Today's Laws & Customs:
• Preparation for Shavuot Begins
“The Sages of old instituted, yet in the times of the Holy Temple, that thirty days before the onset of a holiday the teachers should begin publicly instructing the masses regarding the laws of the holiday; e.g. from Purim and onwards to teach the laws of Passover, and from the 5th of Iyar and onwards to teach the laws of Shavuot” (Shulchan Aruch Harav 429:1).
• Count "Twenty-One Days to the Omer" Tonight
Tomorrow is the twenty-first day of the Omer Count. Since, on the Jewish calendar, the day begins at nightfall of the previous evening, we count the omer fortomorrow's date tonight, after nightfall: "Today is twenty-one days, which are three weeks, to the Omer." (If you miss the count tonight, you can count the omer all day tomorrow, but without the preceding blessing).
The 49-day "Counting of the Omer" retraces our ancestors' seven-week spiritual journey from the Exodus to Sinai. Each evening we recite a special blessing and count the days and weeks that have passed since the Omer; the 50th day isShavuot, the festival celebrating the Giving of the Torah at Sinai.
Tonight's Sefirah: Malchut sheb'Tifferet -- "Receptiveness in Harmony"
The teachings of Kabbalah explain that there are seven "Divine Attributes" --Sefirot -- that G-d assumes through which to relate to our existence: Chessed,Gevurah, Tifferet, Netzach, Hod, Yesod and Malchut ("Love", "Strength", "Beauty", "Victory", "Splendor", "Foundation" and "Sovereignty"). In the human being, created in the "image of G-d," the seven sefirot are mirrored in the seven "emotional attributes" of the human soul: Kindness, Restraint, Harmony, Ambition, Humility, Connection and Receptiveness. Each of the seven attributes contain elements of all seven--i.e., "Kindness in Kindness", "Restraint in Kindness", "Harmony in Kindness", etc.--making for a total of forty-nine traits. The 49-day Omer Count is thus a 49-step process of self-refinement, with each day devoted to the "rectification" and perfection of one the forty-nine "sefirot."
Links:
How to count the Omer
The deeper significance of the Omer Count
Today in Jewish History:
• State of Israel Proclaimed (1948)
The British mandate to govern the Holy Land expired on Friday, May 14, 1948. A United Nations resolution passed six months earlier endorsed the establishment of a Jewish state in the biblical homeland of the Jewish people. That afternoon, the state of Israel was proclaimed in Tel Aviv. The date -- Iyar 5 on the Jewish calendar -- is celebrated in Israel as the Israeli "Independence Day."
Daily Quote:
With whom did G-d consult (when He said "Let us make man")? He consulted with the souls of the righteous[Midrash Rabbah, Bereishit 8:7]
Daily Study:
Chitas and Rambam for today:
Chumash: Tazria-Metzora, 6th Portion Leviticus 14:33-15:15 with Rashi
• Chapter 14
33And the Lord spoke to Moses and to Aaron, saying, לגוַיְדַבֵּר יְהֹוָה אֶל משֶׁה וְאֶל אַהֲרֹן לֵאמֹר:
34When you come to the land of Canaan, which I am giving you as a possession, and I place a lesion of tzara'ath upon a house in the land of your possession, לדכִּי תָבֹאוּ אֶל אֶרֶץ כְּנַעַן אֲשֶׁר אֲנִי נֹתֵן לָכֶם לַאֲחֻזָּה וְנָתַתִּי נֶגַע צָרַעַת בְּבֵית אֶרֶץ אֲחֻזַּתְכֶם:
and I place a lesion of tzara’ath: Heb. וְנָתַתִּי, lit. and I will give. This is [good] news for them that lesions of tzara’ath will come upon them, (Torath Kohanim 14:75), because the Amorites had hidden away treasures of gold inside the walls of their houses during the entire forty years that the Israelites were in the desert, and through the lesion, he will demolish the house (see verses 43-45) and find them. — [Vayikra Rabbah 17:6] ונתתי נגע צרעת: בשורה היא להם שהנגעים באים עליהם, לפי שהטמינו אמוריים מטמוניות של זהב בקירות בתיהם כל ארבעים שנה שהיו ישראל במדבר, ועל ידי הנגע נותץ הבית ומוצאן:
35and the one to whom the house belongs comes and tells the kohen, saying, "Something like a lesion has appeared to me in the house," להוּבָא אֲשֶׁר לוֹ הַבַּיִת וְהִגִּיד לַכֹּהֵן לֵאמֹר כְּנֶגַע נִרְאָה לִי בַּבָּיִת:
Something like a lesion has appeared to me in the house: Even a Torah scholar, who knows that it is definitely a lesion [of tzara’ath], shall not make his statement using a decisive expression, saying, “A lesion has appeared to me,” but, “Something like an lesion has appeared to me” [out of respect for the kohen, who is to make the decision]. — [Nega’im 12:5] כנגע נראה לי בבית: אפילו תלמיד חכם שיודע שהוא נגע ודאי לא יפסוק דבר ברור לומר נגע נראה לי, אלא כנגע נראה לי:
36the kohen shall order that they clear out the house, before the kohen comes to look at the lesion, so that everything in the house should not become unclean. After this, the kohen shall come to look at the house. לווְצִוָּה הַכֹּהֵן וּפִנּוּ אֶת הַבַּיִת בְּטֶרֶם יָבֹא הַכֹּהֵן לִרְאוֹת אֶת הַנֶּגַע וְלֹא יִטְמָא כָּל אֲשֶׁר בַּבָּיִת וְאַחַר כֵּן יָבֹא הַכֹּהֵן לִרְאוֹת אֶת הַבָּיִת:
before the kohen comes…: since as long as the kohen has not yet become involved with the house [in question], the law of uncleanness does not yet apply to it. בטרם יבא הכהן וגו': שכל זמן שאין כהן נזקק לו, אין שם תורת טומאה:
so that everything in the house should not become unclean: For if they do not clear it out, and the kohen comes and sees the lesion, the house will have to be quarantined and everything inside it will become unclean. Now, for what objects did the Torah have consideration? If it was upon vessels that require immersion [in a mikvah to cleanse them], then [instead of having them removed,] let him immerse them, and they will become clean. And if it was upon food and drink, then [instead of removing them, let them become unclean] and he can eat and drink them during his period of uncleanness. Hence, the Torah has consideration only for earthenware vessels, which cannot be cleansed by [immersion in] a mikvah [and would thus undergo permanent damage if they became unclean]. — [Nega’im 12:5] ולא יטמא כל אשר בבית: שאם לא יפנהו ויבא הכהן ויראה הנגע, נזקק להסגר, וכל מה שבתוכו יטמא. ועל מה חסה תורה, אם על כלי שטף, יטבילם ויטהרו, ואם על אוכלין ומשקין, יאכלם בימי טומאתו, הא לא חסה התורה אלא על כלי חרס, שאין להם טהרה במקוה:
37And he shall look at the lesion. Now, [if] the lesion in the walls of the house consists of dark green or dark red sunken looking stains, appearing as if deeper than the wall, לזוְרָאָה אֶת הַנֶּגַע וְהִנֵּה הַנֶּגַע בְּקִירֹת הַבַּיִת שְׁקַעֲרוּרֹת יְרַקְרַקֹּת אוֹ אֲדַמְדַּמֹּת וּמַרְאֵיהֶן שָׁפָל מִן הַקִּיר:
sunken-looking stains: Heb., שְׁקַעֲרוּרֹת, sunken (שׁוֹקְעוֹת) in their appearance (בְּמַרְאֵיהֶן). - [Torath Kohanim 14:89] שקערורת: שוקעות במראיהן:
38then the kohen shall go out of the house to the entrance of the house, and he shall quarantine the house for seven days. לחוְיָצָא הַכֹּהֵן מִן הַבַּיִת אֶל פֶּתַח הַבָּיִת וְהִסְגִּיר אֶת הַבַּיִת שִׁבְעַת יָמִים:
39Then the kohen shall return on the seventh day and look [at the house]. Now, [if] the lesion has spread in the walls of the house, לטוְשָׁב הַכֹּהֵן בַּיּוֹם הַשְּׁבִיעִי וְרָאָה וְהִנֵּה פָּשָׂה הַנֶּגַע בְּקִירֹת הַבָּיִת:
40the kohen shall order that they remove the stones upon which the lesion is [found], and they shall cast them away outside the city, to an unclean place. מוְצִוָּה הַכֹּהֵן וְחִלְּצוּ אֶת הָאֲבָנִים אֲשֶׁר בָּהֵן הַנָּגַע וְהִשְׁלִיכוּ אֶתְהֶן אֶל מִחוּץ לָעִיר אֶל מָקוֹם טָמֵא:
they remove the stones: Heb. וְחִלְּצוּ, as the Targum [Onkelos] renders: וְיִשְׁלְפוּן, “they shall remove them from there,” similar to, “[Then his brother’s wife shall…] remove (וְחָלְצָה) his shoe” (Deut. 25:9), an expression of removal. וחלצו את האבנים: כתרגומו וישלפון, יטלום משם, כמו (דברים כה ט) וחלצה נעלו, לשון הסרה:
to an unclean place: [I.e.,] a place where clean things are not used. This verse teaches us that these [unclean] stones contaminate their place as long as they are there. - [Torath Kohanim 4:96] אל מקום טמא: מקום שאין טהרות משתמשות שם, למדך הכתוב שהאבנים הללו מטמאות מקומן בעודן בו:
41And he shall scrape out the house from the inside, all around, and they shall pour out the [mortar] dust from what they scraped, outside the city, into an unclean place. מאוְאֶת הַבַּיִת יַקְצִעַ מִבַּיִת סָבִיב וְשָׁפְכוּ אֶת הֶעָפָר אֲשֶׁר הִקְצוּ אֶל מִחוּץ לָעִיר אֶל מָקוֹם טָמֵא:
scraped out: Heb. יַקְצִעַ, rogner in French, or rodoniyer in Old French, to clip, to trim. This term occurs many times in the language of the Mishnah, [for example, Kelim 27:4, 5, B.K. 66b, Chul. 123b]. [Note that the spelling in Mikraoth Gedoloth is different. I have not found such a spelling in any dictionary. Greenberg, however, writes that Tobler and Lommatszch, Altfranzösisches Wörterbuch gives fifteen spellings for this word.] יקצע: רודוניי"ר בלע"ז [להקציע]. ובלשון משנה יש הרבה:
inside: Heb., מִבַּיִת, inside. מבית: מבפנים:
all around: Heb. סָבִיב, around the lesion. In Midrash Torath Kohanim, it is thus expounded, namely, that he shall scrape out the plaster surrounding the afflicted stones. סביב: סביבות הנגע, בתורת כהנים נדרש כן, שיקלוף הטיח שסביב אבני הנגע:
they scraped: Heb. הִקְצוּ, an expression denoting an edge (קָצֶה). [I.e.,] that they scrape off (קִצְּעוּ) around the edges (קְצוֹת) of the lesion. הקצו: לשון קצה, אשר קצעו בקצות הנגע סביב:
42And they shall take other stones and bring them instead of those stones. And he shall take other [mortar] dust, and plaster the house. מבוְלָקְחוּ אֲבָנִים אֲחֵרוֹת וְהֵבִיאוּ אֶל תַּחַת הָאֲבָנִים וְעָפָר אַחֵר יִקַּח וְטָח אֶת הַבָּיִת:
43And if the lesion returns and erupts in the house, after he had removed the stones, and after the house had been scraped around and after it had been plastered, מגוְאִם יָשׁוּב הַנֶּגַע וּפָרַח בַּבַּיִת אַחַר חִלֵּץ אֶת הָאֲבָנִים וְאַחֲרֵי הִקְצוֹת אֶת הַבַּיִת וְאַחֲרֵי הִטּוֹחַ:
had been scraped: an expression of having been done, [i.e., the passive], and so is "it had been plastered". However, [in] “he had removed "the stones,” the expression refers to the person who had removed them, and this is [an example of] the intensive verb form [called pi’el, which has a dagesh in the middle letter of the root form], like [the verbs][with a dagesh in the] and[with a dagesh in the ]. הקצות: לשון העשות וכן הטוח, אבל חלץ את האבנים מוסב הלשון אל האדם שחלצן והוא משקל לשון כבד, כמו כפר, דבר:
And if…the lesion returns“: One might think that if it returned on that same day, it would be deemed unclean. Scripture, therefore, states (verse 39), “Then the kohen shall return (וְשָׁב הַכֹּהֵן),” [the same term as in our verse, namely,], “and if… [the lesion] returns (וְאִם יָשׁוּב).” Just as the return (שִׁיבָה) of the kohen mentioned there, is at the end of a week, so is the return [of the lesion] mentioned here, at the end of a week. — [Torath Kohanim 14:105] ואם ישוב הנגע וגו': יכול חזר בו ביום יהא טמא, תלמוד לומר ושב הכהן ואם ישוב, מה שיבה האמורה להלן לסוף שבוע, אף שיבה האמורה כאן בסוף שבוע:
44then the kohen shall come and look [at it]. Now, [if] the lesion in the house has spread, it is malignant tzara'ath in the house; it is unclean. מדוּבָא הַכֹּהֵן וְרָאָה וְהִנֵּה פָּשָׂה הַנֶּגַע בַּבָּיִת צָרַעַת מַמְאֶרֶת הִוא בַּבַּיִת טָמֵא הוּא:
Then the kohen shall come and look [at it]. Now, [if] the lesion… has spread: [From here,] one might think that a recurrent lesion [in a house] can be deemed unclean only if it spreads. However, the term צָרַעַת מַמְאֶרֶת, “malignant tzara’ath,” is mentioned in reference to houses, and צָרַעַת מַמְאֶרֶת is mentioned in reference to garments (see verse 13:52). [Through the exposition of a גְזֵרָה שָׁוָה we derive that] just as over there [in the case of garments,] a recurrent lesion is deemed unclean even if it had not spread, here too, [in the case of houses,] a recurrent lesion is deemed unclean even if it has not spread. If so, what does Scripture teach us here when it says, “Now, [if] the lesion… has spread…”? [in answer to this question, Rashi explains that the verses here should not be understood in the order in which they are written. Rather, they should be read in a different order, because] this is not the place for this verse. [I.e., the first section of this verse, namely, “Then the kohen shall come and look [at it]. Now [if] the lesion in the house has spread,” is to be understood by inserting it elsewhere within these verses, as follows]: “He shall demolish the house…” (verse 45), should be [understood as if] written after “And if… the lesion returns…” (verse 43), [skipping over the first section of verse 44], and then [reinserting this first section of our verse] “Then the kohen shall come and look… the lesion in the house has spread.” Thus, [when our verse says that the kohen looks at the lesion, the phrase, “[if] the lesion…has spread”] comes to teach [us] only about a lesion which remains the same during the first week [of quarantine], but when he came at the end of the second week [of quarantine], he found that it had spread. For in the earlier verses, Scripture does not explicitly tell us about a case where the lesion had remained with the same appearance after the first week [of quarantine]. Here, though, Scripture teaches you with this mention of spreading, that it is referring only to a lesion that has remained the same for the first week but spread during the second [week]. So what shall he do to it? I may think that he should demolish it, as is written immediately following it, “He shall demolish the house….” (verse 45). Scripture, therefore, says (verse 39), “the kohen shall return,” and [here], “the kohen shall come.” Just as in the case of “returning” [i.e., when the kohen returned after one week and the lesion had spread], he must remove [the unclean stones], scrape, and plaster, and give it another week [of quarantine], likewise, in the case of “coming” [i.e., where the lesion has remained the same for the first week, but spread during the second week], he must remove [the unclean stones], scrape, and plaster and then give it a week [of quarantine]. And, if it recurs again, he must demolish [the house]. If it does not recur, [however,] it is clean. Now, how do we know that if it remained the same during this and this, [i.e., during the first and second weeks], he must [also] remove [the unclean stones], scrape, plaster, and give it a [third] week [of quarantine]? Therefore, Scripture [here] says, “the kohen shall come (וּבָא),” and [in verse 48, it says], “if the kohen comes and comes [again] (בֹּא יָבֹא) ” What is Scripture referring to? If [you suggest that it means a lesion] that spread during the first week [of quarantine], this has already been mentioned [in verse 43]; if [you suggest that verse 48 is referring to a lesion] that spread during the second [week], this has already been mentioned [in our verse]; so [one must conclude that verse 48], “if the kohen comes and comes [again],” [is referring to the case that] he comes (בֹּא) at the end of the first week [of quarantine] and comes [again] (יָבֹא) at the end of the second week [of quarantine], and looks, and [as is continued in verse 48], “behold, the lesion did not spread” [i.e., it has remained the same throughout]. What shall he do to it? One might think that he should dismiss [the case] and depart, as it is written here (48) “the kohen shall pronounce the house clean.” Scripture, however, continues there, “because the lesion has healed.” [God says:] I deemed clean only what was healed. What shall be done with it [if the lesion has remained the same during the first and second weeks, and has not yet healed]? “Coming” is stated above [in verse 44, “the kohen shall come”], and “coming” is stated here [in verse 48, “if the kohen comes…and comes [again]”]; just as in the case above (verse 44), he must remove [the unclean stones], scrape, plaster, and give it a week [of quarantine], a law which we learned through the link made between the terms “returning” and “coming,” likewise, in the case below, [in the question of a lesion that has remained the same through the two weeks, the owner shall remove the unclean stones, scrape, plaster, and observe a week of quarantine]. The above is taught in Torath Kohanim (14:105). The conclusion of this matter is: Demolition [of an afflicted house] is required only when the lesion recurs after the removal [of the unclean stones], scraping, and plastering. The recurring lesion does not require spreading [to necessitate demolition]. Hence, the sequence of the verses is as follows: (Verse 43), “And if [after he had removed the stones, and after the house had been scraped around and after it had been plastered, the lesion] returns” ; then (verse 44, second section),“it is malignant tzara’ath …it is unclean”]; then (verse 45), “He shall demolish the house…,” and (verse 46), “Anyone entering the house […shall become unclean],” and (verse 47), “[And one who lies down…] and one who eats in the house [shall immerse…]” ; [at this juncture, just before verse 48, the second section of our verse (44) is now inserted in the sequence, namely,] “Then the kohen shall come and look…the lesion in the house has spread”- [and, as above, now we know that] Scripture here is referring to a case where the lesion remained the same during the first week [of quarantine], so a second week of quarantine is applied, and at the end of this second week of its quarantine, he comes and sees that it has spread. What should he do with it? The owner must remove [the unclean stones], scrape, plaster, and give it another [i.e., a third] week [of quarantine]. Now, if the lesion recurs, he must demolish, but if it does not recur, [the house is deemed clean, and] birds are required [along with the whole cleansing procedure, because lesions are never quarantined for more than three weeks. [See Rashi on verse 48 below, which is understood in light of this Rashi.] ובא הכהן וראה והנה פשה: יכול לא יהא החוזר טמא אלא אם כן פשה, נאמר צרעת ממארת בבתים ונאמר צרעת ממארת בבגדים, מה להלן טמא את החוזר אף על פי שאינו פושה, אף כאן טמא את החוזר אף על פי שאינו פושה, אם כן מה תלמוד לומר והנה פשה, אין כאן מקומו של מקרא זה, אלא ונתץ את הבית היה לו לכתוב אחר ואם ישוב הנגע וראה והנה פשה, הא לא בא ללמד אלא על נגע העומד בעיניו בשבוע ראשון ובא בסוף שבוע שני ומצאו שפשה, שלא פירש בו הכתוב למעלה כלום בעומד בעיניו בשבוע ראשון, ולמדך כאן בפשיון זה שאינו מדבר אלא בעומד בראשון ופשה בשני ומה יעשה לו, יכול יתצנו, כמו שסמך לו ונתץ את הבית, תלמוד לומר ושב הכהן ובא הכהן, נלמד ביאה משיבה, מה שיבה חולץ וקוצה וטח ונותן לו שבוע, אף ביאה חולץ וקוצה וטח ונותן לו שבוע. ואם חוזר, נותץ. לא חזר, טהור. ומנין שאם עמד בזה ובזה חולץ וקוצה וטח ונותן לו שבוע, תלמוד לומר ובא ואם בא יבא, במה הכתוב מדבר, אם בפושה בראשון הרי כבר אמור, אם בפושה בשני הרי כבר אמור, הא אינו אומר [ובא], ואם בא יבא, אלא את שבא בסוף שבוע ראשון ובא בסוף שבוע שני וראה והנה לא פשה. זה העומד מה יעשה לו, יכול יפטר וילך, כמו שכתוב כאן וטהר את הבית, תלמוד לומר כי נרפא הנגע, לא טהרתי אלא את הרפוי, מה יעשה לו, ביאה אמורה למעלה וביאה אמורה למטה, מה בעליונה חולץ וקוצה וטח ונותן לו שבוע, דגמר לה זהו שיבה זהו ביאה, אף בתחתונה כן וכו', כדאיתא בתורת כהנים. גמרו של דבר אין נתיצה אלא בנגע החוזר אחר חליצה וקצוע וטיחה ואין החוזר צריך פשיון. וסדר המקראות כך הוא ואם ישוב, ונתץ, והבא אל הבית, והאוכל בבית, ובא הכהן וראה והנה פשה. ודבר הכתוב בעומד בראשון שנותן לו שבוע שני להסגרו, ובסוף שבוע שני להסגרו בא וראהו שפשה, ומה יעשה לו, חולץ וקוצה וטח ונותן לו שבוע. חזר, נותץ. לא חזר, טעון צפרים, שאין בנגעים יותר משלשה שבועות:
45He shall demolish the house, its stones, its wood, and all the [mortar] dust of the house, and he shall take [them] outside the city, to an unclean place. מהוְנָתַץ אֶת הַבַּיִת אֶת אֲבָנָיו וְאֶת עֵצָיו וְאֵת כָּל עֲפַר הַבָּיִת וְהוֹצִיא אֶל מִחוּץ לָעִיר אֶל מָקוֹם טָמֵא:
46And anyone entering the house during all the days of its quarantine shall become unclean until the evening. מווְהַבָּא אֶל הַבַּיִת כָּל יְמֵי הִסְגִּיר אֹתוֹ יִטְמָא עַד הָעָרֶב:
during all the days of its quarantine: However, not [someone entering the house] during the days that he scrapes off the lesion [during which time the house does not defile those who enter it, until the quarantine period begins]. But [if this is so,] one might think, if a lesion is pronounced definitely unclean [and the house is slated for demolition], that if the owner [disregards the order to demolish the house, but instead, removes the unclean stones and] scrapes off its lesion, that this case is also excluded [i.e., this house shall also not defile those entering it]. Scripture, therefore, says: “during all the days” [in which the seemingly superfluous word “all” comes to include this case, that since this house is unclean and must be demolished, it will always defile those who enter it]. — [Torath Kohanim 14:110]. כל ימי הסגיר אותו: ולא ימים שקלף את נגעו, יכול שאני מוציא המוחלט שקלף את נגעו, תלמוד לומר כל ימי:
[And anyone entering the house…] shall become unclean until the evening: [Since no mention of immersing garments is made here, Scripture] teaches us that [the one who enters] the house does not defile [his] garments. One might think that even if he remained in the house for the time of פְּרָס כְּדֵּי אִכִילַת -the length of time it takes someone to eat an average meal [i.e., half a loaf-that his garments would also remain undefiled]. Scripture, therefore, says: “(verse 47) ”one who eats in the house shall immerse his garments.“ We know only if one eats [that his garments become unclean]. How do we know that if someone lies down [in the house, his garments become unclean]? Therefore, Scripture says (verse 47),”And whoever lies down in the house, [shall immerse his garments].“ I know only [that this law applies to] someone who either eats or lies down. How do we know that [this law applies also to] someone who did not eat or lie down [in the house]? Therefore, Scripture (verse 47),”shall immerse… shall immerse." [The repetition of this expression] includes [the case where the person merely stayed in the house, that his garments become unclean]. If so, why are eating and lying down mentioned? To give a measurement [of time] that it takes to eat half a loaf for one who lies down [i.e., only if someone lies down in the house for that period do his garments become unclean]. — [Torath Kohanim 14:111] יטמא עד הערב: מלמד שאין מטמא בגדים, יכול אפילו שהה בכדי אכילת פרס, תלמוד לומר והאוכל בבית יכבס את בגדיו. אין לי אלא אוכל, שוכב מנין, תלמוד לומר והשוכב. אין לי אלא אוכל ושוכב, לא אוכל ולא שוכב מנין, תלמוד לומר יכבס יכבס, ריבה. אם כן למה נאמר אוכל ושוכב, ליתן שיעור לשוכב כדי אכילת פרס:
47And whoever lies down in the house, shall immerse his garments, and whoever eats in the house, shall immerse his garments. מזוְהַשֹּׁכֵב בַּבַּיִת יְכַבֵּס אֶת בְּגָדָיו וְהָאֹכֵל בַּבַּיִת יְכַבֵּס אֶת בְּגָדָיו:
48But if the kohen comes and comes again and looks [at the lesion], and behold, the lesion did not spread in the house, after the house has been plastered, the kohen shall pronounce the house clean, because the lesion has healed. מחוְאִם בֹּא יָבֹא הַכֹּהֵן וְרָאָה וְהִנֵּה לֹא פָשָׂה הַנֶּגַע בַּבַּיִת אַחֲרֵי הִטֹּחַ אֶת הַבָּיִת וְטִהַר הַכֹּהֵן אֶת הַבַּיִת כִּי נִרְפָּא הַנָּגַע:
But if the kohen comes […] and comes [again]: At the end of the second week [of quarantine], ואם בא יבא: לסוף שבוע שני:
and looks [at the lesion], and behold, the lesion did not spread: This verse comes to teach [us] about a lesion that has remained the same throughout [both] the first and second weeks [of quarantine]. And what should be done to it]? One might think that it should be pronounced clean, as is apparent from the plain meaning of this verse, which continues: “the kohen shall pronounce the house clean.” Scripture, however, concludes the verse with, “because the lesion has healed.” [God says:] I deem clean only [the lesion] that has healed. And “healed” means only a house which has been scraped and plastered, and the lesion did not recur. But this [house, in which the lesion has neither disappeared nor spread], requires removal [of the unclean stones], scraping, plastering, and a third week [of quarantine]. Thus, the following is how our verse is to be understood: “But if the kohen comes […] and comes [again] at the end of the second [week of quarantine] and beholds, the lesion did not spread, he must plaster it, and there is no plastering without removing [the unclean stones] and scraping. [Then] after the house has been plastered, the kohen shall [pronounce] the house clean if the lesion did not recur at the end of the week [of quarantine], because the lesion has healed.” But if it recurs, Scripture has already explained regarding a [house with a] recurring lesion, that it requires demolition. וראה והנה לא פשה: מקרא זה בא ללמד בעומד בעיניו בראשון ובשני מה יעשה לו, יכול יטהרנו כמשמעו של מקרא וטהר הכהן את הבית, תלמוד לומר כי נרפא הנגע, לא טהרתי אלא את הרפוי, ואין רפוי אלא הבית שהוקצה והוטח ולא חזר הנגע, אבל זה טעון חליצה וקצוי וטיחה ושבוע שלישי. וכן המקרא נדרש ואם בא יבא בשני, וראה והנה לא פשה יטיחנו, ואין טיחה בלא חלוץ וקצוי. ואחרי הטוח את הבית וטהר הכהן את הבית אם לא חזר לסוף השבוע, כי נרפא הנגע, ואם חזר כבר פירש על החוזר שטעון נתיצה:
49To [ritually] cleanse the house, he shall take two birds, a cedar stick, a strip of crimson [wool], and hyssop. מטוְלָקַח לְחַטֵּא אֶת הַבַּיִת שְׁתֵּי צִפֳּרִים וְעֵץ אֶרֶז וּשְׁנִי תוֹלַעַת וְאֵזֹב:
50He shall slaughter one bird into an earthenware vessel, over spring water. נוְשָׁחַט אֶת הַצִּפֹּר הָאֶחָת אֶל כְּלִי חֶרֶשׂ עַל מַיִם חַיִּים:
51And he shall take the cedar stick, the hyssop, the strip of crimson [wool], and the live bird, and he shall dip them into the blood of slaughtered bird and into the spring water and sprinkle towards the house seven times. נאוְלָקַח אֶת עֵץ הָאֶרֶז וְאֶת הָאֵזֹב וְאֵת | שְׁנִי הַתּוֹלַעַת וְאֵת הַצִּפֹּר הַחַיָּה וְטָבַל אֹתָם בְּדַם הַצִּפֹּר הַשְּׁחוּטָה וּבַמַּיִם הַחַיִּים וְהִזָּה אֶל הַבַּיִת שֶׁבַע פְּעָמִים:
52And he shall [thus] cleanse the house with the blood of the bird, the spring water, the live bird, the cedar wood, the hyssop and the strip of crimson [wool]. נבוְחִטֵּא אֶת הַבַּיִת בְּדַם הַצִּפּוֹר וּבַמַּיִם הַחַיִּים וּבַצִּפֹּר הַחַיָּה וּבְעֵץ הָאֶרֶז וּבָאֵזֹב וּבִשְׁנִי הַתּוֹלָעַת:
53He shall then send away the live bird outside the city, onto the [open] field. He shall thus effect atonement for the house, and it will be clean. נגוְשִׁלַּח אֶת הַצִּפֹּר הַחַיָּה אֶל מִחוּץ לָעִיר אֶל פְּנֵי הַשָּׂדֶה וְכִפֶּר עַל הַבַּיִת וְטָהֵר:
54[All] this is the law for every lesion of tzara'ath, and for a nethek, נדזֹאת הַתּוֹרָה לְכָל נֶגַע הַצָּרַעַת וְלַנָּתֶק:
55And for tzara'ath of garments and houses, נהוּלְצָרַעַת הַבֶּגֶד וְלַבָּיִת:
56And for a se'eith and for a sapachath and for a bahereth; נווְלַשְׂאֵת וְלַסַּפַּחַת וְלַבֶּהָרֶת:
57To render decisions regarding the day of uncleanness and the day of cleanness. This is the law of tzara'ath. נזלְהוֹרֹת בְּיוֹם הַטָּמֵא וּבְיוֹם הַטָּהֹר זֹאת תּוֹרַת הַצָּרָעַת:
To render decisions regarding the day of uncleanness: [I.e., to determine] which day renders it clean and which day renders it unclean. להורת ביום הטמא: איזה יום מטהרו ואיזה יום מטמאו:
Chapter 15
1And the Lord spoke to Moses and to Aaron, saying, אוַיְדַבֵּר יְהֹוָה אֶל משֶׁה וְאֶל אַהֲרֹן לֵאמֹר:
2Speak to the children of Israel, and say to them, If any man has a discharge from his flesh, his discharge is unclean. בדַּבְּרוּ אֶל בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל וַאֲמַרְתֶּם אֲלֵהֶם אִישׁ אִישׁ כִּי יִהְיֶה זָב מִבְּשָׂרוֹ זוֹבוֹ טָמֵא הוּא:
If [any man] has a discharge: One might think that if he had a discharge from any place [in the body], he becomes unclean. Scripture, therefore, says: “from his flesh,” meaning not all his flesh. Since Scripture made a distinction between flesh and flesh, I am entitled to reason: [Scripture] renders unclean a man who has a discharge, and it renders unclean a woman who has a discharge. Just as with a woman who has a discharge, from the very place [in her body] from which she becomes unclean with a minor degree of uncleanness, namely, נִדָּה, “menstrual uncleanness,” she becomes unclean with a major degree of uncleanness, namely, זִיבָה, a flow outside the menstrual period, likewise, in the case of a man who has a discharge, from the very place [in his body] from which he becomes unclean with a minor degree of uncleanness, namely, קֶרִי, a seminal emission, he becomes unclean with a major degree of uncleanness, namely, זִיבָה, an abnormal discharge. — [Torath Kohanim 15:122] [Menstruation and seminal emission both cause a minor degree of uncleanness, one that does not require seven clean days before purification, as opposed to the uncleanness of a discharge of a zav or zavah (gedolah), which do require this and are thus referred to as a major degree of uncleanness.] כי יהיה זב: יכול זב מכל מקום יהא טמא, תלמוד לומר מבשרו ולא כל בשרו. אחר שחלק הכתוב בין בשר לבשר זכיתי לדין, טמא בזב וטמא בזבה, מה זבה ממקום שהיא מטמאה טומאה קלה, נדה, מטמאה טומאה חמורה, זיבה, אף הזב ממקום שמטמא טומאה קלה, קרי, מטמא טומאה חמורה, זיבה:
his discharge is unclean: [Apart from the discharge rendering the man unclean,] this teaches us that [the discharge itself is also unclean, i.e., that even] one drop defiles [other people, and vessels] (Torath Kohanim 15:123; Niddah 55a). [What is the difference between discharge and semen?] A [male] discharge resembles the moisture [that separates itself from and appears on] barley dough, and is a thin liquid, resembling the white of an unfertilized (מוּזֶרֶת) egg, whereas semen is thick, like the white of an egg which is מוּזֶרֶת [i.e., which has been fertilized by a male.]. — [Niddah 35b] זובו טמא: למד על הטפה שהיא מטמאה. זוב דומה למי בצק של שעורין ודחוי, ודומה ללובן ביצה המוזרת. שכבת זרע קשור כלובן ביצה שאינה מוזרת:
3And this shall be [the nature of] his uncleanness due to his discharge: [if] his flesh runs with his discharge, or [if] his flesh is plugged up by his discharge, that is his uncleanness. גוְזֹאת תִּהְיֶה טֻמְאָתוֹ בְּזוֹבוֹ רָר בְּשָׂרוֹ אֶת זוֹבוֹ אוֹ הֶחְתִּים בְּשָׂרוֹ מִזּוֹבוֹ טֻמְאָתוֹ הִוא:
runs: Heb. רָר, an expression related to רִיר, saliva, which flows from his flesh. רר: לשון ריר שזב את בשרו:
with his discharge: like saliva, which comes out clear. את זובו: כמו ריר שיוצא צלול:
or [his flesh is] plugged up: that the discharge comes out thick, and thus seals up (חוֹתָם) the orifice of the member, so that his flesh is plugged up on account of a drop of his discharge. This is its simple meaning. The midrashic explanation, however, [is as follows]: The first verse (verse 2) counts two perceptions [of a discharge] and calls him unclean, as it says, “a discharge from his flesh, his discharge is unclean.” Then, the second verse (verse 3) counts out three perceptions [of a discharge] and calls him unclean, as it says, “And this shall be [the nature of] his uncleanness due to his discharge: [if] his flesh runs with his discharge, or [if] his flesh is plugged up by his discharge, that is his uncleanness.” Now, how is this so? Two are for uncleanness, and the third requires him to [bring] a sacrifice. — [Meg. 8a; Niddah 43b] או החתים: שיוצא עב וסותם את פי האמה ונסתם בשרו מטפת זובו, זהו פשוטו. ומדרשו מנה הכתוב הראשון ראיות שתים וקראו טמא, שנאמר זב מבשרו זובו טמא הוא, ומנה הכתוב השני ראיות שלש וקראו טמא, שנאמר טומאתו בזובו רר בשרו את זובו או החתים בשרו מזובו טומאתו היא. הא כיצד, שתים לטומאה והשלישית מזקיקתו לקרבן:
4Any bedding upon which the man with the discharge will lie, shall become unclean, and any object upon which he will sit, shall become unclean. דכָּל הַמִּשְׁכָּב אֲשֶׁר יִשְׁכַּב עָלָיו הַזָּב יִטְמָא וְכָל הַכְּלִי אֲשֶׁר יֵשֵׁב עָלָיו יִטְמָא:
Any bedding: Heb. כָּלהַמִּשְׁכָּב, anything fit for bedding. One might think [that this would include] even if it is designated for another purpose. Scripture, therefore, says, “upon which [the man…] will lie”; it does not say, “upon which [the man…] lay” [in the past tense,] but rather, [in the future tense,] “will lie,” which is always designated for this. It excludes this [object], about which they say to him, “Get up and let us do our work [for which purpose it was designated]!” - [Torath Kohanim 15:128] כל המשכב: הראוי למשכב, יכול אפילו מיוחד למלאכה אחרת, תלמוד לומר אשר ישכב, אשר שכב לא נאמר, אלא אשר ישכב, המיוחד תמיד לכך, יצא זה שאומרים לו עמוד ונעשה מלאכתנו:
[And any object upon which] he will sit: [Just like the case above of the bedding,] It does not say “[upon which] he sat,” but, “upon which he will sit,” [thus referring to an article] that is always designated for this. — [Torath Kohanim 15:128; Shab. 59a] אשר ישב: ישב לא נאמר אלא אשר ישב עליו הזב, במיוחד תמיד לכך:
5And a man who touches his bedding, shall immerse his garments and immerse himself in water and he remain unclean until evening. הוְאִישׁ אֲשֶׁר יִגַּע בְּמִשְׁכָּבוֹ יְכַבֵּס בְּגָדָיו וְרָחַץ בַּמַּיִם וְטָמֵא עַד הָעָרֶב:
And a man who touches his bedding: This teaches us that the [uncleanness of] bedding is more stringent than [the uncleanness caused by] touching [an object], insofar as this [a bedding or a seat] becomes an אַב הַטֻּמְאָה [a major source of uncleanness], which can defile a person to render his garments unclean, whereas, touching an object which is not bedding, this [object] becomes only a וְלַד הַטֻּמְאָה [a secondary source of uncleanness, i.e., a degree less than אַב הַטֻּמְאָה], and it can defile only food and drink [but not people or objects]. ואיש אשר יגע במשכבו: לימד על המשכב שחמור מן המגע, שזה נעשה אב הטומאה לטמא אדם לטמא בגדים, והמגע שאינו משכב אינו אלא ולד הטומאה, ואינו מטמא אלא אוכלין ומשקין:
6And anyone who sits on an object, upon which the man with the discharge will sit, shall immerse his garments and immerse himself in water, and he shall remain unclean until evening. ווְהַיּשֵׁב עַל הַכְּלִי אֲשֶׁר יֵשֵׁב עָלָיו הַזָּב יְכַבֵּס בְּגָדָיו וְרָחַץ בַּמַּיִם וְטָמֵא עַד הָעָרֶב:
And anyone who sits on an object: Even if he did not touch it, even if there were ten objects one on top of the other [and the man with the discharge had sat on the top one]-they all [even the bottom seat] become defiled because of מוֹשָׁב [the law of uncleanness concerning seats. Thus, just as the man with the discharge defiles the bottom seat of the pile without touching it, so too, a clean man can become defiled by that bottom seat without touching it]. And the same [applies] to מִשְׁכָּב [defilement of beds]. — [Torath Kohanim 15:134] והישב על הכלי: אפילו לא נגע, אפילו עשרה כלים זה על זה, כולן מטמאין משום מושב וכן במשכב:
7And anyone who touches the flesh of the man with a discharge, shall immerse his garments and immerse himself in water, and he shall remain unclean until evening. זוְהַנֹּגֵעַ בִּבְשַׂר הַזָּב יְכַבֵּס בְּגָדָיו וְרָחַץ בַּמַּיִם וְטָמֵא עַד הָעָרֶב:
8And if the man with the discharge spits upon a clean person, [that person] shall immerse his garments and immerse himself in water, and he shall remain unclean until evening. חוְכִי יָרֹק הַזָּב בַּטָּהוֹר וְכִבֶּס בְּגָדָיו וְרָחַץ בַּמַּיִם וְטָמֵא עַד הָעָרֶב:
And if the man with the discharge spits upon a clean person: And he touches it or lifts it up [without touching it, for saliva defiles if lifted up [even without direct contact]. — [Niddah 55b] וכי ירק הזב בטהור: ונגע בו או נשאו, שהרוק מטמא במשא:
9Any riding gear upon which the man with the discharge will ride, becomes unclean. טוְכָל הַמֶּרְכַּב אֲשֶׁר יִרְכַּב עָלָיו הַזָּב יִטְמָא:
Any riding gear: Although he did not sit on it, for example, the saddlebow, called arcon [in French. It] becomes unclean because of מֶרְכָּב [riding gear]. [However], the saddle itself, called alves [in Old French], a board connecting the two uprights of a saddle,(according to Gukovitzki, or) saddle-girth, belly-band, (according to Greenberg,) becomes unclean because of מוֹשָׁב [a seat]. — [Eruvin 27a] וכל המרכב: אף על פי שלא ישב עליו, כגון התפוס של סרגא שקורין ארצו"ן [שלד האוכף] טמא משום מרכב. והאוכף, שקורין אלוו"ש [אוכף] טמא טומאת מושב:
10And whoever touches anything what will be under him, becomes unclean until evening. And whoever lifts them up shall immerse his garments and immerse himself in water, and he shall remain unclean until evening. יוְכָל הַנֹּגֵעַ בְּכֹל אֲשֶׁר יִהְיֶה תַחְתָּיו יִטְמָא עַד הָעָרֶב וְהַנּוֹשֵׂא אוֹתָם יְכַבֵּס בְּגָדָיו וְרָחַץ בַּמַּיִם וְטָמֵא עַד הָעָרֶב:
And whoever touches anything that will be under him: [i.e.,] [under] the man with the discharge (Torath Kohanim 15:139). [This verse] comes to teach us about riding gear, that anyone touching it becomes unclean; he is [however,] not required to immerse his garments. This is a feature of the stringency of מִשְׁכָּב as opposed to מֶרְכָּב. וכל הנגע בכל אשר יהיה תחתיו: של זב. בא ולימד על המרכב, שיהא הנוגע בו טמא ואין טעון כבוס בגדים, והוא חומר במשכב מבמרכב:
And whoever lifts them up: [I.e.,] any of the items mentioned above in this passage discussing [the laws of] a man with a discharge, [namely:] his discharge, his saliva, his semen, his urine, the bedding, riding gear, [or seat (Reggio ed.)] [defiled by the man with the discharge]-if any of these items is lifted, it defiles the person [who lifted it, together] with his garments. — [Torath Kohanim 15: 140] והנושא אותם: את כל האמור בענין הזב, זובו ורוקו ושכבת זרעו ומימי רגליו והמשכב והמרכב והמושב, שיהא משאן מטמא אדם לטמא בגדים:
11And whomever the man with the discharge touches, without [the latter] having rinsed his hands, shall immerse his garments and immerse himself in he waters, and he shall remain unclean until evening. יאוְכֹל אֲשֶׁר יִגַּע בּוֹ הַזָּב וְיָדָיו לֹא שָׁטַף בַּמָּיִם וְכִבֶּס בְּגָדָיו וְרָחַץ בַּמַּיִם וְטָמֵא עַד הָעָרֶב:
[And whomever the man with the discharge touches,] without [the latter] having rinsed his hands: While [the man with the discharge] has not yet immersed himself from his uncleanness. And even if the discharge has ceased, and the man counts seven [days], as long as he has not yet immersed himself [in a mikvah,] he defiles with all [the aspects] of his uncleanness. And the reason Scripture expresses the immersion of a man with a discharge as “rinsing hands,” is to teach you that the hidden parts of the body [e. g., the mouth,] are not required to be immersed, only the uncovered parts of the body, like the hands. — [Torath Kohanim 15:142] וידיו לא שטף במים: בעוד שלא טבל מטומאתו, ואפילו פסק מזובו וספר שבעה ומחוסר טבילה, מטמא בכל טומאותיו. וזה שהוציא הכתוב טבילת גופו של זב בלשון שטיפת ידים, ללמדך שאין בית הסתרים טעון ביאת מים, אלא אבר הגלוי, כמו הידים:
12And an earthenware vessel which the man with the discharge will touch, shall be broken. And any wooden vessel shall be rinsed in water. יבוּכְלִי חֶרֶשׂ אֲשֶׁר יִגַּע בּוֹ הַזָּב יִשָּׁבֵר וְכָל כְּלִי עֵץ יִשָּׁטֵף בַּמָּיִם:
And an earthenware vessel which the man with the discharge will touch: One might think that even if he touches it from the outside [of the vessel, “it will also become unclean….” [However, the conclusion of the Midrash is that an earthenware vessel can become defiled only by the entry of an unclean object into its inner space], as is taught in Torath Kohanim (15:143), [where the passage there continues: “So if the verse indeed is referring to entry into the inner space of an earthenware vessel, why does it use the expression of touching?” And this passage] concludes: “Well, what touching is referred to here? When he touches the whole vessel. [And what does this mean?] When he moves it.” [I.e., in addition to the case of entry into the inner space, if a man with a discharge moves a vessel, it becomes unclean]. וכלי חרש אשר יגע בו הזב: יכול אפילו נגע בו מאחוריו וכו', כדאיתא בתורת כהנים, עד איזהו מגעו שהוא בכולו הוי אומר זה הסיטו:
13When the man with the discharge is cleansed of his discharge, he shall count seven days for himself for his purification, and then immerse his garments and immerse his flesh in spring water, and he shall be clean. יגוְכִי יִטְהַר הַזָּב מִזּוֹבוֹ וְסָפַר לוֹ שִׁבְעַת יָמִים לְטָהֳרָתוֹ וְכִבֶּס בְּגָדָיו וְרָחַץ בְּשָׂרוֹ בְּמַיִם חַיִּים וְטָהֵר:
When…is cleansed: [I.e.,] when [the discharge] ceases. — [Torath Kohanim 15:146; Meg. 8a] וכי יטהר: כשיפסוק:
seven days…for his purification: Seven clean days free of the uncleanness of a discharge, i.e., he must not see any discharge [during these seven days]. And all of them [must be] consecutive [i.e., without any interruption of a discharge during these seven days]. — [Torath Kohanim 15:150; Niddah 33b] שבעת ימים לטהרתו: שבעת ימים טהורים מטומאת זיבה, שלא יראה זוב, וכולן רצופין:
14And on the eighth day, he shall take for himself two turtle doves or two young doves, and come before the Lord, to the entrance of the Tent of Meeting, and give them to the kohen. ידוּבַיּוֹם הַשְּׁמִינִי יִקַּח לוֹ שְׁתֵּי תֹרִים אוֹ שְׁנֵי בְּנֵי יוֹנָה וּבָא | לִפְנֵי יְהֹוָה אֶל פֶּתַח אֹהֶל מוֹעֵד וּנְתָנָם אֶל הַכֹּהֵן:
15And the kohen shall make them: one into a sin offering and one into a burnt offering, and the kohen shall effect atonement for him from his discharge, before the Lord. טווְעָשָׂה אֹתָם הַכֹּהֵן אֶחָד חַטָּאת וְהָאֶחָד עֹלָה וְכִפֶּר עָלָיו הַכֹּהֵן לִפְנֵי יְהֹוָה מִזּוֹבוֹ:Daily Tehillim: Psalms Chapters 29 - 34
• Chapter 29
The Name of God appears eighteen times in this psalm, corresponding to which our Sages established eighteen blessings-the Amidah. The entire psalm can be interpreted as referring to the giving of the Torah and the ingathering of the exiles.
1. A psalm by David. Render to the Lord, children of the mighty, render to the Lord honor and strength.
2. Render to the Lord the honor due to His Name; bow down to the Lord in resplendent holiness.
3. The voice of the Lord is over the waters, the God of glory thunders; the Lord is over mighty waters.
4. The voice of the Lord resounds with might; the voice of the Lord resounds with majesty.
5. The voice of the Lord breaks cedars; the Lord shatters the cedars of Lebanon.
6. He makes them leap like a calf, Lebanon and Sirion like a young wild ox.
7. The voice of the Lord strikes flames of fire.
8. The voice of the Lord makes the desert tremble; the Lord causes the desert of Kadesh to tremble.
9. The voice of the Lord causes the does to calve, and strips the forests bare; and in His Sanctuary all proclaim His glory.
10. The Lord sat [as King] at the Flood; the Lord will sit as King forever.
11. The Lord will give strength to His people; the Lord will bless His people with peace.
Chapter 30
This psalm teaches one not to be distressed if God visits suffering upon him in this world, for only through suffering can one enter the World to Come. Even one of great spiritual stature should realize that his stability is not guaranteed, but that all is in the hands of God.
1. A psalm, a song of dedication of the House, by David.
2. I exalt You, Lord, for You have uplifted me, and did not allow my enemies to rejoice over me.
3. Lord, my God, I cried out to You, and You healed me.
4. Lord, You have brought up my soul from the grave; You have kept me alive, that I should not descend to the pit.
5. Sing to the Lord, you His pious ones, and praise His holy Name.
6. For His wrath endures but for a moment, when He is conciliated there is [long] life; when one retires at night weeping, joy will come in the morning.
7. In my security I thought, "I shall never falter.”
8. Lord, by Your favor You have made my mountain stand strong; when You concealed Your countenance I was alarmed.
9. I called to You, O Lord, and I made supplication to my Lord:
10. What profit is there in my death, in my going down to the grave? Can dust praise You? Can it proclaim Your truth
11. Lord, hear and be gracious to me; Lord, be a help to me.
12. You have turned my mourning into dancing; You have undone my sackcloth and girded me with joy.
13. Therefore my soul shall sing to You, and not be silent; Lord my God, I will praise You forever.
Chapter 31
Composed by a destitute and oppressed David, running from Saul while placing his trust in God, this psalm instructs man to put his trust in God alone.
1. For the Conductor, a psalm by David.
2. In You I have taken shelter, O Lord, I shall never be shamed; rescue me in Your righteousness.
3. Turn Your ear to me, save me quickly; be to me a rock of refuge, a fortress to deliver me.
4. For You are my rock and my fortress; for the sake of Your Name, direct me and lead me.
5. Remove me from the net they planted for me, for You are my stronghold.
6. I entrust my spirit into Your hand; You will redeem me, Lord, God of truth.
7. I despise those who anticipate worthless vanities; but I trust in the Lord.
8. I will rejoice and delight in Your kindness, for You have seen my affliction; You know the troubles of my soul.
9. You have not delivered me into the hand of the enemy; You have set my feet on spacious ground.
10. Be gracious to me, O Lord, for I am in distress; my eye wastes away from vexation-my soul and my stomach.
11. For my life is spent in sorrow, my years in sighing; my strength fails because of my iniquity, and my bones are wasted away.
12. Because of my adversaries I have become a disgrace-exceedingly to my neighbors, and a dread to my friends; those who see me outside flee from me.
13. Like a dead man, I was forgotten from the heart; I became like a lost vessel.
14. For I have heard the slander of many, terror on every side, when they assembled together against me and plotted to take my life.
15. But I trusted in You, O Lord; I said, "You are my God.”
16. My times are in Your hand; save me from the hands of my enemies and pursuers.
17. Shine Your countenance upon Your servant; deliver me in Your kindness.
18. O Lord, let me not be ashamed, for I have called You; let the wicked be shamed, let them be silent to the grave.
19. Let the lips of falsehood-which speak insolently against the righteous, with arrogance and contempt-be struck dumb.
20. How abundant is Your good that You have hidden for those who fear You; in the presence of man, You have acted for those who take refuge in You.
21. Conceal them from the haughtiness of man, in the shelter of Your countenance; hide them in a shelter from the strife of tongues.
22. Blessed is the Lord, for He has been wondrous in His kindness to me in a besieged city.
23. I said in my panic, "I am cut off from before Your eyes!" But in truth, You heard the voice of my pleas when I cried to You.
24. Love the Lord, all His pious ones! The Lord preserves the faithful, and repays with exactness those who act haughtily.
25. Be strong and fortify your hearts, all who put their hope in the Lord!
Chapter 32
This psalm speaks of forgiveness of sin, and of the good fortune of one who repents and confesses to God wholeheartedly.
1. By David, a maskil.1Fortunate is he whose transgression is forgiven, whose sin is covered.
2. Fortunate is the man to whom the Lord does not reckon his sin, and in whose spirit there is no deceit.
3. When I was silent, my limbs wore away through my wailing all day long.
4. For day and night Your hand was heavy upon me; my marrow became [dry] as the droughts of summer, Selah.
5. My sin I made known to You, my iniquity I did not cover. I said, "I will confess my transgressions to the Lord," and You have forgiven the iniquity of my transgression forever.
6. For this let every pious man pray to You, at a time when You may be found; indeed, the flood of many waters will not reach him.
7. You are a refuge to me; protect me from distress; surround me with songs of deliverance forever.
8. I will enlighten you and educate you in the path you should go; I will advise you with what I have seen.
9. Be not like a horse, like a mule, senseless, that must be muzzled with bit and bridle when being adorned, so that it not come near you.
10. Many are the agonies of the wicked, but he who trusts in the Lord is surrounded by kindness.
11. Rejoice in the Lord and exult, you righteous ones! Sing joyously, all you upright of heart!
Chapter 33
This psalm teaches the righteous and upright to praise God. For the more one knows of the Torah's wisdom, the more should he praise God, for he knows and understands His greatness.
1. Sing joyously to the Lord, you righteous ones; it is fitting for the upright to offer praise.
2. Extol the Lord with a harp; sing to Him with a ten-stringed lyre.
3. Sing to Him a new song; play well with sounds of jubilation.
4. For the word of the Lord is just; all His deeds are done in faithfulness.
5. He loves righteousness and justice; the kindness of the Lord fills the earth.
6. By the word of the Lord the heavens were made, and by the breath of His mouth all their hosts.
7. He gathers the waters of the sea like a mound; He places the deep waters in vaults.
8. Let all the earth fear the Lord; let all the inhabitants of the world tremble before Him.
9. For He spoke, and it came to be; He commanded, and it endured.
10. The Lord has annulled the counsel of nations; He has foiled the schemes of peoples.
11. The counsel of the Lord stands forever, the thoughts of His heart throughout all generations.
12. Fortunate is the nation whose God is the Lord, the people He chose as a heritage for Himself.
13. The Lord looks down from heaven; He beholds all mankind.
14. From His dwelling-place He looks intently upon all the inhabitants of the earth.
15. It is He Who fashions the hearts of them all, Who perceives all their actions.
16. The king is not saved by a great army, nor a warrior rescued by great might.
17. The horse is a false guarantee for victory; with all its great strength it offers no escape.
18. But the eye of the Lord is directed toward those who fear Him, toward those who hope for His kindness,
19. to save their soul from death and to sustain them during famine.
20. Our soul yearns for the Lord; He is our help and our shield.
21. For our heart shall rejoice in Him, for we have put our trust in His Holy Name.
22. May Your kindness, Lord, be upon us, as we have placed our hope in You.
Chapter 34
This psalm tells of when David was in grave danger while at the palace of Achish, brother of Goliath. David acted like a madman, letting spittle run down his beard, and writing on the doors: "Achish, king of Gath, owes me one hundred thousand gold coins," leading Achish to eject him from the palace. In his joy, David composed this psalm in alphabetical sequence.
1. By David, when he feigned insanity before Avimelech,1 who then drove him away, and he left.
2. I bless the Lord at all times; His praise is always in my mouth.
3. My soul glories in the Lord; let the humble hear it and rejoice.
4. Exalt the Lord with me, and let us extol His Name together.
5. I sought the Lord and He answered me; He delivered me from all my fears.
6. Those who look to Him are radiant; their faces are never humiliated.
7. This poor man called, and the Lord heard; He delivered him from all his tribulations.
8. The angel of the Lord camps around those who fear Him, and rescues them.
9. Taste and see that the Lord is good; fortunate is the man who trusts in Him.
10. Fear the Lord, you His holy ones, for those who fear Him suffer no want.
11. Young lions may want and hunger, but those who seek the Lord shall not lack any good thing.
12. Come, children, listen to me; I will teach you the fear of the Lord.
13. Who is the man who desires life, who loves long life wherein to see goodness?
14. Guard your tongue from evil, and your lips from speaking deceit.
15. Turn away from evil and do good, seek peace and pursue it.
16. The eyes of the Lord are directed toward the righteous, and His ears toward their cry.
17. The wrath of the Lord is upon the evildoers, to excise their memory from the earth.
18. But when they [repent and] cry out, the Lord hears, and saves them from all their troubles.
19. The Lord is close to the broken-hearted, and saves those with a crushed spirit.
20. Many are the afflictions of a righteous person, but the Lord rescues him from them all.
21. He protects all his bones; not one of them is broken.
22. Evil brings death upon the wicked, and the enemies of the righteous are condemned.
23. The Lord redeems the soul of His servants; all who take shelter in Him are not condemned.
Tanya: Likutei Amarim, middle of Chapter 44• Lessons in Tanya
• Friday, Iyar 5, 5775 · April 24, 2015
Today's Tanya Lesson
Likutei Amarim, middle of Chapter 44
As explained in the previous chapters, the love and fear that lead to performance of Torah and mitzvot elevate them to the Supernal Sefirot. If the love and fear are “natural” — i.e., they do not result from contemplating G‑d’s greatness, but from the soul’s natural resources — then the Torah and mitzvot are elevated only as far as the World of Yetzirah, the World of emotion. For since the level of “natural” love and fear of G‑d belongs in that World, it follows that the Torah and mitzvot performed as a result of that level, will be elevated there as well.
However, if the love and fear are “intellectual” — created by one’s reflection on G‑d’s greatness — then the Torah and mitzvot performed as a result of this contemplation will be elevated to the Sefirot of the World of Beriah, the World where the Sefirah of Binah(“understanding”) is preeminent.
The Alter Rebbe now goes on to say that although the two above-mentioned loves (“My soul...” and “Like a son...”) are naturally found in a Jew’s soul, deriving as they do from the Patriarchs, still, when they are in a revealed state in one’s heart, they are able to elevate the Torah and mitzvot that result from them to the World of Beriah. Only when “natural” love remains concealed in the mind, is it restricted to elevating Torah and mitzvot no higher thanYetzirah. When, however, it is in a revealed state, they are elevated to the World of Beriah.
For while it is true that these loves are natural, yet in order for them to be revealed there must be profound contemplation on the theme of G‑d as our true Father and Source of life. Such contemplation gives this natural love the additional qualitative trait achieved by “intellectual” love, so that the Torah and mitzvot which result from this love are elevated to the World ofBeriah, the World of knowledge. This is now going to be discussed:
והנה ב׳ בחינות אהבות אלו
The said two categories of love — that of “My soul...,” the love a Jew feels for G‑d upon realizing that He is his true life, and that which is “Like a son...,” loving G‑d as one’s true father —
אף שהן ירושה לנו מאבותינו, וכמו טבע בנפשותינו, וכן היראה הכלולה בהן, שהיא לירא מליפרד, חס ושלום, ממקור חיינו ואבינו האמיתי, ברוך הוא
though they are an inheritance unto us from our Patriarchs, and like a natural instinct in our souls (and so, too, as a natural instinct, is the fear that is comprised in them, namely the fear of being sundered, G‑d forbid, from the Source of our life and our true Father, blessed be He),
When one feels that G‑d is the true Source of his life he will fear to transgress, so as not to become separated from his source of life. The feeling of G‑d being one’s true father will likewise keep him from sinning, since he does not want to be torn away from his father.
