Today's Laws & Customs:
• Fast of the Firstborn
Firstborn males over the age of Bar Mitzvah (13) are obligated to fast on the 14th of Nissan, in recognition of the fact that during the "Plague of the Firstborn" (which occurred at midnight of Nissan 15) G-d "passed over" the Jewish firstborn when He killed all firstborn Egyptians. If there is a firstborn male in the family under 13, the obligation to fast rests with the father. The prevailing custom, however, is for the firstborn to exempt themselves from the obligation to fast by participating in aseudat mitzvah (a meal marking the fulfillment of a mitzvah), such as a siyyum--a festive meal celebrating the conclusion of the study of a section of Torah).
• Chametz Eating Deadline
The Torah (Exodus 12:15, as per Talmud, Pesachim 5a) sets midday of Nissan 14--today--as the deadline for the destruction and/or removal of all leavened foods ("chametz") from our possession in preparation for the festival of Passover, which begins this evening at nightfall. In practice, Torah law mandates that we desist from eating chametz two hours before midday, and that no leaven remain in our possession an hour before midday. These are not clock hours but "proportional hours", defined by Jewish law as a 12th part of the time between sunrise and sunset.
Click here for the chametz eating deadline for your location.
From this point until the end of the festival of Passover, it is forbidden to eat leaven, or anything containing even the slightest trace of leaven.
Links: What is Chametz; A Speck of Flour; The Escape Hatch
• Burn and Nullify Chametz
Chametz is disposed of by: a) selling it to a non-Jew; b) burning the chametz found in our search on the previous evening (see entry for Nissan 13); c) "nullifying" the chametz that has not been found by declaring it ownerless.
The deadline for selling, burning and nullifying chametz is one "proportional hour" before midday.Click here for the precise time for your location. From this point until the end of the festival of Passover, it is forbidden to eat leaven, derive benefit from it in any way, own it or have it in one's possession.
See the Getting-Rid-of-Chametz Wizard for more detailed instructions.
Links: More about Leaven
• Passover Offering
When the Holy Temple stood in Jerusalem, the Passover offering was brought there on the afternoon of Nissan 14. Today it is commemorated by our recitation of the "Order of the Passover Offering" this afternoon, by the "shankbone" placed on the seder plate this evening, and the afikoman -- a portion of matzah eaten in its stead at the end of the seder meal.
Links: About the Passover offering
• Passover Seder Tonight
The 8-day festival of Passover--also called "The Festival of Matzahs" and "The Time of Our Freedom"--begins tonight at nightfall.
In the evening, we conduct a seder ("order") -- a 15-part ritualistic feast that encompasses the observances of the Passover festival: telling our children the story of the Exodus as described and expounded in the Haggadah; eating the matzah (unleavened bread), the bitter herbs dipped in charoset, and the afikoman(an additional portion of matzah eaten as "dessert" in commemoration of the Passover offering); drinking the four cups of wine; and numerous other symbolic foods and rituals commemorating both our slavery in Egypt and our liberation on this night.
Links:
www.Passover.org includes a Seder guide, text of the Haggadah, in-depth studies, and more
The Seder Wizard is a step-by-step guide to conducting the Seder
Today in Jewish History:
• Maimonides Born (1135)
Rabbi Moses ben Maimon, Talmudist, Halachist, physician, philosopher and communal leader, known in the Jewish world by the acronym "Rambam" and to the world at large as "Maimonides", was born in Cordova, Spain, on the 14th of Nissan of the year 4895 from creation--1135 of the Common Era [more...]
Daily Quote:
Our father Jacob did not die. Just as his seed lives, so does he live[Talmud, Taanit 5a]
Daily Study:
Chitas and Rambam for today:
Chumash: Shemini, 6th Portion Leviticus 11:1-11:32 with Rashi
• Chapter 11
1And the Lord spoke to Moses and to Aaron, to say to them: אוַיְדַבֵּר יְהֹוָה אֶל משֶׁה וְאֶל אַהֲרֹן לֵאמֹר אֲלֵהֶם:
[And the Lord spoke] to Moses and to Aaron: He told Moses that he should [in turn] tell Aaron. — [Torath Kohanim 1:4] אל משה ואל אהרן: למשה אמר שיאמר לאהרן:
to say to them: [Whom does “to them” refer to?] The Lord said that [Aaron] should tell Eleazar and Ithamar. Or perhaps it means only to tell the Israelites? However, when [Scripture] says (verse 2),“Speak to the children of Israel,” speaking to Israel is already mentioned. So how do I understand “to say to them”? [That Aaron was to say] to his sons, to Eleazar and to Ithamar [who, in turn, were to tell the children of Israel the laws that follow]. — [Torath Kohanim 11:61] לאמר אליהם: אמר שיאמר לאלעזר ולאיתמר, או אינו אלא לאמר לישראל, כשהוא אומר דברו אל בני ישראל, הרי דבור אמור לישראל, הא מה אני מקיים לאמר אליהם, לבניו לאלעזר ולאיתמר:
2Speak to the children of Israel, saying: These are the creatures that you may eat among all the animals on earth: בדַּבְּרוּ אֶל בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל לֵאמֹר זֹאת הַחַיָּה אֲשֶׁר תֹּאכְלוּ מִכָּל הַבְּהֵמָה אֲשֶׁר עַל הָאָרֶץ:
Speak to the children of Israel: God made them all [namely Moses, Aaron, Eleazar, and Ithamar] equal messengers for [relaying] the following speech. [And why did Aaron and his sons deserve this special honor?] Because they all equally remained silent, accepting the Omnipresent’s decree [to put Nadab and Abihu to death] with love. דברו אל בני ישראל: את כולם השוה להיות שלוחים בדבור זה, לפי שהושוו בדמימה וקבלו עליהם גזירת המקום באהבה:
These are the creatures: [The word חַיָּה, “living creature”] denotes חַיִּים, “life.” [In the context of this passage, which sets out the clean and unclean creatures, the meaning is expounded as follows:] Since the Israelites cleave to the Omnipresent and are therefore worthy of being alive, accordingly, God separated them from uncleanness and decreed commandments upon them [so that through these commandments Israel would live]. For the other nations, however, He prohibited nothing. This is comparable to a physician who went to visit a patient [who was incurable, and allowed him to eat anything he wished, whereas when he went to his patient who was to recover, the physician imposed restrictions on his diet that would ensure that the recoverable patient would live. So too, the nations and Israel…], etc. as is found in the Midrash of Rabbi Tanchuma (6). זאת החיה: לשון חיים, לפי שישראל דבוקים במקום וראויין להיות חיים, לפיכך הבדילם מן הטומאה וגזר עליהם מצות, ולאומות העולם לא אסר כלום. משל לרופא שנכנס לבקר את החולה וכו', כדאיתא במדרש רבי תנחומא:
These are the creatures: [When the verse says “These are…,” the word זֹאת] teaches us that Moses would hold up an animal and show it to the Israelites, saying, “This one you may eat,” and “This one you may not eat.” “You may eat the following!” (verse 9) even with the creatures of the water-he held up [one] of every species and showed it to them. And likewise with birds [as stated in verse 13], “you shall hold these in abomination….” Similarly with creeping creatures, (שְׁרָצִים) [as stated in verse 29], “these are unclean….” - [Torath Kohanim 11:62] זאת החיה: מלמד שהיה משה אוחז בחיה ומראה אותה לישראל, זאת תאכלו וזאת לא תאכלו:
These are the creatures…among all the animals: [The word חַיָּה, although usually denoting an undomesticated animal, such as a deer, also has the meaning of “living (חַי) creatures” in general; the word בְּהֵמָה, usually denoting domesticated animals like cattle, also has the meaning of large land animals, or mammals. We see this in our verse, for it says here, "These are the creatures (חַיָּה) that you may eat among all the animals (בְּהֵמָה) on earth, thus,] teaching that [the term] בְּהֵמָה is included in [the more general term] חַיָּה. - [Torath Kohanim 11:66; and see Rashi Chul. 70b] את זה תאכלו וגו': אף בשרצי המים אחז מכל מין ומין והראה להם. וכן בעוף ואת אלה תשקצו מן העוף. וכן בשרצים וזה לכם הטמא:
3Any animal that has a cloven hoof that is completely split into double hooves, and which brings up its cud that one you may eat. גכֹּל | מַפְרֶסֶת פַּרְסָה וְשֹׁסַעַת שֶׁסַע פְּרָסֹת מַעֲלַת גֵּרָה בַּבְּהֵמָה אֹתָהּ תֹּאכֵלוּ:
which has a cloven: Heb. מַפְרֶסֶת. [Although resembling the following word, פַּרְסָה, the word, מַפְרֶסֶת, is to be understood] as the Targum [Onkelos] renders it: סְדִיקָא, “split.” מפרסת: כתרגומו סדיקא:
hoof: Heb. פַּרְסָה, plante in French [meaning “ sole” or “hoof.” Thus, מַפְרֶסֶת פַּרְסָה means: “split or cloven hoof”]. פרסה: פלאנט"ה בלע"ז [כף רגל]:
that is completely separated into double hooves: Heb. וְשֹׁסַעַת שֶׁסַע [meaning that the hoof] is completely separated [i.e., split] from top to bottom, into two nails, as the Targum [Onkelos] renders it: וּמְטַלְפָא טִילְפִין, meaning “split into hooves” [i.e., split into two hoof sections,] because there are animals whose hooves are split at the top, but are not completely split and separated [into two hoof sections], since the bottom [sections of the hoof] are connected. ושסעת שסע: שמובדלת מלמעלה ומלמטה בשתי צפרנין, כתרגומו ומטלפא טלפין, שיש שפרסותיו סדוקות מלמעלה ואינן שסועות ומובדלות לגמרי, שמלמטה מחוברות:
which brings up its cud: It brings up and regurgitates the [ingested] food from its stomach, returning the food to its mouth, in order to thoroughly crush it and grind it thoroughly. מעלת גרה: מעלה ומקיאה האוכל ממעיה ומחזרת אותו לתוך פיה לכתשו ולטחנו הדק:
cud: Heb. גֵּרָה. This is its name. [I.e., the name of the food that an animal regurgitates.] It possibly stems from the root [נגר, “to drag” or “flow,” as in the verse] “and as water which has flowed (הַנִּגָּרִים) ” (II Sam. 14:14), for the regurgitated food “flows back” to the mouth. Targum [Onkelos] renders the word גֵּרָה as פִּישְׁרָא, dissolved, since, through its being regurgitated, the food is dissolved and melted. גרה: כך שמו. ויתכן להיות מגזרת מים הנגרים (ש"ב יד יד), שהוא נגרר אחר הפה. ותרגומו פשרא שעל ידי הגרה האוכל נפשר ונמוח:
among the animals: Heb. בַּבְּהֵמָה, lit. in the animal. This is an extra word from which to derive that [if a pregnant animal is slaughtered properly,] the fetus inside its mother’s innards is permitted [to be eaten]. — [Torath Kohanim 11:67] בבהמה: תיבה זו יתירה היא לדרשה, להתיר את השליל הנמצא במעי אמו:
that one you may eat: but not an unclean animal. However, is this [negative inference] not already included in the [explicit] prohibition [stated in verse 4, “…you must not eat…”]? Notwithstanding, [this positive statement is included here] so that [one who eats an unclean animal] transgresses a positive and a negative commandment [i.e., a negative inference of a positive commandment]. — [Torath Kohanim 11:69] אתה תאכלו: ולא בהמה טמאה. והלא באזהרה היא, אלא לעבור עליה בעשה ולא תעשה:
4But these you shall not eat among those that bring up the cud and those that have a cloven hoof: the camel, because it brings up its cud, but does not have a [completely] cloven hoof; it is unclean for you. דאַךְ אֶת זֶה לֹא תֹאכְלוּ מִמַּעֲלֵי הַגֵּרָה וּמִמַּפְרִסֵי הַפַּרְסָה אֶת הַגָּמָל כִּי מַעֲלֵה גֵרָה הוּא וּפַרְסָה אֵינֶנּוּ מַפְרִיס טָמֵא הוּא לָכֶם:
5And the hyrax, because it brings up its cud, but will not have a [completely] cloven hoof; it is unclean for you; הוְאֶת הַשָּׁפָן כִּי מַעֲלֵה גֵרָה הוּא וּפַרְסָה לֹא יַפְרִיס טָמֵא הוּא לָכֶם:
6And the hare, because it brings up its cud, but does not have a [completely] cloven hoof; it is unclean for you; ווְאֶת הָאַרְנֶבֶת כִּי מַעֲלַת גֵּרָה הִוא וּפַרְסָה לֹא הִפְרִיסָה טְמֵאָה הִוא לָכֶם:
7And the pig, because it has a cloven hoof that is completely split, but will not regurgitate its cud; it is unclean for you. זוְאֶת הַחֲזִיר כִּי מַפְרִיס פַּרְסָה הוּא וְשֹׁסַע שֶׁסַע פַּרְסָה וְהוּא גֵּרָה לֹא יִגָּר טָמֵא הוּא לָכֶם:
8You shall not eat of their flesh, and you shall not touch their carcasses; they are unclean for you. חמִבְּשָׂרָם לֹא תֹאכֵלוּ וּבְנִבְלָתָם לֹא תִגָּעוּ טְמֵאִים הֵם לָכֶם:
You shall not eat of their flesh: I know only [that] these [animals possessing one sign of cleanness are prohibited to be eaten]. How do we know that any other unclean animal, which has no sign of cleanness altogether [may also not be eaten]? Here, we can infer from a kal vachomer [i.e., an inference from minor to major]: If those animals that have part of the signs of cleanness are prohibited, [how much more so are those animals that lack both signs of cleanness!]- [Torath Kohanim 11:69] מבשרם לא תאכלו: אין לי אלא אלו, שאר בהמה טמאה שאין לה שום סימן טהרה מנין, אמרת קל וחומר ומה אלו שיש בהן קצת סימני טהרה אסורות וכו':
of their flesh: The [Scriptural] prohibition applies [only] to the “flesh” [of an unclean animal], but not its bones, sinews, horns, or hooves. — [Torath Kohanim 11:74] מבשרם: על בשרם באזהרה, ולא על עצמות וגידין וקרנים וטלפים:
and you shall not touch their carcasses: One might think that Israelites are prohibited to touch a carcass. Scripture, however, says, “Say to the kohanim …[(a kohen) shall not defile himself for a (dead) person among his people]” (Lev. 21:1); thus, kohanim are prohibited [from defiling themselves by human corpses], but ordinary Israelites are not prohibited. Now a kal vachomer can be made: Since in the more stringent case of defilement by a human corpse, only kohanim are prohibited, then in the more lenient case of defilement by animal carcasses, how much more so [should only kohanim be prohibited! If so,] what does Scripture mean by, “you shall not touch their carcasses”? [It means that Israelites may not touch animal carcasses] on the Festivals [since at those times they deal with holy sacrifices and enter the Temple]. This is what [the Sages] said: A person is obligated to cleanse himself on Festivals. - [R.H. 16b, Torath Kohanim 11:74] ובנבלתם לא תגעו: יכול יהו ישראל מוזהרים על מגע נבלה, תלמוד לומר אמור אל הכהנים וגו' (ויקרא כא א), כהנים מוזהרין ואין ישראל מוזהרין. קל וחומר מעתה ומה טומאת מת חמורה, לא הזהיר בה אלא כהנים, טומאת נבלה קלה לא כל שכן. ומה תלמוד לומר לא תגעו, ברגל. זהו שאמרו חייב אדם לטהר עצמו ברגל:
9Among all [creatures] that are in the water, you may eat these: Any [of the creatures] in the water that has fins and scales, those you may eat, whether [it lives] in the waters, in the seas or in the rivers. טאֶת זֶה תֹּאכְלוּ מִכֹּל אֲשֶׁר בַּמָּיִם כֹּל אֲשֶׁר לוֹ סְנַפִּיר וְקַשְׂקֶשֶׂת בַּמַּיִם בַּיַּמִּים וּבַנְּחָלִים אֹתָם תֹּאכֵלוּ:
fins: Heb. סְנַפִּיר. These are [the wing-like appendages] with which it swims [namely, fins]. סנפיר: אלו ששט בהם:
scales: Heb. קַשְׂקֶשֶׂת. These are the scales that are affixed to it, as it is said: “And he was wearing a coat of mail (קַשְׂקַשִּׂים) ” (I Sam. 17:5), [lit. armor of scales]. — [Chul. 66b] קשקשת: אלו קליפים הקבועים בו, כמו שנאמר (ש"א יז ה) ושריון קשקשים הוא לבוש:
10But any [creatures]that do not have fins and scales, whether in the seas or in the rivers, among all the creeping creatures in the water and among all living creatures that [live] in the water, are an abomination for you. יוְכֹל אֲשֶׁר אֵין לוֹ סְנַפִּיר וְקַשְׂקֶשֶׂת בַּיַּמִּים וּבַנְּחָלִים מִכֹּל שֶׁרֶץ הַמַּיִם וּמִכֹּל נֶפֶשׁ הַחַיָּה אֲשֶׁר בַּמָּיִם שֶׁקֶץ הֵם לָכֶם:
creeping creatures: שֶׁרֶץ. Anywhere this [term] appears [in Scripture], it denotes a low creature that slithers and moves on the ground. שרץ: בכל מקום משמעו דבר נמוך שרוחש ונע ונד על הארץ:
11And they shall be an abomination for you. You shall not eat of their flesh, and their dead bodies you shall hold in abomination. יאוְשֶׁקֶץ יִהְיוּ לָכֶם מִבְּשָׂרָם לֹא תֹאכֵלוּ וְאֶת נִבְלָתָם תְּשַׁקֵּצוּ:
And they shall be an abomination: [The statement is repeated] to prohibit their mixtures [i.e., if the flesh of an unclean water creature was mixed with food of another type,] if there is enough [unclean flesh] to impart its taste [to the mixture]. — [See Torath Kohanim 11:82] ושקץ יהיו: לאסור את עירוביהן, אם יש בו בנותן טעם:
[You shall not eat] of their flesh: [Only their flesh is prohibited,] but one is not prohibited [to eat] the fins or the bones. — [Torath Kohanim 11:82] מבשרם: אינו מוזהר על הסנפירים ועל העצמות:
and their dead bodies you shall hold in abomination: [This clause comes] to include midges (יַבְחוּשִׁין) that he has filtered out [of water or other liquids. One may ingest these creatures together with water, but once they have been separated from their original source, they are prohibited]. יַבְחוּשִׁין are moucherons in French, midges. — [Torath Kohanim 11:83] ואת נבלתם תשקצו: לרבות יבחושין שסיננן. יבחושין מושקירונ"ש בלע"ז [יבחושין]:
12Any [creature] that does not have fins and scales in the water is an abomination for you. יבכֹּל אֲשֶׁר אֵין לוֹ סְנַפִּיר וְקַשְׂקֶשֶׂת בַּמָּיִם שֶׁקֶץ הוּא לָכֶם:
Any [(creature)] that does not have [fins and scales in the water is an abomination for you]: What does Scripture come to teach us here? [In verse 10, Scripture has already stated, “any (creatures) that do not have fins and scales…are an abomination for you.” However, without this verse] I might think that [a water creature] is permitted only if it brings up its signs [of cleanness, namely fins and scales,] onto dry land; but if [it sheds them in the water, how do we know [that the creature is still permitted]? Scripture therefore, says here, “Any [creature] that does not have fins and scales in the water….,” but if it had them while in the water, even if it shed them in its emergence [onto dry land], it is permitted. — [Torath Kohanim 11:84] כל אשר אין לו וגו': מה תלמוד לומר, שיכול אין לי שיהא מותר אלא המעלה סימנין שלו ליבשה, השירן במים מנין, תלמוד לומר כל אשר אין לו סנפיר וקשקשת במים, הא אם היו לו במים אף על פי שהשירן בעלייתו מותר:
13And among birds, you shall hold these in abomination; they shall not be eaten; they are an abomination: The eagle [or the griffin vulture], the kite, the osprey, יגוְאֶת אֵלֶּה תְּשַׁקְּצוּ מִן הָעוֹף לֹא יֵאָכְלוּ שֶׁקֶץ הֵם אֶת הַנֶּשֶׁר וְאֶת הַפֶּרֶס וְאֵת הָעָזְנִיָּה:
They shall not be eaten: Heb. לֹא יֵאָכְלוּ. [Scripture is telling us that] one may not feed them to minors. [We derive this from the passive voice, “be eaten,”] meaning that these birds may not “be eaten” through you. Or perhaps it is not so, but [it is telling us that in addition to not eating them,] one may not derive any benefit from them? Scripture, therefore, states: “you shall not eat (לֹא תֹּאכְלוּ),” (Deut. 14:12) [in the active voice to teach us that] one is prohibited to eat them but permitted to derive benefit from them. Now, in every [mention of] birds where Scripture says לְמִינָהּ, לְמִינוֹ, לְמִינֵהוּ [“ to its…species,” it does so because] within that species, there are some that resemble each other neither in appearance nor in name, but they are [nevertheless] all one species. לא יאכלו: לחייב את המאכילן לקטנים. שכך משמעו לא יהיו נאכלים על ידך. או אינו אלא לאסרן בהנאה, תלמוד לומר (דברים יד יב) לא תאכלו, באכילה אסורין בהנאה מותרין. כל עוף שנאמר בו למינה, למינו, למינהו, יש באותו המין שאין דומין זה לזה, לא במראיהם ולא בשמותם, וכולן מין אחד:
14the kestrel, and the vulture after its species, ידוְאֶת הַדָּאָה וְאֶת הָאַיָּה לְמִינָהּ:
15and the raven after its species, טואֵת כָּל עֹרֵב לְמִינוֹ:
16the ostrich, the jay, and the sparrow hawk, and the goshawk after its species; טזוְאֵת בַּת הַיַּעֲנָה וְאֶת הַתַּחְמָס וְאֶת הַשָּׁחַף וְאֶת הַנֵּץ לְמִינֵהוּ:
the sparrow hawk: הַנֵּץ, esprevier in Old French, [epervier in modern French]. [Note that, according to some editions of Rashi , the reading is ostor, which is translated by Greenberg as goshawk, autour in modern French. This is corroborated by other editions that render הַשָּׁחַף in verse 16 as esprevier..] הנץ: אישפרויי"ר [נץ]:
17The owl, the gull, the little owl; יזוְאֶת הַכּוֹס וְאֶת הַשָּׁלָךְ וְאֶת הַיַּנְשׁוּף:
the gull: Heb. הַשָּׁלָ Our Rabbis explained: “The שָׁלָ is a bird that draws up (שׁוֹלָה) fish out of the sea” (Chul. 63a). And this is the meaning of Onkelos’ translation [of שָׁלָ]: וְשַׁלֵינוּנָא, “fish catcher.” השלך: פירשו רבותינו זה השולה דגים מן הים. וזהו שתרגם אונקלוס ושלינונא:
The owl… and the little owl: Heb. כּוֹס וְיַנְשׁוּף. These are chouettes [in French, i.e., “birds”] that shriek at night, which have cheeks like those of a human. There is another [bird] similar to it called hibou [in French]. כוס וינשוף: הם צואיטי"ש [כוס] הצועקים בלילה ויש להם לסתות כאדם. ועוד אחר דומה לו שקורין יב"ן [לילית]:
18The bat, the starling, the magpie; יחוְאֶת הַתִּנְשֶׁמֶת וְאֶת הַקָּאָת וְאֶת הָרָחָם:
The bat: Heb. הַתִּנְשֶׁמֶת. That is calve soriz [in Old French, chauve-souris in modern French]. It resembles a mouse and flies about at night. The תִּנְשֶׁמֶת mentioned among the creeping animals (verse 30), resembles this one, insofar as it has no eyes. That [one] is called talpe [in Old French, taupe in modern French, mole in English]. התנשמת: היא קלב"א שורי"ץ [עטלף] ודומה לעכבר ופורחת בלילה. ותנשמת האמורה בשרצים היא דומה לה, ואין לה עינים וקורין לה טלפ"א [חפרפרת]:
19the stork, the heron after its species; the hoopoe and the atalef [bat?]; יטוְאֵת הַחֲסִידָה הָאֲנָפָה לְמִינָהּ וְאֶת הַדּוּכִיפַת וְאֶת הָעֲטַלֵּף:
The stork: Heb. הַחֲסִידָה. This is a white dayah, [called] zigoyne [in Old French, cigogne in modern French]. And why is it called חֲסִידָה ? Because it does kindness (חִסִידוּת) with its fellow birds [by sharing] its food (Chul. 63a). החסידה: זו דיה לבנה ציגוני"ה [חסידה]. ולמה נקרא שמה חסידה, שעושה חסידות עם חברותיה במזונות:
the heron: Heb. הָאֲנָפָה. This is the hot-tempered dayah (Chul.. 63a), and it appears to me that this is the bird called h\'e0yron [in Old French, heron in modern French, heron in English]. האנפה: היא דיה רגזנית. ונראה לי שזו היא שקורין לה היירו"ן [אנפה]:
the hoopoe: Heb. הַדּוּכִיפַת, the wild-rooster, which has a doubled crest. [It is called] herupe [in Old French]. And why is it called דּוּכִיפַת ? Because its glory (הוֹדוֹ), namely its crest, is bound up (כָּפוּת). [I.e., its comb is double and appears to be folded into the head and bound up there (Rashi, Chul. 63a) [Onkelos renders it:] נַגַּר טוּרָא, “mountain carpenter,” named so for what it does, as explained by our rabbis in Tractate Gittin, chapter 7, entitled מִי שֶׁאֲחָזוֹ (68b). הדוכיפת: תרנגול הבר וכרבלתו כפולה ובלע"ז הירופ"א [דוכיפת], ולמה נקרא שמו דוכיפת, שהודו כפות, וזו היא כרבלתו. ונגר טורא נקרא על שם מעשיו, כמו שפירשו רבותינו במסכת גיטין בפרק מי שאחזו (דף סח ב):
20Any flying insect that walks on four, is an abomination for you. ככֹּל שֶׁרֶץ הָעוֹף הַהֹלֵךְ עַל אַרְבַּע שֶׁקֶץ הוּא לָכֶם:
among all the flying insects: These are the delicate and small creatures that crawl on the ground, like flies, hornets, mosquitoes, and locusts. שרץ העוף: הם הדקים הנמוכים הרוחשין על הארץ, כגון זבובים וצרעין ויתושין וחגבים:
21However, among all the flying insects that walk on four [legs], you may eat [from] those that have jointed [leg like] extensions above its [regular] legs, with which they hop on the ground. כאאַךְ אֶת זֶה תֹּאכְלוּ מִכֹּל שֶׁרֶץ הָעוֹף הַהֹלֵךְ עַל אַרְבַּע אֲשֶׁר לוֹ (כתיב אשׁר לא) כְרָעַיִם מִמַּעַל לְרַגְלָיו לְנַתֵּר בָּהֵן עַל הָאָרֶץ:
on four: on four legs. על ארבע: על ארבע רגלים:
above its [regular] legs: [“Above,” meaning high up on the creature’s body, namely] near its neck, it has two leg-like extensions besides its [regular] four legs. When it wishes to fly or hop from the ground, it bolsters itself firmly with these appendages and flies. [In our regions,] we have many of this sort [of flying creature] called langouste [in Old French] (sea-locusts), but we are no [longer] proficient [in identifying] which ones [are clean and which are unclean. And what is the specific problem we have with this identification?] There are four signs of cleanness enumerated regarding these creatures: a) four legs, b) four wings, c) קַרְסוּלִים, which are the jointed leg-like extensions described above, and d) wings that cover the majority of its body (Chul. 59a; Torath Kohanim 11:91). All of these signs are indeed found in the creatures among us today, but some [creatures] have long heads and some do not have tails, [according to Maharsha (Chul. 66a), the reading is, “and some have tails”] and they must bear the name חָגָב (Chul. 65b). Concerning this [requirement namely, which type is officially called חָגָב and which is not], we no longer know how to distinguish between them. ממעל לרגליו: סמוך לצוארו יש לו כמין שתי רגלים לבד ארבע רגליו, וכשרוצה לעוף ולקפוץ מן הארץ מתחזק באותן שתי כרעים ופורח, ויש הרבה מהם במקומינו בינותינו, כאותן שקורין לנגושט"א [ארבה], אבל אין אנו בקיאין בהן, שארבעה סימני טהרה נאמרו בהם ארבע רגלים, וארבע כנפים, וקרסולין אלו כרעים הכתובים כאן, וכנפיו חופין את רובו. וכל סימנים הללו מצויין באותן שבינותינו, אבל יש שראשן ארוך ויש שאין להם זנב וצריך שיהא שמו חגב, ובזה אין אנו יודעים להבדיל ביניהם:
22From this [locust] category, you may eat the following: The red locust after its species, the yellow locust after its species, the spotted gray locust after its species and the white locust after its species. כבאֶת אֵלֶּה מֵהֶם תֹּאכֵלוּ אֶת הָאַרְבֶּה לְמִינוֹ וְאֶת הַסָּלְעָם לְמִינֵהוּ וְאֶת הַחַרְגֹּל לְמִינֵהוּ וְאֶת הֶחָגָב לְמִינֵהוּ:
23But any [other] flying insect that has four legs, is an abomination for you. כגוְכֹל שֶׁרֶץ הָעוֹף אֲשֶׁר לוֹ אַרְבַּע רַגְלָיִם שֶׁקֶץ הוּא לָכֶם:
But any [other] flying insect [that has four legs is an abomination for you]: [In verse 20, it already says, “Any flying insect that walks on four is an abomination for you.” Why is this repeated here?] It comes to teach us that if it has five [legs], it is clean. וכל שרץ העוף וגו': בא ללמד שאם יש לו חמש טהור:
24And through these you will become unclean; anyone who touches their dead bodies will be unclean until evening; כדוּלְאֵלֶּה תִּטַּמָּאוּ כָּל הַנֹּגֵעַ בְּנִבְלָתָם יִטְמָא עַד הָעָרֶב:
through these: [I.e., you will become unclean] through those animals that are to be enumerated below. — [Torath Kohanim 11:95] ולאלה: העתידין להאמר למטה בענין:
you will become unclean: I.e., in touching them, there is uncleanness [not that you are commanded to become unclean]. תטמאו: כלומר בנגיעתם יש טומאה:
25And anyone who carries their carcass shall immerse his garments, and he shall be unclean until evening: כהוְכָל הַנֹּשֵׂא מִנִּבְלָתָם יְכַבֵּס בְּגָדָיו וְטָמֵא עַד הָעָרֶב:
And anyone who carries their carcass: Any place in Scripture that mentions טֻמְאַת מַשָּׂא [uncleanness acquired by carrying (נוֹשֵׂא) an unclean item], it is more stringent than טֻמְאַת מַגָּע [uncleanness acquired by touching (נֹגֵע) an unclean item], insofar as it requires immersion of the garments [in a mikvah, in addition to the immersion of the person]. וכל הנשא מנבלתם: כל מקום שנאמרה טומאת משא, חמורה מטומאת מגע, שהיא טעונה כבוס בגדים:
26Any animal that has a cloven hoof that is not completely split, and which does not bring up its cud, is unclean for you. Anyone who touches them shall become unclean. כולְכָל הַבְּהֵמָה אֲשֶׁר הִוא מַפְרֶסֶת פַּרְסָה וְשֶׁסַע | אֵינֶנָּה שֹׁסַעַת וְגֵרָה אֵינֶנָּה מַעֲלָה טְמֵאִים הֵם לָכֶם כָּל הַנֹּגֵעַ בָּהֶם יִטְמָא:
[Any animal that has] a cloven hoof that is not completely split: for instance, a camel, whose hoof is split on the top, but on the bottom it is connected. Here [Scripture] teaches you that the carcass of an unclean animal defiles, while in the section at the end of this parashah (verse 39), [Scripture] explains [that a carcass of] a clean animal [defiles as well. However, Scripture deals with these separately since there is a difference between the two: in the case of a clean animal, its carcass defiles only if it dies, but if it was slaughtered properly, even if it was a טְרֵפָה, i.e., it had a fatal disease or injury, its carcass does not defile. This is derived from verse 39, which reads, “If an animal that you (normally) eat dies…” i.e., only when it dies, its carcass defiles]. מפרסת פרסה ושסע איננה שוסעת: כגון גמל שפרסתו סדוקה למעלה, אבל למטה היא מחוברת. כאן למדך שנבלת בהמה טמאה מטמאה, ובענין שבסוף הפרשה פירש על בהמה טהורה:
27And among all the animals that walk on four legs, any [animal] that walks on its paws is unclean for you. Anyone who touches their carcass will be unclean until evening. כזוְכֹל | הוֹלֵךְ עַל כַּפָּיו בְּכָל הַחַיָּה הַהֹלֶכֶת עַל אַרְבַּע טְמֵאִים הֵם לָכֶם כָּל הַנֹּגֵעַ בְּנִבְלָתָם יִטְמָא עַד הָעָרֶב:
on its paws: such as a dog, a bear, or a cat. על כפיו: כגון כלב ודוב וחתול:
are unclean for you: i.e., to touch. טמאים הם לכם: למגע:
28And one who carries their carcass shall immerse his garments, and he will be unclean until evening. They are unclean for you. כחוְהַנֹּשֵׂא אֶת נִבְלָתָם יְכַבֵּס בְּגָדָיו וְטָמֵא עַד הָעָרֶב טְמֵאִים הֵמָּה לָכֶם:
29And this is unclean for you among creeping creatures that creep on the ground: The weasel, the mouse, and the toad after its species; כטוְזֶה לָכֶם הַטָּמֵא בַּשֶּׁרֶץ הַשֹּׁרֵץ עַל הָאָרֶץ הַחֹלֶד וְהָעַכְבָּר וְהַצָּב לְמִינֵהוּ:
And this is unclean for you: All these statements of uncleanness are not referring to the prohibition of eating, but rather, to actual uncleanness, i.e., that [the person] will become unclean by touching them, and he will [consequently] be prohibited from eating terumah [the portion of one’s produce given to the kohen] and holy [sacrifices], and from entering the sanctuary. וזה לכם הטמא: כל טומאות הללו אינן לאיסור אכילה אלא לטומאה ממש, להיות טמא במגען ונאסר לאכול תרומה וקדשים וליכנס במקדש:
The weasel: Heb. הַחֹלֶד, moustele [in Old French], weasel, beach-marten. החלד: מושטיל"ה [נמיה]:
and the toad: Heb. וְהַצָּב, bot [in Old French], which resembles a frog. [Rashi in Mikraoth Gedoloth reads: froit, which, according to Rashi on Niddah 56a, is the same as bot. According to Berliner and Greenberg, this is a ferret. According to Gukevitzky and Catane, it is a toad. In view of Rashi 's comment that it resembles a frog, this appears to be the correct translation.] והצב: פרוי"ט [קרפדה] שדומה לצפרדע:
30The hedgehog, the chameleon, the lizard, the snail, and the mole. לוְהָאֲנָקָה וְהַכֹּחַ וְהַלְּטָאָה וְהַחֹמֶט וְהַתִּנְשָׁמֶת:
the hedgehog: Heb. הָאֲנָקָה, herisson [in French]. אנקה: היריצו"ן [קיפוד]:
and the lizard: Heb. וְהַלְּטָאָה, lezard [in French]. הלטאה: לישרד"ה [לטאה]:
and the snail: Heb. וְהַחֹמֶט, limace [in French]. החמט: לימצ"ה [חילזון]:
and the mole: וְהַתִּנְשֶׁמֶת, talpe [in Old French, taupe in modern French]. והתנשמת: טלפ"א [חפרפרת]:
31These are the ones that are unclean for you, among all creeping creatures; anyone who touches them when they are dead will be unclean until evening. לאאֵלֶּה הַטְּמֵאִים לָכֶם בְּכָל הַשָּׁרֶץ כָּל הַנֹּגֵעַ בָּהֶם בְּמֹתָם יִטְמָא עַד הָעָרֶב:
32And if any of these dead [creatures] falls upon anything, it will become unclean, whether it is any wooden vessel, garment, hide or sack, any vessel with which work is done; it shall be immersed in water, but will remain unclean until evening, and it will become clean. לבוְכֹל אֲשֶׁר יִפֹּל עָלָיו מֵהֶם | בְּמֹתָם יִטְמָא מִכָּל כְּלִי עֵץ אוֹ בֶגֶד אוֹ עוֹר אוֹ שָׂק כָּל כְּלִי אֲשֶׁר יֵעָשֶׂה מְלָאכָה בָּהֶם בַּמַּיִם יוּבָא וְטָמֵא עַד הָעֶרֶב וְטָהֵר:
it shall be immersed in water: Even after its immersion, the item remains unclean for [coming into contact with] terumah. במים יובא: ואף לאחר טבילתו טמא הוא לתרומה עד הערב, ואחר כך וטהר בהערב השמש:
until evening: And afterwards, :
it will become clean: when the sun sets. — [Yev. 75a]Daily Tehillim: Psalms Chapters 72 - 76
• Chapter 72
David composed this psalm for Solomon, praying that he be granted the wisdom to provide justice for the poor.
1. For Solomon. O God, impart Your justice to the king, and Your righteousness to the son of the king.
2. May he judge Your people with righteousness, Your poor with justice.
3. May the mountains bear peace to the nation, also the hills, in [reward for their] righteousness.
4. May he judge the nation's poor, save the children of the destitute, and crush the oppressor,
5. so that they will fear You as long as the sun [shines] and the moon endures, generation after generation.
