Wednesday, March 11, 2015

CHABAD - TODAY IN JUDAISM: Today is: Thursday, Adar 21, 5775 · March 12, 2015

CHABAD - TODAY IN JUDAISM: Today is: Thursday, Adar 21, 5775 · March 12, 2015
Today in Jewish History:
• Purim Narbonne (1236)
In the course of a fight with a Christian fisherman, a Jew dealt him a blow which led to his death. The infuriated Christians of Narbonne, France, started rioting and attacking the Jewish community.
The governor of Narbonne, Don Aymeric, quickly intervened, and dispatched a contingent of soldiers to protected the Jewish community. The riot was immediately halted and all the spoils stolen during the riots were returned to the Jews. The 21st of Adar was recorded as "Purim Narbonne," a day when the community annually celebrated this historic event.
• Passing of Rabbi Elimelech of Lizhensk (1786)
The great Rabbi Elimelech of Lizhensk (1717-1786) was one of the elite disciples of Rabbi DovBer, the Maggid of Mezritch, and a colleague of Rabbi Schneur Zalman of Liadi. He is also widely known as the No'am Elimelech, the title of the renowned chassidic work he authored.
Rabbi Elimelech attracted many thousands of chassidim, among them many who after his passing became great chassidic masters in their own right. Most notable amongst them was Rabbi Yaakov Yitzchak Horowitz, the "Seer of Lublin." Many of the current chassidic dynasties trace themselves back to Rabbi Elimelech.
Link: R. Elimelech of Lisenzc
Daily Quote:
Would He who implants the ear not hear? Would He who forms the eye not see?[Psalms 94:9]
Daily Study:
Chitas and Rambam for today:
Chumash: Vayak'hel-Pekudei, 5th Portion Exodus 39:2-39:21 with Rashi
• Chapter 39
2And he made the ephod of gold, blue, purple, and crimson wool, and twisted fine linen. בוַיַּעַשׂ אֶת הָאֵפֹד זָהָב תְּכֵלֶת וְאַרְגָּמָן וְתוֹלַעַת שָׁנִי וְשֵׁשׁ מָשְׁזָר:
3They hammered out the sheets of gold and cut threads [from them] to work [the gold] into the blue wool, into the purple wool, into the crimson wool, and into the fine linen, the work of a master weaver. גוַיְרַקְּעוּ אֶת פַּחֵי הַזָּהָב וְקִצֵּץ פְּתִילִם לַעֲשׂוֹת בְּתוֹךְ הַתְּכֵלֶת וּבְתוֹךְ הָאַרְגָּמָן וּבְתוֹךְ תּוֹלַעַת הַשָּׁנִי וּבְתוֹךְ הַשֵּׁשׁ מַעֲשֵׂה חשֵׁב:
They hammered out: Heb. וַיְרַקְּעוּ, like “To Him Who spread out (לְרוֹקַע) the earth over the water” (Ps. 136:6), as the Targum [Onkelos] renders: וְרַדִידוּ, they hammered thin plates out of the gold, estendre in Old French [etendre in modern French, meaning] to extend into thin sheets. Here [the text] teaches you how they spun the gold [together] with the [wool] threads. They would hammer [the gold into] thin sheets and cut threads out of them along the length of the sheet, [in order] to work those threads by combining them with each kind [of colored material] in the choshen and in the ephod, about which gold is mentioned [to be included with them [i.e.,] one thread of gold [was intertwined] with six threads of blue wool, and similarly with each kind [of wool], for each kind had threads of six strands, and the gold was the seventh thread with each one. -[from Yoma 72a] וירקעו: כמו (תהלים קלו ו) לרוקע הארץ, כתרגומו ורדידו טסין היו מרדדין מן הזהב, אישטינדר"א בלעז [למתוח] טסין דקין. כאן הוא מלמדך, היאך היו טווין את הזהב עם החוטין מרדדין הטסין דקין וקוצצין מהן פתילים לאורך הטס, לעשות אותן פתילים מעורבין עם כל מין ומין בחשן ואפוד שנאמר בהן זהב, חוט אחד של זהב עם ששה חוטין של תכלת, וכן עם כל מין ומין שכל המינים חוטן כפול ששה, והזהב חוט שביעי עם כל אחד ואחד:
4They made connecting shoulder straps for it at both its ends, it was entirely connected. דכְּתֵפֹת עָשׂוּ לוֹ חֹבְרֹת עַל שְׁנֵי קְצוֹתָיו (כתיב קצוותיו) חֻבָּר:
5And its decorative band, which is above it, [emanated] from it, of the same work: gold, blue, purple, and crimson wool, and twisted fine linen as the Lord had commanded Moses. הוְחֵשֶׁב אֲפֻדָּתוֹ אֲשֶׁר עָלָיו מִמֶּנּוּ הוּא כְּמַעֲשֵׂהוּ זָהָב תְּכֵלֶת וְאַרְגָּמָן וְתוֹלַעַת שָׁנִי וְשֵׁשׁ מָשְׁזָר כַּאֲשֶׁר צִוָּה יְהֹוָה אֶת משֶׁה:
6And they prepared the shoham stones, enclosed in gold settings, engraved [similar to] the engravings of a seal, with the names of the sons of Israel. ווַיַּעֲשׂוּ אֶת אַבְנֵי הַשֹּׁהַם מֻסַבֹּת מִשְׁבְּצֹת זָהָב מְפֻתָּחֹת פִּתּוּחֵי חוֹתָם עַל שְׁמוֹת בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל:
7And he put them upon the shoulder straps of the ephod [as] stones of remembrance for the sons of Israel, as the Lord had commanded Moses. זוַיָּשֶׂם אֹתָם עַל כִּתְפֹת הָאֵפֹד אַבְנֵי זִכָּרוֹן לִבְנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל כַּאֲשֶׁר צִוָּה יְהֹוָה אֶת משֶׁה:
8He made the choshen, the work of a master weaver like the work of the ephod, of gold, blue, purple, and crimson wool, and twisted fine linen. חוַיַּעַשׂ אֶת הַחשֶׁן מַעֲשֵׂה חשֵׁב כְּמַעֲשֵׂה אֵפֹד זָהָב תְּכֵלֶת וְאַרְגָּמָן וְתוֹלַעַת שָׁנִי וְשֵׁשׁ מָשְׁזָר:
9It was square [and] they made the choshen doubled its length one span and its width one span, doubled. טרָבוּעַ הָיָה כָּפוּל עָשׂוּ אֶת הַחשֶׁן זֶרֶת אָרְכּוֹ וְזֶרֶת רָחְבּוֹ כָּפוּל:
10And they filled into it four rows of stones. One row: odem, pitdah, and bareketh, the one row. יוַיְמַלְאוּ בוֹ אַרְבָּעָה טוּרֵי אָבֶן טוּר אֹדֶם פִּטְדָה וּבָרֶקֶת הַטּוּר הָאֶחָד:
11And the second row: nofech, sappir, and yahalom. יאוְהַטּוּר הַשֵּׁנִי נֹפֶךְ סַפִּיר וְיָהֲלֹם:
12And the third row: leshem, shevo, and achlamah. יבוְהַטּוּר הַשְּׁלִישִׁי לֶשֶׁם שְׁבוֹ וְאַחְלָמָה:
13And the fourth row: tarshish, shoham, and yashpheh; enclosed in gold settings in their fillings. יגוְהַטּוּר הָרְבִיעִי תַּרְשִׁישׁ שֹׁהַם וְיָשְׁפֵה מוּסַבֹּת מִשְׁבְּצֹת זָהָב בְּמִלֻּאֹתָם:
14And the stones were for the names of the sons of Israel twelve, corresponding to their names; [similar to] the engravings of a seal, every one according to his name, for the twelve tribes. ידוְהָאֲבָנִים עַל שְׁמֹת בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל הֵנָּה שְׁתֵּים עֶשְׂרֵה עַל שְׁמֹתָם פִּתּוּחֵי חֹתָם אִישׁ עַל שְׁמוֹ לִשְׁנֵים עָשָׂר שָׁבֶט:
15For the choshen they made chains at the edges, of cable work, of pure gold. טווַיַּעֲשׂוּ עַל הַחשֶׁן שַׁרְשְׁרֹת גַּבְלֻת מַעֲשֵׂה עֲבֹת זָהָב טָהוֹר:
16They made two golden settings and two golden rings, and they placed the two rings on the two ends of the choshen. טזוַיַּעֲשׂוּ שְׁתֵּי מִשְׁבְּצֹת זָהָב וּשְׁתֵּי טַבְּעֹת זָהָב וַיִּתְּנוּ אֶת שְׁתֵּי הַטַּבָּעֹת עַל שְׁנֵי קְצוֹת הַחשֶׁן:
17And they placed the two golden cables on the two rings, at the ends of the choshen. יזוַיִּתְּנוּ שְׁתֵּי הָעֲבֹתֹת הַזָּהָב עַל שְׁתֵּי הַטַּבָּעֹת עַל קְצוֹת הַחשֶׁן:
18And the two ends of the two cables they placed upon the two settings, and they placed them upon the shoulder straps of the ephod, on its front part. יחוְאֵת שְׁתֵּי קְצוֹת שְׁתֵּי הָעֲבֹתֹת נָתְנוּ עַל שְׁתֵּי הַמִּשְׁבְּצֹת וַיִּתְּנֻם עַל כִּתְפֹת הָאֵפֹד אֶל מוּל פָּנָיו:
19And they made two golden rings and placed them on the two ends of the choshen, on its edge that faced the inner side of the ephod. יטוַיַּעֲשׂוּ שְׁתֵּי טַבְּעֹת זָהָב וַיָּשִׂימוּ עַל שְׁנֵי קְצוֹת הַחשֶׁן עַל שְׂפָתוֹ אֲשֶׁר אֶל עֵבֶר הָאֵפֹד בָּיְתָה:
20And they made two golden rings and placed them on the two shoulder straps of the ephod, from below, toward its front, adjacent to its seam, above the band of the ephod. כוַיַּעֲשׂוּ שְׁתֵּי טַבְּעֹת זָהָב וַיִּתְּנֻם עַל שְׁתֵּי כִתְפֹת הָאֵפֹד מִלְּמַטָּה מִמּוּל פָּנָיו לְעֻמַּת מַחְבַּרְתּוֹ מִמַּעַל לְחֵשֶׁב הָאֵפֹד:
21And they fastened the choshen by its rings to the rings of the ephod with a cord of blue wool, so that it could be upon the band of the ephod, so that the choshen would not move off the ephod, as the Lord had commanded Moses. כאוַיִּרְכְּסוּ אֶת הַחשֶׁן מִטַּבְּעֹתָיו אֶל טַבְּעֹת הָאֵפֹד בִּפְתִיל תְּכֵלֶת לִהְיֹת עַל חֵשֶׁב הָאֵפֹד וְלֹא יִזַּח הַחשֶׁן מֵעַל הָאֵפֹד כַּאֲשֶׁר צִוָּה יְהֹוָה אֶת משֶׁה:

Daily Tehillim: Psalms Chapters 104 - 105
• Chapter 104
This psalm tells of the beauty of creation, describing that which was created on each of the six days of creation. It proclaims the awesomeness of God Who sustains it all-from the horns of the wild ox to the eggs of the louse.
1. My soul, bless the Lord! Lord my God, You are greatly exalted; You have garbed Yourself with majesty and splendor.
2. You enwrap [Yourself] with light as with a garment; You spread the heavens as a curtain.
3. He roofs His heavens with water; He makes the clouds His chariot, He moves [them] on the wings of the wind.
4. He makes the winds His messengers, the blazing fire His servants.
5. He established the earth on its foundations, that it shall never falter.
6. The depths covered it as a garment; the waters stood above the mountains.
7. At Your exhortation they fled; at the sound of Your thunder they rushed away.
8. They ascended mountains, they flowed down valleys, to the place which You have assigned for them.
9. You set a boundary which they may not cross, so that they should not return to engulf the earth.
10. He sends forth springs into streams; they flow between the mountains.
11. They give drink to all the beasts of the field; the wild animals quench their thirst.
12. The birds of the heavens dwell beside them; they raise their voice from among the foliage.
13. He irrigates the mountains from His clouds above; the earth is satiated from the fruit of Your works.
14. He makes grass grow for the cattle, and vegetation requiring the labor of man to bring forth food from the earth;
15. and wine that gladdens man's heart, oil that makes the face shine, and bread that sustains man's heart.
16. The trees of the Lord drink their fill, the cedars of Lebanon which He planted,
17. wherein birds build their nests; the stork has her home in the cypress.
18. The high mountains are for the wild goats; the rocks are a refuge for the rabbits.
19. He made the moon to calculate the festivals; the sun knows its time of setting.
20. You bring on darkness and it is night, when all the beasts of the forest creep forth.
21. The young lions roar for prey, and seek their food from God.
22. When the sun rises, they return and lie down in their dens.
23. Then man goes out to his work, to his labor until evening.
24. How manifold are Your works, O Lord! You have made them all with wisdom; the earth is full of Your possessions.
25. This sea, vast and wide, where there are countless creeping creatures, living things small and great;
26. there ships travel, there is the Leviathan that You created to frolic therein.
27. They all look expectantly to You to give them their food at the proper time.
28. When You give it to them, they gather it; when You open Your hand, they are satiated with goodness.
29. When You conceal Your countenance, they are terrified; when You take back their spirit, they perish and return to their dust.
30. When You will send forth Your spirit they will be created anew, and You will renew the face of the earth.
31. May the glory of the Lord be forever; may the Lord find delight in His works.
32. He looks at the earth, and it trembles; He touches the mountains, and they smoke.
33. I will sing to the Lord with my soul; I will chant praise to my God with my [entire] being.
34. May my prayer be pleasant to Him; I will rejoice in the Lord.
35. May sinners cease from the earth, and the wicked be no more. Bless the Lord, O my soul! Praise the Lord!
Chapter 105
When David brought the Holy Ark up to the City of David, he composed this psalm and sang it before the Ark. He recounts all the miracles that God performed for the Jews in Egypt: sending before them Joseph, who was imprisoned, only to be liberated by God, eventually attaining the status of one who could imprison the princes of Egypt without consulting Pharaoh.
1. Offer praise to the Lord, proclaim His Name; make His deeds known among the nations.
2. Sing to Him, chant praises to Him, speak of all His wonders.
3. Glory in His holy Name; may the heart of those who seek the Lord rejoice.
4. Search for the Lord and His might; seek His countenance always.
5. Remember the wonders that He has wrought, His miracles, and the judgements of His mouth.
6. O descendants of Abraham His servant, children of Jacob, His chosen ones:
7. He is the Lord our God; His judgements extend over the entire earth.
8. He remembers His covenant forever, the word which He has commanded to a thousand generations;
9. the covenant which He made with Abraham, and His oath to Isaac.
10. He established it for Jacob as a statute, for Israel as an everlasting covenant,
11. stating, "To you I shall give the land of Canaan"-the portion of your inheritance,
12. when they were but few, very few, and strangers in it.
13. They wandered from nation to nation, from one kingdom to another people.
14. He permitted no one to wrong them, and admonished kings for their sake:
15. "Do not touch my anointed ones, and do not harm my prophets.”
16. He called for a famine upon the land; he broke every source of bread.
17. He sent a man before them; Joseph was sold as a slave.
18. They afflicted his foot with chains, his soul was put into iron;
19. until the time that His words came, the decree of the Lord purified him.
20. The king sent [word] and released him, the ruler of nations set him free.
21. He appointed him master of his house and ruler of all his possessions,
22. to imprison his princes at will, and to enlighten his elders.
23. Thus Israel came to Egypt, and Jacob sojourned in the land of Ham (Egypt).
24. He multiplied His nation greatly, and made it mightier than its adversaries.
25. He turned their hearts to hate His nation, to conspire against His servants.
26. He sent Moses, His servant; Aaron, whom He had chosen.
27. They placed among them the words of His signs, miracles in the land of Ham.
28. He sent darkness and made it dark, and they did not defy His word.
29. He transformed their waters to blood, and killed their fish.
30. Their land swarmed with frogs in the chambers of their kings.
31. He spoke, and hordes of wild beasts came, and lice throughout their borders.
32. He turned their rains to hail, flaming fire in their land;
33. it struck their vine and fig tree, it broke the trees of their borders.
34. He spoke, and grasshoppers came, locusts without number;
35. and it consumed all grass in their land, it ate the fruit of their soil.
36. Then He smote every firstborn in their land, the first of all their potency.
37. And He took them out with silver and gold, and none among His tribes stumbled.
38. Egypt rejoiced at their leaving, for the fear [of Israel] had fallen upon them.
39. He spread out a cloud for shelter, and a fire to illuminate the night.
40. [Israel] asked, and He brought quail, and with the bread of heaven He satisfied them.
41. He opened a rock and waters flowed; they streamed through dry places like a river,
42. for He remembered His holy word to Abraham His servant.
43. And He brought out His nation with joy, His chosen ones with song.
44. He gave them the lands of nations, they inherited the toil of peoples,
45. so that they might keep His statutes and observe His laws. Praise the Lord
Tanya: Likutei Amarim, beginning of Chapter 36
• Thursday, Adar 21, 5775 · March 12, 2015
Today's Tanya Lesson
Likutei Amarim, beginning of Chapter 36
In the previous chapter, the Alter Rebbe began to explain why the observance of the practical mitzvot is the ultimate purpose of Torah and of one’s spiritual service to G‑d. (This practical aspect is underscored by the conclusion of the verse, “For the thing is very near to you, in your mouth and in your heart that you may do it.”) He explained that only mitzvotobserved through action draw down the light of the Shechinah upon one’s animal soul and body (rather than upon the divine soul alone, as do the mitzvot performed only in thought and speech).
Yet this does not answer one question satisfactorily: Why is the illumination of the body and animal soul so important that those (practical) mitzvot which accomplish this illumination should be considered one’s primary objective?
The Alter Rebbe addresses this question in ch. 36. He explains that G‑d’s purpose in Creation is that he might have a dwelling place “in the lower realms”; specifically, in this physical world. In this world of doubled and redoubled spiritual darkness, His Ein Sof-light would radiate even more powerfully than it does in the higher, spiritual realms, through man’s transforming the darkness into light.
In man, the microcosm, the animal soul and the body are “the lower realms.” Therefore, the practical mitzvot which draw the light of the Shechinah upon them constitute man’s ultimate purpose.
Furthermore, through the practical mitzvot, and through their elevating effect on the body and animal soul, the material world in its entirety becomes a “dwelling place” for G‑d. (This, however, properly belongs to the discussion in ch. 37.)
והנה מודעת זאת מאמר רז״ל שתכלית בריאת עולם הזה הוא שנתאוה הקדוש ברוך הוא להיות לו דירה בתחתונים
In a well-known statement, our Rabbis declare1 that the purpose for which this world was created is that the Holy One, blessed be He, desired to have an abode in the lower realms.
He desired that the essence of His Ein Sof-light be revealed as it is, without veil or concealment, amidst the lower creations. Our Sages use the word “abode”, or “dwelling place,” to describe such revelation. Just as a man’s home serves as an abode for his essence, so too, is this world intended to be an “abode” for G‑d’s Essence.
The Alter Rebbe now goes on to explain the phrase “the lower realms” mentioned above. He shows that this refers specifically to our physical world.
The explanation in brief:
The terms “higher” and “lower” realms do not denote degrees of respective importance in the sight of G‑d, or of closeness to Him. In G‑d’s eyes all the worlds, from the highest to the lowest, are equally insignificant; all are equally remote from Him. On the other hand, He fills the lowest world just as He fills the highest.
Thus, the terms “higher” and “lower” must be understood as a standard of comparisonwithin the numerous worlds. They indicate to what degree G‑dliness is revealed in each individual world: the more revelation, the “higher” the world; the more obscurity and concealment, the “lower”. From this standpoint, our physical world is the very lowest, for here G‑dliness is most veiled and concealed.
In the Alter Rebbe’s words:
והנה לא שייך לפניו יתברך בחינת מעלה ומטה, כי הוא יתברך ממלא כל עלמין בשוה
But surely, before G‑d (i.e., in His sight) the distinction of “higher” and “lower” is not valid, one world is no higher than another, for he pervades all worlds equally.What, then, do our Sages mean by saying that “G‑d desired an abode in the ‘lower’ realms?”
אלא ביאור הענין
The explanation of the matter, however, is that G‑d desired an abode in that realm considered “lower” within the ranks of the worlds as follows:
כי קודם שנברא העולם היה הוא לבדו יתברך יחיד ומיוחד, וממלא כל כל המקום הזה שברא בו העולם
Before the world (any world) was created, there was only He alone, one and unique, filling all the space in which He created the world. Anything that could be conceived of as a “space” or possibility for creation, was filled with the Ein Sof-light.
וגם עתה כן הוא לפניו יתברך
In His view, indeed, it is still the same now. Creation wrought no change in His unity; He is One alone now just as He was prior to creation.
רק שהשינוי הוא אל המקבלים חיותו ואורו יתברך
The change applies only to the recipients of His vivifying force and His light —before creation there was none to receive the Divine life-force and light; Creation brought into being these recipients,
שמקבלים על ידי לבושים רבים המכסים ומסתירים אורו יתברך
who receive [this life-force and light- by way of numerous “garments” which veil and conceal G‑d’s light for without such garments they could not bear its intensity, and would cease to exist.
כדכתיב, כי לא יראני האדם וחי
So it is written:2 “For no man can see Me and live.”
Furthermore, not only man, a physical being, but even spiritual beings such as angels are unable to receive the divine light and life-force without concealing garments.
וכדפירשו רז״ל, שאפילו מלאכים הנקראים חיות אין רואין כו׳
And as our Rabbis, of blessed memory, interpret the word וחי (“...and live”) in this verse, as referring to angels; thus3: “Even angels, called חיות (‘[holy- chayyot’) cannot see...” G‑dliness, except by way of garments which conceal Him, thereby enabling them to receive His light.
The degree of concealment varies, however, from world to world and from level to level. Here the distinction between “higher” and “lower” realms becomes valid, as the Alter Rebbe continues:
וזהו ענין השתלשלות העולמות וירידתם ממדרגה למדרגה
This concealment is the subject of the Hishtalshelut (the chain-like, graded and downward succession) of the worlds, and their descent from level to level,
על ידי ריבוי הלבושים המסתירים האור והחיות שממנו יתברך
through the many “garments” that conceal the light and the life-force emanating from Him (— the more concealment, the lower the descent);
עד שנברא עולם הזה הגשמי והחומרי ממש
culminating in the creation of this physical, gross world.
This world is not only physical — so that the truth of G‑d’s creative power is not in evidence; it is also gross, in that the lie is held up as a truth.
והוא התחתון במדרגה, שאין תחתון למטה ממנו בענין הסתר אורו יתברך, וחושך כפול ומכופל
[This world] is the lowest in degree; there is none lower than it in terms of concealment of His light and no world compares with it for doubled and redoubled darkness; nowhere is G‑d’s light hidden as in this world.
עד שהוא מלא קליפות וסטרא אחרא שהן נגד ה׳ ממש, לומר אני ואפסי עוד
So much so, that it is filled with kelipot and sitra achra which actually oppose G‑d, saying: “I am, and there is nothing else besides me.”
It is thus clear that the term “lower realms” refers to this physical world, the very lowest in degree of divine revelation.
Since there is but one “order of Hishtalshelut,” a question arises: Does its ultimate purpose lie in the higher worlds, where G‑dliness is revealed to a greater degree, while the lower worlds serve only to emphasize the revelation found in those higher than them (since light is distinguishable only where darkness exists)? Or, on the contrary, does its purpose lie in the lower realms (but in order to create them an order of Hishtalshelut is necessary, entailing the creation of the higher realms)?
Obviously, concealment of G‑dliness is not an end in itself; thus, if we assume the second position, it follows that these lower realms were created so that the darkness pervading them be transformed to light.
The statement that “G‑d desired an abode in the lower realms” shows the latter position to be the true one; and the “abode” is built by the revelation of His Presence in this lowest of worlds to a degree surpassing even that in the highest. This, in brief, is the subject of the following paragraphs in the text.
והנה תכלית השתלשלות העולמות וירידתם ממדרגה למדרגה אינו בשביל עולמות העליונים
The purpose of the Hishtalshelut of the worlds, and of their descent from level to level, is not for the sake of the higher worlds,
הואיל ולהם ירידה מאור פניו יתברך
since for them this constitutes a descent from the light of His Countenance.
The very word “world” (עולם) in Hebrew denotes concealment. Thus, even the highest worlds constitute, by their very existence, a descent from the pervading level of G‑dliness that preceded their creation. It is illogical, then, to say that the revelation which these higher worlds represent is the purpose of the Hishtalshelut, since their revelation is actually concealment — and the ultimate purpose of creation lies in revelation, not concealment.
אלא התכלית הוא עולם הזה התחתון
Rather, the purpose of Hishtalshelut is this lowest world.
All the higher worlds are merely steps in the descent of the divine creative power; in each of them the light is veiled yet further, until it is finally reduced to the minute degree of revelation that this physical world is capable of receiving.
שכך עלה ברצונו יתברך, להיות נחת רוח לפניו יתברך כד אתכפיא סטרא אחרא ואתהפך חשוכא לנהורא
Thus, the purpose of the Hishtalshelut is this world, for such was His will — that He find it pleasurable when the sitra achra is subjugated to holiness, and the darkness of kelipah is transformed into holy light,
שיאיר אור ה׳ אין סוף ברוך הוא במקום החשך והסטרא אחרא של כל עולם הזה כולו
so that in the place of the darkness and sitra achra prevailing throughout this world, the Ein Sof-light of G‑d will shine forth
ביתר שאת ויתר עז, ויתרון אור מן החשך, מהארתו בעולמות עליונים
with greater strength and intensity, and with the superior quality of light that emerges from the darkness i.e., when darkness is transformed into light, the resulting light is superior to ordinary light; it will thus shine with greater intensity than its radiance in the higher worlds.4
שמאיר שם על ידי לבושים והסתר פנים, המסתירים ומעלימים אור אין סוף ברוך הוא
There, in the higher worlds, it shines through garments and [through] concealment of the Countenance (a concealment of the pnimiyut — i.e., the internal aspect — of the light) which conceal and screen the Ein Sof-light,
שלא יבטלו במציאות
so that [the worlds] do not dissolve out of existence.
For were the Ein Sof-light not screened by garments, the worlds could not bear it, and would dissolve. Thus, the revelation wrought by subjugation of the kelipot in this world, is greater than that of the higher worlds; there the Ein Sof-light is hidden, whereas here in this world it is revealed in all its strength.
A question arises, however. How is it possible (even upon subjugating the kelipot and transforming them into holiness) that we in this world should experience a revelation of the Ein Sof-light without veil or concealment, when even the higher worlds cannot receive such revelation without dissolving into nothingness?
In answer, the Alter Rebbe writes:
ולזה נתן הקדוש ברוך הוא לישראל את התורה, שנקראת עוז וכח
For this purpose the Holy One, blessed be He, gave Israel the Torah which is called “might” and “strength” for it gives us strength to receive such revelation, without being overwhelmed by it,
וכמאמר רז״ל, שהקדוש ברוך הוא נותן כח בצדיקים לקבל שכרם לעתיד לבא
and as our Rabbis say,5 that G‑d gives tzaddikim the strength to receive their reward in the World to Come,
Why is this “strength” necessary?
שלא יתבטלו במציאות ממש באור ה׳ הנגלה לעתיד בלי שום לבוש
so that their existence should not dissolve within the divine light that will reveal itself in the hereafter without any garment,
כדכתיב: ולא יכנף עוד מוריך פירוש: שלא יתכסה ממך בכנף ולבוש , והיו עיניך רואות את מוריך
as it is written:6 “And your Teacher will no longer hide (יכנף) from you (7meaning — not as some interpret the verse: ”He will no longer withhold (יכנף) your rains (מוריך),“ but, following Rashi: ”He will no longer conceal Himself from you with the edge of a robe or garment (כנף)“), and your eyes will behold Your Teacher”;
וכתיב: כי עין בעין יראו וגו'
and it is also written:8 “For they shall see eye to eye...,” meaning that the human eye will see as the divine “eye” sees, i.e., we will clearly see the revelation of G‑d’s light;
וכתיב: לא יהיה לך עוד השמש לאור יומם וגו׳, כי ה׳ יהיה לך לאור עולם וגו׳
and it is further written:9 “The sun shall no longer be your light by day,... for G‑d will be your eternal light.”
The strength to receive this light, which will shine forth in the World to Come without “garment” or concealment, we derive from our present study of the Torah.
The Alter Rebbe stated earlier that the purpose of the entire Hishtalshelut is the revelation of Ein Sof-light in this world, which occurs when the darkness of the kelipot of this world is transformed into the light of holiness.
But, one may ask, this revelation will take place only in the hereafter; at present the Ein Sof-light is completely hidden! The Alter Rebbe replies that, indeed, the Messianic era constitutes the purpose for which this world was created.
ונודע שימות המשיח, ובפרט כשיחיו המתים
It is known that the Messianic era, especially the period after the resurrection of the dead,
הם תכלית ושלימות בריאת עולם הזה, שלכך נברא מתחילתו
is indeed the ultimate purpose and the fulfillment of this world. It is for this [purpose] that [this world] was originally created.*
*NOTE
At first glance this statement appears strange: One would have thought that the Messianic era represents, not the purpose of creation, but the reward for man’s efforts toward fulfilling that purpose.
The Alter Rebbe therefore clarifies:
הגהה
וקבלת שכר עיקרו באלף השביעי, כמו שכתוב בלקוטי תורה מהאר״י ז״ל
The [time of] receiving the reward is essentially in the seventh millennium, as is stated in Likkutei Torah of the AriZal (Rabbi Isaac Luria, of blessed memory), whereas the period until then constitutes the fulfillment of the world’s purpose.
END OF NOTE
FOOTNOTES
1.Midrash Tanchuma, Nasso 7:1.
2.Shmot 33:20.
3.Sifrei, end of Parshat Behaalotecha; Bamidbar Rabbah, end of Parshat Nasso.
4.The Rebbe explains why the Alter Rebbe adds the words, “than its radiance in the higher worlds,” and is not satisfied with simply stating that the ultimate purpose of creation is this world, “for such was His will — that He find it pleasurable....”
In doing so the Alter Rebbe answers a well-known question. How can we possibly say that the higher worlds, which are illuminated with such a revelation of G‑dliness, exist for the purpose of this world, where G‑dliness is so concealed? One does not create a significant thing to serve something insignificant. The Alter Rebbe therefore explains that through the transformation of darkness into light — a form of divine service which can be achieved only in this world — the world becomes so holy that it is illuminated with a degree of G‑dliness far superior to that which is manifest in the higher worlds.
5.Sanhedrin 100b.
6.Yeshayahu 30:20.
7.Parentheses are in the original text.
8.Yeshayahu 52:8.
9.Ibid. 60:19.
Rambam:
• Sefer Hamitzvos:
Thursday, Adar 21, 5775 · March 12, 2015
Today's Mitzvah
A daily digest of Maimonides’ classic work "Sefer Hamitzvot"
Negative Commandment 336
Incest with a Daughter
It is forbidden to have incestuous relations with one's daughter.
The Torah doesn't explicitly mention this prohibition—for if incest with a granddaughter is forbidden, how much more so incest with a daughter. And the Sages deduced from the wording of the verses that incest with a daughter is biblically prohibited.
Incest with a Daughter
Negative Commandment 336
Translated by Berel Bell
The 336th prohibition is that one is forbidden from having relations with one's daughter.
This mitzvah is not explicitly stated in the Torah; it does not say, "do not commit incest with your daughter," for example. The Torah already prohibited relations with one's son's daughter and one's daughter's daughter, although they are more remotely related. It is therefore obvious [that a daughter is prohibited] and it is not mentioned.
In tractate Yevamos it is said, "the actual prohibition of [incest with] a daughter is learned by means of derivation,1 as Rava said, 'Rabbi Yitzchok bar Avdimi said to me: "compare the two occurrences of the word heinah [they are] and the two occurrences of the word zimah [perversion].' "
The explanation of this passage: regarding the incestual prohibition of one's son's daughter and one's daughter's daughter, the verse says,2 "for they are [heina] your own nakedness." Regarding the prohibition [of marrying] a woman and her daughter, son's daughter, or daughter's daughter, the verse says,3 "since they are [heinah] relatives, it is perversion."
[Since both verses have the word heinah, we can use the principle of gezeirah shavah,4 and compare the two verses:] just as where there is a prohibition [against marrying] a woman together with her son's daughter or daughter's daughter, the same applies to her daughter5 — so too where there is a prohibition [from having relations with] one's son's daughter or daughter's daughter, the same applies to one's daughter.6
Regarding the appropriate punishment, the verse states,7 "if a man marries a woman and her mother, it is perversion [zimah], and both he and they8 shall be burned with fire." So too, the punishment [for marrying] a woman and her daughter's daughter or son's daughter is burning, since regarding them the verse9 says zimah,10 just as it does by a woman and her daughter.11
Tractate Kerisus12 says, "do not treat a gezeirah shavah lightly, because [the prohibition of incest with] a daughter is part of the main body of the Torah,13 and nevertheless the verse does not teach it to us [explicitly] except through a gezeirah shavah14 — 'compare the two occurrences of the word heinah and the two occurrences of the word zimah.' "
Think closely into the wording of the Sages, "the verse does not teach it to us," rather than, "we have not learned it." They said it in this way because all teachings of this category have been handed down to us through "The Emissary,"15 and they are part of Torah tradition, as we explained in the introduction to our explanation of the Mishneh.
The verse does not mention this prohibition explicitly because it can be derived from a gezeirah shavah. This is their intention in saying, "the verse does not teach it to us [explicitly] except through a gezeirah shavah." And their statement, "main body of the Torah" is sufficient [to teach us that this mitzvah counts as one of the 613].
The conclusion of this discussion is that one who transgresses the prohibition of [incest with] one's daughter, daughter's daughter, or son's daughter is punished by s'reifah.16 If the act was intentional, but no one knows of the transgression, or there was no valid testimony, the punishment is kares.17 If one of them transgressed unintentionally, that person must bring a sin-offering.18
FOOTNOTES
1.Not explicitly stated, as are the other incestual relationships, but learned by one of the principles of Torah derivation.
2.Lev. 18:10.
3.Lev. 18:17.
4.There is an Oral Tradition handed down from the time the Torah was given on Mt. Sinai, that when the same word occurs in two different contexts, the two laws can be compared. There must be a tradition for each particular instance.
5.As stated clearly in the verse, Lev. 18:17.
6.Until here is the Rambam's explanation of the Gemara's statement, "compare the two occurrences of the word heinah." Now he explains the meaning of, "the two occurrences of the word zimah."
7.Lev. 20:14.
8.Actually only the second one is executed; see Hilchos Isurei Biyah, 2:7.
9.Lev. 18:17.
10.See Heller edition, note 25.
11.I.e. a mother and her daughter, as in Lev. 20:14.
12.5a.
13.In the Second Introductory Principle, the Rambam stated that if a law is only derived, it does not count as one of the 613 mitzvos. However, there he says that when this expression — "main body of the Torah" [gufei Torah] — is used, the law does count as one of the 613. This is evidently his intention in quoting this passage.
14.Rather than with an explicit verse.
15.I.e. Moshe Rabbenu. If, however, the expression, "we have not learned" was used, this could imply that a gezeirah shavah could be derived by the Sages themselves. See Yad Halevi, note 5.
16.I.e. pouring molten metal down the person's throat. See P228.
17.See N320, note 9.
18.Ibid. note 12.