Although both the above-mentioned degrees of love and fear are instinctively found within Jews,
אף על פי כן אינן נקראות בשם דחילו ורחימו טבעיים, אלא כשהן במוחו ומחשבתו לבד ותעלומות לבו, ואז מקומן בי׳ ספירות דיצירה, ולשם הן מעלות עמהן התורה והמצות הבאות מחמתן ובסיבתן
they are, nevertheless, not termed “natural” fear and love unless they be in the mind and thought alone and in the latency of the heart. Then their place is in the Ten Sefirot of Yetzirah, the place and level of the “natural” emotions, whither they raise up with them the Torah and mitzvot of which they have been the inspiration and cause.
These levels of love are the cause of the performance of one’s Torah and mitzvot, for they result from the portrayal of this love in his mind.
אבל כשהן בהתגלות לבו, נקראים רעותא דלבא בזהר
But when they (the two degrees of love) are in a manifest state in the heart, as a result of his contemplation, they are called in the Zohar, re‘uta delibba (“the heart’s desire” — a more exalted love than “natural” love),
ומקומן בי׳ ספירות דבריאה, ולשם הן מעלות עמהן התורה והמצות הבאות מחמתן
and their place is in the Ten Sefirot of Beriah, where they raise up with them the Torah and mitzvot of which they have been the cause, i.e., which have been performed with the ardor of this love.
The reason this is indeed so, notwithstanding the fact that they are “naturally” found with the soul of every Jew, is now given:
מפני שיציאתן מההעלם והסתר הלב אל בחינת גילוי היא על ידי הדעת, ותקיעת המחשבה בחוזק והתבוננות עצומה מעומקא דלבא יתיר ותדיר באין סוף ברוך הוא, איך הוא חיינו ממש ואבינו האמיתי, ברוך הוא
For their emergence from the latency and concealment of the heart into a state of revelation comes through the faculty of Daat, i.e., through a powerful fixation of the mind and an intense concentration — from the depths of the heart, powerfully and frequently — on the blessed Ein Sof, as to how He is our very life and our blessed true Father. And since his contemplation is so powerful and deep:
ומודעת זאת מה שכתוב בתיקונים כי בעולם הבריאה מקננא תמן אימא עילאה שהיא ההתבוננות באור אין סוף חיי החיים ברוך הוא, וכמאמר אליהו: בינה לבא, ובה הלב מבין
Moreover, what is written in the Tikkunim1 is well known, that “there, in the World of Beriah, nests the ‘Supernal Mother,’” i.e., the level of Binah of Atzilut,which in terms of man’s spiritual service, is the contemplation of the (infinite) light of the blessed Ein Sof, the Giver of life, blessed be He. And this is in accordance with the teaching of Elijah in Tikkunei Zohar,2 in the section beginning Patach Eliyahu:“Binah is the heart, and with it the heart understands.” This means to say that the meditation and understanding taking place in the mind illuminate the heart.
Since the contemplation of G‑dliness is related to the World of Beriah, the World which is illuminated by Binah of Atzilut, it follows that the various forms of love which are revealed through such contemplation have their place in that World as well, and it is there that they elevate one’s Torah and mitzvot.
The Alter Rebbe now goes on to say that the two kinds of love — “My soul...” and “Like a son...” — not only have the quality of love that results from contemplation, but they also have the quality of ahavah rabbah, the love that is granted from above. For they, too, are granted from above, inasmuch as Jews inherit them from the Patriarchs, as explained earlier.
Since these two kinds of love possess all these qualities, it would seem that they should suffice, and love born wholly of intellect is superfluous. Nevertheless, the Alter Rebbe concludes that a Jew should also strive to attain the love that results wholly from contemplating G‑d’s greatness, because of the reasons he will soon give.
ולא עוד, אלא שב׳ בחינות אהבות אלו הנזכרות למעלה הן כלולות מן בחינת אהבה רבה וגדולה ומעולה מדחילו ורחימו שכליים, אשר האהבה נקראת לעיל בשם אהבת עולם
Furthermore, these two categories of love that have been referred to above, the love of “My soul...” and the love of “Like a son...,” incorporate a quality of love which is greater and more sublime than intelligent fear and love, the kind that result from contemplating G‑d’s greatness, the love termed above ahavat olam; these two kinds of love also partake of the quality of ahavah rabbah, which is loftier than ahavat olam.
The Rebbe explains that ahavah rabbah is rooted in Atzilut, which is far superior to Beriah,where ahavat olam is rooted. The Alter Rebbe alludes to this by saying “Furthermore”: i.e., these loves not only have the qualities of “natural” love and “intellectual” love, found in the Worlds of Yetzirah and Beriah respectively, but they also have the quality of the love ofahavah rabbah found in the World of Atzilut. This tremendous quality notwithstanding, the Alter Rebbe concludes that it is necessary to achieve the love brought about wholly through contemplation, for this love is unique in its passion and yearning for G‑dliness.
| FOOTNOTES | |
| 1. | Tikkun 6. |
| 2. | Introduction to Tikkunei Zohar, 17a. |
• Sefer Hamitzvos:Friday. Iyar 5, 5775 · April 24, 2015
Today's Mitzvah
A daily digest of Maimonides’ classic work "Sefer Hamitzvot"
Positive Commandment 127
The First Tithe
"But the tithes of the Children of Israel which they offer to G‑d as a gift..."—Numbers 18:24.
We are commanded to separate a tenth of our crops and give it to a Levite.
This biblical precept only applies in the Land of Israel.
The First Tithe
The First Tithe
Positive Commandment 127
Translated by Berel Bell
The 127th mitzvah is that we are commanded to separate ma'aser from produce which grows from the ground.
The source of this commandment is G‑d's statement,1 "[The inheritance I am giving the Levites shall consist of] the ma'aser of the Jewish people which they shall separate."
The verse itself explains that ma'aser is given to the Levites.
The details of this mitzvah are explained in tractate Ma'aseros.
This is called ma'aser rishon, and is a Biblical requirement only in Eretz Yisroel.2
FOOTNOTES
1.Lev. 27:30.
2.By Rabbinic law, ma'aser must be given from some lands which surround Eretz Yisroel. See Hilchos Terumos, 1:1.
Shabbos - Chapter Twenty Three
Halacha 1
A person who makes a hole that can be used as an entrance and as an exit - e.g., a hole in a chicken coop that is used to allow light to enter and to allow foul air to leave - is liable [for performing the forbidden labor] of dealing [the final] hammer blow.1
Accordingly, [the Sages instituted] a decree [forbidding] the opening of any hole, even one intended to be used only as an outlet or only as an inlet, lest one open a hole for which one is liable.2 For this reason, it is forbidden to make a new hole in a cask or to widen an existing one.3 One may, however, open an existing hole [that has been plugged].4
Halacha 2
One may make a hole in the seal7 of a cask in order to pour out wine from it, provided one opens it from the top.8 It is, however, forbidden to open it from the side [of the seal],9 for this resembles making a utensil.
A person may break a barrel10 to eat dried figs contained in it, provided he does not intend to make a utensil.11 Similarly, a person may bring a cask of wine and slash its top off with a sword12 for his guests13 without any concern [about the above restrictions], for his intent is [not to make a utensil, but solely] to show his feelings of generosity.
Halacha 3
Just as it is forbidden to open any hole, so too, is it forbidden to close any hole.14 Therefore, it is forbidden to close a hole in a barrel, even when one employs an article that need not be spread,15 or one that will not lead to squeezing - 16 e.g., to plug it with a piece of wood or with a small stone.17
One may, however, store food [by placing it the opening of the barrel]. This is permitted even though, in the process, the barrel is stopped up. It is permitted to act with guile in this matter.18
Halacha 4
[Performing] any action that completes the fashioning [of an object] causes one to be liable for [the forbidden labor of] dealing the final blow. For this reason, a person who files [the smallest amount of an object] or who repairs an article in any way is liable.19
Accordingly, it is forbidden to sound musical tones on the Sabbath, whether using a musical instrument - e.g., a harp or a lyre - or using another object. It is even forbidden to tap with one's fingers on the ground or on a board,20 to snap one's fingers rhythmically21 as singers do,22 to shake a nut [like a rattle] for a child, or to ring a bell to quiet [a child]. All of these [restrictions were instituted as] a decree, lest one repair a musical instrument.
Halacha 5
We may not drum, nor dance, nor clap hands on the Sabbath.23 [These are] decrees, [instituted] lest one repair a musical instrument. One may, however, clap using the back of one's hands.
Halacha 6
Halacha 7
One may draw water using a branch that is tied to the cup [used to draw water from the well]. If it is not tied to the cup, we may not draw water with it. [This is] a decree, [instituted] lest one trim [the branch] and adjust it.
It is forbidden to polish silverware withgreitikon,32 because this makes it shine as if it had been treated by a craftsman. Thus, it appears as if one is repairing a utensil and completing one's work on the Sabbath.33One may, however, polish it with sand34 andneter.35 Similarly, all [other] utensils may be polished with any substance.
It is forbidden to wash plates, cooking dishes, or the like, because it is as if one is improving them,36 unless one washes them for the sake of using them to eat another meal on this Sabbath.37 Utensils used for drinking, by contrast - e.g., glasses and pitchers - may be washed at any time, for there is no limit to [the number of times a person may desire to] drink.38
One may not make beds on the Sabbath in order to sleep on them on Saturday night.39 One may, however, make the beds [after sleeping on them] Friday night in order to use them again on the Sabbath.
Halacha 8
On the Sabbath, it is forbidden to immerse [in a mikveh] utensils that are ritually impure, because it resembles repairing the utensil.40 An impure person, by contrast, may immerse himself,41 because it appears [as if his intent] is to cool off. One may not sprinkle [ashes from the red heifer] on the Sabbath.42
A person who immerses utensils on the Sabbath without knowing of the prohibition involved may use them [on the Sabbath]. If [by contrast,] he violates the prohibition intentionally, he should not use them until Saturday night.
It is permitted to immerse impure water on the Sabbath. What should be done? The water should be placed in a container that is not susceptible to contracting ritual impurity43 - e.g., a container made of stone44 - and the container should be immersed until it is submerged in the waters of the mikveh and thus purified.
Halacha 9
Halacha 10
Processing leather is one of the categories of [forbidden] labor.47 A person who softens a hide with oil as the leather-workers do is liable for processing leather.48 Therefore, a person should not anoint his foot49 with oil while wearing a new shoe or sandal.50 He may, however, anoint his foot with oil and put on his shoes or sandals, even though they are new. Similarly, he may apply oil to his entire body and roll on a new bed cover51 without any concern.
When does the above apply? When only a small amount [of oil] is used, enough merely to polish the leather. If, however, he has a large quantity of oil on his skin that would soften the leather, this is forbidden, since this resembles processing it. All [the above restrictions] apply with regard only to new items. It is permitted to do so with old ones.52
Halacha 11
A person who spreads a plaster on the Sabbath is liable for [performing a derivative of the forbidden labor of] smoothing a hide.53 Therefore, it is forbidden to close a hole with wax and the like, lest one spread it.54 It is even forbidden to close a hole with fat. [This is] a decree, [enacted] lest [one use] wax.
Halacha 12
Writing is one of the categories of [forbidden] labor.55 Accordingly, it is forbidden to apply eye-paint with a brush and the like on the Sabbath, because this resembles writing.56
Halacha 13
Halacha 14
Court is not convened on the Sabbath, nor are [the rites of] chalitzah66 oryibbum67 conducted, nor are women betrothed,68 lest one write.69
[Property] may not be consecrated,70 nor may endowment evaluations be made,71 nor may [property] be set aside,72 because this resembles a sale.
Nor may terumah and the tithes be separated, for this resembles consecrating the produce one has separated, and also because, [through this ritual,] one makes [the produce] fit [for use] on the Sabbath.73
One may not tithe one's animals.74 [This is] a decree, [instituted] lest one mark [the animal] with red paint.75 A person may consecrate his Paschal sacrifice on the Sabbath76 and his festive offering on a holiday, for this is the mitzvah associated with that day.77
Just as property may not be consecrated, so too, water may not be consecrated for use [in sprinkling the ashes of the red heifer].78
Halacha 15
When a person separates terumot and tithes on the Sabbath or on a holiday without intentionally desiring to transgress the prohibition involved, he may partake of the produce that he made fit to eat. If he intentionally desired to violate the prohibition, [the produce] is forbidden until Saturday night.79 The separation is, nevertheless, effective.
Similarly, when a person consecrates [an object], makes an endowment evaluation, or sets property aside on the Sabbath, with or without the intention to violate the prohibition, the act he performs is effective. Needless to say, this applies on a holiday. Similarly, a business transaction that a person makes with a colleague on the Sabbath is effective.80
Halacha 16
A person who designates83 [a portion of produce] that is d'mai as terumat ma'aser,84 or [who designates a portion of produce as] the tithe for the poor85should not take these portions [and give them to the individuals entitled to receive them]86 on the Sabbath. [This restriction applies] despite the fact that the place [of these portions] is designated before the Sabbath and they are placed in a known location at the side of [the remainder of] the produce.
If, however, a priest or a poor person is accustomed to be hosted by this person, he may come and partake [of these designated portions,] provided the person informs87 the priest that he is feeding him from terumat ma'aser, or the poor person that he is feeding him from the tithe of the poor.
Halacha 17
Halacha 18
On the Sabbath a person is forbidden to calculate accounts that he requires, whether concerning matters of the past or matters of the future. [This is] a decree, [enacted] lest one write.
Therefore, calculations that are of no practical benefit may be performed on the Sabbath. What is implied? [A person may calculate] how many seah of grain he possessed in a particular year, how many dinarim his son's wedding cost, or the like. [Since] these are insignificant matters with no usefulness, there is no difference between making these calculations on the Sabbath or during the week.91
Halacha 19
It is forbidden to read mundane documents92 on the Sabbath, lest one conduct oneself in an ordinary manner and be provoked to make an erasure.93
A person may verbally count his guests and the desserts [he will serve them],94but may not read a written list, lest he read a mundane document. Therefore, if the names were engraved into a tablet or into the wall, one is allowed to read them, for [such writing] will not be interchanged with a [written] document.
It is forbidden to read the writing under a figure or an image95on the Sabbath. It is even forbidden to read the Sacred Writings96 during the time the House of Study is in session, lest this lead to the neglect of the House of Study - i.e., so that no one should stay home and read the Sacred Writings and thus be held back from attending the House of Study.97
Halacha 20
[When] a fire breaks out in a courtyard on the Sabbath, a person may not save all [his possessions] in the courtyard98 [by transferring them] to another courtyard99 in the same lane, despite the fact [that carrying is permitted because] of an eruv. [This is a] decree, [instituted] lest a person extinguish the fire in order to save his property. [This is necessary because] a person panics when his property [is in danger of] being lost.100
For this reason, [our Sages] decreed that a person may save only the food he needs for that Sabbath,101 the utensils he needs to use on that Sabbath,102 and the clothes that he can wear.103 Thus, he will despair of saving his property and he will not be motivated to extinguish the fire.
If there is no eruv, one may not even save one's food and one's utensils.104
Halacha 21
What food may a person save? If a fire breaks out on Friday night, one may save enough food for three meals.105 Foodstuffs that are fit for human consumption may be saved for humans, and fodder that is fit for animals may be saved for animals.
If the fire breaks out in the morning, one may save enough for two meals; in the afternoon, enough for one meal.
Halacha 22
When does the [restriction] on taking only the food for one's needs apply? When one uses many containers to save [the food] or one uses a single container, removes it, empties it, and fills it again. If, however, one removes a single container at one time, it is permitted to remove it even though it contains enough food for many meals.
Halacha 23
What is implied? One may save a basket filled with loaves of bread, even though it contains enough for several meals. [One also may save] a cake of dried figs and a cask of wine.106 Similarly, it is permitted to spread out a garment, collect all [the food]107 one can within it, and remove it at one time.
Halacha 24
One may tell others, "Come and save for yourselves."108 Every individual is allowed to save enough food for his needs or a single container that holds a large amount. [The food that] these individuals save belongs to them.109
If the person who saves it does not want to take it and returns it to its [original] owner,110 it is permitted for him to take payment for his efforts after [the conclusion of] the Sabbath.111 It is not considered a wage [paid for working on] the Sabbath,112since no [forbidden] labor was [performed], nor was a prohibition [transgressed], for one [merely] removed the food into a place [enclosed in the same] eruv.
Halacha 25
A person who saves a loaf of fine flour may not return and save a loaf of coarse flour. If, however, one saved a loaf of coarse flour, one may return and save a loaf of fine flour.113
When Yom Kippur falls on Friday,114 a person may save [food] on Yom Kippur that he needs for the Sabbath.115 One may not, however, save [food] on the Sabbath for Yom Kippur. Needless to say, one may not [save food on the Sabbath] for a holiday, nor may one save on one Sabbath for the following Sabbath.
Which garments may one save? One may put on all the clothes one can wear and wrap oneself in all the cloaks one can and remove them.116 [Similarly,] one may tell others, "Come and save for yourselves." Every individual [who desires] may put on all the clothes he can wear and wrap himself in all the cloaks he can and remove them. The clothes he saves belong to him, like the food [described above], for he is acquiring an ownerless object.117
Halacha 26
It is permitted to save118 all sacred writings119 that are found in one courtyard [by transferring them] to another courtyard in the same lane, even though aneruv was not made, provided the lane has three walls and a pole [in the place of the fourth wall].120
[The above leniencies apply] provided that the [sacred writings] are written in the Assyrian script121 and in Hebrew.122 If, by contrast, they are written in any other language or using any other script, we should not save them even if there is an eruv.123[Indeed,] even during the week, we are forbidden to read124 from such texts. Rather, they should be left in an open place125 where they will become spoiled as a matter of course.
Halacha 27
Even if [these sacred texts] are written with other tints or with red ink,126 or even if the writing is not permanent, since they are written in the Assyrian script and in Hebrew, we should save them.
