול מדבר אליו, ואינו קורא מדבר אליו. כשהוא קורא מדבר פתרונו הקול מדבר בינו לבין עצמו, וההדיוט שומע מאליו, וכשהוא קורא מדבר משמע שהמלך מדבר עם ההדיוט:
10When all the people would see the pillar of cloud standing at the entrance of the tent, all the people would rise and prostrate themselves, each one at the entrance of his tent. יוְרָאָה כָל הָעָם אֶת עַמּוּד הֶעָנָן עֹמֵד פֶּתַח הָאֹהֶל וְקָם כָּל הָעָם וְהִשְׁתַּחֲווּ אִישׁ פֶּתַח אָהֳלוֹ:
and prostrate themselves: to the Shechinah. והשתחוו: לשכינה:
11Then the Lord would speak to Moses face to face, as a man would speak to his companion, and he would return to the camp, but his attendant, Joshua, the son of Nun, a lad, would not depart from the tent. יאוְדִבֶּר יְהֹוָה אֶל משֶׁה פָּנִים אֶל פָּנִים כַּאֲשֶׁר יְדַבֵּר אִישׁ אֶל רֵעֵהוּ וְשָׁב אֶל הַמַּחֲנֶה וּמְשָׁרְתוֹ יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בִּן נוּן נַעַר לֹא יָמִישׁ מִתּוֹךְ הָאֹהֶל:
Then the Lord would speak to Moses face to face: [The targumim render:] וּמִתְמַלֵּל עִם משֶׁה, [as explained on verse 9]. ודבר ה' אל משה פנים אל פנים: ומתמלל עם משה:
and he would return to the camp: After He spoke with him, Moses would return to the camp and teach the elders what he had learned. Moses conducted himself in this way from Yom Kippur until the Mishkan was erected, but no more [than that]. For on the seventeenth of Tammuz the tablets were broken, and on the eighteenth he burned the calf and judged the sinners, and on the nineteenth he went up [Mount Sinai], as it is said: “It came to pass on the next day that Moses said to the people, etc.” (Exod. 32:30). He spent forty days there and begged for mercy, as it is said: “And I cast myself down before the Lord, etc.” (Deut. 9:18). On Rosh Chodesh Elul it was said to him, “And in the morning you shall ascend Mount Sinai” (Exod. 34:2) to receive the second tablets, and he spent forty days there, as it is said concerning them, “And I remained upon the mountain just as the first days” (Deut. 10:10). Just as the first ones [days] were with good will [from the seventh of Sivan to the seventeenth of Tammuz], so were the last ones [days] with good will. [We may] deduce from this that the intermediate ones were with wrath. On the tenth of Tishri the Holy One, blessed is He, was appeased to Israel joyfully and wholeheartedly, and He said to Moses, “I have forgiven, as you have spoken.” He [God] gave over to him the second tablets, and he [Moses] descended, and He [God] began commanding him concerning the work of the Mishkan. They constructed it until the first of Nissan, and once it was erected, He no longer spoke with him except from the Tent of Meeting. -[from Midrash Tanchuma 31, Seder Olam ch. 6] ושב אל המחנה: לאחר שנדבר עמו, היה משה שב אל המחנה ומלמד לזקנים מה שלמד. והדבר הזה נהג משה מיום הכפורים עד שהוקם המשכן ולא יותר, שהרי בשבעה עשר בתמוז נשתברו הלוחות, ובשמונה עשר שרף את העגל ודן את החוטאים, ובתשעה עשר עלה, שנאמר (שמות לב ל) ויהי ממחרת ויאמר משה אל העם וגו', עשה שם ארבעים יום ובקש רחמים, שנאמר (דברים ט יח) ואתנפל לפני ה' וגו', ובראש חדש אלול נאמר לו (שמות לד ב) ועלית בבקר אל הר סיני, לקבל לוחות האחרונות, ועשה שם ארבעים יום, שנאמר בהם (דברים י י) ואנכי עמדתי בהר כימים הראשונים וגו', מה הראשונים ברצון אף האחרונים ברצון, אמור מעתה אמצעיים היו בכעס. בעשרה בתשרי נתרצה הקב"ה לישראל בשמחה ובלב שלם, ואמר לו למשה סלחתי כדברך, ומסר לו לוחות אחרונות. וירד והתחיל לצוותם על מלאכת המשכן ועשאוהו עד אחד בניסן, ומשהוקם לא נדבר עמו עוד אלא מאהל מועד:
and he would return to the camp: Its Aramaic translation is וְתָב לְמַשְׁרִיתָא [meaning] and he would return to the camp, because it is the present tense, and so is [the Aramaic translation of] the entire section: “all the people would see (וְרָאָה)” (verse 10) - וַחִזַן; and [they would] stand (וְנִצְּבוּ) (verse 8) - קַיְּימִין “and they [would] gaze (וְהִבִּיטוּ) ” (verse 8) וּמִסְךְתַּכְּלִין and [they would] prostrate themselves (וְהִשְׁךְתַּחִווּ) (verse 10) - וְסַגְדִין. [This is the simple meaning of the verses, which depict Moses’ usual conduct from after Yom Kippur until the Mishkan was erected.] Its midrashic interpretation, however, is: And the Lord spoke to Moses [saying] that he should return to the camp. He [the Lord] said to him, “I am angry, and you are angry. Who then will bring them near [to Me]?” (Midrash Tanchuma 27). ושב אל המחנה: תרגומו ותב למשריתא, לפי שהוא לשון הווה, וכן כל הענין וראה כל העם - וחזן, ונצבו - וקיימין, והביטו - ומסתכלין, והשתחוו - וסגדין. ומדרשו ודבר ה' אל משה שישוב אל המחנה, אמר לו אני בכעס ואתה בכעס, אם כן מי יקרבם:
Daily Tehillim: Psalms Chapters 60 - 65
• Chapter 60
This psalm tells of when Joab, David's general, came to Aram Naharayim for war and was asked by the people: "Are you not from the children of Jacob? What of the pact he made with Laban?" Not knowing what to answer, Joab asked the Sanhedrin. The psalm includes David's prayer for success in this war.
1. For the Conductor, on the shushan eidut. A michtam by David, to instruct,
2. when he battled with Aram Naharayim and Aram Tzovah, and Joab returned and smote Edom in the Valley of Salt, twelve thousand [men].
3. O God, You forsook us, You have breached us! You grew furious-restore us!
4. You made the earth quake, You split it apart-heal its fragments, for it totters!
5. You showed Your nation harshness, You gave us benumbing wine to drink.
6. [Now] give those who fear You a banner to raise themselves, for the sake of truth, Selah.
7. That Your beloved ones may be delivered, help with Your right hand and answer me.
8. God said with His Holy [Spirit] that I would exult; I would divide Shechem, and measure out the Valley of Succot.
9. Mine is Gilead, mine is Menasseh, and Ephraim is the stronghold of my head; Judah is my prince.
10. Moab is my washbasin, and upon Edom I will cast my shoe; for me, Philistia will sound a blast [of coronation].
11. Who will bring me into the fortified city? Who will lead me unto Edom?
12. Is it not You, God, Who has [until now] forsaken us, and did not go forth with our legions?
13. Grant us relief from the oppressor; futile is the salvation of man.
14. With God we will do valiantly, and He will trample our oppressors.
Chapter 61
David composed this prayer while fleeing from Saul. The object of all his thoughts and his entreaty is that God grant him long life-not for the sake of pursuing the pleasures of the world, but rather to serve God in awe, all of his days.
1. For the Conductor, on the neginat, by David.
2. Hear my cry, O God, listen to my prayer.
3. From the end of the earth I call to You, when my heart is faint [with trouble]: Lead me upon the rock that surpasses me!
4. For You have been a refuge for me, a tower of strength in the face of the enemy.
5. I will dwell in Your tent forever; I will take refuge in the shelter of Your wings, Selah.
6. For You, God, heard my vows; You granted the inheritance of those who fear Your Name.
7. Add days to the days of the king; may his years equal those of every generation.
8. May he sit always before God; appoint kindness and truth to preserve him.
9. Thus will I sing the praise of Your Name forever, as I fulfill my vows each day.
Chapter 62
David prays for the downfall of his enemies. He also exhorts his generation that their faith should not rest in riches, telling them that the accumulation of wealth is utter futility.
1. For the Conductor, on the yedutun,1 a psalm by David.
2. To God alone does my soul hope; my salvation is from Him.
3. He alone is my rock and salvation, my stronghold; I shall not falter greatly.
4. Until when will you plot disaster for man? May you all be killed-like a leaning wall, a toppled fence.
5. Out of their arrogance alone they scheme to topple me, they favor falsehood; with their mouths they bless, and in their hearts they curse, Selah.
6. To God alone does my soul hope, for my hope is from Him.
7. He alone is my rock and salvation, my stronghold; I shall not falter.
8. My salvation and honor is upon God; the rock of my strength-my refuge is in God.
9. Trust in Him at all times, O nation, pour out your hearts before Him; God is a refuge for us forever.
10. Men are but vanity; people [but] transients. Were they to be raised upon the scale, they would be lighter than vanity.
11. Put not your trust in exploitation, nor place futile hope in robbery. If [corrupt] wealth flourishes, pay it no heed.
12. God spoke one thing, from which I perceived two: That strength belongs to God;
13. and that Yours, my Lord, is kindness. For You repay each man according to his deeds.
Chapter 63
Hiding from Saul, and yearning to approach the place of the Holy Ark like one thirsting for water, David composed this prayer on his behalf and against his enemy.
1. A psalm by David, when he was in the Judean desert.
2. O God, You are my Almighty, I seek You! My soul thirsts for You, my flesh longs for You; [like one] in a desolate and dry land, without water,
3. so [I thirst] to see You in the Sanctuary, to behold Your might and glory.
4. For Your kindness is better than life; my lips shall praise You.
5. Thus will I bless you all my life, in Your Name I will raise my hands [in prayer].
6. As with fat and abundance my soul is sated, when my mouth offers praise with expressions of joy.
7. Indeed, I remember You upon my bed; during the watches of the night I meditate upon You.
8. For You were a help for me; I sing in the shadow of Your wings.
9. My soul cleaved to You; Your right hand supported me.
10. But they seek desolation for my soul; they will enter the depths of the earth.
11. They will drag them by the sword; they will be the portion of foxes.
12. And the king will rejoice in God, and all who swear by Him will take pride, when the mouths of liars are blocked up.
Chapter 64
The masters of homiletics interpret this psalm as alluding to Daniel, who was thrown into the lion's den. With divine inspiration, David foresaw the event and prayed for him. Daniel was a descendant of David, as can be inferred from God's statement to Hezekiah (himself of Davidic lineage), "And from your children, who will issue forth from you, they will take, and they (referring to, amongst others, Daniel) will be minesters in the palace of the king of Babylon."
1. For the Conductor, a psalm by David.
2. Hear my voice, O God, as I recount [my woes]; preserve my life from the terror of the enemy.
3. Shelter me from the schemes of the wicked, from the conspiracy of evildoers,
4. who have sharpened their tongue like the sword, aimed their arrow-a bitter word-
5. to shoot at the innocent from hidden places; suddenly they shoot at him, they are not afraid.
6. They encourage themselves in an evil thing, they speak of laying traps; they say: "Who will see them?”
7. They sought pretexts; [and when] they completed a diligent search, each man [kept the plot] inside, deep in the heart.
8. But God shot at them; [like] a sudden arrow were their blows.
9. Their own tongues caused them to stumble; all who see them shake their heads [derisively].
10. Then all men feared, and recounted the work of God; they perceived His deed.
11. Let the righteous one rejoice in the Lord and take refuge in Him, and let them take pride-all upright of heart.
Chapter 65
This psalm contains awe-inspiring and glorious praises to God, as well as entreaties and prayers concerning our sins. It declares it impossible to recount God's greatness, for who can recount His mighty acts? Hence, silence is His praise.
1. For the Conductor, a psalm by David, a song.
2. Silence is praise for You, O God [Who dwells in] Zion; and to You vows will be paid.
3. O Heeder of prayer, to You does all flesh come.
4. Matters of sin overwhelm me; You will pardon our transgressions.
5. Fortunate is [the nation] whom You choose and draw near, to dwell in Your courtyards; may we be sated with the goodness of Your House, with the holiness of Your Sanctuary.
6. Answer us with awesome deeds as befits Your righteousness, O God of our salvation, the security of all [who inhabit] the ends of the earth and distant seas.
7. With His strength He prepares [rain for] the mountains; He is girded with might.
8. He quiets the roar of the seas, the roar of their waves and the tumult of nations.
9. Those who inhabit the ends [of the earth] fear [You] because of Your signs; the emergences of morning and evening cause [man] to sing praise.
10. You remember the earth and water it, you enrich it abundantly [from] God's stream filled with water. You prepare their grain, for so do You prepare it.
11. You saturate its furrows, gratifying its legions; with showers You soften it and bless its growth.
12. You crown the year of Your goodness [with rain], and Your clouds drip abundance.
13. They drip on pastures of wilderness, and the hills gird themselves with joy.
14. The meadows don sheep, and the valleys cloak themselves with grain; they sound blasts, indeed they sing.
Tanya: Likutei Amarim, beginning of Chapter 33• Lessons in Tanya
• Monday, Adar 11, 5775 · March 2, 2015
Today's Tanya Lesson
Likutei Amarim, beginning of Chapter 33
In ch. 31, the Alter Rebbe discussed various means of arousing joy to counteract the sadness brought on by contemplation of one’s spiritual failings. Ch. 33 resumes this discussion.
In ch. 31, the Alter Rebbe discussed various means of arousing joy to counteract the sadness brought on by contemplation of one’s spiritual failings. Ch. 33 resumes this discussion.
עוד זאת תהיה שמחת הנפש האמיתית, ובפרט כשרואה בנפשו בעתים מזומנים שצריך לזככה ולהאירה בשמחת לבב
Yet another means of leading one’s soul to true joy, especially at those specific times when one finds it necessary to purify his soul and illuminate it with a gladness of heart:
אזי יעמיק מחשבתו ויצייר בשכלו ובינתו ענין יחודו יתברך האמיתי
Let him then think deeply and picture in his intellect and understanding the subject of G‑d’s true unity.
True unity means not only that there is but one G‑d, one Creator, but that furthermore, G‑d is the only existing being — nothing truly exists outside of Him, as will be explained further.
איך הוא ממלא כל עלמין עליונים ותחתונים
Let him consider how He permeates all worlds, both upper and lower.
Just as the soul pervades the body, thereby animating it, so does G‑d permeate all the worlds. This indwelling refers to the divine life-force which adapts itself to each individual creation’s capacity to receive it, and for this reason the Alter Rebbe distinguishes here between the “upper worlds” and “lower worlds”: in the “upper (more spiritual) worlds” the revelation of this life-force is greater, since their capacity is greater.
ואפילו מלא כל הארץ הלזו הוא כבודו יתברך
Let him further consider how even this world is filled with His glory —
This refers to the divine life-force which “encompasses” all worlds, and which animates them as if “from above,” without adapting itself to the particular nature of each created being, so that even this physical world is “filled with His glory”1 —
וכולא קמיה כלא חשיב ממש
and how everything is of no reality whatever in His presence.
והוא לבדו הוא בעליונים ותחתונים ממש כמו שהיה לבדו קודם ששת ימי בראשית, וגם במקום הזה שנברא בו עולם הזה, השמים והארץ וכל צבאם, היה הוא לבדו ממלא המקום הזה
He is One alone in the upper and lower realms, just as He was alone prior to the six days of Creation, when nothing existed apart from G‑d; so too now, when all the worlds have come into being, He is still One alone since all of creation is naught before Him, as will be explained further. Even in the very place where this world — the heaven, the earth and all their host — was created, He alone then filled this space.
וגם עתה כן הוא לבדו בלי שום שינוי כלל, מפני שכל הנבראים בטלים אצלו במציאות ממש
The same is true now; He is One alone, without any change whatever. For in relation to Him, the very existence of all created beings is utterly nullified — so that from His perspective, as it were, everything remains just as it was prior to creation.
The Alter Rebbe here introduces an analogy which traces the early evolution of an idea or a desire from the moment that it first occurs in one’s mind and heart. At that stage the idea or desire is formless, not yet having the shape or form of words. It is pure desire, pure idea. The desire of an English-speaking person, for example, feels no different from that of a Hebrew speaker.
It is only when it reaches the stage of applied, or practical thought, that the idea or desire takes on the form of what are called “letters of thought,” which may later be expressed in speech.
Now, the “letters” of thought and speech are, of course, seminally contained in the original idea or desire — it is only that at that point their existence is completely nullified; it is as though these “letters” were non-existent; only the idea or desire is felt.
Stated in the terms which the Alter Rebbe employs, the idea and desire are described as part of the “ten soul-powers,” of which three (ChaBaD) belong to the intellect, and seven (themiddot) comprise one’s emotional range. These ten faculties are the “source and root” of thought and speech, for one thinks and speaks of that which he understands or feels. These faculties are called the “substance and essence of the soul,” in comparison with thought and speech which are merely the soul’s “garments,” i.e., its modes of external expression.
To relate the analogy to the point under discussion: Every created being derives its existence and life from Divine “speech”, i.e., the “letters” of G‑d’s command that created it. Since nothing is “outside” G‑d, this creative “speech” and the beings created thereby are contained within G‑d, in the same way as the words one speaks were previously contained within the desire of the heart. All of creation is therefore nullified before G‑d, just as the “letters” of speech are nullified within the idea or desire which is their source, where only the desire is felt, not the “letters.”
In the Alter Rebbe’s words:
כביטול אותיות הדבור והמחשבה במקורן ושרשן, הוא מהות הנפש ועצמותה, שהן עשר בחינותיה, חכמה בינה ודעת וכו׳
[All created beings are nullified before G‑d] just as the letters of speech and thought are nullified within their source and root, i.e., the soul’s substance and essence, meaning its ten faculties — Chochmah, Binah, Daat... and the middot,
שאין בהם בחינת אותיות עדיין קודם שמתלבשות בלבוש המחשבה (כמו שנתבאר בפרק כ׳ וכא באריכות, עיין שם)
in which there are no letters as yet, prior to their being clothed in the garment of thought (as has been explained at length in chs. 20 and 21).
וכמו שכתוב גם כן במקום אחר משל גשמי לזה, מענין ביטול זיו ואור השמש במקורו, הוא גוף כדור השמש שברקיע
Elsewhere, this idea is further illustrated by an analogy from a physical phenomenon — the nullification of the sun’s radiance and light within its source, the celestial orb of the sun.
שגם שם מאיר ומתפשט ודאי זיוו ואורו, וביתר שאת מהתפשטותו והארתו בחלל העולם, אלא ששם הוא בטל במציאות במקורו, וכאילו אינו במציאות כלל
For surely its radiance and light glow and spread forth there too; more strongly, in fact, than they spread forth and glow in the space of the universe.Being close to its source, the light is more intense. But there — within the sun — its very existence is nullified within that of its source; it is as though [the light] were absolutely non-existent. All that is seen within the sun is the sun itself, not the light which is merely a product, an offshoot of the sun.
This will be better understood in terms of the saying,2 “Of what good is a candle in the daylight” Naturally, the candle is no less luminous by day than by night. But because its light is overwhelmed by the far greater brightness of daylight, it no longer fulfills its function of illumination. At this point it ceases to exist as a luminary. The same is true of the sun’s rays as they are within the sun.
