Today in Jewish History:
• Nebuchadnezzar died (397 BCE)
Death of King Nebuchadnezzar, the Babylonian emperor who conquered Jerusalem and destroyed the first Holy Temple 26 years earlier, died on the 25th of Adar of the year 3364 from creation. (Jeremiah 52:31)
• Rebbetzin Chaya Mushka Schneerson's Birthday (1901)
Rebbetzin Chaya Mushkah Schneerson (1901-1988) of righteous memory, wife of the Lubavitcher Rebbe of righteous memory, was born on Shabbat, the 25th of Adar, in Babinovich, a town near the Russian city of Lubavitch, in the year 5661 from creation (1901). In an address delivered on the 25 of Adar of 1988 (the Rebbetzin's 87th birthday, and about a month after her passing), the Rebbe initiated an international birthday campaign, urging people to celebrate their birthdays and utilize the day as a time of introspection and making resolutions involving an increase in good deeds.
Links:
An on-line biography of the Rebbetzin
On the Jewish Birthday and the birthday customs
Daily Quote:
There's no understanding the character of this people! They're solicited for the Calf, and they give; they're solicited for the Mishkan - they give![Jerusalem Talmud]
Daily Study:
Chitas and Rambam for today:
Chumash: Vayikra, 2nd Portion Leviticus 1:14-2:6 with Rashi
• Chapter 1
14And if his sacrifice to the Lord, is a burnt offering from birds, he shall bring [it] from turtle doves or from young doves. ידוְאִם מִן הָעוֹף עֹלָה קָרְבָּנוֹ לַיהֹוָה וְהִקְרִיב מִן הַתֹּרִים אוֹ מִן בְּנֵי הַיּוֹנָה אֶת קָרְבָּנוֹ:
from birds: But not all birds. Since it is stated: “an unblemished male, from cattle, from sheep, or from goats” (Lev. 22:19), [denoting that the requirement of] perfection and maleness apply [only] to animals, but [the requirement of] perfection and maleness does not apply to birds. One might think that even a bird that lacks a limb [may be brought for this offering]. Scripture, therefore, says [here]: “from birds” [but not all birds, excluding a bird lacking a limb]. — [Torath Kohanim 1:71] מן העוף: ולא כל העוף, לפי שנאמר (ויק' כב יט) תמים זכר בבקר בכשבים ובעזים, תמות וזכרות בבהמה, ואין תמות וזכרות בעופות, יכול אף מחוסר אבר, תלמוד לומר מן העוף:
turtle-doves: [Because the verse specifies “young” doves, whereas it simply says “turtle-doves” without stating “young, ” it must refer to] adult ones [only that may be offered], and not young ones. התרים: גדולים ולא קטנים:
young doves: young ones [only may be offered], and not adult ones. - [Torath Kohanim 1:74] בני היונה: קטנים ולא גדולים:
from turtle-doves or from young doves: [The word “from” occurring twice in this verse comes] to exclude [birds] whose feathers have just begun to become reddish in both species, that they are unfit [for sacrifice], for they are too old to be qualified as “young doves,” and they are too young to be qualified as [adult] “turtle-doves.” - [Torath Kohanim 1:75] מן התרים או מן בני היונה: פרט לתחלת הציהוב, שבזה ושבזה שהוא פסול, שגדול הוא אצל בני יונה וקטן אצל תורים:
15And the kohen shall bring it near to the altar, and nip off its head, and cause it to [go up in] smoke on the altar, and its [the bird's] blood shall be pressed out upon the wall of the altar. טווְהִקְרִיבוֹ הַכֹּהֵן אֶל הַמִּזְבֵּחַ וּמָלַק אֶת רֹאשׁוֹ וְהִקְטִיר הַמִּזְבֵּחָה וְנִמְצָה דָמוֹ עַל קִיר הַמִּזְבֵּחַ:
shall bring it: One may bring even a single bird. - [Torath Kohanim 1:77] \b the \b0kohen shall … והקריבו: אפילו פרידה אחת יביא:
nip off: The nipping [of the bird’s head] must not be done with anything but with the body of kohen. He would cut with his [thumb]nail adjacent to the back of the head, cutting right through its spine, until he reached the simanim [literally, “the signs”; in the context of slaughtering, this refers to the esophagus (gullet) and the trachea (wind-pipe)], and cuts through them [see Rashi on Lev. 5:8]. הכהן ומלק: אין מליקה בכלי אלא בעצמו של כהן. קוצץ בצפרנו ממול העורף וחותך מפרקתו עד שמגיע לסימנין וקוצצן:
and its [the bird’s] blood shall be pressed out: [The word וְנִמְצָה] an expression similar to “the pressing out (מִיץ) of wrath” (Prov. 30:33); and, “for the milking (הַמֵּץ) has come to an end” (Isa. 16:4). He presses the slaughtering area [of the bird’s neck] against the wall of the altar, and thereby, the blood is pressed out and runs down [the wall]. ונמצה דמו: לשון מיץ אפים (משלי ל לג), כי אפס המץ (ישעיה טז ד), כובש בית השחיטה על קיר המזבח והדם מתמצה ויורד:
and cut…and cause it to go up in smoke…shall be pressed out:[According to the sequence of these terms, one would think that Scripture is commanding the kohen to first cut the bird’s neck, send the bird up in smoke, and only then to press out its blood. But] is it possible to suggest this? Since [the kohen] has already caused the bird to go up in smoke, he presses its blood out? Rather, [the meaning is clearly not so, and the procedure of causing the bird to go up in smoke appears in the verse after that of nipping off the head, to teach us that] just as with the procedure of causing it to go up in smoke, the bird’s head [is smoked] separately and its body separately, so is it with the procedure of nipping [the bird’s head, i.e., the head is cut at the neck, to become virtually separate from its body-even though it is still attached to the body by the skin] (Torath Kohanim 1:81). According to the simple meaning of the verse, it is transposed [and is to be understood as]: and nip off its head, and cause it to [go up in] smoke on the altar, and its [the bird’s] blood shall already have been pressed out. ומלק, והקטיר, ונמצה: אפשר לומר כן, מאחר שהוא מקטיר הוא מוצה, אלא מה הקטרה הראש בעצמו והגוף בעצמו, אף מליקה כן. ופשוטו של מקרא מסורס הוא ומלק והקטיר, וקודם הקטרה, ונמצה דמו כבר:
16And he shall remove its crop along with its entrails, and cast it next to the altar on the east side, to the place of the ashes. טזוְהֵסִיר אֶת מֻרְאָתוֹ בְּנֹצָתָהּ וְהִשְׁלִיךְ אֹתָהּ אֵצֶל הַמִּזְבֵּחַ קֵדְמָה אֶל מְקוֹם הַדָּשֶׁן:
its crop: Heb. מֻרְאָתוֹ, the place of the רְעִי, the digested food or waste, i.e., the crop, [known in the Talmud as זֶפֶק The word מֻרְאָתוֹ stems from רְאִי, which is equivalent to רְעִי, since an “aleph” is sometimes interchangeable with an “ayin.”]- [Torath Kohanim 1:84] מראתו: מקום הראי וזה הזפק:
with its entrails: Heb. בְּנֹצָתָהּ, with its entrails (Zev. 64b). The word נוֹצָה denotes something disgusting, as [in the verse], “for they are foul (נָצוּ), even slipping” (Lam. 4:15). And this is what Onkelos means [when he translates this word as]: בְּאוּכְלֵיהּ, “with its digested food” [i.e., the excrement found in its entrails]. This is the explanation given by Abba Yose ben Hanan, who states: The kohen removes the gizzard with it. But our Rabbis, of blessed memory, [understanding נוֹצָה to mean “feathers,”] explain [the verse as follows]: With a knife, he cuts an opening around the crop, like a window, and takes it [together] with the feathers (נוֹצָה) that are on the skin (Zev. 65a). In the case of the burnt offering of an animal, which eats exclusively from the feeding trough of its owner, it says, “And the innards and the legs, he shall wash with water. … and cause it to [go up in] smoke [on the altar]” (verse 13). However, regarding birds, which feed themselves on things stolen [from other people’s property], the verse says here, “And he shall [remove its crop]…and cast” the entrails, which ate from stolen property. — [Vayikra Rabbah 3:4] בנצתה: עם בני מעיה. ונוצה לשון דבר המאוס, כמו כי נצו גם נעו (איכה ד טו) וזה שתרגם אנקלוס באוכליה. וזהו מדרשו של אבא יוסי בן חנן, שאמר נוטל את הקורקבן עמה. ורז"ל אמרו קודר סביב הזפק בסכין כעין ארובה ונוטלו עם הנוצה שעל העור. בעולת בהמה, שאינה אוכלת אלא באבוס בעליה, נאמר (פסוק יג) והקרב והכרעים ירחץ במים והקטיר, ובעוף, שנזון מן הגזל, נאמר והשליך, את המעים, שאכל מן הגזל:
next to the altar on the east side: At the eastern side of the כֶּבֶשׁ [the ramp leading up to the altar]. — [Torath Kohanim 1:86] אצל המזבח קדמה: במזרחו של כבש:
to the place of the ashes: I.e., the place where each morning they deposit the ashes removed [from the outer altar], and the ashes removed from the inner altar and the menorah. All these were [miraculously] absorbed there in their place. — [Yoma 21a] אל מקום הדשן: מקום שנותנין שם תרומת הדשן בכל בוקר ודישון מזבח הפנימי והמנורה. וכולם נבלעים שם במקומן:
17And he shall split it open with its wing feathers [intact], but he shall not tear it completely apart. The kohen shall then cause it to [go up in] smoke on the altar, on top of the wood which is on the fire. It is a burnt offering, a fire offering [with] a pleasing fragrance to the Lord. יזוְשִׁסַּע אֹתוֹ בִכְנָפָיו לֹא יַבְדִּיל וְהִקְטִיר אֹתוֹ הַכֹּהֵן הַמִּזְבֵּחָה עַל הָעֵצִים אֲשֶׁר עַל הָאֵשׁ עֹלָה הוּא אִשֵּׁה רֵיחַ נִיחֹחַ לַיהֹוָה:
And he shall split it open: Heb. וְשִׁסַּע. The term שִׁסּוּעַ refers only to [splitting open] with the hand. Similarly, [Scripture] says regarding Samson: “and he split it open (וַיְשַׁסְּעֵהוּ) as he would have split open (כְּשַׁסַּע) a kid” (Jud. 14:6). - [Zev. 65b] ושסע: אין שיסוע אלא ביד, וכן הוא אומר בשמשון (שופטים יד ו) וישסעהו כשסע הגדי:
with its wing feathers: [I.e.,] with its wings; he need not pluck out its wing feathers. בכנפיו: עם כנפיו, אינו צריך למרוט כנפי נוצתו:
with its wing feathers: [Lit., “its wings.” Here, it refers to] the actual feathers [of its wings]. But surely you will not find even the simplest of people [i.e., even a person who is not particular,] who, when smelling the odor of burnt feathers, does not find it repulsive. Why then does Scripture command us to send [the feathers] up in smoke? [The feathers are left intact] so that the altar should appear sated and adorned with the sacrifice of the poor man [who could afford only a bird]. — [Vayikra Rabbah 3:5] בכנפיו: נוצה ממש. והלא אין לך הדיוט שמריח ריח רע של כנפים נשרפים ואין נפשו קצה עליו, ולמה אמר הכתוב והקטיר, כדי שיהא המזבח שבע ומהודר בקרבנו של עני:
but he shall not tear it completely apart: [Although the kohen splits open the bird,] he must not tear it apart completely into two [separate] pieces. Rather, he must tear it along its back. Now, regarding a bird [offering], it says here: “a pleasing fragrance [to the Lord],” and regarding animals, it says, “a pleasing fragrance [to the Lord]” (verse 9) [as well. From here we see that both in the case of a large animal or a small bird, the fragrance is pleasing to God]. This teaches us: Whether one offers much or little, [it is equally pleasing to God,] provided that he directs his heart to Heaven. — [Toroth Kohanim 1:91] לא יבדיל: אינו מפרקו לגמרי לשתי חתיכות, אלא קורעו מגבו. נאמר בעוף ריח ניחוח, ונאמר בבהמה ריח ניחוח, לומר לך אחד המרבה ואחד הממעיט, ובלבד שיכוין את לבו לשמים:
Chapter 2
1And if a person brings a meal offering to the Lord, his offering shall be of fine flour. He shall pour oil over it and place frankincense upon it. אוְנֶפֶשׁ כִּי תַקְרִיב קָרְבַּן מִנְחָה לַיהֹוָה סֹלֶת יִהְיֶה קָרְבָּנוֹ וְיָצַק עָלֶיהָ שֶׁמֶן וְנָתַן עָלֶיהָ לְבֹנָה:
And if a person brings: [literally, “And if a soul brings.”] Regarding all the sacrifices which were donated voluntarily, the only instance where Scripture states the word נֶפֶשׁ “soul” is in the case of the meal-offering. Now, who usually donates a meal-offering? A poor man [because flour is less expensive than birds or animals]. [Hence,] the Holy One Blessed is He, says: “I account if for him as if he has sacrificed his very soul!” - [Men. 104b] ונפש כי תקריב: לא נאמר נפש בכל קרבנות נדבה אלא במנחה, מי דרכו להתנדב מנחה, עני, אמר הקב"ה מעלה אני עליו כאלו הקריב נפשו:
his offering shall be from fine flour: If a person says, “I hereby take upon myself to bring a meal-offering,” without specifying which type of meal-offering, then he shall bring מִנְחַת סֹלֶת, a meal-offering of fine flour, which is the first of the meal-offerings [mentioned in this chapter] (Men. 104b), and קֹמֶץ [fistful of the offering] is scooped out while it is [still in the form of] flour, as is explained in this passage. Since five kinds of meal-offerings are enumerated here, all of which had to be brought ready-baked before the קְמִיצָה [scooping took place], with the exception of this one, it is, therefore, called מִנְחַת סֹלֶת, “a meal-offering of fine flour.” סלת יהיה קרבנו: האומר הרי עלי מנחה סתם, מביא מנחת סלת, שהיא הראשונה שבמנחות ונקמצת כשהיא סלת, כמו שמפורש בענין. לפי שנאמרו כאן חמשה מיני מנחות, וכולן באות אפויות קודם קמיצה חוץ מזו, לכך קרויה מנחת סלת:
fine flour: סֹלֶת. [The term] סֹלֶת always denotes [fine flour of] wheat, as the verse says, “fine flour (סֹלֶת) of wheat” (Exod. 29:2). - [Torath Kohanim 2:96] No meal-offering consists of less than one עִשָּׂרוֹן [“one tenth” of an ephah of flour], as it is said, “one tenth measure for a meal-offering (עִשָּׂרוֹן)” (Lev.14:21), [implying that] one tenth measure [shall be used] for each meal-offering. — [see Men. 89a] סלת: אין סלת אלא מן החטין, שנאמר (שמות כט ב) סלת חטים, ואין מנחה פחותה מעשרון, שנאמר (ויק' יד כא) ועשרון סלת למנחה, עשרון לכל מנחה:
He shall pour oil over it: Over all of it. [However,] ויצק עליה שמן: על כולה:
and place frankincense upon it: Upon part of it; the kohen places a fistful of frankincense upon it at one side [of the offering]. Now what makes you say this? Because an inclusion after an inclusion in the Torah means only to exclude. [Now, here, the expression עָלֶיהָ, upon it or over it, is inclusive in nature, for its assumed meaning is “upon all of it,” i.e., the kohen shall pour the oil over all of the offering. In the continuation of the verse, “and place frankincense upon it (עָלֶיה),” however, the second mention of the word עָלֶיה represents a רִבָּוי after a רִבָּוי, and so, the second עָלֶיה becomes preclusive, meaning that the frankincense is to be placed only upon part of the offering.] Another explanation: Oil [is poured] over all of it, because it [the oil] has to be mixed with it and scooped with it, as it is said, “[scoop out a fistful] from its fine flour and its oil.” However, the frankincense because it is neither mixed nor scooped with it, as it is said, “in addition to] all its frankincense” (verse 2), for, after he has completed the קְמִיצָה procedure, he collects all the frankincense from the meal-offering and makes it go up in smoke. — [Torath Kohanim 2:98] ונתן עליה לבנה: על מקצתה, מניח קומץ לבונה עליה לצד אחד. ומה ראית לומר כן, שאין ריבוי אחר ריבוי בתורה אלא למעט. דבר אחר שמן על כולה, מפני שהוא נבלל עמה ונקמץ עמה, כמו שנאמר (פסוק ב) מסלתה ומשמנה, ולבונה על מקצתה, שאינה נבללת עמה ולא נקמצת עמה, שנאמר (פסוק ב) על כל לבונתה, שלאחר שקמץ מלקט את הלבונה כולה מעליה ומקטירה:
He shall pour [oil]…and place [frankincense] …and he shall bring [it to…the kohanim]: [Because Scripture mentions the “pouring” of the oil before the individual “brings” it to the kohanim ,] this teaches [us] that pouring and mixing may be performed [even] by a non- kohen. [And how do we know this concerning the mixing? Because in verses 5-6 below, Scripture states of a meal-offering, “mixed with oil,” before the pouring procedure is to take place, thus, if pouring may be performed by a non- kohen, then mixing, which precedes pouring, may surely be performed by a non- kohen]. — [Torath Kohanim 2:100] [However,] ויצק, ונתן, והביאה: מלמד שיציקה ובלילה כשרים בזר:
2And he shall bring it to Aaron's descendants, the kohanim, and from there, he [the kohen] shall scoop out his fistful of its fine flour and its oil, in addition to all its frankincense. Then, the kohen shall cause its reminder to [go up in] smoke on the altar; [it is] a fire offering [with] a pleasing fragrance to the Lord. בוֶהֱבִיאָהּ אֶל בְּנֵי אַהֲרֹן הַכֹּהֲנִים וְקָמַץ מִשָּׁם מְלֹא קֻמְצוֹ מִסָּלְתָּהּ וּמִשַּׁמְנָהּ עַל כָּל לְבֹנָתָהּ וְהִקְטִיר הַכֹּהֵן אֶת אַזְכָּרָתָהּ הַמִּזְבֵּחָה אִשֵּׁה רֵיחַ נִיחֹחַ לַיהֹוָה:
[And he shall bring it to…] the kohanim, and he [the kohen] shall scoop out: From the קְמִיצָה scooping procedure and onwards, it is exclusively the priesthood who is commanded [to perfo rm these remaining procedures]. — [Torath Kohanim 2:100] הכהנים וקמץ: מקמיצה ואילך מצות כהונה:
And from there, he [the kohen] shall scoop out: [From where?] From the place where the feet of the non- kohen were standing. — [Torath Kohanim 2:104] This teaches us that scooping may be performed any place within the courtyard of the Holy Temple, even within the eleven cubits [span of courtyard grounds] in which ordinary Israelites [i.e., non- kohanim were permitted] to walk. — [Yoma 16b] וקמץ משם: ממקום שרגלי הזר עומדות, ללמדך שהקמיצה כשרה בכל מקום בעזרה, אף בי"א אמה של מקום דריסת רגלי ישראל:
his fistful: One might think [that the fistful may be] full to overflowing, bursting through his fist and coming out on every side! Scripture, therefore, states in another passage, “And from it, he shall lift up in his fist” (Lev. 6:8), [i.e., only what is contained within his fist is valid to be burnt]. But since [we now know that the amount shall be only] what is contained within his fist, one might suggest that it means less than a fistful. Scripture, therefore, states here, מְלֹא, “full” [i.e., it shall be a full fist]. How then [does the kohen scoop out exactly a fistful, not more and not less]? He covers the palm of his hand with his three fingers, [and then, with the remaining thumb from above and little finger from below, he levels off any overflowing mixture, so that exactly a full measure of “three fingers” is attained]. — [Torath Kohanim 2:105; Men. 11a] This is the definition of קֹמֶץ, a “fistful” in the Hebrew language [while in other languages, a “fistful” of something might mean four fingers full of something]. מלא קמצו: יכול מבורץ, מבצבץ ויוצא לכל צד, תלמוד לומר במקום אחר (ויק' ו ח) והרים ממנו בקמצו, אין לך כשר אלא מה שבתוך הקומץ. אי בקמצו יכול חסר, תלמוד לומר מלא. הא כיצד, חופה שלש אצבעותיו על פס ידו, וזהו קומץ במשמע לשון העברית:
in addition to all its frankincense: In addition to all the frankincense, the fist shall be full. על כל לבונתה: לבד כל הלבונה יהא הקומץ מלא:
its frankincense. Then, [the kohen] shall cause…to [go up in] smoke:The frankincense is also to be burnt. — [Torath Kohanim 2:107] לבונתה והקטיר: אף הלבונה בהקטרה:
his fistful of its fine flour and its oil: but if he scooped, and a grain of salt or a particle of frankincense went up into his hand, it is unfit. - [Torath Kohanim 2:107] מלא קמצו מסלתה ומשמנה: הא אם קמץ ועלה בידו גרגיר מלח או קורט לבונה פסולה:
its reminder: The fistful offered up to the Most High [God], is the “reminder” of the meal-offering, because through it, its owner [who brought that sacrifice] is remembered for the good, [causing God] contentment. אזכרתה: הקומץ העולה לגבוה הוא זכרון המנחה, שבו נזכר בעליה לטובה ולנחת רוח:
3And what remains of the meal offering shall belong to Aaron and to his descendants; [it is] holy of holies from the fire offerings of the Lord. גוְהַנּוֹתֶרֶת מִן הַמִּנְחָה לְאַהֲרֹן וּלְבָנָיו קֹדֶשׁ קָדָשִׁים מֵאִשֵּׁי יְהֹוָה:
to Aaron and his descendants: The Kohen Gadol [signified by “Aaron” here,] takes a portion [of what remains of the meal-offering] first, without having to take part in the equal division of the meal offering, while [after this,] the ordinary kohen [signified by “and his descendants” here,] takes his share in the equal division of the meal-offering. — [Torath Kohanim 2:112] לאהרן ולבניו: כהן גדול נוטל חלק בראש שלא במחלוקת, וההדיוט במחלוקת:
[it is] holy of holies: for the Kohanim. קדש קדשים: היא להם:
from the fire-offerings of the Lord: They may take their share in it only after the offerings to the fire [i.e., only after the fistful has been scooped out and burnt, thereby becoming a fire-offering to God. Before this, however, they may not partake of the meal-offering]. — [Torath Kohanim 2: 113] מאשי ה': אין להם חלק בה אלא לאחר מתנות האישים:
4And if one brings a meal offering baked in an oven, it shall consist of [either] unleavened loaves [made] of fine flour mixed with oil, or unleavened wafers anointed with oil. דוְכִי תַקְרִב קָרְבַּן מִנְחָה מַאֲפֵה תַנּוּר סֹלֶת חַלּוֹת מַצֹּת בְּלוּלֹת בַּשֶּׁמֶן וּרְקִיקֵי מַצּוֹת מְשֻׁחִים בַּשָּׁמֶן:
And if you bring [a meal-offering which was baked in an oven]:[Namely: If a person] said, “I hereby take upon myself to bring a meal-offering baked in an oven.” Scripture teaches [us] that he may bring either loaves or wafers. — [Torath Kohanim 2:115] The loaves are to be mixed up (בְּלוּלֹת) [with olive oil], while the wafers are to be anointed (מְשֻׁחִים) [with olive oil]. — [Torath Kohanim 2:117; Men. 74b] Now, our Rabbis (Men. 75a) differ regarding the anointing procedure (מְשִׁיחָה) [for the wafers]: Some say that one must anoint them and again anoint them until all the oil in the log [a volume of liquid] has been used up, for all meal-offerings require one log of oil [each]. Others say that [some of] the oil was smeared [on the wafer] in the form of a Greek “chi” [shaped like the Hebrew נ, see Rashi Exod. 29:2], while the remaining oil was eaten separately by the kohanim. [Now, the verse here says, “mixed with oil…anointed with oil.”] What does the repetition of the word “oil” come to teach us? [It teaches us that for meal-offerings, oil used need not be only from the initial extract from the olives, but] may also be from the second and third extract out of the olives. The only case where the initial extract of oil is required, is the menorah, because regarding it, Scripture says (Exod. 27:20), שֶׁמֶן זַיִת זָ, “clear olive oil.” - [Torath Kohanim 2:118] And we learned in Men. (76a): All meal-offerings baked before the קְמִיצָה [scooping out] procedure, and consequently whose קְמִיצָה is performed by breaking the offering into pieces (see verse 6), all shall be offered in [parcels of] ten loaves [regarding those about which Scripture says חַוֹת, “loaves,” and parcels of] ten wafers, for those offerings about which Scripture says רְקִיקִין, “wafers.” וכי תקרב וגו': שאמר הרי עלי מנחת מאפה תנור, ולימד הכתוב שיביא או חלות או רקיקין, החלות בלולות, והרקיקין משוחין. ונחלקו רבותינו במשיחתן יש אומרים, מושחן וחוזר ומושחן עד שיכלה כל השמן שבלוג, שכל המנחות טעונות לוג שמן. ויש אומרים מושחן כמין כי יונית ושאר השמן נאכל בפני עצמו לכהנים. מה תלמוד לומר בשמן בשמן שתי פעמים, להכשיר שמן שני ושלישי היוצא מן הזיתים, ואין צריך שמן ראשון אלא למנורה, שנאמר בו (שמות כז כ) זך. ושנינו במנחות (עו א) כל המנחות האפויות לפני קמיצתן ונקמצות ע"י פתיתה, כולן באות עשר עשר חלות, והאמור בה רקיקין, באה עשרה רקיקין:
5And if a meal offering on a pan is your sacrifice, it shall be [made] of fine flour, mixed with oil; it shall be unleavened. הוְאִם מִנְחָה עַל הַמַּחֲבַת קָרְבָּנֶךָ סֹלֶת בְּלוּלָה בַשֶּׁמֶן מַצָּה תִהְיֶה:
And if a meal-offering on a pan [is your sacrifice]: מִנְחָה עַל הַמַּחֲבַת Namely: If one said, “I hereby take upon myself to bring מִנְחַת הַמַּחֲבַת, a pan-fried meal offering.” [מַחִבַת] was a vessel in the Holy Temple, in which [certain] meal-offerings were baked in oil upon the fire. This vessel is not deep, but shallow. And therefore, meal-offerings made in it were hard, for since the pan was shallow, [the oil spread thin and consequently,] the fire consumed the oil [causing the product to become hard]. — [Men. 63a] And all [meal-offerings] require three applications of oil: יְצִיקָה [pouring], בְּלִילָה [mixing] and placing oil in the vessel before their preparation. — [Torath Kohanim 2: 121, Men. 75a] ואם מנחה על המחבת: שאמר הרי עלי מנחת מחבת. וכלי הוא שהיה במקדש, שאופין בו מנחה על האור בשמן, והכלי אינו עמוק אלא צף, ומעשה המנחה שבתוכו קשין, שמתוך שהיא צפה, האור שורף את השמן. וכולן טעונות שלש מתנות שמן יציקה, ובלילה, ומתן שמן בכלי קודם עשייתן:
fine flour, mixed with oil: [This] teaches [us] that he must mix them while they are [still] fine flour [and not mixing the oil with the already-fried cakes]. — [Torath Kohanim 2:122] סלת בלולה בשמן: מלמד שבוללן בעודן סלת:
6Break it into pieces, and you shall [then] pour oil over it. It is a meal offering. ופָּתוֹת אֹתָהּ פִּתִּים וְיָצַקְתָּ עָלֶיהָ שָׁמֶן מִנְחָה הִוא:
Break it into pieces, […It is a meal-offering]: [The clause at the end of this verse, “It is a meal-offering,” appears superfluous. However, it] comes to include all meal-offerings baked before the קְמִיצָה procedure, to [have their קְמִיצָה performed by] פְּתִיתָה, breaking them into pieces. — [Men. 75a] פתות אתה פתים: לרבות כל המנחות, הנאפות קודם קמיצה, לפתיתה:
and you shall [then] pour oil over it. It is a meal-offering: This includes all meal-offerings for יְצִיקָה, “pouring of the oil.” One might think that this applies also to a meal-offering baked in an oven. Scripture, therefore, says, “[You shall then pour oil] עָלֶיהָ, over it, ” [but not over that baked in an oven.] Perhaps we should exclude חַות, loaves [of oven-baked meal-offerings only], while not excluding the רְקִיקִין wafers [of oven baked meal-offerings]? Scripture, therefore, says, הִיא [i.e., “It,” to have both cases of loaves and wafers of an oven-baked meal-offering excluded from יְצִיקָה]. — [Men. 75a] ויצקת עליה שמן מנחה הוא: לרבות כל המנחות ליציקה. יכול אף מנחת מאפה תנור כן, תלמוד לומר עליה, אוציא את החלות ולא אוציא את הרקיקין, תלמוד לומר הוא:
Daily Tehillim: Psalms Chapter 119, Verses 1-96
• Verses 1-96
David composed this prominent psalm in alphabetical sequence-eight verses for each letter. Every verse contains one of the following words (referring to different aspects of Torah): Way; Torah; Testimony; Precept; Commandment; Statement (translated here as Word or Promise); Word; Judgement (or Laws); Righteousness; Statute. Replete with morals and prayers, this psalm should be recited daily, as a powerful preparation for the service of God. (In verses beginning with one of the letters of the mnemonic PeReTZ BeN DaMaH, the word "עדותיך" is pronounced "eidvotecha.")
1. Fortunate are those whose way is artless, who walk with the Torah of the Lord.
2. Fortunate are those who keep His testimonies, who seek Him with all their hearts.
3. Indeed, they have not done iniquity; they walk in His ways.
4. You have commanded Your precepts to be observed diligently.
5. My wish is that my ways be directed to keep Your statutes.
6. Then I will not be ashamed, when I behold all Your commandments.
7. I will give thanks to You with uprightness of heart, when I learn Your righteous judgments.
8. I will keep Your statutes; do not utterly forsake me
9. How can a young man keep his way pure? By observing Your word.
10. With all my heart I have sought You; do not let me stray from Your commandments.
11. I have harbored Your word in my heart, that I might not sin against You.
12. Blessed are You, O Lord; teach me Your statutes.
13. With my lips I have declared all the judgments of Your mouth.
14. I have rejoiced in the way of Your testimonies, as I would with all riches.
15. I will speak of Your precepts, and gaze upon Your ways.
16. I will delight in Your statutes; I will not forget Your word.
17. Deal kindly with Your servant, that I may live to keep Your word.
18. Unveil my eyes, that I may behold wonders from Your Torah.
19. I am a sojourner on earth; do not hide Your commandments from me.
20. My soul is crushed with a longing for Your judgments every moment.
21. You have rebuked the accursed scoffers, those who stray from Your commandments.
22. Remove insult and contempt from me, for I have kept Your testimonies.
23. Though princes sat and spoke against me, Your servant speaks of Your statutes.
24. Indeed, Your testimonies are my delight; they are my counsellors.
25. My soul cleaves to the dust; revive me in accordance with Your word.
26. I have spoken of my ways, and You answered me; teach me Your statutes.
27. Make me understand the way of Your precepts, and I will speak of Your wonders.
28. My soul drips away out of grief; sustain me according to Your word.
29. Remove from me the way of falsehood, and graciously endow me with Your Torah.
30. I have chosen the way of faith; Your judgments have I laid before me.
31. I held fast to Your testimonies, O Lord; put me not to shame.
32. I will run on the path of Your commandments, for You will broaden my heart.
33. Teach me, O Lord, the way of Your statutes, and I will keep it to the last.
34. Grant me understanding and I will keep Your Torah; I will observe it with all my heart.
35. Direct me in the path of Your commandments, for that is my desire.
36. Incline my heart to Your testimonies, and not to greed.
37. Avert my eyes from seeing vanity; by Your ways give me life.
38. Fulfill for Your servant Your promise, which brings to the fear of You.
39. Remove my shame which I fear, for Your judgments are good.
40. Behold, I have longed for Your precepts; give me life in Your righteousness.
41. And let Your kindness come to fruition for me, O Lord, Your salvation as You promised.
42. I will offer a retort to those who taunt me, for I trust in Your word.
43. Do not at all remove the word of truth from my mouth, for I hope [to fulfill] Your judgments.
44. I will keep Your Torah continually, for ever and ever.
45. And I will walk in spacious paths, for I seek Your precepts.
46. I will speak of Your testimonies before kings, and I will not be ashamed.
47. And I will delight in Your commandments, which I love.
48. I will lift up my hands to Your commandments, which I love, and I will speak of Your statutes.
49. Remember the word [promised] to Your servant, by which You gave me hope.
50. This is my comfort in my affliction, for Your word has given me life.
51. [Though] the wicked ridicule me severely, I have not strayed from Your Torah.
52. When I remember Your judgments of old, O Lord, I take comfort.
53. Trembling seized me because of the wicked, those who forsake Your Torah.
54. Your statutes have been my songs in the house of my wanderings.
55. At night I remembered Your Name, O Lord, and I kept Your Torah.
56. All this came to me because I kept Your precepts.
57. The Lord is my portion; I pledged to keep Your words.
58. I pleaded before You with all my heart: have compassion upon me according to Your word.
59. I contemplated my ways, and returned my feet to Your testimonies.
60. I hurried and did not delay to keep Your commandments.
61. Bands of wicked men plundered me, [but] I did not forget Your Torah.
62. At midnight, I rise to thank You for Your righteous judgments.
63. I am a friend to all who fear You, and to those who keep Your precepts.
64. Your kindness, O Lord, fills the earth; teach me Your statutes.
65. You have dealt goodness to Your servant, O Lord, in accord with Your promise.
66. Teach me the goodness and wisdom of the [Torah's] reasons, for I believe in Your commandments.
67. Before I afflicted myself, I would blunder; but now I observe Your word.
68. You are good and benevolent; teach me Your statutes.
69. The wicked have smeared me with lies, [when in truth] I keep Your precepts with all my heart.
70. Their hearts grew thick as fat; but as for me, Your Torah is my delight.
71. It is for my good that I was afflicted, so that I might learn Your statutes.
72. The Torah of Your mouth is better for me than thousands in gold and silver.
73. Your hands have made me and prepared me; grant me understanding, that I may learn Your commandments.
74. Those who fear You will see me and rejoice, because I hoped in Your word.
75. I know, O Lord, that Your judgments are just; righteously have You afflicted me.
76. Let Your kindness be my comfort, as You promised to Your servant.
77. Let Your mercies come upon me, that I may live, for Your Torah is my delight.
78. Let the scoffers be shamed, for they have maligned me with falsehood; but I will meditate upon Your precepts.
79. May those who fear You return to me, and those who know Your testimonies.
80. May my heart be perfect in Your statutes, so that I not be shamed.
81. My soul longs for Your salvation; I hope for Your word.
82. My eyes long for Your promise, saying, "When will You comfort me?”
83. Though I became [dried out] like a wineskin in smoke, I did not forget Your statutes.
84. How many are the days of Your servant? When will You execute judgment upon my pursuers?
85. The wicked have dug pits for me, in violation of Your Torah.
86. All Your commandments teach truth, [yet] they pursue me with lies, help me!
87. They nearly consumed me upon the earth, but I did not forsake Your precepts.
88. As befits Your kindness, grant me life, and I will keep the testimony of Your mouth.
89. Forever, O Lord, Your word stands firm in the heavens.
90. Your faithfulness persists for all generations; You established the earth, and it stands.
91. They stand ready today [to execute] Your judgments, for all are Your servants.
92. Had Your Torah not been my delight, I would have perished in my affliction.
93. Never will I forget Your precepts, for through them You have sustained me.
94. I am Yours; save me, for I have sought Your precepts.
95. The wicked hope to destroy me, but I meditate upon Your testimonies.
96. To every goal I have seen a limit, but Your commandment is immensely broad.
Tanya: Likutei Amarim, middle of Chapter 37
• Lessons in Tanya
• Monday, Adar 25, 5775 · March 16, 2015
Today's Tanya Lesson
Likutei Amarim, middle of Chapter 37
ומאחר שכללות נפש החיונית שבכללות ישראל תהיה מרכבה קדושה לה׳
Once the totality of the vital soul of the community of Israel will become a holy chariot for G‑d,
אזי גם כללות החיות של עולם הזה, שהיא קליפת נוגה עכשיו, תצא אז מטומאתה וחלאתה ותעלה לקדושה
then also the general vitality of this world, which now consists of kelipat nogah,will also emerge from its impurity and sickness (the term “impurity” refers to the evil of the kelipah; “sickness” refers to the element of good that kelipat nogah contains, which is nevertheless the good of kelipah, not holiness), and will ascend to holiness,
להיות מרכבה לה׳, בהתגלות כבודו
to become a chariot for G‑d, upon the revelation of His glory (in the World to Come).
וראו כל בשר יחדיו, ויופיע עליהם בהדר גאון עוזו, וימלא כבוד ה׳ את כל האר׳
Then all flesh will behold [G‑dliness] together, and He will appear upon them with the majestic beauty of His power, and “the glory of G‑d will fill the whole world.”
וישראל יראו עין בעין, כבמתן תורה
Israel will see “eye to eye” — the human eye will see the truth of G‑dliness just as the Supernal “eye” sees it — just as [they saw] at the giving of the Torah,
דכתיב: אתה הראת לדעת כי ה׳ הוא אלקים, אין עוד מלבדו
of which it is written,1 “You showed Yourself, so that it be known that ‘G‑d is the L‑rd (lit.: the Four-Letter Divine Name is ELOKIM; i.e., despite the concealment of the Four-Letter Divine Name (which denotes G‑d’s limitless power) by the name Elokim (which signifies G‑d’s self-limitation), it is the former that still pervades all existence); there is nothing else besides Him.”
But whereas the revelation at Sinai lasted only a short time, the revelation in the future will be permanent.
ועל ידי זה יתבלעו ויתבטלו לגמרי כל השלש קליפות הטמאות
Through this ascent of kelipat nogah to holiness, the three unclean kelipot will be utterly annihilated and nullified.
כי יניקתן וחיותן מהקדושה עכשיו, היא על ידי קליפת נוגה, הממוצעת ביניהן
For the nurture and vitality which they now receive from holiness, comes to them [only] by way of kelipat nogah, the intermediary between them.