Negative Commandment 335
Incest with a Daughter's Daughter
"The nakedness of . . . [or] your daughter's daughter you shall not uncover their nakedness, for they are your own nakedness"—Leviticus 18:10.
It is forbidden to have incestuous relations with one's daughter's daughter.
Incest with a Daughter's Daughter
Incest with a Daughter's Daughter
Negative Commandment 335
Translated by Berel Bell
The 335th prohibition is that one is forbidden from having relations with one's daughter's daughter.
The source of this commandment is G‑d's statement,1 "do not commit incest with [your son's daughter or] your daughter's daughter, for they are your own nakedness.
FOOTNOTES
1.Lev. 18:10.

Negative Commandment 337
Incest with a Mother-in-Law or Wife's Daughter
"You shall not uncover the nakedness of a woman and her daughter"—Leviticus 18:17.
It is forbidden to have incestuous relations with one's wife's mother or daughter.
Incest with a Mother-in-Law or Wife's Daughter
Negative Commandment 337
Translated by Berel Bell
The 337th prohibition is that one is forbidden from having relations with a woman and her daughter.
The source of this commandment is G‑d's statement,1 "do not commit incest with a woman and her daughter."
One who transgresses this prohibition — i.e. one of them is his wife, and he has relations with the other — and does so intentionally, is punished by s'reifa2 if there is acceptable testimony, in addition to kares.3 If he transgressed unintentionally, he must bring a sin-offering.4
FOOTNOTES
1.Lev. 18:17.
2.See note to N336.
3.See N320, note 9.
4.Ibid. note 12.

Negative Commandment 338
Incest with a Wife's Paternal Grandmother or a Wife's Son's Daughter
"...her son's daughter..."—Leviticus 18:17.
It is forbidden to have incestuous relations with one's wife's paternal grandmother or one's wife's son's daughter
Incest with a Wife's Paternal Grandmother or a Wife's Son's Daughter
Incest with a Wife's Paternal Grandmother or a Wife's Son's Daughter
Negative Commandment 338
Translated by Berel Bell
The 338th prohibition is that one is forbidden from having relations with a woman and her son's daughter.
The source of this commandment is G‑d's statement,1 "[do not commit incest with a woman and her daughter.] Do not even take her son's daughter."
For this prohibition, too, the punishment is s'reifah and kares for an intentional transgression, and a sin-offering if unintentional.
FOOTNOTES
1.Lev. 18:17.