וככה ממש דרך משל הוא ביטול העולם ומלואו במציאות לגבי מקורו, שהוא אור אין סוף ברוך הוא, וכמו שכתוב שם באריכות
Exactly so, figuratively speaking, is the very existence of the world and everything in it nullified in relation to its source, which is the light of Ein Sof, as is explained there at length.
This, then, is the true meaning of G‑d’s unity — that He alone exists, and there is nothing besides Him.
והנה כשיעמיק בזה הרבה, ישמח לבו ותגל נפשו אף גילת ורנן בכל לב ונפש ומאד באמונה זו
Now when one contemplates deeply and at length on this matter of G‑d’s true unity,his heart will rejoice with this faith;3 his soul will be gladdened by it to the point of rejoicing and singing with all his heart, soul and might.
כי רבה היא, כי היא קרבת אלקים ממש
For this faith is tremendous — when it fills one’s mind it actually constitutes [an experience of] the closeness of G‑d.
וזה כל האדם ותכלית בריאתו ובריאת כל העולמות עליונים ותחתונים
This in fact is the whole [purpose] of man, and the purpose for which he, and all the worlds, both upper and lower, were created:
להיות לו דירה זו בתחתונים, כמו שכתוב לקמן באריכות
that G‑d should have such a dwelling-place here below, as will be explained further at length4 — how this earthly abode for G‑d is the purpose of all creation.
Man’s faith in the unity of G‑d fulfills this goal. For when G‑d’s unity is revealed in the mind and heart of men, this world becomes an abode for G‑d; He is revealed there just as one reveals himself completely in his own home.
והנה כמה גדולה שמחת הדיוט ושפל אנשים בהתקרבותו למלך בשר ודם המתאכסן ודר אתו עמו בביתו
How great is the joy of a common and lowly person when he is brought close to a king of flesh and blood who furthermore lodges and greater still dwells together with him — not in the king’s palace, but in his (the commoner’s) home
וקל וחומר לאין קץ, לקרבת ודירת מלך מלכי המלכים, הקדוש ברוך הוא
How much more, infinitely more, [ought one to rejoice] in the nearness of the King of kings, the Holy One, blessed be He, and in His dwelling together with man in this physical world, man’s “home.
וכדכתיב: כי מי הוא זה אשר ערב לבו לגשת אלי, נאם ה׳
So it is written:5 “‘For who is the man who dares to approach me?’ says G‑d.”
Yet in one’s awareness of G‑d’s unity and through self-nullification before Him, one does come near to G‑d. Furthermore, G‑d thereby dwells with him and within him.
| FOOTNOTES | |
| 1. | This interpretation follows Kitzur Tanya by Rabbi M.M. Schneerson of Lubavitch (author ofTzemach Tzedek). |
| 2. | Chullin 60b; cf. Zohar I, 20a. |
| 3. | The Alter Rebbe introduced the subject of G-d's unity as an idea that can and should be apprehended intellectually (“Let him think deeply... in his intellect and understanding... G-d's true unity...”). Yet here he refers to it as an article of faith. Commenting on this inconsistency, the Rebbe, Rabbi Menachem Mendel Schneerson, of righteous memory, proposes several suggestions: (1) The analogies of speech or of sunlight are valid only after one accepts, as a matter of faith, the verse, “By the word of G-d the heavens were made.” (2) Furthermore, although the Alter Rebbe provides here the means of understanding the concept intellectually, in fact recognition of G-d as the only existing being is a matter of implicit, inherent faith in every Jew, as the Alter Rebbe points out further (e.g., mid. ch. 42). (3) It may also be suggested that the matter of G-d's unity indeed transcends intellect, and thus belongs to the realm of faith. One cannot actually understand how G-d is a unity, and unique. The intellectual approach provided, serves only to lead one to a rational conclusion that he is indeed a unity, and unique. |
| 4. | Ch. 36. |
| 5. | Cf. Yirmeyahu 30:21. |
• Sefer Hamitzvos:
Monday, Adar 11, 5775 · March 2, 2015
Today's Mitzvah
A daily digest of Maimonides’ classic work "Sefer Hamitzvot"
Positive Commandment 222
Divorce
"And he shall write her a bill of divorce and place it in her hand"—Deuteronomy 24:1.
In the event that a couple decides to divorce, it is a mitzvah for the husband to effectuate the divorce through a bill of divorce, known as a get.
Divorce
Divorce
Positive Commandment 222
Translated by Berel Bell
The 222nd mitzvah is that when we wish to divorce, we are commanded to do so only with a written document [i.e. a get].
The source of this commandment is G‑d's statement1 (exalted be He), [that when a man wants to divorce his wife,] "he shall write her a bill of divorce and place it in her hand."
The details of this mitzvah, i.e. all the laws of divorce, are found in the tractate devoted to this subject, tractate Gittin.
FOOTNOTES
1.Deut. 24:1.
_________________________________________________
• 1 Chapter: Tefillin, Mezuzah and Sefer Torah Tefillin, Mezuzah and Sefer Torah - Chapter One Tefillin, Mezuzah and Sefer Torah - Chapter One
HILCHOT TEFILLIN UMEZUZAH V'SEFER TORAH
THE LAWS [GOVERNING] TORAH SCROLLS, TEFILLIN, AND MEZUZOT
THE LAWS [GOVERNING] TORAH SCROLLS, TEFILLIN, AND MEZUZOT
They contain five positive commands, which are: 1) For tefillin [to be placed] on our heads; 2) To tie [tefillin] on our arms; 3) To affix a mezuzah at the entrances to our gates; 4) For every man to write a Torah scroll for himself; 5) For a king to write a second scroll for himself so that he will have two Torah scrolls.
The explanation of these mitzvot is contained in the following chapters.
Halacha 1
Four passages [of the Torah]: Kadesh Li and V'hayah ki y'viacha Ado-nai in the book of Exodus (13:1-10 and 13:11-16) and Shema and V'hayah im shamo'a(Deuteronomy 6:4-9 and 11:13-21) should be written separately and covered with leather. They are called tefillin.
They are placed on the head and tied on the arm. According to Torah law, even a mere point of one of the letters from these four passages prevents all of them from being acceptable. All four must be written in the proper manner.
Halacha 2
Similarly, if even one letter of the two passages contained in the mezuzah,Shema and V'hayah im shamo'a (Deuteronomy 6:4-9 and 11:13-21), is lacking a point, it is not acceptable according to Torah law, which requires that they [each] be written in a perfect manner. Similarly, a Torah scroll which is lacking even one letter is unacceptable.
Halacha 3
There are ten requirements for tefillin. All of them are halachot transmitted to Moses on Mount Sinai. It is necessary to fulfill them all. Therefore, if one made any changes with regard to them, the tefillin are not fit for use: Two of them involve their composition, and eight involve the coverings [placed around the passages] and the tying of their straps.
These are the two that involve their composition:
a) They must be written in ink;
b) They must be written on parchment.
Halacha 4
How is ink prepared? One collects the vapor of oils, of tar, of wax, or the like, [causes it to condense,] and kneads it together with sap from a tree and a drop of honey. It is moistened extensively, crushed until it is formed into flat cakes, dried, and then stored.
When one desires to write with it, one soaks [the cakes of ink] in gallnut juice or the like and writes with it. Thus, if one attempts to rub it out, he would be able to.
This is the ink with which it is most preferable to write scrolls, tefillin, and mezuzot. If, however, one wrote any of the three with gallnut juice or vitriol, which remains without being rubbed out, it is acceptable.
Halacha 5
If so, what was excluded by the halachah conveyed to Moses on Mount Sinai, which stated that it be written in ink?
It excludes tints of other colors, such as red, green, and the like. If even one letter of a Torah scroll, tefillin, or mezuzot is in another tint or in gold, they are invalid.
Halacha 6
There are three types of parchment: g'vil, k'laf, and duchsustos.
What is implied? The hide of a domesticated or wild animal is taken. First, the hair is removed from it. Afterwards, it is salted and then prepared with flour. Then resin and other substances which cause the skin to contract and become harder are applied to it. In this state, it is called g'vil.
Halacha 7
After the hair is removed, the hide may be taken and divided in half in the manner known to the parchment processors. Thus, there are two pieces of parchment: a thin one, which is on the side where the hair grew, and a thicker one, on the side of the flesh.
After it has been processed using salt, then flour, and then resin and the like, the portion on the side where the hair grew is called k'laf and the portion on the side of the flesh is called duchsustos.
Halacha 8
It is a halachah transmitted to Moses on Mount Sinai that a Torah scroll should be written on g'vil on the side on which the hair had grown. When tefillin are written on k'laf, they should be written on the side of the flesh. When a mezuzahis written onduchsustos, it should be written on the side of the hair.
Whenever one writes on k'laf on the side of the hair or on g'vil or duchsustos on the side of the flesh, it is unacceptable.
Halacha 9
Although it is a halachah which was transmitted to Moses on Mount Sinai, that if one wrote a Torah scroll on k'laf, it is acceptable. G'vil was mentioned only to exclude duchsustos. If a Torah scroll was written on the latter, it is not acceptable.
Similarly, if a mezuzah was written on k'laf or on g'vil, it is acceptable.Duchsustos was mentioned only as a mitzvah.
Halacha 10
[Torah] scrolls, tefillin, and mezuzot may not be written on hide from a non-kosher animal, fowl, or wild animal. One may write on the hides of [all] kosher animals, wild beasts, and fowl. This applies even when these animals died without being ritually slaughtered or when they were killed by wild beasts.
We may not write on the skin of a kosher fish because of the foul secretions, since the processing of the skin will not cause the foul secretions to cease.
Halacha 11
The g'vil for a Torah scroll and the k'laf for tefillin and for a Torah scroll must be processed with this purpose in mind. If they were not processed with this intent, they are not acceptable.
Accordingly, if they were processed by a gentile, they are not acceptable. Even when [a Jew] instructed a gentile to process the parchment with the intent that it be used for a Torah scroll or for tefillin, it is not acceptable. The gentile follows his own intentions and not those of the person who hires him. Therefore, whenever an article must be made with a specific intent in mind, it is unacceptable if made by a gentile.
[The parchment used for] a mezuzah need not be processed with this purpose in mind.
Halacha 12
It is a halachah transmitted to Moses on Mount Sinai that a Torah scroll ormezuzah should be written only [on parchment] which has been ruled. [The parchment used for] tefillin, however, need not be ruled, because they are covered.
It is permissible to write tefillin and mezuzot without [looking at] an existent text, because everyone is familiar with these passages. It is, however, forbidden to write even one letter of a Torah scroll without [looking at] an existent text.
Halacha 13
A Torah scroll, tefillin, or mezuzah written by an apikoros should be burned. If they were written by a gentile, an apostate Jew, a person who betrays [the Jews] to a powerful person, a slave, a woman, or a minor, they are not acceptable and must be entombed, as [implied by Deuteronomy 6:8-9]: "And you shall tie... and you shall write." [Our Sages explain that this includes only] those who are commanded to tie [tefillin on their arms] and those who believe in what they write.
[Sacred articles] which are found in the possession of an apikoros, and it is not known who wrote them, should be entombed. Those which are found in the possession of a gentile are kosher. We should not, however, purchase Torah scrolls, tefillin, or mezuzot from gentiles for more than they are worth, so that they do not become accustomed to stealing them.
Halacha 14
A Torah scroll, tefillin, or mezuzah that was written on parchment from a non-kosher animal, beast, or fowl, or on parchment that was not processed [properly, is not acceptable]. [Similarly,] a Torah scroll or tefillin that was written on parchment that was not processed with the intent to use it for these sacred purposes is not acceptable.
Halacha 15
When a person writes a Torah scroll, tefillin, or mezuzah without having [the proper] intention, should he write one of God's names without the desired intent, they are not acceptable.
Therefore, when a person is writing God's name, he should not reply even if the king of Israel greets him. If he is writing two or three names, he may interrupt between them and reply.
Halacha 16
[When a scribe] dips his pen [in ink] to write God's name, he should not begin [writing] one of the letters of God's name. Rather, he should begin with the letter preceding [God's name].
If [a scribe] forgot to write God's name in its entirety, he may insert it in between the lines. It is, however, unacceptable to have a portion of God's name on the line and a portion inserted [between the lines]. With regard to other words, if one forgets, one may write half the word on the line and half above the line.
When does the above apply? With regard to a Torah scroll. In contrast, with regard to tefillin and mezuzot, one should not insert even one letter [between the lines]. Rather, if one forgets even one letter, one should entomb what one has written and write another one.
It is permitted to write God's name on [parchment where letters] have been scraped off or rubbed out on all [of these sacred articles].
Halacha 17
Scribes who write Torah scrolls, tefillin, and mezuzot may not turn the parchment face down. Rather, they should spread a cloth over them or fold them.
Halacha 18
[The following rule applies when] a scribe who wrote a Torah scroll, tefillin, ormezuzah states: "I did not write the names of God with the proper intent." Once they have left his hand, his statements are not believed with regard to the disqualification of the scroll. They are, however, accepted to the extent that he must forfeit his entire wage.
Why isn't he believed with regard to the disqualification of the scroll? Because it is possible that he wanted to cause a loss to the purchaser or to the person who hired him, thinking that with this statement all that he would be required to forfeit would be the payment for the names of God.
Accordingly, were he to say that the parchment of this Torah scroll or tefillin was not processed with the proper intent in mind, his statements are accepted with regard to the disqualification of the sacred articles because, [by virtue of these statements,] he forfeits his entire wage. Everyone knows that if the parchments were not processed with the proper intent, he does not deserve any payment.
Halacha 19
Tefillin and mezuzot may be written only in Assyrian script. Permission was granted to write Torah scrolls in Greek as well. That Greek language has, however, been forgotten from the world. It has been confused and has sunk into oblivion. Therefore, at present, all three sacred articles may be written using Assyrian script alone.
One must be precise while writing them, making sure that one letter does not become attached to another one, because any letter which is not surrounded by parchment on all four sides is unacceptable.
Any letter that cannot be read by a child who is neither wise nor foolish is not acceptable. Therefore, one must be careful with regard to the form of the letters, so that a yud will not resemble a vav, nor a vav a yud; a kaf should not resemble a beit, nor a beit a kaf; a dalet should not resemble a resh, nor a resha dalet.
[The same applies in] other similar instances. [The text must be written in a manner] that a reader will be able to read without difficulty.
Halacha 20
[The following rules apply to] parchment which has holes: One should not write over a hole. If, however, ink passes over the hole [without seeping through], the presence of the hole is of no consequence, and one may write upon it. Accordingly, if the skin of a fowl has been processed, it is permissible to write upon it.
[The following rules apply] when a parchment becomes perforated after it has been written on: If the perforation is within the inside of a letter - e.g., in the space inside a heh, inside amem, or inside any of the other letters - it is acceptable.
Despite the fact that a leg of a letter becomes perforated to the extent that it becomes separated [into two portions], it is acceptable if:
a) [the length of the leg] is equivalent to that of a small letter; and b) the letter's [present form] does not resemble another letter.
If [the length of the leg] is not equivalent to that of a small letter, it is not acceptable.
Commentary Halacha 1
Four passages [of the Torah]: - contain references to the mitzvah of tefillin.
Kadesh Li and V'hayah ki y'viacha Ado-nai in the book of Exodus (13:1-10 and 13:11-) - The commentaries suggest that, in this instance, the Rambam cited the source for these passages because there is also a passage in the book of Deuteronomy that begins V'hayah Ki Y'viacha.
and Shema and V'hayah im shamo'a (Deuteronomy 6:4-9 and 11:13-21) -Sefer HaChinuch (Mitzvah 422) explains that these four passages were chosen because they include the concepts of the oneness of God, the acceptance of His yoke and the yoke of His commandments, and the description of the exodus from Egypt. These are fundamental principles of the Jewish faith.
should be written separately - on parchment
and covered with leather - as described in Chapter 3.
They are called tefillin. - Tosafot, Menachot 34b states the word is related to the root ללפ, which means "dispute." The Tur (Orach Chayim 25) inteprets the word as meaning "sign." Tefillot Yisrael associates the term with the power of thought, citing Genesis 48:11. The Pri Megadim (Orach Chayim 25:20) understands the term as meaning, "mark of distinction."
They are placed on the head and tied - The commentaries note the difference between the two verbs, "placed" and "tied." See also our commentary on Chapter 4, Halachah 4. It is, nevertheless, worth noting that in the listing of the mitzvot in the introduction to the Mishneh Torah, the Rambam mentions "tying the tefillin on the head."
on the arm. - Sefer HaMitzvot (Positive Commandments 12 and 13) and Sefer HaChinuch (Mitzvot 421 and 422) consider these obligations to be two of the Torah's 613 mitzvot. (See Menachot 44a.) Since they are two separate mitzvot, the performance of one is not dependent on the performance of the other, as stated in Chapter 4, Halachah 4.
According to Torah law, even a mere point of one of the letters - for example, the yud has a short foot in its lower right-hand corner. If that foot is missing, it is considered to have been improperly formed. Therefore, not only it, but the entire passage is not acceptable.
from these four passages prevents all of them from being acceptable. All four must be written in the proper manner. - If even one of the passages is not written in the proper manner, the person is not considered to have fulfilled the mitzvah at all. (See also the Rambam's Commentary on the Mishnah,Menachot 3:7.)
Accordingly, it is proper to have one's tefillin checked from time to time to make sure that none of the letters have faded. (See the commentary on Chapter 2, Halachah 11.)
Commentary Halacha 2
Similarly, if even one letter of the two passages - which mention the mitzvah and, hence, are
contained in the mezuzah, Shema and V'hayah im shamo'a (Deuteronomy 6:4-9 and 11:13-21), is lacking a point - from its proper shape,
it is not acceptable according to Torah law, which requires that they [each] be written in a perfect manner. - In this instance, as well, a disqualifying factor in a single point of a single letter prevents the entire mitzvah from being fulfilled.
Similarly, a Torah scroll which is lacking even one letter - The Ben Yedidexplains that the difference in the phraseology used by the Rambam with regard to tefillin and mezuzot ("lacking a point") and a Torah scroll ("lacking even one letter") alludes to the difference in the phraseology used by the sources for these laws (Menachot 34a and Bava Batra 15a).
is unacceptable. - Though Rabbenu Nissim (Megillah, Chapter 2) appears to contest the Rambam's statements on this issue, the Rambam's view is accepted by most authorities. (See also Chapter 7, Halachah 9.)
Commentary Halacha 3
There are ten requirements for tefillin. - Though all of the ten principles mentioned by the Rambam have their source in the Talmud, their organization into a list of ten is original.
All of them are halachot transmitted to Moses on Mount Sinai. - Yad Malachi interprets the latter expression as a law which has all the authority of a Torah commandment, even though there is no allusion to it in the Written Law. (See also the Rambam's Introduction to his Commentary on the Mishnah, Chapter 4.)
It is necessary to fulfill them all. Therefore, if one made any changes with regard to them, the tefillin are not fit for use: - A person who wears tefillinwhich do not fulfill these requirements is not considered to have fulfilled the mitzvah at all.
Two of them involve their composition - These are listed below and discussed in the following halachot.
and eight involve the coverings [placed around the passages] and the tying of their straps. - These eight conditions are mentioned in Chapter 3, Halachah 1, and discussed in the subsequent halachot of that chapter.
These are the two that involve their composition: a) They must be written in ink; - as opposed to other tints
b) They must be written on parchment. - This translation is not precise. Note Halachah 7 for a more specific definition of the term ףלק.