Kelipat nogah, containing both good and evil, is the medium through which these kelipotwhich are completely evil receive their vitality from G‑dliness, which is completely good. When kelipat nogah ascends to G‑dliness, the impure kelipot, no longer having any access to G‑dly vitality, cease to exist.
ונמצא כי כל תכלית של ימות המשיח ותחיית המתים, שהוא גילוי כבודו ואלקותו יתברך, ולהעביר רוח הטומאה מהאר׳
It follows, therefore, that the purpose of the Messianic era and of the resurrection, namely, the revelation of His glory and Divinity, and the banishment of the spirit of impurity from the earth,
תלוי בהמשכת אלקותו ואור אין סוף ברוך הוא לנפש החיונית שבכללות ישראל בכל רמ״ח אבריה, על ידי קיומה כל רמ״ח מצות עשה
is entirely dependent on [our] drawing down His G‑dliness and the blessed Ein Sof-light upon all the 248 limbs of the vital soul of all Israel (for by way of the vital soul, all the world will be suffused with G‑dliness), and this is achieved by the vital soul’s performance of all the 248 positive mitzvot;
ולהעביר רוח הטומאה ממנה, בשמירתה כל שס״ה מצות לא תעשה, שלא יינקו ממנה שס״ה גידיה
and this purpose is also dependent on [our] banishing the spirit of impurity, i.e., the three impure kelipot, from the vital soul of all Israel (for by being banished from the vital soul, the spirit of impurity is banished from the entire world); and this is accomplished by the vital soul’s observance of all 365 prohibitive mitzvot, thus preventing its 365 blood vessels from drawing nurture from the spirit of impurity.
Why is it that suffusing the vital soul with Ein Sof-light and banishing the impure kelipotfrom the vital soul produces a parallel effect on the entire world?
כי כללות ישראל, שהם ששים רבוא נשמות פרטיות, הם כללות החיות של כללות העולם, כי בשבילם נברא
For the community of Israel, comprising 600,000 particular souls, is the general source of vitality for the world as a whole, since the world was created for the sake of these souls.
וכל פרט מהם הוא כולל ושייך לו החיות של חלק אחד מששים רבוא מכללות העולם
Each specific one of them contains and to each is related the vitality of one six-hundred-thousandth-part of the entire world.
התלוי בנפשו החיונית להעלותו לה׳ בעלייתה
This [part of the world] depends on his vital soul for its elevation to G‑d through [the vital soul’s] own elevation.
דהיינו במה שמשתמש מעולם הזה לצורך גופו ונפשו החיונית לעבודת ה׳
This means that one elevates “his” portion of the world by his partaking of this world for the requirements of his body and vital soul in the service of G‑d. By using the objects of this world that one’s body and vital soul need for the sake of serving G‑d, one elevates his portion of the world.
כגון אכילה ושתיה ודומיהם, ודירה וכל כלי תשמישיו
For example: eating, drinking, and the like; one’s dwelling and all his utensils.
But surely there are more than 600,000 souls; besides, it is quite impossible for one person to use a six-hundred-thousandth of the entire world.
אלא ששים רבוא נשמות פרטיות אלו הן שרשים, וכל שרש מתחלק לששים רבוא ניצוצות, שכל ניצו׳ הוא נשמה אחת
These 600,000 particular souls, however, are “roots”; and, like a root from which grow numerous branches, each root-soul subdivides into 600,000 sparks, each spark being one Neshamah.
וכן בנפש ורוח, בכל עולם מארבע עולמות: אצילות, בריאה, יצירה, עשיה
Similarly with the Nefesh and Ruach, in each of the four Worlds — Atzilut, Beriah, Yetzirah and Asiyah. In each of these four Worlds are found all three soul-levels — Nefesh, Ruach and Neshamah.
| FOOTNOTES | |
| 1. | Devarim 4:35. |
• Sefer Hamitzvos:
Monday, Adar 25, 5775 · March 16, 2015
Today's Mitzvah
A daily digest of Maimonides’ classic work "Sefer Hamitzvot"
Negative Commandment 52
Intermarriage
"You shall not make marriages with them"—Deuteronomy 7:3.
It is forbidden to marry a non-Jew.
Intermarriage
Intermarriage
Negative Commandment 52
Translated by Berel Bell
The 52nd prohibition is that we are forbidden from marrying heretics.1
The source of this commandment is G‑d's statement,2 "do not intermarry with them," which then explains what kind of intermarriage is referred to — "do not give your daughters to their sons, and do not take their daughters for your sons."
Tractate Avodah Zarah3 states clearly, "the Torah prohibition applies where there is marriage."
There are variations regarding the punishment for one who transgresses this prohibition. If he has relations with her in public, the punishment is carried out by one who kills him while he is in the act — as Pinchas did to Zimri.4 Our Sages said5 [regarding this law]: "a man who has relations with a non-Jew — the zealous are allowed to kill him." This is true only upon certain conditions: that the act was done in public and the act is still in progress, just it as happened [with Pinchas and Zimri].
If, however, nobody knows of the act, or he separated from her before the zealous could kill him, his punishment is kares. This kares is not explicitly mentioned in Scripture. Our Sages asked,6 "what if the zealous do not kill him?" They explain that he receives kares, as it is written,7 "[Yehudah has rebelled...] because Yehudah, who was holy to G‑d, has profaned himself; because he loved and had relations with the daughter of a foreign god. G‑d will give kares to the one who does this, [he will neither be] a student nor a teacher." [In reference to this] our Sages said, "from here we learn that he receives kares."
Whenever it is determined that a man has had relations with a non-Jewish woman, and there were witnesses and a warning,8 he is lashed by Torah law. One should understand this.
The details of this law are explained in Avodah Zarah9 and Sanhedrin.10
FOOTNOTES
1.I.e. all non-Jews, regardless of whether they worship idols or not. See Hilchos Issurei Biyah, 12:1. Kapach, 5731, note 74.
2.Deut. 7:3.
3.36b.
4.Num. 25:6-8.
5.Sanhedrin 81b.
6.Ibid. 82a.
7.Malachi 2:11-12.
8.And, as mentioned above, there was marriage.
9.36b.
10.82a.
______________________________________________________________
Negative Commandment 53
Marriage with an Ammonite or Moabite
"An Ammonite or a Moabite shall not enter the congregation of G‑d"—Deuteronomy 23:4.
It is forbidden to marry a male Ammonite or Moabite, even after they convert to Judaism.
Marriage with an Ammonite or Moabite
Negative Commandment 53
Translated by Berel Bell
The 53rd prohibition is that we are forbidden from marrying male descendants of Ammon and Moav — even after they have converted to Judaism.
The source of this commandment is G‑d's statement,1 "An Ammonite or Moabite [man] may never enter the congregation of G‑d."
One who transgresses this prohibition receives lashes — i.e. when a male Ammonite or Moabite convert has relations with a Jewish woman within marriage, both receive lashes by Torah law.
The details of this law are explained in the eighth chapter of Yevamos2 and the end of Kiddushin.3
FOOTNOTES
1.Deut. 23:4.
2.76b.
3.74b.
______________________________________________________________
Negative Commandment 55
Rejecting an Egyptian
"Do not reject an Egyptian"—Deuteronomy 23:8.
It is forbidden to utterly distance an Egyptian convert. A third generation Egyptian convert must be allowed to marry among the Jewish people.
Rejecting an Egyptian
Negative Commandment 55
Translated by Berel Bell
The 55th prohibition is that we are forbidden from distancing ourselves from Egyptians by refusing to marry them once they have converted to Judaism.1
The source of this commandment is G‑d's statement,2 "do not despise the Egyptian."
The details of these two mitzvos, i.e. that of the Egyptian and that of the Edomite,3 are explained in the eighth chapter of Yevamos and the end of Kiddushin.4
FOOTNOTES
1.This is only in the third generation following the conversion. During the first two generations, one is forbidden from marrying them. See Hilchos Issurei Biyah, 12:19.
2.Deut. 23:8.
3.N54.
4.Op.cit
______________________________________________________________
Negative Commandment 54
Rejecting an Edomite
"Do not reject the Edomite, since he is your brother"—Deuteronomy 23:8.
It is forbidden to utterly distance an Edomite convert. A third generation Edomite convert must be allowed to marry among the Jewish people.
Rejecting an Edomite
Negative Commandment 54
Translated by Berel Bell
The 54th prohibition is that we are forbidden from distancing ourselves from the descendants of Esav once they have converted to Judaism — i.e. we are forbidden from refusing to marry them after their conversion.1
The source of this commandment is G‑d's statement,2 "do not despise the Edomite, since he is your brother."
FOOTNOTES
1.See note to N55.
2.Deut. 23:8.
_____________________________________________________________
Negative Commandment 354
Marrying a Bastard
"A mamzer shall not enter into the assembly of G‑d"—Deuteronomy 23:3.
A child born of certain illicit relationships is called a mamzer. Such an individual may not marry a non-mamzer.
Marrying a Bastard
Negative Commandment 354
Translated by Berel Bell
The 354th prohibition is that a mamzer1 is forbidden from having relations with a Jewish woman.2
The source of this commandment is G‑d's statement,3 "a mamzer may not enter the congregation of G‑d."
One who transgresses this prohibition receives lashes.
The details of this mitzvah are explained in the eighth chapter of Yevamos and the end of Kiddushin.
FOOTNOTES
1.An illegitimate child, product of a sexual prohibition punishable by kares. See end of N353.
2.In Hilchos Issurei Biyah, 15:2, the Rambam rules that he would receive lashes only if he had relations with her after kiddushin.
3.Deut. 23:3.
______________________________________________________________
Negative Commandment 360
A Castrated Man
"A man with injured testicles or whose member is cut may not enter the assembly of G‑d"—Deuteronomy 23:2.
A man whose genitals have been damaged to the point that he is incapable of fathering a child may not marry a Jewish woman.
A Castrated Man
A Castrated Man
Negative Commandment 360
Translated by Berel Bell
The 360th prohibition is that a man whose reproductive organs have been damaged to the extent that he cannot father children is forbidden from having relations with a Jewish woman.
The source of this commandment is G‑d's statement,1 "a man with crushed testicles or a cut member may not enter the congregation of G‑d."
If he had relations with a Jewish woman after kiddushin, he receives lashes.
The details of this mitzvah are explained in the ninth chapter of Yevamos.
FOOTNOTES
1.Deut. 23:2.
______________________________________________________________
Negative Commandment 361
Castration
"...neither shall you do this in your land"—Leviticus 22:24.
It is forbidden to cause castration to a male – whether human or animal – by damaging his genitals. It is forbidden even to further damage the genitals of a male who has already been castrated.
Castration
Negative Commandment 361
Translated by Berel Bell
The 361st prohibition is that we are forbidden from damaging the reproductive organs of any male, including all species of animals, as well as humans.
The source of this commandment is G‑d's statement1 which follows mention of [animals whose reproductive organs were] crushed by hand or by instrument, pulled loose, or severed — "in your land you may not do this."
[Our Sages2 gave] the explanation of this verse: "among you [i.e. by Jews] it may not be done."
One who transgresses this prohibition — i.e. who castrates one from any species — receives lashes.
In the chapter Shemonah Sheratzim,3 our Sages said, "What is the source for the prohibition of castrating a man? The verse, 'in your land you may not do this' — i.e. among you.4 Even the second one to damage a reproductive organ5 transgresses this prohibition, as Rabbi Chiya bar Abun said in the name of Rabbi Yochanan: 'everyone agrees that the second one to make [a meal offering] into chometz [also] transgresses, since it is written,6 "do not bake it chometz," and7 "do not make it chometz." The second one to damage a reproductive organ transgresses since it is written, "crushed by hand or by instrument..." If one transgresses for crushing by hand, it is obvious that one transgresses for crushing with an instrument! But this comes to include even one who crushes with an instrument after they were already crushed by hand — that he too transgresses.' "
The details of this mitzvah are explained in a number of passages in Shabbos and Yevamos.
FOOTNOTES
1.Lev. 22:24.
2.Sifra, Emor, 7:11.
3.Shabbos 110b.
4.Rather than literally, "in your land," i.e. of Israel. The prohibition actually applies outside Israel as well. See Hilchos Issurei Biyah, 16:10.
5.Literally, "one who castrates after one who castrates."
6.Lev. 6:10.
7.Lev. 2:11.
_______________________________________________________________
• 1 Chapter: Berachot Berachot - Chapter Two
Berachot - Chapter Two
Halacha 1
This is the order of the blessings of the grace after meals:
The first blessing [thanks God for providing our] sustenance;
The second blessing [thanks God for granting us] Eretz [Yisrael];
The third blessing [praises God as] "the builder of Jerusalem"; and
The fourth blessing [praises God as] "He who is good and does good."
The first blessing [thanks God for providing our] sustenance;
The second blessing [thanks God for granting us] Eretz [Yisrael];
The third blessing [praises God as] "the builder of Jerusalem"; and
The fourth blessing [praises God as] "He who is good and does good."
The first blessing was instituted by Moses, our teacher; the second blessing by Joshua; the third by King David and his son, Solomon; and the fourth by the Sages of the Megillah.
Halacha 2
When workers are employed by an employer and eat a meal of bread, they should not recite a blessing before eating. Similarly, they should recite only two blessings after eating so that they do not neglect their employer's work.
[In such an instance,] the complete text of the first blessing should be recited. In the second blessing, they should begin with the text of the blessing for Eretz Yisrael, include aspects of the blessing for the building of Jerusalem, and conclude using the standard conclusion of the second blessing.
If they do not receive a wage, but only meals in return for their services or if they eat together with their employer, they should recite the full text of the four blessings as others do.
Halacha 3
The blessing for Eretz Yisrael should include an acknowledgement of thanks [to God] at its beginning and at its conclusion. It should conclude: "[Blessed are You, God,] for the land and for the sustenance." Whoever does not include the phrase "a precious, good, and spacious land" in the blessing for Eretz Yisraeldoes not fulfill his obligation.
A person must mention the covenant [of circumcision] and the Torah [in this blessing], mentioning the covenant before the Torah. [The reason for this order is] that the covenant mentioned in the blessing for Eretz Yisrael refers to the covenant of circumcision, concerning which thirteen covenants [are mentioned in the Torah]. In contrast, [the Torah mentions only] three covenants with regard to the Torah, as [Deuteronomy 28:69] states: "These are the words of the covenant... in addition to the covenant He established with you at Chorev," and [Deuteronomy 29:9-11] states: "You are standing... to establish a covenant."
Halacha 4
The third blessing begins as follows: "Have mercy on us, God, our Lord, and on Israel, Your people, on Jerusalem, Your city, and on Zion, the abode of Your glory..." Alternatively, it begins: "Comfort us, God, our Lord, with Jerusalem, Your city...."
One should conclude: "[Blessed are You, God,] who will build Jerusalem," or "...who will comfort His people Israel with the building of Jerusalem." For this reason, this blessing is referred to as "the blessing of comfort."
Whoever does not mention the kingdom of the House of David in this blessing does not fulfill his obligation, because it is an essential element of the blessing. There will be no complete comfort until the return of the sovereignty to the House of David.
Halacha 5
On Sabbaths and on the festivals, one should begin with the concept of comfort and conclude with the concept of comfort and, in the midst of the blessing, mention the sacred quality of the day.
How should one begin? Either with, "Comfort us, God, our Lord, with Zion, Your city..." or "Have mercy on us, God, our Lord, and on Israel, Your people, on Jerusalem, Your city...." One should conclude with: "[Blessed are You, God,] who will comfort His people Israel with the building of Jerusalem" or "... who will build Jerusalem."
On the Sabbath, in the midst [of the blessing], one should say:
Our God, and God of our fathers, may it please You, God, our Lord, to strengthen us through Your mitzvot and through the mitzvah of this great and holy seventh day. For this day is great and holy before You for us to refrain from work and rest on it with love in accordance with the commandment of Your will. In Your good will, God, our Lord, grant us tranquility and prevent distress, evil, and sorrow on the day of our rest.
On the festivals, one should include the prayer Ya'aleh v'yavo in this blessing. Similarly, on Rosh Chodesh and on Chol HaMo’ed, one should include the prayer Ya'aleh v'yavo in the third blessing.
Halacha 6
On Chanukah and Purim, one should add the prayer Al hanisim in the blessing for Eretz Yisrael, as one adds in the Shemoneh Esreh.
When a festival or Rosh Chodesh falls on the Sabbath, one recites R'tzey vahachalitzenu first, and then Ya'aleh v'yavo. Similarly, when Rosh ChodeshTevet falls on the Sabbath, one recites Al hanisim in the blessing for Eretz Yisrael, and R'tzey vahachalitzenu and Ya'aleh v'yavo in the blessing of comfort.
Halacha 7
In the fourth blessing, one must mention God's sovereignty three times.
When a guest recites grace in the home of his host, he should add a blessing for his host in this blessing. What should he say? "May it be Your will that [my] host not be disgraced in this world or shamed in the world to come." He may add to the blessing for [his] host and extend it [as he desires].
Halacha 8
When grace is being recited in the house of a mourner, the following addition should be made in the fourth blessing:
The Living King who is good and does good, the true God, the true Judge who judges justly, the absolute ruler of His world who may do as He chooses. We are His people and His servants and we are obligated to thank Him and bless Him for everything.
He should request mercy for the mourner to comfort him in the matters that he desires. [Afterwards,] he concludes, Harachaman....
Halacha 9
The blessing for the bridegroom is recited after these four blessings at each meal eaten in the place of the wedding celebration. This blessing should not be recited by servants or by minors.
Until when is the blessing recited? When a widower marries a widow, it is recited only on the first day. When a groom who has never married before marries a widow or when a bride who has never married before marries a widower, it is recited during all the seven days of the marriage celebrations.
Halacha 10
The blessing that is added at the place of the wedding celebration is the final blessing of the seven blessings recited at the wedding.
When does the above apply? When [all] the people who eat there were present [at the wedding] and heard the wedding blessings being recited. If, however, other people were present who had not heard the wedding blessings at the wedding, the seven wedding blessings are recited for them after grace, just as they are recited at the wedding itself.
The above applies when [a quorum of] ten are present. The groom can be counted as part of this quorum.
Halacha 11
These are the seven blessings:
Blessed are You, God, our Lord, King of the universe, Creator of man.
Blessed are You, God, our Lord, King of the universe, who created all things for His glory.
Blessed are You, God, our Lord, King of the universe, who created man in His image, in an image reflecting His likeness, [He brought forth] his form and prepared for him from his own self a structure that will last for all time. Blessed are You, God, Creator of man.
May the barren one rejoice and exult as her children are gathered to her with joy. Blessed are You, God, who makes Zion rejoice in her children.
Grant joy to these loving companions as You granted joy to Your creation in the Garden of Eden long ago. Blessed are You, God, who grants joy to the groom and the bride.
Blessed are You, God, our Lord, King of the universe, who created joy and happiness, bride and groom, gladness, song, cheer, and delight, love and harmony, peace and friendship. Soon, God, our Lord, may there be heard in the cities of Judah and the outskirts of Jerusalem, a voice of joy and a voice of happiness, a voice of a groom and a voice of a bride, a voice of grooms rejoicing from their wedding canopies and youths from their songfests. Blessed are You, God, who grants joy to the groom together with the bride.
Blessed are You, God, our Lord, King of the universe, who created all things for His glory.