• 1 Chapter: Tzitzit Tzitzit - Chapter One 

Tzitzit - Chapter One

HILCHOT TZITZIT - THE LAWS OF TZITZIT
They contain one mitzvah to make tzitzit on the corners of a garment.
This mitzvah is explained in the following chapters.
Halacha 1
The tassel that is made on the fringes of a garment from the same fabric as the garment is called tzitzit, because it resembles the locks of the head, as [Ezekiel 8:3] relates, "And he took me by the locks of my head."
This tassel is called the white [strands], because we are not commanded to dye it. The Torah did not establish a fixed number of strands for this tassel.
Halacha 2
Then we take a strand of wool that is dyed a sky-like color and wind it around this tassel. This strand is called techelet. The Torah did not establish a fixed requirement for the number of times that this strand should be wound [around the tassel].
Halacha 3
Thus, this mitzvah contains two commandments: to make a tassel on the fringe [of a garment], and to wind a strand oftechelet around the tassel. [Both these dimensions are indicated by Numbers 15:38, which] states: "And you shall make tassels... and you shall place on the tassels of the corner a strand oftechelet."
Halacha 4
The [absence of] techelet does not prevent [the mitzvah from being fulfilled with] the white strands, nor does the [absence of] the white strands prevent [the mitzvah from being fulfilled with] techelet.
What is implied? A person who does not have techelet should make [tzitzit] from white strands alone. Similarly, if [tzitzit] were made from both white strands andtechelet, and afterwards, the white strands snapped and were reduced until [they did not extend beyond] the corner [of the garment], and thus only thetechelet remained, it is acceptable.
Halacha 5
Although the [absence of] one does not prevent [the mitzvah from being fulfilled with] the other, they are not considered as two mitzvot. Instead, they are a single mitzvah. Whether [the tzitzit] a person wears on his garment are white,techelet, or a combination of the two colors, he fulfills a single mitzvah.
The Sages of the early generations related: [Numbers 15:39 states:] "And they shall be tzitzit for you." This teaches that they are both one mitzvah.
The [presence of each of the] four tzitzit is necessary [for the mitzvah to be fulfilled], because all four are [elements] of a single mitzvah.
Halacha 6
How are the tzitzit made? One begins from the corner of a garment - i.e., the end of its woven portion. One ascends upward no more than three fingerbreadths from the edge, but no less than the distance from the knuckle of the thumb to its end.
[A hole is made] and four strands inserted, [causing them] to be folded in half. Thus, there will be eight strands hanging down from the corner. These eight strands must be at least four fingerbreadths long. If they are longer - even if they are a cubit or two long - it is acceptable. The term "fingerbreadth" refers to a thumbbreadth.
One of the eight strands should be techelet; the other seven should be white.
Halacha 7
Afterwards, one should take one of the white strands and wind it once around the other strands close to the edge of the garment and let it go. Then one takes the strand that was dyed techelet and winds it twice [around the other strands], next to the coil made by the white strand, and then ties the strands in a knot. These three coils are called a segment.
afterwards, one should leave a slight space, and then make a second segment using only the strand that was dyed techelet. Again, one should leave a slight space, and then make a third segment [using only the strand that was dyedtechelet for this segment as well]. One should continue in this manner until the final segment, which is made of two coils of techelet and a final coil using a white strand.1 Since one began with a white strand, one concludes with it, because one should always ascend to a higher level of holiness, but never descend.2
Why should one begin using a white strand? So that [the coil that is] next to the corner of the garment should be similar to [the garment itself].
The same pattern is followed regarding all four corners.
Halacha 8
How many segments should be made at every corner? No fewer than three and no more than thirteen.3
[The above] represents the most preferable way of performing the mitzvah. If, however, one wound only one segment around the strands, it is acceptable.4Should one wind the techelet around the majority of the [length of the] tzitzit, it is acceptable. For the techelet to be attractive, [however,] all the segments should be in the upper third of the strands, and the [remaining] two thirds should hang loose.5
One must separate the strands like the locks of one's hair.6
Halacha 9
A person who makes [tzitzit using only] white threads without using techelet7should take one of the eight strands and wind it around the others, covering one third of [the length of] the strands and leaving two thirds hanging loose.
When winding [this strand around the others], one may create segments as one does when winding the techelet, if one desires. This is our custom. If, however, one desires to wind [the strand around the others] without creating segments, one may.8
The general principle is that one should intend that one third of the tzitzit be bound, and two thirds hang loose.9 There are those, however, who are not precise about this matter when [making tzitzit] with white threads [alone].
Should one wind a white thread around the majority [of the length] of the strands or should one make only a single segment,10 [the tzitzit] are acceptable.
Halacha 10
Both the white strands and those dyed techelet may be made out of entwined strands.11 Even a strand that is made from eight threads entwined into a single strand is considered as only a single strand in this context.
Halacha 11
Both the white strands of the tzitzit and those dyedtechelet must be spun for the sake of being used for [the mitzvah of] tzitzit.
[Tzitzit] may not be made from wool which becomes attached to thorns when sheep graze among them, nor from hairs which are pulled off the animal, and not from the leftover strands of the woof which the weaver leaves over when he completes a garment. Rather, they must be made from shorn wool or from flax.
[Tzitzit] may not be made from wool which was stolen, which came from an ir hanidachat, or which came from a consecrated animal. If such wool was used, it is unacceptable. If a person bows down to an animal, its wool is not acceptable for use for tzitzit. If, however, one bows down to flax which is planted, it is acceptable, because it has been changed.
Halacha 12
Tzitzit that were made by a gentile are not acceptable, as [implied by Numbers 15:38, which] states: "Speak to the children of Israel... and you shall make tzitzit for yourselves." If, however, a Jew made tzitzit without the intention [that they be used for the mitzvah], they are acceptable.
Tzitzit that are made from those already existing are not acceptable.
Halacha 13
What is implied? Should a person bring the corner of a garment which has tzitzit attached to it and sew it onto another garment, it is not acceptable. [This applies] even if that corner of the garment is a square cubit in size.
[This concept is derived from Numbers 15:38, which] states: "And you shall make tzitzit for yourselves" - i.e., [you should make them] and not [use those] which were made previously,since this would be as if [the mitzvah] came about on its own accord.
It is permissible to remove strands [of tzitzit] - whether white or techelet - from one garment and tie them on another.
Halacha 14
Should one suspend the strands between two corners of the garment and tie [tzitzit on] each of the corners in the proper manner, and then separate them from each other,12 it is unacceptable.
[The rationale is] that, at the time they were tied, they were unacceptable, since the two corners were connected with each other through the strands. When the strands were cut, two tzitzit were made. This is considered as making tzitzit from those which already exist.13
Halacha 15
[The following rules apply when] a person ties tzitzit over existing tzitzit: Should [he tie the second set] with the intention of nullifying the first set, if he unties or cuts off the first set,14 the tzitzit are acceptable.15
Should, however, [he have tied the second set] with the intention of adding [a second tzitzit, the tzitzit] are not acceptable even though he cuts one of them off.16 When he added the second tzitzit, he disqualified both sets17, and when he unties or cuts off the additional one, the remaining one is [disqualified because it involves] making [tzitzit] from those which are already existing, since the manner in which it existed previously was not acceptable.
Halacha 16
Similarly, all the tzitzit of a garment are unacceptable18
[in the following instance]: A person placed tzitzit on a garment that had three corners.19 afterwards, he made the garment a fourth corner and placed tzitzit on it. [This is also excluded by the commandment, Deuteronomy 22:12:]20"Make braids," [which implies that one may not use those] which were made previously.
Halacha 17
A garment should not be folded in half, and then tzitzit hung on the four corners of the folded garment,21 unless one sews it along [one] side entirely. [It is sufficient, however, to sew it] on one side alone.22
Halacha 18
[The following rules apply] if the corner [of the garment] to which the tzitzit were attached is torn off the garment: If more than three fingerbreadths were torn, it may be sewed back in its place.23
If less than three fingerbreadths were torn off, it should not be sewn back.24
If the portion of the garment is between [the hole through which] the tzitzit [are attached] and the end of the garment, it is acceptable, even though only the smallest portion of the fabric remains.25
Similarly, if the [length of the] strands of the tzitzit was reduced,26 it is acceptable, as long as enough of the strand remains to tie a loop. Should, however, even a single strand be torn off [from the place to which it is attached to the garment], it is no longer acceptable.27
Commentary Halacha 1
The tassel that is made on the fringes of a garment - The word anaf, translated as "tassel," literally means "branch." Just as a branch is an extension of the tree, the tzitzit are extensions of the fringes.
from the same fabric as the garment - See Chapter 3, Halachah 5.
is called tzitzit - in Numbers 15:38-39. Deuteronomy 22:12 refers to these tassels as g'dilim (braids).
because it resembles the locks of the head, as [Ezekiel 8:3] relates, "And he took me by the locks of my head." - Note Halachah 8, which derives a halachic ruling from this comparison of terms.
This tassel is called the white [strands], because we are not commanded to dye it. - According to the Torah alone (מדאורייתא), we are obligated to place tzitzit only on fabrics of linen and wool (Chapter 3, Halachah 1). Both fabrics are white and need not be dyed.
The Torah did not establish a fixed number of strands for this tassel. -Though the Rabbis established a fixed practice, as explained in Halachah 6, according to the Torah alone (מדאורייתא) there is no fixed number of strands. Though there are some sources that appear to indicate that the Torah also fixed the number of strands required, Sanhedrin 88b concludes that the essence of the mitzvah of tzitzit is a Torah obligation; its explanation, however, is Rabbinic in origin.
Significantly, the Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 11:12) rules that if one includes more than eight strands in tzitzit, they are unacceptable. Shulchan Aruch HaRav 11:1 goes further and states that by doing so, one violates the prohibition forbidding adding to a Torah commandment. Note the Mishnah Berurah 11:60, which quotes other opinions that differ.
Commentary Halacha 2
Then we take a strand of wool that is dyed a sky-like color - i.e., sky-blue.Menachot 43b relates that this color is also reminiscent of God's throne.
and wind it around this tassel. This strand is called techelet. - The Rambam discusses the nature of this dye and its preparation in Chapter 2.
The Torah did not establish a fixed requirement for the number of times that this strand should be wound [around the tassel]. - Menachot 39a requires that the strand of techelet be wound at least seven times around the tassel, as explained in Halachah 8. This is a Rabbinic ordinance.
Commentary Halacha 4
The [absence of] techelet does not prevent [the mitzvah from being fulfilled with] the white strands, nor does the [absence of] the white strands prevent [the mitzvah from being fulfilled with] techelet. - In this aspect, they resemble the arm tefillin and the head tefillin. (See Hilchot Tefillin4:4.) As explained in the following halachah, however, unlike tefillin, they are counted as one mitzvah and not two.
What is implied? A person who does not have techelet should make [tzitzit] from white strands alone. - This is the practice in the present age, when we do not know how to obtain techelet. Even in Talmudic times, whentechelet was available, it was very expensive, and many of the common people made their tzitzit without it.
Similarly, if [tzitzit] were made from both white strands and techelet, and afterwards, the white strands snapped and were reduced until [they did not extend beyond] the corner [of the garment] - The explanation of the Rambam's statements has been debated by the commentaries. Our translation is based on the Rambam's Commentary on the Mishnah, Menachot 4:1.
and thus only the techelet remained, it is acceptable. - The Kessef Mishneh emphasizes that the Rambam does not accept tzitzit that were made from techelet without any white strands. Since the verse states, "and you shall place on the tassels of the corner a strand of techelet," there must be tassels of white strands around which to wind the techelet. Once this has been done, however, if the white strands are severed, one can still fulfill the mitzvah with the techelet alone.
Commentary Halacha 5
Although the [absence of] one does not prevent [the mitzvah from being fulfilled with] the other, they are not considered as two mitzvot. - In General Principle 11 of Sefer HaMitzvot, the Rambam writes:
One might think that since neither is dependent on the other, they would be counted as two mitzvot.... [Nevertheless,] they are a single mitzvah... because they have a single objective, "that you remember all the mitzvot...." All the elements that bring about this remembrance are counted as a single mitzvah.
Instead, they are a single mitzvah. - See Sefer HaMitzvot (Positive Commandment 14) and Sefer HaChinuch (Mitzvah 386).
Whether [the tzitzit] a person wears on his garment are white, techelet, or a combination of the two colors, he fulfills a single mitzvah.
The Sages of the early generations - Sifre Zuta, Mechilta D'Rabbi Shimon bar Yochai
related: [Numbers 15:39 states:] "And they shall be tzitzit for you." This -the use of the singular form of the verb והיה
teaches that they are both one mitzvah.
The [presence of each of the] four tzitzit is necessary [for the mitzvah to be fulfilled] - i.e., although a garment has several tzitzit, the mitzvah is not fulfilled unless it has all four.
because all four are [elements] of a single mitzvah.
Commentary Halacha 6
How are the tzitzit made? One begins from the corner of a garment - i.e., the end of its woven portion. - The tzitzit must be placed at the "corners" or the "fringes" of the garment.
One ascends upward no more than three fingerbreadths from the edge -Any further distance upward would be considered part of the garment itself and not its "corner" or "fringe" (Shulchan Aruch, Orach Chayim 11:9).
but no less than the distance from the knuckle of the thumb to its end. -This is approximately two fingerbreadths. Any lower would be considered as "below the fringe" and not "on the fringe" (Shulchan Aruch HaRav 11:16).
Other opinions mention that these distances should also be applied in regard to the space between the hole and the side of the garment. It is customary to follow this view (Shulchan AruchOrach Chayim 11:10).
[A hole is made] and four strands inserted, [causing them] to be folded in half. Thus, there will be eight strands hanging down from the corner. - As mentioned in Halachah 1, the Torah does not explicitly mention the number of strands in the tzitzit. Although Menachot 39b derives this concept from the exegesis of Deuteronomy 22:12, the Rambam considers this process of derivation to be Rabbinic in origin (מדברי סופרים).