Commentary Halacha 4
How is ink prepared? One collects the vapor of oils - Shabbat 23a states that it is preferable to use olive oil.
of tar, of wax, or the like, [causes it to condense,] - See Shabbat, ibid., and commentaries, where it is explained that they would heat the above substances and hold a glass above, upon which the vapors would condense. Afterwards, the soot would be collected.
and kneads it together with sap from a tree - Shabbat, ibid., states that it is preferable to use balsam sap.
and a drop of honey. It is moistened extensively, - In one of his responsa, the Rambam writes that it is customarily moistened with oil.
crushed until it is formed into flat cakes, dried, and then stored. - Niddah20a teaches us that their ink was stored while dry.
When one desires to write with it, one soaks [the cakes of ink] - From the statement in Shabbat forbidding ink to be soaked on the Sabbath, we can assume that the normal process is to soak it before using it.
in gallnut juice - which endows the ink with a lasting quality. In contrast, the Rambam writes in one of his responsa that if one were to soak the ink in water, it would fade rapidly.
In the same responsum, he states that a liquid possessing qualities similar to gallnut juice can be obtained from pomegranate shells or the outer shells of other nuts.
or the like and writes with it. Thus, if one attempts to rub it out, he would be able to. - Sotah 20a derives this concept from Numbers 5:23, which states, "He shall write and he shall blot out." Proper ink should be able to be blotted out after writing.
This is the ink with which it is most preferable to write scrolls, tefillin, and mezuzot. - Note the Zohar (Vol. II, p. 159a), which requires that ink be made from substances that are derived from the plant kingdom.
If, however, one wrote any of the three - Torah scrolls, tefillin, and mezuzot.
with gallnut juice - itself, and not in a mixture with other substances
or vitriol - a substance produced by the rusting of metal. Our translation is based on Rav Kapach's commentary which has its source in the Rambam's responsa. Others render this phrase "with gallnut juice and vitriol," implying that the two substances should be combined.
which remains without being rubbed out, it is acceptable - after the fact (בדיעבד).
Commentary Halacha 5
If so, - i.e., if there are no specific substances which are excluded, as stated above
what was excluded by the halachah conveyed to Moses on Mount Sinai, which stated that it be written in ink? It excludes tints of other colors, such as red, green - Megillah 17a explicitly disqualifies a megillah written in red ink. From that and other sources, it appears that such ink was frequently used at that time, but was deemed unacceptable for use for a Torah scroll.
and the like. - Note the Bi'ur Halachah (32), which states that even blue ink is unacceptable.
If even one letter of a Torah scroll, tefillin, or mezuzot is in another tint or in gold - Soferim 1:9 relates that a Torah scroll was written for Alexander with every one of the names of God written in gold. When the Sages heard about this, they said that the scroll should be entombed.
Besides excluding the use of gold-colored ink, the Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 32:3) explains that covering the ink with gold dust is not acceptable.
they are invalid. - From this, we learn that all black inks are acceptable, regardless of their makeup. Though scribes continue to make ink in the traditional fashion, there is no prohibition against using commercially produced black ink.
Commentary Halacha 6
There are three types of parchment: g'vil, - whose preparation is described in this halachah.
k'laf, and duchsustos - whose preparation is described in the following halachah.
What is implied? The hide of a domesticated or wild animal is taken. - As mentioned in Halachah 10, the animal must be kosher.
First, the hair is removed from it. - Shulchan Aruch HaRav (32:10) states that if the hair is not entirely removed, the parchment is not fit to be used. Even after the fact, it is unacceptable. The Mishnah Berurah quotes this opinion as well, but also mentions other opinions, which do not invalidate the parchment if some hair remains, as long as it had been placed in lime for a long enough time for thehair to fall off.
Afterwards, it is salted and then prepared with flour. Then, resin and other substances which cause the skin to contract and become harder -The Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 32:8) mentions that lime is customarily used for this purpose.
are applied to it. In this state, it is called g'vil. - In one of his responsa, the Rambam explains that the term g'vil is used to describe any coarse, uneven surface. Note a parallel usage in Bava Batra 3a.
If the hide is not prepared in this fashion, it is referred to as diftera, and a Torah scroll, tefillin, or mezuzah, written upon it is invalid. Even בדיעבד (after the fact), such parchment is not acceptable, as stated in Halachah 14.
Commentary Halacha 7
After the hair is removed, the hide may be taken and divided in half in the manner known to the parchment processors. - There is, however, no obligation to divide the parchment. If it has been processed correctly, it may be used for a Torah scroll without being separated, as stated in the following halachah.
Thus, there are two pieces of parchment: a thin one, which is on the side where the hair - or wool of the animal
grew, and a thicker one, on the side of the flesh.
After it has been processed using salt, then flour, and then resin and the like, - Several of the Rambam's responsa were addressed to communities where it was not customary to prepare hides in this manner. In these letters, the Rambam stresses that even after the hair is removed from the hide, it must be processed in this manner. Otherwise, it may not be used for either a Torah scroll, tefillin, or mezuzah.
the portion on the side where the hair grew is called k'laf - which means "peel." It is given this name because it is a thin layer of flesh which is peeled easily.
and the portion on the side of the flesh is called duchsustos. - Duch is Aramaic for "place," and sustos is Greek (Median in other texts) for "meat." Thus, the word means "the place of the meat" (Aruch).
Our translation and commentary follows the standard published text of theMishneh Torah, which is quoted in the Shulchan Aruch, Orach Chayim 32:7. It must, nevertheless, be emphasized that the authoritative Yemenite manuscripts of the Mishneh Torah reverse the interpretations of k'laf and duchsustos. The latter interpretation is reinforced by several responsa of the Rambam on the subject. It also is supported by Hilchot Shabbat 11:6. The Rashba's text of theMishneh Torah also contained this version, as is obvious from his responsa (Vol. 1, Responsum 579).
Commentary Halacha 8
It is a halachah transmitted to Moses on Mount Sinai that a Torah scroll should be written on g'vil - From Bava Batra 14b, it appears that Moses wrote the Torah scroll which he placed in the holy ark on g'vil. Similarly, Gittin54b mentions that Torah scrolls would be written on g'vil.
on the side on which the hair had grown. - This side is smoother and better to write on.
When tefillin are written on klaf - The Rambam's expression is somewhat inexact, because it is permissible to write tefillin only on k'laf. If they are written on g'vil or duchsustos, they are unacceptable (Shabbat 79b).
they should be written on the side of the flesh - i.e., on the portion of thek'laf where it is separated from the duchsustos.
When a mezuzah is written on duchsustos - As stated in the following halachah, it is preferable - but not obligatory - to write a mezuzah on this type of parchment.
it should be written on the side of the hair. - i.e., on the portion of theduchsustos where it is separated from the k'laf.
Whenever one writes on k'laf on the side of the hair - the epidermis
or on g'vil or duchsustos on the side of the flesh - the side facing the inside of the body
it is unacceptable. - The Aruch states that this practice is alluded to byProverbs 25:2: "The glory of God is in the concealment of a matter." Only "the concealment of a matter," the sides of the parchment which are naturally concealed, are fit to be used for "the glory of God," the fulfillment of mitzvot.
It must be emphasized that the Yemenite manuscripts mentioned in the previous halachah, which reverse the definitions of k'laf and duchsustos, do not change the text of this halachah. Thus, according to these texts, when writing on the thin upper parchment, one should write on the epidermis, and when writing on the thick lower parchment, one should write on the part facing the inside of the body.
There is an advantage to this version. According to the standard texts, there is an apparent contradiction. Although one should write on the epidermis when writing on g'vil, it is improper to do so when writing on k'laf.
Commentary Halacha 9
Although it is a halachah which was transmitted to Moses on Mount Sinai, that if one wrote a Torah scroll on k'laf, it is acceptable. - The entire scroll, however, must be written on one or the other of these types of parchment. If half was written on k'laf and half on g'vil, it is unacceptable (Chapter 7, Halachah 4; Shulchan Aruch, Yoreh De'ah 271:4).
G'vil was mentioned only to exclude duchsustos. If a Torah scroll was written on the latter, it is not acceptable. - Though this concept is not mentioned explicitly in the Talmud, the rabbis derive it from their understanding of Bava Batra 14b.
Similarly, if a mezuzah was written on k'laf or on g'vil, it is acceptable. -Even in Talmudic times, Shabbat 79b mentions that on occasion it was preferable to write a mezuzah on k'laf, because the mezuzah would be preserved better than if it were written on duchsustos.
Duchsustos was mentioned only as a mitzvah - i.e., it is preferable to do it in this manner.
It must be noted that at present, a single type of parchment is used for all three sacred objects. The parchment is not separated in two. A thin portion is removed from the upper layer, and the majority of the - if not the entire - lower layer is rubbed off. The parchment produced in this manner is more attractive and also lighter (a factor significant with regard to a Torah scroll. (See Shulchan Aruch, Orach Chayim 32:7; Ramah, Yoreh De'ah 271:3, 288:6; Siftei Cohen,Yoreh De'ah 271:9.)
Commentary Halacha 10
[Torah] scrolls, tefillin, and mezuzot - Shulchan Aruch HaRav 32:14 expands the scope of this law, stating that it is not befitting to write the name of God on parchment from a non-kosher animal. This applies even when the intent is not to use the parchment for a sacred purpose.
may not be written on hide from a non-kosher animal, fowl, or wild animal. - Shabbat 108a derives this concept from the exegesis of Exodus 13:9, "So that the Torah of God will be in your mouths." They conclude: Only what is permitted to be "in your mouths" - i.e., species which are kosher - is acceptable for a Torah scroll. Even בדיעבד (after the fact), such parchment is not acceptable, as stated in Halachah 14.
As explained in Chapter 3, this requirement applies not only to the parchment, but also to all the other elements involved in making these sacred articles.
One may write on the hides of [all] kosher animals, wild beasts, and fowl. - See Halachah 20 in regard to writing on parchment made from the skin of birds.
This applies even when these animals died without being ritually slaughtered or when they were killed by wild beasts. - Shabbat (ibid.) offers the following parable to explain why even though such animals may not be eaten, it is permitted to use their hides. There were two people who were sentenced to death. One was executed by the king himself and the other by the executioner. Which is more noteworthy? Obviously, the one whom the king executed himself.
Similarly, in the present instance, the fact that these kosher animals were "executed by the king" - i.e., their death came about at God's decree - distinguishes them from other animals which are never fit to be eaten.
We may not write on the skin of a kosher fish because of the foul secretions, since the processing of the skin will not cause the foul secretions to cease. - Hilchot Keilim 1:4 states: "The skin of a fish is not susceptible to contracting ritual impurity and would be fit for tefillin to be written upon, were it not for its foul secretions." This implies that the only problem is the secretions of the fish skin.
Commentary Halacha 11
The g'vil for a Torah scroll and the k'laf for tefillin and for a Torah scroll must be processed with this purpose in mind. - The Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 32:8; Yoreh De'ah 271:1) states that when placing the skin in lime at the beginning of the process of making it into parchment, one should explicitly say that one is processing it for these purposes.
Shulchan Aruch HaRav (32:11) and the Mishnah Berurah (32:26-27) explain that parchment processed to be used as a Torah scroll may be used for tefillin(or for a mezuzah). Parchment processed for the sake of tefillin, however, may not be used for a Torah scroll, because a Torah scroll is on a higher level of holiness.
If they were not processed with this intent, they are not acceptable. -Even if no parchment that was processed with the proper intent is available, this parchment should not be used, as stated in Halachah 14.
Accordingly, if they were processed by a gentile, they are not acceptable. Even when [a Jew] instructed a gentile to process the parchment with the intent that it be used for a Torah scroll or for tefillin, it is not acceptable. -Even if the gentile states that he is processing the parchment with the intent that it be used for these purposes, we do not rely on his word, because we suspect that
The gentile follows his own intentions and not those of the person who hires him. - Note the comments of Rav Chayim Soloveitchik, who approaches the concept differently, and explains that the above phrase, "the gentile follows his own intentions...," is a description of the gentile's fundamental nature. It is not that we suspect that the gentile will not listen to the person who hires him, and his act is therefore not acceptable. Rather, because his nature is to "follow his own intentions," he is disqualified from performing any act that requires a sacred intention.
According to this interpretation, the question of whether a gentile's actions are accepted if he is supervised by a Jew must be understood as follows: The act of preparing the parchment for a Torah scroll is not, in and of itself, a sacred act, but merely a preparation for performing such an act. Accordingly, one might assume that it is sufficient for a Jew to command the gentile to process the scroll for the proper intent. The gentile would be considered like a machine which performs activities with no will of its own, and it would be as if the Jew performed the act himself. In conclusion, however, it is accepted that because the gentile acts independently, the intention of the Jew who hires him cannot be associated with his acts.
Therefore - the scope of this ruling can be expanded:
whenever an article must be made with a specific intent in mind - e.g., the strands of tzitzit (Hilchot Tzitzit 1:11) or a bill of divorce (Hilchot Gerushin 3:16)
it is unacceptable if made by a gentile. - Rabbenu Asher does not accept the Rambam's ruling with regard to these parchments. Though he accepts the general principle, he explains that this particular instance is an exception.
In other instances, the gentile must act according to the Jew's intent for a prolonged period of time. Here, it is absolutely necessary to have the intent to use the parchment for tefillin or a Torah scroll only at the moment it is placed in the lime. We can assume that if a gentile is given instructions to place it in the lime with that intent, he will do so with that intent.
The Shulchan Aruch quotes both opinions in Orach Chayim 32:9. Yoreh De'ah271:1, however, mentions only the Rambam's opinion. In both places, the Ramah states that it is customary to follow Rabbenu Asher's opinion.
Shulchan Aruch HaRav 32:12 and the Mishnah Berurah 32:28-29 quote Rabbenu Asher's statements that a Jew should be present at the time the parchment is placed in the lime and that he should explicitly tell the gentile to put it in the lime to be used for a Torah scroll. Afterwards, he should assist the gentile somewhat in the process of preparing the parchment.
[The parchment used for] a mezuzah need not be processed with this purpose in mind. - The Jerusalem Talmud (Yoma 3:6) states, "Parchment which was processed for use as a talisman is acceptable for a mezuzah."
In one of his responsa, the Rambam explains that the reason for the difference in law between a mezuzah, on the one hand, and a Torah scroll and tefillin, on the other, stems from the fact that a Torah scroll and tefillin are mitzvot which each person is obligated to fulfill. In contrast, the mitzvah of mezuzah is an obligation that is not incumbent on a person unless he dwells in a house that requires one. (It must be noted, however, that there are opinions which maintain that this responsum was not written by the Rambam.)
This ruling is not accepted by the other authorities. The Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 288:5) states that לכתחילה (at the outset), one must seek a mezuzah that was written on parchment processed with this intention in mind. Only if it is impossible to find such a mezuzah, may one use a mezuzah which was not processed with this intent. (Note also our commentary on Chapter 3, Halachah 15.)
Commentary Halacha 12
It is a halachah transmitted to Moses on Mount Sinai that a Torah scroll or mezuzah should be written only [on parchment] which has been ruled. - The parchment should be ruled with a stylus or a reed. It is improper to use a substance that leaves a mark. Each line of the parchment should be ruled and a border made on both sides. If unruled parchment is used for a Torah scroll or for a mezuzah, it is unacceptable (Shulchan Aruch, Yoreh De'ah 271:5, 288:8).
[The parchment used for] tefillin, however, need not be ruled - TheShulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 32:6) states the top line of tefillin must be ruled because the Sages forbade writing more than three words from a verse from the Bible without ruling the line above them. See Chapter 7, Halachah 16, and also see the Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 284:2).
In Orach Chayim, the Shulchan Aruch continues, explaining that a person who cannot write on a straight line without ruling the parchment should rule the parchment before writing tefillin. The Ramah states that it is customary for even the most competent scribes to write tefillin on ruled parchment. If, however, one wrote tefillin without ruling the parchment, the tefillin are acceptable even if the lines are crooked (Mishneh Berurah 32:21).
because they are covered. - This explains why although a verse from the Torah must always be written on ruled parchment, we are not required to do so for tefillin.
Even though a mezuzah is also covered, ruling the parchment is required because it can be removed from its covering easily and must be checked twice in seven years. In contrast, there is no obligation to check tefillin and the parchments are almost never removed from their compartments (Kessef Mishneh, Rabbenu Nissim).
It is permissible to write tefillin and mezuzot without [looking at] an existent text, because everyone is familiar with these passages. - TheShulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 32:20, 29), however, emphasizes that one should carefully check the passages of the tefillin to make sure that they were written correctly. One who does not know the passages by heart should write from an existent text.
It is, however, forbidden to write even one letter of a Torah scroll without [looking at] an existent text. - Even a person who knows the passages by heart may err, because sometimes the spellings of words are different from their pronunciations (Megillah 18b).
The Siftei Cohen (Yoreh De'ah 274:3) quotes a difference of opinion among the Rabbis if, after the fact, it is permitted to use a Torah scroll that was not written from an existent text.
Commentary Halacha 13
A Torah scroll, tefillin, or mezuzah written by an apikoros - The phraseology used in this halachah is a matter of question. Though our texts follow the standard published texts of the Mishneh Torah, the authoritative manuscripts substitute the word min for apikoros.
The difference between the two versions is significant. In Hilchot Teshuvah 3:8, the Rambam defines an apikoros as a person who denies the Torah and/or the prophetic tradition, while in Hilchot Teshuvah 3:7, he describes a min as a person who does not believe in God. When a min writes a Torah scroll, the names of God it contains do not possess any holiness, because he does not believe in God at all. In contrast, since an apikoros does believe in God, were he to write a Torah scroll the names he writes would possess a certain dimension of holiness.
should be burned. - In Hilchot Yesodei Torah 6:8, the Rambam explains why burning such a scroll does not violate the prohibition against destroying God's name:
He does not believe in the sanctity of [God's] name and did not compose it for a sacred purpose. Rather, he considers this to be similar to any other text. Since this is his intent, the names [of God he writes] do not become holy.
Significantly, the Rambam does not state that we presume that the scribe had the intention that the name of God refer to a false deity. Note, however, the Rambam's statements in Hilchot Avodat Kochavim 2:5: "[It can be assumed that] a min's thoughts are concerned with false gods." Shulchan Aruch HaRav39:4 and the Mishnah Berurah 39:13 refer to the latter statement and explain that the passages should be burned, because the names of God refer to a false deity.
Shabbat 116a draws a parallel between the burning of such a Torah scroll and the scroll of a sotah (a woman accused of adultery). In the process of a sotah'strial, a scroll on which is written a passage containing God's name is blotted out. Our Sages conclude that just as God is willing to allow His name to be wiped out to establish peace between a man and his wife, so, too, He allows His name to be destroyed because of these individuals who disturb the peace that exists between Him and His people.
If they were written by a gentile, an apostate Jew, a person who betrays [the Jews] - or Jewish property
to a powerful person - It was quite common in the Second Temple period for Jews to betray their countrymen or their property to the Roman authorities. The severity of this transgression is emphasized by the Rambam, who includes amoseir in the 24 categories of individuals who do not have a portion in the world to come. (See Hilchot Teshuvah 3:6,12.)
Similarly, in Hilchot Chovel UMazik 8:10, the Rambam states that a moseir may be killed to prevent him from betraying a Jew's life or property to gentiles. Because of the severity of this transgression, the Rambam considers such an individual equivalent to an outright nonbeliever.
a slave, a woman, or a minor - This includes even a minor who has reached the age when he is trained to wear tefillin (Shulchan Aruch, Orach Chayim39:1).
they are not acceptable - for use
and must be entombed - lest they be used. (See Turei Zahav, Yoreh De'ah281:1.) Since there is a possibility that the names of God they contain were written with the proper intent (and hence, they would possess a dimension of holiness), they are not burned.
as [implied by Deuteronomy 6:8-9]: "And you shall tie... - tefillin
and you shall write" - a mezuzah.