Blessed are You, God, our Lord, King of the universe, who created man in His image, in an image reflecting His likeness, [He brought forth] his form and prepared for him from his own self a structure that will last for all time. Blessed are You, God, Creator of man.
May the barren one rejoice and exult as her children are gathered to her with joy. Blessed are You, God, who makes Zion rejoice in her children.
Grant joy to these loving companions as You granted joy to Your creation in the Garden of Eden long ago. Blessed are You, God, who grants joy to the groom and the bride.
Blessed are You, God, our Lord, King of the universe, who created joy and happiness, bride and groom, gladness, song, cheer, and delight, love and harmony, peace and friendship. Soon, God, our Lord, may there be heard in the cities of Judah and the outskirts of Jerusalem, a voice of joy and a voice of happiness, a voice of a groom and a voice of a bride, a voice of grooms rejoicing from their wedding canopies and youths from their songfests. Blessed are You, God, who grants joy to the groom together with the bride.
Halacha 12
[The following rules apply when a person who is reciting grace] on a Sabbath or a festival [concludes the third blessing and] forgets to mention the aspect of holiness connected with the day: If he remembers before he begins the fourth blessing, he should recite the following:
On the Sabbath: Blessed [are You, God...] who has granted rest to His people Israel as a sign and a holy covenant. Blessed are You, God, who sanctifies the Sabbath.
On the festivals: Blessed [are You, God...] who has granted festivals to His people Israel for rejoicing and for happiness. Blessed are You, God, who sanctifies Israel and the seasons.
On the Sabbath: Blessed [are You, God...] who has granted rest to His people Israel as a sign and a holy covenant. Blessed are You, God, who sanctifies the Sabbath.
On the festivals: Blessed [are You, God...] who has granted festivals to His people Israel for rejoicing and for happiness. Blessed are You, God, who sanctifies Israel and the seasons.
Afterwards, one should begin the fourth blessing and conclude grace. If he [does not] remember [the omission of the special passages until after] he begins the fourth blessing, he should cease [his prayers] and return to the beginning [of grace], the blessing for sustenance.
Halacha 13
[The following rules apply when a person who is reciting grace] on Rosh Chodesh [concludes the third blessing and] forgets to recite Ya'aleh v'yavo:
If he remembers before he begins the fourth blessing, he should recite the following: "Blessed [are You, God...] who granted Rashei Chadashim to His people Israel as a remembrance." The blessing does not include a chatimah. Afterwards, he should begin the fourth blessing and conclude grace. If he remembers after beginning the fourth blessing, he should complete it [without making any additions]. He need not repeat [the entire grace]. The same rules apply on Chol HaMo’ed.
[When a person reciting grace] on Chanukah or on Purim forgets to mention the uniqueness of the day in grace, he need not repeat [the grace].
Halacha 14
[The following rules apply to] a person who ate and forgot to recite grace: If he remembers before his food becomes digested, he should return and recite grace. If he remembers after his food becomes digested, he should not return and recite grace.
If a person forgets and is unsure whether he recited grace or not, he must return and recite grace, provided his food has not become digested.
Commentary Halacha 1
This is the order of the blessings of the grace after meals: The first blessing [thanks God for providing our] sustenance; - Deuteronomy 8:10states: "When you have eaten and are satiated, you shall bless God, your Lord...." Berachot 48b states that this command obligates us to recite the blessing thanking God for our sustenance.
The second blessing [thanks God for granting us] Eretz [Yisrael]; - The above verse continues, "for the good land which He has granted you." Berachot(loc. cit.) interprets this as an obligation to add a special blessing thanking God for Eretz Yisrael.
The third blessing [praises God as] "the builder of Jerusalem"; - Berachot(loc. cit.) interprets the modifier "good" in the above verse as a reference to Jerusalem and the Temple. This allusion implies an obligation to add a blessing thanking God for these gifts.
and The fourth blessing [praises God as] "He who is good and does good." - As the Rambam explains, this blessing was a later addition. The Rambam includes the full text for these blessings in "The Order of Prayers for the Entire Year," which is found at the end of this text.
The first blessing was instituted by Moses, our teacher -Berachot (loc. cit.) explains that Moses instituted this blessing when the manna descended. The manna serves as a clear sign of God's beneficence in granting sustenance to His creations.
the second blessing by Joshua - Berachot (loc. cit.) continues, relating that when the Jews entered Eretz Yisrael and began to benefit from its produce, Joshua instituted the second blessing of grace.
the third by King David - who solidified the kingdom of Israel and conquered Jerusalem. He instituted the blessing thanking God, "for Israel, Your people, and Jerusalem, Your city" (Berachot, loc. cit.).
and his son, Solomon - who built the Temple and added to the blessing instituted by his father, acknowledgement of "the great and holy house on which Your name is called" (Berachot, loc. cit.).
There is a slight difficulty with these statements. The first three blessings are considered to have been instituted by the Torah. If so, how can the authorship of the latter two of them be attributed to Joshua, David, and Solomon, who lived in later generations?
The Ramban in his Hasagot explains that, although the fundamental obligation to recite these blessings originates in the Torah, the basic form of the text of these blessings was ordained by each of these prophets in his time. Beforehand, each person would recite the grace in his own words. (See also the commentary on the following halachah.)
The Ramban also explains that, after the destruction of the Temple, a prayer that it be rebuilt was included in the third blessing. In this context, it is also worthy to question whether Ezra and the Men of the Great Assembly also made any changes in the grace when they arranged all the prayers and blessings, as mentioned in Chapter 1, Halachah 5 and commentary. (See Kochba d'Shavit.)
and the fourth by the Sages of the Megillah. - Berachot (loc. cit.) relates that the Sages instituted this blessing on the day the Romans granted permission for the dead of Beitar to be buried. This city had served as the capital of Bar Kochba's revolt against Rome and had exacted a heavy toll of legionnaires while making a valiant defense. When the city finally fell, the Romans slew hundreds of thousands mercilessly, the extent of the carnage staggering all chroniclers. As a further measure of punishment to its inhabitants, they refused to allow them to be buried.
Years passed before such permission was granted. When the Romans finally granted the Sages permission to bury these people, they were amazed at the wondrous miracle their eyes beheld. The corpses had remained whole. They had neither rotted, nor been eaten by predators. In appreciation of this Divine kindness, the Sages instituted this blessing, praising God for being "good" (for preventing them from rotting) and "doing good" (for allowing the corpses to be buried).
Commentary Halacha 2
When workers are employed by an employer and eat a meal of bread, they should not recite a blessing before eating. - The obligation to recite the blessing before eating is Rabbinic in origin. In certain situations, the Sages did not institute such a requirement.
Similarly, they should recite only two blessings after eating - combining the second and third blessings and omitting the fourth.
Tosafot, Berachot 16a, states that although the third blessing is required by the Torah, it is not recited because the Sages have the power to withhold the fulfillment of a Torah precept. The Kessef Mishneh offers a different rationale, explaining that the Rambam did not state that the Torah requires that a specific number of blessings be recited for grace.
The Rishon LeTzion clarifies the matter further, explaining that the Rambam maintains that the Torah requires us to mention three concepts in grace: appreciation for the sustenance God grants us, appreciation for Eretz Yisrael, and appreciation for Jerusalem. According to the Torah, it does not matter how these three concepts are mentioned, whether in one blessing (as in al hamichyah), two blessings (as in this law), or three blessings (as is the usual case).
so that they do not neglect their employer's work. - From this we learn two concepts:
a) that it is forbidden to work while reciting grace (Jerusalem Talmud, Berachot2:5; Shulchan Aruch, Orach Chayim 183:12);
b) how important it is for a worker to devote himself faithfully to his work. See the conclusion of Hilchot Sechirut.
a) that it is forbidden to work while reciting grace (Jerusalem Talmud, Berachot2:5; Shulchan Aruch, Orach Chayim 183:12);
b) how important it is for a worker to devote himself faithfully to his work. See the conclusion of Hilchot Sechirut.
[In such an instance,] the complete text of the first blessing should be recited. - Rashi, Berachot (loc. cit.), explains that this distinction is made because the latter two blessings resemble each other, and hence can be combined with little difficulty. In contrast, the first blessing focuses on a different theme.
In the second blessing, they should begin with the text of the blessing for Eretz Yisrael, include aspects of the blessing for the building of Jerusalem - One should recite:
We offer thanks to You, God, our Lord, for having granted our ancestors a precious, good, and spacious land, and Jerusalem, Your city. May You rebuild it speedily in our days (Rabbenu Manoach).
It may be presumed that one should also include the aspects of the second and third blessings that Halachot 3 and 4 consider as absolute requirements (Kinat Eliyahu).
and conclude using the standard conclusion of the second blessing.
If they do not receive a wage, but only meals in return for their services - their responsibility to their employer is less, and they are required to recite all the blessings.
or if they eat together with their employer, they should recite the full text of the four blessings as others do. - The fact that their employer joins them can be interpreted as license to take the leisure of reciting the full text of grace.
At present, it is assumed that employers allow their workers greater leniency and, in all instances, workers are required to recite the entire grace (Shulchan Aruch, Orach Chayim 191:2).
Commentary Halacha 3
The blessing for Eretz Yisrael should include an acknowledgement of thanks [to God] at its beginning and at its conclusion. - In "The Order of Prayers for the Entire Year," the Rambam relates that this blessing begins, "We offer thanks to You, God, our Lord..." and states, shortly before its conclusion, "For all these, God, our Lord, we give thanks to You." An omission of the second mention of thanks, however, does not require the repetition of grace (Shulchan Aruch HaRav 187:4).
It should conclude: "[Blessed are You, God,] for the land and for the sustenance." - This is a single expression of thanks, acknowledging God's gift of "a land which produces sustenance" (Berachot 49a).
Whoever does not include the phrase "a precious, good, and spacious land" - This expression is a combination of the praises of Eretz Yisraelmentioned in Jeremiah 3:19 and Exodus 3:8.
in the blessing for Eretz Yisrael does not fulfill his obligation. - Unless one mentions these qualities, one has not adequately expressed one's appreciation for Eretz Yisrael. The omission of this phrase requires the repetition of the grace. See Halachah 12.
A person must mention the covenant [of circumcision] - Rashi (Berachot48b) explains that the mitzvah of circumcision is connected with God's promise of Eretz Yisrael to Abraham, as Genesis 17:8-10 states: "I will give you and your descendants... the entire land of Canaan.... You shall keep My covenant.... Circumcise every male."
and the Torah [in this blessing] - Rashi (loc. cit.) notes that a similar connection applies with regard to the Torah, as Deuteronomy 8:1 states: "Observe all the mitzvot which I am commanding you... so that you will... inherit the land that God promised to your ancestors."
The phraseology used by the Rambam indicates that he does not require the repetition of the grace if either of these points is omitted. Other authorities (including the Shulchan Aruch, Orach Chayim 187:3) differ and require the repetition of grace in such an instance.
mentioning the covenant before the Torah. [The reason for this order -which gives priority to the covenant
is] that the covenant mentioned in the blessing for Eretz Yisrael refers to the covenant of circumcision, concerning which thirteen covenants [are mentioned in the Torah]. - Note the conclusion of Hilchot Milah, where the Rambam enumerates these thirteen expressions.
In contrast, [the Torah mentions only] three covenants with regard to the Torah, as [Deuteronomy 28:69] states: "These are the words of the covenant... in addition to the covenant He established with you at Chorev," and [Deuteronomy 29:9-11] states: "You are standing... to establish a covenant." - The Lechem Mishneh notes that there are several other verses that refer to a covenant with regard to the Torah. These three, however, are unique in that they refer to the establishment of a covenant regarding the bond between the Jews and the Torah.
1. Berachot 49a mentions both these possibilities. In "The Order of Prayers for the Entire Year," the Rambam quotes the former expression.
2. The beginning of a blessing must share the same theme as its conclusion. Nevertheless, the rebuilding of Jerusalem shares a connection with God's showing mercy to the people of Israel, since the rebuilding of Jerusalem is an expression of God's mercy to the Jewish people (Berachot, loc. cit.).
3. Although Berachot (loc. cit.) mentions that two different concepts should not be mentioned in the conclusion of a blessing, this version of the blessing does not contradict that rule. The intent is a single request that Israel be granted the ultimate comfort, the rebuilding of Jerusalem.
4. Rashi, Berachot 48b, mentions another reason for the mention of the House of David. It was David who conquered Jerusalem and established the holiness of the city.
5. Since an integral element of our celebration of the Sabbath and festivals is eating festive meals, the sacred element of the day should be mentioned in the grace recited after partaking of those meals. Nevertheless, the uniqueness of the day does not require a blessing in its own right, nor is it made the essential element of the third blessing. Therefore, one begins and concludes that blessing in the same manner as is done during the week (Rashi, Tosafot, Berachot 48b).
6. The order in which these alternatives are mentioned in this halachah is the reverse of that mentioned in the previous halachah. It can be explained that in the previous halachah, the Rambam mentioned the text he considered most appropriate first. The order he mentions in this halachah, however, is closer to the expression used by our Sages in Berachot (loc. cit.), the source for this halachah.
7. Pesach, Shavuot, and Sukkot. With regard to Rosh HaShanah, see the commentary on Halachah 13.
8. Shabbat 24a explains that since an additional sacrifice (korban musaf) is offered on these days, they possess an element of sanctity that is worthy of mention. As obvious from the contrast of Halachah 12 to Halachah 13, however, there is a difference between the obligation to mention these days and the obligation to mention Sabbaths and festivals.
9. Since Chanukah and Purim are Rabbinic holidays which are not associated with an additional sacrificial offering, they are not mentioned in the third blessing. The second blessing is more appropriate for the mention of the miracles of these holidays, since it is an expression of thanks to God (Shabbat24a).
1. Berachot 49a mentions both these possibilities. In "The Order of Prayers for the Entire Year," the Rambam quotes the former expression.
2. The beginning of a blessing must share the same theme as its conclusion. Nevertheless, the rebuilding of Jerusalem shares a connection with God's showing mercy to the people of Israel, since the rebuilding of Jerusalem is an expression of God's mercy to the Jewish people (Berachot, loc. cit.).
3. Although Berachot (loc. cit.) mentions that two different concepts should not be mentioned in the conclusion of a blessing, this version of the blessing does not contradict that rule. The intent is a single request that Israel be granted the ultimate comfort, the rebuilding of Jerusalem.
4. Rashi, Berachot 48b, mentions another reason for the mention of the House of David. It was David who conquered Jerusalem and established the holiness of the city.
5. Since an integral element of our celebration of the Sabbath and festivals is eating festive meals, the sacred element of the day should be mentioned in the grace recited after partaking of those meals. Nevertheless, the uniqueness of the day does not require a blessing in its own right, nor is it made the essential element of the third blessing. Therefore, one begins and concludes that blessing in the same manner as is done during the week (Rashi, Tosafot, Berachot 48b).
6. The order in which these alternatives are mentioned in this halachah is the reverse of that mentioned in the previous halachah. It can be explained that in the previous halachah, the Rambam mentioned the text he considered most appropriate first. The order he mentions in this halachah, however, is closer to the expression used by our Sages in Berachot (loc. cit.), the source for this halachah.
7. Pesach, Shavuot, and Sukkot. With regard to Rosh HaShanah, see the commentary on Halachah 13.
8. Shabbat 24a explains that since an additional sacrifice (korban musaf) is offered on these days, they possess an element of sanctity that is worthy of mention. As obvious from the contrast of Halachah 12 to Halachah 13, however, there is a difference between the obligation to mention these days and the obligation to mention Sabbaths and festivals.
9. Since Chanukah and Purim are Rabbinic holidays which are not associated with an additional sacrificial offering, they are not mentioned in the third blessing. The second blessing is more appropriate for the mention of the miracles of these holidays, since it is an expression of thanks to God (Shabbat24a).
The Kessef Mishneh and the Lechem Mishneh note that from Shabbat (loc. cit.), it would appear that while permission is granted to mention Chanukah and Purim in the second blessing, it is not an obligation to do so. In contrast, the Rambam requires that they be mentioned. They explain that since the Sages of the Talmud were wont to mention these holidays in grace, and the Jerusalem Talmud (Berachot 7:6) considers their mention a binding obligation, the Rambam established their mention as a requirement. See also Halachah 13 and commentary.
10. Precedence is given to the Sabbath because it occurs more frequently than the festivals and is on a higher spiritual level (Kessef Mishneh).
11. "Blessed are You, God, our Lord, 16King13 of the Universe, the God, who is our Father and our 16King13... the 16King13 who is good." The reason for this stress on God's sovereignty in this blessing is that the blessing recited previously mentions the sovereignty of the House of David, and the Sages wanted to emphasize how all earthly kings are subordinate to a higher authority (Berachot 49a).
12. The blessing mentioned is quoted from Berachot 46a. That source also contains additions to the blessing that Rabbi Yehudah HaNasi would recite.
13. The Rambam's words are quoted from Berachot 46b, which relates that Mar Zutra recited this blessing.
10. Precedence is given to the Sabbath because it occurs more frequently than the festivals and is on a higher spiritual level (Kessef Mishneh).
11. "Blessed are You, God, our Lord, 16King13 of the Universe, the God, who is our Father and our 16King13... the 16King13 who is good." The reason for this stress on God's sovereignty in this blessing is that the blessing recited previously mentions the sovereignty of the House of David, and the Sages wanted to emphasize how all earthly kings are subordinate to a higher authority (Berachot 49a).
12. The blessing mentioned is quoted from Berachot 46a. That source also contains additions to the blessing that Rabbi Yehudah HaNasi would recite.
13. The Rambam's words are quoted from Berachot 46b, which relates that Mar Zutra recited this blessing.
The Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 379:14) relates that this blessing should be recited throughout the seven days of mourning by the mourners and by all who recite grace together with him when there is a zimun. Other opinions (based onKetubot 8a) state that this blessing should be recited only when ten people recite grace together. The Kitzur Shulchan Aruch 207:7 writes that it is Ashkenazic custom to rely on this opinion, and hence, this blessing is generally not recited.
14. Berachot (loc. cit.) relates several additions Mar Zutra made on the above occasion.
15. In "The Order of Prayers for the Entire Year," the Rambam includes several requests beginning with the word Harachaman (May the Merciful One...) in his text of grace. These requests were additions to the grace made by the Geonim, who lived in the era subsequent to the Talmud.
16. This refers to the final blessing quoted in Halachah 11.
17. Nisu'in (marriage) is marked by the entry of a bride and groom into a private chamber together. This ceremony is referred to as chuppah and is accompanied by a celebration. See Hilchot Ishut, Chapter 10, and commentaries.
14. Berachot (loc. cit.) relates several additions Mar Zutra made on the above occasion.
15. In "The Order of Prayers for the Entire Year," the Rambam includes several requests beginning with the word Harachaman (May the Merciful One...) in his text of grace. These requests were additions to the grace made by the Geonim, who lived in the era subsequent to the Talmud.
16. This refers to the final blessing quoted in Halachah 11.
17. Nisu'in (marriage) is marked by the entry of a bride and groom into a private chamber together. This ceremony is referred to as chuppah and is accompanied by a celebration. See Hilchot Ishut, Chapter 10, and commentaries.