6. May [his words] descend like rain upon cut grass, like raindrops that water the earth.
7. In his days may the righteous flourish, with much peace until the moon is no more.
8. And may he rule from sea to sea, and from the river until the ends of the earth.
9. May nobles kneel before him, and may his enemies lick the dust.
10. The kings of Tarshish and the islands will return tribute, the kings of Sheba and Seba will offer gifts.
11. All kings will bow to him, all nations will serve him;
12. for he rescues the needy one who cries out, the poor one who has no one to help him.
13. He pities the impoverished and needy, and saves the souls of the destitute.
14. He redeems their soul from deception and violence, and their blood is precious in his eyes.
15. He revives [the poor], and gives him of the gold of Sheba; and so [the poor] pray for him always, and bless him all day.
16. May there be abundant grain in the land, upon the mountaintops; may its fruit rustle like the [cedars of] Lebanon, and may [people] blossom from the city like the grass of the earth.
17. May his name endure forever; may his name be magnified as long as the sun [shines]. And all nations will bless themselves by him, they will praise him.
18. Blessed is the Lord God, the God of Israel, Who alone performs wonders.
19. Blessed is His glorious Name forever, and may the whole earth be filled with His glory, Amen and Amen.
20. The prayers of David, son of Jesse, are concluded
1
Chapter 73
This psalm addresses the question of why the righteous suffer while the wicked prosper, and prays for an end to our long exile. Read, and you will find repose for your soul.
1. A psalm by Asaph. Truly God is good to Israel, to the pure of heart.
2. But as for me, my feet nearly strayed; in an instant my steps would have been swept aside.
3. For I envied the revelers when I saw the tranquility of the wicked.
4. For there are no bonds1 to their death, and their health is sound.
5. They have no part in the toil of men, nor are they afflicted like other mortals;
6. therefore they wear pride as a necklace; their bodies are enwrapped in violence.
7. Their eyes bulge from fat; they surpassed the fantasies of their heart.
8. They consume [others], and talk wickedly of oppression-from on high do they speak.
9. They set their mouths against Heaven, while their tongues walk upon the earth.
10. Therefore His people return here,2 and suck the full [cup of bitter] waters.
11. And they say, "How can it be that God knows? Is there knowledge in the Most High?”
12. Behold these are the wicked, and they are ever tranquil, they have gained much wealth.
13. Surely in vain have I purified my heart, and washed my hands in cleanliness;
14. for I was afflicted all day, and my rebuke came each morning.
15. Were I to say, "I shall tell it like it is," behold I would turn the generation of Your children to rebels.
16. And when I pondered to understand this, it was unjust in my eyes;
17. until I came to the sanctuaries of God, and perceived their end.
18. Only on slippery places do You set them, You cast them into darkness.
19. How they have become desolate in an instant! They came to an end, they were consumed by terrors,
20. like a dream upon awakening. O my Lord, disgrace their image in the city.
21. When my heart was in ferment, and my mind was sharpened,
22. I was a boor and did not understand, like an animal was I with You.
23. Yet I was always with You; You held my right hand.
24. Guide me with Your counsel, and afterward, receive me with honor.
25. Whom do I have in heaven [besides You]? And when I am with You I desire nothing on earth.
26. My flesh and my heart yearn; God is the rock of my heart and my portion forever.
27. For behold, all those who are far from You perish, You cut down all who stray from You.
28. But as for me, the nearness of God is my good; I have put my trust in my Lord, God, that I may recount all Your works.
Chapter 74
The psalmist mourns and weeps over all the synagogues and study halls that have been burned: the Philistines destroyed the Tabernacle of Shiloh; Nebuchadnezzar destroyed the first Temple. We have been in exile for so long, without seeing any signs of redemption! When will the redemption come? Read, and you will find lamentation and consolation.
1. A maskil1 by Asaph. Why, O God, have You abandoned us forever, does Your wrath fume against the sheep of Your pasture?
2. Remember Your congregation which You acquired long ago, the tribe of Your inheritance whom You redeemed [and brought to] Mount Zion, where You rested Your Presence.
3. Lift Your steps to inflict eternal ruin, because of all the evil done by the enemy in the Sanctuary.
4. Your foes roared in the midst of Your meeting place; they considered their omens to be [genuine] signs.
5. The axes in the thicket of trees2 were reckoned as bringing [an offering] to the Above.
6. And now, all her ornaments together are smashed by hammer and hatchet.
7. They set Your Sanctuary on fire; they desecrated the Abode of Your Name to the ground.
8. Their rulers thought together in their hearts; they burned all the meeting places of God in the land.
9. We have not seen our signs; there is no longer a prophet, and there is none among us who knows how long.
10. How long, O God, will the adversary disgrace, will the enemy blaspheme Your Name forever!
11. Why do You withdraw Your hand, even Your right hand? Cast it out from within Your bosom!
12. For God is my King from long ago, working salvations in the midst of the earth.
13. In Your might, You divided the sea; You shattered the heads of the sea-monsters on the waters.
14. You crushed the heads of the Leviathan,3 leaving him as food for the nation [wandering in] the wilderness.
15. You split [the rock, bringing forth] fountain and brook; You dried up mighty streams.
16. Yours is the day, the night is also Yours; You established the moon and the sun.
17. You set all the boundaries of the earth; summer and winter-You created them.
18. Remember this, how the enemy reviled the Lord, and the vile nation blasphemed Your Name.
19. Do not give the soul of Your turtledove to the wild beast; do not forget the life of Your poor forever.
20. Look to the covenant, for the dark places of the earth are filled with dens of violence.
21. Do not turn back the oppressed in disgrace; [then] the poor and needy will praise Your Name.
22. Arise, O God, champion Your cause; remember Your insults from the perverse all day long.
23. Forget not the voice of Your adversaries; the tumult of Your opponents ascends always.
Chapter 75
How great is Israel! During their holidays they do not engage in frivolity, but in song and praise, and the study of the holiday's laws. Also, when they proclaimed (at the giving of the Torah), "We will do and we will hear!" they allowed the world to remain in existence. This psalm also admonishes those who indulge in worldly pleasures and attribute their prosperity to their own efforts.
1. For the Conductor, a plea not to be destroyed. A psalm by Asaph, a song.
2. We gave thanks to You, O God, we gave thanks; and Your Name was near [when] they1 told of Your wonders.
3. When I choose the appointed time, I will judge with fairness.
4. When the earth and all its inhabitants were melting, I established its pillars forever.
5. I said to the perverse, "Do not pervert [Israel]," and to the wicked, "Do not raise your pride.”
6. Do not raise your pride heavenward, nor speak with an arrogant neck
7. For not from the east or the west, nor from the desert does greatness come.
8. For God is Judge; He humbles one, and elevates the other.
9. For there is a cup [of punishment] in the hand of the Lord, with strong wine of full mixture; He pours from this, and all the wicked of the earth will drink, draining even its dregs.
10. But as for me, I will tell of it forever; I will sing to the God of Jacob.
11. I will cut off all glory of the wicked, but the glory of the righteous will be raised up.
Chapter 76
This psalm contains the prophecy of when the vast army of Sennacherib was seized with a deep slumber that rendered the hands of the soldiers powerless to raise their weapons; thus did they all fall in battle.
1. For the Conductor, with instrumental music, a psalm by Asaph, a song.
2. God is known in Judah, His Name is great in Israel.
3. His Tabernacle was in Shalem,1 and His dwelling place in Zion.
4. There He broke the flying arrows of the bow, the shield, the sword and battle-forever.
5. You are illumination, mightier than the mountains of prey.
6. The stout-hearted were without sense, they slept their sleep, and all the warriors were unable to find their strength.
7. At Your rebuke, O God of Jacob, chariot and horse were stunned.
8. You, awesome are You! Who can stand before You once You are enraged.
9. From heaven You let the verdict be heard; the earth feared and was still,
10. when God rose to pass judgement, to save all the humble of the earth forever.
11. The anger of man will cause us to thank You;2 You will restrain the residue of wrath.
12. Make vows to the Lord your God and fulfill them; all who surround Him will bring tribute to the Awesome One.
13. He cuts down the spirit of nobles; He is awesome to the kings of the earth.
Tanya: Likutei Amarim, middle of Chapter 40• Lessons in Tanya
• Shabbat, Nissan 15, 5775 · April 4, 2015
Today's Tanya Lesson
Likutei Amarim, middle of Chapter 40
אבל בתפלה בכוונה ותורה בכוונה לשמה
But in the case of prayer [recited] with kavanah and Torah [studied] withkavanah lishmah,
הרי הכוונה מתלבשת באותיות הדבור, הואיל והיא מקור ושרש להן
the kavanah is clothed in (i.e., permeates) the letters of speech, since it is their source and root,
שמחמתה ובסיבתה הוא מדבר אותיות אלו
for he speaks these words for, and because of, this kavanah.
לכן היא מעלה אותן עד מקומה
Therefore, the kavanah elevates the words to its own level,
בי׳ ספירות דיצירה או דבריאה
meaning to the Ten Sefirot of either Yetzirah or Beriah,
לפי מה שהיא הכוונה, בדחילו ורחימו שכליים או טבעיים כו׳, כנ״ל
depending on the type of kavanah — whether a kavanah of intellectual fear and love, in which case they ascend to Beriah, or natural fear and love, which elevates them to Yetzirah, as explained above.
At any rate, the kavanah which is spiritual elevates the material words to the Sefirot ofYetzirah or Beriah.
ושם מאיר ומתגלה אור אין סוף ברוך הוא
There, in the Sefirot, the Ein Sof-light shines forth and is revealed,
שהוא רצון העליון ברוך הוא המלובש באותיות התורה שלומד ובכוונתן, או בתפלה בכוונתה, או במצוה ובכוונתה
meaning the blessed Divine Will vested in the letters and in the kavanah of the Torah that one studies, or the Divine Will in prayer and in its kavanah or in amitzvah and in its kavanah.
One’s kavanah, too, expresses the Divine Will, for G‑d desires that man cleave to Him with love and fear.
בהארה גדולה לאין קץ , מה שלא יכול להאיר ולהתגלות כלל בעוד האותיות והמצוה בעולם הזה הגשמי
This Ein Sof-light of the Divine Will radiates in the Sefirot with an infinitely great brightness, that can by no means shine forth and be revealed while the letters of Torah and prayer and the mitzvah are still in this physical world.
The Torah and the mitzvot contain the radiance of Divine Will even as they are in this physical world. But this radiance is altogether incomparable to the radiance of Divine Will that Torah and mitzvot contain when they ascend to the Sefirot of Yetzirah or Beriah, for —
לא מינה ולא מקצתה
neither the radiance itself that shines forth in the Sefirot nor any part of it can be revealed in this physical world.
עד עת קץ הימין, שיתעלה העולם מגשמיותו, ונגלה כבוד ה׳ וגומר, כנ״ל באריכות
This disparity between the respective levels of radiance of the Divine Will in the Sefirot and in this world, will remain until the era of the End of Days, when the world will rise out of its materiality, and1 “The glory of G‑d will be revealed...for all flesh to behold,”as explained above2 at length.*
At that time the Divine Will contained in the Torah and mitzvot of this world will shine forth in all its splendor. Until then, however, this radiance is incomparable to that of the Divine Will contained in the Torah and mitzvot insofar as they ascend to the Sefirot.
*NOTE
In the following note the Alter Rebbe states that the revelation of Divine Will in a particular World, caused by the ascent of Torah and mitzvot thereto — a revelation which he describes as “an hour of ‘(Divine) Will,’ or ‘(Divine) Favor’” — produces a reaction in themiddot of that World: With the revelation of Divine Will the middot fuse, and the attributes of Severity are “sweetened”, or tempered, with Kindness. This in turn results in an increased flow of Divine Kindness into our world.
This effect of the mitzvot is felt primarily in the fusion of the middot of Atzilut.
הגהה
ושם מאיר ומתגלה גם כן היחוד העליון הנעשה בכל מצוה ותלמוד תורה
There in the higher Worlds, there also shines forth and is revealed the Supernal union effected by every mitzvah and by Torah study,
שהוא יחוד מדותיו ית'
namely, the union of G‑d’s middot.
שנכללות זו בזו ונמתקות הגבורות בחסדים
These middot fuse with each other, and the Gevurot (the attributes of “Severity”) are “sweetened” by Chassadim (the attributes of “Kindness”)
ע"י עת רצון העליון א"ס ב"ה המאיר ומתגלה בבחי' גילוי רב ועצום
through the ‘Hour of Will (favor) of the blessed Ein Sof,’ i.e., the revelation of the Will of the Ein Sof, which shines forth and reveals itself in abundant and intense revelation,
באתערותא דלתתא היא עשיית המצוה או עסק התורה שבהן מלובש רצון העליון א"ס ב"ה
by reason of the “arousal (of man) below,” consisting of the performance of a mitzvahor occupation in Torah in which the Supernal Will of the blessed Ein Sof is clothed.
The revelation of Divine Will (i.e., the Will clothed in Torah and mitzvot) produces a fusion of the middot and a “sweetening” of Gevurot in whatever World the Torah and mitzvotascend to.
אך עיקר היחוד הוא למעלה מעלה, בעולם האצילות
But the main unity caused by Torah and mitzvot takes place far higher, in the World ofAtzilut,
ששם הוא מהות ועצמות מדותיו ית' מיוחדו' במאצילן א"ס ב"ה
where the core and essence of G‑d’s middot are united with their Emanator, the Ein Sof, blessed be He,
ושם הוא מהות ועצמות רצון העליון א"ס ב"ה
and there is found the core and essence of the Supernal Will of the blessed Ein Sof,
והארתן לבד היא מאירה בבי"ע בכל עולם מהן לפי מעלתו
of which a mere glimmer radiates in Beriah, Yetzirah and Asiyah — in each of these Worlds according to its rank.
ואף שנפש האדם העוסק בתורה ומצוה זו אינה מאצילות
Now, although the soul of the person engaging in this Torah study or mitzvah does not stem from Atzilut,
מ"מ הרי רצון העליון המלובש במצוה זו והוא הוא עצמו הדבר הלכה והתורה שעוסק בה
nevertheless he is able to effect unity in the middot of Atzilut because the Supernal Will, which is clothed in this mitzvah, and in the case of Torah it is not merely “clothed” in it, but furthermore — it is indeed the very halachah and Torah that he is studying, —
הוא אלהות ואור א"ס המאציל ב"ה שהוא ורצונו אחד
this Supernal Will is G‑dliness, and is the Ein Sof-light of the Emanator [of the Sefirotof Atzilut], since He and His Will are one;
וברצונו ית' האציל מדותיו המיוחדות בו ית'
and this Supernal Will is actually the source of the middot, since it was by His Will that He emanated His middot, which are united with Himself.
וע"י גילוי רצונו המתגלה ע"י עסק תורה ומצוה זו הן נכללות זו בזו
Therefore, by means of the revelation of His Will caused by one’s engaging in Torah or in a particular mitzvah, the middot fuse with each other,
ונמתקות הגבורות בחסדים בעת רצון זו
and the Gevurot are sweetened by Chassadim at this “hour of revealed, favorableWill.”
END OF NOTE
Having stated that love and fear of G‑d elevate one’s Torah and mitzvot on high, the Alter Rebbe continues:
ובזה יובן היטב הא דדחילו ורחימו נקראים גדפין, דרך משל, כדכתיב: ובשתים יעופף
This explains clearly why fear and love are figuratively called “wings”, as it is written:3 “And with two wings he flies,” alluding to the two middot of love and fear.
וכמו שכתב הרב חיים ויטל ז״ל בשער היחודים פרק י״א שהכנפיים בעוף הן זרועות האדם כו׳
(4As Rabbi Chayim Vital, of blessed memory, stated in Shaar HaYichudim, ch. 11:) For wings are for a bird what arms are for a man; just as it is written, “Chesed(corresponding to love) is the right arm, and Gevurah (fear) the left arm,” similarly, the “wings” represent these two middot.
ובתיקונים פירש שהעוסקים בתורה ומצות בדחילו ורחימו נקראים בנים
It is also explained in Tikkunei Zohar, that those who engage in Torah andmitzvot out of fear and love are called “children”;
ואם לאו, נקראים אפרוחים דלא יכלין לפרחא
otherwise (i.e., if their Torah and mitzvot lack the fear and love of G‑d), they are called “fledgelings” who cannot fly.*
*NOTE
In this note, the Alter Rebbe elaborates on the correspondence of “wings” to fear and love. He quotes Tikkunei Zohar, where the subject is treated extensively.
ובתיקון מ״ה דעופא הוא מט״ט
In Tikkun 45 it is written that [the figure of] a bird represents the archangel Metatron.
רישא דיליה י' וגופא וא"ו ותרין גדפין ה' ה' כו'
His head is the letter yud of the Divine Name (yud-hei-vav-hei), the yud representingChochmah; his body is the vav, the six middot; and his two wings are the two lettershei and hei, representing Binah and Malchut, respectively.
והיינו עולם היצירה שנקרא מט"ט
This corresponds to the World of Yetzirah, which is called Metatron.
Thus, applying the various elements of the figure to their corresponding aspects in Yetzirah,we obtain:
ובו5 הן גופי הלכות שבמשנה
Vav, the “body” of Metatron, represents the “body” of the laws in the Mishnah (sinceMishnah is at the level of Yetzirah, as will soon be explained), for the “body” of the laws, i.e., the actual rulings determining what is permitted or forbidden, who is guilty or innocent, and the like, are related to the middot, which are represented by the letter vav.
ורישא דיליה הן המוחין ובחי' חב"ד שהן פנימיות ההלכות וסודן וטעמיהן
His head represents intelligence — the level of ChaBaD, which are, in terms of theMishnah, the inner depth of the laws, their esoteric meaning and their reasons.
ותרין גדפין דחילו ורחימו הן ה' עילאה שהיא רחימו
The two “wings” denoting flight, namely fear and love, represent [respectively]: the higher hei, which is an allusion prevalent in the literature of the Kabbalah to love;
וה' תתאה היא יראה תתאה עול מלכות שמים ופחד ה' כפחד המלך ד"מ
and the lower hei, alluding to “lower-level fear,” namely “the yoke of the Heavenly Kingdom,” and the dread of G‑d similar to the dread of a king.
שהיא יראה חיצונית ונגלית
Such fear is external and revealed, and is therefore alluded to by the lowest level (i.e., letter) of the Divine Name.
משא"כ יראה עילאה ירא בושת היא מהנסתרות לה' אלקינו
“Higher-level fear,” however, meaning “awe consisting of shame before G‑d’s greatness,” is of those “hidden matters belonging to G‑d, our L‑rd.
והיא בחכמה עילאה יו"ד של שם הוי"ה ב"ה כמ"ש בר"מ
It is on the level of Supernal Wisdom, alluded to by the yud of the Four-letter Divine Name, blessed be He, as is written in Ra‘aya Mehemna.