[Our Sages - Gittin 45b
explain that this includes only] those who are commanded to tie [tefillin on their arms] - Thus excluding slaves, women and minors, as stated in Chapter 4, Halachah 13.
and those who believe in what they write. - Thus excluding Jews who do not believe in their heritage, gentiles, and mosrim.
The Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 39:2) states that anyone who is disqualified from writing tefillin is also disqualified from performing any other activity necessary to prepare them.
[Sacred articles] - Torah scrolls, tefillin, or mezuzot
which are found in the possession of an apikoros, and it is not known who wrote them - Since it is possible that the apikoros did not write them himself, they may not be burned. They, however,
should be entombed - and may not be used for sacred purposes, because it is possible that the apikoros (or one of his colleagues) wrote them.
Those which are found in the possession of a gentile - more precisely, the term kuti used by the Rambam means "Samaritan." At one point, the Samaritans converted and were considered to be Jews by the Sages. Towards the latter portion of the Second Temple period, it was discovered that they had remained idolaters. From that time onward, they were regarded as gentiles by the Sages, and the term kuti was used to refer to gentiles. (It must be noted that the authoritative manuscripts of the Mishneh Torah use the term goy, "gentile," rather than kuti.)
are kosher. - We presume that the gentile is offering sacred articles which he obtained from a Jew, and he did not make them himself.
The Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 39:6, Yoreh De'ah 281:1) quotes this opinion. Yoreh De'ah (loc. cit.), however, also mentions a conflicting opinion, which forbids scrolls possessed by gentiles to be used. The Mishnah Berurah39:16 explains that, at present, we can assume that the sacred articles are acceptable, because today a gentile would not know how to make them himself. Accordingly, we can assume that they were taken from a Jew.
Even the opinions which do not allow the sacred articles purchased from the gentiles to be used require that they be redeemed and entombed, because of our regard for the sacred articles and our fear that the gentiles would treat them sacrilegiously.
We should not, however, purchase Torah scrolls, tefillin, or mezuzot from gentiles for more than they are worth - The Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim39:7; Yoreh De'ah 281:1) suggests paying slightly more than their worth.
so that they do not become accustomed to stealing them. - The Sages feared that if the Jews redeemed these sacred articles from the gentiles at more than their market value, the gentiles would make special efforts to steal them in order to receive these higher prices.
Gittin 45a establishes a similar principle with regard to human captives, stating, "Captives should not be redeemed for more than their worth."
Commentary Halacha 14
In this halachah, the Rambam restates principles that he had stated previously. His intent is to explain that the requirements which he had mentioned are not merely matters of preference. Rather, if they are not met, the sacred articles are disqualified entirely. Even בדיעבד (after the fact), they are not acceptable.
A Torah scroll, tefillin, or mezuzah that was written on parchment from a non-kosher animal, beast, or fowl - See Halachah 10.
or on parchment that was not processed [properly, is not acceptable]. -See Halachot 6-7.
[Similarly,] a Torah scroll or tefillin that was written on parchment that was not processed with the intent to use it for these sacred purposes is not acceptable. - See Halachah 11.
Commentary Halacha 15
When a person writes a Torah scroll, tefillin, or mezuzah without having [the proper] intention - The Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 274:1) states that before a scribe writes a Torah scroll, he should state that he is writing it for the sake of the holiness of a Torah scroll. Making that statement at the outset is sufficient for the entire Torah scroll. If he fails to make this statement, the scroll is not acceptable. Similar rules apply to tefillin (Shulchan Aruch, Orach Chayim32:19) and mezuzot.
Rav Chayim Soloveitchik notes that this is not the Rambam's view. The phrasing of this halachah clearly implies that the Rambam does not consider the lack of proper intention when writing a Torah scroll sufficient to render it unacceptable. Thus, with regard to preparing the parchment, one is required to have the intent that it be used for the mitzvah, while that intent is not necessary when one is actually writing the scroll.
Rav Chayim differentiates between the two deeds as follows: Preparing the parchment is, in essence, a mundane act. Accordingly, the dimension of holiness that makes the parchment fit for use as a Torah scroll must be added by our intentions. In contrast, writing the scroll is, in essence, a holy act. Accordingly, there is no need for anything to be added by our intention.
should he write one of God's names without the desired intent - i.e., when writing God's name, one must be aware of its holiness and write it with that intent in mind. Note the passage from Hilchot Yesodei Torah 6:8 quoted in the commentary on Halachah 13.
The Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 32:19; Yoreh De'ah 276:2) states that one must write God's name with the intent of expressing its holiness.
they are not acceptable. - The Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah, loc. cit.) states that one must make a verbal statement of this intention. If not, the Torah scroll is unacceptable. The Siftei Cohen (276:1) differs and states that while making a verbal statement is preferable, as long as one intended to write the name with the desired intent, the Torah scroll may be used. The Ramah (Orach Chayim32:19) also states with regard to writing God's name in tefillin, that, if the scribe made a verbal statement that he is writing the Torah scroll for the desired pupose, after the fact, it is sufficient merely to have had the desired intent in mind when writing God's name without expressing it verbally.
Therefore, when a person is writing God's name, he should not reply even if the king of Israel - The Kessef Mishneh notes that the words "of Israel" are significant. A Jewish king is expected to comprehend the sanctity of a Torah scroll and, hence, will understand if he is not answered. Should a gentile king greet a scribe and his failure to answer create a threat to his life, he is allowed to reply.
greets him. - The Siftei Cohen (Yoreh De'ah 276:4) rules that if the scribe does reply, the Torah scroll is not disqualified.
If he is writing two or three names - in succession - e.g., "God is our Lord. God is one," in the Shema, where three names of God are written in succession.
he may interrupt between them and reply. - When he begins to write again, the scribe should state that he is writing the name to express God's holiness (Shulchan Aruch, Yoreh De'ah 276:3).
Commentary Halacha 16
[When a scribe] dips his pen [in ink] to write God's name, he should not begin [writing] one of the letters of God's name - lest too much ink collect on the pen and create an ink blot that must be rubbed out. In doing so, one might also rub out God's name. This is prohibited, as stated in Hilchot Yesodei HaTorah 6:1-2.
Rather, he should begin with the letter preceding [God's name]. - Thus, if an error occurs, God's name will not be effected.
If [a scribe] forgot to write God's name in its entirety, he may insert it in between the lines. - Pit'chei Teshuvah 273:6 suggests writing another word above the line together with God's name.
It is, however, unacceptable to have a portion of God's name on the line and a portion inserted [between the lines]. - From the Rambam's phraseology, it appears that even after the fact, the Torah scroll is not acceptable. Although this decision is accepted by the Turei Zahav (Yoreh De'ah276:4), the Bayit Chadash mentions a more lenient view.
With regard to other words, if one forgets, one may write half the word on the line and half above the line. - One should not, however, write the extra word in the margin between the columns of a Torah scroll (Shulchan Aruch, Yoreh De'ah 276:1).
When does the above apply? With regard to a Torah scroll. - Because there is no obligation that a Torah scroll be written in order. Indeed, one may intentionally write certain words or passages not in order.
In contrast, with regard to tefillin and mezuzot, one should not insert even one letter - of God's name or of any other word
[between the lines]. - The Jerusalem Talmud, Megillah 1:9, explains that a word cannot be inserted in the passages of tefillin and mezuzot. The commentaries explain that this is because these passages must be written ןרדסכ, "in order." If not, they are invalid. In this instance, the word which is inserted will not have been written in order.
Rather, if one forgets even one letter, one should entomb what one has written and write another one. - There is another alternative. One may rub out the words written after the omitted word (needless to say, provided that they do not include God's name), and then rewrite the words that were rubbed out.
It is permitted to write - any portion of a Torah scroll, even
God's name on [parchment where letters] have been scraped off - when the ink has dried
or rubbed out - while still moist. The Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 32:24) states that it is preferable to wait until the ink dries and then scrape the letters off, rather than rub them out while the ink is still moist. In the latter instance, a mark of the ink is still left. Though it does not disqualify the religious article, it is not attractive.
on all [of these sacred articles]. - See also Chapter 7, Halachah 13.
Commentary Halacha 17
Scribes who write Torah scrolls, tefillin, and mezuzot - and desire to protect their work from being exposed to dust or other factors
may not turn the parchment face down. - This does not show proper respect for the sacred articles (Eruvin 98a).
Rather, they should spread a cloth over them or fold them. - By no means, however, should they leave them open and uncovered, for this is also a sign of disrespect. The Bayit Chadash and the Siftei Cohen (Yoreh De'ah 277:1) extend this principle to all sacred texts, explaining that they should never be left open.
Commentary Halacha 18
[The following rule applies when] a scribe who wrote a Torah scroll,tefillin, or mezuzah states: "I did not write the names of God with the proper intent." - As mentioned in Halachah 15, if a scribe did not have the proper intent when writing one of God's names, the scroll is not acceptable.
Once they have left his hand - becoming the property of another individual
his statements are not believed with regard to the disqualification of the scroll. - The Siftei Cohen (Yoreh De'ah 281:9) states that this law applies only when the scribe was paid for his services. If he wrote the scroll as a favor, his word is not accepted and the scroll is not disqualified.
They are, however, accepted to the extent that he must forfeit his entire wage. - Gittin 54b states that he may not collect his entire wage minus the payment due him for the names of God, because a Torah scroll is worthless unless God's names were written with the proper intent.
The Ramah (Yoreh De'ah 281:4) states that the scribe does not forfeit his entire wage. Although he is not paid the fee due him for a Torah scroll, he still should be paid for producing a text of theChumash.
At that time, printing presses were uncommon and books were written as scrolls. Though such a scroll could not be used for a communal Torah reading, it would be useful for individual study. [Note the objections of the Turei Zahav(Yoreh De'ah 281:4) to this ruling.]
Why isn't he believed with regard to the disqualification of the scroll? Because it is possible that he wanted to cause a loss to the purchaser or to the person who hired him, thinking that - he would not suffer a major loss
with this statement all that he would be required to forfeit would be the payment for the names of God. - Hence, he was willing to suffer a loss of this nature in order to irritate the purchaser.
Accordingly, were he to say that the parchment of this Torah scroll ortefillin - The Rambam omits a mezuzah, since, as he states in Halachah 11, amezuzah need not be processed with a sacred intent in mind.
was not processed with the proper intent in mind - as required by Halachah 11
his statements are accepted with regard to the disqualification of the sacred articles because, [by virtue of these statements,] he forfeits his entire wage. - We assume that he would not be willing to suffer such a major loss only to cause difficulty to a colleague.
Everyone knows that if the parchments were not processed with the proper intent, he does not deserve any payment. - In this instance, as well, he deserves the remuneration appropriate for writing a scroll useful for individual study.
Commentary Halacha 19
Tefillin and mezuzot may be written only in Ashurit script. - This refers to the calligraphy used for the Hebrew alphabet that closely resembles the printed Hebrew we use today. One of the opinions mentioned in Sanhedrin 22a explains that this calligraphy was indigenous to the Jews, and the Torah itself was originally written in it. It was, nevertheless, not used by the Jews for an extended period until after the Babylonian exile, when it became the standard calligraphy for sacred writings.
In his Commentary on the Mishnah (Yadayim 4:5), the Rambam explains the latter opinion, stating that Ashurit means "the finest and most choice." This name was given to this calligraphy because:
It is the most choice calligraphy. Its characters are not interchangeable... nor do they resemble each other to the extent that doubt might arise.... This does not apply with regard to other scripts.
It was adopted by the Jewish people in the Babylonian exile after the destruction of the First Temple. In previous (and subsequent) generations, Hebrew was generally written with other characters.
Permission was granted to write Torah scrolls - This leniency was not extended with regard to tefillin and mezuzot. Megillah 9a derives this concept from the exegesis of Deuteronomy 6:6: "And these words shall be totafot...." Our Sages explain that the expression "shall be" implies that they shall remain unchanged from their Hebrew original.
in Greek as well. - From the Rambam's Commentary on the Mishnah, Megillah1:8, 2:1, it appears that the intent is not to write a Greek transliteration of the Hebrew, but rather a translation. The Rambam explains that the Septuagint - the translation of the Torah into Greek at the order of King Ptolemy (Megillah9a;Soferim 1:7) - had become popular. Hence, it was permitted to be used for a Torah scroll.
That Greek language has, however, been forgotten from the world. It has been confused and has sunk into oblivion. - I.e., contemporary Greek is very different from the classical tongue, to the extent that they can be considered to be two separate languages.
Therefore, at present, all three sacred articles may be written using Assyrian script alone. - Significantly, however, in Hilchot Megillah 2:3, the Rambam does not state that Greek is unacceptable at present. Note also Beit Yosef (Orach Chayim 690).
One must be precise while writing them, making sure that one letter does not become attached to another one, because any letter which is not surrounded by parchment - In our commentary on the following halachah, we discuss the laws governing a letter which is not surrounded by parchment because of a hole that is located on its border.
on all four sides - There is no minimum amount of space required to be left between letters. Furthermore, one must be careful not to leave too much space, to the extent that it appears that the word is divided in two (Shulchan Aruch, Yoreh De'ah 274:4).
is unacceptable. - If the letters are attached, however, the difficulty may be corrected and, afterwards, the sacred article may be used (Shulchan Aruch, Orach Chayim 32:18).
Any letter that cannot be read by a child who is neither wise nor foolish -This refers to a child who is able to recognize letters, but not words. Were he able to recognize words, one could assume that he might identify a letter, not by its shape, but because of the meaning of the word in which it is located (Rashi, Menachot 29b).
is not acceptable. - Tefillin and mezuzot must be written in order (Chapter 3, Halachah 5; Chapter 5, Halachah 1). Therefore, if a letter which cannot be recognized by a child is written in tefillin or mezuzot, the parchment may never be corrected. Changing the form of the letter is tantamount to rewriting it in its entirety (Shulchan Aruch, Orach Chayim 32:25).
Therefore, one must be careful with regard to the form of the letters - This applies not only when the sacred article was originally written, but throughout the time it is being used. If a portion of a letter cracks, fades, is rubbed out, or is torn, in a manner which alters its form, the sacred article is unacceptable.
See also the Tur, Shulchan Aruch, and commentaries (Orach Chayim 36) for a detailed description of the proper form for each letter.
so that a yud will not resemble a vav, nor a vav a yud; - These two letters are very similar, the difference between them being that the leg of the vav is extended and that of the yud is not. Therefore, if a scribe would write a yud with a long leg or a vav with a short leg, difficulties may arise.
a kaf should not resemble a beit, nor a beit a kaf; - The difference between these two letters is primarily in the lower right-hand corner. In a kaf this corner is rounded, while in a beit it is square. Hence, a scribe's imprecision could cause a difficulty.
a dalet should not resemble a resh, nor a resh a dalet. - The difference between these two letters is primarily in the upper right-hand corner. In a reshthis corner is rounded, while in a dalet it is square. Hence, in this instance as well, a scribe's imprecision could cause a difficulty.
[The same applies in] other similar instances. - Shabbat 103b mentions other pairs of letters which resemble each other, among them: a samech and a final mem, a zayin and a final nun, and a heh and a chet.
[The text must be written in a manner] that a reader will be able to read without difficulty. - Shabbat, loc. cit., breaks the word וכתבתם (Deuteronomy 6:9), which refers to the command to write a mezuzah, into two words, וכתב תם which mean, "And you shall write perfectly." Thus, the command to write amezuzah - and, by association, tefillin - also serves as an imperative requiring that the writing be precise.
Commentary Halacha 20
[The following rules apply to] parchment which has holes: One should not write over a hole. - Rashi, Shabbat 108a, associates this ruling with the interpretation, וכתב תם, quoted from Shabbat 103b above. Writing which is "perfect" should not be broken by holes in the parchment.
If, however, ink passes over the hole [without seeping through] - As long as no ink seeps through the parchment, the writing can be considered as "perfect."
the presence of the hole is of no consequence, and one may write upon it. - This applies even if there is a slight hole in the parchment which can be seen when the parchment is held up to light (Shulchan Aruch HaRav 32:17;Mishnah Berurah 32:32).
[The latter principle has ramifications in contemporary society. Today, many scribes check mezuzot and tefillin using light tables and/or magnifying glasses. The cracks or perforations they find in this manner are not significant and cannot disqualify a parchment.]
Accordingly, if the skin of a fowl - which has many small holes where its feathers were
has been processed, it is permissible to write upon it. - Nevertheless, it is not common for scribes to use parchment of this origin.
[The following rules apply] when a parchment becomes perforated after -Halachah 19 deals with the requirement that the letters be surrounded by parchment while they are being written. This halachah mentions the ruling when the perforation is made afterwards.
it has been written on: - Since, at the outset, the writing was "perfect," the parchment is not disqualified because of a hole of later origin. Nevertheless, as will be explained, there are other halachic difficulties involved.
If the perforation is within the inside of a letter - e.g., in the space inside a heh, inside a mem, or inside any of the other letters - it is acceptable. -According to the Rambam, the letter is acceptable even though the hole touches the letter itself. Although the previous halachah states that a letter must be surrounded by parchment on all sides, that statement refers only to the external perimeter of the letter. There is no obligation that the letter be surrounded by parchment on the inside.
The Shulchan Aruch, Orach Chayim 32:15, quotes the Rambam's opinion, but also mentions a passage from the Jerusalem Talmud (Megillah 1:9), which requires that the letter be surrounded by parchment on the inside as well. Most Ashkenazic halachic authorities suggest accepting the stringency of the Jerusalem Talmud's ruling.
Despite the fact that a leg of a letter becomes perforated to the extent that it becomes separated [into two portions], it is acceptable if: a) [the length of - the portion of
the leg] - which remains connected to the body of the letter
is equivalent to that of a small letter; - i.e., a yud.
In this context, Rabbenu Asher differentiates between the right and left legs of the heh. This distinction, however, is not accepted by the later authorities [Shulchan Aruch, Ramah, (Orach Chayim 32:15)].
and - if
b) the letter's [present form] - i.e., its upper portion
does not resemble another letter. - For example, when a perforation causes a vav to be separated into two portions, if its upper portion resembles a yud, it is unacceptable. If the length of the upper portion would prevent a child (see the previous halachah) from confusing it with a yud, it is acceptable.
If [the length of - the portion of
the leg] - which remains
is not equivalent to that of a small letter, it is - not large enough to be of consequence, and the letter is
not acceptable. - See also Beit Yosef (Orach Chayim 32).
Gerushin - Chapter One
Halacha 1
a) That a man must voluntarily initiate the divorce;
b) That he must effect the divorce by means of a written document and through no other means;
c) That this document must communicate that he is divorcing [his wife] and releasing her from his domain;
d) That it should utterly sever the connection between the husband and his wife;
e) That [the get] should be written for the sake [of the woman being divorced];
f) That once [the get] is written, there should be no action [necessary] except its transfer to the woman;
g) That he should actually transfer [the get] to her;
h) That he should transfer [the get] to her in the presence of witnesses;
i) That he should actually transfer it to her for the sake of divorce;
j) That the husband or his agent should be the one who gives it to her.
The other requirements of a get - e.g., dating it, having it signed by witnesses and the like - are all Rabbinic institutions.
Halacha 2
What are the sources that indicate that these ten requirements stem from Scripture itself? [They are derived from Deuteronomy 24:1, which] states: "And if it comes to pass that she does not find favor in his eyes, and he will write a bill of divorce for her, place it in her hand and send her from his home."