As mentioned at the conclusion of the following halachah, according to the Rambam this blessing is recited only when ten adult males are present. TheShulchan Aruch (Even HaEzer 62:4) differs and maintains that it should be recited even when fewer than ten people are present. Note the Ramah (Even HaEzer 62:7) who states that today this blessing is never recited alone. If "new faces" - people who had not attended the wedding celebrations previously - are present, all seven blessings are recited. If no "new faces" are present (although ten males are), the meal is considered like a meal eaten by the bridegroom alone, and the blessing is not recited.
18. The same laws applying to a widow or widower apply to a person who has been divorced. Significantly, in Hilchot Ishut 10:12, the Rambam states that even if a woman has been married before, her husband should celebrate with her for three days.
19. Surely, this also applies when neither the bride nor groom have been married before. Hilchot Ishut (loc. cit.) states: "The Sages ordained that everyone who marries a maiden should celebrate with her for seven days."
18. The same laws applying to a widow or widower apply to a person who has been divorced. Significantly, in Hilchot Ishut 10:12, the Rambam states that even if a woman has been married before, her husband should celebrate with her for three days.
19. Surely, this also applies when neither the bride nor groom have been married before. Hilchot Ishut (loc. cit.) states: "The Sages ordained that everyone who marries a maiden should celebrate with her for seven days."
The differences between the time limits mentioned in this halachah and those mentioned in Chapter 5, Halachah 5, are worthy of comparison. See the commentary on that halachah.
20. Ketubot 8a states that after the first day of the wedding celebrations, Rav Ashi would recite the wedding blessings only when "new faces" were present. In his responsa, the Rambam's son states that his father required only two "new faces." Note the Beit Shmuel 64:7 who requires only one "new face." TheHagahot Maimoniot write that on the Sabbath the presence of new guests is not necessary, since the Sabbath itself is considered as "guests."
21. Ketubot 7b derives this rule from the account of the wedding between Ruth and Boaz. Ruth 4:2 relates that Boaz invited ten men to witness the marriage.
22. Only six blessings are mentioned below; the seventh blessing is the blessing over the wine. (See Hilchot Ishut 10:4.)
23. Rashi (Ketubot 7b) explains that this blessing is in praise of the creation of Adam, the first man.
20. Ketubot 8a states that after the first day of the wedding celebrations, Rav Ashi would recite the wedding blessings only when "new faces" were present. In his responsa, the Rambam's son states that his father required only two "new faces." Note the Beit Shmuel 64:7 who requires only one "new face." TheHagahot Maimoniot write that on the Sabbath the presence of new guests is not necessary, since the Sabbath itself is considered as "guests."
21. Ketubot 7b derives this rule from the account of the wedding between Ruth and Boaz. Ruth 4:2 relates that Boaz invited ten men to witness the marriage.
22. Only six blessings are mentioned below; the seventh blessing is the blessing over the wine. (See Hilchot Ishut 10:4.)
23. Rashi (Ketubot 7b) explains that this blessing is in praise of the creation of Adam, the first man.
In Hilchot Ishut, where the text of the wedding blessings is repeated, this blessing follows the blessing "who has created all things for His glory." This order is the sequence in which these blessings are recited today. It appears more appropriate, particularly according to Rashi's commentary (loc. cit.), which explains that the blessing "who has created all things..." is not directly connected to the wedding itself, but rather is recited in appreciation of the guests who have come to celebrate together with the new couple.
[The repetition of the text of the blessings in two separate halachot, something very out of character for the Rambam in the Mishneh Torah, has aroused the attention of the commentaries. Some have gone so far as to suggest that the text of the blessings here was added by the printers, and not by the Rambam himself.]
24. Despite the fact that this blessing follows two (or three) blessings which begin with "Blessed...," it also begins with "Blessed...." Among the explanations offered is that the first blessings are short, and if the line "Blessed..." were not mentioned, they would appear as a single blessing (Tosafot, Ketubot, loc. cit.).
25. Rashi (loc. cit.) interprets this as a reference to the creation of woman, who was created from man ("his own self"), and gives him the potential for reproduction ("a structure that will last for all time").
26. "The barren one" refers to Jerusalem. Psalms 137:6 states: "Let my tongue cleave to my palate if I do not place Jerusalem above my highest joy." Thus, at the height of the wedding celebration, we recall the holy city and pray that it be rebuilt.
27. This is a prayer that the bride and groom enjoy the happiness experienced by Adam in Eve before the first sin.
24. Despite the fact that this blessing follows two (or three) blessings which begin with "Blessed...," it also begins with "Blessed...." Among the explanations offered is that the first blessings are short, and if the line "Blessed..." were not mentioned, they would appear as a single blessing (Tosafot, Ketubot, loc. cit.).
25. Rashi (loc. cit.) interprets this as a reference to the creation of woman, who was created from man ("his own self"), and gives him the potential for reproduction ("a structure that will last for all time").
26. "The barren one" refers to Jerusalem. Psalms 137:6 states: "Let my tongue cleave to my palate if I do not place Jerusalem above my highest joy." Thus, at the height of the wedding celebration, we recall the holy city and pray that it be rebuilt.
27. This is a prayer that the bride and groom enjoy the happiness experienced by Adam in Eve before the first sin.
Several manuscripts and early printings of the Mishneh Torah mention a different conclusion for this blessing, "Blessed are You, God, who brings joy to His people, Israel, and rebuilds Jerusalem." (In this context, note the commentary of the Lechem Mishneh.)
28. The blessing joins our wishes for the happiness of the particular couple with our hope for the Messianic redemption and the rebuilding of Jerusalem. The ultimate marriage relationship is the bond between God and the Jewish people, which will be realized in the Messianic age. Thus, the two themes, marriage and redemption, share an intrinsic link.
29. Rashi, Ketubot 8a, explains the difference between the last two blessings. The fifth of the blessings concludes with a request that the bride and groom enjoy a lifetime of happiness and success together. The sixth and final blessing concludes with a request that they find happiness in each other, that their wedding joy be extended throughout their lives. Alternatively, the final blessing is a blessing for the Jewish people as a whole who find fulfillment in married life.
28. The blessing joins our wishes for the happiness of the particular couple with our hope for the Messianic redemption and the rebuilding of Jerusalem. The ultimate marriage relationship is the bond between God and the Jewish people, which will be realized in the Messianic age. Thus, the two themes, marriage and redemption, share an intrinsic link.
29. Rashi, Ketubot 8a, explains the difference between the last two blessings. The fifth of the blessings concludes with a request that the bride and groom enjoy a lifetime of happiness and success together. The sixth and final blessing concludes with a request that they find happiness in each other, that their wedding joy be extended throughout their lives. Alternatively, the final blessing is a blessing for the Jewish people as a whole who find fulfillment in married life.
Commentary Halacha 12
Having mentioned the additions to grace connected with special occasions, the Rambam returns to the subject of grace on Sabbath and festivals.
[The following rules apply when a person who is reciting grace] on a Sabbath or a festival [concludes the third blessing - More precisely, mentions God's name in the conclusion of the third blessing. If he remembers his omission before he mentions God's name, he should add the special passage, and then repeat Uvneh Yerushalayim. Once he mentions God's name, however, he should complete the blessing, "boneh Yerushalayim. Amen," and then add the blessing mentioned below.
and] forgets to mention the aspect of holiness connected with the day: -See Halachah 5.
If he remembers before he begins the fourth blessing - Shulchan Aruch HaRav 188:9 interprets this to mean: before he mentions even a single word of the blessing. The Mishnah Berurah 188:23, however, differs and maintains that even after mentioning God's name, one may still continue, "who has granted rest...."
he should recite the following: On the Sabbath: - Significantly, throughout this halachah, the Rambam does not differentiate between the first two meals of the Sabbaths and festivals and any subsequent ones. As will be explained, theShulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 188:8) does make such a distinction with regard to the repetition of grace. Nevertheless, if a person remembers his omission in time to add the special blessing, even the Shulchan Aruch (loc. cit.:7) requires it to be recited after any and all meals on Sabbaths and festivals.
Blessed [are You, God...] - Our text follows the position of the Lechem Mishneh, who emphasizes that this blessing contains God's name and the phrase "King of the universe," as do other blessings. This view is not shared by the Rishon LeTzion and several other commentaries, who point to the fact that neither Berachot 49a nor the Rambam explicitly mentions God's sovereignty. Nevertheless, the Shulchan Aruch (loc. cit.:6) shares the Lechem Mishneh'sposition.
who has granted rest to His people Israel as a sign and a holy covenant. Blessed are You, God, who sanctifies the Sabbath. - The Sabbath was sanctified by God on the seventh day of creation.
On the festivals: Blessed [are You, God...] who has granted festivals to His people Israel for rejoicing and for happinesss. Blessed are You, God, who sanctifies Israel and the seasons. - The sanctification of the festivals is dependent on the Jews, who fix the monthly calendar. (See Beitzah 17a.)
Afterwards, one should begin the fourth blessing and conclude grace -without any further changes.
If he [does not] remember [the omission of the special passages until after] he begins the fourth blessing, - i.e., even if he merely mentions the first word, Baruch, as explained above
he should cease [his prayers] - Based on Berachot 49b, the Shulchan Aruch(loc. cit.:8) mentions a difference between the first two meals on the Sabbath and festivals and any subsequent ones. We are obligated to eat only two meals that require grace on these holy days. One may fulfill his obligation for the third meal with other foods, without eating bread on the Sabbath, whereas on festivals one is not obligated to eat a third meal at all.
Accordingly, although there is a dimension of holiness connected with all the Sabbath and festival meals, the need to mention this dimension in grace is considered significant enough to require repetition of all the blessings only when an omission is made in the first two meals of the day.
It must be noted that neither the Rambam nor Berachot (loc. cit.) make such a differentiation explicitly. This has led the Rishon LeTzion and others to postulate that the Rambam maintains that an omission of the Sabbath or festivals in grace is sufficient to require repetition of the blessings in any meal eaten on these holy days.
and return to the beginning [of grace], the blessing for sustenance. - If three people ate together and made the same omission, however, they do not repeat the zimmun (Shulchan Aruch, loc. cit.:9).
The Ra'avad challenges the Rambam's decision, calling attention to a law quoted by the Rambam in Hilchot Tefillah 10:10. When a person omits Ya'aleh v'yavo in the Shemoneh Esreh, he is required to repeat the entire Shemoneh Esreh. Nevertheless, if he is accustomed to recite prayers of supplication afterShemoneh Esreh before withdrawing from his place of prayer, and remembers while in the midst of those supplications, he is not required to repeat Shemoneh Esreh. All that is necessary is to return to the blessing R'tzey.
Similarly, the Ra'avad argues, the blessing Hatov v'hametiv resembles the supplicatory prayers recited after Shemoneh Esreh. Accordingly, one should return to the third blessing of grace and not recite the other two.
This opinion, although respected for its sound reasoning, is not accepted by most authorities. The Shulchan Aruch (loc. cit.:6) and others quote the Rambam's view.
Commentary Halacha 13
[The following rules apply when a person who is reciting grace] on Rosh Chodesh [concludes the third blessing and] forgets to recite Ya'aleh v'yavo - as required in Halachah 5:
If he remembers before he begins the fourth blessing - as mentioned in the commentary on the previous halachah, this means after one has recited even a single word of the blessing.
he should recite the following: "Blessed [are You, God...] who grantedRashei Chadashim to His people Israel as a remembrance."
The blessing does not include a chatimah. - Many blessings begin: "Blessed are You, God, King of the universe...," and conclude, "Blessed are You, God...." The latter concluding phrase is referred to as a chatimah. (See Hilchot Kri'at Shema 1:7.)
Berachot 49a mentions that the Sages were unsure of whether this blessing should include a chatimah or not. Therefore, to avoid the possibility of mentioning God's name in vain, the chatimah is omitted.
Afterwards, he should begin the fourth blessing and conclude grace -without any further changes.
If he remembers - the omission
after beginning the fourth blessing, he should complete it - the fourth blessing
[without making any additions]. He need not repeat [the entire grace]. -Berachot 49b explains that although in prayer (see Hilchot Tefillah 10:10), the omission of Ya'aleh v'yavo warrants a repetition of the Shemoneh Esreh, onRosh Chodesh its omission does not warrant a repetition of grace. The difference between the two is that prayer is an obligation, while eating a meal of bread is not. Since there is no obligation to recite grace on Rosh Chodesh, failing to mention it in grace is not sufficient cause to warrant its repetition.
The same rules apply on Chol HaMo’ed - since we are not obligated to eat a meal of bread on these days.
Within this context, it is worthy to mention the laws regarding the recitation ofYa'aleh v'yavo on Rosh HaShanah. Neither the Rambam nor the Talmudic sources which deal with this subject (Berachot 49a-b and Shabbat 24a) mention adding Ya'aleh v'yavo to grace on Rosh HaShanah. Nevertheless, the Magen Avraham (188:7) takes it for granted that such an addition should be made.
Furthermore, if one becomes conscious of the omission of that addition before beginning the fourth blessing, one should add a special blessing to mention Rosh HaShanah. If, however, one has already begun the fourth blessing, one should continue grace without mentioning Rosh HaShanah, since there is no obligation to eat festive meals on that day. On the contrary, fasting is allowed.
[When a person reciting grace] on Chanukah or on Purim forgets to mention the uniqueness of the day in grace - Al hanisim, as mentioned in Halachah 6.
he need not repeat [the grace]. - The Jerusalem Talmud (Berachot 7:6) requires grace to be repeated for such an omission. Nevertheless, since there is no indication in the Babylonian Talmud of such an obligation (indeed,Shabbat 24a does not require even the recitation of Al hanisim), the Rambam does not accept that ruling.
It has, however, become customary to add Al hanisim among the paragraphs beginning Harachaman at the conclusion of grace if one forgets to recite it in its proper place (Ramah, Orach Chayim 187:4).
Issurei Biah - Chapter Fifteen
Halacha 1
What is meant by the Torah's prohibition against relations with a mamzer? [The term refers to a person conceived from] a forbidden sexual relationship.1 Aniddah is an exception. A son conceived from such relationships is blemished,2but is not a mamzer. When, however, a man enters into any other forbidden sexual relationships, whether through rape, or willingly, whether conscious of the prohibition or not,3 the offspring produced is a mamzer. Both male and female [mamzerim] are forbidden forever, as [Deuteronomy 23:3] states: "[Amamzer shall not enter God's congregation.] Also the tenth generation...," i.e., [the prohibition is] everlasting.
Halacha 2
When a mamzer marries a Jewish women or a Jewish man marries a femalemamzer, once they enter into relations after consecration, they are punished by lashes.4 If the man consecrates the woman, but does not enter into relations, he does not receive lashes.5 If they enter into relations without consecration, they6 do not receive lashes because of relations with a mamzer.7 For the only instance where relations that involve a negative prohibition incur the punishment of lashes without the woman being consecrated is relations between a High Priest and a widow, as will be explained.8
When a woman remarries his divorcee after she married another person,9the offspring are acceptable. For she is not considered an ervah.
Halacha 3
When a gentile or a servant enter into relations with a Jewish woman, the child is acceptable. [This applies] whether the woman is unmarried or married, whether she was raped or engaged in relations willingly.10 When a gentile or a servant enter into relations with a female mamzer, the offspring is a mamzer.11When a mamzer enters into relations with a female gentile, the offspring is a gentile. If [the child] converts, he is fit to marry within the Jewish people like other converts.12 If [a mamzer] enters into relations with a maid-servant, the offspring is a servant. If he is freed, the offspring is acceptable like other freed servants. He may marry a Jewish woman.
Halacha 4
This is the general principle: When a child is born from a servant, a gentile, a maid-servant, or a female gentile, he is like his mother.13 We are not concerned with the father. For this reason, [the Sages] permitted a mamzer to marry a maid-servant to purify the lineage of his descendants. For he can free them and they will be free men.14 [Our Sages] did not ordain a decree forbidding a maid-servant to a mamzer,15 so that he can legitimize his sons.16
Halacha 5
When a person who is half a servant and half a freed man17 engages in relations with a married woman, a son born of that relationship has no way of legitimizing [his marriage relationships], because the dimension of him which is a mamzer18 and the dimension of him which is an acceptable Jew19 are intermingled. Therefore he is forbidden to engage in relations with a maid-servant.20 and his offspring share his status forever.21
Halacha 6
When a gentile engages in relations with a maid-servant who immersed herself, the offspring are servants. When a servant who immersed himself engages in relations with a female gentile, the offspring are gentile. He is given his mother's status. When, however, a gentile engages relations with a gentile maid-servant or a gentile servant engages relations with a gentile woman, the status of the offspring follows that of the father.
Halacha 7
A mamzer may marry a female convert and a female mamzer may marry a male convert, the offspring of both relationships are mamzerim.22 For the status of the offspring follows that of the blemished one. [The license for such a marriage is derived from] the verse: "[A mamzer shall not enter] God's congregation." The congregation of converts is not considered as "God's congregation."
Halacha 8
When a female convert marries a male convert and gives birth to a son, he is permitted to marry a female mamzer even though he was both conceived and born in holiness.23 This also applies to the son of his grandson [- or any other descendant -] until his connection with conversion is forgotten and it is not known that he [descends from] converts.24 Afterwards, he will be forbidden to marry a female mamzer. Converts and freed servants are bound by the same laws.25
Halacha 9
When a convert marries a native-born Jewess26 or a native-born Jew marries a convert, the son is a Jew in all contexts and is forbidden to marry a femalemamzer.
Halacha 10
There are three categories of mamzerim: one that is definitely a mamzer, amamzer whose status is a matter of doubt, and a mamzer by Rabbinic decree. What is meant by one who is definitely a mamzer? The offspring of a relationship that is definitely incestuous or adulterous, as we explained.27
A mamzer whose status is a matter of doubt is the offspring of a relationship that we are unsure whether it is adulterous or incestuous. For example, a man engaged in relations with a woman who was consecrated, but we are unsure if the consecration was effective,28 or who was divorced, but we are unsure whether the divorce was effective,29 or a similar situation.
A mamzer by Rabbinic decree: for example, a woman who heard that here husband died and remarried and then discovered that her husband was alive. Afterwards, her [first] husband engaged in relations with her while she was still married with her second husband, the offspring is a mamzer by Rabbinic decree.30
Halacha 11
When an unmarried woman becomes pregnant through a promiscuous relationship, we ask her: "What is [the status of] this fetus" or "...this child"? If she replies: "It is the child of a man of acceptable lineage; I entered into relations with an Israelite," her word is accepted and the son is acceptable.31[This applies] even if most of the inhabitants of the city in which she engaged in relations are of unacceptable lineage.32
Halacha 12
If the child's mother was not questioned until she died, or she was a deaf-mute, mute, or intellectually or emotionally unstable, we consider the child as amamzer whose status is questionable.33 [This ruling applies even] if she said: "I engaged in relations with so-and-so, the mamzer" or "...with so-and-so, thenetin."34 Even if that person agrees with her statement, [the child's status is only doubtful. The rationale is:] Just as she engaged in relations with the person who admitted to her statement; so, too, she engaged in relations with others.35
This [child] is called a shituki.36 He knows the identity of his mother, but does not definitely know the identity of his father.
Halacha 13
Halacha 14
[The following rules apply when] an unmarried woman engages in promiscuous relations says: "This child is the son of so-and-so." If that person is of acceptable lineage, the son is considered acceptable. Nevertheless, her word is not accepted for the child to be considered as the man's son.39 It appears to me, however, that we give consideration to her words and because of the doubt, that child is forbidden to marry the relatives of the [named] person.