END OF NOTE
We see, at any rate, that love and fear of G‑d are described as “wings”. According to what has been said above concerning the role of love and fear in elevating one’s Torah and mitzvot,the analogy is clearly understood, as follows:
כי כמו שכנפי העוף אינם עיקר העוף, ואין חיותו תלוי בהם כלל
The wings of a bird are not its main components; its life does not depend on them at all,
כדתנן: ניטלו אגפיה כשרה
for as the Mishnah implies,6 a bird whose wings were removed is kosher.
והעיקר הוא ראשו וכל גופו, והכנפיים אינם רק משמשים לראשו וגופו לפרחא בהון
Rather, the main parts are its head and the rest of its body; the wings merely serve the head and body, enabling them to fly.
וכך, דרך משל, התורה ומצות הן עיקר היחוד העליון, על ידי גילוי רצון העליון המתגלה על ידיהן
Likewise with Torah and mitzvot: They constitute the essential Supernal union by the revelation of Supernal Will which they cause;
והדחילו ורחימו הם המעלים אותן למקום שיתגלה בו הרצון, אור אין סוף ברוך הוא, והיחוד, שהן יצירה ובריאה
fear and love, like wings, [merely] elevate the Torah and mitzvot to a place where this Will — the blessed Ein Sof-light — and this unity can be revealed, namely,Yetzirah and Beriah.*
*NOTE
To his statement that Beriah and Yetzirah are the place to which Torah and mitzvot are elevated, and where the union caused by them is revealed, the Alter Rebbe adds:
הגהה
או אפילו בעשיה, בי׳ ספירות דקדושה, מקום מצות מעשיות
Or even in Asiyah, in the ten holy Sefirot [of that World], the abode of the mitzvotconsisting of action.
Performing these mitzvot out of “submission to the heavenly yoke” elevates the mitzvot to the Sefirot of Asiyah and reveals the Supernal union there. For such submission is related to G‑d’s attribute of Sovereignty (Malchut), which pervades Asiyah; moreover, these mitzvot are performed at the level of action, which corresponds to Asiyah.
וכן מקרא
Likewise with [the study of] Scripture.
This, too, is related to Asiyah, for the mitzvah of studying Scripture requires one to recite the holy words, and speech is considered a minor form of action.
אבל במשנה, מתגלה היחוד ואור אין סוף ברוך הוא ביצירה
But in the case of Mishnah, the union and the blessed Ein Sof-light are revealed inYetzirah.
For the halachic rulings contained in the Mishnah are derived from the middot: the attribute of Chesed dictates that a particular object be deemed kosher, or a litigant judged innocent, while Gevurah dictates that it be ruled unkosher, and the litigant pronounced guilty, and so on. The Mishnah is therefore on the level of Yetzirah, the World of middot.
ובתלמוד בבריאה
In the case of Talmud [the union and Ein Sof-light are revealed] in Beriah7 — for theTalmud seeks out the logic underlying the Mishnaic laws; it is thus related to ChaBaD,which are manifest in Beriah.
This does not mean, however, that the union effected by the study of Mishnah, for example, takes place only in Yetzirah, and that effected by study of Scripture only in Asiyah, etc. Were this the intention, an obvious difficulty would arise: Scripture is holier than Mishnah (as indicated by the law that one may place the Scriptures on top of a book of Mishnah, but not vice versa), and Mishnah holier than Talmud. Why then should the revelation of Ein Sof-light created by their (respective) study be in reverse order, with Talmud, the least holy of the three, effecting a revelation in Beriah, the highest of the three Worlds?
We must, perforce, say that —
דהיינו שבלימוד מקרא מתפשט היחוד ואור אין סוף ברוך הוא מאצילות עד העשיה
This means that by the study of Scripture the union and [revelation of] the blessed Ein Sof-light extends from Atzilut downward till the World of Asiyah;
ובמשנה עד היצירה לבדה ובתלמוד עד הבריאה לבדה
through study of Mishnah, only till Yetzirah; and through Talmud, only till Beriah;
כי כולן באצילות
for all of them (Scripture, Mishnah and Talmud) are in Atzilut, and effect the union and revelation there. The difference between them lies only in how “far” from Atzilut the impact of the study reaches.
אבל קבלה אינה מתפשטת כלל מאצילות לבי"ע כמ"ש בפרע"ח
Kabbalah, however, effects a union and revelation in Atzilut that does not extend at all to the lower Worlds — Beriah, Yetzirah or Asiyah, as is written in Pri Etz Chayim.
END OF NOTE
| FOOTNOTES | |
| 1. | Yeshayahu 40:5. |
| 2. | Ch. 36. |
| 3. | Yeshayahu 6:2. |
| 4. | Parentheses are in the original text. |
| 5. | The Rebbe notes that there seems to be a typographical error - ובו instead ואו (spelling out the Hebrew letter vav). Accordingly, many of the difficulties in this note are resolved. Additionally, the text that follows is more clearly understood: “Vav represents the ‘body’ of the laws in the Mishnah”; and thereafter, “his head...,” and so on. |
| 6. | The Rebbe notes: “The actual wording of the Mishnah is, ‘if they were broken’ (Chullin 3:4). However, we learn from this that the same law applies to a case where the wings have been removed. (See Taz, beginning of ch. 53.)” |
| 7. | Note of the Rebbe: “At first glance this is difficult to understand, for Scripture is more sacred than Mishnah (which is why a Chumash may be placed on a Mishnah, but not the other way around); so too, Mishnah [is more sacred] than Talmud. Nonetheless, with regard to their revelation we find the opposite to be the case, as just mentioned [in Tanya]. Namely, Scripture is revealed within the lowest of all worlds, the World of Asiyah, Mishnah [is revealed in Yetzirah], and so on. ”However, the answer is: ‘When one studies...’ [i.e., there is a difference between the actual text and the study of that text]; see Torah Or 17a.“ |
• Sefer Hamitzvos:Shabbat, Nissan 15, 5775 · April 4, 2015
Today's Mitzvah
A daily digest of Maimonides’ classic work "Sefer Hamitzvot"
Negative Commandment 157
Reneging on Verbal Obligations
"He shall not profane his word; he shall do according to all that issues from his mouth"—Numbers 30:3.
It is forbidden to violate one's verbal pledge, whether that pledge was worded as an oath or not.
Examples of such pledges:
"If so-and-so occurs, or if I do this-and-this, all fruit – or fruit from this city – will become forbidden for me."
"Wine/milk/fish are forbidden for me."
The pleasure of my wife's [intimate company] is forbidden for me."
Any pledge to bring a sacrifice or give an amount of money to charity or to a synagogue.
Reneging on Verbal Obligations
Negative Commandment 157
Translated by Berel Bell
The 157th prohibition is that we are forbidden from violating any verbal obligation we have made, even if it was not said as an oath.
These obligations are known as nedarim (vows); for example, when a person says, "if a certain event occurs" or "if I do a certain act" then "all fruit will be forbidden to me" or "the fruit of this country [will be forbidden to me]" or a certain food, such as milk, fish, etc. "will be forbidden to me"; or when he says, "deriving pleasure from my wife is forbidden to me"; or any similar verbal obligation, as explained in tractate Nedarim. In all these cases he must carry out his vow, and violating it counts as a prohibition.
The source of this commandment is G‑d's statement,1 "He must not yachel ("break") his word. He must do everything that he stated verbally."
Our Sages explained the phrase, "He must not yachel his word" as meaning, "he must not make his word profane (chullin)," i.e. to obligate himself and then not fulfill his promise.2 As tractate Shavuos puts it, "vows comes under the prohibition, 'he must not break (yachel) his word.' "
The Sifra3 says [regarding a case where someone promised to bring a sacrifice and did not do so], "The verse, 'He must not break' teaches us that he violates the prohibition of not breaking one's word and that of not delaying as offering." This means that if a person vowed to bring a sacrifice, and three holidays have passed by and he still did not do so, then he is guilty of transgressing the prohibition of not delaying [the offering]4 and of not breaking his word.
The same applies to anything resembling a sacrifice, such as promising a gift to the fund of the Holy Temple,5 to charity, to a synagogue, etc.
One who transgresses this prohibition by doing something he has promised not to, is punished by lashes.
The details of this mitzvah are completely explained in tractate Nedarim.
FOOTNOTES
1.Num. 30:3.
2.The verse can therefore be translated, "He must not break his word."
3.See Kapach 5731, note 84.
4.N155.
5.Bedek haBayis.
Shabbos - Chapter Two
Halacha 1
The [laws of] the Sabbath are suspended1 in the face of a danger to life,2 as are [the obligations of] the other mitzvot. Therefore, we may perform - according to the directives of a professional physician3 of that locale4 - everything that is necessary for the benefit of a sick person whose life is in danger.
When there is a doubt whether or not the Sabbath laws must be violated on a person's behalf, one should violate the Sabbath laws on his behalf, for the Sabbath laws are suspended even when there is merely a question of danger to a person's life. [The same principles apply] when one physician says the Sabbath laws should be violated on a person's behalf and another physician states that this is not necessary.5
Halacha 2
[The following laws apply when physicians] determine on the Sabbath that a person needs [a treatment to be administered] for eight days. We do not say that we should wait until the evening so that it will not be necessary to violate two Sabbaths on his behalf.6 Instead, the treatment is begun immediately, on the Sabbath, and even one hundred Sabbaths may be violated on his behalf.
As long as a person is dangerously [ill] - or even if there is a question whether or not he is dangerously [ill] - and requires treatment, [the Sabbath] should be violated [on his behalf]. A lamp may be lit on his behalf and extinguished on his behalf.7 [Animals] may be slaughtered on his behalf, [food] baked and cooked on his behalf, and water heated for him, whether to drink or to use for bathing.
The general principle for a person who is dangerously ill is that the Sabbath should be considered as a weekday regarding all his needs.8
Halacha 3
When such treatment is administered, it should not be administered by gentiles,9 by children,10 by servants, or by women,11 so that they will not view the Sabbath flippantly.12 Instead, the treatment should be administered by the leaders of Israel13 and the wise.
It is forbidden to hesitate before transgressing the Sabbath [laws] on behalf of a person who is dangerously ill,14 as [reflected in the interpretation in the phrase of Leviticus 18:5,] "which a person shall perform to live through them," as "['to live through them'] and not to die through them."
This teaches that the judgments of the Torah do not [bring] vengeance to the world, but rather bring mercy, kindness, and peace to the world. Concerning those non-believers who say that [administering such treatment] constitutes a violation of the Sabbath and is forbidden,15 one may apply the verse [Ezekiel 20:25]: "[As punishment,] I gave them harmful laws and judgments through which they cannot live."16
Halacha 4
When a person's eyes are ailing - i.e., when he has a secretion from either one or both of them, when tears flow from them due to great pain, when blood flows from them, or when they are affected by fever,17 or by other afflictions of this like - he is considered among those individuals who are dangerously ill.18 The Sabbath may be violated on his behalf, and anything necessary for his treatment may be performed for him.19
Halacha 5
Similarly, a person who has a wound20 in his body cavity - from his lips inward,21 whether in his mouth, his digestive organs, his liver or spleen, or any of the other organs in his body cavity - is considered to be dangerously ill and does not require [a physician's] assessment [of his condition]. His ailment is serious, and we should violate the Sabbath laws on his behalf immediately without [waiting for] an assessment.22
A wound on the back of the hand or on the back of the foot is considered equivalent to a wound in the body cavity. It does not require [a physician's] assessment [of his condition] for us to violate the Sabbath laws on his behalf. A fever that causes the flesh to wince23 is considered equivalent to a wound in the body cavity, and we should violate the Sabbath laws on this person's behalf.
Similarly, we should violate the Sabbath laws whenever a physician24 assesses an ailment as dangerous, even when it affects only the exterior of a person's skin.
Halacha 6
When a person swallows a leech, water may be heated for him on the Sabbath, and any medical treatment that is necessary may be administered, since his life is in danger. Similarly, when a person is bitten by a rabid dog25 or a poisonous snake or other reptile, any medical treatment that is necessary to save him may be administered. [The same laws apply] even when there is merely a question of whether or not [the bite] can cause death.
Halacha 7
When physicians assessed that a sick person required a fig, and ten people ran and brought26 him ten figs at once,27 they are all absolved of liability entirely.28
[The same decision applies] if the ten people brought the figs one after another, even when he recuperated after the first fig, for all of them had license to bring them.
Halacha 8
If a sick person required two figs, and two figs could be found only on two separate stems - while three figs were found on another stem - we should remove the stem that has three figs, even though only two are required.29 [It is preferable] to cut only one stem and not two stems, so as not to increase [the performance of the forbidden labor of] gleaning.30 The same applies in all similar situations.
Halacha 9
When food is cooked for a sick person on the Sabbath and the sick person leaves some over after eating, a healthy person is forbidden to eat from the remainder, lest [this cause] more food to be added for him.31
When, however, an animal is slaughtered for a sick person on the Sabbath, it is permissible for a healthy person to partake of uncooked meat32 [from that animal].33 A decree was not enacted, because there is no possibility of an additional [activity] being performed [for a healthy person].34 The same applies in all similar situations.
Halacha 10
When a sick person is not dangerously ill,35 all his needs should be cared for by a gentile. What is implied? We may tell a gentile to perform [forbidden labors]36on his behalf and he performs them. [This includes] cooking, baking, bringing medicine from one domain to another and the like. Similarly, one may have one's eyes treated37 by a gentile on the Sabbath even though there is no danger involved.
Furthermore, if [the sick] require treatment that does not involve the performance of [forbidden] labors,38 they may be treated even by Jews. For this reason, it is permitted to perform [physical activities for the benefit of the sick]; for example, one may lift [the tendons of] the ears, lift up cartilage around the heart,39 restore broken bones to their places, or perform other activities of this like.
Halacha 11
When a woman in the process of childbirth squats to give birth,40 her life is considered in danger and the Sabbath laws may be violated on her behalf. A midwife may be called from a distant place41 and the umbilical cord may be cut and tied.
If she requires a light when she cries out because of labor pains, a candle may be lit for her. [This leniency is granted] even if she is blind, because light has a calming influence42 even if she does not see.
Halacha 12
We should not help an idolatress45 give birth on the Sabbath, even if payment is offered. We do not worry about the possibility of ill-feelings being aroused.46[This applies even when] there is no violation [of the Sabbath laws] involved.
[In contrast,] one may offer assistance to a daughter of a ger toshav who gives birth, since we are commanded to secure his well-being.47 We may not, however, violate the Sabbath laws on her behalf.
Halacha 13
From the time a woman in childbirth has a flow of blood48 until the birth - [and indeed,] after birth for three days49 - the Sabbath laws may be violated on her behalf, and all her needs should be met.50 [This applies] regardless of whether she says she requires such treatment or she maintains that she does not require such treatment.
Between the third and the seventh day [after childbirth], if she maintains that she does not require treatment, the Sabbath laws should not be violated on her behalf. If she remains silent,51 and certainly if she maintains that she requires treatment,52 the Sabbath laws should be violated on her behalf. Between the seventh and the thirtieth day, her status is analogous to that of a sick person who is not dangerously ill. Even if she maintains that she requires treatment, [forbidden] labors should be performed on her behalf only by a gentile.53
Halacha 14
A fire may be kindled54 for a woman after she has given birth55 even in the summer, since cold is very difficult for a woman to bear after childbirth in the cold regions. In contrast, a fire should not be kindled for other sick people to warm themselves.56 Nevertheless, if a person let blood and became chilled, a fire may be kindled for him even in the summer.
Halacha 15
When a woman dies while in labor on the Sabbath, a knife should be brought - even if it must be carried through the public domain - and the woman's womb cut open and the fetus removed, for it is possible that it will still be alive.64
Halacha 16
[All] activities necessary to save a life should be performed on the Sabbath; there is no necessity to receive license from the court. The more zealous one is [in this regard], the more praiseworthy.
What is implied?67 If one sees that a child has fallen into the sea, one may spread out a net and hoist him up, although one catches fish together with him. If a person hears that a child fell into the sea and spreads out a net to hoist him up, but raises up only fish, he is absolutely free of liability.68
Halacha 17
If71 a child fell into a pit, a person may dislodge a clod of earth, and lift [the child] up, even though he creates a step when he dislodges it. If a door was locked with a child inside, a person may break the door down and take the child out, even though he chops it into pieces of wood which are appropriate to use for work,72 lest the child become frightened and die.
If a fire broke out and a person is inside the building and we fear that he may be consumed by the flames,73 a person may extinguish the fire to save him, although he prepares a pathway while extinguishing the fire. Whoever acts first to save him is praiseworthy. One does not need to ask permission from the court in all instances when there is a danger to a person's life.
Halacha 18
When an avalanche has fallen, and there is a doubt whether or not74 it has fallen over a person,75 it may be cleared. If the person was discovered to be alive, but was crushed [by the fallen debris] to the extent that it is impossible that he will recover, [the debris] may be cleared and the person taken out to enable him to live [however] long he does.76
Halacha 19
If [in the process of clearing the debris,] they [reached] his nose and saw that he was not breathing, he should be left there,77 for he has died already.78
Although it is discovered that people on the upper level of a landslide have died, one should not assume that those on the lower levels have died. Instead, [the debris] should be cleared away from all of the people, for in a landslide it is possible that those on the upper level will die, while those on the lower level will remain alive.
Halacha 20
When an avalanche fell on a courtyard in which were located both gentiles and Jews - even if there were a thousand gentiles and only one Jew, we should remove all [the debris] for the sake of the Jew.79 Should one80 of the individuals leave and enter another courtyard and that courtyard collapse upon him, we should remove [the debris]. Perhaps the person who departed was a Jew, and [all] those who remain were gentiles.81
Halacha 21
When they all left this courtyard to go to another courtyard, and as they were proceeding, one of them whose identity is unknown departed and entered a third courtyard and was covered by an avalanche, [the debris] should not be removed from him.82
Since they left their original place, [the presence of] a Jew is not accepted as an established fact. Hence, we assume that anyone who separated from this group as it was proceeding was part of the majority. Accordingly, if the majority were Jewish,83 even a person separated from them [who entered] another courtyard after they left their original place - should he be covered by an avalanche, we should remove [the debris] from him.
Halacha 22
A person who is traveling in the desert and does not know which day is the Sabbath should count84 six days and consider the seventh day as holy. He should recite the blessing of the day [Kiddush] and recite Havdalah at the conclusion of this "Sabbath" day.85
Every day, even on the day on which he recites Kiddush and after which he recites Havdalah, he is allowed86 to earn87 only enough for his livelihood, so that he will not die. It is forbidden for him to earn more than his livelihood, for there is a possibility that every day is the Sabbath.
If the person knows that the day is the eighth day or the fifteenth day after his departure, he is allowed to work on that day, for it is certain that he did not depart on the Sabbath.88 On the other days, he is allowed to earn merely his livelihood.