"If... she does not find favor in his eyes" - this indicates that he divorces her only on his own initiative. If a woman is divorced against her husband's will, the divorce is invalid. A woman may, however, be divorced either voluntarily or against her will.5
Halacha 3
"And he will write" - this teaches that a woman can be divorced only by means of a written document.
"For her" - that it should be written for her sake.
"A bill of divorce" - i.e., a deed that severs the relationship between [the husband and his wife], without leaving him any jurisdiction over her. If [the relationship] between them is not entirely severed, the divorce is not effective, as will be explained.6
"He will... place it in her hand" - this teaches that she is not divorced until the bill of divorce is placed in her hand, in the hand of her agent - which is considered to be her hand - or in her domain - which is considered to be her hand - as will be explained.7
"And he will... send her" - [the wording of] the get should indicate that he is sending her away and not that he is sending himself away from her.
Halacha 4
What is implied? If he writes to her: "Behold you are sent away," "Behold you are divorced," "You are [now] independent," "You are now permitted [to marry] any man," or the like, the divorce is effective. The essence [of the text] of a getis the statement: "You are now permitted to [marry] any man."
If, by contrast, he writes to her: "I am no longer your husband," "I am no longer the one who consecrates you," or "I am no longer your man," the divorce is not effective. For "and he will... send her" implies that he should not send himself away from her.
Similarly, if a man writes to his wife: "Behold you are free," the divorce is not effective.8
Halacha 5
The Torah's expression, "And he will... send her from his home," does not mean that the divorce does not become effective until she leaves his home. Instead, the divorce becomes effective when the get reaches [a woman's] hand, even though she still is in her husband's home, as will be explained.9 "And he will... send her" teaches that if he divorces her, but does not send her away from his home, it is as if he divorced her and then remarried [her]. Therefore, she requires another get, as will be explained.10
Halacha 6
What is the source that teaches that once [the get] is written, there should be no action [necessary] except its transfer? The [sequence of the verbs] "And he will write..., [and] place," indicating that a get is acceptable only when [the only things] lacking are writing and transfer. This excludes an article that must be detached after it has been written.11
Therefore, if a man writes a get on the horn of a cow, he must give [his wife] the cow [for the divorce to be effective]. If he cut off the horn after he wrote [the get] on it, it is not effective. Similarly, if he wrote [a get] on a plant that was still attached to its source of nurture, the divorce is not effective.12 [This applies] even if the witnesses signed after it was detached.
Halacha 7
We may not even write the standard text13 of [a get] on an article that is attached to its source of nurture.
If [a scribe] writes the standard text of [a get] on an article that is attached to its source of nurture, and detaches it and afterwards writes the names of the husband and the wife, the date14 and the words, "Behold, you are permitted [to marry] any man," and the witnesses signed and it was given to her, it is acceptable.15
Halacha 8
If the husband writes the get on a leaf growing in a flowerpot with a hole at the bottom, the get is unacceptable, even if he gives her the entire flowerpot. [This is] a decree, [lest] one detach [the leaf].16 He may, however, write [the get] on the pottery of the flowerpot and give it to her.
Halacha 9
What is the source that teaches that [the get] must be given to her for the sake of divorce? It is written: "... a bill of divorce for her, place it in her hand," [implying that] he must place [it in her hand] for the sake of divorce. If, however, he gave it to her as a promissory note or as a mezuzah,17 or he placed it in her hand while she was sleeping, and she awoke and [discovered] it in her hand, the get is void.18 If, however, he told her afterwards, "Behold this is your get, the divorce is effective.19
Halacha 10
[The above principle must be clarified in the context of the following law.] A man tells witnesses, "See the get I am giving her," and then he tells [his wife]: "Take this promissory note," [the get] is effective. For he has told the witnesses that he was giving it to her for the sake of divorce. He told her that it was a promissory note only because he was embarrassed [to face] her.20
Halacha 11
At the time he gives the get, [a man who] divorces [his wife] must tell her: "Behold, your get," or "This is your get," or the like. If he places the get in her hand without saying anything, the get is not acceptable.21
When does the above apply? When the husband was not speaking to her about divorce [immediately beforehand]. If, however, he had been speaking to her about divorce [at the time], and he takes the get and places it in her hand without saying anything, the divorce is acceptable.
Halacha 12
[The following rules apply when] a get has been placed on the ground, and [the husband] tells [his wife], "Pick your get up from the ground," or it was tied to his hand or to his thigh, and she takes it from him. Even if after it reaches her possession, he tells her, "Behold this is your get," it is void.
[The rationale is] that it is written: "And he will... place it in her hand," [implying] that she may not take it on her own accord.22 And [in these instances,] neither [the husband] nor his agent gave it to her.
Halacha 13
What is the source that teaches that [a get] must be given in the presence of witnesses? [Deuteronomy 19:16] states: "According to the words of two witnesses or those of three witnesses will the matter be established."
It is impossible that on one day a woman will be considered to be forbidden and sexual relations with her punishable by execution, and on the next day she should be permitted [to any man] unless [the divorce is observed by] witnesses.26
Therefore, if [a husband] gives [his wife] a get in private, or even if the exchange is observed by one witness, the divorce is utterly void.27
Halacha 14
Halacha 15
It is an ordinance [enacted] by our Sages that witnesses should sign a get, lest a [husband] give [his wife] a get in the presence of two [witnesses], and they die.32 [In such an instance,] the get she possesses is no more than a shard, for there are no witnesses [to testify to its authenticity]. [To prevent such a situation, our Sages] ordained that the testimony [regarding the authenticity of the get should be contained] within it.
Although witnesses [have signed] within, [the husband] must give [the get] to [his wife] in the presence of two [witnesses] - whether the same witnesses who signed it or two others. For in essence, divorce is established by virtue of the witnesses [who observe] the transfer [of the get].
Halacha 16
When two witnesses sign [the get], and [the husband] transgresses and gives [the get] to [his wife] in private, or if it is discovered that the witnesses [who observed] the transfer [of the get] were unsuitable,33 the divorce is effected.34For the witnesses [who signed the get] are acceptable, and the get exists in the woman's possession. Some of the geonim have ruled that [the get] is unacceptable.35
Halacha 17
If the witnesses [who signed the get] are unsuitable - or even if one was unsuitable and one was acceptable - and [the husband] gave it to her in the presence of two acceptable witnesses, [the get] is unacceptable. It is as if it were a forgery.36
Halacha 18
If the witnesses signed [the get at a position] more than two lines away from the text [of the get], it is unacceptable.
How far may the witnesses sign away from the text? Less than two lines, so that their [names] will be read together with [the text].
When does the [disqualification] mentioned above apply? When the get is in the woman's possession, and there are no witnesses [who observed its] transfer. If, however, [the husband] gave [his wife the get] in the presence of witnesses, [the get] is acceptable even if the witnesses'[signatures] are far removed from the text.37 [Moreover, this ruling applies] even when there were not any witnesses who signed [the get]. For in essence, divorce is effected by virtue of the witnesses [who observe] the transfer [of the get].
Halacha 19
It is required to read the get [aloud] in the presence of the witnesses who observe its transfer.38 Afterwards, it should be given to her. If it was given to her in their presence first, it should be taken from her and read [aloud] after it was given to her.39
[The following rule applies when the witnesses] read [the get] while it is the possession of the husband or his agent, and they return it to him. If he encloses it within his hand, [obscuring it from the witnesses' view] and then gives it to her, they should read it again.40
Halacha 20
[In the latter instance,] if they did not read it, and it is taken and thrown into the sea or into a fire, the divorce is effective. Since [the witnesses] read it first, we do not suspect that it was exchanged [for another document]. Moreover, even if the husband said, "It was another document [that I gave her] and not the getthat you read," his word is not accepted and the divorce is effective.
Halacha 21
Halacha 22
If he threw the get into [the woman's] courtyard,43 among barrels in the presence of witnesses,44 and when they looked for it they found a mezuzah or another document, we do not suspect that she [has been divorced]. [We assume that] the article that was found was the one that was thrown.
If two or three mezuzot or documents were discovered there, and we suspect that perhaps he threw a get and it was dragged away by mice, the status of the woman's divorce is in doubt.45
Halacha 23
The witnesses who sign the get must know how to read and sign [their names]. If they do not know how to read, we read [the get] in their presence,46 and they sign, provided they understand the wording of the get.47
If they do not know how to sign [their names], we write out their signatures for them on the paper with spittle or with other substances that will not leave a permanent mark,48 and they sign [their names] over these markings.49
This practice is not followed with regard to other legal documents. It is a leniency adopted with regard to bills of divorce, so that Jewish women will not be forced to live without a marriage partner.50 [This leniency is granted] because the signature of witnesses on a bill of divorce is a Rabbinic institution, as we have explained.51
Halacha 24
Although the signature of witnesses on a bill of divorce is a Rabbinic institution,52 our Sages ordained that the witnesses state their names in theget.53
Similarly, they ordained that the witnesses to the get must sign in the presence of each other. If either signed without the other, [the get] is unacceptable.54
Similarly, our Sages ordained that the date of a get and the place where it was written be recorded [within it], as is required with regard to other legal documents.55 [This was required] lest one's wife also be one's relative and she commit adultery. [Because of the husband's feelings for his wife,] he [might conceivably] write her a get after she had committed adultery and give it to her. If the get was not dated, she could say: "I was divorced before I committed adultery."56 [To prevent this from happening, our Sages] ordained that gittin be dated.
Halacha 25
In all the following instances, [the get] is unacceptable: a) a get signed by witnesses that is not dated, b) one that is predated,57 or postdated,58 c) one that was written during the day and signed on the following night;59 this applies even if they remained involved with the matter [of the divorce until the get was signed],60 d) the get was written in Jerusalem and [the scribe] erred and wrote [that it was written] in Lod.61
[For a get to be acceptable,] it is necessary that it be signed at the time it was written and in the place where it was written.
Halacha 26
A get is acceptable if [the husband] cut off [the portion of the get that contained] the date and gave it to her,62 or did not write the date, merely [the week - i.e.,] the first or the second week of a given month, or he specified merely the month or [merely] the year without mentioning the month, or even if he specified merely the seven-year cycle63 [in which the get was composed].
Similarly, a get is acceptable if [the husband] writes within it: "Today I divorced her." This implies the day on which the get was released.
Halacha 27
Similarly, [our Sages] ordained that the year of the ruling kingdom of that time should be mentioned in a get to gain the favor of the ruling authorities.64
[The following rules apply if] a person writes a get and dated it according to the years of a kingdom other [than that of his locale] or according to the years beginning from the Temple's construction or destruction. If it is customary for people in that locale to date [their documents] in this manner, it is acceptable. If this is not the local custom, it is unacceptable.
It has already become the universal Jewish custom to date gittin from the time of creation,65 or from the crowning of Alexander the Great, which is [the accepted means of dating] for legal documents.66 If one dates [a get] according to the years of a contemporary kingdom, it is acceptable only in the country over which that kingdom rules.
Halacha 28
[The following rules apply when] a person tells two [colleagues]: "Write a get for my wife, sign it and give it to her," and the matter was delayed several days or years, or the get was [discovered to contain an imperfection causing it] to be [considered] void, and it was necessary to write a new get that was acceptable, as will be explained.67 In such an instance, the date and the place when and where the get was written are recorded, and not the date and place when and where the husband told them to compose the get.
What is implied? If the husband told them [to write the get] in Jerusalem, in [the month of] Tishrei, and [the agents] delayed and did not write it until Nisan, at which time they were located in Lod, the get should be dated in Nisan, and Lod [should be recorded as its place], for this is where the get was written. [This is also the practice] with regard to other legal documents.68
| FOOTNOTES | |
| 1. |
In the Guide for the Perplexed (Vol. III, Chapter 49), the Rambam explains a rationale for this mitzvah. If it were possible to effect a divorce through speech alone, a woman might commit adultery and then try to free herself of liability by claiming that she had been divorced previously. Requiring a written bill of divorce prevents such a possibility from arising.
|
| 2. |
The word get is Aramaic for legal document, and indeed when accompanied by a modifier is used to refer to other types of legal documents. Nevertheless, the most common use of the word is within the context of divorce, and when the term get appears without a modifier, it generally refers to a bill of divorce. (See the Rambam's Commentary on the Mishnah, Gittin 2:5.)
|
| 3. |
Sefer HaMitzvot (Positive Commandment 222) and Sefer HaChinuch (Mitzvah 579) consider this to be one of the 613 mitzvot of the Torah.
The intent is not that it is a mitzvah to divorce one's wife, but rather that if a man does desire to divorce his wife, it is a mitzvah for him to follow the rules prescribed by the Torah. To cite a parallel example: There is not a mitzvah to eat meat. If, however, one does desire to eat meat, it is a mitzvah to have the animal slaughtered according to the rules prescribed by the Torah.
|
| 4. |
The details of all these principles are described in the halachot and chapters that follow.
|
| 5. |
This is the law as prescribed by Scriptural and Talmudic law. Nevertheless, Rabbenu Gershom, one of the Sages who laid the foundations for Ashkenazi custom and tradition, ordained that, except in several unique instances, a man may not divorce his wife without her consent. This practice is followed universally within the Ashkenazi community (Ramah, Even HaEzer 119:6) and has been accepted by many Sephardim as well.
|
| 6. |
See Chapter 8, Halachah 2.
|
| 7. |
See Chapter 5, Halachah 1.
|
| 8. |
This wording is used in the deed freeing a slave from servitude and is not appropriate with regard to a woman's divorce.
|
| 9. |
See Chapter 5, Halachah 8.
|
| 10. |
See Chapter 10, Halachah 18.
|
| 11. |
See Shulchan Aruch (Even HaEzer 124:3), which states that the scribe should cut the paper or parchment used for the get to the right size before writing it. If he cuts it to size after he writes it, it is not acceptable according to Rabbinic law.
|
| 12. |
Even if the man gives the woman the entire plant and the land on which it grows, the divorce is void (Shulchan Aruch, Even HaEzer 124:4).
|
| 13. |
I.e., the standard text of the get, leaving blank places for the name of the man, his wife, the date and the line that states: "Behold, you are free to [marry] any man." See Chapter 3, Halachah 7.
|
| 14. |
The date of the get is only a Rabbinic requirement. Nevertheless, if it is written while the get is still attached, the get is not acceptable according to Rabbinic law.
|
| 15. |
I.e., at the outset, one should not write any portion of the get while it is attached to its source of nurture. After the fact, as long as the fundamental elements of the get were written after it was detached, it is acceptable.
|
| 16. |
The Chelkat Mechokek 124:12 and the Beit Shmuel 124:12 both emphasize that the term "unacceptable" - pasul in Hebrew - implies that while the get is acceptable according to Scriptural law, it is unacceptable according to Rabbinic decree. Accordingly, they explain that this law applies when there is an interruption between the flowerpot and the earth. If there is no interruption, the get is void according to Scriptural law, because when a flowerpot has a hole at its base, it is considered as though it were attached to the ground.
Similarly, according to the Chelkat Mechokek 124:13, even when a get is written on the leaves of a plant growing in a flowerpot that does not have a hole at its base, the get is unacceptable according to Rabbinic decree.
|
| 17. |
From this and the following halachah, it appears that the Rambam maintains that it is sufficient that the husband state his intent to the witnesses; the woman need not know that she is being divorced. Tosafot (Gittin 78a, quoted by the Ramah in Even HaEzer 136:5) states that although the woman need not be informed by her husband at the time the get is given, she must be informed by the witnesses afterwards, or in some way have this matter made known to her. The commentaries question whether or not the Rambam differs with this view.
|
| 18. |
With regard to the latter instance, the Shulchan Aruch (Even HaEzer 138:3) states that even if he tells the witnesses: "See the get that I am giving her," the divorce is void.
From this clause, it appears that, in addition to the husband's intent, the Rambam requires that the woman take an active part in receiving the get, even if she is not totally aware of what it is.
|
| 19. |
According to Rav David Arameah, this clause applies to all the instances mentioned in the halachah.
|
| 20. |
We accept this rationale and do not say that he nullified the get with his statements.
|
| 21. |
As mentioned previously, the word pasul generally means "unacceptable according to Rabbinic decree." (See Chapter 2, Halachah 7; Chapter 10, Halachah 2.) In this instance, however, there are authorities who maintain that the Rambam's intent is that the get is utterly void. The Tur (Even HaEzer 136) and Rabbenu Nissim indeed rule in that manner.
The Beit Shmuel 136:1, however, explains that the get itself indicates the purpose for which it is given. Hence, in contrast to kiddushin (Hilchot Ishut 3:8), even if it is given in silence, it is acceptable according to Scriptural law and disqualified only by the Rabbis.
|
| 22. |
See Chapter 2, Halachah 1, where the Rambam states this explicitly.
|
| 23. |
Based on Gittin 78a, Rabbenu Asher offers a slightly different conception of the activity necessary for a husband to perform so that helping his wife take the get is considered "giving." The Shulchan Aruch (Even HaEzer 138:1) quotes both views, but appears to favor that of Rabbenu Asher.
|
| 24. |
Based on the Rambam's Commentary on the Mishnah (Gittin 8:2), it appears that this statement must be made in the process of transferring the get, and not afterwards.
|
| 25. |
For he has performed an action making it easier for her to take the get.
|
| 26. |
The transition of a woman from a state where she is forbidden to one in which she is permitted is one of the "matters" referred to in the above verse.
|
| 27. |
The commentaries explain that there is a fundamental difference between the function of witnesses in cases involving financial matters and their function with regard to marriage and divorce. With regard to financial matters, the function of witnesses is to clarify the truth (eidei berur). With regard to marriage and divorce, by contrast, the witnesses' function is to notarize the event (eidei kiyyum). For a marriage bond to be established - or broken - even when the husband and wife agree that the event took place, witnesses must observe the proceedings (Tumim 90:14;Tzafenat Paneach; K'lallei HaTorah).
|
| 28. |
And not signed by the scribe. If the scribe also signs the get, the signature of one witness is enough for the get to be acceptable according to the Rambam. (See the notes on Chapter 2, Halachah 2.)
|
| 29. |
According to Scriptural law, the get is acceptable, for the husband's writing is equivalent to the testimony of one hundred witnesses. It is unacceptable only because of a Rabbinic decree. Indeed, even if the witness did not sign the get, the exact same laws would apply. The Rambam mentions the signature of the get by a witness only to clarify that, even with such a signature - in contrast to a get signed by a scribe and another witness - the get is still disqualified by the Rabbis (Beit Yosef, Even HaEzer 130).
|
| 30. |
In such an instance, if the woman transgresses this Rabbinic prohibition and marries again on the basis of this get, she is allowed to remain married. Other authorities, however, maintain that since the get was given without being observed by witnesses, it is void according to Scriptural law, and the woman must leave her second husband (Beit Shmuel 130:31).
|
| 31. |
Although present in the standard texts of the Mishneh Torah, this phrase is lacking in the authoritative manuscripts and early printings of the text. The Kessef Mishneh states that it is self-evident from the previous clause, and therefore is most likely a printer's addition. For this reason, we have set it off in braces.
|
| 32. |
Gittin 34b, 36a explains that there is a difference of opinion between Rabbi Eliezer and Rabbi Meir. Rabbi Eliezer maintains, as stated here by the Rambam, that the fundamental requirement for witnesses is with regard to the witnesses who observe the transfer of the get. The signing of theget by witnesses is merely a Rabbinic ordinance. Rabbi Meir, by contrast, maintains that the fundamental requirement is for the witnesses to sign the get. Most authorities follow the perspective of Rabbi Eliezer. The Beit Shmuel maintains, however, that a priori, the perspective of Rabbi Meir should also be respected.