If the [named] person is a mamzer, we do not accept her word to definitely deem the offspring as a mamzer on this basis, as we explained.40 Instead, we consider the child as a mamzer whose status is questionable.
Halacha 15
[Different laws apply with regard to] a father who [makes statements with regard to] a child who is presumed to be his son. If he says: "This son of mine is amamzer,"41 his word is accepted.42 If the son himself has children, his word is not accepted.43 For the Torah accepted his word with regard to his son alone. [This is derived from Deuteronomy 21:17:] "He will recognize the firstborn, the son of the hated." [Implied is that] he makes his identity known to others.44
Halacha 16
Just as a father's word is accepted when he says: "This son of mine is my firstborn," so, too, his word is accepted if he says: "This son of mine is amamzer," or "...the son of a divorced woman" or "...the son of a woman who performed chalitzah."45 Similarly, if his wife was pregnant, his word is accepted if he says: "This fetus is not my child. It is a mamzer." The child is definitely deemed as a mamzer.
If a person says that he himself is a mamzer, his word is accepted with regard to the prohibition against him marrying a native-born Jewess.46 He is, however, forbidden to marry a female mamzer47 until it is definitely known that he is amamzer. The same laws apply to his son. If he has grandchildren, his word is not accepted with regard to the disqualification of his grandchildren. He can disqualify only himself.
Halacha 17
[The following laws apply when] a woman who was consecrated48 becomes pregnant in her father's home. The offspring is assumed to be a mamzer.49 He is forbidden to marry both a native-born Jewess and a female mamzer.50
If his mother was questioned and said: "I became pregnant from the man who consecrated me," her word is accepted and the child is considered acceptable.51If, however, that man contravenes her and says: "I never engaged in relations with her," the child is considered a mamzer. For even if the child was assumed to be his son, his word is accepted if he says: "My son is amamzer."52
[Even in the latter situation,] the woman is not assumed to be a zonah.53Instead, her word is accepted if she says: "I engaged in relations with the man who consecrated me." [Since] she is not a zonah, if she married a priest,54 she need not be divorced55 and offspring which she bears him are acceptable [as priests].56
Halacha 18
If people at large gossip about her while she is consecrated, [saying that] she was promiscuous with the man to whom she was consecrated and with others, the child is a mamzer whose status is questionable.57 [This applies] even if the man to whom she was consecrated was intimate with her in her father's home. For just as she acted loosely with the man to whom she was consecrated, she could have acted loosely with others. If she was questioned and said: "This fetus was conceived by the man to whom I am consecrated," the child is acceptable as explained [above].
Halacha 19
When a married woman58 is pregnant and says: "This fetus is not my husband's," her word is not accepted to render the child illegitimate. [Instead,] we assume that the child is acceptable. For the Torah accepted only the word of the father. If the father says that it is not his son or he is overseas,59 we assume that the son is a mamzer.60
Halacha 20
Although there is a rumor circulating to the fact that a woman has committed adultery and everyone is gossiping about her, we do not suspect that her children are mamzerim. [The rationale is that] the person who most frequently has relations with her is her husband. It is permitted to marry her daughter, even as an initial and preferred option.64 With regard to her own status, we suspect that she is a zonah.65 If her conduct was very lewd, we also suspect the lineage of her children.66
Halacha 21
According to Scriptural Law, a person suspected of being a mamzer is permitted to marry among the Jewish people.67 [Deuteronomy 23:3] states: "Amamzer shall not enter God's congregation." [Implied is that] one who is definitively a mamzer may not marry among the Jewish people, not one whose status is questionable. Nevertheless, our Sages raised the level [of purity required] with regard to lineage and forbade those of questionable status from marrying among the Jewish people.
Halacha 22
[A man of the latter status] is forbidden to marry a female mamzer. Even a female mamzer whose status is questionable is forbidden to him. For perhaps one of them is not a mamzer, but the other is definitely a mamzer. A mamzer by Rabbinic decree may marry a female mamzer by Rabbinic decree.71 Similarly, in any other instances [where a person is forbidden to marry] because of a doubt, one person of this status may not marry another.72
Halacha 23
What is implied? Shitukim, asufim, and those whose status as mamzerim is indefinite are forbidden to marry each other. If they married, the union may not be maintained. Instead, they must divorce with a formal bill of divorce.73 The offspring of such relationships are [mamzerim of] indefinite status like their parents.
Individuals of indefinite status like this have no option except to marry converts.74 The status of their offspring follows their blemish.
Halacha 24
What is implied? When a shituki or an asufi marries a female convert or a freed maid-servant, a convert, or a freed servant marries a female shituki or asufi, the offspring are shitukim or asufim.
Halacha 25
When an asufi is found in a city inhabited by gentiles, whether the majority are gentiles or the majority are Jews, the child is considered as gentile of indefinite status with regard to his lineage.75 If he consecrates a woman, she needs a bill of divorce because of the doubt.76 If someone kills him, he is not executed for doing so.77
Halacha 26
If the court had him immersed for the sake of conversion78 or he immersed on his own initiative after he attained majority, his status is the same as any asufithat is found in Jewish cities.79
If the majority of the inhabitants of the city are gentile, it is permitted to feed him meat from animals that were not ritually slaughtered.80 If the majority were Jewish, we return his lost articles as is the law with regard to Jews. If the populations are equally balanced,81 it is a mitzvah to maintain his life82 and we remove an avalanche from him on the Sabbath.83 With regard to damages, we follow the same principle that applies in all cases of doubt in financial law: When a person who seeks to expropriate [money] from a colleague, the burden of proof is upon him.84
Halacha 27
It appears to me that whenever there is a gentile woman or a maid-servant who is fit to give birth in a city, since an asufi that is discovered there is considered to possibly have the status of a gentile or a servant, if he marries a female convert as we stated,85 there is a doubt whether his wife is a married woman.86One who enters into relations with her is not liable, because we do not execute individuals when there is a doubt involved.87
Similarly, it appears to me that when a shituki marries a woman who could be forbidden to him as an ervah,88 there is a doubt whether she is a married woman, for consecration is not effective with regard to the ariot.
Halacha 28
Halacha 29
What is the source on which I rely to say that a shituki or an asufi are not forbidden to marry any woman who could be forbidden to him as an ervah?91For an acceptable child whose mother was questioned92is not forbidden to marry any woman who could be forbidden to him as an ervah. And it is written in the Torah [Leviticus 19:29]: "Do not desecrate your daughter to have her act promiscuously." [Commenting on this verse,] our Sages state:93 If this would happen, a father will marry his daughter and a brother will marry his sister.
If the law was that anyone who does not definitely know the identity of his father would be forbidden to marry any woman who could be forbidden to him as anervah, this situation could not arise and the earth would never become filled with incestuous relations.94 From this,95 we learn that we do not forbid ariot and consider them as relatives because of the doubt unless we definitely know that she is forbidden to him as an ervah. For were we to say this, all of the orphans in the world who did not know their fathers would be forbidden to marry in all situations lest they encounter a forbidden relationship.
Halacha 30
When a child was abandoned on the road and afterwards,96 one came and said: "He is my son and I abandoned him," his word is accepted. Similarly, the mother's word is accepted. If the child was taken in from the marketplace and afterwards, his father and mother came and said: "This is our son," their word is not accepted. [The rationale is that] he has already been categorized as anasufi.
In the years of famine, their word is accepted. It is because of the famine that they abandoned him, for they desire that others sustain them. Therefore they remained silent until the child was gathered in.
Halacha 31
If the child was found circumcised, bundled, salted,97 blue eye-paint98 was applied to his eyes, an amulet was placed around his neck,99 it was placed under a interwoven tree that a wild beast could not enter and was close to the city, or it was found in a synagogue near the public domain or at the side of the public domain, the laws pertaining to an asufi do not apply. Since [the parents] are protecting the child so that it does not die, we can assume that it is acceptable.100
If, however, it is abandoned in the midst of the road or far away from a city, even under a tree, or in a synagogue, or it is found hanging in a place accessible by a wild beast,101 it is considered as an asufi.
Halacha 32
A mid-wife's word is accepted if she states: "This child is a priest," "...a Levite," "...a netin,"102 or "...a mamzer," because the child's lineage has not been established and is not known.
When does the above apply? When her faithfulness has been established and an objection is not raised against her. If, however, an objection was raised against her and one person said: "She is testifying falsely," her word is not accepted.103 The child is considered as acceptable,104 but is not considered as [a priest or Levite].105
Halacha 33
It is a clear matter that a shituki is forbidden to marry a shituki and an asufi is forbidden to marry an asufi, because their status is doubtful.106 Nevertheless, even mamzerim of a definite status and netinim may intermarry. The offspring is a mamzer.107 A shituki or an asufi are permitted to marry netinim and other converts. The offspring is considered as [a mamzer] of doubtful status.
| FOOTNOTES | |
| 1. |
These refer to a variety of incestuous and adulterous relationships as listed in the beginning of this text.
|
| 2. |
I.e., he has a spiritual taint to his character.
|
| 3. |
The difference between whether relations were willful, forced, or inadvertent is relevant only with regard to the punishment received by the man and woman. The child born of the offspring is considered as a mamzer regardless. This law teaches us an important lesson with regard to sexual morality. The effects of our deeds on our offspring is binding, regardless of whether we repent and/or seek to refine ourselves afterwards.
|
| 4. |
As is the punishment for the violation of any Scriptural commandment.
|
| 5. |
For the consecration alone does not involve the violation of a Scriptural commandment.
|
| 6. |
Here the Rambam mentions both the man and the woman, for both are forbidden to engage in relations. In the former clause, he refers to the man, because the consecration is his responsibility.
|
| 7. |
The Rambam's wording implies that the couple do receive lashes for their relations, for they have violated the prohibition: "There shall not be a promiscuous woman" (Deuteronomy 23:18) which forbids relations that are not carried out for the sake of marriage (Maggid Mishneh, based onHilchot Ishut 1:4).
The Rambam's opinion is that the prohibition against relations with a mamzerapplies only within the context of marriage depends on the prooftext cited above: "A mamzer shall not enter the congregation of God," i.e., shall not marry among the Jewish people. According to the Rambam, the implication is that the prohibition must involve marriage (Rav Avraham, the son of the Rambam, as quoted in the Kessef Mishneh).
The Ra'avad, the Ramban, Rav Moshe HaCohen, and others do not agree with the Rambam's ruling and maintain that this prohibition applies even if there was no consecration. Relations alone are sufficient to establish liability. See the discussion of the issue in the Maggid Mishneh andKessef Mishneh.
|
| 8. |
Chapter 17, Halachah 3.
|
| 9. |
I.e., and her second husband died or divorced her. The Rambam describes the prohibition against a man remarrying his divorcee after she was consecrated by another man in Hilchot Gerushin 11:12. The Maggid Mishneh states that the Rambam feels it necessary to emphasize that the offspring of such relations are not mamzerim even though the prohibition is not punishable by kereit, because Deuteronomy 24:4, the source for the prohibition describes such relations as "an abomination." That term is often used with regard to the ariot, the more severe sexual prohibitions.
|
| 10. |
Thus although the woman committed adultery and is forbidden to her husband, the child is not considered as a mamzer. The rationale is that we pay no attention to the seed of the gentile or the servant, as stated in Halachah 4. Halachicly, it is as if the woman conceived the child independently.
|
| 11. |
This law is based on the same rationale. Since we pay no attention to the seed of the servant or the gentile, the child takes on the same quality as the mother. Just as she is disqualified, so, too, is he.
|
| 12. |
For there is no difference between him and other gentiles. See the following halachah.
|
| 13. |
Whether Jewish, gentile, or a servant.
The Maggid Mishneh and Shulchan Aruch (Even HaEzer 7:17) quote views which state that if the offspring is female, she may not marry into the priesthood.
|
| 14. |
The mamzer will purchase the servant and treat her as his wife. The children she bears him will be his property and they will not be mamzerim. If he desires, he may free them, at which point, their status is the same as other converts. If, by contrast, a mamzer would marry a convert, although there is no prohibition involved, the offspring would be mamzerim (Halachah 7).
|
| 15. |
As she is forbidden to an ordinary Jewish male by Rabbinic decree (Chapter 12, Halachah 11).
|
| 16. |
There are Rabbis today who advise that this practice should be followed by mamzerim. They should meet gentile woman, have them convert as servants, and live with them.
|
| 17. |
E.g., a slave was owned by two partners, one of whom freed him and one did not. See Hilchot Avadim 5:4.
|
| 18. |
The dimension of the father which was free causes him to have a dimension of mamzerut. For a free man who engages in relations with a married woman conceives a mamzer.
|
| 19. |
For when a servant engages in relations with a married woman, the offspring are acceptable.
|
| 20. |
This is forbidden to him as to other acceptable Jews, because of the dimension of his being that shares that status.
Rashi differs with this approach and maintains that he should be permitted to engage in relations with a maid-servant. See Chelkat Mechokek 4:19, Beit Shmuel 4:28.
|
| 21. |
He may marry a convert or a freed servant, but their offspring share his status as stated in the Halachah 7.
|
| 22. |
The Beit Shmuel 4:35 emphasizes that although such marriages are permitted, there is a certain unadvisable dimension to it, for it is undesirable to increase the number of mamzerim among the Jewish people.
|
| 23. |
I.e., although he and his parents are considered as full Jews with regard to all matters, the prohibition against marrying a mamzer does not apply to him.
|
| 24. |
The Shulchan Aruch (Even HaEzer 4:22) quotes the Rambam's view, but also that of Rabbenu Asher which states that after ten generations a convert is forbidden to marry a female mamzer.
|
| 25. |
See Chapter 13, Halachah 11.
|
| 26. |
Although there are some Rishonim who differ with the Rambam, the Shulchan Aruch (loc. cit.) quotes the Rambam's view.
|
| 27. |
In Halachah 1 of this chapter.
|
| 28. |
See Hilchot Ishut 4:21-22 for examples of such questionable consecrations.
|
| 29. |
See Hilchot Gerushin 5:13 for examples of such questionable divorces.
|
| 30. |
See Hilchot Gerushin 10:7 which explains this situation. Although the marriage of the second husband is not valid, for a married woman cannot be married to another man, our Sages decreed that the second marriage be considered binding with regard to this point: That a child fathered by her first husband be considered a mamzer.
|
| 31. |
The Maggid Mishneh quotes an opinion that maintains that this ruling applies only after the fact. As an initial and preferred option, a native-born Jewess should not marry such a person. TheShulchan Aruch (Even HaEzer 4:26) quotes the Rambam's ruling. See also Chapter 18, Halachot 13-15.
Despite the fact that we have no existing presumption regarding the child's lineage, we rule that he or she is acceptable. The rationale is that the child has no alternative; its status depends on this ruling (Maggid Mishneh).
|
| 32. |
E.g., they are mamzerim.
|
| 33. |
For we have no way of determining the status of the father and it is possible that the father was amamzer.
|
| 34. |
I.e., her word is not effective in conclusively determining the child's status as a mamzer for the reason the Rambam proceeds to state. Her word is accepted in having the child deemed as legitimate, but not in having him deemed as a mamzer. See also Halachah 14 and Chapter 18, Halachah 14.
|
| 35. |
We assume that she was promiscuous with more than one person and thus we have no way of determining the identity of the child's father. Thus the presumed father has no way of knowing whether or not the child was actually his (Maggid Mishneh).
The Rambam maintains that this rule applies even when the woman does not have a reputation for promiscuity. See Chelkat Mechokek 4:25 and Beit Shmuel 4:40 which discuss this issue.
|
| 36. |
Shituki means "one who is silenced." Rashi, Yevamot 37a, explains that this name is given because the child will call out for his father and his mother will silence him.
|
| 37. |
The term asufi means "one who was gathered in," i.e., the child was taken in from the street.
|
| 38. |
Halachah 31 qualifies this ruling, stating that it applies only when it appears that the parents abandoned the child to die. If it is evident that the parents desired the child to live, e.g., they circumcised it, they gave it medical treatment, and/or placed it in a location where it was likely to be found, we assume that it was of acceptable lineage and was abandoned only because its parents were unable to provide for it.
|
| 39. |
I.e., he does not inherit the named person's property, nor is his wife freed from the obligation ofchalitzah if he dies childless (Maggid Mishneh). See Hilchot Yibbum ViChalitzah 3:4 where the latter law is discussed.
|
| 40. |
See Halachah 12.
|
| 41. |
I.e., he is not my son, but born from an adulterous relationship.
|
| 42. |
Note Hilchot Nachalot 4:3 which states that once a father acknowledges a child as his son, he cannot declare him as illegitimate afterwards.
|
| 43. |
For by invalidating the legitimacy of the son, he would automatically be invalidating the lineage of his offspring and the Torah did not give him that power as the Rambam continues to explain. See also Hilchot Nachalot 4:2.
|
| 44. |
The verse speaks of a father recognizing his heirs in connection with the division of his estate. If the father states that he did not father a son that was presumed to be his, that son is thus identified as a mamzer, for he will have been conceived through adultery.
|
| 45. |
The latter two concepts are relevant with regard to the sons of priests as will be explained in Chapter 19.
|
| 46. |
His statement is not accepted as testimony, for a person may not testify against himself. Nevertheless, the restrictions he placed against himself are binding. It is as if he took a vow, forbidding himself to marry a native-born Jewess (Beit Shmuel 4:53)
|
| 47. |
For we fear that he made these statements in order to be granted this leniency.
|
| 48. |
According to Jewish Law, marriage is a two-staged process involving: a) consecration,kiddushin or erusin, and b) marriage, nissuin, when the couple begin living together as man and wife. From the time of consecration onward, however, the woman is forbidden to engage in relations with other men.
|
| 49. |
These laws differ from those applying to a married woman, as stated in Halachot 19-20. The rationale is that we do not assume that a couple that is merely consecrated share intimacy with the same degree of consistency as a married couple. Nor is a consecrated woman likely to the same degree of fidelity as a married woman.
|
| 50. |
He is forbidden to marry a native-born Jewess for it is possible that he is a mamzer. He is forbidden to marry a female mamzer, because it is possible that he is an acceptable Jewish male.
|
| 51. |
As in Halachah 11. In this instance, since a bond has already been established between the couple, it is even more reasonable to accept her statements. This is speaking about a situation where the husband is not present to be questioned (Shulchan Aruch (Even HaEzer 4:27). The Rama states that the child is also considered as the presumed father's son with regard to receiving a share in the inheritance.
|
| 52. |
As stated in Halachah 15. In contrast to a situation where the presumed father could not be asked, this child is definitely a mamzer and is forbidden to marry a native-born Jew or Jewess (ibid.).
|
| 53. |
The term literally means "promiscuous woman," but has a specific halachic meaning, as the Rambam states in Chapter 18, Halachah 1: "A woman who entered into relations with a man who she is forbidden to marry." After consecration, every man would be prohibited to this woman.