Halacha 23
[The following rules apply] when gentiles lay siege to Jewish cities:89 If their intent was financial gain, the Sabbath laws should not be violated because of them, nor are we allowed to wage war against them.90 If a city is located near the border, however, we should march against them with weapons and wage war against them even when they are demanding hay or straw.91
In any location, if the gentiles' intent was Jewish lives, or if they engaged in battle with a city or laid siege to it without stating a specific intention,92 we must wage war against them, and the Sabbath laws should be violated because of them. It is a mitzvah93 for every member of the Jewish people who can come [to their assistance] to go out and aid their brethren who are under siege and save them from the gentiles [although it is the] Sabbath. It is forbidden to wait until Saturday night.
After they have saved their brethren, they may return home with their weapons on the Sabbath, so that a dangerous situation will not be created in the future.94
Halacha 24
Similarly, if a ship is sinking at sea95 or a city is surrounded by a [flooding] river, it is a mitzvah to go out on the Sabbath and use every possible means to save them.
Even when a single individual is being pursued by gentiles, by a snake, or by a bear with the intent to kill him, it is a mitzvah to save him, even when it is necessary to perform several forbidden labors on the Sabbath. It is even permitted to forge weapons to save him. Similarly, we should cry out [to God] on their behalf, make supplications,96 and sound the trumpets97 to summon help for them.98
We should not cry out [to God] or make supplications because of plague99 on the Sabbath.
Halacha 25
We should lay siege to gentile cities [at least] three days before the Sabbath.100We may wage war with them on any day, even on the Sabbath, until we conquer [the city], even if the war is voluntary in nature.101 The oral tradition,102interprets [Deuteronomy 20:20] "until you have subjugated it," as teaching that [one should wage war] even on the Sabbath.
Surely, the above applies103 with regard to a war that we are obligated to wage. Indeed, it was on the Sabbath that Joshua conquered Jericho.104
144
| FOOTNOTES | |
| 1. |
The Rambam uses the expression
The Kessef Mishneh and other authorities question the implications and the appropriateness of the Rambam's choice of terms. [In a responsum (Vol. 1, 689), the Rashba illustrates the difference between these terms. A person was in need of meat on the Sabbath and there was non-kosher meat available. If the Sabbath laws are
See the Avnei Nezer, Orach Chayim, Responsa 455, which explains the concept of
|
| 2. |
Yoma 85b uses the expression, "Violate one Sabbath on his behalf, so that he will be able to observe many Sabbaths [in the future]." This expression, however, is not halachically exact. Even when one knows that the person will not live to observe many other Sabbaths, as long as he is alive we are obligated to violate the Sabbath laws on his behalf. See Halachah 18.
|
| 3. |
Note the Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 328:10), which cites an opinion that states that we may rely on the evaluation of experienced God-fearing individuals, even if they are not physicians.
|
| 4. |
Rav Kapach explains that, with this expression, the Rambam implies that we may rely on a local physician and need not seek the advice of a greater expert who lives further away.
|
| 5. |
See Hilchot Sh'vitat Asor 2:8, which gives further details regarding a difference of opinion between physicians.
|
| 6. |
Shulchan Aruch HaRav 328:13 states that this applies even if there is no danger that the person will die immediately. Since there is a danger that he may die later if the treatment is not administered at this time, the Sabbath laws may be violated.
|
| 7. |
Note that the Rambam's Commentary on the Mishnah, Shabbat 2:5, specifies that the leniency to extinguish a lamp is granted only when it is impossible to move it - or, alternatively, the sick person - to another place or veil the lamp's light.
|
| 8. |
There is a question among the Rabbis if this statement is to be interpreted literally or not. As mentioned in the commentary on the previous halachah, there is a difference of opinion if the Sabbath laws are
|
| 9. |
Gentiles are not obligated to observe the Sabbath, and thus having them administer the treatment would not involve the violation of a Torah commandment. Nevertheless, they should not be entrusted with the care of the sick for the reason stated by the Rambam.
|
| 10. |
Since they are below the age of Bar or Bat Mitzvah, according to the Torah itself the observance of the mitzvot is not incumbent upon them, and only a Rabbinic prohibition is involved.
|
| 11. |
Although women and servants are obligated to observe the Sabbath laws, since in many areas of Torah and mitzvot, their obligations are less than men, having them violate the Sabbath laws in this instance could cause the Sabbath to be regarded flippantly, as explained in the next note.
|
| 12. |
The Rambam's choice of wording, based on Yoma 84b, has raised several questions among the commentaries. The most literal interpretation is given by the Merkevat HaMishneh, who explains that when people see that the Sabbath laws are violated by the gentiles for Jews or by women or children, they may get the impression that the observance of these laws is not very crucial, and leniencies may be taken on other occasions - even when there is no valid reason. If, however, it is Torah Sages who violate the laws, the common people will realize that it is only the seriousness of the situation that allowed for this leniency.
Among the other interpretations given why the laws should not be violated by women and children, is that this might cause them to violate the Sabbath laws in the future (Kessef Mishneh).
Significantly, the Ramah (Orach Chayim 328:12) explains that the reason the treatment should not be administered by gentiles is the possibility for delay. Accordingly, if there is no delay involved and one can be sure that the same quality of treatment will be given, it is preferable that the treatment be administered by gentiles.
The commentaries explain that the difference between his opinion and that of the Rambam (quoted by the Shulchan Aruch, loc. cit.) depends on the question discussed above: Are the Sabbath laws
[See also Chiddushim UVeurim BaShas, Vol. 3, which states that the Rambam's wording here indicates that he sees the violation of the Sabbath laws in such situations as an expression of reverence and regard for the Sabbath.]
|
| 13. |
This also is based on the Rambam's interpretation of Yoma, ibid. Others (see Shulchan Aruch, Orach Chayim 328:12) understand the phrase
|
| 14. |
The Jerusalem Talmud (Yoma 8:5) states, "A person who [administers treatment] quickly is praiseworthy, and one who raises questions is considered as if he shed blood.
|
| 15. |
The Rambam is referring to the Sadducees, the Karaites, and others who do not accept the oral tradition.
|
| 16. |
The Rambam seems to be interpreting the verse as meaning that since these individuals purposefully misinterpret the Torah, God causes their misinterpretations to be cruel and harsh so that they will not live and spread such an approach.
|
| 17. |
Significantly, the Yemenite manuscripts of the Mishneh Torah state
|
| 18. |
Avodah Zarah, loc. cit., explains that there is a connection between the eyes and the heart, and such a person is therefore considered to be dangerously ill.
|
| 19. |
From the wording of the Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 328:9), it appears that once an eye ailment is nearly healed, we may not violate the Sabbath laws to treat it. See also Hilchot Milah16.
|
| 20. |
The Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 328:3) states that this can also apply to an infection. Disquiet and pain are not, however, considered sufficient cause to violate the Sabbath laws.
|
| 21. |
When quoting this law, the Shulchan Aruch (loc. cit.) substitutes "teeth" for "lips," and explains that a toothache can also be considered cause to violate the Sabbath laws. The Ramah and subsequent commentaries, however, qualify this statement, explaining which types of toothaches can be treated by Jews and which can be treated only by gentiles. (See Shulchan Aruch HaRav 328:3 and Mishneh Berurah 328:8.)
|
| 22. |
The Maggid Mishneh cites the Ramban as explaining that this applies only when we are unsure if the wound is dangerous or not. In such a situation, we are not required to wait for a physician's assessment and may treat the wound immediately. If, however, we know - or a physician says - that a wound is not dangerous, a Jew may not violate the Sabbath laws to treat it. It may, however, be treated by a gentile. This ruling is also quoted in the Shulchan Aruch (ibid.:4).
|
| 23. |
This phrase is based on the Rambam's interpretation of Avodah Zarah 28a and refers to an extremely high fever. The Shulchan Aruch (ibid.:7) appears to interpret it as referring to a type of malaria that causes fever and chills simultaneously.
|
| 24. |
From the statements of the Shulchan Aruch (ibid.:5), it would appear that if the sick person himself says that the Sabbath laws should be violated on his behalf, his word should be heeded.
|
| 25. |
See Yoma 10:4 and the Rambam's commentary on that mishnah.
|
| 26. |
Either they brought the figs from the public domain or picked them from the tree. Both of these activities involve the performance of labors forbidden on the Sabbath.
|
| 27. |
This situation refers to an instance where none of the ten know of the others' activities. Alternatively, each one thought that he would be able to bring the fig before the other person (Mishnah Berurah 328:42).
|
| 28. |
I.e., they need not bring a sin offering, nor do their actions cause them any spiritual blemishes. Indeed, to quote the Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 328:15), "all of them receive a bountiful reward from God" for their actions. 29. If, however, there are two figs on a single stem, it would be preferable to pick them so as not to bring any additional figs (Shulchan Aruch, Orach Chayim328:16). (See also Halachah 9.)
|
| 29. | |
| 30. |
The Ramah (Orach Chayim, loc. cit.) emphasizes that if there is any danger of delay or difficulty, the threat to a Jew's life overrides all these considerations.
|
| 31. |
On Saturday night, however, a healthy person may eat from the remainder. Moreover, there is no need for him to wait the amount of time necessary to cook the food [(
|
| 32. |
The meat need not be salted to remove the blood. Although this is generally done as a preparation for the cooking process, it is necessary only because blood will move from place to place within the meat during cooking. There is no prohibition against eating raw meat even though it has not been salted (Shulchan Aruch, Yoreh De'ah 67:1-2).
The Kiryat Melech Rav notes that this explanation is appropriate according to the interpretation of the Tosafot (Chulin 14a). The Rambam (Hilchot Ma'achalot Asurot 6:12), however, requires even uncooked meat to be salted before one partakes of it. Several different explanations are offered for this difficulty. See Chapter 11, Halachah 5.
|
| 33. |
For this leniency to be granted, the Ra'avad requires that the sick person have been ill before the commencement of the Sabbath, and his attendants to have thought of slaughtering the animal for him at that time. Otherwise, the animal is considered muktzeh. Although the latter prohibition is waived on behalf of the sick person, it is still enforced as regards the healthy individual.
The Maggid Mishneh and the Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 318:2 and Shulchan Aruch Haravibid 318:5) explain that in this instance, the prohibition of muktzeh does not apply at all.
|
| 34. |
Slaughtering an animal is a single activity which will provide enough meat for both the sick person and the healthy individual. Allowing the healthy person to eat from the meat will not cause any increase in the violation of the Sabbath laws.
|
| 35. |
This refers to ailments which, although not threatening to a person's life, are after all serious, and cause him to be confined to bed (Shulchan Aruch, Orach Chayim 328:17) or which cause him to feel weakness throughout his entire body (Ramah, loc. cit.). In contrast, if the person merely feels ill or has a minor ailment in a particular limb, there is a Rabbinic prohibition against taking medication even when the performance of forbidden labors is not involved. (See Chapter 21, Halachah 31.)
|
| 36. |
As is explained in Chapter 6, the Rabbis forbade a Jew to tell a gentile to perform work on his behalf on the Sabbath. This prohibition is, however, relaxed because of the sick person's condition.
|
| 37. |
The Hebrew word
|
| 38. |
There is a question regarding activities in which a Rabbinic prohibition must be transgressed. Although asking a gentile to perform a forbidden labor is also prohibited by the Rabbis, some commentaries make a distinction between such a prohibition and a prohibition that involves the performance of an activity.
The wording chosen by the Rambam in this halachah and in Chapter 21, Halachah 31, has left room for speculation concerning his ruling on this question. The Maggid Mishneh explains that the Rambam allows the performance of any activity even when there is a Rabbinic prohibition involved. The Kessef Mishneh differs, and explains that according to the Rambam, any activity forbidden by the Rabbis may not be performed despite the fact that a person is bedridden by illness.
The Shulchan Aruch (ibid.) does not follow either of the interpretations of the Rambam's view, but instead suggests following the opinion of the Ramban, who permits the performance of any activity forbidden by the Rabbis, provided that it is performed in an abnormal manner. Furthermore, if there is a danger to a specific limb, the Rabbinic prohibitions are waived, and such activities may be performed in the normal manner. Shulchan Aruch HaRav 328:19 is even more lenient and allows one to perform activities that are forbidden by the Torah itself, provided one performs them in an uncharacteristic manner.
|
| 39. |
There are times when the cartilage around the heart becomes compressed against the body and it must be lifted up in order to facilitate breathing (Avodah Zarah 29a).
|
| 40. |
Our translation is based on the description of the techniques of midwifery used in Talmudic and post-Talmudic times. Others translate the term as a woman being bent over with labor pains. Compare to Halachah 13, which mentions the possibility of performing forbidden labors on a woman's behalf from the time "when there is a show of blood." See Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 330:3), which mentions both these terms and also refers to the condition when a woman is overcome by labor pains to the point where she must be carried by her friends. Any one of these three conditions constitutes a danger to life for which the Sabbath laws may be broken.
|
| 41. |
The Rambam's Commentary on the Mishnah (Shabbat 18:3) states that this leniency applies even when she lives beyond the Sabbath limits (see Chapter 27). Note Shulchan Aruch HaRav330:3 and the Mishnah Berurah 330:9, which state that a mid-wife may be called in the preliminary stages of labor.
|
| 42. |
She feels more secure knowing that she will be cared for properly in the light than if she were cared for in the dark (Tosafot, Shabbat 128b).
|
| 43. |
These rulings are based on Shabbat, ibid. In his commentary on that text, the Ramban explains that this principle applies regarding all instances when the Sabbath laws are violated because of a danger to life. If it is possible to reduce the extent to which they are violated, one should do so.
The Maggid Mishneh postulates that the Rambam would not require such stringencies at all times. Were that the case, the Rambam would have stated this principle earlier. Instead, this is a specific ruling applicable with regard to a woman in childbirth. Greater stringency is applied in this instance, because although there is a threat to the woman's life, the probability of a woman's actually dying is very low. (It can be explained that the difference of opinion between the Ramban and the Maggid Mishneh revolves around the question whether the Sabbath laws are
|
| 44. |
Note Sefer HaChasidim, which states that it is preferable that a woman prepare everything necessary for childbirth from the ninth month onward, so that if she gives birth on the Sabbath, only a minimal amount of forbidden labor will have to be performed.
|
| 45. |
The term "idolatress" is used here to refer to a gentile who actually worships idols. In contrast, the term ger toshav refers to a gentile who accepts the seven universal laws commanded to Noah and his descendants. (See Hilchot Melachim 9:1-2 and Hilchot Avodat Kochavim 10:6.)
In Hilchot Avodat Kochavim 10:2, the Rambam writes that it is forbidden to offer medical treatment to an idolater even for a fee. Accordingly, this halachah extends that principle to include a woman in childbirth. The question is raised, however, concerning the majority of the gentiles in the present age. Although the Rambam considers Christianity as idol worship, many authorities do not. According to the latter opinions, although these gentiles are not idolaters, they have not gone through the formal process of acceptance of the seven laws commanded to Noach and cannot therefore be considered as gerim toshavim.
Many authorities (see the commentary on the Moznaim edition of Hilchot Avodat Kochavim) maintain that it is permitted to treat such people during the week. On the Sabbath, however, one may not perform forbidden labors on their behalf. (See the Mishnah Berurah 330:8, which speaks very critically about physicians who violate the Sabbath laws on behalf of gentiles.) According to these authorities, one would be allowed to treat these gentiles on the Sabbath provided that there was not any forbidden labor involved. Note, however, Rav Kapach, who quotes Yemenite manuscripts of the Mishneh Torah that state "gentile" instead of "idolatress."
|
| 46. |
According to the generally accepted interpretation of Avodah Zarah 26b, the intent is that the non-Jews will understand that the Sabbath is a sacred day for the Jews. Even when they see that the Sabbath laws are violated for the sake of saving a Jew's life, they will accept the rationalization that the Sabbath laws may be violated only on behalf of an individual who observes the Sabbath.
Shulchan Aruch HaRav 330:2 and the Mishnah Berurah 330:8 mention that if a physician fears that ill-feeling will be generated by his refusal to care for gentiles, he may deliver their babies, provided that he does not perform labors that are forbidden by the Torah itself.
|
| 47. |
Based on Leviticus 25:35, Avodah Zarah 65a states that the Jews are required to maintain the well-being of such gentiles and, if necessary, the Jews should support the gentiles from their charitable funds.
|
| 48. |
The Rambam chooses the more lenient of the opinions mentioned in Shabbat 129a, for a woman can begin bleeding well before she gives birth.
|
| 49. |
Although the Lechem Mishneh states that the counting of the three days should begin from the time the uterus opens, the consensus of halachic opinion is that the three days start from birth. (See the Be'ur Halachah 330.)
|
| 50. |
Shulchan Aruch HaRav 330:4 and the Mishnah Berurah 330:12 explain that this refers to activities that a woman's friends will customarily perform on her behalf after she gives birth. A doctor need not be consulted about these matters. Nevertheless, if a doctor says that these activities are unnecessary, they should not be performed.
|
| 51. |
From the Rambam's wording (and indeed, this is the ruling of Shulchan Aruch HaRav 330:5 and the Mishnah Berurah 330:14), it appears that the woman is still considered to be dangerously ill. Hence, unless she protests to the contrary, it is assumed that this treatment is necessary.
|
| 52. |
Shulchan Aruch HaRav and the Mishnah Berurah, loc. cit., state that the woman's word is accepted even against the opinions of many doctors.
|
| 53. |
According to the halachic authorities (Shulchan Aruch HaRav 330:5 and the Mishnah Berurah330:21), there is one exception. A fire may be kindled for a woman within thirty days after she has given birth. See the notes on the following halachah.
|
| 54. |
Preferably, the fire should be kindled by a gentile. If, however, there is no gentile available, the fire may be kindled by a Jew (Mishnah Berurah 330:21).
|
| 55. |
The Maggid Mishneh states that it appears to him that the Rambam (and Shabbat 129b, upon which this halachah is based) is speaking about a woman who gave birth less than a week previously. Although weight is given to this view (see Be'ur Halachah 330), the Shulchan Aruch(Orach Chayim 330:6) states that it refers to a woman within a month of childbirth.
|
| 56. |
The commentaries question whether this refers to a person who is dangerously ill or to a person who is merely seriously ill, but in no danger of dying. According to the latter view, a fire may be kindled on behalf of someone who is dangerously ill.
|
| 57. |
Sefer HaKovetz states that cutting the umbilical cord involves the violation of a forbidden labor and is permitted only because of the danger involved. Most authorities, however, maintain that only a Rabbinic prohibition is involved.
|
| 58. |
As mentioned above, most authorities maintain that only a Rabbinic prohibition may be waived on behalf of a new-born. Thus, this is interpreted as referring to water that was heated on the Sabbath by a gentile.
|
| 59. | |
| 60. |
This is useful in straightening the child's limbs.
|
| 61. |
See Hilchot Milah 2:8. The Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 331:9) writes that although in Talmudic times, washing a baby at this time was considered as a matter of vital importance, it is no longer common practice. The Ramah (loc. cit.) explains that it is customary to wash the baby before the circumcision with water that was heated on Friday, and to wash him after the circumcision on Saturday night.
|
| 62. |
There is greater discomfort on the third day after the circumcision, as explained by the commentaries on Genesis 18:1 and 34:25.
|
| 63. |
At present, the Ramah (loc. cit.) states that if it appears necessary, the baby may be washed with water that was heated before the Sabbath. Needless to say, in all situations, should a doctor state that such a washing is necessary, his advice should be followed.
|
| 64. |
The Ramah (Orach Chayim 330:5) states that it is no longer customary to follow this practice even during the week. We wait a considerable time after the woman loses consciousness, because we are afraid that she did not die, but merely fainted. Hence, by the time we are certain that she has died, we can assume that the fetus is also no longer alive.