At present, the custom is that the witnesses who sign the get also observe its transfer (Ramah,Even HaEzer 130:1).
|
| 33. |
I.e., they were deemed unworthy of serving as witnesses because of family ties to the couple, their violation of Scriptural law or other reasons, as detailed in Hilchot Edut, Chapters 9-16).
|
| 34. |
This ruling indicates that although Rabbi Eliezer places an emphasis on the witnesses who observe the transfer of the get, he does not negate the effect of the signature of the get by witnesses.
|
| 35. |
The Beit Shmuel 133:3 notes that Tosafot and Rabbenu Asher maintain that such a get is utterly void. He questions why the Rambam states that this opinion considers it unacceptable merely according to Rabbinic decree. If Rabbi Eliezer does not accept the signature of witnesses as sufficient, seemingly the get would be of no consequence whatsoever, not merely disqualified by the Sages.
|
| 36. |
Gittin 4a explains that even Rabbi Eliezer, who puts the emphasis on the witnesses who observe the transfer of the get, would disqualify such a get. Although - as stated in the following halachah, a get that was not signed by any witnesses is acceptable - when it is signed by unsuitable witnesses, it is not.
|
| 37. |
The Ra'avad states that if such a get were given, it would be unacceptable despite the fact that witnesses observed its transfer. Many authorities, however, follow the Rambam's view. (See Ramah, Even HaEzer 130:1.)
The Beit Shmuel 130:3 questions the Rambam's decision, noting that in Hilchot Malveh V'Loveh27:5, the Rambam states that a contract of loan is invalid if the witnesses sign more than two lines away from the text, and he does not mention the option of making it acceptable by giving it in the presence of witnesses. He explains that laws regarding business contracts differ, because they must serve as proof over an extended period of time.
Kin'at Eliyahu explains that this explanation is supported by the distinction between the role of witnesses with regard to marriage and divorce, and their role with regard to business agreements mentioned in the notes on Halachah 13. Since the role of witnesses in business agreements is to clarify the terms of the agreement, such a document is not acceptable, because particulars can be added. With regard to marriage and divorce, by contrast, the witnesses' function is merely to notarize the event, and this is accomplished by the witnesses who observe the transfer of the get.
|
| 38. |
Since the witnesses who observe the transfer of the get are essential for the divorce to be effective, they must know that the document transferred is in fact a get (Beit Shmuel 135:1).
|
| 39. |
The Ramah (Even HaEzer 135:1) states that it is customary to read the get aloud both before and after it is given.
|
| 40. |
After quoting this law, the Shulchan Aruch (Even HaEzer 135:2) states that if the husband manifests possession of the get after giving a document of unknown contents to the woman, his word is accepted if she has not remarried already. If, however, she has remarried, his word is not accepted.
|
| 41. |
A second get is necessary. Even if the woman remarries, she must leave her second husband, as explained in Chapter 10, Halachah 3.
|
| 42. |
With regard to this, Gittin 19b states: "Just as his statements are not acceptable to cause her to be forbidden, they are not acceptable to cause her to be permitted."
|
| 43. |
Placing the get in a domain belonging to the woman is equivalent to placing it in her hand.
|
| 44. |
This instance also describes a situation in which the witnesses have not read the get. If they have read the get, the woman's status is in doubt, and we suspect that she has been divorced (Shulchan Aruch, Even HaEzer 135:5).
|
| 45. |
Since he threw only one document and others were discovered, we cannot say with assurance that the article discovered was the one thrown.
|
| 46. |
The present custom is that both of the witnesses and the Rabbi arranging the divorce read the get(Shulchan Aruch, Even HaEzer 154; Seder HaGet 66).
|
| 47. |
In the Kessef Mishneh and the Beit Yosef (Even HaEzer 130), Rav Yosef Karo explains that the Rambam maintains that if the witnesses do not understand the wording of the get, the divorce is not effective. There is no option of translating it for them, for a witness must have first-hand experience of the matter concerning which he testifies. Hearing its translation from another person would be considered second-hand experience. The Beit Shmuel 130:27, however, quotes other opinions that do not accept this understanding.
|
| 48. |
If, however, a permanent mark would be left, it is forbidden, for writing that covers an existing text is inadmissible.
|
| 49. |
The Ramah (Even HaEzer 130:16) states that this is not acceptable, and instead stencils for the witnesses' signature should be made.
|
| 50. |
We fear that the woman's husband will leave for a foreign country without giving her a divorce, or that he will die and she will be forced to perform either yibbum or chalitzah (Gittin 19a).
|
| 51. |
Halachah 15 above. I.e., if the matter were a point of Scriptural law, there would not be room for such leniency.
|
| 52. |
Generally, we follow the principle אין גוזרין גזרה לגזרה - i.e., a second Rabbinic safeguard is never attached to the first one. In these instances, however, an exception is made. Although the requirement for witnesses to sign a get is itself Rabbinic in origin, several safeguards were attached to facilitate the divorce laws.
|
| 53. |
I.e., originally the witnesses would sign, "I sign as a witness," without mentioning their names. This made the verification of their signatures a very difficult process. Therefore, our Sages required that they mention their names (Rashi, Gittin 36a).
|
| 54. |
Chapter 9, Halachah 29 explains, based on Gittin 10b, that this decree was instituted lest a husband tell a group of people that they should all act as witnesses, in which case each of them would be obligated to sign the get. Such a get would look acceptable if signed by only two witnesses, but in fact would not be acceptable. To prevent such a circumstance from arising, our Sages required that all the witnesses sign in the presence of each other.
|
| 55. |
See Hilchot Malveh V'Loveh 23:6.
|
| 56. |
This would enable her to avoid receiving the death penalty. The Jerusalem Talmud (Gittin 4:3) records that such an incident did in fact take place.
|
| 57. |
I.e., the get was written in Kislev and dated in Marcheshvan. This would allow for the difficulty mentioned in the previous halachah and notes.
According to Rabbenu Asher, despite the fact that the requirement is Rabbinic in origin, a get that is predated is void entirely (bateil), not merely unacceptable (pasul). The Ramah (Even HaEzer127:2) quotes a third opinion, which states that even though the get is pasul, the second husband is required to divorce her, but she is forbidden to remarry her first husband.
The Rambam does not consider predated a get that was not given to the woman on the day it was written, as reflected in Chapter 2, Halachah 2. Other authorities differ, and their opinion is accepted by the Shulchan Aruch (Even HaEzer 127:5), which states that a get that was not given on the day it was written is acceptable only when given by an agent.
|
| 58. |
E.g., the get was written in Kislev and dated in Tevet.
In this instance, the Ra'avad differs with the Rambam and maintains that a postdated get is acceptable. There are two reasons given by Rav Yosef Karo in the Kessef Mishneh to justify the Rambam's decision:
a) This could also be used as a cover-up, as explained in the previous halachah. For if we see that the date of the get is incorrect, we would disregard the date and consider the get as if it had no date at all.
b) The woman would not receive the rights to her property when due her. As long as she is married, her husband is entitled to the benefits from her property, but not after divorce. Postdating the get would entitle him to benefits beyond what is due him.
Tosafot agree with the Ra'avad that a postdated get is acceptable, but unlike the Ra'avad, maintain that the get is not effective until the date mentioned within. The Shulchan Aruch (Even HaEzer 127:9) mentions both the views of Tosafot and of the Rambam, but appears to favor that of Tosafot.
|
| 59. |
The Shulchan Aruch (Even HaEzer 127:2) mentions an opinion that states that in extenuating situations - e.g., when the woman has already remarried, or her husband has gone overseas - such a get is acceptable. The Beit Shmuel states that under such circumstances a get is acceptable, even if it is signed several days after it was written.
|
| 60. |
Other legal documents, by contrast, are acceptable if the principals were involved in the discussion of the matter that extended from the afternoon until after nightfall. For from the time the contract was written, it was a matter of public knowledge (Beit Shmuel 127:3).
|
| 61. |
The Shulchan Aruch (Even HaEzer 128:1) differs and states that what is of fundamental importance is the place where the get was signed, and not the place where it was written. It is, however, customary for it to be written and signed in the same place. See also Chapter 7, Halachah 11.
Our translation of the paragraph to follow is based on the interpretation of the Lechem Mishneh. The Maggid Mishneh follows a slightly different perspective.
|
| 62. |
The Rambam appears to follow Rabbenu Chanan'el's interpretation of Gittin 17b, that our Sages did not suspect that a person would attempt a deception of such a scale to deceive the court. Therefore, the get is acceptable. Rashi and others explain that when saying "our Sages did not suspect that a person would not attempt such large scale deception," the Talmud explains why this instance is not mentioned in the mishnah discussed beforehand. It should not be interpreted to mean that the get is acceptable.
The Shulchan Aruch (Even HaEzer 127:8) mentions both views, but appears to favor that of the Rambam. The Beit Shmuel 127:14, however, states that most authorities accept Rashi's view.
|
| 63. |
In this context, Gittin 17b explains that even in this instance, the date of the get - though imprecise - is somewhat useful: it excludes the time before or after the time period mentioned. Even when the date of the month is mentioned, the time is not pinpointed exactly, because the woman could have committed adultery in the morning and received the get in the afternoon. Therefore, even these less precise dates are also acceptable.
The Beit Shmuel 127:12 explains that a get that was predated or postdated is unacceptable because the date is false, not merely imprecise. In the former instances, although there is imprecision, there is no falsehood.
|
| 64. |
I.e., dating our legal documents according to the rulers' years indicates the rulers' importance (Rashi, Gittin 80a).
|
| 65. |
This is the present custom. The practice of dating documents according to the years of the gentile rulers was discontinued because those rulers ceased to attach importance to the matter.
|
| 66. |
Alexander's kingdom began 3450 years after creation. Since it encompassed the entire Western world, it provided a uniform dating pattern for people throughout the world. It is, however, no longer customary to date legal documents in this manner.
|
| 67. |
See Chapter 2, Halachah 8.
|
| 68. |
See Hilchot Malveh V'Loveh 23:6.
|
Gerushin - Chapter Two
Halacha 1
The Torah's statement [Deuteronomy 24:1], "And he will write a bill of divorce for her and place it in her hand," refers both to [a husband] who writes [the get] with his own hand and to one who tells [another person] to write it for him. Similarly, [the husband] may place it in her hand or tell an agent to give it to her.1
The verse states, "And he will write," only to teach that divorce is effective only through the medium of a written document. "And [he will] place it" teaches that the woman may not take [the get] herself.
Halacha 2
When [a husband] tells two [colleagues]: "Write a get, sign it, and give it to my wife," the two may write it, sign it,2 and give it to her. They are [the husband's] agents [for the divorce], and they are the witnesses [to it].3
Similarly, if [the husband] tells a scribe: "Write a get for my wife for me," and he tells the witnesses to sign, the get may be written, signed and given to [the husband]. He may use it to divorce his wife whenever he desires.4
Halacha 3
We may write a get for a man even when he is not accompanied by his wife, provided the witnesses and the scribe who wrote and signed [the get] know the identity of the man and his wife.5
If there are two men in a city whose names are the same and whose wives' names are the same, one may divorce his wife only in the presence of the other. [This safeguard was enacted] lest one [of the men] have a get written and give it to the wife of the other man, causing her to [be considered] to be divorced from [her husband].6
Halacha 4
Halacha 5
The husband himself must tell the scribe to write [the get] and the witnesses to sign [it]. When a court of law9 or two [colleagues] ask a man: "Shall we write aget for your wife?" and he tells them to write [it and sign it],10 it is acceptable if they themselves write [the get] and sign it.
If, however, they tell a scribe [to write] and he does, and they tell witnesses [to sign] and they do, the get is void, because it was written by someone who was not told to write it by the husband himself.11 [This ruling applies] even when they give [the get] to the husband, who in turn gives it to his wife in the presence of witnesses.12
Halacha 6
When [a man] tells two or three [colleagues]: "Tell a scribe to write a get for my wife and tell the witnesses to sign," and they convey these instructions, the getis unacceptable.13[The same ruling applies if the husband] tells two [colleagues] to tell a scribe to write a get and tells them to sign it.14
This matter should be deliberated upon at length, because the get is close to being considered void.15
Halacha 7
What is the difference between the terms "unacceptable" (pasul) and "void" (bateil)? Whenever this text refers to a get as "void," that means that according to Scriptural law it is void. Whenever the term "unacceptable" is used, it refers to a get deemed unacceptable by Rabbinic decree.16
Halacha 8
When a husband brings a get that has been signed in his hand and tells [two colleagues]: "Give this get to my wife," they should give it to her [and it is acceptable].17
If he tells others to write a get, sign it and give to his wife, and they write it, sign it and give it to her, and then it is discovered that the get is void or unacceptable, they may write another get - or even 100 other gittin - until the woman receives an acceptable get.18
Halacha 9
If the husband tells [two colleagues]: Write and sign [a get] and give it to an agent to bring to her, and they do as they were charged, but it was discovered that the get was void or unacceptable, they may not write another [get] until they consult the husband.
[The rationale is] that [the husband] did not charge them with [effecting the divorce]. Perhaps he wanted merely that they write [the get] and give it to the agent. [If so, their agency was completed,] and nothing remains for them to do, for they have written it and given it [to the agent]. Therefore, they should not write another [get].19
If they do write another get that is acceptable and give it to the agent - who in turn gives it to the wife - the status of the divorce is in doubt.20
Halacha 10
When a person tells two or more [colleagues]: "Write a get and give to my wife," "Divorce her," "Send her away," "Release her,"21 "Discharge her," or "Write a letter and give it to her," [the colleagues] should write an acceptable get and give it to her.
Halacha 11
If he tells them: "Get her out," "Let her go," "Permit her [to remarry]," "Let her be," "Assist her," there is doubt whether or not these terms imply that she should be divorced or whether they have another meaning. Therefore, [these individuals] should not write [a get] for her. If they write a get and give it to her, the status of the divorce is in doubt.
Halacha 12
When [a man] says: "Write a get for my wife," [the people he addresses] should write the get, sign it and give it to him. They should not give it to the woman unless he tells them to. If they do give it to the woman, the get is not [effective].24
When does the above apply? With regard to a healthy man. If, however, a man is dangerously ill - i.e., he suddenly falls sick and his illness rapidly becomes very severe - or if he is being led away in chains,25 even for financial matters, or he departs on an ocean journey, or he departs with a caravan [on a desert journey] and he says, "Write a get for my wife," they should write it, sign it and give it to her. For it is clear that his intent was that they should write the get and give it to her.26
Halacha 13
[The following rules apply when] a healthy person says: "Compose a get for my wife," and [his listeners] write a get, sign it and give it to her. If he commits suicide immediately thereafter - e.g., he throws himself down from a roof or jumps into the sea - the get is acceptable.27
If, however, he climbs up onto a [high] roof, and he is buffeted by the wind until he falls and dies, the get is void.28 If there is doubt whether he threw himself down [from the roof] or was buffeted by the wind, the get is valid unless it becomes known with certainty that he was buffeted by the wind.29
Similarly, if a man was cast into a pit and he said, "Whoever hears my voice should write a get for my wife," [his listeners] should write a get and give it to her, provided they recognize his identity.30 Even if [afterwards,] they took him out of the pit and could not identify him,31 [the divorce] is acceptable. For in time of danger, [a get] can be written and given to [a man's wife] even if they do not know his identity.
Similarly, when a person suffers many severe blows, to the extent that it is impossible to for him to survive - or even if the majority of [his windpipe and gullet]32 have been cut - and he makes motions33 and says: "Write a get for my wife," [his listeners] should write [a get] and give it [to her]. Although he will eventually die, he is alive at this time.34
Halacha 14
[The following rules apply when] a person is troubled by an evil spirit, and at the time when his infirmity begins to take hold of him says: "Write a get for my wife." His statements are of no consequence, because his thoughts are not organized and settled.35 The same ruling applies to a person who has become as drunk as Lot.36 If a drunkard has not reached that level [of incapacity], [the status of the divorce] is in doubt.37
Halacha 15
[The following rules apply when a] healthy [man] says: "Write a get for my wife and give it to her," and afterwards he becomes mentally disturbed. We wait until he becomes healthy again, and then we write the get and give it to her. There is no need to consult with him about the matter again when he regains his heath.38
If a get is written and given before he regains his health, it is unacceptable.39
Halacha 16
[The following rules apply when] a person loses his ability to speak, but is of sound mind. We ask him: "Should we write a get for your wife?" If he nods his head affirmatively, we test him with three [questions with different answers].40 If he answers those [questions] to be answered affirmatively in the affirmative and those to be answered negatively in the negative, they should write [a get] and give it [to her]. His mental state must be checked thoroughly, lest he not be of sound mind.
Similarly, if he writes by hand: "Write a get and give it to my wife," they should write it and give it to her, if [it appears] that he is of sound mind. For the laws governing a person who loses his ability to speak differ from those governing a deaf-mute.41
Halacha 17
When a person married while sound of mind and became a deaf-mute, he cannot divorce his wife until he regains his mental health.42 Needless to say, this applies to a person who loses his mental stability.43 We do not rely on the motions of a deaf-mute or on his writing, even if he is of sound mind.
If, however, a deaf-mute married a woman while he was in that state, he may divorce her by making motions, for his consecration of her is not valid according to Scriptural law, as has been explained.44 Just as he married her by making motions, he may divorce her by making motions.
Halacha 18
When a man consecrates a minor via her father's agency and [seeks to] divorce her while she is a minor, her father should accept her get.45 When the getreaches her father's possession, she is divorced.
If [the husband seeks to] divorce [his arusah] when she is a na'arah,46 the divorce is effective when the get reaches her possession or her father's possession. A na'arah who is consecrated may not appoint an agent to receive her get from her husband during her father's lifetime.47 A father, by contrast, may appoint an agent to receive a get for his daughter who has been consecrated, whether she is a minor or a na'arah.
Halacha 19
[The following rules apply when] a girl's father consecrates her48 when she is a minor and then [the father] dies. If [the girl] can differentiate between a get and another object,49 the divorce is effective after the get reaches her possession. If [she is] incapable [of making such a distinction], she cannot be divorced until she becomes capable of making such distinctions.50If such a divorce is carried out, it is of no consequence.
Halacha 20
When a man whom the law requires to be compelled to divorce his wife51 does not desire to divorce her, the court should have him beaten until he consents, at which time they should have a get written. The get is acceptable. This applies at all times and in all places.52
Similarly, if gentiles beat him while telling him: "Do what the Jews are telling you to do," and the Jews have the gentiles apply pressure on him until [he consents] to divorce his wife, the divorce is acceptable. If, however, the gentiles compel him to write [a get] on their own initiative, the get is [merely] unacceptable.53The rationale is that the law requires him to give a divorce.
Why is this get not void? For he is being compelled - either by Jews or by gentiles - [to divorce] against his will [and a get must be given voluntarily].
Because the concept of being compelled against one's will applies only when speaking about a person who is being compelled and forced to do something that the Torah does not obligate him to do - e.g., a person who was beaten until he consented to a sale,54 or to give a present. If, however, a person's evil inclination presses him to negate [the observance of] a mitzvah or to commit a transgression, and he was beaten until he performed the action he was obligated to perform, or he dissociated himself from the forbidden action, he is not considered to have been forced against his will. On the contrary, it is he himself who is forcing [his own conduct to become debased].55
With regard to this person who [outwardly] refuses to divorce [his wife] - he wants to be part of the Jewish people, and he wants to perform all the mitzvot and eschew all the transgressions; it is only his evil inclination that presses him. Therefore, when he is beaten until his [evil] inclination has been weakened, and he consents [to the divorce], he is considered to have performed the divorce willfully.