Halacha 28
| FOOTNOTES | |
| 1. |
See Chapter 10, Halachah 16. Note, however, Halachah 14 of that chapter, which mentions making a hole in a chicken coop in connection with the forbidden labor of building.
|
| 2. |
Accordingly, many authorities forbid opening cans or bags on the Sabbath. The more lenient opinions, which allow this, base themselves on the concept that after the contents are removed from the can or bag, it is no longer considered a useful article. Alternatively, these opinions maintain that the can is considered to be a utensil even before it is opened, and the cover is not at all significant.
|
| 3. |
The Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 314:1) states that this restriction applies only when the person has the intent to widen the hole. If he does not have this intent, there is no prohibition. As an example, that text mentions a knife inserted into a barrel, even though the hole may be widened when the knife is removed; since that is not one's intent, there is no prohibition involved. The Ramah emphasizes, however, that this leniency applies only when it is not a certainty (פסיק רישא) that the hole will be opened further.
|
| 4. |
The Shulchan Aruch (loc. cit.:3) quotes the opinion of the Kolbo, which states that this leniency applies only regarding barrels of earthenware. A hole made in a wooden barrel which is tightly plugged may not be opened.
|
| 5. |
Shabbat 146a mentions three levels where holes might be made: a) a hole above the level of the wine. This is intended merely to protect the fragrance of the wine.
b) a hole in the middle of the wine. Since the wine is not entirely above the hole, it needed not be fastened so tightly. This is the subject of the present clause.
c) a hole below the dregs. This is the subject of the following clause.
|
| 6. |
Since the entire weight of the wine rests on this hole, it must be fastened very tightly. Accordingly, opening it is considered tantamount to opening a new hole.
|
| 7. |
Barrels would be sealed closed with clay that was spread out and hardened at their opening.
|
| 8. |
Opening the seal in this irregular manner clearly indicates that one did not intend to fashion an opening. An opening is generally not located on the top of a cask (Shulchan Aruch, loc. cit.:6).
|
| 9. |
A careful reading of the Rambam's wording indicates the need for this bracketed addition (Maggid Mishneh). Significantly, this represents a reversal of the Rambam's approach in his Commentary on the Mishnah (Shabbat 22:3), where he mentions making a hole in the side of the barrel.
|
| 10. |
The Shulchan Aruch (loc. cit.:1) states that it is forbidden to break a complete barrel. Just as one is liable for performing the forbidden labor of building when fashioning a vessel, one is liable for performing the forbidden labor of demolishing when destroying one. Although one is not liable unless one breaks the barrel as a constructive act, even when one's intent is destructive, doing so is forbidden by Rabbinic decree (Shulchan Aruch HaRav 314:1; Mishnah Berurah 314:7). There are, however, later authorities who follow the Rambam's ruling, which permits destroying a utensil if one does not fashion it into a different utensil in the process.
|
| 11. |
Were one to make a carefully perforated hole, one would be fashioning it into a utensil (Rashi,Shabbat 146a).
|
| 12. |
Although a sword may not usually be carried on the Sabbath, it may be handled to perform a task that is permitted (Mishnah Berurah 314:24).
|
| 13. |
The Mishnah Berurah 314:25 states that this leniency applies only when guests are present.
|
| 14. |
This is also a restriction imposed, lest one complete the construction of a utensil.
|
| 15. |
See Halachah 11 of this chapter and also Chapter 11, Halachah 6.
|
| 16. |
See Chapter 22, Halachah 15.
|
| 17. |
Significantly, the Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 314:11) follows the opinion of Rabbenu Asher and others, who maintain that one is allowed to close a barrel with a stone or a piece of wood, provided that one does not close it when wine is flowing out. The later authorities (Shulchan Aruch HaRav 314:20; Mishnah Berurah 314:47), however, differ, and rule that the Rambam's decision should be followed.
|
| 18. |
Based on Shabbat 139b, many other authorities, including the Shulchan Aruch (loc. cit.), grant this leniency only to a Torah Sage, but not to a common person. Moreover, since Torah Sages of the caliber of those of the Talmudic era do not exist at present, there are authorities who do not permit this leniency at all in the present era.
|
| 19. |
See Chapter 10, Halachah 16.
|
| 20. |
See the Hagahot Maimoniot, which states that one may knock on a door, because this is not a musical tone. Although there are stringent opinions, common practice is to follow the more lenient view.
|
| 21. |
Our translation is taken from the Mishnah Berurah 339:9. (See also the Be'ur Halachah, which mentions that some versions of the Mishneh Torah omit the Hebrew word או. According to this version, the meaning would be "to bang rhythmically on a board as singers do.")
|
| 22. |
Note the Mishnah Berurah (ibid.), which cites authorities who interpret the phrase "rhythmically as singers do" as an exclusion. These opinions maintain that snapping one's fingers to catch a colleague's attention is not forbidden. Nevertheless, it is common practice to act stringently and not to snap one's fingers at all.
|
| 23. |
Note the Ramah (Orach Chayim 339:3), who states that it is customary to allow clapping one's hands and dancing on the Sabbath and holidays. The rationale for this leniency is that today most people are not able to repair a musical instrument, and thus the rationale for our Sages' decree is no longer applicable.
It must, however, be noted that this leniency is granted only with regard to dancing and clapping hands, not playing drums or performing any of the activities mentioned in the previous halachah. Even dancing and clapping hands is allowed only in rejoicing associated with a mitzvah (Mishnah Berurah 339:10).
|
| 24. |
Although bathing is permitted, as above (Chapter 22, Halachah 20), swimming is not.
|
| 25. |
If the pool is located in the public domain, it is forbidden to swim within it for another reason: It is possible that one will spray water for more than four cubits (Mishnah Berurah 339:4).
|
| 26. |
As the Rambam continues to mention, the reed serves as a spigot through which water flowing from a cask can be directed.
|
| 27. |
Opened at the ends so that the wine can flow through it like a pipe.
|
| 28. |
Measured and trimmed to fit the barrel. This leniency is granted even if this reed has never been used for this purpose before (Shulchan Aruch, Orach Chayim 314:5).
|
| 29. |
In contrast to the reed mentioned above, which must merely be inserted into the barrel, it is necessary to fold the leaf and adjust it so that the wine will flow through (Shulchan Aruch, loc. cit.).
|
| 30. |
Rabbenu Asher and others follow the opinion of other Sages (Shabbat 146b), who explain that the reason for this decree is concern that one might pick a leaf on the Sabbath to use for this purpose. According to that opinion, if before the commencement of the Sabbath one has available many leaves that have been picked, one may use them for this purpose.
In the Kessef Mishneh, Rav Yosef Karo defends the Rambam's ruling, and he quotes it in theShulchan Aruch (loc. cit.). The Ramah, however, quotes Rabbenu Asher's view.
|
| 31. |
The Maggid Mishneh and others cite Beitzah 4:4, which states that these items were used as makeshift frying pans. (Note the Rambam's Commentary on the Mishnah and Hilchot Sh'vitat Yom Tov 4:8.) Rav Kapach, however, raises the question: Since frying is forbidden on the Sabbath, of what use would these articles be?
|
| 32. |
A white powder, referred to as alum or tartar which serves as a natural polish.
|
| 33. |
Rashi (Shabbat 50a) and other commentaries differ and state that the prohibition stems from the forbidden labor of removing hair.
|
| 34. |
See Shulchan Aruch HaRav 323:11 and the Mishnah Berurah 323:38, which mention several restrictions regarding the use of sand for this purpose.
|
| 35. |
In his Commentary on the Mishnah (Keilim 2:1), the Rambam describes neter as a blue pumice stone used for detergent purposes. (See also Hilchot Issurei Bi'ah 9:37.) It must noted that sodium is called natrium in Latin. This has led some to think that the intent is sodium bicarbonate, a natural cleanser.
|
| 36. |
The Ra'avad differs with the Rambam concerning the rationale for this restriction, explaining that it is not associated with the forbidden labor of dealing the final blow. Instead, it is prohibited so that one does not prepare on the Sabbath for a weekday. This opinion is also quoted byShulchan Aruch HaRav 323:6.
|
| 37. |
The intent is that one may wash only those utensils that one intends to use again. Even when a person will serve another meal on the Sabbath, if he is not intending to use certain utensils, he may not wash them. One may, however, wash utensils on Friday night, even though one does not intend to use them until Saturday afternoon (Mishnah Berurah 323:27-28).
|
| 38. |
I.e., one may wash the glasses at any time, because it may be assumed that one will desire to drink later. If, however, a person knows that he will not drink again on the Sabbath, it is forbidden for him to wash pitchers and glasses as well (Shulchan Aruch HaRav 323:6; Mishnah Berurah323:29).
|
| 39. |
Note, however, the Magen Avraham 302:6, who states that one may make a bed if the disorder in the room makes one extremely uncomfortable.
|
| 40. |
I.e., since the utensil was unfit for use before it was immersed, immersing it is equivalent to repairing it (Rambam's Commentary on the Mishnah, Beitzah 2:2; compare to Hilchot Sh'vitat Yom Tov 4:17). Based on Beitzah 18a, Rabbenu Yitzchak Alfasi and Rabbenu Asher offer other rationales for this prohibition.
Note the Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 323:7), which mentions a difference of opinion among the Rabbis whether it is permitted on the Sabbath to immerse a vessel that one has purchased from gentiles. The Maggid Mishneh states that according to the Rambam, this would be forbidden. Accordingly, the Pri Megadim questions why the Shulchan Aruch ignores the Rambam's ruling. The Be'ur Halachah, however, differentiates between the immersion of vessels purchased from a gentile and the immersion of impure vessels.
|
| 41. |
The Mishneh Torah also contains laws that will be relevant when the Temple is rebuilt, and the observance of all the laws of ritual impurity will be restored. At present this halachah is relevant in the following contexts: Women are permitted to immerse themselves in the mikveh on Friday night (with certain restrictions) and men are allowed to immerse themselves on the Sabbath for the sake of holiness (Shulchan Aruch HaRav 326:7; Mishnah Berurah 326:24). Care, however, must be taken when toweling oneself dry not to squeeze water from the towel.
Originally, the license to immerse oneself in the mikveh on the Sabbath was given before it was customary to heat mikvaot. At present, the leniency is continued in most communities, even when the mikveh has been heated.
|
| 42. |
This activity is necessary as part of the purification process for a person who became impure because of contact with a human corpse. Rashi (Pesachim 65b) explains that this is forbidden because it is obvious that one's intent is to purify oneself. Rav Kapach, however, points toPesachim 69a, which states that the prohibition was instituted lest one carry in the public domain.
|
| 43. |
In his Commentary on the Mishnah (Beitzah 2:2), the Rambam explains that if the utensil contracted ritual impurity, its immersion would be forbidden, since one would be purifying not only the water it contains, but also the utensil itself.
|
| 44. |
See Hilchot Keilim 1:6.
|
| 45. |
The Ra'avad mentions that terumah may not be separated even if one's intent is to give it to the priest to use on the Sabbath itself.
|
| 46. |
See Halachah 14, where the Rambam offers another reason for this same prohibition.
|
| 47. |
The Merkevet HaMishneh notes that the Rambam does not mention Rabbinic prohibitions in connection with the forbidden labors of hunting, slaughtering, and skinning. The commentaries do note, however, that in Chapter 10 the Rambam mentions Rabbinic prohibitions in connection with hunting, and in Chapter 11 Rabbinic prohibitions in connection with slaughtering.
|
| 48. |
See Chapter 11, Halachot 5-6.
|
| 49. |
As mentioned in the notes on Chapter 21, Halachah 23, the Ramah (Orach Chayim 327:1) writes that at present, it is not common for healthy people to apply oil to themselves. Therefore, it is forbidden to apply any type of oil to oneself on the Sabbath for therapeutic purposes.
|
| 50. |
See Chapter 22, Halachah 18, and notes.
|
| 51. |
Our translation is taken from the Rambam's Commentary on the Mishnah (Keilim 26:5). Obviously, this bed-cover is made of leather. The Maggid Mishneh offers a different interpretation.
|
| 52. |
Note, however, the Mishnah Berurah 327:12, which cites opinions that prohibit applying oil to used leather.
|
| 53. |
See Chapter 11, Halachah 6.
|
| 54. |
See Halachah 3, which prohibits closing a hole in connection with the forbidden labors of dealing the final blow or of building.
|
| 55. |
See Chapter 11, Halachah 9.
|
| 56. |
It must be emphasized that according to the text of Shabbat 94b, it would appear that applying eye-paint is associated with the forbidden labor of dyeing. Nevertheless, it would appear that the Rambam and many other Rishonim had a different version of the text, upon which he based his ruling in this halachah.
|
| 57. |
See the Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 323), which mentions several leniencies and restrictions regarding the acquisition of foodstuffs on the Sabbath.
|
| 58. |
One may, however, give a present to a colleague. (See the Rambam's Commentary on the Mishnah, Sukkah 3:11.)
|
| 59. |
Note, however, Hilchot Eruvin 2:12, which allows one to rent a gentile's property on the Sabbath in order to complete an eruv.
|
| 60. |
The Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 307:2) offers another rationale for the restriction against hiring workers, the prohibitions stemming from Isaiah 58:13, "If you refrain... from [ordinary] speech" - i.e., that our speech on the Sabbath be distinguished from our speech during the week. The Rambam mentions prohibitions of this nature in Chapter 24.
|
| 61. |
See related matters in Chapter 6.
|
| 62. |
The difference between borrowing such commodities and lending objects is that when one borrows an object, one intends to return the same object. When one borrows a commodity, by contrast, one intends to use it and return a different one. Thus, it bears a far greater resemblance to a loan.
|
| 63. |
Rabbenu Yitzchak Alfasi explains that "Give me as a loan" implies that the loan will be for an extended period. Hence, it is more likely that one will write it down.
The Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 307:11) notes that in languages other than Hebrew, the difference between offering a loan and lending appears as one of semantics. Rather than say "Lend me" or "Give me as a loan," one should say merely "Give me."
|
| 64. |
The Shulchan Aruch and the Ramah (Orach Chayim 323) follow a slightly more lenient approach and allow certain products to be sold by number and in vessels from which a measure can be obtained.
|
| 65. |
Compare to similar laws mentioned in Hilchot Sh'vitat Yom Tov 4:19-24.
|
| 66. |
The ceremony through which a childless widow frees her brother-in-law from the obligation ofyibbum. (See the following note and Deuteronomy 25:7-10.)
|
| 67. |
This refers to the rite in which the brother-in-law of a childless widow marries her in order to perpetuate the name of her dead husband. (See Deuteronomy 25:5-6.)
|
| 68. |
According to Torah law, marriage is a two-staged process, including erusin (betrothal) - when a bond between a husband and wife is established, but the two still live separately - and nisuin(marriage) - when the couple begin their lives together.
Betrothal is initiated by the act of kiddushin. At present, this is effected by the groom's giving the wedding ring to his wife. It must be added that it is also forbidden to carry out nisuin on the Sabbath, but for a different reason: lest one violate the Sabbath laws when preparing for the wedding feast. (See Hilchot Ishut 10:14.)
|
| 69. |
When quoting this law, the Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 339:4) states that divorce proceedings may not generally be carried out on the Sabbath, even if the bill of divorce was written beforehand.
|
| 70. |
This refers to the dedication of property to the Temple treasury or the consecration of an animal to be offered as a sacrifice.
|
| 71. |
See Leviticus 27:1-27.
|
| 72. |
See Leviticus 27:28-29.
|
| 73. |
See Halachah 9, where this reason is mentioned in connection with this prohibition.
|
| 74. |
See Leviticus 27:32.
|
| 75. |
For this was the common practice, as the Rambam mentions in Hilchot Bechorot 7:1. As mentioned in Chapter 11, Halachah 17, making a mark is considered a derivative of the forbidden labor of writing. Rabbenu Chanan'el, by contrast, explains that the prohibition against making this mark stems from the forbidden labor of dyeing.
Rav Moshe HaCohen of Lunil notes that, in contrast to produce, the Rambam does not mention the prohibition against tithing animals in connection with the forbidden labor of dealing the final blow. Unlike produce, according to Torah law, one is allowed to partake of meat from an animal even if it has not been tithed. Although there is a Rabbinic prohibition against partaking of such meat, tithing a herd is not considered as making an object fit for use.
|
| 76. |
When the fourteenth of Nisan falls on the Sabbath.
|
| 77. |
Since these offerings are associated with a fixed time, they will stand out distinctly in one's mind and will not cause one to forget the Sabbath prohibitions (Shabbat 148b, Hilchot Korban Pesach1:19).
|
| 78. |
The laws associated with sprinkling the water that has been mixed with the ashes of the red heifer are described in Numbers 19:11-21.
|
| 79. |
Note the Lechem Mishneh (in the gloss on Hilchot Sh'vitat Yom Tov 6:10), which states that this prohibition applies even when one has no other produce available. See also Sha'ar HaMelech,which questions whether the prohibition applies to others besides the person who violated the prohibition. Note also Chapter 3, Halachah 9, and Chapter 6, Halachah 23.
|
| 80. |
The participants in the transaction are, however, given stripes for rebelliousness, the prohibition instituted for the violation of a Rabbinic prohibition (Hilchot Mechirah 30:7).
|
| 81. |
Although the Rabbis forbade partaking of such produce before tithing it, they considered this as merely a safeguard, for the majority of the common people did separate the tithes. Therefore, one is not considered to be making an article fit for use to the same extent as when one separates tithes from produce that has surely not been tithed (Rav Ovadiah of Bertinoro,Shabbat 2:7). This law is also mentioned in Chapter 24, Halachah 10.
|
| 82. |
Produce purchased from a common person, which we are unsure whether or not it has been tithed.
|
| 83. |
But did not separate these portions (Rambam's Commentary on the Mishnah, D'mai 4:5).
|
| 84. |
The tenth of the tithe, which the Levites were required to give to the priests.
|
| 85. |
Which was given instead of the second tithe in the third and sixth years of the seven-year cycle.
|
| 86. |
The bracketed additions are based on the Rambam's Commentary on the Mishnah (loc. cit.). There the Rambam emphasizes that the prohibition centers on giving the designated portions. This is borne out by his rulings in Hilchot Ma'aser 9:8-11, where he mentions leniencies in regard to the separation of the designated portions on the Sabbath if one makes a condition before the commencement of the Sabbath.
|
| 87. |
If he does not inform them, it is as if he were using the designated gifts for his own personal purposes (Rambam's Commentary on the Mishnah, loc. cit.).
|
| 88. |
This is forbidden even during the week, because the Rabbis deemed gambling to be theft, and also because this reflects conduct that does not contribute to the stability of society (Hilchot Gezeilah 6:7,11).
|
| 89. |
But not with outsiders, as reflected in the Rambam's Commentary on the Mishnah (Shabbat23:2) and his rulings in Hilchot Sh'vitat Yom Tov 4:20.
|
| 90. |
In the Kessef Mishneh and in the Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 322:6), Rav Yosef Karo follows the interpretation of Shabbat 148b by Rabbenu Yitzchak Alfasi and Rabbenu Asher, and forbids casting lots, even among one's own household, unless the portions are equal.
|
| 91. |
See, however, Chapter 24, Halachah 4, which states that one should minimize one's involvement in such idle matters on the Sabbath. Indeed, as is evident from the Rambam's Commentary on the Mishnah (Avot 1:16) and Hilchot De'ot 2:4, the Rambam frowns on such conversation during the week as well. To quote Hilchot Gezeilah 6:11: "It is not for a person to spend any of his days involved in anything other than the words of wisdom and the matters that lead to the settlement of the world."
|
| 92. |
The Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 307:13) renders the Hebrew שטרי הדיוטות as "account sheets." Rashi (Shabbat 149a) interprets this as also referring to social correspondence. Based on the Rambam's commentary on the Mishnah (Shabbat 23:2), the Maggid Mishneh states that the Rambam follows Rashi's view.
[The Shulchan Aruch (loc. cit.:14) permits reading a social letter on the Sabbath only if one is unaware of its contents.]
|
| 93. |
Erasing is one of the categories of forbidden labor, as the Rambam explains in Chapter 11, Halachah 9. Rabbenu Asher (in his gloss to Shabbat 149b) differs and explains that the restriction mentioned stems from the prohibitions derived from Isaiah 58:13, which distinguish between one's conduct on the Sabbath and one's involvement in mundane, weekday concerns.
|
| 94. |
Regarding this ruling, the Rambam writes (Commentary on the Mishnah, loc. cit.), "On the Sabbath, it is forbidden to read anything other than the words of prophecy and their explanations [i.e., the Oral Law]. Among the matters excluded are [works of secular] wisdom and science."
|
| 95. |
Rashi (Shabbat 149a) and the Shulchan Aruch (loc. cit.:15) interpret this as referring to descriptions written under works of art. Others explain that this refers to images of false deities. (In the Talmudic period, these two interpretations could easily be interrelated, because the subject matter of most gentile art was the false deities they worshiped.)
|
| 96. |
I.e., the Holy Writings, in contrast to the Torah and the prophets. This interpretation is obvious from the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (Shabbat 17:1). Rashi (Shabbat 115a) mentions other opinions which forbid reading the works of the prophets as well.
|
| 97. |
See Chapter 30, Halachah 10, where the Rambam describes the attendance at the House of Study on the Sabbath.
|
| 98. |
The Maggid Mishneh states that the wording used by the Rambam indicates that a person in an adjoining courtyard where the fire has not yet caught may transfer all his property to a further removed courtyard if an eruv has been made. This concept is also mentioned in the Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 334:1).
|
| 99. |
The Shulchan Aruch (loc. cit.:11) mentions a further leniency: One may transfer property from a house to an adjoining house or to another courtyard that one owns. There is, however, a difference of opinion among the Rabbis whether this leniency is accepted or not.
|
| 100. |
Another example of a leniency granted because of this principle is found in Chapter 6, Halachah 22.
|
| 101. |
The particular laws stemming from this principle are described in Halachot 21-25.
|
| 102. |
As examples, the Shulchan Aruch (loc. cit.:7) mentions cups and pitchers. From the Shulchan Aruch HaRav 334:8 and the Mishnah Berurah 334:17, it would appear that permission is granted only to save utensils one needs for eating, but not other articles - e.g., pillows and blankets - that might be required on the Sabbath.
|
| 103. |
See Halachah 25.
|
| 104. |
This restriction applies even according to the authorities who maintain that the prohibition against carrying in a lane is Rabbinic in origin. Shulchan Aruch HaRav 334:10 and the Mishnah Berurah334:26 mention that these restrictions do not apply with regard to saving clothes. Since one must wear them as garments, one may take them out to the public domain as well.
|
| 105. |
One may save enough for three meals for every member of his household. Regardless of whether a person eats a large amount or a small amount, a standard measure - and only that standard measure - of food may be saved for him (Shulchan Aruch, Orach Chayim 334:5).
|
| 106. |
This indicates that one may save several different containers containing different types of food.
|
| 107. |
The bracketed additions are made on the basis of Shulchan Aruch HaRav 334:6 and theMishnah Berurah 334:16, which emphasize that, even though one may pour the contents of several containers into a garment, one must empty the containers. It is forbidden to place the containers themselves in a garment and remove them.
|
| 108. |
I.e., even though the person who owns the property may not save more than his household needs, all of his food stores need not be left to the flames. Other people may be invited to save for themselves.
|
| 109. |
Since our Sages forbade the person from saving it, he despairs of ever recovering it and relinquishes his ownership.