Needless to say, at present, when our improved technology makes it possible to monitor the physical functioning of both the mother and the fetus, the physicians should decide on the basis of the information before them. Regardless of the practical application of this ruling today, the principles on which it is based are significant and should be applied in other circumstances.
|
| 65. |
Note Shulchan Aruch HaRav 330:7, which adds that this ruling is granted despite the fact that the fetus will normally die in such a situation. Although probability (
|
| 66. |
Generally, a living person can be assumed to continue to live (chezkat chayim) until we are certain that he has died. Although such a presumption cannot be made with regard to this fetus, permission is, nevertheless, granted for the Sabbath laws to be violated on its behalf.
|
| 67. |
The Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 328:13) rephrases the concepts stated in this halachah slightly, connecting the praise given a person for being zealous in saving a life with the situation concerning catching fish described afterwards. According to the Shulchan Aruch, this situation teaches us that a person is considered praiseworthy for saving a life on the Sabbath even if he accrues personal benefit through his actions - for example, in the case at hand, in addition to saving a life, the person also receives a catch of fish.
|
| 68. |
The Rambam adds the term "absolutely" to indicate that it is desirable to spread out and raise one's nets to try to save the child (Lechem Mishneh). Significantly, the Jerusalem Talmud,Shabbat 13:6, states that the person is not held liable even if he intended to catch the fish together with the child.
|
| 69. |
The Or Sameach writes that he is given "stripes for rebelliousness" (the punishment usually given for the violation of a Rabbinic ordinance), since he intended to perform a forbidden activity. See a parallel ruling, Hilchot Nedarim 12:18.
Significantly, when mentioning this instance in Hilchot Shegagot 2:15, the Rambam states that the person acted
|
| 70. |
This reflects the Rambam's decision regarding a difference of opinion between the Sages inMenachot 64a. One opinion holds the person liable for it considers his intent of primary importance, while the other frees him of liability for it views his actions as most significant.
|
| 71. |
These instances are cited by Yoma 84b as a continuation of the development of the concept mentioned in the previous halachah, that one may perform an activity to save someone else's life, although in the process of doing so, one derives benefit. The Talmud explains why it is necessary to mention all these different instances.
|
| 72. |
The Lechem Mishneh notes that the Rambam alters the text of the Talmud slightly to imply that the person breaking down the door did not do so with the intent of using the wood. Rav Kapach differs, noting that, as mentioned in the commentary on the previous halachah, the Rambam absolves the person of liability even when he has an intent to benefit from his actions. (See also the notes of Rabbi Akiva Eiger.)
|
| 73. |
Yoma, ibid., explains that this leniency is granted even when the fire breaks out in a courtyard other than that in which the person was located. If the fire appears to pose a danger to his life, it may be extinguished.
|
| 74. |
I.e., a person was seen in the vicinity of the avalanche and we are unsure whether or not he was able to escape or not.
|
| 75. |
The Maggid Mishneh mentions that this leniency is granted even when there are several doubts involved: Perhaps the person was not trapped under the avalanche. Even if he was trapped, perhaps he is no longer alive and the performance of the labor of clearing will be to no avail.
|
| 76. |
This communicates a fundamental concept in Torah law: Even a fleeting moment of a Jew's life is precious enough for all possible efforts to be performed to save him even if it is necessary to violate Torah law.
|
| 77. |
Although we are commanded to show respect for a corpse and not to leave it exposed, we are not allowed to violate the Sabbath laws for such a purpose. (See the Rambam's Commentary on the Mishnah, Yoma 8:5.)
|
| 78. |
Based on Genesis 7:22, "all that has the breath of the spirit of life," Yoma 88b states that whether a person is breathing or not is the determining factor of whether he is considered alive or not. Significantly, Shulchan Aruch HaRav 329:3 and the Mishnah Berurah 329:11 rule that even if we see that his heart is not beating, he is not considered dead until we are certain that he is not breathing.
The conception of breath as the determinant of life is significant in the present age, when it is possible that a person will continue to breathe despite brain death. The question of whether such a person is considered alive has been raised today within the context of many contemporary medical issues. Rav Moshe Feinstein (Igros Moshe, Yoreh De'ah, Vol. II, Responsum 174) and other authorities of the present age have ruled that breath is still the fundamental determinant whether or not a person is alive.
|
| 79. |
This halachah is based on the following principles:
a) As mentioned in Halachah 12, we may not violate the Sabbath laws to save a gentile's life.
b)
|
| 80. |
Even if several people departed, the same rule would apply, as long as the entire group did not leave its original place. See the following halachah.
|
| 81. |
The Rambam's decision depends on Rabbenu Yitzchak Alfasi's text of Yoma 84b. There the Talmud explains that although in general we follow the principle,
It must be emphasized that the Ra'avad, Rashi, and the Ramban have a different approach to the passage in Yoma. The Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 329:2) follows the opinion quoted by the Rambam.
|
| 82. |
Again this ruling depends on Rav Yitzchak Alfasi's interpretation of Yoma 84b. Other authorities differ, as mentioned above.
|
| 83. |
This implies that if a person of unknown origin is found buried under a landslide in a place whose population is primarily gentile, we are not allowed to remove the debris from him. (See Hilchot Issurei Bi'ah 15:26.) This is a matter of question on which there is a responsum attributed to the Rambam (although its origins are disputed). (See also Shulchan Aruch, Even HaEzer 4:34, which quotes the Rambam's opinion, and the Ramah, loc. cit., who allows the debris to be removed.)
|
| 84. |
He should start counting the six days immediately on the day on which he realizes that he has lost touch with the weekly calendar.
|
| 85. |
Similarly, in his daily prayers, he should recite the prayers of the Sabbath on that day. The recitation of these prayers was instituted so that the person should not lose consciousness of the observance of the Sabbath entirely.
|
| 86. |
The Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 344:1) states that as long as the person has means, he is not allowed to work at all. Permission to work is granted only when it is a life and death matter. This explains why this halachah is included in this chapter.
|
| 87. |
The Maggid Mishneh and the Shulchan Aruch (loc. cit.) emphasize that although there is a prohibition against walking beyond the Sabbath limits, it is not as serious as the prohibition against forbidden labors. Hence, it is waived in order to allow this person the opportunity to reach a settled area and observe the Sabbath in a proper manner.
|
| 88. |
If he earns enough on that day to support himself for several days, he must cease work until his means are exhausted (Mishnah Berurah 344:11).
|
| 89. |
Although these laws surely apply to Jewish communities in Eretz Yisrael, these same laws are also relevant to Jewish communities in the diaspora.
|
| 90. |
Since their intent is only financial, the Sabbath laws may not be violated for this reason. Note, however, Shulchan Aruch HaRav 329:7 and the Mishnah Berurah 329:17, which state that at present, even when gentiles initially come only for pillage and plunder, since they have no compunctions about killing Jews, particularly if one will defend his property, any gentile raid on a Jewish community is considered a question of life and death warranting the violation of the Sabbath laws.
|
| 91. |
The rationale is that if a border city is conquered, the enemies will have a vantage point from which to conquer the entire land. This concept has relevance beyond the Sabbath laws. For example, the Lubavitcher Rebbe Shelita has explained that these principles are relevant to the territorial disputes between Jews and gentiles in Eretz Yisrael today. Returning any territory to the Arabs would jeopardize the safety of the entire land.
|
| 92. |
War must be waged against them because it is possible that their intent is to kill. Hence, we follow the principle that the Sabbath laws may be violated even where there is merely a question of a threat to life.
|
| 93. |
I.e., an obligation. See Hilchot Rotzeach UShemirat HaNefesh 1:14, which describes the mitzvah (Leviticus 19:16): "Do not stand by idly while your neighbor's life is in danger."
It is told that in the Maccabean revolt, the Greeks once attacked the Jews on the Sabbath. The people, unaware of this law, refused to take up arms in defense and thousands died. Afterwards, the Rabbis publicized this ruling.
|
| 94. |
Eruvin 45a relates that originally it was forbidden for the people to return with their weapons, and they would leave them in a home within the city's wall. Once the enemy forces saw that the Jews were returning unarmed and attacked them. More Jews were killed in the confused scramble for their weapons than by the enemy attack. After this event, the Sages allowed those who come to assist a besieged city to return with their weapons.
|
| 95. |
Rabbi Akiva Eiger states that this applies only when one knows that there are Jews on the ship. If we do not have such information, it would appear that we should assume that the passengers of the ship are gentiles and should not endeavor to save their lives.
|
| 96. |
Hilchot Ta'aniot 1:1 states that it is a mitzvah to cry out to God for assistance in the event of any distressing situation that affects a Jewish community. On the Sabbath, however, it is only proper to make such requests when there is an immediate threat to human life. Just as such requests are made on behalf of a community, they should also be made on behalf of a single individual whose life is threatened (Hilchot Ta'aniot 1:6, Hilchot Shabbat 30:12).
|
| 97. |
Hilchot Ta'aniot 1:1 states that, as part of the mitzvah of entreating God's mercy, trumpets should be sounded. Nevertheless, trumpets should be not be sounded for this purpose on the Sabbath, since sounding the trumpets violates a Rabbinic prohibition (Hilchot Shofar 2:7). Here, however, the intent in sounding the trumpets is to alert the Jews in the surrounding area and to summon them. The prohibition is waived for this purpose. (See Hilchot Ta'aniot 1:6.)
|
| 98. |
Just as one may violate the Sabbath laws to save a Jew's life, one may violate the Sabbath laws to save a Jew who is being forced to adopt a gentile way of life (Shulchan Aruch HaRav 306:29 and the Mishnah Berurah 306:57).
|
| 99. |
See Ta'anit 22b.
|
| 100. |
In Chapter 30, Halachah 13, the Rambam states that this requirement was instituted "so that the soldiers' minds will be settled and they will not be overly preoccupied on the Sabbath." Although the war will require violation of the Sabbath laws, efforts should be made to minimize the tension and anxiety experienced by the soldiers to the greatest degree possible.
See Hilchot Melachim 6:11 which states that we can lay siege to gentile cities "on the Sabbath." The Kessef Mishneh notes the contradiction and suggests amending the text of Hilchot Melachimin light of our halachah. The Lechem Mishneh, however, explains that this clause of our halachah speaks of a milchemet reshut, a war which we are not obligated to wage, while Hilchot Melachimspeaks of a milchemet mitzvah, a war which we are obligated to wage.
|
| 101. |
Hilchot Melachim describes a voluntary war, a milchemet reshut, as a war fought "to expand the borders of Israel or magnify [the king's] greatness and reputation." In contrast, a war that is obligatory in nature, a milchemet mitzvah, refers to "the war against the seven nations [who occupied Eretz Yisrael], the war against Amalek, and [a war] fought to assist Israel against an enemy which attacks her."
|
| 102. |
Sifre on Deuteronomy (loc. cit.), Shabbat 19a.
|
| 103. |
According to the Kessef Mishneh's (Hilchot Melachim 6:11), this refers to the leniency of waging war on the Sabbath. The restriction of laying siege to a city three days before the Sabbath, in contrast, applies only with regard to voluntary wars. In an obligatory war, we may lay siege to a city even on the Sabbath itself.
|
| 104. |
Rav Kapach notes that the citation of a historical event as proof of a law is extremely out of character for the Rambam in the Mishneh Torah. He explains that the Rambam's statements are directed against statements of Rav Sa'adiah Gaon, who writes that Jericho did not fall on the Sabbath.
It is possible to explain the Rambam's statements from another perspective. Joshua was instructed concerning the conquest of Jericho by Divine command. Indeed, according to human reason, there was no reason why Jericho should have been conquered on the Sabbath. Hence, the fact that God delivered such a command is a clear directive that one may begin a milchemet mitzvah on the Sabbath.
|
Nedarim - Chapter 4
Halacha 1
Vows taken because of coercion,1 vows taken unintentionally,2 and vows involving exaggerations are permitted,3 as we explained with regard to oaths.4
If men of coercion or customs collectors made him take a vow, saying: "Take a vow to us that meat is forbidden to you if you possess something on which customs duty is due," should he take a vow and say: "Bread, meat, and wine are forbidden to me...", he is permitted [to partake of] all of them5 even though he added to what they asked him [to say].6 Similarly, if they asked him to take a vow [on the condition] that his wife not benefit and he took a vow [on the condition] that his wife, his children, and his brothers not benefit from him, they are all permitted. Similar laws apply in all analogous situations.
Halacha 2
In all vows of this type, he must have the intent at heart for something that is permitted,7 for example, that they be forbidden for him for that day alone or for that hour alone or the like. He may rely on the intent in his heart, since he is being compelled by forces beyond his control.8 Thus at the time he is taking the vow for them, his mouth and his heart are not in concord. [This is required,] as we explained with regard to vows.9
Halacha 3
Similarly, vows of encouragement are permitted.10 What does this imply? One administered a vow to a colleague to eat at his [home] and that colleague took a vow not to eat there, because he did not want to trouble him. Whether he eat or did not eat, they are both exempt.
Similarly, if a merchant took a vow that he would not sell an article for less than a sela and a purchaser took a vow that he would not buy it for more than ashekel,11 if they agree on three dinarim,12 they are both exempt.13 Similar laws apply in all analogous situations. [The rationale is that] neither of them made a definite conclusion in his heart. He took the vow only to encourage his colleague without making a definite conclusion in his heart.14
Halacha 4
What is the source which teaches that it is forbidden for a person to take even these four types of vows which are permitted with the intent of nullifying them? It is written [Numbers 30:3): "He shall not desecrate his word," i.e., he should not make his word an inconsequential matter.
Halacha 5
When a person took a vow and then [changed his mind and] regretted his vow, he may approach a sage and ask for its release. The laws pertaining to the release of vows are the same as those applying to the release of oaths.15 A vow can be released only by a distinguished sage or by three ordinary men in a place where there are no sages.16 The same wording is used to release a vow as is used to release an oath.17 Similarly, all of the other concepts that we explained with regard to oaths apply to vows in the same way as they apply to oaths.
Halacha 6
We do not release a vow until it takes effect, as is the law pertaining to an oath.18
Halacha 7
Just as we may ask for the release of vows involving prohibitions and they are repealed, so, too, may we ask for the release of vows involving consecrated property and they are repealed.19 This applies both to [articles] consecrated for the upkeep of the Temple and [animals] consecrated to [be sacrificed] on the altar. When the holiness of a sacrifice is transferred from one animal to another, that holiness cannot be released.20
Halacha 8
Just as a father or a husband can nullify [a woman's] vows involving prohibitions,21 so, too, they can nullify vows of consecration that resemble vows involving prohibitions.
Halacha 9
Halacha 10
Similar principles apply when one has attached many entities to a single vow, e.g., he took a vow [forbidding] bread and extended it to meat,26 if he asks for release of [the prohibition against] bread and it is granted, the [prohibition against] meat is also released.27 If he asks for release of [the prohibition against] meat and it is granted, the [prohibition against] bread is not released.28
Halacha 11
When a person takes an oath or a vow saying: "I will not benefit from any one of you," if he asks for the release of his vow or oath concerning one of them and the release was granted, they are all released. [The rationale is that] when a vow is released in part, all of its [particulars] are also released.29
When a person says: "I will not benefit from this person, and from this person, and from this person," if [the prohibition against] the first is released, [the prohibitions against] all of them are released.30 If the prohibition against the last is released, that prohibition is released, but the others remain binding. If he said: "I will not benefit from this one; nor from this one; nor from this one," he must ask for a release for each one indidivually.31 Similar laws apply in all analogous situations.32
Halacha 12
When a person took a nazirite vow, a vow to bring a sacrifice, and an oath [forbidding himself from partaking of something], or he took a vow, but does not know concerning which of these he took the vow, one request for release [can release] all of them.33
Halacha 13
Halacha 14
If one says: "This produce is forbidden to me today if I go to this-and-this place tomorrow," he is forbidden to partake of them that day. [This is a] decree lest he go that place tomorrow.36 If he transgressed and partook of it that day and then undertook the journey on the morrow, he is liable for lashes.37 If he did not go, he is not liable for lashes.38
Halacha 15
If one says: "This produce will be forbidden to me tomorrow if I go to this-and-this place today," he is permitted to go that place today and the produce will be forbidden for him tomorrow. Similar laws apply in all analogous situations. [The rationale is that] a person is careful about not violating a prohibition,39 but he is not careful in keeping a condition that will cause a permitted entity to become forbidden.40
Halacha 16
When a person takes a vow to fast for ten days,41 whenever he desires and he was fasting one day and had [to interrupt the fast] for the sake of a mitzvah42 or to honor a person of stature, he may eat and repay [the fast] on another day. [The rationale is that] he did not specify the days [he would fast] when he took the vow initially.43
| FOOTNOTES | |
| 1. |
As explained immediately below.
|
| 2. |
See Chapter 8, Halachah 3.
|
| 3. |
Note, however, Halachah 4.
|
| 4. |
Hilchot Sh'vuot 3:1, 5.
|
| 5. |
Even though he possessed items for which customs duty was due. See Hilchot Sh'vuot 3:2.
|
| 6. |
I.e., one might think that since he was not compelled to mention the other substances, the vow would take effect with regard to them. Hence, the Rambam explains that since he was compelled to take the vow, his additions do not change its status.
|
| 7. |
See Hilchot Sh'vuot 3:3.
|
| 8. |
The Rama (Yoreh De'ah 232:14) emphasizes that the statement he makes may not be a direct contradiction to the intent in his heart. He also emphasizes that the vow may not be broken in a way that the gentile who forced the vow to be taken will be become aware of its violation. For this would lead to the desecration of God's name.
|
| 9. |
See Hilchot Sh'vuot 2:12.
|
| 10. |
The laws of this halachah do not apply with regard to oaths. Since an oath involves the mention of God's name, taking an oath for this purpose would be taking God's name in vain. A vow does not require the mention of God's name. Hence, this is permitted (Radbaz).
|
| 11. |
I.e., two dinarim which are half a sela.
|
| 12. |
The Rama (Yoreh De'ah 232:2) quotes opinions that maintain that each one can fluctuate slightly past the midway point, but may not accept the other's position completely. He also quotes other more lenient views.
|
| 13. |
For neither definitely meant what he said. Taking the vow was just a bargaining technique. See theShulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 232:2) which states that this applies when they continue negotiating after taking the vow. Then it is clear that they were merely bargaining. If, however, they broke off negotiations, the vow is considered binding.
|
| 14. |
Thus it could be said that his heart and his mouth were not in concord (Radbaz).
|
| 15. |
See Hilchot Sh'vuot 6:1.
|
| 16. |
See Hilchot Sh'vuot 6:1.
|
| 17. |
See Hilchot Sh'vuot 6:4.
|
| 18. |
See Hilchot Sh'vuot 6:14.
|
| 19. |
Nevertheless, it is undesirable to do so. One should seek their release only in a pressing situation. See Chapter 13, Halachah 25.