The Torah gave the husband the right to determine his son's status. He does not, however, have the right to determine that of the woman (Ketubot 13a).
|
| 54. |
After her first husband died.
|
| 55. |
Nevertheless, since the man who consecrated her contradicts her statements, the initial and preferred option is for her not to marry a priest (Beit Shmuel 4:47). Similarly, if the person who consecrated her is a priest, he is forbidden to marry her.
|
| 56. |
If the woman had been forbidden to the priesthood, her offspring would not be considered priests, as stated in Chapter 19.
|
| 57. |
This is speaking about an instance when we cannot clarify the child's status by asking the mother.
|
| 58. |
We have translated the term according to the prevalent understanding of the Rambam's ruling. Note, however, the Rama (Even HaEzer 4:29) who questions whether these laws also apply with regard to a woman who was only consecrated.
|
| 59. |
And thus could not have fathered the child.
|
| 60. |
The Beit Shmuel 4:52 interprets the Rambam's words as meaning "the child is a mamzer of questionable status," for the possibility exists that he was conceived by a gentile.
|
| 61. |
As indicated by Halachah 11, the woman's word is accepted with regard to defining the legitimacy of her child's lineage.
|
| 62. |
He does not know with how many people and with whom she was promiscuous.
|
| 63. |
Although a full-term pregnancy is nine months, our Sages spoke of the possibility of a woman carrying a baby for twelve months. Although this is abnormal, when a man left his home between nine and twelve months before a child was born, they desired to consider that possibility rather than deem the child as a mamzer. See Yevamot 80b.
Rama (Even HaEzer 4:14) states that the above leniency is granted only when we do not see moral lapses in the woman's conduct. If, however, she conducts herself in an unbecoming manner, we suspect the child's lineage.
|
| 64. |
Rashi (Yevamot 27b) states that one should marry the offspring only when there is no other alternative.
|
| 65. |
And hence may not marry a priest. Even an Israelite should refrain from marrying such a woman (Maggid Mishneh). After the fact, if she marries a priest, we do not require a divorce (Beit Shmuel4:24).
|
| 66. |
Sotah 27b raises this question, but leaves the matter unresolved. Accordingly, it is appropriate to be stringent (Maggid Mishneh).
|
| 67. |
According to the Rambam, the general principle is that according to Scriptural Law, whenever there is a doubt whether an act is forbidden, there is no prohibition. Our Rabbis, however, decreed that when there is a doubt with regard to a Scriptural prohibition, we are stringent. Others differ and maintain that according to Scriptural Law, if there is a doubt concerning a prohibition, it must be observed. There is a special leniency, stemming from a verse from the Torah, when a doubt arises whether a person is a mamzer or not. See Chapter 18, Halachah 17.
|
| 68. |
See Halachah 10.
|
| 69. |
See Halachah 12.
|
| 70. |
See Halachah 13.
|
| 71. |
For there is no Scriptural prohibition involved.
|
| 72. |
As the Rambam continues to explain in the following halachah.
|
| 73. |
For the marriage, though forbidden, is binding according to Jewish Law.
|
| 74. |
As stated in Halachah 7.
|
| 75. |
We treat him as neither a Jew nor a gentile as the Rambam continues to illustrate. The Maggid Mishneh explains that the ruling follows the principle: Whenever a doubt arises and the permitted and the forbidden entities are fixed, we do not follow the majority, but instead, considered the situation as equally balanced.
|
| 76. |
I.e., the couple are not allowed to remain married for perhaps he is a gentile, but a formal divorce is necessary, for perhaps he is a Jew and the consecration is binding.
|
| 77. |
For perhaps he is a gentile.
|
| 78. |
As is the law which applies with regard to any child convert (Chapter 13, Halachah 7).
|
| 79. |
He is bound by the restrictions applying to a mamzer whose status is doubtful despite the possibility that they might not apply because he is a convert.
The Ra'avad rules that in such a situation, he is considered as any other convert and allowed to marry a native-born Jewesses The Maggid Mishneh explains the rationale for the Ra'avad's position, stating that there is a multiple doubt involved: Maybe he is not of Jewish origin, and if he is of Jewish origin, maybe he is not a mamzer. Moreover, the entire prohibition against an asufi is Rabbinic in origin. (For according to Scriptural Law, only a mamzer whose status is definite is forbidden). The Shulchan Aruch (Even HaEzer 4:33) quotes the Rambam's view. The Chelkat Mechokek 4:31 questions why the Ra'avad's view is not cited, but the Beit Shmuel 4:54 explains that according to the Rambam, with regard to questions of lineage, we are stringent even in such situations.
|
| 80. |
This and the following laws apply when the person did not convert (Maggid Mishneh). For the principle that we consider the populations as equally balanced applies only with regard to questions of lineage.
|
| 81. |
The Kessef Mishneh notes that Ketubot 16b, the source for the Rambam's ruling, could be interpreted as making such a statement only in a situation where the majority of the inhabitants are Jewish. He, however, offers an interpretation of the passage which conforms to the Rambam's ruling.
|
| 82. |
I.e., we must support him in situations of need.
|
| 83. |
To save his life even though doing so involves violation of the Sabbath laws.
The Maggid Mishneh cites opinions which maintain that this ruling applies even if the majority of the inhabitants are gentiles. For when a question of life and death is involved, we do not require a majority. See Hilchot Shabbat 2:20-21 and notes for an explanation of the matter.
|
| 84. |
There are certain situations where the laws applying to gentiles are more severe than those applying to a Jew. For example, if an ox belonging to a gentile that is not known to gore does in fact gore an ox belonging to a Jew, the gentile is required to pay full damages. A Jew, by contrast, would be required to pay only partial damages. If such a situation would arise with regard to a person's whose identity in doubt, he could tell the plaintiff: "If you prove I am not a Jew, I will pay full damages."
|
| 85. |
Halachah 23. I.e., if he marries without undergoing conversion (Chelkat Mechokek 4:36).
|
| 86. |
For perhaps he is a gentile or a servant. Just as he could have been born by a Jewish mother, he could have been born by one of these. We do not consider the degree of probability involved.
|
| 87. |
Needless to say, such relations are forbidden. The Rambam is emphasizing that punishment is not meted out. Because punishment is not given unless we are certain there is a prohibition involved.
The Ra'avad differs with the Rambam's view and maintains that even with regard to capital punishment, we follow the probability. Hence if the majority of the inhabitants of the city are Jewish, we assume that the asufi is Jewish and his consecration of the woman is binding. TheMaggid Mishneh justifies the Rambam's ruling, explaining that in all instances, the asufi is not considered as definitely Jewish.
|
| 88. |
A woman who could be a close relative with whom relations are forbidden. See the following halachah.
|
| 89. |
For perhaps the woman he marries is his sister (since he does not know the identity of his father, it is possible that her father was also his father) or the sister of his father.
|
| 90. |
I.e., before she was divorced or widowed her husband (or her husband's brother) fathered theshituki.
|
| 91. |
The license the Rambam speaks about applies according to Scriptural Law. According to Rabbinic Law, a shituki is forbidden to marry a native-born Jew or Jewess (Halachot 21-23).
|
| 92. |
See Halachah 11.
|
| 93. |
Yevamot 37b. The verse refers to a situation where a father allows his daughter to act promiscuously and thus it will not be known who is the father of her child. If this would happen in numerous instances, there would be many children who did not know the identity of their fathers and it would be possible for a brother to marry his sister.
|
| 94. |
For if a man who did not know the identity of his father were restricted in the above manner, there would be no room for our Sages' concern, for he would be prohibited against marrying any woman whose ties could in any way be incestuous.
|
| 95. |
I.e., from the fact that our Sages did not enforce such a restriction.
|
| 96. |
Before the child was brought home.
|
| 97. |
It was customary in the Talmudic era to apply salt to newborn babies to strengthen their limbs.
|
| 98. |
This substance was used in the Talmudic era for both medicinal and cosmetic purposes.
|
| 99. |
I.e., the mystical writing in the amulet was intended to protect the child.
|
| 100. |
We assume that a mother may want to abandon a child who is a mamzer so that it will die and there will be no sign of her sin. If, however, she and/or the father performed acts which indicate that they desired the child to live - even though they did not desire to care for it themselves - we assume that the child was of legitimate origin.
|
| 101. |
I.e., in a place where it would most likely die or be killed.
|
| 102. |
See Chapter 12, Halachot 22-23.
|
| 103. |
The Beit Shmuel 4:60 explains that generally, the protest of one witness is not accepted against testimony which was previously accepted. In this instance, however, the child's identity is not known at all and there is no existing presumption regarding his status. Hence the protest cancels out the original testimony.
|
| 104. |
Even though the midwidfe said that he was a mamzer.
|
| 105. |
If the midwife said he was of this lineage.
|
| 106. |
I.e., it is possible that one of them will be acceptable and one illegitimate.
|
| 107. |
For the child takes on the blemished identity, as stated in Halachah 7.
|
Issurei Biah - Chapter Sixteen
Halacha 1
A man with maimed testicles or a severed member who married a native-born Jewess and engaged in sexual relations1 is punished by lashes, as [Deuteronomy 23:2] states: "A person with maimed testicles or a severed member may not enter the congregation of God."
Such a man may marry a female convert or a freed maid-servant. Even a priest with maimed testicles may marry a female convert or a freed maid-servant, because the holiness [of the priesthood] does not rest upon him. He is permitted to marry even a female netin2 or a woman whose status is in doubt.
Halacha 2
Since a man with a maimed organ is forbidden to marry among the Jewish people, [our Sages] did not decree against his marrying a female netin or a woman whose status is in doubt.3 A man with maimed testicles or a severed member is, however, forbidden to [marry] a female mamzer4 whose status is definite, because this prohibition is of Scriptural origin.
Halacha 3
What is meant by maimed testicles? Anyone whose testicles have been wounded. What is meant by a severed member? Anyone whose shaft has been cut off.
There are three organs to which wounds can disqualify a male: the shaft, the testicles, and the tract in which the semen develops. If one of these three was wounded or crushed, the man is disqualifed.5
Halacha 4
What is implied? If the shaft is wounded, crushed, or cut off from the corona or above the corona,6 he is disqualified. If a portion at the top of the corona is cut off, but even a hairsbreadth [of the corona] remains which surrounds the entire shaft, he is acceptable. If the shaft was cut like a pen is sharpened or like a funnel above the corona,7 he is acceptable.8
Halacha 5
If the shaft is perforated below the corona, he is acceptable. [The following rules apply if] the corona itself is perforated. If when the person ejaculates, semen emerges from the hole, he is unacceptable. If the hole becomes closed, he returns to acceptable status. If the shaft is perforated below the corona when the portion above is in the midst of corona, he is disqualified. For the entire corona must be intact [for the person to be acceptable].
Halacha 6
If the seminal tract becomes obstructed and the semen emerges from the urinary tract, he is unacceptable.
Halacha 7
If both or one of the testicles9 were severed, wounded, or crushed or one was lacking or pierced by a hole, he is unacceptable. If both or one of the seminal tracts are severed, crushed, or wounded, he is unacceptable.
Halacha 8
If one of the seminal tracts was perforated into the urinary tract and the person urinates from two sources - the seminal tract and the urinary tract - he is acceptable.10
Halacha 9
Whenever we have used the term "unacceptable" in this context, the implication is that [the malady] was not caused by the hand of heaven, e.g., [his testicles] were severed by a man or a dog, he was struck by a sharp end, or the like. If, however, he was born with maimed testicles or a severed member, or without testicles, he became ill because of a bodily ailment and these organs ceased to function, or an ulcer arose in them that caused them to waste away or be severed,11 he is permitted to marry among the Jewish people. For all of these blemishes are caused by the hand of heaven.
Halacha 10
It is forbidden to destroy a male's reproductive organs. This applies to humans and also to animals, beasts, and fowl, both from a kosher species and from a non-kosher species, in Eretz Yisrael and in the Diaspora. Although [Leviticus 22:24] states: "And you shall not do this in your land,"12 According to the Oral Tradition,13 we learned that this [prohibition] is applicable in every place. The verse teaches that one should not act in this manner among the Jewish people, not with their own bodies, nor with the bodies of others.
Whoever castrates [a person or an animal] should be lashed14 according to Scriptural Law everywhere. Even a person who castrates a person who has been castrated should be lashed.
Halacha 11
What is implied? One came and severed a person's member, another cut off or pulled away his testicles and a third cut his seminal tract; all receive lashes. Similarly, if one crushed a person's member, another pulled it away, and a third cut it off, all receive lashes. [This applies] although the last person castrated a person - or an animal, beast, or fowl - who had already been castrated.
A person who castrates a female - whether a human or other species - is not liable.15
Halacha 12
It is forbidden to have a man or a male of another species drink a potion that causes him to lose his sexual potency. Lashes are not given, however. A woman is permitted to drink a potion to cause her to lose her sexual potency so that she will not conceive.16
If a person bound a man and set a dog or other animal upon him until his sexual organs were maimed or he made him sit in water or snow until his sexual organs lost their potency, he is not given lashes unless he castrates him by hand. It is, however, fitting to subject him to stripes for rebellious conduct.17
Halacha 13
It is forbidden to tell a gentile to castrate one of our animals. If the gentile took the animal and castrated it on his own initiative, it is permitted.18If a Jew acts deceitfully in this context,19 he should be punished and required to sell the animal to another Jew. He may [sell it] to his son who is past majority, but not to his son who is below majority, nor may he give it to him.20
| FOOTNOTES | |
| 1. |
As explained in Chapter 15, Halachah 2, all of the prohibitions against sexual relations that involve the violation of a negative commandment alone involve a situation where the woman has been consecrated. As mentioned in the notes to that halachah, there are other authorities who differ with the Rambam on this matter.
|
| 2. |
See Chapter 12, Halachot 22-23.
|
| 3. |
To anyone other than a halachic authority, the Rambam's ruling appears problematic: A woman whose status is in doubt is either a female mamzer or an acceptable native-born Jewess. In either case, this man would be forbidden to marry her. Why then is he permitted when her status is not clarified?
Halachically, however, Kiddushin 73a interprets the phrase "He shall not enter God's congregation," as forbidding one from marrying only a person whose lineage is definite. The Rambam maintains that even the Sages did not enforce a decree in this instance. (See Beit Shmuel 5:2.)
|
| 4. |
The Rambam's position is that although having a maimed organ disqualifies a priest from the holiness of the priesthood, it does not disqualify an Israelite from the holiness with which he is endowed. The Ra'avad differs with this ruling and states that a man with a maimed organ may marry a female mamzer. The Maggid Mishneh mentions other authorities who follow both of these views. The Shulchan Aruch (Even HaEzer 5:1) follows the position of the Rambam, while the Rama mentions the other view.
|
| 5. |
In his Commentary to the Mishnah (Yevamot 8:2), the Rambam states that any difficulty which renders a man sterile according to medical knowledge disqualifies him from marriage.
|
| 6. |
I.e., any portion of the shaft between the corona and the body that is cut off disqualifies the person.
|
| 7. |
I.e., any portion of the shaft between the corona and the body that is cut off disqualifies the person.
|
| 8. |
Rashi (Yevamot 75b) differs and disqualifies such a person. The Shulchan Aruch (Even HaEzer5:3) quotes both views without stating which should be followed.
|
| 9. |
The Rama (Even HaEzer 5:7) states that there are authorities who do not disqualify a person if one testicle is intact. He states, however, that since a Scriptural prohibition is involved, it is preferable to follow the more stringent view.
|
| 10. |
For this difficulty will not prevent him from conceiving a child.
|
| 11. |
Rabbenu Asher differs with regard to the latter two instances and does not consider illness and the like as "by the hand of heaven." Shulchan Aruch (Even HaEzer 5:10) quotes both views without stating which one should be followed. [See also Rav Kappach's notes to the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (Yevamot 8:2) which discuss whether or not this ruling involved a change of mind for the Rambam.]
|
| 12. |
Which could be understood as implying that the prohibition applies only in Eretz Yisrael.
|
| 13. |
Sifra to the above verse.
|
| 14. |
The punishment given for the violation of a Scriptural commandment.
|
| 15. |
The Maggid Mishneh and the Shulchan Aruch (Even HaEzer 5:11 interpret the Rambam's statements as meaning that although there is a prohibition against doing so, lashes are not given.
|
| 16. |
This ruling serves as the basis for contemporary Rabbis to permit women to take oral contraceptives.
|
| 17. |
The punishment given for violating a Rabbinic commandment.
|
| 18. |
As long as the gentile acted on his own initiative, the Jew is not obligated to suffer a loss.
|
| 19. |
I.e., encouraging a gentile to castrate the animal without actually telling him to do so.
|
| 20. |
For a son below majority is not considered as having an independent financial domain. See the Rama (Even HaEzer 5:14) who mentions more particulars concerning this issue.
|
Issurei Biah - Chapter Seventeen
Halacha 1
There are three women who are forbidden to all priests [by Scriptural Law]: a divorcee, a zonah,1 and a challalah.2 There are four [forbidden to] a High Priest. These three and a widow.
Bound by [the prohibitions applying to a High Priest] are one anointed with the oil of anointment3 or one who assumed his position by wearing the additional garments,4 one serving in that capacity, a High Priest who was appointed and then removed from the office, and a priest anointed to lead a war.5 All of these are commanded [to marry] a virgin and are forbidden to marry a widow.6
Halacha 2
Any priest who marries7 one of these three women - whether a High Priest or an ordinary priest - and engages in relations is punished by lashes. If he enters into promiscuous relations with her, he does not receive lashes for [violating the prohibitions against] a zonah, a divorcee, and a challalah.8 [This is derived from the fact that Leviticus 21:7 states the prohibition using the term:] "They shall not take." [Implied is that the prohibition does not apply] unless he takes - marries - [the woman] and enters into relations with her.9
Halacha 3
When, by contrast, a High Priest enters into relations with a widow, he receives lashes even though he did not consecrate her. [This is derived from ibid.:15 which states]: "And he shall not desecrate...." As soon as he engages in relations with her, he desecrates her and disqualifies her from the priesthood.10A zonah, challalah, and divorcee, by contrast, are disqualified from the priesthood before one enters into relations with them.11 Therefore a High Priest alone receives lashes for merely entering into relations with a widow even though she was not consecrated. For he desecrates her and he is warned against desecrating people of acceptable lineage, [other] women and his offspring.
Halacha 4
When a High Priest consecrates a widow and enters into relations with her, he receives two sets of lashes: one because of the prohibition: "He shall not take a widow," and one because of the prohibition: "He shall not desecrate." Whether a High Priest or an ordinary priest marries one of these four, but does not engage in relations, he does not receive lashes.
Halacha 5
Whenever [the priest] receives lashes, the woman [with whom he engages in relations] is given lashes.12 Whenever he does not receive lashes, she does not receive lashes. For there is no difference between a man and a woman with regard to punishments with the exception of a designated maidservant as explained.13
Halacha 6
Any priest - whether a High Priest or an ordinary priest - who enters into relations with a gentile woman receives lashes for relations with a zonah.14[There is a difference between her and a Jewish woman,]15 because she cannot be consecrated. He is forbidden to enter into relations with any zonah, whether a Jewess or a gentile.