The above applies only when the person makes an explicit statement inviting others to save the property. If he does not issue such an invitation, we cannot assume that he has relinquished ownership. Although he is forbidden from saving more himself, others are not allowed to take for themselves, for the owner may yet hope to find friends who will save the food and return it to him at no cost (Shulchan Aruch HaRav 334:7; Mishnah Berurah 334:22).
|
| 110. |
In his Commentary on the Mishnah [Shabbat 16:3 (based on Shabbat 120a)], the Rambam describes this as "God-fearing conduct," for it reflects an unwillingness to benefit from property that is not one's own. In this instance, this is particularly true, for the owner does not willingly abandon ownership of his property.
|
| 111. |
It is, however, pious conduct not to accept payment (Shabbat, loc. cit.).
|
| 112. |
The Maggid Mishneh and others draw attention to the Rambam's statements at the conclusion of Chapter 6, which forbid taking payment even for activities that are permitted on the Sabbath unless the wage is paid for a larger span of time. Rav David Arameah explains that the prohibition against taking payment for one's Sabbath activities is Rabbinic in origin. In this instance, because of the positive nature of the activity involved, the Sages did not impose any restrictions.
Shulchan Aruch HaRav (loc. cit.) explains that the article rightfully belongs to the person who saved it. Although he relinquishes ownership in favor of his original owner, he does not relinquish ownership of that portion of the article that is equivalent to his wage. What he is receiving from the owner is, in fact, payment for property that he was entitled to take possession of.
|
| 113. |
Since one is required to partake of the finest foods on the Sabbath, one is permitted to return and take the loaf baked with fine flour. It is possible to explain that because of the confusion caused by the fire, one forgot to take the better loaf originally.
The Rabbis explained that one may act with guile in this matter and, at the outset, take a loaf of lesser quality so that one can return and take a better loaf afterwards. Since one is not even transgressing a Rabbinic prohibition and will always be able to excuse oneself afterwards that this choice was due to confusion, no restrictions were imposed.
This leads to a further leniency. One may save, for example, a meal of fish, and then return and save a meal of meat, excusing oneself saying, "At first, I desired to partake of the fish. Afterwards, my appetite changed and I preferred the meat" (Shulchan Aruch HaRav 334:3;Mishnah Berurah 334:12).
|
| 114. |
According to the fixed calendar we follow at present, Yom Kippur will not fall on either a Friday or a Sunday. This law, as many of the other laws in the Mishneh Torah, will apply only after the coming of the Redemption.
|
| 115. |
If Yom Kippur falls on Thursday and one knows that it will be impossible to prepare one's Sabbath needs on Friday, one is permitted to save food on Yom Kippur for the Sabbath (Shulchan Aruch HaRav 334:4; Mishnah Berurah 334:13). Similarly, one may save food on Yom Kippur for the meal following the fast, regardless of the day of week (Shulchan Aruch, Orach Chayim 334:4).
|
| 116. |
It appears that, according to the Rambam, one may not return and save other clothes. This is the subject of a difference of opinion among the Sages in the Mishnah (Shabbat 16:4). Rabbi Yosse maintains that one may return and put on a second set of clothes. Since one is not carrying the garments, but wearing them, we rule more leniently than regarding foodstuffs. This ruling is followed by the Rashba and the Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 334:8).
|
| 117. |
Since our Sages forbade a person from saving any more clothes, we assume that he despaired of recovering any more of his property. As mentioned above, many authorities accept this rationale only when the person actually invites others to save the clothes.
|
| 118. |
Although the Rambam is speaking about saving sacred texts from fire, the same laws apply to another factor - e.g., a flood - that might cause their ruin (Shulchan Aruch, Orach Chayim334:19).
|
| 119. |
This term refers to the books of the Bible.
There is somewhat of a difficulty with the Rambam's ruling. He is quoting the Mishnah (Shabbat16:1). Nevertheless, the teachings of the Mishnah were appropriate in the beginning of the Talmudic era, when it was only the Written Law and not the Oral Law that was written down. The composition of the Mishnah marked a turning point in Jewish history, and from that point onward, it was permitted to write down the teachings of the Oral Law. (See the Rambam's Introduction to the Mishneh Torah.) Texts containing such teachings are also considered sacred articles and may be saved from a fire, just like the books of the Bible (Shulchan Aruch HaRav 334:12;Mishnah Berurah 334:31). Since the Rambam wrote the Mishneh Torah after it became permitted to write down the Oral Law, seemingly, it would have been appropriate for him to refer to texts of the Oral Law as well.
|
| 120. |
According to the Rambam, such an lane is considered a private domain according to Torah law, and the prohibition against carrying within it is only Rabbinic in origin (Chapter 17, Halachah 2). Accordingly, this restriction is relaxed in order to save the sacred articles. Although some authorities differ with the Rambam regarding the above halachah, they also require an lane to have three walls and a pole in this instance (Shulchan Aruch HaRav 334:17; Mishnah Berurah334:48).
|
| 121. |
I.e., the script in which tefillin, mezuzot, and Torah scrolls are written. (See Sanhedrin 22a; the Rambam's Commentary on the Mishnah, Yadayim 4:5; and the Moznaim Mishneh Torah series,Hilchot Tefillin 1:19.)
|
| 122. |
I.e., and not a transliteration of other languages.
|
| 123. |
As explained above, the Rambam's ruling applied in the Talmudic period, before it became acceptable to write the Oral Law. Once that was permitted, translations of the Bible were also permitted, and the same laws apply to them. Similarly, siddurim and other similar texts may be saved.
|
| 124. |
As mentioned above, after permission was granted to write the Oral Law, this prohibition no longer applies.
|
| 125. |
Our translation is based on Rashi (Shabbat 115a) and the Ramah (Orach Chayim 334:12).
|
| 126. |
Which are not acceptable for writing a Torah scroll (Hilchot Tefillin 1:5).
|
| 127. |
See Hilchot Sefer Torah, Chapters 8 and 9, which mention how much empty parchment must be left for each of the situations mentioned by the Rambam.
|
| 128. |
This refers to an instance where these blank portions of parchment had been cut from the Torah scroll. When a portion of a scroll does not contain 85 letters (see the following halachah), it is no longer considered to be sacred articles (Shulchan Aruch HaRav 334:20; Mishnah Berurah334:50). Surely this applies to the margins of the scroll that the Rambam is referring to in this halachah.
|
| 129. |
I.e., a text similar to our siddurim (Rashi, Shabbat 115b).
|
| 130. |
As mentioned above, after permission was granted to write the Oral Law, siddurim were also accorded the status of sacred articles (Shulchan Aruch, loc. cit.:12).
Regarding amulets containing verses, there is a difference of opinion among the Rabbis. The Tur(Orach Chayim 334) differs with the Rambam and maintains that in the present age, such amulets may be saved. Even though most of the later authorities follow the Rambam's ruling, thePri Megadim suggests saving amulets with verses that contain God's name.
|
| 131. |
The expression "a total" implies that the letters need not be in the same word, but may be scattered throughout the scroll (Rashi, Shabbat 115b).
In certain contexts, the passage ויהי בנסוע הארון is considered a separate book of the Torah. (See Rashi's commentary on the verse.) Since that passage contains 85 letters, any parchment with 85 letters can be considered a scroll.
|
| 132. |
I.e., the scroll may contain more letters, but if the letters are in words that are partially torn or rubbed out, they are not included in this sum.
|
| 133. |
I.e., words whose origin is not Hebrew.
|
| 134. |
The commentaries question the Rambam's statements, since as stated above, the passage ויהי בנסוע הארון contains 85 letters. See also the Shulchan Aruch HaRav 334:15 which states that if a scroll contains God's name, it should be saved even though it contains less than 85 letters.
|
| 135. |
I.e., the carrying case is considered as subordinate to the scroll. Therefore, it is not considered an independent entity, but is rather governed by the more lenient laws that govern the Torah scroll.
|
| 136. |
Although the money is muktzeh, there is no need to shake it from the carrying case, and it may be taken to the same place as the tefillin. This leniency was granted so that a person would not be required to delay in saving the property that he was entitled to save (Shulchan Aruch HaRav334:18).
|
Maaser - Chapter 1
Halacha 1
After separating the great terumah,1 one should separate one tenth of the remaining produce2 and this is called the first tithe. Concerning it [Numbers 18:24] states: "For the tithes of the children of Israel that they will separate to God."3
These tithes are given to Levites, males and females, as [ibid.] states: "And I gave the Levites all of the tithes of the children of Israel as an inheritance."
Halacha 2
An Israelite is permitted to partake of the first tithe. And it may be eaten in a state of ritual impurity, because it is not holy.4 Whenever the term "holy" or "redemption" is used with regard to the tithes, the intent is the second tithe.5
What is the source from which we learn that the first tithe is ordinary produce? [Ibid.:27] states: "And your terumah will be considered for you as grain from your grainheap and the fullness of the vat." Just as a grainheap and a vat [contain] ordinary produce, so, too, once terumat ma'aser has been separated from the first tithe,6 it is ordinary produce in all regards. For this reason, when the daughter of a Levite has been taken captive7 or she engaged in forbidden relations, she can be given tithes and she may partake of it. When, however, there was a report that a woman's husband died or one witness testified that he died, she married8 and then her husband appeared, our Sages penalized her and ruled that she is forbidden to partake of the tithes.9
Halacha 3
The Levites and the priests should separate the first tithe so that they can separate terumat ma'aser from it.10 Similarly, the priests must separate other types of terumah11 and tithes12 for themselves.13Since the priests receive all types of agricultural gifts, is it possible for them to partake of the produce without these separations having been made? [Numbers 18:28] states: "And so shall you separate, also you...." "You" includes the Levites. "Also you" includes the priests.
Halacha 4
Halacha 5
When a person partakes of his produce while it is tevel18 or a Levite partakes of the tithes while they are tevel,19 although they are liable for death at the hand of Heaven,20 they are not liable to make reimbursement to the owners.21 [This is derived from ibid.:24:] "...that they will separate to God." [Implied is that the recipients] do not have any share in them until they have been separated.
Halacha 6
We can separate tithes from produce in one place for produce in another place. They need not be grouped together.24 We do not, however, separate tithes from one species for another species,25 nor from produce for which we are obligated to separate tithes for produce from which we are exempt from separating, nor from produce for which we are exempt from separating tithes for produce from which such a separation is required.26 If one made a separation in any of the above instances, [the produce separated] is not considered as tithes.27
Halacha 7
Whenever we said with regard to terumah, that terumah may not be separated from one type of produce for another,28 tithes may not be separated from one such type of produce for another such type. And whenever we said that the separation of terumah from [one type of produce] is acceptable [after the fact],29 if one separated tithes from such produce, it is acceptable. Whenever produce is exempt from the obligation to have terumah separated,30 it is also exempt from the obligation to have tithes separated. All those individuals who may separate terumah may separate the tithes. And all those concerning whom it was said that they should not separate terumah, but if they did separate it, the separation is effective,31 so too, if they separate the tithes, the separation is effective. And whenever a person's separation of terumah is not effective,32 his separation of tithes is also not effective.
Halacha 8
Halacha 9
Halacha 10
A tree that is planted inside a house is exempt from the obligations of the tithes, as [indicated by Deuteronomy 14:22]: "You shall certainly tithe all the produce of your crops that grow in the field."39 It appears to me that tithes must be separated from this produce according to Rabbinic Law, for one is required to tithe the fruit of a fig tree that stands in a courtyard if it was harvested at one time.40
Halacha 11
Halacha 12
[The following laws apply when someone is] protecting his field because of grapes43 and another person comes and collects the figs that remain in that field or he was guarding his field because of the zucchini and squash44 and another person came and gathered the grapes which were scattered in the field. When [it is known] that the owner of the field is concerned with the leftover produce, it is forbidden to take it; [doing so] is stealing.45 Hence, tithes andterumah must be separated from the crops. If the owner of the field is not concerned with it, it is permitted [to take it;46it is not] theft. Hence, they are exempt from the tithes.47
Halacha 13
Only the most choice produce should be separated as tithes,48 as [Numbers 18:30] states: "When you separate the choice portion from it, and it will be considered for the Levites49 as the produce of the grainheap and the produce of the vat." Just as the Levites must separate the choicest portions of the tithes, the Israelites who separate from the grainheap and the vat separate the choicest portions.
Halacha 14
We may not separate tithes by estimation.50 Instead, one must do so through measuring,51 weight, or number.52 One who is precise in the measurement is praiseworthy. When one gives an extra amount as the tithes, his tithes are flawed, because untithed produce is mixed with them.53 [The remainder of] his produce has, however, been made fit for use.
Halacha 15
When a person separates a portion of the tithes, they are not considered as tithes. Instead, it is as if someone divided the grainheap. He must, however, separate from the portion set aside the tithes that are appropriate for it.
Halacha 16
When a person separates the [first] tithe, he should recite a blessing first, as one recites a blessing [before observing] any of the mitzvot.56 Similarly, he should recite a blessing [before separating] the second tithe, the tithe given to the poor, and the tithe of a tithe.57 He should recite a blessing for each one individually. If he made all the separations one directly after the other without speaking in between, he should include them all in one blessing, [praising God who commanded us] "to separate the terumot and the tithes."58
| FOOTNOTES | |
| 1. |
This is the preferable course of behavior. If, however, one separates the tithes before terumah, the separation is binding.
|
| 2. |
Thus it is not a tenth of the entire crop.
|
| 3. |
Sefer HaMitzvot (positive commandment 127) and Sefer HaChinuch (mitzvah 395) include this commandment among the 613 mitzvot of the Torah.
|
| 4. |
I.e., unlike terumah where these restrictions apply.
|
| 5. |
Which must be eaten in Jerusalem in a state of ritual purity.
|
| 6. |
Until terumat ma'aser has been separated from it, however, we may not partake of it (Radbaz).
|
| 7. |
And we fear that she was raped by her captors. With regard to terumah, by contrast, once the daughter of a priest engages in forbidden relations, she is forbidden to partake of it (Hilchot Terumah 6:7). Our Sages did not decree that a Levite's daughter who engages in forbidden relationships should not be allowed to partake of terumah, for it is uncommon for a woman to engage in forbidden relationships (Yevamot 91a).
|
| 8. |
If, however, she did not marry, she is not forbidden, even if she was consecrated by another man.
|
| 9. |
I.e., this is a Rabbinic decree, enacted to maintain the moral level of the Jewish people.
|
| 10. |
I.e., since the priests and the Levites are allowed to keep the tithes, one might ask: Why is it necessary for them to separate it at the outset? The Rambam answers that the separation is necessary, because until terumat ma'aser is separated from the tithes, it is forbidden to partake of them.
|
| 11. |
With the expression "other types of terumah," the Rambam includes challah and bikkurim. SeeHilchot Terumah 15:20.
|
| 12. |
The intent is only the first tithe. The second tithe and the tithe for the poor are not given to the priests.
|
| 13. |
They may not, however, partake of the produce without making these separations as the Rambam proceeds to explain.
|
| 14. |
I.e., from an Israelite and not from a priest.
|
| 15. |
A priest must separate the presents. He need not, however, give them to another priest, but instead may keep them for himself.
|
| 16. |
There are some who interpret the Rambam as implying that the penalty was applied only in Ezra's era, but not in subsequent generations. Indeed, we find that even Sages gave their tithes to Levites (Ma'aser Sheni 5:9). For this reason, it appears that Ezra's penalty was that if there was both a priest and a Levite present, the tithes should be given to a priest, but they could also be given to a Levite (Radbaz). Alternatively, in Ezra's generation, the tithes should be given only to the priests. Subsequently, however, when more Levites ascended and settled in Eretz Yisrael, the decree was rescinded and tithes could also be given to the Levites. Nevertheless, in order not to nullify Ezra's words entirely, it was still possible to give the tithes to the priests (Kessef Mishneh). [Note, however, the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (Ma'aser Sheni 5:15) which indicates that the tithes were given to the priests in the generations after Ezra as well. See also Hilchot Ma'aser Sheni 11:14.] All agree that the Levites themselves were never required to give the tithes to the priests.
The Minchat Chinuch (Mitzvah 395) asks: How was it possible for Ezra to nullify the Torah's command? For the Scriptural obligation is to give the tithes to the priests. He answers that in Ezra's time, the mitzvah to tithe was only Rabbinic in origin (see Hilchot Terumot, ch. 1). Hence, it was possible for him to make the priests the recipients.
|
| 17. |
See Ezra 8:15 which states that the descendants of the Levites were not found among the people who returned to Israel from Babylon. There were many among the Jewish people who had achieved financial security and comfortable living circumstances in Babylon and did not want to give this up to live in the Holy Land. Nevertheless, aside from the Levites, there was no distinct group that did not return to Israel in significant numbers.
|
| 18. |
I.e., before terumah and the tithes have been separated.
|
| 19. |
I.e., before terumat ma'aser has been separated.
|
| 20. |
Se Hilchot Ma'achalot Assurot 10:19.
|
| 21. |
I.e., the priests (or the Levites) who would be given the terumah or the tithes. With regard toterumah, by contrast, when a person partakes of terumah unknowingly, he is required to make restitution. See Hilchot Terumah 6:6.
|
| 22. |
In the lands directly bordering on Eretz Yisrael where our Sages ordained that the agricultural laws be observed. See Hilchot Terumah 1:6.
|
| 23. |
Since the obligation to make these separations from the crops is Rabbinic in origin, our Sages granted this leniency. See Hilchot Terumah 1:21.
|
| 24. |
In contrast to terumah, in which instance, the initial preference is to separate the terumah from the same produce for which it is being taken (Hilchot Terumah 3:17).
|
| 25. |
This holds true for terumah as well, as stated in Hilchot Terumah 5:3.
|
| 26. |
This also applies with regard to terumah, see ibid.:2, 12.
|
| 27. |
It need not be given to a Levite and if necessary, new tithes must be separated.
|
| 28. |
E.g., produce that has been reaped for produce that is attached to the ground (ibid.:9), produce reaped in one year for produce reaped in another year (ibid.:11), or produce from the Diaspora for produce from Eretz Yisrael (ibid.:12).
|
| 29. |
I.e., instances where a separation of terumah is undesirable, nevertheless, after the fact, it is acceptable. For example, one separated produce for which all the work concerning it was not completed (ibid.:4); one separates lower grade produce as terumah for higher grade produce (ibid.:8); or one unknowingly separated impure produce as terumah for pure produce.
|
| 30. |
For example, produce not fit for human consumption (ibid. 2:1); produce that was leket, pe'ah, or the like (ibid.:9).
|
| 31. |
A person who is deaf, but not mute, a mute who can hear, but not speak, a person who is naked, a person who is drunk and a blind person (ibid. 4:4).
|
| 32. |
A deaf-mute, a mentally or emotionally unstable person, a minor, a gentile who separated terumahfrom produce belonging to a Jew, even with his permission, and a person who separate terumahfrom produce that does not belong to him without the owner's permission (ibid.:2).
|
| 33. |
Since he willingly appointed him as an agent, we assume that he relies on him and can follow the accepted presumption that an agent will carry out the task assigned to him. [Our translation and commentary follow the gloss of the Radbaz. Others offer different interpretations.]
|
| 34. |
Since he did not appoint him voluntarily, we are not certain that he will carry out the agency in good faith.
|
| 35. |
The Ra'avad differs with the Rambam and maintains that according to Scriptural Law, the only trees from which we are required to separate the tithes are grapes and olives. As explained in the notes to Hilchot Terumah 2:1, this is a difference of opinion involving many authorities.
|
| 36. |
Based on Hilchot Ma'aser Sheni 1:3, it appears that here the Rambam is speaking of carobs that grow in Tzalmona or other species that are usually not eaten. The carobs that grow commonly and are eaten by many must be tithes according to Scriptural Law.