Since ultimately, the person did not desire to make the vow, it is as if the article were consecrated in error. In such an instance, the consecration is not effective (Radbaz, based on Ketubot 78a).
|
| 20. |
The rationale is that the release of vows is based on the principle that after the person changes his mind and regrets having made the vow, it is as if the vow was made in error. Since the transfer of holiness from a sacrificial animal to another animal is binding even if it is done in error (Temurah17a), there is no reason why a release is possible after such a transfer has been effected (Radbaz, Kessef Mishneh). Nevertheless, if one regrets the original consecration, that can be nullified and then, as a matter of course, the animal to which the holiness was transferred will also lose its status (see Mishneh LeMelech).
|
| 21. |
See chs. 11-13.
|
| 22. |
The latter two are bound by the vow taken by the first, as stated in Chapter 3, Halachah 3.
|
| 23. |
For the vows of the latter individuals are dependent on the vow of the first. Once the first vow is nullified, they no longer have any basis on which they can stand.
|
| 24. |
For their vows are not dependent on his.
|
| 25. |
For his vow serves as the basis for theirs.
|
| 26. |
See Chapter 3, Halachah 4.
|
| 27. |
For it is dependent on the prohibition against bread.
|
| 28. |
For it is not dependent on the prohibition against meat.
|
| 29. |
I.e., at the outset, his intent was that the oath or vow include all the individuals in the group, once that intent is no longer valid, it is as if the entire vow or oath was taken in error. Hence, it is no longer binding. The Jerusalem Talmud (Nedarim 1:1) derives this concept from the exegesis ofNumbers 30:3: "He should act according to everything that he uttered from his mouth." Since "everything" he uttered from his mouth need not be fulfilled, nothing must be fulfilled. If part of a vow is nullified, the entire vow is nullified.
|
| 30. |
Since the person said "and" between each one, he made the latter individuals dependent on the first. Nevertheless, in contrast to the first clause, all of the individuals are not considered as being included in the same vow.
|
| 31. |
Since he did not associate them by saying "and," it is considered as if he took a vow concerning each person individually. See also Hilchot Sh'vuot 7:10.
|
| 32. |
See Chapter 8, Halachah 6.
|
| 33. |
They are all considered as one vow. Hence, as in the previous halachah, once a portion of a vow is nullified, the entire vow is nullified. Even if he only has a reason to regret the last portion of the vow, the entire vow is nullified (Radbaz).
|
| 34. |
As the Rambam states in Chapter 7, Halachah 9, initially, it is forbidden for the person to ask such a sage to release his vow, for in this way, he is benefiting from the people of the city. After the fact, however, the vow is released, because retroactively, it is as if the vow were never taken.
|
| 35. |
In this instance, he may initially ask a Jewish sage to have his vow released, for he has no alternative. Only a Jewish sage can release a vow. In the previous instance, by contrast, he can ask a sage from another city to release the vow (Radbaz).
|
| 36. |
And then the vow would take effect retroactively.
|
| 37. |
As mentioned in the notes to Hilchot Sh'vuot 4:16, to be liable for lashes, one must be given a warning. This law indicates that even if the warning was delivered conditionally, the person can be held liable for lashes.
|
| 38. |
Despite the fact that he violated the advice of our Sages, since he did not violate a Scriptural commandment, he is not liable for lashes.
|
| 39. |
Hence, we do not fear that he will partake of the produce on the following day.
|
| 40. |
Therefore, in the previous halachah, he is forbidden to partake of the produce at the outset.
|
| 41. |
I.e., not consecutively.
|
| 42. |
I.e., to participate in a feast celebrating the observance of a mitzvah, e.g., a circumcision or the completion of a Talmudic tractate (Mishnah Berurah 568:9).
|
| 43. |
Since he did not stipulate the day on which he would fast, even though he began fasting on a particular day, he can change his mind and switch the fast to another day.
|
| 44. |
Since he took a vow against eating that day, the fact that he broke his fast does not make it permissible for him to eat afterwards. This applies even if he is willing to fast another day instead. Compare to Hilchot Ta'aniot 1:14. the Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 568:1) quotes the Rambam's ruling. The Rama adds that there are some who accept upon themselves to fast another day to compensate for the fast he did not keep.
|
| 45. |
Nevertheless, since he did not specify a particular day at the time of his vow, once he ate, he may eat on the day he began fasting.
|
Nedarim - Chapter 5
Halacha 1
When Reuven tells Shimon: "I [am forbidden] to you like a dedication offering"1or "You are forbidden to benefit from me," it is forbidden for Shimon to benefit from Reuven.2 If he transgresses and benefits from him, he is not liable for lashes, because Shimon did not say anything.3 Reuven is permitted to derive benefit from Shimon, because he did not forbid this to himself.
Halacha 2
If he tells Shimon: "You [are forbidden] to me like a dedication offering" or "I am forbidden to benefit from you," Reuven is forbidden to benefit from Shimon. If he derives benefit, he is liable for lashes, because he desecrated his word. Shimon is permitted to benefit from Reuven.
If he tells him: "I [am forbidden] to you like a dedication offering and you are [forbidden] to me" or "I am forbidden to benefit from you and you are forbidden to benefit from me," they are both forbidden to benefit from each other. Similar laws apply in all analogous situations.
Halacha 3
If Reuven tells Shimon: "So-and-so's produce is forbidden to you" or "You are forbidden to benefit from so-and-so," his words are of no consequence. For a person cannot cause his colleague to be prohibited with regard to a matter that is not his unless [that person] responds Amen, as we explained.4
Halacha 4
When a person tells a colleague: "This loaf [of bread] mine is forbidden to you," it [remains] forbidden to him even if he gives it to him as a present.5 If he dies, and [the other person] inherits it or [it is acquired by a third party] who gives it to him as a present, he is permitted. For [the one taking the vow said] "My loaf," and now it is not his.6
Halacha 5
If he tells him: "This produce is forbidden to you," but does not say: "My produce," even if he sold it or died and it became the property of another person,7 it [remains] forbidden to him. For when a person causes his property to be forbidden to a colleague, it remains forbidden unless he says: "my property," "my house," "my produce," or uses another similar term. For in those instances, he only forbade [using] the articles while they were in his possession.8
Halacha 6
When a person tells his son: "You are forbidden to benefit from me" or he takes and oath that his son is forbidden to benefit from him, when he dies, the son may inherit his property. For this is as if he says: "My property is forbidden to you." If he forbade [the son] from benefiting from him and specified: "During my lifetime and after my death," if he dies, [the son] should not inherit his [estate].9For this is as if he said: "This property is forbidden to you."
Halacha 7
When a person forbids his son from benefiting from him10 and says: "If this son's son will be a Torah scholar,11 this son will acquire this property to transfer it to his son,"12 this is permissible. The son is forbidden [to benefit] from his father's estate and the grandson is permitted to derive such benefit13 if he is a Torah scholar as was stipulated.
Halacha 8
If this son who is forbidden to benefit from his father's estate gives14 [the property] he inherits from his father to his brother or his sons, they are permitted to benefit from them.15 This also applies if he paid a debt with them or paid [the money due] his wife [by virtue of] her ketubah.16He must tell [the recipients] that [the payment they receive] is from the estate of his father which was forbidden to him. [The rationale for this leniency is that] when a person takes an oath that a colleague will not benefit from his property, he may pay that colleague's debt, as will be explained.17
Halacha 9
When a person was forbidden - either through a vow or an oath - to partake of a type of food, he is permitted to partake of other types of food that were cooked or mixed together with [the forbidden] food, even though it has [acquired] the flavor of the forbidden food.18 If he was forbidden to partake of specific produce19 and that produce became mixed with others, if they have the flavor of the forbidden food, [the other food] is forbidden. If not,20 it is permitted.
Halacha 10
What is implied? A person who is forbidden to partake of meat or wine may partake of soup or vegetables that were cooked with meat or wine. [This applies] even if they have the flavor of meat or wine. He is forbidden only to eat meat alone or drink wine alone.
Halacha 11
If, however, he forbade himself [to partake of] "this meat" or "this wine,"21 if the vegetables have the flavor of meat or wine, they are forbidden. If not, they are permitted. For this meat or this wine become considered like the meat ofnevelot, teeming animals, or the like. Similar laws apply in all analogous situations. Therefore if one says: "This meat is forbidden for me," he is forbidden to partake of it, its sauce, and the spices [cooked] with it.22
Halacha 12
If the wine which he forbade himself23 became mixed with other wine,24 even one drop in an entire barrel, the entire quantity becomes forbidden. [The rationale is that] since he has the possibility to ask for the release of his vow, [the forbidden substance] is considered as an entity that can be permitted and hence, never becomes nullified in [a majority of permitted] substances of its own kind, as explained in Hilchot Ma'achalot Assurot.25
Halacha 13
Halacha 14
[The following rules apply] if a person took a vow or an oath not to eat [produce] or not to taste it. If it is an entity whose seed decomposes when it is sown like wheat or barley, he is permitted [to partake of] the articles exchanged for it28and the produce that grows from it.29 If it was an entity whose seed does not decompose in the earth when it is sown, like onions or garlic,30 even the produce that grows from the produce that grows from it is forbidden.31 In all situations, there is a doubt [whether he is forbidden to drink] the juices they produce.32 Therefore, if he drinks them, he is not liable for lashes.
Halacha 15
Similarly, if a person tells his wife: "The work produced by your hands33 is like a sacrifice to me," "...a sacrifice to my mouth," or "...a sacrifice because of my mouth," he is forbidden to partake of anything exchanged for [her earnings] or produce that grows from her work.34 If he says that he will not to eat [from the work of her hands], nor taste it, if the produce [that grew from] the work of her hands is an entity whose seed decomposes, he is permitted [to partake of] articles exchanged for it and the produce that grows from it. If it was an entity whose seed does not decompose, even the produce that grows from the produce that grows from them is forbidden.
Why do we not consider the original produce that is forbidden insignificant because of the [new] growth that is larger than it? Because the original produce is an entity whose prohibition can be released, which is not nullified [when mixed] with a majority [of permitted substances], as explained.35
Halacha 16
When a person forbids his produce to a colleague, whether by vow or by an oath, there is an unresolved question if the produce that grows from it36 and articles exchanged for it [are permitted to the colleague].37 Therefore the produce that grows from it and articles exchanged for it are forbidden to his colleague. If he transgresses and benefits, he has benefited.38
| FOOTNOTES | |
| 1. |
See Chapter 1, Halachah 14; Chapter 2, Halachah 8.
|
| 2. |
It is as if Reuven designated his property as consecrated with regard to Shimon (Or Sameach).
|
| 3. |
And the prohibition which Reuven established does not make Shimon liable. If, however, Shimon said Amen, he would be liable, as stated in Chapter 2, Halachah 1.
See Chapter 10, Halachah 12, from which it is apparent that if Reuven voluntarily allows Shimon to benefit from his property, Reuven is liable for lashes, for he is desecrating his own vow.
As indicated by Hilchot Meilah 4:9, even though the person is not liable for lashes, he is liable to bring a sacrifice for atonement, since with regard to him, it is as if he benefited from consecrated property.
|
| 4. |
Chapter 2, Halachah 1.
|
| 5. |
For there is no way that he can acquire it in a permitted manner.
|
| 6. |
I.e., once he dies, the loaf no longer belongs to him.
|
| 7. |
The Tur (Yoreh De'ah 216) states that this applies when the person taking the vow says: "During my lifetime and after my death." From the Rambam's words and a comparison to Halachah 6, it is apparent that he need not make such a specification. See Turei Zahav 216:10 which discusses these two perspectives.
|
| 8. |
For that is the implication of the term "my." Compare to Chapter 8, Halachah 11.
|
| 9. |
See Halachah 8 which explains that the estate does become the son's property and he may use it in certain ways.
|
| 10. |
And specifies that this applies after his death as well, as in the previous halachah.
|
| 11. |
This is speaking about a situation in which the grandson is not born yet or is still a minor in which instance, the grandfather cannot transfer the property to him directly Alternatively, he is not yet a Torah scholar (Radbaz).
|
| 12. |
The Ra'avad and others question the Rambam's ruling, for seemingly, it does not involve any new concept. The son becomes the owner of the estate regardless. Although he is forbidden to benefit from it, he has the right to give it to his son whether he is a Torah scholar or not as stated in the following halachah. The Kessef Mishneh explains that ordinarily, the son may use the estate to pay a debt or to give it to his brother as a present. If, however, the grandson is a Torah scholar, this is forbidden and it is as if the estate was transferred to him directly and the father cannot use it for other purposes. The Radbaz explains that this is speaking about a situation where the father had two sons and if this son's son was not a Torah scholar, he would give his entire estate to the other son.
|
| 13. |
The Kessef Mishneh interprets this as meaning that the estate will be given to the grandson. TheBayit Chadash (Yoreh De'ah 223) explains that implicit in the grandfather's statement is the stipulation that if the grandson is not a Torah scholar, he - like his father - will be forbidden to benefit from the estate. See Siftei Cohen 223:4.
|
| 14. |
Rabbenu Nissim explains that the intent is not that he actually gives the money to the recipients, but he informs them of where it is and allows them to take it. See Siftei Cohen 223:3.
|
| 15. |
Here also, the son must tell the recipients that they are receiving property that he is forbidden to benefit from. Implied is that the estate becomes the son's property. He is forbidden to benefit from it. Nevertheless, as indicated here, he may receive indirect benefit, for certainly the recipients of his gifts will be thankful to him and repay him in some way or other.
|
| 16. |
For this also considered as another debt.
|
| 17. |
Chapter 6, Halachah 4. The person is not considered to have received benefit from the payment of his debt, since holding back a creditor from pressing claim is not considered as benefit (Radbaz).
The Tur (Yoreh De'ah 223) questions the Rambam's ruling, explaining that although the father would have been permitted to pay the son's debt, for the son to pay his own debt with the estate's money is considered as benefiting from the estate. Nevertheless, the Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 223:4) accepts the Rambam's ruling.
|
| 18. |
For his vow involved only the food itself - i.e., something that people would have in mind when using that term - but not its flavor. It does not become like forbidden food, in which case, even the flavor is forbidden (Kessef Mishneh).
|
| 19. |
That produce is considered as if it was inherently forbidden and hence, even its flavor is forbidden (Kessef Mishneh).
|
| 20. |
I.e., a person who had not taken the vow tasted the food and said that the flavor of the forbidden food could not be detected. Alternatively, there was more than 60 times the amount of the forbidden food.
|
| 21. |
I.e., designating a particular piece of meat or quantity of wine.
|
| 22. |
For these other entities will derive the flavor of the meat.
|
| 23. |
The Or Sameach emphasizes that the Rambam is speaking about a vow which a person made himself, for he can have such a vow released. If, however, he responds to another person, he cannot ask for the vow's release.
|
| 24. |
If, however, the wine becomes mixed with a liquid of another type, its presence becomes nullified if its taste is no longer detectable (Turei Zahav 216:13).
|
| 25. |
Chapter 15, Halachah 10. The rationale is that since the prohibition can be released, it is preferable to do that rather than have the prohibition nullified.
|
| 26. |
I.e., just as he may not partake of a sacrifice with his mouth, he may not partake of this produce.
|
| 27. |
I.e., if the produce forbidden because of the vow was sown and other produce grew from it, that produce is also forbidden.
Since the produce forbidden by the vow is equated to a sacrifice, like a sacrifice, it is forbidden to derive any benefit from it (Kessef Mishneh).
The Ra'avad (in his gloss to Halachah 16) asks: Why is the produce that grows from the forbidden produce prohibited. Seemingly, we should follow the principle: Zeh vizeh goraim mutar, when an entity is produced by two factors, one permitted and one forbidden, it is permitted. Here as well, since the second generation produce was produced by the forbidden produce and also by the earth, it should be permitted.
The Radbaz explains that since a vow is involved, we follow the principle mentioned in Halachah 12, that since the prohibition involved can be released entirely, we do not consider it nullified because another factor is also involved.
|
| 28. |
For his vow specified only eating or tasting the produce, not benefiting from it. Nor is there any taste of the original produce in the produce that grows from its seeds.
|
| 29. |
For the second generation produce is not the same substance concerning which the vow was taken.
|
| 30. |
The onion or the garlic head is put in the ground and a new plant grows from it.
|
| 31. |
For ultimately, even the third generation produce has the flavor of the first generation produce. As the Rambam explains at the conclusion of Halachah 15, we do not say that its flavor will be nullified because the greater portion of the substance of the new produce is permitted, because, as stated in Halachah 12, the forbidden fruit is an entity whose prohibition could be released.
|
| 32. |
Nedarim 52b leaves unresolved the question whether in this context the juice produced from the fruit is considered as the fruit or not. Hence, because of the doubt, one is forbidden to partake of it, but cannot be held liable for punishment. This refers to fruits other than grapes or olives. In the latter instances, the liquid is considered as the fruit.
|
| 33. |
The Siftei Cohen 216:8 states that we are referring to an instance that the husband uses wording similar to that suggested in Chapter 3, Halachah 11; alternatively, that he is referring to work which his wife already performed. Otherwise, there would be a difficulty because a vow is not effective unless the object concerned already exists.
|
| 34. |
I.e., if she planted a tree, he is forbidden to partake of its fruit. The Rambam (based on Nedarim57a) is restating the concepts mentioned in the previous halachah in a different context.
|
| 35. |
See Halachah 12 which explains that he has the potential to have his vow released.
|
| 36. |
The Ra'avad protests the Rambam's ruling, maintaining that based on Nedarim 47a, it appears that the produce grown from the fruits of his efforts is definitely forbidden. The Radbaz, however, explains that the Rambam has a different way of understanding that Talmudic passage.
|
| 37. |
Nedarim, loc. cit., explains that the question is: Since these entities have not come into existence as of yet, can he cause them to be forbidden to his colleague.
|
| 38. |
I.e., he is not liable. Firstly, lashes are not given when an unresolved question is involved. Also, as stated in Halachah 1, when a person becomes forbidden because of another person's vow, he is not liable for lashes unless he responds Amen.
|
Nedarim - Chapter 6
Halacha 1
When a person tells a colleague: "Benefit that leads to your food is forbidden to me," or "Benefit that leads to my food is forbidden to you," the person who is forbidden should not borrow from the other person: a sifter, a strainer, a hand mill, an oven, or any other utensil used to prepare food. He may, however, borrow from him bracelets, rings, and other articles that are not used to produce food. He is forbidden to borrow from him a sack or a donkey to carry produce.1
Halacha 2
[In the above situation,] in a place where utensils are given out only for a fee, it is forbidden to borrow [without charge] even utensils that are not used to produce food.2If they were in a place where a fee is not charged and he borrowed from him utensils that are not used to produce food to look impressive to others because of them so that he will receive benefit from them3or he sought to pass through his property so that he could reach a place where he would derive benefit,4 there is an unresolved question whether it is prohibited.5 Therefore, if he transgresses, he is not liable for lashes.