These eight strands must be at least four fingerbreadths long. - This decision is based on the Rambam's interpretation ofMenachot 39a and 41b. Based on the same sources, Rabbenu Tam requires that the strands be at least twelve fingerbreadths long. His opinion is accepted as halachah by theShulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 11:4) and the later authorities.
If they are longer - even if they are a cubit or two long - it is acceptable. -It is common to make the strands slightly longer than twelve fingerbreadths, so that, even if they tear, they will still retain the desired length (Shulchan Aruch HaRav 11:9; Mishnah Berurah 11:21).
The term "fingerbreadth" refers to a thumbbreadth. - See Hilchot Sefer Torah 9:9. In contemporary measure, a thumbbreadth is approximately 2 centimeters according to Shiurei Torah, and 2.4 centimeters according toChazon Ish.
One of the eight strands should be techelet - Though the eight strands come from folding four larger strands, only half of one of these strands should be dyed. The other half should retain its natural color, white.
The Ra'avad disagrees with this point and maintains that one of the larger strands should be dyed in its entirety, thus producing two smaller strands that are dyed techelet. The Tur (Orach Chayim 10) and other Ashkenazic authorities maintain that two of the four strands were techelet and two were white.
The Kessef Mishneh supports the Rambam's position, noting that Numbers 15:39 states, "And you shall place on the tassels of the corner a strand (singular) of techelet." Note also the commentary of the Or Sameach.
Significantly, archaeological excavations have uncovered tzitzit belonging to bar Kochba's soldiers. Only one of the eight strands was dyed techelet.
the other seven should be white. - The dyed strand should be slightly longer than the others, so that, even after it has been wound around them, it will be the same length as the others.
Commentary Halacha 11
Both the white strands of the tzitzit and those dyed techelet must be spun for the sake of being used for [the mitzvah of] tzitzit. - i.e., before one begins spinning the strands, one must state that he is doing so for the sake of use for tzitzit.
As explained in Hilchot Tefillin 1:11, any time when an activity must be carried out lishmah, it cannot be performed by a gentile. Therefore, the strands may not be spun by a gentile alone (Ramah, Orach Chayim 11:1).
[Tzitzit] may not be made from wool which becomes attached to thorns when sheep graze among them, nor from hairs which are pulled off the animal, and not from the leftover strands of the woof which the weaver leaves over when he completes a garment. - Tzitzit must be made from the same fabric as that which was used for the garment to which they are attached. Since these three sorts of wool are of an inferior quality and are not suitable for use in a garment itself, they may not be used for tzitzit either (Sefer HaMaor, Sukkah).
Rather, they must be made from shorn wool or from flax.
[Tzitzit] may not be made from wool which was stolen - Numbers 15:38states: "And you shall make tzitzit for yourselves." The latter term implies that the tzitzit must belong to their owner and may not be stolen.
One of the principles of Jewish law is that if the form of a stolen article is altered and its original owner gives up hope of its return, it is acquired by the thief, and he is required merely to return its worth, but not the article itself. Note Shulchan Aruch HaRav 11:12 and the Mishnah Berurah 11:30, which discuss the implications of this principle on the use of stolen wool for tzitzit.
which came from an ir hanidachat - An ir hanidachat is a city condemned to be destroyed because the majority of its inhabitants worshiped idols. All property contained within the city is condemned to be burned and is considered as if it does not exist. (See Hilchot Avodat Kochavim, Chapter 4.)
or which came from a consecrated animal - an animal designated to be offered as a sacrifice. Tzitzit can be made only from wool that belongs "to you." Once an animal is designated for sacrificial purposes, it is no longer considered as belonging to a private individual (Sefer HaKovetz).
If such wool was used, it is unacceptable.
If a person bows down to an animal, its wool is not acceptable for use for tzitzit. - In contrast to other objects worshiped as false deities, an animal does not become condemned and may be used for other purposes (Hilchot Avodat Kochavim 8:1). Nevertheless, wool of this nature is unfit to use for a ritual purpose. (See Hilchot Issurei HaMizbe'ach 3:6.)
If, however, one bows down to flax which is planted, it is acceptable - for use as tzitzit
because it has been changed - and no longer resembles the object which was worshiped. (See Hilchot Issurei Hamizbe'ach 3:14.)
Commentary Halacha 12
Tzitzit that were made - i.e., attached to the garment and tied
by a gentile are not acceptable, as [implied by Numbers 15:38, which] states: "Speak to the children of Israel... and you shall make tzitzit for yourselves." - Menachot 42a relates that this verse serves as the source for the ruling that only a Jew may tie tzitzit.
The Hagahot Maimoniot state that since the phrase ישראל בני literally means "sons of Israel," tzitzit should not be made by women. The Shulchan Aruch(Orach Chayim 14:1) does not accept this opinion. The Ramah, however, states that it is preferable for women not to tie tzitzit.
If, however, a Jew made tzitzit without the intention [that they be used for the mitzvah], they are acceptable. - This principle can be derived from the above concept. Were it necessary for the tzitzit to be tied with the intent that they be used for the mitzvah, there would be no need for a special verse from the Torah to teach that those made by a gentile are unacceptable. The concept would be self-explanatory. Whenever a deed must be performed with a specific intention, a gentile's acts are not acceptable (Kessef Mishneh).
The Ashkenazic authorities do not accept this premise and maintain that, at the very least, the strands must be attached to the garment with the intent that they be used for the mitzvah. (See Shulchan AruchOrach Chayim 14:2.)
Tzitzit that are made from those already existing are not acceptable. - This principle is explained and illustrated in detail in the following four halachot.
FOOTNOTES
1.
The pattern of winding the techelet mentioned by the Rambam is based on his interpretation ofMenachot 39a. As the Rambam mentions in Halachah 9, it must be followed only when the tzitzit include a strand of techelet. If they do not, as in the case of our tzitzit, different principles apply.
The Ra'avad differs with the Rambam's approach and suggests a different manner of winding the coils of the tzitzit, which resembles the pattern we use today. The Rambam was aware of this approach and, in one of his responsa, explains that the method he mentioned has its source in the Talmud (Menachot, ibid.), while the other approach is of later origin.
2.
Rashi, Menachot, ibid., states that since the white strand was used first, not ending with it would appear to detract from its importance.
The principle, "one should always ascend to a higher level of holiness, but never descend," is applied in many other contexts within Torah law - e.g., Hilchot Tefillin 3:17.
3.
Menachot 39a explains that the techelet reminds one of the heavens. There are seven heavens and six spaces between them, thus resulting in a total of thirteen.
4.
This law also applies at present, as mentioned in the following halachah.
5.
Note the Zohar, Vol. III, p. 228b, which explains the mystical significance of the division of the tzitzit into three portions.
6.
The Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 8:7) obligates one to separate the strands of the tzitzit before putting on one's garment. Note the Mishnah Berurah 8:18, which quotes the Ari zal as stating that the word ציצת is an acronym for the Hebrew words meaning, "A righteous person constantly separates his tzitzit."
7.
As mentioned in Halachot 4-5, the absence of techelet does not prevent one from fulfilling the mitzvah of tzitzit. Indeed, this is the manner in which most people fulfill the mitzvah at present.
8.
Significantly, besides the knot with which the tzitzit are attached to the garment (Halachah 7), the Rambam does not mention tying knots in the tzitzit at all. The Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim11:14) mentions the common practice in which five knots are tied on the strands, leaving four spaces, which are filled with coils in between them. There are certain authorities who combine the two opinions, tying the knots as mentioned in the Shulchan Aruch, but dividing the coils into segments as the Rambam mentions (Shulchan Aruch HaRav 11:27-28,31).
9.
If the tzitzit lack entirely strands which hang loose, they are unacceptable (Kessef Mishneh).
10.
This principle is also accepted by the opinions that do not require that the coils be divided into segments of three. Even so, for tzitzit to be acceptable, they must possess at least three coils (Mishnah Berurah 11:63,66).
11.
The Rambam leaves the use of entwined strands up to a person's choice. The Ra'avad objects, quoting a passage from the Sifre that requires that the strands of the tzitzit be made by entwining different threads together. Numbers 15:38 uses the expression, p'til techelet. The word p'til implies "twisted threads." See the Targum Yonaton to this verse. The Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim11:2) follows the Ra'avad's view and obligates the use of entwined strands. From Chapter 2, Halachah 7, it appears that the Rambam also considered this as the common practice.
11. The Rambam leaves the use of entwined strands up to a person's choice. The Ra'avad objects, quoting a passage from the Sifre that requires that the strands of the tzitzit be made by entwining different threads together. Numbers 15:38 uses the expression, p'til techelet. The wordp'til implies "twisted threads." See the Targum Yonaton to this verse.
The Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 11:2) follows the Ra'avad's view and obligates the use of entwined strands. From Chapter 2, Halachah 7, it appears that the Rambam also considered this as the common practice.
12.
The Rambam is speaking about the following instance: The person used long strands and placed one end of them through each of the two holes. Afterwards, using the strands from each corner that was not passed through the hole, he tied both tzitzit, and then separated them from each other.
13.
This law is based on the Rambam's interpretation of Sukkah 11a-b. Others (see Shulchan Aruch, Orach Chayim 11:13) interpret that passage as speaking about the tzitzit of a single corner. If one inserts a single long strand in the hole several times, thus producing eight strands, ties the tzitzit, and then separates the strands from each other, the tzitzit are not acceptable. This is also considered as making tzitzit from those which are already existing.
14.
See Shulchan Aruch HaRav 11:24, which describes the manner in which tzitzit should be removed from a garment.
15.
Since he intended to remove the initial tzitzit, there is nothing wrong with attaching the second one (Menachot 40b).
16.
According to the Rambam, it does not matter which tzitzit he removes. For the tzitzit to be acceptable, both sets have to be removed, and then a single set retied.
17.
By adding the second set, he transgresses the prohibition against adding to the mitzvot of the Torah. Therefore, both sets of tzitzit are disqualified. The Ra'avad and the Ashkenazic authorities do not accept the Rambam's decision. They maintain that while both sets of tzitzit are hanging from the garment, their existence is not considered at all significant. It is as if they do not exist at all. Therefore, by removing the extra set, one is not making tzitzit from ones which previously exist. On the contrary, one is bringing an acceptable set of tzitzit into existence.
The Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 10:6) accepts the Rambam's view. The Ramah, however, follows the other opinions.
18.
The Rambam's statements have raised questions. Though all commentaries agree that the three tzitzit made when the garment had only three corners are unacceptable, the question revolves around the fourth corner. Why is the tzitzit made upon it disqualified? When it was made, the garment already had four corners. On this basis, the Magen Avraham (10:6) rules that, indeed, the fourth tzitzit is not disqualified and may remain.
19.
Tzitzit are required only on a garment with four corners, as stated in the proof-text quoted from Deuteronomy and mentioned in Chapter 3, Halachah 1.
20.
There is a slight difficulty with the Rambam's statements: In this halachah he cites the verse from Deuteronomy as a proof-text, while in Halachah 13 he cited a verse from Numbers.
21.
Although in its present state, the garment has four corners, unless it is sewn it is possible that the folds will open and the position of the corners will change (Menachot 41a). Note the Ramah (Orach Chayim 10:6), who quotes a difference of opinion where the tzitzit should be placed during the time the garment is folded. Because of this difference of opinion, Shulchan Aruch HaRav 10:13 suggests not wearing such a garment unless it is sewn closed.
22.
Our translation follows the explanation of the Beit Yosef (Orach Chayim 10). Note, however, the explanation of the Be'ur Halachah 10.
23.
When the torn portion is three fingerbreadths long, it is considered as the "corner" of the garment. Therefore, the tzitzit are considered to be attached to a significant portion of the garment and need not be untied before the corner can be sewn back on the garment (Nimukei Yosef, Menachot40b). The commentaries note the apparent contradiction between this law and Halachah 13, which forbids one to sew a piece of a garment to which tzitzit are attached to another garment. The commentaries differentiate between these two laws, explaining that there is a difference between a piece of fabric from another garment (Halachah 13) and a portion of the original garment which was detached (the present halachah). The Turei Zahav 15:3 does not accept this distinction, and maintains that even attaching a piece of the original garment is unacceptable. The later authorities suggest following this stringency.
24.
A portion of a garment less than three fingerbreadths long is not considered significant. Therefore, the tzitzit are no longer considered to be attached to part of the garment. Accordingly, when this fragment is sewn back to the garment, the tzitzit attached to it will be disqualified, based on the principle that one must make tzitzit and not use those existing previously. If, however, one untied the tzitzit, one may sew the detached corner back onto the garment, and then attach new tzitzit to it (Rav David Arameah).
The Kessef Mishneh quotes Rav Amram Gaon as stating that, if such a small portion was detached from the garment, tzitzit may never be attached to the garment again. The Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 15:4) suggests following this more stringent view if possible.
25.
Although initially the tzitzit had to be positioned a certain distance above the end of the garment, as mentioned in Halachah 6, after they were attached to the garment in the proper manner, there is greater leniency (Menachot 42a). The Ramah (Orach Chayim 11:10) suggests sewing a border around the hole through which the strands are placed so that it will not tear.
26.
For example, they became torn. Based on Menachot 38b, the Rabbis have offered two interpretations of "enough to tie a loop":
a) enough to tie a loop around all the strands of the tzitzit;
b) enough to tie a loop around the strand itself.
The grammatical construction of the Rambam's statements indicates - albeit not definitely - that he favors the latter view.
(Note the Be'ur Halachah 12, which states that the measure "to tie a loop" surely does not exceed four centimeters.)
The Rambam maintains that even if the majority of all the strands of the tzitzit were cut off, as long as "enough to tie a loop remains," the tzitzit are acceptable. If, however, both ends of one long strand are cut off entirely, the tzitzit are not acceptable. Rabbenu Tam does not accept this decision and requires that at least two entire strands remain their full length. (See Shulchan Aruch,Orach Chayim 12:1.) The later authorities, particularly in the Ashkenazi community, suggest following Rabbenu Tam's view.
27.
See Turei Zahav 12:3.
• 3 Chapters: Issurei Biah Issurei Biah - Chapter Three, Issurei Biah Issurei Biah - Chapter Four, Issurei Biah Issurei Biah - Chapter Five 