Those that grow in Tzalmona and the like are also eaten by some people. Hence the Rabbis ordained that they be tithed. Species of produce that are not usually consumed by people are exempt, as stated in the following clause.
|
| 37. |
When such almonds are small, they are not bitter. Nevertheless, they are still unfit to be eaten because they have not fully matured (see Rashi, Chullin 25b).
|
| 38. |
Even though some may partake of them, the majority do not. Indeed, the minority is so insignificant that we do not require a separation of terumah even according to Rabbinic Law.
|
| 39. |
It is produce of the field from which we must tithe (the Jerusalem Talmud, Orlah 1:2).
|
| 40. |
If, however, the fruit is picked one by one, a person is not obligated to tithe it.
This law is stated in the Mishnah (Ma'aserot 3:8). Now a courtyard is not considered a field. Hence in order that this law not contradict the law cited from the Jerusalem Talmud, we must assume that the Mishnah is speaking according to Rabbinic Law, while the Jerusalem Talmud is speaking according to Scriptural Law. The Ra'avad differs with this ruling and differentiates between produce growing in a courtyard and that which grows in a house. The Radbaz and theKessef Mishneh support the Rambam's ruling.
|
| 41. |
I.e., they are exempt according to Scriptural Law, and even according to Rabbinic Law, there is no obligation to separate tithes, because the person would not desire to have the plants grow (Or Sameach).
|
| 42. |
Destroying the roof of the loft.
|
| 43. |
The Rambam is speaking about an instance where the figs and the other fruits growing in the field have for the most part been harvested. There were, however, a few figs left growing in scattered places around the field. The grapes, however, grow later than the other crops and hence, had not been harvested yet. The owner was protecting his field for the sake of his grapes. The question is: Are the other fruits considered as ownerless because the owner is no longer primarily concerned with them? Or do we say that since he is guarding his field because of the grapes, he is also guarding the other produce?
|
| 44. |
Which grow even later than grapes.
|
| 45. |
Even though it has little value. We are forbidden to take even the slightest amount of a colleague's property against his will.
|
| 46. |
It is as if he has declared them ownerless (Radbaz). See a parallel ruling in Hilchot Ishut 5:8.
|
| 47. |
For ownerless produce need not be tithed. Similarly, terumah need not be separated from it (Radbaz, based on Hilchot Terumah 2:11).
|
| 48. |
The same concept applies with regard to terumah, as stated in Hilchot Terumah 2:4,6.
|
| 49. |
This is both the correct wording of the verse and the manuscript copies of the Mishneh Torah. The standard printed text is in error.
|
| 50. |
See Avot 1:16. In contrast terumah should be separated in this manner (Hilchot Terumah 3:4).
|
| 51. |
The volume of the produce.
|
| 52. |
The order of preference is number, volume, weight. See Terumot 4:6.
|
| 53. |
For the extra amount of produce is not tithes, because the tithes represent an exact sum. Nor is it considered ordinary produce from which tithes were separated, because it was placed with the tithes. Instead, it is considered as ordinary produce from which tithes were not separated.
|
| 54. |
For giving them does not fulfill the requirement.
|
| 55. |
Although usually, one may set aside tithes from one collection of produce for another (Halachah 6), an exception is made in this instance, because he originally separated this produce with the intent that it be tithes [the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (Terumot 4:1)]. it would appear that one is separating tithes from produce for which one is required to separate tithes for produce for which one is not obligated to make such a separation (see notes to Halachah 7). The Ra'avad differs with the Rambam concerning this ruling, advancing a different interpretation of Terumot 4:1.
|
| 56. |
See Hilchot Berachot 11:6, 12; Hilchot Terumah 2:16.
|
| 57. |
I.e., terumat ma'aser.
|
| 58. |
This applies if one sets aside terumah and tithes for his own produce. If he sets it aside for others, he should conclude the blessing "concerning the separation of tithes" (Hilchot Berachot 11:12-13).
|
Maaser - Chapter 2
Halacha 1
A person is not obligated to tithe his produce by Scriptural Law unless he completes [the work associated with its preparation1 with the intent of] partaking of it himself.2 If, however, he completes those tasks with the intent of selling it, he is exempt according to Scriptural Law.3 He is, however, obligated by Rabbinic decree.4 [This is derived from Deuteronomy 14:22:] "And you shall certainly tithe... and you shall partake...." One is obligated only when he completes the tasks with the intent of partaking.
Halacha 2
Similarly, one who purchases such produce is exempt according to Scriptural Law, [for ibid. states]: "the produce of your crops."5 He is, however, obligated according to Rabbinic Law.
When does the above apply? When he purchased it after the work necessary to prepare it was completed while was in the possession of the seller. If, however, these tasks were completed while it was in the possession of the purchaser, he is obligated to tithe according to Scriptural Law.6
Halacha 3
Produce which is not fit to be eaten because it is too small, e.g., unripened produce7 and the like, is not required to be tithed8 until it grows and becomes food, as [implied by Leviticus 26:30 which states that we must tithe:] "From the crops of the earth, from the fruit of the trees," i.e., [there is no requirement to tithe the crops] until they grow and become fruit. Similar concepts apply with regard to grain and legumes, as [implied by Deuteronomy 14:22:] "the produce of your crops," i.e., [there is no obligation] until it becomes produce.
Halacha 4
Produce that is fit to be eaten when it is small, e.g., zucchini or cucumbers, but is left [to grow] only in order to increase its bulk, is required to be tithed while it is small, [for] they are fit to be eaten at the outset. As soon as they emerge, they are considered to have reached "phase of tithing."
Halacha 5
When is "the phase of tithing"? When the produce will reach a stage that it produces seed [that could] grow, each species according to its nature.12
What is implied? For figs, it is when they become soft enough to be fit to be eaten within 24 hours after they have been harvested.13 For grapes andbiushim, i.e., thin wild grapes, it is when their seeds can be seen from the outside.14 For pomegranates, it is when their seed15 will be crushed easily between one's fingers and produce liquid. For dates, it is when they swell like yeast.
For peaches, it is when red strands appear within them.16 For nuts, it is when the fruit becomes distinct from its outer shell. For sweet almonds, it is when their external shell becomes distinct. Bitter [almonds] are always exempt.17 For other fruits with shells, e.g., acorns, chestnuts, and pistachios, it is when the lower shell that is next to the fruit forms.
For olives, when they produce one ninth of the amount of oil that they will produce when they are entirely ripe;18 this is one third of their growth. For apples and esrogim, it is when they become round,19for they are fit to be eaten when they are small. For berries and the ??, it is when they become red. Similarly, for every fruit that becomes red, it is when it becomes red.
For carobs, it is when black spots begin to appear. Similarly, for any fruit that becomes black, it is when spots begin to appear. For pears, small pears,20quince, and thorn apples,21 it is when their hairs begin to fall off.22 Similarly, for any fruit that becomes light-colored, it is when white lines appear.
For grain, it is when it reaches a third of its growth. For chilba, it is when its seed is fit to grow if it would be planted. With regard to vegetables, we are required [to tithe] zucchini, squash, watermelon, cucumbers and the like when they are small, as we explained.23 Other vegetables which are not fit to be eaten until they grow large and are not required [to be tithed] until they are fit to be eaten.
When even one grape on a cluster has reached the stage when it must be tithed, because of their connection, the entire [cluster is required to be] tithed.24It is as if the entire cluster reached that stage of development. [Indeed,] not only that cluster, but the entire side of the vine on which that cluster grew [is considered to have reached the stage when the tithes must be separated]. Similarly, when even one seed of a pomegranate reaches the appropriate stage, the entire [side of the tree]25 is considered as connected to it.
Halacha 6
After produce has reached the "phase of tithing," a person should not sell it to someone who is not trusted with regard to tithes.26 If [a portion of] the produce ripened,27 he should remove that [portion] which ripened. It is then permitted to sell the remainder that has not reached the "phase of tithing."28
Similarly, a person should not sell olive dregs and grape dregs to someone who is not trusted with regard to tithes to extract [oil or wine] from them,29 for the liquids extracted from these dregs must be tithed. Nor should he sell straw so that grain can be picked from it to someone who is not trusted, for the grained picked from the straw must be tithed.
Halacha 7
[The following laws apply when a person] mixed water with wine dregs and filtered the mixture. If he mixed in three measures of water and received four measures, [the mixture is considered wine] and he must separate tithes for this extra measure from another source.30 He does not have to separate terumah, for when one separates terumah, he has the intent to separate terumah for the entire amount, as stated above with regard to terumah.31 If he received less than four measures, he is exempt, even if he received more than he mixed in and even if the mixture has the flavor of wine.32
Halacha 8
When a person consecrated his produce when it was attached to the ground, before they reached the "phase of tithing," and then redeemed them, and after he redeemed them, it reached that stage of development, he is obligated to tithe them.33If the produce reached the "phase of tithing" while it was in the domain of the Temple treasurer and he redeemed it afterwards, he is exempt.34
| FOOTNOTES | |
| 1. |
At which point the obligation to tithe takes effect (Chapter 3, Halachah 1).
|
| 2. |
Rabbi Akiva Eiger and the Minchat Chinuch (mitzvah 395) explain that even if the person changes his mind and desires to sell the produce afterwards, he remains obligated to tithe.
|
| 3. |
If the person changes his mind and desires to partake of the produce himself afterwards, he is not obligated according to Scriptural Law. Since he was not obligated at the time of the initial requirement, he does not become obligated afterwards (ibid.).
|
| 4. |
Our Sages adopted this measure as a safeguard. Ignoring it can have serious repercussions asBava Metzia 88a states the shopping area of Beit Hino was destroyed three years before Jerusalem because they did not tithe produce that was sold in the marketplace.
|
| 5. |
I.e., crops that you made ready for use.
|
| 6. |
The Ra'avad differs with the Rambam, maintaining that the purchaser of the produce is never liable to tithe according to Scriptural Law. The Radbaz and the Kessef Mishneh cite interpretations of Talmudic passages that support the Rambam's position, but explain that there are otherRishonim who follow the Ra'avad's position.
|
| 7. |
Our translation is taken from the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (Sh'vi'it 4:8).
|
| 8. |
Even according to Rabbinic decree.
|
| 9. |
See the following halachot and Chapter 3 which discusses this subject in detail.
|
| 10. |
For this is not considered as the ordinary way of eating.
|
| 11. |
I.e., he may even salt them and roast them, even though these actions bring about the obligation to tithe when fruit has matured (Chapter 3, Halachah 3).
|
| 12. |
Our Rabbis interpreted this as meaning reaching a third of its natural growth. All the examples mentioned in the continuation of the halachah refer to this stage of growth as it applies to each individual species.
|
| 13. |
Thus if one partakes of them within 24 hours from their harvest without tithing them, he is not liable, for they are not ready to be eaten yet (Ma'aseh Rokeach).
|
| 14. |
That indicates that their shell has softened and the fluid has been generated within the fruit. See the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (Ma'aserot 1:2).
|
| 15. |
Our translation is based on authentic manuscripts and early printings of the Mishneh Torah and is reinforced by the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (ibid.). The standard printed text reads slightly differently.
|
| 16. |
This is a sign that they have begun to ripen (ibid.).
|
| 17. |
See Chapter 1, Halachah 9, and notes.
|
| 18. |
The Ra'avad questions the Rambam's ruling based on a different version of Sh'vi'it 4:7. The Radbaz and the Kessef Mishneh support the Rambam's ruling.
|
| 19. |
Although Ma'aserot 1:4 states that we are required to separate tithes from apples when they are small, it does not mention a stage of development. The Kessef Mishneh questions the source for the Rambam's statements.
|
| 20. |
This is the common translation of these terms. In his notes to the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (Kilayim 1:4), however, Rav Kapach suggests that the two terms may refer to apricots and peaches.
|
| 21. |
Our translation is based on Rav Kapach's notes to the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (Demai 1:1).
|
| 22. |
When these fruits are unripened, they are covered by a fuzz of hair. As they ripen, the hairs fall off.
|
| 23. |
I.e., based on Halachah 4, which states that produce that is fit to be eaten while small must be tithed.
|
| 24. |
The Radbaz explains the rationale for this ruling. Since one grape has already ripened sufficiently, the others will ripen shortly thereafter.
|
| 25. |
This addition is made on the basis of the gloss of the Kessef Mishneh.
|
| 26. |
Lest that person fail to tithe it and the seller thus be liable for "placing a stumbling block in the path of the blind."
|
| 27. |
I.e., reached a stage when it was required to separate the tithes.
|
| 28. |
The Radbaz notes that this clause appears to be in contradiction with the final clause of the previous halachah, for seemingly if part of the crop has become obligated in the tithes, the entire crop has. He explains that if the grapes are growing on different vines, the stringency mentioned in the previous halachah does not apply.
|
| 29. |
I.e., the purchaser stated that he was purchasing them for this purpose. If, however, such a statement of intent is not made, these may be sold, for it is most likely they will be used as fuel for a fire.
|
| 30. |
The bracketed addition is made on the basis of the gloss of Rabbi Ovadiah of Bartenura toMa'aserot 5:6. For there is no reason why that produce itself cannot be used for the tithes.
|
| 31. |
Hilchot Terumah 4:21. The Radbaz explains that this proviso is made with regard to terumah and not with regard to the tithes, because terumah is given by estimation, while the tithes must be measured exactly.
|
| 32. |
As long as the wine is not one fourth of the new mixture, it is not considered as significant.
|
| 33. |
Because at the time the obligation to tithe them took effect, the crops were ordinary produce.
|
| 34. |
Because at the time the obligation to tithe them took effect, the crops were consecrated property and there is no obligated to tithe consecrated property.
|
Maaser - Chapter 3
Halacha 1
When produce has reached the "phase of tithing,"1 it was detached [from the earth], but the work preparing it was not completed, e.g., grain that he harvested and threshed, but [the reaper] did not winnow it or straighten the grain pile, he may partake of it as a snack2 [without tithing] until those tasks are completed. Once those tasks are completed, it is forbidden to partake of it as a snack [without tithing].
Halacha 2
When does the above apply? When one is completing the work [necessary to prepare] the produce to be sold in the market place. If, however, his intent was to bring it to his home,3 he may partake of it as a snack [even] after the work involving it is completed until a situation occurs which obligates the separation of tithes.4
Halacha 3
Six situations5 obligate the separation of tithes from produce:6 a) [bringing it into] a courtyard,7 a transaction,8 [subjecting it to] fire,9 salting it,10 separatingterumah,11 and [the commencement of] the Sabbath.12 These situations only require the separation of tithes when the work necessary to prepare the produce has been completed.
Halacha 4
What is implied? One may eat a snack from produce which he intends to bring home [without tithing] even though the work necessary to prepare it has been completed until he enters his home. Once he enters his home,13 the obligation to separate tithes takes effect and he is forbidden to partake of it14 until he tithes it.
Similarly, if he sold it, cooked it by fire, pickled it in salt, separated terumah from it, or the Sabbath commenced, he may not partake of it until he separates the tithes even though it has not reached the house.
If he brought the produce into his home before he completed the work associated with it, he may continue to snack from it.15 If he began to complete the work associated with its completion, he is obligated to tithe the entire amount.16
What is implied? A person brought zucchini and squash home before he rubbed them [to remove the hairs on their surface]. Once he begins rubbing one of them, he is obligated to tithe all of them. Similar laws apply in all analogous situations.
Similarly, when one separates terumah from produce for which all the tasks necessary to prepare it have not been completed, it is permitted to snack from them with the exception of a basket of figs.17 If one separates terumah from them before the work associated with preparing them is finished, the obligation to tithe takes effect.
Halacha 5
[The following laws apply if] figs branches to which figs were still attached or date fronds to which dates where still attached18 were brought home. If children or workers brought them [to a person's home], the obligation to tithe does not yet take effect.19 If the owner of the home brought them, he is obligated to tithe them.20
Halacha 6
It is permitted to be crafty and bring [grain that has been harvested] into one's home while it still has its outer shell24 so that one's livestock can partake of it25and thus it is exempt from tithes.26 One may then winnow a small portion of it after it has been brought into one's home.27 He is thus exempt from [the obligation to separate] terumah and tithes forever, since he has not begun to complete [the tasks necessary to prepare] the entire [harvest].
Halacha 7
Halacha 8
What is meant by completing the work associated with produce? For zucchini, squash, and watermelon, it is when one rubs them with his hands and removes the golden hairs upon them. If he does not rub them,30 it is when he makes a pile. For a watermelon,31 it is when he arranges them in a designated place, one watermelon next to another. If one rubs the fruit one by one, when he completed [rubbing] all that he needed, that [specific produce] is considered as if the tasks necessary to prepare it were completed.32 We may separateterumah from zucchini and squash even though the hairs have not been removed from it.33
Halacha 9
For vegetables that are [sold while] bound together,34 it is when they are bound together. If the vegetables are not bound together, it is when the container is full. If he does not fill the container, he may snack from the produce until he gathers all that he needs.
Halacha 10
For a basket [of produce], it is when the produce will be covered by leaves, straw, and the like.35 If he does not cover it, it is when the container is full. If he does not fill the container, it is when he gathers all that he needs.
Halacha 11
[When a person is gathering produce] in a large container, but he desires to fill only a portion of it, once he fills that portion, [the produce] must be tithed. If he intends to fill the entire container, [the produce is] not required to be tithed until he fills the entire container. If he has two containers and desires to fill both of them, [the produce is] not required to be tithed until he fills both of them.
Halacha 12
When a person made a large weave of vegetables in the field, the obligation to tithe takes effect36 even though he intended to [undo the larger weave and] make a smaller weave for the marketplace.
Dried pomegranate seeds, raisins, and carobs, [become obligated to be tithed] when a person sets up a pile on top of his roof. Onions [become obligated] when one removes the leaves and shells that he would generally discard. If he does not remove them, [there is no obligation to tithe the onions], until one stores them in a pile.
Halacha 13
Grain [becomes obligated] when one is mimareach it. What is meant bymimareach? When one straightens the surface of the grainheap with a pitchfork at the conclusion of the entire process, as one would do when he concludes all his work.37 If a person is not mimareach, [the obligation takes effect], when he makes a pile.
Legumes [become obligated] when one sifts them38 and takes them from under the sifter and partakes of them. If he does not sift them, [the obligation takes effect when] he is mimareach.
Halacha 14
Wine [becomes obligated] when it is stored in a barrel and the peels and seeds are removed from the top of the barrel. When, however, it is in the vat and one takes out some to put it in a barrel, one may drink from it casually.41 Similarly, he may collect [wine] from the upper vat,42 from a conduit, or from any place and drink it [without tithing].