Halacha 7
A woman who has undergone the rite of chalitzah (a chalutzah)16 is forbidden to a priest according to the Rabbinic tradition, for she resembles a divorcee.17[If he engages in relations with such a woman,] he is given "stripes for rebellious conduct."18
When a priest marries a woman whose status as a chalutzah is doubtful,19 he is not compelled to divorce her.20 She is acceptable21 and her child is acceptable.22 For our Sages did not decree against a woman whose status as achalutzah is doubtful, only against one who is definitely in that category. When it is questionable if a woman is a divorcee,23 a widow,24 a zonah,25 or achallalah,26 [a priest who marries her] is given "stripes for rebellious conduct" and required to divorce her with a get.27
Halacha 8
There is a major general principle that applies with regard to all of the Torah's prohibitions. One prohibition does not take effect when another prohibition is in effect unless:
a) both of the prohibitions take effect at the same time;28
b) the latter prohibition forbids additional entities besides [the entity that was originally] prohibited;29
c) when the scope of the [latter] prohibition encompasses other entities together with [the entity that was originally] prohibited.30
Halacha 9
Accordingly,31 When a woman was a widow and then she became a divorcee,32and then she became a challalah,33 and then she became a zonah,34 should a High Priest engage in relations with her afterwards, he receives four sets of lashes for engaging in relations once. For a widow is forbidden to a High Priest, but permitted to an ordinary priest.
Halacha 10
When she becomes a divorcee, she becomes forbidden by an additional prohibition [for] she is also forbidden to an ordinary priest. Therefore, [even for the High Priest,] another prohibition aside from that against relations with a widow is added to her. She is, nevertheless, still permitted to partake ofterumah.35 If she becomes a challalah, another prohibition is added to her, for she is forbidden to partake of terumah. She is, nevertheless, still permitted to marry an Israelite.
If she becomes a zonah, another prohibition is added to her, since there is a type of promiscuous relations that would cause her to be forbidden to an Israelite, e.g., a married woman engaged in adultery voluntarily.
Halacha 11
When a woman is widowed from several men or divorced from several men, [a High Priest or a priest] receive only one set of lashes for each time they engage in relations.39 A woman is forbidden as a widow whether she was widowed after [only] consecration or after marriage.
Halacha 12
When the brother of a High Priest dies, even if the deceased had [merely] consecrated his wife,40 [the High Priest] should not perform the rite of yibbum. Instead, he should perform chalitzah.41
If a woman became his yevamah while he was an ordinary priest and he was then appointed as the High Priest, he should not perform yibbum once he has been appointed.42 [This applies] even if he already gave his word43 [that he would marry] her while he was an ordinary priest.44 If, however, he consecrated a widow and was then appointed as a High Priest, he should marry her.45
If she was consecrated, but the status of the consecration was questionable and then the person who consecrated her died, she is considered a widow of questionable status.46
Halacha 13
It is a positive commandment for a High Priest to marry a virgin maiden.47When she reaches the age of maturity,48 she becomes forbidden to him,49 as [Leviticus 21:13] states: "He shall marry a virgin woman." "Woman" implies that she is not a minor. "Virgin" implies that she has not reached maturity. What is implied? She has departed from the category of a minor, but has not fully reached maturity, i.e., a maiden. He may never be married to two women at the same time.50 [This is derived from the singular form of the term] "woman," i.e., one, but not two.
Halacha 14
Halacha 15
A High Priest who married a woman who had engaged in relations previously is not punished by lashes.54 He must, however, divorce her with a get.55 If he married a woman past the age of maturity or one who lost her virginity for reasons other than relations, he may remain married to her.
If he consecrated a woman who had previously engaged in relations and then he was appointed as the High Priest, he may marry her after his appointment.56
Halacha 16
If he raped or seduced a virgin maiden, he may not marry her.57[This applies] even if he raped or seduced her while he was an ordinary priest and was appointed as the High Priest before he married her. If he married her, he must divorce her.
Halacha 17
Halacha 18
[The prohibition against marrying a divorcee applies] whether she was divorced after consecration or after marriage. If, however, a girl is released from marriage through the rite of mi'un, she is permitted to a priest, as we explained in Hilchot Gerushin.61 [This applies even if] her husband first divorced her with aget, then remarried her, and then she was released through mi'un.62
Any woman who is not fit to perform the rite of chalitzah,63 but nevertheless performs it is not disqualified from [marrying] a priest.
Halacha 19
Halacha 20
Halacha 21
If a rumor is circulated that a virgin has engaged in relation, her [status] does not become suspect and she may marry a High Priest. If a rumor is circulated that she is a maid-servant, her [status] does not become suspect and she may marry a priest.71
If a rumor72 circulates in a city that she is acting promiscuously,73 her [status] does not become suspect. Even if her husband separated from her because she violated [the practices of modesty required by] the Jewish faith74 or because [of the testimony] of witnesses [concerning] unseemly conduct,75 but he died before giving her a get, she is permitted [to marry] a priest. For a woman like the above should not be forbidden [to a priest] unless there is definite testimony [that she acted promiscuously] or she admits [doing so] herself.76
| FOOTNOTES | |
| 1. |
This term is defined in depth in the following chapter.
|
| 2. |
This term is defined in Chapter 19.
|
| 3. |
As was the practice until the later years of the First Temple.
|
| 4. |
I.e., in the later years of the First Temple, the oil of anointment was entombed together with the Holy Ark. From that time onward, the High Priests assumed their position by wearing the eight garments of the High Priest. [See the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (Megilah 1:9).]
|
| 5. |
See Hilchot Melachim 7:1 which states:
Although this individual is not a High Priest with regard to the Temple service, since he was anointed, certain of the dimensions of the High Priesthood are incumbent upon him.
|
| 6. |
I.e., a High Priest - and the others mentioned - are bound by a positive commandment to marry a virgin and a negative commandment to marry a widow.
|
| 7. |
The Rambam's wording is somewhat inexact. For the prohibition applies even if the priest merely consecrated the woman and entered into relations with her. Marriage (nissuin) is not required (Kiddushin 78a).
|
| 8. |
He does, however, receive lashes for violating the prohibition against promiscuous relations, as the Rambam states in Hilchot Ishut 1:4).
|
| 9. |
According to the Rambam's understanding of Kiddushin 78a,b for the prohibition to apply both marriage and intimate relations are necessary. If the priest performs one of these acts without the other, the Scriptural prohibition does not apply. The Ra'avad takes issue with the Rambam and maintains that the prohibition applies even when consecration is not involved.
|
| 10. |
According to the literal meaning of the verse, the object of the verb "desecrate" is "his offspring." If a priest enters into a relationship with one of these women, his offspring are challalim, "desecrated," and are not considered as members of the priestly family. Nevertheless, Kiddushin, loc. cit., interprets the phrase non-literally, explaining that the verb refers to the woman. By entering into relations with the priest, she becomes "desecrated" from the priesthood, i.e., forbidden to marry a priest. Moreover, the fact that the prohibition against a High Priest entering into relations with a widow mentions that term implies that causing the woman to be placed in such a status is prohibited. Since she is given that status even if the relations are held outside of marriage, marriage is not a fundamental element of the prohibition.
|
| 11. |
As stated in Halachah 1.
|
| 12. |
For the prohibition against these relations involve the woman as well as the man. See Keritot 10b,Yevamot 84b.
|
| 13. |
Chapter 3, Halachah 14.
|
| 14. |
See Chapter 18, Halachah 1.
|
| 15. |
In which instance, the prohibition applies only if she was consecrated (Halachah 2).
|
| 16. |
When a man dies childless, her widow is required to marry her deceased husband's brother in the rite called yibbum. She is forbidden to marry anyone else. If he does not desire to marry her, he must release her through the ritual called chalitzah. See Deuteronomy, ch. 25, Hilchot Yibbum ViChalitzah.
|
| 17. |
Just as a divorcee is released from her connection to her husband through a get, a childless widow is released from her obligation to her brother-in-law through chalitzah.
|
| 18. |
The punishment given for the violation of a Rabbinic commandment.
|
| 19. |
E.g., her brother-in-law performed the chalitzah rite, it was, however, questionable if he was obligated to do so or not, or if he was in fact her brother-in-law or not.
|
| 20. |
If, however, she was definitely a chalutzah, we would compel him to divorce. For a person should be compelled to observe a Rabbinic prohibition. Similarly, before he marries her, he should be prevented for doing so. Since there is a possibility that a Rabbinic prohibition is involved, we should prevent him from risking its violation. If, however, the couple are already married, we follow the principle "When there is a question of a Rabbinic prohibition involved, we rule leniently."
|
| 21. |
I.e., she is not considered as a challalah, a woman who entered into forbidden relations with a priest.
|
| 22. |
I.e., he or she is not considered as a challah.
|
| 23. |
A woman was divorced in a manner whether it was questionable whether the divorce was effective or not and afterwards, here husband died.
|
| 24. |
As related in Halachah 12, this applies to a situation in which there is a question whether a man consecrated a woman in an effective manner or not and then dies. Hence, there is a question whether she is a widow.
|
| 25. |
See Chapter 18, Halachah 12.
|
| 26. |
The offspring of a priest who had relations with a woman concerning whom a doubt existed whether she was forbidden to him or not (Chapter 19, Halachah 9).
|
| 27. |
He is required to divorce her, based on the principle "When a doubt concerning a Scriptural prohibition is involved, we take the more stringent view" (Maggid Mishneh). In this instance, since there is a possibility that a Scriptural prohibition is involved in the marriage to each of these women, we rule stringently and require a divorce. A get is required, for even if there is a prohibition involved - and certainly if there is no prohibition involved - the consecration is binding. For the woman to be able to remarry, she must be divorced.
|
| 28. |
Hilchot Ma'achalot Assurot 5:5 gives an example of this concept. When a person rips a limb from a living animal which causes the animal to become trefe, he is considered to have transgressed two prohibitions: the prohibition against eating flesh from a living animal and the prohibition against partaking of an animal that is trefe, for both prohibitions take effect at the same time.
|
| 29. |
This concept is exemplified in the following two halachot. See also Hilchot Ma'achalot Assurot 7:2.
|
| 30. |
This principle is exemplified by Hilchot Ma'achalot Assurot 8:6 which relates that a person who partakes of a gid hanesheh, a sciatic nerve, of an animal which is trefe is liable for two transgressions. Since when the animal became trefe, its entire body became encompassed in the prohibition, that prohibition also encompasses the gid even though it was prohibited beforehand.
|
| 31. |
I.e., on the basis of the principle that a prohibition that includes additional factors takes effect.
|
| 32. |
I.e., her second husband divorced her.
|
| 33. |
By having relations with a priest.
|
| 34. |
By engaging in relations with a person whom she is forbidden to marry.
|
| 35. |
I.e., if her father was a priest, after her marriages, she returns to his home and may partake ofterumah. Alternatively, if her second husband was an ordinary priest and she gave birth to a child, she may partake of terumah because of her child.
|
| 36. |
I.e., the priest is liable for additional sets of lashes.
|
| 37. |
I.e., she becomes a zonah first. If other prohibitions precede her becoming a zonah, she receives the appropriate number of lashes (Maggid Mishneh).
|
| 38. |
For the other prohibitions would not add anything once she becomes forbidden in this manner.
|
| 39. |
The fact the she was widowed or divorced several times does not increase the number of prohibitions involved.
|
| 40. |
And thus she is still a virgin and fit to marry a High Priest.
|
| 41. |
In Hilchot Yibbum ViChalitzah 6:10, the Rambam states that the woman must perform chalitzah, because were her yevam to perform yibbum, he would acquire her as his wife. Moreover, according to law, he should perform yibbum, because whenever the observance of a positive commandment conflicts with the observance of a negative commandment, the positive commandment takes precedence. Nevertheless, our Sages forbade yibbum lest he engage in relations with her a second time. In such an instance, relations with her are forbidden and there is no mitzvah. For the positive commandment of yibbum applies only the first time the couple engage in relations.
|
| 42. |
For the reason mentioned in the previous note.
|
| 43. |
The Hebrew term the Rambam uses maamar has a specific halachic meaning. As explained inHilchot Yibbum ViChalitzah 2:1, although according to Scriptural Law, the yibbum relationship is established through intimate relations, our Sages ordained that before engaging in relations, ayevam declare his intent to his yevamah. They equated this declaration with consecration.
|
| 44. |
For a maamar does not establish a relationship.
|
| 45. |
Because she is already his wife.
|
| 46. |
And because of the doubt, she is forbidden to a High Priest.
|
| 47. |
The term "maiden" refers to a girl between the age of twelve and twelve and a half who has manifested signs of physical maturity (Hilchot Ishut 2:1).
|
| 48. |
Twelve and a half. This is the meaning of the term throughout this chapter.
|
| 49. |
Since he must marry a virgin, he is forbidden to marry anyone other than a virgin. Even if he consecrated the woman beforehand, if he has not married her and she attains maturity after he is appointed as a High Priest, he may not marry her as stated in Halachah 17.
|
| 50. |
As stated in Hilchot K'lei HaMikdash 5:10, a High Priest may not have two wives while he is performing the Yom Kippur services. Here the Rambam is stating that the prohibition applies not only on Yom Kippur, but throughout the year.
The Ra'avad notes that II Chronicles 24:3 speaks of Yehoyeda the High Priest and the marriage of two women, seemingly contradicting the Rambam's ruling. The Ra'avad interprets the verse as stating that Yehoyeda married the women himself. (Similarly, Rav Moshe HaCohen and others question the Rambam's ruling.) Rambam LeAm, however, advances the interpretation that the verse is stating that Yehoyeda had Yoash marry the women.
|
| 51. |
I.e., she lost her virginity through an accident of some sorts.
|
| 52. |
And she is forbidden to a High Priest.
|
| 53. |
This addition is necessary, for if she lost her virginity through relations with an animal, she is disqualified (Meiri).
|
| 54. |
For he is guilty of transgressing merely a positive commandment and lashes are not given for such a transgression.
|
| 55. |
Since a transgression is involved in engaging in relations with her, he is compelled to divorce her. Nevertheless, a bill of divorce is necessary for the consecration is binding.
|
| 56. |
As stated in Halachah 12 with regard to a widow.
|
| 57. |
For he is commanded to marry a virgin and she is not. Even though it is he himself who caused her to lose her virginity, she is not acceptable. Since she is not a virgin, a transgression is involved every time he enters into relations with her. Hence, he is obligated to divorce her.
In the instance mentioned in the previous halachah, he had already consecrated the woman, but in this instance, he did not consecrate her first (Maggid Mishneh).
|
| 58. |
Because, as stated in Halachah 13, he must marry a maiden, a girl between twelve and twelve and a half.
|
| 59. |
And thus she is considered as a different person and, in an abstract sense, not the same woman whom he consecrated. In this manner, the Rambam (based on Yevamot 59a) makes a distinction between this instance and one in which a priest consecrated a widow and then was appointed as High Priest, as mentioned in Halachah 12.
|
| 60. |
For even if at the outset, she was passed the age of maturity when he married her, he is allowed to remain married to her, as stated in Halachah 15.
|
| 61. |
As explained in Hilchot Gerushin, ch. 11, according to Scriptural Law, when a girl's father dies before she reaches the age of twelve, there is no way that she can marry until she reaches that age. Nevertheless, our Sages gave her mother and/or brothers the right to marry her off if they believe that it is to her advantage. Because this marriage does not have a basis in Scriptural Law, a get is not required to absolve it. Instead, the girl may simply leave her husband's house. To formalize the absolution of the relationship all that is necessary is for her to declare that she desires to leave the marriage in the presence of two witnesses. Since the relationship was never binding according to Scriptural Law, she is not disqualified from marrying into the priesthood.
|
| 62. |
As stated in Hilchot Gerushin 11:16, even if at one point she was divorced with a get, since she was released through mi'un, the fact the she was divorced previously is not of consequence. For it is obvious that the divorce is unnecessary.
|
| 63. |
E.g., a man who performed chalitzah with his deceased brother's widow without realizing that she was pregnant and hence, not required to perform this rite before remarrying.
|
| 64. |
In the case of an Israelite, there would be no difficulty, for it is possible that he remarried his divorcee. In the case of a priest, however, this would be forbidden, for a priest is forbidden to marry any divorcee even his own.
|
| 65. |
For a rumor that follows a marriage is not sufficient grounds to require a divorce.
|
| 66. |
After being widowed from her first husband.
|
| 67. |
Since the rumor preceded the second marriage, the second priest should not have married her, because of the doubt regarding the validity of the marriage that the rumor caused. And since he married her in possible violation of the law, he is forced to divorce her.
|
| 68. |
As stated in Hilchot Ishut 9:22, we are speaking about a rumor that has been substantiated by a court. It is not conclusive evidence that a woman has been consecrated, but it is far from mere hearsay. If a rumor has not been substantiated in a court, it is of no substance.
|
| 69. |
Chapter 10, Halachah 20.
|
| 70. |
Since a chalutzah is forbidden only because of a Rabbinic ordinance, when we are not certain the woman performed this rite, there is no prohibition, as stated in Halachah 7. The Ra'avad, however, rules stringently and maintains that since we are speaking about a rumor with substance, even a rumor that she is a chalutzah can cause her to be forbidden.
|
| 71. |
We do not disqualify a woman when there is a question about her lineage unless there is explicit testimony that she is not acceptable (Maggid Mishneh).
|
| 72. |
This refers even to a rumor substantiated in court (Beit Shmuel 6:30).
|
| 73. |
And committed adultery or engaged in relations that would cause her to be forbidden to the priesthood as explained in the following chapter.
|
| 74. |
E.g., going out to the marketplace with her hair uncovered, spinning flax in the marketplace in a manner that shows her arms to men, playing frivolously with youths, as stated in Hilchot Ishut24:12.
|
| 75. |
I.e., testimony regarding conduct that leads to the conclusion that she committed adultery although the adulterous relations themselves were not observed, as mentioned in ibid.:15.
|
| 76. |
For in such instance, she accepts the prohibition upon herself, as stated in Chapter 18, Halachah 9.
|
• Monday, Adar 25, 5775 · 03/16/2015
"Today's Day"
Torah lessons: Chumash: Vayakheil, Shlishi with Rashi.
Tehillim: 119, 1-96.
Tanya: This is what (p. 145)...great length elsewhere. (p. 145).
Hoshi'einu (p. 76) is said after the Song of the Day on weekdays, Shabbat, Festivals, Rosh Hashana and Yom Kippur.
Torah lessons: Chumash: Sh'mini, Chamishi with Rashi.
Tehillim: 119, 1-96.
Tanya: Not that an (p. 183)...in man (respectively). (p. 185).
The chassid, R. Mordechai Horodoker, related: The first aphorism we heard from the Alter Rebbe when we arrived in Lyozna was: What is forbidden is forbidden, and what is permitted is unnecessary. For some three or four years we labored with this until we integrated this manner (of service) into the various aspects of our lives. Only then did we enter into yechidus, to ask for a path in avoda.
FOOTNOTES
*. This day marks the birth, in 5661 (1901) of the Rebbetzin Chaya Mushka o.b.m., daughter of the Previous Rebbe o.b.m., and wife of the Rebbe of righteous memory.
Daily Thought:
Take the High Road
Two rivers take you home: One flows with bitter tears of remorse,
the other with sweet tears of joy.
For most of time, the principal path of travel was the bitter one. Only once soaked in those bitter waters could you rise to embrace your G‑d with joy.
But now we have experienced more than our fill of pain. That which our people suffered in lands across the ocean has purged every stain, bleached every garment of our souls, refined us and lifted us high.
We have cried enough bitter tears. Now is time to return with joy.[Maamar Margalia B’Fuma D’Rabba 5746. Blessing on Erev Yom Kippur 5750.]
____________________________
No comments:
Post a Comment