Halacha 3
There is no difference between one who takes a vow not to benefit from a colleague and one who takes a vow not to derive benefit that leads to food except [permission to] pass through [property]6 and borrowing utensils that are not used to produce food in a place where they are borrowed without charge.7
Halacha 4
When Reuven was forbidden to benefit from Shimon, either through a vow or through an oath, Shimon may give the half-shekel which Reuven is obligated to give.8 Similarly, he may pay a debt that he owes. [The rationale is that] Reuven does not receive anything, all [Shimon does] is prevent a claim from being lodged against him. And preventing a claim from being lodged is not included in the prohibition against [giving] benefit.9
Therefore [Shimon] may provide food for [Reuven's] wife,10 his sons, and his servants, even his Canaanite servants,11 even though [Reuven] is obligated to provide for their sustenance. He may not, however, provide food for [Reuven's] animal, whether a kosher animal or a non-kosher one,12 for any increase in the animal's weight is benefit given to Reuven.
Halacha 5
If Shimon was a priest, he is permitted to offer sacrifices brought by Reuven. [The rationale is that] the priests are agents of God and not the agents of the person bringing the sacrifice.13
Halacha 6
Shimon may separate terumah on behalf of Reuven and separate his tithes with his consent.17 What is meant by "with his consent"? For example, Reuven said: "Whoever desires to separate terumah [from my produce] may do so." He may not, however, tell Shimon to separate terumah on his behalf, for then he is making him his agent and this is [deriving] benefit from him.
Halacha 7
[Shimon] may instruct [Reuven] in the Oral Law,18 for it is forbidden to charge a wage for teaching it.19 The Written Law, by contrast, may not be taught by him, because a wage can be charged for teaching it.20 If it is not customary [in that community] to charge for instruction in the Written Law, this is permitted. Regardless of [the local custom with regard to payment], [Shimon] may teach [Reuven's] son.21
Halacha 8
Halacha 9
When an animal belonging to Reuven becomes ill,25 Shimon should not give it veterinary attention. He may, however, tell him: "Do such and such for it."26
[Shimon] may wash with Reuven in a large bath,27 but not in a small bath, because he gives him pleasure by raising the water over him.28 He may sleep in the same bed as him in the summer,29 but not in the winter, because he warms him.30 He may sit on the same couch as him and eat at the same table,31but may not eat from the same plate or from the same food trough that is placed before workers. [The rationale is that we fear that] Shimon will leave a nice piece of meat and refrain from eating it so that Shimon will eat it or move it closer to him and in this way, bring him benefit.32 Similar concepts apply with regard to produce in a food trough. It is, however, permitted for Shimon to eat from a plate even though he knows that when he returns it to the host, the host will place it before Reuven. We do not fear that [Shimon] will leave a choice cut of meat for [Reuven].33
Halacha 10
Halacha 11
Reuven is forbidden to use Shimon's coal, but he is permitted to use his flame.37
Halacha 12
[The following laws apply if] Shimon owned a bathhouse or an olive press that were hired out [to others] in the city. If Shimon retains a hold on them, e.g., he left a portion for himself and did not hire it out, it is forbidden for Reuven to enter that bathhouse or tread in that olive press.38 [This applies] even if he retains merely one tub in the bathhouse or one press39 in the olive press. If he did not retain anything for himself, but rather hired it out in its entirety, it is permitted [for Reuven to enter].40
Halacha 13
It is forbidden for Reuven to partake of the produce of Shimon's field, even during the Sabbatical year when everything is ownerless, for he took the vow before the beginning of the Sabbatical year.41 If he took the vow in the Sabbatical year itself, [Reuven] may partake of the produce that hangs outside the field.42 He may not, however, enter the field even though the land is ownerless. [This is] a decree lest he remain there after he partook of [the produce],43 for the Torah declared [the land] ownerless only during the time the produce is found within it.
Halacha 14
When does the above apply? When he told him: "Benefit from this property is forbidden to you."44 If, however, [Shimon] told [Reuven]: "It is forbidden for you to benefit from my property,"45 or Reuven took an oath or a vow [prohibiting him from benefiting] from Shimon's property, when the Sabbatical year begins, he may partake of the produce of his field, for they have left Shimon's domain.46He may not, however, enter his field for the reasons we explained [in the previous halachah].
Halacha 15
[Different laws apply if] only benefiting from Shimon's food was forbidden to Reuven,47 If, either because of a vow or an oath, the prohibition took effect before the Sabbatical year, he may enter his field,48 but may not eat his produce.49If the prohibition took effect in the Sabbatical year, he may enter his field and partake of his produce, for this produce does not belong to Shimon. Instead, it is ownerless.50
Halacha 16
It is forbidden for Reuven to lend [articles] to Shimon. [This is] a decree, lest he borrow from him although it is forbidden for him to benefit from him. Similarly, it is forbidden for [Reuven] to give [Shimon] a loan. [This is] a decree, lest he borrow from him.51 Similarly, he may not sell something to him. [This is] a decree, lest he buy from him.52
Halacha 17
If it happened that [Shimon] was working with [Reuven], e.g., they were harvesting together, he should work far from him. [This is] a decree, lest he help him.
When [a father] takes a vow, forbidding his son to benefit from him because the son does not occupy himself in Torah study, the father is permitted to fill up a jug of water [for his son], light a lamp [for him], or roast a small fish. For [the father's] intent was only to forbid [his son] from deriving significant pleasure and these matters are not considered important by the son.53
| FOOTNOTES | |
| 1. |
For this also leads to him deriving pleasure from food.
|
| 2. |
For the money that he saved by not paying the fee could be used to purchase food.
|
| 3. |
E.g., he lent him attractive clothing which created a favorable impression on others who gave him gifts as a result.
|
| 4. |
To attend a feast, but not when going to his business as stated in the notes to the following halachah.
|
| 5. |
In both cases, he did not give him direct benefit, but he did enable him to receive benefit.
|
| 6. |
I.e., to tend to his business. If he took a vow against benefiting from him, he may not pass through the property, for he is deriving some benefit. Nevertheless, that benefit does not lead to food. Hence, one who prohibits all benefit is forbidden, but one who forbids benefit that leads to food is permitted. If, however, he wishes to pass through his property to attend a feast, he is forbidden in all instances, as stated in the previous halachah (Radbaz).
|
| 7. |
This is benefit, but not benefit that leads to food.
|
| 8. |
I.e., the half-shekel which every Jew is obligated to pay to the Temple treasury as his share in the communal sacrifices. See Hilchot Shekalim 1:1.
|
| 9. |
See Hilchot Malveh ViLoveh 26:6 where the Rambam states that if "a person pays a promissory note of a colleague without that colleague's knowledge, even if it is a debt for which security was given, the borrower is not required to pay him anything. The borrower may take his security.... The other person forfeits his money. [The rationale is that] perhaps the borrower would have been able to appease the lender and have him waive the debt." Thus by paying Reuven's debt, Shimon is not considered to have given him anything.
|
| 10. |
See also Hilchot Ishut 12:19 which states that when a husband traveled to a distant country and left his wife without resources, if another person gives the woman money without clearly specifying that he is extending a loan to her, he forfeits his money. Even though the husband is obligated to pay for his wife's provisions, as long as a debt is not formally established, the person who pays the money has no claim upon him.
|
| 11. |
The qualifier "even" is mentioned for the Canaanite servants, because it is not as great a mitzvah to sustain them as the others who are full-fledged members of the Jewish people.
|
| 12. |
This applies even though the non-kosher animal may not be eaten by the Jew, he may sell it to a gentile and will receive a greater payment because of its increase in weight.
|
| 13. |
And thus he is not considered as having performed a favor for the person bringing the sacrifice.
|
| 14. |
For then, she is considered as having carried out the marriage. Her father is merely acting as her agent and thus is not considered as offering Reuven benefit.
|
| 15. |
A girl between the ages of twelve and twelve and a half who has manifested signs of physical maturity (Hilchot Ishut 2:1-2). Needless to say, this applies if the girl is a minor, in which instance, her consecration is dependent entirely on her father.
|
| 16. |
For at this age, she cannot marry without her father's consent, as stated in Hilchot Ishut 3:11.
|
| 17. |
If, however, Reuven does not consent, the separation of the terumah is not effective (Bava Metzia22a).
|
| 18. |
Since Shimon is forbidden to receive a wage from teaching Reuven, he is not giving him tangible benefit. Although he is enabling him to observe a mitzvah, the mitzvot were not given for our satisfaction (Eruvin 31a).
|
| 19. |
See Hilchot Talmud Torah 1:7, 3:10 where the Rambam issues such a ruling and explains that this is derived from Deuteronomy 4:5: "Behold, I [Moses] have taught you laws and statutes, as God commanded me." On this basis, Nedarim 37a teaches that Moses was implying: "Just as I learned at no cost, so, too, you have been instructed at no cost by me. And so, too, should you teach the coming generations at no cost."
In his Commentary to the Mishnah (Nedarim 4:3), the Rambam writes:
See also the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah Avot 4:7. It must, however, by noted that most authorities [see Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 246:5) allow a teacher to charge for the time he spends teaching Torah on the basis of the principle of sechar batalah, i.e., he could have spent the time he spends teaching working at another profession which would bring him an income. He is allowed to be reimbursed for the money he loses by choosing to teach Torah instead. For this reason, the Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 221:2) does not accept the Rambam's ruling and forbids Shimon from teaching Reuven.
|
| 20. |
Nedarim 37a gives two reasons why it is permitted for a teacher of young children to charge a wage for his services: a) he is not charging for teaching; he is charging for being a disciplinarian; b) he is not charging for teaching the wordings of Torah; he is charging for teaching the cantillation notes. (For at that time, there were no texts with vowels and the Written Law was studied by memorizing its chants.) The first rationale does not apply with regard to adults, but the second does.
|
| 21. |
A father is obligated to teach his son the Torah. Hence, by instructing Reuven's son, Shimon is freeing him of an obligation. Nevertheless, this is not considered as providing him with benefit, for teaching his son is a mitzvah. And as stated above, the mitzvot were not given for our satisfaction. Moreover, it is possible that Reuven could find another person to teach his son without charge.
|
| 22. |
For this is also a mitzvah. Even though the sick person derives benefit from the person's visit, the benefit is not granted him directly (see Nedarim 39a).
|
| 23. |
I.e., pay a short visit and leave promptly. Since sitting with the sick person is worth money in that community, it is forbidden, by doing so, he will be providing the sick person with a tangible benefit. Payment is not given for visiting while standing. Therefore, there is no prohibition against doing so. See Siftei Cohen 221:19 who writes that if he charges for his time, he may sit and pay the sick person a longer visit.
|
| 24. |
In his Commentary to the Mishnah (Nedarim 4:4), the Rambam states that it is a mitzvah of Scriptural origin for a doctor to heal a sick person.
The Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 221:4) states that when medical attention is given without charge, he may treat him without charge. If, however, it is customary for a doctor to charge, he must also do so.
|
| 25. |
In certain manuscripts and early printings of the Mishneh Torah, this clause is included as the conclusion of the previous halachah rather than at the beginning of this one.
|
| 26. |
I.e., he may give him advice with regard to which treatments to employ, but may not treat the animal himself. The rationale is that treating a colleague's animal is not considered a mitzvah (Tosafot, Nedarim 41b). The Beit Yosef (Yoreh De'ah 221) explains that if there is no one else capable of treating the animal but Shimon, Shimon may do so, because the mitzvah of returning a lost object also includes doing what is necessary to save a colleague's livestock. The Radbaz also adds the rationale that Scriptural Law requires us to alleviate an animal's discomfort.
|
| 27. |
For the entrance of one person into a large bath is not significant.
|
| 28. |
And that is considered as pleasurable.
|
| 29. |
Because the increase in warmth is not desirable.
|
| 30. |
The more people under the same bed clothes, the greater the warmth produced. The Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 221:5) states that this applies with regard to a small bed. If the bed is large, even in the winter, it is permitted.
|
| 31. |
This alone is not enough to create suspicion that he will offer him food.
|
| 32. |
The Meiri explains that even though the two are at odds - and for that reason one has taken a vow not to offer the other benefit - we fear that he might make such a gesture out of good manners.
|
| 33. |
The custom was that before passing the tray to another person, the host would fill it up again. Hence there would be no need for Shimon to worry about leaving a piece for Reuven [Radbaz;Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 221:5)]. The Rama adds that if the serving plate contained a very large amount, there is no prohibition.
|
| 34. |
It was customary to drink wine in the house of mourners to help him overcome his sorrow (seeKetubot 8b).
|
| 35. |
A cup of hot water that was provided for bathers by the owner of the bathhouse (i.e., and not one belonging to Shimon).
Nedarim 38b states that Shimon may give Reuven "the cup of peace" and advances these two interpretations for the term. The Rambam does not consider the interpretations as mutually exclusive, for the same principle - that the satisfaction Shimon gives Reuven is minimal - applies in both instances (Kessef Mishneh).
|
| 36. |
The Ra'avad offers a different interpretation than the Rambam, explaining that the "cup of the bathhouse" is given to save the person's life, lest he dehydrate. Moreover, he explains that since the cup belongs to Reuven, there is no difficulty. And he states that giving the cup of comfort is a mitzvah.
|
| 37. |
For the coal is considered an entity of substance, while the flame is not (Siftei Cohen 221:57).
|
| 38. |
Since Shimon retains a certain dimension of ownership, when Reuven makes use of it, he is still considered as benefiting from Shimon's property.
|
| 39. |
In his Commentary to the Mishnah (Maaserot 1:7) the Rambam defines the term ekal as referring to a container made from ropes in which olives are placed and crushed.
|
| 40. |
Provided Shimon did not specifically forbid Reuven from entering these structures, as indicated by Halachah 14.
|
| 41. |
And once an entity has become forbidden because of a vow, it remains forbidden.
|
| 42. |
For that is ownerless and is not affected by the vow.
|
| 43. |
Although he is allowed to benefit from the produce, he is not allowed to set foot in Shimon's land, as stated in Halachah 3, and as the Rambam continues to explain.
|
| 44. |
For then, benefit from that particular field itself becomes forbidden to Reuven forever. Compare to Chapter 5, Halachah 5.
|
| 45. |
In which case, the prohibition involves only property actually owned by Shimon without applying to any particular property individually.
|
| 46. |
For the entrance of the Sabbatical year causes them to be considered as ownerless. Shimon cannot cause the produce to be forbidden for Reuven, for a person cannot cause food that does not belong to him to be forbidden to a colleague (Nedarim 42b). And when Reuven takes an oath or a vow not to benefit from Shimon's property, the oath or the vow does not pertain to this produce, for it does not belong to Shimon.
|
| 47. |
See Halachot 1 and 3.
|
| 48. |
Because in such a situation, he is not forbidden to enter Shimon's property.
|
| 49. |
Since the prohibition took effect before the Sabbatical year, it continues during the Sabbatical year, as stated in Halachah 13.
|
| 50. |
Hence Shimon cannot cause it to be forbidden for Reuven, as above.
|
| 51. |
Reuven is not receiving any benefit from lending out either his articles or his money. Nevertheless, he is forbidden lest Shimon reciprocate and that would involve receiving benefit.
|
| 52. |
In a sale, even though the purchaser receives an article in return for his money, the seller is considered to have benefited. For if this was not so, he would not have sold the article.
|
| 53. |
The Ra'avad differs with the Rambam, explaining the source for this law (Nedarim 38b) in another way. The Radbaz explains that halachically, both interpretations are acceptable. The Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 223:1) quotes the Ra'avad's interpretation, but not of the Rambam. Accordingly, the Bayit Chadash maintains that according to the Shulchan Aruch, the Rambam's interpretation is not accepted. See also Turei Zahav 223:1 and Siftei Cohen 223:1.
|
| 54. |
See Chapter 3, Halachot 10-11, for details on how a vow of this nature must be worded for it to be effective.
|
| 55. |
The Baer HaGolah 221:65 rules that he may not write a note specifically for that person. Instead, he should write on the wall with the intent that the person see. Others, however, do not accept this stringency.
|
| 56. |
He may not, however, speak to the wall, for in this instance, it is obvious that he is speaking to his colleague. The Beit Yosef (Yoreh De'ah 221) is even more stringent, stating that when it is obvious that he is intending for the person to whom he is forbidden to speak to hear, he may not speak even to another colleague.
|
• Shabbat, Nissan 15, 5775 · 4 April 2015
"Today's Day"
Our custom is to use for the maror and the chazeret (on the seder plate) both horseradish and romaine lettuce. Kiddush is said standing. The pronunciation of the first word of the Haggada is Hay lachma... When the b'racha "...on eating maror" is recited, one should have in mind the second portion of maror to be eaten later atkoreich (sandwiched between two pieces of matza).
Torah lessons: Chumash: Acharei Mot, Shlishi with Rashi.
Tehillim: 77-78.
Tanya: Furthermore, even in (p. 209)...been explained above. (p.211).
At the first seder my father would be brief,1 in order to eat the afikoman before midnight. On the second night, however, he would expound at length; he began the seder before9 p.m. and ended at about 3 or 4 in the morning, dwelling at length on the explanation of the Haggada.
The Alter Rebbe declared: The matza of the first evening of Pesach is called the Food of Faith; the matza of the second evening is called the Food of Healing. When healing brings faith ("Thank you, G-d, for healing me") then clearly there has been illness. When faith brings healing, there is no illness to start with.
FOOTNOTES
1. In his explanations of the Haggada, etc.
Daily Thought:
The Freedom Connection
We are limited by the very fact that we have human form. There is no freedom in following our whim, or even our most reasoned decisions. As a prisoner cannot undo his own shackles, so we remain enslaved to our own limited selves.
And so Moses was told, “When you take the people out from Egypt, you shall all serve G‑d on this mountain.”
What makes us free? Simple deeds done each day, as agents of the One who is absolutely free.[Tanya, Chapter 47.]
____________________________
No comments:
Post a Comment