Halacha 15
Oil [becomes obligated] when it descends to the vat.43 Even though it has descended, one may take from the rope basket,44 the stone [used to grind the olives], the boards or stones of the olive press. One may place [untithed] oil into cooked food in a small dish or a large pot even though [the food] is hot, because it will not cook in a secondary vessel.45 If [the food] was very hot, so much so that one's hand would burn, he should not put [untithed oil] into it, because it will be cooked.46
Halacha 16
A cake of dried figs [becomes obligated] when it is smoothed. Dried figs [become obligated] when they become crushed [into the container in which they will be stored].47 If they were placed in a storage container, [they become obligated] when one smoothes out the surface of the storage container by hand. If one was crushing dried figs into a jug or into a cake at the opening of a storage container and the jug becomes broken or the storage container is opened, he should not partake of [the figs] until they are tithed.
Halacha 17
When figs and grapes have been set aside [to dry], it is permitted to snack from them in the place where they were set aside.48 If, however, he took some from the place where they were set aside, he should not snack from them, because the tasks involved [in their preparation] have been completed, even though they have not dried out totally.49
Halacha 18
Halacha 19
When a person separated the first tithe while the produce was still in stalks,52 it is forbidden to partake of it until terumat ma'aser is separated from it.53If he partook of it, he is given stripes for rebellious conduct.54
What is meant by partaking of food as a snack? If a person was peeling barley kernels and eating them, he may peel them one by one.55 If he peeled several and held them in his hand, he is required to tithe them.56 If he was crushing the shells of wheat kernels, he may sift the chaff from hand to hand and partake of them.57 If he sifted them into his bosom, he is required to tithe them.58Needless to say, if he sifted them with a utensil, [he is required to tithe them], for this is not a temporary measure.
Similarly, one may take wine and put it into a cold cooked dish in a bowl and partake of it. One may not, by contrast, put it into a pot59 even if it was cold, because it is considered like a small cistern.60 Similarly, one may squeeze olives onto his skin [without tithing],61 but not into his hand. Similar laws apply in all analogous situations.
Halacha 20
Just as it is permitted to partake of produce as a snack when the work [involved in its preparation] has not been completed,62 so too, it is permitted to feed such produce to animals, livestock, and fowl as one desires. Similarly, one may declare as much of this produce ownerless as he desires.63
If he completed those tasks, even when the obligation to tithe was not established,64 he may not declare the produce ownerless, nor may he feed it to livestock, animals, and fowl in a significant manner until he tithes it. It is permitted to feed an animal tevel in an insignificant manner, even in one's home.65 One can feed [an animal] rolls of chilba66 until one bundles them as packages.67
Halacha 21
When a person discovers fruits68 on the road - even if he finds them next to an orchard of that fruit - they are exempt from the tithes.69 When one found dried figs, if most people already crushed their dried figs [into larger masses], he is obligated to tithe [what he found], for we assume that it came from produce for which the work involved in its preparation was completed. Similarly, if he found broken pieces of cakes of dried figs, it should be considered as if they came from produce for which the work involved in its preparation was completed.
Halacha 22
When a person finds sheaves of wheat in a private domain, he is obligated to tithe them.70 [If he finds them] in the public domain, they are exempt.71Larger sheaves are required to be tithed wherever they are found.72
If one finds [bundles of] grain that have been straightened,73 one may separate them as terumah74 and tithes for other produce.75 One need not be concerned [that the owners separated tithes for this produce already].76
[If one finds a] basket [of fruit] that is covered, 77 he is required to tithe it.78 If he finds a basket [of fruit] in a place where most people take it to the marketplace, he is forbidden to snack from it79 and he should make the appropriate separations as if it were demai.80 [In a place where] most people bring it home, he may snack from it and he must certainly make the appropriate separations.81 If half [bring home] and half [bring to the marketplace], it is considered as demai.82 If he brings it home, he must certainly make the appropriate separations.
When does the above apply? With regard to a type of produce that does not have a specific phase at which the tasks associated with its preparation are completed. If, however, the produce does have a phase when the tasks associated with its preparation are completed, even though he must certainly separate tithes, he does not have to separate terumah. For we can assume that terumah was separated when those tasks were completed.
Halacha 23
When there are ant holes that existed overnight next to a pile of grain that is required to be tithed, the kernels found there are required to be tithed. For it is obvious that the ants have been taking from produce that was completely prepared throughout the night.
Halacha 24
When a person finds olives under an olive tree or carobs under a carob tree,83he is required to tithe them, for we assume that they fell from this tree.84If he found figs under a fig tree, there is a doubt whether they fell from this tree or from figs that are already tithed, because their appearance changes and they become soiled with the dust.85
Halacha 25
When a person consecrates produce that has been detached86 and redeems it before the tasks associated with its preparation are completed, one is obligated to tithe it.87 If [these tasks] were completed while [the crops ] were in the domain of the Temple treasury and then he redeemed them, they are exempt from tithes.88 When a person consecrated standing grain for meal offerings, it is exempt from the tithes.89
| FOOTNOTES | |
| 1. |
See Chapter 2, Halachot 3-5, which also dwell on this subject.
|
| 2. |
According to Scriptural Law, there are no restrictions at all on partaking of this produce. Nevertheless, our Sages only allowed one to partake of it as a snack. They, however, did not allow him to partake of it as part of a significant meal (Rashi, Berachot 31a).
|
| 3. |
The difference between the two instances can be explained as follows: If he intends to sell it, then he will sell it when he meets a purchaser even before taking it to the marketplace. And the produce must be tithed before it is sold. Hence, as soon as the work associated with it is completed, he must tithe it. In contrast, when he intends to bring the produce home, everything is dependent on his own intent. Hence, he is given this leniency [the Jerusalem Talmud (Ma'aserot1:5)].
The Ra'avad differs with the Rambam's ruling, maintaining that since the Torah mentions grain from the grainheap and wine from the vat, the obligation to tithe these types of produces takes effect when they are in the grainheap and the vat. The Radbaz and the Kessef Mishneh support the Rambam's ruling and it is cited as halachah by the Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 331:82).
|
| 4. |
The definition of such acts is the subject of the following halachot.
|
| 5. |
The Ra'avad asks why the Rambam does not mentioning pickling, for that is also cited by the Mishnah (Ma'aserot 4:1). According to the Rambam, that act is including in salting, because he interprets the mishnah as meaning pickling in brine (see his Commentary to the Mishnah). It is, nevertheless, difficult why the mishnah mentions salting and pickling as separate activities. Note, however, Chapter 5, Halachah 14, which could also be interpreted as referring to pickling in vinegar.
|
| 6. |
Accoridng to Rabbinic Law. With regard to Scriptural Law, see the following chapter.
|
| 7. |
A courtyard that is protected (Chapter 4, Halachah 8). Here the intent of mentioning a courtyard is to refer to any dwelling as explained in Chapter 4.
|
| 8. |
See Chapter 5, Halachah 1ff.
|
| 9. |
See Chapter 5, Halachah 14.
|
| 10. |
Ibid.:18.
|
| 11. |
Ibid.:19.
|
| 12. |
Ibid.:20.
|
| 13. |
Or even, as indicated in the previous halachah, it is brought into a courtyard that serves the home.
|
| 14. |
Even partaking from it as a snack is forbidden.
|
| 15. |
See Halachah 6.
|
| 16. |
Not only the portion for which he completed the work.
|
| 17. |
Neither here, nor in his Commentary to the Mishnah (Ma'aserot 2:4), does the Rambam explain why figs are singled out from other fruit. The Radbaz quotes the gloss of Rabbenu Shimshon as stating that the intent is not only figs, but all fruit that is set aside for drying. Even though one's original intent is that the fruit be dried, since it is home and it is in a basket, it may be served at any time. Therefore, it is necessary to tithe it.
|
| 18. |
Since the fruit was not removed from the branches, it is considered as if the tasks preparing this fruit are not completed.
|
| 19. |
Since the produce is not their own, their intent in bringing the branches in is not significant.
|
| 20. |
For the fact that he brings them home indicates that from his perspective, all work has been completed.
|
| 21. |
For he will be performing further work to prepare the grain for produce.
|
| 22. |
In such an instance, the kernels are basically ready to be eaten and bringing them home is considered as collecting them in a grainheap.
|
| 23. |
For the kernels of legumes are generally not collected to be eaten at this stage of preparation and hence, there is no obligation to tithe.
|
| 24. |
I.e., without having threshed it or winnowed it.
|
| 25. |
Feeding one's livestock is considered equivalent to eating a snack. Note, however, Halachah 20 which could qualify this statement (Kessef Mishneh).
|
| 26. |
Since the work to prepare it for human consumption has not been completed.
The reason for this leniency is that according to Scriptural Law, there is no obligation to tithe until all the tasks associated with the produce are completed and it is brought within a home. Hence since only a Rabbinic prohibition is involved, there is room for leniency.
|
| 27. |
I.e., he need not feed it to his livestock with its chaff. Moreover, he can perform this activity several times. Different laws apply with regard to humans. They may snack from such produce, but may not partake of a significant amount of it (Siftei Cohen 331:114).
|
| 28. |
I.e., those described in Halachah 3. In particular, the Radbaz asks questions concerning two of those situations: selling the produce and the commencement of the Sabbath. Seemingly, a sale cannot be made without the owner's consent and the Sabbath is not dependent on the other person's activity. The Radbaz explains that with regard to a sale, we are speaking about an instance where afterwards the owner consented to the sale. And with regard to the Sabbath, we are speaking about a situation where the other person completed the work associated with the produce before the Sabbath commenced. Thus when the Sabbath commenced, the produce was fit to be ready to be obligated in the tithes.
|
| 29. |
For the produce has reached the stage when it is necessary to tithe it. This is not dependent on the owner's intent.
|
| 30. |
For there are those who do not make these preparatory steps, but rather sell the fruit as is.
|
| 31. |
For it is not common to make a pile of watermelons.
|
| 32. |
And it alone must be tithed (Radbaz).
The Radbaz and the Kessef Mishneh note that in Halachah 4, the Rambam states that as soon as he rubs the hair off one fruit or vegetable, the entire quantity is required to be tithed, while in this halachah, he states that only those he seeks to use immediately must be tithed. Among the resolutions they offer are:
a) in Halachah 4, the person's intent is to prepare the entire quantity of produce. Therefore, as soon as he begins, that entire quantity must be tithed. Here, he only desires to prepare a limited quantity. Hence, it is only the quantity that he actually prepares that must be tithed.
b) Halachah 4 speaks about an instance when he prepares them in his home, while this halachah speaks about preparing them in the field to bring home.
|
| 33. |
I.e., this is allowed as an initial preference. The Radbaz explains that although the Rambam mentions only the separation of terumah, he also means the separation of the tithes, because it is unfeasible to think that terumah should be separated but not the tithes.
|
| 34. |
E.g., like garlic or onions that are woven together.
|
| 35. |
From the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (Ma'aserot 1:5), it appears that after reapers would gather fruit, they would cover it with leaves or straw to protect it from the sun.
|
| 36. |
For the work in the field associated with their preparation has been completed.
|
| 37. |
I.e., it is obvious that the person's intent is not to add other sheathes to the grain heap. Significantly, the Rambam's definition here is slightly different than the definition he gives in his Commentary to the Mishnah (Pe'ah 1:6).
|
| 38. |
For it is common for pebbles to become mixed together with legumes and the legumes are sifted to remove them.
|
| 39. |
Our translation is taken from the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (Ma'aserot 1:6).
|
| 40. |
This is considered as a snack and hence, tithes are not required.
|
| 41. |
I.e., drink the equivalent of a snack. The Kessef Mishneh states that when one takes the wine before it reaches the storage vat, one may drink from it without tithing even though he removes the peels and seeds.
|
| 42. |
I.e., the place where the grapes were crushed to produce wine (ibid.:7).
|
| 43. |
The storage pit (ibid.).
|
| 44. |
In his Commentary to the Mishnah (ibid.), the Rambam explains that a basket was made of ropes and olives were placed within. Afterwards, they would press the olives in that basket. The translation of the two terms that follow are also from the same source.
|
| 45. |
The term "secondary vessel" refers to a utensil in which hot food was placed after it was removed from a fire. The Rambam is referring to the following difficulty. As stated in Halachah 3, subjecting produce to fire establishes an obligation to tithe. Thus as the Rambam states in Chapter 5, Halachah 16, if a person places oil into a pot that is on the fire or just removed from the fire, the obligation to tithe is established. In the instance described in our halachah, that is not the case, because food will not cook in a secondary vessel.
|
| 46. |
And an obligation to tithe will have been established. The Radbaz explains that this clause is not speaking about a secondary vessel, because a secondary vessel never cooks (Shabbat 40b). Alternatively, the laws of cooking are different with regard to the establishment of an obligation to tithe than with regard to the Sabbath laws or the laws of Kashrut. In this instance, when a secondary vessel is very hot, it can be considered as having cooked.
|
| 47. |
Our translation is taken from the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (Ma'aserot 1:8).
|
| 48. |
Since they have not been dried out, it is considered as if the tasks necessary to prepare them have not been completed.
|
| 49. |
I.e., moving them causes it to be considered as if the tasks have been completed.
|
| 50. |
Since he will ultimately do so, until he does so, the tasks associated with their preparation have not been completed.
|
| 51. |
Even though he has brought the produce into his courtyard.
|
| 52. |
Before it was threshed.
|
| 53. |
There is, however, no necessity to separate the great terumah. See Hilchot Terumot 3:13.
|
| 54. |
The punishment given for the violation of Rabbinical commandments or other transgressions that are not punishable by lashes according to Scriptural Law.
|
| 55. |
Without having to tithe them.
|
| 56. |
For this is considered as if he was partaking of the meal in a significant manner, not merely snacking. Alternatively, because this represents the conclusion of the tasks associated with preparing the grain.
|
| 57. |
Even though he has brought the produce into his courtyard.
|
| 58. |
Before it was threshed.
|
| 59. |
Which had been cooked on a fire.
|
| 60. |
I.e., just as when wine is placed in a cistern, the work involved in its preparation is considered to have been completed, so too, when it is placed in a cooked dish, the work involved in its preparation is considered to be finished.
|
| 61. |
Applying oil is considered equivalent to eating (Chapter 13, Halachah 16). Nevertheless, such an application is considered as equivalent to merely partaking of a snack.
|
| 62. |
See Halachah 1.
|
| 63. |
I.e., giving them a large amount, not merely a snack.
|
| 64. |
E.g., he intended to bring the produce home and hence, the obligation to tithe is not established until he does so.
|
| 65. |
The Ra'avad questions this ruling based on the Jerusalem Talmud (Ma'aserot 1:6) which quotes Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar as stating that once produce is brought into a person's courtyard (i.e., his residence), it cannot be fed to an animal without tithing. The Radbaz explains that according to the Rambam, our Sages differ with Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar on this point and do not require tithing. The rationale is that since the entire obligation to tithe animal fodder is Rabbinic in origin, this obligation was instituted only when the animal was fed a significant amount.
|
| 66. |
Our translation is based on the Rambam LeAm. Generally, amir is translated as "straw." In this instance, we have facored this translation, because straw is not found for humans.
|
| 67. |
For this represents the completion of the tasks associated with the preparation of this produce. Although chilba is occasionally used as food for humans, it is primarily considered as animal fodder.
|
| 68. |
Our translation is based on the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (Ma'aserot 3:4). There he explains that the term ketzitzot refers to "individual fruits that have been detached from any species of fruit." Often, the term is used to refer to fresh figs.
|
| 69. |
For we assume that the owners despaired of their return when the fruit fell outside their property. This is considered equivalent to declaring them ownerless. When produce was declared ownerless before the work involved in its preparation was concluded, there is no obligation to tithe.
|
| 70. |
Taking those sheaves is considered as theft and forbidden (see Hilchot Gezeilah ViAvedah 15:8-10), because the owners will not despair of their recovery. Hence, they are not considered as ownerless and must be tithed. See also Hilchot Terumot 4:11.
|
| 71. |
Since the owner will have no way of retrieving them, he relinquishes his ownership. And since they were ownerless, there is no obligation to tithe them.
|
| 72. |
Because of their size, they are not considered ownerless even in the public domain.
|
| 73. |
Straightening the surface of the bundle causes the obligation to tithe to be established with regard to it, as stated in Halachah 13. Hence, even if the owner despairs of the recovery of the grain, since the obligation to tithe was established before the produce became ownerless, it is not rescinded.
|
| 74. |
Based on the Jerusalem Talmud (Ma'aserot 3:3), we must assume the intent is terumat ma'aser, for once grain has been moved from its original grainheap, we assume that terumah was separated.
|
| 75. |
Although it is forbidden to use produce to separate tithes and terumat ma'aser if these separations have already been made from it, we are not concerned that perhaps that has happened as the Rambam continues to explain.
|
| 76. |
Even though tithes are required to be separated from it, we assume that the owner would not tithe produce until he brought it to his home.
|
| 77. |
See Halachah 9. As stated there, covering the fruit establishes the obligation to tithe.
|
| 78. |
Here also, once the obligation to tithe has been established, it is not rescinded if the fruit becomes ownerless.
|
| 79. |
See Halachah 2.
|
| 80. |
We are uncertain whether or not the owner separated the tithes from it, but we are certain that he separated terumah, as explained in Chapter 9.
|
| 81. |
Since there is no obligation to separate terumah and the tithes until the produce is brought home, we assume that none of the separations were made.
|
| 82. |
In this instance, however, he must also separate terumah lest it not have been separated beforehand.
|
| 83. |
The Radbaz states that this applies not only to olives and carobs, but to any fruit that is recognizable as coming from the tree under which it is found.
|
| 84. |
Based on Bava Metzia 21b, it appears that we are speaking about olives and carobs that resemble the olives and carobs on the trees. Hence, we assume that they fell from the tree and have not yet been tithed. See also the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (Ma'aserot 3:4). Since the fruit has fallen under the tree and can be recognized as coming from the tree, the owner does not consider them ownerless and taking them is considered as theft.
|
| 85. |
Thus unlike the olives and carobs mentioned above, it cannot be determined whether they fell from the tree under which they were found. Hence, the owner despairs of their recovery. It is not forbidden to take the fruit and there is no obligation to tithe it. It is, however, necessary to tithe it as one tithes demai (ibid.).
|
| 86. |
After it reached the stage that the tithes were required to be separated (see Chapter 2, Halachah 8). This is indicated by the expression "detached produce" (Radbaz).
|
| 87. |
For at the time the obligation to tithe took effect, the produce was privately owned and not in the possession of the Temple treasury.
|
| 88. |
For there is no obligation to tithe produce owned by the Temple treasury. The Jerusalem Talmud (Ma'aserot 1:1) teaches that Deuteronomy 12:17 speaks of tithing "your grain." This can be understood as an exclusion, "your grain," i.e., that owned by a private person, and not that owned by the Temple treasury.
|
| 89. |
The intent is that not only the grain that is used for the meal offerings is not obligated to be tithed, but also the remainder that is not used for that purpose, but is instead, redeemed and used for private purposes. Even so, the person who redeems it is not obligated to tithe it, as explained in the conclusion of ch. 2.
|
• Friday, Iyar 5, 5775 · 24 April 2015
"Today's Day"
Torah lessons: Chumash: Emor, Sheini with Rashi.
Tehillim: 29-34.
Tanya: Such is the (p. 241)...love of the king. (p. 241).
The Alter Rebbe received the following teaching from the tzadik Reb Mordechai, who had heard it from the Baal Shem Tov: A soul may descend to this world and live seventy or eighty years,1 in order to do a Jew a material favor, and certainly a spiritual one.
FOOTNOTES
1. See Tehillim 90:10.
Daily Thought:
Compassion
What is the difference between kindness and compassion?
Kindness gives to another.
Compassion knows no “other.”
____________________________
No comments:
Post a Comment