[Different laws apply when] the law does not require him to divorce his wife, and a Jewish court or simple people compel him to divorce her. This get is deemed unacceptable. Since, however, it was Jews who compelled him, he [is advised] to complete the divorce [in a proper manner]. If, by contrast, gentiles compel him to divorce when it was not required, the divorce is void. Even though he tells the gentiles that he consented and tells the Jews to write and sign [a get], since the law does not require him to divorce, and he was compelled to do so by gentiles, the get is void.
| FOOTNOTES | |
| 1. |
In most matters of Torah law, a person is able to charge an agent to act on his behalf. From the Rambam's wording, Terumat HaDeshen (Responsum 228) and the Kovetz deduce that the Rambam requires that not only the person who gives the get, but also the scribe, must be appointed as agents. This decision is quoted by the Shulchan Aruch (Even HaEzer 120:1). Moreover, the Shulchan Aruch continues, stating that in addition, the scribe must write the get with paper and ink belonging to the husband.
There are, however, other opinions, which maintain that the scribe need not be appointed as an agent. (See Chapter 3, Halachah 16 and notes.)
|
| 2. |
There is a difficulty in this instance, for the scribe must also act as one of the witnesses who sign the get. Tosafot and many other authorities rule that a get signed by a scribe is unacceptable. In the Beit Yosef (Even HaEzer 130), Rav Yosef Karo explains that the Rambam agrees that a priori, the scribe should not act as one of the witnesses who sign the get. When there is no alternative, however, it is acceptable. (See Lechem Mishneh.)
|
| 3. |
In this instance, the act the agent effects does not concern him. Therefore, there is no difficulty in his serving as a witness to it. (See also Hilchot Ishut 3:16.)
|
| 4. |
There are two points of clarification that must be made with regard to this ruling: First, if the husband enters into privacy with his wife after having the get written, the get is nullified, for we assume that the couple engaged in sexual relations, as reflected in Chapter 3, Halachah 5.
Second, there is the problem that the get is predated - i.e., although it was dated on the day it was written, it is the giving of the get and not the writing of the get that effects the divorce. Thus, the date on which the get was given and the date of the divorce are not the same.
With regard to that issue, we are forced to say that the Rambam does not consider it to be problematic. Indeed, when discussing the issue of predated gittin (Chapter 1, Halachah 25), the Rambam makes no mention of this matter at all. Other authorities differ, and it is their view that is accepted by the Shulchan Aruch (Even HaEzer 127:5), which states that if a get is not given on the day on which it was written, it is acceptable only when given by an agent. (See Beit Shmuel127:7.)
|
| 5. |
See Hilchot Malveh V'Loveh 24:3-4. The Kessef Mishneh emphasizes that there are several points to be derived from an analysis of the Rambam's choice of wording in the present halachah and in that source:
a) Even if the man is accompanied by a woman he claims to be his wife, the witnesses may not sign a get for her until this fact is established.
b) It is not significant whether or not the scribe knows the identity of the man and his wife. When the scribe does not sign the get (see the notes to the previous halachah), it is the witnesses alone who must be aware of the identity of the husband and wife.
c) As long as a person's name has been established in a city for thirty days - even if it is only according to his own statements - this is sufficient.
d) The witnesses must also know the names of the father of the husband and of the wife.
e) The person's father's name can also be established on the basis of his own statements.
|
| 6. |
From the Rambam's Commentary on the Mishnah (Bava Batra 10:3), it appears that the intent is to prevent the woman receiving the get from engineering such an act of deception.
Our translation is based on authoritative manuscripts and early printings of the Mishneh Torah. The standard printed text states "causing her to be forbidden to him," i.e., she will think that she has been divorced, and on that basis, she will marry another man, and thus become forbidden to her first husband.
|
| 7. |
A time of danger means an instance when the husband is in danger of dying and asks to have aget written for his wife, so that she will not have to undergo the rites of either yibbum or chalitzah(Gittin 66a).
|
| 8. |
Although according to Scriptural law it is the husband who should pay for the writing of the get (for it is his responsibility), Bava Batra 168a explains that our Sages transferred this obligation to the woman, lest the husband lack the financial resources and cause the woman to wait unnecessarily for her get.
|
| 9. |
The Rambam mentions a court of law to indicate that in this instance, their authority is no greater than that of an ordinary person.
|
| 10. |
The bracketed addition is made on the basis of the gloss of the Kessef Mishneh.
|
| 11. |
The husband charged these individuals with the composition and the signing of the get. They do not have the authority to convey this responsibility to someone else.
In other instances, an agent can transfer his agency to another person, but here the scribe and the witness were charged with only a verbal command, and a verbal command cannot be transferred to another agent (Gittin 66b).
|
| 12. |
For the difficulty is with the composition of the get itself.
|
| 13. |
In contrast to the previous halachah, in which the get is deemed void, here the Rambam rules that it is unacceptable. This more lenient ruling is given because in this instance, the husband's colleagues carried out his instructions.
The Ra'avad and many other authorities also consider this get to be void, for they maintain that the scribe must hear his appointment from the husband directly. The Rambam, however, maintains that the divorce is acceptable according to Scriptural law. As a safeguard, the Rabbis did not accept it, lest a woman hire agents who will tell the scribe and witnesses to compose a getin the husband's name, even though he did not convey such instructions (Gittin 67a).
|
| 14. |
For the husband did not convey the instructions to the scribe himself.
|
| 15. |
Rav David HaCohen interprets this to mean that this case is judged more severely than othergittin that are unacceptable, and the status of the woman's divorce is in doubt. This is also the ruling of the Ramah. Rav Moshe Alshacar, however, differs and maintains that there is no difference between this instance and others in which the get is deemed unacceptable.
|
| 16. |
The practical difference between these two terms is explained in Chapter 10, Halachot 1 and 2. When a get is void, the woman's first marriage is not annulled, and she must leave her second husband if she has remarried. Any children she bears the second husband are considered to bemamzerim. When the get is deemed unacceptable by our Rabbis, by contrast, the woman should not remarry, but if she does remarry she is allowed to remain married to her second husband.
|
| 17. |
We do not suspect that the husband had a void or unacceptable get composed and gave it to his wife to cause her difficulties (Kessef Mishneh).
|
| 18. |
We do not say that the agency with which they were entrusted involved only the composition of one get, and that they must receive a new charge from the husband before writing another one.
The Shulchan Aruch (Even HaEzer 122:1) states that if the get is not unacceptable, but does not conform with the standard demanded by the local Rav, the scribe does not have the right to write a second get, for the agency with which he was charged by the husband has already been discharged. Therefore, it is customary for a husband to tell the scribe and the witnesses to write as many gittin as necessary, until one finds favor in the eyes of the Rav arranging the divorce.
|
| 19. |
If the husband had in fact given them only such a limited agency, were they to have another getwritten, they would no longer be acting in the agency of the husband, but rather on their own initiative.
Rav Moshe HaCohen differs with the Rambam on this point, maintaining that since they did not write an acceptable get, their agency was not completed. For the husband did not charge them with writing a worthless piece of paper; he wanted them to write a get. Note the Beit Shmuel 122:7, who interprets the disqualifying factor mentioned by the Rambam as referring to a disqualification that occurred after the get was given to the agent. He maintains that if a get that was void or unacceptable was given to the agent, even the Rambam would allow the writing of another get.
The Shulchan Aruch (Even HaEzer 122:2) quotes the ruling of the Rambam, while the Ramah follows the opinion of Rav Moshe HaCohen.
|
| 20. |
We are not certain that their agency was limited in scope. Perhaps the husband's intent was that they effect the divorce.
|
| 21. |
This and the following term are acceptable, because they are Aramaic equivalents of the word "divorce."
|
| 22. |
These expressions do not convey adequately enough the intent that the husband desires to divorce his wife for them to be considered effective in bringing about the appointment of the agents for this purpose.
|
| 23. |
Note the Beit Shmuel 141:21, who quotes authorities who maintain that even in such instances the status of the divorce should be considered doubtful.
|
| 24. |
For the husband has not charged them with effecting the divorce.
|
| 25. |
In his Commentary on the Mishnah (Gittin 6:5), the Rambam interprets this as referring to a person taken from jail in chains to be judged by a gentile magistrate.
|
| 26. |
We assume that, in all these instances, his intent was to divorce his wife, lest he die and she be required to undergo the rite of either yibbum or chalitzah. Alternatively, he knew that he was entering a dangerous situation, and feared that he might die, without there being any witnesses of his death. In order to prevent his wife from being forced to remain unmarried for the rest of her life, he charges witnesses with the composition of a get.
He surely wanted to tell the witnesses to give the get, and it was only because of his concern with his personal situation that he forgot to do so (op. cit.). (See Hilchot Zechiyah UMatanah 8:24, which relates similar concepts with regard to a person's division of his estate.)
|
| 27. |
In this instance as well, we assume that the person intended to say that the get should be given, but failed to mention the point because of his preoccupation with his own concerns.
|
| 28. |
For his intent is not clear, and it is possible that he wanted to deliberate before having the getgiven.
|
| 29. |
The Rambam's ruling is debated by the commentaries, for it is questionable why the get would be considered valid, in light of the doubt that exists. Indeed, there are commentaries that suggest that the text before us is a printing error and that the Rambam considers the status of the divorce to be in doubt. The Shulchan Aruch (Even HaEzer 141:18) rules that if the husband falls immediately afterwards, the get is acceptable. If not, the status of the divorce is in doubt.
|
| 30. |
The Shulchan Aruch (loc. cit.:19) states that the man must state his name, the name of his wife, the name of the city in which he lives and the name of the city in which she lives.
|
| 31. |
E.g., his face had been cut to the point where his identity was no longer recognizable.
|
| 32. |
The slitting of these organs are the two signs that determine whether or not ritual slaughter is acceptable.
|
| 33. |
The Beit Shmuel 121:11 interprets this to mean that the man shakes his head in response to questions (see Halachah 16) and thus indicates that he desires to divorce his wife.
|
| 34. |
The get is not considered to have been given after the man died, and his wife is not required to undergo the rites of yibbum or chalitzah. See Chapter 6, Halachah 28.
|
| 35. |
For a person's actions to have halachic significance, he must be mentally competent at the time he performs them.
|
| 36. |
Whom Genesis, Chapter 19, describes as having become so drunk that he was not aware of having sex with his daughters.
|
| 37. |
The Rambam appears to be saying that if we are certain that the person is drunk, but see that he is conscious enough to have some control over his behavior, a get that he orders to be given is of doubtful status.
The commentaries question this understanding, noting that in Hilchot Ishut 4:18, the Rambam rules that kiddushin given by a drunk are viable, unless he reaches Lot's state. Similarly, with regard to the entire Torah, a drunk is considered responsible for his conduct. If he commits a transgression punishable by death while drunk, he is executed. Despite these questions, theShulchan Aruch (Even HaEzer 121:1) quotes the Rambam's wording. On this basis, the Beit Shmuel states that both a husband and a wife should not drink alcoholic beverages on the day of their divorce.
|
| 38. |
While the husband (the principal) is incapacitated, his agent (the scribe) cannot act on his behalf. Therefore, the get should not be written until he regains his health. Nevertheless, once he regains his health, the agency that he originally gave is unaffected, and the get should be written and delivered.
|
| 39. |
In the Kessef Mishneh, Rav Yosef Karo questions why the Rambam uses the term "unacceptable" (pasul). Seemingly, based on Gittin 70b, this ruling should apply only when we have a means of healing the afflicted person. Otherwise, the get should be void. Indeed, in theShulchan Aruch (Even HaEzer 121:2), Rav Yosef Karo rules accordingly. Note, however, the Beit Shmuel 121:2, who justifies the Rambam's ruling.
[The difference between these two opinions revolves around the fundamental conception of an agent's authority. Is he acting independently of the principal (in which case the principal's state is not of concern to us) or is he considered to be an extension of the principal (in which case, if the principal is unable to perform an act, neither is his agent). See Lekach Tov, Section 1.]
Based on the above, the Shulchan Aruch (Even HaEzer 121:4) writes that we should check that a person who is giving a get when terminally ill is sound of mind.
|
| 40. |
According to the Kessef Mishneh, the intent is three questions in which at least one of the answers differs from the other two. There are other authorities who require two sets of three questions. Also, based on Gittin 70b, the Ramah (Even HaEzer 121:5) suggests that the person should be asked questions about fruit - e.g., would he desire a summer fruit in winter? His ability to discern with regard to these matters will serve as an indicator of whether or not he is of sound mind.
|
| 41. |
A deaf-mute is not considered to be of sound mind and is not held responsible for his conduct.
|
| 42. |
For the marriage bond he established is binding according to Scriptural law, and he is not capable of initiating divorce proceedings that have that power.
|
| 43. |
See Hilchot Edut 9:9, where the Rambam defines the term shoteh as including not only maniacs whose behavior is totally beyond control, but also those who are confused and lack the stability to function normally.
|
| 44. |
Hilchot Ishut 4:9.
|
| 45. |
Just as the Torah gives him authority to consecrate her, he is responsible for taking part in the divorce, for Deuteronomy 24:2 establishes an association between the forging of the marriage bond and its dissolution (Ketubot 47a).
This applies, however, only before the marriage bond is consummated. After nisu'in, the consummation of the marriage, the father no longer has any authority over his daughter even though she is below the age of majority. (See Hilchot Ishut 3:12.)
We may conclude that, before nisu'in, the Rambam does not consider the girl as having the authority to receive her own get. This opinion is accepted by most authorities and is quoted by theShulchan Aruch (Even HaEzer 141:4). The Shulchan Aruch, however, also mentions the opinion of Tosafot, who maintain that the girl possesses this authority.
|
| 46. |
I.e., a girl between the age of twelve and twelve and a half, who has manifested signs of physical maturity. She is already considered to be past majority with regard to certain dimensions of Torah law. Nevertheless, her father is still granted authority over her in certain contexts. (See Hilchot Ishut 2:1, 3:11.)
|
| 47. |
A married girl below the age of majority, by contrast, may not appoint an agent to receive her geteven if her father dies or her marriage has been consummated (Shulchan Aruch, Even HaEzer141:3.)
|
| 48. |
If the girl's father consecrates her, the kiddushin are effective according to Scriptural law, and a divorce is required. If, by contrast, the girl's father died, and her mother, her brother or she herself established a marriage bond, it is not binding according to Scriptural law and a get is not required. Instead, this marriage can be dissolved through the rite of mi'un, as described in Hilchot Ishut 4:7.
|
| 49. |
The Ramah (Even HaEzer 141:6) states that this refers to a girl of six or seven, depending on her intellectual capacities.
|
| 50. |
If, however, a minor's father is alive, he can accept a get on her behalf regardless of her age or degree of understanding. Rashi (Gittin 64b) differs and maintains that if she is unable to make distinctions, she cannot be divorced even via her father. Although the Shulchan Aruch (Even HaEzer 141:6) quotes both opinions, it appears to favor that of the Rambam.
|
| 51. |
E.g., a man whose wife says she is repulsed by him (Hilchot Ishut 14:8), a man who was married to a woman for ten years without her bearing a child (Hilchot Ishut 15:7), a man who becomes afflicted by [constant] bad breath or an odor from his nose, one who becomes a collector of dog feces, a miner of copper or a tanner or one who becomes a leper (Hilchot Ishut 25:11-12) or a priest who marries a divorcee (Hilchot Issurei Bi'ah 17:7).
|
| 52. |
The application of this law is not confined to Eretz Yisrael or to the era when the Sanhedrin (the High Court of Law) was in power.
|
| 53. |
Rav Mesharshia states that the Rabbis deemed the get unacceptable, lest women become accustomed to hiring gentiles for this purpose (Bava Batra 48a). In the Kessef Mishneh, Rav Yosef Karo notes that Gittin 88b appears to reject Rav Mesharshia's view and states that a getthat was forced on a man by gentiles is void entirely. (This indeed is the ruling of Rashi, Rabbenu Nissim and Rabbenu Asher.) In his Shulchan Aruch (Even HaEzer 134:5), Rav Yosef Karo's wording is not specific when dealing with this issue. The Beit Shmuel 134:10 states that such a getis void.
|
| 54. |
See Hilchot Mechirah 10:1, which states that such a sale is acceptable, after the fact. Nevertheless, if the seller notifies the witnesses that he was compelled to sell against his will, the sale is nullified.
|
| 55. |
The Rambam's statements have implications far beyond their immediate halachic context. The Rambam is saying that the fundamental desire of every Jew is to affirm his Jewishness and observe the Torah and its mitzvot. Even when a person's conscious mind does not necessarily consent to this inner motivation, it is at work, molding his character without his knowledge. And at times, either because of undesirable circumstances - being compelled against his will as above - or because of desirable ones - an expression of Divine favor - this inner drive will surface.
|
Gerushin - Chapter Three
Halacha 1
A get that is not written for the sake of the man [initiating] the divorce and for the sake of the woman who is being divorced is not valid.
What is implied? A scribe wrote a get to learn [scribal arts] or to teach them, and a husband came and discovered that the get was written with his name; the name of the woman was the same as his wife's name; and the name of the city the same as the name of his city. If he took [this get] and used it to divorce [his wife], the divorce is void.1
Halacha 2
Furthermore, [a get is also void in the following instance:] [A man] had a getwritten so that he could divorce his wife and changed his mind. An inhabitant of his city discovered it and told him: "My name is the same as yours, and my wife's name is the same as your wife's." Although [the second man] took it and used it to divorce his wife, it is invalid,2 despite the fact that it was written in order to effect a divorce.
Halacha 3
Furthermore, [a get is also void in the following instance:] [A man] had two wives with the same name, and he wrote a get with the intent of divorcing the older one, and changed his mind and used it to divorce the younger one. The divorce is invalid. Although it was written for the sake of the man [initiating] the divorce, it was not written for the sake of the woman who is being divorced.
Halacha 4
Moreover, [in the above situation,] if he tells the scribe: "Write the get, and I will use it to divorce whichever one I desire," and the scribe wrote the get with that intent, and the husband divorced one of his wives, the status of the divorce is a matter of doubt.3
Whenever a get was not written with the proper intent, it remains void, even if the scribe rewrites the letters with the proper intent.4
Halacha 5
When a man writes a get [with the intent of] divorcing his wife, but he changes his mind and does not divorce her, he may not divorce her with this same getanother time should he so desire, if he entered into privacy with her after [theget] was written.
If, however, he did divorce her with this old get, the divorce is effective, and she may remarry on this basis without any qualms.5 For [the get] was written for her sake and was given to her now in the presence of witnesses, as the law requires.
Why at the outset should it not be used for divorce? [This is] a Rabbinic decree, lest [people] say: "Her get preceded [the birth of] her son."
Halacha 6
[The following rules apply when a man] tells a scribe, "Write a get for the sake of so and so, and it will remain in my possession. When I marry her, I will divorce her with it." If [the scribe] writes [such a get], and the man marries her and then he divorces her with it, the divorce is void. [The rationale is] that the woman could not be divorced when the get was written. Thus, it is considered not to have been written for the sake of divorce.
If, however, [the man] tells [the scribe]: "Write [a get] for the woman who is consecrated to me. After I consummate the marriage, I will divorce her," should he consummate the marriage and divorce her with such [a get], the divorce is binding.6
If a man had [a get] written for his yevamah, and he divorced her with it after he performed the rite of yibbum, the status of the divorce is doubtful, for she was not his wife in an absolute sense7 when [the get] was written.