Issurei Biah - Chapter Three

Halacha 1
When a person has relations with the wife of a minor, he is not liable.1[This applies] even to a yevamah with whom a nine year old [brother] had relations.2Similar [laws apply when] a person has relations with the wife of a deaf-mute,3the wife of a mentally or emotionally unstable individual,4the wife of atumtum or an androgynus,5a female deaf-mute or a woman who is mentally or emotionally unstable married to a mentally capable individual,6 or a woman whose consecration is of doubtful status or whose divorce is of doubtful status. In all of the above situations, one is not liable. If they willfully transgress, they are given stripes for rebellious conduct.
Halacha 2
[The following rules apply if a man] engages in relations with a female minor, the wife of an adult male. If she was consecrated by her father, [the adulterer] is executed by strangulation.7 She is not liable for anything,8 [but] she is forbidden to her husband,9 as explained in Hilchot Sotah.10
If she has the right to perform mi'un11, he is given stripes for rebellious conduct and she is permitted to [remain married] to her husband, even if he is a priest.12
Halacha 3
When the daughter of a priest commits adultery while married, she is executed by burning, as [Leviticus 21:9] states: "When the daughter of a man who is a priest will begin to commit adultery, [she will be burnt by fire]." [This applies] whether she is married to a priest or an Israelite. [Indeed,] even if her husband was a mamzer13 or a nitin14 or another whom it is forbidden to marry because of a negative commandment,15 [she is given this punishment].
The man who engages in adultery with her is executed by strangulation.16Similarly, the daughter of an Israelite who is married to a priest is [executed] by strangulation [if she commits adultery] as is the law with regard to any other married woman.
Halacha 4
When a man has relations with a consecrated maiden, they are both executed by stoning. They are not liable to be stoned to death until the maiden17 is a virgin, consecrated,18 and in her father's home. If she came of age19 or she entered the chupah20 even if the marriage was not consummated, they are executed by strangulation. [The lesser punishment is given] even if the father gave her to the emissaries of the husband21 and she committed adultery on the way.
Halacha 5
When a man has relations with a girl who is a minor and is consecrated while she is living in her father's house, he is executed by stoning22 and she is not liable.23 When a consecrated maiden who is the daughter of a priest commits adultery, she is stoned to death.24
Halacha 6
When ten men enter into relations with her one after the other while she is a virgin in her father's home, the first is executed by stoning and the remainder, by strangulation.25
When does the above apply? When they had vaginal intercourse. If, however, they had anal intercourse, she is still a virgin and they are all executed by stoning.26
Halacha 7
When a consecrated maiden was a freed slave or a convert, even if she was freed or converted before she reached the age of three,27 [the adulterer] is executed by strangulation,28 as is the law with regard to all married women.
Halacha 8
There is a new law that applies to a person who spreads a malicious report [about his wife].29 What is this new [law]? That if the gossip is discovered to be true and witnesses come [and testify] that she committed adultery when she was a consecrated maiden, even if she committed adultery after she left her father's house and even if she committed adultery after she entered the marriage canopy before she had relations with her husband, she is stoned to death at the entrance to her father's house. Other consecrated maidens concerning whom a malicious report was not spread are executed by strangulation if they committed adultery after they left their father's home, as we explained.30
Thus there are three types of execution for adultery with a married women: strangulation,31 burning to death,32 and stoning to death.33
Halacha 9
Where is a consecrated maiden who committed adultery stoned to death? If she committed adultery while in her father's house, even though the witnesses did not testify until she went to her father-in-law's house and married, she is stoned to death at the entrance to her father's house.34 If she committed adultery in her father-in-law's house before her father conveyed her [to her husband], she is stoned to death at the entrance to the gate of the city.35 [This applies] even if [the witnesses] testified concerning her after she returned to her father's house.
Halacha 10
If witnesses come [and testify] after she comes of age36 or after her husband has relations with her, she is stoned to death in the place for stoning.37[This applies] even if they testify that she committed adultery in her father's home when she was a maiden.38
Halacha 11
If [a woman] was conceived before her mother converted and born after her mother converted, she is stoned at the entrance to the gate of the city.
[The following rule applies to] every woman who is obligated to be stoned at the entrance to the gate of the city. If the city is predominantly populated by gentiles, we stone her at the entrance to the court.39
[The following rule applies to] every woman who is obligated to be stoned at the entrance to her father's house, if she does not have a father or she has a father, but he does not have a house, she is stoned at the place for stoning. The "entrance to her father's house" was mentioned only as a mitzvah.40
Halacha 12
When a person engages in relations many times with one of the arayot, he is liable for kerait or execution by the court for every time he engages in relations.41 Although the court can only execute the person only once, the different times he engages in relations are considered as different transgressions.
Similarly, if a person is liable for several different transgressions for engaging in relations once,42 if he transgressed inadvertently, he must bring a sacrifice for every transgression he performed even though he engaged in relations only once, as will be explained in Hilchot Shegagot43 If he transgressed intentionally, it is considered as if he violated many transgressions. Similarly, there is a situation where a person engages in relations once and incurs liability for lashes many times as will be explained.44
Halacha 13
The term shifchah charufah employed by the Torah refers to [a woman] who is half a Canaanite maidservant and half a freed woman45 who has been consecrated by a Hebrew servant.46 [Concerning the infidelity of such a woman,Leviticus 19:20] states: "They shall not die, because she was not freed."47 If she was freed entirely, one is liable for execution by the court, for she becomes a married woman in a complete sense, as explained in Hilchot Ishut.48
Halacha 14
[The laws regarding] relations with this maidservant are different than [those regarding] all other forbidden relations in the Torah. For she is lashed, as [ibid.] states: "There shall be an inquiry."49 He is liable to bring a guilt offering, as [ibid.:21] states: "And he shall bring his guilt offering."50Whether he transgresses intentionally or inadvertently with a shifchah charufah, he must bring a guilt offering.
When he enters into relations with her many times, whether intentionally or unintentionally, he is required to bring only one sacrifice.51 She, however, is liable for lashes for every act of relations if she acted intentionally, as is the law with regard to other instances [where relations are forbidden] by merely a negative commandment.
Halacha 15
When a person just inserts his corona into the female organ of the shifchah charufah, but does not insert the entire organ, he is not liable. [Liability is incurred only when] he inserts the entire organ.52
He is only liable when she is above majority, had engaged in relations previously and acts intentionally and willfully.53 If, however, she is a minor, she had never engaged in relations, or she transgressed inadvertently, was raped, or was sleeping, he is not liable. Similarly, if he had anal intercourse with her, he is not liable, for with regard to a shifchah charufah an equation was not established between vaginal intercourse and anal intercourse, for [Leviticus 19:20] speaks of: "ly[ing] while emitting seed."54 With regard to other [forbidden] relations, the Torah did not distinguish between one type of relations and the other, for [ibid. 18:22] speaks of "the ways [in which a man] lies with a woman." Implied is that the Torah recognizes two ways of lying with a woman.
Halacha 16
In every instance concerning a maidservant where we said there was no liability, he is not liable for a sacrifice and she is not liable for lashes. He,55however, is given "stripes for rebellious conduct" according to Rabbinic Law56 if they were both adults who acted intentionally.
Halacha 17
When a youth nine years old engages in relations with a shifchah charufah, she is given lashes and he is required to bring a sacrifice,57 provided that she is an adult, not a virgin, and acts willfully, as we explained.58For a man is not liable to bring a sacrifice until she is liable for lashes, as [implied by] the verse: "There shall be an inquiry.... And he shall bring his guilt offering."
FOOTNOTES
1.
For there is no concept of marriage with regard to a male below the age of majority.
The term liable in this context means "liable for execution" if the transgression was performed willfully or "liable for a sacrifice" if it was performed inadvertently.
2.
yevamah is a childless widow whom one of the brothers of the deceased is obligated to marry. Now, relations with a yevamah do not require the conscious intent of the brother who seeks to marry her (Hilchot Yibbum 2:3) and relations carried out by a nine year old are of consequence in certain contexts (Chapter 1, Halachah 14). Hence, one might think that by carrying out relations with the yevamah, the nine year old would acquire her as his wife. See also Hilchot Yibbum 5:18.
3.
A deaf-mute is not considered of sufficient mental capacity to be responsible for his actions. Hence, as the Rambam states in Hilchot Ishut 4:9, he cannot consecrate a woman according to Scriptural Law. Although according to Rabbinic Law, his consecration is binding, he is not held liable for execution or a sacrifice for violating a Rabbinic prohibition.
4.
In this instance, the consecration is not binding even according to Rabbinic Law (ibid.).
5.
As mentioned in the notes to Chapter 1, Halachah 15, there is an unresolved doubt with regard to the halachic status of an androgynus and a doubt with regard to the physiological makeup of atumtum. Hence we cannot be certain whether the adulterer is engaging in relations with a woman whose marriage is halachicly significant.
6.
Since such women are not considered as capable of making responsible decisions, the man's consecration is not effective according to Scriptural Law. And since the consecration is not effective according to Scriptural Law, there are no punishments that result from it. In particular, however, there is a difference between the two situations, for the consecration of a woman who is mentally or emotionally unstable is not effective at all. The consecration of a female deaf-mute, by contrast, is effective according to Rabbinic Law (Hilchot Ishut, loc. cit.).
7.
He is given the punishment due any adulterer, for the consecration is binding according to Scriptural Law (Hilchot Ishut3:11). This is speaking about a situation where the couple later married. Otherwise, the adulterer would be stoned to death. Also, it is speaking about a situation where the child is over three years old. Otherwise, the relations are not significant.
8.
Neither punishment, nor a sacrifice. For she is a minor and is not responsible for her conduct.
9.
As the Rambam states in Hilchot Gerushin 11:14, a woman who engages in adulterous relations becomes forbidden to her husband.
10.
Chapter 2, Halachah 4. The Ra'avad both here and in Hilchot Sotah differs with the Rambam, basing his objections on Yevamot 33b which states "The seduction of a minor is always considered equivalent to rape." Since she is not responsible for her actions, her consent is of no significance. And if a woman is raped, she is permitted to her husband if he is not a priest (Hilchot Ishut 24:19).
The Maggid Mishneh admits that the question raised by the Ra'avad is substantial, but points to a passage in Ketubot 9a which appears to support the Rambam's decision. The Shulchan Aruch(Even HaEzer 178:3) cites both views without stating which to favor. The Beit Shmuel 178:3 states that the Ra'avad's view is accepted by most authorities.
11.
Mi'un refers to a means of terminating a Rabbinically originated marriage arrangement. When a girl's father is not alive, our Sages gave her mother and/or her brothers the opportunity to consecrate her. This consecration is not binding according to Scriptural Law (see Hilchot Ishut4:8, Hilchot Gerushin 11:1). Hence, an adulterer is not punished for relations with her.
This law also applies to a deaf-mute and anyone else whose consecration is acceptable only according to Rabbinic Law (Rav David Arameah).
12.
A priest is not allowed to remain married to a woman who engaged in forbidden relations, even if she was compelled to do so. Nevertheless, in this instance, she can end her marriage whenever she desires without a formal divorce, it is as if she was never married. Hence, her "adultery" is not of consequence.
13.
A person born from an incestuous or adulterous relationship whom it is forbidden to marry.
14.
See Chapter 12, Halachot 22-23, which explain that this term refers to a person descended from one of the seven Canaanite nations who converted. Such a person is forbidden to marry into the Jewish people.
15.
When the prohibition against marriage is punishable by execution or kerait, the marriage is not considered valid and there is no punishment for adultery. If, however, it is forbidden only by a negative prohibition, the marriage is binding.
16.
For the Torah states the severe punishment only for the woman herself.
17.
The term maiden has a specific halachic definition: a girl who at the age of 12 (or over) manifested signs of physical maturity. She remains in this category for six months (Hilchot Ishut 2:1).
18.
But not married.
19.
I.e., the six months mentioned above passed.
20.
I.e., completed the marriage ceremony.
21.
For from this time, she is no longer under her father's control.
22.
Although the verse speaks about "a consecrated maiden," relations with even a younger girl are given the same punishment.
23.
Since she is a minor, she is not responsible for her actions and is not subjected to any punishment.
24.
I.e., she is given the more severe punishment.
25.
Because after relations with the first, she is no longer a virgin. Hence, they are given the ordinary penalty for adultery.
26.
For with regard to punishment, there is no difference between anal intercourse and vaginal intercourse.
27.
In which instance, even if she had engaged in relations beforehand, her signs of virginity would return.
28.
Ketubot 44a states that this concept is derived from a Scriptural reference. When speaking of this transgression, Deuteronomy 22:21 states: "He committed an abuse in Israel," i.e., involving a native-born Jewess. In his Commentary to the Mishneh (Ketubot 4:3), the Rambam offers a different explanation, one which has raised questions among the commentaries.
29.
See Deuteronomy 22:13-21 and Hilchot Na'arah, ch. 3, where this instance is discussed. A man enters into relations with his newly-wed wife and afterwards, claims she is not a virgin. Moreover, he produces witnesses who testify that the women committed adultery before entering into relations with him. If the testimony of the witnesses is not disproved, the women is executed as the Rambam continues to explain.
30.
Halachah 4. The Ra'avad differs with the Rambam's ruling, explaining that once a woman enters the marriage canopy as a virgin, she is executed by strangulation as are all other married women. The difference of opinion centers on the interpretation of Ketubot 45a. Rashi and Tosafot also differ in their interpretation of that passage.
31.
An ordinary case of adultery.
32.
The daughter of a priest who committed adultery.
33.
A consecrated maiden who committed adultery in her father's house or a maiden about whom a malicious report was spread and it was discovered to be true.
34.
As Ketubot 45a states, this is intended to dishonor her parents, as if to say: "See the offspring which you raised."
35.
As stated in Deuteronomy 22:23. This is a mark of dishonor for the city, a sign that the environment is not moral. The Rambam's ruling is based on his version of Ketubot 45a. Rashi (and the standard published text of that passage) follow a different version.
Or Sameach states that since the transgression did not take place in her father's home, it is not fitting that he be dishonored in this fashion.
36.
I.e., six months after she manifests signs of physical maturity.
37.
As Hilchot Sanhedrin 13:1, 15:1, the place for stoning was a two storey building somewhat removed from the city.
38.
Since she has already come of age, the laws governing her change and she is not stoned at her father's house. If she would commit adultery at this age, she would be executed by strangulation. Hence, when she is punished for the adultery she committed beforehand, her sentence is commuted somewhat and she is not executed at her parents' home (Maggid Mishneh).
The Ra'avad and the Maggid Mishneh himself note that when a man spreads a malicious report about a woman and his statements are proved to be correct, the woman is executed at her father's home. Although she already had relations with her husband, she is executed in the same place as before. This would indicate that her coming of age is also not significant. Rav Akiva Eiger explains that since when a malicious report was proven true, a woman is stoned to death even though she has already married her husband, it obviously is a different type of instance than an ordinary case of a maiden committing adultery.
39.
For the verse mentions stoning her "at the entrance to your gates." If the city is predominantly populated by gentiles, its entrance is not "your gates" (Tosafot, Sanhedrin 45b).
40.
I.e., the optimum manner for the execution to be performed.
41.
With regard to his obligation to bring a sin-offering for inadvertent transgression, see Hilchot Shegagot 5:1 which states that even though a person transgressed several times, as long as he does not become aware of his transgression, he is liable for only one sin offering. If he transgresses inadvertently again after he became aware of his first transgression(s), he must bring another sin-offering.
42.
E.g., he had relations with his brother's wife while she is in the niddah state, in which instance he is liable for relations with a married woman, relations with his brother's wife, and relations with a woman in the niddah state.
43.
Chapter 4, Halachah 2.
44.
Chapter 17, Halachot 9-10.
45.
Such a situation is possible when a Canaanite maidservant was owned by two partners. One released her from bondage and one did not. In this situation, she is obligated to serve her master one day and on the following day, she is free to do as she chooses.
46.
In contrast to other Jewish men, a Hebrew servant is permitted to engage in relations with a Canaanite maid-servant. Hence, the fact that this woman is half a maid-servant will not represent a difficulty for him. And because, she is half a freed woman, he may consecrate her.
47.
And since she was not freed, the Hebrew servant's consecration of her is contingent on her freedom. Until she is freed, they are not fully married.
48.
Chapter 4, Halachah 16.
49.
Keritot 11a interprets this phrase as indicating that she - and not the man - should be given the above punishment.
50.
See Hilchot Shegagot, ch. 9, which describes the particulars of this sacrifice.
51.
Keritot 9a derives this concept through the principles of Biblical exegesis. If, however, he enters into relations with many different maid-servants, he is liable for each act (Ra'avad; Hilchot Shegagot 9:5).
52.
The term literally means "complete relations." Our translation is based on the definition given by the Rambam in Chapter 1, Halachah 10. It must be noted that Tosafot, Yevamot 55b understands Rashi as interpreting the phrase "conclude relations" to mean "to ejaculate." Support for that interpretation is brought from the fact that the prooftext from Leviticus speaks of "lying with her with seed." Somehave also pointed to the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (Keritot 2:5 for support for this interpretation.
53.
For Keritot 11a teaches: Whenever the woman is lashed, he is required to bring a sacrifice. Whenever she is not punished, he is not liable. And she is not punished unless she is an adult who acts willfully.
54.
And that is significant only with regard to vaginal intercourse.
55.
This is the version of the standard printed text of the Mishneh Torah. Many authentic manuscripts and early printings state "they," i.e., both the male and the female.
56.
For they committed an immoral act which requires punishment lest they continue the pattern.
57.
Since he is already nine years old, his sexual acts are of consequence. Hence, since she transgressed willfully, she is liable. And since she is liable, he is liable for a sacrifice. For a sacrifice is not punishment, but atonement. Although he is still a minor, atonement is still required. In Hilchot Shegagot 9:3, the Rambam clarifies: "It appears to me that he does not bring [the sacrifice] until he comes of age."
The Ra'avad differs with the Rambam's ruling, maintaining that a minor is never required to bring such a sacrifice, for this sacrifice is a punishment. And since the male is not liable, the female is also not liable.
58.
In Halachah 15.

Issurei Biah - Chapter Four

Halacha 1
[A woman in] the niddah1 state is like all of the other arayot. A person who inserts his corona into her vaginal or anal orifice is liable for kerait. [This applies] even if she is a minor who is three years old, as applies with regard to other arayot.
For a woman can become impure as a niddah even on the day she is born.2And a girl who is ten days becomes impure because of zivah.3 This concept was communicated through the Oral Tradition. There is no difference between an adult and an a minor with regard to the impurity associated with nidah andzivah.
Halacha 2
[The prohibitions that apply] to one who has relations with a nidah apply throughout the seven days, even if blood was sighted only on the first day. [These same prohibitions] apply to one who has relations with a woman who gave birth to a male throughout the seven days [following birth], to one who has relations with a woman who gave birth to a female throughout the fourteen days [following birth], to one who has relations with a zavah through the time she bleeds and then counts [seven "clean" days].4 This applies also to a Canaanite maidservant and one who has been freed. All [of these relations] are punishable by kerait.
[The association is derived as follows:] With regard to a nidah, [Leviticus 15:19] states: "She will be in her niddah state for seven days." With regard to a zavah, [ibid.:25] states: "All the days of the flow of her impurity will be like the days of her niddah state."5 With regard to a woman who gave birth to a male,6 [ibid.12:2] states: "She will become impure as in the days of her nidah affliction." 7And with regard to a woman who gave birth to a female, [ibid. 12:5] states: "She will be impure as in her niddah state for two weeks."8
Halacha 3
When does the above - that the impurity is dependent on [the passage of] days - apply? When the woman immersed herself in the waters of a mikveh9 after these specifically mentioned days.10 If, however, a niddah, a zavah or a woman who gave birth did not immerse in a mikveh, a person is liable for kerait for having relations with one of them even several years afterwards. For the Torah made the matter dependent on [the passage of] days and immersion, as [Leviticus 15:18] states: "And they shall immerse themselves [in the water]...." This teaches a general principle with regard to any impure person: he is in a state of impurity until he [or she] immerses.
Halacha 4
The prohibitions against relations with a niddah, a zavah, and a woman after childbirth do not apply with regard to relations with gentile women.11 Our Sages decreed that all gentiles, male and female, would be considered like zavim at all times, whether or not they experienced such discharges,12 with regard to matters of purity and impurity.
Halacha 5
All blood manifest by a woman after childbirth during the 33 days associated with the birth of a male13 and the 66 days associated with the birth of a female14 is called blood of purity.15 It does not prevent a woman from [relations with] her husband. Instead, she immerses herself after seven days [of impurity] for a male and fourteen for a female. She may then engage in relations with her husband16 even though her blood flows.17
Halacha 6
All of those who must immerse themselves are required to immerse themselves during the day with the exception of a niddah and a woman after childbirth.18For with regard to a niddah, [Leviticus 15:19] states: "She will be in her niddahstate for seven days." Her niddah state prevails for all of the seven days.19 She immerses on the evening of the eighth day. Similarly, a woman who gives birth to a male child immerses on the evening of the eighth day, and one who gives birth to a female immerses on the evening of the fifteenth day, for a woman who gives birth is comparable to one in the niddah state, as we explained.20
Halacha 7
If she21 delayed the matter for many days and did not immerse herself, when she immerses herself, she should immerse only at night. For if she immerses during the day, an error [may be] made and another niddah may come and immerse herself on the seventh day.
Halacha 8
If a woman was sick or the place for immersion was far away and women could not reach there and return at night because of thieves,22 because of cold, or because they close the gates of the city at night, she may immerse during the day on the eighth - or subsequent - days.23
Halacha 9
Whenever a woman has a veset,24 her husband can assume that she is [ritually pure and] permitted until she tells him "I am impure" or she is established as aniddah in her neighborhood.25
If a woman's husband went overseas and left her ritually pure, when he comes he does not have to ask her [concerning her state]. Even if he finds her asleep, he may enter into relations with her26 as long as it is not the time when she is expected to menstruate.27 He need not suspect that perhaps she is a niddah. If he left her a niddah, she is forbidden to him until she tells him: "I am ritually pure."28
Halacha 10
When a woman tells her husband: "I am ritually impure," and afterwards she tells him: "I am ritually pure. Before I was just speaking facetiously with you," her word is not accepted.29 If she provides a rationale for her original statements, her word is accepted. 30
What is implied? Her husband asked her to engage in relations and his sister or his mother was together with her in the courtyard. She originally said she was impure. Afterwards, she said: "I am pure. I told you that I am impure only because of your sister or your mother; lest they see us." [In this instance,] her statement is accepted. Similar laws apply in all analogous situations.31
Halacha 11
When a man was in the midst of relations with a woman who had been ritually pure and she said: "I became impure," he should not separate himself immediately while he is erect. For withdrawing is as pleasurable for him as entry. If he withdraws while he is still erect, he is liable for kerait,32 like one who enters into relations with a niddah. This law also applies with regard to otherarayot.33
What should he do? Implant his toenails in the ground and wait without moving until he loses his erection.34 Afterwards, he should withdraw.
Halacha 12
It is forbidden for a person to engage in relations35 with his wife near the time she can expect menstruation to begin,36 lest she menstruate in the midst of relations. [This is alluded to by Leviticus 15:31]: "And you shall warn the children of Israel concerning their impurity."37
For how long [is it necessary to refrain from relations]? If [the woman] would ordinarily begin menstruating during the day, she is forbidden to enter into relations from the beginning of the day. If she would ordinarily begin menstruating during the night, she is forbidden to enter into relations from the beginning of the night.38
Halacha 13
If the time when menstruation could be expected to come passes and she did not begin menstruating, she is permitted to engage in relations after the time when menstruation was expected to begin passes.
What is implied? If she was accustomed to begin menstruating after six hours of the day passed. She is forbidden to engage in relations from the beginning of the day. If six hours pass without her beginning to menstruate, she is forbidden to engage in relations until the evening. 39 Similarly, if she was accustomed to begin menstruating after six hours of the night and that time passed without her beginning to menstruate, she is forbidden to engage in relations until sunrise.
Halacha 14
It is the habit of Jewish men and women to carry out a personal inspection after relations.40 What is implied? The man should clean himself with a cloth prepared for [this purpose] and the woman should clean herself with a cloth prepared for [this purpose]. [The purpose of these inspections is] to see whether the woman menstruated in the midst of relations. The man may allow the woman to check with his cloth. Since her word is accepted with regard to her [cloth], it is also accepted with regard to his.
Halacha 15
The cloths used to clean oneself must be from worn-out,41 white42 linen.43 They are called eidim, "witnesses," in this context. The cloth with which the man cleans himself is called his ed and the cloth with which the woman cleans himself is called her ed.
Halacha 16
Modest women do not engage in relations until they carry out an inspection beforehand.44 A woman who does not have a [fixed] veset is forbidden to engage in relations until she carries out an inspection.45 Therefore, she engages in relation with two edim, one for before relations and one for afterwards. When, however, a woman has a [fixed] veset, she need not use aned before relations except as a measure of modesty.
After relations, however, everyone needs two witnesses: one for him and one for her, even a pregnant woman, one who is nursing, an elderly woman, or a minor46A virgin47 or a woman whose blood is pure48 does not require edim, because blood is flowing from her.49
Halacha 17
When a man engages in intercourse several times [in one night], [he and his wife] do not have to check their two edim after each time they engage in intercourse. Instead, he should clean himself with his ed, she should clean herself with her ed after each time they have relations that entire night. In the morning, they should check the edim. If blood is discovered on her ed or on hised, she is impure.
If a women engaged in relations, cleaned herself, and then the ed was lost, she should not engage in relations again until she makes an internal inspection with another ed first. [We fear that] perhaps there was blood on the ed that was lost.50
Halacha 18
[The following rules apply if] she placed the ed51 under a pillow or a bolster and blood was discovered upon it. If [the stain] is extended, she is impure. For we can assume that [the stain] came from the cleaning.52 If it is rounded,53 she is pure. [We assume that the stain] came only from the blood of a louse which was killed under the pillow.54
Halacha 19
[When a woman] cleaned herself with an ed that has been checked, then touched it to her thigh,55 and on the next day discovered blood upon it, she is impure. We do not say: Maybe a louse was killed when she touched it to her thigh.56
[The following rules apply if] she cleaned herself with an ed that was not checked57 and she did not know whether it had blood on it before she cleaned herself with it or not. If there was more than a gris of blood [on it], she is [considered] a niddah.58 If the stain was less than that, she is pure. [We assume that the stain] came from a louse.
Halacha 20
When a woman suffers vaginal bleeding in the midst of relations,59she is permitted to engage in relations again a second time once she becomes pure.60 If she suffers vaginal bleeding [in the midst of relations] a second time, she is permitted to engage in relations a third time. If she suffers vaginal bleeding [in the midst of relations] a third time,61 she is forbidden to ever enter into relations again with this husband.62
When does the above apply? When there was no other factor that [the bleeding] could be attributed to.63 If, however, they entered into relations close to the time when she was expected to menstruate,64 we attribute [the bleeding] to her ordinary pattern. If she had a wound [in her vaginal area], we attribute [the bleeding] to the wound. If, however, the blood that comes from the wound is a different shade than the blood which she sees in the midst of relations, she may not attribute [the bleeding] to the wound.65
We accept the word of a woman when she says: "If have a wound in the uterus which bleeds."66 On this basis, she is permitted to her husband even though the uterus bleeds in the midst of relations.
Halacha 21
When a woman bled in the midst of relations on three [successive] occasions and there was no outside factor to which to attribute [the bleeding], she is required to divorce. She may, however, marry a second husband.67 If she married a second time and bled in the midst of relations on three [successive] occasions, she is required to divorce, but she may marry a third man. If, however, she married a third time and bled in the midst of relations on three [successive] occasions, she is required to divorce and she may not marry again68 until she is healed from this sickness.
Halacha 22
How does a woman check herself to see whether she has been healed from this sickness?69 She brings a lead tube with its edge doubled over inside of it.70She inserts the tube into her vagina until the place it can reach. She then places a shaft within the tube with a cotton swab placed at its top. She pushes [the shaft] until the swab reaches the opening of the uterus and then takes out the swab. If blood is found on the top of swab, it can be assumed that the blood discovered in the midst of relations comes from the uterus.71 If there was no blood on the swab, it can be assumed that the blood discovered [in the midst of relations] comes from pressure on the sides of the vaginal channel.72 She is pure and may marry another man, as stated in Hilchot Ishut.73
FOOTNOTES
1.
As will be explained, the term niddah refers to a woman who suffers vaginal bleeding at the expected time of her monthly period.
2.
Although a woman usually does not begin menstrual bleeding until around the age of twelve. If, however, she does have menstrual bleeding before then, she is bound by the halachic consequences.
3.
For if a woman bleeds for three consecutive days after the seven days associated with her menstrual period, she is considered as a zavah. The first three days this is possible is the eighth, ninth, and tenth days of her life.
Altough she can become impure from the day of her birth onward, punishment is not allotted for relations with her until she becomes three. For only at that age are relations with her significant, as stated in Chapter 1, Halachah 13.
4.
See Chapter 6, Halachah 8.
5.
Thus establishing an association between the two.
6.
See Chapter 10.
7.
See Chapter 6, Halachah 8.
8.
See Chapter 6, Halachah 8.
9.
A ritual bath that meets the qualifications for this purpose. If she immersed herself in an ordinary bath, by contrast, that is not acceptable as explained in Hilchot Mikveot.
10.
If a niddah immerses herself in the middle of these days, however, the immersion is of no consequence.
11.
Although relations with gentile women are forbidden, none of these particular transgressions apply according to Scriptural Law. For all the defined states of ritual purity and impurity apply only with regard to the Jewish people. The fact that a gentile woman experiences the same physical conditions is not of consequence.
12.
I.e., this was a decree imposed to prevent intimate contact with them, regardless of their physical condition. See Hilchot Mitam'ei Mishkav UMoshav 2:10.
13.
As the Torah relates (Leviticus 12:2-4), after the birth of a male child a woman becomes impure for seven days. Afterwards, she immerses herself to regain ritual purity. For the next 33 days, even if she suffers uterine bleeding, her state does not change and she remains ritually pure.
14.
As ibid.:5 states, similar concepts apply after a woman gives birth to a female except that she originally becomes impure for 14 days. Afterwards, she remains pure for 66 days.
15.
Niddah 36a relates that there is one source of bleeding - the womb - for all 40 (or 80) days. It is just that during the first 7 (14), the Torah rules that this blood is impure and during the final 33 (66), the Torah rules that the blood is pure.
16.
The Kessef Mishneh cites Chapter 7, Halachah 7, which states that the above applies only when a woman is not impure because of zavah bleeding before childbirth. If she is impure for such reasons, she must count seven "clean" days before she immerses herself and engages in relations with her husband.
Also, as will be explained (see Chapter 11, Halachot 5-6), at present the custom is not to observe the concept of blood of purity at all. Even if a woman gives birth, she must wait "seven clean days" after seeing any uterine bleeding.
17.
I.e., she suffers uterine bleeding which would otherwise render her ritually impure.
18.
At present when we do not make any distinctions between niddah and zivah, all women immerse themselves at night.
19.
She cannot terminate the last day earlier by immersing herself in the daytime.
20.
In Halachah 2.
21.
niddah or a woman after childbirth.
22.
Although such problems are uncommon today, there are several examples - e.g., woman living in new settlements in Israel's West Bank - where these principles are relevant.
23.
She should not, however, immerse herself on the seventh day even if she refrains from engaging in relations until nightfall [Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 197:4)].
24.
A fixed time when the onset of menstruation can be expected to begin, as will be explained. Since she has a fixed time when menstruation is expected, at other times, we assume that she remains ritually pure. If she does not have a fixed time when menstruation can be expected to begin, her husband must ask her concerning her state. He cannot make any assumptions (Maggid Mishneh,Kessef Mishneh).
25.
By wearing clothes designated to be worn at this time.
26.
Without inquiring about her ritual state.
27.
Even if there was ample time for her to have become impure due to menstruation, to wait the appointed time, and then to immerse herself, he may assume that she did that. Since she was pure when he left her, we may assume that all of the above transpired [Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 184:11)].
28.
Since he knows that she was ritually impure, he cannot assume that she changed her status. Instead, she must explicitly inform him of that change [Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 185:1)].
29.
And he must consider her as if she is actually ritually impure.
The Rama (Yoreh De'ah 185:3) states that if she corrects her statements immediately, her word is accepted.
30.
The Maggid Mishneh and the Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 185:4) state that if she performed an act that indicated that she was impure, e.g., she wore the clothes that she wears in the niddahstate, providing a valid explanation is not sufficient to clear the suspicions and she is considered impure.
31.
E.g., "I originally made a mistake. I thought I was impure according to law and discovered that in fact I was pure," "I did not have strength to engage in relations and avoided them by giving this excuse" (Hagahot Maimoniot).
32.
The Ramah (Yoreh De'ah 185:5) states that if a person withdraws while erect because he is unfamiliar with the transgression involved, he should fast for 40 days to seek atonement. These fasts need not be consecutive. He should also give generously to charity.
33.
I.e., if a person realized his transgression while involved in relations with other arayot, he should not withdraw while erect.
34.
The Rama (loc. cit.) adds that he should be overcome with awe concerning the transgression which he faces.
35.
The Maggid Mishneh and the Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 184:2) state that it is only necessary to refrain from relations, other expressions of closeness are permitted. Even hugging and kissing are permitted (Siftei Cohen 184:6). This, however, represents the mere letter of the law. There are many authorities who are more stringent and forbid these expressions of closeness (ibid.Turei Zahav 184:3). In some communities, the custom is to observe all stringencies as if the woman was actually a niddah.
36.
See ch. 8, which elaborates on this subject, speaking about situation when women have a fixedveset or a veset that has not been firmly established.
37.
The entire concept of vesetot, calculating the expected time when a woman will begin menstruating is a Rabbinic injunction. Hence the citation of a Scriptural verse is merely anasmachta, a support, and not a direct Scriptural command (Maggid Mishneh).
38.
The Siftei Cohen 184:7 states that this applies only when a woman is accustomed to begin menstruating at a given time during the day or night. If, however, she does not have a fixed time when she begins menstruating, relations are also forbidden during the preceding day or night. This stringency is not, however, accepted by all authorities.
39.
During the evening, however, she is permitted. Before entering into relations, the woman should carry out an internal examination to verify that she in fact did not begin menstruation [Tur, Rama (Yoreh De'ah 184:9)].
40.
This ruling is mentioned by the Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 186:1) as a minority perspective. The prevailing view is that when a woman possesses a fixed veset, she and her husband need not carry out such inspections at all. If she does not possess a fixed veset, she and her husband should carry out these inspections before and after the first three times they engage in relations. If no blood is discovered, it is established that sexual relations does not cause the woman to menstruate. Hence, in the future, the couple can engage in relations without making these inspections.
41.
Since they are worn-out, they are soft and pliable. It is possible for the woman to insert them into all the corners of the vagina.
42.
In this way, any speck of blood will be noticeable. Needless to say, they must also be clean. Today, in many Jewish communities, special clothes are prepared for this purpose - and other inspections which a woman must undergo - and are available from the local mikveh and at times, even in pharmacies.
43.
Cotton may also be used [Kessef MishnehShulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 196:6)].
44.
As the Rambam continues to explain, this applies even if she has a fixed veset.
45.
The Ra'avad and Rav Moshe Cohen object to the Rambam's ruling, explaining that the Rambam's source, Niddah 11b, applies only with regard to the laws of ritual purity and not with regard to relations with one's husband. Indeed, the Rambam himself appears to have equivocated back and forth concerning the issue. In the first draft (which is the standard printed text) of his Commentary to the Mishnah (Niddah 1:7), he follows the position advanced by the Ra'avad. It is only in theMishneh Torah and the final text of the Commentary to the Mishneh (see Rav Kappach's translation) that he changes his mind.
Although the Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 186:2) quotes the Rambam's ruling here as a minority view, the prevailing opinion is that such an inspection is unnecessary. Moreover, a woman should not carry out such an inspection in the presence of her husband, lest he think that she became impure.
46.
All these four types of women are unlikely to menstruate. Nevertheless, they must take the precaution suggested by the Rambam.
47.
Who will suffer hymeneal bleeding after the first (or more) occasions of intercourse. See Chapter 5, Halachah 19.
48.
I.e., a woman after childbirth, as described in Halachah 5.
49.
Thus checking to see whether or not she is bleeding will serve no purpose. This bleeding does not, however, render her ritually impure or forbidden to her husband according to Scriptural Law.
50.
If, however, the ed is clean, we assume that the ed she used at night had also been clean.
51.
This is speaking about an ed that was known to be clean beforehand (Maggid Mishneh).
52.
Since the stain is extended, we assume that the woman had touched a source of bleeding. As she moved the ed, the stain became extended.
53.
The Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 190:34) states that this applies only when the stain is smaller than a gris (see Chapter 9, Halachah 6). If it is larger than that measure, we do not assume that it comes from a louse, because it is unlikely that a louse will produce that much blood.
54.
This applies even if there is no trace of the body of the louse. We assume that when she put the ed under the pillow, she killed the louse and that produced a rounded stain. If she placed the ed in a box or in any place where a louse is unlikely to be found, she is considered as impure even if the stain is round (Maggid Mishneh).
55.
And afterwards, placed it in a safe place.
56.
For the likelihood of her suffering vaginal bleeding is greater than that of her killing a louse when touching the eid to her thigh. The Maggid Mishneh interprets the Rambam's ruling as applying even if the stain is round. He notes that other authorities differ and apply the principles stated in the previous law. The Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 190:35) quotes both opinions without stating which to follow.
57.
This refers to an ed which we do not know whether it was dirty or not. If, however, we know that the ed was dirty, she is not considered impure even if a large stain is found [Rama (Yoreh De'ah190:36)].
58.
When a stain is larger than a gris, we assume that it will not have come from a louse.
59.
The Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 187:1) emphasizes that these laws apply only when the bleeding is noticed directly after intercourse. If there is an interval before she discovers the bleeding, these laws do not apply.
60.
For an occurrence that takes place once or twice is not usually considered to establish a recurrent pattern.
61.
I.e., on three consecutive occasions without there being an occasion where relations did not lead to vaginal bleeding in the interim (Siftei Cohen 187:3).
62.
Instead, she must be divorced. She may, however, remarry as stated in the following halachah.
The reason she is required to divorce is that the recurrence of a factor three times establishes achazzakah, a presumption that this factor will continue to recur in the future. Thus if she began bleeding on three successive occasions in the midst of relations with her husband, we assume that she will continue to do so in the future. Since she suffered vaginal bleeding in the midst of intercourse, those relations are considered as involving a severe transgression. On the first three occasions, she and her husband are not held responsible for this is obviously a deviation from the norm. If, however, a pattern is established, this is considered the norm and if she would bleed in the midst of relations in the future, the transgression would be considered as willful. To prevent that from happening, we require divorce.
It must be emphasized that all this applies after the woman has ceased hymeneal bleeding. It is, however, possible for her to engage in relations several times at the beginning of her marriage and continue hymeneal bleeding. See the conclusion of Chapter 5.
63.
And thus, it is assumed that the relations are the cause of the vaginal bleeding.
64.
Note the Siftei Cohen 187:16 who offers several resolutions how this is possible despite the prohibition mentioned in Halachah 12.
65.
Unless we know that the shades of blood are different, we assume that they are the same and attribute the bleeding to the wound (Maggid MishnehSiftei Cohen 187:19).
66.
Note the Rama (Yoreh De'ah 187:5) who emphasizes the importance of adding the words "which bleeds."
67.
For we accept the possibility that the difficulty was particular to her first husband and would not affect her relations with other men.
68.
Since the same condition recurred with three different men, a chazzakah is established and we assume that it will recur with all men.
69.
She may check herself in this manner at any time in the process, even before being divorced by her first husband [Maggid Mishneh; see Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 187:3)].
70.
So that it will be smooth and will not scratch her.
71.
For the swab was touched to the uterus without contact with any other part of the body.
72.
And such bleeding does not render her impure.
Without minimizing the effectiveness of this method of checking devised by the Rabbis of the Talmud, today there are more effective medical tools available and it is possible to ascertain the source of a woman's bleeding in that manner. A careful inspection by a doctor or nurse under the guidance of a Rav may - and should - be employed as soon as such problems occur.
73.
Hilchot Ishut 25:8. The Rambam is implying that she cannot remarry her third husband. In Hilchot Ishut, he explains that when a man divorces a woman for this reason, the husband must know he may never remarry her, for otherwise it would be as if he gave the divorce conditionally. If she becomes healed, it would not be effective.