Halacha 7
In order to assist scribes,8 our Sages permitted them to write the standard texts of gittin [beforehand] and leave empty the place for the man's [name], the woman's [name], the time and the place for [the sentence]: "Behold, you are permitted [to marry] any man."9 Thus, he can write [these parts of the get] for the sake of the man who gives the get and for the sake of the woman who receives it.10 Afterwards, he should have the witnesses sign for the sake of [the husband and the wife].
Halacha 8
[The following rule applies if] a scribe wrote a get for the sake of the husband and the wife as required, and the witnesses signed without having that intent. Since [the husband] gives it to [his wife] in the presence of witnesses who observe the transfer, the get is valid [according to Scriptural law]. It is, however, {unacceptable [by Rabbinic decree].
Why is [it merely unacceptable and] not void?}11 Because the requirement for witnesses to sign the get [was instituted] only as a measure to aid society.12
There is an opinion that states that if the witnesses signed without the proper intent, since it as if it were a forgery, the get is void. Similarly, they maintain that if one of the witnesses was unacceptable, or if it was signed by one acceptable witness only, it is void even though it was transferred in the presence of witnesses.13
This ruling does not appear [correct] to me. For although [the get] resembles a forgery, it is not an absolute forgery. [Hence,] since it was transferred in the presence of acceptable witnesses, it is [merely] deemed unacceptable by Rabbinic decree.14
Halacha 9
[The following rule applies when a person] bringing a get loses it, and then it is discovered. If he lost it in a place not frequented by caravans - even if he found it after a long time had passed - we presume that the get that he lost is the getthat was found and [the woman] may be divorced with it.15
[However, different rules apply if a get] was lost in a place frequented by caravans. If it was discovered immediately, before any of the passersby had tarried there, or if16 it was found in the container in which it was [originally] placed, and the agent can recognize the length and the width of the get that was rolled up within, we can presume that [it is the same get], and [the woman] may be divorced with it.17
Halacha 10
When it was established that there was another man in that place whose name was the same as the name written in the get,18 if another man passes by the place [the get was lost] - even if he did not tarry there - we suspect that the getthat was found belongs to the other person.
If the woman is divorced with this get, the status of the divorce is doubtful. If, however, another person has not passed by this place, we presume that [theget that was discovered was the one that was lost], even though there are two people with the same name.19
Halacha 11
If the witnesses knew of a clearly distinctive sign by means of which they could recognize the get20 - e.g., they said it had a hole next to a particular letter, or they said: "We signed only one get with these names" - we presume that [theget that was discovered was the one that was lost], and [the woman] may be divorced with it.
[This ruling applies] even when [the get] was discovered after a long time had passed, [it was lost in] a place frequented by caravans, and it was established that there were two [men] with the same names.21
Halacha 12
[The following rules apply when] two men [with the same names]22 sent gittintogether, and they were interchanged [and it is no longer known who sent whichget]. Both gittin should be given to each of the women in the presence of witnesses who observe the transfer. [In this manner, both divorces are acceptable.]23
Therefore, if one of the gittin was lost, the second get is void.24
Halacha 13
[The following rules apply when] a man has two names and a woman has two names. When a divorce is initiated, [the husband] should write the names that he and his wife use most frequently and that they are most popularly known by. [The get] should say: "So and so,25 or by whatever names that he is called, divorces so and so or by whatever names she is called."26
Halacha 14
If the name that was less popularly known was written [in the get], and it was also written: "or by whatever names he is called," the get is not acceptable.29
Halacha 15
All are fit to write a get, with the exception of five: a gentile, a servant, a deaf-mute, a mentally incompetent person and a minor. A woman may even write her get herself.
Halacha 16
Why are these five individuals [prevented] from writing gittin? Because a getmust be written for the sake of the man initiating the divorce and the woman receiving the divorce, and a gentile writes with his own intent.34 A deaf-mute, a mentally incompetent person and a minor are not of [sufficient] mental capacity. And the laws of divorce and marriage do not apply to a servant; therefore, [in this area] he is disqualified; he is like a gentile in all respects.
If one of these five individuals writes a get, it is void,35 even if it was signed by acceptable witnesses and given in the presence of acceptable witnesses.
Halacha 17
When one of these five individuals writes the standard portion of the get and leaves the essential portions - i.e., the place for the man's [name], the woman's [name], the date and the sentence: "Behold, you are permitted [to marry] any man" - unwritten, and these were written by an adult mentally competent Jew with the proper intent, the get is acceptable.36
Halacha 18
At the outset, one may allow a deaf-mute, a mentally incompetent person or a minor to write the standard portions of a get, provided they are supervised by a mentally competent adult.37
A gentile or a servant, by contrast, should not be allowed to write the standard portions of a get at the outset, even when supervised by a Jew. For permission to write the standard portions of a get at the outset was granted only as assistance to scribes, as we have explained.38
Halacha 19
When a man writes a get on the Sabbath or on Yom Kippur, without knowing of the transgression,39 and gives it to [his wife], the divorce is effective.40 If it was written and signed on that day41 as a willful transgression and given to her, the divorce is not effective. For the witnesses [who signed] are disqualified by Scriptural law.
| FOOTNOTES | |
| 1. |
For the get was not written with the intent of being used to effect a divorce (Gittin 24b).
|
| 2. |
For the get was not written for the sake of the man [initiating] the divorce and for the sake of the woman who is being divorced (Ibid.).
|
| 3. |
This ruling depends on the concept of b'reirah - i.e., that since ultimately the husband's intent is clarified, it is considered retroactively as if this had been his intent at the outset.
This concept of b'reirah is relevant not only in the present context, but also with regard to many other contexts discussed in the Talmud and later Rabbinic works. Generally, the rule that is followed is that with regard to questions involving Scriptural law, the concept of b'reirah is not accepted, but with regard to Rabbinic law it is accepted. On this basis, the commentaries question the Rambam's ruling. In the Kessef Mishneh, Rav Yosef Karo explains that although with regard to following stringencies, we say that the concept of b'reirah does not apply to questions of Scriptural law, it does apply with regard to the acceptance of a leniency. Therefore, although the woman must consider herself divorced, she does not have the prerogative of remarrying. On this basis, Rav Yosef Karo quotes the Rambam's wording in the Shulchan Aruch (Even HaEzer 130:4). (See the Beit Shmuel 130:4, who also discusses this issue.)
|
| 4. |
I.e., tracing over the letters is ineffective, for writing on top of other writing is insignificant (Gittin20a). A parallel exists with regard to the Sabbath laws. If a person traces over letters on the Sabbath, he is not considered to have violated the forbidden labor of writing (Hilchot Shabbat11:16).
Although the Shulchan Aruch (Even HaEzer 130:5) appears to favor the Rambam's ruling, it also quotes the opinion of the Rashba, which states that consideration must be made of a get given under such circumstances.
|
| 5. |
As mentioned in the notes on Chapter 2, Halachah 2, the Rambam does not consider a get that was written before it was given to be predated. Other commentaries do, however, and it is their view that is accepted by the Shulchan Aruch (Even HaEzer 127:5).
According to those authorities, such a get can be acceptable only when it was sent via an agent. This relates to another difference of opinion about this issue. The Tur (Even HaEzer 148) states that this ruling applies only when the get remained in the husband's possession until after he emerged from privacy with his wife. If he gave it to an agent beforehand, it is void. In the Kessef Mishneh, Rav Yosef Karo states that the Rambam does not accept this distinction, and in theShulchan Aruch (Even HaEzer 148:1), although he mentions the Tur's view, he favors his own interpretation of the Rambam's decision.
|
| 6. |
This law applies only after the fact. At the outset, such a get should not be used, as reflected in the previous halachah.
When quoting this law, the Shulchan Aruch (Even HaEzer 132:1) follows the opinion of the Tur andTosafot, who differ with the Rambam and state that the get is acceptable only when it was post-dated, and the date on which it was given was mentioned. If the date on which the get was written was mentioned, the get is unacceptable. (It is worse than an ordinary "old get," because in that instance, the couple merely entered into privacy together; we are not certain that they had relations. In this instance, by contrast, the marriage bond was consummated.)
|
| 7. |
Although the yevam does not have to consecrate his yevamah, he also does not have to divorce her. Hence, there is a question whether the connection between them is sufficient for the get to be acceptable.
|
| 8. |
So that they would have a get ready, in order for them to prepare it for a husband in a relatively short time. In this manner, the scribe can use his free time for a useful purpose (Rambam's Commentary on the Mishnah, Gittin 3:2).
|
| 9. |
These are the parts of the get that are of fundamental importance, and which are referred to as the toref.
|
| 10. |
On this issue there is a difference of opinion in the Mishnah (loc. cit.) between the Sages and Rabbi Eliezer. It appears that the opinion cited by the Rambam above is that of the Sages. Thus, this ruling is worthy of notice, because it represents a change of mind on the Rambam's part, for he writes in his Commentary on the Mishnah that the halachah follows Rabbi Eliezer. (It is also noteworthy that in the Rambam's manuscripts of his Commentary on the Mishnah, the latter statement was rubbed out and written over, implying that the Rambam deliberated back and forth about the matter when composing that text. See the Kovetz and others, who discuss this issue.)
See also the Beit Shmuel 131:2, who states that the Shulchan Aruch does not mention this law, because most authorities differ with the Rambam and do not grant a scribe such license. (See also Halachah 17 and notes.)
|
| 11. |
There is a question whether the words within the brackets { } are the Rambam's or a printer's addition. There is, however, no difference in law between the two versions.
|
| 12. |
As stated in Chapter 1, Halachah 15, it is not necessary for witnesses to sign the get according to Scriptural law. Our Sages required such signatures only to afford an advantage for the woman lest the witnesses die.
|
| 13. |
The Shulchan Aruch (Even HaEzer 130:17) follows the Rambam's approach and rules that such aget is unacceptable by Rabbinic decree, but not void.
|
| 14. |
The Tur and Shulchan Aruch (Even HaEzer 131:6) quote the Rambam's decision, while mentioning the minority opinion.
|
| 15. |
This and the following two halachot are dependent on the Rambam's understanding of a Talmudic passage that appears in Gittin 27a and Bava Metzia 18a. Many authorities differ with the Rambam in the interpretation of this passage, and it is their view that is favored by the Shulchan Aruch(Even HaEzer 132:4), although the Rambam's view is also quoted.
According to these views, if there are two people who, with their wives, share the same name in the same town, there is a difficulty if the get was not discovered immediately.
The Shulchan Aruch (ibid.) also mentions a difficulty when a person was seen passing by the place where the get was lost, even when the place is not frequented by caravans and it is not known that two people of the same name live in that place. His ruling is, however, questioned by the Beit Shmuel 132:10 and others.
|
| 16. |
The commentaries question why the Rambam requires both factors, that the get was in its original container, and that it could be recognized. Seemingly, one factor alone is sufficient. Indeed, when discussing this issue, the Shulchan Aruch (op. cit.) requires only one factor: either that it was found in the original container, or that the agent could recognize the get.
Note the Noda BiY'hudah (Even HaEzer, Volume II, Responsum 62), who supports the Rambam's ruling, explaining that there are various levels of recognition. Since the agent recognizes the getonly by its length and width, it is necessary that it also be found in its container.
|
| 17. |
Implied is that if enough time passed for one of the passersby to wait there, the get is unacceptable.
|
| 18. |
And whose wife's name is the same as the woman's name written in the get.
|
| 19. |
The Ramah (loc. cit.) states that if the name of the husband's town was mentioned, and we know that there is only one couple with the name mentioned in the get, we are not concerned about the fact that caravans frequent the place. We do not suspect that there are two towns with the same name. The Beit Shmuel 131:16 questions the Ramah's ruling.
|
| 20. |
A sign is, however, necessary. According to the Shulchan Aruch (loc. cit.), it is sufficient for the agent who lost the get to say that he recognizes it; witnesses, by contrast, must give signs through which it can be identified (Shulchan Aruch, loc. cit.).
|
| 21. |
When quoting this law, the Shulchan Aruch (loc. cit.) states that if there are other individuals who share the same name as the witnesses, the witnesses must also recognize their own signatures.
|
| 22. |
And whose wives have the same names.
|
| 23. |
I.e., the agent[s] give both gittin to one woman, and thus she receives the get intended for her. They then take the gittin from her and give them to the second woman. There is no necessity for the woman to know which get was intended for her originally (Gittin 86b; Shulchan Aruch, Even HaEzer 132:3).
|
| 24. |
The Maggid Mishneh (quoted in the Shulchan Aruch, loc. cit.) explains that if, however, the agent gives the get that remains to one or the other of the women, the status of the divorce[s] is in doubt.
|
| 25. |
I.e., his most popular name.
|
| 26. |
I.e., according to the Rambam, there is no obligation to mention the other names with which the husband or wife is known. Other authorities differ and require that all the names by which a man or a woman is known should be mentioned in the get. This latter view is cited by the Ramah (Even HaEzer 129:1).
This issue is particularly relevant today, when many individuals have Jewish names with which they are called to the Torah, and secular names by which they are known by and large. The Ramah (loc. cit.:16) rules that the Jewish name should be mentioned first, but the secular name should also be mentioned in the get.
|
| 27. |
I.e., a derivative of the person's name by which he or she is often called - e.g., Danny, which is a derivative of either Dan or Daniel. Other interpretations of the term chanichah are offered by different commentaries.
|
| 28. |
The Ra'avad states that this applies only when the nickname is more extensively used than the person's actual name. Note the discussion of this issue in the Beit Shmuel 129:1. The Beit Shmuelalso discusses whether the intent is that, after the fact, a woman divorced with such a get may remarry, or whether the intent is that at the outset such a get may be given.
|
| 29. |
By Rabbinic decree. If, however, both names are mentioned in the get, the get is acceptable despite the fact that the less-used name is mentioned first (Shulchan Aruch, Even HaEzer 129:2).
|
| 30. |
At present, it is not customary to mention the woman's city or the man's city. Instead, the location in which the get is given is mentioned.
|
| 31. |
I.e., even according to Scriptural law.
|
| 32. |
Our translation is based on the manuscript copies of the Mishneh Torah. The standard printed text was changed by the church's censors.
The equivalence between the desecration of the Sabbath and the worship of false gods is discussed by the Rambam at the conclusion of Hilchot Shabbat, based on Horayot 8a.
|
| 33. |
Note the Maggid Mishneh, who states that although an apostate is not capable of writing a get, if he is married to a Jewess, he may - and indeed should - divorce her with a get. Just as thekiddushin he gives establish a viable marriage bond (Hilchot Ishut 4:15), a get that he gives can dissolve such a bond.
|
| 34. |
Even if an observant Jew stands over him, and tells him the intent with which he should write theget, it is void. (See Hilchot Tefillin 1:11.)
The Rambam puts the emphasis on the gentile's lack of proper intent to explain why a get written by an apostate is unacceptable. For the Rambam could have employed the same reason given with regard to a servant - that the laws of marriage and divorce do not apply to him - to exclude a gentile. He chose to give this reason to allude to the law concerning an apostate because an apostate also cannot be relied upon to write with the proper intent (Beit Shmuel 123:5).
The reasons given by the Rambam are significant in another context. As mentioned in the notes on Chapter 2, Halachah 1, there is a difference of opinion among the authorities regarding whether or not the scribe writing the get must be appointed as an agent. All the individuals mentioned are not capable of serving as agents. Since that rationale is not given, it would appear that the Rambam does not require such an appointment. Nevertheless, other sources lead to the opposite conclusion.
|
| 35. |
The Maggid Mishneh and the Beit Yosef (Even HaEzer 123) quote other opinions, which maintain that such gittin are disqualified by Rabbinic law only. Hence, because of this difference of opinion, the status of the divorce is in doubt (Chelkat Mechokek 123:6).
|
| 36. |
The Ramah (Even HaEzer 123:3) quotes the opinion of the Tur, who maintains that in such an instance the get is deemed unacceptable by Rabbinic law.
|
| 37. |
If these individuals are supervised, they will write the get with the proper intent. Hence, there is no reason to negate the feasibility of using the standard portions of the get that they wrote, out of fear that they will write the essential portions without the proper intent.
|
| 38. |
Halachah 7 above.
|
| 39. |
It appears that the Rambam's intent is that the get was written by the husband without his knowing of the transgression and not signed. It was given to his wife in the presence of witnesses. Although the same law would apply if the get were signed in unknowing violation of the holy day, the Rambam does not mention that possibility, because it is highly unlikely that both the man writing the get and the witnesses would not know of the transgression (Kessef Mishneh).
|
| 40. |
Since the transgression was performed unknowingly, the get is acceptable. (See the Rambam's Commentary on the Mishnah, Chulin 1:1.)
|
| 41. |
Our translation follows the standard printed text of the Mishneh Torah. There are other versions that state "If it was written and signed on a holiday...."
The difference between the two versions is that the prohibition against forbidden labor is less severe on the holidays than on the Sabbath and Yom Kippur. The holidays are mentioned to emphasize that the get is void even in such an instance.
|
| 42. |
By the husband and was not signed by witnesses.
|
| 43. |
Here a holiday is mentioned rather than the Sabbath, because if a get were written as a willful transgression in public on the Sabbath, the writer would be considered to be an apostate, and aget that he wrote would be disqualified by Scriptural law, as mentioned in Halachah 15. Since the desecration of the holidays is not so severe, the person is not considered to be an apostate. Theget he wrote is, however, disqualified by Rabbinic decree.
|
• Monday, Adar 11, 5775 · 03/02/2015
"Today's Day"
Torah lessons: Chumash: Tetzaveh, Shlishi with Rashi.
Tehillim: 60-65.
Tanya: Compare the (p. 125)...the man himself. (p. 125).
The following is well-known and is a tradition, regarding the kavanot (mystical "intentions") in davening: For those intellectually incapable of meditating on thosekavanot (either because they lack knowledge, or because they cannot remember the specific kavanot during prayer) it is sufficient that they keep one general kavana in mind: That his prayer be heard by G-d, with all the kavanot described in the Kabala literature.
Fast of Esther, advanced. Selichot (p. 359), Avinu malkeinu (p. 277). Half-shekel.
Torah lessons: Chumash: Vayikra, Chamishi with Rashi.
Tehillim: 60-65.
Tanya: Later, however, (p. 167)...of the world..." (p. 167).
Chassidus contains two fundamental principles:
(a) Understanding every halacha (Torah law) on its spiritual plane, in its root and ultimate source, namely in the Sefirot and planes in every World1 according to that World's character, as explained in Chassidus.
(b) Comprehending the subject of every halacha in avoda; meaning, although thehalacha is an expression of G-dly wisdom and intelligence and is a law in Torah, nevertheless one must discover in it an avoda - concept to guide man's conduct in his life here in This World.
FOOTNOTES
1. Briefly, the Sefirot refer to G-d's attributes, intellectual and emotive, that are paralleled in man. The term "World" refers to the Four Worlds that are stages in the progression downward from the Infinite to the finite universe. The Sefirot exist on each of these Worlds, progressively more concrete and less abstract, and each World in turn comprises countless strata or planes. Thus in the physical Worldtefillin are understood in simple material terms, while in higher Worlds the term "tefillin" indicates spiritual parallels, progressively more spiritual, less amenable to man's material understanding. (See Tanya II, Ch. 1, note 3; On Learning Chassidus. Also, Translator's Notes).
Daily Thought:
The Echo Upstream
Waves of life flow from the heavens above, carrying with them all your needs.
Celebrate whatever come to you, out loud and with joy, and your voice echoes back with waves of even greater force.
The channels of life are widened and their currents grow strong.[Hayom Yom, 13 Iyar; Likutei Sichot vol. 14, pg. 403 (based on Zohar).]
____________________________
No comments:
Post a Comment