Issurei Biah - Chapter Five

Halacha 1
A woman becomes impure due to factors beyond her control, whether forniddah or for zivah.1
What is implied? For example, she jumped from place to place;2 she saw animals, beasts, or fowl copulating, was aroused, and began bleeding.3 In these and in other analogous instances, regardless of the situation, since she experienced bleeding, she becomes impure.
She becomes impure from even the smallest amount of bleeding. Even a drop of blood the size of a mustard seed [makes her impure as if] much blood had drained from her.
Halacha 2
All women become impure [when blood is discovered in] the outer chamber [of the vagina]. Even though the blood did not emerge outside [her body], but instead, was discharged from the womb without flowing further, since it emerged from the upper portion of the vaginal channel,4 she is impure, even though the blood is still within her flesh. [This is alluded to by Leviticus 15:19:] "A discharge of blood within her flesh."
Until where does the upper portion of the vaginal channel extend? Until the place that the male organ reaches when inserted entirely during relations. The upper portion of the vaginal channel itself is like the uterus.5
Halacha 3
Our Sages6 spoke in metaphoric terms with regard to a woman. The uterus where a fetus is formed is called "the source." It is the place where the blood that renders a woman a niddah or a zavah emanates from. It is called "the room," for it is found deep within her body. The entire uterine channel,7 i.e., the lengthy place whose entrance contracts severely at the time of pregnancy so that the fetus will not fall, but opens very wide at birth is called "the antechamber," i.e., it is like a gateway to the uterus.
Halacha 4
When the male organ is inserted entirely during relations, it enters the "antechamber" but does not reach its end. Instead, it is slightly removed according to the size of the organs. Above the "room" and the "antechamber" - but located between the "room" and the "antechamber" - is the place where the woman's two ovaries and the ducts in which her ova become mature are located. This place is called "the loft." There is an opening from the "loft" to the top of the "antechamber." This opening is called the "passageway." When the male organ is inserted entirely during relations it goes beyond the "passageway."8
Halacha 5
Blood which comes from the "room" is always impure with the exception of "the blood of purity"9 which the Torah deemed pure and bleeding which occurs before birth, as will be explained.10 Blood from the "loft" is entirely pure. It is like the blood from a wound in the intestines, the liver, or a kidney and the like.
[The following laws apply when blood] is discovered in the "antechamber." If it is discovered between the "passageway" [and the uterus], she is impure, for the assumption is that it came from "the room." She is liable for entering the Temple11 and we burn terumah and sacrificial foods because of this.12 We do not say that perhaps it descended from the "loft" through the opening, for most of the blood found in such a place is from the "room."
When blood is found in the "antechamber" between the opening [and the entrance to the vagina], she is impure, because of a doubt. Perhaps [the blood] came from the "room" or [perhaps it] flowed from the loft through the passageway. Therefore we do not burn terumah and sacrificial foods because of this, nor is she liable for entering the Temple.13
Halacha 6
Not every liquid that comes from the "room" renders a woman impure, only blood, as [ibid.] states: "A discharge of blood." Therefore if a white or a green14liquid flows from the uterus, even if it is viscous like blood, she is pure since it does not appear as blood.
Halacha 7
There are five [colors of] blood that [render] a woman impure. They are: red, black, bright saffron, muddy water, and diluted wine.15 All other colors are pure.
Halacha 8
What is meant by red? The color of blood that comes from the blood which flows initially when people let blood. This blood is placed in a cup, the stain is placed next to it, and [the two] are compared. The black is like dried ink.16
What is meant by bright saffron? Fresh saffron should be brought together with the clod of earth from which it is growing. From the better stalks, one should take the middle stalk that is entirely a stem. In each one, there are three stalks and each stalk has three leaves. One should bring the stain next to the middle leaf on the middle stalk and compare it.
What is meant by "like muddy water"? We take earth from the valley of Sichnei or the like which is red and pour water over it until the water level is the thickness of a garlic peel above the earth. There is no required amount of water or earth that must be brought. One should stir them in the container and compare [the color to that of the stain] at that time while [the water] is murky. If [the water] becomes clear, one should stir it again and make it murky.
Halacha 9
If the color of the stain matched the color of any of these four shades or was deeper than them, [the woman] is impure. If it is lighter than they are, she is pure.
What is implied? If a black stain was darker than dried ink, [the woman] is impure. If it was lighter than it, i.e., it was like a black olive, tar, or a raven, she is pure. Similar principles apply with regard to the other three colors.
Halacha 10
What is meant by like diluted wine? Like one portion of fresh, undiluted wine like the wine of the Sharon in Eretz Yisrael17 mixed with two portions of water. If the appearance of the stain was darker or lighter than this, [the woman] is pure. [The stain must be] the exact color of this mixture.
A woman's word is accepted if she says: "I had a stain of this-and-this color and I lost it." The wise man rules whether she is pure or impure [based on her statement].18
Halacha 11
How does a person bring the two close and compare? He takes the portion of the cloth that has the stain in his hand and looks at it and at the ink, the saffron leaf, the blood that was let [contained] in a cup, the muddy water, or the diluted wine [contained] in a cup. He compares them according to his perception and rules whether she is impure or pure.
He should not look at the cup from the outside. Instead, he should look at the liquid in the cup. The cup should be wide, weigh a maneh, and contain twoluggin,19 so that light will enter it and it will not be shadowy.
Halacha 12
A stain should be checked only on a white cloth and in sunlight. One makes a shadow with his hand over the stain while standing in the sun so that he will be able to see it as it is.20
It is not necessary for every person checking a stain to do all the above whenever he checks [a stain]. Instead, a sage develops a sensitive eye [to the colors of stains]. When he sees it, he will immediately rule whether it is impure or pure. If he has doubts regarding the appearance of a particular stain, he should bring it close and compare it to ink, to blood that has been let, or to the other [impure] colors.
Halacha 13
[The following rules apply when] a woman discharges a piece [of flesh from the vagina]. Even if it is red, she is impure [only] when it is accompanied by blood. If not, she is pure.21 Even if [when the piece of flesh] is cut open, it is filled with blood, she is ritually pure. For this is not the blood of niddah, but rather blood from the piece [of flesh].
Halacha 14
When the woman discharges a piece [of flesh] which is torn and there is blood collected within it, she is impure.22
[The following rules apply when a woman] discharges something like a shell, something like a hair, something like earth, or something like mosquitoes. If these entities have a red appearance, they should be placed in lukewarm water. If they dissolve, she is impure. For it was blood that congealed. And whenever [a woman] discovers dried blood, she is impure.23
If the entities remained in lukewarm water for more than a day and then dissolved, there is a doubt whether the woman is impure. If they did not dissolve after an entire day, they are from a wound and she is pure.
Halacha 15
[The following rules apply if a woman] discharges something resembling a locust, a fish, a teeming animal, or a crawling animal. If it is accompanied by blood, it is impure. If not, it is pure.24
Halacha 16
When a woman places a tube in her "antechamber" and expels blood through the tube,25 she is pure. For [Leviticus 15:19] speaks of "A discharge of blood within her flesh." [Implied is that] the discharge must be within her flesh as is the ordinary way in which women menstruate. For it is not ordinary for a woman to discharge blood through a tube.26
Halacha 17
When a woman urinated and excreted blood together with the urine, she is pure.27 [This applies] whether she was standing or sitting while urinating. Even if she has physical sensations and her body shudders,28 she need not suspect [that the blood originated in the uterus]. Instead, the sensation is associated with her urination [and] urine does not originate in the uterus. Instead, this blood [stems from] a wound in the colon or in the kidney.
Halacha 18
Hymeneal bleeding is pure. It is neither the blood of niddah or the blood ofzivah, for it is not from the uterus. Instead, it is blood from a wound.
What are the laws applying to virgins [who suffer] hymeneal bleeding?29 If she married when she was a minor, whether she never menstruated or whether she menstruated while in her father's home,30 she is permitted to her husband until the wound heals. For any bleeding that she discovers stems from the wound. If she discovers other blood after the wound heals, she is considered as a niddah.
Halacha 19
[The following rules apply when a woman] marries when she is a na'arah.31 If she never menstruated beforehand, she is permitted to her husband for four days, by day and by night, even though blood is flowing, provided the wound did not heal.32
If she had already menstruated in her father's home and then married, her husband should not [continue] to engage in relations with her.33 After the first time, he should separate. The hymeneal bleeding is considered as if it is the beginning of menstruation.
When a girl who has reached majority,34 but has not menstruated, she is given the entire first night.35
Halacha 20
The [first] four nights36 that are granted to a na'arah who has not menstruated need not be consecutive. [Instead,] the couple may engage in relations the first night and wait even two or three months and engage in relations for a second night, provided the wound has not healed.37
Halacha 21
Similarly, with regard to a minor who is allowed to continue engaging in relations until the wound heals, even if it does not heal for an entire year, they may engage in relations either non-consecutively or day after day.
Halacha 22
[The following rules apply when a girl] married while she was a minor and became a na'arah while married to her husband. [If] the blood is still flowing because of the wound, all of the times she engaged in relations while a minor are considered as one night and she is given license to complete the four days granted to her38 during the period of na'arut.
Even if the three days she is granted during the period of na'arut are all non-consecutive, [e.g.,] they engaged in relations one night every two months, this is permitted, provided the wound has not healed.
Halacha 23
How do we know whether or not the wound has healed? If [the woman] would discover blood when she stands but not when she sits; if she would discover [blood] when she sits on the earth, but not when she sits on pillows or blankets,39the wound has not healed.40 If, however, the bleeding ceases and she does not discover [blood], whether she stands or whether she sits on a pillow, the wound has healed. Similarly, even if her bleeding has not ceased, but she continues to discover blood even when she is sitting on pillows and blankets, we assume that this is not blood from the wound, but rather menstrual bleeding.41
Halacha 24
If she would discover blood in the midst of relations, [we assume] that it comes as a result of the wound.42 If she engaged in relations and did not discover blood and afterwards, discovered blood out of the context of relations, [we assume] that it is menstrual bleeding.
Halacha 25
When a man engages in relations with a virgin and she does not bleed and then, he engages in relations with her again and she does bleed, [we assume] that this is menstrual bleeding, even if she is a minor. [The rationale is that] if it were hymeneal bleeding, it would have appeared the first time.
When a man has relations with a girl below the age of three and she bleeds, this is hymeneal bleeding.
FOOTNOTES
1.
I.e., not only does a woman become impure when she suffers ordinary menstrual bleeding, she becomes impure when that bleeding appears to be brought on by an external cause.
2.
And we assume the unusual exertion brought on the uterine bleeding.
3.
Our Sages appreciated that sexual desire could produce uterine bleeding.
4.
We have given a biological term for the metaphoric term used by our Sages which literally means "between the teeth." For a woman to become impure, the blood must emerge from the upper portion of the vaginal channel and reach the lower portion, as explained in Halachah 5.
5.
And blood there does not render a woman ritually impure.
6.
Niddah 17b.
7.
The term used by our Sages literally means "the neck of the uterus."
8.
See the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (Niddah 2:4) where he describes these terms in greater detail, drawing on his medical knowledge.
9.
Blood which flows after childbirth as mentioned in Chapter 4, Halachah 5.
10.
Chapter 7, Halachah 2.
11.
For it is forbidden to enter the Temple while ritually impure.
12.
When terumah or sacrificial food becomes ritually impure, it is no longer fit for consumption and must be burned. If, however, it did not become impure, it is forbidden to burn it. The fact that we burn these objects after such a woman touches them indicates that she has become impure according to Scriptural Law.
13.
She is, however, forbidden to enter the Temple and forbidden to touch terumah or sacrificial foods. Similarly, she is forbidden to engage in relations with her husband. This is particularly true in the present age. We rule stringently and forbid a woman to her husband no matter where the blood is discovered [the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (Niddah 2:7)].
14.
In halachic terminology, the Hebrew term yarok can also mean yellow or golden. See Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 188:1) which discusses this issue.
15.
Implied is that if the stain does not match any of these colors, even if it has a red tint, it does not render the woman impure. This, however, applied in Talmudic times when the Rabbis were able to carefully distinguish between different shades of red. At present, however, if a stain has a red tint, it should be considered impure. We do not attempt to make these fine distinctions (Rambam, Commentary to the Mishnah, Niddah 2:7; Siftei Cohen 188:1).
16.
In his Commentary to the Mishnah (Niddah 2:6), the Rambam explains that certain factors will turn red blood to black.
17.
A region not far from the Mediterranean Coast, slightly northeast of present day Tel Aviv.
18.
As mentioned above, in the present age, we rule stringently with regard to all shades of red. Nevertheless, this law applies with regard to secretions of other colors even in the present age. A sage can make a ruling based on a woman's description. If, however, a secretion appears to be blood, but a woman protests that a sage ruled that such a secretion did not render her impure, her word is not accepted [Maggid MishnehShulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 188:2)].
19.
The commentaries to Niddah 21a interpret this as meaning that if the cup contains two luggin, it should not weigh more than a maneh. In this way, its walls will not be overly thick.
20.
As mentioned above, in the present age, we rule that any stain that appears red is considered impure. Nevertheless, the technique used by the Rambam is valuable in determining whether a stain is considered as red or not.
21.
This is not speaking about a woman who miscarries, but rather about one who has a problem about the degeneration of her internal organs. The Rambam, based on Niddah 21b, is stating that as long as the piece of flesh is not accompanied by blood, the woman's difficulties do not render her ritually impure.
This ruling is the subject of a difference of opinion in the Talmud and not all Rishonim accept the Rambam's ruling (see the objections of the Ra'avad and others). It is, however, accepted by theShulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 188:3) provided the piece of flesh is small. If, however, it is large, the Shulchan Aruch rules that she is impure, because it is impossible for the uterus to open and discharge a large piece of flesh without expelling a certain amount of blood as well. The woman would become impure because of the expulsion of that blood.
(The Maggid Mishneh explains that the difference between the positions of the Rambam and the Ra'avad concerning an issue of a larger scope: Is it possible for the uterus to open without bleeding or not? The Rambam rules that this possible and hence, the woman is pure even if the piece is large. The Ra'avad maintains that she is impure, because it is impossible for the uterus to open without bleeding.)
22.
The Rambam's opinion here is also contested by other Rishonim. The Tur (Yoreh De'ah 188) rules that even if the piece of flesh is accompanied by blood and the blood touches the woman's body, she is not impure, for this is not the ordinary way in which a woman experiences uterine bleeding. This ruling is quoted by the Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 188:3).
23.
See Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 188:6) which quotes the Ra'avad's view that whenever a woman discovers a particle of dried blood, she is impure, even if it does not dissolve. TheShulchan Aruch, however, also quotes the views of Rav Zerachiah HaLevi and Rabbenu Asher who maintain that even in such an instance, the ruling depends on whether the particle dissolves or not.
24.
The Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 194:3) follows the ruling of other Rishonim who maintain that in such a situation, we assume that these forms are the preliminary stages of a fetus. Hence, the woman is impure - as if she had miscarried - whether or not bleeding accompanies the expulsion of these forms.
25.
See Shulchan Aruch HaRav (Yoreh De'ah 188:8) which emphasizes that according to theShulchan Aruch, this is referring to a thin tube which can be inserted into the uterus without causing the uterus to open substantially. If, however, the tube is thick and the uterus must open substantially, that alone is sufficient to render a woman ritually impure.
26.
The Shulchan Aruch HaRav (loc. cit.) emphasizes that the leniency is not granted because the tube interposes between the blood and the woman's flesh and therefore the literal meaning of the verse is not fulfilled. Instead, the reason is - as the Rambam clarifies - because this is not the ordinary manner in which women expel blood.
27.
As the Rambam explains, we assume that the bleeding comes from the urinary tract and not the uterus. The Rambam's view is quoted by the Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 191:1). The Tur and the Rama cite more stringent views. In practice, a woman with such a condition should consult a gynecologist for a precise determination of her medical condition and give this information to a Rav who - on this basis - will rule on her halachic status.
28.
One might think that these physical sensations indicate the onset of menstruation.
29.
It must be emphasized that all the laws that follow applied only in the Talmudic era. At present, the Jewish people have accepted upon themselves the stringency of considering even the slightest drop of blood as requiring a wait of seven "spotless" days. Accordingly, when a woman suffers hymeneal bleeding - even if she knows that it is not at all connected with her menstrual cycle, she is considered impure and must wait seven "spotless" days (Chapter 11, Halachot 4,8).
Note the comments of the Ra'avad and the Kessef Mishneh concerning when this stringency was adopted. Is it of Talmudic origin or was it originated in the post-Talmudic period?
30.
Even if she menstruated, since she has not come of age, we assume that this is an abnormal occurrence which will not repeat itself.
31.
A girl between the age of twelve and twelve and a half who has already manifested signs of physical maturity.
32.
Since she never menstruated before, we assume that she still is suffering hymeneal bleeding and not that she has begun to menstruate.
33.
Since she menstruated before, we recognize the possibility that this is also menstrual blood. Hence, we require the couple to separate. The Ra'avad protests the Rambam's ruling, noting that it follows the position of the School of Shammai, not the School of Hillel. The Maggid Mishnehsupports the Rambam's decision, noting that Niddah 65b mentions the opinions of two Amoraim which support this view, indicating that in this instance the opinion of the School of Shammai is followed.
34.
I.e., she has reached the age of twelve and half and manifested signs of physical maturity at age twelve.
35.
I.e., that night the couple may engage in relations as many times as they desire. Needless to say, if she has already menstruated, the couple must separate after the first time they engage in relations (Maggid Mishneh).
36.
More specifically, days and nights as stated in the previous halachah.
37.
And also, of course, that the woman has not begun to menstruate. If during the passage of time, she reaches full majority, she is given only one night from that time onward (Rabbi Akiva Eiger).
38.
As stated in Halachah 19. Thus she is given three more opportunities to engage in relations.
39.
Since she is sitting on a soft surface, the wound will not be aggravated.
40.
Even though her bleeding is not consistent.
41.
Hence she is deemed impure and forbidden to engage in relations with her husband.
42.
Hence we do not apply all the stringencies mentioned in the conclusion of ch. 4.
Hayom Yom:
• Thursday, Adar 21, 5775 · 03/12/2015
"Today's Day"
Torah lessons: Chumash: Ki Tissa, Shishi with Rashi.
Tehillim: 104-105.
Tanya: In truth, however, (p. 137)...as inadvertent acts. (p. 137).
The term "chassid" is an ancient one that the Sages had even applied to Adam.1 It describes perfection and excellence in intellect or in emotive character-traits, or in both. However, in Chabad Chassidic doctrine the appelation "Chassid" refers to one who recognizes his own essence-character and his standing in the knowledge and study of Torah, as well as his situation in observing mitzvot. He knows what he lacks and he is concerned and takes pains to fill that void. He is diligent in obedience in the manner of "accepting the yoke."2
Torah lessons: Chumash: Sh'mini, first parsha with Rashi.
Tehillim: 104-105.
Tanya: Ch. 38. In the light (p. 179)...other bodily organs. (p. 181).
The Tzemach Tzedek said at the conclusion of the preceding narrative (20 Adar II): "My grandfather, the Alter Rebbe, is the Moshe Rabeinu of Chassidus Chabad. Our sages say that the Torah was given to Moshe but he acted generously (sharing it with Israel)1. The G-dly "constant fire" related to the teachings of Chabad Chassidus was given by the Maggid to my grandfather; my grandfather acted generously and gave it to anyone who occupies himself with the study of Chassidus. I am absolutely certain that whoever teaches another and arouses in him that G-dly "constant fire" is assured of his reward, that this merit of his will never be extinguished.2
FOOTNOTES
1. Nedarim 38a.
2. This last phrase may perhaps also mean, as above (20 Adar II), "...this merit of his will extinguish the lo forever."
Daily Thought:
Joyful Emptiness
Start here: Open yourself to receive all that heaven wants to give you.
How will you receive it? By being empty.
Full of self-concern, of "what will become of me?" of "where life is taking me?"—there’s no room for life to enter.
But a simple, open spirit is filled with joy from heaven.[Maamar Vayishlach 5718. Sichat Acharon Shel Pesach 5723:9.]
____________________________

No comments:

Post a Comment